Viewing page 7 of 43

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

5
MARGARET GIBBS [[strikethrough]] ca. [[/strikethrough]] 1670 
No doubt this explains why the first critics paid no attention to the early colonial portraits which today we find so ingratiating. (Refer to limners and likenesses; also, XVIIIth century painting)

Ignored though this early masterpiece of the "international style" was, for well over two centuries, ye the masterpieces of a century later, [[strikethrough]] the [[/strikethrough]] Copley's portraits, [[strikethrough]] by Copley [[/strikethrough]] were not neglected in [[strikethrough]] the [[/strikethrough]] early critical  [[strikethrough]] 
[[/strikethrough]] literature. 

NATHANIEL HURD 1765-1770 † In 1823, John Neal wrote in Randolph, as follows 
"You have heard of Copley. He was a strong, homely painter;but some of his portraits have great merit."

DAUGHTERS OF ISAAC ROYALL, ca. 1858 
† Again, the next year, Neal wrote in Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine that Cöpley [[Copley]] was "a capital portrait painter, for the time...." That twentieth-century scholarship has invalidated part of the following does not invalidate the general temperateness of tone, when Tuckerman wrote in 1847 
"Copley's portraits are among the few significant memorials of the past encountered in this country....He was the only resident painter of real skill whom the new world