<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><TEI.2>

  <teiHeader type="text" status="new">
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>The Art-Work of the Future</title>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <foreName full="yes">Richard</foreName>
            <surname full="yes">Wagner</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
        <editor role="encoder">
          <persName>
            <foreName full="yes">Patrick</foreName>
            <surname full="yes">Swinkels</surname>
          </persName>
        </editor>
      </titleStmt>
      <editionStmt>
        <edition n="1.0">First edition</edition>
      </editionStmt>
      <extent n="words">53356</extent>
      <publicationStmt>
        <publisher>The Wagner Library</publisher>
        <address><addrLine>http://users.belgacom.net/wagnerlibrary/</addrLine></address>
        <idno type="GUID">7B42F1C1-0B55-11D6-AC23-00C04F03817C</idno>
        <idno type="WLID">wlpr0062</idno>
        <idno type="WLNAME">wagartfut</idno>
        <availability status="free">
          <p>Freely available for non-commercial use.</p>
        </availability>
      </publicationStmt>
      <seriesStmt>
        <title>Richard Wagner's Prose Works</title>
      </seriesStmt>
      <sourceDesc default="NO">
        <biblStruct default="NO">
          <analytic>
            <title>The Art-Work of the Future</title>
          </analytic>
          
<monogr>
  <title level="m">The Art-Work of the Future</title>
  <author>
    <persName>
      <foreName full="yes">Richard</foreName>
      <surname full="yes">Wagner</surname>
    </persName>
  </author>
  <editor role="translator">
    <persName>
      <foreName type="first" full="yes">William</foreName>
      <foreName type="middle" full="yes">Ashton</foreName>
      <surname full="yes">Ellis</surname>
    </persName>
  </editor>
  <imprint>
    <publisher>Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner &amp; Co.</publisher>
    <pubPlace>London</pubPlace>
    <date value="1895">1895</date>
  </imprint>
</monogr>
<series>
  <title level="s">Richard Wagner's Prose Works</title>
  <biblScope type="volume">1</biblScope>
</series>
	
        </biblStruct>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <encodingDesc>
      <editorialDecl default="NO">
        <correction status="medium" default="NO" method="silent"><p>OCR errors have been corrected.</p></correction>
        <hyphenation eol="some" default="NO"><p>All soft-hyphens have been removed.</p></hyphenation>
      </editorialDecl>
      <tagsDecl>
        
        

<rendition id="b">bold</rendition>
<rendition id="i">italic</rendition>
<rendition id="u">underline</rendition>
<rendition id="dq">double quoted</rendition>
<rendition id="sq">single quoted</rendition>
<rendition id="n">normal</rendition>
<rendition id="r">right</rendition>
<rendition id="l">left</rendition>
<rendition id="c">center</rendition>
<rendition id="j">justify</rendition>
<rendition id="hr">horizontal line</rendition>
<rendition id="lo">lowercase</rendition>
<rendition id="up">uppercase</rendition>

        
        <tagUsage gi="p" render="j"/>
        <tagUsage gi="hi" render="i"/>
      </tagsDecl>
      
      
<classDecl>
  <taxonomy id="BLPC">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>British Library Public Catalogue</title>
      <address><addrLine>http://blpc.bl.uk/</addrLine></address>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="DDC">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>Dewey Decimal Classification</title>
      <address><addrLine>http://www.oclc.org/dewey/</addrLine></address>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="LCC">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>Library of Congress Classification</title>
      <address><addrLine>http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/cpso.html#class</addrLine></address>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="LCSH">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>Library of Congress Subject Headings</title>
      <address><addrLine>http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/cpso.html#subjects</addrLine></address>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="NUGI">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>Nederlandse Uniforme Genre Indeling</title>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="NUR">
    <category id="nur2002">
      <catDesc>Nederlandstalige Uniforme Rubrieksindeling</catDesc>
      <category id="nur600">
        <catDesc>Non-fictie informatief/professioneel algemeen</catDesc>
        <category id="nur660">
          <catDesc>Muziek algemeen</catDesc>
          <category id="nur661"><catDesc>Biografieën van musici</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur662"><catDesc>Muziekgeschiedenis</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur663"><catDesc>Muziektheorie</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur664"><catDesc>Muziekwetenschap</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur665"><catDesc>Muziek klassiek</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur666"><catDesc>Muziek populair</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur667"><catDesc>Muziekinstrumenten en techniek</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur668"><catDesc>Bladmuziek</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur669"><catDesc>Naslagwerken (muziek)</catDesc></category>
        </category>
        <category id="nur670">
          <catDesc>Theater-, film- en televisiewetenschap algemeen</catDesc>
          <category id="nur671"><catDesc>Biografieën podiumkunsten</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur672"><catDesc>Biografieën film en televisie</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur673"><catDesc>Radio</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur674"><catDesc>Film en televisie</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur675"><catDesc>Toneel en theaterdans</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur676"><catDesc>Theatergeschiedenis</catDesc></category>
          <category id="nur677"><catDesc>Theatertheorie en -techniek</catDesc></category>
        </category>
      </category> 
    </category>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="UDC">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>Universal Decimal Classification</title>
      <address><addrLine>http://www.udcc.org/</addrLine></address>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="wl-taxonomy">
    <category id="root">
      <catDesc>The Wagner Library</catDesc>
      <category id="r.pw">
        <catDesc>The Prose Writings</catDesc>
        <category id="r.pw.1">
          <catDesc>Early Writings, 1834-1839</catDesc>
          <category id="r.pw.1.1"><catDesc>Essays and Autobiographical Notes</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.1.2"><catDesc>Shorter occasional Pieces and Articles</catDesc></category>
        </category>
        <category id="r.pw.2">
          <catDesc>The Paris Years, 1839-1842</catDesc>
          <category id="r.pw.2.1"><catDesc>Writings for the "Revue et Gazette Musicale"</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.2.2"><catDesc>Feuilletons for "Europa" (Stuttgart)</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.2.3"><catDesc>Contributions to Schumann's "Neue Zeitschrift für Musik"</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.2.4"><catDesc>Articles for the Dresden "Abendzeitung"</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.2.5"><catDesc>Other Paris Writings</catDesc></category>
        </category>
        <category id="r.pw.3"><catDesc>Writings from 1842 to 1848</catDesc></category>
        <category id="r.pw.4">
          <catDesc>The Revolution Years, 1848-49</catDesc>
          <category id="r.pw.4.1"><catDesc>Revolutionary Writings</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.4.2"><catDesc>Writings on Theater Reform</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.4.3"><catDesc>Occasional Writings</catDesc></category>
        </category>
        <category id="r.pw.5">
          <catDesc>Writings from the Years 1849 to 1864</catDesc>
          <category id="r.pw.5.1"><catDesc>Major Writings on Aesthetics from the Zurich Period</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.2"><catDesc>Minor Writings on Aesthetics</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.3"><catDesc>Writings on Theater Reform</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.4">
            <catDesc>Autobiographical Writings, Prefaces, and Remarks on Wagner's Musical-Dramatic Works</catDesc>
          </category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.5"><catDesc>Minor Occasional Pieces and Short Articles: Obituaries and Dedications</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.6"><catDesc>Press Statements</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.7"><catDesc>Letters of Thanks</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.5.8"><catDesc>Program Notes</catDesc></category>
        </category>
        <category id="r.pw.6">
          <catDesc>Writings from 1864 to 1883</catDesc>
          <category id="r.pw.6.1"><catDesc>Autobiographical Works</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.2"><catDesc>Philosophical Writings</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.3"><catDesc>Musical Aesthetics and Drama</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.4"><catDesc>Theater Reform and Bayreuth</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.5"><catDesc>Short and Occasional Pieces and Articles: Obituaries and Dedications</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.6"><catDesc>Reviews and Statements</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.7"><catDesc>Shorter Writings on Various Subjects</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.8"><catDesc>Statements to the Press</catDesc></category>
          <category id="r.pw.6.9"><catDesc>Open Letters, Miscellaneous Fragments and Concert Programs</catDesc></category>
        </category>
      </category> 
      <category id="r.rs">
        <catDesc>Referring String Keys</catDesc>
        <category id="r.rs.person">
          <catDesc>Persons</catDesc>
          <category id="r.rs.composer">
            <catDesc>Composers</catDesc>
              <category id="rs.auber"><catDesc>Auber</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.bach"><catDesc>Bach</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.bellini"><catDesc>Bellini</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.beethoven"><catDesc>Beethoven</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.gluck"><catDesc>Gluck</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.gretry"><catDesc>Grétry</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.handel"><catDesc>Händel</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.mozart"><catDesc>Mozart, W. A.</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.spohr"><catDesc>Spohr</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.spontini"><catDesc>Spontini</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.wagner"><catDesc>Wagner, Richard</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.weber"><catDesc>Weber</catDesc></category>
          </category>
          <category id="r.rs.singer">
            <catDesc>Singers</catDesc>
            <category id="rs.devrient"><catDesc>Schröder-Devrient, Wilhelmine</catDesc></category>
          </category>
          <category id="rs.schneider"><catDesc>Schneider, Friedrich</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.lvoff"><catDesc>Lvoff, Alexis</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.feuerbach"><catDesc>Feuerbach, Ludwig</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.ludwig"><catDesc>Ludwig II, King</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.schiller"><catDesc>Schiller</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.schopenhauer"><catDesc>Schopenhauer, Arthur</catDesc></category>
        </category> 
        <category id="r.rs.opera">
          <catDesc>Operas</catDesc>
          <category id="rs.euryanthe"><catDesc>Euryanthe</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.figaro"><catDesc>Figaro</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.freischutz"><catDesc>Freischütz, Der</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.montecchi"><catDesc>Montecchi e Capuleti</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.norma"><catDesc>Norma</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.hochzeit"><catDesc>Hochzeit, Die</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.liebesverbot"><catDesc>Liebesverbot, Das</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.feen"><catDesc>Feen, Die</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.rienzi"><catDesc>Rienzi, der Letzte der Tribunen</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.hollander"><catDesc>Fliegende Holländer, Der</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.tannhauser"><catDesc>Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.lohengrin"><catDesc>Lohengrin</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.ring"><catDesc>Ring des Nibelungen, Der</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.rheingold"><catDesc>Rheingold, Das</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.walkure"><catDesc>Walküre, Die</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.siegfried"><catDesc>Siegfried</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.gotterdammerung"><catDesc>Götterdämmerung</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.meistersinger"><catDesc>Meistersinger von Nürnberg, Die</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.tristan"><catDesc>Tristan und Isolde</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.parsifal"><catDesc>Parsifal</catDesc></category>
        </category> 
        <category id="r.rs.composition">
          <catDesc>Compositions</catDesc>
          <category id="rs.messiah"><catDesc>Messiah</catDesc></category>
          <category id="rs.requiem"><catDesc>Requiem</catDesc></category>
        </category> 
        <category id="r.rs.place">
          <catDesc>Places</catDesc>
          <category id="r.rs.city">
            <catDesc>Cities</catDesc>
              <category id="rs.bayreuth"><catDesc>Bayreuth</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.berlin"><catDesc>Berlin</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.brussels"><catDesc>Brussels</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.dresden"><catDesc>Dresden</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.leipzig"><catDesc>Leipzig</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.london"><catDesc>London</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.munich"><catDesc>Munich</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.paris"><catDesc>Paris</catDesc></category>
              <category id="rs.riga"><catDesc>Riga</catDesc></category>
          </category>
          <category id="r.rs.region">
            <catDesc>Regions</catDesc>
              <category id="rs.bavaria"><catDesc>Bavaria</catDesc></category>
          </category>
          <category id="r.rs.country">
            <catDesc>Countries</catDesc>
            <category id="rs.france"><catDesc>France</catDesc></category>
            <category id="rs.germany"><catDesc>Germany</catDesc></category>
            <category id="rs.italy"><catDesc>Italy</catDesc></category>
            <category id="rs.lithuania"><catDesc>Lithuania</catDesc></category>
          </category>
        </category> 
        <category id="r.rs.role">
          <catDesc>Roles</catDesc>
          <category id="rs.romeo"><catDesc>Romeo</catDesc></category>
        </category> 
      </category> 
    </category> 
  </taxonomy>
  <taxonomy id="WL">
    <bibl default="NO">
      <title>The Wagner Library</title>
    </bibl>
  </taxonomy>
</classDecl>

    </encodingDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <langUsage default="NO">
        <language id="de">German</language>
        <language id="en-gb">British English</language>
        <language id="en-us">American English</language>
        <language id="fr">French</language>
        <language id="it">Italian</language>
        <language id="la">Latin</language>
      </langUsage>
      <textClass default="NO">
        <keywords scheme="LCSH">
          <term>Wagner, Richard, 1813-1883</term>
          <term>Art—Philosophy</term>
          <term>Music—Philosophy and aesthetics</term>
        </keywords>
        <keywords scheme="WL">
          <term>Art</term>
          <term>Richard Wagner</term>
        </keywords>
        <classCode scheme="DDC">700.1</classCode> 
        <classCode scheme="NUGI">924</classCode>  
        <catRef target="r.pw.5.1"/>
      </textClass>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change>
        <date>2002-01-24</date>
        <respStmt>
          <name>Patrick Swinkels</name>
          <resp>encoder</resp>
        </respStmt>
        <item>Level 1 encoding of complete text</item>
      </change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>

<text id="wlpr0062" lang="en-gb">
<front>

<fs type="fact-sheet" rel="sb">
  <f name="encoding-level" rel="eq"><sym value="1" rel="eq"/></f>
  <f name="encoding-status" rel="eq"><sym value="in progress" rel="eq"/></f>
  <f name="original-date" rel="eq"><sym value="1849" rel="eq"/></f>
  <f name="original-title" rel="eq"><str rel="eq">Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft</str></f>
  <f name="original-source" rel="eq"><str rel="eq"/></f>
  <f name="SSD-volume" rel="eq"><str rel="eq">I</str></f>
  <f name="SSD-pages" rel="eq"><str rel="eq">194-206</str></f>
  <f name="spellcheck" rel="eq"><minus/></f>
  <f name="proofreading" rel="eq"><minus/></f>
</fs>

<div type="translators-note" rend="i" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag68"/>
<head>Translator's Note</head>

<p>"For the last fortnight, <hi>i.e.</hi> since I
have settled down quietly in my new home, I have been seized with
an ungovernable desire to undertake a fresh literary labour,
'<hi>The Art-work of the Future</hi>'. . ." (R. Wagner's Letters to Uhlig;
Zurich, October 26, 1849.) "I thought you would like to look
through my new work before it came with due ceremony before the
world. . . This will be my last literary work. If I have
been understood, and if I have convinced others—even if few
in number—others must and will fulfil that portion of the
task which is the work of many, not of one." (Ibidem, Nov.
1849.) "Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft" was originally published by
Wigand of Leipzig at the end of the year 1849.</p>
</div> 

<div type="dedication" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head>Dedication of the Original Edition</head>
<head type="sub">(1850, Otto Wigand, Leipzig)</head>

<salute>To LUDWIG FEUERBACH, with grateful esteem.</salute>

<p>To no one but yourself, honoured Sir, can I
dedicate this book; for, in offering it you, I restore to you your
own property. Only in so far as that property has become not your
own, but that of the <hi>artist</hi>, must I be uncertain how I ought to
approach you: whether you would be inclined to receive back from
the hand of the artistic man that which you, as philosophic man,
have bestowed upon him. The strong desire and deep-felt obligation
to at least express to you my thanks for the heart-tonic
administered by you to me, have overcome that scruple.</p>

<p>No personal conceit, but a need too great for
silencing, has made of me—for a brief period—a writer.
In my earliest youth I made poetry and plays; to one of these plays
I longed to write some music: to learn that art, I became a
musician. Later I wrote operas, setting my own dramatic poems to
music. Musicians by profession, to whose ranks I belonged in virtue
of my outer station, ascribed to me poetic talent; poets by
profession allowed currency to my musical faculties. The public I
often succeeded in actively arousing: critics by profession always tore me into
rags. Thus I derived from myself and my antitheses much food for
thought: when I thought aloud, I brought the Philistines upon me,
who can only imagine the artist as a dolt, and never as a thinker.
By friends I was often begged to publish in type my thoughts on Art
and what I wished to see fulfilled therein: I preferred the
endeavour to convey my wish by artistic deeds alone. From the
circumstance that this my attempt could never quite succeed, I was
forced to recognise that it is not the <hi>individual,</hi> but only
the <hi>community,</hi> that can bring artistic deeds to actual
accomplishment, past any doubting of the
senses. The <hi>recognition</hi> of this fact, if <hi>hope</hi> herein
is <hi>not</hi> to be entirely abandoned, means as much as: to raise
the standard of <hi>revolt</hi> against the whole condition of our
present Art and Life. Since the time when I summoned up the
necessary courage for this revolt, I also resolved to enter on the
field of writing; a course to which I had already once before been
driven by outward want. Literarians by profession, who after the
calming of the recent storms are now filling their lungs again with
balmy breezes, find it shameless of an opera-poetising musician to
go so far out of his way as to invade their own preserves. May they
permit me, as an artistic man, to make the attempt to
address—by no means them, but—merely <hi>thinking
artists,</hi> with whom they have naught in common.</p>

<p>May you, however, honoured Sir, not take it
ill of me that, by this dedication, I connect your name with a
work that in my own eyes most certainly owes its origin to the
impression which your writings have made upon me, yet which may
perhaps not meet your views as to how that impression should have
been developed. Nevertheless I venture to presume that it will not
be quite indifferent to you, to gain a certain proof as to how
your thoughts have operated upon an <hi>artist</hi>, and how the
latter—as an <hi>artist</hi>—endeavours, in all sincerity of
ardour for the cause, to interpret them again to artists, and
indeed to no one else. May you attribute to this zeal, which you
will be the last to treat with blame, not only whatever may please
you, but also whatever may displease you in its expression!</p>
<signed>RICHARD WAGNER.</signed>
</div> 

</front>

<body>

<div type="part" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag69"/>
<head>The Art-Work of the Future</head>

<div type="chapter" n="1" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="up">I. Man and Art, in General.</head>

<div type="section" n="1" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">1. Nature, Man, and Art.</head>

<p><hi rend="up">As</hi> Man stands to Nature, so stands Art to Man.
When Nature had developed in herself those attributes which
included the conditions for the existence of Man, then Man
spontaneously evolved. In like manner, as soon as human life had
engendered from itself the conditions for the manifestment of
Art-work, this too stepped self-begotten into life.</p>

<p>Nature engenders her myriad forms without
caprice or arbitrary aim ("<hi>absichtlos und unwillkürlich</hi>"),
according to her need ("<hi>Bedürfniss</hi>"), and therefore of Necessity
("<hi>Nothwendigkeit</hi>"). This same Necessity is the generative
and formative force of human life. Only that which is un-capricious
and un-arbitrary can spring from a real need; but on Need alone is
based the very principle of Life.
<note id="rn01" corresp="n01" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<pb id="pag70" n="70"/>

<p>Man only recognises Nature's <hi>Necessity</hi> by
observing the harmonious connection of all her phenomena; so long
as he does not grasp the latter, she seems to him Caprice.</p>

<p>From the moment when Man perceived the
difference between himself and Nature, and thus commenced his own
development as <hi>man</hi>, by breaking loose from the
unconsciousness of natural animal life and passing over into
conscious life,—when he thus looked Nature in the face and
from the first feelings of his dependence on her, thereby aroused,
evolved the faculty of Thought,—from that moment did Error
begin, as the earliest utterance of consciousness. But Error is the
mother of Knowledge; and the history of the birth of Knowledge out
of Error is the history of the human race, from the myths of primal
ages down to the present day.</p>

<p>Man erred, from the time when he set the cause
of Nature's workings outside the bounds of Nature's self, and for
the physical phenomena subsumed a super-physical, anthropomorphic,
and arbitrary cause; when he took the endless harmony of her
unconscious, instinctive energy for the arbitrary demeanour of
disconnected finite forces. Knowledge consists in the laying of
this error, in fathoming the Necessity of phenomena whose
underlying basis had appeared to us Caprice.</p>

<p>Through this knowledge does Nature grow
conscious of herself; and verily by Man himself, who only through
discriminating between himself and Nature has attained that point
where he can apprehend her, by making her his 'object.' But this
distinction is merged once more, when Man recognises the essence of
Nature as his very own, and perceives the same Necessity in all the
elements and lives around him, and therefore in his own existence no less
<pb id="pag71" n="71"/>
than in Nature's being; thus not only recognising the
mutual bond of union between all natural phenomena, but also his
own community with Nature.</p>

<p>If Nature then, by her solidarity with Man,
attains <hi>in</hi> Man her consciousness, and if Man's life is the
very activation of this consciousness—as it were, the
portraiture in brief of Nature,—so does man's Life itself
gain understanding by means of Science, which makes this human life
in turn an object of experience. But the activation of the
consciousness attained by Science, the portrayal of the Life that
it has learnt to know, the impress of this life's Necessity and
Truth, is—<hi>Art</hi>.
<note id="rn02" corresp="n02" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>Man will never be that which he can and should
be, until his Life is a true mirror of Nature, a conscious
following of the only real Necessity, the <hi>inner natural
necessity</hi>, and is no longer held in subjugation to an
<hi>outer</hi> artificial counterfeit,—which is thus no
necessary, but an <hi>arbitrary</hi> power. Then first will Man
become a living man; whereas till now he carries on a mere
existence, dictated by the maxims of this or that Religion,
Nationality, or State.—In like manner will Art not be the
thing she can and should be, until she is or can be the true,
conscious image and exponent of the real Man, and of man's genuine,
nature-bidden life; until she therefore need no longer borrow the
conditions of her being from the errors, perversities, and
unnatural distortions of our modern life.</p>

<p>The real Man will therefore never be
forthcoming, until true Human Nature, and not the arbitrary
statutes of the State, shall model and ordain his Life; while real
Art will never live, until its embodiments need be subject only to
the laws of Nature, and not to the despotic whims of Mode. For as
Man only then becomes free, when he gains the glad consciousness of
his oneness with Nature; so does Art only then gain freedom, when
she has no more to blush for her affinity with actual Life. But
only in the joyous consciousness
<pb id="pag72" n="72"/>
of his oneness with Nature does
Man subdue his dependence on her; while Art can only overcome her
dependence upon Life through her oneness with the life of free and
genuine Men.</p>

</div> 

<div type="section" n="2" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">2. Life, Science, and Art.</head>

<p>Whilst Man involuntarily moulds his Life
according to the notions he has gathered from his arbitrary views
of Nature, and embalms their intuitive expression in Religion:
these notions become for him in Science the subject of conscious,
intentional review and scrutiny.</p>

<p>The path of Science lies from error to
knowledge, from fancy ("<hi>Vorstellung</hi>") to reality, from
Religion to Nature. In the beginning of Science, therefore, Man
stands toward Life in the same relation as he stood towards the
phenomena of Nature when he first commenced to part his life from
hers. Science takes over the arbitrary concepts of the human brain,
in their totality; while, by her side, Life follows in its totality
the instinctive evolution of Necessity. Science thus bears the
burden of the sins of Life, and expiates them by her own
self-abrogation; she ends in her direct antithesis, in the
knowledge of Nature, in the recognition of the unconscious,
instinctive, and therefore real, inevitable, and physical. The
character of Science is therefore finite: that of Life, unending;
just as Error is of time, but Truth eternal. But that alone is true
and living which is sentient, and hearkens to the terms of
physicality (<hi>Sinnlichkeit</hi>). Error's crowning folly is the
arrogance of Science in renouncing and contemning the world of
sense (<hi>Sinnlichkeit</hi>); whereas the highest victory of Science
is her self-accomplished crushing of this arrogance, in the
acknowledgment of the teaching of the senses.</p>

