te oN, i? ea ag * + ¢ s ac) PS “Ei Ay y +s ae, A. ov 5h ) i . ~ a , x a“ ies iw ‘ . ( “sy ' é THE PORTRAITS OF INCREASE MATHER = ta ' are vy ad ¥ a “), Vict a) 2 a . H s 3 i A, sae, Sea os a ype 4 i m4 ' " ‘ ~ - ; 7 ‘ ‘ ‘ 1 2 Lee 5 ‘ 4 F “ on) 5 82 : * « \ ’ 7% af { . § ‘ i4 ‘ P ‘ ; . 2 > i t 4 4 - 43,45 c ; ae bik eye » hemes apts epee pita oy ni be " ~/ ; “4 LEAST AO % ae, u 3 ‘ é i. zl ee he i ay ; : 5 4 ‘ ; ; r) “oe So ‘ ‘ : Es A ai) ‘ 3 — . ‘. s q RINTAM SEALRS 4 ir “i corn ~ 1 ’ . ¢ are ane ~ plain aA Rll shin oe ere “ : if « r y 1 ws = J = F \ . * 4 ie t f ' oo : a : » ‘ ‘ F is ~ . 4 ‘ i if 5 c 4 : iY ' 2 ‘4 ae * . } m ( ie A é ¥ » ais ict od 9 ieee ee ae es cee pe ; Fait Fd wie oh iar ne eT ‘ . Tf he Pils ey f Pe ‘ - % . ‘ } + F , al Carl “ae oN @ fet PORTE RAI TS OF PeChbkASHE MATHER WITH Some Notes on THOMAS JOHNSON, an English Mezzotinter BY KENNETH B. MURDOCK, Pxu.D. CLEVELAND For private distribution by WILLIAM GWINN MATHER 1924 > . . ; : ’ i e » ! | . * a . J % 2 . ¥ -' P "lie 4 x . ' we ee, veh ¢ > iis Dak Geen + ee | eh a7 . if 7 rs Se nl Ss i « 2 “ 1 t » ' * 4 é ' \ i wi, a Pe « i it te —Tre a... en ee Faces daodolains Ps . vd * . oe oe Mies (oy SY aig tee che a sling dee fee’ tee Oe ORY i OSS Oey Pee e tore HE plates in this book reproduce all the known contempo- ele. portraits of Increase Mather, together with two later prints which have special interest. Three of the pictures have never been reproduced before, another now first appears in the colors of the original, and all are here for the first time collected within the limits of one volume. The text attempts to give the history of the portraits, so far as it can be discovered, sum- marizing whatever of value has been written about them and recording some facts not noticed hitherto. I am abundantly con- scious that some problems in regard to the pictures remain un- answered and dare not believe that there are no errors in what I have written, but I hope, none the less, that the book as it stands may offer a more complete story of the comparatively numerous and. historically valuable Mather portraits than any which has been previously available. Ihave given a large proportion of my space to Thomas Fohn- son, an English mezzotinter. This seemed desirable since the question of the authorship and date of the mezzotint of Mather signed “T. Fohnson” is highly important for the special subject v1 PREFACE of the book, and also because a curious error has long bestowed upon a certain engraver named Thomas Fohnson dates which are not his and would have been impossible for him. Moreover, any light shed upon his identity may serve not only Matherians and those who answer “I” to the oft-quoted mocking question, “Who looks at an American portrait?” but also all those who collect or study English mezzotints. Acknowledgments are due to the Massachusetts Historical Society, the American Antiquarian Society, the Harvard Uni- versity Library, Mr. Harold Murdock, and the Trustees of the British Museum for allowing the reproduction of portraits owned by them. I am personally indebted to many friends and advisers who have been of great assistance to me. Only their number prevents individual mention of their kindnesses. I can- not, however, neglect to acknowledge the special services rendered me by Mr. Fulius H. Tuttle, Librarian of the Massachusetts Historical Society, who gave generously of his time and know- ledge. Dr. George P. Winship has been constantly helpful. Mr. T. 7. Holmes, Librarian of the William Gwinn Mather Li- brary, has been unsparing of himself in his attention to much work which could not have been done without him. And Mr. Bruce Rogers, who supervised the printing of the book and the reproduction of the portraits, has been of unfailing assistance. My greatest personal debt is, however, to Mr. Mather. When the idea of such a book as this occurred to me, his interest en- PREFACE Vil couraged me to proceed with it, and now his generosity makes possible its publication. If the illustrations are of use to anti- quarians and scholars, or if the text proves in any way of service, the praise should be his. If there are errors, faults or omissions, the blame is wholly mine. K. B. M. Cambridge, Massachusetts July 8, 1923 oo... ee e : ident Ciatibed? iat! waioe bas os fins vata aioe Che PAS ee TE ae i YS ehaheqad a ety WAP Mie pith ar itn wees eH ae Wahrati's pe ROR Sspccticacyytety we A K mo apa. Me ee it ih a CEDRUS. B aleve x > - ; . mat wnt Spy, 2 -f aS Py RE Parse - / > Maa) oe ha : r= ‘ ; a we * re i ee 5. ad FG ¥ hehe ati 7, brig } wer Sd an ew x } Hy ie ec Kh Pint vn a. ae ae ; | éx>) Bis, *s:) . Or ae ~ # he alisrapne, : 9938 ; 2 seeing ro. E 4 2 a My cai aan — eh! * i A, SAA pw: vei. we eed, pr i thai foray hee ket pete dns ie aA: (A Faw a Wak cca ; : = ne es aT 4 e Ye oe AT ¢ 5 a ’ 1 a t et ve it ) 4 Pero Tt de Lt) i i a i i nn i i in fin ti i st fin in tin tn in INCREASE MATHER, 1688 Frontispiece By Jan van der Spriett Reproduced from the original painting owned by the Massachusetts Historical Society. VERA CRESCENTII MATHERI EFFIGIES, 1683 Page 4 Reproduced from the original print owned by the Massa- chusetts Historical Society. VERA CRESCENTII MATHERI EFFIGIES, 1686 8 Reproduced from the original print owned by the British Museum. CRESCENTIUS MATHERUS 42 By Robert White after Van der Spriett Reproduced from an original print owned by Harold Murdock, Esq. CRESCENTIUS MATHERUS 44, By John Sturt after Van der Spriett Reproduced from an original print owned by the Harvard University Library. INCREASE MATHER 46 By Thomas Emmes after Van der Spriett (completed state) Reproduced from a photograph owned by the Massachu- setts Historical Society. X LI STOOP AT LS INCREASE MATHER By Thomas Emmes after Van der Spriett (uncompleted state) Reproduced from a photograph owned by the Massachu- setts Historical Society. INCREASE MATHER, 1639-1723 From an original portrait owned by the American Anti- quarian Society. INCREASE MATHER, 1683-1730 By Hopwood From an original print published in 1802. INCREASE MATHER By Charles E. Wagstaff and Joseph Andrews after Van der Spriett From an original print published in 1852. THE SEAL on page 60 and the MatuEr Arms on the title- page are reproduced from Mr. W,. H. Whitmore’s sketches in The Heraldic Journal. Page 48 50 52 56 THE PORTRAITS OF INCREASE MATHER ieee Pecre oo. eee pea Ser +e) ys Sh. ate rT a { Pak 7 : 3 ie hoe, } . Wa ag Bek a pba ¥ aes ; a LAr re alee a ek at my La o iy soo — - ~* Ae >i =A pie) a NF ; Mitr a. pivatg! Ft ine dae sl Ags ves mye aK LaeiR ; ; aed ! . ¥ rea! p+ See anne tia pa fs . at: oars Bons” ee ene? spy UF eet P se < Z Eo ON * aL < . s. # q \ 2 Pa ‘7 . ; a ca | a ie < hf vm ’ oe a An eh a" ahah oe « a i 9 . ~* : ht 4 - ~~ 4 4 % 2 ® ee VPs ' ’ : ; ay ; = ee PO) ReP eR ATI's OF fon 2 WA lt HER HE New England Puritan had no aversion to family ces If it be true that he shunned all forms of art, he none the less preserved among his household goods oil paintings of the severe lineaments of his kin- dred. Perhaps he had perception enough to appreciate that the work of such craftsmen as he could command was not to be classed as art. Perhaps he believed that even paintings had a place, as did good writing, when turned to the service of keeping alive reverence for godly elders and the faithful of the Lord. Whatever his rea- sons, he sat patiently for his own portrait and hung upon his walls a canvas of his father. ‘Thanks to his zeal, the antiquarian or the curious investigator to-day, eager to know how his forbears appeared when they played their part in the colonial scene, finds much to reward his search. Museums, universities, and private collections harbor enough early American portraits to repay long 2 TAL PORTRAIT IOs study, and the diligent engravers of two centuries ago did their share in providing fascinating material.t When the Puritan published treatises, engaged in public con- troversy, or for any reason came to the attention of the habitués of the book-shops and print-sellers, the graver often came to the aid of the pencil and brush, and there were published prints to satisfy the popular curiosity as to the man whose deeds and sayings were already known. Thus it is that, when we search for likenesses of In- crease Mather, the most distinguished American Puritan of his generation, we find two paintings done from life, a mezzotint based upon a third contemporary portrait now lost, and prints by three different engravers, each of whom worked from one of the pictures still extant.? That Mather had three portraits made, and that these were engraved by four artists, indicates not only a desire to establish a family gallery but also distinct interest on the part of the outside world. This is the more apparent when we remember that each of the four engravings was issued more than once. Nor is this surprising. The Mathers, in their own eyes and those of the world, were (1) Cf. C. K. Bolton: The Founders — Portraits of Persons . . . Who Came to the Colonies . . . Before the Year 1701; Boston, 1919. (2) There is also an engraving which purports to be from an original painting, the genuineness of which it does not now seem possible to ascertain. INCREASE MATHER 3 of New England’s aristocracy. What more natural than that they should follow the traditions of the proud fam- ilies they had known of in England, by having painted portraits of the greatest who bore their name? Increase Mather was in his day not merely the most prominent of his family but the leader of the Puritans in America. His books were printed not only in Boston and Cambridge but in London. He was by no means unknown abroad. A Dutch scholar dedicated a book to him. So did Richard Baxter, that undying figure in Puri- tan annals, who was long a staunch friend and admirer of Mather. Robert Boyle welcomed him. Sir Roger L’Estrange added to his fame by lampooning him, Lord Wharton and Bishop Burnet took up cudgels on his be- half, the Countess of Anglesey and the Countess of Suth- erland interceded for him at court, and, of course, good Presbyterians and Independents —or, indeed, theolog- ical students of all sects — could not neglect certain vol- umes from the pen of Increase Mather of far-away New England. His political services, his literary labors, and his unfailing devotion to all that concerned the intellec- (1) For the biographical details given here and elsewhere in this book, see the fuller account in K. B. Murdock: The Life and Work of Increase Mather, Cambridge, 1923; a doctoral dissertation deposited in the Harvard University Library. 