CRITICISM AND BEAUTY

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 710, 8 January 1910, Page 12

CRITICISM AND BEAUTY

MR. BALFOUR'S ROMANES LECTURE. , : -STANDAEDS OF ART. ; . TEOIJGHTi EMOTION, AND -MYSTIC-. ■:'- . .;..',;-■■;. 'ISM.- : ; ■;;.". .:. ■■■;.■•■' i Mr; Balfour doliyered tho Romanes Lecture at: tho Sheldonian i'heatro,. Oxford,', on November 24, his.subject being "Questioninga on Criticism;and Beauty." .. The Chancellor-(Lord '.Curzon .of ' Kedleston) presided.; Mr.: Balfour dwelt upon : the difficulty, practically: amounting to impossibiljty.'in the present stage of human thought;and. knowledge; of. laying down; rules of criticism , for the deterniihatiou of standards, and : qualities of beauty,'.. : ;; Mr. Balfour said that ho had -neither had due- opportunity, nor the' I 'requisite Joisure to put into .the settled form of an address the argument which? he proposed, to advance,.'and,, therefore, his. remarks would bo. rather in tho nature:of a speech. .As they were all aware,:,he proposed-.to 'leave .politics, behind hini,' for he meant to discuss tho subject" of beauty—(laughter)—beauty arid tlio' criticism ■ of ;beauty. At the outset he remarked .that! if any one. would survey ' the"; literary criticism. so admirably put before us, for examplo,: in the volumes of Saihtsbiiry—if he would .try to follow, the. lino of critical thought,: say, .since the revival of.. learning,' he rise.from , the study with' feelings of great disappointment."'''The amount of splendid literary; and. other "artistic -work produced.since the revival of.learning was a .glory to pur modern'; civilisation s . : the amount of intellectual energy; which'had been' thrown'into the criticism of litera- : turo and ;arfc was very.great.' ■"Yef.'-his thought no-ono could.-, study that criticism .without feeling profoundly depressed as to. the .character of its: total'output.' In , 'the course 'of. that survey.'they would come upon the names.of. men whose criti: cal ilabours \ had made them: '■; inuuortal, but.it'would usually be found'that'what, they, had done ,was ito. sweep away' the rubbish of their . predecessors-rdaughter) -j-and if it was-asked why they had failed it- would usually. bo •■ found that it was iii pot having'.ma'de. thatv'process "of purgation i sufficiently complete. . (Laughter.) ■Xf "thatiwere true—and ho thought ittfas niorp or less truo : of : literary. criticism— : was it; not also true of .criticism:.applied to music; to art—to the plastic nndimir ' tative ■ arts ; in all; their various forms ?; ■', : y, *}\. \ ;■■ '■':,'. Music and Painting.'; V; Ho admitted that: criticism , of late , : of musio and, painting—though, not -, ialways.'i he, thought, very , instructivcrThad,..;.bee"n less pedantically futile' than .that/which passed': 100, ,Z00 l -Vandv?oo.';-yeari:.,-:agq; , ;".as. , effective: literary ■ criticism.fi! Thoj : reason. :'was' that, the ancients'ilefti.'.usi nO'ilegacy! of music: and ho.legacy; of painting,- and the; critics, therdfqre.Vi.nj.respect' of ..those iwo branches, of..aesthetic ieffort,;;had!;nb Aristotle: .to.,.misinterpret.i.ii (Laughter.) Neither were they misled ..'by;' ancient ! mastorpjeces..::But even. in.painting;and. music—in- ■ music .■ perhaps'.•• more;...parti-; "p'ularly-rit woiild bo; found that,tho, mass of ,vrork. turned. out.', indicating, what.wasigood and what , was'not.'good.iu, musical. ofi'or.t, though.;' it. was loss ;; in amount ; and: perhaps bettef'.in'substance,; really suffered urider/thq'isamo:faults;'.as; thoso: whioh ihad;iafflicte'd; literary;criti-: cism for. at least.the 200 yearS;Which .had; .passed', since .the revival ; ' ( of;.learning,', Kules•'.• were constantly • being ; \ laid"'down by the .musical, as by,, the:literary.'critic, but .inasmuch; as;th'ey-'always ,based their' rules, not:jipon.'what the.artvwas,doing' or .'was ■ going , to:•; do,' they .weroi;-always ,behind. : thq; times, 'and their; rules,; if. they, did: anything atyall/,hampered,!;rather than guided the jspontariiious: mOTemenfa' of' artistic creation; ,• ■■■■ '*;:■]!;<;^J/i ,, '.-V ;, r ; y ; V of Rulesiif.^v^-i:; , ; . It■ was even',worse in literature'; , ,, Ther e ,, the critics summarily laid' dowh; tKo ies-". ample of :Eomer\'aud Virgil; in;tho'(!rama it"might'bo according>to what;thcj; ; c6n--ceived to' be; the' iiaxims of,;. all- sorts iof rules which.