り

stupid to learn from epigrams; otherwise Fletcher
of Saltoun's offer to let whoever wished make the
laws of the nation provided he made its songs, would
have saved Tolstoy the trouble of telling us the same
thing in twenty chapters. At all events, we cannot
now complain of want of instruction. With Ashton
Ellis's translation of Wagner's prose works to put on
the shelves of our libraries beside the works of
Ruskin, and this pregnant and trenchant volume of
Tolstoy's to drive the moral home, we shall have
ourselves to thank if we do not take greater care of
our art in the future than of any
other psychological
factor in the destiny of the nation.

Mr. Shaw points out that the value of Tolstoy's work lies more in his explanation of the nature and importance of art than in the particular examples he cites. This was precisely Tolstoy's own view, for he says, 'My only purpose in mentic..ing examples of works of this or that class is to... shov, how, with my present views, I understand excellence in art in relation to its subject-matter.' This point-that the examples were not selected for the perfec tion of their form, has been overlooked or misrepresented by critics who have taken exception to one or other of them. (Uncle Tom's Cabin, in particular, has acted as a red rag to the bulls.)

When, however, Mr. Shaw goes on to say that Tolstoy's opinion was that A true work will always be recognized by the unsophisticated perception of the peasant folkhence Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, not being popular among the Russian peasantry, is not a true work of art '-one has to take exception, and it becomes important to see what Tolstoy actually wrote on the subject. The passages which may have suggested such a view will be found on pages 174, 223-8, 267-8, 272-3, 286-7, 295, and 318-19 of Tolstoy on Art, but I do not find a single mention of Russian' peasants among them. On pages 267-8 Tolstoy speaks of the difficulty a man of atrophied artistic perception' has in discriminating between what is true and what is false in art, and he adds: For a country

peasant of unperverted taste this is as easy as it is for an animal of unspoilt scent to follow the trace he needs among a thousand others in wood or forest. The animal unerringly finds what he needs. So also the man, if only his natural qualities have not been perverted, will without fail select from among thousands of objects the real work of art he requires --that infecting him with the feeling experienced by the artist. But it is not so with those whose taste has been perverted by their education and life. The receptive feeling of these people is atrophied.' It is unfortunate that Mr. Shaw expands Tolstoy's expression an unperverted peasant into the peasant folk,' and that subsequent reviewers have turned this into all peasants '-thus peasants'-thus converting a reasonable statement into an obviously absurd one. And again, on page 273, after describing a theatrical performance among a savage tribe-the Voguls, which he felt was a true work of art,' he goes on to remark, 'What I am saying will be considered irrational paradox at which one can only be amazed; but for all that I must say what I think, namely that people of our circle . . . with very few exceptions, artists, and public, and critics, have never (except in childhood and carliest youth, before hearing any discussion on art experienced that simple, feeling familiar to the plainest man and even to a child, that sense of infection with another's feeling-compelling us to rejoice in another's gladness, to sorrow at another's grief, and to mingle souls with another-which is the very essence of art.'

I have underlined the words that should be noted to catch the drift of Tolstoy's remarks. The point is that he is not speaking of the mass of the peasantry, but of a not very common individual, the man, child, or even savage, whose natural qualities have not been perverted by spurious art or otherwise, and who can mingle souls with another,' and can, therefore, be reached by the infection of art.

If these passages still leave the reader at all in doubt as to Tolstoy's meaning, this further evidence should be conclusive: To an edition of What is Art? that appeared after Mr. Bernard Shaw's article, I wrote an Introduction in which I explained my understanding of the matter as follows (pp. 101-2 of Tolstoy on Art): Art begins when someone, with the object of making others share his feelings, expresses that feeling by certain external indications.

'This faculty of being infected by the expression of another man's emotions is possessed by all normal human beings. For a plain man of unperverted taste, living in contact with nature, with animals, and with his fellow-men, say, for "a country peasant of unperverted taste, this is as casy as it is for an animal of unspoilt scent to follow the trace he needs." And he will know indubitably whether a work presented to him docs, or does not, unite him in feeling with the author. But very many people "of our circle (upper- and middle-class society) live such unnatural lives, in such conventional relations to the people around them, and in such artificial surroundings, that they have lost that simple feeling . . . that sense of infection with another's feeling-compelling us to joy in another's gladness, to sorrow in another's grief, and to mingle souls with another -which is the essence of art." Such people, therefore, have no inner test by which to recognize a work of art; and they will always be mistaking other things for art, and seeking for external guides, such as the opinions of "recognized authorities." Or they will mistake for art something that produces a merely physiological effect: lulling or exciting them; or some intellectual puzzle that gives them something to think about.