<p>The end of Science is the justifying of the
Unconscious, the giving of self-consciousness to Life, the
re-instatement of the Senses in their perceptive rights, the
sinking of
<pb id="pag73" n="73"/>
Caprice in the world-Will ("<hi>Wollen</hi>") of
Necessity. Science is therefore the vehicle of Knowledge, her
procedure mediate, her goal an intermediation; but Life is the
great Ultimate, a law unto itself. As Science melts away into the
recognition of the ultimate and self-determinate reality, of actual
Life itself: so does this avowal win its frankest, most direct
expression in Art, or rather in the <hi>Work of Art</hi>.</p>

<p>True that the artist does not at first proceed
directly; he certainly sets about his work in an arbitrary,
selective, and mediating mood. But while he plays the go-between
and picks and chooses, the product of his energy is not as yet the
Work of Art; nay, his procedure is the rather that of Science, who
seeks and probes, and therefore errs in her caprice. Only when his
choice is made, when this choice was born from pure
Necessity,—when thus the artist has found himself again in
the subject of his choice, as perfected Man finds his true self in
Nature,—then steps the Art-work into life, then first is it a
real thing, a self-conditioned and immediate entity.</p>

<p>The actual Art-work, i.e. <hi>its immediate
physical portrayal, in the moment of its liveliest embodiment</hi>,
is therefore the only true redemption of the artist; the uprootal
of the final trace of busy, purposed choice; the confident
determination of what was hitherto a mere imagining; the
enfranchisement of thought in sense; the assuagement of the
life-need in Life itself.</p>

<p>The Art-work, thus conceived as an immediate
vital act, is therewith the perfect reconcilement of Science with
Life, the laurel-wreath which the vanquished, redeemed by her
defeat, reaches in joyous homage to her acknowledged victor.</p>
</div> 

<div type="section" n="3" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">3. The Folk and Art.</head>

<p>The redemption of Thought and Science
and their transmutation into Art-work would be impossible, could Life
<pb id="pag74" n="74"/>
itself be made dependent upon scientific speculation. Could
conscious autocratic Thought completely govern Life, could it usurp
the vital impulse and divert it to some other purpose than the
great Necessity of absolute life-needs: then were Life itself
dethroned, and swallowed up in Science. And truly Science, in her
overweening arrogance, has dreamed of such a triumph; as witness
our tight-reined State and modern Art, the sexless, barren children
of this dream.</p>

<p>The great instinctive errors of the
People—which found their earliest utterance in Religion, and
then became the starting-points of arbitrary speculation and
system-making, in Theology and Philosophy——have reared
themselves, in these Sciences and their coadjutrix and adopted
sister, Statecraft, to powers which make no less a claim than to
govern and ordain the world and life by virtue of their innate and
divine infallibility. Irrevocably, then, would Error reign in
destructive triumph throughout eternity: did not the same
life-force which blindly bore it, once more effectually annihilate
it, by virtue of its innate, natural Necessity; and that so
decisively and palpably, that Intellect, with all its arrogant
divorce from Life, can see at last no other refuge from actual
insanity, than in the unconditional acknowledgment of this only
definite and visible force. And this vital force is—The Folk
(<hi>das Volk</hi>).—</p>

<p><hi>Who is then the Folk</hi>?—It is
absolutely necessary that, before proceeding further, we should
agree upon the answer to this weightiest of questions.</p>

<p>"The Folk," was from of old the inclusive term
for <hi>all the units</hi> which made up the total of a
<hi>commonality</hi>. In the beginning, it was the family and the
tribe; next, the tribes united by like speech into a nation.
Practically, by the Roman world-dominion which engulfed the
nations, and theoretically, by the Christian religion which
admitted of naught but men, <hi>i.e.</hi> no racial, but only
<hi>Christian</hi> men—the idea of "the People" has so far
broadened out, or even evaporated, that we may either include in it
mankind in general, or, upon the arbitrary political hypothesis, a
<pb id="pag75" n="75"/>
certain, and generally the propertyless portion of the
Commonwealth. But beyond a frivolous, this term has also acquired
an ineradicable <hi>moral</hi> meaning; and on account of this it is,
that in times of stir and trouble all men are eager to number
themselves among the People; each one gives out that he is careful
for the People's weal, and no one will permit himself to be
excluded from it. Therefore in these latter days also has the
question frequently been broached, in the most diverse of senses:
Who then is the People? In the sum total of the body politic, can a
separate party, a particular fraction of the said body claim this
name for itself alone? Rather, are we not all alike "the People,"
from the beggar to the prince?</p>

<p>This question must therefore be answered
according to the conclusive and world-historical sense that now
lies at its root, as follows:—</p>

<p>The "Folk" is the epitome of all those men
<hi>who feel a common and collective Want</hi> ("gemeinschaftliche
Noth"). To it belong, then, all of those who recognise their
individual want as a collective want, or find it based thereon;
ergo, all those who can hope for the stilling of their want in
nothing but the stilling of a common want, and therefore spend
their whole life's strength upon the stilling of their thus
acknowledged common want. For only that want which urges to the
uttermost, is genuine Want; but this Want alone is the force of
true Need ("<hi>Bedürfniss</hi>"); but a common and collective
need is the only true Need; but only he who feels within him a true
Need, has a right to its assuagement; but only the assuagement of a
genuine Need is Necessity; and it is <hi>the Folk alone that acts
according to Necessity's behests</hi>, and therefore irresistibly,
victoriously, and right as none besides.</p>

<p>Who now are they who belong <hi>not</hi> to this
People, and who are its sworn foes?</p>

<p>All those <hi>who feel no Want</hi>; whose
life-spring therefore consists in a need which rises not to the
potence of a Want, and thus is artificial, untrue, and egoistic;
and not only is not embraced within a common Need, but as the empty need
<pb id="pag76" n="76"/>
of preserving superfluity—as which alone can one
conceive of need without the force of want—is diametrically
opposed to the collective Need.</p>

<p>Where there is no Want, there is no true Need;
where no true Need, no necessary action. But where there is no
<hi>necessary</hi> action, there reigns Caprice; and where Caprice is
king, there blossoms every vice, and every criminal assault on
Nature. For only by forcing back, by barring and refusing the
assuagement of true Need, can the false and artificial need
endeavour to assuage itself.</p>

<p>But the satisfaction of an artificial need is
<hi>Luxury;</hi> which can only be bred and supported in opposition
to, and at the cost of; the necessities of others.</p>

<p><hi>Luxury</hi> is as heartless, inhuman,
insatiable, and egoistic as the 'need' which called it forth, but
which, with all its heaping-up and over-reaching, it never more can
still. For this need itself is no natural and therefore satisfiable
one; by very reason that, being false, it has no true, essential
antithesis in which it may be spent, consumed, and satisfied.
Actual physical hunger has its natural antithesis, satiety, in
which—by feeding—it is spent: but unwanting need, the
need that craves for luxury, is in itself already luxury and
superfluity. The error of it, therefore, can never go over into
truth; it racks, devours, torments and burns, without an instant's
stilling; it leaves brain, heart and sense for ever vainly
yearning, and swallows up all gladness, mirth, and joy of life. For
sake of one sole, and yet unreachable moment of refreshment, it
squanders the toil and life-sweat of a thousand needy wanters; it
lives upon the unstilled hunger of a thousand thousand poor, though
impotent to satiate its own for but the twinkling of an eye; it
holds a whole world within the iron chains of despotism, without
the power to momentarily break the golden chains of that
arch-tyrant which it is unto itself.</p>

<p>And this fiend, this crack-brained
need-without-a-need, this need of Need,—this <hi>need of
Luxury,</hi> which is <hi>Luxury itself</hi> withal,—is
sovereign of the world. It is the soul of that Industry which
deadens men, to turn them to
<pb id="pag77" n="77"/>
machines; the soul of our State which
swears away men's honour, the better then to take them back as
lieges of its grace; the soul of our deistic Science, which hurls
men down before an immaterial God, the product of the sum of
intellectual luxury, for his consumption. It
is—alas!—the soul, the stipulation, of
our—<hi>Art</hi>!</p>

<p>Who then will bring to pass the rescue from this baleful
state?—</p> 

<p><hi>Want</hi>,—which shall teach the world
to recognise its own <hi>true need</hi>; that need which <hi>by its
very nature admits of satisfaction</hi>.</p>

<p>Want will cut short the hell of Luxury; it will
teach the tortured, Need-lacking spirits whom this hell embraces in
its bounds the simple, homely need of sheer human, physical hunger
and thirst; but in fellowship will it point us to the health-giving
bread, the clear sweet springs of Nature; in fellowship shall we
taste their genuine joys, and grow up in communion to veritable
men. In common, too, shall we close the last link in the bond of
holy Necessity; and the brother-kiss that seals this bond, will be
the <hi>mutual Art-work of the Future</hi>. But in this, also, our
great redeemer and well-doer, Necessity's vicegerent in the
flesh,—<hi>the Folk</hi>, will no longer be a severed and
peculiar class; for in this Art-work we shall all be
<hi>one</hi>,— heralds and supporters of Necessity, knowers of
the un conscious, willers of the unwilful, betokeners of
Nature,—<hi>blissful men</hi>.</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="4" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">4. The Folk as the Force conditioning the Art-work.</head>

<p>All that subsists, depends on the
conditions by which it subsists; nothing, either in Nature or Life,
stands shut-off and alone. Everything is rooted in one unending and
harmonious whole; and therewith likewise the capricious,
unnecessary, and harmful. The harmful practises its might <hi>in</hi>
hindering the necessary; nay, it owes its being and its
<pb id="pag78" n="78"/>
force to this hindrance and naught else; and thus, in truth, it is nothing
but the powerlessness of the necessary. Were this powerlessness to
last forever, then must the natural ordering of the world be other
than it really is; Caprice would be Necessity, and the necessary
would lack its need. But this weakness is but transient, and
therefore only seeming; for the force of Necessity shows its living
rule even as the sole and ground condition of the continuance of
the arbitrary. Thus the luxury of the rich is built upon the penury
of the poor; and it is the very want of the poorer classes that
hurls unceasingly fresh fodder to the luxury of the rich; while the
poor man, from very need of food for his life-forces, thus offers
up his own life-strength unto the rich.</p>

<p>Thus did the life-force, the life-need, of
telluric Nature nurture once those baleful forces—or rather
the potentiality of those alliances and, offspring of the
elements—which blocked her way in giving true and fitting utterance
to the fulness of her vital energy. The reason hereof lay in the
great abundance, the swelling overfill of generative force and
life-stuff, the inexhaustible supply of matter.—The need of
Nature was therefore utmost multiple variety, and she reached the
satisfaction of this need herewith: that—so to say—she
drew off all her life-force from Exclusiveness, from the monumental
singleness that she herself had hitherto fed so full, and resolved
it into Multiplicity.—The exclusive, sole, and egoistic, can
only take and never give: it can only let itself be born, but
cannot bear; for bearing there is need of I and Thou, the passing
over of Egoism into Communism. The richest procreative force lies
therefore in the utmost multiplicity; and when Earth-nature had
emanated to the most manifold variety, she attained therewith the
state of saturation, of self-contentment, of self-delight, which
she manifests amid her present harmony. She works no longer by
titanic, total transformations, for her period of revolutions is
foreby; she now is all that she can be, and thus that she ever
could have been, and ever must become. She no longer has to lavish
life-force on
<pb id="pag79" n="79"/>
barren impotence; throughout her endless-stretching
realm she has summoned multiformity, the Manly and the Womanly, the
ever self-renewing and engendering, the ever self-completing and
assuaging, into life,—and in this eternal harmony of parts,
she has become forevermore her stable self.</p>

<p>It is in the reproduction of this great
evolutionary process of Nature <hi>in Man himself</hi>, that the
human race, from the time of its self-severance from Nature, is
thus involved. The same necessity is the mainspring of the great
revolution of mankind; the same assuagement will bring this
revolution to its close.</p>

<p>But that impelling force, the plain and innate
force of Life which vindicates itself in life-needs, is unconscious
and instinctive by its very nature; and where it is this—in
the Folk—it also is the only true, conclusive might. Great,
then, is the error of our folk. instructors when they fancy that
the Folk must <hi>know</hi> first what it wills—<hi>i.e.</hi> in
<hi>their</hi> eyes <hi>should</hi> will—ere it be justified,.
or even able, to will at all. From this chief error all the
wretched makeshifts, all the impotent devices, and all the shameful
weakness of the latest world-commotions take their rise.</p>

<p>The truly known is nothing other than the actual
physical phenomenon, become by thought the vivid presentation of an
object. Thought is arbitrary so long as it cannot picture to itself
the physical present and that which has passed away from sense,
with the completest unconditional perception of their necessary
coherence ("<hi>Zusammenhang</hi>"); for the consciousness of this
conception ("<hi>Vorstellung</hi>") is the essence of all reasonable
Knowledge ("<hi>vernünftiges Wissen</hi>"). Therefore the more
truthful is Knowledge, the more frankly must it recognise that its
whole existence hangs upon its own coherence with that which has
come to actual, finished, and fulfilled manifestation to the
senses, and thus admit its own possibility of existence as <hi>a
priori</hi> conditioned by actuality. But so soon as Thought
abstracts from actuality, and would fain construct the concrete
future, it can no longer bring forth <hi>Knowledge;</hi> but utters
<pb id="pag80" n="80"/>
itself as <hi>Fancy</hi> ("<hi>Wähnen</hi>"), which forcibly
dissevers itself from <hi>the Unconscious</hi>. Only when it can
fathom physicality, and unflinchingly plunge its sympathetic gaze
into the depths of an actual physical need, can it take its share
in the energy of the Unconscious; and only that which is brought to
light of day by an instinctive, necessary <hi>Need</hi>, to wit the
actual physical Deed, can again become the satisfying object of
thought and knowledge. For the march of human evolution is the
rational and natural progress from the unconscious to the
conscious, from un-knowledge to knowledge, from need to satisfying;
and not from satisfaction back to need,—at least not to that
selfsame need whose end lay in that satisfying.</p>

<p>Not ye wise men, therefore, are the true
inventors, but the Folk; for Want it was, that drove it to
invention. All great inventions are the People's deed; whereas the
devisings of the intellect are but the exploitations, the
derivatives, nay, the splinterings and disfigurements of the great
inventions of the Folk. Not ye, invented <hi>Speech</hi>, but the
Folk; ye could but spoil its physical beauty, break its force,
mislay its inner understanding, and painfully explore the loss. Not
ye, were the inventors of <hi>Religion</hi>, but the Folk; ye could
but mutilate its inner meaning, turn the heaven that lay within it
to a hell, and its out-breathing truth to lies. Not ye are the
inventors of the <hi>State</hi>; ye have but made from out the
natural alliance of like-needing men a natureless and forced
allegiance of unlike-needing; from the beneficent defensive league
of all a maleficent bulwark for the privileged few; from the soft
and yielding raiment upon man's blithely moving body a stiff,
encumbering iron harness, the gaud of some historic armoury. It is
not ye that give the Folk the wherewithal to live, but it gives
you; not ye who give the Folk to think, but it gives you. Therefore
it is not ye that should presume to teach the Folk, but ye should
take your lessons from it; and thus it is to you that I address
myself; <hi>not to the Folk</hi>,—for to <hi>it</hi> there are
but scant words to say, and e'en the exhortation: "Do as thou
must!" to it is quite superfluous,
<pb id="pag81" n="81"/>
for of itself it does that which
it must. But to you I turn,—in the same sense as the Folk,
albeit of necessity in your own mode of utterance,—to you, ye
prudent men and intellectual, to offer you, with all the People's
open-heartedness, the redemption from your egoistic incantations in
the limpid spring of Nature, in the loving arm-caresses of the
Folk—there where I found it; where it became for me my
art-instructor; where, after many a battle between the hope within
and the blank despair without, I won a dauntless faith in the
assurance of the Future.</p>

<p>The <hi>Folk</hi> will thus fulfil its mission of
redemption, the while it satisfies itself and at like time rescues
its own foes. Its procedure will be governed by the instinctive
laws of Nature; with the Necessity of elemental forces, will it
destroy the <hi>bad coherence</hi> that alone makes out the
conditions of Un-nature's rule. So long as these conditions last,
so long as they suck out their life-sap from the squandered powers
of the People, so long as they—themselves unable to
create—bootlessly consume the productive faculties of the
Folk for their own egoistic maintenance,— so long too will
all showing, doing, changing, bettering, and reforming,
<note id="rn03" corresp="n03" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
be naught but wilful, aimless, and unfruitful. But
the Folk has only to deny by deeds <hi>that</hi> thing which in very
deed is <hi>no-thing</hi>—to wit, is needless, superfluous, and
null; it requires thus to merely know what thing it wills
not,—and this its own instinctive life-bent teaches it; it
needs but to turn this <hi>Willed-not</hi> to a <hi>Non-existing</hi>,
and by the force of its own Want to annihilate what is fit for
nothing but annihilation; and then the <hi>Some-thing</hi> of the
fathomed Future will stand before it of itself.</p>

<p>Are the conditions heaved away, which sanction
Superfluity to feed upon the marrow of Necessity: then of
themselves arise the conditions which call the necessary, the true,
the imperishable, to life. Are the conditions heaved away, which
permit the continuance of the need of Luxury: then
<pb id="pag82" n="82"/>
of themselves are given the conditions which allow the stilling of the
<hi>necessary</hi> need of man in the teeming overflow of Nature and
of his own productive human faculties, in unimaginably rich but
ever fitting measure. And yet once more,—are the conditions
of the tyranny of <hi>Fashion</hi> heaved away: then of themselves
are the- conditions of <hi>True Art</hi> at hand; and with one waive
of the enchanter's wand, will holy, glorious Art, the daughter of
the noblest Manhood, blossom in like fulness and perfection with
Mother Nature, the conditions of whose now completed harmony of
form have issued from the birth-pangs of the elements. Like to this
blissful harmony of Nature, will she endure and ever show her
fruitfulness, as the purest and most perfect satisfaction of the
truest, noblest need of perfected mankind; <hi>i.e.</hi> of men who
<hi>are</hi> all that which of their essence they <hi>can</hi> be, and
therefore <hi>should</hi> and shall be.</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="5" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">5. The Art-antagonistic shape of Present Life,
under the sway of Abstract Thought and Fashion.</head>

<p>The first beginning and foundation of
all that exists and all that is conceivable, is actual physical
being. The inner recognition of his life-need as the <hi>common</hi>
life-need of his <hi>Species</hi>, in contradistinction to Nature and
all her countless living species that lie apart from Man,—is
the beginning and foundation of man's Thinking. Thought is
therefore the faculty possessed by Man, not merely to sense the
actual and physical from its external aspect, but to distinguish
all its parts according to their essence, and finally to grasp and
picture to himself their intimate connection. The idea
("<hi>Begriff</hi>") of a thing is the image formed in Thought of its
actual substance; the portrayal of the images of all discernible
substances in one joint-image, in which the faculty of Thought
presents to itself the picture of the essence of all realities in
their connected sequence, is the work of the highest energy of the
human soul,—the <hi>Spirit</hi>
<pb id="pag83" n="83"/>
("<hi>Geist</hi>"). If in this
joint-image man must necessarily have included the image, the idea,
of his own being also,—nay, if this his own prefigured being
must be, before all else, the artistic force that pictures forth
the whole conceptual art-work: then does this force, with all its
joint portrayal of each reality, proceed alone from the real,
physical man; and thus, at bottom, from his life-need, and finally
from that which summoned forth this life-need, the physical reality
of Nature. But where Thought casts aside this linking cable; where,
after doubled and again redoubled presentment of itself, it fain
would look upon itself as its original cause; where Mind
("<hi>Geist</hi>") instead of as the last and most conditioned, would
conceive itself as the first and least conditioned energy
("<hi>Thätigkeit</hi>"), and therefore as the ground and cause
of Nature,—there also is the fly-wheel of Necessity upheaved,
and blind Caprice runs headlong—free, boundless, and
unfettered, as our metaphysicians fancy—through the workshops
of the brain, and hurls herself; a raging stream of madness, upon
the world of actuality.</p>

<p>If Mind has manufactured Nature, if Thought has
made the Actual, if the Philosopher comes before the Man: then
Nature, Actuality and Man are no more necessary, and their
existence is not only superfluous but even harmful; for the
greatest superfluity of all is the lagging of the Incomplete
<hi>when once the Complete has come to being</hi>. In this wise
Nature, Actuality and Man would only then have any meaning, or any
pretext for their presence, when Mind—the unconditioned
Spirit, the only cause and reason, and thus the only law unto
itself—employed them for its absolute and sovereign pleasure.
If Mind is <hi>in itself</hi> Necessity, then Life is mere caprice, a
fantastic masquerade, an idle pastime, a frivolous whim, a "<hi>car
tel est notre plaisir</hi>" of the mind; then is all purely human
virtue, and Love before all else, a thing to be approved or
disallowed according to occasion; then is all purely human Need a
luxury, and Luxury the only current need; then is the wealth of
Nature a thing to be dispensed with, and the parasitic growth of
Culture the only indispensable; then is the happiness of man a
secondary matter, and the abstract State the main
<pb id="pag84" n="84"/>
consideration; the Folk the accidental stuff, and the prince and savant the
necessary consumers of this stuff.</p>

<p>If we take the end for the beginning, the
assuagement for the need, satiety for hunger; then is all movement,
all advance, not even conceivable except in line with a concocted
need, a hunger brought about by stimulation; and this, in very
truth, is the lifespring of our whole Culture of to-day, and its
utterance is—<hi>Fashion</hi>.</p>

<p><hi>Fashion</hi> is the artificial stimulus that
rouses an unnatural' need where the natural is not to hand; but
whatsoever does not originate in a real need, is arbitrary,
uncalled-for, and tyrannical. Fashion is therefore the maddest,
most unheard-of tyranny that has ever issued from man's perversity;
it demands from Nature an absolute obedience; it dictates to real
need a thorough self-disownment in favour of an artificial; it
compels man's natural sense of beauty to worship at the shrine of
what is hateful; it kills his health, to bring him to delight in
sickness; it breaks his strength and all his force, to let him find
content in weakness. Where the absurdest Fashion reigns, there must
Nature be regarded as the height of absurdity; where the most
criminal un-Nature reigns, there must the utterance of Nature
appear the fellest crime; where craziness usurps the place of
truth, there must Truth herself be prisoned under lock and bar, as
crazy.</p>

<p>The soul of Fashion is the most absolute
uniformity, and its god an egoistic, sexless, barren god. Its
motive force is therefore arbitrary alteration, unnecessary change,
confused and restless striving after the opposite of its essential
uniformity. Its might is the might of habit. But <hi>Habit</hi> is
the invincible despot that rules all weaklings, cowards, and those
bereft of veritable need. Habit is the communism of egoism, the
tough, unyielding swathe of mutual, free-from-want self-interest;
its artificial life-pulse is even that of Fashion.</p>

<p>Fashion is therefore no artistic begetting from
herself, but a mere artificial deriving from her opposite, Nature;
from whom alone she must at bottom draw her nourishment,
<pb id="pag85" n="85"/>
just as the luxury of the upper classes feeds only on the straining of the
lower, labouring classes towards assuagement of their natural
life-needs. The caprice of Fashion, therefore, can only draw upon
the stores of actual Nature; all her reshapings, flourishes, and
gewgaws have at the last their archetype in Nature. Like all our
abstract thinking, in its farthest aberrations, she finally can
think out and invent naught else than what already is at hand in
Nature and in Man, in substance and in form. But her procedure is
an arrogant one, capriciously cut loose from Nature; she orders and
commands, where everything in truth is bound to hearken and obey.
Thus with all her figurings she can but disfigure Nature, and not
portray her; she can but <hi>derive</hi>, and not <hi>invent</hi>; for
invention, in effect, is naught but <hi>finding out</hi>, the finding
and discerning of Nature.</p>

