To avoid the feeling that this kind of history is one damn

To avoid the feeling that this kind of history is one damn thing after another, he interrupts his mellifluous flow with chapters on individuals, though significantly more patrons than artists: William of Wykeham, Cardinal Wolsey, the Earl of Arundel, Horace Walpole, Prince Albert (who in an inappropriate slip into demotic he calls a “dynastic stud”).Strong’s fundamental problem, however, is with the idea of an “unfolding narrative”. Though there is a reference to the invention of childhood as a distinct phase of life at the close of the 18th century, the arts – while recognised as essential to ideas of national identity – are not considered within such a broader definition of culture. Because the Puritans and their successors, the Philistines, are hostile to art, they tend to be excluded from “the spirit of Britain” – even though, from another viewpoint, they define it.Within his self-delineated field, Strong moves confidently between the art forms as their significance rises and falls. Though he tries to pretend otherwise, “Britain” means “England”.

The Scottish Enlightenment gets a single chapter, Wales is hardly mentioned and Ireland – though certain writers are co-opted – is “outside my terms of reference”. It is a pity he did not call it “The Englishness of English Art”, but Pevsner, who attempted something similar, and from a sharper intellectual perspective, used that for his Reith lectures published in 1956.The second crucial definition is what constitutes “the arts”. Though this is in effect a cultural history, embracing religion, philosophy and science, and grounded in ideology, Strong uses “culture” as an adjectival noun, rather than a critical concept. His territory goes beyond what he calls “the high arts: opera, ballet, drama, literature, music, painting and sculpture” to take in architecture and the decorative arts.In the light of his predilections, it is not surprising that he is good on gardening and the lost art of the masque Photography, cinema and television are hardly mentioned.

This is by no means a coffee- table book, and its generous and well-captioned illustrations support a serious text. The project demanded self-confidence, and a point of view – attributes Strong has never lacked. He describes himself as “not only an unashamed elitist but also a monarchist, a practising Christian, and a committed European”. With the exception of the last, Strong must feel he embodies his definition of the “spirit of Britain”.
This confident self-definition leads to an equally confident delineation of his subject. Dennis himself marries again to the woman he believe he wronged. Yet the arguments about faith and fate which pulse through the novel cannot be contained by a neat ending.. Having given us The Story of Britain, a linear overview of British history, in 1996, Sir Roy Strong now offers what he says is the first ever “continuous unfolding narrative” of Britain’s arts.