CALVINISM AND AKT.
be in a different sense, of the Renaissance also it must be confessed, that it did not take its rise in religion, but in the circles of civil and social life. Now the Renaissance will be considered more fully in the third part of this lecture, but with respect to the Roman art-style I here answer, first, that a style, which borrowed almost all its motives from Greek art can scarcely boast of an independent character; and secondly, that, in Rome, the Stateidea had become so identified with the Religious idea, that when, in the period of the emperors, art reached its height of prosperity while sacrifices were burned to Divus Augustus, it is unhistorical to consider State and Religion any longer as being at that time separate spheres.
But, apart from this historic outcome, it may be questioned, whether such an all-embracing art-style ever could have originated outside of Religion. The rise of such a style demands a central motive in the mental and emotional life of a people, which shall dominate the whole existence from within, and which consequently carries its effect from this spiritual centre to its outermost circumference. Not of course as though a national world of art ever could be the product of intellectual thought. Intellectual art is no art, and the effort put forth by Hegel to draw art from thoughts, militated against the very nature of art. Our intellectual, ethical, religious and aesthetic life each commands a sphere of its own. These spheres run parallel and do not allow the derivation of one from the other. It is the central emotion, the central impulse, and the central animation, in the mystical root of our being, which seeks to reveal itself to the outer world in this fourfold ramification. Art also is no side-shoot on a principal branch, but an independent branch that grows from the trunk of our life itself, even though it is tar more nearly allied to Religion than to our thinking or to our ethical being. If however it be asked how there can arise a unity of conception embracing these four domains, it constantly appears that in the finite this unity is only found at that point where it springs from the fountain of the Infinite. There is no unity in your thinking save by a well-ordered philosophical system, and there is no system of philosophy which does not ascend to the issues of the Infinite. In the same way there is no unity in your moral existence save by the union of your inner existence with the moral world-order, and there is no moral world-order conceivable but for the impression of an Infinite power that has ordained order in this moral world. Thus also no unity in the revelation of art is conceivable, except by the art-inspiration of an Eternal Beautiful, which flows from the fountain of the Infinite, and raises us to the Infinite. Hence no characteristic all-embracing art-style can arise except as a consequence of the peculiar impulse from the Infinite that operates in our inmost being. And since this is the very privilege of Religion, over intellect, morality and art, that she alone effects the communion with the Infinite in our self-consciousness, the call for a secular, all-embracing art-style, independent of any religious principle, is simply absurd.
r Understand that art is no fringe that is attached to the garment, and no amusement that is added to life, but a most serious power in our.present existence, and therefore its principal variations must maintain, in their artistic expression, a close relation with the principal variations of our entire lite; and since, without exception, these principal variations of our entire human existence are dominated by our relation to God, would it not be both a degradation and an underestimation of art, if you were to imagine the ramifications, into which the art-trunk divides itself, to be independent of the deepest root which all human life has in God 1\ Consequently no art-style has sprung from the Rationalism of the 18th century, nor from the principle of 1789, and however grievous it may be to our 19th centurv, all her efforts to create a new art- style of her own, have ended in perfect failure, and then only do her artistic productions possess a real charm when she allows herself to be inspired by the wonders of the past.
Thus by itself the possibility must be denied that a proper art-style can originate independently of religion; but even if this were otherwise, it would still be illogical, and this was my second argument, to demand such a secular tendency of Calvinism. For how can you desire that a life-movement, which found the origin of its power in the arraignment of all men and of all human life before the face of God, should have sought the impulse, the passion and the inspiration for its life oaf side of God in so exceedingly important a domain as that of the mighty arts? There remains, therefore, no shadow of a reality in the scornful reproach that the non- creation of an art-style of its own is a conclusive proof of Calvinism's artistic poverty. Only under the auspices of its religious principle could Calvinism have created a general art-style, and just because it had reached a so much higher stage of religious development, its very principle forbade it the symbolical expression of its religion in visible and sensual forms.
Hence the question must be differently stated. And this brings us to our second point. The question is not whether Calvinism produced what, with its higher view-point it was no longer allowed to create, viz., a general art -style of its own, but what interpretation of the nature of art /tows from its principle. In other words, is there in the life- and world-view of Calvinism a place for art, and if so, what place? Is its principle opposed to art, or, if judged by the standards of the Calvinistic principle, would a world without art loose one of its ideal spheres? I do not speak now of the abuse, but simply of the use of art. In every domain, life is bound to respect the dimensions of this domain.
