113. Ninigret, Sachem of the Niantics, portrait in oils

BRADFORD F. SWAN

Prints of the American Indian, 1670–1775

PERHAPS not strangely, Americans, prior to the opening of the West, showed very little interest in depicting the Indian. So far as I know, only four portraits of Indians were painted in this country before the American Revolution: the portrait of Ninigret, sachem of the Niantics, by an unidentified artist, which descended in the Winthrop family and is now in the Rhode Island School of Design Museum Of Art; the portrait of the Rev. Samson Occom, Eleazar Wheelock’s Indian preacher, by Nathaniel Smibert, now in the Bowdoin College collection; and the portraits of Tishcohan and Lapowinsa, Delaware Indians who had taken part in the notorious “walking purchase” of Indian lands, painted by Gustavus Hesselius for John Penn in 1735 and now in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

But, on the other side of the Atlantic, where the American Indian was a curiosity rather than a frequent enemy, the interest in what he looked like was considerably greater. He was still the exotic which had captured the fancy of the early explorers. These explorers who came to the southeastern Atlantic region of what is now the United States made the earliest pictures of American Indians: Jacques Le Moyne with the ill-fated expedition of Laudonniere in 1564, and John White with Raleigh’s first Virginia colony in 1585 and 1587.

Only one of Le Moyne’s paintings is known to have survived; it is presently in the New York Public Library. But Theodore De Bry, with his sons and one G. Veen, made engravings of forty-two of them to illustrate De Bry’s publication of an account of Laudonniere’s Florida settlement. Similarly, De Bry engraved the John White drawings and watercolors for his Virginia “voyage.”

The De Bry engravings, since they date from 1590, are actually too early for the scope of this paper, but I have spoken of them here because they constitute the first, and earliest, of several “families” of Indian iconographies into which I think the engravings of American Indians made prior to 1775 can be divided.

114. Samson Occom, portrait in oils by Nathaniel Smibert

115. Tishcohan, portrait in oils, 1735, by Gustavus Hesselius

116. Lapowinsa, portrait in oils, 1735, by Hesselius

117. Chief Athore and René de Laudonnière, miniature in gouache, 1564

The three family genealogies—if you will permit me to use that term—are as follows:

1) The De Bry engravings based on the work of Le Moyne and White.

2) The engravings based on John Verelst’s paintings of the “Four Kings of Canada” (as they were erroneously called), made when these Indians visited London and the Court of Queen Anne in 1710. This family includes a considerable progeny—not all of whom are strictly legitimate, as we shall see—and it also includes two collateral branches: the Bernard Lens prints based on the miniature paintings by Bernard Lens, Jr., and the prints by John Faber, Sen., from his own paintings. The Lens prints left no issue, but Faber’s prints were used as models by Peter Schenck, a German artist working in Amsterdam, who issued a set of oval bust portraits of the Indians: they are the Faber portraits reversed.

118. Ho Nee Yeath Taw No Row by Simon after Verelst, 1710

119. Sa Ga Yeath Qua Pieth Tow, by Simon after Verelst, 1710

120. Etow Oh Koam, by Simon after Verelst, 1710

121. Tee Yee Neen Ho Ga Row, by Simon after Verelst, 1710

122. The Four Indian Kings by Bernard Lens after miniatures by his son, 1710

123. On Nee Yeath Tow no Riow by Faber, 1710

124. Sa Ga Yean Qua Rash Tow by Faber, 1710

125. E Tow O Koam by Faber, 1710

126. Tee Yee Neen Ho Ga Row by Faber, 1710

127. On Nee Yeath Tow no Riow by Schenck after Faber

128. Sa Ga Yean Qua Rash Tow by Schenck after Faber

129. E Tow O Koam by Schenck after Faber

130. Tee Yee Neen Ho Ga Row by Schenck after Faber

3) The group of prints inspired by the visits of Southeastern Indians, Cherokees and Creeks, from the Carolinas and Georgia to London in 1730, 1734, and 1762. The relationships between these prints is somewhat tenuous and perhaps I am stretching a point to classify them as a family.

Lastly, to these three categories we should add a fourth, which we might label “Waifs and Strays,” although in some instances a little crossbreeding between the classifications I have already set up can be discerned. This fourth category includes not only the earliest American depictions of the Indian in prints but also the fanciful images we find as decorations in books, in the cartoons of the period, and in cartouches on maps. It is mainly a catch-all classification.

Returning briefly to the Le Moyne–White–De Bry tradition, let me point out that although these prints display the clothing, accoutrements, and habits of the Indians—their modus vivendi, or, as we might say today, their life-style—the figures themselves are not so much American Indians as they are classic, post-Renaissance nudes. They are very much in the tradition of European art of their time, rather than anthropologically and ethnologically correct. There is no strong feeling that we are seeing real Indians, such as we have when we look at the John White watercolors. Rather it is a sophistication of the material, as if these were European men and women, tinted a little, perhaps, to give them a superficial “redness,” but still very much within the “noble savage” visual concept.

The De Bry iconography persisted for a long time. We encounter it, for instance, as late as 1705, in Robert Beverley’s The History and Present State of Virginia, . . . where the fourteen engraved plates by S. Gribelin are reduced copies of the De Bry engravings. These same plates appear to have been used in the second edition of the Beverley History in 1722. The dates of both editions are well within the time span of this study, testifying to the enduring qualities of De Bry’s image of the Indian.

131. British Resentment or the French Fairly Coopt at Louisbourg, 1755

The image continued to have a considerable longevity. We find such classical Indian figures used to symbolize Britain’s American colonies well into the second half of the eighteenth century. One such example is the print entitled “British Resentment, or the French Fairly Coopt at Louisburg,” done at London in 1755. In this print drawn by Boitard and engraved by J. June, Britannia is receiving into her protection a male and a female Indian, very much in the De Bry tradition, who represent Britannia’s “injured Americans.”

I would like to pass now to my third classification, Cherokees and Creeks in London, and take up the problems of the Four Kings of Canada later.

It was when Indians began to visit London that their graven image, so to speak, changed radically. This is very noticeable in the prints of the Four Kings of Canada, who went to London in 1710, and it is also easily discerned in the print of seven Cherokees, a copperplate engraving by James Basire after a painting by Markham, which was undoubtedly issued during their visit in 1730.

