It was late afternoon. The House of Representatives Chamber in the
Capitol Building of the United States was deserted, save for one lone
figure that stood motionless before the freshly painted mural on the
south wall. Everything about this man in long black cape and close
fitting beret betokened pride and triumph in achievement--the tense
erectness of the body, the tilt of the head, the glow of the cheek and
even the angle at which he held his pallet and brush. Suddenly, with
strength and determination he said aloud, “I’ll do it,” then he rushed
back to the picture, bent possessively over the lower right hand corner
and began painting with quick, deft movements. When the lonely figure
finally left the Chamber he seemed so satisfied with his work that he
never once looked back.
Eighty years later as I stood before that mural on the south wall of our
House of Representatives Chamber--that portrayal of a crisis in American
history, representing Washington at Yorktown, I beheld for the first
time the words in the lower right hand corner, left by that proud
painter back in 1857, “C. Brumidi, artist. Citizen of the U. S.”
Suddenly I asked myself, “Who is this C. Brumidi who has so much pride
in his adopted country as to paint a portion of its Revolutionary
history on the wall of the House of Representatives Chamber, and who
glories so much in the citizenship of his adopted country that he
emblazons that sentiment forever before the Congress of the United
States?” I had no thought at that moment that those words inscribed on
the wall of the Capitol Building of the United States by Constantino
Brumidi could well be considered his epitaph, for he had no other,
expressed in words. And of course I was unaware of the bitter criticism
that followed his every effort. But I am ahead of my story.
So much did I want to see what this lover of America had done for his
adopted country by way of decorating our Capitol Building, that I
searched out every frescoed wall and ceiling, every painted panel,
lunette, or medallion in committee rooms, corridors and Rotunda that
were attributed to the Italian artist. As the number of those paintings
mounted in my tabulations and as the beauty of his decorations sank into
my consciousness, I decided he must have spent a lifetime in America for
surely it would take a lifetime for such accomplishment. Then I learned
that Brumidi came from Italy to America when he was almost fifty years
old!
From meager biographical data the following additional facts came
quickly to light: Brumidi was born in Italy in 1805, grew up in Rome,
was admitted to the Academy of Arts in that city when only thirteen
years old, and at the age of about thirty-five “restored some paintings
in the Sacred Palaces to the full satisfaction of Pope Gregory XVIth.”
About all that is known of the artist’s next twenty years is that he
became involved in “the French occupation of Rome in the year 1849 for
the suppression of Republican institutions,” and when his friend, Pope
Pius IX, was banished from Rome Brumidi was thrown into prison for
fourteen months. As Captain of the Papal Guard Brumidi had refused to
obey certain orders against his friends which resulted in the enmity of
Cardinal Antonelli, Minister of State. Pope Pius IX was finally restored
to the Vatican but he was unable to save Brumidi except on condition
that the artist would flee the country and never return. Finally, to
save his own life, Brumidi was forced to leave Italy. He reached America
in 1852.
While the above facts concerning Brumidi were much the same in the few
available references in the Library of Congress, stories of Brumidi’s
life in America and of his services to the United States seemed to vary
with the enthusiasm or bias of the narrator. Certain conflicting
statements centered about the merit and authenticity of his paintings;
the genuineness of his American patriotism; the amount of money paid him
for the paintings in the Capitol Building; the loyalty of the artist’s
family; the appreciation of the American people; and the poverty of the
artist at the time of his death. For the most part, however, little has
been written and less has been publicly known about the artist who spent
his last twenty-five years in devoted effort toward beautifying the
Capitol Building of the United States.
The most sympathetic appraisals of Brumidi’s art and his years in
America have been done by Charles E. Fairman, Smith D. Fry, George C.
Hazelton, Randolph Keim, and S. D. Wyeth. Mr. Wyeth wrote a small
pamphlet of six pages in 1866 on “Brumidi’s Allegorical Painting within
the Canopy of the Rotunda.” That was the year after Brumidi had finished
the huge canopy fresco in the Dome of the Capitol Building. The author
was so intent upon the allegorical interpretation of the figures in the
Dome canopy that he almost forgot the artist and his art. He did,
however, refer to Brumidi in this manner, “Brumidi has been mainly
engaged for years in ornamenting various portions of the walls
[Illustration: THE EYE OF THE DOME
The focal point of this Rotunda panorama is the huge Brumidi fresco
covering The Eye of the Dome. At this perspective the six allegorical
groupings about the circumference of the fresco are partly hidden from
view. A portion of Brumidi’s unfinished frieze, painted in imitation
sculpture, shows below the windows. Two white balconies encircle the
dome, one between the windows and the frieze, and the other at the very
top. A hidden stairway winds its way between the two iron shells of the
Dome, a vertical distance of 180 feet from the rotunda floor.]
of the Capitol, and his name will ever be associated with the history
and beauty of our world renowned National building.”
Since the Rotunda scaffolding, from which Brumidi worked on the Dome
canopy, was removed in January 1866 and the magnificent fresco was then
lighted and displayed for the first time to the public, we have every
reason to believe that Wyeth’s six pages of allegorical explanations of
that huge fresco, printed the same year, were direct from Brumidi’s own
carefully planned allegories.