Encroachment on the domain of others is always unlawful; and our human life will only then attain its nobler harmony when all its functions cooperate in just proportion to our general development, The logic of the mind may not scorn the feelings of the heart, nor should the love of the beautiful silence the voice of conscience. However holy Religion may be, it must keep within its own bounds, lest, in crossing its lines, it degenerate into superstition, insanity or fanaticism. Hypertrophy of the head, accompanied by atrophy of the heart, results in a sickly development, and, in the same way, the too exuberant passion for art which laughs at the whispering of conscience, must end in an unlovely discord quite different from what the Greeks exalted in their Mokagathos. The fact, for instance, that Calvinism arrayed itself against all unholy play with woman's honor, and stigmatized every form of immoral artistic enjoyment as a degradation, lies therefore outside our scope. All this properly denounces the abuse, while it carries no weight whatever with the question of the lawful use. And that the lawful use of art was not opposed, but encouraged and even recommended, by Calvin himself, his own words readily prove. When the Scripture mentions the first appearance of art, in the tents of Jubal, who invented the harp and organ, Calvin emphatically reminds us that this passage treats of '-excellent gifts of the Holy Spirit." He declares that in the artistic instinct God had enriched Jubal and his posterity with rare endowments. And he frankly states that these inventive powers of art prove most evident testimonies of the Divine bounty. More emphatically still, he declares, in his commentaries on Exodus, that "all the arts come from God and are to be respected as Divine inventions." According to Calvin, these precious things of the natural life we owe originally to the Holy Ghost. In all Liberal Arts, in the most as well as in the least important, the praise and glory of
God are to be enhanced. The arts, says he, have been given us for our comfort, in this our depressed estate of life. They react against the corruption of life and nature by the curse. When his colleague, Prof. Cop, at Geneva, took up arms against art, Calvin purposely instituted measures, by which, as he writes, to restore this foolish man to sounder sense and reason. The blind prejudice against Sculpture, on the ground of the Second Commandment, Calvin declares unworthy of refutation. He exults in Music as a marvellous power to move hearts and to ennoble tendencies and morals. Among the excellent favors of God for our recreation and enjoyment, it occupies in his mind the highest rank. And even when art condescends to become the instrument of mere entertainment to the masses, he asserts that this sort of pleasure should not lie denied them. In view of all this we may say, that Calvin esteemed art, in all its ramifications, as a gift of God, or, more especially, as a gift of the Holy Ghost; that he fully grasped the profound effects worked by art upon the life of the emotions; that he appreciated the end for which art has been given, vis., that by it we might glorify God, and ennoble human life, and drink at the fountain of higher pleasures, yea even of common sport; and finally, that so far from considering art as a mere imitation of nature, he attributed to it the noble vocation of disclosing to man a higher reality than was offered to us by this sinful and corrupted world. Now if it implied nothing beyond the personal interpretation of Calvin, this testimony would of course have no conclusive value for Calvinism in general. But when we observe that Calvin himself was not gifted with personal artistic talents, and that therefore he must have derived this brief system of Aesthetics directly from his principle, he may be credited with having expounded the Calvinistic consideration of art as such. And it is not difficult to show that such is the case. To go direct to the heart of the cpiestion, we begin with Calvin's last saying, viz., that art reveals to us a higher reality than is offered by this sinful world. You are familiar with the question, so often debated in art circles, whether art should imitate nature or should transcend it. Grapes were painted with such accuracy that birds were deceived by their appearance and tried to eat them. And this imitation of nature seemed the highest ideal to the Socratic school. Herein lies the truth, all too often forgotten by idealists, that the forms and relations exhibited by nature are and ever must remain the fundamental forms and relations of all actual reality, and an art which does not watch the forms and motions of nature nor listen to its sounds, but arbitrarily likes to hover over it, deteriorates into a wild play of fantasy. On the other hand all idealistic interpretation of art should be justified in opposition to the purely empirical, as often as the empirical confines its task to the mere imitation of nature. For then the same mistake is committed in art so often committed by scientists when they confine their scientific task to the mere observation, computation and accurate report of facts. And even as science has to ascend from the phenomena to the investigation of their inherent order, to the end that man, enriched by the knowledge of this order, may propagate nobler species oi animals, flowers and fruits, than nature, herself, could produce, so also it is the vocation of art, not merely to observe every thing visible and audible, and to apprehend it, and reproduce it artistically, but much more to discover in those natural forms the order of the beautiful, and, enriched by this higher knowledge, to produce a beautiful world that transcends the beautiful of nature. And this is what Calvin asserted; viz., that the arts exhibit gifts which God has placed at our disposal, now that, as the sad consequence of sin, the real beautiful has fled from us.— Your decision here depends entirely upon your interpretation of the world. If you are considering the world as the realisation of the absolute good, then there is none higher, and art can have no other voca- tion than to copy nature. If, as the pantheist teaches, the world proceed, by slow processes, from the incomplete to perfection, then art becomes the prophecy of a higher phase of life to come. But if you confess that the world was once beautiful, but by the curse has become undone, and by a final catastrophy is to pass to its full state of glory, excelling even the beautiful of paradise, then art has the mystical task of reminding us in its productions of the beautiful that was lost and of anticipating in its coming lustre. Now this last-mentioned instance is the Calvinistic confession. It realized, more clearly than Rome, the hideous, corrupting influences of sin; this led to a higher estimation of the nature of paradise in the beaut}- of original righteousness, and guided by this enchanting remembrance. Calvinism prophesied a redemption of outward nature also, to be realized in the reign of celestial glory. From this standpoint, Calvinism honored art as a gift of the holy Ghost and as a consolation in our present life, enabling us to discover in and behind this sinful life a richer and more glorious background. Standing by the ruins of this once so wonderfully beautiful creation, art points out to the Calvinist both the still visible lines of the original plan, and what is even more, the splendid restoration by which the Supreme Artist and Master-Builder will one day renew and enhance even the beauty of His original creation.
If thus, on this principal point, Calvin's personal interpretation agrees entirely with the Calvinistic confession, the same applies to the next point in question. If the Sovereignty of God is and remains, for Calvinism, its unchangeable point of departure, then art cannot originate from the Evil One; for Satan is destitute of every creative power. All he can do is to abuse the good gifts of God. Neither can art originate with man, for, being a creature himself, man cannot but employ the powers and gifts, put by God at his disposal. If God is and remains Sovereign, then art can work no enchantment except in keeping with the ordinances which God ordained for the beautiful, when He, as the Supreme Artist, called this world into existence. And, further, if God is and remains Sovereign, then he also imparts these artistic gifts to whom He will, first even to Cain's, and not to Abel's posterity; not as if art were Cainitic, but in order that he who has sinned away the highest gifts, should at least, as Calvin so beautifully says, in the lesser gifts of art have some testimony of the Divine bounty. That artistic ability, that art-capacity, as such, can have room in buman uature. we owe to our creation after the image of God. In the real world, God is Creator of everything; the power of producing new things is His alone, and therefore He always continues to be the creative artist. As God, He alone is the original One, we are only the bearers of His Image. Our capacity to create after Him and after what He created, can only consist in the unreal creations of art. So. we, in our fashion, may imitate God's handiwork, and feel impelled by God Himself to create a kind of cosmos in our architectural monumeut;to embellish nature's forms, in Sculpture; to reproduce life, animated by lines and tints, in our painting: to transfuse the mystical spheres in our Music and in our poetry. And all this because the beautiful is not the product of our own fantasy, nor of our subjective perception, but has an objective existence, being itself the expression of a Divine perfection. After the Creation, God saw that all things were good. Imagine that every human eye were closed and every human ear stopped up, even then the beautiful remains, and God sees it and hears it, for, not only "His Eternal Power", but also His "Divinity'", from the very creation, has been perceived in his creature, both spiritually and somatically. An artist may notice this in himself. If he realizes how his own art -capacity depends upon his having an eye for art, he must come to the conclusion that the original eye for art is in God Himself, Whose art capacity is all-producing, and after Whose image the artist among men was made.
We know this from the creation around us, from the firmament that overarches us, from the abounding luxury of nature, from the wealth of forms in man and animal, from the rushing sound of the stream and from the song of the nightingale; for how could all this beauty have been created, except by One who preconceived the beautiful in His own Nature, and produced it from his own Divine perfection? Thus you see that the Sovereignty of God, and our creation after His Likeness, necessarily lead to that high interpretation of the origin, the nature and the vocation of art, as adopted by Calvin and still approved by our own artistic instinct. The world of sounds, the world of forms, the world of tints and the world of poetic ideas, can have no other source than God, and it is our privilege as bearers of His image, to have a perception of this beautiful world and to be able to enjoy it.
And thus we come to the third and last point to be investigated. We found that the want of an art-style of its own is no objection against Calvinism, but on the contrary indicates the higher stage of its development. After that, we considered how exalted an interpretation of the nature of art flows from the Calvinistic principle. And now let us see how nobly Calvinism has encouraged the progress of the arts both in principle and in practice.
And here, in the first place, I draw your attention to the important fact that it was ( lalvinism who, by releasing art from the guardianship of the Church, first recognized its majority. I do not deny that the Renaissance had the same tendency, but, with the Renaissance, this was marred by a too one-sided preference for the Paganistic, and a passion for ideas more Heathen than Christian; while Calvin, on the other hand, kept firmly to the Christian ideas, and more sharply even than any other Reformer opposed every Paganistic influence. To deal justly however with the older
Christian Church a somewhat fuller explanation is here in place. The Christian Religion made its appearance in a world, which, though thoroughly demoralized, still recommended itself by its high civilization and its artistic splendour. Therefore, in order to oppose principle to principle, Christianity was bound, at the outset, to react against the thendominating overestimation of art, and thereby to break the dangerous influence which Paganism was exercising, in its last convulsion, by tbe enchantment of its beautiful world. As long, therefore, as the struggle with Paganism remained a struggle for life or death, the relation of Christianity to art could not but lie an hostile one. This first period was followed almost immediately by the influx into the highly civilized Roman Empire of the still almost barbaric Germanic tribes, after whose speed}' baptism the centre of pow7er gradually removed from Italy to beyond the Northern Alps, thus giving, to the Church, as early as the 8th century an almost exclusive ascendency over the whole of Europe. Thanks to this constellation, the Church for several centuries became the guardian of higher human life, and so nobly did she acquit herself of this exalted task that no religious hatred or party prejudice dares question any longer the glorious result she then achieved. In the literal sense of the word, all human development of that period depended entirely upon the church. No science and no art could prosper unless shielded by ecclesiastical protection. And hence originated that specifically Christian art, which, in its first passion, tried to embody the maximum of spiritual essence in the minimum of form and tint and tone. It was no art copied from nature, but art invoked from out the spheres of heaven, which fettered music in the Gregorian chains, the pencil and chisel of which longed after acosmic creations, and which only in the building of the cathedrals attained the really beautiful and reaped imperishable fame. All educational guardianship, meanwhile, leads to its own dissolution. A rightminded guardian intends to render his guard- ianship superfluous as soon as possible, and he who tries to prolong his control, even after his ward has reached maturity, creates an unnatural relation and makes his guardianship itself an incentive to resistance. When therefore the first education of Northern Europe was completed, and the church still persisted in swaying her absolute sceptre across the entire domain of life, four great movements were started from as many different sides, viz., the Renaissance, in the domain of art, the Republicanism of Italy in politics, Humanism in science, and lastly and centrally, in Religion, the Reformation.
