BENEDETTO CROCE (continued 10)

Their persistence in philosophical theories.

But it would be quite wrong to suppose that this victory over the rhetoric of kinds was either the cause or the consequence of a final victory over its philosophical presuppositions. In pure theory, none of the critics above named wholly abandoned the kinds and the rules. Berchet admitted four elementary forms, that is four fundamental kinds, in poetry; lyrical, didactic, epic and dramatic, claiming for the poet only the right of "uniting and fusing together the elementary forms in a thousand fashions."[40] Manzoni's only real quarrel was with those rules "founded on special facts instead of on general principles; on the authority of rhetoricians instead of reason."[41] Even De Sanctis was satisfied with a concept somewhat vague, though true enough at bottom: "the most important rules are not those capable of being applied to every content, but those which draw their force ex visceribus caussæ, from the very heart of the content itself."[42] Even more diverting than the spectacle which had delighted Home, is the sight of German philosophy according the honour of a dialectical deduction to the empirical classification of kinds. We shall give two examples, each representing one extreme end of the chain:

Fr. Schelling.

Schelling at the beginning of the century (1803), and Hartmann at the end (1890). One section of Schelling's Philosophy of Art is devoted to "the construction of individual poetic kinds"; in it he remarks that were he to follow the historical order, Epic would come first; whereas in the scientific order the Lyric occupies the first place: indeed, if poetry is the representation of the infinite in the finite, the Lyric, in which difference prevails (the finite, the subject), is its first moment, corresponding with the first power of the ideal series, reflexion, knowledge, consciousness, whereas Epic corresponds with the second power, action.[43] From Epic, which is par excellence the objective kind (as being the identity of subjective and objective), derive the Elegy and the Idyl if subjectivity be placed in the object and objectivity in the poet: if objectivity be placed in the object and subjectivity in the poet, didactic poetry results.[44] To these differentiations of the Epic, Schelling adds the romantic or modern Epic, the poem of chivalry; the novel; and the experiments in an epic of ordinary life such as the Luisa of Voss and the Hermann and Dorothea of Goethe; and, co-ordinate with all the foregoing, the Comedia of Dante, "an epic kind in itself" (eine epische Gattung für sich). Finally, from the union on a higher plane of Lyric with Epic, liberty with necessity, arises the third form, the Drama, the reconciliation of antitheses in a totality, "supreme incarnation of the essence and the in-itself of all art."[45]

E. von Hartmann.

In Hartmann's Philosophy of the Beautiful, poetry is divided into spoken poetry and read poetry. The former is subdivided into Epic, Lyric and Dramatic, with further subdivisions of Epic into plastic Epic, or strictly epic Epic, and pictorial or lyrical Epic; of Lyric into epical Lyric, lyrical Lyric and dramatic Lyric; of Dramatic into lyrical Drama, epic Drama and dramatic Drama. Read poetry (Lese poesie) is again subdivided into predominantly epical, lyrical or dramatic form with tertiary partitions of the affecting, the comic, the tragic and humorous; and into poems "to be read at a sitting" (like the short story) or to be taken up again and again (like the novel).[46]

The kinds in the schools.

Without these highly philosophical trivialities the divisions of kinds still wander through the books called Institutions of Literature, written by philologists and men of letters, and the ordinary school-books of Italy, France and Germany; and psychologists and philosophers still persist in writing about the Æsthetic of the tragic, of the comic and of the humorous.[47] The objectivity of literary kinds is frankly maintained by Ferdinand Brunetière, who looks on literary history as "the evolution of kinds,"[48] and gives sharply defined form to a superstition which, seldom confessed so truthfully or applied so rigorously, survives to contaminate modern literary history.[49]

III

THE THEORY OF THE LIMITS OF THE ARTS

To Lessing must be ascribed the merit and the sole glory of having discovered that every art has its special character and inviolable limits. But his merit lies not in his own theory, which, in itself, is scarcely tenable,[1] but in having, though by an error, aroused discussion of a highly important æsthetical point till then wholly overlooked. After some slight notice from Du Bos and Batteux, some preparation of the field by Diderot[2] and Mendelssohn,[3] and long disquisitions by Meier and other Wolffians upon natural and conventional symbols,[4] Lessing was the first to raise clearly the question of the value attaching to the distinction between the various arts. Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance had enumerated the arts according to denominations of current phraseology, and had composed numbers of technical hand-books distinguishing major and minor arts; but in Aristoxenus or Vitruvius, Marchetto da Padova or Cennino Cennini, Leonardo da Vinci or Leon Battista Alberti, Palladio or Scamozzi, it would be vain to look for the problem proposed by Lessing, for the spirit of these technical treatise-writers is entirely different. Some rudiments of the question may be detected in the comparisons made, and the questions of precedence raised, between poetry and painting or painting and sculpture, to be found now and then in stray paragraphs of their books (Leonardo da Vinci pressed the claims of painting, Michæl Angelo those of sculpture): the theme eventually became a favourite one for academic discussion, and was not despised by Galileo himself.[5]

The limits of the arts in Lessing. Arts of space and arts of time.

Lessing was induced to raise the question in the attempt to controvert the strange views of Spence concerning the close union between painting and poetry among the ancients, and of Count Caylus, who held that the excellence of a poem must be judged by the number of subjects it offers to the brush of the painter. He was further instigated by the comparisons between poetry and painting upon which were commonly founded the most ridiculous rules for tragedy: the maxim Ut pictura poësis, whose original motive was to emphasize the representative or imaginative character of poetry, and the community of nature among the arts, had been converted by superficial interpretation into a defence of the most vicious intellectualistic and realistic prejudices. Lessing argued in this wise: "If painting in its imitations employs precisely a medium or symbol different from that of poetry (the former employing spatial forms and colours, the latter temporal articulated sounds), since the symbol must certainly be in close relation with that which is signified, coexistent symbols can only express coexistent objects or parts of objects, and consecutive symbols can only express consecutive objects or parts of objects. Objects mutually coexistent, or having mutually coexistent parts, are called bodies. Bodies, then, through their quality of visibility, are the true objects of painting. Objects successively consecutive amongst themselves, or whose parts are consecutive, are called in general actions. Actions, then, are the suitable objects of poetry." Painting, undoubtedly, may represent action, but only by means of bodies which indicate it; and poetry may represent bodies, but only by indicating them by means of actions. When a poet using language, i.e. arbitrary symbols, sets himself to describe bodies, he is no longer a poet but a prose-writer, since a true poet only describes bodies by the effect they produce on the soul.[6] Retouching and developing this distinction, Lessing described action or movement in a picture as an addition made by the imagination of the beholder; so true is this, says he, that animals perceive nothing save immobility in a picture. He further studied the various unions of arbitrary with natural symbols, such as that of poetry with music (in which the former is subordinate to the latter), of music with dancing, of poetry with dancing, and of music and poetry with dancing (union of arbitrary consecutive audible symbols with natural visible symbols): of the pantomime of antiquity (union of arbitrary consecutive visible symbols with natural consecutive visible symbols): of the language of the dumb (the only art that employs arbitrary consecutive visible symbols): and, lastly, of imperfect unions, such as that of painting with poetry. If not every use to which language is put is poetic, Lessing holds that not every use of natural coexistent signs is pictorial: painting, like language, has its prose. Prosaic painters are those who represent consecutive objects notwithstanding the character of coexistence in their signs, allegorical painters those who make arbitrary use of natural signs, and those who pretend to represent the invisible or the audible by means of the visible. Desirous of preserving the naturalness of symbolism, Lessing ended by condemning the custom of painting objects on a diminished scale, and concludes: "I think that the aim of an art should be that only to which it is specially adapted, not that which can be performed equally well by other arts. I find in Plutarch a comparison which illustrates this admirably: he who would split wood with a key and open the door with an axe not only spoils both utensils but deprives himself of the unity of each alike."[7]

Limits and classifications of the arts in later philosophy.

The principle of limitations or of the specific character of individual arts, as laid down by Lessing, occupied the attention of philosophers in later days, who, without discussing the principle itself, employed it in classifying the arts and arranging them in series.

Herder and Kant.

Herder here and there continued Lessing's examination in his fragment on Plastic (1769);[8] Heydenreich wrote a treatise (1790) on the limits of the six arts (music, dance, figurative arts gardening, poetry and representative art), and criticized the clavecin oculaire of Father Castel, a contrivance for the combination of colours which should act in the same way as the series of musical notes in harmony and melody,[9] Kant appealed to the analogy of a speaking man, and classified the arts according to speech, gesture and tone as arts of speech, figurative arts, and arts producing a mere play of sensations (mimicry and colouring).[10]

Schelling.

Schelling differentiated the artistic identity according as it consisted in the infusion of the infinite into the finite, or of the finite into the infinite (ideal art or real art): into poetry and art proper. Under the heading of real arts he included the figurative arts, music, painting, plastic (which comprehended architecture, bas-relief and sculpture): in the ideal series were the three corresponding forms of poetry, lyrical, epical and dramatic.[11]

Solger.

With a similar method, Solger placed poetry, the universal art, side by side with art strictly so called, which is either symbolical (sculpture) or allegorical (painting), and, in either case, is a union of concepts and bodies: if you take corporality without concept, you have architecture; if concept without matter, music.[12] Hegel makes poetry the bond of union between the two extremes of figurative art and of music.[13]

Schopenhauer.

We have already seen how Schopenhauer destroyed the accepted limitations of art and built them up again, following the order of the ideas which they represent.[14] Herbart clung to Lessing's two groups, simultaneous arts and successive arts, and defined the former as "permitting themselves to be inspected from every side," the latter as "rejecting complete investigation and remaining in semi-darkness": in the first group he placed architecture, plastic, church music and classical poetry; in the second ornamental gardening, painting, secular music and romantic poetry.[15]

Herbart.

Herbart was implacable against those who look in one art for the perfections of another; who "look on music as a sort of painting, painting as poetry, poetry as an elevated plastic and plastic as a species of æsthetic philosophy,"[16] while admitting that a concrete work of art, such as a picture, may contain elements of the picturesque, the poetic and other kinds, held together by the skill of the artist.[17]

Weisse. Zeising.

Weisse divided the arts into three triads, intended to recall the nine Muses.[18] Zeising invented-a cross-division into figurative arts (architecture, sculpture, painting), musical arts (instrumental music, song, poetry), and arts of mimicry (dance, musical mimicry, representative art), and into macrocosmic arts (architecture, instrumental music, dance), microcosmic arts (sculpture, song, musical mimicry) and historical arts (painting, poetry and representative art).[19]

Vischer.

Vischer classified them according to the three forms of imagination (figurative, sensuous and poetic), into objective arts (architecture, plastic and painting), a subjective art (music) and an objective-subjective art[20] (poetry). Gerber proposed to recognize a special "art of language" (Sprachkunst), distinguishable alike from prose and poetry and consisting in the expression of simple movements of the soul. Such an art would correspond with plastic in the following scheme: arts of the eye—(a) architecture, (b) plastic, (c) painting; arts of the ear—(a) prose, (b) the art of language, (c) poetry.[21]

M. Schasler.

The two most recent systems of classification are furnished by Schasler and Hartmann, who have also submitted the schemes of their predecessors to searching criticism. Schasler[22] arranges the arts in two groups, adopting the criterion of simultaneity and succession: the arts of simultaneity are architecture, plastic and painting; of succession, music, mimicry and poetry. He says that by following the series in the order indicated, it will be seen that simultaneity, originally predominant, yields place to succession, which predominates in the second group and subordinates without wholly displacing the other. Parallel with this, another division is evolved, deduced from the relation between the ideal and material elements in each separate art, between movement and repose; which begins with architecture "materially the heaviest, spiritually the lightest of all the arts," and ends with poetry, in which the opposite relation is observed. Curious analogies are established by this method between the first and second group of arts: between architecture and music; between plastic and mimicry; between painting in its three forms of landscape, genre and historical, and poetry in its three forms of lyric (declamatory), epic (rhapsodic) and drama (representative).

E. v. Hartmann.

Hartmann[23] divides the arts into arts of perception and arts of imagination: the former tripartite into spatial or visual (plastic and painting), temporal or auditory (instrumental music, linguistic mimicry, expressive song) and temporal-spatial or mimic (pantomime, mimic dances, art of the actor, art of the opera-singer); the second contains but one single species, which is poetry. Architecture, decoration, gardening, cosmetic and prosewriting are excluded from this system of classification and lumped together as non-free arts.

The supreme art. Richard Wagner.

Parallel with this search for a classification of the arts, the same philosophers were led into the quest of the supreme art. Some favoured poetry, others music or sculpture; others again claimed the supremacy for combined arts, especially for Opera, according to the theory of it already advanced in the eighteenth century[24] and maintained and developed in our day by Richard Wagner.[25] One of the latest philosophers to raise the question "whether single arts, or arts in combination, had the greater value," concluded that single arts as such possess their own perfection, yet the perfection of united arts is still greater, notwithstanding the compromises and mutual concessions enforced upon them by their union; that single arts, from another point of view, have the greater value; and lastly, that both single and combined arts are necessary to the realisation of the concept of art.[26]

Lotze's attack on classifications.

The capriciousness, emptiness and childishness of such problems and their solutions must have excited feelings of impatience and disgust, but we rarely find a doubt thrown on their validity. One such dissentient is Lotze when he writes: "It is difficult to see the use of such attempts. Knowledge of the nature and laws of individual arts is but little increased by indication of the systematic place allotted to each." He further observed that in real life the arts are variously conjoined, forming themselves into no systematic series, while in the world of thought an immense variety of orders can be created; he therefore selected one of these possible orders, not because it was the sole legitimate one, but because it was convenient (bequem). His series begins with music, "the art of free beauty, determined only by the laws of its matter, not by conditions imposed by a given task of purpose or of imitation"; followed by architecture, "which no longer plays freely with forms, but subjects them to the service of an end"; and then by sculpture, painting and poetry, excluding minor arts which cannot be co-ordinated with the others, since they are incapable of expressing with any approach to completeness the totality of the spiritual life.[27] A recent French critic, Basch, opens his treatise with the following excellent remarks: "Is it necessary to show there is no such thing as an absolute art, differentiating itself later by means of one knows not what immanent laws? What exists is the particular forms of art, or rather artists who have striven to translate, as best they can, according to the material means at their command, the song of the ideal in their souls." But later on he thinks it possible to effect a division of the arts by starting "from the artist, instead of the art in itself," by proceeding "according to the three great types of fancy, visual, motor and auditory"; and as for the debated point of the supreme art, he thinks it must be settled in favour of music.[28]

Schasler is not altogether wrong in his spirited counterattack on Lotze's criticism; he protests against the principle of indifference and convenience, and remarks that "the classification of the arts must be regarded as the real touchstone, the real differential test of the scientific value of an æsthetic system; for on this point all theoretical questions are concentrated and crowd together to find a concrete solution."[29]

Contradictions in Lotze.

The principle of convenience may be excellent as applied to the approximative grouping of botanical or zoological classifications, but it has no place in philosophy; and as Lotze, in common with Schasler and other æstheticians, conformed to Lessing's principle of the constancy, limits and peculiar nature of each art, and therefore held that the concepts of the individual arts were speculative and not empirical concepts, he could not evade the duty of fixing the mutual relations of these concepts, arranging them in series, subordinating and co-ordinating them, and arriving at each of them either deductively or dialectically. He ought, in order to get definitely rid of these barren attempts at classification and at discovering the supreme art, to have criticized and dissolved Lessing's principle itself: to keep the principle and deny the need for a classification, as Lotze did, was obviously inconsistent. But not a single æsthetician has ever re-examined or investigated the scientific foundation of the distinctions enunciated by Lessing in his fluent and elegant prose; no one has probed to the bottom the truth which was illumined by Aristotle in a single lightning-flash, when he refused to allow an extrinsic difference, that of metre, as the real distinction between prose and poetry:[30] no one, that is to say, save perhaps Schleiermacher, who at least called attention to the difficulties of the current doctrine.

Doubts in Schleiermacher.

