« AnkstesnisTęsti »
In the British pavilion they have not "claimed Whistler," but if they should take from their "line" the two Sargents, the large Abbey, the exquisite J. J. Shannon, and the Mark Fisher landscape, there would be sad gaps, and hard to fill. Sargent and Abbey and McLure Hamilton and Mrs. Merritt, -and the "Sarasate" Whistler, besides, -are among the American exhibits; but that English art gains not a little from the "colonial" strain I think even the insular critic will allow.
rous spirit of the lenders and at the enterprise of the Commissioner-General, Sir Isidore Spielmann, whose tact and skill are thus manifested. Besides this, there is a group of the English Preraphaelite school surprising to those already acquainted with the range of that movement.
That all these costly works should have found their way into a temporary building in distant Rome is a tribute to the British Board of Trade, under whose long-headed management the English government
places the exhibition of British art in foreign lands, a hint not too remote from our own trade interests to be safely ignored.
THE Italians in the cafés, when the enchanting Roman twilight brings everybody outdoors for a sip and a gossip, say they like the big, straining, purple oxen of the German Zügel. He appeals to them by a theatric show of brute force perhaps because they have it not. there is a good deal of strength in the German work, not always well restrained, not always beautiful, but especially evident when it is contrasted with the English prettiness. Though there are many more German artists represented than in the collection made by Mr. Reisinger for the Metropolitan Museum, I could not feel that numbers added to quality, and I am inclined to think Mr. Reisinger's choice rather representative. The note is of sadness rather than of cheer and hope. The color is somber even in those examples that deal with outdoors; and if evidence of this were wanting, I could point to the walls of cool gray, which to me denote limitations. Pictures of fresh and healthy color demand a red or warm background. But the installation of both pictures and sculpture is charming, and the
bronze sculpture of Germany is noteworthy for its delineation of human character.
They have in Europe a different view of a picture-show from that which prevails with us. Their idea is that you must publicly expose works of art as if they formed the decorations of a dwellinghouse. They put up small galleries in the semblance of rooms, and subordinate the pictures and sculpture to the total effect.
This is made manifest in its most agreeable form in the Austrian pavilion, where the walls are spotted white and the frames harmonize with the prevailing tone. Nothing prettier is conceivable than these cool, dainty chambers in the style of "l'art nouveau," but the pictures for which they are a setting are another story. There are one two vigorous portraits like Mehoffer's and Rudolf Bacher's which might hang anywhere, and which do overcome the difficult background; but the decorations of Gustav Klimt give impulse to all else and make necessary the white walls; and these creations are indeed odd. On first view they impress you as huge, fresh-colored tiles in their Della-Robbialike clearness of hue; but as you penetrate their form, you discover figures with limbs that are doing things, and visages that are looking things, that require a key. The
portraits gaze out at you from faces quite beautiful, but immeshed in arabesques of pure color which fail to describe themselves. One or two American artists who were with me were fascinated by the rather affected simplicity of the installation and the illogical, dreamlike decorations, but to me these works are only another manifestation of Europe's artistic despair.
So it is with the decorations and the indecorous sculpture of Servia, and with the untamed, though less pretentious, art of Russia. But one would expect other things from France, the foster-mother of modern art, the liberal and unselfish instructress of us all. She has been the missionary of taste and technic, and she has won for her unsparing altruism the gratitude of the world.
But what can it mean? You go into a rather bizarre building between groups of sculpture which by their absence of grace and of clothes set the key for the walls within. The exhibits are presumably the production of the years 1901-11, but you are importuned at once by the great canvas (both in size and in quality) "Portrait de Mademoiselle H." which Carolus-Duran exhibited at the Philadelphia "Centennial" in 1876. Again and again you wonder where the French art of the day has got itself hung, and why that of other days is not of a better sort. There are notably good things like those of Léon Felix and Guillonnet, and passably bad ones like Detaille's and La Touche's, but the total sensation is one of pain, and you ask yourself, Is it the incipiency of decay,
or is it officialism? And no answer is vouchsafed.
IF you stand in the evening at the top of the great stairway that, between playing fountains, leads down into the valley in front of the Italian Palace of Art, you will see across the lovely, level shadows of the Roman twilight the red Japanese building on its hilltop, under the umbrellalike stone-pine, and the white fronts of England and Germany and Hungary, while to your right will rise the orange walls of Russia and the gray of Belgium, and to your left white Austria, gray France, and red United States, and you will say, as I did again and again, "What could be more enchanting?" And you will avow, as I did, that the Count di San Martino, who conceived and has carried into being this noble show of the world's art, has created as beautiful a picture in the Valle Giulia as any within its walls.
Rome is itself an exposition made by history. The central exhibit is the Forum, with its dumb testaments of antiquity. In another part of the grounds are St. Peter's and the relics of medieval pathos; and then you turn a corner and are confronted with the new era and its chief exhibit, the costly and colossal monument to Victor Emmanuel II, Italy's Emancipator.
Rome is forever young as well as old, and out at the Castle of Sant' Angelo, in the Piazza d'Armi, and in the Valle Giulia you may see gathered into her withered arms the last buds on the branches of ethnology, of native architecture, and of art.
