Eric Provoost

Le bain turc (d'après Ingres)

Sint-Gilliskerk (Saint-Gillis church) in the Sint-Gillis Quarter of Bruges, in Flanders, Belgium.

 

Around 1240, the Saint-Gillis church was built as an auxiliary chapel of the parish of Our Lady. No data has been stored on the view of the first church. Possibly she was of wood. In 1258 the Saint-Gillis church was already mentioned as a parish church. It was not until 1311 that the parish became independent and the adjoining cemetery, which disappeared in the 19th century, was dedicated. Meanwhile, the first church building was replaced by a basilical church, inspired by the Scheldt Gothic.

 

Four pillars in Tournai limestone and the old window area of the central aisle were preserved. Some parts of the current transept are still 13th-century. Between 1462 and 1479 the second church was extended to a pseudo church church. Until today, little has changed in this form. Hall churches are typical of the brick Gothic of the coastal region.

 

During the 15th and 16th centuries, a number of important artists, including Hans Memling, Jan Provoost , Lanceloot Blondeel , Pieter Pourbus and the Claeissens family, found their final resting place in and around the church. There are no more leftovers from their graves.

 

From the middle of the 17th century, the church was adapted to the taste of the baroque. In 1750 the tower was raised on one floor, with the four corner turrets on the second floor being demolished. The Sint-Gilliskerk was then used for demolition several times, but was always spared, despite the poor condition in which it was wrong. At the end of the 19th century, the building underwent a thorough neo-Gothic restoration led by the Ghent architect Auguste Van Assche. This restoration is particularly noticeable in the interior.

 

The most important piece of art inside is the so-called ' Veelluik van Hemelsdale', with scenes from the life of Jesus, by Pieter Pourbus. There are also paintings from, among others, Jacob Van Oost and Jan Garemijn and numerous other works of art.

 

Musée du Louvre Paris

Jan Provoost (Mons 1462-Bruges 1529, oil on panel, 119.7 x 78.5 and 119.8 x 78.8 cm. Bruges, Musea Brugge, Groeningenmuseum. Allegory galore!!! 21st Century banks/bankers/banking???

 

Like Minds @ Social Media Week 13-17 Feb 2012

Photography by Harry Duns (www.harryduns.com)

 

Event 4: Social Business Immersive

 

Wednesday, February 15 at 8:30 AM – 12:30 PM

 

Since the inception of the web there has been a huge change in how media is produced and consumed, and how organisations have built new ways of doing business online. And now, at the forefront of this evolution is social media – a phenomenon that is no longer being used by the few but by the many, and which must now be considered as an integral part of any business strategy. And yet, social media is not just changing how businesses market themselves and communicate with their audiences, it is revolutionising the way businesses are having to think and operate.

 

Speakers include:

 

JP Rangaswami, Salesforce; Jon Ingham, Strategic-HCM; Euan Semple, Consultant; Joanne Jacobs, Strategy Consultant; Neville Hobson, FIR; Delphine Remy-Boutang, IBM; Lee Provoost, Dachis Group

(Aelst 1502–1550 Brussels)

The Adoration of the Magi,

oil on panel, 112 x 75 cm, framed

 

Provenance:

with Lambert J. Nieuwenhuys, Brussels;

Willem II, King of the Netherlands (1792-1849), acquired from L. J. Nieuwenhuys, December 1840, for Hfl. 3.300 (as Lucas van Leyden);

sale, De Vries, Roos & Brondgees, Collection King Wilhelm II, Gothic Hall, Royal Palace, The Hague, 12-20 August 1850, lot 45 (as Lucas van Leyden);

acquired after the sale by Willem Frederik Karel, Prince of the Netherlands (1797-1881), younger brother of King Willem II;

by descent to his daughter Wilhelmina Frederika Anna Elisabeth Maria (1841-1910), Princess of Wied, Princess of the Netherlands, Neuwied;

by descent to her elder son Friedrich Wilhelm Hermann Otto Karl, Prince of Wied (1872-1945), Neuwied;

by descent to his wife, Pauline Olga Helene Emma, Princess of Wied, Princess of Württemberg (1877-1965);

after her death offered for sale by her descendants;

sale, Sotheby’s, London, 5 July 1967, lot 10 (as the Master of 1518, to Hollstein for £ 6.500);

Private collection, Germany

 

Exhibited:

Düsseldorf, Kunsthistorische Ausstellung, 1904, pp. 77-78, no. 185 (as Herri met de Bles; at the time with monogram L and date 1525 which were later additions)

 

Literature:

C. J. Nieuwenhuys, Description de la Galerie des tableaux de S. M. Le Roi des Pays-Bas, avec quelques remarques sur l’histoire des peintres et sur le progress de l’art, Brussels 1843, pp. 101-104, no. 40;

M. J. Friedländer, Die Altniederländische Malerei, Die Antwerpener Manieristen, Adriaen Ysenbrandt, Berlin 1933, vol. XI, p. 124, no. 92 (as ‘Der Meister von 1518. Oben dreieckig, ursprünglich wohl geschweift. Falsch signiert L. Die Komposition ist mehrmals kopiert worden’);

M. J. Friedländer, Early Netherlandish Painting, 1974, vol. XI, p. 76, no. 92, pl. 85 (as Master of 1518);

E. Hinterding, F. Horsch, ‘A small but choice collection’, The Art Gallery of King Willem II of the Netherlands (1792-1849), Zwolle 1989, pp. 20, note 65, 43, note 178, 69, no. 45 (as Master of 1518)

