The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

School of Humanities

MOMENTS OF LIGHT AND YEARS OF AGONY:

CAROLINE PEART, AMERICAN ARTIST

1870-1963

A Dissertation in

American Studies

by

Katharine John Snider

©2018 Katharine John Snider

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2018

The dissertation of Katharine John Snider was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Anne A. Verplanck Associate Professor of American Studies and Heritage Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee

Charles Kupfer Associate Professor of American Studies and History

John R. Haddad Professor of American Studies and Popular Culture Program Chair

Holly Angelique Professor of Community Psychology

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

ii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation explores the life of American artist Caroline Peart (1870-1963) within the context of female artists at the turn of the twentieth century. Many of these artists’ stories remain untold as so few women achieved notoriety in the field and female artists are a relatively new area of robust academic interest. Caroline began her formal training at The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts at a pivotal moment in the

American art scene. Women were entering art academies at record numbers, and

Caroline was among a cadre of women who finally had access to formal education. Her family had the wealth to support her artistic interest and to secure Caroline’s position with other elite Philadelphia-area families. In addition to her training at the Academy,

Caroline frequently traveled to Europe to paint and she studied at the Academie Carmen.

Caroline achieved flashes of greatness as a painter: she won the coveted Mary Smith

Prize which the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts awarded annually (1879-1968) to the best work by a female artist. Her works were displayed at multiple exhibitions, including the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York, and the Carnegie

International in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She conscientiously integrated herself into the larger artistic community in Philadelphia and took advantage of organizations such as the

Plastic Club in order to cultivate a sense of belonging with other female artists in the area. Despite these successes and efforts, Caroline never became a full-fledged professional artist. This could be in part due to the fact that Caroline focused on traditional portraiture and, as modernism took hold in America, public interest in portraits waned. More likely, Caroline failed to establish a career because she did not possess the

iii required mix of talent, drive, status, and support needed to find success. Her ongoing struggles in her personal life resulted in her decisions to abandon painting and make an ill-fated decision to marry Christian Brinton, a well-known art critic, which quickly ended in divorce. The pressure of these setbacks resulted in Caroline relying on mediums, the occult, and spiritualism to survive day-to-day. These obsessions, combined with the overwhelming responsibility of caring for her aging mother, consumed, and largely destroyed, her. She lived in absolute poverty despite her wealthy early years and for the last decades of her life she lived in Washington Boro, Pennsylvania, in a home without electricity, heat, or running water. Upon her death, the community was shocked to discover that she left her estate to Franklin & Marshall College, an institution with which she had no ties save that it, like Washington Boro, was in Lancaster County,

Pennsylvania. The estate was valued at over $565,000 in 1963. Caroline’s biography provides a window through which to examine many topics, including American art at the turn of the twentieth century and the rise of female artists, spiritualism, and the occult.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ...... vi

Acknowledgements ...... vii

Dedication ...... x

Introduction… ...... 1

Chapter One: Women in Art at the Turn of the Twentieth Century ...... 5

Chapter Two: Family, Art, and Unfulfilled Promise ...... 32

Chapter Three: Private Life ...... 92

Chapter Four: Ghosts, Agony, and Spiritualism ...... 113

Chapter Five: Old Age and Legacy ...... 139

Bibliography ...... 153

Appendix: Caroline Peart Chronology ...... 165

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Martha Peart, 1895 ...... 77

Figure 2. Caroline Peart, Woman with Green Necklace, n.d ...... 78

Figure 3. Caroline Peart, Seated Woman With Green Beads, n.d… ...... 79

Figure 4. Caroline Peart, Portrait of John Peart, n.d ...... 80

Figure 5. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Elizabeth Jane Harberger, 1896 ...... 81

Figure 6. Caroline Peart, Self Portrait, n.d ...... 82

Figure 7. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Mary Peart, 1897 ...... 83

Figure 8. Caroline Peart, Woman with Violet Corsage, n.d ...... 84

Figure 9. Caroline Peart, Green Gloves (Martha Peart), 1896… ...... 85

Figure 10. Caroline Peart, Once Upon A Time, n.d. (reproduction) ...... 86

Figure 11. Caroline Peart, Sea Breeze (Alice Staman), n.d ...... 87

Figure 12. Caroline Peart, Grace, n.d ...... 88

Figure 13. Caroline Peart, Carolyn Breneman Bockius, Age 10, 1896… ...... 89

Figure 14. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Carolyn Breneman Bockius (Mrs. N.C. Wyeth), n.d ...... 90

Figure 15. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Carolyn Breneman Bockius (Mrs. N.C. Wyeth), n.d ...... 91

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to many individuals whose assistance throughout my research and writing proved invaluable. At Franklin & Marshall College, I would like to thank

Margaret Hazlett and Maria Flores-Mills who supported my request to take an administrative sabbatical in order to prepare for and take my comprehensive exams. My colleagues, particularly Beth Proffitt and Suzanna Richter, took on my professional responsibilities so that I could focus on my academic work, and I am grateful for their willingness to step in (as well as their years of friendship). My former student, Lauren

Muliawan, and I spent a lot of time thinking and talking about Caroline, and I appreciate all of her good humor and assistance in thinking about this dissertation.

I have spent a lot of time in the Franklin & Marshall archives and have greatly enjoyed the company of Christopher Raab, Associate Librarian, Archives & Special

Collections, and Michael Lear, Research & Collections Management Specialist. I appreciate them making materials available, discussing all of Caroline Peart’s many peculiarities, and listening to me complain about her handwriting.

Lindsay Marino, Assistant Director and Collections Manager at the Phillips

Museum, Franklin & Marshall College, made Caroline Peart’s paintings available to me and kindly shared numerous images of her paintings for my dissertation.

The following individuals provided assistance as I searched for materials related to Caroline Peart: Gail Stanislow and Christine Podmaniczky, Walter and Lenore

Annenberg Research Center, Brandywine River Museum, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania;

Jasmine Smith, Chester County Historical Society, West Chester, Pennsylvania; Hoang

vii Tran, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

Sarah Lerner and Elizabeth Tufts-Brown, Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania; Renee Williams, Worcester Museum of Art, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Don Sherick lent his time for a lengthy interview on Caroline Peart. His mother,

Grace, served as Caroline’s caretaker and Mr. Sherick had access to Caroline few did during her later life. He shared many memories which painted a much richer picture of

Caroline in her old age.

Going back to school over ten years after thinking I was done with formal education was daunting, and I am grateful that I landed in such a wonderful program.

Both John Haddad and Charlie Kupfer lead compelling courses and going to class each week to learn from them was a gift. They were generous of time, and I appreciate them both agreeing to serve as advisors for independent studies and directed readings.

Anne Verplanck and I first met at Winterthur in 1999 when I was enrolled in the graduate program and she was the Paintings and Prints Curator. We then worked together for years at Winterthur. When I realized she had moved from Winterthur to

Penn State, I took it as a sign that this might be the right program for me as I had so enjoyed learning from Anne before (particularly our Currier and Ives work). Anne’s thoughtful, consistent attention to my progress in this program and my dissertation has made all the difference in the world. We have also laughed a lot, and I’m glad that we have renewed our friendship.

A big thank you to Susan Asbury, who has been my partner in crime since we took a directed reading with Anne. Susan, I can’t tell you how much I have enjoyed our

Isaac’s lunches and long conversations about trying to earn a Ph.D. at this point in our lives, student conduct woes, and our lives in general. Of all things enrolling in this

viii program has done for me, one of the best is that it has brought a friend like you in my life.

My parents, Drs. Barbara and Kenneth John, encouraged me to pursue a Ph.D. for as long as I can remember. Even though I was working a full-time job and parenting an elementary-school aged son, they believed in my ability to earn the degree. Over the past six years, they consistently offered to watch my son, Ben, on class nights, asked questions about my progress, and took an active interest in my research and writing. My mom, a truly excellent writer, served as an ever ready, sharp-eyed editor, and I am grateful for her insight and attention to detail. I do not have sufficient words to thank both of them for everything they have done for me throughout my life.

I am thankful that Greg Buchkoski was by my side throughout this process. He encouraged me to continue this program when I was convinced I was in over my head and supported me endlessly, from home-cooked dinner after classes to leaving notes of encouragement to listening to me vent on more than one occasion. He kept me laughing when I was overwhelmed. I am lucky to have such a supportive, kind, and loving partner.

Finally, my son, Ben. Ben is the reason for most things I do, and I am so proud to be his mom. I appreciate all the ways he encouraged me, from offering up his tiny deer figurines to keep me company while I typed, to giving me his dictionary so I spelled words correctly. He has maintained an active interest in my “book,” as he refers to it. I will always remember the morning of my oral comprehensive exam, when I asked him if he thought I would pass. His quick response? “Ehhh, I'm not so sure about that.” I am sorry that this dissertation is not over 1,000 pages as you had hoped, but it is still a lot of words! I love you, best boy.

ix

For my Gram who I miss every day

x INTRODUCTION

Like many female artists from the turn of the twentieth century, Caroline Peart

(1870-1963) is largely forgotten. There are many reasons one could cite for this omission: relatively few historians and art historians focused on female artists during the twentieth century and, as such, female artists are a relatively new area of robust academic interest; Caroline did not produce paintings the caliber of celebrated artists, including her contemporaries such as Mary Cassatt, Cecilia Beaux, and Violet Oakley; or, as she maintained a life dancing on the fringe of high society and ultimately fell into poverty and loneliness, Caroline’s sad biography does not engender great interest as it is not a

“feel good” story. I would argue, however, that Caroline’s story is one that should be shared as it touches on numerous issues related to American art and female artists at the turn-of-the century, and, it is, frankly, a fascinating biography. Most striking is it seems

Caroline wanted her story to be told, although she did not have an intended audience.

She bore no children with whom to share her legacy, but she maintained extensive diaries from 1891 to 1955 in an attempt to record her life. She delved into the minutiae of her day-to-day existence, and, later in life, shared her deep pain and frustration, as she struggled with loneliness, physical pain, an obsession with spirits intruding on her life, and the death of her parents. These records, together with period newspaper articles, paint a portrait of a woman who was born into wealth, educated in fine arts, strove to find love (which proved unattainable), and stumbled into a late adulthood and old age fraught with pain, confusion, and upset.

1 Caroline began her formal training in art at a pivotal moment in the American art scene. Women were entering art academies at record numbers, and Caroline was among a cadre of women who finally had access to formal education. Her family had the wealth to support her artistic interest and to secure Caroline’s position with other elite

Philadelphia-area families. What little has been written about Caroline focuses more on these people than on her own biography. Her connections to others, including the Wyeth family, Cecilia Beaux, and her father have overshadowed her own story. Although these associations were important, Caroline deserves individual attention as her story is one which explicates the broader context of female American artists at the turn of the twentieth century.

Caroline achieved flashes of greatness as a painter: she won the coveted Mary

Smith Prize which the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts awarded annually (1879-

1968) to the best work by a female artist. She exhibited paintings at multiple exhibitions, and she integrated herself into the larger artistic community in Philadelphia. She took advantage of organizations such as the Plastic Club in order to cultivate a sense of belonging with other female artists in the area. Despite these successes and efforts,

Caroline never became a full-fledged professional artist. Caroline focused on traditional portraiture and, as modernism took hold in America, public interest in portraits waned.

Combined with the pressure for female artists to engage in more feminine artistic ventures such as illustrations and porcelain painting, Caroline would have needed deep dedication and focus on her painting to establish a career. Instead, Caroline’s attention was divided by social life, family obligations, and the untimely death of her father which thrust Caroline into the role of caretaker for her mother and manager of the family estate.

2 The sum total of these pressures resulted in Caroline abandoning art when she showed great promise.

Perhaps Caroline never made painting a career because she did not have to worry about earning a living as her family had substantial money, and, as such, painting served more as a serious hobby than as an incoming-earning career. Perhaps the pain of her personal life, including the death of her father, her unsuccessful courtships with several men, and her failed marriage to art critic Christian Brinton, resulted in her inability to focus steadily on her craft. Certainly by the time she was in her forties, Caroline was slipping into some form of mental illness, which, compounded by her active interest in the occult and fortune telling, rendered her able to focus only on one day to the next. By the end of her life, she lived in complete poverty in a home without running water, electricity, or any modern comforts. As such, it was a tremendous shock that she left

Franklin & Marshall College, an institution with which she had no ties save that it was in

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where she made her home, over $565,000 which is approximately $4.5 million in today’s dollars.

The primary focus of this dissertation is to bring Caroline’s biography to a larger audience. Additionally, this dissertation situates Caroline within a cohort of female artists who had the benefit of access to formal art education but who faced tremendous disadvantage, in comparison to their male counterparts, of achieving the status of a professional fine artist. To that end, Caroline’s story serves to broaden understanding of the difficulties of establishing and maintaining a standing in the artistic community for women unless they benefited from ideal situations which included talent, support, drive,

3 and elevated social status, including access to money. As Caroline did not possess all of these things, she fell fast and hard after achieving moments of true success.

4

CHAPTER ONE

WOMEN IN ART AT THE TURN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

The International Art Climate and Women

Caroline Peart is situated at a historic moment of great change in the American art scene. American art at the turn of the twentieth century was not in fashion. Many earlier

American artists who had enjoyed a certain level of fame were now rendered obscure in favor of the modern art movement sweeping Europe and slowly permeating America.

These late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century changes in the art landscape affected all artists, but especially aspiring female artists. As art historian Kirsten Swinth notes, “The American art world expanded rapidly after the Civil War. The relatively small, intimate world of antebellum artists and patrons dissolved as the cultural nationalism that had fostered close patronage and dedicated purchase of American landscape paintings lost favor to a cosmopolitan taste for contemporary European figure and Old Master paintings.”1 In addition to dwindling interest in American landscapes, traditional portraits were less and less in demand. The art field was becoming more professionalized and art education became accessible to women. As such, the rules of being an artist were in flux. In this time of uncertainty, women were educated and granted permission to join the ranks of male artists; however, this inclusion did not readily provide the support and resources to become an independent, professional painter.

1Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 2.

5 When evaluating Caroline along with other obscure female artists, it is important to consider the conditions that would have had to be met in order for a woman to become a successful artist. Although interest shifted from portraiture to landscapes to full-blown modern art, female artists did not follow this trend. Many remained portrait painters or worked in illustrations which were more welcoming fields for female artists. Portraiture in particular was perceived as aligned with the feminine as it was suited to “feminine sensibilities,” particularly portraits of women and children.2

Most American female artists remained largely anonymous as they did not create a body of work that brought notoriety as they neither received important portrait commissions nor created large-scale works that garnered great public attention.3 Few female artists threatened the well-established male dominance of the field, and, if a female artist took on too many stereotypical masculine qualities, it would have been difficult for her to maintain a footing in the field. Although there are notable exceptions, such as muralist Violet Oakley, most successful female artists focused on portraiture or other small-scale works. As art historian Patricia Likos Ricci writes,

Nineteenth-century critics reinforced gender distinctions by using the

terms “masculine” and “feminine” as aesthetic qualities that reflected the

sex of the artist. Women's work was typically described as feminine,

womanly, delicate, sweet, and sympathetic while men produced works of

art that were masculine, virile, strong, bold, and intellectual. With her

2Ibid., 84.

3Despite receiving relatively few important or large-scale commissions, women did find a market for portraits. Even though interest was waning, there were still many patrons offering commissions for portraits. Ibid.

6 limited capacities, woman was suited to the scale of easel painting,

needlework, china, and textile design while architecture and mural

painting were forever beyond her reach. Opponents of the expansion of

women's sphere argue that such incursions into the male domain would

inevitably “de-sex” the female. When Charles Dana Gibson wanted to

ridicule “The Female Artist Who Has Ceased To Be Feminine” in an 1890

cartoon, he had only to show the frail sex at work on a large easel

painting. The aesthetics of gender asserted that a woman could be

feminine or she could be a muralist; she could not be both.4

This assertion that women had to maintain their femininity above all else, reinforced to women that while the door was open to them entering the professional art world, it was only partially open.5

The gender-related professional boundary extended into societal gender roles and norms as well. Women, including female artists, were expected to get married, have children, and “keep house.” The “Cult of Domesticity” — the prevailing Victorian ideal of “true womanhood” found in both the United States and Great Britain — trumped a career:

4Patricia Likos Ricci, “Violet Oakley: American Renaissance Woman,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 126, no 2, April 2002, 223.

5Bailey Van Hook noted that, in late nineteenth-century America, “ . . . most of the painters of ideal women were male ...... ” and "The approach that female painters took when they represented women did not differ in any recognizable way from that of their more successful male colleagues — after all their teachers were male.” Angels of Art: Women and Art in American Society, 1876-1914 (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), 64.

7 According to the nineteenth-century concept of “separate spheres,” men

and women, like different species, had biologically determined mental and

physical capacities that required different habitats. Men ranged

throughout the public sphere of society, while women dwelled in the

private sphere of the home and the church, ostensibly for the protection of

their virtue and femininity. In reality, the women’s separate and unequal

sphere was contained within men’s, since women were legally and

economically dependent on their fathers and husbands. Because middle-

class women did not need to earn money, they could devote their lives to

the family and strive to attain “true womanhood” within their genteel and

domestic religious environment.6

This prevailing sentiment resulted in all women attempting to have a career, in the arts or otherwise, pushing against the social structures that confined their lives. Although women were entering art school and establishing careers, they did so knowing that they violated the principles upon which society was framed. Although still problematic, a career in art was somewhat less offensive to these principles as women could study and create art at home. This extension of the women’s sphere to outside of the home, including professions such as illustrators, nurses, and teachers, was made permissible as women could be viewed as “angels out of the house.”7

6Patricia Likos Ricci, A Grand Vision: Violet Oakley and the American Renaissance (Philadelphia: Woodmere Art Museum, 2017), 21.

7Ibid., 21-22.

8 The acceptance of women into academies to receive formal education and to become professional artists mirrored the broader shifts in America: women were expanding their worlds to outside the home, but in socially-acceptable ways, and joining an academy to train in the arts was considered an appropriate option for women. Women grasped this opportunity quickly and decisively: in the 1870 census, 414 women listed their career as either artist, sculpture or teacher of art; in 1890, 11,000 women were counted. As Kirsten Swinth observed, “these kinds of gains in a profession that was not on its way to becoming fully feminized are unmatched.”8 Opportunity to receive formal training, however, was not enough to sustain a woman in their field, she needed other things in order to succeed.

All the strictures regarding the separation of spheres — personal and public — devolved to women. Nowhere was the distinction between men and women more evident than in the field of education, particularly higher education. Throughout the nineteenth century, the establishment and growth of academies, seminaries, and colleges designed to educate women evidenced the changing perspective on the right of women to move beyond the restrictions of the private sphere and take their place in the larger, external society. Movement beyond these restrictions, however, only occurred within the confines of religious ideals such as virtue.9 Smith’s president L. Clark Seelye expressed well the potentialities for their common ideal of the educated woman in the 1890s: “The college is

8Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 3.

9Barbara Miller Solomon, In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 49.

9 not intended to fit woman for any particular sphere or profession but to develop by the most carefully devised means all her intellectual capacities, so that she may be a more perfect woman in any position.”10

The separation of men and women in the public sphere took many forms.

Women, for example, were excluded from public speaking. Only men were deemed to be capable of and suitable for the law, the clergy, the political. “The image of a female lecturer recalled the specters of Mary Wollstonecraft, Frances Wright, or Ernestine Rose

— all foreigners, religious radicals, and champions of women’s rights.”11

It was into this mindset that Caroline and other aspiring women artists of the late- nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries strove to fit. But the path ahead was treacherous. Sarah Burns asserts,

The separation of spheres was very much a one-way affair. Women invaded male

territory at the peril of becoming unnatural, unsexed, repellent, barren, and

offensive. Men, by contrast, could travel freely into the female preserve,

appropriating what they found there and adding it to their “natural” endowments

to achieve the complete and perfect, most highly evolved form of genius.12

Compounding the difficulties regarding separation of sphere, female artists had to make complex decisions regarding marriage, raising a family, and pursuing their interest in art.

Solomon writes,

10Ibid.

11Ibid., 29.

12Sarah Burns, Inventing the Modern Artists: Art and Culture in Gilded Age America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 169.

10 Whatever their concepts of marriage or self, all women experienced the threat of

frequent pregnancy resulting from the religious decree that a wife must always

submit to her husband’s will ...... It was not that such women did not want

children; in fact, as tensions increased over how to achieve mutuality in marriage,

educated women, and their uneducated sisters, still found fulfillment in

motherhood. The raising of children became the critical focus of family life,

thereby escalating the importance of motherhood.13

Even the most successful of female painters, Cecilia Beaux, was aware of competing forces. She stated, “Perhaps you can put it this way. A man who does a man’s work is a normal human being. A woman who does a man’s work is a kind of superwoman. She must be two selves….”14 This push and pull affected many women as they attempted to balance professional and private life.

Alongside the founding of educational institutions for women, the establishment of art schools and their acceptance of women students occurred in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. The art schools were a key component of this larger educational movement as they provided another option for post-secondary education for women and their curriculums provided an appealing option for students seeking a robust education.15

13Barbara Miller Solomon, In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 39.

14“Cecilia Beaux, Artist, Her Home, Work, and Ideals.” In American Art to 1900: A Documentary History, edited by Sarah Burns and John Davis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 841.

15Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 19.

11 The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in Philadelphia, the School of the

Museum of Fine Art in Boston, and the Art Students League in New York were part of a virtual boom in art schools in both major and regional art centers in the 1870s. New schools were established in Chicago in 1867 and 1879, in San Francisco in 1874, in New

York in 1875, in Boston in 1877, in Providence in 1878, and in St. Louis in 1879, while other schools in New York and Philadelphia updated, expanded, and reinvigorated their programs.16 These art schools also provided an opportunity for women to develop not only the skills but the credentials they needed to be recognized as professional artists.17

The professionalization of art was underway for both men and women. Students began to demand better instructional facilities as well as better teaching faculties along with higher standards including admission standards. At the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, for example, students submitted a petition to the board to hire Christian

Schussele, a European-trained painter, to teach at the academy, believing that a European model of academic training would enhance their goals of professionalism.18

At the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, as elsewhere in art school circles, the

European academic model was considered the highest standard in art training.19

In addition to adopting more established academic programs modeled after those in Europe, opinion began to shift that artistic skill and capacity were not an innate talent,

16Ibid., 14.

17Ibid., 12.

18Ibid., 16.

19Ibid., 19-20.

12 but a skill that could be developed and improved. Swinth asserts, “More and more, artists and their supporters believed that it was lengthy, rigorous study, and not instinctive genius, that made someone an artist.”20 Concurrently, “women’s enrollment in art programs began to rise, and by the 1880s women students represented a majority. In the late 1870s women constituted just over one-third of the students at the Pennsylvania

Academy; by the mid-1880s they accounted for one-half.”21 Whether intentional or unintentional, art schools proved to be in the vanguard of promoting coeducation at the post-secondary level. Helen Horowitz has written, “the female equivalent of the college man began to emerge only in the 1890s.”22 These female “college men” were primarily walking the halls of art schools and not traditional four-year colleges.

Women’s significantly large attendance at art schools, notwithstanding, there continued the belief that art education was a masculine endeavor. Kirsten Swinth notes,

“ . . . the rigorous preparation, rationalized training, and demanding instruction seemed both to embody and to require masculine rationality, strength, and autonomous drive.”23

The same notion of women simply not being up to the task of rigorous higher education was evident in the writings of Dr. Edward Clarke, retired Harvard medical school

20Ibid., 16.

21Ibid. 16-17.

22Helen L. Horowitz. Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present (New York: Knopf, 1987), 201, quoted in W. Bruce Leslie, Gentlemen and Scholars: College and Community in the “Age of the University,” 1865-1917 (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 112.

23Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 26.

13 professor, who, in Sex in Education, written in 1873, advanced the concept of “limited energy.” Clarke’s theory was that, if a woman used what limited energy she possessed to study and learn, she could not “do all this and retain uninjured health and a future secure from neuralgia, uterine disease, hysteria, and other derangements of the nervous system.”

She would “endanger her ‘female apparatus.’”24

At the same time that institutions of higher education designed solely for women were being established and coeducational institutions were being founded or all-male institutions were beginning to admit women, art schools were admitting women in large numbers. Such blending of the sexes did not please the sensibilities of all Americans, both renowned and obscure. For example, Woodrow Wilson believed that coeducation

[at the college level] “vulgarizes the whole relationship of men and women.”25 This deeply-seated resentment toward women entering academic realms and professional endeavors created a system that undermined women’s efforts to achieve success in the artistic field.

Talent, Support, Drive, And Elevated Social Status

Increasing acceptance did not automatically translate into success. As Sarah

Burns observed,

24Barbara Miller Solomon, In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 56.

25Woodrow Wilson to Charles Kent, 29 May 1894, in Link, Papers of Wilson, 8:583-84, quoted in W. Bruce Leslie, Gentlemen and Scholars: College and Community in the “Age of the University,” 1865-1917 (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 206.

14 By the turn of the century, the proportion of women in all branches

of the American art profession stood at nearly 45 percent. Yet

higher numbers were not guarantee of greater visibility or success.

Largely excluded from male social networks, women artists

struggled to organize their own communities and fashion

professional identities. Those who succeeded did so against the

odds and through considerable personal sacrifice. Lack of

representation and publicity spelled obscurity for many more.26

A female artist needed talent, camaraderie/support, drive, and elevated social status to succeed at the turn of the twentieth century. She might begin a career with talent and drive alone, but eventually she would need to acquire proper connections with those who had the means and desire to purchase art. These connections would be more difficult to secure if she was not born into a wealthy family, and these connections were critical to maintaining a professional standing. Also, if a woman did not have a support system to assist her in the private sphere of her life, society dictated that the woman could not have both a career and a marriage, at least not a successful career or marriage. To be successful in the art world, a woman would require access to money to support her education and to fund domestic duties she would have to abandon to pursue a career, such as maintaining a home. She would need familial support to pursue a career outside of the home and acceptance of this non-traditional path. Caroline is only one of many women

26Sarah Burns and John Davis, American Art to 1900 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 821.

15 who could not achieve the level of success required to become an independent, successful artist.

Possessing talent, support, drive, and social status was a tall order for female artists and explains why so few women rose to the level of success as their male counterparts. Mary Smith Prize winners from 1891 through 1905 (Caroline sits squarely in the middle at 1898) illustrate this point. Clearly all the prize winners possessed artistic talent as demonstrated by their winning of the Mary Smith Prize, the top prize awarded to female artists in America during this period. Each woman experienced differently the necessary conditions for success and, as such, rose to prominence to varying degrees, or not at all.