'But if most people of the cultured crowd are impervious to true art, is it really possible that a common country peasant, for instance, whose working-days are filled with labour and whose brief leisure is largely taken up by his family life and by his participation in the affairs of his village -is it possible that he can recognize and be touched by works of art? Certainly it is! Just as in ancient Greece crowds assembled to hear the poems of Homer, so to-day in many countries, as has been the case in many ages, the Gospel parables, and many admirable folk-tales and folk-songs, and much else of the highest art, are gladly heard by the common people. And this refers not to any religious use of the Bible stories, but to their use as literature.

'Not only do normal labouring country people possess the capacity to be infected by good art-" the epic of Genesis, folk-legends, fairy-tales, folk-songs, &c.,"-but they themselves produce songs, stories, dances, decorations, and so forth, which are works of true art. Take as examples the works of Burns or Bunyan, and the peasant women's

song mentioned in Chapter XIV of What is Art?; or some of those melodies produced by negro slaves on the Southern plantations, which have touched, and still touch, many of us with the emotions felt by their unknown and unpaid composers.'

Of this explanation of the matter Tolstoy wrote me: 'I have read your Introduction with great pleasure. You have admirably and strongly expressed the fundamental thought of the book.' That, I think, is conclusive as to his meaning, and rules out any suspicion that he took the taste of the Russian peasantry as his criterion of art.

The fact of the matter is, I fancy, that before Mr. Shaw read What is Art? he had formed a sound opinion about Tolstoy's exaggerated belief in the virtues of the peasants, and incorporated this in his review of What is Art? though on that particular subject Tolstoy's perception was so clear that the pro-peasant bias which had shown itself elsewhere, was not allowed to obscure his argument. This opinion is confirmed by a remark Mr. Shaw made on my submitting my criticism to him and asking permission to reprint his article. He wrote, 'I think it would be a pity to cut the ground from under your feet by altering the review. It is much more interesting to let me make the mistake (if mistake it be), and give your correction of it. It is by far the best way to secure a sound verdict. I am not really convinced that I was substantially wrong. I think Tolstoy and Kropotkin and most of the upper and middleclass idealists of the XIX century admired the poor for qualities which only people like Ruskin and Morris (not to say you and I) attain to after swimming through a Red Sea of sophistication; and I can't bring out this point à propos Tolstoy without forcing a card on him which he probably never intended to play as a trump.'

It should, morcover, be noticed that in the mention of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony (p. 295) there is no reference to peasants. What Tolstoy says in condemnation of that Symphony, after speaking of music's power of uniting all men in one common feeling,' is that, 'not only do I not sce how the feelings transmitted by this work could unite people not specially trained to submit themselves to its complex hypnotism, but I am unable to imagine to myself a crowd of normal people who could understand anything of

this long, confused, and artificial production, except short snatches which are lost in a sea of what is incomprehensible.' There is not a single word about peasants in the whole chapter.

When William Morris's definition of art as the expression of pleasure in work' is mentioned, one may note that, however close Morris came to the mark, his definition fails to define, for a good workman may find pleasure in tarring a fence or carting gravel, activities that are not art; while a girl may give us art in a song or a dance of delight at the beauty of a May morning, which can hardly be called 'the expression of pleasure in work.' Tolstoy's definition. covers everything that is art without going an inch beyond. it in any direction, and is the only definition I know of that accomplishes this intelligibly.

Mr. Shaw's obviously true remark that as regards the circulation of their works many artists have been influenced by love of fame or money rather than by any yearning for emotional intercourse with their fellows, presents a difficulty. But, though Tolstoy says that, Art begins when one person, with the object of joining another or others to himself in one and the same feeling, expresses that feeling by certain external signs,' this is merely a preliminary remark leading up to the definition itself, that: Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them'; and the preliminary remark indicates the motive usually prompting the artistic expression of man's feeling, though it may not cover the whole ground dealt with by the definition itself. Unless and until it is handed on and does infect someone, we cannot know that a work of art exists. Again, it might be urged that a man may be chiefly concerned about the payment he can get for a work he has completed, though had he not felt drawn to impart his feelings to another or to others while doing it he would never have accomplished it at all.

Whether these considerations are valid or not, Mr. Shaw's brilliant article acclaims Tolstoy's great contribution to the theory of art, but the routine critics he refers to have continued to run headlong into the booby-trap' he warned them against.