no alterations have been made in this edition. it is true that three of the figures here studied were living when the book was written; but their genius had matured, their work was for the most part done. nothing they could produce would seriously modify one’s conception of them as aboriginal personal forces, the outcome of the past, the initiators of the future. apart from this, it seems to me a mistake to manipulate or add to one’s own completed work. if i were to re-write it, i should doubtless write it differently; the conclusion, for instance, which is earliest in date, seems to me now rather formal and metaphysical. but for the most part i have nothing seriously to alter or to omit.

i have sometimes been asked why, in a discussion of some of the new influences of the past century, i have left out representative men who have made so great a stir in the world. goethe, it may possibly be true, stalks through every page, but where are kant, hegel, auguste comte, john stuart mill, herbert spencer? i cannot remember ever proposing to include these names. the reason may be clearer if i[viii] mention other names i once wished to include, although—partly doubting my competence to discuss them, partly fearing that their introduction might seem to interfere with the unity of the book—i ultimately refrained.

one was burne jones. i shall never forget how, as a youth in the public library at sydney, i turned over the leaves of a volume of etchings and suddenly alighted on “merlin and vivien.” something i knew of botticelli, lippi and the rest, and i had brooded over their antique mystery and charm; but here were all the mystery and the charm brought down among us from the world where saints stand stiff and aureoled, and angels walk tip-toe on lily cups. the fifteenth century artists of flanders and venice and florence introduced us into a frankly supernatural world, and they delighted like children to scatter rich fruits on the golden floors, and to stick peacocks’ feathers into the bejewelled walls. it is a rarer and subtler art to suggest that infinitely remote world while accepting the austere conditions of our own earth. the pale ghosts of puvis de chavannes’ frescoes are a far-off suggestion of this art; and one thinks too of the modern magician who has brought before us the twinkling of salome’s feet by the red blood from the baptist’s head, curdling amid the flowers; the rich-robed daughters of apollo among the olives; the[ix] mystic elephant in solemn festival, gathering the lotus with his trunk as his feet plash slowly in the clear waters of the sacred lake. but the shadowy art of puvis, the wayward and limited art of gustave moreau, come short of the consistent and completely realised art which has been attained by the painter who stands forth in the eyes of europe as the greatest imaginative artist of england. it is a new synthesis of the world of nature and the world of dreams. the three women who dance in the foreground of “the mill” tell us of a country where human joys and sorrows, hopes and fears, are set to a different measure, and sung in unknown keys. a strange and troublous art, it seems sometimes,—like the sinuous melodies of renan, which seem to belong to some far-haunted past, and yet contain the intimate secrets of our own hearts,—but it fascinates and holds us as though music became visible before our eyes. it opens before us a new and delightful pathway into the land of dreams.

another was auguste rodin. to mould the human figure has been an amusement for man since ever he carved wood or indented clay. it was left for the sculptors of egypt and of greece and of italy to form human figures of stone, not as a mere symbol of the reality, but as a revelation of their own moods and visions of beauty or passion; and since then the[x] amusement has fallen back into convention and symbol, although the plastic representation of the modern human body, etiolated and hidden, offers fewer difficulties than its representation in painting which millet and degas have in varying ways striven to achieve. now even the great sculptors of old only suggest to us beauty or grace or strength that has become conventional; they reveal nothing. in this man’s work the form that is closest to us of all forms in the world, that we cling to from the day of birth, and that remains with us, half-seen or divined, until the day of death, has been revealed anew, just as new aspects of light have been revealed by claude monet. it is the ancient human way-worn and passion-used form, rendered with pathetic truth, and yet we feel that we have never truly seen the human body before. we marvel how expression can be carried so far without passing the bounds of nature and simplicity. it is far from the method of michelangelo, rodin’s immediate predecessor, with whom it has been the fashion to compare him. michelangelo’s stupendous fantasy twisted the human body into the strange or lovely shapes of his own inverted dreams. in rodin’s work, it is through a relentless love of nature that we are led to a new and intimate vision of the body. the quiet artist in his simple work-room has been[xi] building up through long years his great gate of hell; it is the gate of the joy and beauty and terror of life, expressed otherwise than those sober stories of the old world so charmingly told on that gate that was thought worthy of heaven. but through this gate we are led to a new insight of that figure in the world which is closest to us and most precious, such an insight, it may well be, as pheidias and donatello brought to the men of their time.