<p>Fashion's invention is therefore mechanical. But
the mechanical is herein distinguished from the artistic: that it
fares from derivative to derivative, from means to means, to
finally bring forth but one more mean, the <hi>Machine</hi>. Whereas
the artistic strikes the very opposite path: throws means on means
behind it, pierces through derivative after derivative, to arrive
at last at the source of every derivation, of every mean, in
<hi>Nature's</hi> self, and there to slake its need in
understanding.</p>

<p>Thus the <hi>Machine</hi> is the cold and
heartless ally of luxury-craving men. Through the machine have they
at last made even human reason their liege subject; for, led astray
from Art's discovery, dishonoured and disowned, it consumes itself
at last in mechanical refinements, in absorption into the Machine,
instead of in absorption into Nature in the Art-work.</p>

<p>The need of <hi>Fashion</hi> is thus the
diametrical antithesis of the need of <hi>Art</hi>; for the artistic
need cannot possibly be present where Fashion is the lawgiver of
Life. In truth, the endeavour of many an enthusiastic artist of our
times could only be directed to rousing first that necessary Need,
from the standpoint and by the means of Art; yet we
<pb id="pag86" n="86"/>
must look on all such efforts as vain and fruitless. The one
impossibility for Mind is, to awaken a real need:—to answer to an actual
present need, man always has the speedy means to hand, but never to
evoke it where Nature has withheld it, where its conditionments are
not contained in her economy. But if the craving for art-work does
not exist, then art-work is itself impossible and only the Future
can call it forth for us, and that by the natural begettal of its
conditionments from out of Life.</p>

<p>Only from <hi>Life</hi>, from which alone can even
the need for her grow up, can Art obtain her <hi>matter</hi> and her
<hi>form;</hi> but where Life is modelled upon Fashion, Art can never
fashion aught from Life. Straying far away from the necessity of
Nature, Mind wilfully—and even in the so-called 'common'
life, involuntarily—exercises its disfiguring influence upon
the matter and the form of Life; in such a manner that Mind, at
last unhappy in its separation, and longing for its healthy
sustenance by Nature and its complete re-union with her, can no
more find the matter and the form for its assuagement in actual
present life. If, in its striving for redemption, it yearns for
unreserved acknowledgment of Nature, and if it can only reconcile
itself with her in her faithfulest portrayal, in the physical
actuality of the Art-work: yet it sees that this reconciliation can
nevermore be gained by acknowledgment and portrayal of its actual
surroundings, of this Fashion-governed parody of life.
Involuntarily, therefore, must it pursue an arbitrary course in its
struggle for redemption by Art; it must seek for Nature—which
in sound and wholesome life would rush to meet it—amid times
and places where it can recognise her in less, and finally in
least, distortion. Yet everywhere and everywhen has natural man
thrown on the garment, if not of Fashion, still of <hi>Custom</hi>
("<hi>Sitte</hi>") The simplest and most natural, the fairest and the
noblest Custom is certainly the least disfigurement of
Nature,—nay, her most fitting human garb. But the copying
and reproduction of this Custom,—without which the modern
artist can never manage to effect his portraiture of
Nature,<pb id="pag87" n="87"/>—is
still, in face of modern Life, an irreclaimably
arbitrary and purpose-governed dealing; and whatsoever has been
thus formed and fashioned by even the honestest striving after
Nature, appears, so soon as e'er it steps before our present public
life, either a thing incomprehensible, or else another freshly
fangled Fashion.</p>

<p>In truth we have nothing for which to thank this
mode of striving after nature, within the bounds of modern life and
yet in contrast to it, but <hi>Mannerism</hi> and its ceaseless,
restless change. The character of Fashion has once more unwittingly
betrayed itself in Mannerism; without a shred of consequent
coherence with actual life, it trips up to Art with just the same
despotic orders as Fashion wields on Life; it bands itself with
Fashion, and rules with equal might each separate branch of art.
Beneath its serious mien it shows itself—almost as inevitably
as does its colleague—in utmost ridicule. Not only the
Antique, the Renaissance and Middle Ages, but the customs and the
garb of savage races in new-discovered lands, the primal fashions
of Japan and China, from time to time usurp as "Mannerisms," in
greater or in less degree, each several department of our modern
art. Nay, with no other effect than that of an insufficient
stimulus, our lightly veering 'manner of the day' sets before the
least religiously disposed and most genteel of theatre-goers the
fanaticism of religious sects;
<note id="rn04" corresp="n04" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
before the luxurious un-nature of our fashionable world the
naïvety of Swabian peasants; before the pampered gods of
commerce the want of the hungering rabble.</p>

<p>Here, then, does the artist whose spirit strives
to be reknit with Nature see all his hopes thrust forward to the
Future, or else his soul thrust back upon the mournful exercise of
resignation. He recognises that his thought can only gain
redemption in a physically present art-work, thus only in a truly
art-demanding, <hi>i.e.</hi> an art-conditioning Present that shall
bring forth Art from its own native truth and beauty; he therefore
sets his hopes upon the Future,
<pb id="pag88" n="88"/>
his trust upon the power of
Necessity, for which this Work of the Future is reserved. But in
face of the actual Present, he renounces all appearing of the
Art-work upon the surface of this present, <hi>i.e.</hi> in public
show; and consequently he quits publicity itself; so far as it is
ruled by fashion. The great United Art-work, which must gather up
each branch of art to use it as a mean, and in some sense to undo
it for the common aim of <hi>all</hi>, for the unconditioned,
absolute portrayal of perfected human nature,—this great
United Art-work he cannot picture as depending on the arbitrary
purpose of some human unit, but can only conceive it as the
instinctive and associate product of the Manhood of the Future. The
instinct that recognises itself as one that can only be satisfied
in fellowship, abandons modern fellowship—that conglomerate
of self-seeking caprice—and turns to find its satisfaction in
solitary fellowship with itself and with the manhood of the
Future,—so well as the lonely unit can.</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="6" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">6. Standard for the Art-work of the Future.</head>

<p>It is not the lonely spirit, striving by
Art for redemption into Nature, that can frame the Art-work of the
Future; only the spirit of Fellowship, fulfilled by Life, can bring
this work to pass. But yet the lonely one can prefigure it to
himself; and the thing that saves his preconception from becoming a
mere idle fancy, is the very character of his striving,—his
striving after <hi>Nature</hi>. The mind that casts back longing eyes
to Nature, and therefore goes a-hungering in the modern Present,
sees not alone in Nature's great sum-total, but also in the
<hi>human nature</hi> that history lays before it, the types by whose
observing it may reconcile itself with life in general. It
recognises in this nature a type for all the Future, already shown
in narrower bounds; to widen out these bounds to broadest compass,
rests on the imaginative faculty of its nature-craving
instinct.</p>

<pb id="pag89" n="89"/>

<p>Two <hi>cardinal moments</hi> of his development
lie clear before us in the history of Man: the <hi>generic
national</hi>, and the <hi>unnational universal</hi>. If we still look
forward to the Future for the completion of the second evolutionary
step, yet in the Past we have the rounded-off conclusion of the
first set clear as day before our eyes. To what a pitch man
once—so far as, governed by generic ancestry, by community
of mother-tongue, by similarity of climate, and the natural
surroundings of a common fatherland, he yielded himself
unconsciously to the influence of Nature—to what a pitch man
once was able to unfold himself beneath these welnigh directly
moulding influences, we have certainly full reason to acknowledge
with most heartfelt thanks. It is in the natural customs of all
peoples, so far as they embrace the normal man, and even of those
decried as most uncultured, that we first learn the truth of human
nature in its full nobility, and in its real beauty. Not <hi>one</hi>
true virtue has any Religion soever taken into itself as its god's
command, but it was already self-included in these natural customs;
not <hi>one</hi> genuine idea of human right has the later civilised
State developed—though, alas, to the point of complete
distortion!—but it already found its sure expression in them;
not <hi>one</hi> veritable discovery for the common weal has later
Culture made her own—with arrogant ingratitude!—but she
derived it from the fruits of the homely understanding of the
stewards of those customs.</p>

<p>But that <hi>Art</hi> is not an <hi>artificial</hi>
product,—that the need of Art is not an arbitrary issue, but
an inbred craving of the natural, genuine, and uncorrupted
man,—who proves this in more striking manner than just these
Peoples? Nay, whence shall our uneasy "spirit" derive its proofs of
Art's necessity, if not from the testimony of this artistic
instinct and its glorious fruits afforded by these nature-fostered
peoples, by the great <hi>Folk</hi> itself? Before what phenomenon do
we stand with more humiliating sense of the impotence of our
frivolous culture, than before the art of the <hi>Hellenes</hi>? To
this, to the art of the darlings of all-loving Nature, of those
fairest children whom the great
<pb id="pag90" n="90"/>
glad Mother holds up to us before
the darksome cloud of modern modish culture, as the triumphant
tokens of what she can bring forth,—let us look far hence to
glorious Grecian Art, and gather from its inner understanding the
outlines for the Art-work of the Future! Nature has done all that
she could do,—she has given birth to the Hellenic people, has
fed it at her breast and formed it by her mother-wisdom; she sets
it now before our gaze with all a mother's pride, and cries to wide
mankind with mother-love: "This have I done for you; now, of your
love for one another, do ye that which ye can!"</p>

<p>Thus have we then to turn <hi>Hellenic</hi> art to
<hi>Human</hi> art; to loose from it the stipulations by which it was
but an <hi>Hellenic</hi> and not a <hi>Universal</hi> art. The
<hi>garment of Religion</hi>, in which alone it was the common Art of
Greece, and after whose removal it could only, as an egoistic,
isolated art-species, fulfil the needs of Luxury—however
fair—but no longer those of Fellowship,—this specific
garb of the <hi>Hellenic Religion</hi>, we have to stretch it out
until its folds embrace the Religion of the Future, the Religion of
<hi>Universal Manhood</hi>, and thus to gain already a presage of the
Art-work of the Future. But this bond of union, this <hi>Religion of
the Future</hi>, we wretched ones shall never clasp the while we
still are <hi>lonely units</hi>, howe'er so many be our numbers who
feel the spur towards the Art-work of the Future. The Art-work is
the living presentation of Religion;—but religions spring
not from the artist's brain; their only origin is from the
<hi>Folk</hi>.—</p>

<p>Let us then—without a spark of egoistic
vanity, without attempting to console ourselves with any kind of
self-derived illusion, but honestly and lovingly and hopefully
devoted to the Art-work of the Future—content ourselves
to-day by testing first the nature of the art-<hi>species</hi> which,
in their shattered segregation, make up the general substance of
our modern art; let us sharpen our gaze for this examination by
glancing at Hellenic art; and thereafter let us draw a bold and
confident conclusion anent the <hi>great and universal Art-work of
the Future</hi>!</p>
</div>
</div>

<div type="chapter" n="2" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag91"/>
<head rend="up">II. Artistic Man, and Art as Derived Directly from Him.</head>

<div type="section" n="1" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">1. Man as his own Artistic Subject and Material.</head>

<p><hi rend="up">Man's</hi> nature is twofold, an <hi>outer</hi> and an
<hi>inner.</hi> The senses to which he offers himself as a subject
for Art, are those of <hi>Vision</hi> and of <hi>Hearing</hi>: to the
eye appeals the outer man, the inner to the ear.</p>

<p>The eye apprehends the <hi>bodily form of
man</hi>, compares it with surrounding objects, and discriminates
between it and them. The corporeal man and the spontaneous
expression of his sensations of physical anguish or physical
well-being, called up by outward contact, appeal directly to the
eye; while indirectly he imparts to it, by means of facial play and
gesture, those emotions of the inner man which are not directly
cognisable by the eye. Again, through the expression of the eye
itself, which directly meets the eye of the beholder, man is able
to impart to the latter not only the feelings of the heart, but
even the characteristic activity of the brain; and the more
distinctly can the outer man express the inner, the higher does he
show his rank as an artistic being.</p>

<p>But the inner man can only find <hi>direct</hi>
communication through the ear, and that by means of <hi>his
voice's</hi> Tone. Tone is the immediate utterance of feeling and
has its physical seat within the heart, whence start and whither
flow the waves of life-blood. Through the sense of hearing, tone
urges forth from the feeling of one heart to the feeling of its
fellow: the grief and joy of the emotional-man impart
<pb id="pag92" n="92"/>
themselves directly to his counterpart through the manifold expression of
vocal tone; and where the outer corporeal-man finds his limits of
expressing to the eye the qualities of those inner feelings of the
heart he fain would utter and convey, there steps in to his aid the
sought-for envoy, and takes his message through the voice to
hearing, through hearing to the feelings of the heart.</p>

<p>Yet where, again, the direct expression of vocal
tone finds its limits of conveying the separate feelings of the
heart in clear and sharply outlined definition to the sympathies of
the recipient inner man, there enters on the scene, through the
vehicle of vocal tone, the determinative utterance of <hi>Speech.
Speech</hi> is the condensation
<note id="rn05" corresp="n05" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
of the element of Voice, and the Word
is the crystallised measure of Tone. In Speech, feeling conveys
itself by ear to feeling, but to that likewise to be condensed and
crystallised feeling to which it seeks to bring itself in sure and
unmistakable understanding. It is thus the organ of that special
feeling which reasons with itself and yearns for others'
understanding,—the Intellect.—For the more vague and
general feeling the immediate attributes of Tone sufficed. This
general feeling therefore abode by Tone, as its adequate and
materially contenting utterance; in the <hi>quantitative</hi> value
of its compass it found the means of, so to say, accenting its own
peculiar <hi>qualities</hi> in their universal bearings. But the
<hi>definite</hi> need which seeks by Speech to gain an understanding
is more decided and more pressing; it abides not in contentment
with its physical expression, for it has to differentiate its own
subjective feeling from a general feeling, and therefore to depict
and to describe what Tone gave forth directly as the expression of
this general feeling. The speaker has therefore to take his images
from correlative but diverse objects, and to weld them with each
other. In this mediate and complex
<pb id="pag93" n="93"/>
process he has to take a wider
field; and, under pressure of his quest for comprehension, he
accelerates this process by the utmost brevity of his lingering
over Tone, and by complete abandonment of its general powers of
expression. Through this enforced renunciation, through this giving
up of all delight in the physical element of his own
utterance—at least of that degree of pleasure which the
corporeal- and the emotional-man experience in their method of
expression,—the intellectual-man attains the faculty of
giving by means of his speech-organ that certain utterance in
seeking which the former found their bounds, each in his own
degree. His capability is unlimited: he collects and sifts the
universal, parts and unites according to his need and pleasure the
images which all his senses bear him from the outer world; he binds
and looses the particular and general even as he judges best, in
order to appease his own desire for a sure and intelligible
utterance of his feelings, his reflections, or his will. Yet he
finds once more his limit where, in the agitation of his feelings,
in the living pulse of joy or the violence of grief,—there,
where the particular and arbitrary draw back before the generality
and spontaneity of the feeling that usurps his heart; where from
out the egoism of his narrowed and conditioned personal sensations
he finds himself again amid the wide communion of all-embracing
world-emotions, a partaker in the unconditioned truth of universal
feeling and emotion; where, finally, he has to subordinate his
individual selfwill to the dictates of Necessity, be it of grief or
joy, and to hearken in place of commanding,—he craves for the
only adequate and direct expression of his endlessly enhanced
emotion. Here must he reach back once more to the universal mode of
utterance; and, in exact proportion as he has pressed forward to
his special standpoint, has he now to retrace his steps and borrow
from the emotional man the physical tones of feeling, from the
corporeal man the physical gestures of the body. For where it is a
question of giving utterance, immediate and yet most certain, to
the highest and the truest that man can ever utter, there above all
<pb id="pag94" n="94"/>
must man display himself in his entirety; and this whole man is the
man of understanding united with the man of heart and man of
body,—but neither of these parts for self alone.—</p>

<p>The progress of the man of understanding, from
the bodily man and through the man of feeling, is that of an ever
increasing accommodation, just as his organ of expression, Speech,
is the most mediate and dependent; for all the attributes that lie
beneath him must be normally developed, before the conditions of
<hi>his</hi> normal attributes can be at hand. But the most
conditioned faculty is at like time the most exalted; and the joy
in his own self, engendered by the knowledge of his higher,
unsurpassable attributes, betrays the intellectual-man into the
arrogant imagining that he may use those attributes which are
really his foundation-props as the handmaids of his own caprice.
The sovereign might of physical sensation and heart-emotion,
however, breaks down his pride of intellect, as soon as these
proclaim their sway as one which all men must obey in common, as
that of feelings and emotions of the race. The isolated feeling,
the separate emotion, which show themselves in the individual,
aroused by this or that particular and personal contact with this
or that particular phenomenon, he is able to suppress or subjugate
in favour of a richer combination of manifold phenomena conceived
by him; but the richest combination of all the phenomena that he
can cognise leads him at last to <hi>Man as a species and an
integral factor in the totality of Nature</hi>; and, in presence of
this great, all-mastering phenomenon, his pride breaks down. He now
can only will the universal, true, and unconditional; he yields
himself, not to a love for this or that particular object, but to
wide <hi>Love</hi> itself. Thus does the egoist become a communist,
the unit all, the man God, the art-variety Art.</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="2" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag95" n="95"/>
<head rend="i">2. The Three Varieties of Humanistic Art,
in their original Union.</head>

<note id="rn06" corresp="n06" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>

<p>The three chief artistic faculties of the entire
man have once, and of their own spontaneous impulse, evolved to a
trinitarian utterance of human Art; and this was in the primal,
earliest manifested art-work, the <hi>Lyric</hi>, and its later, more
conscious, loftiest completion, the <hi>Drama</hi>.</p>

<p>The arts of <hi>Dance</hi>,
<note id="rn07" corresp="n07" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
of <hi>Tone</hi>, and <hi>Poetry</hi>: thus call themselves the
three primeval sisters whom we see at once entwine their measures
wherever the conditions necessary for artistic manifestment have
arisen. By their nature they are inseparable without disbanding the
stately minuet of Art; for in this dance, which is the very cadence
of Art itself; they are so wondrous closely interlaced with one
another, of fairest love and inclination, so mutually bound up in
each other's life, of body and of spirit: that each of the three
partners, unlinked from the united chain and bereft thus of her own
life and motion, can only carry on an artificially inbreathed and
borrowed life;—not giving forth her sacred ordinances, as in
their trinity, but now receiving despotic rules for mechanical
movement.</p>

<p>As we gaze on this entrancing measure of the
truest and most high-born Muses of artistic man, we see the three
first stepping forward, each with her loving arm entwined around
her sister's neck; then, now this one and now that, as though to
show the others her beauteous form in full and individual symmetry,
loosing herself from their embrace, and merely brushing with her
utmost finger-tips the others' hands. Again the one, rapt by the
spectacle of the twin-beauty of her close-locked sisters, bending
herself before them; next the two, transported by her unique charm,
<pb id="pag96" n="96"/>
greeting the one with tender homage; until at last, all three,
tight-clasped, breast on breast, and limb to limb, melt with the
fervour of love-kisses into one only, living shape of
beauty.—Such is the love and life, the wooing and the
winning of Art; its separate units, ever themselves and ever for
each other, severing in richest contrast and re-uniting in most
blissful harmony.</p>

<p>This is Art the free. The sweet and forceful
impulse in that dance of sisters, is the <hi>impulse of Freedom</hi>;
the love-kiss of their enlocked embraces, the <hi>transport of a
freedom won</hi>.</p>

<p><hi>The solitary unit is unfree</hi>, because
confined and fettered in un-Love; the <hi>associate is free</hi>,
because unfettered and unconfined through Love.—</p>

<p>In every creature that exists the mightiest
impulse is that of its <hi>Life</hi>; this is the resistless force of
the correlation of those conditions which have first called into
being that which here exists,—thus, of those things or
life-forces which, in that which has arisen through them, are
<hi>that</hi> which they will to be—and, willing, can
be—in this their point of common union. Man appeases his
Life-need by <hi>taking</hi> from Nature: this is no theft, but a
receiving, an adoptment, an absorption of that which, as a
condition of man's life, wills to be adopted into and absorbed in
him. For these conditions of man's Life, <hi>themselves</hi> his
Life-needs, are not forsooth upheaved by birth,—rather do
they endure and feed themselves within him and by him so long as
e'er he lives; and the dissolution of their bond, itself
is—Death.</p>

<p>But the Life-need of man's life-needs is the
<hi>need of Love</hi>. As the conditions of natural human life are
contained in the love-bond of subordinated nature-forces, which
craved for their agreement, their redemption, their adoption into
the higher principle, Man; so does man find his agreement, his
redemption, his appeasement, likewise in something higher; and this
higher thing is the <hi>human race, the fellowship of man</hi>, for
there is but one thing higher than <hi>man's</hi> self, and that
is—<hi>Men</hi>. But man can only gain the stilling
<pb id="pag97" n="97"/>
of his life-need through <hi>Giving</hi>, through <hi>Giving of himself</hi>
to other men, and in its highest climax, to <hi>all the world of
human beings</hi>. The monstrous sin of the absolute egoist is that
he sees in (fellow) Men also nothing but the natural conditionments
of his own existence, and—albeit in a quite particular,
barbaric-cultivated manner—<hi>consumes</hi> them like the
fruits and beasts of nature; thus will not <hi>give</hi>, but only
<hi>take</hi>.</p>

<p>Now as Man is not free except through Love,
neither is anything that proceeds, or is derived, from him. Freedom
is the satisfaction of an imperative Need, and the highest freedom
is the satisfaction of the highest need: but the highest human need
is <hi>Love</hi>.</p>

<p>No living thing can issue from the true and
undistorted nature of mankind or be derived from it, unless it
fully answers to the characteristic essence of that nature: but the
most characteristic token of this essence is the need of Love.</p>

<p>Each separate faculty of man is limited by
bounds; but his united, agreed, and reciprocally helping
faculties—and thus his faculties in <hi>mutual love</hi> of one
another—combine to form the self-completing, unbounded,
universal faculty of men. Thus too has every <hi>artistic</hi>
faculty of man its natural bounds, since man has not <hi>one only
Sense</hi> but separate <hi>Senses</hi>; while every faculty springs
from its special sense, and therefore each single faculty must find
its bounds in the confines of its correlated sense. But the
boundaries of the separate senses are also their joint
meeting-points, those points at which they melt in one another and
each agrees with each: and exactly so do the faculties that are
derived from them touch one another and agree. Their confines,
therefore, are removed by this agreement; but only those that love
each other can agree, and 'to love' means: to acknowledge the
other, and at like time to know one's self. Thus Knowledge through
Love is Freedom; and the freedom of man's faculties
is—<hi>All-faculty</hi>.</p>

<p>Only the Art which answers to this 'all-faculty'
of man is, therefore, <hi>free</hi>; and not the
Art-<hi>variety</hi>, which only
<pb id="pag98" n="98"/>
issues from a single human faculty.
The Arts of Dance, of Tone, of Poetry, are each confined within
their several bounds; in contact with these bounds each feels
herself unfree, be it not that, across their common boundary, she
reaches out her hand to her neighbouring art in unrestrained
acknowledgment of love. The very grasping of this hand lifts her
above the barrier; her full embrace, her full absorption in her
sister—<hi>i.e.</hi> her own complete ascension beyond the
set-up barrier—casts down the fence itself. And when every
barrier has thus fallen, then are there no more <hi>arts</hi> and no
more boundaries, but only <hi>Art</hi>, the universal, undivided.</p>

<p>It is a sorry misconception of
Freedom—that of the being who would fain be free in
loneliness. The impulse to loose one's self from commonalty, to be
free and independent for individual self alone, can only lead to
the direct antithesis of the state so arbitrarily striven after:
namely to utmost lack of self-dependence.—Nothing in Nature
is self-dependent excepting that which has the conditionments of
its self-standing not merely in itself; but also outside of itself:
for the inner are first possible by virtue of the outer. That which
would separate
<note id="rn08" corresp="n08" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
itself must,
necessarily, first have that from which to separate. He who would
fain be nothing but himself; must first know what he is; but this
he only learns by distinguishing from what he is not: were he able
to lop off entirely that which differs from him, then were he
himself no differentiated entity, and thus no longer cognisable by
himself. In order to will to be the whole thing which of and in
himself he is, the individual must learn to be absolutely not the
thing he is not; but the thing that is absolutely what <hi>he</hi> is
not, is that thing which lies apart from him; and only in the
fullest of communion
<pb id="pag99" n="99"/>
with that which is apart from him, in the
completest absorption into the commonalty of those who differ from
him, can he ever be completely <hi>what</hi> he is by nature, what he
must be, and as a reasonable being, can but will to be. Thus only
in Communism does Egoism find its perfect satisfaction.</p>

<p><hi>That Egoism</hi>, however, which has brought
such immeasurable woe into the world and so lamentable a mutilation
and insincerity into Art, is of another breed to the natural and
rational egoism which finds its perfect satisfaction in the
community of all. In pious indignation it wards off the name of"
Egoism" from it, and dubs itself "Brotherly-" and "Christian-"
"Art-" and "Artist-Love"; founds temples to God and Art; builds
hospitals, to make ailing old-age young and sound,—and
schools to make youth old and ailing; establishes "faculties,"
courts of justice, governments, states, and what not
else?—merely to prove that it is not Egoism. And this is just the
most irredeemable feature of it, and that which makes it utterly
pernicious both to itself and to the general commonalty. This is
the isolation of the single, in which each severed nullity shall
rank as somewhat, but the great commonalty as naught; in which each
unit struts as something special and "original," while the whole,
forsooth, can then be nothing in particular and for ever a mere
imitation. This is the self-dependence of the individual, where
every unit lives upon the charges of his fellows, in order to be
"free by help of God;" pretends to be what others <hi>are</hi>; and,
briefly, follows the inversion of the teaching of Jesus Christ: "To
<hi>take</hi> is more blessed than to give."</p>

<p>This is the genuine Egoism, in which each
<hi>isolated art-variety</hi> would give itself the airs of universal
Art; while, in truth, it only thereby loses its own peculiar
attributes. Let us pry a little closer into what, under such
conditions, has befallen those three most sweet Hellenic sisters!—</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="3" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag100" n="100"/>
<head rend="i">3. The Art of Dance.</head>

<p>The most realistic of all arts is that of Dance.
Its artistic 'stuff' is the actual living Man; and in troth no
single portion of him, but the whole man from heel to crown, such
as he shows himself unto the eye. It therefore includes within
itself the conditions for the enunciation of all remaining arts:
the singing and speaking man must necessarily be a bodily man;
through his outer form, through the posture of his limbs, the
inner, singing and speaking man comes forth to view. The arts of
Tone and Poetry become first understandable in that of Dance, the
Mimetic art, by the entire art-receptive man, <hi>i.e.</hi> by him
who not only hears but also sees.</p>

<p>The Art-work cannot gain its freedom until it
proclaims itself directly to the answering sense, until in
addressing this sense the artist is conscious of the certain
understanding of his message. The highest subject for Art's message
is Man himself; and, for his own complete and conscious calming,
man can at bottom only parley through his bodily form with the
corresponding sense, the eye. Without addressing the eye, all art
remains unsatisfying, and thus itself unsatisfied, unfree. Be its
utterance to the Ear, or merely to the combining and mediately
compensating faculty of Thought, as perfect as it may—until
it makes intelligible appeal likewise unto the Eye, it remains a
thing that merely <hi>wills</hi>, yet never completely <hi>can</hi>;
but Art must '<hi>can</hi>,'
<note id="rn09" corresp="n09" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
and from
"<hi>können</hi>" it is that Art in our tongue has fittingly
gotten itself its name "<hi>Die Kunst</hi>."—</p>

<p>The corporeal-man proclaims his sensations of
weal and woe directly in and by those members of his body which
feel the hurt or pleasure; his whole body's sense of weal or woe he
expresses by means of correlated and complementary
<pb id="pag101" n="101"/>
movements of all, or of the most expression-able of these members. From their
relation with each other, then from the play of complementary and
accenting motions, and finally from the manifold interchange of
these motions—as they are dictated by the progressive change
of feelings passing, now by slow degrees and now in violent haste,
from soft repose to passionate turmoil—from these arise the
very laws of endless-changing motion by the which man rules his
artistic presentation of himself. The savage, governed by the
rawest passions, knows in his dance almost no other change than
that from monotonous tumult to monotonous and apathetic rest. In
the wealth and multiform variety of his transitions speaks out the
nobler, civilised man; the richer and more manifold are these
transitions, the more composed and stable is the ordering of their
mutual interchange. But the law of this ordering is
<hi>Rhythm</hi>.</p>

<p>Rhythm is in no Wise an arbitrary canon,
according to which the artistic-man forsooth <hi>shall</hi> move his
body's limbs; but it is the conscious soul of those necessitated
(?—"reflex"—TR.) movements by which he strives
instinctively to impart to others his own emotions. If the motion
and the gestures are themselves the feeling <hi>Tone</hi> of his
emotion, then is their Rhythm its articulate <hi>Speech</hi>. The
swifter the play of emotion: the more passionately embarrassed and
unclear is the man himself, and therefore the less capable is he of
imparting his emotion in a clear and intelligible fashion. On the
other hand, the more restful the change: so much the plainer will
the emotion show its nature. Rest is continuance; but continuance
of motion is repetition of motion: that which repeats itself allows
of reckoning, and the law of this reckoning is <hi>Rhythm</hi>.</p>

<p>By means of Rhythm does Dance become an art. It
is the <hi>Measure</hi> of the movements by which emotion mirrors
forth itself,—the measure by which it first attains that
perspicuity which renders understanding possible. But the 'stuff'
by means of which this Rhythm makes itself outwardly discernible
and measure-giving, as the self-dictated
<pb id="pag102" n="102"/>
Law of motion, is
necessarily taken from another element than that of bodily 
motion;—only through a thing apart from myself, can I first know
myself; but this thing which lies apart from bodily motion is that
which appeals to a sense that lies apart from the sense to which
the body's motion is addressed; and this fresh sense is
<hi>Hearing</hi>. Rhythm—which sprang from the inner Necessity
which spurred corporeal motion on to gain an understanding—imparts
itself to the dancer, as the outward manifestment of this
Necessity, the Law of Measure, chiefly through the medium of that
which is perceptible by the ear alone, namely
<hi>Sound</hi>;—just as in music the abstract measure of rhythm,
the 'Bar,' is imparted by a motion cognisable only by the eye. This
equal-meted repetition, springing as it does from Motion's
innermost Necessity, invites alike and guides the dancer's
movements by its exposition through the rhythmic beat of Sound,
such as is at first evoked by simple clapping of the hands, and
then from wooden, metal, or other sonorous objects.</p>

<p>However, the mere definition of the points of
Time at which a movement shall repeat itself, does not suffice
completely for the dancer who submits the ordering of his movements
to an outwardly perceptible law. Just as the Motion, beside its
swift change from time-point to time-point, is maintained
abidingly, and thus becomes a continuous performance: so does the
dancer require that the Sound, which had hitherto vanished as
suddenly as it had appeared, shall be compelled to an abiding
continuance, to an extension in regard of Time. He demands, in
short, that the emotion which forms the living Soul of his
movements shall be equally expressed in the continuance of the
Sound; for only so does the self-dictated rhythmic Measure become
one that corresponds completely with the Dance, inasmuch as it
embraces not merely <hi>one</hi> of the essential conditions of the
latter but, as far as possible, <hi>all</hi>. This <hi>Measure</hi>
must therefore be the embodiment of the essence of Dance in a
separate, but allied, branch of art.</p>

<p>This other branch of art into which Dance yearns instinctively
<pb id="pag103" n="103"/>
to pass, therein to find again and know her own true
nature, is the art of <hi>Tone</hi>; which, in its turn, receives the
solid scaffold of its vertebration from Dance's rhythm.</p>

<p>Rhythm is the natural, unbreakable bond of union
between the arts of Dance and Tone; without it, no art of Dance,
and none of Tone. If Rhythm, as her regulating and unifying law, is
the very <hi>Mind</hi> of Dance—to wit, the abstract summary of
corporeal motion,—so is it, on the other hand, the moving,
self-progressive <hi>Skeleton</hi> of Tone. The more this skeleton
invests itself with tonal flesh, the more does the law of Dance
lose its own features in the special attributes of Tone; so much
the more, however, does Dance at like time raise herself to the
capability of that expression of the deeper feelings of the heart
by which alone she can keep abreast of the essential nature of
Tone. But Tone's most living flesh is the <hi>human voice</hi>; and
<hi>the Word</hi>, again, is as it were the bone-and-muscle rhythm of
this human voice. And thus, at last, the movement-urging emotion,
which overflowed from art of Dance to art of Tone, finds in the
definite decision of the Word the sure, unerring utterance by means
of which it can both seize itself as 'object' and clearly speak
forth what it is. Thus, through tone become Speech, it wins at once
its highest satisfaction and its most satisfying heightening in the
tonal art become the art of Poesy; for it mounts aloft from Dance
to <hi>Mimicry</hi>, from the broadest delineation of general bodily
sensations to the subtlest and most compact
<note id="rn10" corresp="n10" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
utterance of definite mental phases of emotion and of will-force.—</p>

<p>From this frank and mutual permeation,
generation, and completion of each several art from out itself and
through its fellow—which, as regards Music and Poetry, we
have so far merely hinted at—is born the united <hi>Lyric
Art-work</hi>. In it each art is what its nature accords to it; that
which lies beyond its power of being, it does not egoistically borrow from
<pb id="pag104" n="104"/>
its fellow, but its fellow <hi>is that</hi> in its place.
But in <hi>Drama</hi>, the perfected form of Lyric, each several art
unfolds its highest faculty; and notably that of Dance. In Drama,
Man is at once his own artistic 'subject' and his 'stuff,' to his
very fullest worth. Now as therein the art of Dance has to set
directly forth the separate or joint expressive movements which are
to tell us of the feelings both of units and of masses; and as the
law of Rhythm, begotten from her, is the standard whereby the whole
dramatic semblance is brought into agreement
("<hi>Verständigung</hi>"),— so does Dance withal
exalt herself in Drama to her most spiritual expression, that of
<hi>Mimicry</hi>. As Mimetic art, she becomes the direct and
all-embracing utterance of the inner man; and it is now no longer
the raw material rhythm of Sound, but the spiritual rhythm of
Speech, that shows itself to her as law,—a law, however,
which took its earliest rise from her dictation. What Speech
endeavours to convey ("<hi>verständlichen</hi>"), the
whole wide range of feelings and emotions, ideas and thoughts,
which mount from softest tenderness to indomitable energy, and
finally proclaim themselves as naked Will—all this becomes an
unconditionally intelligible, unquestioned truth through Mimic art
alone; nay, Speech itself cannot become a true and quite convincing
physical utterance without the immediate aid of Mimicry. From this,
the Drama's pinnacle, Dance broadens gradually down again to her
original domain: where Speech now only hints and pictures; where
Tone, as Rhythm's soul, restricts herself to homage of her sister;
and where the beauty of the Body and its movements alone can give
direct and needful utterance to an all-dominating, all-rejoicing
feeling.</p>

<p>Thus Dance reaches in Drama her topmost height,
entrancing where she orders, affecting where she subordinates
herself; ever and throughout—herself: because ever
spontaneous and, therefore, of indispensable Necessity. For only
where an art is indispensable, is it alike the whole thing <hi>that
it is</hi> and can and should be.—</p>

<p>Just as in the building of the Tower of Babel, when
<pb id="pag105" n="105"/>
their speech was confounded and mutual understanding made
impossible, the nations severed from each other, each one to go its
several way: so, when all national solidarity had split into a
thousand egoistic severalities, did the separate art-branches
cut-off themselves from the proud and heaven-soaring tree of Drama,
which had lost the inspiring soul of mutual understanding.</p>

<p>Let us consider for a moment what fate befell the art of Dance,
when she left the graceful chain of sisters, to seek her fortune in
the world's great wilderness.—</p>

<p>Though Dance now ceased to offer to the mawkish
and sentimental schoolmaster-poetry of Euripides the hand of
fellowship which the latter cast away in sullen arrogance, only to
take it later when humbly proffered for an <hi>'occasional' service
("Zweckleistung");</hi> though she parted from her philosophical
sister who, with sour-faced frivolity, could only <hi>envy</hi> and
no longer love her youthful charms: yet she could not wholly
dispense with the help of her bosom-comrade, Tone. By an
indisruptible band was she linked to her, for the art of Tone held
fast within her hands the <hi>key</hi> to her very soul. But, as
after the death of a father in whose love his children have all
been knit together, and have held their life-goods as one common
store, the heirs in selfish strife compute the several stock of
each,—so did Dance contend that this key was wrought by
<hi>her</hi>, and claimed it back as the first condition of her now
separate life. Willingly did she forego the feeling tones of her
sister's Voice; for by this voice, whose marrow was the Word of
<hi>Poetry</hi>, she must forsooth have felt herself inextricably
chained to that proud leader! But this <hi>instrument</hi>, of wood
or metal, the musical <hi>tool</hi> which her sister, in sweet
urgence to inspire with her soulful breath even the dead stuff of
Nature, had fashioned for the buttress and enhancement of her
voice,—this tool, which verily was fit enough to mete for her
the needful guiding measure of rhythm and of beat, nay even to
wellnigh imitate the tonal beauty of her sister's voice,—the
Musical Instrument she took with her. Not caring for aught else,
she left her sister Tone to
<pb id="pag106" n="106"/>
float adown the shoreless stream of
Christian harmony, tied to her faith in Words, the while she cast
herself in easy-going self-sufficience upon the pleasure-craving
places of the world.</p>

<p>We know too well this tricked-out figure: who is
it that has not come across her? Wherever fatuous modern ease girds
itself up to seek for entertainment, she sets herself with utmost
complaisance upon the scene, and plays, for gold, whatever pranks
one wills. Her highest faculty, the use of which she can no longer
see, the faculty of ransoming by her mien and gestures the Thought
of Poetry in its yearning for actual human birth, she has lost or
made away in thoughtless foolishness, and minds her not—to
whom. With all the features of her face, with all the gestures of
her limbs, she has nothing now to bring to light but unconfined
complaisance. Her solitary care is lest she should seem capable of
making a refusal; and of this care she unburdens herself by the
only mimetic expression of which she still is mistress, by the most
unruffled smile of unconditional surrender to each and all. With
her features set in this unchangeable and fixed expression, she
answers the demand for change and motion by her lower limbs alone;
all her artistic capability has sunk down from her vertex, through
her body, to her feet. Head, neck, trunk and thighs are only
present as unbidden guests; whereas her feet have undertaken to
show alone what she can do, and merely for the sake of needful
balance call on her arms and hands for sisterly support. What in
private life—when our modern citizens, in accordance with
tradition and the time-killing habits of society, indulge
themselves in dance, in our so-called 'Balls'—it is only
allowable to timidly suggest with all the woodenness of civilised
vapidity: <hi>that</hi> is permitted to the kindly <hi>ballerina</hi>
to tell aloud upon the public stage with frankest candour;
for—her gestures, forsooth, are merely art and not reality,
and now that she has. been declared <hi>beyond</hi> the law, she
stands <hi>above</hi> the law. In effect, we may let ourselves be
incited by her, without, for all that, following in our moral life
her incitations,—just as,
<pb id="pag107" n="107"/>
on the other hand, Religion also
offers us its incitations, to goodness and to virtue, and yet we
are not in the smallest bound to yield to them in everyday
existence. Art is <hi>free</hi>,—and the art of Dance draws her
profit from this freedom. And she does right in this: else what
were Freedom made for?—</p>

<p>How comes it that this noble art has fallen so
low that, in our public art-life, she can only find her passport
and her lease of life as the hasp of all the banded arts of
harlotry? That she must give herself beyond all ransom into the
most dishonouring chains of nethermost dependence?—Because
everything torn from its connexions, every egoistic unit,
must needs become in truth <hi>unfree, i.e.</hi> dependent on an
alien master. The mere corporeal man, the mere emotional, the mere
intellectual man, are each incapable of any self-sufficience of the
genuine Man. The exclusiveness of their nature leads them into
every excess of immoderation; for the salutary Measure arises
only—and of itself—from the community of natures like
and yet unlike. But immoderation is the absolute un-freedom of any
being; and this unfreedom must of necessity evince itself as
dependence upon sheer externals.—</p>

<p>In her separation from true Music, and
especially from Poetry, Dance not only gave up her highest
attributes, but she also lost a portion of her
<hi>individuality</hi>. Only that is individual, which can beget from
out itself: Dance was a completely individual art for just so long
as she could bring forth from her inmost nature, and her Need, the
laws in accordance with which she came to an intelligible
manifestment. To-day the <hi>only</hi> remaining individual dance is
the <hi>national</hi> dance of the <hi>Folk</hi>; for, as it steps into
the world of show, it proclaims its own peculiar nature in
inimitable fashion by gestures, rhythm, and beat, whose laws itself
had made instinctively; while these laws only become cognisable and
communicable when they have really issued from the art-work of the
People as the abstract of its essence. Further evolution of the
folk-dance towards the richer capabilities of Art is only
<pb id="pag108" n="108"/>
possible by union with the arts of Tone and Poetry, no longer tyrannised by
Dance, but bearing themselves as free agents; for only amid the
correlated faculties, and under the stimulation, of these arts can
she unfold and broaden out her individual faculties to their
fullest compass.</p>

<p>The Grecian Lyric art-work shows us how the laws
of Rhythm, the individual mark of Dance, were developed in the arts
of Tone and, above all, of Poetry to endless breadth and manifold
richness of characterisation by the individuality of these very
arts, and thus gave back to Dance an inexhaustible store of novel
stimulus to the finding of fresh movements peculiar to herself; and
how, in lively joy of fecund interaction, the individuality of each
several art was able thus to lift itself to its most perfect fill.
The modern folk-dance could never bring to bearing the fruits of
such an interaction: for as all folk-art of the modern nations was
nipped in the bud by Christianity and Christian-political
civilisation, neither could <hi>it</hi>, a solitary shrub, bush out
in rich and manifold development. Yet the only individual phenomena
in the domain of Dance known to our world of today are the sheer
products of the Folk, such as they have budded, or even now still
bud, from the character of this or that nationality. All our actual
civilised Dance is but a compilation from these dances of the Folk:
the folk-styles of every nationality are taken up by her, employed,
and mutilated,—but not developed farther; because, as an art,
she only feeds herself on foreign food. Her procedure, therefore,
is ever a mere intentional and artificial copying, patching
together, and dovetailing; in no wise a bringing forth and
new-creating. Her nature is that of Mode, which, of sheer craving
for vicissitude, gives today to this style, tomorrow to that, the
preference. She is therefore forced to found her arbitrary systems,
to set her purpose down in rules, and to proclaim her will in
needless axioms and assumptions, in order to enable her disciples
to comprehend and execute it. But these rules and systems wholly
<hi>isolate</hi> her as an art, and fence her off from any healthy
union with
<pb id="pag109" n="109"/>
another branch of art for mutual collaboration.
Un-nature, held to artificial life by laws and arbitrary formulæ,
is from top to bottom egoistic; and as it is incapable of bringing
forth from out itself; so also is any wedding of it a thing
impossible.</p>

<p>This art has therefore no love-need; she can
only <hi>take</hi>, but not <hi>give</hi>. She draws all foreign
life-stuff into herself, disintegrates and devours it, assimilating
it with her own unfruitful being; but cannot blend herself with any
element whose life is based on grounds outside her, because she
cannot give herself.</p>

<p>Thus does our modern Dance attempt in
<hi>Pantomime</hi> the task of Drama. Like every isolated, egoistic
branch of art, she fain would be all things unto herself, and reign
in lonely all-sufficiency. She would picture men and human haps,
conditions, conflicts, characters and motives, without employing
that faculty by which man first attains
completion,—<hi>Speech</hi>. She would poetise, without the
faintest comradeship with Poetry. And what does she breed, in this
demure exclusiveness and "independence"? The most utterly dependent
and cripple-like monstrosity: men who cannot talk; and not forsooth
since some mischance has robbed them of the gift of speech, but
since their stubborn choice forbids their speaking; actors whose
release from some unholy spell we look for every moment, if only
they could gain the courage to end the painful stammering of their
Gestures by a wholesome spoken Word, but whom the rules and
prescripts of pantomimic art forbid to dishallow by one natural
syllable the unflecked sense of Dance's self-dependence.</p>

<p>And yet so lamentably dependent is this absolute
dumb <hi>Spectacle</hi>, that in its happiest moments it only
ventures to concern itself with dramatic stuffs that require to
enter on no relations with the human reason,—nay, even in the
most favourable of such cases, still sees itself compelled to the
ignominious expedient of acquainting the spectators with its
particular intention by means of an <hi>explanatory programme</hi>!</p>

<pb id="pag110" n="110"/>

<p>Yet herewith is undeniably manifested the
remnant of Dance's noblest effort; she would still at least be
somewhat, and soars upward to the yearning for the highest work of
Art, the Drama; she seeks to withdraw from the wanton gaze of
frivolity, and clutches after some artistic veil wherewith to cloak
her shameful nakedness. But into what a dishonouring dependence
must she cast herself, in the very manifestment of this effort!
With what pitiable distortion must she expiate the vain desire for
unnatural self-dependence! She, without whose highest and most
individual help the highest, noblest Art-work cannot attain to
show, must—severed from the union of her sisters—take
refuge from prostitution in absurdity, from absurdity in
prostitution!—</p>

<p>O glorious Dance! O shameful Dance!—</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="4" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">4. The Art of Tone.</head>

<p>The ocean binds and separates the land: so does
Music bind and separate the two opposite poles of human Art, the
arts of Dance and Poetry.</p>

<p>She is the <hi>heart</hi> of man; the blood, which
takes this heart for starting-point, gives to the outward-facing
flesh its warm and lively tint,—while it feeds the
inward-coursing brain-nerves with its welling pulse. Without the
heart's activity, the action of the brain would be no more than of
a mere automaton; the action of the body's outer members, a
mechanical and senseless motion. Through the heart the
understanding feels itself allied with the whole body, and the man
of mere 'five-senses' mounts upwards to the energy of Reason.</p>

<p>But the organ of the heart is <hi>tone</hi>; its
conscious speech, the <hi>art of Tone</hi>. She is the full and
flowing heart-love, that ennobles the material sense of pleasure,
and humanises immaterial thought. Through Tone are Dance and
<pb id="pag111" n="111"/>
Poetry brought to mutual understanding: in her are intercrossed in loving
blend the laws by which they each proclaim their own true nature;
in her, the wilfulness of each becomes instinctive 'Will'
("<hi>Unwillkürlichen</hi>"), the Measure of Poetry and the Beat
of Dance become the undictated Rhythm of the Heart-throb.</p>

