Having enumerated and defined as well as it could, the chief of these varieties, the Æsthetic of the sympathetic set itself the problem of the place to be assigned to the _ugly in art._ This problem is without meaning for us, who do not recognize any ugliness save the anti-æsthetic or inexpressive, which can never form _part_ of the æsthetic fact, being, on the contrary, its _antithesis._ But in the doctrine which we are here criticizing the positing and discussion of that problem meant neither more nor less than the necessity of reconciling in some way the false and defective idea of art from which it started--art reduced to the representation of the pleasurable--with real art, which occupies a far wider field. Hence the artificial attempt to settle what examples of the _ugly_ (antipathetic) could be admitted in artistic representation, and for what reasons, and in what ways. The answer was: that the ugly is admissible, only when it can be _overcome_; an unconquerable ugliness, such as the _disgusting_ or the _nauseating,_ being altogether excluded. Further, that the duty of the ugly, when admitted in art, is to contribute towards heightening the effect of the beautiful (sympathetic), by producing a series of contrasts, from which the pleasurable may issue more efficacious and joy-giving. It is, indeed, a common observation that pleasure is more vividly felt when preceded by abstinence and suffering. Thus the ugly in art was looked upon as adapted for the service of the beautiful, a stimulant and condiment of æsthetic pleasure. That special refinement of hedonistic theory which used to be pompously called the doctrine of the _overcoming of the ugly_ falls with the Æsthetic of the sympathetic, and with it the enumeration and definition of the concepts mentioned above, which show themselves to be completely foreign to Æsthetic. For Æsthetic does not recognize the sympathetic or the antipathetic or their varieties, but only the spiritual activity of representation. [Sidenote: _Pseudo-æsthetic concepts belong to Psychology._] Nevertheless, the important place which, as we have said, those concepts have hitherto occupied in æsthetic treatises makes it advisable to supply a rather more complete explanation as to their nature. What shall be their lot? Excluded from Æsthetic, in what other part of Philosophy will they be received?