UNDER THE APPLE-TREES 



for the sake of man ; we struggle like the other spe- 

 cies, we have struggled against other species ; more- 

 over, if the evolution of life had encountered other 

 accidents in its course, if thereby the current of life 

 had been otherwise divided, we should have been 

 physically and morally far different from what we 

 are. 



We aim to look upon a problem of science or 

 mathematics understandingly; we try to regard a 

 work of art — a novel, poem, painting, symphony 

 — appreciatively, to enter into its spirit, to become 

 one with it, to possess ourselves of its point of view, 

 in short, to have an emotional experience with it. 

 The understanding is less concerned than our taste, 

 our aesthetic perceptions, our sympathy with beau- 

 tiful forms, and our plasticity of mind. We do not 

 know a work of art in the same way in which we 

 know a work of science, or any product of analytical 

 reasoning; we know it as we know those we love 

 and are in sympathy with; it does not define itself 

 to our intellect, it melts into our souls. Descriptive 

 science is powerless to portray for me the bird or the 

 flower or the friend I love; only art and literature 

 can do that. Science deals with fixed concepts, art 

 with fluid concepts. 



This is Bergson's position as I understand it. 

 Living nature is like a work of art, and our descrip- 

 tive science fails to render its true meaning, or grasp 

 the nature of the evolutionary movement. The feel- 



210 