Caroline Peart had associations with many of the Mary Smith Prize winners, either through relationships formed at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts or the professional organizations in which she participated. The circle of female artists was small, and many of their life stories have compelling similarities. Much has been written about Cecilia Beaux as she was, inarguably, the most prominent female portrait painter of the period. She won the Mary Smith Prize a record four times, including back-to-back wins in 1891 and 1892. She had talent and robust drive as indicated by her devotion to her studies both at home and abroad. She succeeded in establishing herself as not only a painter but as a teacher by becoming the first woman to have a recurring instructor position at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. Beaux was willing to be geographically mobile, relocating her home, something many women could not do due to domestic constraints. She leveraged the prominence she attained as a portrait painter and established herself as a teacher and long-time studio owner.

16 Interestingly, Beaux herself commented on why so few women succeeded in art. She asserted about women that “Strength is the stumbling block. They are sometimes unable to stand the hard work of it day in and day out. They become tired and cannot reenergize themselves."27 Beaux’s decision to not marry allowed her career to flourish as she took on more work and gained more connections. At Helena de Kay Gilder’s salon in Boston, Beaux met Edith Roosevelt, wife of Theodore Roosevelt; Louise

Carnegie, wife of Andrew Carnegie; and Isabella Stewart Gardner. As Kirsten Swinth has noted, “[t]hese connections translated into commissions, suggesting that salons held by wealthy women could connect women artists to elite patronage.”28 The Gilders also acted as Beaux’s second family, providing her with stability, connections, and a domestic situation in which she could engage but did not have to manage.29 Clearly the salons were lucrative and also provided incredible support systems for Beaux; however, her social connections proved invaluable, and her vast network of well-positioned friends and associates brought her portrait commissions.30 In many ways, Cecilia

Beaux is the stand-alone example of a truly successful female artist during this period, as she possessed all the necessary conditions for success. She had talent, earned status

27Alice A. Carter, Cecilia Beaux: A Modern Painter in the Gilded Age (New York: Rizzoli, 2005), 149.

28Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 70.

29Sylvia Yount, Kevin Sharp, Nina Auerbach, and Mark Bockrath, Cecilia Beaux: American Figure Painter (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 18.

30Tara L. Tappert, Cecilia Beaux and the Art of Portraiture (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1995), 404.

17 as an artist and instructor, and an abundance of drive. She was also unencumbered by domestic responsibility as she chose to remain unmarried and not have children.

Moreover, she separated herself from women as a whole in order to focus on her craft.

As art historian Tara Tappert noted, “Beaux believed she could be a professionally successful artist only if she freed herself from association with women’s art and other women artists.”31 As such, Cecilia Beaux is the standard bearer for success, but others gained it as well, most particularly, Mary Cassatt.

Mary Cassatt’s artistic style was the opposite of Beaux’s realistic portraiture and the two were never friendly. Cassatt spent substantial time in Paris and found success there as she painted in the still-new Impressionist style and created a body of work that focused on the intimate relationship between mother and child. David McCullough writes, “For Mary her time in France had determined she would be a professional, not merely ‘a woman who paints,’ as was the expression.”32 Many individuals noted

Cassatt’s successes overseas, and this attention certainly encouraged others to seek training in Europe.”33 Mary Cassatt was not alone in her interest in Paris as it was the place to be for aspiring artists — male and female. “Thousands of American students made the requisite pilgrimage — some twenty-two hundred Americans born before

31Tara L. Tappert, “Cecilia Beaux: A Career as a Portraitist,” Women Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, no. 4 (February 1988): 391.

32David McCullough, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 338.

33Nancy Mowll Mathews, “‘The Greatest Woman Painter’: Cecilia Beaux, Mary Cassatt, and Issues of Female Fame,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, July 2000, 301.

18 1880 studied formally in Paris, about one-third of them women. The overwhelming majority came after the Civil War; in 1888 alone, a thousand American artists and art students filled Parisian academies.34 This trend continued well into the 1900s as aspiring artists sought to advance their art education outside of the United States.

Beaux and Cassatt achieved impressive professional success during their lifetimes and they have remained the preeminent names for successful female painters at the turn of the twentieth century. Other women achieved modest success, but they did not rise to either Beaux or Cassatt’s level of success as they did not possess the same, almost magical, combination of personal traits and circumstances which afforded only a select handful of women the opportunity to achieve sustained success and notoriety as professional painters. As art historian Nancy Mowll Mathews argues,

In the modern era, it is fairly safe to assume that any person who

establishes herself in the highly competitive profession of fine art painting

has drive, savvy, and talent. The odds of succeeding to the extent of

supporting oneself financially — much less winning international

recognition and a firm place in the history of art — are extremely low.

Most promising art school graduates settle for a career in teaching or

commercial art, if they stay in the field at all. For women, who have

flocked to art schools in very high numbers in the last two centuries, it is

even more certain that the successful ones share similar levels of ambition

34Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 37.

19 and ability to overcome the prejudices they will face at every stage of their

careers. It is no wonder, therefore, that the two women resemble each

other in their gritty desire to achieve “fame and money” with their art.35

Beaux and Cassatt achieved great fame, but several other female artists of the period earned notoriety as well due to their ability and to their support networks, talent, and drive.

Maria L. Kirk (1860-1938) won the 1893 Mary Smith Prize for a portrait. Kirk worked as an illustrator, although there is very little known about her. Born in

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, she was educated at the School of Design for Women and the

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. She provided the illustrations for books, including Heidi, Alice in Wonderland, Pinocchio, At the Back of the North Wind

(another edition of which was illustrated by Jessie Wilcox Smith, another Mary Smith

Prize winner), The Cuckoo Clock, and The Story of the Canterbury Pilgrims. Kirk had a long career, as evidenced by the publication dates of the books she illustrated from at least 1909 through 1921. Although difficult to assess, Kirk seemingly possessed talent and drive, as indicated by the longevity of her career. However, as she illustrated relatively few books over her career, she most likely had other pressures on her time, such as family and domestic responsibilities.36

35Nancy Mowll Mathews, “‘The Greatest Woman Painter’: Cecilia Beaux, Mary Cassatt, and Issues of Female Fame,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, July 2000, 294.

36Despite her relatively unknown status, Walmart currently sells a poster version of one of Kirk’s illustrations.

20 Gabrielle D. Clements (1858-1948) possessed all the requisites to become a well- known artist. Born into a wealthy Philadelphia family, she had the right social connections and financial situation. She was highly educated, first attending the

Philadelphia School of Design for Women and then attending Cornell University where she earned a B.S. degree in 1880. After graduating from Cornell, she attended the

Académie Julian in Paris and attended the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts where she won both the Toppan Prize and the Mary Smith Prize for Granite Cutting at Cape

Ann.37 Clements exhibited broadly, including at the Paris Salon; the Museum of Fine

Arts, Boston; the National Academy of Design; the Philadelphia Society of Artists; the

National Museum of American History; and the New York Etching Club. She had works displayed at the Columbian Exposition, the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, and the

Sesquicentennial Exposition in Philadelphia. Importantly, Clements had the camaraderie and support of other women. Her partner, Ellen Day Hale, was also an artist, and they

37The Toppan Prize was established in 1881 by the gift of Mrs. Charles Toppan, Miss Harriette R. Toppan, and Mr. Robert N. Toppan. It was first awarded in 1882 under the dictates that "the drawing of the work submitted will receive first attention of the examiners." “School Circular” (The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, PA, 1915), 45. The Académie Julian was typical of most of the Parisian ateliers. Founded in 1868 by Rodolphe Julian to prepare students for the entrance examination to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, the academy had nine studies, five for men and four for women, by 1890 and added more through the turn of the century...... Between 1885 and 1889 alone, [among others] Ellen Day Hale, Gabrielle Clements ...... Cecilia Beaux . . . were among the American women to study at Julian’s ...... Cecilia Beaux remembered that it was so crowded that each woman had “to mark each easel and chair with white chalk and to look out for encroachments.” ...... Amid a packed, unventilated room women had to train themselves to focus ...... much of the classroom experience was structured around competitions ...... [as the women] sought not only individual recognition but also national superiority or studio pride in the competitions between the women’s and men’s ateliers. Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 45-46.

21 lived together throughout their lives, including at an artists’ enclave at Folly Cove on

Cape Ann, Gloucester, Massachusetts. They traveled the world together and supported each other’s professional lives. In addition to her love of painting, Clements educated others, taking academic posts at The Bryn Mawr School in Baltimore as well as positions in Philadelphia and Charleston, South Carolina. Her portfolio was broad, as she etched, painted landscapes, illustrated books, and completed large-scale murals. Her talent and drive were key to her success, but having a cohort of women around her made the difference. Kirsten Swinth specifically noted a support network of which Clements was a part,

Ellen Day Hale creatively made a life for herself, weaving art making and

art selling together with a rich, multigenerational community of female

colleagues. Hale, her friend Gabrielle Clements, and her sister-in-law

Lilian Hale were the core of this network, and they exemplify steady

pursuit of market and professional recognition while negotiating lives as

daughters, comrades, wives, and mothers.38

Clements had a strong family network and a multi-faceted approach to her artistic career which resulted in her successes as a professional painter. Because she was not bound to a traditional domestic life of husband and children, she was able to focus on her art with the support of a like-minded partner.

Some of the Mary Smith Prize winners received little acclaim as artists and are largely unknown today. Elizabeth Watson (1863-1949) studied at the School of the

38Ibid., 88.

22 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. She won the Mary Smith Prize in 1896 for her Portrait of

Reverend Dr. Watson. She spent her professional career in Massachusetts and joined various professional organizations, including the Copley Society, the Gloucester Society of Artists, and the Boston Art Club. Mary F.R. Clay, Janet Wheeler, and Elinor Earle, the 1900, 1901, and 1902 Mary Smith Prize winners respectively, all fell into obscurity as well, indicating they did not have remarkable professional careers as artists. It is possible these women could not achieve notable status as artists due to the societal pressures of social standing or domestic responsibilities. Too much of their biographies is unknown to have a definitive answer, but given the characteristics of the successful female artists, it is probable they lacked some of the required characteristics such as drive and support.

It is important to consider, however, that some of these women may simply have never desired to become professional artists and painted for the sheer joy of it. Some may have attended art school to fill time until marriage. The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine

Arts class rosters list a myriad of names of now unknown artists, both male and female, and it cannot be assumed all failed in becoming professional artists. There are numerous reasons why individuals did not become full-fledged artists. However, there appears to be a set of circumstances, skills, and personal traits required in order for female artists to succeed.

The 1903 Mary Smith Prize winner, Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935), would eventually possess all the things necessary to become successful. While lacking only the social status, art historian Alice Carter notes that “Smith’s parents had social aspirations

23 . . . Smith and her siblings were schooled in the conventional social graces necessary for advancement in Victorian Society.”39 After her education at Quaker Friends Central

School in Philadelphia and further schooling with her cousins in Cincinnati, Ohio, Smith tried teaching. With no familial wealth to support her, she “knew she would be obliged to make her own living.”40 Smith was not well suited for a career in teaching, and she began to look for alternatives. By luck, she accompanied a friend to a sketching lesson and learned she had a talent for art.41 Smith moved back to Philadelphia to attend The

School of Design for Women. At $100 for a five-month term, Smith enrolled on October

2, 1884.42 The School of Design for Women was seen as a vocational school that allowed women to learn a craft, but still be marriage eligible.43 In 1885, Smith enrolled in the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts under Thomas Eakins.44 Eakins’ teaching style, seen as scandalous during the time, did not mesh well with Smith’s conservative life view.45 Despite this hurdle, Smith graduated from the academy in 1888. A

39Alice A. Carter, The Red Rose Girls: An Uncommon Story of Art and Love (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000), 10.

40Ibid., 12.

41Ibid.

42Ibid, 18.

43Alice A. Carter, The Red Rose Girls: An Uncommon Story of Art and Love (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000), 18.

44Ibid., 19.

45 “. . . in February 1886, the board fired Eakins for failing properly to uphold the dignity and authority of a teacher...... When Eakins removed the loincloth from a male model during a lecture to women (and possibly men) students, it was too much for the board, and it asked him to resign.” Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and

24 successful illustrator with a job in the advertising department of Ladies’ Home Journal in

1897, Smith would finally reach her full potential when she enrolled in Howard Pyle’s

1897 Illustration class at the Drexel Institute.46

It was in Pyle’s class that Smith met Elizabeth Shippen Green and Violet Oakley and they began to form their unique family unit. Pyle “supported a woman’s right to a professional career yet sustained the idea that a successful female artist could not easily combine the role of wife with the demands of professional illustration.”47 From this point forward, Jessie Smith, Elizabeth Green, and Violet Oakley became inseparable. With the addition of Henrietta Cozens to the mix, the four women dubbed themselves a family.

Cozens became the artists’ “wife” so that the other three could focus on their career trajectories.48 Their 1902 move to the Red Rose Inn in Villanova, Pennsylvania, brought the three artists their most successful professional years. Calling themselves COGS for

Cozens, Oakley, Green, and Smith (Pyle meanwhile called them the Red Rose Girls), they achieved a family without compromising their careers.49 Smith won the Mary Smith

Prize in 1903 for a set of watercolor illustrations, A Mother’s Days. She went abroad late

the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 23.

46Alice A. Carter, The Red Rose Girls: An Uncommon Story of Art and Love (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2000), 38.

47Ibid., 43-44.

48Ibid., 68.

49Ibid., 73.

25 in her career as she did not have the financial means earlier. Her illustrations of children’s books were immensely popular.

Elizabeth Shippen Green (1871-1954) also possessed talent, support, drive, and elevated social status. Born into both the Green and Shippen family lines, Green lacked wealth but had “Old Philadelphia” society on her side.50 These connections would prove important throughout her life as she called on familial ties for financial aid and assistance in obtaining commissions. For example, when the Red Rose Girls were evicted from the

Inn, Green called on Dr. George Woodward, who functioned more in real estate than medicine as he focused his efforts on developing the Chestnut Hill section of

Philadelphia, to help the women find a new countryside home.51 Green, also known as

Bessie, was a talented illustrator. Her father, Jasper, was an artist and alumni of the

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts who, recognizing his daughter’s talent, allowed

Green to “enroll at her father’s alma mater when she was just eighteen.”52 She attended the Academy from 1889 to 1893. During this time, she worked enough to cover her tuition fees.53 Green also spent time abroad.

A prolific worker, Green eventually found herself in Howard Pyle’s 1897 class with Violet Oakley and Jessie Wilcox Smith. The women in Pyle’s class worked together to complete assignments, and through this camaraderie Green found lifelong

50Ibid., 22-23.

51Ibid., 121-123.

52Ibid., 23-24.

53Ibid., 28.

26 friends in Oakley and Smith. The trio began by sharing Violet Oakley’s studio with

Jessie Dodd. Cozens’ addition to the trio allowed “the collaboration [to] function like a family and enabled the women to enjoy a gentrified life while maintaining a punishing work schedule.”54 Green won the Mary Smith Prize in 1905 for a set of twelve watercolor illustrations for the short story, “The Thousand Quilt,” and, along with Jessie

Smith and Violet Oakley, was an active member of the Plastic Club. In 1902, the club hosted an exhibition showcasing only the COGS family works.

Violet Oakley (1874-1961) broke into an exclusive men’s club upon being awarded the largest mural commission every issued to an American artist when she received the commission to paint murals at the Pennsylvania State Capitol.55 She secured this work after serious dedication to her craft. She was educated at the Art Students’

League and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. During her early years, Oakley and her family lived a comfortable life in the suburbs due to her father’s success in banking. After the Panic of 1893, however, the family no longer had money and Oakley lost her social and financial standing. She did not let this deter her from her goal and she studied with Howard Pyle at the Drexel Institute. As she accepted commissions, she had the support of the COGS which allowed her to focus on her art. Oakley approached art with thoughtfulness and skill, and her determination to excel in murals, an art form which largely excluded women, resulted in her transcending boundaries:

54Ibid., 73.

55On Oakley, see Bailey Van Hook’s recent comprehensive biography: Violet Oakley: An Artist’s Life.

27 Although Oakley’s celebrity was initially fueled by her sex, in the final

analysis her fame came to rest securely on her accomplishments. By

designing complex mural programs that addressed the critical issues of the

age with the gravity and decorum of Renaissance painting, she

transcended the arbitrary restrictions placed on women artists.56

Oakley painted herself into a unique standing for female artists of this time by achieving high-interest commissions which would have otherwise gone to male muralists.

On the surface, the similarities between the aforementioned women seem many: educated, many both at home and abroad; talent which was both cultivated and rewarded; and careers that extended for years. Of the Mary Smith Prize winners from 1891 to 1905, five would be assessed as successful female artists based on the four requisite criteria of talent, support, drive, and elevated social status. What did these women possess the others did not? Substantial family financial and social status was important, but a stumbling block that could be overcome, as indicated by Cecilia Beaux and Violet

Oakley. It seems that drive and a support network was of paramount importance to success and Cecilia Beaux, Gabrielle D. Clements, Elizabeth Bonsall, Jessie Willcox

Smith, and Elizabeth Shippen Green all possessed these things as well as benefited from the cultivation of friends and loved ones who provided a social situation which allowed them to flourish professionally. As Swinth notes, “Integral to women’s professional lives, this network of friends and colleagues provided the informal support, feedback, and

56Patricia Likos Ricci, “Violet Oakley: American Renaissance Woman,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 126, no 2, April 2002, 248.

28 information that complemented formal training.”57 Not all women, however, were as fortunate to have such robust and sustained support.

Alice Stallknect (1880-1973), a contemporary of Caroline, shared many similarities with her: educated, strong relationship with her father, and a deeply unhappy marriage. Stallknect, however, possessed drive and continued to paint throughout her life and completed numerous murals. She did not allow personal strife to stop her professional pursuits. Like many of the other female artists of this period, if she had the domestic support required to achieve sustained fame during her lifetime, she might have risen to a level of prominence never attained during her life. It is only because of current interest in reviving the art of these previously overlooked female artists, that her name is becoming known. As Steffensen and Ricci assert, “Scholars interested in recovering women’s lives and work have now recognized her achievements.”58 This interest in female artists has uncovered many similar stories of unfulfilled promise, including

Caroline’s.59

Caroline certainly had talent as evidenced by her successes in entering portraits in exhibitions and her diary entries noting critiques by instructors at the Pennsylvania

Academy of the Fine Arts. She had money and family status. Even though her father

57Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 55.

58Ingrid A. Steffensen and Patricia Likos Ricci, “Alice Stallknecht: Every Woman to Her Trade,” Women’s Art Journal 26, no. 2 (Autumn 2005 - Winter 2006): 14.

59Barbara Gallati explores the career of Sarah Paxton Ball Dodson and argues that she never met with fame due to poor health and painting subjects which held little interest at the time. Barbara Gallati, “The Paintings of Sarah Paxton Ball Dodson (1847-1906).” The American Art Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, (Winter 1983): 67-82.

29 would have been deemed nouveau riche, he built a lumber business which afforded the family a mansion outside Philadelphia and supported a grand lifestyle for Caroline and her mother. It is clear, however, that Caroline did not possess drive. Her diary entries focused far more often on shopping, dining, and relationships than the actual business of painting. While she noted what portrait she was working on, her work ethic lacked both consistency and focus. She occasionally painted on a daily basis but it was far more often the exception rather than the rule. Her output speaks to this inconsistency. Unlike the other more successful artists, Caroline created relatively few works and most were portraits of family members that were not paid commissions. Equally important to lack of drive was Caroline’s paucity of camaraderie and support. She certainly had friends and interacted with others, including other artists. These friendships, however, did not take on the profound nature of those such as among the Red Rose Girls. Caroline attempted to make connections by joining The Plastic Club and other professional organizations, but she did not forge deep relationships between herself and other professional artists. Additionally, her personal life lacked any true support for a career in art as her relationships with men failed, and she developed no real lifelong friendships.

Caroline concentrated on one person for a short amount of time before moving on to another person or social group.

Far more important than her friendships, or lack thereof, was her home life.

While she clearly had the financial support of her parents, Caroline never articulated a single true emotion when writing about her parents or family. Her extended family included many artists, including N.C. Wyeth, but she did not forge strong bonds with her

30 Wyeth cousins despite their mutual interests in art.60 Even on the day her father, John

Peart, died, Caroline noted it in a perfunctory manner. Her mother was largely absent as she spent a great deal of time traveling, both before and after her husband’s death. After her father’s death, Caroline had no choice but to focus on domestic responsibilities and day-to-day operations of a newly renovated home and property. Further, she had to assume the large responsibilities of the sale of real estate and collaboration (or lack thereof) with attorneys on her father’s will. Caroline did not have siblings to share in this work, and while her Wyeth cousins were ready portrait subjects, she made no indication that any family members ever assisted her financially or by supporting her establishment as an artist. This lack of drive and support proved to be the death knell for Caroline and a true career in art. Other writers have argued that Caroline’s father’s death was the primary cause for her abandoning painting. Although this was certainly a factor, it only contributed to a larger issue that many female artists of this period faced. Talent without drive combined with minimal or no support network resulted in a female artist being unable to achieve sustained professional success. This was a perfect recipe for Caroline: she only tasted professional success and ended up quite alone, lamenting the solitude in which she ended her life. Sadly, Caroline is one of numerous examples of talent unfulfilled, and when she abandoned painting to focus on other life issues, her life took a horrible turn which resulted in a life of deep misery and pervasive pain. Her future, however, was not yet apparent when she was at the height of her career as her life would only begin to unravel dramatically when she was in her late forties.

60Caroline only made one mention of visiting N.C. Wyeth, whom she referred to as “Converse,” in a June 21, 1926, diary entry.

31

CHAPTER TWO

FAMILY, ART, AND UNFULFILLED PROMISE

Family Background and Childhood

Caroline Peart was born in Rosemont, Pennsylvania, into a family with important connections and substantial means. Her mother, Martha Ann Herr (1843-1940), was born in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Martha was a direct descendent of Hans Herr, the first ordained Mennonite bishop to emigrate from London (originally from Switzerland through the Palatinate in Germany) to the American colonies. Hans Herr, who came to

America in 1710, was Caroline’s great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather.61 This lineage was a point of pride for the family, as Caroline and her mother often attended

Herr family reunions, and Martha served as Vice President of the Hans Herr Memorial

Association upon its establishment in 1895. This long historical association with

Lancaster County created a consistent thread for Caroline and her mother. No matter where they lived or traveled, Lancaster County, specifically Washington Boro, a small community in the western part of the county, always remained home.

Family proved to be a complicating issue for Caroline throughout her life. She had deep connections with both parents, although her relationship with her mother was often a burden as Caroline cared for her after her father’s death. She was related to a famous American art family; however, these connections did not provide any substantive

61The family genealogy ran Hans Herr (1639-1725), Abraham Kendig Herr (~1660- 1735), David Herr (1722-1771), Christian Herr (1748-1817), Christian Herr (1777-1850), and Christian Herr (1820-1852).

32 assistance or advantage as she entered the larger Philadelphia-area community. Her family did, however, afford her the financial means to attend art school, travel extensively and attempt to establish herself as a portrait painter.

Martha’s parents, Christian Herr (1820-1852) and Caroline Stoner Herr (1823-

1912), had six children of whom Martha was the eldest.62 After Christian passed away,

Caroline Stoner married Jacob M. Breneman. Their two children, Jacob Stoner

Breneman (1857-1923) and Anne Breneman (1859-1953), were Martha’s half siblings.

Anne married George Bockius (1853-1918), a founder of the Morocco Manufacturers

National Association which sold leather shoes and skins. Their daughter, Carolyn

Breneman Bockius (1886-1973), married Newell Convers (N.C.) Wyeth (1911-90), the famed American illustrator. Carolyn’s son was renowned artist Andrew Wyeth.

Although the family connection initially appears tenuous, Caroline’s mother was a welcomed member of the Wyeth family as a great aunt to Andrew and aunt to Carolyn.

Caroline often accompanied her mother at family gatherings and reunions. Throughout her career, Caroline frequently painted members of the Wyeth family. Martha functioned as the sole link to the Wyeths, and when her mother passed away, Caroline makes no mention of seeing any Wyeth family members again in her diaries.

Caroline’s father, John Peart (1840-1906), the son of Daniel and Elizabeth

Hoenilie Peart, was their only child. He married Martha Herr on February 18, 1867.

Before their marriage, Peart served as a sergeant major in the 195th Regiment,

Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, during the Civil War and fought from 1861 to 1864.

He was reportedly the last person to cross the Columbia-Wrightsville Bridge, spanning

62Martha’s siblings were by Susan, Jacob, Caroline, Abraham, and Mary Stoner.

33 the Susquehanna River between York and Lancaster Counties, which was burned in 1863 to stop the approaching Confederate troops.63

Upon completion of his military duty, Peart started a lumber business near

Washington Boro in Columbia, Pennsylvania, allegedly inspired by the tall pine trees he saw while marching through the southern United States during the war. In 1872, he became a charter member and served as secretary of the West Branch Lumberman’s

Exchange which was “formed to protect lumberman from fraud and larceny.”64 The lumber business boomed and, around 1876-77, the family moved to Philadelphia where they lived on Logan Square at 1901 Vine Street. After moving to the Philadelphia area,

John Peart rose to great prominence in Philadelphia business and industry. By 1884, he was elected to the Board of Directors of Union National Bank.65 In 1896, he attended the

National Wholesale Lumber Dealers’ Association meeting in Michigan as a delegate for

Philadelphia-area lumbermen.66 On May 15, 1902, they relocated to Fairview, a home in

Rosemont, located between Bryn Mawr and Villanova in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and finally settled in the West Chester, Pennsylvania, area when they purchased a large home

63Dusty Kreider, “The Mystery of Caroline Peart,” Susquehanna Magazine, October 1982, 36.

64In 1893, Peart coordinated a large shipment of logs, which had floated to the Chesapeake Bay due to the Johnstown flood, to the Williamsport and Chesapeake Lumber Company. “A Big Lumber Industry: Sawing Logs from the Freshet of 1889 at Sparrow’s Point,” The Sun, February 3, 1893, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

65“Bank Elections,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 9, 1884, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

66“The Day at the Bourse,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 9, 1896, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

34 named Ardrossan Park in 1905.67 Ardrossan Park was to serve as the family’s grand home signaling the Peart family fortune. The home was situated next to Greystone Hall, another Philadelphia-area mansion. Caroline noted in her diary that she went to see the property on July 12, 1905, and she noted the purchase of Ardrossan Park later that year on October 1. Caroline divided her time between Rosemont and Ardrossan Park through the end of the year, assisting her family in preparing to move as she noted furniture shopping and packing.68

At the time of his death in 1906, John Peart was working at Peart, Nields &

McCormick, a Philadelphia-based hardwood firm. He died at a relatively young age, and at a point when he was still amassing his fortune. Peart had, however, been sickly for years. Sources often suggest that Peart’s death was sudden, and it was the shock of his death that caused Caroline to stop painting. Her diaries indicate that her father suffered from long bouts of illness in the years leading up to his death, so his family clearly knew his health was compromised long before he died. Caroline commented throughout her

1900 diary that her father was sick and, on October 27, he underwent an unnamed, although serious, surgery; it took a full month for him to be able to walk again. When

Caroline returned home from a 1903 trip to Europe, she noted that her father was frequently ill. Peart collapsed at Ardrossan Park while monitoring renovations being completed on his recently-purchased estate. John Peart died on January 25 and Caroline

67In publications about Caroline Peart, Ardrossan Park has often been confused with the Montgomery family’s Villanova, Pennsylvania, home named Ardrossan. This grand brick home was made famous by the 1941 movie The Philadelphia Story starring Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant.