President of the American National Society and of the World's Christian Endeavor Union
On the Fourth of July, 1910, as was lar action, even Reno itself barred them
even glanced at a daily newspaper, a prize-fight took place between a white bruiser and a black one, at Reno, Nevada. Three days before that, a largely attended State Christian Endeavor Convention was held at Battle Creek, Michigan, and the following day a similar convention at Milwaukee, Wisconsin. At both of these conventions, resolutions were passed, not only against the demoralizing fight but especially against the reproduction of the fight by moving pictures, which it was well known were expected to furnish enormous financial returns.
On the fifth of July, the General Secretary of the United Society of Christian Endeavor, Mr. William Shaw, returned from these conventions to the headquarters of the society in Boston, and immediately telegraphed a night letter to the governors of the various States, and to the mayors of several leading cities. A plan of campaign against the fight pictures was also sent to the Endeavor leaders throughout the country.
The very next day the replies began to come in, and the agitation was not only country-wide but world-wide. The Associated Press sent the message to Great Britain and South Africa, Germany, India, and Australia. The matter was taken up in the British Parliament, and by the authorities in Cape Town, Berlin, Calcutta, and Melbourne.
Twenty-nine governors responded to the protests, most of them promising to do what they could to prohibit an exhibition of the pictures. The mayors of many cities in this and other countries took simi
and it is not too much to say that, within a week, the agitation thus aroused had not only largely defeated the plans of those who would make money out of the demoralization of youth, but had turned the attention of the civilized world to the abuse of the moving-picture business in general, which threatens to destroy an agency of great educational value, and pervert it to evil ends. Already action has been taken in a number of cities, seconded heartily by the respectable movingpicture syndicates, to censor these shows, and prevent not only the prize-fight from being exhibited, but other equally demoralizing stories, such as those of assassination and robbery.
I mention these facts because nothing shows more vividly the wide-spread nature of the Society of Christian Endeavor, its thorough organization, and the character of the young men connected with it. This effort was possible not only because local branches of the society, with millions of members, are found in tens of thousands of churches, but also because they are organized into unions in almost every city and town of considerable size in the United States, in Great Britain, on the continent of Europe, in Australia, in South Africa, in India, and indeed, with few exceptions, in every country in the world.
Yet this organization of the Protestant youth throughout the world has been effected so quietly and unostentatiously that very few realize that there is probably no other in the world so cosmopolitan in its character as this modest society which celebrated its thirtieth birthday in Feb
ruary, 1911. It shows also that these State and city and county unions of Christian Endeavor, which are numbered by thousands, are officered by young men and young women who are awake to the issues of the day, who are patriots as well as Christians, and who, when they see an issue that is worth while, waste no time in bringing the weight of their organization to bear upon it.
It must not be supposed, however, that the society seeks to be a universal corrector of the evils of society and State. It is appealed to a hundred times a year to take up causes which, though good in themselves, are not within the scope of such an organization. The sturdy common sense of these young people has kept them from political and other unwise alliances, and has enabled them to concentrate their efforts on reforms that were possible, pressing, and of immediate importance.
For the most part, it does its work very quietly and without observation. Every week 75,000 young people's societies hold their prayer-meetings. Every week five times as many committees in these different societies ask themselves what more they can do for the upbuilding of the church with which they are connected, or for the pastor whom they desire to help. Once a month the members of these societies come together in a special covenant meeting, when their names are called, their obligations are emphasized, and their vows of allegiance to God, their church, and their country are renewed.
Few of these efforts for spiritual uplift and social betterment are ever recorded in the newspapers.
Thirty years ago it was coming more plainly than ever to be seen that the church, if it would grow, must depend not only upon conquest from without but upon growth from within. In former days the minister and evangelist sought to turn the calloused feet of hardened sinners into the way of truth, rather than the tender feet of the little child. The thought of the church as an army rather than a home, or as a hospital for the decrepit and the diseased rather than as a nursery, dominated the religious thought of the centuries; and it was not until Bushnell wrote his epoch-making book on "Christian Nurture" that the modern religious world began to see that there must be
more training within as well as more victories over the world without, if the church was to hold her own, and win the world to her standards.
The modern movement called Christian Endeavor was born of two great ideas. One underlying thought of the movement was and is that an organization which should conserve the young life of the church must be a thoroughly religious organization. A social club alone will not answer; a musical organization, or a debating or literary or athletic society, will not grip the hearts of the young people, and hold them to the church. The greatest of all motives must be appealed to, the religious motive, -a motive which can always be found in the heart of the young if only the right chord can be struck.
The second and equally important principle of the society is that the young people themselves must do the work of the society, for only thus could it become a training-school for the church.
These, then, were the underlying ideas of the first Society of Christian Endeavor, started in the Williston church, in Portland, Maine, on February 2, 1881. It must be a religious society; it must embody the idea of service for the church on the part of the young people themselves. was the idea of industrial training introduced into the religious sphere; the thought that we can only learn to do things by doing them.
The success of that first society amazed even the pastor who formed the constitution and formulated the pledge. He had tried many other experiments, as most young pastors do, and had met with either comparative or absolute failure. The literary society and the musical gild and the social supper had, after a while, palled upon their most enthusiastic advocates; but the idea of the young people themselves doing the work, offering the prayers, giving their simple testimonies, striving to bring others into their ranks, looking after the spiritual interests of their friends, working along any line that the pastor might suggest,-this idea did not grow old with the passing months, but with increasing energy and interest the young people entered into the work of the society.
A few months after the formation of the first society, some articles for various religious papers were written by the pas