scientist's labours in the past, and often in an unsystematic
way adopting his methods of technical discovery.

This second point need not detain us, and therefore may
best be illustrated at once. I may mention as a typical
example the use of perspective, without which the pictorial
artist of to-day cannot do his work; but perspective is
evidently a purely mathematical science in its origin, and
although certain short cuts are used commonly which are
not reasoned out, perspective itself cannot be used effectively
apart from a clear knowledge of the principles involved.
One has but to compare the drawing of Dürer's day and of
Tadema's to see how much this special science has affected
art. It is interesting to note in this connection that among
the Frenchmen who have taken to themselves the name
"impressionists" [a term which really should have a fuller
application], the "pointillists," Dubois-Pillet and Seurat, are
found studying as they work, the one from Rood's theory of
colours, the other from Chevreul's writings on simultaneous
contrast. It is not necessary to multiply examples in this
direction, and we may well turn back to consider the depend-
ence of art upon those qualities which seem to be distinct-
ively scientific.

Science, in its essence, is but the orderly arrangement of
human experience; and surely the experience of our an-
cestors is made use of daily in art method and practice. No
age has given more study to ancient art than ours is giving.
At no time have artists turned more attention to the old
masters than in our own day. It is apparent, therefore, that
æsthetic method is in reality developing in line with the
body of science, although the crudeness of its form prevents
the general recognition of its relation to what we call science.
A further view makes this clearer.

As we look back at the great epochs of art, at the styles
they produced, the schools they founded, we see the outcome

-xiv-