He proposed to start from the general concept of art and prove by deduction the necessity of all its forms; and after finding two sides to artistic activity, the objective consciousness (gegenständliche) and the immediate consciousness (unmittelbare), and observing that art stands wholly neither in the one nor in the other and that the immediate consciousness or representation (Vorstellung) gives rise to mimicry and music, while the objective consciousness or image (Bild) gives rise to the figurative arts, he then, proceeding to analyse a painting, found the two forms of consciousness to be in this case inseparable, and remarks: "Here we arrive at the precise opposite: searching for distinction, we find unity." Nor did the traditional division of the arts into simultaneous and successive seem to him very solid, for "when looked at attentively, it evaporates entirely"; in architecture or gardening, contemplation is successive, while in the arts labelled as successive, such as poetry, the chief thing is coexistence and grouping: "from whichever side we look at it, the difference is but secondary and the antithesis between the two orders of art merely means that every contemplation, like every act of production, is always successive, but, in thinking out the relation of the two sides in a work of art, both seem indispensable: coexistence (Zugleichsein) and successive existence (das Successivsein)." In another passage he observes: "The reality of art as external appearance is conditioned by the mode, depending on our physical and corporeal organism, in which the internal is externalised: movements, forms, words.... That which is common to all arts is not the external, which is rather the element of diversification." When these observations are compared with the sharp distinction he himself drew between art and technique, it would be easy to deduce that he held the partitions of the arts and the concepts of the particular arts to be devoid of æsthetic value. But Schleiermacher does not draw this logical inference, he wavers and hesitates: he recognizes the inseparability of the subjective and objective, musical and figurative, elements in poetry, yet he struggles to discover the definitions and limits of the individual arts; sometimes he dreams of a union of the various arts from which a complete art would spring; and when composing the syllabus of his lectures on Æsthetic, he arranged the arts into arts of accompaniment (mimicry and music), figurative arts (architecture, gardening, painting, sculpture) and poetry.[31] Nebulous, vague, contradictory as this may be, Schleiermacher had the acumen to distrust the soundness of Lessing's theory and to inquire by what right particular arts are singled out from art in general.

IV

OTHER PARTICULAR DOCTRINES

The æsthetic theory of Natural Beauty.

I. Schleiermacher also rejected the concept of Natural Beauty, giving Hegel greater praise than he deserved in the matter, because Hegel's denial of this concept was, as we have seen, more verbal than real. At all events, Schleiermacher's radical denial of the existence of a natural beauty external to and independent of the human mind marked a victory over a serious error, and appears to us imperfect and one-sided only so far as it seems to exclude those æsthetic facts of imagination which are attached to objects given in nature.[1] Important contributions towards the correction of this imperfect and one-sided element were supplied by the historical and psychological study of the "feeling for nature," promoted successfully by Alexander Humboldt in his dissertation to be found in the second volume of Cosmos,[2] and continued by Laprade, Biese, and others in our own time.[3] In his criticism of his own Ästhetik, Vischer completes the passage from the metaphysical construction of beauty in nature to the psychological interpretation of it, and recognizes the necessity of suppressing the section devoted to Natural Beauty in his first æsthetic system, and incorporating it with the doctrine of imagination: he says that such treatments do not belong to æsthetic science, being a medley of zoology, sentiment, fantasy and humour, worthy of development in monographs in the style of the poet G. G. Fischer's on the life of birds, or Bratranek's on the æsthetic of the vegetable world.[4] Hartmann, as heir of the old metaphysics, reproaches Vischer for this exclusion, and maintains that, in addition to the beauty of imagination introduced by man into natural things (hineingelegte Schönheit), there exist a formal and a substantial beauty in nature, coinciding with realisation of the immanent ends or ideas of nature.[5] But the way chosen ultimately by Vischer is the only one by which Schleiermacher's thesis can be successfully developed so as to show the precise meaning which may be given to the assertion of (æsthetic) beauty in nature.

The theory of æsthetic senses.

II. That æsthetic senses or superior senses exist and that beauty attaches to certain senses only, not to all, is a very old opinion. We have seen already[6] that Socrates, in the Hippias maior, mentions the doctrine of beauty as "that which pleases hearing and sight" (τὸ καlὸν eστὶ τὸ δι' ἀκοῆs τε καὶ ὃψεως ήδύ): and he adds, it seems impossible to deny that we take pleasure in looking at handsome men and fine ornaments, pictures and statues with our eyes, and hearing beautiful songs or beautiful voices, music, speeches and conversations with our ears. Nevertheless Socrates himself in the same dialogue confutes this theory by perfectly valid arguments, amongst which is that, besides the difficulty arising from the fact that beautiful things may be found outside the range of the sensible impressions of eye and ear, there is no reason for creating a special class for the pleasure arising from impressions on these two senses, to the exclusion of others. He also states the more subtle and philosophical objection that that which is pleasing to the sight is not so to the hearing, and vice versa; whence it follows that the ground of beauty must not be sought in visibility or audibility, but in something differing from either and common to both.[7]

The problem was never again, perhaps, attacked with such acumen and seriousness as in this ancient dialogue. In the eighteenth century Home remarked that beauty depended on sight, and that impressions received by the other senses might be agreeable but were not beautiful, and distinguished sight and hearing as superior to those of touch, taste and smell, the latter being merely bodily in nature and without the spiritual refinement of the other two. He held these to produce pleasures superior to organic pleasures though inferior to intellectual; decorous pleasures, that is to say; elevated, sweet, moderately exhilarating; as far removed from the turbulence of the passions as from the languor of indolence, and intended to refresh and soothe the spirit.[8] Following suggestions of Diderot, Rousseau and Berkeley, Herder drew attention to the importance of the sense of touch (Gefühl) in plastic art: of this "third sense, which perhaps deserves to be investigated first of all, and is unjustly relegated to a place amongst the grosser senses." Certainly "touch knows nothing of surface or colour," but "sight, for its part, knows nothing of forms and configurations." Thus "touch cannot be so gross a sense as it is reputed, if it is the very organ by which we sensate all other bodies, and rules over a vast kingdom of subtle and complex concepts. As the surface stands to the body, so does sight stand in respect of touch, and it is merely a colloquial abbreviation to speak of seeing bodies as surfaces and to suppose that we see with our eyes that which we have gradually learnt in infancy simply by the sense of touch." Every beauty of form or corporeity is a concept not visible, but palpable.[9] From the triad of æsthetic senses thus established by Herder (sight for painting; hearing for music; touch for sculpture), Hegel returned to the customary dyad, saying that "the sensory part of art has reference only to the two theoretic senses of sight and hearing"; that smell, taste and touch must be excluded from artistic pleasures, since they are connected with matter as such and the immediate sensible quality it may possess (smell with material volatilization; taste with material solution of objects; and touch with hot, cold, smooth and so forth); and that hence they can claim no concern with the objects of art, which are obliged to keep themselves in real independence, rejecting all relation with the merely sensory. That which pleases these senses is not the beautiful of art.[10]

It was Schleiermacher once more who recognized the impossibility of disposing of the matter in this summary fashion. He refused to admit the distinction between confused senses and clear senses, and asserted that the superiority of sight and hearing over the other senses lay in the fact that the others "are not capable of any free activity, and indeed represent the maximum of passivity, whereas sight and hearing are capable of an activity proceeding from within, and are able to produce forms and notes without having received impressions from outside"; were eye and ear merely means of perception, there would be no visual or auditory arts, but they also operate as a function of voluntary movements which supply a content to the dominion of the senses. From another standpoint, however, Schleiermacher thinks that "the difference seems to be one rather of degree or quantity, and a minimum of independence must be recognized as existing in the other senses as well."[11] Vischer remains faithful to the traditional "two æsthetic senses," "free organs and no less spiritual than sensuous," which "have no reference to the material composition of the object," but allow this "to subsist as a whole and work upon them."[12] Köstlin was of opinion that the inferior senses offer "nothing intuitible separate from themselves, and are only modifications of ourselves, but taste, smell and touch are not devoid of all æsthetic importance, since they assist the superior senses; without touch an image could not be recognized by the eye as being hard, resistant or rough; without smell certain images could not be represented as sweet or scented."[13]

We cannot go into a detailed account of all doctrines connected with sensationalistic principles,[14] for all the senses are naturally accepted as æsthetic by the sensationalists, who use "æsthetic" interchangeably with" hedonistic": it will suffice if we recall the "learned" Kralik, who was ridiculed by Tolstoy for his theory of the five arts of taste, smell, touch, hearing and sight.[15] The few quotations already given show the embarrassing difficulty caused by the use of the word "æsthetic" as a qualification of "sense," compelling writers to invent absurd distinctions between various groups of senses, or to recognize all senses as being æsthetic, thus giving æsthetic value to every sensory impression, as such. No way out of this labyrinth can be found save by asserting the impossibility of effecting a union between such wholly disparate orders of ideas as the concept of the representative form of the spirit and that of particular physiological organs or a particular matter of sense-impressions.[16]

The theory of kinds of style.

III. A variety of the error of literary kinds is to be found in the theory of modes, forms or kinds of style (χαρακτῆρες τῆς φράσεως), considered by the ancients as consisting of three forms, the sublime, the medium and the tenuous, a tripartition due, it would seem, to Antisthenes,[17] modified later into subtile, robustum and floridum, or amplified into a fourfold division, or designated by adjectives of historic origin as in the Attic, Asiatic or Rhodian styles. The Middle Ages preserved the tradition of a tripartite division, sometimes giving it a curious interpretation, to the effect that the sublime style treats of kings, princes and barons (e.g. the Aeneid); the mediocre, of middle-class people (e.g. Georgies); the humble, of the lowest class (e.g. Bucolics;) and the three styles were for this reason also called tragic, elegiac and comic.[18] It is a well-known fact that kinds in style have never ceased to afford matter for discussion in rhetorical text-books down to modern times; for instance, we find Blair distinguishing styles by such epithets as the diffuse, the concise, the nervous, the daring, the soft, the elegant, the flowery, etc. In 1818 the Italian Melchiorre Delfico, in his book on The Beautiful, energetically criticized the "endless division of styles," or the superstition "that there could be so many kinds of style"; saying that "style is either good or bad," and adding that it is not possible "it should exist as a preconceived idea in the artist's mind," but that "it should be the consequence of the principal idea, i.e. that conception which determines the invention and the composition."[19]

The theory of grammatical forms or parts of speech.

IV. The same error reappears in the philosophy of language, as the theory of grammatical forms or parts of speech,[20] first created by the sophists (Protagoras is credited with having first distinguished the gender of nouns), adopted by the philosophers, notably by Aristotle and the Stoics (the former was acquainted with two or three parts of speech, the latter with four or five), developed and elaborated by the Alexandrian grammarians in the famous and endless controversy between the analogists and the anomalists. The analogists (Aristarchus) aimed at introducing logical order and regularity into linguistic facts, and described as deviations all such as seemed to them irreducible to logical form. These they called pleonasm, ellipsis, enallage, parallage, and metalepsis. The violence thus wrought by the analogists upon spoken and written language was such that (as Quintilian tells us) some one wittily (non invenuste) remarked that it appeared to be one thing to talk Latin and quite another to talk grammar (aliud esse latine, aliud grammatice loqui).[21] The anomalists must be credited with restoring to language its free imaginative movement: the Stoic Chrysippus composed a treatise to prove that one thing (one same concept) may be expressed by different sounds, and one and the same sound may express different concepts (similes res dissimilibus verbis et similibus dissimiles esse vocabulis notatas.) Another anomalist was the celebrated grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus, who rejected the metalepsis, the schemes, and the other artifices by which the analogists tried to explain facts which did not fit their categories, and pointed out that the use of one word for another, or one part of speech for another, is not a grammatical figure, but a blunder, a thing hardly to be attributed to a poet such as Homer. The upshot of the dispute between anomalists and analogists was the science of Grammar (τεχνη γραμματική), as handed down by the ancients to the modern world, which is justly considered as a sort of compromise between the two opposed parties because, if the schemes of inflection (κανόνες) satisfy the demands of the analogists, their variety satisfies those of the anomalists; hence the original definition of Grammar as theory of analogy was changed subsequently to "theory of analogy and anomaly" (ὁμοίον τε καὶ ἀνoμoίου θεωρία). The concept of correct usage, with which Varro hoped to settle the controversy, fell into the trap (common to compromises), merely stating the contradiction in set terms, like the "convenient ornament" of Rhetoric or the kinds accorded a "certain licence" in the literature of precept. If language follows usage (that is to say, the imagination), it does not follow reason (or logic); if it follows reason, it does not follow usage. When the analogists upheld logic as supreme at least inside the individual kinds and sub-kinds, the anomalists hastened to show that even this was not the case. Varro himself was forced to confess that "this part of the subject really is very difficult" (hic locus maxime lubricus est).[22]

In the Middle Ages grammar was cultivated to the point of superstition. Divine inspiration was found lurking in the eight parts of speech because "octavus numerus frequenter in divinis scripturis sacratis invenitur," and in the three persons of verbal conjugation, created simply "ut quod in Trinitatis fide credimus, in eloquiis inesse videatur."[23] Grammarians of the Renaissance and later recommenced the study of linguistic problems and worked to death ellipsis, pleonasm, licence, anomaly and exception; only in comparatively recent times has Linguistic begun to question the very validity of the concept of parts of speech (Pott, Paul and others).[24] If they still survive, the reason may lie in the facts that empirical, practical grammar cannot do without them; that their venerable antiquity disguises their illegitimate and shady origin; and that energetic opposition has been worn down by the fatigue of an endless war.

Theory of æsthetic criticism.

V. The relativity of taste is a sensationalistic theory which denies a spiritual value to art. But it is rarely maintained by writers in the ingenuous categorical garb of the old adage: De gustibus non est disputandum (concerning which it would be useful to enquire when the saying was born, and what it fust meant: whether, too, the word gustibus referred solely to impressions of the palate, and was only later extended to include æsthetic impressions); as though sensationalists, as if dimly conscious of the higher nature of art, have never been able to resign themselves to the complete relativity of taste. Their torments in the matter really move one to pity. "Is there," Batteux asks, "such a thing as good taste, and is it the only good taste? In what does it consist? Upon what depend? Does it depend upon the object itself or the genius at work upon it? Are there, or are there not, rules? Is wit alone, or heart alone, the organ of taste, or both together? How many questions have been raised on this familiar often-treated subject, how many obscure and involved answers have been given!"[25] This perplexity is shared by Home. Tastes, he says, must not be disputed; neither those of the palate nor those of other senses. A remark which seems highly reasonable from one point of view; but, from another, somewhat exaggerated. But yet how can one dispute it? how can one maintain that what actually pleases a man ought not to please him? The proposition then must be true. But now no man of taste will assent to it. We speak of good taste and bad taste; are all criticisms which turn upon this distinction to be considered absurd? have these everyday expressions no meaning? Home ends by asserting a common standard of taste, deduced from the necessity of a common life for mankind or, as he says, from a "final cause"; for without uniformity of taste, who would trouble to produce works of art, build elegant and costly edifices, or lay out beautiful gardens and so forth? He does not fail to draw attention to a second final cause; that of the advisability of attracting citizens to public shows and uniting those whom class-differences and diversity of occupation tend to keep apart. But how shall a standard of taste be established? This is a new perplexity, which one cannot think to be escaped by observing that, as in framing moral rules we seek the counsel of the most honourable of educated men, not of savages; so to determine the standard of taste we should have recourse to the few who are not worn out by degrading bodily labour, not corrupted in taste, and not rendered effeminate by pleasure, who have received the gift of good taste from nature, and have brought it to perfection by the education and practice of a lifetime: if, notwithstanding, controversies arise, then reference must be made to the principles of Criticism as set forth by Home himself in his own book.[26] Similar contradictions and vicious circles reappear in David Hume's Essay on Taste, where Hume tries in vain to define the distinctive characteristics of the man of taste whose judgement must be law, and, while asserting the uniformity of the general principles of taste as founded in human nature, and warning the reader against giving undue weight to individual perversions and ignorances, at the same time asserts that divergences in taste may be irreconcilable, insuperable, and yet blameless.[27]

But a criticism of æsthetic relativism cannot be based upon the opposite doctrine which, by its affirmation of absoluteness, resolves taste into concepts and logical inferences. The eighteenth century offers examples of this mistake in Muratori, one of the first to maintain the existence of a rule of taste and a universal beauty whose rules are furnished by Poetics;[28] in André, who said that "the beauty in a work of art is not that which pleases at the first glance of fancy through certain individual dispositions of the mental faculties or bodily organs, but that which has a right to please the reason and reflexion by its own inherent excellence or rightness and, if the expression be allowed, by its intrinsic agreeableness";[29] in Voltaire, who recognized a "universal taste" which was "intellectual";[30] and in very many others. This intellectualistic error, no less than the sensationalistic, was attacked by Kant; but even Kant, by making beauty consist in a symbolism of morality, failed to grasp the concept of an imaginative absoluteness of taste.[31] Succeeding generations of philosophers met the difficulty by passing it over in silence.

