Portraits
The Simon van de Passe engraving
The only image of Pocahontas made in her lifetime (left). This is the closest we'll ever get to knowing what Pocahontas looked like.* The image on the right is a copy of the engraving made over 150 years later. *And check out the Mary Ellen Howe version!
The only image of Pocahontas made in her lifetime (left). This is the closest we'll ever get to knowing what Pocahontas looked like.* The image on the right is a copy of the engraving made over 150 years later. *And check out the Mary Ellen Howe version!
|
|
|
The Simon van de Passe (1595-1647) engraving above is the only known likeness of Pocahontas to have been made during her lifetime.* Notice that the names Matoaka (her real Indian name) and Rebecka (her Christian name) are used. Husband John Rolfe's name is also mentioned (Joh. Rolff). The beaver hat is depicted as being light in color (white or tan).
|
The 1793 image above is a copy by an unknown artist of the van de Passe engraving. In this image, she has a slightly more European look, as her cheekbones are less clearly defined, and she has rounder eyes. The easiest way to distinguish between these two engravings is by looking at the backgrounds (curved lines in the original; straight lines in the copy).
National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. |
From Savage Kingdom (2007) by Benjamin Woolley
"... to advertise Pocahontas's presence there [in England], the Virginia Company commissioned a portrait. An obscure and therefore relatively cheap Dutch artist called Simon Van de Passe was hired to perform the task. The result was an awkward, probably rushed affair. It showed her dressed in expensively embroidered English dress, her face framed by a huge starched ruff and feathered high hat. Perhaps the most noticeable feature of an undistinguished work was that she clutched a fan of three white feathers, the insignia of the Prince of Wales, evidently included as a homage to Prince Henry's influence over the venture. The engraving printed up for mass circulation was even less flattering." p. 332.
From A Man Most Driven (2014) by Peter Firstbrook
"During her visit, Pocahontas also had her portrait painted, and then engraved by Simon van de Passe, the same Dutch artisan who caught Smith's likeness for the Map of Virginia. The painting now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC." p. 334
My comment on Woolley & Firstbrook;
Both Woolley and Firstbrook seem to think an oil painting, possibly the Booton Hall Portrait (see below) was the original, and that it was painted by Simon van de Passe before he made the engraving. This is probably incorrect. They both also say the oil painting is in the National Portrait Gallery, which further points to the Booton Hall Portrait, or a replica of the Booton Hall Portrait. There are several versions of the engraving and painting in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., however, and it's sometimes difficult to know which version authors are talking about when they say it "hangs in the National Portrait Gallery." (There is also this to complicate matters further, as it cannot be found on the National Portrait Gallery website, so its provenance and current whereabouts are unknown.)
From Pocahontas, Powhatan and Opechancanough (2005) by Helen Rountree
"One of the things that passed the time [at Brentford] was that Pocahontas had her portrait done. It was not a painting, for that would require too much time (and money). Instead the engraver Simon van de Passe, who would later create a portrait of John Smith, made a sketch of her and then produced engravings from it that were circulated to interested parties. ... That engraving was the only portrait of her done from life, so it is unfortunate that van de Passe was no expert at depicting an Amerind face with epicanthic folds over the eyes. Artists in later centuries largely ignored that picture and painted their own, even paler, more Europeanized 'princess.'" p. 180.
My comment on Rountree:
Rountree, unlike Woolley and Firstbrook, does not think that the Booton Hall Portrait is the original, and I agree. We're with Philip Barbour (see below) and others on this. The Simon van de Passe engraving, above left, should be considered the original and most definitive image. Rountree says that the engraving was "largely ignored" by later artists, but the Booton Hall Portrait (below) is a notable exception.
Essay on the Simon van de Passe engraving from The Pocahontas Archive, by Edward J. Gallagher. Note that the image appearing on this webpage is the 1793 replica, not the original!
The Booton Hall Portrait
Booton Hall Portrait
The Booton Hall Portrait was painted by an unidentified artist, modeled after the Simon van de Passe engraving and some time after the engraving had been published. The portrait is and has been believed by some to be the original upon which Simon van de Passe based his engraving, but that theory is currently not in favor. The painting can only be traced back to the mid-1700s, so there is no evidence it was painted during Pocahontas's lifetime.