 

The present Adoration of the Magi is a newly-attributed early masterpiece by the Flemish Renaissance polymath Pieter Coecke van Aelst. Painted around 1523, it may be seen as a crowning achievement of the young journeyman, then working in the Antwerp studio of the Master of 1518. Originally conceived for a private oratory or chapel, the high quality of the painted surface and the intricate underdrawing, revealed by infrared reflectography, place the present composition among the finest representations of this biblical subject in early modern Flanders. Coecke’ s marriage of empirical observation with his reception of Romanic styles later saw him lauded also for his designs of tapestries, stained glass, woodcuts, decorations and goldwork. Noted by contemporaries and early art historians, Lodovico Guicciardini called him ‘great’. Georg Braun described him as ‘most excellent’ and in 1604 Karel van Mander celebrated him as ‘ingenious and knowledgeable’ (see E. Cleland, Grand Design: Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Renaissance Tapestry, New York, 2014, p. 2).

 

We are grateful to Peter van den Brink for attributing the present painting to Pieter Coecke van Aelst, and for his assistance in cataloguing this lot.

 

The Genesis of the Adoration of the Magi

 

The painting has been fully documented with the aid of infrared reflectography (IRR). The IRR displays the underdrawings of the composition, applied with brush and black paint on what appears to be a layer of lead white on top of the ground. The underdrawings are clearly freehanded, applied with brille and energy. All the figures in the foreground were prepared in detail, with elegant, meandering contour lines; the shadows were prepared in advance by means of hatching, parallel strokes, as well as some limited cross-hatching for the deeper shadows. The figures in the middle ground are only loosely sketched in preparation and the figures in the back not at all; they were only added during the paint stage. It is a system that was used again and again in early 16th century Antwerp painters’ studios and we encounter this type of underdrawing not only with the Master of 1518, but also with the so-called Master of the Antwerp Adoration, Adriaen van Overbeke and Jan de Beer. The absence of underdrawing for the brocade and other decorative motifs, visible in the finished painting, was also typical of early 16th century Antwerp painters’ studios.

 

A close examination of the painting and the underlying drawing reveals the various changes the painter of the Adoration of the Magi carried through. Many of these corrections have to do with small shifts in the position of hands or faces, clearly meant to improve and finalize the composition. The Christ Child itself is a good example to demonstrate this. The underdrawing shows that the right hand was directed more towards the kneeling Caspar, whereas Christ’s left hand had already disappeared inside the golden cup. In painting the scene, the artist decided to show a more restrained Christ Child, since greed is hardly a virtue. At the lower right of the composition the entrance to the Nativity Grotto is visible. In the first arrangement of our Adoration of the Magi, it appears that a ladder was foreseen to the left of the cave entrance, a rather puzzling idea that was abandoned in favour of the present stone staircase. The Geburtshöhle, as it is called in German, is a recurring motif in Christian iconography that was especially popular in early 16th century painting and it occurs in almost every single Antwerp Adoration of the time, as can be witnessed in the various examples that were painted by Jan de Beer and his contemporaries.

 

The most dramatic change in the composition, however, is to be found in the upper right portion of the painting’s architectural setting. Hanging from a ring set into the arch’s tracery, the artist had planned to paint a decorative festoon, held by two putti on either side, at the entrance of the vaulted gateway. While the ring and putti were repositioned, playing an extraordinary act of pantomime, the festoon never reached the painted stage. It is quite likely that the idea of a painted festoon was abandoned in favour of an enlarged tower.

 

The present type of underdrawing is most certainly comparable with the handwriting of the Master of 1518, visible in the Lübeck altarpiece, its predella panels in Stuttgart, the Crucifixion triptych in the Holy Blood-Museum in Bruges and the Marriage of the Virgin in St. Louis. However, although the drawings may be comparable, both in function and in method, they differ stylistically and appear not to be by the same hand. The lines of the Lübeck and Bruges underdrawings are a type of highly finished underdrawing that looks like a woodcut in its fixed pattern of parallel- and cross-hatching for the modeling of forms and system of lighting throughout the composition. Employed by other Antwerp Mannerist artists this style of underdrawing is commonly referred to as the ‘woodcut convention’ (see M. W. Ainsworth, Pieter Coecke van Aelst as a Panel Painter, in: E. Cleland a. o., Grand Design. Pieter Coecke van Aelst and Renaissance Tapestry, exhibition catalogue, New York 2014, p. 26). Indeed, this very specific type of underdrawing is reminiscent of Dürer woodcuts, where the linear quality and flat two-dimensional approach are in the forefront, creating a clearly readable pattern for assistants to take up the task of painting in the various elements of the composition. Quite often such a pattern is the result of the use of a cartoon, followed by tracing the lines in brush and black paint. In the Lübeck altarpiece underdrawing and painting seem to be two different sides of the coin, two separate parts of the genesis of the altarpiece, not necessarily executed by the same artist.

