The decoration of the President’s Room in the Senate Annex is thought by
many to be Brumidi’s best work in the Capitol Building. Since the
President’s Room in the Capitol was to be set aside for the use of the
President of the United States at any time duty called the President to
the Capitol Building, it may well be supposed that Brumidi wanted that
room to be as beautiful as an artist could make it. He is said to have
spent more than five years on this room alone, but five years seem not
half long enough to create such beauty as is here displayed.
Five colorful ceiling-to-floor panels adorn the walls and in the center
of each hangs a portrait elegantly framed. The five members of
Washington’s first Cabinet are thus honored--Thomas Jefferson of
Virginia, Secretary of State; Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Attorney
General; Henry Knox of Massachusetts, Secretary of War; Alexander
Hamilton of New York, Secretary of the Treasury; and Samuel Osgood of
Massachusetts, Postmaster General. I say these portraits hang in the
panels. If you stood at the door looking hurriedly about the walls, as
most visitors must do at the President’s Room, you would think the
frames as real as the portraits. In truth, though, the beautifully
carved frames are painted on the walls as are the portraits. Mr. Fairman
calls these paintings, “Portraits of Distinction,” and so they are.
But it is the frescoed ceiling in the President’s Room that showers new
light and color and added beauty about the portraits on the walls. Four
symbolic groups on this ceiling look down from their large medallion
gold leaf frames--four life-size Madonnas, symbolizing Religion,
Legislation, Liberty, and Executive Authority--Madonnas of great beauty
and rare coloring. Then at each corner of this frescoed ceiling among
the symbolism and the cherubs are four life-size portraits, full length,
each chosen as representative of a force in civilization. Columbus
memorializes discovery; Vespucius, exploration; Brewster, religion; and
Franklin, history.
The portrait of George Washington, evidently done with Rembrandt Peale’s
Washington in mind, has a position all its own high above the portrait
of Thomas Jefferson. A portion of the Annual Report of Captain Meigs,
dated October 27, 1859, fixed the completion of the Brumidi frescoes in
the President’s Room. Said that report, “The painting of the President’s
Room in the North wing will be completed by the next meeting of
Congress.”
Even during the years that Brumidi created the beauty of the President’s
Room cruel words were hurled against his art. In 1858 a convention of
self-styled American artists assembled and drew up an estimate of their
own worth which they titled: “Memorial of the Artists of the United
States.” This petition of grievance presented to the Congress of the
United States carried the names of 127 individuals, chiefly from New
York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore with only eight from the
Capital City. Among the signatures were found the names of Rembrandt
Peale, W. D. Washington and Johannes A. Oertel, the latter being the
draughtsman who
[Illustration: SINGING CHERUBS
These three cherubs occupy a position beneath the portrait of William
Brewster on the ceiling of the President’s Room comparable to that of
the cherub detail beneath the portrait of Benjamin Franklin on the same
ceiling. Since Brewster, as the religious leader of the Pilgrims and
elder of the Plymouth colony, typifies “Religion” in Brumidi’s over all
design in the President’s Room, the singing cherubs with their director,
violinist, dove attendant, and music script must be singing hosannas of
peace and devotion. (Cherubs in chapter tailpieces are from this
ceiling.)]
challenged Brumidi’s right, in 1858, to paint the ceiling fresco in the
District of Columbia Committee Room of the Senate.
It is illuminating to know that 88 of the 127 names listed as artists in
the above Memorial do not even appear in the National Encyclopedia of
American Biography while among those that do appear, less than a dozen
are recognized today as artists of note.
The Artists’ Memorial began with these words, “Your memorialists appear
before your honorable bodies to solicit for American art that
consideration and encouragement to which they conceive it to be entitled
at the hands of the general government.” Then the Memorial asked that
Congress “establish an Art Commission composed of those designated by
the united voice of American artists as competent to the office, who
shall be accepted as the exponents of the authority and influence of
American art, who shall be the channels for the distribution of all
appropriations to be made by Congress for art purposes, and who shall
secure to artists an intelligent and unbiased adjudication upon the
designs they may present for the embellishment of our National
buildings.”
