THE INTERIOR DECORATIONS OF THE MISSIONS
We cannot to-day determine how the Franciscans of the Southwest
decorated the interiors of all their churches. Some of these buildings
have disappeared entirely, while others have been restored or renovated
beyond all semblance of their original condition. But enough are left to
give us a satisfactory idea of the labors of the fathers and of their
subject Indians. At the outset, it must be confessed that while the
fathers understood well the principles of architecture and created a
natural, spontaneous style, meeting all obstacles of time and place
which presented themselves, they showed little skill in matters of
interior decoration, possessing neither originality in design, the taste
which would have enabled them to become good copyists, nor yet the
slightest appreciation of color-harmony. In making this criticism, I do
not overlook the difficulties in the way of the missionaries, or the
insufficiency of materials at command. The priests were as much hampered
in this work as they were in that of building. But, in the one case,
they met with brilliant success; in the other they failed. The
decorations have, therefore, a distinctly pathetic quality. They show a
most earnest endeavor to beautify what to those who wrought them was the
very house of God. Here mystically dwelt the very body, blood, and
reality of the Object of Worship. Hence the desire to glorify the
dwelling-place of their God, and their own temple. The great distance in
this case between desire and performance is what makes the result
pathetic. Instead of trusting to themselves, or reverting to first
principles, as they did in architecture, the missionaries endeavored to
reproduce from memory the ornaments with which they had been familiar in
their early days in Spain. They remembered decorations in Catalonia,
Cantabria, Mallorca, Burgos, Valencia, and sought to imitate them;
having neither exactitude nor artistic qualities to fit them for their
task. No amount of kindliness can soften this decision. The results are
to be regretted; for I am satisfied that, had the fathers trusted to
themselves, or sought for simple nature-inspirations, they would have
given us decorations as admirable as their architecture. What I am
anxious to emphasize in this criticism is the principle involved.
Instead of originating or relying upon nature, they copied without
intelligence. The rude brick, adobe, or rubble work, left in the rough,
or plastered and whitewashed, would have been preferable to their
unmeaning patches of color. In the one, there would have been rugged
strength to admire; in the other there exists only pretense
to condemn.
[Illustration: THE OLD ALTAR AT THE CHAPEL OF SAN ANTONIO DE PALA.
Showing original wall decorations prized by the Indians.]
[Illustration: ALTAR AND INTERIOR OF CHAPEL OF SAN ANTONIO DE PALA,
AFTER REMOVAL OF WALL DECORATIONS PRIZED BY INDIANS.]
After this criticism was written I asked for the opinion of the learned
and courteous Father Zephyrin, the Franciscan historian. In reply the
following letter was received, which so clearly gives another side to
the matter that I am glad to quote it entire:
"I do not think your criticism from an artistic view is too
severe; but it would have been more just to judge the
decorations as you would the efforts of amateurs, and then to
have made sure as to their authors.
"You assume that they were produced by the padres themselves.
This is hardly demonstrable. They probably gave directions,
and some of them, in their efforts to make things plain to
the crude mind of the Indians, may have tried their hands at
work to which they were not trained any more than clerical
candidates or university students are at the present time;
but it is too much to assume that those decorations give
evidence even of the taste of the fathers. In that matter, as
in everything else that was not contrary to faith or morals,
they adapted themselves to the taste of their wards, or very
likely, too, to the humor of such stray 'artists' as might
happen upon the coast, or whom they might be able to import.
You must bear in mind that in all California down to 1854
there were no lay-brothers accompanying the fathers to
perform such work as is done by our lay-brothers now, who can
very well compete with the best of secular artisans. The
church of St. Boniface, San Francisco, and the church of St.
Joseph, Los Angeles, are proof of this. Hence the fathers
were left to their own wits in giving general directions, and
to the taste of white 'artists,' and allowed even Indians to
suit themselves. You will find this all through ancient
Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The Indians loved the gaudy,
loud, grotesque, and as it was the main thing for the fathers
to gain the Indians in any lawful way possible, the taste of
the latter was paramount.
