George Washington Portraits

Gilbert Stuart gave George Washington several enduring appearances: a closely observed head against a warm background, an unfinished likeness that became a familiar national image, and a standing president surrounded by the objects of public office. These portraits share a sitter, but they answer different needs. They emerged from private commissions, the painter’s search for a convincing likeness and the wish to represent the first president to audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. ^[1]

The three principal types are known as Vaughan, Athenaeum and Lansdowne . Each name refers to an owner associated with the image’s history. Each type also generated further paintings. Recognizing a composition is therefore the beginning of identifying a portrait: its particular canvas, patron, date and subsequent history still matter. The White House Washington, for example, belongs to the Lansdowne family but is a different object from the original now in the National Portrait Gallery. ^[2]

Three types, many paintings

Stuart returned to the United States in 1793 with the ambition of painting Washington. After working in New York, he moved to Philadelphia late in 1794. Access to the president depended on personal introductions and the practical problem of finding time for sittings. Before the surviving portrait families had fully developed, Stuart was already assembling a market for the likeness. His list dated 20 April 1795 names thirty-two men commissioning thirty-nine portraits of the president. ^[1]

That list shows how painting from life and supplying an audience could belong to the same undertaking. Patrons wanted recognizable images of Washington, and Stuart could use an established head as the basis for further work. An artist’s replica is another painting made by that artist from an existing likeness or composition. It need not be an exact mechanical duplicate. Changes in colour, clothing, background and handling can distinguish works that belong to the same broad type. ^[8]

Three types consequently do not mean three surviving original canvases, or three sittings. Stuart’s first life study was erased, according to his later account. The retained Athenaeum head and the full-length Lansdowne preserve other encounters with Washington, while numerous further portraits carry likenesses developed through those encounters. A painting’s date can identify the making of that object without implying a new sitting by the president. ^[2]

Counts of Washington portraits also require care. Catalogues differ in what they include as Stuart’s work, an attributed version, a replica or another artist’s copy. Estimates for the Athenaeum family have a narrower scope than estimates covering every Washington composition. The useful starting point is the relationship between the types and particular surviving objects, rather than an apparently exact total assembled from incompatible lists. ^{[1] [8]}

Vaughan: the first likeness and its replicas

The Vaughan portrait represents the earliest of the three types, established in 1795. In the National Gallery of Art’s example, Washington’s body angles toward the viewer’s right while the eyes meet the viewer. White hair, a pale shirt and the red surrounding field bring the head forward against the dark coat. The concentrated format gives relatively little space to accessories, directing attention toward the sitter’s expression and the modelling of his face. ^[3]

The name belongs to the history of the Vaughan family’s painting. Philadelphia merchant John Vaughan commissioned portraits and sent this example to his father, Samuel, in London. The canvas is now NGA 1942.8.27. Another National Gallery Washington, the Vaughan-Sinclair portrait, has a different accession number, 1940.1.6, and a separate history. Their related appearance does not make their dimensions, ownership or documentary evidence interchangeable. ^[2]

For a long time, the painting now called the Vaughan portrait was identified as the original made from life. Ellen G. Miles’s account in the 2004 catalogue explains why it is understood as a replica instead. The identification must be considered alongside Stuart’s statement that he had rubbed out one of his original Washington portraits. The familiar museum title preserves the history of the type; it does not establish that this particular canvas was the first study. ^[2]

The precise timing of the first sittings remains uncertain. Later recollections suggest different seasons, and proposed locations lack equally firm evidence. Keeping the date at 1795 leaves room for that uncertainty without diminishing what the surviving paintings reveal. The copies show an early formulation of Washington’s appearance that differs from the subsequently dominant Athenaeum head. ^[9]

Its circulation also began early. A Thomas Holloway engraving after the Vaughan painting appeared in the English edition of Johann Caspar Lavater’s Essays on Physiognomy . That setting placed Washington’s face within a historical attempt to infer character from physical features. It helps explain contemporary interest in the likeness, although those theories should be understood as beliefs of the period rather than reliable ways to determine a person’s character. ^[2]

Athenaeum: George and Martha unfinished

The Athenaeum portraits began as a pair commissioned by Martha Washington for Mount Vernon. Both are dated 1796. Their familiar name comes from the Boston Athenaeum, which acquired them after Stuart’s death. Today they are jointly owned by the National Portrait Gallery and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. George and Martha occupy separate canvases of the same recorded dimensions, with their heads turned toward one another when the pair is arranged together. ^{[4] [5] [7]}

