Advent calendar

https://www.eastmanjohnson.org/catalogue/entry.php?id=1711

Hills, 2022: Discussion among scholars has been necessary to assign Emanuel Leutze authorship of the oil painting Washington Crossing the Delaware, which, as of April 2022, has been on loan to the Minnesota Marine Art Museum in Winona, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the “Winona version.” The first large-size Leutze version, painted in 1850, was partially damaged by a fire in Leutze’s studio on November 5, 1850. This is referred to as the “Bremen version.” This work, which had been on view at a Bremen art gallery, was destroyed during a bombing raid by the Allies in 1945. An intermediate unfinished version, private collection, is referred to as the “Connecticut version.” The second large version at the Metropolitan Museum of Art is referred to as the “Metropolitan Museum version.” The engraving, issued in 1853, is referred to as the “engraving.”

Backstory: Leutze created the Bremen version of Washington Crossing the Delaware with the intention of selling it to Goupil & Cie, a French auction house and merchant of European paintings. Goupil opened Goupil, Vibert, and Co. in New York in 1848 and intended to expand their market of contemporary art through exposure in exhibitions as well as creating public awareness of such works through the sale and distribution of engravings. It seems that Leutze was eager to make the repairs on the Bremen version, but insurance claims held up the work. One can speculate that under pressure from Goupil, Leutze began another version [see Pinot 2017 and Stehle 1964].

Evidence from Johnson’s correspondence: The best evidence of the chronology of events comes from Eastman Johnson’s correspondence. On January 16, 1851, he wrote to the American Art-Union:

I have now recently gone with Mr. Leutze & am painting under his instruction in an immense atelier which he rented for his big picture, with two others beside himself, excellent artists, & both engaged on large works, forming an atmosphere & an aspect of art not less delightful than it is improving…Leutze is every day expecting his new canvas & in haste to commence again his large picture. In the meantime is [sic] engaged on a small one [transcriber’s remark: “the same” inserted above] which is progressing delightfully, with sundry other things in hand. The injured picture is now on exhibition at Cologne… [Johnson, Eastman 1851a].

This statement indicates that Leutze had started a small painting—likely this version. This Winona version, with its focus on the details of the central figures’ gestures, physiognomies, and costumes, as well as the red outlining of forms for the rest of the canvas, would have served as a cartoon, or preliminary design, for the large second work he wanted to commence. In the Connecticut version there are some elements of the Bremen version but the details are more aligned with the Metropolitan Museum version. (I am grateful to Graham C. Boettcher, PhD, The R. Hugh Daniel Director of the Birmingham Museum of Art, for this observation, and to Jochen Weirich for sharing his knowledge [see the Johnson chapter in Weirich 2012; also of interest is Groseclose 1975].)

To his family friend Charlotte Child, Johnson wrote on March 25, 1851, about Leutze’s progress and his own involvement in the endeavor:

Since the first of January I’ve been with Leutze—our studio is a large hall where six of us paint with convenience, &  three on large pictures. The chief, is of Leutze’s of ‘Washington Crossing the Delaware’ 20 feet by 16, figures size of life—It is already perhaps two thirds finished, & I am making a copy on a reduced scale from which an engraving is to be made— It is sold to the owners of the International A. Union of N. York, & will be exhibited thro. the States in the fall—With six in a room, a cask of the best ‘Laurish Beer’ always behind the great canvass & a disposition to be jolly you may be sure it does not want for animation—Leutze is an energetic and talkative fellow, generous and full of spirits…” [Johnson, Eastman 1851b]. [The International Art Union of New York was the agency for the distribution of prints through which Goupil worked and was set up to compete with the American Art-Union.]

On July 19, 1851, Johnson wrote to Andrew Warner of the American Art-Union: “My time the past winter has been mostly occupied in copying Leutze’s Washington. These were painted while in his studio. You are probably well informed in all in reference to this picture, & also as to Mr. Leutze’s intention of being now in America as soon as possible…” [Johnson, Eastman 1851c]. According to Stehle 1964, p. 275, the Düsseldorfer Journal und Kreisblatt declared the replica finished on July 15, 1851. 

Evidence from Goupil:  On July 26, 1851, Goupil stock book no. 1 in Paris recorded two entries under the column “Dates des Entrees. ” Entry no. 308, “Washington popant la Delaware.” Price sold: 32,000 francs. Entry 321 is recorded as “Copie d’ap. Leutze.” Price sold: 3000 francs, “Vendu à New York [illegible] Nov. 1858. [date sold]." 