- they:;'conceived , were v realy lgoing : to.'toll.■.the .literary artist;how ho. was. to'/prodiice 'a'work-of art. ■. .The-'result: I ,' was, , ;'sometimes,; quite ludicrous.' Finally, jt/,got.J^Sijfjjoi^t which it was BupposdS;|tblei;e''were;certainv rules which' every man: of 'letters, ■: painter, or .musician'was ;bound-'ti"lf6Uqw.'But >.ll that.'was now antiquated;"'No one;laid down;rules; how;Vv,', jS^o,- "-v'v-'-j.'j ":■?.'.'•' If jnles. of , correct '■;composition j were; buried among, tho : lumljer of ''the;!pdst. not' less complofe destruction' appeared^to' : him to;have overwhelmed' the'old'thebries with regard to the ends for whioh artistio , prcfduction \ and • creation T : really '.■".'existed;-, Therq was d'time'.wheh4tiwae.uiliyers.iUy jcustrfmary. to .'ask: "Does suoh and'; Such.a work 1 suosoryo ■ tho': intaresta 'of -' morality; :qr r ,religion?' Doos. it help-the', State.'or. :lead' to any; useful:practical ; end?":; But; :these'.;q'u<;stions','Were no .longer r .put,;'•.-No' competent modern'critio , eeridiisly,' asked /with regard,"to;•α-pibture, , d'/poem, 'Statue,;or'a.'symphony:;what.end; , outside the production, of it .subserved. ■'Hβ '.would'-ask:;."ls it ! a beautiful.'^ork , .of ;artf"-..'and : that ;was 'the: only 'question,- with - ,which:;'.he.;;was; primarily concerned.;;; jy.-. , .-'. ■'*.> : -i,' : '. ■"•'. ■;' : ~ But he: : (the. leqturer)..did'not eay'',that the' other questions. , were absurd.. , , /It 'was quite, rational• to. ask:whether, sooiety was better; for art-being pursued., 'Hβ ;did ! not-deny thatfa workor.art, eveh.ih; .the- mind of its; author',"might-'haye' a .secondary' beyond .rousing" the"emotions tcavproper-cphception 0f , . , the, beautiful;;; But if/there were.V.no 'rules except the conventions/ and hqends, except the.aesthetic.feeling, for, the:beau?, tifiil; roused- by the; beautiful, .■ wherq did criticism now stand in its 'relation to,;art ?. : ; If.the'feeling; for the. beautiful;aroused by a■:work'of art were: ! tho»,true''end'J;as',-he,. , persbnally.jthqught it ■ was; ofl'afwork\ of ■art, if there were no rules.and"ho external end'" to."be'subservedj'. , 'the question ;.afqso:'. .Whose;feelings—if the.question-of.• beauty was' tho".soleipoint—rcere;■-they'.to,.. , 'take, .'into■■.account?■.-■ Were;all.-men'equal, in , .the .'inatterrof: feeling, .and' were ,we .to take aTtistio. excellence, i the feelings, offii '■man;of trained sensibility; the:cultivated man, as the test? ; If : w6,took him; should- , wei attain'anything :in,;.the ; .- nature ..of, ' agreement - as' ■ to■ '■ jvhat: really' and truly, ; ,constituted Excellence in arnstio pfoduc-: tion? '.'■■■;■ - : .'■:■■' :': '' "•-' rr";.' , ;.;-": , ■ t- :/'VvV ? ■;.;;, "The Best Huridred.Bpoks.";,; ; •.':' He admitted at once that supeipoially, at,'all Events,"; , there 'very , s great appearance of unanimity.in this eclectrio. '"age'Vas' , to! what'was and what,wds.Eot a successful: .work of :; Ho knew. , of "the'-best hundred -hooks"—(laughter)-:, .but this uniformity did .not , represent the historio , facts:' wita: regard to: the sense of the beautiful.. One generation succeeded 'another, and pursned different- artistio; ideals,' and' there; was really a feeling, of' hostility between..a.new generation';and'their ideas' of what:drt~ ought;to be and; ■the .ideals which; were , ; the;/'glory -and triumph ~of 'their predecessors. ; He ; be-. liov«d that the architeot'who '■■ lived during tho-Hme of,the "Middle.pointed", or,l "Later""deooratdd" would , have'as -soon! •built;in.the earlier school of Gothic arohitectu're as 'any .self-respecting ■woman of the present., day j would, consent to a>. pear, in : '> a' 'Crinoline-Slaughter)—whioh' w,ds tho i universal.attire when ho was , a young man.,-; ■;,".'-/. . ;' ; ; ■:;',:- ..■Hβ. would' give, another instance' from" music! : The , Greeks' musical instruments co'dsisted of r one,' which - was 'a preposter-' ous arrangement. .' Harmony and, part-, reading, among them: were, absolutely rudimentary,' but 'they were,.a people of trained sensibility. Were we to,say that , the Qrepks in admiring' their miisic'Bhow-; «d\bad:taste,' , 'or-that our,sensibility for. musical' excellence .had; , .been .dulled by experience? ': Either.; alternative. ; was , equally' embarrassing. ..' (Laughter.) ' If ho' was' right; it ; was; jevident .that' in spite of the. liundred:'best books ,and the rest' there was, no . uniformity• of standard to'."be got by consulting'men,of trained :,: sensibility, especially if they hajh pene'd to belong to different generations. .'