Page:Nation v71 no1832.djvu/12

 112

The Nation.

[Vol. 71, No. 1832

have failed to reach the highest distinction of all.

Force, in which a primeval brutality still Angers, also marks the Russian section. It fe the more dificult to give names be- cause much of the work {s not familiar to me, and much of it was not numbered when I was in Paris, though I have no doubt this hhas been attended to since. But I remem- der only too vividly my sensation almost of Gismay before the mistaken energy dis- played in some of the canvases—espectally Defore one in which four coarse, heavy wo- ‘men, presumably peasants, in flaming red, wero on the point, it seemed to me, of fiing- ing themselves straight out of the coarse green landscape which, by all the rules of the game, should have contained them well ‘within itself. But in the portraits by Serov, as yot 0 trifle barbaric, this brutality ts gradually being tamed; among them was a Indy in yellow, sitting on a couch, that Sar- gent would not be ashamed to own. It was interesting also to see an attempt to re- vive the gorgeous old church decorations in pictures of saints against splendid back- grounds of gold, while in the Finnish group the preoccupation of Gallen with the ‘Kal ‘vale’ and national legend and Jaernefelt with the national landscape lifts their work to avery different plane; both are far moro original than Edeltelt, who is so much bet- ter known in Paris. There may be nothing of supreme merit, but there is much that dears promise for tho future.

Im countries like Belgtum and Holland you return to the strongholds of tradition, ‘Whatever primitiveness there may be is wholly s revival. In Holland all the men who have become famous as the Dutch Romanticists have thelr place; except ‘Matthew Maris, who, in his mysticlam, has of late years become too reserved to show anywhere. I have often before remarked that not even in Holland do the Dutch- men appear to such advantage as occa- sionally in the smaller galleries of Lon- don, and I think some previous knowledge of them would be necessary to appreciate thelr true rank among the exhibitors in Paris. Israels, James and William Maris, ‘Mesdag, Bosboom, Ter Meulen, are all here, and the younger artists, Breitner, Witsen, De Bock, Thérdse Schwartz; but, solld and sober and learned as thelr work is, it does not make the impression that might have been expected. Belgium does better, though Belgium, nowadays, is a safe harbor tor every passing fad and fashion. A national movement, as in Scandinavia and Russia, oes not exist. The good work—and the average is unquestionably good—bears the hallmark of Paris. The mysticism, or sym- olism, that may have gone to Paris by way of Féliclen Rops, who 1s very poorly Fepresented, has come back to find expo- nents in Fernand Khnopff and Léon Fré- eric. Impressionism has few more devoted Aisciples than mile Claus, and so it would de easy to go through the list. Even Evene- Doel, with his hard, but sincere and genuine portraits, savors of Paris; and also Struys though they may select sentially Belgian subjects. The greatest modern master Belgium can boast, Alfred Btovens, has few followers, though a fine series of his pictures explains once more how much is to be learned from him, how distinguished a place he holds among the

Painters whose nationality is the merest ac- Deities y is the merest ac-

‘There are other sections—Bulgaria, Ser- ‘via, Rumanta—that have rooms and alcoves apart. A gallery, classed as Section Inter- nationale, 1s a reminder that Turks and Armenians are bard at work. And, most melancholy spectacle of all, Japan com- petes directly with the western nations in the Grand Palais des Beaux-Arts. The Japanese trained in European schools ts commonplace itself; in his landscapes, his portraits, his studies of the nude, he man- ‘ages to repeat only the most tedious trivi- allties and weaknesses of the artists whom he does not understand. It is altogether ‘a pitiful dlsplay of foebloness, and the worst of it Is, that so vitiated has he become by western methods, he covers the walls of fone room, from floor to ceiling, with the Kakemonos, which, at home, he respects too much ever to show more than one or two at a time. There are also colonial dls- plays in od@ buildings, which, I confess, 1 made no effort to see, discouraged by one forlorn ttle picture from Cuba hidden away in the United States rooms. But I ‘saw enough to convince me that, in the last ten years, no new masters have appeared; that, except In the United States, origi- ality 1s rare; and that, however strong may be national movements in cholce of sub- Jects and motives, the technical inspir tlon of the world still comes from Paris.

