I
The temple of classical architecture demands a god, who resides
therein. Sculpture exhibits the same in plastic beauty, and confers
forms on the material it employs for this purpose, which do not in
their nature remain external to what is spiritual, but are the form
itself immanent in the defined content. The corporeality, however, and
sensuousness, no less than the ideal universality of the sculptured
figure, are opposed on the one hand to subjective ideality, and in part
to the particularity of the individual, in whose element the content
of the religious, no less than also the worldly life, must secure
reality by virtue of a novel form of art. This mode of expression,
which is of subjective import, and at the same time particularized in
its characterization, the art of painting itself contributes under
the principle of the plastic arts. In other words it subordinates the
realistic expression of form to the more ideal presentment of colour,
and makes the expression of the ideality of soul the central point[1]
of the presentment. The universal sphere, however, in which these
arts are motived, the one in the ideal of symbolism, the other in the
plastic ideal, the third in the romantic type, is the sensuous or
_external_ form of spirit and natural objects.
The spiritual content possesses, however, as essentially appertinent
to the ideality of consciousness, a determinate existence which is for
this ideality at the same time foreign to the medium itself of the
external appearance and envisagement presented to it by material form.
From this foreign element it is further necessary that it removes its
conceptions in order to place them in a realm which, in respect to
material no less than the mode of expression, is independently of an
ideal or subjective character. This was the forward step which we saw
_music_ make, in so far as it embodied pure ideality and subjective
emotion in the configurations of essentially resonant sound rather than
in visible forms. It, however, passed by this very means into a further
extreme, that is, an ideal mode of concentration not fully explicit,
whose content in musical tones itself only found symbolic expression.
For tone taken by itself is without content, and has its definition in
the numerical relations, so that what is qualitative in the spiritual
content no doubt generally corresponds to these quantitative relations
which are expressed in essential differences, oppositions, and
mediation, but in its qualitative determinacy is not entirely able to
receive its impression in musical tone. If this aspect is not wholly to
fail the art of music must, by reason of its onesidedness, summon to
its assistance the more definite articulation of language, and requires
for its more secure attachment to particularity and the characteristic
expression of the content a text, without which it is unable to
complete fully the ideality which is poured forth by means of musical
tones.
By virtue of this expression of ideas and emotions, the abstract
ideality of music receives a clearer and more secure exposition. At
the same time what we have here unfolded by its means is, to a certain
extent, not the point of view of idea and the artistic mode adapted
to its expression, but merely the emotional life as it accompanies
the same; also in part we find that here, too, music entirely divests
itself of fusion with the verbal text in order to develop its own
movement without restraint in the world of tone simply. For this reason
the realm of idea, which is unable to remain under I such a more purely
abstract mode of ideal intensity, and seeks a configuration in a world
which embraces its one homogeneous and concrete reality, breaks away on
its part likewise from the bond of music, and in the exclusive art of
poetry discovers the adequate realization it demands.
_Poetry,_ in other words the art of human speech, is the _third_
or final step, the _totality_, which unites and embraces in a yet
higher sphere, in the sphere of the very life of Spirit itself[2],
the two extremes of the plastic arts and music. For on the one hand
poetry contains just as music does the principle which apprehends an
ideal content in its ideality, the principle which in architecture,
sculpture, and painting is lost, or at most incompletely asserted.
And on the other hand it expatiates itself, under the modes of ideal
conception, intuition, and feeling simply, in an objective world,
which does not entirely destroy the defined forms of sculpture and
painting, and is capable of unfolding all the conditions of an event, a
succession or interchange of emotional states, passions, conceptions,
and the exclusive course of human action with more completeness than
any other art.
2. But in a still more intimate way the art of poetry constitutes a
third or final term in its relation to painting and music regarded as
the _romantic_ arts.
(_a_) One reason of this is that its principle is that generally of
an _intelligence_ which has nothing further to do with gross matter
as such, seeking, as is the case with architecture, to transform it
through symbolism to an environment related analogically to spiritual
life, or as in the case of sculpture in order to implant upon material
substance the natural form congenial to such life under the spatial
condition of its expression. What the end is now is to express
immediately for mind the manifestations of Spirit with all its ideas
of imagination and art, without setting forth their external and
visible bodily presence. And a further reason consists in this, that
poetry is able to grasp in the form of ideality itself and with a far
greater wealth than is possible for music or painting, not merely the
innermost actuality of conscious life, but also what is particular and
individual in external existence, and equally able to contrast such
facts in the complete diversity of their specific traits and accidental
peculiarities.
