{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64908/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64908","id":"gutenberg_64908","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64908","summary":null,"tags":["Arts -- Philosophy","Arts and morals","Category: Art","Category: Philosophy & Ethics"],"text":"WHAT IS ART?\n\n\n\n\n                              WHAT IS ART?\n\n                                   BY\n                              LEO TOLSTOY\n\n                   TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL MS.,\n                        WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY\n                              AYLMER MAUDE\n\n                                NEW YORK\n                        FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY\n                                  1904\n\n\n\n\n                              Introduction\n\n\nWhat thoughtful man has not been perplexed by problems relating to art?\n\nAn estimable and charming Russian lady I knew, felt the charm of the\nmusic and ritual of the services of the Russo-Greek Church so strongly\nthat she wished the peasants, in whom she was interested, to retain\ntheir blind faith, though she herself disbelieved the church doctrines.\n\u201cTheir lives are so poor and bare\u2014they have so little art, so little\npoetry and colour in their lives\u2014let them at least enjoy what they have;\nit would be cruel to undeceive them,\u201d said she.\n\nA false and antiquated view of life is supported by means of art, and is\ninseparably linked to some manifestations of art which we enjoy and\nprize. If the false view of life be destroyed this art will cease to\nappear valuable. Is it best to screen the error for the sake of\npreserving the art? Or should the art be sacrificed for the sake of\ntruthfulness?\n\nAgain and again in history a dominant church has utilised art to\nmaintain its sway over men. Reformers (early Christians, Mohammedans,\nPuritans, and others) have perceived that art bound people to the old\nfaith, and they were angry with art. They diligently chipped the noses\nfrom statues and images, and were wroth with ceremonies, decorations,\nstained-glass windows, and processions. They were even ready to banish\nart altogether, for, besides the superstitions it upheld, they saw that\nit depraved and perverted men by dramas, drinking-songs, novels,\npictures, and dances, of a kind that awakened man\u2019s lower nature. Yet\nart always reasserted her sway, and to-day we are told by many that art\nhas nothing to do with morality\u2014that \u201cart should be followed for art\u2019s\nsake.\u201d\n\nI went one day, with a lady artist, to the Bodkin Art Gallery in Moscow.\nIn one of the rooms, on a table, lay a book of coloured pictures, issued\nin Paris and supplied, I believe, to private subscribers only. The\npictures were admirably executed, but represented scenes in the private\ncabinets of a restaurant. Sexual indulgence was the chief subject of\neach picture. Women extravagantly dressed and partly undressed, women\nexposing their legs and breasts to men in evening dress; men and women\ntaking liberties with each other, or dancing the \u201ccan-can,\u201d etc., etc.\nMy companion the artist, a maiden lady of irreproachable conduct and\nreputation, began deliberately to look at these pictures. I could not\nlet my attention dwell on them without ill effects. Such things had a\ncertain attraction for me, and tended to make me restless and nervous. I\nventured to suggest that the subject-matter of the pictures was\nobjectionable. But my companion (who prided herself on being an artist)\nremarked with conscious superiority, that from an artist\u2019s point of view\nthe _subject_ was of no consequence. The pictures being very well\nexecuted were artistic, and therefore worthy of attention and study.\nMorality had nothing to do with art.\n\nHere again is a problem. One remembers Plato\u2019s advice not to let our\nthoughts run upon women, for if we do we shall think clearly about\nnothing else, and one knows that to neglect this advice is to lose\ntranquillity of mind; but then one does not wish to be considered\nnarrow, ascetic, or inartistic, nor to lose artistic pleasures which\nthose around us esteem so highly.\n\nAgain, the newspapers last year printed proposals to construct a Wagner\nOpera House, to cost, if I recollect rightly, \u00a3100,000\u2014about as much as\na hundred labourers may earn by fifteen or twenty years\u2019 hard work. The\nwriters thought it would be a good thing if such an Opera House were\nerected and endowed. But I had a talk lately with a man who, till his\nhealth failed him, had worked as a builder in London. He told me that\nwhen he was younger he had been very fond of theatre-going, but, later,\nwhen he thought things over and considered that in almost every number\nof his weekly paper he read of cases of people whose death was hastened\nby lack of good food, he felt it was not right that so much labour\nshould be spent on theatres.\n\nIn reply to this view it is urged that food for the mind is as important\nas food for the body. The labouring classes work to produce food and\nnecessaries for themselves and for the cultured, while some of the\ncultured class produce plays and operas. It is a division of labour. But\nthis again invites the rejoinder that, sure enough, the labourers\nproduce food for themselves and also food that the cultured class accept\nand consume, but that the artists seem too often to produce their\nspiritual food for the cultured only\u2014at any rate that a singularly small\nshare seems to reach the country labourers who work to supply the bodily\nfood! Even were the \u201cdivision of labour\u201d shown to be a fair one, the\n\u201cdivision of products\u201d seems remarkably one-sided.\n\nOnce again: how is it that often when a new work is produced, neither\nthe critics, the artists, the publishers, nor the public, seem to know\nwhether it is valuable or worthless? Some of the most famous books in\nEnglish literature could hardly find a publisher, or were savagely\nderided by leading critics; while other works once acclaimed as\nmasterpieces are now laughed at or utterly forgotten. A play which\nnobody now reads was once passed off as a newly-discovered masterpiece\nof Shakespear\u2019s, and was produced at a leading London theatre. Are the\ncritics playing blind-man\u2019s buff? Are they relying on each other? Is\neach following his own whim and fancy? Or do they possess a criterion\nwhich they never reveal to those outside the profession?\n\nSuch are a few of the many problems relating to art which present\nthemselves to us all, and it is the purpose of this book to enable us to\nreach such a comprehension of art, and of the position art should occupy\nin our lives, as will enable us to answer such questions.\n\nThe task is one of enormous difficulty. Under the cloak of \u201cart,\u201d so\nmuch selfish amusement and self-indulgence tries to justify itself, and\nso many mercenary interests are concerned in preventing the light from\nshining in upon the subject, that the clamour raised by this book can\nonly be compared to that raised by the silversmiths of Ephesus when they\nshouted, \u201cGreat is Diana of the Ephesians!\u201d for about the space of two\nhours.\n\nElaborate theories blocked the path with subtle sophistries or ponderous\npseudo-erudition. Merely to master these, and expose them, was by itself\na colossal labour, but necessary in order to clear the road for a\nstatement of any fresh view. To have accomplished this work of exposure\nin a few chapters is a wonderful achievement. To have done it without\nmaking the book intolerably dry is more wonderful still. In Chapter III.\n(where a rapid summary of some sixty \u00e6sthetic writers is given) even\nTolstoy\u2019s powers fail to make the subject interesting, except to the\nspecialist, and he has to plead with his readers \u201cnot to be overcome by\ndulness, but to read these extracts through.\u201d\n\nAmong the writers mentioned, English readers miss the names of John\nRuskin and William Morris, especially as so much that Tolstoy says, is\nin accord with their views.\n\nOf Ruskin, Tolstoy has a very high opinion. I have heard him say, \u201cI\ndon\u2019t know why you English make such a fuss about Gladstone\u2014you have a\nmuch greater man in Ruskin.\u201d As a stylist, too, Tolstoy speaks of him\nwith high commendation. Ruskin, however, though he has written on art\nwith profound insight, and has said many things with which Tolstoy fully\nagrees, has, I think, nowhere so systematised and summarised his view\nthat it can be readily quoted in the concise way which has enabled\nTolstoy to indicate his points of essential agreement with Home, V\u00e9ron,\nand Kant. Even the attempt to summarise Kant\u2019s \u00e6sthetic philosophy in a\ndozen lines will hardly be of much service except to readers who have\nalready some acquaintance with the subject. For those to whom the\ndifference between \u201csubjective\u201d and \u201cobjective\u201d perceptions is fresh, a\ndozen pages would be none too much. And to summarise Ruskin would be\nperhaps more difficult than to condense Kant.\n\nAs to William Morris, we are reminded of his dictum that art is the\nworkman\u2019s expression of joy in his work, by Tolstoy\u2019s \u201cAs soon as the\nauthor is not producing art for his own satisfaction,\u2014does not himself\nfeel what he wishes to express,\u2014a resistance immediately springs up\u201d (p.\n154); and again, \u201cIn such transmission to others of the feelings that\nhave arisen in him, he (the artist) will find his happiness\u201d (p. 195).\nTolstoy sweeps over a far wider range of thought, but he and Morris are\nnot opposed. Morris was emphasising part of what Tolstoy is implying.\n\nBut to return to the difficulties of Tolstoy\u2019s task. There is one, not\nyet mentioned, lurking in the hearts of most of us. We have enjoyed\nworks of \u201cart.\u201d We have been interested by the information conveyed in a\nnovel, or we have been thrilled by an unexpected \u201ceffect\u201d; have admired\nthe exactitude with which real life has been reproduced, or have had our\nfeelings touched by allusions to, or reproductions of, works\u2014old German\nlegends, Greek myths, or Hebrew poetry\u2014which moved us long ago, as they\nmoved generations before us. And we thought all this was \u201cart.\u201d Not\nclearly understanding what art is, and wherein its importance lies, we\nwere not only attached to these things, but attributed importance to\nthem, calling them \u201cartistic\u201d and \u201cbeautiful,\u201d without well knowing what\nwe meant by those words.\n\nBut here is a book that obliges us to clear our minds. It challenges us\nto define \u201cart\u201d and \u201cbeauty,\u201d and to say why we consider these things,\nthat pleased us, to be specially important. And as to beauty, we find\nthat the definition given by \u00e6sthetic writers amounts merely to this,\nthat \u201cBeauty is a kind of pleasure received by us, not having personal\nadvantage for its object.\u201d But it follows from this, that \u201cbeauty\u201d is a\nmatter of taste, differing among different people, and to attach special\nimportance to what pleases _me_ (and others who have had the same sort\nof training that I have had) is merely to repeat the old, old mistake\nwhich so divides human society; it is like declaring that my race is the\nbest race, my nation the best nation, my church the best church, and my\nfamily the \u201cbest\u201d family. It indicates ignorance and selfishness.\n\nBut \u201ctruth angers those whom it does not convince;\u201d\u2014people do not wish\nto understand these things. It seems, at first, as though Tolstoy were\nobliging us to sacrifice something valuable. We do not realise that we\nare being helped to select the best art, but we do feel that we are\nbeing deprived of our sense of satisfaction in Rudyard Kipling.\n\nBoth the magnitude and the difficulty of the task were therefore very\ngreat, but they have been surmounted in a marvellous manner. Of the\neffect this book has had on me personally, I can only say that \u201cwhereas\nI was blind, now I see.\u201d Though sensitive to some forms of art, I was,\nwhen I took it up, much in the dark on questions of \u00e6sthetic philosophy;\nwhen I had done with it, I had grasped the main solution of the problem\nso clearly that\u2014though I waded through nearly all that the critics and\nreviewers had to say about the book\u2014I never again became perplexed upon\nthe central issues.\n\nTolstoy was indeed peculiarly qualified for the task he has\naccomplished. It was after many years of work as a writer of fiction,\nand when he was already standing in the very foremost rank of European\nnovelists, that he found himself compelled to face, in deadly earnest,\nthe deepest problems of human life. He not only could not go on writing\nbooks, but he felt he could not live, unless he found clear guidance, so\nthat he might walk sure-footedly and know the purpose and meaning of his\nlife. Not as a mere question of speculative curiosity, but as a matter\nof vital necessity, he devoted years to rediscover the truths which\nunderlie all religion.\n\nTo fit him for this task he possessed great knowledge of men and books,\na wide experience of life, a knowledge of languages, and a freedom from\nbondage to any authority but that of reason and conscience. He was\npinned to no Thirty-nine Articles, and was in receipt of no retaining\nfee which he was not prepared to sacrifice. Another gift, rare among men\nof his position, was his wonderful sincerity and (due, I think, to that\nsincerity) an amazing power of looking at the phenomena of our complex\nand artificial life with the eyes of a little child; going straight to\nthe real, obvious facts of the case, and brushing aside the sophistries,\nthe conventionalities, and the \u201cauthorities\u201d by which they are obscured.\n\nHe commenced the task when he was about fifty years of age, and since\nthen (_i.e._, during the last twenty years) he has produced nine\nphilosophical or scientific works of first-rate importance, besides a\ngreat many stories and short articles. These works, in chronological\norder, are\u2014\n\n    _My Confession._\n\n    _A Criticism of Dogmatic Theology_, which has never been translated.\n\n    _The Four Gospels Harmonised and Translated_, of which only two\n    parts, out of three, have as yet appeared in English.\n\n    _What I Believe_, sometimes called _My Religion_.\n\n    _The Gospel in Brief._\n\n    _What are we to do then?_ sometimes called in English _What to do?_\n\n    _On Life_, which is not an easy work in the original, and has not\n    been satisfactorily translated.[1]\n\n    _The Kingdom of God is within you_; and\n\n    _The Christian Teaching_, which appeared after _What is Art?_ though\n    it was written before it.\n\nTo these scientific works I am inclined to add _The Kreutzer Sonata_,\nwith the _Sequel_ or _Postscript_ explaining its purpose; for though\n_The Kreutzer Sonata_ is a story, the understanding of sexual problems,\ndealt with explicitly in the _Sequel_, is an integral part of that\ncomprehension of life which causes Tolstoy to admire Christ, Buddha, or\nFrancis of Assisi.\n\nThese ten works treat of the meaning of our life; of the problems raised\nby the fact that we approve of some things and disapprove of others, and\nfind ourselves deciding which of two courses to pursue.\n\nReligion, Government, Property, Sex, War, and all the relations in which\nman stands to man, to his own consciousness, and to the ultimate source\n(which we call God) from whence that consciousness proceeds\u2014are examined\nwith the utmost frankness.\n\nAnd all this time the problems of Art: What is Art? What importance is\ndue to it? How is it related to the rest of life?\u2014were working in his\nmind. He was a great artist, often upbraided for having abandoned his\nart. He, of all men, was bound to clear his thoughts on this perplexing\nsubject, and to express them. His whole philosophy of life\u2014the\n\u201creligious perception\u201d to which, with such tremendous labour and effort,\nhe had attained, forbade him to detach art from life, and place it in a\nwater-tight compartment where it should not act on life or be re-acted\nupon by life.\n\nLife to him is rational. It has a clear aim and purpose, discernible by\nthe aid of reason and conscience. And no human activity can be fully\nunderstood or rightly appreciated until the central purpose of life is\nperceived.\n\nYou cannot piece together a puzzle-map as long as you keep one bit in a\nwrong place, but when the pieces all fit together, then you have a\ndemonstration that they are all in their right places. Tolstoy used that\nsimile years ago when explaining how the comprehension of the text,\n\u201cresist not him that is evil,\u201d enabled him to perceive the\nreasonableness of Christ\u2019s teaching, which had long baffled him. So it\nis with the problem of Art. Wrongly understood, it will tend to confuse\nand perplex your whole comprehension of life. But given the clue\nsupplied by true \u201creligious perception,\u201d and you can place art so that\nit shall fit in with a right understanding of politics, economics,\nsex-relationships, science, and all other phases of human activity.\n\nThe basis on which this work rests, is a perception of the meaning of\nhuman life. This has been quite lost sight of by some of the reviewers,\nwho have merely misrepresented what Tolstoy says, and then demonstrated\nhow very stupid he would have been had he said what they attributed to\nhim. Leaving his premises and arguments untouched, they dissent from\nvarious conclusions\u2014as though it were all a mere question of taste. They\nsay that they are very fond of things which Tolstoy ridicules, and that\nthey can\u2019t understand why he does not like what they like\u2014which is quite\npossible, especially if they have not understood the position from which\nhe starts. But such criticism can lead to nothing. Discussions as to why\none man likes pears and another prefers meat, do not help towards\nfinding a definition of what is essential in nourishment; and just so,\n\u201cthe solution of questions of taste in art does not help to make clear\nwhat this particular human activity which we call art really consists\nin.\u201d\n\nThe object of the following brief summary of a few main points is to\nhelp the reader to avoid pitfalls into which many reviewers have fallen.\nIt aims at being no more than a bare statement of the positions\u2014for more\nthan that, the reader must turn to the book itself.\n\nLet it be granted at the outset, that Tolstoy writes for those who have\n\u201cears to hear.\u201d He seldom pauses to safeguard himself against the\ncaptious critic, and cares little for minute verbal accuracy. For\ninstance, on page 144, he mentions \u201cParis,\u201d where an English writer\n(even one who knew to what an extent Paris is the art centre of France,\nand how many artists flock thither from Russia, America, and all ends of\nthe earth) would have been almost sure to have said \u201cFrance,\u201d for fear\nof being thought to exaggerate. One needs some alertness of mind to\nfollow Tolstoy in his task of compressing so large a subject into so\nsmall a space. Moreover, he is an emphatic writer who says what he\nmeans, and even, I think, sometimes rather overemphasizes it. With this\nmuch warning let us proceed to a brief summary of Tolstoy\u2019s view of art.\n\n\u201cArt is a human activity,\u201d and consequently does not exist for its own\nsake, but is valuable or objectionable in proportion as it is\nserviceable or harmful to mankind. The object of this activity is to\ntransmit to others feeling the artist has experienced. Such\nfeelings\u2014intentionally re-evoked and successfully transmitted to\nothers\u2014are the subject-matter of all art. By certain external\nsigns\u2014movements, lines, colours, sounds, or arrangements of words\u2014an\nartist infects other people so that they share his feelings. Thus \u201cart\nis a means of union among men, joining them together in the same\nfeelings.\u201d\n\nChapters II. to V. contain an examination of various theories which have\ntaken art to be something other than this, and step by step we are\nbrought to the conclusion that art is this, and nothing but this.\n\nHaving got our definition of art, let us first consider art\nindependently of its subject-matter, _i.e._, without asking whether the\nfeelings transmitted are good, bad, or indifferent. Without adequate\nexpression there is no art, for there is no infection, no transference\nto others of the author\u2019s feeling. The test of art is infection. If an\nauthor has moved you so that you feel as he felt, if you are so united\nto him in feeling that it seems to you that he has expressed just what\nyou have long wished to express, the work that has so infected you is a\nwork of art.\n\nIn this sense, it is true that art has nothing to do with morality; for\nthe test lies in the \u201cinfection,\u201d and not in any consideration of the\ngoodness or badness of the emotions conveyed. Thus the test of art is an\n_internal_ one. The activity of art is based on the fact that a man,\nreceiving, through his sense of hearing or sight, another man\u2019s\nexpression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion that moved\nthe man who expressed it. We all share the same common human nature, and\nin this sense, at least, are sons of one Father. To take the simplest\nexample: a man laughs, and another, who hears, becomes merry; or a man\nweeps, and another, who hears, feels sorrow. Note in passing that it\ndoes not amount to art \u201cif a man infects others directly, immediately,\nat the very time he experiences the feeling; if he causes another man to\nyawn when he himself cannot help yawning,\u201d etc. Art begins when some\none, _with the object of making others share his feeling_, expresses his\nfeeling by certain external indications.\n\nNormal human beings possess this faculty to be infected by the\nexpression of another man\u2019s emotions. For a plain man of unperverted\ntaste, living in contact with nature, with animals, and with his\nfellow-men\u2014say, for \u201ca country peasant of unperverted taste, this is\nas easy as it is for an animal of unspoilt scent to follow the trace\nhe needs.\u201d And he will know indubitably whether a work presented to\nhim does, or does not, unite him in feeling with the author. But\nvery many people \u201cof our circle\u201d (upper and middle class society)\nlive such unnatural lives, in such conventional relations to the\npeople around them, and in such artificial surroundings, that they\nhave lost \u201cthat simple feeling, that sense of infection with\nanother\u2019s feeling\u2014compelling us to joy in another\u2019s gladness, to\nsorrow in another\u2019s grief, and to mingle souls with another\u2014which is\nthe essence of art.\u201d Such people, therefore, have no inner test by\nwhich to recognise a work of art; and they will always be mistaking\nother things for art, and seeking for external guides, such as the\nopinions of \u201crecognised authorities.\u201d Or they will mistake for art\nsomething that produces a merely physiological effect\u2014lulling or\nexciting them; or some intellectual puzzle that gives them something\nto think about.\n\nBut if most people of the \u201ccultured crowd\u201d are impervious to true art,\nis it really possible that a common Russian country peasant, for\ninstance, whose work-days are filled with agricultural labour, and whose\nbrief leisure is largely taken up by his family life and by his\nparticipation in the affairs of the village commune\u2014is it possible that\n_he_ can recognise and be touched by works of art? Certainly it is! Just\nas in ancient Greece crowds assembled to hear the poems of Homer, so\nto-day in Russia, as in many countries and many ages, the Gospel\nparables, and much else of the highest art, are gladly heard by the\ncommon people. And this does not refer to any superstitious use of the\nBible, but to its use as literature.\n\nNot only do normal, labouring country people possess the capacity to be\ninfected by good art\u2014\u201cthe epic of Genesis, folk-legends, fairy-tales,\nfolk-songs, etc.,\u201d but they themselves produce songs, stories, dances,\ndecorations, etc., which are works of true art. Take as examples the\nworks of Burns or Bunyan, and the peasant women\u2019s song mentioned by\nTolstoy in Chapter XIV., or some of those melodies produced by the negro\nslaves on the southern plantations, which have touched, and still touch,\nmany of us with the emotions felt by their unknown and unpaid composers.\n\nThe one great quality which makes a work of art truly contagious is its\n_sincerity_. If an artist is really actuated by a feeling, and is\nstrongly impelled to communicate that feeling to other people\u2014not for\nmoney or fame, or anything else, but because he feels he must share\nit\u2014then he will not be satisfied till he has found a _clear_ way of\nexpressing it. And the man who is not borrowing his feelings, but has\ndrawn what he expresses from the depths of his nature, is sure to be\n_original_, for in the same way that no two people have exactly similar\nfaces or forms, no two people have exactly similar minds or souls.\n\nThat in briefest outline is what Tolstoy says about art, considered\napart from its subject-matter. And this is how certain critics have met\nit. They say that when Tolstoy says the test of art is _internal_, he\nmust mean that it is _external_. When he says that country peasants have\nin the past appreciated, and do still appreciate, works of the highest\nart, he means that the way to detect a work of art is to see what is\napparently most popular among the masses. Go into the streets or\nmusic-halls of the cities in any particular country and year, and\nobserve what is most frequently sung, shouted, or played on the\nbarrel-organs. It may happen to be\n\n                            \u201cTarara-boom-deay,\u201d\n\nor,\n\n                         \u201cWe don\u2019t want to fight,\n                         But, by Jingo, if we do.\u201d\n\nBut whatever it is, you may at once declare these songs to be the\nhighest musical art, without even pausing to ask to what they owe their\nvogue\u2014what actress, or singer, or politician, or wave of patriotic\npassion has conduced to their popularity. Nor need you consider whether\nthat popularity is not merely temporary and local. Tolstoy has said that\nworks of the highest art are understood by unperverted country\npeasants\u2014and here are things which are popular with the mob, _ergo_,\nthese things must be the highest art.\n\nThe critics then proceed to say that such a test is utterly absurd. And\non this point I am able to agree with the critics.\n\nSome of these writers commence their articles by saying that Tolstoy is\na most profound thinker, a great prophet, an intellectual force, etc.\nYet when Tolstoy, in his emphatic way, makes the sweeping remark that\n\u201cgood art always pleases every one,\u201d the critics do not read on to find\nout what he means, but reply: \u201cNo! good art does not please every one;\nsome people are colour-blind, and some are deaf, or have no ear for\nmusic.\u201d\n\nIt is as though a man strenuously arguing a point were to say, \u201cEvery\none knows that two and two make four,\u201d and a boy who did not at all see\nwhat the speaker was driving at, were to reply: \u201cNo, our new-born baby\ndoesn\u2019t know it!\u201d It would distract attention from the subject in hand,\nbut it would not elucidate matters.\n\nThere is, of course, a verbal contradiction between the statements that\n\u201cgood art always pleases every one\u201d (p. 100), and the remark concerning\n\u201cpeople of our circle,\u201d who, \u201cwith very few exceptions, artists and\npublic and critics, ... cannot distinguish true works of art from\ncounterfeits, but continually mistake for real art the worst and most\nartificial\u201d (p. 151). But I venture to think that any one of\nintelligence, and free from prejudice, reading this book carefully, need\nnot fail to reach the author\u2019s meaning.\n\nA point to be carefully noted is the distinction between science and\nart. \u201cScience investigates and brings to human perception such truths\nand such knowledge as the people of a given time and society consider\nmost important. Art transmits these truths from the region of perception\nto the region of emotion\u201d (p. 102). Science is an \u201cactivity of the\nunderstanding which demands preparation and a certain sequence of\nknowledge, so that one cannot learn trigonometry before knowing\ngeometry.\u201d \u201cThe business of art,\u201d on the other hand, \u201clies just in\nthis\u2014to make that understood and felt which, in the form of an argument,\nmight be incomprehensible and inaccessible\u201d (p. 102). It \u201cinfects any\nman whatever his plane of development,\u201d and \u201cthe hindrance to\nunderstanding the best and highest _feelings_ (as is said in the gospel)\ndoes not at all lie in deficiency of development or learning, but, on\nthe contrary, in false development and false learning\u201d (pp. 102, 103).\nScience and art are frequently blended in one work\u2014_e.g._, in the gospel\nelucidation of Christ\u2019s comprehension of life, or, to take a modern\ninstance, in Henry George\u2019s elucidation of the land question in\n_Progress and Poverty_.\n\nThe class distinction to which Tolstoy repeatedly alludes needs some\nexplanation. The position of the lower classes in England and in Russia\nis different. In Russia a much larger number of people live on the verge\nof starvation; the condition of the factory-hands is much worse than in\nEngland, and there are many glaring cases of brutal cruelty inflicted on\nthe peasants by the officials, the police, or the military,\u2014but in\nRussia a far greater proportion of the population live in the country,\nand a peasant usually has his own house, and tills his share of the\ncommunal lands. The \u201cunperverted country peasant\u201d of whom Tolstoy speaks\nis a man who perhaps suffers grievous want when there is a bad harvest\nin his province, but he is a man accustomed to the experiences of a\nnatural life, to the management of his own affairs, and to a real voice\nin the arrangements of the village commune. The Government interferes,\nfrom time to time, to collect its taxes by force, to take the young men\nfor soldiers, or to maintain the \u201crights\u201d of the upper classes; but\notherwise the peasant is free to do what he sees to be necessary and\nreasonable. On the other hand, English labourers are, for the most part,\nnot so poor, they have more legal rights, and they have votes; but a far\nlarger number of them live in towns and are engaged in unnatural\noccupations, while even those that do live in touch with nature are\nusually mere wage-earners, tilling other men\u2019s land, and living often in\nabject submission to the farmer, the parson, or the lady-bountiful. They\nare dependent on an employer for daily bread, and the condition of a\nwage-labourer is as unnatural as that of a landlord.\n\nThe tyranny of the St. Petersburg bureaucracy is more dramatic, but less\nomnipresent\u2014and probably far less fatal to the capacity to enjoy\nart\u2014than the tyranny of our respectable, self-satisfied, and\nproperty-loving middle-class. I am therefore afraid that we have no\ngreat number of \u201cunperverted\u201d country labourers to compare with those of\nwhom Tolstoy speaks\u2014and some of whom I have known personally. But the\ntruth Tolstoy elucidates lies far too deep in human nature to be\ninfringed by such differences of local circumstance. Whatever those\ncircumstances may be, the fact remains that in proportion as a man\napproaches towards the condition not only of \u201cearning his subsistence by\nsome kind of labour,\u201d but of \u201cliving on all its sides the life natural\nand proper to mankind,\u201d his capacity to appreciate true art tends to\nincrease. On the other hand, when a class settles down into an\nartificial way of life,\u2014loses touch with nature, becomes confused in its\nperceptions of what is good and what is bad, and prefers the condition\nof a parasite to that of a producer,\u2014its capacity to appreciate true art\nmust diminish. Having lost all clear perception of the meaning of life,\nsuch people are necessarily left without any criterion which will enable\nthem to distinguish good from bad art, and they are sure to follow\neagerly after beauty, or \u201cthat which pleases them.\u201d\n\nThe artists of our society can usually only reach people of the upper\nand middle classes. But who is the great artist?\u2014he who delights a\nselect audience of his own day and class, or he whose works link\ngeneration to generation and race to race in a common bond of feeling?\nSurely art should fulfil its purpose as completely as possible. A work\nof art that united every one with the author, and with one another,\nwould be perfect art. Tolstoy, in his emphatic way, speaks of works of\n\u201cuniversal\u201d art, and (though the profound critics hasten to inform us\nthat no work of art ever reached everybody) certainly the more nearly a\nwork of art approaches to such expression of feeling that every one may\nbe infected by it\u2014the nearer (apart from all question of subject-matter)\nit approaches perfection.\n\nBut now as to subject-matter. The subject-matter of art consists of\nfeelings which can be spread from man to man, feelings which are\n\u201ccontagious\u201d or \u201cinfectious.\u201d Is it of no importance _what_ feelings\nincrease and multiply among men?\n\nOne man feels that submission to the authority of _his_ church, and\nbelief in all that it teaches him, is good; another is embued by a sense\nof each man\u2019s duty to think with his own head\u2014to use for his guidance in\nlife the reason and conscience given to him. One man feels that his\nnation _ought to_ wipe out in blood the shame of a defeat inflicted on\nher; another feels that we are brothers, sons of one spirit, and that\nthe slaughter of man by man is always wrong. One man feels that the most\ndesirable thing in life is the satisfaction obtainable by the love of\nwomen; another man feels that sex-love is an entanglement and a snare,\nhindering his real work in life. And each of these, if he possess an\nartist\u2019s gift of expression, and if the feeling be really his own and\nsincere, may infect other men. But some of these feelings will benefit\nand some will harm mankind, and the more widely they are spread the\ngreater will be their effect.\n\nArt unites men. Surely it is desirable that the feelings in which it\nunites them should be \u201cthe best and highest to which men have risen,\u201d or\nat least should not run contrary to our perception of what makes for the\nwell-being of ourselves and of others. And our perception of what makes\nfor the well-being of ourselves and of others is what Tolstoy calls our\n\u201creligious perception.\u201d\n\nTherefore the subject-matter of what we, in our day, can esteem as being\nthe best art, can be of two kinds only\u2014\n\n(1) Feelings flowing from the highest perception now attainable by man\nof our right relation to our neighbour and to the Source from which we\ncome. Dickens\u2019 \u201cChristmas Carol,\u201d uniting us in a more vivid sense of\ncompassion and love, is a ready example of such art.\n\n(2) The simple feelings of common life, accessible to every one\u2014provided\nthat they are such as do not hinder progress towards well-being. Art of\nthis kind makes us realise to how great an extent we already are members\none of another\u2014sharing the feelings of one common human nature.\n\nThe success of a very primitive novel\u2014the story of Joseph, which made\nits way into the sacred books of the Jews, spread from land to land and\nfrom age to age, and continues to be read to-day among people quite free\nfrom bibliolatry\u2014shows how nearly \u201cuniversal\u201d may be the appeal of this\nkind of art. This branch includes all harmless jokes, folk-stories,\nnursery rhymes, and even dolls, if only the author or designer has\nexpressed a feeling (tenderness, pleasure, humour, or what not) so as to\ninfect others.\n\nBut how are we to know what _are_ the \u201cbest\u201d feelings? What is good? and\nwhat is evil? This is decided by \u201creligious perception.\u201d Some such\nperception exists in every human being; there is always something he\napproves of, and something he disapproves of. Reason and conscience are\nalways present, active or latent, as long as man lives. Miss Flora Shaw\ntells that the most degraded cannibal she ever met, drew the line at\neating his own mother\u2014nothing would induce him to entertain the thought,\nhis moral sense was revolted by the suggestion. In most societies the\n\u201creligious perception,\u201d to which they have advanced,\u2014the foremost stage\nin mankind\u2019s long march towards perfection, which has been\ndiscerned,\u2014has been clearly expressed by some one, and more or less\nconsciously accepted as an ideal by the many. But there are transition\nperiods in history when the worn-out formularies of a past age have\nceased to satisfy men, or have become so incrusted with superstitions\nthat their original brightness is lost. The \u201creligious perception\u201d that\nis dawning may not yet have found such expression as to be generally\nunderstood, but for all that it exists, and shows itself by compelling\nmen to repudiate beliefs that satisfied their forefathers, the outward\nand visible signs of which are still endowed and dominant long after\ntheir spirit has taken refuge in temples not made with hands.\n\nAt such times it is difficult for men to understand each other, for the\nvery _words_ needed to express the deepest experiences of men\u2019s\nconsciousness mean different things to different men. So among us\nto-day, to many minds _faith_ means _credulity_, and _God_ suggests a\nperson of the male sex, father of one only-begotten son, and creator of\nthe universe.\n\nThis is why Tolstoy\u2019s clear and rational \u201creligious perception,\u201d\nexpressed in the books named on a previous page, is frequently spoken of\nby people who have not grasped it, as \u201cmysticism.\u201d\n\nThe narrow materialist is shocked to find that Tolstoy will not confine\nhimself to the \u201cobjective\u201d view of life. Encountering in himself that\n\u201cinner voice\u201d which compels us all to choose between good and evil,\nTolstoy refuses to be diverted from a matter which is of immediate and\nvital importance to him, by discussions as to the derivation of the\nexternal manifestations of conscience which biologists are able to\ndetect in remote forms of life. The real mystic, on the other hand,\nshrinks from Tolstoy\u2019s desire to try all things by the light of reason,\nto depend on nothing vague, and to accept nothing on authority. The man\nwho does not trust his own reason, fears that life thus squarely faced\nwill prove less worth having than it is when clothed in mist.\n\nIn this work, however, Tolstoy does not recapitulate at length what he\nhas said before. He does not pause to re-explain why he condemns\nPatriotism\u2014_i.e._, each man\u2019s preference for the predominance of _his\nown_ country, which leads to the murder of man by man in war; or\nChurches, which are sectarian\u2014_i.e._, which striving to assert that your\ndoxy is heterodoxy, but that _our_ doxy is orthodoxy, make external\nauthorities (Popes, Bibles, Councils) supreme, and cling to\nsuperstitions (_their own_ miracles, legends, and myths), thus\nseparating themselves from communion with the rest of mankind. Nor does\nhe re-explain why he (like Christ) says \u201cpitiable is your plight\u2014ye\nrich,\u201d who live artificial lives, maintainable only by the unbrotherly\nuse of force (police and soldiers), but blessed are ye poor\u2014who, by your\nway of life, are within easier reach of brotherly conditions, if you\nwill but trust to reason and conscience, and change the direction of\nyour hearts and of your labour,\u2014working no more primarily from fear or\ngreed, but seeking _first_ the kingdom of righteousness, in which all\ngood things will be added unto you. He merely summarises it all in a few\nsentences, defining the \u201creligious perception\u201d of to-day, which alone\ncan decide for us \u201cthe degree of importance both of the feelings\ntransmitted by art and of the information transmitted by science.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe religious perception of our time, in its widest and most practical\napplication, is the consciousness that our well-being, both material and\nspiritual, individual and collective, temporal and eternal, lies in the\ngrowth of brotherhood among men\u2014in their loving harmony with one\nanother\u201d (p. 159).\n\nAnd again:\n\n\u201cHowever differently in form people belonging to our Christian world may\ndefine the destiny of man; whether they see it in human progress in\nwhatever sense of the words, in the union of all men in a socialistic\nrealm, or in the establishment of a commune; whether they look forward\nto the union of mankind under the guidance of one universal Church, or\nto the federation of the world,\u2014however various in form their\ndefinitions of the destination of human life may be, all men in our\ntimes already admit that the highest well-being attainable by men is to\nbe reached by their union with one another\u201d (p. 188).\n\nThis is the foundation on which the whole work is based. It follows\nnecessarily from this perception that we should consider as most\nimportant in science \u201cinvestigations into the results of good and bad\nactions, considerations of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of\nhuman institutions and beliefs, considerations of how human life should\nbe lived in order to obtain the greatest well-being for each; as to what\none may and ought, and what one cannot and should not believe; how to\nsubdue one\u2019s passions, and how to acquire the habit of virtue.\u201d This is\nthe science that \u201coccupied Moses, Solon, Socrates, Epictetus, Confucius,\nMencius, Marcus Aurelius, Spinoza, and all those who have taught men to\nlive a moral life,\u201d and it is precisely the kind of scientific\ninvestigation to which Tolstoy has devoted most of the last twenty\nyears, and for the sake of which he is often said to have \u201cabandoned\nart.\u201d\n\nSince science, like art, is a \u201chuman activity,\u201d _that_ science best\ndeserves our esteem, best deserves to be \u201cchosen, tolerated, approved,\nand diffused,\u201d which treats of what is supremely important to man; which\ndeals with urgent, vital, inevitable problems of actual life. Such\nscience as this brings \u201cto the consciousness of men the truths that flow\nfrom the religious perception of our times,\u201d and \u201cindicates the various\nmethods of applying this consciousness to life.\u201d \u201cArt should transform\nthis perception into feeling.\u201d\n\nThe \u201cscience\u201d which is occupied in \u201cpouring liquids from one jar into\nanother, or analysing the spectrum, or cutting up frogs and porpoises,\u201d\nis no use for rendering such guidance to art, though capable of\npractical applications which, under a more righteous system of society,\nmight greatly have lightened the sufferings of mankind.\n\nNaturally enough, the last chapter of the book deals with the relation\nbetween science and art. And the conclusion is that:\n\n\u201cThe destiny of art in our time is to transmit from the realm of reason\nto the realm of feeling the truth that well-being for men consists in\nbeing united together, and to set up, in place of the existing reign of\nforce, that kingdom of God, _i.e._ of love, which we all recognise to be\nthe highest aim of human life.\u201d\n\nAnd this art of the future will not be poorer, but far richer, in\nsubject-matter than the art of to-day. From the lullaby\u2014that will\ndelight millions of people, generation after generation\u2014to the highest\nreligious art, dealing with strong, rich, and varied emotions flowing\nfrom a fresh outlook upon life and all its problems\u2014the field open for\ngood art is enormous. With so much to say that is urgently important to\nall, the art of the future will, in matter of form also, be far superior\nto our art in \u201cclearness, beauty, simplicity, and compression\u201d (p. 194).\n\nFor beauty (_i.e._, \u201cthat which pleases\u201d)\u2014though it depends on taste,\nand can furnish no _criterion_ for art\u2014will be a natural characteristic\nof work done, not for hire, nor even for fame, but because men, living a\nnatural and healthy life, wish to share the \u201chighest spiritual strength\nwhich passes through them\u201d with the greatest possible number of others.\nThe feelings such an artist wishes to share, he will transmit in a way\nthat will please him, and will please other men who share his nature.\n\nMorality is in the nature of things\u2014we cannot escape it.\n\nIn a society where each man sets himself to obtain wealth, the\ndifficulty of obtaining an honest living tends to become greater and\ngreater. The more keenly a society pants to obtain \u201cthat which pleases,\u201d\nand puts this forward as the first and great consideration, the more\npuerile and worthless will their art become. But in a society which\nsought, primarily, for right relations between its members, an abundance\nwould easily be obtainable for all; and when \u201creligious perception\u201d\nguides a people\u2019s art\u2014beauty inevitably results, as has always been the\ncase when men have seized a fresh perception of life and of its purpose.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nAn illustration which Tolstoy struck out of the work while it was being\nprinted, may serve to illustrate how, with the aid of the principles\nexplained above, we may judge of the merits of any work professing to be\nart.\n\nTake _Romeo and Juliet_. The conventional view is that Shakespear is the\ngreatest of artists, and that _Romeo and Juliet_ is one of his good\nplays. Why this is so nobody can tell you. It is so: that is the way\ncertain people feel about it. They are \u201cthe authorities,\u201d and to doubt\ntheir dictum is to show that you know nothing about art. Tolstoy does\nnot agree with them in their estimate of Shakespear, therefore Tolstoy\nis wrong!\n\nBut now let us apply Tolstoy\u2019s view of art to _Romeo and Juliet_. He\ndoes not deny that it infects. \u201cLet us admit that it is a work of art,\nthat it infects (though it is so artificial that it can infect only\nthose who have been carefully educated thereunto); but what are the\nfeelings it transmits?\u201d\n\nThat is to say, judging by the _internal_ test, Tolstoy admits that\n_Romeo and Juliet_ unites him to its author and to other people in\nfeeling. But the work is very far from being one of \u201cuniversal\u201d art\u2014only\na small minority of people ever have cared, or ever will care, for it.\nEven in England, or even in the layer of European society it is best\nadapted to reach, it only touches a minority, and does not approach the\nuniversality attained by the story of Joseph and many pieces of\nfolk-lore.\n\nBut perhaps the subject-matter, the _feeling_ with which _Romeo and\nJuliet_ infects those whom it does reach, lifts it into the class of the\nhighest religious art? Not so. The feeling is one of the attractiveness\nof \u201clove at first sight.\u201d A girl fourteen years old and a young man meet\nat an aristocratic party, where there is feasting and pleasure and\nidleness, and, without knowing each other\u2019s minds, they fall in love as\nthe birds and beasts do. If any feeling is transmitted to us, it is the\nfeeling that there _is_ a pleasure in these things. Somewhere, in most\nnatures, there dwells, dominant or dormant, an inclination to let such\nphysical sexual attraction guide our course in life. To give it a plain\nname, it is \u201csensuality.\u201d \u201cHow can I, father or mother of a daughter of\nJuliet\u2019s age, wish that those foul feelings which the play transmits\nshould be communicated to my daughter? And if the feelings transmitted\nby the play are bad, how can I call it good in subject-matter?\u201d\n\nBut, objects a friend, the _moral_ of _Romeo and Juliet_ is excellent.\nSee what disasters followed from the physical \u201clove at first sight.\u201d But\nthat is quite another matter. It is the feelings with which you are\ninfected when reading, and not any moral you can deduce, that is\nsubject-matter of art. Pondering upon the consequences that flow from\nRomeo and Juliet\u2019s behaviour may belong to the domain of moral science,\nbut not to that of art.\n\nI have hesitated to use an illustration Tolstoy had struck out, but I\nthink it serves its purpose. No doubt there are other, subordinate,\nfeelings (_e.g._ humour) to be found in _Romeo and Juliet_; but many\nquaint conceits that are ingenious, and have been much admired, are not,\nI think, infectious.\n\nTried by such tests, the enormous majority of the things we have been\ntaught to consider great works of art are found wanting. Either they\nfail to infect (and attract merely by being interesting, realistic,\neffectful, or by borrowing from others), and are therefore not works of\nart at all; or they are works of \u201cexclusive art,\u201d bad in form and\ncapable of infecting only a select audience trained and habituated to\nsuch inferior art; or they are bad in subject-matter, transmitting\nfeelings harmful to mankind.\n\nTolstoy does not shrink from condemning his own artistic productions;\nwith the exception of two short stories, he tells us they are works of\nbad art. Take, for instance, the novel _Resurrection_, which is now\nappearing, and of which he has, somewhere, spoken disparagingly, as\nbeing \u201cwritten in my former style,\u201d and being therefore bad art. What\ndoes this mean? The book is a masterpiece in its own line; it is eagerly\nread in many languages; it undoubtedly infects its readers, and the\nfeelings transmitted are, in the main, such as Tolstoy approves of\u2014in\nfact, they are the feelings to which his religious perception has\nbrought him. If lust is felt in one chapter, the reaction follows as\ninevitably as in real life, and is transmitted with great artistic\npower. Why a work of such rare merit does not satisfy Tolstoy, is\nbecause it is a work of \u201cexclusive art,\u201d laden with details of time and\nplace. It has not the \u201csimplicity and compression\u201d necessary in works of\n\u201cuniversal\u201d art. Things are mentioned which might apparently be quite\nwell omitted. The style, also, is not one of great simplicity; the\nsentences are often long and involved, as is commonly the case in\nTolstoy\u2019s writings. It is a novel appealing mainly to the class that has\nleisure for novel reading because it neglects to produce its own food,\nmake its own clothes, or build its own houses. If Tolstoy is stringent\nin his judgment of other artists, he is more stringent still in his\njudgment of his own artistic works. Had _Resurrection_ been written by\nDickens, or by Hugo, Tolstoy would, I think, have found a place for it\n(with whatever reservations) among the examples of religious art. For\nindeed, strive as we may to be clear and explicit, our approval and\ndisapproval is a matter of degree. The thought which underlay the\nremark: \u201cWhy callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God,\u201d\napplies not to man only, but to all things human.\n\n_What is Art?_ itself is a work of science\u2014though many passages, and\neven some whole chapters, appeal to us as works of art, and we feel the\ncontagion of the author\u2019s hope, his anxiety to serve the cause of truth\nand love, his indignation (sometimes rather sharply expressed) with what\nblocks the path of advance, and his contempt for much that the \u201ccultured\ncrowd,\u201d in our erudite, perverted society, have persuaded themselves,\nand would fain persuade others, is the highest art.\n\nOne result which follows inevitably from Tolstoy\u2019s view (and which\nillustrates how widely his views differ from the fashionable \u00e6sthetic\nmysticism), is that art is not stationary but progressive. It is true\nthat our highest religious perception found expression eighteen hundred\nyears ago, and then served as the basis of an art which is still\nunmatched; and similar cases can be instanced from the East. But\nallowing for such great exceptions,\u2014to which, not inaptly, the term of\n\u201cinspiration\u201d has been specially applied,\u2014the subject-matter of art\nimproves, though long periods of time may have to be considered in order\nto make this obvious. Our power of verbal expression, for instance, may\nnow be no better than it was in the days of David, but we must no longer\nesteem as good _in subject-matter_ poems which appeal to the Eternal to\ndestroy a man\u2019s private or national foes; for we have reached a\n\u201creligious perception\u201d which bids us have no foes, and the ultimate\nsource (undefinable by us) from which this consciousness has come, is\nwhat we mean when we speak of God.\n\nAYLMER MAUDE.\n\nWickham\u2019s Farm,\nNear Danbury, Essex,\n_23rd March 1899_.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Bolton Hall has recently published a little work, _Life, and Love, and\n  Death_, with the object of making the philosophy contained in _On\n  Life_ more easily accessible in English.\n\n\n\n\n                          The Author\u2019s Preface\n\n\nThis book of mine, \u201cWhat is Art?\u201d appears now for the first time in its\ntrue form. More than one edition has already been issued in Russia, but\nin each case it has been so mutilated by the \u201cCensor,\u201d that I request\nall who are interested in my views on art only to judge of them by the\nwork in its present shape. The causes which led to the publication of\nthe book\u2014with my name attached to it\u2014in a mutilated form, were the\nfollowing:\u2014In accordance with a decision I arrived at long ago,\u2014not to\nsubmit my writings to the \u201cCensorship\u201d (which I consider to be an\nimmoral and irrational institution), but to print them only in the shape\nin which they were written,\u2014I intended not to attempt to print this work\nin Russia. However, my good acquaintance Professor Grote, editor of a\nMoscow psychological magazine, having heard of the contents of my work,\nasked me to print it in his magazine, and promised me that he would get\nthe book through the \u201cCensor\u2019s\u201d office unmutilated if I would but agree\nto a few very unimportant alterations, merely toning down certain\nexpressions. I was weak enough to agree to this, and it has resulted in\na book appearing, under my name, from which not only have some essential\nthoughts been excluded, but into which the thoughts of other men\u2014even\nthoughts utterly opposed to my own convictions\u2014have been introduced.\n\nThe thing occurred in this way. First, Grote softened my expressions,\nand in some cases weakened them. For instance, he replaced the words:\n_always_ by _sometimes_, _all_ by _some_, _Church_ religion by _Roman\nCatholic_ religion, \u201c_Mother of God_\u201d by _Madonna_, _patriotism_ by\n_pseudo-patriotism_, _palaces_ by _palatii_,[2] etc., and I did not\nconsider it necessary to protest. But when the book was already in type,\nthe Censor required that whole sentences should be altered, and that\ninstead of what I said about the evil of landed property, a remark\nshould be substituted on the evils of a landless proletariat.[3] I\nagreed to this also and to some further alterations. It seemed not worth\nwhile to upset the whole affair for the sake of one sentence, and when\none alteration had been agreed to it seemed not worth while to protest\nagainst a second and a third. So, little by little, expressions crept\ninto the book which altered the sense and attributed things to me that I\ncould not have wished to say. So that by the time the book was printed\nit had been deprived of some part of its integrity and sincerity. But\nthere was consolation in the thought that the book, even in this form,\nif it contains something that is good, would be of use to Russian\nreaders whom it would otherwise not have reached. Things, however,\nturned out otherwise. _Nous comptions sans notre h\u00f4te._ After the legal\nterm of four days had already elapsed, the book was seized, and, on\ninstructions received from Petersburg, it was handed over to the\n\u201cSpiritual Censor.\u201d Then Grote declined all further participation in the\naffair, and the \u201cSpiritual Censor\u201d proceeded to do what he would with\nthe book. The \u201cSpiritual Censorship\u201d is one of the most ignorant, venal,\nstupid, and despotic institutions in Russia. Books which disagree in any\nway with the recognised state religion of Russia, if once it gets hold\nof them, are almost always totally suppressed and burnt; which is what\nhappened to all my religious works when attempts were made to print them\nin Russia. Probably a similar fate would have overtaken this work also,\nhad not the editors of the magazine employed all means to save it. The\nresult of their efforts was that the \u201cSpiritual Censor,\u201d a priest who\nprobably understands art and is interested in art as much as I\nunderstand or am interested in church services, but who gets a good\nsalary for destroying whatever is likely to displease his superiors,\nstruck out all that seemed to him to endanger his position, and\nsubstituted his thoughts for mine wherever he considered it necessary to\ndo so. For instance, where I speak of Christ going to the Cross for the\nsake of the truth He professed, the \u201cCensor\u201d substituted a statement\nthat Christ died for mankind, _i.e._ he attributed to me an assertion of\nthe dogma of the Redemption, which I consider to be one of the most\nuntrue and harmful of Church dogmas. After correcting the book in this\nway, the \u201cSpiritual Censor\u201d allowed it to be printed.\n\nTo protest in Russia is impossible, no newspaper would publish such a\nprotest, and to withdraw my book from the magazine and place the editor\nin an awkward position with the public was also not possible.\n\nSo the matter has remained. A book has appeared under my name containing\nthoughts attributed to me which are not mine.\n\nI was persuaded to give my article to a Russian magazine, in order that\nmy thoughts, which may be useful, should become the possession of\nRussian readers; and the result has been that my name is affixed to a\nwork from which it might be assumed that I quite arbitrarily assert\nthings contrary to the general opinion, without adducing my reasons;\nthat I only consider false patriotism bad, but patriotism in general a\nvery good feeling; that I merely deny the absurdities of the Roman\nCatholic Church and disbelieve in the Madonna, but that I believe in the\nOrthodox Eastern faith and in the \u201cMother of God\u201d; that I consider all\nthe writings collected in the Bible to be holy books, and see the chief\nimportance of Christ\u2019s life in the Redemption of mankind by his death.\n\nI have narrated all this in such detail because it strikingly\nillustrates the indubitable truth, that all compromise with institutions\nof which your conscience disapproves,\u2014compromises which are usually made\nfor the sake of the general good,\u2014instead of producing the good you\nexpected, inevitably lead you not only to acknowledge the institution\nyou disapprove of, but also to participate in the evil that institution\nproduces.\n\nI am glad to be able by this statement at least to do something to\ncorrect the error into which I was led by my compromise.\n\nI have also to mention that besides reinstating the parts excluded by\nthe Censor from the Russian editions, other corrections and additions of\nimportance have been made in this edition.\n\nLEO TOLSTOY.\n\n_29th March 1898._\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Tolstoy\u2019s remarks on Church religion were re-worded so as to seem to\n  relate only to the Western Church, and his disapproval of luxurious\n  life was made to apply not, say, to Queen Victoria or Nicholas II.,\n  but to the C\u00e6sars or the Pharaohs.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  The Russian peasant is usually a member of a village commune, and has\n  therefore a right to a share in the land belonging to the village.\n  Tolstoy disapproves of the order of society which allows less land for\n  the support of a whole village full of people than is sometimes owned\n  by a single landed proprietor. The \u201cCensor\u201d will not allow disapproval\n  of this state of things to be expressed, but is prepared to admit that\n  the laws and customs, say, of England\u2014where a yet more extreme form of\n  landed property exists, and the men who actually labour on the land\n  usually possess none of it\u2014deserve criticism.\u2014Trans.\n\n\n\n\n                                Contents\n\n\nINTRODUCTION v\n\nAUTHOR\u2019S PREFACE xxxiii\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTime and labour spent on art\u2014Lives stunted in its service\u2014Morality\nsacrificed to and anger justified by art\u2014The rehearsal of an opera\ndescribed 1\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nDoes art compensate for so much evil?\u2014What is art?\u2014Confusion of\nopinions\u2014Is it \u201cthat which produces beauty\u201d?\u2014The word \u201cbeauty\u201d in\nRussian\u2014Chaos in \u00e6sthetics 9\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nSummary of various \u00e6sthetic theories and definitions, from Baumgarten to\nto-day 20\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nDefinitions of art founded on beauty\u2014Taste not definable\u2014A clear\ndefinition needed to enable us to recognise works of art 38\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nDefinitions not founded on beauty\u2014Tolstoy\u2019s definition\u2014The extent and\nnecessity of art\u2014How people in the past have distinguished good from bad\nin art 46\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nHow art for pleasure has come into esteem\u2014Religions indicate what is\nconsidered good and bad\u2014Church Christianity\u2014The Renaissance\u2014Scepticism\nof the upper classes\u2014They confound beauty with goodness 53\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nAn \u00e6sthetic theory framed to suit this view of life 61\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nWho have adopted it?