Philip L. Barbour, in Pocahontas and Her World (1971), wrote “A European portrait-painter of 1616-1617 would surely have noticed that Pocahontas was 'brown’ or 'tawny,’ like the rest of her people. But the color of her skin in the portrait is clearly European, and her hair is a European brown, not an Indian black. Relying only on the engraving, a painter-copyist would not have recognized his own error.” (from Wikimedia Commons).
In the same vein, the beaver hat is shown as black, while the engraving appears light in color (white or tan). This is another mistake a painter-copyist could have made, but not the original artist/engraver or a hypothetical copyist/engraver.
John Chamberlain (1553-1628), after seeing a copy of the engraving that was widely published, wrote in a letter, "Here is a fine picture of no fayre Lady." It is believed Chamberlain was referencing the engraving and not the painting in order to make such a comment.
Philip L. Barbour, in Pocahontas and Her World (1971), wrote “A European portrait-painter of 1616-1617 would surely have noticed that Pocahontas was 'brown’ or 'tawny,’ like the rest of her people. But the color of her skin in the portrait is clearly European, and her hair is a European brown, not an Indian black. Relying only on the engraving, a painter-copyist would not have recognized his own error.” (from Wikimedia Commons).
In the same vein, the beaver hat is shown as black, while the engraving appears light in color (white or tan). This is another mistake a painter-copyist could have made, but not the original artist/engraver or a hypothetical copyist/engraver.
John Chamberlain (1553-1628), after seeing a copy of the engraving that was widely published, wrote in a letter, "Here is a fine picture of no fayre Lady." It is believed Chamberlain was referencing the engraving and not the painting in order to make such a comment.
In researching the Simon van de Passe engraving and its related painting, the Booton Hall Portrait, I wondered how we actually know which of the two came first. It is generally accepted that the Simon van de Passe engraving is the original, as I've indicated above (via Rountree 2005), but how do we know for sure? Do the historical records of the Virginia Company actually state that Van de Passe was commissioned to make a Pocahontas portrait? As far as I can tell, there is no reference in the Virginia Company documents that mention hiring Van de Passe (but I say that only because no authors in my research have referenced it). Researchers have made some (reasonable) assumptions based on a few facts that strongly suggest the Simon van de Passe engraving is the real original. However, we do not have 100% certainty. I welcome any information from readers that can help settle the matter.
Reasons why we believe the Simon van de Passe engraving is the original:
- Simon van de Passe was verifiably living and active during Pocahontas's lifetime. He also made the John Smith engraving, which is the only contemporary image of Smith. (Firstbrook, p. 300)
- The Booton Hall portrait can only be traced back to the mid-1700s.
- An engraving would have been more within the budget of the Virginia Company at the time and more useful for reproduction.
- The Booton Hall portrait is different in ways that indicate it came later, not before (coloring of skin, hair & hat).
- Because the Simon van de Passe engraving was considered unflattering by some (perhaps, according to Rountree, because the artist was not used to depicting Native American faces), the Booton Hall Portrait may have been an attempt to re-make her image and render her more attractive and conform to romanticized European expectations..
- Letter writer John Chamberlain (1553-1628) made a contemporary reference to a presumed copy of the engraving.
- The Booton Hall portrait erroneously makes reference to Pocahontas's husband as Tho. Rolfe, which one presumes the original artist would not do. However, this mistake has been attributed to a later addition to the painting after it was damaged by fire, and the restorer misread the letters Joh and changed them to Tho. (from "The Pocahontas Portrait" in The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 35, Nov. 4 (Oct. 1927).