(_b_) The art of poetry is, however, as totality, also again, from
another point of view, essentially to be distinguished from the
above-mentioned arts whose fundamental qualities it thus in a measure
combines.
(_α_) In this respect, if we compare it with painting, the latter art
is throughout at an advantage, where it is of importance to bring
before our senses a content under the condition of its external
appearance. It is true no doubt that poetry is able by various means
to envisualize objects precisely in the way that for the imagination
generally the principle of objectification is made real to our
intuitive sense. But in so far as conceptive power, in the element
of which poetry pre-eminently moves, is of a spiritual nature and
implies the presence of the universality of thought, it is incapable
of attaining the definition of sensuous perception. On the other hand,
the varied traits which poetry brings together, in order to make the
concrete form of a content visible, do not fall as with painting
into one and the same totality, which is set before us wholly as a
simultaneous appearance of all its details, but they break apart,
inasmuch as the imagination can only give us the complexity it contains
under the form of succession. This is, however, only a defect from the
sensuous point of view, a defect which reason is able in its own way
to rectify. That is to say, inasmuch as human speech, even in the case
where it endeavours to summon before our sight a concrete object, is
not concerned with the sensuous apprehension of an immediate external
object, but always with the ideal relation, the mental intuition, for
this reason the particular characteristics, albeit they are set before
us in a series, are nevertheless fused together in the element of one
essentially homogeneous spirit, which is able to qualify the effect of
succession, to bring the varied array into one picture, and to secure
and enjoy this picture in imaginative contemplation. Moreover, this
deficiency of sensuous realization and objective definition, when
we contrast poetry with painting, brings as a contrary result the
possibility of an incalculable superfluity of material. For inasmuch
as the poetic art in painting restricts itself to a determinate
space, and even more to a distinct moment in a situation or action,
for this reason it is prevented from portraying an object in its
entire ideal profundity no less than in the extension of its temporal
development. But what is true is throughout concrete in the sense that
it comprises within its embrace a unity of essential determinations.
In its phenomenal appearance, however, these are not merely unfolded
as a co-existent spatial phenomenon but in a temporal series as a
history, whose course painting is only able to present in a relatively
inadequate manner. Even in the case of every stalk, every tree, each
has in this sense its history, a change, sequence, and exclusive whole
of varied conditions. And this is even more true of the sphere of
spirit, which can only be exhaustively portrayed as veritable spirit
in phenomenal guise when it is set before our imagination as such a
process.
(_β_) We have already seen that poetry possesses for its external
medium that of tone in common with _music_. The wholly external, or,
as we might say in the false sense of the expression, the objective
material in the progressive series of the particular arts finally
vanishes in the subjective medium of sound, which is divested of all
visibility, and which suffers an ideal content only to be apprehended
by a conscious state independent of sight.[3] For music, however, the
configuration of musical _tone_ as such is the essential end. For
although the soul in the course and movement of melody and its harmonic
relations presents what is ideal in objects, or its own ideal content,
to the emotional life; yet the ideality thus presented is not pure
ideality, but the human soul interwoven in the closest way with the
musical tone as its expression, and the configuration of such musical
expression which confers on music its true character. So much is this
the case that music receives its independent position as an art just in
proportion as the animation given by it to the emotional life is more
emphasized in the world of pure music than in that of man's ordinary
spiritual activity.[4] But for this very reason it is only to a
relative degree capable of reproducing the variety of spiritual ideas
and intuitions, the entire extension of the ideal wealth of conscious
life: it remains restricted to the more abstract universality of all
that it grasps as content, and the more indefinite manifestations of
our emotion.
