ist which constitutes his talent. For, according
to the definitions above given, that which makes him an artist is his
capacity for seizing upon the essential characteristics and the salient
traits of surrounding objects and events. Other men see things in part
fragmentarily; he catches the spirit of the ensemble. And in this way
he will very likely exaggerate in his works the general average of
contemporary feeling.

Lastly, our author reminds us that a man who writes or paints does not
remain alone before his easel or his writing-desk. He goes out, looks
about him, receives suggestions from friends, from rivals, from books,
and works of art whenever accessible, and hears the criticisms of the
public upon his own productions and those of his contemporaries. In
order to succeed, he must not only satisfy to some extent the popular
taste, but he must feel that the public is in sympathy with him. If in
this period of social decadence and gloom he endeavours to represent
gay, brilliant, or triumphant ideas, he will find himself left to his
own resources; and, as Taine rightly says, the power of an isolated man
is always insignificant. His work will be likely to be mediocre. If
he attempts to write like Rabelais or paint like Rubens, he will get
neither assistance nor sympathy from a public which prefers the pictures
of Rembrandt, the melodies of Chopin, and the poetry of Heine.

Having thus explained his position by this extreme instance, signified
for the sake of clearness, Taine goes on to apply such general
considerations to four historic epochs, taken in all their complexity.
He discusses the aspect presented by art in ancient Greece, in the
feudal and Catholic Middle Ages, in the centralized monarchies of the
seventeenth century, and in the scientific, industrial democracy
in which we now live. Out of these we shall select, as perhaps the
simplest, the case of ancient Greece, still following our author
closely, though necessarily omitting many interesting details.

The ancient Greeks, observes Taine, understood life in a new and
original manner. Their energies were neither absorbed by a great
religious conception, as in the case of the Hindus and Egyptians, nor
by a vast social organization, as in the case of the Assyrians and
Persians, nor by a purely industrial and commercial regime, as in the
case of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians. Instead of a theocracy or a
rigid system of castes, instead of a monarchy with a