,''r-%Vr%%^,

Y "'■■*■ •'"--- *^'- *•■■'•'■ ■»-'^- fe . i^^ fe'' #r ^ '-■ W.:ft # W

1/ t y t^ t^

Ife fe i.«. {tj 4

fe- '|v -l^' 4*.^ ||V': ,)^ i^' ^

^^ i?^ '^i- (^: »

, ■ 1:^- , -fe* .1 iK^: ^g^ r i¥ f:^ ^^ ■{^: !|v'

■.-i' Ij.,.

tt' v^. 1^ Ife -|,f '^^ |;#

. '^: ^^- -^^ iK.^^^ '^ ffe If ft .- V 4

5^'^-;/^- "" ^"> h lA ii {^ -{r k ?«- t.:* . ' .;^; ■' ' ^. ■■ . • .%y^-- ^^' i^ t^' 'it % tn' u ^.' -i •:

•■■■ -■ i^^. W;^ ^\x .^ (^ ■ ]i t*'-ii'' 1^. - ■ ^

■^ a .m .-i^: .^i ti{- -^^ % " \^' (I ' .IS..- ■;« 4 ^ ;v ••

''■' ' ■ -.. t*. f^ t:^ ^ (a u .h- 'i- it' -'^ "■'/' ,i

'■^.■•'^ ^^ h If .fn "t^. I*^'!*' ^'i-: //■ »!• '«;. ^S>-/.{M- # 1&. 4V 0^'' B-"' a

/'- .14. ;> -fiii i> ?jj. f« |> ■ ni' .. ; ,,

«!?* tl., ^ •^. -.(i^ 15, ' '{^. ■ .i^-- ,,.. • <v ^^. ^*. -i;^ t*. |#, r» U ■': ''^^ ;v .a \k i& ■ f*- ift ji* t.

.1';. ' ■'

■•4?^ .'*,< j^.<- ^'4

U .>:<fe. I* ■ ji

5*. l> u - 1^ ]^ {»

.... ... . '.\f*'» r^ l--, I- t.. t.. {* ?.l ■{.«, -f* V< f. f. ^f

li 'ji.V' '*^ ^:* f** ■* <* f* T« i» I' ('» )* V f* </

E312

,43

,(175

CODV 1

IE 312 .43 I . P75 Copy 1

Lf

THE EVOLUTION

OF

THE BOSTON MEDAL

BY HOWARD PAYSON ARNOLD

7^ C^vuAtn-

THE EVOLUTION

OF

THE BOSTON MEDAL

A MONOGRAPH BY

HOWARD PAYSON ARNOLD

"The truth of history is a sacred thing-."— Thomas W. Higginson.

PRINTED FOR private; DISTRIBUTION

BOSTON 1901

■\15

THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, by vote passed on the 25th of March, 1776, decreed a gold medal to General Washington to commemorate his "wise and spirited conduct in the seige and acquisition of Boston."

For various reasons, not the least of which was the lack of money, nothing was done for several years towards carrying this vote into execution and the mattetr seemed to have been forgotten, except by Washington, who, though he said nothing, in his heart felt much mortified by the neglect. As he wrote to Col. Humphreys, his friend and aide-de-camp,

"My Dear Humphreys, I thank you for your attention to the medal which was voted for me; by Congress. I expected it was to have remained on the journals of that honorable Body as a dead letter, and never having hinted, — so I never intended to hint, my knowledge of such a vote, or my apprehension of the effect of it, toi any one in pow|er or in office. G. WASHINGTON.

"Mount Vernon, ist September, 1785."*

This is the only reference to the medal to be found in any of Washington's writings, and it is interesting as a proof that at that dalte he had not forgotten it and that he did attach a certain importance to the honor it implied, however little he seemed to regard it subsequently.

In the course of nearly ten years after the vote had been passed, a conviction gradually arose of the scanty and tardy justice that had been done to Washington and to several of his companions in arms, and Robert Morris, the "Superintendent of Finance" from 1781 to 1784, was requested to see that this reward for honorable service was procured for Washington, as well as several others that had

♦Washington Mss. Department of State.

been similarly granted by Congress. This charge, which was to be executed in Paris, was entrusted by Morris to Col. David Humphreys, above mentioned, who had just been appointed by Congress Secretary of the "Commiissioners for negotiating treaties of Commerce with foreign Powers." These Commissioners were Franklin, Adams (both of whom had already been some years abroad) and Jefferson, who was soon to join them. Humphreys sailed from New York on the 15th of July, 1784, and reached Paris in the ensuing Sq>tember. He seems to have had no especial instructions concerning the memorials from Morris, certainly not in writing, and the whole matter wias left pretty much to his own discretion. In fact he acted throughout as if he weire accountable to no one and did not send a rq^ort even to his superior.

