FREE ART AND THE FARMER'S

DAUGHTER

T was a fortunate thought of President

on Country Life, and it is devoutly to be hoped that as a part of its labors it will try to inform the rest of the world how our agricultural population has been able. to keep prosperous during the recent financial depression. To the "submerged tenth" this will be a matter of indifference, for that disconsolate fraction is always submerged and is quite as accustomed to drowning as are eels to skinning; but to an additional "submerged half," those who live on fixed wages or salaries, - who find that the advance in income does not keep pace with the increase in the expense of living, it would be of great service to know how the prosperous farmer "does it."

But it is, perhaps, not the prosperity, so much as the happiness, of the farmer which is under consideration, and which it is hoped by the inquiry to promote; and this being the case, we venture to suggest that there is danger of confining the investigation too closely to his material welfare, concerning which he may be presumed to be fairly alert,-and of not considering sufficiently the higher, the more ideal influences which make for his happiness, but which are too readily assumed to be beyond his reach.

To plump our idea squarely at the reader, we think it neither ridiculous, farfetched, nor premature to suggest that however favorable the farmer's happiness may be affected by the abolition of, say, the fatuous tariff on lumber, he is much more likely, ultimately, and as a class, to be made happy by the abolition of the more fatuous tariff on art. "It is to laugh," says the pessimist and he sees visions of Leonardo da Vinci and Rembrandt at the Cross Roads grocery, and the fitness of things strikes him as lamentably awry. But why should not the farmer-or, let us say, the farmer's daugh

ter-have a chance at the fine things as well as the fat things of the world? The gospel is for the unconverted. Art is, among others, for the strangers to art. If those who once knew nothing of art had always been excluded from our museums, how many a great name would have been lacking in the list of artists and connoisseurs. We venture to say that nine out of ten of the American collectors of assured taste became such by accident rather than heredity, by the simple process of seeing good pictures, seeing many and seeing them frequently, and then by trusting to their own judgment. There is no other road to taste, in spite of Whistler's amusing pronouncement that, "If seeing pictures makes taste, then the policeman in the National Gallery must be the best judge of art," a saying which ought to go into the text-books of logic as an example of false reasoning. Whistler's own taste was formed, like that of all other great artists, by his opportunity to see great art.

Now, it is a question of no little importance to the country as well as to the farmer's daughter how she shall see the best art. Without doubt there are certain fabrics out of which silk purses cannot be made; but also it is of record that great artists have come out of most unpromising conditions. In the small towns of Europe, the art in the churches has been the inspiration of many an unlettered stripling who went to pray and remained to paint. These churches brought art to the people in a way, and on a plane of excellence, of which we have no parallel here. We make the farmer's daughter welcome to our museums of art in St. Louis, Chicago, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Washington, New York, Boston, and other cities, and now that her father is prosperous, he is quite able to give her the advantage of a bit of travel to see some of this sort of beauty for herself, thus ministering to that ambition the lack of which is the most distressing element in a farming community.

In laying broad and deep the foundations of national greatness, we must think with our imagination. Those who would help the farmer can do much to bring happiness to many an apparently immovable country family by encouraging the multiplication of art-museums nearer the people. Influences should be set going that will benefit the country a hundred years from now as it grows up to their use. The divisions between urban, suburban, and country society are rapidly being obliterated by the trolley and by cheap literature. There is no There is no reason why Alabama or Mississippi or Arkansas or Wyoming should not some day have as much culture in art as Massachusetts has to-day, and, absurd as it now seems, the time may come when the Oklahoma school of landscape will take rank with that of Barbison. For the seeds of art are blowing on every wind, finding here and there apparently fortuitous but hospitable lodging. In one generation art shows itself in a dim, blind, vague longing for beauty; in the next it may develop into taste, and in the third into genius. What is needed is first the seed, and then the sun and the rain, and, always, freedom of opportunity.

