252 REVIEWS AND PAMPHLETS ON ART

must be matter of rejoicing to observe the evidence of intelligence and energy interrupting the apathy and languor of the cloister; nor will the institution be regarded with other than respect, as well as gratitude, when it is remembered that, as to the convent library we owe the preservation of ancient literature, to the convent laboratory we owe the duration of mediæval art.¹

2. It is at first with surprise not altogether dissimilar, that we find a painter of refined feeling and deep thoughtfulness,² after manifesting in his works the most sincere affection for what is highest in the reach of his art, devoting himself for years (there is proof of this in the work before us) to the study of the mechanical preparation of its appliances, and whatever documentary evidence exists respecting their ancient use. But it is with a revulsion of feeling more entire, that we perceive the value of the results obtained-the accuracy of the varied knowledge by which their sequence has been established-and above all, their immediate bearing upon the practice and promise of the schools of our own day.

Opposite errors, we know not which the least pardonable, but both certainly productive of great harm, have from time to time possessed the masters of modern art. It has been held by some that the great early painters owed the larger measure of their power to secrets of material and method, and that the discovery of a lost vehicle or forgotten process might at any time accomplish the regeneration of a fallen school. By others it has been asserted that all questions respecting materials or manipulation are idle and impertinent; that the methods of the older masters were either of no peculiar value, or are still in our power; that a great painter is independent of all but the simplest mechanical aids, and demonstrates his greatness by scorn of system and carelessness of means.

¹ [With this description of the Spezieria, compare the letter cited at Vol. IV. p. 352 n., and St. Mark’s Rest, § 86.]

² [For Ruskin’s criticisms on Eastlake, in connexion with the National Gallery, see Vol. III. pp. 670, 675; for a criticism of the painter’s own works, see Academy Notes, 1855, No. 120.]

[Version 0.04: March 2008]