NON.

Correspondence.

PRACTICAL POLITICS. To THe Eprror oF Tux Nation:

‘Sim: Your comments on the “Reasons for @ Third Ticket” will be read with great interest, as you have stated the matter in its most plausible form. Yet you seem to lose sight of the fact that the moment is ‘unique and exceptional. At other Presiden- tial elections we have deemed it highly im- portant to express ourselves upon questions of tariff or finance. Wo have had faith to belleve that if any of these questions were decided wrong, the decision would be re- versed. Now we are to pass upon a ques tion which may affect the policy of this netion for a century, perhaps = thousand years; whose decision may influence subtly but profoundly the aspirations of mankind. To be critical, at such a moment, even to hesitate, seems almost trivial. A man does not discuss a question of domestic discipline when his house 1s on fire.

The independent voter is a bellever in practical politics; he seeks by his vote and influence the best attainable, even if it Is not ideally the best. For the coming elec- tion, if he 1s an Ant!-Imperialist, he adopts the words of Mr. Boutwell: “The party must be overthrown.” ‘To that end all other mat- ters must, for the time, be subordinated, It 1s quite probable, as you suggest, that ‘some political party or some individual may proft by the exigency. That has often hap- pened, and the superficial observer has of- ten misinterpreted it. For example, Mr. McKinley belleved that the overwhelming majorities of 1896 showed an unmistakable reaction in favor of a high taritt!

Undoubtedly, as you intimate, it would be very impressive if all who disapprove of both political parties could be counted by themselves, but the vast majority of such Voters dislike, even under ordinary clrcum-

stances, to appear neutral upon important issues. Furthermore, to vote one of the party tlckets does not indleate any danger of an extinction of the spirit of indepen- dence. It may even be claimed that a high- er degree of independence was required of @ man who voted for McKinley in 1896 than of one who voted the third ticket. It em- phasizes the rebuke which we administer to an existing policy that we do not insist on an {deal opposition party or an {deal candidate.

In a word, the Independent in the fateful vattle that is belng fought is going to take sides. The tssues are so important, especially from the standpoint of the Anti Imperialist, that he cannot answer to bis own conscience by remaining neutral. He grants that there is need of a new party, but he denies that the moment ts oppor- tune. Such a movement may have his cor- ial support after the election, but not be- fore. He sees a paramount Issue, not made such by the wording of any political pl form, but by the trend of events. A third party never had so little excuse for exis- tence; and if set in motion, it 1s almost oor- tain that the number of its adherents at the polls will show that the independent has been too much interested in one ‘sue which is transcendent, to give attention to others which can wait.

FRANK W. Laws.

Boetor, July 81, 1900.

(Long experience has made us very familiar with the argument from inop- Portuneness. In all perplexing Prest- dential campaigns, subscribers and read: ers who have gone with us in preach-| ing the doctrine of independence, have reproached us with not taking sides as| election day drew near. We were at the same time assured of thelr “cor- dial support after the election. Nartox.]

WHAT BRYAN HAS DONE AND MAY Do. ‘To Taw Eprron oF Tam NATION:

Sm: From the letter enclosed, it appears that Secretary Gage 18 of opinion that Con- gress, in its last financial bill, dia not pro- vide for the redemption of the silver dol- lar, as it has done for fractional currency. Quere: Is it now in the power of the Pres- fdent, without violating law, to place the country on a silver bast

My recollection is that Mr. Carlisle, when Secretary of the Treasury, wrote a letter tm which he stated that the silver dollar was redeemable in gold at the Treasury. If Mr. Gage to right, it seems to me that the monetary standard of the country is still In @ precarious condition; and can be shifted by the will of the President. If enough silver dollars should be put in efr- culation to pay customs duties and internal Tevenue taxes, there would be no gold in the Treasury with which to pay the public debt, and we must sink to the silver stan- dard. One of the arguments urged in favor of Bryan {s that hie election could do no harm to our financial credit, because the gold standard has been established by law, and that he would be powerless until the political complexion of the Senate is changed. But it seems to be still a mat- ter largely of executive discretion, as ft

