Richard Morris Hunt had found a kindred spirit. Although a generation older, he had spent nearly nine years studying in Paris. Like Alva, he was captivated by French art and architecture in his youth, and came to speak French so fluently that he was sometimes mistaken for a Frenchman. Moreover, he studied architecture with Hector-Martin Lefuel, official architect to the Second Empire which had so entranced Alva. Lefuel encouraged Hunt to enter the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, making him the first and only American architect of his generation to be trained there. Alva and Richard Morris Hunt were not, of course, the only people in New York who were fascinated by the opulent world of Second Empire France but between them they pioneered something new: the introduction of beaux-arts architecture to New York, a style that would define the Gilded Age and dominate the city’s architecture until the First World War.
The core idea at the heart of the beaux-arts was the conviction that the architectural ideal was classical, embracing not just Greek and Roman architecture but the French and Italian Renaissance as well. However, beaux-arts theory also looked to the future with state-of-the-art construction techniques, using modern materials such as plate glass and iron.22 Indeed the great beaux-arts buildings of New York were only possible thanks to the more remarkable inventions of the industrial revolution, such as the elevator and electric lighting, which allowed corporations to construct great edifices for large numbers of workers. One characteristic of these buildings was the way they dramatised space. According to the architectural historians Foreman and Stimson: ‘Good beaux-arts buildings have a very calculated dramatic effect … Facades and entries were held to be crucial in establishing important initial reactions to the building’s use and importance.’23 In public beaux-arts buildings such as the New York Public Library the effect was democratic – anyone gliding down its great main staircase could feel stately. Applied to domestic architecture, however, the beaux-arts philosophy had quite the opposite effect. The style provided sweeping backdrops for America’s new aristocrats in much the same way that Versailles dramatised the ancien régime. Alva would have agreed with Henry James that the secret of its appeal lay in a ‘particular type of dauntless power’.24
The first beaux-arts collaboration between Alva and Richard Morris Hunt was a house in New York to replace the brownstone house on West 44th Street that she secretly greatly disliked. The design of the new house was undeniably the outward expression of social ambition. Alva was, in effect, pioneering vertically rather than horizontally, creating a space that the aristocrats of New York would find irresistible. However, 660 Fifth Avenue can also be understood as the first great example of Hunt and Alva’s shared vision – a house designed to show American aristocracy what could be done if the great architecture of the European past was combined with the American gift for the modern in America’s own ‘Renaissance’. Alva’s vision for the Vanderbilts went even further, for she felt the family should act like Renaissance merchant princes and become great patrons of the arts. The Medicis of Florence had built houses that were not merely beautiful private residences but an outward expression of the importance of the family. They had ‘represented not only wealth but knowledge and culture, desirable elements for wealth to encourage …’ If the Medicis could do it, so could the Vanderbilts. ‘I preached this doctrine at home and to William H. Vanderbilt’ she wrote later.25
Persuading her father-in-law, William Henry Vanderbilt, to behave like a Medici, turned out to be surprisingly easy. Liberated from both the Commodore and the will case after 1879, he went into action in an uninhibited manner which astounded New York society, only just coming to terms with his transformation from Staten Island farmer to railroad tycoon. He needed little persuasion that the Vanderbilts should build houses that reflected the family’s wealth, and encouraged his elder son, Cornelius II, to follow suit. The settlement of the will case had the effect of a starting pistol: William H., Cornelius II and William K. all filed plans for houses along Fifth Avenue on the same day. Fifth Avenue north of 50th Street was at that time unfashionable, but by the 1880s the area would be known as ‘Vanderbilt Alley’, setting a tone for sumptuous development in New York for the rest of the century.
