[CONTENTS]
[LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS]
[INDEX]

GIVE THE MAN ROOM
BY ROBERT J. CASEY

• Travel
• Four Faces of Siva
• Baghdad and Points East
• Easter Island
• The Land of Haunted Castles
• The Lost Kingdom of Burgundy
• The Black Hills
• The Texas Border
• Personalities
• Such Interesting People
• More Interesting People
• Mr. Clutch
• War
• The Cannoneers Have Hairy Ears
• I Can’t Forget
• Torpedo Junction
• Battle Below
• This Is Where I Came In
• Mystery
• The Secret of No. 37 Hardy Street
• The Secret of the Bungalow
• Hot Ice
• News Reel
• The Third Owl
• Romance
• The Gentleman in Armour
• Cambodian Quest
• Satire
• The Voice of the Lobster
• Technical
• Manual of Radio Interference
• Verse
• The Vest Pocket Anthology

• BY MARY BORGLUM (Mary W. Montgomery)
  Told in the Gardens of Araby (with Izora Chandler)

By ROBERT J. CASEY
and MARY BORGLUM
THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY, INC.
Publishers
Indianapolis New York
Copyright, 1952, by Mary Borglum
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 52-5804
First Edition

To
Lincoln and Louella,
Mary Ellis and David

Beauty is like a soul that hovers over the surface of form.
Its presence is unmistakable in Art or in Life. The measure
of its revelation depends on the measure of our own soul-consciousness,
the boundaries of our own spirit.
—Gutzon Borglum

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

GIVE THE MAN ROOM

CHAPTER ONE
MOUNTAINTOP

If you are studying the history of Gutzon Borglum, the place to stand is at Stone Mountain, Georgia.

It is an impressive spot, quiet, little visited, a vast bubble of granite rising abruptly some 800 feet out of a grassy plain, and thousands of feet long. Good roads lead to it from Atlanta. There is, or used to be, a little information office at the foot of its towering cliff, and usually there is someone about to sell souvenirs or to give a sketchy and bewildering account of the mountain’s history. High on the cliff there is a flat place from which several acres of surface rock have been removed; and to the left of the flat is the somewhat unidentifiable head of a man. The guide will tell you that this is the representation of Robert E. Lee, as indeed it might be—Lee or anybody.

There is little left to mark the handiwork of man in this neighborhood. Grass and brush have covered the fallen rock. The scaffolds are down, the tool sheds and storehouses vanished. The steel hooks are gone from the face of the cliff. There are no great funds in the hands of the local patriots. But this is the place. It was because of his work here, because of what he discovered about granite at Stone Mountain, and because of his carving of the head of Robert E. Lee, which today nobody can rightfully attribute to him, that Gutzon Borglum’s memory will be a long time in dying.

Stone Mountain’s story is often repeated and seldom—very seldom—authentic. What you see of the place today is mostly what was here on one dire day in February 1925 when Borglum’s work on it came to an end—forever. But there is much about it that anyone who cares may know.

Mrs. Helen Plane, an aging Daughter of the Confederacy, had dreamed one night that the history of the South’s Great Cause might be carved in vast figures on the surface of this cliff, General Robert E. Lee, President Jefferson Davis and a list of towering generals marching forever across the granite at the head of the defiant troops. She brought the matter to the attention of Borglum, and he was probably the one artist in the world who would understand what she wanted done and would find a way to get it done. That was in 1915. Borglum made a trip from Washington to Atlanta and inspected the mountain.

In 1924 this fantastic undertaking was no longer anybody’s dream; it was well under way. The first group of figures, Lee and Davis and Jackson and the generals, had been outlined on the mountain, following the flag to perpetual glory. Lee himself was appearing in a stature that Art had never before given to anyone anywhere.

Machinery was in place for diagram projection, power, hoisting, drilling, carving, hauling, dynamiting. The business of high-explosive carving had been brought to a point of almost unbelievable fineness and accuracy. After years of money shortage the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Association was looking into a debt-free future with a million or two dollars of surplus cash in the treasury. The last march of the Confederacy was definitely on its way....

Up in Pierre, South Dakota, State Historian Doane Robinson, a scholar with patriotism, an extraordinary love for beauty and very little knowledge of magnificent finance, looked at the news photographs of the Stone Mountain project and studied the rotogravure outlines of what the sculptured cliff would look like when Gutzon Borglum finished with it. And he wondered that nobody had ever thought of trying a similar scheme in the mountains of South Dakota, the Black Hills. He wrote a letter to Borglum inquiring why.

The sculptor wrote that he was perfectly willing to look into the sculptural possibilities of the Black Hills if anybody in South Dakota was willing to provide the necessary expenses. A few months later Robinson wrote, somewhat erroneously, that the state of South Dakota would underwrite this not too considerable sum; so Borglum came out, looked at the Hills and toured their hinterland late in the summer of 1925.

In February 1925 the sculptor had a bitter disagreement with some of the executive committee of the Confederate Memorial. He thought these men careless in handling public funds. They made complaints and fired him. He broke up his models and went away from Georgia. Without him the mountain stayed uncarved.

That same year a group of Black Hills patriots guaranteed a fund of $25,000 for a patriotic mountain carving. Gifts of $5,000 each were received from Senator Coleman DuPont, Charles E. Rushmore—who gave his name to the peak later selected for the memorial in the Black Hills—The Chicago and North Western Railway, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway and the Homestake Mine. Herbert Myrick contributed a donation of $1,500. The Northwestern Public Service Company of Huron, South Dakota, had offered a power plant. Doane Robinson sent out another call to Borglum, and Borglum made a second trip to the Black Hills.

In the summer of 1927 Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States, dedicated the Rushmore Mountain project. And before the ending of the Second World War the carving of this peak was finished—the only thing of its kind on the face of the earth.

From the top of Mount Rushmore four Presidents of the United States—Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt—gaze out from an unbelievable block of hard rock into glowing sunlight, placid but remarkably alive. Hundreds of thousands of persons have come from the far corners of the world to look at them, and are still coming in expanding companies. The money spent by the Treasury of the United States for the carving of this peak has long since been returned to its source through the gasoline tax of the tourists. The faces of four men important in the history of the country will be preserved to us, barring some unpredictable catastrophe, until the mountains are worn as flat as the surrounding prairies. And an interesting feature of all this is that there were only a handful of people in the world who believed it possible until it was done.

It is safe to say that the carving of Mount Rushmore would never have been attempted and could never have been carried out save for the early experiment on Stone Mountain. Borglum had to learn how to remove large masses of rock—more than 50,000 tons in his first twenty months in Georgia. So he had learned how to carve with dynamite and had trained stone workers so well that they could blast down to within three inches of the surface to be chiseled. He learned about drills and their sharpening. He learned how to suspend his workmen on slings that were easily maneuvered and entirely safe. He found out how to project patterns from a distance onto the rock to be carved. And he knew how to do all these things quickly when, eventually, he moved on to Rushmore.

On the South Dakota memorial his fame now rests and probably will continue to rest until the end of time. He might possibly have felt bitter about that. The sculpture into which he poured his greatest enthusiasm was undoubtedly the Confederate memorial. It had movement instead of stasis. It told a story in a language that no man could fail to understand. The piece of his carving that he himself loved best may have been the seated Lincoln at Newark, New Jersey. None of his other works—nor any sculpture in the world—is as big as the work on Rushmore. But not at this time will any expert in sculpture come to select one of the carvings of Mount Rushmore as Borglum’s masterpiece.

That is not to say that the Four Faces are not well done. They are. Lincoln’s has the same pathos that marks Borglum’s head of him in the Capitol at Washington. Jefferson and Washington come to us out of the unphotographed past of more than a century ago as real men. Theodore Roosevelt many of us knew when he was alive, and he is himself. But all four of them are overpowering because of their size. They are the product of an art that few men ever attempted before and none accomplished.

It is a striking thing about Borglum that nobody knew very much about him, even his friends. More people know of him now than ever did when he was living, and to most of them he is a man whose sole work was the carving of Mount Rushmore. Few of them know of the tragedy of Stone Mountain. Virtually none has ever heard of his Wars of America Memorial in Newark—forty-two human figures and two horses cast in bronze.

Some of his pieces that few people know about—his horses, his figures of Lincoln, whom he devoutly loved, his statue to James McConnell on the University of Virginia campus at Charlottesville, his simple tribute to Edward L. Trudeau—show his genius as a sculptor. His other pursuits are in dozens of record books, already dusty and forgotten.

For example, he was a member of the New York City Parks Association for a dozen years, and until the day he quit he was a factor in keeping the parks free from injurious exploitation. He organized a bus company in Stamford. He somehow became a leader of the Progressive party in Connecticut. He conducted an investigation of airplane manufacture during the First World War. In the same war he gave the use of his grounds and what money he could raise for the recruiting of a Czecho-Slovak expeditionary force. He designed roads and reconstructed historic old buildings. He contrived waterways and beautified highways and rivers. He designed coins and medals. He invented projection apparatus and hoisting machinery. He wrote magazine and newspaper articles and built up an amazing file of information about sculpture. He invented an airplane. He laid out a breakwater for Corpus Christi, Texas. He experimented with dynamite so long that he could calculate stone removal in ounces. And as he continued his work of mountain carving he made himself an engineer in a new and difficult trade.

It is interesting to note that he did all of these things well. Some have said that he had a touchy temper, but those of us who knew him, say, over forty years didn’t think so. He could never understand that money might have a different value to other people than it had to him. He would get annoyed when the treasurer of one of his projects would hesitate to empty the treasury for a power plant or some other machinery at the moment he needed it. He got genuinely angry only at people he suspected of being dishonest.

Neither did he make many enemies. One man, long a member of the executive committee of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Commission, probably knew him longer in irritating circumstances than anyone else on earth. Once he came down from Mount Rushmore to Rapid City frothing at the mouth.

“All he knows about money for this business is that somebody has to dig it up,” he roared. “He thinks I make it out of something just because he needs it. He’d bust the whole state of South Dakota in two weeks just because he needs some dynamite or an A-rig.”

“But,” someone inquired, “do you think he’ll get this memorial finished?”

“Hell, yes!” he roared. “And nobody else could do it either!”

One is surprised that such a diversified character could have had much time left to spend in sculpture. As a matter of fact, he probably did more of it than any other individual in his profession and time. He was a prodigious worker as well as a talented dilettante in fields where he thought his influence needed. His paintings between 1890 and 1901 seem to have been virtually numberless. Many of them are appearing now and then, more valuable than ever.

