:<■>'. ffl&tswm fw.''.'- ■ - '''. THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE INTRODUCTION TO HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF FINE ART THE INTRODUCTION TO HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF FINE ART TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN WITH NOTES AND PREFATORY ESSAY BY BERNARD BOSANOUET, M.A. LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD i • • * * ' "» , ' * ' a 3 ■ « ' ■ , «• -, » * ... • . > > '> 3 3 ■ - . > - O I 6 ) « • 3 * »4 ■ ^3 LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., i PATERNOSTER SQUARE 1SS6 • t » . « « e* {The rights of translation and of reproduction are reser-jed.) AH1 9 '(/ 6f TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. Hegel's " ^Esthetik? or "Philosophy of Fine Art," is a work which should no longer be inaccessible to the English reading public, but the reproduction of which, in its complete form of 1600 pages, is a task not to be lightly undertaken. I know of three partial reproductions of the "sEsthetik" in English, viz. Mr. Bryant's translation of Part II.,* Mr. Kedney's short analysis of the entire work,f and Mr. Hastie's translation of Michelet's short "Philo- sophy of Art," J prefaced by Hegel's Introduction, partly translated and partly analysed. I wholly disapprove of analyses (among which may be reckoned Michelet's summary above men- tioned) as representations of Hegel's writing, which * New York, Appleton and Co. t Chicago, Griggs and Co., 1885. % Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd, 1886. b 2 230428 vj TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. is attractive chiefly by the force and freshness of its detail. I am convinced that Hegel should be allowed to speak for himself, and that failing the translation of the whole "sEsthetik" or of very copious selections, the best course is that which I have adopted in the present volume, viz. to trans- late the entire Introduction, including the chapter entitled, " Division of the Subject." This Introduc- tion is in Hegel's best manner — so far as he can be said to have literary manner at all, especially in a work which has been produced by editors from lecture-notes, — and is tolerably complete in itself. It is not contained as a whole in any of the above- mentioned works. I ought to say, however, that Mr. Hastie's translation is excellent in style ; but after the first thirty-four pages it also becomes an analysis. Nor is it wholly free from serious mistakes. I have hoped that the present volume may be of interest to many who, without being students of philo- sophy, are intelligent lovers of art. I have therefore done my best to interpret philosophical expressions, instead of merely furnishing their technical equiva- lents. I have also added a few short notes, either to explain literary allusions, or to complete the in- TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. vii terpretation of technical terms. The prefatory essay was written with a similar intention, not as original speculation, but as an assistance to general readers in apprehending the point of view from which Fine Art is regarded by Hegel and kindred writers. I have broken up the " Einleitung" or Introduc- tion proper, which is continuous in the original, into four chapters,* hoping that the arrangement of the discussion may be thus rendered easier to follow. The " Eintheilung" which forms my Chapter V., is a separate chapter in the original. The table of contents is translated from the original, excepting those portions of it which are enclosed in square brackets, [ ]. My literary notes are entirely borrowed from the late Mrs. F. C. Conybeare's translation of Scherer's " History of German Literature ; " a work invaluable to the English student, whose gratitude must for long be saddened by the untimely death of the translator. * Of these, Chapter III. is subdivided into two Parts, because of the disproportionate length of the division in the original to which it corresponds. CONTENTS FACE Prefatory Essay f.y the Translator ... ... vii CHAPTER I. The Range of ^Esthetic defined, and some Objections against the philosophy of art refuted (i-25). [a. ^Esthetic confined to Beauty of Art ... ... ... 2 jS. Does Art merit Scientific Treatment ? ... ... 5 7. Is Scientific Treatment appropriate to Art ? ... ... 8 5. Answer to £. ... ... ... ... ... 13 €. Answer to 7.] ... ... ... ... ... ... 20 CHAPTER II. Methods of Science Applicable to Beauty and Art (26-42). [l. Empirical Method — Art-scholarship ... ... ... 27 (a) Its Range ... ... ... ... ... 27 (b) It generates Rules and Theories ... ... ... 28 (c) The Rights of Genius ... ... ... ... 38 2. Abstract Reflection ... ... ... ... ... 40 3. The Philosophical Conception of Artistic Beauty, general notion of] ... ... ... ... ... 4 1 CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. The Philosophical Conception of Artistic Beauty, beginning with current ideas of art (43-io5). PAGE Part I. — The Work of Art as Made and as Sensuous ...43-78 1. Work of Art as Product of Human Activity ... ... 48 [() Hnmani nihil — ? ... ... ... ... 87 (c) Mitigation of the Passions ? ... ... ... 90 (a) How Art mitigates the Passions ... 91 (£) How Art purifies the Passions ... ... 94 (aa) It must have a Worthy Content ... 95 (£j8) But ought not to be Didactic ... ... 95 (77) Nor explicitly addressed to a Moral Purpose ... ... ... 98 (it) Art has its own Purpose as Revelation of Truth ... 105 CONTENTS. XI CHAPTER IV. Historical Deduction of the True Idea of Art in 2. Modern Philosophy (107-132). Kant [(a) Pleasure in Beauty not Appetitive (b) Pleasure in Beauty Universal (c) The Beautiful in its Teleological Aspect ... {d) Delight in the Beautiful necessary though feli\ Schiller, Winckelmann, Schelling The Irony PAGE I07 no III 112 "3 116 120 CHAPTER V. Division of the Subject (133—175). [I The Condition of Artistic Presentation is the Correspondence of Matter and Plastic Form J 33 2. Part I. — The Ideal 141 3- Part II.— The Types of Art . . . 144 (a) Symbolic Art 145 (j3) Classical Art 148 (7) Romantic Art 151 4- Part III.— The Several Arts 157 (a) Architecture 160 (/3) Sculpture 162 (7) Romantic Art, comprising 164 (i.) Painting 167 (ii.) Music 169 (iii.) Poetry 171 5- Conclusion] 173 PREFATORY ESSAY BY THE TRANSLATOR. ON THE TRUE CONCEPTION OF ANOTHER WORLD. " With such barren forms of thought, that are always in a world beyond, Philosophy has nothing to do. Its object is always something concrete, and in the highest sense present." — Hegel's Logic, Wallace's translation, p. 150. It will surprise many readers to be told that the words which I have quoted above embody the very essence of Hegelian thought. The Infinite, the supra- sensuous, the divine, are so connected in our minds with futile rackings of the imagination about remote matters which only distract us from our duties, that a philosophy which designates its problems by such terms as these seems self-condemned as cloudy and inane. But, all appearances to the contrary notwith- standing, Hegel is faithful to the present and the concrete. In the study of his philosophy we are always dealing with human experience. " My stress lay," says Mr. Browning,* " on the incidents in the * Preface to " Sordello." xiv PREFATORY ESSAY. development of a soul ; little else is worth study." For " a soul " read " the mind," and you have the subject-matter to which Hegel's eighteen close- printed volumes are devoted. The present intro- ductory remarks are meant to insist on this neglected point of view. I wish to point out, in two or three salient instances, the transformation undergone by speculative notions when sedulously applied to life, and restrained from generating an empty " beyond." By so doing I hope to pave the way for a due appreciation of Hegel's philosophy of fine art. That the world of mind, or the world above sense, exists as an actual and organized whole, is a truth most easily realized in the study of the beautiful. And to grasp this principle as Hegel applies it is nothing less than to acquire a new contact with spiritual life. The spiritual world, which is present, actual, and concrete, contains much besides beauty. But to apprehend one element of such a whole constitutes and presupposes a long step towards apprehending the rest. It is for this reason that I propose, in the first place, to explain, by prominent examples, the conception of a spiritual world which is present and actual, and then to let Hegel speak for himself on the particular sphere of art. So closely connected indeed are all the embodiments of mind, that the , Introduction to the " Philosophy of Fine Art " is \almost a microcosm of his entire system. THE OTHER WORLD. xv We know, to our cost, the popular conception of the supra-sensuous world. Whatever that world is, it is, as commonly thought of, not here and not now. That is to say, if here and now, it is so by a sort of miracle, at which we are called upon to wonder, as when angels are said to be near us, or the dead to know what we do. Again, it is a counterpart of our present world, and rather imperceptible to our senses, than in its nature beyond contact with