Footnote 36: Count Hermann Keyserling, _Philosophie als Kunst_ (1920), p. 2. He associates this with the need for a philosophy to possess a subjective personal character, without which it can have no value, indeed no content at all. Footnote 37: Croce, _Problemi d’ Estetica_, p. 15. I have to admit, for myself, that, while admiring the calm breadth of Croce’s wide outlook, it is sometimes my misfortune, in spite of myself, when I go to his works, to play the part of a Balaam _à rebours_. I go forth to bless: and, somehow, I curse. Footnote 38: James Hinton, a pioneer in so many fields, clearly saw that thinking is really an art fifty years ago. “Thinking is no mere mechanical process,” he wrote (_Chapters on the Art of Thinking_, pp. 43 _et seq._), “it is a great Art, the chief of all the Arts.... Those only can be called thinkers who have a native gift, a special endowment for the work, and have been trained, besides, by assiduous culture. And though we continually assume that every one is capable of thinking, do we not all feel that there is somehow a fallacy in this assumption? Do we not feel that what people set up as their ‘reasons’ for disbelieving or believing are often nothing of the sort?... The Art faculty is Imagination, the power of seeing the unseen, the power also of putting ourselves out of the centre, of reducing ourselves to our true proportions, of truly using our own impressions. And is not this in reality the chief element in the work of the thinker?... Science _is_ poetry.” Footnote 39: So far, indeed, as I am aware, I was responsible for the first English account of his work (outside philosophical journals); it appeared in the London _Nation and Athenæum_ a few years ago, and is partly embodied in the present chapter. Footnote 40: I have based this sketch on an attractive and illuminating account of his own development written by Professor Vaihinger for Dr. Raymund Schmidt’s highly valuable series, _Die Deutsche Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen_ (1921), vol. II. Footnote 41: “Most workers on the problem of atomic constitution,” remarks Sir Ernest Rutherford (_Nature_, 5th August, 1922), “take as a working hypothesis that the atoms of matter are purely electrical structures, and that ultimately it is hoped to explain all the properties of atoms as a result of certain combinations of the two fundamental units of positive and negative electricity, the proton and electron.” Footnote 42: Havelock Ellis, _Studies in the Psychology of Sex_, vol. I. Footnote 43: Otto Rank, _Der Künstler: Ansätze zu einer Sexual Psychologie_. Footnote 44: The sexual strain in the symbolism of language is touched on in my _Studies in the Psychology of Sex_, vol. V, and similar traits in primitive legends have been emphasised—many would say over-emphasised—by Freud and Jung. Footnote 45: