The impossibility of such systematizations finds something like a proof in the strange attempts made to carry it out. The first and most common partition is that into arts of _hearing, sight,_ and _imagination_; as if eyes, ears, and imagination were on the same level and could be deduced from the same logical variable as _fundamentum divisionis._ Others have proposed the division into arts of _space_ and arts of _time,_ arts of _rest_; and _movement_; as if the concepts of space, time, rest and motion could determine special æsthetic forms and possess anything in common with art as such. Finally, others have amused themselves by dividing them into _classic_ and _romantic,_ or into _oriental, classic,_ and _romantic,_ thereby conferring the value of scientific concepts upon simple historical denominations, or falling into those rhetorical partitions of expressive forms, already criticized above; or into arts _that can only be seen from one side,_ like painting, and arts _that can be seen from all sides,_ like sculpture--and similar extravagances, which hold good neither in heaven nor on earth. The theory of the limits of the arts was perhaps at the time when it was put forward a beneficial critical reaction against those who believed in the possibility of remodelling one expression into another, as the _Iliad_ or _Paradise Lost_ into a series of paintings, and indeed held a poem to be of greater or lesser value according as it could or could not be translated into pictures by a painter. But if the rebellion were reasonable and resulted in victory, this does not mean that the arguments employed and the systems constructed for the purpose were sound. [Sidenote: _Criticism of the theory of the union of the arts._] Another theory which is a corollary to that of the arts and their limits, falls with them; that of the _union of the arts._ Given particular arts, distinct and limited, it was asked: Which is the most _powerful_? Do we not obtain _more powerful_ effects by _uniting_ several? We know nothing of this: we know only that in each particular case certain given artistic intuitions have need of definite physical means for their reproduction and other artistic intuitions of other means. We can obtain the effect of certain plays by simply reading them; others need declamation and scenic display: there are some artistic intuitions which need for their full externalization words, song, musical instruments, colours, statuary, architecture, actors; while others are quite complete in a slight outline made with the pen, or a few strokes of the pencil. But it is false to suppose that declamation and scenic effects and all the other things together that we have mentioned are _more powerful_ than a simple reading or a simple outline of pen or pencil; because each of those facts or groups of facts has, so to say, a different purpose, and the power of the means cannot be compared when the purposes are different.