\u2014Real art needful for all men\u2014Our art too expensive,\ntoo unintelligible, and too harmful for the masses\u2014The theory of \u201cthe\nelect\u201d in art 67\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nPerversion of our art\u2014It has lost its natural subject-matter\u2014Has no flow\nof fresh feeling\u2014Transmits chiefly three base emotions 73\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nLoss of comprehensibility\u2014Decadent art\u2014Recent French art\u2014Have we a right\nto say it is bad and that what we like is good art?\u2014The highest art has\nalways been comprehensible to normal people\u2014What fails to infect normal\npeople is not art 79\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nCounterfeits of art produced by: Borrowing; Imitating; Striking;\nInteresting\u2014Qualifications needful for production of real works of art,\nand those sufficient for production of counterfeits 106\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nCauses of production of counterfeits\u2014Professionalism\u2014Criticism\u2014Schools\nof art 118\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nWagner\u2019s \u201cNibelung\u2019s Ring\u201d a type of counterfeit art\u2014Its success, and\nthe reasons thereof 128\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nTruths fatal to preconceived views are not readily recognised\u2014Proportion\nof works of art to counterfeits\u2014Perversion of taste and incapacity to\nrecognise art\u2014Examples 143\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\n=The quality of art, considered apart from its subject-matter=\u2014The sign\nof art: infectiousness\u2014Incomprehensible to those whose taste is\nperverted\u2014Conditions of infection: Individuality; Clearness; Sincerity\n152\n\nCHAPTER XVI\n\n=The quality of art, considered according to its subject-matter=\u2014The\nbetter the feeling the better the art\u2014The cultured crowd\u2014The religious\nperception of our age\u2014The new ideals put fresh demands to art\u2014Art\nunites\u2014Religious art\u2014Universal art\u2014Both co-operate to one result\u2014The new\nappraisement of art\u2014Bad art\u2014Examples of art\u2014How to test a work claiming\nto be art 156\n\nCHAPTER XVII\n\nResults of absence of true art\u2014Results of perversion of art: Labour and\nlives spent on what is useless and harmful\u2014The abnormal life of the\nrich\u2014Perplexity of children and plain folk\u2014Confusion of right and\nwrong\u2014Nietzsche and Redbeard\u2014Superstition, Patriotism, and Sensuality\n175\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nThe purpose of human life is the brotherly union of man\u2014Art must be\nguided by this perception 187\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nThe art of the future not a possession of a select minority, but a means\ntowards perfection and unity 192\n\nCHAPTER XX\n\nThe connection between science and art\u2014The mendacious sciences; the\ntrivial sciences\u2014Science should deal with the great problems of human\nlife, and serve as a basis for art 200\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDICES\n\nAppendix I 215\n\nAppendix II 218\n\nAppendix III 226\n\nAppendix IV 232\n\n\n\n\n                              What is Art?\n\n\nTake up any one of our ordinary newspapers, and you will find a part\ndevoted to the theatre and music. In almost every number you will find a\ndescription of some art exhibition, or of some particular picture, and\nyou will always find reviews of new works of art that have appeared, of\nvolumes of poems, of short stories, or of novels.\n\nPromptly, and in detail, as soon as it has occurred, an account is\npublished of how such and such an actress or actor played this or that\nr\u00f4le in such and such a drama, comedy, or opera; and of the merits of\nthe performance, as well as of the contents of the new drama, comedy, or\nopera, with its defects and merits. With as much care and detail, or\neven more, we are told how such and such an artist has sung a certain\npiece, or has played it on the piano or violin, and what were the merits\nand defects of the piece and of the performance. In every large town\nthere is sure to be at least one, if not more than one, exhibition of\nnew pictures, the merits and defects of which are discussed in the\nutmost detail by critics and connoisseurs.\n\nNew novels and poems, in separate volumes or in the magazines, appear\nalmost every day, and the newspapers consider it their duty to give\ntheir readers detailed accounts of these artistic productions.\n\nFor the support of art in Russia (where for the education of the people\nonly a hundredth part is spent of what would be required to give\neveryone the opportunity of instruction) the Government grants millions\nof roubles in subsidies to academies, conservatoires and theatres. In\nFrance twenty million francs are assigned for art, and similar grants\nare made in Germany and England.\n\nIn every large town enormous buildings are erected for museums,\nacademies, conservatoires, dramatic schools, and for performances and\nconcerts. Hundreds of thousands of workmen,\u2014carpenters, masons,\npainters, joiners, paperhangers, tailors, hairdressers, jewellers,\nmoulders, type-setters,\u2014spend their whole lives in hard labour to\nsatisfy the demands of art, so that hardly any other department of human\nactivity, except the military, consumes so much energy as this.\n\nNot only is enormous labour spent on this activity, but in it, as in\nwar, the very lives of men are sacrificed. Hundreds of thousands of\npeople devote their lives from childhood to learning to twirl their legs\nrapidly (dancers), or to touch notes and strings very rapidly\n(musicians), or to draw with paint and represent what they see\n(artists), or to turn every phrase inside out and find a rhyme to every\nword. And these people, often very kind and clever, and capable of all\nsorts of useful labour, grow savage over their specialised and\nstupefying occupations, and become one-sided and self-complacent\nspecialists, dull to all the serious phenomena of life, and skilful only\nat rapidly twisting their legs, their tongues, or their fingers.\n\nBut even this stunting of human life is not the worst. I remember being\nonce at the rehearsal of one of the most ordinary of the new operas\nwhich are produced at all the opera houses of Europe and America.\n\nI arrived when the first act had already commenced. To reach the\nauditorium I had to pass through the stage entrance. By dark entrances\nand passages, I was led through the vaults of an enormous building past\nimmense machines for changing the scenery and for illuminating; and\nthere in the gloom and dust I saw workmen busily engaged. One of these\nmen, pale, haggard, in a dirty blouse, with dirty, work-worn hands and\ncramped fingers, evidently tired and out of humour, went past me,\nangrily scolding another man. Ascending by a dark stair, I came out on\nthe boards behind the scenes. Amid various poles and rings and scattered\nscenery, decorations and curtains, stood and moved dozens, if not\nhundreds, of painted and dressed-up men, in costumes fitting tight to\ntheir thighs and calves, and also women, as usual, as nearly nude as\nmight be. These were all singers, or members of the chorus, or\nballet-dancers, awaiting their turns. My guide led me across the stage\nand, by means of a bridge of boards, across the orchestra (in which\nperhaps a hundred musicians of all kinds, from kettle-drum to flute and\nharp, were seated), to the dark pit-stalls.\n\nOn an elevation, between two lamps with reflectors, and in an arm-chair\nplaced before a music-stand, sat the director of the musical part,\n_b\u00e2ton_ in hand, managing the orchestra and singers, and, in general,\nthe production of the whole opera.\n\nThe performance had already commenced, and on the stage a procession of\nIndians who had brought home a bride was being represented. Besides men\nand women in costume, two other men in ordinary clothes bustled and ran\nabout on the stage; one was the director of the dramatic part, and the\nother, who stepped about in soft shoes and ran from place to place with\nunusual agility, was the dancing-master, whose salary per month exceeded\nwhat ten labourers earn in a year.\n\nThese three directors arranged the singing, the orchestra, and the\nprocession. The procession, as usual, was enacted by couples, with\ntinfoil halberds on their shoulders. They all came from one place, and\nwalked round and round again, and then stopped. The procession took a\nlong time to arrange: first the Indians with halberds came on too late;\nthen too soon; then at the right time, but crowded together at the exit;\nthen they did not crowd, but arranged themselves badly at the sides of\nthe stage; and each time the whole performance was stopped and\nrecommenced from the beginning. The procession was introduced by a\nrecitative, delivered by a man dressed up like some variety of Turk,\nwho, opening his mouth in a curious way, sang, \u201cHome I bring the\nbri-i-ide.\u201d He sings and waves his arm (which is of course bare) from\nunder his mantle. The procession commences, but here the French horn, in\nthe accompaniment of the recitative, does something wrong; and the\ndirector, with a shudder as if some catastrophe had occurred, raps with\nhis stick on the stand. All is stopped, and the director, turning to the\norchestra, attacks the French horn, scolding him in the rudest terms, as\ncabmen abuse each other, for taking the wrong note. And again the whole\nthing recommences. The Indians with their halberds again come on,\ntreading softly in their extraordinary boots; again the singer sings,\n\u201cHome I bring the bri-i-ide.\u201d But here the pairs get too close together.\nMore raps with the stick, more scolding, and a recommencement. Again,\n\u201cHome I bring the bri-i-ide,\u201d again the same gesticulation with the bare\narm from under the mantle, and again the couples, treading softly with\nhalberds on their shoulders, some with sad and serious faces, some\ntalking and smiling, arrange themselves in a circle and begin to sing.\nAll seems to be going well, but again the stick raps, and the director,\nin a distressed and angry voice, begins to scold the men and women of\nthe chorus. It appears that when singing they had omitted to raise their\nhands from time to time in sign of animation. \u201cAre you all dead, or\nwhat? Cows that you are! Are you corpses, that you can\u2019t move?\u201d Again\nthey re-commence, \u201cHome I bring the bri-i-ide,\u201d and again, with\nsorrowful faces, the chorus women sing, first one and then another of\nthem raising their hands. But two chorus-girls speak to each\nother,\u2014again a more vehement rapping with the stick. \u201cHave you come here\nto talk? Can\u2019t you gossip at home? You there in red breeches, come\nnearer. Look towards me! Recommence!\u201d Again, \u201cHome I bring the\nbri-i-ide.\u201d And so it goes on for one, two, three hours. The whole of\nsuch a rehearsal lasts six hours on end. Raps with the stick,\nrepetitions, placings, corrections of the singers, of the orchestra, of\nthe procession, of the dancers,\u2014all seasoned with angry scolding. I\nheard the words, \u201casses,\u201d \u201cfools,\u201d \u201cidiots,\u201d \u201cswine,\u201d addressed to the\nmusicians and singers at least forty times in the course of one hour.\nAnd the unhappy individual to whom the abuse is addressed,\u2014flautist,\nhorn-blower, or singer,\u2014physically and mentally demoralised, does not\nreply, and does what is demanded of him. Twenty times is repeated the\none phrase, \u201cHome I bring the bri-i-ide,\u201d and twenty times the striding\nabout in yellow shoes with a halberd over the shoulder. The conductor\nknows that these people are so demoralised that they are no longer fit\nfor anything but to blow trumpets and walk about with halberds and in\nyellow shoes, and that they are also accustomed to dainty, easy living,\nso that they will put up with anything rather than lose their luxurious\nlife. He therefore gives free vent to his churlishness, especially as he\nhas seen the same thing done in Paris and Vienna, and knows that this is\nthe way the best conductors behave, and that it is a musical tradition\nof great artists to be so carried away by the great business of their\nart that they cannot pause to consider the feelings of other artists.\n\nIt would be difficult to find a more repulsive sight. I have seen one\nworkman abuse another for not supporting the weight piled upon him when\ngoods were being unloaded, or, at hay-stacking, the village elder scold\na peasant for not making the rick right, and the man submitted in\nsilence. And, however unpleasant it was to witness the scene, the\nunpleasantness was lessened by the consciousness that the business in\nhand was needful and important, and that the fault for which the\nhead-man scolded the labourer was one which might spoil a needful\nundertaking.\n\nBut what was being done here? For what, and for whom? Very likely the\nconductor was tired out, like the workman I passed in the vaults; it was\neven evident that he was; but who made him tire himself? And for what\nwas he tiring himself? The opera he was rehearsing was one of the most\nordinary of operas for people who are accustomed to them, but also one\nof the most gigantic absurdities that could possibly be devised. An\nIndian king wants to marry; they bring him a bride; he disguises himself\nas a minstrel; the bride falls in love with the minstrel and is in\ndespair, but afterwards discovers that the minstrel is the king, and\neveryone is highly delighted.\n\nThat there never were, or could be, such Indians, and that they were not\nonly unlike Indians, but that what they were doing was unlike anything\non earth except other operas, was beyond all manner of doubt; that\npeople do not converse in such a way as recitative, and do not place\nthemselves at fixed distances, in a quartet, waving their arms to\nexpress their emotions; that nowhere, except in theatres, do people walk\nabout in such a manner, in pairs, with tinfoil halberds and in slippers;\nthat no one ever gets angry in such a way, or is affected in such a way,\nor laughs in such a way, or cries in such a way; and that no one on\nearth can be moved by such performances; all this is beyond the\npossibility of doubt.\n\nInstinctively the question presents itself\u2014For whom is this being done?\nWhom _can_ it please? If there are, occasionally, good melodies in the\nopera, to which it is pleasant to listen, they could have been sung\nsimply, without these stupid costumes and all the processions and\nrecitatives and hand-wavings.\n\nThe ballet, in which half-naked women make voluptuous movements,\ntwisting themselves into various sensual wreathings, is simply a lewd\nperformance.\n\nSo one is quite at a loss as to whom these things are done for. The man\nof culture is heartily sick of them, while to a real working man they\nare utterly incomprehensible. If anyone can be pleased by these things\n(which is doubtful), it can only be some young footman or depraved\nartisan, who has contracted the spirit of the upper classes but is not\nyet satiated with their amusements, and wishes to show his breeding.\n\nAnd all this nasty folly is prepared, not simply, nor with kindly\nmerriment, but with anger and brutal cruelty.\n\nIt is said that it is all done for the sake of art, and that art is a\nvery important thing. But is it true that art is so important that such\nsacrifices should be made for its sake? This question is especially\nurgent, because art, for the sake of which the labour of millions, the\nlives of men, and above all, love between man and man, are being\nsacrificed,\u2014this very art is becoming something more and more vague and\nuncertain to human perception.\n\nCriticism, in which the lovers of art used to find support for their\nopinions, has latterly become so self-contradictory, that, if we exclude\nfrom the domain of art all that to which the critics of various schools\nthemselves deny the title, there is scarcely any art left.\n\nThe artists of various sects, like the theologians of the various sects,\nmutually exclude and destroy themselves. Listen to the artists of the\nschools of our times, and you will find, in all branches, each set of\nartists disowning others. In poetry the old romanticists deny the\nparnassians and the decadents; the parnassians disown the romanticists\nand the decadents; the decadents disown all their predecessors and the\nsymbolists; the symbolists disown all their predecessors and _les\nmages_; and _les mages_ disown all, all their predecessors. Among\nnovelists we have naturalists, psychologists, and \u201cnature-ists,\u201d all\nrejecting each other. And it is the same in dramatic art, in painting\nand in music. So that art, which demands such tremendous\nlabour-sacrifices from the people, which stunts human lives and\ntransgresses against human love, is not only _not_ a thing clearly and\nfirmly defined, but is understood in such contradictory ways by its own\ndevotees that it is difficult to say what is meant by art, and\nespecially what is good, useful art,\u2014art for the sake of which we might\ncondone such sacrifices as are being offered at its shrine.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n\nFor the production of every ballet, circus, opera, operetta, exhibition,\npicture, concert, or printed book, the intense and unwilling labour of\nthousands and thousands of people is needed at what is often harmful and\nhumiliating work. It were well if artists made all they require for\nthemselves, but, as it is, they all need the help of workmen, not only\nto produce art, but also for their own usually luxurious maintenance.\nAnd, one way or other, they get it; either through payments from rich\npeople, or through subsidies given by Government (in Russia, for\ninstance, in grants of millions of roubles to theatres, conservatoires\nand academies). This money is collected from the people, some of whom\nhave to sell their only cow to pay the tax, and who never get those\n\u00e6sthetic pleasures which art gives.\n\nIt was all very well for a Greek or Roman artist, or even for a Russian\nartist of the first half of our century (when there were still slaves,\nand it was considered right that there should be), with a quiet mind to\nmake people serve him and his art; but in our day, when in all men there\nis at least some dim perception of the equal rights of all, it is\nimpossible to constrain people to labour unwillingly for art, without\nfirst deciding the question whether it is true that art is so good and\nso important an affair as to redeem this evil.\n\nIf not, we have the terrible probability to consider, that while fearful\nsacrifices of the labour and lives of men, and of morality itself, are\nbeing made to art, that same art may be not only useless but even\nharmful.\n\nAnd therefore it is necessary for a society in which works of art arise\nand are supported, to find out whether all that professes to be art is\nreally art; whether (as is presupposed in our society) all that which is\nart is good; and whether it is important and worth those sacrifices\nwhich it necessitates. It is still more necessary for every\nconscientious artist to know this, that he may be sure that all he does\nhas a valid meaning; that it is not merely an infatuation of the small\ncircle of people among whom he lives which excites in him the false\nassurance that he is doing a good work; and that what he takes from\nothers for the support of his often very luxurious life, will be\ncompensated for by those productions at which he works. And that is why\nanswers to the above questions are especially important in our time.\n\nWhat is this art, which is considered so important and necessary for\nhumanity that for its sake these sacrifices of labour, of human life,\nand even of goodness may be made?\n\n\u201cWhat is art? What a question! Art is architecture, sculpture, painting,\nmusic, and poetry in all its forms,\u201d usually replies the ordinary man,\nthe art amateur, or even the artist himself, imagining the matter about\nwhich he is talking to be perfectly clear, and uniformly understood by\neverybody. But in architecture, one inquires further, are there not\nsimple buildings which are not objects of art, and buildings with\nartistic pretensions which are unsuccessful and ugly and therefore\ncannot be considered as works of art? wherein lies the characteristic\nsign of a work of art?\n\nIt is the same in sculpture, in music, and in poetry. Art, in all its\nforms, is bounded on one side by the practically useful and on the other\nby unsuccessful attempts at art. How is art to be marked off from each\nof these? The ordinary educated man of our circle, and even the artist\nwho has not occupied himself especially with \u00e6sthetics, will not\nhesitate at this question either. He thinks the solution has been found\nlong ago, and is well known to everyone.\n\n\u201cArt is such activity as produces beauty,\u201d says such a man.\n\nIf art consists in that, then is a ballet or an operetta art? you\ninquire.\n\n\u201cYes,\u201d says the ordinary man, though with some hesitation, \u201ca good\nballet or a graceful operetta is also art, in so far as it manifests\nbeauty.\u201d\n\nBut without even asking the ordinary man what differentiates the \u201cgood\u201d\nballet and the \u201cgraceful\u201d operetta from their opposites (a question he\nwould have much difficulty in answering), if you ask him whether the\nactivity of costumiers and hairdressers, who ornament the figures and\nfaces of the women for the ballet and the operetta, is art; or the\nactivity of Worth, the dressmaker; of scent-makers and men-cooks, then\nhe will, in most cases, deny that their activity belongs to the sphere\nof art. But in this the ordinary man makes a mistake, just because he is\nan ordinary man and not a specialist, and because he has not occupied\nhimself with \u00e6sthetic questions. Had he looked into these matters, he\nwould have seen in the great Renan\u2019s book, _Marc Aurele_, a dissertation\nshowing that the tailor\u2019s work is art, and that those who do not see in\nthe adornment of woman an affair of the highest art are very\nsmall-minded and dull. \u201c_C\u2019est le grand art_\u201d says Renan. Moreover, he\nwould have known that in many \u00e6sthetic systems\u2014for instance, in the\n\u00e6sthetics of the learned Professor Kralik, _Weltsch\u00f6nheit_, _Versuch\neiner allgemeinen \u00c6sthetik_, _von Richard Kralik_, and in _Les probl\u00e8mes\nde l\u2019Esth\u00e9tique Contemporaine_, by Guyau\u2014the arts of costume, of taste,\nand of touch are included.\n\n\u201c_Es Folgt nun ein F\u00fcnfblatt von K\u00fcnsten, die der subjectiven\nSinnlichkeit entkeimen_\u201d (There results then a pentafoliate of arts,\ngrowing out of the subjective perceptions), says Kralik (p. 175). \u201c_Sie\nsind die \u00e4sthetische Behandlung der f\u00fcnf Sinne._\u201d (They are the \u00e6sthetic\ntreatment of the five senses.)\n\nThese five arts are the following:\u2014\n\n_Die Kunst des Geschmacksinns_\u2014The art of the sense of taste (p. 175).\n\n_Die Kunst des Geruchsinns_\u2014The art of the sense of smell (p. 177).\n\n_Die Kunst des Tastsinns_\u2014The art of the sense of touch (p. 180).\n\n_Die Kunst des Geh\u00f6rsinns_\u2014The art of the sense of hearing (p. 182).\n\n_Die Kunst des Gesichtsinns_\u2014The art of the sense of sight (p. 184).\n\nOf the first of these\u2014_die Kunst des Geschmacksinns_\u2014he says: \u201c_Man h\u00e4lt\nzwar gew\u00f6hnlich nur zwei oder h\u00f6chstens drei Sinne f\u00fcr w\u00fcrdig, den Stoff\nk\u00fcnstlerischer Behandlung abzugeben, aber ich glaube nur mit bedingtem\nRecht. Ich will kein allzugrosses Gewicht darauf legen, dass der gemeine\nSprachgebrauch manch andere K\u00fcnste, wie zum Beispiel die Kochkunst\nkennt._\u201d[4]\n\nAnd further: \u201c_Und es ist doch gewiss eine \u00e4sthetische Leistung, wenn es\nder Kochkunst gelingt aus einem thierischen Kadaver einen Gegenstand des\nGeschmacks in jedem Sinne zu machen. Der Grundsatz der Kunst des\nGeschmacksinns (die weiter ist als die sogenannte Kochkunst) ist also\ndieser: Es soll alles Geniessbare als Sinnbild einer Idee behandelt\nwerden und in jedesmaligem Einklang zur auszudr\u00fcckenden Idee._\u201d[5]\n\nThis author, like Renan, acknowledges a _Kost\u00fcmkunst_ (Art of Costume)\n(p. 200), etc.\n\nSuch is also the opinion of the French writer, Guyau, who is highly\nesteemed by some authors of our day. In his book, _Les probl\u00e8mes de\nl\u2019esth\u00e9tique contemporaine_, he speaks seriously of touch, taste, and\nsmell as giving, or being capable of giving, aesthetic impressions: \u201c_Si\nla couleur manque au toucher, il nous fournit en revanche une notion que\nl\u2019\u0153il seul ne peut nous donner, et qui a une valeur esth\u00e9tique\nconsid\u00e9rable, celle du doux, du soyeux du poli. Ce qui caract\u00e9rise la\nbeaut\u00e9 du velours, c\u2019est sa douceur au toucher non moins que son\nbrillant. Dans l\u2019id\u00e9e que nous nous faisons de la beaut\u00e9 d\u2019une femme, le\nvelout\u00e9 de sa peau entre comme \u00e9l\u00e9ment essentiel._\u201d\n\n\u201c_Chacun de nous probablement avec un peu d\u2019attention se rappellera des\njouissances du go\u00fbt, qui out \u00e9t\u00e9 de v\u00e9ritables jouissances\nesth\u00e9tiques._\u201d[6] And he recounts how a glass of milk drunk by him in\nthe mountains gave him \u00e6sthetic enjoyment.\n\nSo it turns out that the conception of art as consisting in making\nbeauty manifest is not at all so simple as it seemed, especially now,\nwhen in this conception of beauty are included our sensations of touch\nand taste and smell, as they are by the latest \u00e6sthetic writers.\n\nBut the ordinary man either does not know, or does not wish to know, all\nthis, and is firmly convinced that all questions about art may be simply\nand clearly solved by acknowledging beauty to be the subject-matter of\nart. To him it seems clear and comprehensible that art consists in\nmanifesting beauty, and that a reference to beauty will serve to explain\nall questions about art.\n\nBut what is this beauty which forms the subject-matter of art? How is it\ndefined? What is it?\n\nAs is always the case, the more cloudy and confused the conception\nconveyed by a word, with the more _aplomb_ and self-assurance do people\nuse that word, pretending that what is understood by it is so simple and\nclear that it is not worth while even to discuss what it actually means.\n\nThis is how matters of orthodox religion are usually dealt with, and\nthis is how people now deal with the conception of beauty. It is taken\nfor granted that what is meant by the word beauty is known and\nunderstood by everyone. And yet not only is this not known, but, after\nwhole mountains of books have been written on the subject by the most\nlearned and profound thinkers during one hundred and fifty years (ever\nsince Baumgarten founded \u00e6sthetics in the year 1750), the question, What\nis beauty? remains to this day quite unsolved, and in each new work on\n\u00e6sthetics it is answered in a new way. One of the last books I read on\n\u00e6sthetics is a not ill-written booklet by Julius Mithalter, called\n_R\u00e4tsel des Sch\u00f6nen_ (The Enigma of the Beautiful). And that title\nprecisely expresses the position of the question, What is beauty? After\nthousands of learned men have discussed it during one hundred and fifty\nyears, the meaning of the word beauty remains an enigma still. The\nGermans answer the question in their manner, though in a hundred\ndifferent ways. The physiologist-\u00e6stheticians, especially the\nEnglishmen: Herbert Spencer, Grant Allen and his school, answer it, each\nin his own way; the French eclectics, and the followers of Guyau and\nTaine, also each in his own way; and all these people know all the\npreceding solutions given by Baumgarten, and Kant, and Schelling, and\nSchiller, and Fichte, and Winckelmann, and Lessing, and Hegel, and\nSchopenhauer, and Hartmann, and Schasler, and Cousin, and L\u00e9v\u00eaque and\nothers.\n\nWhat is this strange conception \u201cbeauty,\u201d which seems so simple to those\nwho talk without thinking, but in defining which all the philosophers of\nvarious tendencies and different nationalities can come to no agreement\nduring a century and a half? What is this conception of beauty, on which\nthe dominant doctrine of art rests?\n\nIn Russian, by the word _krasota_ (beauty) we mean only that which\npleases the sight. And though latterly people have begun to speak of \u201can\nugly deed,\u201d or of \u201cbeautiful music,\u201d it is not good Russian.\n\nA Russian of the common folk, not knowing foreign languages, will not\nunderstand you if you tell him that a man who has given his last coat to\nanother, or done anything similar, has acted \u201cbeautifully,\u201d that a man\nwho has cheated another has done an \u201cugly\u201d action, or that a song is\n\u201cbeautiful.\u201d\n\nIn Russian a deed may be kind and good, or unkind and bad. Music may be\npleasant and good, or unpleasant and bad; but there can be no such thing\nas \u201cbeautiful\u201d or \u201cugly\u201d music.\n\nBeautiful may relate to a man, a horse, a house, a view, or a movement.\nOf actions, thoughts, character, or music, if they please us, we may say\nthat they are good, or, if they do not please us, that they are not\ngood. But beautiful can be used only concerning that which pleases the\nsight. So that the word and conception \u201cgood\u201d includes the conception of\n\u201cbeautiful,\u201d but the reverse is not the case; the conception \u201cbeauty\u201d\ndoes not include the conception \u201cgood.\u201d If we say \u201cgood\u201d of an article\nwhich we value for its appearance, we thereby say that the article is\nbeautiful; but if we say it is \u201cbeautiful,\u201d it does not at all mean that\nthe article is a good one.\n\nSuch is the meaning ascribed by the Russian language, and therefore by\nthe sense of the people, to the words and conceptions \u201cgood\u201d and\n\u201cbeautiful.\u201d\n\nIn all the European languages, _i.e._ the languages of those nations\namong whom the doctrine has spread that beauty is the essential thing in\nart, the words \u201cbeau,\u201d \u201csch\u00f6n,\u201d \u201cbeautiful,\u201d \u201cbello,\u201d etc., while\nkeeping their meaning of beautiful in form, have come to also express\n\u201cgoodness,\u201d \u201ckindness,\u201d _i.e._ have come to act as substitutes for the\nword \u201cgood.\u201d\n\nSo that it has become quite natural in those languages to use such\nexpressions as \u201cbelle ame,\u201d \u201csch\u00f6ne Gedanken,\u201d of \u201cbeautiful deed.\u201d\nThose languages no longer have a suitable word wherewith expressly to\nindicate beauty of form, and have to use a combination of words such as\n\u201cbeau par la forme,\u201d \u201cbeautiful to look at,\u201d etc., to convey that idea.\n\nObservation of the divergent meanings which the words \u201cbeauty\u201d and\n\u201cbeautiful\u201d have in Russian on the one hand, and in those European\nlanguages now permeated by this \u00e6sthetic theory on the other hand, shows\nus that the word \u201cbeauty\u201d has, among the latter, acquired a special\nmeaning, namely, that of \u201cgood.\u201d\n\nWhat is remarkable, moreover, is that since we Russians have begun more\nand more to adopt the European view of art, the same evolution has begun\nto show itself in our language also, and some people speak and write\nquite confidently, and without causing surprise, of beautiful music and\nugly actions, or even thoughts; whereas forty years ago, when I was\nyoung, the expressions \u201cbeautiful music\u201d and \u201cugly actions\u201d were not\nonly unusual but incomprehensible. Evidently this new meaning given to\nbeauty by European thought begins to be assimilated by Russian society.\n\nAnd what really is this meaning? What is this \u201cbeauty\u201d as it is\nunderstood by the European peoples?\n\nIn order to answer this question, I must here quote at least a small\nselection of those definitions of beauty most generally adopted in\nexisting \u00e6sthetic systems. I especially beg the reader not to be\novercome by dulness, but to read these extracts through, or, still\nbetter, to read some one of the erudite \u00e6sthetic authors. Not to mention\nthe voluminous German \u00e6stheticians, a very good book for this purpose\nwould be either the German book by Kralik, the English work by Knight,\nor the French one by L\u00e9v\u00eaque. It is necessary to read one of the learned\n\u00e6sthetic writers in order to form at first-hand a conception of the\nvariety in opinion and the frightful obscurity which reigns in this\nregion of speculation; not, in this important matter, trusting to\nanother\u2019s report.\n\nThis, for instance, is what the German \u00e6sthetician Schasler says in the\npreface to his famous, voluminous, and detailed work on \u00e6sthetics:\u2014\n\n\u201cHardly in any sphere of philosophic science can we find such divergent\nmethods of investigation and exposition, amounting even to\nself-contradiction, as in the sphere of \u00e6sthetics. On the one hand we\nhave elegant phraseology without any substance, characterised in great\npart by most one-sided superficiality; and on the other hand,\naccompanying undeniable profundity of investigation and richness of\nsubject-matter, we get a revolting awkwardness of philosophic\nterminology, enfolding the simplest thoughts in an apparel of abstract\nscience as though to render them worthy to enter the consecrated palace\nof the system; and finally, between these two methods of investigation\nand exposition, there is a third, forming, as it were, the transition\nfrom one to the other, a method consisting of eclecticism, now flaunting\nan elegant phraseology and now a pedantic erudition.... A style of\nexposition that falls into none of these three defects but it is truly\nconcrete, and, having important matter, expresses it in clear and\npopular philosophic language, can nowhere be found less frequently than\nin the domain of \u00e6sthetics.\u201d[7]\n\nIt is only necessary, for instance, to read Schasler\u2019s own book to\nconvince oneself of the justice of this observation of his.\n\nOn the same subject the French writer V\u00e9ron, in the preface to his very\ngood work on \u00e6sthetics, says, \u201c_Il n\u2019y a pas de science, qui ait \u00e9t\u00e9\nplus que l\u2019esth\u00e9tique livr\u00e9e aux r\u00eaveries des m\u00e9taphysiciens. Depuis\nPlaton jusqu\u2019 aux doctrines officielles de nos jours, on a fait de l\u2019art\nje ne sais quel amalgame de fantaisies quintessenci\u00e9es, et de myst\u00e8res\ntranscendantaux qui trouvent leur expression supr\u00eame dans la conception\nabsolue du Beau id\u00e9al, prototype immuable et divin des choses r\u00e9elles_\u201d\n(_L\u2019esth\u00e9tique_, 1878, p. 5).[8]\n\nIf the reader will only be at the pains to peruse the following\nextracts, defining beauty, taken from the chief writers on \u00e6sthetics, he\nmay convince himself that this censure is thoroughly deserved.\n\nI shall not quote the definitions of beauty attributed to the\nancients,\u2014Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc., down to Plotinus,\u2014because,\nin reality, the ancients had not that conception of beauty separated\nfrom goodness which forms the basis and aim of \u00e6sthetics in our time. By\nreferring the judgments of the ancients on beauty to our conception of\nit, as is usually done in \u00e6sthetics, we give the words of the ancients a\nmeaning which is not theirs.[9]\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Only two, or at most three, senses are generally held worthy to supply\n  matter for artistic treatment, but I think this opinion is only\n  conditionally correct. I will not lay too much stress on the fact that\n  our common speech recognises many other arts, as, for instance, the\n  art of cookery.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  And yet it is certainly an \u00e6sthetic achievement when the art of\n  cooking succeeds in making of an animal\u2019s corpse an object in all\n  respects tasteful. The principle of the Art of Taste (which goes\n  beyond the so-called Art of Cookery) is therefore this: All that is\n  eatable should be treated as the symbol of some Idea, and always in\n  harmony with the Idea to be expressed.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  If the sense of touch lacks colour, it gives us, on the other hand, a\n  notion which the eye alone cannot afford, and one of considerable\n  \u00e6sthetic value, namely, that of _softness_, _silkiness_, _polish_. The\n  beauty of velvet is characterised not less by its softness to the\n  touch than by its lustre. In the idea we form of a woman\u2019s beauty, the\n  softness of her skin enters as an essential element.\n\n  Each of us probably, with a little attention, can recall pleasures of\n  taste which have been real \u00e6sthetic pleasures.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  M. Schasler, _Kritische Geschichte der Aesthetik_, 1872, vol. i. p.\n  13.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  There is no science which more than \u00e6sthetics has been handed over to\n  the reveries of the metaphysicians. From Plato down to the received\n  doctrines of our day, people have made of art a strange amalgam of\n  quintessential fancies and transcendental mysteries, which find their\n  supreme expression in the conception of an absolute ideal Beauty,\n  immutable and divine prototype of actual things.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  See on this matter Benard\u2019s admirable book, _L\u2019esth\u00e9tique d\u2019Aristote_,\n  also Walter\u2019s _Geschichte der Aesthetik im Altertum_.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n\n\nI begin with the founder of \u00e6sthetics, Baumgarten (1714-1762).\n\nAccording to Baumgarten,[10] the object of logical knowledge is Truth,\nthe object of \u00e6sthetic (_i.e._ sensuous) knowledge is Beauty. Beauty is\nthe Perfect (the Absolute), recognised through the senses; Truth is the\nPerfect perceived through reason; Goodness is the Perfect reached by\nmoral will.\n\nBeauty is defined by Baumgarten as a correspondence, _i.e._ an order of\nthe parts in their mutual relations to each other and in their relation\nto the whole. The aim of beauty itself is to please and excite a desire,\n\u201c_Wohlgefallen und Erregung eines Verlangens._\u201d (A position precisely\nthe opposite of Kant\u2019s definition of the nature and sign of beauty.)\n\nWith reference to the manifestations of beauty, Baumgarten considers\nthat the highest embodiment of beauty is seen by us in nature, and he\ntherefore thinks that the highest aim of art is to copy nature. (This\nposition also is directly contradicted by the conclusions of the latest\n\u00e6stheticians.)\n\nPassing over the unimportant followers of Baumgarten,\u2014Maier, Eschenburg,\nand Eberhard,\u2014who only slightly modified the doctrine of their teacher\nby dividing the pleasant from the beautiful, I will quote the\ndefinitions given by writers who came immediately after Baumgarten, and\ndefined beauty quite in another way. These writers were Sulzer,\nMendelssohn, and Moritz. They, in contradiction to Baumgarten\u2019s main\nposition, recognise as the aim of art, not beauty, but goodness. Thus\nSulzer (1720-1777) says that only that can be considered beautiful which\ncontains goodness. According to his theory, the aim of the whole life of\nhumanity is welfare in social life. This is attained by the education of\nthe moral feelings, to which end art should be subservient. Beauty is\nthat which evokes and educates this feeling.\n\nBeauty is understood almost in the same way by Mendelssohn (1729-1786).\nAccording to him, art is the carrying forward of the beautiful,\nobscurely recognised by feeling, till it becomes the true and good. The\naim of art is moral perfection.[11]\n\nFor the \u00e6stheticians of this school, the ideal of beauty is a beautiful\nsoul in a beautiful body. So that these \u00e6stheticians completely wipe out\nBaumgarten\u2019s division of the Perfect (the Absolute), into the three\nforms of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty; and Beauty is again united with\nthe Good and the True.\n\nBut this conception is not only not maintained by the later\n\u00e6stheticians, but the \u00e6sthetic doctrine of Winckelmann arises, again in\ncomplete opposition. This divides the mission of art from the aim of\ngoodness in the sharpest and most positive manner, makes external beauty\nthe aim of art, and even limits it to visible beauty.\n\nAccording to the celebrated work of Winckelmann (1717-1767), the law and\naim of all art is beauty only, beauty quite separated from and\nindependent of goodness. There are three kinds of beauty:\u2014(1) beauty of\nform, (2) beauty of idea, expressing itself in the position of the\nfigure (in plastic art), (3) beauty of expression, attainable only when\nthe two first conditions are present. This beauty of expression is the\nhighest aim of art, and is attained in antique art; modern art should\ntherefore aim at imitating ancient art.[12]\n\nArt is similarly understood by Lessing, Herder, and afterwards by Goethe\nand by all the distinguished \u00e6stheticians of Germany till Kant, from\nwhose day, again, a different conception of art commences.\n\nNative \u00e6sthetic theories arose during this period in England, France,\nItaly, and Holland, and they, though not taken from the German, were\nequally cloudy and contradictory. And all these writers, just like the\nGerman \u00e6stheticians, founded their theories on a conception of the\nBeautiful, understanding beauty in the sense of a something existing\nabsolutely, and more or less intermingled with Goodness or having one\nand the same root. In England, almost simultaneously with Baumgarten,\neven a little earlier, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Home, Burke, Hogarth, and\nothers, wrote on art.\n\nAccording to Shaftesbury (1670-1713), \u201cThat which is beautiful is\nharmonious and proportionable, what is harmonious and proportionable is\ntrue, and what is at once both beautiful and true is of consequence\nagreeable and good.\u201d[13] Beauty, he taught, is recognised by the mind\nonly. God is fundamental beauty; beauty and goodness proceed from the\nsame fount.\n\nSo that, although Shaftesbury regards beauty as being something separate\nfrom goodness, they again merge into something inseparable.\n\nAccording to Hutcheson (1694-1747\u2014\u201cInquiry into the Original of our\nIdeas of Beauty and Virtue\u201d), the aim of art is beauty, the essence of\nwhich consists in evoking in us the perception of uniformity amid\nvariety. In the recognition of what is art we are guided by \u201can internal\nsense.\u201d This internal sense may be in contradiction to the ethical one.\nSo that, according to Hutcheson, beauty does not always correspond with\ngoodness, but separates from it and is sometimes contrary to it.[14]\n\nAccording to Home, Lord Kames (1696-1782), beauty is that which is\npleasant. Therefore beauty is defined by taste alone. The standard of\ntrue taste is that the maximum of richness, fulness, strength, and\nvariety of impression should be contained in the narrowest limits. That\nis the ideal of a perfect work of art.\n\nAccording to Burke (1729-1797\u2014\u201cPhilosophical Inquiry into the Origin of\nour Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful\u201d), the sublime and beautiful,\nwhich are the aim of art, have their origin in the promptings of\nself-preservation and of society. These feelings, examined in their\nsource, are means for the maintenance of the race through the\nindividual. The first (self-preservation) is attained by nourishment,\ndefence, and war; the second (society) by intercourse and propagation.\nTherefore self-defence, and war, which is bound up with it, is the\nsource of the sublime; sociability, and the sex-instinct, which is bound\nup with it, is the source of beauty.[15]\n\nSuch were the chief English definitions of art and beauty in the\neighteenth century.\n\nDuring that period, in France, the writers on art were P\u00e8re Andr\u00e9 and\nBatteux, with Diderot, D\u2019Alembert, and, to some extent, Voltaire,\nfollowing later.\n\nAccording to P\u00e8re Andr\u00e9 (\u201cEssai sur le Beau,\u201d 1741), there are three\nkinds of beauty\u2014divine beauty, natural beauty, and artificial\nbeauty.[16]\n\nAccording to Batteux (1713-1780), art consists in imitating the beauty\nof nature, its aim being enjoyment.[17] Such is also Diderot\u2019s\ndefinition of art.\n\nThe French writers, like the English, consider that it is taste that\ndecides what is beautiful. And the laws of taste are not only not laid\ndown, but it is granted that they cannot be settled. The same view was\nheld by D\u2019Alembert and Voltaire.[18]\n\nAccording to the Italian \u00e6sthetician of that period, Pagano, art\nconsists in uniting the beauties\u2019 dispersed in nature. The capacity to\nperceive these beauties is taste, the capacity to bring them into one\nwhole is artistic genius. Beauty commingles with goodness, so that\nbeauty is goodness made visible, and goodness is inner beauty.[19]\n\nAccording to the opinion of other Italians: Muratori\n(1672-1750),\u2014\u201c_Riflessioni sopra il buon gusto intorno le science e le\narti_,\u201d\u2014and especially Spaletti,[20]\u2014\u201c_Saggio sopra la bellezza_\u201d\n(1765),\u2014art amounts to an egotistical sensation, founded (as with Burke)\non the desire for self-preservation and society.\n\nAmong Dutch writers, Hemsterhuis (1720-1790), who had an influence on\nthe German \u00e6stheticians and on Goethe, is remarkable. According to him,\nbeauty is that which gives most pleasure, and that gives most pleasure\nwhich gives us the greatest number of ideas in the shortest time.\nEnjoyment of the beautiful, because it gives the greatest quantity of\nperceptions in the shortest time, is the highest notion to which man can\nattain.[21]\n\nSuch were the \u00e6sthetic theories outside Germany during the last century.\nIn Germany, after Winckelmann, there again arose a completely new\n\u00e6sthetic theory, that of Kant (1724-1804), which more than all others\nclears up what this conception of beauty, and consequently of art,\nreally amounts to.\n\nThe \u00e6sthetic teaching of Kant is founded as follows:\u2014Man has a knowledge\nof nature outside him and of himself in nature. In nature, outside\nhimself, he seeks for truth; in himself he seeks for goodness. The first\nis an affair of pure reason, the other of practical reason (free-will).\nBesides these two means of perception, there is yet the judging capacity\n(_Urteilskraft_), which forms judgments without reasonings and produces\npleasure without desire (_Urtheil ohne Begriff und Vergn\u00fcgen ohne\nBegehren_). This capacity is the basis of \u00e6sthetic feeling. Beauty,\naccording to Kant, in its subjective meaning is that which, in general\nand necessarily, without reasonings and without practical advantage,\npleases. In its objective meaning it is the form of a suitable object in\nso far as that object is perceived without any conception of its\nutility.[22]\n\nBeauty is defined in the same way by the followers of Kant, among whom\nwas Schiller (1759-1805). According to Schiller, who wrote much on\n\u00e6sthetics, the aim of art is, as with Kant, beauty, the source of which\nis pleasure without practical advantage. So that art may be called a\ngame, not in the sense of an unimportant occupation, but in the sense of\na manifestation of the beauties of life itself without other aim than\nthat of beauty.[23]\n\nBesides Schiller, the most remarkable of Kant\u2019s followers in the sphere\nof \u00e6sthetics was Wilhelm Humboldt, who, though he added nothing to the\ndefinition of beauty, explained various forms of it,\u2014the drama, music,\nthe comic, etc.[24]\n\nAfter Kant, besides the second-rate philosophers, the writers on\n\u00e6sthetics were Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and their followers. Fichte\n(1762-1814) says that perception of the beautiful proceeds from this:\nthe world\u2014_i.e._ nature\u2014has two sides: it is the sum of our limitations,\nand it is the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the first aspect\nthe world is limited, in the second aspect it is free. In the first\naspect every object is limited, distorted, compressed, confined\u2014and we\nsee deformity; in the second we perceive its inner completeness,\nvitality, regeneration\u2014and we see beauty. So that the deformity or\nbeauty of an object, according to Fichte, depends on the point of view\nof the observer. Beauty therefore exists, not in the world, but in the\nbeautiful soul (_sch\u00f6ner Geist_). Art is the manifestation of this\nbeautiful soul, and its aim is the education, not only of the mind\u2014that\nis the business of the _savant_; not only of the heart\u2014that is the\naffair of the moral preacher; but of the whole man. And so the\ncharacteristic of beauty lies, not in anything external, but in the\npresence of a beautiful soul in the artist.[25]\n\nFollowing Fichte, and in the same direction, Friedrich Schlegel and Adam\nM\u00fcller also defined beauty. According to Schlegel (1772\u20141829), beauty in\nart is understood too incompletely, one-sidedly, and disconnectedly.\nBeauty exists not only in art, but also in nature and in love; so that\nthe truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature, and love.\nTherefore, as inseparably one with aesthetic art, Schlegel acknowledges\nmoral and philosophic art.[26]\n\nAccording to Adam Muller (1779-1829), there are two kinds of beauty; the\none, general beauty, which attracts people as the sun attracts the\nplanet\u2014this is found chiefly in antique art\u2014and the other, individual\nbeauty, which results from the observer himself becoming a sun\nattracting beauty,\u2014this is the beauty of modern art. A world in which\nall contradictions are harmonised is the highest beauty. Every work of\nart is a reproduction of this universal harmony.[27] The highest art is\nthe art of life.[28]\n\nNext after Fichte and his followers came a contemporary of his, the\nphilosopher Schelling (1775-1854), who has had a great influence on the\n\u00e6sthetic conceptions of our times. According to Schelling\u2019s philosophy,\nart is the production or result of that conception of things by which\nthe subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject.\nBeauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. And the chief\ncharacteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art is the\nuniting of the subjective with the objective, of nature with reason, of\nthe unconscious with the conscious, and therefore art is the highest\nmeans of knowledge. Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves\nas they exist in the prototype (_In den Urbildern_). It is not the\nartist who by his knowledge or skill produces the beautiful, but the\nidea of beauty in him itself produces it.[29]\n\nOf Schelling\u2019s followers the most noticeable was Solger\n(1780-1819\u2014_Vorlesungen \u00fcber Aesthetik_). According to him, the idea of\nbeauty is the fundamental idea of everything. In the world we see only\ndistortions of the fundamental idea, but art, by imagination, may lift\nitself to the height of this idea. Art is therefore akin to\ncreation.[30]\n\nAccording to another follower of Schelling, Krause (1781-1832), true,\npositive beauty is the manifestation of the Idea in an individual form;\nart is the actualisation of the beauty existing in the sphere of man\u2019s\nfree spirit. The highest stage of art is the art of life, which directs\nits activity towards the adornment of life so that it may be a beautiful\nabode for a beautiful man.[31]\n\nAfter Schelling and his followers came the new \u00e6sthetic doctrine of\nHegel, which is held to this day, consciously by many, but by the\nmajority unconsciously. This teaching is not only no clearer or better\ndefined than the preceding ones, but is, if possible, even more cloudy\nand mystical.\n\nAccording to Hegel (1770-1831), God manifests himself in nature and in\nart in the form of beauty. God expresses himself in two ways: in the\nobject and in the subject, in nature and in spirit. Beauty is the\nshining of the Idea through matter. Only the soul, and what pertains to\nit, is truly beautiful; and therefore the beauty of nature is only the\nreflection of the natural beauty of the spirit\u2014the beautiful has only a\nspiritual content. But the spiritual must appear in sensuous form. The\nsensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance (_schein_), and this\nappearance is the only reality of the beautiful. Art is thus the\nproduction of this appearance of the Idea, and is a means, together with\nreligion and philosophy, of bringing to consciousness and of expressing\nthe deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit.\n\nTruth and beauty, according to Hegel, are one and the same thing; the\ndifference being only that truth is the Idea itself as it exists in\nitself, and is thinkable. The Idea, manifested externally, becomes to\nthe apprehension not only true but beautiful. The beautiful is the\nmanifestation of the Idea.[32]\n\nFollowing Hegel came his many adherents, Weisse, Arnold Ruge,\nRosenkrantz, Theodor Vischer and others.\n\nAccording to Weisse (1801-1867), art is the introduction (_Einbildung_)\nof the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into external, dead,\nindifferent matter, the perception of which latter apart from the beauty\nbrought into it presents the negation of all existence in itself\n(_Negation alles F\u00fcrsichseins_).\n\nIn the idea of truth, Weisse explains, lies a contradiction between the\nsubjective and the objective sides of knowledge, in that an individual\n_I_ discerns the Universal. This contradiction can be removed by a\nconception that should unite into one the universal and the individual,\nwhich fall asunder in our conceptions of truth. Such a conception would\nbe reconciled (_aufgehoben_) truth. Beauty is such a reconciled\ntruth.[33]\n\nAccording to Ruge (1802-1880), a strict follower of Hegel, beauty is the\nIdea expressing itself. The spirit, contemplating itself, either finds\nitself expressed completely, and then that full expression of itself is\nbeauty; or incompletely, and then it feels the need to alter this\nimperfect expression of itself, and becomes creative art.[34]\n\nAccording to Vischer (1807-1887), beauty is the Idea in the form of a\nfinite phenomenon. The Idea itself is not indivisible, but forms a\nsystem of ideas, which may be represented by ascending and descending\nlines. The higher the idea the more beauty it contains; but even the\nlowest contains beauty, because it forms an essential link of the\nsystem. The highest form of the Idea is personality, and therefore the\nhighest art is that which has for its subject-matter the highest\npersonality.[35]\n\nSuch were the theories of the German \u00e6stheticians in the Hegelian\ndirection, but they did not monopolise \u00e6sthetic dissertations. In\nGermany, side by side and simultaneously with the Hegelian theories,\nthere appeared theories of beauty not only independent of Hegel\u2019s\nposition (that beauty is the manifestation of the Idea), but directly\ncontrary to this view, denying and ridiculing it. Such was the line\ntaken by Herbart and, more particularly, by Schopenhauer.\n\nAccording to Herbart (1776-1841), there is not, and cannot be, any such\nthing as beauty existing in itself. What does exist is only our opinion,\nand it is necessary to find the base of this opinion (_\u00c4sthetisches\nElementarurtheil_). Such bases are connected with our impressions. There\nare certain relations which we term beautiful; and art consists in\nfinding these relations, which are simultaneous in painting, the plastic\nart, and architecture, successive and simultaneous in music, and purely\nsuccessive in poetry. In contradiction to the former \u00e6stheticians,\nHerbart holds that objects are often beautiful which express nothing at\nall, as, for instance, the rainbow, which is beautiful for its lines and\ncolours, and not for its mythological connection with Iris or Noah\u2019s\nrainbow.[36]\n\nAnother opponent of Hegel was Schopenhauer, who denied Hegel\u2019s whole\nsystem, his \u00e6sthetics included.\n\nAccording to Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Will objectivizes itself in the\nworld on various planes; and although the higher the plane on which it\nis objectivized the more beautiful it is, yet each plane has its own\nbeauty. Renunciation of one\u2019s individuality and contemplation of one of\nthese planes of manifestation of Will gives us a perception of beauty.\nAll men, says Schopenhauer, possess the capacity to objectivize the Idea\non different planes. The genius of the artist has this capacity in a\nhigher degree, and therefore makes a higher beauty manifest.[37]\n\nAfter these more eminent writers there followed, in Germany, less\noriginal and less influential ones, such as Hartmann, Kirkmann,\nSchnasse, and, to some extent, Helmholtz (as an \u00e6sthetician), Bergmann,\nJungmann, and an innumerable host of others.\n\nAccording to Hartmann (1842), beauty lies, not in the external world,\nnor in \u201cthe thing in itself,\u201d neither does it reside in the soul of man,\nbut it lies in the \u201cseeming\u201d (_Schein_) produced by the artist. The\nthing in itself is not beautiful, but is transformed into beauty by the\nartist.[38]\n\nAccording to Schnasse (1798-1875), there is no perfect beauty in the\nworld. In nature there is only an approach towards it. Art gives what\nnature cannot give. In the energy of the free _ego_, conscious of\nharmony not found in nature, beauty is disclosed.[39]\n\nKirkmann wrote on experimental aesthetics. All aspects of history in his\nsystem are joined by pure chance. Thus, according to Kirkmann\n(1802-1884), there are six realms of history:\u2014The realm of Knowledge, of\nWealth, of Morality, of Faith, of Politics, and of Beauty; and activity\nin the last-named realm is art.[40]\n\nAccording to Helmholtz (1821), who wrote on beauty as it relates to\nmusic, beauty in musical productions is attained only by following\nunalterable laws. These laws are not known to the artist; so that beauty\nis manifested by the artist unconsciously, and cannot be subjected to\nanalysis.[41]\n\nAccording to Bergmann (1840) (_Ueber das Sch\u00f6ne_, 1887), to define\nbeauty objectively is impossible. Beauty is only perceived subjectively,\nand therefore the problem of \u00e6sthetics is to define what pleases\nwhom.[42]\n\nAccording to Jungmann (d. 1885), firstly, beauty is a suprasensible\nquality of things; secondly, beauty produces in us pleasure by merely\nbeing contemplated; and, thirdly, beauty is the foundation of love.[43]\n\nThe \u00e6sthetic theories of the chief representatives of France, England,\nand other nations in recent times have been the following:\u2014\n\nIn France, during this period, the prominent writers on \u00e6sthetics were\nCousin, Jouffroy, Pictet, Ravaisson, L\u00e9v\u00eaque.\n\nCousin (1792-1867) was an eclectic, and a follower of the German\nidealists. According to his theory, beauty always has a moral\nfoundation. He disputes the doctrine that art is imitation and that the\nbeautiful is what pleases. He affirms that beauty may be defined\nobjectively, and that it essentially consists in variety in unity.[44]\n\nAfter Cousin came Jouffroy (1796-1842), who was a pupil of Cousin\u2019s and\nalso a follower of the German \u00e6stheticians. According to his definition,\nbeauty is the expression of the invisible by those natural signs which\nmanifest it. The visible world is the garment by means of which we see\nbeauty.[45]\n\nThe Swiss writer Pictet repeated Hegel and Plato, supposing beauty to\nexist in the direct and free manifestation of the divine Idea revealing\nitself in sense forms.[46]\n\nL\u00e9v\u00eaque was a follower of Schelling and Hegel. He holds that beauty is\nsomething invisible behind nature\u2014a force or spirit revealing itself in\nordered energy.[47]\n\nSimilar vague opinions about the nature of beauty were expressed by the\nFrench metaphysician Ravaisson, who considered beauty to be the ultimate\naim and purpose of the world. \u201c_La beaut\u00e9 la plus divine et\nprincipalement la plus parfaite contient le secret du monde._\u201d[48] And\nagain:\u2014_\u201cLe monde entier est l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019une beaut\u00e9 absolue, qui n\u2019est la\ncause des choses que par l\u2019amour qu\u2019elle met en elles_.\u201d\n\nI purposely abstain from translating these metaphysical expressions,\nbecause, however cloudy the Germans may be, the French, once they absorb\nthe theories of the Germans and take to imitating them, far surpass them\nin uniting heterogeneous conceptions into one expression, and putting\nforward one meaning or another indiscriminately. For instance, the\nFrench philosopher Renouvier, when discussing beauty, says:\u2014\u201c_Ne\ncraignons pas de dire qu\u2019une v\u00e9rit\u00e9 qui ne serait pas belle, ne serait\nqu\u2019un jeu logique de notre esprit et que la seule v\u00e9rit\u00e9 solide et digne\nde ce nom c\u2019est la beaut\u00e9._\u201d[49]\n\nBesides the \u00e6sthetic idealists who wrote and still write under the\ninfluence of German philosophy, the following recent writers have also\ninfluenced the comprehension of art and beauty in France: Taine, Guyau,\nCherbuliez, Coster, and V\u00e9ron.\n\nAccording to Taine (1828-1893), beauty is the manifestation of the\nessential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it\nis expressed in reality.[50]\n\nGuyau (1854-1888) taught that beauty is not something exterior to the\nobject itself,\u2014is not, as it were, a parasitic growth on it,\u2014but is\nitself the very blossoming forth of that on which it appears. Art is the\nexpression of reasonable and conscious life, evoking in us both the\ndeepest consciousness of existence and the highest feelings and loftiest\nthoughts. Art lifts man from his personal life into the universal life,\nby means, not only of participation in the same ideas and beliefs, but\nalso by means of similarity in feeling.[51]\n\nAccording to Cherbuliez, art is an activity, (1) satisfying our innate\nlove of forms (_apparences_), (2) endowing these forms with ideas, (3)\naffording pleasure alike to our senses, heart, and reason. Beauty is not\ninherent in objects, but is an act of our souls. Beauty is an illusion;\nthere is no absolute beauty. But what we consider characteristic and\nharmonious appears beautiful to us.\n\nCoster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the good, and the true are\ninnate. These ideas illuminate our minds and are identical with God, who\nis Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The idea of Beauty includes unity of\nessence, variety of constitutive elements, and order, which brings unity\ninto the various manifestations of life.[52]\n\nFor the sake of completeness, I will further cite some of the very\nlatest writings upon art.\n\n_La psychologie du Beau et de l\u2019Art, par Mario Pilo_ (1895), says that\nbeauty is a product of our physical feelings. The aim of art is\npleasure, but this pleasure (for some reason) he considers to be\nnecessarily highly moral.\n\nThe _Essai sur l\u2019art contemporain, par Fierens Gevaert_ (1897), says\nthat art rests on its connection with the past, and on the religious\nideal of the present which the artist holds when giving to his work the\nform of his individuality.\n\nThen again, Sar Peladan\u2019s _L\u2019art id\u00e9aliste et mystique_ (1894) says that\nbeauty is one of the manifestations of God. \u201c_Il n\u2019y a pas d\u2019autre\nR\u00e9alit\u00e9 que Dieu, n\u2019y a pas d\u2019autre V\u00e9rit\u00e9 que Dieu, il n\u2019y a pas\nd\u2019autre Beaut\u00e9, que Dieu_\u201d (p. 33). This book is very fantastic and very\nilliterate, but is characteristic in the positions it takes up, and\nnoticeable on account of a certain success it is having with the younger\ngeneration in France.\n\nAll the \u00e6sthetics diffused in France up to the present time are similar\nin kind, but among them V\u00e9ron\u2019s _L\u2019esth\u00e9tique_ (1878) forms an\nexception, being reasonable and clear. That work, though it does not\ngive an exact definition of art, at least rids \u00e6sthetics of the cloudy\nconception of an absolute beauty.\n\nAccording to V\u00e9ron (1825-1889), art is the manifestation of emotion\ntransmitted externally by a combination of lines, forms, colours, or by\na succession of movements, sounds, or words subjected to certain\nrhythms.[53]\n\nIn England, during this period, the writers on \u00e6sthetics define beauty\nmore and more frequently, not by its own qualities, but by taste, and\nthe discussion about beauty is superseded by a discussion on taste.\n\nAfter Reid (1704-1796), who acknowledged beauty as being entirely\ndependent on the spectator, Alison, in his _Essay on the Nature and\nPrinciples of Taste_ (1790), proved the same thing. From another side\nthis was also asserted by Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), the grandfather of\nthe celebrated Charles Darwin.\n\nHe says that we consider beautiful that which is connected in our\nconception with what we love. Richard Knight\u2019s work, _An Analytical\nInquiry into the Principles of Taste_, also tends in the same direction.\n\nMost of the English theories of \u00e6sthetics are on the same lines. The\nprominent writers on \u00e6sthetics in England during the present century\nhave been Charles Darwin, (to some extent), Herbert Spencer, Grant\nAllen, Ker, and Knight.\n\nAccording to Charles Darwin (1809-1882\u2014_Descent of Man_, 1871), beauty\nis a feeling natural not only to man but also to animals, and\nconsequently to the ancestors of man. Birds adorn their nests and esteem\nbeauty in their mates. Beauty has an influence on marriages. Beauty\nincludes a variety of diverse conceptions. The origin of the art of\nmusic is the call of the males to the females.[54]\n\nAccording to Herbert Spencer (b. 1820), the origin of art is play, a\nthought previously expressed by Schiller. In the lower animals all the\nenergy of life is expended in life-maintenance and race-maintenance; in\nman, however, there remains, after these needs are satisfied, some\nsuperfluous strength. This excess is used in play, which passes over\ninto art. Play is an imitation of real activity, so is art. The sources\nof \u00e6sthetic pleasure are threefold:\u2014(1) That \u201cwhich exercises the\nfaculties affected in the most complete ways, with the fewest drawbacks\nfrom excess of exercise,\u201d (2) \u201cthe difference of a stimulus in large\namount, which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling,\u201d (3) the partial\nrevival of the same, with special combinations.[55]\n\nIn Todhunter\u2019s _Theory of the Beautiful_ (1872), beauty is infinite\nloveliness, which we apprehend both by reason and by the enthusiasm of\nlove. The recognition of beauty as being such depends on taste; there\ncan be no criterion for it. The only approach to a definition is found\nin culture. (What culture is, is not defined.) Intrinsically, art\u2014that\nwhich affects us through lines, colours, sounds, or words\u2014is not the\nproduct of blind forces, but of reasonable ones, working, with mutual\nhelpfulness, towards a reasonable aim. Beauty is the reconciliation of\ncontradictions.[56]\n\nGrant Allen is a follower of Spencer, and in his _Physiological\n\u00c6sthetics_ (1877) he says that beauty has a physical origin. \u00c6sthetic\npleasures come from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the\nconception of beauty is obtained by a physiological process. The origin\nof art is play; when there is a superfluity of physical strength man\ngives himself to play; when there is a superfluity of receptive power\nman gives himself to art. The beautiful is that which affords the\nmaximum of stimulation with the minimum of waste. Differences in the\nestimation of beauty proceed from taste. Taste can be educated. We must\nhave faith in the judgments \u201cof the finest-nurtured and most\ndiscriminative\u201d men. These people form the taste of the next\ngeneration.[57]\n\nAccording to Ker\u2019s _Essay on the Philosophy of Art_ (1883), beauty\nenables us to make part of the objective world intelligible to ourselves\nwithout being troubled by reference to other parts of it, as is\ninevitable for science. So that art destroys the opposition between the\none and the many, between the law and its manifestation, between the\nsubject and its object, by uniting them. Art is the revelation and\nvindication of freedom, because it is free from the darkness and\nincomprehensibility of finite things.[58]\n\nAccording to Knight\u2019s _Philosophy of the Beautiful_, Part II. (1893),\nbeauty is (as with Schelling) the union of object and subject, the\ndrawing forth from nature of that which is cognate to man, and the\nrecognition in oneself of that which is common to all nature.\n\nThe opinions on beauty and on Art here mentioned are far from exhausting\nwhat has been written on the subject. And every day fresh writers on\n\u00e6sthetics arise, in whose disquisitions appear the same enchanted\nconfusion and contradictoriness in defining beauty. Some, by inertia,\ncontinue the mystical \u00e6sthetics of Baumgarten and Hegel with sundry\nvariations; others transfer the question to the region of subjectivity,\nand seek for the foundation of the beautiful in questions of taste;\nothers\u2014the \u00e6stheticians of the very latest formation\u2014seek the origin of\nbeauty in the laws of physiology; and finally, others again investigate\nthe question quite independently of the conception of beauty. Thus,\nSully in his _Sensation and Intuition: Studies in Psychology and\n\u00c6sthetics_ (1874), dismisses the conception of beauty altogether, art,\nby his definition, being the production of some permanent object or\npassing action fitted to supply active enjoyment to the producer, and a\npleasurable impression to a number of spectators or listeners, quite\napart from any personal advantage derived from it.[59]\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Schasler, p. 361.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Schasler, p. 369.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 388-390.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Knight, _Philosophy of the Beautiful_, i. pp. 165, 166.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Schasler, p. 289. Knight, pp. 168, 169.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  R. Kralik, _Weltsch\u00f6nheit, Versuch einer allgemeinen Aesthetik_, pp.\n  304-306.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Knight, p. 101.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Schasler, p. 316.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Knight, pp. 102-104.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  R. Kralik, p. 124.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Spaletti, Schasler, p. 328.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 331-333.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 525-528.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Knight, pp. 61-63.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 740-743.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 769-771.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 786, 787.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Kralik, p. 148.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Kralik, p. 820.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 828, 829, 834-841.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Schasler, p. 891.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Schasler, p. 917.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 946, 1085, 984, 985, 990.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 966, 655, 956.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Schasler, p. 1017.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 1065, 1066.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 1097-1100.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Schasler, pp. 1124, 1107.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Knight, pp. 81, 82.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Knight, p. 83.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Schasler, p. 1121.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Knight, pp. 85, 86.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Knight, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Knight, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Knight, p. 112.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Knight, p. 116.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Knight, pp. 118, 119.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Knight, pp. 123, 124.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  _La philosophie en France_, p. 232.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _Du fondement de l\u2019induction._\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  _Philosophie de l\u2019art_, vol. i. 1893, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Knight, p. 139-141.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Knight, pp. 134.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  _L\u2019esth\u00e9tique_, p. 106.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Knight, p. 238.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Knight, pp. 239, 240.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Knight, pp. 240-243.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Knight, pp. 250-252.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Knight, pp. 258, 259.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Knight, p. 243.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n\nTo what do these definitions of beauty amount? Not reckoning the\nthoroughly inaccurate definitions of beauty which fail to cover the\nconception of art, and which suppose beauty to consist either in\nutility, or in adjustment to a purpose, or in symmetry, or in order, or\nin proportion, or in smoothness, or in harmony of the parts, or in unity\namid variety, or in various combinations of these,\u2014not reckoning these\nunsatisfactory attempts at objective definition, all the \u00e6sthetic\ndefinitions of beauty lead to two fundamental conceptions. The first is\nthat beauty is something having an independent existence (existing in\nitself), that it is one of the manifestations of the absolutely Perfect,\nof the Idea, of the Spirit, of Will, or of God; the other is that beauty\nis a kind of pleasure received by us, not having personal advantage for\nits object.\n\nThe first of these definitions was accepted by Fichte, Schelling, Hegel,\nSchopenhauer, and the philosophising Frenchmen, Cousin, Jouffroy,\nRavaisson, and others, not to enumerate the second-rate \u00e6sthetic\nphilosophers. And this same objective-mystical definition of beauty is\nheld by a majority of the educated people of our day. It is a conception\nvery widely spread, especially among the elder generation.\n\nThe second view, that beauty is a certain kind of pleasure received by\nus, not having personal advantage for its aim, finds favour chiefly\namong the English \u00e6sthetic writers, and is shared by the other part of\nour society, principally by the younger generation.\n\nSo there are (and it could not be otherwise) only two definitions of\nbeauty: the one objective, mystical, merging this conception into that\nof the highest perfection, God\u2014a fantastic definition, founded on\nnothing; the other, on the contrary, a very simple and intelligible\nsubjective one, which considers beauty to be that which pleases (I do\nnot add to the word \u201cpleases\u201d the words \u201cwithout the aim of advantage,\u201d\nbecause \u201cpleases\u201d naturally presupposes the absence of the idea of\nprofit).\n\nOn the one hand, beauty is viewed as something mystical and very\nelevated, but unfortunately at the same time very indefinite, and\nconsequently embracing philosophy, religion, and life itself (as in the\ntheories of Schelling and Hegel, and their German and French followers);\nor, on the other hand (as necessarily follows from the definition of\nKant and his adherents), beauty is simply a certain kind of\ndisinterested pleasure received by us. And this conception of beauty,\nalthough it seems very clear, is, unfortunately, again inexact; for it\nwidens out on the other side, _i.e._ it includes the pleasure derived\nfrom drink, from food, from touching a delicate skin, etc., as is\nacknowledged by Guyau, Kralik, and others.\n\nIt is true that, following the development of the \u00e6sthetic doctrines on\nbeauty, we may notice that, though at first (in the times when the\nfoundations of the science of \u00e6sthetics were being laid) the\nmetaphysical definition of beauty prevailed, yet the nearer we get to\nour own times the more does an experimental definition (recently\nassuming a physiological form) come to the front, so that at last we\neven meet with such \u00e6stheticians as V\u00e9ron and Sully, who try to escape\nentirely from the conception of beauty. But such \u00e6stheticians have very\nlittle success, and with the majority of the public, as well as of\nartists and the learned, a conception of beauty is firmly held which\nagrees with the definitions contained in most of the \u00e6sthetic treatises,\n_i.e._ which regards beauty either as something mystical or\nmetaphysical, or as a special kind of enjoyment.\n\nWhat then is this conception of beauty, so stubbornly held to by people\nof our circle and day as furnishing a definition of art?\n\nIn the subjective aspect, we call beauty that which supplies us with a\nparticular kind of pleasure.\n\nIn the objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect,\nand we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive, from the\nmanifestation of this absolute perfection, a certain kind of pleasure;\nso that this objective definition is nothing but the subjective\nconception differently expressed. In reality both conceptions of beauty\namount to one and the same thing, namely, the reception by us of a\ncertain kind of pleasure, _i.e._ we call \u201cbeauty\u201d that which pleases us\nwithout evoking in us desire.\n\nSuch being the position of affairs, it would seem only natural that the\nscience of art should decline to content itself with a definition of art\nbased on beauty (_i.e._ on that which pleases), and seek a general\ndefinition, which should apply to all artistic productions, and by\nreference to which we might decide whether a certain article belonged to\nthe realm of art or not. But no such definition is supplied, as the\nreader may see from those summaries of the \u00e6sthetic theories which I\nhave given, and as he may discover even more clearly from the original\n\u00e6sthetic works, if he will be at the pains to read them. All attempts to\ndefine absolute beauty in itself\u2014whether as an imitation of nature, or\nas suitability to its object, or as a correspondence of parts, or as\nsymmetry, or as harmony, or as unity in variety, etc.\u2014either define\nnothing at all, or define only some traits of some artistic productions,\nand are far from including all that everybody has always held, and still\nholds, to be art.\n\nThere is no objective definition of beauty. The existing definitions,\n(both the metaphysical and the experimental), amount only to one and the\nsame subjective definition which (strange as it seems to say so) is,\nthat art is that which makes beauty manifest, and beauty is that which\npleases (without exciting desire). Many \u00e6stheticians have felt the\ninsufficiency and instability of such a definition, and, in order to\ngive it a firm basis, have asked themselves why a thing pleases. And\nthey have converted the discussion on beauty into a question concerning\ntaste, as did Hutcheson, Voltaire, Diderot, and others. But all attempts\nto define what taste is must lead to nothing, as the reader may see both\nfrom the history of \u00e6sthetics and experimentally. There is and can be no\nexplanation of why one thing pleases one man and displeases another, or\n_vice vers\u00e2_. So that the whole existing science of \u00e6sthetics fails to\ndo what we might expect from it, being a mental activity calling itself\na science, namely, it does not define the qualities and laws of art, or\nof the beautiful (if that be the content of art), or the nature of taste\n(if taste decides the question of art and its merit), and then, on the\nbasis of such definitions, acknowledge as art those productions which\ncorrespond to these laws, and reject those which do not come under them.\nBut this science of \u00e6sthetics consists in first acknowledging a certain\nset of productions to be art (because they please us), and then framing\nsuch a theory of art that all those productions which please a certain\ncircle of people should fit into it. There exists an art canon,\naccording to which certain productions favoured by our circle are\nacknowledged as being art,\u2014Phidias, Sophocles, Homer, Titian, Raphael,\nBach, Beethoven, Dante, Shakespear, Goethe, and others,\u2014and the \u00e6sthetic\nlaws must be such as to embrace all these productions. In \u00e6sthetic\nliterature you will incessantly meet with opinions on the merit and\nimportance of art, founded not on any certain laws by which this or that\nis held to be good or bad, but merely on the consideration whether this\nart tallies with the art canon we have drawn up.\n\nThe other day I was reading a far from ill-written book by Folgeldt.\nDiscussing the demand for morality in works of art, the author plainly\nsays that we must not demand morality in art. And in proof of this he\nadvances the fact that if we admit such a demand, Shakespear\u2019s _Romeo\nand Juliet_ and Goethe\u2019s _Wilhelm Meister_ would not fit into the\ndefinition of good art; but since both these books are included in our\ncanon of art, he concludes that the demand is unjust. And therefore it\nis necessary to find a definition of art which shall fit the works; and\ninstead of a demand for morality, Folgeldt postulates as the basis of\nart a demand for the important (_Bedeutungsvolles_).\n\nAll the existing \u00e6sthetic standards are built on this plan. Instead of\ngiving a definition of true art, and then deciding what is and what is\nnot good art by judging whether a work conforms or does not conform to\nthe definition, a certain class of works, which for some reason please a\ncertain circle of people, is accepted as being art, and a definition of\nart is then devised to cover all these productions. I recently came upon\na remarkable instance of this method in a very good German work, _The\nHistory of Art in the Nineteenth Century_, by Muther. Describing the\npre-Raphaelites, the Decadents and the Symbolists (who are already\nincluded in the canon of art), he not only does not venture to blame\ntheir tendency, but earnestly endeavours to widen his standard so that\nit may include them all, they appearing to him to represent a legitimate\nreaction from the excesses of realism. No matter what insanities appear\nin art, when once they find acceptance among the upper classes of our\nsociety a theory is quickly invented to explain and sanction them; just\nas if there had never been periods in history when certain special\ncircles of people recognised and approved false, deformed, and insensate\nart which subsequently left no trace and has been utterly forgotten. And\nto what lengths the insanity and deformity of art may go, especially\nwhen, as in our days, it knows that it is considered infallible, may be\nseen by what is being done in the art of our circle to-day.\n\nSo that the theory of art, founded on beauty, expounded by \u00e6sthetics,\nand, in dim outline, professed by the public, is nothing but the setting\nup as good, of that which has pleased and pleases us, _i.e._ pleases a\ncertain class of people.\n\nIn order to define any human activity, it is necessary to understand its\nsense and importance. And, in order to do that, it is primarily\nnecessary to examine that activity in itself, in its dependence on its\ncauses, and in connection with its effects, and not merely in relation\nto the pleasure we can get from it.\n\nIf we say that the aim of any activity is merely our pleasure, and\ndefine it solely by that pleasure, our definition will evidently be a\nfalse one. But this is precisely what has occurred in the efforts to\ndefine art. Now, if we consider the food question, it will not occur to\nanyone to affirm that the importance of food consists in the pleasure we\nreceive when eating it. Everyone understands that the satisfaction of\nour taste cannot serve as a basis for our definition of the merits of\nfood, and that we have therefore no right to presuppose that the dinners\nwith cayenne pepper, Limburg cheese, alcohol, etc., to which we are\naccustomed and which please us, form the very best human food.\n\nAnd in the same way, beauty, or that which pleases us, can in no sense\nserve as the basis for the definition of art; nor can a series of\nobjects which afford us pleasure serve as the model of what art should\nbe.\n\nTo see the aim and purpose of art in the pleasure we get from it, is\nlike assuming (as is done by people of the lowest moral development,\n_e.g._ by savages) that the purpose and aim of food is the pleasure\nderived when consuming it.\n\nJust as people who conceive the aim and purpose of food to be pleasure\ncannot recognise the real meaning of eating, so people who consider the\naim of art to be pleasure cannot realise its true meaning and purpose,\nbecause they attribute to an activity, the meaning of which lies in its\nconnection with other phenomena of life, the false and exceptional aim\nof pleasure. People come to understand that the meaning of eating lies\nin the nourishment of the body only when they cease to consider that the\nobject of that activity is pleasure. And it is the same with regard to\nart. People will come to understand the meaning of art only when they\ncease to consider that the aim of that activity is beauty, _i.e._\npleasure. The acknowledgment of beauty (_i.e._ of a certain kind of\npleasure received from art) as being the aim of art, not only fails to\nassist us in finding a definition of what art is, but, on the contrary,\nby transferring the question into a region quite foreign to art (into\nmetaphysical, psychological, physiological, and even historical\ndiscussions as to why such a production pleases one person, and such\nanother displeases or pleases someone else), it renders such definition\nimpossible. And since discussions as to why one man likes pears and\nanother prefers meat do not help towards finding a definition of what is\nessential in nourishment, so the solution of questions of taste in art\n(to which the discussions on art involuntarily come) not only does not\nhelp to make clear what this particular human activity which we call art\nreally consists in, but renders such elucidation quite impossible, until\nwe rid ourselves of a conception which justifies every kind of art, at\nthe cost of confusing the whole matter.\n\nTo the question, What is this art, to which is offered up the labour of\nmillions, the very lives of men, and even morality itself? we have\nextracted replies from the existing \u00e6sthetics, which all amount to this:\nthat the aim of art is beauty, that beauty is recognised by the\nenjoyment it gives, and that artistic enjoyment is a good and important\nthing, because it _is_ enjoyment. In a word, that enjoyment is good\nbecause it is enjoyment. Thus, what is considered the definition of art\nis no definition at all, but only a shuffle to justify existing art.\nTherefore, however strange it may seem to say so, in spite of the\nmountains of books written about art, no exact definition of art has\nbeen constructed. And the reason of this is that the conception of art\nhas been based on the conception of beauty.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n\n\nWhat is art, if we put aside the conception of beauty, which confuses\nthe whole matter? The latest and most comprehensible definitions of art,\napart from the conception of beauty, are the following:\u2014(1 _a_) Art is\nan activity arising even in the animal kingdom, and springing from\nsexual desire and the propensity to play (Schiller, Darwin, Spencer),\nand (1 _b_) accompanied by a pleasurable excitement of the nervous\nsystem (Grant Allen). This is the physiological-evolutionary definition.\n(2) Art is the external manifestation, by means of lines, colours,\nmovements, sounds, or words, of emotions felt by man (V\u00e9ron). This is\nthe experimental definition. According to the very latest definition\n(Sully), (3) Art is \u201cthe production of some permanent object, or passing\naction, which is fitted not only to supply an active enjoyment to the\nproducer, but to convey a pleasurable impression to a number of\nspectators or listeners, quite apart from any personal advantage to be\nderived from it.\u201d\n\nNotwithstanding the superiority of these definitions to the metaphysical\ndefinitions which depended on the conception of beauty, they are yet far\nfrom exact. (1 _a_) The first, the physiological-evolutionary\ndefinition, is inexact, because, instead of speaking about the artistic\nactivity itself, which is the real matter in hand, it treats of the\nderivation of art. The modification of it (1 _b_), based on the\nphysiological effects on the human organism, is inexact, because within\nthe limits of such definition many other human activities can be\nincluded, as has occurred in the neo-\u00e6sthetic theories, which reckon as\nart the preparation of handsome clothes, pleasant scents, and even of\nvictuals.\n\nThe experimental definition (2), which makes art consist in the\nexpression of emotions, is inexact, because a man may express his\nemotions by means of lines, colours, sounds, or words, and yet may not\nact on others by such expression; and then the manifestation of his\nemotions is not art.\n\nThe third definition (that of Sully) is inexact, because in the\nproduction of objects or actions affording pleasure to the producer and\na pleasant emotion to the spectators or hearers apart from personal\nadvantage, may be included the showing of conjuring tricks or gymnastic\nexercises, and other activities which are not art. And, further, many\nthings, the production of which does not afford pleasure to the\nproducer, and the sensation received from which is unpleasant, such as\ngloomy, heart-rending scenes in a poetic description or a play, may\nnevertheless be undoubted works of art.\n\nThe inaccuracy of all these definitions arises from the fact that in\nthem all (as also in the metaphysical definitions) the object considered\nis the pleasure art may give, and not the purpose it may serve in the\nlife of man and of humanity.\n\nIn order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to\ncease to consider it as a means to pleasure, and to consider it as one\nof the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way, we cannot fail\nto observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and\nman.\n\nEvery work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of\nrelationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and\nwith all those who, simultaneously, previously or subsequently, receive\nthe same artistic impression.\n\nSpeech, transmitting the thoughts and experiences of men, serves as a\nmeans of union among them, and art acts in a similar manner. The\npeculiarity of this latter means of intercourse, distinguishing it from\nintercourse by means of words, consists in this, that whereas by words a\nman transmits his thoughts to another, by means of art he transmits his\nfeelings.\n\nThe activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through\nhis sense of hearing or sight another man\u2019s expression of feeling, is\ncapable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed\nit. To take the simplest example: one man laughs, and another, who\nhears, becomes merry; or a man weeps, and another, who hears, feels\nsorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man, seeing him,\ncomes to a similar state of mind. By his movements, or by the sounds of\nhis voice, a man expresses courage and determination, or sadness and\ncalmness, and this state of mind passes on to others. A man suffers,\nexpressing his sufferings by groans and spasms, and this suffering\ntransmits itself to other people; a man expresses his feeling of\nadmiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects,\npersons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of\nadmiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects,\npersons, and phenomena.\n\nAnd it is on this capacity of man to receive another man\u2019s expression of\nfeeling, and experience those feelings himself, that the activity of art\nis based.\n\nIf a man infects another or others, directly, immediately, by his\nappearance, or by the sounds he gives vent to at the very time he\nexperiences the feeling; if he causes another man to yawn when he\nhimself cannot help yawning, or to laugh or cry when he himself is\nobliged to laugh or cry, or to suffer when he himself is suffering\u2014that\ndoes not amount to art.\n\nArt begins when one person, with the object of joining another or others\nto himself in one and the same feeling, expresses that feeling by\ncertain external indications. To take the simplest example: a boy,\nhaving experienced, let us say, fear on encountering a wolf, relates\nthat encounter; and, in order to evoke in others the feeling he has\nexperienced, describes himself, his condition before the encounter, the\nsurroundings, the wood, his own lightheartedness, and then the wolf\u2019s\nappearance, its movements, the distance between himself and the wolf,\netc. All this, if only the boy when telling the story, again experiences\nthe feelings he had lived through and infects the hearers and compels\nthem to feel what the narrator had experienced, is art. If even the boy\nhad not seen a wolf but had frequently been afraid of one, and if,\nwishing to evoke in others the fear he had felt, he invented an\nencounter with a wolf, and recounted it so as to make his hearers share\nthe feelings he experienced when he feared the wolf, that also would be\nart. And just in the same way it is art if a man, having experienced\neither the fear of suffering or the attraction of enjoyment (whether in\nreality or in imagination), expresses these feelings on canvas or in\nmarble so that others are infected by them. And it is also art if a man\nfeels or imagines to himself feelings of delight, gladness, sorrow,\ndespair, courage, or despondency, and the transition from one to another\nof these feelings, and expresses these feelings by sounds, so that the\nhearers are infected by them, and experience them as they were\nexperienced by the composer.\n\nThe feelings with which the artist infects others may be most\nvarious\u2014very strong or very weak, very important or very insignificant,\nvery bad or very good: feelings of love for native land, self-devotion\nand submission to fate or to God expressed in a drama, raptures of\nlovers described in a novel, feelings of voluptuousness expressed in a\npicture, courage expressed in a triumphal march, merriment evoked by a\ndance, humour evoked by a funny story, the feeling of quietness\ntransmitted by an evening landscape or by a lullaby, or the feeling of\nadmiration evoked by a beautiful arabesque\u2014it is all art.\n\nIf only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which\nthe author has felt, it is art.\n\n_To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having\nevoked it in oneself then, by means of movements, lines, colours,\nsounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that\nothers may experience the same feeling\u2014this is the activity of art._\n\n_Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously,\nby means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has\nlived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and\nalso experience them._\n\nArt is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some\nmysterious Idea of beauty, or God; it is not, as the \u00e6sthetical\nphysiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up\nenergy; it is not the expression of man\u2019s emotions by external signs; it\nis not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not\npleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in\nthe same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress towards\nwell-being of individuals and of humanity.\n\nAs, thanks to man\u2019s capacity to express thoughts by words, every man may\nknow all that has been done for him in the realms of thought by all\nhumanity before his day, and can, in the present, thanks to this\ncapacity to understand the thoughts of others, become a sharer in their\nactivity, and can himself hand on to his contemporaries and descendants\nthe thoughts he has assimilated from others, as well as those which have\narisen within himself; so, thanks to man\u2019s capacity to be infected with\nthe feelings of others by means of art, all that is being lived through\nby his contemporaries is accessible to him, as well as the feelings\nexperienced by men thousands of years ago, and he has also the\npossibility of transmitting his own feelings to others.\n\nIf people lacked this capacity to receive the thoughts conceived by the\nmen who preceded them, and to pass on to others their own thoughts, men\nwould be like wild beasts, or like Kaspar Hauser.[60]\n\nAnd if men lacked this other capacity of being infected by art, people\nmight be almost more savage still, and, above all, more separated from,\nand more hostile to, one another.\n\nAnd therefore the activity of art is a most important one, as important\nas the activity of speech itself, and as generally diffused.\n\nWe are accustomed to understand art to be only what we hear and see in\ntheatres, concerts, and exhibitions; together with buildings, statues,\npoems, novels.... But all this is but the smallest part of the art by\nwhich we communicate with each other in life. All human life is filled\nwith works of art of every kind\u2014from cradle-song, jest, mimicry, the\nornamentation of houses, dress and utensils, up to church services,\nbuildings, monuments, and triumphal processions. It is all artistic\nactivity. So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not\nmean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which\nwe for some reason select from it and to which we attach special\nimportance.\n\nThis special importance has always been given by all men to that part of\nthis activity which transmits feelings flowing from their religious\nperception, and this small part of art they have specifically called\nart, attaching to it the full meaning of the word.\n\nThat was how men of old\u2014Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle\u2014looked on art.\nThus did the Hebrew prophets and the ancient Christians regard art; thus\nit was, and still is, understood by the Mahommedans, and thus is it\nstill understood by religious folk among our own peasantry.\n\nSome teachers of mankind\u2014as Plato in his _Republic_, and people such as\nthe primitive Christians, the strict Mahommedans, and the Buddhists\u2014have\ngone so far as to repudiate all art.\n\nPeople viewing art in this way (in contradiction to the prevalent view\nof to-day, which regards any art as good if only it affords pleasure)\nconsidered, and consider, that art (as contrasted with speech, which\nneed not be listened to) is so highly dangerous in its power to infect\npeople against their wills, that mankind will lose far less by banishing\nall art than by tolerating each and every art.\n\nEvidently such people were wrong in repudiating all art, for they denied\nthat which cannot be denied\u2014one of the indispensable means of\ncommunication, without which mankind could not exist. But not less wrong\nare the people of civilised European society of our class and day, in\nfavouring any art if it but serves beauty, _i.e._ gives people pleasure.\n\nFormerly, people feared lest among the works of art there might chance\nto be some causing corruption, and they prohibited art altogether. Now,\nthey only fear lest they should be deprived of any enjoyment art can\nafford, and patronise any art. And I think the last error is much\ngrosser than the first, and that its consequences are far more harmful.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  \u201cThe foundling of Nuremberg,\u201d found in the market-place of that town\n  on 26th May 1828, apparently some sixteen years old. He spoke little,\n  and was almost totally ignorant even of common objects. He\n  subsequently explained that he had been brought up in confinement\n  underground, and visited by only one man, whom he saw but\n  seldom.\u2014Trans.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER VI\n\n\nBut how could it happen that that very art, which in ancient times was\nmerely tolerated (if tolerated at all), should have come, in our times,\nto be invariably considered a good thing if only it affords pleasure?\n\nIt has resulted from the following causes. The estimation of the value\nof art (_i.e._ of the feelings it transmits) depends on men\u2019s perception\nof the meaning of life; depends on what they consider to be the good and\nthe evil of life. And what is good and what is evil is defined by what\nare termed religions.\n\nHumanity unceasingly moves forward from a lower, more partial, and\nobscure understanding of life, to one more general and more lucid. And\nin this, as in every movement, there are leaders,\u2014those who have\nunderstood the meaning of life more clearly than others,\u2014and of these\nadvanced men there is always one who has, in his words and by his life,\nexpressed this meaning more clearly, accessibly, and strongly than\nothers. This man\u2019s expression of the meaning of life, together with\nthose superstitions, traditions, and ceremonies which usually form\nthemselves round the memory of such a man, is what is called a religion.\nReligions are the exponents of the highest comprehension of life\naccessible to the best and foremost men at a given time in a given\nsociety; a comprehension towards which, inevitably and irresistibly, all\nthe rest of that society must advance. And therefore only religions have\nalways served, and still serve, as bases for the valuation of human\nsentiments. If feelings bring men nearer the ideal their religion\nindicates, if they are in harmony with it and do not contradict it, they\nare good; if they estrange men from it and oppose it, they are bad.\n\nIf the religion places the meaning of life in worshipping one God and\nfulfilling what is regarded as His will, as was the case among the Jews,\nthen the feelings flowing from love to that God, and to His law,\nsuccessfully transmitted through the art of poetry by the prophets, by\nthe psalms, or by the epic of the book of Genesis, is good, high art.\nAll opposing that, as for instance the transmission of feelings of\ndevotion to strange gods, or of feelings incompatible with the law of\nGod, would be considered bad art. Or if, as was the case among the\nGreeks, the religion places the meaning of life in earthly happiness, in\nbeauty and in strength, then art successfully transmitting the joy and\nenergy of life would be considered good art, but art which transmitted\nfeelings of effeminacy or despondency would be bad art. If the meaning\nof life is seen in the well-being of one\u2019s nation, or in honouring one\u2019s\nancestors and continuing the mode of life led by them, as was the case\namong the Romans and the Chinese respectively, then art transmitting\nfeelings of joy at sacrificing one\u2019s personal well-being for the common\nweal, or at exalting one\u2019s ancestors and maintaining their traditions,\nwould be considered good art; but art expressing feelings contrary to\nthis would be regarded as bad. If the meaning of life is seen in freeing\noneself from the yoke of animalism, as is the case among the Buddhists,\nthen art successfully transmitting feelings that elevate the soul and\nhumble the flesh will be good art, and all that transmits feelings\nstrengthening the bodily passions will be bad art.\n\nIn every age, and in every human society, there exists a religious\nsense, common to that whole society, of what is good and what is bad,\nand it is this religious conception that decides the value of the\nfeelings transmitted by art. And therefore, among all nations, art which\ntransmitted feelings considered to be good by this general religious\nsense was recognised as being good and was encouraged; but art which\ntransmitted feelings considered to be bad by this general religious\nconception, was recognised as being bad, and was rejected. All the rest\nof the immense field of art by means of which people communicate one\nwith another, was not esteemed at all, and was only noticed when it ran\ncounter to the religious conception of its age, and then merely to be\nrepudiated. Thus it was among all nations,\u2014Greeks, Jews, Indians,\nEgyptians, and Chinese,\u2014and so it was when Christianity appeared.\n\nThe Christianity of the first centuries recognised as productions of\ngood art, only legends, lives of saints, sermons, prayers and\nhymn-singing, evoking love of Christ, emotion at his life, desire to\nfollow his example, renunciation of worldly life, humility, and the love\nof others; all productions transmitting feelings of personal enjoyment\nthey considered to be bad, and therefore rejected: for instance,\ntolerating plastic representations only when they were symbolical, they\nrejected all the pagan sculptures.\n\nThis was so among the Christians of the first centuries, who accepted\nChrist\u2019s teaching, if not quite in its true form, at least not in the\nperverted, paganised form in which it was accepted subsequently.\n\nBut besides this Christianity, from the time of the wholesale conversion\nof nations by order of the authorities, as in the days of Constantine,\nCharlemagne, and Vladimir, there appeared another, a Church\nChristianity, which was nearer to paganism than to Christ\u2019s teaching.\nAnd this Church Christianity, in accordance with its own teaching,\nestimated quite otherwise the feelings of people and the productions of\nart which transmitted those feelings.\n\nThis Church Christianity not only did not acknowledge the fundamental\nand essential positions of true Christianity,\u2014the immediate relationship\nof each man to the Father, the consequent brotherhood and equality of\nall men, and the substitution of humility and love in place of every\nkind of violence\u2014but, on the contrary, having set up a heavenly\nhierarchy similar to the pagan mythology, and having introduced the\nworship of Christ, of the Virgin, of angels, of apostles, of saints, and\nof martyrs, and not only of these divinities themselves, but also of\ntheir images, it made blind faith in the Church and its ordinances the\nessential point of its teaching.\n\nHowever foreign this teaching may have been to true Christianity,\nhowever degraded, not only in comparison with true Christianity, but\neven with the life-conception of Romans such as Julian and others; it\nwas, for all that, to the barbarians who accepted it, a higher doctrine\nthan their former adoration of gods, heroes, and good and bad spirits.\nAnd therefore this teaching was a religion to them, and on the basis of\nthat religion the art of the time was assessed. And art transmitting\npious adoration of the Virgin, Jesus, the saints and the angels, a blind\nfaith in and submission to the Church, fear of torments and hope of\nblessedness in a life beyond the grave, was considered good; all art\nopposed to this was considered bad.\n\nThe teaching on the basis of which this art arose was a perversion of\nChrist\u2019s teaching, but the art which sprang up on this perverted\nteaching was nevertheless a true art, because it corresponded to the\nreligious view of life held by the people among whom it arose.\n\nThe artists of the Middle Ages, vitalised by the same source of\nfeeling\u2014religion\u2014as the mass of the people, and transmitting, in\narchitecture, sculpture, painting, music, poetry or drama, the feelings\nand states of mind they experienced, were true artists; and their\nactivity, founded on the highest conceptions accessible to their age and\ncommon to the entire people, though, for our times a mean art, was,\nnevertheless a true one, shared by the whole community.\n\nAnd this was the state of things until, in the upper, rich, more\neducated classes of European society, doubt arose as to the truth of\nthat understanding of life which was expressed by Church Christianity.\nWhen, after the Crusades and the maximum development of papal power and\nits abuses, people of the rich classes became acquainted with the wisdom\nof the classics, and saw, on the one hand, the reasonable lucidity of\nthe teaching of the ancient sages, and, on the other hand, the\nincompatibility of the Church doctrine with the teaching of Christ, they\nlost all possibility of continuing to believe the Church teaching.\n\nIf, in externals, they still kept to the forms of Church teaching, they\ncould no longer believe in it, and held to it only by inertia and for\nthe sake of influencing the masses, who continued to believe blindly in\nChurch doctrine, and whom the upper classes, for their own advantage,\nconsidered it necessary to support in those beliefs.\n\nSo that a time came when Church Christianity ceased to be the general\nreligious doctrine of all Christian people; some\u2014the masses\u2014continued\nblindly to believe in it, but the upper classes\u2014those in whose hands lay\nthe power and wealth, and therefore the leisure to produce art and the\nmeans to stimulate it\u2014ceased to believe in that teaching.\n\nIn respect to religion, the upper circles of the Middle Ages found\nthemselves in the same position in which the educated Romans were before\nChristianity arose, _i.e._ they no longer believed in the religion of\nthe masses, but had no beliefs to put in place of the worn-out Church\ndoctrine which for them had lost its meaning.\n\nThere was only this difference, that whereas for the Romans who lost\nfaith in their emperor-gods and household-gods it was impossible to\nextract anything further from all the complex mythology they had\nborrowed from all the conquered nations, and it was consequently\nnecessary to find a completely new conception of life, the people of the\nMiddle Ages, when they doubted the truth of the Church teaching, had no\nneed to seek a fresh one. That Christian teaching which they professed\nin a perverted form as Church doctrine, had mapped out the path of human\nprogress so far ahead, that they had but to rid themselves of those\nperversions which hid the teaching announced by Christ, and to adopt its\nreal meaning\u2014if not completely, then at least in some greater degree\nthan that in which the Church had held it.\n\nAnd this was partially done, not only in the reformations of Wyclif,\nHuss, Luther, and Calvin, but by all that current of non-Church\nChristianity, represented in earlier times by the Paulicians, the\nBogomili,[61] and, afterwards, by the Waldenses and the other non-Church\nChristians who were called heretics. But this could be, and was, done\nchiefly by poor people\u2014who did not rule. A few of the rich and strong,\nlike Francis of Assisi and others, accepted the Christian teaching in\nits full significance, even though it undermined their privileged\npositions. But most people of the upper classes (though in the depth of\ntheir souls they had lost faith in the Church teaching) could not or\nwould not act thus, because the essence of that Christian view of life,\nwhich stood ready to be adopted when once they rejected the Church\nfaith, was a teaching of the brotherhood (and therefore the equality) of\nman, and this negatived those privileges on which they lived, in which\nthey had grown up and been educated, and to which they were accustomed.\nNot, in the depth of their hearts, believing in the Church\nteaching,\u2014which had outlived its age and had no longer any true meaning\nfor them,\u2014and not being strong enough to accept true Christianity, men\nof these rich, governing classes\u2014popes, kings, dukes, and all the great\nones of the earth\u2014were left without any religion, with but the external\nforms of one, which they supported as being profitable and even\nnecessary for themselves, since these forms screened a teaching which\njustified those privileges which they made use of. In reality, these\npeople believed in nothing, just as the Romans of the first centuries of\nour era believed in nothing. But at the same time these were the people\nwho had the power and the wealth, and these were the people who rewarded\nart and directed it.\n\nAnd, let it be noticed, it was just among these people that there grew\nup an art esteemed not according to its success in expressing men\u2019s\nreligious feelings, but in proportion to its beauty,\u2014in other words,\naccording to the enjoyment it gave.\n\nNo longer able to believe in the Church religion whose falsehood they\nhad detected, and incapable of accepting true Christian teaching, which\ndenounced their whole manner of life, these rich and powerful people,\nstranded without any religious conception of life, involuntarily\nreturned to that pagan view of things which places life\u2019s meaning in\npersonal enjoyment. And then took place among the upper classes what is\ncalled the \u201cRenaissance of science and art,\u201d and which was really not\nonly a denial of every religion but also an assertion that religion is\nunnecessary.\n\nThe Church doctrine is so coherent a system that it cannot be altered or\ncorrected without destroying it altogether. As soon as doubt arose with\nregard to the infallibility of the pope (and this doubt was then in the\nminds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth\nof tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only\nto popery and Catholicism, but also to the whole Church creed with all\nits dogmas: the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity;\nand it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were\nconsidered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church\ndecided it so.\n\nSo that the majority of the highest classes of that age, even the popes\nand the ecclesiastics, really believed in nothing at all. In the Church\ndoctrine these people did not believe, for they saw its insolvency; but\nneither could they follow Francis of Assisi, Keltchitsky,[62] and most\nof the heretics, in acknowledging the moral, social teaching of Christ,\nfor that teaching undermined their social position. And so these people\nremained without any religious view of life. And, having none, they\ncould have no standard wherewith to estimate what was good and what was\nbad art but that of personal enjoyment. And, having acknowledged their\ncriterion of what was good to be pleasure, _i.e._, beauty, these people\nof the upper classes of European society went back in their\ncomprehension of art to the gross conception of the primitive Greeks\nwhich Plato had already condemned. And conformably to this understanding\nof life a theory of art was formulated.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Eastern sects well known in early Church history, who rejected the\n  Church\u2019s rendering of Christ\u2019s teaching and were cruelly\n  persecuted.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Keltchitsky, a Bohemian of the fifteenth century, was the author of a\n  remarkable book, _The Net of Faith_, directed against Church and\n  State. It is mentioned in Tolstoy\u2019s _The Kingdom of God is Within\n  You_.\u2014Trans.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n\n\nFrom the time that people of the upper classes lost faith in Church\nChristianity, beauty (_i.e._ the pleasure received from art) became\ntheir standard of good and bad art. And, in accordance with that view,\nan \u00e6sthetic theory naturally sprang up among those upper classes\njustifying such a conception,\u2014a theory according to which the aim of art\nis to exhibit beauty. The partisans of this \u00e6sthetic theory, in\nconfirmation of its truth, affirmed that it was no invention of their\nown, but that it existed in the nature of things, and was recognised\neven by the ancient Greeks. But this assertion was quite arbitrary, and\nhas no foundation other than the fact that among the ancient Greeks, in\nconsequence of the low grade of their moral ideal (as compared with the\nChristian), their conception of the good, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd, was not yet sharply\ndivided from their conception of the beautiful, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nThat highest perfection of goodness (not only not identical with beauty,\nbut, for the most part, contrasting with it) which was discerned by the\nJews even in the times of Isaiah, and fully expressed by Christianity,\nwas quite unknown to the Greeks. They supposed that the beautiful must\nnecessarily also be the good. It is true that their foremost\nthinkers\u2014Socrates, Plato, Aristotle\u2014felt that goodness may happen not to\ncoincide with beauty. Socrates expressly subordinated beauty to\ngoodness; Plato, to unite the two conceptions, spoke of spiritual\nbeauty; while Aristotle demanded from art that it should have a moral\ninfluence on people (\u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). But, notwithstanding all this, they\ncould not quite dismiss the notion that beauty and goodness coincide.\n\nAnd consequently, in the language of that period, a compound word\n(\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf-\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1, beauty-goodness), came into use to express that notion.\n\nEvidently the Greek sages began to draw near to that perception of\ngoodness which is expressed in Buddhism and in Christianity, and they\ngot entangled in defining the relation between goodness and beauty.\nPlato\u2019s reasonings about beauty and goodness are full of contradictions.\nAnd it was just this confusion of ideas that those Europeans of a later\nage, who had lost all faith, tried to elevate into a law. They tried to\nprove that this union of beauty and goodness is inherent in the very\nessence of things; that beauty and goodness must coincide; and that the\nword and conception \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf-\u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1 (which had a meaning for Greeks but has\nnone at all for Christians) represents the highest ideal of humanity. On\nthis misunderstanding the new science of \u00e6sthetics was built up. And, to\njustify its existence, the teachings of the ancients on art were so\ntwisted as to make it appear that this invented science of \u00e6sthetics had\nexisted among the Greeks.\n\nIn reality, the reasoning of the ancients on art was quite unlike ours.\nAs Benard, in his book on the \u00e6sthetics of Aristotle, quite justly\nremarks: \u201c_Pour qui veut y regarder de pr\u00e8s, la th\u00e9orie du beau et celle\nde l\u2019art sont tout \u00e0 fait s\u00e9par\u00e9es dans Aristote, comme elles le sont\ndans Platon et chez tous leurs successeurs_\u201d (_L\u2019esth\u00e9tique d\u2019Aristote\net de ses successeurs_, Paris, 1889, p. 28).[63] And indeed the\nreasoning of the ancients on art not only does not confirm our science\nof \u00e6sthetics, but rather contradicts its doctrine of beauty. But\nnevertheless all the \u00e6sthetic guides, from Schasler to Knight, declare\nthat the science of the beautiful\u2014\u00e6sthetic science\u2014was commenced by the\nancients, by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; and was continued, they say,\npartially by the Epicureans and Stoics: by Seneca and Plutarch, down to\nPlotinus. But it is supposed that this science, by some unfortunate\naccident, suddenly vanished in the fourth century, and stayed away for\nabout 1500 years, and only after these 1500 years had passed did it\nrevive in Germany, A.D. 1750, in Baumgarten\u2019s doctrine.\n\nAfter Plotinus, says Schasler, fifteen centuries passed away during\nwhich there was not the slightest scientific interest felt for the world\nof beauty and art. These one and a half thousand years, says he, have\nbeen lost to \u00e6sthetics and have contributed nothing towards the erection\nof the learned edifice of this science.[64]\n\nIn reality nothing of the kind happened. The science of \u00e6sthetics, the\nscience of the beautiful, neither did nor could vanish because it never\nexisted. Simply, the Greeks (just like everybody else, always and\neverywhere) considered art (like everything else) good only when it\nserved goodness (as they understood goodness), and bad when it was in\nopposition to that goodness. And the Greeks themselves were so little\ndeveloped morally, that goodness and beauty seemed to them to coincide.\nOn that obsolete Greek view of life was erected the science of\n\u00e6sthetics, invented by men of the eighteenth century, and especially\nshaped and mounted in Baumgarten\u2019s theory. The Greeks (as anyone may see\nwho will read Benard\u2019s admirable book on Aristotle and his successors,\nand Walter\u2019s work on Plato) never had a science of \u00e6sthetics.\n\n\u00c6sthetic theories arose about one hundred and fifty years ago among the\nwealthy classes of the Christian European world, and arose\nsimultaneously among different nations,\u2014German, Italian, Dutch, French,\nand English. The founder and organiser of it, who gave it a scientific,\ntheoretic form, was Baumgarten.\n\nWith a characteristically German, external exactitude, pedantry and\nsymmetry, he devised and expounded this extraordinary theory. And,\nnotwithstanding its obvious insolidity, nobody else\u2019s theory so pleased\nthe cultured crowd, or was accepted so readily and with such an absence\nof criticism. It so suited the people of the upper classes, that to this\nday, notwithstanding its entirely fantastic character and the arbitrary\nnature of its assertions, it is repeated by learned and unlearned as\nthough it were something indubitable and self-evident.\n\n_Habent sua fata libelli pro capite lectoris_, and so, or even more so,\ntheories _habent sua fata_ according to the condition of error in which\nthat society is living, among whom and for whom the theories are\ninvented. If a theory justifies the false position in which a certain\npart of a society is living, then, however unfounded or even obviously\nfalse the theory may be, it is accepted, and becomes an article of faith\nto that section of society. Such, for instance, was the celebrated and\nunfounded theory expounded by Malthus, of the tendency of the population\nof the world to increase in geometrical progression, but of the means of\nsustenance to increase only in arithmetical progression, and of the\nconsequent overpopulation of the world; such, also, was the theory (an\noutgrowth of the Malthusian) of selection and struggle for existence as\nthe basis of human progress. Such, again, is Marx\u2019s theory, which\nregards the gradual destruction of small private production by large\ncapitalistic production now going on around us, as an inevitable decree\nof fate. However unfounded such theories are, however contrary to all\nthat is known and confessed by humanity, and however obviously immoral\nthey may be, they are accepted with credulity, pass uncriticised, and\nare preached, perchance for centuries, until the conditions are\ndestroyed which they served to justify, or until their absurdity has\nbecome too evident. To this class belongs this astonishing theory of the\nBaumgartenian Trinity\u2014Goodness, Beauty, and Truth, according to which it\nappears that the very best that can be done by the art of nations after\n1900 years of Christian teaching, is to choose as the ideal of their\nlife the ideal that was held by a small, semi-savage, slave-holding\npeople who lived 2000 years ago, who imitated the nude human body\nextremely well, and erected buildings pleasant to look at. All these\nincompatibilities pass completely unnoticed. Learned people write long,\ncloudy treatises on beauty as a member of the \u00e6sthetic trinity of\nBeauty, Truth, and Goodness; _das Sch\u00f6ne, das Wahre, das Gute_; _le\nBeau, le Vrai, le Bon_, are repeated, with capital letters, by\nphilosophers, \u00e6stheticians and artists, by private individuals, by\nnovelists and by _feuilletonistes_, and they all think, when pronouncing\nthese sacrosanct words, that they speak of something quite definite and\nsolid\u2014something on which they can base their opinions. In reality, these\nwords not only have no definite meaning, but they hinder us in attaching\nany definite meaning to existing art; they are wanted only for the\npurpose of justifying the false importance we attribute to an art that\ntransmits every kind of feeling if only those feelings afford us\npleasure.