 

The underdrawing of the Adoration of the Magi differs stylistically from the Lübeck altarpiece, and more importantly, seems to part of one single process, from the hand of a single artist. As can be judged from the preparation of the greyish white cloak of the black magus Balthasar, the underdrawing has been applied with a swift brush, searching for the right contour lines and volume. This creative energy in the underdrawing phase differs fundamentally with the finished underdrawing in the ‘woodcut convention,’ that has been prepared with the painted composition in mind. When the Adoration of the Magi is compared with the various painted scenes of the Lübeck Altarpiece, there can hardly be any doubt that our painter was trained in the studio of the Master of 1518, whoever he may have been. The colour pattern is strikingly similar and so are the elongated figures, for example Balthasar with his counterpart in the Lübeck Adoration of the Magi. The elegant dancing step of our Balthasar was quite literally replicated from the figure on the extreme left of the Betrothal of the Virgin, next to the young Joseph. The decorative architectural backdrop is evidently based on the examples of the Master of 1518, visible in the Lübeck Altarpiece and even the festoon, held by two putti, as was initially planned for the Adoration, is visible in paint in the background of the Betrothal of the Virgin. However, the figures of the Master of 1518 show his preference for a two-dimensional presentation, as can be seen in its most extreme form in the Magdalene of the Crucifixion triptych in the Holy Blood Museum in Bruges. By contrast, the painter of the Adoration of the Magi placed his figures in different planes of the composition and tried to give them more volume and plasticity. That he did not succeed everywhere can be regarded as a token of his lack of experience.

 

The young Pieter Coecke in the Studio of the Master of 1518

 

The Adoration of the Magi is in fact a youthful work by Pieter Coecke van Aelst, who probably finished his training with Bernard van Orley in Brussels, before he came to Antwerp, where he married Anna van Dornicke, before 1526 and became a citizen of Antwerp automatically. In 1527 he would enroll into the Guild of Saint Luke as a free master and started his own workshop. The Adoration of the Magi no doubt was produced when Coecke was still active as assistant or journeyman in the studio of the Master of 1518 and therefore remains within the broad stylistic contours of the older painter. A date between 1522 and 1527 therefore seems most likely, like several other paintings that have been discussed recently within the same context, such as a triptych with the Adoration of the Magi in the collection of Hester Diamond, New York, Christ carrying the Cross in the Basel Kunstmuseum and Christ taking leave of his mother in Glasgow Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum. The triptych with the Adoration of the Magi in New York lends itself perfectly well to a detailed stylistic comparison. That work of art is probably the earliest of the four mentioned, slightly earlier than our painting with the same subject. The architecture, the vistas, the use of plans and especially the facial types are interchangeable in such a way that it is safe to assume the same painter at work here. The facial type and even the slightly sad expression of Melchior, to the right of our Adoration, is literally repeated in the figure of the High Priest in the The Presentation of Christ in the Temple. The present Virgin with her downcast eyes finds herself repeated in her counterpart on the left wing of the New York altarpiece and the young man with the trumpet has taken the guise of an angel. The paintings in Glasgow and Basel appear to have been painted slightly later, circa 1525-26 and show how the young painter developed in such a short period. An example of which can be seen in the complicated composition of the Basel picture, with the enormous dynamic of the figures engaged in the procession, far removed from Coecke’s beginnings with the Master of 1518.

A Royal Provenance

 

The present Adoration of the Magi has a royal provenance. Between 1840 and 1850 it was part of the collection of King William II of the Netherlands. William started collecting long before he would occupy the throne in October 1840; he bought his first paintings in 1815 or 1816, when the Dutch Royal Family still used Brussels as a part-time residence. His first collection was largely destroyed when a fire broke out in the right wing of the Brussels palace where the young prince resided. In 1823 he acquired an important group of Early Netherlandish paintings from the art dealer L.J. Nieuwenhuys. By the end of 1823 he had amassed a collection of nearly fifty paintings, thirty-seven of which were characterized as ‘Gothic’, including masterpieces by Van Eyck, Memling, Van der Weyden and Simon Marmion. William’s love for ‘Flemish Primitives’ was probably fed by the fact that he felt more at home in the Roman Catholic south than the Protestant north, and he spent much of his time in the palace at Brussels.15th and 16th century sacred works became widely available in Europe under the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Nieuwenhuys family dominated this art market in the Rhineland where the ‘Säkularisation’ of 1802 made altarpieces – usually fragmented – accessible to art collectors. Combined with the ‘rediscovery’ of the Flemish primitives this led to a burgeoning enthusiasm for the collecting of early German and Netherlandish art.

 

Following the Belgian revolution, William’s collection in Brussels was held hostage until 1840, when he had succeeded his father as King of the Netherlands. Shortly after William’s accession, he acquired the present Adoration of the Magi from Lambert J. Nieuwenhuys, for 3300 guilders. This sale was recorded (with the panel at that time being listed as a work by Lucas van Leyden) in an annotated copy of the 1840 auction catalogue, formerly owned by the treasurer of the King’s estate, now in the archives of the RKD. In 1842, the present panel was hung in the newly built Gothic Hall, behind the Kneuterdijk Palace in The Hague, which was specifically built for William’s collection. In a watercolour of the interior of the Gothic Hall, made by Huib van Hove in 1842, the present panel with its typical shape and the frame it still had in the twentieth century, can be found in the right-hand corner in the back, next to Jan Provoost’s The Virgin Mary in Glory, now conserved in the Hermitage, St Petersburg (inv. no. ГЭ-417).