68August-October diary entries, 1905.

35 noted his death, without emotion or additional comment: “Father died suddenly at

Ardrossan at 8 am.” The obituary notice printed in The Philadelphia Inquirer noted that

Peart had been coming out to his country home “almost daily to superintend the improvements and the coroner determined heart disease as the cause of death.”69 Funeral services were held at the Friends’ Meeting House on North High Street in West Chester, and Peart was interred at the family plot in Washington Boro.70 Caroline visited the family cemetery in Washington Boro on January 27, and the funeral was held on January

29. Sadly, John Peart would never occupy the home that stood as a testament to his business acumen and wealth. Caroline and her mother moved to Ardrossan Park on

March 1, which must have been a bittersweet moment given it was supposed to be their grand family home shared with the family patriarch. Caroline and her mother, however, symbolically maintained his presence by prominently displaying Peart’s portrait, painted by Caroline, above the sideboard in the dining room.71 In 1911, Caroline and her mother finally sold their three-story 1901 Vine Street property to the city of Philadelphia for

$25,000. Sixteen years later, the Free Library of Philadelphia opened on the site. A

Philadelphia Inquirer article recorded: “As sites for Parkway buildings, the city of

Philadelphia has purchased the following three-story brick dwellings . . . 1901 Vine

69“Mortuary Notice,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 25, 1906, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

70The Philadelphia newspapers, however, wrote that the cemetery was “near Columbia,” Pennsylvania, suggesting no one would know the location of little Washington Boro. “Mortuary Notice,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 26, 1906, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

71The Brandywine Museum Archives has a photo of Ardrossan Park’s dining room with a portrait of John Peart hung behind the large center dining room table.

36 street, 18x117, assessed at $9600, from Martha Peart, for $25,000. On this tract will be built the proposed downtown branch of the Carnegie Free Library.”72 Where the family’s brownstone once stood, a large Beaux Art building, a monument to civic architecture, rose as the new centerpiece of Logan Square and a reconfigured Fairmount Parkway.

Ardrossan Park would be the last great residence in which Caroline would live, as she spent her later life in apartments, rented rooms, and a rundown home. During this early period of her life, however, Caroline lived in easy comfort.

Born September 4, 1870, Caroline attended a Philadelphia-area Friends school.73

Little is recorded of her early life, and she makes no mention of her childhood years in her diaries. An only child, Caroline was the sole object of her parents’ attention. Her father’s business prominence afforded Caroline significant and meaningful access to the best Philadelphia families, educational institutions, and travel opportunities. These connections were clearly cultivated by the family as they socialized with the Philadelphia elite as evidenced by Caroline serving as a bridesmaid for Elizabeth Mifflin, the great- granddaughter of Jonathan Mifflin, a Revolutionary War hero, at her 1896 marriage to

David K. Boyd. Quite the elaborate affair, the event was splashed across the society page of The Philadelphia Inquirer. The article noted the bridesmaids wore “white organdie over yellow with Marie Antoinette fichus and yellow satin girdles. They also wore large picture hats of white mousseline de sole, with high plumes of white and

72“Parkway Sites Bring Big Prices,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 21, 1911, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

73There was no school called Philadelphia Friends School although this is where previous scholarship on Caroline stated she attended. It is possible she attended Friends’ Central School (Wynnewood). She did not attend Friends Select School (Philadelphia) as indicated by the fact her enrollment is not noted at the school’s archival records.

37 yellow crushed roses, which were fastened with wide white ties at the sides of the face.”74

Caroline seemingly never wanted for anything due to her father’s professional success.

At age 17, Caroline made a critical life decision which provided partial structure and purpose to the next twenty years: she enrolled at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine

Arts.

Art Education

Founded in 1805, the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts was one of the most venerated fine arts institution in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century.

Other institutions, such as the Arts Student League of New York and the National

Academy of Design, also played a significant role in educating artists at the turn of the century; however, the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts was the oldest of the venerated institutions. Situated at Broad and Cherry streets in downtown Philadelphia, the Academy provided ample space for aspiring artists and their instructors. With robust course offerings, the Academy allowed both men and women to develop their artistic skills under the watchful instruction of some of the most prominent artists of the time.

When Peart enrolled in 1887, the Academy had established a number of courses from which students could benefit. In its annual Circular of the Committee on Instruction, the

Academy detailed its three-part educational mission: “First, to afford facilities in instruction of the highest order to those persons — men and women — who intend making painting or sculpting their profession.” This statement is critical in that the

Academy emphasized the value in educating both men and women in the arts. The

74“Gossip of the Week,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 13, 1896, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

38 second goal was to “extend the same benefits” to those engaged in other art forms:

“engravers, disk sinkers, illustrators, decorators, wood-carvers, stone-cutters, lithographers, photographers.”75 The Academy made it clear that it provided these craftsmen with “pure art education,” and they were expected to learn mechanical and technical aspects of their work outside the academy. The Academy would serve to elevate their work and understanding of art rather than teach the technical aspects of their work. Finally, the Academy welcomed amateurs, with the caveat that “when the classes are crowded, preference in admission will be given to applicants in the order above indicated.”76 This largely egalitarian approach to art education reflected the expanding opportunities for art education and professionalization of the field in turn-of-the-century

America, also reflected a national shift in art schools. Swinth notes “Between 1865 and

1900 art schools changed from rather informal and casual institutions into programs with structured curricula, entry criteria, and a full-blown discourse on “standards” versus popularity. In essence, they professionalized.”77

Although there was significant emphasis on professionalizing art education in

America, the application process at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts was easy and minimal. Students filled out a basic request for admission and had to meet the basic criteria of being over fifteen years of age, possessing good character, and providing

751886-87 Circular on the Committee on Instruction, p. 5. Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Archives, Philadelphia, PA.

76Ibid.

77Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 13.

39 “satisfactory evidence of ability to profit by the course study laid down in this rule.”78

Each applicant submitted a drawing sample as part of the application package. The

Academy utilized what would be referred to today as rolling admission.

When Caroline enrolled, two instructors had already met with critical acclaim.

Thomas Hovenden served as an instructor in Painting and Drawing. Hovenden (1840-95) was a highly respected artist, known for such works as Breaking Home Ties and The Last

Moments of John Brown. Breaking Home Ties was the most popular painting at the 1893

Columbian Exposition. He replaced Thomas Eakins at the Academy in 1886. Along with Hovenden, Thomas Pollock Anshutz (1851-1912), an instructor in Painting,

Drawing and Modeling who had studied under Eakins while a student at the Academy, stepped in to teach some of Eakin’s classes. H.C. Whipple served as Curator of the

Schools; however, the term curator did not hold its current definition. Instead, the curator was in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Academy and provided assistance to board members in their duties of Academy oversight.

Caroline enrolled at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in October 1887.

Her first class, Night Life and Antique, had twenty-two students. She paid the standard rate of $4 for one month of instruction. For this class, a student had to submit sample art to prove readiness for the instruction. Once a student demonstrated sufficient skills, the instructor would recommend advancing to the Life classes. Caroline took the Antique class from October 1887 to January 1888 (she enrolled for four months of instruction at

$4 each month). In October, she also enrolled in the Portrait class for which Cecilia

781886-87 Circular on the Committee on Instruction, p. 5. Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Archives, Philadelphia, PA.

40 Beaux served as the instructor.79 In March 1888, she advanced to the Life class.

Enrollment records indicate that she took the Life class for one month and then enrolled in the Full Privilege class in April 1888. Caroline was absent from the Academy from

May to September 1888. Upon her return in October, she enrolled in the Portrait class through December 1888 at the rate of $3 per month. Enrollment records indicate she was a season ticket holder for the 1888-89 academic year; as such, Caroline could take any courses of interest rather than individually enroll in each course.

Throughout her enrollment at the Academy, Caroline was one of the few students noted as being in arrears for payment. She failed to pay for her December 1887 Portrait class until January and she also delayed payment for her 1889 Portrait class, although the

Academy’s records do not indicate that she was enrolled during that time. Caroline took a hiatus from her education beginning 1889 (possibly 1888 if she did not enroll in the

1889 Portrait class) and returned in 1893 to take the Women’s Life class, a day-session class running on weekday afternoons. In 1894, Caroline enrolled in the Women’s Life class and Head class for one month and a second Life class held during the evenings for one month. Again enrolled in 1895-96 and 1896-97, Caroline repeated the Life and Head classes. In the 1880-1904 student address book, Caroline originally listed her address as

1901 Vine Street and, at an undocumented date, that address was crossed out and replaced by 1723 Chestnut Street, the location of her studio.80

79“Artistic News, Some Midsummer Gossip about People and Things,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 1897, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

80Cancellations on envelopes sent to Caroline provide evidence that she established a studio at 1723 Chestnut Street by 1905.

41 Caroline spent all of January 1893 at the Academy and, on February 10, she began a “student portrait” class, although the Academy records indicate she was enrolled in the Women’s Life class. She noted that one of her studies was “not so good” but also on March 28 that: “Academy Mr. Vonnoh says talent character.” Robert Vonnoh, an

Impressionist painter, was an instructor at the Academy from 1891 to 1896. An impressionist painter, he is remembered largely for his painting In Flanders Field. On

April 1, she wrote that she received good criticism at the Academy including the advice that “a picture must always hang behind its frame.” After the Academy closed for the summer on May 31, Caroline spent her time reading, sewing, and socializing with someone listed only as “G.” She picked up sketching again in the late summer and noted she drew her mother and Mr. Gilbert (perhaps “G.”?).

Caroline, along with almost twenty-six million others, visited the Columbian

Exposition in 1893. She departed Philadelphia in September and took the train to

Chicago where she visited the “fair and illumination” with a group of unnamed girls on the 16th. She repeatedly toured the fairgrounds until her September 24 departure. The party must have been fascinated by the White City, the moving walkway, the sounds, the lights, the historic replicas, and the pavilions filled with curiosities from far-away lands.

Caroline most certainly would have noticed which artists had their work displayed at the exhibition, including Mary Cassatt whose “Modern Woman” mural partially filled the

Women’s Pavilion Great Hall. Caroline undoubtedly viewed this massive mural with a certain amount of amazement for its sheer size and prominence. Although the mural has been attacked for not being forward thinking in its representation on the progress of women, its inclusion is important as it indicated that female artists could paint large-scale

42 murals successfully as murals were deemed men’s work and too large for female artists to handle.81 Upon her return to Philadelphia, Caroline continued sketching and noted she painted her mother, most likely using the sketches from earlier in the summer. Except for noting she visited the Columbian Exposition, she never detailed her impressions of it or the art she viewed. Caroline noted “Academy” on Tuesday, October 3, suggesting a return to formal studies. While taking classes, she continued to work on the portrait of her mother. She wrote on the 14th that “Mr. V[onnoh] said Mother’s portrait good.” Her first mention of a studio occurs on September 21 when she noted she arranged her studio.

Caroline received criticism on October 28 for a drawing, and Mr. Vonnoh advised “less detail and more simplicity” on a cast she was completing. In November, she made frequent mention of working on miniatures.82 Her year ended rather sadly, with

“dusting” listed as her only New Year’s Eve activity.

Caroline’s interests in 1894 focused on art. She took a sketching class and her subject was a woman named Carolina. Carolina would prove to be an on-going subject for Caroline; however, there is no known additional biographical information on her.

December brought an evening Life class and an Academy dance on the 22nd. The

Philadelphia Inquirer’s December 1894 General Society gossip column noted students enrolled in the Life class at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts hosted a “novel dance.” The participants donned costumes to mimic subjects in well-known paintings.

Numerous students attended, including Robert Henri, William Glackens, and Everett

81Patricia Likos Ricci, “Violet Oakley: American Renaissance Woman,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 126, no 2, April 2002, 222.

82Caroline did not receive any formal training in miniatures and no known miniatures painted by her exist.

43 Shinn.83 These three men would later be part of the famous artistic movement deemed the Ashcan School for the artists’ depictions of everyday life in America, but Caroline made no specific mention of them in her diary. Caroline took a late-June trip to the New

Jersey shore and a trip to Boston and Gloucester, Massachusetts, a location known to attract artists for its tranquil seaside beauty.

Gloucester was a special place that provided a separation — both physical and psychological — from the city and was appreciated by many artists, including Caroline.

The area became somewhat of a haven for artists, spearheaded by Cecilia Beaux, who wrote lovingly about Gloucester in her 1930 memoir:

I am glad that the seeds of what grew for me in Gloucester were sown by the

members of my family, who, now that my father and grandmother were gone,

continued to be the centre to which I was attached, no matter what my

wanderings, as long as they lived. I began to dream of a change, of a pied-a-terre

even then — of a shift in the year’s divisions — for work, and rest. Why not, I

thought, have the summer for my working time, and take my rest in a short winter

period? I had never looked on painting as a toil, but I had sometimes felt that the

city-winter contained too much of everything, and that the summer, if considered

as a holiday, was boring in being desoeuvre. Why not have long, unhurried bouts

of painting, when off hours would be spent in delicious air — morning and

evenings of thrilling loveliness — a long, long summer.84

83“General Society Gossip,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 30, 1894, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

84Cecilia Beaux, Background With Figures: Autobiography of Cecilia Beaux (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930), 384.

44 After her time in Gloucester, Caroline settled in for the rest of 1894 to paint: “fin portrait of Geo.” He left the next day on August 9th. Later that month, she painted Mr. Benson’s portrait followed by a sketch of Mrs. Currier. Caroline then began a self portrait in

November which she noted was “not getting on well.”

Caroline had an extended stay in Wilmington, Delaware, from March 22 through

June 13, 1895. She did not write the reason for the visit, but she occupied herself with many walks and shopping outings, but no artistic work. Her priorities shifted upon her return home, as on June 22 she noted she began a portrait of George Bockius, her cousin.

She painted every day, save one, to complete it on June 30. She then left for New York

City on July 8 and spent the next several weeks dining at clubs and restaurants and visiting local attractions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art. On July 16, she noted she was studio hunting and listed “Manhattan $500, Van Dyke $600.” She left

New York on the 18th for Philadelphia. For the remainder of the summer, Caroline “kept house alone” as her mother spent several weeks in Lancaster County. There was a long hiatus before she painted again, as the next entry noting so was August 15. On

September 8, she began a portrait of her mother described as “le collet blanc” (white collar) (Figure 1).85

Caroline returned to the Academy in October and engaged in a robust schedule as she described either painting, going to the Academy, or both, every day of the month.

Cecilia Beaux again served as her instructor, and Caroline recorded two observations

Beaux made of her work. Beaux criticized a work, initially finding it too colored and,

85Caroline never wrote in her diaries about the process or act of painting, except she did note on September 16 that she had to “stop using ordinary linseed oil.”

45 upon a later examination, Beaux found the “drawing much better.” In November, she began painting miniatures, although she made no additional mentions of delving into that genre. On November 30, Caroline wrote her lengthiest entry on painting to date: “Head

‘treated well’ good — crit in exhibition before class — ‘one turn of screw and it would a very good thing!!’” She indicated several other “good crit” throughout November and

December and she noted “Geo B. picture in Academy — exhibition excellent — good crit.”86 She began to paint “Bessie” on December 22 and the next day Caroline attended another Academy dance and wore a Dutch costume. Bessie most likely refers to

Elizabeth Shippen Green, an artist who also studied at the Pennsylvania Academy of the

Fine Arts and who was one of the “Red Rose Girls.87 It is possible Caroline’s portrait of a woman wearing a turquoise bead necklace is of Elizabeth Shippen Green (Figure 2).

Both women have dark hair, a straight nose and weak chin. Caroline used the same necklace in a portrait of an older woman (Figure 3) suggesting that it belonged to

Caroline who utilized it to add colorful interest to her portraits. The week between

Christmas and the New Year, her father posed for a portrait (Figure 4). Caroline sharpened her focus on painting in 1896. She continued her portrait of Bessie and commenced portraits of her father and “Elizabeth.” Her portrait of Bessie earned positive feedback: “Academy very good study. Bessie’s face not important enough for background — Eliza — background too heavy — lights in eyes too strong and mouth too

86December 21, 1897 diary entry.

87The Red Rose Girls — Violet Oakley, Jessie Willcox Smith, and Green — were given that collective nickname by Howard Pyle as the women lived together at the Red Rose Inn in Villanova, Pennsylvania.

46 dark.”88 Her portrait of “Elizabeth” is most likely of Elizabeth Jane (Altick) Harberger

(Figure 5). She enrolled in another Portrait class at the Academy on March 12 and began work on a self-portrait, for which she received positive feedback from Mr. Vonnoh

(Figure 6).

Caroline clearly valued her teachers’ assessments of her work as she often noted

Mr. Vonnoh’s and Cecilia Beaux’s comments on her work. Much has been imagined about Caroline and Beaux’s supposed relationship. They interacted with each other for over ten years, including the time Caroline was her student, and it was clear Caroline respected Beaux as an artist.89 In addition to learning from her in class, Caroline visited

Cecilia Beaux’s studio in March 1889, and viewed a “portrait of a red-haired woman,” most likely Beaux’s rendering of Mrs. Frank McFadden.90 In April, she noted that “Miss

Beaux will recommend me” followed up by a comment a month later that she had given up on the idea of going abroad with Miss Beaux which suggests that Beaux did not possess tremendous interest in Caroline. Outside of these few mentions, neither Caroline in her personal diaries nor Beaux in her autobiography called out the other. Beaux was not known for cultivating relationships with women, which supports the notion of the two women not having a close friendship. As Sarah Burns notes, “Unlike the majority of

‘new women,’ Beaux did not weave a network of female support, nor did she actively

88January 13, 1896 diary entry.

89Cecilia Beaux made no mention of Caroline in her autobiography, Background with Figures.

90Cecilia Beaux painted very few red-haired women; however, Mrs. McFadden has striking red hair in her portrait. The work is usually listed as circa 1899, so it is probable Caroline saw this portrait in some stage of work.

47 associate herself with women’s art organizations, electing always to act on her own in the world of men.”91

Instead of traveling overseas during the summer of 1897, Caroline went to

Washington Boro with her mother until mid August. While there, she painted a portrait of her uncle David Peart, a study of her grandmother, and attended a Hans Herr reunion.

In August 1897, The Philadelphia Inquirer listed “some midsummer gossip about people and things” including Cecilia Beaux’s teaching schedule at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. The article noted that “Miss Cecilia Beaux is at Gloucester. Miss Caroline

Peart is sketching at Annisquam.”92 Although this article links the two artists together because of physical proximity (Annisquam, a community in Gloucester, Massachusetts, was also a popular seaside resort town), it does not indicate Beaux and Caroline spent time together while in these communities. More likely than not, their relationship did not extend to friendship and remained firmly as professional teacher/student collegiality. The two female artists continued this relationship upon their return to Philadelphia as Caroline enrolled in Beaux’s Portrait class later that fall.

From late January until Fall 1897, Caroline did not attend the Academy and made very few references to painting in her diary.93 She left on a high note as she noted the many compliments she received on the portrait of her mother on January 2. Although not

91Sarah Burns. “Under the Skin: Reconsidering Cecilia Beaux and John Singer Sargent,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (vol. 124, no. 3, 2000), 323.

92“Artistic News, Some Midsummer Gossip About People and Things,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 1897, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

93January 30, 1897, marked Caroline’s last day at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts until later that fall.

48 engaging in professional training, Caroline continued to sketch and paint on her own.

She worked on studies of Joe Steinmetz, Mr. McConnell, and Mrs. Bedford.

After a summer painting in Lancaster County, Caroline returned to Philadelphia and formal studies at the Academy in Fall 1897. Caroline worked on a portrait of Mrs.

Bedford in November. She noted, “Mr. Chase — ‘very good indeed!!’ — ‘painting not puttering’ — gratifying” and “Mr. Chase spoke — work — paint everything.”94

Caroline clearly appreciated praise as she made note of it in her diaries. Given the amount of notes offered by Cecilia Beaux, she was most likely the instructor for

Caroline’s Head class. Beaux noted that her “brushwork showed in background too much” and Beaux described her study as “very interesting.” She later noted that Beaux said she had “bad construction.” Mr. Vonnoh, however, seems to be more positive in her

Life class, as he “congratulated” Caroline on the success of her mother’s portrait.

Caroline attended the Fellowship Ball at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine

Arts in April 1897. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that although it “was not exactly a fancy dress function, all the guests appeared in black and white.”95 Many of the same names appear on the guest list from earlier functions, but that year Maxfield Parrish and his wife, Lydia Ambler Austin, attended this event. A highlight of the evening included the Academy Fling, a dance choreographed specifically for the event.

During this time, Caroline delved into a new art medium as she began work with pastels but made no mention of working with pastels after this diary entry. Although

94November 6 and 13, 1897 diary entries.

95“Students’ Dance,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 25, 1897, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

49 Caroline was not enrolled in a class, she noted she received criticism from Cecilia Beaux on a portrait of her cousin Mary Peart (Figure 7). Beaux commented it was a “very good painting” and “parts could not be better.”96 Mary Peart was an artist known for painting butterflies. In this portrait, Mary is seated, facing left and a painting of a butterfly hangs on the wall behind her. In November and December, Caroline worked daily on portraits of Dr. Muhlenberg and Mary Shenk.

Largely, Caroline seemed to paint for practice, for her courses at the Pennsylvania

Academy of the Fine Arts, and while she was traveling to sharpen her skills and grow as an artist. She frequently selected family members as the subjects for her paintings. She rarely noted professional commissions for paintings or income derived from the sale of a portrait. Her family members were ready subjects; however, she did not cultivate patrons as more successful artists, such as Cecilia Beaux or Mary Cassatt, did. Despite her lack of initiative to attract clientele, Caroline’s actions, however, suggest that she had aspirations of becoming a financially successful portrait painter, as Caroline returned to painting and rented a studio — No. 8 at 1710 Chestnut Street — in the Fall of 1900.97

She moved in on October 1 and set to work painting a portrait of Miss MacFarland. After a conversation with Cecilia Beaux, Caroline repainted her subject’s dress as Beaux felt it was too dark. Caroline noted Miss McFarland “paid 75,” suggesting she earned $75 for

96Mary Peart was a fascinating artist in her own right. Her works were exhibited in the Women’s Pavilion at the 1876 Centennial Exhibition. She is best known as the primary illustrator for William Henry Edwards (1822-1909), the author of Butterflies of North America, a landmark set of books that catalogued North American species of butterflies.

97“Miss Caroline Peart has taken a studio at 1710 Chestnut Street, where she will work this winter.” “35 Years Given to Charity,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 7, 1900, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

50 the commission. This is the only painting for which Caroline ever noted receiving payment.

1901 was one of Caroline’s busiest years as she noted she painted portraits of A.

Rothermel, Mrs. Sartain (whose dress she painted for weeks), and her father. Caroline was most likely referring to Susannah Longmate Swaine Sartain, mother of Emily

Sartain, a fellow artist who established The Plastic Club. If she was paid for either the

Rothermel or Sartain portraits, she did not make note of it. On August 27, Caroline secured a new studio at 1723 Chestnut Street.

Caroline began painting again in November 1901, and noted on the 8th, “Studio,

4 men on portrait.”98 She then finished a portrait of Dr. Franklin Taylor, a past president of the Boys’ High School of Philadelphia. To celebrate the reopening of the school, various graduates commissioned and donated paintings of the school’s first seven presidents. Taylor, the school’s fifth president, served from 1886 to 1888. Caroline was the only female artist of the distinguished group of artists selected to paint the past presidents; other artists included Thomas Eakins and Albert Rosenthal. As noted in The

Philadelphia Inquirer, the donors selected local artists to complete the work: “It is especially interesting that so many of these portraits will be painted by men who were students at the Central High School, and who have since won eminence by their artistic work.”99 Her portrait was presented at the November 22 dedication of the New High

98November 8, 1901 diary entry.

99“Art News,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 19, 1902, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

51 School for Boys. Caroline began another self-portrait on December 3, in which she noted she portrayed herself in a hat and coat.

Throughout the remainder of 1903, Caroline noted sporadically that she was painting, including a portrait of Marion Wood and one of a “Mrs. L.” In April, The

Philadelphia Inquirer noted “Miss Caroline Peart is spending a few weeks at the Virginia

Hot Springs.”100 A subsequent article listed Caroline as painting at her country home in

Rosemont.101 She spent part of the summer cleaning her studio and noted she painted

“Caroline in hammock” and began a portrait of “C.” in late August.102 This most likely refers to “Carolina,” who she noted she painted throughout September and October (and, perhaps, the same “Carolina” she sketched in 1894). On November 3, she wrote that she began a “new study of Carolina with big hat” and spent much of November and

December working on it (Figure 8). This portrait is most likely one that has been mistakenly considered to be a portrait of Cecilia Beaux. Caroline never mentions painting Beaux in her diaries, and given the description of Carolina’s portrait, and no reference to a painting of her instructor, it seems this portrait is of Carolina and not

Cecilia Beaux.

Although she does not make mention of it in her diary, Caroline was invited to the

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts to celebrate the 100th anniversary of its founding on February 23, 1905. She was only invited, however, after the “A-list” guests had

100“Many Fine Pictures Are Now on View,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 19, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

101“Summer School Art Season Now Thoroughly Under Way,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 19, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

102August 22 and 29, 1903 diary entries.

52 replied to their invitations. She received a personal letter from Edward Coates, the president of the Academy, dated February 20th (only three days before the event!).

Addressed to Caroline at 1723 Chestnut Avenue, it read:

My dear Miss Peart, This seems like a late invitation, but we are only now

able to make arrangement to place satisfactorily all of our important list.

We especially hope to have you with us, and are counting on your coming.

In the meanwhile are keeping a place for you. Kindly let us know. Very

truly yours, Edward Coates, President103

The event started at 7 p.m. and was a gala event which included an elaborate menu of quail on toast, hominy points, Nesselrode pudding, and fancy cakes. The seating chart for the event consisted of a Who’s Who of American art and architecture. Caroline sat with Alexander Stirling Calder, the famous sculptor; Dr. Thomas H. Fenton, a doctor who was painted by Thomas Eakins; William H. Lippincott, an artist who taught at the

National Academy of Design; Samuel Murray; Harry R. Rittenberg, a painter; and Louise

Wood, an artist with whom Caroline studied in Spain104 At the celebration, Violet

Oakley was awarded a gold medal as “the audience showered her with roses and

103Edward Coates to Caroline Peart, February 20, 1905. Box 6, Caroline Peart Papers (MS 69), Archives and Special Collections, Franklin & Marshall Archives, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

104All the printed materials (invitation, menu, seating chart) are in Caroline Peart Papers (MS 69), Archives and Special Collections, Franklin & Marshall Archives, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

53 carnations” — a very feminine tribute to a woman who flew in the face of gender restraints of the period.105

Caroline does not document her activities after the anniversary celebration until

May 1905 when she noted she began a new study of Sara Newbold, which she worked on throughout the month. She then began a study of Harry Stehman and yet another study of her father. In late July, she departed for Canada and traveled to Montreal and Quebec.

