The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

The Thirty-Fifth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva, Switzerland from April 25 to April 27, 2016.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Ajit Kumar, makes a keynote address at an event organized by WIPO and the Indian Government on October 6, 2015 on the sidelines of the WIPO Assemblies of Member States.

 

The “Make in India” event began with welcoming remarks by WIPO Director General Francis Gurry and the screening of a WIPO-produced film on a capacity building project sponsored by WIPO’s Accessible Books Consortium in India and a keynote address on the “Make in India” initiative by Ambassador Kumar, followed by a screening of a film on the “Make in India” initiative.

 

The event also included an exhibition on India’s varied geographical indications and a recital of traditional Indian music. Indian artisans also demonstrated their handiwork.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Violaine Martin. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

and should have been already on the other side.

Alchemists have also left indications of how this could be worked. As they were only able to describe the transmutation of the human forces by means of symbols, they therefore spoke of one substance being transmuted into another. All they related concerning the transmutation of matter, referred to what the human soul-life developed within itself at a higher stage, when it became transmuted spiritually. All that the great Spirits have disclosed about the Spiritual Realms to those men who are still bound to the life of every day, was taken by them as referring to the transmutation of substances and metals in the retorts, and they took great trouble to try and discover by what mysterious methods the transmutation of substances could be brought about.

Goethe, in one part of his “Faust,” shows us what he himself understood as to such things. In the first part of “Faust,” in the walk in front of the garden, he points clearly to the false, wrong and petty material conceptions that are held as to Alchemy. He makes fun of those who strive with such feverish efforts to discover these secrets, and who pour forth the lower substances, according to numberless receipts, in company of the Adepts.

“There a Red Lion, with the Lily wedded,

“A wooer bold, within the tepid bath,

“From bridal-bower to bridal-bower was speeded

“Racked by the naked fire's flaming wrath.”

The union with the Lily, which is made fun of by Goethe is what he wished to illustrate in his Fairy Tale, of the Green Serpent and the beautiful Lily.

The highest transmutation which man can accomplish is illustrated by Goethe in the symbol of the Lily. It is of like significance with what we call the Highest freedom. When a man follows the primal and eternal laws, in accordance with which we have to complete the primal and eternal circuit of our existence, and if he also recognises the primal and eternal evolution of his freedom, he will then find himself at a certain stage of his development which is accomplished by a disposition of the soul, which may be described by the symbol of the Lily. The highest forces of the soul, the highest state of consciousness, in which a man may be free because he will then not misuse his freedom, and will never create a disturbance in the circle of freedom, — this state of soul, which was communicated to the Mystics in the Mysteries, in which they were collectively transmuted, — this was from all time described as the “Lily.”

That which Spinoza expresses at the end of his “Ethics,” (dry and mathematical as he was in his other writings) — when he says that man ascended into the higher spheres of existence and penetrated them by means of the laws of nature, — this state of mind may also be described as the Lily, Spinoza describes it as the realm of Divine Love in the human soul, the realm in which man does nothing under compulsion, but in which everything belonging to the domain of human development takes place in freedom, devotion and utter Love, where everything arbitrary is transmuted by that Spiritual Alchemy in which every activity flows into the stream of freedom.

Goethe has described that Love as the highest state of Freedom, as the being free from all desires and wishes of our every-day life. He says, “Self-seeking and Self-will are not permanent, they are driven out by the Ego. Here we must be good.” The Divine Love, which is referred to by Spinoza, and which he wishes to attain through Spiritual Alchemy, — that it is with which man should unite himself, that it is with which man should unite his will. Human will active at every stage, is that which in all ages was known as the “Lion,” the creature in which the Will is most strongly developed, and that is why the Mystics have always called the will of man: the “Lion.” In the Persian Mysteries there were seven Initiations; there were the following: first the Raven, then the Occultist, then the Fighter; at the fourth grade the student was already able to look back at his life from the other side, and had really become Man, hence the Persians called one who had overcome the Lion stage a Persian. That was the fifth stage, and a man who had got so far that his actions flowed quickly along, just as the Sun runs its course in the Heavens above, was called a Sun-runner. But he who accomplished all his actions out of absolute and ceaseless love, was looked upon by the Persians as belonging to the grade of the “Father.” At the fourth grade, a man stood at the parting of the ways; he had then, besides his physical body, his etheric double, and that body which is subject to the laws of passions and desires, wishes and instincts; he was now organized for a higher life. These three bodies form, according to Theosophy, the lower part of man. From these the lower man is born. When a man was initiated into this grade and could see this connection the Persians called him a “Lion.” He then stands at the parting of the ways, and that which compelled him to act according to the laws of nature is transmuted into a free gift of Love. When he reaches the eighth stage of Initiation, when he has evolved himself into a free man, one who can allow himself to do, out of free love, what he was formerly driven to do by his own nature, this connection between the Lion and the free loving being, is described in Alchemy as “the mystery of human development.” This is the mystery Goethe represented in his Fairy Tale. First of all he shows us how this man of will stands there, drawn down to the physical world from higher spheres, from spheres of which he himself knows nothing. Goethe is conscious of the fact that man, in so far as his spiritual nature is concerned, comes originally from higher spheres; that he was led into this which Goethe represents as the world of matter, the world of sense-existence, this is the Land on the bank of the River.

 

Year indication painted on sandstone, seen on the facade of a city villa in the style of the Dutch modern architecture from around 1900. Hendrik Pieter Berlage (1856-1934) was an important Dutch architect representing this innovative style. If he was also the architect of this house I doubt.

 

About the history of the use of year stones in architecture:

English: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_plate

Dutch: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muuranker

And: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaartallen_op_gebouwen

 

Amsterdam-Centrum, Plantagebuurt, Plantage Lepellaan, July 16, 2013.

 

© 2013 Sander Toonen Amsterdam/Halfweg | All Rights Reserved

An exhibition co-organized by WIPO and Turkey was held on the sidelines of the WIPO Assemblies, which met in Geneva from October 3 to 11, 2016.

 

The event entitled “Turkish Culture and Geographical Indications” showcased a snapshot of Turkey’s rich culture and geographical indications and was inaugurated on October 4, 2016.

 

It featured examples of Turkey’s protected geographic indications, including Afyon marble, Antep Kutnu cloth, Gaziantep mother-of-pearl inlaying and Safranbolu Turkish delight. The inauguration also featured a performance of traditional Turkish music.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Violaine Martin. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

Una abella carregada vola cap a la flor del bordiol blanc.

 

Una abeja cargada de polen volando hacia la flor de la esta blanca.

 

A bee with polen is flying to the flower.

The Thirty-Fourth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva, Switzerland from November 16 to November 18, 2015.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

Nokia N93i

Technical Specifications

 

General | Imaging | Music | Explore | Video | Package Contents

   

General

 

Operating Frequency

 

RM-156(Dual-mode) WCDMA2100+EGSM900/1800/1900 MHz

Dimensions

 

Volume: 115.6 cc

Weight: 163 g (estimate)

Length: 108

Width: 58(max)

Thickness: 25(max) mm

Memory Functions

 

Up to 50 Mbytes internal dynamic user memory

Mini-SD memory card support (hot swappable)

Approx. Memory capacity indication with 1GB mini-SD (sold separately)

- Video (VGA @ 30fps ) up to 42 min

- Photos (3 Megapixel) up to 556 photos

- Music (AAC) up to 267 tracks

Operating Times*

 

Talk time: 3.1 - 3.9 hours (GSM), 1.7 - 3.3 hours (up to 180 min(WCDMA & GSM)

Standby: 9.3 - 11.8 days (GSM), 7.8 - 9.4 days up to 240 Hours (WCDMA & GSM)

Still Images: up to 400 291 pictures (3 Megapixel, Flash off)

Video capture up to 112 min (VGA, 30fps)

Video call up to 107 min

Video playback up to 205 min (VGA, 30fps)

Music playback up to 10 6.3 hours (offline mode)

* Operation times may vary depending on radio access technology used, operator network configuration and usage.

 

** Battery talk and standby times are estimates only and depend on network configuration, signal strength, features used, battery age and condition, charging practices, temperatures to which battery is exposed, whether use is in digital mode (or analog mode, if any), and many other factors. The amount of time a phone is used for calls will affect its standby time. Likewise, the amount of time that the phone is turned on and in standby mode will affect its talk time.

 

Charging Time

 

Charging (AC-4) 1h 15min

Form and Function

 

Twist and Shoot form factor with 4 modes: Imaging mode for capture, View mode for reliving memories, Fold open mode for talking and Fold closed mode for carrying.

Dedicated keys for camera control

Support of applications in both portrait and landscape orientations

Displays

 

Rotatable 2.4" QVGA (240 x 320 pixels) TFT full transmissive color display with up to 16 million colors and wide 160° viewing angle. Ambient light detector - used to optimize display brightness and power consumption

Sub-display - 1.1" OLED color display (128x36), up to 65,536 colors.

Slideshow from gallery

Cover indicator for power ON, charging and missed calls

User Interface

 

Operating system: Symbian OS

User Interface: S60 3rd Edition

5-way scroll key, selection keys, menu key, edit and clear keys, call and end keys

Multimedia key for quick access to your favorite content

Additional selection keys for landscape mode

Side joystick, camera mode key and flash key

Dedicated keys for capture and zoom

Active standby screen

Call Management

 

Call Logs, Speed dial, Voice dialing (with SIND) and voice commands

Nokia Push to talk (PoC)

Contacts: advanced contacts database with support for multiple phone and e-mail details per entry, also supports thumbnail pictures and groups

Speed dialing

Logs: keeps lists of your dialed, received, and missed calls

Automatic redial

Automatic answer (works with compatible headset or car kit only)

Supports fixed dialing number, which allows calls only to predefined numbers

Conference call

Voice Features

 

Speaker independent name dialing (SIND)

Voice commands

Voice recorder

Talking ringtone

Integrated hands-free speaker

Messaging

 

Text messaging: supports concatenated SMS, picture messaging, SMS distribution list

Multimedia messaging: combine image, video, text, and audio clip and send as MMS to a compatible phone or PC; use MMS to tell your story with a multi-slide presentation

Automatic resizing of your megapixel images to fit MMS (max. 300 KB attachment size depending on the network)

Predictive text input: support for all major languages in Europe and Asia-Pacific

Data Transfer*

 

WCDMA 2100 with simultaneous voice and packet data (PS max speed UL/DL= 384/384kbps, CS max speed 64kbps)

Dual Transfer Mode (DTM) support for simultaneous voice and packet data connection in GSM/EDGE networks. Simple class A, multi slot class 11, max speed DL/UL: 177.6/118.4 kbits/s

EGPRS class B, multi slot class 32, max speed DL/UL= 296 / 177.6 kbits/s

*Actual achieved speeds may vary depending on network support.

 

Connectivity

 

Integrated wireless LAN (802.11 b/g) and UPnP (Universal Plug and Play)

Integrated Bluetooth wireless technology v.2.0

USB 2.0 via Pop-Port™ interface and mass storage class support to support drag and drop functionality

TV out support (PAL/NTSC)

Nokia PC Suite connectivity with USB, Infrared and Bluetooth wireless technology

Local synchronization of contacts and calendar to a compatible PC using compatible connection

Remote over-the-air synchronization

Send and receive images, video clips, graphics, and business cards via Bluetooth wireless technology

Java Applications

 

Java MIDP 2.0, CLDC 1.1 (Connected Limited Device Configuration (J2ME))

Over-the-air download of Java-based applications and games

Other Applications

 

Personal Information Management (PIM)

Advanced S60 PIM features including calendar, contacts, to-do list, and PIM printing

Settings Wizard for easy configuration of e-mail, push to talk and video sharing.

Data transfer application for transfer of PIM information from other compatible Nokia devices.

Digital Services

 

Java™ and Symbian applications available from Nokia Software Market

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Imaging

 

Capture: Main Camera

 

Sensor : CMOS, 3.2 Megapixel (2048x1536)

Carl Zeiss Optics Vario-Tessar lens

F number/Aperture F3.3 (Wide) / F5.9 (Tele)

Focal length 4.5 mm (Wide) /12.4 mm (Tele) 34.25 - 94.1 mm (35mm equiv.)

Focus range 10 cm ~ infinity

Macro focus distance 30 cm (macro @ Wide) 10 cm (macro @ Middle to Tele)

Shutter speed Mechanical shutter :1/2400~1/3 s

Lens protection Removable lens cap

Video

 

Video resolution up to VGA at 30 fps

Audio recording AAC stereo, 48kHz

Video Stabilization

Video clip length Max 60 min per clip

Video file format .mp4 (default), .3gp (for MMS)

White Balance Automatic, Sunny, Cloudy, Incandescent, Fluorescent

Scene Normal, Night, User selectable

Color tone Sepia, B&W, Negative, Flicker cancellation.

Zoom (optical/digital) 3x / up to 8x

Photo

 

Still Image resolutions up to 3.2 megapixel: 2048 x 1536

Still Image file format JPEG/EXIF

Auto Focus Yes

Auto Exposure Center weighted AE

Exposure compensation +1 ~ -1EV at 0.5 step

White Balance Automatic, Sunny, Cloudy Incandescent, Fluorescent

Scene Auto, User defined, Portrait, Close-up , Landscape, Night

Color tone Normal, Sepia, B&W, Negative

Zoom (optical/digital) 3x / up to 20x

Picture rotation Yes

Other camera features

 

Digital stereo microphone.

LED Flash and red recording indicator LED.

Sub camera, CIF (352 x 288) sensor.

Edit

 

On device photo editor and video editor (manual & automatic).

Home video editing on compatible PC with Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0(Win XP)

View

 

Rotatable 2.4" QVGA(240 x 320 pixels) TFT full transmissive color display with up to 16 million colors and wide 160° viewing angle. Ambient light detector - used to optimize display brightness and power consumption

Sub-display - 1.1" OLED color display (128x36), up to 65,536 colors.

Slideshow from gallery

Cover indicator for power ON, charging and missed calls

Share

 

Direct connection to compatible TV via Nokia Video-out Connectivity Cable (CA-64U, included in-box) or wireless LAN

Video call and video sharing support. (WCDMA network services)

Online Album/blog : Image/Video uploading from gallery

Store

 

Comes with Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0 and Adobe Photoshop Album 3.0 Starter Edition.

Easy DVD creation

Nokia Lifeblog

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Music

 

Music Features

 

Digital Music player: supports MP3/AAC/WMA with playlists and equalizer.

OMA DRM 2.0 support for music.

Stereo FM radio (87.5-108MHz/76-90MHz)

Integrated hands-free speaker

Nokia Stereo Headset HS-23, in-box

Visual Radio *

 

Listen to music and interact with your favorite radio stations

Find out what song is playing, who sings it, and other artist information

Enter contests and answer surveys, vote for your favorite songs

Find out more about Visual Radio

* To check the availability and cost of the service, contact your network operator or service provider.

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Explore

 

Messaging

 

E-mail (SMTP, IMAP4, POP3), MMS, SMS

Office applications: Supports viewing of common e-mail attachments - Word, Spreadsheet, Presentation, PDF, ZIP

PIM

 

Contacts, Calendar, To-do, Notes, Recorder, Calculator, Clock, Converter

Synchronization - Nokia Nseries PC Suite

 

Local/Remote (using SyncML)

Data: Calendar, Contacts, To-do, Notes, E-mail

PC Applications: Microsoft Outlook (98, 2000, 2002, 2003), Outlook Express, Lotus Organizer (5.0, 6.0), Lotus Notes (5.0, 6.0)

Connectivity

 

WLAN - IEEE802.11 g/b with UPnPsupport (RM-156 only)

WLAN wizard

Pop-Port™ interface with USB 2.0 and TV out support (PAL/NTSC)

Bluetooth wireless technology 2.0

Infrared

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  

Video

  

Mobile TV experience with video streaming

True Web experience with Nokia Web browser (with Mini Map)

Visual Radio support

    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Package Contents

 

Standard Sales Package Contents*

 

Nokia N93i

Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0 PC software

Nokia Battery BL-5F, 950 mAh

Nokia Travel Charger AC-4

Nokia Wired Headset HS-23

Nokia Connectivity Cable CA-53

Nokia Video Connectivity Cable CA-64U

Nokia miniSD card MU-24**

Nokia Soft Pouch CP-83

Nokia Wrist Strap CP-130

* Sales package content may vary by region.

 

** Please note different miniSD configurations may be available depending on country or operator configuration.

 

SAR

 

Eco Declaration

 

Declaration of Conformity

 

Specifications are subject to change without notice.

 

The availability of particular products and services may vary by region. Check with the Nokia dealer nearest to you.

 

Operations, services and some features may be dependent on the network and/or SIM card as well as on the compatibility of the devices used and the content formats supported. Some services are subject to a separate charge. For more information, contact your service provider.

     

The Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities (Russian: Государственная корпорация по космической деятельности «Роскосмос»), commonly known simply as Roscosmos (Russian: Роскосмос), is a state corporation of the Russian Federation responsible for space flights, cosmonautics programs, and aerospace research.

 

Originating from the Soviet space program founded in the 1950s, Roscosmos emerged following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It initially began as the Russian Space Agency, which was established on 25 February 1992 and restructured in 1999 and 2004, as the Russian Aviation and Space Agency and the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos), respectively. In 2015, the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) was merged with the United Rocket and Space Corporation, a government corporation, to re-nationalize the space industry of Russia, leading to Roscosmos in its current form.

 

Roscosmos is headquartered in Moscow, with its main Mission Control Center in the nearby city of Korolyov, and the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center located in Star City in Moscow Oblast. Its launch facilities include Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, the world's first and largest spaceport, and Vostochny Cosmodrome, which is being built in the Russian Far East in Amur Oblast. Its director since July 2022 is Yury Borisov.

 

As the main successor to the Soviet space program, Roscosmos' legacy includes the world's first satellite, first human spaceflight, and first space station (Salyut). Its current activities include the International Space Station, wherein it is a major partner. On 22 February 2019, Roscosmos announced the construction of its new headquarters in Moscow, the National Space Centre. Its Astronaut Corps is the first in the world's history.

 

Voronezh is a city and the administrative centre of Voronezh Oblast in southwestern Russia straddling the Voronezh River, located 12 kilometers (7.5 mi) from where it flows into the Don River. The city sits on the Southeastern Railway, which connects western Russia with the Urals and Siberia, the Caucasus and Ukraine, and the M4 highway (Moscow–Voronezh–Rostov-on-Don–Novorossiysk). In recent years the city has experienced rapid population growth, rising in 2021 to 1,057,681, up from 889,680 recorded in the 2010 Census, making it the 14th-most populous city in the country.

 

History

The first chronicle references to the word "Voronezh" are dated 1177, when the Ryazan prince Yaropolk, having lost the battle, fled "to Voronozh" and there was moving "from town to town". Modern data of archeology and history interpret Voronezh as a geographical region, which included the Voronezh river (tributary of the Don) and a number of settlements. In the lower reaches of the river, a unique Slavic town-planning complex of the 8th – early 11th century was discovered, which covered the territory of the present city of Voronezh and its environs (about 42 km long, about 13 forts and many unfortified villages). By the 12th – 13th centuries, most of the old towns were desolate, but new settlements appeared upstream, closer to Ryazan.

 

For many years, the hypothesis of the Soviet historian Vladimir Zagorovsky dominated: he produced the toponym "Voronezh" from the hypothetical Slavic personal name Voroneg. This man allegedly gave the name of a small town in the Chernigov Principality (now the village of Voronezh in Ukraine). Later, in the 11th or 12th century, the settlers were able to "transfer" this name to the Don region, where they named the second city Voronezh, and the river got its name from the city. However, now many researchers criticize the hypothesis, since in reality neither the name of Voroneg nor the second city was revealed, and usually the names of Russian cities repeated the names of the rivers, but not vice versa.

 

The linguistic comparative analysis of the name "Voronezh" was carried out by the Khovansky Foundation in 2009. There is an indication of the place names of many countries in Eurasia, which may partly be not only similar in sound, but also united by common Indo-European languages: Varanasi, Varna, Verona, Brno, etc.

 

A comprehensive scientific analysis was conducted in 2015–2016 by the historian Pavel Popov. His conclusion: "Voronezh" is a probable Slavic macrotoponym associated with outstanding signs of nature, has a root voron- (from the proto-Slavic vorn) in the meaning of "black, dark" and the suffix -ezh (-azh, -ozh). It was not “transferred” and in the 8th - 9th centuries it marked a vast territory covered with black forests (oak forests) - from the mouth of the Voronezh river to the Voronozhsky annalistic forests in the middle and upper reaches of the river, and in the west to the Don (many forests were cut down). The historian believes that the main "city" of the early town-planning complex could repeat the name of the region – Voronezh. Now the hillfort is located in the administrative part of the modern city, in the Voronezh upland oak forest. This is one of Europe's largest ancient Slavic hillforts, the area of which – more than 9 hectares – 13 times the area of the main settlement in Kyiv before the baptism of Rus.

 

In it is assumed that the word "Voronezh" means bluing - a technique to increase the corrosion resistance of iron products. This explanation fits well with the proximity to the ancient city of Voronezh of a large iron deposit and the city of Stary Oskol.

 

Folk etymology claims the name comes from combining the Russian words for raven (ворон) and hedgehog (еж) into Воронеж. According to this explanation two Slavic tribes named after the animals used this combination to name the river which later in turn provided the name for a settlement. There is not believed to be any scientific support for this explanation.

 

In the 16th century, the Middle Don basin, including the Voronezh river, was gradually conquered by Muscovy from the Nogai Horde (a successor state of the Golden Horde), and the current city of Voronezh was established in 1585 by Feodor I as a fort protecting the Muravsky Trail trade route against the slave raids of the Nogai and Crimean Tatars. The city was named after the river.

 

17th to 19th centuries

In the 17th century, Voronezh gradually evolved into a sizable town. Weronecz is shown on the Worona river in Resania in Joan Blaeu's map of 1645. Peter the Great built a dockyard in Voronezh where the Azov Flotilla was constructed for the Azov campaigns in 1695 and 1696. This fleet, the first ever built in Russia, included the first Russian ship of the line, Goto Predestinatsia. The Orthodox diocese of Voronezh was instituted in 1682 and its first bishop, Mitrofan of Voronezh, was later proclaimed the town's patron saint.

 

Owing to the Voronezh Admiralty Wharf, for a short time, Voronezh became the largest city of South Russia and the economic center of a large and fertile region. In 1711, it was made the seat of the Azov Governorate, which eventually morphed into the Voronezh Governorate.

 

In the 19th century, Voronezh was a center of the Central Black Earth Region. Manufacturing industry (mills, tallow-melting, butter-making, soap, leather, and other works) as well as bread, cattle, suet, and the hair trade developed in the town. A railway connected Voronezh with Moscow in 1868 and Rostov-on-Don in 1871.

 

20th century

World War II

During World War II, Voronezh was the scene of fierce fighting between Soviet and combined Axis troops. The Germans used it as a staging area for their attack on Stalingrad, and made it a key crossing point on the Don River. In June 1941, two BM-13 (Fighting machine #13 Katyusha) artillery installations were built at the Voronezh excavator factory. In July, the construction of Katyushas was rationalized so that their manufacture became easier and the time of volley repetition was shortened from five minutes to fifteen seconds. More than 300 BM-13 units manufactured in Voronezh were used in a counterattack near Moscow in December 1941. In October 22, 1941, the advance of the German troops prompted the establishment of a defense committee in the city. On November 7, 1941, there was a troop parade, devoted to the anniversary of the October Revolution. Only three such parades were organized that year: in Moscow, Kuybyshev, and Voronezh. In late June 1942, the city was attacked by German and Hungarian forces. In response, Soviet forces formed the Voronezh Front. By July 6, the German army occupied the western river-bank suburbs before being subjected to a fierce Soviet counter-attack. By July 24 the frontline had stabilised along the Voronezh River as the German forces continued southeast into the Great Bend of the Don. The attack on Voronezh represented the first phase of the German Army's 1942 campaign in the Soviet Union, codenamed Case Blue.

 

Until January 25, 1943, parts of the Second German Army and the Second Hungarian Army occupied the western part of Voronezh. During Operation Little Saturn, the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive, and the Voronezhsko-Kastornenskoy Offensive, the Voronezh Front exacted heavy casualties on Axis forces. On January 25, 1943, Voronezh was liberated after ten days of combat. During the war the city was almost completely ruined, with 92% of all buildings destroyed.

 

Post-war

By 1950, Voronezh had been rebuilt. Most buildings and historical monuments were repaired. It was also the location of a prestigious Suvorov Military School, a boarding school for young boys who were considered to be prospective military officers, many of whom had been orphaned by war.

 

In 1950–1960, new factories were established: a tire factory, a machine-tool factory, a factory of heavy mechanical pressing, and others. In 1968, Serial production of the Tupolev Tu-144 supersonic plane was established at the Voronezh Aviation factory. In October 1977, the first Soviet domestic wide-body plane, Ilyushin Il-86, was built there.

 

In 1989, TASS published details of an alleged UFO landing in the city's park and purported encounters with extraterrestrial beings reported by a number of children. A Russian scientist that was cited in initial TASS reports later told the Associated Press that he was misquoted, cautioning, "Don't believe all you hear from TASS," and "We never gave them part of what they published", and a TASS correspondent admitted the possibility that some "make-believe" had been added to the TASS story, saying, "I think there is a certain portion of truth, but it is not excluded that there is also fantasizing".

 

21st century

From 10 to 17 September 2011, Voronezh celebrated its 425th anniversary. The anniversary of the city was given the status of a federal scale celebration that helped attract large investments from the federal and regional budgets for development.

 

On December 17, 2012, Voronezh became the fifteenth city in Russia with a population of over one million people.

 

Today Voronezh is the economic, industrial, cultural, and scientific center of the Central Black Earth Region. As part of the annual tradition in the Russian city of Voronezh, every winter the main city square is thematically drawn around a classic literature. In 2020, the city was decorated using the motifs from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker. In the year of 2021, the architects drew inspiration from Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen as well as the animation classic The Snow Queen from the Soviet Union. The fairy tale replica city will feature the houses of Kai and Gerda, the palace of the snow queen, an ice rink, and illumination.

 

In June 2023, during the Wagner Group rebellion, forces of the Wagner Group claimed to have taken control of military facilities in the city. Later they were confirmed to have taken the city itself.

 

Administrative and municipal status

Voronezh is the administrative center of the oblast.[1] Within the framework of administrative divisions, it is incorporated as Voronezh Urban Okrug—an administrative unit with the status equal to that of the districts.[1] As a municipal division, this administrative unit also has urban okrug status.

 

City divisions

The city is divided into six administrative districts:

 

Zheleznodorozhny (183,17 km²)

Tsentralny (63,96 km²)

Kominternovsky (47,41 km²)

Leninsky (18,53 km²)

Sovetsky (156,6 km²)

Levoberezhny (123,89 km²)

 

Economy

The leading sectors of the urban economy in the 20th century were mechanical engineering, metalworking, the electronics industry and the food industry.

 

In the city are such companies as:

Tupolev Tu-144

Voronezhselmash (agricultural engineering)

Sozvezdie[36] (headquarter, JSC Concern “Sozvezdie”, in 1958 the world's first created mobile telephony and wireless telephone Altai

Verofarm (pharmaceutics, owner Abbott Laboratories),

Voronezh Mechanical Plant[37] (production of missile and aircraft engines, oil and gas equipment)

Mining Machinery Holding - RUDGORMASH[38] (production of drilling, mineral processing and mining equipment)

VNiiPM Research Institute of Semiconductor Engineering (equipment for plasma-chemical processes, technical-chemical equipment for liquid operations, water treatment equipment)

KBKhA Chemical Automatics Design Bureau with notable products:.

Pirelli Voronezh.

On the territory of the city district government Maslovka Voronezh region with the support of the Investment Fund of Russia, is implementing a project to create an industrial park, "Maslowski", to accommodate more than 100 new businesses, including the transformer factory of Siemens. On September 7, 2011 in Voronezh there opened a Global network operation center of Nokia Siemens Networks, which was the fifth in the world and the first in Russia.

 

Construction

In 2014, 926,000 square meters of housing was delivered.

 

Clusters of Voronezh

In clusters of tax incentives and different preferences, the full support of the authorities. A cluster of Oil and Gas Equipment, Radio-electronic cluster, Furniture cluster, IT cluster, Cluster aircraft, Cluster Electromechanics, Transport and logistics cluster, Cluster building materials and technologies.

 

Geography

Urban layout

Information about the original urban layout of Voronezh is contained in the "Patrol Book" of 1615. At that time, the city fortress was logged and located on the banks of the Voronezh River. In plan, it was an irregular quadrangle with a perimeter of about 238 meter. inside it, due to lack of space, there was no housing or siege yards, and even the cathedral church was supposed to be taken out. However, at this small fortress there was a large garrison - 666 households of service people. These courtyards were reliably protected by the second line of fortifications by a standing prison on taras with 25 towers covered with earth; behind the prison was a moat, and beyond the moat there were stakes. Voronezh was a typical military settlement (ostrog). In the city prison there were only settlements of military men: Streletskaya, Kazachya, Belomestnaya atamanskaya, Zatinnaya and Pushkarskaya. The posad population received the territory between the ostrog and the river, where the Monastyrskaya settlements (at the Assumption Monastery) was formed. Subsequently, the Yamnaya Sloboda was added to them, and on the other side of the fort, on the Chizhovka Mountain, the Chizhovskaya Sloboda of archers and Cossacks appeared. As a result, the Voronezh settlements surrounded the fortress in a ring. The location of the parish churches emphasized this ring-like and even distribution of settlements: the Ilyinsky Church of the Streletskaya Sloboda, the Pyatnitskaya Cossack and Pokrovskaya Belomestnaya were brought out to the passage towers of the prison. The Nikolskaya Church of the Streletskaya Sloboda was located near the marketplace (and, accordingly, the front facade of the fortress), and the paired ensemble of the Rozhdestvenskaya and Georgievskaya churches of the Cossack Sloboda marked the main street of the city, going from the Cossack Gate to the fortress tower.

 

Climate

Voronezh experiences a humid continental climate (Köppen: Dfb) with long, cold winters and short, warm summers.

 

Transportation

Air

The city is served by the Voronezh International Airport, which is located north of the city and is home to Polet Airlines. Voronezh is also home to the Pridacha Airport, a part of a major aircraft manufacturing facility VASO (Voronezhskoye Aktsionernoye Samoletostroitelnoye Obshchestvo, Voronezh aircraft production association) where the Tupolev Tu-144 (known in the West as the "Concordski"), was built and the only operational unit is still stored. Voronezh also hosts the Voronezh Malshevo air force base in the southwest of the city, which, according to a Natural Resources Defense Council report, houses nuclear bombers.[citation needed]

 

Rail

Since 1868, there is a railway connection between Voronezh and Moscow. Rail services form a part of the South Eastern Railway of the Russian Railways. Destinations served direct from Voronezh include Moscow, Kyiv, Kursk, Novorossiysk, Sochi, and Tambov. The main train station is called Voronezh-1 railway station and is located in the center of the city.

 

Bus

There are three bus stations in Voronezh that connect the city with destinations including Moscow, Belgorod, Lipetsk, Volgograd, Rostov-on-Don, and Astrakhan.

 

Education and culture

Aviastroiteley Park

The city has seven theaters, twelve museums, a number of movie theaters, a philharmonic hall, and a circus. It is also a major center of higher education in central Russia. The main educational facilities include:

 

Voronezh State University

Voronezh State Technical University

Voronezh State University of Architecture and Construction

Voronezh State Pedagogical University

Voronezh State Agricultural University

Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies

Voronezh State Medical University named after N. N. Burdenko

Voronezh State Academy of Arts

Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies named after G.F. Morozov

Voronezh State Institute of Physical Training

Voronezh Institute of Russia's Home Affairs Ministry

Voronezh Institute of High Technologies

Military Educational and Scientific Center of the Air Force «N.E. Zhukovsky and Y.A. Gagarin Air Force Academy» (Voronezh)

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (Voronezh branch)

Russian State University of Justice

Admiral Makarov State University of Sea and River Fleet (Voronezh branch)

International Institute of Computer Technologies

Voronezh Institute of Economics and Law

and a number of other affiliate and private-funded institutes and universities. There are 2000 schools within the city.

 

Theaters

Voronezh Chamber Theatre

Koltsov Academic Drama Theater

Voronezh State Opera and Ballet Theatre

Shut Puppet Theater

 

Festivals

Platonov International Arts Festival

 

Sports

ClubSportFoundedCurrent LeagueLeague

RankStadium

Fakel VoronezhFootball1947Russian Premier League1stTsentralnyi Profsoyuz Stadion

Energy VoronezhFootball1989Women's Premier League1stRudgormash Stadium

Buran VoronezhIce Hockey1977Higher Hockey League2ndYubileyny Sports Palace

VC VoronezhVolleyball2006Women's Higher Volleyball League A2ndKristall Sports Complex

 

Religion

Annunciation Orthodox Cathedral in Voronezh

Orthodox Christianity is the predominant religion in Voronezh.[citation needed] There is an Orthodox Jewish community in Voronezh, with a synagogue located on Stankevicha Street.

 

In 1682, the Voronezh diocese was formed to fight the schismatics. Its first head was Bishop Mitrofan (1623-1703) at the age of 58. Under him, the construction began on the new Annunciation Cathedral to replace the old one. In 1832, Mitrofan was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

In the 1990s, many Orthodox churches were returned to the diocese. Their restoration was continued. In 2009, instead of the lost one, a new Annunciation Cathedral was built with a monument to St. Mitrofan erected next to it.

 

Cemeteries

There are ten cemeteries in Voronezh:

Levoberezhnoye Cemetery

Lesnoye Cemetery

Jewish Cemetery

Nikolskoye Cemetery

Pravoberezhnoye Cemetery

Budyonnovskoe Cemetery

Yugo-Zapadnoye Cemetery

Podgorenskоye Cemetery

Kominternovskoe Cemetery

Ternovoye Cemetery is а historical site closed to the public.

 

Born in Voronezh

18th century

Yevgeny Bolkhovitinov (1767–1837), Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia

Mikhail Pavlov (1792–1840), Russian academic and professor at Moscow University

19th century

1801–1850

Aleksey Koltsov (1809–1842), Russian poet

Ivan Nikitin (1824–1861), Russian poet

Nikolai Ge (1831–1894), Russian realist painter famous for his works on historical and religious motifs

Vasily Sleptsov (1836–1878), Russian writer and social reformer

Nikolay Kashkin (1839–1920), Russian music critic

1851–1900

Valentin Zhukovski (1858–1918), Russian orientalist

Vasily Goncharov (1861–1915), Russian film director and screenwriter, one of the pioneers of the film industry in the Russian Empire

Anastasiya Verbitskaya (1861–1928), Russian novelist, playwright, screenplay writer, publisher and feminist

Mikhail Olminsky (1863–1933), Russian Communist

Serge Voronoff (1866–1951), French surgeon of Russian extraction

Andrei Shingarev (1869–1918), Russian doctor, publicist and politician

Ivan Bunin (1870–1953), the first Russian writer to win the Nobel Prize for Literature

Alexander Ostuzhev (1874–1953), Russian and Soviet drama actor

Valerian Albanov (1881–1919), Russian navigator and polar explorer

Jan Hambourg (1882–1947), Russian violinist, a member of a famous musical family

Volin (1882–1945), anarchist

Boris Hambourg (1885–1954), Russian cellist who made his career in the USA, Canada, England and Europe

Boris Eikhenbaum (1886–1959), Russian and Soviet literary scholar, and historian of Russian literature

Anatoly Durov (1887–1928), Russian animal trainer

Samuil Marshak (1887–1964), Russian and Soviet writer, translator and children's poet

Eduard Shpolsky (1892–1975), Russian and Soviet physicist and educator

George of Syracuse (1893–1981), Eastern Orthodox archbishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Yevgeny Gabrilovich (1899–1993), Soviet screenwriter

Semyon Krivoshein (1899–1978), Soviet tank commander; Lieutenant General

Andrei Platonov (1899–1951), Soviet Russian writer, playwright and poet

Ivan Pravov (1899–1971), Russian and Soviet film director and screenwriter

William Dameshek (1900–1969), American hematologist

20th century

1901–1930

Ivan Nikolaev (1901–1979), Soviet architect and educator

Galina Shubina (1902–1980), Russian poster and graphics artist

Pavel Cherenkov (1904–1990), Soviet physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in physics in 1958 with Ilya Frank and Igor Tamm for the discovery of Cherenkov radiation, made in 1934

Yakov Kreizer (1905–1969), Soviet field commander, General of the army and Hero of the Soviet Union

Iosif Rudakovsky (1914–1947), Soviet chess master

Pawel Kassatkin (1915–1987), Russian writer

Alexander Shelepin (1918–1994), Soviet state security officer and party statesman

Grigory Baklanov (1923–2009), Russian writer

Gleb Strizhenov (1923–1985), Soviet actor

Vladimir Zagorovsky (1925–1994), Russian chess grandmaster of correspondence chess and the fourth ICCF World Champion between 1962 and 1965

Konstantin Feoktistov (1926–2009), cosmonaut and engineer

Vitaly Vorotnikov (1926–2012), Soviet statesman

Arkady Davidowitz (1930), writer and aphorist

1931–1950

Grigory Sanakoev (1935), Russian International Correspondence Chess Grandmaster, most famous for being the twelfth ICCF World Champion (1984–1991)

Yuri Zhuravlyov (1935), Russian mathematician

Mykola Koltsov (1936–2011), Soviet footballer and Ukrainian football children and youth trainer

Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov (1936), Russian composer

Iya Savvina (1936–2011), Soviet film actress

Tamara Zamotaylova (1939), Soviet gymnast, who won four Olympic medals at the 1960 and 1964 Summer Olympics

Yury Smolyakov (1941), Soviet Olympic fencer

Yevgeny Lapinsky (1942–1999), Soviet Olympic volleyball player

Galina Bukharina (1945), Soviet athlete

Vladimir Patkin (1945), Soviet Olympic volleyball player

Vladimir Proskurin (1945), Soviet Russian football player and coach

Aleksandr Maleyev (1947), Soviet artistic gymnast

Valeri Nenenko (1950), Russian professional football coach and player

1951–1970

Vladimir Rokhlin, Jr. (1952), Russian-American mathematician and professor of computer science and mathematics at the Yale University

Lyubov Burda (1953), Russian artistic gymnast

Mikhail Khryukin (1955), Russian swimmer

Aleksandr Tkachyov (1957), Russian gymnast and two times Olympic Champion

Nikolai Vasilyev (1957), Russian professional football coach and player

Aleksandr Babanov (1958), Russian professional football coach and player

Sergey Koliukh (1960), Russian political figure; 4th Mayor of Voronezh

Yelena Davydova (1961), Soviet gymnast

Aleksandr Borodyuk (1962), Russian football manager and former international player for USSR and Russia

Aleksandr Chayev (1962), Russian swimmer

Elena Fanailova (1962), Russian poet

Alexander Litvinenko (1962–2006), officer of the Russian FSB and political dissident

Yuri Shishkin (1963), Russian professional football coach and player

Yuri Klinskikh (1964–2000), Russian musician, singer, songwriter, arranger, founder rock band Sektor Gaza

Yelena Ruzina (1964), athlete

Igor Bragin (1965), footballer

Gennadi Remezov (1965), Russian professional footballer

Valeri Shmarov (1965), Russian football player and coach

Konstantin Chernyshov (1967), Russian chess grandmaster

Igor Pyvin (1967), Russian professional football coach and player

Vladimir Bobrezhov (1968), Soviet sprint canoer

1971–1980

Oleg Gorobiy (1971), Russian sprint canoer

Anatoli Kanishchev (1971), Russian professional association footballer

Ruslan Mashchenko (1971), Russian hurdler

Aleksandr Ovsyannikov (1974), Russian professional footballer

Dmitri Sautin (1974), Russian diver who has won more medals than any other Olympic diver

Sergey Verlin (1974), Russian sprint canoer

Maxim Narozhnyy (1975–2011), Paralympian athlete

Aleksandr Cherkes (1976), Russian football coach and player

Andrei Durov (1977), Russian professional footballer

Nikolai Kryukov (1978), Russian artistic gymnast

Kirill Gerstein (1979), Jewish American and Russian pianist

Evgeny Ignatov (1979), Russian sprint canoeist

Aleksey Nikolaev (1979), Russian-Uzbekistan footballer

Aleksandr Palchikov (1979), former Russian professional football player

Konstantin Skrylnikov (1979), Russian professional footballer

Aleksandr Varlamov (1979), Russian diver

Angelina Yushkova (1979), Russian gymnast

Maksim Potapov (1980), professional ice hockey player

1981–1990

Alexander Krysanov (1981), Russian professional ice hockey forward

Yulia Nachalova (1981–2019), Soviet and Russian singer, actress and television presenter

Andrei Ryabykh (1982), Russian football player

Maxim Shchyogolev (1982), Russian theatre and film actor

Eduard Vorganov (1982), Russian professional road bicycle racer

Anton Buslov (1983–2014), Russian astrophysicist, blogger, columnist at The New Times magazine and expert on transportation systems

Dmitri Grachyov (1983), Russian footballer

Aleksandr Kokorev (1984), Russian professional football player

Dmitry Kozonchuk (1984), Russian professional road bicycle racer for Team Katusha

Alexander Khatuntsev (1985), Russian professional road bicycle racer

Egor Vyaltsev (1985), Russian professional basketball player

Samvel Aslanyan (1986), Russian handball player

Maksim Chistyakov (1986), Russian football player

Yevgeniy Dorokhin (1986), Russian sprint canoer

Daniil Gridnev (1986), Russian professional footballer

Vladimir Moskalyov (1986), Russian football referee

Elena Danilova (1987), Russian football forward

Sektor Gaza (1987–2000), punk band

Regina Moroz (1987), Russian female volleyball player

Roman Shishkin (1987), Russian footballer

Viktor Stroyev (1987), Russian footballer

Elena Terekhova (1987), Russian international footballer

Natalia Goncharova (1988), Russian diver

Yelena Yudina (1988), Russian skeleton racer

Dmitry Abakumov (1989), Russian professional association football player

Igor Boev (1989), Russian professional racing cyclist

Ivan Dobronravov (1989), Russian actor

Anna Bogomazova (1990), Russian kickboxer, martial artist, professional wrestler and valet

Yuriy Kunakov (1990), Russian diver

Vitaly Melnikov (1990), Russian backstroke swimmer

Kristina Pravdina (1990), Russian female artistic gymnast

Vladislav Ryzhkov (1990), Russian footballer

1991–2000

Danila Poperechny (1994), Russian stand-up comedian, actor, youtuber, podcaster

Darya Stukalova (1994), Russian Paralympic swimmer

Viktoria Komova (1995), Russian Olympic gymnast

Vitali Lystsov (1995), Russian professional footballer

Marina Nekrasova (1995), Russian-born Azerbaijani artistic gymnast

Vladislav Parshikov (1996), Russian football player

Dmitri Skopintsev (1997), Russian footballer

Alexander Eickholtz (1998) American sportsman

Angelina Melnikova (2000), Russian Olympic gymnast

Lived in Voronezh

Aleksey Khovansky (1814–1899), editor

Ivan Kramskoi (1837–1887), Russian painter and art critic

Mitrofan Pyatnitsky (1864–1927), Russian musician

Mikhail Tsvet (1872–1919), Russian botanist

Alexander Kuprin (1880–1960), Russian painter, a member of the Jack of Diamonds group

Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884-1937), Russian writer, went to school in Voronezh

Osip Mandelstam (1891–1938), Russian poet

Nadezhda Mandelstam (1899-1980), Russian writer

Gavriil Troyepolsky (1905–1995), Soviet writer

Nikolay Basov (1922–2001), Soviet physicist and educator

Vasily Peskov (1930–2013), Russian writer, journalist, photographer, traveller and ecologist

Valentina Popova (1972), Russian weightlifter

Igor Samsonov, painter

Tatyana Zrazhevskaya, Russian boxer

Up home/starting signal Bombo loop. The small subsidiary yellow light is a "shunt" proceed indication, also known as "calling on". It means proceed at "restricted speed", the points are set but the line may be occupied.

 

The stencil route indicator above the shunt signal displays "Q", showing that the points are set for the quarry sidings.

Year indication of erection of the building, painted on top of a facade. The typographical style and the whole architecture does more look like first quarter 20th century.

It's clear the building had a musical function.

I don't know where MGV stands for. V probably for 'Verein' (association).

Original architect unknown.

 

About the history of the use of year stones in architecture:

English: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_plate

Dutch: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muuranker

And: nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaartallen_op_gebouwen

 

Zeltingen-Rachtig (Deutschland), Eifel, Aug. 9, 2013.

 

© 2013 Sander Toonen Amsterdam/Halfweg | All Rights Reserved

The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

Not quite sure who she is supposed to be. With that hair and costume (belly dancer's outfit?), I want to say Circe (Wonder Woman villain) but if anyone knows different or knows who the cosplayer is, please let me know.

 

She's also a big Bob Marley fan if the tattoo is any indication. ^,^

The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

The Copley Family

 

West Building, Main Floor—Gallery 59

 

•Date: 1776/1777

•Medium: Oil on Canvas

•Dimensions:

oOverall: 184.1 × 229.2 cm (72½ × 90¼ in.)

oFramed: 226.1 × 271.8 × 13.9 cm (89 × 107 × 5½ in.)

•Credit Line: Andrew W. Mellon Fund

•Accession Number: 1961.7.1

•Artists/Makers:

oPainter: John Singleton Copley, American, 1738-1815

 

Overview

 

In June 1774, when he was already thirty-five years old, Copley decided that he must go to Europe. Although he intended to stay abroad just long enough to acquire artistic sophistication, the American Revolution changed his plans. Studying in Rome and stopping in many continental cities, Copley arrived in London in October 1775. There he was joined by his wife, children, and father-in-law, Richard Clarke, one of the Tory merchants whose investments had been dumped overboard at the Boston Tea Party.

