Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

1

Previously regarded as a shadowy, insignificant figure,William Shiels, RSA (1783–1857) spent eight yearsworking in the United States from 1817.1 From the sur-

viving documentary evidence in American newspapers andthe correspondence of Shiels’s friends and acquaintances, itis now possible for the first time to assess Shiels’s contribu-tion to the arts in the Southern states.2 This direct andindirect evidence is also used to evaluate his possible com-missions, prices charged, the range of work he undertook,and some of the difficulties that all artists encountered at thistime in the South. Previous writers have mentioned Shiels inpassing, and seen that he worked in Charleston around 1820–1823, but no detailed study has been made on hiscontribution to the founding and running of the SouthCarolina Academy of Fine Arts (SCAFA), the first artist-led artacademy in the United States.3

IntroductionIn 1820 Charleston was the sixth largest city in the USA, andone of the wealthiest thanks to its agricultural exports, partic-ularly cotton. That year the population of South Carolina was502,741, with black slaves forming around 60% of that figure.Charleston’s population in 1820 was 25,356, of which 11,229were white and 14,127 were black. Of the latter, only 1,475were free; the rest were slaves.4 The city was dominated by anelite and sophisticated aristocracy of mainly British andFrench descent. This elite adhered to the British class systemand cultural traditions, ruling over both their black slaves,who worked the plantations, and the general population.Their sons were educated in Britain and returned to buildgrand country and town houses. Plantation owners and theirfamilies spent the winters in Charleston, in the same mannerthat the aristocracy in Britain spent the ‘season’ in London.

From November, a series of concerts, balls, and parties tookplace which culminated in the Jockey Club Races in February,bringing a great influx of wealth and fun for the pleasure-loving South Carolinians.A close mercantile network, and immigrant British crafts-

men, meant that Charlestonians filled their homes withfashionable luxury goods including portraits and OldMasters. However, trade embargos and protective tariffsbrought the trade in imported British goods nearly to astandstill in the first two decades of the nineteenth century.This led to an increase in patronage of itinerant artists inAmerica, who visited Charleston and whom theCharlestonians visited when travelling around their country.Between 1800 and 1825, 101 artists are known to have visitedCharleston.5

Shiels’s arrival and studio locationsShiels arrived in Charleston for the first time on the schoonerMary-Ann on 3 February 1819, which had taken eight days tosail from New York.6 As the ship entered Charleston waters,past the forts and islands, the scene that greeted Shiels musthave excited a sense of anticipation in him at what lay ahead.The harbour would have been crowded with ships, its jettiesand quays resounding to the shouts, hustle and bustle of the

‘A Paradise of Riches’The contribution of William Shiels (1783–1857) to the arts in Charleston,

1819–1824Fiona V Salvesen Murrell

1 Map of central Charleston with locations of artists’ studios

2 The Poultry Buyer by William Shiels, c1829 (possibly exhibited under thetitle A Hard Bargain, RSA, 1846, no.29). Oil on canvas, 62 x 74.5 cm. PrivateCollection, courtesy of Bourne Fine Art

3 John Wilson of Edington Mains (1810–91) and his sister Elizabeth byWilliam Shiels (1783–1857), c1815. Oil on canvas, 91.4 x 75 cm. PrivateCollection

The BRITISH ART Journal Volume XIV, No. 2

2

colourful, diverse inhabitants. That day the annual JockeyClub races commenced, so the city would have been packedwith people carousing and the more polite members of soci-ety seeking genteel amusements, such as having their portraitpainted.7

Shiels quickly found a studio on Tradd Street, a busy, well-to-do street in the East Bay area, home to merchants andplanters, and close to the two main thoroughfares of BroadStreet and King Street (Pl 1). While Shiels did not advertisein the newspapers in the first two months after his arrival itappears word of mouth gave him enough business: hisrooms were later occupied in June 1819 by a Mr Hinkley, aportrait and miniature artist and copier, who continued touse Shiels’s name to indicate the location of his new studio.8

Shiels probably followed his Charleston clients northwardsduring the summer, as they all avoided the increased risks ofmalaria and yellow fever; certainly the Post Office advertisedthat letters were awaiting him for collection in August.9

Shiels’s competitors in the city at this time included theminiaturists Charles Fraser (1782–1860), Benjamin Trott(c1770–1843) and Henry Boutheneau (1797–1877), and theportraitists in oil, Samuel F B Morse (1791–1872) and CephasThompson (1775–1856).10

At what point exactly Shiels returned to Charleston is un-known, but he was working in the city certainly by early 1820,and on 13 March 1820 announced in the Charleston Courier:

Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

3

WILLIAM SHIELS,PORTRAIT PAINTER

Respectfully informs his friends and the public, thathis Exhibition of PAINTINGS, is now open at No.61 Church-street.11

The exhibition does not appear to have been reviewed in thesurviving newspapers of the time – very little art receivedpublic notice prior to the first exhibitions of SCAFA. However,presumably Shiels displayed a range of portrait, genre, still-life and animal paintings (Pl 2, Pl 3). The latter two may havebeen particularly appreciated by those who wished to com-memorate their prized animals, or who enjoyed huntinggame.12 Certainly Shiels was extremely busy and popular withclients at this time, as will be explored later in BenjaminTrott’s report to William Dunlap.The Church Street location Shiels chose was one of the

best and most central in the city, easily accessible by highsociety. His competitor, Samuel Morse, was at this pointlocated around 300 yards away in ‘large and convenient’rooms above Dr Buxbaum’s Apothecary shop, at 101 BroadStreet, and paid $33 a month to rent them; Shiels would havepaid a similar amount. Morse also displayed paintings in hisstudio to demonstrate his skills to potential clients, in hiscase four are recorded.13 John W Jarvis (c1781–1839) wasalso in town for a brief period at this time and advertised his

portrait business in the CharlestonCourier at the same time as Shiels. Heand Shiels would have hoped to earn atleast the same as the ‘liberal’ salary of aCharleston teacher, namely $1200.Shiels was certainly in Charleston by

December 1820, as Morse commented,as will be discussed below, that he was‘the only competitor I have inCharleston’. Shiels relocated to a new,even more prominent studio in a three-storey townhouse in February 1821 at119 Church Street, on the south eastcorner of Church and Broad Streets (Pl4, Pl 5).14 The airy first-floor room wasperfect, with three north-facing win-dows overlooking Church Street, alarge fireplace which would have keptShiels and his clients warm in the win-ter months, and in addition privateaccess via an outside staircase. Clientscould also access the studio throughthe long-established showroom of theoutstanding Scots émigré cabinetmakerRobert Walker. Shiels left Charleston temporarily in

1821, certainly by April (as the PostOffice again advertised letters awaitinghim) and probably for the whole sum-mer.15 He announced his return again inthe Charleston Courier on 12November 1821: ‘William Shiels, BEGSleave to inform his friends and the pub-

lic, that he has returned to Charleston, and resumed hisprofession of Portrait Painter, at No. 119 Church-street, twodoors from Broad-street’.16 He repeated this pattern in 1822,returning to Charleston on the Hamlet, which had justarrived from New York, in 92 hours, on 25 October.17 Thisfact confirms that Shiels followed his many clients to thenorth, but as yet no further adverts have been found to traceexactly whether he was working in New York, or elsewhere,during these periods. Shiels announced his return to theCharlestonians on 30 October 1822 with the same wordingas the previous year, and continued to use the 119 ChurchStreet studio.18 Schenk’s Directory for Charleston in 1822,however, lists William Shiels as a ‘portrait painter’ at 36Broad Street; so, at some point during this year, Shiels musthave rented a studio space within this building, owned byanother Scot, John Ferguson.