The House of Representatives referred the Artists’ Memorial to a select
committee of five. This Committee brought out Report No. 198, March 3,
1859. That Report not only sanctioned the establishment of the suggested
Art Commission to protect the “embellishment of National buildings” but
it voiced criticism by the Congressmen making up the select Committee of
five. Brumidi’s name was not mentioned in the Report but there is no
mistaking the artist to whom they referred. Said the Committee in this
Report:
“A plain coat or two of whitewash is better, in the opinion of this
committee, for a temporary finish than the tawdry and exuberant
ornamentation with which many of the rooms and passages are being
crowded.... An eagle and the National flag may be discovered
occasionally amidst the confusion of scroll work and mythological
figures presented to the eye; but the presence of conventional gods and
goddesses, with meaningless scrolls and arabesques, albeit they may be
wrapped in the red, white and blue, will never suggest to the American,
as he wanders among the halls and committee rooms, any idea to touch his
heart or to inspire his patriotism.... Should he seek an explanation
from those who are manufacturing the cumbrous levities which everywhere
appear through the building he will be eminently fortunate should he
find among them one who speaks the English language.”
The real fight of the petitioners was evidently against the employment
of a foreign artist. However, this was not expressed openly in the
Memorial but the select committee of
[Illustration: DISCOVERY
The theme of Brumidi’s ceiling fresco in the President’s Room, as
portrayed by Christopher Columbus, is that of “Discovery.” This subject
is intensified by use of the globe and map in the cherub detail above
the portrait. At upper left is a segment of the medallion, “Executive
Authority,” and at the right a portion of another medallion, “Liberty.”
The four small decorative medallions at the portrait corners are State
seals. At the upper left is Vermont; at upper right, Kentucky; lower
left, Arkansas, and lower right, Michigan.]
five from the House of Representatives made the open accusation. Said
they in their Report, “The Committee have not been informed that
American artists have been engaged upon the embellishment of the
Capitol, but they have been made painfully conscious that the work has
been prosecuted by foreign workmen under the immediate supervision of a
foreigner. As a consequence the Committee find nothing in the design and
execution of the ornamental work of the Capitol, thus far, which
represents our own country, or the genius and taste of her artists.”
This unjust criticism of Brumidi found expression in the New York Daily
Tribune for May 17, 1858, through that paper’s Washington correspondent.
The New York attack on the artist, however, was answered in the Tribune
for May 31, 1858, by Guglielmo Gajani, a friend of Brumidi’s. Extracts
of this defense of Brumidi follow:
To the Editor of the New York Tribune:
I have lately been at Washington and derived much pleasure from
visiting the National Capital and its splendid buildings and works
of art. I admired them and was much pleased with the frescoes and
decorations of my fellow citizen Signor Constantino Brumidi. But on
my return to New York my attention was directed to a correspondence
of the Tribune (May 17) and to other attacks made against that
artist and his works at the Capitol.
I knew him in Rome, where he was much esteemed and has left
excellent specimens of his artistic skill. I can hardly believe
that ten years of exile could have so entirely destroyed his
capacity or impaired my judgment. Had the attack been confined to
the ground that artists or workmen of foreign birth who are
satisfied with a small compensation should be excluded from the
Capitol in order to have the work done exclusively by natives well
paid, I would have nothing to say for I keep off entirely from your
administrative questions and politics. But on the ground of art and
taste a Roman might be allowed to express an opinion quite
different from that of your own correspondent and his friends.
Fresco painting represents in art what improvisation is in poetry.