No doubt these four movements received their impulse from very different, and in some cases conflicting principles, but they all agreed on this one point, viz., that they must escape from ecclesiastical tutelage, and create a life of their own in accordance with their own principle. Therefore, it is not at all surprising, that, in the 1 6th century, these four powers repeatedly acted in concert. It was the one human life that, weary of any further guardianship, hastened in every way after a freer development, and therefore, when the old guardian tried with tooth and nail to hold back the declaration of maturity, it was but natural that those four powers should encourage one another, fiercely to resist, nor to desist before freedom was obtained. "Without this quadruple alliance not only would the tutelage of the church have persevered over all Europe, but, once the rebellion crushed, its rule would have become even more grievous and intolerable than beforehand. Thanks to this cooperation, the bold undertaking was crowned with enduring success, and the combatants, by their combined energy, earned the everlasting glory of having brought art and science, as well as politics and Religion, to the full enjoyment of maturity.
Will it be fair on this ground to assert that Calvinism has freed Religion, and not art, and that the honors of the emancipation of art belong exclusively to the Renaissance? I readily grant that the Renaissance has a right to claim its share of the victory, especially in so far as it stimulated art herself to vindicate her liberty by her wonderful productions. Aesthetic genius, if I may so call it, had been implanted by God Himself, in the Greek, and only by hailing again, amid loud rejoicings, the fundamental powers of art, which Greek genius had discovered, could art justify her claim to an independent existence. This by itself however could not have achieved the desired liberation. For the church of those days did not in the least oppose classical art as such. On the contrary, she welcomed the Renaissance, and Christian art did not hesitate a moment to enrich herself with the best the Renaissance had to offer. In the so-called Cinquecento, or high-Renaissance, Bramante and Da Vinci. Michael Angelo and Raphael stored the splendor ecclesiae with treasures of art, quite unique and inimitable, never to be surpassed. Thus the old tie continued to unite church and art, and this of itself established a permanent patronage. The real liberation of art required much more patent energies. From principle, the church was to be forced back to her spiritual realm. Art, having hitherto confined herself to the holy spheres, had now to make her appearance in the social world. And in the church. Religion had to put aside her symbolical robes, in order that, after having ascended to the higher spiritual level, her life-giving breath might animate the whole world. Just as Von Hartmann truly observes: "It is pure spiritual Religion which with one hand deprives the artist of his specifically religious art, but which, with the other, offers him, in exchange, a whole world, to be religiously animated." Now Luther certainly desired such a pure, spiritual Religion, but Calvinism was the first to grasp it. First under the stirring impulses of Calvinism, our fathers broke with the splendor ecclesiae, i. e., with her outward glitter, with her vast possessions, by which art was financially held in bondage, and also with her outward exhibition of power, which could not rest until it had subjected to itself evenexpression of human life. And although Humanism rebelled against this oppressive and unnatural state of things, it could never hope to effect a radical change if left to its own resources. Only think of Erasmus. Triumph in the struggle of that time was not reserved for. the man who carried on the strife for Religious liberty by mere criticism, but only for him, who, standing on an higher stage of religious development, overcame the symbolical religion as such. And, therefore, we may boldly assert that it was Calvinism who prompted the spirited impulse by which the victory was won, and, by its indefatigable perseverance, has put au end to the unjustified tutelage of the church over all human life, art included.
Meanwhile I readily grant that this outcome would have been purely accidental, if Calvinism had not, at the same time, led to a deeper interpretation of human life and human art. When, under Victor Emmanuel, with the help of Garibaldi, Italy was made free, the day of liberty also dawned for the Waldenses, in Middle and Southern Italy, but neither the Be galantuomo, nor Garibaldi, had even thought of the Waldensians. Thus it were possible that in its struggle for human liberty Calvinism also cut the tie that thus far held art a captive, but without having in the least intended to do this, by virtue of its principle. And therefore I must still illustrate the second factor, which alone decides the case. I have already, more than once, called your attention to the important significance of the Calvinistic doctrine of ''common grace," and in this lecture on art. I must refer to it again. That which is to be ecclesiastical must bear the stamp of faith, therefore Christian art can only go out from believers. If therefore I only recognise as a real, true art the so-called Christain art, I thereby claim that the exalted gift of art is only the portion of believers. Calvinism, on the contrary, has taught us that all liberal arts are gifts which God imparts promiscuously to believers and to unbelievers, yea, that, as history shows, these gifts have flourished even in a larger measure outside the holy circle. '"These radiations of Divine Light," he wrote, "shone more brilliantly among unbelieving people than among God's saints." And this of course quite reverses the proposed order of things. If you limit the higher enjoyment of art to regeneration, then this gift is exclusively the portion of believers, and must bear an ecclesiastical character. In that case it is the outcome of particular grace. But if, at the hand of experience and history, you become persuaded that the highest art-instincts are natural gifts, and hence belong to those excellent graces which, in spite of sin, by virtue of common (/race, have continued to shine in human nature, it plainly follows that art can inspire both believers and unbelievers, and that God remains Sovereign to impart it, in His good pleasure, alike to Heathen and to Christian nations. This applies not only to art, but to all the natural utterances of human life, and is illustrated by the comparison in early times between Israel and the other nations. As far as holy things are concerned, Israel is chosen, and is not only blessed above all nations, but stands among all nations, isolated. In the question of Religion, Israel has not only a larger share, but Israel alone has the truth, and all the other nations, even the Greeks and the Romans, are bent beneath the yoke of falsehood. Christ is not partly of Israel and partly of the nations; He is of Israel alone. Salvation is of the •lews. But just in proportion as Israel shines forth from within the domain of Religion, so is it equally backward when you compare the development of its art, science, politics, commerce and trade to that of the surrounding nations. It is noteworthy that the building of the Temple required the coming of Hiram from a heathen country to Jerusalem. And Solomon, in whom, after all, was found the Wisdom of God, not only knows that Israel stands behind in architecture and needs help from without, but by his action be publicly shows that he, as the king of the Jews is in no way ashamed of Hiram's corning, which he lealizes as a natural ordinance of God.
