Painting religion in public: John Singer Sargent's Triumph of religion at the Boston Public Library 9780691015651, 9780691089508

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (page viii)
INTRODUCTION PAINTING RELIGION IN PUBLIC (page 2)
CHAPTER I THE SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION (page 10)
CHAPTER 2 RITUAL PERFORMANCES (page 62)
CHAPTER 3 CULTURAL SELECTIONS (page 104)
CHAPTER 4 EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY (page 144)
CHAPTER 5 THE SYNAGOGUE CONTROVERSY (page 174)
CHAPTER 6 SYNAGOGUE, CHURCH, AND THE SELF CONCEALED (page 226)
CHAPTER 7 THE MANY PUBLICS OF SARGENT'S PROPHETS (page 272)
EPILOGUE REPRESENTING RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN PUBLIC (page 306)
ABBREVIATIONS (page 317)
NOTES (page 318)
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY (page 349)
INDEX (page 356)

Citation preview

PAINTING RELIGION

IN PUBLIC

BLANK PAGE

eT Po PAINTING RELIGION

IN PUBLIC

John Singer Sargent’s Triumph of Religion

at the Boston Public Library

SALLY M. PROMEY

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

PRINCETON, NEw JERSEY

Details used on divider pages: Introduction, Israelites Oppressed (fig. 6); Chapter 1, Frieze of Prophets, east wall (fig. 9); Chapter 2, Dogma of the Redemption (fig. 10); Chapter 3, Israel and the Law (fig. 27); Chapter 4, Preliminary Sketch for Sermon on the Mount (fig. 25); Chapter 5, Synagogue (fig. 17); Chapter 6, Church (fig. 18); Chapter 7,YWCA pageant, Silver Bay, New York (fig. 156); Epilogue, Oil Study for East Wall (fig. 24)

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the UK: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 ISY Www.pup.princeton.edu Copyright © 1999 Princeton University Press All Rights Reserved Second printing, and first paperback printing, 2001 Paperback ISBN 0-691-08950-7 Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Millard Meiss Publication Fund of the College Art Association of America

Publication of the paperback edition has been made possible in part by a subvention from the Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Maryland Designed by Jean Wilcox Composed in Bembo and Meta with Copperplate display by dix!, Syracuse, New York Printed by CS Graphics, Singapore

109876 5 4 3 2 The Library of Congress has catalogued the cloth edition of this book as follows

Promey, Sally M., 1953Painting religion in public : John Singer Sargent’s Triumph of religion at the Boston Public Library / Sally M. Promey.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-691-01565~-1 (cl. : alk. paper)

1. Sargent, John Singer, 1856-1925. Triumph of religion.

2. Protestantism in art. 3.Mural painting and decoration— Massachusetts—Boston. 4. Boston Public Library. I. Boston Public Library. II. Title. ND237.83A77 1999

7§9.13——dc21 99-12158 CIP

To my teachers—and especially

John W. Cook, Neil Harris, Martin E. Marty, Pamela Mayencourt, S. Thomas Niccolls, Paul Rochford, Linda Seidel, Marie Smith, and David Tracy

CON TEN T S

@

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS V111

INTRODUCTION PAINTING RELIGION IN PUBLIC 2

CHAPTER 1 THE SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION 10

CHAPTER 2 RITUAL PERFORMANCES 62

CHAPTER 3 CULTURAL SELECTIONS 104

CHAPTER 4 EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY 144

CHAPTER 5 THE SYNAGOGUE CONTROVERSY 174

CHAPTER 6 SYNAGOGUE, CHURCH, AND THE SELF CONCEALED 226

CHAPTER 9 THE MANY PUBLICS OF SARGENT’S PROPHETS 272

EPILOGUE REPRESENTING RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN PUBLIC 3006

ABBREVIATIONS 317

: 318

NOTES

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 349

INDEX 356

“kK

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book’s framing idea on the public representation of religion and its connections to John Singer Sargent’s public library murals began to take early shape at the University of Chicago in the spring of 1985 in a graduate seminar on “Public Religion and Public Theology” taught by Martin E. Marty and David Tracy. To these teachers—and to others named and unnamed—I dedicate this book. There

is much more to be said on religion’s public display in the United States; a second, more synthetic and broadly historical, treatment of the subject will follow, and complement, the case study approach presented here. Writing this book was an intensely collaborative activity. A substantial part of the effort’s pleasures accrued from the community of people assembled around the subject in its various aspects over time. IJ am deeply grateful to all contributors who gave so freely of their knowledge, insight, resources, and skills. A National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship for University Teachers in 1997-98 funded a year’s release from the immediate interests and commitments of teaching and service; the liberal research leave policies of the College of Arts and Humanities at the University of Maryland made it possible for me to accept the fellowship. As this project developed over time, research support at different stages came from the American Council of Learned Societies, the Department of Art History and Archaeology at the University of Maryland, the General Research Board of the Graduate School at the University of Maryland, and the Louisville Institute as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. Generous publication subventions from the Henry Luce Foundation, the Millard Meiss Publication Fund, and the Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Maryland, provided for the book’s current form. Many institutions made available to me their considerable holdings in subjects addressed here. For kindnesses large and small I owe special thanks to the professional staffs of numerous archives, museums, galleries, and religious organizations, including: Adelson Galleries, Inc.; the American Cathedral in Paris; American Jewish Archives, Hebrew Union College; the American Jewish Historical Society; the Archives of American Art; the Art and Architecture Libraries, University of Maryland; the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; the Boston Athenaeum; the Boston Public Library; Boston University School of Theology; Cabell Library, Virginia Commonwealth University; Center Church,

pt Hartford; Church of the Advent, Boston; Congregation Adath Israel Brith Sholom, Louisville, Kentucky; Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York; Dartmouth College Library; the Edward Lee McClain High School, Greenfield, Ohio; the Foge Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums;

vill

cr ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

George Eastman House; Houghton Library, Harvard University; the Imperial War Museum, London; the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum; the Jewish Community Center, Rochester; Jewish Theological Seminary; the Library of Congress; the Massachusetts Council of Churches; the Massachusetts Historical Society; McKeldin Library, University of Maryland; the Metropolitan Museum of Art; Miller Library, Colby College; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the Museum of Modern Art; the National Gallery of Art; the National Museum of American Art; the National Portrait Gallery; the New York Public Library; Silver Bay Conference Center; the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cambridge; Sotheby’s; Syracuse University Library; Temple Israel, Boston; Temple Sholom, Chicago; Trinity Church, Boston; and the YWCA of the USA, New York. Individuals at a number of these institutions helped me repeatedly over the years. They deserve particular mention. To say that without John Dorsey (Special Library Assistant in the Research Library Office at the Boston Public Library) this book would not have been written is only the slightest exaggeration.

tt His efficiency, unflagging thoughtfulness, reservoir of information, and careful at-

tention to detail made my frequent contacts with that institution an adventure and a delight. At the public library, I also owe an unusual debt to Janice Chadbourne, Katherine Dibble, Jody Eldredge, Aaron Schmidt, Karen Smith Shafts, R. Eugene Zepp, and Roberta Zonghi. At the Fogg Art Museum, Harvard Uni-

versity Art Museums, Miriam Stewart likewise dedicated an extraordinary share . of time, energy, and expertise to my study of Sargent drawings and other materials in the Fogg’s collections. The contributions of Stephen Nonack at the Boston

Athenaeum; Marcia Hertzman at Congregation Adath Israel Brith Sholom,

Louisville, Kentucky; Elizabeth Gombosi, Teri Hensick, and Abigail Smith at the Foge Art Museum; Patrick McMahon and Lowell Bassett at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum; Phyllis Kasdin at the Jewish Community Center, Rochester; Peter Drummey and Virginia Smith at the Massachusetts Historical Society; and Erica Hirschler, Shelley Langdale, and Karen Otis at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, also warrant separate note. Among those who read this manuscript 1n its various parts and stages, I am especially grateful to Leigh Culver, John Davis, Jane Dini, David Morgan, Richard Murray, and Ellen Smith for their critical and creative advice and for their professional and personal encouragement. For the latter, I want to express my appreciation to Jill Pearlman as well. Elizabeth Ives Hunter made her spirited assistance and multiple kindnesses—in terms of time and energy as well as archival resources—unstintingly available. Sargent scholars both new and seasoned— Leigh Culver, Jane Dini, Trevor Fairbrother, Anne Helmreich, Stephanie Her-

1X

TI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

drich, Patricia Hulls, Erica Hirschler, Elaine Kilmurray, Richard Ormond, Elizabeth Oustinoff, Marc Simpson, and John Thomas—shared generously from their own research. And Sargent descendants Richard Ormond (again) and John Or-

mond provided materials with respect to family history and items in John Sargent’s library.

In addition, for both intellectual engagement and material assistance, I also thank Helen Barton, Edward Bleiberg, Cynthia Bird, Jeri Bothamley, Betsy Brinson, Roger Bruce, Anita Carrico, Christopher Coble, Adam Cohen, Anthony Colantuono, Dan Crusie, Don Denny, Elka Deitsch, Erika Doss, John B. Fox, Jr., Robert A. Fradkin, Sharon Gerstel, Meredith Gill, Louise Greene, Michael Hager, June Hargrove, Catherine Hays, Michelle Jenney, Pamela Jones, Mary Kergall, Bill Kipp, Liza Kirwin, Genevra Kornbluth, Jennifer Krzyminski, Melinda Linderer, Yelena Luckert, Patricia Lynagh, Dorothy Lynch, Alan

McLean, Merl Moore, Elizabeth Norris, Thai Nguyen, Samuel D. Perry, William Pressly, Kevin Proffitt, Kathy Rivas, Bruce Ronda, Herbert Roth, Jonathan Sarna, Terry Sayler, Kristin Schwain, Kerry Schauber, Donna Schulze, Dan Strain, Jennifer Strychasz, Roger Tolson, Malcolm Varon, Marjorie Venit, Melanie Wisner, and Lynne Woodruff. Working with Princeton University Press has been a satisfying experience from start to finish. When the College Art Association convened in Boston

po

in 1996, then associate art editor Timothy Wardell met me in Sargent Hall with :

Triumph of Religion around and before us to discuss the project. Since then this book has benefited immensely from the insights of the informed and discerning readers solicited by the press and from the guidance of art editor Patricia Fidler, editorial assistant Elizabeth Pohland, production coordinator Elizabeth Steiner, and production editor Curtis Scott. Virginia Wageman’s expert copyediting was an art historian’s dream, Kathleen Friello brought interdisciplinary expertise to the task of indexing, and Jean Wilcox designed a book likely to make Sargent proud. Earlier drafts of some materials presented in this book were published by William B. Eerdmans, Art Bulletin, and Art Journal. I am grateful to the editors for their initial support and for permission to publish revised versions. Finally, it is to my husband Roger Fallot and our daughter Anna that | am most profoundly indebted. Their sweet company, patience, and good and wise counsel have made this a better book and me a better person. It was Anna, too, whose persistent desire for a pet brought Alex, the Labrador retriever, into our household where she kept a place by my chair while I wrote and lured me

outside for walks at all the most appropriate moments. ,

x

PAINTING RELIGION

IN PUBLIC

Cd

aae Re }aie 6} i4 iSees ‘‘wat oe a" irets Og ¢aPo ee "-: : Sy 4Bera |ayMoe ft:oa 4aeee eae ae ea 4§ee aSe:a fHie sf 44; :;$ eth, alle os74remh Maia, A |ex*om ; FOR hat erat ibaa eee \re oul fy—_1

|44

ts

Py \ee 24 as Ce NS |Me y ey yOEee ray . re Bi. Ra 4 \ ¥ te f Pisin pate Pe a(a ysiie, "imme : aee? oe” hy et ae ae jee va a | ad gal ES ) i ¢ See & 2 Oe aoe Raa ae al ; é AL. Hoo ee Pe oP . es Saree * 3 4 ; 4 Sof ‘ vi Rite! (6 id £ 3 3 i IN! Bands sea g\4 iG oe poe ‘ 5s TAL A, ; “ % 4 ‘ |) aa miaog* € i ae. “hae ; " : Bey ae ae + baie gs Sea Ea : : Mme rte 8 ie ae SNe Bs See F i SSeS d ee ces moe ‘ a Sc or 4 5 ¢ “Aik ete & 3 ; vx 1 — ; a re Shae 4 . Ye j ee Ree ears tev t : | ZN oh 5 eh 4 " He ‘ gO ee Sh a 4 : ' ae re 7- fi - astPp % 3¢ Le;:6aa: y$ — 2 7ae . ;ae . aks eae:4igBeShPSé :; ee. ’ - 4# pes Pr oeme } ‘ 'ae ~ aM, a Ses,

eea 4‘ é” 'e)My $553 2Po 4 :cn :i edad a0 | ail eh a, 2+ PT 7«>;+eeS ‘ of.eee +i :4: 3 | oe foe Paw aay eayy wt me: ip5?eee LaBa $e eS iy Rot ene3 : rx; as ir :‘ >». aes Bees ;3ie 49c. ' ss eea 3 Sage PeS. pegatvs wae al "eS “NEF -ead ~ ep. - Ts , BS a, Span en ce \ se eo RRB | ‘\ eS eee % Y Jiseumite: ‘ te). = = Ss zac 4 i mars = j= w ee Bie. {:¥ , , BeOS RE , wg a f és . i a p53) ed Le hee ae Se xy ee 6% he — ee oa ae Le Se % lees A) Soe a rae a ie a om] ey TS A * re Ss 4%, *

oS be ; a ey ggg? 2es 5 aaoh m ah Pe Ae : &* ¢ : 25 sips eu Mic tony eg ae EF 2 es Cras ties : . Pst . . ‘? , ; > ihege2ra)+oS. ee % AS Ss ee a pees: patealls a a \ coe? oat " Een Loe ine tis ; + ~ Ae. are : ig ¥ ee ~ Fe aie ee ; s y 5. be ae yee 1 . (ree ae “& ne aaa : igi % 1 , P ae ps‘ F es sh a : ge? aed ae < : , sie ee , mad * eam o> _ < : = E aee 4P ad. ~~an Sore ’ a{aePm, :4 huts? Ba =Ute wf eit P ine ' xBee ; ee

oo - ; ’ 7wre, the pee ese sats mite oy)See ‘= aher” SA nsfg) 5ON Po 27% CE ire; oR So :Ko Cee, eaco Da ht WES RR es ae; ;ae > te i tN Se ees a th nh See ° ae r a

ee gs ae gw ges Se aie .\ F Settee WY Os ee Re Ohi ee ihc eee ty . Ro NE 5 ‘fo 22 Soe S ts ee Ee a eee ea Rieter. Be PA éANI :ae Ve3Shit Ree aart ‘as a ee ‘ ee ; ;: ;:Fs oli ~$Beats ae “SESS Se a (eae fe ‘ : : : 4 S be it.) Tare sae aeNeertet >. ee le a ee 3 naa Bee earns se) ‘ ~— 3 i ~ ee ‘ eT: ; he . ot See ae 4 ons = Pane ri Air zr ite (a. A a 3 r ee IS AB Fy: ei 4 ; Sits i : , Ms A tte Beare: oA ee ; ‘ +tee San eee, ae: pe Fee :RS i,RS :J— Sean /oat :hie 2e:: peret’ se ee “NOt nl 6ae eiay Pha oo tebe yes :Re ryihait aega) RL ke tg »t.1} roe 4 7Bs SS Ee waSO eeeee ae a .Ps he ren Berl Saas) era 5nse >RSIS: "eG () Caeser ‘rie ; = 1) Aa Sid4 R23 i+Ray So iaSe ses etrer aire ae i:.>Sh :Jeo ', tvie aes6tpi pate Ansty RD io ‘sky :ritRa ha aa Ue Shee

