![make fortunes in faraway lands.”7
Through his rise in
ranks and his marriage to the wealthy widow Catherine
Elford, Yale amassed the fortune that would allow him
to begin building the collection which many years later
would help immortalize his name.8
When Yale became governor of Fort St. George, Ma-
dras dominated the international trade region of the
Coromandel Coast. As an intermediary between Sou-
theast Asia and England, numerous exotic goods passed
through Madras such as coffee from Yemen, porcelain
from China, fine silks from Bengal, and silver from
Japan. However, none of these items created as much
controversy or fascination as precious stones extracted
intheGolcondaminesroughlyfourhundredmilesfrom
Fort Saint George. As governor, Yale made numerous
maneuvers in order to secure England’s control over the
trading of precious stones and meanwhile, became ac-
tive in the personal collection of gemstones. Soon, Yale’s
taste for collecting spread to other items such as pain-
tings by Dutch and Flemish masters. After his return to
London, Yale’s status as a prominent art collector be-
came so well known that artists began visiting him in
his home in the hope of securing patronage. According
to Captain Edward Harrison, an English merchant, “a
scurvy painter or two” could often be found “drawing
[Yale] in for some choice pieces, in which he is become
a very great virtuoso or a bubble.” In 1671, Elihu Yale
left for Madras as a respectable man of English stock;
however, in 1699 he returned as an “English gentlemen
and connoisseur.”9
While social changes in England
may have created this possibility for Yale, only through
his amassed collection of luxuries could his social rein-
vention truly be achieved.
Portraiture had long been a way for the English aris-
tocracy to showcase their status; however, in the 18th
century portraiture became a tool for England’s new
7 Elizabeth Keubler-Wolf, “‘Born in America, in Europe bred, in Africa travell’d, and in Asia wed:’ Elihu
Yale, material culture, and Actor networks from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first,” Journal of Global
History no 11 (2016).
8 Hiram Bingham III, Elihu Yale: The American Nabob of Queen’s Square (New York City, Dodd, Meade &
Company, 1939) 94, 100.
9 Romita Ray, “Going Global, Staying Local: Elihu Yale the Art Collector,” Elihu Yale (New Haven, Yale
University Art Gallery: 2012), 37, 42.
10 Romita Ray, “Going Global, Staying Local: Elihu Yale the Art Collector,” in Elihu Yale, (New Haven: Yale
University Art Gallery), 36, 38, 42.
11 Roger de Piles, The Principles of Painting, (Printed for J. Osborne, Paris, 1743).
middle class as well. Over his lifetime, Elihu Yale com-
missioned numerous portraits to showcase his wealth
and power. Subtle inclusions of diamonds and other
gems entered Yale’s portraits such as the uncut, pointed
diamond ring on his right hand in Elihu Yale; William
Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James
Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant. As
Marcia Pointon asserts in Brilliant Effects: A Cultural
History of Gem Stones and Jewelry, “the subtle positio-
ning of an eye-catching detail,” like a diamond ring,
conveyed to the viewer the “individuality and prestige”
of the portrait’s sitter. In similar conversation pieces
such details often appear on gem-encrusted belt bucks,
sword hilts, buttons, watches, canes, and rings.
For Yale, his ring, a seemingly small detail, sets him
apart from the portrait’s other sitters including the se-
cond Duke of Devonshire and Lord James Cavendish,
challenging accepted social distinctions between aris-
tocrats and merchants. In addition, it served as a nod to
the 2,000 pounds worth of jewels Yale agreed to transfer
to Lord James Cavendish as part of his daughter Anne’s
dowry.10
Yale’s immense wealth allowed him to take on
attitudes usually reserved for aristocrats and gave him
the power to communicate this attitude through a me-
dium, portraiture, traditionally reserved for aristocrats.
In his 1708 conversation piece Yale stares at the viewer
as if to say, “Stop, take notice of me… surrounded with
majesty.” As Roger de Piles posits in The Principles of
Painting, “the attitudes are the language of portraits”
and Yale’s attitude would not have been possible wit-
hout evidence of his wealth surrounding him.11
Elihu
Yale’s purchased status gave him the power to curate
his own image, one in which he is draped in finery and
surrounded by a collection of objects whose meanings
could transcend centuries, immortalizing the story he
wished to tell.
