Chapter XXIV: Conclusion (13)

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.

[Sidenote: _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.

[1] See above, pp. 113-115.

[2] D. Diderot, _Lettre sur les aveugles,_ 1749; _Lettre sur les sourds et muets,_ 1751; _Essai sur la peinture,_ 1765.

[3] M. Mendelssohn, _Briefe über Empfind.,_ 1755; _Betrachtungen, cit.,_ 1757.

[4] J. Chr. Wolff, _Psychol. empirica,_ §§ 272-312; Meier, _Anfangsgründe,_ §§ 513-528, 708-735; _Betrachtungen,_ § 126.

[5] Letter to Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, June 26, 1612.

[6] _Laokoon,_ §§ 16-20.

[8] _Laokoon,_ appendix, § 43.

[9] _Plastik einige Wahrnehmungen über Form und Gestalt aus Pygmalions bildenden Träume,_ 1778 (Select Works of Herder in the collection _Deutsche Nationlitteratur,_ vol. 76, part iii. § 2).

[10] _System der Ästhetik,_ pp. 154-236.

[11] _Kritik d. Urtheilskr._ § 51. 5 _Phil. d. Kunst,_ pp. 370-371.

[12] _Vorles. üb. Ästh._ pp. 257-262.

[13] _Op. cit._ ii. p. 222.

[14] See above, pp. 305-306.

[15] _Einleitung,_ § 115, pp. 170-171.

[16] _Schriften z. prakt. Phil,_ in _Werke,_ viii. p. 2.

[17] _Einleitung,_ § 110, pp. 164-165.

[18] Cf. Hartmann, _Dtsche. Ästh. s. Kant,_ pp. 539-540.

[19] _Ästh. Forsch._ pp. 547-549.

[20] _Ästh._ §§ 404, 535, 537, 838, etc.

[21] Gustav Gerber, _Die Sprache als Kunst,_ Bromberg, 1871-1874.

[22] _Das System der Künste,_ 2nd ed., Leipzig-Berlin, 1881.

[23] _Phil. d. Sch._ chs. 9, 10.

[24] _E.g._ by Sulzer, _Allg. Theorie,_ on word _Oper._

[25] Rich. Wagner, _Oper und Drama,_ 1851.

[26] Gustav Engel, _Ästh. der Tonkunst,_ 1884, abstracted in Hartmann, _Dtsche. Ästh. s. Kant,_ pp. 579-580.

[27] Lotze, _Geschichte d. Ästh._ pp. 458-460; cf. p. 445.

[28] _Essai critique sur l'Esth. de Kant,_ pp. 89-496.

[29] _Das System der Künste,_ p. 47.

[30] _Poet._ ch. i.

[31] _Vorles. üb. Ästh._ pp. 11, 122-129, 137, 143, 151, 167, 172, 284-286, 487-488, 508, 635.

IV

OTHER PARTICULAR DOCTRINES

[Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _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]

[Sidenote: _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]

[Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _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]

[Sidenote: _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.

[Sidenote: _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.

[1] See above, pp. 98-99.

[2] _Das Naturgefühl nach Verschiedenheit der Zeiten und Volksstämme,_ in _Cosmos,_ ii.

[3] V. Laprade, _Le Sentiment de la nature avant le christianisme,_ 1866; also _chez les modernes,_ 1867; Alfred Biese, _Die Entwicklung des Naturgefühls den Griechen und Römern,_ Kiel, 1882-1884; _Die Entwicklung des Naturgefühls im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit,_ 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1892.

[4] _Kritische Gänge,_ v. pp. 5-23.

[5] _Dtsche. Ästh. s. Kant,_ pp. 217-218; cf. _Philos, d. Schönen,_ bk. ii. ch. 7.

[6] See above, pp. 164-165.

[7] _Hippias maior, passim._

[8] _Elements of Criticism,_ introd., and cf. ch. 3.

