Portraits from the Poe Family Vault: Eliza Poe, continued

With this clear evidence that Thomas Sully, whom many call the best American Portraitist of the 19th century, painted Eliza Poe, why no one questioned the merit of this portrait of Eliza and concluded that it is was a feeble attempt to reproduce Sully's known miniature, strikes me as very odd indeed. Shew's letters to Ingram, offering John Ingram her own copies of portraits of Eliza Poe seems almost tacit confirmation that the rather bizarre image before us, is more than likely Shew's own copy of Thomas Sully's original work.

As a side note, by the age of 12, Thomas Sully was already studying painting with his brother-in-law, Jean Belzons, an artist who primarily worked in miniature. Sully then returned to Richmond, Virginia, where he studied 'miniature painting' with his brother, Lawrence Sully, who died in 1804, the year after Sully painted his miniature of Eliza Poe. Sully was 20 years old in 1803, meaning that he had spent the last eight years not only learning 'how to paint,' but also spending a great deal of time studying the art of 'miniature painting.' As it turned out, Thomas Sully was also very close to his brother, Lawrence's wife, Sarah Sully, whom he married in 1805, a year after his brother's death. That being said, let's consider the provenance of the image before us.

From letters written by Marie Louise Shew to John Ingram, we know that Shew had ample access to all the art in Poe's home. In her letters to Ingram, Shew makes it very clear that she "copied" many of the important portraits in Poe's life, specifically mentioning copying several images of Eliza Poe.

Since John Ingram is known to have destroyed huge portions of his own correspondence about 'Poe's Women,' as well as material about other 'iffy' issues in Poe's life, much of the correspondence from Marie Louise Shew to John Ingram is simply gone. None of Ingram's letters to any of the 'Poe Women' survive. Even Shew's own letters, specifically regarding these 'copied images of Eliza Poe,' are missing from the collection of their correspondence, which I have carefully read through.

But based on the few remaining letters from Shew to Ingram, admitting that she had copied two portraits of Eliza Poe, it seems safe to assume that one of the portraits Shew sent Ingram was the portrait of Eliza Poe shown here. According to Shew, she “took copies” of these portraits of Eliza Poe in the period (1847-48) when she spent a great deal of time at Poe Cottage, during Virginia's last illness, and then, helping Poe through the emotional and physical collapse caused by the loss of Virginia.

Shew mentions having copied “a rather intellectual profile of Poe's mother,” made around the time of her death in Richmond, Virginia, in 1811. Whether she ever succeeding in finding and sending, this portrait to Ingram is unknown, as again, there are no letters to corroborate whether Ingram received this portrait.

What most likely happened is that John Ingram did receive at least this portrait of Eliza, a copy taken by Shew; but chose to present it as an original, rather than what it really was, a copy of an original. Ingram likely destroyed information crediting Shew for this artwork, because he knew that presenting the first 'original painting of Poe's mother' would make a far bigger splash than 'a copy of an original.' Ingram was right. His presentation of an 'original painting of Poe's mother,' that many believe was the same one Poe had worn around his neck, made this portrait an instant icon, included in virtually every biography of Poe ever written. Ingram followed his instincts and came up a winner. Clearly, this painting would never have attained the level of reverence it has if Ingram had presented it as a copy made by an amateur artist friend of Poe's.

The Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore's official site, the best source of information about Poe available on the internet, presents a fascinating article called, Poe's Problematic Biography. What is stated here is certainly true of John Ingram:

“Understandably, biographers are reluctant to admit the dark secrets of their craft. Many are unaware of the extent that the final product is shaped by their own personal biases and the unspoken but still very real mandate of the reader to find the presentation cohesive and, above all, interesting.”

So, yes, John Ingram was indeed reluctant to “admit the dark secrets of his craft,” and was indeed motivated by trying to make the information and portraiture he presented, “above all, interesting.” Indeed, presenting this portrait of Eliza Poe as “an original” made the portrait not only more interesting, but more importantly, it created a mythos around Eliza Poe that has anything but slackened over the years. Harry Houdini was an obsessive collector of early playbills and memorabilia about Eliza Poe. Geddeth Smith offered us, The Brief Career of Eliza Poe, in 1988, the first full scale biography of Poe's Mother, which featured this portrait on its cover. Its simply 'the best we've got.' There is a fascination with Eliza Poe herself that goes far beyond people's interests, or obsessions with, Poe himself.