 

When the King’s collection was auctioned after his death in 1850, the ‘Gothic’ pictures accounted for one third of the sale, among them the present Coecke van Aelst work (with regard to the background or the circumstances of the sale, see Hinterding/Horsch 1989, pp. 38-45; of its content, ibid., pp. 55-114). Several pictures did not find a buyer, probably due to the high reserves, including the Adoration of the Magi. The painting was subsequently sold for the reserve price to Prince Frederik, the younger brother of the deceased William II, together with nineteen other old master paintings, including the Simon Marmion and the triptych of the Heereman family by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen, conserved at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. Subsequently the Adoration of the Magi remained in Neuwied in the Rhineland for nearly a century, where Frederik’s daughter Marie resided after she married the Prince of Wied. The painting stayed in Frederik’s family until it was offered for sale in 1967. After the sale, the painting remained in private German hands and has now surfaced for the first time since 1967.

 

When the present picture was exhibited at the Kunsthistorische Ausstellung in Düsseldorf in 1904, it was wrongfully attributed to Herri met de Bles. This was, however, a misconceived suggestion that the painting was of the same hand as the Adoration of the Magi in the Alte Pinakothek, Munich, who was later re-named Pseudo Bles, due to the fact that the original attribution was based on a falsified signature. This Bles-group remained a ‘name of convenience’ for a long time, until Friedländer brought some order in the staggering amount of anonymous triptychs, fragments from compound altarpieces and devotional pictures that were made in the first quarter of the sixteenth century in Antwerp (see M. J. Friedländer, Die altniederländische Malerei, vol. XI, Die Antwerpener Manieristen. Adriaen Ysenbrant, Berlin 1933). It was Friedländer who gave the present Adoration of the Magi to the Master of 1518. The Master of 1518 was identified, and named from the large altarpiece of the Life of the Virgin in Our Lady’s Church in Lübeck, which is placed within a chapel that bears the inscription ‘1518.‘ With this altarpiece Friedländer grouped many pictures that shared the same stylistic features.

 

Conclusion

 

The Adoration of the Magi is the centre panel of a triptych, from which the wings, as so often, were separated in the past. The original shape of the top of the panel was altered as well. It most likely would have been comparable to the central Adoration of the Hester Diamond triptych, in its original form. The separation of the centre panel and wings as well as the altered shape, a frequent practice of late 18th and early 19th centuries, occurred before the sale of the panel to King William II, evidenced in the watercolor of the 1840s. The high quality of the painted surface as well as the typical underdrawing were the work of the young Pieter Coecke van Aelst, at the time he was still producing paintings as a journeyman in the Antwerp studio of the Master of 1518. The painting can be dated to circa 1523, in-between the Hester Diamond Adoration triptych and the Basel Christ carrying the Cross and is a significant addition the Flemish polymath’s early oeuvre.

 

Technical analysis by Gianluca Poldi:

 

Many non-invasive spectroscopic measures were carried out to study the pigments. The artist chose azurite as the only blue, used together with lead white in different proportions for the sky, the mountains, the various blue clothes including the deep blue of the Virgin Mary’s cloak. The same mineral pigment was employed, together with red lake, to obtain grey-purple tones of some garments. A cobalt blue pigment constitutes the modern integrations in the sky.

 

All the green areas are made with verdigris (copper acetate), mixed with lead white or lead-tin yellow to achieve brighter colours. This yellow was used alone in the lights of the tree foliage, in light yellow clothes and in many objects to imitate gold, while shadows are obtained with yellow and brown ochre.

Bright, intense red clothes are based on vermillion, shadowed with red lake. A good quality coccid-derived red lake was used in many areas, such as the Virgin’s red dress and the outer part of Caspar’s ermine mantle.

Tottenville, Staten Island, New York City, New York

 

Constructed between 1869 and 1874, the James L .and Lucinda Bedell House is a fine example of the free-standing Second-Empire style residence and, until it was altered in March 2005, was the best preserved house in the style on Staten Island’s South Shore. Second Empire houses once proliferated on the South Shore, where the popularity of the style coincided with a period of growth tied to the opening of the Staten Island Railroad, but they are now becoming increasingly rare. Designed in what was at the time a very up-to-date version of the style, the Bedell House was handsomely proportioned and carefully detailed.

 

It is the only architecturally distinguished Second Empire frame house in Tottenville that retains its historic form and clapboard siding, The house features such historic details as molded window surrounds, cornices, scrolled brackets, and a two-story polygonal bay enriched by recessed panels and molded cornices. The imposing flared mansard roof that extends over the main portion of the house has segmental arched dormers with molded hoods. The rear two-story wing has a low gabled roof capped by a molded cornice.

 

James Bedell was part of a prominent family that settled on Staten Island in the eighteenth century. His eldest brother, Isaac P. Bedell, was one of the island’s leading carpenter-builders and the founder of the oldest surviving undertaking business in New York City, established in 1841. James Bedell was also a carpenter and cabinet maker and by the 1870s, when this house was built, specialized in making window blinds and sash. It seems likely that he or his brother Isaac was responsible for the design and construction of this house.

 

By the 1890s James Bedell also established an undertaking business and this house began to be used as a funeral home. In the 1920s, it was acquired by architect Chester Abram Cole. A leader in the architectural profession on Staten Island, Cole was associated with the nationally prominent firm of Carrère & Hastings prior to entering the firm of the well-known Staten Island architect James Whitford. Cole is probably best known for his work in restoring the Conference House, a designated New York City Landmark. The Bedell House remained in residential use until 2005.

 

Shortly prior to and after the building was calendared for public hearing on March 29, 2005, the owner removed historic fabric and details.