Some of his better sculpture has disappeared. One of his pieces was used by a lady as security for a loan. It has gone from human ken. His study of Woodrow Wilson at Poznan, Poland, was uprooted and no doubt melted by the Nazis in the Second World War. A second artist took the hat off Robert E. Lee on Stone Mountain “because Lee would never wear a hat in a place where ladies were present.” The face as one sees it today was altered in this thoughtful improvement. Much of Borglum’s early work seems to have passed through similar vicissitudes.

However, most of what he did throughout his creative years seems to be with us still—statues in a dozen states, small ones, grand ones, but always anatomically perfect ones. If he had never done anything but the Newark Lincoln and the Wars of America group, he would have done enough to put him among the leaders of his art. But beside those and a generous scattering of bronze and marble all across the United States, there is still Rushmore. His own criticism of Rushmore is still the most apropos: “They’ll be a long time wearing that one down.”

CHAPTER TWO
THE DIM BEGINNING

The beginnings of Gutzon Borglum are not easy to trace. Until more than fifty years after his birth nobody seems to have cared where he came from or when. Nobody was much interested in who his parents were or how or where he was brought up. By that time the evidence of his boyhood was far away and hazy.

When in middle age he turned his head toward the Far West he had known shortly after the Civil War he saw a past that was exciting, colorful and glamorous. He was lyrical in talking about it and wrapped up in memories of unbelievably noble inspiration. But the oddest feature of his reminiscence is that, except for his stylistic urge, he never wandered far from historic fact.

Gutzon Borglum was born in a frontier town in Idaho. His early childhood was spent in Fremont, Nebraska, jumping-off place of the covered wagons, haunt of wild Indians. And whatever hints he conveys about Gutzon, he is probably telling the truth. He was never anybody but Gutzon.

He intended, when he sat down to recall his youth, to write an autobiography. But writing an autobiography was just one more task that took its place in a tremendous program of brass casting, airplane design, mountain dressing, sea-wall building, picture projection, boxing promotion, park improvement, old-building restoration, motor-bus operation, horse raising, politics and—every now and then—colossal sculpture. When he died he had written two chapters and several hundred thousand words of notes and journals, an astonishing record, presenting a picture of an old warrior battling for youth against a cynical world.

He said in his introduction:

This story is told to lend an encouraging, believing hand to all lonely, creative souls who are wandering into the uncharted, untraveled wilderness of God’s greater universe, finding through their own understanding new and undreamed worlds; and to those who continue alone to pour into unpeopled space their cry—unafraid, expecting no answer. Courage to stand alone; courage to master, to know, to do alone. Courage to spurn the tradesman’s reward and popularity. Courage to be without great approval, in spite of government, in spite of today’s laws, tomorrow’s threat—every threat—in spite of Heaven. God’s greatest gift to us and His supreme test is courage bestowed only on those He trusts entirely.

There are two points in this worthy of attention: his recognition of the need for courage and the stressing of his loneliness. He had the courage. No one in half a century of continuous battling had more. His loneliness must have been in his soul, not literal. With friends and enemies who included a line of Presidents of the United States, senators, congressmen and public officials, artists, writers, singers, politicians, sheriffs, policemen and such, all of them in vast numbers and continuously present throughout the years, he could have been lonely only in his more detached moments. He certainly had a full life. The portions of it unfilled with other people were of his own choosing. In his chronicle he wrote:

I should like to begin this story with Eric the Red, the great warlike Dane, driven from Denmark to Norway, from Norway to Iceland, and finally from Iceland. From there he drifted with the tide before the chill winds southward in his Viking ships, dodging the ice in the Atlantic Flow, the cooled Gulf Stream, circling up by Greenland which he claimed and named. Or even better to have been with our fellow Danes who invaded Greece and gave that people their heroic age, left in their bloodstream the blue in the eyes of Pericles, the gold of Helen’s hair, the short nose of Socrates and the one blue eye of Alexander the Great. For I am as certain as I am of anything, that the spirit and the ancient Danish or Borglum blood were with and in the raiders of the Mediterranean who roused the geese in Italy’s imperial city and awoke drunken Rome.

The fact that he had lived long enough to write these stirring words probably justifies his admiration for his forebears. He must have sprung from hardy stock. He had come through fifty years, part of it in the parlous times of the new West, where only the good started and only the strong survived. The family of which Gutzon was a part must have had good ancestry. There were nine of them—six of them boys—and they lived as the pioneers did, a routine without much luxury, and all of them rounded out good long lives.

Gutzon doesn’t seem to be sure about their origins and early development any more than he is sure of his own. He never gave a thought to such things until he was about fifty years old and inquisitive admirers began to ask questions. Somewhat confused, he gave some ill-assorted answers, many of which remain puzzling today. In his notes, for instance, he says that he was born on March 25, 1867. This, according to some evidence given by his brother Solon, seems to be correct. Yet the biographical sketch in Who’s Who in America, which he himself wrote, says that he was born in Idaho on March 25, 1871. One must leave it at that.

Borglum was a man of great imagination, and he built up a fine character for the men of the hardy North country from which his ancestors had come. In his mind they came from “the North of Denmark, the land bending eastward under the cruel winds from Greenland and Iceland, the rendezvous of Vikings and high-sea rovers. There we have what are called Black Danes.... They are unquestionably an exchange token from Spain, Rome or Greece.... In our own family of blonds there are always some with fine dark eyes and hair to remind us of our ancestral wanderings.”

The best Borglum’s father did for this family research was to locate a prospective Borglum with Frederick of Sweden in his crusade to the Holy Land. This man seems to have been named Reinhardt. But he saved the prince from a charging goat in the south of France and was given the title de la Mothe, “the one of courage.” This forebear returned to Denmark and, Borglum’s father reported, “his arms carry the crusader’s shield in the center.” The founder of the modern branch of De la Mothes was a priest who, in due course, joined Luther and married a nun. Gutzon wrote:

The menfolk became priests, soldiers, adventurers, and I have books left by them in their own scripts. In this black dune, the wind-swept northern part of Denmark, there is an ancient Norman pile called the Borglum Kloster which, in the nineteenth century, was a hunting lodge for the kings and nobles. The De la Mothe family was closely connected with this cloister. On a visit not so long ago I found in the great chapel, buried in its floor, the only memorial tablet to our ancestors extant.

Some years ago, after the unveiling of Gutzon’s statue of Woodrow Wilson in Poznan, he took his wife and two children on a flying visit to Denmark. They arrived in Copenhagen about 8:00 A.M., and by 8:15 Gutzon was a sensation. He was a great sculptor by that time, and he had an international reputation. But the baggage carriers, the cabdrivers and the early passers-by did not know that. He was interesting to them only because he spoke to them unhesitatingly in archaic Danish, the Danish of a hundred years ago. “I learned it at my mother’s knee,” he explains, “and she had learned it in her youth, now a century past.” He was linguistically one with the Danes of 1800. The romantic swashbucklers of crusading times no longer seemed quite so close to him.

The King of Denmark saw the Borglums after their return from Borglum Kloster and “the black duneland of the North.” He sent his chamberlain to the hotel with an invitation because Gutzon, fifteen years before, had made a three-quarter bust of the king’s grandfather. It was proudly displayed on a gilt mantel.

“Is it a good portrait?” asked the sculptor.

The king smiled. “Yes, it is,” he said. “It is a good portrait with just a touch of American vigor.”

His Majesty then presented Gutzon with the Order of the Knights of Danenborg. “Interesting,” the king said as he draped the ribbon about Borglum’s neck, “to think that your people killed one of our kings.”

“I had heard of some disturbance in the old days at Borglum Kloster,” Borglum said. “There was violence....”

“That was it. The king was seized. They took him to a prison and a week later they hanged him. But you, of course, hadn’t much to do with that.”

“No,” admitted Borglum, “I hadn’t. I don’t know what to say.” The king smiled again. “I’ll forgive you,” he said. “You know, Borglum, your people, the Jutlanders, may be said to have saved Denmark. They were the only ones the Swedes could not defeat.”

“That makes me feel better,” declared Gutzon.

But the king seemed not to have heard him. “Yes,” His Majesty went on, “the Swedes took virtually all the country. They overran the villages and cities. They captured Copenhagen. They took everything valuable. But, of course, they never took Jutland. That’s where your people were.”

The financial situation in Denmark in the middle of the nineteenth century was what caused James Borglum, Gutzon’s father, to come to the United States. The markets were bad, the crop yield had been none too good and there was discontent in the family over the probable division of what little would be left of Grandfather Borglum’s estate.

James de la Mothe Borglum at twenty-three was a Latin-and-Greek scholar in his last year as a medical student. He took passage with his sweetheart on a freighter from Esbjerg across the North Sea to London. They were married in London and immediately afterward took passage in a three-masted sailing ship on a voyage from Liverpool to New York. Of this voyage Gutzon writes:

The trip was a nightmare. The ship was dismasted in a violent storm. The passengers helped to clear away the wreckage and drop it overboard. Then with a few spars for masts and sails made out of bedding they gathered wind enough to carry them to the New World. They were six weeks on the way, most of the time at the mercy of the mad sea.

The honeymooners lingered only a day or two in New York. Steam trains took them to Nebraska City on the west bank of the Missouri River. There they joined an expedition of 126 wagons starting out for Oregon.

They were months on the road, rarely traveling more than ten miles a day. The day’s course depended on the distance between water holes. They traveled without incident until they came into the land of the Cheyennes at the confluence of the North and South Platte rivers. The team boss had died. James Borglum, who was an able doctor and popular with the people in the train, was chosen to converse with some visiting Indians. One of them asked permission to examine Borglum’s pistol and shot himself with it. The chief blamed the mishap on the white spokesman because he had owned the pistol. He demanded the surrender of Borglum’s person and was refused. The Indians, loudly muttering, went away.

They spent a restless night, but the expected attack did not come. Toward midnight a band of wild horses rushed into the expedition’s herd of mules, horses and oxen. These animals were well tied and guarded and there was no alarm save for the sudden screaming of a woman. Nothing amiss was discovered until a check was made toward morning and the wife of a teamster was found to be missing. Twenty years later she was found in Montana, the wife of a chief, with grown children. She refused to leave her adopted people or to return to the whites.

