No, it was not in momentary absence of mind that I claimed that man
could improve upon nature in the making of dyes. I not only said it, but
I proved it. I not only proved it, but I can back it up. I will give a
million dollars to anybody finding in nature dyestuffs as numerous,
varied, brilliant, pure and cheap as those that are manufactured in the
laboratory. I haven't that amount of money with me at the moment, but
the dyers would be glad to put it up for the discovery of a satisfactory
natural source for their tinctorial materials. This is not an opinion of
mine but a matter of fact, not to be decided by Shakespeare, who was not
acquainted with the aniline products.

Shakespeare in the passage quoted is indulging in his favorite amusement
of a play upon words. There is a possible and a proper sense of the word
"nature" that makes it include everything except the supernatural.
Therefore man and all his works belong to the realm of nature. A
tenement house in this sense is as "natural" as a bird's nest, a peapod
or a crystal.

But such a wide extension of the term destroys its distinctive value. It
is more convenient and quite as correct to use "nature" as I have used
it, in contradistinction to "art," meaning by the former the products of
the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms, excluding the designs,
inventions and constructions of man which we call "art."

We cannot, in a general and abstract fashion, say which is superior, art
or nature, because it all depends on the point of view. The worm loves a
rotten log into which he can bore. Man prefers a steel cabinet into
which the worm cannot bore. If man cannot improve Upon nature he has no
motive for making anything. Artificial products are therefore superior