 

In I777 at the Royal Academy, Copley exhibited The Copley Family, which records his delight at being reunited with his family. The artist portrayed himself turning away from a sheaf of his sketches to look at the spectator. His wife, Susanna, leans forward to hug their four-year-old son, John Junior. Mary, who was a year younger than her brother, lies on the sofa, while Betsy, aged six and the eldest of the children, stands with a serious aplomb indicative of her seniority. The baby, Susanna, tries to attract her grandfather’s attention with a rattle. The background is fanciful; no carpeted room ever merged so ambiguously into a forest glen. Copley’s contemporaries would have understood the idyllic landscape as a reference to the family’s natural simplicity and the elaborate furnishings as an indication of their civilized propriety.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son, John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; (his sale, Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter, Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;[1] her husband, Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;[2] their son, Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;[3] his nephew, Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,[4] to his descendants, Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,[5] Henry Russell Amory [1892 1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey;[6] sold 1961 to NGA.

 

[1]The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Atheneum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does The Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. George Redford, Art Sales, 2 vols. (London, 1888), 2: 20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned [Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley 2 vols. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966), 2:404]. News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see John William Linzee, The Linzee Family of Great Britain and the United States of America, 2 vols. (Boston, 1917), 2:766.

[2]For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

[3]Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

[4]For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and The New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

[5]The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr. is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided by Walter Amory, 19 November 1990, to Ellen Miles.

[6]Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

 

Associated Names

 

•Amory, Charles

•Amory, Copley

•Amory, Edward Linzee

•Amory, Elizabeth Cole

•Amory, Henry Russell

•Amory, Jr., Copley

•Amory, Martha Babcock Greene

•Amory, Walter

•Christie, Manson & Woods, Ltd.

•Clarke

•Copley, John Singleton

•Copley, Jr., John Singleton

•Smith, Katharine Amory

 

Exhibition History

 

•1777—Royal Academy, London, 1777, no. 61.

•1862—International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.

•1873—Boston Atheneum, 1873, no. 144.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, 1874, no. 130.

•1888—Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938, no. 22.

•1941—On loan to the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1941-1951.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Metropolitan Musuem of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966, no. 61.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, National Portrait Gallery, Washington; Indianapolis Museum of Art, 1974, no. 6 (shown in Washington only).

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981, no. 1, color repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996, no. 1, repro.

 

Bibliography

 

•1777—“John’s Impression,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, April 26, 1777.

•1777—The London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, April 25-28, 1777.

•1832—Cunningham, Allan. The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters, Sculptors and Architects. London, 1829-1833: 6 vols. (1832): 5:178-179.

•1862—International Exhibition, Exh. cat. London, 1862, no. 51. [See Graves, Algernon. A Century of Loan Exhibitions London, 1912: 1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst.

•1867—Tuckerman, Henry T. Book of the Artists. New York, 1867: 79.

•1873—Perkins, Augustus Thorndike. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1873: 20-21, 48-49, 134.

•1874—Boston Atheneum, Exh. cat. 1874, no. 130. [See Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.”]

•1882—Amory, Martha Babcock. The Domestic and Artistic Life of John Singleton Copley, R.A.. Boston, 1882: 12, 23, 77-80, 106-107, 240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook, Clarence. Art and Artists of Our Time. 3 vols. New York, 1888: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—Trustees of the Museum of Fine Arts. Fourteenth Annual Report (for the year ending December 31, 1889). Boston, 1890: 46.

•1892—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor. 3rd ed. Boston, 1892: 15, no. 140.

•1895—Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Paintings and Drawings, With a Summary of other Works of Art, Exhibited on the Second Floor, Boston, 1895: 17, no. 150.

•1903—“Second Picture Gallery.” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 1, no. 3 (July 1903): 18.

•1905—Isham, Samuel. The History of American Painting. New York, 1905: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—Handbook of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston, 1906: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley, Frank W. A Sketch of the Life and a List of Some of the Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1910: 35.

•1915—Bayley, Frank W. The Life and Works of John Singleton Copley. Boston, 1915: 35-36, 79, 101-102.

•1924 Addison, Julia de Wolf. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Rev. ed. Boston, 1924: 6-7.

•1930—Bolton, Theodore and Harry Lorin Binsse. “John Singleton Copley.” The Antiquarian 15 (December 1930): 116.

•1938—John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Exh. cat. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1938: no. 22.

•1938—Parker, Barbara Neville and Anne Bolling Wheeler. John Singleton Copley: American Portraits in Oil, Pastel, and Miniature with Biographical Sketches. Boston, 1938: 8-9.

•1943—Walker, John, and MacGill James. Great American Paintings from Smibert to Bellows 1729-1924. London and New York, 1943: 22, pl. 11.

•1944—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. Masterpieces of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1944: 140, color repro.

•1951—Walker, John. Paintings from America. Harmondsworth, England, 1951: 16, 42, pl. 5.

•1963—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. New York, 1963 (reprinted 1964 in French, German, and Spanish): 230, repro.

•1965—John Singleton Copley, Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1965-1966: no. 61.

•1966—Cairns, Huntington, and John Walker, eds. A Pageant of Painting from the National Gallery of Art. 2 vols. New York, 1966: 2:394, color repro.

•1966—Prown, Jules David. John Singleton Copley, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 61, 262-263, 373, 387, 403-404, 414-415, fig. 344, no. 192.

•1970—American Paintings and Sculpture: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1970: 44, repro.

•1972—Curwen, Samuel. The Journal of Samuel Curwen, Loyalist. Andrew Oliver ed. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972: 1:132; 2:701.

•1974—American Self-Portraits 1670-1973. Exh. cat. National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C.; Indianapolis Museum of Art. Washington, D.C., 1974: no. 6.

•1975—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. New York, 1975: color repro. 389.

•1980—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1980: 136, repro.

•1980—La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington. Exh. cat. Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, Mexico City, 1980-1981: no. 1.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Light: The Luminist Movement, 1850-1875, Paintings, Drawings, Photographs. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 46, color repro. 47.

•1980—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1980: 13, no. 4, color repro.

•1981—Williams, William James. A Heritage of American Paintings from the National Gallery of Art. New York, 1981: 24, 30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker, John. National Gallery of Art, Washington. Rev. ed. New York, 1984: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown, Jules David. “Benjamin West’s Family Picture: A Nativity in Hammersmith.” In Honor of Paul Mellon, Collector and Benefactor: Essays.John Wilmerding, ed. Washington, 1986: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell, Margaretta M. “Reading Eighteenth-Century American Family Portraits; Social Images and Self-Images.” Winterthur Portfolio 22, no. 4 (Winter 1987): 256, repro. 259.

•1988—Wilmerding, John. American Masterpieces from the National Gallery of Art. Rev. ed. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., 1988: 54, no. 4, color repro.

•1992—American Paintings: An Illustrated Catalogue. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 150, repro.

•1992—National Gallery of Art, Washington. National Gallery of Art, Washington, 1992: 210, repro.

•1995—John Singleton Copley in England. Exh. cat. National Gallery of Art, Washington; The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1995-1996: no. 1.

•1995—Miles, Ellen G. American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century. The Collections of the National Gallery of Art Systematic Catalogue. Washington, D.C., 1995: 46-54, color repro. 47.

•1998—Boeckl, Christine M. “Self-Portraits: Men.” In Helene E. Roberts, ed. Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography: Themes Depicted in Works of Art. 2 vols. Chicago, 1998: 2:803.

•1999—Zuffi, Stefano and Francesca Castria, La peinture baroque. Translated from Italian by Silvia Bonucci and Claude Sophie Mazéas. Paris, 1999: 391, color repro.

•2004—Hand, John Oliver. National Gallery of Art: Master Paintings from the Collection. Washington and New York, 2004: 286-287, no. 232, color repro.

•2010—Carp, Benjamin L. Defiance of the Patriots: The Boston Tea Party & the Making of America. New Haven, 2010: 72, fig. 14.

  

From American Paintings of the Eighteenth Century:

 

1961.7.1 (1650)

 

The Copley Family

 

•1776/1777

•Oil on Canvas, 184.1 × 229.2 (72½ × 90¼)

•Andrew W. Mellon Fund

 

Technical Notes

 

The tacking margins of the original, moderately fine weight, plain-weave fabric were trimmed at the top and sides, but only partially at the bottom, where the remainder was flattened. There are two lining fabrics. The more recent one, visible from the reverse, is a medium-weight, twill-weave fabric. The older one, sandwiched between this lining and the original fabric, is perhaps a double layer of a finer, plain-weave fabric.1 The present stretcher is larger on all sides than the original dimensions of the painting, which were 180.8 by 227.2 cm.

 

The moderately thick ground is white and probably covered the tacking margins. Infrared reflectography reveals no underdrawing, although the forms are blocked in with very careful placement, suggesting that Copley was working from earlier studies. The paint is applied with a broader range of techniques—ranging from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes—than observed in Copley’s earlier style. There is high, globular impasto in the highlights of the face, cap, jewelry, rugs, and decorative borders. The youthful quality of the children’s skin is differentiated from that of the artist’s father-in-law by a smooth blending of tones. The decorative sashes and bows of the children’s costumes were painted over the underlying folds of cloth. There are extensive pentimenti in these sashes and bows on either side of the child in the center, notably in the standing girl’s left sleeve cuff, in the drapery in that area, and in her brother’s ribbon, to the right.

 

In addition to a tear to the left of the father’s head, there are vertical central and diagonal corner stretcher creases. The paint surface has extensive vertical fabric weave texture and traction crackle in some of the darks. There are scattered small holes but no major losses. There are, however, areas of severe local abrasion, generally in the less important areas, including Mrs. Copley’s hair and hair-covering, the peripheral areas above her head, the greens of the landscape, and the browns of the foliage. There is also some abrasion in the clothing of the sitters.

 

Only some of the craquelure and abrasion has been retouched. The varnish was removed in 1962. The present varnish is unevenly discolored and grayed.

 

Provenance

 

The artist; his son John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst [1772-1863], London; his sale (Christie, Manson & Woods, London, 5 March 1864, no. 91); bought by “Clarke” for the artist’s granddaughter Martha Babcock Greene Amory [Mrs. Charles Amory, 1812-1880], Boston;2 her husband Charles Amory [1808-1898], Boston;3 their son Edward Linzee Amory [1844-1911], New York;4 his nephew Copley Amory [1866-1960], Washington,5 to his descendants Copley Amory, Jr. [1890-1964], Cambridge, Massachusetts,6 Henry Russell Amory [1892-1962], Santa Barbara, California, Katharine Amory Smith [b. 1908], Washington, Walter Amory [b. 1924], Duxbury, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth Cole Amory [b. 1955], Princeton, New Jersey.7

 

Exhibited

 

Royal Academy of Arts, London, 1777, no. 61. International Exhibition, London, 1862, no. 51.8 Boston Athenaeum, 1873, no. 144. Boston Athenaeum, 1874, no. 130.9 MFA, on long-term loan, 1888-1916, 1921-1925.™ John Singleton Copley, 1738-1815, Loan Exhibition of Paintings, Pastels, Miniatures and Drawings, MFA, 1938, no. 22. NGA, on long-term loan, 1941-1951.11 Copley, 1965-1966, no. 61. American Self-Portraits 1670-1973, NPG, 1974, no. 6. La Pintura de Los Estados Unidos de Museos de la Ciudad de Washington, Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes, México City, 1980-1981, no. 1.

 

Among Copley’s most memorable images is this group portrait, which celebrates the artist’s reunion in London in October 1775 with his wife Susanna (1745-1836) and their children Elizabeth (1770-1866), Mary (1773-1868), and John Singleton Copley, Jr. (1772-1863). Copley was separated from his family for about a year and a half in 1774-1775, after he left Boston to study in Europe. His wife and children moved to London in May 1775. They were joined at the end of the year by the artist’s father-in-law Richard Clarke (1711-1795), a wealthy Boston merchant.12 Susanna (1776-1785), the youngest child in the painting, was born the following 20 October in London. The Copley Family is one of the artist’s first English pictures and his first large group portrait. Painted during the early years of the American Revolution, the portrait expresses Copley’s pride at being reunited with his family in such troubled times at the beginning of a new phase of his career.

 

While in Europe in 1774-1775, Copley frequently expressed his longing to rejoin his family, either in Boston or in England. On 15 September 1774 he wrote his wife from France, “If you knew how great my desires were to be with you, you would not think it necessary to say one word to hasten that happy time; I am sure I shall think that an hour of happiness that brings us together beyand any I shall enjoy till it arrives.”13 On 8 October he questioned whether they would remain in Boston or live in London. “As soon as possible you shall know what my prospects are in England, and then you will be able to determine whether it is best for you to go there or for me to return to America.”14 In December, as turmoil in America increased, he expressed concern over his family’s well-being. “When I reflect on the condition Boston may be in, I tremble for you all; in a state of confusion and bloodshed no one is safe, and I greatly fear the dispute will end in the most fatal and dreadful consequences…if general confusion is inevitable, I hope it will not take place till you are in England.”15 From Parma the following June he wrote,

 

By the time this reaches you, if it please God to give me life and health, I shall be very near England; when there, I shall think of myself at home. You cannot more ardently wish to meet me than I do for the happy moment that will again bless me with the possession of so endearing a wife and children. Be not too anxious, for the time will soon arrive.16

 

Copley, dressed in a blue brocade robe and wearing a wig, stands in the background on the far left. He leans on a plinth and holds two large sheets of paper that are presumably drawings (no lines or marks are visible). His father-in-law, seated in front of him, holds young Susanna on his lap. Elizabeth, the oldest child, wearing a white dress with striped skirt and a pink sash, stands solemnly in the foreground. Susanna Copley, the artist’s wife, in blue, is seated on the right on a rose-colored sofa. She has her arms around John Singleton Copley, Jr., who is dressed in a yellow frock of the type worn by young girls and boys alike. His sister Mary, in a white dress with a gold sash, plays on the sofa next to her mother. In the left foreground are a boy’s brown hat with a blue feather and a doll dressed in imitation of Elizabeth, in a white dress and hat. Their clothing is very fashionable for 1776, although Mrs. Copley’s hair is not quite as elaborate as the style worn by her English contemporaries.17 A rose and green floral carpet and a rose-colored curtain on the left define the interior. Behind Copley and on the right are pillars, which mark the transition to the outdoor space. Behind the drawings that Copley holds can be seen the outline of a large urn, decorated with standing and seated figures that appear to be wearing classical drapery or robes. The distant landscape includes trees, a stream, and hills on which stands a small, church-like, two-story building.

 

Copley began the painting by 1 April 1776 when Samuel Curwen, a Massachusetts Loyalist living in London, visited Richard Clarke and the Copleys in their house at 12 Leicester Square, where they had moved in January 1776 and where they lived until 1783.

 

Passing through Leicester Square I called in at Mr. Copely’s to see Mr. Clarke and the family, who kindly pressed my staying to tea, and in the meantime was amused by seeing his performances in painting. He was then at work on a family piece containing himself, Mr. Clarke, his wife and 4 Children, of all of Whom I observed a very striking likeness; at Tea was present Mr. West, a Philadelphian, a most Masterly hand in the Historic painting; author of the well known, and applauded piece now in print, called West’s death of Wolfe; and taken from his painting.18

 

At this time, however, only three children were with the Copleys in London. The fourth child in the painting was apparently intended to be Clarke Copley, born in Boston in January 1775 and left with relatives when the family sailed to London. Copley learned that Clarke was left in America when he received Susanna’s letter in July 1775 in Italy, saying that she was in London with three of the children. “My thoughts are constantly with you and our children. You tell me you brought three, but you do not say which you left behind; I suppose it was the youngest, he being too delicate to bring.”19 Clarke died in Boston in January 1776. It is thought that Copley began the group portrait before he learned of his son’s death, and he retained the figure of the infant because he knew that his wife was expecting another child.20

 

This group portrait combines the best qualities of Copley’s American work with features that reveal the influence of paintings he had seen since his arrival in Europe. Hallmarks of Copley’s earlier style include the realism of the facial features, particularly of Richard Clarke and the children, and the skillful representation of fabrics. Also reminiscent of his American works is the artist’s pose, which was modified from one used in 1768 for his portrait of John Amory (MFA). The pose was derived from Thomas Hudson’s portrait of English landscape painter Samuel Scott (1731-1733, Tate Gallery, London), who leans against the back of a chair and holds a group of drawings.21 Copley’s pose is also similar to the earlier American self-portrait of John Smibert (1688-1751), seen on the far left in Smibert’s painting of The Bermuda Group (1729-1731, YUAG). Copley undoubtedly knew this painting from visits to Smibert’s Boston studio; its contents were accessible long after Smibert’s death.

 

New with The Copley Family is a greater variety of brushwork, which ranges from dry and wet pastes to thin, dry, and fluid glazes. Also new is Copley’s success in uniting a large number of figures in one composition. Examination of the painting with infrared reflectography indicates that the placement of the forms was done very carefully and without changes, evidence that Copley was working from studies such as that of his wife and two children (see 1991.141.1). The organization of the painting is along several diagonals that cascade from upper left to lower right. The diagonal composition and the Italianate background, with its gently sloping hills (unlike the topography of Boston or London) and small church-like building, are reminiscent of The Madonna di San Gerolamo (1523, Galeria Nazionale, Parma), a popular work by the sixteenth-century Italian artist Correggio. Copley had copied this painting for an English patron during his last two months in Italy (the location of his copy is unknown).22 (For a contemporary copy of the Correggio see Matthew Pratt’s Madonna of St. Jerome, 1944.17.1). Other Italian paintings of madonnas with children that may have influenced Copley include Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia in the collection of the Grand Duke of Tuscany.23 Copley wrote his wife on 26 October 1774, “At the grand duke’s gallery there is a wonderful collection of pictures, statues, bas-reliefs, and gems. At the palace there is a great collection of paintings also, of the best the arts have ever produced : in this the sweet picture of the Virgin with Jesus, by Raphael, delighted me very much, — I mean the one that hung over our chimney.”24 He discussed the painting again on 14 March 1775 with his half-brother Henry Pelham, suggesting that Pelham look at John Smibert’s copy (now unlocated).25 It is also possible that while he was in Florence, Copley saw Raphael’s Mccolini-Cowper Madonna (NGA), acquired at about this time by George, 3rd Earl Cowper, a friend of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. English artists who wished to copy pictures in the duke’s collection applied to Cowper to arrange permission.26 Although Copley followed this procedure in June 1775 to request permission to copy the Madonna della Sedia for Ralph Izard and for his wife (he decided eventually not to make these copies), he does not mention the newly acquired Madonna.27 Copley also saw an unidentified Madonna and Child by Guido Reni in Rome; he tried but was not able to get permission to copy it.28 In addition, he came upon a Holy Family by Raphael in the collection of the King of Naples in January 1775.29

 

The influence of these paintings on Copley is particularly noticeable in Mrs. Copley’s pose. At the same time that the group portrait was being painted, Mrs. Copley was apparently her husband’s model for the figure of the Madonna in a Nativity. Her features, seen in profile in the group portrait, are very similar to those of the Madonna.30 Jules Prown has suggested that Copley’s use of an allusion to the Madonna in his group portrait shows the influence of Benjamin West, who used a madonna-like pose for the image of his wife in The West Family (1772, Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven). “This conflation of a family picture and a Nativity including his own wife and child in Copley’s oeuvre…at the moment when he first arrived in England, admiring and emulating West, suggests that Copley’s artistic imagination was particularly stimulated by West’s family picture.”31 West chose similar poses for other family groups, notably for the figure of Mary Izard in Arthur Middleton, His Wife Mary Izard, and Their Son Henry Middleton (1771-1772, Collection of Dr. Henry Middleton Drinker) and for that of Mrs. West in Mrs. West with Raphael West, of which there were four versions, including one of about 1773 (Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, New Haven).32 Also, West modeled his double portrait Mrs. West with Raphael West on Raphael’s Madonna della Sedia, which he had seen in Florence in 1761-1762.33 Prown notes about The West Family that “an intimate family scene is informed not only with the larger theme of the Ages of Man but the specifically Christian themes of the Holy Family and of the Nativity, of birth as the immanent manifestation of the Divine in the affairs of men.”34 Margaretta Lovell offers a similar interpretation, suggesting that these artists incorporated religious images “into a context of modern domestic life” and have “appropriated for their wives—in their role as mother—the supreme example of female virtue.”35

 

Copley’s letter to Henry Pelham of 14 March 1775 suggests that he saw the issue differently, as one regarding the use of familiar models for thematic paintings. He told Pelham about the practice of using live models for images in such works. By making use of a Model for the heads you will naturally vary your faces agreable to your Models, and though I would not make the heads like the model, that is, not such a likeness as I would make in a portrait, yet should they be like to the greatest degree I should not think it a matter to be objected to…. Chusing such Models as are most agreable to the several carracters you mean to paint, you will procure that variety in your Works that is so much admired in the first Works of Art.36

 

Perhaps in his view it was his wife’s experience with motherhood that informed the pose of the Madonna in his Nativity.

 

Two baroque family group portraits painted in England in the early seventeenth century—Peter Paul Rubens’ Deborah Kip, Wife of Sir Balthasar Gerbier, and Her Children (1630, NGA) and Anthony Van Dyck’s The Five Eldest Children of Charles / (1637, Collection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II)—as well as Joshua Reynolds’ recent portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons (1773, National Gallery of Art, London) may also have influenced the concept and composition of The Copley Family. The baroque group portraits were well known to mid-eighteenth-century English artists and connoisseurs and, like Copley’s picture, depict family groups, with children, in indoor-outdoor settings. Frederick Prince of Wales acquired Balthasar Gerbier and Family, a seventeenth-century copy of Rubens’ composition, in 1749. This painting, a wider version of Rubens’ portrait that includes Gerbier, was then attributed to Van Dyck but is now unattributed.37 George III purchased Van Dyck’s group of Charles Fs children from a private collection in 1765.38 Copley might have seen these works in London in July 1774, when with West he visited “the queen’s palace, where I beheld the finest collection of paintings I have seen, and, I believe, the finest in England.”39 Rubens’ original (NGA) was also in England at the time, in a private collection. These paintings may also have been known to Copley through reproductive engravings. Reynolds’ portrait of Lady Cockburn and her three sons was exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts in the spring of 1774, before Copley’s arrival from Boston. Like Copley’s painting, Reynolds’ work is a depiction of motherhood that incorporates references to earlier works of art, in this case to images of Charity. If Copley had been able to see this painting, perhaps when he visited Reynolds’ studio on 15 July 1774, it may have influenced his grouping of Mrs. Copley and her children.40

 

Copley sent The Copley Family to the spring exhibition of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1777. Its only review appeared in both the London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post for April 25-28 and the Morning Chronicley and London Advertiser for April 26. The reviewer was critical of Copley’s control of light and shade.

 

Mr. Copley, from the size of his family piece, is likely to be as much the subject of observation in the rooms as any artist who has exhibited; as his picture (No. 61) has, in some of its parts, great merit, it is a pity that the whole effect should be destroyed from a want of proper proportion of light and shade. Several of the figures, particularly that of the lady and old gentleman, are well painted. The face of the infant in the lap also has great merit; but the arm round the mother’s neck appears to be rather unnaturally turned, and extravagantly long. The figure of the gentleman, leaning behind with some plans in his hand, seems also to be oddly placed, and not properly one of the family. Add to this the settee, the carpet, and the prospect through the window, are all so glaring, that the effect of the figures is greatly destroyed; and, after regarding the picture for some time, it is difficult for a beholder to guess which object the painter meant to make his main subject. The portrait of a gentleman, in the little room fronting the door, is also in part liable to the same objection, the background is not sufficiently kept under.41

 

This aspect of technique—balancing the elements of a painting to retain the focus on the central figures—had concerned Copley since his arrival in England. He wrote Henry Pelham from London on 17 August 1774 with advice based on pictures that he had recently seen.

 

Be carefull as you go towards the bottum of your Ganvis to mannage your objects that they do not take the eye. Scumble them down so that when you Vew the Picture the Center shall predominate. I think in Diana’s figure in your Room you have an Example, observe her leggs how they seem to run out of observation, from her head and breast Downwards how gradualy her figure seems to lose it self.42

 

Copley had not learned this aspect of painting in America, where his primary examples of European art were engravings.

 

After the Academy exhibition Copley hung the painting in his exhibition room, where Samuel Curwen saw it when he visited on 19 December 1780. “We departed for Mr. R. C[larke’s] home in Leister square. Found him at home, after some time invited into picture room, wherein were 2 Exhibition pictures, Brooke Watsons wonderful deliverance from a great shark…, the other picture Copeley’s own family containing 6 persons, himself, wife, 3 children and Mr. Clarke his father in law.”43 When the family moved to 24 George Street, London, in 1783, “It was placed by his own hand, in the position it retained for nearly a century, over the fireplace in the dining-room in George Street,” according to the artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory.44 In 1789, when the painting was to be engraved by Robert Thew (1758-1802), Copley made a small oil, which represents the entire composition and is the same size as the engraving. The small painting was in Thew’s possession at his death.45 The plate was left unfinished (proof print, NGA).40 Mrs. Copley sent the oil to her daughter Elizabeth Greene in Boston on 31 August 1804.

 

We have sent…the sketch of the family picture, the print remains in the state in which Mr. Thew left it at his death…should it ever be thought worth wile to finish the plate, you must only let the sketch again cross the Atlantic in the meantime we shall be happy in the pleasure it affords you, and the rest of our dear Friends; it contains the best likeness of my departed and dearely valued Father.47

 

The oil copy and print differ from the large painting in details of Mrs. Copley’s dress and hair, in the details of the sofa, the left foreground and background, and in the dress of Mary, the girl on the sofa.

 

The Copley Family was well known in nineteenth-century England. Allan Cunningham remarked that it had a natural look and “some very fine colouring,” and it was reviewed with praise when it was exhibited at the International Exhibition in London in 1862.48 The artist’s granddaughter Martha Amory purchased the painting from the estate of her uncle John Singleton Copley, Jr., Lord Lyndhurst, in 1864 and brought it to Boston. In 1872 it was rescued from the great Boston fire of 9-10 November, “having been transported by hand with great difficulty, on account of its size, and placed under the care of a gentleman who kindly offered to harbor it during that calamitous night.”49 Since that time it has frequently been on view in museums and has become familiar to an American public as one of Copley’s most endearing paintings.

 

EGM

 

Notes

 

1.The painting was conserved in London after the 1864 Lyndhurst sale, according to the essay on John Singleton Copley in DNB 4:1105.

2.The annotated copy of Christie’s Catalogue of the Very Valuable Collection of Pictures, of the Rt. Hon. Lord Lyndhurst, deceased at the Boston Athenaeum indicates that “Clarke” was the purchaser, as does the Art-Journal, London, 1 April 1864, 120. The initials BA that are entered next to the lot number indicate that it was purchased for Martha Babcock Amory. Redford 1888, 2:20, thought the painting was bought in, but James Hughes Anderdon, who was at the sale, noted in his copy of the catalogue (Royal Academy of Arts) that there was a round of applause after the painting was auctioned (Prown 1966, 2:404). News of the sale appeared in the (Boston) Daily Advertiser, 19 March 1864. For Mrs. Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766.

3.For Charles Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:766; he placed the painting on loan at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

4.Edward Linzee Amory continued the loan of the painting to the Museum of Fine Arts from 1898; his dates are in Linzee 1917, 2:766.

5.For Copley Amory’s dates see Linzee 1917, 2:795, and the New York Times, 18 April 1960, 29 (obituary).

6.The birth date of Copley Amory, Jr., is in Linzee 1917, 2:796; his death date was provided to the author by Walter Amory on 19 November 1990.

7.Birth and death dates are from Linzee 1917, 2:796, or have been provided by family members.

8.Graves 1913,1:206, no. 51, “Family Portraits,” lent by Lord Lyndhurst. The review in the Times, 1 May 1862, ii, described the painting as “the group of Copley portraits (51) in which the painter has represented his father, in the background himself, and his wife and children on the right.” Mrs. Amory was wrong when she wrote that the exhibition was in Manchester.

9.Perkins and Gavin 1980, 41; Yarnall and Gerdts 1986, 825, list the second exhibition under “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,” on whose behalf it was held.

10.Cook 1888,160; MFA1890,46; MFA1892,15, no. 140; MFA 1895,17, no. 150; MFA Bulletin 1903,18; MFA Handbook 1906,102; Addison 1924,6-7; letter from Diana Hallowell, MFA, 15 August 1961 (NGA).

11.Gallery records; see also Walker and James 1943, 22 and pi. u, and Walker 1951,16, 42, pi. 5.

12.Curwen 1972, 1:102, entry for Friday, 29 December 1775: “W. Cabot…brought account of Mr. Richard Clarke’s arrival from Boston, the vessell had a short passage of 21 days.”

13.Copley-Pelham Letters, 256.

14.Amory 1882, 33.

15.Amory 1882, 40, letter from Rome dated 4 December 1774.

16.Amory 1881, 55, letter of 12 June 1775.

17.Nathalie Rothstein, “What Silk Shall I Wear?: Fashion and Choice in Some 18th and Early 19th Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Art,” lecture, NGA, 16 September 1990.

18.Curwen 1972,1:132.

19.Amory 1882, 63.

20.Prown 1966, 2:262.

21.Prown 1966, 1:figs. 220-221; Copley knew the portrait from the mezzotint by John Faber, Jr.

22.Prown 1966, 2:253-254, 443.

23.Brown 1983, 23; on the painting see Dussler 1971, 36 and pl. 84. For a discussion of the Grand Duke’s collection and its popularity among the English in Italy see Millar 1967, especially 6-7,10,18.

24.Copley to his wife, quoted in Amory 1882,38, and partially quoted in Prown 1966, 2:248.

25.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304; he also mentioned the painting to his mother on 25 June 1775; Copley-Pelham Letters, 331.

26.On the history of this painting see Shapley 1979, 1:389-391, and Millar 1967, 27. The exact date of Cowper’s acquisition is not known.

27.Letter to Susanna Copley, 9 June 1775, in Amory 1882, 53.

28.Copley-Pelham Letters, 331, to his mother, 25 June Ï775.

29.Letter to his sister, 28 January 1775; Prown 1966, 2:251, quoting Amory 1882, 44. Perhaps this was Raphael’s Madonna del Divin’ Amore (c. 1518, Museo Nazionale, Naples), which was in the Palazzo de Giardino, Naples, Capodimonte by 1680; see Dussler 1971, 49 and pl. 104.

30.Prown 1966, 2:263-264 and figs. 347-349.

31.Prown 1986, 281.

32.Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 530-532, no. 661, repro.; 461-462, no. 546, repro.; 457-459, nos. 535-538, repros.

33.Brown 1983, 17-18; Von Erffa and Staley 1986, 458.

34.Prown 1986,278.

35.Lovell 1987, 259-260.

36.Copley-Pelham Letters, 304.

37.On Rubens’ painting and its versions and engravings, and the history of their ownership see Stechow 1973, 6-22, and Whitfield 1973, 23-31.

38.Mular 1963, 1:99; 2: pl. 74.

39.Letter to his wife dated 21 July 1774, in Amory 1882, 28.

40.The author is grateful to Allen Staley for the suggestion that Reynolds’ portrait was a possible influence on Copley’s family group. On the painting see Wind, “Charity,” 1938, 322-330; Davies 1959, 84-85; Penny 1986, 259-260, no. 88; it is reproduced in Waterhouse 1973, unpaginated, pi. 70. For Copley’s visit to Reynolds’ studio see Copley-Pelham Letters, 226.

41.The Portrait of a Gentleman has not been identified; see Prown 1966, 2:387.

42.Copley-Pelham Letters, 240-241.

43.Curwen 1972, 2:701.

44.Amory 1882,79.

45.Prown 1966, 2:263,415 and fig. 346; Troyen 1980, 66-67, no. 12, repro.

46.Prown 1966, 2:414. The proof print at the National Gallery of Art [1961.11.1], the gift of Copley Amory, Jr., is inscribed on the plate “J. S. Copley R.A. pinx / London Publish’d Novr 25 1789^5 the Act directs / Rt. Thew Sc.” The image measures approximately 51 by 62 cm.

47.Quoted in Amory 1882,80, misdated; the original is on deposit at the Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.

48.“The Pictures at the International Exhibition—No. I.” Times (London) (1 May), 11.

49.Amory 1882, 80.

 

References

 

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” London Packet, or New Lloyd’s Evening Post, 25-28 April: 1.

•1777—“Exhibition of the Royal Academy.” Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 26 April: 2.

•1832—Cunningham: 5:178-179.

•1867—Tucker man : 79.

•1873—Perkins: 20-21, 48-49,134.

•1882—Amory: 12,23,77-80,106-107,240, 262-263, 438.

•1888—Cook: 3:159, repro., 160.

•1890—MFA:46.

•1892—MFA: 15, no. 140.

•1895—MFA: 17, no. 150

•1903—MFA Bulletin: 18

•1905—Isham: 37-38, repro. 35.

•1906—MFA Handbook: 102, repro.

•1910—Bayley:35.

•1915—Bayley: 35-36,79,101-102.

•1924—Addison : 6-7

•1930—Bolton and Binsse, “Copley”: 116.

•1938—Parker and Wheeler: 8-9.

•1966—Prown: 1:61, 2:262-263, 373n, 387,403-404, 414-415, and fig. 344.

•1972—Curwen: 1:132, 2:701.

•1980—Wilmerding: 46, color repro. 47.

•1981—Williams: 24,30, color repro. 44-45.

•1984—Walker: 384, no. 545, color repro.

•1986—Prown: 281, 286 n. 32, repro. 279.

•1987—Lovell: 256, repro., 259.

•1988—Wilmerding: 54, color repro. 55.

Indication of the various architechtural styles styles in Whitehaven with gothiic revival windows on the left, glass fronted modern industrial at Albion Square in the middle and the 19th century with Italianate flourishes of 41 Market Place on the right.

film: Kodak Portra 400

Camera: PRAKTICA MTL3

Lens: 50mm 1:1.8

I'd previously been at the other end of Banbury Street earlier in the year when I took shots of the former Eagle & Tun pub. I had no idea back then that a Grade II* listed building was at the end of the road.

 

I checked beforehand on Heritage Gateway for any Grade II* listed buildings in Digbeth and the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House came up.

 

For a Sunday morning there was no one here, might also be due to it's location, other side of the railway line.

 

Quite regularly down here I head trains passing by loudly.

 

Obviously this place was built before the railway line existed (but probably after the local canal was built).

 

Near here is Proof House Junction (on both the railway line and canal).

 

Here it is, at the end of Banbury Street.

 

Gun Barrel Proof House is Grade II* listed.

 

A gun barrel proof (testing) house commissioned by the Guardians of the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House from John Horton and opened in 1813. The building was added to by Charles Edge in 1860, Bateman and Corser in 1868-70 and again in 1876, and by Jethro Cossins in 1883.

MATERIALS: The building is of red brick laid in a variety of bonds with painted stone and terracotta dressings and a slate and plain tiled roof.

PLAN: The original building of 1813 has two storeys and a basement and lies to north of the site. To its north is an entrance forecourt which has a gate screen and two-storey lodge to the west. At south is a yard which contains the single-storey proof rooms and magazine and loading rooms.

The buildings all abut each other or are joined by covered walkways, but they are described here separately for clarity.

THE ENTRANCE RANGE FROM BANBURY STREET of 1883 has a central round arch set in a shaped gable. This was raised in 1970 to accommodate larger vehicles. At either side are shaped gables, that at left belonging to the gate lodge. The diapered brick work has moulded brick dressings and there is a stone tympanum to the central arch which shows the coat of arms set in a cartouche. The south flank of the entrance lodge is of three bays, with a central two-storey porch with shaped gable.

THE PROOF HOUSE RANGE OF 1813 is joined to the entrance range and the furthest right hand bay of its north face is masked by the block to south of the arch. EXTERIOR: The 1813 front has ten bays and is of Flemish bond brick. To near-centre is the principal door, which was formerly a throughway. This has a frontispiece which has a basket arch with Tuscan pillars to either side and an entablature with blocking course. Projecting from the blocking course is a tablet supported on brackets which reads `ESTABLISHED BY ACT OF PARLIAMENT / FOR PUBLIC SECURITY, ANNO DOM : 1813.' Above this is a broad, shallow niche which contains an elaborate trophy of arms (attributed to William Hollins) and to the top is a segmental pediment with a circular clock face. To either side of this feature are rainwater pipes with hoppers which each have the date `1813'. To left of this are five bays, and to right are four bays, of a former eleven-bay composition. Both floors have painted stone surrounds to the windows with brackets supporting segmental pediments. Between the first and second bays at left is the Guardians' entrance which leads up to the Board Room at first floor level. This has a six-panelled door with fanlight and Tuscan doorcase with open, segmental pediment. Until 1868 there was a matching doorway at right of centre which gave access to two houses of proof house officials. The south face of this range, which fronts the yard has numerous additions. On line with the pedimented centrepiece on the north front is a single-storey, canted bay lighting the office of the Proof Master. Above is a staircase window and above that a circular clockface set in a pedimental gable. To either side at ground floor level are single-storey additions of later-C19 date which accommodate the enlarged receiving and testing rooms. These have lean-to roofs with rooflights. The first floor sash windows are all of four lights with segment heads. Extending from the right side across the yard is a covered walkway with iron columns and open sides and a pitched roof. Plans show that this existed by 1833. A wing projects at far right and this connects to the Proof Hole.

INTERIOR: The Guardians' entrance hall has a ceiling rose and an open-well staircase with wrought iron balustrade and wooden handrail. Some cornicing survives to the Receiving Room, which was formerly housing for staff of the Proof House. The first floor board room survives largely intact and has cornicing and carved wood surrounds to the doors and windows which have reeding and patera. There are paired doors to the east and west end walls and a fireplace to the south wall with a marble surround The adjacent Museum Room,which was perhaps formerly the Proof Master's Office, has similarly moulded surrounds and a large two-door wall safe.

THE PROOF HOLE OF 1860 is in a Round-arched style and of orange bricks laid in English bond, with blue brick dressings. A bomb blast in 1940 caused the demolition of the southernmost of the original four bays.

EXTERIOR: The western, yard, front has three bays with round arched openings to the lower body, all fitted with heavy metal shutters with louvred panels, above which are small oculi. The roof consists of a louvred arrangements of timbers to allow smoke to escape. The east front of the Proof Hole is blank. Close to it and flanking the canal wharf is a further, smaller, proof house with similar brickwork which is used to retry those barrels which have failed to discharge in the Proof Hole. This has a deeply splayed door surround to the south front and metal bosses to re-enforce the walls. Joined to it at its north end, and also flanking the canal wharf, is a two-storey building which has lavatories below a late-C19 magazine, which is now disused.

INTERIOR: The lower walls are lined with thick plates of iron which are heavily scarred and there are iron screens at both ends of the room. Two raised brick platforms face each other across the width of the room. That to the west side has a stone surface, grooved to hold gun barrels, which are held in place by piled sand and fired in sequence by a fuse. On the opposite side the surface is covered with piled sand to absorb the shot. The roof has a curved metal canopy to the centre to deflect shot. Above this, the roof structure is louvred to allow smoke to escape. The three arched openings in the west wall have thick iron shutters and louvres which are worked by heavy metal crank arms.

PROOF HOUSE RANGE: A further range of smaller testing rooms lies along the south side of the yard.

EXTERIOR: The range has a series of four cambered doorways with blue brick dressings and metal re-enforcement. To the south-west corner is a larger room which was also used as a proof hole for multiple firings. It has blank walling to all sides, a deeply chamfered door surround to the west face and a renewed roof. To the west side of the yard is the washing-out room for cleaning the barrels after firing which has a canted bay to the yard front and was formerly a loading room with Priming and Ramming rooms off.

INTERIOR: The series of proof rooms each consists of two chambers; an outer room in which the rifle is placed in a metal box and directed through the dividing wall to the second room which contains a sand bank. Both chambers have solid brick walls and there is thick metal cladding to the lower walls of the second rooms. Some of the dividing walls between the rooms have been removed.

THE MAGAZINE BUILDING at the centre of the yard has plain brick walling of English bond to three sides and a half-glazed door to the west gable end. Plans show the building to have an outer and inner room.

The C20 buildings to the north side of the entrance forecourt are excluded from this designation.

 

HISTORY: The Gun Barrel Proof House was set up as a statutory institution by an Act of Parliament of 1813 to test barrels and completed guns. The Act was requested and obtained by the Birmingham trade and the Proof House was run at its own expense. It was, and still is, governed by a Board of Guardians composed of Master Gunmakers, magistrates and councillors and run by a Proof Master. Gun barrels and complete guns are tested by inspection and are fired to ensure their soundness and marked with a die stamp if they are passed. The original building of 1813-14 was designed by John Horton of Bradford Street, Deritend. A watercolour drawing of this time shows the original treatment of the north-facing, entrance front, which had a Tuscan throughway, which led to the yard behind. To the east of this were five bays and to the west were four. At the centre of the rear yard and on line with the central arch was the original magazine, which was treated as a classical kiosk. The survey plan of 1833 by Henry Jacob shows that the four bays at west belonged to two houses for officials of the Proof House, entered from a passageway common to both. These were altered in 1868-70 by Bateman and Corser and converted into workshops and at the same time the facade was altered to make it more symmetrical with five bays to the west side of the arch. Also at this same time the throughway appears to have been filled in and a semi-oval staircase added. A new, plainer magazine was added at the centre of the yard by the same architects in 1876. Prior to this, in 1860, a new `Proof Hole', or testing house, of four bays had been built to designs of Charles Edge. The entrance range to the forecourt was added by Jethro Cossins in 1883, including an archway which was raised in height in 1970. A bomb fell in the yard in 1940 and caused the destruction of one bay of the 1860 Proof Hole and the associated range of loading rooms along the south wall.

 

SOURCES

Andy Foster, Pevsner Architectural Guide, Birmingham (2005), 187-9; The Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House, Services and Facilities.

 

REASONS FOR DESIGNATION: The Gun Barrel Proof House is designated at Grade II* for the following principal reasons:

* The original range of buildings designed by John Horton and built in 1813 has distinct architectural quality and includes an impressive gateway and board room.

* The large Proof Hole of 1860 by Charles Edge suffered some damage in the Second World War but despite this is a remarkably intact example of its type with a large number of original fittings.

* The buildings were designed as an obvious, public expression of one of Birmingham's foremost industries which was pre-eminent in England throughout the C19, and the pride which it took in its reputation.

* The full complex of buildings, including proof rooms, loading rooms, inspection rooms and magazine provides a clear indication of the functioning of the Proof House.

 

Gun Barrel Proof House - Heritage Gateway

 

Coat of arms - taken through the gate as it was locked. Never-the-less got good shots of it from here.

Seen at the trunk of a 1964 VOLVO Amazon P131 B18.

 

The 4-door Amazon P120-series was designed by Jan Wilsgaard and introduced in 1956.

The 2-door P130-series coach was presented in Oct. 1961.

131 indicates a special version.

 

1780cc,

1040 kg.

New Dutch reg. number: July 27, 2011.

Total production Amazon: 1956-1970, P130-Series B18: Oct. 1961-July 1968.

 

Amsterdam-Z., Amstelveenseweg, June 10, 2015.

 

© 2015 Sander Toonen Amsterdam | All Rights Reserved

Image available for purchase from www.ballaratheritage.com.au

 

Information from Birds Australia

Hooded Plover

Thinornis rubricollis

For over 20 years concern has been expressed about the status of the Hooded Plover, a medium sized wading bird endemic to southern Australia.

 

Hooded Plovers live on sandy surf beaches, and prefer beaches backed by dunes rather than by cliffs. The species is non-migratory, although recent colour-band sightings have shown that birds will move several hundred kilometres.

 

In one well-studied population in Victoria, the breeding success was so low that it seems likely that populations will continue to decline. The current population estimate suggests there are about 5000-7000 Hooded Plovers in total.

 

Although the species has just been removed from the federal Environment Biodiversity and Protection Act, there are several reasons to believe that the species has a place on the list. These include population declines, and a postgraduate study that has found low breeding success.

 

There are also indications that the species consists of an eastern and western subspecies. Indeed, Hooded Plovers are considered Critically Endangered in NSW where it is now confined to the southern part of the state.

 

Many of the threats faced by Hooded Plovers involve humans, who accidentally crush nests and chicks, disturb the birds when breeding, and allow their dogs to chase and sometimes kill Hooded Plover chicks and eggs. Everybody who visits beaches in southern Australia can help this species by obeying regulations and staying away from Hooded Plovers when possible.

 

According to the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000, the eastern subspecies of the Hooded Plover is vulnerable, while the western subspecies is near threatened.

 

EPBC Information

Legal StatusTop The current conservation status of the Hooded Plover (eastern), Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis, under Australian and State/Territory Government legislation, is as follows:

 

National: Listed as a Marine species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

 

New South Wales: Listed as Endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

Victoria: Listed as Vulnerable under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria 2003; listed as Threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

 

South Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TaxonomyTop Scientific name: Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis.

 

Common name: Hooded Plover (eastern).

 

Other common names: At the species level, the Hooded Plover T. rubricollis has also been known (historically) as the Hooded Dotterel or Dotterel (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The taxonomy of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is considered equivocal due to a lack of published evidence (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The eastern subspecies and its western counterpart, T. r. tregellasi, were first recognized by Mathews (1913-1914), who split the two forms on the basis of size and plumage differences. Contemporary studies have confirmed that plumage and morphological differences exist between the eastern and western populations of the Hooded Plover (Marchant & Higgins 1993; Weston 2006, pers. comm.), and there also appear to be differences in the ecology and habitat of the two forms (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

 

A study comparing the genetics of the eastern and western populations of the Hooded Plover has commenced, but the results of this study are not yet available. The status of the two subspecies will remain unresolved until this study is completed, but the evidence provided above, together with the fact that the two populations are separated by a broad expanse of unsuitable habitat, suggests that there is a strong likelihood that the eastern and western populations represent genuine subspecies (Weston February 2006, pers. comm.).

 

At the species level, the Hooded Plover was recently moved from the genus Charadrius to the genus Thinornis (Christian et al. 1992). It is, therefore, the only species of the genus Thinornis that is endemic to Australia (Christidis & Boles 1994). There has also been some dispute over which specific name, rubricollis or the historical cucullatus, should be used (McAllan & Christidis 1998; Olson 1998).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DescriptionTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) is a stocky, medium-sized plover that is about 20 cm long and weighs approximately 100 g (Marchant & Higgins 1993). Average mass varies slightly depending on whether birds are breeding, and on the stage of the breeding cycle (Weston & Elgar 2005b).