 

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS

 

History of Tottenville

 

Tottenville is located at the southwestern tip of Staten Island at the most southerly point in New York City and New York State. It was an important habitation and burial site for many Native Americans whose remains have been found in abundance at Ward’s Point. The first European settler, Captain Christopher Billopp, an English naval officer, received a patent for 932 acres from the Duke of York in 1688. Billopp built a two-story stone house overlooking Raritan Bay around 1675. In 1687, Billopp’s plantation was enlarged to 1,600 acres and given the title “Bentley Manor.” By 1700, he had begun operating a ferry across the Arthur Kill to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, part of the land and water route that once connected New York City and Philadelphia. Billopp’s heirs, who had actively supported the British during the Revolution, lost this huge property when it was confiscated by State of New York following the war. Partitioned and sold, the former Billopp property continued to be used largely for farming as well as a base for fishing and related maritime activities. Gradually a hamlet formed around the ferry landing and Amboy Road, the path leading to it, and scattered houses were built along the shore. This settlement soon came to be known as Tottenville, after a prominent family that had erected a wharf, Totten’s Landing, and were instrumental in starting Bethel Methodist Church. Tottenville’s “waterfront flourished in the early nineteenth century as freight and passenger boats docked there on their way to Manhattan.” The village became a major center for shipbuilding producing many “vessels of large tonnage” each year. Hundreds of inhabitants were also engaged in the oyster trade. The ferry connections also prompted the development of small summer resorts, restaurants, hotels, and other recreation businesses.

 

In 1860, Tottenville became the western terminus for the new Staten Island Railroad, establishing an important link between the developing village and the rest of the island. This spurred the growth of the commerce in the village. According to the Handbook and Business Directory of Staten Island, published in 1870, “many handsome dwellings and stores” were erected and “evidences of [the village’s] prosperity were visible in all its surroundings.” During the subsequent decade, the Tottenville post office was established and the village was officially incorporated, the only one chartered on the island’s southern and western sections. The village, re-incorporated in 1894, reached a peak of development at the close of the nineteenth century, when many commercial and civic institutions, such as the Tottenville Free Library, several weekly newspapers, the Atlantic Terra Cotta Works , and the Tottenville Copper Company, were established. From the 1870s through much of the twentieth century Tottenville was the largest, most populous, and most cohesive settlement in the southern section of Staten Island and retained its individuality as a suburban village. The Bedell House, erected between 1869 and 1874 is a significant reminder of this period of development. . James L.Bedell, Carpenter and Undertaker

 

James Laforge Bedell , was twelfth of the fifteen children of John Bedell, a farmer, and his wife Susan Pray Bedell. The Bedells were descended from Robert Bedell, an English-born farmer of French Huguenot-ancestry, who settled in Hempstead, Long Island, by 1657. The Staten Island branch of the family was established around 1740 by his grandson Joseph Bedell who married Hannah Dissoway . Joseph and Hannah were probably responsible for building the ancient Bedell homestead which stood in Greenridge until 1897. A number of the Bedells rose to prominence in Staten Island during the eighteenth century. Hannah and Joseph’s grandson Silas Bedell was a physician who practiced on the island in the 1760s. Their descendent John Bedell was the private secretary to Christopher Billopp and a Justice of the Peace in the 1780s. During the nineteenth century, Rev. Gregory Townsend Bedell became a prominent Episcopalian minister and his son Gregory Thurston Bedell served as the rector of the Church of the Ascension in New York City prior to his appointment as the Protestant Episcopal bishop of Ohio. The majority of the Bedells, however, remained on Staten Island living in the vicinity of Greenridge, Pleasant Plains, or Tottenville, where they farmed, were involved in maritime activities, or worked in the building trades, and where they were among the founders of the Methodist churches in Woodrow and Tottenville.

 

John and Susan Bedell’s eldest son, Isaac Pray Bedell chose to become a carpenter. He moved to Tottenville and became one of the village’s leading house builders. Isaac Bedell and a partner Randolph T. Hill built the Edwards-Barton House at 3742 Richmond Road in 1869. He is also credited with the construction of the Greek Revival Style Bethel Methodist Church . As a carpenter, Isaac Bedell was often called on to build coffins. Finding the business extremely lucrative, he formally began calling himself an undertaker in 1841 while still continuing with his building business. Like his brother, James L. Bedell became a carpenter, eventually specializing in making window sash and blinds. In 1856, he married Lucinda Wood, the daughter of Abraham H. Wood, a ship captain who resided in Tottenville.

 

By 1865 he was successful enough to have purchased a small house on Main Street near the houses of his brother and his wife’s parents. Isaac Bedell had a shop directly in back of the Woods’ home, and it is possible that the brothers shared the premises. During this period James seems to have tried his hand at furniture making. By 1870, James had returned to blind and sash making, a business he continued until at least 1880, although like his brother Isaac he also made coffins and was listed in the 1875 New York State census as an undertaker.

 

In 1869, James Bedell purchased the lot on Amboy Road from Mary Ann Garretson, widow of the late Gariet Garretson. Bedell built this house by 1874, when its footprint appeared on the map of Tottenville in Beers Atlas. James L. Bedell occupied the house with his wife Lucinda, daughter Evilina, and son Henry until his death at age eighty-three on January 6, 1917.

