AESTHETICS 219 as the contrast of matter and spirit, rigid motionlessness and motion, and appears in art as the antithesis of the sublime and graceful (das Anmuthige), the latter containing the Naif, the Pretty, and the Ridiculous. Finally, Theodor Vischer seeks to settle these subtle relationships in this manner: He supposes the Sublime to be the sundering of the aesthetic idea and its sensuous image (Gebild) from the state of unity constituting the Beautiful, the idea reaching as the infinite over against the finite of the image. The image now resists the sudden rupture, and in asserting itself as a totality in defiance of the idea becomes the Ugly. The Comic, again, is the result of some partial and appa rently involuntary recognition of the rights of the idea by the rebellious image. Schasler says, in criticising the views of Vischer, that it is difficult not to be satirical in describing the dialectic artifices to which the idea is here compelled, little suspecting how easily any similar attempt to adjust relations between these ideas, looked at objectively as movements of the supreme idea, may appear equally na if and funny to a mind not already oppressed with the resist ing burden of its own abstractions. slier. Theodor Vischer, the last of the Hegelians named here, has produced the largest and most laborious system of metaphysical aesthetics, and a brief account of its scope must be given to complete our history of the German systems. He defines aesthetics as the science of the Beau tiful. His system falls into three parts: (1.) Mctaphysic of the Beautiful; (2.) The Beautiful as one-sided existence beauty of nature and the human imagination; (3.) The subjective-objective actuality of the Beautiful Art. The metaphysic again falls into two parts the theory of simple beauty, and that of the Beautiful in the resistance of its moments (the Sublime and Ridiculous). He defines the Beautiful as "the idea in the form of limited appearance." His discussions of the various beauties of nature, the organic and inorganic world, are very full and suggestive, and his elaboration of the principles of art (excepting those of music, which he left another to elucidate), is marked by a wide and accurate knowledge. He divides the arts into (1.) The objective, or eye arts (architecture, scxilpture, and painting); (2.) Subjective, or ear arts (music); (3.) Subjective-objective arts, or those of sensuous conception (poetry). He subdivides the first into those of measuring sight (architecture), touching sight (sculpture), and sight proper (painting). Vischer s style is very laboured. His propositions fall into the form of mathematical theorems, and are made exceedingly incomprehensible by the ex cessive subtleties of his metaphysical nomenclature. 3r There are several other systems of aesthetics which man deserve mention here, but space does not allow of a full ems - account of them. Of these the most important are the theories of Herbart, Schopenhauer, and von Kirchmann. Herbart s views are based on his curious psychological Conceptions. He ignores any function in the Beautiful as expressive of the idea, and seeks simply to determine the simplest forms or the elementary judgments of beauty. Schopenhauer s discussions, connecting beauty with his peculiar conception of the universe as volition, are a curious contribution to the subject. As a specimen of his specula tions, one may give his definition of tragedy as the repre sentation of the horrible side of life, the scornful dominion of accident, and the inevitable fall of the just and inno cent, this containing a significant glimpse into the nature of the world and existence. Von Kirchmann has written a two-volume work on aesthetics, which is interesting as a reaction against the Hegelian method. It professes to be an attempt to base the science on a realistic foundation, and to apply the principles of observation and induction long acted upon in natural science. The German .-esthetic speculations not elaborated into complete systems are too numerous to be fully represented fncomplei here. Only a few of the most valuable contributions to the German theory will be alluded to. Winckelmann s services to the ^ te ? 8 | development of plastic art do not directly concern us. m!U1IU Of his theory of plastic beauty, based exclusively on the principles of Greek sculpture, little requires to be said. He first pointed to the real sources of superiority in antique creations, by emphasising the distinction between natural and ideal beauty, the aesthetic value of contour as an ideal element, the beauty of expression as the manifestation of an elevated soul, and consisting of a noble simplicity and a quiet grandeur. But by too exclusive an attention to Greek art, and indeed to sculpture, his theory, as an attempt to generalise on art, lacks completeness, making little room for the many-sidedness of art, and narrowing it down to one, though an exalted, ideal. Lessing s services to the scientific theory of art are far Lessiiig. greater than those of Winckelmann. He is the first modern who has sought to deduce the special function of an art from a consideration of the means at its disposal. In his Laokoon he defines the boundaries of poetry and painting in a manner which has scarcely been improved on since. In slight divergence from Winckelmann, who had said that the representation of crying was excluded from sculpture by the ancients as unworthy of a great soul, Lessing sought to prove that it was prohibited by reason of its incom patibility with the conditions of plastic beauty. He reasoned from the example of the celebrated group, the Laokoon. Visible beauty was, he said, the first law of ancient sculpture and painting. These arts, as employing the co-existent and permanent in space, are much more limited than poetry, which employs the transitory and suc cessive impressions of sound. Hence, expression is to poetry what corporeal beauty is to the arts of visible form and colour. The former has to do with actions, the latter with bodies, that is, objects whose parts co-exist. Poetry can only suggest material objects and visible scenery by means of actions ; as for example, when Homer pictures Juno s chariot by a description of its formation piece by piece. Painting and sculpture, again, can only suggest actions by means of bodies. From this it follows that the range of expression in poetry is far greater than in visible art. Just as corporeal beauty loses much of its charm, so the visible Ugly loses much of its repulsiveness by the suc cessive and transient character of the poetic medium. Hence poetry may introduce it, while painting is forbidden to represent it. Even the Disgusting may be skilfully employed in poetry to strengthen the impression of the Horrible or Ridiculous ; while painting can only attempt this at its peril, as in Pordenone s Interment of Christ, in which a figure is represented as holding its nose. Visible imita tion being immediate and permanent, the painful element cannot be softened and disguised by other and pleasing ingredients (the Laughable, &c.), as in poetry. As Schaslcr says, Lessing s theory hardly makes room for the effects of individuality of character as one aim of pictorial as well as of poetic art. Yet as a broad distinction between the two heterogeneous arts, limiting, on the one hand, pictorial de scription in poetry, and the representation of the painful, low, and revolting in the arts of vision, it is unassailable, and constitutes a real discovery in aesthetics. Lessing s principles of the drama, as scattered through the critiques of the Hamburg Dramaturgy, are for the most part a fur ther elucidation of Aristotelian principles, of great value to the progress of art, but adding comparatively little to the theory. Its conspicuous points are the determination of poetic truth as shadowed forth by Aristotle, and the dif ference between tragedy and comedy in respect to liberty of invention both of fable and of character ; secondly, the
reasscrtiou that both fear and pity, and not simply one of
