The Eagle's Nest: Ten Lectures on the Relation of Natural Science to Art, Given Before the University of Oxford, in Lent Term, 1872 — John Shaqi
The Eagle's Nest: Ten Lectures on the Relation of Natural Science to Art, Given Before the University of Oxford, in Lent Term, 1872Ruskin, John
Philosophy
The Eagle's Nest: Ten Lectures on the Relation of Natural Science to Art, Given Before the University of Oxford, in Lent Term, 1872
Ruskin, John
Art and science
Suppose that you were actually on the plain of Pæstum, watching the
drift of storm-cloud which Turner has here engraved.[B] If you had
occupied yourself chiefly in schools of science, you would think of the
mode in which the electricity was collected; of the influence it had on
the shape and motion of the cloud; of the force and duration of its
flashes, and of other such material phenomena. If you were an artist,
you would be considering how it might be possible, with the means at
your disposal, to obtain the brilliancy of the light, or the depth of
the gloom. Finally, if you were a scholar, as distinguished from either
of these, you would be occupied with the imagination of the state of the
temple in former times; and as you watched the thunderclouds drift past
its columns, and the power of the God of the heavens put forth, as it
seemed, in scorn of the departed power of the god who was thought by the
heathen to shake the earth--the utterance of your mind would become,
whether in actual words or not, such as that of the Psalmist:--"Clouds
and darkness are round about Him--righteousness and judgment are the
habitation of His throne." Your thoughts would take that shape, of their
own accord, and if they fell also into the language, still your
essential scholarship would consist, not in your remembering the verse,
still less in your knowing that "judgment" was a Latin word, and
"throne" a Greek one; but in your having power enough of conception, and
elevation enough of character, to understand the nature of justice, and
be appalled before the majesty of dominion.
[B] Educational Series, No. 8, E.
8. You come, therefore, to this University, I repeat once again, that
you may learn how to form conceptions of proper range or grasp, and
proper dignity, or worthiness. Keeping then the ideas of a separate
school of art, and separate school of science, what have you to learn in
these? You would learn in the school of art, the due range and dignity
of deeds; or doings--(I prefer the word to "makings," as more general),
and in the school of science, you would have to learn the range and
dignity of knowledges.
Now be quite clear about this: be sure whether you really agree with me
or not.
You come to the School of Literature, I say, to learn the range and
dignity of conceptions.
To the School of Art, to learn the range and dignity of deeds.
To the School of Science, to learn the range and dignity of knowledges.
Do you agree to that, or not? I will assume that you admit my triple
division; but do you think, in opposition to me, that a school of
science is still a school of science, whatever sort of knowledge it
teaches; and a school of art still a school of art, whatever sort of
deed it teaches; and a school of literature still a school of
literature, whatever sort of notion it teaches?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account