"The Conspirators", by General Lew Wallace

[bob_summers]

(06-22-2014 03:49 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  Earlier this spring, I traveled with a small group to the Lew Wallace Study in Crawfordsville, IN to help with some clean up around the grounds. Following our day of work, we went on a tour of the study itself. Low and behold, displayed up high on one of the walls was a painting Wallace did of the conspirators. The painting is quite large (I don’t have the exact dimensions). Though I have some ideas of my own, I am interested to hear people’s thoughts as to the symbolism (if any) expressed here. Although it is a little difficult to figure out who is who, there is one person conspicuously missing and another person added.

It is interesting to see Dr. Mudd painted with reddish hair. This confirms the description of him I’ve seen in various places. Red hair ran in the Mudd family. My mother always said the Mudds came from Ireland. Dr. Mudd’s daughter Stella had “flaming red hair.” My sister was born with reddish hair, which slowly changed to blond as she grew older. My older brother’s son has red hair. The son of my father’s older brother has red hair. And so on.

[STS Lincolnite]

For those interested, I asked the Lew Wallace Study to send me the dimensions of this painting. They responded and the measurements are 60 inches tall by 66.5 inches wide.

I also inquired (per Betty's thoughts) about a poster or print of the painting. They stated they do have postcards of the painting. They do not, however, have posters or prints of the painting. But they thought the idea was a very good one. They are currently examining the options and sounds like they hope to have posters produced by the spring. Based on the size of the painting, I am fairly certain it would not be a full sized poster.

Based on my inquiries, staff members at the study are currently doing some more research to see if Wallace himself or any of his biographers wrote anything specific about the painting. They are also searching for any more information on the painting that may turn up elsewhere in their holdings. I will post more if I find out more!

[BettyO]

Scott -

This is absolutely fantastic! I DO hope that they will sell prints of this painting - I'll have to find a space on my library wall for this one....

And I'll also have to purchase some post cards meanwhile. I think that this would be a fantastic idea for the sesquicentennial - they will probably sell like hot cakes!

Thanks!

[STS Lincolnite]

It has been noted that Mrs. Surratt is missing from this painting. I was reading through Lew Wallace's autobiography tonight and this omission is mentioned:

“Mrs. Surratt does not appear in the group. General Wallace gave as a reason for this that he saw her face but once during the trial. She came into the court always wearing a heavy veil, which she raised but once for identification.”

Hmm...sometimes the simplest answer is the truth after all. I thought there had to be some deeper reason for leaving her out!

[Gene C]

You think he could have made a veiled reference to her

For those of you interested, his autobiography is online and it's longgg, as well as his book Ben Hur, and the movie version from 1907 (Sidney Olcutt's Ben Hur) The movie is only about 10 minutes long, but lacks the flair of the latter version with Charlton Heston
http://archive.org/search.php?query=lew%20wallace

[Pamela]

It's interesting that Wallace didn't use the photos of the conspirators as resources for his painting because he could have improved the likenesses. It must have been important for him to work from his sketches which do capture their emotions, which are eerie (and miserable) to me. He could have put Mary Surratt into the painting with her veil but he must have wanted to work only from his sketches and he didn't sketch her in the courtroom.

I think Powell was an impressive physical specimen to him, as he seemed to be to many others and I agree his military background was probably a factor in Wallace's choice for the central figure. Kind of Ben Hur like. I wonder why the painting is so large? My guess is that the large size indicated the importance of the event in his life. Where did he keep the painting during his lifetime? How many paintings did he do and were they also large?

[Pamela]

(02-15-2015 08:40 PM)Pamela Wrote:  It's interesting that Wallace didn't use the photos of the conspirators as resources for his painting because he could have improved the likenesses. It must have been important for him to work from his sketches which do capture their emotions, which are eerie (and miserable) to me. He could have put Mary Surratt into the painting with her veil but he must have wanted to work only from his sketches and he didn't sketch her in the courtroom.

I think Powell was an impressive physical specimen to him, as he seemed to be to many others and I agree his military background was probably a factor in Wallace's choice for the central figure. Kind of Ben Hur like. I wonder why the painting is so large? My guess is that the large size indicated the importance of the event in his life. Where did he keep the painting during his lifetime? How many paintings did he do and were they also large?

Of course he did work from a photo of Booth which is why he is easy to recognize. I guess it was important for Wallace to convey the authenticity of his impressions of the conspirators during the trial more than good likenesses. Maybe the large size was because the painting was intended for a location in the room so that it needed to be large in order to see it.

[STS Lincolnite]

If I recall, when Wallace was alive, the painting sat on an easel in one corner of the study - I think there is a photograph of Wallace in his study where the painting can be seen. I will see if I can track down the photo I am thinking of. The painting is currently displayed in the study about 10 feet off the ground above a bookcase. It was decided to display it there because if on the floor where it had been historically displayed, it would undoubtedly be touched and grabbed, etc. and would be at greater risk for damage.

Per previous posts/comments, I would also think that the size of the painting itself may be symbolic. Maybe the scale was such that it was metaphor for the scale of the event itself.

[Dave Taylor]

(02-16-2015 04:30 PM)STS Lincolnite Wrote:  If I recall, when Wallace was alive, the painting sat on an easel in one corner of the study - I think there is a photograph of Wallace in his study where the painting can be seen. I will see if I can track down the photo I am thinking of.

I took a picture of that picture when I visited the Lew Wallace Study in July. I included it in my write up about the museum here:

http://boothiebarn.com/2014/07/04/genera...dy-museum/

[STS Lincolnite]

That's the one Dave!! In addition to seeing on my visit, I now remember seeing it in your great write up on the Wallace Study/museum. Thanks for posting it.

If you have not yet checked out Dave's post on boothiebarn.com on this subject, please do as it is fantastic (as they always are)!

[Pamela]

Wow, it actually looks very cool in his study, which looks like it could have belonged to James Mason in Journey to the Center of the Earth. Great photo. Thanks!

[LincolnMan]

Love that movie! James Mason was a great actor.