[9] Herder, _Kritische Wälder_ (in _Werke, ed. cit._ iv.), pp. 47-53; cf. _Kaligone (ibid._ vol. xxii.), _passim;_ and fragment on _Plastic._

[10] _Vorles. üb. Ästh._ i. pp. 50-51.

[11] _Op. cit._ p. 92 _seqq._

[12] _Ästh._ i. p. 181.

[13] _Ästh._ pp. 80-83.

[14] _E.g._ Grant Allen, _Physiological Æsthetics_, chs. 4 and 5.

[15] Tolstoy, _What is Art?_ pp. 19-22. Kralik is the author of _Weltschönheit, Versuch einer allgemeinen Ästhetik,_ Vienna, 1894.

[16] See above, pp. 18-20.

[17] Cf. Volkmann, _Rhet. d. G. u. Röm._ pp. 532-544.

[18] Comparetti, _Virgilio net M. E._ i. p. 172.

[19] _Nuove ricerche sul hello,_ ch. 10.

[20] See above, pp. 145-146.

[21] _Inst. Oral._ i. ch. 6.

[22] For all this cf. the works of Lersch and of Steinthal, which contain the more important texts.

[23] Comparetti, _Virgilio nel M. E.,_ i. pp. 169-170.

[24] Pott, introd. to Humboldt, _cit._ Paul, _Principien d. Sprachgeschichte,_ ch. 20.

[25] Batteux, _Les Beaux Arts,_ part ii. p. 54.

[26] _Elem. of Criticism,_ iii. ch. 25.

[27] _Essays, Moral, Political and Literary_ (London ed., 1862), ch. 23: _On the Standard of Taste._

[28] _Perfetta poesia,_ bk. v. ch. 5.

[29] _Essai sur le beau,_ dise. 3.

[30] _Essai sur le goût, cil._

[31] See above, pp. 280-282.

[32] _Essay on Criticism,_ 1711, part ii. 11. 233-234.

[33] Letter to Maffei, in _Prose e poesie,_ ii. pp. cxx-cxxi.

[34] _System d. Ästhetik,_ pref. pp. xxi-xxv.

[35] Amongst other places _Saggi critici,_ pp. 355-358.

[36] See above, pp. 123-127.

[37] _E.g._ A. Ricardou, _La Critique littéraire,_ Paris, 1896.

[38] _E.g._ A. Conti, _Sul fiume del tempo,_ Naples, 1907.

[39] _Perf. poesia,_ bk. v. ch. 5.

[40] _Untersuchung v. d. guten Geschmack,_ 1727.

[41] _Les Beaux Arts,_ part ii. ch. 1.

[42] _Krit. d. Urtheilskr._ § 48.

[43] Eckermann, _Gespräche mit Goethe,_ under date March 21, 1831.

[44] _Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung,_ 1795-1796 (in _Werke,_ ed. Goedecke, vol. xii.).

[45] Quoted in Danzel, _Ges. Aufs._ pp. 21-22.

[46] _Üb. naive u. sentim. Dicht., ed. cit.,_ p. 155, note.

[47] See above, p. 291.

[48] _Vorles. üb. Ästh.,_ vols. ii. and iii.

[49] Cf. von Hartmann, _Dtsche. Ästh. s. Kant,_ pp. 99-101.

[50] _Ästh._ part iii.

[51] See above, pp. 388-390.

[52] C. Fiedler, _Ursprung d. künstl. Thätigkeit,_ p. 136 _seqq._

[53] Ad. Venturi, _La Madonna,_ Milan, 1899. Cf. B. Labanca, in _Rivista polit, e lett._ (Rome), Oct. 1899, and in _Rivisla di filos. e pedag._ (Bologna), 1900; and B. Croce, in _Nap. nobiliss., Rivista di lopografia e storia dell' arte,_ viii. pp. 161-163, ix. pp. 13-14 (reprinted in _Probl. di estetica,_ pp. 265-272). On the theory of method in artistic and literary history cf. above, pp. 128-139.

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.).