THE CONGRESS OF WOMEN.

601

remained unshorn, and thus received the title of Nazarenes. They were also called “ The Church Romantic Painters ” and “ The Old School.” They even donned their kitchen aprons to*attend to the culinary department. In their art labor they wrought diligently. For what? To purify art by drawing their inspiration from the revered old masters of Italy; and, returning, they transplanted the seed in the soil of the fatherland, and not only revealed to it the significance of natural life, but imbued it with a moral element which still dominates German art. This religious phase of Romanticism found expression in England under the name of pre-Raphaeliteism, which was a conscientious striving after truth and purity of conception. Entirely idealistic in aim but realistic in method, evincing absolute fidelity to detail. But the strong individuality or personality of Millais, Rosetti, Collinson, and one or two others, did not allow them to remain many years an organized brotherhood. Who shall say pre-Raphaeliteism has not served to perpetuate sincerity and a nobler aim in art, and also a more thorough mastery of technic?

With one notable exception, we must go to Europe to study the master-pieces of that noted group and their followers. In France, Gericault and Delacroix were the exponents of the heroic phase of Romanticism, while Scheffer alone represented the religious. Delacroix was the most strongly individual and dramatic in his concep­tions. He drew his inspiration from Dante, Byron, Scott and Shakespeare. The school of Fontainebleau or Barbizon is another marked phase or illustration of Ro­manticism. We all know how sincerely Diaz Dupre, Daubigny, Corot, Rosseau and Millet sought to reinvest landscape with truth and feeling, and if we carefully study their pictures we can not fail to observe how marvelously each has impressed his own individuality and character upon his work. But now the vision of the artist grows more sensitive and acute, and he says, “This world is visible to me only in proportion as I annihilate myself and seek to interpret life just as I find it,” and thus we have Realism. Themes may be chosen from life, and the whole aim may be to render objectively, but how can an artist sever his individuality and his art? Contrast Cour­bet with Meissonier, Morot with Fhermitte, LePage with Bonnot, and decide as to the possibility of the proposition. After due consideration is Realism more than a training- school for Idealism? Many critics of the present time think we ought not to employ the word “ idealism,” arguing that there is, and never was, but one true ideal, and that is in Greece. This is philosophically true; yet every age has its ideal, or may have. There are artists gifted with strong imagination, their minds teeming with poetic con­ceptions and subjectively must find utterance. If art is imagination, then it is the province of the idealist to create ideal standards of excellence, beatific visions of truth and goodness. Quite relevant to this thought is the present innovation upon the usual conventional manner of representing Christ. Is it sacrilegious to represent the Re­deemer of the world as a Son of Man, clad in ordinary garments, walking and living among men? We will not assume the responsibility of approbation or condemnation. Every heart must pronounce its own dictum. Perhaps Skredsvig, the Norwegian artist, in his work, entitled “The Son of Man,” has struck a keynote to a chord which shall long vibrate in the heart of mankind. What is more pathetic than the absorbing devotion of the woman who feign “ would lay all at her Master’s feet,” expressed in the act of bringing her rugs and adjusting them with the utmost care, and then bordering the way His feet must pass with vases of precious flowers. Yes, the simple faith of those humble people is sure of a benediction. Idealism should, we believe, receive not only the sanction but the enthusiastic approval of all who sincerely desire the elevation of mankind.

What about Impressionism, called in playful derision the “ new lavender school?” It is often abused and misunderstood as an appellation. This is a scientific age, and many artists are only endeavoring to grasp heretofore unsolved problems in light and atmosphere. They claim no moral purpose and surely we find none. Yet if consci­entiously they are with keener vision penetrating deeper into the realms of nature, to render more subtle and evanescent beauty, giving us glimpses of the intangible, who