Scottish and Freemasonry connectionsAlthough no exact figures exist, there were a large number ofScots and Scots-Irish and their descendants in Charlestonwhen Shiels arrived. As Fraser recalled; ‘there were manyEnglish and Scotch merchants permanently settled amongus, with whose success Charleston was, in a great measure,identified.’19 It was these businessmen who had the money tocommission works of art and in selecting their portrait

4 Exterior of 119 Church Street, Charleston; pho-tographed by the author

5 Shiels’s studio, 119 Church Street, Charleston;photographed by the author. I extend my thanksto the owners, Mr and Mrs Worsham, for grantingaccess

The BRITISH ART Journal Volume XIV, No. 2

4

painter, Scots ancestry may well haveplayed a part. The list of CityCommissioners reads like a roll call ofScottish names and included GeorgeMacCauley/McCauley/Macaulay whohad Shiels paint a portrait of his wifeand possibly other works.20

The Freemasons, of which Shielsand many of his contemporaries weremembers, had fourteen Lodges inCharleston by 1820 and around 1500members; thus around half of theadult white male population wereMasons.21 Freemasonry in the UnitedStates was very widespread and well-organised, with social interplayallowing potential patrons and artiststo meet on ‘equal’ terms as ‘Brothers’.Certainly being a Freemason musthave benefitted Shiels greatly in termsof introductions, commissions, andphilanthropy in times of difficulty. Inturn, the Masons’ ‘communal cooper-ation… fostered individual success’and leadership; skills which arereflected in Shiels’s role in helping to found SCAFA and theRoyal Scottish Academy.22

In the southern United States the ‘Ancient and AcceptedScottish Rite’ held sway and Shiels’s Scottish origin wouldhave been of importance. Within Charleston, the lawyer,businessman, amateur painter and sculptor, John S Cogdell(1778–1847) was a noted Freemason.23 Solomon’s Lodge wasfirst established in Charleston in 1735, and the Scottish Ritein 1801, by leaders in the city’s business, religious, and polit-ical arenas. Meetings were held, among other places, atShepherd’s Tavern, a stone’s throw from Shiels’s studio inChurch Street.

Cultural developments in CharlestonCharleston was home to a large variety of social, philanthrop-ic, and special interest societies, the College (founded in1770) and the first museum in the United States, founded in1773 by the Charleston Library Society.24 As John Shecutdescribed, just prior to Shiels’s arrival in the city: ‘Among thefine arts… Charleston boasts of the superior and exquisite tal-ents of several of her native sons and daughters, asportrait and fancy painters… [and a] great… proportionof amateurs in drawing and painting, particularly among thefair sex…’25 Thus it is not surprising that an exhibition ofpaintings and prints lent by local collectors was held in 1816in the South Carolina Society Hall, with the view to formingan Academy of Fine Arts. Charleston’s economic boom following the Peace of

Ghent lured artists with its prosperity. One such person wasBenjamin Trott who, like Thomas Sully, had been ‘starving inPhiladelphia’ in 1819 and was about to try his luck in theSouth. As he was leaving for Charleston and Savannah, Trottmet Dunlap in New York on 20th October 1819. Dunlaprecorded at this point that; ‘Morse is the oil painter ofCharleston, Fraser the miniature.’26

Samuel Morse had travelled south in January 1818 (froman itinerancy in New Hampshire) based on the promise ofcommissions from his great–uncle, Dr Finley, and Mr JohnAshe Alston (1780–1831), a wealthy planter and patron. Hisfather’s friendship with several of Charleston’s notable fami-

lies was also a critical factor in Morse’s success.27 The artistreturned to his family in Boston in May 1818 having begun 60portraits and had earned in excess of $3000.28 He was fortu-nate, the first academically trained artist to have arrived inthe city for many years, but his success was noted by otherartists and they also sought work there. The followingNovember, Morse returned to Charleston and reported thathe had …5 or 6 new sitters and more applying every day… there are sev-eral painters arrived from New York, but I fear no competition; Ihave as much as I can do.29

His studio at this point was situated at ‘the back of Barelli &Torre’s store in Broad Street’, which had a private entranceup St Michael’s Alley.30 Morse also wrote more openly to hisbrother that…my success has drawn a number of inferior portrait painters tothis city, three from New York, but I do not hear that they get any-thing to do, and rather imagine that they will have to pluck upstakes here and be off again. Although I have no objection to theirhaving as much to do as I have, and if they are civil andgentlemanly, will help then in all my power. [Alvan] Fisher thepainter is here from Boston. I like him very much and hope hemeets with the success he deserves for he has great merit.31

These two quotations, the first in particular, have been usedby previous historians virtually to write off the talents of otherartists in the city. Morse does not record the arrival of Shielsin his letters, but he cannot be included in the group thatMorse dismisses here, as Shiels arrived around seven weekslater. As Paul Staiti has recently noted, Shiels, Fisher, andFraser were successful but none could match the ability ofMorse to cream off the most lucrative commissions.Fortunate with both his social connections and in the timingof his arrival in the city, it was perhaps inevitable that heswept off many of the higher-status commissions, and whenaway in the north, he was anxious to return to Charleston ‘…as there is a fresh gang of adventurers in the brush line goneto Charleston before me.’32

Shiels, however, seems to have found a ready market forhis work; in April 1820, Dunlap recorded what he had heardfrom Joshua Shaw, while visiting the Crawley’s house inNorfolk, Virginia. Shaw, who had just returned from

Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

5

Savannah, Augusta and other places, ‘...represents the Southas a paradise of riches. He says he obtained more subscribersto his work in Savannah and that after the fire, than in anyother place in ye U.S.’33 Shaw also reported that Trott ‘saysgot nothing to do in Charleston, Shields [sic] a great deal.’34

At the same time Morse claimed; I am busily employed in getting the cash … I am doing well,although the city literally swarms with painters. I am the only onethat has as much as he can do; all the rest are complaining. I wishI could divide with some of them, very clever men who have fami-lies to support, and can get nothing to do...35

Shiels was obviously not as badly off as Morse appears tomake out, given what was reported to Dunlap, but it seemsapparent that John Blake White (1781–1859) and JohnCogdell – both of whom had families to support – were notreceiving commissions.36 Other artists, such as Charles Fraser,who had charged a minimum fee of $50 in 1818 for a minia-ture, continued to receive commissions charging between$50 and $80 in 1820, but his success slowed down in 1821,when he listed just four works in his account book and onlyeleven the following year. 1824 marked an improvement onthat: of the ten works, a few were priced at over $100 (foroils). Fraser’s prices remained low henceforth, ranging from$30 to $50.37 Dunlap earned $750 during the winter of 1819–20 in Norfolk, Virginia, mainly from small businessmen, bankclerks, enlisted Navy men and the like, but he did not gainhigh profile portrait commissions.38 Raphaelle Peale did wellin 1819 with low prices, but needed to lower them again in1822 to gain work. In Charleston, his advert smacks some-what of desperation: ‘…4 profiles cut for 25 cents, pencillingprofiles 12 ½ cents each’, the highest price being $40 for ahalf-length with hands.39

In December of 1820, following their return to Charlestonfor the winter season, Morse claimed that ‘Mr Shiels is theonly competitor I have in Charleston, and he is not a rival’.40

Shiels may not have been rival in terms of obtaining thecream of society portrait commissions, but certainly itappears that many of Charleston’s middle-class residentsand other visitors to the city were happy to have him painttheir portraits, as he continued to have work. By January1821 even Morse was finding it impossible to gain any newcommissions; and from those who were left on his list oforders he received ‘cold and procrastinating answers.’41

The South Carolina Academy of Fine ArtsThe effects of the 1819 economic crash, which began in thenorth, were impacting businesses badly in Charleston by late1820. Deflation, crop failures, and the price of cotton drop-ping by two-thirds left the South Carolinian planters in severeeconomic difficulties. Most people therefore could no longerafford to purchase luxuries such as paintings; some renegedon their agreements with artists to have their portrait paint-ed, or could no longer afford to pay the agreed price.42 Withrather unfortunate timing, the remaining artists in Charlestondecided to form an Academy of Arts in January 1821, whichMorse described in a letter to his wife;J. R. Poinsett as President with six others with myself are chosenDirectors. What this is going to lead to I don’t know. I heard MrCogdell say that it was intended to have lectures read, amongother things. I feel not very sanguine as to its success; still I shalldo all in my power to help it on as long as I am here.43

Joel Roberts Poinsett (1779–1851) was a wealthy landowner,State Legislator, member of the House of Representatives, animportant diplomat and a mason. Poinsett had tried to raisefunds from a lottery to establish an art gallery in 1820, butfailed in this as, with his political commitments, he did not

really have the time to devote to making it a success.44

However this venture and an informal network betweensome artists in the winter of 1818–19 acted as springboard forthe new Academy. Morse wrote to his wife three weeks afterthe letter quoted above:45

I sent today, to Father, the (Courier) Feb. 17. In which you willsee the notice of our Academy of Arts, the rules were drawn upprincipally by myself, it looks prosperous now but I am not san-guine as to its success, still I mean to act as if I was sure, while Iam here, which will be but a short time, my plan of a school ofpainters in N. Haven strikes me as eligible the more I think of it.Providence I think is indicating to me a removal from Charlestonfor the present. I find no increase of sitters. I complete the lastsitting of my last sitter tomorrow.46