 

Adult males and adult females are alike (Marchant & Higgins 1993); they cannot be distinguished in the field, and live birds have only been sexed genetically (Weston et al. 2004). The adult birds have a black 'hood', a broad white 'collar' across the back of neck that is bordered at the base by a thin strip of black, a blackish stripe that extends across the base of the neck and shoulders to the sides of the breast, pale brownish-grey upperparts (except for some blackish around the tip of the upper-tail) and white underparts. When in flight, black and white colouring is revealed on the distal and posterior regions of the upper wing, and a narrow brownish-grey band can be seen along the trailing edge of the under-wing. The adults have a red bill that is black at tip, red rings around the eyes, brown irises, and dull orange-pink legs and feet (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

 

Juvenile birds differ from the adults by having mainly dull grey-brown colouring on the head (there are small patches of white below the eyes and at the base of the bill, and the chin and throat are whitish or pale grey); lacking the thin strip of black at the base of the collar; lacking the blackish stripe that extends across the base of the neck and shoulders to the sides of the breast (in juveniles, this area is coloured the same as the rest of the upperparts); dark brown edging on the feathers of the upperparts; a bill that is mostly black but that has a small area of fleshy-pink colouring at the base; and pale orange rings around the eyes (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) usually occurs in pairs during the breeding season (Buick & Paton 1989; Schulz 1987a; Weston 1993a) and in small to large flocks (of up to 100 birds) during the non-breeding season (Cooper 1997; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Schulz 1987a; Weston 2006, pers. comm.). Single birds, pairs and small flocks may be observed throughout the year (Buick & Paton 1989; Schulz 1987a; Weston 1993a). The Hooded Plover (eastern) breeds in socially monogamous, solitary pairs (Bransbury 1991a; Marchant & Higgins 1993).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Australian DistributionTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) is widely dispersed on or near sandy beaches in south-eastern Australia. Its range extends from about Jervis Bay in New South Wales to the western reaches of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, and includes Tasmania and various offshore islands such as Kangaroo Island, King Island and Flinders Island (Barrett et al. 2003; Garnett & Crowley 2000; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Matthews 1913-14). There is also a single confirmed record of the Hooded Plover (eastern) in Queensland (a vagrant juvenile was located on Bribie Island in May 1998) (Cameron & Weston 1999).

 

The extent of occurrence is estimated at 1 500 000 km². This estimate, which is based on published maps, is considered to be of high reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

 

The extent of occurrence is stable at present (Garnett & Crowley 2000), but historical records indicate that a decline occurred during the first half of the 20th century.

 

There are historical records of the Hooded Plover (eastern) from around Sydney (Hindwood & Hoskin 1954; Hoskin 1992; North 1913-14) that are accepted as accurate (Cameron & Weston 1999; McAllan 2001). These records, when compared to the current northern limit of the Hooded Plover (eastern) around Jervis Bay, indicate that the range has contracted southward by an approximate distance of 150 km. This contraction would have resulted in a decrease in the extent of occurrence.

 

However, the contraction in range was possibly much greater. There are a small number of historical reports of the Hooded Plover (eastern) from southern Queensland and New South Wales, summarized in Cameron and Weston (1999). The validity of these reports has been challenged (McAllan 2001) but, if at least some of these reports are accurate, then it is possible that the distribution of the Hooded Plover (eastern) may formerly have extended, probably continuously, from southern Queensland and along the entire New South Wales coast into Victoria. The range may therefore have contracted southward by a distance of more than 900 km (Cameron & Weston 1999) which, if correct, would have resulted in a significant decline in the extent of occurrence.

 

It is likely that the extent of occurrence will decline in future. The ongoing decline in population sizes (e.g. Baird & Dann 2003) is likely to lead to the fragmentation of existing populations and, ultimately, to a contraction in the limits of the distribution, especially in New South Wales (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The area of occupancy is estimated at 4000 km². This estimate is based on the number of 1 km² grid squares that the Hooded Plover (eastern) is thought to occur in at the time when its population is most constrained. The estimate is considered to be of medium reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

 

Historical records indicate that a decline in the area of occupancy occurred during the first half of the 20th century (see above for details about past contractions in the range and, therefore, declines in the area of occupancy). This decline appears to have continued throughout the latter stages of the 20th century, given that population declines were recorded in Victoria (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 1993) and Tasmania (Woehler & Park 1997) during the 1980s and 1990s.

 

It had been thought likely that the area of occupancy had stabilized in recent years (Garnett & Crowley 2000). However, contemporary studies have recorded the loss of some breeding territories (Weston 2000), and there is some evidence to indicate that the loss of breeding territories is ongoing. It is likely that the area of occupancy is in slow decline, as a small number of territories disappear each year, and very few new territories are reported (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

There have been no estimates of the number of locations in which the Hooded Plover (eastern) occurs. The wide dispersal of the plovers within their habitats (especially when breeding) makes it difficult for discrete populations and locations to be defined (Weston 2002, pers. comm.). However, the vast majority of birds breed along the coastline and hence are vulnerable to widespread threats such as rises in sea levels and predation by introduced predators (Weston 2005).

 

Adelaide Zoo has bred the Hooded Plover (eastern) in captivity (Weston 2003), and maintains a small number of birds (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The distribution of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is currently not severely fragmented. Breaks in the distribution do occur where habitat is unsuitable (e.g. coast backed by cliffs), and some beaches appear to be unoccupied. However, records of colour-banded birds show that plovers can readily travel past cliffs, across inlets and bays, and around major promontories (i.e. Wilson's Promontory), and so disjunct habitats such as those described above do not constitute a fragmentation of the population (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Surveys ConductedTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) has been subject to many population surveys, including several which have not been properly analysed or published (Weston 2006, pers. comm.). The Australian Wader Studies Group conducts biennial counts of Hooded Plover (eastern) populations during the breeding season. These surveys have taken place along the coasts of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia (Weston 2003). The species has been most surveyed in Victoria, where counts have been conducted since 1980 (Weston 1993). Counts in other states have been less regular (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

There have also been surveys of Hooded Plover (eastern) populations outside of the breeding season (e.g. Heislers & Weston 1993), but these counts are less numerous and less extensive than those conducted during the breeding season. Regular counts (including some monthly counts) have been conducted at some locations (e.g. Waratah Bay, Kilcunda and Venus Bay in Victoria), but the results of these counts are yet to be analysed (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

It is highly likely, given the number and coverage of surveys that have been conducted, that the current known distribution and (to a lesser extent) current estimated population size are representative of the actual distribution and population size (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Population InformationTop The total population size of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is estimated at 3000 breeding birds. This estimate is considered to be of medium reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

 

Although there have been considerable efforts to survey populations of the Hooded Plover (eastern) during the past two decades (e.g. Weston 1993), most of these studies have reported only count results and do not extrapolate to population estimates (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) has a reasonably continuous distribution and is capable of undertaking relatively long-distance movements (Cameron & Weston 1999). This would suggest that the subspecies is unlikely to occur in genetically-isolated subpopulations. This view is supported by Garnett and Crowley (2000), who estimate that there is a single contiguous (i.e. interbreeding) population.

 

Estimates of regional population sizes are reasonably well known, but are not representative of true subpopulations. The estimated population sizes for each state are 30 to 70 birds in New South Wales ( Keating & Jarman 2003; Morris 1989a; Straw 1995), 460 to 600 birds in Victoria (Murlis 1989; Weston 1995), 1700 to 2000 birds in Tasmania (Bryant 2002; Holdsworth & Park 1993; Newman & Patterson 1984) and 320 to 540 birds in South Australia (Bransbury 1988; Natt & Weston 1995). Population declines have been recorded in New South Wales (Cameron & Weston 1999), Victoria (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 1993) and Tasmania (Woehler & Park 1997).

 

The total population size of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is likely to be declining (Garnett & Crowley 2000; Weston 2002, pers. comm.). This summation is based on population declines in New South Wales (Cameron & Weston 1999; Keating & Jarman 2003), Victoria (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 1993) and Tasmania (Woehler & Park 1997) during recent decades, and the fact that the loss of breeding territories appears to be ongoing (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

In New South Wales, it is presumed that the state population declined in association with the southward contraction in range that occurred during the early 20th century (Cameron & Weston 1999; Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

In Victoria, population declines have been recorded along several sections of the coastline. This includes a significant decline in the region between San Remo and Darby Beach, which supports the second largest population of Hooded Plovers (eastern) in Victoria (Weston 1993).

 

In Tasmania, survey data collected over a period of fourteen years (1982 to 1996) indicate that the Hooded Plover (eastern) population in Tasmania is declining, and that the rate of population decline appears to be increasing (e.g. the population decreased by an average of 1.6% per annum from 1982 to 1996, and by an average of 4.6% per annum from 1992 to 1996) (Park 1997; Woehler &).

 

There is potential for declines in some populations to be reversed, e.g. active and intense management at Mornington Peninsula National Park in Victoria led to an increase in the formerly declining local Hooded Plover (eastern) population (Dowling & Weston 1999a; Olsen & Weston 2004). However, management efforts such as these are currently limited to only a few sites and locations, and so are unlikely to be sufficient to reverse the general decline in total population size (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The generation length of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is estimated to be 5 years. This estimate was originally considered to be of low reliability due to a lack of reliable life history data (Garnett & Crowley 2000), but life history data (e.g. age of first breeding, longevity) collected since the estimate was made suggest that 5 years is a reasonable estimate of generation length (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The dispersed nature of the breeding distribution means that all populations are important, and that loss of any population would result in fragmentation. Range contraction in New South Wales means that maintenance of the easternmost breeding population may be key to halting the contraction (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

There are no published records of cross-breeding between the Hooded Plover (eastern) and the Hooded Plover (western), or between the Hooded Plover (eastern) and any other species.

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Populations in ReservesTop The Atlas of Australian Birds records the Hooded Plover (eastern) in 77 conservation reserves throughout south-eastern Australia since 1998 (n=438 records). Five reserves have had 25 or more records of the plover since 1998: South Bruny National Park, Tasmania (n=48 records); The Lakes National Park, Victoria (n=46 records); Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Victoria (n=32 records); Gippsland Lakes Coastal Park, Victoria (n=28 records); and Calverts Lagoon Conservation Area (n=25 records), Tasmania (Atlas of Australian Birds, unpublished data).

 

In Victoria, it is estimated that approximately 90% of the adult population of Hooded Plovers (eastern) occurs on land owned by Parks Victoria. Seven sites under the management of Parks Victoria contain 5% or more of the estimated Victorian population. These are: Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal Reserve, Mornington Peninsula National Park, San Remo-Point Smythe Coastal Reserve, Nooramunga Marine and Coastal Park, McLoughlins Beach-Seaspray Coastal Reserve, and Croajingalong National Park (Weston 2003).

 

In Victoria, active management occurs in Mornington Peninsula National Park and Phillip Island Nature Park. In South Australia, informal site-specific work has taken place in reserves in the south-east of the state, where string fences have been erected to prevent vehicles from crushing nests (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.). Active management also occurs in New South Wales, at Inverloch in Victoria, and at sites in Tasmania (Keating & Jarman 2004; M.A. Weston 2006). Some management activity in each of these regions is likely to occur within reserves, but it is not known which specific reserves are involved (M.A.Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

HabitatTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) occurs in coastal areas, on or near high energy sandy beaches. They are generally found close to shore, but may occasionally visit sites located a short distance inland (e.g. lakes near the coast). Hooded Plovers (eastern) mainly inhabit sandy ocean beaches and their adjacent dunes. They have been claimed to have reasonably narrow preferences when it comes to beach habitat, but recent studies suggest that a variety of beach types may be used. Hooded Plovers (eastern) are sometimes found in habitats other than beaches, e.g. on rock platforms, reefs, around near coastal lakes and lagoons.

  

Beaches occupied by Hooded Plovers (eastern) tend to be broad and flat, with a wide wave-wash zone for foraging and much beachcast seaweed, and backed by sparsely-vegetated sand-dunes that provide shelter and foraging and nesting sites (Baird & Dann 2003; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Weston 2000, 2003).

 

They usually avoid beaches that are narrow or steep, that have little seaweed, or that have waves that wash up to the base of the adjacent dunes. They also tend to avoid beaches that lack adjacent dunes, or that have dunes that are bare or heavily vegetated. They are claimed to avoid beaches that have rocky or pebble-covered shores, and sections of coastline that have continous cliffs (Bransbury 1988; Hewish 1989; Lane 1981a; Schulz 1990), but nests are commonly placed on stone-covered beaches at Phillip Island (Baird & Dann 2003), and birds may be found on small beaches surrounded by long lines of cliffs at Cape Otway (Baker-Gabb & Weston 1999).

 

Furthermore, the single study that has been conducted on general habitat preferences of the Hooded Plover (eastern) found that were no differences in the usage (i.e. the densities of birds or nests) of various distinct types of beach (Bear 2000). Further work is required to determine which factors or characteristics influence the use of beach habitats (Weston 2003).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) also occurs infrequently in other types of habitat. Hooded Plovers (eastern) visit saline and freshwater lakes and lagoons near the coast, especially during the non-breeding season, but the importance of these sites is not well known (Bransbury 1988; Buick 1985; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Thomas 1968; Weston 2002, pers. comm.). They are also occasionally found in near-shore habitats other than beaches, e.g. on tidal bays and estuaries, on rock platforms, or on rock or sand-covered reefs close to shore (Bransbury 1988; Hewish 1989; Schulz 1986b; Weston & Peter 2004).

  

The Hooded Plover (eastern) may use near-coastal lakes as a refuge from high levels of disturbance on adjacent beaches (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

The Hooded Plover (eastern) does not associate with any other species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act 1999, but it can co-occur with species listed at the state level such as Little Terns Sterna albifrons. It can also occur coincidentally near some other creatures (e.g. shorebirds, seals) that are listed as Marine and/or Migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999 (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Life CycleTop Banding studies have shown that the Hooded Plover (eastern) is capable of surviving for more than 16 years in the wild, although the average longevity is less than this (Weston 2000). Most birds begin breeding in the second season after hatching, but some commence breeding in either the first or third seasons after hatching (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 2000).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FeedingTop The diet of the Hooded Plover (eastern) mainly consists of marine invertebrates (e.g. polychaete worms, molluscs and crustaceans). It also feeds on insects (e.g. beetles, flies, dragonflies) and vegetable material (mostly seeds) (Buick 1985; Schulz 1986b; Schulz et al. 1984).

  

The Hooded Plover (eastern) forages near the shoreline in coastal areas, e.g. on beaches, rock or reef platforms, amongst boulders and dunes, and at lakes close to the coast (Buick 1985; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Schulz 1986b; Schulz et al. 1984; Weston 2006, pers. comm.; Weston & Elgar 2005a). It captures its prey by running across the surface of a foraging substrate and intermittently stopping to peck or probe at prey items (Buick 1985; Schulz 1986b; Weston 2006, pers. comm.). The Hooded Plover (eastern) is capable of foraging during the day or at night (Weston 2006, pers. comm.). The amount of time spent foraging varies between seasons, being greatest in winter and smaller in summer (Buick 1985). The lesser amount of time spent foraging in summer is due in part to the fact that breeding adults sacrifice some foraging time so that they may attend their nests and, more particularly, their broods (i.e. adults forage much less when attending young as compared to attending nests) (Weston & Elgar 2005b).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Movement PatternsTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) is largely sedentary (Weston 2006, pers. comm.), but some birds undertake movements during the non-breeding season, e.g. when congregating together into winter flocks (Bransbury 1985; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Weston 2002, pers. comm.). In one study, Weston and colleagues (2009) observed that most movements were relatively short (5 km), with 60% of movemenbts < 1 km and 95% < 20 km. Also, the extent of coastline used by individual birds averaged 47.8 km (Weston et al. 2009).

 

A major unpublished banding study indicates that adult plovers travel up to 50 km to join non-breeding flocks. The same study also indicates that juveniles are much more mobile than adults, with records of several movements in excess of 100 km (Weston 2006, pers. comm.) and one record of an unprecedented movement of more than 900 km (Cameron & Weston 1999). In one study, travel distances were larger in the non-breeding season, non-breeding adults remained closer to their partners (than breeding adults) and larger flock sizes were observed in the non-breeding season (Weston et al. 2009).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) is capable of crossing moderately large stretches of water such as the mouths of Port Phillip and Westernport Bays (Weston 2002, pers. comm.) and the channels of water between mainland Australia and several offshore islands (e.g. Kangaroo Island, Pearson Island) (Dennis 1998, pers. comm.; Eckert 1971; Hornsby 1978). Birds sometimes make local, short-distance movements to inland sites (e.g. lakes behind beaches) or to exposed reefs and inlets (Belcher 1914; Blakers et al. 1984; Emison et al. 1987).

  

Pairs defend territories from other Hooded Plovers (eastern) during the breeding season. These territories, which consist of a small area near the shoreline (e.g. a section of beach and adjacent dunes), are multi-purpose and are used for foraging, roosting and breeding (Weston 2000). The occupancy and, therefore, maintenance of territories declines during the non-breeding season as some birds congregate into winter flocks (Weston 2000; Weston 2006, pers. comm.). Pairs that remain intact generally maintain territories and construct their nests in the same area (i.e. within about 1 km) year after year. Information on the size of territories is only available from central Victoria, where territories ranged in size from 400 m to 1 800 m (Weston 2000). These measures represent the length of the coastline that the territories occupied (as territories are essentially linear in form) (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

No information is available on home ranges, although information from colour-banded birds suggests that birds can wander up to approximately 50 km to join winter flocks (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Survey GuidelinesTop The adult plumage of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is distinctive (Marchant & Higgins 1993). However, inexperienced observers, or those with poor or brief views (especially of birds in flight), could mistake Ruddy Turnstones Arenaria interpres for adult Hooded Plovers (eastern) (Cameron & Weston 1999).

 

The juvenile plumage of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is also quite distinctive (Marchant & Higgins 1993). However, juveniles could be confused with Sanderlings Calidris alba, Double-banded Plovers Charadrius bicinctus or Ringed Plovers C. hiaticula (although the Ringed Plover, which breeds in the northern hemisphere, is a rare and accidental visitor to Australia) (Cameron & Weston 1999; Marchant & Higgins 1993). Unattended nestlings of the Hooded Plover (eastern) can be mistaken for chicks of the Red-capped Plover C. ruficapillus (Weston 2003).

 

The detectability of the Hooded Plover (eastern) can vary depending on the type of habitat it is encountered in. In flat and exposed sites such as beaches, plovers and their nests are readily detected by experienced observers (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.). However, plovers sometimes nest or forage in dunes adjacent to beaches (Weston 2003), and in such situations it is possible for some birds or nests to be overlooked, even by experienced observers (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ThreatsTop Major oil spills could, in theory, cause local extinctions and, consequently, initiate the fragmentation of populations (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Threat Abatement and RecoveryTop Research has shown that local Hooded Plover (eastern) populations can recover if management procedures are introduced to reduce the destruction of nests and chicks and the disturbance of breeding pairs (Dowling & Weston 1999a).

 

The following recovery actions have been completed or are underway (Schulz 1992c; M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.):

  

Biennial surveys of populations in Victoria and New South Wales, more frequent monitoring of some populations in Victoria and New South Wales (especially during the breeding season), and less frequent surveys of populations in South Australia and Tasmania.

  

Control programs for foxes and feral dogs and cats along some stretches of coastline.

  

Bans or regulations on domestic dogs at some beaches during the Hooded Plover (eastern) breeding season.

  

On-ground works including fencing and temporary closure of beaches and the use of volunteer wardens (Dodge et al. 2005).

  

Studies to evaluate the effectiveness of management techniques (see Baird & Dann 1999, Dodge et al. 2005, Dowling & Weston 1999a).

  

Preparation of recovery plans for New South Wales and South Australian populations and management plans for Victoria and Tasmania.

  

Education programs, together with the stationing of wardens at beaches that have been closed temporarily, the introduction of signage and general publicity about the Hooded Plover (eastern), to increase public awareness.

 

The following recovery actions have been proposed (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

Continuation of all existing actions. However, there is a need to expand these actions to include a greater proportion of the range of the Hooded Plover (eastern).

  

More information and research is needed on the efficacy of management techniques such as the use of chick shelters, predator control, effective mechanisms to alter human behaviour on beaches and habitat restoration and maintenance (Weston 2003).

  

Incorporation of the species requirements into planning provisions and coastal management strategies.

  

Greater communication between widely distributed workers.

 

The following government organisations have been involved in the recovery effort for the Hooded Plover (eastern): National Parks and Wildlife Service in New South Wales; the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria in Victoria; the Department of Environment and Heritage in South Australia; and the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment in Tasmania. Other organizations involved in the recovery effort include the Australian Wader Study Group (Birds Australia), beach management authorities and local governments (Garnett & Crowley 2000; M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Major StudiesTop There have been a number of major studies on the Hooded Plover (eastern). A recent review of the literature found that, at the species level, the Hooded Plover had received substantial coverage in 174 publications (122 of which were specific to the eastern subspecies), and that 38 of these 174 publications should be classed as major studies (Weston 2005). All but two of these major studies were conducted on populations of the eastern subspecies (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The literature review described above was based on all known literature up to early October 2003 (Weston 2005). Some additional major studies have been published since then (e.g. Baird & Dann 2003, Weston & Elgar 2005a, Weston & Elgar 2005b).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Management DocumentationTop A draft Recovery Plan was prepared by Baker-Gabb and Weston (1999).

 

Management documentation has been authored by Urquhart and Teoh (2001), Weston (2003) and Weston and Morrow (2000).

 

A recovery plan for the South Australian population of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is in preparation. In addition, a project is currently underway to produce a manual for the management of beach-nesting birds. This manual is to be released in 2008 (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

. . . look at the faces: every soldier has a different face! Not two are similar!

______________________________________

 

The Terracotta Army is a collection of terracotta sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried with the emperor in 210–209 BCE with the purpose of protecting the emperor in his afterlife.

 

The figures, dating from approximately the late third century BCE, were discovered in 1974 by local farmers in Lintong County, outside Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. The figures vary in height according to their roles, with the tallest being the generals. The figures include warriors, chariots and horses. Estimates from 2007 were that the three pits containing the Terracotta Army held more than 8,000 soldiers, 130 chariots with 520 horses, and 150 cavalry horses, the majority of which remained buried in the pits near Qin Shi Huang's mausoleum. Other terracotta non-military figures were found in other pits, including officials, acrobats, strongmen, and musicians.

 

HISTORY

The construction of the tomb was described by historian Sima Qian (145–90 BCE) in his most noted work Shiji, written a century after the mausoleum's completion. Work on the mausoleum began in 246 BCE soon after Emperor Qin (then aged 13) ascended the throne, and the project eventually involved 700,000 workers. Geographer Li Daoyuan, writing six centuries after the First Emperor's death, recorded in Shui Jing Zhu that Mount Li was a favoured location due to its auspicious geology, "famed for its jade mines, its northern side was rich in gold, and its southern side rich in beautiful jade; the First Emperor, covetous of its fine reputation, therefore chose to be buried there". Sima Qian wrote that the First Emperor was buried with palaces, towers, officials, valuable artifacts and wondrous objects. According to this account, 100 flowing rivers were simulated using mercury, and above them the ceiling was decorated with heavenly bodies below which were the features of the land. Some translations of this passage refer to "models" or "imitations"; however, those words were not used in the original text, which makes no mention of the terracotta army. High levels of mercury were found in the soil of the tomb mound, giving credence to Sima Qian's account. Later historical accounts suggested that the tomb had been looted by Xiang Yu, a contender for the throne after the death of the first emperor. However, there are indications that the tomb may not have been plundered.

 

DISCOVERY

The Terracotta Army was discovered on 29 March 1974 by farmers digging a water well approximately 1.5 kilometres east of the Qin Emperor's tomb mound at Mount Li (Lishan), a region riddled with underground springs and watercourses. For centuries, occasional reports mentioned pieces of terracotta figures and fragments of the Qin necropolis – roofing tiles, bricks and chunks of masonry. This discovery prompted Chinese archaeologists, including Zhao Kangmin, to investigate, revealing the largest pottery figurine group ever found. A museum complex has since been constructed over the area, the largest pit being enclosed by a roofed structure.

 

NECROPOLIS

The Terracotta Army is part of a much larger necropolis. Ground-penetrating radar and core sampling have measured the area to be approximately 98 square kilometers.

 

The necropolis was constructed as a microcosm of the emperor's imperial palace or compound, and covers a large area around the tomb mound of the first emperor. The earthen tomb mound is located at the foot of Mount Li and built in a pyramidal shape, and is surrounded by two solidly built rammed earth walls with gateway entrances. The necropolis consists of several offices, halls, stables, other structures as well as an imperial park placed around the tomb mound.

 

The warriors stand guard to the east of the tomb. Up to 5 metres of reddish, sandy soil had accumulated over the site in the two millennia following its construction, but archaeologists found evidence of earlier disturbances at the site. During the excavations near the Mount Li burial mound, archaeologists found several graves dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where diggers had apparently struck terracotta fragments. These were discarded as worthless and used along with soil to back fill the excavations.

 

TOMB

The tomb appears to be a hermetically sealed space roughly the size of a football pitch (c. 100 × 75 m). The tomb remains unopened, possibly due to concerns over preservation of its artifacts. For example, after the excavation of the Terracotta Army, the painted surface present on some terracotta figures began to flake and fade. The lacquer covering the paint can curl in fifteen seconds once exposed to Xi'an's dry air and can flake off in just four minutes.

 

EXCAVATION S'ITE

PITS

Four main pits approximately 7 metres deep have been excavated. These are located approximately 1.5 kilometres east of the burial mound. The soldiers within were laid out as if to protect the tomb from the east, where the Qin Emperor's conquered states lay.

 

PIT 1

Pit 1, which is 230 metres long and 62 metres wide, contains the main army of more than 6,000 figures. Pit 1 has eleven corridors, most more than 3 metres wide and paved with small bricks with a wooden ceiling supported by large beams and posts. This design was also used for the tombs of nobles and would have resembled palace hallways when built. The wooden ceilings were covered with reed mats and layers of clay for waterproofing, and then mounded with more soil raising them about 2 to 3 metres above the surrounding ground level when completed.

 

OTHERS

Pit 2 has cavalry and infantry units as well as war chariots and is thought to represent a military guard. Pit 3 is the command post, with high-ranking officers and a war chariot. Pit 4 is empty, perhaps left unfinished by its builders.

 

Some of the figures in Pits 1 and 2 show fire damage, while remains of burnt ceiling rafters have also been found. These, together with the missing weapons, have been taken as evidence of the reported looting by Xiang Yu and the subsequent burning of the site, which is thought to have caused the roof to collapse and crush the army figures below. The terracotta figures currently on display have been restored from the fragments.

 

Other pits that formed the necropolis have also been excavated. These pits lie within and outside the walls surrounding the tomb mound. They variously contain bronze carriages, terracotta figures of entertainers such as acrobats and strongmen, officials, stone armour suits, burial sites of horses, rare animals and labourers, as well as bronze cranes and ducks set in an underground park.

 

WARRIOR FIGURES

TYPES AND APPEARANCE

The terracotta figures are life-sized. They vary in height, uniform, and hairstyle in accordance with rank. Their faces appear to be different for each individual figure; scholars, however, have identified 10 basic face shapes. The figures are of these general types: armored warriors; unarmored infantrymen; cavalrymen who wear a pillbox hat; helmeted drivers of chariots with more armor protection; spear-carrying charioteers; kneeling archers who are armored; standing archers who are not; as well as generals and other lower-ranking officers. There are, however, many variations in the uniforms within the ranks: for example, some may wear shin pads while others not; they may wear either long or short trousers, some of which may be padded; and their body armors vary depending on rank, function, and position in formation. There are also terracotta horses placed among the warrior figures.

 

Originally, the figures were painted with bright pigments, variously coloured pink, red, green, blue, black, brown, white and lilac. The coloured lacquer finish and individual facial features would have given the figures a realistic feel. However, much of the colour coating had flaked off or become greatly faded.

 

Some scholars have speculated a possible Hellenistic link to these sculptures, because of the lack of life-sized and realistic sculptures before the Qin dynasty. They argued that potential Greek influence is particularly evident in some terracotta figures such as those of acrobats, combined with findings of European DNA and rare bronze artifacts made with a lost wax technique known in Greece and Egypt.. However, this idea is disputed by scholars who claim that there is "no substantial evidence at all" for contact between ancient Greeks and Chinese builders of the tomb. They argue that such speculations rest on flawed and old "Eurocentric" ideas that assumed other civilizations were incapable of sophisticated artistry and thus foreign artistry must be seen through western traditions.

 

CONSTRUCTION

The terracotta army figures were manufactured in workshops by government laborers and local craftsmen using local materials. Heads, arms, legs, and torsos were created separately and then assembled by luting the pieces together. When completed, the terracotta figures were placed in the pits in precise military formation according to rank and duty.

 

The faces were created using molds, and at least ten face molds may have been used. Clay was then added after assembly to provide individual facial features to make each figure appear different. It is believed that the warriors' legs were made in much the same way that terracotta drainage pipes were manufactured at the time. This would classify the process as assembly line production, with specific parts manufactured and assembled after being fired, as opposed to crafting one solid piece and subsequently firing it. In those times of tight imperial control, each workshop was required to inscribe its name on items produced to ensure quality control. This has aided modern historians in verifying which workshops were commandeered to make tiles and other mundane items for the terracotta army.

 

WEAPONRY

Most of the figures originally held real weapons, which would have increased their realism. The majority of these weapons were looted shortly after the creation of the army or have rotted away. Despite this, over 40,000 bronze items of weaponry have been recovered, including swords, daggers, spears, lances, battle-axes, scimitars, shields, crossbows, and crossbow triggers. Most of the recovered items are arrowheads, which are usually found in bundles of 100 units. Studies of these arrowheads suggests that they were produced by self-sufficient, autonomous workshops using a process referred to as cellular production or Toyotism. Some weapons were coated with a 10–15 micrometer layer of chromium dioxide before burial that has protected them from any form of decay for the last 2200 years. The swords contain an alloy of copper, tin, and other elements including nickel, magnesium, and cobalt. Some carry inscriptions that date their manufacture to between 245 and 228 BCE, indicating that they were used before burial.

 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

In 2007, scientists at Stanford University and the Advanced Light Source facility in Berkeley, California reported that powder diffraction experiments combined with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and micro-X-ray fluorescence analysis showed that the process of producing terracotta figures colored with Chinese purple dye consisting of barium copper silicate was derived from the knowledge gained by Taoist alchemists in their attempts to synthesize jade ornaments.

 

Since 2006, an international team of researchers at the UCL Institute of Archaeology have been using analytical chemistry techniques to uncover more details about the production techniques employed in the creation of the Terracotta Army. Using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry of 40,000 bronze arrowheads bundled in groups of 100, the researchers reported that the arrowheads within a single bundle formed a relatively tight cluster that was different from other bundles. In addition, the presence or absence of metal impurities was consistent within bundles. Based on the arrows’ chemical compositions, the researchers concluded that a cellular manufacturing system similar to the one used in a modern Toyota factory, as opposed to a continuous assembly line in the early days of the automobile industry, was employed.

 

Grinding and polishing marks visible under a scanning electron microscope provide evidence for the earliest industrial use of lathes for polishing.

 

EXHIBITIONS

The first exhibition of the figures outside of China was held at National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) in Melbourne in 1982.

 

A collection of 120 objects from the mausoleum and 12 terracotta warriors were displayed at the British Museum in London as its special exhibition "The First Emperor: China's Terracotta Army" from 13 September 2007 to April 2008. This exhibition made 2008 the British Museum's most successful year and made the British Museum the United Kingdom's top cultural attraction between 2007 and 2008. The exhibition brought the most visitors to the museum since the King Tutankhamun exhibition in 1972. It was reported that the 400,000 advance tickets sold out so fast that the museum extended its opening hours until midnight. According to The Times, many people had to be turned away, despite the extended hours. During the day of events to mark the Chinese New Year, the crush was so intense that the gates to the museum had to be shut. The Terracotta Army has been described as the only other set of historic artifacts (along with the remnants of wreck of the RMS Titanic) that can draw a crowd by the name alone.

 

Warriors and other artifacts were exhibited to the public at the Forum de Barcelona in Barcelona between 9 May and 26 September 2004. It was their most successful exhibition ever. The same exhibition was presented at the Fundación Canal de Isabel II in Madrid between October 2004 and January 2005, their most successful ever. From December 2009 to May 2010, the exhibition was shown in the Centro Cultural La Moneda in Santiago de Chile.

 

The exhibition traveled to North America and visited museums such as the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, Bowers Museum in Santa Ana, California, Houston Museum of Natural Science, High Museum of Art in Atlanta, National Geographic Society Museum in Washington, D.C. and the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Subsequently, the exhibition traveled to Sweden and was hosted in the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities between 28 August 2010 and 20 January 2011. An exhibition entitled 'The First Emperor – China's Entombed Warriors', presenting 120 artifacts was hosted at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, between 2 December 2010 and 13 March 2011. An exhibition entitled "L'Empereur guerrier de Chine et son armée de terre cuite" ("The Warrior-Emperor of China and his terracotta army"), featuring artifacts including statues from the mausoleum, was hosted by the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts from 11 February 2011 to 26 June 2011. In Italy, from July 2008 to 16 November 2008, five of the warriors of the terracotta army were displayed in Turin at the Museum of Antiquities, and from 16 April 2010 to 5 September 2010 were exposed nine warriors in Milan, at the Royal Palace, at the exhibition entitled "The Two Empires". The group consisted of a horse, a counselor, an archer and six lancers. The "Treasures of Ancient China" exhibition, showcasing two terracotta soldiers and other artifacts, including the Longmen Grottoes Buddhist statues, was held between 19 February 2011 and 7 November 2011 in four locations in India: National Museum of New Delhi, Prince of Wales Museum in Mumbai, Salar Jung Museum in Hyderabad and National Library of India in Kolkata.

 

Soldiers and related items were on display from 15 March 2013 to 17 November 2013, at the Historical Museum of Bern.

 

Several Terracotta Army figures were on display, along with many other objects, in an exhibit entitled "Age of Empires: Chinese Art of the Qin and Han Dynasties" at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City from 3 April 2017, to 16 July 2017 An exhibition featuring ten Terracotta Army figures and other artifacts, "Terracotta Warriors of the First Emperor," was on display at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington, from 8 April 2017 to 4 September 2017 before traveling to The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to be exhibited from 30 September 2017 to 4 March 2018 with the addition of augmented reality.

 

An exhibition entitled "China's First Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors" is at the World Museum in Liverpool from 9 February 2018 to 28 October 2018. This is the first time in more than 10 years that the warriors have travelled to the UK.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Image available for purchase from www.ballaratheritage.com.au

 

Information from Birds Australia

Hooded Plover

Thinornis rubricollis

For over 20 years concern has been expressed about the status of the Hooded Plover, a medium sized wading bird endemic to southern Australia.

 

Hooded Plovers live on sandy surf beaches, and prefer beaches backed by dunes rather than by cliffs. The species is non-migratory, although recent colour-band sightings have shown that birds will move several hundred kilometres.

 

In one well-studied population in Victoria, the breeding success was so low that it seems likely that populations will continue to decline. The current population estimate suggests there are about 5000-7000 Hooded Plovers in total.

 

Although the species has just been removed from the federal Environment Biodiversity and Protection Act, there are several reasons to believe that the species has a place on the list. These include population declines, and a postgraduate study that has found low breeding success.

 

There are also indications that the species consists of an eastern and western subspecies. Indeed, Hooded Plovers are considered Critically Endangered in NSW where it is now confined to the southern part of the state.

 

Many of the threats faced by Hooded Plovers involve humans, who accidentally crush nests and chicks, disturb the birds when breeding, and allow their dogs to chase and sometimes kill Hooded Plover chicks and eggs. Everybody who visits beaches in southern Australia can help this species by obeying regulations and staying away from Hooded Plovers when possible.

 

According to the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000, the eastern subspecies of the Hooded Plover is vulnerable, while the western subspecies is near threatened.

 

EPBC Information

Legal StatusTop The current conservation status of the Hooded Plover (eastern), Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis, under Australian and State/Territory Government legislation, is as follows:

 

National: Listed as a Marine species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

 

New South Wales: Listed as Endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

Victoria: Listed as Vulnerable under the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria 2003; listed as Threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

 

South Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TaxonomyTop Scientific name: Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis.

 

Common name: Hooded Plover (eastern).

 

Other common names: At the species level, the Hooded Plover T. rubricollis has also been known (historically) as the Hooded Dotterel or Dotterel (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The taxonomy of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is considered equivocal due to a lack of published evidence (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The eastern subspecies and its western counterpart, T. r. tregellasi, were first recognized by Mathews (1913-1914), who split the two forms on the basis of size and plumage differences. Contemporary studies have confirmed that plumage and morphological differences exist between the eastern and western populations of the Hooded Plover (Marchant & Higgins 1993; Weston 2006, pers. comm.), and there also appear to be differences in the ecology and habitat of the two forms (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

 

A study comparing the genetics of the eastern and western populations of the Hooded Plover has commenced, but the results of this study are not yet available. The status of the two subspecies will remain unresolved until this study is completed, but the evidence provided above, together with the fact that the two populations are separated by a broad expanse of unsuitable habitat, suggests that there is a strong likelihood that the eastern and western populations represent genuine subspecies (Weston February 2006, pers. comm.).

 

At the species level, the Hooded Plover was recently moved from the genus Charadrius to the genus Thinornis (Christian et al. 1992). It is, therefore, the only species of the genus Thinornis that is endemic to Australia (Christidis & Boles 1994). There has also been some dispute over which specific name, rubricollis or the historical cucullatus, should be used (McAllan & Christidis 1998; Olson 1998).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

DescriptionTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) is a stocky, medium-sized plover that is about 20 cm long and weighs approximately 100 g (Marchant & Higgins 1993). Average mass varies slightly depending on whether birds are breeding, and on the stage of the breeding cycle (Weston & Elgar 2005b).

 

Adult males and adult females are alike (Marchant & Higgins 1993); they cannot be distinguished in the field, and live birds have only been sexed genetically (Weston et al. 2004). The adult birds have a black 'hood', a broad white 'collar' across the back of neck that is bordered at the base by a thin strip of black, a blackish stripe that extends across the base of the neck and shoulders to the sides of the breast, pale brownish-grey upperparts (except for some blackish around the tip of the upper-tail) and white underparts. When in flight, black and white colouring is revealed on the distal and posterior regions of the upper wing, and a narrow brownish-grey band can be seen along the trailing edge of the under-wing. The adults have a red bill that is black at tip, red rings around the eyes, brown irises, and dull orange-pink legs and feet (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

 

Juvenile birds differ from the adults by having mainly dull grey-brown colouring on the head (there are small patches of white below the eyes and at the base of the bill, and the chin and throat are whitish or pale grey); lacking the thin strip of black at the base of the collar; lacking the blackish stripe that extends across the base of the neck and shoulders to the sides of the breast (in juveniles, this area is coloured the same as the rest of the upperparts); dark brown edging on the feathers of the upperparts; a bill that is mostly black but that has a small area of fleshy-pink colouring at the base; and pale orange rings around the eyes (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) usually occurs in pairs during the breeding season (Buick & Paton 1989; Schulz 1987a; Weston 1993a) and in small to large flocks (of up to 100 birds) during the non-breeding season (Cooper 1997; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Schulz 1987a; Weston 2006, pers. comm.). Single birds, pairs and small flocks may be observed throughout the year (Buick & Paton 1989; Schulz 1987a; Weston 1993a). The Hooded Plover (eastern) breeds in socially monogamous, solitary pairs (Bransbury 1991a; Marchant & Higgins 1993).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Australian DistributionTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) is widely dispersed on or near sandy beaches in south-eastern Australia. Its range extends from about Jervis Bay in New South Wales to the western reaches of the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, and includes Tasmania and various offshore islands such as Kangaroo Island, King Island and Flinders Island (Barrett et al. 2003; Garnett & Crowley 2000; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Matthews 1913-14). There is also a single confirmed record of the Hooded Plover (eastern) in Queensland (a vagrant juvenile was located on Bribie Island in May 1998) (Cameron & Weston 1999).

 

The extent of occurrence is estimated at 1 500 000 km². This estimate, which is based on published maps, is considered to be of high reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

 

The extent of occurrence is stable at present (Garnett & Crowley 2000), but historical records indicate that a decline occurred during the first half of the 20th century.

 

There are historical records of the Hooded Plover (eastern) from around Sydney (Hindwood & Hoskin 1954; Hoskin 1992; North 1913-14) that are accepted as accurate (Cameron & Weston 1999; McAllan 2001). These records, when compared to the current northern limit of the Hooded Plover (eastern) around Jervis Bay, indicate that the range has contracted southward by an approximate distance of 150 km. This contraction would have resulted in a decrease in the extent of occurrence.

 

However, the contraction in range was possibly much greater. There are a small number of historical reports of the Hooded Plover (eastern) from southern Queensland and New South Wales, summarized in Cameron and Weston (1999). The validity of these reports has been challenged (McAllan 2001) but, if at least some of these reports are accurate, then it is possible that the distribution of the Hooded Plover (eastern) may formerly have extended, probably continuously, from southern Queensland and along the entire New South Wales coast into Victoria. The range may therefore have contracted southward by a distance of more than 900 km (Cameron & Weston 1999) which, if correct, would have resulted in a significant decline in the extent of occurrence.

 

It is likely that the extent of occurrence will decline in future. The ongoing decline in population sizes (e.g. Baird & Dann 2003) is likely to lead to the fragmentation of existing populations and, ultimately, to a contraction in the limits of the distribution, especially in New South Wales (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The area of occupancy is estimated at 4000 km². This estimate is based on the number of 1 km² grid squares that the Hooded Plover (eastern) is thought to occur in at the time when its population is most constrained. The estimate is considered to be of medium reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

 

Historical records indicate that a decline in the area of occupancy occurred during the first half of the 20th century (see above for details about past contractions in the range and, therefore, declines in the area of occupancy). This decline appears to have continued throughout the latter stages of the 20th century, given that population declines were recorded in Victoria (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 1993) and Tasmania (Woehler & Park 1997) during the 1980s and 1990s.

 

It had been thought likely that the area of occupancy had stabilized in recent years (Garnett & Crowley 2000). However, contemporary studies have recorded the loss of some breeding territories (Weston 2000), and there is some evidence to indicate that the loss of breeding territories is ongoing. It is likely that the area of occupancy is in slow decline, as a small number of territories disappear each year, and very few new territories are reported (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

There have been no estimates of the number of locations in which the Hooded Plover (eastern) occurs. The wide dispersal of the plovers within their habitats (especially when breeding) makes it difficult for discrete populations and locations to be defined (Weston 2002, pers. comm.). However, the vast majority of birds breed along the coastline and hence are vulnerable to widespread threats such as rises in sea levels and predation by introduced predators (Weston 2005).

 

Adelaide Zoo has bred the Hooded Plover (eastern) in captivity (Weston 2003), and maintains a small number of birds (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The distribution of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is currently not severely fragmented. Breaks in the distribution do occur where habitat is unsuitable (e.g. coast backed by cliffs), and some beaches appear to be unoccupied. However, records of colour-banded birds show that plovers can readily travel past cliffs, across inlets and bays, and around major promontories (i.e. Wilson's Promontory), and so disjunct habitats such as those described above do not constitute a fragmentation of the population (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Surveys ConductedTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) has been subject to many population surveys, including several which have not been properly analysed or published (Weston 2006, pers. comm.). The Australian Wader Studies Group conducts biennial counts of Hooded Plover (eastern) populations during the breeding season. These surveys have taken place along the coasts of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia (Weston 2003). The species has been most surveyed in Victoria, where counts have been conducted since 1980 (Weston 1993). Counts in other states have been less regular (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

There have also been surveys of Hooded Plover (eastern) populations outside of the breeding season (e.g. Heislers & Weston 1993), but these counts are less numerous and less extensive than those conducted during the breeding season. Regular counts (including some monthly counts) have been conducted at some locations (e.g. Waratah Bay, Kilcunda and Venus Bay in Victoria), but the results of these counts are yet to be analysed (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

It is highly likely, given the number and coverage of surveys that have been conducted, that the current known distribution and (to a lesser extent) current estimated population size are representative of the actual distribution and population size (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Population InformationTop The total population size of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is estimated at 3000 breeding birds. This estimate is considered to be of medium reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

 

Although there have been considerable efforts to survey populations of the Hooded Plover (eastern) during the past two decades (e.g. Weston 1993), most of these studies have reported only count results and do not extrapolate to population estimates (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) has a reasonably continuous distribution and is capable of undertaking relatively long-distance movements (Cameron & Weston 1999). This would suggest that the subspecies is unlikely to occur in genetically-isolated subpopulations. This view is supported by Garnett and Crowley (2000), who estimate that there is a single contiguous (i.e. interbreeding) population.

 

Estimates of regional population sizes are reasonably well known, but are not representative of true subpopulations. The estimated population sizes for each state are 30 to 70 birds in New South Wales ( Keating & Jarman 2003; Morris 1989a; Straw 1995), 460 to 600 birds in Victoria (Murlis 1989; Weston 1995), 1700 to 2000 birds in Tasmania (Bryant 2002; Holdsworth & Park 1993; Newman & Patterson 1984) and 320 to 540 birds in South Australia (Bransbury 1988; Natt & Weston 1995). Population declines have been recorded in New South Wales (Cameron & Weston 1999), Victoria (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 1993) and Tasmania (Woehler & Park 1997).

 

The total population size of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is likely to be declining (Garnett & Crowley 2000; Weston 2002, pers. comm.). This summation is based on population declines in New South Wales (Cameron & Weston 1999; Keating & Jarman 2003), Victoria (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 1993) and Tasmania (Woehler & Park 1997) during recent decades, and the fact that the loss of breeding territories appears to be ongoing (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

In New South Wales, it is presumed that the state population declined in association with the southward contraction in range that occurred during the early 20th century (Cameron & Weston 1999; Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

In Victoria, population declines have been recorded along several sections of the coastline. This includes a significant decline in the region between San Remo and Darby Beach, which supports the second largest population of Hooded Plovers (eastern) in Victoria (Weston 1993).

