The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 3 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
(_β_) Finally, among the Greeks, we meet with both aspects, both nude
and draped figures. And in actual life also they were equally clothed,
albeit from other considerations they held it a point of honour to
have first contested in the games nude. To an exceptional degree the
Lacedaemonians were the first to wrestle naked. But this was with them
not due so much to a sense of beauty as to their general indifference
to what savoured of refinement and spiritual purport in the sense of
modesty. In the national character of the Greek people, among whom the
feeling for personal individuality in all its immediacy, and as it is
the spiritual animation of their existence, is so strongly developed,
taking this as the instinct for free and beautiful forms, it was also
inevitable that what was human in its immediacy, the bodily presence,
that is, as it belongs to man and is suffused with his spirit, should
be elaborated in independent form, and that the human form should be
revered above all others for the reason that it is the freest and the
most beautiful. In this sense, no doubt, they threw aside that instinct
of shame, which will not suffer us to look at what is purely corporeal
in' man, not out of indifference to what was spiritual, but with an
indifference to what is purely sensuous in desire, for the sake of
beauty; and this intention is manifest in full play throughout a great
number of their nude figures.
This entire absence of drapery, however, it was impossible wholly
to justify on principle. For, as I have already indicated when
distinguishing the head from other parts of the body, it is undeniable
that the spiritual expression of the form is restricted to the face
and the pose and movement of the whole, to the general mien, which is
preeminently eloquent by virtue of the arms, hands, and position of
the legs. For these organs, whose activity is in an outward direction,
have still, and precisely by the nature of their pose and movement,
for the most part the expression of a spiritual deliverance. The other
members of the body, on the contrary, are and remain solely productive
of a sensuous beauty; and the distinguishing features which are visible
on them can only be bodily vigour, development of muscle, or degrees
of delicacy and softness, such as characterize respectively the two
sexes, age, youth, and childhood. As a means, therefore, of expressing
what is spiritual in the form, the nudity of these parts is also
from the standpoint of beauty indifferent; and it is only due to our
moral sense, when, that is to say, the main thing looked for is the
paramount presentation of the spiritual in man, that such parts should
be veiled. What in general ideal art does in the case of every separate
part of the body is to remove the necessary limitations of animal life
in its detailed particularities, such as little veins, wrinkles, hairs
of the skin, and so forth, and simply to enforce and emphasize the