Browere's Life Masks of Great Americans 12

Browere's Life Masks of Great Americans 12

About this period Boydell was in the midst of the publication of his

great Shakespeare gallery, to which the first artists of the day

contributed, and Stuart was commissioned by the Alderman, to paint, for

the gallery, portraits of the leading painters and engravers who were

engaged upon the work. Thus, for Boydell, he painted the superb

half-length portraits of his master West, and of the engravers Woollett

and Hall, now in the National Portrait Gallery, St. Martin’s Place,

London. He painted, also for Boydell, his own portrait, and portraits of

Reynolds, Copley, Gainsborough, Ozias Humphrey, Earlom, Facius, Heath,

William Sharp, Boydell himself, and several others. Stuart was an

intimate friend of John Philip Kemble, and painted his portrait several

times; one picture is in the National Portrait Gallery, and another, as

_Richard III._, which has been engraved by Keating, did belong to Sir

Henry Halford.

 

Other prominent sitters to Stuart in London were Hugh, Duke of

Northumberland, the Lord Percy of the Battle of Bunker Hill; Admiral Sir

John Jervis, afterward Earl St. Vincent; Isaac Barré; Dr. Fothergill,

and the Dukes of Manchester and of Leinster. From these names alone it

can be seen that Stuart was in touch with persons of the highest

consideration, and they were not only his patrons, but his friends. He

kept open house, dispensing a princely hospitality. The story has been

handed down that he led off with a dinner of forty-two, composed of the

choice spirits of the metropolis. He was so charming as a host, and had

gathered together such delightful guests, that it was suggested the same

party should meet frequently, which proposition Stuart accepted, by

arranging that six of them should dine with him each day of the week,

without special invitation, the six first arriving to be the guests of

the day, until the entire forty-two had again warmed their legs under

his mahogany. Such prodigality as this, for a young artist, shows what

Stuart’s temperament was, and points as surely to the pauper’s grave as

though it was there yawning open before him.

 

Stuart was five feet ten inches in height, with fine physique, brown

hair, a ruddy complexion, and strongly marked features. He dressed with

elegance, which was possible at that period, and notwithstanding his

biting sarcasm, keen wit, and searching eye, was a great favorite with

the fair sex. In his thirty-first year he selected Miss Charlotte

Coates, the daughter of a Berkshire physician, for his partner through

life, and on May 10, 1786, they were married.

 

Stuart remained in London until 1788, when he was induced to visit

Ireland and open a studio in Dublin. Here he kept up the same style of

living he had indulged in before he left London and was in high favor

with the Irish, painting some of his most elaborate portraits at this

time; but, although fully employed and receiving the highest prices for

his pictures, he was always without money. So poor was he, indeed, that

when he returned to this country, in 1792, he had not the means to pay

for his passage and engaged to paint the portrait of the owner of the

ship as its equivalent. He landed in New York towards the close of the

year; and although the tradition has been handed down that the cause of

his returning to America, was his desire to paint the portrait of

Washington, it seems, considering that he waited two years before

visiting Philadelphia for the purpose, that the remark of Sir Thomas

Lawrence may not have been without foundation. The latter, upon hearing

this reason assigned, is related by Leslie to have said: “I knew Stuart

well and I believe the real cause of his leaving England was his having

become tired of the inside of our prisons.” Whatever the real cause was

that brought the artist home, we may congratulate ourselves that he came

to live among us at the period that he did, for he was then in the

fulness of his powers, and the pictures that he painted between this

time and his removal to Boston, in 1805, are the finest productions of

his brush on this side of the water.

 

Gilbert Stuart went to reside in Philadelphia about New Year, 1795.

There he painted his famous life portraits of Washington, three in

number, but I have written so often and so much on this subject that I

shall content myself with this bare mention.[5] There also he painted

the portraits of the famous men and of the beautiful women that have

helped most to place his name so high up on the pillar of fame. That

Stuart was a master in the art of portrait-painting it needs no

argument to prove; his works are the only evidence needed, and they

establish it beyond appeal. In his portraits the men and women of the

past live again. Each individual is here, and it was Stuart’s ability to

portray the individual that was his greatest power. Each face looks at

you and fain would speak, while the brilliant and animated coloring

makes one forgetful of the past. The “Encyclopædia Britannica,” a forum

beyond dispute, says: “Stuart was pre-eminent as a colourist, and his

place, judged by the highest canons in art, is unquestionably among the

few recognized masters of portraiture.”