Never, in her known correspondence with Ingram, does Marie Louise Shew actually state that the portrait of Eliza Poe she's sending is precisely the same one Poe wore around his neck. While she divulges that it was Poe's habit to wear his mother's miniature around his neck in a locket, she does not say that she owns this miniature. She only offers to send copies she made of extant portraits of Eliza Poe, taken during her lengthy sojourn at Poe Cottage.

If as Shew asserted, Poe indeed constantly wore his mother's portrait around his neck, then the miniature of Eliza would have been around his neck at the time of his death. There is no mention whatsoever in Poe biography about anyone ever “retrieving the locket.” If the miniature were recovered it would have been sent to Maria Poe Clemm, who eventually received a trunk of 'Poe's effects' after his death. Muddy never commented that she owned a portrait of Eliza Poe.

According to tradition, Poe received a “bundle of love letters bound together” and a painting done by Eliza Poe herself of Boston Harbor, with an inscription to Edgar on the verso. His brother, Henry, supposedly received a lock of her hair. Rosalie Poe, the baby, received an inexpensive and empty, jewelry box, which for some reason, was in Marie Louise Shew's possession in the 1870s!

Oddly, the issue of the provenance of this piece of art has never been seriously handled. Shew's letters are now considered 'virtually unintelligible,' as well as full of inaccuracies. Still, there can be no doubt that Shew does state that she copied portraits of Poe's mother and was sending them to John Ingram.

Ironically, Shew's correspondence with Ingram provided her with a reputation as an amateur artist with some degree of skill. This not especially accurate appraisal of Shew's skills has acquired for her the credit for painting the deathbed portrait of Virginia Poe. Since the watercolor painting of Virginia is a fine work by a professional artist, it seems extremely unlikely that Shew, whose rough sketches are preserved at the John Henry Ingram Poe Collection at the University of Virginia, had the 'artistic chops' to produce an intricate water color painting of anyone, including Virginia Poe on her deathbed.

The irony, of course, is that Shew does not get credit for painting this portrait of Eliza Poe, which she likely did paint, but inadvertently, she received credit for a far better piece of art, the deathbed portrait of Virginia Poe.

The best that can be said for the portrait of Eliza Poe is that Shew most likely did copy the 1803 portrait of Eliza Poe by Thomas Sully. We see the dark, wavy hair, the huge brown eyes, the petite frame, and can sense the sweetness of Eliza's character, despite the flaws in the portrait. At least in the immediate present, this is the closest thing we have to a portrait of Eliza Poe.

Sully also painted Edgar Poe when they were both living in Philadelphia. Biddle and Fielding don't have an exact date or span of days, during which the painting was executed, but they provide 1838-39 as an approximate dating for the work. Neither do they put any price on the painting. If as some Sully experts claim, Thomas Sully was so fastidious that he recorded every single painting he ever painted, here is a case in point where Sully himself provided little or no documentation about this painting of Poe. Information about the painting seems to have come to Biddle and Fielding directly from a group of important Philadelphians who claimed to have 'witnessed' the actual painting of this portrait!

Biddle and Fielding knew the whereabouts of this important painting, had seen it themselves and had ample provenance from those who claimed to have been present when the portrait was executed. This makes it clear that while this painting clearly existed and was seen by at least an elite group of Philadelphia intelligentsia, the lack of documentation from Sully himself makes it clear that Sully did not register every painting he did. This fact becomes very important when appraising other important pieces of 'Poe Family Art' by the hand of Thomas Sully.

There are many mysteries concerning this missing painting of Poe. Many have spent their lives searching for it in vain. The Grail-like quest for this painting would make an intriguing film. While the painting's whereabouts, and its owner, were known until the early 20th century, it then dropped completely from sight. It is very odd that this painting was never photographed, as 'back-up' in case the original were to become 'lost,' which at least at this point in time, it has.

As Sully painted Poe with no moustache, the painting is more than likely sitting in the vaults of some Historical Society or museum. Virtually no one would recognize a portrait of Poe without his trademark moustache! This remarkable work is probably hidden away in the storage area of some repository, marked simply, "Unknown Male 19th century." The painting was taken in Philadelphia, and it was still in Philadelphia in 1906. To those wanting to 'join the hunt,' my hunch is that this important painting will be discovered, yes, in Philadelphia.