So, Calvinism, on the ground both of the Scriptures and of history, has arrived at the confession, that, wherever the Sanctuary discloses itself, all unbelieving nations stand outside, but that nevertheless, in their secular history, they are called by God to a special vocation, and form, by their very existence, an indispensable link in the long chain of phenomena. Every utterance of human life requires a special disposition in blood and in descent, and proper adaptations of lot and incident as well as of natural environment and climatic effects are to contribute to its development. In Israel all this was adapted to the holy heritage which it was to receive in the Divine Revelation. But if Israel was chosen for the sake of Religion, this in no way prevented a parallel election of the Greeks for the domain of philosophy and for the revelations of art, nor of the Romans, for the classical development within the domain of Law and of State. The life of art also has both its provisional development, and its later unfoldings, but in order to insure a more vigorous growth it wanted first of all clear self consciousness in its centrum that once for all the unchangeable foundation- of its ideal existence might be brought to light. Such a phenomenon as art, arrives at this self-revelation once only, and that revelation once granted, remains classical, tone-giving and forever dominant. And although a further art-development may seek newer forms and richer material, the nature of the original find remains the same. Thus Calvinism was not only able, but bound to confess, that, by the grace of God, the Greeks were the primordial nation of art; that owing to this classical Greek development, art conquered its rights of independent existence; and that although it certainly ought to radiate also in the sphere of Religion, it should in nowise be engrafted in a dependent sense upon the ecclesiastical tree, or, if you like, upon the tree of faith. Therefore, being a return of art to her rediscovered fundamental lines, the Renaissance did not present itself to Calvinism as a sinful effort, but as a divinely ordered movement. And as such Calvinism encouraged the Renaissance not by pure accident, but with clear consciousness and definite purpose, in accordance with its deepest principle.
Hence there is no question that, simply as an involuntary result of its opposition to the Hierarchy of Rome, Calvinism should at the same time have encouraged the emancipation of art. On the contrary, it demanded this liberation and was bound to effect it, within its own circle, as a consequence of its world- and life-view. The world after the fall is no lost planet, only destined now to afford the church a place in which to continue her combats, and humanity is no aimless mass of people which only serves the purpose of giving birth to the elect. On the contrary the world now, as well as in the beginning, is the theatre for the mighty works of God, and humanity remains a creation of His hand, which, apart from salvation and from what the future may bring, completes under this present dispensation, here on earth, a mighty process, and in its historical development is to glorify the name of Almighty God. To this end He has ordained for this humanity all sorts of life-utterances, and' among these, art occupies a quite independent place. Art reveals ordinances of creation which neither science, nor politics, nor religious life, nor even revelation can bring to light. She is a plant that grows and blossoms upon her own root, and without denying that this plant may have required the help of a temporary support, and that in early times the church lent this prop in a very excellent way, yet the Calvinistic principle demanded that this plant of art should at length acquire strength to stand alone and vigorously to extend its branches in every direction. And thus Calvinism confessed that, the Greeks having first discovered the laws by which the existence and the growth of this art-plant are governed, therefore remain entitled to bind every further growth and every new impulse of art to their first, their classical development. Not for the sake of stopping short with Greece, or of adopting her Paganistic form without criticism. Art, like Science, cannot afford to tarry at her origin, but must ever develop herself more richly, at the same time purging herself of whatsoever had been falsely intermingled with the earlier plant. Only, the law of her growth and life, once discovered, must remain the fundamental law of art for ever; a law, not imposed upon her from without, but sprung from her own nature. And so, by loosening every unnatural, and cleaving to her natural ties, art must find the inward strength required for the maintenance of her liberty. Calvin therefore does not estrange art, science, and Religion, from one another; on the contrary, what he desires is that all human life shall be permeated by these three vital powers together. There must be a science which will not rest until it has thought out the entire cosmos; a religion which cannot sit still until she has permeated every sphere of human life; and so also there must be an Art which, despising no single department of life, adopts, into her splendid world, the whole of human life, Religion included.