Nevertheless, this criterion of an imaginative absoluteness, the idea that in order to judge works of art one must place oneself at the artist's point of view at the moment of production, and that to judge is to reproduce, gathered weight little by little from the beginning of the eighteenth century, when its first appearance is seen in the work of the Italian Francesco Montani already quoted (1705), and by the English poet Alexander Pope in his Essay on Criticism. ("A perfect judge will read each work of wit With the same spirit that its author writ."[32]) A few years later Antonio Conti recognized part of the truth in the règle du premier aspect advised by Terrasson as a test for judging poetry, while noting it to be more applicable to modern than to ancient works: "quand on n'a pas l'esprit prévenu, et que d'ailleurs on l'a assez pénétrant, on peut voir tout d'un coup si un poète a bien imité son objet; car, comme on connaît l'original, c'est-à-dire les hommes et les mœurs de son siècle, on peut aisément lui confronter la copie, c'est-à-dire la poésie qui les imite." In judging ancient writers something more is necessary: "cette règle du premier aspect n'est presque d'aucun usage dans l'examen de l'ancienne poésie, dont on ne peut pas juger qu'après avoir longtemps réfléchi sur la religion des anciens, sur leurs lois, leur mœurs, sur leurs manières de combattre et d'haranguer, etc. Les beautés d'un poème, indépendantes de toutes ces circonstances individuelles, sont très rares, et les grands peintres les ont toujours évitées avec soin, car ils voulaient peindre la nature et non pas leurs idées;"[33] the necessary criterion, therefore, is to be found in history. The end of the same century saw the concept of congenial reproduction sufficiently defined by Heydenreich: "A philosophical critic of art must himself be possessed of genius for art; reason exacts this qualification and grants no dispensation, just as she will refuse to appoint a blind man as judge of colours. The critic must not pretend to be able to feel the attraction of beauty by means of syllogisms (Vernunftschlüsse); beauty must manifest itself to feeling with irresistible self-evidence and, attracted by its fascination, reason must find no time to linger over the why and wherefore; the effect, with its delightful and unexpected possession and domination of the whole being, should suffocate at birth any inquiry into origins or causes. But this state of fanatical admiration cannot last long; reason must inevitably recover consciousness of itself and direct its attention upon the state in which it was during the enjoyment of beauty and upon its present memories of that state...."[34] This was the wholesomely impressionistic theory which prevailed among the Romanticists and was accepted even by De Sanctis.[35] Still there was even then no definite theory of criticism, which demanded as its condition of existence a precise concept of art and of the relations of the work of art with its historical antecedents.[36] The very possibility of æsthetic criticism was questioned in the second half of the nineteenth century, when taste was relegated to a place amongst the facts of individual caprice, and a so-called historical criticism was proclaimed the sole scientific criticism and expounded in works of irrelevant learning or buried beneath the preconceptions of positivists and materialists. Those who reacted against such extremalism and materialism generally made the mistake of supporting themselves by a kind of intellectualistic dogmatism[37] or an empty æstheticism.[38]

Distinction between taste and genius.

VI. We have seen that in the seventeenth century, when the words "taste" and "genius" or "wit" were in fashion, the facts they designated were sometimes interchanged amongst themselves and came to be considered as one single fact, while sometimes each was conceived as distinct in itself, genius being the faculty of production, and taste the faculty of judgement, taste being further subdivided into the sterile and the fertile: a terminology adopted by Muratori[39] in Italy and Ulrich König[40] in Germany. Batteux said, "le goût juge des productions du génie"[41]; and Kant speaks of defective works having genius without taste or taste without genius, and of others in which taste alone suffices;[42] now we find him distinguishing the two concepts as the judging and producing faculties, now he speaks of them as a single faculty existing in various degrees. An inherent difference between taste and genius was accepted by later writers on Æsthetic and assumed its most rigid form in the hands of Herbart and his followers.

Concept of artistic and literary history.

VII. The evolutionary theory of art made its appearance towards the end of the eighteenth century. This was the time when the distinction between classical and romantic art was first made; a classification later augmented by an introductory section on Oriental art, owing to the increase of knowledge concerning the pre-Hellenic world. Towards the end of his life Goethe told his friend Eckermann that the concepts of classical and romantic had been formed by himself and Schiller, for he himself had upheld the objective method in poetry, whilst Schiller, in order to champion the subjective form to which he inclined, had written the essay On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry, in which the word naïve (naiv) expresses the style later called classical and the word sentimental (sentimentalisch) that later called romantic. "The Schlegels," continues Goethe, "seized upon these ideas and disseminated them, so that to-day everyone uses them and speaks of classical and romantic, things perfectly unknown fifty years ago"[43] (Goethe was speaking in 1831). Schiller's essay bears the imprint of Rousseau's influence and is dated 1795-6.[44] It contains such statements as this: "Poets are above all things the preservers of nature; and when they cannot be so entirely, and have tried upon themselves the destructive force of arbitrary and artificial forms or have fought against such forms, they stand up to bear witness on her behalf. Poets, therefore, either are nature or, having lost her, seek her. Hence arise two wholly distinct kinds of poetic composition, exhausting between them the whole field of poetry; all poets who are worthy of the name must belong, according to the times and conditions in which they flourish, either to the category of naïve or to that of sentimental poets." Schiller recognized three kinds of sentimental poetry: satirical, elegiac and idyllic; he defined a satirical poet as one "who takes as his object the desertion of nature and the contrast of the real with the ideal." The weak point of this division is the concept of two distinct kinds of poetry, the reduction of the infinite forms in which poetry appears to individuals, to two kinds. If one of these two kinds be taken the perfect and the other as the imperfect kind, the mistake is made of converting imperfection into a kind or species, the negative into a positive. Wilhelm von Humboldt pointed out to his friend that if form is the essence of art, there cannot be a kind of poetry, such as the sentimental or romantic is supposed to be, in which matter preponderates over form, for that would constitute a pseudo-art, not a separate kind of art.[45] Schiller attached no historical meaning to his classification, in fact he declared explicitly that in using the words "ancient" and "modern" as equivalent to "ingenuous" and "sentimental" he did not mean to deny that some "ancient" poets, in his sense of the word, could be found among contemporary writers; the two characters might even be united in the same poet or the same poetical work, as (to give Schiller's own example) in Werther[46] The first to assign a historical meaning to the division were Friedrich and Wilhelm von Schlegel; the former in an early work of 1795, the latter in his celebrated lectures on literary history given at Berlin in 1801-4. But the two senses, systematic and historical, were variously alternated and mixed by literary men and critics, and other distinctions were added; "classical" was sometimes used to describe poetry of a frigid and imitative style, while "romantic" poetry was the inspired; in some countries the word "romantic" came to mean a political reactionary, in Italy it stood for "liberal"; and so forth. In 1815, when Friedrich Schlegel spoke of ancient Persian romantic poems, or when in our times attention is called to the romanticism of the Greek, Latin or French classics, the historical signification is lost in the theoretical, the sense originally intended by Schiller.

But the historical sense was prevalent in German idealism, which inclined towards the construction of a universal history, including that of literature and art, upon a scheme of ideal evolution. Schelling made a sharp division between pagan and Christian art; the second being held an advance upon the former which was the lowest step.[47] Hegel accepted this division and introduced a final regress by dividing the history of art into three periods: symbolic (Oriental) art, classical (Hellenic) and romantic (modern). Just as he conceived Roman art (with its introduction of satire and other kinds indicative of a failure to maintain harmony between form and content) as the dissolution of classical art, a thought suggested by Schiller, so he found in the subjective humour of Cervantes and Ariosto[48] the dissolution of romantic art; and he regarded this series as completing the possibilities of art, though some interpreters think that by a self-contradiction he admitted the possibility of a fourth period, an art of the modern or future world. Indeed amongst his disciples we find Weiss rejecting the Oriental period in order to save the triadic division, and placing as third the modern period, synthesis of the ancient and the mediæval:[49] Vischer too inclines to recognize a modern or progressive period.[50]

These arbitrary constructions reappear in the works of positivist metaphysicians in the shape of an evolutionary or progressive history of art. Spencer dreamed of writing some sort of treatise on the subject, and in the published programme of his system (1860) we read that the third volume of his Principles of Sociology was to contain amongst other things a chapter on æsthetic progress "with the gradual differentiation of fine arts from primitive institutions and from each other, with their increasing variety in development, their progress in reality of expression and superiority of end." No grief need be felt that the chapter was left unwritten when we remember the samples of it preserved in the Principles of Psychology and already reviewed in these pages.[51]

The strong historical sense of our own day is leading us further and further away from the evolutionary or abstractly progressive theories which falsify the free and original movement of art. Fiedler remarked not without justice that unity and progress cannot be introduced into a history of art, and that the works of artists must be judged discretely as so many fragments of the life of the universe.[52] In recent times a remarkable student of the history of figurative art, Venturi, has tried to bring evolutionism into fashion, and has illustrated it in a History of the Madonna, in which the presentment of the Virgin is conceived as an organism which is born, grows, attains perfection, grows old and dies! Others have claimed for artistic history its true character, intolerant of outward curb and rule, drawing her ever-varied productions from the well-head of the infinite Spirit.[53]

Conclusion.

These hurried notes may suffice to show in how narrow a circle has hitherto moved the scientific criticism of the errors we have called "particular." Æsthetic needs to be surrounded and nourished by a watchful and vigorous critical literature drawing its life from her and forming in turn her safeguard and strength.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX

The first attempt at a history of Æsthetic is the work of J. Roller (see above, p. 248) mentioned by Zimmermann (Gesch. d. Ästh. pref., p. v) as being so exceedingly rare that he had never been able to see a copy of the book. We ourselves have had the good fortune to find the book in the Royal Library of Munich in Bavaria, by the help of our friend Dr. Arturo Farinelli of Innsbruck University, and to obtain the loan of it. It bears the title Entwurf | zur | Geschichte und Literatur | der Æsthetik | von Baumgarten auf die | neueste Zeit. | Herausgegeben | von | J. Koller. | Regensburg | in der Montag und Weissischen Buchhandlung | 1799 (pp. viii-107, small 8vo); in the preface the author declares his intention of supplying young men attending Lectures on the Criticism of Taste and the Theory of the Fine Arts in the German Universities with a "lucid summary of the origin and later progress of these studies," premising that he will treat of general theories only and that his judgements are frequently derived from reviews in literary periodicals. The introduction (§§ 1-7) treats of æsthetic theories from antiquity down to the beginning of the eighteenth century; Koller observes that "the names and form of a general Theory of Fine Art and Criticism of Taste were unknown to the ancients, whose imperfect ethical theory prevented their producing anything in this field." He dedicates § 5 to the Italians, "who have produced little in theory"; indeed the only Italian books mentioned are the Entusiasmo of Bettinelli and the small work of Jagemann, Saggio di buon gusto nelle belle arti ove si spiegano gli elementi dell' estetica, di Fr. Gaud. Jagemann, Regente agostiniano, In Firenze, MDCCLXXI, Presso Luigi Bastianelli e compagni; 60 pp. (concerning this, see B. Croce, Problemi di estetica, pp. 387-390). The section on the History and Literature of Æsthetic begins with the oft-quoted passage from Bülffinger ("Vellem existerent, etc.") and passes at once to Baumgarten: "the theoretical epoch owes its existence undeniably to Baumgarten; to him belongs the inalienable merit of having first conceived an Æsthetic founded on principles of reason and wholly developed, and of having tried to put it into practice by the means offered him by his own philosophy." Immediately after this, Meier is mentioned, followed by the titles, accompanied by brief extracts and remarks—a sort of catalogue raisonné—of many German books on Æsthetic from those of K. W. Müller (1759) to one by Ramier (1799), mixed with various French and English writings under the dates of their German translations. Special emphasis is laid on Kant (pp. 64-74), with the remark that, prior to the appearance of the Critique of Judgment, æstheticians were divided into sceptics, dogmatics and empiricists: the most powerful intellects of the nation inclined towards empiricism, so much so that had Kant himself "been asked by what literature he had been most strongly influenced in the development of his own thought, he would certainly have named the acute empirical writers of England, France and Germany"; but "by no pre-Kantian method had it been possible to establish an agreement (eine Einhelligkeit) between men upon matters of taste." The last pages call attention to the revival of interest in æsthetic studies, which nobody would now dare call a waste of time as in former days. "May Jacobi, Schiller and Mehmel soon enrich literature by publication of their theories!" (p. 104).

The rarity of Koller's book has led us to notice it at some length. Apart from this the first general history of Æsthetic worthy the name is that written by Robert Zimmermann, Geschichte der Ästhetik als philosophischer Wissenschaft, Vienna, 1858. It is divided into four books: "the first of these contains the history of philosophical concepts concerning the beautiful and art from the Greeks down to the constitution of Æsthetic as a philosophical science through the labours of Baumgarten"; the second runs from Baumgarten down to the reform of Æsthetic brought about by the Critique of Judgment; the third, from Kant to the Æsthetic of idealism; the fourth, from the beginnings of idealistic Æsthetic down to the author's own day (1798-1858). The work is on Herbartian lines, and is remarkable for solid research and lucid exposition, although the erroneous point of view and neglect of all æsthetic movement other than Græco-Roman or German are grave defects; besides, it is now sixty years out of date.

Less solid and more compilatory in nature, whilst retaining all the defects of the foregoing, is the history by Max Schasler, Kritische Geschichte der Ästhetik, Berlin, 1872, divided into three books treating of ancient Æsthetic and that of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The author belongs to the Hegelian school and conceives his history as a propædeutic to theory, "in order, that is, to attain a supreme principle for the construction of a new system"; he schematizes the material of facts for each period into three grades of Æsthetic of sensation (Empfindungsurtheil,) of intellect (Verstandsurtheil) and of reason (Vernunfturtheil.)

English literature has Bernard Bosanquet's History of Æsthetics, London, 1892; a sober and well-arranged work, written from an eclectic point of view between the Æsthetic of content and the Æsthetic of form. The author, however, is wrong in believing he has passed over "no writer of the first rank"; he has passed over not only writers but some important movements of ideas, and in general he shows insufficient knowledge of the literature of the Latin races. Another general history of Æsthetic in English is the first volume of The Philosophy of the Beautiful, being Outlines of the History of Æsthetics, by William Knight, London, Murray, 1895: it consists mainly of a rich collection of extracts and abridgements of ancient and modern books treating of Æsthetic. In this respect the most noteworthy chapters are those on Holland, Great Britain and America (10-13); the second volume, published in 1898, has in an appendix, pp. 251-281, notices upon Æsthetic in Russia and Denmark. Another recent publication is George Saintsbury's A History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe from the Earliest Times to the Present Day; vol. i., Edinburgh and London, 1900, concerning classical and mediæval criticism; vol. ii., 1902, criticism from the Renaissance to end of the eighteenth century: vol. iii., 1904, modern criticism. The writer of this History, equally skilled in literature and innocent of philosophy, has thought it possible to exclude æsthetic science in the strict sense, "the more transcendental Æsthetic, those ambitious theories of Beauty and artistic pleasure in general which seem so noble and fascinating until we discover them to be but cloud-appearances of Juno," and to limit his treatise to "lofty Rhetoric and Poetic, to the theory and practice of Criticism and literary taste" (book i. ch. I). Thus is produced a book instructive in many ways but wholly deficient in method and definite object. What is lofty Rhetoric and Poetic, the theory of Criticism and literary taste, if not Æsthetic pure and simple? how can the history of these be composed without due notice of metaphysical Æsthetic and other manifestations whose interaction and development are the fabric of history itself? Perhaps Saintsbury hoped to be able to write a History of Criticism as distinct from that of Æsthetic; if that be the case, he has been unsuccessful in writing either one or the other. Cf. La Critica, ii. (1904), pp. 59-63.

