French Fashion Plates 1777
French Fashion Plates 1777
French Fashion Plates 1777
French Fashion Plates 1777
French Fashion Plates 1777
French Fashion Plates 1777Saturday, February 29, 2020
More Big Hair -- Higher, Higher, Higher
French Fashion Plates 1777 French Fashion Plates 1777 French Fashion Plates 1777 French Fashion Plates 1777 French Fashion Plates 1777 French Fashion Plates 1777Friday, February 28, 2020
1771-3 American Family - The Peale Family.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Hannah Coleman, 18C Mantua Maker in South Carolina
What was advertised in a colonial American newspaper 250 years ago today?
“HANNAH COLEMAN, … late apprentice to Mrs. Wish.”
Hannah Coleman made mantuas. These loose gowns worn by women first came into popularity in the late seventeenth century. In February 1770, Coleman placed an advertisement in the South-Carolina Gazette and Country Journal to “inform the LADIES in general” that she carried on the business of a “MANTUA-MAKER … in all its branches.” She used a phrase commonly deployed by artisans to indicate that there was no part of her trade beyond her abilities. Accordingly, she pledged that customers would have their garments made “in the neatest manner.” To bolster that claim, Coleman relied on another strategy that often appeared in advertisements placed by artisans, though one usually invoked by men rather than women. She listed her credentials when she named her occupation. Rather than “HANNAH COLEMAN, MANTUA-MAKER,” she was “HANNAH COLEMAN, MANTUA-MAKER, late apprentice to Mrs. Wish, deceased.” She assumed that prospective clients would be familiar with the reputation of the departed Mrs. Wish or at least feel reassured that Coleman had completed an apprenticeship.
Although Coleman adopted a strategy usually reserved for men, her efforts to market mantuas fashioned a world in which women participated in commercial transactions without reference to men. She addressed “the LADIES in general.” She established her connection to her mentor, Mrs. Wish. She even listed her location in relation to another woman, stating that she did business “in Elliott-Street, opposite to Mrs. Peronneau’s” rather than naming male neighbors or using other landmarks. In a nota bene, Coleman did note that she sought “two gentlemen to lodge and board,” but the portion of the advertisement about her activities as a mantua maker depicted a world of women who created their own networks, taught each other, and traded with each other. Women in business tended to publish newspaper advertisements less often than their male counterparts in eighteenth-century America, perhaps because they relied on gendered networks as an alternate means of attracting customers. They participated in the marketplace, but chose means of promoting their enterprises that yielded less visibility among the general public even while generating familiarity among female consumers.
An Interesting Take on 18th Century Shoes
.
James Gillray: Fashionable Contrasts; – or – the Duchess's little shoe yeilding to the magnitude of the Duke's foot, originally published by Hannah Humphrey on January 24, 1792.
The print shows the feet & ankles of the Duke & Duchess of York (Frederick, Duke of York & Albany 1763-1827, son of George III, & Frederica Charlotte Ulrica 1767-1820, his wife), with the Duke's feet enlarged & the Duchess's feet drawn very small.
James Gillray: Fashionable Contrasts; – or – the Duchess's little shoe yeilding to the magnitude of the Duke's foot, originally published by Hannah Humphrey on January 24, 1792.
The print shows the feet & ankles of the Duke & Duchess of York (Frederick, Duke of York & Albany 1763-1827, son of George III, & Frederica Charlotte Ulrica 1767-1820, his wife), with the Duke's feet enlarged & the Duchess's feet drawn very small.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
1775 American Family - The Archibald Bulloch Family.
1775 Henry Benbridge (American colonial era artist, 1743-1812). The Archibald Bulloch Family.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
1772 American Family - The William Denning Family
1772 William Williams (American colonial era artist, 1727-1791). The William Denning Family
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Early American Spy? Lydia Barrington Darragh
It is said that on the night of December 2, 1777, Irish-born Philadelphia nurse Lydia Barrington Darragh (1729-1789) potentially saved lives for General George Washington's Continental Army, when she overheard the British planning a surprise attack on Washington's army for the following days.