3YALE HISTORICAL REVIEW](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/annierobertspaper-200928171612/85/Visibility-and-Power-An-18th-Century-Conversation-Piece-3-320.jpg)
![In addition to jewels, slaves also denoted the
wealth of European portrait subjects. In 17th and
18th century England, the slave trade became a major
part of the English economy and the usage of slaves
became part of life both in England and its colonies.
Despite this, Yale never personally owned slaves and
yet, a young slave boy, like the one in Elihu Yale; Wil-
liam Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord
James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant
accompanies him in his portrait.
At the time that Yale commissioned this parti-
cular portrait, a political debate centering on the role of
slavery in British imperialism raged. One party, the Pa-
triot Whigs, felt that colonies should be less dependent
on Britain and more self-sustaining and therefore,
slavery not as heavily used. This differed greatly from
the stance held by Yale and his party, the Whalpole
Whigs, who believed that the main point of the colo-
nies was to produce wealth for Britain and that “the
labour of the negroes [was] the principal foundation
of [Britain’s] riches.”12
Therefore, by including slaves in
his portraits, Yale was signaling his solidarity with the
Whalpole Whigs and their position on slavery. In this
way, Yale used the slaves he stood beside in his portraits
as carriers of his political message. However, over the
course of history the lines between acceptance and par-
ticipation warped the meaning behind the true politi-
cal statement of the slave, showing that even the most
powerful of men cannot completely control the way in
which they are viewed forever.
In 18th century English portraiture enslaved
Africans served a decorative role much in a simi-
lar fashion to Bengali textiles, American tobacco, or
Chinese porcelain. As Elizabeth Kuebler-Wolf identi-
fies, social norms guided the painter, instructing them
on how to use “behavioral mannerisms,” objects, and
people “in order to represent the sitter’s social stan-
ding.”13
In English society enslaved people functioned
primarily as decoration serving as butlers and page
12 Steve Pincus, “Elihu Yale and the Politics of Slavery,” (presentation, Visualizing Slavery and British
Culture in the Eighteenth Century, New Haven, CT, 11-7-14).
13 Elizabeth Keubler-Wolf, “‘Born in America, in Europe bred, in Africa travell’d, and in Asia wed:’ Elihu
Yale, material culture, and Actor networks from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first,” Journal of Global
History no 11 (2016), 16.
14 Paul H.D. Kaplan, Bruce Boucher, and Charles Ford, The Image of Black in Western Art, Volume III, Part
3: From the Age of Discovery to the Age of Abolition: The Eighteenth Century, ed. David Bindman and Henry
Louis Gates, (Belknap Press, 2011), 3.
boys, unlike the plantation labor which they provided
in the American colonies. Evidence of this parallelism
between life and art appears in the distinct way’s artists
represented the enslaved. In Elihu Yale; William Caven-
dish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Caven-
dish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant and every
detail on the boy points to his status as a slave. For exa-
mple, often times when portraits included slaves, the
artist chose to depict them as children and made them
appear docile and full of admiration.
In addition, at the time Britons associated largely
unexplored African continent with exotics and savagery,
hence, the enslaved boy’s exotic Turkish livery uniform.
Most telling of his slave status; however, is the padlocked
collar around his neck. In these ways the artist sets up
clear distinctions between the enslaved boy shrouded in
shadow at the edge of the portrait and the men at the
table: in full spotlight, large and in command, wealthy
and free, and most importantly, white. While the details
painted onto Yale clearly establish his individually, such
as the diamond ring, every detail painted onto the slave
serve to establish him as part of an unnamed monolithic
group. Further evidence of this is found in the inscrip-
tion of the back of the painting in which the artists in-
cluded the names of the “main” sitters but did not include
the boy’s name or any record of him condemning him to
forever remain a nameless member of Britain’s enslaved.
