Foreword
whether this element ought to be given a place in the history of Russian art.
Iconoclasm of whatever sort, however, is not in accordance with the spirit of our times. He who in the name of service to a great and pure ideal would rise against petty worldly art or would ban those works which are too dependent on the scholastic model, would gain the name of a Vandal, of a narrow-minded and wild fanatic. The striking example of Hogarth corroborates the thesis that the history of art must include all the important artistic phenomena, even if they do not meet the purely æsthetic demands. Hogarth scoffs most unceremoniously at the precepts of Apollo; he came closest to the literary pamphlet and the facetious "novella." Yet, who will raise his hand to do away with this keen saucy buffoon? There is no question here of his great genuinely pictorial gift, to which, however, he paid too little attention and which showed itself so rarely in his pictures. Hogarth must maintain a place of honour in the history of art, which is but a part of the records of human culture. We owe him this—if for no other reason—because of the marvellous documentation of his pictures, which lends them the melancholy charm that only echoes of bygone times possess.
Likewise, we must not ignore works of purely scholastic merit. It is certain that the living ideal in
xvii