sense as such. It is peopled by persons, who live eternally, which means through endless ages, and to whose actual communion with us, as also to our own with God, we look forward in the future. It even perhaps contains a supra-sensuous original corresponding to every thing and movement in this 'world of ours. And it does not necessarily deepen our conception of life, but only reduplicates it. Such a world, whatever we may think about its actual existence, is not the " other world " of philo- sophy. The " things not seen " of Plato or of Hegel are not a double or a projection of the existing world. Plato, indeed, wavered between the two conceptions in a way that should have warned his interpreters of the divergence in his track of thought. But in Hegel, at least, there is no ambiguity. The world of spirits with him is no world of ghosts. When we study the embodiments of mind or spirit in his pages, and read of law, prop erty, and na tional xvi PREFATORY ESSAY. unity ; of fine art, the religious community, and the intellect that has attained scientific self-conscious- ness, we may miss our other world with its obscure " beyond," but we at any rate feel ourselves to be dealing with something real, and with the deepest concerns of life. We may deny to such matters the titles which philosophy bestows upon them ; we may say that this is no " other world," no realm of spirits, nothing infinite or divine : but this matters little so long as we know what we are talking about, and are talking about the best we know. And what we discuss when Hegel is our guide, will ahvays be some great achievement or essential attribute of the human mind. He never asks, "Is it?" but always " What is it ? " and therefore has instruction, drawn from experience, even for those to whom the titles of his inquiries seem fraudulent or bombastic. These few remarks are not directed to maintain- ing any thesis about the reality of nature and of sense. Their object is to enforce a distinction which falls within the world which we know, and not between the world we know and another which we do not know. This distinction is real, and governs life. I am not denying any other distinction, but I am insisting on this. No really great philosopher, nor religious teacher, — neither Plato, nor Kant, nor St. Paul — can be understood unless we grasp this antithesis in the right way. All of these teachers THE OTHER WORLD. xvii have pointed men to another world. All of them, perhaps, were led at times by the very force and reality of their own thought into the fatal separa- tion that cancels its meaning. So strong was their sense of the gulf between the trifles and the realities of life, that they gave occasion to the indolent imagination — in themselves and in others — to transmute this gulf from a measure of moral effort into an inaccessibility that defies apprehension. But their purpose was to overcome this inaccessi- bility, not to heighten it. The hardest of all lessons in interpretation is to believe that great men mean what they say. We are below their level, and what they actually say seems impossible to us, till we have adulterated it to suit our own imbecility. Especially when they speak of the highest realities, we attach our notion of reality to what they pronounce to be real. And thus we baffle every attempt to deepen our ideas of the world in which we live. The work of intelligence is hard ; that of the sensuous fancy is easy ; and so we substitute the latter for the former. We are told, for instance, by Plato, that goodness, beauty, and truth are realities, but not visible or tangible. Instead of responding to the call so made on our intelligence by scrutinizing the nature and conditions of these intellectual facts — though we know well how tardily they are produced by the culture of ages — we xviii PREFATORY ESSAY. apply forthwith our idea of reality as something separate in space and time, and so " refute " Plato with ease, and remain as wise as we were before. And it is true that Plato, handling ideas of vast import with the mind and language of his day, sometimes by a similar error refutes himself* He makes, for instance, the disembodied soul see the invisible ideas. Thus he travesties his things of the mind as though they were things of sense, only not of our sense — thereby destroying the deeper difference of kind that alone enables them to find a place in our world. That his doctrine of ideas was really rooted, not in mysticism, but in scientific enthusiasm, is a truth that is veiled from us partly by his inconsistencies, but far more by our own erroneous preconceptions.! There is, however, a genuine distinction between " this " world and the " other " world, which is merely parodied by the vulgar antitheses between natural and supernatural, finite and infinite, phenomenal and noumenal. We sometimes hear it said, " The * " Endless duration makes good no better, nor white any whiter," is one of Aristotle's comments on Plato's " eternal " ideas, and is just, unless " eternal " conveys a difference of kind. t Whewell, I think, misinterprets Plato's language about astronomy in this sense. Plato is not decrying observation, but demanding a theoretical treatment of the laws of motion,— a remarkable anticipation of modern ideas. THE OTHER WORLD. xix / *» world is quite changed to me since I knew such a person," or " studied such a subject," or " had suggested to me such an idea." The expression may be literally true ; and we do not commonly exaggerate, but vastly underrate its import. We read, for instance, in a good authority, "These twenty kinds of birds (which Virgil mentions) do not correspond so much to our species as to our genera ; for the Greeks and Romans, I need hardly say, had only very rough-and-ready methods of classification, just as is the case with uneducated people at the present day."* Any one may verify the same fact as regards the observation of flowers. Every yellow ranunculus is called a "butter-cup," every large white umbel- lifer a " hemlock." These, with hundreds of other differences of perception, affect the surroundings in which men consciously live, at least as much as a considerable degree of deafness or blindness. It is no metaphor, but literal fact, to say that man's whole environment is transformed by the training even of his mere apprehension of natural objects. But there is more in the matter than this. Without going into metaphysics, which I wish to avoid, I cannot, indeed, maintain that mind "makes" natural objects, although by enabling us to perceive them it unquestionably makes our immediate conscious world. My individual consciousness does not make or create the differences * " A Year with the Birds," by an Oxford Tutor. c xx PREFATORY ESSAY. between the species of ranunculus, although it does create my knowledge of them. But when we come to speak of the world of morals or art or politics, we may venture much further in our assertions. The actual facts of this world do directly arise out of and are causally sustained by conscious intelligence ; and these facts form the world above sense. The unity of a Christian church or congregation is a governing fact of life ; so is that of a family or a nation ; so, we may hope, will that of humanity come to be. What is this unity ? Is it visible and tangible, like the unity of a human body? No, the unity is "ideal;" that is, it exists in the medium of thought only ; it is made up of certain sentiments, purposes, and ideas. What even of an army ? Here, too, an ideal unity is the mainspring of action. Without mutual intelligence and reciprocal reliance you may have a mob, but you cannot have an army. But all these conditions exist and can exist in the mind only. An army, qua army, is not a mere fact of sense ; for not only does it need mind to perceive it — a heap of sand does that — but it also needs mind to make it. The world of these governing facts of life is the world of the things not seen, the object of reason, the world of the truly infinite and divine. It is, of course, a false antithesis to contrast seeing with the bodily eye and seeing with the mind's eye. The seeing eye is always the mind's eye. The distinction THE OTHER WORLD. xxi between sense and spirit or intellect is a distinction within the mind, just as is St. Paul's opposition between the spirit and the flesh. Nevertheless, the mind that only sees colour — sense or sense-perception — is different from the mind that sees beauty, the self-conscious spirit. The latter includes the former, but the former does not include the latter. To the one the colour is the ultimate fact ; to the other it is an element in a thing of beauty. This relation prevails throughout between the world of sense and the world above sense. The " things not seen," philosophically speaking, are no world of existences or of intelligences co-ordinate with and severed from this present world. They are a value, an import, a significance, superadded to the phenomenal world, which may thus be said, though with some risk of misunderstanding, to be degraded into a symbol. The house, the cathedral, the judge's robe, the general's uniform, are ultimate facts for the child or the savage ; but for the civilized man they are symbols of domestic life, of the Church, and of the State. Even where the supra-sensuous world has its purest expression, in the knowledge and will of intelligent beings, it presupposes a sensuous world as the material of ideas and of actions. " This " world and the "other" world are continuous and inseparable, and all men must live in some degree for both. But the completion of the Noumenal world, and the xxii PREFATORY ESSAY. apprehension of its reality and completeness, is the task by fulfilling which humanity advances. I pass to the interpretation, neither technical nor controversial, of one or two of Hegel's most alarming phrases. The " infinite " seems to practical minds the very opposite of anything real, present, or valuable. As the description of life, it is the mere negation of the life we know ; as the description of a purpose, it is the very antithesis of any purpose that we can con- ceive to be attainable ; as the description of a being, it appears to be formed by denying every predicate which we attach to personality. And I could wish that Hegel had not selected this much-abused term as the distinctive predicate of what is most real and most precious in life. He adhered to it, no doubt, because his infinity, though different in nature to that of common logic, yet rightly fills the place and meets the problem of that conception. I will attempt to explain how this can be, and what we are discussing when we read about infinity in the Hegelian philo- sophy. It is an obvious remark, that infinity was a symbol of evil in Hellenic speculation, whereas to Christian and modern thought it is identified with good. Much idle talk has arisen on this account, as to the limita- tion of the Hellenic mind. For in fact, the Finite ascribed to Pythagoras, and the idea of limit and pro- THE OTHER WORLD. xxiii portion in Plato or in Aristotle, are far more nearly akin to true infinity than is the Infinite of modern popular philosophy. Infinite means the negation of limit. Now, common infinity, which may be identified in general with enumeration ad infinitum, — the false infinity of Hegel — is the attempt to negate or transcend a limit which inevitably recurs. It arises from attempt- ing a task or problem in the wrong way, so that we may go on for ever without making any advance towards its achievement. All quantitative infinity — which of course has its definite uses, subject to proper reservations — is of this nature. A process does not change its character by mere continuance, and the aggregate of a million units is no .more free from limitation than the aggregate of ten. A defect in kind cannot be compensated by mere quantity. We see the fallacious attempt in savage, barbaric, or vulgar art. Meaningless iteration, objectless labour, enormous size, extravagant costliness, indicate the effort to satisfy man's need of expression by the mere accumulation of work without adequate idea or pur- pose. But such efforts, however stupendous, never attain their goal. They constitute a recurrent failure to transcend a recurrent limit, precisely analogous to enumeration ad infinitum. A hundred thousand pounds' worth of bricks and mortar comes no nearer to the embodiment of mind than a thousand pounds' worth. To attempt adequate expression by mere xxiv PREFATORY ESSAY. aggregation of cost or size is therefore to fall into the infinite process or the false infinity. Another well-known instance is the pursuit of happiness in the form of " pleasure for pleasure's sake." The recurrence of unchanging units leaves us where we were. A process which does not change remains the same, and if it did not bring satisfaction at first, will not do so at last.* We might as well go on producing parallels to infinity, in the hope that somehow or somewhere they may meet. An infinite straight line may serve as a type of the kind of infinity we are considering. Infinity in the Hegelian sense does not partake in any way of this endlessness, or of the unreality which attaches to it. Its root-idea is self-completeness or satis- faction. That which is " infinite " is without boundary, because it does not refer beyond itself for explanation, or for justification ; and therefore, in all human existence or production infinity can only be an aspect or element. A picture, for instance, regarded as a work of fine art, justifies itself, gives satisfaction directly and with- out raising questions of cause or of comparison, and is in this sense — i.e. in respect of its beauty — regarded as " infinite." When, on the other hand, we consider this same work of art as an historical phenomenon, as a link in a chain of causation — e.g. as elucidating the development of a school, or proving the existence of * See note above, p. xii. THE OTHER WORLD. xxv a certain technical process at a certain date — then we go beyond itself for its interest and explanation, and depress it at once into a finite object. The finite is that which presents itself as incomplete ; the infinite that which presents itself as complete, and which, therefore, does not force upon us the fact of its limita- tation. This character belongs in the highest degree to self-conscious mind, as realized in the world above sense ; and in some degree to all elements of that world — for instance, to the State — in as far as they represent man's realized self-consciousness. It is the nature of self-consciousness to be infinite, because it is its nature to take into itself what was opposed to it, and thus to make itself into an organized sphere that has value and reality within, and not beyond itself. If false infinity was represented by an infinite straight line, true infinity may be compared to a circle or a sphere. The distinction between true and false infinity is of the profoundest moral import. The sickly yearn- ing that longs only to escape from the real, rooted in the antithesis between the infinite and the actual or concrete, or in the idea of the monotonous " infini " which is one with the " abime" or the " gonffre" is appraised by this test at its true value. It is seen to rest on a mere pathetic fallacy of thought and sentiment. So far from the infinite being remote, abstract, unreal, nothing but the infinite can be truly xxvi PREFATORY ESSAY. present, concrete, and real. The finite always refers us away and away through an endless series of causes, of effects, or of relations. The infinite is individual, and bears the character of knowledge, achievement, attainment. In short, the actual realities which we have in mind when, in philosophy, we speak of the infinite, are such as a nation that is conscious of its unity and general will, or the realm of fine art as the recognition of man's higher nature, or the religious community with its conviction of an indwelling Deity. Now, whether we like the term Infinite or not, whether or no we think that man's life can be ex- plained and justified within the limits of these aims and these phenomena, there is no doubt that these matters are real, and are the most momentous of realities. In acquainting ourselves with their struc- ture, evolution, and relation to individual life, we are at least not wasting time, nor treating of matters beyond human intelligence. There is a very similar contrast in the conception of human Freedom. " Free will " is so old a vexed question, that though the conflict still rages fitfully round it, the world hardly conceives that much can turn upon its decision. But when in place of the abstract, " Is man free ? " we are confronted with the concrete inquiry, " When, in what, and as what, does man carry out his will with least hindrance and with fullest satisfaction ? " then we have before us the THE OTHER WORLD. xxvii actual phenomena of civilization, instead of an idle and abstract Yes or No. Man's Freedom, in the sense thus contemplated, lies in the spiritual or supra-sensuous world by which his humanity is realized, and in which his will finds fulfilment. The family, for example, property, and law are the first steps of man's freedom. In them the individual's will obtains and bestows recognition as an agent in a society whose bond of union is ideal — i.e. existing only in consciousness ; and this recog- nition develops into duties and rights. It is in these that man finds something to live for, something in which and for the sake of which to assert himself. As society develops he lives on the whole more in the civilized or spiritual world, and less in the savage or purely natural world. His will, which is himself, expands with the institutions and ideas that form its purpose, and the history of this expansion is the history of human freedom. Nothing is more shallow, more barbarously irrational, than to regard the pro- gress of civilization as the accumulation of restric- tions. Laws and rules are a necessary aspect of extended capacities. Every power that we gain has a positive nature, and therefore involves positive conditions, and every positive condition has negative relations. To accomplish a particular purpose you must go to work in a particular way, and in no other way. To complain of this is like complaining of a xxviii