On Second Street in Philadelphia, directly opposite the headquarters of Sir William Howe, the British commander, lived a Quaker couple, William & Lydia Darrah. Howe’s adjutant general took over part of the Darrah home for his quarters. On December 2, 1777, he advised Lydia to send all her family to bed early, apparently in anticipation of a meeting to be held at their home. At this time, Philadelphia was occupied by the British.
When Howe's headquarters proved too small to hold meetings, he often commandeered a large upstairs room in the Darraghs' house. Although uncorroborated by contemporary written evidence, family oral history relates that Mrs. Darragh regularly would eavesdrop & take notes on the British meetings from an adjoining room & would conceal the notes by sewing them into her coat before passing them onto American troops stationed outside the city.
On the evening of December 2, 1777, Darragh overheard the British commanders planning a surprise attack on Washington's army at Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, for December 4 & 5.
The morning after the British meeting in her home, determined to get word to the patriots, 48-year-old Lydia crossed the street to Howe’s headquarters & requested a pass to go to a miller at Frankfort to obtain flour. With the pass, she went through the British lines, left her bag to be filled at the mill, and then hurried northward, and delivered her warning.
Lydia then returned to the mill, paid for her bag of flour, and re-entered the city, unsuspected. The forewarned Washington intensified his patrols. She never made the story public during her lifetime, & her daughter told people about her heroism after her death.
The British did march towards Whitemarsh on the evening of December 4, 1777, & were surprised to find General Washington & the Continental Army waiting for them. After three inconclusive days of skirmishing, General Howe chose to return his troops to the relative safety of Philadelphia.
.
Monday, February 24, 2020
1776 American Family - The Copley Family.
1776 John Singleton Copley (American-born artist, 1738-1815). The Copley Family.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
NB For this posting I have excluded portraits of children only. The Copley family portrait was executed immediately before or after the artist entered or exited the American colonial experience.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
NB For this posting I have excluded portraits of children only. The Copley family portrait was executed immediately before or after the artist entered or exited the American colonial experience.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
In Business - Tavern Owners
In New York seven women retailers held tavern licenses for at least one year dunng the period 1757-65, Tavern Keeper's License Book, 1757-1766, New York City, Mayor's Office,
New-York Historical Society.
The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, (July 1995), 181-202.
Saturday, February 22, 2020
1777 American Family - Jonathan Trumbull Jr & wife Eunice Backus Trumbull & Faith Trumbull
John Trumbull (American artist, 1756 – 1843) Jonathan Trumbull Jr with Mrs Trumbull (Eunice Backus) and Faith Trumbull 1777
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
Family portraits are rare in the early 18C British American colonies, perhaps because they were expensive & usually so large, that they required a sizable public parlor for display. Most 18C colonial American houses were not spacious. Family portraits are also much more complicated for the artist, and there were few artists available in colonial America early in the 18C. But the incidence of family portraits grew, as the number of painters & spaces in homes also grew.
Some gentlemen had family portraits painted as a sign of wealth & as a factor in gaining respect & power in the new world. The painting announced that they were important, entitled to be the natural leader in the new society. Other family paintings commemorated a specific event. Most were not painted to be tucked away for private family contemplation, but to act as a public icon or an emblematic memory for an audience larger than the immediate family. The composition of family paintings was changing throughout the 18C as well.
The concept of family was evolving as emerging Enlightenment ideas began to impact everyday domestic life & family values in colonial America. Slowly throughout the century, the strict patriarchal family concept was beginning to change. English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) implied that women should have greater authority in the family & the home. In portraits, artists began to display the woman on nearly the same level as the husband.
Artists began to feel that they could portray married couples as congenial companions. Painters began to portray men participating more in the rearing of their children, they were no longer just expected to be distant strict disciplinarians. Americans were beginning to believe that children needed to be loved & to play. The individual was also becoming more important in 18th-century America. Artists often used props to signify something about the talents, skills, & identities of individuals within these families. In one way or another, each of the following portraits reflects changing patriarchal values, gender relations, attitudes towards women & children, and the growing democratization of American society. But women did not receive the right to vote in the United States until 1920.
