without prompting to any deed, and so the inertly sentimental condition is kept up.  The remedy would be, never to suffer one’s self to have an emotion at a concert, without expressing it afterward in some active way.  Let the expression be the least thing in the world-speaking genially to one’s aunt, or giving up one’s seat in a horse-car, if nothing more heroic offers-but let it not fail to take place.”  Professor James also refers in this connection to an interesting paper by Vida Scudder in the Andover Review for January, 1887, on “Musical Devotees and Morals.”]

(3) Graver still, however, is the risk of the overstimulation of certain dangerous emotions.  The “artistic temperament” is notoriously prone to reckless self- indulgence; the continual seeking of the immediately satisfying tends to weaken the powers of restraint.  Artists and poets, and those who immerse themselves constantly in the pleasures of sense, tend to chafe under the dull repressions of morality and crave ever-new forms of excitement.  Art is an emotional stimulant; and unless the emotions aroused are harnessed in the service of morality, they are apt to run amuck.  Artists and authors often take to drink, and almost always have to meet exceptional sexual temptations.  The most beautiful forms of art are those which have the element of sex interest, and the general emotional susceptibility of the creator or lover of beauty makes the sex emotion particularly inflammable.  Other emotions also may be unwisely stimulated by art.  In times of international friction, war-songs, “patriotic” speeches, or martial processions may arouse an unreasoning jingo spirit.  The love of deviltry is fostered in boys by many of the penny novels, by sensational “movies” and newspaper “stories”; a famous detective has said that seventy per cent of the crimes committed by boys under twenty are traceable to “suggestions” received from these sources.  Should art be censored in the interests of morality?  Art, then, with its vast potentialities of both good and harm, needs supervision in the interests of human welfare.  The motto, “Art for art’s sake,” should not be taken to mean that what is detrimental to human life must be tolerated, just because it is art.  There is, indeed, this truth in the adage, that art does not need to have a moral or practical use to justify its existence.  It may be merely pleasant, serving no end beyond the enjoyment of the moment.  But it must not be harmful.  It is but one of the many interests in life, and must be judged, like any other interest, in the light of the greatest total good.  We cannot say, “Work for work’s sake,” “Education for education’s sake”; not even, “Morality for morality’s sake”; it is work, education, morality, for the sake of the ultimately happiest human life.  The moralist must not despise forms of art which have no ulterior, utilitarian value; but he must insist that no enjoyment of art is really, in the long run, good for man which influences his