The generosity of the Hungarian Academy of Science has enabled us to handle the History of Æsthetic (Az Æsthetika története) of Bela Janosi, Budapesth, 1899-1901, in three volumes; the first volume treats the Æsthetic of Greece; the second, of Æsthetic from the Middle Ages to Baumgarten; the third, from Baumgarten to the present day. For us it is a book sealed with seven seals, save for reviews which have appeared in the Deutsche Litteraturzeitung of Berlin, August 25, 1900, July 12, 1902, and May 2, 1903.

Amongst Latin countries, France has no special history of Æsthetic, for this title cannot be given to the portion of the second volume (pp. 311-570) of the work by Ch. Levêque, La Science du beau (Paris, 1862), under the heading Examen des principaux systèmes d'esthétique anciens et modernes, where eight chapters are devoted to an exposition of the theories of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and St. Augustine, Hutcheson, André and Baumgarten, Reid, Kant, Schelling and Hegel. Spain, on the other hand, possesses the work of Marcelino Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de las idéas estéticas en España, 2nd ed., Madrid, 1890-1901 (5 vols., variously distributed amongst the 1st ed., 1883-1891, and the 2nd), which is not restricted, as the title suggests, to Spain alone or to Æsthetic alone but, as the author observes in his preface (i. pp. xx-xxi), includes the metaphysical disquisitions on the beautiful, the speculations of mystics on the beauty of God and on love; the theories of art scattered through the pages of philosophers; the æsthetic considerations found in treatises upon individual arts (Poetics and Rhetoric, works on painting, architecture, etc.); and, finally, ideas enunciated by artists concerning their own particular arts. This work is of capital importance on everything to do with Spanish authors, and also in its general part contains good treatments of matters generally passed over by historians. Menendez y Pelayo inclines to metaphysical idealism, yet seems not disinclined to welcome elements from other systems, even empirical theories: in our opinion this vagueness has an unfortunate effect on the work as a whole. Some years ago Professor V. Spinazzola announced the forthcoming publication of a course of lectures given by Francesco de Sanctis in Naples in 1845 on Storia della critica da Aristotele ad Hegel. For the history of Æsthetic in Italy cf. Alfredo Rolla, Storia delle idee estetiche in Italia, Turin, 1904; on which see Croce, Problemi di estetica, pp. 401-415.

We need take no notice of the historical remarks or chapters that generally stand at the beginning of treatises on Æsthetic; the most important occur in the volumes of Solger, Hegel and Schleiermacher. A general history of Æsthetic, from the rigorous point of view of the principle of Expression, has not been attempted before the present work.

For the bibliography down to the end of the eighteenth century, Sulzer's Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, 2nd ed., with additions by von Blankenburg, Leipzig, 1792, in four volumes, is practically complete and is an inexhaustible mine of information. For the nineteenth century much material is collected by C. Mills Gayley and Fred Newton Scott in An Introduction to the Methods and Materials of Literary Criticism. The Bases in Æsthetics and Poetics, Boston, 1899. Besides Sulzer, we may mention æsthetic dictionaries by Gruber, Wörterbuch z. Behuf d. Ästh. d. schönen Künste, Weimar, 1810: Jeithles, Ästhetisches Lexikon, vol. i. A-K, Vienna, 1835: Hebenstreit, Encyklopädie d. Ästhetik, 2nd ed., Vienna, 1848.

The following notes contain for the convenience of the student several books which the author has not been able to see.

I. Concerning ancient Æsthetic no better or more comprehensive work can be found than the Geschichte der Theorie der Kunst bei den Alten, by Ed. Müller, Breslau, 1831-1837, 2 vols. For inquiries concerning the Beautiful special reference should be made to Julius Walter, Die Geschichte der Ästhetik im Alterthum ihren begrifflichen Entwicklung nach, Leipzig, 1893. See also Em. Egger, Essai sur l'histoire de la critique chez les Grecs, 2nd ed., Paris, 1886: Zimmermann, Bk. I.: Bosanquet, ch. ii.-v. and Saintsbury, vol. i.

Of the innumerable special monographs: for Plato's Æsthetic see Arn. Ruge, Die platonische Ästhetik, Halle, 1832: for Aristotle's, Döring, Die Kunstlehre des Aristoteles, Jena, 1876: C. Bénard, L'Esthétique d'Aristote et de ses successeurs, Paris, 1890: S. H. Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art, 3rd ed., London, 1902. For Plotinus, E. Vacherot, Histoire critique de l'école d'Alexandrie, Paris, 1846: E. Brenning, Die Lehre vom Schönen bei Plotin im Zusammenhang seines Systems dargestellt, Göttingen, 1864. On the Ars Poetica of Horace, A. Viola, L' arte poetica di Orazio nella critica italiana e straniera, 2 vols. Naples, 1901-1907.

For the history of ancient Psychology see H. Siebeck, Geschichte der Psychologie, 1880; A. E. Chaignet, Histoire de la psychologie des Grecs, Paris, 1887; L. Ambrosi, La psicologia dell' immaginazione nella storia della filosofia, Rome, 1898. For the history of the philosophy of language see H. Steinthal, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik, 2nd ed. Berlin, 1890-1891, 2 vols.

II. For the æsthetic ideas of St. Augustine and early Christian authors see Menendez y Pelayo, op. cit. pp. 193-266. For Thomas Aquinas, L. Taparelli, Delle ragioni del bello seconde la dottrina di san Tommaso d'Aquino (in Civiltà cattolica for 1859-1860): P. Vallet, L'Idée du beau dans la philosophie de St. Thomas d'Aquin, 1883: M. de Wulf, Études historiques sur l'esthétique de St. Thomas, Louvain, 1896.

For the literary doctrines of the Middle Ages see D. Comparetti, Virgilio nel medio evo, 2nd ed. Florence, 1893, vol. i., and G. Saintsbury, op. cit., vol. i. pp. 369-486. For the early Renaissance see K. Vossler, Poetische Theorien in d. italien. Frührenaissance, Berlin, 1900. For the Poetics of the high Renaissance see J. E. Spingarn, History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance, with special reference to the influence of Italy, New York, 1899 (Italian trans. with corrections and additions, Bari, 1905). See also F. de Sanctis, Storia della letteratura italiana, Naples, 1870, passim.

For the traditions of Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, for best and fullest information see Menendez y Pelayo, op. cit., vol. i. part ii. and vol. ii. For Italian treatises on beauty and love see Michele Rosi, Saggi sui trattati d' amore del cinquecento, Recanati, 1899, and F. Flamini, Il cinquecento, Milan, Vallardi, N.D., ch. iv. pp. 378-381. For Tasso see Alfredo Giannini, Il "Minturno" di T. Tasso, Ariano, 1899: see also E. Proto in Rass. crit. lett. ital. vi. (Naples, 1901) pp. 127-145. For Leone Ebreo see Edm. Solmi, Benedetto Spinoza e L. E., studio su una fonte italiana dimenticata dello spinozismo, Modena, 1903: cf. G. Gentile in Critica, ii. pp. 313-319.

On J. C. Scaliger see Eug. Lintilhac, Un Coup d'État dans la république des lettres: Jules César Scaliger, fondateur du classicisme cent ans avant Boileau (in the Nouv. Revue, 1890, vol. lxiv. pp. 333-346, 528-547). On Fracastoro, Giuseppe Rossi, Girolamo Fracastoro in relazione all' aristotelismo e alla scienza nel Rinascimento, Pisa, 1893. On Castelvetro, Ant. Fusco, La poetica di Ludovico Castelvetro, Naples, 1904. On Patrizzi, Oddone Zenatti, Fr. Patrizzi, Orazio Ariosto, e Torquato Tasso, etc. (Verona, per le nozze Morpurgo-Franchetti, N.D.).

III. For this period of ferment see H. von Stein, Die Entstehung der neueren Ästhetik, Stuttgart, 1886: K. Borinski, Die Poetik der Renaissance und die Anfänge der litterarischen Kritik in Deutschland, Berlin, 1886 (esp. the last chapter): also same author's Baltasar Gracian und die Hofliteratur in Deutschland, Halle a. S., 1894, B. Croce, I trattatisti italiani del Concettismo e B. Gracian, Naples, 1899 (in Atti dell' Acc. Pont. vol. xxix., reprinted in Problemi di estetica, pp. 309-345), Elizabethan Critical Essays, edited with an introduction by G. Gregory Smith, Oxford, 1904, 2 vols.: Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, edited by J. E. Spingam, Oxford, 1908, 2 vols.: Leone Donati, J. J. Bodmer und die italienische Litteratur (in the vol. J. J. Bodmer, Denkschrift z. C. C. Geburtstag, Zürich, 1900, pp. 241-312): see also Probl. di estetica, pp. 371-380.

On Bacon see K. Fischer, Franz Baco von Verulam, Leipzig, 1856 (2nd ed. 1875), cf. P. Jacquinet, Fr. Baconis in re litteraria iudicia, Paris, 1863. On Gravina, Em. Reich, G. V. Gravina als Ästhetiker (in the Trans, of the Viennese Academy, vol. cxx. 1890): B. Croce, Di alcuni giudizi sul Gravina considerate come estetico, Florence, 1901 (in Miscellanea d' Ancona, pp. 456-464), reprinted in Probl. di est. pp. 360-370. On Du Bos, Morel,Étude sur l'abbé du Bos, Paris, 1849: P. Petent, J. B. Dubos, Tramelan, 1902. On Bouhours, Doncieux, Un jésuite homme de lettres au XVII^e siècle, Paris, 1886. On the Bouhours-Orsi controversy, F. Fottano, Una polemica nel settecento, in Ricerche letterarie, Leghorn, 1897, pp. 313-332: A. Boeri, Una contesa letteraria franco-italiana nel secolo XVIII, Palermo, 1900 (cf. Giorn. stor. lett. ital. xxxvi. pp. 255-256): B. Croce, Varietà di storia dell' estetica, §§ 1-2, in Rass. crit. lett. ital. cit., vi. 1901, pp. 115-126, reprinted in Probl. di est. pp. 346-359.

IV. On Cartesianism in literature see É. Krantz, L'Esthétique de Descartes étudiée dans les rapports de la doctrine cartésienne avec la littérature classique française au XVIII^e siècle, Paris, 1882; see also the chapter on André, pp. 311-341, and the introduction by V. Cousin to the œuvres philosophiques du p. André, Paris, 1843: on Boileau, Borinski, Poetik d. Renaissance, c. 6, pp. 314-329; J. Brunetière, L'Esthétique de B. in Revue des Deux Mondes, June 1, 1899.

On the English intellectualist æstheticians see Zimmermann, op. cit. pp. 273-301; also von Stein, op. cit. pp. 185-216. On Shaftesbury and Hutcheson see esp. Gid. Spicker, Die Philosophie d. Grafen v. Shaftesbury, Freiburg i. B., 1872, part iv. on art and literature, pp. 196-233: T. Fowler, S. and Hutcheson, London, 1882: William Robert Scott, Francis Hutcheson, his life, teaching and position in the history of philosophy, Cambridge, 1900.

On Leibniz, Baumgarten and contemporary German writers see Th. W. Danzel, Gottsched und seine Zeit, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1855: H. G. Meyer, Leibnitz und Baumgarten als Begründer der deutschen Ästhetik, Inaugural Dissertation, Halle, 1874: Joh. Schmidt, L. und B., Halle, 1875: Ém. Grucker, Histoire des doctrines littéraires et esthétiques en Allemagne (from Opitz to the Swiss writers), Paris, 1883: Fr. Braitmaier, Geschichte der poetischen Theorie und Kritik von den Diskursen der Maler his auf Lessing, Frauenfeld, 1888-1889. In the last-named book the first part treats of the beginning of Poetics and criticism in Germany, considered in their relation to the doctrines of classical, French and English writers: the second part treats of an attempt to found an æsthetic philosophy and theory of poetry upon a basis of Leibnitian-Wolffian psychology: which includes a long discussion of Baumgarten and quotations from two dissertations, Raabe's A. G. Baumgarten, æstheticæ in disciplinæ formam parens et auctor, and Prieger's Anregung u. metaphysische Grundlage d. Ästh. von A. G. Baumgarten, 1875 (cf. vol. ii. p. 2).

V. On Vico as æsthetician see B. Zumbini, Sopra alcuni principî di critica letteraria di G. B. V. (reprinted in Studî di letter. italiana, Florence, 1894, pp. 257-268): B. Croce, G. B. V. primo scopritore della scienza estetica, Naples, 1901 (reprinted from Flegrea. April 1901), incorporated in the present volume as has been mentioned already: see also G. Gentile in Rass. crit. della lett. ital., cit., vi. pp. 254-265: E. Bertana, in Giorn. stor. lett. ital. xxxviii. pp. 449-451: A. Martinazzoli, Intorno alle dottrine vichiane di ragion poetica, in Riv. di filos. e sc. aff. of Bologna, July 1902: also the reply of B. Croce, ibid., August 1902: Giovanni Rossi, Il pensiero di G. B. V. intorno alla natura della lingua e all' ufficio dette lettere, Salerno, 1901. The important position occupied by Vico in respect to Æsthetic had been remarked earlier by C. Marini, G. B. V. al cospetto del secolo XIX, Naples, 1852, c. 7, § 10. For the influence exercised by Vico, B. Croce, Per la storia della critica e storiografia letteraria, Naples, 1903 (in Atti d. Acc. Pont., vol. xxxiii.), pp. 7-8, 26-28 (reprinted in Probl. di est. pp. 423-425), and G. A. Borgese, Storia della critica romantica in Italia, Naples, 1905, passim.

On Vico's thought in general, as well as on his Æsthetic, see B. Croce, La filosofia di Giambattista Vico, Bari, 1911: English translation by R. G. Collingwood, 1913. The copious literature concerning Vico is given by B. Croce in Bibliografia vichiana, Naples, 1904 (reprinted from Atti dell' Acad. Pont. vol. xxxiv.), and Supplemento, ibid. 1907, and Secondo Supplemento, 1910 (Atti cit., vols, xxxvii. and xli.).

VI. On the literary doctrines of Conti see G. Brognoligo, L' opera letteraria di A. Conti, in Arch. veneto, 1894, vol. i. pp. 152-209: on Cesarotti, Vitt. Alemanni, Un filosofo delle lettere, vol. i. Turin, 1894: on Pagano, B. Croce, Varietà di storia dell' estetica, § 3; Di alcuni estetici italiani della seconda metà del secolo XVIII, in Rass. crit. cit. vii. 1902, pp. 1-17 (reprinted in Probl. di est. pp. 381-450).

On the German æstheticians, in addition to the various general histories already quoted, see R. Sommer, Grundzüge einer Geschichte der deutschen Psychologie u. Ästhetik von Wolff-Baumgarten his Kant-Schiller, Würzburg, 1892. Greatly inferior is M. Dessoir, Geschichte d. neueren deutschen Psychologie, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1897 (the first half only is published, down to Kant exclusive).