4 THE PORTRAITS OF tual activity of his time won him a reputation not to be overlooked by engravers who knew that Dissenters bought prints and illustrated books quite as eagerly as their conforming brethren. It is to the circumstances of his life that Increase Mather owes the distinction of having his likeness reproduced in his lifetime more often than any other American-born Puritan of his era. And, accordingly, to study his portraits is at once to derive information as to the iconographic problems they present and to add to our stock of knowledge as to the life and fame of a trusted leader in the early days of New England. The earliest date found upon any picture of Increase Mather is 1683. ‘his appears upon a mezzotint of which but one copy is known, now owned by the Massachu- setts Historical Society. It was presented to the Society in 1797 by John Dugan? and since then has suffered sadly from the defacements of time. ‘To-day, as the reproduction shows, its inscrip- tion is almost entirely illegible, and stains and rubbings have marred the original quality of the print. Enough remains to give us a crude likeness of a man in con- ventional Puritan attire. The eyes are large, with heavy (1) See Plate I opposite. (2) See Massachusetts Historical Soctety Proceedings, 28:145. tr Oe ee EI Ec PE EEE TS INCREASE MATHER 5 shadows under them. The hair is long and somewhat curling, and the mouth is wide, with a half hint of a smile. If the artist was a faithful workman, his subject can have had few pretensions to beauty; but, however homely, the pictured face suggests a personality of indi- viduality and character. Fortunately, earlier writers and the records of the Massachusetts Historical Society give certain details as to the appearance of the print before it reached its pres- ent condition. From such sources we learn that the orig- inal inscription read Vera CRESCENTIL MATHERI Effigies Anno Domini 1683 tatis 44 T. Fohnson Fecit With this much evidence, what can be said of the mez- zotint? Does it represent Mather as he actually was at forty-four years of age? If so, was it done from life, from a portrait painted in 1683, or merely from one artist’s memory or information as to how his subject looked years before? These questions have never been answered satisfactorily. Dr. Green, writing in 1893, suggested that (1) See Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 28:145. 6 THE PORBRATIS OL the picture was probably done from a portrait made in Boston in 1683, and, purely as conjecture, offered the theory that the signature “T. Johnson” might be that of a certain Thomas Johnston, an eighteenth-century Bostonian whose career is comparatively well known.1 He was born in Boston in 1708 and died there on May 8, 1767. Moreover, the Boston Evening-Post for May 11,1767, reports that he worked as “Japanner, Painter and En- graver.”? It is unfortunate for Dr. Green’s theory that there is no mention anywhere of Johnston’s having been a mezzotinter. Much of his work is known, but there is no record of any mezzotint from his hand. This fact, aside from the occurrence of “Johnson,” not “John- ston,”’* on the print, seems to dispose of the suggestion that it was the “Painter and Engraver” of eighteenth- century Boston who did the 1683 mezzotint of Increase Mather.* So long as we consider it by itself, we have no data on which to base even a conjecture as to the circumstances (1) Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 28:145. See W. Dunlap: A History of the Rise and Progress of the Arts of Design in the United States, edited by F. W. Bayley and C. E. Goodspeed; Boston, 1918, 3:311-312. (2) Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, ubi sup. (3) Thomas Johnston sometimes spelled his name Johnson. (4) Cf. D. M. Stauffer: American Engravers upon Copper and Steel, N.Y., 1907, 2:251, and W. Dunlap: op. czt., 3:312. INCREASE MATHER - under which the Historical Society engraving was pro- duced. But, fortunately for our purposes, another mez- zotint portrait of Mather exists, and a comparison of the two makes possible certain conclusions as to the dates and origin of both. Any decision as to the problems raised by the 1683 portrait must therefore be postponed until we have considered a unique print owned by the British Museum.! This is a mezzotint, in good preservation, portraying aman in the same garb as the subject of the picture just discussed. At first glance the face seems quite different from that of the Historical Society print, but the inscrip- tion is strikingly similar. It reads Vera CRESCENT MATHERI Effigies Anno Domini 1686 tatis 44 Save for the date and the omission of the engraver’s name on the British Museum portrait, the wording on the two prints is identical. Moreover, when the engraved lettering of the 1686 mezzotint is compared with the few faint traces of the inscription which still can be deci- (1) See Plate II, facing page 8. 5 TAR PORTICAITSSOL phered in the Historical Society picture, there appears to be exact agreement — so exact that it seems indubi- table that the two engraved titles were done from the same plate.! And when we examine the “1686” we find that the last two figures seem irregularly inserted above the line, as might be expected if the original plate had been altered in this detail. Turning to the prints themselves, we find that the out- side plate marks differ in size, but that the engraved ovals have precisely the same dimensions.” The shape of the oval varies slightly, to be sure, and in the pictures them- selves there are differences in the contour of the head. The moustache is found only in the British Museum mez- zotint, the hair in it is more curly than in the Historical Society print, and certain heavy lines in the latter have disappeared in the 1686 portrait. But close inspection shows that line for line the two engravings agree in many ~ details, the distances between any two points found in both are the same, and the deeper investigation goes, the ~ more it forces the conclusion that the two pictures are from the same plate. Such variations as there are might easily have been made after the 1683 impression was (1) The reproduction in Plate I shows less clearly than the original certain lines of the inscription which can still be detected in the latter. (2) See the detailed descriptions of the two mezzotints, page 34 post. a ae ere ; ae (RES CENTIT -MATHERI Lifts tet * Anna Domini Jé te LE iils tH INCREASE MATHER 9 issued. One may believe that the 1686 version was cop- ied from that of 1683, and altered in the copying; but this hypothesis seems less probable in view of the minute correspondence of the two portraits in the lettering of the inscriptions and the details of the engraving, nor does it explain the “86” on the later picture, which seems clearly to be altered from some other date.? It is safe to assume, then, that the 1683 and 1686 mez- zotints represent two states of one engraving. Indeed, in the past, at least one scholar has assumed that the two portraits differed only in their dates. Mr. Whitmore, who had seen the earlier print, compared it with the description of the British Museum picture and decided that the two were the same. On the basis of this opinion Mr. Chaloner Smith regarded the two mezzotints as iden- tical save for minor details in their inscriptions.? Confronted by what seem to be two states of the same plate, we have a basis for certain definite conclusions. (1) Mr. J. H. Tuttle of the Massachusetts Historical Society has made measurements of the two prints, to supplement my own, and his kindness in so doing makes it possible for me to offer my conclusion with the support of his greater knowledge and experience. (2) John Chaloner Smith: British Mezzotinto Portraits, London, 1884, Part 4, note to page 1662: “ Mr. Whitmore has met with an impression hav- ing T. Fohnson Fecit inscribed upon it.”” This was probably the Massachusetts Historical Society mezzotint, which surely was known to Mr. Whitmore. 10 THE PORTRAITS JOE In one we have Mather’s age given as 44 and the date as 1683. He was born in 1639, so that age and date agree. But, in the second print, although the age remains 44, the date is given as 1686. When the engraver altered the plate from the original condition, he changed the year inscribed upon it but not the age given as that of its subject. The obvious presumption is that he made 1683 into 1686 because he issued the revised plate in the latter year. He did not change Mather’s age because the picture purported to represent him at forty-four. The “1686” was intended to represent the date of the altered print and not the year in which Mather’s likeness had been taken. No other hypothesis explains the facts.1 (1) It has been suggested to me that the mezzotint of 1683 represents an unknown original portrait so dated, but was not issued. until some later date— say 1750. If this were possible, one might believe, disregarding the other ob- stacles in the way of such an hypothesis, that Thomas Johnston of Boston was the engraver. But to accept this theory we should have to assume that a second craftsman took the plate some time after 1750 and, in order to give it the ap- pearance of a wholly new print, altered the inscription to read 1686 instead of 1683, guided in his choice of a new date by whim or, possibly, by the ease with which a 3 could be changed to a 6. If we suppose this to have been the case, we must explain why the second engraver, although willing to change the portrait itself as thoroughly as he saw fit to do, did not trouble himself to add to the dis- guise of the earlier picture by amending the age given in its title. And, if the orig- inal portrait was modified after 1686, how can one explain the fact that “AX tatis 44.” and “1686” do not agree? The new date can be understood, if it represents the year when the second mezzotint was done; but if it was no more than an INCREASE MATHER 11 We are accordingly forced to accept the obvious pre- sumption and to believe that the two mezzotints were is- sued in 1683 and 16806, that the second was altered from the first, and either that the original engraver did not care to sign the new version or that the changes were made by some one other than the artist of the original plate. The prints are, then, to be regarded as two seven- teenth-century portraits of Mather, and are, of course, of the greatest interest, not only as early mezzotints, but as the earliest known likenesses of a famous Puritan. Various problems present themselves at once. Who was “T. Johnson” who signed the original plate, now represented by the unique copy owned by the Massa- ~~ arbitrary figure set down in order to disguise an old picture, why should the engraver send forth his work without making the age of his subject agree with the date he chose to place upon his prmt? He may not have known when Mather was born, but he had the original plate, with the age 44 and the year 1683, as a guide, and by 1689 two well-known London engravers had. pub- lished likenesses of Mather with dates and ages which agreed. Only a workman entirely ignorant of the time of Mather’s life, unaware of the other engravings of his subject, and quite unobservant of the very plate beneath his hand, could have reworked the 1683 mezzotint to read 1686 without altering the age to cor- respond. But if the conclusion proposed in the text be accepted, there is no dif- ficulty, for an artist working in 1686 might easily alter the mscription on the original plate so that it should give the year in which his altered version ap- peared. If it came out in 1686, its date could cause no confusion; if it was pub- lished later, it must at once have seemed an error to any observer who knew aught of Mather’s life or had frequented the printsellers’ shops. 