660 Fifth Avenue was not the largest of the three houses (the others were at 640 and 1 West 57th Street) but it was certainly the most audacious. Alva drew gasps from her in-laws when she presented her plans to them in 1879:
I knew that they were more elaborate and would have a somewhat staggering effect on the family group. Nor was I mistaken. When the paper was unrolled and they all saw the pretentious plans of a house which would cover almost a city block there was a unanimous gasp from the assembly. With much elation I carefully explained the drawing, elaborating all the details and enjoying the effect on my audience. After a while my father-in-law said crisply: ‘Well, well, where do you expect to get the money for all this?’ ‘From you’ I answered instantly, giving him an affectionate slap on the back. The rest sat appalled at my temerity. To them it was like being families with Established Power. My father-in-law laughed and the money for the house came.26
660 Fifth Avenue, designed by Richard Morris Hunt for Alva and William K., would become a New York landmark for decades. Based on the sixteenth-century chateau of Blois on the Loire, out of Chenonceau, it also enjoyed fifteenth-century French Gothic accents, and marked a clear turning point for Hunt as he finally slipped his American architectural moorings. Suggesting that Sleeping Beauty’s castle had somehow landed from outer space on Fifth Avenue, its dominant feature was a three-storey tourelle by the entrance. There were gargoyles, flying buttresses and gables. The designs for this house, a masterpiece of aristocratic image-making, suggested something more complex than straightforward conspicuous consumption, or even aristocratic emulation – though both were an important part of its make-up. The most striking note of all was an unmistakeable flight from reality. In Richard Morris Hunt’s conceptual watercolour for 660 Fifth Avenue, ghostly figures inhabited a fairy-tale palace; drawings for other rooms, such as the Supper Room, were peopled by tiny Renaissance princes.27 In 660 Fifth Avenue, it was as if a deliberate decision had been taken to turn an aristocratic back on the drab, poverty-stricken world a few blocks away – a world into which one could fall so easily without a safety net. This sense of withdrawal to a magical past was a new departure for American architecture; it would make its own contribution to the growing sense of division between rich and poor in New York and it would be copied to the point of pastiche by the early-twentieth century.
Although New York’s architects generally approved of 660 Fifth Avenue, and admired its originality, reaction from New York society was mixed. The pale Indiana limestone of its exterior marked a decisive break with the ugliness of brownstone houses. Every block of limestone was tooled – worked over by a hand chisel. The facades were covered with a riot of rich and decorative carving which caused great consternation: ‘This radical departure from the accepted brown-stone front raised a storm of criticism among my friends,’ wrote Alva. ‘O these whippings from parents and society when the child or adult wishes to be a person and not a member of a mass.’28 (Readers of Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence may remember that Catherine Mingott’s decision to build a pale, cream-coloured house also marked her out as a morally courageous eccentric.) While she was away in Europe, Alva received a stream of alarmed letters telling her that carvings ‘of naked boys and girls’ were appearing on the rooftop. ‘They failed to see, as many, fatally tainted by Puritanism still fail to see, the exquisite beauty of the human form and of its significance in connection with the special period we were trying to represent,’29 she commented.
Even to those who could take the psychological strain, the interior was almost overwhelming, dominated by spaces intended to dramatise the authority and economic power of the Vanderbilts. The dining room was 80-feet long, 28-feet wide and 35-feet high, had two colossal Renaissance fireplaces and a stained-glass window depicting a scene from the meeting of Henry VIII
and Francis I at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. The sweeping grand stairway of Caen stone to the second floor was a tour de force of trophies, fruit, masks and cherubs. The entrance hall measured 60 feet and was lined with carvings and tapestries. The dominant theme may have been illusion and flight from reality but the translation of the remains of France’s ancien régime to this new American interior was real enough. It had all been masterminded by the French firm, Jules Allard et Fils, who would come to specialise in importing architectural salvage, artefacts and paintings directly from the houses of ruined French aristocrats for the houses of plutocratic aristocrats in the United States. The William K. Vanderbilts’ paintings not only included Rembrandt’s ‘Man in Oriental Costume’, and Gainsborough’s ‘Mrs Elliot’, but François Boucher’s spectacular ‘Toilet of Venus’. This came to Alva’s boudoir – indirectly – from the boudoir of Madame de Pompadour; and at least one fine secretaire came from the apartments of Marie Antoinette herself.
