literary defenders enchanted to find so much learning to point to
in his work, but it will all pass. The true artist will still be
instinctively spiritual.

Now I have used the word "spiritual" so often in connection with
art that you may reasonably ask for some definition of my meaning.
I am afraid it is easier to define spirituality in literature than
in art. But a literary definition may help. Spirituality is the
power certain minds have of apprehending formless spiritual essences,
of seeing the eternal in the transitory, of relating the particular
to the universal, the type to the archetype.

While I give this definition, I hope no artist will ever be insane
enough to make it the guiding principle of his art. I shudder to
think of any conscious attempt in a picture to relate the type to
the archetype. It is a philosophical definition, solely intended
for the spectator. I wish the artist only to paint his vision,
and whether he paints this, or another world he imagines, if it is
art it will be spiritual. I have given a definition of spirituality
in literature, but how now relate it to art? How illustrate its
presence? When Pater wrote his famous description of the Mona Lisa,
that intense and enigmatic face had evoked a spiritual mood. When
he saw in it the summed-up experience of many generations of humanity,
he felt in the picture that relation of the particular to the universal
I have spoken of. When we find human forms suggesting a superhuman
dignity, as in Watts' figures of Time and Death, or in the Phidian
marbles, the type is there melting into the archetype. When Millet
paints a peasant figure of today with some gesture we imagine the
first Sower must have used, it is the eternal in it which makes
the transitory impressive. But these are obvious instances, you