Who On Earth Is Isaac Keeley? (John H. Keeley)
- - -
Biographical information about this Massachusetts man is minimal. He was a traveling folk painter, like so many, who left a swath of beautiful portraits in his wake. Most of his surviving works have lost the artist’s name, but retain their centuries-old charm. Before I knew him as Keeley, he lived in my notes as “Probably a big-name, but not Peckham.” Unfortunately, he’s not a big-name. He’s barely known at all.
For months, I’d been plagued by a pair of portraits that looked suspiciously similar:
But there was never a match. Until, one day, at last, in the Five Colleges database, I ran across “Isaac H. Keeley” (1817-1891). The case was about to crack.
Little is known about the artist Isaac (or Josiah) Keeley. he was probably a native of Haverhill, Massachusetts, and worked in Bradford, Massachusetts, in the 1850's. Several portraits have been attributed to Keeley; however, very few are signed.
I immediately looked up Keeley elsewhere – and voila, an attribution key turned up: this marvelous signed portrait of the Bradford Children, found in the Frick Digital Collections. It’s signed “I.H. Keeley Pinxt” (“Painted”), and the children’s names are preserved, thanks to a 1946 note from the daughter of the oldest sitter (a fascinating commentary on the passage of time). It provides all the clues we need to spot Keeley’s style: the sweet, well-rendered faces, with their placid, likeable smiles, and the signature cloth drapery, with detailed, thick wrinkles. The children look invariably pleasant and cooperative, perhaps a bit of artistic license.
The Bradford Children portrait’s current whereabouts are unknown, but thanks to them, we have the perfect guide to that trademark “Keeley face.” The Haverhill Public Library’s digital archive tells us a bit more about the painting and its young subjects:
Framed painting of Charlotte Peabody Kimball, Edgar Leroy Kimball, and Catherine Anna Kimball as children... Inscription on verso: "From Miss Grace N. Kimball's estate. 3 of the children of Mr. & Mrs. Daniel B. Kimball of Bradford / Charlotte Peabody Kimball b. Apr 24 1839 / Edgar Leroy Kimball b. Dec 6 1844 / Catherine Kimball b. Aug 8 1846 / Signed 'I. H. Keeley - [illegible]' / Portrait now owned by Charlotte Nichols Greene / 6 Chestnut St Boston / 19th August 1947 / Isaac H. Keeley."
A quick search for Charlotte Peabody Kimball Nichols in Familysearch confirms the birth and death dates of the sitters, dating the painting to the late 1840s or so. I don’t excel at guessing children’s ages, but based on young Katharine, it strikes me that c. 1848-50 would be a fair estimate. And there is a wonderful old photograph, frame and all:
(Courtesy of the Trustees of the Haverhill Public Library, Special Collections, Haverhill, MA)
Unfortunately, the Bradford children haven’t been photographed in color - but there are a few other notable signed Keeley children, dating to the later 1850s: Miss Maria Frances Dodge (1853), and Young Boy in a Landscape (1856). The rich colors add a necessary further visual reference point, as well as showcasing the artist’s ability to produce a nice landscape, creating a diorama to flatter the young subjects.
However, as beautiful as the paintings are, they still tell us nothing about the artist himself. I’ll confess, I first wrote this article about the paintings only, with the intention to fill in Keeley’s biographical info some other time. But it felt incomplete, and I was obliged to find out more. The well of information ran suspiciously dry.
I tried all the possible permutations of his name – Keeley, Keely, Kelly, Kelley… but every research effort stopped short. Groce & Wallace, the definitive artist dictionary from 1957, mentions only two paintings – one of which is our children from Bradford. “Isaac Keeley” was nowhere to be found. It wasn’t looking good.
What now?
At last, I came across a miraculously useful resource: this database, which links directly to the newspaper archives of every small town in Massachusetts… one at a time. And, in my desperate search through the Adams Free Library, I stumbled across a record (July 13, 1865) declaring the arrival of “J.S. (sic) Keeley, the painter.”
Further down the page is an exact description of a Keeley painting I already knew – the portrait of “the founder of Adams National Bank,” sold in 2009, recently identified as William E. Brayton thanks to those Frick records. Here he is:
And there he is:
The “S” notwithstanding, it seemed obvious that the Adams News and Transcript was talking about our very own artist, Keeley. And – right there in the same newspaper from June 22nd, 1865 – is JOHN H. KEELEY.
With his “splendid life-size portraits,” who else could it be? The mysterious absence of Mr. “Isaac” H. Keeley has an explanation: these paintings have been misnamed since at least 1957. We now have proof that they are the work of John H. Keeley. And it makes sense; the various Keeley signature examples (1, 2, 3) are initials only. None of them actually say “Isaac.” I don’t even know where Groce and Wallace got that. In hindsight, it's a clear J.