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Any one examining closely may see that the theory of beauty and that\n  of art are quite separated in Aristotle as they are in Plato and in\n  all their successors.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Die L\u00fccke von f\u00fcnf Jahrhunderten, welche zwischen den\n  Kunstphilosophischen Betrachtungen des Plato und Aristoteles und die\n  des Plotins f\u00e4llt, kann zwar auff\u00e4llig erscheinen; dennoch kann man\n  eigentlich nicht sagen, dass in dieser Zwischenzeit \u00fcberhaupt von\n  \u00e4sthetischen Dingen nicht die Rede gewesen; oder dass gar ein v\u00f6lliger\n  Mangel an Zusammenhang zwischen den Kunst-anscliauungen des\n  letztgenannten Philosophen und denen der ersteren existire. Freilich\n  wurde die von Aristoteles begr\u00fcndete Wissenschaft in Nichts dadurch\n  gef\u00f6rdert; immerhin aber zeigt sich in jener Zwischenzeit noch ein\n  gewisses Interesse f\u00fcr \u00e4sthetische Fragen. Nach Plotin aber, die\n  wenigen, ihm in der Zeit nahestehenden Philosophen, wie Longin,\n  Augustin, u. s. f. kommen, wie wir gesehen, kaum in Betracht und\n  schliessen sich \u00fcbrigens in ihrer Anschauungsweise an ihn an,\u2014vergehen\n  nicht f\u00fcnf, sondern _f\u00fcnfzehn Jahrhunderte_, in denen von irgend einer\n  wissenschaftlichen Interesse f\u00fcr die Welt des Sch\u00f6nen und der Kunst\n  nichts zu sp\u00fcren ist.\n\n  Diese anderthalbtausend Jahre, innerhalb deren der Weltgeist durch die\n  mannigfachsten K\u00e4mpfe hindurch zu einer v\u00f6llig neuen Gestaltung des\n  Lebens sich durcharbeitete, sind f\u00fcr die Aesthetik, hinsichtlich des\n  weiteren Ausbaus dieser Wissenschaft verloren.\u2014Max Schasler.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n\n\nBut if art is a human activity having for its purpose the transmission\nto others of the highest and best feelings to which men have risen, how\ncould it be that humanity for a certain rather considerable period of\nits existence (from the time people ceased to believe in Church doctrine\ndown to the present day) should exist without this important activity,\nand, instead of it, should put up with an insignificant artistic\nactivity only affording pleasure?\n\nIn order to answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to\ncorrect the current error people make in attributing to our art the\nsignificance of true, universal art. We are so accustomed, not only\nna\u00efvely to consider the Circassian family the best stock of people, but\nalso the Anglo-Saxon race the best race if we are Englishmen or\nAmericans, or the Teutonic if we are Germans, or the Gallo-Latin if we\nare French, or the Slavonic if we are Russians, that when speaking of\nour own art we feel fully convinced, not only that our art is true art,\nbut even that it is the best and only true art. But in reality our art\nis not only not the only art (as the Bible once was held to be the only\nbook), but it is not even the art of the whole of Christendom,\u2014only of a\nsmall section of that part of humanity. It was correct to speak of a\nnational Jewish, Grecian, or Egyptian art, and one may speak of a\nnow-existing Chinese, Japanese, or Indian art shared in by a whole\npeople. Such art, common to a whole nation, existed in Russia till Peter\nthe First\u2019s time, and existed in the rest of Europe until the thirteenth\nor fourteenth century; but since the upper classes of European society,\nhaving lost faith in the Church teaching, did not accept real\nChristianity but remained without any faith, one can no longer speak of\nan art of the Christian nations in the sense of the whole of art. Since\nthe upper classes of the Christian nations lost faith in Church\nChristianity, the art of those upper classes has separated itself from\nthe art of the rest of the people, and there have been two arts\u2014the art\nof the people and genteel art. And therefore the answer to the question\nhow it could occur that humanity lived for a certain period without real\nart, replacing it by art which served enjoyment only, is, that not all\nhumanity, nor even any considerable portion of it, lived without real\nart, but only the highest classes of European Christian society, and\neven they only for a comparatively short time\u2014from the commencement of\nthe Renaissance down to our own day.\n\nAnd the consequence of this absence of true art showed itself,\ninevitably, in the corruption of that class which nourished itself on\nthe false art. All the confused, unintelligible theories of art, all the\nfalse and contradictory judgments on art, and particularly the\nself-confident stagnation of our art in its false path, all arise from\nthe assertion, which has come into common use and is accepted as an\nunquestioned truth, but is yet amazingly and palpably false, the\nassertion, namely, that the art of our upper classes[65] is the whole of\nart, the true, the only, the universal art. And although this assertion\n(which is precisely similar to the assertion made by religious people of\nthe various Churches who consider that theirs is the only true religion)\nis quite arbitrary and obviously unjust, yet it is calmly repeated by\nall the people of our circle with full faith in its infallibility.\n\nThe art we have is the whole of art, the real, the only art, and yet\ntwo-thirds of the human race (all the peoples of Asia and Africa) live\nand die knowing nothing of this sole and supreme art. And even in our\nChristian society hardly one per cent. of the people make use of this\nart which we speak of as being the _whole_ of art; the remaining\nninety-nine per cent. live and die, generation after generation, crushed\nby toil and never tasting this art, which moreover is of such a nature\nthat, if they could get it, they would not understand anything of it.\nWe, according to the current \u00e6sthetic theory, acknowledge art either as\none of the highest manifestations of the Idea, God, Beauty, or as the\nhighest spiritual enjoyment; furthermore, we hold that all people have\nequal rights, if not to material, at any rate to spiritual well-being;\nand yet ninety-nine per cent. of our European population live and die,\ngeneration after generation, crushed by toil, much of which toil is\nnecessary for the production of our art which they never use, and we,\nnevertheless, calmly assert that the art which we produce is the real,\ntrue, only art\u2014all of art!\n\nTo the remark that if our art is the true art everyone should have the\nbenefit of it, the usual reply is that if not everybody at present makes\nuse of existing art, the fault lies, not in the art, but in the false\norganisation of society; that one can imagine to oneself, in the future,\na state of things in which physical labour will be partly superseded by\nmachinery, partly lightened by its just distribution, and that labour\nfor the production of art will be taken in turns; that there is no need\nfor some people always to sit below the stage moving the decorations,\nwinding up the machinery, working at the piano or French horn, and\nsetting type and printing books, but that the people who do all this\nwork might be engaged only a few hours per day, and in their leisure\ntime might enjoy all the blessings of art.\n\nThat is what the defenders of our exclusive art say. But I think they do\nnot themselves believe it. They cannot help knowing that fine art can\narise only on the slavery of the masses of the people, and can continue\nonly as long as that slavery lasts, and they cannot help knowing that\nonly under conditions of intense labour for the workers, can\nspecialists\u2014writers, musicians, dancers, and actors\u2014arrive at that fine\ndegree of perfection to which they do attain, or produce their refined\nworks of art; and only under the same conditions can there be a fine\npublic to esteem such productions. Free the slaves of capital, and it\nwill be impossible to produce such refined art.\n\nBut even were we to admit the inadmissible, and say that means may be\nfound by which art (that art which among us is considered to be art) may\nbe accessible to the whole people, another consideration presents itself\nshowing that fashionable art cannot be the whole of art, viz. the fact\nthat it is completely unintelligible to the people. Formerly men wrote\npoems in Latin, but now their artistic productions are as unintelligible\nto the common folk as if they were written in Sanskrit. The usual reply\nto this is, that if the people do not now understand this art of ours,\nit only proves that they are undeveloped, and that this has been so at\neach fresh step forward made by art. First it was not understood, but\nafterwards people got accustomed to it.\n\n\u201cIt will be the same with our present art; it will be understood when\neverybody is as well educated as are we\u2014the people of the upper\nclasses\u2014who produce this art,\u201d say the defenders of our art. But this\nassertion is evidently even more unjust than the former; for we know\nthat the majority of the productions of the art of the upper classes,\nsuch as various odes, poems, dramas, cantatas, pastorals, pictures,\netc., which delighted the people of the upper classes when they were\nproduced, never were afterwards either understood or valued by the great\nmasses of mankind, but have remained, what they were at first, a mere\npastime for rich people of their time, for whom alone they ever were of\nany importance. It is also often urged in proof of the assertion that\nthe people will some day understand our art, that some productions of\nso-called \u201cclassical\u201d poetry, music, or painting, which formerly did not\nplease the masses, do\u2014now that they have been offered to them from all\nsides\u2014begin to please these same masses; but this only shows that the\ncrowd, especially the half-spoilt town crowd, can easily (its taste\nhaving been perverted) be accustomed to any sort of art. Moreover, this\nart is not produced by these masses, nor even chosen by them, but is\nenergetically thrust upon them in those public places in which art is\naccessible to the people. For the great majority of working people, our\nart, besides being inaccessible on account of its costliness, is strange\nin its very nature, transmitting as it does the feelings of people far\nremoved from those conditions of laborious life which are natural to the\ngreat body of humanity. That which is enjoyment to a man of the rich\nclasses, is incomprehensible, as a pleasure, to a working man, and\nevokes in him either no feeling at all, or only a feeling quite contrary\nto that which it evokes in an idle and satiated man. Such feelings as\nform the chief subjects of present-day art\u2014say, for instance,\nhonour,[66] patriotism and amorousness, evoke in a working man only\nbewilderment and contempt, or indignation. So that even if a possibility\nwere given to the labouring classes, in their free time, to see, to\nread, and to hear all that forms the flower of contemporary art (as is\ndone to some extent in towns, by means of picture galleries, popular\nconcerts, and libraries), the working man (to the extent to which he is\na labourer, and has not begun to pass into the ranks of those perverted\nby idleness) would be able to make nothing of our fine art, and if he\ndid understand it, that which he understood would not elevate his soul,\nbut would certainly, in most cases, pervert it. To thoughtful and\nsincere people there can therefore be no doubt that the art of our upper\nclasses never can be the art of the whole people. But if art is an\nimportant matter, a spiritual blessing, essential for all men (\u201clike\nreligion,\u201d as the devotees of art are fond of saying), then it should be\naccessible to everyone. And if, as in our day, it is not accessible to\nall men, then one of two things: either art is not the vital matter it\nis represented to be, or that art which we call art is not the real\nthing.\n\nThe dilemma is inevitable, and therefore clever and immoral people avoid\nit by denying one side of it, viz. denying that the common people have a\nright to art. These people simply and boldly speak out (what lies at the\nheart of the matter), and say that the participators in and utilisers of\nwhat in their esteem is highly beautiful art, _i.e._ art furnishing the\ngreatest enjoyment, can only be \u201csch\u00f6ne Geister,\u201d \u201cthe elect,\u201d as the\nromanticists called them, the \u201cUebermenschen,\u201d as they are called by the\nfollowers of Nietzsche; the remaining vulgar herd, incapable of\nexperiencing these pleasures, must serve the exalted pleasures of this\nsuperior breed of people. The people who express these views at least do\nnot pretend and do not try to combine the incombinable, but frankly\nadmit, what is the case, that our art is an art of the upper classes\nonly. So, essentially, art has been, and is, understood by everyone\nengaged on it in our society.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  The contrast made is between the classes and the masses: between those\n  who do not and those who do earn their bread by productive manual\n  labour; the middle classes being taken as an offshoot of the upper\n  classes.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Duelling is still customary among the higher circles in Russia, as in\n  other Continental countries.\u2014Trans.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n\n\nThe unbelief of the upper classes of the European world had this effect,\nthat instead of an artistic activity aiming at transmitting the highest\nfeelings to which humanity has attained,\u2014those flowing from religious\nperception,\u2014we have an activity which aims at affording the greatest\nenjoyment to a certain class of society. And of all the immense domain\nof art, that part has been fenced off, and is alone called art, which\naffords enjoyment to the people of this particular circle.\n\nApart from the moral effects on European society of such a selection\nfrom the whole sphere of art of what did not deserve such a valuation,\nand the acknowledgment of it as important art, this perversion of art\nhas weakened art itself, and well-nigh destroyed it. The first great\nresult was that art was deprived of the infinite, varied, and profound\nreligious subject-matter proper to it. The second result was that having\nonly a small circle of people in view, it lost its beauty of form and\nbecame affected and obscure; and the third and chief result was that it\nceased to be either natural or even sincere, and became thoroughly\nartificial and brain-spun.\n\nThe first result\u2014the impoverishment of subject-matter\u2014followed because\nonly that is a true work of art which transmits fresh feelings not\nbefore experienced by man. As thought-product is only then real\nthought-product when it transmits new conceptions and thoughts, and does\nnot merely repeat what was known before, so also an art-product is only\nthen a genuine art-product when it brings a new feeling (however\ninsignificant) into the current of human life. This explains why\nchildren and youths are so strongly impressed by those works of art\nwhich first transmit to them feelings they had not before experienced.\n\nThe same powerful impression is made on people by feelings which are\nquite new, and have never before been expressed by man. And it is the\nsource from which such feelings flow of which the art of the upper\nclasses has deprived itself by estimating feelings, not in conformity\nwith religious perception, but according to the degree of enjoyment they\nafford. There is nothing older and more hackneyed than enjoyment, and\nthere is nothing fresher than the feelings springing from the religious\nconsciousness of each age. It could not be otherwise: man\u2019s enjoyment\nhas limits established by his nature, but the movement forward of\nhumanity, that which is voiced by religious perception, has no limits.\nAt every forward step taken by humanity\u2014and such steps are taken in\nconsequence of the greater and greater elucidation of religious\nperception\u2014men experience new and fresh feelings. And therefore only on\nthe basis of religious perception (which shows the highest level of\nlife-comprehension reached by the men of a certain period) can fresh\nemotion, never before felt by man, arise. From the religious perception\nof the ancient Greeks flowed the really new, important, and endlessly\nvaried feelings expressed by Homer and the tragic writers. It was the\nsame among the Jews, who attained the religious conception of a single\nGod,\u2014from that perception flowed all those new and important emotions\nexpressed by the prophets. It was the same for the poets of the Middle\nAges, who, if they believed in a heavenly hierarchy, believed also in\nthe Catholic commune; and it is the same for a man of to-day who has\ngrasped the religious conception of true Christianity\u2014the brotherhood of\nman.\n\nThe variety of fresh feelings flowing from religious perception is\nendless, and they are all new, for religious perception is nothing else\nthan the first indication of that which is coming into existence, viz.\nthe new relation of man to the world around him. But the feelings\nflowing from the desire for enjoyment are, on the contrary, not only\nlimited, but were long ago experienced and expressed. And therefore the\nlack of belief of the upper classes of Europe has left them with an art\nfed on the poorest subject-matter.\n\nThe impoverishment of the subject-matter of upper-class art was further\nincreased by the fact that, ceasing to be religious, it ceased also to\nbe popular, and this again diminished the range of feelings which it\ntransmitted. For the range of feelings experienced by the powerful and\nthe rich, who have no experience of labour for the support of life, is\nfar poorer, more limited, and more insignificant than the range of\nfeelings natural to working people.\n\nPeople of our circle, \u00e6stheticians, usually think and say just the\ncontrary of this. I remember how Gontchareff, the author, a very clever\nand educated man but a thorough townsman and an \u00e6sthetician, said to me\nthat after Tourgenieff\u2019s _Memoirs of a Sportsman_ there was nothing left\nto write about in peasant life. It was all used up. The life of working\npeople seemed to him so simple that Tourgenieff\u2019s peasant stories had\nused up all there was to describe. The life of our wealthy people, with\ntheir love affairs and dissatisfaction with themselves, seemed to him\nfull of inexhaustible subject-matter. One hero kissed his lady on her\npalm, another on her elbow, and a third somewhere else. One man is\ndiscontented through idleness, and another because people don\u2019t love\nhim. And Gontchareff thought that in this sphere there is no end of\nvariety. And this opinion\u2014that the life of working people is poor in\nsubject-matter, but that our life, the life of the idle, is full of\ninterest\u2014is shared by very many people in our society. The life of a\nlabouring man, with its endlessly varied forms of labour, and the\ndangers connected with this labour on sea and underground; his\nmigrations, the intercourse with his employers, overseers, and\ncompanions and with men of other religions and other nationalities; his\nstruggles with nature and with wild beasts, the associations with\ndomestic animals, the work in the forest, on the steppe, in the field,\nthe garden, the orchard; his intercourse with wife and children, not\nonly as with people near and dear to him, but as with co-workers and\nhelpers in labour, replacing him in time of need; his concern in all\neconomic questions, not as matters of display or discussion, but as\nproblems of life for himself and his family; his pride in\nself-suppression and service to others, his pleasures of refreshment;\nand with all these interests permeated by a religious attitude towards\nthese occurrences\u2014all this to us, who have not these interests and\npossess no religious perception, seems monotonous in comparison with\nthose small enjoyments and insignificant cares of our life,\u2014a life, not\nof labour nor of production, but of consumption and destruction of that\nwhich others have produced for us. We think the feelings experienced by\npeople of our day and our class are very important and varied; but in\nreality almost all the feelings of people of our class amount to but\nthree very insignificant and simple feelings\u2014the feeling of pride, the\nfeeling of sexual desire, and the feeling of weariness of life. These\nthree feelings, with their outgrowths, form almost the only\nsubject-matter of the art of the rich classes.\n\nAt first, at the very beginning of the separation of the exclusive art\nof the upper classes from universal art, its chief subject-matter was\nthe feeling of pride. It was so at the time of the Renaissance and after\nit, when the chief subject of works of art was the laudation of the\nstrong\u2014popes, kings, and dukes: odes and madrigals were written in their\nhonour, and they were extolled in cantatas and hymns; their portraits\nwere painted, and their statues carved, in various adulatory ways. Next,\nthe element of sexual desire began more and more to enter into art, and\n(with very few exceptions, and in novels and dramas almost without\nexception) it has now become an essential feature of every art product\nof the rich classes.\n\nThe third feeling transmitted by the art of the rich\u2014that of discontent\nwith life\u2014appeared yet later in modern art. This feeling, which, at the\ncommencement of the present century, was expressed only by exceptional\nmen; by Byron, by Leopardi, and afterwards by Heine, has latterly become\nfashionable and is expressed by most ordinary and empty people. Most\njustly does the French critic Doumic characterise the works of the new\nwriters\u2014\u201c_c\u2019est la lassitude de vivre, le m\u00e9pris de l\u2019\u00e9poque pr\u00e9sente,\nle regret d\u2019un autre temps aper\u00e7u \u00e0 travers l\u2019illusion de l\u2019art, le go\u00fbt\ndu paradoxe, le besoin de se singulariser, une aspiration de raffin\u00e9s\nvers la simplicit\u00e9, l\u2019adoration enfantine du merveilleux, la s\u00e9duction\nmaladive de la r\u00eaverie, l\u2019\u00e9branlement des nerfs,\u2014surtout l\u2019appel\nexasp\u00e9r\u00e9 de la sensualit\u00e9_\u201d (_Les Jeunes_, Ren\u00e9 Doumic).[67] And, as a\nmatter of fact, of these three feelings it is sensuality, the lowest\n(accessible not only to all men but even to all animals) which forms the\nchief subject-matter of works of art of recent times.\n\nFrom Boccaccio to Marcel Pr\u00e9vost, all the novels, poems, and verses\ninvariably transmit the feeling of sexual love in its different forms.\nAdultery is not only the favourite, but almost the only theme of all the\nnovels. A performance is not a performance unless, under some pretence,\nwomen appear with naked busts and limbs. Songs and _romances_\u2014all are\nexpressions of lust, idealised in various degrees.\n\nA majority of the pictures by French artists represent female nakedness\nin various forms. In recent French literature there is hardly a page or\na poem in which nakedness is not described, and in which, relevantly or\nirrelevantly, their favourite thought and word _nu_ is not repeated a\ncouple of times. There is a certain writer, Ren\u00e9 de Gourmond, who gets\nprinted, and is considered talented. To get an idea of the new writers,\nI read his novel, _Les Chevaux de Diom\u00e8de_. It is a consecutive and\ndetailed account of the sexual connections some gentleman had with\nvarious women. Every page contains lust-kindling descriptions. It is the\nsame in Pierre Lou\u00ffs\u2019 book, _Aphrodite_, which met with success; it is\nthe same in a book I lately chanced upon\u2014Huysmans\u2019 _Certains_, and, with\nbut few exceptions, it is the same in all the French novels. They are\nall the productions of people suffering from erotic mania. And these\npeople are evidently convinced that as their whole life, in consequence\nof their diseased condition, is concentrated on amplifying various\nsexual abominations, therefore the life of all the world is similarly\nconcentrated. And these people, suffering from erotic mania, are\nimitated throughout the whole artistic world of Europe and America.\n\nThus in consequence of the lack of belief and the exceptional manner of\nlife of the wealthy classes, the art of those classes became\nimpoverished in its subject-matter, and has sunk to the transmission of\nthe feelings of pride, discontent with life, and, above all, of sexual\ndesire.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  It is the weariness of life, contempt for the present epoch, regret\n  for another age seen through the illusion of art, a taste for paradox,\n  a desire to be singular, a sentimental aspiration after simplicity, an\n  infantine adoration of the marvellous, a sickly tendency towards\n  reverie, a shattered condition of nerves, and, above all, the\n  exasperated demand of sensuality.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n\n\nIn consequence of their unbelief the art of the upper classes became\npoor in subject-matter. But besides that, becoming continually more and\nmore exclusive, it became at the same time continually more and more\ninvolved, affected, and obscure.\n\nWhen a universal artist (such as were some of the Grecian artists or the\nJewish prophets) composed his work, he naturally strove to say what he\nhad to say in such a manner that his production should be intelligible\nto all men. But when an artist composed for a small circle of people\nplaced in exceptional conditions, or even for a single individual and\nhis courtiers,\u2014for popes, cardinals, kings, dukes, queens, or for a\nking\u2019s mistress,\u2014he naturally only aimed at influencing these people,\nwho were well known to him, and lived in exceptional conditions familiar\nto him. And this was an easier task, and the artist was involuntarily\ndrawn to express himself by allusions comprehensible only to the\ninitiated, and obscure to everyone else. In the first place, more could\nbe said in this way; and secondly, there is (for the initiated) even a\ncertain charm in the cloudiness of such a manner of expression. This\nmethod, which showed itself both in euphemism and in mythological and\nhistorical allusions, came more and more into use, until it has,\napparently, at last reached its utmost limits in the so-called art of\nthe Decadents. It has come, finally, to this: that not only is haziness,\nmysteriousness, obscurity, and exclusiveness (shutting out the masses)\nelevated to the rank of a merit and a condition of poetic art, but even\nincorrectness, indefiniteness, and lack of eloquence are held in esteem.\n\nTh\u00e9ophile Gautier, in his preface to the celebrated _Fleurs du Mal_,\nsays that Baudelaire, as far as possible, banished from poetry\neloquence, passion, and truth too strictly copied (\u201c_l\u2019\u00e9loquence, la\npassion, et la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 calqu\u00e9e trop exactement_\u201d).\n\nAnd Baudelaire not only expressed this, but maintained his thesis in his\nverses, and yet more strikingly in the prose of his _Petits Po\u00e8mes en\nProse_, the meanings of which have to be guessed like a rebus, and\nremain for the most part undiscovered.\n\nThe poet Verlaine (who followed next after Baudelaire, and was also\nesteemed great) even wrote an \u201c_Art po\u00e9tique_,\u201d in which he advises this\nstyle of composition:\u2014\n\n                  _De la musique avant toute chose,\n                  Et pour cela pr\u00e9f\u00e8re l\u2019Impair\n                  Plus vague et plus soluble dans l\u2019air,\n                  Sans rien en lui qui p\u00e8se ou qui pose._\n\n                  _Il faut aussi que tu n\u2019ailles point\n                  Choisir tes mots sans quelque m\u00e9prise:\n                  Rien de plus cher que la chanson grise\n                  O\u00f9 l\u2019Ind\u00e9cis au Pr\u00e9cis se joint._\n\nAnd again:\u2014\n\n                  _De la musique encore et toujours!\n                  Que ton vers soit la chose envol\u00e9e\n                  Qu\u2019on sent qui fuit d\u2019une \u00e2me en all\u00e9e\n                  Vers d\u2019autres cieux \u00e0 d\u2019autres amours._\n\n                  _Que ton vers soit la bonne aventure\n                  \u00c9parse au vent crisp\u00e9 du matin,\n                  Qui va fleurant la menthe et le thym ...\n                  Et tout le reste est litt\u00e9rature._[68]\n\nAfter these two comes Mallarm\u00e9, considered the most important of the\nyoung poets, and he plainly says that the charm of poetry lies in our\nhaving to guess its meaning\u2014that in poetry there should always be a\npuzzle:\u2014\n\n_Je pense qu\u2019il faut qu\u2019il n\u2019y ait qu\u2019allusion_, says he. _La\ncontemplation des objets, l\u2019image s\u2019envolant des r\u00eaveries suscit\u00e9es par\neux, sont le chant: les Parnassiens, eux, prennent la chose enti\u00e8rement\net la montrent; par l\u00e0 ils manquent de myst\u00e8re; ils retirent aux esprits\ncette joie d\u00e9licieuse de croire qu\u2019ils cr\u00e9ent. Nommer un objet, c\u2019est\nsupprimer les trois quarts de la jouissance du po\u00e8me, qui est faite du\nbonheur de deviner peu \u00e0 peu: le sugg\u00e9rer, voil\u00e0 le r\u00eave. C\u2019est le\nparfait usage de ce myst\u00e8re qui constitue le symbole: \u00e9voquer petit \u00e0\npetit un objet pour montrer un \u00e9tat d\u2019\u00e2me, ou, inversement, choisir un\nobjet et en d\u00e9gager un \u00e9tat d\u2019\u00e2me, par une s\u00e8rie de d\u00e9chiffrements._\n\n... _Si un \u00eatre d\u2019une intelligence moyenne, et d\u2019une pr\u00e9paration\nlitt\u00e9raire insuffisante, ouvre par hasard un livre ainsi fait et pr\u00e9tend\nen jouir, il y a malentendu, il faut remettre les choses \u00e0 leur place.\nIl doit y avoir toujours \u00e9nigme en po\u00e8sie, et c\u2019est le but de la\nlitt\u00e9rature, il n\u2019y en a pas d\u2019autre,\u2014d\u2019\u00e9voquer les objets._\u2014\u201c_Enqu\u00eate\nsur l\u2019\u00e9volution litt\u00e9raire_,\u201d Jules Huret, pp. 60, 61.[69]\n\nThus is obscurity elevated into a dogma among the new poets. As the\nFrench critic Doumic (who has not yet accepted the dogma) quite\ncorrectly says:\u2014\n\n\u201c_Il serait temps aussi d\u2019en finir avec cette fameuse \u2018th\u00e9orie de\nl\u2019obscurit\u00e9\u2019 que la nouvelle \u00e9cole a \u00e9lev\u00e9e, en effet, \u00e0 la hauteur d\u2019un\ndogme._\u201d\u2014_Les Jeunes_, par Ren\u00e9 Doumic.[70]\n\nBut it is not French writers only who think thus. The poets of all other\ncountries think and act in the same way: German, and Scandinavian, and\nItalian, and Russian, and English. So also do the artists of the new\nperiod in all branches of art: in painting, in sculpture, and in music.\nRelying on Nietzsche and Wagner, the artists of the new age conclude\nthat it is unnecessary for them to be intelligible to the vulgar crowd;\nit is enough for them to evoke poetic emotion in \u201cthe finest nurtured,\u201d\nto borrow a phrase from an English \u00e6sthetician.\n\nIn order that what I am saying may not seem to be mere assertion, I will\nquote at least a few examples from the French poets who have led this\nmovement. The name of these poets is legion. I have taken French\nwriters, because they, more decidedly than any others, indicate the new\ndirection of art, and are imitated by most European writers.\n\nBesides those whose names are already considered famous, such as\nBaudelaire and Verlaine, here are the names of a few of them: Jean\nMor\u00e9as, Charles Morice, Henri de R\u00e9gnier, Charles Vignier, Adrien\nRemacle, Ren\u00e9 Ghil, Maurice Maeterlinck, G. Albert Aurier, R\u00e9my de\nGourmont, Saint-Pol-Roux-le-Magnifique, Georges Rodenbach, le comte\nRobert de Montesquiou-Fezensac. These are Symbolists and Decadents. Next\nwe have the \u201cMagi\u201d: Jos\u00e9phin P\u00e9ladan, Paul Adam, Jules Bois, M. Papus,\nand others.\n\nBesides these, there are yet one hundred and forty-one others, whom\nDoumic mentions in the book referred to above.\n\nHere are some examples from the work of those of them who are considered\nto be the best, beginning with that most celebrated man, acknowledged to\nbe a great artist worthy of a monument\u2014Baudelaire. This is a poem from\nhis celebrated _Fleurs du Mal_:\u2014\n\n           No. XXIV.\n\n           _Je t\u2019adore \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gal de la vo\u00fbte nocturne,\n           O vase de tristesse, \u00f4 grande taciturne,\n           Et t\u2019aime d\u2019autant plus, belle, que tu me fuis,\n           Et que tu me parais, ornement de mes nuits,\n           Plus ironiquement accumuler les lieues\n           Qui s\u00e9parent mes bras des immensit\u00e9s bleues._\n\n           _Je m\u2019avance \u00e0 l\u2019attaque, et je grimpe aux assauts,\n           Comme apr\u00e8s un cadavre un ch\u0153ur de vermisseaux,\n           Et je ch\u00e9ris, \u00f4 b\u00eate implacable et cruelle,\n           Jusqu\u2019\u00e0 cette froideur par o\u00f9 tu m\u2019es plus belle!_[71]\n\nAnd this is another by the same writer:\u2014\n\n          No. XXXVI.\n\n          _DUELLUM._\n\n          _Deux guerriers ont couru l\u2019un sur l\u2019autre; leurs armes\n          Ont \u00e9clabouss\u00e9 l\u2019air de lueurs et de sang.\n          Ces jeux, ces cliquetis du fer sont les vacarmes\n          D\u2019une jeunesse en proie \u00e0 l\u2019amour vagissant._\n\n\n          _Les glaives sont bris\u00e9s! comme notre jeunesse,\n          Ma ch\u00e8re! Mais les dents, les ongles ac\u00e9r\u00e9s,\n          Vengent bient\u00f4t l\u2019\u00e9p\u00e9e et la dague tra\u00eetresse.\n          O fureur des c\u0153urs m\u00fbrs par l\u2019amour ulc\u00e9r\u00e9s!_\n\n\n          _Dans le ravin hant\u00e9 des chats-pards et des onces\n          Nos h\u00e9ros, s\u2019\u00e9treignant m\u00e9chamment, ont roul\u00e9,\n          Et leur peau fleurira l\u2019aridit\u00e9 des ronces._\n\n          _Ce gouffre, c\u2019est l\u2019enfer, de nos amis peupl\u00e9!\n          Roulons-y sans remords, amazone inhumaine,\n          Afin d\u2019\u00e9terniser l\u2019ardeur de notre haine!_[72]\n\nTo be exact, I should mention that the collection contains verses less\ncomprehensible than these, but not one poem which is plain and can be\nunderstood without a certain effort\u2014an effort seldom rewarded, for the\nfeelings which the poet transmits are evil and very low ones. And these\nfeelings are always, and purposely, expressed by him with eccentricity\nand lack of clearness. This premeditated obscurity is especially\nnoticeable in his prose, where the author could, if he liked, speak\nplainly.\n\nTake, for instance, the first piece from his _Petits Po\u00e8mes_:\u2014\n\n    _L\u2019\u00c9TRANGER._\n\n    _Qui aimes-tu le mieux, homme \u00e9nigmatique, dis? ton p\u00e8re, ta m\u00e8re,\n    ta s\u0153ur, ou ton fr\u00e8re?_\n\n    _Je n\u2019ai ni p\u00e8re, ni m\u00e8re, ni s\u0153ur, ni fr\u00e8re._\n\n    _Tes amis?_\n\n    _Vous vous servez l\u00e0 d\u2019une parole dont le sens m\u2019est rest\u00e9 jusqu\u2019 \u00e0\n    ce jour inconnu._\n\n    _Ta patrie?_\n\n    _J\u2019ignore sous quelle latitude elle est situ\u00e9e._\n\n    _La beaut\u00e9?_\n\n    _Je l\u2019aimerais volontiers, d\u00e9esse et immortelle._\n\n    _L\u2019or?_\n\n    _Je le hais comme vous ha\u00efssez Dieu._\n\n    _Et qu \u2019aimes-tu donc, extraordinaire \u00e9tranger?_\n\n    _J\u2019aime les nuages ... les nuages qui passent ... l\u00e0 bas, ... les\n    merveilleux nuages!_\n\nThe piece called _La Soupe et les Nuages_ is probably intended to\nexpress the unintelligibility of the poet even to her whom he loves.\nThis is the piece in question:\u2014\n\n    _Ma petite folle bien-aim\u00e9e me donnait \u00e0 d\u00eener, et par la fen\u00eatre\n    ouverte de la salle \u00e0 manger je contemplais les mouvantes\n    architectures que Dieu fait avec les vapeurs, les merveilleuses\n    constructions de l\u2019impalpable. Et je me disais, \u00e0 travers ma\n    contemplation: \u201cToutes ces fantasmagories sont presque aussi belles\n    que les yeux de ma belle bien-aim\u00e9e, la petite folle monstrueuse aux\n    yeux verts.\u201d_\n\n    _Et tout \u00e0 coup je re\u00e7us un violent coup de poing dans le dos, et\n    j\u2019entendis une voix rauque et charmante, une voix hyst\u00e9rique et\n    comme enrou\u00e9e par l\u2019eau-de-vie, la voix de ma ch\u00e8re petite\n    bien-aim\u00e9e, qui me disait, \u201cAllez-vous bient\u00f4t manger votre soupe, s\n    ... b ... de marchand de nuages?\u201d_[73]\n\nHowever artificial these two pieces may be, it is still possible, with\nsome effort, to guess at what the author meant them to express, but some\nof the pieces are absolutely incomprehensible\u2014at least to me. _Le Galant\nTireur_ is a piece I was quite unable to understand.\n\n    _LE GALANT TIREUR._\n\n    _Comme la voiture traversait le bois, il la fit arr\u00eater dans le\n    voisinage d\u2019un tir, disant qu\u2019il lui serait agr\u00e9able de tirer\n    quelques balles pour tuer le Temps. Tuer ce monstre-l\u00e0, n\u2019est-ce pas\n    l\u2019occupation la plus ordinaire et la plus l\u00e9gitime de chacun?\u2014Et il\n    offrit galamment la main \u00e0 sa ch\u00e8re, d\u00e9licieuse et ex\u00e9crable femme,\n    \u00e0 cette myst\u00e9rieuse femme \u00e0 laquelle il doit tant de plaisirs, tant\n    de douleurs, et peut-\u00eatre aussi une grande partie de son g\u00e9nie._\n\n    _Plusieurs balles frapp\u00e8rent loin du but propos\u00e9, l\u2019une d\u2019elles\n    s\u2019enfon\u00e7a m\u00eame dans le plafond; et comme la charmante cr\u00e9ature riait\n    follement, se moquant de la maladresse de son \u00e9poux, celui-ci se\n    tourna brusquement vers elle, et lui dit: \u201cObservez cette poup\u00e9e,\n    l\u00e0-bas, \u00e0 droite, qui porte le nez en l\u2019air et qui a la mine si\n    hautaine. Eh bien! cher ange, je me figure que c\u2019est vous.\u201d Et il\n    ferma les yeux et il l\u00e2cha la d\u00e9tente. La poup\u00e9e fut nettement\n    d\u00e9capit\u00e9e._\n\n    _Alors s\u2019 inclinant vers sa ch\u00e8re, sa d\u00e9licieuse, son ex\u00e9crable\n    femme, son in\u00e9vitable et impitoyable Muse, et lui baisant\n    respectueusement la main, il ajouta: \u201cAh! mon cher ange, combien je\n    vous remercie de mon adresse!\u201d_[74]\n\nThe productions of another celebrity, Verlaine, are not less affected\nand unintelligible. This, for instance, is the first poem in the section\ncalled _Ariettes Oubli\u00e9es_.\n\n                     \u201c_Le vent dans la plaine\n                       Suspend son haleine_.\u201d\u2014FAVART.\n\n                     _C\u2019est l\u2019extase langoureuse,\n                     C\u2019est la fatigue amoureuse,\n                     C\u2019est tous les frissons des bois\n                     Parmi l\u2019\u00e9treinte des brises,\n                     C\u2019est, vers les ramures grises,\n                     Le ch\u0153ur des petites voix._\n\n                     _O le fr\u00eale et frais murmure!\n                     Cela gazouille et susurre,\n                     Cela ressemble au cri doux\n                     Que l\u2019herbe agit\u00e9e expire ...\n                     Tu dirais, sous l\u2019eau qui vire,\n                     Le roulis sourd des cailloux._\n\n                     _Cette \u00e2me qui se lamente\n                     En cette plainte dormante\n                     C\u2019est la n\u00f4tre, n\u2019est-ce pas?\n                     La mienne, dis, et la tienne,\n                     Dont s\u2019exhale l\u2019humble antienne\n                     Par ce ti\u00e8de soir, tout has?_[75]\n\nWhat \u201c_ch\u0153ur des petites voix_\u201d? and what \u201c_cri doux que l\u2019herbe agit\u00e9e\nexpire_\u201d? and what it all means, remains altogether unintelligible to\nme.\n\nAnd here is another _Ariette_:\u2014\n\n                        _VIII._\n\n                        _Dans l\u2019interminable\n                        Ennui de la plaine,\n                        La neige incertaine\n                        Luit comme du sable._\n\n                        _Le ciel est de cuivre,\n                        Sans lueur aucune.\n                        On croirait voir vivre\n                        Et mourir la lune._\n\n                        _Comme des nu\u00e9es\n                        Flottent gris les ch\u00eanes\n                        Des for\u00eats prochaines\n                        Parmi les bu\u00e9es._\n\n                        _Le ciel est de cuivre,\n                        Sans lueur aucune.\n                        On croirait voir vivre\n                        Et mourir la lune._\n\n                        _Corneille poussive\n                        Et vous, les loups maigres,\n                        Par ces bises aigres\n                        Quoi donc vous arrive?_\n\n                        _Dans l\u2019interminable\n                        Ennui de la plaine,\n                        La neige incertaine\n                        Luit comme du sable._[76]\n\nHow does the moon seem to live and die in a copper heaven? And how can\nsnow shine like sand? The whole thing is not merely unintelligible, but,\nunder pretence of conveying an impression, it passes off a string of\nincorrect comparisons and words.\n\nBesides these artificial and obscure poems, there are others which are\nintelligible, but which make up for it by being altogether bad, both in\nform and in subject. Such are all the poems under the heading _La\nSagesse_. The chief place in these verses is occupied by a very poor\nexpression of the most commonplace Roman Catholic and patriotic\nsentiments. For instance, one meets with verses such as this:\u2014\n\n               _Je ne veux plus penser qu\u2019 \u00e0 ma m\u00e8re Marie,\n               Si\u00e8ge de la sagesse et source de pardons,\n               M\u00e8re de France aussi de qui nous attendons\n               In\u00e9branlablement l\u2019honneur de la patrie._[77]\n\nBefore citing examples from other poets, I must pause to note the\namazing celebrity of these two versifiers, Baudelaire and Verlaine, who\nare now accepted as being great poets. How the French, who had Ch\u00e9nier,\nMusset, Lamartine, and, above all, Hugo,\u2014and among whom quite recently\nflourished the so-called Parnassiens: Leconte de Lisle, Sully-Prudhomme,\netc.,\u2014could attribute such importance to these two versifiers, who were\nfar from skilful in form and most contemptible and commonplace in\nsubject-matter, is to me incomprehensible. The conception-of-life of one\nof them, Baudelaire, consisted in elevating gross egotism into a theory,\nand replacing morality by a cloudy conception of beauty, and especially\nartificial beauty. Baudelaire had a preference, which he expressed, for\na woman\u2019s face painted rather than showing its natural colour, and for\nmetal trees and a theatrical imitation of water rather than real trees\nand real water.\n\nThe life-conception of the other, Verlaine, consisted in weak\nprofligacy, confession of his moral impotence, and, as an antidote to\nthat impotence, in the grossest Roman Catholic idolatry. Both, moreover,\nwere quite lacking in na\u00efvet\u00e9, sincerity, and simplicity, and both\noverflowed with artificiality, forced originality, and self-assurance.\nSo that in their least bad productions one sees more of M. Baudelaire or\nM. Verlaine than of what they were describing. But these two indifferent\nversifiers form a school, and lead hundreds of followers after them.\n\nThere is only one explanation of this fact: it is that the art of the\nsociety in which these versifiers lived is not a serious, important\nmatter of life, but is a mere amusement. And all amusements grow\nwearisome by repetition. And, in order to make wearisome amusement again\ntolerable, it is necessary to find some means to freshen it up. When, at\ncards, ombre grows stale, whist is introduced; when whist grows stale,\n\u00e9cart\u00e9 is substituted; when \u00e9cart\u00e9 grows stale, some other novelty is\ninvented, and so on. The substance of the matter remains the same, only\nits form is changed. And so it is with this kind of art. The\nsubject-matter of the art of the upper classes growing continually more\nand more limited, it has come at last to this, that to the artists of\nthese exclusive classes it seems as if everything has already been said,\nand that to find anything new to say is impossible. And therefore, to\nfreshen up this art, they look out for fresh forms.\n\nBaudelaire and Verlaine invent such a new form, furbish it up, moreover,\nwith hitherto unused pornographic details, and\u2014the critics and the\npublic of the upper classes hail them as great writers.\n\nThis is the only explanation of the success, not of Baudelaire and\nVerlaine only, but of all the Decadents.\n\nFor instance, there are poems by Mallarm\u00e9 and Maeterlinck which have no\nmeaning, and yet for all that, or perhaps on that very account, are\nprinted by tens of thousands, not only in various publications, but even\nin collections of the best works of the younger poets.\n\nThis, for example, is a sonnet by Mallarm\u00e9:\u2014\n\n                    _A la nue accablante tu\n                    Basse de basalte et de laves\n                    A m\u00eame les \u00e9chos esclaves\n                    Par une trompe sans vertu._\n\n                    _Quel s\u00e9pulcral naufrage (tu\n                    Le soir, \u00e9cume, mais y baves)\n                    Supr\u00eame une entre les \u00e9paves\n                    Abolit le m\u00e2t d\u00e9v\u00eatu._\n\n                    _Ou cela que furibond faute\n                    De quelque perdition haute\n                    Tout l\u2019ab\u00eeme vain \u00e9ploy\u00e9_\n\n                    _Dans le si blanc cheveu qui tra\u00eene\n                    Avarement aura noy\u00e9\n                    Le flanc enfant d\u2019une sir\u00e8ne._[78]\n\n                    (\u201cPan,\u201d 1895, No. 1.)\n\nThis poem is not exceptional in its incomprehensibility. I have read\nseveral poems by Mallarm\u00e9, and they also had no meaning whatever. I give\na sample of his prose in Appendix I. There is a whole volume of this\nprose, called \u201c_Divagations_.\u201d It is impossible to understand any of it.\nAnd that is evidently what the author intended.\n\nAnd here is a song by Maeterlinck, another celebrated author of to-day:\u2014\n\n                       _Quand il est sorti,\n                       (J\u2019entendis la porte)\n                       Quand il est sorti\n                       Elle avait souri ..._\n\n                       _Mais quand il entra\n                       (J\u2019entendis la lampe)\n                       Mais quand il entra\n                       Une autre \u00e9tait l\u00e0 ..._\n\n                       _Et j\u2019ai vu la mort,\n                       (J\u2019entendis son \u00e2me)\n                       Et j\u2019ai vu la mort\n                       Qui l\u2019attend encore ..._\n\n                       _On est venu dire,\n                       (Mon enfant j\u2019ai peur)\n                       On est venu dire\n                       Qu\u2019il allait partir ..._\n\n                       _Ma lampe allum\u00e9e,\n                       (Mon enfant j\u2019ai peur)\n                       Ma lampe allum\u00e9e\n                       Me suis approch\u00e9e ..._\n\n                       _A la premi\u00e8re porte,\n                       (Mon enfant j\u2019ai peur)\n                       A la premi\u00e8re porte,\n                       La flamme a trembl\u00e9 ..._\n\n                       _A la seconde porte,\n                       (Mon enfant j\u2019ai peur)\n                       A la seconde porte,\n                       La flamme a parl\u00e9 ..._\n\n                       _A la troisi\u00e8me porte,\n                       (Mon enfant j\u2019ai peur)\n                       A la troisi\u00e8me porte,\n                       La lumi\u00e8re est morte ..._\n\n                       _Et s\u2019il revenait un jour\n                       Que faut-il lui dire?\n                       Dites-lui qu\u2019on l\u2019attendit\n                       Jusqu\u2019\u00e0 s\u2019en mourir ..._\n\n                       _Et s\u2019il demande o\u00f9 vous \u00eates\n                       Que faut-il r\u00e9pondre?\n                       Donnez-lui mon anneau d\u2019or\n                       Sans rien lui r\u00e9pondre ..._\n\n                       _Et s\u2019il m\u2019interroge alors\n                       Sur la derni\u00e8re heure?\n                       Dites lui que fai souri\n                       De peur qu\u2019il ne pleure ..._\n\n                       _Et s\u2019il m\u2019interroge encore\n                       Sans me reconna\u00eetre?\n                       Parlez-lui comme une s\u0153ur,\n                       Il souffre peut-\u00eatre ..._\n\n                       _Et s\u2019il veut savoir pourquoi\n                       La salle est d\u00e9serte?\n                       Montrez lui la lampe \u00e9teinte\n                       Et la porte ouverte ..._[79]\n\n                       (\u201cPan,\u201d 1895, No. 2.)\n\nWho went out? Who came in? Who is speaking? Who died?\n\nI beg the reader to be at the pains of reading through the samples I\ncite in Appendix II. of the celebrated and esteemed young poets\u2014Griffin,\nVerhaeren, Mor\u00e9as, and Montesquiou. It is important to do so in order to\nform a clear conception of the present position of art, and not to\nsuppose, as many do, that Decadentism is an accidental and transitory\nphenomenon. To avoid the reproach of having selected the worst verses, I\nhave copied out of each volume the poem which happened to stand on page\n28.\n\nAll the other productions of these poets are equally unintelligible, or\ncan only be understood with great difficulty, and then not fully. All\nthe productions of those hundreds of poets, of whom I have named a few,\nare the same in kind. And among the Germans, Swedes, Norwegians,\nItalians, and us Russians, similar verses are printed. And such\nproductions are printed and made up into book form, if not by the\nmillion, then by the hundred thousand (some of these works sell in tens\nof thousands). For type-setting, paging, printing, and binding these\nbooks, millions and millions of working days are spent\u2014not less, I\nthink, than went to build the great pyramid. And this is not all. The\nsame is going on in all the other arts: millions and millions of working\ndays are being spent on the production of equally incomprehensible works\nin painting, in music, and in the drama.\n\nPainting not only does not lag behind poetry in this matter, but rather\noutstrips it. Here is an extract from the diary of an amateur of art,\nwritten when visiting the Paris exhibitions in 1894:\u2014\n\n\u201cI was to-day at three exhibitions: the Symbolists\u2019, the\nImpressionists\u2019, and the Neo-Impressionists\u2019. I looked at the pictures\nconscientiously and carefully, but again felt the same stupefaction and\nultimate indignation. The first exhibition, that of Camille Pissarro,\nwas comparatively the most comprehensible, though the pictures were out\nof drawing, had no subject, and the colourings were most improbable. The\ndrawing was so indefinite that you were sometimes unable to make out\nwhich way an arm or a head was turned. The subject was generally,\n\u2018_effets_\u2019\u2014_Effet de brouillard_, _Effet du soir_, _Soleil couchant_.\nThere were some pictures with figures, but without subjects.\n\n\u201cIn the colouring, bright blue and bright green predominated. And each\npicture had its special colour, with which the whole picture was, as it\nwere, splashed. For instance in \u2018A Girl guarding Geese\u2019 the special\ncolour is _vert de gris_, and dots of it were splashed about everywhere:\non the face, the hair, the hands, and the clothes. In the same\ngallery\u2014\u2018Durand Ruel\u2019\u2014were other pictures, by Puvis de Chavannes, Manet,\nMonet, Renoir, Sisley\u2014who are all Impressionists. One of them, whose\nname I could not make out,\u2014it was something like Redon,\u2014had painted a\nblue face in profile. On the whole face there is only this blue tone,\nwith white-of-lead. Pissarro has a water-colour all done in dots. In the\nforeground is a cow entirely painted with various-coloured dots. The\ngeneral colour cannot be distinguished, however much one stands back\nfrom, or draws near to, the picture. From there I went to see the\nSymbolists. I looked at them long without asking anyone for an\nexplanation, trying to guess the meaning; but it is beyond human\ncomprehension. One of the first things to catch my eye was a wooden\n_haut-relief_, wretchedly executed, representing a woman (naked) who\nwith both hands is squeezing from her two breasts streams of blood. The\nblood flows down, becoming lilac in colour. Her hair first descends and\nthen rises again and turns into trees. The figure is all coloured\nyellow, and the hair is brown.\n\n\u201cNext\u2014a picture: a yellow sea, on which swims something which is neither\na ship nor a heart; on the horizon is a profile with a halo and yellow\nhair, which changes into a sea, in which it is lost. Some of the\npainters lay on their colours so thickly that the effect is something\nbetween painting and sculpture. A third exhibit was even less\ncomprehensible: a man\u2019s profile; before him a flame and black\nstripes\u2014leeches, as I was afterwards told. At last I asked a gentleman\nwho was there what it meant, and he explained to me that the\n_haut-relief_ was a symbol, and that it represented \u2018_La Terre_.\u2019 The\nheart swimming in a yellow sea was \u2018_Illusion perdue_,\u2019 and the\ngentleman with the leeches was \u2018_Le Mal_.\u2019 There were also some\nImpressionist pictures: elementary profiles, holding some sort of\nflowers in their hands: in monotone, out of drawing, and either quite\nblurred or else marked out with wide black outlines.\u201d\n\nThis was in 1894; the same tendency is now even more strongly defined,\nand we have B\u00f6cklin, Stuck, Klinger, Sasha Schneider, and others.\n\nThe same thing is taking place in the drama. The play-writers give us an\narchitect who, for some reason, has not fulfilled his former high\nintentions, and who consequently climbs on to the roof of a house he has\nerected and tumbles down head foremost; or an incomprehensible old woman\n(who exterminates rats), and who, for an unintelligible reason, takes a\npoetic child to the sea and there drowns him; or some blind men, who,\nsitting on the seashore, for some reason always repeat one and the same\nthing; or a bell of some kind, which flies into a lake and there rings.\n\nAnd the same is happening in music\u2014in that art which, more than any\nother, one would have thought, should be intelligible to everybody.\n\nAn acquaintance of yours, a musician of repute, sits down to the piano\nand plays you what he says is a new composition of his own, or of one of\nthe new composers. You hear the strange, loud sounds, and admire the\ngymnastic exercises performed by his fingers; and you see that the\nperformer wishes to impress upon you that the sounds he is producing\nexpress various poetic strivings of the soul. You see his intention, but\nno feeling whatever is transmitted to you except weariness. The\nexecution lasts long, or at least it seems very long to you, because you\ndo not receive any clear impression, and involuntarily you remember the\nwords of Alphonse Karr, \u201c_Plus \u00e7a va vite, plus \u00e7a dure longtemps._\u201d[80]\nAnd it occurs to you that perhaps it is all a mystification; perhaps the\nperformer is trying you\u2014just throwing his hands and fingers wildly about\nthe key-board in the hope that you will fall into the trap and praise\nhim, and then he will laugh and confess that he only wanted to see if he\ncould hoax you. But when at last the piece does finish, and the\nperspiring and agitated musician rises from the piano evidently\nanticipating praise, you see that it was all done in earnest.\n\nThe same thing takes place at all the concerts with pieces by Liszt,\nWagner, Berlioz, Brahms, and (newest of all) Richard Strauss, and the\nnumberless other composers of the new school, who unceasingly produce\nopera after opera, symphony after symphony, piece after piece.\n\nThe same is occurring in a domain in which it seemed hard to be\nunintelligible\u2014in the sphere of novels and short stories.\n\nRead _L\u00e0-Bas_ by Huysmans, or some of Kipling\u2019s short stories, or\n_L\u2019annonciateur_ by Villiers de l\u2019Isle Adam in his _Contes Cruels_,\netc., and you will find them not only \u201cabscons\u201d (to use a word adopted\nby the new writers), but absolutely unintelligible both in form and in\nsubstance. Such, again, is the work by E. Morel, _Terre Promise_, now\nappearing in the _Revue Blanche_, and such are most of the new novels.\nThe style is very high-flown, the feelings seem to be most elevated, but\nyou can\u2019t make out what is happening, to whom it is happening, and where\nit is happening. And such is the bulk of the young art of our time.\n\nPeople who grew up in the first half of this century, admiring Goethe,\nSchiller, Musset, Hugo, Dickens, Beethoven, Chopin, Raphael, da Vinci,\nMichael Angelo, Delaroche, being unable to make head or tail of this new\nart, simply attribute its productions to tasteless insanity and wish to\nignore them. But such an attitude towards this new art is quite\nunjustifiable, because, in the first place, that art is spreading more\nand more, and has already conquered for itself a firm position in\nsociety, similar to the one occupied by the Romanticists in the third\ndecade of this century; and secondly and chiefly, because, if it is\npermissible to judge in this way of the productions of the latest form\nof art, called by us Decadent art, merely because we do not understand\nit, then remember, there are an enormous number of people,\u2014all the\nlabourers and many of the non-labouring folk,\u2014who, in just the same way,\ndo not comprehend those productions of art which we consider admirable:\nthe verses of our favourite artists\u2014Goethe, Schiller, and Hugo; the\nnovels of Dickens, the music of Beethoven and Chopin, the pictures of\nRaphael, Michael Angelo, da Vinci, etc.\n\nIf I have a right to think that great masses of people do not understand\nand do not like what I consider undoubtedly good because they are not\nsufficiently developed, then I have no right to deny that perhaps the\nreason why I cannot understand and cannot like the new productions of\nart, is merely that I am still insufficiently developed to understand\nthem. If I have a right to say that I, and the majority of people who\nare in sympathy, with me, do not understand the productions of the new\nart simply because there is nothing in it to understand and because it\nis bad art, then, with just the same right, the still larger majority,\nthe whole labouring mass, who do not understand what I consider\nadmirable art, can say that what I reckon as good art is bad art, and\nthere is nothing in it to understand.\n\nI once saw the injustice of such condemnation of the new art with\nespecial clearness, when, in my presence, a certain poet, who writes\nincomprehensible verses, ridiculed incomprehensible music with gay\nself-assurance; and, shortly afterwards, a certain musician, who\ncomposes incomprehensible symphonies, laughed at incomprehensible poetry\nwith equal self-confidence. I have no right, and no authority, to\ncondemn the new art on the ground that I (a man educated in the first\nhalf of the century) do not understand it; I can only say that it is\nincomprehensible to me. The only advantage the art I acknowledge has\nover the Decadent art, lies in the fact that the art I recognise is\ncomprehensible to a somewhat larger number of people than the\npresent-day art.\n\nThe fact that I am accustomed to a certain exclusive art, and can\nunderstand it, but am unable to understand another still more exclusive\nart, does not give me a right to conclude that my art is the real true\nart, and that the other one, which I do not understand, is an unreal, a\nbad art. I can only conclude that art, becoming ever more and more\nexclusive, has become more and more incomprehensible to an\never-increasing number of people, and that, in this its progress towards\ngreater and greater incomprehensibility (on one level of which I am\nstanding, with the art familiar to me), it has reached a point where it\nis understood by a very small number of the elect, and the number of\nthese chosen people is ever becoming smaller and smaller.\n\nAs soon as ever the art of the upper classes separated itself from\nuniversal art, a conviction arose that art may be art and yet be\nincomprehensible to the masses. And as soon as this position was\nadmitted, it had inevitably to be admitted also that art may be\nintelligible only to the very smallest number of the elect, and,\neventually, to two, or to one, of our nearest friends, or to oneself\nalone. Which is practically what is being said by modern artists:\u2014\u201cI\ncreate and understand myself, and if anyone does not understand me, so\nmuch the worse for him.\u201d\n\nThe assertion that art may be good art, and at the same time\nincomprehensible to a great number of people, is extremely unjust, and\nits consequences are ruinous to art itself; but at the same time it is\nso common and has so eaten into our conceptions, that it is impossible\nsufficiently to elucidate all the absurdity of it.\n\nNothing is more common than to hear it said of reputed works of art,\nthat they are very good but very difficult to understand. We are quite\nused to such assertions, and yet to say that a work of art is good, but\nincomprehensible to the majority of men, is the same as saying of some\nkind of food that it is very good but that most people can\u2019t eat it. The\nmajority of men may not like rotten cheese or putrefying grouse\u2014dishes\nesteemed by people with perverted tastes; but bread and fruit are only\ngood when they please the majority of men. And it is the same with art.