■:■:■"',. .;;/ Training in Art. ,;:' ! ':; ■;■ :;, But supposing there . was uniformity' amongst, porsons of , trained -Bunsibility,woro wo quite, certain, if .wo started from the point of view that the production of aesthetic emotion was the end of art, that training always conduced successfully' to that end? It was not so clear" as it might at first,appear._ .When he was at Eton his tiitor was in tho habit of making naids upon the, various ,works of ijction-7;: (laughter)—which were.the joy of youth; Now: tho satisfaction 'which wo enjoyed 'from the perusal,of these wortliless works . —(laughter)—was pure;. aesthetic • enjoyrabnt.. (Liiughter.) It. certainly: was not. dominated by any considerations with respect to ,style.-'.- '(Laughter;).; But 1 it was 'perfectly geuuine, and ho derived as much pleasure ifrom that simple, uncultivated reading as in his mature manhood he hud

obtained from -works of far greater pretension and worth, When.discrimination grew there was no evidence that sensibility grew with it. Indeed; there were cases in which anir.croaso ,'ot the power of discrimination wf.'s accompanied, by a waning of aesthetic. Gf-usibility. .. ; ■.:';•.■ I' If there we'i'o no. laws governing aesthetic . appreciation, and, if "literary, and artistic training;could not;lie put in" tooplace of;rules, wero\wo not|handed over to a kind of anarchy; of individual prc-. ferenco?, Were wo hot obliged to regard Aesthetic emotion as a mere ;, accidental I by-product, and! tho evolutionary process .a sort of stray inheritance 1 of which wo woro tho .chance ;bone(ic'iaries?.','lf. wo were driven to that view provisionally as the ,ono in which wo. could rest and really, tolerate, ho found it very difficult to rest, in it,, and very, difficult to 'tolerate, and ho' thought there.was great.evidence' that other people were'in ;the same case., '.His ownconviction was .that-ii. great'many of the efforts of. writers. in art and litera-. turo to, attach aesthetic "enjoyment either; to morals or to' religion, or'to some.formof: utility. or .progress; of the' these were instinctive.effectsi toescape' the anarchy,6f which .he spoko and; link our acsthctiC:;cmartions .with, some more stable relations iihthd .'universal. ■ .'•':;. '•'! ■'. ■;. "■■■. :' . ; . 'Difficulty .of 1 ; Definition.;;. \;;\: "}■■, V'lf they; asked him wb.etli.erhe -had anything' to suggest ;to mitigate tho feeling of ■ lawless' chaos, which canwr upon us it we.''fallowed the' train'•■ot'Athought ,which ho : had' pursued,';'ho .Replied '•■', that he. had no'reasoned, system ■Hβ liad.no philosbphicallor. logical-method of attaching -aosthetio ;emotion:: to ; the -■ moving wheels of-, tho 'great fcystem of which we -tqriAod.ia , part. ■■■. Ho ■ would ...not venture oven.upon a definition of aesthetic emb- , tion.\ He'i.re'gardcd it.'as the.'.highest : elehighest, sub-class'in- the, much larger class '. of■'■ emotions.; which did. not suggest 1 or lead', to faction.;.' He. suggested : that wo ought-not: to" grumblo -or Dβ im-patient',-because , we 'could; inot,apply to. tho other'department , of s human , emotions tho :same.;. machinery •;.of.;.":speculative tbought/which confessedly failed us when ■we \yero.dealing with the highest, of;'the practical 'emotions.' :'.V V , ■'/'.''■': V/..-.- ■''■-.; , i '•■ ,'lf they''asked h'im> now whether'he'was h' nallyV content: wiljh the state of 'th fngs ,ho: :had;'described, .hevfrahkly , admitted he waa.'noti; ; If; they'Ca'sked him how he proposed:to escape from it, .ho could'only say:.tliat; ; he saw. 'ho escape ".at :'present except" by'something.which might deserve tho : description of > mystioism. r At:.. all events,;.' thoy ■, woujd not escape'from it; by .the. ijoad : of : . criticism, •■'■ for,.- criticism;' 'groat as Us;functions:were,'both. as. constituting;&. work;' of .art! in ritself, and 'Kβ helping us t6>enjoy other ..works.of : art, .gave'■ no .issuo , for ; the! difficulty. -And'if .criticism ■ did ■"., not'-.. help, '. neither,' .ho thought, ■ could .philosophy,; for,''.whatever; might;,coine.in'.the future, up to the pre,sent,:: at f'all-.events,; ; philosophy-..was'not ■.'ready;'-.. ::(jjpud' cheers.)' (. ■l*;jH ; .V'J.' «:'.•