Humphreys was one of those companionable, popular, kaleidoscopic characters that now and then appear for the amusement and decoration of the wodd at large, but who rarely betray much depth or application for serious business. However, \yith the help of tact, good nature, general intelligence, a ready wit and many glittering accomplishments, he had achieved a certain success and a position in the country tlxat kept him always before the people and in the line of possible promotion. His war record had done him honor and Washington was sincerely attached to him, having given him, besides other marks of favor, the epaulettes he wore at Yorktown. In various quarters he was thought to be a poet and he really possessed a faculty, not so common in those days as now, for the copious production of heroics, patriotic and other. His vers de soci^t^, humorous and sparkling, had made him widely knowm and so had his "Yankee in England" and other printed facetiae, while his "Address to the Armies of the United States" had even been translated into excellent French by the Chevalier de Chastellux, with subsequent approval of royalty itself.* He had also added his tributary

*"My success," writes the Chevalier, " has equalled and even surpassed my expectations. Not only has the public received the work with favor, but it has succeeded perfectly at court, especially

laurel to "Death-daring Putnam". In 1787, when Harvard bestowed its LL.D. upon Jefferson and Thomas Brand Hollis, its honorary A.M. was conferred upon Humphreys, possibly through the influence of Jefferson, upon whom he had contrived to obtain a "pull'', as he did upon almost every one with whom he came in contact and who could advance his interests.*

Moreover, Col. Humphreys was indebted to Dartmouth College for the higher preferment of an LL.D. and Brown bestowed the same. He was, likewise, a Fellow of the American Academy and even of the Royal Society — an exceptional distinction at that time, which he owed to the friendship of Sir Joseph Banks and, indirectly, to the sea serpent whose claims to existence he had always persistently advocated in a way that suggested the early ages of serpent worship.

In spite of these plausible and seductive endowmejitf. Humphreys had his limitations, and as he had never been in Paris, or anywhere else outside of his own country; as he could neither write nor speak French; as he had no diplomatic experience and was altooether unfamiliar v/ith the forms ai.d

with the King and Qvteen who have praised it highly." — Letter to Franklin at Paris, June 21, 1786.

In his reply, dated 17th of April, 1787, from Philadelphia, Franklin says nothing about the poem, which is not surprising considering his feeling towards Humphreys.

The Chevalier was a volunteer officer in our Revolutionary Army and a friend of Franklin's.

*Jefferson writes to John Jay,

"Paris, March 5, 1786.

"Col. Humphreys, Secretary of Legation, being about to return home in April, I think it my duty to bear witness to his ready, able and faithful discharge of all his duties." To this was added a statement that "his talents and disposition might be available for future use."

A month later Jefferson again takes up the pen in behalf of the Colonel in a letter to James Monroe,

"Paris, May 10, 1786.

"I must beg to recommend Col. Humphreys to your acquaintance and good offices. He is an excellent man and an able one and in need of some provision."

the phrases of diplomacy or with the manners and the habits of diplomats, it is quite manifest that he was ill-fitted for his office as Secretary of the new Commission. Franklin described him as "a gentleman who-, though he might have a good deal of inilitar}' merit, certainly had none in the diplomatic line, and bad neitb.er tlie French language, nor the experience, nor the address proper to qualify him for such an employment."*

If the qualifications of Humphreys as secretary were so limited, those that were needed for his other mission were still less manifest. Fie had no particular insight or acumen; no natural taste; no knowledge of art or of any of its processes, mechanical or other; no faculty, in short, that would help him towards rendering an intelligent and authoritative opinion upon a single feature of a medal or of any other work of art.** Those facts were very soon apparent to the members of the Academy, and if it had not been for the powlerful influence of Lafayette, to whom Washington had given Humphreys a letter of introduction, the latter would have found his progress much slower than it was and his scheme would have received a scanty welcome from a body who cared little or nothing for its object. It

*Prom a letter to Charles Thomson, Perpetual Secretary to Con- gress, dated "Philadelphia, 29th Nov., 1788". These words give the result of the writer's own observation of Col. Humphreys and his operations in France for nearly a year.

