CALVINISM AXD ART.
yet, the exuberant feeling of having a share in the privileges of art is so overwhelming, that the scorn of the artist is preferred to the abandonment of art-training in education. To have laid a production of your own, however poor, upon the altar of art becomes more and more the characteristic of an acconrplished civilization. Finally, in all this the desire of enjoyment through ear and eye expresses itself, especially by means of music and of the stage. And if it cannot be denied that many court these sensual pleasures in wa \ s that are less noble and too often sinful, it is equally certain, that in many instances this love of art leads men to seek enjoyment in nobler directions and lessens the appetite for lower sensuality. Especially in our great cities, stage-managers are able to provide such first-rate entertainments, and the easy means of communication between the nations imparts such an international character to our best singers and players, that the finest artistic enjoyments are now brought for almost no price within the reach of an ever-widening class. Besides, it is but fair to concede that, threatened with atrophy by materialism and rationalism, the human heart naturally seeks an antidote against this withering process, in its artistic instinct. Unchecked, the dominating influences of money and of barren intellectualism would reduce the life of the emotions to freezing-point. And, unable to grasp the holier benefits of religion, the mysticism of the heart reacts in an artintoxication. Hence, though I do not forget that the real genius of art seeks the heights of isolation rather than the plains below, and that our age, so poor in the production of real creative art, is deemed to warm itself at the splendid glow of the past; yea, though I admit, that the homage of art by the profanum vulgus must necessarily lead to art-corruption, nevertheless, in my estimation, even the most injudicious aesthetical fanaticism stands far higher than the common race for wealth, or barren intellectualism, or an unholy prostration before the shrines of Bacchus and
Verms. In this cold, irreligious and practical age the warmth of this devotion to art has kept alive many higher aspirations of our soul, which otherwise might readily have died, as they did in the middle of the last century. Thus you see, I do not underestimate the present aesthetical movement. But what 'in the light of History should be discountenanced, is the mad endeavor to place it higher than, or even to make it of equal value with the religious movement of the 16th century, yet this is what I should be doing if I begged for Calvinism the favor of this new artistic movement. And therefore, when I plead the significance of Calvinism in the domain of art, I am not in the least induced to do so by this vulgarization of art, but mther keep my eyes fixed upon the Beautiful in its eternal significance, and upon art as one of the richest gifts of God to mankind.
Here, however, every student of history knows that I founder upon a deeply-rooted prejudice. Calvin, it is said, was personally devoid of the artistic instinct, and Calvinism which in the Netherlands proved guilty of Icouoclasm, cannot but be incapable either of artistic development or of real, noteworthy" art-production. A brief word therefore about this strong prejudice is here in order. Without putting too high an estimate upon his: "Wer nicht liebt Weib, Wein and Gesang," it is beyond dispute that Luther was more artisticalby disposed than Calvin; but what does this prove? Will you deny Hellenism its artistic laurels because, devoid of all sense of the beautiful, Socrates boasted of the beauty of his gaint nose because it allowed his breath to pass more freely? Do the writings of John, Peter and Paul, the three pillars of the Christian Church, in a single word betray any special appreciation of artistic life? Tea, be it asked reverently, is there any instance, in the Gospels, of Christ ever pleading for art or ever seeking its enjoyment? And when these questions one by one, must be answered in the negative, have you therefore the right to deny the fact that Christianity as such has been of an almost invaluable significance to the development of art? And if not, why then would you accuse Calvinism of Vandalism on the mere ground that Calvin personally had little feeling for art and that in his writings he had so little to say about it? And when you speak of the iconoclasm of the Beggars, should you forget that in the Sth century in the midst of the artistic and beautiful Grecian world the manly spirit of Leo Isaurus instigated a still more violent iconoclasm? and should the honour be denied to Byzantianism of having produced the finest monuments? Do }tou ask for still further proof to the contrary? Well, more sharply even than Leo Isaurus in the 8th century or Netherland's Beggars in the 16th century, did Mahomed in his Khoran militate against images of all kinds, but will this justify the charge that the Alhambra in Grenada and the Alcazar at Seville are no wonderfully beautiful products of architectural art? Ah, there is no progress in such dull reasoning as this.