 

In Tasmania, survey data collected over a period of fourteen years (1982 to 1996) indicate that the Hooded Plover (eastern) population in Tasmania is declining, and that the rate of population decline appears to be increasing (e.g. the population decreased by an average of 1.6% per annum from 1982 to 1996, and by an average of 4.6% per annum from 1992 to 1996) (Park 1997; Woehler &).

 

There is potential for declines in some populations to be reversed, e.g. active and intense management at Mornington Peninsula National Park in Victoria led to an increase in the formerly declining local Hooded Plover (eastern) population (Dowling & Weston 1999a; Olsen & Weston 2004). However, management efforts such as these are currently limited to only a few sites and locations, and so are unlikely to be sufficient to reverse the general decline in total population size (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The generation length of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is estimated to be 5 years. This estimate was originally considered to be of low reliability due to a lack of reliable life history data (Garnett & Crowley 2000), but life history data (e.g. age of first breeding, longevity) collected since the estimate was made suggest that 5 years is a reasonable estimate of generation length (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The dispersed nature of the breeding distribution means that all populations are important, and that loss of any population would result in fragmentation. Range contraction in New South Wales means that maintenance of the easternmost breeding population may be key to halting the contraction (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

There are no published records of cross-breeding between the Hooded Plover (eastern) and the Hooded Plover (western), or between the Hooded Plover (eastern) and any other species.

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Populations in ReservesTop The Atlas of Australian Birds records the Hooded Plover (eastern) in 77 conservation reserves throughout south-eastern Australia since 1998 (n=438 records). Five reserves have had 25 or more records of the plover since 1998: South Bruny National Park, Tasmania (n=48 records); The Lakes National Park, Victoria (n=46 records); Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Victoria (n=32 records); Gippsland Lakes Coastal Park, Victoria (n=28 records); and Calverts Lagoon Conservation Area (n=25 records), Tasmania (Atlas of Australian Birds, unpublished data).

 

In Victoria, it is estimated that approximately 90% of the adult population of Hooded Plovers (eastern) occurs on land owned by Parks Victoria. Seven sites under the management of Parks Victoria contain 5% or more of the estimated Victorian population. These are: Discovery Bay Coastal Park, Eumeralla (Yambuk) Coastal Reserve, Mornington Peninsula National Park, San Remo-Point Smythe Coastal Reserve, Nooramunga Marine and Coastal Park, McLoughlins Beach-Seaspray Coastal Reserve, and Croajingalong National Park (Weston 2003).

 

In Victoria, active management occurs in Mornington Peninsula National Park and Phillip Island Nature Park. In South Australia, informal site-specific work has taken place in reserves in the south-east of the state, where string fences have been erected to prevent vehicles from crushing nests (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.). Active management also occurs in New South Wales, at Inverloch in Victoria, and at sites in Tasmania (Keating & Jarman 2004; M.A. Weston 2006). Some management activity in each of these regions is likely to occur within reserves, but it is not known which specific reserves are involved (M.A.Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

HabitatTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) occurs in coastal areas, on or near high energy sandy beaches. They are generally found close to shore, but may occasionally visit sites located a short distance inland (e.g. lakes near the coast). Hooded Plovers (eastern) mainly inhabit sandy ocean beaches and their adjacent dunes. They have been claimed to have reasonably narrow preferences when it comes to beach habitat, but recent studies suggest that a variety of beach types may be used. Hooded Plovers (eastern) are sometimes found in habitats other than beaches, e.g. on rock platforms, reefs, around near coastal lakes and lagoons.

  

Beaches occupied by Hooded Plovers (eastern) tend to be broad and flat, with a wide wave-wash zone for foraging and much beachcast seaweed, and backed by sparsely-vegetated sand-dunes that provide shelter and foraging and nesting sites (Baird & Dann 2003; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Weston 2000, 2003).

 

They usually avoid beaches that are narrow or steep, that have little seaweed, or that have waves that wash up to the base of the adjacent dunes. They also tend to avoid beaches that lack adjacent dunes, or that have dunes that are bare or heavily vegetated. They are claimed to avoid beaches that have rocky or pebble-covered shores, and sections of coastline that have continous cliffs (Bransbury 1988; Hewish 1989; Lane 1981a; Schulz 1990), but nests are commonly placed on stone-covered beaches at Phillip Island (Baird & Dann 2003), and birds may be found on small beaches surrounded by long lines of cliffs at Cape Otway (Baker-Gabb & Weston 1999).

 

Furthermore, the single study that has been conducted on general habitat preferences of the Hooded Plover (eastern) found that were no differences in the usage (i.e. the densities of birds or nests) of various distinct types of beach (Bear 2000). Further work is required to determine which factors or characteristics influence the use of beach habitats (Weston 2003).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) also occurs infrequently in other types of habitat. Hooded Plovers (eastern) visit saline and freshwater lakes and lagoons near the coast, especially during the non-breeding season, but the importance of these sites is not well known (Bransbury 1988; Buick 1985; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Thomas 1968; Weston 2002, pers. comm.). They are also occasionally found in near-shore habitats other than beaches, e.g. on tidal bays and estuaries, on rock platforms, or on rock or sand-covered reefs close to shore (Bransbury 1988; Hewish 1989; Schulz 1986b; Weston & Peter 2004).

  

The Hooded Plover (eastern) may use near-coastal lakes as a refuge from high levels of disturbance on adjacent beaches (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

The Hooded Plover (eastern) does not associate with any other species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act 1999, but it can co-occur with species listed at the state level such as Little Terns Sterna albifrons. It can also occur coincidentally near some other creatures (e.g. shorebirds, seals) that are listed as Marine and/or Migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999 (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Life CycleTop Banding studies have shown that the Hooded Plover (eastern) is capable of surviving for more than 16 years in the wild, although the average longevity is less than this (Weston 2000). Most birds begin breeding in the second season after hatching, but some commence breeding in either the first or third seasons after hatching (Baird & Dann 2003; Weston 2000).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FeedingTop The diet of the Hooded Plover (eastern) mainly consists of marine invertebrates (e.g. polychaete worms, molluscs and crustaceans). It also feeds on insects (e.g. beetles, flies, dragonflies) and vegetable material (mostly seeds) (Buick 1985; Schulz 1986b; Schulz et al. 1984).

  

The Hooded Plover (eastern) forages near the shoreline in coastal areas, e.g. on beaches, rock or reef platforms, amongst boulders and dunes, and at lakes close to the coast (Buick 1985; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Schulz 1986b; Schulz et al. 1984; Weston 2006, pers. comm.; Weston & Elgar 2005a). It captures its prey by running across the surface of a foraging substrate and intermittently stopping to peck or probe at prey items (Buick 1985; Schulz 1986b; Weston 2006, pers. comm.). The Hooded Plover (eastern) is capable of foraging during the day or at night (Weston 2006, pers. comm.). The amount of time spent foraging varies between seasons, being greatest in winter and smaller in summer (Buick 1985). The lesser amount of time spent foraging in summer is due in part to the fact that breeding adults sacrifice some foraging time so that they may attend their nests and, more particularly, their broods (i.e. adults forage much less when attending young as compared to attending nests) (Weston & Elgar 2005b).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Movement PatternsTop The Hooded Plover (eastern) is largely sedentary (Weston 2006, pers. comm.), but some birds undertake movements during the non-breeding season, e.g. when congregating together into winter flocks (Bransbury 1985; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Weston 2002, pers. comm.). In one study, Weston and colleagues (2009) observed that most movements were relatively short (5 km), with 60% of movemenbts < 1 km and 95% < 20 km. Also, the extent of coastline used by individual birds averaged 47.8 km (Weston et al. 2009).

 

A major unpublished banding study indicates that adult plovers travel up to 50 km to join non-breeding flocks. The same study also indicates that juveniles are much more mobile than adults, with records of several movements in excess of 100 km (Weston 2006, pers. comm.) and one record of an unprecedented movement of more than 900 km (Cameron & Weston 1999). In one study, travel distances were larger in the non-breeding season, non-breeding adults remained closer to their partners (than breeding adults) and larger flock sizes were observed in the non-breeding season (Weston et al. 2009).

 

The Hooded Plover (eastern) is capable of crossing moderately large stretches of water such as the mouths of Port Phillip and Westernport Bays (Weston 2002, pers. comm.) and the channels of water between mainland Australia and several offshore islands (e.g. Kangaroo Island, Pearson Island) (Dennis 1998, pers. comm.; Eckert 1971; Hornsby 1978). Birds sometimes make local, short-distance movements to inland sites (e.g. lakes behind beaches) or to exposed reefs and inlets (Belcher 1914; Blakers et al. 1984; Emison et al. 1987).

  

Pairs defend territories from other Hooded Plovers (eastern) during the breeding season. These territories, which consist of a small area near the shoreline (e.g. a section of beach and adjacent dunes), are multi-purpose and are used for foraging, roosting and breeding (Weston 2000). The occupancy and, therefore, maintenance of territories declines during the non-breeding season as some birds congregate into winter flocks (Weston 2000; Weston 2006, pers. comm.). Pairs that remain intact generally maintain territories and construct their nests in the same area (i.e. within about 1 km) year after year. Information on the size of territories is only available from central Victoria, where territories ranged in size from 400 m to 1 800 m (Weston 2000). These measures represent the length of the coastline that the territories occupied (as territories are essentially linear in form) (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

No information is available on home ranges, although information from colour-banded birds suggests that birds can wander up to approximately 50 km to join winter flocks (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Survey GuidelinesTop The adult plumage of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is distinctive (Marchant & Higgins 1993). However, inexperienced observers, or those with poor or brief views (especially of birds in flight), could mistake Ruddy Turnstones Arenaria interpres for adult Hooded Plovers (eastern) (Cameron & Weston 1999).

 

The juvenile plumage of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is also quite distinctive (Marchant & Higgins 1993). However, juveniles could be confused with Sanderlings Calidris alba, Double-banded Plovers Charadrius bicinctus or Ringed Plovers C. hiaticula (although the Ringed Plover, which breeds in the northern hemisphere, is a rare and accidental visitor to Australia) (Cameron & Weston 1999; Marchant & Higgins 1993). Unattended nestlings of the Hooded Plover (eastern) can be mistaken for chicks of the Red-capped Plover C. ruficapillus (Weston 2003).

 

The detectability of the Hooded Plover (eastern) can vary depending on the type of habitat it is encountered in. In flat and exposed sites such as beaches, plovers and their nests are readily detected by experienced observers (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.). However, plovers sometimes nest or forage in dunes adjacent to beaches (Weston 2003), and in such situations it is possible for some birds or nests to be overlooked, even by experienced observers (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

ThreatsTop Major oil spills could, in theory, cause local extinctions and, consequently, initiate the fragmentation of populations (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Threat Abatement and RecoveryTop Research has shown that local Hooded Plover (eastern) populations can recover if management procedures are introduced to reduce the destruction of nests and chicks and the disturbance of breeding pairs (Dowling & Weston 1999a).

 

The following recovery actions have been completed or are underway (Schulz 1992c; M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.):

  

Biennial surveys of populations in Victoria and New South Wales, more frequent monitoring of some populations in Victoria and New South Wales (especially during the breeding season), and less frequent surveys of populations in South Australia and Tasmania.

  

Control programs for foxes and feral dogs and cats along some stretches of coastline.

  

Bans or regulations on domestic dogs at some beaches during the Hooded Plover (eastern) breeding season.

  

On-ground works including fencing and temporary closure of beaches and the use of volunteer wardens (Dodge et al. 2005).

  

Studies to evaluate the effectiveness of management techniques (see Baird & Dann 1999, Dodge et al. 2005, Dowling & Weston 1999a).

  

Preparation of recovery plans for New South Wales and South Australian populations and management plans for Victoria and Tasmania.

  

Education programs, together with the stationing of wardens at beaches that have been closed temporarily, the introduction of signage and general publicity about the Hooded Plover (eastern), to increase public awareness.

 

The following recovery actions have been proposed (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

Continuation of all existing actions. However, there is a need to expand these actions to include a greater proportion of the range of the Hooded Plover (eastern).

  

More information and research is needed on the efficacy of management techniques such as the use of chick shelters, predator control, effective mechanisms to alter human behaviour on beaches and habitat restoration and maintenance (Weston 2003).

  

Incorporation of the species requirements into planning provisions and coastal management strategies.

  

Greater communication between widely distributed workers.

 

The following government organisations have been involved in the recovery effort for the Hooded Plover (eastern): National Parks and Wildlife Service in New South Wales; the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria in Victoria; the Department of Environment and Heritage in South Australia; and the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment in Tasmania. Other organizations involved in the recovery effort include the Australian Wader Study Group (Birds Australia), beach management authorities and local governments (Garnett & Crowley 2000; M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Major StudiesTop There have been a number of major studies on the Hooded Plover (eastern). A recent review of the literature found that, at the species level, the Hooded Plover had received substantial coverage in 174 publications (122 of which were specific to the eastern subspecies), and that 38 of these 174 publications should be classed as major studies (Weston 2005). All but two of these major studies were conducted on populations of the eastern subspecies (Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

 

The literature review described above was based on all known literature up to early October 2003 (Weston 2005). Some additional major studies have been published since then (e.g. Baird & Dann 2003, Weston & Elgar 2005a, Weston & Elgar 2005b).

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Management DocumentationTop A draft Recovery Plan was prepared by Baker-Gabb and Weston (1999).

 

Management documentation has been authored by Urquhart and Teoh (2001), Weston (2003) and Weston and Morrow (2000).

 

A recovery plan for the South Australian population of the Hooded Plover (eastern) is in preparation. In addition, a project is currently underway to produce a manual for the management of beach-nesting birds. This manual is to be released in 2008 (M.A. Weston 2006, pers. comm.).

Indications that fishing is still going on at Mullion Cove Cornwall

A 1st class relic of cloth which stained a body fluid and blood of Blessed Stanislaus

 

Life[edit]

Early life[edit]

Jan Papczyński was born on 18 May 1631, in the village of Podegrodzie - now near Stary Sącz - as the youngest of the eight children of Tomasz Papczyński and Zofia Tacikowska. His father was a local blacksmith and also served as the village bailiff. As a youngster, he cared for his father's herd of sheep and came to know the countryside well.[1]

  

Education[edit]

Stanisłaus's first beginnings with school gave no indication of his later career as an academic. He had difficulty with studies, nevertheless he mastered his temperament, overcame material problems associated with his social standing, and advanced in studies, graduating from one school to another: in Podegrodzie, then in Nowy Sacz. At the age of fifteen he entered the Jesuit College at Jaroslaw, the Piarist College of Podoliniec in 1649, and in 1650 the Jesuit College of Lvov, from which he was forced to flee due to an attack by Cossack troops. At the age of twenty-three he completed his general and philosophical studies at the Jesuit College of Rawa Mazowiecka.[1]

  

He is described him as a tall, slender young man, with a swarthy complexion, tall forehead and deep, pensive eyes gazing from under his eyebrows.[2] His father died while Jan was studying in Lvov.

  

Piarist[edit]

On 2 July 1654, Papczyński joined the Piarist Order, newly established in Poland, in their monastery in Podoliniec and was given the religious name of "Stanisłaus of Jesus and Mary". He performed the lowliest tasks, cleaning out stables and barns, chopping wood, and washing dishes.[2] He made his second year of novitiate in Warsaw, while studying theology with the Recollect Franciscan friars. Those were the times of the Swedish invasion known as "the Deluge", that made a deep impression on the young seminarian's life. From the perspective of his whole life's experience, he thus described in his testimony one incident from those days: "I confess," he writes, "that I leave this world professing the Roman Catholic faith for which I was ready to pour out my blood during the war with Sweden. One day my companion and I were exiting the Old Town, when a heretic soldier, his unsheathed sword in hand, attacked us near the Dominican Fathers. My companion (even though he was German) fled, and I, falling to my knees, stuck out my neck for the blow. However, by the decree of Divine Providence, I did not sustain any wounds although I was struck three times with great force. Afterward, I felt great pains for an hour and a half because of that."[2]

  

On 22 July 1656, Papka made his profession of religious vows as the first Polish member of the Piarist Congregation. He was ordained to the priesthood on 12 March 1661.[3]

  

While still a seminarian, Papczyński taught rhetoric in the Piarist colleges of Rzeszow and Podoliniec, and then after ordination he taught in a Warsaw college. He wrote a textbook entitled "Prodromus reginae artium" (The Messenger of the Queen of Arts), and used it in his lectures. This textbook underwent four reprints during subsequent years. This work merited special praise[3] for its pedagogical character as well as the selection of rhetoric which witnesses to the author's patriotic sentiments and his special devotion to the Virgin Mary. Also, in this textbook he postulated the equality of all citizens before the law and took a critical stand in regards to the "liberum veto." ("free veto" = an unexplained veto)

  

As a priest Papczyński heard confessions and gave sermons. On greater feasts he was invited to preach in the many churches of the capital. One sermon he preached on Thomas Aquinas, delivered at the Dominican church, was published in 1664 under the title Doctor Angelicus (The Angelic Doctor). Taking advantage of Papczyński's contacts with influential people, his superiors entrusted him with gathering petitions for the beatification of the Order's founder, Joseph Calasanz.[3] Papczyński obtained many letters. From 1663 to 1667 he directed the Confraternity of Our Lady of Grace, Patroness of Warsaw, whose image was in the Piarist's Church on Dluga Street.

  

Leaving the Piarists[edit]

Due to differences in understanding of the Order's character, Papczyński's relations with his superiors kept getting more strained and eventually led to his leaving the Order. He strove to restore the early rigor of their way of life, while practices in the province tended to favor laxity. Because of his views and actions, as interpreted by some of his superiors, he was the cause of confusion among Piarists, while he himself felt misunderstood. Later he used to call this period of his life "a long-lasting martyrdom". In those difficult times he wrote two series of meditations: Orator crucifixus (The crucified Speaker) and Christus patiens (The suffering Christ).

  

Not being able to find for himself, within the Piarists, the proper climate for life and work and at the same time seeing also a rift within the Province between his supporters and adversaries, Papczyński asked the Superior General to release him from his religious vows. On 11 December 1670, he left the Order. In the presence of his Piarist superiors he declared: "I offer and consecrate to God, the Almighty Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as well as to the Mother of God, the ever-Virgin Mary, conceived without sin, my heart, my soul, my body, leaving absolutely nothing for myself, so that henceforth I may be the slave of God Almighty and of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. Consequently, I vow to serve Them zealously, in chastity, to the end of my life, in the society of Marian Clerics of the Immaculate Conception, which by the grace of God I wish to found".

  

New Marian congregation[edit]

Papczyński's was made more difficult by his being of common birth and advocating a very rigorous lifestyle in the prevalent aristocratic mentality. He found support for his plan from the Bishop of Poznan, Stefan Wierzbowski. Rejecting proposals from different Orders and bishops (those of Cracow and Plock), Papczyński went as a chaplain to Jakub Karski's house in Lubocza near Nowe Miasto-on-Pilica in order to prepare himself for this new undertaking. There, in September 1671, he was vested in a white religious habit in honor of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. He also prepared the project of the future Order's statute entitled "Norma vitae" (Rule of Life), which he established as an order of canons regular. At the same time he wrote a moral and ascetical treatise called "Templum Dei Mysticum" (The Mystical Temple of God), which underwent several reprints. In this book he expressed his belief that lay people, and not only priests and religious, are called to holiness.

  

Seeking candidates for his planned order, in September 1673, Papczyński went to Puszcza Korabiewska near Skierniewice, where a former soldier, Stanislaus Krajewski, and companions lived as hermits. There, on the land donated by Krajewski, he built and organized his Institute's first house, which he called a "Retreat House". Bishop Stanislaus Swiecicki, who came on a canonical visitation on 24 October 1673, approved this community living in accord with the "Norma vitae" under Papczyński's guidance. He left them his own "Statutes" on the characteristics of hermits and penitentials. The Marians consider this date as the beginning of their Order.

  

Wierzbowski wished to engage the newly created religious community in fulfilling of his plans of the renewal of religious life in the diocese. Particularly in the town of Gora near Warsaw where he established the holy city of Mazowsze which he called New Jerusalem. There he built many churches and chapels commemorating the Passion of Christ. To serve the arriving pilgrims, he brought over several religious orders, among them Papczyński's community. In 1677, he consigned to him the Church of the Lord's Cenacle with its adjacent monastery. The previous obligations of living a hermits' lifestyle were not in force at this institution. Papczyński lived here until his death, 24 years later.

  

On 21 April 1679, Wierzbowski canonically constituted Stanislaus's institute, composed of two houses, as an Order of diocesan right. The stated goal of the community was to spread devotion to the Virgin Mary, and to assist poor souls in purgatory, particularly those who died in fields of battle and victims of plagues. Papczyński also directed his spiritual sons to undertake pastoral works, especially assisting pastors by hearing confessions, as well as catechizing and delivering sermons to the faithful, particularly the most spiritually neglected in regards to religion. Papczyński introduced abstinence from drinking vodka in the order. King John III Sobieski, who was known for his kindness towards strict religious orders, took the Marians under his special protection.

  

However, the simple vows which the Marians were making at the time were not strongly binding, and the fate of the Congregation depended simply on the bishop. This problem became particularly apparent after the death of Bishop Wierzbowski in 1687. For these reasons Papczyński, who was already 60 years old, set out on a journey by foot to Rome in 1690, in order to obtain papal approval for his Order. Unfortunately, he arrived there at a time when the Holy See was without a pope, and only procured a spiritual affiliation of the Marians with several other Orders. The approbation of "Norma vitae" as the Congregation's statutes, which took place a couple of years later, was a fruit of this journey.

  

In 1699, Papczyński made another attempt to procure the approbation of his Order, by sending to Rome Fr. Joachim Kozlowski as his envoy with full powers (plenipotentiary). Meeting with difficulties in obtaining the approbation of the Marian Order upon its own rule, Kozlowski approached the reformed Franciscan Minors for the "Rule of the Ten Virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary", which included the Marians' legal dependence on this Order. Pope Innocent XII approved the document issued by the General of Franciscans on 24 October 1699. Although the Rule was received without previous consultation with Papczyński, it did not infringe the specific features of the Marian Institute and was thus gladly accepted by the Marian Legislator. The Marians became an Order with solemn vows and were freed from the authority of a local bishop, although they were dependent on the Franciscans for some time. Finally, the Marians received approbation as an order of apostolic right ridding themselves of restrictions. In their apostolic work they placed special emphasis on teaching truths of the faith to the faithful of lower classes, which was Church considered its most urgent task at the time.

  

On 6 June 1701, Papczyński pronounced a solemn profession of vows in the hands of the Apostolic Nuncio, Francisco Pignatelli, and then received the profession of vows from the other Marians, a very important milestone in establishing the first Polish religiouis order for men. On the way to the realization of this goal, for a duration of 30 years, Papczyński had to overcome innumerable difficulties. A few times he doubted whether or not God truly wanted him to follow this road.

  

Death and burial[edit]

He died on 17 September 1701, and was buried at the Church of the Lord's Cenacle in Gora Kalwaria.

  

Spirituality[edit]

At school, from the pulpit, in confessional, or at his desk, Papczyński proclaimed the word of God everywhere in speech and writing, emphasizing particularly the need to care for those wronged by the society. His work followed the beliefs proclaimed in "Templum Dei Mysticum": "O how admirable are those who mutually work with Christ, and, solely out of love for Him, sincerely and zealously announce all that is essential for salvation, for leading a Christian life, for rooting out vices, and increasing virtues. This is the greatest and most fruitful work of mercy".

  

Two centuries before the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception Stanislaus professed: "I believe everything that the holy Roman Church believes, but first of all I profess that the Most Holy Mother of God, Mary, was conceived without any stain of original sin". This privilege of the Immaculate Conception was very precious to him. He talked about it in sermons and wrote extensively on the subject. In 1670 he made a "vow of blood" witnessing his readiness to lay down his life if necessary in honor of Mary's Immaculate Conception. Papczyński lived in times illustrated by the Polish writer Henryk Sienkiewicz in his "Trilogy", describing the Cossack wars, the Swedish invasion of Poland, and finally, the Polish army's victory at Vienna. He himself accompanied Polish troops in battles against Turks in Ukraine in 1674, and witnessed that many people died unshriven.

  

Sainthood[edit]

Process and Venerable[edit]

A cause to beatify Papczyński was started in 1767, interrupted in 1775, and reopened in 1953. But because such a long time had passed since the his death, this process had to be accomplished "historically", which means that documents had to be searched for testimonies on one's life and virtues. Those documents were prepared and gathered in a 1000-page manuscript called "Positio". On 28 February 1980, the National Conference of Bishops in Poland petitioned the Pope to elevate Papczyński to the altars as a model of Christian life. Similar petitions were sent by major superiors of male and female congregations in Poland. Based on this evidence, on 28 November 1980, the Congregation for Saints made a decision that Papczyński's beatification cause may be brought before the Apostolic Tribunal.

  

Pope John Paul II approved this decision on 6 March 1981 which commenced sainthood proceedings and granted him the title Servant of God - the first stage in the process.

  

In the years 1981-1982, a process de non cultu was conducted in Warsaw. The decree super validitate Processus (regarding the validity of the diocesan process) was promulgated in 1990. Further evaluations of Positio super Virtutibus were also conducted. Then, on 22 January 1991, during an Ordinary Congress of the Congregation, chaired by Anthony Petti, General Promoter of the Faith, the theological consultants stated that Papczyński had practiced virtues to a heroic degree.

  

On 17 March 1992, after having listened to the report delivered by Paulino Limongi, Titular Archbishop of Nice in Hemimont, the cardinals and bishops gathered at an Ordinary Congregation stated that he had practiced the theological virtues, the cardinal virtues, and other virtues associated with these, to a heroic degree.

  

After the results of the research conducted by the Cardinal-Prefect, Cardinal Angelo Felici, had been presented to the pope, he accepted the decision of the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints and ordered that the decree on Papczyński's heroic virtues be prepared.

  

On 13 June 1992, the Pope invited the Cardinal-Prefect, the relators of the cause, the Secretary of the congregation, and other people who are usually summoned in such circumstances and, in the presence of all gathered with regard to the cause and its result, solemnly announced that:

  

It is considered to be a certain thing that Blessed Stanislaus of Jesus and Mary Papczyński practiced the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, and other virtues associated with these, to a heroic degree. The Pope ordered that this decree be made public and kept in the acts of the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Beatification[edit]

The miracle needed for his beatification was investigated in the 2003-2004 timeframe and received formal validation from the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints on 7 May 2004. A medical board based in Rome met and approved the miracle on 12 May 2005 while theologians followed suit and approved it also on 20 September 2005. The cardinal and bishop members of the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints granted their formal approval on 3 October 2006, while Pope Benedict XVI approved it on 16 December 2006.

  

The miracle in question concerned Ursula Markowska on 4 April 2000.

  

He was beatified at the Marian Shrine in Licheń by a special delegate of Pope Benedict XVI – Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State of the Holy See on 16 September 2007.

  

Canonization[edit]

The second miracle required for his canonization was investigated in a diocesan tribunal and was ratified as being a valid process on 27 June 2014. The Rome-based medical board met and approved it on 17 September 2015 while the theologians also met and approved it on 10 November 2015. The cardinal and bishops who constituted the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints also approved it on 12 January 2016.

  

Pope Francis approved the miracle on 21 January 2016; a date shall be determined for the canonization at a consistory of cardinals in March.

  

From the last will and testament of Stanisłaus Papczyński[edit]

"I give thanks to the Divine Majesty for graces, gifts, and goodness granted me with great generosity. I repent from the depth of my heart and I wish out of love of the Lord to repent more and more for all my sins, which I place in the deepest wounds of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer. I fall at the feet of Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and I give myself with the entire Congregation of her Immaculate Conception to her for eternity. I call on her gracious direction and effective care, and for the hour of my death I beg her most merciful and powerful protection from the ambushes of my enemies and all temporal and eternal Evil.

  

To all those who loved and supported the Congregation of the Immaculate Conception (which I founded through God’s inspiration to support all the faithful departed), I promise double reward from God’s hand.

  

I eagerly suggest to my brethren, if it be appropriate for me to say: Sons, you ought to have love for God and neighbor, devotion to the Catholic faith, and worship, love, and obedience to the Holy See, faithful preservation of the vows, humility, patience, support the souls in purgatory, and be at peace with everyone."

So inspiring!

Transgender indication Andreja Pejic has seemed in many magazines — though her latest underline is one for a story books. In a pages of a May 2015 emanate of Vogue, featuring cover lady Carey Mulligan, a catwalker postulated a conform bible an insinuate demeanour during her life a...

 

fashionlifestyle.org/andreja-pejic-is-vogues-first-ever-p...

The Forty-Sixth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva from November 21 to November 23, 2022 in hybrid form – with delegates and observers attending physically in Geneva, Switzerland, and via remote participation from around the world.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

An exhibition co-organized by WIPO and Turkey was held on the sidelines of the WIPO Assemblies, which met in Geneva from October 3 to 11, 2016.

 

The event entitled “Turkish Culture and Geographical Indications” showcased a snapshot of Turkey’s rich culture and geographical indications and was inaugurated on October 4, 2016.

 

It featured examples of Turkey’s protected geographic indications, including Afyon marble, Antep Kutnu cloth, Gaziantep mother-of-pearl inlaying and Safranbolu Turkish delight. The inauguration also featured a performance of traditional Turkish music.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Violaine Martin. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

All the indications are that this movie is going to be a classic, after the turgid 'Godzilla - King of the Monsters' (2019) & the so-so 'Kong - Skull Island' (2017). It will be nostalgic to see, remembering seeing Toho's thrilling 'King Kong Vs. Godzilla' in 1963.

 

youtu.be/9TxSXabRS5M

 

youtu.be/-seNC70FFio

 

youtu.be/KIzObVINyZY

Under Mary I, Sir Gawen Carew (c.1503-85) was one of the west country gentlemen who disliked government policy and resented Spanish influence, though there is no indication that his name was removed from the lists of gentlemen pensioners, even when, following Sir Peter Carew’s implication in Wyatt’s rebellion of 1554, he was put in the Tower on a charge of treason. After an absence from Parliament during Mary’s reign, he came in for Plympton Erle in Elizabeth’s first House of Commons, probably through the intervention of the end Earl of Bedford. In the following Parliament Carew was elected for the county. His only recorded parliamentary activity in his two Elizabethan Parliaments is his membership of the succession committee, 31 Oct. 1566.

With the Earl of Bedford and Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, Carew was active at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign in helping to strengthen the new Queen’s position on the throne, he and his third wife receiving as reward in 1565 an annuity of 100 marks in survivorship. Though his name still appears on a Household list in 1559, he resided in the west country, where he was one of the radical protestants associated with the Earl of Bedford. On one occasion he and his nephew Sir Peter were together responsible at Exeter for escorting the bishop of Exeter, the ‘earnest preacher’ William Alley, to the pulpit and guarding him against the citizens, who disliked his ‘much inveighing against false doctrines’. Alley appointed both Carews overseers of his will.

Carew’s connexions with Exeter were close. In 1562 he wrote to the mayor recommending ‘my man’ for the post of keeper of the cloth hall; the following year he bought the wardship of an Exeter heir; in 1574 he was granted an annual fee of £2 by the city; and a year or so later he was authorized by the Exchequer to search into the import of wines at Exeter. When he superintended the execution of an order relating to the harbour controversy there, he was given a hogshead of wine by the city. His brother George became dean of Exeter.

In his will, made 11 Oct. 1582, Carew named Bedford as ‘ruler and overseer’, bequeathing him a cup of silver gilt ‘in token of the great love and good will that I have borne and do bear unto his lordship’. Carew left his lands, after the death of the widow, the executrix, to a relative, George Carew of Laughline, Ireland. The will was proved 30 June 1585.

 

Sir Peter Carew was an English soldier who was slain at the Battle of Glenmalure in Ireland. He was a member of a prominent Devonshire gentry family. He is sometimes referred to as Sir Peter Carew the younger, to distinguish him from his first cousin Sir Peter Carew of Mohuns Ottery, Luppitt, Devon. Wikipedia

 

Carew is associated with An extravagant two-tiered tomb monument in the Chapel of St John the Evangelist in Exeter Cathedral, of which the primary commemorative subjects are his uncle, Sir Gawen Carew (c.1508–1584), and Sir Gawen's third wife, Elizabeth née Norwich (d. 1594), a Lady of the Bedchamber to Elizabeth I. (Sir Gawen’s second wife Mary is wrongly identified on the plaque accompanying the tomb.) The monument was erected in 1589, and heavily restored in 1857. In addition to effigies of Sir Gawen and Elizabeth, it displays much strapwork decoration and heraldry, including 27 shields containing 52 distinct coats of arms marshalled in a total of 359 impalements and quarterings. The whole forms "an elaborate shrine to Carew ancestry and kinship".

A prominent Latin inscription formerly on the monument's pediment explicitly commemorated Sir Peter, but is now lost. It began "Hic scitus est praeter nobilis vir Petrus Carew eques Auratus ..." ("Here too lies the illustrious man Peter Carew, knight ..."), raising the possibility that his body, or some token part of it, was recovered from the battlefield at Glenmalure and returned to Exeter for burial.

A third effigy, occupying a recess at the base of the monument, is dressed in armour and posed in a cross-legged attitude suggestive of the 14th century; and it has long been believed that this represents Sir Peter in the guise of a fallen warrior. The identification is supported by another painted inscription, which survives in restored form running around three sides of the cornice, and which alludes to "... Sir Peter Carew Knyght, under figured ...". However, the inscription is not original to the monument (it can date from no earlier than 1605), and it now appears considerably more likely that the cross-legged figure was intended to represent Adam Montgomery de Carew, the semi-legendary progenitor of the Carew family.

Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland (November 27 [O.S. November 17] 1640[1] – October 9, 1709) was an English courtesan and perhaps the most notorious of the many mistresses of Charles II of England.

 

Born Barbara Villiers at the parish of St. Margaret's, Westminster, she was the only child of the 2nd Viscount Grandison, William Villiers (a half-nephew of the 1st Duke of Buckingham), and his wife, Mary Bayning, heiress of the 1st Viscount Bayning. On September 20, 1643, her father died in the English Civil War from a wound sustained at the Battle of Newbury while fighting for the Royalists. He had spent his considerable fortune on horses and ammunition for his Cavalier regiment; his widow and daughter were left in straitened circumstances. Shortly after Lord Grandison's death, Barbara's mother the Lady Mary remarried to Charles Villiers, Earl of Anglesea, a cousin of her late husband.[2]

 

Upon the 1649 execution of King Charles I, the impoverished Villiers clan secretly transferred their loyalty to his son, Charles. Every year on May 29, the new King's birthday, young Barbara, along with her family, descended to the cellar of their home in total darkness and clandestinely drank to his health.[3] At that time, King Charles was wandering about the Continent, exiled and penniless.

 

Tall, voluptuous, with masses of auburn hair, slanting, heavy-lidded blue-violet eyes, alabaster skin, and a sensuous, sulky mouth,[4] Barbara Villiers was considered to be one of the most beautiful Royalist women, but her lack of fortune left her with reduced marriage prospects. Her first serious romance was with Philip Stanhope, 2nd Earl of Chesterfield, but he was searching for a rich wife; he would wed Elizabeth Butler in 1660.[5] On 14 April 1659 she married Roger Palmer (later 1st Earl of Castlemaine) against his family's wishes; his father predicted that she would make him one of the most miserable men in the world. Palmer was a Roman Catholic. The two separated in 1662, following the birth of her first son. They remained married for his lifetime, but it is believed that Palmer did not father any of his wife's children. [1]

 

She became King Charles's mistress in 1660, while still married to Palmer, and whilst Charles was still in exile at The Hague. The Palmers had joined the ambitious group of supplicants who sailed for Brussels at the end of 1659.[6] As a reward for her services, the King created her husband Baron Limerick and Earl of Castlemaine in 1661. Of her six children, five were acknowledged by Charles as his:

 

1. Lady Anne Palmer, later FitzRoy (1661-1722), probably daughter of Charles II, although some people believed she bore a resemblance to the Earl of Chesterfield. She later became the Countess of Sussex.

2. Charles Palmer, later FitzRoy (1662-1730), styled Lord Limerick and later Earl of Southampton, created Duke of Southampton (1675), later 2nd Duke of Cleveland (1709)

3. Henry FitzRoy (1663-1690), created Earl of Euston (1672) and Duke of Grafton (1675)

4. Charlotte FitzRoy (1664-1718), later Countess of Lichfield. She gave birth to twenty children.

5. George FitzRoy (1665-1716), created Earl of Northumberland (1674) and Duke of Northumberland (1683)

6. Barbara (Benedicta) FitzRoy (1672-1737) - Cleveland claimed that she was Charles' daughter, but she was probably the child of her mother's second cousin and lover, John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough

 

By 1662, Barbara, the King's mistress, had more influence at the court than his Queen, Catherine of Braganza. In point of fact, Barbara chose to give birth to their second child at Hampton Court Palace while he and the Queen were honeymooning.[7] In the summer of 1662 she was appointed Lady of the Bedchamber despite opposition from Queen Catherine and Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, one advisor to the King and a bitter enemy of Barbara's. Behind closed doors, Barbara and the Queen feuded constantly.

 

Barbara's influence over the King waxed and waned. Her victory, of her appointment as Lady of the Bedchamber, was followed by rumours of an estrangement between her and the King, being the result of his infatuation with Frances Stuart. In December 1663, Barbara announced her conversion to Catholicism; historians disagree as to why she did so. Some believe it was an attempt to consolidate her position with the King, and some believe it was a way of strengthening her ties with her Catholic husband.

 

In June 1670 Charles created her Baroness Nonsuch (being the owner of Nonsuch Palace). She was also, briefly, granted the ownership of Phoenix Park in Dublin as a present from the King. She was made Countess of Southampton and Duchess of Cleveland in her own right; however, no one at court was sure if this was an indication that she was being jettisoned by Charles, or whether this was a sign that she was even higher in his favours. The Dukedom was made with a special remainder which allowed it to be passed to her eldest son, Charles FitzRoy, despite him being illegitimate.

 

Barbara was known for her dual nature. Diarist John Evelyn called her "the curse of the nation";[8] yet, others described her as great fun, keeping a good table and with a heart to match her famous temper. Lady Barbara took advantage of her influence over the King, using it to her own benefit. She would help herself to money from the Privy Purse and take bribes from the Spanish and the French. She was famously extravagant and promiscuous. She also meddled in politics, supporting the Second Dutch War (declared in February 1665), along with most of the court and Parliament.[9] But there are accounts of exceptional kindness from Barbara; once, after a scaffold had fallen onto a crowd of people at the theatre, she rushed to assist an injured child, and was the only court lady to have done so.

 

While the King had taken other mistresses, the most notable being the actress Nell Gwynne, Barbara took other lovers too, including the acrobat Jacob Hall and her second cousin John Churchill. Her lovers benefited financially from the arrangement; Churchill purchased an annuity with £5,000 Barbara gave him. As the result of the 1673 Test Act, which essentially banned Catholics from holding office, Barbara lost her position as Lady of the Bedchamber, and the King cast her aside completely from her position as mistress, taking Louise de Kéroualle as his newest "favourite."

 

In 1676 she travelled to Paris with her four youngest children, but returned to England four years later. In 1705 Roger Palmer died, and she married Major-General Robert "Beau" Fielding, an unscrupulous fortune-hunter whom she later had prosecuted for bigamy. She died aged 68 on 9 October 1709 at Chiswick Mall after suffering from an oedema, known at the time as dropsy.

 

Barbara had many notable descendants, including Diana, Princess of Wales and Sir Anthony Eden, British Prime Minister from 1955-1957.

 

Bali is an island and province of Indonesia. The province includes the island of Bali and a few smaller neighbouring islands, notably Nusa Penida, Nusa Lembongan, and Nusa Ceningan. It is located at the westernmost end of the Lesser Sunda Islands, between Java to the west and Lombok to the east. Its capital of Denpasar is located at the southern part of the island.

 

With a population of 3,890,757 in the 2010 census, and 4,225,000 as of January 2014, the island is home to most of Indonesia's Hindu minority. According to the 2010 Census, 83.5% of Bali's population adhered to Balinese Hinduism, followed by 13.4% Muslim, Christianity at 2.5%, and Buddhism 0.5%.

 

Bali is a popular tourist destination, which has seen a significant rise in numbers since the 1980s. It is renowned for its highly developed arts, including traditional and modern dance, sculpture, painting, leather, metalworking, and music. The Indonesian International Film Festival is held every year in Bali.

 

Bali is part of the Coral Triangle, the area with the highest biodiversity of marine species. In this area alone over 500 reef building coral species can be found. For comparison, this is about 7 times as many as in the entire Caribbean. There is a wide range of dive sites with high quality reefs, all with their own specific attractions. Many sites can have strong currents and swell, so diving without a knowledgeable guide is inadvisable. Most recently, Bali was the host of the 2011 ASEAN Summit, 2013 APEC and Miss World 2013.

 

HISTORY

ANCIENT

Bali was inhabited around 2000 BC by Austronesian people who migrated originally from Southeast Asia and Oceania through Maritime Southeast Asia. Culturally and linguistically, the Balinese are closely related to the people of the Indonesian archipelago, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Oceania. Stone tools dating from this time have been found near the village of Cekik in the island's west.

 

In ancient Bali, nine Hindu sects existed, namely Pasupata, Bhairawa, Siwa Shidanta, Waisnawa, Bodha, Brahma, Resi, Sora and Ganapatya. Each sect revered a specific deity as its personal Godhead.

 

Inscriptions from 896 and 911 don't mention a king, until 914, when Sri Kesarivarma is mentioned. They also reveal an independent Bali, with a distinct dialect, where Buddhism and Sivaism were practiced simultaneously. Mpu Sindok's great granddaughter, Mahendradatta (Gunapriyadharmapatni), married the Bali king Udayana Warmadewa (Dharmodayanavarmadeva) around 989, giving birth to Airlangga around 1001. This marriage also brought more Hinduism and Javanese culture to Bali. Princess Sakalendukirana appeared in 1098. Suradhipa reigned from 1115 to 1119, and Jayasakti from 1146 until 1150. Jayapangus appears on inscriptions between 1178 and 1181, while Adikuntiketana and his son Paramesvara in 1204.

 

Balinese culture was strongly influenced by Indian, Chinese, and particularly Hindu culture, beginning around the 1st century AD. The name Bali dwipa ("Bali island") has been discovered from various inscriptions, including the Blanjong pillar inscription written by Sri Kesari Warmadewa in 914 AD and mentioning "Walidwipa". It was during this time that the people developed their complex irrigation system subak to grow rice in wet-field cultivation. Some religious and cultural traditions still practised today can be traced to this period.

 

The Hindu Majapahit Empire (1293–1520 AD) on eastern Java founded a Balinese colony in 1343. The uncle of Hayam Wuruk is mentioned in the charters of 1384-86. A mass Javanese emigration occurred in the next century.

 

PORTUGUESE CONTACTS

The first known European contact with Bali is thought to have been made in 1512, when a Portuguese expedition led by Antonio Abreu and Francisco Serrão sighted its northern shores. It was the first expedition of a series of bi-annual fleets to the Moluccas, that throughout the 16th century usually traveled along the coasts of the Sunda Islands. Bali was also mapped in 1512, in the chart of Francisco Rodrigues, aboard the expedition. In 1585, a ship foundered off the Bukit Peninsula and left a few Portuguese in the service of Dewa Agung.

 

DUTCH EAST INDIA

In 1597 the Dutch explorer Cornelis de Houtman arrived at Bali, and the Dutch East India Company was established in 1602. The Dutch government expanded its control across the Indonesian archipelago during the second half of the 19th century (see Dutch East Indies). Dutch political and economic control over Bali began in the 1840s on the island's north coast, when the Dutch pitted various competing Balinese realms against each other. In the late 1890s, struggles between Balinese kingdoms in the island's south were exploited by the Dutch to increase their control.

 

In June 1860 the famous Welsh naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, travelled to Bali from Singapore, landing at Buleleng on the northcoast of the island. Wallace's trip to Bali was instrumental in helping him devise his Wallace Line theory. The Wallace Line is a faunal boundary that runs through the strait between Bali and Lombok. It has been found to be a boundary between species of Asiatic origin in the east and a mixture of Australian and Asian species to the west. In his travel memoir The Malay Archipelago, Wallace wrote of his experience in Bali:

 

I was both astonished and delighted; for as my visit to Java was some years later, I had never beheld so beautiful and well-cultivated a district out of Europe. A slightly undulating plain extends from the seacoast about ten or twelve miles inland, where it is bounded by a fine range of wooded and cultivated hills. Houses and villages, marked out by dense clumps of coconut palms, tamarind and other fruit trees, are dotted about in every direction; while between them extend luxurious rice-grounds, watered by an elaborate system of irrigation that would be the pride of the best cultivated parts of Europe.

 

The Dutch mounted large naval and ground assaults at the Sanur region in 1906 and were met by the thousands of members of the royal family and their followers who fought against the superior Dutch force in a suicidal puputan defensive assault rather than face the humiliation of surrender. Despite Dutch demands for surrender, an estimated 200 Balinese marched to their death against the invaders. In the Dutch intervention in Bali, a similar massacre occurred in the face of a Dutch assault in Klungkung.

 

AFTERWARD THE DUTCH GOVERNORS

exercised administrative control over the island, but local control over religion and culture generally remained intact. Dutch rule over Bali came later and was never as well established as in other parts of Indonesia such as Java and Maluku.

 

n the 1930s, anthropologists Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, artists Miguel Covarrubias and Walter Spies, and musicologist Colin McPhee all spent time here. Their accounts of the island and its peoples created a western image of Bali as "an enchanted land of aesthetes at peace with themselves and nature." Western tourists began to visit the island.

 

Imperial Japan occupied Bali during World War II. It was not originally a target in their Netherlands East Indies Campaign, but as the airfields on Borneo were inoperative due to heavy rains, the Imperial Japanese Army decided to occupy Bali, which did not suffer from comparable weather. The island had no regular Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (KNIL) troops. There was only a Native Auxiliary Corps Prajoda (Korps Prajoda) consisting of about 600 native soldiers and several Dutch KNIL officers under command of KNIL Lieutenant Colonel W.P. Roodenburg. On 19 February 1942 the Japanese forces landed near the town of Senoer [Senur]. The island was quickly captured.