In no way is his namelessness remarkable, but his pre-
sence and representation say volumes about the way in
which slaves were portrayed in portraiture and the men
he stands beside. Namely, it illustrates a personal “accep-
tance of the ‘naturalness’ of Black servitude” from Elihu
Yale and his fellow sitters and a wider spread acceptance
that occurred in England as their participation in the
slave trade increased.14
While Yale never personally owned slaves, his race
and wealth gave him the power to fashion his own image
through the patronage of art. In turn, he had a say in the
way history remembered him; albeit, not as positively as
4 VISIBILITY AND POWER](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/annierobertspaper-200928171612/85/Visibility-and-Power-An-18th-Century-Conversation-Piece-4-320.jpg)
Visibility and Power: An 18th Century Conversation Piece
- 1. FALL 2020 VISIBILITY AND POWER An 18th century Conversation Piece by Annie Roberts, SY '21 Edited by Eva Magyar, DC '22 and Meghanlata Gupta, MC '21 1YALE HISTORICAL REVIEW
- 2. PORTRAIT of three men seated around a small wooden table hangs on the walls of the Yale Center for British Art. Even from a quick glance the sitters’ importance is clear for each detail serves as evidence of this fact. Their grea- ter size and position in the center of the canvas amongst children, sweeping gardens, servants, and lawyers not only implies their status as the portrait's main sitters’, but also implies their high status within British society. Their powdered wigs, velvet coats, and perfect posture announce their wealth to the viewer. The mahogany table, smoking tobacco, enormous jewels, and exotic Black page tell of their access to goods from every cor- ner of the globe.1 Upon closer inspection the viewer realizes that in a snapshot this portrait not only tells the sitter’s story but the story of an empire, one that not only created a global goods market, but also a mas- sive demand for human bodies. And like the portrait, at the center of this empire sat men draped in wealth while the poor and Black stood at the margins. Without words the portrait speaks saying, “stop, take notice of me,” commanding the viewer’s attention and forcing its message upon her.2 Completed in 1708, the back of the portrait bears an inscription which gives the names of the three men seated around the table (from left to right): Lord James Cavendish, Elihu Yale, and William Cavendish, the se- cond Duke of Devonshire. Shortly after his return to London in 1699, Elihu Yale commissioned this portrait to commemorate the signing of his daughter’s marriage certificate. Others portrayed include Mr. Tunstal, who stands behind Yale in order oversee the occasion, a slave serving Madeira, and children dancing in the back- ground.3 These subjects give the portrait its mundane title: Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of 1 Unknown artist, Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant, 1708, Oil on canvas, 79 1/4 x 92 3/4 inches, New Haven, CT. 2 Roger de Piles, The Principles of Painting, (Printed for J. Osborne, Paris, 1743). 3 “Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant,” Yale Center for British Art, April 16, 2018, http:// collections.britishart.yale.edu/vu- find/Record/1665331. 4 “Conversation Piece,” The Tate Museum, accessed March 8, 2018, http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/ c/conversation-piece. 5 Yale Center for British Art, Figures of Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale Center for British Art). 6 Margaret Makepeace, “A Brief History of the British East India Company 1600-1858,” Qatar Digital Library, May 9, 2018, https://www.qdl.qa/en/brief-history-english-east-india- company-1600%E2%80%931858. Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant. In 18th century Britain similar group portraits, known as conversation pieces, gained popu- larity amongst Britain’s new class of merchants, indus- trialists, and colonial landowners.4 Unlike the allegorical and historical portraits fa- vored by British aristocracy, conversation pieces re- presented Britain’s new class in informal settings and showcased their “social relationships and virtuous re- finement.”5 Elements such as the portrait’s setting in the gardens of William Cavendish and the presence of tobacco give the Elihu Yale portrait its informal feel and help designate it as a conversation piece. As with any piece of art, this portrait converses with the viewer through its included subject matter. Some of its messages were pre-scripted by its patron; while others were added over the course of time. However, as a viewer one must consider both the immediately visible, fashioned by Elihu Yale, and what lies beneath the surface, out of the patron’s reach. More so than with almost any other medium, portraiture forces the viewer to recognize the links between visibility and power and the links between those who shape remem- bered history and those who remain at its margins. Elihu Yale was born in 1649 near Boston, Massachu- setts to David and Ursula Yale, who had migrated from England to New England with the hopes of founding a Puritan colony. Dissatisfied with their lives in the New World, the Yales returned to England shortly before Elihu Yale turned four years old. In 1671, Yale joined the British East India Company (EIC), which was foun- ded in 1600 as a monopolistic trading body which later became heavily involved with British politics and im- perialism.6 The following year, Yale arrived in Madras and, like many employees of the EIC, Yale “set out to A 2 VISIBILITY AND POWER