James Borglum never forgot the tragedy of this long trip. The desperate hardships came near the end. There was scarcity of everything. It is hard to realize the amount of food consumed by some 450 men, women and children in four months, or the amount of water necessary daily on a dry plain in midsummer to keep horses and oxen on their feet. Borglum used to tell of a small group of voyagers who had joined his party in Wyoming. They had been living on mule harness which they boiled to give salt and “some strength” to the water.

James de la Mothe Borglum crossed the line into Idaho and reached Bear Lake on the road to Oregon. There, literally, he dug in—half the house in the ground, then sod, then log. That was in 1862—or maybe 1863. John Gutzon de la Mothe Borglum joined the family there most likely, as his unfinished autobiography says, in 1867.

Gutzon remembers his mother (Ida Michelson Borglum) as a great woman, gifted and beautiful. She had one other son, Solon, born on December 22, 1868, the boy to whom Gutzon frequently referred as his little brother.

Not many years after Solon was born, Gutzon recalls, “She left us. I was five. She turned to see me as she lay ill. There were tears in her eyes and she was trembling as she took my hand.... And she told me to take care of little Solon.

“I never forgot it, but I wondered why. I thought she was going to stay with us. She and Father had always been with us. I could not understand....”

Gutzon was a baby. He was at the age when children are said to be only slightly interested in family changes, but he seems to have realized that something had happened.

“By the time I was seven,” he says, “I knew what it meant not to have a mother of my own. I thought I didn’t want to stay around things that reminded me of her any more. So I ran away.”

CHAPTER THREE
ALONE

Gutzon Borglum was seven years old; so the time must have been roughly 1874. In the twelve or thirteen years since James de la Mothe Borglum’s caravan had come to Bear Lake, Idaho, he had been singularly restless. Gutzon had been born in Idaho, Solon a year later in Ogden, Utah. Father Borglum had moved back eastward. He had another wife. He had acquired horses and cows, a home and an office. When Gutzon ran away, home was in Fremont, Nebraska.

The child left suddenly, accompanied only by his dog. He hadn’t thought to provide himself with food. He had heard of Omaha; so he started in that direction. He was three days on the way and had gone what seemed to be miles and miles when the sheriff caught up with him and brought him home. The sheriff dropped him at the Borglum house and went away. Fearful and hungry, Gutzon slept that night in the dog kennel.

Next morning he had a memorable return to the bosom of the family. His father was somewhere out of town, and his grandfather on his mother’s side had come for a visit. The grandfather was a martinet who felt that children should be taught that it is wrong to run away from home. He took charge of Gutzon and Gutzon never forgot him.

“I was only seven,” the sculptor remembered, “but I made up

my mind that I would get away from there and that I would keep trying until I succeeded ... and, eventually, that’s what I did.”

For all his muddled childhood, Gutzon loved his father. James Borglum was kind, tolerant and a philosopher. He sensed his son’s unhappiness, even though he would have had trouble explaining it, and a great bond developed between them. The boy went everywhere with him when not in school, even on his sick calls out in the country. Gutzon remembered that they would ride along for miles and miles in sunshine or cold or wet, sometimes talking, sometimes silent, but always in perfect peace.

One afternoon the doctor called to him and asked him to help hitch the horse. Gutzon at the time was a little over eight years old, but he did what he could with the harness and thereafter believed that he had been just as skilled and agile as any professional horse handler.

“I want you to come with me,” his father said. “There is a wounded man out on Rawhide Creek and I may need some help.” And Gutzon saw nothing wrong about that, either.

“We’ll fix him up fine,” he said. “Maybe we’ll have to sew him up.”

“Sure,” said the doctor as he lifted Gutzon into the buggy.

Rawhide Creek was a stream with a sorry reputation. It had taken its name from an English hunter who had turned away from slaughtering buffalo long enough to murder a young squaw. Other squaws had tied him to a cottonwood tree near the creek and skinned him alive. Gutzon recalled in his chronicle:

As for our call for medical help, we found our man in the cabin armed. He was stern, fine looking. I admired him greatly and what followed made us lifelong friends. He was an outlaw on the run who had been in some shooting scrape and had received a charge of goose shot in his arm. Father had no anaesthetic for him. I doubt if at the time there was more than a pint of it in the whole state of Nebraska. The wounded man was bleeding terribly, his arm resting on some blood-soaked blankets. A piece of rope, tightly drawn about the elbow, partly stanched the flow. He was alone with two inscrutable Pawnees. After they had washed the arm in warm water, my father turned to me and said, “Gutzon, you will have to help hold his arm.”

The Indians gripped the man’s hand; my job was to keep the lacerations open so that Father could find the shot. We were still working when there was a sharp knock at the door. Sheriff Gregg, with a deputy at his heels, came in and put our patient under arrest. Gregg and Father were friends and Father said, “He stays here till this job is done, Bob.” And we went on doing what we had to do.

The man, whose name was Fielding, was then taken to jail to be held for trial. There I visited him frequently with Father and later alone with the permission of the sheriff who liked me. Fielding was an excellent draughtsman and I brought him red and blue pencils. He loved to draw the American Eagle and the flag as we saw them on the older coins.

Weeks later when his arm was well healed there was a sudden alarm of “Jailbreak!” Fielding and another man had sawed through one of the bars with a hacked table knife. It must have been the work of many days. I prayed that he would escape. But posses went out and caught him as he was crossing the river in an open skiff. Report came back that the sheriff had killed him in midstream with a lucky shot.

Fielding was a kindly man. He told me of his shooting trouble. He’d been wronged, robbed and shot at. Why he broke jail I never knew. He dreaded imprisonment. I shall always feel that he had a great deal to do with awakening my interest in drawing and developing my ability in that direction, although I really had no idea of becoming an artist until I was fifteen. We never know where little unsuspected impulses for good may lead, or what is back of them.

Often in a family of five or six children there is one who does not want to work. He would like to write on birch bark, examine a flower, get a little color on a board or canvas ... and there is an artist. All very simple and natural, but it comes out of the lives and struggles of perceptive men and women who follow these impulses along. I believe music first started when some mother was trying to get her little child to sleep when he was scared to death about something. She found that certain tones were pleasant when she repeated them. And thus the thing that is behind all instrumental music—woman’s voice—brought harmony and sweetness to life.

Not all of Dr. Borglum’s errands had to do with wounded men, and the little boy found that some of the simpler ones were more terrifying. Once they went on a long quest that had something to do with a baby. Gutzon stayed outside the house. He sat on a knoll, looking at the moon across a ravine. Of this incident Gutzon writes:

I had watched it come out of the grass in front of me. It was about three times its usual size as it came above the dull blue horizon.

My father came and I asked him, “What is the moon?” And without waiting for him to answer I told him how beautiful she was and how I loved the moon better than the sun, better than anything in the world. He picked me up and said, “I’ll give her to you if you promise never to take her away from us.”

I wriggled out of his arms and ran toward her. I stumbled, fell, rose up, ran on, began to cry but kept on, faster and faster, Father slowly following.... But the moon was retreating faster than I could move. And then the knowledge came to me—I could not have my moon. I stood weeping my heart out.... That moon has hung in my heaven for well over half a century with the child fable written all over it.... I have never reached it.

Fremont was a town of bewildering experiences. It was filled with fantastic excitement—Indian alarms, the coming and going of prairie schooners, visits of parties of Cheyenne and Sioux chiefs, gun fights beyond the hills and reports of Indian massacres on the Niobrara. Against all this the simple village life of the Swedes and Danes looked like that of quaint foreigners. Yet there were tragedies among Gutzon’s own people—sickness and death and evil times, thin crops and blizzards, high winds and floods.

There was a brief school life at home, then school life at a distance. Each year when the boy returned he would find that some of his Fremont had vanished. Not exactly vanished, he felt; rather, the town had grown and he had grown, and somehow they had parted. The doctor moved his family after years of this to Omaha. There didn’t seem to be much difference.

He had been gone a long time—or so it seemed to him—when he was eighteen years old. The thought came to him that he must see his old playground and playmates, swim in the old Rawhide, go graping or be once more with the boys and girls with whom he had grown up. He bought a train ticket for Fremont and long remembered how he could hardly wait to reach the town.

The train slowed down at the platform and he was off before it stopped. He looked at the crowd of strangers pressing about, and tried to catch a glimpse of a familiar face. At last he found a few ... but very few.

He went into town and to the homes of friends. He found the girls he had known. Their hair was piled high on top of their heads; their dresses were long, their manners awkward. The boys stared at him and didn’t say anything. He couldn’t tell what had happened to these people, and, he realized later, they were puzzled in the same way about him. All of them had grown.

There was no longer any school from which to play hooky, no occasion to hang one’s clothes on a cottonwood and dive into mud from an old stump. Gutzon was now a stranger to all that. And, though he refused to see it, so were these close friends of a few years ago. None of them could understand. He wrote:

I turned like one frightened and hurt and brokenhearted and ran back to the station. There on the platform I sat for hours waiting for any train to get away from Fremont. No—away from the reality that had blotted out my magic world, the world that a boy of from six to twelve lives in. And I have never had the courage to return.

The Fremont, Nebraska, of my boyhood days has gradually reconstructed itself and still lives in my memory with its two little streets and a half. Its quaint old citizens I know are still trading, spinning yarns—the occasional Indian or more, single file, quietly moving about. There are some prairie schooners and the annual one-ring circus. And as I pass the town, as I have done many times, it has always been at night—for which I have been strangely glad. I watch in the dark for all the old ways and byways I know so well, and the dark has always helped me to believe that they are all there just as I left them.

Thus far the words of Gutzon Borglum. He ceases to comment on his life in the forbidding period of early youth. He is hopeless about what has gone by and terrified at what lies ahead. But he need not have been. He was alone, a child of the night, only in his imagination. Actually, he was one of the very few human beings of his period who were singularly popular. He might have succeeded at anything he tried.

CHAPTER FOUR
CALIFORNIA

Dr. James de la Mothe Borglum is somewhat difficult to see as he moves briefly and grayly through the background of Gutzon Borglum’s records. But it is quickly obvious that the restless-footed doctor never moved anywhere without being noticed. He assuredly left one heritage to his son: an inquiring, seldom satisfied mind.