While in Quebec, she sketched daily and began a study of “Mr. Foulds on the 8.” She twice noted that she had a “poisoned finger” while in Canada, perhaps suggesting she was having difficulty painting. Caroline would frequently mix travel with painting, although she often focused more on the tourist travel than serious study.

European Travel

Some of Caroline’s absences from the Academy were the result of lengthy international travel which she engaged in for both personal pleasure and artistic advancement. Like many daughters of affluent families, Caroline traveled abroad to enhance her education and indicate a level of cultural refinement only achieved by international travel and exploration. An 1889 Philadelphia Inquirer article listed

Philadelphians who were taking the Red Star Line’s steamer, Westerland, on its last trip to Europe. Both Caroline and her mother were passengers on the voyage. Her group was composed entirely of unmarried women, two men, and Martha Peart; as such, Caroline was the only one traveling with an older family member.106 The article does not disclose

105Patricia Likos Ricci, “Violet Oakley: American Renaissance Woman,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 126, no 2, April 2002, 232.

106“Philadelphians Bound for Europe,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 29, 1889, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

54 any particulars about the duration of the trip, and Caroline presumably returned home at some point that year.

Caroline’s earliest existing diary dates from 1891, a year she spent in Europe.107

Although the date she arrived in Europe is unknown, she was in Paris, France, on

January 1. At this point, she had taken numerous classes at the Academy suggesting the intended purpose of this trip was to build upon her artistic abilities, however, during the winter, she did not mention any sort of artistic work. Instead, she took singing lessons, read voraciously, learned Italian, and attended lectures and dances. On July 2, she began a lengthy sojourn around Europe traveling around Belgium, visiting Brussels and

Antwerp. Caroline visited the Netherlands and the Hague prior to spending approximately two weeks in Germany before returning to France, where she noted in her diary that the red sandstone cathedrals of Strasbourg were “very pleasing.” She visited

Rodin’s studio but makes no mention if she saw him.

During the autumn, Caroline began to focus her efforts on art. She departed for

Venice on October 1 and made numerous diary entries stating “worked.” On the 15th,

Caroline commenced a study of a kitchen which she worked on throughout October and finished on November 20. She also worked on a study of Venice from the vantage point of San Giorgio Maggiore, located just off the Grand Canal and near the Accademia. She noted she sketched a Capaccio angel in November, most likely found at the “Belle Arti,” where she spent numerous weeks. Caroline’s notation of “Belle Arti” referred to the

Accademia di Belle Arti or Royal Academy of Fine Arts. On December 29, she left for

107Caroline was unchaperoned for both 1891 trips to Europe as well as her trips in 1899, 1903, and 1909.

55 Naples. Throughout her 1891 stay in Europe, Caroline had an ongoing relationship with a Mr. Hyde (often referred to as Mr. H. in her diaries). They frequently went sightseeing and attended cultural events together.

At the beginning of 1892, Caroline was largely a tourist: she visited an aquarium, purchased seven yards of lace, explored museums, and toured Pompeii. She spent a fair amount of time with a Mr. Ferguson — Mr. H. clearly forgotten. She noted painting only a handful of times on this trip, instead she toured the greater Naples area, including

Amalfi and Capri, with her band of friends. She made little mention of painting or sketching; instead, referring to walks and shopping. She also made dreamily romantic entries in February about “moonlight on balcony” on the 14th and “sat on terrace star gazing” on the 24th, presumably with Mr. Ferguson. In March and early April, she traveled from Rome to Florence and then Milan. Again, the focus was socializing, shopping, and touring, not art. On April 15, Caroline left for Paris, recommitted herself to her art, and completed substantial studio time on a near-daily basis. As Paris was crucial to an artist’s education, it was a logical place for her to re-establish her interest in art. As Kirsten Swinth notes,

By the late 1870s, American artists believed that Parisian instruction

completed an artist’s training, and the professional ideal adopted in art

schools in the United States extended to study in Paris. There aspiring

students fulfilled the academic ideals their generation embraced: a

commitment to rigorous training and dedication to figure study.108

108Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 39.

56 On July 30 Caroline bid a “good bye to France” and boarded the Spaarndam for home.

She arrived in Philadelphia twenty days later and her father met her at the dock.109

In 1899, Caroline traveled to Europe to study.110 Caroline, like many of her fellow artists, ventured outside of the city to travel abroad to study, sketch, and create.

This practice was critical for artists and aspiring artists to perfect their techniques and have opportunities and landscapes unavailable in America. Many artists left the city to pursue other locations to hone their work, as noted in The Philadelphia Inquirer:

During the past few weeks the artist people of town have been gathering

together their belongings, their personal effects and their painting

materials preparatory to their departure to the summer sketching grounds.

The first of July will see most of the city studios deserted, and the whole

of the local artist population will then be scattered along the coast of New

England and New Jersey, a few will have gone to some quiet retreat in the

country, and a very large percentage of them will have sailed for Europe.

The Philadelphians who are abroad or who are going are legion this year,

and Paris, always the Mecca of the tribe, will give the Quaker City visitor

no opportunity to be homesick.111

109“1892: Arrival: New York, New York, 1820-1897; New York, Passenger Lists” Provo, UT, USA: http://www.ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.

110There is no 1899 diary; however, an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer noted her 1889 trip. 111“The Fine Arts,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 18, 1899, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

57 The article noted that Caroline had left Philadelphia the day before for Liverpool,

England.

At the start of 1900, Caroline was in Paris working on a study of Mrs. Michols.

She spent January and February painting (both in and out of an unnamed studio), reading, eating chocolate, and learning Spanish. The February 11, 1900, The World of Art column noted that Caroline was a member of “a little colony of Philadelphians in Paris.”112 In addition to Caroline and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Henri, three individuals described as

Academy men (Adams, Wetherill, and Farley) were overseas. Caroline spent the months of April and May in Spain, including stops in Madrid, Cordova, and Granada, where she spent every day at the Alhambra. In Seville, she went shopping, saw Spanish dancing, and attended a bullfight. Caroline spent three weeks at the Prado in Madrid presumably sketching and soaking in the European artwork. Caroline saw the Queen of Spain and

“little king Afonzo (sic) XIII.”113 The local paper referenced this portion of her time overseas as well: “Caroline Peart and Louise Wood, who are working abroad this winter, intend to spend April in Spain, studying Velasquez.”114 Louise was a classmate of

Caroline’s at the Academy.115 Caroline returned to Paris on May 10. She frequently

112“The World of Art,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 11, 1900, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

113April 28, 1900 diary entry. In her February 28, 1941 diary entry, Caroline noted “The King of Spain Alfonso died in Rome today — I saw him as a young main in Madrid. What a pity he could not have remained in his beautiful country — he was a good and able king.” 114“The World of Art,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 25, 1900, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

115Louise Wood eventually married John Bowes Wright, moved to England, and achieved moderate success as an illustrator.

58 noted attending the Exposition Universelle in Paris in May and June of 1900. Like most world exhibitions, it featured innovations in industry, displayed foreign pavilions, and celebrated new inventions. Although the Exposition Universelle is known for showcasing Art Nouveau style paintings and sculpture, Caroline does not make mention of this new style of art. Given her focus on traditional portraits and landscapes, her failure to mention the style is not surprising.

On this trip to Paris, Caroline attended James McNeill Whistler’s Academie

Carmen.116 Named for Whistler’s partner in establishing the school, Carmen Rossi,

Whistler provided sporadic instruction to both men and women on painting.117 After she requested to return for a second period of study, she was rejected via letter. Inez Adams wrote to Caroline:

Madam: Your intention of continuing at the Academie has in due course

been submitted and Mr. Whistler on being reminded of your work, desires

me to say — that it cannot be accepted as the ingenuous work of a novice

— but is recognised as the outcome of deliberate training, with which no

116“In Paris American women students honed their professional identities at two levels: first, by detaching from their families, including asserting their artistic intentions over other demands; and second, by focusing their training in Paris to position themselves well to compete in the art market when they returned to America.” Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 40.

117Whistler usually spent only one day a week at the Academie, thus leaving the artists alone for long periods of time to work independently. The Academie ran from October 1898 to April 1901. Its location moved about Paris, but it was located in the 14th arrondissement when Caroline attended.

59 interference could be possibly entertained. The effort, and responsibility

of such an undertaking is no part of the plan on the Academie Carmen.118

The Academie, in effect, stated Caroline was already sufficiently educated and would not benefit from additional training.

On May 26, Caroline noted that she met a Mr. Knight; she spent time with him until his departure. The June 3 “Week’s Art Notes” in The Philadelphia Inquirer noted

“Miss Caroline Peart, who has been abroad working and traveling for a year, will sail for home on June 9th.”119 A subsequent article, “What the Artists are Doing” noted that

“Miss Caroline Peart has returned from a year’s stay in Paris. She will spend the summer on the Susquehanna, painting out of doors.”120 After returning from her summer sketching at Washington Boro, Caroline rented a studio at 1710 Chestnut Street where she would work during the winter.121

Caroline’s mother spent some of the year in Jamaica, and, in late October,

Caroline left on her own vacation on the “Princess Irene.” The local paper observed,

“Miss Caroline Peart has closed her city studio, and has gone abroad for the winter. She

118Inez Adams to Caroline Peart, 1900. Box 6, Caroline Peart Papers (MS 69), Archives and Special Collections, Franklin & Marshall Archives, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

119“The Week’s Art Notes,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 3, 1900, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

120“What the Artists Are Doing,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 8, 1900, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

121“35 Years Given to Charity,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 7, 1900, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

60 sailed yesterday for Naples.”122 Caroline sailed to Gibraltar and then traveled to Italy, where she visited Naples and Rome. While in Rome, she visited Vatican City and saw

Pope Pius X on November 8. She called on the ambassador on November 22 and later attended a dance held by the ambassador at the Palazzo Braucuacio, a grand and elegant home near the Colosseum. In December, she noted painting and sketching for several days. On February 23, 1904, she began studying at Studio Sabati.123 She noted that she received “good crit from Sabati” while at the studio. She continued to divide her time among her art, sightseeing, and shopping while in Rome. She began a portrait of Captain

Bucalo which she worked on until she traveled to Perugia and Florence where she enjoyed the Pitti Palace, Ricardi Chapel, the Uffizi, and the opera. On May 13, Caroline left for Varenna, a city located on Lake Como, where she stayed for a month and frequently painted, visited the local attractions, and read. She sailed for home on June 16 and arrived in Hoboken on June 29. Caroline’s trip to Italy lasted eight months.

At the start of 1909, Caroline painted, although she did not detail any specific works except for a portrait of her mother. On August 14, she set sail for Europe on a trip to Paris and Luxembourg. While in Paris, she painted from August 30 through

September 15, including several days in an unnamed garden. These later paintings, however, were for self-interest as she no longer retained a studio or painted portraits.

122“Exhibition Season Full of Promise,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 26, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

123It is possible the Caroline is referring to a studio in the Trastevere section of Rome that was located above a restaurant named Sabatini. This seems to be a stretch, however, as she later refers to Sabati as a person. “The Waterloo Studio,” University of Waterloo, https://uwaterloo.ca/rome-program/waterloo-studio.

61 Departing from Cherbourg, France, Caroline returned home to Philadelphia via the ship

“Teutonic” on September 29.124

Caroline traveled with great regularity to Europe from 1889 to 1909. During this twenty-year span, several aspects of Caroline’s situation and personality become clear.

First, Caroline had the financial means to travel, before and after her father’s death. Both she and her mother took regular trips abroad indicating they had the financial means to support it. During these trips, Caroline spent lavishly on experiences and items; she was not concerned about accessing funds while she was abroad. Caroline did not consider these trips to be strictly educational or academic trips. She spent much time pursuing tourist activities and engaging in the cultural instead of attending to her craft on a consistent basis. She would have spurts of painting, but she never made a trip with art as the sole focus. She made no mention of trying to secure patrons or commissions while abroad. While she spent ample time socializing on these trips, she did not use them for networking. Her time in Europe mirrored her time in Philadelphia: while she had the talent and the proper background to be able to engage in the artistic community, she did not have the drive which prevented her from truly benefiting from her time overseas.

Exhibitions

As she had been painting for a couple of years, Caroline began to submit her work for consideration at various exhibitions. Caroline submitted portraits to the National

Academy of Design (which she mistakenly refers to as the New York Academy of

124Year: 1909; Arrival: New York, New York; Microfilm Serial: T715, 1897-1957; Microfilm Roll: Roll 1345; Line: 16; Page Number: 14 ALSO: Ancestry.com. New York, Passenger Lists, 1820-1957 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.

62 Design), writing on March 20, 1889, that her portraits had been rejected. The paintings were most likely declined for display at the Autumn Exhibition of the National Academy of Design which included 482 works for sale that year. This rejection resulted in a six- year hiatus in submitting works for consideration. During the time, Caroline attended exhibitions and engaged in the artistic community while continuing to take classes at the

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. Caroline re-entered the world of juried art shows in 1895 when one of her paintings was selected for inclusion in the Pennsylvania

Academy of the Fine Arts renowned yearly exhibition.

From 1811 to 1969, the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts held “The

Annual Exhibition,” which was one of the preeminent exhibitions in the country. From

1811 to 1902, the exhibit included all paintings and sculpture; in 1904, watercolors, prints, and drawings were segregated in a separate exhibition. It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this exhibition during this time. Writing about the 1901 exhibition, Melville Wright noted “there is scarcely an artist of any prominence in this country who is not represented in the present exhibition.”125 Annual exhibitions focused on the work of American artists. Although a handful of international artists were represented, American artists, particularly those from the Philadelphia area, dominated.

Having one’s work displayed was honor enough; however, to win an academy medal was

“considered second to that conferred by no other institution in the country.”126 This exhibition was viewed as particularly prestigious due to the composition of the selection

125In the 1901 exhibition alone, John Singer Sargent, Mary Cassatt, Robert Reid, Robert Henri, Cecilia Beaux, and Winslow Homer all exhibited. Melville E. Wright, “Philadelphia Art Exhibition,” Brush and Pencil 7, no. 5 (February 1901): 257. 126Ibid., 260.

63 committee, as many of the committee’s members were well-established individuals famous for the art, including Thomas Eakins, William Merritt Chase, George de Forest

Brush. Caroline’s paintings were included in nine exhibits from 1895 to 1903, indicating her consistent talent as an artist. She first exhibited in 1895 when her portrait of George

Bockius, titled G.J.B., was displayed. Her 1896 entry, The Green Glove, depicts her mother, Martha, wearing a black cloak with a dramatic high collar, an elaborate comb placed high on her head, and holding a green glove in her left hand (Figure 9). Once

Upon a Time, which won the Mary Smith Prize, was displayed in 1898.

Caroline won the 1898 Mary Smith Prize, the highest honor the Pennsylvania

Academy of the Fine Arts awarded to a female artist in residence. A highlight of her career, Caroline won the award for her work Once Upon A Time. The painting, whose location is now unknown, depicts a young boy sitting in a large chair reading a book

(Figure 10). The Philadelphia Inquirer covered the honor and noted that Caroline handled her subject “with freedom and confidence” and “good technique,” and assessed the painting as excellent.127 The painting was displayed in the 1898 Annual Exhibition at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. Caroline was the nineteenth recipient of the award which had been previously won by Cecilia Beaux. The Philadelphia Inquirer noted:

Yesterday the Exhibition Committee of the Academy of Fine Arts

awarded the Mary Smith prize of $100 to Miss Caroline Peart, of this city.

Miss Peart’s picture is catalogued, under the number 343, as “Once Upon

127“Mary Smith Prize Awarded,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 21, 1898, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

64 a Time.” Despite its story-telling title, the picture is a portrait and an

excellent one. It represents a little boy, seated in a large chair, apparently

absorbed in the perusal of a book upon his knee. The subject is handled

with freedom and confidence, and the technique is good. Miss Peart is a

Philadelphia artist, who had studied both in this city and abroad. She has

been a frequent exhibitor of late in local exhibitions. The conditions of

this prize require that it shall be given to a resident female artist. It is now

awarded for the nineteenth time. Among the well-known artists to whom

it has previously been given away are Emily Sartain, Mary K. Trotter,

Cecilia Beaux, Alice Berber Stephens, Maria Kirk, Gabrielle D. Clements

and Elizabeth N. Watson. The prize was founded by the late Russell

Smith in memory of his daughter, Mary, herself an artist of wide

reputation.128

Surprisingly, Caroline made no mention of winning the Mary Smith Prize in her diary that year. Although she had exhibited at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

Annual Exhibition for several years before being awarded this prestigious honor, winning certainly bolstered Caroline’s confidence as an artist as she submitted portraits to various exhibitions over the next seven years.

Caroline’s 1899, 1901, and 1902 entries are also all lost, but were titled Friends,

Evening, Paris, and, generically, A Sketch. Her 1901 entry resulted in her mention as one of the “best” from the eighty-seven entries by Philadelphia artists in the 1901 Brush and

128“Mary Smith Prize Awarded,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 21, 1898, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

65 Pencil review. The Philadelphia Inquirer noted that her study was “painted with much ease and appreciation.”129

A Sea Breeze garnered the honor of being illustrated in the 1903 exhibition catalogue (Figure 11). In addition to her acclaimed Sea Breeze, Caroline had two other paintings displayed in 1903: Grace and Portrait. Grace (Figure 12) depicts a young blonde girl wearing a red jacket with black trim and a black hat gazing at the viewer.

Portrait may refer to a painting of a young girl in one-quarter view.130 The Philadelphia

Inquirer printed a lengthy write up on the exhibition, including a substantial mention of

Caroline’s entries: “Caroline Peart has three portraits in the exhibition, or rather two portraits and one fanciful composition, the latter a charming arrangement of color which

Miss Peart has called ‘Sea Breeze.’”131 These exhibitions were crucial in raising respect for American art and the artists represented in them were driving this shift in appreciation of homegrown art and artists. As Melville Wright observed in his article for Brush and

Pencil,

It is a witness of the gradual but pronounced improvement of American

art, and is therefore prophetic of the exalted rank native artists as a class

will ultimately enjoy. It is flattering to our pride that the world should

129 “Annual Exhibition at Academy. Seventy-First Yearly Picture Show Will be Rich in Fine Samples of American Art, The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 19, 1902, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

130This painting has an exhibition label on the top stretcher which reads: “FELLOWSHIP OF THE Pennsylvania Academy OF THE FINE ARTS” and a typewritten label with “PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG GIRL by Caroline Peart.”

131“Notable Display of Art to Be Seen at the Academy Tomorrow,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 18, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

66 recognize the abilities of Sargent, Chase, Alexander, Whistler, Harrison

and men of equal note. But the promise of men of less worldwide fame is

even more a cause for congratulations. It rests with them to perpetuate the

art their predecessors have established. Exhibitions like that of the

Academy of the Fine Arts clearly demonstrate that there are now

American Artists whose names are comparatively unfamiliar to the public

who are doing work in no sense inferior to that of certain European arts

whose names are household words. The Academy’s list of exhibitors this

year is rich in names of this class, and too much emphasis cannot be laid

on the high standard of the work of the native arts who as yet have

attained little more than a local reputation.132

Caroline’s eight-year run as a selected exhibitor at the foundational annual exhibition speaks to her capabilities as an artist during this period, especially given both men and women competed against each other for inclusion in the exhibitions.

Caroline was one of twenty-nine Philadelphia-based artists, including sculptors, illustrators, and architects, who exhibited at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo,

New York, in 1901. Over eight million visitors toured the fairgrounds to observe advancements in science and technology and the arts. There were 350 exhibitors for the art installation, and Caroline sent two paintings: Sea Breeze and Once Upon A Time

(both previously displayed at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Annual

Exhibition). Sea Breeze depicts Alice Staman, a friend of Caroline’s. Seated, Alice faces

132Melville E. Wright, “Philadelphia Art Exhibition,” Brush and Pencil 7, no. 5 (February 1901): 275-276.

67 the viewer and wears a one-shoulder purple and green dress and has filmy white fabric draped over her arms. In her right hand, she holds an almost iridescent conch shell at the center of her body and the end of a string of pearls is looped around her left wrist (the remainder of the strand sits in her lap). Artists who had works which medaled at other exhibitions were asked to send those same works which is why Caroline sent Once Upon a Time, as it won the Mary Smith Prize five years earlier. There are no records, however, suggesting Sea Breeze was displayed publicly prior to the Pan-American Exhibition. Sea

Breeze would go on to receive additional accolades but records indicate this was its first viewing. The Philadelphia Inquirer noted Caroline’s success at the Pan-American

Exhibition. However, the article incorrectly referred to Once Upon a Time. “Caroline

Peart’s ‘Study of a Boy in Brown’ is another Mary Smith Prize picture in the show and the last two prize-winning pictures are also there.”133 Caroline received a form letter thanking her for her “kind cooperation in the exhibition of fine arts” from the president, board of directors, and director of fine arts for the Pan-American Exhibition.134

Caroline’s success in submitting portraits to these national shows supports the prominence portraiture held in the American art scene into the early twentieth century.

As art historian Elizabeth Johns notes,

Although landscapes and city scenes, visionary works and melancholic

interiors — painted with styles ranging from late Impressionist to

Symbolist — seem in retrospect to have dominated exhibitions on both

133“The Pictures at Buffalo,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 30, 1901, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

134Letter to Caroline Peart, 1901, Box 6, Caroline Peart Papers (MS 69), Archives and Special Collections, Franklin & Marshall Archives, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

68 sides of the Atlantic, and (more important for historians) to have

determined the direction of painting in the early twentieth century, the late

nineteenth century was in fact in many ways an age of portraiture. This

was certainly the case in Philadelphia where the portrait continued to

exercise its long appeal. Critics gave portraits separate and detailed

review in exhibition commentaries; Philadelphia artists sent portraits to

out-of-town exhibitions to demonstrate the best of their work.135

Caroline clearly aligned herself with other Philadelphia-area artists’ fixation on portraits as she never publicly displayed any paintings other than portraits. Although Caroline spent substantial time painting en plein air and capturing natural landscapes and buildings on academy boards, she never created full-fledged landscape paintings.136 She understood the value in painting these subjects to advance her skills as an artist; however, her interest was solely in portraits. As Caroline sold so few paintings, this was not a financial decision but a personal one that indicated an attachment to painting portraits over landscapes. Caroline painted out of interest, not financial necessity.

Caroline also exhibited at the Art Club’s 13th Annual Exhibition in 1901 in

Philadelphia. The Art Club began holding annual exhibitions in 1887, the year it opened.

Dedicated to promoting the arts, The Art Club provided exhibition and social space to both male and female artists. The Philadelphia Inquirer reviewer noted this exhibition featured oils and sculptures with a “freshness of theme” which differentiated it from

135Elizabeth Johns, Thomas Eakins: The Heroism of Modern Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 153.

136En plein air, French for outdoors, refers to the practice of painting while outdoors, rather than in a studio setting.

69 previous years.137 One of Caroline’s portraits was included in the exhibition and the local newspaper singled it out as “excellent in character.”138

Caroline engaged fully in the Philadelphia art scene, not only as a painter, but as a promoter of art through memberships in professional organizations and participation in committee work. Caroline frequently visited the Plastic Club, an organization that would have a large role in her life for the next five years and a place she would frequent long after she stopped painting. Founded in 1897 by Emily Sartain, the Plastic Club, located at 10 South 18th Street in Philadelphia, was an organization designed for professional women artists as other local organizations, such as the Philadelphia Sketch Club, did not admit women. Its membership “included Philadelphia’s leading women artists,” giving the club’s members “important credibility and ground on which to stake their claim in the art world.” It served multiple functions, including providing an avenue for sociability as well as a means to promote the professional advancement of women artists. It held

“weekly teas, evening events, lectures, annual entertainments, and exhibitions.” . . . and

“carefully husbanded a public image of quality and selectivity.” . . . generating “authority within the art world.”139 The institution’s support of women provided a venue for many women, including Caroline, to display their work and engage with their professional colleagues. The Philadelphia Inquirer described it as:

137“Two New Exhibitions for the World of Art,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 17, 1901, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

138Ibid. 139Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 121.

70 an organization of the women artists of Philadelphia, having about one

hundred and eighty members, among whom are numbered some of the

most prominent artists in the various branches of art in America. It is the

work of many of these that has been an important factor in calling

attention to Philadelphia as an art centre, and shedding glory on the

various art institutes where they have been matriculated.140

Caroline was a frequent contributor to Plastic Club exhibitions, and she volunteered substantial time to the organization over the years. On November 15, 1897, an exhibition opened which focused on black and white works of art, including reproductions, by members of the organization. Numerous artists contributed, including Violet Oakley, who provided a magazine cover which The Philadelphia Inquirer described as “a wonderfully beautiful design of an amplitude of conception most remarkable.”141

Caroline was noted as creditably represented in the exhibit as well. The article posits that

“so many of the exhibits are works which have attracted attention in current publications goes to prove that the women artists of Philadelphia are responsible for a large share of recent artistic productions.”142 The following year, Caroline served on the committee which selected and installed all the works for an exhibition focused on art and sculpture created by fifty Plastic Club members. On March 26, 1901, Caroline gave a lecture on

140“Society to Patronize Thumb Box Exhibit,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 26, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

141“Black and White Exhibition, Illustration Work on View at the Plastic Club,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 16, 1897, http://infoweb.newsbank.com. 142“Black and White Exhibition, Illustration Work on View at the Plastic Club,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 16, 1897, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

71 Spanish art at the Plastic Club which was part of a larger lecture series featuring piano performances and other lectures.143 In March 1902, she was a featured speaker at an

“informal discussion” following a Plastic Club meeting. Caroline joined four other women as the speakers of note.144 Caroline also served on the reception committee for a

1903 exhibition on thumb box paintings (miniatures painted on the small poplar planks that fit into the paint box that the artist used to carry supplies).145 In May 1903, she was elected to the Exhibitions Committee at the Plastic Club.146 Although she no longer served on committees after the early 1900s, Caroline continued to visit the Plastic Club long after she stopped painting, perhaps in an attempt to maintain footing in the

Philadelphia art scene despite her turning her back on her craft. Like many female artists,

Caroline attempted to network and find support as a female artist through woman’s art organizations and the Plastic Club provided a home for her for many years.