PREFATORY ESSAY. house because it has a definite shape. If freedom means absence of attributes, empty space is " freer " than any edifice. Of course a house may be so ugly that we may say we would rather have none at all. Civilization may bring such horrors that we may say " rather savagery than this ; " but in neither case are we serious. Great as are the vices of civilization, it is only in civilization that man becomes human, spiritual, and free. The effort to grasp and apply such an idea as this can hardly be barren. It brings us face to face with concrete facts of history, and of man's actual motives and purposes. True philosophy here, as everywhere, plunges into the concrete and the real ; it is the indolent abstract fancy that thrusts problems away into the remote "beyond" or into futile abstrac- tion. Plato, the philosopher, knows well that the mind is free when it achieves what as a whole it truly wills. But Plato, the allegorist and imaginative preacher, refers the soul's freedom to a fleeting moment of ante-natal choice, which he vainly strives to exempt from causal influence. Pictorial imagina- tion, with its ready reference to occurrences in past and future, is the great foe to philosophic intelligence. Finally, it is impossible to omit all reference to the notion of an immanent Deity, which forms the very centre of Hegel's thought. When an unspecula- tive English reader first meets with Hegel's passionate THE OTHER WORLD. xxix insistence that God is not unknowable, that He necessarily reveals himself as a Trinity of persons, and that to deny this is to represent men as " the heathen who know not God," he feels as if he had taken sand into his mouth. He is inclined to ask what these Neo-Platonic or mediaeval doctrines are doing in the nineteenth century, and why we should resuscitate dead logomachies that can have no possible value for life or conduct. Now, I must not attempt here to discuss the difficult question of Hegel's ultimate conception of the being of God, and I am bound to warn any one who may read these pages that I only profess to reproduce one — though by far the most prominent — side of that conception. But, subject to this reservation, I have no hesitation in saying, that our own prejudices form the only hindrance to our seeing that Hegel's subject- matter is here, as elsewhere, human life. He gives us what he takes to be the literal truth, and we will have it to be metaphor. Verbally contradicting Kant, he accepts, completes, and enforces Kant's thought. " Revelation can never be the true ground of religion," said Kant ; " for revelation is an historical accident, and religion is a rational necessity of man's intelligent nature." " Revelation is the only true know- ledge of God and ground of religion," says Hegel, " because revelation consists in the realization of God in mans intelligent nature." We are, however, not unac- xxx PREFATORY ESSAY. customed to such phrases, and our imagination is equal to its habitual task of evading their meaning. We take them to be a strong metaphor, meaning that God, who is a sort of ghostly being a long way off, is, notwithstanding, more or less within the know- ledge of our minds, and so is " in " them, as a book which is actually in London may be in my memory when I am in Scotland. Now, right or wrong, this is not what Hegel means. He means what he says ; that God is spirit or mind,* and exists in the medium of mind, which is actual as intelligence,* for us at a7iy rate, only in the human self-consciousness. The thought is hard from its very simplicity, and we struggle, as always, to avoid grasping it. We imagine spirits as made of a sort of thin matter, and so as existing just like bodies, although we call them dis- embodied. And then we think of this disembodied form as an alternative to human form, and suppose spirit to have somehow a purer existence apart from human body. This error really springs from ima- gining the two as existences of the same kind, and so conflicting, and from not realizing the notion of spirit as mind or self-consciousness, which is the only way of conceiving its actual presence in our world. * The fusion of these meanings in the German " Geist " gives a force to his pleading which English cannot render. He appeals, e.g., triumphantly to " God is a Spirit," i.e. not " a ghost " but " mind." THE OTHER WORLD. xxxi Mind uses sensuous existence as its symbol ; perhaps even needs it. The poet who has hit Hegel's thought so nearly,* fails here : — • " This weight of body and limb, Are they not sign and symbol of thy division from Him?" Here we leave the track of the higher Pantheism for that of vulgar mysticism. Spiritual being is conceived as somehow incompatible with bodily shape, either because incapable of any concrete embodiment, or because it has a quasi-material shape of its own. Now, this is just the reverse of the Hegelian idea. According to Hegel, it is only in the human form that intelligence can for us find its full expression. The notion of a spiritual body other than and incompatible with the natural body does not arise. Spirit exists in the medium of conscious- ness, not in a peculiar kind of matter. The spirituali- zation of the natural body is not to be looked for in an astral or angel body, but in the gait and gesture, the significance and dignity, that make the body of the civilized man the outward image of his soul, and distinguish him from the savage as from the animal. The human soul becomes actual itself, and visible to * See Tennyson's " Higher Pantheism," especially the fine lines — " Speak to Him thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet, Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." xxxii PREFATORY ESSAY. others, only by moulding the body into its symbol and instrument. It ought to have been an axiom of physiology, Hegel says, that the series of animated forms must necessarily lead up to that of man. For this is the only sensuous form in which mind could attain adequate manifestation. Thus anthropomor- phism in fine art is no accident, nor an unworthy portrayal of divinity. If the Deity is to be symbolized to sense, it must be in the image of man. The symbol is not indeed the reality, as the sensuous image is not conscious thought ; but this is a defect inherent in artistic presentation, and not attributable to anthropomorphism in particular. It is obvious that in the light of such a conception, a speculative import can be attached to the doctrine of the Incarnation, and Hegel's reading of Christian ideas is, in fact, to be interpreted entirely in this sense. This is not the place to go deeper into such views, which, however profound, may perhaps continue to seem non-natural expositions of Christian dogma. I am only concerned to show how here, also, the speculative idea, operating upon the concrete and actual, generates a fresh and inspiring insight into life and conduct. Few chapters of anthropology are more thorough, profound, and suggestive than Hegel's account of the " actual soul ; " i.e. of the habits and attributes which make the body distinctively human by stamping it with the impress of mind. Nor has THE OTHER WORLD. xxxiii philosophic insight ever done better service to the history of religion than in grasping the essence of Christianity as the unity, (not merely the union) of the divine and human nature. Among the things which are spiritually discerned, an important place belongs to beauty. As a boun- dary and transition between sense and thought, it is peculiarly fitted to illustrate the reality which we claim, in contradistinction to mere sensuous appear- ance, for what is best in life. Many who distrust Hegelian formulae are convinced that beauty at least is real. They will admit that fine art and the recog- nition of beauty are not trifles, not amusements, but rank high among the interests that give life its value. All such will find themselves in sympathy with the purpose of a great philosopher who has bent all the power of his genius and his industry to vindicating a place for art as an embodiment of the divine nature. The Introduction to Hegel's "^Esthetic," which is all that it was possible to reproduce in the present volume, lacks, of course, the solidity and detailed elaboration of the treatise. Yet to all who care for thorough and noble thought on a great subject, and for a defence of their faith in the true spiritual realities, I have hope that the ensuing pages, however marred by imperfect translation, will be welcome. HEGEL'S .ESTHETIC. INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. THE RANGE OF .ESTHETIC DEFINED, AND SOME OBJECTIONS REFUTED. The present course of lectures deals with " ^Esthetic." Their subject is the wide realm of the beautiful, and, more particularly, their province is Art — we may restrict it, indeed, to Fine Art. The name " ^Esthetic " in its natural sense is not quite appropriate to this subject. "^Esthetic" means more precisely the science of sensation or feeling. Thus understood, it arose as a new science, or rather as something that was to become a branch of philosophy for the first time,* in the school of * In Baumgarten's "^Esthetica," 1750. See LotzeV/Esthetik