3 that every image, so far as it is an image at all, must occupy the summit of consciousness if only for an instant ; and that the mere image is either the product of an activity just as is the æsthetic image, or it is not a real image at all. It may also be objected that the definition of the image as something sharing in the nature of sensation and concept may lead back to intellectual intuition and the other mysterious faculties of the metaphysical school, for which Groos professes abhorrence. His division of the æsthetic fact into form and content is even less happy. He recognizes four classes of content: associative (in the strict sense), symbolic, typical, individual:1 and into his inquiries he introduces, quite unnecessarily, the concepts of infusion of personality and of play. In connexion with the latter he remarks that "internal imitation is the noblest game of man," 2 and adds that "the concept of play applies fully to contemplation, but not to æsthetic production, save in the case of primitive peoples.' Groos does however free himself from the "modifica- The tions of Beauty," because, æsthetic activity having been modifications identified with internal imitation, it is clear that what- in Groos and Lipps. ever is not internal imitation is excluded from that activity as something different. "All Beauty (beauty understood in the sense of sympathetic') belongs to the æsthetic activity, but not every æsthetic fact is beautiful.” Beauty, then, is the representation of the sensuously pleasant; ugliness, the representation of the unpleasant; the sublime, that of a mighty thing (Gewaltiges) in a simple form; the comic, that of an inferiority which arouses in us a pleasing sense of our own superiority. And so forth. With great good sense Groos holds up to derision the office assigned to the ugly by Schasler and Hartmann with their superficial dialectic. To say that an ellipse contains an element of ugliness in comparison with the circle because it is symmetrical about its two axes only and not about infinite diameters is like saying "wine has a relatively unpleasant taste because in it is lacking 2 Op. cit. pp. 168-170. Op. cit. pp. 46-50, and all part iii. 1 Einleitung i. d. Asth. pp. 100-147. 3 Op. cit. pp. 175-176. of the Beautiful E. Veron and the double form of Esthetic. (ist aufgehoben) the pleasant taste of beer."1 Lipps too, in his writings upon Esthetic, recognizes that the comic (of which he gives an accurate psychological analysis) 2 has in itself no æsthetic value; but his moralistic views lead him to outline a theory of it not unlike that of the overcoming of the ugly; he explains it as a process leading to a higher æsthetic value (i.e. sympathy).3 Work such as that of Groos and, occasionally, of Lipps is of some value towards the elimination of errors, as well as confining æsthetic research to the field of internal analysis. Merit of the same kind belongs to the work of a Frenchman, Véron, who controverts the Absolute Beauty of academical Esthetic and, after accusing Taine of confounding Art with Science and Esthetic with Logic, remarks that if it be the duty of art to make manifest the essence of things, their one dominating quality, then "the greatest artists would be those who have best succeeded in exhibiting this essence . . . and the greatest works would resemble each other more closely than any others and would clearly demonstrate their common identity, whereas the exact opposite happens." 5 But one looks in vain for scientific method in Véron; a precursor of Guyau," he asserts that art is at bottom two different things; there are two arts: one decorative, whose end is beauty, that is to say the pleasure of eye and ear resulting from determinate dispositions of lines, forms, colours, sounds, rhythms, movements, light and shade, without necessary interventions of ideas and feelings, and capable of being studied by Optics and Acoustics : the other, expressive, which gives "the agitated expression of human personality." He considers that decorative art prevails in the ancient world, and expressive art in the modern.7 We cannot here examine in detail the æsthetic theories 1 Einleitung i. d. Asth. p. 292, note. 3 Komik und Humor, p. 199 seqq. Esthétique, pp. 38, 109, 123 seqq. 2 See above, pp. 91-92. Paris, 1883. 6 See above, pp. 399-400. of artists and men of letters; the scientific and historicist prejudices, the theory of experiment and human document, which underlie the realism of Zola, or the moralism which underlies the problem-art of Ibsen and the Scandinavian school. Gustave Flaubert wrote of art profoundly, better perhaps than any other Frenchman has ever written, not in special treatises but throughout his letters, which were published after his death.1 Under the influence of Véron and his hatred for the concept of beauty, Leo Tolstoy wrote his book on art,2 L. Tolstoy. which, according to the great Russian artist, communicates feelings in the same way in which words communicate thoughts. The meaning of this theory is made clear by the parallel he drew between Art and Science, and his conclusion that "the mission of art is to render sensible and capable of assimilation that which could not be assimilated under the form of argumentation"; and that "true science examines truths considered as important for a certain society at a given epoch and fixes them in the consciousness of man, whereas art transports them from the domain of knowledge to that of feeling." There is therefore no such thing as art for art's sake, any more than science for science' sake. Every human function should be directed to increase morality and to suppress violence. This amounts to saying that nearly all art, from the beginning of the world, is false. Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespeare, Raphael, Michael Angelo, Bach, Beethoven are (according to Tolstoy) "artificial reputations created by critics." 4 Amongst artists rather than amongst philosophers must F. Nietzsche. be reckoned Friedrich Nietzsche, whom we should wrong (as we said of Ruskin) by trying to expound his æsthetic doctrines in scientific language and then holding them up to the facile criticism which, so translated, they would draw upon themselves. In none of his books, not even in 1 Correspondance, 1830-1880, 4 vols., new ed., Paris, 1902-1904. 4 Op. cit. pp. 201-202. his first, The Birth of Tragedy,1 in spite of the title, does he offer us a real theory of art; what appears to be theory is the mere expression of the author's feelings and tendencies. He shows a kind of anxiety concerning the value and aim of art and the problem of its inferiority or superiority to science and philosophy, a state of mind characteristic of the Romantic period of which Nietzsche was, in many respects, a belated but magnificent representative. To Romanticism, as well as to Schopenhauer, belong the elements of thought which issued in the distinction between Apollinesque art (that of serene contemplation, to which belong the epic and sculpture) and Dionysiac art (the art of agitation and tumult, such as music and the drama). The thought is vague and does not bear criticism; but it is supported by a flight of inspiration which lifts the mind to a spiritual region seldom if ever reached again in the second half of the nineteenth century. The most notable æsthetic students of that time were perhaps a group of persons engaged in constructing theories of particular arts. And since as we have seen 2-philosophical laws or theories of individual arts are inconceivable, it was inevitable that the ideas presented by such thinkers should be (as indeed they are) nothing more than general æsthetic conclusions. First may be mentioned the An asthetician acute Bohemian critic Eduard Hanslick, who published his work On Musical Beauty in 1854; it was often reprinted and was translated into various languages.3 Hanslick waged war against Richard Wagner and in general against the pretension of finding concepts, feelings and other definite contents in music. "In the most insignificant musical works, where the most powerful microscope can discover nothing, we are now asked to recognize a Night Before the Battle, a Summer Night in Norway, a Longing for the Sea, or some such absurdity, of music: 1 Die Geburt der Tragödie oder Griechenthum und Pessimismus, 1872 (Ital. trans., Bari, 1907). 2 See above, p. 114. 3 Vom Musikalisch-Schönen, Leipzig, 1854; 7th ed. 1885 (French trans., Du beau dans la musique, Paris, 1877). should the cover have the audacity to affirm that this is the subject of the piece." With equal vivacity he protests against the sentimental hearers who, instead of enjoying the work of art, set themselves to extract pathological effects of passionate excitement and practical activity. If it be true that Greek music produced effects of this kind, “if it needed but a few Phrygian strains to animate troops with courage in the face of the enemy, or a melody in the Dorian mode to ensure the fidelity of a wife whose husband was far away, then the loss of Greek music is a melancholy thing for generals and husbands; but æstheticians and composers need not regret it." 2 "If every senseless Requiem, every noisy funeral march, every wailing Adagio had the power of depressing us, who could put up with existence under such conditions? But let a real musical work confront us, clear-eyed and glowing with beauty, and we feel ourselves enslaved by its invincible fascination even if its material is all the sorrows of the "3 form. age. Hanslick maintained that the sole aim of music Hanslick's is form, musical beauty. This affirmation won him the concept of goodwill of the Herbartians, who hastened to welcome such a vigorous and unexpected ally; by way of returning the compliment, Hanslick felt obliged in later editions of his work to mention Herbart himself and his faithful disciple Robert Zimmermann who had given (so he said) “full development to the great æsthetic principle of Form." 4 The praises of the Herbartians and the courteous declarations of Hanslick both arose from a misunderstanding : for the words "beauty" and "form" have one meaning for the former and quite another for the latter. Hanslick never thought that symmetry, purely acoustical relations and pleasures of the ear constituted musical beauty; 5 mathematics, he held, are utterly useless to musical Esthetic. Musical beauty is spiritual and significative: it has thoughts, undoubtedly; but those thoughts are musical. Sonorous forms are not empty, but perfectly 1 Vom Musikalisch-Schönen, p. 20. 3 Op. cit. p. IOI. 2 Op. cit. p. 98. 5 Op. cit. p. 119, note. • Op. cit. p. 65. Op. cit. p. 50. |