But the absence of a consciousness of measure or finitude is one thing; the presence of a consciousness of immeasurableness or infinity is another. The first belongs to all sublimity, the second only to one kind of it,--to that where we _attempt_ to measure, or find limits to, the greatness of the thing. _If_ we make this attempt, as when we try in imagination to number the stars or to find an end to time, then it is essential to sublimity that we should fail, and so fail that the idea of immeasurability or endlessness emerges. In like manner, _if_ we compare things, nothing will appear sublime whose greatness is surpa.s.sed or even equalled by that of something else; and, if this process of comparison is pursued, in the end nothing will be found sublime except the absolute totality (however it may be imagined). And this kind of sublimity, which arises from attempts to measure or compare, is often exceedingly striking. But it is only one kind. For it is an entire delusion--though a very common one in theories of the sublime--to suppose that we _must_ attempt to measure or compare. On the contrary, in the majority of cases our impression of overwhelming greatness is accompanied neither by any idea that this greatness has a measure, nor by the idea that it is immeasurable or infinite.[13]
It will not do, then, to lay it down that the sublime is the beautiful which has immeasurable, incomparable, or infinite greatness. But I suggest that, after the explanations given, we may conveniently use the adjective "unmeasured," so long as we remember that this means one thing where we do not measure at all, and another thing where we try to measure and fail. And, this being so, it seems that we may say that _all_ sublimity, and not only that in which the idea of infinite greatness or of the Infinite emerges, is an image of infinity; for in all, through a certain check or limitation and the overcoming of it, we reach the perception or the imaginative idea of something which, on the one hand, has a positive nature, and, on the other, is either _not_ determined as finite or _is_ determined as infinite. But we must not add that this makes the sublime superior to the "beautiful." For the "beautiful" too, though in a different way, is an image of infinity. In "beauty," as we said, that which appears in a sensuous form seems to rest in that form, to be wholly embodied in it; it shows no tendency to pa.s.s beyond it, and intimates no reserve of force that might strain or break it. So that the "beautiful" thing is a whole complete in itself, and in moments when beauty fills our souls we know what Wordsworth meant when he said "the least of things seemed infinite," though each thing, being but one of many, must from another point of view, here suppressed, be finite. "Beauty," then, we may perhaps say, is the image of the total presence of the Infinite within any limits it may choose to a.s.sume; sublimity the image of its boundlessness, and of its rejection of any pretension to independence or absoluteness on the part of its finite forms; the one the image of its immanence, the other of its transcendence.
Within an hour I could attempt no more than an outline of our subject.
That is inevitable; and so is another defect, which I regret more. In a.n.a.lysing any kind of aesthetic experience we have to begin by disentangling the threads that meet in it; and when we can only make a beginning, no time is left for the further task of showing how they are interwoven. We distinguish, for example, one kind of sublimity from another, and we must do so; but in the actual experience, the single instance, these kinds often melt together. I take one case of this.
Trying to overlook the field in which sublimity appears, we say that there is a sublimity of inorganic things, and of things vital, and of things spiritual, and that these kinds differ. And this is true; and perhaps it is also true that sometimes we experience one of these kinds, so to say, quite pure and unmixed with others. But it is not always, perhaps not usually so. More frequently kind mingles with kind, and we mutilate the experience when we name it after one of them. In life the imagination, touched at one point, tingles all over and responds at all points. It is offered an impression of physical or vital greatness, but at once it brings from the other end of its world reminiscences of quite another order, and fuses the impression with them. Or an appeal is made to the sense of spiritual greatness, but there rises before the imagination a vision with the outlines and hues of material Nature.
Offer it a sunset--a mere collection of coloured lines and spots--and they become to it regrets and hopes and longings too deep for tears.
Tell it of souls made perfect in bliss, and it sees an immeasurable rose, or city-walls that flash with the light of all the gems on earth.
The truth that a sparrow and a mountain are different, and that Socrates is not Satan, interests it but little. What it cares for is the truth that, when they are sublime, they are all the same; for each becomes infinite, and it feels in each its own infinity.
1903.
NOTES[14]
I add here a few remarks on some points which it was not convenient to discuss in the lecture.
