ubdued tone and haziness of outline like that produced by seeing the
real objects when our vision is not absolutely directed to them. But
then if, as in nature, when you turn your gaze to one of these objects
in order to see it clearly, you cannot do so, this is a defect. Again, I
believe that we actually see in a good photograph better than in nature,
because the best camera lenses are more perfectly adjusted than our
eyes, and give objects at varying distances with better definition. Thus
in a picture we see at the same time near and distinct objects easily
and clearly, which in reality we cannot do. If we could do so, everyone
must acknowledge that our vision would be so much the more perfect and
our appreciation of the beauties of nature more intense and complete;
and in so far as a good landscape painting gives us this power it is
better than nature itself; and I think this may account for that
excessive and entrancing beauty of a good landscape or of a good
panorama. You will think these ideas horribly heterodox, but if we all
thought alike there would be nothing to write about and nothing to
learn. I quite agree with you, however, as to artists using both eyes to
paint and to see their paintings, but I think you quite mistake the
theory of looking through the "catalogue"; it is not because the picture
can be seen better with one eye, but because its effect can be better
seen when all lateral objects are hidden--the catalogue does this. A
double tube would be better, but that cannot be extemporised so easily.
Have you ever tried a stereograph taken with the camera only the
distance apart of the eyes? That must give _nature_. When the angle is
greater the views in the stereoscope show us, not nature, but a perfect
reduced model of nature seen nearer the eye.

It is curious that you should put Turner and the Pre-Raphaelites as
_opposed_ and representing _binocular_ and _monocular_ painting when
Turner himself praises up the Pre-Raphaelites and calls Holman Hunt the
greatest living painter!!...

Now for Mr. Darwin's book. You quite misunderstand Mr. D.'s statement in
the preface and his sentiments. I have, of course, been in
correspondence with him since I first sent him my little essay. His
conduct has been most liberal and disinterested. I think anyone who
reads the Linnean Society papers and his book will see it. I _do_ back
him up in his whole round of conclusions and look upon him as the
_Newton of Natural Hist