[Sidenote: Two conflicting tendencies in Ruskin.]
It is distinctive of the nineteenth century that in its passion for
criticising everything in heaven and earth it by no means spared to
criticise itself. Alike in Carlyle's fulminations against its
insincerity, in Arnold's nice ridicule of Philistinism, and in
Ruskin's repudiation of everything modern, we detect that fine
dissatisfaction with the age which is perhaps only proof of its
idealistic trend. For the various ills of society, each of these men
had his panacea. What Carlyle had found in hero-worship and Arnold in
Hellenic culture, Ruskin sought in the study of art; and it is of the
last importance to remember that throughout his work he regarded
himself not merely as a writer on painting or buildings or myths or
landscape, but as the appointed critic of the age. For there existed
in him, side by side with his consuming love of the beautiful, a
rigorous Puritanism which was constantly correcting any tendency
toward a mere cult of the aesthetic. It is with the interaction of
these two forces that any study of the life and writings of Ruskin
should be primarily concerned.
I