I’ve
known about the portrait of George Washington painted by Gilbert Stuart since I
was fairly young. But what I didn’t know was that my [Pierpont] relations had a
significant connection to it.
Recently,
I acquired a reprint of the 1913 book Pierrepont
Genealogies from Norman Times to 1913 by R. Burnham Moffat. One of the
chapters in this book is about this portrait. The below is from that chapter
and relates this connection.
Note there are some errors in spelling
from the original.
The
following memorandum concerning this famous picture was written in 1849 by Mrs.
Hezekiah Beers Pierrepont (then 66 years of age) at the request of her family.
Mrs. Pierrepont—Anna Maria Constable—was a daughter of William K. Constable and
Anna White, of Philadelphia, and was a woman of wonderful charm and
intelligence, and of wide social experience. The portrait has descended in the
family from generation to generation, and is now the property of Robert Low
Pierrepont, Esq., of Columbia Heights, Brooklyn. It is the original of many
well known engravings, measures 8 feet by 5 feet, and represents Washington
attired in civilian clothes, standing before an arm-chair, a dress-sword
resting loosely in his left hand, and his right arm extended with open palm across
a table.
The
memorandum seems to the writer to be of sufficient interest to the family at
large to warrant its reproduction here.
My
mother, who was a daughter of Townsend White, a merchant of Philadelphia, was
an intimate friend of Miss Dandridge before she became Mrs. Custis; and when
the young widow married General Washington, the friendly intercourse was kept
up between them.
I
remember, when a very little child, seeing Washington at our house in New York,
during the sitting of Congress there. I was early taught to love and venerate
him. Gouverneur Morris and Robert Morris, the great financier in our
revolutionary struggle, were partners in my father's extensive mercantile firm,
and each had, in our house in Great Dock Street (now Pearl Street) his sleeping
apartments, appropriated to him when he came to New York.
General
Hamilton was a valued friend of my father and his legal counsel, and Aaron
Burr, who was then in high standing, was also intimate. I well remember all
four dining at my father's country seat at Bloomingdale in 1796, and parts of
the brilliant conversation I can still recollect; and I can recall the animated
countenance and polished manners of my gifted father.
After
our return from England in 1795, my father went to Philadelphia and, at the
request of his mother, engaged Gilbert Stuart to take his likeness for his
family. Gilbert Stuart was at the time of my father's visit (1796) painting a
full length portrait of Washington for Mr. Bingham, who presented it to the
Marquis of Lansdown. My father was so much pleased with it that he engaged
Stuart to paint one for him at the same time, as the General was giving him
sittings. Stuart, who was well acquainted with my father, promised that both
pictures should be worked upon alternately, so that both should be originals.
Mr. Trott, the artist who painted a miniature of my father (which I have), told
me that Stuart had only sketched the hand of the General, and that he held his
own hand for him to paint from. Mr. Daniel McCormick, who lived in Wall Street
and died there in 1834, aged 94, was a friend of Stuart's, and being under
obligations to my father used his influence to induce Stuart to bestow very
particular care and attention upon the picture which was considered more highly
finished, in its details, than was usual for Stuart. My father went twice from
New York to Philadelphia in his chariot and four, taking Mr. McCormick with
him, to watch the progress of the painting and, to encourage the
procrastinating artist. They had invited him to many dinner parties among
friends and, by great perseverance, obtained their wishes. Before the picture
was sent to New York, Stuart painted a half length from it, which my father
presented to his friend General Hamilton. (See Note A at the end of this chapter.)
A
large party of friends assembled at our house in Broadway, which stood where
the Astor House now stands, our neighbors being Colonel Burr, Walter Rutherfurd
(grandfather of Mrs. Peter Augustus Jay), and Richard Harison the eminent
lawyer and partner of General Hamilton, to see the picture.
"Gentlemen," said my father, "there is the man;" and they
responded, "The man himself." Daniel McCormick said he had seen
Stuart purchase the Turkey Carpet on which the General stood, and that it was a
fac-simile. (See Note E at the end of this chapter.)