<p>Does she receive from her sisters the conditions
under which she manifests herself, so does she give them back to
them in infinite embellishment, as the conditions of their own
enunciation. If Dance conveys to Tone her own peculiar law of
motion, so does Tone bring it back to her with soul and sense
embodied in her Rhythm, for the measure of more noble, more
intelligible motion. If Tone obtains from Poetry her pregnant coil
of sharp-cut Words, entwined by meaning and by measure, and takes
it as a solid mesh of thought wherewith to gird her boundless fluid
mass of sound: so does she hand her sister back this ideal coil of
yearning syllables, that indirectly shadow forth in images, but
cannot yet express their thought with all the truth and cogence of
necessity,—and hands it as the direct utterance of Feeling,
the unerring vindicator and redeemer, <hi>Melody</hi>.</p>

<p>In <hi>Rhythm</hi> and in <hi>Melody</hi>, ensouled
by Tone, both Dance and Poetry regain their own true essence,
materialised and endlessly enhanced and beautified; and thus they
learn to know and love themselves. But melody and rhythm are the
<hi>arms</hi> of Tone, with which she locks her sisters in the close
embrace of triple growth; they are the <hi>shores</hi> through which
<hi>the sea</hi>, herself, unites two continents. If this sea draws
backward from the shores, and broadens out the waste of an abyss
between itself and each of them, then can no light-winged ship bear
aught from either continent unto the other; forever must they rest
dissundered,—until some outcome of machinery, perchance a
railroad, shall bridge the waste! Then men shall start therefrom,
forsooth upon their steamboats, to cross the open sea; the breath
of all-enlivening breezes replaced by sickening fumes from the
machine. Blow the winds of
<pb id="pag112" n="112"/>
heaven eastward: what matters
it?—the machine shall clatter westward, or wherever else men
choose to go. Even as the dance-wright fetches from the continent
of Poetry, across the steam-tamed ocean crests of Music, the
programme for his novel ballet; while the play-concoctor imports
from the far-off continent of Dance just so much leg-gymnastics as
he deems expedient for filling up a halting situation.—</p>

<p>Let us see, then, what has come to sister Tone,
since the death of all-loving father, <hi>Drama</hi>!—</p>

<p>We cannot yet give up our simile of the
<hi>Ocean</hi>, for picturing Tone's nature. If <hi>Melody</hi> and
<hi>Rhythm</hi> are the shores through which the art of Tone lays
fruitful hands upon twain continents of art, allied to her of yore:
so is Sound itself her fluent, native element, and its immeasurable
expanse of waters make out the sea of <hi>Harmony</hi>. The eye knows
but the surface of this sea; its depth the depth of Heart alone can
fathom. Upwards from its lightless bottom it expands into a
sun-bright mirror; the ever-widening rings of Rhythm cross over on
it from one shore; from the shady valleys of the other arise the
yearning zephyrs that rouse this restful surface to the grace of'
swelling, sinking waves of Melody.</p>

<p>Man dives into this sea; only to give himself
once more, refreshed and radiant, to the light of day. His heart
feels widened wondrously, when he peers down into this depth,
pregnant with unimaginable possibilities whose bottom his eye shall
never plumb, whose seeming bottomlessness thus fills him with the
sense of marvel and the presage of Infinity. It is the depth and
infinity of Nature herself, who veils from the prying eye of Man
the unfathomable womb of her eternal Seed-time, her Begetting, and
her Yearning; even because man's eye can only grasp the already
manifested, the Blossom, the Begotten, the Fulfilled. This Nature
is, however, none other than <hi>the nature of the human heart
itself</hi>, which holds within its shrine the feelings of desire
and love in their most infinite capacity; which is <hi>itself</hi>
Desire and Love, and—as in its insatiable
<pb id="pag113" n="113"/>
longing it yet wills nothing but itself—can only grasp and
comprehend itself.</p>

<p>If this sea stir up its waters of itself, if it
beget the ground of its commotion from the depths of its own
element: then is this agitation an endless one and never pacified;
for ever returning on itself unstilled, and ever roused afresh by
its eternal longing. But if the vast reach of this Desire be
kindled by an outward object; if this measure-giving object step
toward it from the sure and sharply outlined world of manifestment;
if sun-girt, slender, blithely-moving Man incend the flame of this
desire by the lightning of his glancing eye,—if he ruffle
with his swelling breath the elastic crystal of the sea,—then
let the fire crackle as it may, let the ocean's bosom heave
with ne'er so violent a storm: yet the flame at last, when its wild
glow has smouldered down, will shine with mild serenity of
light,—the sea-rind, the last foam-wreath of its giant crests
dissolved, will crisp itself at last to the soft play of rippling
waves; and Man, rejoicing in the sweet harmony of his whole being,
will entrust himself to the beloved element in some frail coracle,
and steer his steadfast course towards the beacon of that kindly
light.—</p>

<p>The <hi>Greek</hi>, when he took ship upon his
sea, ne'er let the coast line fade from sight: for him it was the
trusty stream that bore him from one haven to the next, the stream
on which he passed between the friendly strands amidst the music of
his rhythmic oars,—here lending glances to the wood-nymphs'
dance, there bending ear to sacred hymns whose melodious string of
meaning words was wafted by the breezes from the temple on the
mountain-top. On the surface of the water were truly mirrored back
to him the jutting coasts, with all their peaks and valleys, trees
and <sic corr="flowers">flowres</sic> and men,
deep-set within the æther's blue; and this
undulating mirror-picture, softly swayed by the fresh fan of gentle
gusts, he deemed was <hi>Harmony</hi>.—</p>

<p>The <hi>Christian</hi> left the shores of
Life.—Farther afield, beyond all confines, he sought the
sea,—to find himself at last upon the Ocean, twixt sea and
heaven, boundlessly
<pb id="pag114" n="114"/>
alone. The <hi>Word</hi>, the word of
<hi>Faith</hi> was his only compass; and it pointed him unswervingly
toward Heaven. This heaven brooded far above him, it sank down on
every side in the horizon, and fenced his sea around. But the
sailor never reached that confine; from century to century he
floated on without redemption, towards this ever imminent, but
never reached, new home; until he fell a-doubting of the virtue of
his compass, and cast it, as the last remaining human bauble,
grimly overboard. And now, denuded of all ties, he gave himself
without a rudder to the never-ending turmoil of the waves' caprice.
In unstilled, ireful love-rage, he stirred the waters of the sea
against the unattainable and distant heaven: he urged the insatiate
greed of that desire and love which, reft of an external object,
must ever only crave and love itself,—that deepest,
unredeemable hell of restless Egoism, which stretches out without
an end, and wills and wishes, yet ever and forever can only wish
and will itself,—he urged it 'gainst the abstract
universalism of heaven's blue, that universal longing without the
shadow of an 'object'—against the very vault of absolute
un-objectivity. (Bliss, unconditioned bliss,—to gain in
widest, most unbounded measure the <hi>height of bliss</hi>, and yet
to stay completely <hi>wrapt in self</hi>: this was the unallayable
desire of Christian passion.') So reared the sea from out its
deepest depth to heaven, so sank it ever back again to its own
depths; ever its unmixed self, and therefore ever
unappeased,—like the all-usurping, measureless desire of the
heart that ne'er will give itself and dare to be consumed in an
external object, but damns itself to everlasting <hi>selfish
solitude</hi>.</p>

<p>Yet in Nature each immensity strives after
Measure; the unconfined draws bounds around itself; the elements
condense at last to definite show; and even the boundless sea of
Christian yearning found the new shore on which its turbid waves
might break. Where on the farthest horizon we thought to find the
ever made-for, never happed-on gateway into the realms of Heaven
unlimited, there did the boldest of all seafarers discover
<hi>land</hi> at last,—man-tenanted,
<pb id="pag115" n="115"/>
real, and blissful land.
Through his discovery the wide ocean is now not only meted out, but
made for men an inland sea, round which the coasts are merely
broadened out in unimaginably ampler circle. Did Columbus teach us
to take ship across the ocean, and thus to bind in one each
continent of Earth; did his world-historical discovery convert the
narrow-seeing national-man into a universal and all-seeing
<hi>Man:</hi> so, by the hero who explored the broad and seeming
shoreless sea of absolute Music unto its very bounds, are won the
new and never dreamt-of coasts which this sea no longer now
divorces from the old and primal continent of man, but <hi>binds
together</hi> with it for the new-born, happy art-life of the
Manhood of the Future. And this hero is none other
than—<hi>Beethoven</hi>.—</p>

<p>When Tone unloosed her from the chain of
sisters, she took as her unrelinquishable, her foremost
life's-condition—just as light-minded sister Dance had
filched from <hi>her</hi> her rhythmic measure—from thoughtful
sister Poetry her <hi>Word</hi>; yet not the human-breathing spirit
of the musing ("<hi>dichtende</hi>") word, but only its bare
corporeal condensation ("<hi>verdichtete</hi>") into tones. As she
had abandoned her rhythmic beat to parting Dance's use and
pleasure, she thenceforth built upon the Word alone; the word of
Christian Creed, that toneless, fluid, scattering word which,
un-withstanding and right gladly, soon gave to her complete
dominion over it. But the more this word evaporated into the mere
stammer of humility, the mere babbling of implicit, childlike love,
so much the more imperatively did Tone see herself impelled to
shape herself from out the exhaustless depths of her own liquid
nature. The struggle for such shaping is the building up of
<hi>Harmony</hi>.</p>

<p>Harmony grows from below upwards as a
perpendicular pillar, by the joining-together and overlaying of
correlated tone-stuffs. Unceasing alternation of such columns, each
freshly risen member taking rank beside its fellows, constitutes
the only possibility of absolute harmonic movement 'in breadth,'
The feeling of needful care for the
<pb id="pag116" n="116"/>
beauty of this motion 'in
breadth' is foreign to the nature of absolute Harmony; she knows
but the beauty of her columns' changing play of colour, but not the
grace of their marshalling in point of 'time,'—for that is
the work of Rhythm. On the other hand, the inexhaustible variety of
this play of colours is the ever-fruitful source on which she
draws, with immoderate self-satisfaction, to show herself in
constant change of garb; while the life-breath which en-souls and
sets in motion this restless, capricious, and self-conditioning
change, is the essence of elemental tone itself, the outbreathing
of an unfathomable, all-dominating heart's-desire. In the kingdom
of Harmony there is therefore no beginning and no end; just as the
objectless and self-devouring fervour of the soul, all ignorant of
its source, is nothing but itself; nothing but longing, yearning,
tossing, pining—and <hi>dying out</hi>, <hi>i.e.</hi> dying without
having assuaged itself in any 'object'; thus dying without death,
<note id="rn11" corresp="n11" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
and therefore everlasting falling back upon itself.</p>

<p>So long as the Word was in power, it commanded
both beginning and ending; but when it was engulfed in the
bottomless depths of Harmony, when it became naught but "groanings
and sighings of the soul,"
<note id="rn12" corresp="n12" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>—as
on the ardent summit of the music of the Catholic Church,—then was
the word capriciously hoisted to the capitals of those harmonic
columns, of that unrhythmic melody, and cast as though from wave to
wave; while the measureless harmonic possibilities must draw from
out themselves the laws for their own finite manifestment. There is
no other artistic faculty of man that answers to the character of
Harmony: it cannot find its mirror in the physical precision of the
<pb id="pag117" n="117"/>
movements of the body, nor in the logical induction of the thinking
brain,—it cannot set up for itself its standard in the
recognised necessity of the material world of show, like Thought,
nor like corporeal Motion in the periodic calculation of its
instinctive, physically governed properties: it is like a
nature-force which men perceive but cannot comprehend. Summoned by
outer—not by inner—necessity to resolve on surer and
more finite manifestment, Harmony must mould from out its own
immensurate depths the laws for its own following. These laws of
harmonic sequence, based on the nature of Affinity,—just as
those harmonic columns, the chords, were formed by the affinity of
tone-stuffs,—unite themselves into one standard, which sets
up salutary bounds around the giant playground of capricious
possibilities. They allow the most varied choice from amid the
kingdom of harmonic families, and extend the possibility of union
by elective-affinity ("<hi>Wahlverwandschaftliche Verbindungen</hi>")
with the members of neighbouring families, almost to free liking;
they demand, however, before all a strict observance of the
house-laws of affinity of the family once chosen, and a faithful
tarrying with it, for sake of a happy end. But this end itself, and
thus the measure of the composition's extension <hi>in time</hi>, the
countless laws of harmonic decorum can neither give nor govern. As
the scientifically teachable or learnable department of the art of
Tone, they can cleave the fluid tonal masses of Harmony asunder,
and part them into fenced-off bodies; but they cannot assign the
periodic measure of these fenced-off masses.</p>

<p>When the limit-setting might of Speech was
swallowed up, and yet the art of Tone, now turned to Harmony, could
never find her time-assigning law within herself: then was she
forced to face towards the remnant of the rhythmic beat that Dance
had left for her to garner. Rhythmic figures must now enliven
harmony; their change, their recurrence, their parting and uniting,
must condense the fluid breadths of Harmony—as Word had
earlier done with Tone—and bring their periods to more sure
conclusion.
<pb id="pag118" n="118"/>
But no inner necessity, striving after purely human
exposition, lay at the bottom of this rhythmic livening; not the
feeling, thinking, will-ing Man, such as proclaims himself by
speech and bodily motion, was its motive power; nothing but an
<hi>outer</hi> necessity, which Harmony, in struggle for her selfish
close, had taken up into herself. This rhythmic interchange and
shaping, which moved not of its inner, own necessity, could
therefore only borrow life from arbitrary laws and canons. These
laws and canons are those of <hi>Counterpoint</hi>.</p>

<p>Counterpoint, with its multiple births and
offshoots, is Art's artificial playing-with-itself, the mathematics
of Feeling, the mechanical rhythm of egoistic Harmony. In its
invention, abstract Tone indulged her whim to pass as the sole and
only self-supporting Art;—as that art which owes its being,
its absolute and godlike nature, to no human Need soever, but
purely to <hi>itself</hi>. The wilful quite naturally believes itself
the absolute and right monopolist; and it is certain that to her
own caprice alone could Music thank her self-sufficient airs, for
that mechanical, contrapunctal artifice was quite incapable of
answering any <hi>soul-need</hi>. Music therefore, in her pride, had
become her own direct antithesis: from a <hi>heart's</hi> concern, a
matter of the <hi>intellect</hi>; from the utterance of unshackled
Christian soul's-desire, the cashbook of a modern
market-speculation.</p>

<p>The living breath of fair, immortal,
nobly-feeling Human Voice, streaming ever fresh and young from the
bosom of the Folk, blew this contrapunctal house of cards, too, of
a heap. The <hi>Folk-tune</hi>, that had rested faithful to its own
untarnished grace; the simple, surely outlined <hi>Song</hi>,
close-woven with the poem, soared-up on its elastic pinions to the
regions of the beauty-lacking, scientifically-musical artworld,
with news of joyous ransom. This world was longing to paint
<hi>men</hi> again, to set men to sing—not pipes; so it seized
the folk-tune for its purpose, and constructed out of it the
<hi>opera-air</hi>. But just as Dance had seized the folk-dance, to
freshen herself therewith when needed, and to convert it to an
artificial compost according to the
<pb id="pag119" n="119"/>
dictates of her modish
taste,—so did this genteel Operatic tone-art behave to the
folk-tune. She had not grasped the <hi>entire</hi> man, to show him
in his whole artistic stature and nature-bidden necessity, but only
the <hi>singing</hi> man; and in his song she had not seized the
Ballad of the Folk, with all its innate generative force, but
merely the melodic Tune, abstracted from the poem, to which she set
conventional and purposely insipid sentences, according to her
pleasure; it was not the beating heart of the nightingale, but only
its warbling throat that men could fathom, and practised themselves
to imitate. Just as the art-dancer had set his legs, with their
manifold but still monotonous bendings, flingings, and gyrations,
to <hi>vary</hi> the natural folk-dance which he could not of himself
develop further,—so did the art-singer set his throat to
paraphrase with countless ornaments, to alter by a host of
flourishes, those tunes which he had stolen from the People's
mouth, but whose nature he could never fertilise afresh; and thus
another species of mechanical dexterity filled up the place which
contrapunctal ingenuity had left forlorn. We need not further
characterise the repugnant, ineffably repulsive disfigurement and
rending of the folk-tune, such as cries out from the modern
operatic <hi>Aria</hi>—for truly it is nothing but a
mutilated folk-tune, and in no wise a specific fresh
invention—such as, in entire contempt of Nature and all human
feeling, and severed from all basis of poetic speech, now tickles
the imbecile ears of our opera-frequenters with its lifeless,
soul-less toy of fashion. We must content ourselves with candidly,
though mournfully, avowing that our modern public sums up in
<hi>it</hi> its whole idea of Music's essence.—</p>

<p>But apart from this public and its subservient
fashion-mongers and mode-purveyors, the inmost individual essence
of Tone was yet to soar up from its plumbless depths, in all the
unlost plenitude of its unmeasured faculties, to redemption in the
sunlight of the universal, <hi>one</hi> Art of the Future. And this
spring it was to take from off <hi>that</hi> ground which is the
ground of all sheer
<pb id="pag120" n="120"/>
human art: the <hi>plastic motion of the
body</hi>, portrayed in musical <hi>Rhythm</hi>.</p>

<p>Though in the Christian lisping of the
stereotyped Word, eternally repeated until it lost itself in utter
dearth of Thought, the human <hi>voice</hi> had shrunk at last to a
mere physical and flexile implement of Tone: yet, by its side,
those tone-implements which mechanism had devised for Dance's ample
escort had been elaborated to ever more enhanced expressive
faculty. As bearers of the dance-tune, the <hi>rhythmic Melody</hi>
had been consigned to their exclusive care; and, by reason of the
ease with which their blended forces took up the element of
Christian Harmony, to them now fell the call for all further
evolution of the art of Tone from out itself. <hi>The harmonised
dance</hi> is the basis of the richest art-work of the modern
<hi>Symphony.—Even</hi> this 'harmonised dance' fell as a
savoury prey into the hands of counterpoint-concocting mechanism;
which loosed it from obedient devotion to its mistress,
body-swaying Dance, and made it now to take its turns and capers
from <hi>its</hi> rules. Yet it needed but the warm lifebreath of the
natural folk-tune to beat upon the leathern harness of this
schooled and contrapunctal dance,—and lo! it stretched at
once to the elastic flesh of fairest human artwork. This artwork,
in its highest culmination, is <hi>the Symphony of Haydn, of Mozart,
and Beethoven</hi>.</p>

<p>In the Symphony of Haydn the rhythmic
dance-melody moves with all the blithesome freshness of youth: its
entwinements, disseverings, and re-unitings, though carried out
with highest contrapunctal ingenuity, yet hardly show a trace of
the results of such ingenious treatment; but rather take the
character peculiar to a dance ordained by laws of freest
Phantasy,—so redolent are they of the warm and actual breath
of joyous human Life. To the more tempered motion of the middle
section of the symphony we see assigned by Haydn a broad expansion
of the simple song-tune of the Folk; in this it spreads by laws of
<hi>melos</hi> peculiar to the character of Song, through soaring
graduations and 'repeats' enlivened by most manifold expression.
<pb id="pag121" n="121"/>
This form of melody became the very element of the Symphony of
song-abundant, and song-glad <hi>Mozart</hi>. He breathed into his
instruments the passionate breath of <hi>Human Voice</hi>, that voice
toward which his genius bent with overmastering love. He led the
stanchless stream of teeming Harmony into the very heart of Melody;
as though in restless care to give it, only mouthed by Instruments,
in recompense -the depth of feeling and of fervour that forms the
exhaustless source of human utterance within the inmost chambers of
the heart. Whilst, in his Symphonies, Mozart to some extent but
made short work of everything that lay apart from this his
individual impulse and, with all his remarkable dexterity in
counterpoint, departed little from those traditional canons which
he himself helped forward to stability: he lifted up the 'singing'
power of instrumental music to such a height that it was now
enabled, not only to embrace the mirth and inward still content
which it had learnt from Haydn, but the whole depth of endless
heart's-desire.</p>

<p>It was <hi>Beethoven</hi> who opened up the
boundless faculty of Instrumental Music for expressing elemental
storm and stress. His power it was, that took the basic essence of
the Christian's Harmony, that bottomless sea of unhedged fulness
and unceasing motion, and clove in twain the fetters of its
freedom. <hi>Harmonic Melody</hi>—for so must we
designate this melody divorced from speech, in distinction from the
Rhythmic Melody of dance—was capable, though merely borne by
instruments, of the most limitless expression together with the
most unfettered treatment. In long, connected tracts of sound, as
in larger, smaller, or even smallest fragments, it turned beneath
the Master's poet hand to vowels, syllables, and words and phrases
of a speech in which a message hitherto unheard, and never spoken
yet, could promulgate itself. Each letter of this speech was an
infinitely soul-full element; and the measure of the joinery of
these elements was utmost free commensuration, such as could be
exercised by none but a tone-poet who longed for the unmeasured
utterance of this unfathomed yearning.</p>

<pb id="pag122" n="122"/>

<p>Glad in this unspeakably expressive language,
but suffering beneath the weight of longing of his artist
soul—a longing which, in its infinity, could only be an
'object' to itself, not satisfy itself outside—the
happy-wretched, sea-glad and sea-weary mariner sought for a surer
haven wherein to anchor from the blissful storms of passionate
tumult. Was his faculty of speech unending—so also was the
yearning which inspired that speech with its eternal breath. How
then proclaim the end, the satisfaction, of this yearning, in the
selfsame tongue that was naught but its expression? If the
utterance of immeasurable heart-yearning be vented in this
elemental speech of absolute tone, then the <hi>endlessness</hi> of
such utterance, like that of the yearning itself; is its only true
Necessity; the yearning cannot find contentment in any finite
<hi>shutting-off</hi> of sound,—for that could only be Caprice.
Now by the definite expression which it borrows from the rhythmic
dance-melody, Instrumental Music may well portray and bring to
close a placid and self-bounded mood; for reason that it takes its
measure from an originally outward-lying object, namely the motion
of the body. If a tone-piece yield itself <hi>ab initio</hi> to this
expression, which must always be conceived as that of mirth, in
greater or in less degree,—then, even mid the richest, most
luxuriant unfolding of the faculty of tonal speech, it holds within
itself the necessary grounds of every phase of 'satisfaction';
while equally inevitably must this 'satisfaction' be a matter of
caprice, and therefore in truth unsatisfying, when that sure and
sharp-cut mode of utterance endeavours merely <hi>thus</hi> to
terminate the storms of endless yearning. The transition from the
endless agitation of desire to a mood of joyous satisfaction, can
necessarily take place no otherwise than by the ascension of desire
into an <hi>object</hi>. But, in keeping with the character of
infinite yearning, this 'object' can be none other than such an one
as shows itself with finite, physical and ethical exactitude.
Absolute Music, however, finds well-marked bounds dividing her from
such an object; without indulging in the most arbitrary of
<pb id="pag123" n="123"/>
assumptions, she can now and never, of her own unaided powers,
bring the physical and ethical Man to distinct and plainly
recognisable presentment. Even in her most infinite enhancement,
she still is but <hi>emotion</hi>; she enters <hi>in the train</hi> of
the ethical deed, but not as that <hi>Deed itself</hi>; she can set
moods and feelings side by side, but not evolve one mood from out
another by any dictate of her own Necessity;—she lacks the
<hi>Moral Will</hi>.</p>

<p>What inimitable art did Beethoven employ in his
"C-minor Symphony," in order to steer his ship from the ocean of
infinite yearning to the haven of fulfilment! He was able to raise
the utterance of his music <hi>almost</hi> to a moral resolve, but
not to speak aloud that final word; and after every onset of the
Will, without a moral handhold, we feel tormented by the equal
possibility of falling back again to suffering, as of being led to
lasting victory. Nay, this falling-back must almost seem to us more
'necessary' than the morally ungrounded triumph, which
therefore—not being a necessary consummation, but a mere
arbitrary gift of grace—has not the power to lift us up and
yield to us that <hi>ethical</hi> satisfaction which we demand as
outcome of the yearning of the heart.</p>

