Benjamin West

Benjamin West sits with his hands resting on a large book, a drawing implement between his fingers and a painting of Moses behind him. His pale coat and powdered hair emerge from a dark studio setting, while his face turns towards the spectator. Gilbert Stuart presents his teacher through the things of an artist’s working and intellectual life. Yet the picture also raises questions about the younger painter’s own contribution to that life: what he learned, what he helped produce and how he represented the man who supported him. ^[1]

Two portraits of Stuart’s teacher

Stuart painted West more than once. The earlier portrait, now at Tate, was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1781. Carrie Rebora Barratt describes its fashionable costume, shimmering surfaces and relaxed pose as a demonstration of Stuart’s ability to attract attention in the exhibition room. The portrait offered the younger painter an opportunity to display his skills through a likeness of an established artist. ^[12]

The National Portrait Gallery painting belongs to a later commission for Boydell. Here, West’s clothing is more restrained and his hands direct attention towards books and a drawing implement. The background also matters more explicitly: a biblical figure appears on a canvas beside the curtain. These elements make the sitter’s profession and concerns part of the portrait’s subject. ^[1]

The contrast is useful because it shows Stuart adjusting the public image of the same man. A costly suit can announce refinement and give the painter opportunities for virtuoso effects. A book and an unfinished-looking picture can instead place the sitter within a world of study and production. Neither choice gives an unfiltered record of a person; each organizes the likeness for a particular purpose.

West already possessed considerable standing. He was history painter to George III and an important teacher of visiting American artists. His later succession to Joshua Reynolds as Royal Academy president came in 1792, after these portraits. The authority conveyed here belongs to his achievements and royal employment, rather than to an Academy presidency he had not yet assumed. ^[12]

For Stuart, portraying West also meant portraying a relationship. The sitter was a successful subject, a former master and someone whose assistance had helped make the younger painter’s London career possible.

An artist presented through books and painting

The hands form a compact arrangement near the lower right of the canvas. One supports the upright volume, while the other rests across it with the drawing implement. A second book lies beneath, with rolled paper on the table. The objects draw the eye down from the face and establish a quieter kind of activity than a brush poised against a canvas.

Richard Walker identifies the volumes as Bayly’s Bible and Smollett’s History of England . Barratt instead calls the upright book Boydell’s illustrated Bible. The identification differs, but both accounts connect the portrait with the resources of a history painter: texts, drawings and subjects that could be developed into pictures. ^{[13] [1]}

The pale clothing keeps the figure legible against the dark curtain. The coat’s broad sleeves carry attention towards the hands; the white neckcloth leads back towards the face. The red chair and green table covering establish a substantial furnished setting without displacing the sitter. West looks settled among the materials of his work.

The Moses figure extends that account beyond the foreground objects. A painter of religious narratives must translate a written subject into bodies, gestures and a coherent image. The portrait brings text and painting into the same field, allowing West’s intellectual occupation to be understood through their relationship. Barratt places particular emphasis on the Bible and its connection with his religious work. ^[14]

This is also a portrait of someone capable of directing a large enterprise. West’s composed seated figure contrasts with the uplifted arms of Moses, while the book provides a bridge between the two. The difference in activity helps organize the image: the painter is present as a recognizable individual, and his work appears as a second, more animated world behind him.

Stuart in West’s studio

Stuart arrived in London late in 1775, but his sustained training and work in West’s studio belong to 1777–82. Barratt describes a difficult intervening period and several accounts of how he finally obtained West’s help. A draft appeal from December 1776 records his wish for support and instruction. The chronology gives the relationship a more particular beginning than a simple story of stepping off a ship and immediately entering a famous studio. ^[15]

As a resident assistant, Stuart worked on draperies and backgrounds in West’s large pictures. Barratt records his later description of them as “ten-acre pictures,” a phrase that catches the difference between their scale and the concentrated demands of portraiture. The work involved practical participation in producing paintings, alongside observation of a successful artist’s methods and professional connections. ^[15]

Stuart’s own painting developed in another direction. He studied the work of Reynolds, Gainsborough and Romney, and became increasingly interested in the varied handling and individual characterization of British portraiture. Barratt presents his respect for West alongside that independence. A teacher could provide a place to work and learn without determining every choice the pupil would subsequently make. ^[16]

John Trumbull was another important American participant in West’s circle. Their presence helps explain why a major history painter’s studio should be understood as a place of shared work rather than an isolated encounter between one master and one pupil. Different assistants brought different abilities and ambitions. Stuart’s later portrait gives that larger setting a personal focus.

By the time he was working independently, Stuart could represent West with the benefit of close experience. The portrait’s significance lies partly in that double position: he knew the sitter as a teacher, but approached him as a painter with a reputation of his own.

