tween the two classes of men which may be cleared away?
May it not be possible thus to bring about an increased
harmony and effectiveness in the work of both scientist and
artist?

First, then, let us ask, What is the basis of the anta-
gonism?

I think it will be agreed at the start that the mental
attitudes of the scientist and of the artist are themselves
diverse in character.

The scientist is pre-eminently a searcher: he is aggres-
sive; the artist is distinctly a listener and a follower of the
commands of an inner voice.

Scientists, as we well know, are liable to exaggerate the
importance of their work: few indeed are those great souls
among them who see beyond the details of investigation, and
realise the great importance of the problems which tran-
scend their powers. The average votary of science is filled
with self-confidence, aroused less by any notion that he
knows all things himself than by a firm belief that he is
on the path which leads to fulness of knowledge and power,
and that he is the representative of a mistress omniscient
and omnipotent. This self-confidence of the scientist is
repulsive to the artist -- the listener and follower -- who has
long and wearily striven to express the leadings of the inner
voice, and who appreciates how he has failed, with all his
effort, to picture worthily his inspiration. The claim that we
could reason art products into existence, were we clever
enough, seems to him preposterous, and so far as he can see
such is the claim an æsthetic science would make.

On the other hand, the active, energetic scientist who is
treating of facts given to him in nature is liable to look with
some little contempt upon the artists, whom he thinks of as
dreamers, and whose waywardness he altogether deprecates.

That this difference of mental attitude, however, does not

-xii-