Eventually this adventurous, nervous, eager spirit settled down in Omaha to a long, useful and almost uneventful life as a general physician. He was much loved and quite successful, but few of the mourners who turned out for his funeral had any idea of his questing past. He had come from Denmark to the settlement called St. Charles-on-Bear-Lake, Idaho. He had moved with his family from there to Fremont and on to Omaha. From Omaha he had moved to Los Angeles and finally back again from Los Angeles to Omaha.

His journey to Los Angeles in the middle eighties seems to have been of little importance except that Gutzon was started definitely on his art career. This was the father’s last gift to his son. Ever after, Gutzon was independent and lived his own life.

The doctor, in his earnest search for religious truth, found time for the less argumentative features of a good education. He tried to give a firm basis in Greek and Latin classics to his son Solon Hannibal. He sent two other sons, Gutzon and August, to St. Mary’s, a Jesuit college in Kansas. He studied the Sanskrit Vedas and the doctrine of Mormon, and once served as president of the Theosophical Society of Nebraska.

During his investigation of Theosophy, Madame Blavatsky, Russian-born founder of the Theosophical Society of America, came touring from India. She visited the Borglums in Omaha and sat for a portrait by young Gutzon. This portrait hung for many years in the Borglum home, and the brooding eyes of the lady seemed to follow the Borglums about the room wherever they moved. Gutzon used to explain that this was a familiar trick in painting and not hard to achieve.

Gutzon was interested in art while the family still lived in Fremont. His schoolmates there recalled that the margins of his books were covered with sketches and that he liked to draw maps and make caricatures of his teachers or of local men in public life.

His teachers at St. Mary’s had readily noticed his talent. They had set him to drawing saints and angels—subjects of which, at the time, he was not particularly fond. He refers to his Kansas experience in an article written in 1919:

My interest in the beautiful began before I came to St. Mary’s, but it was due to encouragement there, and to a definitely expressed desire on the part of two young men who were graduated the year I left that the determination was awakened in me to treat seriously what I had previously considered a delightful trick.

One of these men was named Murphy, and I shall never cease to remember with profoundest gratitude his earnest talk to me as we walked up and down during the evening recess. He talked to me of the great masters. He got books for me. I came to know the whole Italian school, painters and sculptors. And for years it seemed that I knew little else. As a result I have never gone to Italy. [Nor did he until 1931.] As I grew older I found I had a powerful bias toward Italian art and its melodrama. But I did not want to go there, even though I admire Italian and Grecian art more than all else.

Murphy went out of my life and I have never heard of him since. He may not—doubtless does not—remember what he did for me. But in those evenings at school he set me afire. And the goal he painted seems bigger, better, more wonderful and worthwhile now than it did, even then. So he served. He may never have known it, but I owe everything to his inspiring words.

The whereabouts of Murphy was never traced because his first name apparently had been forgotten, and hundreds of Murphys passed through St. Mary’s before it surrendered its charter and became a Jesuit seminary sometime after the First World War. People who knew the place in the eighties are not surprised at Gutzon’s declaration that his real inspiration came from there. It was a small school that had grown out of an early mission to the Potowatomi Indians, but it had few characteristics that identify the tank-town college. Out of it in half a century came a singular troop of famous persons, many of whom no doubt crossed Gutzon’s path without realizing that he was a fellow alumnus. Judges, lawyers, bishops, educators, engineers, builders, doctors, merchants, chiefs, sailors, soldiers, politicians, inventors, musicians and all the rest of them are included in the list. It is interesting to note that Borglum is the institution’s only offering to sculpture.

His life at old St. Mary’s seems to have been perfectly normal. He had several fights which he remembered ever after. He remembered, too, that he was always in the right, which is likewise perfectly natural. His chief exploit in fisticuffs was a wrangle with three rather hard lads in the dining room, and there is a tradition that he won. At any rate, he learned how to protect himself with his bare fists—a skill that he always counted as a major asset.

He finished the academy course—the equivalent of high school—when, at that period in the West, he was considered sufficiently adult to find a job. Dr. James suddenly moved his family to California. Gutzon quit St. Mary’s and went to work as a lithographer’s apprentice in Los Angeles, and studied engraving and designing on stone. At the end of six months he was producing work that he thought was good. That, of course, was nothing to cause any emotional outbursts among the lithographers, because Gutzon thought that everything he produced was good.

The young man wanted better pay, but he didn’t get it. The lithographer said that if he stayed at his work he would someday be an experienced hand. But Gutzon sacrificed this opportunity. He went to work for a fresco painter, and he got more money. He rented a little studio and did part-time work as he pleased.

On a ranch somewhere in the vicinity was Solon Borglum. Of all the family he was closest to Gutzon because he had shown interest in art. Gutzon eventually got him to leave the ranch and to take up the study of painting and sculpture seriously. He contributed to Solon’s support and, in time, to his tuition in a Cincinnati art school. But there is little mention of this in his written record, for he was shy about such things.

California was a constant surprise to him. He was by himself and supporting himself. He felt free and able, and he was proud of himself. His father had gone back East with a family that in time totaled nine. Someplace with that brood was August, Gutzon’s companion at St. Mary’s. It was to be a long time before Gutzon would see some of his other brothers and sisters. But no matter! California was warm in the winter, and it didn’t cost much to get things to eat. And he kept meeting people who interested him. While he was still with the lithographer he met an artist named Eberlie, a really good painter of the Düsseldorf school. Eberlie turned out beautiful ensembles that seemed perfect in color and design. Gutzon yearned to do the same thing.

Something had awakened in him. He went on and on with his work in the tiny studio, producing little that looked like anything, learning slowly what was wrong. He couldn’t have quit. He was still there even after Dr. Borglum and the family had moved back to Omaha.

Information about his early years in this paradise, however, doesn’t come so much from him as from strangers. Charles F. Lummis, whom he knew well and with whom he later wrangled extensively, wrote a piece about him in The Land of Sunshine (later, Out West) magazine in 1906. He said:

It was a matter of nine years ago. Los Angeles was a country town, just emerging from adobehood. This writer found a green, serious lad belaboring canvas in a bare room on what was then Fort Street. He had no money and not many friends. The painting he was at had many shortcomings and showed his lack of art education. Yet there was in them a creative breath that promised to make him heard from....

He was born in the West and was Western in every fibre. Soon after graduation from seminary he came to Los Angeles, and presently began the long, hard struggle of an unbefriended artist. By and for himself, by sheer dint of pluck and brains, he hewed his way. At last his pictures attracted the attention of one of the few connoisseurs then here.... A couple have been sold to Easterners at good prices....

Gutzon, however, was not long friendless. He appears to have been discovered by George Butler Griffin, who had married a Castilian lady from Colombia and lived in Los Angeles. They had several gifted children, one of whom was the mother of the actress, Bebe Daniels. Another daughter, Mrs. Eva Griffin Turner, herself a painter, was among Gutzon’s early heralds. She met him first in the eighties and never forgot a detail of their meeting.

She was twelve years old at the time and for a year or more had been sketching and painting in her own fashion with a child’s color box. She was allowed to trail along with him and a class he was instructing, and she never forgot what he said as the pupils gazed at a sunset beyond Los Angeles.

“The artist,” he declared—and it seemed to her that he was talking to himself—“The artist should approach nature with great reverence.”

He left the class for a while when he went to work with William Keith, an artist in San Francisco. Gutzon was an extravagant admirer of Keith, who was called the “Grand Old Man of California Painting.” He stayed in his class for several months. During that same period he took a short course under Virgil Williams.

Mrs. Turner vividly remembered his home-coming and how his old students reassembled with him for outdoor sketching. But he was not long for his old ways. He had painted a picture called “Stage Coach” and some rich man had seen it. There was an immediate furor over the picture and Gutzon. And so presently he went to Paris to study.

“He won prizes,” Mrs. Turner mentioned, “and he was greatly admired.”

And then we have the memory of Bob Davis, onetime editor of Munsey’s Magazine and a columnist for the New York Evening Sun. In his California days he was a printer’s apprentice with a job near Gutzon’s studio. Davis describes Gutzon’s studio thus:

His walls were the most fascinating thing in my life. They were hung with pictures of stage coaches and horses leaping at you from every direction. These things were painted in oils and I thought they were the finest things in California. He also modeled in clay and chiseled a bit in stone. During the lunch hour I visited his studio and struck up a friendly acquaintance. He confided that his ambition was to excel in sculpture and that he painted only to get the sinews with which to go on.

One noon I entered his studio and found him in high spirits. He was rigging a large canvas on the easel and making great preparations for something important.

“I’m going to do a life-size, seated portrait of General Frémont in military regalia,” he told me. “Mrs. Frémont is bringing him around this afternoon for the first sitting. Come around tomorrow at lunch time and I’ll have the figure rounded in. He has a strong face and I think I can make a pretty good picture.”

I saw the painting from the first touch of the brush. Frémont always came in on the arm of his wife who seemed to be the one person he wanted to please. She brought with her a military coat adorned with gold fringe and epaulets, a garment the great Indian fighter wore with dignity.

And it was a good picture. Day after day it assumed more life and grandeur until it was finished and taken away to be exhibited in an art gallery on Spring Street. I went to see it there. And I boasted about my acquaintance with the artist to anybody who would listen to me.

There seems to be no doubt that the Frémont portrait was one of the most important works of Gutzon’s youth. It got him attention and acclaim. But more than that it got him the friendship and advice of Mrs. Frémont. The general was nearing death when Gutzon first saw him. The portrait was finished in 1888 and Frémont died in Washington, D. C., in 1890. But the motherly interest of Jessie Benton Frémont in the artist went on unbroken for many years. She helped him with letters to important people and with advice on how and where to sell his works. Some of these letters were still in Gutzon’s effects when he died.

The most discriminating patron of the young artist in California was, perhaps, Spencer J. Smith. Smith bought enough canvases to give Gutzon a start toward his training in Paris. These pictures, tenderly cared for, are still in the possession of Smith’s widow in the same house where the artist saw them hung some sixty years ago. As then the house, surrounded by gardens, stands like an oasis in the heart of busy Los Angeles.

Shortly before going abroad in 1889, Gutzon married Mrs. Elizabeth Putnam, whom the family called “Lisa,” a painter of ability and a teacher of art. Unfortunately, the details of the romance are lacking. Gutzon never talked about such intimate matters. His father and other members of the family met her only after the marriage.