 

Around 1892 James Bedell began working full-time as an undertaker. He continued in the profession until shortly before his death. Based on directory listings it seems likely that from the 1890s until 1917, at least a portion of this house was used for his business. During the period “most embalming and reposing took place in the deceased’s residence,” but it seems likely that at least some viewings would have taken place at the house. Bedell also would have had his office in the house.

 

James Bedell’s undertaking business did not continue after his death because his son chose other business opportunities. Isaac Bedell’s firm descended through his branch of the family and continues today as the Bedell-Pizzo Funeral Home, the oldest undertaking business in New York City and one of the two or three oldest in New York State.

 

The Design of the James L. and Lucinda Bedell House

 

The James L. and Lucinda Bedell House is a fine example of a Second-Empire style house and, until it was altered in March 2005 was the best preserved house in the style on Staten Island’s South Shore. An eclectic architectural style based on French Renaissance and Baroque models, the Second Empire style developed in France during the reign of Napoleon III and became popular in America around 1860. The style’s dissemination was aided by the increasing availability of architectural publications during this period, especially architectural handbooks and builders’ guides such as E.C. Hussey’s Home Building , Marcus F. Cummings and Charles C. Miller’s Architecture: Designs for Street Fronts, Suburban Houses, and Cottages , Woodward’s Architecture and Rural Art , and Bicknell’s Village Builder . The style was well represented on the South Shore where its popularity coincided with the spurt in development following the opening of the Staten Island Railroad as well as a period of great prosperity in the oyster trade and the ship building industry. Among the notable examples were Burbank’s Hotel at the Giffords Lane railroad crossing in Great Kills, L. Stucker’s Annadale Hotel, and Stark’s Hotel in Tottenville. In addition to the Bedell House, Tottenville had a number of imposing mansard-roofed houses, including several on Main Street in the vicinity of the new railroad station. While some of the Tottenville houses retain historic details and are of architectural interest, only the James L. and Lucinda Bedell House retains its historic form, original clapboard siding, and much of its historic ornamental detailing.

 

The Bedell House is comprised of a three-story mansarded main block, a rear two-story wing with a shallow gabled roof, and one-story shed-roofed extensions on both the east and west sides of the house. The main block is three bays wide and two bays deep and has the boxy form characteristic of Second Empire buildings. The house is sheathed in its original clapboards and retains its molded window surrounds . Some windows still have their original two-over-two fenestration. The one-story veranda retains its original carved posts. The porch was also embellished with scrolled brackets and arched spandrels and featured railings with jigsawn trim similar to those seen on the nearby Drake-Dehart House at 134 Main Street, a 1840s Greek Revival house that was updated in the 1870s. . Like many village houses of the period, the Bedell House has a side hall plan, with a wide bay emphasizing the entrance on the east side of the façade. Though recently modified, this entry still retains its handsomely detailed multipane sidelights and transom and wood door with multipane window, all probably dating from the 1920s and the work of owner-architect Chester A. Cole. One of the house’s finest features is the two-story polygonal bay enriched by recessed spandrel panels and projecting cornices supported by paired scroll brackets.

 

The bay also is also has blind louvered shutters used in place of windows in the narrow end bays at the second story. These blind louvered shutters matched the louvered shutters that were recently removed from the other windows on the house and probably were original to its design. Crowning the main portion of the house is a handsome flared mansard roof that retains its molded metal flashing and original segmental arched dormers with molded hoods. The rear wing has a low gabled roof which is capped by a molded cornice. The cornices on both the front and rear wings were originally embellished with paired scrolled brackets. Most of the brackets survive on the west façade but have been removed from the other facades.

 

It seems likely that James Bedell or Isaac Bedell was responsible for the design of this house which is handsomely proportioned and carefully detailed. A very up-to-date design, it is comparable both in plan and detailing to a house design prepared by architect D. Provoost of Elizabeth, New Jersey, published in the Supplement to Bicknell’s Village Builder in 1872.

 

While there were once many such houses in the rural towns and villages that were incorporated into New York City in the 1890s, today examples are becoming increasingly rare. The well proportioned and detailed James L. and Lucinda Bedell House, which retains its original form, clapboard siding, and a good deal of its decorative detailing, is a significant reminder of the Second Empire farmhouses and village residences that once proliferated in New York City.

 

Later Owners: The Coles and the Simonsons

 

After James L. and Lucinda Bedell’s deaths in 1917 and the death of their daughter Evilina Stoney almost immediately afterwards, 7484 Amboy Road passed to Henry S. Bedell. By January 1920, Harry, a clerk at the S.S. White dental products company in Prince’s Bay, was sharing the house with his cousin Ralph M. Cole, a photo printer, Ralph’s wife and daughter, and mother, Blanche M. Cole. In November 1920, Harry sold the house to Blanche Cole. She was the daughter of Captain Abel and Mary Martin and widow of Abram Cole , a partner in Cole Brothers, a large lumber and coal business near Tottenville, and a prominent figure in Staten Island Republican politics. In 1923, Mrs. Cole conveyed the house to her younger son, Chester A. Cole who moved there with his family.