- 3. make fortunes in faraway lands.”7 Through his rise in ranks and his marriage to the wealthy widow Catherine Elford, Yale amassed the fortune that would allow him to begin building the collection which many years later would help immortalize his name.8 When Yale became governor of Fort St. George, Ma- dras dominated the international trade region of the Coromandel Coast. As an intermediary between Sou- theast Asia and England, numerous exotic goods passed through Madras such as coffee from Yemen, porcelain from China, fine silks from Bengal, and silver from Japan. However, none of these items created as much controversy or fascination as precious stones extracted intheGolcondaminesroughlyfourhundredmilesfrom Fort Saint George. As governor, Yale made numerous maneuvers in order to secure England’s control over the trading of precious stones and meanwhile, became ac- tive in the personal collection of gemstones. Soon, Yale’s taste for collecting spread to other items such as pain- tings by Dutch and Flemish masters. After his return to London, Yale’s status as a prominent art collector be- came so well known that artists began visiting him in his home in the hope of securing patronage. According to Captain Edward Harrison, an English merchant, “a scurvy painter or two” could often be found “drawing [Yale] in for some choice pieces, in which he is become a very great virtuoso or a bubble.” In 1671, Elihu Yale left for Madras as a respectable man of English stock; however, in 1699 he returned as an “English gentlemen and connoisseur.”9 While social changes in England may have created this possibility for Yale, only through his amassed collection of luxuries could his social rein- vention truly be achieved. Portraiture had long been a way for the English aris- tocracy to showcase their status; however, in the 18th century portraiture became a tool for England’s new 7 Elizabeth Keubler-Wolf, “‘Born in America, in Europe bred, in Africa travell’d, and in Asia wed:’ Elihu Yale, material culture, and Actor networks from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first,” Journal of Global History no 11 (2016). 8 Hiram Bingham III, Elihu Yale: The American Nabob of Queen’s Square (New York City, Dodd, Meade & Company, 1939) 94, 100. 9 Romita Ray, “Going Global, Staying Local: Elihu Yale the Art Collector,” Elihu Yale (New Haven, Yale University Art Gallery: 2012), 37, 42. 10 Romita Ray, “Going Global, Staying Local: Elihu Yale the Art Collector,” in Elihu Yale, (New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery), 36, 38, 42. 11 Roger de Piles, The Principles of Painting, (Printed for J. Osborne, Paris, 1743). middle class as well. Over his lifetime, Elihu Yale com- missioned numerous portraits to showcase his wealth and power. Subtle inclusions of diamonds and other gems entered Yale’s portraits such as the uncut, pointed diamond ring on his right hand in Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant. As Marcia Pointon asserts in Brilliant Effects: A Cultural History of Gem Stones and Jewelry, “the subtle positio- ning of an eye-catching detail,” like a diamond ring, conveyed to the viewer the “individuality and prestige” of the portrait’s sitter. In similar conversation pieces such details often appear on gem-encrusted belt bucks, sword hilts, buttons, watches, canes, and rings. For Yale, his ring, a seemingly small detail, sets him apart from the portrait’s other sitters including the se- cond Duke of Devonshire and Lord James Cavendish, challenging accepted social distinctions between aris- tocrats and merchants. In addition, it served as a nod to the 2,000 pounds worth of jewels Yale agreed to transfer to Lord James Cavendish as part of his daughter Anne’s dowry.10 Yale’s immense wealth allowed him to take on attitudes usually reserved for aristocrats and gave him the power to communicate this attitude through a me- dium, portraiture, traditionally reserved for aristocrats. In his 1708 conversation piece Yale stares at the viewer as if to say, “Stop, take notice of me… surrounded with majesty.” As Roger de Piles posits in The Principles of Painting, “the attitudes are the language of portraits” and Yale’s attitude would not have been possible wit- hout evidence of his wealth surrounding him.11 Elihu Yale’s purchased status gave him the power to curate his own image, one in which he is draped in finery and surrounded by a collection of objects whose meanings could transcend centuries, immortalizing the story he wished to tell. 3YALE HISTORICAL REVIEW