**Humphreys has left on record a specimen of his critical faculties which reveals the poverty of his equipment. This was his comment on the design for the medal. Writing to Washington from Paris in May, 1785, he says "I think it has the character of simplicity and dignity which is to be aimed at in a memorial of this kind." Only this and nothing more! A singularly thin, barren and futile estimate, as of one who "damned with faint praise" because he knew nothing else to say and was afraid to commit himself. Humphreys was clearly "the most senseless, fit man" for his place and he received the appoint- ment, both of Secretary and otherwise, merely because of that extensive and irresistible "pull" on every public character from Washington down which I have already mentioned, being a man who was always, as Jefferson wrote, "in need of some provision". He was certainly one to whom no "provision" came amiss, and ho continued thus omnivorous to the last

was to Lafayette that he chiefly OAved such consideration as was paid him and his aid wias really essential in preparing the petition to the Academy and other papers. Lafayette was the most tenacious and forceful link in the chain that connected the two countries and his intimate attachment to, and admiration for, Washington doubled its strength, while it also spurred him to- farther efforts in behalf of any undertaking that was to promote his fame.

The Colonel was in no hurry to begin his official duties, but lavishly curtailed his term at each end. He sailed from New York, July i6, 1784, and reached Paris early in September, more than three months after his appointment. Lie left that city in November, 1785, in order to make a long stay in London previous to his departure for America, six months later. He had been in Paris seven months before making his application to the Academy.

Ahev the arrival of Humphreys in Paris one would suppose that in the cc^urse oi a few weeks, at least, he would begin his work in behalf of the various memorials and especially ot the Boston medal. For this purpose he would naturally first cf all invoice the kind offices of Franklin and Adams. The former was a "Bo'Ston boy", who had always displayed a peculiar attachment to his native city and had eagerly favored any plan for her celebrity and honor. Adams, too, was hardly less than a "Boston boy'" and had been prominently identified with hei" patriotic deeds and her historic fame. He also had a personal interest in the medal, for it was voted by Congress after an elocjuent speech by him announcing the fall of Boston, followed by his motion that such a memorial ought tO' be presented to^ its conqueror. Moreover, both of these fellow-citizens of Humphreys were well known in Paris by all classes, including the most learned, illustrious and influential. They were familiar with the language and could have lent most powerful aid to any cause that they might favor. This Avas especially true of Franklin, whose scientific distinction was no less than his diplomatic and political, and whose position as member of the Academy of Sciences gave liim far more prestige than to Adams. Yet it is a fact that

8

neither of these representatives of Boston had anything to do with the evolution of the medal, from the first steps to the last. This was the more conspicuous in the case of Franklin, whose conduct must have been peculiarly demoralizing among his friends and admirers in the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres. Of course, they could not have been expected to display much enthusiasm in favor of a project which was entirely ignored by a savant of such fame and who^ was born in the very same town most concerned in the honor sought.*

The cause of this peculiar attitude of Franklin is easy to discover. Col. Humphreys was not a "persona grata" to him and never could be under any circumstances, nor could Franklin ever undertake to favor any project in which he was concerned. He was an embodied grievance and Franklin was not magnanimous enough toi ignore his owli pique and sense O'f personal wrong, even in an affair that should have sttrongly appealed to every sentiment of public spirit and patriotism. Col. Humphreys had obtained the very position that Franklin had exerted himself to secure for his grandson, William Temple Franklin, a claim tO' which he thought himself to possess a sort of prescriptive right. For seven years the latter had been his secretary on a salary of only

♦Franklin was much interested in medals generally, as every reader of his life is aware, and was an authority on the subject. The famous medal he had designed after the surrender of Cornwallis and had presented to the King will recur to everyone. At this very time. May 10, 1785, he wrote about others to John Jay, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but not a word concerning the Boston memorial. It wa» Franklin who designed the seal with the motto "Salus in Simplici," — "Safety in Simplicity", which was engraved for him by Dupre in the spring of 1783.

I do not find the name of Franklin in any one of Humphrey's numerous letters.