 

Stuart had two distinct artistic periods. His English work shows plainly

the influence of his English contemporaries, and might easily be

mistaken, as it has been, for the best work of Romney or of

Gainsborough. But his American work, almost the very first he did after

his return to his native soil, proclaims aloud the virility and

robustness of his independence. The rich, juicy coloring so marked in

his fine portraits painted here, replaces the tender pearly grays so

predominant in his pictures painted there. The delicate precision of his

early brush gives way to the masterful freedom of his later one. His

English portraits might have been limned by Romney or by Gainsborough,

but his American ones could have been painted only by Gilbert Stuart.

This greatest of American painters died in Boston, July 27, 1828, and

was interred in an unmarked grave in the Potter’s Field.

 

 

 

 

XIII

 

_David Porter_

 

_United States Navy_

 

 

While this country and the world are yet enthralled by the magical

victories won by the American navy over the fleets of Spain, it is

instructive to recall how the exploits of Uncle Sam’s boys, on the seas,

have always bordered on the marvellous. The doings of Paul Jones in the

Revolutionary War, and of Truxtun in the war with France; of Decatur and

of Preble in the war with Tripoli; of Bainbridge and of Stewart, and of

Hull and of Perry, in the second war with England; and of Farragut and

of Jouett and of Cushing in the war between the States, seem, each one,

too incredible to have a like successor, yet nothing heretofore in naval

warfare has approached the victories of Dewey and of Sampson. With all

these glittering names, we have still another name the peer of the best,

possessing in addition the spur of naval heredity--the name of Porter.

 

There have been three officers of high rank in the United States navy

bearing the name of David Porter. The first served the Continental

Congress; his son, born in 1780, gave the best years of his life to his

country on the sea; and his grandson, after having four times received

the thanks of Congress for his services during the Civil War, died at

the head of the navy, with the rank of Admiral, in 1891. David Porter,

second of the name, began his naval career in action, having been, at

the age of eighteen, appointed a midshipman on board the frigate

_Constellation_, and with her, soon after, participated in the fight

where the French frigate _L’Insurgente_ was captured by Truxtun with the

loss of one man killed and two men wounded. Porter subsequently

distinguished himself in the war with Tripoli, was promoted to a

captaincy, and early in the war of 1812 sailed from New York, in command

of the _Essex_, on one of the most eventful cruises ever had by a

man-of-war. His first feat was to capture the _Alert_, in an engagement

of eight minutes, without any loss or damage to his ship; and so well

directed was the fire of the _Essex_, that the _Alert_ had seven feet of

water in her hold when she surrendered. This was the first British war

vessel taken in the conflict. Porter then turned his attention to the

destruction of the

 

[Illustration: COMMODORE DAVID PORTER

 

Age 45]

 

English whale-fishery in the Pacific Ocean, and sailed on this errand,

around the Horn, for Valparaiso. He made such havoc with the British

shipping that the loss footed up to two million and a half of dollars

and four hundred men prisoners.

 

The British sent two vessels, with picked crews of five hundred men and

a combined armament of eighty-one guns, to search for the _Essex_

(mounting only thirty-two guns and with a crew of two hundred and

fifty-five men), with instructions that neither ship should engage her

singly. They found her in the neutral harbor of Valparaiso, where she

was attacked, in defiance of all neutrality laws; and after one of the

most desperate engagements in naval history, lasting two hours and a

half, the _Essex_ was forced to surrender. Upon his return home, Captain

Porter was received with distinction and given the thanks of Congress

and of several of the States. He retired from the navy, in 1826, to take

command of the Mexican navy, from which he withdrew three years later,

was subsequently appointed consul-general to the Barbary States, then

_chargé d’affaires_ at Constantinople, and later minister resident,

which office he held at the time of his death.

 

It was but a short time before Porter’s retirement from the navy that

Browere took his life mask, and the toss of the head and the determined

mouth show the qualities that made up David Porter’s character. The

spirited pose of this bust is quite remarkable in a life mask, and would

seem to indicate that Browere’s material must have been, at least in

some degree, flexible. Porter was very enthusiastic over Browere’s work,

as may be seen from the following letter to Major Noah:

 

MERIDIAN HILL, 18th Sept. 1825.

 

_Dear Sir_:

 

By means of epistolary introduction I have had the pleasure of

becoming acquainted with John H. I. Browere, Esq., a young and

deserving artist of your city. Agreeably to your and my friends’

requests, I consented to sit for my portrait bust, which has been

executed by him according to his novel and perfect mode. Mr.

Browere has succeeded to admiration. Nothing can be more accurate

and expressive; in fact, it was impossible that it could be

otherwise than a perfect facsimile of my person, owing to the

peculiar neatness and dexterity which guide his scientific

operation. The knowledge and dexterity of Mr. Browere in this

branch of the Fine Arts is surprising, and were I to express my