Caroline also participated in a fundraiser to build a hospital held by Women’s

Health Protective Association in 1897. Primarily a doll show, an exhibition of illustrations for magazines drawn by the “best known” illustrators in the country was arranged and the images were made available for sale. Caroline served as a member of

143“Even Lent Is Lively Up the Main Line,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 3, 1901, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

144“Santa Barbara,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2, 1902, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

145“Society to Patronize Thumb Box Exhibit,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 26, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

146“Exhibitions of the Week and News of the World,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 10, 1903, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

72 the executive committee for this initiative. Interestingly, this relatively small exhibition held an important purpose:

The forthcoming exhibition, containing, as it will, so complete a

collection of the useful in art, ought to be of great benefit to that

branch of the profession which concerns itself with illustrations,

either for literary or advertising purposes. Although the show was

primarily prepared as an extra attraction to the doll show, it will

have a significance apart from its money-making qualifications, for

it will forcibly demonstrate a strong tendency in modern art, the

advance of utilitarianism along purely artistic lines.147

Although Caroline herself was not an illustrator, she understood the importance of this art form and contributed her time and effort to installing an exhibition. Illustrations, much like paintings on ceramic plates, were deemed an appropriate area of women’s artistic work, and many of her female classmates at the Academy would become illustrators.

Caroline spent most of January and February 1903 in bed due to illness but traveled to New York City in early March to see Cecilia Beaux’s paintings installed at the

Durand-Ruel Galleries.148 She returned to Philadelphia later in the month to oversee the installation of two of her own paintings — Sea Breeze and Grace — which she described

147“Among the Artists News,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1897, http://infoweb.newsbank.com. 148American Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Works by Artists Born Between 1846 and 1864, vol. 3 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980), 203.

73 as “well hung” at the 1903 Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Annual Exhibition.149

It is surprising that this was her first diary entry on the Annual Exhibition as her works were first selected for inclusion in 1895.150

It is critical to note that Caroline won these awards during the heyday of female

American artists. As Kirsten Swinth observed, “by 1890, commentators and critics claimed that women were winning the ‘race’ for art and outpacing men in their achievement.”151 Caroline is situated at a historic moment of great change in the

American art scene in that the ideals of the Gilded Age were still firmly intact, and she benefited from her family’s wealth and position to take advantage of the educational opportunities for formal art instruction which was deeply valued by the culture to provide structure for art. Later, as modernism’s new look of individual, perhaps uneducated, artistic production began to capture American art sensibilities, Caroline’s deeply traditional works may have been considered stale or boring in comparison to the nouveau sensibilities that began to permeate American culture. Despite this shift in artistic interest, Caroline displayed A Sea Breeze and Grace at the Sixth Annual Summer

Exhibition of the Worcester Art Museum which ran from May 29 through October 4,

149Cecilia Beaux also refers to paintings as “well hung” in her autobiography, Background With Figures.

150The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts recently added a substantial number of documents and photographs in their digital archives pertaining to the annual exhibitions. Unfortunately, none of Caroline’s paintings were notated in the installation photos. Without the notations, it is impossible to identify which paintings were hers due to their vague titles used in the exhibition and accompanying catalogue.

151Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 5.

74 1903.152 A Sea Breeze was selected as the first illustration in the exhibition catalogue, although it did not win a prize. Many prominent artists’ works were displayed, including those of Childe Hassam and Thomas Anshutz. Cecilia Beaux served as a member of the jury along with Henry Ward Ranger and John Enneking.

On October 31, 1904, Caroline indicated that Grace was in the Carnegie Show.

She was referring to the Carnegie International, an annual art exhibition established by

Andrew Carnegie to promote international art. Beginning in 1896, the International showcased “Pittsburgh’s capacity to be a center of modern culture” and it provided art for the museum to purchase and add to its expanding collection.153 1904 marked the ninth annual exhibition. Although Caroline only noted Grace in the exhibition, records at the

Carnegie Museum of Art indicate that Caroline actually sent three paintings for consideration: Grace, Portrait of my Father, and The Red Bonnet, but Grace was the only painting accepted for inclusion in the show.

1905 was Caroline’s most prolific year in terms of volume of pieces and daily dedication to painting as noted in her diaries. This momentum was sadly cut short, however, by the death of her father and Caroline’s increased family obligations. The final painting Caroline exhibited publicly was a portrait of her cousin Carolyn Breneman

Bockius. Caroline painted at least three portraits of her cousin (Figures 13, 14, and 15) and it is unknown which portrait was displayed. Caroline noted it was displayed on

January 21, 1905, but she does not indicate in what show it was included. In an odd twist

152Each painting was insured for $400 and Caroline was listed as the owner of both paintings.

153“Carnegie Int’l 57th ed., 2018,” https://2018.carnegieinternational.org/about/.

75 of fate, the last portrait she displayed was the child of the man with whom Caroline most likely engaged in an affair. Although this affair never went public, it indicates that

Caroline allowed interest in a man to trump familial ties. Caroline’s relationship with

George Bockius was the first in a series of ill-fated romantic entanglements for her.

76

Figure 1. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Martha Peart, 1895. Oil on canvas, 23 ¾” x 17 ¾.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

77

Figure 2. Caroline Peart, Woman with Green Necklace, n.d. Oil on canvas, 20 ½” x 17 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

78

Figure 3. Caroline Peart, Seated Woman With Green Beads, n.d. Oil on canvas, 36” x 23 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

79

Figure 4. Caroline Peart, Portrait of John Peart, n.d. Oil on canvas, 26 ¾” x 33 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

80

Figure 5. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Elizabeth Jane Harberger, 1896. Pastel on paper, mounted to board, 11 ¼” x 9.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

81

Figure 6. Caroline Peart, Self Portrait, n.d. Oil on canvas, 15 ¾” x 11.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

82

Figure 7. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Mary Peart, 1897. Oil on canvas, 41 ½” x 31 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

83 .

Figure 8. Caroline Peart, Woman with Violet Corsage, n.d. Oil on canvas, 23 ½” x 18.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

84

Figure 9. Caroline Peart, Green Gloves (Martha Peart), 1896. Oil on canvas, 33 ½” x 26 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

85

Figure 10. Caroline Peart, Once Upon A Time, n.d. Paper on board (reproduction), 9 ⅝” x 6 ⅞.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

86

Figure 11. Caroline Peart, Sea Breeze (Alice Staman), n.d. Oil on canvas, 33 ½” x 27.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

87

Figure 12. Caroline Peart, Grace, n.d. Oil on canvas, 22 ⅞” x 19 ⅞.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

88

Figure 13. Caroline Peart, Carolyn Breneman Bockius, Age 10, 1896. Oil on canvas, 72” x 36.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

89

Figure 14. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Carolyn Breneman Bockius (Mrs. N.C. Wyeth), n.d. Oil on canvas, 26 ½” x 21 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

90

Figure 15. Caroline Peart, Portrait of Carolyn Breneman Bockius (Mrs. N.C. Wyeth), n.d. Oil on canvas, 24 ⅝” x 20 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

91 CHAPTER THREE

PRIVATE LIFE

Personal Life

Most of Caroline’s diary entries up to 1912 relate to her work as an artist; however, she made mention of her private life. She wrote frequently of being sick throughout much of 1897, especially over the summer. Caroline did not paint during the summer of 1898, instead she spent July 1898 in Cape May, New Jersey, and part of

August in Canada. She visited Niagara Falls, sailed through the Thousand Islands, and arrived in Quebec City on August 23 where she stayed at the Chateau Frontenac. She took an overnight boat and arrived in Montreal on August 25. She then visited Lake

Champlain and Lake George and New York City before returning home on August 30.

The Philadelphia Inquirer noted this trip in a column titled “The greatest time in the

Niagara season” as this trip marked the annual celebration of the reunion of the Army of the Potomac in Niagara Falls.154 Caroline traveled to the celebration in 1898 with a small cohort of Philadelphians. Upon returning home, Caroline, in an uncharacteristic move

(although perhaps inspired by her recent military-related travels), repeatedly visited the

“Medico-Chi” hospital and nursed soldiers who fought in the Spanish-American War and contracted typhoid fever.

154“Niagara Falls,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 21, 1898, http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

92 Caroline celebrated the start of 1905 at the always-ruckus Mummers Parade in

Philadelphia. After a brief trip to New York City, she returned to Philadelphia on

January 9 and began painting in earnest, working on multiple portraits which she previously did not note, including a portrait of Mrs. Sartain who she painted in 1901, suggesting that she returned to a portrait she began four years earlier. She worked on portraits of Dr. Keeley, Sara Newbold, and a woman named Marie. She focused on these portraits throughout the winter. On July 7, Caroline left for Paris and spent time there, in

Trouville, and in Bath, England, before leaving for home on July 28. Upon her return home, she saw the “Red Rose Girls” on August 18 and had supper with them on the 19th.

In 1905, Caroline became a member of the National Arts Club in New York City.

Founded by Charles DeKay in 1898, the club supported both men and women involved in the arts in America. Caroline did not make a single reference related to sketching or painting the entire year, including during her trip to France. In 1907, however, she returned to painting and, in January, she began a study of a model named Miss Percy.

She noted that she spent time with “Brinton” throughout the year, although she does not specify which member of the Brinton family with whom she was associating. She was very social throughout the year, dividing her time among Philadelphia, Lancaster, and

New York. She rang in 1908 with a “dance and supper with Earles” on New Year’s Eve.

In March 1908, Caroline noted that she felt sick and had a headache. Her short notation “bad day” becomes a frequent comment on her day. Although she made several comments about ill health beginning in 1897, 1908 stood as the year these complaints became a part of nearly every assessment of her day. This lifelong habit of notating how ill or tired she felt began at thirty-eight years of age and lasted until she stopped keeping

93 diaries when she was in her 80s. She also noted what would be her ongoing, highly negative relationship with Mr. Turner, her attorney.155 Most of 1908 was filled with numerous domestic duties around Ardrossan Park (planting fruit trees, pruning), sewing, riding horses, going to Philadelphia or West Chester on errands. Although she did not reference painting, she noted an occasional visit to an art collection. She spent a good amount of time with someone she refers to as “Reg” throughout the year, including trips to the opera and museums.

In early 1910, Caroline largely spent her time in New York City and on a trip to

Baltimore and Washington, D.C. She noted on February 9 that she dined with Gifford

Pinchot and Mr. Henry Hicks, although she does not record the impetus behind their meeting. She never mentioned seeing either man again. Caroline was smart — always reading, attending lectures on everything from art and artists to Kant and Hegel. She was social — always traveling, dining with someone, attending a cultural event. She frequently went to Philadelphia for meals and shopping. Interestingly, on March 2 and 9, she wrote “studio” suggesting that she was visiting studios to rent. She never rented or purchased one, but her entry indicates that she had at least had momentary interest in returning to painting in a more formalized manner, even though those plans did not come to fruition.

155Caroline spent substantial time working with her attorneys throughout her life dealing with access to her father’s estate and money for both herself and her mother. She noted these interactions as frustrating and bothersome and she would frequently demand to switch which attorney with whom she would interact.

94 Romantic Life

Caroline never established a successful long-term romantic relationship. This was, in part, due to her selection of suitors and her decision to engage in at least one affair with a married man. Despite a series of failures, Caroline continued to pursue various men, ultimately marrying a man whom she barely knew. Once her marriage failed, however, Caroline no longer courted romance: she remained firmly single. This is not to suggest, however, that the pain was forgotten. Caroline was scarred by this string of disappointments and she fixated on the men who abandoned her.

Caroline spent time with several men while she traveled abroad; however, none made a lasting impression on her. She did not record many events during the year 1894, save that she was painting, having tea, and shopping. She made several entries about the new object of her affection, a man she abbreviates as “Geo.” On February 25, she noted she sent him a tie for his birthday. On June 8, “Geo” arrived but Caroline did not provide details about the content or duration of his visit. Throughout 1895, Caroline continues to write about “Geo” with greater frequency than the year before, and they spent substantial time together both in Philadelphia and New York. Despite the seeming visibility of their relationship, it becomes clear as her diaries progress that she was most likely engaging in an affair as, on August 12, she wrote: “Letter from A. saying she was going back to G.

Wrote a very severe reply denying him the house and saying I would not enter hers.”

Most likely the reply was directed at “Geo” and she was telling him he was no longer welcome in her home, and she would not see him at his. She later noted, however, that she left New York City for home and that “Geo” left New York City at 4:30 p.m., suggesting that they spent time together again, even after she told “A.” she would no

95 longer have contact with him. Caroline’s only Christmas day notation — “Geo — gave

Turkish rug” — again suggested they maintained contact, although it is unclear if she was the giver or the recipient of the rug. She later went bicycling with George on the 29th. It is highly probable that the man with whom Caroline was engaging in an affair was her cousin Anne’s husband, George. At the time of the affair, George and Anne seemed to have marital troubles, as indicated by Anne telling Caroline she was taking him back.156

In 1895, George and Anne would have been married for a number of years as their daughter, Carolyn, turned nine years old that year. George was seventeen years

Caroline’s senior.

Caroline maintained her relationship with George despite her earlier rejection of him in 1895. He visited her in July and had an extended stay in November 1889. A month later, on December 25, she wrote “horrid letter from Geo” and on the 28th, “broke off with Geo.” Despite repeatedly entering each others’ lives, she ultimately let him go or he decided to end things with her via the letter. If this affair had been disclosed, it would have deeply embarrassed the family.

Caroline referred to her next suitor simply as “EVS” throughout her diaries. She first mentioned him in 1896 when she noted a three-day vacation to Atlantic City with a travel party that included EVS. EVS stands for Edgar Viguers Seeler, a noted

Philadelphia-area architect who taught architectural design at the University of

Pennsylvania.157 Edgar trained at the Philadelphia Museum and School of Industrial Art,

156Anne was Caroline’s mother’s half sister.

157The initials EVS was determined to be Edgar Viguers Seeler based on social register records and his birth date. Social Register, Philadelphia, including Wilmington. New York: Social Register Association, 1911, 179.

96 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Ecole Nationale Superieure des Beaux-

Arts. His firm designed numerous buildings throughout his career including Hayden Hall at University of Pennsylvania, First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, Curtis Publishing

Company Building, and Penn Mutual Life Insurance Building.158 After this trip, Edgar increasingly spent time with Caroline: they attended the opera and dined together. On

July 23, Caroline left for a five-week vacation to New England which was clearly planned for pleasure and not painting as she spent her time bicycling and visiting museums. Although Edgar did not join her, she sent him a starfish and they continued to correspond. In May 1897, Caroline invited a “Mr. S.” to a dance, but he declined her request. It is difficult to determine Mr. S.’s identity, however, given the time frame, this is presumably someone other than Edgar. Despite sharing the same last initial, they are most likely different people. If Caroline had invited Edgar to the dance, she would have written she invited EVS, her usual abbreviation for him. Throughout 1897, Caroline and

Edgar drank cognac, traveled, and bicycled together, and he spent the night multiple times. As Caroline continued to mention spending time with Edgar, including spending the night with him, it supports the idea that Mr. S. was someone else as it is difficult to imagine she would have maintained a relationship after her invitation was snubbed. Over the winter she continued to spend time with Edgar; they engaged in a variety of activities, including having tea, making chocolate, and attending lectures. She jotted down on

November 18 that it was his birthday.

158Seeler also designed homes for a World War I era United States Housing Corporation development at Ridley Park. “WWI Housing,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://web.mit.edu/ebj/www/ww1/Chester.html.

97 Ultimately, this relationship ended slowly, and, much like her affair with George,

Caroline would reject and then accept Edgar back into her life. For unknown reasons, when he called on her on September 24, 1900 she “refused him” and “went to bed early.”

She changed her mind, however, after receiving a letter he wrote to her from Minneapolis and decided to see him through the end of the year. Although Caroline spent the evening of December 3 with Edgar, when she saw him on January 1, 1901, she did not speak to him. January 13 proved to be their last meeting as she noted, “last talk with EVS — ‘you are mistaken.’” She does not clarify what she felt he was mistaken about — perhaps her affection for him, perhaps their future. Regardless, she never mentioned him again.

Edgar’s life after Caroline was both personally and professionally fruitful. Edgar, who came from a good family, married into a deeply well-established and wealthy Pittsburgh family. In 1904, Edgar married Martha Page Laughlin, the daughter of James Laughlin,

Jr. and Sidney (Page) Laughlin. Both the Laughlin and Page families were wealthy: the

Pages earned their wealth in flint glass and the Laughlins found fortune in steel.159

Caroline’s willingness to engage in romantic, sexual relationships pulled her away from her profession as her attention was divided between personal and professional life.

Many female artists, such as the Red Rose Girls and Cecilia Beaux, made the active decision to eliminate personal relationships so that their time would be unencumbered with romantic entanglements. As Sarah Burns notes,

For Beaux, as for any female professional in the late nineteenth century,

there was no middle ground between conventional marriage with children

159John W. Jordan, Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania (New York: Clearfield Publishing, 1911), 838.

98 and a professional calling. She was born too soon for the Bohemian

freedom and sexual experimentation that young women of the Progressive

Era made bold to try. For her, a middle class woman, there was no safe

territory for extramarital sex. To choose a life of celibacy, as Beaux

apparently did, was an act of necessity.160

Caroline was unwilling to forsake romantic relationships with men, married and not, and this disinclination, perhaps, contributed to her inability to become a successful portrait artist. It is possible that, in addition to consuming her time and emotional energy,

Caroline’s affairs may have harmed her personal and professional reputations, particularly among women in her social and familial circles.

Caroline spent much time with the Brinton family throughout the rest of 1910, including a multi-day visit to Lancaster County, which included attending a 200-year celebration at the Hans Herr House, the home of her Mennonite ancestors. On October 2, she met the Brinton’s British cousin, “Miss Brinton of England.” Caroline noted that she painted only one day the entire year, on October 10. In November, she traveled to New

York City with the Brintons. Her close relationship with the Brintons continued into

1911, with many references to the family.

At the end of the year, Caroline made numerous notes about spending time with

“Mr. H.” She made very few entries in her 1913 and 1914 diaries. Mr. H. was quickly forgotten as 1914, a year that should have commenced a lifetime of marital bliss, was not.

160Sarah Burns, “Under the Skin: Reconsidering Cecilia Beaux and John Singer Sargent,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 124, no. 3, 2000, 346.

99 Instead, 1914 proved to be the start of a lifetime of pain and suffering for Caroline as she began the next chapter of her life with Christian Brinton.

Marriage and Christian Brinton

Any lingering efforts on Caroline’s part to succeed as an artist quickly

evaporated during her brief marriage to Christian Brinton. Although she never

possessed the laser focus required of female artists to establish fully their careers,

Caroline had made substantial strides in the art world and was an award-winning

portraitist. She abandoned all of this as multiple domestic obligations took hold.

Caroline continued to be responsible for her mother’s care, which she performed until

her mother’s death, and this proved overwhelming. Caroline’s care afforded her

mother opportunities to travel and possess a high level of independence, but this

resulted in Caroline being saddled with responsibilities at home. She also entered a

marriage which resulted in increased domestic constraints which pulled away her

attention from any artistic endeavors.

Caroline most likely began her association with the Brinton family through her cousin, N.C. Wyeth. For years before she married Christian Brinton, she spent substantial time with the Brinton family: calling at their home, sharing meals, and traveling together. She often listed “Brinton” as a companion on running errands, having tea, or enjoying a cultural event but did not reference a particular family member, suggesting that she engaged with multiple members of the family. Her diaries indicate that her relationship with the family began in 1898 when Miss Brinton called.161 This is the first reference to the family that played a key, and devastating, role in her life.

161April 9, 1898 diary entry.

100 Caroline neither noted the exact moment she met Christian nor when they fell in love and decided to marry. In establishing this union, a deeply traditional artist merged lives with a brusque art critic who championed modern art and international artists.

Christian Brinton was a well-known and highly-respected art critic. A staunch advocate for modernism, he is credited with introducing America to a wide variety of artists, including many from abroad, particularly Russian artists, as well as domestic artists such as Horace Pippin. Christian came from a well-established Quaker family in

Chester County, Pennsylvania. Born in 1870, he attended Haverford College and, in a nod to his later professional career, roomed with Maxfield Parrish. An avid traveler,

Christian spent substantial time overseas during which he cultivated his interest in international art and artists. He also established the Chester County Art Association in

West Chester, Pennsylvania.162

Caroline and Christian’s marriage was short and an obvious failure. They married on October 15, 1914, at her family home, Ardrossan Park, in West Chester. Both were forty-four years old and had known one another for at least sixteen years. Caroline made one short mention of the event in her 1914 diary: “married by Squire Paxson.” Martha

Peart sent out engraved wedding announcements and a local newspaper recorded the event:

162Much has been written on Brinton and the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian Institute maintains a considerable collection of his ephemera. Andrew Walker’s doctoral dissertation on Brinton provides substantial information his work as an advocate for modernism in America. Andrew Walker, “Critic, curator, collector: Christian Brinton and the exhibition of national modernism in America, 1910-1945.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1999. ProQuest (AAI 9953610).

101 To-day several West Chester friends were pleasantly surprised to receive

from Mrs. John Peart, of Ardrossan Park, north of the borough, cards

announcing the marriage of her daughter, Miss Caroline Peart to Mr.

Christian Brinton, the widely known art critic, son of Joseph H. Brinton,

Birmingham. The wedding ceremony was performed yesterday afternoon

by Justice S.M. Paxson, of West Chester, who was conveyed to the

residence of the bride and there tied the nuptial knot in the presence of a

few relatives. Mr. and Mrs. Brinton do not go on their wedding tour at

once, but are at home at Ardrossan, and one of these days when the

European war is over, may spend a holiday in the Old World. Mrs.

Brinton is an artist of ability and it is expected that many people who are

prominent in art circles will be entertained at their home.163

Caroline’s mother formally announced the marriage in the column “In a Social Way” in the October 17, 1914, edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Caroline made no entries in her 1914 diary after the mention of their wedding. Caroline did, however, tuck

Christian’s calling card inside her diary. On it, he drew quotation marks around the title

“Dr.” and wrote, “just because he thinks a new year is beginning for you this month (note motto for July!).” Caroline only made very few entries in her 1914 diary prior to her wedding but noted that Christian spent the evening several times in advance of their nuptials. She only made a few notes in her 1915 diary, including a train trip which began

163“In Hymen’s Toils.” The Daily Local News, West Chester, PA, October 15, 1914. The return address on letters exchanged between Caroline and Christian suggest that they made their home at Ardrossan Park, and, as such, lived with her mother. This living arrangement certainly compounded problems in the new marriage.

102 on April 19. This journey was comprised of stops to the Grand Canyon, San Francisco, and San Diego to attend the Panama-California Exposition, which celebrated the opening of the Panama Canal. She did not indicate if she traveled alone or with Christian.

Caroline and Christian’s marriage ended quickly and disastrously in 1917. A

West Chester newspaper article dated July 29, 1921, publicly announced the divorce:

“Christian Brinton, of West Chester, libellant, vs. Caroline Peart Brinton, West Goshen.

They were married October 15, 1914, and the respondent deserted her husband on

November 8, 1917.”164 Interestingly, as this article is from 1921, it makes clear that their divorce proceedings dragged on for over three and a half years.

As Christian was a very prominent art critic who was well established in the New

York and Philadelphia artistic communities, their union would have seemingly brought them happiness due to their longstanding family connections and common interest in art and travel. But despite these similarities, a series of letters exchanged during November

1917 indicate Caroline was made aware of an incident — an unnamed incident although she clearly believes he was unfaithful to her — that caused her to demand he move his things out of her family’s home and return all the gifts she gave him immediately. One day in advance of one of her scathing letters, Brinton had sent her a cheerful letter detailing his recent visit to see a restored sculpture and signed it “ever affectionately.”

He was oblivious to her imminent decision to part ways. Although her November 8 letter is lost, Christian responded on November 12. Desperate to respond quickly, he sent a

Western Union telegram stating that he was responding to the letter. He wrote to her at

164“Some Divorce Cases, Ill-Mated Couples Seek Freedom from the Nuptial Knot,” Daily Local News, West Chester, PA, July 29, 1921.

103 Ardrossan Park from his family home, Homestead Farm, which was also in West Chester,

Pennsylvania:

I am grieved that you were moved to address me as you did in your

letter of November eighth, in which you criticize my conduct. I

have always led an exemplary life, and toward you have uniformly

maintained a degree of consideration and affection which has

contributed greatly to your happiness. Therefore, in all fairness of

spirit, I ask you to state in detail the reasons for your

condemnation. You are within your rights in insisting upon a

discontinuance of our home at Ardrossan Park, and I shall consult

your convenience as to the removal of my property from

Ardrossan. Personally it will not at all suit me to do so at this time,

but should you insist, I shall respect and comply with your wishes.

I have taken apartments at the National Arts Club, New York City,

where my work is centered, and I invite, and request, you to join

me there and establish our home together. I shall do all in my

power to make you comfortable and happy, and shall take pride

and joy in having you renew the acquaintances of my many

friends, who will welcome you as heretofore. I realize, and I want

you also to realize, that though your letter is unfriendly in tone, and

unwarranted by any existing circumstances, I believe it was written

in haste, and I entertain for you now, as always, a dear and lasting

relation. We are still comparatively young, and are certainly well

104 suited to each other. By persistent effort, I have attained to a

position of some prominence in my profession, the fruits of which

I want to share with you. You have invited a crisis in our

relationship which might easily lead to disaster, and the life

accompanying this letter, that such a fatal termination to our

happiness may be averted. I have never intentionally wronged

you, and please believe that I am sincere in my conviction that the

future holds much mutual happiness for us. I beg you calmly and

deliberately to consider the situation in its entirety before you take

too drastic a step. The effect of your action at this time is bound to

be serious and far-reaching and will not be confined to our lives

alone. We should not overlook our duty and obligations to the

existing social order. I wish to shield you and protect you from

that measure of loneliness which nature is not unlikely to implore,

and therefore do believe me when I say that no effort or sacrifice

on my part is too great if it ensures the happiness I so carry for

you. Faithfully yours, Christian

Caroline’s response, dated November 13, indicated his heartfelt letter was met with disdain:

Your letter of November 11 was evidently written with the distinct

purpose of sounding well to the average person but it fails of that affect

with me. As you are the offender and I am your wife, it is for you to tell

me what you have done. Be that as it may, any revelations or promises

105 you make will not change the course I am going to pursue because I

know, and you do also, how utterly hollow and insincere they are. I want

you to remove your books, pictures and etc. from Ardrossan by

November 24th and within that time frame return to me the various items

in your possession which belong to me including the watch which was a

present for my father by mother. I shall return to you all presents which I

have received from you. Sincerely, Caroline165

As the letter exchange continues, Christian’s attempts at reconciliation proved increasingly fruitless as Caroline maintains her distance and remains cold and unforgiving. He replies to her terse letter on November 15:

The demands and stipulations made in your letter of November 13th will

be promptly and fully complied with. By or before November twenty-

fourth I shall have removed from Ardrossan Park all my property and

possessions. All presents will be immediately restored to you, including

the gold and enamel watch you mention, which was given to me by your

mother. There is, however, one point regarding which I desire to make

exception. I do not require you to return to me any of the gifts or presents

I have been so happy to bestow upon you during our engagement or

married life. These, such as they are, I wish and beg you to retain, in the

spirit in which they were offered and accepted, as tokens of a love and

devotion unwavering and unchangeable. Yours faithfully, Christian

165No records indicate that Caroline and Christian ever established a home together. From all accounts, she lived at home and he moved between Homestead and other locations in New York City.

