Portrait of Harriet Smith,
circa 1773
Henry Benbridge
(1743 – 1812)
View Artist Bio
Oil on canvas
30 1/8 x 24 1/8 inches
Status: Available
Henry Benbridge (1743–1812)
Portrait of Harriet Berresford Smith (1773–1839)
Circa 1773
Oil on canvas
30 ⅛ x 24 ⅛ inches
Henry Benbridge's circa 1773 portrait of Harriet Beresford Smith (1773-1839) represents a significant example of pre-Revolutionary War American portraiture with deep connections to Charleston's elite society. The subject, painted as a young child, was born into one of Charleston's most prominent families. She was the daughter of Thomas Loughton Smith, a successful merchant and member of the governor's
Royal Assembly, and Elizabeth Inglis Smith-Clitherall. Her grandfather, Benjamin Smith, was one of Charleston's wealthiest factors, serving as Speaker of the Commons House of Assembly from 1755 to 1763 and maintaining extensive business interests in the slave and fur trades.
Artist Henry Benbridge (1743-1812) emerged as one of colonial America's most accomplished portraitists, having studied in Italy and exhibited successfully in London before returning to the American colonies. His arrival in Charleston in 1772 coincided with a period of tremendous cultural and economic prosperity in the city, where he quickly established himself among the city's leading painters. Benbridge's European training and technical sophistication are evident in this portrait, which demonstrates his mastery of the neoclassical style through its careful composition and rendering of the subject in ivory and gold silk taffeta, positioned next to a tree with a black bird perched on her outstretched hand.
The frame itself carries particular historical significance, as it appears to be original and bears striking similarities to documented frames made by Thomas Elfe, Charleston's premier cabinetmaker of the period. The frame's construction mirrors that found on other Charleston-made frames of the era, particularly those on documented Jeremiah Theus paintings.[1] The design elements—including the cyma reversa molding over a veneered frieze—closely resemble architectural details found in Charleston's finest homes and furniture of the late 18th century. Entries in Elfe's DayBook from the 1770s show that he produced frames for leading Charleston artists, suggesting a strong likelihood that he crafted this frame during the period of Benbridge's activity in the city.
Recent conservation work has revealed important technical aspects of both painting and frame, including evidence of multiple restoration campaigns over the centuries. The portrait's condition reports indicate that while it has undergone several treatments, including lining and varnish applications, it retains its original grandeur and character. The painting's construction, using a medium weight tabby weave portrait linen with a coral-pink primer layer, is typical of 18th-century artistic practices, while the frame's sophisticated construction using mahogany and cypress woods reflects the high level of craftsmanship available in colonial Charleston.
Together, the striking portrait and its fine frame represent an important document of both artistic achievement and social standing in pre-Revolutionary Charleston.
Written by Catie Cullen
Copyright Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc.
Benjamin Smith (1717-1770) and his wife, Ann(e) Loughton (1722-1760) had three daughters[2] and two sons, William Loughton Smith (1758-1812)[3] andThomas Loughton Smith (1740-1773) in Charles Town, S.C.
The younger son, Thomas Loughton Smith, marriedElizabeth Inglis(1744-1810) in 1763.[4]They had five daughters,[5] the youngest of which was Harriet Beresford Smith (1773-1839).
Harriet would have been the niece of William Loughton Smith.
_ _ _
Benjamin Smith was born Sept. 2, 1717, in Berkeley County, S.C., the eldest son of Thomas and Sabina Smith. He became a politician and planter, as well as a business partner with Miles Brewton in the mercantile firm Smith & Brewton. His trade in slaves and furs made him one of the wealthiest factors in South Carolina.6
First elected to represent St. Philip’s Parish in the Commons House of Assembly, Smith served as its Speaker from 1755 to 1763, and continued serving as a member until his death in 1770.
When his son Thomas joined the firm in 1761, it was renamed in Smith, Brewton & Smith.
