means.

Here the analyses of the processes of literary and artistic production given by Lessing and Victor Cousin, and their inquiries into the limits of the several arts, provide us with at least the 'bare necessaries' for judgments based upon such artistic considerations.

Let me give an example of a critical difficulty which arises solely from the neglect to discriminate between the different purposes of different forms of literature. Popular judgment is in favour of a 'happy ending' in a novel, but it is commonly maintained that such a termination of the plot is at variance with the canons of criticism, because Aristotle (and other critics after him) has declared the plot ending in 'disaster' to be the most effective and the most artistic. As a matter of fact, the plot terminating in a disaster is required for the one form of literature, the tragedy, where intense pathos, the appeal to the emotions of fear and pity, is the central effect sought to be produced. But in the case of novels in general the principle of 'poetic justice' applies; since only a small class depend entirely, or mainly, upon pathos for their effect. In other words, the 'disaster' is essential to the tragedy, but only incidental to the novel. In prose-fiction, as the vehicle which gives the widest and most varied picture of life, the natural tendency of the human mind towards optimism coincides with the idealizing process of art, and we are justified on both philosophic and critical grounds in expecting

to find in prose-fiction 'a more exact goodness and a more absolute variety than can be found in the nature of things.'1

Once more to take a third standpoint. The enlarged psychological knowledge which modern science has put at our disposal, and the expanded range of the imagination due to the quickening of the pulse of life by modern inventions, and by the increased and increasing facilities of inter-communication, together form a notable feature in the progress of man. In view of this, Addison's proposal to measure literature by the degree in which it possesses the power to affect the imagination, acquires a new significance. For here we have a test which is applicable to every species of literature, and one which measures a work of literature by reference to what experience now shows to be a merit of increasing importance. It is only by the application of this test that the experience of the booksellers can be harmonized with our belief in the validity of critical principles. By the application of this test we can discern merit in works of literature, which, being entirely defective on the side of construction, yield no reply to any test of formal or artistic canons. Defective in all else, they have yet this one virtue of stimulating thought by appealing to the imagination of the reader.

But neither this, nor any other single test, is sufficient in itself to measure the merit of a work of

1 The point is fully discussed in chapter iv. p. 8o.

literature. In order to obtain a valid judgment, a work of literature must be approached from more than one side, and our verdict must be based upon a balance of the results so obtained. This last test, however, serves one purpose which is worthy of notice. It enables us to discriminate between science and literature. Science is thought embodied in writing; literature is thought first moulded into form by the idealizing process of the human mind, and then, when so moulded, expressed in writing. Where the idealizing process has been employed by the author, there, in whatever branch of literature it may be, will be the appeal to the imagination of the reader. For this power to affect the imagination reveals the presence of the 'something more' added by the writer-the presence, that is, of the personal element which raises history or biography to the rank of literature, and lends a new value to the work of the philosopher or the man of science.

II. THE RELATION OF ESTHETICS TO CRITICISM

Man discriminates a certain aspect in his surroundings, material and moral, which he designates as 'beautiful' and refers to the quality of 'beauty.' In conventional language beauty is said to produce sensations and emotions which differ from those produced by the pleasures of sense, while, on the other hand, they do not coincide with the satisfac

tion produced by the consciousness of right conduct. Though all men are conscious of the influence of beauty in some form or other (for even the Bushman has his rock-paintings), most men, even among societies which have reached a high degree of civilization, are prepared to accept the sensations and emotions so distinguished without troubling themselves to inquire into their origin, or asking what their precise value and significance may be. Philosophy has sought to provide answers to these questions, and German philosophy in particular has been occupied with the task of formulating these answers in a manner consistent with metaphysical systems of thought. Hence has arisen the philosophy of the beautiful, or the 'science of æsthetics,' a special product of the German mind, which has for its object to explain both the origin of the general conception of beauty, and the relationship of that conception to both the states of consciousness, on the one hand, and the material existences, on the other, with which it is respectively identified by human intelligence. But it cannot be said that the body of æsthetic doctrine provided by the researches of Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Schiller, and other metaphysical writers, is wholly satisfactory. Something has been added, no doubt, to the results previously obtained by Greek thought, and old principles have been re-stated in transcendental language; but both the new and the old truths have been connected with abstract conceptions so

cumbrous that the science of æsthetics, as thus formulated, has remained practically ineffective as a contribution to the general knowledge of the world.

and

More important results have, however, been secured by thinkers who have adopted scientific methods of inquiry. Locke's theory of the Association of Ideas revealed the source and manner of production of whole classes of æsthetic enjoyments. Addison translated the doctrines of Locke Hobbes into the terms of common experience, and applied the results which he obtained to the examination of creative literature. The further advance which has been made since the days of Locke and Addison has proceeded upon the same lines, and it is now recognized that psychology is the true basis upon which any complete and effective æsthetic theory must be founded. Without attempting to trace the several steps in this advance, it is sufficient for our purposes to take the account given by Mr. Herbert Spencer in his chapter on 'Esthetic Sentiments.' Here, at length, a scientific principle of explanation is provided, which can be applied to the entire field of æsthetic enjoyment without loss of validity or distinctness.

But before considering this account, it is necessary to indicate with more precision the scope of the term 'æsthetics,' and the character of the subjectmatter with which it is concerned. For the words 'æsthetic' and 'æsthetics' have acquired meanings which are quite distinct from the original and