'}aDn ahie Simmel “act's Ma SeomDh bem 3;ere ae Refataey %: PO Sa Bae Beare snt we aone See, hyeee gees ay ener Peei “! fmCama SRS. tfcSsbo Be:So a he ie teHate :Wine i /tS(Ose Ses eee20s taeeerie rial Ae: aea| ahs a Zici neee »>:RA ve het Retea “#SN ae Sea :: es atene ely te ie Fe ix uae Seger RGSS Ss) : ae S aa a a9 wa ee > Se ¢ + EP ue SN eee ' * awe = = tats seareiee Deke ty ; ee a Ute Ue f ‘ ko > SRS bw wee 9 \ > Sea Piet 2 S y oe Myer ee nary aie £0) Oe a ee Pi: 3 age mks Boneh. : Nw eK A ees; on Sa , Bee 7 . oie ; yee haeRS teens ; ;peasy . a Rete) >> eae«t= Soe: y > OP 2 52}ee 4 oS dela} fi oh hs f; pao Sa ‘ees cs Fe ‘ Ve eteAS RarPans, aes ;; ea nS is eeTiscie ioeaOe ERS a aera aocele Re eee Pare dane, caeoes eae5te usy NN 3%5 ;f5 aoF Giese naeyh LnMRE 2 Lasages ag ea ee : naw oe fee TMs, 288 Ne aeRaa 2 Pitter epee ee PES 2Cte Ber be ‘ es iie9}oa otAgel S: enti =Cmte ae Chee, Sah ek Rein aes Jeosc 2“Ei, oySS Oe toa "Ss, ae eae reAT Peer kA pate Age aars og eRe i (tare he e's: IR Ve iiehae ag ye Sea aa Pit ee fe) ee “Be. aeBee See :Sante NER aSee Oa tea Se tae eae iy gi SEREREE OAR hy Cee ae | le ‘ Heat hg ak Ue Tee baa ES ee eee Raat 7 tan) Bes Nnac dt > ~" RRR Nd,” Gece NACA 8 Ut pu ea cE Bee a Bere en : th 8 ao ea > my ; rae F : LaF tha A Siete at 3ae Weare se hos Pin beta >> vp ns Yaw a) ts gy Be Ne | as i i ie “5 ~* 4 an Sf a : Sra a oe pt eC ae gin ibs ta aiseBey ark Pe 1 BS ier gaTUL ee Bsts saline a Pais aoa Ke - prare, teat Sea Ted ay ie)5ee" fr Barie- shane: y akeCok ; ; ; ty awble Taba aeseM aa }ena Se BaaeGeren Ne: Pass) on RN eeeHots aE iorg oP Be 2 Foe: - ee: ores euch ‘ ‘ VEO: ohatoh

he ae fice. ia Geers ocala oes ts hess hy Sate i ae ee Bi ae oats. itticn Te terete Shasta Ty SUN eee

/ oaes Vege SOS A a, 9ehtabeens “actuate ea 2\ 4penne Se oes ayya .~} aS aH onyRe‘os. is} 3 * mots & > % x ee byt. *" xT x * a pee bein fe ae oer J Wie ire oe ati ee, ; RE = ae = ‘ i See ; 7 ae Pare at j aoa NSS os a aera Bes ce! 4 i ier. : Ko Bae ey: "eas Ha eye te Bbvaay seri ; Nee ite, eae eee) at ee. pi ve TAS een ea 1 gates : } pope a en : : ; eos baht "3 at 3 Af Sits 7 ; rf Sem oak i ” ‘ 4 . J a a ~ ; ae es Abe. pm Yo pee s ~ c an: Sa De 37 * ‘ ‘ as SS) ae itisang yet yt SARE. SY Bi od ;.t1 ,om apie ay ee ‘fe“Ae \A yee =BER “s - ;i Pe {ee Sees ie Wii Bee). ae AbyBey ce + > eee ea YSeay Menee gid Bees , ee BE ns eef ‘Ppee, eat Soe forea. Ai eee) Ne ad eb eo RS pare > Re ane DR aC | OR abe ieatie? « poy a ; SOL es i pea Bp NZ SN a ae tity i ; at a NS SR :SSS = ie . j Sige na Sale. AN a = Aes ok. & te ae ‘ Sane aes : ; eh aoe ere? * Sas : 3 ate) Bsa > a Bea ae pein eae ‘ J Bite , f efor apt wpe d, Nab, Saha AT Jn 4 5 ee ane Se ean 2. | ae 2 Sie ANA ns Lt oa . . reread > 3 Rie ey Pi . oS a ince tee > Tenia er ae Sc i i aa PIP ot» i ae aa: y ies . aod ais Raritan Sa : mae Eg aan (4 le Reni sc. elem in ae Sea Sti {eis |< aaa raERae cE oOcs. ae: igre ie2aie ah Rea a ss petpeehes Se DUC) easae eevehreeee hese Wiens} a‘| ;ite: Bed ‘ Bree: MeN 0: cea fy At?ath. Bete1i hepnBersy “AS. Ctig ReTyeee Show's y Be ‘SSee a1.Pete.

wg is : . er e., eA) . ee - 2 j ag

net se a ; Aap ee t re : = , yee A te ~aaepee abt ay ¥, he: Pe eee 4 i Ms a = ; 5 “4 ee. sgt: host r tine, . Ree 5 ee A} y ——_— suas ._* a a er Fader °C AL + Taek . oy 7 i ees oak by: a f % a. ; 1 “3 ete. sae 4 ? es a as * JS , . ease ton ~ ’ bs ’ we re ci 3 as ve ne + eS we F = | 3 wah fige: a | =236 Pas as - ‘“ASR Sue meee fePee “¢ riz =: ae j Ts ~ 4Sr ay eee), Htiets Doe :.", it 3 7 ae 74% ie “ Es = Ay tt ~ S 2 ¢ , 's = -: eS * oe f. Lafferty ie Ag A ee ie crs > 4 * 4 FS mA) §Esae;Ai ie] Aty! ‘;atape :t ;Any dos) ase Pa ae DARKS aPieeuhe ate, Pag) 5iy EK iae St fore) Bidesci aeLS... =ee P3! Pig aay ee >Sees Soa amite Seep: Re :WA ;a- [);ae} 4te:i ‘is/NY ™=< y |es *J ati :j a. Ab US \\i By hi== i ue ri \|:Sy ; :bn.-i.arg |:: ;pega. i) y aS LH \\ 1 / = Lf ST aes 2 \ VATA 5 3 vi ie) } 4 ; Poe y / ak et WY XA ’ 4 VRE WP es 8 : ta f f: SABI tH te = VAAA\ \ 4 I av, ON og \" = ne) Ber SN Br? fi “) Bae SY

OS}/ [oe MeVzipa aA VAY MAS aoe aNs)Wis ie \ \ \ ; \\ \ yi| MB yt ie ‘\ahJ ih eam "| yl \ Mae Abie“A ae j ia oy |

f ioe} SP) a ana \\ oa “| Nea 2hj— iN xe feee — ag =a, ae Dy Sh) :Dp sce \y' Fane ia 5‘ee »RS: OW Sa pswi :WZ) i Uy, Tix te RUN Ro ae! * a, as ZZ PET Ca ip RR Ry AG Siew i =| Dy RET Cette Lota Oy (yee «ty v a ys By) as ) a\ er "GEA, Pe Yj

CER, 2274 | Dee NN Bh =Aw \ | Bi a'ste vmes| 5, "Rea ene Mi Vict meri! WEN tA “ayy TIP Pee AY ey 7

Bee alytjNeha \\ \|iie Ke 1S |]By IY 0) Pog Son {AES Bag Vil [h4 Bal a,aese \ae\ N ge /\| so Xs yi | v. ya J/ela 7ah| ;|||F\We \y 2‘y, 7Vt & i ?} ah; \ =-. ae A oe. S sua Se

{ ae Ptod gk _ C4 COS Re / Wee i Be bo RNS ba a Fm

hii y Ly 4 yy \WHan \\ | ip7i SOU. ii ai| wee | Nf| a8ipYYY, YW Pale eeBiigSY, Wrga | »‘elfl-( (Alsen | fo ar | }DS? oe |,Seeapis ae.

_ 6CA‘ A._aeBy /et/detD\\\ WW iaty : pee £ \ ae D5 A «a 4 = “af BR ona, f Az & ' 2 : = Fait ad} vw fiESR ys Vad == Ne = ‘ salle a iiEn : i ‘. -~F PY avs a ool 5: £ , F BeIIE / OT 6 Be Bt of a D&S i Sa ATE?

fi:35ie7;a: \ «rae ae: Ptyey , a at\ \ y se a A ‘ie =e ee \ ; } } 7) f pee 7 aa;

aimf.. nee > / -io4a... inn f— 15rot BipAf/f) (oi 2%bdae he SS oF ve ff 4K, 5 aN, /ay B P4“ rah } 7 ¢ AY m nF or ts , _ SN — 4 a j ie ag 7 % EN Re.: Sey LWllDis. 4;“a !7iAY fa Ny ey rh a\ “A fed‘gf oSys RSS3 Be eae a,|)AWS Tr, ict 2! es F A ;— aLY/ ot S. heFe Esagar 3 ZSe hie¥7 2: Eeee’, ( A. :ae ' he aha-re ms ay -¥, um>ee aeAa . i) {~her ON / eX

yo} oS 3 3 ah ee, ; 9 # Aah * mA YY nN ade Wy PLOY ee, ) ie MO agg FY 1 Yi,”Ps rede 4 & ; a / Ny Fist} > 7 2 i bt a ~. oF coke x 3 Eon st : , ; ee Ag:7. BN j Whe } \~ aowBea thea wel? I ee ee oP 8: : t tte Oe aS ee a Sn ii es ie Hag Sh OS td VA ome ie ea ie ) ots)Re gabe tc ae ieexh eeeee: enBal 2a Tee, eT ers7bs oe i>AS fy | t ae eos : ES FATS : =] © ae ies ; Tie RS Se AO" | Mens cite s By) Bieta Bol Big i . f Leaner coal . = % ‘ : US. . i. te * Seghnewt g | ‘6 Sere ee Wa eee ae:Bema Gomis N+| eat @ ght S3U4R S504 - at Tawa yawarn tters2B &@ &A@ msl Jai ey, be Ne TE emtiai 19 a a SA ot Wonk as S ‘ oF Se ae 33 cr | , pee Ue i -, ~Siqe yf Tih ad ned . ) ee Py F DET ASE? = PS OS Ae, DAY “Scat “Seay stain 9) ou a:EeYs ae es y, ‘a6 Keel Reae: :-~} % Ni et =De? & byTi ;. ba > 4SSgf! it@nsns X | Vas LS @ENS iFOR Op Fae RES MT 2 EPS Peal, / fh: S ae 5) BESS he | SPN | TS aw tn ee KOR Lh NAD Bes) (es 2am ¥ ONE ERS VDA BCR ofNY 2) Nice NehWig | eey Lei heee,eago | a ay) Ee¢(eA ALESeflpee NYaQi

a =. = en =... BS == « gee Be | RaW ee waa TaN 4 elves: «6 io) fi ae EO” \\\\ BS 2S : = Dickey see” Sern | Re BR eet / ) RO Gg SS ®y SH Pare \\ a ee “eke # yea sy: Be.) & ) oe ey t i At} pf} a \ ‘ Wiad) pee —2 i

SO ame RE Seviy || | — Dy || pr Ae |

fae(fC \Wt. cafom es 4Ye fe md SS Sit |ae / IS grisWG A fy ives = Ne>Zhe \ee a 2fare i i ge al} BY Ayag RRs | em lfBey Le 4 BF 4 Cae Le#;Sail: CI ere Kes Ba r /oi, fj ERE ») By eal

| eee eee Ui VAS ei” Tagen ays cet ae (oy eae |e Coal f ' > ' [RES eee es. |, Efe on) ee ho ey 4

] NZ eh H} i: ry | ig ENS ie Sa pel "aN { Sh ; Hf WAS ae ah! ee omen 9 ti if il i

gt ® s fa peeNU Vis Ro eke RU aUpGo?) wh, | r we Ay ida a hee ee eee|Ae oe al fstae » eas, ne an mo | US os a \ oi. eee ls a ba fa Me Bart ES |ee 4 oF ; K| YS Re STN sid a Waa ae “ay 73 xMR BYeee %hy % Zi. Se)DIS | enNA i beRe2 RN ar -yBOR A! Nope 1| 2J aaSs \KoA Kear wun gm ||Pay |ihDS Seva ine Ae Oe Ba CS ||j | BO ae ee) a\ Cet le Vide he Ae BY aoe = re oi rl NE | > . ay 1 (Tames, ; SS z 5 } ye we os | (ee SS) uf, Sie lat ~s | : gf 5 he in cies ; j | ¥ 3 _ j a. NS 3 y | AS TE ; as | ih a my SS | | he ; a a ad Fa | ie Y= y oye Stag i| i? ff > ihor aap wtih 8/7 ase ih I eesA 7) | AY A / }eS ae ee)Oe ie OE)ONS ae Ch oe ate i. ee iy | Sp: See Loe W ral Nee Oy! ceute MCU OOM LA ‘ a | 4 A wo aaa hie re ed ian 4 iN JAN iS gM OT ER. ey \ ae 7 a a . beh Zl reassl ay

hs,ok S(aN Agi aS A mf 4- =a We yi Psye Nay «=e eS a, te ie SS LEN fap XS eee 7). o7 SS Ba ae aeOe GW) Seer ;es ne Sy “| } kf / i »| = AY. y “8 ys a thy { ‘ ‘ ty AA 2 iG i Ni Fa , es Nee y, “| ® SS e raf i fo oy. PME MD OF" el ne Pe i a LARS) Vinormmiies | |Pate eeeae eee GPP EE MP : aF: ,ae OS) as, RS