More than fifty years after the painting was made, art writer William Walton—no doubt from conversations with Johnson’s widow—narrates that at the reception for the painting on May 11, 1851, the Prince and Princess of Prussia “wished to purchase the small copy of the picture which Johnson had painted, but which, under the terms of the contract made for the disposal of the original, could not be sold” [Walton 1906, p. 267].

Visual Evidence: I have studied closely the details of the three works—the Metropolitan version, the Winona version, and the Connecticut version—and the engraving and have written about my findings in my dissertation. I then, in 1973, came to the conclusion that the Winona version was the copy that the engraver used and that it could be called Johnson’s work, even though signed by Leutze and likely that the finishing details may have been done by Leutze. Details of the painting seemed to match details seen on the print—particularly the shapes of ice floating in the Delaware River, the swirl of water at the front of the bow where the oarsman has thrust his oar, and the lack of a fob in both the Winona version and the engraving [see Hills 1977, pp. 34–44].

Exhibition of the Metropolitan Version: Literary World 1851, p. 175, reported: “Leutze’s painting of Washington crossing the Delaware has been purchased by Messrs. Goupil & Co., who intend exhibiting it throughout the Unites States, and also will have it engraved in line in a style fully equal to their best publications.”

The Metropolitan version was indeed exceedingly popular when exhibited; noted collector Marshall O. Roberts soon owned the painting. The engraver’s copy also was widely exhibited and eventually sold in 1858. The engraving was made by Paul Girardet, but not distributed until 1853. Again, the engraving was immensely popular. The appeal of the image no doubt resonated with Americans needing a symbolic icon of American unity; Washington was, after all, called the Father of the Country.

Johnson’s apprenticeship with Leutze: It is indisputable that Johnson learned considerably by working on the copy for the engraver under Leutze’s supervision. Leutze’s studio seems to have been organized much in the style of the European ateliers, like that of Rubens, in which the master would outline a composition or provide a cartoon for his assistants. The assistants would paint in the body of the picture, and Rubens would make the finishing touches and sign the paintings. Worthington Whittredge bragged about painting large swaths of the sky during an all-night session along with other studio assistants for the large (Metropolitan Museum) version [see Baur 1942].

Moreover, I believe that at this point—winter and spring of 1851—Johnson did not yet have the skill to create such a massive, multifigured painting without considerable oversight from Leutze. Although skilled as a portrait draftsman, he was still learning to be a painter. He had made a copy of Leutze’s painting The Vigil, which strikes us today as very amateurish, and had done a few genre interiors and portraits [see EJCR Themes 1.0–3.3]. Those works which he chose to bring back to the U.S. show a talented but beginning painter.  

Historical considerations: The 1850s was a period of transition for European and American artists.  With the advent of photography and its possibilities, artists either consciously or not began to paint the light on objects rather than the objects; consider John Singer Sargent’s paintings. By the 1870s avant-garde writers showered admiration on those artists who went a step further and focused primarily on the act of painting with spontaneous brushstrokes favored—not light, not objects.   

When Leutze left Düsseldorf for the U.S. in the latter half of 1851, Johnson also left; he settled in The Hague, where he had the opportunity to study Rembrandt and the Old Masters and learned to situate his figures in darkened interiors in order to emphasize the qualities of light/dark contrasts. However, he soon gravitated to presenting figures in light as they emerge from darkened interiors (effects which had been mastered by William Sydney Mount). Eventually Johnson located his figures in bright sunlight or in the dappled light of tree-shaded outdoor settings. His career represents an artist bridging the old styles toward the new.

Ideal subjects for engravers:  Moreover, high quality engravers require pictures that show objects and details, not the play of light nor the showcasing of virtuoso brushwork. Leutze’s style of exacting realism with the obliteration of the brush was suitable to engravings. Johnson did not take the path of Leutze; his work would be more compatible with lithography [see Prints after Works by Johnson].

Conclusion: Hence, for the Winona version, a more accurate attribution would be: “Emanuel Leutze with the assistance of Eastman Johnson.” And in my opinion the Winona version was the copy used by Goupil’s engraver.

Postscript to Conclusion:  Many versions exist of Washington Crossing the Delaware—mostly period versions made from the original engraving and subsequent engravings. The image of Washington as decisive hero was the most popular history painting of its time, especially in the North, where strong sentiment urged compromise and the unity of all the States.

MacGibeny, 2022: A letter from A. C. Thieme in the Archives of American Art recounts the experience of her grandfather, who stayed at the same hotel as Johnson in The Hague in 1852. Her grandfather asked Johnson about his sketchbook, which stood on the mantel; Johnson replied that he had been collecting models of faces for a very large painting of the crossing of the Delaware. Generating original imagery in this way after participating in the creation of Leutze's Washington Crossing the Delaware would suggest that Johnson had been planning his own monumental version of the scene.