Mais lart atteint un but quil na pas.
Above all by the light translucence of the Eternal through and in the Temporal.
In Pater and sake Rossetti, then, we sake have two very different examples of episode the ways in which the religion of art came sake to have meaning in the nineteenth century, two distinct directions in which the phenomenon may be pursued.
19 Late Romantic thinking, especially in aestheticism and netware symbolism, is engrossed in the problem of the secularisation of the Symbol, taking traditional ideas of the universe as inherently numinousor, in Professor Teufelsdröckhs phrase, one vast Symbol of God ( Sartor Resartus 166)and then submitting them.
Mathew Arnold star 113-14, nothing in this world or the next betrays a serious irritation with Matthew Arnolds humanism, the subject of the Harvard lecture, an irritation that had also been evident in the earlier, better known essay Arnold and Pater (1930).
The non-religious artist, it would seem, even one as priestly as Henry James, is condemned to use religious language only metaphorically, or in a debased form, however much he (or his characters) sacrifice to Art.To ask of poetry that it give religious and philosophic satisfaction, while deprecating philosophy and dogmatic religion, is of course to embrace the shadow of a shade.The faith of the artist, artistic sacrifice, martyrdom, witness, belief, the false or insincere belief (the hypocrisy) of the artist-phariseethese are all recognisably Jamesian subjects.22 At the same time, the religion of art refused to let go of the spiritual sweetness it perceived as the perfume of the type, insisting upon the union of the sensuous with the supersensuous.For Newman the poetry was both a conscious and an unconscious matter, drawing upon feeling.Twenty three years earlier, Rossettis prose piece Hand and Soul had appeared in the first issue of The Germ.Longing, a chastened temper, spiritual joy, system are precious states of mind, not because they are part of mans duty or because God has commanded them, still less because they are means of obtaining a reward, but because like culture itself they are remote, refined, intense.There, Eliot described the way in which literature, or Culture, tended with Arnold to usurp the place of religion.
The Church was itself the most sacred and venerable of poets (Newman, Dublin Review 452-3).
We might call this de-Christianised consubstantiality, or incarnation as a light for art sake pdf kind of literalism, or, in a most basic sense, the tautology of the body.
In other words, it suggests a form of substitution of the kind Eliot denied; it involves an interpenetration of art and religion, an exchange, in which it is simply impossible to extrude Rossettis aesthetic from the religious forms through which it manifests itself, even.