\nPerverted art may not please the majority of men, but good art always\npleases everyone.\n\nIt is said that the very best works of art are such that they cannot be\nunderstood by the mass, but are accessible only to the elect who are\nprepared to understand these great works. But if the majority of men do\nnot understand, the knowledge necessary to enable them to understand\nshould be taught and explained to them. But it turns out that there is\nno such knowledge, that the works cannot be explained, and that those\nwho say the majority do not understand good works of art, still do not\nexplain those works, but only tell us that, in order to understand them,\none must read, and see, and hear these same works over and over again.\nBut this is not to explain, it is only to habituate! And people may\nhabituate themselves to anything, even to the very worst things. As\npeople may habituate themselves to bad food, to spirits, tobacco, and\nopium, just in the same way they may habituate themselves to bad art\u2014and\nthat is exactly what is being done.\n\nMoreover, it cannot be said that the majority of people lack the taste\nto esteem the highest works of art. The majority always have understood,\nand still understand, what we also recognise as being the very best art:\nthe epic of Genesis, the Gospel parables, folk-legends, fairy-tales, and\nfolk-songs are understood by all. How can it be that the majority has\nsuddenly lost its capacity to understand what is high in our art?\n\nOf a speech it may be said that it is admirable, but incomprehensible to\nthose who do not know the language in which it is delivered. A speech\ndelivered in Chinese may be excellent, and may yet remain\nincomprehensible to me if I do not know Chinese; but what distinguishes\na work of art from all other mental activity is just the fact that its\nlanguage is understood by all, and that it infects all without\ndistinction. The tears and laughter of a Chinese infect me just as the\nlaughter and tears of a Russian; and it is the same with painting and\nmusic and poetry, when it is translated into a language I understand.\nThe songs of a Kirghiz or of a Japanese touch me, though in a lesser\ndegree than they touch a Kirghiz or a Japanese. I am also touched by\nJapanese painting, Indian architecture, and Arabian stories. If I am but\nlittle touched by a Japanese song and a Chinese novel, it is not that I\ndo not understand these productions, but that I know and am accustomed\nto higher works of art. It is not because their art is above me. Great\nworks of art are only great because they are accessible and\ncomprehensible to everyone. The story of Joseph, translated into the\nChinese language, touches a Chinese. The story of Sakya Muni touches us.\nAnd there are, and must be, buildings, pictures, statues, and music of\nsimilar power. So that, if art fails to move men, it cannot be said that\nthis is due to the spectators\u2019 or hearers\u2019 lack of understanding; but\nthe conclusion to be drawn may, and should be, that such art is either\nbad art, or is not art at all.\n\nArt is differentiated from activity of the understanding, which demands\npreparation and a certain sequence of knowledge (so that one cannot\nlearn trigonometry before knowing geometry), by the fact that it acts on\npeople independently of their state of development and education, that\nthe charm of a picture, of sounds, or of forms, infects any man whatever\nhis plane of development.\n\nThe business of art lies just in this\u2014to make that understood and felt\nwhich, in the form of an argument, might be incomprehensible and\ninaccessible. Usually it seems to the recipient of a truly artistic\nimpression that he knew the thing before but had been unable to express\nit.\n\nAnd such has always been the nature of good, supreme art; the _Iliad_,\nthe _Odyssey_, the stories of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, the Hebrew\nprophets, the psalms, the Gospel parables, the story of Sakya Muni, and\nthe hymns of the Vedas: all transmit very elevated feelings, and are\nnevertheless quite comprehensible now to us, educated or uneducated, as\nthey were comprehensible to the men of those times, long ago, who were\neven less educated than our labourers. People talk about\nincomprehensibility; but if art is the transmission of feelings flowing\nfrom man\u2019s religious perception, how can a feeling be incomprehensible\nwhich is founded on religion, _i.e._ on man\u2019s relation to God? Such art\nshould be, and has actually, always been, comprehensible to everybody,\nbecause every man\u2019s relation to God is one and the same. And therefore\nthe churches and the images in them were always comprehensible to\neveryone. The hindrance to understanding the best and highest feelings\n(as is said in the gospel) does not at all lie in deficiency of\ndevelopment or learning, but, on the contrary, in false development and\nfalse learning. A good and lofty work of art may be incomprehensible,\nbut not to simple, unperverted peasant labourers (all that is highest is\nunderstood by them)\u2014it may be, and often is, unintelligible to erudite,\nperverted people destitute of religion. And this continually occurs in\nour society, in which the highest feelings are simply not understood.\nFor instance, I know people who consider themselves most refined, and\nwho say that they do not understand the poetry of love to one\u2019s\nneighbour, of self-sacrifice, or of chastity.\n\nSo that good, great, universal, religious art may be incomprehensible to\na small circle of spoilt people, but certainly not to any large number\nof plain men.\n\nArt cannot be incomprehensible to the great masses only because it is\nvery good,\u2014as artists of our day are fond of telling us. Rather we are\nbound to conclude that this art is unintelligible to the great masses\nonly because it is very bad art, or even is not art at all. So that the\nfavourite argument (na\u00efvely accepted by the cultured crowd), that in\norder to feel art one has first to understand it (which really only\nmeans habituate oneself to it), is the truest indication that what we\nare asked to understand by such a method is either very bad, exclusive\nart, or is not art at all.\n\nPeople say that works of art do not please the people because they are\nincapable of understanding them. But if the aim of works of art is to\ninfect people with the emotion the artist has experienced, how can one\ntalk about not understanding?\n\nA man of the people reads a book, sees a picture, hears a play or a\nsymphony, and is touched by no feeling. He is told that this is because\nhe cannot understand. People promise to let a man see a certain show; he\nenters and sees nothing. He is told that this is because his sight is\nnot prepared for this show. But the man well knows that he sees quite\nwell, and if he does not see what people promised to show him, he only\nconcludes (as is quite just) that those who undertook to show him the\nspectacle have not fulfilled their engagement. And it is perfectly just\nfor a man who does feel the influence of some works of art to come to\nthis conclusion concerning artists who do not, by their works, evoke\nfeeling in him. To say that the reason a man is not touched by my art is\nbecause he is still too stupid, besides being very self-conceited and\nalso rude, is to reverse the r\u00f4les, and for the sick to send the hale to\nbed.\n\nVoltaire said that \u201c_Tous les genres sont bons, hors le genre\nennuyeux_\u201d;[81] but with even more right one may say of art that _Tous\nles genres sons bons, hors celui qu\u2019on ne comprend pas_, or _qui ne\nproduit pas son effet_,[82] for of what value is an article which fails\nto do that for which it was intended?\n\nMark this above all: if only it be admitted that art may be art and yet\nbe unintelligible to anyone of sound mind, there is no reason why any\ncircle of perverted people should not compose works tickling their own\nperverted feelings and comprehensible to no one but themselves, and call\nit \u201cart,\u201d as is actually being done by the so-called Decadents.\n\nThe direction art has taken may be compared to placing on a large circle\nother circles, smaller and smaller, until a cone is formed, the apex of\nwhich is no longer a circle at all. That is what has happened to the art\nof our times.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n                   Music, music before all things\n                   The eccentric still prefer,\n                   Vague in air, and nothing weighty,\n                   Soluble. Yet do not err,\n\n                   Choosing words; still do it lightly,\n                   Do it too with some contempt;\n                   Dearest is the song that\u2019s tipsy,\n                   Clearness, dimness not exempt.\n\n\n                   Music always, now and ever\n                   Be thy verse the thing that flies\n                   From a soul that\u2019s gone, escaping,\n                   Gone to other loves and skies.\n\n                   Gone to other loves and regions,\n                   Following fortunes that allure,\n                   Mint and thyme and morning crispness ...\n                   All the rest\u2019s mere literature.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  I think there should be nothing but allusions. The contemplation of\n  objects, the flying image of reveries evoked by them, are the song.\n  The Parnassiens state the thing completely, and show it, and thereby\n  lack mystery; they deprive the mind of that delicious joy of imagining\n  that it creates. To _name an object is to take three-quarters from the\n  enjoyment of the poem, which consists in the happiness of guessing\n  little by little: to suggest, that is the dream_. It is the perfect\n  use of this mystery that constitutes the symbol: little by little, to\n  evoke an object in order to show a state of the soul; or inversely, to\n  choose an object, and from it to disengage a state of the soul by a\n  series of decipherings.\n\n  ... If a being of mediocre intelligence and insufficient literary\n  preparation chance to open a book made in this way and pretends to\n  enjoy it, there is a misunderstanding\u2014things must be returned to their\n  places. _There should always be an enigma in poetry_, and the aim of\n  literature\u2014it has no other\u2014is to evoke objects.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  It were time also to have done with this famous \u201ctheory of obscurity,\u201d\n  which the new school have practically raised to the height of a dogma.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n        I do not wish to think any more, except about my mother Mary,\n        Seat of wisdom and source of pardon,\n        Also Mother of France, _from whom we\n        Steadfastly expect the honour of our country_.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  This sonnet seems too unintelligible for translation.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  For translation, see Appendix IV.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  The quicker it goes the longer it lasts.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  All styles are good except the wearisome style.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  All styles are good except that which is not understood, _or_ which\n  fails to produce its effect.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XI\n\n\nBecoming ever poorer and poorer in subject-matter and more and more\nunintelligible in form, the art of the upper classes, in its latest\nproductions, has even lost all the characteristics of art, and has been\nreplaced by imitations of art. Not only has upper-class art, in\nconsequence of its separation from universal art, become poor in\nsubject-matter and bad in form, _i.e._ ever more and more\nunintelligible, it has, in course of time, ceased even to be art at all,\nand has been replaced by counterfeits.\n\nThis has resulted from the following causes. Universal art arises only\nwhen some one of the people, having experienced a strong emotion, feels\nthe necessity of transmitting it to others. The art of the rich classes,\non the other hand, arises not from the artist\u2019s inner impulse, but\nchiefly because people of the upper classes demand amusement and pay\nwell for it. They demand from art the transmission of feelings that\nplease them, and this demand artists try to meet. But it is a very\ndifficult task, for people of the wealthy classes, spending their lives\nin idleness and luxury, desire to be continually diverted by art; and\nart, even the lowest, cannot be produced at will, but has to generate\nspontaneously in the artist\u2019s inner self. And therefore, to satisfy the\ndemands of people of the upper classes, artists have had to devise\nmethods of producing imitations of art. And such methods have been\ndevised.\n\nThese methods are those of (1) borrowing, (2) imitating, (3) striking\n(effects), and (4) interesting.\n\nThe first method consists in borrowing whole subjects, or merely\nseparate features, from former works recognised by everyone as being\npoetical, and in so re-shaping them, with sundry additions, that they\nshould have an appearance of novelty.\n\nSuch works, evoking in people of a certain class memories of artistic\nfeelings formerly experienced, produce an impression similar to art,\nand, provided only that they conform to other needful conditions, they\npass for art among those who seek for pleasure from art. Subjects\nborrowed from previous works of art are usually called poetical\nsubjects. Objects and people thus borrowed are called poetical objects\nand people. Thus, in our circle, all sorts of legends, sagas, and\nancient traditions are considered poetical subjects. Among poetical\npeople and objects we reckon maidens, warriors, shepherds, hermits,\nangels, devils of all sorts, moonlight, thunder, mountains, the sea,\nprecipices, flowers, long hair, lions, lambs, doves, and nightingales.\nIn general, all those objects are considered poetical which have been\nmost frequently used by former artists in their productions.\n\nSome forty years ago a stupid but highly cultured\u2014_ayant beaucoup\nd\u2019acquis_\u2014lady (since deceased) asked me to listen to a novel written by\nherself. It began with a heroine who, in a poetic white dress, and with\npoetically flowing hair, was reading poetry near some water in a poetic\nwood. The scene was in Russia, but suddenly from behind the bushes the\nhero appears, wearing a hat with a feather _\u00e0 la Guillaume Tell_ (the\nbook specially mentioned this) and accompanied by two poetical white\ndogs. The authoress deemed all this highly poetical, and it might have\npassed muster if only it had not been necessary for the hero to speak.\nBut as soon as the gentleman in the hat _\u00e0 la Guillaume Tell_ began to\nconverse with the maiden in the white dress, it became obvious that the\nauthoress had nothing to say, but had merely been moved by poetic\nmemories of other works, and imagined that by ringing the changes on\nthose memories she could produce an artistic impression. But an artistic\nimpression, _i.e._ infection, is only received when an author has, in\nthe manner peculiar to himself, experienced the feeling which he\ntransmits, and not when he passes on another man\u2019s feeling previously\ntransmitted to him. Such poetry from poetry cannot infect people, it can\nonly simulate a work of art, and even that only to people of perverted\n\u00e6sthetic taste. The lady in question being very stupid and devoid of\ntalent, it was at once apparent how the case stood; but when such\nborrowing is resorted to by people who are erudite and talented and have\ncultivated the technique of their art, we get those borrowings from the\nGreek, the antique, the Christian or mythological world which have\nbecome so numerous, and which, particularly in our day, continue to\nincrease and multiply, and are accepted by the public as works of art,\nif only the borrowings are well mounted by means of the technique of the\nparticular art to which they belong.\n\nAs a characteristic example of such counterfeits of art in the realm of\npoetry, take Rostand\u2019s _Princesse Lointaine_, in which there is not a\nspark of art, but which seems very poetical to many people, and probably\nalso to its author.\n\nThe second method of imparting a semblance of art is that which I have\ncalled imitating. The essence of this method consists in supplying\ndetails accompanying the thing described or depicted. In literary art\nthis method consists in describing, in the minutest details, the\nexternal appearance, the faces, the clothes, the gestures, the tones,\nand the habitations of the characters represented, with all the\noccurrences met with in life. For instance, in novels and stories, when\none of the characters speaks we are told in what voice he spoke, and\nwhat he was doing at the time. And the things said are not given so that\nthey should have as much sense as possible, but, as they are in life,\ndisconnectedly, and with interruptions and omissions. In dramatic art,\nbesides such imitation of real speech, this method consists in having\nall the accessories and all the people just like those in real life. In\npainting this method assimilates painting to photography and destroys\nthe difference between them. And, strange to say, this method is used\nalso in music: music tries to imitate not only by its rhythm but also by\nits very sounds, the sounds which in real life accompany the thing it\nwishes to represent.\n\nThe third method is by action, often purely physical, on the outer\nsenses. Work of this kind is said to be \u201cstriking,\u201d \u201ceffectful.\u201d In all\narts these effects consist chiefly in contrasts; in bringing together\nthe terrible and the tender, the beautiful and the hideous, the loud and\nthe soft, darkness and light, the most ordinary and the most\nextraordinary. In verbal art, besides effects of contrast, there are\nalso effects consisting in the description of things that have never\nbefore been described. These are usually pornographic details evoking\nsexual desire, or details of suffering and death evoking feelings of\nhorror, as, for instance, when describing a murder, to give a detailed\nmedical account of the lacerated tissues, of the swellings, of the\nsmell, quantity and appearance of the blood. It is the same in painting:\nbesides all kinds of other contrasts, one is coming into vogue which\nconsists in giving careful finish to one object and being careless about\nall the rest. The chief and usual effects in painting are effects of\nlight and the depiction of the horrible. In the drama, the most common\neffects, besides contrasts, are tempests, thunder, moonlight, scenes at\nsea or by the sea-shore, changes of costume, exposure of the female\nbody, madness, murders, and death generally: the dying person exhibiting\nin detail all the phases of agony. In music the most usual effects are a\n_crescendo_, passing from the softest and simplest sounds to the loudest\nand most complex crash of the full orchestra; a repetition of the same\nsounds _arpeggio_ in all the octaves and on various instruments; or that\nthe harmony, tone, and rhythm be not at all those naturally flowing from\nthe course of the musical thought, but such as strike one by their\nunexpectedness. Besides these, the commonest effects in music are\nproduced in a purely physical manner by strength of sound, especially in\nan orchestra.\n\nSuch are some of the most usual effects in the various arts, but there\nyet remains one common to them all, namely, to convey by means of one\nart what it would be natural to convey by another: for instance, to make\nmusic describe (as is done by the programme music of Wagner and his\nfollowers), or to make painting, the drama, or poetry, induce a frame of\nmind (as is aimed at by all the Decadent art).\n\nThe fourth method is that of interesting (that is, absorbing the mind)\nin connection with works of art. The interest may lie in an intricate\nplot\u2014a method till quite recently much employed in English novels and\nFrench plays, but now going out of fashion and being replaced by\nauthenticity, _i.e._ by detailed description of some historical period\nor some branch of contemporary life. For example, in a novel,\ninterestingness may consist in a description of Egyptian or Roman life,\nthe life of miners, or that of the clerks in a large shop. The reader\nbecomes interested and mistakes this interest for an artistic\nimpression. The interest may also depend on the very method of\nexpression; a kind of interest that has now come much into use. Both\nverse and prose, as well as pictures, plays, and music, are constructed\nso that they must be guessed like riddles, and this process of guessing\nagain affords pleasure and gives a semblance of the feeling received\nfrom art.\n\nIt is very often said that a work of art is very good because it is\npoetic, or realistic, or striking, or interesting; whereas not only can\nneither the first, nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth of\nthese attributes supply a standard of excellence in art, but they have\nnot even anything in common with art.\n\nPoetic\u2014means borrowed. All borrowing merely recalls to the reader,\nspectator, or listener some dim recollection of artistic impressions\nthey have received from previous works of art, and does not infect them\nwith feeling which the artist has himself experienced. A work founded on\nsomething borrowed, like Goethe\u2019s _Faust_ for instance, may be very well\nexecuted and be full of mind and every beauty, but because it lacks the\nchief characteristic of a work of art\u2014completeness, oneness, the\ninseparable unity of form and contents expressing the feeling the artist\nhas experienced\u2014it cannot produce a really artistic impression. In\navailing himself of this method, the artist only transmits the feeling\nreceived by him from a previous work of art; therefore every borrowing,\nwhether it be of whole subjects, or of various scenes, situations, or\ndescriptions, is but a reflection of art, a simulation of it, but not\nart itself. And therefore, to say that a certain production is good\nbecause it is poetic,\u2014_i.e._ resembles a work of art,\u2014is like saying of\na coin that it is good because it resembles real money.\n\nEqually little can imitation, realism, serve, as many people think, as a\nmeasure of the quality of art. Imitation cannot be such a measure, for\nthe chief characteristic of art is the infection of others with the\nfeelings the artist has experienced, and infection with a feeling is not\nonly not identical with description of the accessories of what is\ntransmitted, but is usually hindered by superfluous details. The\nattention of the receiver of the artistic impression is diverted by all\nthese well-observed details, and they hinder the transmission of feeling\neven when it exists.\n\nTo value a work of art by the degree of its realism, by the accuracy of\nthe details reproduced, is as strange as to judge of the nutritive\nquality of food by its external appearance. When we appraise a work\naccording to its realism, we only show that we are talking, not of a\nwork of art, but of its counterfeit.\n\nNeither does the third method of imitating art\u2014by the use of what is\nstriking or effectful\u2014coincide with real art any better than the two\nformer methods, for in effectfulness\u2014the effects of novelty, of the\nunexpected, of contrasts, of the horrible\u2014there is no transmission of\nfeeling, but only an action on the nerves. If an artist were to paint a\nbloody wound admirably, the sight of the wound would strike me, but it\nwould not be art. One prolonged note on a powerful organ will produce a\nstriking impression, will often even cause tears, but there is no music\nin it, because no feeling is transmitted. Yet such physiological effects\nare constantly mistaken for art by people of our circle, and this not\nonly in music, but also in poetry, painting, and the drama. It is said\nthat art has become refined. On the contrary, thanks to the pursuit of\neffectfulness, it has become very coarse. A new piece is brought out and\naccepted all over Europe, such, for instance, as _Hannele_, in which\nplay the author wishes to transmit to the spectators pity for a\npersecuted girl. To evoke this feeling in the audience by means of art,\nthe author should either make one of the characters express this pity in\nsuch a way as to infect everyone, or he should describe the girl\u2019s\nfeelings correctly. But he cannot, or will not, do this, and chooses\nanother way, more complicated in stage management but easier for the\nauthor. He makes the girl die on the stage; and, still further to\nincrease the physiological effect on the spectators, he extinguishes the\nlights in the theatre, leaving the audience in the dark, and to the\nsound of dismal music he shows how the girl is pursued and beaten by her\ndrunken father. The girl shrinks\u2014screams\u2014groans\u2014and falls. Angels appear\nand carry her away. And the audience, experiencing some excitement while\nthis is going on, are fully convinced that this is true \u00e6sthetic\nfeeling. But there is nothing \u00e6sthetic in such excitement, for there is\nno infecting of man by man, but only a mingled feeling of pity for\nanother, and of self-congratulation that it is not I who am suffering:\nit is like what we feel at the sight of an execution, or what the Romans\nfelt in their circuses.\n\nThe substitution of effectfulness for \u00e6sthetic feeling is particularly\nnoticeable in musical art\u2014that art which by its nature has an immediate\nphysiological action on the nerves. Instead of transmitting by means of\na melody the feelings he has experienced, a composer of the new school\naccumulates and complicates sounds, and by now strengthening, now\nweakening them, he produces on the audience a physiological effect of a\nkind that can be measured by an apparatus invented for the purpose.[83]\nAnd the public mistake this physiological effect for the effect of art.\n\nAs to the fourth method\u2014that of interesting\u2014it also is frequently\nconfounded with art. One often hears it said, not only of a poem, a\nnovel, or a picture, but even of a musical work, that it is interesting.\nWhat does this mean? To speak of an interesting work of art means either\nthat we receive from a work of art information new to us, or that the\nwork is not fully intelligible, and that little by little, and with\neffort, we arrive at its meaning, and experience a certain pleasure in\nthis process of guessing it. In neither case has the interest anything\nin common with artistic impression. Art aims at infecting people with\nfeeling experienced by the artist. But the mental effort necessary to\nenable the spectator, listener, or reader to assimilate the new\ninformation contained in the work, or to guess the puzzles propounded,\nby distracting him, hinders the infection. And therefore the\ninterestingness of a work not only has nothing to do with its excellence\nas a work of art, but rather hinders than assists artistic impression.\n\nWe may, in a work of art, meet with what is poetic, and realistic, and\nstriking, and interesting, but these things cannot replace the essential\nof art\u2014feeling experienced by the artist. Latterly, in upper-class art,\nmost of the objects given out as being works of art are of the kind\nwhich only resemble art, and are devoid of its essential quality\u2014feeling\nexperienced by the artist. And, for the diversion of the rich, such\nobjects are continually being produced in enormous quantities by the\nartisans of art.\n\nMany conditions must be fulfilled to enable a man to produce a real work\nof art. It is necessary that he should stand on the level of the highest\nlife-conception of his time, that he should experience feeling and have\nthe desire and capacity to transmit it, and that he should, moreover,\nhave a talent for some one of the forms of art. It is very seldom that\nall these conditions necessary to the production of true art are\ncombined. But in order\u2014aided by the customary methods of borrowing,\nimitating, introducing effects, and interesting\u2014unceasingly to produce\ncounterfeits of art which pass for art in our society and are well paid\nfor, it is only necessary to have a talent for some branch of art; and\nthis is very often to be met with. By talent I mean ability: in literary\nart, the ability to express one\u2019s thoughts and impressions easily and to\nnotice and remember characteristic details; in the depictive arts, to\ndistinguish and remember lines, forms, and colours; in music, to\ndistinguish the intervals, and to remember and transmit the sequence of\nsounds. And a man, in our times, if only he possesses such a talent and\nselects some specialty, may, after learning the methods of\ncounterfeiting used in his branch of art,\u2014if he has patience and if his\n\u00e6sthetic feeling (which would render such productions revolting to him)\nbe atrophied,\u2014unceasingly, till the end of his life, turn out works\nwhich will pass for art in our society.\n\nTo produce such counterfeits, definite rules or recipes exist in each\nbranch of art. So that the talented man, having assimilated them, may\nproduce such works _\u00e0 froid_, cold drawn, without any feeling.\n\nIn order to write poems a man of literary talent needs only these\nqualifications: to acquire the knack, conformably with the requirements\nof rhyme and rhythm, of using, instead of the one really suitable word,\nten others meaning approximately the same; to learn how to take any\nphrase which, to be clear, has but one natural order of words, and\ndespite all possible dislocations still to retain some sense in it; and\nlastly, to be able, guided by the words required for the rhymes, to\ndevise some semblance of thoughts, feelings, or descriptions to suit\nthese words. Having acquired these qualifications, he may unceasingly\nproduce poems\u2014short or long, religious, amatory or patriotic, according\nto the demand.\n\nIf a man of literary talent wishes to write a story or novel, he need\nonly form his style\u2014_i.e._ learn how to describe all that he sees\u2014and\naccustom himself to remember or note down details. When he has\naccustomed himself to this, he can, according to his inclination or the\ndemand, unceasingly produce novels or stories\u2014historical, naturalistic,\nsocial, erotic, psychological, or even religious, for which latter kind\na demand and fashion begins to show itself. He can take subjects from\nbooks or from the events of life, and can copy the characters of the\npeople in his book from his acquaintances.\n\nAnd such novels and stories, if only they are decked out with well\nobserved and carefully noted details, preferably erotic ones, will be\nconsidered works of art, even though they may not contain a spark of\nfeeling experienced.\n\nTo produce art in dramatic form, a talented man, in addition to all that\nis required for novels and stories, must also learn to furnish his\ncharacters with as many smart and witty sentences as possible, must know\nhow to utilise theatrical effects, and how to entwine the action of his\ncharacters so that there should not be any long conversations, but as\nmuch bustle and movement on the stage as possible. If the writer is able\nto do this, he may produce dramatic works one after another without\nstopping, selecting his subjects from the reports of the law courts, or\nfrom the latest society topic, such as hypnotism, heredity, etc., or\nfrom deep antiquity, or even from the realms of fancy.\n\nIn the sphere of painting and sculpture it is still easier for the\ntalented man to produce imitations of art. He need only learn to draw,\npaint, and model\u2014especially naked bodies. Thus equipped he can continue\nto paint pictures, or model statues, one after another, choosing\nsubjects according to his bent\u2014mythological, or religious, or fantastic,\nor symbolical; or he may depict what is written about in the papers\u2014a\ncoronation, a strike, the Turko-Grecian war, famine scenes; or,\ncommonest of all, he may just copy anything he thinks beautiful\u2014from\nnaked women to copper basins.\n\nFor the production of musical art the talented man needs still less of\nwhat constitutes the essence of art, _i.e._ feeling wherewith to infect\nothers; but, on the other hand, he requires more physical, gymnastic\nlabour than for any other art, unless it be dancing. To produce works of\nmusical art, he must first learn to move his fingers on some instrument\nas rapidly as those who have reached the highest perfection; next he\nmust know how in former times polyphonic music was written, must study\nwhat are called counterpoint and fugue; and furthermore, he must learn\norchestration, _i.e._ how to utilise the effects of the instruments. But\nonce he has learned all this, the composer may unceasingly produce one\nwork after another; whether programme-music, opera, or song (devising\nsounds more or less corresponding to the words), or chamber music,\n_i.e._ he may take another man\u2019s themes and work them up into definite\nforms by means of counterpoint and fugue; or, what is commonest of all,\nhe may compose fantastic music, _i.e._ he may take a conjunction of\nsounds which happens to come to hand, and pile every sort of\ncomplication and ornamentation on to this chance combination.\n\nThus, in all realms of art, counterfeits of art are manufactured to a\nready-made, prearranged recipe, and these counterfeits the public of our\nupper classes accept for real art.\n\nAnd this substitution of counterfeits for real works of art was the\nthird and most important consequence of the separation of the art of the\nupper classes from universal art.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  An apparatus exists by means of which a very sensitive arrow, in\n  dependence on the tension of a muscle of the arm, will indicate the\n  physiological action of music on the nerves and muscles.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII\n\n\nIn our society three conditions co-operate to cause the production of\nobjects of counterfeit art. They are\u2014(1) the considerable remuneration\nof artists for their productions and the professionalisation of artists\nwhich this has produced, (2) art criticism, and (3) schools of art.\n\nWhile art was as yet undivided, and only religious art was valued and\nrewarded while indiscriminate art was left unrewarded, there were no\ncounterfeits of art, or, if any existed, being exposed to the criticism\nof the whole people, they quickly disappeared. But as soon as that\ndivision occurred, and the upper classes acclaimed every kind of art as\ngood if only it afforded them pleasure, and began to reward such art\nmore highly than any other social activity, immediately a large number\nof people devoted themselves to this activity, and art assumed quite a\ndifferent character and became a profession.\n\nAnd as soon as this occurred, the chief and most precious quality of\nart\u2014its sincerity\u2014was at once greatly weakened and eventually quite\ndestroyed.\n\nThe professional artist lives by his art, and has continually to invent\nsubjects for his works, and does invent them. And it is obvious how\ngreat a difference must exist between works of art produced on the one\nhand by men such as the Jewish prophets, the authors of the Psalms,\nFrancis of Assisi, the authors of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, of\nfolk-stories, legends, and folk-songs, many of whom not only received no\nremuneration for their work, but did not even attach their names to it;\nand, on the other hand, works produced by court poets, dramatists and\nmusicians receiving honours and remuneration; and later on by\nprofessional artists, who lived by the trade, receiving remuneration\nfrom newspaper editors, publishers, impresarios, and in general from\nthose agents who come between the artists and the town public\u2014the\nconsumers of art.\n\nProfessionalism is the first condition of the diffusion of false,\ncounterfeit art.\n\nThe second condition is the growth, in recent times, of artistic\ncriticism, _i.e._ the valuation of art not by everybody, and, above all,\nnot by plain men, but by erudite, that is, by perverted and at the same\ntime self-confident individuals.\n\nA friend of mine, speaking of the relation of critics to artists,\nhalf-jokingly defined it thus: \u201cCritics are the stupid who discuss the\nwise.\u201d However partial, inexact, and rude this definition may be, it is\nyet partly true, and is incomparably juster than the definition which\nconsiders critics to be men who can explain works of art.\n\n\u201cCritics explain!\u201d What do they explain?\n\nThe artist, if a real artist, has by his work transmitted to others the\nfeeling he experienced. What is there, then, to explain?\n\nIf a work be good as art, then the feeling expressed by the artist\u2014be it\nmoral or immoral\u2014transmits itself to other people. If transmitted to\nothers, then they feel it, and all interpretations are superfluous. If\nthe work does not infect people, no explanation can make it contagious.\nAn artist\u2019s work cannot be interpreted. Had it been possible to explain\nin words what he wished to convey, the artist would have expressed\nhimself in words. He expressed it by his art, only because the feeling\nhe experienced could not be otherwise transmitted. The interpretation of\nworks of art by words only indicates that the interpreter is himself\nincapable of feeling the infection of art. And this is actually the\ncase, for, however strange it may seem to say so, critics have always\nbeen people less susceptible than other men to the contagion of art. For\nthe most part they are able writers, educated and clever, but with their\ncapacity of being infected by art quite perverted or atrophied. And\ntherefore their writings have always largely contributed, and still\ncontribute, to the perversion of the taste of that public which reads\nthem and trusts them.\n\nArtistic criticism did not exist\u2014could not and cannot exist\u2014in societies\nwhere art is undivided, and where, consequently, it is appraised by the\nreligious understanding-of-life common to the whole people. Art\ncriticism grew, and could grow, only on the art of the upper classes,\nwho did not acknowledge the religious perception of their time.\n\nUniversal art has a definite and indubitable internal\ncriterion\u2014religious perception; upper-class art lacks this, and\ntherefore the appreciators of that art are obliged to cling to some\nexternal criterion. And they find it in \u201cthe judgments of the\nfinest-nurtured,\u201d as an English \u00e6sthetician has phrased it, that is, in\nthe authority of the people who are considered educated, nor in this\nalone, but also in a tradition of such authorities. This tradition is\nextremely misleading, both because the opinions of \u201cthe finest-nurtured\u201d\nare often mistaken, and also because judgments which were valid once\ncease to be so with the lapse of time. But the critics, having no basis\nfor their judgments, never cease to repeat their traditions. The\nclassical tragedians were once considered good, and therefore criticism\nconsiders them to be so still. Dante was esteemed a great poet, Raphael\na great painter, Bach a great musician\u2014and the critics, lacking a\nstandard by which to separate good art from bad, not only consider these\nartists great, but regard all their productions as admirable and worthy\nof imitation. Nothing has contributed, and still contributes, so much to\nthe perversion of art as these authorities set up by criticism. A man\nproduces a work of art, like every true artist expressing in his own\npeculiar manner a feeling he has experienced. Most people are infected\nby the artist\u2019s feeling; and his work becomes known. Then criticism,\ndiscussing the artist, says that the work is not bad, but all the same\nthe artist is not a Dante, nor a Shakespear, nor a Goethe, nor a\nRaphael, nor what Beethoven was in his last period. And the young artist\nsets to work to copy those who are held up for his imitation, and he\nproduces not only feeble works, but false works, counterfeits of art.\n\nThus, for instance, our Pushkin writes his short poems, _Evgeniy\nOnegin_, _The Gipsies_, and his stories\u2014works all varying in quality,\nbut all true art. But then, under the influence of false criticism\nextolling Shakespear, he writes _Boris Godunoff_, a cold, brain-spun\nwork, and this production is lauded by the critics, set up as a model,\nand imitations of it appear: _Minin_ by Ostrovsky, and _Tsar Boris_ by\nAlex\u00e9e Tolstoy, and such imitations of imitations as crowd all\nliteratures with insignificant productions. The chief harm done by the\ncritics is this, that themselves lacking the capacity to be infected by\nart (and that is the characteristic of all critics; for did they not\nlack this they could not attempt the impossible\u2014the interpretation of\nworks of art), they pay most attention to, and eulogise, brain-spun,\ninvented works, and set these up as models worthy of imitation. That is\nthe reason they so confidently extol, in literature, the Greek\ntragedians, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespear, Goethe (almost all he\nwrote), and, among recent writers, Zola and Ibsen; in music, Beethoven\u2019s\nlast period, and Wagner. To justify their praise of these brain-spun,\ninvented works, they devise entire theories (of which the famous theory\nof beauty is one); and not only dull but also talented people compose\nworks in strict deference to these theories; and often even real\nartists, doing violence to their genius, submit to them.\n\nEvery false work extolled by the critics serves as a door through which\nthe hypocrites of art at once crowd in.\n\nIt is solely due to the critics, who in our times still praise rude,\nsavage, and, for us, often meaningless works of the ancient Greeks:\nSophocles, Euripides, \u00c6schylus, and especially Aristophanes; or, of\nmodern writers, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespear; in painting, all of\nRaphael, all of Michael Angelo, including his absurd \u201cLast Judgment\u201d; in\nmusic, the whole of Bach, and the whole of Beethoven, including his last\nperiod,\u2014thanks only to them, have the Ibsens, Maeterlincks, Verlaines,\nMallarm\u00e9s, Puvis de Chavannes, Klingers, B\u00f6cklins, Stucks, Schneiders;\nin music, the Wagners, Liszts, Berliozes, Brahmses, and Richard\nStrausses, etc., and all that immense mass of good-for-nothing imitators\nof these imitators, become possible in our day.\n\nAs a good illustration of the harmful influence of criticism, take its\nrelation to Beethoven. Among his innumerable hasty productions written\nto order, there are, notwithstanding their artificiality of form, works\nof true art. But he grows deaf, cannot hear, and begins to write\ninvented, unfinished works, which are consequently often meaningless and\nmusically unintelligible. I know that musicians can imagine sounds\nvividly enough, and can almost hear what they read, but imaginary sounds\ncan never replace real ones, and every composer must hear his production\nin order to perfect it. Beethoven, however, could not hear, could not\nperfect his work, and consequently published productions which are\nartistic ravings. But criticism, having once acknowledged him to be a\ngreat composer, seizes on just these abnormal works with special gusto,\nand searches for extraordinary beauties in them. And, to justify its\nlaudations (perverting the very meaning of musical art), it attributed\nto music the property of describing what it cannot describe. And\nimitators appear\u2014an innumerable host of imitators of these abnormal\nattempts at artistic productions which Beethoven wrote when he was deaf.\n\nThen Wagner appears, who at first in critical articles praises just\nBeethoven\u2019s last period, and connects this music with Schopenhauer\u2019s\nmystical theory that music is the expression of Will\u2014not of separate\nmanifestations of will objectivised on various planes, but of its very\nessence\u2014which is in itself as absurd as this music of Beethoven. And\nafterwards he composes music of his own on this theory, in conjunction\nwith another still more erroneous system of the union of all the arts.\nAfter Wagner yet new imitators appear, diverging yet further from art:\nBrahms, Richard Strauss, and others.\n\nSuch are the results of criticism. But the third condition of the\nperversion of art, namely, art schools, is almost more harmful still.\n\nAs soon as art became, not art for the whole people but for a rich\nclass, it became a profession; as soon as it became a profession,\nmethods were devised to teach it; people who chose this profession of\nart began to learn these methods, and thus professional schools sprang\nup: classes of rhetoric or literature in the public schools, academies\nfor painting, conservatoires for music, schools for dramatic art.\n\nIn these schools art is taught! But art is the transmission to others of\na special feeling experienced by the artist. How can this be taught in\nschools?\n\nNo school can evoke feeling in a man, and still less can it teach him\nhow to manifest it in the one particular manner natural to him alone.\nBut the essence of art lies in these things.\n\nThe one thing these schools can teach is how to transmit feelings\nexperienced by other artists in the way those other artists transmitted\nthem. And this is just what the professional schools do teach; and such\ninstruction not only does not assist the spread of true art, but, on the\ncontrary, by diffusing counterfeits of art, does more than anything else\nto deprive people of the capacity to understand true art.\n\nIn literary art people are taught how, without having anything they wish\nto say, to write a many-paged composition on a theme about which they\nhave never thought, and, moreover, to write it so that it should\nresemble the work of an author admitted to be celebrated. This is taught\nin schools.\n\nIn painting the chief training consists in learning to draw and paint\nfrom copies and models, the naked body chiefly (the very thing that is\nnever seen, and which a man occupied with real art hardly ever has to\ndepict), and to draw and paint as former masters drew and painted. The\ncomposition of pictures is taught by giving out themes similar to those\nwhich have been treated by former acknowledged celebrities.\n\nSo also in dramatic schools, the pupils are taught to recite monologues\njust as tragedians, considered celebrated, declaimed them.\n\nIt is the same in music. The whole theory of music is nothing but a\ndisconnected repetition of those methods which the acknowledged? masters\nof composition made use of.\n\nI have elsewhere quoted the profound remark of the Russian artist\nBruloff on art, but I cannot here refrain from repeating it, because\nnothing better illustrates what can and what can not be taught in the\nschools. Once when correcting a pupil\u2019s study, Bruloff just touched it\nin a few places, and the poor dead study immediately became animated.\n\u201cWhy, you only touched it a _wee bit_, and it is quite another thing!\u201d\nsaid one of the pupils. \u201cArt begins where the _wee bit_ begins,\u201d replied\nBruloff, indicating by these words just what is most characteristic of\nart. The remark is true of all the arts, but its justice is particularly\nnoticeable in the performance of music. That musical execution should be\nartistic, should be art, _i.e._ should infect, three chief conditions\nmust be observed,\u2014there are many others needed for musical perfection;\nthe transition from one sound to another must be interrupted or\ncontinuous; the sound must increase or diminish steadily; it must be\nblended with one and not with another sound; the sound must have this or\nthat timbre, and much besides,\u2014but take the three chief conditions: the\npitch, the time, and the strength of the sound. Musical execution is\nonly then art, only then infects, when the sound is neither higher nor\nlower than it should be, that is, when exactly the infinitely small\ncentre of the required note is taken; when that note is continued\nexactly as long as is needed; and when the strength of the sound is\nneither more nor less than is required. The slightest deviation of pitch\nin either direction, the slightest increase or decrease in time, or the\nslightest strengthening or weakening of the sound beyond what is needed,\ndestroys the perfection and, consequently, the infectiousness of the\nwork. So that the feeling of infection by the art of music, which seems\nso simple and so easily obtained, is a thing we receive only when the\nperformer finds those infinitely minute degrees which are necessary to\nperfection in music. It is the same in all arts: a wee bit lighter, a\nwee bit darker, a wee bit higher, lower, to the right or the left\u2014in\npainting; a wee bit weaker or stronger in intonation, or a wee bit\nsooner or later\u2014in dramatic art; a wee bit omitted, over-emphasised, or\nexaggerated\u2014in poetry, and there is no contagion. Infection is only\nobtained when an artist finds those infinitely minute degrees of which a\nwork of art consists, and only to the extent to which he finds them. And\nit is quite impossible to teach people by external means to find these\nminute degrees: they can only be found when a man yields to his feeling.\nNo instruction can make a dancer catch just the tact of the music, or a\nsinger or a fiddler take exactly the infinitely minute centre of his\nnote, or a sketcher draw of all possible lines the only right one, or a\npoet find the only meet arrangement of the only suitable words. All this\nis found only by feeling. And therefore schools may teach what is\nnecessary in order to produce something resembling art, but not art\nitself.\n\nThe teaching of the schools stops there where the _wee bit_\nbegins\u2014consequently where art begins.\n\nAccustoming people to something resembling art, disaccustoms them to the\ncomprehension of real art. And that is how it comes about that none are\nmore dull to art than those who have passed through the professional\nschools and been most successful in them. Professional schools produce\nan hypocrisy of art precisely akin to that hypocrisy of religion which\nis produced by theological colleges for training priests, pastors, and\nreligious teachers generally. As it is impossible in a school to train a\nman so as to make a religious teacher of him, so it is impossible to\nteach a man how to become an artist.\n\nArt schools are thus doubly destructive of art: first, in that they\ndestroy the capacity to produce real art in those who have the\nmisfortune to enter them and go through a 7 or 8 years\u2019 course;\nsecondly, in that they generate enormous quantities of that counterfeit\nart which perverts the taste of the masses and overflows our world. In\norder that born artists may know the methods of the various arts\nelaborated by former artists, there should exist in all elementary\nschools such classes for drawing and music (singing) that, after passing\nthrough them, every talented scholar may, by using existing models\naccessible to all, be able to perfect himself in his art independently.\n\nThese three conditions\u2014the professionalisation of artists, art\ncriticism, and art schools\u2014have had this effect that most people in our\ntimes are quite unable even to understand what art is, and accept as art\nthe grossest counterfeits of it.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIII\n\n\nTo what an extent people of our circle and time have lost the capacity\nto receive real art, and have become accustomed to accept as art things\nthat have nothing in common with it, is best seen from the works of\nRichard Wagner, which have latterly come to be more and more esteemed,\nnot only by the Germans but also by the French and the English, as the\nvery highest art, revealing new horizons to us.\n\nThe peculiarity of Wagner\u2019s music, as is known, consists in this, that\nhe considered that music should serve poetry, expressing all the shades\nof a poetical work.\n\nThe union of the drama with music, devised in the fifteenth century in\nItaly for the revival of what they imagined to have been the ancient\nGreek drama with music, is an artificial form which had, and has,\nsuccess only among the upper classes, and that only when gifted\ncomposers, such as Mozart, Weber, Rossini, and others, drawing\ninspiration from a dramatic subject, yielded freely to the inspiration\nand subordinated the text to the music, so that in their operas the\nimportant thing to the audience was merely the music on a certain text,\nand not the text at all, which latter, even when it was utterly absurd,\nas, for instance, in the _Magic Flute_, still did not prevent the music\nfrom producing an artistic impression.\n\nWagner wishes to correct the opera by letting music submit to the\ndemands of poetry and unite with it. But each art has its own definite\nrealm, which is not identical with the realm of other arts, but merely\ncomes in contact with them; and therefore, if the manifestation of, I\nwill not say several, but even of two arts\u2014the dramatic and the\nmusical\u2014be united in one complete production, then the demands of the\none art will make it impossible to fulfil the demands of the other, as\nhas always occurred in the ordinary operas, where the dramatic art has\nsubmitted to, or rather yielded place to, the musical. Wagner wishes\nthat musical art should submit to dramatic art, and that both should\nappear in full strength. But this is impossible, for every work of art,\nif it be a true one, is an expression of intimate feelings of the\nartist, which are quite exceptional, and not like anything else. Such is\na musical production, and such is a dramatic work, if they be true art.\nAnd therefore, in order that a production in the one branch of art\nshould coincide with a production in the other branch, it is necessary\nthat the impossible should happen: that two works from different realms\nof art should be absolutely exceptional, unlike anything that existed\nbefore, and yet should coincide, and be exactly alike.\n\nAnd this cannot be, just as there cannot be two men, or even two leaves\non a tree, exactly alike. Still less can two works from different realms\nof art, the musical and the literary, be absolutely alike. If they\ncoincide, then either one is a work of art and the other a counterfeit,\nor both are counterfeits. Two live leaves cannot be exactly alike, but\ntwo artificial leaves may be. And so it is with works of art. They can\nonly coincide completely when neither the one nor the other is art, but\nonly cunningly devised semblances of it.\n\nIf poetry and music may be joined, as occurs in hymns, songs, and\n_romances_\u2014(though even in these the music does not follow the changes\nof each verse of the text, as Wagner wants to, but the song and the\nmusic merely produce a coincident effect on the mind)\u2014this occurs only\nbecause lyrical poetry and music have, to some extent, one and the same\naim: to produce a mental condition, and the conditions produced by\nlyrical poetry and by music can, more or less, coincide. But even in\nthese conjunctions the centre of gravity always lies in one of the two\nproductions, so that it is one of them that produces the artistic\nimpression while the other remains unregarded. And still less is it\npossible for such union to exist between epic or dramatic poetry and\nmusic.\n\nMoreover, one of the chief conditions of artistic creation is the\ncomplete freedom of the artist from every kind of preconceived demand.\nAnd the necessity of adjusting his musical work to a work from another\nrealm of art is a preconceived demand of such a kind as to destroy all\npossibility of creative power; and therefore works of this kind,\nadjusted to one another, are, and must be, as has always happened, not\nworks of art but only imitations of art, like the music of a melodrama,\nsignatures to pictures, illustrations, and librettos to operas.\n\nAnd such are Wagner\u2019s productions. And a confirmation of this is to be\nseen in the fact that Wagner\u2019s new music lacks the chief characteristic\nof every true work of art, namely, such entirety and completeness that\nthe smallest alteration in its form would disturb the meaning of the\nwhole work. In a true work of art\u2014poem, drama, picture, song, or\nsymphony\u2014it is impossible to extract one line, one scene, one figure, or\none bar from its place and put it in another, without infringing the\nsignificance of the whole work; just as it is impossible, without\ninfringing the life of an organic being, to extract an organ from one\nplace and insert it in another. But in the music of Wagner\u2019s last\nperiod, with the exception of certain parts of little importance which\nhave an independent musical meaning, it is possible to make all kinds of\ntranspositions, putting what was in front behind, and _vice, vers\u00e2_,\nwithout altering the musical sense. And the reason why these\ntranspositions do not alter the sense of Wagner\u2019s music is because the\nsense lies in the words and not in the music.\n\nThe musical score of Wagner\u2019s later operas is like what the result would\nbe should one of those versifiers\u2014of whom there are now many, with\ntongues so broken that they can write verses on any theme to any rhymes\nin any rhythm, which sound as if they had a meaning\u2014conceive the idea of\nillustrating by his verses some symphony or sonata of Beethoven, or some\nballade of Chopin, in the following manner. To the first bars, of one\ncharacter, he writes verses corresponding in his opinion to those first\nbars. Next come some bars of a different character, and he also writes\nverses corresponding in his opinion to them, but with no internal\nconnection with the first verses, and, moreover, without rhymes and\nwithout rhythm. Such a production, without the music, would be exactly\nparallel in poetry to what Wagner\u2019s operas are in music, if heard\nwithout the words.\n\nBut Wagner is not only a musician, he is also a poet, or both together;\nand therefore, to judge of Wagner, one must know his poetry also\u2014that\nsame poetry which the music has to subserve. The chief poetical\nproduction of Wagner is _The Nibelung\u2019s Ring_. This work has attained\nsuch enormous importance in our time, and has such influence on all that\nnow professes to be art, that it is necessary for everyone to-day to\nhave some idea of it. I have carefully read through the four booklets\nwhich contain this work, and have drawn up a brief summary of it, which\nI give in Appendix III. I would strongly advise the reader (if he has\nnot perused the poem itself, which would be the best thing to do) at\nleast to read my account of it, so as to have an idea of this\nextraordinary work. It is a model work of counterfeit art, so gross as\nto be even ridiculous.\n\nBut we are told that it is impossible to judge of Wagner\u2019s works without\nseeing them on the stage. The Second Day of this drama, which, as I was\ntold, is the best part of the whole work, was given in Moscow last\nwinter, and I went to see the performance.\n\nWhen I arrived the enormous theatre was already filled from top to\nbottom. There were Grand-Dukes, and the flower of the aristocracy, of\nthe merchant class, of the learned, and of the middle-class official\npublic. Most of them held the libretto, fathoming its meaning.\nMusicians\u2014some of them elderly, grey-haired men\u2014followed the music,\nscore in hand. Evidently the performance of this work was an event of\nimportance.\n\nI was rather late, but I was told that the short prelude, with which the\nact begins, was of little importance, and that it did not matter having\nmissed it. When I arrived, an actor sat on the stage amid decorations\nintended to represent a cave, and before something which was meant to\nrepresent a smith\u2019s forge. He was dressed in trico-tights, with a cloak\nof skins, wore a wig and an artificial beard, and with white, weak,\ngenteel hands (his easy movements, and especially the shape of his\nstomach and his lack of muscle revealed the actor) beat an impossible\nsword with an unnatural hammer in a way in which no one ever uses a\nhammer; and at the same time, opening his mouth in a strange way, he\nsang something incomprehensible. The music of various instruments\naccompanied the strange sounds which he emitted. From the libretto one\nwas able to gather that the actor had to represent a powerful gnome, who\nlived in the cave, and who was forging a sword for Siegfried, whom he\nhad reared. One could tell he was a gnome by the fact that the actor\nwalked all the time bending the knees of his trico-covered legs. This\ngnome, still opening his mouth in the same strange way, long continued\nto sing or shout. The music meanwhile runs over something strange, like\nbeginnings which are not continued and do not get finished. From the\nlibretto one could learn that the gnome is telling himself about a ring\nwhich a giant had obtained, and which the gnome wishes to procure\nthrough Siegfried\u2019s aid, while Siegfried wants a good sword, on the\nforging of which the gnome is occupied. After this conversation or\nsinging to himself has gone on rather a long time, other sounds are\nheard in the orchestra, also like something beginning and not finishing,\nand another actor appears, with a horn slung over his shoulder, and\naccompanied by a man running on all fours dressed up as a bear, whom he\nsets at the smith-gnome. The latter runs away without unbending the\nknees of his trico-covered legs. This actor with the horn represented\nthe hero, Siegfried. The sounds which were emitted in the orchestra on\nthe entrance of this actor were intended to represent Siegfried\u2019s\ncharacter and are called Siegfried\u2019s _leit-motiv_. And these sounds are\nrepeated each time Siegfried appears. There is one fixed combination of\nsounds, or _leit-motiv_, for each character, and this _leit-motiv_ is\nrepeated every time the person whom it represents appears; and when\nanyone is mentioned the _motiv_ is heard which relates to that person.