We must not forget that the artistic instinct is an universal human phenomenon, but that in connection with national types, climates and countries, the development of that artistic instinct is most unequally divided among the nations. Who will look for a development of art in Iceland, and who on the other hand will not scent it, if I may so express myself, amidst the luxury of nature in the Levant? Is it then a matter of surprise that the South of Europe was more favorable for the development of this artistic instinct than the North? And when History shows that Calvinism was most widely received by the peoples of the North, does it prove aught against Calvinism, that in nations, living in a colder climate and of poorer natural surroundings, it was not able to quicken an artistic life such as flourished among the Southern nations? Because Calvinism preferred a worship of God in spirit and in truth, to sacerdotal wealth, it. has been accused by Rome of being devoid of an appreciation of art, and because it disapproved of a woman debasing herself as an artist's model or casting away her honor in the ballet, its moral seriousness has clashed with the sensualism of those who deemed no sacrifice too sacred for the Goddess of Art. All this however concerns only the place which art has to occupy in the sphere of life, and the boundaries of its domain, but does not touch art itself. To view therefore from a higher platform the significance of Calvinism to art, follow me in the investigation of these three points: 1. why Calvinism was not allowed to develop an art-style of its own; 2. what flows from its principle for the nature of art: and 3. what it has actually done for its advancement.
All would be well, if only Calvinism had developed an art-style of its own. Just as the Parthenon is boasted of at Athens, the Pantheon at Rome, the Saint Sophia at Byzantium, the Cathedral at Cologne, or the Saint Peter's at the Vatican, so also ought Calvinism to be able to exhibit an impressive structure, embodying all the fulness of its ideal. And that it did not do this is considered sufficient proof of its artistic poverty. Of course Calvinism is understood as having tried to ascend to the same artistic luxury, but is censured as having proved unable to accomplish it; its barren inflexibilit}r being the obstacle that prevented evenhigher aesthetical development. And when the humanist boasts of the classic art of old Hellas, the Greek Church of the Byzantian, and Rome of its Gothic style, then Calvinism is looked upon as standing confused in their presence, perplexed by the painful charge of having lessened the fulness of human life. Now in opposition to this thoroughly unfair accusation, I maintain, that for the very reason of its higher principle Calvinism was not permitted to develop such an art-style of its own. I was bound in this connection to put architecture to the front, because both in classic and in so-called Christian art the absolute and all-embracing production of art was exhibited in architecture, all the other departments of art finally adapting themselves to the temple, church, mosque or pagoda. Scarcely a single artstyle can be mentioned which did not arise from the centre of divine worship and which did not seek the realization of its ideals in the sumptuous structure for that worship. This was the thriving of an impulse which in itself was noble. Art derived her richest motives from Religion. The religious passion was the gold-mine, which financially rendered her boldest conceptions possible. For the realisation of her conceptions in this holy domain she found not only the narrow circle of artlovers, but also the whole nation at her feet. Divine worship furnished the tie that united the separated arts. And what tells more still, by this connexion with the Eternal, art received its inner unity and its ideal consecration. And this explains the fact that, whatever the palace and the stage may have done for the development of art, it was always the sanctuary by which it was impressed with the stamp of a special character and to which it was indebted for a creative style. Art-style and the style of worship coincided. Now of course, if this wedding of art-inspired worship, with worship-inspired art be no intermediate stage, but the real and the highest end to be obtained, then it must frankly be confessed that Calvinism cannot but plead guilty. If, however, on the other hand, it can be shown that this alliance of religion and art represents a lower stage of religious, and in general of human development, then it is plain, that in this very want of a special artstyle, Calvinism finds an even higher recommendation. Being fully convinced in my own mind that this is the case, I proceed to account for my conviction.
The aesthetic development of divine worship carried to those ideal heights of which the Parthenon and the Pantheon, the Saint Sophia and Saint Peter are the stoneembroidered witnesses, is only possible at that lower stage of progress in which the same form of religion is imposed upon a whole nation, both by prince and priest. In that case every difference of spiritual expression fuses into one mode of symbolical worship, and this union of the masses, under the leadership of the magistrate and the clergy, furnishes the possibility of defraying the immense expense of such colossal structures, and of ornamenting and decorating them. In the case however of a progressive development of the nations, when individual character-traits split the unity of the masses, Religion also rises to that higher plain where it graduates from the symbolical into the clearly- conscious life, and thereby necessitates both the division of worship into many forms, and the emancipation of matured religion from all sacerdotal and political guardianship. In the lGth century Europe was approaching, though slowly, this higher level of spiritual development, and it was not Lutheranism with its subjection of the whole nation to the religion of the prince, but Calvinism with its profound conception of religious liberty, which initiated the transition. In every country where Calvinism has made its appearance, it has led to a multiformity of life-tendencies, it has broken the power of the State within the domain of religion, and to a great extent has made an end of sacerdotalism. As a result of this, it abandoned the symbolical form of worship, and refused, at the demand of art, to embody its religious spirit in monuments of splendor.