106 Christian sent a follow-up letter on November 26, 1917, which does not reference if she responded to his previous letter:

Dear Caroline, Father, the sisters, and I write in hoping that you will come

to us for Thanksgiving dinner on Thursday at one o’clock. We are going

to have roast goose and red wine and the occasion will serve to recall the

many delightful times we have all had at Homestead Farms together. Do

let me know that you are coming, for I am planning to go to New York

Sunday or Monday to open the apartment, where I shall await you with the

same pleasure as always. Affectionately yours, Christian

As the year concluded, Christian held out hope for a reconciliation as he believed letters she sent to him suggested the possibility of a rapprochement. On December 12, he wrote from New York City on National Arts Club stationery:

Dear Caroline, Thank you for your letters forwarded from West Chester,

and let me add that I trust it may not be long before you will follow them.

Conditions here are the same as during the three years we have occupied

this charming apartment, the only lacking being your presence on the

scene. Our many friends constantly inquire when you are coming, and

seem anxious to extend their hospitality. In news of this, and of the fact

that there are no valid reasons why we should remain apart, I renew my

request that you join me here as soon as you conveniently can. I regard

your hasty dismissal of me from Ardrossan Park as wholly unjustified by

any existing facts or circumstances, yet I stand to forgive you, and to

resume our natural and established relationship. During these last

107 humiliating weeks it has been my especial care to make little or no

reference to your attitude toward me, and you will thus find it perfectly

easy to begin where you elected to break off. In urging you to come to me

in New York as you have in the past I give you the opportunity to escape

the consequences of a course of action on your part which otherwise

cannot fail to appear unwarranted and unwomanly. I freely offer you the

protection of my companionship and my society. Do face the situation

broadly and humanely and above all come to me and see for yourself that I

am, as always, Devotedly yours, Christian

Christian sent a final letter referencing their crumbling marriage on April 14, 1918.

Despite the time elapsed, Christian maintained optimism:

Dear Caroline, As you are aware, I am again at Homestead Farm. I came

a month earlier than planned on account of father’s condition. He has

been ill since January and is in constant need of care and companionship.

Since I intend remaining here until autumn, nothing would give me greater

joy than to have you come down as you used to be so fond of doing.

Come as often as you wish and stay as long as you can. Moreover, I think

you should come quite as much for your own sake as for mine. From

several signs I fear that you are not at present a very happy woman and

this could scarcely be otherwise considering the causes of actions you

have chosen to pursue, for we are bound to share a certain measure of the

suffering and humiliation we inflict upon others. However, I am, as

always, ready to forgive and to begin life afresh with the awakening of

108 nature to new beauty and renewed possibilities. You have, without just

cause or reason, forbidden me to appear at Ardrossan Park. Yet permit me

to assure you that Homestead Farm, with its century-long tradition of

open-handed hospitality is ever ready to welcome you. Devotedly yours,

Christian

The divorce proceedings took their toll on Caroline’s physical health. On December 30,

1920, both Caroline and her mother were issued passports for the West Indies and they listed the intended purpose of the trip was health. They boarded the “S.S. Megantic” on

January 22, 1921, and returned on February 16.166 They had moved to Atlantic City by this point as their home address listed on the passports was 219 Oriental Avenue, Atlantic

City, New Jersey.

Mr. and Mrs. Christian Brinton officially divorced in 1921. An August 1, 1921, a note from George B. Johnson, a West Chester attorney, and also Brinton’s cousin, stated that “Jack Pechin found the lady waiting for him and served the papers on her at one o’clock to-day.”167 A September 27, 1921, note to George B. Johnson, Esquire from attorney William Fregay, detailed that he completed his report in which he

“recommended a decree in divorce” and was returning the marriage certificate. Fregay also wrote “strange as it may sound I have searched the books and have been unable to find a case in point.”168 As it was unheard of for a woman to abandon her husband and

166“1921: Arrival: New York, New York, 1820-1957; New York, Passenger Lists” Provo, UT, USA: http://www.ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.

167Christian Brinton folder, Chester County Historical Society Archives, West Chester, Pennsylvania. 168 Christian Brinton folder, Chester County Historical Society Archives, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

109 initiate divorce, Fregay most likely could not locate case law to provide precedent from the Brintons’ divorce proceedings. Caroline’s Philadelphia lawyer, William Jay Turner, wrote to George Johnson Brinton on September 30, 1921: “I am in receipt of yours of the

29th instant, and note that the Master and Examiner has recommended a divorce in

Brinton vs. Brinton. I have forwarded the notice under your Rule VII to Mrs. Brinton for her signature and will return it to you upon receipt from her.”169 Upon divorce, Christian

Brinton removed all reference of Caroline Peart in his life. Neither his New York Times nor Philadelphia Inquirer 1942 obituary noted the marriage. Upon his death, Caroline read his obituary and made an emotionless diary entry, “saw in Philadelphia paper of the death last evening of Christian Brinton at his home. Farm.” Brinton family genealogies make no mention of his marriage to Caroline. In 1983, one of Christian’s friends stated, when asked about the marriage, Christian would reply, “It’s something we don’t talk about.”170 Even Christian’s death certificate lists him as single rather than divorced.171

In a lengthy 1937 Philadelphia Record article, Brinton rambled about his adventures in

Russia and his life. He stated, “I am an anti-feminist, you know. Bachelor. It’s my propaganda.”172 The article paints Brinton as a colorful character who enjoys smoking, drinking, and enjoying a shocking life. He noted that “gay colors are tonics. Like

169Ibid.

170 “Christian Brinton’s Secret.” Local News West Chester, January 31, 1983.

171Ancestry.com. Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1966 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014. “Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1966,” Ancestry.com. 172Franklin Gregory, “Dr. Brinton… Paradox in a Farmhouse,” Philadelphia Record, August 31, 1937.

110 revolutions. Neurasthenic people don’t like gay colors. But they are a mark of health.

Dark colors are a mark of physical debilitation.”173 He may have been subtly referencing

Caroline as she painted in dark colors, and he could have observed her as weak and mentally ill during their marriage. Although Christian was able to cut all references to the marriage out of his life, Caroline was not. She was frequently referenced as Mrs.

Christian Brinton or Caroline Peart Brinton for years after their divorce, including a 1933

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Annual Report which listed Caroline as “Mrs.

Christian Brinton.”

Many questions remain unanswered on the dissolution of Caroline and Christian’s marriage. Caroline may have discovered that Christian was conducting himself inappropriately with another woman. She may have discovered that he was having an affair with a man. Caroline, who clearly was beginning her downward spiral into mental illness at this time, may have fabricated the entire situation. There is no existing proof in either Christian’s or Caroline’s archival material of an affair. Regardless of the cause of divorce, both remained scarred by the experience for the rest of their lives. Neither married again and both seemed to do their best to forget their short, ill-fated union. In her case, Caroline never mentioned any romantic interest in another man. She spent the rest of her life in the company of her mother and a couple of friends, and, tragically, ghosts and illnesses that manifested due to mental illness and physical anguish. The spirits would lead her to believe they knew who caused the failure.

173Ibid.

111 Caroline experienced a death knell for her profession — portrait painting — and her private life — marriage — in quick succession. Why did Caroline ever marry

Christian? Her diaries indicate no true affection or relationship in advance of their wedding. Although she knew the Brinton family well, she never referenced him specifically when she noted outings with the family. Caroline may very well have married him out of necessity and expectation. She had been a single woman for far too long by society’s standards. She had engaged in at least one affair and multiple failed relationships. She lost years to these men, and, at the age of forty-four, her options were limited. She no longer could rely on the financial support of her father, and her mother increasingly relied upon her for support. She did not have sufficient interest in portrait painting to establish a full career. She knew the Brintons and she clearly enjoyed spending time with the extended family members, so, perhaps, she felt marrying into a family she liked would mitigate the issues of not marrying for love. Marrying Christian provided Caroline with additional clout in the art world as he was a critic rising in prominence. In many ways, as Caroline’s light dimmed, Christian’s shone more brightly, and this tension may have caused additional strain on their relationship in addition to the suspected infidelity. Caroline believed she fell victim to the same situation in which she once actively engaged with her cousin’s husband George. Both situations ended in the same way: Caroline was alone.

112 CHAPTER FOUR

GHOSTS, AGONY, SPIRITUALISM

When Caroline first noted a headache in her March 1908 diary, it commenced a pattern that continued throughout her life. Her near-constant entries describing a bad day, physical pains, or limitations framed her outlook and activities — particularly as she aged. Complicating her physical issues, Caroline struggled emotionally and psychologically with the death of her father and the failure of her romantic relations, including the lightning speed with which her marriage to Christian Brinton ended. These life events, and the ways she elected to cope with them, heavily contributed to her dismal existence for the remainder of her life.

Two years before she married, Caroline first mentioned the occult when she

“began experiments on Ouija board” on September 17, 1916. If this were a stand-alone reference to ghosts and other-worldly experiences, it could be dismissed as momentary curiosity in a relatively new parlor game. Instead, it functions as a concrete marker for the moment when Caroline turned her attention to these alternative practices in an attempt to make sense of her turbulent life.174

By 1918, Caroline and Christian’s marriage had ended, despite Christian’s efforts to save it. During their multi-year divorce proceedings, Caroline engaged a medium to seek knowledge. Her first visit with “Miss Rose” was mentioned in her March 24, 1920, diary. Christian’s letter-writing campaign had taken its toll on Caroline, and she had

174She made mention of seeing a Hindu fortune teller on February 6, 1911, and a psychic on March 4, 1912; however, her obsession with contacting the spirits took hold after the failure of her marriage.

113 reached her breaking point. During the letter-exchanging period she first noted the presence of spirits and “vibrations” (painful sensations she received when she believed someone or something was trying to communicate with her). Caroline was seemingly predisposed to spiritualism given some limited earlier interest; however, the falling out with Christian solidified her engagement with spiritualism as a coping mechanism for her many emotional pains.

The shift in attention from art, painting, and social engagements, to inward thoughts and spiritualism did not save Caroline; instead, it slowly destroyed her as she increasingly disassociated with the real world and spent most of her time focused on her exhausting existence as a conduit through which spirits communicated. Caroline was certainly not alone in having interest in the spiritual world:

In the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, séances,

mediums, and spirits appeared all over the place: from parlors to theaters

to university laboratories to communitarian enclaves to Lincoln’s White

House. Anyone with a pulse knew about such phenomena . . . it was well-

nigh impossible for Americans to avoid the spectacle of spiritualism after

1850.175

As such, it was not surprising for Caroline and her social circle to employ a Ouija board in 1916. While some may have dismissed it as a toy, the notion of what it could do took hold on Caroline and indicated a fascination she maintained for the rest of her life.

175Heaven’s Bride: The Unprintable Life of Ida C. Craddock, American Mystic, Scholar, Sexologist, Martyr, and Madwoman. Leigh Eric Schmidt. New York: Basic Books, 2010, 101.

114 If that spirit-writing plank looks now to be little more than a clichéd parlor

game — Parker Brothers, after all, holds the trademark — it was a novelty

in 1891, a recently patented device poised between popular entertainment

and experimental demonstration. The search for mechanical instruments

that would facilitate communication with the ghostly realm was a constant

among spiritualists, devotees and dabblers alike.176

From the seemingly innocent start of pushing a planchette around a Ouija board,

Caroline embarked on journey to seek out truth and understanding that slowly destroyed her health and well-being as the pursuit of communicating with spirits consumed her.177

Caroline either did not keep diaries from 1917 to 1919 or they were lost.178

When she began writing again in 1920, the diaries read the same in terms of writing style: she gave little attention to consistency in grammar and punctuation and frequently skipped words. She often wrote in a simple train of thought, suggesting that she felt her thoughts and content were important, not her writing style. As she wrote without an intended audience, her diaries were her personal

176Ibid., 105.

177Although spiritualism was a religious response to changing religious understanding during the nineteenth century, Caroline never directly correlated her experiences as religious in nature; rather, she used aspects of spiritualism practices, such as communication with the dead, as a way to make sense of her existence. Ann Braude, Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989), 4.

178It is most probable that Caroline did not keep diaries those years as she maintained her diaries fastidiously throughout her life and it seems unlikely she would have lost or destroyed them.

115 memoirs, and she had little reason to correct grammatical mistakes and misspellings. Although her writing style was consistent, the tenor and content of her diaries completely shifted. She no longer focused on daily life but primarily wrote long, detailed entries on her dreams and interactions with mediums. She attributed her diminished health and constant state of pain to the endless dreams which interrupted her sleep. In the first diary entry of 1920, she noted that she was troubled by health concerns: “a restless night again with much pain in stomach. This is caused by nervous action on the stomach through con[stant] strain [of] taking care of things at Ardrossan, went to Dr. Palmer.” She abandoned, however, traditional medicine as a way to deal with her life, and she focused on dream interpretation and spiritualism. She frequently wrote detailed entries of troubled dreams, including digging large holes and needing to be careful the ground did not cave in and bury her. In one dream, she played cards and one card read, “The only one.” She noted myriad subjects, including wearing shoes too small for her feet and riding on boats that capsized.

Caroline often described dreams as confused and dark in subject matter.

She noted on January 11, 1920: “S. tells me I am rude and ungrateful — this may be true but he is putting a great deal upon me and I am far from strong.”

Although she never explicitly stated S.’s identity, it becomes clear in later diary entries that S. is not a living person but a spirit who communicates through Miss

Rose, Caroline’s preferred clairvoyant.

Caroline frequently dreamed of both Edgar and Christian suggesting she struggled with the loss of these relationships. She dreamed of her former beau:

116 “EVS was at first distorted but little by little he grew more and more interested and quite attentive.”179 On February 20 she recalled,

I saw EVS and his father in their coffins — one behind the other

on the altar of the church surrounded by plants and flowers — then

I saw EVS talking to a boy about his lessons at school and marks.

I seemed to be watching EVS in his coffin and trying to reach him

with my thoughts.180

In a rare occurrence, Caroline’s engagement with the spiritual world seemed to provide her some solace in her failed relationship with Edgar:

Dream — EVS seemed to come to me in a very warm and loving

manner — another woman seemed to claim him by taking his arm

but he remained with me and drew nearer. I said they will see us

and there was Peggy Wheeler and others back in my student days.

This was an interesting vision and experience — I have quite

outlived his influence. I shall always be glad to help him — but

the old intensity of feeling has passed away (I think S. sent me the

impression of the dream).181

This would be Caroline’s last mention of Edgar Viguers Seeler in her diaries.

Caroline’s struggle with fears over Christian’s supposed infidelity and her anger over their divorce permeated her dreams far longer than the memory of

179January 26, 1920 diary entry.

180February 20, 1920 diary entry.

181June 25, 1920 diary entry.

117 Edgar. She noted: “a dream towards morning of Christian and a French actress having a swimming time together she revealed herself and they came back carrying all their clothes. Her husband a tall thin man seemed to be waiting near me.”182 The dreams she recorded about Christian usually included another woman, and the mediums she employed encouraged Caroline to acknowledge these other women as Christian’s lovers. The mediums also directed Caroline how to proceed with her divorce, as well as informed her how her divorce would move forward, after they received messages from S.:

Phila (Miss Rose) S was very kind — but I have bad news I will have to

divorce C. I shall be obliged to do so. Mrs. Lydig will come to me. He

said I was very nervous and will be better when I got away from this

place. Mr. Turner will know just what to do and when it goes through C.

will see what he missed I need not meet him and he will be ashamed to

behave to Mr. T. the way he does to me. C. will hold out all summer

about signing and will have to pay him. S. confirmed the fact of

reincarnation and said he and I were back “many times.” Bunty would

soon be back. S said I would see him this summer. S said I was muddled

in my mind — did I not “trust him?” C. will ask me to live with him and

when I refuse he will sue me for divorce but I will get the divorce there

will be some point about the income tax. Mrs. Lydig will be only too glad

to pay everything as she is anxious to have him dangling about her and C.

wants this divorce too. In time she will get tired and a man King — will

182February 4, 1920 diary.

118 be making trouble for him in many ways (monie scheme). The affair

(divorce proceedings) would not be in open court. I gave him too much

— I am not frivolous enough.183

The mediums continued to reference Mrs. Lydig and Christian to Caroline. Pauline, another medium, enriched Caroline’s understanding of Christian by telling her:

He was more than intimate with Mrs. L. and she wanted me off the face of

the earth. C. really cares for me but is overcome by the money and the

other woman. The family all know it — She advised me to name her as a

co-respondent — C. will not live long. I am to live about 84 and many

again. I am to sell Ardrossan and have another home — in the spring or

early summer of 1921 with others and go abroad later in life as well I am

to head large bodies of women and have great responsibility — I shall

always have the respect and affection of men.184

Not surprisingly, none of Pauline’s predictions came to fruition for Caroline as she would never again have any sort of romantic involvement.

The Mrs. Lydig in Caroline’s dreams was Rita de Acosta Lydig (1880-1929), a famous socialite who married twice. Christian and Lydig knew each other well: they both ran in artistic and society circles, and they collaborated on a book together. Lydig had a scandalous history; as such, it is not surprising that Caroline thought her husband and Mrs. Lydig engaged in an affair. Born in New York City, Lydig was one of Mr. and

Mrs. Ricardo de Acosta’s seven children. Lydig’s first marriage to William E. Stokes

183April 7 and 13, 1920 diary entries.

184May 4, 1920 diary entry.

119 ended in divorce, and she received an enormous divorce settlement.185 She later married

Captain Phillip Lydig whom she divorced in 1919. Despite the scandal of divorce, Lydig was a prominent woman in New York social circles, and many men were under her spell.

When John Singer Sargent was asked why Lydig never created art herself, the artist replied, “Why should she? She herself is art.”186 Even her obituary noted, “with her beauty she possessed rare charm and intellectual brilliance as well.”187

Not only a socialite, Lydig was an author, a suffragette, and the subject for many painters, including Giovanni Boldini and John Singer Sargent, and photographers, including Gertrude Käsebier and Edward Steichen.188 In addition to amassing her own collection of art, she collaborated on a book with Christian. Exhibition of Paintings by

Ignacio Zuloaga Under the Auspices of Mrs. Philip M. Lydig was published in 1916, and the pair inevitably spent time together around the time of its writing and publication which coincided with the time Caroline began hurling accusations at Christian and he begged her to believe that he was faithful and true. There is no concrete evidence that

Christian and Lydig engaged in an affair. However, Lydig was just the sort of well-

185As part of their 1900 divorce decree, Lydig was allowed to resume using her maiden name and was issued $12,000 annually for child support. The divorce terms allowed her to remarry whenever she chose; her husband could not remarry until she died. “Stokes Divorce Decree,” The New York Times, April 28, 1900, http://proquest.com.

186"Spirited Masterpiece: Rita de Acosta Lydig by Giovanni Boldini," Art Fix Daily,, http://www.artfixdaily.com/blogs/post/2124-spirited-masterpiece-rita-de-acosta-lydig-by- giovanni-boldini.

187At the time of her death, Lydig was destitute. She previously sold her collections and furnishings to settle debts. She also sold her huge home at 123 E. 55th Street in Manhattan and was living in various hotels. “Mrs. Rita Lydig Dies Unexpectedly Stokes Divorce Decree,” The New York Times, October 20, 1929, http://proquest.com.

188Lydig penned Tragic Mansions in 1927.

120 connected woman with whom Christian would want to cultivate a relationship as she was deeply associated with artists and actors, and she had access to money. To Caroline, however, Lydig was a threat, even if only imagined.

Caroline repeatedly had visions of Lydig. She noted that “Mrs. Lydig sends me great boxes of food and knives and forks and spoons in quantity — comes herself and serves the food cooks it — and spreads the table — also boxes of different colored silk stockings — (Christian is supposed to have gone away).”189 In a May 27 dream, she had an interaction with Lydig in which she demanded answers:

I was shown closets full of Mrs. Lydig’s clothes and told how wonderful

they were. I could see very few and poor ones and said yes if you have a

maid to take care of them. Then Mrs. L. entered and her long black hair

came rolling down and she pulled off long white gloves. I was walking up

and down and said “well say what you have to say.” The case will be tried

in the Lancaster courts.190

The case she refers to is her impending divorce which would ultimately be heard in the

Chester County, Pennsylvania, courts.

In her penultimate dream involving Lydig, Caroline formed a new assessment of her and Christian. Rather than pinning the end of their marriage on Lydig, Caroline determined it was Christian’s doing:

Then Mrs. Lydig to whom I was giving a treatment and then trying on her

hat which was too small. (she must pay more than I ask for her

189May 22, 1920 diary entry.

190May 27, 1920 diary entry.

121 “treatment” of me) (and my ideas are too large for her understanding)

Thus answering my mental question that C was the real responsible one

there are many Lydigs in the world.191

The next day, Caroline noted during a nap she received the words “A dreadful punishment awaits them.” She observed “I think this means C and Lydig as I have them much in my mind.”192 On June 20, 1921, Caroline was notified of Christian’s divorce filing and on August 1 divorce papers were served. Caroline did not wait long to revert to her maiden name, and on January 12, 1922, she traveled to Philadelphia to meet with her attorney, Mr. Turner, to petition to change her name back to Caroline Peart, less than six months after the divorce.

Even if they did not provide laser-accurate information, Caroline constantly utilized mediums during this period of her life to provide context and explanation for real-life situations. The mediums assured — and reassured — Caroline that S. would guide her and care for her throughout her life. They told her that S. stated that she must live alone and said he would protect her (even though she was previously told she would find romance again!).

In addition to seeking counsel on her failed relationships, Caroline met with mediums to navigate the sale of her home and other responsibilities. In March 1920,

Caroline and her mother sold Ardrossan and moved to Washington Boro. They also maintained an apartment in Atlantic City, New Jersey, for periods of time. Caroline noted the process of selling items from, and moving out of, Ardrossan was incredibly

191June 9, 1920 diary entry.

192June 10, 1920 diary entry.

122 taxing. The spirits, again, helped her navigate this upset: “they showed me stepping over great storms and told me to use my troubles as stepping stones to higher things — and asking for help. (I am very nervous after all my packing and not getting out of doors).”193

Miss Rose served as Caroline’s preferred medium.194 Miss Rose controlled the exchanges between Caroline and S. — the unnamed entity that communicated to Caroline through Miss Rose. S. occasionally appeared in Caroline’s dreams and manifested in real life. Caroline viewed S. as an almost paternal figure and protecting spirit who guided

Caroline’s actions and thoughts. Caroline also believed that S. shared communications from her father. S. is never referred to by a full name; however, she used male pronouns

(he/him) in reference to him.

Caroline relied on S. to provide guidance through her daily life, and Miss Rose took advantage of this need as Caroline called upon Miss Rose and her services with great frequency throughout 1920. Caroline noted: “I have S. to guide me. (S. said (thro

Miss Rose) I was to concentrate at 8 in the morning — 1920 is to be a happier year)

(Also that I was to wear a small crystal I have from him).”195 In her hopes to receive messages from S., Caroline altered her actions to encourage his engagement. She wrote him a letter and prayed which resulted in S. showing her “the blue sky all serene — it was so kind of him — I am even more and more impressed with the wonder of all this

193March 9, 1920 diary entry.

194In addition to Miss Rose, Caroline noted services performed by “Pauline” and Madame Terese whose shop was on the Atlantic City boardwalk.

195March 26, 1920 entry. Caroline employed male pronouns to refer to S. except on one occasion she used “she” in a diary entry.

123 beautiful reality. If people only knew how real it is.”196 These associations became all too real, and time consuming, for Caroline. She believed that S. protected her and sent her signs to guide her. He sent her a “beautiful light” and once, while she prayed, S. showed her “the most lovely light (aura) a vibrating golden halo, brilliant almost metallic with large and increasing fields of a pure lilac hue.”197

Caroline first noted low vibrations on June 21: “a very horrid vibration seemed to come very strong. I wish S. would tell me how to avoid or deal with those low vibrations

— it may have been elemental.” She made note of low vibrations frequently throughout her diaries, and at points on a near-daily basis. Caroline usually referred to them as “low vib” in her diaries. Vibrations, of all type, play a critical role for those attempting to communicate with non-worldly entities. Spiritualists assert that people should strive to exist in state of high vibration as high vibrations emit happiness and attract positive communications from spirits. Low vibrations result in the opposite. A person in a low vibration state attracts evil and pain and may not receive messages from the spirits who operate at the higher, positive level. While experiencing low vibrations, a person can be in pain and only receive harmful and hurtful messages as they are not open to the higher vibrations.

As 1920 progressed, Caroline experienced frequent low vibrations and troubling messages: “I heard ‘you rave and storm as if you were in hell.’ I can’t be sure I heard this correctly. It sounds like Father but I don’t think it was he. It may have been S. scolding me — He is disgusted perhaps. I have always been so, a shock left me vibrating for a

196May 25, 1920 diary entry.

197June 4 and June 16, 1920 diary entries.

124 long time.”198 Caroline attempted to stave off the evil spirits, in large part to satisfy S. and keep him present in her life:

I went to bed and he began again this time I had to resort to extreme

depressive vibration of my own and finally drove him off. Then I prayed

fervently for him and myself and at dawn he came back and listened (S

showed me a book, “words”) to what I had to say and I hope he is changed

and convinced of my sincerity and his mistake — He is a powerful and

wonderful force when rightly directed.199

Caroline often prayed to S. and her father for help as she believed that, if she better aligned herself with the spirits, she should find peace. These spirits, particularly S., became “real” to Caroline and invaded the physical realm as well. She made numerous mentions of the spirits crossing over. She noted her hall wallpaper was moving and vibrating; she observed S. while on a walk, and again when he sat down beside her.200

Once during a concert, S. appeared to tell Caroline that he would have to visit her seven times in seven weeks in order to break her low vibrations. Caroline noted that the low vibrations had to be broken, even if she died in the attempts to do so.201

As Caroline continued her obsession with spiritualism, Miss Rose engaged with greater frequency, and she seemed to gain greater ability to communicate with John

Peart, Caroline’s father, as she and Caroline spent more and more time together. On one

198June 23, 1920 diary entry.

199July 5, 1920 diary entry.

200July 15, 28, and 29, 1920 diary entries.

201July 30, 1920 diary entry.

