The importance of such conceptions cannot be over-estimated. Directly or indirectly they influence the whole life, if not of their time, then of an age which succeeds them. The philosophy in question had existed for centuries, of course; what made it influential was the scientific backing it received, for, in these matters, Science has for some time past played the dominant rôle. Neither religion nor philosophy has been able successfully to oppose it; nowadays, indeed, they seem concerned only to agree with it. And if, here and there, a few artists have felt themselves outraged by what were supposed to be the teachings of Science, their influence has not been sufficient to deflect the stream. Such isolated protestants have had nothing but their feelings to oppose to what were considered to be facts, and the world, with what may have been a stupid honesty, has followed after the supposed facts. But the influence of Science on the arts would require a separate investigation. A certain stability is given to some serious art by its own tradition, and this may lessen its sensitiveness regarded merely as an indication of the spirit of its age. It is, nevertheless, very sensitive. In a history of modern literature, for example, it is impossible to exclude direct references to Darwin; it is usual, indeed, to devote some space to such “influences.” And the artist who is not at home in his age may be reduced to impotence by it. Dostoevsky is a magnificent example of a writer who, extremely sensitive to the spirit of his age, and profoundly understanding it, strove to transcend it. A smaller Dostoevsky might well have been nothing. And is a post-Darwinian Beethoven, or a post-Darwinian Dante, really conceivable?