12 THE PORTRAITS OF chusetts Historical Society? Did he work from life or from a portrait? Did he ply his trade in Boston or else- where? The last question is most easily answered. No mez- zotinter worked in America, so far as is known, before Peter Pelham, who came to the colonies in 1726.1 It is not probable that an engraver able to make a passable mezzotint would have wasted his talents in Massachu- setts in 1683, if he could get to England, where publish- ing and print-selling were more lucrative professions. Nor is it probable that, if he had chosen to stay in New England, we should have to-day no scrap of his work and no record of his existence. We must assume that the mezzotints were done in England or on the continent, and since Mather was in Boston from 1662 to 1688, they cannot have been done from life. They were engraved either from fancy or from a picture which somehow had made its way from Boston overseas. Since we have defi- nite record that such a portrait of Increase Mather was sent to England in 1681, the latter alternative seems the more probable. Our problem now concerns “T. Johnson.” Can aman of that name be found in England or Europe in 1683, —~ (1) W. Dunlap: op. cit., 3:323; and Dictionary of National Biography. INCREASE MATHER 13 and, once found, can he be shown to have been an en- graver, or, best of all, a maker of mezzotints? Seeking IT. Johnsons anywhere in any age is apt to produce an embarrassment of riches. John Smiths are hardly more numerous. Fortunately one need not delay for Thomas Johnson, a pirate executed in Boston in the seventeenth century,' Thomas Johnson of Staple Inn in 1677,? Thomas Johnson, M.A., an editor and classical scholar who flourished about 1700,* nor probably, for Thomas Johnson, London bookseller in the decade after the Restoration.* One other Thomas Johnson, how- ever, attracts attention at once. He was an engraver of mezzotints, and works signed by him “Thos: Johnson,” “'T., Johnson,” or “Tho: Johnson,” are still extant. His name is in most of the reference books. Strutt, writing in 1785,5 gives no dates for his life, but says that his name “is affixed to several mezzotint prints.” Walpole (1) See the diary of Samuel Sewall, Massachusetts Historical Society Col- lections; Series 5, 5:309-310. (2) Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, March 1st, 1676 to Febru- ary 28th, 1677; London, 1909, 522. (3) E. Arber: The Term Catalogues; London, 1903-1906, passim. (4) H. R. Plomer: A Dictionary of . . . Booksellers and Printers .. . From 1641 to 1667; London, 1907, 107-108. (5) J. Strutt: A Biographical Dictionary ... of... Engravers; Lon- don, 1785, 2:53. 14 THE PORTRAITS OF in 1780 told no more, but confined himself to a note on Johnson’s obscurity.! Spooner calls Johnson “an Eng- lish engraver, who scraped a few mezzotints in a poor style.”2 Nagler places him in the first half of the eight- eenth century.? Chaloner Smith agrees in this dating.‘ But no one of these authorities ventures to state defi- nitely just when Johnson lived and within what limits it is possible to date his work. But when we turn to certain later books, to Bryan, or to Slater, or to Miiller, the case is altered. Suddenly Thomas Johnson emerges from obscurity. We are told that he was born in 1708, in Boston, Lincolnshire, and died there in 1767, that he worked in London, and en- graved there the mezzotints by which he is best known.° Now the dates 1708-1767 are manifestly impossible for (1) Walpole’s work appeared in 1780. My references are to H. Walpole: Anecdotes of Painting in England, edited by R. N. Wornum; London, 1849. The reference to Johnson is, in this edition, 3:969. (2) S. Spooner: 4 . . . Dictionary of Painters, Engravers, Sculptors, and Architects; N.Y., 1853. (3) G.K. Nagler: Neues Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexicon; Mimchen, 1835- 1852. (4) J.C. Smith: of. cit., 2:736. (5) Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters and Engravers, edited by G. C. Wil- liamson; N.Y., 1903-1905, 3:113; J. H. Slater; Engraving and their Value; London, 1921, 450; and H. A. Miller: A//gemeines Kinstler-Lexicon, 3d edi- tion by H. W. Singer; Frankfurt, 1895-1901, 2:279. INCREASE MATHER Ls a man who signed a mezzotint in 1683. If the authori- ties are to be believed, the English engraver Thomas Johnson, author of mezzotint portraits of Thomas Brit- ton, Edward Ward, and others, cannot be responsible for the Vera Crescentii Matheri Effigies. But are the au- thorities to be believed? How do they explain their at- tribution to Thomas Johnson, born in 1708, of a plate in Dugdale’s Monasticon, which was published in 1718?! A line engraving worthy of such use, done by a boy of ten, would be a phenomenon deserving of more notice than any accorded to Johnson’s Canterbury. And the case is more interesting when one discovers the same engraving in the 1655 edition of the Monasticon, duly marked Tho. Fohnson fecit, but published fifty-three years before the artist to whom it is credited was born. Or, if we give up this plate and say that it was done by a Thomas Johnson other than the maker of the mezzo- tints, how shall we explain the fact that a work of the latter —a picture of Edward Ward — is inscribed Ed- wardus Ward tat sua 54. 1714. T Fohnson pinx et fec.?? Once again we seem to have an infant prodigy publish- ing mezzotints at the age of six! And the problem is by (1) For this ascription cf. Bryan’s Dictionary, 3:113, and H. A. Miller: op. Cit. 23279. (2) J. C. Smith: op. cit., 2:738. 16 THE PORTRAITS OF no means simplified when we find that Johnson’s picture of Britton was done before 1721, and that his portrait of Clarendon was issued before 1725. ‘The evidence for this is given below; accepting the fact for the moment, we must explain the appearance of two of the best works of an artist at a time when he is said to have been less than eighteen years of age. The dates 1708-1767 are impossible, not only for our mysterious mezzotinter of 1683, but also for the artist of the portraits grouped as the works of the English Thomas Johnson. The clue to the mystery is not far to seek. One remembers the “Japanner, Printer, and En- eraver” of Boston, Massachusetts, who was born in 1708, died in 1767, and was named Thomas Johnston. Dr. Green ventured to suggest, as pure conjecture, that this workman produced the 1683 mezzotint of Increase Mather. Mr. Whitmore, in 1867, gave more details about Johnston, and declared it to be highly probable that he did the print in question.1 This statement came to the attention of Mr. J. C. Smith, who, in 1884, inserted two notes in his English Mezzotinto Portraits, one remark- ing that an impression of the British Museum mezzo- tint of Mather, with the signature “T. Johnson,” had (1) W. H. Whitmore: Notes Concerning Peter Pelham; Cambridge, — 1867, 26. . INCREASE MATHER 17 been seen by Mr. Whitmore,! and the other announc- ing the fact that Thomas Johnston was born in Boston _ in 1708 and died there in 1767.2 Thenceforth confusion was all too easy. Johnston of Boston, Massachusetts, was assumed to be the English Johnson. Boston, Massa- chusetts, was made into Boston, Lincolnshire, and the American’s dates were bestowed upon his fellow crafts- man overseas. Thus it is that we find Thomas Johnson, known as a mezzotinter, described as alive from 1708 to 1767 — a statement proved incorrect the moment one examines those of his works which can be surely dated. Whenever he lived, he was born before 1708, and the dates given as his, borrowed as they are from quite a different person, can no longer serve. For our purposes it is important to determine just when his work was done. The only possible method, now that the usual brief tale of his life is disproved, is to consider those mezzotints extant to-day signed with his name, and to date them so far as this is possible. Eight portraits are commonly ascribed to him, and upon these our decision must be based; for such other work as he did either is doubtfully credited to him or offers no basis for determination of its date. The line engraving (1) J. C. Smith: op. cit., Part 4, note to p. 1662. (2) Jbid., Part 2, note to p. 739. 18 THE PORTRAITS OF of Canterbury Cathedral, which appeared in 1655, may or may not be his, and consideration of it may for the moment be postponed. The first in the list of Thomas Johnson’s mezzotints! is a portrait of Thomas Britton, “the musical small coals man.”? This was issued with a few lines of verse refer- ring to the subject, the artist, and the engraver, and ob- viously written for this particular print. These-verses, such as they are, are ascribed to the poet Prior, who died in 1721.° The picture, therefore, must have been finished not later than that year. Britton established his “club” in 1678, and his fame was general by 1700. He died in 1714.4 We may reasonably assume 1700 as the earliest date for the mezzotint, and 1721 as the latest. The second of Johnson’s portraits, that of William Bullock, the actor, is interesting because it demonstrates eee (1) I list here those mezzotints ascribed to Thomas Johnson by J. C. Smith: op. cit., 2:736 f. Certain other works are signed Johnson, or T. Johnson, but for various reasons are not ascribed to Thomas Johnson, the mezzotinter. See Ibid., 2:729-732, 734-735. (2) The inscription reads, J Woolaston pinxt. Tho. Iohnson fecit. (3) The lines are ascribed to Prior by Sir John Hawkins in his General History .. . of Music, London, 1776, 5:76, and are accepted as his by his edi- tors. Cf. the latest edition of Prior, that of A. R. Waller, Cambridge, 1905— 1907, 2:173. (4) See Dictionary of National Biography, article Thomas Britton (1654?— 1714). INCREASE MATHER 19 Johnson’s ability, not merely as an engraver, but also as an original artist, drawing from life. As early as 1696 Bullock acted in London. He was at Drury Lane until 1706, when he transferred his allegiance to the Haymar- ket. In 1708 he returned to his old haunts once more. Estimating conservatively, we may assume that by 1705 he was sufhciently well known to interest a London artist. We may set 1705, then, as the earliest date for the mezzotint portrait of him, and, of course, 1740, the year of his death, marks the latest time for its completion.’ Johnson did a mezzotint of Clarendon, after the paint- ing by Soest.? The latter is marked Edw@ E. of Claren- don.* Hyde did not become Earl until 1660 and he left England, where Soest was painting, in 1667, so that the portrait must have been done between 1660 and 1667.* (1) Dictionary of National Biography, article William Bullock (1657?- 1740?). The inscription is, Zr William Bullock Comedian. Tho: Johnson fecit et advivum pinxt. (2) The inscription is, The Rt Honoble Edward Earl of Clarendon Lord High Chancellor of England and Chancellor of the University of Oxford Anno Dom 1667. Zoust pinx. T Johnson fe. cum privilegio Regis. Sold by E Cooper at the 3 pidgeon in Bedford Street. (3) T. Lewis: Lives of the Friends and Contemporaries of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, London, 1852, 3:361. (4) C.H.C. Baker: Lely and the Stuart Portrait Painters, Boston, 1913, 1:196. Dictionary of National Biography, article Edward Hyde, first Earl of Clarendon (1609-1674). 20 THE PORTRAITS OF The mezzotint may be dated during this period. Indeed, in its inscription appears the date 1667, which is not found on the painting. It is certainly not unreasonable to believe that this was the year of publication of the en- graving; but if this is incapable of proof, there is other evidence to be considered. ‘The portrait is marked, Sold by E Cooper at the 3 pidgeon in Bedford Street. Now Ed- ward Cooper sold his business in 1725,! and another state of the same print bears the address of H. Overton? and I. Hool, two later printsellers. Our date for this mez- zotint must lie between 1660 and 1725, and the 1667 on the plate itself lends a certain support for belief that it was issued in that year. Johnson’s portrait of William, Lord Cowper,; calls him Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, a title he did not attain until 1707. He died in 1723. If the engraver drew from life, the earliest date for his work would be 1707, (1) Dictzonary of National Biography, article Cooper, or Cowper, Edward (d. 1725?). (2) Henry Overton was in business as early as 1707-1709. See H. R. Plomer: A Dictionary of the Printers and Booksellers . . . From 1668 to 1725, Oxford, 1922, 225. If he had an active career of fifty years, he may have been in business as late as 1757. (3) The inscription is, The Right Honble William Lord Cowper Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain &c. Tho: Fohnson fecit, Printed & Sold by Henry Overton at the White Horse without Newgate. INCREASE MATHER a1 the latest 1723. If he worked from a painting, as did John Smith, who engraved Kneller’s picture of Cowper in 1707, then his work might be placed as early as 1707, or as late as one chooses during the business career of Henry Overton at the White Horse without Newgate.1 The mezzotint of Carolus Leon offers no clue as to its date. Leon has been so little noticed historically as to give no means of determining when he lived and sat to Johnson for his portrait.? As for the print of Great Lewis of France,* it may have been made at any time before or during the business life of J. Smith near Exeter Change in the Strand. His shop was active in 1714, but otherwise his dates are un- certain. At the same time, the simplicity of the title of the print suggests that the picture came out while Louis XIV was on the throne, that is, before 1715, and that it was published at all in England makes it probable that it is to be dated during the Stuart period, or prior to 1688. We may postulate 1685 as the earliest date and (1) See note 2 on page 20. (2) The title of the print is, 1 Carolus Leon the Armenian. Tho. Fohnson pinxt et fecit. (3) The title is, Great Lewis of France. Tho. Fohnson fecit. Printed & Sold by F Smith near Exeter Change in the Strand. (4) Joseph Smith had a “picture shop at the west end of Exeter Change” in 1714. H. Walpole: op. cit., 3:969. 22 THE PORTRAITS OF 1715 as the latest, admitting, of course, that both are highly tentative. The inscription on the next of Johnson’s works, Ed- wardus Ward Atat sua 54.1714. T Fohnson pinx et fec., may reasonably be taken at its face value, and the print may be safely dated in 1714. To be sure, Ward is said to have been forty-seven, not fifty-four, in that year,’ but this hardly affects the case. Johnson may well have been un- certain as to Ward’s age when he drew his likeness, but he can hardly have been confused as to the year in which his work was done. The eighth mezzotint is a likeness of Thomas Lord Marquiss of Wharton after Kneller.2, Wharton did not become Marquis until 1715, and died in the same year. Kneller’s painting must have been done before 1715, and the mezzotint in that year or later. ‘The other limit for the dating of the print rests upon the chronological placing of “Thomas Taylor” who sold it. He seems to have been in business not later than 1725.3 (1) Dictionary of National Biography, article Edward Ward (1667-1731). (2) It is inscribed, The Most Honoble Thomas Lord Marquiss of Wharton &c. G Kneller Eques pinx. T Fohnson fe. Sold by Thos Taylor at the Golden Lion in Fleet Street. (3) Taylor was in business “during the first part of the reign of George I.” J.C. Smith: op. cit., 3: 1359. INCREASE MATHER 23 We know, then, that a certain T. Johnson or Tho. Johnson engraved one mezzotint in 1714, another be- fore 1721, and two more before 1725. Beyond this we have data as to the earliest and latest possible dates for some of his other works. In summary these are: Earliest Latest Title possible date possible date Britton 1700 1721 Bullock 1705 1740 Clarendon 1060 1725 Cowper 1707 circa 1757 Louis XIV circa 1085, circa 1715 Ward 1714 1714 Wharton 1715 172) If we accept the earliest possible dates as correct in each case, we must conclude that Johnson worked from 1660 to 1715. If we refuse all save the latest possible dates, his working period appears to have been from 1714 to 1757. Or, if we believe the portrait of Ward to have been his earliest work, we may set his death as late as 1770. All this has led far from Increase Mather; but, in re- turning to the mezzotints of him, we have now certain new facts upon which to base our decision as to their ori- gin. If we assume that “T. Johnson” worked from 1660 to 1715, there is no difficulty in supposing him to have 24 THE PORTRAITS OF been the engraver of the 1683 Mather portrait. Or, ac- cepting the dates 1714-1757 as those of his active career, we may still believe that he worked as early as 1683. All the mezzotints known to-day as the work of Thomas Johnson might have been done by the engraver who pre- pared the 1683 plate of Increase Mather of New Eng- land. There is no more evidence for dating Johnson’s prints late than for dating them early. Each of them might have been done by a man old enough to work in 1683; and it is striking, to say the least, that all of the seven identified personages whose likenesses he chose to perpetuate died before 1750. Five of them did not live later than 1725. Moreover, the three mezzotints which can be most safely dated all appeared prior to 1721, and one of them seems certainly to have been done in 1714. That his work as we know it deals so largely with sub- jects of the first quarter of the eighteenth century, and entirely with those whose careers were ended by 1750, seems significant. Until we know more of his life and work, there is every reason to believe that the “T. John- son” of the 1683 mezzotint was no other than the com- paratively famous Thomas Johnson who has long been recognized among the practitioners of his craft. That this view has not been adopted before seems due to the current belief that Johnson was born in 1708 and died in INCREASE MATHER 25 1767 —a belief which is contradicted by what we know of the dates of his prints, and has no basis except in a curious confusion of two quite different engravers who worked three thousand miles apart. Thus far we have dealt with a Thomas Johnson who exists for us merely as a name on certain prints. Bio- graphical details as to him we have none. But there are certain records of one Thomas Johnson of Canterbury. Possibly he was the mezzotinter we have been discuss- ing. Perhaps he was a different person with somewhat similar interests. In any case, the dates of his life and the nature of his work make it necessary to consider him if we are to neglect no candidate for the honor of having engraved the 1683 mezzotint of Mather. He first appears in connection with a painting of the cathedral in his native town, said by Walpole to have been done in 1651 and to have been in the possession of the church authorities in the eighteenth century.! It was this picture which was engraved for Dugdale’s Monas- ticon, but not by Johnson, for in both editions of the book the picture is marked Tho: Fohnson fecit, Dan King sculpsit. So far as this plate goes, we have no evidence that Johnson was more than a draughtsman or painter, (1) H. Walpole: op. cit., 2:370. 26 TAL. PORTRAITS OF since the line engraving was done by King from his work. He appears once more as an artist in 1657, when he did a painting of the choir of Canterbury Cathedral.! In 1685 he came before the Royal Society and exhib- ited his “curious prospect” of Canterbury.? In 1881 the British Museum acquired a drawing of the King’s and Queen’s Baths at Bath, dated 1675 and signed “Tho: Johnson.’’® It seems probable that this represents one more specimen of the Canterbury artist’s work. Finally, there is in the Bodleian Library a line engraving of a ground plan of the King’s and Queen’s Baths, marked T ho. Fohnson Delineavit, 167 5; [indecipherable] fecit, 1676. Johnson takes shape for us, therefore, as a draughts- man and painter in the second half of the seventeenth century. It would be interesting to know who engraved the 1676 Bodleian Library print, but the present state of the inscription makes it impossible to determine this. A footnote to Mr. Clark’s edition of Anthony Wood’s Life and Times refers to an engraving of “The King’s (1) Archaeologia, 62:353 f. (2) Ibid., 354. (3) Ibid. L. Binyon: Catalog of Drawings by British Artists . . . in the British Museum, London, 1898-1907, vol. 3. The drawing is reproduced in C. E. Davis: The Mineral Baths of Bath, Bath, 1883, frontispiece. (4) Dr. S. E. Morison kindly examined the original for me. INCREASE MATHER 24 and Queen’s baths by Thomas Johnson, 1676,” in the Bodleian, and the phrasing suggests that Johnson was the engraver as well as the original artist of the work.! But, even if this cannot now be proved, it is by no means unjust to suspect a late seventeenth-century artist of hav- ing tried his hand at engraving. Beckett did mezzotints, although his original trade was that of a calico printer.’ Verkolje, the Dutch painter, also engraved.*® In view of such cases and the many similar ones, it is not hard to accept the theory that Thomas Johnson of Canterbury was not only a painter and draughtsman, but also, on occasion, an engraver. Granting this, and remembering that he was at work at least from 1651 to 1685, we may ascribe to him, if we see fit, the 1683 portrait of Mather. Thus there are two possible engravers for it— the Johnson best known for his mezzotints of Clarendon and others, and Thomas Johnson the artist of Canterbury. Indeed, the two may be one and the same, if we are willing to admit that he may have had a working life of sixty-four years. We should then believe that in 1651, as a young man, he (1) A. Clark: The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, Antiquary of Oxford, 1632-1695, Described by Himself, Oxford, 1891-1900, 2: 350 n. (2) J.C. Smith: op. cit., 1:20. (3) Ibid., 3:1422. 28 THE PORTRAITS OF painted Canterbury Cathedral; in 1657 he made a pic- ture of its choir; eighteen years later made the drawings of Bath, one of which was engraved in 1676; in 1683 accomplished a mezzotint of Increase Mather; appeared before the Royal Society in 1685, and, in the early years of the next century, did the portraits by which he is best known, his latest work being his likeness of Wharton, finished in 1715. No facts are known to prevent our con- sidering Thomas Johnson of Canterbury and Thomas Johnson the mezzotinter either as one individual or as two. In one case we have one possible engraver for the Massachusetts Historical Society engraving of Increase Mather; in the other we have two, between whom we may choose.