After a final flurry of work Morse sailed to New Haven thatApril and never returned to Charleston. Shiels was voted oneof the founding Directors of the South Carolina Academy ofFine Arts and was re-elected the following year. As Shielsdescribed it in a letter, written in 1856 towards the end of hislife: ‘I then had the management of the Academy atCharleston’.47 This statement is highly important and over-turns all previous historians’ impressions of how theAcademy was organised following Morse’s departure. It willbe discussed in more detail below. The other foundingDirectors were Morse, J B White, Cogdell, William Jay (1792–1837), an English Neoclassical architect, Joshua Canter, aDanish immigrant artist and art teacher (d.1826), Charles CWright, a die-sinker, James Wood and Charles Simmons,engravers who worked together.48 Cogdell also acted asSecretary and Treasurer. ‘A Friend to the Arts’ writing to theCharleston Courier described SCAFA’s President (Poinsett)as ‘enlightened and highly respectable’ and ‘the attainmentsof its Secretary and Treasurer, with the gentlemen who com-pose its board of Directors, are well-known and dulyappreciated in this community.’49

The City Council gave permission for an Academy to bebuilt on Washington Square, close to City Hall. UnfortunatelyHenry Ravenel, a member of one of Charleston’s oldest fam-ilies, made such vociferous objections to the Academy beingbuilt close to his home that the Council ordered it to be builtelsewhere, despite the brick foundations having been laidand the lumber on site. This caused huge unanticipatedexpenditure, which, when combined with Jay’s constantdesign changes, led to the cost of the building escalatingfrom $1,600 to nearly $4,500. The new rented site was 500metres to the west on the corner of Broad and Logan Streets,close to Vauxhall Gardens. The lot had a 50-foot frontage onBroad Street and was 140 feet deep.50 Cogdell described thealmost completed building to Thomas Jefferson;I have the honour of being one among a small number of ourcommunity – who have undertaken to form an Academy of Arts –in the city of Charleston. Our Building – after the Grecian Templeis nearly finished, a Portico –12 feet wide by 30: and columns – afront Room for statuary 30 by 20: & the main room lighted by adome 45 x 20…51

Later, Robert Mills described the completed building as fol-lows:passing through the portico you enter a vestibule, on each side ofwhich are two rooms for statues &c. In front a large opening leadsyou into the exhibition room where a rich feast in the paintingdepartment of the fine arts meets the eye. The room, in its plan,is a perfect square, lighted from the top.52

Given these dimensions, I have estimated the size of the inter-nal walls of the exhibition room to be 48 feet long, which,allowing for a doorway, would give a total linear hanging spaceof 189 feet, or approximately 57.6 metres. Thus it is likely thatthe walls were hung close on floor to ceiling with works of artin the same style as the Royal Academy in London.

The BRITISH ART Journal Volume XIV, No. 2

6

SCAFA was granted a charter by the House ofRepresentatives on 14 December 1821.53 Unlike theAmerican Academy of Fine Arts in New York (AAFA) and thePennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (PAFA), the new SouthCarolina Academy was organised on the same lines as theRoyal Academy; it was led and directed by artists, rather thanwealthy individuals and patrons. This action demonstratedboth the artists’ wish for independence and their profession-al capability. As McInnis has noted, it was the first time thishad occurred in America.54

The objective of the Academy was ‘the encouragement ofthe Fine Arts, through exhibitions, lectures, and schools;access to collections of pictures, casts, models, drawings,engravings, and books; and facilities and training for artists.’The rules stated that anyone could join by signing the rulesand paying a fee of $20; artists could either pay the sameamount or submit a work of art, which would become theproperty of the Academy.55 This proposal was similar to thesubmission of a Diploma work as entry to the Royal Academyand later at the Scottish Academy. ‘Artists of merit’ were invit-ed to exhibit their works, while ‘Amateurs were invited toloan “fine pictures or other works of art” to the Academy’.The latter rule weighed in favour of modern art, as opposedto Old Masters, thus foreshadowing the way in which theScottish Academy developed a few years later. McInnis has discussed the beginnings of the Academy in

Charleston and its fortunes, which were hampered from thestart by a lack of support from the wealthy elite.56 She con-cludes that because Charleston’s aristocracy were not askedat the outset to support the Academy through boardappointments, they then ignored, and possibly ostracised,the professional (lower class) artists for their temerity inchallenging the social hierarchy. Although Poinsett was continually supportive of the

Academy, his frequent absences from the state on businessproved to be quite detrimental. Stephen Elliot, a man of‘conspicuous talents, fine taste and zeal in the pursuit of lib-eral knowledge’ was appointed as a temporary President ofthe Academy at this juncture.57 Some effort was made to rem-edy the lack of aristocratic involvement in July 1821 whenthe aristocratic amateur artist and estate factor, ThomasMiddleton (1797–1863), was elected a Director, but it mayalready have been a case of too little, too late. Despite eighty-four ladies and gentlemen becoming members of theAcademy by September 1821, no Charlestonian donated amajor work of art as a founding incentive to the collection.58

In response to this state of affairs, it is apparent that Shielswrote to his fellow artists in Scotland and London reportingthe developments in Charleston. They responded generous-ly, as Shiels later described:About that period [1819] he [Raeburn] painted two pictures of MrLivingston of New York, they created a very great sensation there[Edinburgh]. One of the pictures was presented to the Academyat New York the other to the Academy at Charleston. I then hadthe management of the Academy at Charleston [1821–23] & hadthe Honour of receiving Raeburn’s picture of Livingston, G.Watson’s picture of West & M. A. Shee’s picture of John Kemble[1757–1823, the English actor]. All three pictures were muchadmired, more particularly Raeburn’s & Watson, but all threeartists were made honorary members of the two academy’s thenin existence.59

The AAFA displayed Raeburn’s Peter Van Brugh Livingston(1792–1868), an American of Scottish descent, from 1820–28.Robyn Asleson contradicts Shiels’s recollections by statingthat these two Raeburn portraits were created for the AAFAand for the sitter’s mother.60 The former, a more conventionalportrait, was purchased from the AAFA by the Wadsworth

Athenaeum in 1855. The latter, a more dramatic interpreta-tion, was given to the Lenox Library in 1889 (now part of NewYork Public Library). The version in the AAFA was held as anexcellent example for its students to copy and Thomas Sullymade at least one copy of this portrait in 1828. Thus a num-ber of early nineteenth-century copies proliferate, one ofwhich Christie’s recently sold.61 However, Raeburn must havepainted a further portrait (of which version is unknown, butpossibly the more virtuoso depiction which was his personalfavourite) for SCAFA. Raeburn’s gift to SCAFA was exhibitedthere in 1822 (no.57), but it is unclear what happened to thepainting after SCAFA was disbanded. It may have been theone which was eventually given to the New York HistoricalSociety in 1960, which joined another copy in the NYHS collection done by F S Agate.62 Given that Shiels was commis-sioned to make copies after Raeburn’s portraits for a Scottishfamily in 1831, it is not inconceivable that he also perhapsmade a copy. Further to Shiels’s recollections, the Baltimore Patriot

reported in 1822:MR. GEORGE WATSON, a distinguished artist of Edinburgh, was[sic] presented the South Carolina Academy of Fine Arts, with asplendid portrait of our distinguished countryman, BenjaminWest, late President of the Royal Academy of London. To shew[sic] their gratitude for this liberal act of a distinguished stranger,the Academy have elected Mr. Watson an honorary member oftheir body. The Count Survilliers (Joseph Buonaparte) [sic] hasforwarded a valuable painting of Charity, to enrich the exhibitionsof the Academy.63

These quotations demonstrate just how much influenceShiels had in managing SCAFA, in obtaining high qualityworks of art for its collection, gratis, and thanking thoseartists in turn with the award of Honorary Membership. It isnot yet known if Shiels solicited further gifts from his friendsin Britain, but these three works were certainly an excellentfoundation for the Academy’s art collection. Asleson seemsunaware of Shiels’s connections with SCAFA and how hisefforts led to these gifts and the honorary memberships; sheinstead attributes them to generalised ‘Scottish loyalties’among SCAFA members and the Charleston population.64 Ingratitude of Bonaparte’s donation of Charity (an Italian OldMaster painting, and hence presumably valued more highlyboth financially and aesthetically), the Academy was openedspecially for a short season from 5 November 1822 with anentry fee of 25 cents.65

SCAFA’s First and Second Exhibitions In 1822 the Academy appealed to artists nationwide to submittheir works to the inaugural exhibition of SCAFA, offering topay freight and, if the work was sold, 10% commission to bededucted.66 Exactly how many artists across the US took upthis offer is unknown as no catalogue survives, but theAppendix details for the first time as complete a list as possi-ble from surviving accounts. Over 150 works were exhibited,more than has previously been noted.67 Shortly before thisappeal, Stephen Elliot wrote to Poinsett: ‘We meet with so lit-tle encouragement from our wealthy and fashionable citizensthat we can only look forward to months, perhaps years ofembarrassment.’68 However, during the twelve-week exhibi-tion period the Charleston Courier was able to remark, ‘Theacademy of Fine Arts is growing in favour, and additional con-tributions grace its collection, manifesting an increasedinterest in its welfare. It is becoming a fashionable resort andtopic of conversation.’69 To counteract any further oppositionan article appeared in the Courier equating painting with notonly beauty, but morality, history, nationalism, purity, patriot-ism, and republicanism.70 Furthermore, a letter to the editor

Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

7

commented: That the present exhibition is so far superior to what I had expect-ed to be produced in this city, I hold it but justice to those whoare directing the Academy, to have this publicly declared; for Iknow many well-disposed to the management of the Academy,who had doubted of any success as to a collection.71

As Shiels is now known to have had management control ofSCAFA, this then is no small praise for his abilities in generat-ing successful exhibitions and, importantly, pleasing thehighly influential middle and upper classes. He not onlynegotiated loans from artists across the USA and local collec-tions, and hung the exhibits well, but also demonstrated greatorganisational and interpersonal skills. The success of thefirst exhibition thoroughly dampened opposition to theAcademy, as the artists had proved they were capable oforganising a good exhibition and displaying high qualityworks of art. Shiels and his fellow directors must also havehad several works apiece in the exhibition, but regrettablythese were not fully listed in the surviving sources. However,Shiels’s Portrait of John Quincy Adams was reviewed in theCourier as follows: This is a very correct resemblance of the Secretary of State, andwas selected to be engraved for Delaplaine’s Repository. The suf-fusion of the eye with tears, is peculiarly characteristic – an effectproduced by long and excessive devotion of study of that labori-ous scholar.72

The show ended in early June and raised a total of $439.48 inreceipts. Entry cost 25 cents, or a season ticket could be hadfor a dollar.73 These accounts demonstrate that Charlestonwas on a par with, or may have surpassed the AAFA: the lat-ter’s first (and most successful) exhibition in 1816 wasattended by 1500. Given Charleston’s population base, tohave achieved those figures, when in far larger cities the PAFAand AAFA were struggling to attain similar numbers, was a tri-umph. Poinsett was ‘very much delighted at the collection’and Cogdell felt that it was ‘as good as one in Philadelphia orNew York.’74 Only Shiels had the professional experience andexpertise necessary to create this success. During his visits tothe North, Shiels may also have acted as an agent for SCAFA,persuading artists to exhibit their works in Charleston, as washis practice later for the Scottish Academy in Edinburgh.These may have included Samuel Lovett Waldo’s BoysExamining a Map (no.16), Portrait of a Gentleman (no.18)and A Beggar (no.57); and Rufus K Porter’s (1792–1884)Battle of Seringapatem (no.25).Several artists cashed in on both the busiest season of the

year in the city, and the excitement generated by SCAFA’sfirst two exhibitions. For instance, in February 1822 JohnVanderlyn toured Henry Aston Baker’s Panorama of theBattle of Waterloo, 1816 (location unknown), alongside hisown paintings Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (PAFA),Danae (unlocated), Caius Marius in exile on the ruins ofCarthage, 1808 (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco), andthe vast cyclorama The Palace, Garden and Fountains ofVersailles, 1818–19 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, NewYork).75 Similarly, Rembrandt Peale toured his monumentalCourt of Death, 1820 (Detroit Institute of Arts) to Charlestonin January 1822, displaying it in the Academy, along withThomas Sully’s The Choir of the Capuchin Chapel in Rome,1820 (private collection).76 The latter was displayed ‘twodoors above Broad Street in Church Street’, next to Shiels’sstudio.77 Sully also sent his Passage of the Delaware(Museum of Fine Arts, Boston) to the Academy in November1822 to be exhibited, priced at $500, with a third of the prof-its from the show to go to the artist.78 Antoine Menucci’shuge The Death of Hias (13.5 x 15 feet) was exhibited at the

Concert Hall in Church Street in April 1822. Julia Plantoutoured her Peace of Ghent, 1814, and Triumph of America(now known only as an engraving) to Charleston in 1823,and other works exhibited that year include George Cooke’s(1793–1849) Capuchin Chapel and John H J Brower’s depic-tions of the sufferings, death, and burial of Christ.79

The Courier reported that the forthcoming second exhibi-tion would be a ‘feast of no ordinary character’. This seemedto whet the appetite of the South Carolinians who throngedthe Academy ‘in a brilliant and fashionable assembly’,bestowing ‘general approbation’ upon the show during theevening illumination (which took place three nights aweek).80 However, both the Courier and the SouthernPatriot claimed that recently the Academy had ‘languished’from the want of more general patronage, and that it shouldbe supported as it was the ‘nursery of native genius’, ‘anornament to our city’, ‘it refines taste… stimulates inven-tion’, and so on.81

Fortunately one catalogue survives, from 1823, which Staitiand McInnis have discussed.82 In this, Shiels exhibited six-teen paintings out of a total of 111, which was by far thegreatest number of any contributor. Eleven of these wereportraits; four entitled Portrait of a Gentleman of this cityand three entitled Portrait of a Gentleman, one entitled ALady of this City, and one Portrait of a Child. Shiels alsoexhibited the aforementioned John Quincy Adams portraitand a copy after another artist’s (possibly Gilbert Stuart’s orJohn Trumbull’s) Portrait of General Washington. One ofShiels’s unnamed sitters may have been James Louis Petigru(1789–1863) whom Shiels painted, according to Anna WellsRutledge’s manuscripts.83 In 1822, Petigru was appointedAttorney-General of South Carolina, an appropriate occasionfor his portrait to be commissioned. Fraser also painted thissitter. Shiels’s other paintings were Boys playing with a Dog,Village Courtship, Village Politicians, Boy Playing withFlowers, and A Dog with Dead Game. The fact that heshowed so many pictures in one exhibition, suggests thatthis was the culmination of his time in Charleston, and is alsorepresentative of his status as one of the Academy’sDirectors. Efforts to trace these works continue, but around90% of the works of art originally extant in the South havebeen destroyed by fires, hurricanes, an earthquake, and theAmerican Civil War. Thus many, or perhaps even all, ofShiels’s paintings which remained in this region after hisdeparture may no longer survive. At present none has yetresurfaced.Works by artists practicing in Charleston comprised just

over one-third of the 1823 exhibition; the remaining workswere loaned by the city (George Washington by Trumbulland James Monroe by Morse), by other artists in America,such as Alvan Fisher, John Wesley Jarvis, Samuel LovettWaldo, Charles Bird King, Thomas Sully and Francis Guy, andby local collectors. The latter’s loans comprised of European‘Old Masters’. The Academy also acquired some landscapesby Thomas Doughty (1793–1856) and a copy after Jacques-Louis David’s Buonaparte Crossing the Alps.84 Two exhibitswere works by Shiels’s close friend Alexander Fraser (1786–1865), then practising in London, entitled A ScottishNobleman Distributing to the Poor (no.102) and A Party ofSoldiers (no.105). These may have been gifts sent for theAcademy’s collection or perhaps were lent by a local collec-tor. Another painting by Alexander Fraser, a copy after DavidWilkie’s Rent Day, was exhibited in 1822 (no.87), and maywell have been a gift acquired by Shiels for SCAFA’s collec-tion. Indeed, the Charleston Mercury (27 April 1824)

The BRITISH ART Journal Volume XIV, No. 2

8

referred to the Directors having ‘elicited the good feelings offriends – even in Scotland and London, and several cities inthe Union’ to expand the collection of the Academy.As both Staiti and McInnis point out, what was not includ-

ed in the exhibition is perhaps the most telling: the supportthat the Academy could have had, but failed to secure.85 Iflocal collectors had been fully in favour of the Academy, theycould have loaned some of the known masterpieces in theircollections by artists such as West, Stuart, Romney,Gainsborough, Lawrence, Sully and Vanderlyn. However,there may have been different reasons. As the CharlestonCourier described it, the initial selection policy for exhibitsseemed to exclude paintings that had previously been exhib-ited in 1822, but this was later changed and ‘several of themhave returned ... and those, the most interesting.’86 Perhapsthis policy was made to generate interest from the publicthrough the essential ingredient of ‘novelty’ and to avoid theaccusations levelled at the AAFA, that of the same exhibitsbeing rolled out year after year. It may well have been thisreason, rather than the unwillingness of owners to lend, whyfewer well-known masterpieces were initially displayed.Certainly works by West, Romney, and Lawrence, and a num-ber of Old Masters were lent in 1822. SCAFA was a forerunner for Shiels of the (Royal) Scottish