And here a more direct word to the members of Congress who represent what are called rural constituencies. That you should vote against free art, on whatever ground, is to delay the day when your State shall take its place in the front rank of opportunity. Think with your imagination, and do not reject the hand of comradeship held out to your people-who, being most removed from art, are most in need of it. Do not cut off your nose to spite some one else's face. Trust those who know the needs of the country in art, as you did the same classes of people in the matter of international copyright in 1891. The legislation of that day helped to make a settled profession out of a casual pursuit. Free art, by creating better opportunities for the popular spread of plastic beauty, will increase the area of taste which is necessary to sustain art as a profession. Freedom of opportunity will give us more beauty and thus will add to our happiness as a people. International copyright was necessary to remove a clog .on American letters, and American artists, educators, and connoisseurs beg you not for an artificial advantage over foreigners, but to remove a barrier to the best development of their work. Free art is free air!

A

Portraits of Lincoln in "The Century" FEW of the twenty-two Lincoln portraits (including the two life-masks and the two Saint-Gaudens statues) printed in this number of THE CENTURY have known associations of historical interest apart from the time and place of origin.

The genesis of the miniature by J. Henry Brown (which is the color frontispiece of the number) is given in a letter from John G. Nicolay to an intimate friend, dated "Springfield, Aug. 26, 1860,” about three months after Lincoln's first nomination, as follows:

"Did you ever see a real, pretty miniature? I do not mean an ambrotype, daguerreotype, or photograph, but a regular miniature painted on ivory. Well, a Philadelphia artist (Brown, his name is) has just been painting one of Mr. Lincoln, which is both

very pretty and very truthful-decidedly the It is best picture of him that I have seen. about twice as large as a common quartersize daguerreotype or ambrotype, but so well executed that when magnified to life size one cannot discover any defects or brush marks on it at all. I wish you could see it. It gives something of an idea of what a painter -I mean a real artist-can do. It has been painted for Judge Read of Philadelphia, who has become so disgusted with the horrible caricatures of Mr. Lincoln which he has seen, that he went to the expense of sending this artist all the way out here to paint him this picture, which will probably cost him some $300-the price of the painting alone being $175. I had a long talk with the artist today. He says that the impression prevails East, that Mr. Lincoln is very ugly-an im

pression which the published pictures of him of course all confirm. Read, however, had an idea that it could hardly be so-but was bound to have a good-looking picture, and therefore instructed the artist to make it goodlooking whether the original would justify it or not. The artist says he came out with a good deal of foreboding that he would have difficulty in making a picture under these conditions. He says he was very happy when on seeing him he found that he was not at all such a man as had been represented, and that instead of making a picture he would only have to make a portrait to satisfy Judge Read. He will go back home as agreeably disappointed in Mr. Lincoln's manners, refinement, and general characteristics, as in his personal appearance."

In the following letter, a month later, the artist comments as follows on the engraved copy of the miniature, which obviously was to be circulated for a campaign purpose:

My dear Sir: I presume you are wondering why you have not yet seen or heard anything of the steel engraving from my picture of Mr. Lincoln.

Mr. Sartain promised to have it completed within two weeks after the picture was placed in his hands, which was on last Monday three weeks ago.

Two days ago the first proof was placed in my hands for criticism. I suggested some alterations which have been made. To-day I will again examine it with care, and if necessary will have such further corrections made as my judgment may suggest. In accordance with my promise to you I will not allow any copies to be issued until they meet my approbation.

Judge Read is in a nervous condition at Sartain's delay. He thinks the engraving good, and wanted some copies yesterday, but as I am judge in this case, I would not

consent.

As soon as the plate is ready for printing from, which I think will be tomorrow or on Monday next, copies will be sent to you without delay.

Please make my compliments to Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln. I am dear sir, your friend & servant, 7. Henry Brown. P. S. Mr. Lincoln's friends here are in high spirits and full of hope.

Major William II. Lambert, the owner of the ambrotype reproduced on page 491, which was taken as a guide to the artist in painting the miniature, writing under date of Philadelphia, September 9, 1908, says: "The miniature was copied by Sartain in a mezzotint extensively sold during the campaign. After the election and Lincoln's growth of a beard, the whiskers were superimposed on the same plate and prints therefrom sold."