in Deutschland," p. 4, and Scherer's " Hist, of German Litera- ture," Engl. Transl., ii. 25. E 2 THE RANGE OF AESTHETIC. [Chap. I. Wolff, at the epoch when works of art were being considered in Germany in the light of the feelings which they were supposed to evoke — feelings of pleasure, admiration, fear, pity, etc. The name was so inappropriate, or, strictly speaking, so superficial, that for this reason it was attempted to form other names, e.g. " Kallistic." But this name, again, is unsatisfactory, for the science to be designated does not treat of beauty in general, but merely of artistic beauty. We shall, therefore, permit the name ./Esthetic to stand, because it is nothing but a name, and so is indifferent to us, and, moreover, has up to a certain point passed into common language. As a name, therefore, it may be retained. The proper expression, however, for our science is the " Philosophy of Art," or, more definitely, the " Philosophy of Fine Art." a. By the above expression we at once exclude the beauty of Nature. Such a limitation of our subject may appear to be an arbitrary demarcation, resting on the principle that every science has the prerogative of marking out its boundaries at pleasure. But this is not the sense in which we are to under- stand the limitation of ^Esthetic to the beauty of art. It is true that in common life we are in the habit of speaking of beautiful colour, a beautiful sky, a beautiful river, and, moreover, of beautiful flowers, beautiful animals, and, above all, of beautiful human beings. We will not just now enter into the controversy how Chap. I.] ART HIGHER THAN NATURE. 3 far such objects can justly have the attribute of beauty ascribed to them, or how far, speaking generally, natural beauty ought to be recognized as existing besides artistic beauty. We may, however, begin at once by asserting that artistic beauty stands & Jiiglier than nature. For the beauty of art is the beauty that is born — born again, that is — of the mind;* and by as much as the mind and its products are higher than nature and its appearances, by so much the beauty of art is higher than the beauty of nature. Indeed, if we look at it formally — -i.e. only considering in what way it exists, not what there is in it, — even a silly fancy such as may pass through a man's head is higher than any product of nature ; for such a fancy must at least be characterized by intellectual being and by freedom.f In respect of its content, on the other hand, the sun, for instance, appears to us to be an absolutely necessary factor in the universe, while a blundering notion passes away as accidental and transient ; but yet, in its own being, a natural existence such as the sun is indifferent,^ is not free or self-conscious, while if we consider it in * Aus dem Geiste — allusion to "born of water and of the Spirit." f Not in the sense of fancying what you please, but in the technical sense of having separate existence ; detached, so to speak, from the general background of things, not a mere concurrence of other elements. % Has no power of distinguishing itself from other things. 4 THE RANGE OF ^ESTHETIC. [Chap. I. its necessary connection with other things we are not regarding it by itself or for its own sake, and, there- fore, not as beautiful. To say, as we have said, in general terms, that mind and its artistic beauty stand higher than natural beauty, is no doubt to determine almost nothing. For "higher" is an utterly indefinite expression, which designates the beauty of nature and that of art as if merely standing side by side in the space of the imagination, and states the difference between them as purely quantitative, and, therefore, purely external. But the mind and its artistic beauty, in being "higher" as compared with nature, have a distinction which is not simply relative. Mind, and mind only, is capable of truth, and comprehends in itself all that is, so that whatever is beautiful can only be really and truly beautiful as partaking in this higher element and as created thereby. In this sense the beauty of nature reveals itself as but a reflection of the beauty which belongs to the mind, as an imperfect, incomplete mode of being, as a mode whose really substantial element is contained in the mind itself. Moreover, we shall find the restriction to fine art very natural, for however much has been and is said — though less by the ancients than by ourselves — of the beauties of nature, yet no one has taken it into his head to emphasize the point of view of the beauty of natural objects, and to attempt to make a Chap. I.] BEAUTY OF NATURE EXCLUDED. 5 science, a systematic account of these beauties. The aspect of Utility, indeed, has been accentuated, and a science, e.g. of natural things useful against diseases a materia medica, has been compiled, consisting in a description of minerals, chemical products, plants, and animals that are of use for curative purposes. But the realm of nature has not been arrayed and estimated under the aspect of beauty. In dealing with natural beauty we find ourselves too open to vagueness, and too destitute of a criterion ; for which reason such a review would have little interest. The above prefatory remarks upon beauty in nature and in art, upon the relation between the two, and the exclusion of the former from the region of the subject proper, are meant to remove any idea that the limitation of our science is owing merely to choice and to caprice. But this is not the place to demonstrate the above relation, for the consideration of it falls within our science itself, and therefore it cannot be discussed and demonstrated till later. Supposing that for the present we have limited ourselves to the beauty of art, this first step brings us at once into contact with fresh difficulties. /3. The first thing that may suggest itself to us is the difficulty whether fine art shows itself to deserve a scientific treatment. Beauty and art, no doubt, pervade all the business of life like a kindly genius, and form the bright adornment of all our 6 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. surroundings, both mental and material, soothing the sadness of our condition and the embarrassments of real life, killing time in entertaining fashion, and where there is nothing good to be achieved, occupying the place of what is vicious, better, at any rate, than vice. Yet although art presses in with its pleasing shapes on every possible occasion, from the rude- adornments of the savage to the splendour of the temple with its untold wealth of decoration, still these shapes themselves appear to fall outside the real purposes of life. And even if the creations of art do not prove detrimental to our graver purposes, if they appear at times actually to further them by keeping evil at a distance, still it is so far true that art belongs rather to the relaxation and leisure of the mind, while the substantive interests of life demand its exertion. Hence it may seem unsuitable and pedantic to treat with scientific seriousness what is not in itself of a serious nature. In any case, upon such a view art appears as a superfluity, even if the softening of the mental temper which pre-occupation with beauty has power to produce, does not turn out a detrimental, because effeminating influence. In this aspect of the matter, the fine arts being granted to be a luxury, it has been thought necessary in various ways to take up their defence with reference to their relation towards practical necessities, and more especially towards morality and piety ; and, as Chap. I.] IS ART UNWORTHY OF STUDY? 7 it is impossible to demonstrate their harmlessness, at least to make it credible that the mental luxury in question afforded a larger sum of advantages than of disadvantages. With this view very serious aims have been ascribed to art, and it has been recommended in various ways as a mediator between reason and sensuousness, between inclination and duty, as the reconciler of these elements in the obstinate conflict and repulsion which their collision generates. But the opinion may be maintained that, assuming such aims of art, more serious though they are, nothing is gained for reason and duty by the attempt at mediation, because these principles, as essentially incapable of intermixture, can be parties to no such compromise, but demand in their manifestation the same purity which they have in themselves. And it might be said that art itself is not made any more worthy of scientific discussion by such treatment, seeing that it is still doubly a servant — to higher aims, no doubt, on the one hand, but none the less to vacuity and frivolity on the other; and in such service can at best only display itself as a means, instead of being an end pursued for its own sake. Finally, art, considered as a means, seems to labour under this defect of form, that, supposing it to be subordinated to serious ends, and to produce results of importance, still the means employed by art for such purposes is deception. For beauty has its being 8 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. in appearance.