Such is also the opinion of the French writer, Guyau, who is highly esteemed by some authors of our day. In his book, _Les problèmes de l’esthétique contemporaine_, he speaks seriously of touch, taste, and smell as giving, or being capable of giving, aesthetic impressions: “_Si la couleur manque au toucher, il nous fournit en revanche une notion que l’œil seul ne peut nous donner, et qui a une valeur esthétique considérable, celle du doux, du soyeux du poli. Ce qui caractérise la beauté du velours, c’est sa douceur au toucher non moins que son brillant. Dans l’idée que nous nous faisons de la beauté d’une femme, le velouté de sa peau entre comme élément essentiel._” “_Chacun de nous probablement avec un peu d’attention se rappellera des jouissances du goût, qui out été de véritables jouissances esthétiques._”[6] And he recounts how a glass of milk drunk by him in the mountains gave him æsthetic enjoyment. So it turns out that the conception of art as consisting in making beauty manifest is not at all so simple as it seemed, especially now, when in this conception of beauty are included our sensations of touch and taste and smell, as they are by the latest æsthetic writers. But the ordinary man either does not know, or does not wish to know, all this, and is firmly convinced that all questions about art may be simply and clearly solved by acknowledging beauty to be the subject-matter of art. To him it seems clear and comprehensible that art consists in manifesting beauty, and that a reference to beauty will serve to explain all questions about art. But what is this beauty which forms the subject-matter of art? How is it defined? What is it? As is always the case, the more cloudy and confused the conception conveyed by a word, with the more _aplomb_ and self-assurance do people use that word, pretending that what is understood by it is so simple and clear that it is not worth while even to discuss what it actually means.