\\Ie 3 — 4 a2 — : beet fie ; : a \ di aa = a . zl ‘a )Yoelte|

- ; r+ « 3 , SNe / PJ 7 irae

wee ae 4 Pe ee eahie "e a» x sah é ee? d insgee ag || Tage Siewas athaca fea ee iidieEO4

ae Ub ty oF ealiae . na if git : r la ee prt: if |

4 eee Jy ©

|| ie % sae ee Bp Ye oa |), \ Are ‘Gy ee a i ee os 7: cau: IE yg A 1 EE ae a ae

oo Bo ae A

| AGAINSBORGCO INSBORCO ri REMER NO pivan Byek) Sas Woes : VREY OLDS} rs yen “4 Len HY

THE YOUNG MASTER. |

| Cronus oF Orn Onns (to Ar. J. S. Sanoznt, B.A., at the National Gallery). “WEOGL DONE. YOU'RE

! bse te sy BREAK THE Ses es compte okes ; peers || Fig. 19

The Young Master. From Punch, 17 January 1923. Boston Public Library Fine Arts

| Clippings File. Trustees of the Boston Public Library

ization of the world.” *’ Both Blashfield and Fenollosa looked to mural painting

for evidence of superior intellectual accomplishment, and both believed they found it in Sargent’s murals. Publicist Sylvester Baxter agreed: “This work furnishes the first example on a grand scale of a truly modern interpretation of such a theme; the artistic employment of all the means which scientific investigations have placed at the disposal of the worker in the wonderful fruits of archaeological and historical research. It is notable even as a scholarly achievement and one receives a profound impression of the intellectual quality of the artist.” *° A group of nineteen Boston artists commended Sargent’s “scientific desien,” “high intellectual qualities,” and “scholarly effort.” *” The hyperbolic lan-

guage of the Boston and New York critics sounds so exaggerated to latetwentieth-century ears as to partially mitigate its effect. It stands, however, as a useful marker of contemporary opinion and excitement among supporters and promoters of the genre. The periodical literature of the time is full of similar encomia. By the printing of the 1895 Handbook of the Boston Public Library, in a

ee ae = eae SSS SS eee on | 33

II CHAPTER 1

tribute to the artist repeated neither for Abbey nor Puvis, the room Sargent’s decoration adorned had become “Sargent Hall.” As Sargent acknowledged on more than one occasion, this project represented a tremendous intellectual and imaginative departure for him. In 1892, when he was hard at work on the “Library ex-

clusively,” he wrote to a Boston friend noting modestly that the work was “setting on very slowly as it need must—and requires more brain work than is

good for a would-be impressionist.’’°° In equipping Sargent Hall to accommodate the visual and cultural meanings he desired, Sargent pursued a number of activities appropriately characterized as “scholarly”: he traveled, he observed and sketched, he read. In fact, travel was among Sargent’s earliest responses to the mural commission. Before the year

was over he set out for Alexandria, Cairo, and other Egyptian sites, Athens, Olympia, Delphi, and Constantinople. Soon he would also spend time in Spain. Later, in preparation for the 1903 installation, he not only returned to Spain, but also traveled to Ravenna and to Palermo, Sicily, as well as paying repeat visits to Rome and Florence.*! And after 1903 he continued his researches in Syria and Palestine (visiting, among other places, Nazareth, Mount Tabor, the Plains of Es-

Pt dralon, and Jerusalem). In Italy he went again to some favorite sites, Venice, Rome, and Florence among them. Another visit to Spain took him to Seville,

Granada, and Majorca. That he understood this sort of travel as professional study rather than simple tourism 1s apparent in his correspondence. “Crammung hard for my library” was the way, in a letter of 1 February 1891, he described his current itinerary.°?

In order to guarantee the objectivity and authenticity of his narrative, Sargent conducted extensive research. He not only traveled widely to look at

artistic and religious monuments firsthand, assembling a large reserve of sketches and visual memories as he went, he also accumulated and consulted an impressive personal library of relevant books and materials. Baxter framed this acquisition of printed matter (a “remarkable library of religious and archaeological lore’’) in direct relation to the Boston murals.*? In a memorial tribute, Evan Charteris summarized his friend’s literary habits in this context as well: “His range was wide, his knowledge inexhaustible, his reading deep and varied. In literature he trod no

narrow track—travel, adventure, experiences that were personal and strange, these had an invariable appeal for him. He liked writing which could conjure up images and portraits... . For his work in the library at Boston there was no detail which he had not verified by his reading. He was in all things thorough, not, indeed, consciously, but rather by reason of his immense and natural sincerity, his zest for the absolute truth in expression and representation.” °**

Fox agreed but added more: “The books to be seen on the shelves of even his temporary abode were of unexpected and exceeding interest, and

34

TT TT SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

showed a range rarely found outside the quarters of a true bibliophile or the enthusiast in things unusual, but never abnormal. Books of travel were numerous and the file of a geographical magazine, primarily for the pictures, was kept intact so far as possible. But in addition to these were always to be found not only the standard fiction of foreign tongues, but also the works of the biographer, philosopher and poet.” A careful perusal of extant tabulations of the books owned by Sargent would augment these lists of Sargent’s reading interests with such categories as art, architecture, design, religion, literature (classical and contemporary), and history, especially of the places Sargent had lived or to which he traveled with any frequency. There is ample evidence to suggest that Sargent was a dedicated collector of books well before the beginning of his experiences as a muralist. Lists of the items in his personal library, collated from various sources including an important estate sale catalogue, include many selections both rare and old as well as a significant number of first editions.*° Sargent’s correspondence with family and friends

te also indicates that books were a favored gift on birthdays and holidays.°*’ His sister

Emily, in particular, indulged her brother’s love for books in the presents she chose for him. With Henry James and Edmund Gosse as close friends and many other writers among his warm acquaintances, he moved easily and frequently 1n bibliophilic circles. It was as one already established in the habits of avid reading, book collecting, and support of contemporary literature that Sargent conceived Triumph of Religion. His collecting habits were so well set that, on a visit to an army hospital in 1918 during his months as a war artist, he was more inclined to stop at all the relevant local establishments than to eat. His escort commented: “He wanted to roam all over every book shop and antique shop but took himself firmly, slapped himself on the wrist, and came to lunch.”°* Martin Birnbaum, who met Sargent at a dinner party in 1917 and was sketched by him in charcoal in 1922, described the artist’s consistent display of “youthful greediness [Sargent was in his mid-sixties by this time] for the wealth of wisdom that books contain

... his rapid mind retained its readiness to absorb everything.” °? Sargent’s library, as well as his travel itineraries, tends to indicate that he often linked religion with travel (and therefore with distance). He was, in other words, fascinated by other people’s religion. He recommended to his friend, musician Charles Loeffler, for

example, Ferdinand Ossendowski’s “very remarkable” tale of adventure and Asian religions, Beasts, Men, and Gods, and he provided illustrations—some of

~ them “religious”’—for Alma Strettell’s primitivizing book on Spanish folk songs. What we know about Sargent’s library and reading habits we owe to the estate sale catalogue, lists of public and private collections, and his own correspondence.®*! The fact that Sargent was a book collector as well as a reader, however, increases the level of caution that must be exercised with respect to gauging

35

TY CHAPTER 1

the significance of any particular volume in his library. That he owned a book tells us little about his sense of its content; even if we know that he read the book,

it may have represented to him a collector’s prize rather than a scholar’s re-

source.©* On the other hand, a number of factors facilitate responsible documentation and assessment of Sargent’s reading habits. Several partial collections of his books exist intact. Here we see the varied possibilities for the different volumes he owned: some remain uncut; some are inscribed as gifts (often from family and close friends but also from distant admirers eager to share their own literary productions with a renowned contemporary); others are well worn and annotated in his own hand—some annotations directly connected to his Boston Public Library project. In addition to the evidence of the books themselves, the estate sale catalogue for printed materials from his Boston and London studios and some of the private lists too contain rather precise notations regarding inscriptions, condition, and in some instances even suggestions of use. Finally, because Sargent was so fully engaged in the culture of books, his own reviews and recommendations appear with some frequency in letters to family and friends and in the records his acquaintances kept of various exchanges with the artist. Boston artist R. H. Ives Gammell accurately assessed the Sargent who painted Triumph of Religion as, first and foremost, the “cultivated reader,” the scholar meticulously recording in his mural panels images elicited during hours of study in his private library: “These pictures seem to give pictorial shape to the thoughts of a man comfortably ensconced in the security of nineteenth-century scholarship, pondering over the dreams of earlier ages.” ® Such an “intellectual” undertaking would surely refute complaints regarding the supposed superficiality of Sargent’s facile “French” brush. From Sargent’s perspective, Triumph of Religion, when completed, would represent an intellectual endorsement of spiritual subjectivity conceived not to sanction religion per se but as an analogue for enlightened human achievement (his own and that of Western civilization). This message hinged on the style and content of two paintings: Frieze of Prophets at the north end of the hall and the “keynote” Sermon on the Mount, planned for the long east wall above the staircase.®* In these panels Sargent would equate his naturalistic signature style with a “modern” freedom from external and institution-

pe ally determined authority. Here Triumph owed much to Sargent’s principal

textual sources, and especially to Ernest Renan’s Life of Jesus and five-volume History of the People of Israel.®°

36

OT TT SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

SARGENT AND RENAN

Sargent’s move from the Spanish subject to Triumph of Religion was not simply a

move from a literary subject to a religious one but from one literary subject to another. His conception of the public library decoration was heavily informed by his own wide reading habits—and by Renan in particular. In Triumph of Religion Sargent expanded upon both his specific understanding of Renan’s scholarly thought and his sense of Renan’s contemporary reputation. Sargent’s murals invoked the content of Renan’s texts, first and most importantly, in the artist’s endorsement of a progressive evolutionary scheme that appropriated the history of Western religion to recommend, as characteristic of civilization’s pinnacle, the values of subjectivity and individualism. Second, in this cycle at least, Sargent agreed with Renan’s identification of the specific pivotal episodes (the Hebrew prophets and Sermon on the Mount) upon which the narrative construction of human “progress” would turn. In addition to the content of Renan’s texts themselves, Sargent’s conception of Triumph of Religion depended upon the cultural and political character of historical reception of the French author’s work. Especially in Sargent’s earliest idea of his program, he counted on the tendency of his contemporaries to read the skeptic Renan as both subversive and scientific: subversive, in fact, because he was so “scientific” in his approach to the biography of Jesus. Renan’s texts had disconcerted the institutional church in France; Sargent anticipated that his Boston library murals, too, would be a “surprise to the community.” °° He also believed that his cycle would be understood in relation to contemporary advances in the scholarship of biblical criticism and archaeology, a body of knowledge represented by Renan’s biography of Jesus and histories of

Pe religion.

Though Life of Jesus was initially published in Paris in 1863, twenty-seven years before Sargent conceived his Triumph of Religion, the French historian’s fivevolume History of the People of Israel was completed to much fanfare between 1887 and 1893 (with the last two volumes published posthumously). Life of Jesus, too,

continued to maintain a high cultural profile. Over sixty thousand copies of

Renan’s Life of Jesus had been sold in the first five months after publication (at went through eight editions in three months); the text was translated into thirteen languages. Dora Bierer’s research on Renan and his cultural interpreters indicates that in nineteenth-century France, Life of Jesus might justifiably be called a “best seller,” its sales superseded, apparently, by only one book: the Bible itself.°” Owen Chadwick concurs that Renan’s book was the “most famous book written in France during the nineteenth century and until about 1900 its author was the most famous of French writers.” °* Whereas Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary

37

TT CHAPTER 1

went through twenty-three printings in different French editions between 1857 and the end of the century, Life of Jesus went through at least one hundred printings between 1863 and 1900.° Undoubtedly Renan’s clear and readable style of writing, his straightforward thesis, and the resonance of poetry and romance that attended his brand of positivism all contributed to the book’s appeal. Here was an expert of established academic repute who communicated comfortably with the general reading public as well as his professional peers. By 1891 Sargent was well aware of Renan’s reputation as a scientific rationalist and a skeptic. This is especially apparent in an August entry for that year in the diary of Lucia Fairchild, an art student and Sargent family friend. It is due

chiefly to Fairchild, and to her accounting of the day on which Sargent recommended Renan’s Life of Jesus to her consideration, that we know Sargent had this text on his mind as he formed the plan for his Boston Public Library mural cycle. According to Fairchild’s diary, after a visit to the Church of St. Mary, Fairford, Gloucestershire, to look at medieval stained-glass windows depicting Hebrew prophets (windows that Sargent judged to be of very fine quality as stained glass but not very helpful in their treatment of draperies and characterization of the subject for his purposes in Boston), the older artist encouraged the unchurched Fairchild to read the Hebrew Scriptures for their excitement and their “stories of adventure perfectly plainly told.” He also promoted the Christian Scriptures for their beauty “from a literary point of view” and asked Fairchild about her degree of acquaintance with Renan’s 1863 text: “Have you ever read Renan’s ‘Life of Christ’ [sic ]? Oh that you ought to read—that’s a fine book.”’”° Fairchild secures

be for us Sargent’s familiarity with Life of Jesus and his general approval of its content.

A letter from Sargent to his friend and promoter Henry James demonstrates his explicit interest in a later set of works by Renan, the author’s five-

volume History of the People of Israel. James held Renan in highest esteem. Earlier,

in 1876, he had asserted, “if he is not the first of French writers, I don’t know who may claim the title.” Within a few years of Renan’s death in 1892, James deplored the fact that now, as he saw it, “the great historians are dead—the last of them went with Renan.”7! Clearly Sargent knew of James’s admiration for and familiarity with Renan, for the artist wrote James, in the early stages of the library murals’ production, to inquire whether the fourth volume of Renan’s History of the People of Israel had yet appeared: “I wish you could find the time to run

down here some day. We would all be so delighted. I should like to have your suggestions about my work [on Triumph of Religion |] and about the subject of it which seems to me bigger and bigger and more difficult to put into a straight jacket. I am still at work on the designs, and not yet on the big canvases. Do you know if the 4th volume of Renan’s Peuple d’Israel has come out?’”’? Records of

38

TT SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

Sargent’s personal library indicate, furthermore, that he owned a first and complete edition of History of the People of Israel as well as the eight-volume set of Renan’s History of the Origins of Christianity (ncluding Life of Jesus).’> Later in life,

Sargent’s response to an admirer’s inquiry explicitly acknowledged the influence of this author and historian on Triumph of Religion.”