Benjamin retired a year later. His wealth, prominence and dedication to public service earned
him a recommendation from Lt. Gov. William Bull in 1760 to a position on the Royal Council, though he declined the offer perhaps because he generally supported the growing Patriot cause.[6]
One visitor to the city described Smith as “Cheerful, easy, and generous.”[7]
Smith built the large residence/commercial building that still stands at 49 Broad Street. His commercial space, a single large room on the first floor that lacks the customary smaller adjoining counting rooms, was probably one of the largest in pre-Revolutionary Charleston. The family accessed the second floor living quarters through a rear entry off the piazza, allowing entry to the stair hall without having to pass through the office. Smith also is credited with building the three-story mansion at 51/53 Broad Street in 1740, though its façade was redesigned in 1899. It is designated as a National Historic Landmark.[8]
Smith was active in Charles Town’s cultural, social and philanthropic life. He served as master of
Solomon’s Lodge and provincial grand master of the Masons. He was a member of the South
Carolina Society, St. Andrews Society, and Charleston Library Society, and was elected as an
American member of the Society for Encouraging Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce in
London. He owned pews in St. Michaels’ Church, which he helped establish, and in St. Philip’s
Church, where he served on the vestry.[9]
Smith donated money to local schools, including one for African Americans, noteworthy given his involvement in the slave trade. In his will, he bequeathed 1,000 pounds each to the Charleston Library Society, South Carolina Society, and to Charles Town’s poor, as well as 500 pounds to the proposed College of Charleston and 50 pounds to buy an organ for St. Philip’s Church.[10]
Smith died in Newport, R.I., on July 28, 1770, when he was 53. Undoubtedly, he was in Newport to escape Charles Town’s brutally hot summers, as did many of the city’s elite. According to his obituary,[11] he was buried there at Trinity Church, though his remains were later reinterred in St.
Philip’s churchyard with his wife, Anne Loughton Smith. His epitaph proclaims him “in every respect a valuable member of the community.”
Portrait of Hon. Benjamin Smith (1717-1770) by Jeremiah Theus. Dated 1739. Frick Digital Collections.
_ _ _
Thomas Loughton Smith (1740 – 1773) became a partner with his father Benjamin and Miles Brewton in the mercantile firm of Smith, Brewton & Smith in 1761. His father retired a year later, and the firm continued as Brewton & Smith until 1766. In 1767 Thomas joined his cousin Roger Smith and together they formed Thomas L. & Roger Smith, owning three ships and one schooner. Before the American Revolution, Thomas Smith also served on the governor’s Royal Assembly.[12]
Smith traveled to England in 1769 where he lobbied for the repeal of the Townshend Acts. While there, he arranged for the shipment of the William Pitt statue to Charles Town and sought support to cast the tower bells for the recently completed St. Michael’s Church.[13]
Thomas inherited 9,000 pounds sterling upon his father’s death and retired from the mercantile business sometime around 1771. In 1773, he received a grant of 3,000 acres in Craven County, one of the colony’s three original counties established by the Lords Proprietors of Carolina.[14]He married Elizabeth Inglis, and they had five daughters who survived to adulthood. Their town house on Church Street no longer exists.
Smith was a warden and vestryman for both St. Michael’s Church (1766-1772) and St. Philip’s Church (1772-1773). He was buried in St. Philip’s churchyard, having died in Columbia, S.C., after falling from his horse on April 16, 1773, two weeks before his youngest daughter, Harriet, was born. At the time of his death, he maintained part interest in three trading ships.[15]
_ _ _
Harriet Beresford Smith (1773-1839) was the daughter of Thomas Loughton Smith
(1740-1773) and Elizabeth Inglis Smith-Clitherall (1744-1810).[16]In addition to her four full sisters, she had two half siblings from her mother’s second marriage.[17]
Harriet also married twice, first to John Poaug in 1794, then to William Crafts c. 1810,19 with whom she had three sons, only one of whom survived infancy: Henry William (1811-1812), George Inglis (1812-1892), and Thomas Loughton Smith (1815-1817).
Harriet lived to be 66. She died on Dec. 8, 1839, and is buried in St. Michael’s churchyard.
Sources:
Essay by Leigh Jones Handal
Licensed & Certified Charleston Tour Guide
Member, The Palmetto Guild
Copyright Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc.