On Sulzer, Braitmaier, op. cit. ii. pp. 55-71: on Mendelssohn, ibid. pp. 72-279: for Elias Schlegel, op. cit. i. p. 249 seqq.; on Mendelssohn see also Th. Wilh. Danzel, Gesammelte Aufsätze, Leipzig, Jahn, 1855, pp. 85-98: Kannegiesser, Stellung Mendelssohns in d. Gesch. d. Ästh., 1868. On Riedel, K. F. Wize, F. J. Riedel u. seine Ästhetik, Diss., Berlin, 1907. On Herder, Ch. Joiet, H. et la renaissance littéraire en Allemagne au XVIII^e siècle, Paris, 1875: R. Haym, H. nach seinem Leben u. seinen Werken, 2 vols., Berlin, 1880: G. Jacobi, H.'s und Kant's Ästh., Leipzig, 1907. For the ideas of Hamann and Herder concerning the origins of poetry see Croce in Critica, ix. (1911), pp. 469-472. On the history of Linguistic, see Th. Benfey, Geschichte d. Sprachwissenschaft in Deutschland, Munich, 1869, introd.: H. Steinthal, Der Ursprung der Sprache im Zusammenhange mit d. letzen Fragen alles Wissens, eine Darstellung, Kritik und Fortentwicklung der vorzüglichsten Ansichten, 4th ed., Berlin, 1888.

VII. On Batteux see E. v. Danckelmann, Charles Batteux, sein Leben u. sein ästhetisches Lehrgebäude, Rostock, 1902. On Hogarth, Burke and Home, Zimmermann, op. cit. pp. 223-273; Bosanquet, op. cit. pp. 202-210. On Home esp. J. Wohlgemüth, H. Home's Ästhetik, Rostock, 1894: W. Neumann, Die Bedeutung Homes für d. Ästhetik, u. sein Einflüss auf d. deutschen Ästhetik, Halle, 1894. On Hemsterhuis, Ém. Grucker, François H., sa vie et ses oeuvres, Paris, 1866.

On Winckelmann, Goethe, W. u. sein Jahrhundert, 1805 (in Werke, ed. Goedecke, vol. xxxi.): C. Justi, W. u. seine Zeitgenossen, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1898. A criticism of Winckelmann's theory, by H. Hettner, appeared in the Revue Moderne, 1866. On Mengs, Zimmermann, op. cit. pp. 338-355. On Lessing, Th. Wilh. Danzel, G. E. Lessing, sein Leben und seine Werke, Leipzig, 1849-1853: Kuno Fischer, L. als Reformater d. deutschen Litteratur, Stuttgart, 1881: Ém. Grucker, Lessing, Paris, 1891: Erich Schmidt, Lessing, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1899: K. Borinski, Lessing, Berlin, 1900.

On Spalletti see B. Croce, Var., cit., § 3 (Probl. d. est. pp. 392-398). On Meier, Hirth and Goethe, Danzel, Goethe und die Weimarsche Kunstfreunde in ihrem Verhältniss z. Winckelmann, in Gesamm. Aufs. pp. 118-145. On Goethe's Æsthetic esp. see Wilh. Bode, Goethes Ästhetik, Berlin, 1901.

VIII. Critical expositions of Kant's Æsthetic are very numerous even in Italy: for example, O. Colecchi, Questioni filosofiche, Naples, 1843, vol. iii.; C. Cantoni, E. Kant, Milan, 1884, vol. iii. In German, esp. H. Cohen, Kants Begründung der Ästhetik, Berlin, 1889; also an important chapter in Sommer, op. cit. pp. 337-352; a sufficient representative of a host of others is the elaborate work of Victor Basch, Essai critique sur l'esthétique de Kant, Paris, 1896. See also, on an Italian trans. of the Kr. d. Urth., B. Croce in Critica, v. (1907), pp. 160-164.

For Kant's lectures and the historical antecedents of his Critique of Judgment (besides the dissertations of H. Falkenheim, Die Entstehung der kantischen Ästhetik, Heidelberg, 1890, and Rich. Grundmann, Die Entwickel d. Ästh. Kants, Leipzig, 1893) see the exhaustive work of Otto Schlapp, Kant's Lehre vom Genie und die Entstehung d. Kritik d. Urtheilskraft, Göttingen, 1901.

IX. For the whole of this period, beside the general histories already quoted which treat of it in great detail, see Th. Wilh. Danzel, Über den gegenwärtigen Zustand d. Philosophie d. Kunst u. ihre nächste Aufgabe (in the Zeitschr. f. Phil, of Fichte, 1844-1845, and reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsätze, pp. 1-84): this treats of Kant, Schiller, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and, more particularly, of Solger, pp. 51-84: Herm. Lotze, Geschichte der Ästhetik in Deutschland, Munich, 1868 (in the coll. "History of the Sciences in Germany," published by the Royal Academy of Sciences of Munich in Bavaria): first book, history of general points of view from Baumgarten to the Herbartian school: second book, history of individual fundamental æsthetic concepts: third book, contributions to the history of the theory of the arts: Ed. v. Hartmann, Die deutsche Ästhetik s. Kant (first part, historico-critical), Berlin, 1886, divided into two books. The first book discusses the doctrine of the chief æstheticians and, after an introduction on the foundation of philosophical æsthetic by Kant, treats of the Æsthetic of the content, divided into that of abstract idealism (Schelling, Schopenhauer, Solger, Krause, Weisse, Lotze); of concrete idealism (Hegel, Trahndorff, Schleiermacher, Deutinger, Oersted, Vischer, Zeising, Carrière, Schasler); of the Æsthetic of feeling (Kirchmann, Wiener, Horwicz); the Æsthetic of form, subdivided into abstract formalism (Herbart, Zimmermann), and concrete formalism (Köstlin, Siebeck). The second book is concerned with the more important special problems.

On the Æsthetic of Schiller specially see, amongst numerous monographs, Danzel, Schillers Briefwechsel mit Körner, in Ges. Aufs. pp. 227-244: G. Zimmermann, Versuch einer schillerschen Ästhetik, Leipzig, 1889: F. Montargis, L'Esthétique de Schiller, Paris, 1890: the chapter in Sommer, op. cit. pp. 365-432: V. Basch, La Poétique de Schiller, Paris, 1901.

On the Æsthetic of Romanticism, R. Haym, Die romantische Schule: ein Beitrag z. Geschichte d. deutschen Geistes, Berlin, 1870 (cf. on Tieck, book i.; on Novalis, book iii.: for criticism of the two Schlegels, bk. ii. and bk. iii. ch. 5): N. M. Pichtos, Die Ästhetik Aug. W. v. Schlegel in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung, Berlin, 1893. On the Æsthetic of Fichte, G. Tempel, Fichtes Stellung z. Kunst, Metz, 1901.

On the Æsthetic of Hegel, Danzel, Über d. Ästhetik der hegelschen Philosophie, Hamburg, 1844: R. Haym, Hegel u. seine Zeit, Berlin, 1857, pp. 433-443: J. S. Kedney, Hegel's Æsthetics: a critical exposition, Chicago, 1885: Kuno Fischer, Hegels Leben u. Werke, Heidelberg, 1898-1901, chs. 38-42, pp. 811-947: J. Kohn, Hegels Ästhetik in Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 1902, vol. 120, fasc. ii.: see also B. Croce, Cio che è vivo e cio che è morto della filosofia di Hegel, Bari, 1907, ch. 6; Engl. tr. by D. Ainslie, 1915.

X. For the Æsthetic of Schopenhauer, Fr. Sommerlad, Darstellung u. Kritik d. ästh. Grundanschauungen Schopenhauers, Diss., Giessen, 1895: Ed. v. Mayer, Schopenhauers Ästhetik u. ihr Verhältniss z. d. ästh. Lehren Kants u. Schellings, Halle, 1897: Ett. Zoccoli, L' estetica di A. Sch.: propedeutica all' estetica Wagneriana, Milan, 1901: G. Chialvo, L' estetica di A. Sch., saggio esplicativo-critico, Rome, 1905.

For the Æsthetic of Herbart, beside Zimmermann, op. cit. pp. 754-804, see O. Hostinsky, Herbarts Ästhetik in ihrer grundlegenden Theilen quellenmässig dargestellt u. erläutert, Hamburg-Leipzig, 1891.

XI. Of the Æsthetic of Schleiermacher, the fullest treatment is given by Zimmermann, pp. 609-634, and von Hartmann, pp. 156-169.

XII. For the history of the theory of Language, beside Benfey, op. cit. introd., see Max. Leop. Loewe, Historiæ criticæ grammatices universalis seu philosophicæ lineamenta, Dresden, 1839: A. F. Pott, W. v. Humboldt und die Sprachwissenschaft, introd. to the reprint of Humboldt's Verschiedenheit d. menschl. Sprachbaues (2nd ed., Berlin, 1880, vol. i.).

On Humboldt see esp. Steinthal, Der Ursprung der Sprache, pp. 59-81, and Pott's introd. cit., Wilh. v. Humboldt u. die Sprachwissenschaft.

XIII. For this period, treated with unnecessary fulness, see von Hartmann, op. cit. bk. i.: more concisely by Menendez y Pelayo, vol. iv. (1st ed.), part i. chs. 6-8.

For the doctrine of the modifications of beauty see Zimmermann, op. cit. pp. 715-744: Schasler, op. cit. §§ 517-546: Bosanquet, op. cit. ch. 14, pp. 393-440: in greater detail, v. Hartmann, bk. ii. part i. pp. 363-461.

For the history of the Sublime see also F. Unruh, Der Begriff des Erhabenen seit Kant, Königsberg, 1898. For Humour see B. Croce, Dei varî significanti della parola umorismo e del suo uso nella critica letteraria, in the Journal of Comparative Literature of New York, 1903, fasc. iii. (reprinted in Probl. di est. pp. 275-286) F. Baldensperger, Les Définitions de l'humour, in Études; d'hist. litt. Paris, 1907. For the history of the concept of the Graceful, F. Torraca, La grazia secondo il Castiglione e secondo lo Spencer (in Morandi, Antol. della critica lett. ital. 2nd ed., Città di Castello, 1885, pp. 440-444): F. Braitmaier, op. cit. ii. pp. 166-167.

XIV. For the history of Æsthetic in France during the nineteenth century there is nothing so good as Menendez y Pelayo, vol. iii. part ii. chs. 3-9; ibid. chs. 1-2 give full information concerning Æsthetic in England.

For Æsthetic in Italy in the first half of the nineteenth century, Karl Werner, Idealistische Theorien des Schönen in d. italienischen Philosophie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, Vienna, 1884 (from Trans, of the Imperial and Royal Viennese Academy). On Rosmini see esp. P. Bellezza, Antonio Rosmini e la grande questione letteraria del secolo XIX (in the collection Per Antonio Rosmini nel primo centenario, Milan, 1897, vol. i. pp. 364-385). On Gioberti, Ad. Faggi, Vinc. Gioberti esteta e letterato, Palermo, 1901 (from the Atti della R. Accad. di Palermo, s. iii. vol. vi.). On Delfico, G. Gentile, Dal Gcnovesi al Galluppi, Naples, 1903, ch. ii. On Leopardi, E. Bertana in Giorn. stor. lett. ital. xli. pp. 193-283; R. Giani, L'estetica nei pensieri di G. Leopardi, Turin, 1904 (cf. G. Gentile in Critica, ii. pp. 144-147). See also a book quoted by A. Rolla and B. Croce, loc. cit., containing a catalogue of Italian books on Æsthetic of the nineteenth century (Probl. di est. pp. 401-415).

On the theories of the Italian Romanticists, F. De Sanctis, La poetica del Manzoni, in Scritti varî, ed. Croce, i. pp. 23-45; and the same author's La letteratura italiana nel secolo XIX, ed. Croce, Naples, 1897, on Tommaseo, pp. 233-243: on Cantù, pp. 244-273: on Berchet, pp. 479-493: on Mazzini, pp. 424-441. On Mazzini esp. F. Ricitari, Concetto dell' arte e della critica letteraria nella mente di G. Mazzini, Catania, 1896. For all these see G. A. Borgese, Storia della critica romantica in Italia, cit.

XV. For the life of De Sanctis and the bibliography of his works see Scritti varî, ed. Croce, ii. pp. 267-308, also the volume In memoria di Fr. de S. edited by M. Mandalari, Naples, 1884.

On De Sanctis as literary critic, P. Villari, Commemorazione: A. C. de Meis, Commem., in the above-mentioned vol. In memoria: Marc Monnier in Revue des Deux Mondes, April I, 1884: Pio Ferrieri, Fr. de S. e la critica letteraria, Milan, 1888: B. Croce, La critica letteraria, Rome, 1896, ch. 5; Fr. de S. e i suoi critici recenti (in Atti dell' Accad. Pontan. vol. xxviii. reprinted in Scritti varî, append, ii. 309-352), and prefs. to vols, already quoted, La lett. ital. nel sec. XIX, and Scritti varî; De Sanctis e Schopenhauer, in Atti della Pontaniana, xxxii. 1902: Enr. Cocchia, II pensiero critico di Fr. de S. nell' arte e nella politica, Naples, 1899: G. A. Borgese, op. cit. last chapter and passim.

XVI. On the last phase of metaphysical Æsthetic, G. Neudecker, Studien z. Geschichte d. deutschen Ästhetik s. Kant, Würzburg, 1878, which discusses and criticises more particularly Vischer (self-criticism), Zimmermann, Lotze, Köstlin, Siebeck, Fechner and Deutinger. On Zimmermann, von Hartmann, op. cit. pp. 267-304: Bonatelli, in Nuova Antologia, October 1867. On Lotze, Fritz Kogel, Lotzes Ästhetik, Göttingen, 1886: A. Matragrin, Essai sur l'esthétique de Lotze, Paris, 1901. On Köstlin, von Hartmann, pp. 304-317. On Schasler, see the same, pp. 248-252, also Bosanquet, pp. 414-424. On Hartmann, Ad. Faggi, Ed. H. e l' estetica tedesca, Florence, 1895. On Vischer see M. Diez, Fried. Vischer u. d. ästh. Formalismus, Stuttgart, 1889.

For French and English æstheticians, besides Menendez y Pelayo, op. cit., on Ruskin, see J. Milsand, L'Esthétique anglaise, étude sur J. Ruskin, Paris, 1864: R. de la Sizeranne, Ruskin et la religion de la beauté, 3rd ed., Paris, 1898; cf. part iii. On Fornari, V. Imbriani, Vito Fornari estetico (reprinted in Studî letterarî e bizzarri e satiriche, ed. Croce, Bari, 1907). On Tari see Nic. Gallo, Antonio Tari, studio critico, Palermo, 1884: Croce, in Critica, v. (1907), pp. 357-361; also in pref. to vol.: A. Tari, saggi di estetica e metafisica, Bari, 1910.

XVII. For positivist Æsthetic see Menendez y Pelayo, op. cit. iv. (1st ed.) vol. ii. pp. 120-136, 326-369: N. Gallo, La scienza dell' arte, Turin, 1887, chs. 6-8, pp. 162-216.

XVIII. On Kirchmann, von Hartmann, pp. 253-265. For various recent German æstheticians, Hugo Spitzer, Kritische Studien z. Ästhet. der Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1897. On Nietzsche, Ettore G. Zoccoli, Fred. Nietzsche, Modena, 1898, pp. 268-344: Jul. Zeitler, Nietzsches Ästhetik, Leipzig, 1900. On Flaubert, A. Fusco, La teoria dell' arte in G. F., Naples, 1907: cf. Critica, vi. (1908), pp. 125-134. For books on Æsthetic published during the last decade of the nineteenth century see Luc. Arréat, Dix années de philosophie, 1891-1900, Paris, 1901, pp. 74-116. A few remarks on contemporary Æsthetic are made by K. Groos in Die Philosophie im Beginn. des XX^en Jahrh., ed. by W. Windelband, Heidelberg, 1904-1905. For latest books on Æsthetic see Critica, ed. B. Croce (Naples), from 1903 onward, which publishes reviews of them. There is also a review, started in 1906, published at Stuttgart (ed. F. Enke), Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, edited by Max Dessoir.

XIX. The history of particular problems is usually omitted, or, at best, erroneously treated in histories of Æsthetic: for example, see the difficulty experienced by Ed. Müller, Gesch., cit., ii. pref. pp. vi-vii, in connecting his treatment of the history of Rhetoric with that of Poetics. Some writers attach Rhetoric to the individual arts or to artistic technique; others treat the doctrines of the modification of beauty and of natural beauty (in the metaphysical sense) as special problems; others, again, discuss the kinds or classifications in art in an incidental manner, without seeking to incorporate them in the principal æsthetic problem.