Academy in Edinburgh. Founded in 1826, the RSA focused itsefforts entirely on modern art rather than Old Masters.Therefore, it is quite possible that the main aim of Shiels andhis fellow Directors at SCAFA was to display contemporaryart, to generate more sales and commissions; after all, theyall needed to earn a living. Indeed, half of the 1823 catalogueexhibits (55 out of 111) can definitely be attributed to livingartists, both professional (48 paintings) and amateur; knowl-edge of further attributions is limited because of the brevityof the descriptions (although it is clear that five works byThomas Coram were also exhibited). This was a high propor-tion of modern art for this period. Late additions included aReynolds Portrait of a Lady and her Infant; two portraits byWaldo; an anonymous A Lady Sleeping (No.4, 1822); Sully’sThe Capuchin Chapel; Washington Allston’s Donna Menciain the Robber’s Cavern, 1815, lent by William Drayton (MFA,Boston); Henry Sargent’s The Dinner Party; and a gift of aportrait of Rosalba.87 Two figures representing Painting andSculpture by Vanderlyn were also exhibited, possibly lent bythe artist.88

Among Shiels’s fellow directors was the miniaturistCharles Fraser, who also painted a number of still-lifes of fishand game birds in a very similar vein to Shiels’s works. Giventhat Fraser only commenced painting full-time in 1818, hemay have been strongly influenced in both his style and sub-ject-matter by Shiels (Pl 6). Cogdell exhibited three genrescenes at the National Academy of Design in 1828; Cat andFish, Oysters and Prawns, and a Still-life; he too may wellhave been inspired by Shiels’s and Fraser’s similar paintings,especially as he so admired the former’s work (as will beseen later). Other works which Shiels painted while inAmerica include American Partridges and A Study fromNature, both of which were exhibited at the ScottishAcademy in 1827.The American public’s appetite for the fine arts in the first

quarter of the 19th century was not capacious. The majorityof those who wished to acquire works of art wanted portraitsof themselves, their family, and friends. Scenes from historyhad little or no place in the domestic sphere, and even land-scape, genre, and still-life scenes were hard to sell. TheCharleston Courier lamented that Alvan Fisher’s landscapes

would not sell.89 The market in Charleston though was differ-ent from most of the US at this time, so Shiels may well havebeen more successful with scenes traditionally associatedwith landowners, such as hunting, game and still-life. Thegenre subjects that he exhibited in 1823, Village Politiciansand Village Courtship, probably resemble his A Courtship(1810) and Return from Market (1844) (Pl 7, Pl 8). Cogdellwrote to Morse in December 1823: Mr Shields [sic] has gone to Savannah & says he does not returnhere – he was very cold before he left here – I know not thecause – he painted three very pretty pieces in his accustomedEnglish style: – dead Game – Dogs & living Game – his partridgeswere living within the frame – his Ducks were ready to be picked& his Hawks were ready to fly – if you waved your hat in theroom: but these are gone with him: Mr C.F I hear is now paintingsome dead game – no doubt they will be fine.90

Shiels must have decided to cut his losses in Charleston giventhe continuing effects of the economic crisis: lack of patronageand true support for the Academy. Cogdell mentions Shielsone last time, reporting to Morse that he was in Savannah inJanuary 1824. In this same letter Cogdell pleads with Morse toreturn to Charleston saying that he now has no rival in the city.However, he then describes what an unappealing prospectCharleston now was: ‘…the Times are changing daily with us –everything is going backwards – old families die… Estates arebroken up… & thus – the great fabric vanishes & leaves notanother behind: Strangers are occupying the Land…’91 Eventhe fairly objective Mills admitted that ‘Charleston had not yetacquired that degree of taste, leisure, and wealth, which wouldenable it to reward the exertions of the artists, depending alto-gether on his professions for support.’92 None of the artistspermanently based in Charleston was able to survive solelyupon his art; Fraser wrote poetry, White wrote plays, and

6 Still-life (Ducks and Snipe) by Charles Fraser (1782–1860), c1840. Oil oncanvas, x 63.5 cm. Gibbes Museum of Art, Charleston. (Examples of Fraser’sstill-lives c1820–24 have yet to resurface)

Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

9

Cogdell only ever painted as an amateur, holding a number ofimportant administrative posts during his career.93

While news from Charleston was bad, prospects were notany better in the North. Morse had to recommence his itin-erancy in August 1823, going to Albany and then New York,where he rented a studio room and slept on the floor for$6.50 a week. He reported, ‘All the artists are complaining,and there are many of them, and they are all poor. The artsare as low as they can be. It is no better at the south, andaccounts of the arts or artists are of the most discouragingnature.’94 In the meantime, SCAFA’s supporters dwindled inthe face of a lack of patronage and because its leading pro-tagonist, Shiels, was travelling elsewhere in search ofcommissions. Even the real Old Master paintings fromJoseph Bonaparte’s art collection in Philadelphia, whichPoinsett had borrowed on a rotating loan in 1824, failed todrum up enough visitors to cover the costs. The Mercurypraised the efforts of the Academy’s associates, who had‘accomplished so much’, and criticised ‘how little the richmen of our country have done for this establishment.’95 Thelast exhibition was held in 1828 and the collection of paint-ings and sculptures was sold in 1830/31 to pay off debts.Although no list of the final sale appears to survive, at leastone work by Shiels, as well as those he obtained for SCAFA,must have been among these.96 The Nullification Crisismeant that art matters were forgotten or disregarded bymost, and the final efforts to rescue the Academy failed.97

A sojourn in SavannahIt was in the Georgian that Shiels first advertised his servicesas a portrait painter in Savannah on 10 December 1823. Hehad acquired a studio in Young’s Buildings (no longer stand-ing) in the centre of the city, around 100 yards from the port.The owner, Thomas Young, was potentially a powerful patronof Shiels. Young was from Edinburgh and became an extreme-ly wealthy, cultured plantation owner, philanthropist, andpatron.98

Savannah’s population was less than a third ofCharleston’s at only 7,523 in 1820, but for all that the city wasrich, thanks to its exports of $14 million (in 1817) and also inits diverse community.99 An artistic competitor in the city atthe same time as Shiels was a miniature and portrait painter,T. Labatut, who had also recently come from Charleston.100

William Jay was also in Savannah designing buildings. Givenhis previous connection with Shiels in Charleston, Jay mayhave introduced Shiels to leading patrons in the city; certain-ly Shiels would have made use of the Masonic Lodge and metthe influential men of the city that way. Shiels continued to advertise until the 24th of

December.101 At some point in December 1823 or January1824, Shiels painted ‘a beautiful transparency and presented[it] to the Chatham Academy’, a Savannah public school. Thetransparency of an unknown subject was displayed in anevening illumination at Mrs Lege’s Assembly Hall on 29January 1824; undoubtedly a good way to market his skills.102

7 A Courtship by William Shiels, 1810. Oil on canvas, 43 x 54 cm. Private Collection, courtesy of Woolley and Wallis, Salisbury

The BRITISH ART Journal Volume XIV, No. 2

10

Shiels gave one final notice in the press on 5 April 1824,that he would shortly leave Savannah but would allow thepublic ‘the present week in which to see his pictures, beforethey are removed.’103 From thence Shiels could have trav-elled easily by ship to any number of destinations, but itappears unlikely that he went home to Scotland at this stage,because he did not exhibit in Britain again until 1826.104 So,of the possible destinations in the US, it is most likely that hetravelled north following his clientele escaping theapproaching oppressive summer heat. Given Shiels’s con-nections with a young Bostonian artist, Mr F A Stewart,whom he later helped in London, it is likely that Shielsworked his way along the eastern seaboard to Boston.