<p>Who felt more uncontented with this victory than
Beethoven himself? Was he lief to win a second of the sort? 'Twas
well enough for the brainless herd of imitators, who from glorious
'major'-jubilation, after vanquished 'minor'-tribulation,
prepared themselves unceasing triumphs,—but not for the
Master, who was called to write upon his works the <hi>world-history
of Music</hi>.</p>

<p>With reverent awe, he shunned to cast himself
afresh into that sea of boundless and insatiate yearning. He turned
his steps towards the blithesome, life-glad Men he spied encamped
on breezy meads, along the outskirt of some fragrant wood beneath
the sunny heaven; kissing, dancing, frolicking. There in shadow of
the trees, amid the rustling of the leaves, beside the tender
gossip of the brook, he made a happy pact with Nature; there he
felt that he was Man, felt all his yearning thrust back deep
<pb id="pag124" n="124"/>
into his breast before the sovereignty of sweet and blissful
<hi>manifestment</hi>. So thankful was he toward this manifestment
that, faithfully and in frank humility, he superscribed the
separate portions of the tone-work, which he built from this
idyllic mood, with the names of those life-pictures whose
contemplation had aroused it in him:—"Reminiscences of
Country Life" he called the whole.</p>

<p>But in very deed they were only "Reminiscences"—pictures,
and not the direct and physical actuality.
Towards this actuality he was impelled with all the force of the
artist's inexpugnable ("<hi>nothwendig</hi>") yearning. To
give his tone-shapes that same compactness, that directly
cognisable and physically sure stability, which he had witnessed
with such blessed solace in Nature's own phenomena,—this was
the soul of the joyous impulse which created for us that glorious
work the "Symphony in A major." All tumult, all yearning and
storming of the heart become here the blissful insolence of joy,
which snatches us away with bacchanalian might and bears us through
the roomy space of Nature, through all the streams and seas of
Life, shouting in glad self-consciousness as we tread throughout
the Universe the daring measures of this human sphere-dance. This
symphony is the <hi>Apotheosis of Dance</hi> herself: it is Dance in
her highest aspect, as it were the loftiest Deed of bodily motion
incorporated in an ideal mould of tone. Melody and Harmony unite
around the sturdy bones of Rhythm to firm and fleshy human shapes,
which now with giant limbs' agility, and now with soft, elastic
pliance, <hi>almost before our very eyes</hi>, close up the supple,
teeming ranks; the while now gently, now with daring, now serious,
<note id="rn13" corresp="n13" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
now wanton, now pensive, and again
<pb id="pag125" n="125"/>
exulting, the deathless strain sounds forth and forth; until, in
the last whirl of delight, a kiss of triumph seals the last
embrace.</p>

<p>And yet these happy dancers were merely shadowed
forth in tones, mere sounds that imitated men! Like a second
Prometheus who fashioned men of clay ("<hi>Thon</hi>")
Beethoven had sought to fashion them of <hi>tone</hi>. Yet not
from '<hi>Thon</hi>' or Tone, but from both substances together, must
Man, the image of live-giving Zeus, be made. Were Prometheus'
mouldings only offered to the <hi>eye</hi>, so were those of
Beethoven only offered to the <hi>ear</hi>. But only <hi>where eye and
ear confirm each other's sentience of him, is the whole artistic
Man at hand</hi>.</p>

<p>But where could Beethoven find <hi>those</hi> men,
to whom to stretch out hands across the element of his music? Those
men with hearts so broad that he could pour into them the mighty
torrent of his harmonic tones? With frames so stoutly fair that his
melodic rhythms should <hi>bear</hi> them and not <hi>crush</hi>
them?—Alas, from nowhere came to him the brotherly Prometheus who
could show to him these men! He needs must gird his loins about,
and start <hi>to find out for himself the country of the Manhood of
the Future</hi>.</p>

<p>From the shore of Dance he cast himself once
more upon that endless sea, from which he had erstwhile found a
refuge on this shore; the sea of unallayable heart-yearning. But
'twas in a stoutly-built and giant-bolted ship that he embarked
upon the stormy voyage; with firm-clenched fist he grasped the
mighty helm: he <hi>knew</hi> the journey's goal, and was determined
to attain it. No imaginary triumphs would he prepare himself, nor
after boldly overcome privations tack back once more to the lazy
haven of his home; for he desired to measure out the ocean's
bounds, and find the land which needs must lie beyond the waste of
waters.</p>

<p>Thus did the Master urge his course through unheard-of
<pb id="pag126" n="126"/>
possibilities of absolute tone-speech—not by
fleetly slipping past them, but by speaking out their utmost
syllable from the deepest chambers of his heart—forward to
where the mariner begins to sound the sea-depth with his plumb;
where, above the broadly stretched-forth shingles of the new
continent, he touches on the heightening crests of solid ground;
where he has now to decide him whether he shall face about towards
the bottomless ocean, or cast his anchor on the new-found shore.
But it was no madcap love of sea-adventure, that had spurred the
Master to so far a journey; with might and main he willed to land
on this new world, for toward <hi>it</hi> alone had he set sail.
Staunchly he threw his anchor out; and this anchor was <hi>the
Word</hi>. Yet this Word was not that arbitrary and senseless cud
which the modish singer chews from side to side, as the gristle of
his vocal tone; but the necessary, all-powerful, and all-uniting
word into which the full torrent of the heart's emotions may pour
its stream; the steadfast haven for the restless wanderer; the
light that lightens up the night of endless yearning: the word that
the redeemed world-man cries out aloud from the fulness of the
world-heart. This was the word which Beethoven set as crown upon
the forehead of his tone-creation; and this word
was:—"<hi>Freude</hi>!" ("Rejoice!") With this word he cries to men:
<hi>"Breast to breast; ye mortal millions! This one kiss to all the
world!</hi> And <hi>this Word</hi> will be the language of the
<hi>Art-work of the Future</hi>.—</p>

<p>The Last Symphony of Beethoven is the redemption
of Music from out her own peculiar element into the realm of
<hi>universal Art</hi>. It is the human Evangel of the art of the
Future. Beyond it no forward step is possible; for upon it the
perfect Art-work of the Future alone can follow, the <hi>universal
Drama</hi> to which Beethoven has forged for us the key.</p>

<p><hi>Thus has Music of herself fulfilled what
neither of the other severed arts had skill to do</hi>. Each of
these arts but eked out her own self-centred emptiness by
<hi>taking</hi>, and egoistic borrowing; neither, therefore, had the
skill to <hi>be 
<pb id="pag127" n="127"/>
herself</hi>, and of herself to weave the girdle
wherewith to link the whole. But Tone, in that she <hi>was
herself</hi> completely, and moved amid her own unsullied element,
attained the force of the most heroic, most loveworthy
self-sacrifice,—of mastering, nay of renouncing 'her own
self; to reach out to her sisters the hand of rescue. She thus has
kept herself as <hi>heart</hi> that binds both head and limbs in one;
and it is not without significance, that it is precisely the art of
Tone which has gained so wide extension through all the branches of
our modern public life.</p>

<p>To get a clearer insight into the
<hi>contradictory</hi> spirit of this public life, however, we must
first bear in mind that it was <hi>by no means a mutual
coöperation between art-hood and publicity, nay, not even a
mutual coöperation of tone-artists themselves</hi>, that
carried through the titanic process we have here reviewed: but
<hi>simply a richly-gifted individual</hi>, who took up into his
solitary self the spirit of community that was absent from our
public life; nay, from the fulness of his being, united with the
fulness of musical resource, evolved within himself this spirit of
community which his artist soul had been the first to yearn for. We
see this wonderful creative process, which breathes the fashioning
breath of Life through all the symphonies of Beethoven, not only
completed by the Master in the most secluded loneliness, but not so
much as <hi>comprehended</hi> by his artistic fellows; the rather,
shamefully <hi>misunderstood</hi> by them. The forms in which the
Master brought to light his world-historical wrestling after Art,
remained but <hi>forms</hi> in the eyes of contemporaneous and
succeeding music-makers, and passed through Mannerism across to
Mode; and despite the fact that no other instrumental composer
could, even within these forms, divulge the smallest shred of
original inventiveness, yet none lost courage to write symphonies
and suchlike pieces by the ream, without a moment happening on the
thought that the <hi>last</hi> symphony had <hi>already been
written</hi>.
<note id="rn14" corresp="n14" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
Thus have we lived to see
<pb id="pag128" n="128"/>
Beethoven's great world-voyage of discovery—that unique and
throughly unrepeatable feat whose consummation we have witnessed in
his "<hi>Freude</hi>"-symphony, as the last and boldest venture of
his genius—once more superfluously attempted in foolishest
simplicity, and happily got over without one hardship. A new
<hi>genre</hi>, a "Symphony with Choruses"—was all the
dullards saw therein! Why should not X or Y be also able to write a
"Symphony with Choruses"? Why should not "God the Lord" be praised
from swelling throat in the Finale, after three preceding
instrumental sections had paved the way as featly as might be?
<note id="rn15" corresp="n15" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
Thus has Columbus only discovered
America for the sugary hucksters of our times!</p>

<p>The ground of this repugnant phenomenon,
however, lies deep within the very nature of our modern music. The
art of Tone, set free from those of Dance and Poetry, is no longer
an art instinctively necessary to man. It has been forced to
construct itself by laws which, taken from its own peculiar nature,
find no affinity and no elucidation in any purely human
manifestment. Each of the other arts held fast by the measure of
the outer human figure, of the outward human life, or of Nature
itself,—howsoever capriciously it might disfigure this
unconditional first principle. Tone,—which found alone in
timid Hearing, susceptible to every
<pb id="pag129" n="129"/>
cheat and fancy, her outward,
human measure,—must frame herself more abstract laws,
perforce, and bind these laws into a compact scientific system.
This system has been the basis of all modern music: founded on this
system, tower was heaped on tower; and the higher soared the
edifice, the more inalienable grew the fixed foundation,—this
founding which was nowise that of Nature. To the sculptor, the
painter, and the poet, their laws of Art explain the course of
<hi>Nature</hi>; without an inner understanding of Nature they can
make no thing of beauty. To the musician are explained the laws of
Harmony, of Counterpoint; his learning, without which he can build
no musical structure, is an abstract, scientific system. By
attained dexterity in its application, he becomes a craftsman; and
from this craftsmanlike standpoint he looks out upon the outer
world, which must needs appear to <hi>him</hi> a different thing from
what it does to the unadmitted worldling, the <hi>layman</hi>. The
uninitiate layman thus stands abashed before this artificial
product of art-music, and very rightly can grasp no whit of it but
what appeals directly to the heart; from all the built-up prodigy,
however, this only meets him in the unconditioned ear-delight of
Melody. All else but leaves him cold, or baffles him with its
disquiet; for the simple reason that he does not, and cannot,
understand it. Our modern concert-public, which feigns a warmth and
satisfaction in presence of the art-symphonya merely lies and plays
the hypocrite; and the proof of this hypocrisy is evident enough so
soon as, after such a symphony, a modern and melodious operatic
'number' is performed, as often happens even in our most renowned
concert-institutes,—when we may hear the genuine musical
pulse of the audience beat high at once in unfeigned joy.</p>

<p>A vital coherence between our art-music and our
public taste, must be emphatically denied: where it would fain
proclaim its existence, it is affected and untrue; or, with a
certain section of our Folk which may from time to time be
unaffectedly moved by the drastic power of a Beethovenian symphony,
it is—to say the least—unclear, and
<pb id="pag130" n="130"/>
the impression produced by these tone-works is at bottom but imperfect and
fragmentary. But where this coherence is not to hand, the
guild-like federation of our art-professors can only be an outward
one; while the growth and fashioning of art from within outwards
cannot depend upon a fellowship which is nothing but an artificial
system,—but only in the separate unit, from the individuality
of its specific nature, can a natural formative and evolutionary
impulse take operation by its own instinctive inner laws. Only on
the fulness of the special gifts of an individual artist-nature,
can that art-creative impulse feed itself which nowhere finds its
nourishment in outer Nature; for this individuality alone can find
in its particularity, in its personal intuition, in its distinctive
longing, craving, and willing, the stuff wherewith to give the
art-mass form, the stuff for which it looks in vain in outer
Nature. In the individuality of this one and separate human being
does Music first become a purely human art; she devours up this
individuality,—from the dissolution of its elements to gain
her own condensement, her own individualisation.</p>

<p>Thus we see in Music as in the other arts,
though from totally different causes, mannerisms and so-called
'schools' proceeding for the most part from the individuality of a
particular artist. These 'schools' were the guilds that
gathered—in imitation, nay in repetition—round some
great master in whom the soul of Music had individualised itself.
So long as Music had not fulfilled her world-historical task: so
long might the widely spreading branches of these schools grow up
into fresh stems, under this or that congenial fertiliser. But so
soon as that task had been accomplished by the greatest of all
musical individualities, so soon as Tone had used the force of that
individuality to clothe her deepest secrets with the broadest form
in which she still might stay an egoistic, self-sufficient
art,—so soon, in one word, as <hi>Beethoven</hi> had written
his Last Symphony,—then all the musical guilds might patch
and cobble as they would, to bring an absolute music-man to market:
only a patched and cobbled harlequin, no sinewy, robust
<pb id="pag131" n="131"/>
son of Nature, could issue now from out their workshops. After Haydn and
Mozart, a Beethoven not only could, but <hi>must</hi> come; the genie
of Music claimed him of Necessity, and without a moment's
lingering—he was there. Who now will be to Beethoven what
<hi>he</hi> was to Mozart and Haydn, in the realm of absolute music?
The greatest genius would not here avail, since the genie of Music
no longer needs him.</p>

<p>Ye give yourselves a bootless labour, when, as
an opiate for your egoistic tingling for 'production', ye fain
would deny the cataclysmic significance of Beethoven's Last
Symphony; and even your obtuseness will not save you, by which ye
make it possible not once to understand this work! Do what ye will;
look right away from Beethoven, fumble after Mozart, gird you round
with Sebastian Bach; write Symphonies with or without choruses,
write Masses, Oratorios,—the sexless embryos of
Opera!—make songs without words, and operas without
texts—:ye still bring naught to light that has a breath of true
life in it. For look ye,—ye lack <hi>Belief</hi>! the great belief in
the necessity of what ye do! Ye have but the belief of simpletons,
the false belief in the possible necessity of your own selfish
caprice!—</p>

<p>In gazing across the busy wilderness of our
musical art-world; in witnessing the hopeless sterility of this
art-chaos, for all its everlasting ogling; in presence of this
formless brew, whose lees are mouldering pedantic shamelessness,
and from which, with all its solemn arrogance of musical
'old-master '-hood, at last but dissolute Italian opera-airs or
wanton French <hi>cancan-tunes</hi> can rise as artificial distillate
to the glare of modern public life;—in short, in pondering
on this utter creative incapacity, we look, without an instant's
blenching, towards the great catastrophe which shall make an end of
the whole unwieldy musical monstrosity, to clear free space for the
Art-work of the Future; in which true Music will truly have no
minor rôle to play, but to which both breath and breathing
space are utterly forbidden on such a musical soil as ours.
<note id="rn16" corresp="n16" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="5" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag132" n="132"/>
<head rend="i">5. The Poetic Art.</head>

<p>If wont or fashion permitted us to take up again
the old and genuine style of speech, and write instead of
"<hi>Dichten</hi>" "<hi>Tichten</hi>"; then should we gain in the group of
names for the three primeval human arts, "<hi>Tanz-, Ton- und
Ticht-kunst</hi>" (Dance, Tone, and Poetry), a beautiful
word-picture of the nature of this trinity of sisters, namely a
perfect <hi>Stabreim</hi>,
<note id="rn17" corresp="n17" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
such as is native to the spirit of our language.
<pb id="pag133" n="133"/>
This <hi>Stabreim,</hi> moreover,
would be especially appropriate by reason of the position which it
gives to "<hi>Tichtkunst</hi>" (Poetry): as the last member of the
'rhyme,' this word would first decide that rhyme; since two
alliterative words are only raised to a perfect <hi>Stabreim</hi> by
the advent or begettal of the third; so that without this third
member the earlier pair are merely accidental, being first shown as
necessary factors by the presence of the third,—as man and
wife are first shown in their true and necessary interdependence by
the child which they beget.
<note id="rn18" corresp="n18" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>But just as the effective operation of this
rhyme works backward from the close to the commencement, so does it
also press onward with no less necessity in the reverse direction:
the beginning members, truly, gain their first significance as
rhyme by the advent of the closing member,
<pb id="pag134" n="134"/>
but the closing member
is not so much as conceivable without the earlier pair. Thus the
Poetic art can absolutely not create the genuine art-work—and
this is only such an one as is brought to direct physical
manifestment—without those arts to which the physical show
belongs directly. Thought, that mere phantom of reality, is
formless by itself; and only when it retraces the road on which it
rose to birth, can it attain artistic perceptibility. In the Poetic
art, the purpose of all Art comes first to consciousness: but the
other arts contain within themselves the unconscious Necessity that
forms this purpose. The art of Poetry is the creative process by
which the Art-work steps into life: but out of Nothing, only the
god of the Israelites can make some-thing,—the Poet must have
that Something; and that something is the whole artistic man, who
proclaims in the arts of Dance and Tone the physical longing become
a longing of the soul, which through its force first generates the
poetic purpose and finds in that its absolution, in its attainment
its own appeasing.</p>

<p>Wheresoever <hi>the Folk</hi> made
poetry,—and only by the Folk, or in the footsteps of the
Folk, can poetry be really made,—there did the Poetic purpose
rise to life alone upon the shoulders of the arts of Dance and
Tone, as the head of the full-fledged human being. The Lyrics of
Orpheus would never have been able to turn the savage beasts to
silent, placid adoration, if the singer had but given them forsooth
some dumb and printed verse to read: their ears must be enthralled
by the sonorous notes that came straight from the heart, their
carrion-spying eyes be tamed by the proud and graceful movements of
the body,—in <hi>such a way</hi> that they should recognise
instinctively in this whole man no longer a mere object for their
maw, no mere objective for their feeding-, but for their hearing-
and their seeing-powers,—before they could be attuned to duly
listen to his moral sentences.</p>

<p>Neither was the true <hi>Folk-epic</hi> by any
means a mere recited poem: the songs of Homer, such as we now
possess them, have issued from the critical siftings and compilings
<pb id="pag135" n="135"/>
of a time in which the genuine Epos had long since ceased to live.
When Solon made his laws and Pisistratus introduced his political
regime, men searched among the ruins of the already fallen Epos of
the Folk and pieced the gathered heap together for reading
service,—much as in the Hohenstaufen times they did with the
fragments of the lost <hi>Nibelungen-lieder</hi>. But before these
epic songs became the object of such literary care, they had
flourished mid the Folk, eked out by voice and gesture, as a bodily
enacted Art-work; as it were, a fixed and crystallised blend of
lyric song and dance, with predominant lingering on portrayal of
the action and reproduction of the heroic dialogue. These
epic-lyrical performances form the unmistakable middle stage
between the genuine older Lyric and Tragedy, the normal point of
transition from the one to the other.</p>

<p>Tragedy was therefore the entry of the Art-work
of the Folk upon the public arena of political life; and we may
take its appearance as an excellent touchstone for the difference
in procedure between the <hi>Art-creating</hi> of the Folk and the
mere literary-historical <hi>Making</hi> of the so-called cultured
art-world. At the very time when live-born Epos became the object
of the critical dilettantism of the court of Pisistratus, it had
already shed its blossoms in the People's life—yet not
because the Folk had lost its true afflatus, but since it was
already able to surpass the old, and from unstanchable artistic
sources to build the less perfect art-work up, until it became the
more perfect. For while those pedants and professors in the
Prince's castle were labouring at the construction of a
<hi>literary Homer</hi>, pampering their own unproductivity with
their marvel at their wisdom, by aid of which they yet could only
understand the thing that long had passed from
life,—<hi>Thespis</hi> had already slid his car to Athens, had
set it up beside the palace walls, dressed out his <hi>stage</hi>
and, stepping from the chorus of the Folk, had <hi>trodden</hi> its
planks; <hi>no longer did he shadow forth</hi> the deeds of heroes,
as in the Epos, but <hi>in these heroes' guise enacted them</hi>.</p>

<p>With the Folk, all is reality and deed; it <hi>does</hi>, and then
<pb id="pag136" n="136"/>
rejoices in the thought of its own doing.
Thus the blithe Folk of Athens, enflamed by persecution, hunted out
from court and city the melancholy sons of Pisistratus; and then
bethought it how, by this its deed, it had become a free and
independent people. Thus it raised the platform of its stage, and
decked itself with tragic masks and raiment of some god or hero, in
order itself to be a god or hero: and <hi>Tragedy</hi> was born;
whose fruits it tasted with the blissful sense of its own creative
force, but whose metaphysical basis it handed, all regardless, to
the brain-racking speculation of the dramaturgists of our modern
court-theatres.</p>

<p>Tragedy flourished for just so long as it was
inspired by the spirit of the Folk, and as this spirit was a
veritably popular, <hi>i.e.</hi> a <hi>communal</hi> one. When the
national brotherhood of the Folk was shivered into fragments, when
the common bond of its Religion and primeval Customs was pierced
and severed by the sophist needles of the egoistic spirit of
Athenian self-dissection,—then the Folk's art-work also
ceased: then did the professors and the doctors of the literary
guilds take heritage of the ruins of the fallen edifice, and delved
among its beams and stones; to pry, to ponder, and to re-arrange
its members. With Aristophanian laughter, the Folk relinquished to
these learned insects the refuse of its meal, threw Art upon one
side for two millennia, and fashioned of its innermost necessity
the history of the world; the while those scholars cobbled up their
tiresome history of Literature, by order of the supreme court of
Alexander.</p>

<p>The career of Poetry, since the breaking-up of
Tragedy, and since her own departure from community with mimetic
Dance and Tone, can be easily enough surveyed,—despite the
monstrous claims which she has raised. The lonely art of
Poetry—prophesied no more
<note id="rn19" corresp="n19" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>;
she no longer
<pb id="pag137" n="137"/>
showed, but only <hi>described</hi>; she merely played the
go-between, but gave naught from herself; she pieced together what
true seers had uttered, but without the living bond of unity; she
suggested, without satisfying her own suggestions; she urged to
life, without herself attaining life; she gave the catalogue of a
picture-gallery, but not the paintings. The wintry stem of Speech,
stripped of its summer wreath of sounding leaves, shrank to the
withered, toneless signs of <hi>Writing</hi>: instead of to the Ear,
it dumbly now addressed the <hi>Eye</hi>; the poet's strain became a
<hi>written dialect</hi>;— the poet's breath the <hi>penman's
scrawl</hi>.</p>

<p>There sate she then, the lonely, sullen sister,
behind her reeking lamp in the gloom of her silent chamber,—a
female <hi>Faust</hi>, who, across the dust and mildew of her books,
from out the uncontenting warp and woof of Thought, from off the
everlasting rack of fancies and of theories, yearned to step forth
into actual life; with flesh and bone, and spick and span, to stand
and go mid real men, a genuine human being. Alas! the poor sister
had cast away her flesh and bone in over-pensive thoughtlessness; a
disembodied soul, she could only now <hi>describe</hi> that which she
lacked, as she watched it from her gloomy chamber, through the shut
lattice of her thought, living and stirring its limbs amid the dear
but distant world of Sense; she could only picture, ever picture,
the beloved of her youth: "so looked his face, so swayed his limbs,
so glanced his eye, so rang the music of his voice." But all this
picturing and describing, however deftly she attempted to raise it
to a special art, how ingeniously soever she laboured to fashion it
by forms of speech and writing, for Art's consoling
recompense,—it still was but a vain, superfluous labour, the
stilling of a need which only sprang from a failing that her own
caprice had bred; it was nothing but the indigent wealth of
alphabetical signs, distasteful in themselves, of some poor
mute.</p>