Joanne Barry, Fine Art Conservation Charleston
Date of Deposit: July 17, 2024
Painting: Oil on canvas, lined
Artist: Henry Benbridge
Size: 30 1/8” x 24 1/8”
Title: Portrait of Harriet Smith, circa 1773
CONDITION REPORT
Description:
The painting is a portrait of a young girl, painted in the neoclassical style. The sitter is identified as Harriet Smith. Painted 1770’s; she is the granddaughter of Benjamin Smith, the first Landgrave [Governor] of the Carolinas. The child sits next to a tree, wrapped in ivory and gold silk taffeta with a black bird perched on her left, outstretched hand. The artist’s rendering of foliage, in the upper section of the sky, creates a sense of drama, drawing attention to the central figure in the composition. The dark sections of the painting’s background are difficult to read as they are overpainted, and the varnish is unsaturated. The painting is stable and in fair condition. The painting has undergone previous restoration treatments having been lined, cleaned, retouched and revarnished several times over the centuries.
Technical Examination of Painting:
AUXILARY SUPPORT
Construction - The canvas is stretched upon a five-membered butt-joined stretcher. The stretcher is finely made with smooth finished members of an unstained softwood, that is estimated to be pine.
The butt-joined construction has mortise and tenon joints that allow for the insertion of keys. The members are flat and wide, measuring 3” x 3/4”. The stretcher members are smoothly finished and finely sanded. The profile of the stretcher offers a slight bevel. The eight existing keys have been fashioned out of a hardwood. The keys are long and sloped, each measuring three inches in length. There are several markings on the wooden stretcher: “Kirkman ” in fine handwritten white chalk.
Condition - The stretcher is in good working condition with no warps or checks. The wood has not oxidized. The stretcher is clean. There is a thin layer of dust on the cross-member bar. The joints are secure, and the corners are square. All eight keys are present. The stretcher, though butt-joined, does not appear aged enough to be original to the painting’s construction.
SUPPORT
Construction - The painting is executed upon medium weight, tabby weave portrait linen. The tightly woven fabric is made of threads of medium thickness. The fibers are estimated to be linen. The original canvas has been wax lined in a treatment process executed in an earlier century. The lining fabric is a medium weave linen fabric with imperfections on the verso.
When the painting was lined, the original tacking margins were removed. No fragments of the original tacking margins remain. The lining canvas is secured to the stretcher with iron tacks. The tacks have been set at uneven intervals, through the lining fabric. The verso surface of the lining fabric is smooth with no residual tack.
Condition - The canvas is stable. A tear mend was executed many (hundreds of) years ago, in the lower PL quadrant of the painting, near the sitter’s left foot. The linear tear measures approximately 5” long. It is 3” up from the bottom and 8” in from the Proper Right. The surface is planar. This one tear appears to be the cause of the lining treatment. The tear is stable. The lining is stable with the adhesive well adhered to both canvases. The original fabric shows signs of interval tension marks from being stretched under uneven tension. The iron tacks are slightly oxidized and hidden under paper tape that has been applied to the tacking margin.
GROUND and PAINT LAYER
Construction - The ground preparation of the canvas cannot be clearly determined due to the impregnation of the lining adhesive. It is estimated that the ground is hand-mixed preparation of lead white pigment and oil medium. There is a toned, coral-pink layer of primer applied on top of the ground. The surface conformation has a pebble-like texture. Some aggregate may have been intentionally mixed into the ground. This surface texture may have been added to give the ground layer tooth.
The paint layer is comprised of hand mixed, oil-rich layers. The paint has been applied in a mostly direct manner. Thinned paint and glazes were likely used to tone in the final stage of painting, and traces of these delicate layers exist. The paint has a medium thickness with heightened impasto brushwork in the rendering of the fabric.
The figure and fabric have been executed with thicker bodied paint, allowing for raised areas of slight impasto brushwork. The colors of the artist’s palette are subdued earth tones, with the exception of the gold paint details of the fabric and the light of the setting sun.
Condition - The ground is well adhered to the canvas. The paint layer is well adhered to the ground, except for certain areas of mechanical impact that have caused cracking and some loss of the paint film (listed below). The paint film surrounding the repaired tear is smooth and secure.
Another area of damage, not an apparent tear, occurs in the PL quadrant, 5” in from the left and 10” up from the bottom. Other minor scratches and small losses are found scattered across the painting.
Extensive overpaint has been applied to the background to mask the broad aperture drying cracks in the brown paint. The brown/black paint that comprised the thinner passages of eye and fine hair on the forehead was reduced and partially abraded in a previous cleaning.
Cracking - A wide circular impact crack marks the very center of the painting. The aperture of this circular crack has darkened, appearing in contrast in the white painted fabric. The sitter’s face is marked with isolated losses. The scattered losses are located across the sitter’s forehead, cheeks, and nose vary in size: some measuring .25 cm to 2 cm in width. Two of the more prominent losses are under her P.L. eye and one on the bridge of the nose. These losses appear to have been filled and retouched with oil paint decades ago.
These losses of layers of paint film (in the face) were likely due to cracking and flaking that occurred from a hanging wire snapping against the verso. There are also cracks presenting a feather pattern craquelure, from other impacts to the canvas. A network of fine aperture drying cracks occurring in the background elements of the composition. Other fine aperture cracks occur throughout the background. These cracks are stable and are to be expected in a painting of this age.
Retouch - The painting has undergone two, distinct campaigns of retouch paint. The earlier was executed in oil paint and the more recent campaign in an acrylic-based retouching medium. Finely painted details of the darkest colors of the sitter’s hair, lips and eyes has been retouched in a previous treatment. The delicate shadow of the upper lip has been painted flatly in a line shaped as a cupid’s bow. The upper eyelids and pupils have been retouched with a black paint color that does not exist in the artist’s palette. The delicate shading layers of paint and glaze that toned the edge of the cheek have been lost, making the face appear in sharp contrast to the background. The very delicate layers that comprise the hair have been partially abraded. The brushwork from a curling lock of hair that should sit in the center of the forehead can be detected.
The sitter’s head has been awkwardly reshaped into a cone with the application of green retouch paint. This layer of retouching paint was broadly applied around the face and shoulders, to cover drying cracks and two losses in the original paint of the background foliage. The bird has also been retouched with black paint. The bird’s plumage was originally painted with hues of blue grey.
The background foliage had been abraded in a previous cleaning. There is also wide traction crackle in the brown colored paint in the background. The painted areas of leaves, growing out of the tree on the PR side, has a rough, raised quality. It is estimated that the brown pigment used was bitumen. Bitumen presents drying issues, remaining soluble and solvent sensitive. Loss of details painted with this pigment likely occurred when the painting was initially cleaned. These areas of brown paint are composed of high oil content (and possibly using bitumen as the pigment) are prone to traction cracking. The paint dries and retracts, leaving wide aperture cracks and adding an alligator surface to the paint film. Previous attempts at varnish reduction have abraded these deep brown areas. In a previous treatment, someone tried to fill in the gaps of traction crackle by applying brown paint as a fill material. Also, the brown (retouch) paint was broadly applied across the delicate yellow-green colors of the foliage obscuring the color change from sight.
Tiny flake losses are prominent in the dark areas in the shadow sections. A heavy layer of brown paint was applied over these very small, pinpoint losses.
The left-hand side of the painting, where the dark brown tree stands, is affected by drying cracks. This area has no cracking and lifting paint. The craquelure across the rest of the painting is varied. The foliage on the tree has been abraded and overpainted in a previous treatment. Many of the green leaves have been retouched broadly with brown paint. No evidence of a signature has yet been detected.
VARNISH LAYER
Construction - The painting is coated with extremely thick layers of varnish. The painting appears to have been revarnished several times, on top of existing varnish layers, with residues of grime and a degraded varnish layer trapped beneath.
The surface is coated with a layer of dust and grime. The uppermost varnish layer has been applied thickly and smoothly, and was likely spray applied. Beneath is a synthetic resin varnish that has been tinted gold. The subsequent layer (beneath the synthetic resin) is another even older layer of natural resin varnish, that is directly coating the paint film.
Condition - The varnish coating does not saturate the paint layer. The coating has a dull, waxy appearance. The dark sections of the composition appear hazy and unsaturated. Markings around the perimeter show the rubbing of the frame rabbet against the varnish layer.
The beautifully rendered main subject and background are both obscured by the unsaturated, degraded varnish coating. Isolated areas of grime are trapped beneath a waxy layer, in the recesses of the impasto brushwork. The painting has undergone a treatment in the past in which a film of wax/resin was flooded across the surface of the painting. This was likely meant to set down and fill losses and cracks. This unfortunate action has left a grey film of wax and grime as a residue directly upon the surface of the paint film.
The substance will require tailoring a micro-emulsion cleaning system to successfully reduce the coating.
The application of such thick coats of varnish appears to be an attempt to disguise old retouch paint that had discolored and the uneven nature of the paint film. The dark green and brown areas of the paint film have a raised, slightly pebbled surface, with traction crackle, in the foliage to the PL side of the painting.
The tinted layer of synthetic varnish has turned dull and milky. Subtleties of the tonal quality of the picture and the porcelain beauty of the skin-tone are lost beneath this coating.
A layer of natural resin, directly on the paint film, was incompletely reduced in a prior attempt at cleaning. Pockets of discoloration of degraded varnish remain trapped under the varnish.
A residue of a wax has also been left on the surface of the painting after the wax lining treatment. It appears the painting was lined and subjected to high heat while the painting retained the degraded varnish. The discolored varnish is set into a grid pattern reflecting the weave of the canvas that has pressed through the paint film.
Grime, discolored varnish and wax are trapped beneath the surface of the varnish. Initial cleaning tests show promising results of cleaning away a century of varnish, as well as the obscuring grime that is sitting on the surface.
The cleaning tests were satisfactory, showing that varnish reduction will render dramatic results. Tests reveal two different levels of varnish reduction will be needed to reduce the surface coatings.
The Artist
Henry Benbridge was an American painter whose career stretched from the colonial era, through the Revolution, into the first decades of the United States. He studied in Italy, exhibited successfully in London and returned to the American colonies to make his career. His near contemporaries, who were European trained and returned to the colonies prior to the Revolution, are Charles Willson Peale, Matthew Pratt, Gilbert Stuart.
Because of the American Revolution there is an increase of interest on the part of art historians in those painters who were actually on hand in the colonies to record the events from first-hand knowledge. Henry Benbridge was born in Philadelphia in 1743, the son of James Ben- bridge and his wife, Mary Clark. When he was eight, his father died and his widow married as her second husband Thomas Gordon, a Philadelphia merchant with a Scottish background. When Henry was only 15, he is supposed to have had lessons from John Wollaston who was in Philadelphia in 1758 and painted Thomas Gordon's portrait. Some of Benbridge's paintings from this period survive. He went to Italy about 1764 when he had reached his majority and came into some property left him by his father. He was living in Rome with the Irish sculptor Christopher Hewetson in 1765.3 Upon his return from Italy and London in October of 1770, he went back to the Gordon home, Magnolia. - Robert G. Stewart.
Joanne Barry, Fine Art Conservation Charleston
Title: Portrait of Harriet Smith, circa 1773
Artist: Henry Benbridge 1743 – 1812
Painting: Oil Paint on Canvas
Size: 30 1/8 ” x 24 1/8 ”
Summary: The painting is in fair condition. The paint film is coated with extremely heavy layers of varnish. Both synthetic and natural resin varnishes have been applied in thick layers. The surface coating is a layer of tinted varnish. Thin applications of brown and green paint have been broadly applied to cover losses.
Beneath the four varnish layers exists a residual layer of natural varnish with imbibed grime. This earliest layer of discolored varnish was pressed into the texture of the canvas weave during a wax lining process. There is also residual wax on the surface of the paint film.
The painting has an overall pebble-like texture. Dark brown and green areas in the background have raised traction crackle or alligatoring. There is no active flaking but there are several losses of paint and ground material that have been retouched in several restoration campaigns over the centuries. The tear mend is secure, and the lining is secure. Evidence of abrasion to the paint film and uneven cleaning are expected to be found in the background areas of foliage.
See full condition report for detailed documentation.