Fortunately, now that his real name has turned up, along with several signed paintings, we can embark on a journey to confirm all the lost Keeleys scattered about the internet. And we must. There are so many!
All of those Keeleys have been sold under accidental masquerades — including Joseph Whiting Stock, Joseph Goodhue Chandler, and other Massachusetts natives. And, possibly most egregiously of all, the Kentucky painter William Carroll Saunders (sometimes spelled Sanders). Here’s a handy sample of a Saunders work, courtesy of the Kentucky Historical Society: a portrait of Laura Estill, c. 1867, age 17(?!). She looks exceptionally striking and distinctively middle-aged. Perhaps the sitter has been misidentified, or they just don’t do teenage fashion like they used to.
Now here, in contrast, is an alleged Saunders “Portrait of a Southern Mother and her Two Daughters.”
The catalog text goes to great trouble to justify this attribution:
A Mobile, Alabama artist who exhibited at the National Academy, William Carroll Sanders was particularly well-known for his portraits of children, which were considered both well-rendered and insightful. In the painting offered here, Sanders creates an intimate portrayal of a mother and her two daughters with a lovely backdrop of a curtained window. The mother holds a book and her older daughter carries a pink rose, symbols of their education and gentility. The older daughter's hand rests gently on the mother's shoulder, while the younger daughter intertwines her arms with her mother, presenting a united and loving depiction of a family group.
It does sound good. But let’s check back in with our Keeley identification key:
Image resolution notwithstanding, it couldn’t be clearer. There’s something pleasingly Mona Lisa-esque about Keeley’s presentation of his subjects, especially the girl on the left, with that slight, inscrutable, enigmatic smile. Those attributes appear more commonly in his adult sitters than the very small children, who are often assigned a more blandly pleasant expression. (Again that bit about artistic license.)
It’s actually possible to reverse the chain of custody on that “Mother and Two Daughters” portrait. It was sold in 2018 by Neal Auction Company, in Louisiana, under the Southern moniker. But just a year before, it was sold in Skinner’s 2017 “August Americana,” a Massachusetts auction. Skinner called it “Portrait of Three Sisters” instead! (Which, by the way, seems vastly likelier, considering the age of the sitters, unless adoption was involved - but the trio looks so much alike.) So why the misnomer, just a year later?
As it turns out, Artnet and askArt have 2007 listings for an alleged “William Carroll Saunders” painting, also sold by Neal Auction Company. That’s a Keeley, too. Perhaps someone at Neal recognized the similarity between the hands: placed side by side, it’s difficult to miss. But it was believed that was a “Saunders,” and so the next one must be a “Saunders,” too.
Upon comparison, it is hard to imagine this as anything other than a (John H.) Keeley. But it seems no one knew Keeley. This is how it happens. Misattributions rip through this field like wildfire, leading to innocently compounded errors that spiral out of control. The real artists’ names and lives are lost in the process, washed away by time.
And I would be remiss not to mention the difference in purchase prices. As “Saunders,” the three young ladies were worth $4,880. Just a year before, they were snatched up for $450. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.
Returning to the 2007 Neal sale, we can see that the earlier portrait sold for an eye-watering $20,000. And that catalog text again, makes great effort to place the two sisters under the “Saunders” umbrella, wrongly:
…This charming portrait of two young girls, from that time, has the deeply rich and warm coloration which defines Saunders' ante-bellum style... What little we know of Saunders is made all the more intriguing by the quality of his work. Like many itinerant artists of the old South he had the abilities of a "messenger of style", a painter whose grand ambitions in the European manner resulted in works of great charm. The history of painting in the South would be all the richer if additional discovery of his work is made.
It was written in good faith, I have no question, but this is an artist of the North, not the South, in an era when this might make a difference. And how would Keeley have possibly felt about this mix-up? There’s no way of knowing; none of Keeley’s opinions are on the record (unlike Peckham, for instance). Many itinerant painters of the North were known abolitionists, who encountered a broad range of cultures and individuals throughout their travels. However, since there are no universal standards about these artists’ beliefs, we can’t make any assumptions.
Of course, Southern artists were also simply trying to make their living in troubled times. Nonetheless, art does not exist in a vacuum. One of Saunders’ other portrait subjects, Lelia Jane McCrary Otts of Alabama, married the man who preached the first sermon to the Confederate troops at Fort Sumter. Perhaps Saunders’ other works are representative of “the history of painting in the South.” But surely this random family in Massachusetts has no relation at all. That whole catalog entry from the 2007 sale is a testament to how, in the early American portraiture field, mistakes and misattributions are reinforced with great conviction and accepted without question.
