THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY BULLETIN VOL. XVIII JULY, 1934 No. 2 CAPTAIN JOHANNES AND MRS. ELIZABETH (STAATS) SCHUYLER. (Bequeathed to the Society by Major Philip Schuyler, 1915). NEW YORK: 170 CENTRAL PARK WEST PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY AND ISSUED TO MEMBERS THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 170 CENTRAL PARK WEST (Erected by the Society 1908) Wings to be erected on the 76th and 77th -Street corners OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY For Three Years, ending January 8, 1935 PRESIDENT FOREIGN CORRESPONDING SECRETARY JOHN ABEEL WEEKES ARCHER MILTON HUNTINGTON FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT DOMESTIC CORRESPONDING SECRETARY ROBERT E. DOWLING ERSKINE HEWITT SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT RECORDING SECRETARY ARTHUR H. MASTEN B. W. B. BROWN THIRD VICE-PRESIDENT TREASURER R. HORACE GALLATIN GEORGE A. ZABRISKIE FOURTH VICE-PRESIDENT LIBRARIAN WILLIAM D. MURPHY ALEXANDER J. WALL PORTRAIT OF CAPTAIN AND MRS. JOHANNES SCHUYLER A HITHERTO UNRECOGNIZED WORK OF JOHN SMIBERT By William Sawitzky The important collection of over four hundred American por­ traits in the New-York Historical Society includes about thirty that were painted at the end of the seventeenth or during the first half of the eighteenth centuries. When studied for style, tech­ nique, and mannerisms, these likenesses can easily be arranged into clearly defined groups of common artistic origin, but in trying to identify the individual artists we have so far not advanced beyond suggestions and a few tentative attributions. These portraits—and many others of the same period, most of them still in the possession of descendants—represent members of the well-known families, usually of Dutch origin, who during the seventeenth century settled on Manhattan Island and along the banks of the Hudson River as far north as the Mohawk Valley. In the majority of cases their identity has been preserved by family tradition, though not always beyond doubt. Tradition, on the other hand, has been considerably less interested in the artists who produced these portraits. While it is known, for instance, that four members of the Duyckinck family, belonging to three genera­ tions, were "glass makers, limners and painters," we have not been able to link definitely any of these groups of portraits to either Evert Duyckinck, ist (1621-1702), Gerret Duyckinck (1660- 1710), Evert Duyckinck, 3rd (1677-1727), or Gerardus Duyc­ kinck (1695-1742). Equally little has been recorded about John Watson (1685-1768) who, according to Dunlap, came from Scot­ land in 1715, settled in Perth Amboy, then capital of New Jersey, and reputedly built up a fortune as a prolific portrait painter and shrewd lender of money.1 But the same author, writing just a century ago, adds that none of the pictures painted by Watson "can now be found." If the Scotchman really was a successful 1 History of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design in the United States, by William Dunlap (New York, 1834), I, 18-21. 19 20 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY portraitist, it is difficult to believe that his whole artistic output should have disappeared, with the exception of the several rela­ tively unimportant miniatures in india ink or pencil, generally thought to be by him. It seems more reasonable to assume that at least a small number of Watson's oil portraits are still extant, but have remained unidentified as his work. Almost as much of an enigma is Pieter Vanderlyn, who is reported to have painted like­ nesses during the seventeen hundred and twenties between Kings­ ton and Schenectady. About fifty portraits have of late been at­ tributed to him, but they vary so greatly not only in quality but in basic approach, that the problem of their authorship can not be regarded as having been solved to our entire satisfaction. Other possibilities are Jacob Gerritsen Strycker (died 1687), to whom four portraits have been attributed on the strength of tradition and circumstantial evidence, and one Henri Couturier (d. 1684), whose supposed authorship of two technically very dissimilar por­ traits in a private collection is based on interlaced initials, and appears too conjectural to be accepted without additional and more convincing evidence. If we mention Doornick, said to have been an early eighteenth century portrait painter in New York, but about whom nothing beyond his name seems to be known, our present-day list of artists of the period and territory under dis­ cussion is exhausted. That nearly all these several hundred portraits of members of Colonial families, domiciled between New York and Albany, were painted by local artists is a fact which hardly needs to be explained and substantiated. At the same time, it