While
my father was in Europe, the Broadway house was rented to Edward Livingston,
and Mr. Livingston's sister, the widow of General 'Montgomery, resided with
him. She requested my mother to leave the picture with them to ornament the
room until it was convenient to have it removed.
After
the death of my father in 1803, the Broadway house was sold to John Jacob
Astor. The picture was bequeathed to my brother, William Constable, who then
resided at Schenectady. He was only seventeen years old at the time, and I
asked him to let the picture be placed in the drawing-room of our house on
Brooklyn Heights.
Years
after, in 1812, when my brother wanted money he told me he was going to sell
the picture, and was negotiating with the Washington Society in New York. He
did not value it and estimate it as I did, and I persuaded my husband to offer
the price he asked for it, $600 (See Note B.) Stuart had been paid $500 for it
(See Note C), and the frame cost $100. My brother transferred it to me, to my
great relief. As the frame had become shabby a new one was bought, and was so
arranged that in case of fire the canvas could be easily slipped out of the
case and saved.
Some
years later, in 1826, my husband thinking this picture should belong to the
country and not to a private individual, and wanting money himself, wrote to
the patroon, Stephen Van Rensselaer, who was a member of the Library Committee,
offering the picture to Congress. His offer was not accepted; and Stuart, who
at the time was in Washington, was asked to paint a new one. He declined
because he was asked, to paint at a fixed price. Our picture, to my exceeding
joy, was retained. (See Note D.)
When
General Lafayette visited America in 1824, he came to Brooklyn to call on my
mother who was then staying at my house. He was accompanied by his and our old
friend, Colonel Nicholas Fish. General Lafayette regarded the picture with
great seriousness for a long time, and then said with much feeling, "Yes,
that is my noble friend indeed."
Colonel
Fish, who had been an aide to General Washington, gave us anecdotes of the war
at the time when our house was Washington's headquarters at the battle of Long
Island, and pointed out the room in which orders were given by General Washington
to cross the ferry and retreat to New York. General Lafayette paid very great
and marked attention to my mother, and spoke of my father as a dear friend and
"companion in arms." The visit was one of exceeding interest and
great excitement to me. I had only that morning returned with my son Henry
Evelyn from a visit to my son William, at Pierrepont Manor. We had endured much
fatigue from heat, etc., but all was forgotten when we were greeted by the
cheerful voices of our dear children with the news: "General Lafayette
will be here in a few moments."
In
1837 a French artist and engraver, named Lozier, brought an introduction from
Paris to my husband, and requested permission to copy the head of Washington
from our picture. Permission was given him, and he afterwards went to Boston to
see Stuart's original head in the Athenaeum. He told us ours was infinitely the
best that he would engrave it, and give it the credit in his engraving. He did
engrave it in 1839, but gave the credit to the picture at Boston, because the
Boston picture, being better known, would give more repute to his copy.
My
husband died in 1838, and in 1841, at the request of the Mayor of Hudson, I
permitted an artist by the name of Prime, to copy a half-length of our picture
for the Common Council room of that City.
In
1845 Mr. Frothingham, who had been a pupil of Stuart's, asked that he might be
permitted to make a copy, and I consented. For three months he painted in a
room in my house, where I had the picture placed for his convenience. His copy
I thought a pretty good one, though he made several alterations,—among others
of the Turkey carpet. This struck me forcibly, as he made his of brilliant
colours, while I had heard Mr. McCormick say "Stuart has made an exact
copy of the original real Turkey."
Mr.
Frothingham afterwards made a copy of his copy, in which he made further
alterations. That copy was bought by the corporation of the City of Brooklyn,
while Mr. Frothingham's copy of my portrait was purchased by 'Mr. A. A. Low, of
Brooklyn, and presented to Salem, the city of his nativity.
NOTE A.
Extract
from Mrs. Pierrepont's diary of March 28, 1834:
"Mrs.
General Hamilton called. She remembered the portrait of Washington was an
original of Stuart's and that my father got Stuart to copy a half-length for
General Hamilton."
NOTE B.