§ 1. On the history of Rhetoric in the ancient sense see Rich. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht dargestellt, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885, of capital importance: A. Ed. Chaignet, La Rhétorique et son histoire, Paris, 1888; rich in material, but ill-arranged and with the preconception that Rhetoric is still a defensible body of science. For special treatment see Ch. Benoist, Essai historique sur les premiers manuels d'invention oratoire, jusqu'à Aristote, Paris, 1846: Georg Thiele, Hermagoras, ein Beitrag z. Geschichte d. Rhetorik, Strasburg, 1893. There is no history of rhetoric in modern times. For criticism of Vives and other Spaniards see Menendez y Pelayo, op. cit. iii. pp. 211-300 (2nd ed.). For Patrizzi see B. Croce, F. Patrizzi e la critica della rettorica antica, in the vol. of Studî in honour of A. Graf, Bergamo, 1903 (Probl. d. est. pp. 297-308).

For Rhetoric as theory of literary form in antiquity see Volkmann, op. cit. pp. 393-566: Chaignet, op. cit. pp. 413-539: also Egger, passim, and Saintsbury, bks. i. ii. For purposes of comparison see Paul Reynaud, La Rhétorique sanskrite exposée dans son développement historique et ses rapports avec la rhétorique classique, Paris, 1884. For the Middle Ages, Comparetti, Virgilio nel medio evo, vol. i., and Saintsbury, bk. iii. There is need for a work on modern Rhetoric in this sense also. For the form it assumed ultimately according to the theory of Gröber see B. Croce, Di alcuni principî di sintassi e stilistica psicologiche del Gröber, in Atti dell' Accad. Pontan. vol. xxix. 1899: K. Vossler, Literaturblatt für germ. u. roman. Philologie, 1900, N.I.: B. Croce, Le categorie rettoriche e il prof. Gröber, in Flegrea, April 1900: K. Vossler, Positivismo e idealismo nella scienza del linguaggio, Ital. trans. Bari, 1908, pp. 48-61 (cf. Probl. d. est. pp. 143-171). Very incomplete observations on the history of the concept of metaphor are made by A. Biese, Philosophie d. Metaphorischen, Hamburg-Leipzig, 1893, pp. 1-16; but this book has the merit of calling attention to the importance of the views and influence of Vico.

§ 2. For the history of the literary kinds in antiquity see the works above quoted by Müller, Egger, Saintsbury, and the vast literature on Aristotle's Poetics. For comparison with Sanskrit poetics, Sylvain Levi, Le Théâtre indien, Paris, 1890, esp. pp. 11, 152. For mediæval poetry see esp. Gio. Mari, I trattati medievali di ritmica latina, Milan, 1899; and his recent edition of Poetica magistri Iohannis anglici, 1901.

For the history of the kinds under the Renaissance see principally Spingarn, op. cit. i. chs. 3-4; ii. ch. 2; iii. ch. 3. Also Menendez y Pelayo, Borinski, Saintsbury, passim.

Special works: on Pietro Aretino, De Sanctis, Storia della letteratura italiana, ii. pp. 122-144: A. Graf, Attraverso il cinquecento, Turin, 1888, pp. 87-167: K. Vossler, P. A.'s künstlerisches Bekenntniss, Heidelberg, 1901. On Guarini, V. Rossi, G. B. Guarini e il Pastor Fido, Turin, 1886, pp. 238-250. On Scaliger, Lintilhac, Un Coup d'État, cit. For the three unities, L. Morandi, Baretti contro Voltaire, 2nd ed., Città di Castello, 1884: Breitinger, Les Unités d'Aristote avant le Cid de Corneille, 2nd ed., Geneva-Basle, 1895: J. Ebner, Beitrag z. einer Geschichte d. dramatischen Einheiten in Italien, Munich, 1898. On the Spanish polemic concerning comedy see A. Morel Fatio on the defenders of comedy and of the Arte nuevo, in the Bulletin Hispanique of Bordeaux, vols. iii. and iv.: on the dramatic theories see Arnaud, Les Théories dramatiques au XVII^e siècle, étude sur la vie et les œuvres de l'abbé D'Aubignac, Paris, 1888: Paul Dupont, Un Poète philosophe au commencement du XVIII^e siècle, Houdar de la Motte, Paris, 1898: Alfredo Galletti, Le teorie drammatiche e la tragedia in Italia nel secolo XVIII, part i. 1700-1750, Cremona, 1901. On the history of French Poetics, F. Brunetière, L'Évolution des genres dans l'histoire de la littérature, Paris, 1890, vol. i. introd.: "L'évolution de la critique depuis la Renaissance jusqu'à nos jours." On that of English Poetics, Paul Hamelius, Die Kritik in d. engl. Literatur des XVII en u. XVIII^en Jahrh., Leipzig, 1897: also the well-filled chapter in Gayley-Scott, op. cit. pp. 382-422, the sketch of a book on the subject. For the romantic period see Alfred Michiels, Histoire des idées littéraires en France au XIX^e siècle, et de leurs origines dans les siècles antérieures, 4th ed., Paris, 1863. For Italy see G. A. Borgese, op. cit.

§ 3. For the early history of the distinction and classification of the arts see the literature quoted above in relation to Lessing, and his Laokoon, with notes by Blümner. For subsequent history, H. Lotze, Geschichte, cit., bk. iii.: Max Schasler, Das System der Künste auf einem neuen, im Wesen der Kunst begründeten Gliederungsprincip, 2nd ed., Leipzig-Berlin, 1881, introd.: Ed. v. Hartmann, Deutsche Ästh. s. Kant, bk. ii. part ii. especially pp. 524-580: V. Basch, Essai sur l'esth. de Kant, pp. 483-496.

§ 4. For the doctrine of styles in antiquity see Volkmann, op. cit. pp. 532-566. The history of grammar and parts of speech is treated fully so far as Græco-Roman antiquity is concerned in Laur. Lersch, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten, Bonn, 1838-1841: better still by Steinthal, Geschichte, cit. vol. ii. For Apollonius Dyscolus see Egger, Apollon Dyscole, Paris, 1854. For the history of grammar in the Middle Ages see Ch. Thurot, Extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l'histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen âge, Paris, 1869. For modern times, C. Trabalza, Storia della grammatica italiana, Milan, 1908. For the history of Criticism several books mentioned under § 2 may be consulted: in addition to these, B. Croce, Per la storia della critica e storiografia letteraria, containing Italian examples (Probl. d. est. pp. 419-448): for the theories of recent French criticism see Ém. Hennequin, La Critique scientifique, Paris, 1888, and Ernest Tissot, Les évolutions de la critique française, Paris, 1890. On the concept of "romanticism" see G. Muoni, Note per una poetica storica del romanticismo, Milan, 1906: cf. B. Croce, Le definizioni del romanticismo, in Critica, iv. pp. 241-245 (reprinted in Probl. di estetica, pp. 285-294).

