The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik — Georg Hegel — John Shaqi
The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
Ages we find just the same countless examples of family and dynastic
broils. Such dissensions, however, appear in themselves to be due to
accidental circumstance. It is not necessary that brothers should be
at enmity; particular circumstances and more important causes must be
attached, such as the in itself tragic birth of the sons of Œdipus, or,
as we find in "the Bride of Messina," the author is at pains to shift
the quarrel of the brothers on to still more fateful circumstances.
In Shakespeare's "Macbeth" a similar collision is the foundation of
the tragic dénouement. Duncan is king and Macbeth, as his nearest
and oldest relation, is consequently heir to the throne with a right
precedent even to Duncan's sons. The primary incentive of Macbeth's
crime is the wrong which the king has done him in naming his own son as
heir to the throne. This justification of Macbeth, which is supported
by the chronicles of the time, Shakespeare has entirely passed over,
because, it was solely his object to bring into startling relief the
repulsive aspect of Macbeth's ambitious passion, in order thereby
to make his work agreeable to King James, who would be naturally
interested in finding the crime of Macbeth depicted without extenuating
circumstances. As a consequence we can find no sufficient reason why,
under Shakespeare's handling of the subject, Macbeth fails to murder
the sons of Duncan no less than their father, lets them escape in
fact; nor can we understand why they are wholly overlooked by the
nobles. However, the entire collision upon which, the drama of Macbeth
turns carries us beyond the particular type which we are now mainly
considering.
(_ββ_) In the _second_ of our examples in the type of collision[320]
we are now discussing we find the reverse situation to that just
discussed, and it consists in this that difference of birth, which
carries within itself a _wrongs_ is moreover, through ethical _custom_
or _law_, held within the chains of an insuperable _barrier_, so that
it receives at the same time the appearance of an innate wrong, and
consequently is the cause of collisions. Slavery, serfdom, differences
of caste, the position of Jews in many states and, with certain
qualifications, even the contrast between an aristocratical and citizen
class are all of them cases for consideration under this head. The
conflict here consists in this, that on the one hand humanity has
rights, relations, desires, aims and requirements which belong to it
essentially in virtue of its fundamental idea, which nevertheless
in each one of the above mentioned examples meet with dangerous
restriction and obstruction owing to the compulsive necessity of
natural birth. On this type of collision we have the following remarks
to offer.