Let this suggestion of the wide extension of the domain of art introduce my last point, viz., that Calvinism has also act dully and In a concrete sense ad a meet] the development of the arts. It scarcely needs a reminder that in the realm of art Calvinism was not able to play the role of a Sorcerer, and could only work with natural data. That the Italian has a more tuneful voice than the Scot, and that the German is carried away by a more passionate impulse of song than the Netherlander, are simple data with which art had to reckon, under Roman supremacy, as well as under that of Calvinism. An undeniable fact, which explains why it is neither logical nor honest to reproach Calvinism for that which is merely due to the differences of national character. The truth is equally plain that, in the Northern countries of Europe, Calvinism was not able to produce, as by magic, marble, porphyry or freestone, from the ground, and that therefore the arts of sculpture and architecture, which require rich, natural stone, were more readily developed in those countries where quarries abound, than in a country such as the Netherlands, where the ground consists of clay and mire. Poetry, music, and painting, therefore, can alone be considered here, as the three free arts that are most independent of all natural data. This does not imply that the Flemish and Dutch city -hall fails to hold a position of honor all its own among the creations of architecture. Louvain and Middleburg, Antwerp and Amsterdam still bear witness to what Dutch art wrought in stone. And he who has seen the statues in Antwerp and at the tomb of William the Silent, carved by Quellinus and by De Keyzers, does not question the ability of our artists of the chisel. But this is subject to the objection that the style of our City-Hall was found long before Calvinism made its appearance in the Netherlands, and that, even in its later development, it exhibits no single feature that can remind one of Calvinism. By virtue of its principle Calvinism built no cathedrals, no palaces and no amphitheatres and was unable to erect mighty piles of architecture, and equally unable to populate the vacant niches of these gigantic buildingsWvith sculptured ornaments.
Indeed, the merits of Calvinism, with respect to art, are to be found elsewhere. Not in the objective, but exclusively in the more subjective arts which, not depending upon the patronage of wealth and not in want of the marble quarry, have their spontaneous rise in the human mind. Of poetry I make no mention, in this connection. The narrow bounds within which our language is confined, have excluded our poetry from the world at large, and whatever excellent schools of poets may have flourished among us, their influence necessarily remained confined to the Netherlands, and, therefore, they were not ahle to affect poetry as a world-phenomenon. This privilege is only reserved for those larger nations, whose language, being spoken by millions and millions, therefore becomes a vehicle for international intercourse. But if the province of language for smaller nations is limited, the ege is international, and music heard by the ear is understood in eveiy heart. In order, therefore, that we may trace the influence of Calvinism upon the development and the welfare of art, we must limit ourselves, in the international sense, to the two subjective and independent arts, those of painting and music.
Now of both these arts it is to be stated that, before the days of Calvinism, they soared high above the common life of the Nations, and that only under the < 'alvinistic influence did the}' descend to the so much richer life of the people. As regards painting, just recall the productions of Dutch art by brush and etching-needle in the 16th and 17th centuries. Rembrandt's name alone is here sufficient to invoke a whole world of art-treasures to rise before your mind's eye. The museums of every country and continent still vie with each other, to the utmost, in their efforts to obtain some specimen of his work. Even a broker has respect for an art-school whose returns represent so vast a capital. And even in our days the masters all over the world are still borrowing their most effectual motives and their best art-tendencies from what, at that time, demanded the world's admiration as an entirely new school of painting. Of course this does not say that all these painters were personally staunch Calvinists. In the earlier art-school, which flourished under the influence of Rome the "bon Catholiques" were also very rare. Such influences do not operate personally, but put their impress upon surroundings and society, upon the world of perceptions, of representations and of thought, and as a result of these various impressions an art-school makes its appearance. And, taken in this sense, the antithesis between the past and the present in the school of Dutch art is unmistakable. Before this period, no account was taken of the people, they only were considered worthy of notice who were superior to the common man, vis., the high world of the church and of the priests, of knights and princes. But, since then, the people had come of age, and under the auspices of Calvinism, the art of painting, prophetic of a democratic life of later times, was the first to proclaim the people's maturity. The family ceased to be an annex to the church, and asserted its standing in its independent significance. By the light of common grace it was seen that the non-churchly life wTas also possessed of high importance and of an all sided art-motive. Having been overshadowed for many centuries by class-distinctions, the common life of man came out of its hiding-place like a new world, in all its sober reality. It was the broad emancipation of our ordinary earthly life, and the instinct for liberty, which thereby captured the heart of the nations and inspired them with delight in the enjoyment of treasures so long blindly neglected. Even Taine has sounded the praises of the blessing, which went forth from the Calvinistic love of liberty to the realm of art, and Carriere, who himself was equally far from sympathizing with Calvinism, loudly proclaims that Calvinism alone was able to plow the field on which free art could flourish. — It has frequently been remarked, moreover, that the idea of election by free giace has contributed not a little toward interesting art in the hidden importance of what was seemingly small and insignificant. If a common man, to whom the world pays no special attention, is valued and even chosen by God as one of His elect, this must lead the artist also to find a motive for his artistic studies in what is common and of every- day occurrence, to pay attention to the emotions and the issues of the human heart in it. to grasp, with his artistic instinct, their ideal impulse, and. lastly, by his pencil to interpret for the world at large the precious discovery he has made. Even foolish and drastic extravagances became the motive for art-productions, merely as revelations of the human heart and as manifestations of human life. Man was also to be shown the image of his folly, that he might depart from evil. Thus far the artist had only traced upon his canvass the idealized figures of prophets and apostles, of saints and priests, now however, when he saw how God had chosen the porter and the wage-earner for Himself, he found interest not only in the head, the figure and the entire personality of the man of the people, but began to reproduce the human expression of every rank and station. And if thus far the eyes of all had been fixed constantly and solely upon the sufferings of the ''Man of sorrows**, some now began to understand, that there was a mystical suffering also in the general woe of man, revealing hitherto unmeasured depths of the human heart, and thereby enabling us to fathom much better the still deeper depths of the mysterious agonies of Golgotha. Ecclesiastical power no longer restrained the artist, and no princely gold chained him in its fetters. If artist, he also was man, mingling freely among the people, and discovering in and behind their human life, something quite different from what palace and castle had hitherto afforded him, and which proved to be much more valuable than the keenest eye had ever surmised. As Taine so significantly says: to Rembrandt, human life hid its face behind many sombre hues, but even in that chiaroscuro his grasp upon that life was profoundly real and significant. As the result therefore of the declaration of the people's maturity and of the love of liberty which Calvinism awakened in the heart of the nations, the common but rich human life disclosed to art an entirely new world, and, by opening the eye for the small and the insignificant, and by opening the heart for the sorrows of mankind, from the rich content of this newly discovered world, the Dutch school of art has produced upon the canvass those wondrous art-productions which still immortalize its fame, and which have shown the way to all the nations for new conquests in its wake.