"As your criticism stands, it cannot but throw a slur upon
the poor missionaries, who after all did not put up these
buildings and have them decorated as they did for the benefit
of future critics, but for the instruction and pleasure of
the natives. Having been an Indian missionary myself, I acted
just so. I have found that the natives would not appreciate a
work of art, whereas they prized the grotesque. Well, as long
as it drew them to prize the supernatural more, what
difference did it make to the missionary? You yourself refer
to the unwise action of the Pala priest in not considering
the taste and the affection of the Indians."
Another critic of my criticism insists that, "while the Indians, if left
to themselves, possess harmony of color which seems never to fail, they
always demand startling effects from us." This, I am inclined to
question. The Indians' color-sense in their basketry is perfect, as also
in their blankets, and I see no reason for the assumption that they
should demand of us what is manifestly so contrary to their own natural
and normal tastes.
[Illustration: ALTAR AND CEILING DECORATIONS, MISSION SANTA INÉS.]
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF MISSION SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS, SHOWING MURAL
AND CEILING DECORATIONS.]
It must, in justice to the padres, be confessed that, holding the common
notions on decoration, it is often harder to decorate a house than it
is to build it; but why decorate at all? The dull color of the natural
adobe, or plaster, would have at least been true art in its simple
dignity of architecture, whereas when covered with unmeaning designs in
foolish colors even the architectural dignity is detracted from.
One writer says that the colors used in these interior decorations were
mostly of vegetable origin and were sized with glue. The yellows were
extracted from poppies, blues from nightshade, though the reds were
gained from stones picked up from the beach. The glue was manufactured
on the spot from the bones, etc., of the animals slaughtered for food.
As examples of interior decoration, the Missions of San Miguel Arcángel
and Santa Inés are the only ones that afford opportunity for extended
study. At Santa Clara, the decorations of the ceiling were restored as
nearly like the original as possible, but with modern colors and
workmanship. At Pala Chapel the priest whitewashed the mural distemper
paintings out of existence. A small patch remains at San Juan Bautista
merely as an example; while a splashed and almost obliterated fragment
is the only survival at San Carlos Carmelo.
At San Miguel, little has been done to disturb the interior, so that it
is in practically the same condition as it was left by the padres
themselves. Fr. Zephyrin informs me that these decorations were done by
one Murros, a Spaniard, whose daughter, Mrs. McKee, at the age of over
eighty, is still alive at Monterey. She told him that the work was done
in 1820 or 1821. He copied the designs out of books, she says, and none
but Indians assisted him in the actual work, though the padres were
fully consulted as it progressed.
At Santa Barbara all that remains of the old decorations are found in
the reredos, the marbleizing of the engaged columns on each wall and the
entrance and side arches. This marble effect is exceedingly rude, and
does not represent the color of any known marble.
In the old building of San Francisco the rafters of the ceiling have
been allowed to retain their ancient decorations. These consist of
rhomboidal figures placed conventionally from end to end of
the building.
At Santa Clara, when the church was restored in 1861-1862, and again in
1885, the original decorations on walls and ceiling were necessarily
destroyed or injured. But where possible they were kept intact; where
injured, retouched; and where destroyed, replaced as near the original
as the artist could accomplish. In some cases the original work was on
canvas, and some on wood. Where this could be removed and replaced it
was done. The retouching was done by an Italian artist who came down
from San Francisco.
[Illustration: INTERIOR OF MISSION SAN MIGUEL FROM THE CHOIR GALLERY.]
[Illustration: ARCHES, SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY DEPOT, SANTA BARBARA,
CALIF.]
[Illustration: FACHADA OF MISSION CHAPEL AT LOS ANGELES.]
On the walls, the wainscot line is set off with the sinuous body of the
serpent, which not only lends itself well to such a purpose of
ornamentation, but was a symbolic reminder to the Indians of that old
serpent, the devil, the father of lies and evil, who beguiled our first
parents in the Garden of Eden.
In the ruins of the San Fernando church faint traces of the decorations
o£ the altar can still be seen in two simple rounded columns, with
cornices above.
At San Juan Capistrano, on the east side of the quadrangle, in the
northeast corner, is a small room; and in one corner of this is a niche
for a statue, the original decorations therein still remaining. It is
weather-stained, and the rain has washed the adobe in streaks over some
of it; yet it is interesting. It consists of a rude checkerboard design,
or, rather, of a diagonal lozenge pattern in reds and yellows.
There are also a few remnants of the mural distemper paintings in the
altar zone of the ruined church.