From the beginning of the Church is seems that a painting of Joseph Smith has always been accompanied by a painting of Hyrum Smith. This is most appropriate for as John Taylor has said, “In life they were not divided and in death they were not separated!” Not only have there been companion portraits of the Prophet and Patriarch but they have been painted together on the same canvas or paper. Below are thumb nails of many such paintings.

Figure 1

Figure 1

The first of these four figures was executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley. The second figure is an engraving published by Moses Martin and originally drawn by Maudsley.
The third image was drawn by James Holt but is obviously a copy of Maudsley’s earlier work. The fourth image is an engraving by Sarnoy and Major of New York. Another copy of this image in the Church Historians Library has memo written on the back which reads, “S. Maudsley daguerreotype of Joseph and Hyrum standing from original owned by Mrs. Alexander Pyper. Taken from the Sarnoy and Major lithography, New York. J.F.W. 1930.” Therefore is seems that all of these images of Joseph and Hyrum stem from the original works of Sutcliffe Maudsley.

Figure 3

Figure 4

Sutcliffe Maudsley was a British convert to the Church and traveled to Nauvoo in the early 1840s. By trade he was a “calico printer” and while there he learned the art of profile painting and drawing. His work was very popular during his time in Nauvoo. Nearly all the Smith family living in Nauvoo sat for portraits by Brother Maudsley, as well as many other prominent people in Nauvoo. Despite his early popularity, his work quickly fell from grace in the generations to come.

Joseph Smith III was one who was very critical of his work. Writing about portraits of his father, he said, “The recollections of the man so far as Utah is concerned has been kept alive by flat side views, by pictures originally executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley, an English designer, and a good many of them are but caricatures.” At this same time an author in the Juvenile Instructor wrote “In 1844 there appeared at Nauvoo a man by the name of Sutcliffe Maudsley who called himself a ‘profilist.’ He made profile pictures only. Not being skillful in drawing, he would tack his paper to the wall, place his subject near it, and with a long stick to which was attached a pencil, he would trace the outline as one would a shadow. This tracing was then reduced to the desired size and the lines of the face drawn to the best of his ability. Not having the skill of the average present day high school girl, some of his drawings were little better than caricatures.” These quotations seem to cast a very negative view on Maudsley’s work. Were their statements justified? Why was he so popular in his time and not so at the turn of the century? Also we do have photographic images of other people that Brother Maudsley drew or painted for comparison.

Carson daguerreotype

We will start with these other images first, and then move toward the images of Joseph. On Saturday, August 23, 1845 Hosea Stout wrote in his journal, “I went this morning to see Brother Brigham Young and went with him to Brother Maudsley to have his likeness taken.” Then on September 19 of the same year Brother Stout writes, “I then rode down with my clerk down to see Mr. Maudsley who is at work for me. I made an agreement with him for the painting of a portrait.” It is evident from these entries that Hosea Stout and Brigham Young were both patronizing Sutcliffe Maudsley as a “profilist.” No positive identification of any work of Maudsely has been found believed to be of Brigham Young. There is however a profile portrait of Hosea Stout, that is attributed to Maudsley. (Fig. 5)

Figure 6

Whether this is the portrait Hosea mentions in his diary is unknown. There are many photographic portraits of Hosea available to view, most having facial hair from his later years. But one early copy of a daguerreotype still exists and is housed at the Utah State Historical Society. (Fig. 6)

A comparison of these two above images shows the accuracy of this profile drawing thought to be done by Sutcliffe Maudsley. (Fig. 7)

Continuing on in this manner a side by side comparison with all known Maudsley works to photographic images will be demonstrated.

Figure 7

George A. Smith, the Prophet’s cousin

This profile drawing done in 1844 by Maudsley of George A. Smith, the Prophet’s cousin, compares very well to a profile daguerreotype of George A. about fifteen years later.

These images below are of Bathsheba W. Smith wife of George A. Smith. Although the two images are separated by a few years, a likeness can still be seen.

Bathsheba W. Smith wife of George A. Smith

The two images painted by Maudsley of Emma Smith the Prophets wife (right and below) are estimated to by made in 1843 or 1844. They are compared to a daguerreotype taken of Emma a year after the Prophet was martyred (Circa 1846-47). Therefore only 2-4 years separate these images. Both are good likenesses to the artistic eye with the favor of likeness going to the second set of compared images.