INDEX Abelard, 178 Absolute, 162 Absolutism in æsthetic, 122 Accarisio, A., 358 Action, 47 Addison, J., 195, 203, 218 Adherent beauty, 101 Adone, 34, 441 Advocatus diaboli, 56 Aeneid, 463 Aeschylus, 411 Æsop, 6 Æsthetic physics, 105, and see Vischer Æsthetic progress, 138 Ahriman, 78 Ainslie, D., 484 Alberti, L. B., 179, 450 Alceo, 37 Alcibiades, 170 Alemanni, V., 482 Alembert, d', 241 Alexander, 29 Algarotti, 359 Alison, A., 261 Allegorical meaning, 177 Allegory, 34 Allen, Grant, 390 Alphabets, 100 Alunno, F., 358 Ambiguity, 71 Ambrosi, L., 479 Aminta, 37 Anacharsis, 223 Anacreon, 51 Anagogic meaning, 177 André, 205, 206, 268 Angelis, de, 222 223 n. Animals, thought in, 23 Anstruther-Thomson, C., 391 n. Antisthenes, 463 Apollinesque art, 412 Apollonius Dyscolus, 464 Apollonius of Tyana, 171 Apparent feelings, 80-81 Appearance, 17 Applied knowledge, 55 A priori synthesis, 41 Arabic art, 138 Archæology, 126 Archimedes, 20 Architecture, 101 theory of, 113 Aretino, P., 442 Ariosto, L., 136, 191, 196, 363, 473 Aristarchus, 464 Aristophanes, 160, 411, 421, 436 Aristotelians, 180 Aristotle, 41, 43, 92, 161, 165, 168, 169, 170, 173. 17 6, 178, 182, 184, 186, 187, 193, 217, 218, 220, 223, 227, 229. 236, 238, 257, 267, 315, 343, 421, 423, 427, 429, 430, 436, 437, 438, 464 Aristoxenus, 450 Armida, 102 Arnaud, 488 Arnauld, A., 210, 229 Arnold, D. E., 218 Arréat, L., 487 Ars Poetica, 228, 257 Art and intuition, 12 and science, 25 for art's sake, 52 Arteaga, S., 241, 269 Artificial beauty, 98 Arts, the various: classifications of, 114, 449 seqq. limits of, 114, 449 seqq. no separate æsthetics of, 114 theories of, 113 Ascetic view of art, 85 Asiatic style, 463 Association, æsthetic, 7, 104 linguistic, 144 Ast, F., 300, 345, 346 Astrology of æsthetic, 110 Atoms, 30 Attic style, 463 Attractive, the, 87 Aubignac, d', 257, 439 Augustine, St., 175, 181, 206, 238 Augustus, 191 Authority, 41 Averroes, 178, 180, 437 Azara, N. d', 268 Babylonian art, 138 Bach, J. S., 411 Bacon, F., 41, 195, 203, 210, 227, 231, 232 Bain, A., 390 Balbo, 134 Baldensperger, F., 485 Balestrieri, P., 353 Balzac, L., 204 n., 237 Barante, de, 352 Baretti, G., 446 Barreda, F. de la, 443 Bartoli, 358 Baruffaldi, 199 Basch, V., 456, 483, 484, 489 Bastile, the, 29 Batteux, C., 257, 258, 445, 449, 466, 470 Baumgarten, A. A., 103, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 231, 239-250, 252, 262, 273. 275, 289, 299, 315, 417, 418, 433 Beatrice, 365 Beauty, physical, 97 reluctance to use the term, 84 theory of, in antiquity, 163 seqq. in Middle Ages, 175 in Renaissance, 179-181 Beauzée, N. de, 254, 358 Beccaria, C., 434 Becker, C. F., 329 Bede, 429 Beethoven, n, 382, 411 Bel, J. J., 205 Bellezza, P., 485 Belloni, A., 441 n. "Below, æsthetic from," 109 Bembo, P., 179, 241, 358 Bénard, Ch., 359, 382, 479 Benfey, T., 325 n., 482 Beni, P., 230 Benoist, C., 487 Berchet, G., 356, 447 Bergson, H., 416-417 Berkeley, G., 461 Bemhardi, A. F., 324 Bertana, E., 481, 485 Bettinelli, S., 205, 241, 242, 358, 446, 475 Betussi, G., 179 Biese, A., 408, 436, 459, 488 Birth of Tragedy, The, 412 Blair, H., 434, 463 Blankenburg, von, 248, 478 Blümner, 489 Bobrik, H., 338 Boccaccio, 57, 177 Bode, W., 483 Bodmer, J. J., 195, 199, 211 Boeri, A., 480 Boileau, N., 204, 211, 257, 343, 439, 445 Bonacci, G., 353 Bonald, L. G. A. de, 352 Bonatelli, 486 Bonghi, R., 435 Bonstetten, C., 350 Borgese, G. A., 482 Borgia, 57 Borinski, K., 184, 191, 192 n., 197 n., 211 n., 480, 481, 483 Bos, J. B. du, 196, 197 n., 203, 218, 236, 251, 445, 449 Bosanquet, B., 418, 476-477 Bossu, le, 183, 228, 257 Bouhours, 190, 193, 199, 200, 208, 445 Bouterweck, F., 354 Braitmaier, F., 247 n., 481 Bratranek, F. T., 342, 459 Breitinger, J. J., 195, 211, 218, 231, 488 Brenning, 479 Brocense, 209 Brognoligo, G., 482 Brosses, C. de, 255 Brunetière, F., 449, 481, 488 Bruno, G., 442 Bruyère, la, 192, 343 Bryson, 173 Bücher, C., 401 Bucolics, 463 Bülffinger, J. B., 211, 217, 230 Bulk as a quality of art, 108 Buonafede, A., 446 Buonmattei, 358 Burke, E., 259, 260, 287, 343 Butcher, S. H., 479 Byzantine art, 127, 138 Cacophony, 150 Cæcilius, 429 Cæsar, 29 Calepio, 195, 199, 439 Callology, 354 Calvus, 191 Camillo, G., 430 Campanella, T., 181, 182, 231, 425, 426 Cantoni, C., 483 Cantù, C., 364 Caprice, 119 Carlyle, T., 352 Carrière, M., 375, 379 Cartaut de la Villatte, 196 Cartesianism, 204 seqq., 210, 217, 228, Casa, G. della, 241 Castel, L. B., 453 Castelvetro, L., 181, 182, 185, 186, 193, 224, 227, 236, 241, 358, 359, 439 Castiglione, B., 179 Catharsis, 161 Catholicism, 63 Cattani, F., 179 Catullus, 191 Causality, 307 Caylus, 450 Cecchi, G. M., 440 Cecco d'Ascoli, 176 Cennini, C., 450 Cervantes, 136, 473 Cesarotti, M., 235, 240, 241, 250, 255, 359-434, 446 Chaignet, A. E., 479, 483 Chapelain, G., 441 Characteristics, 206 n. charakteires teis phraseoos, 463 Charlemagne, 27 Chassiron, P. M. de, 441 Cheerful, the, 87 Cherbuliez, 382 Chiabrera, G., 201 Chialvo, 484 Chinese, 326, 330 Chivalry, 136 Choice of subject in art, 51-52 Christian art, 291, 295, 355, 472 Chrysippus, 464 Cicero, 165, 167, 171, 175, 193, 218, 249, 343, 423, 428, 430 Cicognara, L., 353 Cid, 196, 441 Cigoli, L. Cardi da, 450 n. Cimabue, 124 Cintio, 440 Classical art, 68, 70-71, 115, 138, and see Goethe, Schiller Classification, 38 of arts, 114, 449 seqq. of languages, 146 Clerc, J. le (Clerico), 229 Cocchia, E., 486 Cohen, H., 483 Colao Agata, D., 255 Colecchi, O., 354, 483 Coleridge, S. T., 352 Collingwood, R. G., 482 Colonne, D. de, 426 Comic, the, 87, 91 Comparetti, 463 n., 465 n., 479, 487 Concept, the, 42 æsthetic, 45 its place in art, 2, 33, 122 depends on intuition, 22 Conceptualism, 41 Condillac, S. B. de, 251, 254, 261, 353, 358 Content, 15 in art, 98 æsthetic of, 313 Conti, A., 204, 236-239, 445, 468 Continuity, law of, 206 Convention, 31 linguistic, 144 Conventional signs, 124 Convivio, 177 Cooking, 83 Coquettish, the, 87 Corax, 423 Corneille, P., 439, 441 Corniani, 241 Corso, R., 358 Corticelli, S., 358 Cosmos, 342, 459 Court de Gébelin, A., 255 Cousin, V., 134, 351, 481 Cratylus, 173, 228 Creuzens, C. de, 284 Critic, the, 120 Criticism, historical, 128 Critique of Judgment, 198 n., 275 seqq. Critique of Pure Reason, 273, 278-279, 324 Croce, B., 419 n., 481-488 Cromaziano, A., 446 n. Cromwell, 352 n. Crousaz, J. P. de, 199, 205 Cruel, the, 87 Custom and Myth, 401 n. Dacianus, 181 Dacier, A., 257, 439 Dacier, Mme., 198 Danckelmann, E. von, 482 Dante, 18, 53, 93, 117, 121, 124, 137, 177, 178, 222, 252, 411, 440, 448 Danzel, T. W., 244 n., 284 n., 289 n., 290 n., 299 n., 338-339, 481, 482, 483, 484 Decorative art, 36, 101 Decorous, the, 87 Deduction, 42 Defect, error of, 156 Defence of Poetry, 352 n. Definition, 42 Degeneracy, 401 Degrees, relation of, 26 of expression, 67 of ugliness, 79 Delfico, M., 353, 464 Delminio, G. C., 430 n. Demetrius Phalereus, 427 Descartes, R., 204-211, 217 n. Dessoir, M., 482, 487 Deutinger, 334, 335, 379 Diæresis, 150 Diderot, D., 441, 445, 449, 461 Diez, M., 406, 486 Dignified, the, 87 Diogenes Lærtius, 165 n., 173 n. Dionysiac art, 412 Dionysius the Areopagite, 175 Direction of intention, 61 Discrepancy of judgement, 119 Disgusting, the, 87 Diversity of Structure of Human Languages, On the, 325 Divina Commedia, 101, 367, and see Dante Dolce, L., 180, 191 Donati, L., 480 Donatus, 429 Doncieux, 480 Don Giovanni, 101 Don Quixote, 34, 119 Döring, 479 Dreadful, the, 87 Duns Scotus, Johannes, 178, 179, 207 Dupont, P., 488 Eberhard, J. A., 248 Ebner, J., 488 Eckardt, L., 334, 336 Eckermann, 471 Eclogue, 37 Economic activity, 55 seqq. Economics, 56 Effatum, 174 Egger, E., 479, 489 Egoism, 56 Egyptian art, 138 Eighteenth century, 138 eikos, 184 Elegiac, the, 87 Elementary forms of the beautiful, 108 Elements of Criticism, 260, 343, and see Home Elizabeth, Princess, 204 n. Ellipse, the, 69, 71, 72 Elocutio, 422 Elsteb, E., 435 n. Émeric-David, 350 n. Emotion and thought, 22 Emotions and the Will, The, 390 Empedocles, 423 End of art, the, 51, 85 Engel, G., 455 n. Enke, F., 487 Enquiry into ... Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 207 n. Epic, 36 Epicurus, 173 Epistle to the Pisones, 162 Equicola, M., 179 Eratosthenes, 161 Eriugena, Johannes Scotus, 175 ermeineia, 422 Erwin, 295 Eschenburg, J. J., 248 Essay concerning the Human Understanding, 206 n. Essay on Criticism, 198 n., 468 Essay on Man, 274 Ether, 30 Ethics, 56, 121, 123 Ethnopsychology, 331, 403 Ettori, C., 192, 193, 195, 199, 202 Euclid, 267 Eupompus, 172 Euripides, 411 Evolution, 133 Excess, error of, 156 Experimental æsthetic, 109 Expression and intuition, 8 naturalistic sense of, 95 Expression of the Emotions, 95 Externalization, 119 seqq. External language, 25 Faber, 248 Faggi, 485, 486 Falkenheim, H., 483 Fancy, 170, 295, 296 Farinata degli Uberti, 93 Farinelli, A., 192 n. Faust, 137, 365 Fechner, G. T., 394-397, 406 Feeling, 18, 74 seqq. Feijóo, B., 200, 442 Ferrant, Mme., 236 n. Fichte, J. G., 290, 315 Ficino, M., 179 Ficker, F., 354 Fiedler, C., 414-416, 473, 474 n. Fioretti, B., 441 Firenzuola, A., 180 Fischer, G. G., 459 Fischer, K., 480, 483, 484 Flamini, F., 480 Flaubert, G., 368 Flowers, language of, 100 Fontenelle, B., 204 Form, 6, 15, 98 æsthetic of, 313 Fomari, V., 383 n. Fortunio, G. F., 358 Foscolo, U., 353 Fottano, F., 480 Fouillée, A., 399 Fowler, T., 481 Fracastoro, G., 184, 237 Franco, N., 180 Frederick the Great, 103 Frederick William, 102 French Revolution, 27 Fulgentius, 176 Fulvio, 180 Fusco, A., 480, 487 Gæta, M., 230 Galileo, 41, 231, 450 Galletti, 488 Gallo, N., 383, 486 Galluppi, P., 354 Gäng, F., 248 Garcia, M. F., 178 Gayley, F. M., 352 n., 478 Gefallen, 77 Gellert, C., 441 Genius, 14, 61, 470 Gentile, G., 272 n., 419 n., 480, 481, 485 Geometrical figures, beauty of, 106 Geometry, 30 Georgics, 463 Gérard, A., 198 n., 200 n., 261, 358 Gerber, G., 454 Gerusalemme Conquistata, 120 Gerusalemme Liberata, 33, 34, 120 Geschichte des Materialismus, 404 Ghibellines, 367 Giani, R., 485 Giannini, A., 480 Giannone, 134 Gioberti, V., 354-356, 359. 364, 383 Giotto, 137, 394 Godfrey, 224 Gods, 294-295 Goethe, 137, 235, 270-271, 272, 289, 292, 328, 446 448, 471, 483 Goguet, A., 251 Golden section, no, 180, 395 Gorgias, 158, 163, 423 Gottsched, J. C., 211, 214 n., 244 n., 446 Graceful, the, 87 Gracian, B., 190, 191, 197, 200 n., 432 Græco-Roman æsthetic, 156 seqq. Grammar, 145 seqq., 465 Grave, the, 87 Gravina, G. B., 195, 202, 228, 236, 359. 444 Greece, 29 æsthetic in, 157 Greek art, its alleged serenity, 127 Griepenkerl, 338 Grimm, F. M., 446 Gröber, G., 435 Groos, K., 408-410, 487 Grosse, E., 397-398 Grotius, H., 225 Gruber, 478 Grucker, E., 481, 483 Grundmann, R., 483 Guarini, G. B., 440, 442 Guelfs, 367 Guicciardini, 134 Guizot, 134 Guyau, J. M., 399, 400, 410 Hamann, J. G., 251, 254, 256, 272 Hamelius, P., 488 Hamlet, 49 Hanslick, E., 412-414 Harris, 254 Hartmann, E. von, 314, 323, 378, 383, 409, 447-448, 454, 459. 473 n., 484 Haym, R., 482, 484 Hearing, arts of, 115 Hebenstreit, 478 Hedonism, 75, 156 æsthetic, 82 seqq. Hedonistic-moralistic æsthetic, 156 Hegel, G. W. F., 134, 270 291 n., 297 seqq., 312, 314, 334, 338, 341, 355, 359-364, 376, 379, 383, 435, 459, 461, 478 Hegelians, 370, 372 Heine, 136, 386 Heinsius, D., 439 Helen, 171 Helmholz, 391 Hemsterhuis, F., 262 Hennequin, E., 489 Henriade, 37 Herbart, J. F., 41, 307 seqq., 332, 342, 344, 345, 346, 370, 376, 383, 391, 406, 413, 453, 470 Herder, J. G., 235, 250-254, 256, 272, 274, 281, 284, 340, 403, 434, 435, 452, 461 Hermagoras, 424 Hermann, C., 178, 417 Hermann und Dorothee, 328, 448 Hermogenes, 430 Herwigh, 247 Hetaira, art as, 160 Hettner, H., 483 Heydenreich, K. H., 249, 344, 452, 469 Hiatus, 150 Hieroglyphics, 100 Hippias, 164 Hippias Major, 164, 460 Hirth, L., 270 Historical materialism, 40 History, 26-30 History of art, 130 intellectualism in, 39 philosophy of, 39-40, 64, 231 theory of, 39 seqq.Hobbes, T., 92, 195, 225 Hogarth, W., 258, 260, 272 Holland, 392 Holstein-Augustenburg, Duke of, 288 Home, H., 260, 272, 343, 434, 446, 447, 460, 466 Homer, 33, 157, 183, 222, 224, 228, 239, 240, 241, 251, 252, 295, 366 Homonym, 69 Horace, 107, 162, 228, 257 Horrible, the, 87 Hostinsky, O., 484 Huarte, 195 Hugo, V., 352 n., 357, 449 Human body, beauty of, 105 Humanists, 43 Humboldt, A. von, 342, 459 Humboldt, W. von, 325 seqq., 334, 402, 403, 421, 466 n., 472 Hume, D., 241, 261, 467 Humour, 87, 90, 344 Hutcheson, F., 206, 207, 237, 247 Iago, 57, 365 Idea, the, 167 Idealism, absolute, 41 Idealization, 16, 108 Ideas in art, 33 Idyllic, the, 87 Iliad, 115, 183, 367 Image, 7 Imagination, 170 arts of, 115 Imaginative absolute, the, 122-123 creation, 171 Imbriani, V., 486 Imitation, 16, 33, 107 Imposing, the, 87 Independence, the, of art, 52 Indifferent, the morally, 59 Individual, concept of, 28 Individuality in art, 67 Indivisibility of the work of art, 20 Induction, 42 Inductive æsthetics, 109 Industrial arts, 101 Ingegno, 189 seqq. Ingenuous, the, 87 Intellectual intuition, 65 Interest, 16, 117 Interjection, 143 Internal language, 25 form of language, 328 Interpretation, historical, 126 Intuition, 1 seqq. not dependent on concepts, 2 not perception, 3 independent of space and time, 4 not sensation, 5 and expression, 8 and art, 12 intellectual, 65 Inversion, 69 Irony, 291, 297 Isocrates, 427 Italian language, the, 150 Italy, unification of, 27 Jacobi, G., 247, 262, 482 Jacquinet, P., 480 Jagemann, F. G., 475 Janosi, B., 477 Je ne sais quoi, 200, 207 Jerusalem delivered, 33, 34, 120 Jesuits, 61 Joan of Aragon, 180 Jodi, F., 406, 407 John of Salisbury, 177 John the Scot. See Eriugena Joret, C., 482 Jouffroy, T., 351, 407 Jourdain, Monsieur, 14 Judgement, æsthetic, 43, 45, 118 Julius and Raphæl, 284 Juno,295 Jupiter, 171 Kaimes, Lord. See Home Kaligone, 252-253, 284, 340 n. kalon, 116 Kannegiesser, 482 Kant, I., 41, 92, 192, 272 seqq., 292, 296, 298, 307, 311, 315. 