FOOTNOTES: [46] In the works of Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites. [47] Observe, I speak of these various principles as self-evident, only under the present circumstances of the world, not as if they had always been so; and I call them now self-evident, not merely because they seem so to myself, but because they are felt to be so likewise by all the men in whom I place most trust. But granting that they are not so, then their very disputability proves the state of infancy above alleged, as characteristic of the world. For I do not suppose that any Christian reader will doubt the first great truth, that whatever facts or laws are important to mankind, God has made ascertainable by mankind; and that as the decision of all these questions is of vital importance to the race, that decision must have been long ago arrived at, unless they were still in a state of childhood. [48] I intended to have given a sketch in this place (above referred to) of the probable results of the daguerreotype and calotype within the next few years, in modifying the application of the engraver's art, but I have not had time to complete the experiments necessary to enable me to speak with certainty. Of one thing, however, I have little doubt, that an infinite service will soon be done to a large body of our engravers; namely, the making them draughtsmen (in black and white) on paper instead of steel. [49] I mean art in its highest sense. All that men do ingeniously is art, in one sense. In fact, we want a definition of the word "art" much more accurate than any in our minds at present. For, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "fine" or "high" art. All _art_ is a low and common thing, and what we indeed respect is not art at all, but _instinct_ or _inspiration_ expressed by the help of art. [50] "_Socrates_. This, then, was what I asked you; whether that which puts anything else to service, and the thing which is put to service by it, are always two different things? _Alcibiades._ I think so. _Socrates._ What shall we then say of the leather-cutter? Does he cut his leather with his instruments only, or with his hands also? _Alcibiades._ With his hands also. _Socrates._ Does he not use his eyes as well as his hands? _Alcibiades._ Yes. _Socrates._ And we agreed that the thing which uses and the thing which is used, were different things? _Alcibiades._ Yes. _Socrates._ Then the leather-cutter is not the same thing as his eyes or hands? _Alcibiades._ So it appears. _Socrates._ Does not, then, man make use of his whole body? _Alcibiades._ Assuredly. _Socrates._ Then the man is not the same thing as his body? _Alcibiades._ It seems so. _Socrates._ What, then, _is_ the man? _Alcibiades._ I know not." _Plato_, Alcibiades I.