Friday, February 21, 2020
American Women in Classic Costumes & a Brief History of Turquerie
Gervace Spencer (1715-1763). Lady Mary Wortley Montagu
++Turkish+Woman+Playing+Lute.jpg)
1714 After Jean-Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737) Turkish Woman Playing LuteThe ancient look of Ottoman fashion became popular in Europe, when artist Jean-Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737) journeyed with the French Ambassador to Constantinople. Van Mour depicted relaxed Turkish women draped in robes of ermine covering rich, colorful fabrics. The ambassador, Marquis Charles de Ferriol, later published Vanmour's art without even mentioning the artist's name. The 100 hand-colored prints representing different cultures of the Levant appeared in An Illustration from Recueil de Cent Estampes representant differentes Nations du Levant, a 1712-14 costume book depicting the Ottoman Empire, with Jacques Le Hay and Charles de Ferriol claiming authorship.
+Turkish+Woman+Playing+Zither.jpg)
1714 After Jean-Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737) Turkish Woman Playing Zither+Turkish+Woman+Smoking.jpg)
1714 After Jean-Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737) Turkish Woman Smoking+Wife+of+Sultan+Ahmed+III.jpg)
1714 After Jean-Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737) Wife of Sultan Ahmed IIIJean Ettiene Liotard met Lord Ducannon in Rome in 1735, and followed him to Constantinople 3 years later. He was fascinated by the Orient and began dressing in Turkish clothing which earned him the nickname of "The Turkish Painter."
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762) was an English aristocrat & writer. Montagu is today chiefly remembered for her letters, particularly her letters from Turkey, as wife to the British ambassador, which have been described as “the very first example of a secular work by a woman about the Muslim Orient.” In 1717, she went to live in Turkey with her husband, the British ambassador to that country, and stayed for 2 years. In the Ottoman Empire, she visited the women in their segregated zenanas, learning Turkish, making friends and learning about Turkish customs. The story of this voyage and of her observations of Eastern life is told in Letters from Turkey, a series of lively letters full of graphic descriptions. Letters is often credited as being an inspiration for subsequent female travel writers, as well as for much Orientalist art. Not only was Lady Mary the first European woman to travel in many of the places she visited; she was also the first European woman to witness the private lives of Islamic women, as they were utterly closed to males.
Charles Jervas (Irish Baroque Era painter, ca.1675-1739) Lady Mary Wortley Montagu+Portrait+of+a+Lady+1720.jpg)
1725 attributed to Jonathan Richardson (1665-1745). Lady Mary Wortley MontaguWhen Mary Wortley Monatgu's letters were published in America in 1762, the trend for portrait a la turque traveled across the Atlantic with them. The costumes in these paintings, especially the use of elements of the dress in early American paintings, have intrigued me for a while now. This style would evolve from Turquerie in the 18th-century to Orientalism and Japonisme in the 19th-century.
Many portraits of women in 18th-century America depict them in imaginary plain, unstructured gowns which do not reflect contemporary fashion. Components of these portrait costumes seem to intentionally remove the sitter from the immediacy of their own period by including some historical or exotic reference to an earlier culture.
During the 18th century, English colonial gentry were reading Greco Roman classics including Aristotole, Plato, Cicero, Livy, Horace, & Virgil. To enter a college such as Harvard, a young man needed to demonstrate that he could read Latin & Greek extemporaneously. The admiration of many 18th century political philosophers for early Rome, a model for England’s expanding empire, led many to call their period “Augustan” after the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus.
British American gentlemen were reading books on gardening & farming by the ancients, planting quincux beds, & decorating their grounds with statues of Apollo, Diana, Mercury, Mars, Minerva, Paris, Helen, & Venus. They were naming their slaves & chosing nom de plumes from classic Greek & Roman names. Public tea & tavern gardens boasted statues of "Socrates, Cicero, and Cleopatra...and miscellaneous figures from Greek mythology." The classic form was the ideal, the timeless goal to strive for in the Anglo American colonies & new republic.
