if I call those who, without giving outward sign (they may well have had their private speculations and systems) of an abstract theory, appeared to use distortion when, where, and as their immediate sensibility dictated, Fauves, that is because the word has passed into three languages, is admirably colourless—­for all its signifying a colour—­and implies the existence of a group without specifying a peculiarity.  Into Doctrinaires—­Theorists if you like the word better—­and Fauves the first generation of Cezanne’s descendants could, I feel sure, be divided; whether such a division would serve any useful purpose is another matter.  What I am sure of is that to have two such labels, to be applied when occasion requires and cancelled without much compunction, will excellently serve mine, which may, or may not, be useful.

I would not insist too strongly on the division; certainly at first it was not felt to be sharp.  Plenty of Fauves did their whack of theorizing, while some of the theorists are amongst the most sensitive and personal of the age.  What I do insist on—­because it explains and excuses the character of my book—­is that in this age theory has played so prominent a part, hardly one artist of importance quite escaping its influence, that no critic who proposes to give some account of painting since Cezanne can be expected to overlook it:  some, to be sure, may be thought to have stared indecently.  The division between Fauves and Theorists, I was saying, in the beginning was not sharp; nevertheless, because it was real, already in the first generation of Cezanne’s descendants the seeds of two schools were sown.  Already by 1910 two tendencies are visibly distinct; but up to 1914, though there is divergence, there is, I think, no antipathy between them—­of antipathies between individuals I say nothing.  Solidarity was imposed on the young generation by the virulent and not over scrupulous hostility of the old; it was l’union sacree in face of the enemy.  And just as political allies are apt to become fully alive to the divergence of their aims and ambitions only after they have secured their position by victory, so it was not until the new movement had been recognized by all educated people as representative and dominant that the Fauves felt inclined to give vent to their inevitable dislike of Doctrinaires.

Taken as a whole, the first fourteen years of the century, which my malicious friend Jean Cocteau sometimes calls l’epoque heroique, possessed most of the virtues and vices that such an epoch should possess.  It was rich in fine artists; and these artists were finely prolific.  It was experimental, and passionate in its experiments.  It was admirably disinterested.  Partly from the pressure of opposition, partly because the family characteristics of the Cezannides are conspicuous, it acquired a rather deceptive air of homogeneity.  It was inclined to accept recruits without scrutinizing over closely their credentials,