How are we to regard the movement in painting that has succeeded the Impressionist movement? As the revenge of Raphael, a pilgrimage to Poussin, a reawakening of austerity, a barbarous or a civilised event? Creative Line once more asserted itself; the rather formless naturalism of the Impressionist evolved into what were once more synthetic and constructed works. The tenets of catching the Moment on the hop, of photographing that Moment of Nature with the eye, and so forth, gave way before the onslaught of Invention, recuperated, and come out of its disgrace, dating from the time of its supposed liaison with the Romantics. Impressionism was really a period of decay itself, or one of humdrum activity; a scavenging the ground after the riots and too popular festivities of the Romantics. But then what you will base your views of these movements on will really depend on what latitude you give, in your mind, to human enterprise: how closely you consider the possibilities of any short individual life: and whether fanciful claims of Progress excite you or not. Three or four human types--about as many as there are large sub-divisions of the human race--Yellow, White, Negritic--wrangle and wrestle about with each other, rise, flourish and decay, then once more ascend. The only flaw in this parallel is that the Black race may die out, the Yellow predominate, or all races mingle in a resultant grey-yellow mixture for some time. But the types of mind are likelier stubbornly to persist and maintain their struggle for mastery. There are different kinds of Romantics, different sorts of Classics, and so forth, but in any movement you may be sure that one of these great warring sub-divisions is at the bottom of the disturbance. It may be a composite movement. A movement at once Scientific and Classic is possible for instance. And all individuals are very mixed. Cézanne, considering himself probably an Impressionist, as he nominally was, only with, he would tell himself, a way of his own of doing Impressionism, has turned out to be something like a pure Classic. Dérain, one of the two or three most conspicuous figures in French painting to-day, is almost a pure Romantic, in feeling, and capable of every sentimentality. This is natural in a man for so long a disciple of Gauguin, and the pasticheur of Rousseau the Douanier, as we find him in his ballet, “La Boutique Fantasque.” Picasso has dealt, in earlier periods of his work, in every sentimental and romantic flavour. Most men with energy and illusion enough in them to do anything have something of the complete, composite character that I have in the preceding section attributed to the chosen, most universal Frenchman.