} Nothing more is necessary for our purpose, but after so long a chase for Thomas Johnsons, we may pause to consider one more possible claimant to that name and to the title of mezzotinter. Strutt remarks that “It has been said, that Faber, when he did not choose to affix his own name to his engravings, adopted” the signature, S g Pp g (1) Mr. Binyon has suggested that the Johnson of the mezzotint portraits and the Johnson of the Bath drawing were the same. This was denied by W. D. Caroe in Archaeologia, 62:354, who wrote: “‘ Johnson [of Canterbury] is frequently confused with another T. Johnson, a mezzotint engraver, who worked in Queen Anne’s reign and later.”” But we have seen that it is quite possible that the two Johnsons were the same. . INCREASE MATHER 29 “T’. Johnson.”! This is annoyingly indefinite, inasmuch as two Fabers are known, both deserving of notice in the history of English engraving.” If we assume that Strutt referred to the elder, we must face the possibility that the “IT. Johnson” of the Mather portrait was but the dis- guised signature of John Faber, many of whose mezzo- tints are known. He was about twenty-three years old in 1683, the year of the Mather portrait, and was then working at The Hague. He seems not to have come to England before 1687.° At first sight this seems to dispose of the possibility of his having been the engraver we seek; but it is only fair to remember that Increase Mather’s brother, Nathaniel, lived in Rotterdam from 1662 until about 1670,* and we shall see that it must have been through him that the original portrait after which the 1683 mezzotint was done made its way into the hands of the engraver. If Nathaniel Mather learned of Faber from his friends in Holland; if Faber began to use the name of Johnson on some of his work before he came to England; and if (1) J. Strutt: op. cit., 2:53. (2) J. C. Smith: op. cit., 1:266 f. (3) Dictionary of National Biography, article, John Faber, the elder (1660?- 1721): (4) J. L. Sibley: Biographical Sketches of Graduates of Harvard Univer- sity, Cambridge, 1873, 1: 158. 30 THE PORTRAITS OF Strutt’s remark is intended to apply to Faber the elder, it is possible to hold the theory that the earliest portrait of Increase Mather was made in 1683, not by a Thomas Johnson of Canterbury or of London, but by John Faber of The Hague. Whatever we decide as to its origin, there need no longer be any doubt that the Massachusetts Historical Society mezzotint is to be dated in 1683; for, aside from the presumption raised by the altered version of it, dated 1686, we have now certain knowledge that the signature “T. Johnson” entirely accords with the period to which we have assigned the print. It is, then, the earliest known portrait of Increase Mather, purporting to represent him at the age of forty-four. Indeed, it seems to be one of the first extant mezzotint portraits of an American-born sub- ject, if not the first. Since Mather was in Boston in 1683, and since Johnson, whoever he was, was not, the engrav- ing must have been done from an earlier portrait of some sort, and aside from its interest in and for itself, it takes on added importance as the only reproduction of a very early specimen of American portraiture. Nor does this rest upon conjecture. In 1681 Nathaniel Mather, then in Dublin, wrote to Increase in Boston: “I have received sundry from you; with severall books and your picture by M? David Hart, and one by M® Eales: INCREASE MATHER 31 For all which I thank you.”! Knowing that in 1681 In- crease Mather sent from Boston to Dublin a portrait of himself, the rest of the story is easily reconstructed. Na- thaniel Mather was in touch with London, or Thomas Johnson may have visited Dublin. The two men met, or, at least, Increase Mather’s portrait came in 1683 into Johnson’s hands. From it he made his mezzotint and all unwittingly preserved for posterity a copy of the original painting or drawing which has never been itself dis- covered. Obviously it was done in 1681 or earlier, and, therefore, portrays Mather at forty-two years of age or younger; but Johnson, working in 1683, dated his print in that year and gave Mather’s age to agree with that date. This was entirely reasonable, since Nathaniel Mather, from whom he received the picture, probably had no means of knowing just when it was painted, though he must have inferred from his brother’s letters that it was recent work. He could give the engraver the year of Increase’s birth; and knowing this, and that his model was a “new portrait,” Johnson quite naturally dated his (1) Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Series 4, 8:28. Mr. Hart was not the artist, but the bearer of the letter or the picture. That the picture was Increase Mather’s portrait is clear from the other letters there printed. Cf.S. A. Green: Ten Fac-simile Reproductions Relating to Various Subjects. Boston, 1903, 7. é 32 THE PORTRAITS OF mezzotint with the year of grace in which he worked, and inscribed tatis 44 to correspond. It would be interesting to know whether Nathaniel Mather ordered the making of the mezzotint as a service to his brother’s reputation in England, or whether the engraver undertook it because he scented possibilities of profit from the sale of the likeness of an American Puritan divine. By 1683 Mather was by no means unknown in England, nor was the making of an engraving of him for public sale a more dangerous financial venture than the production of prints of other no more conspicuous Non- conformists whose portraits were offered in the print shops. Increase Mather had published two books in London and one in Amsterdam before 1683; and Eng- lish Independents, who looked upon New England as the promised land where their principles were being given perfect practical expression, must have read more than one of his twenty works printed in the colonies from 1663 to 1683. John Howe, a powerful leader of noncon- formity, knew him, and approved of him sufhciently to give him a place as deputy preacher in a parish of his own. John Owen was not only a friend but an admirer of Mather, and by a preface introduced to the faithful a book written by his colleague in Boston. Such friends, and the others who found his writings INCREASE MATHER 33 of interest, were not the only Englishmen for whom his name had meaning; for Edward Randolph and his friends at court took care that Mather should be widely celebrated as a type of disloyalty and Puritan bigotry. Admirers and scoffers alike thus came to know him; and whether a London citizen was a good Puritan who hung upon the words of Howe and ‘Baxter, mourning the departed Commonwealth and turning an adoring gaze upon New England, or a Royalist like Sir Leoline Jen- kins, who chose to regard Mather as a “distracted star- gazer,” his eye must have been caught by a new print labelled Vera Crescentit Matheri Effigies in the shops of Little Britain or Paul’s Churchyard. If in 1683 the time was ripe for a print of Mather, in 1686 conditions were no less propitious. In the three- years interval Mather published, or reissued, ten books, and at least one of them was printed in London. More- over he achieved such fame as an attack by Sir Roger L’Estrange in the Observator could confer, and obtained reputation of less dubious character by his Illustrious Providences, published in Boston and London in 1684. That in 1686 it seemed worth while to bring out a new portrait of him is by no means surprising. It is surprising, however, to find it so different from the original from which it was altered. Instead of the 34 THE PORTRAITS OF crudely drawn head of the 1683 print,we have one better proportioned, portraying a man with long and conspic- uous moustaches. ‘The mouth is small and quite in pro- portion to the other features. The engraver can hardly have been hampered by any desire for fidelity to the life, unless the 1683 picture was sadly in error as to Mather’s countenance. Indeed, it seems probable that the artist of 1686 had no idea as to the divine’s appearance and no undue interest in it. His idea was to produce a salable print. Somehow he came into possession of Johnson’s plate made three years earlier, cut down its outside di- mensions, scraped off the engraver’s name, changed the date, and then, by modifying the shape of the head, cut- ting away some heavy lines in: the face, adding a few more curls to the hair and smoothing out a wrinkle in one of the white bands in the costume, achieved a por- trait more in accord with his idea of what a respectable and distinguished scholar’s should be. ‘The mouth re- mained too long to satisfy any exacting standard of manly beauty; but the engraver, all undaunted, proceeded to block out part of it by adding a moustache, the ends of which he carried down to cover part of the long line of the lips. The result can hardly be called a thing of beauty, nor is it likely that it was a faithful likeness. But if it contented the print-buyers, its engraver asked no INCREASE MATHER 35 more. He had turned a three-year-old mezzotint into a substantially new one, and, although he sacrificed accu- racy, he was no doubt well pleased to haveachieved a pub- lishable print at the expense of so little time and effort. His work, obviously, has no importance as a likeness; but until seventeenth-century mezzotints of native-born Americans become more common, no one of antiquarian tastes will pass it by.! The dates of the mezzotints and their probable author- ship being established, there remain unanswered only a few problems in connection with the portraits of Increase Mather. The other paintings and engravings of him, produced during his lifetime, offer no serious difficulties to the investigator who would catalogue them according ~. (1) It is possible that Johnson, the engraver of the 1683 mezzotint, made over his work himself in 1686; but the absence of his signature on the new plate militates somewhat against this, and it is probably safer to believe that he took no interest in the Mather portrait after he finished it in 1683. It is possible that the two states of the mezzotint were used in the two issues of Mather’s Illustrious Providences, London, 1684 and 1687. The dating 1683 and 1686 would not be surprising, since one often finds prints dated a year earlier than the books in which they appear. No others of Mather’s books were issued in London at dates which make it seem probable that they contained the mezzo- tint portraits. There is no evidence to rely upon, however. I know of no copy of the J//ustrious Providences with any portrait of any sort, and it is entirely possible that the mezzotints were sold as such and never used as book illustrations. 36 THE PORTRAITS OF to dates and artists. ‘There are, none the less, a few points not hitherto recorded in regard to them which may deserve notice; and some previous accounts have revealed misunderstandings which it may not be super- fluous to set right. The next picture of Mather, after the 1686 print, is a large oil painting, dated 1688, and now owned by the Massachusetts Historical Society.' In 1688 Increase Mather left the colony and went to London, where he arrived on May 25. ‘There he began four years’ service as a diplomatic emissary of Massachusetts; and his efforts to win back the charter of the colony, or, failing that, to secure a new patent which would satisfy his country- men, brought him a certain prominence among all those who were informed as to current politics or interested in the day’s doings at Whitehall. He was no mere politician, and turned his years in London to the fullest advantage by cultivating all his opportunities to enlarge his knowledge of books and men. He became the friend of Robert Boyle and an (1) See Frontispiece. Mr. Henry W. Cunningham of Boston owns a por- trait which seems to be a duplicate of that owned by the Historical Society, even to the artist’s signature. Presumably the Historical Society canvas, which came from the Mather family, is the original painting, but the other seems also to be early in date. ; INCREASE MATHER 37 intimate adviser of Richard Baxter. Both men gave him copies of their books, as did Samuel Clark and Thomas Beverley. Sir Henry Ashurst and John Hampden the younger were among his political allies, and Fleetwood, in virtual exile at Newington, gladly welcomed him. With Anthony Wood of Oxford he conducted a corre- spondence of some length, and the two men exchanged copies of their writings. And Wood, although he is said never to have spoken well of any man, took pains to in- sert in his diary a note singling out Mather as the one Nonconformist of his time from whom he had received entire civility. Such facts show the position Increase Mather had reached among Englishmen, and do much to explain why, of all the portraits we know of him, three were done between 1688 and 1692. The 1688 painting bears upon its face the date and signature of the artist. In the original can still be deci- phered the words #itatis sue 49 1688, and the signature Fohn vander Sprjtt is plainly legible.* ‘These have been accepted at their face value, and most students have not hesitated in ascribing the portrait to a certain Van der Spriet or Spriett and dating it in 1688 during Mather’s visit to London. There is further evidence that both (1) Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 28:144. 38 THE PORTRAITS OF ascription and date are correct. Increase Mather’s diary for 1688 is preserved, and even though much of it can- not be read, it 1s still possible to make out, under the date - of July 3, 1688, the words “At Mr. Van der Spreats.”? This brief note, together with the data offered by the portrait itself, leaves no room for doubt as to where, when, and by whom the picture was painted. Nor is it difficult to identify the artist. A certain Jan (or John) van der Spriett, a Dutchman, came to England before 1700 and lived the rest of his life there. ‘There can be no doubt that it was he who painted Increase Mather, and this fact has often been noted; although, oddly enough, the authorities who mention the Dutch artist and attempt to list his works, fail to include among them his painting of a distinguished American. ‘The ex- planation lies in the fact that most such writers have had little opportunity to learn of the contents of American collections, and, quite naturally, have not sought infor- mation to their purpose in the transactions of American historical societies. If we can supplement their resources by listing a por- | trait by Van der Spriett unnoticed by them, they in turn (1) The diary is owned by the American Antiquarian Society. Mather’s chirography is by no means clear. There can be no question that he wrote “At Mr. Van der Spr”; but the next two letters are not easy to make out. The final “ts” is clear. I read the doubtful letters as “‘ea.” INCREASE MATHER 39 tell us all that can be determined about the artist whom Increase Mather sought out so promptly when he ar- rived in London in 1688. Jan van der Spriett was born probably about the middle of the seventeenth century, apparently in or near Delft, and became a pupil of Ver- kolje, who was active as early as 1672 and won a certain reputation both as a painter and as an engraver.! Ver- kolje died in 1693. There is no record as to when his pupil, Van der Spriett, left Holland, but the Mather portrait makes it certain that he was in London in the spring of 1688. He married in England, and seems to have spent the rest of his life there in comparative ob- scurity, leaving us no record of his career. ‘The one work which the reference books list as his is an engraving of “Thimoty Cruso.” The merits of his painting of Mather as a work of art had best be left for discussion by qualified critics. For our purposes its interest lies in its being unquestionably a portrait from life; and, making allowances for any weaknesses in the artist’s technical equipment, we cannot deny it a high place as a historical record. Moreover, whatever its faults, the picture conveys the impression (1) For Van der Spriett,see A. von Wurzbach: Niederlandisches Kiunstler- Lexicon, Wien, 1906-1910, 2:650. For Verkolje, see Jbid., 2:771, and J. B. Descamps: La Vie des Peintres Flamands, Paris, 1753-1764, 3:257f. 40 THE PORTRAITS OF of a faithful likeness. ‘The face, with its high cheek-bones and long nose, the thin hands and slender fingers, the pose, the watch, one of Mather’s treasured possessions, all suggest that the painter set down what he saw.! No doubt, when Increase Mather saw the finished picture, he held it quite worthy of a place of dignity on the walls of his Boston house. More than any other of his por- traits it gives a definite image of how he appeared in the days when he came before two English kings at White- hall and Hampton Court. From it are drawn nearly all the portraits which are reproduced to-day as those of Increase Mather, the leader of his generation in New England. The painting probably owes its existence to his harm- less vanity or family pride. It remained as a cherished heirloom in the hands of his descendants until, in 1798, it Was given to its present owners.’ But a painting pri- vately owned and hung on the walls of a New England (1) William Bentley, who knew Increase Mather’s grandson, Samuel, and his family, and must have been in touch with their tradition in regard to the painting, wrote in his diary for August, 1804, of the portrait “in the Historical Society’s collection,” which “was taken while Increase was abroad on Colonial affairs in England, & was out of health.” The Diary of William Bentley, D.D., Salem, 1905-1914, 3:104. Mather’s diary refers more than once to his sick- ness on his voyage to England and during his stay there. (2) S, A. Green: Ten Fac-simile Reproductions, 3. INCREASE MATHER Al dwelling could not meet the needs of London publishers and print-sellers. Hence the portrait was twice engraved while Mather was in England, once by Robert White and once by his pupil, John Sturt. The White engraving first appears with the inscrip- tion #tatis Sue 49, and the date 1688. That it was actually made in that year is proved by one more un- noticed entry in Mather’s diary. On July 5, 1688, he wrote: “At R. White’s, who drew my effigies.” Now the print is marked Vanderspirit pinxit; so that it seems clear that the ‘“‘efiigies” was none other than the 1688 painting.t Thus we have data as to the time the Dutch artist spent upon the portrait, for Mather did not arrive in London until late in May and the picture was ready for engraving by the first week in July. The print, once made, had a long and useful service, outliving its en- graver. There are copies dated 1723, instead of 1688,? but the portrait itself is unchanged. One or the other of the impressions appears occasionally in contemporary books by Mather or about him; but the condition of most of the copies extant makes it impossible to catalogue (1) The engraving does not follow the painting closely. Possibly White drew Mather from life and combined his sketch with the likeness given by the portrait, in making his plate for engraving. (2) See Plate IV, facing page 42. Cf. S. A. Green: op. cit., 4. 42 THE PORTRAITS OF definitively the various volumes in which the print may have been published. All that we can be sure of is that White’s work was found useful at least twice in a space of forty years; and it was probably no less profitable to its owners than scores of his other portraits of the great divines of his age.? White’s success is testified to by the attempt of one of his pupils to imitate his print. In 1689 John Sturt en- graved a picture of Mather. Probably he did no more than copy his master’s work. His print follows White’s so closely that only the signature and a few minor de- tails reveal that the two are not identical. But there seems to have been room for both, for Sturt’s plate, like White’s, had a long career and appeared in several edi- tions unchanged except for the dating and the age given in the title.” (1) For White, see Dictionary of National Biography, article Robert White (1645-1703). (2) Sturt’s print appears with the dates 1689, 1719, and 1724. M. Noble: A Biographical History of England . . . Being a Continuation of the Rev. J. Granger's Work, London 1806, 1: 135, mentions a print marked “et. 48, 1637; J. Sturt, sc. Prefixed to his ‘Remarkable Providence, 1687; 8vo.” This is probably an error, since Sturt’s print is almost identical with White’s, and White’s purports to be after the 1688 portrait and agrees with it. The Sturt print could not have been done in 1687 (or 1637!), when Mather was in Amer- ica and before the painting or White’s engraving from it had been made. For Sturt, see Dictionary of National Biography, article John Sturt (1658-1730). ooo eee ll Ss OOO ~.22262°>°n”][][ [OO aaa .’™-zjn’”—— oO ———— IVA NNN mm Im | im CE ENTIUS MATHE FRUS. STR.Obut edug.23.1723-Litals Suce 85 TN Sih st 8. ae ian te a a RE = Nap Van vag cba pr: Mo RV. Aite Scu tp. San 1772 INCREASE MATHER 43 That Mather’s age was changed in each issue of both prints to agree with the year of publication gives some- what confusing results. We have a print by White with Atatis Sué 49 in 1688, and one by Sturt in 1689 where the age is given as fifty. Both represent Mather as Van der Spriett saw him in his forty-ninth year. And when one print was republished in 17109, we read tatis Sua 80, 1719, and the portrait is unchanged. The same cu- riously unscientific procedure was carried so far that in a book printed in 1725 there appeared a new issue of the Sturt engraving, marked £tatis Sue 85, 1724,' and White’s print, in one state, bears the legend, Obiit Aug. 23, 1723, &tatis Sue 85. Increase Mather died in 1723, aged eighty-four, so that these portraits are distinctly unusual, in that they purport to be the likenesses of a man at an age which he never attained. This is the more striking because they are the same pictures which ap- peared more than thirty years before as reproductions of a painting completed in 1688. Obviously the White and Sturt engravings are historically useful only when one re- members that, whatever their titles, all represent Mather as he was at forty-nine. The same caution is necessary in using the next por- trait, one found as a frontispiece in a Copy of Increase (1) See Plate V, facing page 44. 44 THE PORTRAITS OF Mather’s The Blessed Hope, published in Boston in 1701.1 This, too, is drawn ultimately from Van der Spriett, al- though its close resemblance to the White and the Sturt engravings makes it almost certain that the artist worked from them rather than from the painting. This print of 1701, although it adds nothing to our knowledge of Mather’s appearance, but merely reproduces an earlier picture, not only has the distinction of being the first American portrait of Mather still extant, but also is en- titled to further honor as the first copper-plate engraving done in America.’ It is sometimes said that by 1701 Mather’s dominance in New England had been lost. In that year his power was lessened and his prestige sorely shaken by his resig- nation from the presidency of Harvard; but it should not be forgotten that his supremacy in the church and as a writer of popular books for American publishers was not seriously threatened. If testimony to this fact were needed, it might be found in the 1701 portrait, for the first venture in a process of engraving new to Amer- (1) See Plate VI, facing page 46. (2) W. Dunlap: op. cit., 3:299. Mr. W. H. Whitmore owned a copy of The Blessed Hope, which contained the portrait. This was sold, and I do not know where it is now. The reproduction in Plate VI is from a photograph of the same print as it appeared in Mather’s Ichabod, 1702, in a copy owned by the Boston Public Library. SCENTIUS } cf, hits Suc WALA it vnatct tial Hii HTH! che or Hint INCREASE MATHER A5 ica was made in a print of Increase Mather. Such could hardly have been the case if his fame had seriously waned, or if his place among his fellow citizens in 1701 had been other than that of a leader. The print is inscribed Tho: Emmes sculp. Who Emmes was is a problem still unsolved. It has been suggested that the name was a variant of Eames, and that the en- graver was ‘Thomas, eldest child of ‘Thomas and Mary Eames, who was baptized in July, 1663; but Mr. Stauffer calls attention to the fact that this ‘Thomas Eames seems to have been slain by Indians in 1675.1 Perhaps the art- ist was related to one Henry Emmes, a baker in Boston in 1696;? but, leaving conjectures aside, the first Amer- ican copper-plate engraver seems to have achieved an obscurity which still baffles attempts to identify him. In 1702, one year after The Blessed Hope, Increase © Mather’s Ichabod was published in Boston. This, in cer- tain copies, at least, contained Emmes’s portrait, with the date 1702. Another copy contains the print in a dif- ferent state.* This impression, which is dated 1701, lacks ——~ (1) S. A. Green: op. cit., 6; Stauffer: op. cit., 1:80. (2) J. Winsor; The Memorial History of Boston, Boston, 1881, 2:464. (3) See Plate VII, facing page 48. S. A. Green, op. cit., 6, describes these plates. Dr. Green is my authority for saying that one impression was dated 1702. I have seen no copy so dated. 46 THE PORTRAITS OF the engraved background of the other versions, so that the head appears upon a white field. At first sight it seems surprising that this obviously crude version of the print should be used a year after the finished plate had been published; but this is ex- plained by the theory that “the plate without a back- ground was engraved for The Blessed Hope, and a num- ber of impressions were struck off; but, believing that a background would improve the print, one was putin and these later impressions were used . . . in 1701. Then, when the Ichabod was printed in 1702, some of these re- jected first impressions were used in that book,”! with the original date, 1701, retained. For the rest of the Ichabod edition the publisher employed the completed _ plate with the background. Such a hypothesis answers adequately all the questions raised by the two states of the Emmes print. | ‘The seven portraits thus far discussed can all be dated accurately within Mather’s lifetime. The eighth, an oil painting owned by the American Antiquarian Society, is less easy to place chronologically, but there is sufh- cient evidence to support the belief that it was done from life during Mather’s old age.? (1) Stauffer: op. cit., 1:79. (2) See Plate VIII, facing page 50. INCREASE MATHER 47 The painting itself seems to confirm this. It resembles no one of the other portraits closely enough to pass for. a copy or a late reworking of any one of them, and the face lacks the flatness to be expected in a picture done after an earlier engraving. Plainly it was either the prod- uct of imagination or done from life, and the lines under the eyes and the details of the painting of the face sug- gest that the artist copied what he saw before him in the flesh. That the portrait shows Increase Mather as he was at a time considerably later than 1688 seems clear when we compare it with the Van der Spriett picture. It is hard to imagine that the man who looks out from the Anti- quarian Society canvas, with drooping cheeks, double chin, wrinkles about the eyes, and a face obviously that of one in the autumn of life, was younger than the erect figure portrayed in the painting of 1688. Such a conclusion is supported by other evidence, which is, perhaps, more valid. The picture came to the Antiquarian Society by gift from Increase Mather’s great eranddaughter, Mrs. H. M. Crocker, and more than once since it changed owners it has been referred to in the records of the Society as a portrait from life. Mrs. (1) Cf., for example, N. Paine: Early American Engravings and the Cambridge Press Imprints, 1640-1692, in the Library of the American Anti- quarian Society, Worcester, 1906, 12. 48 THE PORTRAITS OF Crocker surely knew the family tradition about the paint- ing, and the idea that it was done from life must have been supported by her testimony. Had she been un- certain, the Society could hardly have recorded and de- scribed it unhesitatingly as a work done during Mather’s lifetime. Evidence from another source tends to the same ef- fect. William Bentley, in August, 1804, saw the picture and called it “That of Increase, in his old age,” adding that it was “a good picture & was called a likeness.”! He knew Increase Mather’s grandson and his statement must reflect the family tradition. Bentley himself owned a copy of the Van der Spriett painting, which witnesses to his interest in the great Mathers of earlier days; and he was enough of a collector and an antiquarian to be in- terested in informing himself as to the history of his own possessions and those of the museums where he visited and studied.? It is hard to disregard his explicit state- ment as to the picture, supported as it is by evidence from.the canvas itself and the Society’s records. ‘There need be no hesitation in accepting the Antiquarian So- ciety portrait as a likeness of Increase Mather in his age. (1) The Diary of William Bentley, 3:104. (2) Cf. G. F. Dow: William Bentley, D.D., The Salem Diarist, in Amer- ican Antiquarian Society Proceedings, New Series, 32: 52 ff. . F oa Os ~ j ! pat © = 4 Sa £ 4 1 i : eg s VLR techies 7 INCREASE MATHER 49 Mather came back to Boston in 1692, when he was fifty- three years old, and remained there until his death, so that we must believe that the painting was done in Amer- ica, probably some time after 1700. ‘That there were art- ists in Boston at this period capable of doing such work, we know, and no other date or place of origin for the picture agrees with what we can discover from the work itself and from those most likely to have learned its story. We have found eight portraits of Increase Mather, is- sued during his lifetime. In the 1683 mezzotint we have discovered a reproduction of a ninth likeness done in America and now, unfortunately, lost. We have dated all the pictures closely enough for practical purposes, and have identified the artists responsible for most of them. Upon these portraits must rest our knowledge of Mather’s appearance, and from them engravers and art- ists since 1723, called upon to do him honor, have drawn their inspiration. ‘The two paintings and the White and Sturt engravings have all served illustrators in recent years. There is no need to consider such modern por- traits when they follow one or another of the earlier ones, but two nineteenth-century engravings are sufficiently important to deserve some comment. (1) C.K. Bolton: op. cit., 1:1-4. 50 THE PORTRAITS OF The earliest of these was described by Dr. Green. He wrote: “I have seen an engraving of Increase Mather, made probably near the beginning of the nineteenth century, where he is represented in a gown and bands, and with a wig, and he has a somewhat fuller face than in the painted portrait [the Van der Spriett painting]. It was ‘from an original Painting in the Possession of Mr? Townsend, Holborn,’ though I can learn nothing fur- ther in regard to either the picture or the engraving.”! Such an account seems to offer a hot scent to devoted Matherians and seekers for rare prints; but it is less allur- ing when we discover that the print is by no means rare, but is found in the comparatively common 1802 edition of Calamy’s Non-Conformist’s Memorial.? It was engraved by Hopwood, and was one of several illustrations made for the book in which it appeared. Considered by itself, then, it has no place in our list of contemporary like- nesses of Increase Mather. Yet it cannot be dismissed without a glance, for there is always the possibility that the “original picture” after which it was done may have been drawn from life. If this were the case, Hopwood’s engraving would be our (1) S. A. Green: op. cit., 6. (2) See Plate IX, facing page 52. The engraver’s name is given as “ Hop- wood,” without initials. * avresic tene (Peer INCREASE MATHER 51 only clue to an authoritative likeness, now lost. ‘The evi- dence as to “Mr. Townsend’s” picture is meagre. His identity is not easy to establish, nor is the fate of his possessions recorded. All we can be sure of is that he owned what he at least believed to be a portrait of In- crease Mather, together with a second “original picture,” also engraved for the 1802 Calamy, and labelled in that work with the name of Samuel Mather. It is used to il- lustrate the text referring to Samuel Mather of Dublin, brother of Increase. ‘This much seems proved by the two plates as they appear in the third edition of the Non- Conformist’s Memorial. ‘The rest can be but conjecture, but it is none the less fascinating to speculate that, since Increase Mather’s son, Samuel, usually called “of Wit- ney,” is known to have married a Miss Townsend “who came of the family that lived at Staple Hall,”! “Mr. Townsend, Holborn,” may have been a connection of the Mathers and may have acquired the two portraits as heirlooms. Moreover, in 1887, there were in Newcastle, England, two paintings purporting to be likenesses of Increase Mather and his son, the aforesaid Samuel of Witney.’ (1) J. Monk: History of Witney, 1894, 226. (2) H. E. Mather: Lineage of Rev. Richard Mather, Hartford, 1890, 9. 52 THE PORTRAITS OF Taking all this at its face value, and indulging our his- torical imagination to the full, we may easily construct a tale of how Samuel Mather of Witney owned two por- traits, one of his father and one of himself, how the two canvases passed into the hands of one of his wife’s kins- men, and finally descended to Miss Jane Mather in New- castle, after whose death they disappeared. But there remains the obvious difficulty that Mr. Townsend’s por- traits were reproduced as those of Increase Mather and his brother Samuel, whereas Miss Jane Mather’s are said to have been of Increase and his son, Samuel of Witney. Also we have indisputable evidence that Samuel Mather of Dublin died leaving no likeness of himself.t Therefore the engraving in the 1802 Calamy, called by his name, cannot represent an authoritative “original picture.” But we can meet these objections by supposing that Mr. Townsend, or the publisher who made use of the por- traits he owned, made the natural error of confusing the two Samuels. Granting this, one has, on paper, a theory by which all is made delightfully plain sailing when one wishes to see in the 1802 prints reproductions of two otherwise unknown Mather family portraits, presumably genuine and contemporary likenesses. (1) Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Series 4, 8: 18-19. Man ici i 7 « - : | 5 * i 4 a - . ‘he ee 6-2 mae Pei ae ‘ < , & e a . ee 4 ; 3 tepid | bert wth a sont abt : ae Lee af ree ~~ “ we; i x ‘ \ re . uae Mer ey ae k five re Sf Hoy Fifi be Si 8 : “ , : ae; at tee Vey Vas i Ces te aae'® — "eal ‘ ‘ oy \ ; oy F oe ae ¢ : y paar . - ~ et NL We Set jee ag? FE a" pu Mee fed hi me Tt ree Se Sah avs ~ ‘ os ; i an ee lt sa, \ .. oh | areu ‘aah eee) he hi jes eap Wee die . - ’ it F on “ ¥ » * z ~~ E.' — =") be ks pee Res Ty ae > pak ce ae ae! aS, i 2 eS ’ ~ iw , ed iy >. | $ : rs a ” 4 % 9 ra “ MP a oa Ae hale tpl ee ape mee il at a a gy ie A ae ea - Paap cee tT: T yah Soo eer ss i .% yb ite. eit 4; ‘ Le fy j ¥ fader RAE tee <7 : a aM be : aoe : wir: vaegres ‘2 yan sty ie aid \ ¥y ~ a eo . - ‘ a vig 2 PHY a See , ‘ 7 - ‘ 4 ul e * ’ \ tie Ped toad oie ae Bas bean DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL PORTRAITS HIS list is designed merely to give such facts about the origi- 5 ae as are not obvious from the reproductions. Under the heading “Other Issues” I have listed issues of the portrait under discussion other than the one here reproduced, but I have not tried to make this list complete, and additions to it can probably be made. Similarly, under “Other Reproductions” I have noted reproduc- tions of the various portraits which have appeared in other books, but I have not attempted an exhaustive bibliography, contenting myself with listing such reproductions as I have seen, in order that they may be used for purposes of comparison by anyone interested in them. Under “‘Location” I have noted where the original of each portrait may be found. When the original, as in the case of the prints, is in more than one collection or volume, I have mentioned only one or two places where the picture may be seen. The arrangement of the list is chronological, and the order in which the plates are mentioned here does not always accord with the placing of the reproductions in the text and with the order in which they are discussed there. 64 APPENDIX 1. Tue 1683 Mezzorint. Inscription: Vera| CRESCENTIL MATHERI | Effgies| Anno Domini 1683 Atatis 44.|T. Johnson Fecit | Dimensions: Platemark, height 5 inches, width 376 inches. Oval, height 3% inches, width 2% inches. Other Issues : Altered, in 1686. See number 2, below in this list. Other Reproductions : None known. Location : Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Mass. See pages 4-6, 34, and Plate I. 2. Tue 1686 Mezzorint. Inscription: Vera| CRESCENTIL MATHERI | Effgies | Anno Domini 1686 tatis 44.| Dimensions: Platemark, height 4% inches, width 34 inches. Oval, height 3% inches, width 23 inches. Other Issues : The original plate from which this is altered, in 1683. See number 1, above in this list. Other Reproductions : None known. Location : The British Museum. See pages 7-8, 34-35, and Plate I. 3. THe 1688 Portrait, By JAN VAN DER SPRIETT. Inscription: tatis suex 49 1688. Joh vander Sprjtt: 1688. Dimensions: Height 49 inches, width 41 inches. Other Reproductions : Jn color, none known. Location : Inscription : Dimensions : Other Issues : APPENDIX 65 In black and white—S. A. Green: Ten Fac-simile Reproductions Relating to Various Subjects. Chapter 1; A.W. H. Eaton : The Famous Mather Byles, 1914, 14; J. H. Benton: The Story of the Old Boston Town Hfouse,1908,101; andC. M. Andrews: The Fathers of New England, New Haven, 1919, 196. There are also many engravings after this portrait; see numbers 4, 5, 6,7, and 10, below in this list. Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, Mass. See pages 37-40, and Plate III (Frontispiece). 4. Tur Roperr Wuiret Encravinc. CRESCENTIUS MATHERUS. [S.T. P. Odiit Aug. 23.1723 Atatis Sux 85.|Vanderspirit pinxit. R. White Sculp. Londini| Also (in another state) with the above inscription changed so that the second line reads merely tatis Suze 49, 1688. Platemark, height 6% inches, width 44 inches. Oval (inside frame), height 376, width 376 inches. In 1688, with different inscription. See above. Other Reproductions : In W. H. Whitmore : The Andros Tracts, Location : Vol. 3, from a damaged print, repaired by piecing from the Sturt engraving; and John Fiske: The Beginnings of New England, 1898, 294. As a frontispiece in Memoirs of the Life of the Late Reverend Increase Mather, D.D.... With a Preface by....Hdmund Calamy, London, 1725. 66 Inscription : Dimensions: Other Issues: APPENDIX The print used for reproduction is owned by Harold Murdock, Esq., Brookline, Massachusetts. The 1688 issue is in the Boston Public Library’s copy of Increase Mather’s Cases of Conscience, Bos- ton, 1693, but it is trimmed so that the engraver’s name is lacking. A copy of this print, similarly trimmed, is owned by Thomas J. Holmes, Esq., and another, further cut down, by William Gwinn Mather, Esq. A complete copy of the 1688 print is inserted in a copy of Increase Mather’s J/lustrious Providences, 1684, owned by the British Museum. See pages 41-43, and Plate IV. 5. Tue Sturt Encravinc. CRESCENTIUS MATHERUS | £tatis Suz 85. 1724.|I. Sturt Sculp :| Also (in another state), with the second line reading Attatis Sux 50. 1689. Also (in a third state), with the second line reading “Etatis Sue 80, 1719. Platemark, height 676 inches, width 44 inches. Oval (inside frame), height 3té inches, width 376 inches. In 1689 and in 1719, with different inscriptions, See above. Other Reproductions: In W. H. Whitmore: The .4ndros Tracts, Vol. 3. Location : Inscription : Dimensions: Other Issues : APPENDIX 67 As a frontispiece in C. Mather: Parentator, Boston, 1724. The reproduction is from the Harvard Uni- versity Library copy of this book. The 1689 issue appears in a copy of I. Mather: Angelographia, Boston, 1696, owned by the Boston Public Library and, according to Dr. Green ( Ten Fac-simile Repro- ductions Relating to Various Subjects, 5), in a copy of I. Mather : Discourse proving that the Christian Re- ligion is the only True Religion, Boston, 1702. The first-mentioned copy is so trimmed that the engray- er’s name does not appear. I have not seen the second copy, referred to by Dr. Green. The 1719 issue appears, according to Dr. Green (Ibid.,5), in I. Mather: Sermons wherein those Eight Characters of the Blessed, etc. Boston, 1718. I have not seen a copy of this book with the portrait. See pages 42-43, and Plate V. 6. Tue Emmes Ewcravinec. Uncompleted state, without background. INCREASE MATHER | Tho: Emmes. sculp: | Sold by Nicolas Boone. 1701. The photograph used in preparing this book repre- sents an original too far trimmed to make possible exact determination of the actual measurements, and the original is not accessible. In completed form, with background, 1701, 1702. See number 7 below. 68 APPENDIX 7 Other Reproductions: In D. M. Stauffer: op. cit., 1:10, and in Location : Inscription : S.A. Green: Ten Fac-simile Reproductions Relating to Various Subjects, Boston, 1903, Chapter 1. Dr. Green, op. cit. 5, reports that the Boston Public Library, in 1903, owned a copy of I. Mather: Ichabod, Boston, 1702, containing this print. See pages 45-46, and Plate VII. 7. Tue Emmes Encravinc. Completed state, with background. Same as number 6 above. Also in another state, same as number 6 above but with 1702 instead of 1701. Dimensions: Engraved Surface. Dr. Green’s facsimile, the only Other Issues : copy of this print I have seen, represents an original too far trimmed to allow measurement of the out- side dimensions of the engraved surface. Oval (inside frame) (measurements from Dr.Green’s facsimile), height 316 inches, width impossible to determine because of trimming. In uncompleted form, 1701, see number 6 above. In completed form, 1702, ina copy of I. Mather: chabod, Boston, 1702. Other Reproductions : In S. A. Green: Ten Fac-simile Reproduc- Location : tions Relating to Various Subjects, Chapter 1. Dr.Green, op.cit. 6, credits the Boston Public Library witha copy of I. Mather: Ichabod, Boston, 1702, said by him to contain the portrait. Mr. W. H. APPENDIX 69 Whitmore owned a copy of I. Mather: The Blessed Hope, Boston, 1701, with this print, dated 1701. Mr. T. J. Holmes tells me this book was sold in 1902. I have traced no copy of the original print, and Dr. Green’s facsimile has been used for the re- production in this volume. See pages 43-46, and Plate VI. 8. Tue American ANTIQUARIAN SocrETy PAINTING. Inscription : Dimensions : None. Height 30 inches, width 25 inches. Other Reproductions: J. Winsor : Zhe Memorial History of Boston, Location : Inscription : Dimensions: Other Issues: Boston, 1880, 1: 587; E. C. Stedman, and E. M. Hutchinson : 4 Library of American Literature, N.Y. 1888-90, 2:76. The American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Mass. See pages 46-49, and Plate VIII. 9. Tue Horpwoop EncrRAvING. Hopwood, Sc. | Increase Mather | from an original Painting in the Possession of M? Townsend, Holborn | Published by Bulton &@ Son, Paternoster Row. | Platemark, height 6% inches, width 42 inches; En- graved oval, height 3% inches, width 24 inches. None known. - Other Reproductions : None known. 70 APPENDIX Location : InS. Palmer: edition of The Non-Conformist’s Me- morial, by Edmund Calamy, London, 1802. See pages 50-55, and Plate IX. 10. Wacsrarr anp ANDREWS ENGRAVING. Inscription: Vanveck Pinxt 1680.|C. E. Wagstaff & J. Andrews Sc. | witnesse | Increase Mather | The last two lines are in facsimile of Mather’s handwriting. Dimensions: Engraved Surface (exclusive of inscription), height 346 inches, width 3$ inches. Other Issues: In Congregational Quarterly, 3:317; 5. G. Drake: ‘The Listory of King Philip’s War, Boston, 1862; and H. E. Mather: Lineageof Rev. Richard Mather, Hartford, 1890, 61. Other Reproductions : In Mew England Magazine (1902), 26: 244, Location : In C. Robbins : 4 History of the Second Church, or Old North, in Boston, Boston, 1852, frontispiece. See pages 55-56, and Plate X. Printed by Bruce Rocers at the Harvard University Press, Cambridge in June, 1924, the text from the original types of JoHN BASKERVILLE owned by the Press. The edition consists of 250 copies. No. 2.34. ea mer my et - alt sgt Phy tenis Oe ah poms vic ing ssp a ; as Saher’ a Gait > as yur se a er Libel ae paneuant C keen sae pomeni ow iM sat Pe 2 cee oo Ht = ly ’ ¥ “3 ‘i > é ‘ r a = - 4 y ~ ri 6 i \ ~ ' ? . ~ ‘ . ‘ . v = B * “ : Fa ‘ -~ ‘ ‘ ’ 7 . oan A = - fe ‘ 7 t y a - . ” ‘ ¢ J . 1 m oe Fs wy Fi ’ Be ‘ ‘ e ra ’ fie - i y F ‘ * _, , bs ‘ { ‘ - a P 7 £3 - = (= 4 7 ‘ , : ; é - + ‘ +” ‘iit