 

During the Japanese occupation, a Balinese military officer, Gusti Ngurah Rai, formed a Balinese 'freedom army'. The harshness of war requisitions made Japanese rule more resented than Dutch rule. Following Japan's Pacific surrender in August 1945, the Dutch returned to Indonesia, including Bali, to reinstate their pre-war colonial administration. This was resisted by the Balinese rebels, who now used recovered Japanese weapons. On 20 November 1946, the Battle of Marga was fought in Tabanan in central Bali. Colonel I Gusti Ngurah Rai, by then 29 years old, finally rallied his forces in east Bali at Marga Rana, where they made a suicide attack on the heavily armed Dutch. The Balinese battalion was entirely wiped out, breaking the last thread of Balinese military resistance.

 

INDIPENDENCE FROM THE DUTCH

In 1946, the Dutch constituted Bali as one of the 13 administrative districts of the newly proclaimed State of East Indonesia, a rival state to the Republic of Indonesia, which was proclaimed and headed by Sukarno and Hatta. Bali was included in the "Republic of the United States of Indonesia" when the Netherlands recognised Indonesian independence on 29 December 1949.

 

CONTEMPORARY

The 1963 eruption of Mount Agung killed thousands, created economic havoc and forced many displaced Balinese to be transmigrated to other parts of Indonesia. Mirroring the widening of social divisions across Indonesia in the 1950s and early 1960s, Bali saw conflict between supporters of the traditional caste system, and those rejecting this system. Politically, the opposition was represented by supporters of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), with tensions and ill-feeling further increased by the PKI's land reform programs. An attempted coup in Jakarta was put down by forces led by General Suharto.

 

The army became the dominant power as it instigated a violent anti-communist purge, in which the army blamed the PKI for the coup. Most estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people were killed across Indonesia, with an estimated 80,000 killed in Bali, equivalent to 5% of the island's population. With no Islamic forces involved as in Java and Sumatra, upper-caste PNI landlords led the extermination of PKI members.

 

As a result of the 1965/66 upheavals, Suharto was able to manoeuvre Sukarno out of the presidency. His "New Order" government reestablished relations with western countries. The pre-War Bali as "paradise" was revived in a modern form. The resulting large growth in tourism has led to a dramatic increase in Balinese standards of living and significant foreign exchange earned for the country. A bombing in 2002 by militant Islamists in the tourist area of Kuta killed 202 people, mostly foreigners. This attack, and another in 2005, severely reduced tourism, producing much economic hardship to the island.

 

GEOGRAPHY

The island of Bali lies 3.2 km east of Java, and is approximately 8 degrees south of the equator. Bali and Java are separated by the Bali Strait. East to west, the island is approximately 153 km wide and spans approximately 112 km north to south; administratively it covers 5,780 km2, or 5,577 km2 without Nusa Penida District, its population density is roughly 750 people/km2.

 

Bali's central mountains include several peaks over 3,000 metres in elevation. The highest is Mount Agung (3,031 m), known as the "mother mountain" which is an active volcano rated as one of the world's most likely sites for a massive eruption within the next 100 years. Mountains range from centre to the eastern side, with Mount Agung the easternmost peak. Bali's volcanic nature has contributed to its exceptional fertility and its tall mountain ranges provide the high rainfall that supports the highly productive agriculture sector. South of the mountains is a broad, steadily descending area where most of Bali's large rice crop is grown. The northern side of the mountains slopes more steeply to the sea and is the main coffee producing area of the island, along with rice, vegetables and cattle. The longest river, Ayung River, flows approximately 75 km.

 

The island is surrounded by coral reefs. Beaches in the south tend to have white sand while those in the north and west have black sand. Bali has no major waterways, although the Ho River is navigable by small sampan boats. Black sand beaches between Pasut and Klatingdukuh are being developed for tourism, but apart from the seaside temple of Tanah Lot, they are not yet used for significant tourism.

 

The largest city is the provincial capital, Denpasar, near the southern coast. Its population is around 491,500 (2002). Bali's second-largest city is the old colonial capital, Singaraja, which is located on the north coast and is home to around 100,000 people. Other important cities include the beach resort, Kuta, which is practically part of Denpasar's urban area, and Ubud, situated at the north of Denpasar, is the island's cultural centre.

 

Three small islands lie to the immediate south east and all are administratively part of the Klungkung regency of Bali: Nusa Penida, Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan. These islands are separated from Bali by the Badung Strait.

 

To the east, the Lombok Strait separates Bali from Lombok and marks the biogeographical division between the fauna of the Indomalayan ecozone and the distinctly different fauna of Australasia. The transition is known as the Wallace Line, named after Alfred Russel Wallace, who first proposed a transition zone between these two major biomes. When sea levels dropped during the Pleistocene ice age, Bali was connected to Java and Sumatra and to the mainland of Asia and shared the Asian fauna, but the deep water of the Lombok Strait continued to keep Lombok Island and the Lesser Sunda archipelago isolated.

 

CLIMATE

Being just 8 degrees south of the equator, Bali has a fairly even climate year round.

 

Day time temperatures at low elevations vary between 20-33⁰ C although it can be much cooler than that in the mountains. The west monsoon is in place from approximately October to April and this can bring significant rain, particularly from December to March. Outside of the monsoon period, humidity is relatively low and any rain unlikely in lowland areas.

 

ECOLOGY

Bali lies just to the west of the Wallace Line, and thus has a fauna that is Asian in character, with very little Australasian influence, and has more in common with Java than with Lombok. An exception is the yellow-crested cockatoo, a member of a primarily Australasian family. There are around 280 species of birds, including the critically endangered Bali myna, which is endemic. Others Include barn swallow, black-naped oriole, black racket-tailed treepie, crested serpent-eagle, crested treeswift, dollarbird, Java sparrow, lesser adjutant, long-tailed shrike, milky stork, Pacific swallow, red-rumped swallow, sacred kingfisher, sea eagle, woodswallow, savanna nightjar, stork-billed kingfisher, yellow-vented bulbul and great egret.

 

Until the early 20th century, Bali was home to several large mammals: the wild banteng, leopard and the endemic Bali tiger. The banteng still occurs in its domestic form, whereas leopards are found only in neighbouring Java, and the Bali tiger is extinct. The last definite record of a tiger on Bali dates from 1937, when one was shot, though the subspecies may have survived until the 1940s or 1950s. The relatively small size of the island, conflict with humans, poaching and habitat reduction drove the Bali tiger to extinction. This was the smallest and rarest of all tiger subspecies and was never caught on film or displayed in zoos, whereas few skins or bones remain in museums around the world. Today, the largest mammals are the Javan rusa deer and the wild boar. A second, smaller species of deer, the Indian muntjac, also occurs. Saltwater crocodiles were once present on the island, but became locally extinct sometime during the last century.

 

Squirrels are quite commonly encountered, less often is the Asian palm civet, which is also kept in coffee farms to produce Kopi Luwak. Bats are well represented, perhaps the most famous place to encounter them remaining the Goa Lawah (Temple of the Bats) where they are worshipped by the locals and also constitute a tourist attraction. They also occur in other cave temples, for instance at Gangga Beach. Two species of monkey occur. The crab-eating macaque, known locally as "kera", is quite common around human settlements and temples, where it becomes accustomed to being fed by humans, particularly in any of the three "monkey forest" temples, such as the popular one in the Ubud area. They are also quite often kept as pets by locals. The second monkey, endemic to Java and some surrounding islands such as Bali, is far rarer and more elusive is the Javan langur, locally known as "lutung". They occur in few places apart from the Bali Barat National Park. They are born an orange colour, though by their first year they would have already changed to a more blackish colouration. In Java however, there is more of a tendency for this species to retain its juvenile orange colour into adulthood, and so you can see a mixture of black and orange monkeys together as a family. Other rarer mammals include the leopard cat, Sunda pangolin and black giant squirrel.

 

Snakes include the king cobra and reticulated python. The water monitor can grow to at least 1.5 m in length and 50 kg and can move quickly.

 

The rich coral reefs around the coast, particularly around popular diving spots such as Tulamben, Amed, Menjangan or neighbouring Nusa Penida, host a wide range of marine life, for instance hawksbill turtle, giant sunfish, giant manta ray, giant moray eel, bumphead parrotfish, hammerhead shark, reef shark, barracuda, and sea snakes. Dolphins are commonly encountered on the north coast near Singaraja and Lovina.

 

A team of scientists conducted a survey from 29 April 2011 to 11 May 2011 at 33 sea sites around Bali. They discovered 952 species of reef fish of which 8 were new discoveries at Pemuteran, Gilimanuk, Nusa Dua, Tulamben and Candidasa, and 393 coral species, including two new ones at Padangbai and between Padangbai and Amed. The average coverage level of healthy coral was 36% (better than in Raja Ampat and Halmahera by 29% or in Fakfak and Kaimana by 25%) with the highest coverage found in Gili Selang and Gili Mimpang in Candidasa, Karangasem regency.

 

Many plants have been introduced by humans within the last centuries, particularly since the 20th century, making it sometimes hard to distinguish what plants are really native.[citation needed] Among the larger trees the most common are: banyan trees, jackfruit, coconuts, bamboo species, acacia trees and also endless rows of coconuts and banana species. Numerous flowers can be seen: hibiscus, frangipani, bougainvillea, poinsettia, oleander, jasmine, water lily, lotus, roses, begonias, orchids and hydrangeas exist. On higher grounds that receive more moisture, for instance around Kintamani, certain species of fern trees, mushrooms and even pine trees thrive well. Rice comes in many varieties. Other plants with agricultural value include: salak, mangosteen, corn, kintamani orange, coffee and water spinach.

 

ENVIRONMENT

Some of the worst erosion has occurred in Lebih Beach, where up to 7 metres of land is lost every year. Decades ago, this beach was used for holy pilgrimages with more than 10,000 people, but they have now moved to Masceti Beach.

 

From ranked third in previous review, in 2010 Bali got score 99.65 of Indonesia's environmental quality index and the highest of all the 33 provinces. The score measured 3 water quality parameters: the level of total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved oxygen (DO) and chemical oxygen demand (COD).

 

Because of over-exploitation by the tourist industry which covers a massive land area, 200 out of 400 rivers on the island have dried up and based on research, the southern part of Bali would face a water shortage up to 2,500 litres of clean water per second by 2015. To ease the shortage, the central government plans to build a water catchment and processing facility at Petanu River in Gianyar. The 300 litres capacity of water per second will be channelled to Denpasar, Badung and Gianyar in 2013.

 

ECONOMY

Three decades ago, the Balinese economy was largely agriculture-based in terms of both output and employment. Tourism is now the largest single industry in terms of income, and as a result, Bali is one of Indonesia's wealthiest regions. In 2003, around 80% of Bali's economy was tourism related. By end of June 2011, non-performing loan of all banks in Bali were 2.23%, lower than the average of Indonesian banking industry non-performing loan (about 5%). The economy, however, suffered significantly as a result of the terrorist bombings 2002 and 2005. The tourism industry has since recovered from these events.

 

AGRICULTURE

Although tourism produces the GDP's largest output, agriculture is still the island's biggest employer; most notably rice cultivation. Crops grown in smaller amounts include fruit, vegetables, Coffea arabica and other cash and subsistence crops. Fishing also provides a significant number of jobs. Bali is also famous for its artisans who produce a vast array of handicrafts, including batik and ikat cloth and clothing, wooden carvings, stone carvings, painted art and silverware. Notably, individual villages typically adopt a single product, such as wind chimes or wooden furniture.

 

The Arabica coffee production region is the highland region of Kintamani near Mount Batur. Generally, Balinese coffee is processed using the wet method. This results in a sweet, soft coffee with good consistency. Typical flavours include lemon and other citrus notes. Many coffee farmers in Kintamani are members of a traditional farming system called Subak Abian, which is based on the Hindu philosophy of "Tri Hita Karana". According to this philosophy, the three causes of happiness are good relations with God, other people and the environment. The Subak Abian system is ideally suited to the production of fair trade and organic coffee production. Arabica coffee from Kintamani is the first product in Indonesia to request a Geographical Indication.

 

TOURISM

The tourism industry is primarily focused in the south, while significant in the other parts of the island as well. The main tourist locations are the town of Kuta (with its beach), and its outer suburbs of Legian and Seminyak (which were once independent townships), the east coast town of Sanur (once the only tourist hub), in the center of the island Ubud, to the south of the Ngurah Rai International Airport, Jimbaran, and the newer development of Nusa Dua and Pecatu.

 

The American government lifted its travel warnings in 2008. The Australian government issued an advice on Friday, 4 May 2012. The overall level of the advice was lowered to 'Exercise a high degree of caution'. The Swedish government issued a new warning on Sunday, 10 June 2012 because of one more tourist who was killed by methanol poisoning. Australia last issued an advice on Monday, 5 January 2015 due to new terrorist threats.

 

An offshoot of tourism is the growing real estate industry. Bali real estate has been rapidly developing in the main tourist areas of Kuta, Legian, Seminyak and Oberoi. Most recently, high-end 5 star projects are under development on the Bukit peninsula, on the south side of the island. Million dollar villas are being developed along the cliff sides of south Bali, commanding panoramic ocean views. Foreign and domestic (many Jakarta individuals and companies are fairly active) investment into other areas of the island also continues to grow. Land prices, despite the worldwide economic crisis, have remained stable.

 

In the last half of 2008, Indonesia's currency had dropped approximately 30% against the US dollar, providing many overseas visitors value for their currencies. Visitor arrivals for 2009 were forecast to drop 8% (which would be higher than 2007 levels), due to the worldwide economic crisis which has also affected the global tourist industry, but not due to any travel warnings.

 

Bali's tourism economy survived the terrorist bombings of 2002 and 2005, and the tourism industry has in fact slowly recovered and surpassed its pre-terrorist bombing levels; the longterm trend has been a steady increase of visitor arrivals. In 2010, Bali received 2.57 million foreign tourists, which surpassed the target of 2.0–2.3 million tourists. The average occupancy of starred hotels achieved 65%, so the island is still able to accommodate tourists for some years without any addition of new rooms/hotels, although at the peak season some of them are fully booked.

 

Bali received the Best Island award from Travel and Leisure in 2010. The island of Bali won because of its attractive surroundings (both mountain and coastal areas), diverse tourist attractions, excellent international and local restaurants, and the friendliness of the local people. According to BBC Travel released in 2011, Bali is one of the World's Best Islands, ranking second after Santorini, Greece.

 

In August 2010, the film Eat Pray Love was released in theatres. The movie was based on Elizabeth Gilbert's best-selling memoir Eat, Pray, Love. It took place at Ubud and Padang-Padang Beach at Bali. The 2006 book, which spent 57 weeks at the No. 1 spot on the New York Times paperback nonfiction best-seller list, had already fuelled a boom in Eat, Pray, Love-related tourism in Ubud, the hill town and cultural and tourist center that was the focus of Gilbert's quest for balance through traditional spirituality and healing that leads to love.

 

In January 2016, after music icon David Bowie died, it was revealed that in his will, Bowie asked for his ashes to be scattered in Bali, conforming to Buddhist rituals. He had visited and performed in a number of Southest Asian cities early in his career, including Bangkok and Singapore.

 

Since 2011, China has displaced Japan as the second-largest supplier of tourists to Bali, while Australia still tops the list. Chinese tourists increased by 17% from last year due to the impact of ACFTA and new direct flights to Bali. In January 2012, Chinese tourists year on year (yoy) increased by 222.18% compared to January 2011, while Japanese tourists declined by 23.54% yoy.

 

Bali reported that it has 2.88 million foreign tourists and 5 million domestic tourists in 2012, marginally surpassing the expectations of 2.8 million foreign tourists. Forecasts for 2013 are at 3.1 million.

 

Based on Bank Indonesia survey in May 2013, 34.39 percent of tourists are upper-middle class with spending between $1,286 to $5,592 and dominated by Australia, France, China, Germany and the US with some China tourists move from low spending before to higher spending currently. While 30.26 percent are middle class with spending between $662 to $1,285.

 

SEX TOURISM

In the twentieth century the incidence of tourism specifically for sex was regularly observed in the era of mass tourism in Indonesia In Bali, prostitution is conducted by both men and women. Bali in particular is notorious for its 'Kuta Cowboys', local gigolos targeting foreign female tourists.

 

Tens of thousands of single women throng the beaches of Bali in Indonesia every year. For decades, young Balinese men have taken advantage of the louche and laid-back atmosphere to find love and lucre from female tourists—Japanese, European and Australian for the most part—who by all accounts seem perfectly happy with the arrangement.

 

By 2013, Indonesia was reportedly the number one destination for Australian child sex tourists, mostly starting in Bali but also travelling to other parts of the country. The problem in Bali was highlighted by Luh Ketut Suryani, head of Psychiatry at Udayana University, as early as 2003. Surayani warned that a low level of awareness of paedophilia in Bali had made it the target of international paedophile organisations. On 19 February 2013, government officials announced measures to combat paedophilia in Bali.

 

TRANSPORTATION

The Ngurah Rai International Airport is located near Jimbaran, on the isthmus at the southernmost part of the island. Lt.Col. Wisnu Airfield is found in north-west Bali.

 

A coastal road circles the island, and three major two-lane arteries cross the central mountains at passes reaching to 1,750m in height (at Penelokan). The Ngurah Rai Bypass is a four-lane expressway that partly encircles Denpasar. Bali has no railway lines.

 

In December 2010 the Government of Indonesia invited investors to build a new Tanah Ampo Cruise Terminal at Karangasem, Bali with a projected worth of $30 million. On 17 July 2011 the first cruise ship (Sun Princess) anchored about 400 meters away from the wharf of Tanah Ampo harbour. The current pier is only 154 meters but will eventually be extended to 300–350 meters to accommodate international cruise ships. The harbour here is safer than the existing facility at Benoa and has a scenic backdrop of east Bali mountains and green rice fields. The tender for improvement was subject to delays, and as of July 2013 the situation remained unclear with cruise line operators complaining and even refusing to use the existing facility at Tanah Ampo.

 

A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by two ministers, Bali's Governor and Indonesian Train Company to build 565 kilometres of railway along the coast around the island. As of July 2015, no details of this proposed railways have been released.

 

On 16 March 2011 (Tanjung) Benoa port received the "Best Port Welcome 2010" award from London's "Dream World Cruise Destination" magazine. Government plans to expand the role of Benoa port as export-import port to boost Bali's trade and industry sector. The Tourism and Creative Economy Ministry has confirmed that 306 cruise liners are heading for Indonesia in 2013 – an increase of 43 percent compared to the previous year.

 

In May 2011, an integrated Areal Traffic Control System (ATCS) was implemented to reduce traffic jams at four crossing points: Ngurah Rai statue, Dewa Ruci Kuta crossing, Jimbaran crossing and Sanur crossing. ATCS is an integrated system connecting all traffic lights, CCTVs and other traffic signals with a monitoring office at the police headquarters. It has successfully been implemented in other ASEAN countries and will be implemented at other crossings in Bali.

 

On 21 December 2011 construction started on the Nusa Dua-Benoa-Ngurah Rai International Airport toll road which will also provide a special lane for motorcycles. This has been done by seven state-owned enterprises led by PT Jasa Marga with 60% of shares. PT Jasa Marga Bali Tol will construct the 9.91 kilometres toll road (totally 12.7 kilometres with access road). The construction is estimated to cost Rp.2.49 trillion ($273.9 million). The project goes through 2 kilometres of mangrove forest and through 2.3 kilometres of beach, both within 5.4 hectares area. The elevated toll road is built over the mangrove forest on 18,000 concrete pillars which occupied 2 hectares of mangroves forest. It compensated by new planting of 300,000 mangrove trees along the road. On 21 December 2011 the Dewa Ruci 450 meters underpass has also started on the busy Dewa Ruci junction near Bali Kuta Galeria with an estimated cost of Rp136 billion ($14.9 million) from the state budget. On 23 September 2013, the Bali Mandara Toll Road is opened and the Dewa Ruci Junction (Simpang Siur) underpass is opened before. Both are ease the heavy traffic congestion.

 

To solve chronic traffic problems, the province will also build a toll road connecting Serangan with Tohpati, a toll road connecting Kuta, Denpasar and Tohpati and a flyover connecting Kuta and Ngurah Rai Airport.

 

DEMOGRAPHICS

The population of Bali was 3,890,757 as of the 2010 Census; the latest estimate (for January 2014) is 4,225,384. There are an estimated 30,000 expatriates living in Bali.

 

ETHNIC ORIGINS

A DNA study in 2005 by Karafet et al. found that 12% of Balinese Y-chromosomes are of likely Indian origin, while 84% are of likely Austronesian origin, and 2% of likely Melanesian origin. The study does not correlate the DNA samples to the Balinese caste system.

 

CASTE SYSTEM

Bali has a caste system based on the Indian Hindu model, with four castes:

 

- Sudra (Shudra) – peasants constituting close to 93% of Bali's population.

- Wesia (Vaishyas) – the caste of merchants and administrative officials

- Ksatrias (Kshatriyas) – the kingly and warrior caste

- Brahmana (Bramhin) – holy men and priests

 

RELIGION

Unlike most of Muslim-majority Indonesia, about 83.5% of Bali's population adheres to Balinese Hinduism, formed as a combination of existing local beliefs and Hindu influences from mainland Southeast Asia and South Asia. Minority religions include Islam (13.3%), Christianity (1.7%), and Buddhism (0.5%). These figures do not include immigrants from other parts of Indonesia.

 

Balinese Hinduism is an amalgam in which gods and demigods are worshipped together with Buddhist heroes, the spirits of ancestors, indigenous agricultural deities and sacred places. Religion as it is practised in Bali is a composite belief system that embraces not only theology, philosophy, and mythology, but ancestor worship, animism and magic. It pervades nearly every aspect of traditional life. Caste is observed, though less strictly than in India. With an estimated 20,000 puras (temples) and shrines, Bali is known as the "Island of a Thousand Puras", or "Island of the Gods". This is refer to Mahabarata story that behind Bali became island of god or "pulau dewata" in Indonesian language.

 

Balinese Hinduism has roots in Indian Hinduism and Buddhism, and adopted the animistic traditions of the indigenous people. This influence strengthened the belief that the gods and goddesses are present in all things. Every element of nature, therefore, possesses its own power, which reflects the power of the gods. A rock, tree, dagger, or woven cloth is a potential home for spirits whose energy can be directed for good or evil. Balinese Hinduism is deeply interwoven with art and ritual. Ritualizing states of self-control are a notable feature of religious expression among the people, who for this reason have become famous for their graceful and decorous behaviour.

 

Apart from the majority of Balinese Hindus, there also exist Chinese immigrants whose traditions have melded with that of the locals. As a result, these Sino-Balinese not only embrace their original religion, which is a mixture of Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism and Confucianism, but also find a way to harmonise it with the local traditions. Hence, it is not uncommon to find local Sino-Balinese during the local temple's odalan. Moreover, Balinese Hindu priests are invited to perform rites alongside a Chinese priest in the event of the death of a Sino-Balinese. Nevertheless, the Sino-Balinese claim to embrace Buddhism for administrative purposes, such as their Identity Cards.

 

LANGUAGE

Balinese and Indonesian are the most widely spoken languages in Bali, and the vast majority of Balinese people are bilingual or trilingual. The most common spoken language around the tourist areas is Indonesian, as many people in the tourist sector are not solely Balinese, but migrants from Java, Lombok, Sumatra, and other parts of Indonesia. There are several indigenous Balinese languages, but most Balinese can also use the most widely spoken option: modern common Balinese. The usage of different Balinese languages was traditionally determined by the Balinese caste system and by clan membership, but this tradition is diminishing. Kawi and Sanskrit are also commonly used by some Hindu priests in Bali, for Hinduism literature was mostly written in Sanskrit.

 

English and Chinese are the next most common languages (and the primary foreign languages) of many Balinese, owing to the requirements of the tourism industry, as well as the English-speaking community and huge Chinese-Indonesian population. Other foreign languages, such as Japanese, Korean, French, Russian or German are often used in multilingual signs for foreign tourists.

 

CULTURE

Bali is renowned for its diverse and sophisticated art forms, such as painting, sculpture, woodcarving, handcrafts, and performing arts. Balinese cuisine is also distinctive. Balinese percussion orchestra music, known as gamelan, is highly developed and varied. Balinese performing arts often portray stories from Hindu epics such as the Ramayana but with heavy Balinese influence. Famous Balinese dances include pendet, legong, baris, topeng, barong, gong keybar, and kecak (the monkey dance). Bali boasts one of the most diverse and innovative performing arts cultures in the world, with paid performances at thousands of temple festivals, private ceremonies, or public shows.

 

The Hindu New Year, Nyepi, is celebrated in the spring by a day of silence. On this day everyone stays at home and tourists are encouraged to remain in their hotels. On the day before New Year, large and colourful sculptures of ogoh-ogoh monsters are paraded and finally burned in the evening to drive away evil spirits. Other festivals throughout the year are specified by the Balinese pawukon calendrical system.

 

Celebrations are held for many occasions such as a tooth-filing (coming-of-age ritual), cremation or odalan (temple festival). One of the most important concepts that Balinese ceremonies have in common is that of désa kala patra, which refers to how ritual performances must be appropriate in both the specific and general social context. Many of the ceremonial art forms such as wayang kulit and topeng are highly improvisatory, providing flexibility for the performer to adapt the performance to the current situation. Many celebrations call for a loud, boisterous atmosphere with lots of activity and the resulting aesthetic, ramé, is distinctively Balinese. Often two or more gamelan ensembles will be performing well within earshot, and sometimes compete with each other to be heard. Likewise, the audience members talk amongst themselves, get up and walk around, or even cheer on the performance, which adds to the many layers of activity and the liveliness typical of ramé.

 

Kaja and kelod are the Balinese equivalents of North and South, which refer to ones orientation between the island's largest mountain Gunung Agung (kaja), and the sea (kelod). In addition to spatial orientation, kaja and kelod have the connotation of good and evil; gods and ancestors are believed to live on the mountain whereas demons live in the sea. Buildings such as temples and residential homes are spatially oriented by having the most sacred spaces closest to the mountain and the unclean places nearest to the sea.

 

Most temples have an inner courtyard and an outer courtyard which are arranged with the inner courtyard furthest kaja. These spaces serve as performance venues since most Balinese rituals are accompanied by any combination of music, dance and drama. The performances that take place in the inner courtyard are classified as wali, the most sacred rituals which are offerings exclusively for the gods, while the outer courtyard is where bebali ceremonies are held, which are intended for gods and people. Lastly, performances meant solely for the entertainment of humans take place outside the walls of the temple and are called bali-balihan. This three-tiered system of classification was standardised in 1971 by a committee of Balinese officials and artists to better protect the sanctity of the oldest and most sacred Balinese rituals from being performed for a paying audience.

 

Tourism, Bali's chief industry, has provided the island with a foreign audience that is eager to pay for entertainment, thus creating new performance opportunities and more demand for performers. The impact of tourism is controversial since before it became integrated into the economy, the Balinese performing arts did not exist as a capitalist venture, and were not performed for entertainment outside of their respective ritual context. Since the 1930s sacred rituals such as the barong dance have been performed both in their original contexts, as well as exclusively for paying tourists. This has led to new versions of many of these performances which have developed according to the preferences of foreign audiences; some villages have a barong mask specifically for non-ritual performances as well as an older mask which is only used for sacred performances.

 

Balinese society continues to revolve around each family's ancestral village, to which the cycle of life and religion is closely tied. Coercive aspects of traditional society, such as customary law sanctions imposed by traditional authorities such as village councils (including "kasepekang", or shunning) have risen in importance as a consequence of the democratisation and decentralisation of Indonesia since 1998.

 

WIKIPEDIA

BR (large logo) blue liveried 47580 "County of Essex" with a northbound parcels service at Chesterfield - c.08/1990.

 

The actual date the image was made is unknown; the indication given is based on the film processing date imprinted on the original slide.

  

LOT Polish Airlines

Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner

SP-LRB

Glasgow Airport (EGPF)

26.09.2014

 

LOT4 ORD-WAW (Chicago to Warsaw) diverted in to Glasgow due to a fire indication in the front cargo hold. Seen waiting on Taxiway Golf whilst the fire crews inspect her.

The Thirty-Fifth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva, Switzerland from April 25 to April 27, 2016.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

ORTAHISAR AND ORTAHISAR CASTLE

 

Ortahisar is picturesque stone houses, narrow streets and lovely churches as well as the castle-like rock formation after which the town is named. This 90m high natural fortress, a prominent landmark in the region – honeycombed with caves and tunnels, camouflaged by nature without the slightest indication of human presence inside – has partly crumbled away revealing some of its interior. Today it has been restored and the peak is accessible by a staircase. The Ortahisar Castle offers a magnificent panorama over the fairy chimneys of Hallacdere and the snowy peak of Mt. Erciyes.

 

Cappadocia World Heritage List;

 

whc.unesco.org/en/list/357

 

In a spectacular landscape, entirely sculpted by erosion, the Göreme valley and its surroundings contain rock-hewn sanctuaries that provide unique evidence of Byzantine art in the post-Iconoclastic period. Dwellings, troglodyte villages and underground towns – the remains of a traditional human habitat dating back to the 4th century – can also be seen there.

Brief synthesis

Located on the central Anatolia plateau within a volcanic landscape sculpted by erosion to form a succession of mountain ridges, valleys and pinnacles known as “fairy chimneys” or hoodoos, Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia cover the region between the cities of Nevşehir, Ürgüp and Avanos, the sites of Karain, Karlık, Yeşilöz, Soğanlı and the subterranean cities of Kaymaklı and Derinkuyu. The area is bounded on the south and east by ranges of extinct volcanoes with Erciyes Dağ (3916 m) at one end and Hasan Dağ (3253 m) at the other. The density of its rock-hewn cells, churches, troglodyte villages and subterranean cities within the rock formations make it one of the world's most striking and largest cave-dwelling complexes. Though interesting from a geological and ethnological point of view, the incomparable beauty of the decor of the Christian sanctuaries makes Cappadocia one of the leading examples of the post-iconoclastic Byzantine art period.

It is believed that the first signs of monastic activity in Cappadocia date back to the 4th century at which time small anchorite communities, acting on the teachings of Basileios the Great, Bishop of Kayseri, began inhabiting cells hewn in the rock. In later periods, in order to resist Arab invasions, they began banding together into troglodyte villages or subterranean towns such as Kaymakli or Derinkuyu which served as places of refuge.

Cappadocian monasticism was already well established in the iconoclastic period (725-842) as illustrated by the decoration of many sanctuaries which kept a strict minimum of symbols (most often sculpted or tempera painted crosses). However, after 842 many rupestral churches were dug in Cappadocia and richly decorated with brightly coloured figurative painting. Those in the Göreme Valley include Tokalı Kilise and El Nazar Kilise (10th century), St. Barbara Kilise and Saklı Kilise (11th century) and Elmalı Kilise and Karanlık Kilise (end of the 12th – beginning of the 13th century).

Criterion (i): Owing to their quality and density, the rupestral sanctuaries of Cappadocia constitute a unique artistic achievement offering irreplaceable testimony to the post-iconoclastic Byzantine art period.

Criterion (iii): The rupestral dwellings, villages, convents and churches retain the fossilized image of a province of the Byzantine Empire between the 4th century and the arrival of the Seljuk Turks (1071). Thus, they are the essential vestiges of a civilization which has disappeared.

Criterion (v): Cappadocia is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement which has become vulnerable under the combined effects of natural erosion and, more recently, tourism.

Criterion (vii): In a spectacular landscape dramatically demonstrating erosional forces, the Göreme Valley and its surroundings provide a globally renowned and accessible display of hoodoo landforms and other erosional features, which are of great beauty, and which interact with the cultural elements of the landscape.

Integrity

Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia, having been extensively used and modified by man for centuries, is a landscape of harmony combining human interaction and settlement with dramatic natural landforms. There has been some earthquake damage to some of the cones and the pillars, but this is seen as a naturally occurring phenomenon. Overuse by tourists and some vandalism have been reported and some incompatible structures have been introduced.

The erosional processes that formed the distinctive conical rock structures will continue to create new fairy chimneys and rock pillars, however due to the rate of this process, the natural values of the property may still be threatened by unsustainable use. The cultural features, including rock-hewn churches and related cultural structures, mainly at risk of being undermined by erosion and other negative natural processes coupled with mass tourism and development pressures, can never be replaced. threats Some of the churches mentioned by early scholars such as C. Texier, H.G. Rott and Guillaume de Jerphanion are no longer extant.

Authenticity

The property meets the conditions of authenticity as its values and their attributes, including its historical setting, form, design, material and workmanship adequately reflect the cultural and natural values recognized in the inscription criteria.

Given the technical difficulties of building in this region, where it is a matter of hewing out structures within the natural rock, creating architecture by the removal of material rather than by putting it together to form the elements of a building, the underlying morphological structure and the difficulties inherent in the handling of the material inhibited the creative impulses of the builders. This conditioning of human effort by natural conditions persisted almost unchanged through successive periods and civilizations, influencing the cultural attitudes and technical skills of each succeeding generation.

Protection and management requirements

The World Heritage property Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia is subject to legal protection in accordance with both the Protection of Cultural and Natural Resources Act No. 2863 and the National Parks Act No. 2873. The entire territory between the cities of Nevşehir, Ürgüp and Avanos is designated as a National Park under the Act No. 2873. In addition, natural, archaeological, urban, and mixed archaeological and natural conservation areas, two underground towns, five troglodyte villages, and more than 200 individual rock-hewn churches, some of which contain numerous frescoes, have been entered into the register of immovable monuments and sites according to the Act No. 2863.

Legal protection, management and monitoring of the Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia fall within the scope of national and regional governmental administrations. The Nevşehir and Kayseri Regional Conservation Councils are responsible for keeping the register of monuments and sites, including carrying out all tasks related to the legal protection of monuments and listed buildings and the approval to carry out any restoration-related works. They also evaluate regional and conservation area plans prepared by the responsible national and/or local (i.e. municipal) authorities.

Studies for revision and updating of the existing land use and conservation plan (Göreme National Park Long-term Development Plan) of 1981 were completed in 2003. The major planning decisions proposed were that natural conservation areas are to be protected as they were declared in 1976. Minor adjustments in the peripheral areas of settlements and spatial developments of towns located in the natural conservation sites including Göreme, Ortahisar, Çavuşin, Ürgüp and Mustafapaşa will be strictly controlled. In other words, the Plan proposes to confine the physical growth of these towns to recently established zones. Hotel developments will take into account the set limits for room capacities. Furthermore, the plan also suggested that local authorities should be advised to review land use decisions for areas that have been reserved for tourism developments in the town plans.

Preparation of conservation area plans for the urban and/or mixed urban-archaeological conservation sites within the historic sections of Göreme are in place and provide zoning criteria and the rules and guidelines to be used in the maintenance and restoration of listed buildings and other buildings which are not registered, but which are located within the historic zones. Similar planning studies for the towns of Ortahisar and Uçhisar are in place. Once finalised, a conservation area plan for the urban conservation area in Ürgüp will be in place. All relevant plans are kept up to date on a continuing basis.

Appropriate facilities aimed at improving the understanding of the World Heritage property have been completed for the subterranean towns of Kaymaklı and Derinkuyu, and are required for Göreme and Paşabağı.

Monuments in danger due to erosion, including the El Nazar, Elmalı, and Meryemana (Virgin Mary) churches, have been listed as monuments requiring priority action. Specific measures for their protection, restoration and maintenance are required at the site level.

While conservation plans and protection measures are in place for individual sites, it is recognised by the principal parties responsible for site management that an integrated Regional Plan for the Cappadocia Cultural and Tourism Conservation and Development Area is required to protect the World Heritage values of the property. Adequate financial, political and technical support is also required to secure the management of the property.

 

whc.unesco.org/en/list/357

 

www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/world-heritage/cappadocia/

 

www.goreme.com/ortahisar.php

 

Items on display at an exhibition of India’s varied geographical indications, taking place at WIPO from October 6-14, 2015.

 

Co-organized by WIPO and the Government of India on the sidelines of the WIPO Assemblies of Member States, it was inaugurated with an event themed “Make in India” on October 6, 2015 featuring a recital of traditional Indian music and Indian artisans demonstrating their handiwork.

 

The event began with the screening of a WIPO-produced film on a capacity building project sponsored by WIPO’s Accessible Books Consortium in India and a keynote address by India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador Ajit Kumar, followed by a screening of a film on the “Make in India” initiative.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Violaine Martin. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

Bali is an island and province of Indonesia. The province includes the island of Bali and a few smaller neighbouring islands, notably Nusa Penida, Nusa Lembongan, and Nusa Ceningan. It is located at the westernmost end of the Lesser Sunda Islands, between Java to the west and Lombok to the east. Its capital of Denpasar is located at the southern part of the island.

 

With a population of 3,890,757 in the 2010 census, and 4,225,000 as of January 2014, the island is home to most of Indonesia's Hindu minority. According to the 2010 Census, 83.5% of Bali's population adhered to Balinese Hinduism, followed by 13.4% Muslim, Christianity at 2.5%, and Buddhism 0.5%.

 

Bali is a popular tourist destination, which has seen a significant rise in numbers since the 1980s. It is renowned for its highly developed arts, including traditional and modern dance, sculpture, painting, leather, metalworking, and music. The Indonesian International Film Festival is held every year in Bali.

 

Bali is part of the Coral Triangle, the area with the highest biodiversity of marine species. In this area alone over 500 reef building coral species can be found. For comparison, this is about 7 times as many as in the entire Caribbean. There is a wide range of dive sites with high quality reefs, all with their own specific attractions. Many sites can have strong currents and swell, so diving without a knowledgeable guide is inadvisable. Most recently, Bali was the host of the 2011 ASEAN Summit, 2013 APEC and Miss World 2013.

 

HISTORY

ANCIENT

Bali was inhabited around 2000 BC by Austronesian people who migrated originally from Southeast Asia and Oceania through Maritime Southeast Asia. Culturally and linguistically, the Balinese are closely related to the people of the Indonesian archipelago, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Oceania. Stone tools dating from this time have been found near the village of Cekik in the island's west.

 

In ancient Bali, nine Hindu sects existed, namely Pasupata, Bhairawa, Siwa Shidanta, Waisnawa, Bodha, Brahma, Resi, Sora and Ganapatya. Each sect revered a specific deity as its personal Godhead.

 

Inscriptions from 896 and 911 don't mention a king, until 914, when Sri Kesarivarma is mentioned. They also reveal an independent Bali, with a distinct dialect, where Buddhism and Sivaism were practiced simultaneously. Mpu Sindok's great granddaughter, Mahendradatta (Gunapriyadharmapatni), married the Bali king Udayana Warmadewa (Dharmodayanavarmadeva) around 989, giving birth to Airlangga around 1001. This marriage also brought more Hinduism and Javanese culture to Bali. Princess Sakalendukirana appeared in 1098. Suradhipa reigned from 1115 to 1119, and Jayasakti from 1146 until 1150. Jayapangus appears on inscriptions between 1178 and 1181, while Adikuntiketana and his son Paramesvara in 1204.

 

Balinese culture was strongly influenced by Indian, Chinese, and particularly Hindu culture, beginning around the 1st century AD. The name Bali dwipa ("Bali island") has been discovered from various inscriptions, including the Blanjong pillar inscription written by Sri Kesari Warmadewa in 914 AD and mentioning "Walidwipa". It was during this time that the people developed their complex irrigation system subak to grow rice in wet-field cultivation. Some religious and cultural traditions still practised today can be traced to this period.

 

The Hindu Majapahit Empire (1293–1520 AD) on eastern Java founded a Balinese colony in 1343. The uncle of Hayam Wuruk is mentioned in the charters of 1384-86. A mass Javanese emigration occurred in the next century.

 

PORTUGUESE CONTACTS

The first known European contact with Bali is thought to have been made in 1512, when a Portuguese expedition led by Antonio Abreu and Francisco Serrão sighted its northern shores. It was the first expedition of a series of bi-annual fleets to the Moluccas, that throughout the 16th century usually traveled along the coasts of the Sunda Islands. Bali was also mapped in 1512, in the chart of Francisco Rodrigues, aboard the expedition. In 1585, a ship foundered off the Bukit Peninsula and left a few Portuguese in the service of Dewa Agung.

 

DUTCH EAST INDIA

In 1597 the Dutch explorer Cornelis de Houtman arrived at Bali, and the Dutch East India Company was established in 1602. The Dutch government expanded its control across the Indonesian archipelago during the second half of the 19th century (see Dutch East Indies). Dutch political and economic control over Bali began in the 1840s on the island's north coast, when the Dutch pitted various competing Balinese realms against each other. In the late 1890s, struggles between Balinese kingdoms in the island's south were exploited by the Dutch to increase their control.

 

In June 1860 the famous Welsh naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, travelled to Bali from Singapore, landing at Buleleng on the northcoast of the island. Wallace's trip to Bali was instrumental in helping him devise his Wallace Line theory. The Wallace Line is a faunal boundary that runs through the strait between Bali and Lombok. It has been found to be a boundary between species of Asiatic origin in the east and a mixture of Australian and Asian species to the west. In his travel memoir The Malay Archipelago, Wallace wrote of his experience in Bali:

 

I was both astonished and delighted; for as my visit to Java was some years later, I had never beheld so beautiful and well-cultivated a district out of Europe. A slightly undulating plain extends from the seacoast about ten or twelve miles inland, where it is bounded by a fine range of wooded and cultivated hills. Houses and villages, marked out by dense clumps of coconut palms, tamarind and other fruit trees, are dotted about in every direction; while between them extend luxurious rice-grounds, watered by an elaborate system of irrigation that would be the pride of the best cultivated parts of Europe.

 

The Dutch mounted large naval and ground assaults at the Sanur region in 1906 and were met by the thousands of members of the royal family and their followers who fought against the superior Dutch force in a suicidal puputan defensive assault rather than face the humiliation of surrender. Despite Dutch demands for surrender, an estimated 200 Balinese marched to their death against the invaders. In the Dutch intervention in Bali, a similar massacre occurred in the face of a Dutch assault in Klungkung.

 

AFTERWARD THE DUTCH GOVERNORS

exercised administrative control over the island, but local control over religion and culture generally remained intact. Dutch rule over Bali came later and was never as well established as in other parts of Indonesia such as Java and Maluku.

 

n the 1930s, anthropologists Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, artists Miguel Covarrubias and Walter Spies, and musicologist Colin McPhee all spent time here. Their accounts of the island and its peoples created a western image of Bali as "an enchanted land of aesthetes at peace with themselves and nature." Western tourists began to visit the island.

 

Imperial Japan occupied Bali during World War II. It was not originally a target in their Netherlands East Indies Campaign, but as the airfields on Borneo were inoperative due to heavy rains, the Imperial Japanese Army decided to occupy Bali, which did not suffer from comparable weather. The island had no regular Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (KNIL) troops. There was only a Native Auxiliary Corps Prajoda (Korps Prajoda) consisting of about 600 native soldiers and several Dutch KNIL officers under command of KNIL Lieutenant Colonel W.P. Roodenburg. On 19 February 1942 the Japanese forces landed near the town of Senoer [Senur]. The island was quickly captured.

 

During the Japanese occupation, a Balinese military officer, Gusti Ngurah Rai, formed a Balinese 'freedom army'. The harshness of war requisitions made Japanese rule more resented than Dutch rule. Following Japan's Pacific surrender in August 1945, the Dutch returned to Indonesia, including Bali, to reinstate their pre-war colonial administration. This was resisted by the Balinese rebels, who now used recovered Japanese weapons. On 20 November 1946, the Battle of Marga was fought in Tabanan in central Bali. Colonel I Gusti Ngurah Rai, by then 29 years old, finally rallied his forces in east Bali at Marga Rana, where they made a suicide attack on the heavily armed Dutch. The Balinese battalion was entirely wiped out, breaking the last thread of Balinese military resistance.

 

INDIPENDENCE FROM THE DUTCH

In 1946, the Dutch constituted Bali as one of the 13 administrative districts of the newly proclaimed State of East Indonesia, a rival state to the Republic of Indonesia, which was proclaimed and headed by Sukarno and Hatta. Bali was included in the "Republic of the United States of Indonesia" when the Netherlands recognised Indonesian independence on 29 December 1949.

 

CONTEMPORARY

The 1963 eruption of Mount Agung killed thousands, created economic havoc and forced many displaced Balinese to be transmigrated to other parts of Indonesia. Mirroring the widening of social divisions across Indonesia in the 1950s and early 1960s, Bali saw conflict between supporters of the traditional caste system, and those rejecting this system. Politically, the opposition was represented by supporters of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI), with tensions and ill-feeling further increased by the PKI's land reform programs. An attempted coup in Jakarta was put down by forces led by General Suharto.

 

The army became the dominant power as it instigated a violent anti-communist purge, in which the army blamed the PKI for the coup. Most estimates suggest that at least 500,000 people were killed across Indonesia, with an estimated 80,000 killed in Bali, equivalent to 5% of the island's population. With no Islamic forces involved as in Java and Sumatra, upper-caste PNI landlords led the extermination of PKI members.

 

As a result of the 1965/66 upheavals, Suharto was able to manoeuvre Sukarno out of the presidency. His "New Order" government reestablished relations with western countries. The pre-War Bali as "paradise" was revived in a modern form. The resulting large growth in tourism has led to a dramatic increase in Balinese standards of living and significant foreign exchange earned for the country. A bombing in 2002 by militant Islamists in the tourist area of Kuta killed 202 people, mostly foreigners. This attack, and another in 2005, severely reduced tourism, producing much economic hardship to the island.

 

GEOGRAPHY

The island of Bali lies 3.2 km east of Java, and is approximately 8 degrees south of the equator. Bali and Java are separated by the Bali Strait. East to west, the island is approximately 153 km wide and spans approximately 112 km north to south; administratively it covers 5,780 km2, or 5,577 km2 without Nusa Penida District, its population density is roughly 750 people/km2.

 

Bali's central mountains include several peaks over 3,000 metres in elevation. The highest is Mount Agung (3,031 m), known as the "mother mountain" which is an active volcano rated as one of the world's most likely sites for a massive eruption within the next 100 years. Mountains range from centre to the eastern side, with Mount Agung the easternmost peak. Bali's volcanic nature has contributed to its exceptional fertility and its tall mountain ranges provide the high rainfall that supports the highly productive agriculture sector. South of the mountains is a broad, steadily descending area where most of Bali's large rice crop is grown. The northern side of the mountains slopes more steeply to the sea and is the main coffee producing area of the island, along with rice, vegetables and cattle. The longest river, Ayung River, flows approximately 75 km.