 

Chester Cole was an architect who attended Pratt Institute and studied architectural drafting at the atelier of architect Donn Barber. After leaving Barber’s office, he worked for the leading architectural firm of Carrère & Hastings where he was involved in the design of the Richmond County Courthouse . He left Carrère & Hastings to serve in the Engineering Corps of the American Expeditionary Forces during World War I. Following the war, he became associated with the firm of the prominent Staten Island architect James Whitford, Sr. While working with Whitford, Cole was responsible for the restoration of the Conference House . He also worked on renovations to the U.S. Capitol Building. In 1940, he was instrumental in organizing an exhibition of new building materials, structural techniques, and new home designs keyed to the new federally-insured home loan program. In organizing the program he worked closely with the Richmond County Federal Savings and Loan Association in Tottenville. His association with the Richmond County Savings and Loan Association grew, and from 1949 until his retirement in 1952 he served as its president. Cole also served as president of the Staten Island Society of Architects and the South Shore Lions Club and was a post-commander of the Beauvais-Hudson American Legion Post.

 

Cole married Vida Van Name, of Mariners Harbor. They had one son, Chester A. Cole, Jr. who grew up in this house and became a shipping company executive. The Coles resided at 7484 Amboy Road, described in Leng & Davis’s Staten Island and Its People “as their charming and comfortable residence at Tottenville built some years ago in old village days,” until 1945.

 

Chester Cole sold 7484 Amboy Road to Earle M. Simonson , an attorney, who worked for the New York Telephone Company for thirty-six years. Earle Simonson was the son of James Simonson, a prominent Tottenville attorney and political figure who had been a director of the Richmond County Federal Savings and Loan Association. In addition, to this link with Cole, both Earle Simonson and his wife Margaret were active in the Conference House Association. Earle Simonson eventually became president of that organization and Margaret Simonson was also active in the local chapter of the DAR, which had been named for Chester Cole’s ancestor, Abram Cole. It seems likely that this interest in history, architecture, and historic preservation on the part of the Coles and Simonsons was responsible for their excellent stewardship of the Bedell House which remained remarkably well maintained and intact throughout their ownership. The house passed from Earle Simonson to his widow in 1974 and was sold by her to William and Violette Johnson in 1982. In 1991 it passed solely into the ownership of Violette Johnson. She sold it to the present owner in February 2005.

 

Description

 

Until early March 2005, the James L. and Lucinda Bedell House was the best preserved Second Empire style house on the South Shore of Staten Island. In the weeks prior to designation, a number of changes were made to the house. These included the removal of historic ornament, removal of some clapboard sheathing from the dormers and eaves of the mansard roof, removal of the rear window and gutter from the rear portion of the mansard roof, removal of the center carved post and rails from the front porch, removal of a brick pier and latticework screens from beneath the porch. All of the house’s historic louvered shutters were also removed.

 

The house is located on an irregularly shaped lot that has a frontage of about seventy-five feet on Amboy Road and is about 135 feet deep on its west side and 153 feet deep on its east side. Chain link fences extend along the east and west boundary lines. To the west of the house a brick driveway leads to a carriage house in the back yard. A non-historic chain link fence and gate extends from the west side of the house to the western fence. A wood slat fence also surrounds the rear yard wood deck that adjoins the southeast corner of the house.

 

The house is set back about seventeen feet from the street. A non-historic concrete path extends from the front sidewalk to the front porch and wraps around the east side of the house leading to a secondary entrance.

 

The house has an irregular plan. It is comprised of a three-story mansarded main block, which is three bays wide and two bays deep, a rear two-story L-shaped wing with a shallow gabled roof, a one-story plus basement shed roofed ell at the southwest corner of the building, and a one-story enclosed porch at the southeast corner of the building. The house rests on a high brick basement which is lit by low wide windows. The upper walls are sheathed with historic lapped clapboards. Its windows have molded wood surrounds. The western façade of the main block has an angled two story bay window. Most of the windows have replacement sash but historic two-over two sash survive in the center and western second story windows of the main façade and in the southern second story window of the west façade on the main block. Historic six-over-six wood windows survive in the first story windows on the rear elevation. Many of the windows are protected by non-historic storm windows. The handsome mansard roof has been reclad with non-historic asphalt shingles.

 

Main Block The house’s primary façade facing Amboy Road has a three-bay design with the entry bay at the east corner of the façade. The one-story wood porch is approached by a wide wood stoop. The railings at the sides of the steps originally had heavy turned newel posts which were replaced by simpler non-historic wooden posts with orbed caps . The railings retain their historic wood hand and bottom rails but all of the stiles have been removed. Until March, the crawl space beneath the porch was screened from view by historic diamond pattern wood lattices. These were removed at the same time as the center brick pier that supported the porch. The porch retains its historic wood flooring and ceiling and three of its original turned posts The center post and original railings were removed in March 2005, except for a small section of bottom railing which survives on the east side of the porch. Until March, the posts were enriched with molded caps and molded bands set just above the railings. The porch was also embellished with scrolled brackets and arched spandrels . In addition, a portion of the fascia board that protected the rafters of the porch roof has been taken down.

 

Between March 28 and April 8, 2005 plywood sheets were installed between the porch posts in place of the railings. These are held in place by thin wood braces which are nailed to the columns and façade. The wood no trespassing sign was installed on the east post between March 18 and March

 

28.