125 occasion, Miss Rose spent the night with Caroline and John Peart sent messages that

Caroline’s mother would be ill in her stomach and have a problem with one eye.202 After

Miss Rose left, Caroline claimed she “heard the tones of a man's voice in the room very distinctly but no words. Afterwards told it was father.”203 Miss Rose shared many disparate messages from John Peart. He often commented on his wife and her health. He would issue predictions for the future, such as “a warning about mother she was not to kick bag about or we could not take a trip. Father said I had his sympathy.”204

As 1920 came to conclusion, Caroline continued to deal with frequent low vibrations and pain. She was concerned spirits were attempting to control her when she observed that her “hands [were] vibrating all night and I was wide awake and I did not sleep I feel they are experimenting to control my hand.”205 In addition to prayer,

Caroline tried to vanquish the low vibrations by reading Thomas Á Kempis who provided the insight that she must “let go of all material threads no exception and let the spirits lead.”206 Despite her efforts, the spirits would not leave her alone and she awoke only a few nights later to the sensation of fingers on her forehead moving in a pattern to protect her from low vibrations and bad thoughts.207 Caroline ached to achieve higher vibrations

202August 15, 1920 diary entry.

203August 16, 1920 diary entry.

204October 24, 1920 diary entry.

205November 16, 1920 diary entry.

206November 9, 1920 diary entry. Thomas Á Kempis (1380-1471) wrote The Imitation of Christ, a wildly popular Christian devotional which addresses spiritual life.

207November 21, 1920 diary entry.

126 as she felt that “the perfect acceptance of the spiritual principle would lead to levitation.”208

In December, S. sent Caroline a very specific message starting that he sent a vision to A.E. that in his book The Candle of Vision, Caroline was the woman in the blue cloak. S. also stated that he wanted Zinzendorf to write through Caroline.209 A.E. refers to George William Russell (1867-1935), the author of The Candle of Vision, who went by the pseudonym A.E. Published in 1918, Russell recorded his experiences engaging with spirits, visions, and astral journeys. In one telling, Russell describes a vision of “a woman with a blue cloak around her shoulders, who came into a room and lifted a young child upon her lap, and from all Ireland rays of light converged on that child.”210 This woman, according to S., was Caroline.211

During the last couple days of 1920, Caroline had Miss Rose participate in two séances. Caroline may have requested these services as she seemed to feel as though she was gaining better control over her life and the séances might provide even greater

208November 21, 1920 diary entry.

209December 7, 1920 diary entry. Zinzendorf may refer to Nikolaus Zinzendorf (1700- 1760), a Moravian who supported ecumenism and mission work. He did not have any association with spiritualism, so it is possible S. was referring to someone else.

210George William Russell, The Candle of Vision (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1920), 34.

211 The Candle of Vision makes frequent references to light and the concept of how, if one keeps on the mystic path, no matter how difficult, spiritual understanding and light will eventually grow in the person so that a greater understanding is achieved. Caroline clearly adhered to this instruction as she continued to seek out spiritual guidance despite the difficulties she encountered by doing so. George William Russell, The Candle of Vision (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1920), 13.

127 insight. On Christmas Eve she noted, “last night the first real rest in many weeks — the result of sitting with Miss Rose and Hinckly. I see now I have been broken down for 15 years — gave up too much to others and that allowed these low forces to creep in.” The first séance took place on December 27:

At 5:30 this evening Miss Rose and Miss Hinckley and myself held a

Seance in which Miss Rose went under trance and S. and father spoke

and said after the low vibrations had his audience I would have no more

trouble. He held out a long time but finally gave in and went to his father

with the help of the messenger.212

The second séance was three days later and someone named Angelo engaged with the mediums:

We began at eleven. Miss Rose went under trance and S. said they had the

prisoner he was very reluctant to enter but was very stubborn when there.

Miss Hinckley worked well and some star threw him on the floor at the

last Angelo came and persuaded him to go with him to a higher sphere and

later he would bring him back to Caroline — Angelo made a beautiful

plea. I am eternally thankful to him. I am finding kind friends on both

planes now real unselfishness.

Snapping back to reality, Caroline and the mediums lunched together downtown after the séance.

212December 27, 1920 diary entry.

128 Caroline maintained her relationship with Miss Rose in 1921. Miss Rose spent the first day of the year with Caroline where she shared S.’s message that all of

Caroline’s efforts were paying off and that she was hearing his voice:

Miss Rose came down for day and we had a talk S. said (as I had already

the impression at the morning concentration period) that there was no

person connected with the vibration I got Thursday — I must keep

“unspotted from the world” It was his voice in the night I heard. They are

just beginning to talk to me. He met Angelo coming to me and they began

working together!213

Caroline continued to believe that if she disconnected from the real world, the spirits would communicate with her more freely. She observed, “I must keep absolutely quiet and away from people.”214

In mid January, Caroline traveled to Washington, D.C. with Miss Rose to have spirit photos taken by Mr. and Mrs. M. Keeler who resided at 1456 Park Road NW.

Caroline noted he took two exposures of her and two of Miss Rose.215 The spirit photos arrived a few days later and Caroline noted, “I find it very helpful to have S. picture tho he must have moved which distorts the face a little.”216 Dr. W.M. Keeler was a well-

213January 1, 1921 diary entry. Caroline makes mention of Angelo at several points in her diaries during this time period; however, she never made mention of anyone named Angelo in earlier diaries. He does not seem to be someone with who she engaged before his death.

214January 8, 1921 diary entry.

215January 16, 1921 diary entry.

216January 19, 1921 diary entry.

129 known spirit photographer who met with clients in his studio for photography sessions and encouraged interested parties at a distance from Washington, D.C. to send in a photo or cherished memento of the deceased in order to call up the spirit in a photograph. For this service, he charged $3 for two photographs.217

From its start in the 1860s, spirit photography had its proponents and its doubters.

Mary Todd Lincoln had photographs taken which captured her deceased husband and child, Abraham and Thaddeus, respectively, standing behind her.218 Sir Arthur Conan

Doyle believed that spirit photography was a legitimate practice, and he wrote The Case for Spirit Photography in 1923 to validate the business of capturing spirits in photos.

Doyle lamented that spirit photography had come under attack and his book was an attempt to validate the practice and its “scientific value as evidence.219 In his book, he included a transcript of a letter from H. Blackwell, Jr., the Vice President of the Society for the Study of Supernormal Pictures, who proclaimed that Keeler was a legitimate medium and spirit photographer and not a con:

As a testimony to the value of psychic photography I may mention that

through the mediumship of Mr. R. Boursell, in London, and of Mr. W.M.

217“William M. Keeler, Mail Order Spirit Photographer,” Jack and Beverly’s Spirit Photographs, accessed July 10, 2018, http://brightbytes.com/collection/keeler.html.

218Louis Kaplan, The Strange Case of William Mumler Spirit Photographer. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 170.

219Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case for Spirit Photography (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923), v.

130 Keeler, in Washington, I have received portraits of my grandfather,

mother, two sisters and several of my nieces.220

P.T. Barnum, conversely, asserted that spirit photography was a hoax and he devoted a chapter in his book Humbugs of the World: An Account of Humbugs,

Delusions, Impositions, Quackeries, Deceits and Deceivers Generally, in All Ages on what he perceived to be a fraudulent money-scheming practice.221 Despite this varied response to the practice, Caroline sought out the photographs. As she only had one set of spirit photographs taken, it suggests she was satisfied with the image Keeler captured of S. According to Caroline, S. was anxious for her to see the photos too as, “S. impressed me to send word to hurry up Keeler.”222

Caroline and her mother took a trip to the Caribbean in late January. They visited numerous tropical islands, including Jamaica, Cuba, and Puerto Rico.

Upon their return, Caroline held another séance with Miss Rose at which the spirits encouraged her to go to New York City and have a good time and buy some new clothes.223 Caroline never said if she took this recommended trip.

By 1922, Caroline no longer referenced Miss Rose, or any other mediums. She never made mention of S. again. Instead, she attempted to control the spirits on her own

220Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case for Spirit Photography (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923), 109.

221Louis Kaplan, The Strange Case of William Mumler Spirit Photographer. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008), 59-68.

222January 17, 1921 diary entry.

223March 3, 1921 diary entry.

131 and she worked, unsuccessfully, to eliminate pain and low vibrations from her life. After a two-month trip to the South with her mother, her pain reemerged. On July 16, she observed,

Without exception the immediate past has been the worst and most

hopeless of my experience. I don’t know where it is leading or who is

around me but evil is everywhere and my whole life is tainted if I live

through the summer or even see better days. There will be no happiness

— or even peace — I have given up the idea of happiness — but this life

is slow death and a daily struggle to hold off an assault. I see no end. I

am given false encouragement and all is vague and hopeless — all my so

called guides seem impotent and I am thought nothing and rebuked for not

knowing — so far this knowledge is a curse.224

In an attempt to rid herself of this curse and eliminate physical and emotional pain, Caroline sequestered herself in her Atlantic City apartment for five months and underwent a self-imposed exile to attempt to rid herself of all the darkness and low vibrations. On August 25, she wrote, “the last three months I have been on my back not daring to move an inch to right or left on thickness of heaviest rubber under me and much suffering at night.” She fasted intermittently throughout this “curing” process and noted that due to lack of food she was

“getting very thin bones sticking thro’ skin.”225 She believed that the food in her

224July 16, 1922 diary entry.

225September 10, 1922 diary entry.

132 apartment was poisoned. In addition to restricting herself to her bed, Caroline also restricted her thinking. She refused to read as she felt her thoughts “must be guarded.” In late September, she engaged in an eleven-day fast, and she only drank water. At its conclusion she observed that her “whole digestion system is out of order and spitting blood.”226 Despite this physical trauma, Caroline begins another fast on November 19 even though she had been restricting her diet to onions and shredded wheat since the previous fast.

Despite all of her efforts, the spirits continued to invade her thoughts and body: “very bad night my friends are very attentive.”227 She lived in misery throughout the year. In December she observed, “the agony of this trial is beyond belief — and it seems to be of little use to anyone. A wretched night and morning

— God alone knows what it is for.”228 In her final entry for the year, she remarked, “Last day of the year and still on my back. The worse of all possible years.”229

There are no diaries from 1923 and 1924; perhaps Caroline was in too much pain to write. By January 1925, Caroline is in Los Angeles, a cross-country journey which began in May 1924.230 In her January 1, 1925, entry she is in Los Angeles and complains

226October 15, 1922 diary entry.

227November 26, 1922 diary entry.

228December 8, 1922 diary entry.

229December 31, 1922 diary entry.

230In a May 1925 entry she notes that on the same day in 1924, she and her mother their travels, suggesting this cross-country trip was a long journey, and it took half a year to make it to the west coast.

133 of pain and “terrible, disastrous vib” throughout her stay. She spends almost all of

January and February indoors. In February, Caroline noted “I could not sleep all night because of terrible torment from low vibrations — fire, fire burning me all over.” and “a truly awful afternoon — very low and villainous vibration — insane and terrible filthy.

Again I thought I had enough.”231 Throughout this trip, Martha Peart is seemingly oblivious to her daughter’s tribulations as she is constantly on the move, attending lectures, visiting the market, and going for walks. She left Caroline in her room most days to suffer alone. Caroline noted that she was homesick for her mother and missed her but was glad that her mother was enjoying herself and doing what was best for herself on this vacation. Caroline, however, was not: “this is hell, over and over again and I can’t live. I went out for a few moments — when will this Hell end?”232 Caroline never left her room at the Women’s Hotel the entire month of March, and April proved no better: “Oh wretched being! I ventured out and what a price just continuous suffering — miserable low vib assail me from all sides — how awful my Sundays have been for the past five years!”233 She alternately described the pain as absolutely hopeless, damned, a wild beast, and idiotic. She likened her agony to “a devil inside chattering like an idiot and I feel stiff and sore and can hardly move without pain, the very fires of hell.”234

231February 8 and February 15, 1925 diary entries.

232March 13, 1925 diary entry.

233April 19, 1925 diary entry.

234April 27, 1925 diary entry.

134 Finally, on May 25, Caroline and her mother left California. Caroline was certainly grateful to put the experience behind her:

Great suffering in early evening — I wish I could be more patient and

hopeful but the depression at times is more than I can bear as I really

know nothing at all — only suffer, suffer eternally and a knowing that I

am constantly doing weak and forbidden things in the food and outing line

tho’ I have been in for years.235

Upon her return to Atlantic City, Caroline made her first positive diary entry of the year:

“glad to reach 219 O and the delicious air of the good old Atlantic Ocean.”236

Unfortunately, her happiness is fleeting as the low vib returns immediately upon her return. Caroline rarely left her apartment except to purchase provisions or borrow library books.

Caroline put her mother’s desires before her own and took a lengthy camping trip through New England and Canada with her mother in July. At this point, Caroline was

55, her mother was 82 and they traveled, alone, and camped out of their car. They occasionally relied on the kindness of strangers, as Caroline noted that on a particularly rainy night, her mother slept in a farmhouse while she remained in the car parked in a barn. They returned home on August 8 and Caroline noted they paid $450 for the trip.

During this vacation, Caroline did not mention pain or vibrations; however, as soon as she returned home, she experienced disturbed sleep and low vibrations. The agony

235May 12, 1925 diary entry.

236May 29, 1925 diary entry.

135 continued throughout the summer — “a dreary day of many oh how many!”237 Caroline and her mother stayed in Washington Boro for the majority of the summer and Caroline attempted to live a normal life while there: walking, running errands, taking sightseeing drives throughout the county. Caroline truly loved Washington Boro; she called it “the most beautiful town site in this country;” however her affection for the area did not prevent continued suffering.”238 Despite efforts to maintain some sense of normalcy,

Caroline could not. She wrote, “an awful morning of crying and screaming, and low vibrations. I thought that phase was over, very bad vib all day.”239 Upon her return to

Atlantic City in November, she rarely left her apartment.

In early 1926, Caroline and her mother returned to Washington Boro and life remained largely the same. In January, Caroline and her mother left for a second extended trip to California, but Caroline’s issues travelled with her: “Why am I so tormented by low vibrations, a most disturbed and distressed condition of mind, unsettled and unwielding and all distress. Almost decided to leave and return East but of course it is unwise to leave mother alone.”240 Upon her return to Atlantic City in March, Caroline decided to pack her belongings, and never return to the seaside town again: “How glad I shall be to leave this place where I had five years of most wretched suffering.”241 Not

237August 24, 1925 diary entry.

238September 20, 1925 diary entry.

239November 5, 1925 diary entry.

240February 4, 1926 diary entry.

241March 18, 1926 diary entry. Despite this assertion, Caroline would return, albeit briefly, to Atlantic City at the end of the year. She no longer, however, had long stays there.

136 surprisingly, her return home to Washington Boro brought little relief: Caroline began an almost daily mention of nervousness, little sleep, and low vibrations. Her final diary entry of the year read like so many other December 31 observations: “the last day of another awful year. When will this agony end. Crazy talk and visions and insane vibrations about all the time what it really means I do not know.”242

Caroline’s diaries throughout the remainder of the 1920s and 1930s are largely the same. Caroline and her mother split time between Washington Boro and Atlantic City.

Both she and her mother rented rooms at the Turks Head Inn in West Chester,

Pennsylvania, for extended periods.243 Caroline’s diaries from the 1940s were largely incomplete. Although she made occasional mention of events in the larger world around her, such as World War II, she remained squarely focused on her day-to-day activities, the weather, and her suffering.

Caroline noted her mother’s death: “My dear M. passed away this evening about

6pm — Dr. Barber came about 4pm and did not expect it so sore he came again after she passed. Miss Pauline Otty nurse was very helpful. Mother was peaceful and died in her

98th year — I was alone in the room with her.”244 Martha Peart died on December 8,

1940, while residing at the Turks Head Hotel in West Chester, Pennsylvania, at 97 years

242December 31, 1926 diary entry.

243Although Caroline never wrote why they rented rooms, it may have been due to the fact that their Washington Boro home did not have heat, electricity, or running water.

244December 9, 1940 diary entry.

137 old. Old age was listed as her primary cause of death and “chronic myocarditis” or inflammation of the heart was listed as a contributing factor.245

After her mother’s death in 1941, Caroline moved permanently to Washington

Boro. Her pain and “low vib” was a consistent concern and problem. She noted on July

29, 1941, that “the voice began again. I simply can’t endure it. If the trouble continues I shall run off and never stop. It is sickening.”246 She continued to believe that her pain was caused by the interaction with the dead and their attempts to contact her. She noted that the low vib stemmed from “utter selfishness or insanity of discarnate beings” who were “ever willful and satanic influence.”247 Caroline was acutely aware of how these perceived spirits affected her actual life. She noted: “up before daylight which means nothing has half my life has been a nightmare of sleepless variety as I hardly dare think on lives that interest me much less execute any of my desires. Even if I had the strength that too has gone with the hell of constant contamination.”248

245Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission; Pennsylvania, USA; Pennsylvania (State). Death certificates, 1906-1966; Certificate Number Range: 110051-113050. Also: Ancestry.com. Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1966 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.

246July 29, 1941 diary entry.

247February 24, 1944 diary entry.

248July 14, 1944 diary entry.

138 CHAPTER FIVE

OLD AGE AND LEGACY

Old age caught up with Caroline in the 1950s. Her diary entries during the 1950s become progressively shorter as she aged, and she increasingly used her diaries to record her daily activities and the weather and less about her psychological state or physical ailments, although she made occasional mention of the spirits that continued to disturb her. Her decline, both physical and mental, mirrored the crumbling house she occupied.

Although she loved Washington Boro, her home was hardly more than four walls, a roof, and minimal furniture.

In addition to her notes regarding her daily activity, or lack thereof, Caroline began an almost obsessive commentary on the weather. In examining her writings, it becomes clear the weather held significant importance in her later life: it often determined her actions and drove her moods. The weather affected her outlook on other aspects of her life as bad weather usually correlated to a bad day. Caroline also regularly mentioned nature and the physical landscape. The one aspect of her life Caroline derived consistent pleasure from was the beauty of her natural surroundings. In Washington

Boro, she gained enormous pleasure from the nearby river, the landscape of Lancaster

County, and surrounding environs. Although she lived a life of squalor and hardship, she found beauty in the natural world and was in awe of its power. Rich in sweeping views of farmlands and the Susquehanna River, Washington Boro sits a few miles south of

Columbia, Pennsylvania, in Lancaster County. Long acknowledged for producing superior tomatoes, Washington Boro is a small community that would be ignored by

139 many, but Caroline found it, and the surrounding county, deserving of high praise. She was particularly fond of the river: “We had a pleasant drive to Lancaster and back by the river — ever and ever lovely Susquehanna;” “The River! Majestic as ever!!;” and “The

River in all its glory — !!”249 She enjoyed the countryside and often described it as lovely.

Although many of her entries were short as she probably jotted down her thoughts at the end of the day, Caroline employed beautifully descriptive language and frequently used adjectives not usually subscribed to weather elements. She often referred to days as soft as in a “soft sunny day” which reflected her understanding of light and how it impacts views, perhaps gained from her artistic training decades before. In times of high heat or humidity, she often called the days “heavy.” On cold days, she was often relegated to staying indoors, and she lamented she could not run errands. On days the weather changed — days Caroline often referred to as “lovely” — she was able to leave the house. Like many people, she celebrated breaks in winter weather: “in all day rainy and dark but much milder for which I am grateful. I can’t get a better climate.”250 Until the weather changed from winter to spring, Caroline truly suffered in the cold. She became more agitated and irritated: “the winters are very demanding of one’s strength” and “I am worn out with cold weather.”251 Beyond a general unhappiness over the winter weather, Caroline acknowledged that she might have a psychological response to the cold, inclement weather. She stated that she felt depressed twelve times in her 1955

249February 21, February 19, and May 10, 1956 diary entries.

250February 17, 1955 diary entry.

251January 20 and January 25, 1955 diary entries.

140 diary. Two thirds of those references were made during the winter: “[a] cold and windy day — I did not go out — some depression — I fear it is the cold weather”, “[a]n awful day — very dark — a shade less cold — but depressing,” or “Mrs. S. did errands for me.

Cold — in all day — depressing — no let up in temperatures.”252 In all the years

Caroline engaged in the occult and her belief in spirits and the interaction and invasion of the spirits in her life, she never acknowledged that it might be a psychological issue or mental illness that caused this pain in her life. Instead, it was the impact of the real world

— the weather — that caused her to note that she struggled psychologically.

Caroline recorded worrisome situations much more frequently during the colder months which indicates cold weather tremendously affected her psychological state, much like seasonal affective disorder. She noted she had a “disturbed night . . . and had to chase the ‘noise’ away” in early 1955, and then was “disturbed by mumbling idiots” four days later.253 She claimed there was a home invasion at the end of the month: “bad boys invaded my apartment again — I drove them out and had to sit up and keep the light burning.”254 As it would be impossible for an 85-year-old woman to drive out a group of men, Caroline was referring to the “bad boy” spirits which invaded her life. Later that year, the unwelcomed visits by the spirits continued: “Late night and evening very disturbed. I tried to banish them — one woman and two men.”255

252November 26, December 23, and January 23 1955 diary entries.

253January 4 and January 8, 1955 diary entries.

254January 31, 1955 diary entry.

255October 22, 1955 diary entry.

141 In addition to these long-standing psychological struggles, Caroline may have suffered from some form of dementia during the latter part of her life. She believed that people were stealing from her, including taking her paintings. She wrote that “everything is being stolen from me so fast that I can’t keep up with it — I am quite worn out as I am not allowed to sleep for many years.”256 The disturbances affected her so greatly that she indicated they prevented her from writing in her diary: “I can’t keep up with writing — I can’t hold on to the packages I buy and bring home — they disappear overnight and often daytime.”257 Her fears sometimes resulted in her requesting a neighbor to stay overnight or Caroline remained awake all night with the “lights burning.”258 Living as an elderly woman in a cold, dark house with few modern conveniences, Caroline found much to be worried about throughout the year but particularly during the winter months. These intrusions and thefts, either real or fabricated, speak to the difficulties Caroline experienced throughout the year but were exacerbated by the inclement weather.

In these later years, Caroline’s greatest joy was glorious summer days when she could run errands and be driven to a local ice cream stand by a neighbor. Roughly three miles from Washington Boro (and halfway between Washington Boro and Millersville),

Central Manor was the home of Caroline’s favorite ice cream shop. She referenced an ice cream outing twenty-eight times in 1955 and five times in 1956, the last two years of her diaries. She wrote of the treks with great enthusiasm and affection: “[d]rove to

Central Manor — strawberry ice cream — the best around here — and ate it under the

256September 27, 1956 diary entry.

257September 23, 1956 diary entry.

258September 9, 1956 diary entry.

142 trees or in the car — quite warm — when away from that great river — !” and “[s]till no rain very hot again and none in sight. Drove to Central Manor for ice cream — the best eating this hot weather.”259 July 1955 was a particularly hot month with dry and scorching heat, and she logged thirteen trips for ice cream during the month! Caroline noted the horribly hot July weather was alleviated by “a roaring hurricane coming up the coast” which most likely referred to either Hurricane Connie or Hurricane Diane which pummeled the east coast at that time.260 Caroline’s final diary entry does not mention the weather. She wrote, “the end of this year — I have been slow and not very strong!!”261

Grace Sherick, a local neighbor, began to care for Caroline in the early 1950s, and on October 1952, Caroline made her first mention of Mrs. Sherick, in her diary: “Mrs.

Sherick wants to drive me but she does not know the Ford.”262 Grace Sherick, however, would soon get to know the Ford quite intimately as she functioned as Caroline’s one lifeline to the rest of the world for the final eleven years of her life. Caroline’s diaries frequently mentioned Mrs. Sherick taking her on errands or a drive, picking up items for her, or keeping her company.263 Initially, Sherick drove Caroline once a week for errands and gradually increased to three to four times a week, and her children took turns mowing

259May 31, 1956 and July 20, 1955 diary entries.

260August 9, 1955 diary entry.

261December 31, 1956 diary entry.

262October 24, 1952 diary entry.

263Grace Frey Sherick was born in 1900 and was a lifelong resident of Washington Boro. She befriended Caroline and spent time with her while her sons were in school and her husband was at work. She was never compensated for caring for Caroline, and the two forged a friendship that allowed Caroline to live with a modicum of comfort later in life.

143 Caroline’s yard and family cemetery plot located just down the street from her house.

Early in their friendship, Sherick drove Caroline to Garden Spot Motors on Pine Street in downtown Lancaster. Caroline bought a “woody,” or a car with wooded framework, with cash that she carried to the dealership in a brown paper bag.

Caroline desperately needed assistance as her home had no electricity, water, or bathroom. The home had an outdoor hand pump, but it only provided air temperature water. She had only a rope bed with a mattress, and she did not use sheets. Her home was littered with stacks of newspapers and piles of books and magazines as Caroline was a voracious reader and a devoted reader of her daily horoscope (which may account for her keeping old newspapers so she could refer back to her horoscope).

Caroline’s condition, both mental and physical, deteriorated tremendously later in her life and soon Caroline found Sherick to be her sole friend, and she guided Caroline as her dementia increased. Despite her illness, Caroline recognized, and acknowledged,

Sherick’s kindness. In 1958, Washington Boro experienced a huge snowstorm which resulted in Caroline being snowed into her home. Sherick cooked bacon and eggs and trudged through the snow to deliver food to her friend. Grateful for the meal, Caroline thanked her by pulling an enormous two-stone diamond ring off her finger and insisted that Sherick take it.264 As Caroline’s dementia increased, Sherick contacted a local attorney who held a hearing and had Caroline declared mentally incompetent. This action may have been precipitated by a particularly disturbing incident between Caroline and Sherick. Caroline took in a cat she named Kitty of whom she became particularly

264This ring which featured two diamonds each measuring over one carat, was later refashioned into an engagement ring for Don Sherick’s wife.

144 fond. Caroline had a habit of feeding feral cats; however, Kitty was special and Caroline adopted her as her own. When Kitty died, Caroline placed the cat’s corpse in a box but refused to bury it. She would spend time stroking the dead cat and repeatedly said it was a nice kitty. Eventually, the stench from the cat overwhelmed Caroline’s home. She finally agreed to bury the cat only to demand to see it one last time after its burial.

Sherick exhumed the cat so Caroline could have one last visit with Kitty.

The hearing resulted in Grace Sherick being named a trustee of funds for

Caroline, and during the hearing process it was discovered that Caroline had an inactive bank account at the Philadelphia National Bank with approximately $100,000 in it.

Using these funds, Sherick partially renovated Caroline’s home and added a bathroom and limited cooking facilities, replaced her bed, and purchased a recliner. Sherick also purchased a car — a two-door, hardtop Buick painted in a blue and white two tone — and used funds to keep the car running and full of gas. Approximately two weeks before

Caroline’s death, Sherick discovered her lying on the floor of her home as she had fallen and suffered a broken hip. Sherick took her to the hospital, and she was later transferred to Pickel Nursing Home in Columbia, Pennsylvania, the same town where her father burned the bridge to stop the advance of the Confederate soldiers exactly one hundred years earlier in 1863. Caroline died a few weeks later at Lancaster General Hospital.