Many of the simple yet fanciful costumes displayed in colonial paintings of women are adaptations of Turkish dress from several sources, including Sir Godfrey Kneller's 1720 portrait of ermine-robed author Lady Mary Wortley Montagu who had traveled to Turkey with her husband. As her colorful life became a topic of conversation & speculation, many other artists including Charles Jervas & John Richardson also painted Lady Mary Montagu in modified Turkish dress.
The ancient look of Ottoman fashion became popular in Europe, when artist Jean-Baptiste Van Mour (1671-1737) journeyed with the French Ambassador to Constantinople. Van Mour depicted relaxed Turkish women draped in robes of ermine covering rich, colorful fabrics. The ambassador, Marquis Charles de Ferriol, later published Vanmour's art without even mentioning the artist's name. The 100 hand-colored prints representing different cultures of the Levant appeared in An Illustration from Recueil de Cent Estampes representant differentes Nations du Levant, a 1712-14 costume book depicting the Ottoman Empire, with Jacques Le Hay & Charles de Ferriol claiming authorship.
It is likely that the British American colonial painter & his subject, who chose to adopt some aspects of ancient looking Ottoman costumes, were striving for a classic timelessness. Artists & thinkers turned to what they understood to be the values of classical Greece & Rome, valuing order, harmony, balance, & tradition in art. The props, costumes, & scenery of a portrait declared the values & the attributes by which the subject, and often the painter, wanted to be known.
English artist Joshua Reynolds wrote, "He therefore who in his practice of portrait painting wishes to dignify his subject...will not paint her in the modern dress...He takes care that his work shall correspond to those ideas and that imagination which he knows will regulate the judgment of others; and therefore dresses his figure something with the general air of the antique for the sake of dignity, and preserves something of the modern for the sake of likeness...The relish of the antique simplicity corresponds with what we may call the more learned and scientifick prejudice."
Bostonian John Singleton Copley painted his female subjects in both fashion-forward costumes (mostly gleaned from English mezzotints) and in simpler unstructured gowns that reflected classic designs. Those he dressed in classic design seem more thoughtful, relaxed, & reflective than his fashionably dressed sitters. But Copley was fascinated by the latest French & English stayed, hooped, and bustle-padded fashion trends which could not get to the colonies fast enough for Copley. He wrote to expatriate Benjamin West that in order to dress his female subjects in the latest styles, he would have to import the gowns himself from England.
Unlike Copley, Pennsylvanian Henry Benbridge (1743-1812) who had studied in Italy with Pompeo Batoni & in England with expatriate Benjamin West, had a distrust of the trendy fashionable. In 1770, when his sisters were nearing marrying age, Benbridge wrote his mother from London, this his sisters should, "not refuse a good plain honest Country farmer if such a one should offer himself with tolerable good estate, for one of the town who perhaps may have a better taste for dress, but not more merit, if perhaps as much."
When Benbridge had returned from Europe settling in Charlestown, South Carolina, to make a living painting portraits, he wrote to his sister Betsy in 1773, "Every kind of news here is very dull, the only thing attended to is dress and dissipation, & if I come in for a share of their superfluous Cash, I have no right to find fault with them, as it turns out to my advantage."
In 1785, Benbridge, who loved the simple pleasures of gardening, was still worried about the too fancy dress of his son, Harry, whom Benbridge lovingly called "my little fellow." He wrote to his sister that he felt that his wife was dressing him in "too good things for a boy like him to wair, & likewise too many of them at once; he can't take care of them when he is at play & more common & Strong stuff in my Opinion would answer much better, & not fill his head with foolish notions of dress, which perhaps may be his bane."
It is not surprising that Benbridge painted many of his female clients in dignified classical gowns looking serious, thoughtful, & restrained. In an earlier Charleston, Henrietta Johnston had used a simple classic ruffled drape when depicting her female sitters. A few years later, Jeremiah Theus had draped imaginary ermine robes around several of his South Carolina clients. At least one painting attributed to New Englander Ralph Earl refers to the same asthetic. For many of his female subjects, Marylander Charles Willson Peale used some form of simple dress with exotic sashes or shawls as accents to elevate his subjects above the everyday. Even Rhode Islander Gilbert Stuart experimented with loose gowns & ermine wraps, before he fled to Nova Scotia & England.