Even with pants on, and wearing English coats with frogs of gold braid, these men are clearly Indians.

The seven were brought over from Carolina by Sir Alexander Cuming “to enter into Articles of Friendship and Commerce with His Majesty,” as it states on the print itself. The treaty was presented to them on September 7, 1730, and signed two days later.

The next Indian visitors to London were the Lower Creek chief Tomochichi, his wife Scenawki, his young nephew Tooanahowi, and several others who accompanied Oglethorpe to England in 1734. Their visit is commemorated in the group painting, “The Founding of Georgia,” by William Verelst, which is now at Winterthur. In the lower right corner of this painting can be seen Tomochichi’s nephew with his bald eagle and what appears to be a black bear cub.

The eagle reappears in a painting of Tomochichi and the lad done by William Verelst which was made into a mezzotint engraving by John Faber. The boy is holding the eagle this time, and his uncle is wrapped in a fur robe.

132. [Seven Cherokee chiefs], c. 1730

The original painting used to hang in the rooms of the Georgia Trustees in London, but Chaloner Smith reported it “now lost” when he published his work on British mezzotint portraits in 1878.

Another version of this double portrait appears as a rather crude engraving by the German, Joh. Jacob Kleinschmidt, after Faber, which was used as a frontispiece in Urlspeger’s Ausfuhrliche Nachricht von den Salzburgischen Emigranten (Halle, 1735).

Another Cherokee chief, Cunne Shote, was in the embassy from this tribe which arrived in London from South Carolina in 1762. His portrait was painted by Francis Parsons and made into a mezzotint engraving by James McArdell. Just when the print was actually issued I cannot say, but in 1763 Parsons was represented at the Society of Artists’ exhibition in Spring Gardens by portraits of an Indian chief and of Miss Davies, the actress. The Indian was probably Cunne Shote.

133. [Oglethorpe presenting Tomochichi and others to the Trustees of Georgia]

134. A detail, showing Lower Creek Indians who accompanied Oglethorpe to England

135. Tomo Chachi Mico and Tooanahowi, by Faber after Verelst, c. 1743

In the portrait he is shown wearing a gorget engraved with the initials of George III, a silver amulet on his right arm, medals at his throat, and a feather in his hair. In his right hand he holds a scalping knife.

In the DeRenne Library collection of Georgia material there is a French version of this Cunne Shote portrait. It is described in the DeRenne catalogue as a copper engraving, colored, and bearing the legend: “Cunne Shote, Chef des Chiroquois, d’apres Parson.” It was issued at Paris, chez Duflos, rue St. Victor, and is described as a full-length portrait with scalping knife in right hand, 11 by 8⅝ inches. For some reason not apparent to me the DeRenne catalogue dates it “circa 1780?”

There is one more print in the Cherokee series, but I shall postpone discussion of it until after we have talked about the Four Kings of Canada.

Fortunately for scholarship, R. W. G. Vail cleared up the whole problem of these portraits in an article entitled “Portraits of ‘The Four Kings of Canada,’ A Bibliographical Footnote,” which he contributed to that festschrift for Dr. A. S. W. Rosenbach, To Doctor R., published in 1946.

Vail pointed out that the earliest states of the mezzotint portraits based on the Verelst paintings were engraved by John Simon, that in the second state Simon’s address was erased from the plate and in its place was engraved the information that it was “Printed & Sold by John King at ye Globe in ye Poultrey, London.” In the third state two and a half centimeters were cut from the top of the plate and three and a half centimeters from the bottom, and a new legend applied. This, in addition to identifying the subject and listing Verelst as the painter and Simon as the engraver, stated that it was “Printed for Jno. Bowles & Son, at the Black Horse in Cornhill London.”

136. Cunne Shote by McArdell, c. 1763, after Parsons

Parenthetically, I would like to state here that the four oval bust portraits by Lens are all on one sheet, two above and two below. The Faber portraits are on separate sheets. I have not seen the Schencks,1 resting content with Vail’s detailed descriptions of these prints. His work is very thorough, giving not only all the necessary physical descriptions but also locations as of that date of copies of all states, and similar information, including a whole bibliography of the subject.

Out of the Verelst-Simon prints came some very interesting developments. It is a widely known fact, which scarcely needs repeating in this company, that Paul Revere was notorious for using the work of others, making his own copies for his own purposes.

Thus, when the time came to produce a portrait of King Philip to be used as an illustration in the Newport, 1772, edition of The Entertaining History of King Philip’s War . . . , Revere turned to Simon’s prints for what we can charitably describe as inspiration or a little more realistically as looking for something to copy.

As I have pointed out in some detail in my little pamphlet entitled An Indian’s an Indian, or the Several Sources of Paul Revere’s Engraved Portrait of King Philip, published by the Rhode Island Society of Colonial Wars in 1959, Revere borrowed shamelessly from the Simon prints of Sa Ga Yeath Qua Pieth Tow and Ho Nee Yeath Taw No Row, presumably on the ground that one Indian looks more or less like another. (Incidentally, I am a movie critic as well as an art critic, and I took my title for that pamphlet from an old Hollywood saying: “A rock’s a rock, and a tree’s a tree. Let’s shoot it in Griffith Park.”)

The upshot of my findings, not to go into detail at this time, was that Revere took the print of Ho Nee Yeath Taw No Row and substituted for the bow he held in his left hand a gun and forearm which he extracted from the Sa Ga Yeath Qua Pieth Tow portrait and reversed.

137. Philip. King of Mount Hope, Revere’s fictitious portrait

But Revere’s borrowing did not end here. For the group of Indians at lower left in the Philip portrait he probably went to a print published in the Court Miscellany and Gentleman and Lady’s Magazine for September 1766. This was a reduced version of a print engraved by Grignion from a Benjamin West painting of Indians conferring with Colonel Henry Bouquet at a council fire near his camp on the banks of the Muskingum in October 1764.

The Grignion print had been made as one of the illustrations in the London, 1766, edition of Bouquet’s account of his expedition against the Ohio Indians. It is perhaps an interesting sidelight to all this to observe that Revere later copied the Court Miscellany print in its entirety for the Royal American Magazine in 1774.