LINCOLN AS LAWYER

THE portrait on page 480 is one of the most agreeable of the early portraits of Lincoln, and is here shown in an admirable woodcut by

the late Thomas Johnson. From a letter from the Hon. Robert T. Lincoln, dated November 21, 1896, we quote the following reference to the original: "The proofs mentioned in your favor of the 18th inst. have come, and I am very much pleased with the work of your artist. I regret that I cannot give you any positive information as to the date of the original daguerreotype, and there is probably no one living who can do so. I was born in 1843, and can only say that I remember it as being in my father's house as far back as I can remember anything there. My own mere guess is that it was made either in St. Louis or Washington City during my father's term in Congress-which practically began in December, 1847, and ended in March, 1849. I mention St. Louis because I think it was in those days an important stage in the journey to the Capitol.

THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN 1859 THE history of this remarkable portrait is described as follows by Mr. Francis J. Garrison, brother of Mr. William Lloyd Garrison, the owner of the copy of the photograph reproduced on page 482:

44

'The history of the picture is as follows: During the presidential campaign of 1860, Mr. Charles Sprague, the banker-poet of Boston, saw this photograph in a small shop on Washington Street in this city, and was so struck by it that he purchased it. Years later he gave it to a lady (the sister of his son's wife) who in turn gave it to my brother. The latter did not think much of it until one day my brother, the late W. P. Garrison, saw it, and at once became enthusiastic over it, telling my brother William that he possessed a prize. When Carl Schurz's little essay on Lincoln was first published, a small photogravure reproduction of it was made for that book. Then Gustav Kruell engraved it on wood for Harper's Magazine,' and when that appeared, it was seen by Hesler, a Chicago photographer, who thereupon remembered that he had in his possession a negative of Lincoln taken by him in 1860 and long stored away and forgotten. He brought this to light, and it is the remarkable portrait of Lincoln which Nicolay & Hay chose as the best of all and used as the frontispiece of their 'Life of Lincoln' [reproduced here on page 486]. Later we were informed by Mr. Herbert W. Fay, of DeKalb, Ill., who has a large collection of Lincoln portraits, that my brother's photograph was made by S. M. Fassett, of Chicago, in October, 1859, and that the negative was lost in the great Chicago fire of 1871. Mr. Fay has a print which is either from the same negative or from one taken at the same sitting. Rajon, the French etcher, based his portrait of Lincoln on this

photograph, but changed the face very materially. Kruell made a strong wood-engraving of it, in line with his portraits of Grant, Sherman, Webster, Darwin, etc. A. W. Elson has published a life-size photogravure head from it, and a photogravure reproduction of it has lately been made for Alonzo Rothschild's "Lincoln, Master of Men." I am bound to say that there is something in the original photograph (which itself shows signs of having been slightly retouched) which none of the reproductions have caught. Mr. Holman's photograph of it is excellent, but even that I found on comparison not so satisfying as the original, which is smaller than this print."

THE HEALY PORTRAIT

IN connection with the Healy portrait owned by Robert T. Lincoln, and reproduced on page 501, it is interesting to know that

another Healy portrait is owned by the Hon. William D. Washburne of Minnesota, who in a letter dated July 23, 1908, writes:

"The portrait to which you refer is not a 'replica' of the portrait of Lincoln, in the possession of his son, Robert Lincoln. This portrait of mine was made from sketches made of Lincoln at City Point, just before the close of the War. I cannot recall exactly the time when it was painted, but I should say, earlier than 1871. This portrait was ordered by my brother, E. B. Washburne for him and myself, which we had intended to place in a library at our old home in Maine, but which was never done, and later I purchased of his heirs his interest in the portrait. This is about all I know of the transaction. Mr. Robert Lincoln, when he saw my portrait of his father in 1896, said that the two are almost exactly alike, and imagined they were painted from the same general sketches that were made at City Point."