1752-54 Jeremiah Theus (1716-1774). Mrs. John Dart+pvt1st-gallery-art.com.jpg)
1763 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Mercy Greenleaf (Mrs. John Scoally)
1765 Jeremiah Theus (1716-1774) Anne Livingston (Mrs. John Champneys)
1767 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Rebecca Boylston (later Mrs. Moses Gill)
1769 Artist: John Singleton Copley (1738-1815) Subject: Martha Swett (Mrs. Jeremiah Lee)
1769 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Elizabeth Storer 1726-1788 (Mrs. Isaac Smith).+Catherine+Greene+(Mrs.+John+Greene).+The+Cleveland+Museum+of+Art.jpg)
1769 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Catherine Greene (Mrs. John Greene)
1770 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Sarah Henshaw (Mrs Joseph) 1722-1822+Mrs.+John+Stevens+(Judith+Sargent,+later+Mr.+John+Murray).jpg)
.+Rebecca+Lloyd+(Mrs+Edward+Davies).jpg)
1770s attributed to Henry Benbridge (1743-1812). Rebecca Lloyd (Mrs Edward Davies)__Margaret_Cantey_(Mrs__John_Peyre)__Gibbes_Museum_of_Art,_Charleston,_South_Carolina.jpg)
Henry Benbridge (1743-1812). Margaret Cantey (Mrs. John Peyre).+Sarah+White+(Mrs.+Isaac+Chanler).+Gibbes+Museum+of+Art,+Charleston,+South+Carolina.jpg)
1770s Henry Benbridge (1743-1812). Sarah White (Mrs. Isaac Chanler).+Frances+Tucker+(Mrs.+John+Montresor)..jpg)
1771 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Frances Tucker (Mrs. John Montresor)+Winterthur.jpg)
1771 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Mary Philipse (Mrs. Roger Morris)
c 1772 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Abigail Pickman Eppes (Mrs. Sylvester Gardiner).+Catherine+Hill+(Mrs+Joshua+Henshaw).+Museo+Thyssen-Bornemisza,+Madrid+Oceansbridge.com.jpg)
1772 John Singleton Copley ( 1738-1815). Catherine Hill (Mrs. Joshua Henshaw)
1773 Henry Benridge (1743-1812). Sarah Middleton (Mrs. Charles Coteworth Pinckney)
1773 John Singleton Copley (1738-1815). Rebecca Boylston (Mrs. Moses Gill)
1776 Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827). Julie Stockton (Mrs. Benjamin Rush)
1780 Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827). Mrs. John B. Bayard
1780 Gilbert Stuart (1755-1828). Christian Stelle Banister and son John
1780s Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827). Mrs Robert Morris
1780s Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827). Mrs Frederick Green.+Lady+of+the+Middleton+Family..jpg)
1780s Henry Benbridge (1743-1812). Lady of the Middleton Family+(1763–1823)+Yale.jpg)
1787 Charles Willson Peale 1741-1827 Mrs. Walter Stewart (Deborah McClenachan) (1763–1823).+The+Hartley+Family.+The+Art+Museum.+Princeton+University..jpg)
1787 Henry Bendridge (1743-1812). The Hartley Family
1788 Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827). Mrs Richard Gittings
1789 Charles Willson Peale (1741-1827). Mary Claypoole PealePost Script: Some readers asked about these colonial British American women in their ermine robes. Although I posted 2 by Jeremiah Theus online, there are 3 others that I know of right now. Imaginary ermine warms both Mrs. Samuel Prioleau III (owned by United Missouri Bancshares Inc., Kansas City, Missouri) and Mrs. Barnard Elliott II, which I saw at the Gibbes Museum of Art in Charleston. Another draped in fur is Mrs. Daniel Heyward which may be at the Heyward-Washington House in Charleston.