Taken together, the James and Fairchild references establish for us Sargent’s engagement of both History of the People of Israel and Life of Jesus at just

the time of the conception and planning of Triumph of Religion. Fairchild’s account is particularly revealing, for it is in her diary that the reader most clearly discerns the interpretation of Renan that informs the Boston decorations. In Fairchild’s diary, in the sentences that follow Sargent’s hearty endorsement of Life of Jesus, the artist added a cautious qualifying note. It was only because Fairchild had none of “that conventional feeling to start with” that the painter’s recommendation of Renan could pass as appropriate. Renan’s text was, after all, a “book that most young people are not allowed to see. It’s considered awfully sacrilegious. .. . Raising doubts—taking away a young creature’s faith etc etc.””> In Fairchild’s rendering, Sargent understood Life of Jesus, with its emphatically human conception of the Christian messiah, its rationalist debunking of miracles, and its reliance on German biblical criticism, as a challenge to conventional latenineteenth-century Christianity. In short, the artist was attracted by the subversive agenda he read in Renan.

Pt RENAN’S REPUTATION

There was plenty of basis for this reading of Renan on Sargent’s part. Despite Renan’s scholarly credentials and intentions, his biography of Jesus had provoked an immediate scandal. In Europe and in the United States, churchmen and women moved vigorously to counteract his influence. The proportions of this reaction were amplified, surely, by the fact that Renan’s principal “target” was nei-

ther Jesus nor God—though he did sever the ontological and orthodox

connection between the two, claiming that Jesus was not God but simply the closest thing to divinity (in terms of intimacy and quality of relation with the di-

vine) that humanity had yet produced.”° While Renan’s was a distinctly revision-

ist history of the Christian messiah, he reserved his condemnation for the

institutional church as the source of stultifying dogmatic pronouncements and structures. Writing thirty years later, at precisely the time that Sargent was working on the north end of the library hall, Emile Zola recalled the ecclesiastical furor following the publication of Life of Jesus:

39

TT J CHAPTER 1

Suddenly, overnight [Renan’s] face rose above France, with the terrifying profile of Anti-

christ. It was a sacrilege shaking Jesus on his cross. Renan was represented, like Satan, with two horns and a tail. The fright was immense, mainly among the clergy. ... Devout women crossed themselves and scared naughty little girls by threatening them with M. Renan, while the freethinkers grew interested in this audacious mind and liked to attribute gigantic proportions to him. He became the giant of negation, he symbolized science killing faith. If one adds that he was considered a defrocked priest, one completes the portrait of this rebellious archangel, a modern Satan, a victor over God, eliminating God with the weapon of the century.”

The official response of the Catholic Church was swift. From its perspective, Renan’s book exemplified recent and dangerous scientific critical tendencies in historical and religious scholarship; such literature generally supported liberalism, challenged the church’s political power, and encouraged rationalism and skepticism. Judged to constitute just the sort of “pestilential errors” and “pernicious fallacies” that Pius [IX had recently proscribed (June 1862), Life of Jesus by

Pt 24 August 1863 had earned a secure place in the church’s Index of censured works. A little over a year later, though naming neither text nor author, those for whom the message was intended could clearly see that the Syllabus of Errors condemned Renan and his book.’”* Among the hundreds of reviews and pamphlets (some with titles like “Long Live Jesus! An Appeal to the People against the Dei-

cide Manifesto of M. Renan’) that appeared in Europe and the United States, many attacks were written by individuals who, since the Index prohibited observant Catholics from ever actually seeing the text, had not read the book. Some of the most vehement detractors went so far as to suggest that Life of Jesus represented a conspiracy by Renan and his Jewish publisher (Calmann-Lévy) to destroy the Catholic faith.” Renan remained a prominent figure 1n the French press throughout the rest of the nineteenth century and a favored enemy of the Catholic Church until well after his death. During the period of Sargent’s student days and early career

years (1874-84) in Paris as well as during the time of Triumph of Religion’s initial conception (1890—94), the French historian’s name appeared in the news in ways that might well have attracted Sargent’s attention. It would have been difficult to avoid knowledge of Renan’s reputation; he had become the perennial symbolic

adversary of the French Catholic Church and its political allies. In 1878 Renan received significant coverage for his connection to another of Sargent’s literary heroes: Voltaire. On the occasion of the centenary of Voltaire’s death, Renan, Victor Hugo, M.P.F. Littré, and other intellectuals organized a widely publicized celebratory event. The government refused to take part (Voltaire’s name— not unlike Renan’s, incidentally—having well before this time acquired a kind of

40

Ibt SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

symbolic usage in French politics). In language sounding like that used to denounce Renan, one devout and disgusted English observer commented that the huge crowd, representing “no inconsiderable portion” of France’s population,

“exalted the memory of the most inveterate enemy of Christianity and its

founder.” ®° In the first decades of the twentieth century, the French church and prominent Catholic authors including Jacques Maritain and Paul Bourget construed the return to the church of Renan’s grandson (Ernest Psichar1) as a vindication of Catholic Christianity and as revenge for Renan’s blasphemy.®!

RENAN AND SUBJECTIVITY IN TRIUMPH OF RELIGION

Renan ’s Life of Jesus did more than suggest a subject to Sargent and set the scien-

tific and anti-institutional tone for his “religious” decoration. It also charted a standard nineteenth-century progressive evolutionary course from “paganism” to Christianity, a movement Renan described as the basis for Western civilization.* Perhaps most important for the organization of Sargent’s murals, Renan’s book extolled two moments of greatest consequence in the story that told these destinies: first, “the introduction of morality into religion” in the lives and words of the Hebrew prophets and, second, the flowering of the prophets’ message in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.*®? For Renan, Jesus was, in fact, “the last of the Prophets,” the one who “sets the seal upon the work of Israel.” ** From this time forward, “whatever may be the transformations of dogma, Jesus will remain in religion the creator of its pure sentiment: the Sermon on the Mount will never be surpassed.” ®° Renan’s celebration of this “pure sentiment” Sargent reiterated in his sense of the development of “subjective” spirituality. For Renan, this sort of subjectivity constituted a new beatitude for contemporary life. Alluding in his own selection of words and organization of sentences to the language and structure of the biblical Sermon on the Mount, Renan provided this emphatic summary: “more blessed still would Jesus tell us, [is] he who, disenthralled from all illusions, shall reproduce in himself the heavenly advent, and, with no millennial dream, with no chimerical paradise, with no signs in the heavens, [but] by the righteousness of his will and the poesy of his soul, shall create anew in his heart the true kingdom of God!’’* According to Renan, the ideal religion, the religion founded by Jesus and expressed most fundamentally in the Sermon on the Mount, was anti-institutional and democratic; it was “the everlasting religion of humanity, the religion of the spirit liberated from everything belonging to the priesthood, to ceremonial and to ritual, accessible to every caste.”®’ Renan’s “pure worship” represented “a religion without priests and external practices, resting entirely upon the feelings of

AI

I| CHAPTER 1

the heart, upon the imitation of God, [and] upon the immediate communion of the conscience with the heavenly Father.” ** Renan insisted, further, that much of the religious sentiment of the Sermon on the Mount could be traced to the Hebrew prophets, “defenders of the ancient democratic spirit, enemies of the rich, opposed to all political organizations,” conveyors of the highest moral and spiritual imagination. It was, in fact, the subordination of the priesthood to the individual inspiration of the prophets that accounted for Judaism’s early religious superiority.*? Subjectivity, of the sort endorsed by Sargent and defined as an immediate, intimate, experiential, and private relation to God (a relation character-

ized as the divine “kingdom” or domain within the individual), was the cornerstone of authentic religion as Renan understood and recommended it.” For Renan, the prophets signaled the beginning of the story of genuine religious subjectivity, just as the Sermon on the Mount signaled its distilled expression.

THE STAIRCASE WALL AND SARGENT’S SERMON ON THE MOUNT

be In official correspondence dated as early as 1893 (when Sargent was hard at work

on his Prophets) and as late as 1918, the artist maintained that Sermon on the

Mount was essential to his conception of Triumph of Religion.?' His desire to paint this image on the east wall panels was fundamental to his request for the second

contract—and it determined his treatment of the south end of the hall. Furthermore, Sargent clearly understood Sermon not just as one more equally important piece of the whole, but as the “central idea,” the “culmination,” the “keynote of my affair.” °* Without Sermon, Triumph of Religion would not narrate the idea he

had in mind. The second contract specifically subordinated the east and west lunettes to the east wall panels in terms of the expected order of completion as well as significance. In keeping with his qualitatively “evolutionary” pattern or

sequence of installation, however, Sargent began the lunettes first. Presumably in the interest of emphasis, he decided, sometime before 1913 when he told Edward Robinson of his plans, to leave “the three large panels [of the lateral staircase wall] to be finished last of all.”?? This course of action also offered the distinct advantage of visually pulling together the two ends of the room before showcasing the program’s climax.

In the two years or so leading up to the 1916 installation, Sargent redesigned the moldings and the punctuation of the ceiling and the east and west

walls with his three large panels in mind. Until this time he had envisioned a continuous single-subject composition, covering all three panels of the wall surface. A surviving sketch reflects this idea (fig. 20).?* Except when viewed from the

42

SSS SSS SSS SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

ce ee a, | ye 2 Ao ee Qe iy ee ee ee oe Fig. 20

John Singer Sargent, Study for Sermon on the Mount. Graphite on cream wove paper, 10 5/16 x 16 3/16 in. (26.2 by 41.1 cm). Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Miss Emily Sargent and Mrs. Francis Ormond (through Thomas A. Fox, Esq.), 1933.46 recto

north and south ends of the room, it would have enveloped the viewer’s entire range of vision and continued beyond. In this rendering and in the relatively narrow space of Sargent Hall, Sermon would have assumed panoramic proportions. While this treatment would have underscored the contemporaneity and importance of the theme, the possibility that the piece would seem entirely out of scale with the rest of the cycle, and that it might reinforce the “monotony of that long wall,” apparently dissuaded Sargent from pursuing this course, as he indicated to Josiah Benton in a letter of 8 October 1915 reporting the modification of his plans.

The letter not only reiterated the significance of Sargent’s Sermon panel as his story’s climax, the “end” of the painted sequence, but also noted the addition of flanking “allegorical” figures of Synagogue and Church. These two figures, Sargent declared, he would treat in a manner “totally different” from the Sermon, in part by containing the images in architectural frames (or “shrines” as he called them). In this letter, too, Sargent provided his straightforward explanation for reducing the lateral expanse of the Sermon panel: “My original intention was to cover the three large spaces over the staircase and below the impost with one continuous composi-

eS se ee ee ee a 43

ee GHAPTER

\ es me SE re Fig: 21

John Singer Sargent, Study for East Wall, Tripartite Design: Shrine, Landscape, Shrine. Graphite on cream wove paper, 10 3/8 x 16 1/8 in. (26.3 by 41 cm). Fogg Art

Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Miss Emily Sargent and Mrs. Francis Ormond (through Thomas A. Fox, Esq.), 1933.48 recto

tion of the Sermon on the Mount—but I find that impracticable—one could not stand far enough away to see such an extended composition—and have come to the conclusion to limit that subject to the middle space.” ”° Based on the presumed distance required to view the very large composition as initially conceived, Sargent’s explanation accounts for the more emphatic division of the three panels but not for the addition of new subject matter. Sargent pursued his revised conception of the east wall in a sketch (fig. 21) that shows him moving from the tripartite landscape he first penciled in to an overdrawing of Synagogue and Church in architectural frames. The framing devices altered the visual phrasing of the wall, shrinking the spaces now to be occupied by Synagogue and Church and “expanding” by comparison the central area intended to hold the new single-panel conception of Sermon. The focus on Sermon Sargent would maintain in that panel’s relative scale and lateral orientation.” Sargent’s earliest design for Synagogue and Church, worked out before his

ae |

decision to modify the east wall and probably while he was considering the iconography for the west lunettes, demonstrates that the artist had initially envisioned the allegorical pair as part of the cycle’s relief decoration (fig. 22). In this

44

Sree aan rrarc ee SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

ie So NG i(’ _ ssineinitoenmese on SN _ 2 od

Ns OU/4i SRN ee CLE RR ( BAERS TCO |

Ke 3{/s\nUR NEA Fae ee oa ae ae Sat ee | of oY /} ey ee 2 S ieee LA ies x et tL | \ \ ; i

‘ ¢) \ -

Asa x7 ae ee \ bE é Le j Se} Orci a ' fe Ws 7; ‘ ACh \y ASS

\,f / \ \

Witfa \i Ms minh CAN — aeit sic af ee Sot\ {\ =~.AY IOS “ . : eae

ee WS / f oa \ * if a

Fig, 22 |

| John Singer Sargent, Study for Lunettes and Relief Sculpture, top, west wall; bottom, | east wall, from sketchbook labeled “Lat[e]lish Decoration.” Graphite on off-white wove paper, 10 1/4 x 14 3/4 in. (26 by 37.5 cm). Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Mrs. Francis Ormond, 1937.7.31 folio 4 verso

phase of his thinking, Sargent sketched relief figures of apocalyptic angels for the west side of the room flanking the central lunette of Judgment and relief figures of Synagogue and Church (reversed north to south from their final configuration) for the east side flanking Israel and the Law. The sketch in which the artist superimposed his architectural shrines on the landscape (fig. 21) he probably executed in the two years or so prior to his 1915 letter to Benton, after moving Synagogue and Church from elevated relief pendants adjacent to the lunettes and locating them within the painted scheme for the east wall but before he had reached his final conception of the two figures. As in all the earlier sketches, Synagogue and Church here retain a more conventional iconography and opposition than in the final design.” The London scale model (fig. 23), which Sargent had photographed in 1915 to demonstrate to Josiah Benton and Thomas Fox the changes he desired 1n the moldings and treatment of the ceiling, showed an early conception of Church

in place and a preliminary sketching out of the central Sermon panel. An oil study (fig. 24), now at the Boston Public Library, provides an even better sense of

Se eS ere ev vee IU Pere Er Buren ree OES ca nen na Oy oe ene ana ero EPO SDnnESTEE OTE = ie 45

oo cnn a a eee a ct CHAPTER 1

Pras og + | a ; eit x ey / A - a t wate yet. s zivk ia a cele ae ae ) he noel :‘aewe Ohch!ooo eeSir af: i ye Nae Sex Ry, Be ay: E She. ; ge 4 ,Vz i ‘Sis Mi ee ZN ee aes Ie yy be va), ey Ss PQS ee’%(a