- 4. In addition to jewels, slaves also denoted the wealth of European portrait subjects. In 17th and 18th century England, the slave trade became a major part of the English economy and the usage of slaves became part of life both in England and its colonies. Despite this, Yale never personally owned slaves and yet, a young slave boy, like the one in Elihu Yale; Wil- liam Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant accompanies him in his portrait. At the time that Yale commissioned this parti- cular portrait, a political debate centering on the role of slavery in British imperialism raged. One party, the Pa- triot Whigs, felt that colonies should be less dependent on Britain and more self-sustaining and therefore, slavery not as heavily used. This differed greatly from the stance held by Yale and his party, the Whalpole Whigs, who believed that the main point of the colo- nies was to produce wealth for Britain and that “the labour of the negroes [was] the principal foundation of [Britain’s] riches.”12 Therefore, by including slaves in his portraits, Yale was signaling his solidarity with the Whalpole Whigs and their position on slavery. In this way, Yale used the slaves he stood beside in his portraits as carriers of his political message. However, over the course of history the lines between acceptance and par- ticipation warped the meaning behind the true politi- cal statement of the slave, showing that even the most powerful of men cannot completely control the way in which they are viewed forever. In 18th century English portraiture enslaved Africans served a decorative role much in a simi- lar fashion to Bengali textiles, American tobacco, or Chinese porcelain. As Elizabeth Kuebler-Wolf identi- fies, social norms guided the painter, instructing them on how to use “behavioral mannerisms,” objects, and people “in order to represent the sitter’s social stan- ding.”13 In English society enslaved people functioned primarily as decoration serving as butlers and page 12 Steve Pincus, “Elihu Yale and the Politics of Slavery,” (presentation, Visualizing Slavery and British Culture in the Eighteenth Century, New Haven, CT, 11-7-14). 13 Elizabeth Keubler-Wolf, “‘Born in America, in Europe bred, in Africa travell’d, and in Asia wed:’ Elihu Yale, material culture, and Actor networks from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first,” Journal of Global History no 11 (2016), 16. 14 Paul H.D. Kaplan, Bruce Boucher, and Charles Ford, The Image of Black in Western Art, Volume III, Part 3: From the Age of Discovery to the Age of Abolition: The Eighteenth Century, ed. David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates, (Belknap Press, 2011), 3. boys, unlike the plantation labor which they provided in the American colonies. Evidence of this parallelism between life and art appears in the distinct way’s artists represented the enslaved. In Elihu Yale; William Caven- dish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Caven- dish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant and every detail on the boy points to his status as a slave. For exa- mple, often times when portraits included slaves, the artist chose to depict them as children and made them appear docile and full of admiration. In addition, at the time Britons associated largely unexplored African continent with exotics and savagery, hence, the enslaved boy’s exotic Turkish livery uniform. Most telling of his slave status; however, is the padlocked collar around his neck. In these ways the artist sets up clear distinctions between the enslaved boy shrouded in shadow at the edge of the portrait and the men at the table: in full spotlight, large and in command, wealthy and free, and most importantly, white. While the details painted onto Yale clearly establish his individually, such as the diamond ring, every detail painted onto the slave serve to establish him as part of an unnamed monolithic group. Further evidence of this is found in the inscrip- tion of the back of the painting in which the artists in- cluded the names of the “main” sitters but did not include the boy’s name or any record of him condemning him to forever remain a nameless member of Britain’s enslaved. In no way is his namelessness remarkable, but his pre- sence and representation say volumes about the way in which slaves were portrayed in portraiture and the men he stands beside. Namely, it illustrates a personal “accep- tance of the ‘naturalness’ of Black servitude” from Elihu Yale and his fellow sitters and a wider spread acceptance that occurred in England as their participation in the slave trade increased.14 While Yale never personally owned slaves, his race and wealth gave him the power to fashion his own image through the patronage of art. In turn, he had a say in the way history remembered him; albeit, not as positively as 4 VISIBILITY AND POWER
