22 FIELD AND HEDGEROW. 
in spectrum analysis, and the theory of the polarisation: 
of light was fairly familiar ; any number of books, but 
not what J wanted to know. Next the idea occurred 
to me of buying all the colours used in painting, and 
tinting as many pieces of paper a separate hue, and so 
comparing these with petals, and wings, and grass, and 
trifollum. This did not answer at all; my unskilful 
hands made a very poor wash, and the yellow paper set 
by a yellow petal did not agree, the scientific reason of 
which I cannot enter into now. Secondly, the names 
attached .to many of thesc paints are unfamiliar to 
general readers; it is doubtful if bistre, Leitch’s blue, 
oxide of chromium, and so on, would convey an idea. 
They might as well be Greek symbols: no use to attempt 
to describe hues of heath or hill in that way. These, 
too, are only distinct colours. What was to be done 
with all the shades and tones? Still there remained the 
language of the studio ; without doubt a master of paint- 
ing could be found who would quickly supply the tech- 
nical term of anything I liked to show him; but again 
no use, because it would be technical. And a still more 
insurmountable difficulty occurs: in so far as I have 
looked at pictures, it seems as if the artists had mct 
with the same obstacle in paints as I have in words— 
that is to say,a deficiency. Either painting is incom- 
petent to express the extreme beauty of nature, or in 
some way the canons of art forbid the attempt. There- 
fore I had to turn back, throw down my books with a 
bang, and get me to a bit of fallen timber in the open 
air to meditate. 
Would it be possible to build up a fresh system of 
colour language by means of natural objects? Could 
we say pine-wood green, larch green, spruce green, wasp 
yellow, humble-bee amber? And there are fungi that have 
