of 
ON THE RELATION OF NATURAL SCIENCE TO ART. 663 
vent our civilization, including art and its master works, from crumbling 
away again hopelessly, as at the decline of the ancient world. 
Thisconsciousness willalso make up to the philosopher for the thought- 
lessness of the multitude, who, while enjoying the benefits thus lavished 
upon them, hardly know to whom they owe them. The country rings 
with the name of every fashionable musical virtwoso, and cyclopedias 
insure its immortality. But who repeats the name of him who achieved 
that supreme triumph of the inventive intellect—to convey through a 
copper wire across far-stretching countries and over hill and dale the 
sound of the human voice as though it spoke in our ear? 
‘Life is earnest, art is gay;” this saying of Schiller’s remains as true 
if we substitute science for life. Art is the realm of the beautiful; its 
productions fill us with an enjoyment, half sensuous, half intellectual; 
it is therefore a realm of liberty in the widest sense. No rigid laws 
are enforced in it; no stern logic binds the events of the present to 
those of the past and future; no certain signs indicate success; blame 
and praise are distributed by the varying taste of ages, nations, and 
individuals, so that the glorious Gothic church architecture came to be 
derided by the eighteenth century. In art, the definition of genius as 
a talent for patience does not hold good. Its creations, once brought 
forth in a happy hour of revelation, stir our souls with elementary force, 
and scorn all abstruse explanations, subsequently forced upon them by 
art eriticism. Whoever accomplishes such a feat also ministers in a 
sense to the cares and troubles of humanity. Unfortunately the nature 
of things does not allow such fruit to ripen at all seasons; at one time, 
in one direction, the culminating point will be reached, and then age 
after age will strive in vain to emulate the past. The finest «esthetic 
theories can neither carry the individual beyond the limits of his own 
natural powers, nor retrieve the fortunes of a declining period. Of what 
use has been the recent strife in the artistic world between naturalists 
and idealists? Has it protected us from the frequently almost intoler- 
able extravagances of the latter?) There is an attraction in every boldly- 
advanced novelty which the common herd is unable to resist, and which 
will invariably triumph till antiquated ideas are somehow surplanted 
by fresh ones, or by the lofty rule of some irresistibly superior personality. 
Nor can science in the stricter sense come to the aid of art; and thus, 
strangers at heart, without materially influencing each other, each seeks 
its own way, the former advancing steadily, though irregularly, the 
latter slowly fluctuating like a majestic tide. Those unfamiliar with 
science are apt to recognize the supreme development of our mental 
faculties in art alone. Doubtless this is a mistake; yet human intellect 
shines brighest where glory in art is coupled with glory in science. 
We may notice something here which is similar to what occurs in 
practical ethies. The more corrupt the morals of an age or nation, the 
more we find virtue a favorite topic. The flood of esthetic theories 
rises highest when original creative power is at its lowest ebb. Lotze, 