ConclusionWhile the surviving evidence remains scant, it is clear thatShiels did make much more of a contribution to SCAFA thanhe has ever previously been given credit for. Whereas Morseleft just three months after the Academy was founded,Shiels remained in Charleston. From then on, only Shielswas expert in the Royal Academy’s rules and regulations,and knew how exhibitions were hung and organised, howworks of art should be transported safely, and how toapproach his fellow artists for loans. Shiels’s achievements,alongside his remaining colleagues, included delivering twovery successful exhibitions. After Shiels left Charleston, thequality, quantity, and diversity of the works of art exhibitedat SCAFA, aside from Bonaparte’s loans, dropped remark-

ably. It is highly likely that it was Shiels’s input that led tovarious Scottish and English artists being made honorarymembers of SCAFA, and he definitely helped the Academyacquire at least three works of art for its founding collection.As Shiels’s letter of 1856 indicates – ‘I then had the manage-ment of the Academy at Charleston’ – he played a far greaterrole in running the organisation than any previous writerhad ever suspected. Shiels may not have had many of thehigh society commissions and the social connections thatwere so helpful to Morse; but Cogdell, Trott, and Dunlap’sevidence contradict Morse’s somewhat puffed-up assertionsthat he was the only artist of importance in Charleston. Thefact that Shiels spent far more time in Charleston than pre-viously known, had central studios, achieved notablecommissions, and could well have used Masonic andScottish connections, all point to him having a successfulpractice in the city for several seasons.Shiels’s experiences and knowledge of the schisms and dif-

ficulties in the establishment and running of SCAFA, theAAFA, and the PAFA made him extraordinarily proactive uponhis return to Scotland. He became an enthusiastic foundermember of the (Royal) Scottish Academy and his actionswere in a large part responsible for the success of thatAcademy in its early years when it too fought a battle withthe aristocratic elite running the neighbouring RoyalInstitution.105

8 Return from Market by William Shiels, 1844 (detail). Oil on canvas, 88.9 x 116.8 cm. Private Collection

Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

11

Appendix

The first exhibition of the South Carolina Academy ofFine Arts, 1822. A compiled list of exhibitsAs no catalogue survives, this list has been compiled as com-pletely as possible from surviving newspaper accounts in TheCharleston Courier (29–30 March, 1, 3, 5, 17, and 25 April,and 4 June 1822); The Rhode Island Republican (10 April1822); and from the Morse Papers in the Library of Congress.Many of the paintings were lent by Charlestonians; others by‘Friends of the Academy’.[Original spellings and descriptions have been retained]

No.1 – Trumbull, Portrait of General Washington, 1790 (full-length) standing close to Charleston (lent by the City ofCharleston)No.3 – Mr Shiels, Portrait of John Quincy AdamsNo.4 – Anon., A Lady Sleeping – her head on a table with anopen letter, with another lady peering over her shoulderNo.11 – Anon., Still life of ripe fruitNo.12 – Anon., Miser counting his gold (copy of a Flemishpainting)No.13 – Mr. J. Lucas Jr. (an amateur), Copy of an AutumnalLandscapeNo.16 – Flemish, Still life of Lobster, Shrimp and MackerelNo.17 – Benjamin West, Portrait of a South CarolinianGentlemanNo.18 – ‘By a member of the Academy’ (probably Shiels orFraser), Still-life (of ‘the most favourite fish in the Charlestonmarket – taken while they were gasping for life’)‘No.18’– (Misprint?) Samuel Morse, Self-portrait (with hispalette in his London studio)No.19 – D. Ryckaert, A Dutch FamilyNo.21 – Samuel L. Waldo, Head of a BeggarNo.24 – ‘By a member of the Academy’, (probably Shiels orFraser), DucksNo.27 – Samuel Morse, Portrait of Colonel DraytonNo.28 – Alvan Fisher, A Landscape (of cattle and a ferryboatwith passengers crossing a river)No.29 – George Romney, Portrait of a Lady and her SonNo.30 – John Wesley Jarvis, Portrait of Commodore PerryNo.33 – Mr. J. Lucas Jr. (a Charlestonian), Landscape and cat-tleNo.34 – Sneider, A Boar HuntNo.35 – Joshua Canter after Walmo, Landscape with aerialperspectiveNo.37 – ‘By a member of the Academy’, Family group por-traitNo.39 – Arnold Vanderveer, Moonlit view on the RhineNo.43 – In the style of Rembrandt, An old Man meditating(with a bible, skull and an hourglass)No.45 – Mr. J. Lucas Jr. (a Charlestonian), A LandscapeNo.47 – European artist, A Lady threading a needle by can-dlelightNo.50 – Copy after Van Dyck, Time Clipping the Wings ofCupidNo.51 – Wouverman, A Cottage and Horse etc.No.53 – Van Bree, Portrait of a Gentleman with a view ofParis beyondNo.57 – Henry Raeburn, A Portrait (Vanbrugh Livingston)No.60 – Attributed to Vanderlyn, Falls of NiagaraNo.63 – Schalken, Portrait of a Gentleman by CandlelightNo.66 – Correggio (in catalogue) / Rubens (in newspaperreview, contradicting catalogue), The Holy FamilyNo.69 – Anon., Portrait of St Sebastian

No.74 – Joshua Canter, Copy after unknown of a Head of anOld ManNo.77 – Samuel Morse, Portrait of General Thomas PinckneyNo.79 – Joshua Canter, Copy after unknown of a Head of anOld ManNo.81 – Gilbert Stuart, Portrait of George Washington (in civilgarb)No.82 – Rubens, A Scripture Piece (drawing)No.84 – ‘Sneider’, A Boar HuntNo.85 – Alvan Fisher, A Farmyard – a farmer throwing haydown for cattleNo.87 – Alexander Fraser, copy of Wilkie’s Rent DayNo.88 – George Romney, Portrait of Lady HamiltonNo.90 – After Morland, Stable with an ostler cleaning a horseNo.95 – After Morland, Horse drinking water from a streamwith a peasant on his backNo.100 – Robert Edge Pine, The ManiacNo.101 – Anon., Dead GameNo.104 – Anon., Death of LucretiaNo.105 – Anon., Garden Scene by Moonlight, with the actressMiss O’Neale playing the part of Imogen in the play ofBertram.No.106 – Klengel, View of DresdenNo.111 – Attributed to Vanderlyn, Falls of NiagaraNo.112 – Anon., Portrait of Talma, a French actorNo.113 – Klengel, View of DresdenNo.114 – A Carolinian amateur, Copy after no.113No.115 – Lawrence, Landscape of an island encircled bywaterNo.116 –By a young lady of this city, Copy after no.115, withthe additional feature of cattle on the islandNo.117 – Francini, Two Heads (bust length portraits of twoladies by candlelight)No.119 – Peale, Portrait of General GadsdenNo. 120 – Mignon, Still life of flowersNo.129 – Van Goyen, LandscapeNo.130 – Van Goyen, LandscapeNo.131 – Charles Fraser, Portrait of General Moultrie (frommemory)No.133 – ‘One of our own artists’, Portrait of Colonel JohnLaurens (full-length)No.151 – Anon., Portrait of Lorenzo Dow, half-length (a well-known preacher who toured America)

Also included, but not numbered, were:Alvan Fisher, ‘Several’ landscapes (ex-catalogue)Charles Fraser, Portrait of Henry Laurens (full-length)copied from an engravingEmanuel Jones – View of the South Carolina Academy of FineArts106

Philippe Meusnier (1655/6–1734) – ‘Several’ original works(ex-catalogue)Samuel Morse – Portrait of Dr Baron; Portrait of Dr Wilson;Portrait of Finlay Morse; and Portrait of James Monroe (full-length)Rembrandt Peale – The Court of Death (1820, DetroitInstitute of Arts)William Shiels – ‘Several’ paintingsYoung Lady of this City (copy after Meusnier) – A Shipwreck

1 Shiels, a Scot born near Kelso, began an apprenticeship in Edinburghunder the outstanding cabinetmaker William Trotter in 1798. Followingstudies at the Trustees Academy under John Graham, then at the RA, hebecame an artist. Shiels worked in London and Scotland until he sailed onthe same ship as John Quincy Adams, arriving in New York on 6 Aug. 1817.He was immediately swamped with over 50 portrait commissions, one ofwhich was of Adams. Shiels exhibited at the American Academy of Fine

The BRITISH ART Journal Volume XIV, No. 2

12

Arts in New York in 1817 and 1818, but a severe economic crash forcedhim to seek work elsewhere. See also F V Salvesen Murrell, ‘William ShielsRSA (1783–1857): identity, scientific enquiry, and the development of artinstitutions in Britain and north America’, PhD diss, University ofAberdeen 2013; idem, ‘William Shiels RSA (1783–1857) ...’, Scottish ArtNews, 1 (2013); F V Salvesen Murrell et al, ‘William Shiels RSA (1783–1857): A Courtship, 1810’, Regional Furniture Society Newsletter, vol 57,2012, pp1–2. Fiona V Salvesen, Shiels, William (1783–1857), athttp://www.oxforddnb.com/index/101077015/William-Shiels edn, (ODNB2009); idem, ‘All Creatures Great & Small: The Art of WilliamShiels’, SCOTS: The Journal of the Scots Heritage Society, vol 42, Nov 2008,pp88–93; idem, ‘Low’s Animal Paintings’, The Ark: Journal of the RareBreeds Survival Trust, vol 27, 1999, pp103–105

2 Surviving direct evidence on Shiels is rather scant. Contemporaryaccounts are found in: Library of Congress (=LoC); Samuel F B MorsePapers and Thomas Jefferson Papers, Winterthur Library; John S Cogdell’sDiaries and Letterbooks, Archives of American Art (=AAA); Thomas Sully’sJournal and Charles Willson Peale’s Letter books, South Carolina HistoricalSociety Archives (=SCHS); Charles Fraser’s account book and Anna WellsRutledge Papers (=SCHS, Rutledge).