In the like degree, then, that mind (_Geist_) elaborates the more
abstract universality in a concrete whole of idea, ends, actions, and
events, and no less contributes to its conformation the particularizing
perception, it not only forsakes the subjective life of mere emotion
and builds up that life into an unfolded realm of objective reality
in this case, too, within the ideal world of the imagination itself,
it is compelled, by virtue of the nature of such transformation, to
forsake the attempt to express the new realm thus secured solely
and exclusively by means of tone relations. Precisely as the medium
of sculpture is too poor to express the more ample content that it
is the function of the art of painting to call into life, so too
the conditions of musical tone and melodic expression are unable to
realize fully the imaginative pictures of the poet. For these in part
possess the ideas more accurately defined to consciousness and, in
part, the form of external appearance impressed on the inner sense
of perceptive reason. Spirit consequently withdraws its content from
musical tone as such, and declares itself through words, which it is
true do not entirely forsake the element of sound, but sink to the
purely external sign of the communication. In other words, by means of
this repletion with spiritual ideas, musical tone becomes the voice of
articulate words; language, in its turn, is diverted from an end in
itself to a means of ideal expression which has lost its independent
self-subsistancy. This constitutes in fact what we have already
established as the essential difference between music and poetry. The
content of the art of speech is the collective art of the world of
ideas elaborated by the imagination, the spiritual which remains at
home in its vision, which remains in this ideal realm, and, even in
its movement toward an objective world, is only conscious of the same
as a symbol that differs from its own conscious content. In music
art reproduces the penetration of Spirit in a sensuously apparent
and present form. In poetry it even forsakes the element of _musical
tone_ and articulation opposed to it, at least to the extent that this
musical tone is no longer reclothed in fully adequate externality
and the exclusive expression of that content. The ideal no doubt is
expressed, but it fails to discover its real existence in the sensuous
medium of tone, despite the fact that it is of a more ideal character;
this it discovers exclusively in its own essential content, by virtue
of which it expresses the content of mind as it is realized in the
ideality of the imagination simply as such.
(_c_) In the _third_ place, and finally, if we consider the specific
character of poetry relatively to this distinction between music and
painting, and we may include with it the other plastic arts, we shall
find the same simply to consist in the subordination of the mode under
which all poetical content is envisaged and configured by the medium of
sense. In other words, when tone, as it does in the art of music, or
for that matter, colour as in that of painting, no longer essentially
recovers and expresses the entire content, in that case the musical
treatment of the composition under its aspects of time, no less than
those of harmony and melody, drops away; we have left us merely the
generalized configuration of the time-measure of syllables and words,
to which we may add rhythm, euphony, and the like. And further, it is
to be noted that we have this, not in the sense of a genuine medium for
the content, but rather as a mode of externality which is accidental,
and which only receives an artistic form, because art cannot permit any
mode of its external manifestation whatever to be entirely a question
of accidental caprice.
(_α_) In connection with this withdrawal of the spiritual content from
the sensuous medium we are at once met with the question what it is
then which, under such a view, constitutes the actual externality or
objectivity in poetry, that of tone being thus excluded. The answer
to this is simple. It is the _ideal envisagement_ and _imaginative
content_ itself. We have here spiritual forms substituted for sensuous,
and supply a configurative material, such as we met with before in
marble, bronze, colour, or musical tones. In other words, we must guard
ourselves from such an inadequate statement of the facts as that ideas
and imagery are nothing more or less than the _content_ of poetry.
This is unquestionably true in a sense, as we shall demonstrate more
closely later on. Despite this, however, we are equally justified
in asserting that idea, imagery, emotion, and the like are specific
modes, under which every content in poetry is subsumed and manifested;
and consequently, that is, owing to the fact that the sensuous
aspect of the communication remains throughout a purely accidental
one[5]--it is these forms which supply the real material which the
poet has to elaborate artistically. No doubt the fact, the content,
must in poetry, as in other arts, receive its due objectification
for spirit; objectivity in this sense, however, is the exchange of
what was previously an external reality for one that is ideal; one
which receives an existence exclusively in conscious life itself, as
something conceived or imagined exclusively by mind. Mind is here on
its own ground objective to itself, and it suffers the medium of speech
merely as a means, that is to say, partly as one of communication, and
partly as one of immediate externality, from which, as from the pure
symbol merely, it is withdrawn throughout from itself into itself. For
this reason, in the case of genuine poetry, it is of no consequence
whether a poetical work be read in private or listened to; and for the
same reason it can also, without essential depreciation of its value,
be translated into other tongues, be transferred from versification
into prose, and thereby transmitted in tonal relations of an entirely
different character.[6]
(_β_) In the _second_ place the question presents itself as to the
_nature_ of the object _for_ which the ideal concept is employed in
poetry. We answer that it is thus used relatively to essential truth
in everything of interest to Spirit; not merely, that is, relatively
to what is substantive in the same in the universality of its
symbolic significance or classical differentiation, but equally to
all that is at the same time specific and particular, in short, to
practically everything in and with which mind is in any way interested
and concerned. The art of language, consequently, both in respect to
its content and the mode under which that content is made explicit,
possesses a field of immeasurable compass, wholly incomparable with
that of the other arts. Every content, every sort of spiritual or
natural fact, event, history, deed, action, all conditions, whether
ideal or external, fall within the domain and configurative powers of
poetry.
