Full Text: 1859-1862
"The Winter Exhibition." The Art-Journal, 1 December 1859: 377.
By Rebecca Solomon there are two works, entitled, ‘Reading for Pluck,’ and ‘Reading for Honours,’ in the latter of which we see a gownsman, who conducts his reading upon the principle that the proper study of mankind is woman: both are spirited pictures. ... By Simeon Solomon, ‘David playing before Saul’ (No. 146) is a careful composition.
Review of the Royal Academy Exhibit. Athenaeum, 1699 (19 May 1860): 688-90.
Mr. Armitage sends two works, both of great merit. May we ask what has the painter of 'Aholibah' been about so long, for it is years since he sustained the reputation won by that splendid picture! The Mother of Moses hiding, after having exposed her Child on the River's Brink (527). This is the half-figure and grand head of the woman placed behind a stone amongst bulrushes, and watching, with great eyes, the finding of her infant. Broad and masterly is the treatment of the theme. We lament that the artist seems to have gone into the other extreme of the principle which induced Mr. Simeon Solomon to paint his Mother of Moses with a countenance in an exaggerated Jewish type. Mr. Armitage's head might be that of an Egyptian woman as well as a daughter of Israel. The broad forehead, spread flat cheeks, square nose, and wide jaw, are in no respect like those the ancient sculptures tell us were possessed by the Egyptians, and are even further removed from those of the children of Jacob. We must, therefore, treat the face as of perfectly ideal type, intended only to convey the universal expression of maternal passion. In this aspect, the picture is a grand and successful work. (page 688, column 3)
"The Royal Academy Exhibition: The Ninety-Second, 1860." The Art-Journal, 1 June 1860: 161-172.
No. 269. ‘Peg Woffington’s Visit to Triplet,’ Miss R. Solomon. This is really a picture of great power, and in execution so firm and masculine that it would scarcely be pronounced the work of a lady. The subject is from Charles Reade’s “Peg Woffington.” The heroine visits Triplet and his family, in the words of Triplet himself, “Coming like sunshine into poor men’s houses, and turning drooping hearts to daylight and hope.” It is gratifying, encouraging, and full of hope, to find a picture so admirably painted by a lady; it is, moreover, the offspring of thought and intelligence, as well as study and labour. The artist was not content to seek a theme on trodden ways, but sought, and found it, where she might obtain evidence of originality as well as power. She adds another name to the many who receive honour as great women of the age. (p.168)
No. 346. 'Moses,' S. Solomon. There is an oppressive influence in this work that sinks the spirits; there is no ray of hope to point to a glorious future for the infant, whom his mother is about to commit to the thin basket held by his sister. The heads are rather Egyptian than Jewish; they seem to have been painted from the same model. Being mother and daughter, a certain degree of likeness is allowable, but they are too distinctly identical. Jochebed is too poorly clad; every credit, however, is due to the artist for the style of the apparel of both figures. (p.169)
Stephens, F. G. "The Royal Academy." Macmillan’s Magazine, 2 June 1860: 157-64.
In Mr. Simeon Solomon's "Moses," the mother of the deliverer of Israel is taking farewell of him before he is deposited among the bulrushes. The sister of Moses waits beside holding the basket, and, standing upright, peers over her mother's arm at the child. Their faces, although, it appears to us, a little too dark, are full of expression and characteristic tenderness. The colour throughout this picture is extremely good, the varying textures of the dresses excellently rendered, and the accessories all displaying thought and originality. (page 163, column 1)
"Exhibition of the Royal Academy [continued]." The Art-Journal, 1 July 1861: 193-198.
The ‘Young Musician,’ &c., of S. Solomon, No. 493, is a work of higher finish, and of almost infinitely higher and purer feeling, than either of those just noticed [J. Brett's Warwick Castle and H. Wallis's Elaine]; and although deficient in colour, it is redolent of deep and pious feeling. (p.196)
No. 581, ‘The Arrest of a Deserter,’ Miss R. Solomon, is a clever picture, and, in all respects, most creditable to the lady artist; but it is not quite equal to ‘Peg Woffington,’ exhibited by Miss Solomon last year, which was an extraordinary picture for character. (p.197)
"Jewish Ceremonies, by Mr. S. Solomon." The Jewish Chronicle and Hebrew Observer, 1 August 1862: 8.
Mr. Simeon Solomon is an artist of uncommon promise[.] Mr. Simeon Solomon is an artist of strong Jewish feeling. He is most successful as a delineator of Jewish subjects. The press delights in noticing him, and the Jewish community in hailing him as such. But the greater this well-earned reputation, and the more decided this bent of mind, the more distinct the challenge to severe scrutiny. Whatever its result, this discharge of a public duty can neither shake the former, which is too well established, nor is it likely to divert the latter from its true direction, which is too strongly marked. The less, therefore, any observation of ours can affect the position of the highly gifted artist, the less occasion have we for reserve. We will, therefore, say at once that the productions before us are far from coming up to the standard which Mr. Solomon's antecedents, his truly poetical nature, and his glowing imagination, led us to expect. We cannot approve of them as works of art, since, with some exceptions, among which we reckon the "Feast of Dedication," they lack the idealisation which raises productions of this kind above the ordinary, and since they fail to call forth those holy feelings of awe and veneration from which they derive their chief value. Nor can we conscientiously recommend them as faithful representations in all instances of Jewish religious ceremonies, as the artist has not always seized upon those characteristic moments and objects peculiarly marking the performance of the ceremony. Where, for instance, on "The Passover Eve," is the expression of that contentment and happiness in the countenances of the elder, and of that mirth and glee in those of the younger branches of the family, which the faces of all orthodox Jews reflect on the anniversary night of the deliverance of their ancestors from Egyptian thraldom? And why should the little fellow perched on a high stool appear bare-headed, contrary to Jewish usage? There is certainly something devotional, something truly elevating in the face, and something very graceful in the attitude of the female--the mother of the family--lighting the lamp on "The Sabbath Eve." But would not the sanctification of the Sabbath ([Hebrew]), which, after all, is the ceremony of the Sabbath eve, have more appropriately represented what the artist wished to depict than the ceremony actually delineated?
In the "Day of Atonement" the artist has chosen such a position as almost entirely to exclude the grand view of the synagogue, crowded with devout worshippers. This glorious scene has been sacrificed in order to show the one figure of the minister, and unfortunately it represents him doing what he never does;--the Jews never kneel; and on the four occasions on the Day of Atonement they only rest on the knee whilst prostrating themselves. In fact, they are told, and they repeat the words whilst performing the act, that the priests "fell upon their faces." Where is the ark, with its snowy drapery, open during the prostrations, and showing the scrolls of the law? Where are the ministers, clad in their white and flowing surplices? Nothing is here to impress us with the grand spectacle of an entire body of fellow-worshippers, standing to ask forgiveness on this day of judgment; and this same sacrificing the mass to the individual is evident on "The Fast for the desolation of Jerusalem," where the only figures are, a rabbi sitting on steps, and another, as it were, calling to pay him a visit; but no portion of the ceremony is shown, nor does this scene occur in any part of it. These are oversights apparently arising from the neglect of those sources of information which historical painters in the execution of their task generally consult.
Whatever the cause of our disappointment, it certainly does not arise from the artist's inability to realise our expectations. Mr. Solomon has shown with what truth and depth of feeling he can handle Jewish subjects, and how much soul he can throw into them. The gifted artist will prove this again when he next appears before us either with the same or another Jewish theme.