A CHRISTMAS CAROL.

WHOSO hears a chiming for Christmas at the nighest,

Hears a sound like Angels chanting in their glee, Hears a sound like palm boughs waving in the highest, Hears a sound like ripple of a crystal sea.

Sweeter than a prayer-bell for a saint in dying,

Sweeter than a death-bell for a saint at rest,

Music struck in Heaven with earth's faint replying "Life is good, and death is good, for Christ is Best."

CHRISTINA G. ROSSETTI.

B

ON THE UNITY OF ART.

HE Century Guild Hobby Horse" has now been in existence for just a year. One reflects that in these hard days, and amidst the struggle of innumerable magazines to win or keep their favour with us, this is something upon which the editors may be genuinely congratulated, and exhorted to see that they lose not the gods' goodwill through any failure in returning humble thanks. At least I will here venture on this congratulatory exhortation: especially as they do me the compliment of asking me for a short note in this New Year number of theirs,—a short note on that particular principle, which all along they have had such urgent concern over, the Unity of Art.

means.

In a moment or two I will explain what it is that this expression But I may remark to start with, that nobody, who has ever been brought even slightly into connection with the Century Guild, but must have heard it not once nor twice. Scarcely should I be exaggerating if I said, that it was to preach this principle and to carry it out in practice, that the Century Guild and the "Century Guild Hobby Horse" were brought into existence. Whenever my fortunate steps lead me to that charming room in Southampton Street, Strand, where the Guild is centrally established, I seem to see written over the entrance this short confession, Credo in unam Artem, multipartitam, indivisibilem. Not indeed, I am sure, that the members of the Guild would wish me to claim for them the invention of a new

principle: for anything so absurd as that they are far too modest and too truthful: but as one who owes them many an obligation, and who yet is not formally of their number, I can say plainly, that this principle of theirs they began to preach and work upon four years ago and four years ago,-(it is a fairly long time in these quickly shifting days)-people were not as familiar as they are just now with the principle though even now to what multitudes is it still unfamiliar!

But my note cannot be a long one and I am writing it not to flatter the Century Guild, but to explain, as simply as I can, what it is they mean by the Unity of Art: so with this little preliminary flourish of praise, which really I have been unable to resist at this season of congratulations, I say no more about them, and pass on to the matter in hand.

I am not posing as a prophet when I say, how likely it is that before very long this principle of the Unity of Art will be one upon which many of us will have to make up our minds for practical issues. Before we are brought into judgment it is well to recollect ourselves. To have a question suddenly sprung on you, to have the question of a deep and wide-reaching principle-especially in a matter so delicate as Art-suddenly sprung on you, is extremely confusing. Few of us are of such heroic make that we can be equal to the call, and see quite round the matter and into the heart of it, and pass a secure judgment all at the moment. We say this, or we say that; we act this way, or we act that way; but by-and-bye there comes quiet, and with quiet comes reflection, and with reflection a deplorable sense that we have spoken and acted wrongly. Repentance is fortunately possible in many cases: that brilliant moralist "The Pall Mall Gazette" told us a few days ago, that it is better to climb down your tree even

amid humiliating publicity, than to stay up it: but it is better still, if there is no tree up which you find yourself. And very often a little thought, while things are only in the air, will save us.

Now, when in this paper we are talking about Art, let it be understood that, though we are going to use Art with a meaning which embraces more things than popularly it has the credit for embracing, we are not going to use it with a meaning which embraces all that it might. Music is Art, Acting is Art, Dancing is Art, Literature is Art: all these things are Art in the proper sense; and all these act and react one on the other intimately: Credo in unam Artem, multipartitam, indivisibilem. But we are not going to talk about Literature, or Dancing, or Acting, or Music just now, because the conditions we are under lay some limits on us. Credo in unam Artem indivisibilem,-yes: but also multipartitam: and the particular aspect of Art, to which our conditions limit us, is the aspect in which it has only to do with the pictorial and plastic representation of things.

With this limitation then, which yet leaves us, heaven knows! space enough to range over and lose ourselves in, what is it that we mean, when we talk about the Unity of Art?

Definitions are proverbially difficult things: definitions in matters of extreme delicacy, one may say of intangibility, such as Religion and Art, are extremely difficult things: nay, you may really say, that if in such matters you have set yourself on defining with such inevitable accuracy, that you will cover every spot and outlet of the ground, so that nobody can escape or attack you,—you have set yourself to something that is impossible. Language is a subtle thing: but thought and emotion are things subtler still, in comparison with which the subtlest language seems indeed clumsy. We open our

eyes then full on the difficulty; and knowing to start with that impregnable we shall never be, set ourselves to explain what we mean by the Unity of Art with as much distinctness as our powers, and the nature of the case allow us.

For practical purposes then,-and it is with practical issues in my mind that I am writing,-we mean, when we talk about the Unity of Art, this: we mean that all kinds of invented Form, and Tone, and Colour are alike true and honourable aspects of Art, whatever the material or purpose may be which employs them. We mean, that the man, who is engaged in this invention, is an Artist; and that his work can only be dealt with properly, when it is dealt with for what it is, Art-work.

If this explanation,-perhaps after all we do more safely in speaking of it not as a definition, but as an explanation,-if this explanation is a true one, and if the principle itself is a true principle, how many things we shall have to deal with as true and honourable pieces of Art, which in modern times have not been popularly so dealt with! No one, for example, doubts that Raphael painting the Madonna di San Sisto is ipso facto an artist: but how many of us would feel quite secure in saying, that the unknown inventor of patterns to decorate a wall or a water-pot was also ipso facto an artist? Do I compare him with Raphael? If you mean, do I think that, so far as treating him as an artist equally with Raphael goes, he is to be compared?—I certainly shall answer, yes. That the one employs himself in representing the human form and the highest human interests, while the other employs himself in representing abstract lines and masses, this, so far as the claim to being an artist goes, makes no difference. For our principle is, that all kinds of invented Form, and Tone, and Colour, are alike true and honourable