?7W '4. I A \\ -4'' ,tilA / I W 4+ *JKj(s for %ly &' I / /u< ^ THE FALLEN GOD: AND OTHER ESSA N LITERATURE AND AR 8Y JOSEPH SPENCER KEN- NARD. PUBLISHED BY GEORGE W. JACOBS AND COMPANY, PHILA- DELPHIA. ANNO DOMINI MCMI 1o ornoutE 5dl nl pteano's pulpit in tbe 2>uomo of Siena THE FALLEN GOD: AND OTHER ESSAYS IN LITERATURE AND ART : BY JOSEPH SPENCER KEN- NARD. PUBLISHED BY GEORGE W. JACOBS AND COMPANY, PHILA- DELPHIA. ANNO DOMINI MCMI Of "The Fallen God n twelve hundred copies have been printed from type, of which this is No. Copyright, J90J by George \7. Jacobs & Co. Works by Joseph Spencer Kennard, A.M., Ph*D., D.GL. ENTRO UN CERCHIO DI FERRO (In Italian). A study in psychology. CONTEMPORARY ITALIAN ROMANCE. A study of one hundred years of Italian fiction. (Vol. I in early issue.) ALASKA LEGENDS AND TOTEMS, as reflecting the origin, religion and customs of Alaska Indians. WHEN THE PRINTER'S ART WAS YOUNG. Early printers ; early colophons. THE FRIAR IN FICTION. A review of six centuries of the fictional friar, as presented by the great writers of Europe. ( Vol. I in early issue.) THE FALLEN GOD, and other essays in literature, music and art. THE FANFARA OF THE BERSIGLIARY. And other stories of Italy. STUDI-DANTESCHI (In Italian). Studies in the Divine Comedy of Dante. MEMMO} ONE OF THE PE9PLE. A novel of Italian Socialism and of the Florentine bread riots. PSYCHIC POWER IN PREACHING byj. Spencer Kennard, D.D. Edited, with memoir by his son, Joseph Spencer Kennard. TABLE OF THE CONTENTS. The Fallen God pages 9 Sincerity in Art 53 Unity in Art 83 Two Fictional Friars \\ \ Music as a Sensuous and Spiritual Pleasure 13 J Edmondo de Amicts J47 Niccola Pisano 179 Avignon 20 J - ffatber, Comrade and ffrfend: tEo sour memory tbese pages are dedicated by vour son THE FALLEN GOD How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Day-Star [Lucifer], Son of the Morning ! Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, To the uttermost part of the pit. [THE FALLEN GOD f f j* f f f PART THE FIRST /* /* <# /* /* /* HE LEGEND OF THEl FALLEN GOD, A COMMON CHARAC- TER IN ALL RE- CORDED MYTHS, IS PROBABLY BASED ON THE PHENOME- NON OF THE FALL- |ING METEOR/* HE-I 'PHAESTOS, THE (ELEMENTAL FIRE GOD OF THE GREEKS, WAS HURLED FROM HEAVEN BY HIS FATHER, ZEUS. > A SIMILAR STORY CREPT INTO THE CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY, AND THE FATHERS TO ACCOUNT FOR IT, THOUGH JUSTIFIED UNDOUBTEDLY BY THE APOCALYPSE OF ST. JOHN THE DIVINE, TWISTED A TEXT OF THE HEBREW PROPHET TO THEIR REQUIRED MEANING. > THE STORY DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE TAKEN SO STRONG A HOLD UPON THE LATIN PEOPLES AND UPON THE BLUE- EYED CHILDREN OF THE NORTHERN WILDS, PERHAPS BECAUSE THE PHE- NOMENON UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED WAS ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE m * 8 l & n P a an m yth that was never thoroughly eradicated ' from the imagination of the common people* In England, years before the Restoration, there was a mystery played at Chester which enacted the fall of Lucifer. For Piers Plowman he is as real as the lordly bishops whom he typifies. In a deep dale this symbolist saw a dungeon, called the Castle of Care* 44 Therein woneth a wight, that wrong is i-hote Fader of f alsness, he founded it himselven, Adam and Eve he egged to do ill Counseilede Cayne to cullen his brother Judas he japede, with the jewes silver ********* He was an archangel of hevene, on of Codes knights He was loveliest of sight, after our Lord, Till he brake buxomness thorow boast of himself Then fell he with his felawes, and fendes becomen, Out of heaven into hell hobleden fast Summe in the eir, summe in the earth and summe in hell deepe But Lucifer lowest, ligeth of them all. Here, however, Lucifer and Satan are not blended, though they are thoroughly in agreement. Satan even flatters Lucifer with the clever way in which Nat in forme of a feonde, but in form of an adre he enticed Eve to eat of the forbidden tree. For it is Lucifer who is wily. Satan is the strong one* He is the spirit who urges war, the barring of the gates, and a strange light upon Milton, whom we know 12 was well acquainted with the greatest middle Eng- b fallen lish satire eggs on Astrot to manufacture gun- powder and cannon to lette the Lord of light, Ere we thorow brightness be blent* But the dukes of the dim-place must needs give way. and Piers Plowman also tells us of that rescue of the Patriarchs from hell which forms a convincing episode of the fourth canto of the Inferno. This catholic tradition was overwhelmed by the new heaven and earth created for English litera- ture by the pagan dramatists of the Elizabethan renaissance. The Christian Devil and his attendant Vice found little consideration at the hands of Shaks- peare and his brethren. Marlowe, the self-acknow- ledged scoffer, used him. it is true. but he never troubled to analyze him. or to embody him in any horrible personification. Mephistopheles is the sym- bolization of German scholarly scepticism; and it is not strange that the whole German literature, born of the Elizabethan drama, offers no deep analysis of spiritual good and evil. Even Goethe, original and vast as he undoubtedly is, clung very closely to the mocking Mario we,and his intellect is so untouched by the fiery zeal which burns in the soul of Aeschylus, Milton and Dante, that it is not irksome to him to introduce the Author of all evil in a jesting colloquy with the Spring of all good. With the Elizabethan both the Hebrew and the classical myths are J3 obliterated; and though Achilles, Hector and the Hellenic gods and goddesses gleam through double translations, their features are blurred, their char- acters modernized, and but for their names, so Englished as to be almost beyond recognition. Under this mountain, from three convergent sources flowed the stream by which sat the muse of Milton* The religious continent of the imaginings of the poet of Paradise Lost was, however, no longer catholic. It was localized. It was puritan. It was untouched, unsoiled, by the grosser devil which in the medieval mysteries ran howling about the mouth of hell* With him the Jehovah of the Hebrews became the All-father; the Devil of the medieval mysteries an evil power of the first magni- tude, while the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome were allowed no higher sphere than that of attendant spirits to the supreme ill. But Milton's Satan is not the Christian Lucifer, Shelley says of him with perfect truth : ' This character engenders in the mind a pernicious casuistry which leads us to weigh his faults with his wrongs and excuse the former because the latter exceed all measure/ In other words, the sympathy of the reader is with Satan. He is very human, not at all horrific. The sublime pageantry which surrounds him only adds zest to the pity for his magnificent sufferings. How inexpressibly human and touching is the passage, 14 To speak ^be ffallen Thrice he assayed, and thrice, in spite of scorn, Tears such as angels weep burst forth. Compare these tears with those of Lucifer in the last canto of the Inferno With six eyes did he weep and down three chins Trickled the tear-drops and the bloody drivel. Is it possible that these two beings are the same or akin ? The answer would seem to be, My Master pleased to show me The creature who once had the beauteous semblance ; and shortly afterwards Were, he as fair once as he now is foul And lifted up his brow against his Maker. Here Dante gives us two distinct references to the legend upon which the great spirit of the Para- dise Lost is built. But the second reference is uttered as an hypothesis there is almost a doubt of the truth for though Milton's soul has taken hold of the tradition, has cast out the coarser features and beautified the whole, the fire of his imagination trans- muting it ; yet Dante's genius working in the same way has produced a heavier metal. The starting place of both poets is the earth. Milton's soul in the Paradise Lost rises and finds Satan next to God. Dante's genius goes down into the bowels of the earth and in the uttermost abyss discovers Dis. 15 Cbe jfaiien *j* ne consideration of a more modern poet may * perhaps help us to understand the action of the imaginative fire of a great poet's intellect* It is commonly considered as creative* It is not so. The imagination of the multitude creates. The intellect of the poet transmutes. Such an imagination was Shelley's. His mind was instinct with the legends of the Trojan Epos, his spirit was fed on the heroic and dramatic poetry of Greece and Rome. To his imagination there were no bounds set by the supreme sanction of religion, though he was in another sense supremely religious. Such a soul, if it worked like Milton's, upward, should transmute devils into gods ; if its action was like Dante's, downward, it should deify some influence, perhaps some element. Now in the Prometheus Unbound, Shelley bor- rows the machinery of Aeschylus. He transfers the Apollo wholly from the Greek to the English almost without change. His furies, however, are more ele- mental than those of Aeschylus. There is no sugges- tion of their conversion into Eumenides. Prome- theus here is God suffering for man; Jupiter is the essence of Evil, and behind the whole broods the shade of the Demogorgon which reminds us very strongly of the Fata of Dante's master, Virgil. Religion may be called the continent of imagin- ings. It was religion which bound Milton to the Jehovah of the Hebrews. The religious awe in the 16 soul of Aeschylus led him to make Apollo a mere regulator of the furies, and eventually in the Eu- menides, forced him to convert even them into bene- factors of the race they had tormented* He, too, undertook the unthankful task which Milton pro- posed to himself To assert eternal Providence, And justify the ways of God to men. The failure or success of both we discuss later. 'Shelley proposes to himself no such labor* In his first drama or goat song, as he calls it, so emulative of the Hellenic spirit is he the religious continent i of his imaginings is his worship of the great litera- ture and genius of the Hellenic peoples. He does not wander essentially from the example set him by Aeschylus. In the Christian mythology, however, his spirit has no confining limits. It is, perhaps, unfor- itunate that when he treats of the Christian Deity ! and his antagonist Lucifer, he forsakes the drama for the Spencerian stanza and canto. But he says enough for our purpose Two Powers o'er mortal things dominion hold Ruling the world with a divided lot, Immortal, all-pervading, manifold, Twin Genii, equal Gods, O'er the wide wild abyss two meteors shone, A blood-red Comet and the Morning Star Mingling their beams in combat as he stood, \1 jfallen All thoughts within his mind waged mutual war, In dreadful sympathy when to the flood That fair Star fell, he turned and shed his brother's blood* Thus evil triumphed, and the Spirit of evil, One Power of many shapes which none may know, One Shape of many names ; the Fiend did revel In victory, reigning o'er a world of woe, For the new race of man went to and fro, Famished and homeless, loathed and loathing, wild, Hating good for his immortal foe, He changed from starry shape, beauteous and mild, To a dire Snake, with man and beast unreconciled. Andj[the great Spirit of Good did creep among The nations of mankind, and every tongue Cursed, and blasphemed him as he passed ; for none Knew good from evil, though their names were hung In mockery o'er the fane where many a groan, As King, and Lord, and God, the conquering Fiend did own. As Shelley has taken this transmuted Lucifer from Milton's Satan ; deified him a little more ; as he has borrowed the gods and furies of the Prome- theus Unbound only slightly changed from the stage of Aeschylus, so Aeschylus himself has borrowed his gods and goddesses from the Heaven, Earth and the Shades of Homer. But though these in the Iliad and Odyssey have passed through the transmuting fire of Homer's imagination, they have not there emerged thoroughly purified. Not only are they anthropomorphic, not more or less than deified 18 men, but their original, elemental character con- tinually appears. Zeus, the All-father, is still the sky, Neptune has no being apart from the ocean ; while Hephaestos, as we have seen, was cast out of heaven by his father, Zeus, and as the god of fire, has become a good-natured,harmless fellow, the friend of man and the prototype of the Prometheus* Not only is this so, but the most solitary and grandest figure in the literature of Ancient Greece calls attention to it, emphasizes it, and is so fiercely indignant of it, that we feel this very indignation responsible for much of the grandeur of his creation. There has been faction and betrayal among the gods. A new dynasty has seized on Olympus. Zeus, the All-father, even he had a father, who is now where? And a son shall come to him, as Aeschylus knows. And yet cry the Erinyes, ' My ancient honours remain to me though possessing a station beneath the earth and sunless darkness/ ' Even Mercury, the courier of Jove, is a mere menial, to Prometheus and Aeschylus the overseer of the tyrant. oAA* claropw yap rovSe TOV Aios rpo^iv, 2 TOV TOV TVpaWOV TOV Vt'oV SlttKOVOV But yonder I behold the scout of Zeus, Of this new potentate the servitor ; And the Erinyes themselves despise him with i Eumenides, 371-374. 