The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik — Georg Hegel — John Shaqi
The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
Camper, the famous Dutch physiologist, has, with more exactness and
in an exceptional way, characterized this line as the line of facial
beauty; he in fact discovers therein the main distinction between the
form of the human visage and the profile of animal life; and on account
of this follows up the modifications of this feature throughout the
various human races. In this respect his researches are no doubt in
conflict with those of Blumenbach[156]. Speaking generally, however,
the line adverted to is in fact a most marked means of distinction
between the outward form of man and animal. Among animals, it is
true, muzzle and nasal bone also form a more or less straight line,
but the specific projection of the animal's snout, which is forced to
the front, as being in the nearest practical relation to objects, is
essentially determined through its connection with the skull, united to
which the ear is moreover placed above or below, so that in the present
instance the line that is carried forward from the skull to the root of
the nose or the upper jaw, where the teeth are in position, forms an
acute angle instead of a right angle as is found in the case of man.
Everybody can independently feel in a general way the strength of this
distinction, which no doubt opens the path to more definite thinking on
the subject.
(_αα_) In the formation of the head of animals the most insistent
feature is the mouth as the organ by means of which it feeds in
co-operation with the upper and lower jaws, the teeth, and the muscles
of mastication. All the other organs are subordinate and in a position
of subservience to this principal feature. Notably the snout as a
means of scenting food, the eyes being to a lesser degree instrumental
in spying it out. The express insistence on these animal features as
exclusively devoted to the natural wants and their satisfaction gives
to the head of the animal the appearance as though intended merely to
satisfy natural functions without any trace of spiritual ideality. For
this reason the entire animal organism is rendered intelligible from
the mouth as a point of departure. A specific mode of nourishment, that
is to say, requires a specific structure of the muzzle, a particular
formation of the teeth, together with which the structure of the jaw
bones, the muscles of mastication, cheek-bones, and, moreover, the
vertebrae, the thighbones, claws, and so forth all stand in the closest
relation. The body of the animal merely subserves natural ends and on
account of this dependence on the purely material aspect of nourishment
gives the impression of absence of spirit. If, then, the human
countenance is, even in its bodily conformation, to possess a spiritual
stamp, those organs which in the animal form are so predominant must
in the case of man, retire from such a pre-eminence and give way to
those which do not so much suggest a practical relation as one that is
referable to the ideality of mind.