The artist must execute his work upon a fresh wall, tracing the
outlines by a steel point and using mineral colors which are
instantly absorbed and do not show their effect until the wall
dries. The artist, therefore, must work with great rapidity and has
no opportunity for corrections. It does not require a greater
capacity than the ordinary painting with oil or water colors on a
dry wall, but the artist must have a peculiar disposition, and this
the Italian possesses to a greater degree than others.
Michelangelo had never practiced fresco painting when Bramante
procured him the commission to paint the ceiling of the Sistine
Chapel with a view to ruin his reputation. Michelangelo called from
Florence his former schoolmate, Granacci, and other fresco
painters, to teach him the art. He was much perplexed at the
beginning but afterward declared it the best style of painting. I
believe that your best painters, by exerting themselves and gaining
experience, might have succeeded in doing the work accomplished by
Brumidi, but it would have required a long time and an enormous
expenditure.
It is a fact that in France, in England, in Belgium, in Italy and
everywhere public buildings have been decorated by competent
artists, you meet the same style and symbols, allegories and
classical memories occasionally adopted by Signor Brumidi. Before
condemning him you must find fault with all the best painters who
preceded him, and especially with Michelangelo and Raphael who
[Illustration: RELIGION
Four Brumidi Madonnas on the frescoed ceiling of the President’s Room
are of great interest to visitors. The most lasting impression, however,
is made by “Religion.” The story is often repeated that Brumidi painted
“Religion” with an “all-seeing eye of God” which will follow any
individual from place to place inside the room. The “connections of the
pieces of plaster” which help to identify real fresco are easily
discernible in this medallion background. The color beauty of “Religion”
is illustrated by “Legislation” in this book’s color section.]
[Illustration: THE CHERUB OF JUSTICE
Well balanced scales and a sword seem to be necessary attributes of
Brumidi’s conception of “Executive Authority” in the President’s Room.
The Cherub of Justice and the many other cherubs used so generously in
the artist’s Capitol frescoes are favorites with art enthusiasts. All
designs and deceptive moldings shown above are painted in oil on dry
plaster. The corner of a tall elaborate mirror frame shows at the
right.]
[Illustration: THE WINGED CHERUB
Resting midst bundles of papers, bills, and Congressional debates, the
Winged Cherub suggests another Brumidi theme, “Legislation,” on the
walls of the President’s Room. The signature “C. Brumidi, 1860,” can be
identified on the packet of State papers at the feet of this cherub. The
two cherubs on these pages fill decorative niches high on the walls on
either side of a huge, ceiling-to-floor, gold-framed mirror.]
introduced that style of fresco in the Vatican itself.... It is
absurd, therefore, to despise the works of Signor Brumidi because
“they look foreign and betray the Italian element,” that is to say,
because they are classical in the subject and artistic in the
execution.
I confess that my national feelings were a little wounded when I
saw vituperated to some extent in Washington an artist much
esteemed in Rome. Music and the fine arts are all that remain of
our former greatness, and we are naturally jealous of this glory.
Besides, I am convinced that Signor Brumidi is a good artist and an
excellent fresco painter. He has studied long in Rome, even from
his boyhood, and visited for instruction all the most important
schools of art in Italy. Baron Camucini was his master in painting,
and the great Thorwaldsen taught him sculpture. In both arts Signor
Brumidi has left several specimens of his skill in Rome. For
instance, he was employed during eleven years in making frescoes
and decorations of the villa and of the palace of Prince Torlonia
in Rome. These works are admired by visitors. Should an American
admire the works of Signor Brumidi at home and despise them when he
finds them at Washington?
Signor Brumidi was also employed by the Government in Rome,
together with other distinguished artists, to prepare the
chronology of the Popes, in the new Basilica of St. Paul, and was
allowed to finish his work after the revolution, notwithstanding
that he was persecuted for the part which he took in that movement.
The Republican Government of Rome honored Signor Brumidi with an
important commission as he was much esteemed for his talent and
personal qualities. I am glad, myself, that he has already executed
some works at the Capitol. They speak for themselves to those who
have taste for the fine arts.