2 Protnethem, 962-963. 19 tTbe fallen a \\ the rancour of aged servants overlorded by a young parvenu* CTTCI Ka07r7raei fte irpca/Svnv veos* Since young you ride down me in years. The creator of all these gods was the brooding imagination of prehistoric man. Such deities were born of the wind and the sea, in the sky and the clouds, in the storm, and in the memory of inunda- tion and cataclysm. Thus, the primitive intellect, with its tendency to personification, knows one of the impulses as Ormuzd, the other as Ahriman. The Greek intellect, thrown upon itself, takes refuge in the conception of Moira, ruling even the gods, a hybrid of good and its opposite. When we say that the Greek intellect personi- fied the forces of nature and worshiped personifica- ) tions as gods, we state absolute truth. But few things are so misleading as absolute truth. The Greek thinker became intelligible to himself and to others only in so far as he availed himself of the prevailing mode of thought. Otherwise, he was unintelligible. Whatever his private opinion may have been on the subject of the myths and the cos- mogonies, he found them a convenient basis of thought. Hence we see the physical experience and the intellectual experience of the Greeks accumulat- ing in harmony for centuries, with no peril to the state religion. The multitude could have dwelt in 20 their world and the philosophers could have dwelt in their world forever without the develop- ment of conflict, but for one circumstance. That circumstance was the accumulation of spiritual experience. Of spiritual experience, in our sense, the Greeks were, of course, destitute, but that they were vouchsafed a quality of it, we can detect almost as far back as Homer* It culminated in Socrates* This spiritual experience, such as it was, lagged far behind the physical experience, and farther still behind the intellectual. Aeschylus struggled with it, but the Greek mode of thought was inadequate to its expression. He made himself intelligible to his contemporaries, but the audiences for whom Eurip- ides wrote would have found the Prometheus Vinctus a riddle. This seems to be the clue to the obscurity of Aeschylus* He is conscious of a mighty force at work, destined one day to hurl the gods from their thrones. But he has * that within which passeth show/ and he cannot render intel- ligible the message whose purport fills him with gloom. The Greeks gazed in awe, and we may conjecture that they felt uncomfortable. Certainly they took refuge in a more congenial atmos- phere. Aeschylus became the theologian of antiquity, and Euripides became the successful playwright. At first, as we have said, these gods were only personified elements ; but passed through the minds 21 jfaileH o f the priestly poets. Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, and ' among the Latins, Virgil, who appear as the record- ing memories of past times, they become gods like men, and then men like gods. Meanwhile, the demand from below for the mere elemental gods must be satisfied : the gods of tempestual destruction, the gods of the trouble of the soul. Of this demand are born Harpies, the Erinyes of Aeschylus, the Fates of Virgil, the Furies of Shelley perhaps even the Hounds of Hell, which in the Paradise Lost are the incestuous offspring of Sin and Death. It would be interesting to follow to his elemental origin the Mercury whom we find regulating the Furies in the Prometheus Unbound of Shelley* Unfortunately, concerning him there is much mys- tery. It is certain that he is the Apollo of Aeschylus, who is the Phoibos Apollo of Homer* But even the name has given rise to discussion as to its origin. It is interesting, however, to note here that the Puri- tan, John Bunyan, uses the word in the sense of destroyer. Apollyon is the name of his great adversary. This should assure us that the dimmed glory of Milton's fallen archangel borrows some of its light from the winged messenger of the older gods, who yet to Aeschylus are parvenus. Though he has lost the bond which bound him to the ele- ment, it is at least probable that in the prehomeric days he was the personification of the pestilence, the 22 desert, or the storm a horrible vision startling the minds of men* He is always the Minister of Ven- geance. Wolves followed him. He carries in his hand the arrows of destruction; and even in the Iliad, Achilles still calls him * the most pernicious of all the gods/ The Erinyes of Aeschylus are the ministers of blood vengeance* The black Night is their mother. Their office* given perfect from the gods, is to track forever the steps of the murderer of his fellow, to suck the blood from his limbs, to bear him alive below. In their station beneath the earth in sunless darkness they are called Evils. And what form are they given? Old women? No. Gorgon? No. They are wingless to behold, black and altogether abominable ; out of their eyes they distill a horrible rheum. And their dress is not worthy to be worn either at the shrines of the gods or in the dwellings of men. 1 Awful these, indeed, and yet, these have an office not easily set aside. These retain their ancient honours* though possessing a station beneath the earth in sunless darkness. The religious sanction which bounded the im- aginations of Aeschylus and Milton to endeavor to justify the ways of God to men, that rule of the Anarch, Custom, through which Shelley breaks with such startling cries, lays heavier upon Dante I Eumenides, 48-6 1 . 23 Ube ffaiien than on all. With him, however, there is no attempt * at justification. It it sufficient for him that these things are so. He is catholic. The continent of his imaginings has no leak ; the walls are thin only where he lightly touches upon the fabled deities and false of his master, Virgil. Dante is too much of a Latin, too much a Roman, to relegate, as Milton does, the whole family of the pagan gods to the nethermost abyss. The rigid faith in him forces him downward ; his leader is the great Roman poet ; and if for no other reason than this, he must leave the false Olympians behind him. Yet there is no doubt that because of this lightness of touch he feels the rigor of the religious bond much tighter. The fact that the gods of Virgil are false, makes him so much the more merciless in his dealing with the damned, and adds another circle to the infernal realm. The last canto of the Inferno is a climax to a gradual procession downward. In this descent, how- ever, the genius of Dante has worked on the same principle as we have seen that of Aeschylus work- ing, that of Milton, that of Shelley. But the order is reversed. In this poem we find the infernal deities of Greece and Rome Minos, Plutos, the Furies, the Minotaur and the Harpies ruling dif- ferent circles of the shades. When the eighth circle is reached, the mansion in Hell called Malebolge, 24 the list of the infernal deities is exhausted. This place is so awful that in all the poet's wide reading there is no devil damned black enough to rule. Before the ninth circle is passed, however, we meet the giants, Nimrod, Ephialtes and Anteus, titanic men, whose names appear on the dim horizon of history. The transmuting fire of the poet's imag- ination begins to work. Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord, sprung from the knowledge or creative imagination of the Hebrews. He was responsible and is punished for the tower of Babel, and the division of human speech ere the continents were subdivided. Ephialtes was the Hellenic child of the earth. These and Briareus stand at the boundary of the eighth circle and the ninth. In Hell they are the landmarks between the speakable and the unspeak- able, as in time they divided the recorded from that which has not been written. For we are not at the bottom yet. There is yet to be seen the abyss which swallows up Judas and Lucifer. In this lowest region of all, whence then can Dante derive his imagery ? On what material will the transmuting fire, the demiurgic genius of the poet work ? The most fearful descriptions in the Aeneid are of Charon : 25 jfallcn Portitor has horrendus aquas et flumina servat (5oO. Terribili squalore Charon ; cui plurima mento Canities inculta jacet, stant lumina flamma Sordidus ex humeris nodo dependet amictus ; c4eneid e VI,298. A grim ferryman guards [servat] these floods and rivers, Charon of frightful slovenliness ; on whose chin a load of hair neglected sprouts. His eyes flame. His vestment filthy hangs from his shoulders by a knot. And of Cerberus haec ingens, latratu regna trifauci Personat adverse recubans immanis in antro. And of immense Cerberus [who] with three-throated bark makes this kingdom to resound stretched enormously along the cave* Cui vates, horrere videns jam colla colubris. To whom when the priestess saw his neck to bristle with horrid snakes. Deeper horrors are not described, and the Latin [ poet confesses like the Greek dramatist his inability ; I rand dedicates in these lines the further work, the (/ further labor, to one who should come after him, one * mightier than he : Non mihi si linguae centum sint oraque centum, Ferrea vox, omnes scelerum comprendere formas, Omnia poenarum percurrere nomina possim. "Were there to me a hundred tongues, a hundred! mouths, A voice of iron, it were not possible to me to comprehend all their crimes, or to enumerate all their punishments. So he can no longer borrow from his teacher, Virgil. As deep as this the older poet never ven- tured. This terrible vision cannot therefore be seen through Virgil. He [Virgil] from before me moved and made me stay, Saying : Behold Dis and behold the place Where thou with fortitude most arm thyself. We have learned how the wolf-leading, man- destroying personification of the pestilence became in Homer, Phoibos Apollo; how this light-bearing god became the regulator of the ministers of ven- geance in the Eumenides; how Milton's Satan borrows some of his light from that same Apollo, and finally, how the demiurgic fire of Shelley's imagination makes of this Satan the benefactor of man and the light of the world. By a similar pro- cess working in the inverse order, the genius of Dante has produced the morning-star, Lucifer, the creature who had once the beauteous semblance. The materials were ready at his hand, he was born among them; they were of him and he of them. The very name gives us the cue : Dis, that is Dives, riches, Plutus, Orcus! In Romanesque folklore Orcus, is a black, hairy, man-eating mon- ster. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa-ir, translated ' devils,' is literally 4 hairy-ones.' The Etruscan god of Death was a savage old man with wings and a hammer. 27 ^ be **? n ^d t ^ lus Dante describes him in the thirty- * fourth canto : Underneath each came forth two mighty wings Such as befitting were so great a bird ; And later : At every mouth he with his teeth was crunching A sinner in the manner of a brake ; And later still : And when the wings were open wide apart, He laid fast hold upon the shaggy sides. The hugeness and horror are lost in quotation. But what of it ? The worst of it is indescribable. How frozen I became and powerless, then, Ask it not, reader, for I cannot write it, Because all language would be insufficient. The whole canto is of hint ; the imagination of the reader is left to do the rest. It is a climax. As Virgil steps aside and says to Dante : Ecco Dite ! So Dante moves out of the way and says to the reader : Behold the King of Hell! Pausanius, a Graeco-Roman writer of the sec- ond century, with whose Descriptio Graeciae Dante was j probably well acquainted in his third book describes at length the gods and sacrifices of the ancient Achaeans. In one place they sacrifice ' in a manner that may not be spoken/ In another, he saw the images of gods, which he regarded as the 28 oldest deities of Greece. One was the three-eyed se * allen Zeus, and another the three-headed Artemis. And ' so Dante Oh, what a marvel it appeared to me When I beheld three faces on his head ! Let us note here a fact heretofore we believe unnoted that Dante is fully conscious of the utter degeneracy of the language he uses. He knows, land none better than he, that a people is as its speech is. For this reason he chooses Virgil as his master; Virgil, whose epic epitomises the glory of the coun- try and times of Dante's forefathers. For this reason he has chosen to write in the tongue of his time, conscious that the day of the Latin is passed, and that the new Roman must speak a new Latin. Hence comes the cry with which he enters the city of Dis : S' io avessi le rime ed aspre e chiocce, Ne da lingua che chiami mamma e babbo. It is not a child's tongue that can describe the foundation of the universe. It is not a language about to be born from the putrefaction of the imperial tongue of Rome that he would choose were the choice his. Upon what times was he fallen for such a song! One epithet of Greek, one old Roman adjective, would express what his Italian brethren coined a line to carry. In these days the very word horrendus has lost its bristling meaning, and even Virgil ascribes it indifferently to Charon and to the serpent-hairy neck of Cerberus. i See Inf. c. 32, II. J-9. 29 THE FALLEN GOD PART THE SECOND LUCIFER IN DANTE'S INFERNO TI'S ow 'AvayKi/s eoriv oi Motpat rpL/jiopffroi fJ.vy/M>vfs T* Prometheus, 523, 524. Who then is helmsman of Necessity? The triform Fates and the remembering Furies. N connection with this horrible vision fcucifer in r TV * t j t. t i- -j Dante's fnferno. of Dis it would be interesting to consider the fearful triform god of the Hindoos and other Asiatic peoples. But we have here only time to hint at it. The grov- elling imagination of degenerate multi- tudes has carved the eidolon of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva from the legends and fables of their Buddhist priests. But Buddhism stands in the same relation to the original Brahmanism, as Italian stands to Latin, or Protestantism to Catholicism; and the basis of Brahmanism, its sacred literature, is the Veda, And what of the Veda ? It is a collection of hymns older than the oldest Greek, older than Sans- crit ; it is the fountain-head of the litera- ture of the Aryan peoples. Here Zeus the All-father, in Latin Jupiter, is Dyans ; the all-embracing god of light is Varuna, the Greek oo-pavo's, and related to him Mitra, the bright sun of day. Another name for the same conception is Aditi, the infinite. His opposite is Diti, the bound, of whom there is no conception except the personification of Night decay, destruction and death; signifying also the place of destruction Nir-riti, the Abyss and the Mother of 33 Sbe fallen Hell. 1 Was it for these deities that the soul of Aes- ' chylus hungered when he pictured the man-loving Titan bound down by the might of the new servants of the gods to the thunder-beaten crags of the Asian desert? For these and more. Into the heart of Prometheus there has crept a greater conception that of Love ; not the mere brutality of passion such as the new ruler of the gods had for lo. Not this, but in strong contrast to this. Aeschylus repudiates the heroism of slaughter and the apotheosis of incestuous amours of gods and men. For this he suffers, and his cry goes up: Oh, divine Aether, and ye swift-winged breezes, ye fountains of rivers, and ye uncounted laughters of the waves of the deep; Oh, earth, thou mother of all, and ye all-beholding circle of the sun, I call you to behold me, what I a god suffer at the hands of the gods. 2 For Aeschylus is conscious that in his awful mythology there is something lacking. The rulers of the minds of men are changing. Better the god- like Aether and the uncounted laughters of the waves of the deep ; better to worship, better to call upon the great, glorious Earth, the mother of all, gods and men ; better return to the deities of the pre- homeric days than take these. And why? The whole drama of Prometheus is the answer to this i See Max Miiller, Origin of Religion, 131. 2 Prometheus, 88-93. 34 query. Love is nobler than bloodshed ; the philan- luctfer in ... ,, ., t ,, Dante's Inferno, thropist is greater than the soldier. Herein is the greatness of Aeschylus ; he has conceived Love, love suffering for others ; has typi- fied it, expressed it under bodily and visible form. But this greatness is limited ; with love there is a coequal, Justice. Aeschylus has also conceived justice, but herein he is lacking that he has not expressed it in like figure as he has philanthropy. In the Eumenides of Aeschylus, outward shape, power and being are given only to the spirit of vengeance roused against a matricide. Yet here the difference between the power of Aeschylus and that of the earlier mythmakers is plainly shown. This embodiment is primarily of the inner, not of the outer nature, and there is, morever, a distinct artistic knowledge of and delight in such embodi- ment. This knowledge and delight is expressed over and again. It is put into the mouths of the Erinyes themselves: TIS OVV TttS' OV\ oeT(U re Ko.1 ScSotKcp /3poTdv, fpjQV K\VQ)V Oe&fWV TOV fWtpOKpaVTOV K 6tS>V 8oOevT(L reXcov ; Eumenides, 367. Who then of mortals dreads not and fears not these. Hearing: our office confirmed by fate, given perfect from the gods. But the keynote of the Eumenides is that to 35 which we have given an outline, and which is expressed in the verse in which Athena refers to the Erinyes : These possess an office not easily set aside. 1 This office is to satisfy the demand for justice, the human cry for a right recompense for evil. That he failed to express, to symbolize, to personify this, Aeschylus himself confesses in the very drama in which he endeavored to do so. For though perhaps not in execution, yet in conception, the Eumenides falls far short of the noble Prometheus ; even while the lat- ter proves that but for an accident Aeschylus would have embodied this very demand. The Eumenides are the ministers of blood-vengeance, as we have seen. In the drama they track a mother-slayer to his doom. We have considered the excellence, the faithfulness, of their embodiment in the Erinyes. But the transformation of these into Eumenides of name and word is in itself a confession of failure. There is an evil beyond these, which Aeschylus does not attempt to portray an evil which demands a more fearful personification than any fury Aeschylus could conceive. yap fv ftpordifTi KCLV Oeols TOV Trpoa-rpOTTaLOv /A^VIS, ci TrpoSoi cr
ec Diet*
balance la Mctotre* is the measure of Milton failure.
Milton is the Puritan Homer. There is no com-
parison of him with Aeschylus, and in no one sense
is he the continuation of Aeschylus, any more than
the vast pile of a mediaeval cathedral is a continua-
tion of the simplicity of an Ionic pillar*
Let us here recapitulate. The crowning poet
of Ancient Greece is Aeschylus ; in this, that he has
given life and palpable being to the idea of Love in
Prometheus, and through the hint and shortcoming
of the Eumenides, he left it as a legacy to his suc-
cessors, to as well typify and adequately portray the
horrible vision of inexorable justice claiming and
punishing the most abominable of all sin betrayal.
In other words, the spiritual successor of Aeschylus
must embody in a form living for all time the vision
of this sin working its own punishment. All the
ancients, summed up in Dante's master, Virgil, left
this work untouched ; Shelley, repudiating punish-
40
ment, and overcome by the intensity of his love, did fcuctfec in
f .< < , , , T < Dante's Inferno,
not even know that such a task remained* John
Milton knew of the task and emulated it. But the
puritan, the pure philosophical desire in him to
Justify the ways of God to men,
led him after a false light. We have seen with
what power. Sin and death the offspring of the arch
[traitor, and the hellhounds, who are their offspring,
mutually torment themselves. Satan himself is not
smirched; the deceiver of mankind still holds his
glory and his star ; still weeps
Tears such as angels weep.
Nor will the puritan and philosophic doubt in
Milton's soul allow him to bind mere men such as
* Judas, Cain and Wentworth, in a punishment which
cherubim endure. For in Satan, Milton has drawn
us a princely sinner, a Lucifer of the intellect with
slightly tarnished glory. Instead of loathsomeness,
there is that in him which speaks home to the
'noblest of our attributes and leaves a thrill of sym-
pathy.
High on a throne of royal state, which far
Outshone the wealth of Ormus and of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold,
Satan exalted sat.
The Satanology of the Rabbis contributed little
to conception of The Fallen God. Largely derived,
41
as Doctor Kohut has shown, from Parseeism, it
* makes no mention of a Kingdom of Satan. In the
Talmud the power of evil is not contrasted with that
of good, nor is Satan represented as the enemy of
God. Rabbinism viewed the * great enemy* only as
the envious and malicious opponent of man, the
spiritual element was eliminated. Instead of a pow-
erful principle of evil we have only a clumsy, often a
stupid hater. This holds equally true in regard to
the threefold aspect under which Rabbinism presents
the devil: as Satan or Sammael / as the Yetsenhaka
or evil impulse in man personified; and as the Angel
of *Death. In other words, as the Accuser; Tempter
and Punisher* But there is nothing here which had
not been told and better told by Aeschylus.
Dante, and Dante alone, is the true successor of
Aeschylus ; a greater than Aeschylus. He alone
has in some measure attained to and completed what
Aeschylus assayed. His conception of Lucifer is
the supreme intellectual conception of the Fallen
God. Nothing in ancient or modern literature has,
or perhaps ever will, equal it. With him Lucifer is
as repulsive as Milton's Satan is fascinating* All
glory is alien to him ; all things 'of sin are a part of
and have their source in him. All the multitudinous
aspects of his being are varying reverberations and
revelations of a single thing Evil, pure and infinite.
He is All-evil ; the author of all the sin mankind
endures* Every allusion to the former state of
T -r * A t_ T r -t j j t.f j 2>ante'8 Inferno.
