Emperor Norton as an Artist’s Model

He Probably Sat for At Least One Portrait Painting in the Late 1870s — But Maybe Not the One You Think

Reassessing the “Recollections” of a Portraitist

IN 1877, Addie Lucia Ballou (1838–1916) painted this portrait of Emperor Norton:

Portrait of Emperor Norton, 1877, by Addie L. Ballou (1838–1916). Collection of the Society of California Pioneers.

Thirty years later, Ballou penned her reminiscences of the Emperor in “Personal Recollections of Norton I, Emperor of the United States (By the Woman Who Painted His Portrait),” a full-page illustrated article that appeared in the San Francisco Call of Sunday 27 September 1908.

In this article — which, again, Ballou wrote more than three decades after painting Emperor Norton — Ballou notes that Emperor Norton

readily sat to the writer for the only portrait on canvas he would consent to pose for, and which met his approval, as he said, "even to the shoe brush on the tip of his nose." He was a faithful artist's model, and when the portrait was completed, he drew up a check for $250 on the Nevada bank, which was more honored in the preservation of as a relic than in the cashing at the counter of that bank's treasury. During the sittings, for which he came with regularity, he revealed many confidences relative to his wonderful history.

Addie Ballou’s 1908 article was buried, forgotten and lost for decades — until it was rescued and reprinted in 1964 as part of the collection The Forgotten Characters of Old San Francisco, printed and published by Ward Ritchie.

In the decades since the 1964 reprint, those who write about Emperor Norton often have glossed and elevated Ballou’s self-promoting line that hers was “the only portrait on canvas he would consent to pose for” — in 1877 — into the larger claim that the Ballou portrait is the only one he ever sat for — period.

In fact: Take a moment to study the following “late reign” photograph of the Emperor by the studio of Bradley & Rulofson:

Emperor Norton, mid to late 1870s, by Bradley & Rulofson studio. Published in Fred R. Marckhoff, “Norton I of California,” Calcoin News, vol. 15, no. 3, summer 1961, p.90. (Click on the photo to open in a new window, and click again to enlarge.) Source: Newman Numismatic Portal

Between this photo and the Ballou portrait, the similarity of Emperor Norton’s pose, body carriage, and facial expression (particularly the appearance of his lips) — even the lay of his epaulettes; the choice of walking stick; and how he is holding the stick — are so similar as to raise a number of “chicken and egg” questions of influence:

Did Bradley & Rulofson see and like Ballou’s 1877 portrait, then later work with Emperor Norton to create a photographic staging in imitation of it?

Or, rather, did Ballou use the Bradley & Rulofson photo as her model in painting the Emperor? And, if the Emperor “consented” to sit for Ballou at all, did he do so primarily so that she could confirm and refine certain details that she already had painted based on the photo?

In her 1908 article, Ballou goes on at much greater length about her conversation(s) with Emperor Norton than about the painting itself. It’s not difficult to imagine that she might have arranged “sittings” — but that these were used less for artistic purposes than as opportunities to cultivate the support of the Emperor, so that she then could promote the finished work as being “authorized” by the Emp.

If — as I think more likely — Ballou’s primary source was the Bradley & Rulofson photograph, then we also have to acknowledge the possibility that, in her 1908 “Recollections,” Addie Ballou indulged in some revisionist embellishment of how personally involved Emperor Norton was in her painting.

:: :: ::

BALLOU’S painting originally was exhibited in San Francisco at the 12th Industrial Exhibition — or Fair — of the Mechanics’ Institute, held in August–September 1877.

This would seem to make it likely that Addie Ballou was aware of another painting of Emperor Norton that originally was exhibited in San Francisco just two years later, at the Mechanics’ Institute’s 14th fair — held in August–September 1879.

The setting for both Mechanics’ fairs was the fifth Mechanics’ Pavilion, at 8th, Market and Mission Streets:

Stereograph of Fifth Mechanics’ Pavilion, at 8th, Market and Mission Streets, San Francisco, late 1870s, by Thomas Houseworth & Co. Collection of the Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley. Source: Calisphere

The latter portrait, from 1879, is this one painted by Oscar Kunath (1830–1909):

Lithograph of Norton I, 1879, by Oscar Kunath (1830–1909). Collection of the Society of California Pioneers.