Now that we know Keeley’s real first name, and a broad outline of his movements in Massachusetts and Vermont, it is my hope that biographical research on John H. Keeley will be more feasible. There is one newspaper article, dating to 2014, that lightly touches upon the broad outlines of the life of “Isaac Keeley,” but this is little more than what we know about any average portraitist:
Keeley, who signed the back of the portrait acquired by the Fort Edward museum, was born in 1817, possibly in Haverhill, Mass. Many of his works were not signed, but Keeley… was a hard-working portrait artist, primarily in Massachusetts. He was active in Bradford, Mass., in the 1850s, but Bates found records of Keeley — sometimes spelled “Keely” — beyond the “Bay State,” including an 1877 purchase by the New York City Board of Alderman and a commission in Vermont.
Despite the gap in information, I found an unexpected source of historical clarity on Keeley's whereabouts: the portraits of the Brackett family, of Newton, Massachusetts.
These paintings of Mary Elizabeth and Caroline Brackett (left) and Georgiana Brackett (right) were sold as consecutive lots at Skinner’s March 2017 “American Furniture & Decorative Arts”. (Yes, 2017 at Skinner, again - could the “Three Sisters” have been another escaped Brackett family portrait?) Both Mary Elizabeth & Caroline and Georgiana come with a charming bit of provenance:
Reportedly painted by an itinerant artist who boarded at the home of Charles and Lucy Gay Brackett on Waverly Ave. in Newton, Massachusetts, for a year. Apparently, there were portraits painted of all nine children and a full-length portrait of the parents.
That “itinerant artist” must have been John H. Keeley himself. This is a useful insight into his working methods and the traveling lifestyle of a professional portrait painter. Other artists were known to have stayed with families for months on end while completing elaborate commissions, such as Deacon Robert Peckham painting the Farwell Children. But an entire year is particularly impressive. Presumably, Keeley must have had a pleasant disposition and good business acumen in order to secure an arrangement for such an extensive stay. And a string of ten commissions must have been spectacularly expensive! Biographical research into the Bracketts partly explains the source of their wealth: in the 1850 census, Charles Brackett was listed as a “butcher,” but in the 1855 census, he was a “provisions dealer.” One wonders what sort of provisions.
Moving along to two more mislabeled Keeleys, this time sadly nameless: a “Manner of Joseph Whiting Stock” (a tenuous but acceptable category) and an outright “Joseph Whiting Stock” (no.)
Interestingly, that’s almost the exact same floor pattern. Could these two children be siblings, painted in the same home? If so, it’s a nice little puzzle piece put together. In fact, given the ten-year gap between sales (2013 and 2023), these portraits might never have been placed side-by-side, if not for these Keeley studies. There is no greater art historical joy than reuniting a lost pair of paintings, or better yet, a whole group.
Alas, there’s no other information on either of J.H. Keeley’s young sitters. And the paintings, while both unquestionable examples of the recognizable “Keeley face,” show a bit of stylistic difference — the girl on the right looks slightly chronologically later, in terms of refinement, complexity, and rendering. However, we may be misled by skillful restoration. An earlier image of the girl’s painting, sold years before, shows it in far poorer shape. If the two portraits are related, we can only guess at the reasons for the disparity in technique. Perhaps the children’s parents, like the Bracketts, were returning customers of Keeley’s portrait services.
(For the sake of clarity, here’s a refresher course on legitimate Joseph Whiting Stocks: John and Louisa Stock, and Thomas Henry and Wilbur Fisk Stock, the nieces and nephews of the artist. Not the same hand as Keeley, nor could the two be mistaken under close scrutiny. But to certain eyes, every charming folk portrait of a child is a “Whiting Stock,” just as every portrait of an adult is an “Ammi Phillips” or a “William Matthew Prior.” Be cautious with “attributions.” But I digress…)
And now, another indisputable John H. Keeley: this portrait of Dwight and Mary Baldwin, of Westborough, Massachusetts. Like many Keeleys, it is nearly monumental in scale (46 x 36; another common dimension is 36 x 29, and rarely, 50 x 40.) And it was - guess what - yet another Skinner sale (2023). Like so many other Keeleys, Dwight & Mary showcase the artist's trademark subtle smiles, large eyes, faintly furrowed brows, and elegantly elongated limbs. The portrait also features distinctively thick folds of cloth with deep shadows, rendered in richly painted colors that have stood the test of time. Keeley certainly knew his paints and how to use them.
