What role do material goods play in Samuel Sewall’s courtship of Katherine Winthrop (the widow of a descendant of John Winthrop)? To what extent do Sewall and Winthrop have a shared consumer vocabulary, a shared sense of self defined in part by goods? Are there ways in which their understandings of consumer goods separate them?
OR
How do the consumer goods in Copley’s portraits define the people in them? Explain how Copley intends to portray one or two of his sitters and the ways that particular material goods around them enable that portrayal.
In “From the Diary of Samuel Sewall,” Samuel Sewall and Kathrine Winthrop appeared to have a very distant relationship and to call it “courtship,” as Sewall does, seems to be a stretch. Much of the time Sewall is reacting to Winthrop’s mood and “countenance” that seemed to change from day to day like the weather. He begins calling her Katherine but later in his diary addresses her as Madam Winthrop. In addition, there seems to be a very materialistic aspect to their get-togethers. Sewall brings Madam Winthrop things to read and eat on many of his “courting” visits. On October 3rd 1720, he gave Madam Winthrop a copy of Samuel Willard’s The Fountain Opened, or the Great Gospel Privilege of Having Christ Exhibited to Sinful Men, which she quickly pockets (Norton 315-316). One week later, Sewall brings her the Newsletter about the Thanksgiving Proposals and that evening she treated him well with wine and marmalade (Norton 316). Two days later, however, he is treated like a black sheep as Madam Winthrop’s Countenance was “dark and lowering” and she explained to him that she could not consider marrying him as she would not “leave her house, children, neighbors, business” (Norton 316). Their relationship gets even more business like as Sewall even records the 3 shillings per pound price of the ½ pound of Sugar Almonds that he brought to Winthrop. This day their conversation turns to further finances as they discuss the 100 pounds per year that Sewall would leave her if she were to become his widow (Norton 319). Nowhere are there descriptions of passion, beauty, blind love, or the pleasure of being together. This lack of emotion is also exhibited in the description of the deaths of Sewall’s friends such as Cousin [Daniel] Quinsey, his own baby daughter Judith, and eventually even “Mrs. Katherine Winthrop, Relict of the honble Waitstill Winthrop esqr, died, AEtatis 61” as he writes on August 2, 1725, listing her palm bearers without any more emotion than “Will be much missed”(Norton 321). Sewall’s diary reflects a relationship defined by goods, money, and news worthy business.
Copley’s portraits privilege the synthetic, the material, over the organic subjects giving title to the images. A first glance attracts one immediately to the clothes the subject wears and the objects surrounding said subject before even taking note of the face of the person in the picture. All of the subjects wear colorful, eye-catching garb. The portrait of Nicholas Boylston seems most striking to me. The bright-gold vest works clashes with his red hat and patterned blue robe in a way dominates your attention. Copley’s portrait paints him as an important and prominent figure. It’s hard to imagine someone who wasn’t already well respected in his community to wear such extravagant clothing and be taken seriously. In contrast to earlier portraits by Jonathan Freake, Copley’s work utilize objects far more to define subjects. With Boylston and Verplanck, a book rests in the frame to suggest a relation to education. The 1773 John Winthrop portrait uses a telescope as a means to similar ends.
When placed alongside the portrait of John Freake, the abundance of materials in these portraits really struck me. While Freake wears ornate clothing, there is no background; the portrait solely focuses on him. Only Copely’s portrait of Samuel Verplank is similarly devoid of background. The rest of the images are filled with material goods – goods, which as the prompt suggest, are used to define the individual in the portrait.
Each of the women (and girls) as well as Nicholas Boylston in these photos are wearing what appears to be extremely expensive clothing. Clearly, they are attempting to portray their wealth. The large books beneath Boylston’s left arm conveys a high level of education. The painting of ships in the background may be trying to allude to either Boylston’s ability to travel or involvement with commerce and trade. The women in Copley’s paintings are all conveying some image of leisure or diversion. Mrs. Benjamin Pickman holds an umbrella and appears to be outdoors. This may be situating her as someone who is able to travel, explore, and generally leave the home for various activities.