Grace found Caroline’s will while she was cleaning the house after Caroline’s death. The contents of the will surprised those who her knew her as well as the greater Lancaster community.

145 Legacy

Caroline did not possess the perseverance early in life to become a successful portrait painter. She had the talent, social status, and financial means to achieve success, but she did not have the fortitude to maintain focus on her craft. In her later years, however, she persevered through pain, isolation, and poverty to live for over ninety years, the last twenty years largely alone and afraid. In the final analysis, Caroline’s life was a sad one. Her diary entries clearly indicate that she suffered from a serious psychiatric disorder that destroyed her life. In an attempt to control her psychological demons, she turned to the occult and spiritualism to find answers. As psychiatric knowledge and treatment was in its infancy, there were few treatment options outside of warehousing people in large state institutions. Caroline never sought out medical treatment; instead, she turned to alternative means of controlling her life, and these means failed her. It is possible that Caroline was not truly aware of her own mental illness.

Caroline’s legacy, however, is not one of sadness. Her legacy is a collection of portraits and a treasure trove of diaries that provide insight into the life of a turn-of-the- century aspiring artist. Equally important is the sizeable financial gift she left to Franklin

& Marshall College which has allowed countless students to achieve their educational dreams because of the scholarship fund she established in her father’s honor. This gift, however, came at a personal cost, as Caroline lived in poverty when she clearly had the means to live a comfortable life. As Caroline was well aware of this reserve of money, her choices raise numerous questions. What possessed Caroline to take her father’s fortune and share it with an institution with which she had minimal ties instead of

146 spending it on herself? Why did she have so much money in the bank when she lived in desperate poverty? Did she still subscribe to an earlier notion that limited acquisitions and engagement pleased the spirits and kept the low vibrations at bay?

Caroline died at Lancaster General Hospital on October 12, 1963. Her death certificate listed her occupation as artist, a craft she abandoned more than forty years before her death. The certificate noted the cause of death as a “cerebral vascular accident,” or a stroke, after suffering a fracture in her left hip. She was cremated before being buried in her family’s plot in Washington Boro, Pennsylvania.265 Caroline was finally at rest surrounded by the often-mentioned beauty of the Susquehanna River and its environs.

Caroline drafted her will in 1923, almost forty years before her death, long before she settled permanently into Lancaster County and well before her mental decline began.

She directed that, upon her death, all her property should go to Martha Peart, her mother.

If her mother had already passed away, the entire estate transferred to Franklin &

Marshall College.266 The will articulated:

In the event of the death of my said mother before my death, I give,

devise, and bequeath all my said property, absolutely and in fee to

Franklin and Marshall College, located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. IN

TRUST, Nevertheless to invest and keep the same invested in securities

designated by the Laws of the State of Pennsylvania as legal investments

265Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission; Pennsylvania, USA; Pennsylvania (State). Death certificates, 1906-1966; Certificate Number Range: 097351-100200.

266At the time of her death, the estate was valued at $565,000 (over $4.5 million today).

147 for trust funds and to keep the principal thereof which shall at all times be

known as “The John Peart Foundation,” intact at all times and to use and

apply only the net income thereof for the purpose of establishing and

maintaining free scholarships in said College for worthy students born in

the State of Pennsylvania, giving the first preference at all times to those

born in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, each of said scholarships to be

sufficient in amount to provide a student with free tuition in said College,

and in addition thereto, the sum of five hundred dollars ($500) per year

during the time said student shall be in good standing in said College.

In exchange for this gift, Caroline’s will stipulated that:

The aforesaid devise and bequest to Franklin and Marshall College is

made upon the express condition that the said College shall at all times

forever maintain in good order and repair the burying ground in Manor

Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, known as “Herr Burying

Ground,” where the said John Peart was buried in the year 1906, as the

said Burying Ground is now walled in, including the graves and

gravestones in said Burying Ground and wall enclosing the same.

Caroline insured that, even after she was gone, her parents would be taken care of in perpetuity. Much like she cared for her mother for over thirty years after her father’s death, Caroline configured her estate to continue that care.

Although leaving her estate to Franklin & Marshall College ensured that her family’s earthly legacy would be tended to, Caroline’s decision to bequeath everything to the College was surprising. Largely, she had no interaction with the college except to

148 attend an occasional art exhibition. There is no mention of Caroline disclosing her work as an artist or the details of her will to the college before her death. While she attended art school, no family members attended Franklin & Marshall College, let alone a four- year college. She made mention neither of valuing formal education in her diaries nor forging any substantive relationship — formal or informal — with the college.

Upon her gift being made public, a woman who was ignored by her community during her lifetime became a local celebrity in death. Suddenly, Caroline was a media darling lauded as an artist and philanthropist, an intriguing eccentric who lived in a dilapidated home while hoarding a small fortune. She was described by the local paper as a “golden-haired beauty” in her youth and a “talented portrait painter.”267 Her life was romanticized to her living in “a large crumbling old brick home facing the

Susquehanna.”268 The newspaper ignored the reality that Caroline died an old woman, alone, sick, and desperate to try to find happiness in small things, such as car rides and ice cream, when her day-to-day life was filled with pain and misery. These stories, however, do not sell newspapers.

The Wyeth family joined in the sudden interest in Caroline. Andrew Wyeth, his wife Betsy, and his sister Henriette traveled to Washington Boro after Caroline’s death to view her paintings. The family, who did not have time for their cousin during her life, suddenly became interested in her paintings of their shared relatives. Andrew Wyeth

267“F&M Gets Surprise Gift of $500,000,” Lancaster New Era, November 1, 1963.

268Ibid.

149 remarked that the paintings, “mean a great deal to us as a members of the family,” and his sister observed that Caroline was “a talented amateur.”269

After this flurry of interest dwindled, Caroline could have easily fallen into complete obscurity. Carol Faill, the curator at Franklin & Marshall College, organized several exhibitions of Caroline’s works, including a duel exhibition featuring paintings by

Caroline and Jacob Eicholtz at Franklin & Marshall College (April 1-26, 1966). She also organized solo exhibitions at The Brandywine River Museum (September 11- November

21, 1982), The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts’ Peale House Galleries (January

9- February 2, 1986), the Governor’s Mansion in Harrisburg, and CIGNA Galleries in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (both exhibitions in the early 1980s) which prolonged some notice of Caroline and her paintings.

Although a positive legacy, Caroline’s gift to the college compounds the eccentricities of her life. Why did she choose to live the way she did? Perhaps the best answer is the simplest: Caroline was ill, deeply ill, and her preoccupation with spirits and vibrations only allowed small moments of distraction. She had neither the strength nor energy to attempt to change her living conditions. Although she had the companionship and care of a devoted neighbor, it was not enough. As it was throughout her whole life,

Caroline was largely left to fend for herself. Her tragic end speaks to the totality of her life: potential never achieved. A Lancaster newspaper summarized her later years living in poverty in Washington Boro: “it was as though music from the past had been played

269Gerald S. Lestz, “Famed Artist Sees Family Portraits,” Lancaster New Era, November 2, 1963.

150 by an unseen symphony, with melody lingering after the concert had ended.”270 This dreamy assessment of her old age belied Caroline’s reality.

If Caroline’s life were pieced together using only her paintings and newspaper articles, she would be remembered as a very different woman: a young successful painter, related to the Wyeths, who married well, but ultimately faced the scandal of divorce, fell into obscurity, and left a local institution a surprise gift. Caroline, however, created her autobiography. Diaries are meant to hold the memories of what is important, or close, to the author’s heart or mind, often both. In her early years, Caroline frequently wrote about her travels, her schooling, the men she met. She did not shy away from noting when a relationship went sour, or a painting was not selected to be in an exhibition. She focused on day-to-day life, perhaps because it was all she could manage.

Caroline did not have the luxury of dreaming of the future when the present was so overwhelming. She also rarely lamented the past. In early life, she recorded her experiences in art school, painting, and men. In her middle life, she focused on her attempts to make sense of her unhappy life by seeking out guidance from the spiritual world and the struggle of navigating these two spheres. In her later life, she noted her fears. Caroline’s story, told in her own words, provides a striking example of how a life can change over time in ways that are largely unpredictable — and that where you begin is not where you end. Caroline Peart’s story, twisting and complicated, speaks to the difficulties for women to achieve success as an artist and the downward trajectory life can take despite a promising beginning. Perhaps if she had had more support, Caroline would

270Ibid.

151 have found more success as an artist. Perhaps if she had not lost her father at a relatively young age or if she had developed a strong and sustained marriage she would not have turned to communicating with the dead to make sense of her life. Or, Caroline may have always suffered from some form of mental illness that took stronger hold as she aged.

Although those questions can never be definitively answered, her legacy of paintings and words lives long after her death and share her story.

152 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary

Archives:

Caroline Peart Papers (MS 69), Archives and Special Collections, Franklin & Marshall Archives, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Chester County Historical Society Archives, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Archives, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Walter and Lenore Annenberg Research Center, Brandywine River Museum, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.

Art work:

Peart, Caroline. Carolyn Breneman Bockius, Age 10. 1896. Oil on canvas, 72” x 36.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Grace. n.d. Oil on canvas, 22 ⅞” x 19 ⅞.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Green Gloves (Martha Peart). 1896. Oil on canvas, 33 ½” x 26 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Once Upon A Time. n.d. Paper on board (reproduction), 9 ⅝” x 6 ⅞.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Portrait of Carolyn Breneman Bockius (Mrs. N.C. Wyeth). n.d. Oil on canvas, 26 ½” x 21 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Portrait of Carolyn Breneman Bockius (Mrs. N.C. Wyeth). n.d. Oil on canvas, 24 ⅝” x 20 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

153

. Portrait of Elizabeth Jane Harberger. 1896. Pastel on paper, mounted to board, 11 ¼” x 9.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Portrait of John Peart. n.d. Oil on canvas, 26 ¾” x 33 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Portrait of Martha Peart. 1895. Oil on canvas, 23 ¾” x 17 ¾.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Portrait of Mary Peart. 1897. Oil on canvas, 41 ½” x 31 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Sea Breeze (Alice Staman). n.d. Oil on canvas, 33 ½” x 27.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Seated Woman With Green Beads. n.d. Oil on canvas, 36” x 23 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Self Portrait. n.d. Oil on canvas, 15 ¾” x 11.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Woman with Green Necklace. n.d. Oil on canvas, 20 ½” x 17 ½.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

. Woman with Violet Corsage. n.d. Oil on canvas, 23 ½” x 18.” Courtesy of Franklin & Marshall College and the Permanent Collections of The Phillips Museum of Art, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.

154 Interview:

Donald Sherick, interviewed by Katharine Snider at Lancaster, Pennsylvania, July 24, 2017.

Newspaper articles:

“35 Years Given to Charity.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 7, 1900. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The Academy’s Annual Exhibition.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 13, 1901. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Academy’s Exhibition at Academy.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 19, 1902. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The American Artists.” The New York Times, April 5, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Among the Artists News.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1897. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Annual Exhibition at Academy. Seventy-First Yearly Picture Show Will Be Rich in Fine Samples of American Art.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 19, 1902. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Art News.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 1, 1898. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Art News.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 19, 1902. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Artistic News, Some Midsummer Gossip About People and Things.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 1, 1897. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Bank Elections.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 9, 1884. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“A Big Lumber Industry: Sawing Logs from the Freshet of 1889 at Sparrow’s Point.” The Sun, February 3, 1893. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Black and White Exhibition, Illustration Work on View at the Plastic Club.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 16, 1897. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Caroline Peart Paintings at F&M.” Lancaster New Era, May 14, 1964.

“Christian Brinton, Authority on Art.” New York Times, July 15, 1942.

155

“Christian Brinton’s Secret.” The Daily Local News, West Chester, PA, January 31, 1983.

“The Day at the Bourse.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 9, 1896. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Even Lent is Lively Up the Main Line.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 3, 1901. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Exhibition Season Full of Promise.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 26, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Exhibitions of the Week and News of the World.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 10, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The Fine Arts.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 18, 1899. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“General Society Gossip.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 30, 1894. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Gossip of the Week.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 13, 1896. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Hans Herr Descendants Meet.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 23, 1895. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“In a Social Way.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 17, 1914. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“In Hymen’s Toils,” The Daily Local News, West Chester, PA, October 15, 1914.

Lestz, Gerald S. “Famed Artist Sees Family Portraits.” Lancaster New Era, November 2, 1963.

. “F&M Gets Surprise Gift of $500,000.” Lancaster New Era, November 1, 1963.

“Many Fine Pictures Are Now on View.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 19, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Mary Smith Prize Awarded.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 21, 1898. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

Mortuary Notice, The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 25, 1906. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

156

Mortuary Notice, The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 26, 1906. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Mrs. Rita Lydig Dies Unexpectedly Stokes Divorce Decree.” The New York Times, October 20, 1929. http://proquest.com.

“Niagara Falls,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 21, 1898. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Notable Display of Art to be Seen at the Academy Tomorrow.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 18, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Parkway Sites Bring Big Prices.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 21, 1911. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Peart Personal Items Auctioned.” Lancaster New Era, December 20, 1963.

“Philadelphians Bound for Europe.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 29, 1889. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The Pictures at Buffalo.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, June 30, 1901. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Plastic Club’s Show of Small Sketches.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 1, 1903.http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Redfield’s ‘Hillside Farm’ Takes Sesnan Gold Medal.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 3, 1905. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Santa Barbara.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2, 1902. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Society To Patronize Thumb Box Exhibit.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 26, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Society Between Seasons.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 13, 1896. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Some Divorce Cases, Ill-Mated Couples Seek Freedom from the Nuptial Knot,” The Daily Local News, West Chester, PA, July 29, 1921.

“Stokes Divorce Decree.” The New York Times, April 28, 1900. http://proquest.com.

“Students’ Dance.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 25, 1897.

157 http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Summer School Art Season Now Thoroughly Under Way.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, July 19, 1903. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Two New Exhibitions for the World of Art.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. November 17, 1901. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“What the Artists Are Doing.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. July 8, 1900. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The Week’s Art Notes.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. June 3, 1900. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“Woman Artist, Who Disliked Boys, Leaves F&M $500,000.” Lancaster New Era, November 5, 1963.

“The World of Art.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. February 11, 1900. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The World of Art.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. March 25, 1900. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

“The World of Art.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. May 12, 1901. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

Secondary

American Art Annual. New York: MacMillan Company, 1899.

American Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Works by Artists Born Between 1846 and 1864, Vol. 3, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980.

The American Renaissance, 1876-1917. New York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1979.

American Society for Psychical Research. Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research. Boston: H.B. Turner, 1907.

Ames, Kenneth. Death in the Dining Room and Other Tales of Victorian Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995.

158 Archambault, Anna Margaretta, ed. A Guide Book of Art, Architecture, and Historic Interests in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: John C. Winston Company, 1924.

Art Fix Daily. “Spirited Masterpiece: Rita de Acosta Lydig by Giovanni Boldini,” accessed July 12, 2018, http://www.artfixdaily.com/blogs/ post/2124-spirited-masterpiece-rita-de-acosta-lydig-by-giovanni-boldini.

Beatie, Russell H. Army of the Potomac: Birth of Command, November 1860 – September 1861. New York: Da Capo Press, 2002.

Beaux, Cecilia. Background with Figures: Autobiography of Cecilia Beaux. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930.

Braude, Ann. Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth- Century America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Brinton, Christian. Yesterday in Chester County Art. West Chester: The Art Centre, 1936.

Brooklyn Museum. The American Renaissance, 1876-1917. New York: Pantheon, 1979.

Brubaker, Jack. “Artist Peart Lies in an Obscure Washington Boro Cemetery.” LancasterOnline, November 16, 2004. http://lancasteronline.com.

. “Memories of an Eccentric Artist.” LancasterOnline, November 29, 2011. http://lancasteronline.com.

. Remembering Lancaster County: Stories from Pennsylvania Dutch Country. Mount Pleasant, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2010.

. “Works of Miss Peart.” Lancaster New Era, July 13, 1992. http://lancasteronline.com.

Burke, Doreen Bolger. American Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Catalogue of Works by Artists Born Between 1846 and 1864, Volume 3. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980.

Burns, Sarah. “’Earnest, Untiring Worker’ and the Magician of the Brush: Gender Politics in the Criticism of Cecilia Beaux and John Singer Sargent.” Oxford Art Journal (vol. 15, no. 1, 1992), p. 36-53.

. Inventing the Modern Artists: Art and Culture in Gilded Age America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

159 . “Under the Skin: Reconsidering Cecilia Beaux and John Singer Sargent.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, vol. 124, no. 3, 2000.

Burns, Sarah and John Davis. American Art to 1900. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

Carnegie Museum of Art. “Carnegie Int’l 57th ed., 2018,” accessed October 17, 2017, https://2018.carnegieinternational.org/about/.

Carter, Alice A. Cecilia Beaux: A Modern Painter in the Gilded Age. New York: Rizzoli, 2005.

. The Red Rose Girls: An Uncommon Story of Art and Love. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2000.

Cheney, Liana De Girolami, Alicia Craig Faxon, and Kathleen Lucey Russo, eds. Self Portraits by Women Painters. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2000.

Christianity Today International, “Nikolaus von Zinzendorf” accessed July 6, 2017,https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/denominational founders/nikolaus-von-zinzendorf.html.

Donohoe, Victoria. “A Neglected Career Emerges from Shadow.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 18, 1986.

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Case for Spirit Photography. New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923.

. The Vital Message. New York: George H. Doran Company, 1919.

Engelstad, Erika. “Much More than Gender.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14, no. 3 (September 2007): 217-34.

Free Library of Philadelphia, “Central Library's 75th Anniversary: History,” accessed October 19, 2017, https://libwww.freelibrary.org/ digital/feature/75th/history/.

Gallati, Barbara Dayer, ed. Beauty’s Legacy: Gilded Age Portraits in America. New York: New York Historical Society, 2013.

. Children of the Gilded Era: Portraits by Sargent, Renoir, Cassatt, and Their Contemporaries. London: Merrell Publishers, 2004.

160 . “The Paintings of Sarah Paxton Ball Dodson (1847-1906).” The American Art Journal (vol. 15, no. 1, Winter 1983), p. 67-82.

Granville, Herbert S. “Paintings at the Pan-American.” Brush and Pencil 8, no. 4 (July 1901): 223-226.

Gregory, Franklin. “Dr. Brinton…Paradox in a Farmhouse,” Philadelphia Record, August 31, 1937.

Greene, Jo-Ann. “Under This F&M Curator, a Labor Turned into Love.” Lancaster New Era, November 27, 1988.

Harvey, John. Photography and Spirit. London: Reaktion Books, Ltd., 2008.

Hastings, Peter. The Annual Exhibition Record, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1807-1968. Madison, Connecticut: Sound View Press, 1988.

Hirshler, Erica. A Studio of Her Own. Boston: MFA Publications, 2001.

Horowitz, Roger and Arwen Mohun, eds. His and Hers: Gender, Consumption, and Technology. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998.

Jack and Beverly’s Spirit Photographs, “William M. Keeler, Mail Order Spirit Photographer,” accessed July 10, 2018, http://brightbytes.com/ collection/keeler.html.

Johns, Elizabeth. Thomas Eakins: The Heroism of Modern Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Jordan, John W. Colonial and Revolutionary Families of Pennsylvania. New York: Clearfield Publishing, 1911.

Kaplan, Louis. The Strange Case of William Mumler Spirit Photographer. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Kinter, Jim. “F&M Art Appreciation.” Intelligencer Journal, May 27, 1983.

Kreider, Dusty. “The Mystery of Caroline Peart.” Susquehanna Magazine, October 1982.

Leach, William R. Butterfly People: An American Encounter with the Beauty of the World. New York: Pantheon Books, 2013.

Lears, T. Jackson. No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

161 Leslie, W. Bruce. Gentlemen and Scholars: College and Community in the “Age of the University,” 1865-1917. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.

Martinez, Katherine, and Kenneth L. Ames, eds. The Material Culture of Gender, The Gender of Material Culture. Winterthur, DE: Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1997.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “WWI Housing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,” accessed March 15, 2018, http://web.mit.edu/ebj/ www/ww1/Chester.html.

Masten, April. Art Work: Women Artists and Democracy in Mid-19th Century America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Mathews, Nancy Mowll. “‘The Greatest Woman Painter’: Cecilia Beaux, Mary Cassatt, and Issues of Female Fame.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, July 2000.

May, Stephen. “Horace Pippin’s Art Finds the Grandeur in Unheralded Lives.” Smithsonian, June 1994.

McCullough, David. The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011.

Miles, Ellen, ed. Portrait Painting in America: The Nineteenth Century. New York: Main Street Press, 1977.

Millikan, Lauren. “Maria Kirk.” Curiouser and Curiouser: The Evolution of Wonderland, accessed November 2, 2017, https://www.carlton.edu/ departments/ENGL/Alice/Aristkirk.html.

Peterson, Brian H., ed. Pennsylvania Impressionism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Randall, Edward C. The Dead Have Never Died. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1920.

Ricci, Patricia Likos. A Grand Vision: Violet Oakley and the American Renaissance. Philadelphia: Woodmere Art Museum, 2017.

. “Violet Oakley: American Renaissance Woman.” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, April 2002.

Russell, George William. The Candle of Vision. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1920.

162

Ruth, Jim. “Peart’s Art Comes of Age.” Lancaster New Era, July 26, 1987.

Scanlan, Patricia. “‘God-gifted girls’: women illustrators, gender, class, and commerce in American visual culture, 1885-1925” PhD diss., Indiana University, 2010. ProQuest (AAT 3409785).

Schmidt, Leigh Eric. Heaven’s Bride: The Unprintable Life of Ida C. Craddock, American Mystic, Scholar, Sexologist, Martyr, and Madwoman. New York: Basic Books, 2010.

School Circular. Philadelphia: The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1915.

Shellenberger, Ken. “Peart’s Life Is Made for Silver Screen.” LancasterOnline, December 5, 2011. http://infoweb.newsbank.com.

Social Register, Philadelphia, including Wilmington. New York: Social Register Association, 1911.

Solomon, Barbara Miller. In the Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Steffensen, Ingrid A. and Patricia Likos Ricci. “Alice Stallknecht: Every Woman to Her Trade.” Women’s Art Journal 26, no. 2 (Autumn 2005-Winter 2006): 14-18.

Swinth, Kirsten. Painting Professionals: Women Artists and the Development of Modern American Art, 1870-1930. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

Tappert, Tara L. “Cecilia Beaux: A Career as a Portrait Artist.” Women Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14, no. 4 (February 1988): 389-412.

. Cecilia Beaux and the Art of Portraiture. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1995.

Top Illustrations by Top Artists: Beautiful Public Domain Illustrations, “Maria Louise Kirk,” accessed November 2, 2017, https://topillustrations. wordpress.com/2014/04/03/maria-louise-kirk/.

University of Waterloo, “The Waterloo Studio,” accessed May 5, 2018, https://uwaterloo.ca/rome-program/waterloo-studio.

Van Hook, Bailey. Angels of Art: Women and Art in American Society, 1876- 1914. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996.

163

. Violet Oakley: An Artist’s Life. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2016.

Van Hook, Bailey, and Center for American Places. The Virgin & the Dynamo: Public Murals in American Architecture, 1893-1917. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2003.

Walker, Andrew. “Critic, curator, collector: Christian Brinton and the exhibition of national modernism in America, 1910--1945.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1999. ProQuest (AAI 9953610).

Washington, Peter. Madame Blavatsky’s Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to America. New York: Schocken Books, 1993.

Whistler, James McNeil. The Gentle Art of Making Enemies (1890). New York: Dover Publications, 1967.

Willburn, Sarah A. Possessed Victorians: Extra Spheres in Nineteenth-Century Mystical Writings. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006.

Wright, Melville E. “Philadelphia Art Exhibition.” Brush and Pencil 7, no. 5 (February 1901): 257-76.

Yount, Sylvia, Kevin Sharp, Nina Auerbach, and Mark Bockrath. Cecilia Beaux: American Figure Painter. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

164 Appendix

Caroline Peart Chronology

1840: John Peart (Caroline’s father) born 1843: Martha Peart (Caroline’s mother) born 1870: Caroline Peart born in Rosemont, Pennsylvania 1876-77: Peart family moves to Logan Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1887: Caroline enrolls at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia 1889: Caroline travels to Europe for the first time 1891: Caroline travels to Europe and notes painting in her diaries 1895: Caroline first exhibits at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Annual Exhibition 1897: Caroline takes final class at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia 1898: Caroline wins the Mary Smith Prize for Once Upon a Time at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts Annual Exhibition 1899: Caroline travels to Europe and attends James Whistler’s Academie Carmen 1901: Caroline exhibits at the Pan-American Exhibition in Buffalo, New York 1902: Peart family moves to Fairview, Rosemont, Pennsylvania 1903: Caroline exhibits at the Sixth Annual Summer Exhibition of the Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, Massachusetts 1903: Caroline travels to Europe and notes painting in her diaries 1904: Caroline studies at Studio Sabati, Rome Italy 1904: Caroline exhibits at the Carnegie International, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1905: Peart family purchases Ardrossan Park, West Chester, Pennsylvania 1906: John Peart dies 1909: Caroline makes her final trip to Europe and notes painting in her diaries 1914: Caroline marries Christian Brinton (1870-1942) 1917: Caroline and Christian separate

165 1920: Caroline and Martha sell Ardrossan Park and move to Washington Boro, Pennsylvania 1921: Caroline and Christian’s divorce is finalized 1923: Caroline drafts her Last Will and Testament 1940: Martha Peart dies 1963: Caroline Peart dies

166

Katharine John Snider 649 Dorset Street, Lititz, PA 17543 [email protected]

Education

Pennsylvania State University Harrisburg, PA Doctor of Philosophy, American Studies December 2018 Winterthur Program in Early American Culture Winterthur, DE Master of Arts, awarded by the University of Delaware May 2001 · Lois F. McNeil Fellow Franklin & Marshall College Lancaster, PA Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa May 1999 American Studies, English (minor)

Publications

Katharine John Snider, “‘An Air of Originality and Great Richness’: The Professional and Private Papers of Silver Designer Charles Osborne, 1871-1920,” Winterthur Portfolio (vol. 36, no. 4, Winter 2001), University of Chicago Press.

Katharine A. John, “Putting Lancaster on the Map: Historic Maps of Lancaster County," Journal of the Lancaster County Historical Society (vol. 104, no. 2, Summer 2002).

Wendy A. Cooper, An American Vision: Henry Francis du Pont’s Winterthur Museum. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 2002. (contributor)

Katharine A. John, “Fact or Family Legend? Determining a William Will Coffeepot’s Provenance,” The Bulletin, The Pewter Collectors’ Club of America, Inc., Winter 2000.

David Morgan and Sally Promey, Exhibiting the Visual Culture of American Religions. Valparaiso, Indiana: Valparaiso University, 2000. (entry on Currier and Ives)