and, if it be possible, show us in new and exquisite ways things that we have not known concerning the poetry of the past and the truth that has been since. the beginning. Then may he have power to give to the rocks more of their strength, more of their vast age, more also of their evanescence. He may show us something of the secret of the hills and the mystery which their depths embosom; and we shall perhaps see more clearly what at present we are able only to divine, that as Paul said to the Galatians concerning another matter-" These things also are an allegory."

APPENDIX.

I.

DR JOHN BROWN. 'HORE SUBSECIVE,'
"Notes on Art," pp. 229-231.

"ONE other heresy I must vent, and that is to protest against the doctrine that scientific knowledge is of much direct avail to the artist; it may enlarge his mind as a man, and sharpen and strengthen his nature, but the knowledge of anatomy is, I believe, more a snare than anything else to an artist as such. Painting has to do simply and absolutely with the surfaces, with the appearances, of things; it knows or cares nothing for what is beneath and beyond, though, if it does its own part aright, it indicates them. Phidias and the early Greeks, there is no reason to believe, ever dissected even a monkey, much less a man; and where is there such skin and muscle and substance and breath of life? When art became scientific, as among the Romans, and lost its heart in filling its head, see what became of it! -anatomy offensively thrust in your face, and often bad anatomy-men skinned and galvanised, not men alive and in action. In the same way in landscape: do you think Turner would have painted the strata in an old quarry, or done Ben Cruachan more to the quick, had he known all

about geology, gneiss and greywacke, and the Silurian system? Turner might have been what is called a better informed man, but we question if he would have been so good, not to say a better, representer of the wonderful works of God, which were painted on his retina--the true camera lucida, the chamber of imagery leading from the other, and felt to his finger-tips. No. Science and poetry are to a nicety diametrically opposed; and he must be a Shakespeare and a Newton, a Turner and a Faraday, all in one, who can consort much with both without injury to each. It is not what a man has learned from others, not even what he thinks, but what he sees and feels, which makes him a painter."

II.

MR BRITON RIVIERE ON SCIENCE IN RELATION
TO PAINTING.

Even Mr Ruskin, who has written so much on the relations of art to religion, morals, and use, has not successfully defined its relation to science. His attempt in that direction in "The Eagle's Nest" is greatly wanting in his usual suggestiveness. I append, therefore, the following admirable passage from Mr Briton Riviere's opening address to Section A of the Edinburgh Art Congress, which, I believe, is generally accessible only to members of the Congress. I regret that I did not see it sooner :— "Whatever may have been done in other lines of human energy during the Victorian age, there can be no question that its most remarkable achievements, both theoretical and practical, have been those of science. The art of the painter has not escaped its influence. On one side, and a very important one-that of Realism-the side which furnishes the language,-i.e., the signs and symbols which

express the idea of the artist,-—there is a wide front open to the influence of science; and on that side art has not been slow or unwilling to follow the advice of science, or ungrateful for the valuable help it has afforded. According to my theory, this supremacy of science would have influenced art under any circumstances, but it has been able to do so through the very method and language of art itself.

"Will this influence help or retard the influence of art? My answer is, it may do either, according to the manner in which it is received and used by the artist. If the painter resolutely holds the belief that painting is a language, and a work of art-the expression of an ideaand uses science and all that it has discovered and teaches, to enable him better to understand his signs and symbols,— viz., the material facts of nature, so that by means of them he may express himself correctly, just as a writer has behind him the philologist to busy himself about the derivation and meaning of words, and the grammarian to show him how to place these words so as to produce the meaning he requires,-if, I say, the painter so receives and uses the knowledge and appliances of science, then I think the cause of art will be much advanced by science, and works produced under its influence will be stronger and richer than they could possibly have been without it. On the other hand, if the painter allows this scientific knowledge of the material or realistic part of his work to obscure the purely artistic or ideal part of it, to obscure instead of to intensify the idea; and if, carried away by the material wonders of the 'thing' which science has unfolded, he forgets the "thought" altogether, then assuredly, however true he may have shown himself to be to the cause of science, that of art will suffer at his hands—indeed, may be lost altogether. For I feel sure that most of my brother artists will agree with me that it is possible for a picture to be scientifically true and have no art at all in it; and, on the other hand, to contain several scientific blunders, and yet be a great work of art.

"Upon the right use of science-this great, at present leading, influence of the age-much depends. The intelligent observer who wishes to become conversant with art matters will do well to acquaint himself with the line where science ends and art begins, and how far science may be said to legitimately influence art. The simple narrative of a fact per se will not constitute a work of art any more than a photograph can be considered a work of art, and for the same reason-viz., the material constituents of both are absolutely impersonal; and it is the personality of the artist-the impress on the work of the artist's own mind and intention adequately expressed-which gives the art. In this age of scientific observation it is highly important, when we consider the art of painting, to bear in mind this distinction. So much is known now about the nature and construction of things, and such knowledge is so fascinating, not only to any intelligent observer, but also to the painter, that he may well stray into the pursuit of this knowledge for its own sake, and forget that as a painter he must only pursue it so far as his art requires. We can well understand the position of those who seem to hold that the patient and careful transcript and narration of facts, or what seem to be facts, in form and colour, will constitute a work of art, while we wholly dissent from their opinion. Rather would we hold that these facts, heaped up before us in such generous profusion by science, are to us painters by no means an end in themselves, but only a means towards an end. It is the personality of the artist, the impress on the work of the artist's own mind and intention, adequately expressed, which gives the art."-Transactions of the National Association for the Advancement of Art, Edinburgh Meeting, 1889, p. 34.