344, 345, 354, 399, 400, 404, 406, 426, 435, 452, 468, 470, 476 Keckermann, B., 425 Kedney, J. S., 484 Kinds, 35-38 Kirchmann, J. F. von, 404, 405 Klopstock, 195 Knight, W., 477 Knowledge, its two forms, 1 their relation, 22 seqq. Koch, 324-325 Kogel, F., 486 Kohn, J., 484 Koller, J., 247 n., 248, 475 König, J. U., 199, 248, 470 Körner, C., 288 kosmos, 427 Köstlin, C., 376, 462 Kralik, 463 Krantz, E., 481 Krause, 313, 334, 379 Labanca, B., 474 n. Labels, 10 Ladrone, C., 247 Laharpe, 368 Lamennais, 352 Lancelot, C., 209 Landscape, 98 Lang, A., 101 Lange, A. F., 404 Lange, K., 408 Language, 142 seqq., 172 Laokoon, 451 n., 452 n. Laprade, 459 Latius, W., 229 Laune, 344 Laurenzano, Duke of, 230 Law, 62 Lazarus, M., 331, 375 Lee, Venion, 391 n. Leibniz, G. W., 207, 208, 209, 214, 217, 230, 252, 306, 358 lekton, 174 Leo the Jew, 179 Leonardo da Vinci, 10, 107, 125, 180, 450 Leopardi, 13, 99, 107 Lersch, L., 465 n., 489 Lessing, G. E., 266-268, 272, 276, 344, 367, 439, 440, 441, 449-452 Letters on Æsthetic Education, 285-286 Levêque, C., 381-382, 478 Levi, S., 437, 488 Lewes, G. H., 134, 446 n. lexis, 412 Liberation, æsthetic, 21 Lichtenthal, 354 Life in art, 67 Limits of the arts, 114, 449 seqq. of science, 63 Line of beauty, the, 110, 258 Linguistic, 142 seqq. Lintilhac, E., 439, 480 Lipps, T., 408, 410, 449 n. Literal meaning, 177 Livy, 134 Locke, J., 206, 209, 210 n., 402 Loewe, M. L., 325 n., 485 Logic, i, 14, 41, 123, 172, 226 Lomazzo, 258 Lombroso, C., 401 Longinus (pseudo), 343, 429 Lope de Vega, 443 Lotze, H., 374, 375, 379, 455-457, 483 Louis XIV., 183 Lucretius, 161, 182 Luigini, 180 Luther, M., 29 Lycurgus, 223 Lyric, 36 Macaulay, G. B., 134, 367 Machiavelli, N., 57, 134 Maffei, 205, 236 n. Maggi, V., 182, 437 Majestic, the, 87 Malaspina, 353 Malebolge, 365 Malebranche, 196, 204, 238, 239 Mandricard, 181 Manzoni, 364, 435, 447 Marcianus Capella, 429 Marco del Pino da Siena, no Mari, G., 488 Marini, C., 482 Marino, G. B., 34, 201, 441, 443 Marmontel, 434 Maroncelli, P., 354 Marsais, C. C. du, 254, 358, 433, 434 Martinazzoli, A., 481 Masci, F., 383 Materialism, 64 historical, 40 Mathematical logic, 44 Mathematics, 42 Matragrin, 486 Matter, 5 Mayer, E. von, 484 Mazzini, G., 357, 364 Mazzoni, J., 440 Mazzuchelli, 193 n. Meaning, 104 the four kinds of, 177 Medea, 166 Mediæval art, 138 Meier, G. F., 242-250, 273, 425, 433, 449 Meiners, 248 Meis, A. C. de, 383, 486 Meising, 379 Melancholy, the, 87 Memory, 96 Ménardière, la, 183 Mendelssohn, M., 246, 247, 344, 449 Menendez y Pelayo, M., 478 Mengs, A. R., 264-270, 272 Mephistopheles, 365 Merits, 79 Metacritica, 284 Metaphor, 69, 71, 72, 427 Metaphysic, 64 Metastasio, 446 Meyer, H. G., 270, 481 Meyers Konversazionslexicon, 371 n. Michæl Angelo, 10, 101, 110, 180, 191, 258, 411, 450 Michelet, 385 Michiels, A., 489 Middle Ages, 41, 226 Milizia, F., 268 Milsand, J., 486 Milton, J., 411 mimeisis, 157. 165 Minerva, 209, 229, 358 Minturno, 180, 443 Mirandola, P. della, 179 Mixed beauty, 100 Mock heroic, the, 37 Model language, 150 Models in art, 107, 122 Modern Painters, 383 n. Modes of expression, 67 Modifications of the beautiful, 339 Molière, 14, 190 n., 258 Mommsen, T., 134 Monboddo, 255 Montaigne, 431, 433 Montani, F., 445, 468 Montargis, F., 484 Montesquieu, 193, 200, 241 Moral meaning, 177 Morals, art and, 51-52, 84-85, 116-117 Morandi, L., 488 Morato, P., 180 Morel, 480 Moritz, 248 Motte, de la, 204, 240, 445 Movement, arts of, 115 Moving, the, 87 Müller, E., 161 n., 479, 487 Müller, K. W., 476 Müller, Max, 402 Muoni, G., 489 Muratori, 191, 193-195, 198, 199, 200 n., 202, 228, 340, 359, 468, 470 Murtoleide, 201 Music, 208, 306 theory of, 113 Musical Beauty, On, 412-414 Musterbegriffe, 308 Mysticism, 65, 162 Nahlowsky, 375 Napoleon, 27, 446 Narrative judgements, 41, 43 Naturalism, 33, 64 Natural signs, 124 Nature, 74 beauty of, 98, 105, 339 seqq., 459 seqq. philosophy of, 64 Naugerius, 184, 237 Nauseating, the, 87 Nef, W., 418 Neo-Platonism, 162, 168, 175 Neoptolemus of Paros, 162 Neudecker, G., 373 n., 486 Neumann, W., 483 Newton, I., 206, 230, 239 Nietzsche, F., 411-412 Nifo, A., 180 Nobili, 179 Noble, the, 87 Nominalism, 41 Non-enunciative judgements, 43 Non-moral man, the, 58 Nordau, M., 300-301 Nores, L. de, 440 Normative sciences, 50 Notation, musical, 100 Noumenon, 31, 60 Novalis, 291, 297 Object, art as, 142 Objective art, 68 Observations on the Beautiful and Sublime, 280 Odyssey, 183 Oersted, 334-336, 379 Opera, 455 Oratory, theory of, 113 Orestes, 166 Organon, 41 Oriental art, 115, 137 Originality, 67 Origin of art, 132 of language, 144 Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, Enquiry into the, 259 Orlando Furioso, 191 Ormuzd, 98 Ornament, 68, 69, 422 seqq. Ornithorhynchus, 105 Orsi, 190 n., 193, 199 n., 230, 431, 445 Ortloff, 426 Ossian, 240, 250 Othello, 365 Paciolo, L., 180 Padova, M. da, 450 Pagano, M., 190, 242 Pain, 74 Painting, theory of, 113 Paisiello, 339 Palæography, 126 Palermo, 193 Palimpsests, 127 Palladio, 450 Pallavicino, Sforza, 193, 201, 230 Paradise Lost, 115 Paradisi, 241 Parini, 353 Paris, 29 Parmenon, 166 Parrhasius, 166, 171 Parts of speech, 146 Pascal, B., 195 n. Pasquali, 353 Passion, 21 Past, fascination of the, 127 Pastor Fido, 440, 442 Pathetic, the, 87 Patrizzi, F., 187, 227, 228, 236, 424, 431 Paul, H., 402. 410, 466 n. Paul, St., 433 Pedagogic theory, 85, 156, 160 Pellegrini, M., 190, 197, 230, 343, 431 Pellico, S., 357 n. Perception, 3 Perfetta Poesia. 103, 108 n., 200 n., 202 n. Pericles, 138 Peripeteia, 437 Perizonio, I., 209 Permissible, the, 59 Perucci, A., 444 Petent, P., 480 Petrarch, 363 Petrarchists, 180 Phædrus, 163 Phenomenology of the Spirit, 298 Phenomenon, 31, 60 Phidias, 167, 171, 249 Philebus, QZ, 163 Philography, 107, 179, 180 Philology, 126 Philosophy, 30 of history, 39-40 of nature, 64 Philosophy of the Spirit, 298 Philostratus, 170, 172 Photography, 17 phrasis, 422 Physical beauty, 97 laws of beauty, 108 Physics, æsthetic, 105 Physiognomy, 5 Physiological æsthetics, 390 Physiology, 14 Pica, V., 387 Piccolomini, 182, 186, 193, 437 Pichtos. N. M., 484 Pico della Mirandola, 179 Pictet, 382 Pinciano, A. L., 186 Piquant, the, 87 Pisones, Epistle to the, 162 Plainer, E., 261 Plato, 92, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 168, 170, 173, 179. 181, 184, 206, 220, 221, 223, 227, 228, 291, 302, 304, 306, 399, 421, 423, 436 Platonists, 180 Play, 83, 284, 321, 383, 388 Pleasure, 74 Pleonasm, 60, 71 Pliny, 172 n. Plotinus, 162, 166, 168, 172, 175, 181. 301, 306, 421 Ploucket, 284 Plutarch, 158 n., 161, 163, 166, 432 Pneumatology, 211 Poeta nascitur, 14 Poetics. See Aristotle Poetry and prose, 26-27 Politics (Aristotle), 161 Polybius, 134 Polycletus, 165, 180 Pope, A., 198, 274, 468 Port-Royal, 229, 330 Positivism, 64 Pott, A. F., 323, 466, 485 Potter, P., 106 Praxiteles, 171 Prehistoric art, 138 prepon, 429 Prieger, 481 Principles of Psychology, 388-389 Priscian, 429 Probable, 32-33, 184 Production in art, its stages, 96 Progress, æsthetic, 133 Prometheus, 47 Proper expressions, 69 Prose and poetry, 26-27 Protagoras, 464 Proto, E., 480 Proudhon, 399 Pseudo-æsthetic concepts, 87 seqq. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, 175 psilei lexis 427 Psychology, 87, 213 Puffendorf, 225 Pulchrum, 166 Pulci, 136 Puoti, 358 Pure and applied knowledge, 55 Pure beauty, 86 "Purebeauty, Sir," 348-349 Purification, 167 Pyramidal grouping, 110 Pythagoras, 180, 223 Quadrio, 239-240, 242 Quatremère de Quincy, 350 Quintilian, 193, 343, 423. 427, 428, 430, 464 Quistorp, 217, 242 Raabe, 481 Ramier, 476 Ramus, P., 424-423, 430 Ranke, 134 Raphæl, 9, 137, 184, 394, 411 Rapin, 439 Realism, 41, 70 Realistic art, 68 Recherche de la Vérité, 238 Referendum, æsthetics by, 110 Reformation, 27 Reich, E., 480 Reid, T., 207 Reimarus, 284 Reinbeck, 324 Relativism, 122 Religion, 63 Rembrandt, 105 Remorse, 58 Renaissance, 27, 136, 179 seqq. art, 138 poetics of the, 183 Repetition, 69 Representation, 7 in history, 27 Reproduction in art, its stages, 97 Republic, 223 Repulsive, the, 99 Rest, arts of, 115 Restorations, 126 Reynaud, P., 487 Rhabanus Maurus, 429 Rhetoric, 72, 422 seqq. Rhetoricians, 166 Rhodian style, 463 Ricardou, A., 470 n. Riccoboni, 439 Richter, J. P., 92, 289, 345 Ricitari, F., 486 Rickert, H., 419 n. Ridiculous, the, 87 Riedel, 247, 248, 344 Rigoristic—hedonistic æsthetic, 85, 156 Rinaldo, 102 Rire, le, 416 Risorgimento, 137 Ritter, E., 134, 338 Robortelli, 181, 186 Roland, 181 Rolla, A., 478, 485 Rollin, 257 Romantic art, 69, 70-71, 115, 138, and see Goethe, Schiller Rome, 29 Roots, 148 Rosenkranz, 347, 348, 359 Rosi, M., 480 Rosmini, A., 155 354, 357 Rossi, G., 480, 481 Rossi, V., 488 Roth, 324 Rousseau, J. J., 254, 461, 471 Ruge, A., 347, 378, 479 Ruskin, J., 382-383, 411 Sad, the, 87 Sainte-Beuve, 367, 368 Saintsbury, G., 477 Saisset, E., 382 n. Salisbury, John of, 177 Salviati, 358, 440 Salvini, 193, 200 Sanchez, Francisco, 209, 229, 358, 425 Sanctian method, 209 Sanctis, F. de, 357 n., 358 seqq., 383, 418, 421, 447, 479, 486, 488 Sand, G., 368 Sanskrit poetry, 437 Santillana, Marquis of, 177, 178 Sarlo, F. de, 419 n. Savage art, 139 Savonarola, 176 Scaliger, J. C., 182, 209, 218, 227, 229, 439 Scepticism, historical, 29 Schasler, M., 377, 379, 383, 395, 409, 454, 456, 476, 489 Schein, 17 Schelling, F., 283, 291, 292-295, 296, 298, 300, 304, 306, 312, 315, 334, 337, 340, 344, 346, 355, 360, 379, 393, 435, 447-448, 452, 472 scheimata, 428 Scherno degli Dei, 37 Schiller, F., 283, 284-288, 291, 298, 312, 315, 321, 354, 360, 388, 420, 471-473 Schlapp, O., 275, 279 n., 280 n., 281 n., 483 Schlegel, A. W. von, 357, 362, 472, 447 Schlegel, Elias, 247, 354 Schlegel, F., 291, 346, 347, 354, 472 Schleiermacher, F., 312, 334, 338, 342, 345, 376, 379, 421, 457, 462, 478 Schmidt, E., 483 Schmidt, J., 214 n., 299 n., 375, 481 Schmidt, V., 362 Schneider, 247 Scholasticism, 43 Schopenhauer, A., 45, 304 seqq., 363, 379, 412, 453 Schott, 248 Schubart, 248 Schütz, 248 Science, 30 and art, 25 history of, 135 natural, 30 Science of Language, Lectures on the, 402 n. Sciences, normative, 50 Scientia qualitatum, 13 Scienza Nuova, 24, 220 seqq. Scioppio, G., 209 Scott, F. N., 478 Scott, W. R., 481 Scotus, Duns, 178, 179, 207 Scotus Eriugena, Johannes, 175 Scudéry, 441 Sculpture, theory of, 113 Seechia rapita, 37 Segni, 182, 438 Selection, 51, 117 Semiotic, 95 Seneca, 172 n., 428 Sensation, 5 Senses, æsthetic, 18, 82 Sentence, the, 146 Ser Ciappelletto, 57 Serenity, 21 alleged, of Greek art, 127 Serious, the, 87 Serpentine line, 110 Sexual pleasure and art, 83 Shaftesbury, 206 Shakespeare, 57, 93, 137, 250, 411, 439 Shelley, P. B., 352 Sicily, 9 Siebeck, H., 405, 479 Sight, arts of, 115 Signs, natural and conventional, 124 Simonides, 157 Simple art, 67, 69 Sincerity, 53, 67 "Sir Purebeauty," 378 Sizeranne, R. de la, 486 Smith, Adam, 207. Smith, G. Gregory, 480 Soave, 255 Sociability, 62 Sociology, 40, 62, 399, 400 Socrates, 158, 163, 164, 158, 171, 223, 382, 460 Solger, K. W., 295 seqq., 298, 304, 340, 347, 379, 435, 453, 478 Solla, 224 n. Solmi, E., 480 Solon, 223 Sommer, R., 284 n., 482 Sommerlad, F., 484 Sophists, 157, 172 Sophocles, 157, 411 Space, 4-5 arts of, 115 Euclidean, 30 Spalletti, G., 269-270 Spaventa, B., 132, 272 n. Spectator, The, 195, 203 n. Speech, 23 parts of, 146 primitive, 149 Spence, 450 Spencer, H., 388-390, 473 Sperone, 241 Spicker, G., 481 Spiel, 284 Spinazzola, V., 478 Spingarn, J. E., 479, 480 Spitzer, H., 299 n., 300 487 Staël, Mme. de, 352 Stefane, de, 195 n. Stein, H. von, 262 n., 480, 481 Steinthal, H., 174 n., 256 n., 329 seqq., 334, 402, 403, 465, 479, 482, 485 Stem, P., 408 Stewart, D., 352 Stoics, 161, 173, 421, 464 Strabo, 161 Stumpf, C., 391 n. Sturm und Drang, 137, 289 Style, 53, 71 Subject, art as, 142 Subjective art, 68 Sublime, the, 87, 90, 344 Sublimitate, de. See Longinus Sully, J., 380 n. Sulzer, J. G., 198 n., 199 n., 205 n., 241, 247, 248, 344, 453 n., 478 Summum bonum, 162 Superman, 15 Süssmilch, 255 Syllogism, 43-44 æsthetic, 45 Symbol, 34 Symbolic art, 68 Symbolism, 70 Sympathetic, æsthetic of the, 84, 87 seqq. Symposium, 163 Synæresis, 150 Synecdoche, 72 Synonym, 67, 71, 72 Synthesis, intuitive, 7 Szerdahel, 248 Tacitus, 134 Taille, Jean de la, 439 Taine, H., 367, 368, 383 seqq., 392-393, 397, 398, 410 Talia, 353 Talon, 425 Taparelli, 479 Tasso, T., 33, 120, 180, 182, 191, 196, 200, 224, 236, 359, 411 Tassoni, 183, 424 Taste, 191 seqq., 470 and genius, 120 "no accounting for," 122 Tatio, A. N., 488 Technique, 55, 111 seqq. of expression, 112 Teleology, 292 Telesio, B., 231 Tempel, G., 484 Terrasson, 205, 468 Tertullian, 176 Tesauro, E., 190, 197, 230, 339, 343, 432 Thales, 223 Theodorus, 166 Theodulf, 177 Theon, 166 Theophrastus, 427 Theses, 33 Thiele, G., 487 Thiers, 134 Thomas Aquinas, St., 176 Thomasius, 192 Thought and speech, 23 Thucydides, 134 Thurot, C., 489 Tieck, L., 291, 297 Tiedemann, 255 Time, 4, 5 arts of, 115 Timomachus, 166 Tisias, 423 Tissot, E., 489 Titian, 137 Tolstoy, L., 411, 463 Tommaseo, 357, 364 Töpffer, 382 Tomasi, 383 Torraca, F., 485 Trabalza, 489 Tradition, 126 Tragic, the, 87 Tragi-comic, the, 87 Trahndorff, 334-335. 379 Transcendental æsthetic, 278-279 Translation, 68, 73, 115 Trevisano, 191, 193, 198 n. 109, 211, 217, 239 Trinity, the, 176 Triumph, 83 Trivium, 430 Trojano, P. R., 419 n. Trublet, 196 Truth in art, 67 Typical, the, 33 Ugly, Æsthetic of the, 347 Ugly, the, 79, 88, 98, 346 overcoming of, 88, 346 seqq. Ulrich, 470 Ulysses, 166 Union of arts, 116 Unity, 67 of work of art, 20 Universal, 42 in art, 33 Universal language, 151 Unruh, F., 485 uponoia 157 Useful, the, 56, 164 Utilitarianism, 59 Utility and art, 116 Vacherot, E., 479 Valdés, Juan de, 431 Vallet, P., 479 Value, 77 judgement of, 49 Varchi, igi, 358 Variety, 67 Varro, 465 Vater, 324 Venturi, A., 474 Venus, 295 Verbalism, 41 Vergnügen, 77 Verisimile. See Probable Verism, 33 Verocchio, 394 Véron, E., 410 Vettori, 182 Vibration, 30 Vico, G. B., 24, 220 seqq., 225, 235, 236, 238, 240, 242, 251, 252, 255, 272, 273, 307, 333, 359. 361, 421, 432, 435 Villari, P., 486 Vincent, St., 181 Vinci. See Leonardo Viola, A., 479 Violent, the, 87 Virgil, 162, 176, 181 Vischer, F. T., 336-338, 342, 348, 362, 373, 375, 376, 379, 384, 405, 453-454, 459, 402, 473 Vischer, R., 405 Visconti, E., 353, 356 Vitruvius, 113 Vivacity, 67 Vives, L., 424, 425, 430, 442 Volkelt, 405, 449 n. Völkerpsychologie, 403 Volkmann, 375, 463 n., 487 Voltaire, 132, 147, 198, 241, 445 Vossius, 218 Vossler, K., 435 n., 479, 488 Wagner, A., 362 Wagner, R., 362, 412, 455 Walter, J., 479 Waxworks, 17 Webb, D., 269 Weiss, 473 Weisse, 334-335, 337, 347, 378, 379, 453 Weisshuhn, 284 Werenfels, 218 Werner, K., 485 Werther, 137, 472 Westenrieder, 248 Whately, R., 426 What is Art? 411 Whitney, W. D., 402-403 Wilkins, 210 Will, 47, 50 Winckelmann, 262-268, 270, 272, 276, 291, 350 Windelband, W., 179, 487 Wirth, 337 Wit, 189 seqq., 470 Wittemberg, 29 Wize, K. F., 482 Wohlgemüth, J., 482 Wolf, F. A., 235, 236 Wolff, J. C., 210, 211, 214, 217 n., 238, 273, 279, 449 Wolffianism, 217 Women on the stage, 112 Wordsworth, W., 352 Works of art, 97 Writing, 100 Wulf, M. de, 179, 479 Wundt, W., 403 Xenophon, 163, 171 Zanotti, F. M., 239-240 Zeising, 334, 336, 348, 453 Zeitler, J., 487 Zeller, 134 Zenatti, O., 480 Zeno (Stoic), 189, 218 Zeuxis, 171, 258 Zimmermann, G., 484 Zimmermann, R., 261 n., 262 n., 270 n., 290 n., 299 n., 314, 323, 328 n., 346, 370, 371, 414, 476 Zoccoli, E., 484, 487 Zola, E., 411 Zumbini, B., 481