har- nessed water for irrigation purposes. In this vein, the Evening Post remarked appreciatively: This is the most stupendous mass of masonry we have ever seen, or which probably exists in this country .... the walls are strengthened by pilasters on each corner . . . and by one at the center of each side While a few published views, such as Nathaniel Currier's 1842 lithograph View of the Distributing Reservoir on Murray's Hill — City of New York, used scale and stark composition to emphasize its magnitude, others, such as J. Bornet's 1850 lithograph Croton [Distributing] Reservoir (figure 49) focused on the more rural aspects of that part of Manhattan. The Dam, as well, symbolized the technological power of the Aqueduct. In confining the forces of nature, it likely invoked fear- some feelings of the sublime so desired in landscape paintings of the period. Yet popular imagery did not really exploit the potentially sublime drama of the image. Especially since the first dam had flooded, views of tourists enjoying strolls along the grassy banks of the sturdy structure — such as in the engraved frontispiece to King's book, from Havell's painting — may have seemed more appropriate and reassuring. With the completion of High Bridge in 1848, artists and the public alike got an extraordinary arcadian view of the Aqueduct. As early as 1843, Tower had noted that High Bridge "... will be the most interest- ing work on the whole line of the Aqueduct, and in appearance rival the grandeur of similar works of the Ancient Romans. "^^ Ironically, the "grandeur " of High Bridge related to a controversy surrounding its design. The Water Commissioners, though acknowledging the High Bridge's superior visual appeal, had approved John B. Jervis' lower structure: "... as far as architectural display is involved, the high bridge has the preference. "^^ State Legislators had overruled them, however, specifying greater height and width of the arches. Lobbyists were mainly concerned with ensuhng future navigation possibilities on the Harlem River; others objected that the homely low bridge would negatively affect local scenery. One anonymous individual, in a letter to the New York American, noted that the low bridge would "deprive the work of all that would render it an ornament to the city and the age in which we live. "3° Anticipating his requirement to build the more difficult and expensive structure, Jervis remarked: "I cannot say ... that I regret this as you know Engineers are prone to gratify a taste for the magnificent when there is a good reason for the execu- tion of prominent works. "^^ Featured in Hill's watercolor, numerous popular engravings and, later, postcards and stereographs. High Bridge captured the public imagination. Around 1860, the Hudson River School artist David Johnson explored it in two oil paintings which continued the pas- toral theme. Art historian Gwendolyn Owens has discussed Johnson's fascination with natural and man-made bridges at this time, and suggested his possible nationalistic motives for showing that the American landscape had its share of picturesque architec- tural details. Johnson, she states, used the Bridge as an integral compositional element of the scenes, "not as an interruption in the natural order. "^^ In the larger work, two diminutive figures serve the function of directing our gaze toward the distant arches forming a central horizontal line, set off by the diagonal of the foreground hill- figure 49, above: J. Bornet, Croton [Distributing] Reservoir, 1850, published by J. Hoff, colored lithograph Courtesy The J. Clarence Davies Collection, Museum ol the City of New York. 29.100.2103 figure 50, right: David Johnson. Harlem River Aqueduct. 1860. oil on canvas Courtesy private collection side (figure 50). In the smalier vertical study, two figures at the opposite bank of the river contemplate the quiet outdoor scene (cover illustration). After the Civil War, even when New York City began to realize that simply expanding the original Aqueduct would not fulfill its growing needs, the High Bridge remained a popular image and recreational destination. Even as the metropolitan area quickly developed after the mid-19th century, most regional painters con- tinued to focus on pastoral conventions, depicting the landscape with renewed impetus from the style and subject matter of the French Barbizon artists, who painted the rural landscape directly from nature. Charles Henry Miller's painterly study of High Bridge (c.1873, Walter and Lucille Rubin, not in exhibition) reflected these sensibilities, emphasizing the rural and picturesque character of the area; yet he also depicted the "traffic" along the Westchester 54 side. Miller developed the composition into a monumental canvas which he entered in the 1875 National Academy of Design exhibi- tion (figure 51). It was chosen for display in a prominent position and contributed in large part to his election as a full member; in 1876, his audience became international when