\nMoreover, each article also has its own _leit-motiv_ or chord. There is\na _motiv_ of the ring, a _motiv_ of the helmet, a _motiv_ of the apple,\na _motiv_ of fire, spear, sword, water, etc.; and as soon as the ring,\nhelmet, or apple is mentioned, the _motiv_ or chord of the ring, helmet,\nor apple is heard. The actor with the horn opens his mouth as\nunnaturally as the gnome, and long continues in a chanting voice to\nshout some words, and in a similar chant Mime (that is the gnome\u2019s name)\nanswers something or other to him. The meaning of this conversation can\nonly be discovered from the libretto; and it is that Siegfried was\nbrought up by the gnome, and therefore, for some reason, hates him and\nalways wishes to kill him. The gnome has forged a sword for Siegfried,\nbut Siegfried is dissatisfied with it. From a ten-page conversation (by\nthe libretto), lasting half an hour and conducted with the same strange\nopenings of the mouth and chantings, it appears that Siegfried\u2019s mother\ngave birth to him in the wood, and that concerning his father all that\nis known is that he had a sword which was broken, the pieces of which\nare in Mime\u2019s possession, and that Siegfried does not know fear and\nwishes to go out of the wood. Mime, however, does not want to let him\ngo. During the conversation the music never omits, at the mention of\nfather, sword, etc., to sound the _motive_ of these people and things.\nAfter these conversations fresh sounds are heard\u2014those of the god\nWotan\u2014and a wanderer appears. This wanderer is the god Wotan. Also\ndressed up in a wig, and also in tights, this god Wotan, standing in a\nstupid pose with a spear, thinks proper to recount what Mime must have\nknown before, but what it is necessary to tell the audience. He does not\ntell it simply, but in the form of riddles which he orders himself to\nguess, staking his head (one does not know why) that he will guess\nright. Moreover, whenever the wanderer strikes his spear on the ground,\nfire comes out of the ground, and in the orchestra the sounds of spear\nand of fire are heard. The orchestra accompanies the conversation, and\nthe _motive_ of the people and things spoken of are always artfully\nintermingled. Besides this the music expresses feelings in the most\nna\u00efve manner: the terrible by sounds in the bass, the frivolous by rapid\ntouches in the treble, etc.\n\nThe riddles have no meaning except to tell the audience what the\n_nibelungs_ are, what the giants are, what the gods are, and what has\nhappened before. This conversation also is chanted with strangely opened\nmouths and continues for eight libretto pages, and correspondingly long\non the stage. After this the wanderer departs, and Siegfried returns and\ntalks with Mime for thirteen pages more. There is not a single melody\nthe whole of this time, but merely intertwinings of the _leit-motive_ of\nthe people and things mentioned. The conversation tells that Mime wishes\nto teach Siegfried fear, and that Siegfried does not know what fear is.\nHaving finished this conversation, Siegfried seizes one of the pieces of\nwhat is meant to represent the broken sword, saws it up, puts it on what\nis meant to represent the forge, melts it, and then forges it and sings:\nHeiho! heiho! heiho! Ho! ho! Aha! oho! aha! Heiaho! heiaho! heiaho! Ho!\nho! Hahei! hoho! hahei! and Act I. finishes.\n\nAs far as the question I had come to the theatre to decide was\nconcerned, my mind was fully made up, as surely as on the question of\nthe merits of my lady acquaintance\u2019s novel when she read me the scene\nbetween the loose-haired maiden in the white dress and the hero with two\nwhite dogs and a hat with a feather _\u00e0 la Guillaume Tell_.\n\nFrom an author who could compose such spurious scenes, outraging all\n\u00e6sthetic feeling, as those which I had witnessed, there was nothing to\nbe hoped; it may safely be decided that all that such an author can\nwrite will be bad, because he evidently does not know what a true work\nof art is. I wished to leave, but the friends I was with asked me to\nremain, declaring that one could not form an opinion by that one act,\nand that the second would be better. So I stopped for the second act.\n\nAct II., night. Afterwards dawn. In general the whole piece is crammed\nwith lights, clouds, moonlight, darkness, magic fires, thunder, etc.\n\nThe scene represents a wood, and in the wood there is a cave. At the\nentrance of the cave sits a third actor in tights, representing another\ngnome. It dawns. Enter the god Wotan, again with a spear, and again in\nthe guise of a wanderer. Again his sounds, together with fresh sounds of\nthe deepest bass that can be produced. These latter indicate that the\ndragon is speaking. Wotan awakens the dragon. The same bass sounds are\nrepeated, growing yet deeper and deeper. First the dragon says, \u201cI want\nto sleep,\u201d but afterwards he crawls out of the cave. The dragon is\nrepresented by two men; it is dressed in a green, scaly skin, waves a\ntail at one end, while at the other it opens a kind of crocodile\u2019s jaw\nthat is fastened on, and from which flames appear. The dragon (who is\nmeant to be dreadful, and may appear so to five-year-old children)\nspeaks some words in a terribly bass voice. This is all so stupid, so\nlike what is done in a booth at a fair, that it is surprising that\npeople over seven years of age can witness it seriously; yet thousands\nof quasi-cultured people sit and attentively hear and see it, and are\ndelighted.\n\nSiegfried, with his horn, reappears, as does Mime also. In the orchestra\nthe sounds denoting them are emitted, and they talk about whether\nSiegfried does or does not know what fear is. Mime goes away, and a\nscene commences which is intended to be most poetical. Siegfried, in his\ntights, lies down in a would-be beautiful pose, and alternately keeps\nsilent and talks to himself. He ponders, listens to the song of birds,\nand wishes to imitate them. For this purpose he cuts a reed with his\nsword and makes a pipe. The dawn grows brighter and brighter; the birds\nsing. Siegfried tries to imitate the birds. In the orchestra is heard\nthe imitation of birds, alternating with sounds corresponding to the\nwords he speaks. But Siegfried does not succeed with his pipe-playing,\nso he plays on his horn instead. This scene is unendurable. Of music,\n_i.e._ of art serving as a means to transmit a state of mind experienced\nby the author, there is not even a suggestion. There is something that\nis absolutely unintelligible musically. In a musical sense a hope is\ncontinually experienced, followed by disappointment, as if a musical\nthought were commenced only to be broken off. If there are something\nlike musical commencements, these commencements are so short, so\nencumbered with complications of harmony and orchestration and with\neffects of contrast, are so obscure and unfinished, and what is\nhappening on the stage meanwhile is so abominably false, that it is\ndifficult even to perceive these musical snatches, let alone to be\ninfected by them. Above all, from the very beginning to the very end,\nand in each note, the author\u2019s purpose is so audible and visible, that\none sees and hears neither Siegfried nor the birds, but only a limited,\nself-opinionated German of bad taste and bad style, who has a most false\nconception of poetry, and who, in the rudest and most primitive manner,\nwishes to transmit to me these false and mistaken conceptions of his.\n\nEveryone knows the feeling of distrust and resistance which is always\nevoked by an author\u2019s evident predetermination. A narrator need only say\nin advance, Prepare to cry or to laugh, and you are sure neither to cry\nnor to laugh. But when you see that an author prescribes emotion at what\nis not touching but only laughable or disgusting, and when you see,\nmoreover, that the author is fully assured that he has captivated you, a\npainfully tormenting feeling results, similar to what one would feel if\nan old, deformed woman put on a ball-dress and smilingly coquetted\nbefore you, confident of your approbation. This impression was\nstrengthened by the fact that around me I saw a crowd of three thousand\npeople, who not only patiently witnessed all this absurd nonsense, but\neven considered it their duty to be delighted with it.\n\nI somehow managed to sit out the next scene also, in which the monster\nappears, to the accompaniment of his bass notes intermingled with the\n_motiv_ of Siegfried; but after the fight with the monster, and all the\nroars, fires, and sword-wavings, I could stand no more of it, and\nescaped from the theatre with a feeling of repulsion which, even now, I\ncannot forget.\n\nListening to this opera, I involuntarily thought of a respected, wise,\neducated country labourer,\u2014one, for instance, of those wise and truly\nreligious men whom I know among the peasants,\u2014and I pictured to myself\nthe terrible perplexity such a man would be in were he to witness what I\nwas seeing that evening.\n\nWhat would he think if he knew of all the labour spent on such a\nperformance, and saw that audience, those great ones of the earth,\u2014old,\nbald-headed, grey-bearded men, whom he had been accustomed to\nrespect,\u2014sit silent and attentive, listening to and looking at all these\nstupidities for five hours on end? Not to speak of an adult labourer,\none can hardly imagine even a child of over seven occupying himself with\nsuch a stupid, incoherent fairy tale.\n\nAnd yet an enormous audience, the cream of the cultured upper classes,\nsits out five hours of this insane performance, and goes away imagining\nthat by paying tribute to this nonsense it has acquired a fresh right to\nesteem itself advanced and enlightened.\n\nI speak of the Moscow public. But what is the Moscow public? It is but a\nhundredth part of that public which, while considering itself most\nhighly enlightened, esteems it a merit to have so lost the capacity of\nbeing infected by art, that not only can it witness this stupid sham\nwithout being revolted, but can even take delight in it.\n\nIn Bayreuth, where these performances were first given, people who\nconsider themselves finely cultured assembled from the ends of the\nearth, spent, say \u00a3100 each, to see this performance, and for four days\nrunning they went to see and hear this nonsensical rubbish, sitting it\nout for six hours each day.\n\nBut why did people go, and why do they still go to these performances,\nand why do they admire them? The question naturally presents itself: How\nis the success of Wagner\u2019s works to be explained?\n\nThat success I explain to myself in this way: thanks to his exceptional\nposition in having at his disposal the resources of a king, Wagner was\nable to command all the methods for counterfeiting art which have been\ndeveloped by long usage, and, employing these methods with great\nability, he produced a model work of counterfeit art. The reason why I\nhave selected his work for my illustration is, that in no other\ncounterfeit of art known to me are all the methods by which art is\ncounterfeited\u2014namely, borrowings, imitation, effects, and\ninterestingness\u2014so ably and powerfully united.\n\nFrom the subject, borrowed from antiquity, to the clouds and the risings\nof the sun and moon, Wagner, in this work, has made use of all that is\nconsidered poetical. We have here the sleeping beauty, and nymphs, and\nsubterranean fires, and gnomes, and battles, and swords, and love, and\nincest, and a monster, and singing-birds: the whole arsenal of the\npoetical is brought into action.\n\nMoreover, everything is imitative: the decorations are imitated and the\ncostumes are imitated. All is just as, according to the data supplied by\narch\u00e6ology, they would have been in antiquity. The very sounds are\nimitative, for Wagner, who was not destitute of musical talent, invented\njust such sounds as imitate the strokes of a hammer, the hissing of\nmolten iron, the singing of birds, etc.\n\nFurthermore, in this work everything is in the highest degree striking\nin its effects and in its peculiarities: its monsters, its magic fires,\nand its scenes under water; the darkness in which the audience sit, the\ninvisibility of the orchestra, and the hitherto unemployed combinations\nof harmony.\n\nAnd besides, it is all interesting. The interest lies not only in the\nquestion who will kill whom, and who will marry whom, and who is whose\nson, and what will happen next?\u2014the interest lies also in the relation\nof the music to the text. The rolling waves of the Rhine\u2014now how is that\nto be expressed in music? An evil gnome appears\u2014how is the music to\nexpress an evil gnome?\u2014and how is it to express the sensuality of this\ngnome? How will bravery, fire, or apples be expressed in music? How are\nthe _leit-motive_ of the people speaking to be interwoven with the\n_leit-motive_ of the people and objects about whom they speak? Besides,\nthe music has a further interest. It diverges from all formerly accepted\nlaws, and most unexpected and totally new modulations crop up (as is not\nonly possible but even easy in music having no inner law of its being);\nthe dissonances are new, and are allowed in a new way\u2014and this, too, is\ninteresting.\n\nAnd it is this poeticality, imitativeness, effectfulness, and\ninterestingness which, thanks to the peculiarities of Wagner\u2019s talent\nand to the advantageous position in which he was placed, are in these\nproductions carried to the highest pitch of perfection, that so act on\nthe spectator, hypnotising him as one would be hypnotised who should\nlisten for several consecutive hours to the ravings of a maniac\npronounced with great oratorical power.\n\nPeople say, \u201cYou cannot judge without having seen Wagner performed at\nBayreuth: in the dark, where the orchestra is out of sight concealed\nunder the stage, and where the performance is brought to the highest\nperfection.\u201d And this just proves that we have here no question of art,\nbut one of hypnotism. It is just what the spiritualists say. To convince\nyou of the reality of their apparitions, they usually say, \u201cYou cannot\njudge; you must try it, be present at several s\u00e9ances,\u201d _i.e._ come and\nsit silent in the dark for hours together in the same room with\nsemi-sane people, and repeat this some ten times over, and you shall see\nall that we see.\n\nYes, naturally! Only place yourself in such conditions, and you may see\nwhat you will. But this can be still more quickly attained by getting\ndrunk or smoking opium. It is the same when listening to an opera of\nWagner\u2019s. Sit in the dark for four days in company with people who are\nnot quite normal, and, through the auditory nerves, subject your brain\nto the strongest action of the sounds best adapted to excite it, and you\nwill no doubt be reduced to an abnormal condition and be enchanted by\nabsurdities. But to attain this end you do not even need four days; the\nfive hours during which one \u201cday\u201d is enacted, as in Moscow, are quite\nenough. Nor are five hours needed; even one hour is enough for people\nwho have no clear conception of what art should be, and who have come to\nthe conclusion in advance that what they are going to see is excellent,\nand that indifference or dissatisfaction with this work will serve as a\nproof of their inferiority and lack of culture.\n\nI observed the audience present at this representation. The people who\nled the whole audience and gave the tone to it were those who had\npreviously been hypnotised, and who again succumbed to the hypnotic\ninfluence to which they were accustomed. These hypnotised people, being\nin an abnormal condition, were perfectly enraptured. Moreover, all the\nart critics, who lack the capacity to be infected by art and therefore\nalways especially prize works like Wagner\u2019s opera where it is all an\naffair of the intellect, also, with much profundity, expressed their\napproval of a work affording such ample material for ratiocination. And\nfollowing these two groups went that large city crowd (indifferent to\nart, with their capacity to be infected by it perverted and partly\natrophied), headed by the princes, millionaires, and art patrons, who,\nlike sorry harriers, keep close to those who most loudly and decidedly\nexpress their opinion.\n\n\u201cOh yes, certainly! What poetry! Marvellous! Especially the birds!\u201d\n\u201cYes, yes! I am quite vanquished!\u201d exclaim these people, repeating in\nvarious tones what they have just heard from men whose opinion appears\nto them authoritative.\n\nIf some people do feel insulted by the absurdity and spuriousness of the\nwhole thing, they are timidly silent, as sober men are timid and silent\nwhen surrounded by tipsy ones.\n\nAnd thus, thanks to the masterly skill with which it counterfeits art\nwhile having nothing in common with it, a meaningless, coarse, spurious\nproduction finds acceptance all over the world, costs millions of\nroubles to produce, and assists more and more to pervert the taste of\npeople of the upper classes and their conception of what is art.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV\n\n\nI know that most men\u2014not only those considered clever, but even those\nwho are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult\nscientific, mathematical or philosophic problems\u2014can very seldom discern\neven the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them\nto admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much\ndifficulty\u2014conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught\nto others, and on which they have built their lives. And therefore I\nhave little hope that what I adduce as to the perversion of art and\ntaste in our society will be accepted or even seriously considered.\nNevertheless, I must state fully the inevitable conclusion to which my\ninvestigation into the question of art has brought me. This\ninvestigation has brought me to the conviction that almost all that our\nsociety considers to be art, good art, and the whole of art, far from\nbeing real and good art, and the whole of art, is not even art at all,\nbut only a counterfeit of it. This position, I know, will seem very\nstrange and paradoxical; but if we once acknowledge art to be a human\nactivity by means of which some people transmit their feelings to others\n(and not a service of Beauty, nor a manifestation of the Idea, and so\nforth), we shall inevitably have to admit this further conclusion also.\nIf it is true that art is an activity by means of which one man having\nexperienced a feeling intentionally transmits it to others, then we have\ninevitably to admit further, that of all that among us is termed the art\nof the upper classes\u2014of all those novels, stories, dramas, comedies,\npictures, sculptures, symphonies, operas, operettas, ballets, etc.,\nwhich profess to be works of art\u2014scarcely one in a hundred thousand\nproceeds from an emotion felt by its author, all the rest being but\nmanufactured counterfeits of art in which borrowing, imitating, effects,\nand interestingness replace the contagion of feeling. That the\nproportion of real productions of art is to the counterfeits as one to\nsome hundreds of thousands or even more, may be seen by the following\ncalculation. I have read somewhere that the artist painters in Paris\nalone number 30,000; there will probably be as many in England, as many\nin Germany, and as many in Russia, Italy, and the smaller states\ncombined. So that in all there will be in Europe, say, 120,000 painters;\nand there are probably as many musicians and as many literary artists.\nIf these 360,000 individuals produce three works a year each (and many\nof them produce ten or more), then each year yields over a million\nso-called works of art. How many, then, must have been produced in the\nlast ten years, and how many in the whole time since upper-class art\nbroke off from the art of the whole people? Evidently millions. Yet who\nof all the connoisseurs of art has received impressions from all these\npseudo works of art? Not to mention all the labouring classes who have\nno conception of these productions, even people of the upper classes\ncannot know one in a thousand of them all, and cannot remember those\nthey have known. These works all appear under the guise of art, produce\nno impression on anyone (except when they serve as pastimes for the idle\ncrowd of rich people), and vanish utterly.\n\nIn reply to this it is usually said that without this enormous number of\nunsuccessful attempts we should not have the real works of art. But such\nreasoning is as though a baker, in reply to a reproach that his bread\nwas bad, were to say that if it were not for the hundreds of spoiled\nloaves there would not be any well-baked ones. It is true that where\nthere is gold there is also much sand; but that can not serve as a\nreason for talking a lot of nonsense in order to say something wise.\n\nWe are surrounded by productions considered artistic. Thousands of\nverses, thousands of poems, thousands of novels, thousands of dramas,\nthousands of pictures, thousands of musical pieces, follow one after\nanother. All the verses describe love, or nature, or the author\u2019s state\nof mind, and in all of them rhyme and rhythm are observed. All the\ndramas and comedies are splendidly mounted and are performed by\nadmirably trained actors. All the novels are divided into chapters; all\nof them describe love, contain effective situations, and correctly\ndescribe the details of life. All the symphonies contain _allegro_,\n_andante_, _scherzo_, and _finale_; all consist of modulations and\nchords, and are played by highly-trained musicians. All the pictures, in\ngold frames, saliently depict faces and sundry accessories. But among\nthese productions in the various branches of art there is in each branch\none among hundreds of thousands, not only somewhat better than the rest,\nbut differing from them as a diamond differs from paste. The one is\npriceless, the others not only have no value but are worse than\nvalueless, for they deceive and pervert taste. And yet, externally, they\nare, to a man of perverted or atrophied artistic perception, precisely\nalike.\n\nIn our society the difficulty of recognising real works of art is\nfurther increased by the fact that the external quality of the work in\nfalse productions is not only no worse, but often better, than in real\nones; the counterfeit is often more effective than the real, and its\nsubject more interesting. How is one to discriminate? How is one to find\na production in no way distinguished in externals from hundreds of\nthousands of others intentionally made to imitate it precisely?\n\nFor a country peasant of unperverted taste this is as easy as it is for\nan animal of unspoilt scent to follow the trace he needs among a\nthousand others in wood or forest. The animal unerringly finds what he\nneeds. So also the man, if only his natural qualities have not been\nperverted, will, without fail, select from among thousands of objects\nthe real work of art he requires\u2014that infecting him with the feeling\nexperienced by the artist. But it is not so with those whose taste has\nbeen perverted by their education and life. The receptive feeling for\nart of these people is atrophied, and in valuing artistic productions\nthey must be guided by discussion and study, which discussion and study\ncompletely confuse them. So that most people in our society are quite\nunable to distinguish a work of art from the grossest counterfeit.\nPeople sit for whole hours in concert-rooms and theatres listening to\nthe new composers, consider it a duty to read the novels of the famous\nmodern novelists and to look at pictures representing either something\nincomprehensible or just the very things they see much better in real\nlife; and, above all, they consider it incumbent on them to be\nenraptured by all this, imagining it all to be art, while at the same\ntime they will pass real works of art by, not only without attention,\nbut even with contempt, merely because, in their circle, these works are\nnot included in the list of works of art.\n\nA few days ago I was returning home from a walk feeling depressed, as\noccurs sometimes. On nearing the house I heard the loud singing of a\nlarge choir of peasant women. They were welcoming my daughter,\ncelebrating her return home after her marriage. In this singing, with\nits cries and clanging of scythes, such a definite feeling of joy,\ncheerfulness, and energy was expressed, that, without noticing how it\ninfected me, I continued my way towards the house in a better mood, and\nreached home smiling and quite in good spirits. That same evening, a\nvisitor, an admirable musician, famed for his execution of classical\nmusic, and particularly of Beethoven, played us Beethoven\u2019s sonata, Opus\n101. For the benefit of those who might otherwise attribute my judgment\nof that sonata of Beethoven to non-comprehension of it, I should mention\nthat whatever other people understand of that sonata and of other\nproductions of Beethoven\u2019s later period, I, being very susceptible to\nmusic, equally understood. For a long time I used to atune myself so as\nto delight in those shapeless improvisations which form the\nsubject-matter of the works of Beethoven\u2019s later period, but I had only\nto consider the question of art seriously, and to compare the impression\nI received from Beethoven\u2019s later works with those pleasant, clear, and\nstrong musical impressions which are transmitted, for instance, by the\nmelodies of Bach (his arias), Haydn, Mozart, Chopin (when his melodies\nare not overloaded with complications and ornamention), and of Beethoven\nhimself in his earlier period, and above all, with the impressions\nproduced by folk-songs,\u2014Italian, Norwegian, or Russian,\u2014by the Hungarian\n_tzardas_, and other such simple, clear, and powerful music, and the\nobscure, almost unhealthy excitement from Beethoven\u2019s later pieces that\nI had artificially evoked in myself was immediately destroyed.\n\nOn the completion of the performance (though it was noticeable that\neveryone had become dull) those present, in the accepted manner, warmly\npraised Beethoven\u2019s profound production, and did not forget to add that\nformerly they had not been able to understand that last period of his,\nbut that they now saw that he was really then at his very best. And when\nI ventured to compare the impression made on me by the singing of the\npeasant women\u2014an impression which had been shared by all who heard\nit\u2014with the effect of this sonata, the admirers of Beethoven only smiled\ncontemptuously, not considering it necessary to reply to such strange\nremarks.\n\nBut, for all that, the song of the peasant women was real art,\ntransmitting a definite and strong feeling; while the 101st sonata of\nBeethoven was only an unsuccessful attempt at art, containing no\ndefinite feeling and therefore not infectious.\n\nFor my work on art I have this winter read diligently, though with great\neffort, the celebrated novels and stories, praised by all Europe,\nwritten by Zola, Bourget, Huysmans, and Kipling. At the same time I\nchanced on a story in a child\u2019s magazine, and by a quite unknown writer,\nwhich told of the Easter preparations in a poor widow\u2019s family. The\nstory tells how the mother managed with difficulty to obtain some\nwheat-flour, which she poured on the table ready to knead. She then went\nout to procure some yeast, telling the children not to leave the hut,\nand to take care of the flour. When the mother had gone, some other\nchildren ran shouting near the window, calling those in the hut to come\nto play. The children forgot their mother\u2019s warning, ran into the\nstreet, and were soon engrossed in the game. The mother, on her return\nwith the yeast, finds a hen on the table throwing the last of the flour\nto her chickens, who were busily picking it out of the dust of the\nearthen floor. The mother, in despair, scolds the children, who cry\nbitterly. And the mother begins to feel pity for them\u2014but the white\nflour has all gone. So to mend matters she decides to make the Easter\ncake with sifted rye-flour, brushing it over with white of egg and\nsurrounding it with eggs. \u201cRye-bread which we bake is akin to any cake,\u201d\nsays the mother, using a rhyming proverb to console the children for not\nhaving an Easter cake made with white flour. And the children, quickly\npassing from despair to rapture, repeat the proverb and await the Easter\ncake more merrily even than before.\n\nWell! the reading of the novels and stories by Zola, Bourget, Huysmans,\nKipling, and others, handling the most harrowing subjects, did not touch\nme for one moment, and I was provoked with the authors all the while, as\none is provoked with a man who considers you so na\u00efve that he does not\neven conceal the trick by which he intends to take you in. From the\nfirst lines you see the intention with which the book is written, and\nthe details all become superfluous, and one feels dull. Above all, one\nknows that the author had no other feeling all the time than a desire to\nwrite a story or a novel, and so one receives no artistic impression. On\nthe other hand, I could not tear myself away from the unknown author\u2019s\ntale of the children and the chickens, because I was at once infected by\nthe feeling which the author had evidently experienced, re-evoked in\nhimself, and transmitted.\n\nVasnetsoff is one of our Russian painters. He has painted ecclesiastical\npictures in Kieff Cathedral, and everyone praises him as the founder of\nsome new, elevated kind of Christian art. He worked at those pictures\nfor ten years, was paid tens of thousands of roubles for them, and they\nare all simply bad imitations of imitations of imitations, destitute of\nany spark of feeling. And this same Vasnetsoff drew a picture for\nTourgenieff\u2019s story \u201cThe Quail\u201d (in which it is told how, in his son\u2019s\npresence, a father killed a quail and felt pity for it), showing the boy\nasleep with pouting upper lip, and above him, as a dream, the quail. And\nthis picture is a true work of art.\n\nIn the English Academy of 1897 two pictures were exhibited together; one\nof which, by J. C. Dolman, was the temptation of St. Anthony. The Saint\nis on his knees praying. Behind him stands a naked woman and animals of\nsome kind. It is apparent that the naked woman pleased the artist very\nmuch, but that Anthony did not concern him at all; and that, so far from\nthe temptation being terrible to him (the artist) it is highly\nagreeable. And therefore if there be any art in this picture, it is very\nnasty and false. Next in the same book of academy pictures comes a\npicture by Langley, showing a stray beggar boy, who has evidently been\ncalled in by a woman who has taken pity on him. The boy, pitifully\ndrawing his bare feet under the bench, is eating; the woman is looking\non, probably considering whether he will not want some more; and a girl\nof about seven, leaning on her arm, is carefully and seriously looking\non, not taking her eyes from the hungry boy, and evidently understanding\nfor the first time what poverty is, and what inequality among people is,\nand asking herself why she has everything provided for her while this\nboy goes bare-foot and hungry? She feels sorry and yet pleased. And she\nloves both the boy and goodness.... And one feels that the artist loved\nthis girl, and that she too loves. And this picture, by an artist who, I\nthink, is not very widely known, is an admirable and true work of art.\n\nI remember seeing a performance of _Hamlet_ by Rossi. Both the tragedy\nitself and the performer who took the chief part are considered by our\ncritics to represent the climax of supreme dramatic art. And yet, both\nfrom the subject-matter of the drama and from the performance, I\nexperienced all the time that peculiar suffering which is caused by\nfalse imitations of works of art. And I lately read of a theatrical\nperformance among the savage tribe the Voguls. A spectator describes the\nplay. A big Vogul and a little one, both dressed in reindeer skins,\nrepresent a reindeer-doe and its young. A third Vogul, with a bow,\nrepresents a huntsman on snow-shoes, and a fourth imitates with his\nvoice a bird that warns the reindeer of their danger. The play is that\nthe huntsman follows the track that the doe with its young one has\ntravelled. The deer run off the scene and again reappear. (Such\nperformances take place in a small tent-house.) The huntsman gains more\nand more on the pursued. The little deer is tired, and presses against\nits mother. The doe stops to draw breath. The hunter comes up with them\nand draws his bow. But just then the bird sounds its note, warning the\ndeer of their danger. They escape. Again there is a chase, and again the\nhunter gains on them, catches them and lets fly his arrow. The arrow\nstrikes the young deer. Unable to run, the little one presses against\nits mother. The mother licks its wound. The hunter draws another arrow.\nThe audience, as the eye-witness describes them, are paralysed with\nsuspense; deep groans and even weeping is heard among them. And, from\nthe mere description, I felt that this was a true work of art.\n\nWhat I am saying will be considered irrational paradox, at which one can\nonly be amazed; but for all that I must say what I think, namely, that\npeople of our circle, of whom some compose verses, stories, novels,\noperas, symphonies, and sonatas, paint all kinds of pictures and make\nstatues, while others hear and look at these things, and again others\nappraise and criticise it all, discuss, condemn, triumph, and raise\nmonuments to one another generation after generation,\u2014that all these\npeople, with very few exceptions, artists, and public, and critics, have\nnever (except in childhood and earliest youth, before hearing any\ndiscussions on art), experienced that simple feeling familiar to the\nplainest man and even to a child, that sense of infection with another\u2019s\nfeeling,\u2014compelling us to joy in another\u2019s gladness, to sorrow at\nanother\u2019s grief, and to mingle souls with another,\u2014which is the very\nessence of art. And therefore these people not only cannot distinguish\ntrue works of art from counterfeits, but continually mistake for real\nart the worst and most artificial, while they do not even perceive works\nof real art, because the counterfeits are always more ornate, while true\nart is modest.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XV\n\n\nArt, in our society, has been so perverted that not only has bad art\ncome to be considered good, but even the very perception of what art\nreally is has been lost. In order to be able to speak about the art of\nour society, it is, therefore, first of all necessary to distinguish art\nfrom counterfeit art.\n\nThere is one indubitable indication distinguishing real art from its\ncounterfeit, namely, the infectiousness of art. If a man, without\nexercising effort and without altering his standpoint, on reading,\nhearing, or seeing another man\u2019s work, experiences a mental condition\nwhich unites him with that man and with other people who also partake of\nthat work of art, then the object evoking that condition is a work of\nart. And however poetical, realistic, effectful, or interesting a work\nmay be, it is not a work of art if it does not evoke that feeling (quite\ndistinct from all other feelings) of joy, and of spiritual union with\nanother (the author) and with others (those who are also infected by\nit).\n\nIt is true that this indication is an _internal_ one, and that there are\npeople who have forgotten what the action of real art is, who expect\nsomething else from art (in our society the great majority are in this\nstate), and that therefore such people may mistake for this \u00e6sthetic\nfeeling the feeling of divertisement and a certain excitement which they\nreceive from counterfeits of art. But though it is impossible to\nundeceive these people, just as it is impossible to convince a man\nsuffering from \u201cDaltonism\u201d that green is not red, yet, for all that,\nthis indication remains perfectly definite to those whose feeling for\nart is neither perverted nor atrophied, and it clearly distinguishes the\nfeeling produced by art from all other feelings.\n\nThe chief peculiarity of this feeling is that the receiver of a true\nartistic impression is so united to the artist that he feels as if the\nwork were his own and not someone else\u2019s,\u2014as if what it expresses were\njust what he had long been wishing to express. A real work of art\ndestroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between\nhimself and the artist, nor that alone, but also between himself and all\nwhose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality\nfrom its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others,\nlies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art.\n\nIf a man is infected by the author\u2019s condition of soul, if he feels this\nemotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected\nthis is art; but if there be no such infection, if there be not this\nunion with the author and with others who are moved by the same\nwork\u2014then it is not art. And not only is infection a sure sign of art,\nbut the degree of infectiousness is also the sole measure of excellence\nin art.\n\n_The stronger the infection the better is the art, as art_, speaking now\napart from its subject-matter, _i.e._ not considering the quality of the\nfeelings it transmits.\n\nAnd the degree of the infectiousness of art depends on three\nconditions:\u2014\n\n(1) On the greater or lesser individuality of the feeling transmitted;\n(2) on the greater or lesser clearness with which the feeling is\ntransmitted; (3) on the sincerity of the artist, _i.e._ on the greater\nor lesser force with which the artist himself feels the emotion he\ntransmits.\n\nThe more individual the feeling transmitted the more strongly does it\nact on the receiver; the more individual the state of soul into which he\nis transferred the more pleasure does the receiver obtain, and therefore\nthe more readily and strongly does he join in it.\n\nThe clearness of expression assists infection, because the receiver, who\nmingles in consciousness with the author, is the better satisfied the\nmore clearly the feeling is transmitted, which, as it seems to him, he\nhas long known and felt, and for which he has only now found expression.\n\nBut most of all is the degree of infectiousness of art increased by\nthe degree of sincerity in the artist. As soon as the spectator,\nhearer, or reader feels that the artist is infected by his own\nproduction, and writes, sings, or plays for himself and not merely to\nact on others, this mental condition of the artist infects the\nreceiver; and, contrariwise, as soon as the spectator, reader, or\nhearer feels that the author is not writing, singing, or playing for\nhis own satisfaction,\u2014does not himself feel what he wishes to\nexpress,\u2014but is doing it for him, the receiver, a resistance\nimmediately springs up, and the most individual and the newest\nfeelings and the cleverest technique not only fail to produce any\ninfection but actually repel.\n\nI have mentioned three conditions of contagiousness in art, but they may\nall be summed up into one, the last, sincerity, _i.e._ that the artist\nshould be impelled by an inner need to express his feeling. That\ncondition includes the first; for if the artist is sincere he will\nexpress the feeling as he experienced it. And as each man is different\nfrom everyone else, his feeling will be individual for everyone else;\nand the more individual it is,\u2014the more the artist has drawn it from the\ndepths of his nature,\u2014the more sympathetic and sincere will it be. And\nthis same sincerity will impel the artist to find a clear expression of\nthe feeling which he wishes to transmit.\n\nTherefore this third condition\u2014sincerity\u2014is the most important of the\nthree. It is always complied with in peasant art, and this explains why\nsuch art always acts so powerfully; but it is a condition almost\nentirely absent from our upper-class art, which is continually produced\nby artists actuated by personal aims of covetousness or vanity.\n\nSuch are the three conditions which divide art from its counterfeits,\nand which also decide the quality of every work of art apart from its\nsubject-matter.\n\nThe absence of any one of these conditions excludes a work from the\ncategory of art and relegates it to that of art\u2019s counterfeits. If the\nwork does not transmit the artist\u2019s peculiarity of feeling, and is\ntherefore not individual, if it is unintelligibly expressed, or if it\nhas not proceeded from the author\u2019s inner need for expression\u2014it is not\na work of art. If all these conditions are present, even in the smallest\ndegree, then the work, even if a weak one, is yet a work of art.\n\nThe presence in various degrees of these three conditions:\nindividuality, clearness, and sincerity, decides the merit of a work of\nart, as art, apart from subject-matter. All works of art take rank of\nmerit according to the degree in which they fulfil the first, the\nsecond, and the third of these conditions. In one the individuality of\nthe feeling transmitted may predominate; in another, clearness of\nexpression; in a third, sincerity; while a fourth may have sincerity and\nindividuality but be deficient in clearness; a fifth, individuality and\nclearness, but less sincerity; and so forth, in all possible degrees and\ncombinations.\n\nThus is art divided from not art, and thus is the quality of art, as\nart, decided, independently of its subject-matter, _i.e._ apart from\nwhether the feelings it transmits are good or bad.\n\nBut how are we to define good and bad art with reference to its\nsubject-matter?\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI\n\n\nHow in art are we to decide what is good and what is bad in\nsubject-matter?\n\nArt, like speech, is a means of communication, and therefore of\nprogress, _i.e._ of the movement of humanity forward towards perfection.\nSpeech renders accessible to men of the latest generations all the\nknowledge discovered by the experience and reflection, both of preceding\ngenerations and of the best and foremost men of their own times; art\nrenders accessible to men of the latest generations all the feelings\nexperienced by their predecessors, and those also which are being felt\nby their best and foremost contemporaries. And as the evolution of\nknowledge proceeds by truer and more necessary knowledge dislodging and\nreplacing what is mistaken and unnecessary, so the evolution of feeling\nproceeds through art,\u2014feelings less kind and less needful for the\nwell-being of mankind are replaced by others kinder and more needful for\nthat end. That is the purpose of art. And, speaking now of its\nsubject-matter, the more art fulfils that purpose the better the art,\nand the less it fulfils it the worse the art.\n\nAnd the appraisement of feelings (_i.e._ the acknowledgment of these or\nthose feelings as being more or less good, more or less necessary for\nthe well-being of mankind) is made by the religious perception of the\nage.\n\nIn every period of history, and in every human society, there exists an\nunderstanding of the meaning of life which represents the highest level\nto which men of that society have attained,\u2014an understanding defining\nthe highest good at which that society aims. And this understanding is\nthe religious perception of the given time and society. And this\nreligious perception is always clearly expressed by some advanced men,\nand more or less vividly perceived by all the members of the society.\nSuch a religious perception and its corresponding expression exists\nalways in every society. If it appears to us that in our society there\nis no religious perception, this is not because there really is none,\nbut only because we do not want to see it. And we often wish not to see\nit because it exposes the fact that our life is inconsistent with that\nreligious perception.\n\nReligious perception in a society is like the direction of a flowing\nriver. If the river flows at all, it must have a direction. If a society\nlives, there must be a religious perception indicating the direction in\nwhich, more or less consciously, all its members tend.\n\nAnd so there always has been, and there is, a religious perception in\nevery society. And it is by the standard of this religious perception\nthat the feelings transmitted by art have always been estimated. Only on\nthe basis of this religious perception of their age have men always\nchosen from the endlessly varied spheres of art that art which\ntransmitted feelings making religious perception operative in actual\nlife. And such art has always been highly valued and encouraged; while\nart transmitting feelings already outlived, flowing from the antiquated\nreligious perceptions of a former age, has always been condemned and\ndespised. All the rest of art, transmitting those most diverse feelings\nby means of which people commune together, was not condemned, and was\ntolerated, if only it did not transmit feelings contrary to religious\nperception. Thus, for instance, among the Greeks, art transmitting the\nfeeling of beauty, strength, and courage (Hesiod, Homer, Phidias) was\nchosen, approved, and encouraged; while art transmitting feelings of\nrude sensuality, despondency, and effeminacy was condemned and despised.\nAmong the Jews, art transmitting feelings of devotion and submission to\nthe God of the Hebrews and to His will (the epic of Genesis, the\nprophets, the Psalms) was chosen and encouraged, while art transmitting\nfeelings of idolatry (the golden calf) was condemned and despised. All\nthe rest of art\u2014stories, songs, dances, ornamentation of houses, of\nutensils, and of clothes\u2014which was not contrary to religious perception,\nwas neither distinguished nor discussed. Thus, in regard to its\nsubject-matter, has art been appraised always and everywhere, and thus\nit should be appraised, for this attitude towards art proceeds from the\nfundamental characteristics of human nature, and those characteristics\ndo not change.\n\nI know that according to an opinion current in our times, religion is a\nsuperstition, which humanity has outgrown, and that it is therefore\nassumed that no such thing exists as a religious perception common to us\nall by which art, in our time, can be estimated. I know that this is the\nopinion current in the pseudo-cultured circles of to-day. People who do\nnot acknowledge Christianity in its true meaning because it undermines\nall their social privileges, and who, therefore, invent all kinds of\nphilosophic and \u00e6sthetic theories to hide from themselves the\nmeaninglessness and wrongness of their lives, cannot think otherwise.\nThese people intentionally, or sometimes unintentionally, confusing the\nconception of a religious cult with the conception of religious\nperception, think that by denying the cult they get rid of religious\nperception. But even the very attacks on religion, and the attempts to\nestablish a life-conception contrary to the religious perception of our\ntimes, most clearly demonstrate the existence of a religious perception\ncondemning the lives that are not in harmony with it.\n\nIf humanity progresses, _i.e._ moves forward, there must inevitably be a\nguide to the direction of that movement. And religions have always\nfurnished that guide. All history shows that the progress of humanity is\naccomplished not otherwise than under the guidance of religion. But if\nthe race cannot progress without the guidance of religion,\u2014and progress\nis always going on, and consequently also in our own times,\u2014then there\nmust be a religion of our times. So that, whether it pleases or\ndispleases the so-called cultured people of to-day, they must admit the\nexistence of religion\u2014not of a religious cult, Catholic, Protestant, or\nanother, but of religious perception\u2014which, even in our times, is the\nguide always present where there is any progress. And if a religious\nperception exists amongst us, then our art should be appraised on the\nbasis of that religious perception; and, as has always and everywhere\nbeen the case, art transmitting feelings flowing from the religious\nperception of our time should be chosen from all the indifferent art,\nshould be acknowledged, highly esteemed, and encouraged; while art\nrunning counter to that perception should be condemned and despised, and\nall the remaining indifferent art should neither be distinguished nor\nencouraged.\n\nThe religious perception of our time, in its widest and most practical\napplication, is the consciousness that our well-being, both material and\nspiritual, individual and collective, temporal and eternal, lies in the\ngrowth of brotherhood among all men\u2014in their loving harmony with one\nanother. This perception is not only expressed by Christ and all the\nbest men of past ages, it is not only repeated in the most varied forms\nand from most diverse sides by the best men of our own times, but it\nalready serves as a clue to all the complex labour of humanity,\nconsisting as this labour does, on the one hand, in the destruction of\nphysical and moral obstacles to the union of men, and, on the other\nhand, in establishing the principles common to all men which can and\nshould unite them into one universal brotherhood. And it is on the basis\nof this perception that we should appraise all the phenomena of our\nlife, and, among the rest, our art also; choosing from all its realms\nwhatever transmits feelings flowing from this religious perception,\nhighly prizing and encouraging such art, rejecting whatever is contrary\nto this perception, and not attributing to the rest of art an importance\nnot properly pertaining to it.\n\nThe chief mistake made by people of the upper classes of the time of the\nso-called Renaissance,\u2014a mistake which we still perpetuate,\u2014was not that\nthey ceased to value and to attach importance to religious art (people\nof that period could not attach importance to it, because, like our own\nupper classes, they could not believe in what the majority considered to\nbe religion), but their mistake was that they set up in place of\nreligious art which was lacking, an insignificant art which aimed only\nat giving pleasure, _i.e._ they began to choose, to value, and to\nencourage, in place of religious art, something which, in any case, did\nnot deserve such esteem and encouragement.\n\nOne of the Fathers of the Church said that the great evil is not that\nmen do not know God, but that they have set up, instead of God, that\nwhich is not God. So also with art. The great misfortune of the people\nof the upper classes of our time is not so much that they are without a\nreligious art, as that, instead of a supreme religious art, chosen from\nall the rest as being specially important and valuable, they have chosen\na most insignificant and, usually, harmful art, which aims at pleasing\ncertain people, and which, therefore, if only by its exclusive nature,\nstands in contradiction to that Christian principle of universal union\nwhich forms the religious perception of our time. Instead of religious\nart, an empty and often vicious art is set up, and this hides from men\u2019s\nnotice the need of that true religious art which should be present in\nlife in order to improve it.\n\nIt is true that art which satisfies the demands of the religious\nperception of our time is quite unlike former art, but, notwithstanding\nthis dissimilarity, to a man who does not intentionally hide the truth\nfrom himself, it is very clear and definite what does form the religious\nart of our age. In former times, when the highest religious perception\nunited only some people (who, even if they formed a large society, were\nyet but one society surrounded by others\u2014Jews, or Athenian or Roman\ncitizens), the feelings transmitted by the art of that time flowed from\na desire for the might, greatness, glory, and prosperity of that\nsociety, and the heroes of art might be people who contributed to that\nprosperity by strength, by craft, by fraud, or by cruelty (Ulysses,\nJacob, David, Samson, Hercules, and all the heroes). But the religious\nperception of our times does not select any one society of men; on the\ncontrary, it demands the union of all\u2014absolutely of all people without\nexception\u2014and above every other virtue it sets brotherly love to all\nmen. And, therefore, the feelings transmitted by the art of our time not\nonly cannot coincide with the feelings transmitted by former art, but\nmust run counter to them.\n\nChristian, truly Christian, art has been so long in establishing itself,\nand has not yet established itself, just because the Christian religious\nperception was not one of those small steps by which humanity advances\nregularly; but was an enormous revolution, which, if it has not already\naltered, must inevitably alter the entire life-conception of mankind,\nand, consequently, the whole internal organisation of their life. It is\ntrue that the life of humanity, like that of an individual, moves\nregularly; but in that regular movement come, as it were,\nturning-points, which sharply divide the preceding from the subsequent\nlife. Christianity was such a turning-point; such, at least, it must\nappear to us who live by the Christian perception of life. Christian\nperception gave another, a new direction to all human feelings, and\ntherefore completely altered both the contents and the significance of\nart. The Greeks could make use of Persian art and the Romans could use\nGreek art, or, similarly, the Jews could use Egyptian art,\u2014the\nfundamental ideals were one and the same. Now the ideal was the\ngreatness and prosperity of the Persians, now the greatness and\nprosperity of the Greeks, now that of the Romans. The same art was\ntransferred into other conditions, and served new nations. But the\nChristian ideal changed and reversed everything, so that, as the Gospel\nputs it, \u201cThat which was exalted among men has become an abomination in\nthe sight of God.\u201d The ideal is no longer the greatness of Pharaoh or of\na Roman emperor, not the beauty of a Greek nor the wealth of Ph\u0153nicia,\nbut humility, purity, compassion, love. The hero is no longer Dives, but\nLazarus the beggar; not Mary Magdalene in the day of her beauty, but in\nthe day of her repentance; not those who acquire wealth, but those who\nhave abandoned it; not those who dwell in palaces, but those who dwell\nin catacombs and huts; not those who rule over others, but those who\nacknowledge no authority but God\u2019s. And the greatest work of art is no\nlonger a cathedral of victory[84] with statues of conquerors, but the\nrepresentation of a human soul so transformed by love that a man who is\ntormented and murdered yet pities and loves his persecutors.\n\nAnd the change is so great that men of the Christian world find it\ndifficult to resist the inertia of the heathen art to which they have\nbeen accustomed all their lives. The subject-matter of Christian\nreligious art is so new to them, so unlike the subject-matter of former\nart, that it seems to them as though Christian art were a denial of art,\nand they cling desperately to the old art. But this old art, having no\nlonger, in our day, any source in religious perception, has lost its\nmeaning, and we shall have to abandon it whether we wish to or not.\n\nThe essence of the Christian perception consists in the recognition by\nevery man of his sonship to God, and of the consequent union of men with\nGod and with one another, as is said in the Gospel (John xvii. 21[85]).\nTherefore the subject-matter of Christian art is such feeling as can\nunite men with God and with one another.\n\nThe expression _unite men with God and with one another_ may seem\nobscure to people accustomed to the misuse of these words which is so\ncustomary, but the words have a perfectly clear meaning nevertheless.\nThey indicate that the Christian union of man (in contradiction to the\npartial, exclusive union of only some men) is that which unites all\nwithout exception.\n\nArt, all art, has this characteristic, that it unites people. Every art\ncauses those to whom the artist\u2019s feeling is transmitted to unite in\nsoul with the artist, and also with all who receive the same impression.\nBut non-Christian art, while uniting some people together, makes that\nvery union a cause of separation between these united people and others;\nso that union of this kind is often a source, not only of division, but\neven of enmity towards others. Such is all patriotic art, with its\nanthems, poems, and monuments; such is all Church art, _i.e._ the art of\ncertain cults, with their images, statues, processions, and other local\nceremonies. Such art is belated and non-Christian art, uniting the\npeople of one cult only to separate them yet more sharply from the\nmembers of other cults, and even to place them in relations of hostility\nto each other. Christian art is only such as tends to unite all without\nexception, either by evoking in them the perception that each man and\nall men stand in like relation towards God and towards their neighbour,\nor by evoking in them identical feelings, which may even be the very\nsimplest provided only that they are not repugnant to Christianity and\nare natural to everyone without exception.\n\nGood Christian art of our time may be unintelligible to people because\nof imperfections in its form, or because men are inattentive to it, but\nit must be such that all men can experience the feelings it transmits.\nIt must be the art, not of some one group of people, nor of one class,\nnor of one nationality, nor of one religious cult; that is, it must not\ntransmit feelings which are accessible only to a man educated in a\ncertain way, or only to an aristocrat, or a merchant, or only to a\nRussian, or a native of Japan, or a Roman Catholic, or a Buddhist, etc.,\nbut it must transmit feelings accessible to everyone. Only art of this\nkind can be acknowledged in our time to be good art, worthy of being\nchosen out from all the rest of art and encouraged.\n\nChristian art, _i.e._ the art of our time, should be catholic in the\noriginal meaning of the word, _i.e._ universal, and therefore it should\nunite all men. And only two kinds of feeling do unite all men: first,\nfeelings flowing from the perception of our sonship to God and of the\nbrotherhood of man; and next, the simple feelings of common life,\naccessible to everyone without exception\u2014such as the feeling of\nmerriment, of pity, of cheerfulness, of tranquillity, etc. Only these\ntwo kinds of feelings can now supply material for art good in its\nsubject-matter.\n\nAnd the action of these two kinds of art, apparently so dissimilar, is\none and the same. The feelings flowing from perception of our sonship to\nGod and of the brotherhood of man\u2014such as a feeling of sureness in\ntruth, devotion to the will of God, self-sacrifice, respect for and love\nof man\u2014evoked by Christian religious perception; and the simplest\nfeelings\u2014such as a softened or a merry mood caused by a song or an\namusing jest intelligible to everyone, or by a touching story, or a\ndrawing, or a little doll: both alike produce one and the same\neffect\u2014the loving union of man with man. Sometimes people who are\ntogether are, if not hostile to one another, at least estranged in mood\nand feeling, till perchance a story, a performance, a picture, or even a\nbuilding, but oftenest of all music, unites them all as by an electric\nflash, and, in place of their former isolation or even enmity, they are\nall conscious of union and mutual love. Each is glad that another feels\nwhat he feels; glad of the communion established, not only between him\nand all present, but also with all now living who will yet share the\nsame impression; and more than that, he feels the mysterious gladness of\na communion which, reaching beyond the grave, unites us with all men of\nthe past who have been moved by the same feelings, and with all men of\nthe future who will yet be touched by them. And this effect is produced\nboth by the religious art which transmits feelings of love to God and\none\u2019s neighbour, and by universal art transmitting the very simplest\nfeelings common to all men.\n\nThe art of our time should be appraised differently from former art\nchiefly in this, that the art of our time, _i.e._ Christian art (basing\nitself on a religious perception which demands the union of man),\nexcludes from the domain of art good in subject-matter everything\ntransmitting exclusive feelings, which do not unite but divide men. It\nrelegates such work to the category of art bad in its subject-matter,\nwhile, on the other hand, it includes in the category of art good in\nsubject-matter a section not formerly admitted to deserve to be chosen\nout and respected, namely, universal art transmitting even the most\ntrifling and simple feelings if only they are accessible to all men\nwithout exception, and therefore unite them. Such art cannot, in our\ntime, but be esteemed good, for it attains the end which the religious\nperception of our time, _i.e._ Christianity, sets before humanity.\n\nChristian art either evokes in men those feelings which, through love of\nGod and of one\u2019s neighbour, draw them to greater and ever greater union,\nand make them ready for and capable of such union; or evokes in them\nthose feelings which show them that they are already united in the joys\nand sorrows of life. And therefore the Christian art of our time can be\nand is of two kinds: (1) art transmitting feelings flowing from a\nreligious perception of man\u2019s position in the world in relation to God\nand to his neighbour\u2014religious art in the limited meaning of the term;\nand (2) art transmitting the simplest feelings of common life, but such,\nalways, as are accessible to all men in the whole world\u2014the art of\ncommon life\u2014the art of a people\u2014universal art. Only these two kinds of\nart can be considered good art in our time.\n\nThe first, religious art,\u2014transmitting both positive feelings of love to\nGod and one\u2019s neighbour, and negative feelings of indignation and horror\nat the violation of love,\u2014manifests itself chiefly in the form of words,\nand to some extent also in painting and sculpture: the second kind\n(universal art) transmitting feelings accessible to all, manifests\nitself in words, in painting, in sculpture, in dances, in architecture,\nand, most of all, in music.