Imágenes de páginas

That commodity is education. And the greatest demand is not for trade schools. A trade union official said to the "genteel" members of an educational committee, "We do not want our children taught trades. We want them to learn to see what you see in a museum, and to enjoy a symphony concert, and to like to read books the way you do."

Our people as a whole are yearning to share in the world of ideas from which poverty and overwork, lack of leisure and training have kept them. What other explanation can there be for the crowding of schools and colleges, the constantly increasing thousands pouring into our museums, the immense circulation of books from our libraries, and the millions listening to the radio?

The "genteel" is not an hereditary caste. It represents those in any generation with gentle tastes. They may have horny hands, but if they are interested in the things of the heart and mind, if they deal kindly and justly with their fellows, if they use their leisure to acquire the refinements of life and to cultivate the arts, they may be more truly classed as well-bred than those born to the purple.

Have the distracted genteel of these days no responsibility save that of bewailing their vanishing privileges? What of the "new genteel" coming on in eager, hopeful hordes? Is there not an obligation to show them a way to the richest life on means within the reach of all?

The plight of the genteel is really the test of the genteel. And the homemaker is the individual upon whom most of the responsibility rests. She is the organizer of the family budget. It is she who makes the choices upon which "gentility" and the quality of the home life depend. The "new genteel" must be shown by her that the genteel existence is far more dependent upon just and generous living with one's fellows than upon the possession of a maid always ready to answer the door bell.

The business world also has had to face an acute shortage of labor.

But the business world has met the situation with new devices to elimi nate the need of workers. The home. makers, on the other hand, have shown extraordinary conservatism in adopt. ing labor-saving tools.

Many of the niceties of living, which were the symbols of refinement to an earlier generation, are mistaken today for the refinements themselves. How many laborious processes which were merely incident to the genteel life of the past have been assumed to be basic! Home making-of-bread had its long day of gentility, when the use of baker's bread was the earmark of shiftlessness. A public laundry is anathema to many of the genteel today. The Japanese regard certain of our uses of linen in place of paper as the height of vulgarity, and we counter by placing the taboo of the fastidious upon paper napkins. What is there intrinsically more refined about the product of flax than of wood-pulp? Many of the numberless shibboleths of house management are of just such ancient lineage, holdovers from the circumstances of an earlier day. The problem for the modern lover of gentle living is to learn how to find, in place of the old methods which must be surrendered new and better ways of achieving the same ends.

We have allowed the weaving of our dress materials to pass from the home without feeling that the integrity of family life has been threatened. Why should there be any rational objection to a home with a "rough-dry" laundry service, with a dish-washing machine, a tea-wagon domestic, a constant use of bakeries and delicatessen shops, and a bare table set with paper napkins? What could be more desirable than a home easily vacuum-cleaned, free of bric-a-brac, scientifically organized in its kitchen end? Would digestion suffer from a fuller use of raw foods, and a radical reduction in duplicating dishes and elaborate menus? Technic of this character is designed to reduce the need for service without at the same time sur(Continued on Page 148)


Mislaid A Nation's Treasure

Condensed from The Delineator (July '26)

Rose V. S. Berry, Art Chairman,

MONG the recognized nations of the earth the United States has a shameful distinction. It is the only one without a National Art Gallery.

Other nations house their national art treasures, including the work of famous American sculptors and painters, in adequate galleries, properly hung and lighted where the public may see and enjoy them. We have to refuse each year priceless paintings and statues because we have no place to put them. Those that we have accepted are crowded in with unrelated museum exhibits, are badly hung and lighted, or are stored in vaults where no one can enjoy their beauty.

If we had a National Art Museum in Washington, it could be filled today with a collection of which any people would be proud. Among these are the finest works of the European masters.

On the top floor of a building in Washington which serves the dual purpose of Historical and Anthropological Museum, and hanging upon temporary screens, miserably lighted, are our paintings by Rubens, Titian, Rembrandt and others as great. It is doubtful if anywhere else on earth such treatment would be imposed upon paintings by these world-re. nowned artists. It is not because of ignorance, lack of appreciation or ingratitude to the donors that these gifts are being treated in this way. It is because the people of the United States, in a very large measure, are ignorant of the fact that they own such pictures and are totally uncon. scious of their dire need of a place in which to properly house their treasures.

Among the generously inclined American art-lovers and collectors there have been men and women of vision who have anticipated a national

Federation of Women's Clubs

collection worthy of this country. For over 20 years paintings in value of $500,000 were annually presented to the nation. These had a common fate with all the gift paintings, being either "skied" in offices, badly shown in galleries or secluded in storage where they may not be seen. Small wonder. the nation at large does not know that it owns treasures and needs a National Art Gallery!

