FORE:Ink used in drawing should always be the best that can be procured; without good ink a draughtsman is continually annoyed by an imperfect working of pens, and the washing of the lines if there is shading to be done. The quality of ink can only be determined by experiment; the perfume that it contains, or tinfoil wrappers and Chinese labels, are no indication of quality; not even the price, unless it be with some first-class house. To prepare ink, I can recommend no better plan of learning than to ask some one who understands the matter. It is better to waste a little time in preparing it slowly than to be at a continual trouble with pens, which will occur if the ink is ground too rapidly or on a rough surface. To test ink, a few lines can be drawn on the margin of a sheet, noting the shade, how the ink flows from the pen, and whether the lines are sharp; after the lines have dried, cross them with a wet brush; if they wash readily, the ink is too soft; if they resist the water for a time, and then wash tardily, the ink is good. It cannot be expected that inks soluble in water can permanently resist its action after drying; [83] in fact, it is not desirable that drawing inks should do so, for in shading, outlines should be blended into the tints where the latter are deep, and this can only be effected by washing.How much originality there may be in the anti-materialistic arguments of Plotinus we cannot tell. He certainly marks a great advance on Plato and Aristotle, approximating, in this respect, much more closely than they do to the modern standpoint. The indivisibility and permanence of mind had, no doubt, been strongly insisted on by those teachers, in contrast with the extended and fluctuating nature of body. But they did not, like him, deduce these characteristics from a direct analysis of consciousness as such. Plato inferred the simplicity and self-identity of mind from the simplicity and self-identity of the ideas which it contemplates. Aristotle went a step further, or perhaps only expressed the same meaning more clearly, when he associated immateriality with the identity of subject and object in thought.444 Moreover, both Plato and Aristotle seem to have rested the whole spiritualistic case on objective rather than on subjective considerations; although, as we have seen, the subjective interest was what dominated all the while in their thoughts. Starting with the analogy of a living body, Plato argues, both in the Phaedrus and in the Laws, that soul must everywhere be the first cause of motion, and therefore must exist prior to body.445 The elaborate scientific analysis of Aristotle��s Physics leads up to a similar conclusion; and the ontological analysis of the Metaphysics starts with the distinction between Form and Matter in bodies, to end with the question of their relative priority, and of the objective machinery by which they are united. Plotinus, too, sometimes refers to mind as the source300 of physical order; but this is rather in deference to his authorities than because the necessity of such an explanation seemed to him, as it did to them, the deepest ground of a spiritualistic philosophy. On the other hand, his psychological arguments for the immateriality of the soul are drawn from a wider area of experience than theirs, feeling being taken into account no less than thought; instead of restricting himself to one particular kind of cognition for evidence of spiritual power, he looks for it in every manifestation of living personality.