The listing for Kunath’s portrait in Room 1 of the Art Gallery is seen on the following page from the Mechanics’ Institute’s official report of its 14th fair, published in 1879:

Listing of Oscar Kunath’s 1879 portrait, Norton I, in Report of the Fourteenth Industrial Exhibition of the Mechanics’ Institute of the City of San Francisco, 1879, p. 45. Source: Internet Archive

Recently, I uncovered a detail about the Kunath portrait that I don’t believe previously has been associated with it — a contemporaneous report, in the Daily Alta’s coverage of the 14th Mechanics’ Fair, that Emperor Norton sat for this portrait.

Mention of 1879 portrait, Norton I, by Oscar Kunath (1830–1909), in article, “The Mechanics’ Fair,” Daily Alta California, 13 September 1879, p. 1. Source: California Digital Newspaper Collection

:: :: ::

DURING this same period, it’s worth noting, Emperor Norton was known to sit as a model for figure-drawing classes at the San Francisco Art Association’s California School of Design — later known as the Mark Hopkins Institute. It’s reasonable to guess that the Emperor was paid a small honorarium in exchange for providing this service.

One of the art students who, in 1878, drew the Emperor in one of these classes was Alice Brown Chittenden (1859–1944). Nearly 60 years later, in 1935, Chittenden gifted her drawing of Emperor Norton to the California Historical Society, where the drawing still is part of the Society’s collection. (At the request of The Emperor Norton Trust, the Chittenden drawing was one of the Norton artifacts on exhibit at the Trust’s CHS event, “Will the Real Emperor Norton Please Stand Up,” that launched our Emperor Norton at 200 bicentennial series in February 2018.)

Of course, a student art-class drawing of a “live model” Emperor Norton is not the same as an “exclusive” portrait by a professional artist.

But, the California School of Design example does help to make the point that Emperor Norton was sitting for a number of artists in the late 1870s — not just Addie Ballou.

For example, Virgil Williams (1830–1886) — co-founder of both the San Francisco Art Association and the Bohemian Club in 1872; first director of the California School of Design in 1874 — painted Emperor Norton during this period. We don’t know if the Emperor sat for this portrait.

There are biographical serendipities that suggest how both Addie Ballou and Oscar Kunath could have found their way to Emperor Norton.

Ballou was a reform-minded lecturer and activist who probably, after arriving in San Francisco in early 1874, would have counted lecture-and-discussion forums like the Lyceum of Free Culture — which had Emperor Norton as a member, attendee and regular participant — as part of her network.

Also: Addie Ballou — a intellectual and artistic dilettante ever on the search for feathers to add to her cap — appears to have taken up painting as part of the inaugural 1874 class of the California School of Design. Assuming that Ballou studied here with Virgil Williams — and given that Williams himself took up the Emperor as an artistic subject — she could have been encouraged by Williams’ example, or by Williams himself, to have her own “crack” at the Emperor.

As to Oscar Kunath: In 1873 and 1874, Kunath was employed and — on some level — represented by the studio of Bradley & Rulofson, which is documented to have created numerous photographic portraits of Emperor Norton between 1864 and 1878. The Emperor could have met Kunath here — or, at the least, the common association with B&R could have served as the basis for an introduction between the two.

WHAT WE CAN SAY, however, based on the new information presented here, is:

• Addie Ballou might not have had Emperor Norton as a portrait sitter at all.

• If Ballou did have Emperor Norton as a sitter (during some portion of her painting of the Emperor’s portrait), she may or may not have been the first to do so — but, she almost certainly wasn’t the only portraitist to do so.

Personally, I think Addie Ballou’s flighty interest in painting shows in her work. Ultimately, her Emperor Norton is flat — lying somewhere between the second and third dimension.

Oscar Kunath devoted his life to art — and that, too, shows. Looking at Kunath’s Emperor, it’s easier to believe that the Emperor spent hours sitting for a real artist who knew what he was doing.

Ballou’s portrait is a curiosity. Kunath’s is a classic.

:: :: ::

For an archive of all of the Trust’s blog posts and a complete listing of search tags, please click here.

Search our blog...