Finally, as to the significance Calvinism had for Music, we face one of its excellencies which, though less widely known, is, notwithstanding, highly important; as Mr. Douen taught us, ten years ago, in his two big volumes on Marot, Music and painting here run parallel. Even as in the ecclesiasticalaristocratic period it was only the high and the holy that interested the masters of the pencil, so in music the plain chant of Gregory was dominant, which abandoned rhythm, despised harmony, and which according to a professional critic, by its provisionally conservative character barred the way to the further artistic development of music. Far below the level of this stately chant flowed the freer song of the people, too often, alas, inspired by the worship of Venus, and which at the times of the so called "donkey-festivals", much to the chagrin of ecclesiastical officials, penetrated even the walls of the churches, and there occasioned those repulsive scenes which the Council of Trent first succeeded in putting under the ban. The church alone was privileged to make music, while that which the people produced was scorned, as being beneath the dignity of the art. Even in the oratory itself, while the people were allowed to listen to the holy music, they were forbidden to join in the song. Thus, as an art, music was almost entirely deprived of its independent standing. Only in so far as it could serve the church was it permitted to flourish artistically. Whatever it undertook on its own responsibility, had no higher call than the popular use. And as in every department of life, Protestantism in general, but Calvinism more consistently, bridled the tutelage of the church, so also was music emancipated by it, and the way opened to its so splendid modern development. The men who first arranged the music of the Psalms for the Calvinistic singing were the brave heroes who cut the strands that bound us to the Cantus firmus, and selected their melodies from the free world of music. To be sure, by doing this, they adopted the people's melodies, but as Douen rightly remarks, only in order that they might return these melodies to the people purified and baptized in Christian seriousness. Music also would flourish, henceforth, not within the narrow limitations of particular grace, but in the wide and fertile fields of common grace. The choir was abandoned; in the sanctuary the people themselves would sing, and therefore Bourgeois aud the Calvinistic virtuosi who followed him, were bound to make their selections from the popular melodies, but with this end in view, viz., that now the people would no longer sing in the saloon or in the street, but in the sanctuary, and thus, in their melodies, cause the seriousness of the heart to triumph over the heat of the lower passions. If this is the general merit of Calvinism, or rather the change which it effected in the domain of music, by forcing the idea of the laity to give room to that of the general priesthood of believers, historic accuracy requires a still more concrete elucidation. If Bourgeois was the great master whose works still assure him a front rank among the most notable composers of Protestant Europe, it is also worthy of note that this Bourgeois lived and labored in Geneva, under the very eyes of Calvin and even partly under his direction. It was this same Bourgeois who had the courage to adopt rhythm and to exchange the eight Gregorian modes for the two of major and minor from the popular music; to sanctify its art in consecrated hymn, and so to put the impress of honor upon that musical arrangement of tunes, from which all modern music had its rise. In the same way Bourgeois adopted the harmony or the song of several parts. He was the man who wedded melody to verse by expression. The solfeggio, i.e. the singing by note, the reduction of the number of chords, the clearer distinction of the several gamuts, etc., by which the knowledge of music was so much simplified, is all owing to the perseverance of this Calvinistic Composer. And when Goudimel, his Calvinistic colleague, the teacher of the great Palestrine, once at Rome listening to the singing of the people in the church, discovered that the higher voices of the children outstripped the tenor, which had thus far held the lead, he for the first time gave the leading part to the soprano; a change of far-reaching influence which has ever since been maintained.
