144 CULTURE AND SOCIETY 1780-1950

with

the inspiration of a

Hebrew

_prophet,

must be

stirring

up young ^minds

ⁱⁿa promising

way.

³

The

writeris

George

Eliot,in alettertoMiss Sara Hennell.

If

one

takesher

comment

_point

by

point,

and

setsitbeside the conventional

modern

reaction,the_difficultyofa return to

Ruskin becomes

sufficiently apparent.

We

should, of course,

be

far less sure than she

was

of his 'arrogant

ab

surdity

on some

economical points'. It ^is true that

Ruskin

has

now no

^sort of authority as

an

economist, but ^his

ap proach

^{to social}

and economic problems

^is very

much

nearer our

own

than is the

normal approach

^{of his}

con

temporaries.

With _George

Eliot's reservation discounted,

however, we

should begin a^differentkind of

amendment.

'The

grand

doctrines of truth

and

sincerity inart', if

indeed such a

formulation

meant

_anything tous at _all,

would be merely

^a

cue

forour rejection of Ruskin'saesthetics.

The

nobleness

and

_solemnity ofour

human

life',

when we had pondered

^thephrase,

would seem

a very general thing^to begin teaching upon. 'Theinspiration ofa

Hebrew

_prophet',

and

the'magnificent passages', indicateonly

why ^Ruskin

^is

now

_reputedso difficultto read.

And

the

Ruskin

Societies are dead, the books

with

their extraordinary ^titles

neg

lected,while

we _occupy

ourselves

with

a discussion of his sexuallife

more

^sterilethan

any

nullity.Yet,without

ques

tion,

Ruskin must

still

be

readifthetraditionisto

be under

stood. It does not

seem

to

me

(as ^it does to

Dr

_Leavis)

'fairlyeasy^tosay

what

hisplace

and

significance^are'.

The

reading has ^to

be

_done,

and

in relation to the tradition- otherwise

we

shallfallinto the other_error,of

Mr Graham Hough,

ⁱⁿ

assuming

^that'the

new

ideas

about

thearts

and

their relations to religion

and

thesocialorderall (seem) ^to originate

somewhere

inthe

dense

_jungleofRuskin's works'.

Ruskin

is best understood,

and

necessarily read, as

a major

contributor to the

development

^{of our}

complex

^{ideas of} Culture.

Ruskin was an

artcriticbefore

he was

asocial_critic,

but

his

work must now be

seenasa whole.

The

worst biogra phies

have put

into circulation a

number

of discreditable

ART AND

SOCIETY

motives forhis 'transfer of _interest*

from

art to _society. It

has

been

_{suggestedthat his}social criticism

was

a passing-on^ofthe indictment of_Effie, asuit for nullityproclaimed againstEngland.⁴

Mr

Wilenski,

who can

seethe_{crudity of}

this, implies that thesocialcriticism

was

theresultofRuskinsfailuretocap ture

something

^{called the} 'Art Dictatorship' ⁱⁿ the fifties.

But

in factthe natureof Ruskin'sthinking,

and

ofthetra dition as a whole,

made

theinclusive examination ofboth art

and

_society a quite natural thing.

There

is, also, suffi cient evidence of Ruskin's direct reaction to the evils of industrialism;

and

it isperhaps

we,

not Ruskin,

who

are

on

questionable

ground when we

_supposethatsocial criticism requires

some

_special (usually disreputable) explanation.

It remains _true, however, ^that Ruskin's social criticism

would

not

have

taken the

same form

if it

had

not_arisen,as it didinevitably,

from

his kindofthinkingabout the

pur

poses^ofart.

The

centralnature of Ruskin's concern

may ^be

^seenin

one

ofhisearlydefinitions ofBeauty:

By

^the

term Beauty

^{. . .} properly ^are signified

two

things. First, that external quality of bodies . . .

which,

whether

it occurina stone, flower, beast, or in

man,

^is_absolutelyidentical;

which

, . .

may ^{be shown}

to

be

in

some

sorttypical^oftheDivineattributes,

and which

therefore I

...

call Typical Beauty:

and

sec ondarily, the appearance ^{of felicitous fulfilment of} functionin living things,

more

especially ofthe_joyful

and

right exertion of perfect

Me

in

man; and

^thiskind of

beauty

^I

...

callVitalBeauty.⁵

Here, indeed,isthe basis ofhis

whole

work. Inhiscriticism of _art, his standard

was

_always this

Typical

Beauty*, the absolute evidence, ⁱⁿ

works

of_art, ofthe 'universal

grand

design*. In his social criticism, his concern

was with

the 'felicitous fulfilment of functionin livingthings',

and with

the conditions ofthe _'joyful

and

right exertion of perfect

lifeinman'.

The

absolutestandardof perfection in

works

of art;theconditions of perfection in

man:

these arethe

com-

146

^CULTUBJE

AND

SOCIETY

mon

basesofthetradition.

Both

sides ofRaskin's

work

are

comprised

ⁱⁿ

an

_allegiancetothe

same

_singleterm, Beauty;

and

the idea of

Beauty (which

^inhis writings ^is virtually interchangeable

with

_Truth) restsfundamentally

on

belief ina universal, divinely

appointed

^order.

The

art criticism

and

thesocial _criticism, that is to _say, are inherently

and

essentially related,not

because one

follows

from

the _other,

but because both

areapplications, in particular directions, ofa

fundamental

conviction.

The _purpose

ofart, according ^toRuskin,^istorevealas pects ^oftheuniversal *Beauty'or'Truth'. The.^artistis

one who,

in Carlyle's words, ^"readsthe

open

^{secret of the uni}

verse*. Artis not'imitation', inthe senseofillusionistrep resentation,or

an adherence

totherules ofmodels;

but

Art

is'imitation*,intheoldersenseof

an embodiment

of aspects ofthe_universal,'ideal'truth.

These

essentialdoctrines

were ready

^to Ruskin's hand,

from Romantic

_theory,

and

there

was

theadditionalemphasis, seenⁱⁿ

Pugin and

theideas of

The

Ecdesiologist

and

the

Camden

Society,

on

theneces sarygoodness (moral goodness) ^oftheartist,

charged with

thishigh functionof revelation.

Any

corruption^oftheart ist's nature

would

bluror distort his capacity for realizing

and communicating

^theideal,essentialbeauty. But,

Ruskin added _(and

_{here again}

he

is influenced

by

^the

Pugin

^rela tion

between

the_{quality of}a _society

and

the_{quality of}its art),it isimpossible,finally,fortheartistto

be _good

ifhis society^iscorrupt.Ruskin'sconstantdefinition ofthis

theme

is

now

unfashionable,

but

is stillsignificant.

The

artof

any

country^isthe

exponent

of^itssocial

and

political virtues.

The

art, or general productive

and

formative energy, ^of

any

country,^is

an

exact

exponent

ofits ethical life.

You can have

noble artonly

from

noble _persons, associated

under

laws fitted to their

time and

circumstances.⁶

The

_question ofthe'goodness* ofthe artist_is,

however,

c*ttimes

ambiguous. At

times,

he must _{be good}

inorderto reveal essentialBeauty; ^atother times

he

is

good because

he

reveals essential

Beauty

^{other criteria of} goodness ^are irrelevant.

The

latterwill

be

recognized^ascharacteristicof

ART AND

SOCIETY

147