should not be overlooked that even during those times of difficult and slow transportation people travelled more than we perhaps imagine, and that this applies to artists as well as to their clients. The already-mentioned John Watson, while making his home in Perth Amboy, seems to have visited Eastern Pennsylvania, and possibly Delaware and Maryland. Of Robert Feke (ca. 1705-ca. 1750) we know that while he was born at Oyster Bay, Long Island, and later on lived in Newport, Rhode Island, about half of the number of portraits which can be accepted as his work, were painted in Boston and Philadelphia. The reputation of some of our early artists un­ doubtedly spread beyond the immediate circle of their activities QUARTERLYBULLETIN 21 and resulted in invitations to other cities with prospects for com­ missions. Again, as the opportunities offered by rather small towns and a sparsely settled country were naturally very limited, some of the artists who made their livelihood mainly by painting likenesses, must have found it necessary to travel in search of work. What among portrait painters of later generations became a com­ mon practice, already existed during those earlier times, if on a much smaller scale. There is also indisputable evidence that occa­ sionally some persons had their portraits painted not by the nearest or most popular local artist, but while sojourning in another city, possibly either because they preferred the work of some particular artist, or at the suggestion of relatives or friends with whom they were visiting. One of the pictures which has started this train of thoughts and has led to these observations is the large double portrait of Captain Johannes Schuyler (1668-1747) and Mrs. Schuyler, born Eliza­ beth Staats (d. 1737), which since November, 1915, has been in the collection of the New-York Historical Society, and which is reproduced on the cover of this Bulletin. It is not only one of the earliest American pictures owned by the Society, but it is also such a colorful and effective painting that it would attract attention in almost any group of portraits. In spirit and technique it stands apart from all the other portraits of the same period in these galleries, and the quite obvious fact that it can not be linked to any of the New York or "Hudson River School" portraits seems to have deterred our scholars from giving it the study it deserves, in­ stead of exciting their interest all the more. I am prompted to make this, remark because, with a single exception, none of our writers on early American portraiture has ever advanced so much as a tentative opinion regarding its authorship, and because only two suggestions have been made as to its probable date. The picture was, to my knowledge, reproduced for the first time in the Albany Chronkles,2 with the information that it was "owned in 1906 by Gen. Philip Schuyler of Irvington, N. Y., a great-great-great-grandson, who was killed in a railroad wreck in Virginia, Nov 29, 1906." According to the compiler of the chron­ icles, the portrait of Captain Schuyler is "authenticated by showing 2Albany Chronicles, compiled by Cuyler Reynolds (Albany, 1906), No. 10. 22 THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY the portrait of his wife (Elizabeth Staats Wendell) as mentioned in his will." The next reference is by Charles K. Bolton,3 and it is limited to the suggestion that the painting "was done probably about 1710 or 1715," in other words that it shows Captain Schuyler as between forty-two and forty-seven years of age. In a footnote Mr. Bolton adds: "The canvas was long ago cut from top to bottom, eliminating a table in the center of the picture, to make the canvas smaller." Two years later the picture was commented upon by John Hill Morgan as follows: 4 "It is stated that this portrait was cut down to eliminate a table and a window with distant landscape which was between Captain Schuyler and his wife. The canvas shows that it has been cut in the center from right to left and from top to bottom, which has resulted in the tilting of Captain Schuyler up­ wards toward the left. The Will of Johannes Schuyler dated February 25, 1742, bequeathed a picture of himself and wife in one frame to his daughter Margarita, wife of Colonel Philip Schuyler, but alas! the name of the artist is omitted. This picture could not be by the hand of the Albany artist who painted the portraits of two of Captain Schuyler's children Philip (No. 135) and Catalina (No. 136) in the Society's collection as it was done by an artist much more highly trained, but the same artist probably painted the portraits of the same Philip (No. 490) and Johannes (No. 491). It compares favorably with the best work done in the Colonies at this time and I suggest the strong probability that it is by Evert Duyckinck 3rd." The date of the picture is suggested by Mr.