Christian art is such only as tends to unite all without exception, either by evoking in them the perception that each man and all men stand in like relation towards God and towards their neighbour, or by evoking in them identical feelings, which may even be the very simplest provided only that they are not repugnant to Christianity and are natural to everyone without exception.

Good Christian art of our time may be unintelligible to people because of imperfections in its form or because men are inattentive to it, but it must be such that all men can experience the feelings it transmits. It must be the art not of some one group of people, nor of one class, nor of one nationality, nor of one religious cult; that is, it must not transmit feelings which are accessible only to a man educated in a certain way, or only to an aristocrat, or a merchant, or only to a Russian, or a native of Japan, or a Roman Catholic, or a Buddhist, and so on, but it must transmit feelings accessible to everyone. Only art of this kind can be acknowledged in our time to be good art, worthy of being chosen out from all the rest of art and encouraged.

Christian art, that is, the art of our time, should be catholic in the original meaning of the word, that is, universal, and therefore it should unite all men. And only two kinds of feeling do unite all men: first, feelings flowing from the perception of our sonship to God and of the brotherhood of man; and next, the simple feelings of common life accessible to everyone without exception-such as feelings of merriment, of pity, of cheerfulness, of tranquillity, and so forth. Only these two kinds of feelings can now supply material for art good in its subject-matter.

And the action of these two kinds of art, apparently so dissimilar, is one and the same. The feelings flowing from the perception of our sonship to God and of the brotherhood of man-such as a feeling of sureness in truth, devotion to

the will of God, self-sacrifice, respect for and love of manevoked by Christian religious perception; and the simplest feelings such as a softened or a merry mood caused by a song or an amusing jest intelligible to everyone, or by a touching story, or a drawing, or a little doll: both alike produce one and the same effect, the loving union of man with man. Sometimes people who are together, if not hostile to one another, are, at least estranged in mood and feeling, till perhaps a story, a performance, a picture, or even a building, but oftenest of all music, unites them all as by an electric flash, and in place of their former isolation or even enmity they are all conscious of union and mutual love. Each is glad that another feels what he feels; glad of the communion established not only between him and all present but also with all now living who will yet share the same impression; and, more than that, he feels the mysterious gladness of a communion which, reaching beyond the grave, unites us with all men of the past who have been moved by the same feelings and with all men of the future who will yet be touched by them. And this effect is produced both by the religious art which transmits feelings of love to God and one's neighbour, and by universal art transmitting the very simplest feelings common to all men.

The art of our time should be appraised differently from former art chiefly in this, that the art of our time, that is, Christian art (basing itself on a religious perception which demands the union of man), excludes from the domain of art good in its subject-matter everything transmitting exclusive feelings, which do not unite but divide men. It relegates such work to the category of art bad in its subjectmatter, while on the other hand it includes in the category of art good in subject-matter a section not formerly admitted as deserving to be chosen out and respected, namely, universal art transmitting even the most trifling and simple feelings if only

they are accessible to all men without exception and therefore unite them. Such art cannot, in our time, but be esteemed good, for it attains the end which the religious perception of our time, that is, Christianity, sets before humanity.

Christian art either evokes in men those feelings which, through love of God and of one's neighbour, draw them to closer and ever closer union and make them ready for and capable of such union; or evokes in them those feelings which show them that they are already united in the joys and sorrows of life. And therefore the Christian art of our time can be and is of two kinds: 1) art transmitting feelings flowing from a religious perception of man's position in the world in relation to God and to his neighbour-religious art in the limited meaning of the term; and 2) art transmitting the simplest feelings of common life, but such, always, as are accessible to all men in the whole world-the art of common life-the art of a people-universal art. Only these two kinds of art can be considered good art in our time.

The first, religious art,-transmitting both positive feelings of love to God and one's neighbour, and negative feelings of indignation and horror at the violation of love,-manifests itself chiefly in the form of words, and to some extent also in painting and sculpture: the second kind, universal art, transmitting feelings accessible to all, manifests itself in words, in painting, in sculpture, in dances, in architecture, and, most of all, in music.

If I were asked to give modern examples of each of these kinds of art, then, as examples of the highest art flowing from love of God and man (both of the higher, positive and of the lower, negative kind), in literature I should name The Robbers by Schiller; Victor Hugo's Les Pauvres Gens and Les Misérables; the novels and stories of Dickens-The Tale of Two Cities, The Christmas Carol, The Chimes, and others; Uncle Tom's Cabin: Dostoevski's works-especially