As mentioned, the similarities to Mary Elizabeth and Caroline Brackett are particularly clear. Note the meticulous attention to detail on the pages of the open books. Part of why I love Keeley’s work is that there is just so much to look at. And, even more intriguingly, a closer glimpse at the second image shows the artist’s changes of mind, adjusting the position and size of the sisters’ book.
Keeley’s skill with flowers is consistently exceptional, leading me to wonder if he may have had some ability or history as a botanical illustrator. But there is no record of that just yet. The best I can do is to continue to collect Keeley listings and hope enlightening material turns up someday.
Here’s one more: an alleged “Joseph Goodhue Chandler,” sold in 2022 by New England Auctions. Unfortunately, it gained its misattribution recently, promoted from “American School” in 2019. Nevertheless, a “Chandler” mislabel is nowhere near the most egregious of mistakes. At least that artist was also from Massachusetts. And this mishap makes a small bit of sense when considering the ubiquitous unfamiliarity with John Keeley’s style (until now.)
It’s a beautiful work, in a rare painted oval. In fact, at the time of this writing, there are very few other oval portraits in the Keeley section of my American portrait database wiki. Among the most unusual are an (alleged) self-portrait, and a companion portrait of (possibly) his wife. (Notably, the age depicted does not seem to match Mary Ann Keeley's age of death, an untimely 49.) These were evidently painted later in the sitters’ lives, and they beautifully showcase the easygoing, positive dispositions of Keeley’s portrait subjects.
Chronologically, these are among the latest signed, inscribed, and otherwise certified J.H. Keeleys. Meanwhile, the very first pair, dating to 1846, are a woman and man de-acquisitioned in 2022 from Dartmouth’s Hood Museum of Art. These two are just so endearingly pleasant and intrinsically likeable.
Best of all, the pair provides a fantastic proven reference point for Keeley’s manner of depicting mature subjects. There are far more unattributed or misattributed child portraits, but now and then, an adult slips by, too - like this alleged "Prior-Hamblin School," of all things.
And I would be remiss not to include existing official “Isaac” Keeley attributions, all while making my own attributions, too. The following portrait is attributed to Keeley — very correctly (except for the first name) — and resides at the Smith College Museum of Art. In fact, it’s the very same portrait I stumbled across on the Five Colleges database, sparking this whole research quest.
With a critical mass of J.H. Keeley kids compiled, we can extrapolate and consider one more portrait, soon to be sold at Sotheby’s Important Americana 2025. Formerly attributed to Joseph Whiting Stock (perhaps on the basis of containing a child), I suggested it could be Keeley. To my astonishment and delight, the re-attribution was quickly accepted! However, since then, I’ve agonized over the difficulty of proving a Keeley and the absence of solid scholarship. One would hate to be responsible for perpetuating an error, and it is outright impossible to know any attribution with 100% certainty, save for the discovery of a signature. But this painting is so vastly likelier to be a J.H. Keeley than anything approaching a Whiting Stock, and I still feel confident standing by the proposal (except for the artist’s rediscovered first name). Out of all our myriad Keeleys discussed in this article, the boys in the painted oval and the Smith College children make the strongest comparative basis. The evidence is clearest in the soft, rich tones of of the creased fabric, and above all, the typical Keeley treatment of the lips and nose, which is exceptionally distinctive in its smoothly modeled rendering.
The more I thought about this artist, the more I realized, with the fortunate Sotheby's re-attribution, the name of Keeley has unexpectedly come to the forefront of Americana. And so, I owe it to the artist — and to you, the reader — to present all of my new John H. Keeley findings in some sort of orderly manner, now and in the future. As demonstrated, there are already dozens of Keeleys hiding right under our noses, and no doubt, many more yet to come.
Hopefully, someday, we will have a similar breakthrough about the life of the artist himself. For now, all Frick can tell us is that “Mr. Keeley,” in 1843, charged Nathaniel Pierce a whopping $135 for a singular portrait!
Perhaps somebody misplaced a decimal point long ago. (For comparison, James S. Hathaway charged $10 apiece.) At those exorbitant rates, one shudders to imagine the cost of all ten of those Brackett family portraits over the year. Hopefully, Keeley at least had the courtesy of paying rent!
Thanks for reading, and see you next time. If you have seen a Keeley painting, or anything resembling his style, please send in a picture: emilyesser1@gmail.com
—
You may have noticed that throughout the article, I’ve linked to informational pages on the American Folk Portraits Wiki Database. This project is still “in beta,” and is far from complete; I have not formally announced it on my blog or anywhere else. But the system itself is thankfully now in working order, and if you would like to take a look at the current version under construction, the link is here: https://americanfolkportraits.miraheze.org/