The whole paintings differ strikingly from tightly cropped reproductions of Washington’s face. His developed head sits within a broad, unfinished support. Dark preliminary paint surrounds the hair and shoulders, while much of the lower canvas remains exposed. Martha’s face is similarly more complete than her cap, clothing and surrounding space. These areas are part of the surviving objects and essential to understanding their state of finish. ^[10]

Their scale suggests a more extensive conception than two small heads. Miles considers whether Stuart intended seated portraits, noting the canvas format and the placement of the faces. That remains an interpretation of the unfinished works. The blank areas do not supply a missing final design, but they do show how much could remain unresolved after a compelling likeness had been established. ^[10]

Stuart retained Washington’s head as a model for further portraits. The practical value of that resource is clear: he could supply patrons with a recognizable likeness without repeatedly asking the president to pose. Yet the account of retention should include Martha’s interest in receiving her commission. Later stories describe Washington permitting Stuart to keep the original, while correspondence discussed in the catalogue records the family’s dissatisfaction with non-delivery. ^[11]

William Thornton complained in January 1800 that the Washingtons had repeatedly requested the promised picture. In March, Tobias Lear wrote on Martha’s behalf seeking her husband’s portrait and offering the usual payment. These documents complicate a reassuring story in which the family simply surrendered its claim. The originals remained with Stuart, and the catalogue records no delivery of replacement copies to the family. ^[11]

The result has an unusual double identity. These are unfinished family commissions, but George’s likeness also became the basis of a widely repeated public image. Martha’s companion restores the original paired purpose to a history often told only through the president. Looking at the two together reveals a relationship that disappears when Washington’s head circulates alone.

Lansdowne: public authority on a full-length scale

The Lansdowne portrait enlarges the problem from an individual face to the representation of presidential authority. Washington stands beside a table, with one arm extended and the other hand resting at his sword. Columns, curtain, furniture, books and an opening toward the sky establish an imposing setting. The composition draws on European state portraiture while adapting its language to the leader of the new republic. ^[12]

William Bingham and Anne Willing Bingham presented the painting to William Petty, first Marquess of Lansdowne. As Lord Shelburne, he had supported the peace negotiations ending the American Revolution. Anne’s role matters: she helped arrange Washington’s participation and received Lansdowne’s thanks. Accounts differ over who first initiated the commission, but the gift joined the Binghams’ social and commercial connections with an expression of admiration for Washington. ^[12]

The clothing makes his civilian office central. He wears a black suit with white ruffles rather than a general’s uniform. The dress sword participates in ceremonial presentation. The books, papers and writing equipment give government a material presence, while the eagle and shield motifs connect the furnishings to the United States. Stuart constructs authority through the relationship between a recognizable individual and a deliberately elaborate setting. ^[13]

That setting is not a straightforward record of a particular room. The portrait’s furniture and architecture belong to a composed public image. Likewise, the extended arm creates an oratorical presence without freezing a securely documented instant of speech. Miles relates the pose to Washington’s December 1795 address to Congress and the political circumstances surrounding the Jay Treaty. The painting’s patrons were involved in the transatlantic relationships that gave that interpretation force. ^[14]

It should not be described as Washington delivering his Farewell Address to Congress. That address was published rather than spoken by him before the assembly. The distinction changes how the picture is read: its gesture evokes public leadership and political communication, while the arrangement remains a painter’s construction. The stormy sky and rainbow similarly give visible form to conflict and hoped-for resolution. ^[14]

The original was shipped to England in November 1796. Its passage across the Atlantic was part of its purpose as a diplomatic and personal gift. The NPG canvas, NPG.2001.13, carries that history. Other full-length Washington portraits developed from the composition have their own patrons and destinations, which the shared name alone cannot explain. ^{[6] [12]}

What the 1796 letter tells us

A surviving letter brings the arrangements for painting into unusually close view. On the evening of 11 April 1796, Washington wrote that he had promised Mrs. Bingham to sit for Stuart the following morning at nine. He asked whether the sitting would be convenient and whether he should come to the artist’s house, mentioning that she had spoken of the State House. The letter records an appointment and a question about its location. ^[15]

It does not establish the total number of sittings for the Lansdowne portrait. Nor does Washington’s question, by itself, settle the final venue. A standing figure with elaborate accessories could involve work beyond the president’s attendance, including studio models and the painter’s development of the composition. The documentary value of one appointment should be preserved without making it answer every question about the painting’s production. ^{[15] [12]}

The document also carries a second historical layer. In March 1823, Stuart annotated it in connection with the portrait then owned by Samuel Williams. He identified the retained original and added: “I painted a third, but rubbed it out.” This short statement is central to distinguishing the erased first study from the surviving portraits descended from its likeness. ^[15]

Washington’s appointment was written in 1796; Stuart’s explanation came almost twenty-seven years later. The two texts therefore have different purposes and distances from the events they describe. The folded paper, address, seal and accumulated annotations preserve that history in one object. They make the letter valuable both as evidence of arranging a sitting and as a record of how the painter later explained his Washington originals.