 

The island is surrounded by coral reefs. Beaches in the south tend to have white sand while those in the north and west have black sand. Bali has no major waterways, although the Ho River is navigable by small sampan boats. Black sand beaches between Pasut and Klatingdukuh are being developed for tourism, but apart from the seaside temple of Tanah Lot, they are not yet used for significant tourism.

 

The largest city is the provincial capital, Denpasar, near the southern coast. Its population is around 491,500 (2002). Bali's second-largest city is the old colonial capital, Singaraja, which is located on the north coast and is home to around 100,000 people. Other important cities include the beach resort, Kuta, which is practically part of Denpasar's urban area, and Ubud, situated at the north of Denpasar, is the island's cultural centre.

 

Three small islands lie to the immediate south east and all are administratively part of the Klungkung regency of Bali: Nusa Penida, Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan. These islands are separated from Bali by the Badung Strait.

 

To the east, the Lombok Strait separates Bali from Lombok and marks the biogeographical division between the fauna of the Indomalayan ecozone and the distinctly different fauna of Australasia. The transition is known as the Wallace Line, named after Alfred Russel Wallace, who first proposed a transition zone between these two major biomes. When sea levels dropped during the Pleistocene ice age, Bali was connected to Java and Sumatra and to the mainland of Asia and shared the Asian fauna, but the deep water of the Lombok Strait continued to keep Lombok Island and the Lesser Sunda archipelago isolated.

 

CLIMATE

Being just 8 degrees south of the equator, Bali has a fairly even climate year round.

 

Day time temperatures at low elevations vary between 20-33⁰ C although it can be much cooler than that in the mountains. The west monsoon is in place from approximately October to April and this can bring significant rain, particularly from December to March. Outside of the monsoon period, humidity is relatively low and any rain unlikely in lowland areas.

 

ECOLOGY

Bali lies just to the west of the Wallace Line, and thus has a fauna that is Asian in character, with very little Australasian influence, and has more in common with Java than with Lombok. An exception is the yellow-crested cockatoo, a member of a primarily Australasian family. There are around 280 species of birds, including the critically endangered Bali myna, which is endemic. Others Include barn swallow, black-naped oriole, black racket-tailed treepie, crested serpent-eagle, crested treeswift, dollarbird, Java sparrow, lesser adjutant, long-tailed shrike, milky stork, Pacific swallow, red-rumped swallow, sacred kingfisher, sea eagle, woodswallow, savanna nightjar, stork-billed kingfisher, yellow-vented bulbul and great egret.

 

Until the early 20th century, Bali was home to several large mammals: the wild banteng, leopard and the endemic Bali tiger. The banteng still occurs in its domestic form, whereas leopards are found only in neighbouring Java, and the Bali tiger is extinct. The last definite record of a tiger on Bali dates from 1937, when one was shot, though the subspecies may have survived until the 1940s or 1950s. The relatively small size of the island, conflict with humans, poaching and habitat reduction drove the Bali tiger to extinction. This was the smallest and rarest of all tiger subspecies and was never caught on film or displayed in zoos, whereas few skins or bones remain in museums around the world. Today, the largest mammals are the Javan rusa deer and the wild boar. A second, smaller species of deer, the Indian muntjac, also occurs. Saltwater crocodiles were once present on the island, but became locally extinct sometime during the last century.

 

Squirrels are quite commonly encountered, less often is the Asian palm civet, which is also kept in coffee farms to produce Kopi Luwak. Bats are well represented, perhaps the most famous place to encounter them remaining the Goa Lawah (Temple of the Bats) where they are worshipped by the locals and also constitute a tourist attraction. They also occur in other cave temples, for instance at Gangga Beach. Two species of monkey occur. The crab-eating macaque, known locally as "kera", is quite common around human settlements and temples, where it becomes accustomed to being fed by humans, particularly in any of the three "monkey forest" temples, such as the popular one in the Ubud area. They are also quite often kept as pets by locals. The second monkey, endemic to Java and some surrounding islands such as Bali, is far rarer and more elusive is the Javan langur, locally known as "lutung". They occur in few places apart from the Bali Barat National Park. They are born an orange colour, though by their first year they would have already changed to a more blackish colouration. In Java however, there is more of a tendency for this species to retain its juvenile orange colour into adulthood, and so you can see a mixture of black and orange monkeys together as a family. Other rarer mammals include the leopard cat, Sunda pangolin and black giant squirrel.

 

Snakes include the king cobra and reticulated python. The water monitor can grow to at least 1.5 m in length and 50 kg and can move quickly.

 

The rich coral reefs around the coast, particularly around popular diving spots such as Tulamben, Amed, Menjangan or neighbouring Nusa Penida, host a wide range of marine life, for instance hawksbill turtle, giant sunfish, giant manta ray, giant moray eel, bumphead parrotfish, hammerhead shark, reef shark, barracuda, and sea snakes. Dolphins are commonly encountered on the north coast near Singaraja and Lovina.

 

A team of scientists conducted a survey from 29 April 2011 to 11 May 2011 at 33 sea sites around Bali. They discovered 952 species of reef fish of which 8 were new discoveries at Pemuteran, Gilimanuk, Nusa Dua, Tulamben and Candidasa, and 393 coral species, including two new ones at Padangbai and between Padangbai and Amed. The average coverage level of healthy coral was 36% (better than in Raja Ampat and Halmahera by 29% or in Fakfak and Kaimana by 25%) with the highest coverage found in Gili Selang and Gili Mimpang in Candidasa, Karangasem regency.

 

Many plants have been introduced by humans within the last centuries, particularly since the 20th century, making it sometimes hard to distinguish what plants are really native.[citation needed] Among the larger trees the most common are: banyan trees, jackfruit, coconuts, bamboo species, acacia trees and also endless rows of coconuts and banana species. Numerous flowers can be seen: hibiscus, frangipani, bougainvillea, poinsettia, oleander, jasmine, water lily, lotus, roses, begonias, orchids and hydrangeas exist. On higher grounds that receive more moisture, for instance around Kintamani, certain species of fern trees, mushrooms and even pine trees thrive well. Rice comes in many varieties. Other plants with agricultural value include: salak, mangosteen, corn, kintamani orange, coffee and water spinach.

 

ENVIRONMENT

Some of the worst erosion has occurred in Lebih Beach, where up to 7 metres of land is lost every year. Decades ago, this beach was used for holy pilgrimages with more than 10,000 people, but they have now moved to Masceti Beach.

 

From ranked third in previous review, in 2010 Bali got score 99.65 of Indonesia's environmental quality index and the highest of all the 33 provinces. The score measured 3 water quality parameters: the level of total suspended solids (TSS), dissolved oxygen (DO) and chemical oxygen demand (COD).

 

Because of over-exploitation by the tourist industry which covers a massive land area, 200 out of 400 rivers on the island have dried up and based on research, the southern part of Bali would face a water shortage up to 2,500 litres of clean water per second by 2015. To ease the shortage, the central government plans to build a water catchment and processing facility at Petanu River in Gianyar. The 300 litres capacity of water per second will be channelled to Denpasar, Badung and Gianyar in 2013.

 

ECONOMY

Three decades ago, the Balinese economy was largely agriculture-based in terms of both output and employment. Tourism is now the largest single industry in terms of income, and as a result, Bali is one of Indonesia's wealthiest regions. In 2003, around 80% of Bali's economy was tourism related. By end of June 2011, non-performing loan of all banks in Bali were 2.23%, lower than the average of Indonesian banking industry non-performing loan (about 5%). The economy, however, suffered significantly as a result of the terrorist bombings 2002 and 2005. The tourism industry has since recovered from these events.

 

AGRICULTURE

Although tourism produces the GDP's largest output, agriculture is still the island's biggest employer; most notably rice cultivation. Crops grown in smaller amounts include fruit, vegetables, Coffea arabica and other cash and subsistence crops. Fishing also provides a significant number of jobs. Bali is also famous for its artisans who produce a vast array of handicrafts, including batik and ikat cloth and clothing, wooden carvings, stone carvings, painted art and silverware. Notably, individual villages typically adopt a single product, such as wind chimes or wooden furniture.

 

The Arabica coffee production region is the highland region of Kintamani near Mount Batur. Generally, Balinese coffee is processed using the wet method. This results in a sweet, soft coffee with good consistency. Typical flavours include lemon and other citrus notes. Many coffee farmers in Kintamani are members of a traditional farming system called Subak Abian, which is based on the Hindu philosophy of "Tri Hita Karana". According to this philosophy, the three causes of happiness are good relations with God, other people and the environment. The Subak Abian system is ideally suited to the production of fair trade and organic coffee production. Arabica coffee from Kintamani is the first product in Indonesia to request a Geographical Indication.

 

TOURISM

The tourism industry is primarily focused in the south, while significant in the other parts of the island as well. The main tourist locations are the town of Kuta (with its beach), and its outer suburbs of Legian and Seminyak (which were once independent townships), the east coast town of Sanur (once the only tourist hub), in the center of the island Ubud, to the south of the Ngurah Rai International Airport, Jimbaran, and the newer development of Nusa Dua and Pecatu.

 

The American government lifted its travel warnings in 2008. The Australian government issued an advice on Friday, 4 May 2012. The overall level of the advice was lowered to 'Exercise a high degree of caution'. The Swedish government issued a new warning on Sunday, 10 June 2012 because of one more tourist who was killed by methanol poisoning. Australia last issued an advice on Monday, 5 January 2015 due to new terrorist threats.

 

An offshoot of tourism is the growing real estate industry. Bali real estate has been rapidly developing in the main tourist areas of Kuta, Legian, Seminyak and Oberoi. Most recently, high-end 5 star projects are under development on the Bukit peninsula, on the south side of the island. Million dollar villas are being developed along the cliff sides of south Bali, commanding panoramic ocean views. Foreign and domestic (many Jakarta individuals and companies are fairly active) investment into other areas of the island also continues to grow. Land prices, despite the worldwide economic crisis, have remained stable.

 

In the last half of 2008, Indonesia's currency had dropped approximately 30% against the US dollar, providing many overseas visitors value for their currencies. Visitor arrivals for 2009 were forecast to drop 8% (which would be higher than 2007 levels), due to the worldwide economic crisis which has also affected the global tourist industry, but not due to any travel warnings.

 

Bali's tourism economy survived the terrorist bombings of 2002 and 2005, and the tourism industry has in fact slowly recovered and surpassed its pre-terrorist bombing levels; the longterm trend has been a steady increase of visitor arrivals. In 2010, Bali received 2.57 million foreign tourists, which surpassed the target of 2.0–2.3 million tourists. The average occupancy of starred hotels achieved 65%, so the island is still able to accommodate tourists for some years without any addition of new rooms/hotels, although at the peak season some of them are fully booked.

 

Bali received the Best Island award from Travel and Leisure in 2010. The island of Bali won because of its attractive surroundings (both mountain and coastal areas), diverse tourist attractions, excellent international and local restaurants, and the friendliness of the local people. According to BBC Travel released in 2011, Bali is one of the World's Best Islands, ranking second after Santorini, Greece.

 

In August 2010, the film Eat Pray Love was released in theatres. The movie was based on Elizabeth Gilbert's best-selling memoir Eat, Pray, Love. It took place at Ubud and Padang-Padang Beach at Bali. The 2006 book, which spent 57 weeks at the No. 1 spot on the New York Times paperback nonfiction best-seller list, had already fuelled a boom in Eat, Pray, Love-related tourism in Ubud, the hill town and cultural and tourist center that was the focus of Gilbert's quest for balance through traditional spirituality and healing that leads to love.

 

In January 2016, after music icon David Bowie died, it was revealed that in his will, Bowie asked for his ashes to be scattered in Bali, conforming to Buddhist rituals. He had visited and performed in a number of Southest Asian cities early in his career, including Bangkok and Singapore.

 

Since 2011, China has displaced Japan as the second-largest supplier of tourists to Bali, while Australia still tops the list. Chinese tourists increased by 17% from last year due to the impact of ACFTA and new direct flights to Bali. In January 2012, Chinese tourists year on year (yoy) increased by 222.18% compared to January 2011, while Japanese tourists declined by 23.54% yoy.

 

Bali reported that it has 2.88 million foreign tourists and 5 million domestic tourists in 2012, marginally surpassing the expectations of 2.8 million foreign tourists. Forecasts for 2013 are at 3.1 million.

 

Based on Bank Indonesia survey in May 2013, 34.39 percent of tourists are upper-middle class with spending between $1,286 to $5,592 and dominated by Australia, France, China, Germany and the US with some China tourists move from low spending before to higher spending currently. While 30.26 percent are middle class with spending between $662 to $1,285.

 

SEX TOURISM

In the twentieth century the incidence of tourism specifically for sex was regularly observed in the era of mass tourism in Indonesia In Bali, prostitution is conducted by both men and women. Bali in particular is notorious for its 'Kuta Cowboys', local gigolos targeting foreign female tourists.

 

Tens of thousands of single women throng the beaches of Bali in Indonesia every year. For decades, young Balinese men have taken advantage of the louche and laid-back atmosphere to find love and lucre from female tourists—Japanese, European and Australian for the most part—who by all accounts seem perfectly happy with the arrangement.

 

By 2013, Indonesia was reportedly the number one destination for Australian child sex tourists, mostly starting in Bali but also travelling to other parts of the country. The problem in Bali was highlighted by Luh Ketut Suryani, head of Psychiatry at Udayana University, as early as 2003. Surayani warned that a low level of awareness of paedophilia in Bali had made it the target of international paedophile organisations. On 19 February 2013, government officials announced measures to combat paedophilia in Bali.

 

TRANSPORTATION

The Ngurah Rai International Airport is located near Jimbaran, on the isthmus at the southernmost part of the island. Lt.Col. Wisnu Airfield is found in north-west Bali.

 

A coastal road circles the island, and three major two-lane arteries cross the central mountains at passes reaching to 1,750m in height (at Penelokan). The Ngurah Rai Bypass is a four-lane expressway that partly encircles Denpasar. Bali has no railway lines.

 

In December 2010 the Government of Indonesia invited investors to build a new Tanah Ampo Cruise Terminal at Karangasem, Bali with a projected worth of $30 million. On 17 July 2011 the first cruise ship (Sun Princess) anchored about 400 meters away from the wharf of Tanah Ampo harbour. The current pier is only 154 meters but will eventually be extended to 300–350 meters to accommodate international cruise ships. The harbour here is safer than the existing facility at Benoa and has a scenic backdrop of east Bali mountains and green rice fields. The tender for improvement was subject to delays, and as of July 2013 the situation remained unclear with cruise line operators complaining and even refusing to use the existing facility at Tanah Ampo.

 

A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed by two ministers, Bali's Governor and Indonesian Train Company to build 565 kilometres of railway along the coast around the island. As of July 2015, no details of this proposed railways have been released.

 

On 16 March 2011 (Tanjung) Benoa port received the "Best Port Welcome 2010" award from London's "Dream World Cruise Destination" magazine. Government plans to expand the role of Benoa port as export-import port to boost Bali's trade and industry sector. The Tourism and Creative Economy Ministry has confirmed that 306 cruise liners are heading for Indonesia in 2013 – an increase of 43 percent compared to the previous year.

 

In May 2011, an integrated Areal Traffic Control System (ATCS) was implemented to reduce traffic jams at four crossing points: Ngurah Rai statue, Dewa Ruci Kuta crossing, Jimbaran crossing and Sanur crossing. ATCS is an integrated system connecting all traffic lights, CCTVs and other traffic signals with a monitoring office at the police headquarters. It has successfully been implemented in other ASEAN countries and will be implemented at other crossings in Bali.

 

On 21 December 2011 construction started on the Nusa Dua-Benoa-Ngurah Rai International Airport toll road which will also provide a special lane for motorcycles. This has been done by seven state-owned enterprises led by PT Jasa Marga with 60% of shares. PT Jasa Marga Bali Tol will construct the 9.91 kilometres toll road (totally 12.7 kilometres with access road). The construction is estimated to cost Rp.2.49 trillion ($273.9 million). The project goes through 2 kilometres of mangrove forest and through 2.3 kilometres of beach, both within 5.4 hectares area. The elevated toll road is built over the mangrove forest on 18,000 concrete pillars which occupied 2 hectares of mangroves forest. It compensated by new planting of 300,000 mangrove trees along the road. On 21 December 2011 the Dewa Ruci 450 meters underpass has also started on the busy Dewa Ruci junction near Bali Kuta Galeria with an estimated cost of Rp136 billion ($14.9 million) from the state budget. On 23 September 2013, the Bali Mandara Toll Road is opened and the Dewa Ruci Junction (Simpang Siur) underpass is opened before. Both are ease the heavy traffic congestion.

 

To solve chronic traffic problems, the province will also build a toll road connecting Serangan with Tohpati, a toll road connecting Kuta, Denpasar and Tohpati and a flyover connecting Kuta and Ngurah Rai Airport.

 

DEMOGRAPHICS

The population of Bali was 3,890,757 as of the 2010 Census; the latest estimate (for January 2014) is 4,225,384. There are an estimated 30,000 expatriates living in Bali.

 

ETHNIC ORIGINS

A DNA study in 2005 by Karafet et al. found that 12% of Balinese Y-chromosomes are of likely Indian origin, while 84% are of likely Austronesian origin, and 2% of likely Melanesian origin. The study does not correlate the DNA samples to the Balinese caste system.

 

CASTE SYSTEM

Bali has a caste system based on the Indian Hindu model, with four castes:

 

- Sudra (Shudra) – peasants constituting close to 93% of Bali's population.

- Wesia (Vaishyas) – the caste of merchants and administrative officials

- Ksatrias (Kshatriyas) – the kingly and warrior caste

- Brahmana (Bramhin) – holy men and priests

 

RELIGION

Unlike most of Muslim-majority Indonesia, about 83.5% of Bali's population adheres to Balinese Hinduism, formed as a combination of existing local beliefs and Hindu influences from mainland Southeast Asia and South Asia. Minority religions include Islam (13.3%), Christianity (1.7%), and Buddhism (0.5%). These figures do not include immigrants from other parts of Indonesia.

 

Balinese Hinduism is an amalgam in which gods and demigods are worshipped together with Buddhist heroes, the spirits of ancestors, indigenous agricultural deities and sacred places. Religion as it is practised in Bali is a composite belief system that embraces not only theology, philosophy, and mythology, but ancestor worship, animism and magic. It pervades nearly every aspect of traditional life. Caste is observed, though less strictly than in India. With an estimated 20,000 puras (temples) and shrines, Bali is known as the "Island of a Thousand Puras", or "Island of the Gods". This is refer to Mahabarata story that behind Bali became island of god or "pulau dewata" in Indonesian language.

 

Balinese Hinduism has roots in Indian Hinduism and Buddhism, and adopted the animistic traditions of the indigenous people. This influence strengthened the belief that the gods and goddesses are present in all things. Every element of nature, therefore, possesses its own power, which reflects the power of the gods. A rock, tree, dagger, or woven cloth is a potential home for spirits whose energy can be directed for good or evil. Balinese Hinduism is deeply interwoven with art and ritual. Ritualizing states of self-control are a notable feature of religious expression among the people, who for this reason have become famous for their graceful and decorous behaviour.

 

Apart from the majority of Balinese Hindus, there also exist Chinese immigrants whose traditions have melded with that of the locals. As a result, these Sino-Balinese not only embrace their original religion, which is a mixture of Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism and Confucianism, but also find a way to harmonise it with the local traditions. Hence, it is not uncommon to find local Sino-Balinese during the local temple's odalan. Moreover, Balinese Hindu priests are invited to perform rites alongside a Chinese priest in the event of the death of a Sino-Balinese. Nevertheless, the Sino-Balinese claim to embrace Buddhism for administrative purposes, such as their Identity Cards.

 

LANGUAGE

Balinese and Indonesian are the most widely spoken languages in Bali, and the vast majority of Balinese people are bilingual or trilingual. The most common spoken language around the tourist areas is Indonesian, as many people in the tourist sector are not solely Balinese, but migrants from Java, Lombok, Sumatra, and other parts of Indonesia. There are several indigenous Balinese languages, but most Balinese can also use the most widely spoken option: modern common Balinese. The usage of different Balinese languages was traditionally determined by the Balinese caste system and by clan membership, but this tradition is diminishing. Kawi and Sanskrit are also commonly used by some Hindu priests in Bali, for Hinduism literature was mostly written in Sanskrit.

 

English and Chinese are the next most common languages (and the primary foreign languages) of many Balinese, owing to the requirements of the tourism industry, as well as the English-speaking community and huge Chinese-Indonesian population. Other foreign languages, such as Japanese, Korean, French, Russian or German are often used in multilingual signs for foreign tourists.

 

CULTURE

Bali is renowned for its diverse and sophisticated art forms, such as painting, sculpture, woodcarving, handcrafts, and performing arts. Balinese cuisine is also distinctive. Balinese percussion orchestra music, known as gamelan, is highly developed and varied. Balinese performing arts often portray stories from Hindu epics such as the Ramayana but with heavy Balinese influence. Famous Balinese dances include pendet, legong, baris, topeng, barong, gong keybar, and kecak (the monkey dance). Bali boasts one of the most diverse and innovative performing arts cultures in the world, with paid performances at thousands of temple festivals, private ceremonies, or public shows.

 

The Hindu New Year, Nyepi, is celebrated in the spring by a day of silence. On this day everyone stays at home and tourists are encouraged to remain in their hotels. On the day before New Year, large and colourful sculptures of ogoh-ogoh monsters are paraded and finally burned in the evening to drive away evil spirits. Other festivals throughout the year are specified by the Balinese pawukon calendrical system.

 

Celebrations are held for many occasions such as a tooth-filing (coming-of-age ritual), cremation or odalan (temple festival). One of the most important concepts that Balinese ceremonies have in common is that of désa kala patra, which refers to how ritual performances must be appropriate in both the specific and general social context. Many of the ceremonial art forms such as wayang kulit and topeng are highly improvisatory, providing flexibility for the performer to adapt the performance to the current situation. Many celebrations call for a loud, boisterous atmosphere with lots of activity and the resulting aesthetic, ramé, is distinctively Balinese. Often two or more gamelan ensembles will be performing well within earshot, and sometimes compete with each other to be heard. Likewise, the audience members talk amongst themselves, get up and walk around, or even cheer on the performance, which adds to the many layers of activity and the liveliness typical of ramé.

 

Kaja and kelod are the Balinese equivalents of North and South, which refer to ones orientation between the island's largest mountain Gunung Agung (kaja), and the sea (kelod). In addition to spatial orientation, kaja and kelod have the connotation of good and evil; gods and ancestors are believed to live on the mountain whereas demons live in the sea. Buildings such as temples and residential homes are spatially oriented by having the most sacred spaces closest to the mountain and the unclean places nearest to the sea.

 

Most temples have an inner courtyard and an outer courtyard which are arranged with the inner courtyard furthest kaja. These spaces serve as performance venues since most Balinese rituals are accompanied by any combination of music, dance and drama. The performances that take place in the inner courtyard are classified as wali, the most sacred rituals which are offerings exclusively for the gods, while the outer courtyard is where bebali ceremonies are held, which are intended for gods and people. Lastly, performances meant solely for the entertainment of humans take place outside the walls of the temple and are called bali-balihan. This three-tiered system of classification was standardised in 1971 by a committee of Balinese officials and artists to better protect the sanctity of the oldest and most sacred Balinese rituals from being performed for a paying audience.

 

Tourism, Bali's chief industry, has provided the island with a foreign audience that is eager to pay for entertainment, thus creating new performance opportunities and more demand for performers. The impact of tourism is controversial since before it became integrated into the economy, the Balinese performing arts did not exist as a capitalist venture, and were not performed for entertainment outside of their respective ritual context. Since the 1930s sacred rituals such as the barong dance have been performed both in their original contexts, as well as exclusively for paying tourists. This has led to new versions of many of these performances which have developed according to the preferences of foreign audiences; some villages have a barong mask specifically for non-ritual performances as well as an older mask which is only used for sacred performances.

 

Balinese society continues to revolve around each family's ancestral village, to which the cycle of life and religion is closely tied. Coercive aspects of traditional society, such as customary law sanctions imposed by traditional authorities such as village councils (including "kasepekang", or shunning) have risen in importance as a consequence of the democratisation and decentralisation of Indonesia since 1998.

 

WIKIPEDIA

The Thirty-Fourth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva, Switzerland from November 16 to November 18, 2015.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

Michelangelo Merisi, called Caravaggio (1571-1610), active, among others, in Rome, Naples, Malta, Sicily

Crowning with thorns, around 1603

Christ is after the interrogation at Pilate a crown of thorns set up by the soldiers. He is thus mocked as king of the Jews. Formerly regarded as a Roman or Neapolitan variation of a lost image of Caravaggio, documentary finds now have confirmed the authenticity. The technical features of the painter, such as the contour lines engraved with a brush handle on the head of Christ and on the shoulder, chest, and hands of the two myrmidons, also until now have been a clear indication.

 

Michelangelo Merisi, genannt Caravaggio (1571-1610), tätig, unter anderen, in Rom, Neapel, Malta, Sizilien

Dornenkrönung, um 1603

Christus wird nach dem Verhör bei Pilatus von den Soldaten eine Dornenkrone aufgesetzt. Er wird somit als König der Juden verspottet. Früher als römische oder neapolitanische Variation eines verlorenen Bildes von Caravaggio angesehen, haben Dokumentenfunde nunmehr die Eigenhändigkeit bestätigt. Dafür sprachen auch schon bisher technische Eigenheiten des Malers, wie die mit dem Pinselstiel eingravierten Konturlinien am Kopf Christi und an Schulter, Brust und Händen der beiden Schergen.

 

Austria Kunsthistorisches Museum

Federal Museum

Logo KHM

Regulatory authority (ies)/organs to the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture

Founded 17 October 1891

Headquartered Castle Ring (Burgring), Vienna 1, Austria

Management Sabine Haag

www.khm.at website

Main building of the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Maria-Theresa-Square

The Kunsthistorisches Museum (KHM abbreviated) is an art museum in Vienna. It is one of the largest and most important museums in the world. It was opened in 1891 and 2012 visited of 1.351.940 million people.

The museum

The Kunsthistorisches Museum is with its opposite sister building, the Natural History Museum (Naturhistorisches Museum), the most important historicist large buildings of the Ringstrasse time. Together they stand around the Maria Theresa square, on which also the Maria Theresa monument stands. This course spans the former glacis between today's ring road and 2-line, and is forming a historical landmark that also belongs to World Heritage Site Historic Centre of Vienna.

History

Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery

The Museum came from the collections of the Habsburgs, especially from the portrait and armor collections of Ferdinand of Tyrol, the collection of Emperor Rudolf II (most of which, however scattered) and the art collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm into existence. Already In 1833 asked Joseph Arneth, curator (and later director) of the Imperial Coins and Antiquities Cabinet, bringing together all the imperial collections in a single building .

Architectural History

The contract to build the museum in the city had been given in 1858 by Emperor Franz Joseph. Subsequently, many designs were submitted for the ring road zone. Plans by August Sicard von Sicardsburg and Eduard van der Null planned to build two museum buildings in the immediate aftermath of the Imperial Palace on the left and right of the Heroes' Square (Heldenplatz). The architect Ludwig Förster planned museum buildings between the Schwarzenberg Square and the City Park, Martin Ritter von Kink favored buildings at the corner Währingerstraße/ Scots ring (Schottenring), Peter Joseph, the area Bellariastraße, Moritz von Loehr the south side of the opera ring, and Ludwig Zettl the southeast side of the grain market (Getreidemarkt).

From 1867, a competition was announced for the museums, and thereby set their current position - at the request of the Emperor, the museum should not be too close to the Imperial Palace, but arise beyond the ring road. The architect Carl von Hasenauer participated in this competition and was able the at that time in Zürich operating Gottfried Semper to encourage to work together. The two museum buildings should be built here in the sense of the style of the Italian Renaissance. The plans got the benevolence of the imperial family. In April 1869, there was an audience with of Joseph Semper at the Emperor Franz Joseph and an oral contract was concluded, in July 1870 was issued the written order to Semper and Hasenauer.

Crucial for the success of Semper and Hasenauer against the projects of other architects were among others Semper's vision of a large building complex called "Imperial Forum", in which the museums would have been a part of. Not least by the death of Semper in 1879 came the Imperial Forum not as planned for execution, the two museums were built, however.

Construction of the two museums began without ceremony on 27 November 1871 instead. Semper moved to Vienna in the sequence. From the beginning, there were considerable personal differences between him and Hasenauer, who finally in 1877 took over sole construction management. 1874, the scaffolds were placed up to the attic and the first floor completed, built in 1878, the first windows installed in 1879, the Attica and the balustrade from 1880 to 1881 and built the dome and the Tabernacle. The dome is topped with a bronze statue of Pallas Athena by Johannes Benk.

The lighting and air conditioning concept with double glazing of the ceilings made ​​the renunciation of artificial light (especially at that time, as gas light) possible, but this resulted due to seasonal variations depending on daylight to different opening times .

Kuppelhalle

Entrance (by clicking the link at the end of the side you can see all the pictures here indicated!)

Grand staircase

Hall

Empire

The Kunsthistorisches Museum was on 17 October 1891 officially opened by Emperor Franz Joseph I. Since 22 October 1891 , the museum is accessible to the public. Two years earlier, on 3 November 1889, the collection of arms, Arms and Armour today, had their doors open. On 1 January 1890 the library service resumed its operations. The merger and listing of other collections of the Highest Imperial Family from the Upper and Lower Belvedere, the Hofburg Palace and Ambras in Tyrol will need another two years.

189, the farm museum was organized in seven collections with three directorates:

Directorate of coins, medals and antiquities collection

The Egyptian Collection

The Antique Collection

The coins and medals collection

Management of the collection of weapons, art and industrial objects

Weapons collection

Collection of industrial art objects

Directorate of Art Gallery and Restaurieranstalt (Restoration Office)

Collection of watercolors, drawings, sketches, etc.

Restoration Office

Library

Very soon the room the Court Museum (Hofmuseum) for the imperial collections was offering became too narrow. To provide temporary help, an exhibition of ancient artifacts from Ephesus in the Theseus Temple was designed. However, additional space had to be rented in the Lower Belvedere.

1914, after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne, his " Estonian Forensic Collection " passed to the administration of the Court Museum. This collection, which emerged from the art collection of the house of d' Este and world travel collection of Franz Ferdinand, was placed in the New Imperial Palace since 1908. For these stocks, the present collection of old musical instruments and the Museum of Ethnology emerged.

The First World War went by, apart from the oppressive economic situation without loss. The farm museum remained during the five years of war regularly open to the public.

Until 1919 the K.K. Art Historical Court Museum was under the authority of the Oberstkämmereramt (head chamberlain office) and belonged to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. The officials and employees were part of the royal household.

First Republic

The transition from monarchy to republic, in the museum took place in complete tranquility. On 19 November 1918 the two imperial museums on Maria Theresa Square were placed under the state protection of the young Republic of German Austria. Threatening to the stocks of the museum were the claims raised in the following weeks and months of the "successor states" of the monarchy as well as Italy and Belgium on Austrian art collection. In fact, it came on 12th February 1919 to the violent removal of 62 paintings by armed Italian units. This "art theft" left a long time trauma among curators and art historians.

It was not until the Treaty of Saint-Germain of 10 September 1919, providing in Article 195 and 196 the settlement of rights in the cultural field by negotiations. The claims of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Italy again could mostly being averted in this way. Only Hungary, which presented the greatest demands by far, was met by more than ten years of negotiation in 147 cases.

On 3 April 1919 was the expropriation of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine by law and the acquisition of its property, including the "Collections of the Imperial House" , by the Republic. Of 18 June 1920 the then provisional administration of the former imperial museums and collections of Este and the secular and clergy treasury passed to the State Office of Internal Affairs and Education, since 10 November 1920, the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Education. A few days later it was renamed the Art History Court Museum in the "Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna State", 1921 "Kunsthistorisches Museum" . Of 1st January 1921 the employees of the museum staff passed to the state of the Republic.

Through the acquisition of the former imperial collections owned by the state, the museum found itself in a complete new situation. In order to meet the changed circumstances in the museum area, designed Hans Tietze in 1919 the "Vienna Museum program". It provided a close cooperation between the individual museums to focus at different houses on main collections. So dominated exchange, sales and equalizing the acquisition policy in the interwar period. Thus resulting until today still valid collection trends. Also pointing the way was the relocation of the weapons collection from 1934 in its present premises in the New Castle, where since 1916 the collection of ancient musical instruments was placed.

With the change of the imperial collections in the ownership of the Republic the reorganization of the internal organization went hand in hand, too. Thus the museum was divided in 1919 into the

Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection (with the Oriental coins)

Collection of Classical Antiquities

Collection of ancient coins

Collection of modern coins and medals

Weapons collection

Collection of sculptures and crafts with the Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments

Picture Gallery

The Museum 1938-1945

Count Philipp Ludwig Wenzel Sinzendorf according to Rigaud. Clarisse 1948 by Baroness de Rothschildt "dedicated" to the memory of Baron Alphonse de Rothschildt; restituted to the Rothschilds in 1999, and in 1999 donated by Bettina Looram Rothschild, the last Austrian heiress.

With the "Anschluss" of Austria to the German Reich all Jewish art collections such as the Rothschilds were forcibly "Aryanised". Collections were either "paid" or simply distributed by the Gestapo at the museums. This resulted in a significant increase in stocks. But the KHM was not the only museum that benefited from the linearization. Systematically looted Jewish property was sold to museums, collections or in pawnshops throughout the empire.

After the war, the museum struggled to reimburse the "Aryanised" art to the owners or their heirs. They forced the Rothschild family to leave the most important part of their own collection to the museum and called this "dedications", or "donations". As a reason, was the export law stated, which does not allow owners to perform certain works of art out of the country. Similar methods were used with other former owners. Only on the basis of international diplomatic and media pressure, to a large extent from the United States, the Austrian government decided to make a change in the law (Art Restitution Act of 1998, the so-called Lex Rothschild). The art objects were the Rothschild family refunded only in the 1990s.

The Kunsthistorisches Museum operates on the basis of the federal law on the restitution of art objects from the 4th December 1998 (Federal Law Gazette I, 181 /1998) extensive provenance research. Even before this decree was carried out in-house provenance research at the initiative of the then archive director Herbert Haupt. This was submitted in 1998 by him in collaboration with Lydia Grobl a comprehensive presentation of the facts about the changes in the inventory levels of the Kunsthistorisches Museum during the Nazi era and in the years leading up to the State Treaty of 1955, an important basis for further research provenance.

The two historians Susanne Hehenberger and Monika Löscher are since 1st April 2009 as provenance researchers at the Kunsthistorisches Museum on behalf of the Commission for Provenance Research operating and they deal with the investigation period from 1933 to the recent past.

The museum today

Today the museum is as a federal museum, with 1st January 1999 released to the full legal capacity - it was thus the first of the state museums of Austria, implementing the far-reaching self-financing. It is by far the most visited museum in Austria with 1.3 million visitors (2007).

The Kunsthistorisches Museum is under the name Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum with company number 182081t since 11 June 1999 as a research institution under public law of the Federal virtue of the Federal Museums Act, Federal Law Gazette I/115/1998 and the Museum of Procedure of the Kunsthistorisches Museum and Museum of Ethnology and the Austrian Theatre Museum, 3 January 2001, BGBl II 2/ 2001, in force since 1 January 2001, registered.

In fiscal 2008, the turnover was 37.185 million EUR and total assets amounted to EUR 22.204 million. In 2008 an average of 410 workers were employed.

Management

1919-1923: Gustav Glück as the first chairman of the College of science officials

1924-1933: Hermann Julius Hermann 1924-1925 as the first chairman of the College of the scientific officers in 1925 as first director

1933: Arpad Weixlgärtner first director

1934-1938: Alfred Stix first director

1938-1945: Fritz Dworschak 1938 as acting head, from 1938 as a chief in 1941 as first director

1945-1949: August von Loehr 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of the historical collections of the Federation

1945-1949: Alfred Stix 1945-1948 as executive director of the State Art Collections in 1949 as general director of art historical collections of the Federation

1949-1950: Hans Demel as administrative director

1950: Karl Wisoko-Meytsky as general director of art and historical collections of the Federation

1951-1952: Fritz Eichler as administrative director

1953-1954: Ernst H. Buschbeck as administrative director

1955-1966: Vincent Oberhammer 1955-1959 as administrative director, from 1959 as first director

1967: Edward Holzmair as managing director

1968-1972: Erwin Auer first director

1973-1981: Friderike Klauner first director

1982-1990: Hermann Fillitz first director

1990: George Kugler as interim first director

1990-2008: Wilfried Seipel as general director

Since 2009: Sabine Haag as general director

Collections

To the Kunsthistorisches Museum are also belonging the collections of the New Castle, the Austrian Theatre Museum in Palais Lobkowitz, the Museum of Ethnology and the Wagenburg (wagon fortress) in an outbuilding of Schönbrunn Palace. A branch office is also Ambras in Innsbruck.

Kunsthistorisches Museum (main building)

Picture Gallery

Egyptian and Near Eastern Collection

Collection of Classical Antiquities

Vienna Chamber of Art

Numismatic Collection

Library

New Castle

Ephesus Museum

Collection of Ancient Musical Instruments

Arms and Armour

Archive

Hofburg

The imperial crown in the Treasury

Imperial Treasury of Vienna

Insignia of the Austrian Hereditary Homage

Insignia of imperial Austria

Insignia of the Holy Roman Empire

Burgundian Inheritance and the Order of the Golden Fleece

Habsburg-Lorraine Household Treasure

Ecclesiastical Treasury

Schönbrunn Palace

Imperial Carriage Museum Vienna

Armory in Ambras Castle

Ambras Castle

Collections of Ambras Castle

Major exhibits

Among the most important exhibits of the Art Gallery rank inter alia:

Jan van Eyck: Cardinal Niccolò Albergati, 1438

Martin Schongauer: Holy Family, 1475-80

Albrecht Dürer : Trinity Altar, 1509-16

Portrait Johann Kleeberger, 1526

Parmigianino: Self Portrait in Convex Mirror, 1523/24

Giuseppe Arcimboldo: Summer 1563

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary 1606/ 07

Caravaggio: Madonna of the Rosary (1606-1607)

Titian: Nymph and Shepherd to 1570-75

Portrait of Jacopo de Strada, 1567/68

Raffaello Santi: Madonna of the Meadow, 1505 /06

Lorenzo Lotto: Portrait of a young man against white curtain, 1508

Peter Paul Rubens: The altar of St. Ildefonso, 1630-32

The Little Fur, about 1638

Jan Vermeer: The Art of Painting, 1665/66

Pieter Bruegel the Elder: Fight between Carnival and Lent, 1559

Kids, 1560

Tower of Babel, 1563

Christ Carrying the Cross, 1564

Gloomy Day (Early Spring), 1565

Return of the Herd (Autumn), 1565

Hunters in the Snow (Winter) 1565

Bauer and bird thief, 1568

Peasant Wedding, 1568/69

Peasant Dance, 1568/69

Paul's conversion (Conversion of St Paul), 1567

Cabinet of Curiosities:

Saliera from Benvenuto Cellini 1539-1543

Egyptian-Oriental Collection:

Mastaba of Ka Ni Nisut

Collection of Classical Antiquities:

Gemma Augustea

Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós

Gallery: Major exhibits

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunsthistorisches_Museum

c1910 postcard view of the north side of the Clinton County Courthouse Square in Frankfort, Indiana. This is Washington Street and the photographer was looking northeast from the southwest corner at the Main Street intersection. In this scene, there is no indication of a business on the northeast corner of that intersection. However, both the 1906 and the 1912 Sanborn™ fire insurance map sets show a bank at that location. The 1906 map set identified it as the Clinton County Bank. A 1910 report¹ indicated the bank had received its Certificate of Authority from the state in 1905.

 

One of the signs at the top of that building and the awning advertised G. L. RAMEY GROCER. The fringe on that awning also advertised STAPLE & FANCY GROCERIES. The 1906 map set shows a tailor’s business at that location (4 East Washington Street) while the 1912 map set shows a clothing and gents furnishings business. These may have been two different descriptions of the same business. A 1902 business directory² listed M. R. Sidwell under the GENTS FURNISHINGS category at that address. It’s unclear when the grocery occupied the space.

 

The other sign at the top of that building advertised FRANKFORT DENTAL PARLORS. It may be unrelated, but one of the six listings in the DENTISTS category of the 1902 directory was A. W. Black at the corner of Main and Washington Streets. The directory didn’t identify which corner.

 

The awning next door advertised SHOES. Both map sets show a boots and shoes business at that location (6 East Washington Street). The three-story building next door was home to THE SHORTLE STORE, THE BIG STORE WITH THE LITTLE PRICES. A sign on the front of the building advertised the GREAT RED LETTER CLEARANCE SALE and EMPHATIC PRICE REDUCTIONS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT. This building didn’t exist when the 1906 map set was being prepared, but is shown in the 1912 map set (8-10 East Washington Street). The map set identified this as a dry goods business. The following appeared in a 1908 issue of a trade publication.³

 

Frankfort Ind.

“George & Samuel Shortle, dry goods, have become interested in a large wholesale dry goods house in the West, George Shortle assuming its management, and the local store will hereafter be conducted on a co-operative basis. Several male employees have arranged to purchase an interest in the business here, which is to be incorporated probably under the name of the Shortle Store Co. Charles Winfield will continue as manager.”

 

The sign on the next building north (12-14 East Washington Street) appears to advertise NORTH SIDE RESTAURANT AND HOTEL. The 1906 map set shows a saloon, restaurant and hotel at the location, but the 1912 map set shows a vacancy at 12 East Washington Street and a drugstore at 14 East Washington Street. The DRUGS sign appears to be at 14 East Washington Street.

 

Beyond the alley, signs on the first two buildings advertised HARDWARE and FURNITURE. Both map sets show a hardware store and a furniture business at those locations (52 and 54 East Washington Street, respectively). The 1902 directory listed T. W. Bryan as the proprietor of a hardware business at 50 East Washington Street, but this address isn’t included in the map sets and may have been a misprint. The directory also listed G. W. Goodwin as the proprietor of a furniture business at 54 East Washington Street. The three-story building beyond the furniture store didn’t exist when the 1906 map set was being prepared, but is shown in the 1912 map set. The sign on that building is unclear, but appears to advertise _____ CLOTHING CO. The 1912 map set shows a clothing business in the west half of the building (56 East Washington Street) and a tailor’s business in the east half (58 East Washington Street). The building at the far end of the block was a bank according to both map sets. The 1906 map set identified it as the American National Bank.

 

The buildings on both sides of the alley are still standing and in use as is the building at the far end of the block on the northwest corner at Jackson Street.

 

1. Auditor of the State of Indiana, Annual Report (Indianapolis, IN: William B. Burford, 1910). Available online at books.google.com/books?id=l_dJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=front....

 

2. Business and Professional Directory of Central Indiana (Indianapolis, IN: Union Directory Co., 1902). Available online at openlibrary.org/books/OL22862780M/Business_and_profession....

 

3. Samuel W. Richards, Editor, Fabrics, Fancy Goods and Notions, Volume 42 Number 11 (New York, NY: Henry C. Nathan Co., 1908), page 71. Available online at books.google.com/books?id=CS1RAAAAYAAJ&printsec=front....

 

From a private collection.

 

Selected close-up sections of this postcard can be seen here, from left to right in the image.

 

www.flickr.com/photos/hoosier_recollections/15626079877/

 

www.flickr.com/photos/hoosier_recollections/15811268065/

 

www.flickr.com/photos/hoosier_recollections/15191815863/

 

www.flickr.com/photos/hoosier_recollections/15625868188/

 

Copyright 2012-2014 by Hoosier Recollections. All rights reserved. This image is part of a creative package that includes the associated text, geodata and/or other information. Neither this package in its entirety nor any of the individual components may be downloaded, transmitted or reproduced without the prior written permission of Hoosier Recollections.

By T. W. Windeatt. (Read at Torquay, July, 1893.)

 

The little town and ancient borough of Totnes has during its lengthened history been the birthplace of men, not a few of whom have made their mark in the world, and not the least of these is one born in the present century – Wills, the Australian explorer – whose name deserves to be enshrined in the Transactions of this Association.

 

William John Wills was born in Totnes on the 5th January, 1834, being the son of William Wills, a surgeon then practising in Totnes, and Sarah, youngest daughter of William Galley, an old and respected inhabitant.* They both spent the latter part of their lives in and died at Torquay. As a boy Wills seems to have early developed an enquiring and thoughtful mind. His father says he was never a child in the common acceptation of the term, as he gave early indication of diligence and discretion scarcely compatible with the helplessness and simplicity of such tender years. He was educated at the Ashburton Grammar School, where he went as a boarder when eleven years of age, and of which school Mr. Paige, who still survives, was then the head master. A deep cutting in one of the benches in the old chapel of St Lawrence, then and now the schoolhouse, “W. J. WILLS” is still to be seen and records his sojourn there. Mr. Fabyan Amery, one of his schoolfellows, speaks of him as having always been a very scientific boy, and very observant of natural phenomena, which he always tried to get some scientific reason for. There appears to have been nothing remarkable in his progress at school, though his master commended his steady diligence and uniform propriety of conduct Mr. Paige remarked on one occasion to his father, “It vexes me that John does not take a top prize, for I see by his countenance that he understands as much, if not more, than any boy in my school; yet from want of readiness in answering he allows very inferior lads to win the tickets from him.”

 

* Henry Le Visconte, who was first lieutenant in the Erebus, and perished in the Franklin Expedition, was first cousin to Mrs. Wills.

 

He left school when sixteen and commenced to study medicine in his father’s surgery. In 1852 he studied practical chemistry under Dr. John Stenhouse at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, who spoke of him as one of his most promising pupils, and ventured the assurance that in two years he would be second to none in England in practical chemistry.

