those who, like themselves, not understanding wherein a work of art consists, turn them out like pancakes and inundate our world with foul floods of all kinds of follies and abominations, which they call "works of art.”

Such are the majority of people and, as representatives of that majority, such were the originators of the three esthetic theories already alluded to, which meet the perceptions and demands of that majority.

All these theories are based on a misunderstanding of the whole importance of art, and on severing its three fundamental conditions; and therefore these three false theories of art clash, as a result of the fact that real art has three fundamental conditions, of which each of those theories accepts but

one.

The first theory, of so-called "tendencious" art, accepts as a work of art one that has for its subject something which, though it be not new, is important to all men by its moral content, independently of its beauty and spiritual depth.

The second ("art for art's sake") recognizes as a work of art only that which has beauty of form, independently of its novelty, the importance of its content, or its sincerity.

The third theory, the "realistic," recognizes as a work of art only that in which the author is sincerely related to his subject and which is therefore truthful. The last theory says that however insignificant or even nasty may be the content, with a more or less beautiful form, the work will be good if the author's relation to what he depicts is sincere and therefore truthful.

VI

All these theories forget one chief thing that neither importance, nor beauty, nor sincerity, provides the requisite for works of art, but that the basic condition of the production of

such works is that the artist should be conscious of something new and important. And that, therefore, as it always has been so it always will be necessary for a true artist to be able to perceive something quite new and important. For the artist to see what is new, it is necessary that he should observe and think, and not occupy his life with trifles which hinder his attentive penetration into, and meditation on, life's phenomena. In order that the new things he sees may be important ones, the artist must be a morally enlightened man and he must not live a selfish life, but must share the common life of humanity.

If only he sees what is new and important, he will be sure to find a form which will express it, and the sincerity which is an essential content of artistic production will be present. He must be able to express the new subject so that all may understand it. For this he must have such mastery of his craft that when working he will think as little about the rules of that craft as a man when walking thinks of the laws of motion. And in order to attain this, the artist must not look round on his work and admire it, must not make technique his aim, as one who is walking should not contemplate and admire his gait, but should be concerned only to express his subject clearly and in such a way as to be intelligible to all.

Finally, to work at his subject not for external aims but to satisfy his inner need, the artist must rise superior to motives of avarice and vanity. He must love with his own heart and not with another's, and not pretend that he loves what others love or consider worthy of love.

And to attain all this the artist must do as Balaam did when the messengers came to him, and he went apart awaiting God, so as to say only what God commanded; and he must not do as that same Balaam afterwards did when, tempted by gifts, he went to the king against God's command, as was

evident even to the ass on which he rode, though not perceived by him while blinded by avarice and vanity.

VII

In our time nothing of that kind is demanded. A man who wishes to follow art need not wait for some important and new perception to arise in his soul, which he can sincerely love and having loved can clothe in suitable form. In our time a man who wishes to follow art either takes a subject current at the time and one praised by people who in his opinion are clever, and clothes it as best he can in what is called "artistic form"; or he chooses a subject which gives him most opportunity to display his technical skill, and with toil and patience produces what he considers to be a work of art; or having received some chance impression he takes what caused that impression for his subject, imagining that it will yield a work of art since it happened to produce an impression on him.

And so there appear an innumerable quantity of so-called works of art; which, as in every mechanical craft, can be produced without the least intermission. There always are current fashionable notions in society, and with patience a technique can always be learnt, and something or other will always seem interesting to someone. Having separated the conditions that should be united in a true work of art, people have produced so many works of pseudo-art that the public, the critics, and the pseudo-artists themselves, are left quite without any definition of what they themselves hold to be

art.

The people of to-day have as it were said to themselves: "Works of art are good and useful; so it is necessary to produce more of them." It would indeed be a very good thing

if there were more; but the trouble is that you can only produce to order works which are no better than works of mere craftsmanship because of their lack of the essential conditions of art.

A really artistic production cannot be made to order, for a true work of art is the revelation (by laws beyond our grasp) of a new conception of life arising in the artist's soul, which, when expressed, lights up the path along which humanity progresses.

PART XI

AN INTRODUCTION TO "WHAT IS ART?"

Tolstoy's What is Art? both in Russian and in my translation, appeared in separate parts during the first half of 1898. I wrote the following Introduction about a year later, for an edition issued in April 1899.

AN estimable and charming Russian lady I knew, felt so strongly the charm of the music and ritual of the services of the Russo-Greek Church that she wished the peasants, in whom she was interested, to retain their blind faith though she herself disbelieved the Church doctrines. "Their lives are so poor and bare, they have so little art, so little poetry and colour in their lives-let them at least enjoy what they have; it would be cruel to undeceive them," said she.

Suppose a false and antiquated view of life is supported by means of art and is inseparably linked to some manifestations of art which we enjoy and prize; if the false view of life be destroyed this art will cease to appear valuable. Is it better to screen the error for the sake of preserving the art? Or should the art be sacrificed for the sake of truth?

Again and again in history a dominant Church has utilized. art to maintain its sway over men. Reformers (early Christians, Mohammedans, Puritans, and others) have perceived that art bound people to the old faith and have been angry with art. They diligently chipped the noses from statues and images, and were wroth with ceremonies, decorations, stained-glass windows, and processions. They were even ready to banish art altogether, for besides the superstitions it upheld, they saw that it depraved and perverted men by dramas, drinking-songs, novels, pictures, and dances, of a