 

The entrance at the east corner of the façade contains a historic multi-light wood and glass door that probably dates from the 1920s or 1930s. It is set off by small-paned multi-light sidelights and a transom. The transom is still capped by a heavy molding but the side sections of the surround have been removed. The doorway is protected by a non-historic storm door. To the west of the entry, there is a non-historic metal mailbox and a sign warning of poison on the premises. The first story windows retain their original molded surrounds but have lost their molded cornices . The windows have non-historic one-over-one sash and are protected by non-historic storm windows. At the second story, the windows also retain their molded surrounds but have lost their decorative molded cornices. The center and western window retain historic two-overtwo wood sash windows, the eastern window has one-over-one replacement sash

 

The fascia board beneath the overhanging eaves of the mansard roof was originally embellished with paired scroll brackets . The molded gutter at the edge of the eaves remains intact. The mansard is lit by three segmental arched dormer windows that are capped by original molded wood hoods. In late March and early April 2005 portions of the clapboard siding was removed from all three dormers. All three windows have non-historic one-over-one windows.

 

The west façade of the main block is articulated by a two-story five-sided angled bay at the south end of the façade and by a line of square-headed windows at the north end of the façade. The north windows retain their molded surrounds and the second story window still has its original molded lintel and two-over-two wood sash. Both windows are protected by non-historic storms. The angled bay still retains its original articulation including the recessed panel decoration employed for the spandrels beneath the windows and the molded cornices that cap the first and second story. The scrolled brackets that originally extended beneath the first story cornice were recently removed, but original brackets survive at the second story. The windows at the first story contain non-historic oneover-one sash. The second story windows retain historic wood one-over one sashes that are protected by non-historic storm windows. The blind louvered shutters used in place of windows in the narrow end bays are an original feature of the design. The western façade is the only part of the house that retains its heavy paired scrolled brackets beneath the roof eaves. The molded metal flashing at the edge of the mansard remains largely intact except at the southwest corner of the façade where it was pulled away from the façade in late March-early April. The dormers remain intact but have replacement one-over one sash.

 

The east façade of the main block is articulated by two lines of square-headed windows which retain their molded surrounds except for the molded cornices that were partially stripped in March 2005. The northern first story window has been sealed for some time . The other windows have one-over-one replacement sash with non-historic storm windows. There is also a smaller window at the south end of the façade that was probably installed in the early-mid twentieth century. It has one-over-one sash and is protected by non-historic storm windows. The brackets have been removed from beneath the eaves. The dormers contain one-overone replacement sash.

 

The south façade of the main block is mostly concealed by the rear wing. The mansard roof, which is visible, has recently been altered by the removal of the clapboard sheathing beneath the eaves, the gutter, and moldings. The window has been removed from the single attic dormer. Rear Wing The west wall of the rear wing features a pair of tall narrow windows in a molded surround in the southern two-story section of the wing and a small square window in the one story section of the wing at the first story. Single square headed windows are employed at the second story. All of the windows retain their molded surrounds. The northern window has its original molded lintel. All of the windows have historic one-over-one wood sash and are protected by non-historic storm windows. The small first story window is sheltered by a vinyl awning. Both the roof of the one story extension and the two story wing retain their original molded cornices. Original paired brackets survive beneath the northern section of the second story cornice but were recently stripped from the first story cornice and southern section of the second story cornice.

 

The south wall of the rear wing is pierced by two small first story windows that retain historic six-over-six wood sash. These flank the remains of a brick chimney that had at some time in the past been capped at the first story. Single scrolled brackets survive beneath the eaves over the overhanging cornice. The one story extension on the east side of the wing is sheltered by a shed roofed porch supported by a single historic turned post. At the west corner of the façade there is a historic wood and glass door similar in design to the early twentieth door at the front entrance. The entry is also protected by a non-historic storm door.

 

The east wall of the rear wing is largely concealed from view by the one story east extension. The second story windows retain their original molded surrounds but their molded lintels have been removed. They have non-historic one-over-one sashes which are protected by non-historic storm windows. The scrolled brackets have also been stripped from the eaves.

 

The one-story east extension is comprised of a historic clapboarded entrance porch which was extended in early-mid-twentieth century by an angled bay with non-historic facing materials and metal window sash. The wood and glass door is similar in design to the doors used on the front and rear facades. Barn/Garage At the southwest corner of the lot is a historic barn which probably dates from the late-nineteenth century. It is a two-story gable-roofed frame building which retains its historic lapped clapboarding . The gabled roof has slightly overhanging eaves. It is covered with diamond-pane asphalt shingles dating from the early twentieth century. The first-story of the south wall has a large vehicle entrance with a pair of large wood plank doors The second story is pierced by three windows. The center and east windows have non-historic sashes. The west window has a historic six-over-six wood sash window with whitewashed window panes. The west wall has two windows with molded surrounds at the second story. Both of the windows contain historic sixover-six wood sash windows. The south window remains largely intact. The top sash of the north window was recently destroyed. The east wall had a second story loading door which was recently removed leaving the opening unprotected. Clapboard siding was also recently removed from the wall near the opening. The second story of the south wall has two window openings which retain their historic multipane wood sash windows.

 

- From the 2005 NYCLPC Landmark Designation Report

  

The Patriarch's Museum is part of the Royal Seminary College of Corpus Christi.

There is a ticket for the museum, that allows to visit the "Capella del Monument" (Monument Chapel), the cloister and the museum itself.

 

The museum has an invaluable collection of art works, including paintings by Paolo de San Leocadio, Miquel Esteve, Joan de Joanes, Francesc and Joan Ribalta, Pedro de Orrente, El Greco, Dirk Bouts, Jan Provoost, Giovanni Baglione, Bernardino Luini, Giovanni Battista Ricci. There are also copies of works by Caravaggio, Raphael, Sebastiano del Piombo, Tiziano, Andrea del Sarto.