1. We have seen that in the apprehension of sublimity we do not always employ comparison or attempt to measure. To feel a thing overwhelmingly great it is not necessary to have before the mind either the idea of something less great, or any standard of greatness. To argue that this must be necessary because "great" means nothing except as opposed to "small," is like arguing that I cannot have a perception of pride without thinking of humility.
This point seems to me quite clear. But a question remains. If we go below consciousness, what is it that happens in us? The apprehension of sublimity implies that we have received an exceedingly strong impression. This as a matter of fact must mean an impression very much stronger than something else; and this something else must be, so to say, a standard with which the impression is unconsciously compared.
What then is it?
Stated in the most general terms, it must apparently be the usual or average strength of impressions.
But this unconscious standard takes particular concrete forms in various cla.s.ses of cases. Not seldom it seems to be our sense of our own power or of average human power. This is especially so where the thing felt to be sublime is, in the relevant respect, _in eodem genere_ with ourselves. A sublime lion, for example, is immensely superior to us, or to the average man, in muscular force and so in dangerousness, Tourgenieff"s sparrow in courage and love, a G.o.d in all sorts of ways.
And the use of this unconscious standard is probably the reason of the fact, noted in the lecture, that it is difficult to feel sublimity, as regards vital force, in a creature smaller than ourselves.
But this is not the only standard. A sublime lion is not only immensely stronger than we are, but is generally also exceptional among lions; and so with a sublime tree or bridge or thunderstorm. So that we seem also to use as unconscious standard the idea of the average of the kind to which the thing belongs. An average thunderstorm hardly seems sublime, and yet it is overwhelmingly superior to us in power.[15]
What, again, is the psychical machinery employed when we attempt to measure the sh.o.r.eless sea, or time, and find them immeasurable? Is there any standard of the "usual" here? I will leave this question to more skilled psychologists than myself.
2. Since the impression produced by sublimity is one of very exceptional strength, we are not able to feel it continuously for long, though we can repeat it after a pause. In this the sublime differs from the "beautiful," on which we like to _dwell_ after our first surprise is over. A tragedy or symphony that was sublime from beginning to end could not be so experienced. Living among mountains, we feel their beauty more or less constantly, their sublimity only by flashes.
3. If our account of the impression produced by sublimity is true, why should not any sensation whatever produce this impression merely by gaining extraordinary strength? It seems to me it would, supposing at its normal strength it conformed to the general requirements of aesthetic experience, and supposing the requisite accession of strength did not remove this conformity. But this, in one respect at least, it would do. It would make the light, sound, smell, physiologically painful, and we should feel it as painful or even dangerous. We find this in the case of lightning. If it is to be felt as aesthetic it must not pa.s.s a certain degree of brightness; or, as we sometimes say, it must not be too "near."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] I have learned something from many discussions of this subject.
In its outline the view I have taken is perhaps nearer to Hartmann"s than to any other.
[2] Popular usage coincides roughly with this sense. Indeed, it can hardly be said to recognise the wider one at all. "Beauty" and "beautiful," in that wider sense, are technical terms of Aesthetics.
It is a misfortune that the language of Aesthetics should thus differ from the ordinary language of speech and literature; but the misfortune seems to be unavoidable, for there is no word in the ordinary language which means "whatever gives aesthetic satisfaction," and yet that idea _must_ have a name in Aesthetics.
[3] I do not mean to imply that in aesthetic apprehension itself we always, or generally, make conscious use of a standard or, indeed, think of greatness. But here we are _reflecting_ on this apprehension.
[4] Thus, it may be noticed, the sparrow"s size, which is the reverse of sublime, is yet indirectly essential to the sublimity of the sparrow.
[5] The poet"s language here has done our a.n.a.lysis for us.
[6] A word may be added here on a disputed point as to "spiritual"
sublimity. It has been held that intellect cannot be sublime; but surely in the teeth of facts. Not to speak of intellect as it appears in the sphere of practice, how can it be denied that the intellect of Aristotle or Shakespeare or Newton may produce the impression of sublimity? All that is true is, first, that the intellect must be apprehended imaginatively and not thought abstractly (otherwise it can produce _no_ aesthetic impression), and, secondly, that it appears sublime in virtue not of its quality alone but of the quant.i.ty, or force, of that quality.