Proposal:
Photo-documentation and documentation reports 3 stage cleaning:
Surface clean grime removal, solvent gel varnish reduction, then varnish reduction with micro emulsion. Finally, reduction of third layer of varnish with imbibed dirt and weave pattern marking the original paint film.
Remove stretcher keys and place them in proper direction. Add missing stretcher key.
Add fill material to losses of paint and ground
Tone losses
Apply isolating varnish Inpaint fill material.
Once the losses in the face are addressed, the client will assess the amount of retouching to be done.
Retouching the traction craquelure in the background elements is not necessary.
Apply final varnish
Pad frame rabbet
Apply proper hanging hardware
Reframe painting with proper framing hardware.
Joanne Barry, Fine Art Conservation Charleston
Title: Portrait of Harriet Smith, circa 1773
Artist: Henry Benbridge 1743 – 1812
Painting: Oil Paint on Canvas
Size: 30 1/8 ” x 24 1/8 ”
Frame: not included in scope of treatment
Date of Deposit: July 1, 2024 Date of Completion: Nov 26, 2024
Summary: The painting was treated as proposed. The conservation treatment dealt mainly with the reduction of thick varnish layers, then the removal of discolored retouch paint and minimizing the appearance of losses that were not leveled in the previous repair. Details of the conservation are mentioned below.
A heavy application of tinted varnish appears to have been used to mask the wide aperture traction crackle occurring in the background. When the varnish in these areas was reduced, it became apparent that the application of tinted varnish had also been broadly applied to cover losses minor losses. The brown tinted varnish had darkened the true coloration of the foliage hidden beneath.
This treatment sought to reduce the application of previous retouch paint. The painting had undergone two distinct campaigns of retouch paint. The earlier one was executed in oil paint and the more recent campaign used an acrylic-based retouching medium. The acrylic based retouch was reduced; however, the more tenuous oil paint retouch was left in place.
Finely painted details of the sitter’s hair, and the shadow of the upper lip and eyes had been retouched with black and brown paint. This treatment retouched these harsh colors, replacing a delicate shadow on the upper lip.
A trace of original brushwork, from a curling lock of hair in the center of the forehead, was detected. This treatment sought to replace the missing locks of hair with thin glazes. The original delicate rendering of fine hair at the forehead and over the ear that had been abraded was recreated. The sitter’s head appeared to sit awkwardly upon her shoulders, as the shadow under the chin was missing.
The bird originally a blue-black, had been retouched with black paint. The bird’s plumage was restored with hues of blue grey.
The yellow area of the draped fabric had impact cracks, imbibed grime and insect fraz throughout. It is suspected that some of the glazes that created shadows in the drapery had been abraded in a previous cleaning. Where cleaning could not reduce the brown accretions, retouch was applied. Retouch glazes were added to blend and soften the edges of the drapery.
After removal of the varnish coatings, the background of the painting had an overall pebble-like texture. Layers of varnish were brush applied to build back the varnish layers. Several brush and spray coatings of B-72 were applied to level the dark brown and green areas in the background. The background foliage was retouched where it had been abraded in a previous cleaning.
After reducing the varnish layers the last deposits of ages natural resin varnish and imbibed grime were addressed. This earliest layer of discolored varnish was pressed into the texture of the canvas weave during a wax lining process. There is also residual wax on the surface of the paint film.
See full condition report for before treatment documentation.
Treatment:
The painting was photo-documented before, during, and after treatment.
The painting was cleaned in three stages:
Cleaning
The surface was cleaned of grime using an aqueous solution of 1% ammonium citrate at a pH of 6.5
A solvent gel preparation of xylene was used for the reduction of the top layer of varnish.
A second preparation of a xanthum gum micro emulsion with 10% benzol alcohol was used to reduce retouch paint. The micros emulsion was applied on with a small brush, then removed with dry swabs, then the surface was cleared with Keck II.
A third preparation of a Shellsol/ethanol gel was used to reduce further layers of varnish and imbibed grime. The gel was removed with dry swabs, then the surface was cleared with Keck II. A fourth application of xylene gel was employed to reduce the wax deposits that remained on the surface after the prior wax lining. The gel was removed with dry swabs, then the surface was cleared with Keck I.