Lucifer, is in the Inferno, veiled and oblique ; and in
the last canto, the unfathomable spiritual loathsome-
ness is so strongly insisted upon, that it would be
physically repulsive, did not Dante, by consummate
art, transmute the realism with an intensely imag-
inative symbolism. The one faint gleam of apparent
ideality left to Lucifer is his name ; but, in fact, even
that is only darkness visible, ironic emblem of what
once he was Ecco Dite !
il punto
Dell ' Universe, in su che Dite sie.dc.
Then, too, with his hugeness of person, which
is made a measurable loathsomeness, and with all
his acts, whose vileness is infinite, there goes, para-
doxically, infinite imbecility. Though his influence
beats through hell and into the world, and gives to
the realms of sin all their being, his motions have
all the futility of perfect machinery with no other
function than to express utter lack of function, when
there should be supreme function. Only in this case
of Lucifer, this dead activity in place of glorious
activity is not mechanical, but spiritual. Such is
the death-in-life Lucifer (that is, Evil), all-fulfilled of
self, has brought upon himself.
This conception that, although Lucifer is
strangely living, he is also strangely dead, is
strengthened by Farinata's reply to Dante's question
43
^o
the kind of knowledge the damned possess.
Noi veggiam, come quei c' ha mala luce,
Le cose, disse, che ne son lontano :
Cotanto ancor ne splende il sommo Duce.
Quando s* appressano, o son, tutto vano
Nostro intelletto ; e,s f altri nol ci apporta,
Nulla sapem di vostro stato umano.
Per6 comprender puoi, che tutta morta
Fia nostra conoscenza da quel punto,
Che del future fia chiusa la porta.
Inferno c. 34, 100-108.
We see, like those who have imperfect sight,
The things, he said, that distant are from us ;
So much still shines on us the Sovereign Ruler.
When they draw near, or are, is wholly vain
Our intellect, and if none brings it to us,
Not anything know we of your human state.
Hence thou canst understand, that wholly dead
Will be our knowledge from the moment when
The portal of the future shall be closed*
Even these few faint beams from God's far-off
radiance will at the day of doom be withdrawn.
Then the living death will forever settle down upon
the dolorous realm.
A consideration of several passages from the
last canto of the Inferno will serve either as concrete
illustrations or as refutations of what has just been
written ; revealing at the same time the marvellous
variety in the severe unity of Dante's conception of
Lucifer and Evil.
44
Dante and Virgil have entered the Judecca, the fcuctter in
fourth and last division of the ninth circle, which
contains those who were traitors to beneficent lords*
Here.
V ombre tuttc eran coperte,
E trasparen come festuca in vetro.
Altre sono a giacere ; altre stanno erte,
Quella col capo, e quella colle piante ;
Altra, com'arco, il capo a'piedi inverte.
Inferno, c. 34, 11-15.
. . . . where the shades were wholly covered, and
showed through like a straw in glass. Some are
lying: t some stand erect, this on his head, and that
on his soles ; another like a bow inverts his face to
his feet.
A world of meaning lurks in the opening verse of
this canto as spoken by Virgil in the depths of hell.
Vexilla Regis prodeunt Inferni.
The banners of the King- of Hell advance.
These words must, with the reminiscences they
arouse, pierce the heart of the three traitors Judas,
Brutus and Cassius. They hint of the far-off
pageants of the church militant and triumphant,
making by contrast present horrors more horrible ;
and their apparent solemn utterance of praise is, at
the closing word, inverted to a grim and almost
sacred mockery of evil in the heart of the empire.
Then follows a passage, full in its music, and
suited in its imagery to the gloomy majesty of Luci-
fer when seen from afar.
45
jf alien Come, qoando ona grossa nebbia spira,
O qoando l f emisperio nostro annotta,
Par da longi on molin che 1 vento gira ;
Vedcr mi parve on tal dificio allotta.
Inferno, c. 34, 4-7.
As a mill that the wind turns seems from afar
when a thick fog breathes, or when oor hemis-
phere grows dark with night, soch a stroctore
then it seemed to me I saw.
This soon changes, with terrible irony, to a revela-
tion of Lucifer as he really is when seen close.
(See verses 28 to 69 ; Lo imperador' to a'bem 'beduto)*
Thus the banners have become the vast bat-
like wings of Lucifer, which in their swift rise and
fall seem to advance, all the more because the poets
are rapidly moving toward them. All the toil of
scholars has not made clear the meaning of the three
faces. Says Longfellow : ' The Ottimo and Ben-
venuto both interpret the three faces as symbolizing
Ignorance, Hatred and Impotence* Others interpret
them as signifying the three-quarters of the then
known world, Europe, Asia and Africa/ Miss
Rosetti says the faces are 'a symbol of Lucifer's
dominion over all reprobates from the three parts of
the world, the complexions being respectively of
Europe, Asia and Africa/ Blanc (quoted by Ver-
non) ' thinks that Dante has certainly intended to
present Satan with his three faces as a direct anti-
type of the Holy Trinity/ May not the last two
46
conjectures both be right; at least partially? Since Xuciter in
r\ ft et. i r j r j f * r 2>arte'6 f nfetno.
Dante, like Shakspeare, is fond of a reduplication ot
meaning, often even in a single word. To the
objection to this view, that these three bestial faces
are the direct antitype of God in his three-fold unity,
to wit, that it too greatly dignifies Lucifer, it may be
replied that Dante may once again be employing his
figure in direct irony against sin, and that Lucifer's
form may be a grim and tormenting parody of the
antitype he desired to be when he presumed to
attempt to rival him, who in His infinity and incom-
prehensibleness can have no antitype. Then even
to Lucifer himself, his physical being would be a bit-
ter mockery. At any rate, even though Lucifer is
the complete antitype of God, Dante deliberately
suppresses all mention of the fact. This in itself
may be the finest irony.
Brutus, Cassius, Judas Iscariot ! These are the
three arch sinners whom Satan's teeth are champ-
ing* The first is the betrayer of his king; the
second is the betrayer of his friend and king ; the
third is the betrayer of his friend, his king and his
God.
We now come to the difficult passage, describ-
ing the real ascent, but apparent descent of the poets
as they climb over Lucifer. (See verses 70-93}.
'This point is the centre of the universe; when
Virgil had turned upon the haunch of Lucifer, the
47
fallen passage had been made from one hemisphere of the
' earth the inhabited and known hemisphere to the
other, where no living men dwell, and where the
only land is the mountain of Purgatory/ (Norton).
The symbolic meaning of this description is,
as it seems; that Dante typifies the human soul,
journeying through the snares of evil toward salva-
tion ; that is, toward the love of God. Hell is the
realm of sin, and Purgatory that of absolving
penance, whereto true repentance is the portal. Fig-
uratively, then, the moment Dante turns round upon
the exact centre of Lucifer, the focus of evil, the
world and the universe, and begins the climb
toward Purgatory, toward atonement, a spiritual
crisis has been passed. A bewildering change comes
upon the physical universe, corresponding to that
which comes upon the soul when its new life is
begun. By the soul's new vision all things, old and
familiar, are made so strangely new, with altered
or inverted importance, that at first its perplexity is
greater than its enlightenment.
The monotonous beating of Lucifer's wings,
the ceaseless champing of his teeth, his impotence to
utter a word or to make other than mechanical
motions, the desolation of a land of ice and life-
congealing winds, the intense darkness of the vast
cavern below the earth's surface, in which the soli-
tary voices of Dante and Virgil sound alien, hoarse
48
and hollow. all these things present a picture more ^Lucifer in
if 1. fi. j j 'i j t-r Xante's Inferno,
terrible than mere solitude and silence, and a life
more dead than death*
Yet so austere and restrained is Dante's imag-
ination, and so intense the underplay and overplay
of spiritual meaning, direct or indirect, that although
the grotesque hideousness of evil is fully revealed,
the revelation is noble ; nor do we ever, as some-
times in reading Shakspeare, feel as though we were
too close to the borders of madness, prompted by
visions.
That lawless and uncertain thought
Imagine howling.
Now the painful upward journey begins ; light
from the better world dawns faintly ; and spiritual
death and all that make for death, are left behind in
their * deep backward and abysm/
Salimmo su, ei primo ed io secondo,
Tanto ch' io vidi delle cose belle,
Che porta il ciel, per un pertugio tondo :
E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.
Inferno, c. 34, end.
We mounted up, he first and I second, till
through a round opening I saw of those beau-
teous things which heaven bears, and thence we
came forth to see again the stars.
In the life of every man two beings struggle
vehemently for mastery the Flesh and the Spirit.
, The function of the Intellect, during the struggle,'is
49
fallen strangely impartial. It accomplishes no more than
' to afford man a more or less adequate comprehension
of the internal conflict. Crowning itself pontifex
maximus, the intellect proclaims its divine right and
infallibility as judge in the domains of faith and
morals, and from man's intellectual impartiality in
the confrontation of good and evil, is born Lucifer.
The Greek intellect was impotent in the presence of
evil ; whereas the meanest hireling may and does,
when he will, overcome satan. For, like every
vital thing, the conception of Lucifer the fallen god,
source of all evil, himself All-evil, has and is
having its organic development. The Greek mind,
conceived of personifications of guilt, of the stings
of guilty conscience; personifications even of Evil
itself. But its evil was destitute of spiritual signifi-
cance. This element of spirituality is the informing
principle which imparts to Dante's Lucifer his im-
portance, his significance, his reality.
How far it is possible to go in this development
of the conception of the fallen god is indicated by
Henry Mills Alden when, in view of the 'restoration
of all things/ he says : 4 Lucifer is light-bearer, the
morning star, and whatever disguises he may take
in falling, there can be no new dawn that shall not
witness his rising in his original brightness/
50
SINCERITY IN ART
NASMUCH as sincerity
is commonly apprehended
as the opposite of feigning,
it seems like a contradiction
to speak of sincerity in re-
lation to a work of art;
art being essentially imita-
tion, or feigning, as Plato
defined it, and after him,
Aristotle.
The Othello, pacing the stage, his heart gnawed
by the venom-pangs of jealousy as he lends ear to
lago's villain slander, is not the Moor, but Edwin
Booth, Henry Irving, or some other actor whom we
have admired in other characters ; yet are we affected
by the feigned distress. As we follow the events of his
tragic history, we are even moved to tears for the
sorrows of the Moor, and express our admiration by
applauding the actor who feigns these passions.
Why do we applaud the actor ? Because he is
55
Sincerity in a sincere artist. 'Ah, but it has been a feigning all
' the time ! ' Truly so, but the feigning is in accord-
ance with the artist's nature and aptitudes, with his
capacity for feeling and for expression ; therefore he
is, as an artist, sincere. Were that same artist to
assume the part of Rip Van Winkle, probably we
should long for our Joseph Jefferson. The actor is
permitted to assume the garb, the looks, the manner,
the passion and personality of a stage character, but
it is not permitted him to be false either to his own
self or to his hearers, by counterfeiting any character
or personality, that is foreign to his own proper tem-
perament or his own histrionic powers.
