Part 15 (1/2)
How they came frequently to overlap is easily enough seen.
Consider the religion of Rome. It came, as I have said, out of the necessity for expressing and cultivating certain emotions. It is a very catholic religion, the product of a highly emotional people who had many and strong feelings. As much as possible these were accepted into the religion.
Therefore, when there came the great outbreak of art in the fourteenth century, when there were great painters and sculptors desiring to paint pictures that appealed to the heart, all the ground was occupied.
Did they want to depict feminine beauty, there was the Madonna accepted as the ideal. Did they want to awaken the emotion of maternity, there was the Madonna again; of pity, there were the martyrs; of sacrifice, there was the Christ. Long before these emotions had been crystallised by the Church round religious ideals, and a change would not be understood.
And with the Architects. There is but one emotion common to a whole people--catholic, so to speak--namely, religion. A town hall, a palace, a secular building would be provincial; a church only is catholic. In palaces only princes live, in munic.i.p.al buildings only officials, in markets only the people, but in churches all are gathered together, and not only occasionally but frequently. Therefore, given a great architect, what could he design that would give him scope, and freedom, and fame like a cathedral? His feelings were immaterial, it was a professional necessity that drove artists then to religious matters.
What was Raphael, the free-liver, thinking of when he drew his Madonnas?
Was it the Jewess of Galilee over a thousand years before or the ripe warm beauty of the Florentine girls he knew?
The Roman Catholic Church desired to attract to itself all that appealed to the emotions, and included art of all kinds in its scope. And all artists, painters, architects, even writers, found in the Church their greatest opportunities and greatest fame. Deep and real feelings in art of all kinds sought the companions.h.i.+p of the other great feelings that are in religion. Shallower art often shrinks from being put beside the greater emotions, and so some of the shams of the Renaissance.
But the deepest religious feeling is always averse to art. No age full of great religious emotion has produced any art at all in any people.
The early Christians, the monks of the Thebaid, hated art, as did the Puritans. They felt, I think, a compet.i.tion. When an emotion is raised to such a height as theirs was, none other can live beside it. Such emotion becomes a flame that burns up all round. It cannot bear any rivalry. It puts aside not only art but love, reverence, fear, every other emotion. Religion is before everything, religion _is_ everything.
There are Christ's words refusing to recognise his mother and brethren.
It has been common to all forms of exalted religious fervour. No emotion can live with it. Only when it has somewhat died away does art get a chance. Then only if an artistic wave arises can it be allied with religion. But deep religious feeling is not always followed by an artistic wave. There has been no such sequence in most countries. This sequence in Italy was an exception. It was perchance. There has never been an art wave connected with Protestantism, and only very slightly with Buddhism. I have shown in ”The Soul of a People,” that art in Burma is only connected professionally with Buddhism. That is to say that wood-carving, one of Burma's two arts, is not religious in sentiment, and is applied to monasteries because they are the only large buildings needed. There is no other demand. To depict the Buddha in any artistic way except that handed down by tradition would be considered profane.
Would not the early Christians have considered Raphael's Madonna profane, considering who he was, and what probably his models were? I think so. I doubt if the deepest religious emotions would tolerate a crucifix or any picture of Christ at all. Certainly not of the Almighty.
The heat of belief must have cooled down a great deal before such things became possible. So, in fact, it is as history tells us. Religion is a cult of the emotions. Art, as Tolstoi shows, is also a cult of the emotions. Very deep religious feeling leaves no room for any other emotion, it brooks no rival in the hearts of men. A deeply religious age has no art; its religion kills art. What were the feelings of the early Christians towards Greek art? They were those of abhorrence. What those of the Puritans towards any art? They were the same.
But when religious emotions have cooled, and room is left for other feelings, then art may arise. And if it does so, and is a great art, it allies itself with religion, if the religion permits of it. Some forms of faith would never permit it. Which of the emotions of which Puritanism is composed could be expressed in art? Art is almost always the cult of emotions that are beautiful, are happy, are joyous.
Puritanism knew nothing of all these. Grand, stern, rigid, black, never graceful or beautiful. Any art that followed Puritanism could but be grotesque and terrible. There would be no Madonnas, but there might be avenging angels; there would be no heaven, but certainly a h.e.l.l. Indeed, in the literature of the religion we see that this is so.
Religion and art are both cults of the emotions. They may be rivals, they may be allies, in the way that art may depict religious subjects.
But great art, like great faith, brooks no rival. And therefore great artists are not necessarily religious. They may have scant emotion to spare outside their art.
This, I think, is the key to the relation between religion and art. It is impossible to treat such a great subject adequately in a chapter.
Most of my chapters should, indeed, have been volumes. But the key once provided the rest follows.
[Ill.u.s.tration: CATHOLIC RELIGION: PRAYER, MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, MOTHERHOOD, SACRIFICE, HEAVEN, GAIETY, COLLECTIVENESS, DEPENDANCE, LAWLESSNESS, HOPE, CATHOLICITY, MERCY]
[Ill.u.s.tration: PURITANISM: EFFORT, h.e.l.l, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTICE, NARROWNESS, VENGEANCE, LAW, STRENGTH, RIGHTEOUSNESS, FEAR, INDIVIDUALITY]
[Ill.u.s.tration: ART: MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, MOTHERHOOD, GAIETY, Pa.s.sION, LICENSE]
CHAPTER XXVII.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
If you go to any believer in any religion--in any of the greater religions, I mean--and ask him why he believes in his religion, he has always one answer: ”Because it is true.” And if you continue and say to him, ”How do you know it is true?” he will reply, ”Because there is full evidence to prove it.” He imagines that he is guided by his reason, that it is his logical faculty that is satisfied, and his religion can be proved irrefragably. And yet it is strange that if any religion is based on ascertained fact, if any religion is demonstrably true, no one can be brought to see this truth, to accept this proof, except believers who do not require it. The Jew cannot be brought to admit the truth of Christianity, let the Christian argue ever so wisely; nor will the Christian accept Mahommedanism or Buddhism as containing any truth at all, no matter how the adherents of these faiths may argue.
It is not so with most other matters. If a problem in chemistry or physics be true at all it is altogether true for every one. Nationality makes no difference to your acknowledging the law of gravity, the science of the stars, the dynamics of steam, or the secrets of metallurgy. If an Englishman makes a discovery a Frenchman is able to follow the argument. The j.a.panese are not Christians, but that does not in any way prevent them a.s.similating modern knowledge. Twice two are four all over the world, except in matters of religion.
This is a somewhat remarkable phenomenon. What is the reason of it?