(_γ_) Material of this most varied character is not, however, made
poetical merely by reason of the fact that it is in a general way the
content of idea. Ordinary consciousness is able to elaborate precisely
the same content in the field of ideas, and to particularize concepts
without creating any poetical result. We recognized this fact when we
called the concept of mind merely the _material_ or medium, which only
receives a form adapted for poetry, in so far as it partakes of a novel
configuration by virtue of art. In precisely the same way mere colour
and tone in their immediacy are not as such the colour or tone of a
painter or a musician. We may in a general way describe the distinction
by stating that it is not the _idea as such_, but the _imagination_ of
the _artist_ which creates a poetical content, under conditions, that
is, in which the imagination grasps the same content in such a way that
it is itself therewith associated in language, words and their more
beautiful conjunction as human speech, just as in the other arts we
find it present in the architectonic form; the plastic of sculpture,
that adapted to painting, or musical tones and harmony.
A further necessary limitation of the art's appearance is this that
the content must, on the one hand, not be embraced in relations
applicable to mere _thinking_, whether that of science or speculative
philosophy, nor further in the form of inarticulate _emotion_, or with
a clarity and self-sufficiency which appeals _exclusively_ to the
organs of sense;[6] neither, in another direction, must it suffer the
idea to pass entirely into what we may in general terms describe as
the contingency, divisions, and relativity of _finite_ reality. The
imagination of the poet in this respect must maintain a middle course
between the abstract universality of pure thinking and the concrete
corporeality of material objects, in so far as we are acquainted with
the latter in the productions of the plastic arts. Furthermore such an
art must generally conform to the requirements we have, in an early
section of this work, insisted as essential to every art-product. In
other words, the art itself must find in its content the adequate
object of its appearance, must elaborate everything, which it embraces,
so far as the interest appeals to the intelligence simply,[7] as an
essentially independent and self-exclusive world. Only in so far as
it does this is the demand of art satisfied, and the content thereof
becomes, by virtue of the specific mode of _its_ manifestation, an
organic whole, which in its parts presents the appearance of a limited
association and ideal synthesis, while at the same time, as contrasted
with the world of accidental subordinations, its consistency is one of
essential freedom, a whole made explicit through itself.
3. The last point to which we must in conclusion draw attention in
respect to this distinction between poetry and the other arts is
connected with the different mode under which the imagination of the
poet substantiates its ideas in the objective medium of its exposition.
The arts hitherto considered were entirely serious in their attachment
to the material of sense, a medium in which they themselves were
operative, in so far as they merely bestowed on their content a
form, which could be throughout accepted and elaborated by means of
conglomerations of material substance, whether bronze, marble, or wood,
or the media of colour and tones.[8] In a certain sense, no doubt,
poetry also has to meet a condition somewhat similar. That is to say,
in poetical composition we must not overlook the fact that its results
have to be intelligible to mind by means of the communication of human
speech. But we shall find none the less that the situation in the two
cases is essentially altered.
(_a_) Otherwise expressed, by reason of the importance pertaining to
the material aspect in the plastic arts and music, we find that, as a
result of the _defined_ restrictions of this material, only a _limited_
number of conceptions can be fully reproduced in a particularized form
of reality such as stone, colour, and tone: the content therefore and
the possibilities of artistic composition are narrowed within very
definable limits. It was on account of this fact that we were able to
associate closely and exclusively every one of these specific arts
with one particular form of artistic creation pre-eminently adapted to
it. In this way the form of symbolism was appropriate to architecture,
the classical to sculpture, and the romantic to painting and music. It
is no doubt true that the particular arts in both directions from and
toward their proper domain tended to pass over into the other forms.
We took account of this fact when we found it possible to refer to a
classic and romantic style of architecture, a symbolical and Christian
type of sculpture, and even used the term classic in connection with
painting and music. Departures such as these from the prevailing type
were, however, merely experimental essays which prepared the way in
subordination to a new type rather than its culminating effort; or they
showed us how one art tended to pass beyond its true limits in seeking
to grasp a content or a relation to its material of a type that only a
further art development could adequately elaborate. Generally speaking,
we have seen that architecture has least resource in the expression of
its content; in sculpture there is already an increase of possibility,
which is further extended to its widest range[9] by painting and music.
And the reason of this is that in proportion as the ideality and
particularization under all its aspects by the external medium is made
more explicit the variety of the content and of the forms it receives
also increases.