Who painted the Moses behind West?

The background painting has encouraged a more specific interpretation of their relationship. Barratt connects it with West’s biblical commissions and with a single-figure Moses that Stuart painted after his master’s design. In her account, the first picture West entrusted to Stuart was associated with a scheme for stained glass at the Fitzroy Chapel. The design itself drew on an earlier unrealized project. ^[17]

This account differs from Walker’s description of the background as West’s large Windsor Moses . The two readings give the small image within the portrait different relationships to the work of the studio. A reference to West’s own ambitious commission emphasizes his achievement; a reference to Stuart’s version after his design also makes the assistant’s contribution part of the picture. ^{[18] [17]}

The royal undertaking had an exceptional scale. In 1779, George III commissioned thirty-six pictures for a projected chapel at Windsor. West’s large Moses belonged to that scheme and was exhibited in 1784 with subjects involving Isaiah and Jeremiah. Barratt associates its production with assistance from Stuart and Trumbull. This context explains the importance of a seemingly small background reference: it could evoke an extensive royal commission and the coordinated labour needed to carry it out. ^[17]

Barratt develops the latter possibility without treating the portrait as a straightforward accusation. She considers the background in relation to West’s generosity as a teacher and Stuart’s desire for recognition of what he had done. Her interpretation gives the portrait a subtle professional dimension: the master’s authority could be represented through work in which the pupil had participated. ^[17]

The distinction matters more than a simple contest over whose hand held a brush. Studio paintings could involve an originating design, an assistant’s execution and subsequent versions serving different purposes. The portrait brings those relationships into view without supplying a written explanation from Stuart about his intention.

The visible Moses remains effective even before those questions are resolved. Its raised arms and light surrounding tones animate the darker setting behind West. The sitter’s quiet presence becomes the centre from which the viewer can consider the more expansive world of religious painting and collaborative production.

The dating evidence

The current NPG date is 1785, while Barratt’s Met catalogue dates the portrait to 1783–84. The difference should remain visible when the painting is discussed or reproduced. Both identify NPG 349; changing the date does not turn it into the earlier Tate portrait. ^{[2] [1]}

Walker’s argument places it between the 1784 publication of Bayly’s Bible and Watson’s engraving of March 1786. Those proposed limits depend partly on the identification of the book. They explain why the object’s contents matter to its chronology, as well as to its interpretation. ^[18]

Another piece of evidence is West’s drawing of Stuart at work on his portrait. Barratt uses its 1783 date in discussing the commission. Walker assigns the date to a different hand and treats the connection with NPG 349 as only possible. The drawing is therefore valuable evidence of the painters’ relationship, but cannot by itself settle an exact sitting date for this canvas. ^{[1] [18]}

The engraving supplies a more definite point in the picture’s public history. The Smithsonian’s impression is catalogued as a 1786 stipple engraving by Caroline Watson after Stuart, published by John and Josiah Boydell. Its publication line gives 1 March 1786, a date also recorded for an impression at Princeton. By then the composition had been translated into a reproducible image. ^{[19] [20]}

These different kinds of evidence work best together. A book can suggest a limit, a drawing can record an encounter and a print can establish circulation. None needs to be made to answer every chronological question.

Boydell’s artists and the later engraving

The portrait belonged to Boydell’s larger commission for likenesses of artists and associates of his publishing firm. Stuart also painted Copley and Reynolds , giving different forms to their professional identities. The group made the makers of admired images visible to the public, while providing further subjects for engraving. ^[21]

Watson’s print preserves the relationship between West, books and Moses while translating the painted surface into a monochrome image. The chair, curtain and arrangement of the hands remain recognizable. Stipple creates tone through small marks rather than the broad passages of coloured paint seen in the oil. Comparison makes the act of translation visible, even when the general composition is closely retained. ^[19]

The lettering adds another layer of public presentation. It names West as a historical painter to the king and credits Watson’s work, alongside the publishers. It also mistakenly calls the painter Gabriel Stuart. Such an error did not change the composition’s authorship, but it remains part of the particular printed object’s history. The paper, plate boundary and inscriptions deserve attention alongside the image they carry. ^[19]

The restrained appearance of West did not please every later commentator. Barratt quotes an 1804 criticism that blamed the “bad taste of the sitter.” The judgement was retrospective, and its emphasis on dress illustrates how differently the portrait could be received. What one viewer found ordinary could be understood by another as a shift of attention towards the artist’s work and learning. ^[22]

The oil entered the National Portrait Gallery in 1872. It now offers a concentrated image of a teacher whose professional world Stuart had known from within. Books establish study, Moses introduces ambitious subject matter and the drawing implement connects thought with practice. The portrait’s richness lies in the relationship between these visible elements and the shared work that made them meaningful. ^[2]