Compensation for loss
Modostuc fill material (in both white and ebony colors) was used to fill losses of paint and ground.
The widest impact cracks occurring in the flesh tones were also filled with white Modostuc.
The losses were toned with watercolor paint.
An isolating varnish of B-72 was brush applied.
The losses were inpainted with Golden MSA Conservation colors.
Once the losses in the face are addressed, additional spray coats of B-72 varnish in xylene were applied to level out the uneven appearance of the background.
Some retouching was added to the most distracting areas of wide aperture traction crackle.
A final varnish of MS2A in Shellsolv 340 HT was applied by spray. The spray application caused some of the retouch paint to solubilize and some of the delicate retouch was lost.
Further retouching was executed in glazes made of Golden MSA colors in Golden Gloss varnish.
The frame rabbet was padded with felt tape.
Proper hanging hardware was attached to the frame.
The painting was affixed to the frame with molded, brass strap hardware.
*An additional spray coat of higher gloss varnish will be applied at the client’s request
Treatment completed by:
Joanne Barry, MS Painting Conservation
Russell Buskirk 11/27/24
Condition and conservation report: frame
Henry Benbridge, Portrait of Harriet
Smith
Circa 1773
Primary wood: mahogany, mahogany veneer
Secondary wood: cypress
HOA: 36 1/8”
WOA: 30 ¾”
DOA: 1 ¼”
The frame was intact but had loose joints, molding, and veneer. There was minor loss at two loose mortice and tenon joints. The hanging wire screw-eyes were loose. There were numerous broken nails and nail holes in the sub-frame and a few small splits.
The frame is constructed the same way as the Charleston-made frames on some documented Jerimah Theus paintings. The frames of the Elliott family children (Fig. 1) were closely studied and measured by the author in preparation of reproducing a frame for another Elliott child portrait. These frames were smaller, but had similar molding profiles, with reduced proportions. The cypress sub-frames were also constructed, proportionately, the same way; except for the bevel on the sub-frame outer edge.
The original frame of the portrait of Susannah Maybank Reid, by Theus, is constructed the same way as the Elliott frames. It was close to this frame’s size, but not exactly. The molding dimensions are not exact either but are similar. It had the original rosettes at the corners. There are some documented Theus paintings that retain their original frames.
This frame design is very similar to some of the architectural chimney fronts and paneled walls in many of the fine houses in Charleston. They often have rosettes at the corners. (Fig. 2) The design is also very similar to the frieze in the cornice and on some doors of case furniture made in Charleston.
Many Charleston presses, bookcases, and double chest had cornices that are integral with the case. (Fig. 3) The design of the lower elements of these cornices very closely resembles the design of this frame - A larger molding [cyma reversa] over, a veneered frieze over, a smaller molding [ovolo and cavetto]. This similarity extends to paneled doors with a small inset-molding attached to the flat panel and a molded frame.
These forms are listed in Thomas Elfe’s Day Book. Elfe was one of Charleston’s premier cabinet makers in the late 18th Century. Although no specific pieces have been firmly attributed to Elfe, there are many existing examples of the forms listed in his recorded sales and repairs. The entries show that Elfe repaired furniture, unlocked doors and also “put up” bed hangings, draperies, and tapestries for same clients that he made furniture for.
Jeremiah Theus is listed in Elfe’s Day Book nine times. This indicates an ongoing professional and likely personal relationship. Some itemized charges are for stretcher frames, mahogany frames, picture frames, and packing cases. Elfe also replaced Theus’ table fly-rail in 1774.
On November 7th 1772 Elfe charged Theus for four stretching frames, on the 10th it was for a packing case and for mending a music stand. The total was £7.5. “A large mahogany picture frame” made for Theus, cost £10 on March 12, 1774. It came with “a small one and 2 cypress cases for ditto”. The total bill was £20 for all. The size of this frame would be considered large for a Theus painting.
Henry Benbridge arrived in Charleston in 1772. His skill level, training, and reputation placed him quickly among the top Charleston’s painters. It is not unreasonable to expect that Benbridge, as an important Charleston painter, would purchase frames from the leading cabinetmaker. Benbridge’s clients would have been comfortable with Elfe’s designs and work.