Revere went back to the Simon prints once more—or perhaps only to his King Philip print derived from them—for a small figure of an Indian he engraved on a Massachusetts Bay Colony promissory note in 1775. This time the gun in the left hand has been transformed into a staff surmounted by a liberty cap, and he has eliminated certain details. On the other hand, he has retained the open collar and open left cuff from his earlier print.

Before I take up one more puzzling print, I would like to clear away my fourth category: Waifs and Strays.

The most important of these, the later portraits of King Hendrick, who was one of the Four Kings and known as Tee Yee Neen Ho Ga Row, Emperor of the Six Nations, when he was in London in 1710, have been described by Vail in the article already cited. The portrait of “The brave old Hendrick . . .” in court dress is a charming print. The example at the John Carter Brown Library, which was acquired after Vail had drawn up his list of locations, is colored. It is unfortunate that we do not know either the painter or the engraver of this portrait. It was offered for sale by Elizabeth Bakewell opposite Birchin Lane in Cornhill, and Vail dates it as around 1740, when the sixty-year-old sachem of the Mohawks made his second visit to London. For further details on the King Hendrick portraits I refer you to the Vail article, which is gratifyingly thorough.

Then there is, of course, the Indian on the seal of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay. Such a seal had been cut in England prior to 1629, when it was sent to the colony. A copy is said to have been made by John Hull, the mintmaster, but a woodcut version was made by John Foster, and this is held, in the Middendorf catalogue, to be the earliest American cutting of the seal. If so, it is also the earliest American depiction of an Indian in a print. The earliest known use of Foster’s seal was on a broadside dated October 26, 1675. The seal was superseded in 1684 by one bearing the royal arms.

138. The Indians giving a Talk to Colonel Bouquet, 1766

139. The brave old Hendrick, c. 1740

Two prints of Indians were produced in France at an undetermined date but probably around 1700. One purports to be the King of Albion, or New England, and the other the King of Florida. I believe they are purely fanciful portraits of nonexistent monarchs.

Prints of Indians occur in the volumes of Hulsius, but they, too, frequently seem to be fanciful. Since they are earlier than the starting date of this paper, and since they left no progeny comparable to the De Brys, they need not be considered here. The French exploration under Champlain and others also produced some prints of Indians, but they are not of present concern to us.

Arnoldus Montanus’ The New & Unknown World, to translate its title into English, published at Amsterdam in 1671, contains prints of Indians, but they are all in what might be called the exploration tradition. Some of them, such as the print of Indians dancing on Hispaniola, served to reinforce the classical image of the Indian as noble savage, wearing a crown of feathers.

It would be interesting to trace the longevity of this classical tradition, which was continued by Mallet and Moquet, but that is not my purpose.

We next encounter some prints of Indians in Lionel Wafer’s New Voyage and Description of the Isthmus of America (London, 1699), where Indian life is shown in three plates, of a party setting out, of a medicinal blood-letting, and of a tribal council. But these are Central American Indians and those similarly depicted by Gumilla are South American.

Hennepin and Lahontan wrote books around the end of the seventeenth century which were illustrated with plates showing Indian life and customs but which are totally inadequate as portraits of Indians. The best illustrations of Indian activities around this date were the plates in Lafitau’s Moeurs des Sauvages Ameriquains, published in Paris in 1724. Of doubtful ethnological value, the prints continue to show the strong influence of the classical tradition.2 Interestingly enough, there is some evidence that this edition, though it was in French, was distributed in this country by a Philadelphia bookseller named Pennington. This might mean that the work had some influence on the image of the Indian among upper-class urban American colonials.

140. Le Roy D’Albion, 1680

141. Le Roy De La Floride, 1680

The prints from Lafitau’s work were folded and inserted in this small format edition. In the small folio edition they occupy an entire page. Similarly the prints are on a flat, full page, in a German edition, edited by S. J. Baumgartens, Algemeine Geschichte der Lander und Volker von America, issued at Halle in 1752. They seem to have been struck from the same plates.

Le Page du Pratz, in his Histoire de la Louisiane (Paris, 1758), which was amply illustrated by some forty plates, including two fine, full-length portraits of Indians in summer and winter dress, and depictions of a tribal dance and a buffalo hunt as well as of many Indian customs, gives us a good view of the life of Indians of the Mississippi valley. By and large, I think Le Page du Pratz’ depiction of the Indians’ way of life is the most satisfactory we had between the time of De Bry and the American Revolution.

It seems somewhat extraneous to include the British mezzotint of the Rev. Samson Occom in this listing, since only our knowledge and the legend on the print would tell anyone that this is a portrait of an Indian in the white man’s clerical garb. It was engraved by J. Spilsbury from a painting by M. Chamberlin, and was published September 20, 1768, by Henry Parker in London.

142. The Reverend Mr. Samson Occom by Spilsbury after Chamberlin, 1768

Three Indians appear over the shoulder of Major Robert Rogers, “commander in chief of the Indians in the Back Settlements of America,” in the mezzotint portrait published in London. But the print was published in 1776, a year too late for the period of this paper.

As examples of fanciful depictions of Indians used as book decorations I shall cite only two examples, the armed warrior on the title page of Gallic Perfidy: A Poem, published at Boston in 1758 by Benjamin Mecom, Franklin’s nephew, and the Indians hacking away at helpless colonists in a little woodcut on the title page of The Cruel Massacre of the Protestants, in North America, published at London, probably about 1760.

Lastly, I would like to offer as an example of my main thesis a print which must have been engraved in London in 1762. It is of “The Three Cherokees. came over from the head of the River Savanna to London. 1762. [with] Their Interpreter that was Poisoned.” This print seems to me to tie it all together.

Although these are Cherokees in London in 1762, they are illegitimate offspring—as Paul Revere’s King Philip was later to be—of the Four Kings of Canada and possibly Cunne Shote, and they are betrayed, I might add, by a dog masquerading as a wolf.