Lisa seems to have loved her husband. At any rate, his worries during the early years in Europe made little impression on her—nor on him. Yet, that there was some difficulty in their relationship is evidenced in letters written to Gutzon by friends of both of them. A young sculptor pupil, Arthur Putnam, who lived with them at Sierra Madre, mentioned the vague unhappiness he sensed in Gutzon and tried delicately to probe into the matter. But, unfortunately, only the question of Putnam is extant. Gutzon’s reply to his letter has not been kept.

From the sculptor’s diary, a sporadic and sketchy document, it is plain that he was passionately anxious to have a child. It is probable that the impossibility of this was the basis of whatever trouble he had with Lisa. Moreover, she was twenty years his senior and did not care much for his strenuous way of life.

Such was Gutzon’s fear of hurting her, and his almost abnormal dread of publicity in so personal a matter, that the legal tie was not broken for several years. Few of Gutzon’s friends of later years knew of this marriage, and his own children were in their teens before they heard of it.

A French servant, Jeanne, who had lived with the Borglums in Europe, accompanied Lisa to California to live with her until her death. In 1931 she wrote to the sculptor about certain of his paintings that he had given to Lisa and closed her letter with a significant and touching thought.

“You have two beautiful children,” she said, “and you are at last happy. You deserve it....”

Gutzon and Lisa bought a little house among the orange groves in Sierra Madre, near the base of the mountains back of Pasadena, not far from where the Santa Anita race track now stands. “Lucky” Baldwin, who had a horse ranch on land that included the site of the race track, was a great friend and allowed Gutzon to use his horses as models. Gutzon loved this place. His favorite subjects for sculpture were horses, and he never tired of looking at them. Mrs. Frémont, after seeing his equestrian casts and drawings at his studio in 1889, summed up his future with the gift of prophecy: “The boy is spirited. Here is one sculptor who will ride to fame on horseback!”

That wasn’t quite true, but it was near enough. Within the year he was moving. And never thereafter did he recognize the existence of anything that could hold him back.

CHAPTER FIVE
OVERSEAS ART

Gutzon left California in 1890 accompanied by his wife and forty unsold canvases. He was fairly happy. He had made a little money, he had learned something about art and he had a growing circle of friends in California. On the other hand, he gave little evidence that he might be something other than one more simple art student from the Pacific coast. That is what makes his progress remarkable.

He stopped in Omaha to visit with his father and, almost unaccountably, left a pile of his canvases with a Mr. Leininger, a dealer and patron of art. It is a little difficult now to identify or appraise these works. This is a pity, for, good or bad, expensive or cheap, they all seem to have found somebody who loved them. They never came back to haunt his garret, nor, for that matter, did the ones we are told he sold “at an exhibition in New York.”

There is little known about the “exhibition in New York” except that Mrs. Frémont, the general’s widow, had been informed of it. She wrote a note to the one person in New York who might be able to give a lift to the young artist. And that’s how Gutzon met Theodore Roosevelt, then Police Commissioner, who became a lasting friend.

Through some similar effort Gutzon also met Collis P. Huntington, one of the builders of the Southern Pacific railroad. Their encounter would be of no interest here save for the example it gave of the young man’s purpose and directness and of his confidence in himself. Huntington, impressed by Gutzon’s work and charm as well as his friends, wanted to know what he could do to help him. Gutzon shook his head and smiled. “Nothing,” he said. “When I get through with this exhibition I’m going to Paris to study art.”

This was something new to Huntington—as it would have been to any art patron in New York. “I am amazed,” he said. “Almost nobody comes to see me that doesn’t want me to do something for them.” He bowed and went away and Gutzon never saw him again.

Gutzon sailed on the Bourgogne with plenty of hope and the proceeds of his art sales in Omaha and New York. He admitted that he felt proud of himself. He had been out of St. Mary’s seven years.

In 1891 a description of him was included in a passport issued by the U. S. Embassy in Paris and signed by Whitelaw Reid. It gave his age as twenty-four years; stature, 5 feet, 8½ inches; forehead, broad; eyes, gray; nose, regular; mouth, medium; chin, round; hair, dark; complexion, dark; face, oval—and it is a matter of great puzzlement to one who knew Gutzon for forty years. It shows the picture of a somewhat thin, energetic young man of dark complexion, regular features, broad forehead and no great height. Yet, not until he had read this record did an old friend realize that Borglum’s complexion was anything save that contrived by weather and wind. Even more astoundingly came the revelation that Gutzon was less than six feet in height. He looked to be taller.

Nobody seems to have found much about Gutzon’s art studies in Europe worth recording. He passed two years in Paris, studying at the Julien Académie, at the École des Beaux Arts and under individual masters. He exhibited in the Old Salon as a painter in 1891 and 1892. His picture called “Clouds” attracted some attention. In 1891, through a deliveryman’s mistake, a piece of bronze was taken to the New Salon. It was accepted by the New Salon, which made him a member of the society.

The notice informing him of this unexpected honor was followed by a personal letter of congratulation written by the celebrated painter Puvis de Chavannes, who had succeeded Meissonier as president of the Salon. Borglum’s work of sculpture was called “Death of the Chief” (Mort du Chef) and represented a horse with lowered head beside the body of a dead Indian. A copy of the group was unveiled in Los Angeles in 1947.

The great experience of Gutzon’s life in Paris was meeting and forming a friendship with Auguste Rodin. He said afterward that it wasn’t a new experience. “It was rather a feeling of coming home,” he said, and finding something he had dimly sensed in himself and was trying to express. Rodin at the time was having trouble with the Academicians and would follow a long road before being acclaimed the great master the world now recognizes. Gutzon’s attitude toward life was much the same. He was also committed to a long quarrel with that state of mind which accepts stereotyped standards and resists change or improvement. Gutzon wrote this about Rodin:

I hold Rodin to be one of the great individuals of history. He was one of the rarest souls of whom we have any record during the last 3,000 years. He is passing and there will be nothing left to speak for this man, who stands with Phidias, Donatello, Rembrandt and Shakespeare, but a trail of broken fancies. The nineteenth century has made no adequate use of his incomparable gifts.

He quoted Rodin’s remarks as recorded by M. Gsell in his book about the master:

To any real artist worthy of the name, all nature is beautiful, because the eyes, fearlessly accepting all exterior truth, read there, as in a book, the inner truth. Not a feature deceives him. Hypocrisy is as transparent as truth. The beauty of the Greek ideal is ever present and there is as much loveliness in the human form today as when Phidias immortalized his race. But this loveliness is passing into oblivion unrecorded, because the artists of today are blind. That is all the difference.

Whether or not we follow what Rodin said, there is no doubt that Gutzon did. He brought home with him from Europe nothing that so continuously affected his life. Again he writes of Rodin:

Rodin meant more. He meant what I will add. The artists have not seen, nor felt, nor understood the present, although they still seem to appreciate the beauty of the Greek.

Great emotion, with great understanding, again united with mastery over medium, are indispensable in the production of masterpieces in song, form or color. Prophetic insight, coupled with great love and trained to be a master in one of the mediums which the human race has invented or discovered to express itself, is lost in our day, as Rodin laments.

This paragraph seems to sum up Gutzon Borglum’s position on the matter of art expression, and it explains his reaction to much of what is called Modern Art. Years afterward he augmented it with another bit of learning out of his two years of study in France. At a meeting in honor of the French during the First World War he said:

France has been a foster mother and I shall always remember her, as Hugo put it, as my second birthplace, because to be “educated in another place is to be reborn there.”

So I was born in France at Auvers-sur-Oise. Here at Auvers I had a quiet little home and for three years grubbed and labored with my stubborn Americanism.

Finally I returned to America after having tried while there to acquire French art. And then it came to me in an hour. I shall never forget that hour. It came to me that the value and greatness of French influence are in their superiority and their devotion to the “inspiration” and not special concern for technique.

France has taught me respect for the sincere effort of other men, courage in my own, and that originality lies in being true to one’s self.

I learned that what is known as “French Art” is not the art which has placed France as art mistress of the modern world. Rather, it is Millet, Corot, Rousseau, Chavannes. It is not the Parisian article, any more than it was Falguière or any other dozens of masters of the technique, but Rodin and Dalou who helped French sculpture to its high place in our century and fixed France with the ancients.

Gutzon was not a pupil of Rodin, but he was a frequent visitor in his studio. He used to tell of watching Rodin make quantities of water-color sketches of his model, who was allowed to sit at ease and to change her position as she wished. He gave Gutzon some of these sketches, which have been preserved. They are inscribed “A mon ami, Borglum” and signed “Rodin.” Letters from him across the years have also been kept. During the First World War, when Paris was being bombed, Gutzon invited Rodin to come to the United States and use his studio in Stamford. Rodin declined and said he had decided to find refuge in Rome.

During this early period in Europe, Gutzon also passed an interesting year in Spain about which his American friends seem to have known very little. As a record of his stay, many spirited sketches of bullfights are still extant. One of them is owned by O. R. McGuire, the art connoisseur of Washington, D. C. He also made a copy of Velasquez’ portrait of the court jester, and a wood carving done by Gregory Pardo, pupil of Michelangelo, in the Toledo cathedral. His studies of Cortez’ conquest in Mexico and the tragic fate of the Aztecs made a deep impression on him.

He prepared background sketches for a large painting which he started on his return to California. It depicted the gray dawn on the broken causeway of Mexico City when the soldiers of Cortez were floundering against the Aztecs in the gap. The episode, known to history as noche triste, was a subject that haunted Gutzon through his life. But although he first planned his picture of it for exhibition at the Columbian World’s Fair in Chicago in 1893, he seems never to have finished it.

Other sidelights of his year in Spain are found in a letter to Mrs. J. Seddon of Hollywood who bought a painting labeled “Don T., Toledo, Sept. 1892.” She had written to him for information about it, and his reply to her query was this:

I am very much interested in the picture, and I have wondered what had become of it. It ought to be in good condition, for it was honestly and well painted.

It is the portrait of a Catholic priest, Don Tomas, pronounced To-mass. He was the canon in charge of the great cathedral in Toledo, a remarkable little man, very kindly and friendly, but he belonged to the period of Philip II. He was extremely fond of bullfights. He and I attended them regularly.

I first started to paint him smoking a cigarette, but when he saw it, he threw the cigarette away and said it was undignified for a priest. He is sitting in the outer room, the library room, which forms the entrance to the Council Chamber where some 250,000 more or less heretics and Protestants were tried, burned, exiled or condemned to the galleys. The chamber beyond was like a court, surrounded with seats against the wall in which the judges sat. Into the middle of the room, the victim, or the accused, was brought.

