In theory Croce is an extreme intellectualist in the principles of art. He locates all of esthetics in pure intuition, which is “lyrical,” that is, emotional, because it represents “the states of the soul,” “passionality, feeling, personality.” For Croce “natural beauty is simply a stimulus to esthetic reproduction, which presupposes previous production.” He is therefore an idealist in his conception of beauty. Even monuments of art seem to be only “stimulants to esthetic reproduction” and are not beautiful in themselves. In another place, however, Croce seems to be a realist. “Art is governed entirely by imagination; its only riches are images. Art does not classify objects nor pronounce them real or imaginary nor qualify them nor define them. Art feels and represents them. In as far as it apprehends ‘the real’ immediately before it is modified and made clear by the concept, it must be called pure intuition.” Quite to the other extreme in theory goes _The Psychology of Beauty_ by Ethel D. Puffer. This author has much about sensations and their physiology and but little about ideas. For Croce the last stage is in the idea; for Puffer it would seem to be in the work of art. “The low-lying wide expanse of some of the old Dutch landscapists give us repose, not because they remind us of the peaceful happiness of the land but because we cannot melt ourselves into all those horizontal lines without the restful feeling which accompanies such relaxation.” This passage might almost class the writer with the _Einfühlung_ school,—the school which gives Ruskin’s “pathetic fallacy” a number of advocates. Pathetic fallacy was a complete misnomer when applied by Ruskin to the well-known tropes of metaphor and personification. Kingsley was not insane enough to imagine that a wave was actually cruel and actually crawled. He likened the wave that drowned to a wild animal. But the school of Lipps in Germany desires you to moan with the wind and smile with the rose and lie flat with painted horizontal lines. Perhaps Puffer’s formula of stimulation with repose and Croce’s formula of intuition with lyricism can be reconciled with Aquinas’ definition of the beautiful, _quæ visa placent_. A study of Maurice De Wulf’s excellent little volume _L’Œuvre d’Art et la Beauté_ gives us briefly and clearly the neo-scholastic solution of the esthetic problem. The book is a good example of the reasonable discussion which has won for scholastic philosophy the universal designation as the philosophy of common sense. Longhaye’s _Théorie des Belles Lettres_, which is scholastic philosophy applied to literature, is another clear and sane presentation of the principles of the art. The reader who desires to supplement the popular exposition of this book with a systematic treatise on the esthetic and its application to literature is recommended to De Wulf and to Longhaye. English is rich in criticism but is deficient in works treating of the philosophy of beauty in literature.