All this is palpably true of the art of theatrical
representation ; it is not less true of all the arts. A
few examples will show that sincerity is a prime
essential in works of sculpture and painting.
Consider the Artemis of the Naples museum.
Is this figure genuinely archaic, sculptured when
Grecian or Italo-Grecian art was still in its infancy ?
Or must it be referred to a later period and regarded
as a studied counterpart of obsolete antique forms
a Brumagem archaic goddess ?
With its soulless placidity of countenance, with
the stiff regularity of the minute pleats of the robe,
which even the hasty stride of the figure cannot dis-
arrange, the Artemis might well pass as a genuine
specimen of archaic art.
56
But if our attention rests on that step which we Sincerity in
*ja <-
have purposely described as 4 hasty/ and if we note
the graceful gesture of the arms, so fittingly accom-
rpanying the movement of the whole body, we are
forced to refer the statue to a more recent period.
Genuine archaic statues are wholly actionless;
instance the celebrated funeral stela in the Athens
museum. It bears a bas-relief figure of an armed
man, known as cMarathonomachos, fighter at Mara-
thon. Here the sculptor, though he makes the legs
divaricate a little, to show that the warrior was
marching, nevertheless fails utterly to suggest the
idea of motion, that being beyond the capacity of
archaic Grecian sculpture.
How and wherefore it came to pass that artists,
probably Greek artists, were led to fashion such
statues as the Artemis, is a question easily answered
when we consider that in Italy, in the last period of
the Roman Commonwealth, there were whole popu-
lations that held fast to the ancient order and clung
to primitive beliefs. These scrupled to pay adora-
tion, or to offer prayer or sacrifice to the graceful
statues of gods introduced from conquered Corinth
and Athens. The beauty of those figures scandal-
ized the naif religious sentiment of these conserva-
tives ; they demanded figures of gods such as their
forefathers had worshiped. The sculptor, in com-
pliance with the taste of his patron, was then obliged
57
Sincerity in to resort to the trick which many a Florentine work-
74 vf
* man practices nowadays when he fashions chests
and cabinets in thirteenth century styles. But even
as the modern wood-carver never can attain the
quaint elegance of the earlier artists, so those ancient
Italo-Grecian sculptors could not entirely forego their
acquired proficiency, nor so completely unlearn, for
the nonce, the canons of art as ascertained in their
own day, as to render the true spirit of archaism.
They produced only pieces of seeming-ancient work-
manship, which artistically were not sincere.
Passing from Roman and Grecian art, to the
I art of the beginning of the nineteenth century, we may
instance the works of Antonio Canova. Canova lived
in the palmy days of restored classicism. This revival
was due to the French Revolution, when France
(tried to persuade herself that her Commonwealth was
a counterpart of the republics of Rome and Athens,
and that Bonaparte was Caesar or Alexander come
again. In those days ladies affected Grecian cos-
tumes and coiffures; pottery aped the forms of
[ancient paterae and amphorae; articles of house
I furniture were assimilated to ancient classic forms,
and the psuedo-antique dominated public and private
life.
Living in a society eager to persuade itself that
Grecian and pagan ideals were again to reign,
Canova adopted the fashion, and modeled Grecian
58
m
or pagan deities. Consider his * Venus Rising From Sincerity in
the Bath' in the Galleria Pitti at Florence; and, to Brt *
appreciate correctly its artistic value, it is necessary
to remember how the Grecians were wont to repre-
sent their Aphrodite.
In the age of Phidias, Aphrodite was indeed the
goddess both of love and of beauty; such she appears
in the Venus of Milo, a stately figure, divinely fair.
To Phidian grandeur succeeded Praxitelean loveli-
ness, which in his disciples and imitators soon degen-
erated into excessive softness and mannerism. This
we see in the Apolline of the Uffizi. We find in the
Galleria degli Uffizi a good imitation of Praxiteles,
the Venus of Medici. In this statue Venus has lost
much of her primitive stateliness ; she has become
more human ; she is still
hominum divomque voluptas
Alma Ventis ;
Joy of men and gods, benignant Venus. Lucretius.
but she is no more empress of earth, and sea, and sky,
terrum naturam sola gubernans,
Thou alone all nature ruiest. fo.
imparting fruitfulness to all the denizens of air, sea
and land. She is now simply the goddess of love,
of human love, gentle and bewitching, but still a
divine being. Considered from this point of view,
the Medicean Venus is sincere.
To the mind of Canova, living in the Napoleonic
59
Sincerity in era ^ now could Venus appear as a goddess ? The
' pagan spirit pervading every branch of art and
learning with which the sculptor was in contact,
might somewhat weaken, but could not entirely
eclipse modern feeling. Under these circumstances
the practice of art meant perpetual effort, and not
even Canova's skill could conceal the evidences of
painful endeavor to seem to be what he was not.
With all his genius, Canova has utterly failed to give
us a Venus ; instead, he gives us a very charming
lady of early nineteenth century, a dame d'honneur
of Josephine or Marie Louise, wearing the Grecian
headdress which fashion had made obligatory ; but
not a Grecian goddess. The Venus of Canova is,
therefore, not a sincere work of art.
It is due to Canova to concede that the fault
was not, properly speaking, his, but that of the
world in which he lived. We have a splendid proof
of his genuine artistic genius in the mausoleum
of Pope Clement XIIL, in the Vatican basilica.
Clement (Rezzonico), an old man, is kneeling on a
cushion and in prayer. Though he is draped in the
pontifical mantle, it is not as Pope that he prays, nor
yet is he praying for the whole world ; with palms
joined, he prays as a man earnestly and devoutly for
himself. The conception is grand and in harmony
with the idea of a sepulchre that bourne where all
human distinctions of rank and power are forever
60
annulled, Canova might have searched never so Sinceritslin
1*1 l*f
diligently among Grecian or Roman models, he
could not have found anything like this modern and
Christian inspiration ; it sprang spontaneously from
his own soul, and the work is a beautiful and
sincere masterpiece.
Another example is found in the works of
Pietro Vannucci, better known as Pietro Perugino.
In Umbria, during the fifteenth century, we find,
beginning with that painter of Fabriano, so well
named Gentile, a flourishing school, an uninterrupted
sequence of artists individually little known to fame,
but gentle all, and inspired with a religious mysti-
cism. The mood may be traced to the influence of
the aspects of nature round about, the quiet grandeur
of the surrounding hills and shady valleys; or it
may have been fostered by reminiscences of St.
Francis of Assisi's preaching, which, in the saint's
own epoch, called into being a great school of mys-
tical lyrics. Whatever may have been the cause, it
is certain that a spirit of mysticism, if not very
deep, at least very genuine, inspired the Umbrian
school of the second half of the century in which
Pietro Perugino began to paint.
Was Perugino's nature really inclined toward
mysticism ? It would be worth while to study the
man in his personal appearance, ' in those features
which bear witness to the heart ' ; and this is easily
61
Sincerity in one , ' m that portrait of him by himseli, now in the
T * Sala del Cambio in Perugia. In that rounded, com-
monplace visage is no suggestion of ideality. In
those firm-set lips and those frowning brows, deeply
furrowed by anxious worldly thoughts, we read the
character of a misen
Vasari thus delineates the character of the man:
I ' The terror of poverty being always present to his
mind, he would for the love of gain do many things
which he would never have done were he not so
poor In his hankering after money, he
cared neither for cold, nor hunger, nor hard work, nor
weariness, if only he might hope to live some day
in affluence and well-earned repose/
A covetous man he certainly was ; and Vasari
i tells even worse things about this artist. But we
[cannot believe Perugino to have been the atheist
Vasari would make him appear ; yet we may safely
conclude that his religious professions were not
sincere*
Let us turn to his works, and study the panel
representing the Madonna and Saints, found in the
Tribuna degli Uffizi, at Florence. Sitting in front
of a double-vaulted portico, an architectural back-
ground often employed by Perugino, the Madonna
holds the Bambino in her lap. On the curved
pedestal we read:
Petrus Perusinus pinxit an. MCCCCLXXXXIII.
62
The Madonna is as graceful and pretty a woman as Sincerity in
Perugino was able to put on canvas ; but she is one
of those creatures whom nature has gifted with fair,
sweet features, rather than with deep and genuine
ideality. In a word, a woman such as Leonardo da
Vinci, painter of the feeling and the mind, the deepest
thinker among all the Italian artists, would never
have given to the world as the Madonna.
Perugino has idealized his Madonna by giving
her finely-arched brows, languorous eyes half veiled
by drooping lids, a straight nose, wreathed mouth,
delicate, beautiful face. Expression, there is none,
or only an expression of sweet vacuity, betokening
sluggish intellect and absence of will. No interior
struggle will ever spoil the composure of those
suave faultless contours. The Mother holds her
Babe with artless grace, but seems not to care much
for Him or for St. Sebastian, who, by a hardy anach-
ronism, is pictured standing, pierced with arrows,
at her right hand. She would feel pity for him if
she were the true Madonna ; but, there's the rub.
She is not the Madonna, but only a contadina model
earning her wages ; and when she sits there com-
posedly, with somebody's baby in her lap, she per-
forms her whole duty, and nothing more is required
or expected of her. We find no fault with the
Bambino ; he is a nice chubby-faced child.
. On the left is St. John the Baptist, wearing a
63
Sincerity in mantle over his tunic of goat skin ; a fair youth,
* slender and well-shaped, as Perugino's young men
usually are* Another bold anachronism, for if the
Bambino is a yearling babe, John must be precisely
eighteen months old. The face of John expresses
placid composure, verging on stupidity, but the
features are decidedly good. While the gaze of the
Bambino is fixed upon him, what is the Forerunner
doing ? There is neither spiritual expression in his
face nor spiritual significance in his gesture.
There is in this youth nothing of the Precursor;
he might stand for an errand boy returning from the
market. Instead of a group possessing a deeply
mystic signification, we have here simply a collec-
tion of good-looking, but vulgar people.
St. Sebastian, with two arrows sticking in his
body, cannot, even in this august presence, be
unmindful of his pains, so the artist cleverly com-
bines in the action of this figure the expression of
physical suffering and all-subduing faith. The
upturned and foreshortened head of Sebastian, con-
sidered apart and for itself, might be pronounced a
masterpiece, were it not that in it we recognize one
of Perugino's hackneyed and stale fetches, not
always employed to express St. Sebastian's martyr-
pains.