Paintings require the best sort of storage, dry, and almost hermetically sealed, to be safe from mold and the destruction of rats and mice. This kind of storage has become difficult to obtain in the national capital, and therefore for the last few years the gifts have fallen off to less than $10,000 a year in value. What is worse, we are losing paintings which later we shall not be able to obtain at any price.

It is not unusual for paintings of importance, or small collections of value, to be offered to private museums until such time as the United States can properly house them. But private museums will not always accept temporary gifts; therefore these are almost invariably lost to the American people, and the would-be donors are compelled to turn them elsewhere as bequests or place them upon the market. One collection which was appraised in Paris at $5,000,000 and offered to America with a conditional time limit has been one of the losses. It is also very well known that the Freer Collection (valued at over $5,000,000) and offered to the American people was refused three times before it was finally accepted, because the offer was accompanied by a demand for proper housing.

Only a few months ago the whole art world was talking of the purchase of Gainsborough's "Blue Boy" by an


American collector, who paid the Duke of Westminster $640,000 for it. opportunity to exhibit the picture in New York for charity was accepted, and thousands paid $2.50 each to see the painting; yet the American people already own a number of fine Gainsboroughs-they are on temporary screens in Washington.

Every once in a while the whole world is electrified by a fabulous price paid for a Rembrandt. The Rembrandt which the nation owns in Washington is one of the best of the Dutch master's early period, and is quite comparable with any of the Metropolitan treasures; but it, too, is badly shown and miserably lighted. Such also is the fate of our paintings by Rubens, Titian, Reynolds, Romney and Lawrence, of the finest things the Scottish Raeburn ever painted, and some magnificent Constables-all gifts to the American people, and all gifts, which, having been accepted, should be properly housed.

In the art of the world at the present time the American landscapist holds a high place. The work of three well-known landscapists places them among the very best, yet, though France hangs their work in her Luxembourg collection, the United States puts them in storage.

If the National Art Gallery were less the affair of everybody, it would be much easier to acquire; no local region would sit by and suffer such loss as

the nation experiences each year. The States, cities, colleges, small towns, and even high schools are doing for themselves what the nation is so grievously and seriously neglecting, while numerous private collections are being built up.

The last few years have seen unbelievable events follow each other with rapidity. Recently Chicago has bonded itself for the sum of $152,000,000 to erect 75 schoolhouses, each one to have an art gallery. Compare such activity as this with that of the na tion. Philadelphia has so far paid $7,000,000 for the foundation of its new museum. This is the third museum for Philadelphia. Baltimore, likewise has bonded itself for $1,000,000 for a new museum. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts has just installed its Sargent Murals, and received the marvelously unique collection of Mrs. Jack Gardner, valued at $4,000,000. The Metropolitan Museum had a bequest of over $1,000,000 from John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a wonderful new American wing from its president, Robert de Forest, and the $40,000,000 bequest of Frank A. Munsey.

In the face of such facts as these can the United States any longer afford to be the one recognized nation in the world that has no National Art Gal lery, the one nation which does not consider its artists worthy of recog. nition or their work as worthy of preservation?

The Test of the Genteel (Continued from Page 146)

rendering any real values. A home so organized is still free for social intercourse, for music, for reading, for family comradeship.

The fundamental failure of the genteel has not been their pursuit and cultivation of gentility, but their lack of interest in extending their own opportunities to all the members of their world. The "new genteel" are

looking to the "old genteel" for guid ance. They too want to be genteel. They naturally turn to the privileged in the community to see what technic of living they have achieved. Can the genteel of today meet the test, and by independence of convention and ingenuity of device develop an art of gentle living both worthy of the copying and within the reach of all?


The Queen of Sheba

Excerpts from The Mentor (June '26) Rosita Forbes

CCORDING to Ethiopian legend and that great book of her history, the Kebra Negast, the Queen of Sheba was an Abyssinian. Her name was Maqueda and she reigned in Axum.

Axum in those days was a mighty city, built of granite blocks. The walls of the palace were completely overlaid with beaten plates of gold. Behind the palace was a reservoir, ȧpproached by flights of rock-hewn steps, for the Sabaeans were the greatest engineers of their century.

Maqueda ruled a merchant people, whose ships bore her wealth all over the known world. Once a year her caravans went to Sasu, famous for its gold mines, and we are told how the expedition used to entrench itself behind carefully built hedges of thorns. On these they would expose ox flesh, salt and iron, all much coveted by the natives. These would come in, laden with pliable red gold, and exchange two or three ingots for each shoulder of beef or bar of salt! Maqueda's ships went out on six-month voyages, trading with India and Palestine, as her caravans did with Nubia and Aswan. The head of all her commerce, her minister of transport, was Tamrin, who directed the operations of many hundred camels and of 73 ships.