[7] The same principle applies to other cases. If, for example, the desolation of a landscape is felt to be sublime, it is so not as the mere negation of life, verdure, etc., but as their _active_ negation.
[8] The reader will remember that in one sense of the question, Is there no more in the sublime than overwhelming greatness? this question must of course be answered in the affirmative. Sublimity is a mode of beauty: the sublime is not the overwhelmingly great, it is the beautiful which has overwhelming greatness; and it affects us through its whole nature, not by mere greatness.
[9] I am warning the reader against a mistake which may arise from the complexity of aesthetic experience. We may make a broad distinction between "glad" and "sad" modes of beauty; but that does not coincide with the distinction of modes with which we are concerned in this lecture. What is lovely or "beautiful" may be glad or sad, and so may what is grand or sublime.
[10] In what follows I have spoken as if the two were always successive stages, and as if these always came in the same order. It is easier to make the matter quickly clear by taking this view, which also seemed to answer to my own experience. But I do not wish to commit myself to an opinion on the point, which is of minor importance. What is essential is to recognise the presence of the two "aspects" or "stages," and to see that both are requisite to sublimity.
[11] "Ich fuhlte mich so klein, so gross," says Faust, remembering the vision of the Erdgeist, whom he addresses as "Erhabener Geist."
He was at once overwhelmed and uplifted.
[12] At least if the "Vision" is sublime its sublimity is not that of the original. We can "discern the form thereof" distinctly enough.
[13] To avoid complication I have pa.s.sed by the case where we compare the sublime thing with another thing and find it much greater without finding it immeasurably great. Here the greatness, it appears to me, is still unmeasured. That is to say, we do not attempt to determine its amount, and if we did we should lose the impression of sublimity.
We may _say_, perhaps, that it is ten, fifty, or a million times, as great; but these words no more represent mathematical calculations than Hamlet"s "forty thousand brothers."
[14] I am far from being satisfied with the ideas imperfectly expressed in the first and third of these Notes, but they require more consideration than I can give to them during the printing of the Second Edition. The reader is requested to take them as mere suggestions.
[15] Hence a creature much less powerful than ourselves _may_, I suppose, be sublime, even from the mere point of view of vital energy. But I doubt if this is so in my own case. I have seen "magnificent" or "glorious" c.o.c.ks and cats, but if I called them "sublime" I should say rather more than I feel. I mention c.o.c.ks, because Ruskin somewhere mentions a sublime c.o.c.k; but I cannot find the pa.s.sage, and this c.o.c.k may have been sublime (if it really was so to Ruskin) from some other than "vital" greatness.
HEGEL"S THEORY OF TRAGEDY
HEGEL"S THEORY OF TRAGEDY[1]
Since Aristotle dealt with tragedy, and, as usual, drew the main features of his subject with those sure and simple strokes which no later hand has rivalled, the only philosopher who has treated it in a manner both original and searching is Hegel. I propose here to give a sketch of Hegel"s theory, and to add some remarks upon it. But I cannot possibly do justice in a sketch to a theory which fills many pages of the _Aesthetik_; which I must tear from its connections with the author"s general view of poetry, and with the rest of his philosophy[2]; and which I must try to exhibit as far as possible in the language of ordinary literature. To estimate this theory, therefore, from my sketch would be neither safe nor just--all the more because, in the interest of immediate clearness, I have not scrupled to insert without warning various remarks and ill.u.s.trations for which Hegel is not responsible.
On certain characteristics of tragedy the briefest reminder will suffice. A large part of the nature of this form of drama is common to the drama in all its forms; and of this nothing need be said. It will be agreed, further, that in all tragedy there is some sort of collision or conflict--conflict of feelings, modes of thought, desires, wills, purposes; conflict of persons with one another, or with circ.u.mstances, or with themselves; one, several, or all of these kinds of conflict, as the case may be. Again, it may be taken for granted that a tragedy is a story of unhappiness or suffering, and excites such feelings as pity and fear. To this, if we followed the present usage of the term, we should add that the story of unhappiness must have an unhappy end; by which we mean in effect that the conflict must close with the death of one or more of the princ.i.p.al characters. But this usage of the word "tragedy"
is comparatively recent; it leaves us without a name for many plays, in many languages, which deal with unhappiness without ending unhappily; and Hegel takes the word in its older and wider sense.
