when Lafayette visited this country in 1824, upon entering the drawing-room at Brooklyn Heights, where the picture hangs, he exclaimed, "that is my old friend, indeed!" Colonel Nicholas Fish and General Van Rensselaer joined in attesting the superior correctness of the likeness. The only adequate engraving of the Athenæum picture is the exquisite and faithful one by Joseph Andrews. Mr. Sparks has noted a curious anecdote in relation to Stuart and Washington, which preserves one of the few authentic instances where the chief's remarkable self-control lapsed into temporary excitement:"One morning," he says, "as the artist approached the house, the street-door and inner-door were open, so that his eye was led directly into the parlor, and, just as he was about to ascend the steps, he saw Washington seize a man by the collar, and thrust him violently across the room. This being an awkward moment to enter the house, he passed on a short distance, but immediately returned and found the President sitting very composedly in a chair. After the usual salutation, his first words were, 'Mr. Stuart, when you went away, you turned the face of your picture to the wall, and gave directions that it should remain so, to prevent it receiving any injury, but, when I came into the room this morning, the face was turned outward as you now see it, the doors were open, and here was a fellow raising a dust with a broom, and I know not but the picture is ruined.' It so happened, however, that no essential harm was done, and the artist proceeded with his task." To obtain the last sitting, the painter is said to have promised, if successful, to present the portrait both of the General and Mrs. Washington to him when finished; and the result was so satisfactory that the artist determined never to complete the pictures, and thus secure them for a legacy to his family. They remained in the identical state in which they left his easel, the vivid tints unimpaired, the details of each head faithfully worked out, but the shoulders and bust only sketched, and the rest of the large canvas blank except a few random strokes of the brush. Yet no finished trophies of American art have been pondered with a more critical and fond gaze by the artists who have subsequently depicted Washington, or with

more reverent admiration by the generations of his countrymen who know their peerless benefactor only through history and their faithful resemblance. This master-piece is, however, said to have been rejected when offered to the government; and it long hung on the door of Stuart's painting-room on Fort Hill, in Boston. Stuart first painted the full length for Lord Lansdowne, subsequently owned by Mr. Williams, of London. He always declared, that, although he made twenty-two copies of the original, he could never reproduce it perfectly. The history and comparative merits of these portraits form a curious speculation. If all the facts were known, and all the traits critically noted, the record would prove quite a suggestive artistic chapter. In the opinion of many not incompetent judges, the full length in Faneuil Hall is the best, after those owned by Messrs. Williams and Pierrepont, and the Boston Athenæum. This picture was secured by a mere accident. A mediocre English painter, Winstaley,. had the audacity to propose to Stuart, at Germantown, to visit his studio in Philadelphia, and give a stroke or two of his riding whip to some copies he had painted of the famous portrait, in order that it could be said they received the last touches from Stuart's own hand, he to share in the profits as well as the imposture. The indignant painter threatened to throw his impertinent visitor out of the window; but the latter, not a whit discouraged, afterwards drove a thriving trade with his spurious collection. Among his victims was a Federalist merchant of Boston, better versed in politics and commerce than the fine arts, who purchased and gave one of these literally "counterfeit presentments" to the Town Hall; the deception once known, the wits of the democratic party so overwhelmed the unlucky donor with their merciless gibes, that, in mere self-defense, he paid Stuart six hundred dollars for the painting which now ornaments the old cradle of liberty. In relating this anecdote, the artist, between his pinches of snuff, used to complain of his involuntary patron for having paid him in uncurrent notes on which there was a large discount.

Mr. Bingham, of Philadelphia, earnestly pleaded with Stuart to allow him to pay for Lord Lansdowne's commis

sion, that he might enjoy the honor and gratification of presenting it to that nobleman. This request was acceded to, but the artist was subsequently much annoyed by discovering several engraved copies of this work, of inferior execution, on a book-seller's counter, in Philadelphia, to whom they had been sent, with a pompous advertisement, by a print-seller in England. The President of the Pennsylvania Academy previously refused Winstaley permission to copy the portrait belonging to that institution, without the artist's consent; but the law of copyright, especially in regard to works of art, was then unsettled, and Stuart was doomed to suffer incalculable wrong, both in his purse and reputation, by the unauthorized and inadequate reproduction of his great work.

The copy by the painter himself, in the possession of Mr. Pierrepont, of Brooklyn, is remarkable for its animated expression; that in the State House at Newport, Rhode Island, is admired by critics for the apt and careful moulding of the brow and the purity of the coloring; the drooping angle of the eyelids is also a noticeable peculiarity. As a work of art, it offers a great contrast to two portraits from the same hand, in the neighboring Redwood Library, executed in boyhood. Of these two invaluable copies, the first, as before stated, was painted for Mr. Constable, and the second presented by the artist to the favorite town of his native State. The usual objection to Stuart's Washington is a certain feebleness about the lines of the mouth, which does not correspond with the distinct outline of the frontal region, the benign yet resolved eye, and the harmonious dignity of the entire head; but this defect was, as we have seen, an inevitable result of the loss of teeth. In view of the state of the arts in this country at the period, and the age of Washington, we cannot but congratulate ourselves that we have so pleasing and satisfactory a portrait, and exclaim, with Leslie, "how fortunate it was, that a painter existed in the time of Washington, who could hand him down looking like a gentleman!" Dr. Marshall, brother of the Chief Justice, said that Washington did not resemble Pine's portrait, when he knew him, and that Wertmuller's had too French a look, but that Stuart's was "prodigiously like." more decided and magnetic expression