Poetry, on the other hand, casts itself free of all subordination to
the material of sense, at least to this extent, that in the definition
of external or objective expression no reason whatever remains why it
should restrict itself to specific content or any limitation to its
power of composition and reproduction. It is therefore exclusively
united to no specific art type; rather we may define it as the
_universal_ art, which is capable of reclothing and expressing under
every conceivable mode every content that can possibly enter into or
proceed from the imagination of man. And it can do this because its
material is nothing more or less than the imagination itself, which
is the universal root and ground of all the particular arts and their
specific types.
We have already, in another connection, when concluding our discussion
of the particular artistic types, come across what was practically the
same thing. What we sought for, then, in our conclusion was that art
in one of its types should make itself independent of that mode of
representation properly called specific, remaining thereby predominant
above the entire sphere in which such a totality of particularization
is reproduced. An elaboration so comprehensive is among all the
particular arts by the very nature of the case only possible to poetry.
Its realization is effected through the development of poetical
creation in part by means of the actual reconstitution of every
particular type, and partly by the liberation of the mode of conception
and its content from the boundaries fixed for it in the essentially
exclusive types of conception, whose character we have severally
defined as symbolical, classical, and romantic.
(_b_) The above considerations will further serve to justify the
position, which, in the course of our inquiry, regarded as the
development of a philosophy, we previously assigned to the art of
poetry. In other words by reason of the fact that poetry is, to a
degree quite impossible to any other mode of artistic production,
concerned with the universal simply as such in Art, we might appear
to have some reason for insisting that it marks the commencement
of an investigation in the full sense of the word philosophical,
and only from such a starting point can we enter into the sphere of
particularization, in which we find the series of the other arts as
limited and determined by their specific sensuous medium. Looking
back, however, at the result arrived at in our investigation of the
particular art types we shall find that the course of philosophical
evolution consisted, first, in an increased penetration of the ideal
content, and, from another point of view, in the demonstration that
originally Art sets forth in the search, then in the discovery of and
finally with an advance beyond that content compatible with its powers.
This notion of the beautiful and _Art_ must enforce itself in _the
arts_ themselves. The starting-point of our inquiry, therefore, was
architecture, in which we found merely an impulse toward the complete
representation of what pertains to Spirit in a material medium. This
is so much the case that it is only through sculpture that art first
attains to a genuine interfusion of ideality with the medium; and
further that only in the arts of painting and music do we reach the
stage where, by virtue of the ideal and subjective character of their
content, we find the perfected fusion effected no less under the aspect
of conception than that of practical execution in the medium accepted.
This process culminates most decisively in poetry, by virtue of the
fact that the very nature of its objective realization can only be
apprehended as an effort to draw apart from and cancel the material of
sense rather than one of reproduction which does not as yet venture to
clothe itself and move in the objective medium of sense-perception. In
order, however, to make this liberation intelligible in philosophical
terms it is of importance that we have already disposed of the question
what it is from which art undertakes to liberate itself. This question
stands in close relation to the fact that poetry is essentially capable
of embracing the entirety of intelligible content and artistic modes
of expression. We may add further that we have viewed this as the
acceptance of a totality, which can only be interpreted philosophically
as the abrogation of limitation in particularity. Our previous
consideration of what we mean by things that are one-sided would be
involved in such an exposition, the self-exclusive character of such
one-sidedness being cancelled by such a totality.
It is only through the course of such an exposition that we can
effectively demonstrate that poetry is the specific art in which a
point is reached which marks the beginning of the disintegration of art
itself, a point at which the philosophical consciousness discovers its
bridge of passage to the notion of religion as such, as also to the
prose of scientific thought. The boundary lines of the realm of beauty
are, as we have already seen, on the one hand the prose of finite
condition and our ordinary conscious life, starting from which Art
makes its effort in the direction of truth, and, on the other, of the
loftier spheres of religion and science, from which it passes over into
a comprehension of the Absolute till more emancipate from all material
association.
(_c_) Despite therefore the completeness with which the art of poetry
reproduces, under a mode of objectification that is most ideal, the
entire totality of Beauty, nevertheless intelligence is able to
discover even here too in this final domain of art a residue of defect.
We may for this purpose within our art-system directly contrast the
poetic art with that of architecture. In other words architecture was
still unable to subordinate the external material to the ideal content
sufficiently to clothe the same in a form adequate to mind; poetry on
the other hand carries the process of negating its sensuous medium
so far that instead of transforming that which stands in opposition
to gross spatial matter, namely tone, as architecture does with its
material into a significant symbol, it rather reduces it to a mere
sign of no significance. But by doing so it destroys the fusion of
spiritual ideality with external existence, so thoroughly that to this
extent it ceases to be compatible with the original notion of Art. In
other words it comes dangerously near to bidding goodbye to the region
of sense altogether, remaining wholly absorbed in that of ideality.