 

In 1852 Dr. Wills determined to join the exodus then pouring out from England to Australia, engaged as medical attendant on board the Ballaarat, and arranged to take out the subject of my sketch, and a younger brother Tom with him. A few days after this arrangement was made Wills came to his father, and with that expression in his countenance so peculiarly his own, said, “My dear father, I have a favour to ask of you. I see my mother is grieving, although she says nothing, at our all leaving her together. Let Tom and me go alone. I will pledge myself to take care of him.” After a consultation this new plan was agreed upon. Dr. Wills released himself from his engagement with Messrs. Simpkins and Marshall for the Ballaarat, and secured two berths for the boys in one of Mr. W. S. Lindsay’s ships, which at that time were conveying living freights to Melbourne, their Channel port of departure being Dartmouth.

 

Wills’s love of knowledge in its details is evidenced by a story told by his father of him at this time. “I found,” he said, “that William had shortly before sailing expended some money on a quantity of stuff rolled up like balls of black rope-yarn, and exclaimed with astonishment, ‘In the name of goodness, are you going to chew or smoke all the way to Australia?'” for the commodity was the good old pigtail tobacco. He said smiling, “This is to make friends with the sailors. I intend to learn something about a ship by the time we reach our destination.” His mode of proceeding, as he told his father, was first to secure the good graces of the crew through the persuasive medium of the pigtail; then to learn the name and use of every rope, and of every part of the ship’s tackle from stem to stern. He thus soon acquired the art of splicing and reefing, and was amongst the first to go aloft in a storm, and to lend a hand in taking in topsails.

 

On arriving in Australia the two lads obtained situations as shepherds at Deniliquin, about 200 miles from Melbourne, at £30 a year and their rations. In August, 1853, Dr. Wills reached Melbourne, but it was some two months after landing before he ascertained his sons’ location, and joined them at their sheep station. William subsequently removed to Ballarat with his father, where he remained twelve months attending to patients in his father’s absence, and opening a gold office, where he perfected a plan of his own for weighing specimens containing quartz and gold in water, so as to find the quantity of each component. His thoughts and conversation were, however, constantly reverting to the interior of the great continent, and to the hope that he would some day undertake the journey to the Gulf of Carpentaria. In 1856 Wills obtained an appointment under Mr. F. Byerly, a gentleman in the Survey Department, and under him he commenced to learn surveying. A letter of advice as to the study of science written to his youngest brother at Totnes while he was engaged on a survey at an out station (St. Arnaud) evidenced his earnest love of science, and the following paragraph in it, referring to the study of astronomy, which I venture to think worth quoting, shows he had no difficulty in reconciling science and religion:

 

“As the great object of the science is the correction of error and the investigation of truth, it necessarily leads all those that feel an interest in it to a higher appreciation and desire for truth; and you will easily perceive that a man having a knowledge of all these vast worlds, so much more extensive than our own, must be capable of forming a far higher estimate of that Almighty Being who created all these wonders than one who knows nothing more than the comparatively trifling things that surround us on earth.”

 

Another paragraph at the end of this letter speaks for itself, and gives us the key to the man:

 

“One other piece of advice I must give you before I shut up; that is, never try to show off your knowledge, especially in scientific matters. It is a sin that certain persons we know have been guilty of. The first step is to learn your own ignorance, and if ever you feel inclined to make a display, you may be sure you have as yet learned nothing.”

 

In 1860 an expedition was organized by the colony of Victoria for the exploration of Australia, and to ascertain the nature of the interior of the great continent, which was then a sealed book; for up to that time the efforts towards exploration had been confined to lonely wanderings through the outer boundaries of the unknown continent, and opinions varied as to whether the interior was a vast inland sea, as Oxley and the first of the explorers believed, or whether it was a stony desert unfit for man and beast, as Sturt concluded.

 

Mr. Ambrose Kyte, whose name was, however, concealed from the public at the time, offered £1,000 as an inducement to the Government and others to come forward and raise funds for the exploration. Parliament voted £6,000, and subscriptions from the public raised the fund to £9,000. A Committee of the Royal Society undertook the superintendence of the arrangements. Twenty-four camels were imported from India with native drivers, and provisions and stores for twelve months were provided. After considerable delay the choice of a leader fell upon Robert O’Hara Burke. He was forty years of age, an Irishman from county Galway. When quite a youth he served in an Austrian cavalry regiment, and subsequently in the Irish Constabulary and the Police Force of Victoria; possessing bravery and dauntless courage, he had no special aptitude or scientific training to lead such an Expedition. He was enthusiastic and impulsive but was unfortunately without the indispensable experience of a seasoned bushman.

 

The appointment of second in command fell upon Mr. G. I. Landells, who owed his preferment to the circumstance of his having been employed to bring the camels from India, an appointment, however, which, as the sequel shows, was a most unfortunate one. Wills, who by this time was a seasoned bushman, with great powers of endurance, tendered his services as astronomer and guide without thinking of any distinct post of command, his object being exclusively scientific. Dr. Ludwick Becker was appointed naturalist and artist, Dr. Herman Beckler as botanist and medical adviser. Ten white men, among whom was John King (a private soldier) and three sepoys, were appointed to accompany the Expedition.

 

The explorers left Melbourne on the 20th August, 1860, amid considerable enthusiasm; nearly the whole population suspending ordinary business, and turning out to witness the start. The mayor of Melbourne publicly addressed them, and wished them God-speed, and through the settled districts their progress, which was slow, was a kind of triumphal march. The route marked out for them was to strike the river Darling, then the lower Barcoo (Cooper’s Creek), and from that point to go northwards to the Gulf of Carpentaria.

 

Swan Hill, on the Murray, which, properly speaking, was the northern boundary of the colony of Victoria, was reached on September 8th. At Balranald, beyond the Murray, Burke found it impossible to get on any longer with his foreman (Ferguson) and discharged him. He had, however, no sooner rid himself of this troublesome man than Mr. Landells, his second in command, began to sow dissension, and to exhibit insubordination in an unmistakable manner. This reached a crisis by the time they came to Menindie, on the Darling, and after a violent scene Landells resigned, returning to Melbourne full of violent complaints against Burke, and Dr. Beckler was foolish enough to follow Landells’ example of resigning, on the alleged ground that he did not like the way Burke spoke to Landells. Fortunately for Burke’s reputation a very full account of all that took place was written at the time by Wills to Professor Neumayer, and the committee expressed their entire approbation of Burke’s conduct, an opinion shared in by the general public, as evidenced by the newspapers of that date. Burke, on the resignation of Mr. Landells, immediately promoted Wills to the post he had vacated, which appointment the committee confirmed. Here there was perfect union and reciprocal understanding. Neither had petty jealousies or reserved views. The success of the expedition was their object, not personal glory their aim. The leader had every confidence in his second, and the second was proud of his leader. But Mr. Burke committed an error in the selection of Mr. Wright for the third position in command, without any previous knowledge or experience of his capabilities. In this he acted from his impulsive nature, and the consequences bore heavily on his own and Wills’ fate.

 

Burke then made his second mistake by dividing his party, and on 19th October left Menindie, where he had formed a depot, with about one half of his number, leaving the others behind, and made a rush to the Barcoo. He reached Torowota on 29th October, and from that encampment forwarded a despatch, and an exhaustive surveying report from Wills, to the secretary of the expedition. In his own despatch Burke said:

 

“I consider myself very fortunate in having Mr, Wills as my second in command. He is a capital officer, zealous and untiring in the performance of his duties, and I trust he will remain my second as long as I am in charge of the expedition.”

 

Burke sent Wright back to Menindie with instructions to follow him up with the remainder of the camels to Cooper’s Creek, and Wright himself admitted he gave Burke his word to take the remainder of the party out as soon as he arrived at Menindie. This, however, he omitted to do, and unaccountably delayed making any start until the 26th January, 1861, and to this criminal delay may be attributed the whole of the crushing disaster which subsequently overtook the expedition.

 

Cooper’s Creek, where a camp was formed, was reached on the 11th November. In a letter to one of his sisters from there Wills describes the place as follows:–

 

“To give you an idea of Cooper’s Creek, fancy extensive flat, sandy plains, covered with herbs dried like hay, and imagine a creek or river, somewhat similar in appearance and size to the Dart above the Weir, winding its way through these flats, having its banks densely clothed with gum trees and other evergreens. So far there appears to be a considerable resemblance, but now for the difference. The water of Cooper’s Creek is only a number of waterholes. In some places it entirely disappears, the water in flood-time spreading all over the flats, and forming no regular channel.”

 

While awaiting the arrival of the tardy Wright, short explorations of the adjoining country were made, chiefly by Wills, with the view of examining two or three promising routes to the Gulf of Carpentaria. On the last of these trips Wills penetrated eighty miles, and would have gone further, but the men in charge of the camels fell asleep and let them escape, and the return had to be done on foot in a broiling sun of 146 degrees, no shade, and very little water.

 

Impatient at Wright’s delay, and irritated almost to madness in waiting for him, and seeing the time slipping by, Burke and Wills determined to make a dash for the Gulf of Carpentaria while the opportunity still remained to them.

 

Burke again divided his small party, and taking Wills, King, and Grey, one horse, six camels, and three months’ provisions, started on Sunday, the 16th December, for a dash across the continent. Four men – Brahe, Patten, McDonnough, and Dost Mahomet – with six camels and twelve horses, were left at the camp at Cooper’s Creek, which was made a depot, and Brahe placed in charge until the arrival of Wright or some other person duly appointed by the committee to take command of the remainder of the expedition at Menindie. A surveyor was expected to be sent on to assist Wills, and plenty of work was laid out for all until the return of Burke and Wills – Brahe receiving the most positive orders to remain at Cooper’s Creek until this took place, three or four months being named as the possible time of absence.

 

Wills strongly advised a direct course northward for the exploring party, but Burke hesitated to adopt it unless he could feel confident of a supply of water. The more westerly course was therefore adopted at the commencement of the journey; but after a day or two they turned to the east, and scarcely deviated throughout from the 141st degree of east longitude.

 

Wills kept a diary giving a full account of the journey to the Gulf from the start to February, 1861, which contains very interesting details of each day’s progress. The first point the explorers made for was Eyre’s Creek, and on their first day’s journey they came upon a large tribe of blacks, who, Wills says, came pestering them to go to their camp and have a dance, and nothing but a threat to shoot them would keep them away. They were fine-looking men, but decidedly not of a warlike nature. The explorers crossed Sturt’s supposed “stony desert”, and did not find it the melancholy waste or bad travelling they were led to expect.

 

On 20th December they came upon a large camp of not less that forty or fifty blacks, who brought them presents of fish, for which they gave them beads and matches. On Christmas-eve they reached Gray’s Creek, and took a day’s rest to celebrate the festival. Their camp was really an agreeable place, an oasis in the desert; for there they had all the advantage of food and water attendant on the position of a large creek or river, free from the annoyance of the ants, flies, and mosquitoes invariably met with amongst timber or heavy scrub. The following day they struck a magnificent creek coming from the N.N.W., and this they followed until the 30th, by which time it had tended considerably to the N.E. This stream has since received the name of “Burke’s Creek”. The country adjacent they found an alternation of sand ridges and grassy plains. On 8th January they came into green and luxuriant country, improving at every step. Flocks of pigeons rose and flew, and fresh plants and rich vegetation met the eye on every side. On the 10th, passing over fine open plains, they came to the main creek in those flats, “Patten’s Creek”, flowing along the foot of a stony range. From here they pushed on over fairly good country, coming repeatedly upon blacks in their way, some of whom, being surprised by the explorers coming suddenly upon them, fled, dreadfully frightened. On the 30th January, 1861, having got to within a comparatively short distance of the shores of Carpentaria, Burke and Wills determined to leave Gray and King in charge of the camels, one of whom, having got logged in the creek, had already been left behind, and to proceed onwards on foot, leading the horse. The river or creek down which they passed, and which was quite salt, is named in the journal the Cloncurry. The channel making a sudden turn. Wills remarked that it might be a new river. “If it should prove so,” said Burke, “we will call it after my old friend Lord Cloncurry.”

 

In crossing Billy’s Creek the horse got bogged in a quicksand, and was with difficulty rescued. They came again on blacks, who shuffled off, and near their fire was a fine hut, the best they had ever seen, built on the same principle as those at Cooper’s Creek, but much larger and more complete. Hundreds of wild geese, plovers, and pelicans were enjoying themselves in the watercourses on the marshes, the water of which was too brackish to be drunk. They then soon came to a channel through which the sea-water entered. Here they passed three blacks, who pointed out unasked the best way down. Next morning they started at daybreak for the sea, leaving the horse behind short hobbled. Here Wills’ diary, from which I have been quoting, abruptly ends, and was not resumed until the 19th February, when they had already started on their fatal homeward journey. Burke did not keep any regular journal, but in his notes, under date of the 28th March, 1861, he says: “At the conclusion of the report it would be as well to say that we reached the sea, but could not obtain a view of the open ocean, although we made every endeavour to do so.” There is no doubt whatever that the two explorers reached the verge of the northern ocean.*

 

* In the account of McKinlay’s Expedition from Adelaide, in August, 1861, it is mentioned that when he, in the following February, found himself on the Gulf of Carpentaria, dense walls of mangrove barred his way to the shore, and there can he little doubt that it was the same obstacle which prevented Burke and Wills from viewing the open sea.

 

Having thus accomplished the grand object of their expedition Burke and Wills rejoined Gray and King, where they had left them with the camels, and the four proceeded together on the return journey on the 13th February. Wills’ notes on their scamper back to Cooper’s Creek are brief but powerful. An incessant rainfall made the country boggy, and added to their troubles. On the 2nd March, at Salt-bush Camp, they found Golah, the camel which they had been obliged to leave behind on the outward journey. It was thin and miserable, and had fretted at finding itself left behind, but began to eat as soon as it saw the other camels.

 

On 5th March Burke became ill from eating part of a large snake which they had killed, and poor Golah, being completely done up, and unable to come on, even when pack and saddle were taken off, had to be finally left behind. On 13th March it rained so heavily that Wills had to put his watch and field-book in the pack to keep them dry. All the creeks became flooded, and the poor travellers had to seek shelter under some fallen rocks. Their journey was now slow, as they had to keep on the stony ridge instead of following the flats, which were very boggy owing to the rain. On the 20th they commenced to lighten the loads of the camels by leaving 60 lbs. weight of things behind. Rain continued to fall in torrents, and the ground they passed over was at times either full of water or covered with slimy mud. The names given to some of their camps by Wills – viz., “Humid Camp”, “Muddy Camp”, “Mosquito Camp”, show some of the trials they had to encounter. Gray, who had been complaining of dysentery, stole some of the flour, and was punished by Burke. Five days after this (March 30th) the camel Boocha was killed for food at a place which by gentle irony they called “Boocha’s Rest”; and on the 10th April the horse, which was reduced and knocked up from want of food, was killed also. Down to the 17th nothing very noteworthy is recorded.

 

On that day – the beginning of the end – Wills records the death of Gray, whom the others had thought to be shamming. The survivors sorrowfully buried him in the lonely bush: they were so weak that it was with difficulty they could dig a grave sufficiently deep to lay him in. After a day’s delay to rest their wearied limbs they pushed on, but in a most exhausted state, straining every nerve to reach the goal of their arduous labours, their legs almost paralysed, so that it was a trying task to walk a few yards. Four days afterwards they were cheered by the sight of the familiar landmarks of their old camp at Cooper’s Creek. King describes in vivid language the delight of Burke when he thought he saw the depot camp. “There they are!” he shouted. “I see them.” But, alas! the wish was father to the thought. There was no one there. Lost and bewildered in amazement, he appeared like one stupefied when the horrible truth that the camp had been deserted burst upon him. He was quite overwhelmed, and flung himself on the ground broken-hearted. Wills looked about him in all directions, and presently turning to King said, “They are gone”, and pointing a short way off added, “There are the things they have left.” Calm and quiet as ever, he never once, as King testified, showed the slightest anger or loss of command of himself.

 

On a tree was marked “Dig 21st April”, and from under it a box was extracted containing provisions, and a bottle with a note from Brahe conveying the mortifying intelligence that he had only seven hours before abandoned the depot, and was encamped fourteen miles away, that he had remained four months at Cooper’s Creek, and that Wright had not turned up with the supplies. The explorers felt that, exhausted as they were, it was useless to attempt to overtake Brahe. They rested for two days, and on the morning of Thursday, April 23rd, Burke, Wills, and King, strengthened by the provisions they had found, resumed their journey. Wills and King were desirous of following their track out from Menindie, but unfortunately Burke preferred striking for the South Australian stations, having heard it positively stated at a meeting of the Royal Society that there were settlers within 100 miles of Cooper’s Creek. Wills deferred to his leader, and so they went to their destruction, making for Adelaide via Mount Hopeless (ominous name). There was, in fact, nothing to commend this route, while everything was in favour of that by the Darling. The one road they knew nothing of, the other was familiar to them, and as a matter of fact the nearest police station on the Adelaide line of march was distant between four and five hundred miles. Before starting Wills’ journals were buried in the cache, with the following note from Burke:

 

“Depot No. 2, Cooper’s Creek Camp, 65.

“The return party from Carpentaria, consisting of myself, Wills, and King (Grey dead), arrived here last night and found that the depot party had only started on the same day. We proceed on to-morrow, slowly down the creek towards Adelaide by Mount Hopeless, and shall endeavour to follow Gregory’s track; but we are very weak. The two camels are done up, and we shall not be able to travel faster than four or five miles a day. Grey died on the road from exhaustion and fatigue. We have all suffered much from hunger. The provisions left here will, I think, restore our strength. We have discovered a practicable route to Carpentaria, the chief position of which lies in the 140° of east longitude. There is some good country between this and the Stony Desert. From thence to the tropics the land is dry and stony. Between the Carpentaria a considerable portion is rangy, but well watered and richly grassed. We reached the shores of Carpentaria on the 11th of February, 1861. Greatly disappointed at finding the party here gone.

 

“(Signed) Robert O’Hara Burke, Leader.

“April 22nd, 1861.

“P.S. – The camels cannot travel, and we cannot walk, or we should follow the other party. We shall move very slowly down the creek.”

 

By slow stages the doomed explorers moved on day by day through what was little better than a desert. The second and third days they came upon some friendly blacks, who gave them fish. On 28th April one of the two remaining camels got bogged by the side of a water hole, and it being impossible to get him out, he was shot the next day, his flesh providing them with food. On May 7th the remaining camel would not rise even without any load on its back, and after making every attempt to get him up they had to leave him to himself. Burke and Wills then went down the creek to reconnoitre, and fortunately fell in with some blacks fishing, who gave them food and took them to their camp, where they passed two nights. Some days after, being pressed for food, several excursions were made to find the blacks again, but without success. On May 17th, however, King unexpectedly came upon the nardoo plant, the seed of which is powdered by the natives and baked into a cake. This discovery raised their spirits, as they considered that with this food they would be able to support themselves, even if they had to remain on the creek and wait for assistance from town. On 27th May Wills started alone to the depot at Cooper’s Creek to see if any relief had arrived.

 

Brahe – who, it will be remembered, deserted his post at the depot only seven hours before the wearied explorers returned there – fell in with Wright’s party at Balloo on his way to the Darling on the 28th or 29th April, and on the 3rd May Wright started with him for the depot, which they actually reached on the 9th. It seemed fated, however, that blunder should succeed blunder, for here they remained but a quarter of an hour, and casting but a hurried glance around came to the conclusion that the depot had not been visited in the interval, and with fatal and criminal neglect never even opened the cache. Had they done so the papers and letters deposited would have been found, and all would yet have been well. Wills, who had met natives on the way, and been given food by them, arrived at Cooper’s Creek on this return visit on the 30th May, and naturally enough failed to discover it had been re-visited by Wright and Brahe, who had left no record behind them. He opened the cache, buried the remainder of his journal and letters, with the following touching note:–

 

“Depot Camp, May 30th.

“We have been unable to leave the creek. Both camels are dead, and our provisions are exhausted. Mr. Burke and King are down the lower part of the creek. I am about to return to them, when we shall probably come up this way. We are trying to live the best way we can, like the blacks, but find it hard work. Our clothes are going to pieces fast. Send provisions and clothes as soon as possible.

“W. J. Wills.”

 

“The depot party having left contrary to instructions, has put us in this fix. I have deposited some of my journals here for fear of accident. “W. J. W.”

 

Wills then started to rejoin Burke and King. He received kindly assistance on the way from the blacks, and rejoined his companions on 6th June. His diary which he continued to keep was brief but expressive. They had little but nardoo to live upon, and though it allayed the pangs of hunger, it contained little nourishment; the poor fellows were literally starving to death. In his diary under date of 21st June Wills says:–

 

“I feel much weaker than ever, and can scarcely crawl out of the mia-mia. Unless relief comes in some form or other I cannot possibly last more than a fortnight. It is a great consolation at least, in this position of ours, to know that we have done all we could, and that our deaths were rather be the result of the mismanagement of others than of any rash act of our own. Had we come to grief elsewhere, we could only have blamed ourselves; but here we are returned to Cooper’s Creek, where we had every reason to look for provisions and clothing, and yet have to die of starvation, in spite of the explicit instructions given by Mr. Burke, that the depot party should await our return, and the strong recommendation by the Committee ‘that we should be followed up by a party from Menindie.'”

 

He suffered much from cold, his clothing was reduced to a wide awake, a merino shirt, a regatta shirt without sleeves, the remains of a pair of flannel trousers, two pairs of socks in rags, and a waistcoat. Wills finding his weakness increasing, it was resolved that Burke and King, as the only chance of saving the party, should go in search of natives, and having collected and pounded sufficient nardoo seed to last Wills for eight days, they constructed a rude shelter of boughs for him, placed water and firewood within his reach, and took a sorrowful farewell of him, Wills giving Burke a letter and his watch for his father, and telling King if he survived Burke to carry out his last wishes. In a postscript to this letter Wills says, “I think to live about four or five days. My spirits are excellent.” On the 29th June Wills made his last entry in his diary, shewing that he maintained his calmness of spirit and resignation to the last.

 

“Friday, 29th June, 1861. — Clear, cold night; slight breeze from the east; day beautifully warm and pleasant. Mr. Burke suffers greatly from the cold, and is getting extremely weak. He and King start to-morrow up the creek to look for the blacks; it is the only chance we have of being saved from starvation. I am weaker than ever, although I have a good appetite, and relish the nardoo much; but it seems to give us no nutriment, and the birds here are so shy as not to be got at. Even if we got a good supply of fish, I doubt whether we could do much work on them and the nardoo alone. Nothing now but the greatest good luck can save any of us; and as for myself I may live four or five days if the weather continues warm. My pulse is at forty-eighty and very weak, and my legs and arms are nearly skin and bone. I can only look out, like Mr. Micawber, ‘for something to turn up.’ Starvation on nardoo is by no means very unpleasant, but for the weakness one feels, and the utter inability to move one’s self; for as far as the appetite is concerned it gives the greatest satisfaction. Certainly fat and sugar would be more to one’s taste; in fact, those seem to me to be the great stand-by for one in this extraordinary continent – not that I mean to depreciate the farinaceous food, but the want of sugar and fat in all substances obtainable here is so great that they become almost valueless to us as articles of food without the addition of something else.

 

(Signed) “W. J. Wills.”

 

We are now, alas ! nearing the end of this ill-fated expedition. Burke and King had not travelled many miles when, on the second day from leaving Wills, Burke gave in from sheer weakness, and died early the next morning. King remained two days to recover strength, and then returned to where they had left Wills, taking back with him three crows he had shot, and nardoo he had discovered, and was shocked to find Wills lying dead in his gunwah, where he would appear to have sunk quietly to rest, but in utter loneliness, a few hours after Burke and King had left him. King buried the corpse with sand, and remained there some days prostrated at the death of his companions, and at being left alone in the vast wilderness. The nardoo running short, and being unable to gather it, he tracked some of the natives by their footprints in the sand, and eventually fell in with a number of them, who were kindly disposed, and so was preserved from the fate of his companions.

 

The Exploration Committee at Melbourne seem by their supineness to have helped on the final catastrophe. Although informed of the criminal delay of Wright at Menindie, they took no steps to urge his departure from there. Dr. Wills, our hero’s father, unable to bear the suspense in the month of June, walked with a small pack on his shoulders, and a stick in his hand, from Ballarat to Melbourne, a distance of seventy-five miles, and his energetic appeals led to a search party, under Mr. A. W. Howitt, being sent out.

 

Two of the three camels lost on one of the excursions at Cooper’s Creek on the way out were discovered in South Australia and brought to Adelaide. News of this reaching Melbourne excited the interest of the public, and doubtless contributed to the awakened energy of the Committee. In connection with this Mr. Fabyan Amery has contributed a strange and interesting story. He tells me that a Mr. James Wills, who had been a servant at the Ashburton Grammar School, in special attendance upon the boarders, whilst Wills was a pupil there, was, in 1861, residing with his wife, whom he had married in the Colony, on the banks of the Murray river; and one morning Mrs. Wills, casting her eyes around the horizon, spied in the far distance two animals, which with quick feminine decision she declared to be camels. This she mentioned to her husband, who ridiculed the idea, as no camels were ever known in Australia. She persisted in her opinion, and started towards them to satisfy her curiosity. Sure enough they proved to be two camels, undoubtedly two of those who had escaped from the ill-fated expedition, and which, with the wonderful instinct of their species, had sniffed the water at a great distance, and in an almost exhausted state were making for the river. Mrs. Wills went up to them, when the youngest came and ate out of her hand. Her husband immediately gave information to the police, which he understood was forwarded to the Governor of Victoria, and which he always believed led to the despatch of the Relief Expedition. Howitt started early in July, 1861, taking Brahe with him, who had come down with Wright’s despatches, and made all speed to Cooper’s Creek. On 13th September he arrived at the fatal depot, and on the 15th King was discovered sitting in a hut which the natives had made for him. He presented a melancholy appearance, wasted to a shadow, and only distinguishable as a civilized being by the remnants of clothes upon him. As soon as King was well enough to accompany them the relief party proceeded down to the place where Wills died. The remains were found, carefully collected, and interred where they lay, Howitt reading that sublime chapter – 1 Corinthians xi. – and cutting the following inscription on a tree close by to mark the spot:

 

W. J. WILLS

XLV Yds

W.N.W.

A. H.

 

Burke’s remains were subsequently discovered and buried, wrapped in a Union Jack. Howitt then returned to Melbourne, taking King with him. He subsequently went back again, disinterred the remains of Burke and Wills, and brought them to Melbourne, where, after lying solemnly in state, they were accorded a public funeral, and so –

 

“After life’s fitful fever they sleep well.”

 

No one who has read the simple records of this great expedition, with all its blunders – so successful as far as its great object was concerned, but so fatal as regards the precious lives of the explorers – but must admire the character, actions, and quiet heroism of Wills. None of the blunders which led to the disaster which befell the Expedition are traceable to him. Throughout the toilsome journey he maintained his quiet, equable temperament. Loyal to his leader he deferred to his wishes, never complained of or reflected on others, continued and carefully recorded his scientific observations to the last, and laid himself down to die in utter loneliness in the vast wilderness with perfect resignation and calmness, as if he were but falling asleep in his father’s arms; and “his works do follow him”; for they opened up the way to the march of civilization, and have been rich in results. The greater part of the country he explored is now in a state of cultivation, with homesteads containing prosperous settlers in all directions, and so early as 1867 a stage coach was running not many miles from where he and Burke laid down their lives. The testimony of the colonists to Wills was on all sides that of admiration for his devoted heroism, appreciation of the scientific results achieved by him, and deep regret at the sacrifice of his young and promising life.

 

Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of Victoria, in a letter to his mother, said of Wills: “You may rely upon it that the name of William John Wills will go down to posterity, both at home and in this colony, amongst the brightest of those who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the good of their fellow-creatures.” Dr. Mueller, of the Melbourne Botanical Gardens, who as a tribute to his memory named a new plant in the Australian Flora Eremophila Willsii, “to record by botany the glory never to be forgotten of the intrepid and talented but most unfortunate Wills”, maintained that it was only by his skilful guidance and scientific talents that the great geographic success of the expedition was achieved.

 

A portion of the city was directed to be thereafter named Wills Street by order of the Governor. A massive obelisk was erected to the memory of the two martyrs in the cemetery where they were buried; and on April 21st, 1866, a monument raised to them by the Victorian Legislature at a cost of £4,000, consisting of a statue of each of these two distinguished explorers, was unveiled by the Governor in Collins Street, one of the principal thoroughfares of Melbourne. The day chosen for the ceremony was the fourth anniversary of the return of Burke and Wills to Cooper’s Creek, and their surviving companion King was present on the occasion, which to him must have been one of mingled sorrow and pleasure.

 

Wills was not forgotten in his native town. The inhabitants, aided by the contributions of Devonshire men in Australia, erected a granite obelisk on the plains containing this inscription:Inscription on obelisk to W. J. Wills in Totnes

And though more than thirty years have passed since his death Wills is not forgotten in the colony; for only last year one of the colonists from Devon, Mr. Angel, who returned from South Australia on a visit to Totnes, and to his native parish of Littlehempstone, finding the inscription on the memorial becoming obliterated had it renewed on a tablet of white marble let into the granite,* that the coming race may not be unmindful of the patient and courageous life and heroic death of this Devonshire hero, the martyred Wills.

 

* Since this paper was written Mr. F. Horn, marble mason, of Totnes, has executed a successful medallion of Wills, which has been let into the obelisk above the tablet."

 

devonassoc.org.uk/devoninfo/wills-the-australian-explorer...

The Forty-Sixth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva from November 21 to November 23, 2022 in hybrid form – with delegates and observers attending physically in Geneva, Switzerland, and via remote participation from around the world.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The display may read 'Betws-y-Coed', but there is no route number on show, so I'll only guess that this was an S6 working. N1 ED arrives into Betws-y-Coed.

 

16th February 2009.

By T. W. Windeatt. (Read at Torquay, July, 1893.)

 

The little town and ancient borough of Totnes has during its lengthened history been the birthplace of men, not a few of whom have made their mark in the world, and not the least of these is one born in the present century – Wills, the Australian explorer – whose name deserves to be enshrined in the Transactions of this Association.

 

William John Wills was born in Totnes on the 5th January, 1834, being the son of William Wills, a surgeon then practising in Totnes, and Sarah, youngest daughter of William Galley, an old and respected inhabitant.* They both spent the latter part of their lives in and died at Torquay. As a boy Wills seems to have early developed an enquiring and thoughtful mind. His father says he was never a child in the common acceptation of the term, as he gave early indication of diligence and discretion scarcely compatible with the helplessness and simplicity of such tender years. He was educated at the Ashburton Grammar School, where he went as a boarder when eleven years of age, and of which school Mr. Paige, who still survives, was then the head master. A deep cutting in one of the benches in the old chapel of St Lawrence, then and now the schoolhouse, “W. J. WILLS” is still to be seen and records his sojourn there. Mr. Fabyan Amery, one of his schoolfellows, speaks of him as having always been a very scientific boy, and very observant of natural phenomena, which he always tried to get some scientific reason for. There appears to have been nothing remarkable in his progress at school, though his master commended his steady diligence and uniform propriety of conduct Mr. Paige remarked on one occasion to his father, “It vexes me that John does not take a top prize, for I see by his countenance that he understands as much, if not more, than any boy in my school; yet from want of readiness in answering he allows very inferior lads to win the tickets from him.”

 

* Henry Le Visconte, who was first lieutenant in the Erebus, and perished in the Franklin Expedition, was first cousin to Mrs. Wills.

 

He left school when sixteen and commenced to study medicine in his father’s surgery. In 1852 he studied practical chemistry under Dr. John Stenhouse at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, who spoke of him as one of his most promising pupils, and ventured the assurance that in two years he would be second to none in England in practical chemistry.

 

In 1852 Dr. Wills determined to join the exodus then pouring out from England to Australia, engaged as medical attendant on board the Ballaarat, and arranged to take out the subject of my sketch, and a younger brother Tom with him. A few days after this arrangement was made Wills came to his father, and with that expression in his countenance so peculiarly his own, said, “My dear father, I have a favour to ask of you. I see my mother is grieving, although she says nothing, at our all leaving her together. Let Tom and me go alone. I will pledge myself to take care of him.” After a consultation this new plan was agreed upon. Dr. Wills released himself from his engagement with Messrs. Simpkins and Marshall for the Ballaarat, and secured two berths for the boys in one of Mr. W. S. Lindsay’s ships, which at that time were conveying living freights to Melbourne, their Channel port of departure being Dartmouth.

 

Wills’s love of knowledge in its details is evidenced by a story told by his father of him at this time. “I found,” he said, “that William had shortly before sailing expended some money on a quantity of stuff rolled up like balls of black rope-yarn, and exclaimed with astonishment, ‘In the name of goodness, are you going to chew or smoke all the way to Australia?'” for the commodity was the good old pigtail tobacco. He said smiling, “This is to make friends with the sailors. I intend to learn something about a ship by the time we reach our destination.” His mode of proceeding, as he told his father, was first to secure the good graces of the crew through the persuasive medium of the pigtail; then to learn the name and use of every rope, and of every part of the ship’s tackle from stem to stern. He thus soon acquired the art of splicing and reefing, and was amongst the first to go aloft in a storm, and to lend a hand in taking in topsails.

 

On arriving in Australia the two lads obtained situations as shepherds at Deniliquin, about 200 miles from Melbourne, at £30 a year and their rations. In August, 1853, Dr. Wills reached Melbourne, but it was some two months after landing before he ascertained his sons’ location, and joined them at their sheep station. William subsequently removed to Ballarat with his father, where he remained twelve months attending to patients in his father’s absence, and opening a gold office, where he perfected a plan of his own for weighing specimens containing quartz and gold in water, so as to find the quantity of each component. His thoughts and conversation were, however, constantly reverting to the interior of the great continent, and to the hope that he would some day undertake the journey to the Gulf of Carpentaria. In 1856 Wills obtained an appointment under Mr. F. Byerly, a gentleman in the Survey Department, and under him he commenced to learn surveying. A letter of advice as to the study of science written to his youngest brother at Totnes while he was engaged on a survey at an out station (St. Arnaud) evidenced his earnest love of science, and the following paragraph in it, referring to the study of astronomy, which I venture to think worth quoting, shows he had no difficulty in reconciling science and religion:

 

“As the great object of the science is the correction of error and the investigation of truth, it necessarily leads all those that feel an interest in it to a higher appreciation and desire for truth; and you will easily perceive that a man having a knowledge of all these vast worlds, so much more extensive than our own, must be capable of forming a far higher estimate of that Almighty Being who created all these wonders than one who knows nothing more than the comparatively trifling things that surround us on earth.”

 

Another paragraph at the end of this letter speaks for itself, and gives us the key to the man:

 

“One other piece of advice I must give you before I shut up; that is, never try to show off your knowledge, especially in scientific matters. It is a sin that certain persons we know have been guilty of. The first step is to learn your own ignorance, and if ever you feel inclined to make a display, you may be sure you have as yet learned nothing.”

 

In 1860 an expedition was organized by the colony of Victoria for the exploration of Australia, and to ascertain the nature of the interior of the great continent, which was then a sealed book; for up to that time the efforts towards exploration had been confined to lonely wanderings through the outer boundaries of the unknown continent, and opinions varied as to whether the interior was a vast inland sea, as Oxley and the first of the explorers believed, or whether it was a stony desert unfit for man and beast, as Sturt concluded.

 

Mr. Ambrose Kyte, whose name was, however, concealed from the public at the time, offered £1,000 as an inducement to the Government and others to come forward and raise funds for the exploration. Parliament voted £6,000, and subscriptions from the public raised the fund to £9,000. A Committee of the Royal Society undertook the superintendence of the arrangements. Twenty-four camels were imported from India with native drivers, and provisions and stores for twelve months were provided. After considerable delay the choice of a leader fell upon Robert O’Hara Burke. He was forty years of age, an Irishman from county Galway. When quite a youth he served in an Austrian cavalry regiment, and subsequently in the Irish Constabulary and the Police Force of Victoria; possessing bravery and dauntless courage, he had no special aptitude or scientific training to lead such an Expedition. He was enthusiastic and impulsive but was unfortunately without the indispensable experience of a seasoned bushman.

 

The appointment of second in command fell upon Mr. G. I. Landells, who owed his preferment to the circumstance of his having been employed to bring the camels from India, an appointment, however, which, as the sequel shows, was a most unfortunate one. Wills, who by this time was a seasoned bushman, with great powers of endurance, tendered his services as astronomer and guide without thinking of any distinct post of command, his object being exclusively scientific. Dr. Ludwick Becker was appointed naturalist and artist, Dr. Herman Beckler as botanist and medical adviser. Ten white men, among whom was John King (a private soldier) and three sepoys, were appointed to accompany the Expedition.

 

The explorers left Melbourne on the 20th August, 1860, amid considerable enthusiasm; nearly the whole population suspending ordinary business, and turning out to witness the start. The mayor of Melbourne publicly addressed them, and wished them God-speed, and through the settled districts their progress, which was slow, was a kind of triumphal march. The route marked out for them was to strike the river Darling, then the lower Barcoo (Cooper’s Creek), and from that point to go northwards to the Gulf of Carpentaria.

 

Swan Hill, on the Murray, which, properly speaking, was the northern boundary of the colony of Victoria, was reached on September 8th. At Balranald, beyond the Murray, Burke found it impossible to get on any longer with his foreman (Ferguson) and discharged him. He had, however, no sooner rid himself of this troublesome man than Mr. Landells, his second in command, began to sow dissension, and to exhibit insubordination in an unmistakable manner. This reached a crisis by the time they came to Menindie, on the Darling, and after a violent scene Landells resigned, returning to Melbourne full of violent complaints against Burke, and Dr. Beckler was foolish enough to follow Landells’ example of resigning, on the alleged ground that he did not like the way Burke spoke to Landells. Fortunately for Burke’s reputation a very full account of all that took place was written at the time by Wills to Professor Neumayer, and the committee expressed their entire approbation of Burke’s conduct, an opinion shared in by the general public, as evidenced by the newspapers of that date. Burke, on the resignation of Mr. Landells, immediately promoted Wills to the post he had vacated, which appointment the committee confirmed. Here there was perfect union and reciprocal understanding. Neither had petty jealousies or reserved views. The success of the expedition was their object, not personal glory their aim. The leader had every confidence in his second, and the second was proud of his leader. But Mr. Burke committed an error in the selection of Mr. Wright for the third position in command, without any previous knowledge or experience of his capabilities. In this he acted from his impulsive nature, and the consequences bore heavily on his own and Wills’ fate.

 

Burke then made his second mistake by dividing his party, and on 19th October left Menindie, where he had formed a depot, with about one half of his number, leaving the others behind, and made a rush to the Barcoo. He reached Torowota on 29th October, and from that encampment forwarded a despatch, and an exhaustive surveying report from Wills, to the secretary of the expedition. In his own despatch Burke said:

 

“I consider myself very fortunate in having Mr, Wills as my second in command. He is a capital officer, zealous and untiring in the performance of his duties, and I trust he will remain my second as long as I am in charge of the expedition.”

 

Burke sent Wright back to Menindie with instructions to follow him up with the remainder of the camels to Cooper’s Creek, and Wright himself admitted he gave Burke his word to take the remainder of the party out as soon as he arrived at Menindie. This, however, he omitted to do, and unaccountably delayed making any start until the 26th January, 1861, and to this criminal delay may be attributed the whole of the crushing disaster which subsequently overtook the expedition.

 

Cooper’s Creek, where a camp was formed, was reached on the 11th November. In a letter to one of his sisters from there Wills describes the place as follows:–

 

“To give you an idea of Cooper’s Creek, fancy extensive flat, sandy plains, covered with herbs dried like hay, and imagine a creek or river, somewhat similar in appearance and size to the Dart above the Weir, winding its way through these flats, having its banks densely clothed with gum trees and other evergreens. So far there appears to be a considerable resemblance, but now for the difference. The water of Cooper’s Creek is only a number of waterholes. In some places it entirely disappears, the water in flood-time spreading all over the flats, and forming no regular channel.”

 

While awaiting the arrival of the tardy Wright, short explorations of the adjoining country were made, chiefly by Wills, with the view of examining two or three promising routes to the Gulf of Carpentaria. On the last of these trips Wills penetrated eighty miles, and would have gone further, but the men in charge of the camels fell asleep and let them escape, and the return had to be done on foot in a broiling sun of 146 degrees, no shade, and very little water.

 

Impatient at Wright’s delay, and irritated almost to madness in waiting for him, and seeing the time slipping by, Burke and Wills determined to make a dash for the Gulf of Carpentaria while the opportunity still remained to them.

 

Burke again divided his small party, and taking Wills, King, and Grey, one horse, six camels, and three months’ provisions, started on Sunday, the 16th December, for a dash across the continent. Four men – Brahe, Patten, McDonnough, and Dost Mahomet – with six camels and twelve horses, were left at the camp at Cooper’s Creek, which was made a depot, and Brahe placed in charge until the arrival of Wright or some other person duly appointed by the committee to take command of the remainder of the expedition at Menindie. A surveyor was expected to be sent on to assist Wills, and plenty of work was laid out for all until the return of Burke and Wills – Brahe receiving the most positive orders to remain at Cooper’s Creek until this took place, three or four months being named as the possible time of absence.

 

Wills strongly advised a direct course northward for the exploring party, but Burke hesitated to adopt it unless he could feel confident of a supply of water. The more westerly course was therefore adopted at the commencement of the journey; but after a day or two they turned to the east, and scarcely deviated throughout from the 141st degree of east longitude.

 

Wills kept a diary giving a full account of the journey to the Gulf from the start to February, 1861, which contains very interesting details of each day’s progress. The first point the explorers made for was Eyre’s Creek, and on their first day’s journey they came upon a large tribe of blacks, who, Wills says, came pestering them to go to their camp and have a dance, and nothing but a threat to shoot them would keep them away. They were fine-looking men, but decidedly not of a warlike nature. The explorers crossed Sturt’s supposed “stony desert”, and did not find it the melancholy waste or bad travelling they were led to expect.

 

On 20th December they came upon a large camp of not less that forty or fifty blacks, who brought them presents of fish, for which they gave them beads and matches. On Christmas-eve they reached Gray’s Creek, and took a day’s rest to celebrate the festival. Their camp was really an agreeable place, an oasis in the desert; for there they had all the advantage of food and water attendant on the position of a large creek or river, free from the annoyance of the ants, flies, and mosquitoes invariably met with amongst timber or heavy scrub. The following day they struck a magnificent creek coming from the N.N.W., and this they followed until the 30th, by which time it had tended considerably to the N.E. This stream has since received the name of “Burke’s Creek”. The country adjacent they found an alternation of sand ridges and grassy plains. On 8th January they came into green and luxuriant country, improving at every step. Flocks of pigeons rose and flew, and fresh plants and rich vegetation met the eye on every side. On the 10th, passing over fine open plains, they came to the main creek in those flats, “Patten’s Creek”, flowing along the foot of a stony range. From here they pushed on over fairly good country, coming repeatedly upon blacks in their way, some of whom, being surprised by the explorers coming suddenly upon them, fled, dreadfully frightened. On the 30th January, 1861, having got to within a comparatively short distance of the shores of Carpentaria, Burke and Wills determined to leave Gray and King in charge of the camels, one of whom, having got logged in the creek, had already been left behind, and to proceed onwards on foot, leading the horse. The river or creek down which they passed, and which was quite salt, is named in the journal the Cloncurry. The channel making a sudden turn. Wills remarked that it might be a new river. “If it should prove so,” said Burke, “we will call it after my old friend Lord Cloncurry.”

 

In crossing Billy’s Creek the horse got bogged in a quicksand, and was with difficulty rescued. They came again on blacks, who shuffled off, and near their fire was a fine hut, the best they had ever seen, built on the same principle as those at Cooper’s Creek, but much larger and more complete. Hundreds of wild geese, plovers, and pelicans were enjoying themselves in the watercourses on the marshes, the water of which was too brackish to be drunk. They then soon came to a channel through which the sea-water entered. Here they passed three blacks, who pointed out unasked the best way down. Next morning they started at daybreak for the sea, leaving the horse behind short hobbled. Here Wills’ diary, from which I have been quoting, abruptly ends, and was not resumed until the 19th February, when they had already started on their fatal homeward journey. Burke did not keep any regular journal, but in his notes, under date of the 28th March, 1861, he says: “At the conclusion of the report it would be as well to say that we reached the sea, but could not obtain a view of the open ocean, although we made every endeavour to do so.” There is no doubt whatever that the two explorers reached the verge of the northern ocean.*

 

* In the account of McKinlay’s Expedition from Adelaide, in August, 1861, it is mentioned that when he, in the following February, found himself on the Gulf of Carpentaria, dense walls of mangrove barred his way to the shore, and there can he little doubt that it was the same obstacle which prevented Burke and Wills from viewing the open sea.

 

Having thus accomplished the grand object of their expedition Burke and Wills rejoined Gray and King, where they had left them with the camels, and the four proceeded together on the return journey on the 13th February. Wills’ notes on their scamper back to Cooper’s Creek are brief but powerful. An incessant rainfall made the country boggy, and added to their troubles. On the 2nd March, at Salt-bush Camp, they found Golah, the camel which they had been obliged to leave behind on the outward journey. It was thin and miserable, and had fretted at finding itself left behind, but began to eat as soon as it saw the other camels.

 

On 5th March Burke became ill from eating part of a large snake which they had killed, and poor Golah, being completely done up, and unable to come on, even when pack and saddle were taken off, had to be finally left behind. On 13th March it rained so heavily that Wills had to put his watch and field-book in the pack to keep them dry. All the creeks became flooded, and the poor travellers had to seek shelter under some fallen rocks. Their journey was now slow, as they had to keep on the stony ridge instead of following the flats, which were very boggy owing to the rain. On the 20th they commenced to lighten the loads of the camels by leaving 60 lbs. weight of things behind. Rain continued to fall in torrents, and the ground they passed over was at times either full of water or covered with slimy mud. The names given to some of their camps by Wills – viz., “Humid Camp”, “Muddy Camp”, “Mosquito Camp”, show some of the trials they had to encounter. Gray, who had been complaining of dysentery, stole some of the flour, and was punished by Burke. Five days after this (March 30th) the camel Boocha was killed for food at a place which by gentle irony they called “Boocha’s Rest”; and on the 10th April the horse, which was reduced and knocked up from want of food, was killed also. Down to the 17th nothing very noteworthy is recorded.