In their case, however, the unknown printmaker was a bit more imaginative than Revere in his use of the available material. For instance, he gave them thigh-high leggings instead of mocassins, but quite obviously details in the drapery of their blankets have been borrowed, as well as the positions of arms, hands, and legs, from the Simon prints or the Verelst paintings of the Four Kings. Most remarkable, aside from the tell-tale inclusion of the wolf totem from the print of Ho Nee Yeath Taw No Row, is the fact that the pattern of the facial tattoos or painting was copied with some attempt at exactitude. Compare, for example, the pattern on the face of the middle Cherokee with that on the face of Sa Ga Yeath Qua Pieth Tow. Also note the use of the feather puffs at the ears. The Cherokee at the right bears the facial tattooing of Ho Nee Yeath Taw No Row, albeit reversed, and possibly also his earring. The Indian at the left is holding out a belt of wampum, even as King Hendrick does in his Verelst portrait.

143. Major Robert Rogers, 1776

144. The Three Cherokees, 1762

From the Cunne Shote portrait come the gorgets bearing the initials of George III, the silver armband and bracelets, and the frilled cuffs of the hunting shirts’ sleeves. The decorated bands descending from shoulders to waists also might have come from the Cunne Shote portrait.

Possibly I have strained too hard to make a point on the use of the Cunne Shote portrait, but there would hardly have been any reason for the printmaker to use the images of the Four Kings if he had ever seen the Cherokees or even had an accurate description of them.

Rather, it seems to me that the engraver of prints in this period, unless he had a good oil portrait to copy, seldom did anything very imaginative or original. I think his reaction might have been almost like that of a Madison Avenue advertising agency’s art director faced with getting a likeness of an Indian into an illustration and saying:

“Let’s look in the files and see what we’ve got on Indians.”

I would like to express my gratitude to Sinclair Hitchings, Kenneth Newman, Thomas R. Adams, and Miss Jeannette Black for their help and encouragement in the development of this paper. Mr. Hitchings was the one who urged me to pursue the subject and kept supplying me with material and all sorts of assistance. Mr. Newman made all the resources of the Old Print Shop available to me and was most generous in supplying photographs. To Miss Black I am indebted for help on the original work which opened this subject to me: Revere’s portrait of King Philip. Mr. Adams placed the entire resources of the John Carter Brown Library at my disposal; those resources are considerable and fortunate is the scholar who can make this library the focal center of his operation.

Since I delivered the paper, Mrs. Carl Dolmetsch has provided me with photographs of the Schenck mezzotint portraits, now at Colonial Williamsburg, and has informed me that the print of the Three Cherokees who went to London in 1762 is in the collection there.

1 George Francis Dow, The Arts & Crafts in New England, 1704–1775 (Topsfield, Mass., 1927; reprinted: New York, 1967), p. 27.

2 James Clements Wheat and Christian F. Brun, Maps and Charts Published in America Before 1800: A Bibliography (New Haven, 1969), pp. 50–53.

3 The map by Capt. Cyprian Southack shows the English colonies in North America. The John Carter Brown copy is untitled; that in the Public Record Office has this title in manuscript: “A New Chart of the English Empire in North America by Captain Cyprian Southack.” Both show the following engraved signature: “Engraven and Printed by Fra Dewing Boston New England. 1717.” Lawrence C. Wroth and Marion W. Adams, American Woodcuts and Engravings, 1670–1800 (Providence, 1946), pp. 16–17; Wheat and Brun, p. 8. An earlier copper plate map may have been printed in America although the circumstances of its publication do not seem to have been firmly established. See Charles Harper Walsh, “The Earliest Copper Engraving Executed in the American Colonies,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, xv (1912), 54–72. Dewing engraved another Southack map in 1720, “The Harbour and Island of Canso Part of the Boundaries of Nova Scotia” (Wheat and Brun, p. 13). That Dewing was thought to have been involved in a different aspect of his trade is mentioned by Winsor in his discussion of the Boston plan of 1722: “The engraver of this map is probably the same Francis Doing, who in 1718, as appears by the Council Records, was suspected of being concerned in counterfeiting the Province bills of credit. There is no evidence known to sustain the case.” Justin Winsor, Memorial History of Boston (Boston, 1882), ii, liii.

4 I. N. Phelps Stokes and Daniel C. Haskell, American Historical Prints: Early Views of American Cities (New York, 1932), p. 20.

5 One and perhaps two plans or views of Boston had been published prior to 1722. No copies have survived, and brief references in contemporary correspondence provide our only information. Wait Winthrop, writing to his brother on July 20, 1680, stated: “I haue sent you a map of the towne, with Charlestowne, taken by Mr. Foster the printer, from Nodles Island. Twas sent for Amsterdam, and y^r printed.” Six years later Judge Samuel Sewall wrote Edward Hull: “There is inclosed in the top, a Mapp of this Town which please to accept off” (Henry H. Edes, “The Burgis-Price View of Boston,” Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Transactions, 1906–1907, p. 245). The letters can be found in Winthrop Papers, iv, 421, and Sewall Letter Book, i, 32.

6 As quoted in Walter Muir Whitehill, Boston: A Topographical History (Cambridge, 1963), p. 7.

7 Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, A Topographical and Historical Description of Boston, 3rd ed. (Boston, 1891), pp. 159, 162.

8 William Wood, New Englands Prospect, as quoted in Shurtleff, p. 41.

9 As quoted in Shurtleff, p. 160.

10 As quoted in Shurtleff, p. 62. Bonner had drawn a view of Long Wharf in 1714 and obviously used this in compiling his plan of the city. Bonner’s manuscript drawing of the wharf is reproduced in Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 1863–1864 (Boston, 1864), facing p. 477.

11 The Boston Gazette for April 19–26, 1725, carried an advertisement by William Price for a view of Boston and “Also an exact Plan of the Town, shewing the Streets, Lanes, and Publick Buildings” Dow, pp. 16–17. The view was the Burgis view described below. The plan was undoubtedly Bonner’s as reissued by Price.

12 My description of the additions and erasures from one state of the Bonner plan to another follows the useful analysis provided in Wheat and Brun. Even their minute examination of various states fails to distinguish all differences. For example, they fail to note that vertical rules in the legend and shoreline hatching were added on State ii.

13 A copy in the Massachusetts Historical Society is the only known impression, but George Smith in 1835 published a facsimile of this when it belonged to William Taylor. The facsimile omits some material and mistakenly gives Bonner’s age as 60 rather than 80.