Franklin left Paris for home in July, 1785, and was thus ten months in that city after the advent of Humphreys. Adams was there until May, 1785, when he left to become Minister of England. There were eight months during which he might have proffered his aid to Hum- phreys. Jefferson was in France from August, 1784, until September, 1X8*, but the help he gave was both little and reluctant. ^ )

yoo livres per annum, and ever since the spring of 1781 Franklin had persistently pressed his demands for something better. His grandson was well fitted for the office of charge d' affaires, for secretary in various capacities, or for other diplomatic duties, as Franklin stated, ''on the grounds of his probity, his genteel address, sagacity and judgment, and for his facility in speaking French". These gifts would have made him equal to the demands of almost any diplomatic station, yet the only reply to Franklin's appeal was the arrival of Col. David Humphreys, who knew nothing about his business and whose chief role thus far had been that oi one perpetually "in need of some pirovision"; a political tramp. It is hardly surprising that Franklin gave the impecunious Colonel the cold shoulder and bittetrly thought of his own exertion in behalf of his country and his life-long sacrifices of all that men hold dear.*

For reasons not very obvious, Humphreys made but slow progress in his work on the Congressional memorials and it was more than six months after he reached Paris before any

*It was fortunate for the peace of mind of this fond and ambitious grandparent that he did not live to read the judgment pronounced on the sole descendant that bore his name by another "Boston boy", Rev. Edward Everett Hale, who styled him "a man of very small calibre; nothing alas! but the grandson of his grandfather. He was neither an American nor an Englishman. He was very nearly nothing, but, I suppose, like most nothings, more conceited than the greatest". Mr. Hale also termed him "a slow coach, honest, earnest, proud, opinionated, laborious, fussy, an unmethodical muddler, an incom- petent editor and uncommonly dilatory in his habits". See letter from Dr. Hale in the "Report of the Joint Committee on the Library. U. S. Senate, May 1, 1882." This leads very naturally to the inference that there may, perchance, be a word to say in defence of the Congressional ingratitude. It is quite possible that some few of the many ilaws eventually revealed in this "one entire and perfect chrysolite" of Franklin may have been suspected, or perchance dis- closed, and that their existence may have tended to neutralize even the long and distinguished services of his grandfather, and, thus apparent Injustice was not such rank injustice after all. Magna est Veritas et praevalet. Wm. Temple Franklin's treatment of his grandfather's autobiography goes far to show his characteristic qualities and the exact amount of his gratitude and regard for his memory.

lO

fruit of his exertion was visible. As to this part of his mission only two sources of evidence apparently now exist, one is in the Journal of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, and the other in a letter f roni Humphreys to Washing- ton, now on file in the Department of State, Vol. 67, page 295, "Letters to Washington". Both of these I have copied in extenso.

The Academy Journals are scanty, superficial and every way unsatisfactory. They offer but little aid to one looking for the inception of the Boston medal, but they must be used for lack of anything better, and as they are the principal means now available. We learn from the description of the Stance of April 22nd, 1785, that the whole subject was "bien discute", but there is very little proof of this assertion, so little, in truth, as to make it very clear that nothing will ever be known as to the particular share of anyone in this discussion, or as to the reasons, if reasons there were, that led to the choice of the commonplace design and legend that now appear on the Washington medal. One thing is evident — the matter did not greatly interest the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles I.ettres, though this might have been foreseen, as its members would naturally be less attracted by military affairs, than by those connected with literature and science.* Moreover, it was all a novelty tO' them and quite outside any former experience. They had not been in the habit of providing devices and legends for foreign nations. Hence at the four meetings where the project was presented ir received but slight attention and the members were only too glad, after some superficial discussion, to revive an old and abandoned custom and refer the whole to a committee of four.

From the testimony of the Academy records Washington seems to have been but a vague personality at best, "une quantit(^ n,(^g1igpable". The members did not even give him

*As JUx. Morse has truly remarked in his admirable "Life of Jefferson", when treating of his ministry in Paris, "The ancient monarchies of Europe knew little and cared less about the parvenu republics of a distant continent". The French Academy in every branch was thoroughly impregnated with the same feeling.

II

the title of General and apparently no' more importance (if as much) was attached to him than to "les officiers G^n^raux, le G^n^ral Gates et le General Green", as these were invariably temied. They did not even know how tO' spell the name of the hero whom they had been asked tO' honor, at least so far as can be inferred from their Journals. At their hands he fared indifferently as "M. Wastington", M. Wasinghtoii" and "Georgio' Wasinghon," They did not happen tO' hit it right in a single instance.* For these blunders there was not the least excuse, as Col. Humplireys had given them Washington's name in his letter. It all really arose from their utter indifference. Luckily at the la.st moment a "Deus ex machina"