<p>The sound and sturdy man, who stands before us clad in panoply
of actual body, describes not what he wills and whom he loves; but
<hi>wills</hi> and <hi>loves</hi>, and imparts to us by
<pb id="pag138" n="138"/>
his artistic organs the joy of his own willing and his loving.
This he does with highest measure of directness in the enacted
Drama. But it is only to the straining for a shadowy substitute, an
artificially objective method of description,—on which the
art of Poetry, now loosed from all substantiality, must exercise
her utmost powers of detail,—that we have to thank this
million-membered mass of ponderous tomes, by which she still, at
bottom, can only trumpet forth her utter helplessness. This whole
impassable waste of stored-up literature—despite its million
phrases and centuries of verse and prose, without once coming to
the living Word—is nothing but the toilsome stammering of
aphasia-smitten Thought, in its struggle for transmutation into
natural articulate utterance.</p>

<p>This Thought, the highest and most conditioned
faculty of artistic man, had cut itself adrift from fair warm Life,
whose yearning had begotten and sustained it, as from a hemming,
fettering bond that clogged its own unbounded freedom:—so
deemed the Christian yearning, and believed that it must break away
from physical man, to spread in heaven's boundless æther to freest
waywardness. But this very severance was to teach that thought and
this desire how inseparable they were from human nature's being:
how high soever they might soar into the air, they still could do
this in the form of bodily man alone. In sooth, they could not take
the carcase with them, bound as it was, by laws of gravitation; but
they managed to abstract a vapoury emanation, which instinctively
took on again the form and bearing of the human body. Thus hovered
in the air the poet's Thought, like a human-outlined cloud that
spread its shadow over actual, bodily earth-life, to which it
evermore looked down; and into which it needs must long to shed
itself; just as from earth alone it sucked its steaming vapours.
The natural cloud dissolves itself, in giving back to earth the
conditions of its being: as fruitful rain it sinks upon the
meadows, thrusts deep into the thirsty soil, and steeps the panting
seeds of plants, which open then their rich luxuriance to the
sunlight,—to
<pb id="pag139" n="139"/>
that light which had erstwhile drawn the
lowering cloud from out the fields. So should the Poet's thought
once more impregnate Life; no longer spread its idle canopy of
cloud twixt Life and Light.</p>

<p>What Poetry perceived from that high seat, was
after all but Life: the higher did she raise herself; the more
panoramic became her view; but the wider the connection in which
she was now enabled to grasp the parts, the livelier arose in her
the longing to fathom the depths of this great whole. Thus Poetry
turned to <hi>Science</hi>, to <hi>Philosophy</hi>. To the struggle for
a deeper knowledge of Nature and of Man, we stand indebted for that
copious store of literature whose kernel is the poetic musing
(<hi>gedankenhaftes Dichten</hi>) which speaks to us in Human- and in
Natural- History, and in Philosophy. The livelier do these sciences
evince the longing for a genuine portrayal of the known, so much
the nearer do they approach once more the artist's poetry; and the
highest skill in picturing to the senses the phenomena of the
universe, must be ascribed to the noble works of this department of
literature. But the deepest and most universal science can, at the
last, know nothing else but Life itself; and the substance and the
sense of Life are naught but Man and Nature. Science, therefore,
can only gain her perfect confirmation in the work of Art; in
<hi>that work</hi> which takes both Man and Nature—in so far as
the latter attains her consciousness in Man—and shows them
forth directly. Thus the consummation of Knowledge is its
redemption into Poetry; into that poetic art, however, which
marches hand in hand with her sister arts towards the perfect
Artwork;—and this artwork is none other than the
<hi>Drama</hi>.</p>

<p>Drama is only conceivable as the fullest
expression of a joint artistic longing to impart; while this
longing, again, can only parley with a common receptivity. Where
either of these factors lacks, the drama is no necessary, but
merely an arbitrary art-product. Without these factors being at
hand in actual Life, the poet, in his striving for immediate
presentation of the life that he had apprehended,
<pb id="pag140" n="140"/>
sought to create
the drama for himself alone; his creation therefore fell, perforce,
a victim to all the faults of arbitrary dealing. Only in exact
measure as his own proceeded from a common impulse, and could
address itself to a common interest, do we find the necessary
conditions of Drama fulfilled—since the time of its recall to
life—and the desire to answer those conditions rewarded with
success.</p>

<p>A common impulse toward dramatic art-work can
only be at hand in those who actually enact the work of art in
common; these, as we take it, are the <hi>fellowships of
players</hi>. At the end of the Middle Ages, we see such fellowships
arising directly from the Folk; while those who later overmastered
them and laid down their laws from the standpoint of absolute
poetic art, have earned themselves the fame of destroying
root-and-branch <hi>that</hi> which the man who sprang directly from
such a fellowship, and made his poems for and with it, had created
for the wonder of all time. From out the inmost, truest nature of
the Folk, <hi>Shakespeare</hi> created (<hi>dichtete</hi>) for his
fellow-players that Drama which seems to us the more astounding as
we see it rise by might of naked speech alone, without all help of
kindred arts. <hi>One</hi> only help it had, the <hi>Phantasy</hi> of
his audience, which turned with active sympathy to greet the
<hi>inspiration</hi> of the poet's comrades. A genius the like of
which was never heard, and a group of favouring chances ne'er
repeated, in common made amends for what they lacked in common.
Their joint creative force, however, was—<hi>Need</hi>; and
where this shows its nature-bidden might, there man can compass
even the impossible to satisfy it: from poverty grows plenty, from
want an overflow; the boorish figure of the homely Folk's-comedian
takes on the bearing of a hero, the raucous clang of daily speech
becomes the sounding music of the soul, the rude scaffolding of
carpet-hung boards becomes a world-stage with all its wealth of
scene. But if we take away this art-work from its frame of
fortunate conditions, if we set it down outside the realm of
fertile force which bore it from the need of
<pb id="pag141" n="141"/>
this one definite
epoch, then do we see with sorrow that the poverty was still but
poverty, the want but want; that Shakespeare was indeed the
mightiest. Poet of all time, but his Artwork was not yet the work
for every age; that not his genius, but the incomplete and merely
will-ing, not yet can-ning, spirit of his age's art had made him
but the <hi>Thespis of the Tragedy of the Future.</hi> In the same
relation as stood the car of Thespis, in the brief time-span of the
flowering of Athenian art, to the stage of Æschylus and Sophocles:
so stands the stage of Shakespeare, in the unmeasured spaces of the
flowering time of universal human art, to the Theatre of the
Future. The deed of the one and only Shakespeare, which made of him
a universal Man, a very god, is yet but the kindred deed of the
solitary Beethoven, who found the language of the Artist-manhood of
the Future: only where these twain Prometheus'—Shakespeare
and Beethoven—shall reach out hands to one another; where the
marble creations of Phidias shall bestir themselves in flesh and
blood; where the painted counterfeit of Nature shall quit its
cribbing frame on the chamberwalls of the egoist, and stretch its
ample breadths on the warm-life-blown framework of the Future
Stage,—there first, in the communion of all his
fellow-artists, will the <hi>Poet</hi> also find redemption.</p>

<p>It was on the long journey from Shakespeare's
stage to the art-work of the future, that the poet was first to
gain full consciousness of his unhappy loneliness. Out of the
fellowship of actors, had the <hi>Dramatic poet</hi> evolved by
natural law; but, in his foolish arrogance, he fain would now exalt
himself above his comrades, and <hi>without</hi> their love, without
their impulse, dictate the drama from behind his pedant desk to
<hi>those</hi> from whose free gift of personation it could gain
alone a natural growth, and to whose joint will he had only power
to point the informing aim. Thus the organs of dramatic art,
reduced to slavish drudgery, grew dumb before the poet, who desired
not merely now to <hi>utter</hi>, but to <hi>dominate</hi> the artistic
impulse. As the virtuoso presses or releases at his will the pianoforte's
<pb id="pag142" n="142"/>
keys, so would the poet play upon the automaton troupe
of actors; as on an instrument of wood and steel erected to display
his own particular dexterity, and from which men should expect to
hear no other thing but <hi>him</hi> the playing marvel. But the keys
of the instrument made <hi>their own</hi> rejoinder to the ambitious
egoist: the harder he hammered, in his gymnastic frenzy, the more
they stuck and clattered.</p>

<p>Goethe once reckoned up but four weeks of pure
happiness in all his well-filled life: his most unhappy years he
made no special count of; but we know them:—they were those
in which he sought to tune that jangling instrument for his use.
This man of might was longing to take refuge from the soundless
desert of art-literature in the living, sonorous art-work. Whose
eye was surer, and wider-ranging in its knowledge of life than his?
What he had seen, described, and pictured, he now would bring to
ear upon that instrument. Great heavens! how deformed and past all
recognition did his views of life confront him, when forced into
this metric music!
<note id="rn20" corresp="n20" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
How must he wrench his tuning-key, how tug and stretch the strings, until at
last they snapped with one great whine!—He was forced to see
that everything is possible in this world, excepting that abstract
spirit should govern men: where this spirit is not
<pb id="pag143" n="143"/>
seeded in the
whole sound man and blossomed out of him, it can never be poured
into him from above. The egoistic poet can make mechanical puppets
move according to his wish, but never turn machines to actual
living men. From the stage where Goethe wished to make his
<hi>men</hi>, he was chased at last by a performing
<hi>poodle</hi>:—as an exemplary warning to all unnatural
government from on high!</p>

<p>Where Goethe shipwrecked, it could but become
"good tone" to look upon oneself as shipwrecked in advance: the
poets still wrote plays, but not for the unpolished stage; simply
for their cream-laid paper. Only the second- or third- rate
poetasters, who here and there adapted their conceits to local
exigence, still busied their brains with the players; but not the
eminent poet, who wrote "out of his own head" and, of all the many
hues of life, found only abstract, Prussian-territorial,
black-on-white respectable. Thus happened the unheard-of: <hi>Dramas
written for dumb reading</hi>!</p>

<p>Did Shakespeare, in his stress for unadulterated
Life, take shelter in the uncouth scaffold of his People's-stage:
so did the egoistic resignation of the modern dramatist content
itself with the bookseller's counter; on which he laid him out for
market half-dead and half-alive. Had the physically embodied drama
cast itself upon the bosom of the Folk: so did the "published"
incarnation of the play lie down beneath the feet of the
art-critic's good pleasure. Accommodating herself to one servile
yoke after the other, Dramatic Poetry swung herself aloft—in
her own idle fancy—to unbound freedom. Those burdensome
conditions under which alone a drama can step into life, she might
now forsooth cast overboard without ado; for only that which wills
to <hi>live</hi>, must hearken to necessity,—but that which
wills to do much <hi>more</hi> than live, namely to lead a
<hi>dead</hi> existence, can make of itself what it pleases: the most
arbitrary is to it the most necessary; and the more her
independence of the terms of physical show, the more freely could
Poetry abandon herself to her own self-will and absolute
self-admiration.</p>

<pb id="pag144" n="144"/>

<p>Thus by the taking up of Drama into literature,
a mere new form was found in which the art of Poetry might indite
herself afresh; only borrowing from Life the accidental stuff which
she might twist and turn to suit her solitary need, her own
self-glorification. All matter and each form were only there to
help her introduce to the best graces of the reader one abstract
thought, the poet's idealised, beloved 'I.' How faithlessly she
forgot, the while, that she had first to thank them all—even
the most complex of her forms —to just this
haughtily-despised material Life! From the Lyric through all the
forms of poetry down to this literary Drama, there is not one which
has not blossomed in <hi>far purer and more noble</hi> shape from the
bodily directness of the People's life. What are all the products
of the seeming spontaneous action of abstract poetic art, exhibited
in language, verse, and expression, compared with the ever
fresh-born beauty, variety, and perfection of the
<hi>Folk's-lyric</hi>, whose teeming riches the <hi>spirit of
research</hi> is toiling now at last to drag from under the
rubbish-heap of ages?</p>

<p>But these Folk-ballads are not so much as
thinkable without their twin-bred melodies: and what was not only
said but also <hi>sung</hi>, was part and parcel of Life's immediate
utterance. Who speaks and sings, at the same time ex presses his
feelings by <hi>gestures</hi> and by <hi>motion</hi>—at least
whoever does this from sheer instinct, like the <hi>Folk</hi>,—though
not the tutored foundling of our song-professors.—Where
such an art still flourishes, it finds of itself a constant
train of fresh turns of expression, fresh forms of composition
("<hi>Dichtung</hi>"); and the Athenians teach us unmistakably, how,
in the progress of this self-unfolding, the highest artwork,
Tragedy, could come to birth.—Opposed to this, the art of
Poetry must ever stay unfruitful when she turns her back on Life;
all her shaping then can never be aught else but that of Fashion,
that of wilful combination,—not invention. Unfortunate in
her every rub with Matter, she therefore turns for ever back to
<hi>thought</hi>: that restless mill-wheel of the Wish, the ever
craving, ever unstilled
<pb id="pag145" n="145"/>
Wish which—thrusting off its only
possible assuagement, in the <hi>world of sense</hi>—must only
wish <hi>itself</hi> eternally, eternally consume <hi>itself</hi>.</p>

<p>The Literary Drama can only redeem itself from
this state of misery by becoming the actual <hi>living</hi> Drama.
The path of that redemption has been repeatedly entered, and even
in our latter days,—by many an one from honest yearning, but
alas I by the majority for no other reason than that the Theatre
had imperceptibly become a more remunerative market than the
counter of the Publisher.</p>

<milestone unit="section"/>

<p>The judgment
<note id="rn21" corresp="n21" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
of the <hi>public</hi>, in howsoever great a social disfigurement it may
show itself; holds ever by the direct and physical reality; nay,
the mutual give-and-take of the world of sense (<hi>die
Wechselwirkung des Sinnlichen</hi>) makes up, at bottom, what we
call "publicity."
<note id="rn22" corresp="n21" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
Had the impotent conceit of Poetry withdrawn her from this immediate interaction: so, as
regards the Drama, had the <hi>players</hi> seized it for their own
advantage. Most rightly does the public aspect
<note id="rn23" corresp="n21" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
of the stage belong <hi>de facto</hi> to the
performing fellowship alone; but where everything was selfishly
dissundering,—like the poet from this fellowship, to which in
the natural order of affairs he immediately belonged,—there
did the fellowship itself cut through the common band which alone
had made it an <hi>artistic</hi> one. Would the poet unconditionally
see <hi>himself</hi> alone upon the stage,—did he thus dispute
in advance the artistic value of the fellowship,—so, with far
more natural excuse, did the individual actor break his bonds in
order to unconditionally stamp <hi>himself</hi> as the only current
coin; and herein he was supported by the encouraging plaudits of
the Public, which ever holds by instinct to the sheer and absolute
show.</p>

<p>The art of Comedy became through this the art of
<hi>the Comedian</hi>, a personal virtuosity: <hi>i.e.</hi> that
egoistic form of
<pb id="pag146" n="146"/>
art which exists for its exclusive <hi>self</hi> and
wills but the glory of the absolute personality. The common aim,
through which alone the Drama becomes a work of Art, lay quite
beyond the ken of the individual virtuoso; and that which should
generate the art of comedy from out itself; as a common outcome of
the spirit of communion,—to wit the dramatic
Art-work,—that is entirely neglected by this virtuoso or this
guild of virtuosi, who only seek the special thing that answers to
their personal dexterity, the thing that alone can pay its
tribute to their vanity. Yet hundreds of the <hi>best-skilled</hi>
egoists, though all collected on one spot of earth, cannot fulfil
<hi>that</hi> task which can only be the work of communism
(<hi>Gemeinsamkeit</hi>); at least until they cease to be mere
egoists. But so long as they are this, their ground of common
action—only attainable under <hi>external</hi> pressure—is
that of mutual hate and envy; and our theatre, therefore,
often resembles the battlefield of the two lions, on which we can
discover nothing but their tails, the sole remainder of their
mutual meal off one another.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, where this very <hi>virtuosity of
the performer</hi> makes up the total of the public's notion of
theatric art, as in the generality of the French theatres and even
in the opera-world of Italy, we have at hand a more natural
expression of the bent to artistic exhibition, than where the
'abstract' poet would fain usurp this bent for his own
self-glorification. Experience has often proved that from out that
world of virtuosi, given a true <hi>heart</hi> to beat in unison with
the <hi>artistic</hi> talent, there may come forth a dramatic
performer who by one solitary impersonation
<note id="rn24" corresp="n24" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
shall disclose to us the inmost essence of
dramatic art far more distinctly than a hundred art-dramas <hi>per
se</hi>. Where, on the other hand, dramatic art-poetry would
experiment with living actors, she can only manage in the end to
quite confuse both virtuosi and public; or else, for all her
self-inflation,
<pb id="pag147" n="147"/>
to betake herself to shamefullest subservience. She
either brings but stillborn children into the world,—and
that is the best result of her activity, for then she does no
harm,—or else she inoculates her constitutional disease, of
<hi>willing</hi> without can-ning, like a devastating plague into the
still half-healthy members of the art of comedy. In any case she
needs must follow the coercive laws of the most dependent lack of
self-dependence: in order to attain some semblance of a form, she
must look around for any form that may have sometime emanated from
the life of genuine comedy. This then she almost always borrows, in
our latest times, from the disciples of <hi>Molière</hi>
alone.</p>

<p>With the lively, abstraction-hating people of
France, the art of Comedy—in so far as it was not governed by
the influence of the Court—lived for the most part its own
indigenous life: amid the overpowering hostility to Art of our
general social condition, whatever healthy thing has been able to
evolve from Comedy, since the dying out of the Shakespearian drama,
we owe to the French alone. But even among them—under
pressure of the ruling world-<hi>geist</hi> that kills all common
weal, whose soul is Luxury and Fashion—the true, complete,
Dramatic Art-work could not so much as distantly appear: the only
universal factor of our modern world, the spirit of <hi>usury and
speculation</hi>, has with them also held each germ of true dramatic
art in egoistic severance from its fellow. Art-forms to answer to
this sordid spirit, however, the French dramatic school has found,
without a doubt: with all the unseemliness of their contents, they
evince uncommon skill in making these contents as palatable as may
be; and these forms have this distinctive merit, that they have
actually emanated from the inborn spirit of the <hi>French</hi>
comedian's art, and thus from life itself.</p>

<p>Our German dramatists, in their longing for some
seeming-necessary form wherewith to clothe the arbitrary contents
of their poetic thought, and since they lacked the inborn plastic
gift, set up this needful form in pure caprice; for they seized
upon the Frenchman's 'scheme,'
<pb id="pag148" n="148"/>
without reflecting that this scheme
had sprung from quite another, and a <hi>genuine</hi> Need. But he
who does not act from sheer necessity, may choose where'er he
pleases. Thus our dramatists were not quite satisfied with their
adoption of French forms: the stew still lacked of this or that,—a
pinch of Shakespearian audacity, a spice of Spanish
pathos, and, for a sauce, a remanet of Schiller's ideality or
Iffland's burgher bonhomie. All this is now dished up with unheard
archness, according to the French recipe, and served with
journalistic reminiscences of the latest scandal; the favourite
actor—since the real poet had not learnt how to play his
comedies—provided with the rôle of some fictitious
poet, wherever possible;—with a further slice from here or
there thrown in to suit the special circumstance—: and so we
have the modernest dramatic art-work, the poet who in sooth
<hi>writes down himself, i.e., his palpable poetic
incapacity</hi>.</p>

<p>Enough! of the unexampled squalor of our
<hi>theatric</hi> poetry I with which indeed we here have alone to
do; since we need not draw the special subdivision of <hi>literary
poesy</hi> within our closer ken. For, with our eyes directed toward
the Artwork of the Future, we are seeking out Poetic art where she
is struggling to become a living and immediate art, and this is in
the <hi>Drama</hi>; not where she renounces every claim to this
life-issue, and yet—for all her fill of thought—but
takes the terms of her peculiar manufacture from the hopeless
artistic unfitness of our modern public life. This Literature-poesy
(<hi>die litteraturpoesie</hi>) supplies the only
solace—however sad and impotent!—of the lonely human
being of the Present who longs to taste poetic food. Yet the solace
that she gives is truly but an access of the <hi>longing after
Life</hi>, the longing for the living Artwork; for the urgence of
this longing is her very soul,—where <hi>this</hi> does not
speak out, does not proclaim itself with might and main, there has
the last trace of verity departed from this poesy too. The more
honestly and tumultuously, however, does it throb within her, so
much the more veraciously does she admit her own unsolaceable
plight, and confess the only
<pb id="pag149" n="149"/>
possible assuagement of her longing,
to be <hi>her own self-abrogation, her dissolution into Life, into
the living Art-work of the Future</hi>.</p>

<p>Let us ponder how this fervent, noble longing of
Literary Poesy must one day be responded to; and meanwhile let us
leave our modern Dramatic Poetry to the pompous triumphs of her own
ridiculous vanity!</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="6" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">6. Whilom attempts at re-uniting the three humanistic Arts.</head>

<p>In our general survey of the demeanour of each
of the three humanistic (<hi>rein menschlich</hi>) arts after its
severance from their initial communion, we could not but plainly
see that exactly where the one variety touched on the province of
the next, where the faculty of the second stepped-in to replace the
faculty of the first, there did the first one also find its natural
bounds. Beyond these bounds, it might stretch over from the second
art-variety to the third; and through this third, again, back to
itself, back to its own especial individuality,—but only in
accordance with the natural laws of <hi>Love</hi>, of
<hi>self-offering</hi> for the common good impelled by Love. As Man
by love sinks his whole nature in that of Woman, in order to pass
over through her into a third being, the Child,—and yet finds
but himself again in all the loving trinity, though in this self a
widened, filled, and finished whole: so may each of these
individual arts find its own self again in the perfect, throughly
liberated Artwork—nay, look upon itself as broadened to this
Art-work—so soon as, on the path of genuine love and by
sinking of itself within the kindred arts, it returns upon itself
and finds the guerdon of its love in the perfect work of Art to
which it knows itself expanded. Only that art-variety, however,
which wills the common art-work, reaches therewith the highest fill
of its own particular nature; whereas that art which merely wills
<hi>itself</hi>, its own exclusive fill of
<pb id="pag150" n="150"/>
self; stays empty and
unfree—for all the luxury that it may heap upon its solitary
semblance. But the <hi>Will</hi> to form the common artwork arises in
each branch of art by instinct and unconsciously, so soon as e'er
it touches on its own confines <hi>and gives</hi> itself to the
answering art, not merely strives to take from it. It only stays
<hi>throughout itself</hi>, when it <hi>throughly gives itself
away:</hi> whereas it must fall to its very opposite, if it at last
must only feed upon the other:—"whose bread I eat, his song
I'll sing." But when it gives itself <hi>entirely</hi> to the second,
and stays <hi>entirely</hi> enwrapt therein, it then may pass from
that <hi>entirely</hi> into the third; and thus become once more
<hi>entirely itself</hi> in highest fulness, in the associate
Art-work.</p>