14 Dow, pp. 15–17. For some details about Price see Emma Forbes Waite, “William Price of Boston: Map-Maker, Merchant and Churchman,” Old-Time New England, xlvi (1956), 52–56.

15 Wheat and Brun, who apparently examined the original impression in the John Carter Brown Library, state unequivocally that “traces of the erasure of ‘T. JOHNSON SCULP’ still remain.”

16 An earlier plan by Carleton in 1796 measured only 8¼ by 14¼ inches. His 1797 plan was on a scale of one inch to 21 rods (about 350 feet) and was an impressive 37⅜ by 41 inches in size. Wheat and Brun, p. 246.

17 Edes, p. 246; Dow, pp. 15–16.

18 The view was announced in the Boston Gazette for April 19–26, 1725, as “A New and Correct Prospect of the Town of Boston, curiously Engraved on Copper, according to the Proposal some time ago printed in this paper.” A second advertisement appeared in the New-England Courant for July 24–31, 1725 (Dow, pp. 16–17).

19 The complete text of the engraved description can be found in Edes, pp. 248–249. Since Price’s advertisement for subscriptions in December 1723 stated that the drawing from which the engraving would be made was then on view at his shop, the year of depiction would seem to be clearly established. The date of c. 1722 assigned in the Stokes Collection catalogue is probably erroneous (Stokes and Haskell, p. 20).

20 Ibid., pp. 20–21. This imprint appears to have been engraved by another hand and may well have been added by Price in Boston after he received the plate from John Harris in London.

21 For the deduction by Justin Winsor, after his study of the 1743 state, that there must have been an earlier version, see Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, xviii (1880–81), 68–69. Winsor evidently learned subsequently of the existence of the British Museum copy, wrote in 1884 to his fellow Bostonian C. C. Smith, asking him to examine it, and Smith reported his finding to the Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 2d ser., i (1884–85), 249–250.

22 Dow, p. 20.

23 The Burgis view of Harvard College was first advertised in the Boston News-Letter for July 7–14, 1726, as follows: “This Day is Published a Prospect of the Colleges in Cambridge in New England, curiously Engraven in Copper; and are to be sold at Mr. Price’s Print-seller, over against the Town-House, Mr. Randal Jappaner in Ann Street, by Mr. Stedman in Cambridge, and the Booksellers of Boston” (Dow, p. 18).

24 Clarence S. Brigham, Paul Revere’s Engravings (Worcester, 1954), pp. 60, 134.

25 Brigham, p. 59, gives the text of Revere’s advertisement along with a detailed discussion of the view and a full-size color facsimile of it.

26 Ibid., pp. 79–80.

27 A copy is in the Sinclair Hamilton Collection, Princeton University. The plan is briefly described in Peter J. Guthorn, American Maps and Map Makers of the Revolution (Monmouth Beach, N.J., 1966), pp. 36–37. The artist is unknown, but Guthorn gives the publisher as Robertsons and Trumbull.

28 Arthur Gilman, The Story of Boston (New York, 1889), pp. 281–289.

29 Winsor, ii, xxxii. Winsor in identifying property owners by reference to the Bonner plan states that in the 1720’s the lot on which the tree stood was owned by Garret Bourne.

30 Pelham was born in Boston on Mar. 14, 1748/9, the only son of Mary Singleton Copley Pelham by her second husband, Peter Pelham. Henry’s father died in 1751, and it was doubtless from his half brother, John Singleton Copley, eleven years his senior, that Henry learned to draw and paint. Copley’s portrait of Henry, probably not then more than ten, is known by the title, The Boy and the Squirrel. See Denison Rogers Slade, “Henry Pelham, the Half-Brother of John Singleton Copley,” Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Transactions, 1897, 1898 (Boston, 1902), pp. 194, 196.

31 James [?] Johnson to Henry Pelham, Letters & Papers of John Singleton Copley and Henry Pelham, Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, lxxi (1914), 350.

32 Pelham to Copley, Aug. 19, 1775. Pelham then added that he had been advised by General Gage “that it would not be altogether proper to publish a plan of Charlestown in its present state, as it would furnish those without with a knowledge of the fortification [s] erected there and in a polite manner desired I would postpone the sending it at present” (ibid., p. 351).

33 Philip Lee Phillips, for many years chief of the Library of Congress Division of Maps, regarded this map as the most valuable single sheet acquisition during his long tenure in that position (conversation with his former assistant, Mrs. Clara E. Le Gear, Washington, 1968).

34 Pelham to Copley, Jan. 27, 1776, Letters & Papers of John Singleton Copley and Henry Pelham, pp. 367–368.

1 A Volume of Records Relating to the History of Boston, Twenty-Ninth Report (Boston, 1900), p. 273.

2 Dunlap, History of the Arts of Design in America, Bayley and Goodspeed, eds. (Boston, 1918), ii, 286.

3 John H. Edmonds, “The Burgis Views of New York and Boston,” Proceedings of the Bostonian Society (Boston, 1915), pp. 29–33.

4 J. Chaloner Smith, British Mezzotinto Portraits (London, 1884), p. liii.

5 Edmonds, pp. 33–37.

6 Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xix, 104–106.

7 Hamilton Vaughan Bail, Views of Harvard, a Pictorial Record to 1860 (Cambridge, 1949), p. 41.

8 Edmonds, p. 49.

9 Barbara Owen, The Organs and Music of King’s Chapel (Boston, King’s Chapel, 1966), pp. 5 and 7.

10 Cecil Clutton and Austin Niland, The British Organ (London, B. T. Batsford, Ltd., 1963), pp. 217 and 219.

11 Edmonds, p. 49.

12 Edmonds, p. 50.

13 William Loring Andrews, The Bradford Map (New York, 1893), p. 21.

1 Johnston’s trade card is reproduced in Joseph Downs’s article on “American Japanned Furniture” in the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, xxviii, No. 3 (March 1933), 44; in The Walpole Society Note Book (1935), opposite p. 33, with notes by Philip Leffingwell Spalding; and in George Francis Dow’s article on “Trade Cards,” Old-Time New England, xxvi (April, 1936), 115–137. A second installment of Dow’s article appeared in Old-Time New England, xxvii (July, 1936), 3–22. The card, as Spalding explains, was found on the back of the inside of a clock made by Benjamin Bagnall (1689–1773) of Boston. Spalding writes: “The case, which is of pine, undoubtedly was japanned at one time, but was refinished in the natural wood before it came into my possession.” Paradoxically, the only japanned piece of furniture for which there is clear evidence showing that Johnston provided the decorations is this clock, which no longer has its japanning! Downs attributed several pieces of japanned furniture to Johnston, but was never able to put together a clear and well-documented description of Johnston’s style. He was forced to reason entirely from the evidence of Johnston’s trade card. See his American Furniture, Queen Anne and Chippendale Periods, in the Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum (New York, 1952), item 187; also p. xiv and item 188.