*The name of Washington suffered much at the hands of the French playwrights, who were eager to exploiter his career, and still more from the actors, to whom both the "W" and the "sh" were naturally stumbling blocks. The wildness of their pronun- ciation may be inferred, and thus the popular ignorance on this head was increased, but they never gave it a thought, any more than they did to the absurd farrago of complicated nonsence which from time to time they were called upon to present to the public as chapters from the great Liberator's life. To the friends of the rising spirit of liberty that was then abroad, Washington proved a most fortunate and available trouvaille, but to the great majority he was simply a type, an ideal abstraction, a name to conjure with, and they cared nothing for the cold and genuine facts of his career, which would have only served to blight the public enthusiasm. Hence it was not necessary that the various plots should even be "founded on fact" and no one felt surprised at the advent on the stage of Washington's son, "Vazington fils", as he appeared in 1785 in "Asgiil, drame en cinq actes, par J. S. le Barbier-le-Jeune", also in "La Liberte du Nouveau Monde" by M. de Sauvigny, which was presented for the first time at the Theatre de la Nation, July 13, 1791, as well as in numerous other plays, even as late as 1815. In the one last mentioned, "Vazington" says:

"J' ai rempli les devoirs d' un citoyen fiddle, Et si quelque succ§s a couronng mon z61e, .Te le dois aux guerriers dont 1' heroique ardeur De mes nobles travaux a partage 1' honneur."

With such effective aid from the stage, it is hardly surprising that the name of Washington was generally misspelt by the public, though it must be admitted that they were surpassed by the "Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres", which fairly carried off the palm for fantastic, elaborate and reckless distortion.

12

appeared and relieved the situation, so that "Wasinghon" was not engraved on the medal.

On the whole we must admit that the combined wisdom and intelligence of these luminaries failed to produce any notable result, except a display of bad Latin. The prosy array of monotonous facts which they elaborated for an inscription suggest nothing but perfunctory incompetence and lack of taste, while as to the design, it was hardly necessary to apply to the ^lite of France for a device that could have been produced by any airtist of average talent.

"Registire des Assemblees et deliberations de 1' Academic royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres pendant V annee, 1785.

seance du 8 Avril, 1785.

Messieurs De 1' Averdy — honoraire.

Bairtheiemy, De Sigrais, De Guignes, Dupuy, Gaillard, Bejot, Davier — Pensionnaires.

Anguetil, Ameilhon, Bouchaud, De Sibert, De Rochefort, Desormeaux, Le Blond, Dusaulx, Larcher, De Keralio, Brotier, Auger, Vauvilliers — Associ^s.

D. Poirier, Mongey, Camus — Associ^s libres Residents.

M. le Secretaire a fait part d' une lettre de M. Humphreys, ancien, colonel au service des Etats-Unis, par laquelle il demande trois medailles pour M. Wastington, le Generel Gates et le Generel Green. II envoye en meme temps des renseignments sur les actions de ces trois personnes.

L' Academic a remis ^ la huitaine pour s' occuper de ces trois medailles.

seance du 19 Avril.

On a pro'pose ensuite, vu le temps qu' on perd en faisant des Inscriptions et des Medailles dans les Seances de 1' Academic, de reprendre 1' ancien usage de les faire par Commissionaires.

II a decide fi la pluralite des voix qu' k V avenir on nommer- oit des Commissionaires, comme on le faisoit par le passe.

13

Apres ces diff^rents arrangements, on sest occupy des Medailles demand^es par le Congres d' Am^rique, et 1' on a invit(^s Mrs les Academiciens h apporter des projects pour ces Medailles ^ la premiere Stance dans laquelle on est convenii de nommer des commissionaires pour rediger ces Medailles.

Seance du 22 Avril.

Messieurs

Barth^l^my, De Sigrais, De Guignes, Dupuy, Gaillard, Garnier, Bejot, Dacier — Pensionnaires.

Anquetil, Ameilhon, Bouchard, De Sibert, De Rochefort, Le Roy, Desarmeaux, Le Blond, Dusaulx, Larcher, Gueui^e, De Keralio, Brotier, Auger, Vauvilliers, Houard — Associes.

M. Dacier —

II a fait ensuite la lecture des projets des trois Medailles pour les trois Officers G^n^raux Am^ricains. Apres les avair bien discutes, on a nomm^ pour les terminer Mrs Barthel^my, Dupuy, Brotier, Le Blond.

Stance du 26 Avril.

M. le Secr^aire kit ensuite les sujets des medailles de- mand^es par le Congres pour trois officers Gen^raux.

Pour M. Wasinghton

D' un cot^ s;a tete.

Legende,

Georgio Wasinghon Supremo Duci exerituum,

adsertori Libertatis.

Exergue,

Comitia Americana.