The fountain in the portrait of Mrs. Daniel Sargent is really interesting. I’m not completely sure what to make of it, but perhaps it is conveying the sort of technology and lavish architecture to which she is privy. The architecture (wall and railing?) in the background repeats this theme.
The portrait of Mrs. Thomas Gage is one of explicit leisure. Reclined on a plush and ornate couch, she is simply lounging. The couch is both expensive and a place of rest. Her slightly less restrictive clothing also imply her resting state.
The portraits of Mary MacIntosh and Elizabeth Royal show that extravagance isn’t just for adults. Dressed in fine clothes, the girls are also seated amidst flowing (expensive) fabric. They are also holding small pets – sources of entertainment and leisure.
In John Copley’s portrait of Nicholas Boylston, Boylston is portrayed as immensely wealthy. The red curtains behind Boylston, the elegant red wood chair, the silk tablecloth, and his interesting red hat all convey the degree of Boylston’s wealth and power. He appears surrounded by red silk, similar to the red cloth that is thrown over Venus in Botticelli’s painting. Boylston’s blue robe looks to be made of satin, elegantly designed with a flower print. His gold silk shirt with three buttons undone looks expensive, and his white undershirt and ascot also look to be of the highest quality. Boylston leans his arm on two brand new large books, which portrays Boylston’s scholarship, as well as his wealth. From an objective perspective, I would assume Boylston to be a prince or nobleman of some sort.
The backdrop of the painting shows a ship sitting in the peaceful Boston harbor. In comparison to the portrait of John Freake, which has a simple black backdrop, Copley’s portrait seems to place Boylston within the context of America, and portray him as one of the wealthiest men in the colonies. Other portraits of Copley’s make similar use of using a natural scene as a backdrop, such as the painting of Mary MacIntosh and Elizabeth Royall, along with Copley’s portrait of Mrs. Benjamin Pickman. John Adams description of the Boylston residence conveys the sense of elegance that Copley captures in his paintings. Adams, with his Quaker roots, was blown away by how magnificent his home was. Copley’s paintings of the Boylston’s were commissioned by Boylston and hung in his home, which shows how important it was for Nicholas Boylston to demonstrate his wealth to houseguests. He conveyed his wealth not only by the clothes he wore, but also by being able to commission six portraits for Copley and hang them throughout his home.
The couch in Copley’s painting of Mrs. Thomas is in great detail. It is clear even in the painting that it is high quality leather. The bronze buttons are in strikingly clear detail. What is interesting to me about this particular couch is that it looks like a lot of contemporary couches I’ve seen. This would lead me to believe that this sort of couch was both modern for its time and a distinct enough style that it has lasted for three centuries. The leather couch might lead me to guess that Mrs. Thomas’ husband was an importer who would have access to high-quality leather goods from Europe.
Everything in the painting of Mary MacIntosh and Elizabeth Royall looks like it’s silk. It seems like the whole room is covered in some sort of silk material. It looks like drapes, but it is on the seating and on the floor as well. The girl’s dresses are silk as well. I find it interesting that it is so clear that the material is silk. It’s the same with the couch in the painting of Mrs. Thomas. Copely goes to great lengths to show what the these goods are made of. Like the leather in the painting of Mrs. Thomas, the silk in this painting suggests that Mary MacIntosh and/or Elizabeth Royall is the daughter of a merchant/importer. Probably a very successful one if he had access to large amounts of silk that must have been from Asia.
In both the Mrs. Thomas painting and the painting of the girls, Copely portrays his subjects as wealthy. The key indicators of their wealth are the goods that surround them. Regardless of the good’s materials, it would be clear that his subjects were wealthy, but by so clearly portraying the material, Copely demonstrates just HOW wealthy they are.