An interesting (if unconvincing) defense of the Booton Hall Portrait as the original came from a Francis Burton Harrison, who wrote (circa 1926?), "In the end, therefore, the authenticity of the portrait rests largely on the fact, which is a convincing fact, that it is the palpable original from which DePasse engraved the cruel caricature which ever since her death has passed current as the likeness of Pocahontas, a caricature reproduced again and again to illustrate the little maiden's romantic story .. To bring home this identification and criticism, it is only necessary to compare the photographs recently made from the original portrait and from an example of the DePasse print ...." In other words, the painting must be the original because it's more attractive! (from "The Pocahontas Portrait" (1927).
|
The Mary Ellen Howe (1994) Replica
The 1994 Mary Ellen Howe portrait of Pocahontas corrects the mistakes in the Booton Hall Portrait and preserves the (presumed) authenticity of the Van de Passe engraving. This portrait is in the Virginia Museum of History in Richmond, Va, and graces the cover of Rountree's Pocahontas, Powhatan & Opechancanough (2005). Note the darker skin than in the Booton Hall portrait and the white beaver hat. I wonder what John Chamberlain (see above) would have said about this portrait? |
|
Essay about the Simon Van de Passe engraving and the Booton Hall Portrait at the U.S. Govt. Publishing Office/Catalogue of Fine Art
Not Pocahontas!
|
The Sedgeford Hall Portrait
The Sedgeford Hall Portrait has an interesting history, and for many years, it was thought to be a portrait from life of Pocahontas and her son, Thomas Rolfe. This turned out to be wishful thinking on the part of the Rolfe family in England, who purchased the painting in the U.S. based on that mistaken belief. The painting is actually of Pe-o-ka, the wife of Seminole Chief, Osceola, and their son. The portrait is on display in King's Lynn Town Hall, Norfolk, UK. A sign posted under the portrait reads, "The mother and child portrayed are probably Pe-o-ka, the wife of Osceola, the War Chief of the Seminoles of Florida, and their child in 1837. It was acquired by Eustace Neville Rolfe of Heacham Hall who believed it represented Pocahontas and her son." Many books and websites on Pocahontas still feature this image, claiming it to be Pocahontas and Thomas Rolfe. Don't be fooled! (more on this to come ...) |
The following books (among others) all misidentified the woman in the Sedgeford Hall Portrait as Pocahontas. At the time these books were published, there was some doubt* about the age of the portrait by art historians, but generally, people accepted the popular identification, as no alternative information existed. The subjects were finally identified as Pe-o-ka and her son in 2010 by researcher Bill Ryan. * Woodward's book may have preceded the doubts. Skepticism about the portrait is mentioned in Tilton's Pocahontas: the Evolution of an American Narrative (1994) p. 108.
Woodward (1969)
|
Jones (2010)
|
Sullivan (2001)
|
Jenner (2000)
|
Custalow/Daniel (2007)
|
Additionally, Paula Gunn Allen, in Pocahontas: Medicine Woman, Spy, Entrepreneur, Diplomat (2003), appears to refer to Pocahontas being in the Sedgeford Hall Portrait, though she doesn't identify the portrait by name: “ … someone seems to have determined that the young couple should visit the ancestral Rolfe estate. … While they were there ... a portrait of Lady Rebecca and her son, Thomas, was made.” p. 294
|
Erroneous Plaque at Historic Jamestowne
One might think that Historic Jamestowne would try to get the image of Pocahontas right, but as we see from the plaque inside the reconstructed church, the image of Pe-o-ka from the Sedgeford Hall Portrait is used to represent Pocahontas. The plaque makes no reference to the source of the image. It reads: "This stone commemorates princess Pocahontas or Matoaka, daughter of the mighty American Indian chief, Powhatan. Gentle and humane, she was the friend of the earliest struggling English colonists.whom she ably rescued, protected and helped. At her conversion to Christianity in 1613, she received in baptism the name Rebecca and shortly afterwards became the wife of John Rolfe, a settler in Virginia. She visited England with her husband in 1616, was graciously received by Queen Anne, wife of James I. In the twenty-second year of her age, she died at Gravesend, England, while preparing to revisit her native country, and was buried there in St. George's church.on March 21st, 1617." I suspect that the Historic Jamestowne museum would like to rectify the error, but the plaque has probably gained some historical value of its own, making it difficult to casually replace. |
Aug. 2016 photo from Historic Jamestowne
|
Updated March 6, 2018 / Banner photo by Hadley-Ives