> Wee Se 2 v

i bs \"\ Vie UE wy Gee \B ih ES s von ii| fg Sh AN pinhes) oR‘We POSER} Leap a4— asl 35: ’Aa WBA ly YsWs my(Mm LG Pk i #8 » i >- 2*A®K 5 ‘io . Sh SS De® Uyeae ;

i ¥ A, \ ff Vi\Co; Le/ eagah ~~ > %& “Vi a HYee HV \ 4 VNR J ee a Sh y ; of ty 4 a Mer al a Se | (NN! ( ) Waphy y uy Uh Hh) ee ty OF ff TE ED RQ, = < ‘ y \s i i iY, hy

ae et ty ay / \\ yi pO .- SS Name She - : Ne Ie , i iN 4

ee XN ASSN ; é ie f i y y Q SS NOE ti “ LYE

‘Se SEN fii Ng a7 |.Vt | ia S7s \ ti Fig a | mY Pata. \ au # : te NA = ) ey : A | Aw,

a at 7 7 = = = aS 5 = = Ҥ

N,he (@Sip a it i5/ ,k| B ) ok Si [ysaes * 4| il: f Ba

|i is ayOE ee BD \ a Lappe Ml NN | = ay iF e NN . SHEE Seat = mS == | } yu E

af ysl it |ie SES Lee iL : meee oe ee | ee he1|ee|bee 4cert} a

———— | i a8 a 7aeSe iyr, a 3 a bai j j ves2pier : + bMe “hee i }ie “— iiaELacaBe er Me . aes ae a i: Soe bs Fig. 23

| John Singer Sargent, studio model for Special Collections Hall, three bays from center of room to south end. Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Registrar’s Files, refers to 1933.45

this stage of Sargent’s thinking about the staircase wall. Here he retained the landscape features of the central horizontally oriented panel and indicated the rela-

tional scale he desired between Sermon and the smaller, vertically oriented Synagogue and Church. Another preliminary sketch (fig. 25) has the artist working

out the figural composition of Sermon with a crowd of people inclined toward the central figure of Jesus, whose left hand rests on the head of a child. The wall of upright bodies in the middle ground cuts off the sweep of the landscape of ear-

46

TO SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

lier studies and represents a more intimate view, into which the viewer is drawn by the disposition of the foreground figures. Considering the east wall as a whole, the new, more segmented treatment featured a higher degree of thematic consistency with the lunettes above. Sargent’s Synagogue would be placed under the apocalyptic destruction of Gog and

Magog; his Church under Messianic Era (fig. 26), with the young anointed one, above, striding out confidently over Church’s shoulders; and Sermon itself would appear below the figure of a youthful Israel sheltered by Jehovah’s Law (fig. 27), marking the descent of authority from the Jewish God to the Christian Jesus. Despite the changes in scale and iconography that accompanied Sargent’s east wall modifications (1913—16), the artist and his critics remained sharply focused on the projected climax in the Sermon. Sargent never intended the latecomers, Synagogue and Church, to stand at the apex of his cultural evolutionary scheme. Rather, like Renan, he understood both institutions to represent premodern dimensions of religion. The artist endorsed a conception of the two that eventuated in the library’s labeling them the “Medieval Contrast.” “Medieval” here, in relation to recent developments in the organization and periodization of history, signified not just chronology but also the superstitious, primitive, and archaic.°? Synagogue and Church represented the institutional religious framework that Sargent saw progress discarding as it approached the “more personal relation” of individual will and imagination to the divine that Sermon signified. In Sargent’s panels, implicit in the conventional opposition set up between Synagogue and Church was an even more dramatic dichotomy between the pair of “medieval” images and Sermon’s “modernism.” In terms perhaps especially appealing to an artist, Renan had made his position on religious institutions clear; unlike the Church with its “limited” and “temporary” creeds, the expansive and “pure” worship of Jesus rested on a different founda-

bt tion: “His symbols [creeds] are not fixed dogmas, but images susceptible of indefinite interpretations. We should seek vainly in the gospel for a theological proposition. All professions of faith are disguises of the idea of Jesus.” ”” At the Boston Evening Transcript, art critic William Howe Downes articu-

lated the opinion of many that Sargent had, in fact, organized Synagogue and Church to showcase the all-important Sermon on the Mount. According to Downes, the “extremely quiet tone” of the two allegorical panels was “deliberately premeditated” to emphasize, by comparison, the “brilliancy of the central wall panel.” In the painting that would fill the “important space” between Synagogue and Church, Sargent would “delineate the climax of the evolution of the Christian religion, up to which all the rest of the mural painting in the corridor leads by successive stages in its development.” !°°

47

CHm Pr ER 4 ~

5 ST ee ke i ie eric} Sa eee tages Te eewea eT ane ea ME NT TLRi ;eerie nucovitnrents eastMRAM Lh BibaMEGS erty, toon TE YS tale NeOrt cote ee aat pen Nina ansce PeROM E ALT. i hated cUkepicte OPAak RSCTA) SROeterna DEAoe aRWale FE i ANE eh RAaaa ReMs oh oe rarFPROS ae a) i llOR SIRSAOSIN RR MRTOTES RMS INaenaPenny catanasepi

DESL Soo SO RAI OgDae er ceaeGiRT a! ORS NNSA atetin Cars ty vil Mien tat caneayaun Retin vet initNnihisIE! oak aeea te Ns See cweear amon CAI Vita gene ge at eee eer” scr Vin mentees c/aUREN LigrReNOh ara MRM eT Matin ieeiashvnr tos aes HAGE Acape a sic Srar uber ea rdeT age ENN MlGiRtRIR I RkRMA hice hatbeiol a Po ESR eee a Paas Te ee ene mete teat ele eg oR A a OL Dat Aahaa A Reema syneeats yn UCR les MR CMBR a GAA IE ei org murneeg pattern Ove He ECL aemt A RS i AR) cated aRnae Nae aES/o MSMR ea ig UU TT aterNU *

st MRS URE SSUES IL: Sy O21 Ne a Ee Rea So EPR aOR acl Hen beep cal? bake Ine, RUINS Ae Grae Siam hah MA ea hist Ti OAR AAG Ben ‘ RVR Gahanna ea dirt « SS) Me A os TSoigstea MER LOR Rhre eters RAPER ee amore De caskiahy Pa RNR Merc wt Miner Ce dir an ed vee Dat Rah uti atotoirBran tN NeaR RNim aRA RRRa a NAR PSOE ofc ie Nea! tN POE eet NTT SNPita aeSG, a Od ae teRESON ee Pathrhwea beaten hare Banding Patchvmeen eae tatMSV entnan foraacaeAN eke i ftect TO betes NaN Tees Vine te REN Pee a TAM pan rane TeNN Try) ones tit eet af - fale Neiqedc 2 waapttaaeeai Seagtn atinreat wT etre aR sas ete" AMC eee SL an Caan aa eg MC Pea ME tana Sit ao ia

Sirah oy ence A Rep echt eenR ces eyehig) aan CAs aati Secs NLR arb rf raid Divseaas ant RRC | cc GSU Ei est ie ort ERO SRaOE Si ee Aa avrae IE LANG ccs aanni scm sortie ati ta cod Sh Ma ee gee MEABS Ai een esl SB ca Ne

PRO SIS ol 0S aia et re eats nee SST USAT Sic Mat este St GIR! RT Ses ORY Coline

Shi cul aaa NaN en REEL es staKuliNe ma Wessel ati whet) ITO ot or Bearcat) suena a, eating atte nwo Arerhetiatienle ates Nara eA sha ine ral NO wrk RS ; Ieper aren OnTeae Sa el SUNG SEAL C MaeRRE WICH Cit pena RMSE ikea co ately al TEARS Bad [CON ER IANS Sco rs oy eal dea RAG MRL ett] URcac CRAM el IU gn ERS a aca AI ee Ariel EC Ra OME RES aA ete | ate sR aes as Bie veh ene ASG yyret rate Coes Pepi ates a Serie rin ser mee hu TAAL Leda Ne Mim AP Tp ain eye bon tenon yc Dy rai oni tas APP ac aL MEST taster a pan aM Mee ER Lome OME Arete ens | aA Ny Mond AS CTO, ey :

iit Noe : artnet BEBle REE thsabel aE atscH alr esSas (a avs yd et oNa 2ance Gp OO ERede ey eae Seats CON) a BO Gian bate) herag Wann es ec eater ie eaten ; eS entrae ixts Reta Sr St Msatin Gp rite Wve Naas eee Saha Le AT 2 »Saag Seathas PNania ARatNE EAE EA (aed aDPAUSE wa PR :

Teh ay : Aymara ea O.'3 inrhce at eag R a rap anamce nese ates =o) Pie itane och ete deet ReR RN urh eti akg eget ns once 87k eh aR PATRAS Cate er

Sateanians pane en on ee haeGin EGMe ange oe one iS ASO ier esPE 3s ea GARIN as el ace bit,NE acrswrtint FRRLU RoyaRPO nis astr he EP ae a RORSRN de htaia asics ISSUES ADL, Sigelean BSS EE EEE HR CS TRA ne al aa

i est sicsiieeisuaen Raa SON SE De erase ON er pen NA a Sena St sa a Para raaar Ree lac paces lls AES not een Gefen We ceases Dae eA et ein ct el ae ne RAAT | Sm 08) aeta ngaeng cee8ese 1h‘ atte geanaeda Smee 22 ae ao BM Taf Qe BN ers peemeeg |= ¢: Bin ES , Ota ae oy dace 2 Sasi||a aioe pein 43 bs) hacahact| e rae dGa} SNee seks Vaieee .beeae ; Birt Bo i ee ee 3 ai ieee c* ‘Guinan? $e Neiped eee | ; > aa | te at SP oe ae Willies Berra oes Sei y Ahr lige neato eae oe . ied Teas oes » thr paotss Sar oh Baer geoi) rein? vena larawer $eT Satie oe9rte oe. ‘CRs s at bisicercied eres Oot aerate ae Pie lh ‘ . Tabien aes et ope: Se; ‘‘Cana bhai‘ |\ ;NE eB“3 a)Oe BipPeae a bags ek 22

eee | Pi al ies BN eR SN

a renee te ae ae Piper eat ee lr Ot He a NOAA Sg SRLS TEAL th ere a. |) LIA Tn a Ma Re eas eh SAC SA ee y RSicghated bnoeycta oI OeSaree MENGREE MMTapes 2coSHees Scip Sy ted heh mk zea 10 lhe, Suara RNS tis a aber OM mea Ls, Nn coda opus Pn ia Neat aufes Coes etde es ay ci 0k ee tae ye i ae a Ree ee a:hie t ae) 4 P‘~A, E Se) as ‘ge bs ae, 7 ty Ey 4 (ed Re 4 ea; S4 ig>fr2Ipoti thyAe 2 } = qo Sa Rae ) Tact . ay; my - 5 em \ Tis , %* ed) Vee > A = aie 2 e

Fe} die ef hei?oer ,Sens a5‘Fike ed 4 oe i&4 ae, :Seem ray of Ale aY : ;Ae eo .a4fi) ee1. 2i éus %y “a Pydie 1 aed fogf r We \ al cee ¥ CP\ YZ a Z, iQ Sy , Al f AY iy ty esi hd mE TY { . ‘ \ f\ las we ae Pe) ; * y , nf Ae 3 at +; ‘ hia —“— . Aant w 5 > Bo ; ae eo. Mom Oh M hee, @/0;Pa; ~~

5 ae Yan ts \ ’hfvmy By Leer a } eo ae my “a=A a ~iS r ysteiA@ 7aEo 4ahs iy hes a eal i) *AD eS Ny 9| 9: 5: "Cfe) ike Hate 1}te Fie pe ;fae Msi] Ws ts CO Oy cy RP | DS \ » AG 1a | ae pa ci 8 . Ri .boy Ey oN o> = thet ee & Tae (ya Cian \\ A Pease | ia aogsNy VES ;4Xba tePLADS NV wee *aefey .‘aofeoeye Rs xm eee LAK ae 1) se . LR, = ~ \ ak ihm ay SUE Sez ‘Ns3)a5eK*See \ ereA Weal Mey Lond Spgs \e) i $a \ RS %\ ee 7. / s/f eae 5 PhLD SRT

, Oa aS Se Ae 7 : \\ 2 Se

SE |Yee ay~oaaSeePV Peefefh ee RS SlPON) A, NA AES om).aSteet fie a 5 ZERS Bt tS \ (2: Wey 7 Oe eae ay ONG Mey ae oe cS

Sh nn aes Sey TN“een Fe NE Diger Fseee” / Coa meee 2 ee CARS eh ee hy4, a) Re y/ ie) ae eae Geass. Pag eR sor Ra 2 eee Rather than literally copying ancient styles, Sargent produced his own “modern” versions from a well-

pt established stylistic lexicon. In the artist’s own words and from his first

descriptions of the murals, he contrasted “material,” “formulated,” “conventional,” “allegorical,” “abstract,” “primitive,” “symbolic,” “archaic,” “severely decorative,” and “definite” renderings with an assumed stylistic opposite corre-

sponding to the “spiritual,” the “subjective,” the “more personal.”''!® This change in style he understood to manifest a change in substance. From Sargent’s perspective, the emblematic mode codified and objectified religious experience, restraining interpretive possibilities. His formulaic language of representation functioned in Sargent Hall to underscore the “pastness,” the otherness, the distance in time and space between what was depicted and the freedom of “modern” experience for the artist and, by extension, the city of Boston. The pagan, the primitive, and the dogmatic made possible for Sargent a rhetorical contemporary opposite: the subjective, the personal, the spiritual. Sargent likened the abandonment of formulas, which he approached in his Prophets and intended to attain fully in the “keynote” of Sermon on the Mount, to a freedom from external and institutionally determined religious authority. He was not interested simply in a chronological historical accounting but (as his title indicated) 1n qualitative change as well,

$4

TT SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

in a movement from the material to the spiritual, from the dogmatic to the experiential, from objective to subjective, and from externally generated theological prescription to voluntary, interiorized, and private moral choice. The meaning Sargent assigned to style in Triumph of Religion may represent a late manifestation of a visual discourse Michael Paul Driskel claims was assumed in France during the years of the artist’s training in the Paris studio of

Emile Carolus-Duran. In Representing Belief: Religion, Art, and Society in Nineteenth-

Century France, Driskel has mapped in nineteenth-century French religious art an ideological opposition between naturalism and the “hieratic mode,” corresponding to progressive and traditionalist religious positions respectively.''’ In this case, the hieratic mode, characterized by such qualities as “frontality, stasis, severity, and an emphatic reduction of pictorial illusionism,” was the principal constituent of the aesthetics of ultramontanism. It represented a visual response to and defense against just the sort of secular scientific enterprise signified by the work of Ernest Renan. Naturalism, characterized by a more relaxed individualized rendering and direct observation of the visible universe, could be considered “an adjunct of the ideology of progress”; this mode of representation was preferred by those in search of the historical (as opposed to the supernatural) Jesus.1!® The style, of course, did not actually correspond to the “real” any more than the hieratic/iconic mode corresponded to the “transcendent.” ''? But Sargent and many of his late-nineteenth-century audiences maintained that naturalism was “contemporary” and “scientific,” and thus, by implication, “real.” '?? Driskel argues further that Renan’s application of the basic principles of positivism to the sacred

