This is, in fact, the conclusion to which the literary evidence leads us: the early Christians were told to keep clear of paganism, with wliich their daily work was often so closely involved, but they were not told to forswear art.
If we wish to find a condemnation of art as such, we must turn not to Christianity, but to pre- Christian philosophy, and — in spite of all that has been said about the opposition between Hebraism and Hellenism— not to a Jewisli but to a Greek writer. Plato knew what art was ; be belonged to a race with whom art was not a lueie ineiili-iit Imt a most important part of life ; in desoriliing liis ideal city he bad to deal with the problem of art, and he settled it by excluding the artist altogether. Be- ginning with dramatic art, he proceeds, towards the end of the Jiejniblic, with a consistent adherence to principle that is as rare now as it was then, to include every form of art in his condemnation. His reasons are tliree — The artist creates without knowing or caring wliat is good or bad, and thus separates himself from morality ; he is an imitator of appearances, and therefore a long way ott' the truth ; and art, whether poetry or painting or the drama, excites passions which ought to be curbed. Plato fully recognized that if painting is wrong, poetry must be wrong too ; and he decided that poetry also must be excluded from the perfect city. He was right at least in this, tliat all art must stand or fall together ; and in the light of his clear thought it is easy to see that the three movements wliich have appeared in Christendom— Asceticism, Iconoclasm, and Puritanism — were not really move- ments against art. The Christian Church never adopted Plato's position : the ascetic preiairsors of Monasticism came nearest it, but they formulated no principle beyond that of eoinplefe renunciation of tlie world for the beiielit ol' llieji- ..«m souls, and they did little or notbiiej t..elie,k l\<.- lavish deco- ration of churches wliieii . luiia, loi.aa llieir age.
122
ART
Tlie Iconoclasts of the Byzantine Empire were often great patrons of architecture, poetry, and the minor arts ; and, though they carried their special prin- ciple down to the forbidding of pictures of sacred subjects even in books, they did not carry it beyond the question of images. The Puritans, being Eng- lishmen, were naturally less logical than the Greek iconoclasts ; thus, they accepted Judaism when it forbade images, and ignored it when it commanded ceremonial : in fact, they disliked art in so far as it embodied ideas which were distasteful to them, and no further. Puritanism was a mingling of the two earlier reactions, asceticism and iconoclasm : it can hardly be taken as embodying a principle of opposition to art.
The question is not, then, one between Puritanism and Catholicism, or between Hebraism and Hellen- ism, but between Platonism and Aristotelianism. For it was Aristotle who answered Plato ; and he did so by pointing out that a true philosophy must make the wliole of human nature rationally intelligible ; for, the Universe being rationally organized, the ex- istence of art proves that it must have a proper function in life. This is surely the philosophy also of the Incarnation : the AVord became flesh, and in that the whole of human nature becomes intel- ligible ; it is good in itself, and in its unstained perfection can become a tit manifestation of tlie
Sin, indeed, mars this perfection : and while sin remains, asceticism continues to have its function in the world. The love of the beautiful may de- generate into the lust of the eye, because the inward and spiritual is forgotten, and the sacra- mentalism of art is lost. It may tlien become necessarj- to pluck out the eye that sees, or to cut off the fashioning hand, in order to enter into life ; but it is a choice of evils,— the man escapes Gehenna, but he enters into life 'maimed.'
So, thougli it is better to be maimed than to be lost, better to hate art than to make it a god, hiding the eternal which it should reveal, better, indeed, to break images than to worship them ; yet the fulness of truth lies not in the severance, but in the union of the good and the beautiful. They have often appeared as rival tendencies in history. Religious men have often been narrow and in- human, artists have often been weak in will and the creatures of their emotions, as Aristotle found them ; but the one-sidedness of men serves only to illustrate the manysidedness of truth. Christen- dom through all her struggles has loved righteous- ness, and has not forgotten to love art also. She has her fasts, but she has also her feasts.
It is certain as a historic fact that the early Church had no suspicion of art, but accepted without scruple the decorative motives and forms of the classical civilization to which, apart from religion and ethics, she belonged, eliminating only such themes as bore an idolatrous or immoral meaning. Limited at first in her resources, she did not for a while attain to magnificence ; but all the evidence of archaeology, which is yearly ac- cumulating, shows that she made use of art so far as she had opportunity. Nor did she tiy to create an art of her own ; she used the art as she used the languages of the empire. The art of the early Church i.s not Cliristian in its form, but in its inspiration.