Revers.,

La prise de Boston, 1' armee angloise fuyant vers le rivage

pour s' embarquer etc.,

Legende, Hostibus, ou Anglis, primum Fugatis,

Exergue.

Bostonium recuperatum die 17 Martii, anno 1776.

14

Letters to Washington, Vol. 67, pp. 295-6. Depart, of State.

Paris, May, 1785. My Dear General : —

Jf: s|: ****** *

Upon my leaving America Mr. Morris invested me with the power of procuring tl:e several honorary presents which had been voted by Congress to different officers in their service during the late War — The Royal Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, to- whom; I addressed a letter on the subject,* have furnished me with the following device and inscription for the Gold Medal which is to be executed for your excellency —

"On one side the head of the General. Legend:

Georgio Washington supremo Duci Exercituum adsertori Libertatis Comitia Americana. On the reverse: Taken [sic] possession of Boston. The American Army advances in good order towards the town which is seen at a distance, while the British army flies with precipitation towards the shore tO' embark on board the vessels with which the harbour is covered. In the front of the American Army appears the General oii horse-back in a group oi Officers, whom he seems to make observe the flight of the enemy.

Legend : Hostibus primo fugatis.

Exergue: — Bostonium, recuperatum die XVTI Martii. MDCCLXXVI".

I think it has the character of simplicity and dignity which is to be aimed at in a memorial of this kind, which is designed to transmit the remembrance oi a great event to posterity. You really do not know how much your name is venerated on this side of the Atlantic. * * * *

♦Humphreys was apparently the sole author of this scheme for promoting the Washington medal and "giving It a good send-off", as it were. At least, I can find nothing to the contrary, and it sounds like him, though Lafayette lent his aid to it. It certainly had a grand and plausible air and Humphreys doubtless thought it a won- derfully happy hit, but it was not a success, and Lafayette would have done better to advise him to apply to Duvivier at the outstart.

15

With my most respectful and affectionate regards to Mrs. Washington and complts. to all the family, I have the honor to be, My Dr. General,

Yonr sincere friend & h^^^ selrv^

D. HUMPHREYS. General Washington.

From the contents of Col. Humphreys' letter to Washington, we learn that within a short timq after its final vote had been passed, the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres had sent him a sketch of the medal for Washington taken from the description of its proposed design on their records, the details of which, as set forth by Humphreys, agree entirely with the original text now existing. This sketch must have been much larger, as it inevitably Would be, than could have been portrayed on any medal. It is also indicated by Humphreys' com-ments, such as, "the American army advances in good order towards the tovv^n"', "The British army flies with precipitation'', and others quite as specific, though some allowance should be made for the expansion of a sanguine and vivid imagination. This sketch was doubtless intended not only for Humphreys, but for the use of the future engraA'cr. As to its author, nothing will ever be known, since the Journals make no sign and the Academy never had any official draughtsman or painter whose duty it would be to prepare such a sketch. He was presumably employed merely for the occasion. Whoever he may have been, it was certainly not Duvivier, who ultimately engraved the medal, but who had nothing tO' do' with it till some time later, when he abbreviated and condensed the sketch into the necessary space, and by means of his keen eye and skilf nl hand gave it such artistic value as it now possesses, the result being simply the clever adaptation, largely mechanical, of another's work. The bust is a masterpiece and was admirably and faithfully reduced from thait by Houdon.*

*It is worthy of note that the bust on the Washington raed^l does not reprer.ent hira as he appeared at the time of the capture

i6

From all these facts we are driven to the conclusion that the medaJ has a four-fold parentage, and that it was finally evolved by the united efforts of the committee of four and the unknown author of the sketch, together with Houdon and Duvivier. These were all more or less responsible. This intermixture may partly account for the fact that it is one of the least esteemed of Duvivier's works.

It was fortunate that the author of the sketch knew how to spell Washington's name and was sufficiently enlightened and considerate to alter its form from the various twists bestowed upon it by the Academicians.