Ls story of Jewish and Christian scripture and history hovered behind the emer-

gence of a naturalist aesthetic in France after 1850.'*! By the end of the century, when Sargent was painting his public library murals, the hieratic mode was no longer tied to any single ideological position within institutional Christianity in France (not to mention London or Boston). However, its association with a conservative authoritarian Catholic expression in the Paris of Sargent’s own student days might have informed the painter’s selective appropriation of the style, even more likely given Sargent’s interest in Renan.'” Sargent’s adoption of a narrative suggested by Renan and a somewhat outdated stylistic hierarchy informed by French painting theory explains some of the visual peculiarities of Triumph of Religion, for example, the oddly petrified treatment of Moses (fig. 28). In volume 1 of his History of the People of Israel, Renan commented on the antiquity of Moses: “Moses, at the distance [in time] at which he stands, has the appearance of a shapeless column, like the pillar of salt which represents Lot’s wife.”'?? According to Sargent’s schema, of the figures represented in Frieze of Prophets, Moses, as the most “primitive,” is the most styl-

$5

a a ee ee CHAPTER 1

NS

Soe | Wad SSORLe 5s aye eM: Pi: >. ; ay e

Loam 4 a a y SO Ba gare ay F aA iF : A ee ee i Sweet i basae

Bien ih 2: A , oe Pies, 2 eon tee gg emma, |7 Gaerne 7° Go| hae edaNY y [ronn 8 7 ON as es a

me \ pie 7, ao La

peers Ba Ne i ae

ized. Rather than representing an actual human presence, his Moses, “still surrounded by the [winged] divine presence” shown staying the hand of the oppres-

sor in the lunette above, has the function of making “manifest the law of God.” !*4 That this stylistic setting apart of Moses was a deliberate strategy on Sargent’s part is clear not only in the artist’s own statement that he retained in this central frieze panel alone ‘“‘an element of the abstraction of the preceding portions [i.e., the ceiling and the lunette]” but also in a surviving oil study (fig. 29).'°? In the study, Sargent treated Moses in a manner more consistent with his “living and realistic” treatment of the four major and twelve minor prophets, a manner subsequently rejected by the artist in favor of the sort of formulaic differentiation we see in the finished Hebrew lawgiver.'*° Another early oil study, this one of the north end of the hall (fig. 30), demonstrates that as Sargent’s conception of his

ee a Moses changed, so did his conception of the overall organization of Frieze of Prophets. In the preliminary study of the hall’s north end, columns isolated and contained the individual figures of the prophets. As Moses moved toward the final “great conventionality” described by the library’s 1895 Handbook, the visual orchestration of the Frieze moved from an earlier more regimented appearance toward a freer, more pronounced naturalism. '*’

56

ea ge SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERN RELIGION

ee ae Bee io ees. ete) Al pres Bene noice (ae

ee ey MB NO

ares iis aie ny CG nee Be ie Birliaiie: SWGTEAN Rate yy (eee NEnQ,> SE aes Se “) >) ae aS Bho Dine aa a Wo Wate takes ne sSet : eaay f amen! ‘ hoe ae een pose ie eee {co eee 7 a2 y jf — NS. : Shep eeNoge. we re . Tint. pie “ sfher hor BP 24 LOO .RC SONS! aa érn ats tice re px was ~ SN SS RIES ic SY ¢SSRa Ay eR ye " Tia i | i. ~ oe . re oN 6 es - _i eer ert fs. ‘3 of} r ig o/, he a SN 4 x Bs. , ee: ss se 5 A oa Js = £2 Sy a i ie ’ a | nil Wa 7 mms ot Sala Sees ‘Souk PN

FEC On .. enh ADae. |.ba a=. one hFibs {\ES ‘al Ire S Wee Oe ay, ily eS Sak Aaa Ty a De NOAA. ik SF a ~ fi N / J aNG AN pet eadee ,eePN SWI eae sau CAAA EL. |ny (/atm 4| Ne Se NWeeke a oe F/, & \NEY iB Neen a a TAN rere See af . | see —_— Ag eS Soe Wass pat Qe Eee " “ne ey r “ Mt — Nae x a poe = . i ~< Wa Se Neeson eo) in > SRC De re . Acer eeeBo Ut Soo DRAaaeea,tip : Or “2. AAs “ ont we > ey ®\\ : ceed 3 ~3ae : =oe ekENF AEMTha ee.aes ——— ---——-— *+ ar SNS a ieee

,= ’7 :rs> mes aaleT eae ‘“ —ors y Wee - ae ote AY oS Wet / gbSOS : weet ape EEae. A ks Peas Sab ALOT ACoed Tax DT aYel RP et etanN Bs, fBY. Vere ; 5 kit titre ~~a ee PRese a ee = Sct ARS, Sse AN etSenet Fei ae fortre 5 aot) eda iy } i ih “ Woe

vs i See ne tree eae |: |! “tae ; Os, ft eae 5 : ibe eae SSH “i Ae tee—-* caigiene Som SS : !Dies edge ome 4 eS ees As eae Giga AFe Ate |aliters aSm\\"

ee ee ~ ety ie a \14a reeeen anegaa Hh : eka, eee ys Pe:EO tev ' ‘ey St eo eats conowenl Foi=es 4Ld:ysss Fiteat eras Rc, ir2 ti% faem oan eee By jects i Re date ok

SAS tate ee Oe ee Se Ae | ae Se a a is a eo SG eee eat e et lat : | Weer

a = ham Sofaf 2 7joes we 4dy: ‘ Tn Wap GERMeea a A>ASR tg rae te Won ge sheet Tae en ——\\5 \NOE x pA >,iii at )hire “i +} moe be bY-3We me ash Sa es LLPi}Sees an So PERE xOES LT Be}‘ ,e POLLAN {reek AN Seepage eerie area —— | ee BIAS ; ie (eyayiiHye Tei Q .‘ .=e LILES

esi eR 4rt Soar BA2Re Ceete Aeaitlan 1 CI ERS ARE ASS ana,Tay eeMotel Pl. nema ue eeeae Tec) ee jefe! si) Me: Se Pea eee aaR: AY e ieee | :q3; BH SN SOE eteSEY RH Ns iahy*: reeks oe (I||} Rater. et cerca eS TOS Maar Sa 7ies. DEshHi a CMe ayied wth Sie SeatPETA ek GeEO PaclTES Leh eet |e Sage yFate : Ros iaGogh RaiaPPO eo oe RN Rccithne, htaren SI OC els Wag aSoD Re AS Fete tae aie a NT eh AWee, Wee encore Gt vt Oe Se ho maite te: aa reeled Phos Posen seaman thio GUAT REE EN RR i ET: ast? pra araAR . SS i FRR pea Bees Aeris cats oti ‘Maat } te oS ; is Dae Fae LS SEARS SAK “ect mete St eae eat. Ne ee Sy Zeca (ie a a RR URIS a ae Phra SS SY re ne ; gage can SMBS RGIS oe Ths re ie i hed Tbe HEet‘ ey c ails ited SeLAR thy COT Cease cht a,tgont Sneaker Ee ‘ he ae soe eperieyS S tie. DlAp A St he rlae \ 2y fa oa |=. ;Cae a ime Vere cat. - aSee R}alSaye eS = op 2 aeeen Aad te ee >pea cy ee Nap veT aadhyper wer esa eo eaeae -Rae * oS) to) ee eee Bet Bei: fie: ies AB elle ae oe TET ee OSS an 2 eR «TEeinem Pee | EE Lie: 53 eneai a eee et Ne) eee Seea= bee 3 See. Se ene ane SR ye *RS Re am A aLalba RRsSa Se13) eke ae BR? Mr tary Se kg, Rae PERS 09 Soar cod aelinge aoe TT ig)1ee : Eeer 1A ayer, ere eea,Yeae aSSwe BREADS seerSPARES iS (4 IA 0Nt= eget (5 Deere) Se Bir,I va Cea oadeat aS eet ao pepetng eae ee yt Au Sreeaes Saar ee Ses ae th ~~oe +}pres TS aOS aa TRE . ; Ja As . = Crea sep Meas pega s eT a) Se RASS DIE ae See eae be ae SI an pa eS Ses tte: |-)eaOS. aero sates 9 nt Tq Ak ‘Cea PeocaestOy; Ry babe wasn) et pe ye ipe oes 8

Sg bo Fawr SS Se Co ee Fae 1) ae ING arse CS Seg Wat ee WE NE ; SOMERS BP POE SY a.aie ea ee Seta Blea Fox tsh 4°et5 agine i debs Oe rs is eee Bip elena appa SeSe aeee: Ree i89 PRE : be i” MtFt Vee fe? Skis seee (Gy pee Wei bee, ash:fz Bo(Lay Bento Bi nae eater t.C5 poe weeT TADS EIOESS ype ee ; pL Sines eeeea eats “aa as fieeeae { "a7h $5 Rigg pes a roSr2° aae aeoD Saar? $5 ‘ae as SY, Webasto BE1Sot arm oe meees Porn we yeaa: are BM Tatar, tice aS os Tae SRA, *|eia> Rn ogee AG Pe Ua! ena iereaaa a Actin ate ETO Ber tsRSS RD tN ;“1 wy tS Weapie See NS ane ‘ery ast {Oy ry2ko Dens Toe 2= }ak) ep te‘ Ny taeGee ee 52seo 4)Sag iBnis=ve rin GEE ORGS SR mea aR SOA eS echt |ay Ay, ne:» Ce kee ee Dyan Ais Dro Ae Sh iets SSE ie hal tardy tetoan _ae ec. Boe Poe PON Per ee gnc Sots ea ats en)(ase 4 See Ae2ica vorrd :a“ - ey. paneer 7= 7

STALE: ESE TS Tare erate tare Co Maced tem ee ae heen SS ae 4 ME e ale sate 4 B ¢ *’ etl Sains Oe oy “i Pel eae tet

; Se = |. ee esHoo ; Wotan -cman %=PsitARM oe A ee Te Aika A EN wee ESS FOO NeHp LEOGRE APE. 93ee ae ren Vey . Sate dyesIaAS pte iN tll : 4) Se A ‘Neier apie eee 2 7Ey f Se ee Sig yore aoAn Ne yeFr< aa 38 :IVT ; msrR “2. ‘N op SoWerner oo. BP SSBose etyAe pacha esvies Garey) © OS % ,SIapences a. AS A Ti a ar eenA Se eS G es Bee:

|eeaseeeaYen aePilea- ce CS aeeecal =eAtires aii faggerE 957ee tae PS PNNee SI ENS POOR. nyaN nie gy Meese a Cer aa] EE tl OUR Sea he © SS AeNey ia fv Naamen cade Boe) Sehe ; bdpe = EN Re | NR ee (SS LS oP Re ub) NS Na BY (aon ei KA \ See ees eae ela

ae Seaane fenton ay 45Piake hd, ' oa oy tE ete ee ae SrSAL, Gps ms3Yak \ AeSEN. , AY B\ Bie \ pe ae® elt Tir ae in ay asin til Si : PACT ye) SN | Aaasoa Fi ae ¥ sth AN ~aeeBing ae ee Bed a *. ane Syn Bg ee IFSe eae ageoa1Sch oper ade es) oyuMe eee: vod atney Bni :he PANN. SRee:ees , Pe

iene 4 RYOR oaks 43 y Le are bod snag Smet Meare wee oS SINS | itera Nt oop CO be or Pg athe ORAL SP ae ee SN SG ee. ae ae oF eee ae Pree : os ra ph ceases ¥ eA hs oe Yee fe oS Se taees: SI dy Rp a og Sy. te 2S Ee he p plow | ABZ fm ¥ eg lJ Rms oN RS LT RRA Sn at a SUES Pas ao ‘ é iyi 2 é te ta au = ORS OE GR fenee ss RR ee a ae Be Bier pee Seal PR Denis 2 =) Ue! Sr viehay A Meeneatinad «,S TPR As pe Be 3 AY aS ee SS RRR SS te NG TO MS acer ee hate fesse

ity Oa Th! beatsme mee)’, ba aeG , ks nebeRiviere Gee Fahne A tie NaSets geil hai eeaeSi 118: st oagrBin ; ES NaN NST eae “Si As ng g Petting 7Oe Wee TOW Ne pir. lai* Wiad ba emo teran cot, Ags8hp ay : oe eite 1SG) eta+ hues ae SE FR aeea) ao Mai “ attr stytit al poi betas‘Wines Retin aNmeme ns.Gees: ci “% :| ::sph eS eaeee Pe Gees rata: Aeeten .RPE Rae am maia pat ra Di CMM bea eaotVERN fade Pea. eee eeed CAA Se Bee bat pare jercae ttn Be ous) OM. “a(ages Ee‘ eh? i“ 7oa Sesey *Rejetass Sad 2A ttSiSee REL: ¢ ada ora, SAN wraps. Sa 44 inde } Sed aanBee See5. ANE ake| REPa ue amma BS Pew tate ; MaSa Srp CME aS:eae} cM RE Tah 4 Cady Dhar es ces Re ake ff ef Bye tehMee eh ifneve GA Psiagar oyGoing Sew AN taht Sy G4 Ba, Wicks NEN f ee| ake a be cca Bias , Tchr my esieBey ; ee: OTR SA 1 eau % iy 3a Babi SP bone ee ee edo ° oe MEAN Se AS ee on ee ae y pany DAREN oe Res ae? Alsrglt Aes : Ree au ae Seek Geae AAds yeeReagan Waa: aaeeps 2eee~~DRS A aun Wh palais Sina eo ciroRano mady treet cesSNH Apo Cas : aaa }aiegi RNB yates petty Rotsean Meio Se Tes es ease RY SOP Oe? LG Sa uaa Otte pap slides Come ie ah Ae Swi aaN aNGc: heea By GeesGap Cee Uni A Asher Galina’ YEW aA iN. SeePd 3. UO Aa Daas ets Rae See 4 Lay 1 See RETR Va ee ‘7 a ae Maly rahe ih IReee aa Stes ee reais i ute 1 teore 34"eae ee Somes xa bia 6 Pikes SHBSis Sees Uh sae aeNRC

Ger oa “Gti Slea 5 feat eee eemec ae Ae) 2) bball(AC Veoh ghs SR INGe 1 Gr eee ieee” watt g\, oo | it = ,hh Mbt at ay Aree Ss ESA Se we NG : ee ; ce Gees ce.) eee BSAaa . i Eg” et :,§Geen

,2|,|

The main entrance to the Boston Public Library used to face

Copley Square across Dartmouth Street. There was a broad ex| terior stairway and inside there was a beautiful marble staircase

leading up to the main reading room with carved lions and _ high-domed ceilings. It was always a pleasure to go there. It felt like ello ta mrvelems (ole) > if f he er a\\\B\\ ~A\ i Mae oa Bo V4 wyUP PRSSN 7) \e yess

ve Bebach! a bs 4 ‘ oy-\oh , WisFAA ze aS eenff ak er ;* iaeael ‘ie Fg eg | “ty

ing Te Ue {jis fe Be] ~ ee -y mis ;| Fae be.pad} |}, a| toy Sepak A Ba

. = a i a GAS — > ania. ' YL _a = |a“3 Vik > ee ete Zpee >, ee, Ci ee ea —— Po i Mos | — ss ee =»ia ay oP OP dS MPs, mia: || :ee er eee = TA nam aan A one? phe pe. i‘aa =SSing Ger ae a ee: GE he ae oi eer ee neck eet te Se B re LESS a = Kon SSH ‘Sirah erway srs ne ae tus st LaeNs ee i Pneon lapel insRe ea ee eer ftSELL ( edi SAA eetBa eereneneing ts ei POSS Py 8eiatBafad ah encican es Ao Sees ener Ae angenaeGh Wi(reg BeSiieteen Mies) fh ref ae

(Sa a ee SI aati Wane. REL CAEP iS

jab NE cy SRL RDI pM Aes Pees: PG yay PR NY, 7 Rape! kel |

P= {celia eeeSal cates LNaN Wik. wt si ANE hoe|| Hi ena ae¥ oe a)en Seberi Peay ahy fadTS ONhay { ie)

bad ae=NE i,Jae SY aaa en dd ie* Sn shefi ae tef. (Biaid ;(Nar eed 4*i :oe: ei | ya canis SS A, ~“ i lee Fo, ayy , 4 See i! oa ' i eg eee i= —— 3Saat | yeu Pee aoe: Ries Th) eyeea)Bites © the ah? i oust A nck eae eo) Me] ot eens aaieaes 21 3-Seas ee rer any nee H Kate >feae Ta. .)hg area? ee :‘Gs aS oa ea Ferd oo |te mht * os esie x| SARS ' ieee os.) , |eae 5B ee 4 MS eee eae a ae al! . io ee i || Aw hipad i ie wha eae ‘ AT: Ri oi “* | ws Bab ater emcee &)' f.| bine , ee ‘ a iY Ree sei rene 34 2} nc A iay|hr4 Pos ces 7 ||+4 | ae ‘9: iM ne Hi heres aedHere a ee Sieg fy a AY city: 7.