- 5. he hoped. This same wealth also gave him the power to buy and use the image of the less powerful, in this case an enslaved boy, for his own agenda. By using the image of a powerless class, he aided the creation of a one dimen- sional lens from which to view life of this enslaved boy in the painting. Due to his namelessness, Yale allowed the boy’s image to speak for a entire class of people; there- fore, also aiding the creation of a one dimensional his- tory for the enslaved in England. In viewing Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant, various pieces of Yale’s life shine through: his travels in India, his return to London, his interest in collecting, and his family. However, the same piece only depicts one as- pect of the Black boy’s life: his enslavement, his usage by men like Elihu Yale, and his lack of ability to control both his life and the way in which history remembers him. In 1995 the Yale Daily News published an article tit- led “Painting Displays Elihu Yale with Slave” about a portrait of Elihu Yale seated beside a young Black boy. Like Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant, Elihu Yale wore ornate clothing while the enslaved boy wore a padlocked collar. However, un- like the Elihu Yale conversation piece which had been hidden in storage ever since Yale University acquired it from the Eleventh Duke of Devonshire in 1971, this portrait, painted by James Worsdale, hung in the Cor- poration Room of Yale University’s Woodbridge Hall.15 The focus of the article was a debate on the appropriate- ness of a painting depicting the University's namesake beside a slave and what its creation and presence said about the university. For if the inclusion of the enslaved in portraiture signaled an “acceptance of the ‘natu- ralness’ of Black servitude” during Elihu Yale’s lifetime, how must one interpret the inclusion of portraiture fea- turing the enslaved on the university’s walls?16 Some, like the University Secretary at the time, believed the 15 “Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant,” Yale Center for British Art, April 16, 2018, http:// collections.britishart.yale.edu/vu- find/Record/1665331. 16 Paul H.D. Kaplan, Bruce Boucher, and Charles Ford, The Image of Black in Western Art, Volume III, Part 3: From the Age of Discovery to the Age of Abolition: The Eighteenth Century, ed. David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates, (Belknap Press, 2011), 3. 17 Troy Flint, “Painting Displays Elihu Yale with Slave,” The Yale Daily News (New Haven, CT), March 3, 1995. 18 Yale Center for British Art, Figures of Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale Center for British Art), 11. portrait should remain hanging and analogized the portrait to a library book saying, “you wouldn’t remove the portrait any more than you would take a book out of the library” simply because it “does not align with current sensibilities.” However, some students felt that “the picture projects an offensive image” and wonde- red “why continue the tradition by having it up there?” As the University President at the time conceded, “Its obviously an artifact from a much different historical era…But it’s certainly not consistent with our thinking today.” However, despite University statements, debates about the painting never seem to have occurred. There- fore, for much of the painting’s time on Yale University’s campus, Elihu Yale’s remained the dominant vantage point from which to view the inclusion of an enslaved boy in his portraits. Regardless of how much of his true intention was lost over time, the presence of a Black boy in a metal collar at its most benign did not align with current belief systems and at its worst, deeply offended members of the University’s community and yet, the only recognition of this fact seemed to be a one column article in the Yale Daily News.17 When the Yale Center of British Art included the Eli- hu Yale conversation piece in an exhibit titled “Figures of Empire” they made sure examine the portrait in a holistic manner and spark conversations surrounding the implications of the inclusion of an enslaved boy in portraiture. On the museum label that hangs beside the painting in the YCBA, the museum forces the viewer to confront the enslaved boy’s presence saying, “In the ab- sence of documentary evidence..we need to find other ways to imagine this boy’s history.”18 However, in 2018 just one floor below the Elihu Yale conversation piece hung another painting featuring an African in a European setting. The Paston Treasure was commissioned by either Sir William Paston or his son and completed in 1663. More obvious than the Elihu Yale portrait, The Paston Treasure “celebrates the acc- 5YALE HISTORICAL REVIEW
- 6. 6 VISIBILITY AND POWER mulation of precious heirlooms” and depicts a number of exotic goods such as conch shells, instruments, mon- keys, precious metals and jewels. In addition, it depicts one young white girl and one young Black boy. Is the Black boy painted with a monkey on his shoulder in- cluded in these “worldly goods” or like the white girl, is he simply their as an human subject? Given Dutch imperialism and involvement in the Transatlantic slave trade, it is hard to imagine the latter; however, the pain- ting’s museum label gives no mention to this aspect of the painting. As Professor Steven Pincus pointed out in a presentation he gave for a Yale University confe- rence titled “Visualizing Slavery and British Culture in the Eighteenth Century,” one cannot ignore “the insti- tutional and political history of empire” when viewing paintings made in the context of and depicting em- pire.19 To do so ignores the European world in which these Black boys lived and opens up the possibility of viewers drawing incorrect conclusions, whatever they may be. In addition, it signals an acceptance of the ways in which 17th and 18th century portraiture depicted Black subjects, as pawns for political messages and exo- tic ornaments. By ignoring these turrets the museum condemns itself to a fate as accomplices for the conti- nued allowance of the persistence of such images. For without a written history that questions formerly held beliefs, these Black boys remain under the control of the powerful men who commissioned their painting. In the early 18th century Elihu Yale commissioned Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of De- vonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant to commemorate the signing of his daughter’s marriage certificate, an event that solidified his rise in Britain’s social order. In the portrait, he in- cluded a young enslaved boy. Maybe he did so as a nod to his wealth, maybe at the request of the Duke of Devonshire, or maybe to signal his allegiance to his political party. His motivations most likely will remain lost to history. However, what transcends is his desire to tell his story through portraiture and his usage of the less powerful for his own purposes. Today, the boy’s presence serves as a painful remin- der of one of history’s greatest evils, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. In addition, the handling of his presence and the presence of other Black people in European 19 Steve Pincus, “Elihu Yale and the Politics of Slavery,” (presentation, Visualizing Slavery and British Culture in the Eighteenth Century, New Haven, CT, 11-7-14). portraiture demonstrates a continued failure on the part of those in control to tell the history of the powerless in a holistic, humane manner. As with The Paston Treasure this failure allows the Black boy to simply become ano- ther object, while for many years this failure ensured that the only story told about the boy in Elihu Yale; Wil- liam Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant was that of his enslavement. Either way, theirs is a sto- ry of continued dehumanization, in life at the hands of imperial powers, their owners, their painters and as subjects of portraiture at the hands of universities, mu- seum curators, and viewers. The task of remembering and pulling these boys out of the darkness of oblivion rests on individuals, people like Yale University students who questioned the presence of such portraiture on the walls of their university. Ignorance and obliviousness are choices that those who sit at the center of power continue to make at the detriment of the less powerful, those who remain shrouded in darkness at the margins.
- 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bingham, Hiram, III. Elihu Yale: The American Nabob of Queen’s Square. New York, NY: Dodd, Meade & Company, 1939. Boucher, Bruce, Paul H.D. Kaplan, and Charles Ford. The Image of the Black in Western Art. Edited by David Bindman and Henry Louis Gates. New edi- tion ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010. de Piles, Roger. The Principles of Painting. Paris, France: J. Osborne, 1743. The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. "Elihu Yale." Encyclopedia Britannica. Last modified October 29, 2015. https://www.britannica.com/biography/ Elihu-Yale. Flint, Troy. "Painting Displays Elihu Yale with Slave." the Yale Daily News (New Haven, CT), March 3, 1995. Keubler-Wolf, Elizabeth. "Born in America, in Europe bred, in Africa travell’d, and in Asia wed:’ Elihu Yale, material culture, and Actor networks from the seventeenth century to the twenty-first." Jour- nal of Global History, no. 11 (2016). Makepeace, Margaret. "A Brief History of the Briti- sh East India Company 1600-1858." Qatar Digi- tal Library. Accessed May 8, 2018. https://www. qdl.qa/en/brief-history-english-east- india-com- pany-1600%E2%80%931858. Nichols, Tom. Others and Outcasts in Early Modern Europe: Picturing the Social Margins. London, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007. Pincus, Steven. "Elihu Yale and the Politics of Slavery." Speech, Visualizing Slavery and British Culture in the Eighteenth Century, Yale University, No- vember 2014. Ray, Romita. "Going Glpbal;. Staying Local: Elihu Yale the Art Collector." In Elihu Yale, 35-47. New Ha- ven, CT: Yale University Art Gallery, 2012. Scarisbrick, Diana, and Benjamin Zucker. Elihu Yale: Merchant, Collector and Patron. London: Thames & Hudson, 2014. Tate Museum. "Conversation Piece." Tate. Accessed March 8, 2018. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/ art- terms/c/conversation-piece. Unknown. Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Cavendish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant. ca. 1708. Oil on canvas. Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, CT. Yale Center for British Art. Figures of Empire. New Ha- ven, CT: Yale University, 2014. Yale University. Elihu Yale; William Cavendish, the second Duke of Devonshire; Lord James Caven- dish; Mr. Tunstal; and an Enslaved Servant. Yale Center for British Art. Accessed March 8, 2018. http://collections.britishart.yale.edu/vufind/Re- cord/1665331. 7YALE HISTORICAL REVIEW