of the rules being despotic, the great artist usually proves his greatness by rightly setting aside rules; and the great critic is he who, while he knows the rule, can appreciate that "law within the law" which overrides the rule. In no other way does Ruskin so fully show his greatness in criticism, as in that fine inconsistency for which he has been so often attacked by men who do not see the real consistency that lies beneath. Now in education the distinction between these two species of art arises from the fact, that in each case the governing must precede the governed; it may be much, it may be little, but if the education is to be good the governing subject must precede the governed. So mathematics must precede engineering, surveying, navigation. But, on the other hand, speech must precede grammar; singing or playing, thorough bass; drawing, criticism of arts of design. Moreover, there is this further distinction, that you may teach the mechanical arts along with their sciences; the principle, and some part of the application, may go together, the principle indeed must be insisted on much more than the application, but, to a certain very small extent, we may give both together, and it is best to do so. The science is in all cases the ideal; the art the real. The real is much more rapidly and tenaciously seized than the ideal by a learner. The real, therefore, may begin very soon; and in cases where by right of supremacy the ideal ought to precede, the real may follow almost pari passu. But still the rule holds, and all intelligent teaching of a mechanical art depends on the science thereof having been taught in its proper place.* * The connexion between Art and Science may be illustrated by the following extracts from Mr. Lund's works on Geometry as an Art and as a Science :— I cannot discover any good reason why the mensuration taught in our schools should be built, as it mostly is, upon no foundation but the memory only. I think it need not, and I am sure it ought not, to be so. But as it is, we reap the fruits of this bad system of mental culture in the very general ignorance of right principles of construction and design, which notoriously prevails among English artists and workmen. Public attention has been lately directed to the necessity of removing this stigma from our character as a people by the institution of Schools of Design and Practical Art. Let me urge upon the managers of such schools the expediency of beginning their work at the right end. Let principles be taught before rules; let Geometry as an Art be systematically preceded by Geometry as a Science. Then, but not till then, we may hope to see the desired result in the improved taste and skill of our designers, and to be saved the continuance of that sense of humiliation which every Englishman must experience on reading the statement here subjoined. On a late public occasion, at the inauguration of one of these schools, the Duke of Argyle remarked that a very large proportion of the works of art preparing With the liberal arts it is absolutely necessary for thorough education that the art should precede, and A LONG WAY precede the science. Till a child can talk pretty fluently and correctly it is hopeless to teach grammar. Speech is the earliest of all arts, and of THESE Sciences grammar is the earliest science. Music is probably the next art in order of time, and the science accordingly can be entered into by youths, and they can go far enough to make it worth while to examine them at the age of 17. Drawing is unquestionably a later art than music, and the science thereof is still later. And I do not believe that any one (not a genius) can make such progress in this science by that age, as to make it worth while to examine him. What is the result of neglecting this and teaching the science of a liberal art too early?-Mannerism. A science is a powerful thing, and grasps even strong minds with a force such as an art does not acquire in twice or thrice the time. The inevitable result of giving the science before the art has formed the taste, is to cramp the taste into a mould and make it mechanical. There is nothing so fatal to any art of this kind as to make the FEELING so subordinate to the (so called) PRINCIPLES that the learner shall slip into the propensity of admiring what does not please him yet this is the consequence of drilling him in principles too early. It is from this source that has come all that painful reproduction which has done more to spoil the revival of true Gothic than for the Crystal Palace are being executed almost entirely by foreign artists, and that our manufacturers have also been obliged to send abroad for designs.'' "Hitherto the practice has been, for the most part, in this country to teach the Science to one class, and the Art to another; so that, whilst the students of our Universities have cared little for the Art, the pupils of our commercial schools have cared less for the Science. It seemed to me that this divorcement of practice and theory was both unsatisfactory and unnecessary, and that no good reason can be alleged why either the University student's excellent knowledge should fail, as it has done, to fix a distinct impress upon practical Art; or the artisan's skilled workmanship be constantly marred by the violence done to the true principles of Science. My intention has been, therefore, to do something towards bringing Art and Science together again, so far as to make them better friends; not by jumbling the two together, but by assigning to each its distinct duty, and so placing them that they must mutually assist each other. How far I may be able in the prosecution of my design to effect a breach in the present style of popular education, fortified as it is by custom and prejudice, I know not; but perhaps it may provoke some educators at least to a wholesome jealousy to be told that for every book published in England during the last twenty years, combining Art and Science for the use of the middle class and artisans, not less, I believe, than twenty such books have been published both in France and Germany." anything else. What can be more annoying than to hear (as you constantly hear) this admired as correct," and that condemned as "incorrect?" This is the pedantry which called Shakspeare an irregular genius, and would have excluded him from the list of great dramatists, because, forsooth, he did not keep the unities. You want to teach young artists that there are principles in their art. Teach them