RALPH EARL and HIS PORTRAIT of TRUMAN MARSH Author(S): John Hill Morgan Source: the Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Brooklyn Museum RALPH EARL AND HIS PORTRAIT OF TRUMAN MARSH Author(s): John Hill Morgan Source: The Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1921), pp. 132-141 Published by: Brooklyn Museum Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26459332 Accessed: 05-02-2020 15:43 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Brooklyn Museum is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Brooklyn Museum Quarterly This content downloaded from 131.118.253.131 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 15:43:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms REV. TRUMAN MARSH Portrait by Ralph Earl. Brooklyn Museum Collection This content downloaded from 131.118.253.131 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 15:43:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms RALPH EARL AND HIS PORTRAIT OF TRUMAN MARSH IN Trumanpreparing Marsh, this purchased article on by the the portrait Brooklyn of Museum the Rev. at the Clarke sale in January, 1919, the attention of the writer was again called to the almost hopeless inaccuracy existing in the sources of our information regarding early American artists. French, of course, claiming all artists for Connecticut on the thinnest of evidence, states that Earl was born in Lebanon in 1751/ deducing this perhaps from the fact that he worked much in that state and died in Bolton, Conn. Why Lebanon is left to con jecture. Naturally one turns to Dunlap for information only to find that his facts regarding Ralph Earl, his artist brother James, and the latter's son, Augustus, also a painter, are so confused that it has taken nearly a hun dred years to partially straighten them out. A fair ex ample of the slipshod methods pursued by writers on Earl would be the following: Dunlap records his mem ory of having seen "two full lengths of the Rev. Timothy Dwight and his wife, painted in 1777, as Earl thought, in the manner of Copley. They showed some talent, but the shadows were black as charcoal or ink. ' '2 Tucker man merely rearranges and further confuses Dunlap's information, dubbing the artist "T. Earl" and stating that the Dwight portraits "are in Copley's manner with black shadows."3 Isham asserts that Earl "had painted portraits before he left America 'in the manner of Cop ley' which was simply the common manner of the tinte."4 1 Art and Artists of Connecticut, H. W. French, 1879. - History of the Arts of Design in the United States. Vol. I, p. 263, Bayley and Goodspeed's Edition. 3 Book of the Artists, page 54. 'The History of American Painting, page 76. Samuel Isham, 1905. 11 133 This content downloaded from 131.118.253.131 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 15:43:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Thus Dunlap's criticism, probably just, that Earl thought he had copied Copley's manner in the two Dwight portraits, is turned into a statement of fact that Earl painted portraits in the manner of Copley before he left America, and to this Isham, so excellent a critic of later American art, gives the authority of his name. The writer lias adverted before to the scant courtesy which Isham pays to most of our early painters and the lack of appreciation which he evidences for Copley's genius. Par from being "simply the common manner of the time" Copley's portraits from 1760 to 1774 are in a class by themselves and 110 artist, native or foreign, then painting in America, could approach Copley's draughts manship or his art in depicting laces, satins and fabrics, and his modelling of features and hands. The credit for giving us many facts regarding Earl is due to the researches of Mr. T. Hovey Gage, of Worces ter, Mass., to whose article in the Worcester Bulletin5 the writer here acknowledges his debt. Ralph Earl, the son of Ralph and Phebe (Whitte more), was born May 11, 1751, probably in the town of Shrewsbury, Worcester County, Massachusetts. His birth is recorded both in the towns of Shrewsbury and Leicester, but Mr. Gage thinks that his father, Ralph, though born in Leicester, was living in Shrewsbury at the time of his son's birth. We know that the father, Ralph, held a captain's commission in the Revolutionary war, but what part, if any, his son, Ralph, took therein is still a matter of doubt. Dunlap, copying a note in Barber's "History and Antiquities of New Haven," and Tuckerman and French copying Dunlap, state that Ralph, the painter, was a member of the Guard of the Governor of Connecticut which marched to Cambridge soon after the Battles of Lexington and Concord, but Mr. R. T. Haines Halsey properly points out, in his scholarly article on Earl, that the muster rolls of that organization, "The Second Com 6 Ralph Earl, Worcester Bulletin, July, 1916, by T. H. G. 134 This content downloaded from 131.118.253.131 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 15:43:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms pany of Governor's Foot Guards," fail to bear Earl's name and the "probability is, that when the alarm occa sioned by the news of the Battles of Lexington and Con cord reached New Haven, and the military of all New England rushed, as they thought, to the succor of their countrymen in Boston, Earl, carried away by the current excitement, marched with this organization, one of the members of which was his friend, Amos Doolittle, the engraver."0 The Earle genealogy states that it was his brother, Clark Earle, who marched in April, 1775, to Cambridge from Paxton, Mass., in Capt. Phinehas Moore's Company.7 In any event, Doolittle engraved "four different views of the Battle of Lexington, Con cord, etc.", which were published on December 13, 1775, and sold "at the store of Mr. James Lockwood, near the college in New Haven." These, he advertised, were "neatly engraved on Copper, from original paintings taken on the spot." Barber, as early as 1831, in his book ascribed the originals of Doolittle's engravings to Ralph Earl and in the 3rd Edition published in 1870 there is a statement attributed to Doolittle, that he acted as model for Earl's paintings. The tradition, therefore, that Earl painted the scenes of these battles may be accepted. Mr. Halsey states that as these engravings are almost the "first examples of Doolittle's work with the graver on copper, the crudeness cannot be ascribed to Earl's lack of skill with brush and pencil." The most that can be said for them, however, is that the prints transmit sketches probably made by Earl on the spot, but to call them, as does Dunlap, "perhaps the first historical compositions in America" is to dignify them far beyond their merits. We know practically nothing of Earl's early life, either where it was passed, where he was educated, or what were the influences which developed his talent for the brush. Sometime in 1774 Earl married Sarah Gates 6 Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol. I, No. 6, May, 1906. ' Ralph Earle and His Descendants, by Pliny Earle, Worcester, Mass., 1888. 135 This content downloaded from 131.118.253.131 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 15:43:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms of Worcester, and the birth of his first child—a daughter Phebe—is there recorded oil January 25, 1775.8 Dunlap says Earl was painting portraits in Connect icut in 1775, but how accurate this information is we cannot now say, as we have nothing further than this statement. From a deposition of Earl's wife, taken in 1815, we learn that in response to the question, "At what time and where did you begin to keep house (with Ralph Earl), and how long did you so keep house?" she replied, "We began to keep house in November, 1776, at Newhaven, about two years after we were married, and continued until the May following, which was all the time we kept house together."9 Of course, a deposition taken forty years after the events cannot be scrutinized too critically and some latitude as to time may be inferred from the fact that if the couple began housekeeping in November, 1776, "about two years after we were married," this would hardly permit the birth of Phebe in January, 1775. The fact that the couple did not form a home for two years would indicate that Earl was unsettled in his habits, a conclusion borne out by all the known facts of his life, and points to the likelihood of his being an itin erant painter at that time. His wife states that the home in New Haven was broken up in May of 1777 and the birth of their second child, John, in Worcester on May 13, 1777, suggests the idea that Earl had already deserted his wife in New Haven and that she had returned to her former home. On the back of Earl's portrait of William Carpenter, an English boy, owned by the Worcester Art Museum, there is an inscription stating that the sitter was born in 1767 and that he was about twelve when it was painted.