* Now, it will readily be admitted that an aim which is real and true in itself ought not to be attained by deception, and if it does here and there achieve some success in this way, that can only be the case to a limited extent, and even then deception cannot approve itself as the right means. For the means should correspond to the dignity of the end, and only what is real and true, not semblance or deception, has power to create what is real and true ; just as science, for instance, has to consider he true interests of the mind in accordance with the truth of reality and the true way of conceiving it. In all these respects it may appear as if fine art were unworthy of scientific consideration ; because, as is alleged, it is at best a pleasing amusement, and even if it pursues more serious aims is in contradiction with their nature, but is at best the mere servant alike of amusement and of serious aims, and yet has at command, whether as the element of its being or as the vehicle of its action, nothing beyond deception and semblance. y. But, in the second place, it is a still more prob- able aspect of the question that, even if fine art were to form a subject of philosophical reflections in a general way, it would be no appropriate matter for strictly scientific treatment. The beauty of art presents itself to sense, to feeling, to perception, to imagination ; its * " Das Schbne — in dem Scheine" Chap. I.] IS ART UNSUITABLE FOR STUDY? 9 sphere is not that of thought, and the apprehension of its activity and its productions demand another organ than that of the scientific intelligence. More- over, what we enjoy in the beauty of art is precisely the freedom of its productive and plastic energy. In the origination, as in the contemplation, of its crea- tions we appear to escape wholly from the fetters of rule and regularity. In the forms of art we seek for repose and animation in place of the austerity of the reign of law and the sombre self-concentration of thought ; we would exchange the shadowland of the idea for cheerful vigorous reality. And lastly, the source of artistic creations is the free activity of fancy, which in her imagination is more free than nature's self. Not only has art at command the Avhole wealth of natural forms in the brilliant variety of their ap- pearance, but also the creative imagination has power to expatiate inexhaustibly beyond their limit in pro- ducts of its own. It may be supposed that, in presence of this immeasurable abundance of inspiration and its free creations, thought will necessarily lose the courage to bring them completely before it, to criticize them, and to array them under its universal formulas. Science, on the contrary, every one admits, is com- pelled by its form to busy itself with thought which abstracts from the mass of particulars. For this reason, on the one hand, imagination with its contingency and caprice — that is, the organ of artistic activity and io OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. enjoyment — is of necessity excluded from science. And on the other hand, seeing that art is what cheers and animates the dull and withered dryness of the idea, reconciles with reality its abstraction and its dis- sociation therefrom, and supplies out of the real world what is lacking to the notion, it follows, we may think, that a purely intellectual treatment of art destroys this very means of supplementation, annihilates it, and reduces the idea once more to its simplicity devoid of reality, and to its shadowy abstractness. And further, it is objected that science, as a matter of content, occupies itself with what is necessary. Now, if ^Esthetic puts aside the beauty of nature, we not only gain nothing in respect of necessity, but to all appearance have got further away from it. For the expression Nature at once gives us the idea of Neces- sity and Uniformity,* that is to say, of a behaviour which may be hoped to be akin to science, and capable of submitting thereto. But in the mind, i generally, and more particularly in the imagination, | compared with nature, caprice and lawlessness are supposed to be peculiarly at home ; and these with- draw themselves as a matter of course from all scien- tific explanation. Thus in all these aspects — in origin, in effect, and in range — fine art, instead of showing itself fitted for scientific study, seems rather in its own right to resist * " Gcsetzmassigkeit." Chap. I.] BASIS OF THE OBJECTIONS. n the regulating activity of thought, and to be un- suitable for strict scientific discussion. These and similar objections against a genuinely scientific treatment of fine art are drawn from com- mon ideas, points of view, and considerations, which may be read ad nauseam in full elaboration in the older writers upon beauty and the fine arts, especially in the works of French authors. And in part they contain facts which have a certain truth ; in part, too, the argumentation * based upon these facts appears plausible at first sight. Thus, e.g., there is the fact that the forms of beauty are as manifold as the phe- nomenon of beauty is omnipresent ; and from this, if we choose, we may proceed to conclude to a universal impulse of Beauty in human nature, and then go on to the further inference : that because ideas of beauty are so endlessly various, and therefore, as seems obvious, are something particular,] it follows that there can be no universal laws of beauty and of taste. Before it is possible for us to turn from such considerations to our subject proper, it is our busi- ness to devote a brief introductory discussion to the objections and doubts which have been raised. In the first place, as regards the worthiness of art to be * u Raisonnement" — a disparaging term in Hegel. t " Particular " — different unconnected matters, considered as merely thrown together in an aggregate, or occurring in a series ; opposed to parts or cases united by an essential principle. 12 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. scientifically considered, it is no doubt the case that art can be employed as a fleeting pastime, to serve the ends of pleasure and entertainment, to decorate our surroundings, to impart pleasantness to the ex- ternal conditions of our life, and to emphasize other objects by means of ornament. In this mode of employment art is indeed not independent, not free, but servile. But what we mean to consider, is the art which is free in its end as in its means. That art is in the abstract capable of serving other aims, and of being a mere pastime, is moreover a relation which it shares with thought. For, on the one hand, science, in the shape of the subservient understanding, submits to be used for finite purposes, and as an accidental means, and in that case is not self-determined, but determined by alien objects and relations ; but, on the other hand, science liberates itself from this service to rise in free independence to the attainment of truth, in which medium, free from all interference, it fulfils itself in conformity with its proper aims. Fine art is not real art till it is in this sense free, and only achieves its highest task when it has taken its place in the same sphere with religion and philo- sophy, and has become simply a mode of revealing to consciousness and bringing to utterance the Divine Nature,* the deepest interests of humanity, and the * "Das G'ottliche? Chap. I.] ART NOT UNWORTHY. most comprehensive truths of the mind. It is in works of art that nations have deposited the pro- foundest intuitions and ideas of their hearts ; and fine art is frequently the key — with many nations there is no other — to the understanding of their wisdom and of their religion. This is an attribute which art shares with religion and philosophy, only in this peculiar mode, that it represents even the highest ideas in sensuous forms, thereby bringing them nearer to the character of natural phenomena, to the senses, and to feeling. The world, into whose depths thought penetrates, is a supra-sensuous world, which is thus, to begin with, erected as a beyond over against immediate con- sciousness and present sensation ; the power which thus rescues itself from the here, that consists in the actuality and finiteness of sense, is the freedom of thought in cognition. But the mind is able to heal this schism which its advance creates ; it gene- rates out of itself the works of fine art as the first middle term of reconciliation between pure thought and what is external, sensuous, and transitory, be- tween nature with its finite actuality and the infinite freedom of the reason that comprehends. & The element of art was said to be in its general nature an unworthy element, as consisting in appear- ance and deception. The censure would be not devoid of justice, if it were possible to class appear- 14 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. ance as something that ought not to exist. An appearance o r show , hmvevpr, is pqse n fhl to e> dsfence. Truth could not be, did it not appear and reveal itself,* were it not truth for some one or something, V for itself as also for Mind. Therefore there can be no objection against appearance in general, but, if at all, against the particular mode of appearance in which art gives actuality to what is in itself real and true. If, in this aspect, the appearance with which art gives its conceptions life as determinate existences is to be termed a deception, this is a criticism which primarily receives its meaning by comparison with the external world of phenomena and its immediate contact with us as matter, and in like manner by the standard of our own world of feeling, that is, the inner world of sense. These are the two worlds to whiciv^ii the life of daily experience, in our own -prreliomenal | We, we are accustomed to attribute the value and -the title of actuality, reality, and truth, in contrast to art, which we set down as lacking such reality and truth. Now, this whole sphere of the empirical inner and outer world is just what is not the world of genuine reality, but is to be entitled a mere appearance more strictly than is true of art, and a crueller deception. Genuine reality is only to be found beyond the * u Schiene und erschiene." t The life in which we treat common circumstances and sensations as, in their degree, realities. Chap. I.] ART NOT UNTRUE. 