liberal arts without meeting an objection which we will consider just here.  Some one says:  If the law of art is the same as that of the human constitution, what need that Delsarte teach that law—­will it not suffice for each artist-nature to study himself in order to determine satisfactory means of transmitting (to spectators, audiences or readers) the thoughts, passions or emotions which he would reveal, either by his pen, his chisel, his brush, or by the fictitious personages which he incarnates?  I answer, No!  The expression of nature by gesture, face, or voice will not come to the artist by inspiration nor by reflection, especially in extreme situations.  He may chance upon agreeable effects, and even moving expressions, but rarely does a just and telling expression of that which he would express result from mere chance.  Caustic truth or knack—­more vulgarly, cheek—­comes of influence outside of one’s self.  Upon one occasion Madame Pasta was heard to say:  “I would be as touching as that child in her tears.  I should, indeed, be a great artist if I could imitate her.”

Rare, indeed, are the artists who know how to weep.  The sublimity of art responds to nature’s simplest impulses.  By the study and work of Delsarte a science has been created, every fleeting sign of emotion has been fixed, and may be reproduced at will; and this for the instruction of the artist who may never have observed them in another, nor himself felt the impressions which give rise to them.

Application of the Law to Literature.

It is hardly necessary to state that the predominance of one of the primordial faculties in the actor would necessarily differ from that in the author of the drama or opera which he would interpret.  Literary capability presupposes more or less of philosophical aptitude and a predominance of the intellectual faculties, and this not to the exclusion of a certain amount of artistic and moral development in the truly great writers.  It is in the field of literature especially, that man attains to a creation; and whether his object be a fellow-creature or an extended and enlarged ideal,—­in either and any case facts have furnished repeated and incontestable evidence, in support of the statement of Delsarte, that art is always defective unless it be the product of the three essential modalities of being, acting in their relative proportions.  This statement is not to be contested; but here again these relations would vary among the writers upon science, ethics and poetry.

The epic, most synthetic of literary productions, is no longer in fashion, because, perhaps, of the growing rarity of heroes.  On the contrary, simplisme is now deforming the greatest germs in the drama and romance.  The weakness often lies in the morality of the production, or rather in its lack of morality, often so lacking that the author sinks to the level of producing repulsive works and cynical pictures.