\n\nIf I were asked to give modern examples of each of these kinds of art,\nthen, as examples of the highest art, flowing from love of God and man\n(both of the higher, positive, and of the lower, negative kind), in\nliterature I should name _The Robbers_ by Schiller: Victor Hugo\u2019s _Les\nPauvres Gens_ and _Les Mis\u00e9rables_: the novels and stories of\nDickens\u2014_The Tale of Two Cities_, _The Christmas Carol_, _The Chimes_,\nand others: _Uncle Tom\u2019s Cabin_: Dostoievsky\u2019s works\u2014especially his\n_Memoirs from the House of Death_: and _Adam Bede_ by George Eliot.\n\nIn modern painting, strange to say, works of this kind, directly\ntransmitting the Christian feeling of love of God and of one\u2019s\nneighbour, are hardly to be found, especially among the works of the\ncelebrated painters. There are plenty of pictures treating of the Gospel\nstories; they, however, depict historical events with great wealth of\ndetail, but do not, and cannot, transmit religious feeling not possessed\nby their painters. There are many pictures treating of the personal\nfeelings of various people, but of pictures representing great deeds of\nself-sacrifice and of Christian love there are very few, and what there\nare are principally by artists who are not celebrated, and are, for the\nmost part, not pictures but merely sketches. Such, for instance, is the\ndrawing by Kramskoy (worth many of his finished pictures), showing a\ndrawing-room with a balcony, past which troops are marching in triumph\non their return from the war. On the balcony stands a wet-nurse holding\na baby and a boy. They are admiring the procession of the troops, but\nthe mother, covering her face with a handkerchief, has fallen back on\nthe sofa, sobbing. Such also is the picture by Walter Langley, to which\nI have already referred, and such again is a picture by the French\nartist Morion, depicting a lifeboat hastening, in a heavy storm, to the\nrelief of a steamer that is being wrecked. Approaching these in kind are\npictures which represent the hard-working peasant with respect and love.\nSuch are the pictures by Millet, and, particularly, his drawing, \u201cThe\nMan with the Hoe,\u201d also pictures in this style by Jules Breton,\nL\u2019Hermitte, Defregger, and others. As examples of pictures evoking\nindignation and horror at the violation of love to God and man, Gay\u2019s\npicture, \u201cJudgment,\u201d may serve, and also Leizen-Mayer\u2019s, \u201cSigning the\nDeath Warrant.\u201d But there are also very few of this kind. Anxiety about\nthe technique and the beauty of the picture for the most part obscures\nthe feeling. For instance, G\u00e9r\u00f4me\u2019s \u201cPollice Verso\u201d expresses, not so\nmuch horror at what is being perpetrated as attraction by the beauty of\nthe spectacle.[86]\n\nTo give examples, from the modern art of our upper classes, of art of\nthe second kind, good universal art or even of the art of a whole\npeople, is yet more difficult, especially in literary art and music. If\nthere are some works which by their inner contents might be assigned to\nthis class (such as _Don Quixote_, Moli\u00e8re\u2019s comedies, _David\nCopperfield_ and _The Pickwick Papers_ by Dickens, Gogol\u2019s and Pushkin\u2019s\ntales, and some things of Maupassant\u2019s), these works are for the most\npart\u2014from the exceptional nature of the feelings they transmit, and the\nsuperfluity of special details of time and locality, and, above all, on\naccount of the poverty of their subject-matter in comparison with\nexamples of universal ancient art (such, for instance, as the story of\nJoseph)\u2014comprehensible only to people of their own circle. That Joseph\u2019s\nbrethren, being jealous of his father\u2019s affection, sell him to the\nmerchants; that Potiphar\u2019s wife wishes to tempt the youth; that having\nattained the highest station, he takes pity on his brothers, including\nBenjamin the favourite,\u2014these and all the rest are feelings accessible\nalike to a Russian peasant, a Chinese, an African, a child, or an old\nman, educated or uneducated; and it is all written with such restraint,\nis so free from any superfluous detail, that the story may be told to\nany circle and will be equally comprehensible and touching to everyone.\nBut not such are the feelings of Don Quixote or of Moli\u00e8re\u2019s heroes\n(though Moli\u00e8re is perhaps the most universal, and therefore the most\nexcellent, artist of modern times), nor of Pickwick and his friends.\nThese feelings are not common to all men but very exceptional, and\ntherefore, to make them infectious, the authors have surrounded them\nwith abundant details of time and place. And this abundance of detail\nmakes the stories difficult of comprehension to all people not living\nwithin reach of the conditions described by the author.\n\nThe author of the novel of Joseph did not need to describe in detail, as\nwould be done nowadays, the bloodstained coat of Joseph, the dwelling\nand dress of Jacob, the pose and attire of Potiphar\u2019s wife, and how,\nadjusting the bracelet on her left arm, she said, \u201cCome to me,\u201d and so\non, because the subject-matter of feelings in this novel is so strong\nthat all details, except the most essential,\u2014such as that Joseph went\nout into another room to weep,\u2014are superfluous, and would only hinder\nthe transmission of feelings. And therefore this novel is accessible to\nall men, touches people of all nations and classes, young and old, and\nhas lasted to our times, and will yet last for thousands of years to\ncome. But strip the best novels of our times of their details, and what\nwill remain?\n\nIt is therefore impossible in modern literature to indicate works fully\nsatisfying the demands of universality. Such works as exist are, to a\ngreat extent, spoilt by what is usually called \u201crealism,\u201d but would be\nbetter termed \u201cprovincialism,\u201d in art.\n\nIn music the same occurs as in verbal art, and for similar reasons. In\nconsequence of the poorness of the feeling they contain, the melodies of\nthe modern composers are amazingly empty and insignificant. And to\nstrengthen the impression produced by these empty melodies, the new\nmusicians pile complex modulations on to each trivial melody, not only\nin their own national manner, but also in the way characteristic of\ntheir own exclusive circle and particular musical school. Melody\u2014every\nmelody\u2014is free, and may be understood of all men; but as soon as it is\nbound up with a particular harmony, it ceases to be accessible except to\npeople trained to such harmony, and it becomes strange, not only to\ncommon men of another nationality, but to all who do not belong to the\ncircle whose members have accustomed themselves to certain forms of\nharmonisation. So that music, like poetry, travels in a vicious circle.\nTrivial and exclusive melodies, in order to make them attractive, are\nladen with harmonic, rhythmic, and orchestral complications, and thus\nbecome yet more exclusive, and far from being universal are not even\nnational, _i.e._ they are not comprehensible to the whole people but\nonly to some people.\n\nIn music, besides marches and dances by various composers, which satisfy\nthe demands of universal art, one can indicate very few works of this\nclass: Bach\u2019s famous violin _aria_, Chopin\u2019s nocturne in E flat major,\nand perhaps a dozen bits (not whole pieces, but parts) selected from the\nworks of Haydn, Mozart, Schubert, Beethoven, and Chopin.[87]\n\nAlthough in painting the same thing is repeated as in poetry and in\nmusic,\u2014namely, that in order to make them more interesting, works weak\nin conception are surrounded by minutely studied accessories of time and\nplace, which give them a temporary and local interest but make them less\nuniversal,\u2014still, in painting, more than in the other spheres of art,\nmay be found works satisfying the demands of universal Christian art;\nthat is to say, there are more works expressing feelings in which all\nmen may participate.\n\nIn the arts of painting and sculpture, all pictures and statues in\nso-called genre style, depictions of animals, landscapes and caricatures\nwith subjects comprehensible to everyone, and also all kinds of\nornaments, are universal in subject-matter. Such productions in painting\nand sculpture are very numerous (_e.g._ china dolls), but for the most\npart such objects (for instance, ornaments of all kinds) are either not\nconsidered to be art or are considered to be art of a low quality. In\nreality all such objects, if only they transmit a true feeling\nexperienced by the artist and comprehensible to everyone (however\ninsignificant it may seem to us to be) are works of real, good,\nChristian art.\n\nI fear it will here be urged against me that having denied that the\nconception of beauty can supply a standard for works of art, I\ncontradict myself by acknowledging ornaments to be works of good art.\nThe reproach is unjust, for the subject-matter of all kinds of\nornamentation consists not in the beauty, but in the feeling (of\nadmiration of, and delight in, the combination of lines and colours)\nwhich the artist has experienced and with which he infects the\nspectator. Art remains what it was and what it must be: nothing but the\ninfection by one man of another, or of others, with the feelings\nexperienced by the infector. Among those feelings is the feeling of\ndelight at what pleases the sight. Objects pleasing the sight may be\nsuch as please a small or a large number of people, or such as please\nall men. And ornaments for the most part are of the latter kind. A\nlandscape representing a very unusual view, or a genre picture of a\nspecial subject, may not please everyone, but ornaments, from Yakutsk\nornaments to Greek ones, are intelligible to everyone and evoke a\nsimilar feeling of admiration in all, and therefore this despised kind\nof art should, in Christian society, be esteemed far above exceptional,\npretentious pictures and sculptures.\n\nSo that there are only two kinds of good Christian art: all the rest of\nart not comprised in these two divisions should be acknowledged to be\nbad art, deserving not to be encouraged but to be driven out, denied and\ndespised, as being art not uniting but dividing people. Such, in\nliterary art, are all novels and poems which transmit Church or\npatriotic feelings, and also exclusive feelings pertaining only to the\nclass of the idle rich; such as aristocratic honour, satiety, spleen,\npessimism, and refined and vicious feelings flowing from sex-love\u2014quite\nincomprehensible to the great majority of mankind.\n\nIn painting we must similarly place in the class of bad art all the\nChurch, patriotic, and exclusive pictures; all the pictures representing\nthe amusements and allurements of a rich and idle life; all the\nso-called symbolic pictures, in which the very meaning of the symbol is\ncomprehensible only to the people of a certain circle; and, above all,\npictures with voluptuous subjects\u2014all that odious female nudity which\nfills all the exhibitions and galleries. And to this class belongs\nalmost all the chamber and opera music of our times,\u2014beginning\nespecially from Beethoven (Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner),\u2014by its\nsubject-matter devoted to the expression of feelings accessible only to\npeople who have developed in themselves an unhealthy, nervous irritation\nevoked by this exclusive, artificial, and complex music.\n\n\u201cWhat! the _Ninth Symphony_ not a good work of art!\u201d I hear exclaimed by\nindignant voices.\n\nAnd I reply: Most certainly it is not. All that I have written I have\nwritten with the sole purpose of finding a clear and reasonable\ncriterion by which to judge the merits of works of art. And this\ncriterion, coinciding with the indications of plain and sane sense,\nindubitably shows me that that symphony by Beethoven is not a good work\nof art. Of course, to people educated in the adoration of certain\nproductions and of their authors, to people whose taste has been\nperverted just by being educated in such adoration, the acknowledgment\nthat such a celebrated work is bad is amazing and strange. But how are\nwe to escape the indications of reason and of common sense?\n\nBeethoven\u2019s _Ninth Symphony_ is considered a great work of art. To\nverify its claim to be such, I must first ask myself whether this work\ntransmits the highest religious feeling? I reply in the negative, for\nmusic in itself cannot transmit those feelings; and therefore I ask\nmyself next, Since this work does not belong to the highest kind of\nreligious art, has it the other characteristic of the good art of our\ntime,\u2014the quality of uniting all men in one common feeling: does it rank\nas Christian universal art? And again I have no option but to reply in\nthe negative; for not only do I not see how the feelings transmitted by\nthis work could unite people not specially trained to submit themselves\nto its complex hypnotism, but I am unable to imagine to myself a crowd\nof normal people who could understand anything of this long, confused,\nand artificial production, except short snatches which are lost in a sea\nof what is incomprehensible. And therefore, whether I like it or not, I\nam compelled to conclude that this work belongs to the rank of bad art.\nIt is curious to note in this connection, that attached to the end of\nthis very symphony is a poem of Schiller\u2019s which (though somewhat\nobscurely) expresses this very thought, namely, that feeling (Schiller\nspeaks only of the feeling of gladness) unites people and evokes love in\nthem. But though this poem is sung at the end of the symphony, the music\ndoes not accord with the thought expressed in the verses; for the music\nis exclusive and does not unite all men, but unites only a few, dividing\nthem off from the rest of mankind.\n\nAnd, just in this same way, in all branches of art, many and many works\nconsidered great by the upper classes of our society will have to be\njudged. By this one sure criterion we shall have to judge the celebrated\n_Divine Comedy_ and _Jerusalem Delivered_, and a great part of\nShakespeare\u2019s and Goethe\u2019s works, and in painting every representation\nof miracles, including Raphael\u2019s \u201cTransfiguration,\u201d etc.\n\nWhatever the work may be and however it may have been extolled, we have\nfirst to ask whether this work is one of real art or a counterfeit.\nHaving acknowledged, on the basis of the indication of its\ninfectiousness even to a small class of people, that a certain\nproduction belongs to the realm of art, it is necessary, on the basis of\nthe indication of its accessibility, to decide the next question, Does\nthis work belong to the category of bad, exclusive art, opposed to\nreligious perception, or to Christian art, uniting people? And having\nacknowledged an article to belong to real Christian art, we must then,\naccording to whether it transmits the feelings flowing from love to God\nand man, or merely the simple feelings uniting all men, assign it a\nplace in the ranks of religious art or in those of universal art.\n\nOnly on the basis of such verification shall we find it possible to\nselect from the whole mass of what, in our society, claims to be art,\nthose works which form real, important, necessary spiritual food, and to\nseparate them from all the harmful and useless art, and from the\ncounterfeits of art which surround us. Only on the basis of such\nverification shall we be able to rid ourselves of the pernicious results\nof harmful art, and to avail ourselves of that beneficent action which\nis the purpose of true and good art, and which is indispensable for the\nspiritual life of man and of humanity.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  There is in Moscow a magnificent \u201cCathedral of our Saviour,\u201d erected\n  to commemorate the defeat of the French in the war of 1812.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  \u201cThat they may be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,\n  that they also may be in us.\u201d\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  In this picture the spectators in the Roman Amphitheatre are turning\n  down their thumbs to show that they wish the vanquished gladiator to\n  be killed.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  While offering as examples of art those that seem to me the best, I\n  attach no special importance to my selection; for, besides being\n  insufficiently informed in all branches of art, I belong to the class\n  of people whose taste has, by false training, been perverted. And\n  therefore my old, inured habits may cause me to err, and I may mistake\n  for absolute merit the impression a work produced on me in my youth.\n  My only purpose in mentioning examples of works of this or that class\n  is to make my meaning clearer, and to show how, with my present views,\n  I understand excellence in art in relation to its subject-matter. I\n  must, moreover, mention that I consign my own artistic productions to\n  the category of bad art, excepting the story _God sees the Truth_,\n  which seeks a place in the first class, and _The Prisoner of the\n  Caucasus_, which belongs to the second.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVII\n\n\nArt is one of two organs of human progress. By words man interchanges\nthoughts, by the forms of art he interchanges feelings, and this with\nall men, not only of the present time, but also of the past and the\nfuture. It is natural to human beings to employ both these organs of\nintercommunication, and therefore the perversion of either of them must\ncause evil results to the society in which it occurs. And these results\nwill be of two kinds: first, the absence, in that society, of the work\nwhich should be performed by the organ; and secondly, the harmful\nactivity of the perverted organ. And just these results have shown\nthemselves in our society. The organ of art has been perverted, and\ntherefore the upper classes of society have, to a great extent, been\ndeprived of the work that it should have performed. The diffusion in our\nsociety of enormous quantities of, on the one hand, those counterfeits\nof art which only serve to amuse and corrupt people, and, on the other\nhand, of works of insignificant, exclusive art, mistaken for the highest\nart, have perverted most men\u2019s capacity to be infected by true works of\nart, and have thus deprived them of the possibility of experiencing the\nhighest feelings to which mankind has attained, and which can only be\ntransmitted from man to man by art.\n\nAll the best that has been done in art by man remains strange to people\nwho lack the capacity to be infected by art, and is replaced either by\nspurious counterfeits of art or by insignificant art, which they mistake\nfor real art. People of our time and of our society are delighted with\nBaudelaires, Verlaines, Mor\u00e9ases, Ibsens, and Maeterlincks in poetry;\nwith Monets, Manets, Puvis de Chavannes, Burne-Joneses, Stucks, and\nB\u00f6cklins in painting; with Wagners, Listzs, Richard Strausses, in music;\nand they are no longer capable of comprehending either the highest or\nthe simplest art.\n\nIn the upper classes, in consequence of this loss of capacity to be\ninfected by works of art, people grow up, are educated, and live,\nlacking the fertilising, improving influence of art, and therefore not\nonly do not advance towards perfection, do not become kinder, but, on\nthe contrary, possessing highly-developed external means of\ncivilisation, they yet tend to become continually more savage, more\ncoarse, and more cruel.\n\nSuch is the result of the absence from our society of the activity of\nthat essential organ\u2014art. But the consequences of the perverted activity\nof that organ are yet more harmful. And they are numerous.\n\nThe first consequence, plain for all to see, is the enormous expenditure\nof the labour of working people on things which are not only useless,\nbut which, for the most part, are harmful; and more than that, the waste\nof priceless human lives on this unnecessary and harmful business. It is\nterrible to consider with what intensity, and amid what privations,\nmillions of people\u2014who lack time and opportunity to attend to what they\nand their families urgently require\u2014labour for 10, 12, or 14 hours on\nend, and even at night, setting the type for pseudo-artistic books which\nspread vice among mankind, or working for theatres, concerts,\nexhibitions, and picture galleries, which, for the most part, also serve\nvice; but it is yet more terrible to reflect that lively, kindly\nchildren, capable of all that is good, are devoted from their early\nyears to such tasks as these: that for 6, 8, or 10 hours a day, and for\n10 or 15 years, some of them should play scales and exercises; others\nshould twist their limbs, walk on their toes, and lift their legs above\ntheir heads; a third set should sing solfeggios; a fourth set, showing\nthemselves off in all manner of ways, should pronounce verses; a fifth\nset should draw from busts or from nude models and paint studies; a\nsixth set should write compositions according to the rules of certain\nperiods; and that in these occupations, unworthy of a human being, which\nare often continued long after full maturity, they should waste their\nphysical and mental strength and lose all perception of the meaning of\nlife. It is often said that it is horrible and pitiful to see little\nacrobats putting their legs over their necks, but it is not less pitiful\nto see children of 10 giving concerts, and it is still worse to see\nschoolboys of 10 who, as a preparation for literary work, have learnt by\nheart the exceptions to the Latin grammar. These people not only grow\nphysically and mentally deformed, but also morally deformed, and become\nincapable of doing anything really needed by man. Occupying in society\nthe r\u00f4le of amusers of the rich, they lose their sense of human dignity,\nand develop in themselves such a passion for public applause that they\nare always a prey to an inflated and unsatisfied vanity which grows in\nthem to diseased dimensions, and they expend their mental strength in\nefforts to obtain satisfaction for this passion. And what is most tragic\nof all is that these people, who for the sake of art are spoilt for\nlife, not only do not render service to this art, but, on the contrary,\ninflict the greatest harm on it. They are taught in academies, schools,\nand conservatoires how to counterfeit art, and by learning this they so\npervert themselves that they quite lose the capacity to produce works of\nreal art, and become purveyors of that counterfeit, or trivial, or\ndepraved art which floods our society. This is the first obvious\nconsequence of the perversion of the organ of art.\n\nThe second consequence is that the productions of amusement-art, which\nare prepared in such terrific quantities by the armies of professional\nartists, enable the rich people of our times to live the lives they do,\nlives not only unnatural but in contradiction to the humane principles\nthese people themselves profess. To live as do the rich, idle people,\nespecially the women, far from nature and from animals, in artificial\nconditions, with muscles atrophied or misdeveloped by gymnastics, and\nwith enfeebled vital energy would be impossible were it not for what is\ncalled art\u2014for this occupation and amusement which hides from them the\nmeaninglessness of their lives, and saves them from the dulness that\noppresses them. Take from all these people the theatres, concerts,\nexhibitions, piano-playing, songs, and novels, with which they now fill\ntheir time in full confidence that occupation with these things is a\nvery refined, \u00e6sthetical, and therefore good occupation; take from the\npatrons of art who buy pictures, assist musicians, and are acquainted\nwith writers, their r\u00f4le of protectors of that important matter art, and\nthey will not be able to continue such a life, but will all be eaten up\nby ennui and spleen, and will become conscious of the meaninglessness\nand wrongness of their present mode of life. Only occupation with what,\namong them, is considered art, renders it possible for them to continue\nto live on, infringing all natural conditions, without perceiving the\nemptiness and cruelty of their lives. And this support afforded to the\nfalse manner of life pursued by the rich is the second consequence, and\na serious one, of the perversion of art.\n\nThe third consequence of the perversion of art is the perplexity\nproduced in the minds of children and of plain folk. Among people not\nperverted by the false theories of our society, among workers and\nchildren, there exists a very definite conception of what people may be\nrespected and praised for. In the minds of peasants and children the\nground for praise or eulogy can only be either physical strength:\nHercules, the heroes and conquerors; or moral, spiritual, strength:\nSakya Muni giving up a beautiful wife and a kingdom to save mankind,\nChrist going to the cross for the truth he professed, and all the\nmartyrs and the saints. Both are understood by peasants and children.\nThey understand that physical strength must be respected, for it compels\nrespect; and the moral strength of goodness an unperverted man cannot\nfail to respect, because all his spiritual being draws him towards it.\nBut these people, children and peasants, suddenly perceive that besides\nthose praised, respected, and rewarded for physical or moral strength,\nthere are others who are praised, extolled, and rewarded much more than\nthe heroes of strength and virtue, merely because they sing well,\ncompose verses, or dance. They see that singers, composers, painters,\nballet-dancers, earn millions of roubles and receive more honour than\nthe saints do: and peasants and children are perplexed.\n\nWhen 50 years had elapsed after Pushkin\u2019s death, and, simultaneously,\nthe cheap edition of his works began to circulate among the people and a\nmonument was erected to him in Moscow, I received more than a dozen\nletters from different peasants asking why Pushkin was raised to such\ndignity? And only the other day a literate[88] man from Saratoff called\non me who had evidently gone out of his mind over this very question. He\nwas on his way to Moscow to expose the clergy for having taken part in\nraising a \u201cmonament\u201d to Mr. Pushkin.\n\nIndeed one need only imagine to oneself what the state of mind of such a\nman of the people must be when he learns, from such rumours and\nnewspapers as reach him, that the clergy, the Government officials, and\nall the best people in Russia are triumphantly unveiling a statue to a\ngreat man, the benefactor, the pride of Russia\u2014Pushkin, of whom till\nthen he had never heard. From all sides he reads or hears about this,\nand he naturally supposes that if such honours are rendered to anyone,\nthen without doubt he must have done something extraordinary\u2014either some\nfeat of strength or of goodness. He tries to learn who Pushkin was, and\nhaving discovered that Pushkin was neither a hero nor a general, but was\na private person and a writer, he comes to the conclusion that Pushkin\nmust have been a holy man and a teacher of goodness, and he hastens to\nread or to hear his life and works. But what must be his perplexity when\nhe learns that Pushkin was a man of more than easy morals, who was\nkilled in a duel, _i.e._ when attempting to murder another man, and that\nall his service consisted in writing verses about love, which were often\nvery indecent.\n\nThat a hero, or Alexander the Great, or Genghis Khan, or Napoleon were\ngreat, he understands, because any one of them could have crushed him\nand a thousand like him; that Buddha, Socrates, and Christ were great he\nalso understands, for he knows and feels that he and all men should be\nsuch as they were; but why a man should be great because he wrote verses\nabout the love of women he cannot make out.\n\nA similar perplexity must trouble the brain of a Breton or Norman\npeasant who hears that a monument, \u201c_une statue_\u201d (as to the Madonna),\nis being erected to Baudelaire, and reads, or is told, what the contents\nof his _Fleurs du Mal_ are; or, more amazing still, to Verlaine, when he\nlearns the story of that man\u2019s wretched, vicious life, and reads his\nverses. And what confusion it must cause in the brains of peasants when\nthey learn that some Patti or Taglioni is paid \u00a310,000 for a season, or\nthat a painter gets as much for a picture, or that authors of novels\ndescribing love-scenes have received even more than that.\n\nAnd it is the same with children. I remember how I passed through this\nstage of amazement and stupefaction, and only reconciled myself to this\nexaltation of artists to the level of heroes and saints by lowering in\nmy own estimation the importance of moral excellence, and by attributing\na false, unnatural meaning to works of art. And a similar confusion must\noccur in the soul of each child and each man of the people when he\nlearns of the strange honours and rewards that are lavished on artists.\nThis is the third consequence of the false relation in which our society\nstands towards art.\n\nThe fourth consequence is that people of the upper classes, more and\nmore frequently encountering the contradictions between beauty and\ngoodness, put the ideal of beauty first, thus freeing themselves from\nthe demands of morality. These people, reversing the r\u00f4les, instead of\nadmitting, as is really the case, that the art they serve is an\nantiquated affair, allege that morality is an antiquated affair, which\ncan have no importance for people situated on that high plane of\ndevelopment on which they opine that they are situated.\n\nThis result of the false relation to art showed itself in our society\nlong ago; but recently, with its prophet Nietzsche and his adherents,\nand with the decadents and certain English \u00e6sthetes who coincide with\nhim, it is being expressed with especial impudence. The decadents, and\n\u00e6sthetes of the type at one time represented by Oscar Wilde, select as a\ntheme for their productions the denial of morality and the laudation of\nvice.\n\nThis art has partly generated, and partly coincides with, a similar\nphilosophic theory. I recently received from America a book entitled\n\u201c_The Survival of the Fittest: Philosophy of Power_, 1896, by Ragnar\nRedbeard, Chicago.\u201d The substance of this book, as it is expressed in\nthe editor\u2019s preface, is that to measure \u201cright\u201d by the false philosophy\nof the Hebrew prophets and \u201cweepful\u201d Messiahs is madness. Right is not\nthe offspring of doctrine but of power. All laws, commandments, or\ndoctrines as to not doing to another what you do not wish done to you,\nhave no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club,\nthe gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to\nobey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the\ndegenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero. Men should not be\nbound by moral rules invented by their foes. The whole world is a\nslippery battlefield. Ideal justice demands that the vanquished should\nbe exploited, emasculated, and scorned. The free and brave may seize the\nworld. And, therefore, there should be eternal war for life, for land,\nfor love, for women, for power, and for gold. (Something similar was\nsaid a few years ago by the celebrated and refined academician, Vog\u00fc\u00e9.)\nThe earth and its treasures is \u201cbooty for the bold.\u201d\n\nThe author has evidently by himself, independently of Nietzsche, come to\nthe same conclusions which are professed by the new artists.\n\nExpressed in the form of a doctrine these positions startle us. In\nreality they are implied in the ideal of art serving beauty. The art of\nour upper classes has educated people in this ideal of the\nover-man,[89]\u2014which is, in reality, the old ideal of Nero, Stenka\nRazin,[90] Genghis Khan, Robert Macaire,[91] or Napoleon, and all their\naccomplices, assistants, and adulators\u2014and it supports this ideal with\nall its might.\n\nIt is this supplanting of the ideal of what is right by the ideal of\nwhat is beautiful, _i.e._ of what is pleasant, that is the fourth\nconsequence, and a terrible one, of the perversion of art in our\nsociety. It is fearful to think of what would befall humanity were such\nart to spread among the masses of the people. And it already begins to\nspread.\n\nFinally, the fifth and chief result is, that the art which flourishes in\nthe upper classes of European society has a directly vitiating\ninfluence, infecting people with the worst feelings and with those most\nharmful to humanity\u2014superstition, patriotism, and, above all,\nsensuality.\n\nLook carefully into the causes of the ignorance of the masses, and you\nmay see that the chief cause does not at all lie in the lack of schools\nand libraries, as we are accustomed to suppose, but in those\nsuperstitions, both ecclesiastical and patriotic, with which the people\nare saturated, and which are unceasingly generated by all the methods of\nart. Church superstitions are supported and produced by the poetry of\nprayers, hymns, painting, by the sculpture of images and of statues, by\nsinging, by organs, by music, by architecture, and even by dramatic art\nin religious ceremonies. Patriotic superstitions are supported and\nproduced by verses and stories, which are supplied even in schools, by\nmusic, by songs, by triumphal processions, by royal meetings, by martial\npictures, and by monuments.\n\nWere it not for this continual activity in all departments of art,\nperpetuating the ecclesiastical and patriotic intoxication and\nembitterment of the people, the masses would long ere this have attained\nto true enlightenment.\n\nBut it is not only in Church matters and patriotic matters that art\ndepraves; it is art in our time that serves as the chief cause of the\nperversion of people in the most important question of social life\u2014in\ntheir sexual relations. We nearly all know by our own experience, and\nthose who are fathers and mothers know in the case of their grown-up\nchildren also, what fearful mental and physical suffering, what useless\nwaste of strength, people suffer merely as a consequence of\ndissoluteness in sexual desire.\n\nSince the world began, since the Trojan war, which sprang from that same\nsexual dissoluteness, down to and including the suicides and murders of\nlovers described in almost every newspaper, a great proportion of the\nsufferings of the human race have come from this source.\n\nAnd what is art doing? All art, real and counterfeit, with very few\nexceptions, is devoted to describing, depicting, and inflaming sexual\nlove in every shape and form. When one remembers all those novels and\ntheir lust-kindling descriptions of love, from the most refined to the\ngrossest, with which the literature of our society overflows; if one\nonly remembers all those pictures and statues representing women\u2019s naked\nbodies, and all sorts of abominations which are reproduced in\nillustrations and advertisements; if one only remembers all the filthy\noperas and operettas, songs and _romances_ with which our world teems,\ninvoluntarily it seems as if existing art had but one definite aim\u2014to\ndisseminate vice as widely as possible.\n\nSuch, though not all, are the most direct consequences of that\nperversion of art which has occurred in our society. So that, what in\nour society is called art not only does not conduce to the progress of\nmankind, but, more than almost anything else, hinders the attainment of\ngoodness in our lives.\n\nAnd therefore the question which involuntarily presents itself to every\nman free from artistic activity and therefore not bound to existing art\nby self-interest, the question asked by me at the beginning of this\nwork: Is it just that to what we call art, to a something belonging to\nbut a small section of society, should be offered up such sacrifices of\nhuman labour, of human lives, and of goodness as are now being offered\nup? receives the natural reply: No; it is unjust, and these things\nshould not be! So also replies sound sense and unperverted moral\nfeeling. Not only should these things not be, not only should no\nsacrifices be offered up to what among us is called art, but, on the\ncontrary, the efforts of those who wish to live rightly should be\ndirected towards the destruction of this art, for it is one of the most\ncruel of the evils that harass our section of humanity. So that, were\nthe question put: Would it be preferable for our Christian world to be\ndeprived of _all_ that is now esteemed to be art, and, together with the\nfalse, to lose _all_ that is good in it? I think that every reasonable\nand moral man would again decide the question as Plato decided it for\nhis _Republic_, and as all the Church Christian and Mahommedan teachers\nof mankind decided it, _i.e._ would say, \u201cRather let there be no art at\nall than continue the depraving art, or simulation of art, which now\nexists.\u201d Happily, no one has to face this question, and no one need\nadopt either solution. All that man can do, and that we\u2014the so-called\neducated people, who are so placed that we have the possibility of\nunderstanding the meaning of the phenomena of our life\u2014can and should\ndo, is to understand the error we are involved in, and not harden our\nhearts in it but seek for a way of escape.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  In Russian it is customary to make a distinction between literate and\n  illiterate people, _i.e._ between those who can and those who cannot\n  read. _Literate_ in this sense does not imply that the man would speak\n  or write correctly.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  The over-man (Uebermensch), in the Nietzschean philosophy, is that\n  superior type of man whom the struggle for existence is to evolve, and\n  who will seek only his own power and pleasure, will know nothing of\n  pity, and will have the right, because he will possess the power, to\n  make ordinary people serve him.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Stenka Razin was by origin a common Cossack. His brother was hung for\n  a breach of military discipline, and to this event Stenka Razin\u2019s\n  hatred of the governing classes has been attributed. He formed a\n  robber band, and subsequently headed a formidable rebellion, declaring\n  himself in favour of freedom for the serfs, religious toleration, and\n  the abolition of taxes. Like the Government he opposed, he relied on\n  force, and, though he used it largely in defence of the poor against\n  the rich, he still held to\n\n                  \u201cThe good old rule, the simple plan,\n                  That they should take who have the power,\n                  And they should keep who can.\u201d\n\n  Like Robin Hood he is favourably treated in popular legends.\u2014Trans.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Robert Macaire is a modern type of adroit and audacious rascality. He\n  was the hero of a popular play produced in Paris in 1834.\u2014Trans.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII\n\n\nThe cause of the lie into which the art of our society has fallen was\nthat people of the upper classes, having ceased to believe in the Church\nteaching (called Christian), did not resolve to accept true Christian\nteaching in its real and fundamental principles of sonship to God and\nbrotherhood to man, but continued to live on without any belief,\nendeavouring to make up for the absence of belief\u2014some by hypocrisy,\npretending still to believe in the nonsense of the Church creeds; others\nby boldly asserting their disbelief; others by refined agnosticism; and\nothers, again, by returning to the Greek worship of beauty, proclaiming\negotism to be right, and elevating it to the rank of a religious\ndoctrine.\n\nThe cause of the malady was the non-acceptance of Christ\u2019s teaching in\nits real, _i.e._ its full, meaning. And the only cure for the illness\nlies in acknowledging that teaching in its full meaning. And such\nacknowledgment in our time is not only possible but inevitable. Already\nto-day a man, standing on the height of the knowledge of our age,\nwhether he be nominally a Catholic or a Protestant, cannot say that he\nreally believes in the dogmas of the Church: in God being a Trinity, in\nChrist being God, in the scheme of redemption, and so forth; nor can he\nsatisfy himself by proclaiming his unbelief or scepticism, nor by\nrelapsing into the worship of beauty and egotism. Above all, he can no\nlonger say that we do not know the real meaning of Christ\u2019s teaching.\nThat meaning has not only become accessible to all men of our times, but\nthe whole life of man to-day is permeated by the spirit of that\nteaching, and, consciously or unconsciously, is guided by it.\n\nHowever differently in form people belonging to our Christian world may\ndefine the destiny of man; whether they see it in human progress in\nwhatever sense of the words, in the union of all men in a socialistic\nrealm, or in the establishment of a commune; whether they look forward\nto the union of mankind under the guidance of one universal Church, or\nto the federation of the world,\u2014however various in form their\ndefinitions of the destination of human life may be, all men in our\ntimes already admit that the highest well-being attainable by men is to\nbe reached by their union with one another.\n\nHowever people of our upper classes (feeling that their ascendency can\nonly be maintained as long as they separate themselves\u2014the rich and\nlearned\u2014from the labourers, the poor, and the unlearned) may seek to\ndevise new conceptions of life by which their privileges may be\nperpetuated,\u2014now the ideal of returning to antiquity, now mysticism, now\nHellenism, now the cult of the superior person (overman-ism),\u2014they have,\nwillingly or unwillingly, to admit the truth which is elucidating itself\nfrom all sides, voluntarily and involuntarily, namely, that our welfare\nlies only in the unification and the brotherhood of man.\n\nUnconsciously this truth is confirmed by the construction of means of\ncommunication,\u2014telegraphs, telephones, the press, and the\never-increasing attainability of material well-being for everyone,\u2014and\nconsciously it is affirmed by the destruction of superstitions which\ndivide men, by the diffusion of the truths of knowledge, and by the\nexpression of the ideal of the brotherhood of man in the best works of\nart of our time.\n\nArt is a spiritual organ of human life which cannot be destroyed, and\ntherefore, notwithstanding all the efforts made by people of the upper\nclasses to conceal the religious ideal by which humanity lives, that\nideal is more and more clearly recognised by man, and even in our\nperverted society is more and more often partially expressed by science\nand by art. During the present century works of the higher kind of\nreligious art have appeared more and more frequently, both in literature\nand in painting, permeated by a truly Christian spirit, as also works of\nthe universal art of common life, accessible to all. So that even art\nknows the true ideal of our times, and tends towards it. On the one\nhand, the best works of art of our times transmit religious feelings\nurging towards the union and the brotherhood of man (such are the works\nof Dickens, Hugo, Dostoievsky; and in painting, of Millet, Bastien\nLepage, Jules Breton, L\u2019Hermitte, and others); on the other hand, they\nstrive towards the transmission, not of feelings which are natural to\npeople of the upper classes only, but of such feelings as may unite\neveryone without exception. There are as yet few such works, but the\nneed of them is already acknowledged. In recent times we also meet more\nand more frequently with attempts at publications, pictures, concerts,\nand theatres for the people. All this is still very far from\naccomplishing what should be done, but already the direction in which\ngood art instinctively presses forward to regain the path natural to it\ncan be discerned.\n\nThe religious perception of our time\u2014which consists in acknowledging\nthat the aim of life (both collective and individual) is the union of\nmankind\u2014is already so sufficiently distinct that people have now only to\nreject the false theory of beauty, according to which enjoyment is\nconsidered to be the purpose of art, and religious perception will\nnaturally takes its place as the guide of the art of our time.\n\nAnd as soon as the religious perception, which already unconsciously\ndirects the life of man, is consciously acknowledged, then immediately\nand naturally the division of art, into art for the lower and art for\nthe upper classes, will disappear. There will be one common, brotherly,\nuniversal art; and first, that art will naturally be rejected which\ntransmits feelings incompatible with the religious perception of our\ntime,\u2014feelings which do not unite, but divide men,\u2014and then that\ninsignificant, exclusive art will be rejected to which an importance is\nnow attached to which it has no right.\n\nAnd as soon as this occurs, art will immediately cease to be, what it\nhas been in recent times: a means of making people coarser and more\nvicious, and it will become, what it always used to be and should be, a\nmeans by which humanity progresses towards unity and blessedness;\n\nStrange as the comparison may sound, what has happened to the art of our\ncircle and time is what happens to a woman who sells her womanly\nattractiveness, intended for maternity, for the pleasure of those who\ndesire such pleasures.\n\nThe art of our time and of our circle has become a prostitute. And this\ncomparison holds good even in minute details. Like her it is not limited\nto certain times, like her it is always adorned, like her it is always\nsaleable, and like her it is enticing and ruinous.\n\nA real work of art can only arise in the soul of an artist occasionally,\nas the fruit of the life he has lived, just as a child is conceived by\nits mother. But counterfeit art is produced by artisans and\nhandicraftsmen continually, if only consumers can be found.\n\nReal art, like the wife of an affectionate husband, needs no ornaments.\nBut counterfeit art, like a prostitute, must always be decked out.\n\nThe cause of the production of real art is the artist\u2019s inner need to\nexpress a feeling that has accumulated, just as for a mother the cause\nof sexual conception is love. The cause of counterfeit art, as of\nprostitution, is gain.\n\nThe consequence of true art is the introduction of a new feeling into\nthe intercourse of life, as the consequence of a wife\u2019s love is the\nbirth of a new man into life.\n\nThe consequences of counterfeit art are the perversion of man, pleasure\nwhich never satisfies, and the weakening of man\u2019s spiritual strength.\n\nAnd this is what people of our day and of our circle should understand,\nin order to avoid the filthy torrent of depraved and prostituted art\nwith which we are deluged.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX\n\n\nPeople talk of the art of the future, meaning by \u201cart of the future\u201d\nsome especially refined, new art, which, as they imagine, will be\ndeveloped out of that exclusive art of one class which is now considered\nthe highest art. But no such new art of the future can or will be found.\nOur exclusive art, that of the upper classes of Christendom, has found\nits way into a blind alley. The direction in which it has been going\nleads nowhere. Having once let go of that which is most essential for\nart (namely, the guidance given by religious perception), that art has\nbecome ever more and more exclusive, and therefore ever more and more\nperverted, until, finally, it has come to nothing. The art of the\nfuture, that which is really coming, will not be a development of\npresent-day art, but will arise on completely other and new foundations,\nhaving nothing in common with those by which our present art of the\nupper classes is guided.\n\nArt of the future, that is to say, such part of art as will be chosen\nfrom among all the art diffused among mankind, will consist, not in\ntransmitting feelings accessible only to members of the rich classes, as\nis the case to-day, but in transmitting such feelings as embody the\nhighest religious perception of our times. Only those productions will\nbe considered art which transmit feelings drawing men together in\nbrotherly union, or such universal feelings as can unite all men. Only\nsuch art will be chosen, tolerated, approved, and diffused. But art\ntransmitting feelings flowing from antiquated, worn-out religious\nteaching,\u2014Church art, patriotic art, voluptuous art, transmitting\nfeelings of superstitious fear, of pride, of vanity, of ecstatic\nadmiration of national heroes,\u2014art exciting exclusive love of one\u2019s own\npeople, or sensuality, will be considered bad, harmful art, and will be\ncensured and despised by public opinion. All the rest of art,\ntransmitting feelings accessible only to a section of people, will be\nconsidered unimportant, and will be neither blamed nor praised. And the\nappraisement of art in general will devolve, not, as is now the case, on\na separate class of rich people, but on the whole people; so that for a\nwork to be esteemed good, and to be approved of and diffused, it will\nhave to satisfy the demands, not of a few people living in identical and\noften unnatural conditions, but it will have to satisfy the demands of\nall those great masses of people who are situated in the natural\nconditions of laborious life.\n\nAnd the artists producing art will also not be, as now, merely a few\npeople selected from a small section of the nation, members of the upper\nclasses or their hangers-on, but will consist of all those gifted\nmembers of the whole people who prove capable of, and are inclined\ntowards, artistic activity.\n\nArtistic activity will then be accessible to all men. It will become\naccessible to the whole people, because, in the first place, in the art\nof the future, not only will that complex technique, which deforms the\nproductions of the art of to-day and requires so great an effort and\nexpenditure of time, not be demanded, but, on the contrary, the demand\nwill be for clearness, simplicity, and brevity\u2014conditions mastered not\nby mechanical exercises but by the education of taste. And secondly,\nartistic activity will become accessible to all men of the people\nbecause, instead of the present professional schools which only some can\nenter, all will learn music and depictive art (singing and drawing)\nequally with letters in the elementary schools, and in such a way that\nevery man, having received the first principles of drawing and music,\nand feeling a capacity for, and a call to, one or other of the arts,\nwill be able to perfect himself in it.\n\nPeople think that if there are no special art-schools the technique of\nart will deteriorate. Undoubtedly, if by technique we understand those\ncomplications of art which are now considered an excellence, it will\ndeteriorate; but if by technique is understood clearness, beauty,\nsimplicity, and compression in works of art, then, even if the elements\nof drawing and music were not to be taught in the national schools, the\ntechnique will not only not deteriorate, but, as is shown by all peasant\nart, will be a hundred times better. It will be improved, because all\nthe artists of genius now hidden among the masses will become producers\nof art and will give models of excellence, which (as has always been the\ncase) will be the best schools of technique for their successors. For\nevery true artist, even now, learns his technique, chiefly, not in the\nschools but in life, from the examples of the great masters; then\u2014when\nthe producers of art will be the best artists of the whole nation, and\nthere will be more such examples, and they will be more accessible\u2014such\npart of the school training as the future artist will lose will be a\nhundredfold compensated for by the training he will receive from the\nnumerous examples of good art diffused in society.\n\nSuch will be one difference between present and future art. Another\ndifference will be that art will not be produced by professional artists\nreceiving payment for their work and engaged on nothing else besides\ntheir art. The art of the future will be produced by all the members of\nthe community who feel the need of such activity, but they will occupy\nthemselves with art only when they feel such need.\n\nIn our society people think that an artist will work better, and produce\nmore, if he has a secured maintenance. And this opinion would serve once\nmore to show clearly, were such demonstration still needed, that what\namong us is considered art is not art, but only its counterfeit. It is\nquite true that for the production of boots or loaves division of labour\nis very advantageous, and that the bootmaker or baker who need not\nprepare his own dinner or fetch his own fuel will make more boots or\nloaves than if he had to busy himself about these matters. But art is\nnot a handicraft; it is the transmission of feeling the artist has\nexperienced. And sound feeling can only be engendered in a man when he\nis living on all its sides the life natural and proper to mankind. And\ntherefore security of maintenance is a condition most harmful to an\nartist\u2019s true productiveness, since it removes him from the condition\nnatural to all men,\u2014that of struggle with nature for the maintenance of\nboth his own life and that of others,\u2014and thus deprives him of\nopportunity and possibility to experience the most important and natural\nfeelings of man. There is no position more injurious to an artist\u2019s\nproductiveness than that position of complete security and luxury in\nwhich artists usually live in our society.\n\nThe artist of the future will live the common life of man, earning his\nsubsistence by some kind of labour. The fruits of that highest spiritual\nstrength which passes through him he will try to share with the greatest\npossible number of people, for in such transmission to others of the\nfeelings that have arisen in him he will find his happiness and his\nreward. The artist of the future will be unable to understand how an\nartist, whose chief delight is in the wide diffusion of his works, could\ngive them only in exchange for a certain payment.\n\nUntil the dealers are driven out, the temple of art will not be a\ntemple. But the art of the future will drive them out.\n\nAnd therefore the subject-matter of the art of the future, as I imagine\nit to myself, will be totally unlike that of to-day. It will consist,\nnot in the expression of exclusive feelings: pride, spleen, satiety, and\nall possible forms of voluptuousness, available and interesting only to\npeople who, by force, have freed themselves from the labour natural to\nhuman beings; but it will consist in the expression of feelings\nexperienced by a man living the life natural to all men and flowing from\nthe religious perception of our times, or of such feelings as are open\nto all men without exception.\n\nTo people of our circle who do not know, and cannot or will not\nunderstand the feelings which will form the subject-matter of the art of\nthe future, such subject-matter appears very poor in comparison with\nthose subtleties of exclusive art with which they are now occupied.\n\u201cWhat is there fresh to be said in the sphere of the Christian feeling\nof love of one\u2019s fellow-man? The feelings common to everyone are so\ninsignificant and monotonous,\u201d think they. And yet, in our time, the\nreally fresh feelings can only be religious, Christian feelings, and\nsuch as are open, accessible, to all. The feelings flowing from the\nreligious perception of our times, Christian feelings, are infinitely\nnew and varied, only not in the sense some people imagine,\u2014not that they\ncan be evoked by the depiction of Christ and of Gospel episodes, or by\nrepeating in new forms the Christian truths of unity, brotherhood,\nequality, and love,\u2014but in that all the oldest, commonest, and most\nhackneyed phenomena of life evoke the newest, most unexpected and\ntouching emotions as soon as a man regards them from the Christian point\nof view.\n\nWhat can be older than the relations between married couples, of parents\nto children, of children to parents; the relations of men to their\nfellow-countrymen and to foreigners, to an invasion, to defence, to\nproperty, to the land, or to animals? But as soon as a man regards these\nmatters from the Christian point of view, endlessly varied, fresh,\ncomplex, and strong emotions immediately arise.\n\nAnd, in the same way, that realm of subject-matter for the art of the\nfuture which relates to the simplest feelings of common life open to all\nwill not be narrowed but widened. In our former art only the expression\nof feelings natural to people of a certain exceptional position was\nconsidered worthy of being transmitted by art, and even then only on\ncondition that these feelings were transmitted in a most refined manner,\nincomprehensible to the majority of men; all the immense realm of\nfolk-art, and children\u2019s art\u2014jests, proverbs, riddles, songs, dances,\nchildren\u2019s games, and mimicry\u2014was not esteemed a domain worthy of art.\n\nThe artist of the future will understand that to compose a fairy-tale, a\nlittle song which will touch, a lullaby or a riddle which will\nentertain, a jest which will amuse, or to draw a sketch which will\ndelight dozens of generations or millions of children and adults, is\nincomparably more important and more fruitful than to compose a novel or\na symphony, or paint a picture which will divert some members of the\nwealthy classes for a short time, and then be for ever forgotten. The\nregion of this art of the simple feelings accessible to all is enormous,\nand it is as yet almost untouched.\n\nThe art of the future, therefore, will not be poorer, but infinitely\nricher in subject-matter. And the form of the art of the future will\nalso not be inferior to the present forms of art, but infinitely\nsuperior to them. Superior, not in the sense of having a refined and\ncomplex technique, but in the sense of the capacity briefly, simply, and\nclearly to transmit, without any superfluities, the feeling which the\nartist has experienced and wishes to transmit.\n\nI remember once speaking to a famous astronomer who had given public\nlectures on the spectrum analysis of the stars of the Milky Way, and\nsaying it would be a good thing if, with his knowledge and masterly\ndelivery, he would give a lecture merely on the formation and movements\nof the earth, for certainly there were many people at his lecture on the\nspectrum analysis of the stars of the Milky Way, especially among the\nwomen, who did not well know why night follows day and summer follows\nwinter. The wise astronomer smiled as he answered, \u201cYes, it would be a\ngood thing, but it would be very difficult. To lecture on the spectrum\nanalysis of the Milky Way is far easier.\u201d\n\nAnd so it is in art. To write a rhymed poem dealing with the times of\nCleopatra, or paint a picture of Nero burning Rome, or compose a\nsymphony in the manner of Brahms or Richard Strauss, or an opera like\nWagner\u2019s, is far easier than to tell a simple story without any\nunnecessary details, yet so that it should transmit the feelings of the\nnarrator, or to draw a pencil-sketch which should touch or amuse the\nbeholder, or to compose four bars of clear and simple melody, without\nany accompaniment, which should convey an impression and be remembered\nby those who hear it.\n\n\u201cIt is impossible for us, with our culture, to return to a primitive\nstate,\u201d say the artists of our time. \u201cIt is impossible for us now to\nwrite such stories as that of Joseph or the Odyssey, to produce such\nstatues as the Venus of Milo, or to compose such music as the\nfolk-songs.\u201d\n\nAnd indeed, for the artists of our society and day, it is impossible,\nbut not for the future artist, who will be free from all the perversion\nof technical improvements hiding the absence of subject-matter, and who,\nnot being a professional artist and receiving no payment for his\nactivity, will only produce art when he feels impelled to do so by an\nirresistible inner impulse.\n\nThe art of the future will thus be completely distinct, both in\nsubject-matter and in form, from what is now called art. The only\nsubject-matter of the art of the future will be either feelings drawing\nmen towards union, or such as already unite them; and the forms of art\nwill be such as will be open to everyone. And therefore, the ideal of\nexcellence in the future will not be the exclusiveness of feeling,\naccessible only to some, but, on the contrary, its universality. And not\nbulkiness, obscurity, and complexity of form, as is now esteemed, but,\non the contrary, brevity, clearness, and simplicity of expression. Only\nwhen art has attained to that, will art neither divert nor deprave men\nas it does now, calling on them to expend their best strength on it, but\nbe what it should be\u2014a vehicle wherewith to transmit religious,\nChristian perception from the realm of reason and intellect into that of\nfeeling, and really drawing people in actual life nearer to that\nperfection and unity indicated to them by their religious perception.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XX\n                             THE CONCLUSION\n\n\nI have accomplished, to the best of my ability, this work which has\noccupied me for 15 years, on a subject near to me\u2014that of art. By saying\nthat this subject has occupied me for 15 years, I do not mean that I\nhave been writing this book 15 years, but only that I began to write on\nart 15 years ago, thinking that when once I undertook the task I should\nbe able to accomplish it without a break. It proved, however, that my\nviews on the matter then were so far from clear that I could not arrange\nthem in a way that satisfied me. From that time I have never ceased to\nthink on the subject, and I have recommenced to write on it 6 or 7\ntimes; but each time, after writing a considerable part of it, I have\nfound myself unable to bring the work to a satisfactory conclusion, and\nhave had to put it aside. Now I have finished it; and however badly I\nmay have performed the task, my hope is that my fundamental thought as\nto the false direction the art of our society has taken and is\nfollowing, as to the reasons of this, and as to the real destination of\nart, is correct, and that therefore my work will not be without avail.