The fair mean between these extremes of architecture and poetry is
secured by sculpture, painting, and music. Every one of these arts not
merely still reproduces the spiritual content completely in a medium
borrowed from the objective world, but also leaves us with that which
lies open to our senses, no less than our intelligence. For although
painting and music, regarded as romantic arts, attach themselves to a
medium already more ideal, they do none the less supply the immediacy
of objective existence, which, however, in this increase of ideality,
shows indications of disappearance, while again from the opposite point
of view they prove themselves, through their media of colour and tone,
more profuse in fulness of particularization and manifold configuration
than is required from the material of sculpture.
No doubt the art of poetry in its turn also endeavours, as a set-off to
this defect, to place the objective world before us with a breadth and
variety which even painting, at least in a single composition, fails
to secure: none the less this comprehensiveness remains throughout
merely a realization confined to consciousness itself; and, if it so
happens that poetry, in response to a demand for more material artistic
realization, attempts to increase the impression on our senses, it is
only able to do this by either borrowing these effects from music and
painting, in order to secure artistic means otherwise foreign to it;
or it is forced, if it seeks retain its genuine character, to employ
these sister arts only under a subordinate relation of service, while
the main stress is laid on the ideas of conscious life, the imagination
which appeals to the imagination, with which it is above all concerned.
This will suffice for discussion of the general relation under which
poetry is placed to the other arts. We shall now proceed to a closer
examination of the art of poetry itself, and with a view to this
propose to co-ordinate the same as follows.
We have already seen that in poetry it is the ideal concept itself from
which we derive content no less than medium. By reason, however, of
the fact that we already find outside Art's domain the world of idea
to be the most obvious mode of conscious life, it is above everything
else important to distinguish the conception of _poetry_ from that of
_prose._ The art of poetry, however, is not complete in this ideal
world of the imagination alone. It is necessary that it should clothe
the same in expressive _language._ It has therefore a twofold task
confronting it. On the one hand it is called upon so to arrange this
world of constructed idea that it may admit of complete translation
into speech: on the other it must take care not to leave this medium of
language in the form appropriated by ordinary conscious life. In other
words such must be treated poetically in order that the expression of
art may be distinguishable in the selection of words no less than their
position, and even their sound from that of ordinary prose.
Furthermore, on account of the fact that, though poetry avails itself
of language as a means of expression, it secures by far the most
unqualified freedom from those conditions and restrictions imposed on
the other arts by virtue of the particularization of their material,
it is possible for a poetical composition in a pre-eminent degree to
elaborate every one of the various modes of expression, otherwise
adopted unaffected by the onesidedness incidental to their application
to a particular art. The subdivision of such _modes of expression_ in
all their variety is consequently by far the most complete in the works
of poetry.
The further course of our investigation may now be epitomized as
follows:
_First,_ we have to elucidate what is in general terms _poetical,_ and
the _poetical composition_ in particular.
_Secondly,_ poetry will be examined as a means of _expression._
_Thirdly_, we shall deal with the subdivision of the art into _Epic,
Lyric,_ and _Dramatic_ poetry.
[Footnote 1: _Mittelpunkt._ We should rather say the unifying
significance of the creation.]
[Footnote 2: It would be perhaps better to translate _geistigen
Innerlichkeit_ with the words "the self-conscious life of the human
reason." This is developed and explained, however, in the next
paragraph.]
[Footnote 3: Hegel expresses this as "making the inner or ideal
content perceptible to the ideal faculty," that is, _prima facie_,
consciousness, or at least that sense which is nearest related to it,
viz., hearing.]
[Footnote 4: By _statt des Geistigen_ Hegel clearly contrasts pure
music with music related as accompaniment to human speech in song.]
[Footnote 5: Lit., "one that merely plays by the way."]
[Footnote 6: Such a statement is obviously one which would be
strongly resisted. The stress laid here on the purely ideal content
as contrasted with the beauty of rhythm and modal arrangement would
certainly suggest that Hegel was deficient in a sense for the musical
possibilities of language I presume he does use _gebunden_ in the sense
of verse.]
[Footnote 7: Hegel's expression is _in rein theoretischen Interesse._]
[Footnote 8: The medium of music is not of course strictly on all fours
with the others.]
[Footnote 9: That is under the limits of these four arts.]
I