Perugino's compositions beguile us into an
admiration which they do not merit. In each the
64
figures are well painted, and considered individually, Sinceritg in
are admirable, though somewhat trite from repetition;
moreover, the grouping is always graceful. Still this
is not high art ; it is clever workmanship, artisan-
ship, but it is of the same grade as the mechanic
handicrafts; the painter's studio is only a factory
for production of religious paintings. So much for
Perugino's mystical spirit*
Yet was he a true artist ; not because he was a
skilled draughtsman and master of all the resources
of the palette, but because he had a fine sense of the
beautiful, and wonderful skill in grouping his figures;
and because all these, his skills, were ministered to
by a knowledge of technique that has seldom been
surpassed, if ever. But Perugino is more, even than
all this would of itself imply. At his best, he is a
great painter. Consider the Deposizione in the Gal-
leria Pitti, Florence.
In the center is the body of Jesus, resting on a
stone, and sustained on the left hand by Joseph of
Arimathaea, who, kneeling on one knee, faces the
beholder; near Joseph is St. John and a woman
with joined palms raised. On the right, Nicodemus
holds the edge of the shroud. Behind the Christ
are three figures kneeling ; the Virgin in the middle
of this group supports one of her Son's arms, while
Magdalene, at her side, upholds the head, and the
third woman prays. Another woman, standing
65
behind the Madonna and earnestly gazing on the
body of the Saviour, stretches forth her arms, with
extended palms, in an attitude full of pity. In the
background on the right are three men, one of whom
holds on his palm and is showing to the others the
nails that have pierced the members of the Crucified.
So much for general description of the painting;
let us now proceed to its esthetical analysis. We
admire this composition because it represents a scene
full of life and reality.
The minds, if not the gaze, of all the persons
in the picture converge on the Saviour. The
Madonna, John and the women are looking at him.
Joseph and the men forming the group on the right
are thinking of him. Thus, and only thus, can the
composition of a picture be made synthetical, since
it is not enough for two persons to be photographed
close to each other or even arm in arm ; if both are
merely looking at the photographer, they will never
form a scene nor even a group. The material bond
is of small importance when we fail to realize, the
corresponding expression, the ideal connection, which
in this picture is so evident. The better to appre-
ciate this masterpiece, observe how diversely, but
always how sincerely, the feeling of pity is expressed
by the several figures. Passionate in the Madonna ;
sorrrowful, yet tinged with feminine gentleness in
the Magdalene; blended with manly firmness in
66
Joseph ; subdued in Nicodemus, who is busied with Sincerity in
cares for the entombment ; anxious in John and the
woman close to him ; mixed with painful wonder in
the woman standing behind the Madonna; and
piously submissive in the woman kneeling with
hands folded*
Turning now to the group of three men on the
right, we see one of them pointing out to the others
two of the nails he holds on his palm* One of the
listeners raises his clinched hands close to his face
with a gesture of mingled pity and grief ; while the
other man looks on with sorrowful astonishment.
A brief explanation will show the importance of this
group.
One of the first requisites for a work of paint-
ing or sculpture is definiteness and clearness of
meaning ; we cannot admire when the composition
is unintelligible to us* This clearness is easier to
obtain in literary works, because the spoken or
written word traverses a series of moments resulting
in one event ; while the Fine Arts give us only one
of those moments.
Masaccio, Fra Filippo Lippi. Benozzo. Gozzili,
and other clever artists of the fifteenth century,
resorted to a childishly, simple device to make clear
the meaning of their compositions; in the same
picture they give two or three successive phases of
one act. In the Tributo della Moneta, a fresco
67
Sincerity in painted by Masaccio in the Church del Carmine, in
' Florence, we see in the centre the Apostles sur-
rounding the Saviour, who, being asked by the Cen-
turion to pay the tribute money, sends Peter ' to cast
an hook and take up the fish that first cometh up/
for in the fish's mouth the money would be found*
The Apostles are filled with wonder and amaze-
ment. On the left hand is shown Peter at the sea-
shore, stooping over the fish and taking the coin out
of its mouth; on the right is Peter paying the money
to the Centurion.
This device may admit of excuse in the case of
Masaccio (born J402, died J428), a clever and prom-
ising artist, who had not time in so short a life to
give the full measure of his power ; but the same
leniency is not to be extended to Perugino, who had
the advantage of living longer and in a more
enlightened epoch* The technique of painting had
greatly advanced in the year J495, when Perugino
painted this Deposizione.
In putting this picture on canvas, it was essen-
tial that Perugino should select some one principal
moment in the tragedy. This central group does
not, in fact, fix that supreme moment on canvas and
upon the attention of the beholder. If, however, the
painter, without violating the harmony and integrity
of his concept, can introduce into the same some-
thing which will suggest some prior or succeeding
68
moment in the same drama, thus synthesizing the Sincerity
whole event, he has added to the value of his telling
of the story.
Perugino has attempted to attain this in the epi-
sode of the man pointing to the nails. It has been
objected that 'it was an indecency to gloat over
(those Crucifixion nails at such a time, and it is an
' anachronism to have men of the year A. D. 33,
treasuring as sacred relics those spikes. That sort
of thing did not come in till long centuries after/
Answer may be made that such a treasuring of the
nails as relics would not have been an anachronism
in the thought of the age for which Perugino painted.
Moreover, there is nothing in the picture to indicate
gloating over the nails, nor a thought of treasuring
them as relics. Rather does the thought seem to be,
' See, here are the cruel spikes with which they
pierced the Holy One/
The background of the Deposizione is occupied
by a valley in the shadow, gloomy as befitted the
sadness of the scene in the first plane, and the fact that
it was already eventide when Joseph of Arimathaea
obtained leave to remove the body of Jesus from the
cross. In the distance, the vale expands into a light-
some, sunny landscape. This sunny landscape on
the far-off horizon is not necessarily an insincerity
or contradiction of the evangelists' account of the
Crucifixion. That Perugino intended to indicate
69
Sincerity in fa^ ^h e sun was down, is evident from the shadow
' of darkness in the valley* But he is mindful that
though a Deposizione should represent the body of a
man destined for the grave, the painter should at the
same time make us see in it the germ of the near
and supernatural resurrection of a God. This far-
distant glory, a * light that never was on land or sea/
is not actual. It but symbolizes the blissful after-
math of redemption, resurrection and endless joy
succeeding the passion of death.
In this picture everything has its architectonic
reason, every incident is charged with purpose, and
the artist who could conceive and realize such an
ideal must have been truly great ; nothing equal to
this ever again came from the hand of Perugino.
Consider further, the * Portrait of a Lady/
painted by Andrea del Sarto, in the Uffizi gallery at
Florence. What could be more genial? What
splendid blacks, and whites, and grays in his * Dis-
pute About the Trinity/ in the Pitti gallery. But go
to the Church of the Annunziata, and, in the frescoes
of the Story of Saint Benizzi and the Adoration of
the Magi, observe the draperies on the figures.
Then go to the Chiostro dello Scalzo and observe
how, in the scene of 4 Zacharias in the Temple/ the
bystanders dare not move for fear of disturbing their
robes. Then, too, what a sad spectacle is his
'Assumption/ Instead of raising the soul of the
70
beholder toward heaven, as does Titian's 'Assump- Sincerity
"
tion/ Andrea only speaks of tailor's stuffs. By sac-
rificing significance to pose and tissues, he has
become insincere.
Many painters in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries tried their skill in the treatment of the Last
Supper. Several examples of different schools and
different epochs may be selected to exemplify what
is meant by Sincerity in Art.
In the little refectory of the Convento di San
Marco is still to be seen a fresco by Ghirlandaio,
representing the Last Supper or Cenacolo. A skilled
draughtsman and a clever painter was Ghirlandaio,
and he well knew how to group his figures and
compose a picture ; but his prosaic temperament and
his joyous humor scarcely qualified him for a flight
of fantasy or for profound meditation. There was
in him but little of the poet.
On getting his order for a Cenacolo, the honest
Florentine set at work with all the placid industry
which characterized him. The Apostles he shows,
sitting at three sides of a table, are good folk, every
one ; even Judas, who is distinguished from the rest
only by absence of the nimbus round his head, and
by the place which he occupies all alone on the
fourth side of the table, opposite to John, who reclines
his head on the Lord's shoulder. Ghirlandaio, in
5 simplicity of his nafbe realism, has scattered over
Sincerity in the table some ripe cherries, and represents a group
' of honest men partaking of a frugal meal ; but he
has not painted the Last Supper. Though he is
said to have been a very truthful man, and though
he never tries to cheat us into believing him any-
thing but what he really is, we are constrained to
say that though he has good color, good portraits,
the obvious everywhere, nevertheless as an artist he
is not sincere, not faithful, that is, in the treatment
of his subject, for he never suggests the significant.
Even more deficient was the painter probably
of Perugino's school who has left us the Cenacolo
in the ancient Monastery of Foligno in Florence.
Here Judas is better rendered, because with some
betokening of his depraved nature ; but the figures
of the other Apostles are worse than in Ghirlandaio's
picture. Only one of them, sitting beside the Lord
and grasping a knife, has something like a flash of
pride or wrath in his eye ; two others, on John's left,
are meant to scowl at Judas, but they are not so
incensed as to forget to eat their dinner ; another is
pouring out wine; while still others are chatting
quietly about their private concerns ; finally, one
who is doing nothing, seems to be waiting patiently
for permission to rise from the board.
This Cenacolo is generally admired, and con-
sidered superior to Ghirlandaio's. All the figures in
it are distinguished by that beauty of feature and
72
form which passed from Perugino to Raphael, To Sincerity
this last master this fresco has sometimes been
attributed, erroneously, though nowadays no one
believes Sanzio to have painted this graceful but
meaningless and insincere Cenacolo*
Turn now to the ample canvas which Paolo
Veronese finished, in J572, and now found in the
Academia Belle Arti in Venice, How could this
gifted artist, this boisterous reveler, this lover of pomp
and magnificence, this painter who succeeded by his
magic in dazzling the observer so utterly that all his
blunders in drawing and all his anachronisms fail to
offend how could he understand the Lord's Last
Supper?
For him the Cenacolo is a sumptuous ban-
quet in a noble palace, under three gorgeously orna-
mented arches, across which we enjoy the view of
a splendid city with pompous monuments. Jesus
is a young and fashionable Venetian nobleman ; the
Apostles are gaudy patricians ; and as if this were
not enough, Veronese has filled his picture with a
number of people coming and going, ascending and
descending the grand flight of stairs soldiers, a
Moor, several turbaned Turks, a cup-bearer in gay
livery, a buffoon in motley attire, a dwarf standing
in front of a little girl ; lastly, a cat and two dogs
crouching under the table* Altogether, this is
decidedly beautiful to look at ; the painting ranks
73
Sincerity in high among the masterpieces of the Veronese, and
* may in a certain sense be considered sincere, the
painter having honestly rendered what he really felt.
The question still remains, whether he really felt this
subject as it ought to have been felt* And the
answer clearly is, No ; and hence the decision must
be against the artistic sincerity of the painting.
If we turn from the sumptuous Venetian ban-
quet back to humbler scenes and more pious artists,
the difference will be startling.
In all that is spiritual, truth comes from God,
or from those spirits who have been the friends of
God. Of such was that simple-minded, god-fearing
Dominican friar Giovanni da Fiesole, who adorned
the walls of his convent of St. Mark, in Flor-
ence, with many a devout painting, one of them a
Cenacolo.
No banquet is this, but a simple repast in a room
of bare walls with a rude table, round which some of
the Apostles reverently stand, while others, with even
greater reverence, kneel and receive from the Lord's
hand the blessed bread, and hearken to the sacra-
mental words, * Take, eat. This is my body/ The
pious Dominican, adhering strictly to the text of St.
Luke, gives to the scene all its mystic significance ;
it is the institution of the Eucharist. The art-
technique is plainly inferior to that in Veronese's
picture, painted some 130 years later; moreover, the
74
Cenacolo t- :onsiderc .
ico's be** ' rks ; but it glowi *
> such sacraments
mu idim it superk
ere religious feeling And
md rendering
'ted with b
ronardo da \
Angel-
ity
art.
the refectory c
Grazia* Neither as
people, n7r as the
arist, dikl Leonardo
momentous d.r*n *a in
Msions are s*br^ in
:.^:. undertook, towai
a painting of the L
convent of Santa M
an everyday meal oi
mystic institution >;
conceive his sui
which deep feeling
the hearts of all 4
Jesus, sorrowing
treason that is to BwH* na.otfiiwo*! srJ
of you which eateth with am shall bet
His gestures are most aft e left ha
n$&* expanded, the palm upward, tl>*
:hn$ the board, the muscles
tan* the Cact at a thing that is to b*
with *gMii!*) ; the right hand, also wrt
t-xpandel it^i wHb wrist and thucub t
board, the pdbn kowafd the tabk ar
from the *puker' the otHer jln|pi
touch the board, t>ut a? slightly rxaw^ .
last Supper
XeonarOo fca VM
Cenacolo is not considered to be one of Fra Angel- Sincertts in
ico's best works ; but it glows with such certainty
of purpose, such sacramental earnestness, that we
must proclaim it superior to its more brilliant rival
in sincere religious feeling and perfect fitness of
inspiration and rendering.
Gifted with higher genius and larger imagina-
tion, Leonardo da Vinci, that prince of Italian paint-
ers, undertook, toward the year J497, to adorn with
a painting of the Last Supper the refectory of the
convent of Santa Maria delle Grazia* Neither as
an everyday meal of quiet, good people, nor as the
mystic institution of the Eucharist, did Leonardo
conceive his subject, but as a momentous drama in
which deep feeling and fiery passions are stirred in
the hearts of all the actors.
Jesus, sorrowing but resigned, foretells the
treason that is to be : ' Verily say I unto you, one
of you which eateth with me shall betray me/
His gestures are most apt. The left hand, with
fingers expanded, the palm upward, the finger-
tips touching the board, the muscles relaxed,
states the fact as a thing that is to be received
with submission ; the right hand, also with fingers
expanded, rests with wrist and thumb upon the
board, the palm toward the table and hence away
from the speaker's face; the other fingers do not
touch the board, but are slightly raised ; this attitude
75
Sincerity in o f the right hand, by its averted palm, expresses
' the aversion of the Saviour for the treason, but
it is an aversion which is mingled with pity for
the traitor, else the muscles of that hand would be
tense.
The action of the painting shows the instant
effect of the Saviour's words* Turning from the
Central Figure toward the left that is, to the right
of the Lord we have first, John, the beloved dis-
ciple, quite overcome with painful emotion; all
muscles relaxed, his figure drooping, his head falling
to the right, as in a half-swoon, his two hands joined
resting on the board with fingers interlaced ; a pic-
ture of utter dejection*
Next to John is the traitor, dwarfish, ill-favored
of visage, with beetling brows, thick black hair*
The announcement has given him a shock and
caused him to recoil as far as his proximity to his
neighbor, Simon Peter, allows. With his right
hand he grasps tightly the money-bag; with his
left, he touches the folded hands of the beloved dis-
ciple* What means that reaching out to John ? Has
the Iscariot a velleity of repentance ? The expres-
sion of that hand is no more than a velleity ; per-
haps the action is simply reflex and unconscious ;
there is no muscle in it, no will* But the right hand
that clutches the purse !
Next after Judas we see Peter. Peter leans
76
over toward the beloved disciple, and in doing so Sincerity in
crowds the form of Judas against the table-edge.
Peter has a weighty question to ask, and wants it
answered n&w; so he doesn't mind if he is rude to
the little ill-favored Iscariot. He brings his strong,
resolute visage alongside the ear of the grief-stricken
John, and, summoning him to attention by a prod
with the forefinger of his left hand, while the right
grasps a knife, he asks in a whisper whether any
name has been mentioned; the knife is pointed away
from any probable object of Peter's suspicions. Item,
Peter chooses to keep to himself the secret of the
knife ; ' but do, John, learn the name of the traitor/
Next to Peter is his brother Andrew; the
expression of his visage, the gesture of his uplifted
hands with palms averse and fingers outstretched,
tell of his horror on hearing of the perfidy. So far,
the action of all the figures, except Andrew's and
John's, express a two-fold emotion or state of mind,
but in John and Andrew one emotion only*
Andrew's next neighbor, James the Younger,
while his gaze is fixed intently on the Lord, stretches
out, behind Andrew, his left arm and rests the hand
on the shoulder of Peter ; but he is thinking not of
Peter, but of what the Lord may say next. That
hand on Peter's shoulder simply rests there ; it is not
calling Peter away from his questioning of John ; it
does not clutch Peter's sleeve ; it does not press on
77
Sincerity in Peter's shoulder. James will have a question to ask
* of Peter as soon as the whispered conversation with
John is over*
Last on that side of the board is Bartholomew,
a noble figure of a man ; he stands at the table-end,
leaning on it with both hands, and listening eagerly
to catch any further word the Lord may utter.
Returning now to the centre, the figure next to
the Lord is James the Elder. His action and face
expression, or rather facial inexpression, betray
amazement, not horror, as in Andrew, whose hands
uplifted to one level with palms averse, speak of
detestation of the villainy. But James the Elder, is
simply amazed, dumbfounded ; he knows not what
to think of it all. The gestures of his two hands
are at odds ; so are his thoughts. He is not horror-
stricken, else the palms of his hands would be turned
outward as though to ward off the horror, and the
two hands would be held at one level, as aimed at
one object of detestation. James presents a fine
contrast to Peter.
See the painfully anxious face of Thomas,
next neighbor to James the Elder, behind whose
back he bends over toward the Lord; his face as
pale as a corpse's, his features sharpened by the
fear that maybe he, he himself, is the one that
will betray his Lord* Do not the hairs of his head
stand erect ? Poor Thomas's emotion is, doubtless.
78
the most poignant of all; he, perhaps, is predestinated Sincerity in
to be the one to commit the sin that shall be forgiven
neither in this world nor in the next* Can we mis-
interpret the significance of those worn features and
of that uplifted forefinger ; does not the action of this
figure ask more eloquently than would words : 'Is it
I, Lord?'
Philip has risen to his feet, and with hands
'pressed to his heart, protests his fidelity to the Master
unto death.
Matthew, standing also, with face and figure
.turned toward Simeon, who sits at the table-end, is
assuring Simeon that those very words, 'One of
you shall betray me/ were spoken by the Lord ; that
there is no mistake about it* This is finely expressed
by the gesture of Matthew : ' Didst thou not hear ? '
But Simeon, with both hands held forth, palms
; upward, arms bent at elbow, maintains that the
thing cannot be so ; 4 it is plainly impossible/
Between these two sits Thaddeus. Thaddeus
has no doubt about the terrible announcement.
Simeon says, ' impossible, you misunderstood/ ' No
misunderstanding/ says Matthew; 'the Lord spake
these very words, One of you shall betray me.'
' Yes, yes/ chimes in Thaddeus, as he brings down
upon the palm of his left hand the outspread right
with thumb directed toward some one sitting at board
with them. 'And I know who the traitor is ; I'll
79
Sincerity in na me no name, but it is the fellow back there, our
' bursar/
Great as is the difference between this and
Beato Angelico's masterpiece, yet in sincerity they
are equal. The genial painter, as well as the
humble Dominican, has truthfully painted in strict
accordance with his feeling for the subject. Each
has painted the scene as it appealed to his own
nature. Devout and mystical the one, powerful and
passionate the other. Each has been faithful to his
sense for the significant, and being natural, he has
been sincere; each a spirit of flame, not only
illumined but luminous, shines by his own light ;
each, by being true to himself, has been true to
his art.
The conclusion is evident: whoever purposes
to ape another artist, and to imitate a Raphael or a
Rembrandt, a Velasquez or a Millet, or to pattern
after a certain * School ' of Art and to be classed as
an Impressionist, or as one of the Preraphaelites, or of
the Paris, or Munich, or Glasgow schools, will be
insincere in his art. None of the great painters
were imitators ; or, if sometimes they were, just so
far did they fall below their own greatness, their own
sincerity.
Beauty is multiform ; each artist should select
the expression which best befits his temperament and
his artistic powers, since that art alone can be sincere
80
which is the reflection of the artist s inmost self, his Sincerity in
art.
soul.
The more the artist depends for style upon his
own individuality, the more he depends for inspiration
upon the genius of his own age ; so much the more
widely will he differ from those who have only
become models, because they excelled in painting
the significant in their own environment and as
revealed in their own personality*
Those who are born with visions should paint
visions, but luminously ; those who are born robust
should paint robustly, but temperately ; 'let those
who would soar keep their wings, the others
their feet;* each mindful that no one
can see except by his own lamp;
and, though the goal may not
always be reached, it may at
least always be striven for*
UNITY IN ART
AN is essentially con-
structive, instrumentally
analytic* The difference
between the constructive
and the analytic is the dif-
ference between regarding
a thing from the totality-
aspect, the constituent ele-
ments of the thing existing
only as parts, and receiving
meaning only through the whole; and the way
of regarding a thing as a group of elements, the
total existing to be analyzed, the element only
being real.
These opposing points of view are the opposing
attitudes of the artist and the scientist. By Artist,
meaning the poet and novelest, as well as the painter
and sculptor, since all of these contribute to the
receptive and appreciative personality, all deal with
85
in phenomena in a creative way, aiming to give totality-
Srt. , ,
impressions.
The work of the artist is twofold. It is
aesthetic, it is also ethical* His aesthetic aim is to
set the thing or event before the beholder in such a
way that the effect which is produced upon himself
shall be passed over to the observer. It is, briefly,
to convey the total unitary impression, fraught with
his own personality, and make it significant for the
observer. The same is true of the ethical activity ;
its aim is so to present the thing or event, that it
shall be effective in directing or transforming the
activity of the subject to whom it is addressed.
Not truth but power is at the heart of the
artist's effort. Truth must be there, but it is the
truth of impression, not truth of description. The
office of the artist is to make an ideal order of
existences or values, in the service of which he
dissolves the continuity of actual experience, and
selects from its elements those which are parts
of the ideal order and which will be factors in
the production of his desired impression. To this
end he employs Perspective and Unity. By Per-
spective meaning, the emphasis of the significant
and suppression of insignificant elements*
What is intended by Unity is more difficult of
definition, both because the thing itself is so ele-
mental and spiritual and because of the confusion so
86
often made between the unity ' and the unities of
art
a composition.
* The master of those who know ' was not too
great a name for the putative author of the doctrine
of 'the unities/ Though in truth Aristotle was
chiefly concerned with that internal unity which he
claims for Tragedy in common with every other
work of art. 1 Whereof this unity consists, and
wherein it differs from 'the unities/ may be more
clearly understood by a brief consideration of what
has been termed the * English pseudo-classic period of
poetry/
The pseudo-classic period of English poetry has
been called the age of the supremacy of Alexander
Pope, but it began before Pope was born. Dryden,
for example, in the prologue of his tragi-comedy,
Secret Love f professed allegiance to those ancient
law-givers of the poetic art, Aristotle, Horace, Quin-
tilian, Longinus and their modern Gallic interpreter,
Boileau, when he claims for his work the merit of
having been composed according to the exactest rules,
with strict regard for 'the unities/
Pope, in the Essay on Criticism (J7U), makes
a like profession of reverence for the ancient mas-
ters, though when he names Boileau, he, incon-
sistently reproaches French writers for their servility
in submitting to Boileau's authority, while at the
I Arirt. On Poetry, VIII., 4.
87
in same time he calls his own countrymen uncivilized
because they will not wear the yoke ; on the other
hand, those English poets who accept the Greco-
Roman-Gallic precepts, are ' restoring wit's funda-
mental law/ Pope's Essay on Criticism did not
confirm the vogue of pseudo-classicism in England
and give it a reign of nearly a hundred years. It
was the example he set of rendering in scintillating
verse the very thought of his own age the thought
that is, and the mind of England, as revealed to him
in political cabals, literary cliques, frivolous society,
and the varied circle of pseudo-philosophers. For
him, the poet's mission is to trick out nature in
finery and to polish into brilliants the commonplaces
of universal morality, the current religion and the
received philosophy of life :
True wit is nature to advantage dressed ;
What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed*
Admirable, no doubt, Pope is, for he has made
poetical the most humdrum sentiments, the most
commonplace passions, but they are poor souls and
poor wits whom he can content; for it is a low
ideal which this poet proposes to himself. Plato
classes such artists in speech with pastry cooks.
Pope's brilliant antithetic couplets made less artificial
poetry seem dull, and the elder poets of nature were
for a hundred years neglected and the poetic contem-
plation of nature repressed ; not extinguished, how-
ever, either in poet or people, as was proved in J 730 ^ ntt B in
by the success of Thomson's Seasons, with its
manly sentiment and its native vigor.
Pope himself, in the Essay on Criticism, much
as he prizes the Aristotelian laws of poetic composi-
tion, recognizes the supremacy of nature over all
magisterial precepts. Nature is, he writes :
At once the source, and end, and test of art ;
and of this aphorism he had unexpected proof.
Gay's Shepherds' Week was written at the instance
of Pope to throw ridicule on the Pastorals of
Ambrose Philips, by introducing scenes from actual
pastoral and peasant life in England. Though ludi-
crous, the scenes were felt to be true to nature and
life, and were received with great favor. If ludi-
crous effect is wanted, we need not seek beyond
Pope's own Pastorals, where on the banks of * fair
Thames ' Sicilian muses sing and the swains and
shepherd-lasses wear the homely English names,
Strephon and Daphnis ! This is reductio ad absur-
dum of classicism.
But why should an English poet be required to
poetize by Grecian or by Gallic rule? ' There is
such a thing as reason without syllogisms/ pleaded
George Farquhar; * knowledge without Aristotle,
and there are languages besides Greek and Latin. . .
To different towns there are different ways .....
We (English) have the most unreasonable medley
89
in O f humors of any nation on earth We shall
find a Wildair in one corner and a Morose in
another ; hence the rules of English comedy do not
lie in the compass of Aristotle or his followers, but
in the pit, boxes and galleries/ And herein lay the
fundamental difference between French and English
literary art. Boileau and his successors in France,
until the most recent times, addressed a court circle,
an academic clique, or at most a single capital* All
literary judgment, all literary taste, emanated from
Paris.
The English poet and dramatist addressed the
whole people. As long as the taste for poetry in
England was determined by the polite circle which
admired Pope's exquisitely turned verses and his
sparkling epigrammatic style, the native muse un-
adorned passed for a rustic wench, and unsophisti-
cated nature seemed mere barbarism. In Pope's
time Shakspeare was as distasteful to his country-
men as to the French, for whom, as represented by
Voltaire, * Shakspeare was a buffoon/ And it is
an interesting coincidence that Pope's Rape of the
Lock, his masterpiece, is for the French critic and
historian of English literature, Hippolyte Taine, a
piece of ' harsh, scornful, indelicate buffoonery/
In the pseudo-classic age, poetry was indeed an
art it was artificial, and for it Nature was an arti-
ficial thing. Her face was rouged to make her pre-
90
scntablc in polite society ; in its presence Nature, ^nits in
naked, was ashamed, so their poets showed them
'Nature to advantage dressed/ Its conception of
Nature and of Man was not drawn from nature or
from man, but from literary tradition. The Gradus
ad Parnassum, and the store of poetic phrases and
figures, were no small part of the poet's inspiration.
As Coleridge happily characterizes some of the most
ambitious efforts of Pope, 4 the thoughts are prose
thoughts translated into the language of poetry/
The poets of the pseudo-classic period describe
nature with great richness of imagery, but their
imagery comes not from nature, being simply a
compound of hearsays derived from the poets of
classic times* Wordsworth says of Pope's version
of the celebrated moonlight scene in the Eiad, that
' a blind man, in the habit of attending accurately to
descriptions casually dropped from the lips of those
around him, might easily depict those appearances
with more truth/ For Wordsworth, it is matter of
wonder how an enthusiastic admirer of Pope's Iliad,
reciting those verses under the cope of a moonlit
sky, could fail to notice their absurdity.
The universe which these poets-by-rule evolved
was doubtless very well ordered* In it ' the unities '
were sacredly observed ; but it was petty compared
with Shakspeare's universe, which was God's. No
one is especially anxious about the preservation of 'the
91
in unities ' in God's universe, and, like it, Shakspeare's
* appears a mighty maze, but is not without a plan.
Truly, for the poet, there is a sublime unity in
nature ; and his profound sense of this unity and of
his own kinship with nature, gives him a passionate
sympathy with the whole creation. He is conscious
of a presence in nature that * disturbs him with the
joy of elevated thoughts '
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things*
The poet's vision is, therefore, a feeling, a sym-
pathy, as well as an intuition ; the heart has part in
it equally with the mind, and his work speaks both
to the mind and the heart of those whom he
addresses. It gains admission to mind and heart
primarily through sense-impression of a pleasurable
kind. The poet, painter, sculptor, or musician, in
order that he may produce such impressions, must
himself be in the highest degree sensitive ; his mind
* a mansion for all lovely forms ' ; his memory ' a
dwelling-place for all sweet sounds and harmonies.'
Without such native sensibility, he may, indeed, by
a tour de force, produce a work of art in music,
though he be congenitally deaf ; but after all, it will
be artifice, not art. It is because all art has its
spring in fine sensibility that the artist is held to be
by nature an epicurean, a virtuoso of pleasurable
92
ideas and sentiments* Certainly he needs must be inttfi in
a man exquisitely alive to all the joys of sense,
whether tranquil or intoxicating. Such must be the
sensibility of the artist or poet that, as Sully-Prud-
homme finely says, * certain colors, certain lines,
certain sounds shall affect him like caresses or like
wounds.' The poet must, with Wordsworth, have
felt the ' aching joys ' and the * dizzy raptures ' of
the contemplation of nature.
The reason why sensory experiences thus
impress themselves upon the mind of the poet is,
that for him they are vocal and emblematic. He
does not delight in these excitations of sensibility
merely for their own sake ; on the contrary, like a
true epicurean, he enjoys them only so far as they
respond to his inmost emotional and mental states*
The flaming of the sunset, foretelling the approach of
night, speaks to him of heroic struggles ending in
disappointment ; the swiftness of the mountain tor-
rent gives him a sense of exaltation ; a leaden sky
depresses his spirit ; that is, the outer world of time
and space speaks to him in symbols expressive of
man's invisible world, which outreaches space and
time; while he contemplates nature, he hears ofttimes
The still, sad music of humanity.
In thus interpreting as symbols the phenomena
of nature, the poetic and artistic temperament simply
intensifies into a passion a gift which is universal ;
93
in f or even ^ the lowest grade, men are sufficiently
* endowed with the poetic faculty to discern in physi-
cal things intimations of things spiritual, and analo-
gies with things and states of the soul of man.
Everybody is poet enough to call a mood * gloomy/
or ' cold/ or ' bleak/ or ' sunny * ; an outburst of
anger * fiery/ Were it not for this gift, speech
would be impossible ; it would be more difficult to
carry on the simplest conversation without metaphor
or metonymy than to discourse in words all one-
syllabled ; we cannot express modes or states of the
soul otherwise than in terms of sense-impression*
' You have a heart of stone/ cries yokel Hans ;
4 and you a pumpkin for a head/ responds his milk-
maid inamorata. In divining the analogy of sen-
sory experiences and affections of the soul, these
rustic swains do for the nonce exercise, the poetic
faculty.
Sunset and evening star,
And one clear call for me ;
And may there be no moaning of the bar
When I put out to sea,
sings a dying seer; but we need no study to see that
the * sunset ' is no literal sunset, nor the * evening
star ' a real star, nor the ' call ' a vocal call, nor the
' sea ' a sea ; these are all sense-impressions elabo-
rated in the poet's mind into symbols of things
entirely spiritual.
94
This faculty, we have said, is possessed by all, 5? nit B in
but it is possessed in a high degree only by the artist.
To Wordsworth, in the time of his hale, manly
I vigor, nature was * all-in-all '; the sounding cataract
haunted him Mike a passion' ; the imposing spectacle
of creation was to him
An appetite ; a feeling and a love
That had no need of a remoter charm
By thought supplied.
But as physical strength declined, he notes in him-
self an exaltation, a purification of sensibility, and
he often is conscious of a presence that pervades all
things. He is still a lover of nature for herself, but
he is more, .perceiving in
All the mighty world
Of eye and ear, both what they half create