Now if there should be any here who will say: It was always so;
there always was a mass of rough ignorance that knew and cared
nothing about art; I answer first, that if that be the case, then it
was always wrong, and we, as soon as we have become conscious of
that wrong, are bound to set it right if we can.

But moreover, strange to say, and in spite of all the suffering that
the world has wantonly made for itself, and has in all ages so
persistently clung to, as if it were a good and holy thing, this
wrong of the mass of men being regardless of art was NOT always so.

So much is now known of the periods of art that have left abundant
examples of their work behind them, that we can judge of the art of
all periods by comparing these with the remains of times of which
less has been left us; and we cannot fail to come to the conclusion
that down to very recent days everything that the hand of man
touched was more or less beautiful: so that in those days all
people who made anything shared in art, as well as all people who
used the things so made: that is, ALL people shared in art.

But some people may say: And was that to be wished for? would not
this universal spreading of art stop progress in other matters,
hinder the work of the world? Would it not make us unmanly? or if
not that, would it not be intrusive, and push out other things
necessary also for men to study?

Well, I have claimed a necessary place for art, a natural place, and
it would be in the very essence of it, that it would apply its own
rules of order and fitness to the general ways of life: it seems to
me, therefore, that people who are over-anxious of the outward