RELIGION AND ART.
"This is not the place, nor have I space left here, to explain
all I mean when I say that art is a mode of religion, and can
flourish only under the inspiration of living and practical
religion."--_Frederic Harrison._
"No one indeed can successfully uphold the idea that the high
development of art in any shape is of necessity coincident with
a strong growth of religious or moral sentiment. Perugino made
no secret of being an atheist; Leonardo da Vinci was a
scientific sceptic; Raphael was an amiable rake, no better and
no worse than the majority of those gifted pupils to whom he
was at once a model of perfection and an example of free
living; and those who maintain that art is always the
expression of a people's religion have but an imperfect
acquaintance with the age of Praxiteles, Apelles, and Zeuxis.
Yet the idea itself has a foundation, lying in something which
is as hard to define as it is impossible to ignore; for if art
be not a growth out of faith, it is always the result of a
faith that has been."--_Marion Crawford._
Quotation on both sides could be multiplied without end, but there seems
no reason to do so. The question is the relation of religion to art, and
it has but the two sides. Indeed, the subject seems difficult, for there
is so much to be said on both sides.
On one side it may be said:--Art is the result of and the outcome of
religion. Look at the greatest works of art the world has to show. Are
they not all religious? There are the Parthenon, the temples of Karnac,
the cathedral at Milan, St. Peter's at Rome, and others too numerous to
mention; the Mosque of St. Sophia and the Kutub Minar, the temples of
Humpi, the Shwe Dagon pagoda, the temples of China and Japan. What has
secular art to show to compare with these? Are not the Venus de Milo,
the statue of Athena, and all the famous Greek sculptures those of gods?
What is the most famous painting in the world? It is the Sistine Madonna
of Raphael. Even in literature, is there anything secular to compare
with the sacred books of the world? The oratorios and masses are the
finest music. What can be more certain than that only religion gives the
necessary stimulus to art and furnishes the most inspiring subjects?
Great art is born of great faiths, great faiths produce great art.
To which there is the reply:--Many of the greatest Greek statues were of
gods truly, but was it a religious age that produced them? Were Phidias
and Zeuxis religious or moral men?
Was the thirteenth century which saw the building of most of the best
cathedrals, a religious age? Is it not the fact that for many cathedrals
the capital was borrowed from the Jews, enemies of Christ, and the
interest paid by the sweat of slaves; and when the interest was too
heavy, religious bigotry was resorted to and the Jews persecuted,
killed, and banished. It is probable that of all ages the thirteenth
century was the worst. Were the painters of great pictures religious or
moral? Raphael painted the most wonderful religious paintings the world
has seen--how much religion had Raphael? Leonardo da Vinci painted "The
Last Supper"; he was a sceptic. Are not artistic people notoriously
irreligious? The pyramids of Egypt and the Taj at Agra are not religious
buildings; they are tombs. The sentiment that raised them was the
emotion of death. In music and literature secular art rivals religion.
And even if great art be allied to religion, deep religious feeling does
not necessarily produce art. Indeed, it is the reverse. The most serious
forms of belief have not done so. Where is the art of the Reformation?
Protestants will be slow to admit that there was no deep religious
feeling there. Yet their great cathedrals were all built by Roman
Catholics. Were not the Puritans religious? They hated all art. Is
there no religious feeling in the North of America? Where is its
religious art? In Europe there is no religious art out of Catholicism.
In that alone has it succeeded. And again, although some religious art
is great, such is the exception. The bulk of religious art all over the
world is bad--very bad--the worst. What art is there in the crucifixes
of the Catholic world, in the sacred pictures in their chapels, in the
eikons of Russia, in the gods of the Hindus, in the Buddhas of Buddhism,
and the popular religious pictures of England? They are one and all as
Art simply deplorable. There is grand religious literature, but what of
the bulk of it? Most of the hymns, the sermons, the tracts, the
religious literature of England and other countries cannot be matched
for badness in any secular work. It is the same everywhere. The
Salvation Army had to borrow secular music to make its hymns attractive.
Striking an average, which is best--secular or religious literature,
art, music, and architecture? Without a doubt secular art is the best
all round.
Art may often be the representative of religion, it is never the outcome
of religious people or a religious age. The very contrary is the fact.
These are strong arguments, and there are more. But these will suffice.
What is the truth? What connection has art with religion?
I do not think the answer is difficult. The connection depends upon what
you define religion and art respectively to be. With the old definitions
no answer is forthcoming. But when you see religion as it really is,
when you understand its genesis and its growth, the answer is clear.
Religion, as I have tried to show, arises from instincts. The instincts
of the savage are few, the emotions he is capable of feeling are
limited. As his civilisation progresses his instinctive desires
increase, his emotions are more numerous. And as the greater attracts
the less, the older and more established attract the newer, so religion
attracts to itself and incorporates all it can. Religions have varied in
this matter; but of all, Catholicism has been the most wide-armed, it
has always justified its name. Where a new emotion arose and became
strong the Roman Church always if possible attracted it into the fold. I
have already shown how this was done. There is hardly an emotion of the
human heart that Roman Catholicism has not made its own.
Now what is Art?
Art, as Tolstoi explains, is also an expression of the emotions, and
therefore the difference between religion and art lies in the emotions
expressed and the method of expression.
Different peoples express in their religions different emotions. What
some of these emotions are I explain in Chapter XXX. Different people
are also more or less susceptible to art, and express in their art
different emotions. Where a great religion has absorbed certain
emotions, and a great art subsequently arises and wishes to express in
art some of the same emotions, then the art becomes religious art. The
two domains have overlapped. But there is no distinction between secular
and religious art. Nor is there any necessary connection between Art and
Religion. Neither is dependent on the other. They are quite distinct
domains, each existing to fulfil the necessities and desires of man.
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 municipal 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 companionship 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 competition. 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 hell. 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.
[Illustration: CATHOLIC RELIGION: PRAYER, MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE,
MOTHERHOOD, SACRIFICE, HEAVEN, GAIETY, COLLECTIVENESS, DEPENDANCE,
LAWLESSNESS, HOPE, CATHOLICITY, MERCY]
[Illustration: PURITANISM: EFFORT, HELL, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTICE,
NARROWNESS, VENGEANCE, LAW, STRENGTH, RIGHTEOUSNESS, FEAR, INDIVIDUALITY]
[Illustration: ART: MUSIC, BEAUTY, LOVE, MOTHERHOOD, GAIETY, PASSION,
LICENSE]