Pa.s.sing on from these admitted characteristics of tragedy, we may best approach Hegel"s peculiar view by observing that he lays particular stress on one of them. That a tragedy is a story of suffering is probably to many people the most obvious fact about it. Hegel says very little of this; partly, perhaps, because it is obvious, but more because the essential point to him is not the suffering but its cause, namely, the action or conflict. Mere suffering, he would say, is not tragic, but only the suffering that comes of a special kind of action. Pity for mere misfortune, like fear of it, is not tragic pity or fear. These are due to the spectacle of the conflict and its attendant suffering, which do not appeal simply to our sensibilities or our instinct of self-preservation, but also to our deeper mind or spirit (_Geist_, a word which, with its adjective, I shall translate "spirit," "spiritual,"
because our words "mind" and "mental" suggest something merely intellectual).
The reason why the tragic conflict thus appeals to the spirit is that it is itself a conflict of the spirit. It is a conflict, that is to say, between powers that rule the world of man"s will and action--his "ethical substance." The family and the state, the bond of parent and child, of brother and sister, of husband and wife, of citizen and ruler, or citizen and citizen, with the obligations and feelings appropriate to these bonds; and again the powers of personal love and honour, or of devotion to a great cause or an ideal interest like religion or science or some kind of social welfare--such are the forces exhibited in tragic action; not indeed alone, not without others less affirmative and perhaps even evil, but still in preponderating ma.s.s. And as they form the substance of man, are common to all civilised men, and are acknowledged as powers rightfully claiming human allegiance, their exhibition in tragedy has that interest, at once deep and universal, which is essential to a great work of art.
In many a work of art, in many a statue, picture, tale, or song, such powers are shown in solitary peace or harmonious co-operation. Tragedy shows them in collision. Their nature is divine, and in religion they appear as G.o.ds; but, as seen in the world of tragic action, they have left the repose of Olympus, have entered into human wills, and now meet as foes. And this spectacle, if sublime, is also terrible. The essentially tragic fact is the self-division and intestinal warfare of the ethical substance, not so much the war of good with evil as the war of good with good. Two of these isolated powers face each other, making incompatible demands. The family claims what the state refuses, love requires what honour forbids. The competing forces are both in themselves rightful, and so far the claim of each is equally justified; but the right of each is pushed into a wrong, because it ignores the right of the other, and demands that absolute sway which belongs to neither alone, but to the whole of which each is but a part.
And one reason why this happens lies in the nature of the characters through whom these claims are made. It is the nature of the tragic hero, at once his greatness and his doom, that he knows no shrinking or half-heartedness, but identifies himself wholly with the power that moves him, and will admit the justification of no other power. However varied and rich his inner life and character may be, in the conflict it is all concentrated in one point. Antigone _is_ the determination to do her duty to her dead brother; Romeo is not a son or a citizen as well as a lover, he is lover pure and simple, and his love is the whole of him.
The end of the tragic conflict is the denial of both the exclusive claims. It is not the work of chance or blank fate; it is the act of the ethical substance itself, a.s.serting its absoluteness against the excessive pretensions of its particular powers. In that sense, as proceeding from an absolute right which cancels claims based on right but pushed into wrong, it may be called the act of "eternal justice."
Sometimes it can end the conflict peacefully, and the tragedy closes with a solution. Appearing as a divine being, the spiritual unity reconciles by some adjustment the claims of the contending powers (_Eumenides_); or at its bidding one of them softens its demand (_Philoctetes_); or again, as in the more beautiful solution of the _Oedipus Coloneus_, the hero by his own self-condemnation and inward purification reconciles himself with the supreme justice, and is accepted by it. But sometimes the quarrel is pressed to extremes; the denial of the one-sided claims involves the death of one or more of the persons concerned; and we have a catastrophe. The ultimate power thus appears as a destructive force. Yet even here, as Hegel insists, the end is not without an aspect of reconciliation. For that which is denied is not the rightful powers with which the combatants have identified themselves. On the contrary, those powers, and with them the only thing for which the combatants cared, are affirmed. What is denied is the exclusive and therefore wrongful a.s.sertion of their right.