BS i " ‘3Eee £ ein . &§oY oF. @ ;Py) yena: fe : ae: GPS Vices: fadseas P alae See ivaanF Peery EN ~~ eka ae ak > aw) eweeek POpheMe or)EKOo) ee eeeSrEe "ite eeE

—Seoesy ) Saveaeine Sake aah Saad we, © ee ayy bey

Byes dy 2 vA Wy cr ie ao Mae os so, = —. rote RAS se certo sn a || rape fet SN pe Ti Se hes ooh.2 Tee SF sk ay. ti | ee aes Seed | Ma eS tee Bien “ty. 2COM 1, bynes eh am be enti Se (pS

ae eh eu Py 2. Rae : hVo) yes: ty Sieh myStee ME SipeSot hat ‘| ei; ne hig aaa reea | aaa Ge rina hae ott 5 \ Tene rk ives: d it GFE yer :ZLy’H. i Sree : ‘ HALT io . O% NM { er rah eae 4 F Fa 4 Sn 2et Ps be \ Serre an eens Pree ny |

:aehaa aAoe ee ge: ateeoN A aee ae tSe :ay: a Bei >: : is me ome esaAP Gis, ia np. OT at armemaen Pehd : j *

= Cree ——ar aon1/ ee Ser “is > i / / ai jh io on 'y Vie 1

Pon. A a eee a se || | es ee Ree ee es ola & ane Fig. 46

| Dogma of the Redemption, photograph by Richard Cheek, c. 1977 |

poraries readily acknowledged, this was clearly a “symbolic delineation” of “ancient” and “archaic” Christian dogma, not an expression of religion as practiced in the modern era 1n the United States of America.*° The organization of the hall itself, with its relatively cramped space between the upper landing of the staircase and the south wall, its comparatively high ceilings (the room is higher than it is wide), its skylights distributed across the three central bays of the north-south axis, = and the long barrel vault of the gallery extending back to the north toward the chambers beyond, which housed the rarest special collections of the library, soon rerouted the spectator’s gaze in a northern direction.*’

ee EE ee ee ee ee ee ee a, 80

I RITUAL PERFORMANCES

At the north end of the room, the high-relief Moses with the tablets of the Law (fig. 28) established the initial focal point. In two letters to McKim in December 1891 Sargent indicated his firm commitment to giving Moses sufficient “prominence” on the north wall and providing him with a sort of visual “pedestal.” Following an example he saw “used in a Pinturicchio fresco,” he asked McKim to build out the moldings above and below Moses, thereby secur-

ing for that figure a “real plane in relief.”” The painter would himself “paint a false architectural relief” for the two flanking figures (whom Sargent named as Joshua and Deborah here, though the finished Frieze substituted Elijah for Deborah).* The articulation of the cornice line above the three figures would further secure both the real projection of Moses and the illusory projection of the central block of three with respect to the rest of Frieze of Prophets.*°

Sargent’s composition allowed the eye to rest here momentarily with Moses, then pulled it upward along the strong vertical axis initiated by the figure of Moses above the central feature of the north door and leading upward through

the kneeling figure of the foremost of Sargent’s Israelites oppressed by the stylized leaders and gods of Egypt and Assyria (fig. 6). The loosely symmetrical arrangement of figures in the lunette and the orientation of their bodies punctuated the vertical as did Sargent’s use of strong reds along this axis, in the garments of Elyah

Pt and Joshua who flank Moses and in the red wings of the cherubim embracing Moses and hiding the face of God at the top of the lunette, above. This compositional channel through the center of the lunette Sargent further accentuated by his naturalistic treatment of the Israelites and the formulaic treatment of other figures whose appearance approximates more closely the art historical objects they reference than actual beings. The inscription, excerpted from Psalm 106, on the rib at the juncture of lunette and ceiling vault, informed the diligent viewer that the formulaic images of strange beings in the ceiling (figs. 4 and 5) represented the

“idols of Canaan” in whose pursuit the children of Israel had strayed from the truth. Here Sargent arranged the body of Neith, as he had seen her in Egyptian temples and papyrus, with limbs extended so that her fingers touched down just below Astarte’s crescent moon and her toes behind the “Egyptian trinity” of Isis, Osiris, and Horus on the west.*° The span of Neith’s body is evident in Sargent’s oil studies (figs. 47 and 48) where her toes (at west) and fingers (at east) are more clearly seen than in photographs of the final versions in the library Combined with the judicious use of rich reds, blues, and gold, the disposition of the goddess ensured that the beholder took in the extravagance of images on the ceiling. The visual arrangement of the elements and the deliberate contrast of the initially confusing profusion of the ceiling and lunette with the simplicity of the prophets below, however, especially once a sense of the narrative chronology

SI

ial aaee ’ } et CHAPTER 2

sa —

| : BY‘ie seis : oe a 7 G Ci iat : | au (ape he | e |4f 4s| 3 fia i" ~ z, ; 4E:i | oh J wad econ A

ia

if = pe ’ 2 | PONS ae | ; eee i ie Leeaex1 eS. fed : A: es by iPaRS : x ae tte Sage

* sae 4 |7 a 4 soF \ % oers $38Le | ‘ emsth : } i Ai we7& |: ‘ Ci fae ee

Fig. 47

‘ ae

John Singer Sargent, Study for Moloch, 1892-93. Oil and graphite on canvas, 83 3/4

Fig. 48 |

xX 44 5/8 in. (212.7 x 113.4 cm). Trustees of the Boston Public Library

John Singer Sargent, Study for Astarte, 1892-93. Oil and graphite on canvas, 79 x |

| 40 1/2 in. (200.7 x 102.9 cm). Trustees of the Boston Public Library |

| lea a aeedtraoemenal ea J 82

ae RITUAL PERFORMANCES

emerged, drew the eye back down the central axis to consider Frieze of Prophets (figs. 7-9). Though Sargent later claimed that Frieze of Prophets had become his least favorite element in Triumph, he worked the row of figures to excellent effect in his design.*! Relying on a keen sense of such visual cues as gesture, color, and the use of shallow dimensionality, Sargent organized the nineteen represented individuals to accomplish two simultaneously operative results. First, his distribution of prophets, with the dominant central Moses flanked by the prominent Ezekiel and Isaiah (the three singled out by Renan as well), articulated the significance of the north wall as an independent unit. And, second, some of the same elements also established the overall visual movement of Frieze (comprising panels across the north ends of the west and east walls as well as the north wall itself) as a subtle but certain eastward progression. Both Ezekiel and Isaiah, for example, the

former in voluminous white drapery (fig. 49), the latter robed in heavy blue,

pt

stand to the east of center in their respective panels. Preliminary sketches and , studies for the prophets (figs. so and 51) indicate the degree to which the artist — considered a large range of possibilities in terms of gesture and the positioning of 7 hands, faces, and draperies before settling on the final design with its elaborate , choreography.*? In an early sketch (fig. 52) now at the Fogg, for example, Micah assumes a posture similar to that adopted by Jonah in the completed frieze. In the

single panel of four (as shown in Sargent’s sketch), this posture served to anchor a the gestures of the other three figures. In the full composition of nineteen oo. prophets, however, Micah had to respond, across the room, to Joel as well. Generated by the point and counterpoint of Sargent’s deliberate figural arrangements a and by the brilliant interplay of hue, value, and saturation, the chain of figures weaves its way across the shallow space. This line of movement culminates in the three southernmost figures (Haggai, Malachi, and Zechariah; fig. 9), whose gestures lead the viewer to the east wall. The ceiling vault too played a role in the gestural dance toward the east; Sargent reversed the conventional mythological disposition of Neith’s body so that the Egyptian sky goddess’s fingers would touch down on the east, thus rein-

forcing the directional sense of the prophets.*? Even in 1895, when only the north end images were in place, the artist’s direction of attention to the east was evident to library patrons, as an early print by Ernest C. Peixotto demonstrates (fig. $3). In this illustration for Scribner’s Magazine, of the seven spectators depicted in Sargent Hall, three look toward the north wall segments of the Frieze of Prophets, one gazes up and slightly to the left, likely taking in the western portion of the north

wall lunette, and three look toward the east wall segment of the Frieze, the socalled Prophets of Hope, who, like Peixotto, direct their attention (and ours) to the empty east wall panels that would ultimately contain Triumph’s focus.

83

GHAPTER =

i : = a : - eee bc vee BeLi-P,_ ae tte foeadiFae, gisy ic Se” | | 2s eee ; | | ee Capea! a | aes fides) es ae me) vie net in| ta

ny” | La. Vn %

ee ae

moe OWN Ne ae oe 4 |eeae:Ce A Wear «veer | saa OR US Ae ee iy ete 4 oy Me ee ee ipo Fo | oe |

ee , fs \ oan My ey | eee gaa Pre Ro ceR SS EPS RS Be esaooRi RS RS gee ||: os vf gm . — j Fig. 49

| John Singer Sargent, Frieze of Prophets, panel at west end of north wall, installed 1895. Oil and gilding on canvas. Trustees of the Boston Public Library |

Fig. 50

Opposite, top left: John Singer Sargent, Study for the Prophet Joel, c. 1891-94. Char- | coal on cream wove paper, 14 3/8 x 9 15/16 in. (36.6 x 25.3 cm). Fogg Art Museum, |

| Fig. $1

Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Mrs. Francis Ormond, 1937.7.32 folio 3 recto

|

Opposite, top right: John Singer Sargent, Study for Frieze of Prophets, West Wall

Panel, c. 1891-94. Graphite on cream wove paper, 9 15/16 x 14 3/8 in. (25.3 x 36.6 cm). Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Mrs. Francis Ormond, 1937.7.32 folio 12 recto

Fig. 52

Opposite, bottom: John Singer Sargent, Study for Frieze of Prophets, East Wall

| Panel, c. 1891-94. Graphite and charcoal on off-white wove paper, 10 x 14 1/2 in. (25.4 x 36.8 cm). Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Mrs. Francis Ormond, 1937.7.32 folio 10 verso

84

a eg ce ee ee RITUAL PERFORMANCES

4 1a

fe we FN | é :AO sat PB \ fl (A, i wc ix cS | ee hh ‘BY ve Nhe” s|d Py me oy »Ag SS NiBN Re { }oe }\ Oe pe i . Mf 7 (ees er ee AY At nay ‘ 'XY 5 ji 3: ay f 7; — i “IX \; \ | / yi) ; Py \ os AJR \ & hr? VW / Beek Wy { ; if etee fF \ a Wed } F i “— ifr\%,\ \K\ \ j /ne \ : =Cass Hi ahset. A HAG =) a ‘ | ke i / \ sy a | 2 / A 1 \\, ae ; \ I f NS x | iy ADA. i XNepee! ten \ }Sua fi | ih et ua RSE AY) a os | Li ‘ \ YG) / ae ‘\

ae ae |HAR AN PW \ eeeSO (eN NGmee eh ate oe8 aeeeeee [hae en sel Baste et cnes :

ie coal fei mag at Y bo Se AES es ages Bigs Hae ; ) ae \ ‘aa RN il i,SeiaaPRA. Phe | oi GF Oe ae fi| “LAN 4 WNMY bEfe WN i The language of even the negative criticism acknowledged the narrative yoking of the north

89

ao ee ee eee aS as GRAPPA R ¢

pee oeena eaeee Fahim aan bet Te oe PES ee ee en Se

Co Oo YAROROT EI rma Sa Pe ‘wlgu CUD. bigs SeBa - Nee ul age Neifie See Be") en ee AN BE Daag SSS ae PP rt Wao Ve >2 “Sh SN be “ype ahs) SeezSei Se " i aa -aoa / AFR Siew yy 1BO Deefay. > Pa

eg li Sal Qos Seay A SE) SS , hy #} * : ’ ut ; Le goof » , Ne ee Be ee. ae BEEN) atINE SN ieee pa te ® y DW el aeeenSANS LY" i med, a “Saag tii i fy \ NS a, sy SN“

4 ey Si Eo‘po 4Cathay is BOSE BA wy } 4h4 y7)me 4a vee baNit a Wie ueSis ~ der hs Vigk ie OD ie ae Pron) Ape A £¥! tdiyo> ma>NAM Ae) er “ef dbo” i Coe \ yy Se ae mee a I Binks) RX N i NV. Ge . ai NY, ma Yow’ NY

Mad ‘ af v i ¢ a R A J 4 on Ey i f it ‘.