How the images travelled

Painted replicas carried Washington into the homes of people connected through commerce, politics and friendship. The surviving commissions show that acquiring his likeness could form part of a larger relationship with Stuart. Some purchasers also sat to the painter themselves or commissioned family portraits. Repetition was therefore embedded in a network of personal encounters, rather than functioning only as an anonymous demand for a national emblem. ^[8]

Prints extended that audience further. James Heath’s 1800 engraving after the Lansdowne composition translates its colour and brushwork into lines and tonal patterns. In the National Portrait Gallery’s impression, the figure and furnishings sit above a printed title and publication information. The sheet’s margins belong to the print’s identity, giving it a different physical and commercial form from the large oil painting. Heath should receive credit as its maker, with Stuart identified as the artist whose composition it reproduces. ^[16]

The engraving also exposes a conflict over reproduction. Stuart expected to benefit from a print after his painting, while Heath’s project proceeded without his agreement. The catalogue follows the dispute through correspondence and later recollections. The image’s success could increase the sitter’s visibility while frustrating the painter’s intended income. Ownership of a canvas, permission to reproduce it and authorship of the resulting print were separate interests. ^[17]

The Athenaeum likeness reached another kind of audience through its adaptation for the United States one-dollar bill. The NPG describes the familiar currency image as reversed from Stuart’s portrait. That connection concerns the established likeness; it does not make the banknote a reproduction of the whole unfinished canvas. The face acquired a circulation largely detached from Martha’s companion and the original private commission. ^[18]

Different media consequently preserve different parts of Stuart’s achievement. A painted replica may change a collar or background; an engraving constructs tone through line; a currency design isolates a recognizable head. Comparing them makes the process of adaptation visible, especially when the complete source painting remains available beside its later forms.

The White House rescue and a different canvas

The Washington portrait saved during the British attack on the President’s House in 1814 was a full-length version of the Lansdowne composition. It was acquired for the building in 1800. It was not the painting sent to Lord Lansdowne in England, and its rescue history should not be transferred to the NPG original simply because both show the same standing president. ^[19]

Dolley Madison’s insistence that the picture be saved was important, while removing and transporting it involved other people. Paul Jennings’s recollections reject the story that she personally cut out and carried away the canvas. He credits the doorkeeper he calls John Suse and the gardener Magraw with taking it down and sending it away on a wagon. His account redirects attention toward the household labour behind the rescue. ^[20]

Jennings had been enslaved in the Madison household. His recollections were published in 1865, and the preface explains that another writer recorded them in almost his own words. They are valuable retrospective testimony, with that mediation kept in view. The White House Historical Association also identifies Jacob Barker and Robert DePeyster in the portrait’s transportation to safety. The broader history involves decisions, physical work and subsequent custody. ^{[20] [19]}

The familiar cutting story encounters another difficulty in conservation evidence. The association’s published account reports that the 1978 examination found no evidence that the canvas had been cut or removed from its stretcher and rolled. Taking a picture out of an outer frame is different from cutting its painted support. The reported finding qualifies the dramatic version of the rescue without erasing the urgency of saving the object. ^[19]

The episode belongs to the White House painting’s own history. Its distinction from the Lansdowne original shows why object identity remains important even when a composition has become a widely shared national image.

Comparing the types at a glance

Begin with format. The selected Vaughan painting concentrates on the head and upper body within a finished field. The Athenaeum George and Martha retain large unfinished areas around developed faces. Lansdowne places a standing president within an elaborate public setting. These differences affect how the sitter occupies space and how the viewer encounters him.

Next consider purpose. A portrait type could serve several patrons through replicas, but the Athenaeum originals began as a family pair, while Lansdowne became a transatlantic gift. The later histories of currency, engravings and the White House version grew from those images without replacing the circumstances in which each began. ^{[7] [12]}

The individual studies of Vaughan , Athenaeum and Lansdowne follow those histories more closely. Stuart’s style and technique explains how colour, handling and stages of finish give the likenesses their presence. For a later artist’s imaginative treatment of Washington as a figure in national history, Leutze’s Washington Crossing the Delaware offers a useful further comparison.