Extract
from letter of Hez. B. Pierrepont to William Constable, of Constableville,
Lewis County, New York:
"Brooklyn, 20th Nov. 1812.
"If
the Washington Society do not take the picture, I will keep it at six hundred
dollars, your offer, but not for the ornament, as so expensive an article would
ill become the present state of my purse, but as a speculation, persuaded that
the name and remembrance of Washington will never be less venerated, and that
his likeness will not lessen in value."
Note C.
Copy of Gilbert Stuart's bill:
WM.
CONSTABLE, Esq., to G. STUART, Dr.,
1796.
Nov.
To one portrait of said W. Constable Dr. $100.
1797
July
To one-do-of the late President of the United States at full length, 500.
One-do-half length, 250.
Dr. $850. Dols.
Philadelphia
13th July 1797. Rec'd of Richard Soderstrom, Esq., through the hands of John
Vaughan Esq., the above sum in full of all demands against them and the above
mentioned Wm. Constable, Esq.
G. STUART.
Dimensions
given us by Mr. Stuart.
5
feet and 8 feet.
3-4
4-3
P.S.
The price of Mr. Constable's portrait had been agreed upon and was inserted by
his agent in the bill. But Mr. Stuart fixed himself the price of the full
length and half length, and wrote the prices himself in the bill.
NOTE D.
Copy
of letter from H. B. Pierrepont to Hon. Stephen Van Rensselaer, M. C.:
Brooklyn Heights, 10 March 1826.
My
dear Sir:—
Observing
your motion for the procuring of a portrait of Washington, by an American
artist, to be placed in the capital, it occurred to me as opportune to remind
you of the fellow portrait by Stuart to that presented by Mr. Bingham to the
Marquis of Lansdown[e], painted at the same time for Mr. Constable, the history
of which, Mr. McCormick tells me, you are well acquainted with, having seen
both at Philadelphia while under the hands of Stuart.
I
consider the Capitol the proper place for it. Should the committee to whom the
subject may be referred be of that opinion, it shall be at the service of the
nation at a reasonable consideration.
May
I ask of you the favor of making this communication to the proper source, a.nd
to suggest, if you please, your knowledge of the portraits at the time of their
completion, and of the estimation in which they were held, as the most happy
resemblances to the then living venerable original, that had been made.
With great regard,
I remain,
Yours, &c.,
HEZ.
B. PIERREPONT.
Copy
of letter from Hon. Stephen Van Rensselaer to H. B. Pierrepont:
House of Representatives,
March 21st, 1826.
Dear
Sir:
I
submitted your letter to the committee and I am now authorized to say that the
committee have determined to employ Stuart to paint the picture. I stated the
merits of your picture to the committee. They think yours may have faded.
Yours sincerely,
S. VAN RENSSELAER.
NOTE E.
Memorandum
by Henry Evelyn Pierrepont, son of Hezekiah Beers Pierrepont, March 19, 1832:
Called
on Mr. McCormick at his house in Wall Street and had some conversation with him
about father's portrait of Washington.
Mr.
McCormick said he was very intimate with Mr. Stuart the artist. He met him one
day carrying a Turkey rug and asked him what he was going to do with it. Stuart
said it was for his studio. As he had the reputation of being careless in the
expenditure of his money, he said to him: "Why you extravagant dog, why
did you not buy a kidderminster for your studio, it would have answered as
well?" Stuart replied, "McCormick, some day you will say I have done
right."
Mr.
Constable drove Mr. McCormick to Philadelphia to see the portrait when it was
reported finished. While McCormick was looking at it, Stuart nudged him with
his elbow and said, "Well, McCormick, what do you say of my carpet?"
"You have done right," McCormick answered.
From
this joke with his friend Mr. Stuart had taken great pains to copy the Turkey
rug accurately, and it harmonized admirably with the accessories of the
picture.
Mr.
McCormick also said that Mrs. Washington, having called at Mr. Stuart's room,
exclaimed on seeing this picture: "That is a true likeness."