\nBut that this should come to pass, and that art should really abandon\nits false path and take the new direction, it is necessary that another\nequally important human spiritual activity,\u2014science,\u2014in intimate\ndependence on which art always rests, should abandon the false path\nwhich it too, like art, is following.\n\nScience and art are as closely bound together as the lungs and the\nheart, so that if one organ is vitiated the other cannot act rightly.\n\nTrue science investigates and brings to human perception such truths and\nsuch knowledge as the people of a given time and society consider most\nimportant. Art transmits these truths from the region of perception to\nthe region of emotion. Therefore, if the path chosen by science be false\nso also will be the path taken by art. Science and art are like a\ncertain kind of barge with kedge-anchors which used to ply on our\nrivers. Science, like the boats which took the anchors up-stream and\nmade them secure, gives direction to the forward movement; while art,\nlike the windlass worked on the barge to draw it towards the anchor,\ncauses the actual progression. And thus a false activity of science\ninevitably causes a correspondingly false activity of art.\n\nAs art in general is the transmission of every kind of feeling, but in\nthe limited sense of the word we only call that art which transmits\nfeelings acknowledged by us to be important, so also science in general\nis the transmission of all possible knowledge; but in the limited sense\nof the word we call science that which transmits knowledge acknowledged\nby us to be important.\n\nAnd the degree of importance, both of the feelings transmitted by art\nand of the information transmitted by science, is decided by the\nreligious perception of the given time and society, _i.e._ by the common\nunderstanding of the purpose of their lives possessed by the people of\nthat time or society.\n\nThat which most of all contributes to the fulfilment of that purpose\nwill be studied most; that which contributes less will be studied less;\nthat which does not contribute at all to the fulfilment of the purpose\nof human life will be entirely neglected, or, if studied, such study\nwill not be accounted science. So it always has been, and so it should\nbe now; for such is the nature of human knowledge and of human life. But\nthe science of the upper classes of our time, which not only does not\nacknowledge any religion, but considers every religion to be mere\nsuperstition, could not and cannot make such distinctions.\n\nScientists of our day affirm that they study _everything_ impartially;\nbut as everything is too much (is in fact an infinite number of\nobjects), and as it is impossible to study all alike, this is only said\nin the theory, while in practice not everything is studied, and study is\napplied far from impartially, only that being studied which, on the one\nhand, is most wanted by, and on the other hand, is pleasantest to those\npeople who occupy themselves with science. And what the people,\nbelonging to the upper classes, who are occupying themselves with\nscience most want is the maintenance of the system under which those\nclasses retain their privileges; and what is pleasantest are such things\nas satisfy idle curiosity, do not demand great mental efforts, and can\nbe practically applied.\n\nAnd therefore one side of science, including theology and philosophy\nadapted to the existing order, as also history and political economy of\nthe same sort, are chiefly occupied in proving that the existing order\nis the very one which ought to exist; that it has come into existence\nand continues to exist by the operation of immutable laws not amenable\nto human will, and that all efforts to change it are therefore harmful\nand wrong. The other part, experimental science,\u2014including mathematics,\nastronomy, chemistry, physics, botany, and all the natural sciences,\u2014is\nexclusively occupied with things that have no direct relation to human\nlife: with what is curious, and with things of which practical\napplication advantageous to people of the upper classes can be made. And\nto justify that selection of objects of study which (in conformity to\ntheir own position) the men of science of our times have made, they have\ndevised a theory of science for science\u2019s sake, quite similar to the\ntheory of art for art\u2019s sake.\n\nAs by the theory of art for art\u2019s sake it appears that occupation with\nall those things that please us\u2014is art, so, by the theory of science for\nscience\u2019s sake, the study of that which interests us\u2014is science.\n\nSo that one side of science, instead of studying how people should live\nin order to fulfil their mission in life, demonstrates the righteousness\nand immutability of the bad and false arrangements of life which exist\naround us; while the other part, experimental science, occupies itself\nwith questions of simple curiosity or with technical improvements.\n\nThe first of these divisions of science is harmful, not only because it\nconfuses people\u2019s perceptions and gives false decisions, but also\nbecause it exists, and occupies the ground which should belong to true\nscience. It does this harm, that each man, in order to approach the\nstudy of the most important questions of life, must first refute these\nerections of lies which have during ages been piled around each of the\nmost essential questions of human life, and which are propped up by all\nthe strength of human ingenuity.\n\nThe second division\u2014the one of which modern science is so particularly\nproud, and which is considered by many people to be the only real\nscience\u2014is harmful in that it diverts attention from the really\nimportant subjects to insignificant subjects, and is also directly\nharmful in that, under the evil system of society which the first\ndivision of science justifies and supports, a great part of the\ntechnical gains of science are turned not to the advantage but to the\ninjury of mankind.\n\nIndeed it is only to those who are devoting their lives to such study\nthat it seems as if all the inventions which are made in the sphere of\nnatural science were very important and useful things. And to these\npeople it seems so only when they do not look around them and do not see\nwhat is really important. They only need tear themselves away from the\npsychological microscope under which they examine the objects of their\nstudy, and look about them, in order to see how insignificant is all\nthat has afforded them such na\u00efve pride, all that knowledge not only of\ngeometry of n-dimensions, spectrum analysis of the Milky Way, the form\nof atoms, dimensions of human skulls of the Stone Age, and similar\ntrifles, but even our knowledge of micro-organisms, X-rays, etc., in\ncomparison with such knowledge as we have thrown aside and handed over\nto the perversions of the professors of theology, jurisprudence,\npolitical economy, financial science, etc. We need only look around us\nto perceive that the activity proper to real science is not the study of\nwhatever happens to interest us, but the study of how man\u2019s life should\nbe established,\u2014the study of those questions of religion, morality, and\nsocial life, without the solution of which all our knowledge of nature\nwill be harmful or insignificant.\n\nWe are highly delighted and very proud that our science renders it\npossible to utilise the energy of a waterfall and make it work in\nfactories, or that we have pierced tunnels through mountains, and so\nforth. But the pity of it is that we make the force of the waterfall\nlabour, not for the benefit of the workmen, but to enrich capitalists\nwho produce articles of luxury or weapons of man-destroying war. The\nsame dynamite with which we blast the mountains to pierce tunnels, we\nuse for wars, from which latter we not only do not intend to abstain,\nbut which we consider inevitable, and for which we unceasingly prepare.\n\nIf we are now able to inoculate preventatively with diphtheritic\nmicrobes, to find a needle in a body by means of X-rays, to straighten a\nhunched-back, cure syphilis, and perform wonderful operations, we should\nnot be proud of these acquisitions either (even were they all\nestablished beyond dispute) if we fully understood the true purpose of\nreal science. If but one-tenth of the efforts now spent on objects of\npure curiosity or of merely practical application were expended on real\nscience organising the life of man, more than half the people now sick\nwould not have the illnesses from which a small minority of them now get\ncured in hospitals. There would be no poor-blooded and deformed children\ngrowing up in factories, no death-rates, as now, of 50 per cent. among\nchildren, no deterioration of whole generations, no prostitution, no\nsyphilis, and no murdering of hundreds of thousands in wars, nor those\nhorrors of folly and of misery which our present science considers a\nnecessary condition of human life.\n\nWe have so perverted the conception of science that it seems strange to\nmen of our day to allude to sciences which should prevent the mortality\nof children, prostitution, syphilis, the deterioration of whole\ngenerations, and the wholesale murder of men. It seems to us that\nscience is only then real science when a man in a laboratory pours\nliquids from one jar into another, or analyses the spectrum, or cuts up\nfrogs and porpoises, or weaves in a specialised, scientific jargon an\nobscure network of conventional phrases\u2014theological, philosophical,\nhistorical, juridical, or politico-economical\u2014semi-intelligible to the\nman himself, and intended to demonstrate that what now is, is what\nshould be.\n\nBut science, true science,\u2014such science as would really deserve the\nrespect which is now claimed by the followers of one (the least\nimportant) part of science,\u2014is not at all such as this: real science\nlies in knowing what we should and what we should not believe, in\nknowing how the associated life of man should and should not be\nconstituted; how to treat sexual relations, how to educate children, how\nto use the land, how to cultivate it oneself without oppressing other\npeople, how to treat foreigners, how to treat animals, and much more\nthat is important for the life of man.\n\nSuch has true science ever been and such it should be. And such science\nis springing up in our times; but, on the one hand, such true science is\ndenied and refuted by all those scientific people who defend the\nexisting order of society, and, on the other hand, it is considered\nempty, unnecessary, unscientific science by those who are engrossed in\nexperimental science.\n\nFor instance, books and sermons appear, demonstrating the antiquatedness\nand absurdity of Church dogmas, as well as the necessity of establishing\na reasonable religious perception suitable to our times, and all the\ntheology that is considered to be real science is only engaged in\nrefuting these works and in exercising human intelligence again and\nagain to find support and justification for superstitions long since\nout-lived, and which have now become quite meaningless. Or a sermon\nappears showing that land should not be an object of private possession,\nand that the institution of private property in land is a chief cause of\nthe poverty of the masses. Apparently science, real science, should\nwelcome such a sermon and draw further deductions from this position.\nBut the science of our times does nothing of the kind: on the contrary,\npolitical economy demonstrates the opposite position, namely, that\nlanded property, like every other form of property, must be more and\nmore concentrated in the hands of a small number of owners. Again, in\nthe same way, one would suppose it to be the business of real science to\ndemonstrate the irrationality, unprofitableness, and immorality of war\nand of executions; or the inhumanity and harmfulness of prostitution; or\nthe absurdity, harmfulness, and immorality of using narcotics or of\neating animals; or the irrationality, harmfulness, and antiquatedness of\npatriotism. And such works exist, but are all considered unscientific;\nwhile works to prove that all these things ought to continue, and works\nintended to satisfy an idle thirst for knowledge lacking any relation to\nhuman life, are considered to be scientific.\n\nThe deviation of the science of our time from its true purpose is\nstrikingly illustrated by those ideals which are put forward by some\nscientists, and are not denied, but admitted, by the majority of\nscientific men.\n\nThese ideals are expressed not only in stupid, fashionable books,\ndescribing the world as it will be in 1000 or 3000 years\u2019 time, but also\nby sociologists who consider themselves serious men of science. These\nideals are that food instead of being obtained from the land by\nagriculture, will be prepared in laboratories by chemical means, and\nthat human labour will be almost entirely superseded by the utilisation\nof natural forces.\n\nMan will not, as now, eat an egg laid by a hen he has kept, or bread\ngrown on his field, or an apple from a tree he has reared and which has\nblossomed and matured in his sight; but he will eat tasty, nutritious,\nfood which will be prepared in laboratories by the conjoint labour of\nmany people in which he will take a small part. Man will hardly need to\nlabour, so that all men will be able to yield to idleness as the upper,\nruling classes now yield to it.\n\nNothing shows more plainly than these ideals to what a degree the\nscience of our times has deviated from the true path.\n\nThe great majority of men in our times lack good and sufficient food (as\nwell as dwellings and clothes and all the first necessaries of life).\nAnd this great majority of men is compelled, to the injury of its\nwell-being, to labour continually beyond its strength. Both these evils\ncan easily be removed by abolishing mutual strife, luxury, and the\nunrighteous distribution of wealth, in a word by the abolition of a\nfalse and harmful order and the establishment of a reasonable, human\nmanner of life. But science considers the existing order of things to be\nas immutable as the movements of the planets, and therefore assumes that\nthe purpose of science is\u2014not to elucidate the falseness of this order\nand to arrange a new, reasonable way of life\u2014but, under the existing\norder of things, to feed everybody and enable all to be as idle as the\nruling classes, who live a depraved life, now are.\n\nAnd, meanwhile, it is forgotten that nourishment with corn, vegetables,\nand fruit raised from the soil by one\u2019s own labour is the pleasantest,\nhealthiest, easiest, and most natural nourishment, and that the work of\nusing one\u2019s muscles is as necessary a condition of life as is the\noxidation of the blood by breathing.\n\nTo invent means whereby people might, while continuing our false\ndivision of property and labour, be well nourished by means of\nchemically-prepared food, and might make the forces of nature work for\nthem, is like inventing means to pump oxygen into the lungs of a man\nkept in a closed chamber the air of which is bad, when all that is\nneeded is to cease to confine the man in the closed chamber.\n\nIn the vegetable and animal kingdoms a laboratory for the production of\nfood has been arranged, such as can be surpassed by no professors, and\nto enjoy the fruits of this laboratory, and to participate in it, man\nhas only to yield to that ever joyful impulse to labour, without which\nman\u2019s life is a torment. And lo and behold, the scientists of our times,\ninstead of employing all their strength to abolish whatever hinders man\nfrom utilising the good things prepared for him, acknowledge the\nconditions under which man is deprived of these blessings to be\nunalterable, and instead of arranging the life of man so that he might\nwork joyfully and be fed from the soil, they devise methods which will\ncause him to become an artificial abortion. It is like not helping a man\nout of confinement into the fresh air, but devising means, instead, to\npump into him the necessary quantity of oxygen and arranging so that he\nmay live in a stifling cellar instead of living at home.\n\nSuch false ideals could not exist if science were not on a false path.\n\nAnd yet the feelings transmitted by art grow up on the bases supplied by\nscience.\n\nBut what feelings can such misdirected science evoke? One side of this\nscience evokes antiquated feelings, which humanity has used up, and\nwhich, in our times, are bad and exclusive. The other side, occupied\nwith the study of subjects unrelated to the conduct of human life, by\nits very nature cannot serve as a basis for art.\n\nSo that art in our times, to be art, must either open up its own road\nindependently of science, or must take direction from the unrecognised\nscience which is denounced by the orthodox section of science. And this\nis what art, when it even partially fulfils its mission, is doing.\n\nIt is to be hoped that the work I have tried to perform concerning art\nwill be performed also for science\u2014that the falseness of the theory of\nscience for science\u2019s sake will be demonstrated; that the necessity of\nacknowledging Christian teaching in its true meaning will be clearly\nshown, that on the basis of that teaching a reappraisement will be made\nof the knowledge we possess, and of which we are so proud; that the\nsecondariness and insignificance of experimental science, and the\nprimacy and importance of religious, moral, and social knowledge will be\nestablished; and that such knowledge will not, as now, be left to the\nguidance of the upper classes only, but will form a chief interest of\nall free, truth-loving men, such as those who, not in agreement with the\nupper classes but in their despite, have always forwarded the real\nscience of life.\n\nAstronomical, physical, chemical, and biological science, as also\ntechnical and medical science, will be studied only in so far as they\ncan help to free mankind from religious, juridical, or social\ndeceptions, or can serve to promote the well-being of all men, and not\nof any single class.\n\nOnly then will science cease to be what it is now\u2014on the one hand a\nsystem of sophistries, needed for the maintenance of the existing\nworn-out order of society, and, on the other hand, a shapeless mass of\nmiscellaneous knowledge, for the most part good for little or\nnothing\u2014and become a shapely and organic whole, having a definite and\nreasonable purpose comprehensible to all men, namely, the purpose of\nbringing to the consciousness of men the truths that flow from the\nreligious perception of our times.\n\nAnd only then will art, which is always dependent on science, be what it\nmight and should be, an organ coequally important with science for the\nlife and progress of mankind.\n\nArt is not a pleasure, a solace, or an amusement; art is a great matter.\nArt is an organ of human life, transmitting man\u2019s reasonable perception\ninto feeling. In our age the common religious perception of men is the\nconsciousness of the brotherhood of man\u2014we know that the well-being of\nman lies in union with his fellow-men. True science should indicate the\nvarious methods of applying this consciousness to life. Art should\ntransform this perception into feeling.\n\nThe task of art is enormous. Through the influence of real art, aided by\nscience guided by religion, that peaceful co-operation of man which is\nnow obtained by external means\u2014by our law-courts, police, charitable\ninstitutions, factory inspection, etc.\u2014should be obtained by man\u2019s free\nand joyous activity. Art should cause violence to be set aside.\n\nAnd it is only art that can accomplish this.\n\nAll that now, independently of the fear of violence and punishment,\nmakes the social life of man possible (and already now this is an\nenormous part of the order of our lives)\u2014all this has been brought about\nby art. If by art it has been inculcated how people should treat\nreligious objects, their parents, their children, their wives, their\nrelations, strangers, foreigners; how to conduct themselves to their\nelders, their superiors, to those who suffer, to their enemies, and to\nanimals; and if this has been obeyed through generations by millions of\npeople, not only unenforced by any violence, but so that the force of\nsuch customs can be shaken in no way but by means of art: then, by the\nsame art, other customs, more in accord with the religious perception of\nour time, may be evoked. If art has been able to convey the sentiment of\nreverence for images, for the eucharist, and for the king\u2019s person; of\nshame at betraying a comrade, devotion to a flag, the necessity of\nrevenge for an insult, the need to sacrifice one\u2019s labour for the\nerection and adornment of churches, the duty of defending one\u2019s honour\nor the glory of one\u2019s native land\u2014then that same art can also evoke\nreverence for the dignity of every man and for the life of every animal;\ncan make men ashamed of luxury, of violence, of revenge, or of using for\ntheir pleasure that of which others are in need; can compel people\nfreely, gladly, and without noticing it, to sacrifice themselves in the\nservice of man.\n\nThe task for art to accomplish is to make that feeling of brotherhood\nand love of one\u2019s neighbour, now attained only by the best members of\nthe society, the customary feeling and the instinct of all men. By\nevoking, under imaginary conditions, the feeling of brotherhood and\nlove, religious art will train men to experience those same feelings\nunder similar circumstances in actual life; it will lay in the souls of\nmen the rails along which the actions of those whom art thus educates\nwill naturally pass. And universal art, by uniting the most different\npeople in one common feeling, by destroying separation, will educate\npeople to union, will show them, not by reason but by life itself, the\njoy of universal union reaching beyond the bounds set by life.\n\nThe destiny of art in our time is to transmit from the realm of reason\nto the realm of feeling the truth that well-being for men consists in\nbeing united together, and to set up, in place of the existing reign of\nforce, that kingdom of God, _i.e._ of love, which we all recognise to be\nthe highest aim of human life.\n\nPossibly, in the future, science may reveal to art yet newer and higher\nideals, which art may realise; but, in our time, the destiny of art is\nclear and definite. The task for Christian art is to establish brotherly\nunion among men.\n\n\n\n\n                               APPENDICES\n\n\n\n\n                              APPENDIX I.\n\n\nThis is the first page of Mallarm\u00e9\u2019s book _Divagations_:\u2014\n\n\n                          LE PH\u00c9NOM\u00c8NE FUTUR.\n\n\nUn ciel p\u00e2le, sur le monde qui finit de d\u00e9cr\u00e9pitude, va peut-\u00eatre partir\navec les nuages: les lambeaux de la pourpre us\u00e9e des couchants\nd\u00e9teignent dans une rivi\u00e8re dormant \u00e0 l\u2019horizon submerg\u00e9 de rayons et\nd\u2019eau. Les arbres s\u2019ennuient, et, sous leur feuillage blanchi (de la\npoussi\u00e8re du temps plut\u00f4t que celle des chemins) monte la maison en\ntoile de Montreur de choses Pass\u00e9es: maint r\u00e9verb\u00e8re attend le\ncr\u00e9puscule et ravive les visages d\u2019une malheureuse foule, vaincue par la\nmaladie immortelle et le p\u00e9ch\u00e9 des si\u00e8cles, d\u2019hommes pr\u00e8s de leurs\nch\u00e9tives complices enceintes des fruits mis\u00e9rables avec lesquels p\u00e9rira\nla terre. Dans le silence inquiet de tous les yeux suppliant l\u00e0-bas le\nsoleil qui, sous l\u2019eau, s\u2019enfonce avec le d\u00e9sespoir d\u2019un cri, voici le\nsimple boniment: \u201cNulle enseigne ne vous r\u00e9gale du spectacle int\u00e9rieur,\ncar il n\u2019est pas maintenant un peintre capable d\u2019en donner une ombre\ntriste. J\u2019apporte, vivante (et pr\u00e9serv\u00e9e \u00e0 travers les ans par la\nscience souveraine) une Femme d\u2019autrefois. Quelque folie, originelle et\nna\u00efve, une extase d\u2019or, je ne sais quoi! par elle nomm\u00e9 sa chevelure, se\nploie avec la gr\u00e2ce des \u00e9toffes autour d\u2019un visage qu\u2019 \u00e9claire la nudit\u00e9\nsanglante de ses l\u00e8vres. A la place du v\u00eatement vain, elle a un corps;\net les yeux, semblables aux pierres rares! ne valent pas ce regard qui\nsort de sa chair heureuse: des seins lev\u00e9s comme s\u2019ils \u00e9taient pleins\nd\u2019un lait \u00e9ternel, la pointe vers le ciel, les jambes lisses qui gardent\nle sel de la mer premi\u00e8re.\u201d Se rappelant leurs pauvres \u00e9pouses, chauves,\nmorbides et pleines d\u2019horreur, les maris se pressent: elles aussi par\ncuriosit\u00e9, m\u00e9lancoliques, veulent voir.\n\nQuand tous auront contempl\u00e9 la noble cr\u00e9ature, vestige de quelque \u00e9poque\nd\u00e9j\u00e0 maudite, les uns indiff\u00e9rents, car ils n\u2019auront pas eu la force de\ncomprendre, mais d\u2019autres navr\u00e9s et la paupi\u00e8re humide de larmes\nr\u00e9sign\u00e9es, se regarderont; tandis que les po\u00e8tes de ces temps, sentant\nse rallumer leur yeux \u00e9teints, s\u2019achemineront vers leur lampe, le\ncerveau ivre un instant d\u2019une gloire confuse, hant\u00e9s du Rythme et dans\nl\u2019oubli d\u2019exister \u00e0 une \u00e9poque qui survit \u00e0 la beaut\u00e9.\n\n\n                   THE FUTURE PHENOMENON\u2014by Mallarm\u00e9\n\n\n    A pale sky, above the world that is ending through decrepitude,\n    going perhaps to pass away with the clouds: shreds of worn-out\n    purple of the sunsets wash off their colour in a river sleeping on\n    the horizon, submerged with rays and water. The trees are weary and,\n    beneath their foliage, whitened (by the dust of time rather than\n    that of the roads), rises the canvas house of \u201cShowman of things\n    Past.\u201d Many a lamp awaits the gloaming and brightens the faces of a\n    miserable crowd vanquished by the immortal illness and the sin of\n    ages, of men by the sides of their puny accomplices pregnant with\n    the miserable fruit with which the world will perish. In the anxious\n    silence of all the eyes supplicating the sun there, which sinks\n    under the water with the desperation of a cry, this is the plain\n    announcement: \u201cNo sign-board now regales you with the spectacle that\n    is inside, for there is no painter now capable of giving even a sad\n    shadow of it. I bring living (and preserved by sovereign science\n    through the years) a Woman of other days. Some kind of folly, na\u00efve\n    and original, an ecstasy of gold, I know not what, by her called her\n    hair, clings with the grace of some material round a face brightened\n    by the blood-red nudity of her lips. In place of vain clothing, she\n    has a body; and her eyes, resembling precious stones! are not worth\n    that look, which comes from her happy flesh: breasts raised as if\n    full of eternal milk, the points towards the sky; the smooth legs,\n    that keep the salt of the first sea.\u201d Remembering their poor\n    spouses, bald, morbid, and full of horrors, the husbands press\n    forward: the women too, from curiosity, gloomily wish to see.\n\n    When all shall have contemplated the noble creature, vestige of some\n    epoch already damned, some indifferently, for they will not have had\n    strength to understand, but others broken-hearted and with eyelids\n    wet with tears of resignation, will look at each other; while the\n    poets of those times, feeling their dim eyes rekindled, will make\n    their way towards their lamp, their brain for an instant drunk with\n    confused glory, haunted by Rhythm and forgetful that they exist at\n    an epoch which has survived beauty.\n\n\n\n\n                            APPENDIX II.[92]\n\n\n                                 No. 1.\n\n\nThe following verses are by Viel\u00e9-Griffin, from page 28 of a volume of\nhis Poems:\u2014\n\n\n                     OISEAU BLEU COULEUR DU TEMPS.\n\n\n                           1.\n\n                           Sait-tu l\u2019oubli\n                           D\u2019un vain doux r\u00eave,\n                           Oiseau moqueur\n                           De la for\u00eat?\n                           Le jour p\u00e2lit,\n                           La nuit se l\u00e8ve,\n                           Et dans mon c\u0153ur\n                           L\u2019ombre a pleur\u00e9;\n\n\n                           2.\n\n                           O chante-moi\n                           Ta folle gamme,\n                           Car j\u2019ai dormi\n                           Ce jour durant;\n                           Le l\u00e2che emoi\n                           O\u00f9 fut mon \u00e2me\n                           Sanglote ennui\n                           Le jour mourant...\n\n\n                           3.\n\n                           Sais-tu le chant\n                           De sa parole\n                           Et de sa voix,\n                           Toi qui redis\n                           Dans le couchant\n                           Ton air frivole\n                           Comme autrefois\n                           Sous les midis?\n\n\n                           4.\n\n                           O chante alors\n                           La m\u00e9lodie\n                           De son amour,\n                           Mon fol espoir,\n                           Parmi les ors\n                           Et l\u2019incendie\n                           Du vain doux jour\n                           Qui meurt ce soir.\n\n                           FRANCIS VIEL\u00c9-GRIFFIN.\n\n\n                               BLUE BIRD.\n\n\n                          1.\n\n                          Canst thou forget,\n                          In dreams so vain,\n                          Oh, mocking bird\n                          Of forest deep?\n                          The day doth set,\n                          Night comes again,\n                          My heart has heard\n                          The shadows weep;\n\n\n                          2.\n\n                          Thy tones let flow\n                          In maddening scale,\n                          For I have slept\n                          The livelong day;\n                          Emotions low\n                          In me now wail,\n                          My soul they\u2019ve kept:\n                          Light dies away ...\n\n\n                          3.\n\n                          That music sweet,\n                          Ah, do you know\n                          Her voice and speech?\n                          Your airs so light\n                          You who repeat\n                          In sunset\u2019s glow,\n                          As you sang, each,\n                          At noonday\u2019s height.\n\n\n                          4.\n\n                          Of my desire,\n                          My hope so bold,\n                          Her love\u2014up, sing,\n                          Sing \u2019neath this light,\n                          This flaming fire,\n                          And all the gold\n                          The eve doth bring\n                          Ere comes the night.\n\n\n                                 No. 2.\n\n\nAnd here are some verses by the esteemed young poet Verhaeren, which I\nalso take from page 28 of his Works:\u2014\n\n\n                              ATTIRANCES.\n\n\n           Lointainement, et si \u00e9trangement pareils,\n           De grands masques d\u2019argent que la brume recule,\n           Vaguent, au jour tombant, autour des vieux soleils.\n\n           Les doux lointaines!\u2014et comme, au fond du cr\u00e9puscule,\n           Ils nous fixent le c\u0153ur, immens\u00e9ment le c\u0153ur,\n           Avec les yeux _d\u00e9funts de leur_ visage d\u2019\u00e2me.\n\n           C\u2019est toujours du silence, \u00e0 moins, dans la p\u00e2leur\n           Du soir, un jet de feu soudain, un cri de flamme,\n           Un d\u00e9part de lumi\u00e8re inattendu vers Dieu.\n\n           On se laisse charmer et troubler de myst\u00e8re,\n           Et l\u2019on dirait des morts qui taisent un adieu\n           Trop mystique, pour \u00eatre \u00e9cout\u00e9 par la terre!\n\n           Sont-ils le souvenir mat\u00e9riel et clair\n           Des \u00e9ph\u00e8bes chr\u00e9tiens couch\u00e9s aux catacombes\n           Parmi les lys? Sont-ils leur regard et leur chair?\n\n           Ou seul, ce qui survit de merveilleux aux tombes\n           De ceux qui sont partis, vers leurs r\u00eaves, un soir,\n           Conqu\u00e9rir la folie \u00e0 l\u2019assaut des nu\u00e9es?\n\n           Lointainement, combien nous les sentons vouloir\n           Un peu d\u2019amour pour leurs \u0153uvres destitu\u00e9es,\n           Pour leur errance et leur tristesse aux horizons.\n\n           Toujours! aux horizons du c\u0153ur et des pens\u00e9es,\n           Alors que les vieux soirs \u00e9clatent en blasons\n           Soudains, pour les gloires noires et angoiss\u00e9es.\n\n           \u00c9MILE VERHAEREN,\n           _Po\u00e8mes_.\n\n\n                              ATTRACTIONS.\n\n\n           Large masks of silver, by mists drawn away,\n           So strangely alike, yet so far apart,\n           Float round the old suns when faileth the day.\n\n           They transfix our heart, so immensely our heart,\n           Those distances mild, in the twilight deep,\n           Looking out of dead faces with their spirit eyes.\n\n           All around is now silence, except when there leap\n           In the pallor of evening, with fiery cries,\n           Some fountains of flame that God-ward do fly.\n\n           Mysterious trouble and charms us enfold.\n           You might think that the dead spoke a silent good-bye,\n           Oh! too mystical far on earth to be told!\n\n           Are they the memories, material and bright,\n           Of the Christian youths that in catacombs sleep\n           \u2019Mid the lilies? Are they their flesh or their sight?\n\n           Or the marvel alone that survives, in the deep,\n           Of those that, one night, returned to their dream\n           Of conquering folly by assaulting the skies?\n\n           For their destitute works\u2014we feel it seems,\n           For a little love their longing cries\n           From horizons far\u2014for their errings and pain.\n\n           In horizons ever of heart and thought,\n           While the evenings old in bright blaze wane\n           Suddenly, for black glories anguish fraught.\n\n\n                                 No. 3.\n\n\nAnd the following is a poem by Mor\u00e9as, evidently an admirer of Greek\nbeauty. It is from page 28 of a volume of his Poems:\u2014\n\n\n                         ENONE AU CLAIR VISAGE.\n\n\n            Enone, j\u2019avais cru qu\u2019en aimant ta beaut\u00e9\n            O\u00f9 l\u2019\u00e2me avec le corps trouvent leur unit\u00e9,\n            J\u2019allais, m\u2019affermissant et le c\u0153ur et l\u2019esprit,\n            Monter jusqu\u2019\u00e0 cela qui jamais ne p\u00e9rit,\n            N\u2019ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 cr\u00e9e, qui n\u2019est froideur ou feu,\n            Qui n\u2019est beau quelque part et laid en autre lieu;\n            Et me flattais encor\u2019 d\u2019une belle harmonie\n            Que j\u2019eusse compos\u00e9 du meilleur et du pire,\n            Ainsi que le chanteur qui ch\u00e9rit Polimnie,\n            En accordant le grave avec l\u2019aigu, retire\n            Un son bien \u00e9lev\u00e9 sur les nerfs de sa lyre.\n            Mais mon courage, h\u00e9las! se p\u00e2mant comme mort,\n            M\u2019enseigna que le trait qui m\u2019avait fait amant\n            Ne fut pas de cet arc que courbe sans effort\n            La V\u00e9nus qui naquit du m\u00e2le seulement,\n            Mais que j\u2019avais souffert cette V\u00e9nus derni\u00e8re,\n            Qui a le c\u0153ur couard, n\u00e9 d\u2019une faible m\u00e8re.\n            Et pourtant, ce mauvais gar\u00e7on, chasseur habile,\n            Qui charge son carquois de sagette subtile,\n            Qui secoue en riant sa torche, pour un jour,\n            Qui ne pose jamais que sur de tendres fleurs,\n            C\u2019est sur un teint charmant qu\u2019il essuie les pleurs,\n            Et c\u2019est encore un Dieu, Enone, cet Amour.\n            Mais, laisse, les oiseaux du printemps sont partis,\n            Et je vois les rayons du soleil amortis.\n            Enone, ma douleur, harmonieux visage,\n            Superbe humilit\u00e9, doux honn\u00eate langage,\n            Hier me remirant dans cet \u00e9tang glac\u00e9\n            Qui au bout du jardin se couvre de feuillage,\n            Sur ma face je vis que les jours ont pass\u00e9.\n\n            JEAN MOR\u00c9AS.\n\n\n                                 ENONE.\n\n\n         Enone, in loving thy beauty, I thought,\n         Where the soul and the body to union are brought,\n         That mounting by steadying my heart and my mind,\n         In that which can\u2019t perish, myself I should find.\n         For it ne\u2019er was created, is not ugly and fair;\n         Is not coldness in one part, while on fire it is there.\n         Yes, I flattered myself that a harmony fine\n         I\u2019d succeed to compose of the worst and the best,\n         Like the bard who adores Polyhymnia divine,\n         And mingling sounds different from the nerves of his lyre,\n         From the grave and the smart draws melodies higher.\n         But, alas! my courage, so faint and nigh spent,\n         The dart that has struck me proves without fail\n         Not to be from that bow which is easily bent\n         By the Venus that\u2019s born alone of the male.\n         No, \u2019twas that other Venus that caused me to smart,\n         Born of frail mother with cowardly heart.\n         And yet that naughty lad, that little hunter bold,\n         Who laughs and shakes his flowery torch just for a day,\n         Who never rests but upon tender flowers and gay,\n         On sweetest skin who dries the tears his eyes that fill,\n         Yet oh, Enone mine, a God\u2019s that Cupid still.\n         Let it pass; for the birds of the Spring are away,\n         And dying I see the sun\u2019s lingering ray.\n         Enone, my sorrow, oh, harmonious face,\n         Humility grand, words of virtue and grace,\n         I looked yestere\u2019en in the pond frozen fast,\n         Strewn with leaves at the end of the garden\u2019s fair space,\n         And I read in my face that those days are now past.\n\n\n                                 No. 4.\n\n\nAnd this is also from page 28 of a thick book, full of similar Poems, by\nM. Montesquiou.\n\n\n                           BERCEUSE D\u2019OMBRE.\n\n\n                  Des formes, des formes, des formes\n                  Blanche, bleue, et rose, et d\u2019or\n                  Descendront du haut des ormes\n                  Sur l\u2019enfant qui se rendort.\n                            Des formes!\n\n                  Des plumes, des plumes, des plumes\n                  Pour composer un doux nid.\n                  Midi sonne: les enclumes\n                  Cessent; la rumeur finit ...\n                            Des plumes!\n\n                  Des roses, des roses, des roses\n                  Pour embaumer son sommeil,\n                  Vos p\u00e9tales sont moroses\n                  Pr\u00e8s du sourire vermeil.\n                            O roses!\n\n                  Des ailes, des ailes, des ailes\n                  Pour bourdonner \u00e0 son front.\n                  Abeilles et demoiselles,\n                  Des rythmes qui berceront.\n                            Des ailes!\n\n                  Des branches, des branches, des branches\n                  Pour tresser un pavillon,\n                  Par o\u00f9 des clart\u00e9s moins franches\n                  Descendront sur l\u2019oisillon.\n                            Des branches!\n\n                  Des songes, des songes, des songes\n                  Dans ses pensers entr\u2019 ouverts\n                  Glissez un peu de mensonges\n                  A voir le vie au travers\n                            Des songes!\n\n                  Des f\u00e9es, des f\u00e9es, des f\u00e9es,\n                  Pour filer leurs \u00e9cheveaux\n                  Des mirages, de bouff\u00e9es\n                  Dans tous ces petits cerveaux.\n                            Des f\u00e9es.\n\n                  Des anges, des anges, des anges\n                  Pour emporter dans l\u2019\u00e9ther\n                  Les petits enfants \u00e9tranges\n                  Qui ne veulent pas rester ...\n                            Nos anges!\n\n                  COMTE ROBERT DE MONTESQUIOU-FEZENSAC,\n                  _Les Hortensias Bleus_.\n\n\n                          THE SHADOW LULLABY.\n\n\n                    Oh forms, oh forms, oh forms\n                    White, blue, and gold, and red\n                    Descending from the elm trees,\n                    On sleeping baby\u2019s head.\n                              Oh forms!\n\n                    Oh feathers, feathers, feathers\n                    To make a cosy nest.\n                    Twelve striking: stops the clamour;\n                    The anvils are at rest ...\n                              Oh feathers!\n\n                    Oh roses, roses, roses\n                    To scent his sleep awhile,\n                    Pale are your fragrant petals\n                    Beside his ruby smile.\n                              Oh roses!\n\n                    Oh wings, oh wings, oh wings\n                    Of bees and dragon-flies,\n                    To hum around his forehead,\n                    And lull him with your sighs.\n                              Oh wings!\n\n                    Branches, branches, branches\n                    A shady bower to twine,\n                    Through which, oh daylight, family\n                    Descend on birdie mine.\n                              Branches!\n\n                    Oh dreams, oh dreams, oh dreams\n                    Into his opening mind,\n                    Let in a little falsehood\n                    With sights of life behind.\n                              Dreams!\n\n                    Oh fairies, fairies, fairies,\n                    To twine and twist their threads\n                    With puffs of phantom visions\n                    Into these little heads.\n                              Fairies!\n\n                    Angels, angels, angels\n                    To the ether far away,\n                    Those children strange to carry\n                    That here don\u2019t wish to stay ...\n                              Our angels!\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  The translations in Appendices I., II., and IV., are by Louise Maude.\n  The aim of these renderings has been to keep as close to the originals\n  as the obscurity of meaning allowed. The sense (or absence of sense)\n  has therefore been more considered than the form of the verses.\n\n\n\n\n                             APPENDIX III.\n\n\nThese are the contents of _The Nibelung\u2019s Ring_:\u2014\n\nThe first part tells that the nymphs, the daughters of the Rhine, for\nsome reason guard gold in the Rhine, and sing: Weia, Waga, Woge du\nWelle, Walle zur Wiege, Wagalaweia, Wallala, Weiala, Weia, and so forth.\n\nThese singing nymphs are pursued by a gnome (a nibelung) who desires to\nseize them. The gnome cannot catch any of them. Then the nymphs guarding\nthe gold tell the gnome just what they ought to keep secret, namely,\nthat whoever renounces love will be able to steal the gold they are\nguarding. And the gnome renounces love, and steals the gold. This ends\nthe first scene.\n\nIn the second scene a god and a goddess lie in a field in sight of a\ncastle which giants have built for them. Presently they wake up and are\npleased with the castle, and they relate that in payment for this work\nthey must give the goddess Freia to the giants. The giants come for\ntheir pay. But the god Wotan objects to parting with Freia. The giants\nget angry. The gods hear that the gnome has stolen the gold, promise to\nconfiscate it and to pay the giants with it. But the giants won\u2019t trust\nthem, and seize the goddess Freia in pledge.\n\nThe third scene takes place under ground. The gnome Alberich, who stole\nthe gold, for some reason beats a gnome, Mime, and takes from him a\nhelmet which has the power both of making people invisible and of\nturning them into other animals. The gods, Wotan and others, appear and\nquarrel with one another and with the gnomes, and wish to take the gold,\nbut Alberich won\u2019t give it up, and (like everybody all through the\npiece) behaves in a way to ensure his own ruin. He puts on the helmet,\nand becomes first a dragon and then a toad. The gods catch the toad,\ntake the helmet off it, and carry Alberich away with them.\n\nScene IV. The gods bring Alberich to their home, and order him to\ncommand his gnomes to bring them all the gold. The gnomes bring it.\nAlberich gives up the gold, but keeps a magic ring. The gods take the\nring. So Alberich curses the ring, and says it is to bring misfortune on\nanyone who has it. The giants appear; they bring the goddess Freia, and\ndemand her ransom. They stick up staves of Freia\u2019s height, and gold is\npoured in between these staves: this is to be the ransom. There is not\nenough gold, so the helmet is thrown in, and they also demand the ring.\nWotan refuses to give it up, but the goddess Erda appears and commands\nhim to do so, because it brings misfortune. Wotan gives it up. Freia is\nreleased. The giants, having received the ring, fight, and one of them\nkills the other. This ends the Prelude, and we come to the First Day.\n\nThe scene shows a house in a tree. Siegmund runs in tired, and lies\ndown. Sieglinda, the mistress of the house (and wife of Hunding), gives\nhim a drugged draught, and they fall in love with each other.\nSieglinda\u2019s husband comes home, learns that Siegmund belongs to a\nhostile race, and wishes to fight him next day; but Sieglinda drugs her\nhusband, and comes to Siegmund. Siegmund discovers that Sieglinda is his\nsister, and that his father drove a sword into the tree so that no one\ncan get it out. Siegmund pulls the sword out, and commits incest with\nhis sister.\n\nAct II. Siegmund is to fight with Hunding. The gods discuss the question\nto whom they shall award the victory. Wotan, approving of Siegmund\u2019s\nincest with his sister, wishes to spare him, but, under pressure from\nhis wife, Fricka, he orders the Valkyrie Br\u00fcnnhilda to kill Siegmund.\nSiegmund goes to fight; Sieglinda faints. Br\u00fcnnhilda appears and wishes\nto slay Siegmund. Siegmund wishes to kill Sieglinda also, but Br\u00fcnnhilda\ndoes not allow it; so he fights with Hunding. Br\u00fcnnhilda defends\nSiegmund, but Wotan defends Hunding. Siegmund\u2019s sword breaks, and he is\nkilled. Sieglinda runs away.\n\nAct III. The Valkyries (divine Amazons) are on the stage. The Valkyrie\nBr\u00fcnnhilda arrives on horseback, bringing Siegmund\u2019s body. She is flying\nfrom Wotan, who is chasing her for her disobedience. Wotan catches her,\nand as a punishment dismisses her from her post as a Valkyrie. He casts\na spell on her, so that she has to go to sleep and to continue asleep\nuntil a man wakes her. When someone wakes her she will fall in love with\nhim. Wotan kisses her; she falls asleep. He lets off fire, which\nsurrounds her.\n\nWe now come to the Second Day. The gnome Mime forges a sword in a wood.\nSiegfried appears. He is a son born from the incest of brother with\nsister (Siegmund with Sieglinda), and has been brought up in this wood\nby the gnome. In general the motives of the actions of everybody in this\nproduction are quite unintelligible. Siegfried learns his own origin,\nand that the broken sword was his father\u2019s. He orders Mime to reforge\nit, and then goes off. Wotan comes in the guise of a wanderer, and\nrelates what will happen: that he who has not learnt to fear will forge\nthe sword, and will defeat everybody. The gnome conjectures that this is\nSiegfried, and wants to poison him. Siegfried returns, forges his\nfather\u2019s sword, and runs off, shouting, Heiho! heiho! heiho! Ho! ho!\nAha! oho! aha! Heiaho! heiaho! heiaho! Ho! ho! Hahei! hoho! hahei!\n\nAnd we get to Act II. Alberich sits guarding a giant, who, in form of a\ndragon, guards the gold he has received. Wotan appears, and for some\nunknown reason foretells that Siegfried will come and kill the dragon.\nAlberich wakes the dragon, and asks him for the ring, promising to\ndefend him from Siegfried. The dragon won\u2019t give up the ring. Exit\nAlberich. Mime and Siegfried appear. Mime hopes the dragon will teach\nSiegfried to fear. But Siegfried does not fear. He drives Mime away and\nkills the dragon, after which he puts his finger, smeared with the\ndragon\u2019s blood, to his lips. This enables him to know men\u2019s secret\nthoughts, as well as the language of birds. The birds tell him where the\ntreasure and the ring are, and also that Mime wishes to poison him. Mime\nreturns, and says out loud that he wishes to poison Siegfried. This is\nmeant to signify that Siegfried, having tasted dragon\u2019s blood,\nunderstands people\u2019s secret thoughts. Siegfried, having learnt Mime\u2019s\nintentions, kills him. The birds tell Siegfried where Br\u00fcnnhilda is, and\nhe goes to find her.\n\nAct III. Wotan calls up Erda. Erda prophesies to Wotan, and gives him\nadvice. Siegfried appears, quarrels with Wotan, and they fight. Suddenly\nSiegfried\u2019s sword breaks Wotan\u2019s spear, which had been more powerful\nthan anything else. Siegfried goes into the fire to Br\u00fcnnhilda; kisses\nher; she wakes up, abandons her divinity, and throws herself into\nSiegfried\u2019s arms.\n\nThird Day. Prelude. Three Norns plait a golden rope, and talk about the\nfuture. They go away. Siegfried and Br\u00fcnnhilda appear. Siegfried takes\nleave of her, gives her the ring, and goes away.\n\nAct I. By the Rhine. A king wants to get married, and also to give his\nsister in marriage. Hagen, the king\u2019s wicked brother, advises him to\nmarry Br\u00fcnnhilda, and to give his sister to Siegfried. Siegfried\nappears; they give him a drugged draught, which makes him forget all the\npast and fall in love with the king\u2019s sister, Gutrune. So he rides off\nwith Gunther, the king, to get Br\u00fcnnhilda to be the king\u2019s bride. The\nscene changes. Br\u00fcnnhilda sits with the ring. A Valkyrie comes to her\nand tells her that Wotan\u2019s spear is broken, and advises her to give the\nring to the Rhine nymphs. Siegfried comes, and by means of the magic\nhelmet turns himself into Gunther, demands the ring from Br\u00fcnnhilda,\nseizes it, and drags her off to sleep with him.\n\nAct II. By the Rhine. Alberich and Hagen discuss how to get the ring.\nSiegfried comes, tells how he has obtained a bride for Gunther and spent\nthe night with her, but put a sword between himself and her. Br\u00fcnnhilda\nrides up, recognises the ring on Siegfried\u2019s hand, and declares that it\nwas he, and not Gunther, who was with her. Hagen stirs everybody up\nagainst Siegfried, and decides to kill him next day when hunting.\n\nAct III. Again the nymphs in the Rhine relate what has happened.\nSiegfried, who has lost his way, appears. The nymphs ask him for the\nring, but he won\u2019t give it up. Hunters appear. Siegfried tells the story\nof his life. Hagen then gives him a draught, which causes his memory to\nreturn to him. Siegfried relates how he aroused and obtained Br\u00fcnnhilda,\nand everyone is astonished. Hagen stabs him in the back, and the scene\nis changed. Gutrune meets the corpse of Siegfried. Gunther and Hagen\nquarrel about the ring, and Hagen kills Gunther. Br\u00fcnnhilda cries. Hagen\nwishes to take the ring from Siegfried\u2019s hand, but the hand of the\ncorpse raises itself threateningly. Br\u00fcnnhilda takes the ring from\nSiegfried\u2019s hand, and when Siegfried\u2019s corpse is carried to the pyre she\ngets on to a horse and leaps into the fire. The Rhine rises, and the\nwaves reach the pyre. In the river are three nymphs. Hagen throws\nhimself into the fire to get the ring, but the nymphs seize him and\ncarry him off. One of them holds the ring; and that is the end of the\nmatter.\n\nThe impression obtainable from my recapitulation is, of course,\nincomplete. But however incomplete it may be, it is certainly infinitely\nmore favourable than the impression which results from reading the four\nbooklets in which the work is printed.\n\n\n\n\n                              APPENDIX IV.\n      Translations of French poems and prose quoted in Chapter X.\n\n\n                    BAUDELAIRE\u2019S \u201cFLOWERS OF EVIL.\u201d\n                               No. XXIV.\n\n\n           I adore thee as much as the vaults of night,\n           O vase full of grief, taciturnity great,\n           And I love thee the more because of thy flight.\n           It seemeth, my night\u2019s beautifier, that you\n           Still heap up those leagues\u2014yes! ironically heap!\u2014\n           That divide from my arms the immensity blue.\n\n           I advance to attack, I climb to assault,\n           Like a choir of young worms at a corpse in the vault;\n           Thy coldness, oh cruel, implacable beast!\n           Yet heightens thy beauty, on which my eyes feast!\n\n\n                    BAUDELAIRE\u2019S \u201cFLOWERS OF EVIL.\u201d\n                               No. XXXVI.\n\n\n                                DUELLUM.\n\n\n         Two warriors come running, to fight they begin,\n         With gleaming and blood they bespatter the air;\n       These games, and this clatter of arms, is the din\n         Of youth that\u2019s a prey to the surgings of love.\n\n         The rapiers are broken! and so is our youth,\n         But the dagger\u2019s avenged, dear! and so is the sword,\n         By the nail that is steeled and the hardened tooth.\n       Oh, the fury of hearts aged and ulcered by love!\n\n         In the ditch, where the ounce and the pard have their lair,\n         Our heroes have rolled in an angry embrace;\n         Their skin blooms on brambles that erewhile were bare.\n       That ravine is a friend-inhabited hell!\n         Then let us roll in, oh woman inhuman,\n         To immortalise hatred that nothing can quell!\n\n\n         FROM BAUDELAIRE\u2019S PROSE WORK ENTITLED \u201cLITTLE POEMS.\u201d\n\n\n                             THE STRANGER.\n\n\nWhom dost thou love best? say, enigmatical man\u2014thy father, thy mother,\nthy brother, or thy sister?\n\n\u201cI have neither father, nor mother, nor sister, nor brother.\u201d\n\nThy friends?\n\n\u201cYou there use an expression the meaning of which till now remains\nunknown to me.\u201d\n\nThy country?\n\n\u201cI ignore in what latitude it is situated.\u201d\n\nBeauty?\n\n\u201cI would gladly love her, goddess and immortal.\u201d\n\nGold?\n\n\u201cI hate it as you hate God.\u201d\n\nThen what do you love, extraordinary stranger?\n\n\u201cI love the clouds ... the clouds that pass ... there ... the marvellous\nclouds!\u201d\n\n\n                        BAUDELAIRE\u2019S PROSE POEM,\n                        THE SOUP AND THE CLOUDS.\n\n\nMy beloved little silly was giving me my dinner, and I was\ncontemplating, through the open window of the dining-room, those moving\narchitectures which God makes out of vapours, the marvellous\nconstructions of the impalpable. And I said to myself, amid my\ncontemplations, \u201cAll these phantasmagoria are almost as beautiful as the\neyes of my beautiful beloved, the monstrous little silly with the green\neyes.\u201d\n\nSuddenly I felt the violent blow of a fist on my back, and I heard a\nharsh, charming voice, an hysterical voice, as it were hoarse with\nbrandy, the voice of my dear little well-beloved, saying, \u201cAre you going\nto eat your soup soon, you d\u2014\u2014 b\u2014\u2014 of a dealer in clouds?\u201d\n\n\n                        BAUDELAIRE\u2019S PROSE POEM,\n                         THE GALLANT MARKSMAN.\n\n\nAs the carriage was passing through the forest, he ordered it to be\nstopped near a shooting-gallery, saying that he wished to shoot off a\nfew bullets to _kill_ Time. To kill this monster, is it not the most\nordinary and the most legitimate occupation of everyone? And he\ngallantly offered his arm to his dear, delicious, and execrable\nwife\u2014that mysterious woman to whom he owed so much pleasure, so much\npain, and perhaps also a large part of his genius.\n\nSeveral bullets struck far from the intended mark\u2014one even penetrated\nthe ceiling; and as the charming creature laughed madly, mocking her\nhusband\u2019s awkwardness, he turned abruptly towards her and said, \u201cLook at\nthat doll there on the right with the haughty mien and her nose in the\nair; well, dear angel, _I imagine to myself that it is you_!\u201d And he\nclosed his eyes and pulled the trigger. The doll was neatly decapitated.\n\nThen, bowing towards his dear one, his delightful, execrable wife, his\ninevitable, pitiless muse, and kissing her hand respectfully, he added,\n\u201cAh! my dear angel, how I thank you for my skill!\u201d\n\n\n                      VERLAINE\u2019S \u201cFORGOTTEN AIRS.\u201d\n                                 No. I.\n\n\n                     \u201cThe wind in the plain\n                     Suspends its breath.\u201d\u2014FAVART.\n\n                     \u2019Tis ecstasy languishing,\n                     Amorous fatigue,\n                     Of woods all the shudderings\n                     Embraced by the breeze,\n                     \u2019Tis the choir of small voices\n                     Towards the grey trees.\n\n                     Oh the frail and fresh murmuring!\n                     The twitter and buzz,\n                     The soft cry resembling\n                     That\u2019s expired by the grass ...\n                     Oh, the roll of the pebbles\n                     \u2019Neath waters that pass!\n\n                     Oh, this soul that is groaning\n                     In sleepy complaint!\n                     In us is it moaning?\n                     In me and in you?\n                     Low anthem exhaling\n                     While soft falls the dew.\n\n\n                      VERLAINE\u2019S \u201cFORGOTTEN AIRS.\u201d\n                               No. VIII.\n\n\n                         In the unending\n                         Dulness of this land,\n                         Uncertain the snow\n                         Is gleaming like sand.\n\n                         No kind of brightness\n                         In copper-hued sky,\n                         The moon you might see\n                         Now live and now die.\n\n                         Grey float the oak trees\u2014\n                         Cloudlike they seem\u2014\n                         Of neighbouring forests,\n                         The mists in between.\n\n                         Wolves hungry and lean,\n                         And famishing crow,\n                         What happens to you\n                         When acid winds blow?\n\n                         In the unending\n                         Dulness of this land,\n                         Uncertain the snow\n                         Is gleaming like sand.\n\n\n                          SONG BY MAETERLINCK.\n\n\n                      When he went away,\n                      (Then I heard the door)\n                      When he went away,\n                      On her lips a smile there lay ...\n\n                      Back he came to her,\n                      (Then I heard the lamp)\n                      Back he came to her,\n                      Someone else was there ...\n\n                      It was death I met,\n                      (And I heard her soul)\n                      It was death I met,\n                      For her he\u2019s waiting yet ...\n\n                      Someone came to say,\n                      (Child, I am afraid)\n                      Someone came to say\n                      That he would go away ...\n\n                      With my lamp alight,\n                      (Child, I am afraid)\n                      With my lamp alight,\n                      Approached I in affright ...\n\n                      To one door I came,\n                      (Child, I am afraid)\n                      To one door I came,\n                      A shudder shook the flame ...\n\n                      At the second door,\n                      (Child, I am afraid)\n                      At the second door\n                      Forth words the flame did pour ...\n\n                      To the third I came,\n                      (Child, I am afraid)\n                      To the third I came,\n                      Then died the little flame ...\n\n                      Should he one day return\n                      Then what shall we say?\n                    Waiting, tell him, one\n                      And dying for him lay ...\n\n                      If he asks for you,\n                      Say what answer then?\n                    Give him my gold ring\n                      And answer not a thing ...\n\n                      Should he question me\n                      Concerning the last hour?\n                    Say I smiled for fear\n                      That he should shed a tear ...\n\n                      Should he question more\n                      Without knowing me?\n                    Like a sister speak;\n                      Suffering he may be ...\n\n                      Should he question why\n                      Empty is the hall?\n                    Show the gaping door,\n                      The lamp alight no more ...\n\n\nPRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n      Text that was in bold face is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"What Is Art?","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":79405}