another personality that i desired to analyse, and perhaps the greatest, was richard wagner. the leipzig youth, who hated the tawdry tinsel of the theatre, and was so little of a musical prodigy that he could never learn to play the piano, impelled by a strange instinct has yet wrought music and the stage to a poetic height never before approached. just as our arts rise out of our industries, so the manifold art of wagner—woven of music and poetry and drama—rises to something that is beyond art. wagner has made the largest impersonal synthesis yet attainable of the personal influences that thrill our lives, and has built it on the broadest physiological basis of our senses, so that faith has here become sight. such harmony is what we are accustomed to call heaven, and such art—to the mere musician cacophony and confusion—is truly called religion. it will take some time yet before we understand its place[xii] in life as a new expression of the human soul. generations must pass before it will be possible for a greater artist, by a still wider sensory appeal, to lift us to any higher heaven.

it is not the men of one idea—important as these are—who most truly represent the spirit of an age. such men most often represent the spirit of some earlier generation, which in them has become definitely crystallised. it is the men whose ideas are still free in pungent, penetrating, often confused solution that we may count nearest to the natural forces of an age, and it is these that are most interesting to analyse. in such men the feebler instincts of their fellows are concentrated, and the flaming energy of their spirits attracts few, repels most, of their fellows. it is, no doubt, because of this high degree of emotional exaltation that these men bring us to religion. it all comes to religion. i would point out to those who think that this result needs apology, that such men do not bring before us the pale, animistic children of dreams, who for so many ages have sought with their shadowy arms to beckon men away from the world to a home on the other side of the sky, but the robust children of our working life, the offspring of our living energies and emotions, the harmonised satisfaction of all that we have lived, of all that we have felt.

so the “new spirit” brings us to one of the[xiii] most ancient modes of human emotion. i sought to emphasise this in my introduction as well as in the conclusion, not altogether successfully for some of my readers, who have been led to credit me with virtues of modernity to which i can make no claim. so far from being “an apostle of modernity,” the “new spirit” that i am concerned with is but a quickening in the pulse of life such as may take place in any age, though my tracings are only of a recent acceleration. the greatest manifestation of the new spirit that i know of took place long since in the zoological history of the race when the immediate ancestor of man began to walk on his hind legs, so developing the skilful hands and restless brain that brought sin into the world. that strange and perilous method of locomotion—which carried other diseases and disabilities in its train, more concrete than sin—marked a revolutionary outburst of new life worth contemplating. yet even among the later and minor movements of life it is not the most recent that to me personally are the most attractive. the eiffel tower does not thrill me like the gray towers of chartres; i find the streets of zaragoza more interesting than those of manchester. and, on the other hand, there are modernities which seem to me old, very old, older than life itself.

to say this is no doubt to confess that the[xiv] personal element has a large place in this study of the “new spirit.” and it is true that, however honest a piece of mechanism your sphygmograph may be, if it is alive there is a very considerable personal equation which you must make up your mind to reckon with. i believe i am not altogether incapable of slinging facts at the head of the british goliath (with purely benevolent intentions), but on this occasion i wrote for my own pleasure: let me apologise to goliath for any annoyance i may so have caused him. i wished to speak for once, so far as might be, in my own voice, glad if here and there a reader cared to follow my impatient track, furnishing from the stores of his own knowledge and intelligence what was lacking in commentaries and pièces justificatives. i wished at the outset to take a bird’s-eye view of the world as it presented itself to me personally, only indicating by mere hints those parts of the field in which i was more specially concerned. and i wished also to indicate—perhaps once for all—my own faith in those large facts of nature which are unaffected by personal equation, and which harmonise all our petty individual activities. nature is bent on her own ends, and with infinite ingenuity uses all our energies to carry out her idea of increasing and multiplying the countless forms of life. death itself is but an accidental after-thought,[xv] a beneficial adaptation—as weismann would have us express it—only affecting the body, that servant of the immortal germ-cells which has grown so large and arrogant since the days when we metazoa were young in the world. that is the one master-thought of nature, or—shall we say?—her systematised delusion, her délire à forme chronique. but the malady, if it is one, is incurable. a friend of mine, under the influence of nitrous oxide, once found himself face to face with the almighty. being a man of earnest and philosophic temperament, he took advantage of the opportunity to demand passionately the meaning and aim of this tangled skein of things in which we find ourselves: “why have you placed us here? for what purpose have you submitted us to all this strife and misery? what is the solution of the riddle of life?” and then, uttered in a characteristic bass, came in one word the awful reply which my friend will never forget: “procreation.” i fear that that voice is, or might well have been, divine.

and yet why should one “fear”? we have our brief triumph. seeking out many curious things, we learn to know and to enjoy the earth. nature’s naughty children—whether artists or scientists or mystics—we may stand aside, contemplate her great object, and impudently elevate our fingers to our nose. it amuses us,[xvi] and scarcely hurts her. she cannot refuse us the by-play of her own adaptations. for it all comes of that primitive manifestation of the new spirit, the “fall,” which raised us on to our hind limbs and enabled us to drink of the cider of paradise.

h. e.

7th october, 1892.