15 immediacy of feeling and o f external objects. Nothing is genuinely real but that which is actual in its own right,* that which is the substance of nature and of mind, fixing itself indeed in present and definite existence, but in this existence still retaining its essential and self-centred being, and thus and no otherwise attaining genuine reality. The dominion of these universal powers is exactly what art ac- centuates and reveals. The common outer and inner world also no doubt present to us this essence of reality, but in the shape of a chaos of accidental matters, encumbered by the immediateness of sen- suous presentation, and by arbitrary states, events, characters, etc. Art liberates the . real import of appearances from the semblance and deception of this bad and fleeting world, and imparts to phenomenal semblances a higher reality, born of mind. The appearances of art, therefore, far from being mere semblances, h ave th e_higher reality and the more genuine existence in comparison with the realities of common life. Just as little can the representations of art be called a deceptive semblance in comparison with the representations of historical narrative, as if that had the more genuine truth. For history has not even immediate existence, but only the intellectual pre- sentation of it, for the element of its portrayals, and * " Das An — und Fiirsichseyende." 1 6 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. its content remains burdened with the whole mass of contingent matter formed by common reality with its occurrences, complications, and individualities. But the work of art brings before us the eternal powers that hold dominion in history, without any such super- fluity in the way of immediate sensuous presentation and its unstable semblances. Again, the mode of appearance of the shapes pro- duced by art may be called a deception in comparison with philosophic thought, with religious or moral principles. Beyond a doubt the mode of revelation which a content attains in the realm of thought is the truest reality ; but in comparison with the show or semblance of immediate sensuous existence or of historical narrative, the artistic semblance has the advantage that in itself it points beyond itself, and refers us away from itself to something spiritual which it is meant to bring before the mind's eye. Whereas immediate appearance does not give itself out to be deceptive, but rather to be real and true, though all the time its truth is contaminated and infected by the immediate sensuous element. The hard rind of nature and the common world give the mind more trouble in breaking through to the idea than do the products of art. But if, on the one side, we assign this high position to art, we must no less bear in mind, on the other hand, that art is not, either in content or in form, Chap. I.] ART NOT ULTIMATE TRUTH. 17 the supreme and absolute mode of bringing the mind's genuine interests into consciousness. The form of art is enough to limit it to a restricted con- tent. Only a certain circle and grade of truth is capable of being represented in the medium of art. Such truth must have in its own nature the capacity to go forth into sensuous form and be adequate to itself therein, if it is to be a genuinely artistic content, as is the case with the gods of Greece. There is, however, a deeper form of truth, in which it is no longer so closely akin and so friendly to sense as to be adequately embraced and expressed by that medium. Of such a kind is the Christian conception of truth ; and more especially the spirit of our modern world, or, to come closer, of our religion and our intellectual culture, reveals itself as beyond the stage at which art is the highest mode assumed by man's consciousness of the absolute. The peculiar mode to which artistic production and works of art belong no longer satisfies our supreme [need. We are above the level at which works of art can be venerated as divine, and actually worshipped ; the impression which they make is of a more considerate kind, and the feelings which they stir within us require a higher test and a further confirmation. Thought and reflection have taken their flight above fine art. Those who delight in grumbling and censure may set' down this phenomenon for a corruption, and C 1 8 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. ascribe it to the predominance of passion and selfish interests, which scare away at once the seriousness and the cheerfulness of art. Or we may accuse the troubles of the present time and the complicated condition of civil and political life as hindering the feelings, entangled in minute preoccupations, from freeing themselves, and rising to the higher aims of art, the intelligence itself being subordinate to petty needs and interests, in sciences which only subserve such purposes and are seduced into making this barren region their home. However all this may be, it certainly is the case, that art no longer affords that satisfaction of spiritual wants which earlier epochs and peoples have sought therein, and have found therein only ; a satisfaction which, at all events on the religious side, was most intimately and profoundly connected with art. The beautiful days of Greek art, and the golden time of the later middle ages are gone by. The reflective culture of our life of to-day, makes it a necessity for us, in respect of our will no less than of our judgment, to adhere to general points of view, and to regulate particular matters according to them, so that general forms, laws, duties, rights, maxims arc what have validity as grounds of determination and are the chief regulative force. But what is required for artistic interest as for artistic production is, speaking generally, a living creation, in which the Chap. I.] MODERN REFLECTIVENESS. 19 universal is not present as law and maxim, but acts as if one with the mood and the feelings, just as, in the imagination, the universal and rational is con- tained only as brought into unity with a concrete sensuous phenomenon. Therefore, our present in its universal condition is not favourable to art. As regards the artist himself, it is not merely that the reflection which finds utterance all round him, and the universal habit of having an opinion and passing judgment about art infect him, and mislead him into putting more abstract thought into his works them- selves ; but also the whole spiritual culture of the age is of such a kind that he himself stands within this reflective world and its conditions, and it is impossible for him to abstract from it by will and resolve, or to contrive for himself and bring to pass, by means of peculiar education or removal from the relations of life, a peculiar solitude that would replace all that is lost. In all these respects art is, and remains for us, on the side of its highest destiny, a thing of the past. Herein it has further lost for us its genuine truth and life, and rather is transferred into our ideas than asserts its former necessity, or assumes its former place, in reality. What is now aroused in us by works of art is over and above our immediate enjoyment, and together with it, our judgment; inasmuch as we subject the content and the means 20 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. of representation of the work of art and the suita- bility or unsuitability of the two to our intellectual consideration. Therefore, the science of art is a much more pressing need in our day, than in times in which art, simply as art, was enough to furnish a full satisfaction. Art invites us to consideration of it by means of thought, not to the end of stimulating art production, but in order to ascertain scientifically what art is. £. As soon as we propose to accept this invitation we are met by the difficulty which has already been touched upon in the suggestion that, though art is a suitable subject for philosophical reflection in the general sense, yet it is not so for systematic and scientific discussion. In this objection there lies the false idea that a philosophical consideration may, nevertheless, be unscientific. On this point it can only be remarked here with brevity, that, whatever ideas others may have of philosophy and philoso- phizing, I regard the pursuit of philosophy as utterly incapable of existing apart from a scientific procedure. Philosophy has to consider its object in its necessity, not, indeed, in its subjective necessity or external arrangement, classification, etc., but it has to unfold and demonstrate the object out of the necessity of its own inner nature. Until this evolution * is brought to pass the scientific element is lacking to the treat- * "Explication:" Chap. I.] ART NOT UNSUITABLE. 