2 The American Antiquarian Society owns a water color coat of arms made for the Mather family and in 1814 given to the society by Hannah Mather Crocker. Harold Bowditch attributed the picture to Thomas Johnston, and his opinion is preserved in a note on the back of the frame. Bowditch also attributed to Johnston a painting on canvas in oils of the Barton arms, thought to have been made as a funeral hatchment; it is owned by the Essex Institute. See “Early Water-Color Paintings of New England Coats of Arms” by Dr. Harold Bowditch, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xxxv (Boston, 1951), Fig. 18 and pp. 200–201.

3 I am grateful to Mrs. Fales for her analysis of Johnston’s engraved heraldic and emblematic designs, presented in this volume and extremely helpful to me in compiling a new and more comprehensive listing of Johnston’s prints.

4 Alan Burroughs, John Greenwood in America 1745–1752 (Andover, Mass.: Addison Gallery of American Art, Phillips Academy, 1943), p. 74; also pp. 12 and 80.

5 Copperplate printing continued to be a part of Rea’s business. In March 1770 he sent Henry Pelham a bill for “Printing 575 of your Prints @ 12 /Pr. Hund. 319:” This presumably was the first of the Boston Massacre prints, copied by Paul Revere and made familiar by him in the course of his energetic campaign to spread it abroad. See Brigham’s Paul Revere’s Engravings (Worcester, 1954), pp. 41–42.

6 Later, Nathaniel Hurd (1729–77) and Joseph Callender (1751–1821) were among the engravers who found additional business engraving compass cards.

7 Burroughs, John Greenwood in America, p. 12.

8 Burroughs, pp. 64 and 80; Harriette M. Forbes, Gravestones of Early New England (Boston, 1927), pp. 59–60. The stone, which survives in Copps Hill Buyring Ground, is reproduced by Forbes opposite p. 43. There is also discussion of the funeral decorations in Flexner’s American Painting: First Flowers of Our Wilderness (Boston, 1947), p. 242.

9 Mary Kent Davey Babcock printed the list of subscribers to the organ in her Christ Church, Salem Street, Boston (Boston, 1947), pp. 241–242. Esther Stevens Brazier analyzed the inventory of Davis’ estate in “The Early Boston Japanners,” Antiques, xliii, No. 5 (May 1943).

10 In the Boston Gazette of June 27, 1763, Lewis Deblois advertised for sale “an Organ, made by Mr. Thomas Johnston of this Town, formerly made Use of in Concert-Hall, and can be recommended.—An abatement of Ten Guineas will be made, (from the real Value of said Instrument) if bought and made Use of for any Congregation in this Town.”

The inventory of Johnston’s estate is indispensable to an understanding of his many-faceted business. It is printed in full at the end of this article.

11 The property listed in his inventory was valued at a total of £912:1:10, including “The Mansion House and Land & house up the Yard” which were valued at £666:13:4.

12 Lawrence Wroth in The Walpole Society Note Book (1950), p. 30. See also Wroth’s article, “The Thomas Johnston Maps of the Kennebeck Purchase,” In Tribute to Fred Anthoensen Master Printer, ed. Ruth A. Chaplin (Portland, Me., 1952). This detailed study was a breakthrough to much fuller understanding of Johnston’s skills and conduct of business.

13 James Thomas Flexner in American Painting: First Flowers of Our Wilderness (Boston, 1947), p. 311 (see entry for John Greenwood), says that Johnston was an “engraver, printer, designer of gravestones, painter of houses, fire buckets, ships, and almost certainly portraits.” The houses, fire buckets, and ships are mentioned in the Rea and Johnston account books dating from after Thomas Johnston’s death; Flexner was reasoning back from that evidence. (Today we know about Johnston’s house-painting from the bill of 1764 to Samuel P. Savage printed in this article.) On the subject of possible portraits by Johnston, Flexner cites (p. 284) an entry in the inventory of Johnston’s estate listing portraits of Dr. Mayhew and Mr. Gee and says that these were “probably painted by himself.” There is at least an equal chance, however, that they were painted by someone else; a portrait of Joshua Gee, for instance, was painted by John Smibert (The Notebook of John Smibert [Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1969], p. 91). Lila Parrish Lyman in her excellent article on William Johnston (1732–72) in the New-York Historical Society Quarterly, xxxix (January 1955), 63, calls Thomas Johnston “a portrait and heraldic painter, japanner and engraver.” Sidney Gunn, who is one of the authorities she cites, had written in his sketch of Johnston, published in the Dictionary of American Biography in 1933, “There is a portrait attributed to him in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, and another is owned by the Massachusetts Historical Society.” Today the portrait in the Boston Museum cannot be identified, while the well-modelled and convincing pastel portrait of Dudley Atkins at the Massachusetts Historical Society represents a mastery of portraiture in a difficult medium which would be surprising for someone who, if he did paint portraits, tried his hand at it only occasionally. A more tempting reference to Johnston as a portrait painter is provided by Jules Prown in his comments on John Singleton Copley’s portrait of John Codman, the eldest of three John Codmans whom Copley painted. According to Prown, this portrait “is said to be a copy after a painting by Thomas Johnston, taken to England from Boston by the sitter’s son, . . .” (John Singleton Copley in England 1774–1815 [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966], p. 377).

14 All three of the Copley portraits can be seen in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

1 Anne Allison, “Peter Pelham, Engraver in Mezzotinto,” Antiques, lii (Dec. 1947), 441–443. See also Frederick W. Coburn, “More Notes on Peter Pelham,” Art in America, xx (June–Aug. 1932), 143–154.

2 John Chaloner Smith, British Mezzotint Portraits, 4 vols. (London, 1884), iii, 964–978.

3 Boston Gazette, Feb. 19–26, Feb. 26–Mar. 4, 1728.

4 “Boston, March the 19th. 1727/8.

“Received of the Rev’d. Mr. Benjn Coleman the Sum of 3 shillings being the first Payment of the Subscription for a Print in Metzo:^o of the Late Rev. Dr. COTTON MATHER, by which the Bearer is Entitled to the said Print Paying 2 shillings at the Delivery of the same. By me Peter Pelham.” Reproduced in facsimile in Guernsey Jones (ed.), Letters and Papers of John Singleton Copley and Henry Pelham, Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Vol. lxxi (Boston, 1914), p. 5; hereafter cited as Copley-Pelham Letters.

5 Boston Gazette, May 20–27, June 10–17, 1728.

6 Copley-Pelham Letters, p. 32.

7 Boston Gazette, Aug. 18–25, 1729.

8 Quoted in Henry Wilder Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, 3 vols. (Boston, 1882), 1, 397.

9 Boston News-Letter, Dec. 23, 1731.

10 John Tasker Howard, The Music of George Washington’s Time (Washington, 1931), p. 9.

11 Boston Gazette, Nov. 13–20, 1732. The game was continued in the following issue of the Gazette, Nov. 27–Dec 4, when an unnamed writer replied indignantly to the former notice, stating that he “could not help being very much pleas’d at the Sight of such a Number of agreeable Ladies as appear’d at Mr. Pelham’s; where every Body seem’d to be well Satisfy’d, and a Chearful & Innocent Conversation was carried on, with open & honest Faces, and all Mankind must allow, that such a Society well Regulated, is the best School for a true and polite behaviour.”

12 William K. Bottorff, “Peter Pelham, Late of Boston,” The New-England Galaxy, Winter 1970, p. 37.

13 Boston Gazette, Jan. 1–8, 1733.

14 Boston Gazette, Apr. 5, 1734, quoted in George Francis Dow, The Arts& Crafts in New England 1704–1773 (Topsfield, Mass., 1927), p. 11.

15 Sir David Evans, John Kerslake, and Andrew Oliver (eds.), The Notebook of John Smibert (Boston, 1969), pp. 87–91.

16 Ebenezer Turell, The Life and Character of the Reverend Benjamin Colman (Boston, 1749), p. 23.

17 James T. Flexner, First Flowers of Our Wilderness (Boston, 1947), p. 195.

18 Original parish records of Trinity Church, Newport, vol. entitled “List of Baptized Persons”; in the possession of Trinity Church, Newport.

19 Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness, 2d ed. (New York, 1955), p. 441.

20 Bridenbaugh, p. 355.

21 Records of Boston Selectmen.

22 Boston Gazette, Jan. 16–23, Feb. 6, 1738.

23 Boston Gazette, May 1–8, 1738.

24 For Pelham’s Masonic connections see Melvin M. Johnson, The Beginnings of Freemasonry in America (New York, 1924), and Harvey N. Shepard, History of St. Johns Lodge (Boston, 1917).

25 Boston Gazette, Sept. 25, Oct. 23, 1741.

26 The Diary of William Bentley, D.D., reprint (Gloucester, 1962), 1, 270, July 2, 1791.

27 Sibleys Harvard Graduates, viii, 48.

28 Copley-Pelham Letters, p. 3.

29 Copley-Pelham Letters, p. 14.

30 Original minutes of the vestry of Trinity Church, unpublished, in the possession of Trinity Church, Boston.

31 The News-Letter, May 10, 1744.

32 Boston Gazette, Aug. 27, 1751.

33 Boston Gazette, Sept. 16, 1746.

34 Boston Evening Post, July 7, 1747, quoted in Dow, p. 35.

35 Boston Evening Post, Dec. 11, 1749.

36 Boston Gazette, July 12, 1748.

37 Boston Gazette, Sept. 20, 1748.

38 Boston Gazette, Mar. 21, 1749.

39 Copley-Pelham Letters, p. 18.

40 Alan Burroughs, John Greenwood in America (Andover, Mass., 1943), p. 79.

41 The News-Letter, May 24, 1750.

42 Copley-Pelham Letters, p. 19.

43 Boston Gazette, Mar. 12, 1751.

44 Boston Gazette, Sept. 17, 1751.

45 Burroughs, Greenwood, pp. 18 and 69; The News-Letter, July 18, 1751.

46 Boston Gazette, Aug. 4, 1752.

47 Jules David Prown, John Singleton Copley (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 1, 162.

48 Smith, iii, 966.

1 Sydney P. Noe, The Pine Tree Coinage of Massachusetts (New York, 1952), pp. 21–22.

2 Hermann Frederick Clarke, John Coney, Silversmith, 1655–1722 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1932), pp. 9–10, pi. xxxi. Andrew McFarland Davis, “The Massachusetts Bay Currency, 1690–1750, The Plates,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, xii (October 1898), 410–424.

3 Hermann Frederick Clarke and Henry Wilder Foote, Jeremiah Dummer, Colonial Craftsman & Merchant, 1645–1718 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1935), p. 27, pl. xxii.

4 Massachusetts Archives, Vol. 101, No. 525.

5 During the summer following the print conference, Sinclair Hitchings discovered at the New Hampshire Historical Society proof that John Coney was paid for engraving the plates for New Hampshire bills in 1722. The manuscript treasurer’s accounts for New Hampshire record:

“By Sundry paym^ṭs since May y^e 18^th 1722

M^ṛ Allen print^g. y^e Bills p^d £18..10

M^ṛ Cunny doing the plates p^d £15..10”

6 Matt B. Jones, in “The Early Massachusetts-Bay Seals,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, ns 44 (April to October 1934), 13–44, believed that the Cambridge seal had been cut in England. Recent scholars suggest that it may also have been cut by John Foster but proof is lacking and the question raised by Jones as to why the 1675 cut should be inferior to the 1672 cut if both were the work of Foster remains unanswered. Richard B. Holman, “Seventeenth-Century American Prints,” Prints in and of America to 1830 (The University Press of Virginia, 1970), pp. 33–35.

