ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY 
S> ! 
So the Freer gallery with its small 
rooms, none of which are much larger 
than the average room in a well ap¬ 
pointed home, gives one ever this sense 
of intimacy and allows the closest study 
of those things that are on the walls. 
The opening collections which the pub¬ 
lic are now viewing, must be taken 
therefore as an exponent of the hidden 
richnesses of the collection as a whole. 
As things go the things seen more than 
justify expectations even though those 
unfamiliar with Mr. Freer’s methods 
may expect too much, for instance, of the 
four rooms given over to the few Ameri¬ 
cans whom he deigned to honor. The 
works shown there, it is true, are char¬ 
acteristic of the men, and they are all 
able men, so the posed figures in 
various costumes with intimate back¬ 
grounds, which are Dewing’s specialty, 
are in a delicate contrast to the large 
sculpturesque studies of vigorous girl¬ 
hood by Thayer, such as “The Virgin” 
and the numerous variations on the 
winged figure motive, which are his 
contributions to American art. And 
while Tryon’s Barbizon effects make 
for charm and Homer and Sargent in 
vigorous mood tell a brief story of 
American landscape in the hands of 
two masters, one feels that one must 
go elsewhere than to the Freer gallery, 
to the nearby Corcoran, for instance, 
to realize what American art has meant 
since the days of the Hudson River 
School on to the present. 
Inevitably, one turns to the Whistler 
rooms as the true gospel of America in 
so far as one genius in art has revealed 
it. There is no uncertainty here, though 
there may be inequalities and sins of 
omission and commission. Among the 
oils one finds the delightful ‘‘ nocturnes, ’ ’ 
the ever famous blue and gold Valpa¬ 
raiso study, the blue and silver Batter¬ 
sea, in companionship with the opal and 
silver Bognor and the haunting greys 
of the mist-touched studies of London 
perlieus and the Thames reaches, which 
have all the romance and anticipated 
all the mystery of Limehouse Nights in 
a way that proclaims the true master 
and the real pioneer. There are also 
among the Whistler oils the very char¬ 
acteristic study of Leyland in black 
with a silvery grey coat and a whitish 
ascot tie looking for all the world as a 
sort of grandee of Spain, in conjunc¬ 
tion with a more subdued Whistlerian 
canvas, “The Young American” of a 
similar size and these with the famous 
caprice in purple and gold, “The Gold 
Screen ’ ’ and the harmony in flesh color 
and green, “The Balcony” and all the 
rest of the oils, many of them small 
bits not more than three by four or 
four by five, mere memoranda of genius, 
give you the essential Whistler which 
the two rooms given over to the etchings 
and lithographs and water colors and 
pastels confirm in every way, telling 
you, indeed, more of what the master 
was than does the very much over¬ 
rated Peacock Room which, at the 
opening, had, as it were, a tribute paid 
to it in that real live peacocks paraded 
about the patio displaying their gorgeous 
hues of green and blue and gold almost 
as if to mock the lower key of gold and 
the rather dirty bluish green which is 
the general tone of the Leyland dining 
room. 
This was a controversial room from 
the moment that Whistler put the first 
bit of paint on it in the Fall of 1876, 
until it was pronounced finished in the 
Spring of 1877, the controversy involv¬ 
ing Whistler and Leyland, the assistant 
architect Jeekyll going to the madhouse, 
and Whistler himself into bankruptcy. 
For Whistler, if he did put the golden 
peacocks on green blues to harmon¬ 
ize with his Princess of the porcelain 
1275 ] 