The objection that such a symbolic service had a place in Israel does not weaken my argument, it rather supports it. For does not the New Testament teach us that the ministry of shadows, naturally flourishing under the old dispensation, under the dispensation of fulfilled prophecy is "old and waxeth aged and is nigh unto vanishing away?" In Israel we find a state-religion, which is one and the same for the entire people. That religion is under sacerdotal leadership. And finally it makes its appearance in symbols, and is consequently embodied in the splendid temple of Solomon. But when this ministry of shadows has served the purposes of the Lord, Christ comes to prophecy the hour when God shall no longer be worshipped in the monumental temple at Jerusalem, but shall rather be worshipped in spirit and in truth. And in keeping with this prophecy you find no trace or shadow of art for worship in all the apostolic literature. Aaron's visible priesthood on earth gives place to the invisible High-priesthood after the order of Melchizedek in Heaven. The purely spiritual breaks through the nebula of the symbolical.
My second proof is that this agrees entirely with the higher relation between Religion and Art. Here I appeal to Hegel and Von Hartmann who, both standing outside Calvinism, may be relied upon as being disinterested witnesses. Hegel says that art, which, at a lower stage of development, imparts to a still sensual religion its highest expression and animation, finally helps it by these very means to cast off the fetters of sensuality; for though it must be granted that at a lower level it is only the aesthetical worship that liberates the spirit, nevertheless, he concludes, "beautiful art is not its highest emancipation," for that is only found in the realm of the invisible and spiritual. And Von Hartmann even more emphatically declares that: Originally Divine
worship appeared inseparably united to art, because, at the lower stage, Religion is still inclined to lose itself in the aesthetic form. At that period, all the arts engage in the service of the cult, not merely music, painting, sculpture and architecture, but also the dance, mimicry and the drama. The more, on the other hand, Religion develops into spiritual maturity, the more it will extricate itself from art's bandages, because art always remains incapable of expressing the very essence of Religion.
And the final result of this historic process of separation must be, that Religion, when fully matured, will rather entirely abstain from the stimulant by which aesthetic pseudoemotion intoxicated it, in order to concentrate itself wholly and exclusively upon the quickening of those emotions which are purely religious'* And both Hegel and Von
Hartmann are correct in this fundamental thought. Religion and Art have each a life-sphere of their own; these may at first be scarcely distinguishable from each other and therefore closely intertwined, but, with a richer development, these two spheres necessarily separate. Looking at two babies in a cradle you can scarcely tell which is boy or girl, but when, having reached the years of maturity, they stand before you, as man and woman, you see them both with forms, and traits, and modes of expression, peculiarly their own. And so, arrived at their highest development, both Religion and Art demand an independent existence, and the two stems which at first were intertwined and seemed to belong to the same plant, now appear to spring from a root of their own. This is the process from Aaron to Christ, from Bezaleel and Aholiab to the Apostles. And, by virtue of that same process, Calvinism occupies a higher standpoint in the 16th century than Romanism could reach. Consequently Calvinism was neither able, nor even permitted, to develop an art-style of its own from its religious principle. To have done this would have been to slide back to a lower level of religious life. On the contrary, its nobler effort must be to release religion and divine worship more and more from its sensual form and to encourage its vigorous spirituality. This it was enabled to do because of the powerful pulsebeat by which at that time the religious life coursed through the arteries of mankind. And the fact that in these days, our Calvinistic churches are deemed cold and unheimish, and a reintroduction of the symbolical in our places of worship is longed for, we owe to the sad reality that the pulsebeat of the religious life in our times, is so much fainter than it was in the days of the martyrs. But so far from borrowing from this the right of redescending to a lower level of religion, this faintness of the religious life ought to inspire the prayer upon the lips of God's children for a mightier inworking of the Holy Spirit. Second childhood, in your old age, is a painful, retrograde movement. The man who fears God, and whose faculties remain clear and unimpaired, does not on the brink of age return to the playthings of his infancy.
One more objection might maintain itself after this demonstration, and that too I want to face. The question may be asked whether a really independent life-tendency should not create its own art-style, even if it developed itself as absolutely secular. Let the real meaning of the objection be well understood. It does not suggest that Calvinism if truly possessed of an aesthetic significance, should have given a certain direction to the practice of art, for the fact that Calvinism has truly done this will presently show itself. The point of this objection hits deeper, and puts the question: whether in the first place a secular art-style is conceivable; and in the second place, whether the creation of such a purely secular and dominating art-style could have been demanded of Calvinism. The answer I make to the first is: that in the history of art no record of the rise of such an all-embracing art-style independent of Religion, is to be found. Mark you, I do not here speak of a school of a single art. but of an art- style which puts a concentric impress upon all the arts together. To a certain degree it could be asserted of Roman art and of that of the Renaissance that, although devoid of a leading religious impulse, they nevertheless reached an all-sided revelation in art-forms. Speaking of architecture, the dome in Roman and Byzantian art is not an expression of a religious thought but of political energy. The dome symbolizes world-power, and, though it may