INTRODUCTION In answer to the question, "What is Art?" Count Tolstor analyzes and tests the various definitions of Art given by other writers. He shows up with merciless severity what he considers the fallacy in the popular delusion that the fetish of Art pardons bestiality, obscenity, and whatever conduces to stimulating the passions. The work is strongly controversial, and attacks unsparingly many current conceptions, as, for instance, that "Art is the manifestation of some mysterious idea of God," or "the expression of man's emotions by external signs," or the production of pleasing objects. Tolstor believes that Art has a loftier function. He proceeds elaborately to argue in favor of a universal activity, a union among men so that they may have the same noble feelings, and may progress together toward individual and general well-being. "Art for art's sake" is meaningless to him. It is interesting to notice that the most original and independent of the French critics has recently taken practically the same ground in a lecture, in which he asserts that it is the critic's business to test Art and Literature, and that Art has a most intimate relation with morality. The discussion of "What is Religion?" will be found to bear more than a literary or ethical interest, when the late disagreement between Tolstor and the Russian Church is recalled to mind. Here he sets forth the tenets of his own broad creed. He defines Religion as "the establishment by man of such a relation to the Infinite Life around him, as, while connecting his life with this Infinitude and directing his conduct, is also in agreement with his reason and with human knowledge." Upon this basis of a religion founded upon reason he stands flatly, although such position has often been found shifting sands. "Reason was termed the source of error," he says again, "and the Gospel was interpreted not as common sense demands, but as those who composed the Church desired." Nevertheless, in view of his present beliefs, which question many of the fundamental truths of the Bible, one does not see how his Church could avoid refusing him the sacrament; for he follows Voltaire at more than one point, while yet adhering to the "true religion, that is, a true relation to the source of all, God." Of scarcely less import, though a much shorter article, is the succeeding paper "On Religious Tolerance.' Here he sounds the note of the prophet - and the iconoclast. Then come a score of essays and letters, not one of which is without its interest. Nearly all of them are of theological trend. We cannot give the bent of his mind better than by quoting once more from the author, where he takes issue with Coleridge and says: “I began by loving my Orthodox faith more than my peace; then I loved Christianity more than my Church; and now I love the Truth more than anything in the world. And until now the Truth coincides for me with Christianity as I understand it; and I profess this Christianity, and in that measure in which I do profess it I peacefully and joyously live and peacefully and joyously am approaching death." The various translations are in each case authorized. Mr. Aylmer Maude, translator of "What is Art?" has had the benefit of the author's suggestions in regard to certain points. The other essays were translated by V. Tchertkoff and A. C. Fifield. Time and labor spent on art - Lives stunted in its service Morality sacrificed to and anger justified by art — The rehearsal of an opera described CHAPTER II Does art compensate for so much evil? What is art ?-Confusion of opinions - Is it "that which produces beauty" ?—The word "beauty" in Russian-Chaos in æsthetics CHAPTER III Summary of various æsthetic theories and definitions, from Baumgarten to to-day CHAPTER IV 7 16 Definitions of art founded on beauty-Taste not definable-A clear definition needed to enable us to recognize works of art CHAPTER V 32 Definitions not founded on beauty-Tolstor's definition - The extent and necessity of art - How people in the past have distinguished good from bad in art 39 Who have adopted it? - Real art needful for all men expensive, too unintelligible, and too harmful for the masses Perversion of our art -It has lost its natural subject-matter- Has no flow of fresh feeling-Transmits chiefly three base emotions Loss of comprehensibility - Decadent art- Recent French art Have we a right to say it is bad and that what we like is good Counterfeits of art produced by: Borrowing; Imitating; Striking; Interesting-Qualifications needful for production of real works |