I desire here to offer a short comment on the legend that was originally suggested for the reverse of the medal, as well as on that which it now bears. When four distinguished pundits put their heads together in order to elaborate a short Latin motto We may justly look for both accuracy and elegance, especially when one of them, like Brotier, not only claimed to be a Latinist oi the first class, but had sought to prove it by bringing out an edition of the works of Tacitus, the most exact and polished of all the Roman writers. But thtse expectations are not realized in the case before us, at least in one instance, that of the use of the word "primum" in the phrase "hostibus primum fugatis." If this was intended to mean "for the first time", though not bad Latin, it was at least incorrect historically, for the enemy had already been beaten at Lexington and Concord and it was thus unfit for the destined use. So far as the language is concerned, however, and remembering that the word was not finally employed on the seal, the Academy is entitled to the benefit of Boston, but nine years later, when the work of Houdon was done. His features and expression had undergone a considerable change during that period. This is plain to anyone who compares the Houdon bust with the miniature likeness taken in 1777 by C. W. Peele and now in the Huntington Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, or with the full length portrait in oil painted in 1779 by the same artist at the request of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania and now belonging to Mr. Thomas McKean. This was considered by Dr. Craik "a most faithful likeness of him as he appeared in the prime of his life".

17

of the doubt, and we may admit for the momienit that tliis miight have been their intended nieaninig. It is all the more Hkely, since they knew httle and cared less about the first struggles of a new republic, or, in truth, about anything else that had taken place outside their own country. Bound up in measureless conceit, it is not by any means incredible that they had never heard of Lexington or Concord, and thus thought the enemy had been discomfited ''for the first time'" at Boston and "primum" was therefore correct.*

If, however, the Academicians wished to signify, as there is good reason to believe they did, "after the enemy had been previously defeated", though the sense might have been sufficiently clear, the word "primum" would have been inelegant and redundant and no Latin writer in good rq>ute would have sanctioned such a use of it. But it was not ck'Stined to be used on the medal, for in some way when the

*Jefferson, who was an accomplished scholar, made use of "primum" in this sense when preparing his inscription for the pedestal of Houdon's statute of Washington at the time of its completion in Paris, but he limited the word entirely to his concise epitome of Washington's military career and did not apply it in reference to the general military annals of the country. As Jefferson could not have had a chance to peruse the records of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres, it is odd that he should have hit upon the same phrase it had first adopted for the Boston medal. On the front side, of course, appeared the name of Washington, and on the others these inscriptions, —

On the first, "Hostibus primum fugatis", referring to the evacuation of Boston.

On the second, "Hostibus iterum devictis", that is, the capture of the Hessians at Trenton.

On the third, "Hostibus ultimum debellatis", that is, the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown.

In the first phrase "primum" is plainly intended to signify "for the first time", that is in Washington's military history. In the second phrase "iterum" means the "second time", and in the third phrase "ultimum", "the last time".

I may here suggest that as Humphreys undoubtedly allowed Jefferson to see the final form of the legend on the medal, it is strange the latter did not call attention to the poor quality of ifs Latin and propose an improvement.

i8

legend reached Humphreys, it had been changed into "primo", as it now appears, and thus a bad matter had been made worse, for "primo" was not the right word under any aspect, either Hngual or historic. It would be interesting to learn the exact reason for this alteration and the name of the author, but these will never be. found out. The Journals fail to reveal any authority for such a translation on the part of the Academy, and the obvious conclusion is that it was done by the maker of the sketch sent to Humrphreys, and that of his own motion, being quite indifferent as to the possible risk or detection and punishment. Whatever may be said of his Latin, there was at least the permanent and desirable advantage of the abbreviationi of a word and the gain oif a little space. If ir had only occurred to him, he might have gained still more, for the right word w^as "prius" — "hostibus prius fugatis" — which is even shorter than "primo", though even that was unnecessary, for "hostibus fugatis" alone would have been good Latin and amply sufficient to express the same meaning, while the room obtained would have been relatively enormous. As to the use of "prius", it is remarkable that it did not dawn upon Brotier and his colleagues at the very beginning. Had they but given the matter thorough and scholarly examination, they could have found plenty of examples among the best Latin authors that would have quickly convinced them of their error. If we turn tO' Horace's Odes, IV, 15, 28, we find "Rite deos prius apprecati". In the annals of Tacitus w;e read, XII, 64, "Perdita prius Lepida". In the same work, XIII, 50, "Multum prius laudata magnitudine animi", and in XVI, 14, "Monito prius Anteis". But it would be futile be multiply examples. It is very odd that some of these did not suggest themselves, at least to Brotier, considering his relation tO' Tacitus. It is to be regretted that the artist, if he was an artist, did not make a far more sensible and profitable variation and substitute "Bostonia"' for the "Bostonium" of the legend. The improvement would have been very obvious, for not only would still more space have been gained, but a more melodious word and one more in

