The architecture of humanism; a study in the history of taste

134

THE ARCHITECTURE

OF

HUMANISM

mereconvention,

andeverythingwhich,

outsidethe

spiritofman, might

exerciselordship

overthe arts

hecombated. No

doubt his psychology

was false.

No doubthe utterly

misinterpreted the motive of

the craftsman and dogmatised

too easily on the

feelings of the spectator.

Probably he took too

slightaccountoftheloveofbeauty

as anemotion

independent

ofourotherdesires. Butstillinsome

sense, howeverillusory, and by

some semblance of

method,howevercapricious,theprinciplewas

main-

tained

:

that the

artsmustbejustified bytheway

theymakemen feel

;

andthat,apart fromthis,

no

canonofforms,academic,archaeologicalorscientific,

could claim any authority whatsoever

over taste.

Thiswasagreatadvanceuponthemechanicalcriti-

cism

;

itwasanadvance,inprinciple,uponthehieratic

teachingof

theschools.

Butthe psychological basiswhich Ruskinsought

toestablish for architecture was

exclusively

moral,

anditwasmoralinthenarrowestsense. Hesearched

the Scriptures

;

and although

the

opinion of the

prophets

on Vitruvian building might seem to be

more

eloquentthanprecise,hesucceededinenlisting

infavourofhisprejudicesanamazing

bodyof

inspired

support.

Butit is easytoseethat anequalexpen-

diture of ingenuitymight

have produced as

many

oraclesindefence

ofPalladioasitshowedgroundsfor

his

perdition. The time is

gonebywhen scholars,