The 1770’s date of Elfe’s frame making, corresponds with the attributed date of the Harriet Smith portrait. It is very possible that Elfe could have made this frame and the original stretcher.
Construction:
- Mortice and tenon sub-frame, beveled on outer edge
- Moldings and veneer glued and nailed at angle to face of sub-frame
- Moldings and veneer mitered at corners
- Veneer in two pieces [top and bottom], three pieces [sides]
- Inner molding overhangs inner edge of sub-frame creating a rabbet
- Original stretcher nailed at angle to sub-frame [remnants remain]
- Oil varnish over shellac coating
- Modern frame liner
Condition:
- Some loss to coatings [scratches, dents, and scrapes]
- Some season splits in veneer, uneven surfaces at corners
- Oil varnish on veneer had “orange-peeled’ surface
- Mortice joints had loss, were loose, and split
- Veneer glue failure wide-spread
- Molding glue failure throughout
- Several series of wire fasteners [screw-eyes]
- Split inner molding at nail
- Relined stretcher rubbing on sides of rabbet
- Inner edges of sub-frame trimmed at some point [when relined?]
- Exposed broken nails
Conservation:
- Remove hanging wire screw-eyes
- Remove stretcher brackets
- Re-glue veneer and molding [hide glue]
- Re-glue splits in sub-frame
- Apply filler to loss in sub-frame [G-Flex with low-density fairing filler and pigment] o P.R. upper corner o P.R. lower corner
- Remove nail at split inner molding P.R. at upper corner, glue split, hard-wax filler in hole
- Remove protruding broken nails in sub-frame
- Level surface coating on veneer with #320 sandpaper and steel-wool
- Light smoothing of molding surface coatings with steel-wool
- Remove modern frame liner
- Cut, fit, and install new frame liner
- Wax surface coating
Images to Follow:
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
[1] Notably, Theus also painted Benjamin Smith (1717-1770) in 1739, an ancestor of Harriet Smith. See page 7.
[2] Their daughters were Anne (1745-1772, m. Motte), Susannah, (1754-1808, m. Elliott), Judith,
(1766-1820, m. Ladson)
[3] William Loughton Smith (1758 – 1812) was a lawyer and planter who served five terms from 1789 to 1797 as U.S. Congressman from South Carolina’s 1st District. Along with other Southern representatives, he fought to kill antislavery petitions. Described as a Federalist’s Federalist, Smith was Alexander Hamilton’s spokesman in the House of Representatives. He supported the secretary of the treasury’s plans for funding the national debt, assumption of state debts, and the creation of a national bank. (South Carolina, A History, pl 253.) Smith also served as Charleston’s agent when, in 1792, City Council commissioned John Trumbull to paint a full-length portrait of George Washington. Trumbull also painted Smith’s miniature, at left, in 1792. It was donated to Yale University by Herbert L. Pratt. A staunch
Federalist, Smith wrote several pamphlets critiquing his party’s political rival, Thomas Jefferson, in the 1790s. Under John Adams, Smith served as U.S. Minister to Portugal from 1797 to 1801. Smith had previously served as a member of the S.C. House of Representatives from 1784-1788, and again in 1808.
[4] Elizabeth remarried after Thomas Smith’s death to James Clitherall.
[5] The other daughters were Elizabeth (1765-1787, m. Campbell); Anna Loughton Smith (1767-1835, m. Fraser), Claudia (1768-1855, m. Izard), and Maria (1769-1812, m. Ramsay) 6 South Carolina Encyclopedia, Smith, Benjamin.
[11] South Carolina Gazette, Aug. 16, 1770.
[16] Some sources incorrectly list either Mary Wragg or Charlotte Wragg as Harriet’s mother. Mary Wragg married her grandfather, Benjamin Smith. Charlotte Wragg married her uncle, William Loughton Smith.
Also see Ancestry.com.
[17] Mary Magdalena Clitherall (1778-1819, m. Thomas) and Dr. George Campbell Clitherall (1780-1829) 19 North American Families lists their marriage date as 1806.