also that the principles cannot be expressed in words, and that until they have learnt to use the words as indicating something more and something deeper than they say, the principles have not been mastered at all. Can you get them far enough by 17 to secure that they shall feel this? I do not believe it. This is my reason (and the more you think of it the more you will approve it) for being unwilling that the science of music, and still more that of drawing, should be used as the instrument for teaching young minds to think. I am ruthlessly spoiling your holiday. Good bye till the 16th. Is not Ruskin's letter beautiful? T. D. Acland, Esq. Yours ever, F. TEMPLE. [The following are the principal parts of Mr. Ruskin's letter referred to by Mr. Temple. It was written in reply to a clear statement of certain points in debate between Mr. Temple and me, drawn up by Mr. Temple, but not in a form suitable for publication, and some references to it are therefore omitted.] Extracts from a Letter of JOHN RUSKIN, ESQ., to REV. F. TEMPLE. I have just received your most interesting letter, and will try to answer as shortly as I can, saying nothing of what I feel, and what you must well know I should feel, respecting the difficulty of the questions and their importance; except only this, that I should not have had the boldness to answer your letter by return of post, unless, in consequence of conversations on this subject with Mr. Acland and Dr. Acland two months ago, I had been lately thinking of it more than of any other. Your questions fall under two heads: (1.) The range which an art-examination can take. (2.) The connexion in which it should be placed with other examinations. I think the art-examination should have three objects. (1.) To put the happiness and knowledge which the study of art conveys within the conception of the youth, so that he may in afterlife pursue them, if he has the gift. (2.) To enforce, as far as possible, such knowledge of art among those who are likely to become its patrons or the guardians of its works, as may enable them usefully to fulfil those duties. (3.) To distinguish pre-eminent gift for the production of works of art, so as to get hold of all the good artistical faculty born in the country, and leave no Giotto lost among hill-shepherds. * In order to accomplish the first object, I think that, according to Mr. Acland's proposal, preliminary knowledge of drawing and music should be asked for, in connexion with writing and arithmetic ; but not, in the preliminary examination, made to count towards distinction in other schools. I think drawing is a necessary means of the expression of certain facts of form, and means of acquaintance with them, as arithmetic is the means of acquaintance with facts of number. I think the facts which an elementary knowledge of drawing enables a man to observe and note, are often of as much importance to him as those which he can describe in words or calculate in numbers. And I think the cases in which mental deficiency would prevent the acquirement of a serviceable power of drawing would be found as rare as those in which no progress could be made in arithmetic. I would not desire this elementary knowledge to extend far, but the limits which I would propose are not here in question. While I feel the force of all the admirable observations of Mr. Hullah on the use of the study of music, I imagine that the cases of physical incapacity of distinguishing sounds would be too frequent to admit of musical knowledge being made a requirement; I would ask for it, in Mr. Acland's sense; but the drawing might, I think, be required, as arithmetic would be. 2. To accomplish the second object is the main difficulty. Touching which I venture positively to state First. That sound criticism of art is impossible to young men, for it consists principally, and in a far more exclusive sense than has yet been felt, in the recognition of the facts represented by the *See Letter to G. Richmond, Esq., p. 33. art. A great artist represents many and abstruse facts; it is necessary, in order to judge of his works, that all those facts should be experimentally (not by hearsay) known to the observer: whose recognition of them constitutes his approving judgment. A young man cannot know them. Criticism of art by. young men must, therefore, consist either in the more or less apt retailing and application of received opinions, or in a more or less immediate and dexterous use of the knowledge they already possess, so as to be able to assert of given works of art that they are true up to a certain point; the probability being then that they are true farther than the young man sees. The first kind of criticism is, in general, useless, if not harmful; the second is that which the youths will employ who are capable of becoming critics in after years. Secondly. All criticism of art, at whatever period of life, must be partial; warped more or less by the feelings of the person endeavouring to judge. Certain merits of art (as energy, for instance) are pleasant only to certain temperaments; and certain tendencies of art (as, for instance, to religious sentiment) can only be sympathised with by one order of minds. It is almost impossible to conceive of any mode of examination which would set the students on anything like equitable footing in such respects, but their sensibility to art may be generally tested. Thirdly. The history of art, or the study, in your accurate words, "about the subject," is in no wise directly connected with the studies which promote or detect art-capacity or art-judgment. It is quite possible to acquire the most extensive and useful knowledge of the forms of art existing in different ages and among different nations, without thereby acquiring any power whatsoever of determining respecting any of them (much less respecting a modern work of art) whether it is good or bad. These three facts being so, we had perhaps best consider, first, what direction the art-studies of the youth should take, as that will at once regulate the mode of examination. First. He should be encouraged to carry forward the practical power of drawing he has acquired in the elementary school. This should be done chiefly by using that power as a help in other work ; precision of touch should be cultivated by map-drawing in his geography class; taste in form by flower-drawing in the botanical schools; and bone and limb-drawing in the physiological schools. His art, kept thus to practical service, will always be right as |