The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 1 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
that both Iphigenia and Orestes are finally delivered, and the power of
a collision which is opposed to our notion of right is thus destroyed.
And, indeed, this is also the case in the above mentioned poem of
Hartmann, in so far as we may acknowledge the _dénouement_ offered us
in which, on Henry refusing to accept the sacrifice, God releases him
from his malady, and the maiden is rewarded for her true love[333].
In apparent association with the positive powers we have enumerated
must be added others set over against them, that is to say, the forces
of that which is negative and bad, evil in short. That which is purely
negative, however, ought not to be taken in the ideal representation of
an action as the essential ground-motive for the necessary reaction.
The reality of the purely negative case, it is true, corresponds to the
negative and its appropriate character, but, if the implied[334] notion
and object is already in itself rendered nugatory, it is even less
possible that the ugliness which is exposed in the inward life should
manifest any genuine beauty upon its external reality. The sophistry of
passion can, indeed, by means of the capacity, strength, and energy of
a character, make the attempt to graft positive characteristics upon
the negative, but we only obtain thereby the vision of a whitewashed
grave. For that which is purely negative is generally flat and stale
and leaves us consequently either void or drives us back, whether
it be used as the motive force of an action or merely as a means to
promote a reaction in another. The horrible, unfortunate, the harshness
of dominion, and the obduracy of superior power may form part of the
content and burden of the imagination when such characteristics are
exalted and carried by the abundant greatness of a particular character
or object. Evil, however, taken simply for what it is, envy, cowardice,
and meanness, is merely repulsive. The devil, if we take him for what
he really ought to be, is consequently a bad subject, or rather a
figure for which Art has no uses at all. He is just a falsehood and
nothing more, and consequently an extremely prosaic personality. In
the same way it is perfectly true that the Furies of hate and many
other allegorical figures of later times are potencies of a kind,
but they are without affirmative subsistency and holdfastness[335],
unfavourable to ideal representation, although in this respect a wide
margin of difference is permissible in the several arts respectively,
and in the particular mode in which they may immediately visualize such
objects. Evil is, to express it in most general terms, essentially
cold and devoid of content, because as such it is merely the source of
negation, discord, and misfortune. All art, however, which is true to
its essential notion, should reflect on us the vision of a harmony.
Meanness, above all, is despicable, for it is a quality which arises
from the envy and hatred of all that is noble, and does not shrink