I don’t remember much of the carving of the background, but the room was richly carved by Gregory Pardo, pupil of Michelangelo. The work was done between 1549 and 1551, and this particular chamber is called the Sala Capitula and was executed under orders of the Archbishop of Toledo and in the reign of Philip II.

Gutzon returned from Spain to California in 1893 and brought a bit of the Old World with him. He arrived to find a matter seemingly awaiting his attention, as most matters did—the restoration of California’s Spanish missions. It cannot be said that Gutzon Borglum ever came to lavish his indignation over affairs with which he was unfamiliar, and admittedly he was indignant over no small number or variety of them before he died. In this instance he found a battlefield made to order, because he had been studying the old records of the Spanish missions in Spain.

His argument about the course and methods of the restoration became his first recorded controversy, and was dragged out and redebated every time he had a disagreement with somebody about something else. But, for all that, it wasn’t much of a fight.

Charles Lummis, the editor, was at the head of a group of Californians interested in restoring the ruined missions. He appears to have been somewhat irritated when Gutzon came home from Spain and demanded an important share in the work. The reconstruction plans, the sculptor declared blithely, were prodigiously wrong. Incensed by this, Lummis wrote several angry letters to Gutzon. Gutzon, never at a loss for words, replied in kind. Unfortunately, some steps in the correspondence seem to be lacking. There is no indication of how this battle came to be resolved; however, the strong language presently ceased. Gutzon got his way about the methods that should be pursued in restoring the buildings, and he and Lummis became close friends. It appears that many of Borglum’s arguments turned out that way.

Gutzon’s most important comment on the California missions never saw the light until some time around 1927, when he was discussing the missions of Texas. He wrote:

In the winter of 1893-1894 we organized in California the Association for the Preservation of the Franciscan Missions, founded or built by the followers of Junípero Serra. In preparing for that work I made a trip to Spain and spent a year there studying the Spanish civilization and securing the records of Junípero Serra’s work in the New World, some original publications and the records of the building of the missions.

On my return I recovered and re-established the boundaries of perhaps the most beautiful ruins in America, San Juan Capistrano, thirty or forty miles from Los Angeles and the only mission I hold that is comparable to the San Jose Mission near San Antonio, Texas. With the help of Indians who carried the dirt on their backs, I removed the debris from the dome of the main church which had fallen in during the earthquake of 1812, destroying some life. Under the debris we found diamond-shaped flagging that formed the floor. I made careful drawings of all the buildings, the pilasters and cornices in place, cut beautifully by the Spaniards, much of it of limestone.

In this work we came suddenly face to face with the very serious question of how far we could go in the matter of reconstruction—what constituted human rights in the work of restoration, retouching and rebuilding, how much of our work would immediately become vandalism—how far could we go without meddling with the form and design and the actual work of the men who built these fine structures. After much debate, the kind of debate that took place in Rome many years later, it was determined that we must do nothing more than save and preserve the work as we found it.

Where we found a stone that clearly had fallen out and where it was recognizable, we might replace it. But to rebuild or in any way reconstruct or restore what we conceived might have been the character of the building at the time, all agreed would be vandalism. There is no question that the Franciscan missions are still a live subject of interest because they are not buried under modern debris of cement and make-believe restoration. The late Charles F. Lummis, president of the association since 1894, was adamant in his resolution against any meddling with the ancient methods of the work.

Of his art studies during this formative period Gutzon wrote:

As I became acquainted with the masterpieces in the fine arts, I soon became aware that a landscape painter could not draw or paint horses, cattle or sheep; that a cow painter could not paint a convincing landscape equal to his cow painting as a matter of creative production. The same applied to figure painting. I made up my mind that I should master each of these subjects, and I began at once. As I painted and drew almost exclusively in my first twenty years of art work, I drew and painted incessantly dogs, cattle, horses, portraits, figures, and never had to turn to a fellow artist and ask him to draw my figure or cow or horse or sheep.

Reflection on this caused me to note that most men, as well as artists, were one-track minded—that the average layman knew nothing of art, nor the place in civilization held by the masters of the fine arts, or even that civilization in its crudest forms was solely the product of the arts, or that the reaching urge in all civilization was the expressed mood of nature, seeking through them an outlet.

The reaching, enveloping soul of musical harmonies is the prelude to an understanding of the creative impulse. And again, who is insensible to the tremendous power of words? The marriage of words? The Milky Way of words which language conjures up and creates? Who has not been conscious of the strange beauty of words ancient as Lancelot—of heart, love, soul loneliness, craving and conflict? And as these thoughts grew on me I became aware that the circle of any human group was too small to live deeply within; that all moods of life were something alive in the cosmic in which the creative mind moves in limitless orbit, sensitive to every impression; that the larger the spoken language, the greater, more comprehending became one’s expression.

Gutzon, in this period, was no finished sculptor. He did some work with stone and metal—but sporadically—for some three years. He painted tirelessly. He was back at Sierra Madre, and life was placid and pleasant.

His friends made much of the Baldwin ranch. Mrs. Frémont had already sent to him there, before he went abroad, young Philip Rollins, who became his lifelong friend. Rollins was much interested in horses and in pictures. He had seen a painting of Gutzon’s in Mrs. Frémont’s possession which he said was worth a thousand Corots. “I have never looked so far into the sky in any painting,” he said. And he brought that admiration into his friendship.

In San Francisco Gutzon had a little trouble with the estate of Leland Stanford. Mr. Stanford, during his lifetime, had ordered three pictures from Gutzon, who was then in Paris. One of these was a small canvas priced at $500, accepted and paid for. The others were larger. Stanford accepted them but died before any payment had been made.

Rollins brought suit against the estate for Borglum, but the claim was rejected. The widow declared that there was no written contract. Mrs. Frémont was much incensed and wrote Gutzon a very gossipy letter about the worth of widows who needed written contracts.

In 1896 Borglum left California again, expecting to settle in England. His last act before leaving was to model a bust of his dear friend and patron Mrs. Frémont. A photograph of the bust is the frontispiece of Mrs. Phillip’s biography of Mrs. Frémont and is credited to “John Gutzon Borglum, 27 years old, painter and sculptor, recently returned from Spain, following his triumphs in the Paris salons of 1891 and 1892.”

What Borglum thought of this credit he does not say. He was headed for a permanent berth in a foreign country, and for once he didn’t seem to be quite certain of where he was going.

CHAPTER SIX
ENGLAND

There are not many people alive in the United States today who remember “the panic of 1893” and the “hard times of ’94, ’95 and ’96,” but the histories point out briefly that they were with us. Depression had begun to spread in 1890. The banking house of Baring, badly entangled with Argentine investments, closed its doors. The British began to dump American securities. The gold reserve began to disappear. And, in general, that is how things went for five or six years.

Nowhere in Gutzon’s record of the times is there much mention of panic or money shortage. This may be a good place to record that in London he did show some concern about dollars—what they were and how they were kept. One gathers, indirectly, that he liked to be working. That he really enjoyed the pleasure of others in the things that he painted or carved was fairly obvious. Against that, he knew all that was to be known about hunger. His movement to England at a time when living in California was beginning to look difficult may indicate that somebody was taking thought.

Life in England appears to have been no complete idyll. Gutzon himself was quite happy. There was work for him to do and he had plenty of English friends, but one gathers that Mrs. Borglum found the exile a bit painful.

In 1897 Jessie Frémont wrote this to him:

If you come away or go away from London, I shall be sorry and disappointed in you. English people demand stability. And there is to be no talk even of preference for any other place. The time will surely come when you can put your preferences into execution, but it does chill and turn away interest to have a vanishing prospect.

Mrs. Borglum has too much sense and far too much affection for you not to see that this is for your true interest. You cannot re-cast a national mold and England is set to its “slow-and-sure,” sure being its complement to slow. I do not blame Mrs. Borglum’s American impatience, but “stay where the money is.”

The artist’s prevailing mood during 1897 seems to have been one of profound melancholy and disillusionment regarding Europe. He kept a diary at this time which, with his letters from Mrs. Frémont, is the chief source of information concerning his life in England.

Mrs. Frémont’s letters gave him great cheer and comfort. General Frémont had an artistic and sensitive nature with frequent ups and downs of mood. Circumstances beyond his control had ruined his dreams for developments in California. The United States government itself had taken land from him for war purposes in 1861, and he had never been paid for it. His widow was still hoping to have her claim settled thirty-six years later. She knew the value of money, the need for patience and diplomacy; and she could sympathize with a struggling artist in language that he could understand.

Gutzon’s diary opens with an indication that he needed the sympathy. He begins:

Now, at last! I feel some—enough—desire to make notes of steps and landings in this, this curious life that we are doomed for a certain time to bear. I must be honest with myself—else why record? Lies, trivialities and the daily doings of the body are not worth thinking of much less making memoranda of. But it’s not

for the public—not for one single soul. For I am alone and who would understand?

Six years ago I said to myself, “I’ll be great at thirty, or never.” I am thirty. I have had the disturbing pleasure of being called “master” by the French critics and some Americans, yet at the moment I cannot spend sixpence without wondering where the next one will come from. Art is not self-sustaining until it becomes commercially valuable, and a man is not to be counted until he is in popular demand.

Gutzon’s reach was far beyond his grasp, and his Heaven was far away. Undoubtedly he was extravagant. He loved beauty and costly things, rare books, rich stuff and tapestries. But the problem of where the next dollar was coming from began to worry him less and less. He got big commissions in America, in England and all through his life. His trouble was not that he failed to make money but that he never learned how to keep it.

He never seemed to know the value of a dollar, nor did he care. His real extravagance was in putting into commissioned work added richness of detail or extra figures that he thought would add to the effect. That was why he rarely came out of an undertaking with any great profit to himself and was hounded by debt all his life.

He rarely spent money on his person, except for small lovely things that he could carry in his pocket. He often had holes in his shoes, and his unpressed clothes were always a distress to his friends. To emphasize the sacrifices of a struggling artist, he used to tell of buying baked potatoes on the street corners of London to keep his hands warm. The potato-buying story was undoubtedly true, but it was hardly a record of a typical condition.

Building was his chief delight—always. In London, after he had lived for months in a studio apartment in West Kensington, he rented a villa in St. John’s Wood and proceeded to make repairs and additions to it, regardless of cost. The villa had a rose garden, and he frequently talked of how he mowed the lawn early in the morning before starting the day’s work. All his life he enjoyed the work of beautifying his surroundings. During the years he built at least six other studios and houses for himself without ever being satisfied. His ideal home, which he was always ready to describe in detail and with feeling, was a fabulous sort of place that existed only in his restless mind.

In his diary he mentions having gone shopping with the painter Frank Brangwyn to consider taking over Sir Edward Leighton’s studio. They decided it was too pretentious. In Paris he rented a studio in the Boulevard Arago. He still found some of his old friends and business acquaintances in the neighborhood when he visited it in 1931, thirty years after he had moved out of it. It was a place of rare memories. He had fitted the little stove with a red isinglass front, and he had burned a solitary candle in it in those freezing days to give the illusion of rosy warmth.

In Gutzon’s reminiscences it seems always to have been cold in the neighborhood of Boulevard Arago. A sculptor, living in one of the garrets with which the region seems to have been plentifully supplied, fashioned a masterpiece. It was still in the wet clay when the thermometer dropped below freezing. The artist was frantic. In the bitter cold of night he began to fear for his statue. He got up and wrapped it in rags of clothing and finally in his only blanket to keep the ice away. He died of the cold. But the statue for which he froze to death now reposes in warm, serene quarters in the Luxembourg.

Frank Brangwyn, some of whose work may be seen in Rockefeller Plaza in New York City, was the one artist who made a deep impression on Gutzon in England. The Borglum diary is filled with notations such as this: “November 19, 1897—Short half hour with Brangwyn.... He belongs to art and will do work that will live.” And the feeling was mutual. In later years Brangwyn wrote, “I admire those strong virile things of yours. It is like a strong sea breeze on a hot and listless day to see your honest works....” Each foresaw for the other a greatness that he could not hope for himself.

The sculptor met Ruskin briefly and was so impressed with his features that he made a statuette of him. The figure is seated with a rug over the knees and was one of Borglum’s most successful pieces. A copy of it is now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York.

He also met George Bernard Shaw, although little of art figured in their association. In a letter years later he mentioned Shaw’s attendance at meetings of what he called the “Kingsley Society.” “This,” wrote Gutzon, “was a lively debating society and we visited once a week at one another’s homes. I debated with Shaw on ‘The Ignorance of Educating Me.’ I forget which side. Shaw likes to play smart, but at heart he is a serious, lovable, great man.”

Gutzon may have been right about most of these points, but he made an error in naming the club. It was probably the Fabian Club. Shaw denied that he had ever heard of the “Kingsley Society,” and mentioned that for that matter he had hardly heard about Kingsley.

Gutzon remained in England until the turn of the century which, considering the intensely modern impact of his life, seems like a long time ago. The days of quick success had become fewer in 1897, and they lessened rapidly thereafter. There was trouble on the horizon and the people of England were uneasy and crotchety.

In the controversy preceding the Boer War, which broke out in 1899, he was loudly critical of the British for their oppression of “the intrepid band in the Transvaal,” and freely forecast that they would pay for it dearly. And they did. General Baden-Powell, another of Borglum’s friends, was besieged with his troops in Mafeking, a little town north of Kimberley. There, holding what appeared to be a hopeless position, they came closer to starvation daily while England prayed.

Years afterward, in an article about the Boy Scouts, which Baden-Powell founded, Borglum recalled the turning point of that war:

I was in London. I was sitting in the New Globe theater. Duse, the magnificent, was giving one of her superb performances. And during one of the curtains the director came onto the stage with an announcement.

At first he said, “I hope that everyone will remain in his seat. I hope that you will be quiet and let the play go on.” The audience was dead still, trying to understand. And then the man said: “Mafeking has been relieved.”

The play ended right there. I never saw a sedate audience so completely surrender to joy. Believe it or not, every man everywhere in the theater kissed the others, kissed the women, shouted and cried. They poured into the streets and jumped up and down. They crawled onto the tops of buses and danced. And then and there Mafeking became historic.

Mafeking had been relieved, and that relieved the heart of Great Britain. The siege, with General Cronje commanding the Boers, had lasted about six months. It was lifted by Lord Methuen and sixteen thousand troops, and it brought a new day to England....

Gutzon’s work in England was widely talked of though little of it now remains. One of his principal commissions came to him after he had left the country, and the work was executed in the United States. A somewhat incongruous product of the Thirty-eighth Street studio, it was a series of murals for the Midland Hotel in Manchester, England, nearing completion with advertising accompaniments that said it would be the finest in the British Isles. The order, placed by the Midland Railway Company, owners of the hotel, was remarkable in that it broke what had long been considered an untouchable precedent. It was the first large order for fine art work ever placed by England in America, and brought the painter wide publicity at a time when it seems to have been considerably needed. Twelve panels were included in the series, and the Midland Railway Company agreed to pay $25,000, a sum almost incredible in those hard times; but the fee was payable on delivery.

The Midland’s art committee knew what it was getting. In 1898 Borglum had painted a series of panels for the Queen’s Hotel in Leeds, another property of the railroad. They were a graceful, joyous group, and Gutzon admitted in his diary that he was a little proud of them.

They represented the four seasons with lithe, slender maidens as the central figures. They were pleasant-looking and the critics liked them. For “Spring,” they danced with garlands of flowers, the trees and background shrubbery in harmony with pale spring colors. For “Summer,” the same girls were shown relaxed on the bank of a bubbling pool with young Pan playing his pipes for them. The “Autumn” panel pictured them dancing out the juice of the grapes. And in “Winter,” Pan, now old and gray, sat on a bleak shore gazing at the hardly visible wraiths of the maidens as they pirouetted away over the ocean. These panels are still extant.

The group of murals for the Midland Hotel in Manchester was finished in 1903, and it seems to have pleased the critics even more than it did Borglum, who admitted that he was pleased with it.

The central figure in a panel twenty-seven feet high showed Sir Lancelot escorting Guenevere to King Arthur’s court. Lancelot, “the chief of knights and darling of the court,” and Queen Guenevere, the loveliest of the ladies, were in the foreground on horseback, traveling through a leafy English wood. Mounted men in armor followed at a distance.

The eleven paintings that accompanied Lancelot and Guenevere back to England were scenes from A Midsummer Night’s Dream—Queen Titania asleep with Oberon’s love potion in her eyes; Titania’s encounter with Bottom, the weaver; her adventures with Quince, the carpenter, Starveling, the tailor, Snout, the tinker and Flute, the bellows-mender—all in a fine, fantastic humor. Gutzon was still at work on this group on June 30, 1903, which was the day before he started for England to make delivery and supervise installation. He was very ill with typhoid fever that year, and his cash had disappeared. Friends about the studio took up a collection to pay his steamship fare to Liverpool.

Borglum’s last years in England were marked by a tremendous emotional depression. His journal, in places, becomes almost incoherent as he attempts to analyze mental suffering. He found relief in work, and he worked incessantly.

He painted murals for private homes and made the illustrations for at least two books, The Spanish Main, with pictures of old war galleys, and King Arthur, with especially fine drawings of oak trees a thousand years old. He had some success as a portrait artist. He painted the likenesses of a large number of the aristocracy at whose country houses he was entertained. One of these was the portrait of Lord Mowbray, which was exhibited at Liverpool with the Lord Mayor taking part in the ceremonies. He mentions in his diary the painting of the composer, Clarence Lucas, who thought it a good portrait “that possibly might also be a work of art.”

There is also some evidence that during the late nineties he was doing more and more work with sculpture. In his journal he mentions a lost piece, “The Return of the Boer,” which brought considerable attention to his carving. It showed a man on horseback returning to his ruined home. He was a figure of complete dejection, his shoulders drooping, his head bent down. His rifle was before him across the saddle. The horse was sniffing at the burned bits that remained of a house. The statue brought plenty of criticism and discussion but no money. The Parisian who cast the group said it was trop personnel to be a financial success. Gutzon’s only copy of it was borrowed by the dancer Loie Fuller for an exhibition and later left by her in a New York bank as security for a loan. Presumably it lies forgotten in some vault.

Another bronze group, “Apaches Pursued,” had greater public appeal and was exhibited in several shows in Europe. It was decidedly popular in Turin, and a copy was bought for Kaiser Wilhelm II. It shows two horses in full gallop, one of the riders holding to a third man whom he has lifted off the ground in his flight. The critics were pleased by its composition, which was as striking as its animation.

Oddly enough, this group came back into public view in 1946 in an art dealer’s window in Fifty-seventh Street, New York City. It was found to have been purchased by a Philadelphian at an auction sale of the effects of “Diamond Jim Brady.” A copy made from this is now in the Witte Art Museum, San Antonio, Texas.

All in all, in 1900 Gutzon Borglum was one of the most popular artists in England. He lived in a comfortable villa, he had plentiful work, and what he did was enthusiastically received. And mental dejection did not keep him from having a rather full and varied social life.

In a letter to Mrs. Frémont he mentioned meeting a Madame Helen Bricka, who brought his work to the attention of the Duke and Duchess of Teck of whose household she was a member. Gutzon visited the Duke and Duchess and so met, and threw into the air, a little boy who grew up to be the Duke of Windsor and, for a time, the King of England.

Through Madame Bricka he was summoned by Queen Victoria to bring his work, both painting and sculpture, to Windsor Castle for an exhibition. But for a young man born on the shore of Bear Lake, Idaho, the invitation was not clear enough. One may be permitted a bit of speculation as to what might have happened if he had caught the meaning—if he had paraded with his work under royal patronage before the aristocracy of Great Britain. But it is futile thought. He sent his art to Windsor for an exhibition, but he never met the queen. It never occurred to him that a queen might want to see him.

He had a very successful one-man show at Macmillan’s in Bond Street, and he made many friends in England and France, some of them American artists. Some of these appeared later in his life and in his correspondence in the United States. One of them was Carl Sobieski, descendant of the famous Polish general. Another, who noted his experience entertainingly, was the writer R. M. Eassie. He told Gutzon of hearing of his connection with the Angels of St. John the Divine, in the heart of Africa, thirty-five miles from the nearest whites.

One of Gutzon’s last entries in his London journal tells of a party in 1901 at his home, “Harlestone Villa,” in St. John’s Wood. It is worth mentioning in that it honored Isadora Duncan and marked her debut as a dancer.

