nished by the mind. It was probably this that led to the theory, that "universal decay" constitutes the picturesque, although it might have been suggested by the works of Turner; because in these, according to Mr. Ruskin, decay is the predominating element. When the Fancy becomes the constructor of Art, the fondness for violent contrasts, and for discordant exaggerations of all kinds, increases, because at this time it is governed by its destructive law, which includes diversity and discord. Under this influence, works of art lose their unity or individuality, and contrasts are introduced for collateral and superficial, instead of legitimate and internal, effects: and to these contrasts the term. picturesque is principally applied; for unless the contrast becomes intrusive, and thus illegitimate, it is not noticed. The compositions of Raphael may not therefore seem to be picturesque, although they are highly and truly so; the greatest skill having been exercised in arranging harmonious contrasts, by which the requisite relief, as well as unity, is obtained for his subject; an art that Mr. Ruskin hypercritically ridicules, as artificial and false to nature. Pictures become striking to fanciful people in proportion to the violence of these contrasts, by which the opposite elements contained in them are exaggerated in a manner contrary to true artistic rule, and also to the legitimate proportions of nature; these pictures being perfectly analogous to those individualizations of intensified human characteristics, partaking of the nature of caricature, which we have already described as being produced by the Fancy in the departments of fictitious narrative and poetic composition, and which we find to be so peculiarly attractive at the present time. This abuse of the picturesque, then, will be found to be characteristic of modern art. In painting it may be seen-combined with the other imperfections here noticed as referable to the Fancy-in the productions of the Dusseldorf School, which is its legitimate exponent. This school has succeeded in bringing the Unitarian school of modern art to the greatest perfection, and all that belongs to the beautiful here. appears in an exaggerated form. Being naturalistic in character, however, its productions become distinguished by externalism and affectionalism, and are characterized by diversity, which includes discord. This naturalism has led to a want of harmony in color, of unity in design, and of truth in perspective; and to the combination of opposite and discordant elements, by which the subject is either degraded or unduly elevated. It has led to literalness; to minute and elaborate finish; to the delineation of what is most

external and affectional in human character and experience; and to what is most external in expression, separated from its internal condition or position, by which true expression is turned into gesticulation and grimace. It has led to giving prominence to what should be kept subordinate; which destroys unity or individuality, draws the attention from the idea or subject to be represented to what is contrary to it, and thus destroys that concentration and repose which are so essential to Art. Finally, it has led to the introduction of caricature, or the comic; so that, even in the most serious productions of this school, an element of caricature is often introduced, and the most successful of its pictures are those which are decidedly comic. So far has Art degenerated, that even its idea has been lost; and it has become common to suppose that it accomplishes its highest object in the imitation of Nature. We therefore find our public men making statements like this: "A steamer is a mightier Epic than the Iliad; and Whittemore, Jacquard, and Blanchard might laugh even Virgil, Milton, and Tasso to scorn;" and we find one of our best writers asserting, that there is no difference, in an artistic point of view, between "a litter of Pigs" and "the frescoes of Angelo."*

We might here close our description of the degradation of Art, because, from one point of view, and this the most obvious one, its greatest degradation is realized in the external or Unitarian school; but we should not in this way account for many of the phenomena which are presented by the productions of modern art. It is necessary that we should also allude to another kind of degradation that is accompanied by an elevation which has in some external respects, as in the works of Turner and Kaulbach, made an approach towards the excellence of ancient art: we mean the degradation that is realized in the Transcendental School of Art, to which the self-styled Pre-Raphaelite School belongs. It is to the ideas of this school, and not to the particular works produced by it, that we intend here to allude; because its degradation is shown in the inversion of the idealism upon which ancient art is founded, more than in the manner in which its ideal has become incarnated; and we are able to do this, because this ideal has been particularly and specifically set forth in the works of John Ruskin, who is its recognized exponent, and who has openly avowed the "steady pursuit of Naturalism, as opposed to

Idealism."*

Like all representative men, who set out to establish a new system from an internal, self-conscious point of view, Mr. Ruskin is a writer of great freshness, originality, and power; and, from the fact that he writes from an internal or transcendental region of the consciousness, many of his criticisms upon externalism in Art are noble and just. But as Transcendental Art is governed by Naturalism and Individualism, while Ancient Art represented Spiritualism and Universalism, he is unable, from this point of view, to comprehend the true nature and extent of Art, or to explain one of the symbolic representations of either Roman or Grecian Art; but is obliged to repudiate them, and to set up a new symbolism which cannot be stated, except in contradictions; and which, though stated by him simply as Naturalism, in opposition to Idealism, is a complete inversion of the legitimate symbolism of ancient art. Being governed in his thought by the destructive laws of the mind, he cannot recognize the fact, that supernatural and natural things must be represented, by all legitimate art, as vital and destructive, and therefore that, in symbolizing vital spiritual manifestations by their incarnation in the Natural, it is necessary to represent them through manifestations of Man, or Humanity; and to represent External Nature as antagonistic and destructive. He therefore does not comprehend, that it was for this reason, and not because they could not paint grasses, flowers, rocks, and trees, that landscape art was not cultivated by the ancients, or recognized as legitimate art, — that, when not used as legitimate symbolism, the external productions of Nature were but slightly indicated by the mediæval painters, as a background, relief, or contrast, to the main subject represented by them, and that the Greeks represented the external forms of nature as presided over by Fauns and Satyrs, and other personifications, which represented the abuses of Nature, and were characterized as Evil: external forms which Mr. Ruskin has elevated above the manifestations of humanity, as constituting ideal perfection, and the highest representatives of Divinity; and abuses, which, as Fun and Satire, he has accepted as belonging to the true ideal in Art.

