[166] Tolstoy, _What is Art?_ Julius Lange, _Om Kunstværdi_. Cf. also the remarks in Carpenter, _Angels’ Wings_, the poetic theory of Holmes, as set forth in _What is Poetry?_ and the definition of March, “Evolution and Psychology in Art,” _Mind_, N.S. v. p. 442. [167] Taine, _Philosophie de l’art_, p. 50. For a just appreciation of the part of feeling in art see also _De l’idéal dans l’art_, p. 152; Ruskin, _The Laws of Fésole_, chap. i. pp. 1-7; _Modern Painters_, iii. iv. i. §§ 13, 14; _Lectures on Art_, pp. 80, 81. [168] Hirth, _Aufgaben der Kunstphysiologie_, pp. 14-16. [169] Cf. von Stein, _Goethe und Schiller, Ästhetik der deutschen Klassiker_, p. 32. [170] Cf. the quotations from Schiller’s letters to Goethe, adduced by Harnack in _Die klassische Ästhetik der Deutschen_, pp. 89-92. [171] Leconte de Lisle, _Poèmes barbares_, p. 221. [172] Van Dyke, _Principles of Art_, p. 281. [173] Groos, _The Play of Animals_, pp. 327, 328. [174] Cf. especially March, “Evolution and Psychology in Art,” in _Mind_, N.S. v. (1896); Balfour, _The Evolution of Decorative Art_; Haddon, _Evolution in Art_, and the papers of Holmes in _Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. iv. vi., and in _The American Anthropologist_, iii. [175] For a recent defence of this theory see Tarde, _La logique sociale_, pp. 445, 446. [176] Cf. chap. vi. in the preceding. [177] Cf. Mallery in _Rep. Bur. Ethn._ i. pp. 283, 284, 347; Sayce, _Introd. to the Science of Language_, i. pp. 92-94, 105-107; ii. pp. 306-308. It is to be remarked that in maintaining the priority of pantomimic language Mr. Mallery always emphasises the “instinctive” character of this means of communication. Cp. _Rep. Bur._ i. pp. 340, 347. Professor Sayce seems to conceive gesture-language as consisting only of dramatically imitating “moves” or sounds, (_l.c._ i. p. 107). Professor Tylor, on the other hand, who takes up a critical position with regard to the theory of gesture-language as an intermediate stage of evolution, speaks of gesture-language as made up by delineations and indications (_Early Hist. of Mankind_, pp. 15, 16). In a theoretical discussion it is evidently necessary to maintain a strict distinction between these different kinds of pantomimic thought-conveyance, which are no doubt accompanied by different degrees of intention. Cp. Romanes, _Mental Evol. in Man_, pp. 86, 103. [178] Cf. Kussmaul in Ziemssen’s _Cyclopædia_, p. 14, esp. p. 587 (Disturbances of Speech.) [179] Cf. Romanes, _l.c._ pp. 113, 148, 149, on the influence exercised by the constructions of spoken language on the gesture-language of deaf-mutes.