As late as 1882, Mrs Astor was still refusing to acknowledge the Vanderbilts formally. Her attitude was increasingly irrational for leaving aside Alva’s claims to southern gentility, Cornelius II had married Alice Claypoole Gwynn in 1867 (whose great-great-grandfather was Abraham Claypoole, a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell), and in 1881 William K.’s sister, Lila, married William Seward Webb, whose grandfather had been an aide to George Washington. Both William Henry and Cornelius II, head of the family elect, were building fine houses and lived lives of unimpeachable luxoriousness. However, Mrs Astor’s strength of feeling on this matter may have been reinforced by two Vanderbilt upsets in the same year. One came about as a result of William Henry Vanderbilt remarking: ‘The public be damned!’ in answer to a reporter’s question about running a Pennsylvania train for the public benefit. Some maintain that William Henry was simply defending the interests of shareholders as he had every right to do, but he was universally excoriated for this jest, and the image of a Vanderbilt as a boorish robber-baron was successfully dangled before the public once again by his opponents. The scandal surrounding the unfortunate Cornelius Jeremiah was worse. After the Commodore’s death he became obsessed with funding his addiction to gambling. In 1882 he shot himself in the Glenham Hotel in New York, leaving debts of over $15,000. An undignified auction of his belongings compounded the disgrace of a family suicide.
Undaunted, Alva and William K. pressed on with their entrée to New York’s social elite. A charming and energetic couple, about to take possession of a huge and dazzling house which would flatter the ambitions and pretensions of New York’s gratin, they were already being asked to the best parties. In spite of family scandals they were invited to a Patriarchs’ ball in 1882 and another early in 1883. As 660 Fifth Avenue neared completion, they started to plan a house-warming party of their own. The Vanderbilt ball, as it came to be known, has gone down in the annals of party history. In deciding to hold it in March 1883, and to send out 1,600 invitations, Alva and William K. must have calculated that to a very great extent, society’s resistance to the Vanderbilts was already collapsing. They knew that the elite of New York was agog with curiosity over 660 Fifth Avenue; they made sure that society understood that the ball would be like no other in terms of expense and display; and Alva shrewdly reduced the social risk to invitees (and herself) by giving the party in honour of her old friend, Consuelo Yznaga, now Viscountess Mandeville, knowing full well that the presence of a real aristocrat would overcome residual hesitation – a manoeuvre she would repeat in the future. This left the problem of Mrs Astor.
The story goes that Alva used the ball to outwit Mrs Astor, who had not, in March 1883, been persuaded to relax her Vanderbilt-denying ordinance. This may have been because of recent scandals; possibly because she still thought the Vanderbilts remained a symbol of the dangers of vulgar wealth; and probably because she had anathematised them in the past and was in no hurry to back down. Her daughter, Carrie, on the other hand, was closer in age to the William K. Vanderbilts and enjoyed parties given by younger ‘swells’. She looked forward to being asked to the Vanderbilts’ house-warming ball, and even started to rehearse quadrilles with her friends. It then transpired that there could be no invitation because, according to the etiquette of the day, Mrs Astor had to call on Mrs Vanderbilt before Alva could invite Miss Carrie Astor to the ball. Such was the distress of Miss Carrie Astor that Mrs Astor’s maternal love overcame her pride. She relented, made the call and an invitation was forthcoming.
This story has long been called into question. There is no doubt that the ball was planned with an element of calculated risk and that Alva wished Mrs Astor to grace it with her presence. There is no doubt that Mrs Astor only called on Alva for the first time shortly before the ball. However, Alva and Mrs Astor sat together on the executive committee of the Bartholdi Pedestal Fund,30 and the Vanderbilts had already attended two Patriarchs’ balls, which would have been impossible without Mrs Astor’s implicit approval. It is more than likely that if there had been no ball, Mrs Astor would have called on Alva soon after she moved into her new house – at the moment when, as one wag put it, the Vanderbilts had finished Vanderbuilding. The ball simply acted as a catalyst for Mrs Astor’s public acknowledgement as Alva hoped it might.
Once the invitations had been sent out, it is perfectly possible that Carrie Astor appealed to her mother to speed things up and that Ward McAllister sensed that it would be better for Mrs Astor to acknowledge the Vanderbilts formally if she wished to stay abreast of the Zeitgeist and avoid looking foolish. The story that Alva deliberately outwitted Mrs Astor is too crude, however. In one sense she had done that long before when she started to plan 660 with Richard Morris Hunt. The end result was the same, however. It only took a brief glimpse of the interior of 660 Fifth Avenue to reassure the Queen of Society that Mr and Mrs William K. Vanderbilt were fine upstanding examples of the civilised ‘money power’31 which she and Ward McAllister so wished to encourage. ‘We have no right,’ she commented in 1883, ‘to exclude those whom the growth of this great country has brought forward, provided they are not vulgar in speech or appearance. The time has come for the Vanderbilts.’32
Proust’s remark that parties do not really happen until the day afterwards when the uninvited read about them in the newspapers is only partly true of the Vanderbilt ball. This party was a wild success before it ever took place. Not only did Mrs Astor finally capitulate, but the ball was the principal subject of discussion for weeks beforehand among the prospective guests. It was a fancy-dress ball, of course, in the spirit of make-believe and flight from reality that characterised the house; and the elite of society happily collaborated. ‘Every artist in the city was set to work to design novel costumes – to produce something in the way of a fancy dress that would make its wearer live ever after in history,’33 wrote Ward McAllister with a characteristic sense of proportion. Alva was deeply gratified by the time and energy expended by hundreds of guests on their outfits, which took weeks of work by New York’s best dressmakers and couturiers. The degree of focus, effort and cost expended could only be seen as a compliment to the new generation of civilised Vanderbilts and marked out their elevation to the apex of society just as clearly as any endorsement from Mrs Astor.
In Alva’s view, the male guests at the ball were, if anything, ‘more brilliantly and perfectly turned out than the women’.34 The invitation certainly sent some of them into a great sartorial tizzy. On the day of the party Ward McAllister was obliged to recruit extra helpers to get him dressed, ‘two sturdy fellows on either side of me holding up a pair of leather trunks, I on a step-ladder, one mass of powder, descending into them, an operation consuming an hour’.35 Another male guest, Augustus Gurney, never managed to resolve his outfit crisis. He went home in the middle of the ball and changed, disappearing as a Moldavian chieftain and re-appearing as a Turkish pasha.
It was, said Alva modestly, ‘the most brilliant ball ever given in New York’.36 It was certainly one of the more surreal. Don Carl
os chatted away over supper with Little Bo Peep; Mary Stuart was seen in conversation with Neapolitan fishermen and a Capuchin monk; a plethora of Hungarian hussars mingled with several representatives of the French Bourbons; and the Cornelius Vanderbilts stood for both past and future with Cornelius as Louis XVI and Alice as ‘Electric Light’, in a costume that intermittently lit up, courtesy of batteries secreted in her pockets. Curiously, both Alva and Mrs Astor appeared as Venetian noblewomen, and were seen chatting amiably and publicly on the stairs. Alva’s dress was made of white satin embroidered in gold, with a velvet mantle, and a diadem of diamonds. Many of the costumes, including Lady Mandeville’s as Queen Maria Theresa of Austria, came posthaste from Paris. Perhaps most interesting of all, William K. was dressed as François I in doublet and hose, bearing a remarkable resemblance to the small princely figure whom Richard Morris Hunt once inserted into his earliest designs for the Supper Room.
That evening, the involvement of the guests in the success of the party went further than turning up in elaborate costumes and acknowledging that the Vanderbilts had ‘arrived’. The other huge compliment paid to the hosts was the trouble taken over the quadrilles, which became the high point of the evening. Quadrilles were square dances in five movements which had become elaborate fixtures at society balls, for they were danced in costumes designed round a theme, and took weeks of organisation and rehearsal by teams of guests beforehand. The six quadrilles at the Vanderbilt ball exceeded anything that had ever been seen before, danced by over a hundred of the Vanderbilts’ friends.
Consuelo and Alva Vanderbilt Page 7