of critical spirit during the ages of great art outcome, but by
the emphasis of critical work which the absence of notable
art production brings into prominence.

Guyau, judging the lack of art product to be due to the
approaching death of a social age, looked upon it as a sign of
loss of the excessive vigour which is necessary to the appear-
ance of genius. This last explanation is doubtless true, whether
the loss be found to be due, as he thinks, to social disease, or
even if it be traceable to over-emphasis of scientific or any
other concentrative activity. For, as we have already seen,
any exclusive work will curtail effective activities in other
directions. This, however, is apparently little more than a
statement of the limits of capacity -- an acknowledgment, in
fact, of relative incapacity. Surely we should not let these.
facts lead us to a position which would leave incapacity in
control, and which would by discouragement of intellectual
treatment of art subjects virtually deprive skill of its
best tools; for it is certainly clear that to science and
scientific method of analysis, systematic or unsystematic, the
artist owes much in the past, and from them we may hope
to gain much in the future.

This cursory view of the situation evidently indicates
that the antagonism between artist and scientist is not
fundamental. If this be so, there is ground for hope that
the two may be brought together if the basis of the mis-
understanding between them is made clear.

The scientist displays less of the antipathetic spirit;
but for all that is, in my view, more at fault in this dis-
agreement. As we have already said, science tends to be
arrogant: she claims to rule, and has a way of looking
down upon those who do not follow her ways, as though she
had grasped the full meaning of the universe. But this the
artist does not acknowledge for a moment; and rightly does

-xvii-