 

On that day – the beginning of the end – Wills records the death of Gray, whom the others had thought to be shamming. The survivors sorrowfully buried him in the lonely bush: they were so weak that it was with difficulty they could dig a grave sufficiently deep to lay him in. After a day’s delay to rest their wearied limbs they pushed on, but in a most exhausted state, straining every nerve to reach the goal of their arduous labours, their legs almost paralysed, so that it was a trying task to walk a few yards. Four days afterwards they were cheered by the sight of the familiar landmarks of their old camp at Cooper’s Creek. King describes in vivid language the delight of Burke when he thought he saw the depot camp. “There they are!” he shouted. “I see them.” But, alas! the wish was father to the thought. There was no one there. Lost and bewildered in amazement, he appeared like one stupefied when the horrible truth that the camp had been deserted burst upon him. He was quite overwhelmed, and flung himself on the ground broken-hearted. Wills looked about him in all directions, and presently turning to King said, “They are gone”, and pointing a short way off added, “There are the things they have left.” Calm and quiet as ever, he never once, as King testified, showed the slightest anger or loss of command of himself.

 

On a tree was marked “Dig 21st April”, and from under it a box was extracted containing provisions, and a bottle with a note from Brahe conveying the mortifying intelligence that he had only seven hours before abandoned the depot, and was encamped fourteen miles away, that he had remained four months at Cooper’s Creek, and that Wright had not turned up with the supplies. The explorers felt that, exhausted as they were, it was useless to attempt to overtake Brahe. They rested for two days, and on the morning of Thursday, April 23rd, Burke, Wills, and King, strengthened by the provisions they had found, resumed their journey. Wills and King were desirous of following their track out from Menindie, but unfortunately Burke preferred striking for the South Australian stations, having heard it positively stated at a meeting of the Royal Society that there were settlers within 100 miles of Cooper’s Creek. Wills deferred to his leader, and so they went to their destruction, making for Adelaide via Mount Hopeless (ominous name). There was, in fact, nothing to commend this route, while everything was in favour of that by the Darling. The one road they knew nothing of, the other was familiar to them, and as a matter of fact the nearest police station on the Adelaide line of march was distant between four and five hundred miles. Before starting Wills’ journals were buried in the cache, with the following note from Burke:

 

“Depot No. 2, Cooper’s Creek Camp, 65.

“The return party from Carpentaria, consisting of myself, Wills, and King (Grey dead), arrived here last night and found that the depot party had only started on the same day. We proceed on to-morrow, slowly down the creek towards Adelaide by Mount Hopeless, and shall endeavour to follow Gregory’s track; but we are very weak. The two camels are done up, and we shall not be able to travel faster than four or five miles a day. Grey died on the road from exhaustion and fatigue. We have all suffered much from hunger. The provisions left here will, I think, restore our strength. We have discovered a practicable route to Carpentaria, the chief position of which lies in the 140° of east longitude. There is some good country between this and the Stony Desert. From thence to the tropics the land is dry and stony. Between the Carpentaria a considerable portion is rangy, but well watered and richly grassed. We reached the shores of Carpentaria on the 11th of February, 1861. Greatly disappointed at finding the party here gone.

 

“(Signed) Robert O’Hara Burke, Leader.

“April 22nd, 1861.

“P.S. – The camels cannot travel, and we cannot walk, or we should follow the other party. We shall move very slowly down the creek.”

 

By slow stages the doomed explorers moved on day by day through what was little better than a desert. The second and third days they came upon some friendly blacks, who gave them fish. On 28th April one of the two remaining camels got bogged by the side of a water hole, and it being impossible to get him out, he was shot the next day, his flesh providing them with food. On May 7th the remaining camel would not rise even without any load on its back, and after making every attempt to get him up they had to leave him to himself. Burke and Wills then went down the creek to reconnoitre, and fortunately fell in with some blacks fishing, who gave them food and took them to their camp, where they passed two nights. Some days after, being pressed for food, several excursions were made to find the blacks again, but without success. On May 17th, however, King unexpectedly came upon the nardoo plant, the seed of which is powdered by the natives and baked into a cake. This discovery raised their spirits, as they considered that with this food they would be able to support themselves, even if they had to remain on the creek and wait for assistance from town. On 27th May Wills started alone to the depot at Cooper’s Creek to see if any relief had arrived.

 

Brahe – who, it will be remembered, deserted his post at the depot only seven hours before the wearied explorers returned there – fell in with Wright’s party at Balloo on his way to the Darling on the 28th or 29th April, and on the 3rd May Wright started with him for the depot, which they actually reached on the 9th. It seemed fated, however, that blunder should succeed blunder, for here they remained but a quarter of an hour, and casting but a hurried glance around came to the conclusion that the depot had not been visited in the interval, and with fatal and criminal neglect never even opened the cache. Had they done so the papers and letters deposited would have been found, and all would yet have been well. Wills, who had met natives on the way, and been given food by them, arrived at Cooper’s Creek on this return visit on the 30th May, and naturally enough failed to discover it had been re-visited by Wright and Brahe, who had left no record behind them. He opened the cache, buried the remainder of his journal and letters, with the following touching note:–

 

“Depot Camp, May 30th.

“We have been unable to leave the creek. Both camels are dead, and our provisions are exhausted. Mr. Burke and King are down the lower part of the creek. I am about to return to them, when we shall probably come up this way. We are trying to live the best way we can, like the blacks, but find it hard work. Our clothes are going to pieces fast. Send provisions and clothes as soon as possible.

“W. J. Wills.”

 

“The depot party having left contrary to instructions, has put us in this fix. I have deposited some of my journals here for fear of accident. “W. J. W.”

 

Wills then started to rejoin Burke and King. He received kindly assistance on the way from the blacks, and rejoined his companions on 6th June. His diary which he continued to keep was brief but expressive. They had little but nardoo to live upon, and though it allayed the pangs of hunger, it contained little nourishment; the poor fellows were literally starving to death. In his diary under date of 21st June Wills says:–

 

“I feel much weaker than ever, and can scarcely crawl out of the mia-mia. Unless relief comes in some form or other I cannot possibly last more than a fortnight. It is a great consolation at least, in this position of ours, to know that we have done all we could, and that our deaths were rather be the result of the mismanagement of others than of any rash act of our own. Had we come to grief elsewhere, we could only have blamed ourselves; but here we are returned to Cooper’s Creek, where we had every reason to look for provisions and clothing, and yet have to die of starvation, in spite of the explicit instructions given by Mr. Burke, that the depot party should await our return, and the strong recommendation by the Committee ‘that we should be followed up by a party from Menindie.'”

 

He suffered much from cold, his clothing was reduced to a wide awake, a merino shirt, a regatta shirt without sleeves, the remains of a pair of flannel trousers, two pairs of socks in rags, and a waistcoat. Wills finding his weakness increasing, it was resolved that Burke and King, as the only chance of saving the party, should go in search of natives, and having collected and pounded sufficient nardoo seed to last Wills for eight days, they constructed a rude shelter of boughs for him, placed water and firewood within his reach, and took a sorrowful farewell of him, Wills giving Burke a letter and his watch for his father, and telling King if he survived Burke to carry out his last wishes. In a postscript to this letter Wills says, “I think to live about four or five days. My spirits are excellent.” On the 29th June Wills made his last entry in his diary, shewing that he maintained his calmness of spirit and resignation to the last.

 

“Friday, 29th June, 1861. — Clear, cold night; slight breeze from the east; day beautifully warm and pleasant. Mr. Burke suffers greatly from the cold, and is getting extremely weak. He and King start to-morrow up the creek to look for the blacks; it is the only chance we have of being saved from starvation. I am weaker than ever, although I have a good appetite, and relish the nardoo much; but it seems to give us no nutriment, and the birds here are so shy as not to be got at. Even if we got a good supply of fish, I doubt whether we could do much work on them and the nardoo alone. Nothing now but the greatest good luck can save any of us; and as for myself I may live four or five days if the weather continues warm. My pulse is at forty-eighty and very weak, and my legs and arms are nearly skin and bone. I can only look out, like Mr. Micawber, ‘for something to turn up.’ Starvation on nardoo is by no means very unpleasant, but for the weakness one feels, and the utter inability to move one’s self; for as far as the appetite is concerned it gives the greatest satisfaction. Certainly fat and sugar would be more to one’s taste; in fact, those seem to me to be the great stand-by for one in this extraordinary continent – not that I mean to depreciate the farinaceous food, but the want of sugar and fat in all substances obtainable here is so great that they become almost valueless to us as articles of food without the addition of something else.

 

(Signed) “W. J. Wills.”

 

We are now, alas ! nearing the end of this ill-fated expedition. Burke and King had not travelled many miles when, on the second day from leaving Wills, Burke gave in from sheer weakness, and died early the next morning. King remained two days to recover strength, and then returned to where they had left Wills, taking back with him three crows he had shot, and nardoo he had discovered, and was shocked to find Wills lying dead in his gunwah, where he would appear to have sunk quietly to rest, but in utter loneliness, a few hours after Burke and King had left him. King buried the corpse with sand, and remained there some days prostrated at the death of his companions, and at being left alone in the vast wilderness. The nardoo running short, and being unable to gather it, he tracked some of the natives by their footprints in the sand, and eventually fell in with a number of them, who were kindly disposed, and so was preserved from the fate of his companions.

 

The Exploration Committee at Melbourne seem by their supineness to have helped on the final catastrophe. Although informed of the criminal delay of Wright at Menindie, they took no steps to urge his departure from there. Dr. Wills, our hero’s father, unable to bear the suspense in the month of June, walked with a small pack on his shoulders, and a stick in his hand, from Ballarat to Melbourne, a distance of seventy-five miles, and his energetic appeals led to a search party, under Mr. A. W. Howitt, being sent out.

 

Two of the three camels lost on one of the excursions at Cooper’s Creek on the way out were discovered in South Australia and brought to Adelaide. News of this reaching Melbourne excited the interest of the public, and doubtless contributed to the awakened energy of the Committee. In connection with this Mr. Fabyan Amery has contributed a strange and interesting story. He tells me that a Mr. James Wills, who had been a servant at the Ashburton Grammar School, in special attendance upon the boarders, whilst Wills was a pupil there, was, in 1861, residing with his wife, whom he had married in the Colony, on the banks of the Murray river; and one morning Mrs. Wills, casting her eyes around the horizon, spied in the far distance two animals, which with quick feminine decision she declared to be camels. This she mentioned to her husband, who ridiculed the idea, as no camels were ever known in Australia. She persisted in her opinion, and started towards them to satisfy her curiosity. Sure enough they proved to be two camels, undoubtedly two of those who had escaped from the ill-fated expedition, and which, with the wonderful instinct of their species, had sniffed the water at a great distance, and in an almost exhausted state were making for the river. Mrs. Wills went up to them, when the youngest came and ate out of her hand. Her husband immediately gave information to the police, which he understood was forwarded to the Governor of Victoria, and which he always believed led to the despatch of the Relief Expedition. Howitt started early in July, 1861, taking Brahe with him, who had come down with Wright’s despatches, and made all speed to Cooper’s Creek. On 13th September he arrived at the fatal depot, and on the 15th King was discovered sitting in a hut which the natives had made for him. He presented a melancholy appearance, wasted to a shadow, and only distinguishable as a civilized being by the remnants of clothes upon him. As soon as King was well enough to accompany them the relief party proceeded down to the place where Wills died. The remains were found, carefully collected, and interred where they lay, Howitt reading that sublime chapter – 1 Corinthians xi. – and cutting the following inscription on a tree close by to mark the spot:

 

W. J. WILLS

XLV Yds

W.N.W.

A. H.

 

Burke’s remains were subsequently discovered and buried, wrapped in a Union Jack. Howitt then returned to Melbourne, taking King with him. He subsequently went back again, disinterred the remains of Burke and Wills, and brought them to Melbourne, where, after lying solemnly in state, they were accorded a public funeral, and so –

 

“After life’s fitful fever they sleep well.”

 

No one who has read the simple records of this great expedition, with all its blunders – so successful as far as its great object was concerned, but so fatal as regards the precious lives of the explorers – but must admire the character, actions, and quiet heroism of Wills. None of the blunders which led to the disaster which befell the Expedition are traceable to him. Throughout the toilsome journey he maintained his quiet, equable temperament. Loyal to his leader he deferred to his wishes, never complained of or reflected on others, continued and carefully recorded his scientific observations to the last, and laid himself down to die in utter loneliness in the vast wilderness with perfect resignation and calmness, as if he were but falling asleep in his father’s arms; and “his works do follow him”; for they opened up the way to the march of civilization, and have been rich in results. The greater part of the country he explored is now in a state of cultivation, with homesteads containing prosperous settlers in all directions, and so early as 1867 a stage coach was running not many miles from where he and Burke laid down their lives. The testimony of the colonists to Wills was on all sides that of admiration for his devoted heroism, appreciation of the scientific results achieved by him, and deep regret at the sacrifice of his young and promising life.

 

Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of Victoria, in a letter to his mother, said of Wills: “You may rely upon it that the name of William John Wills will go down to posterity, both at home and in this colony, amongst the brightest of those who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the good of their fellow-creatures.” Dr. Mueller, of the Melbourne Botanical Gardens, who as a tribute to his memory named a new plant in the Australian Flora Eremophila Willsii, “to record by botany the glory never to be forgotten of the intrepid and talented but most unfortunate Wills”, maintained that it was only by his skilful guidance and scientific talents that the great geographic success of the expedition was achieved.

 

A portion of the city was directed to be thereafter named Wills Street by order of the Governor. A massive obelisk was erected to the memory of the two martyrs in the cemetery where they were buried; and on April 21st, 1866, a monument raised to them by the Victorian Legislature at a cost of £4,000, consisting of a statue of each of these two distinguished explorers, was unveiled by the Governor in Collins Street, one of the principal thoroughfares of Melbourne. The day chosen for the ceremony was the fourth anniversary of the return of Burke and Wills to Cooper’s Creek, and their surviving companion King was present on the occasion, which to him must have been one of mingled sorrow and pleasure.

 

Wills was not forgotten in his native town. The inhabitants, aided by the contributions of Devonshire men in Australia, erected a granite obelisk on the plains containing this inscription:Inscription on obelisk to W. J. Wills in Totnes

And though more than thirty years have passed since his death Wills is not forgotten in the colony; for only last year one of the colonists from Devon, Mr. Angel, who returned from South Australia on a visit to Totnes, and to his native parish of Littlehempstone, finding the inscription on the memorial becoming obliterated had it renewed on a tablet of white marble let into the granite,* that the coming race may not be unmindful of the patient and courageous life and heroic death of this Devonshire hero, the martyred Wills.

 

* Since this paper was written Mr. F. Horn, marble mason, of Totnes, has executed a successful medallion of Wills, which has been let into the obelisk above the tablet."

 

devonassoc.org.uk/devoninfo/wills-the-australian-explorer...

The Thirty-Fifth Session of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) took place in Geneva, Switzerland from April 25 to April 27, 2016.

 

Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Emmanuel Berrod. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

By T. W. Windeatt. (Read at Torquay, July, 1893.)

 

The little town and ancient borough of Totnes has during its lengthened history been the birthplace of men, not a few of whom have made their mark in the world, and not the least of these is one born in the present century – Wills, the Australian explorer – whose name deserves to be enshrined in the Transactions of this Association.

 

William John Wills was born in Totnes on the 5th January, 1834, being the son of William Wills, a surgeon then practising in Totnes, and Sarah, youngest daughter of William Galley, an old and respected inhabitant.* They both spent the latter part of their lives in and died at Torquay. As a boy Wills seems to have early developed an enquiring and thoughtful mind. His father says he was never a child in the common acceptation of the term, as he gave early indication of diligence and discretion scarcely compatible with the helplessness and simplicity of such tender years. He was educated at the Ashburton Grammar School, where he went as a boarder when eleven years of age, and of which school Mr. Paige, who still survives, was then the head master. A deep cutting in one of the benches in the old chapel of St Lawrence, then and now the schoolhouse, “W. J. WILLS” is still to be seen and records his sojourn there. Mr. Fabyan Amery, one of his schoolfellows, speaks of him as having always been a very scientific boy, and very observant of natural phenomena, which he always tried to get some scientific reason for. There appears to have been nothing remarkable in his progress at school, though his master commended his steady diligence and uniform propriety of conduct Mr. Paige remarked on one occasion to his father, “It vexes me that John does not take a top prize, for I see by his countenance that he understands as much, if not more, than any boy in my school; yet from want of readiness in answering he allows very inferior lads to win the tickets from him.”

 

* Henry Le Visconte, who was first lieutenant in the Erebus, and perished in the Franklin Expedition, was first cousin to Mrs. Wills.

 

He left school when sixteen and commenced to study medicine in his father’s surgery. In 1852 he studied practical chemistry under Dr. John Stenhouse at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, who spoke of him as one of his most promising pupils, and ventured the assurance that in two years he would be second to none in England in practical chemistry.

 

In 1852 Dr. Wills determined to join the exodus then pouring out from England to Australia, engaged as medical attendant on board the Ballaarat, and arranged to take out the subject of my sketch, and a younger brother Tom with him. A few days after this arrangement was made Wills came to his father, and with that expression in his countenance so peculiarly his own, said, “My dear father, I have a favour to ask of you. I see my mother is grieving, although she says nothing, at our all leaving her together. Let Tom and me go alone. I will pledge myself to take care of him.” After a consultation this new plan was agreed upon. Dr. Wills released himself from his engagement with Messrs. Simpkins and Marshall for the Ballaarat, and secured two berths for the boys in one of Mr. W. S. Lindsay’s ships, which at that time were conveying living freights to Melbourne, their Channel port of departure being Dartmouth.

 

Wills’s love of knowledge in its details is evidenced by a story told by his father of him at this time. “I found,” he said, “that William had shortly before sailing expended some money on a quantity of stuff rolled up like balls of black rope-yarn, and exclaimed with astonishment, ‘In the name of goodness, are you going to chew or smoke all the way to Australia?'” for the commodity was the good old pigtail tobacco. He said smiling, “This is to make friends with the sailors. I intend to learn something about a ship by the time we reach our destination.” His mode of proceeding, as he told his father, was first to secure the good graces of the crew through the persuasive medium of the pigtail; then to learn the name and use of every rope, and of every part of the ship’s tackle from stem to stern. He thus soon acquired the art of splicing and reefing, and was amongst the first to go aloft in a storm, and to lend a hand in taking in topsails.

 

On arriving in Australia the two lads obtained situations as shepherds at Deniliquin, about 200 miles from Melbourne, at £30 a year and their rations. In August, 1853, Dr. Wills reached Melbourne, but it was some two months after landing before he ascertained his sons’ location, and joined them at their sheep station. William subsequently removed to Ballarat with his father, where he remained twelve months attending to patients in his father’s absence, and opening a gold office, where he perfected a plan of his own for weighing specimens containing quartz and gold in water, so as to find the quantity of each component. His thoughts and conversation were, however, constantly reverting to the interior of the great continent, and to the hope that he would some day undertake the journey to the Gulf of Carpentaria. In 1856 Wills obtained an appointment under Mr. F. Byerly, a gentleman in the Survey Department, and under him he commenced to learn surveying. A letter of advice as to the study of science written to his youngest brother at Totnes while he was engaged on a survey at an out station (St. Arnaud) evidenced his earnest love of science, and the following paragraph in it, referring to the study of astronomy, which I venture to think worth quoting, shows he had no difficulty in reconciling science and religion:

 

“As the great object of the science is the correction of error and the investigation of truth, it necessarily leads all those that feel an interest in it to a higher appreciation and desire for truth; and you will easily perceive that a man having a knowledge of all these vast worlds, so much more extensive than our own, must be capable of forming a far higher estimate of that Almighty Being who created all these wonders than one who knows nothing more than the comparatively trifling things that surround us on earth.”

 

Another paragraph at the end of this letter speaks for itself, and gives us the key to the man:

 

“One other piece of advice I must give you before I shut up; that is, never try to show off your knowledge, especially in scientific matters. It is a sin that certain persons we know have been guilty of. The first step is to learn your own ignorance, and if ever you feel inclined to make a display, you may be sure you have as yet learned nothing.”

 

In 1860 an expedition was organized by the colony of Victoria for the exploration of Australia, and to ascertain the nature of the interior of the great continent, which was then a sealed book; for up to that time the efforts towards exploration had been confined to lonely wanderings through the outer boundaries of the unknown continent, and opinions varied as to whether the interior was a vast inland sea, as Oxley and the first of the explorers believed, or whether it was a stony desert unfit for man and beast, as Sturt concluded.

 

Mr. Ambrose Kyte, whose name was, however, concealed from the public at the time, offered £1,000 as an inducement to the Government and others to come forward and raise funds for the exploration. Parliament voted £6,000, and subscriptions from the public raised the fund to £9,000. A Committee of the Royal Society undertook the superintendence of the arrangements. Twenty-four camels were imported from India with native drivers, and provisions and stores for twelve months were provided. After considerable delay the choice of a leader fell upon Robert O’Hara Burke. He was forty years of age, an Irishman from county Galway. When quite a youth he served in an Austrian cavalry regiment, and subsequently in the Irish Constabulary and the Police Force of Victoria; possessing bravery and dauntless courage, he had no special aptitude or scientific training to lead such an Expedition. He was enthusiastic and impulsive but was unfortunately without the indispensable experience of a seasoned bushman.

 

The appointment of second in command fell upon Mr. G. I. Landells, who owed his preferment to the circumstance of his having been employed to bring the camels from India, an appointment, however, which, as the sequel shows, was a most unfortunate one. Wills, who by this time was a seasoned bushman, with great powers of endurance, tendered his services as astronomer and guide without thinking of any distinct post of command, his object being exclusively scientific. Dr. Ludwick Becker was appointed naturalist and artist, Dr. Herman Beckler as botanist and medical adviser. Ten white men, among whom was John King (a private soldier) and three sepoys, were appointed to accompany the Expedition.

 

The explorers left Melbourne on the 20th August, 1860, amid considerable enthusiasm; nearly the whole population suspending ordinary business, and turning out to witness the start. The mayor of Melbourne publicly addressed them, and wished them God-speed, and through the settled districts their progress, which was slow, was a kind of triumphal march. The route marked out for them was to strike the river Darling, then the lower Barcoo (Cooper’s Creek), and from that point to go northwards to the Gulf of Carpentaria.

 

Swan Hill, on the Murray, which, properly speaking, was the northern boundary of the colony of Victoria, was reached on September 8th. At Balranald, beyond the Murray, Burke found it impossible to get on any longer with his foreman (Ferguson) and discharged him. He had, however, no sooner rid himself of this troublesome man than Mr. Landells, his second in command, began to sow dissension, and to exhibit insubordination in an unmistakable manner. This reached a crisis by the time they came to Menindie, on the Darling, and after a violent scene Landells resigned, returning to Melbourne full of violent complaints against Burke, and Dr. Beckler was foolish enough to follow Landells’ example of resigning, on the alleged ground that he did not like the way Burke spoke to Landells. Fortunately for Burke’s reputation a very full account of all that took place was written at the time by Wills to Professor Neumayer, and the committee expressed their entire approbation of Burke’s conduct, an opinion shared in by the general public, as evidenced by the newspapers of that date. Burke, on the resignation of Mr. Landells, immediately promoted Wills to the post he had vacated, which appointment the committee confirmed. Here there was perfect union and reciprocal understanding. Neither had petty jealousies or reserved views. The success of the expedition was their object, not personal glory their aim. The leader had every confidence in his second, and the second was proud of his leader. But Mr. Burke committed an error in the selection of Mr. Wright for the third position in command, without any previous knowledge or experience of his capabilities. In this he acted from his impulsive nature, and the consequences bore heavily on his own and Wills’ fate.

 

Burke then made his second mistake by dividing his party, and on 19th October left Menindie, where he had formed a depot, with about one half of his number, leaving the others behind, and made a rush to the Barcoo. He reached Torowota on 29th October, and from that encampment forwarded a despatch, and an exhaustive surveying report from Wills, to the secretary of the expedition. In his own despatch Burke said:

 

“I consider myself very fortunate in having Mr, Wills as my second in command. He is a capital officer, zealous and untiring in the performance of his duties, and I trust he will remain my second as long as I am in charge of the expedition.”

 

Burke sent Wright back to Menindie with instructions to follow him up with the remainder of the camels to Cooper’s Creek, and Wright himself admitted he gave Burke his word to take the remainder of the party out as soon as he arrived at Menindie. This, however, he omitted to do, and unaccountably delayed making any start until the 26th January, 1861, and to this criminal delay may be attributed the whole of the crushing disaster which subsequently overtook the expedition.

 

Cooper’s Creek, where a camp was formed, was reached on the 11th November. In a letter to one of his sisters from there Wills describes the place as follows:–

 

“To give you an idea of Cooper’s Creek, fancy extensive flat, sandy plains, covered with herbs dried like hay, and imagine a creek or river, somewhat similar in appearance and size to the Dart above the Weir, winding its way through these flats, having its banks densely clothed with gum trees and other evergreens. So far there appears to be a considerable resemblance, but now for the difference. The water of Cooper’s Creek is only a number of waterholes. In some places it entirely disappears, the water in flood-time spreading all over the flats, and forming no regular channel.”

 

While awaiting the arrival of the tardy Wright, short explorations of the adjoining country were made, chiefly by Wills, with the view of examining two or three promising routes to the Gulf of Carpentaria. On the last of these trips Wills penetrated eighty miles, and would have gone further, but the men in charge of the camels fell asleep and let them escape, and the return had to be done on foot in a broiling sun of 146 degrees, no shade, and very little water.

 

Impatient at Wright’s delay, and irritated almost to madness in waiting for him, and seeing the time slipping by, Burke and Wills determined to make a dash for the Gulf of Carpentaria while the opportunity still remained to them.

 

Burke again divided his small party, and taking Wills, King, and Grey, one horse, six camels, and three months’ provisions, started on Sunday, the 16th December, for a dash across the continent. Four men – Brahe, Patten, McDonnough, and Dost Mahomet – with six camels and twelve horses, were left at the camp at Cooper’s Creek, which was made a depot, and Brahe placed in charge until the arrival of Wright or some other person duly appointed by the committee to take command of the remainder of the expedition at Menindie. A surveyor was expected to be sent on to assist Wills, and plenty of work was laid out for all until the return of Burke and Wills – Brahe receiving the most positive orders to remain at Cooper’s Creek until this took place, three or four months being named as the possible time of absence.

 

Wills strongly advised a direct course northward for the exploring party, but Burke hesitated to adopt it unless he could feel confident of a supply of water. The more westerly course was therefore adopted at the commencement of the journey; but after a day or two they turned to the east, and scarcely deviated throughout from the 141st degree of east longitude.

 

Wills kept a diary giving a full account of the journey to the Gulf from the start to February, 1861, which contains very interesting details of each day’s progress. The first point the explorers made for was Eyre’s Creek, and on their first day’s journey they came upon a large tribe of blacks, who, Wills says, came pestering them to go to their camp and have a dance, and nothing but a threat to shoot them would keep them away. They were fine-looking men, but decidedly not of a warlike nature. The explorers crossed Sturt’s supposed “stony desert”, and did not find it the melancholy waste or bad travelling they were led to expect.

 

On 20th December they came upon a large camp of not less that forty or fifty blacks, who brought them presents of fish, for which they gave them beads and matches. On Christmas-eve they reached Gray’s Creek, and took a day’s rest to celebrate the festival. Their camp was really an agreeable place, an oasis in the desert; for there they had all the advantage of food and water attendant on the position of a large creek or river, free from the annoyance of the ants, flies, and mosquitoes invariably met with amongst timber or heavy scrub. The following day they struck a magnificent creek coming from the N.N.W., and this they followed until the 30th, by which time it had tended considerably to the N.E. This stream has since received the name of “Burke’s Creek”. The country adjacent they found an alternation of sand ridges and grassy plains. On 8th January they came into green and luxuriant country, improving at every step. Flocks of pigeons rose and flew, and fresh plants and rich vegetation met the eye on every side. On the 10th, passing over fine open plains, they came to the main creek in those flats, “Patten’s Creek”, flowing along the foot of a stony range. From here they pushed on over fairly good country, coming repeatedly upon blacks in their way, some of whom, being surprised by the explorers coming suddenly upon them, fled, dreadfully frightened. On the 30th January, 1861, having got to within a comparatively short distance of the shores of Carpentaria, Burke and Wills determined to leave Gray and King in charge of the camels, one of whom, having got logged in the creek, had already been left behind, and to proceed onwards on foot, leading the horse. The river or creek down which they passed, and which was quite salt, is named in the journal the Cloncurry. The channel making a sudden turn. Wills remarked that it might be a new river. “If it should prove so,” said Burke, “we will call it after my old friend Lord Cloncurry.”

 

In crossing Billy’s Creek the horse got bogged in a quicksand, and was with difficulty rescued. They came again on blacks, who shuffled off, and near their fire was a fine hut, the best they had ever seen, built on the same principle as those at Cooper’s Creek, but much larger and more complete. Hundreds of wild geese, plovers, and pelicans were enjoying themselves in the watercourses on the marshes, the water of which was too brackish to be drunk. They then soon came to a channel through which the sea-water entered. Here they passed three blacks, who pointed out unasked the best way down. Next morning they started at daybreak for the sea, leaving the horse behind short hobbled. Here Wills’ diary, from which I have been quoting, abruptly ends, and was not resumed until the 19th February, when they had already started on their fatal homeward journey. Burke did not keep any regular journal, but in his notes, under date of the 28th March, 1861, he says: “At the conclusion of the report it would be as well to say that we reached the sea, but could not obtain a view of the open ocean, although we made every endeavour to do so.” There is no doubt whatever that the two explorers reached the verge of the northern ocean.*

 

* In the account of McKinlay’s Expedition from Adelaide, in August, 1861, it is mentioned that when he, in the following February, found himself on the Gulf of Carpentaria, dense walls of mangrove barred his way to the shore, and there can he little doubt that it was the same obstacle which prevented Burke and Wills from viewing the open sea.

 

Having thus accomplished the grand object of their expedition Burke and Wills rejoined Gray and King, where they had left them with the camels, and the four proceeded together on the return journey on the 13th February. Wills’ notes on their scamper back to Cooper’s Creek are brief but powerful. An incessant rainfall made the country boggy, and added to their troubles. On the 2nd March, at Salt-bush Camp, they found Golah, the camel which they had been obliged to leave behind on the outward journey. It was thin and miserable, and had fretted at finding itself left behind, but began to eat as soon as it saw the other camels.

 

On 5th March Burke became ill from eating part of a large snake which they had killed, and poor Golah, being completely done up, and unable to come on, even when pack and saddle were taken off, had to be finally left behind. On 13th March it rained so heavily that Wills had to put his watch and field-book in the pack to keep them dry. All the creeks became flooded, and the poor travellers had to seek shelter under some fallen rocks. Their journey was now slow, as they had to keep on the stony ridge instead of following the flats, which were very boggy owing to the rain. On the 20th they commenced to lighten the loads of the camels by leaving 60 lbs. weight of things behind. Rain continued to fall in torrents, and the ground they passed over was at times either full of water or covered with slimy mud. The names given to some of their camps by Wills – viz., “Humid Camp”, “Muddy Camp”, “Mosquito Camp”, show some of the trials they had to encounter. Gray, who had been complaining of dysentery, stole some of the flour, and was punished by Burke. Five days after this (March 30th) the camel Boocha was killed for food at a place which by gentle irony they called “Boocha’s Rest”; and on the 10th April the horse, which was reduced and knocked up from want of food, was killed also. Down to the 17th nothing very noteworthy is recorded.

 

On that day – the beginning of the end – Wills records the death of Gray, whom the others had thought to be shamming. The survivors sorrowfully buried him in the lonely bush: they were so weak that it was with difficulty they could dig a grave sufficiently deep to lay him in. After a day’s delay to rest their wearied limbs they pushed on, but in a most exhausted state, straining every nerve to reach the goal of their arduous labours, their legs almost paralysed, so that it was a trying task to walk a few yards. Four days afterwards they were cheered by the sight of the familiar landmarks of their old camp at Cooper’s Creek. King describes in vivid language the delight of Burke when he thought he saw the depot camp. “There they are!” he shouted. “I see them.” But, alas! the wish was father to the thought. There was no one there. Lost and bewildered in amazement, he appeared like one stupefied when the horrible truth that the camp had been deserted burst upon him. He was quite overwhelmed, and flung himself on the ground broken-hearted. Wills looked about him in all directions, and presently turning to King said, “They are gone”, and pointing a short way off added, “There are the things they have left.” Calm and quiet as ever, he never once, as King testified, showed the slightest anger or loss of command of himself.

 

On a tree was marked “Dig 21st April”, and from under it a box was extracted containing provisions, and a bottle with a note from Brahe conveying the mortifying intelligence that he had only seven hours before abandoned the depot, and was encamped fourteen miles away, that he had remained four months at Cooper’s Creek, and that Wright had not turned up with the supplies. The explorers felt that, exhausted as they were, it was useless to attempt to overtake Brahe. They rested for two days, and on the morning of Thursday, April 23rd, Burke, Wills, and King, strengthened by the provisions they had found, resumed their journey. Wills and King were desirous of following their track out from Menindie, but unfortunately Burke preferred striking for the South Australian stations, having heard it positively stated at a meeting of the Royal Society that there were settlers within 100 miles of Cooper’s Creek. Wills deferred to his leader, and so they went to their destruction, making for Adelaide via Mount Hopeless (ominous name). There was, in fact, nothing to commend this route, while everything was in favour of that by the Darling. The one road they knew nothing of, the other was familiar to them, and as a matter of fact the nearest police station on the Adelaide line of march was distant between four and five hundred miles. Before starting Wills’ journals were buried in the cache, with the following note from Burke:

 

“Depot No. 2, Cooper’s Creek Camp, 65.

“The return party from Carpentaria, consisting of myself, Wills, and King (Grey dead), arrived here last night and found that the depot party had only started on the same day. We proceed on to-morrow, slowly down the creek towards Adelaide by Mount Hopeless, and shall endeavour to follow Gregory’s track; but we are very weak. The two camels are done up, and we shall not be able to travel faster than four or five miles a day. Grey died on the road from exhaustion and fatigue. We have all suffered much from hunger. The provisions left here will, I think, restore our strength. We have discovered a practicable route to Carpentaria, the chief position of which lies in the 140° of east longitude. There is some good country between this and the Stony Desert. From thence to the tropics the land is dry and stony. Between the Carpentaria a considerable portion is rangy, but well watered and richly grassed. We reached the shores of Carpentaria on the 11th of February, 1861. Greatly disappointed at finding the party here gone.

 

“(Signed) Robert O’Hara Burke, Leader.

“April 22nd, 1861.

“P.S. – The camels cannot travel, and we cannot walk, or we should follow the other party. We shall move very slowly down the creek.”

 

By slow stages the doomed explorers moved on day by day through what was little better than a desert. The second and third days they came upon some friendly blacks, who gave them fish. On 28th April one of the two remaining camels got bogged by the side of a water hole, and it being impossible to get him out, he was shot the next day, his flesh providing them with food. On May 7th the remaining camel would not rise even without any load on its back, and after making every attempt to get him up they had to leave him to himself. Burke and Wills then went down the creek to reconnoitre, and fortunately fell in with some blacks fishing, who gave them food and took them to their camp, where they passed two nights. Some days after, being pressed for food, several excursions were made to find the blacks again, but without success. On May 17th, however, King unexpectedly came upon the nardoo plant, the seed of which is powdered by the natives and baked into a cake. This discovery raised their spirits, as they considered that with this food they would be able to support themselves, even if they had to remain on the creek and wait for assistance from town. On 27th May Wills started alone to the depot at Cooper’s Creek to see if any relief had arrived.

 

Brahe – who, it will be remembered, deserted his post at the depot only seven hours before the wearied explorers returned there – fell in with Wright’s party at Balloo on his way to the Darling on the 28th or 29th April, and on the 3rd May Wright started with him for the depot, which they actually reached on the 9th. It seemed fated, however, that blunder should succeed blunder, for here they remained but a quarter of an hour, and casting but a hurried glance around came to the conclusion that the depot had not been visited in the interval, and with fatal and criminal neglect never even opened the cache. Had they done so the papers and letters deposited would have been found, and all would yet have been well. Wills, who had met natives on the way, and been given food by them, arrived at Cooper’s Creek on this return visit on the 30th May, and naturally enough failed to discover it had been re-visited by Wright and Brahe, who had left no record behind them. He opened the cache, buried the remainder of his journal and letters, with the following touching note:–

 

“Depot Camp, May 30th.

“We have been unable to leave the creek. Both camels are dead, and our provisions are exhausted. Mr. Burke and King are down the lower part of the creek. I am about to return to them, when we shall probably come up this way. We are trying to live the best way we can, like the blacks, but find it hard work. Our clothes are going to pieces fast. Send provisions and clothes as soon as possible.

“W. J. Wills.”

 

“The depot party having left contrary to instructions, has put us in this fix. I have deposited some of my journals here for fear of accident. “W. J. W.”

 

Wills then started to rejoin Burke and King. He received kindly assistance on the way from the blacks, and rejoined his companions on 6th June. His diary which he continued to keep was brief but expressive. They had little but nardoo to live upon, and though it allayed the pangs of hunger, it contained little nourishment; the poor fellows were literally starving to death. In his diary under date of 21st June Wills says:–

 

“I feel much weaker than ever, and can scarcely crawl out of the mia-mia. Unless relief comes in some form or other I cannot possibly last more than a fortnight. It is a great consolation at least, in this position of ours, to know that we have done all we could, and that our deaths were rather be the result of the mismanagement of others than of any rash act of our own. Had we come to grief elsewhere, we could only have blamed ourselves; but here we are returned to Cooper’s Creek, where we had every reason to look for provisions and clothing, and yet have to die of starvation, in spite of the explicit instructions given by Mr. Burke, that the depot party should await our return, and the strong recommendation by the Committee ‘that we should be followed up by a party from Menindie.'”

 

He suffered much from cold, his clothing was reduced to a wide awake, a merino shirt, a regatta shirt without sleeves, the remains of a pair of flannel trousers, two pairs of socks in rags, and a waistcoat. Wills finding his weakness increasing, it was resolved that Burke and King, as the only chance of saving the party, should go in search of natives, and having collected and pounded sufficient nardoo seed to last Wills for eight days, they constructed a rude shelter of boughs for him, placed water and firewood within his reach, and took a sorrowful farewell of him, Wills giving Burke a letter and his watch for his father, and telling King if he survived Burke to carry out his last wishes. In a postscript to this letter Wills says, “I think to live about four or five days. My spirits are excellent.” On the 29th June Wills made his last entry in his diary, shewing that he maintained his calmness of spirit and resignation to the last.

 

“Friday, 29th June, 1861. — Clear, cold night; slight breeze from the east; day beautifully warm and pleasant. Mr. Burke suffers greatly from the cold, and is getting extremely weak. He and King start to-morrow up the creek to look for the blacks; it is the only chance we have of being saved from starvation. I am weaker than ever, although I have a good appetite, and relish the nardoo much; but it seems to give us no nutriment, and the birds here are so shy as not to be got at. Even if we got a good supply of fish, I doubt whether we could do much work on them and the nardoo alone. Nothing now but the greatest good luck can save any of us; and as for myself I may live four or five days if the weather continues warm. My pulse is at forty-eighty and very weak, and my legs and arms are nearly skin and bone. I can only look out, like Mr. Micawber, ‘for something to turn up.’ Starvation on nardoo is by no means very unpleasant, but for the weakness one feels, and the utter inability to move one’s self; for as far as the appetite is concerned it gives the greatest satisfaction. Certainly fat and sugar would be more to one’s taste; in fact, those seem to me to be the great stand-by for one in this extraordinary continent – not that I mean to depreciate the farinaceous food, but the want of sugar and fat in all substances obtainable here is so great that they become almost valueless to us as articles of food without the addition of something else.

 

(Signed) “W. J. Wills.”

 

We are now, alas ! nearing the end of this ill-fated expedition. Burke and King had not travelled many miles when, on the second day from leaving Wills, Burke gave in from sheer weakness, and died early the next morning. King remained two days to recover strength, and then returned to where they had left Wills, taking back with him three crows he had shot, and nardoo he had discovered, and was shocked to find Wills lying dead in his gunwah, where he would appear to have sunk quietly to rest, but in utter loneliness, a few hours after Burke and King had left him. King buried the corpse with sand, and remained there some days prostrated at the death of his companions, and at being left alone in the vast wilderness. The nardoo running short, and being unable to gather it, he tracked some of the natives by their footprints in the sand, and eventually fell in with a number of them, who were kindly disposed, and so was preserved from the fate of his companions.

 

The Exploration Committee at Melbourne seem by their supineness to have helped on the final catastrophe. Although informed of the criminal delay of Wright at Menindie, they took no steps to urge his departure from there. Dr. Wills, our hero’s father, unable to bear the suspense in the month of June, walked with a small pack on his shoulders, and a stick in his hand, from Ballarat to Melbourne, a distance of seventy-five miles, and his energetic appeals led to a search party, under Mr. A. W. Howitt, being sent out.

 

Two of the three camels lost on one of the excursions at Cooper’s Creek on the way out were discovered in South Australia and brought to Adelaide. News of this reaching Melbourne excited the interest of the public, and doubtless contributed to the awakened energy of the Committee. In connection with this Mr. Fabyan Amery has contributed a strange and interesting story. He tells me that a Mr. James Wills, who had been a servant at the Ashburton Grammar School, in special attendance upon the boarders, whilst Wills was a pupil there, was, in 1861, residing with his wife, whom he had married in the Colony, on the banks of the Murray river; and one morning Mrs. Wills, casting her eyes around the horizon, spied in the far distance two animals, which with quick feminine decision she declared to be camels. This she mentioned to her husband, who ridiculed the idea, as no camels were ever known in Australia. She persisted in her opinion, and started towards them to satisfy her curiosity. Sure enough they proved to be two camels, undoubtedly two of those who had escaped from the ill-fated expedition, and which, with the wonderful instinct of their species, had sniffed the water at a great distance, and in an almost exhausted state were making for the river. Mrs. Wills went up to them, when the youngest came and ate out of her hand. Her husband immediately gave information to the police, which he understood was forwarded to the Governor of Victoria, and which he always believed led to the despatch of the Relief Expedition. Howitt started early in July, 1861, taking Brahe with him, who had come down with Wright’s despatches, and made all speed to Cooper’s Creek. On 13th September he arrived at the fatal depot, and on the 15th King was discovered sitting in a hut which the natives had made for him. He presented a melancholy appearance, wasted to a shadow, and only distinguishable as a civilized being by the remnants of clothes upon him. As soon as King was well enough to accompany them the relief party proceeded down to the place where Wills died. The remains were found, carefully collected, and interred where they lay, Howitt reading that sublime chapter – 1 Corinthians xi. – and cutting the following inscription on a tree close by to mark the spot:

 

W. J. WILLS

XLV Yds

W.N.W.

A. H.

 

Burke’s remains were subsequently discovered and buried, wrapped in a Union Jack. Howitt then returned to Melbourne, taking King with him. He subsequently went back again, disinterred the remains of Burke and Wills, and brought them to Melbourne, where, after lying solemnly in state, they were accorded a public funeral, and so –

 

“After life’s fitful fever they sleep well.”

 

No one who has read the simple records of this great expedition, with all its blunders – so successful as far as its great object was concerned, but so fatal as regards the precious lives of the explorers – but must admire the character, actions, and quiet heroism of Wills. None of the blunders which led to the disaster which befell the Expedition are traceable to him. Throughout the toilsome journey he maintained his quiet, equable temperament. Loyal to his leader he deferred to his wishes, never complained of or reflected on others, continued and carefully recorded his scientific observations to the last, and laid himself down to die in utter loneliness in the vast wilderness with perfect resignation and calmness, as if he were but falling asleep in his father’s arms; and “his works do follow him”; for they opened up the way to the march of civilization, and have been rich in results. The greater part of the country he explored is now in a state of cultivation, with homesteads containing prosperous settlers in all directions, and so early as 1867 a stage coach was running not many miles from where he and Burke laid down their lives. The testimony of the colonists to Wills was on all sides that of admiration for his devoted heroism, appreciation of the scientific results achieved by him, and deep regret at the sacrifice of his young and promising life.

 

Sir Henry Barkly, the Governor of Victoria, in a letter to his mother, said of Wills: “You may rely upon it that the name of William John Wills will go down to posterity, both at home and in this colony, amongst the brightest of those who have sacrificed their lives for the advancement of scientific knowledge and the good of their fellow-creatures.” Dr. Mueller, of the Melbourne Botanical Gardens, who as a tribute to his memory named a new plant in the Australian Flora Eremophila Willsii, “to record by botany the glory never to be forgotten of the intrepid and talented but most unfortunate Wills”, maintained that it was only by his skilful guidance and scientific talents that the great geographic success of the expedition was achieved.

 

A portion of the city was directed to be thereafter named Wills Street by order of the Governor. A massive obelisk was erected to the memory of the two martyrs in the cemetery where they were buried; and on April 21st, 1866, a monument raised to them by the Victorian Legislature at a cost of £4,000, consisting of a statue of each of these two distinguished explorers, was unveiled by the Governor in Collins Street, one of the principal thoroughfares of Melbourne. The day chosen for the ceremony was the fourth anniversary of the return of Burke and Wills to Cooper’s Creek, and their surviving companion King was present on the occasion, which to him must have been one of mingled sorrow and pleasure.

 

Wills was not forgotten in his native town. The inhabitants, aided by the contributions of Devonshire men in Australia, erected a granite obelisk on the plains containing this inscription:Inscription on obelisk to W. J. Wills in Totnes

And though more than thirty years have passed since his death Wills is not forgotten in the colony; for only last year one of the colonists from Devon, Mr. Angel, who returned from South Australia on a visit to Totnes, and to his native parish of Littlehempstone, finding the inscription on the memorial becoming obliterated had it renewed on a tablet of white marble let into the granite,* that the coming race may not be unmindful of the patient and courageous life and heroic death of this Devonshire hero, the martyred Wills.

 

* Since this paper was written Mr. F. Horn, marble mason, of Totnes, has executed a successful medallion of Wills, which has been let into the obelisk above the tablet."

 

devonassoc.org.uk/devoninfo/wills-the-australian-explorer...