He was above all things always the artist, never the realist.  The realist pictures the things he sees; the artist expresses that which he feels.  Children, and all simple folk who use pen, pencil or brush, describe the things they behold.  As intellect develops and goes more in partnership with hand, imagination soars, and things are outlined that no man can see except he be able to perceive the invisible.  To appreciate a work of art you must feel as the artist felt.

Now, it is very plain that the vast majority of people are not capable of this high sense of sublimity which the creative artist feels; and therefore they do not understand, and not understanding, they wax merry, or cynical, or sarcastic, or wrathful, or envious; or they pass by unmoved.  And I maintain that those who pass by unmoved are more righteous than they who scoff.

If I should attempt to explain to my little girl the awe I feel when I contemplate the miracle of maternity, she would probably change the subject by prattling to me about a kitten she saw lapping milk from a blue saucer.  If I should attempt to explain to some men what I feel when I contemplate the miracle of maternity, they would smile and turn it all into an unspeakable jest.  Is not the child nearer to God than the man?

We thus see why to many Browning is only a joke, Whitman an eccentric, Dante insane and Turner a pretender.  These have all sought to express things which the many can not feel, and consequently they have been, and are, the butt of jokes and jibes innumerable.  “Except ye become as little children,” etc.—­and yet the scoffers are often people of worth.  Nothing so shows the limitation of humanity as this:  genius often does not appreciate genius.  The inspired, strangely enough, are like the fools, they do not recognize inspiration.

An Englishman called on Voltaire and found him in bed reading Shakespeare.

“What are you reading?” asked the visitor.

“Your Shakespeare!” said the philosopher; and as he answered he flung the book across the room.

“He’s not my Shakespeare,” said the Englishman.

Greene, Rymer, Dryden, Warburton and Doctor Johnson used collectively or individually the following expressions in describing the work of the author of “Hamlet”:  conceit, overreach, word-play, extravagance, overdone, absurdity, obscurity, puerility, bombast, idiocy, untruth, improbability, drivel.

Byron wrote from Florence to Murray: 

“I know nothing of painting, and I abhor and spit upon all saints and so-called spiritual subjects that I see portrayed in these churches.”

But the past is so crowded with vituperation that it is difficult to select—­besides that, we do not wish to—­but let us take a sample of arrogance from yesterday to prove our point, and then drop the theme for something pleasanter.