Emma Smith compared to a daguerreotype

In all the above comparisons it can be seen that the images do portray good likenesses of the subjects drawn by Maudsley. Sutcliffe Maudsley’s work deserves more respect than was accorded it in the early 1900s. Such accuracy should be expected considering the method he used. As noted earlier Maudsley “would tack his paper to the wall, place his subject near it, and with a long stick to which was attached a pencil, he would trace the outline as one would a shadow. This tracing was then reduced to the desired size and the lines of the face drawn to the best of his ability.” This “stick” was most likely a pantograph. A pantograph is an engineered device with a hinge, and a drawing instrument is placed in the center and a tracing wand extending out further. The artist simply traces with the wand the desired subject and the image is transferred to a reduced size with the exact ratios as the original image. (See figure 8)

Figure 8

For this reason Maudsley profiles of his subject are near exact and should not be dismissed lightly. 

Figure 9 & Figure 10

Although Maudsley’s profiles are exact we do acknowledge that there are still some problems. The interior features in the Maudsley profiles such as the eyes and ears are often misplaced. He also did not trace the body profile or stature. His first drawing of Joseph Smith made him look like a short plump man instead of a tall and portly man. (Figures 9 and 10)
Because Maudsley captured the feeling of the time in which Joseph and Hyrum lived it has always been our desire to use Maudsley’s early drawing of Joseph and Hyrum to create a new painting of these great men. As Maudsley’s drawing are not necessarily life like we desire to use the essence of his drawings and the accuracy of his profiles and bring them to life as though they were actually standing before us.

To do this we had to make sure that the heads and bodies were first anatomically right. We began with two overlays of the skulls and masks on some of Maudsley’s work. For the correct identification of skulls see Millions shall know Brother Joseph Again by S. Michael Tracy and published by Eborn Book.

We first started with Joseph’s image. (Figure 11)

Figure 11

Notice that the profile matches exactly to the mask but Maudsley’s eye placement is wrong compared to the mask and the skull does not match the back contour of the head. Using Photoshop we were able to fix these two issues.

We next worked with Hyrum’s image. (Figure 12)

Figure 12

As can be seen the profiles do not line up accurately as with all other profiles of Maudsley. At first it was thought that this was due to the fact of the swelling to the face after his death in Carthage. We have several eye witness accounts that his face was very swollen during the time the masks were made. However this much discrepancy caused use to rethink what might be going on. As can be seen the major different in the profile image and the mask is at the bridge of the nose. The skull fits perfectly. Upon close examination of the skull you can see that it has about a 12 degree rotation towards the camera. We theorized that when Maudsley was tracing Hyrum’s image, he was not standing at a perfect 90 degree angle.

We therefore rotated the mask to match the rotation of the skull and tried another overlay. (Figure 13)

Figure 13

As can be seen from this overlay, the correlation to the Maudsley drawing is much closer with the only exception with the nose. We believe that this is because the bullet which struck Hyrum in the side of the nose which broke and deformed it.

Satisfied that we had two anatomically correct heads we placed them on the Sarnoy and Major Lithograph. (Figure 14)

Figure 14

The Sarnoy and Majors lithograph was used because it was felt to represent Joseph and Hyrum true statures. Joseph was slightly taller than Hyrum from all contemporary accounts. Some extra props and details were then added to this base painting. We desired to have them dressed in formal clothing like the other Maudsley images. This detail the artist will accomplish. We placed their top hats in their hands similar to the James Holt image. (Figure 3) In those days is was not proper to not were a hat.

And finally we have actual canes which Joseph and Hyrum used. (Figure 15 and 16)

Figure 15 One of Joseph's walking canes

Figure 16One of Hyrum's walking canes

The final touch to this painting will be the Nauvoo temple in the background. Hyrum and Joseph were murdered before it’s completion however. The walls on June 27, 1844 were just below the sunstones. We therefore will have this portrayed accurately in the painting. All of these components have come together to create a very real and historical recreation of how Joseph and Hyrum may have looked at the final hours of their lives in Nauvoo. A proposed name for the image could be, “Joseph and Hyrum, Neither Divided nor Separated!”