At this time Solomon was building the Temple of Jerusalem and, for its adornment, he wanted gold, ivory and sapphires. Tamrin agreed to supply them and he brought back marvelous tales of a king who was believed by his people to be a god, and who was employing 700 carpenters and 800 masons to build a temple for the miraculous Ark of the Covenant of which he was the guardian.

All this must have aroused the curiosity of the adventurous Maqueda,

who had already made many journeys in her own land, but the chroniclers disagree over the final reasons for visiting Solomon. Although Maqueda was beautiful, intelligent and of shrewd brain, all the chroniclers agree that she had a malformed foot. She had refused many suitors because she was sensitive about it. Perhaps, encouraged by Tamrin's stories of the wisdom of the Jewish king and of his magic powers, she thought he might cure her.

When she emerged before Solomon she was more beautiful than any of the women of his kingdom. So he welcomed her gladly and installed her, according to Moslem legend, in a palace specially built for her reception. It was made entirely of glass and over the floor flowed running water full of bright-colored fishes!

Solomon was a lover of women and by the end of his life he is supposed to have had a thousand wives. Naturally he fell in love with this exquisite southern princess, bolder, more venturesome and more intelligent than the women of his own country.

Already he had many wives and one queen, who was the mother of the five-year-old Rehoboam--so Maqueda refused him. An Arabic text makes Solomon say, "I will take thee to my. self in lawful marriage-I am the king and thou shalt be the queen," but the Sabaean princess answered no word. Day after day Solomon sent gifts to the palace of glass, and pleaded, "Strike a covenant with me that I am only to take thee to wife of thy own free will-this shall be the condition between us. When thou shalt come to me, thou shalt become my wife by the law of the kings."

Maqueda agreed, since the matter was thus left in her own hands and


she was determined to have no royal lover. For weeks Solomon "instructed her in all the wisdom that he knew” and the girl queen thought he had forgotten his desire.

All legends agree that Solomon won her by a trick. He summoned all the palace cooks and ordered them to serve the queen nothing but the most highly seasoned dishes, full of pungent, aromatic spices and herbs. He then commanded that no water should be provided for the queen and imposed the death penalty on any who showed her where liquid could be found. On the third night Maqueda, driven mad by thirst, wandered round the palace, demanding drink. Her frightened servants could not find any water. The queen called for the guards, who told her: "Thou wilt find no water except by the couch of the king." For hours Maqueda struggled against her thirst, but, in the dawn, with parched lips and burning throat, she crept into Solomon's apartment. The king was apparently asleep and his ill-treated guest was able to drink from the pitcher beside him, but when she turned to leave her suitor sprang from the couch and exclaimed: "Verily thou hast become my wife by the law of kings."

Months later Maqueda insisted on returning to Axum. In vain Solomon implored her to stay in Jerusalemı. Her spirit was hungry for the mountains of Ethiopia, but she agreed to her lover's request: "If God gives thee a son send him to me as soon as he reaches man's estate and I will make him king."

The queen asked how Solomon would know his son and the king gave her his ring, with which he sealed all the state documents. "Send this with my son," he said, "and let it be a token of the covenant between us." For 3000 years the rulers of Abyssinia have used the seal of Solomon engraved with the Judean lion, which title they also claim in virtue of their descent.

We are told that Solomon gave Maqueda 6000 wagonloads of beautiful

stuffs, jewels, perfumes, oils, myrrh and cassia. It is said that Maqueda took many months over her return journey of Axum, and on the way her child was born.

Axum welcomed him as the future king and Maqueda educated him in her stone palace. With her new wealth she increased her trade by sea and land and we are told of her victories all along the Red Sea coasts. Then, when the boy was 22 and "first among her warriors," she told him of his parentage and sent him on an em. bassy to Solomon in charge of the old and faithful Tamrin.

Here legends disagree. The Kebra Negast asserts that the young man had no desire to share a future throne with Rehoboam, the legitimate heir, so, after some time, he pleaded to be sent back to his own country. Eventually, after many refusals, the king agreed to his son's departure, but he ordered that a thousand eldest sons from each tribe of Israel should ac company his own.

Now, the Ark of the Covenant represented the presence of God to an intensely religious people. It was natural therefore that the 1200 young nobles should resent being separated from what had been the core of their spiritual life. At the last moment either they or the prince they followed decided to steal the Ark and take it to Axum with them. They had a copy made secretly by night; then they killed the carpenters and goldsmiths who had made it, so that none might betray the secret. Four priests were either bribed or forced to substitute the false Ark, and to carry away the original, for none but priests could move the sacred dwelling of the tablets of Moses.

Solomon pursued with his armies, but seas were bridged and the mountains of Axum split apart for the swift passage of the Ark! To this day the Abyssinians believe that the original tablets of Moses are preserved in the tabernacle of the Axum church, while the Ark is buried in the heart of the red rocks that guard it.

« AnteriorContinuar »