changes, rather than the purblind striving to see, which we call the
foresight of man.

Meanwhile, remember that I asked just now, what was amiss in Art or
in ourselves that this sickness was upon us. Nothing is wrong or
can be with Art in the abstract--that must always be good for
mankind, or we are all wrong together: but with Art, as we of these
latter days have known it, there is much wrong; nay, what are we
here for to-night if that is not so? were not the schools of art
founded all over the country some thirty years ago because we had
found out that popular art was fading--or perhaps had faded out from
amongst us?

As to the progress made since then in this country--and in this
country only, if at all--it is hard for me to speak without being
either ungracious or insincere, and yet speak I must. I say, then,
that an apparent external progress in some ways is obvious, but I do
not know how far that is hopeful, for time must try it, and prove
whether it be a passing fashion or the first token of a real stir
among the great mass of civilised men. To speak quite frankly, and
as one friend to another, I must needs say that even as I say those
words they seem too good to be true. And yet--who knows?--so wont
are we to frame history for the future as well as for the past, so
often are our eyes blind both when we look backward and when we look
forward, because we have been gazing so intently at our own days,
our own lines. May all be better than I think it!

At any rate let us count our gains, and set them against less
hopeful signs of the times. In England, then--and as far as I know,
in England only--painters of pictures have grown, I believe, more