Gutzon had known the Duncans in California. Isadora’s father had recently been in London and was on his way back to America when his ship, the Mohegan foundered off the Irish coast. The sculptor had gone from England to take charge of Duncan’s body and to see that he was properly buried.

Isadora, her brother and sister had come from California after their father’s death. August Borglum, Gutzon’s brother, was a guest at the party and always recalled the impression Miss Duncan made as she danced out from the studio onto the lawn, scattering red rose petals that she had been gathering in the villa garden. Isadora, Gutzon observed, brought an active revival of memories from home. “The fresh western breeze that came with her,” he said, filled him with nostalgia.

Very likely it did. Shortly afterward he had gone over to Paris and was standing idly on a street corner. It was a day like any other in his life except that he had had a brief meeting with a casual American tourist in a café, and that there was an unusual amount of cash in his pocket.

Suddenly there came to him an irresistible urge to return to the United States—to go home. All his pent-up irritation over spiritual repressions and his grievance over decadent art conditions in Europe surged over him at once. He leaped at a passing

cab, offered double fare if he could get to the Gare du Nord in time for the boat train ... and so, presently, he had passed through Cherbourg and was on a ship headed for America.

This ended an era in his life and marked, definitely, the beginning of another. He was never to return to Europe except for the placing of work he had produced in the United States.

CHAPTER SEVEN
QUIET IN NEW YORK

The first thing Gutzon Borglum did in New York was to join—or, perhaps, originate—a movement whose object was to make American art distinctive and national. This was a bit out of the ordinary. Gutzon, so far as he had expressed himself, hadn’t much concern about American art. What he had seen of it annoyed him, and he didn’t intend to give much time to its promotion. He was presently to return to England ... but somehow he could never find time to book a passage.

In the early days of the twentieth century his journal mentions, and many of us unfortunately remember, European and classic influences were dominant in art. Our public buildings were often Greek or Roman temples adorned with sculpture right out of Homer’s mythology. In New York the extreme example of this tendency was a building erected by some art society on Lexington Avenue which was decorated across the front with a frieze from the Parthenon in Athens. The New York version of the frieze was so exact as to include all the mutilations that the march of hundreds of years had inflicted on the original.

Artists—painters, sculptors, musicians alike—had to have studied abroad before they could get a hearing in America. But, unfortunately, most of the people who patronized art learned about the subject from a few simple home rules. They were breaking out of the awesome, gewgaw-enveloped homes of the eighties and nineties and moving into chateaus imported by the boatload from France. But there is no record that any art dealer ever succeeded in selling an American house to some customer in Paris.

It often happens that a convert to a religious sect is more fanatical in his beliefs than one born into the fold. Gutzon’s father had come to the United States from Denmark to escape the ancient fetters of thought, and Gutzon himself had become thoroughly disillusioned by his years abroad. He considered America to be the last stronghold of freedom for the spirit. And he believed that the time had come for the country to express itself culturally. He had a theory that many people are born Americans though their physical birthplace might have been Denmark or Poland or Timbuktu. He insisted that although America was comparatively a young nation, the significance of her discovery, colonization and development offered rich sources for the painter or sculptor seeking decorative themes. He wanted architects to stop copying classic models.

He was a great admirer of Louis Sullivan’s individual art, and he understood it. Once, driving through a small town in Ohio that he had never seen before, he suddenly stopped the car and went back to look at a red-brick building. “Built by Sullivan,” he said. And so it was.

The subject of the Prix de Rome scholarships, in his opinion, was debatable. He thought it a mistake to send talented young artists to Rome during their most formative period and expose them to the overpowering influence of the great masters. He lived his theory, for he did not see Italy until late in life, rather than lose his individuality in the presence of those giants, Michelangelo, Da Vinci and Donatello, whom he deeply revered.

Borglum came to America a sculptor. He painted very little after 1901. Among his first direct contacts with American art methods on the Atlantic coast was a competition for an equestrian monument to General Grant to be placed in Washington. He devoted a great deal of time and thought to the making of a model and worked it out in fine detail. Grant and two other officers on horseback were mounted on a high pedestal, Grant a little higher than the other two. Around the base of the pedestal and extending out on both sides was a rich frieze of figures more than life-size, showing events leading to the Civil War, the struggle itself and the period of reconstruction.

Gutzon was told afterward that Augustus Saint-Gaudens, all-powerful in the selection, had thrown out the model because he felt that no sculptor in America could carve so elaborate a frieze and that he suspected foreign help.

Subsequent steps in the contest are interesting as an indication of how memorials were sometimes produced in those days. The jury could not decide which of the two remaining models was best, so each sculptor was asked to submit a second model. It happened that Solon Borglum had made the horse on which the principal figure was riding in both models. The two sculptors called for help and Solon said that he would do what he could for whichever one got to his studio first.

The disappointed contestant went to Gutzon and asked him to provide a horse, but Gutzon refused to compete with his brother. As it turned out, the one who received Solon’s help a second time was given the commission.

Neither of the brothers thought that Gutzon’s unwillingness to enter a contest was anything but routine. Solon and he were devoted to each other. Gutzon had called him away from ranch life to develop an art sense that became remarkable. Gutzon had instructed him personally and had helped to finance his career in Cincinnati. He believed himself personally responsible for giving Solon a chance at a sculptor’s career; he could never consider himself free to accept any commission in which he thought that his brother might have an interest.

Only once again, in Cuba, did Gutzon Borglum enter a competition. He steadfastly refused to accept attractive offers on the ground that the principle was wrong. A sculptor, he said, should be selected for his known ability to do what was asked of him and should be allowed to offer a variety of designs, if necessary, until he produced one that was satisfactory to the committee. He declared flatly that it was unjust to ask an artist to risk his best effort on a gamble, to ask him to spend his time, energy and money on something that might only be thrown away. It is interesting to note that his ultimate declaration on this subject was made after his Cuban experience. That was something that he failed to talk about.

The question of talented artists losing their identity in work for other artists, sometimes of less or even mediocre ability, was a grievous one to him and caused many heartaches with which he frankly sympathized. Often talented artists could not even get a job in another studio, no matter what their ability. Such a one was Paul Nocquet.

Paul Nocquet was a Belgian of real ability who had known Gutzon in Paris and had come over to be near him. Eventually he lost his life in a balloon ascension which he had undertaken in sheer despair. In an open letter to the Evening Sun he called attention to the humiliating role played by unrecognized artists in this country, all of which gave Gutzon Borglum new voice. Borglum wrote:

I have read with astonishment and pleasure the letter by Paul Nocquet pleading for the sculptor’s art in America. It is no exaggeration to say that a large part of the sculpture in this country is produced under false pretenses. Much of it is from the studios of celebrities, the labor, the thought and even the basic ideas of poor devils who are paid so much a day.

That the abuses Mr. Nocquet speaks of exist, there is abundance of proof. A glamor has been thrown about sculpture here that is not deserved. For a century the bulk of us have ambled along timidly, following a single lead, sniffing the trail, only to assure our questioning souls that we were on the beaten path. We fear a new lead. We placard our homes with safe, old sentiments. We permit no passion, no action, nothing to disturb the even tenor of a puritanism that has hardly warmth enough or blood enough to produce great sculpture and that rarely ventures beyond the meaningless nudes that disgrace our museums.

If this were not so, Mr. Nocquet would have no complaint. If character and individuality were even tolerated in American sculpture, our production by proxy would cease in a fortnight. Let the people have what they feel the need of. There is something deep in the souls of all of us which seeks the real thing. Then our ideals, our lives and our passions will be expressed in our art. When that is done each man will express himself, and a new value will be placed on every work of art.

Such outspoken criticism inevitably brought from the caves all the winds of controversy. They merged in a tempest in 1908 when the sculptor wrote in The Craftsman:

With the passing of Saint-Gaudens the standard of good work was taken from us.... Not great work, for he was not a great artist like Rimmer, Rodin, or Meunier, nor was he a great poet. Nor was he a great technician like Falguière or a dozen other Frenchmen. But he had a quality that persisted to the end and wrought, with few exceptions, something beautiful, often noble, something that left the whole world better because it was made. He gave us Farragut (in Madison Square) and one or two other great statues. Then he dropped to the architect’s standard, the lay figure, and there he remained. Curiously his Farragut contains figures in the base that appear to have been made years after the figure of the Admiral, so quickly does he seem to have lost his youthful spontaneity.

Saint-Gaudens’ sense of refinement led to conventions, and his lack of imagination to a repetition of these conventions. Another thing—I do not recall in all his work one single group of creation that may be called a “pipe dream.” In other words, I do not know of one work of Saint-Gaudens that was not commissioned, that was not suggested to him and produced for another.

I speak thus because I believe few people realize how little sculptural art is shown in this country that is purely the output of the sculptor’s imagination, produced creatively because the sculptor has something he must say. Saint-Gaudens, master that he was, was a great workman; he was not a creator. It is but natural that his following should, in their effort to catch his spirit, acquire only his style. His reserve becomes in their hands more reserved, his architectural and impersonal manner more mannered, and we have a pseudoclassic school which for dull mediocrity is without a rival in the whole field of art.

This analysis of another man’s work did incalculable harm to Gutzon’s position in New York art circles. The controversy became nationwide when the newspaper headlines announced, “Borglum Attacks Saint-Gaudens.” Partisans joined the argument with more zeal than discretion, and the wrangling went on without end.

Another controversy that swirled about George Gray Barnard and his undraped figures on the Pennsylvania Capitol in Harrisburg caught up Gutzon in its progress. Borglum had a wholehearted respect for Barnard and took up cudgels in his defense, thus further antagonizing the “sourdoughs,” as he called the Academicians.

Long afterward when Barnard was excluded from his studio on the Billings estate, which had been bought for a public park, Gutzon offered him his Stamford studio to work in and, at Barnard’s request, appeared before the New York City Board of Aldermen in an effort to iron out his troubles with the city.

Barnard’s “Two Natures” and Gutzon’s “Mares of Diomedes” were the first pieces of American art purchased for the Metropolitan Museum. Of the former, the sculptor wrote:

“The ‘sourdoughs’ took ‘Two Natures,’ perhaps the finest marble in its dimensions by an American in our country, and as quickly and quietly as possible relegated it to the basement. Not long after my ‘Mares of Diomedes’ followed the same descent.”