19

accord with Latin taste and culture have been adopted, since the ending in "a" for Roman towns is much more common than tliat in "um". This will be quickly remembered, tO' say nothing of other instances, by every reader of Macaulay':? Lays, where the former occurs at least twice as often as the latter. "Roma" itself seems tO' dominate the situation, while "Bostonia condita" oo the city seal will at once present itielf U' every Bostonian.*

One would naturally infer that Humphreys after the receipt of the sketch for the Washington medal would forthwith have devoted all his energies tO' promote its completion, but this he did not think fit to do. On the contrar}' he seems to have given his first attention to the Gates and Green memorials. An engraver was quickly secured fcr each of these and their work was urged forward with such energy that both their medals were nearly, or quite, done before that of their illustrious chief had even been started. In a letter from Jefferson to John Jay dated Paris, Feb. 14, 1787, v.c read, "The workman who was to make that of General

*Charles Saunier in his "Augustin Diipr^" favors his readers with a description of the making of the Boston medal, which I venture to quote on account of its numerous and reckless errors and as an interesting example of the French indifference to historical, or any other, truth and of the national distaste for careful investigation.

P. 18. "Benj. Franklin was charged with the execution of tlie decrees of Congress. The r)hilosopher knew Di.pre. He live.1 fit Passy and Dupre owned a little country house near there at Anteuil, rue Boileau. Both were early risers. Every morning Dapre betook himself to Paris hy the Oours-la-Reine, smoking his pipe. He used to meet Franklin, who took this route. Some occasion brought them together and the engraver and philosopher became friends. In 177S Dupre engraved 1 seal for Franklin with this device "Tn Simplicir? Salus"* [sic], but in spite of these relations it was not to him that he addressed himself for the execution of the first medals. With a pusillanimity peculiarly American, he went to the popular notorieties, to Benjamin Duvivier, member of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture and "Graveur geneial des Monnaies." lit was he who executed the medal voted by Congress to Washington for the evacuation of Boston, a medal of skilful workmanship, but without the least inspiration, imagination or genius.

*Now in the Public Library of Boston."

2C

Greene brought me yesterday tlic medal in gold".* This was written after Humphreys' return to America the previous /Vpril, and more than two yeirs before the completion of Washington's medal in 1789.

Talking all the circumstances into account, this conduct of Humphreys seems altogether inexplicable, nor is it easy to offer even a plausible conjecture therefor. Leaving out his attachment to Washington, as well as the fact that the medal had been voted long before those to Gates and Greene had even been thought of, and that for an achievement much more brilliant than any of theirs, the other claims of Washington, from every point of view, to supreme recognition should have placed him first and foremost , before any other. ^Vhy Humphreys thus banished him to the background will never be known. He did begin certain vague negotiations with the famous Duvivier, but after some haggling and wrangling abcMit the amount to be paid, the discussion came to nothing, though Humphreys was finally constrained to allow the artist his price, and the only result was a delay of nearly a year in beginning the work. In December, 1785, Humphreys went to England for a long stay and left the whole matter, with little regret, in charge of the dilatory and indifferent Jefferson. The latter wrote him from Paris under date of May 7, 1786, "I have received the books and papers you mention and will undertake tO' have finished what you left undone of the medals, or at least will proceed in it, till the matter shall be put into better hands. Your friend and servant,

TH. JEFFERSON.**

In a letter to Jefferson dated "London, Jan. 30. 1786", Humphreys wrote "Now that there is no obstacle to commencing the medal for Gen. Washington, since Houdon's return" etc.*** The only connection of Houdon with the medal was through the bust of Washington that he had modelled

♦Letters of Jefferson, Vol. II, No. 107, p. 2, Dept. of State. ♦♦Letters from Jefferson, 1st series, Vol. 2, p. 54, Department of State. ♦♦♦Letters to Jefferson, series 2. Vol. 40, No. 5, Department of State.

21

ait Mount Vernon in October, 1785, and which it was somehow understood was to be copied for the medal. From Humphreys' language, it seems that he thought, or pretended to think, that nothing could be done to any part of the medal until the engraver had this bust in his possession. The truth, however, was that the twO' sides of the work had little to do with each other until their completion, and as the execution of the reverse, with its numerous figures and other features, was far more delicate, difficult and laborious than the bust, it should have been commenced long before that. Thus the suggestion of Humphreys that the absence of Houdon had delaved the progress of the medal was both flimsy and incorrect. The only delay was caused by Humphreys himself, though it is probable he was plenitifully Iielped in his procrastination by Jefferson, who cared little for the medal and did nothing for its progress except under pressure. He was not altogether blind to the merits of Boston, bitt at the same time