The tiny book entitled, “Keim’s Capitol Interior and Diagrams” was
published in 1874. Since its stated purpose was “to furnish the visitor
to the Capitol with complete and reliable plans and diagrams, with
reference to and accurate descriptions of all objects of interest within
the building,” it made no effort to evaluate the Brumidi paintings but
it did give a comprehensive record throughout as to the location of
Brumidi’s work. Most of the Brumidi frescoes, oils, and decorative
portions can still be identified by the Keim references but some are
evidently gone forever, while others undoubtedly are merely covered by
the wall board or artificial ceiling panels of later renovations.
In George C. Hazelton’s book, “The National Capitol,” printed in 1897,
and dealing with “The Architecture, Art and History of the National
Capitol,” we find Brumidi a bit more appreciatively treated. Said
Hazelton, “No higher compliment could be paid to his genius than the
expression of a group of artists who were decorating the new building
for the Congressional Library. When they visited the Capitol to study
the frescoes of the Italian, they said, ‘We have nothing equal to this
in the Library. There is no one who can do such work today.’” Then
Hazelton continued, “Brumidi’s work so identifies him with the Capitol
Building that he may almost now be called the Michelangelo of the
Capitol.”
In “Fry’s Patriotic Story of the Capitol,” a booklet published in 1912,
the author refers repeatedly to Brumidi in such an intimate way as to
lead the reader to believe that Smith D. Fry must have known Brumidi
personally and must have loved the artist genuinely. Since Mr. Fry
graduated from law school the year the artist died it is not impossible
that the two were personally acquainted. In the following Fry quotation
there is evidence to support this view and the human touch to the
biographical sketch may have come direct from the artist himself. Mr.
Fry wrote,
“When about forty years of age, Brumidi threw away his brush and his
great career, declaring that he would never paint another stroke until
he had found liberty. Because of an indignity suffered by a member of
his family he became a revolutionary soldier and fought in vain for
liberty. When almost fifty years old he was banished from Italy and came
to America. Here he found liberty and became an intensely patriotic
citizen.”
Mr. Fry then gives a direct quotation from the artist himself. This is
unique, being the only direct quotation from Brumidi passed on in this
manner. Said Mr. Fry, “When Brumidi’s merit was disclosed (in America)
fame and fortune sought him. Thousands of dollars were his for the
taking. He refused all allurements in these words, ‘_I have no longer
any desire for fame or fortune. My one ambition and my daily prayer is
that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one
country on earth in which there is liberty._’”
Charles E. Fairman, art curator of the Capitol for thirty-two years,
compiled during that time valuable records on the “Art and Artists of
the Capitol of the United States of America.” Mr. Fairman was born in
1854 about the time Brumidi began his decorations of the Capitol
Building. Although Mr. Fairman did not begin his own work at the Capitol
Building until 1911 it is entirely possible that as a young man he had
occasion to watch Brumidi at work. While Mr. Fairman maintains an
impersonal attitude in his treatment of Brumidi, his record is
invaluable as proof of the authenticity of certain Brumidi frescoes and
paintings.
The whole colossal piece of research so carefully assembled by Mr.
Fairman and printed in 1927 contained the best summary of documentary
material available on Constantino Brumidi. Since Mr. Fairman’s book
covered all art and artists in any manner having connection with the
Capitol Building the parts devoted to Brumidi and his murals occupy a
not too prominent division of the book. However, Mr. Fairman’s combined
references to Constantino Brumidi are of great service to one making a
more extended study of the Capitol muralist.
_The Daily Evening Telegraph of Philadelphia_ announced Brumidi’s death
in its issue of February 19, 1880. On the following day this same paper
carried a lengthy article purporting to be an evaluation of the Brumidi
frescoes. So scathing and crude was the criticism by this anonymous
writer, even before the old artist had been buried, that one senses
instinctively that this same type of critical carping had no doubt been
stalking Brumidi from other sources during a period of years. The
following quotation is a glaring example of this unjust criticism:
“...Of Brumidi, the frescoer of the Capitol at Washington, whose death
was announced yesterday, it may be said, ‘He was most industrious.’ If
hard work always represents a value given and received, the industrious
Brumidi could be put down as having fairly earned the large sums which
must have been paid him out of the public treasury. But, if the quality
of his work is considered, we doubt whether those who are at all
competent to judge with regard to the matter will differ among
themselves as to the fact that his employment for a long term of years,
in the face of repeated and emphatic protests from people who knew what
good decoration was, was most scandalous.
“...He was permitted to paint on the interior of the dome a
composition which, both in design and execution, is about as abominable
as anything of that kind well could be. Now that he is dead and out of
the way, let us hope that something like a serious effort will be made
to have his place filled by an artist who is an artist, and who has some
claims to consideration other than that of being skilled in the fresco
process.”
On that same day, Friday, February 20, 1880, another reporter, this time
for the _Washington Post_ in the Capital City, told of the death and
life of Brumidi with a show of sympathetic appreciation. A portion of
this article follows: