The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 4 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
In looking back upon the course of our previous consideration of
the other arts, we find that we reviewed the different stages of
the art of _building_ throughout in their historical development as
successively in symbolic, classic, and romantic architecture. In the
case of sculpture, on the contrary, we accepted the Greek type, by
virtue of its complete identity with the notion of this _classic_
art, as the real focal centre, from which we proceeded to develop
the specific characteristics of importance, so that here we did not
find it necessary to extend so far as in the previous case the range
of our historical survey. This contrast is further illustrated in
our treatment of the _romantic_ art-character of painting, which,
however,[29] not merely in respect to the fundamental notion of its
content, but also in that of the mode of its presentation, embraces
an equally wide and important range of development in different
nations and through different schools, so that in this case it was
necessary to make our reference to history more extensive and varied.
The nature of the art of music invited us to historical comparisons of
the same kind. Inasmuch, however, as I have neither obtained access
to the foreign literature dealing with the history of this art, nor
can claim personally to possess the adequate knowledge, I have been
forced to restrict myself to the mere outlines of what is required
incidentally. With regard to our immediate subject, that is, _epic_
poetry, the course of our enquiry will be very much that followed in
the case of sculpture. In other words, though the mode of exposition
branches off in several direct or collateral divisions, and embraces
many historical periods and peoples, yet we have already recognized in
the Epos of Greek literature the genuine type of it in its consummate
form and most artistic mode of realization. And the reason of this
is that in general the Epos possesses the closest affinity with the
plastic of sculpture and its objective presence; and, not merely in
respect to its substantive content, but equally so in the form of its
presentation as that of phenomenal reality. It is therefore by no means
simply an accident that we find epic poetry, no less than the art of
sculpture, assert itself pre-eminently among the Greeks in its original
and unsurpassed perfection. Stages of development, no doubt, are to be
met with on either side of this culminating point, stages which are
neither intrinsically subordinate or insignificant, but are necessary
conditions of the art's growth, inasmuch as all nations are essentially
within the sphere of poetic creation, and it is above all the Epos
which brings before us the heart and core of the national life. And
for this reason, the historical development of the Epic is of greater
importance than was the case with sculpture.