That Mr. Ruskin not only fails to comprehend, but repudiates, the symbolic idealism of ancient art, may be seen from the most external point of view; because he ridicules the forms of Greek Architecture, regards their religious symbolism as immoral, and

* "Modern Painters," vol. iii. p. 343.

denies that the Imagination, or that the sense of Beauty, can be in any way connected with Pagan Art, which he terms corrupt: a reckless assertion that is contradicted by the testimony of many generations,—because he repudiates the ideal perfection in which the Apostles have been represented by the medieval artists, and would strip them of their robes, and invest them with the rude dress and the soiled appearance of actual fishermen, — because he repudiates the ideal perfection in which the Virgin Mary has been invested by them, and would represent her as "a simple Jewish Girl, bearing the calamities of poverty, and the dishonors of inferior station, as the Carpenter's Wife;" this being what Mr. Ruskin calls demanding the truth, not knowing that naturalistic truth is spiritualistic falsehood, because "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,”—and because he would have Christ represented "as a living presence among us now, as in Hunt's Light of the World;" that is, as a common individual, surrounded by scenes of real instead of ideal life, bearing a lantern, and knocking at a door; instead of the historical Christ,-the veritable Son of God,-transfigured and glorified, "his face shining as the Sun, and his raiment white as the Light." This is the picture which Mr. Ruskin says "is the most perfect instance of expressional purpose, with technical power, which the world has yet produced;" and, as he assumes these to be the two great requisitions of high art, we are to conclude that this offensive caricature of the Saviour is regarded by him as fulfilling his highest conception of Idealism in art, and is one of the exceptions alluded to in the following sentence: "Of true religious ideal there exist, as yet, hardly any examples."

We will now proceed to show that the new ideal set up by Mr. Ruskin is not only naturalistic, but is the inversion of a true order of supernatural representation, which leads to the abuse of nature by the confounding of opposites through the supremacy of the destructive element; and also leads to the recognition, as a true ideal in Art, of the Comic, which is a Mephistophelian form of intellectual evil. That this ideal is a naturalistic one, may be seen from the following description of "What classes of ideas are conveyable by Art," which will be found at the commencement of his great work entitled "Modern Painters," from which most of the quotations here referred to him are taken. "I think that all the sources of pleasure, or any other good, to be derived from works of art, may be referred to five distinct heads: 1. Ideas of Power, the perception or conception of the mental or bodily

powers by which the work has been produced. 2. Ideas of Imitation, the perception that the thing produced resembles something else. 3. Ideas of Relation, - the perception of intellectual relations in the thing produced, or in what it suggests or resembles. 4. Ideas of Truth, the perception of faithfulness in a statement of facts by the thing produced. 5. Ideas of Beauty,the perception of beauty, either in the thing produced, or in what it suggests or resembles. Any material object which can give us pleasure in the simple contemplation of its outward qualities without any direct and definite exertion of the intellect." In defining the meaning of the term "Ideal Beauty," he says, Although every thing in nature is more or less beautiful, every species of object has its own kind and degree of beauty; some being in their own nature more beautiful than others, and few, if any, individuals possessing the utmost degree of beauty of which the species is capable. This utmost degree of specific beauty, necessarily co-existent with the utmost perfection of the object in other respects, is the ideal of the object." From this external and naturalistic point of view, every thing becomes inverted by the elevation of the external above the internal, and the natural above the supernatural; and consequently Mr. Ruskin places Color above Form, Painting above the other Arts, and the Landscape above all other forms: while the Venetian School, which is the great school of Color, and a naturalistic school representing the Beautiful, is regarded by him as the highest of all the medieval schools; notwithstanding its vices were evident to him, and also the fact that it contributed more than any other to the destruction of Art, and to the corruption of the public mind. This elevation of Color is strikingly stated by him in the following passage: "Color is, more than all elements of Art, the reward of veracity of purpose. As long as you are working with Form only, you may amuse yourself with fancies; but Color is sacred, in which you must keep to facts. The men who care for form only, may drift about in dreams of Spiritualism; but the colorist must keep to the substance." How far Mr. Ruskin has carried externalism and naturalism into his conceptions of Art, may be seen in the following description by him of what constitutes a painter, and of what he esteems to be a true ideal as opposed to the false ideal of the religious painters: "The faculties, which when a painter finds in himself he resolves to be a painter, are, I suppose, intentness of observation, and facility of imitation. The man is created an observer and an imitator; and his function is to convey knowl