Pardon me if for a moment I detained you with these particulars, but the merits of Protestantism, and more particularly of Calvinism, in music are of too high an order to suffer longer depreciation without protest. I fully acknowledge that Calvinism exercised over some arts only an indirect influence, by the declaration of their maturity, and by affording them liberty to flourish in their own independence of character, but on music, the influence of Calvinism was a very positive one, due to its spiritual worship of God, which provided no room lor the more material arts. but assigned a new role to song and to music by the creation of melodies and songs for the people. Whatever the old school did to join itself to the newer development of music, the modern music remained unnatural to the cantus firmus, because it sprang from a quite different root. Calvinism on the other hand not only joined itself to it, but under the leadership of Bourgeois and Goudimel gave it its first impulse, so that even Roman Catholic writers are constrained to acknowledge, that this beautiful development of music in the last and present centuries for the most part owed its rise to the heretical church-hymns. That in the later period Calvinism lost almost all influence in this domain, cannot be denied. For a long time Anabaptism overwhelmed us with its dualistic prejudices, and an unhealthy spiritualism prevailed. But when on that account, with entire disregard of our great musical past, Calvinism is accused by Rome of aesthetic dullness, it is well to call to mind that the great Goudimel was murdered by Romish fanaticism in the massacre of S. Bartholomew. A fact which not unnaturally suggests the question, whether he has not forfeited all right of complaint about the stillness of the forest, who with his own hand has caught and killed the nightingale.
I am approaching the end of my task. The goal comes in sight. This is my final lecture. In the first lecture I unwound Calvinism from the petty tangles of confessional narrow-mindedness and raised it to the high rank of an independent system, embodying a specific principle, and yielding a comprehensive life- and world-view all its own, such as in point of historical significance may be placed on a line with the comprehensive systems of Paganism, Islamism and Romanism, whilst in profoundness of conception, correctness of structure and stage of development it surpasses them all. Next I pointed out how the principle of this vast system lies in the absoluteness of its religious-ethical standpoint. Further I traced for you the three lines along which Calvinism has given direction to the life of humanity in the spheres of politics, science and art. Of course, much might have been added to this, had it been our aim to trace the same influence in other departments of life. Since, however, the lack of time forbids this and I have already claimed more of your attention than a stranger should ask, I proceed without further delay to answer our final question: What is the significance of Calvinism for the future?
The prospect on the horizon does not present itself to us in bright colors. I would not go so far as to assert that we are on the eve of universal social bankruptcy, but that the signs of the times are ominous admits of no denial. To be sure, in the control of nature and her forces, immense gains are being registered year by year, and the boldest imagination is unable to foretell to what heights of power in this respect the race may attain in the next half century. As a result of this the comforts of life are increasing. Worldintercourse and communication are constantly becoming more rapid and widespread. Asia and Africa, until recently dormant, gradually feel themselves drawn into the larger circle of stirring life. Aided by sport, the principles of hygiene exert a growing influence. Consequently, we are physically stronger than the preceding generation. We live longer. And in combating the defects and infirmities that threaten and afflict our bodily life, surgical science makes us marvel at her achievements. In brief, the material, tangible side of life holds out the fairest of promises for the future.
And yet discontent makes itself heard and the thinking mind cannot suppress its misgivings, for, however high one may value the material things, they do not fill out the round of our existence as men. A psalm of praise may rise from the workman's humble cottage, whilst the millionaire in his palace succumbs to a deadly ennui and even contemplates suicide. Our personal life as men and citizens subsists not in the comforts that surround us, nor in the body, which serves us as a link with the outward world, but in the spirit that internally actuates us; and in this inner consciousness we are becoming more and more painfully aware, that the hypertrophy of our external life results in a serious atrophy of the spiritual. Not as if the faculties of thought and reflection, the arts of poetry and letters, were in abeyance. On the contrary, empirical science is more brilliant in her attainments than ever, universal knowledge spreads in constantly widening circles, and civilization, in Japan, for instance, is almost dazzled by her too-rapid conquests. But even the intellect does not constitute the mind. Personality is seated more deeply in the hidden recesses of our inner being, where character is formed, whence the flame of enthusiasm is kindled, where the moral foundations are laid, where love's bud blossoms, whence spring consecration and heroism, and where in the sense for the Infinite, our time-bound existence reaches out unto the very gates of eternity. It is in regard to this seat of personality that we hear on all sides the complaint of empoverishment, degeneracy and petrifaction. The prevalence of this state of malaise explains the rise of a spirit like "Von Schopenhauer's and the wide acceptance of his pessimistic doctrine reveals to what a deplorable extent this fatal Sirocco has scorched the fields of life. It is true, Tolstoi's efforts show force of character, but even his religious and social theory is a protest along the whole line against the spiritual degeneracy of our race. Von Nietzsche may give us offense by his sacrilegious mockery of Christ and his contempt for the weak and suffering, still what else is his demand for the " Ubermensch " but the cry of despair wrung from the heart of humanity by the bitter consciousness that it is spiritually pining away. What is social-democracy also but a giganticprotest against the insufficiency of the existing order of things. Even Anarchism and Nihilism but too plainly demonstrate that there are thousands upon ten thousands who would rather demolish and annihilate everything than continue to bear the burden of present conditions. The German author of the "Decade//- der Volker" descries nothing in the future but decay and social ruin. Even the sober-minded Lord Salisbury recently spoke of peoples and states for whose unceremonious burial preparations were already being made. How often has not the parallel been drawn between our time and the golden age of the Roman empire, when the external brilliancy of life likewise dazzled the eye, notwithstanding that the social diagnosis could yield no other verdict than " rotten to the very core". And, although on this continent, in a younger world, a relatively healthier tone of life prevails than in