A
later memorandum by Henry Evelyn Pierrepont:
My
father was thirty-one years old when Washington died. He remembered his
appearance perfectly, as did also my mother and many friends of their own age,
who also considered Stuart's portrait a correct and perfect likeness.
In
the Spring of 1853 the American Art Union had, in aid of the New York Gallery
of Fine Arts, an exhibition of all the portraits of Washington by various
artists that could be collected; and my mother consented to have her picture in
the exhibition.
Extract
from diary of Henry Evelyn Pierrepont, June 13, 1853:
Went
to the Washington Exhibition, met there the President of the Art Union, Mr.
Cozzens, who introduced me to Dr. Lewis Marshall of Kentucky, a brother of
Chief Justice 'Marshall, whom he was taking to view the portraits in order to
obtain his opinion of their merits. Dr. Marshall was a large and venerable man,
walking with a hickory staff as tall as himself, which he held by its upper
part, as Abraham is represented. He said he had known my grand-father, William
K. Constable.
Mr.
Cozzens asked him to examine the various portraits of Washington in the gallery
and give his opinion of them.
He
said Pine's portrait did not resemble Washington when he knew him; that Wurtmuller's
made him look like a Frenchman; that Leitzie's three portraits had eyes too
light, and did not look at all like him. He passed the water-color likeness by
Robertson, and the crayon portrait likeness by Sharpless, without making any
remark about them.
He
came at last to my mother's portrait by Stuart, and said, with emphasis,
"That is prodigiously like him. It is the best portrait of him I have ever
seen. He said he remembered Washington very distinctly indeed from 1796 to
1798, and that his father was a neighbor, schoolmate and friend of
Washington's. His father had seven sons and eight daughters, all of whom had
married. The sons were all six feet two inches, except himself, and he was five
feet eleven and one-quarter inches. He said he was between twenty-five and
twenty-six years old when he knew Washington, and that his memory of his
appearance was distinct.
I
told him I would value his opinion of my mother's picture, and asked him
whether he would give me his opinion in writing. He said he would with
pleasure, if I would write him a note, which I did; and I called upon him at
the Astor House where he was staying and received the following letter:
H.
E. PlERREPONT, Esq.,
Dear
Sir:
In
reply to your polite note I state to you that, in my opinion, the full length
painting by Stuart, shown me as the portrait of Gen'l Washington, now the
property of your respected ancestor, is the best representation of him I have
ever seen. I saw him often and remember him with great vividness.
Yours, etc.,
14th
June, 1853. Lewis MARSHALL.
The
report that was extensively circulated by Rembrandt Peale, that the mouth of
Stuart's Washington was distorted by false teeth when painted, is of doubtful
accuracy.
Washington's
lower lip did project. He was what is termed slightly "whapple-jawed."
This is represented in Caracche's bust, which is considered as representing his
mouth more correctly than Houdon's. Some years later, as is proved by
Washington's letter to the dentist Greenwood, Washington had a set of bad false
teeth which he sent back to Greenwood to alter. In his letter to Greenwood,
dated December 12, 1798, he writes: "The principal thing you will have to
attend to in the alteration you are about to make, is to let the upper bar fall
back from the lower one, whether the teeth are quite straight or inclining a
little in or a little rounding outwards. . . . You will perceive, moreover,
that when the edges of the upper and lower teeth are put together, the upper
falls back into the mouth. . . ,"
It
is said that the difficulty which artists experience in copying Stuart's
portraits arises from the fact that Stuart painted without outline, giving form
by light and shade and color.
An
engraving rarely represents a portrait fairly, as the engraver first makes a
hand copy of the portrait and then makes the engraving from his drawing.
Mrs.
Pierrepont desired to have an engraving made of her portrait of Washington, and
employed the engraver Mr. Hall to make it. He made a drawing with care dividing
up the portrait into squares, like a map; but when the outline was made, it
showed little resemblance. After color was added it was more like; but the
engraved copy was a misrepresentation of the portrait and, unfortunately, being
inserted in Henry Tuckerman's history of the portraits of Washington, and also
in Irving's quarto edition of the Life of Washington, has given a wrong
impression of the original.