A 4 ee ‘bh \ sf =fVAMC A (ipAehsere “4 ee *ee“oy i >\:\py 5 o y(ia-fob Ie St acy Jia he "A . assed

97

CHAPTER =

i) 32220 SSS SSS SS SSS Tih == ;ie Pi “an sae Re

ee ye.a Wee a060Cl Si Bees fi fens fis 8 Ce fT et eei CI eaeas, ae, ee Mi NI resaFe| Ra Aimeen Oo) US eM SaaoaOR Bei aiISIE Per ies ba Ragga" SAR Teas eer eae Drea SeaY gC Asan Fs STATENS emia

ar ee sf = *Se. “Syne a) ae Pensa i: 0 ae val eae RD 2 uta nae

Gre: ay ee ne , —— eS. oe

+ rs oe Cas a aNis Al =. a : Cees 5 a Ss pf # Bis RacesTS a tie wef a aS ul = y — ca Wa” (ee on : af rig ' ¥ Cage iy, & = at ee ey Y a y . ,

a! eS ae :

ARBs Sy Mn Ama Se a ‘ol eid clea ? Co ee y:

ee

Ree ae, eet thd“$0 BePease cake etaRzBRs Rie each Mass if P Pie te Seay e

Shs Pr rae ee Pe 7 pray: f ¥e ve Baa ts} o

ee ee es ee

Ge ree eR NEEM stay Pra aeee : as

' GON SSG eet ee ca) Cea asc’ NOR Ce ete ho tan Ee chs |) ok et co

ea : isa pape Midas aah eee oe oe ee Tse By Se i — ;

es et me = ) Fig. 66

John Singer Sargent, Study for Israel and the Law (detail), c. 1909. Oil and graphite

Fig. 67 |

on canvas. Trustees of the Boston Public Library

Opposite: John Singer Sargent, Study for Israel and the Law, from an album of 107 | studies for Israel and the Law. Charcoal on faded greenish blue laid paper, 18 3/8 x

24 1/4 in. (46.8 x 61.5 cm). Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift |

of Mrs. Francis Ormond, 1937.11 folio 2 | ages together (Sermon and Israel and the Law) would establish a strong vertical axis in the center of the east wall.°° This axis and the dominant visual focus it created for the room would have been underscored by Sargent’s placement of the two paintings and their principal figures immediately above the balcony door on the first landing of the main staircase into the room and its balanced relation to the punctuating feature of the music room entrance, opposite on the west wall (see tig, 2).

98

a- e RITUAL PERFORMANCES

LT Nag ay re “he “ Pag ey | Lf PoYee fe sO ee ae et panty "Oj

) | a

Bg : ae . eeiycaiea7Lom

——— FiSie-a eee SS eS ptt OAM omen > Bee se i aRiga ee oN

Bo ee ws ae _ , Sava) { mar 8 tet ee AAI SY oe Se ore Fie a yf eT. 1 , Pe.) h os Paeticn wot Hee. ie Vo \ “5ag4 PVG Bes SS ee ae Meg Ey irr eae mote Be FD.aie oece es os BANOS th

Nfeks BERR EN CP aeae Zo 5~ eB. 4Gi, / /Bo }f N atm RUAN =), 8We ULaENS /:He be~ *ON ,- ‘esPaks ;OE) Gey SS pramo Kg er ) ; oerecathas a . SS ee ee rs S% SS VES tt? Mae kg tier ond: a J = > . Xe ; i / aes seas oe ea g args Py aa :mt .. Rd Pisa Yrs is Sas “Se Me F ae or ys 'c= ;77;,>yi AES. : a7 ae afer Ets ae Yaa e os ‘ola ea P Z Fs A2gilt :en } Pea ;So Bee) nee eea pe fs sw iea RSet hs, 4oS iéSS Sat frag es C). eRes “+ ae ae tetas es, PiA ;PP sean ee 4Aosta Se aa ia) ae hes oy, eae eves hag eate 2h. we ah “ _ = As 53 ar a: 33: j es . “a 3 sien et A oe rel ay a = eae ss WS, 5. 7 eh 34 1g * 330 ing ere est. T isan une: RAeG ae’ :: \hn A.“ue . Nahe. Rens Ce ee ELbast: \v+s £2 & ;ayoO StS Pep

a Paces fFSee OtTAee »Oar gp -ammeas Sak 7 ;ic~; aes + Pi WEES a x,a>60 a Pee meg Sei) Sead i eo bE in Ke. ,x osAN = « Ys ees f ru . ef Ree ase Hp, egy ci ay eT. AS. ieee rin, 7“Pat ee. hs ae4efSa d5ifSed: ae Erebak ees gee ‘ ‘ ings y te YS 7s » ee : ie Tae re th ee Ay 3 2 1a es rips Spe tee Pe ; She sgn et ei. eT , ae =:Bs ieaiJc arOCR: ..oae br) - ~ £5 i= a

a ve % a 4 e Bag ~ - = ini his bash RE Ga aS oi GEERT: a —— ‘ae A =~ 4 a Scaaee ~ i At Suny Rhye ri hs SP— at SS fracas Penta cappise ss ea ay, ay ~ . 5)" eI>th AG oars re . =>) 434 ’ Reet Wee land ; °t sd ASS eM Bees epEi ; NO ees my pom rb;/ee AL a Ry angie:

( ;5rs siaBe=aih a Peey coe i~ F. o\PA 5 “f AyP Se Tsces Sew!sa“oat - are, “7 «sf fs , ae wy v9 i |ey4ag “y! om | Ki? cl.mS! IPE{Apr ak Mg

Ne PANS iy .eal a’Ee: G& Yy .BN .TONE \\aSAA - +! ae j We j ‘Pee ¥!Oly i ae tiene cr ¥ | fee, me| “ee RG

AN AA ‘ sPe A hie ba ss, PER 3 “J ‘i a , Bef ~oS) AVG Mista : if : LES ie te] aN TAN ‘ : ii [ . 2 A VE »BN f.,i}‘ ‘F+) a: eee j j ’ieSab] am. WY es on ie Dh fw \ SK 4 ak bk ; ; ifCe oS ae i li pe Wy, “A OS a ee oe W SNe: Nyax he \ ~ rs Wea ,ee + = =LW ‘ » a) A &=e ~e

& ia{Silane ar lf aa “Lf A =rma See Beet DemEY : lj ee Si, A

NA a ie ee I ai) f :

SN aR aes Vea y. So ae eee | yy ‘ ” he Tif % “Sting, * X ws, AA SEER Te eS Sent / oA é Y oA a

abieON Ne So eee = acerca! > = ee ~ ANY ase NS — — ere aLOY “pres / 7| gee , of eSitinn gage

SS AE, aa et ONE SEZ Og

aa ap as: eh 24 eae wa Se =~ A EON a3 if r Ee Ae Re ie —_ —

Bas Ce \ lee, is Era VA YZ E eyeet a)deWe? bu fe GT Zagas 3"

ee SERS ee . f/ }} AO al 7 - eo i a \ i] (5 Licey ath Uj, . +e ; Fig. 75

Opposite, top: Michelangelo Buonarroti (Italian, 1475-1564), Prophet Jeremiah,

| Fig. 76

1509-10. Fresco. Sistine Ceiling, Vatican, Rome

|

Opposite, bottom: John Singer Sargent, Study for Israel and the Law, from album of

107 studies for /srael and the Law. Charcoal on off-white laid paper, 18 1/2 x 24 3/8 in. (47 x 62 cm). Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University Art Museums, Gift of Mrs. Francis Ormond, 1937.11 folio 21

Fig. 77

Michelangelo Buonarroti, Cumaean Sibyl, 1510. Fresco. Sistine Ceiling, Vatican,

| Rome

119

CHAPTER 3

= Sa a a a a eee an a ae ||

oe ee [ee So wr ee. Me Recaro eI As aE OU. Gece a Saas MN ccreS oo END

(RM aR th ele he iageme Mearnmcecneg ae es SS aes SR OS gy

RRR SBR, 6 ica a ae ve ee sanee|

ee heh es ay Pe S86 wee aeeaAe ee 2 ee ey, A y tee PES j ss Rese Ne Pk

Sie ae umehs (quiets BPE icy Aa aaa ba

ae Gyo. a ae oS cereee arEG : BCS eet Seea= Rene RRieFae

= eee & ‘ee is oes = pees oe eee0ee Keo | Re ee ARS ee eee NM 5 ees: Fig. 78

Michelangelo Buonarroti, Pietd, n.d. Black chalk on hand-laid paper, 11 3/8 x 71/2 in. (29 x19 cm). Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston, 1.2.0.16 Fig. 79

Opposite, top: John Singer Sargent, Tyrolese Interior, 1915. Oil on canvas, 28 1/8 x 22 in. (71.4 X 55.9 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, George A. Hearn Fund, 1915 Fig. 80

Opposite, bottom: Sistine Chapel, Vatican, Rome. View toward altar, with Cosimo Rosselli’s Giving of the Law at left and Sermon on the Mount at right

Sargent’s mining of the Sistine Chapel went beyond his appropriations from Michelangelo (which themselves went beyond the Sistine Chapel) to affirm his own substantial interest in the so-called Italian primitives of the fifteenth century (and earlier) whose reputations, by the middle of the nineteenth century, were in the process of revitalization.** Beginning earlier in the century, artists and historians alike contributed to revised and now positive appraisals of these works. Sargent registered his opinion on the subject in his high esteem for Botticelli, in periodic travel to visit Alpine, Italian, and Spanish sites known for their “primitive” art (e.g., fig. 79), and in his intense interest in exhibitions that included “primitive” works. In a letter to Ariana Curtis in 1907, for example, the artist described his delight in an exhibition in Perugia of “charming primitives, and of magnificent church treasures in the way of stuffs [fabric], crosses, ciboires, etc.—

EE SS eee $0 much to see." >”

I20

s ! ) ~ aWay F { i> Li S ~ ; \f »

, | ‘ =} i A } f ANY itil. oO

Lae Q ae Aix £‘

5 RT Eos , :iy) fi : V Pe " SA Se EE \ im ; fa J va ee a mr oh;Phe ?* la 4 ‘

4 aaa es | Bok ee 3ee ;

oe , ee: aaa eee oak gp Teer iy ra : oars Fs CoS, HRI rata SO S50 i agiBh a . yAZ ;j ,ae - SL RN Ge a alsed

¥ { ro Pr... °ee’ oe a : oT ~ eRe ot ‘¥" eSH,) we Ly re,

—— 1S gir ia

“aia . 5F $tPes an ‘ —‘]~>i ot ¥ —Ty oo\ 4eeaas Men 2 al7 Ag ¥ a opVg me pa . We oe iAr ae i a,LON Spee ‘om3ee}‘J g R . nics a | thes oe ay .3htas Se 1: Pak % q» Ge A ee %SN Prd ; e Se Waiyt “Tea 3 5 | f |i)ae, \ esi % aatBA: es ee” a aMarsa oe ae ys:Fak eG )Fi CSS awryo Kee = patra i aSrat ‘pit ™

evn Ra >:

Be. a ose, aNyh\sSe A .;i Ooi vieing .ee~= eS A a ca ; ‘ St . ’ san c, 3 . a ot, — ? 5) oe pote: " ~~ % ie >

NN age ia chess

\ SES RSS 3

.. 2mrsay Lh Mele. —eyCae SAN q ' RI Whey EESo WA 2toVii f4/Pe ineA5)SNS ae Wy gee ee fe aES “i,

;EM fx fee! eaespon I= eA) fi.G. i> Ey \' he Ft eS s\ Pe /, ff a\! ofEragser Re BS \\ aoe Y aiFim ofVE) % SS) A Wea iee ‘fii = ZEN yp a Sp ta Tif 5 NOE Coad fig?soe ae oe wis= aOR E we i! RA ns i gm rN \ realig 3 = So If SSS ReNE:

ESS Ge alae OO TRAN VE ni 8 Spe ere 2Et,Se cs |ge oy fe. ey Whip CH eee SS SS ity a ay Aa k al = OE ee > . WG ;

2 ’ \ ay is * eau fe ss s aM’ — Sty aes Witt’ X , a) ard A | F

nhSS SA: LAWA ee FSS RAiPA| = Fas SE a44 ee) ie Se SA SeLO ONE gy he Yh ye2Me -ay =Eee aae Way AY 3 )4 eR tin Ae Pt Pi | oA yi if ys \HAY > sep SS) Ra ge os MS C1) eae ean A ts (: & fi RA é < Se Zs sae HY i} AS 4 uh tee HS | if a e— me SP) i A eae 3) € p | aes | | fn’ LAE pee. Pees it a om TS fy He) | i ; bs

A Ra ke Wee Saree Ne ont Ee) f eas miei l Bae, Me) Nit FH ee Ble ae VR As il if ; 1 BaD | 4

MBE th lh Yeadon) 2 ae el Pky, iy | ae sees ate ae Maite et | rei |e ili 4 a gettin rere ee ees ye “A f AEBS \\ bok Beet) ed }

ge he oN Nop eae i a au er) 2 ay es Py, $ { f | BP has Ae u a 4

noe a Py Mel att ae te Vee Tih Wh BL Sis aa Maer) Anish) eee RC=are eeSS a all nee la Nhat es on cr \nme Dll ae ater aThyaeee Paeepy Any yEE LS ieRe eS eeFiaeSess) fan ee sh eae eg)5 oper Daas ps Aay fis Brahe 3copa ii aye Svat hi Beate aSeay] lieNegi es HRS peers) I ae |) :

et Ki cf at gt Wi Oa are NSS Ciao 2:3).

; Re ; ptSSOP i ae SS at, Deseet=| : +Pada Here eleAH eee Gia et» ee begs) «rialaeeieRem Sete P oSCs hmok aNPP eteaSpaa : VEMe

ibe #7 eer ere SOLE |

it ;

re yeere a ’Se, Pe wy isin le ty ere MMC aesce eRe | ES)

|: i Oh te ||i Le H .ct tf Peace ee | P| aé.:qaetrend === Poe cc esiued oat |+)1 rUl! i i ee he bNAR Bee _— Ip

el Th SB frf. ee attKe: sili ee UL y ——— ms

5 SS bt, Coa eee Ser— foes d ' ’. >)i aee|=, |FIN ' efit ‘7 1 2] ee x +) Ty & > ee by &, \4 1 P y ee SF j ese 6G 4v= ;a Lig ' _Mgtut it: pa es- ees i —Ba mshi — = =a —————— = = =mn —— j a4 |x41s Lt ai? —-" ~pa aet_| Corre Celeeeeeeree sion he See Sis! 6S if mre me oe CCCCeeyn aanaa =f tba] pat |i| hates SEA Ree ie || PEEL Lt “a ECCCee | | | BE SSS eeeee = mem. laglot| I EEREeeE fl Taleialae ||| | PCC i = fs State | TC| {Fath CCB)

PCraTere mae cle ; ud cca ea otiti -H-|tt eh) | TI ae tiiCl]1 Litt if| cre | !i)Sey || |'i2OW t| bt tel a| a-tms i Le ml {| 1 1!}|/it.' its =" .r:4oa t !rt |in3] + ae F:} ‘ ~ Se Wet! : Rare \ ifEee x bt Rat OH Narra i PEA becn spat)TR