III

It is a sure mark of narrowness and defective powers of perception to fail to discover the point of view even of what one disesteems.  We talk of Poussin, of Louis Quatorze art—­as of its revival under David and its continuance in Ingres—­of, in general, modern classic art as if it were an art of convention merely; whereas, conventional as it is, its conventionality is—­or was, certainly, in the seventeenth century—­very far from being pure formulary.  It was genuinely expressive of a certain order of ideas intelligently held, a certain set of principles sincerely believed in, a view of art as positive and genuine as the revolt against the tyrannous system into which it developed.  We are simply out of sympathy with its aim, its ideal; perhaps, too, for that most frivolous of all reasons because we have grown tired of it.

But the business of intelligent criticism is to be in touch with everything.  “Tout comprendre, c’est tout pardonner,” as the French ethical maxim has it, may be modified into the true motto of aesthetic criticism, “Tout comprendre, c’est tout justifier.”  Of course, by “criticism” one does not mean pedagogy, as so many people constantly imagine, nor does justifying everything include bad drawing.  But as Lebrun, for example, is not nowadays held up as a model to young painters, and is not to be accused of bad drawing, why do we so entirely dispense ourselves from comprehending him at all?  Lebrun is, perhaps, not a painter of enough personal importance to repay attentive consideration, and historic importance does not greatly concern criticism.  But we pass him by on the ground of his conventionality, without remembering that what appears conventional to us was in his case not only sincerity but aggressive enthusiasm.  If there ever was a painter who exercised what creative and imaginative faculty he had with an absolute gusto, Lebrun did so.  He interested his contemporaries immensely; no painter ever ruled more unrivalled.  He fails to interest us because we have another point of view.  We believe in our point of view and disbelieve in his as a matter of course; and it would be self-contradictory to say, in the interests of critical catholicity, that in our opinion his may be as sound as our own.  But to say that he has no point of view whatever—­to say, in general, that modern classic art is perfunctory and mere formulary—­is to be guilty of what has always been the inherent vice of protestantism in all fields of mental activity.

Nowhere has protestantism exhibited this defect more palpably than in the course of evolution of schools of painting.  Pre-Raphaelitism is perhaps the only exception, and pre-Raphaelitism was a violent and emotional counter-revolution rather than a movement characterized by catholicity of critical appreciation.  Literary criticism is certainly full of similar intolerance; though when Gautier talks about Racine, or Zola about