A

is, indeed, desirable; a more emotional phase would reveal the heroic fire that lay beneath that calm look; but it was no fault of the painter that this was not attained. After several attempts to bring that noble but restrained soul to the surface, to make that calm eye flash and those patient features light up with excitement, Stuart, one day, after making every preparation for his sitter, left his studio a few moments before the time of appointment; knowing Washington's scrupulous punctuality and exaction of it in all with whom he had to do, the artist waited in an adjoining room until he heard a loud exclamation and the rapid steps that told of a chafed mood. Then he entered, respectfully greeted Washington (who sternly resumed his seat), seized his palette, and, after a few touches, apologized by confessing he had practiced the ruse to call up a look of moral indignation, which would give spirit to his delineation.

Opinions are quite diverse in regard to the Wertmüller portrait. There are many points of executive merit in the original not completely rendered in the engraving; the air of the head, the grave and refined look, well-arranged hair, neat ruffles, and old-fashioned coat, sprinkled at the shoulders with powder, at once give the somewhat vague yet unmistakable impression of "the portrait of a gentleman." There is an expression of firmness and clearsightedness, and an erect, brave attitude which reveals the soldier; and there is more animation than we are accustomed to see in portraits of Washington. The latter trait is probably that which led to the selection of this picture as an illustration to Irving's Biography. It offers a contrast to the adolescent head by Wilson Peale, and the venerable face by Stuart, to be attached to the succeeding volumes. Of the history and claims of the original work, the following statement of a Paris correspondent gives the facts credited by the admirers of the portrait:

"It was painted by the celebrated Wertmüller, in 1795, at Philadelphia, who went to; the United States for that express purpose; and has not only the merit of being a magnificent painting, but the only portrait of him taken at that period-at a time before age had left its marks indeed, in the prime and vigor of his life. The picture was at one time taken to Washington, when the price was held at $10,000, while now it can be had for $2,000. The Government of Russia has, through its

Minister at Brussels, made an offer; but I have induced the owners to hold on until I can hear from the patriotism of my native State."

Our first knowledge of Wertmüller was derived from a superb picture of Danæ, which, for some time, occupied a nook, curtained from observation, in the studio of the late Henry Inman, of New York, and had been exhibited in Washington City, thirty years ago. There was fine drawing and rich color in this voluptuous creation-enough to convey a high idea of the skill and grace of the artist. With this picture vividly in the mind, it is difficult to realize that the chaste, subdued portrait of Washington was from the same hand. Yet granting the assertion that Wertmüller executed such a portrait from life, there seems reason to question the originality of that from which the engraving in Irving's Biography is taken. A writer in the Evening Post, of the 17th of March last, states that a French gentleman, M. Le Grand, being under obligations to the eminent lawyer Cornelius J. Bogart, presented exactly such a picture, believed to be an original, to his daughter, which is at present owned by a child of that lady. The portrait recently brought to this country is said to have been given by Washington to Baron Wahrendorf, a Swedish nobleman, who was here from 1795 to 1797, and who took it to Sweden, where it remained in his family until the death of its head, when it became the property of Mr. Cazenove, from whose estate it was transferred to the present owner. On the other hand, it is confidently asserted, that Washington invariably noted in his diary his sittings to portrait painters, and that no entry appears in reference to this picture. Its claim

to originality is, therefore, questioned; with the impatience of the whole subject, however, that Washington confessed he may, at last, have ceased to record what became a penance, and were the picture satisfactory in other respects, we should not be disposed to complain that it was skillfully combined from other portraits. But, in our view, the engraving, at least, has intrinsic faults. It is neither the Washington familiar to observation as portrayed, nor to fancy as idealized. There is a self-conscious expression about the mouth, not visible in Stuart's or Trumbull's heads, and out of character in itself; the eyebrows are raised so as to indicate either a supercilious or a surprised mood, both alien to Washington's habitual state of mind; it is impossible for the brows to be knit between the eyes, and arched over them at the same time, as in this engraving; the eyes themselves have a staring look; the animation so much wanted is here obtained at the expense of that serenity which was a normal characteristic of the man; we miss the modesty, the latent power, the placid strength, so intimately associated with the looks as well as the nature of Washington; the visage is too elongated; compared with the Athenæum portrait this picture has a common-place expression; it does not approach it in moral elevation; we should pass it by in a gallery as the likeness of a gentleman and a brave officer, but not linger over it as the incarnation of disinterested, magnanimous, loyal courage, such as lent a certain unconscious, impressive, and superior aspect to Washington, and divided him, by an infinite distance, from the mob of vulgar heroes.