The Philosophy of Fine Art, volume 4 (of 4): Hegel's Aesthetik
Georg Hegel · en
for that reason, the subjective type of poetry is bound to find its
own forms, in a province of its own, wholly independent of the Epos.
In other words, the human spirit descends from the objectivity of
the object into its own private domain; it peers into its particular
conscious life; it endeavours to satisfy the desire to reproduce the
presence and reality of _that_, as displayed in soul, in the experience
of heart and reflected idea, and in doing so to unfold the content
and activity of the personal life rather than the actual presence of
the external fact. But, again, inasmuch as this expression, if it is
not simply to remain the chance expression of mere individuality[1]
in its immediate feeling and conception, must assert itself in speech
as the reflection of an inner life that is _poetic_, all that is
thus envisaged of feeling or otherwise--and however much, too, it
may be a part of the poet's unique personality, and be presented
by him as such--must nevertheless possess a universal validity, in
other words, it must essentially include feelings and reflections for
which the art of poetry is able to discover the vital and adequate
means of expression. And although, apart from this, pain and desire,
as conceived, described, and expressed in speech, may lighten the
heart, and poetic ebullition is unquestionably permissible for such a
purpose, yet its function is not restricted to such domestic service.
Rather it has a nobler vocation, which is not so much to liberate the
human spirit from emotion, but in the medium of the same. The blind
tumult of passion surges on in a union with the entire soul-life
unenlightened, unawakened to the grasp of mind. In such a state the
soul cannot assert itself in idea and expression. It is the function
of poetry no doubt to free the heart from such a prison house, in so
far as it presents that life as an object to it. But it does more
than this mere translation of content from the immediacy of emotional
experience; it creates therefrom an object which is purified from all
mere contingency of the passing mood; an object in which the soul-life
in this deliverance returns once more to itself freely and with
self-conscious satisfaction, and remains there at home. Conversely,
however, this primary objectivisation ought not to be carried to
the point of a reflection that actually discloses the individual
activity of the soul-life and its passions as it is carried forward in
practical impulse and _action_; in other words, in the self-return of
the individual upon himself in veritable deed. For the most pertinent
reality of our inner life is still itself an inward something, and
consequently this passage from itself can only give us the _sense_ of
deliverance from the immediate concentration of heart in its blind and
formless presence, which now unbars itself in self-expression, and in
doing so grasps and expresses what was previously merely felt in the
form of a self-conscious vision and ideas.