21 ment In as far, however, as the objective necessity of an object lies essentially in its logical and meta- physical nature, the isolated treatment of art must be conducted with a certain relaxation of scientific stringency. For art involves the most complex pre- suppositions, partly in reference to its content, partly in respect of its medium * and element,! in which art is constantly on the borders of the arbitrary or acci- dental. Thus it is only as regards the essential innermost progress of its content and of its media of expression that we must call to mind the outline prescribed by its necessity. The objection that works of fine art elude the treatment of scientific thought because they originate out of the unregulated fancy and out of the feelings, are of a number and variety that defy the attempt to gain a conspectus, and therefore take effect only on feeling and imagination, raises a problem which appears still to have importance. For the beauty of art does in fact appear in a form which is expressly contrasted with abstract thought, and which the latter is forced to destroy in exerting the activity which is f its nature. This idea coheres with the opinion that, reality as such, the life of nature and of mind, is disfigured and slain by comprehension ; that, so far * " Material" e.g. colour, sound, heavy matter, etc. t " Element : " perhaps more especially any mental function entering into art — sense, imagination, understanding, etc. 22 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. from being brought close to us by the thought which comprehends, it is by it that such life is absolutely dissociated from us, so that, by the use of thought as the means of grasping what has life, man rather cuts himself off from this his purpose. We cannot speak fully on this subject in the present passage, but only indicate the point of view from which the removal of this difficulty, or impossibility depending on mal- adaptation, might be effected. It will be admitted, to begin with, that the mind is capable of contemplating itself, and of possessing a consciousness, and that a thinking consciousness, of itself and all that is generated by itself. Thought — to think — is precisely that in which the mind has its innermost and essential nature. In gaining this thinking consciousness concerning itself and its pro- ducts, the mind is behaving according to its essential nature, however much freedom and caprice those products may display, supposing only that in real truth they have mind in them. Now art and its works as generated and created by the mind (spirit), are themselves of a spiritual nature, even if their mode of representation admits into itself the sem- blance of sensuous being, and pervades what is sensuous with mind. In this respect art is, to begin with, nearer to mind and its thinking activity than is mere external unintelligent nature ; in works of art, mind has to do but with its own. And even if artistic Chap. I.] THE MIND KNO WS ITS CREA TIONS. 23 works are not abstract thought and notion, but are an evolution of the notion out of itself, an alienation from itself towards the sensuous, still the power of the thinking spirit (mind) lies^lierein, not merely to grasp itself only in its peculiar form of the self-conscious spirit (mind), but just as much to recognize itself in its alienation in the shape of feeling and the sensuous, in its other form, by transmuting the metamorphosed thought back into definite thoughts, and so restoring it to itself. And in this preoccupation with the other of itself the thinking spirit i s not to be held un true to itself as if forgetting or surrendering itself therein, nor is it so weak as to lack strength to comprehend what is different from itself, but it comprehends both itself and its opposite. For the notion is the uni- versal, which preserves itself in its particularizations, dominates alike itself and its " other," and so becomes the power and activity that consists in undoing the alienation which it had evolved. And thus the work of art in which thought alienates itself belongs, like thought itself, to the realm of comprehending thought, and the mind, in subjecting it to scientific considera- tion, is thereby but satisfying the want of its own inmost nature. Fo£_be£ajise_jthougJnMs_h^s_essence and notion, it can in the last resort only be satisfied when it ha^~slicceeoyed~lnimb uing a ll_t he produ cts of its activity with thought, and has thus for the first time - mlide~thehr~ gehuihely its own. But, as we 24 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. [Chap. I. shall see more definitely below, art is far from being the highest form of mind, and receives its true rati- fication only from science.* Just as little does art elude philosophical con- sideration by unbridled caprice. As has already been indicated, it is its true task to bring to consciousness the highest interests of the mind. Hence it follows at once with respect to the content that fine art cannot rove in the wildness of unfettered fancy, for these spiritual interests determine definite basest for its content, how manifold and inexhaustible soever its forms and shapes may be. The same holds true for the forms themselves. They, again, are not at the mercy of mere chance. Not every plastic shape % is capable of being the expression and representation of those spiritual interests, of absorbing and of repro- ducing them ; e^ejx_d£fimte__c^ntent determines a form suitable to jt IrPErus - aspect too, then, we are in a position to find our bearings according to the needs of thought in the apparently unmanageable mass of works and types of art. Thus, I hope, we have begun by defining the * " Philosophy," " WissenschaftP t " Haltpunkte:" ultimate points that the matter of art must not leave hold of, leading ideas that must somehow dominate it. % " Gcstaltiwg : " shaping, as if arrangement of shapes. Chap. I.] ART NOT CAPRICIOUS. 25 content of our science, to which we propose to confine ourselves, and have seen that neither is fine art unworthy of a philosophical consideration, nor is a philosophical consideration incompetent to arrive at a knowledge of the essence of fine art. CHAPTER II. METHODS OF SCIENCE APPLICABLE TO BEAUTY AND ART. If we now investigate the required mode of scientific consideration, we here again meet with two opposite ways of treating the subject, each of which appears to exclude the other, and so to hinder us from arriving at any true result. On one side we see the science of art merely, so to speak, busying itself about the actual productions of art from the outside, arranging them in series as a history of art, initiating discussions about extant works, or sketching out theories intended to provide the general points of view that are to govern both criticism and artistic production. On the other side we see science abandoning itself independently to reflection upon the beautiful, and producing mere generalities which do not touch the work of art in its peculiarity, creating, in short, an abstract philosophy of the beautiful. Chap. II.] ART-SCHOLARSHIP. 27 I. As regards the former mode of treatment, which starts from the empirical side, it is the indispensable road for any one who means to become a student of art. And just as in the present day every one, even though he is not busied with natural science, yet pretends to be equipped with the essentials of physical know- ledge, so it has become more or less obligatory for a cultivated man to possess some acquaintance with art,* and the pretension to display one's-self as a dilettante and connoisseur is pretty universal. (a) If such information is really to be recognized as art-scholarship,f it must be of various kinds and of wide range. The first necessity is an exact acquaintance with the immeasurable region of individual works of art of ancient and modern times, works which in part have actually perished, in part belong to distant countries or portions of the world, or which adverse fortune has withdrawn from one's own observation. Moreover, every work belongs to its age, to its nation, and to its environment, and depends upon particular historical and other ideas and aims. For this reason art-scholarship further requires a vast wealth of historical information of a very special kind, seeing that the individualized nature of the work of art is related to individual detail and demands special matter to aid in its com- prehension and elucidation. And lastly, this kind * " Kunstkenntm'ss." t " Gelehrsamkeit? 2