7 Richard Le Baron Bowen, Massachusetts Records (privately printed, Rehobeth, Mass., 1957), pp. 48–52.

8 Louis F. Middlebrook, Seals of Maritime New England (Salem, Mass: The Essex Institute, 1926), pp. 8–10.

9 Hollis French, Jacob Hurd and His Sons (The Walpole Society: Cambridge, Mass., 1939), p. 70.

10 The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), iii, 144–146.

11 The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), iv, 205–206.

12 Samuel Eliot Morison, “Harvard Seals and Arms,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, Sept. 1933, pp. 1–15, and letter to the author from Harley P. Holden, Assistant Curator, Harvard University Archives, April 16, 1971.

13 Addenda to French’s Jacob Hurd and His Sons (1941 ed.), pp. 7–8.

14 Ibid.

15 French, pp. 67–69.

16 Middlebrook, p. 40. Dewing was suspected in 1718 of being concerned with counterfeiting the province bills of credit according to Justin Winsor’s Memorial History of Boston, ii, liii.

17 The first American bookplate apparently was the bordered name plate used by Thomas Smith of Boston and dated 1707 (Sinclair Hamilton, Early American Book Illustrators and Wood Engravers 1670–1870 [Princeton, N.J., 1958], p. xxv). Other early armorial bookplates used by Americans were engraved in England.

18 Suffolk County Court House, #14045. Harold Bowditch suggested that this book may have been the 1724 edition of Guillim subsequently owned by the heraldic painter John Coles of Boston (“Early Water-Color Paintings of New England Coats of Arms,” Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xxxv (December 1944), 178).

19 Mary Means, “Early American Trade Cards,” (Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1958).

20 The History of Printing in America by Isaiah Thomas, edited by Marcus A. McCorison from the second edition (Barre, Mass.: Imprint Society, 1970), p. 256. I am indebted to Sinclair Hitchings for calling this and other related materials to my attention.

21 Papers of Benjamin Franklin, iii, 145.

22 Bowditch, “Early Water-Color Paintings,” pp. 179–181. Although Bowditch believed there were two different James Turners, one from Boston and one from Marblehead, it now appears that James Turner whose bill to the estate of William Lynde was inscribed Marblehead, 1752, is the same James Turner who also worked in Boston, and later moved to Philadelphia.

23 In Massachusetts the encircling snake was used as a design on the gravestone of Mrs. Susannah Jayne of Marblehead in 1776 and on Massachusetts bills and lotteries in 1777–79. In Philadelphia in 1775 the snake was used to enclose a patriotic emblem advertising an American edition of Swan’s Designs in Architecture to be published by Robert Bell and John Norman.

24 The bill of Paul Revere for engraving the seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated Aug. 5, 1775, is preserved at the Massachusetts State House.

1 The only study of this specific subject known to me is my “Prints and Scientific Illustration in America,” in Prints in and of America to 1850 (Winterthur, Del., & Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1970), pp. 161–191. This study is concerned mainly with early nineteenth-century illustration.

2 Sinclair Hamilton, Early American Book Illustrators and Wood Engravers 1670–1870 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).

3 Barbara Gelman, The Wood Engravings of Winslow Homer (New York: Crown, 1969). On the general subject of early American book illustration see Georgia C. Haugh, “The Beginnings of American Book Illustration,” in Francis J. Brewer (ed.), Book Illustration (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1963), pp. 34–44.

4 The best single study is Raymond Phineas Stearns, Science in the British Colonies of America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970).

5 William Smellie, An Abridgement of the Practice of Midwifery (Boston: J. Norman, 1786).

6 Richard B. Holman, “Seventeenth Century American Prints,” in Prints in and of America to 1850, pp. 23–52.

7 I have not been able to determine exactly when the first copperplate intaglio print for scientific purposes was employed, but it was certainly within the time span of this paper.

8 Unpublished research notes of Sinclair Hitchings, in a letter to the author dated March 19, 1971.

9 A long note on this book is given in The Colonial Scene (Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1950), pp. 32–33.

10 As indicated especially by the elegant upswept tail of the bull, a stylized convention which probably has its origin in “high art.”

11 W. M. Ivins, Jr., Prints and Visual Communication (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968), Chap. 2.

12 As illustrated in Pl. 15 of G. E. Fussell, The Old English Farming Books From Fitzherbert to Tull 1523 to 1730 (London: Crosby Lockwood, 1947).

13 See note 9.

14 Joseph Ewan (ed.), William Bartram Botanical and Zoological Drawings 1756–1788 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1968), p. 4.

15 Stearns, p. 144.

16 Manasseh Cutler, “An Account of Some of the Vegetable Productions Naturally Growing in this part of America Botanically Arranged,” Memoirs of the American Academy, 1 (1785).

17 Ewan, p. 4.

18 Bruce R. Voeller and Paul F. Cranefield, Three Centuries of Botany in North America, an Exhibit (New York: The Rockefeller University, 1967), p. 8.

19 Joseph and Nesta Ewan, John Banister and his Natural History of Virginia 1678–1692 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970).

20 Joseph Ewan, “First Fern Records from Virginia: John Banister’s Account of 1679–1692,” American Fern Journal, 53 (Oct.–Dec. 1963), 138.

21 Ewan, John Banister, pp. 74–75.

22 Ibid., p. 51.

23 Ibid., p. 83.

24 George F. Frick and R. P. Stearns, Mark Catesby: The Colonial Audubon (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1961).

25 Elsa G. Allen, The History of American Ornithology before Audubon (New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), pp. 463–477.

26 Voeller and Cranefield, p. 10.

27 See note 14.

1 I have seen photographs of the Schenck prints, through the courtesy of Mrs. Carl Dolmetsch, assistant curator of prints at Colonial Williamsburg, where examples are to be found.

2 Since this paper was read in Boston, I have learned of William G. Sturtevant’s paper, “Lafitau’s Hoes,” in American Antiquity, vol. 33, no. 1 (Jan. 1968). Sturtevant demonstrates that Lafitau’s plate of Huron agricultural practices, in the 1724 edition, borrows shamelessly from a De Bry plate of 1591, showing Timucua agricultural practices in the vicinity of St. Augustine, Florida. Here, then, is further evidence of both the longevity of the De Bry tradition and the tendency of one printmaker to borrow from another.