3 Anna Wells Rutledge, Artists in the life of Charleston, through Colony andState, from Restoration to Reconstruction, Columbia, 1949, p131, previ-ously recorded Shiels as arriving in February 1820, while William Dunlap,The Diary of William Dunlap, 1766–1839, 2 vols, 1930, repr. New York1969, knew he was there by April 1820. Shiels is mentioned briefly inRutledge op cit above; Lillian B Miller, Patrons and Patriotism, Chicago &London 1966; Paul J Staiti, ‘Samuel F. B. Morse in Charleston 1818–1821’,South Carolina Historical Magazine, vol 79.2, 1978, pp87–122; Paul JStaiti, ‘The 1823 Exhibition of the South Carolina Academy of Fine Arts’, inDavid Moltke-Hansen, ed, Art in the Lives of South Carolinians,Charleston 1979, ppPSb1–14; Paul J Staiti, Samuel F. B. Morse, 1989;William B Gerdts, Art Across America, 1710–1920, 2 vols, New York 1990;and Maurie D McInnis, The Politics of Taste in Antebellum Charleston,Chapel Hill NC 2005. Some of these writers questioned if he was a Scot,but did not fully connect Shiels in America with the academically trainedco-founder of the RSA; as a result Shiels has not previously been creditedwith his evident importance. Robyn Asleson, ‘Raeburn in America:Scottish–American Networks, 1791–1845’ in Viccy Coltman & StephenLloyd, eds, Henry Raeburn: Context, Reception and Reputation,Edinburgh 2012, pp224–57.

4 McInnis, op cit n3, pp20, 28, quoting Peter Coclanis, The Shadow of aDream: Economic Life and Death in the South Carolina Low Country,1670–1920, Oxford 1989, p115, Table 4-4. Robert Mills, Statistics of SouthCarolina, Charleston, SC, 1826, p396, notes that the census occurred inthe summer when around 1500–2000 of the population were away.

5 See Rutledge, op cit n3, pp101–260.6 The Times, Charleston, 5 Feb 1819, and The Charleston Courier, 4 Feb

1819.7 Other genteel amusements included drawing, classical, and music

schools.8 Charleston Courier, 22 June 1819. The number of the house is not record-

ed.9 City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 4 Aug 1819; repeated on 9, 10, 11, 13

and 18 August.10 Charleston Courier, 9 Feb 1819. Thompson advertised his business at 343

King St from 4 Dec 1818.11 The street was probably subsequently renumbered as the First Baptist

Church was being constructed at this address in 1819–22 (unless Shielsrented a space within the church); I thank the SCHS staff for their adviceon this.

12 Edward Troye’s animal portraits were popular among Charlestonians in1834; see Gerdts, op cit n3, vol 2, pp51–52.

13 LoC, Morse Papers, Morse to his wife, 12 Jan 1820, and the CharlestonCourier, 19 Jan 1820.

14 Charleston Courier, 23 Feb 1821.15 City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 3 Apr 1821.16 Charleston Courier, 12 Nov 1821.17 Charleston Mercury, 26 Oct 1822, and Charleston Courier, 26 Oct 1822.18 Charleston Mercury, 30 Oct, 2 and 4 Nov 1822, and Charleston Courier,

7 and 12 Nov 1822. The advert was dated 28 Oct in the Mercury, and 7 Octin the Courier.

19 Charles Fraser, My Reminiscences of Charleston (1854), Charleston 1969,p12.

20 Fraser made a miniature for Mr MacCauley for $60 in 1826, and a copy for$30 in India ink after Shiels’s original oil painting in 1827, SCHS, Rutledge,Boxes 23 and 53. The miniature of Mr George MacCaulay ‘after Shields’[sic] was exhibited at the Fraser Gallery in Charleston in 1857; at that timeit was in the collection of the Hon J L Hutchinson. The MacCaulay’s ownedeight slaves at the time of the 1821 Census, which shows their status wassimilar to that of lawyers of the time. MacCauley was also a Senior ActingMember of Session in Charleston’s Second Presbyterian Church; SCHS,acc no. 0428.04.01.

21 Grand Lodge of Scotland, Registration Book No.1. Shiels was enrolledbefore 26 Dec 1805. Mills, op cit n4, p436. The 50% figure is estimated bydeducting two-thirds of the white population (being women and children)from the total of 11,229 in 1820.

22 Stephen C Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and theTransformation of the American Social Order 1730–1840, Chapel Hill NC1996, pp154–55 & 185.

23 Cogdell served as a Deputy and Grand Master. The Charleston Courier, 11Feb 1819, and Albert G. Mackey, The History of Freemasonry in SouthCarolina (1861), repr. Columbia SC 1998, pp148 & 159. See Rutledge, opcit n3, pp136–37, 144–45, for a biography of Cogdell.

24 For a comprehensive list of societies see Mills, op cit n4, pp428–39.25 John L E W Shecut, Shecut’s Medical and Philosophical Essays,

Charleston 1819, pp53–54.26 Dunlap, op cit n3, vol 2, pp474–75 (19–20 Oct 1819).27 Gerdts, op cit n3, vol 2, p48; Maurie D McInnis et al, eds, In Pursuit of

Refinement: Charlestonians Abroad 1740–1860, Columbia SC 1999,pp47–48; and Staiti 1978, op cit n3, p89.

28 SCHS, Rutledge, Box 20, notes that Morse completed 107 portraits inCharleston; LoC, Morse papers; Morse to his parents, 25 May 1818.

29 LoC, Morse Papers, Morse to his parents, 22 Dec 1818; and Edward L.Morse, ed, Samuel F. B. Morse. His Letters and Journals, Boston & NewYork 1914, p221.

30 Advert in The Charleston Courier, 17 Dec 1818; Barelli & Torre sold luxurygoods.

31 Yale University Library, Morse Family Papers, Morse to his brother, RichardC. Morse, 21 Dec 1818, quoted in Staiti 1978, op cit n3, p99. Those thatMorse dismissed include Thompson and W D Parisien (The Times, 5 Feb1819).

32 LoC, Morse Papers, Morse to his parents, 23 Dec 1819. Morse was back inCharleston by 12 Jan 1820.

33 Shaw’s ‘work’ was published in folios in 1820–21 as Picturesque Views ofAmerican Scenery. The fire in Savannah destroyed 463 buildings inJanuary 1820, and cost $4 million in damage.

34 Dunlap, op cit n3, vol 2, p527 (19 April 1820).35 LoC, Morse papers, Morse to his mother, 4 Feb 182036 In 1819 White had been so well-off that he donated $750 to The Literary

and Philosophical Society of South Carolina for the purchase of books,Shecut, op cit n25, p52.

37 SCHS, Rutledge, Box 7a.38 Leah Lipton, ‘William Dunlap, Samuel F. B. Morse, John Wesley Jarvis, and

Chester Harding: Their Careers as Itinerant Portrait Painters’, AmericanArt Journal, vol 13.2, 1981, pp44–45.

39 AAA, Reel 36, Charles Willson Peale Letterbooks 16 and 17; CW Peale: toTitian Peale, 20 July 1819, to Rembrandt Peale 19 Dec 1822, to RubensPeale, 19 Jan 1823. Charleston Courier, 18 Dec 1823.

40 LoC, Morse Papers, Morse to his wife, 27 Dec 1820.41 Morse, op cit n29, Morse to his wife, 28 Jan 1821, p235.42 See Staiti 1978, op cit n3; Staiti 1979, op cit n3; Staiti 1989, op cit n3; and

Lipton, op ci n38, p45.43 Morse, op cit n29, Morse to his wife, 28 Jan 1821, pp235–36.44 McInnis, op cit n3, p136; Sallie Doscher, ‘Art Exhibitions in Nineteenth-

Century Charleston’ in Moltke-Hansen, ed, Art in the Lives of SouthCarolinians, pp SD 2–3, citing Gabriel E. Manigault, ‘A History of theCarolina Art Association’ in City of Charleston Yearbook, Charleston 1894,pp234–44.

45 Morse, Fraser, Cogdell, and Alvan Fisher (1782–1863) practised drawingtogether. Quite how long this continued for is uncertain and surviving cor-respondence does not relate whether Shiels and others joined them.

