The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-12-26

nut It's q picture OF announcer Man'
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 25.-The authen-
ITCHY Of the so-called Gainsborough por-
trait OF Benjamin Franklin, now in the
library OF the University Of Pennsylvania,
and presented to that institution by the
class OF so with elaborate ceremonies
on Feb. % last. is attacked vigorously by
Charles Henry Hart, well-known art
critic Of this city and an acknowledged au-
thority on Colonial portraits.
Mr.. Hart is a member OF the General
Alumni Association Of the university, a
graduate Of the class Of 90. law. He ex-
plains that far from having any desire to
criticise his alma mater, 1t Is in reality
in her interest that he raises his voice.
asserting that the university has been i'm
posed upon. II was his original intention
to make his statement at to-night's meeting
Of the American Historical Association.
Mr.. Hart says first that there never was
a Gainsborough of Franklin. He also says
that the real Gainsborough, once believed
TO be a portrait Of Franklin. Ia now in the
gallery Of Lord Lansdowne. He says in
addition that Lord Lansdowne's Gainsbor-
ough is really picture Of Surgeon-General
Middleton. He declares that the supposed
valuable portrait Of Franklin in the pos
session Of the University OF Pennsylvania
is portrait of Franklin of no great value.
In addition to much data in support of
his claims Mr.. Hart presents two auto
graph letters from Lord Lansdowne. show
ing that he has the real Gainsborough in
his possession and that what was once
enormously thought to be portrait OF
Franklin is really portrait OF Surgeon.
General Middleton.
Joseph G.. Rosengartel. who presented
the portrait on behalf of the class, read
Mr.. Harris criticism with much interest.
.Mr Hart is noted for controversies OF
this kind" he said An know about the
picture Of Franklin is that it was bought
on behalf of the class Of 80 from Christy
of London. one of the most noted picture
dealers of the world 1t was bought for
a Gainsborough. who made many portraits
an young man that are not extraordinarily
valuable. ! cannot see that Mr. Hart proves
his case or offers much that is new. For
my own part do not care to engage in a
controversy over the matter"
Provost Charles c. Harrison said:
-The picture was bought and presented
as genuine Gainsborough. have always
considered it as such.
In presenting the portrait, it was an
nounced that it was known by Flucher's
life of Gainsborough that he painted for
Lord Shelburne picture Of Franklin
at the time of the signing OF the Treaty Of
Paris.
It was further said that while it is not
the conventional portrait yet 1t is an un-
l. - IT, III lin, ha NJ 70,
Gainsborough, and II not the original
painted by him for Lord Shelburne, it Ia a
replica that may well take its place in the
library Of Franklin's university"
Mr.. Hart first denies that Fulcher says
that Gainsborough painted a portrait Of
Franklin for Lord Shelburne or any one
else He cites the customs ~ the times
"a proving a part Of his assertion. He
says
Franklin left England for America In
May OF l775. at which time. it is important
to note. he abandoned his cumbersome
wig for his thin gray hair. After this he
never revisited England and there "a not
a word anywhere pointing to Gainsborough
having been in France. where the Treaty Of
Paris was signed and where Franklin re-
sided from the close OF l776 until the fall
Of i7ss and it will hardly he pretended
that the great painter crossed the ocean
and visited this country.
Therefore II Gainsborough painted
Franklin's portrait. he had to paint II in
England prior to May OF ITS. II he had
done 80 the portrait OF Franklin from Gains
borough's brush would show the philoso-
pher and statesman in his cumbersome
kn 1t ErapLl,
sented to the university lie with his thin
gray hair
After devoting some space to his re-
searches. Mr.. Hart continues.
"Out Of the impenetrable chaos into
which this matter has been jumbled 1t IL
not easy to render logical order 1t will be
noted that an ominous silence is main
tanned as to the pedigree Of the portrait.
as we'll as to how and where It was obtained
The story told Ia one Of himsy hypothesis
The argument amounts TO this: Fulcher
says Gainsborough painted Franklin for
Lord Shelburne. Britton says Larsiownes
gallery was sold in 1902 Sanders engraved
that portrait In 1858.
.In 1902 there il no portrait Of Franklin
in the collection Of the present Marquis
LAnsdowne. Therefore, the portrait given
to tho library Of the University Of Penn
borough painted for Lansdowne and was
sold with his library and Sanders engra we'd
IL, or Il Is a replica Of IL.
But what becomes OF the superstructure
when the foundation ceases to exist? The
only correct statements to be found in the
presentation speech are that there il no
portrait Of Franklin in the Lansdowne
collection to-day and that it was said: The
Gainsborough portrait OF Franklin is not
that Of the ill,lstrious statesman and phil
osopher," which unequivocally it is not.
Fortunately am in possession Of the facts
to take the place OF these hyperbolic fan
cies.
Mr. Hart then quotes two letters from
Lord Lansdowne. one OF which reads:
LONDON. May ~, 1897.
SIR. ! regret to say that my portrait by
Ganshorough. so long known as that on
Benjamin Franklin. is really the portrait
OF different person. II represents, think,
undoubtedly, Surgeon; General Middleton
THE picture was. ] believe. acquired nv
the third Lord Lansdowne and was always
believed to be one OF Franklin until / met
with the replica My picture does not re-
semble the authentic portraits OF Frankiin
RegrettinR my inability to serve you. 1 am
sir. your obedient servant. LANspowNE
In conclusion he says:
"The only facts that need be added In
completely demolish the claim made that
the portrait Of Franklin under Consideration
painted by Gainsborough, belon Red to
Lord Lansdowne are that there was no
portrait Of Franklin by Gainsborough or
by any other painter In the 1900 sale OF fans-
downe collection; that the portrait en-