46 LoC, Morse papers, Morse to his wife, 18 Feb 1821.47 National Archives of Scotland (NAS), GD492/226, Shiels to W B Johnstone,

1 Dec 1856. 48 Jay designed buildings in Georgia and South Carolina 1817–24.

Interestingly, Fraser was not listed as one of the nine Directors at the out-set, but was listed by Dunlap (1834), op cit n3, vol 2, p285, as one of tenDirectors of SCAFA. Morse refers to just six Directors. By 1823, the exhibi-tion catalogue lists nine including; Shiels, Canter, Wood, Fraser, White,Wright, and Simmons, with the new additions of Thomas Napier andThomas Middleton. The Officers were listed as Poinsett (President),Stephen Elliot (Vice- President), and Cogdell remained as Secretary.Canter, Cogdell, Middleton, and White were also named as Associates.Staiti 1978,‘op cit n3, p109, mistakenly claims that Morse was the only aca-demically trained artist on the Board.

49 Charleston Courier, 21 Feb 1821.50 LoC, Morse Papers, Cogdell to Morse, 14 Apr 1821. The lot was purchased

by supporters of SCAFA in 1824.51 LoC, The Thomas Jefferson Papers Series 1. Cogdell, Charleston, SC, to

Jefferson, Monticello, VA, 17 June 1821, <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib024089 > [accessed 24 Aug 2011]

52 Mills, op cit n4, p412.53 City Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 15 and 22 Dec 1821.54 McInnis, op cit n3, p136.55 The Times, Charleston, 17 Feb 1821. ‘Rules of the S. Carolina Academy of

Arts’ – Rule X. 56 McInnis, op cit n3, pp28 & 135–50.57 The Charleston Courier, 19 July 1821. Elliot was elected President of the

Literary and Philosophical Society of South Carolina upon its establish-ment in 1814 and led it successfully for many years.

58 McInnis, op cit n3, p137, quoting LoC, Morse Papers, Cogdell to Morse, 6Sept 1821. No membership lists survive.

59 NAS, GD492/226; Shiels was a close friend of Watson (1767–1837); knewRaeburn well enough to go house-hunting with him in London c1810–13,and was friendly with Shee. Allan Cunningham, ‘Raeburn’, The Lives of theMost Eminent British Painters and Sculptors, vol 5, London 1832, pp204–41: p233 describes Cogdell, as Secretary, informing Raeburn of hisHonorary Membership in Nov 1821. Cogdell did not request a painting inreturn so it must have been Shiels with his personal friendship withRaeburn who did so.

60 Asleson, op cit n3, pp231–40.61 Christie’s, London, Sale 8013, Lot 194, 16 Nov 2011, (oil on panel, 61.5 x

55 cm). See also Asleson, op cit n3, pp238–39.62 NYHS, Raeburn’s portrait is numbered 1960.90, (oil on canvas, 76.2 x

63.5cm). The copy by F.S. Agate (1807–44), c1825, is numbered 1959.58(oil on linen, 76.2 x 61cm). Livingston was the son of Philip Peter andCornelia (Van Horne) Livingston, and the grandson of Peter Van BrughLivingston (1710–92). He graduated from Columbia College in 1811 andmade a tour of Europe in 1816–19 in the company of Albert Gallatin. Hehad his portrait painted in Edinburgh twice by Raeburn, who forwardedthese to New York. See also NYHS, Catalogue of American Portraits in theNew York Historical Society, New Haven 1974.

63 The Baltimore Patriot, 16 Nov 1822. This painting was shown in the 1823exhibition (no.55); a version is in the National Galleries of Scotland.

64 Asleson, op cit n3, p245, reiterating Staiti 1979, op cit n3, p.PSb4. Theseloyalties, no doubt, led to the paintings being greatly appreciated.

65 Charleston Courier, 5 Nov 1822.66 Baltimore Patriot, 26 Mar 1822. The Academy’s decision to do this was

made on 7 Feb 1822.67 McInnis, op cit n3, p138, noted 130 works.68 Elliot to Poinsett, 7 Jan 1822, Poinsett Papers II in J. Fred Rippy, Joel R.

Poinsett, Versatile American, Durham NC 1935, p198, quoted in Miller, opcit n3, p123. ***MILLER 1993? See note 3 . Check this ref ***note 3, also notes 76, 90 below

69 The Charleston Courier, 17 Apr 1822.70 The Charleston Courier, 28 Mar 1822.71 The Charleston Courier, 25 May 1822.72 The Charleston Courier, 5 Apr 1822. Joseph Delaplaine (1777–1824)

wrote Delaplaine’s Repository of the Lives and Portraits of DistinguishedAmerican Characters. Vol 1 was published in 1815; vol 2 was to be pub-lished in three parts, but was never completed, so Shiels’s portrait ofAdams did not gain greater fame as an engraving.

73 LoC, Morse Papers, Cogdell to Morse, 21 June 1822, quoted by McInnis, opcit n3, p140.

74 Ibid.75 The Charleston Courier, 15 Jan, 12 Feb, 12 April, and 3 June 1822 and

Gerdts, op cit n3, vol 2, p49. 76 See Miller, op cit n3, ch 9, and Lois M Fink, ‘Rembrandt Peale in Paris’,

Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol 110, 1986, pp71–90.

77 Charleston Mercury, 18 & 25 Jan 1822.78 AAA, Reel N18; Thomas Sully’s Journal, 18 Nov 1822; the painting sold on

11 Feb 1823 to John Doggett of Boston, a frame maker.79 Charleston Mercury, 27 Feb 1823; the first notice appeared on 20 January.80 Charleston Courier, 15 Feb 1823.81 Southern Patriot, 20 Feb 1823, and Charleston Courier, 15 Feb 1823.82 McInnis, op cit n3, p139. The full catalogue is listed by the Smithsonian

Institution (SIRIS), available at: http://siris-artexhibition.si.edu/, and inStaiti 1979, op cit n3, pp PSb1–14.

83 SCHS, Rutledge, Box 23: 404.05.00.04-01. Rutledge questioned in her notesif Shiels was a Scot in America, but took this line of enquiry no further.

84 McInnis, op cit n3, pp137–38; acquired before December 1824.85 McInnis, op cit n3, p138 and Staiti 1979, op cit n3, pp PSb4–5.86 Charleston Courier, 8 May 1823.87 Ibid, and Southern Patriot, 20 Feb 1823.88 Southern Patriot, 14 Feb. 1823.89 Charleston Courier, 5 April 1822.90 LoC, Morse Papers, Cogdell to Morse, 14 Dec 1823. Miller, op cit n3, p128,

mistakenly concluded that; ‘…even such a minor painter as an artist by thename of Shields [sic]… became convinced after a brief residence inCharleston that there would be no patronage for him there and left with-out disposing of any of his works.’

91 LoC, Morse Papers, Cogdell to Morse, 26 Jan 1824.92 Mills, op cit n4, p465. 93 All three could also fall back on their legal careers.94 Morse, op cit n29, p251.95 Charleston Mercury, 10 April 1824.96 Philip Tidyman described to J K Kane that he had rescued ‘from the neg-

lected walls of our unfortunate Academy’ Shee’s Kemble portrait on 2 Mar1831; ‘covered in dust & cobwebs, & the Frame injured’; he did likewisefor Sully’s copy after Raeburn of Dugald Stewart. (PAFA Archives, quotedin Asleson, op cit n3, p246).

97 Doscher, op cit n44, pp SD4–5.98 See Salvesen Murrell 2013, op cit n1, ch 3.99 Savannah Morning News, 19 Dec 1938.100 Savannah Republican, 14 Nov 1823.

101 Shiels advert in The Georgian on 10 Dec 1823 read; ‘PORTRAIT PAINTING./ William Shiels, / PORTRAIT PAINTER; / Has arrived in Savannah, where heproposes to commence the practice of his profession for a short time. /W.S. has a few specimens of his painting at Young’s Buildings, oppositeMessrs Penfield’s, where the public are respectfully invited to visit him.’(Repeated on 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 22, and 24 Dec 1823).

102 The Georgian, 29 Jan 1824. Shipping notices indicate a ‘W. Shiels’ arrivedin Savannah from New York on 25 Feb 1824 and 6 Mar 1824. Whether thiswas the artist having had fleeting visits north or not is difficult to judge.The Georgian, 23, 25 Feb & 6 Mar 1824.

103 The Georgian, 5 April 1824.104 Shiels was extremely ill sometime during his stay in the US, as his and W

Nicholson’s 1828 letters in the RSA Archives indicate.105 See Salvesen Murrell 2013, op cit n1, ch 4.106 Jones was a German émigré theatre painter and artist resident in

Charleston from 1806, and the Keeper of SCAFA until his sudden death on1 Apr 1822. This painting was given to SCAFA in return for his member-ship. See Charleston Courier, 1 Apr 1822, and Rutledge, op cit n3,pp147–48.

Volume XIV, No. 2 The BRITISH ART Journal

13