<p>(Of all these arts not one so sorely needed an
espousal with another, as that of <hi>Tone</hi>; for her peculiar
character is that of a fluid nature-element poured out betwixt the
more defined and individualised substances of the two other arts.)
Only through the Rhythm of Dance, or as bearer of the Word, could
she brace her deliquescent being to definite and characteristic
corporeality. But neither of the other arts could bring herself to
plunge, in love without reserve, into the element of Tone: each
drew from it so many bucketsful as seemed expedient for her own
precise and egoistic aims; each took from Tone, but gave not in
return; so that poor Tone, who of her life-need stretched out her
hands in all directions, was forced at last herself to <hi>take</hi>
for very means of maintenance. Thus she engulfed the Word at first,
to make of it what suited best her pleasure: but while she disposed
of this word as her wilful feeling listed, in Catholic music, she
lost its bony framework—so to say—of which, in her
desire to become a human being, she stood in need to bear the
liquid volume of her' blood, and round which she might have
crystallised a sinewy flesh. A new and energetic handling of the
Word, in order to gain shape therefrom, was shown by
<hi>Protestant</hi> church-music; which, in the
"<hi>Passion-music</hi>," pressed on towards an ecclesiastical drama,
wherein the word was no longer a mere shifting vehicle for the
expression of feeling, but girt
<pb id="pag151" n="151"/>
itself to thoughts depicting
Action. In this church-drama, Music, while still retaining her
predominance and building everything else into her own pedestal,
almost compelled Poetry to behave in earnest and like a man towards
her. But coward Poetry appeared to dread this challenge; she deemed
it as well to cast a few neglected morsels to - swell the meal of
this mightily waxing monster, Music, and thus to pacify it; only,
however, to regain the liberty of staying undisturbed within her
own peculiar province, the egoistic sphere of Literature. It is to
this selfish, cowardly bearing of Poetry toward Tone that we stand
indebted for that unnatural abortion the <hi>Oratorio</hi>, which
finally transplanted itself from the church into the concert-hall.
The Oratorio would give itself the airs of Drama; but only
precisely in so far as it might still preserve to <hi>Music</hi> the
unquestioned right of being the chief concern, the only leader of
the drama's 'tone.'</p>

<p>Where Poetry fain would reign in solitude, as in
the spoken Play, she took Music into her menial service, for her
own convenience; as, for instance, for the entertainment of the
audience between the acts, or even for the enhancement of the
effect of certain dumb transactions, such as the irruption of a
cautious burglar, and matters of that sort I Dance did the selfsame
thing, when she leapt proudly on to saddle, and graciously
condescended to allow Music to hold the stirrup. Exactly so did
Tone behave to Poetry in the Oratorio: she merely let her pile the
heap of stones, from which she might erect her building as she
fancied.</p>

<p>But Music at last capped all this ever-swelling
arrogance, by her shameless insolence in the <hi>Opera</hi>. Here she
claimed tribute of the art of Poetry down to its utmost farthing:
it was no longer to merely make her verses, no longer to merely
suggest dramatic characters and sequences, as in the Oratorio, in
order to give her a handle for her own distention,—but it was
to lay down its whole being and all its powers at her feet, to
offer up complete dramatic characters and complex situations, in
short the entire ingredients
<pb id="pag152" n="152"/>
of Drama; in order that she might take
this gift of homage and make of it whatever her fancy listed.</p>

<p>The <hi>Opera</hi>, as the seeming point of
reunion of all the three related arts, has become the meeting-place
of these sisters' most self-seeking efforts. Undoubtedly Tone
claims for herself the supreme right of legislation therein; nay,
it is solely to her struggle—though led by
egoism—towards the genuine artwork of the Drama, that we owe
the Opera at all. But in degree as Poetry and Dance were bid to be
her simple slaves, there rose amid <hi>their</hi> egoistic ranks a
growing spirit of rebellion against their domineering sister. The
arts of Dance and Poetry had taken a personal lease of Drama <hi>in
their own way</hi>: the spectacular Play and the pantomimic Ballet
were the two territories between which Opera now deployed her
troops, taking from each whatever she deemed indispensable for the
self-glorification of Music. Play and Ballet, however, were well
aware of her aggressive self-sufficiency: they only lent themselves
to their sister against their will, and in any case with the mental
reservation that on the first favourable opportunity they each
would clear themselves an exclusive field. So Poetry leaves behind
her feeling and her pathos, the only fitting wear for Opera, and
throws her net of modern Intrigue around her sister Music; who,
without being able to get a proper hold of it, must willy-nilly
twist and turn the empty cobweb, which none but the nimble
play-sempstress herself can plait into a tissue: and there she
chirps and twitters, as in the French confectionary-operas, until
at last her peevish breath gives out, and sister Prose steps in to
fill the stage. Dance, on the other hand, has only to espy some
breach in the breath-taking of the tyrannising songstress, some
chilling of the lava-stream of musical emotion,—and in an
instant she flings her legs astride the boards; trounces sister
Music off the scene, down to the solitary confinement of the
orchestra; and spins, and whirls, and runs around, until the public
can no longer see the wood for wealth of leaves, <hi>i.e.</hi> the
opera for the crowd of legs.</p>

<pb id="pag153" n="153"/>

<p>Thus Opera becomes the mutual compact of the
egoism of the three related arts. To rescue her supremacy, Tone
contracts with Dance for so many quarters-of-an-hour which shall
belong to the latter <hi>alone</hi>: during this period the chalk
upon the shoe-soles shall trace the regulations of the stage, and
music shall be made according to the system of the <hi>leg-,</hi> and
not the <hi>tone-,</hi> vibrations; item, that the singers shall be
expressly forbidden to indulge in any sort of graceful bodily
motion,—this is to be the exclusive property of the dancer,
whereas the singer is to be pledged to complete abstention from any
fancy for mimetic gestures, a restriction which will have the
additional advantage of conserving his voice. With Poetry Tone
settles, to the former's highest satisfaction, that she will not
employ her in the slightest on the stage; nay, will as far as
possible not even articulate her words and verses, and will
relegate her instead to the printed text-book, necessarily to be
read <hi>after</hi> the performance, in Literature's decorous garb of
black and white. Thus, then, is the noble bond concluded, each art
again itself; and between the dancing legs and written book, Music
once more floats gaily on through all the length and breadth of her
desire.—<hi>This is modern Freedom in the faithful counterfeit
of Art!</hi></p>

<p>Yet after such a shameful compact the art of
Tone, however brilliantly she seem to reign in Opera, must needs be
deeply conscious of her humiliating <hi>dependence</hi>. Her
life-breath is the heart's affection; and if this also be centred
on itself and its own contentment, then not only is it as much in
need of the wherewithal of this contentment as are the yearnings of
the senses and the understanding, but it feels its need of that
object far more piercingly and vividly than they. The keenness of
this need gives to the heart its courage of self-sacrifice; and
just as Beethoven has spoken out this courage in a valiant deed, so
have tone-poets like <hi>Gluck</hi> and <hi>Mozart</hi> expressed by
glorious deeds of love the joy with which the lover sinks himself
within his object; ceasing to be himself, but becoming in reward an
infinitely greater thing. Wherever the edifice
<pb id="pag154" n="154"/>
of Opera—though originally erected for the egoistic manifestoes
of segregated arts—betrayed within itself the trace of a
condition for the full absorption of Music into Poetry, these
masters have accomplished the redemption of their art into the
conjoint artwork. But the baleful influence of the ruling evil
plight explains to us the utter isolation of such radiant deeds,
together with the isolation of the very tone-poets who fulfilled
them. That which was possible to the unit under certain fortunate,
but almost purely accidental circumstances, is very far indeed from
forming a law for the great mass of phenomena; and in the latter we
can only recognise the distracted, egoistic oscillations of
Caprice; whose methods indeed are those of all mere copying, since
it cannot originate anything of itself. Gluck and Mozart, together
with the scanty handful of kindred tone-poets,
<note id="rn25" corresp="n25" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
serve us only as load-stars on the midnight sea of
operatic music, to point the way to the pure artistic possibility
of the ascension of the richest music into a still richer dramatic
poetry, namely into <hi>that</hi> Poetic art which by this free
surrender of Music to her shall first become an all-effectual
Dramatic art. How impossible is the perfect artwork amid the ruling
state of things, is proved by the very fact that, after Gluck and
Mozart had disclosed the highest capabilities of Music, these deeds
have yet remained without the smallest influence on our actual
modern art's demeanour,—that the sparks which flew from their
genius have only hovered before our art-world like sputtering
fireworks, but have been absolutely unable to incend the fire which
must have caught its flame from them, had the fuel for it been to
hand.</p>

<p>But even the deeds of Gluck and Mozart were but
one-sided deeds, <hi>i.e.</hi> they revealed the capability and the
instinctive will of Music without their being understood by her
sister arts, without the latter contributing towards those deeds
from a like-felt genuine impulse to be absorbed
<pb id="pag155" n="155"/>
in one another, and
in fact without any response from their side. Only, however, from a
like and common impulse of all three sister arts, can their
redemption into the true Art-work, and thus this artwork itself;
become a possibility. When at last the pride of all three arts in
their own self-sufficiency shall break to pieces, and pass over
into love for one another; when at last each art can only love
itself when mirrored in the others; when at last they cease to be
dissevered arts,—then will they all have power to create the
perfect artwork; aye, and their own desistence, in this sense, is
already of itself this Art-work, their death immediately its
life.</p>

<p>Thus will the Drama of the Future rise up of
itself; when nor Comedy, nor Opera, nor Pantomime, can any longer
live; when the conditions which allowed their origin and sustained
their unnatural life, shall have been entirely upheaved. These
conditions can only be upheaved by the advent of those fresh
conditions which breed from out themselves the Art-work of the
Future. The latter, however, cannot arise alone, but only in the
fullest harmony with the conditions of our whole Life. Only when
the ruling religion of Egoism, which has split the entire domain of
Art into crippled, self-seeking art-tendencies and art-varieties,
shall have been mercilessly dislodged and torn up root and branch
from every moment of the life of man, can the <hi>new religion</hi>
step forth of itself to life; the religion which includes within
itself the conditions of the Artwork of the Future.</p>

<milestone unit="section"/>

<p>Before we turn with straining eyes to the
prefigurement of this Artwork—such as we have to win for
ourselves from the utter disowning of our present
art-surroundings—it is necessary, however, to cast a glance
upon the nature of the so-called <hi>plastic arts</hi>.</p>
</div>
</div>

<div type="chapter" n="3" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag156"/>

<head rend="up">III. Man Shaping Art from Nature's Stuffs.</head>

<note id="rn26" corresp="n26" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>

<div type="section" n="1" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">1. Architectural Art.</head>

<p><hi rend="up">As</hi> Man becomes the subject and the matter of his
own artistic treatment, in the first and highest reference, so does
he extend his longing for artistic portrayal to the objects of
surrounding, allied, ministering <hi>Nature</hi>. Exactly in
proportion as Man knows how to grasp the reference of Nature to
<hi>himself</hi> in his portrayal of her, and to set himself in the
centre of his survey of the world as the conscience-woken and the
conscience-wakener,
<note id="rn27" corresp="n27" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
is he able to picture
Nature to himself <hi>artistically;</hi> and thereafter to
<hi>impart</hi> her to the only beings for whom this portrait can be
destined—to wit, to Men. In this he proceeds from a like,
though not an equally imperative, impulse to that which urged the
art-work whose subject and whose stuff he was himself. But only the
man who has already brought forth from and in himself the directly
human artwork, and can thus both comprehend and impart himself
artistically, is also able to represent <hi>Nature</hi> to
<pb id="pag157" n="157"/>
himself artistically; not the unawakened thrall of Nature. The
<hi>Asiatic</hi> peoples, and even the <hi>Egyptians</hi>—to whom
Nature only showed herself as a self-willed, elementary, or brutish
force, to which Man stood in the relation either of unconditioned
suffering or of grovelling self-debasement—set Nature up
<hi>above</hi> them as the object of their adoration, the graven
symbol of their worship; without, for that very reason, being able
to exalt themselves to free, artistic consciousness. Here, then,
Man could never form the subject of his own artistic exposition;
but seeing that, whether he willed or no, he could only conceive
all personality—such as the personal
nature-force—according to a human standard, he made over his
own image, in sooth in horrible distortion, to those objects of
Nature which he fain would portray.</p>

<p>It was reserved for the <hi>Hellenes</hi> to first
evolve the humanistic (<hi>rein menschliche</hi>) art-work in their
own person, and from that to expand it to the exposition of Nature.
But they could not be ripe for this human art-work itself until
they had conquered Nature, in the sense in which she presented
herself to the Asiatic peoples, and had so far set Man on Nature's
pinnacle that they conceived those personal nature-forces as
clothed with the perfect shape of human beauty, as Gods that bore
themselves as men. First when Zeus breathed life throughout the
world from his Olympian height, when Aphrodite rose from out the
sea-foam, and Apollo proclaimed the spirit and the form of his own
being as the law of beauteous human life, did the uncouth
nature-deities of Asia vanish with their idols, and fair artistic
Man, awakening to self-consciousness, apply the laws of human
beauty to his conception and his portraiture of Nature.</p>

<p>Before the <hi>God's-oak</hi> at Dodona the
Pelasgian ("<hi>Ur-hellene</hi>") bowed himself in waiting for the
oracle; beneath the shady thatch of leaves, and circled by the
verdant pillars of the <hi>God's-grove</hi>, the <hi>Orpheist</hi>
raised his voice; but under the fair-ceiled roof, and amid the
symmetry of marble columns of the <hi>God's-temple</hi>, the art-glad
<hi>Lyrist</hi> led the mazes of his dance, to strains of sounding
hymns,—and
<pb id="pag158" n="158"/>
in the <hi>Theatre</hi>, which reared itself around
the God's-altar—as its central point—on the one hand
to the message-giving stage, on the other to the ample rows where
sat the message-craving audience, the <hi>Tragedian</hi> brought to
birth the living work of consummated Art.</p>

<p>Thus did <hi>artistic</hi> Man, of his longing for
<hi>artistic commune with himself</hi> rule Nature to his own
<hi>artistic</hi> needs and bid her serve his highest purpose. Thus
did the Lyrist and Tragedian command the <hi>Architect</hi> to build
the artistic edifice which should answer to their art in worthy
manner.</p>

<p>The foremost, natural need urged men to build
them homes and strongholds: but in that land and mid that folk from
which our whole Art originates, it was not this purely physical
need, but the need of men engaged in artistic presentation of
themselves, that was destined to convert the Handicraft of building
into a genuine Art. Not the royal dwellings of Theseus and
Agamemnon, not the rude rock-built walls of Pelasgian citadels,
have reached our physical or even our mental field of
vision,—but the <hi>Temples</hi> of the Gods, the <hi>Tragic
theatres</hi> of the Folk. Every relic that has come to us of
architectural art applied to objects outside <hi>these</hi>, dates
after the decline of Tragedy, <hi>i.e.</hi> of the completed Grecian
Art, and is essentially of Asiatic origin.</p>

<p>As the Asiatic, that perpetual thrall of Nature,
could only show the majesty of man in the <hi>one</hi> and absolute
ruling despot, so did he heap all pomp of circumstance around this
"God on earth" alone: and all this heaping-up was merely reckoned
for the satisfaction of that egoistic sensuous longing which, even
to the pitch of brutish fury, but wills <hi>itself</hi> but loves
<hi>itself</hi> to madness, and in such never-sated appetite piles
object upon object, mass on mass, in order to attain a final
satisfaction of its prodigiously developed physicality.
<hi>Luxury</hi>, therefore, is the root of all the Asiatic
architecture: its monstrous, soulless sense-confounding outcrop we
witness in the city-seeming palaces of Asiatic despots.</p>

<p>Sweet repose and noble charm breathe on us, on the 
<pb id="pag159" n="159"/>
other hand, from the radiant aspect of Hellenic temples; in
which we recognise the form of Nature, but spiritualised by human
Art. The broadening of the temple of the Gods to the assembled
People's show-place of the highest human art, was <hi>the
Theatre</hi>. Herein Art, and verily that common-nurtured art which
communed with a commonwealth, was a law and standard to herself;
proceeding by her own Necessity and answering that necessity to the
fullest,—nay, bringing forth <hi>therefrom</hi> the boldest and
most marvellous creations.</p>

<p>Meanwhile the dwellings of the individual units
but answered to the need from which they sprang. Originally
carpentered of wooden logs, and fitted—like the pavilion of
Achilles—in accordance with the simplest laws of usefulness:
in the heyday of Hellenic culture they were indeed adorned with
walls of polished stone, and duly broadened out to give free space
for hospitality; but they never stretched themselves beyond the
natural needs of private persons, and neither in nor by them did
the individual seek to satisfy a longing, which he found appeased
in noblest fashion in the common polity; from which alone, at
bottom, it can spring.</p>

<p>The attitude of Architecture was entirely
reversed, when the common bonds of public life dissolved, and the
self-indulgence of the unit laid down her laws. When the private
person no longer sacrificed to gods in common, to <hi>Zeus</hi> and
to <hi>Apollo</hi>, but solely to the lonely bliss-purveyor
<hi>Plutus</hi>, the God of Riches,—when each would be for his
particular self what he had erstwhile only been amid the general
community,—then did he take the architect also into his pay,
and bade him build a temple for his idol, Egoism. But the slender
temple of chaste Athene sufficed not the rich egoist for his
private pleasures: his household goddess was Voluptuousness, with
her all-devouring, never sated maw. To her must Asiatic piles be
reared, for her consumption; and only bizarre curves and flourishes
could seek to stanch her whim. Thus we see the despotism of Asia
stretching out its beauty-crushing arms into the very
<pb id="pag160" n="160"/>
heart of Europe—as though in vengeance for Alexander's
conquest—and exercising its might to such effect beneath the
imperial rule of Rome, that Beauty, having fled completely from the
living conscience of mankind, could now be only conned from memory
of the past.</p>

<p>The most prosperous centuries of the Roman era
present us, therefore, with the repugnant spectacle of pomp swelled
up to a monstrosity in the palaces of the Emperors and richer
classes, and <hi>Utilitarianism</hi>—however colossal in
its proportions —stalking naked through the public
buildings.</p>

<p><hi>Public life</hi>, having sunk to a mere
general expression of the universal egoism, had no longer any care
for the beautiful; it now knew naught but <hi>practical utility</hi>.
The beautiful had withdrawn in favour of the absolutely useful; for
the delight in <hi>man</hi> had contracted to the exclusive lust of
the belly. To speak plainly, it is to the satisfaction of the belly
that all this public utilitarianism
<note id="rn28" corresp="n28" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
leads back, especially in our modern time with its boasted practical
inventions, this time which—characteristically enough!—the
more it invents, in this sense, the less is able to
really fill the stomachs of the hungering classes. But where men
had forgotten that the truly beautiful is likewise the highest
expression of the useful, in so much as it can only manifest itself
in life when the needs of life are secured a natural satisfaction,
and not made harder, or interdicted, by useless prescripts of
utility,—where the public care was concentrated on the
catering for food and drink, and the utmost stilling of this care
proclaimed itself as the vital condition of the rule of Cæsars and
of plutocrats alike; and that in such gigantic measure as during
the Roman mastery of the world:—there arose those astounding
causeways and aqueducts 
<pb id="pag161" n="161"/>
which we seek to-day to rival by our
railway-tracks; there did Nature become a <hi>milch-cow</hi>, and
Architecture a <hi>milking-pail</hi>; the wanton splendour of the
rich lived on the skilful skimming of the cream from off the
gathered milk, which then was taken, blue and watery, along those
aqueducts to the beloved rabble.</p>

<p>Yet with the Romans this utilitarian toil and
moil, this ostentation, put on imposing forms: the radiant world of
Greece lay not so far from them but that, for all their practical
stolidity and all their Asiatic gaudiness, they still could cast an
ogling glance towards her; so that our eyes discern, and rightly,
outspread o'er all the buildings of the Roman world a majestic
charm which almost seems to us a beauty. But whatever has accrued
to <hi>us</hi> from that same world, across the steeples of the
Middle Ages, lacks both the charm of beauty and of majesty; for
where we still may trace a gloomy shade of undelighting
<hi>majesty</hi>, as in the colossal domes of our cathedrals, we see
alas! no longer any drop of <hi>beauty</hi>. The genuine temples of
our modern religion, the buildings of the Bourse, are certainly
most ingenuously propped by <hi>Grecian columns</hi>; Greek tympana
invite us to our railroad journeys; and from under the Athenian
Parthenon the military guard is marched towards us, on its
'relief,'—but however elevating these exceptions may be, they
are still but mere exceptions, and the rule of our utilitarian
architecture is desperately vile and trivial. Let the modern Art of
Building bring forth the gracefullest and most imposing edifice she
can, she still can never keep from sight her shameful want of
independence: for our public, as our private, needs are of such a
kind that, in order to supply them, Architecture can never produce,
but forever merely copy, merely piece together. Only a real
<hi>need</hi> makes man inventive: whilst the real need of our
present era asserts itself in the language of the rankest
utilitarianism; therefore it can only get its answer from
mechanical contrivances, and not from Art's creations. That which
lies beyond this actual need, however, is with us the need of
<hi>Luxury</hi>, of the
<pb id="pag162" n="162"/>
un-needful; and it is only by the superfluous
and un-needful that Architecture can serve it—<hi>i.e</hi>. she
<hi>reproduces</hi> the buildings which earlier epochs had produced
from their felt need of beauty; she pieces together the individual
details of these works, according to her wanton fancy; out of a
restless longing for alteration, she stitches every national style
of building throughout the world into her motley, disconnected
botches; in short—she follows the caprice of Fashion, whose
frivolous laws she needs must make her own because she nowhere
hears the call of inner, beautiful Necessity.</p>

<p>Architecture has thus to share in all the
humbling destiny of the divided humanistic arts; insomuch as she
can only be incited to a true formative process by the need of men
who manifest, or long to manifest, their inborn beauty. In step
with the withering of Grecian Tragedy, <hi>her</hi> fall began; that
is, her own peculiar productive power commenced to weaken. The most
lavish of the monuments which she was forced to rear to the glory
of the colossal egoism of later times—aye, even of that of
the Christian faith—seem, when set beside the lofty
simplicity and pregnant meaning of Grecian buildings at the
flowering-time of Tragedy, like the rank, luxuriant parasites of
some midnight dream, against the radiant progeny of the cleansing,
all-enlivening light of day.</p>

<p>Only together with the redemption of the
egoistically severed humanistic arts into the collective Art-work
of the Future, with the redemption of <hi>utilitarian man</hi>
himself into the <hi>artistic manhood</hi> of the Future, will
Architecture also be redeemed from the bond of serfdom, from the
curse of barrenness, into the freest, inexhaustible fertility of
art-resource.</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="2" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">2. The Art of Sculpture.</head>

<p>Asiatics and Egyptians, in their representation
of the nature-forces that governed them, had passed from the
<pb id="pag163" n="163"/>
delineation of the forms of beasts to that of the <hi>human</hi>
figure itself; under which, although in immoderate proportions and
disfigured by repugnant symbolism, they now sought to picture to
themselves those forces. They had no wish to copy <hi>man</hi>; but
since man, at bottom, can only conceive the highest in his own
generic form, they involuntarily transferred the human
stature—distorted for this very reason—to the objects
of their nature-worship.</p>

<p>In this sense, and from a similar impulse, we
also see the oldest Hellenic races portraying their gods,
<hi>i.e.</hi>, their deified embodiments of nature-forces, under the
human shapes they hewed from wood or stone for objects of their
worship. The religious need for objectification of invisible,
adored or dreaded godlike powers, was answered by the oldest
Sculptural art through the shaping of natural substances to imitate
the <hi>human form</hi>; just as Architecture answered an immediate
human need by the fitting and framing of natural.' stuffs' into
what we may call a condensation of <hi>Nature's</hi> features to suit
the special aim: as, for instance, we may recognise in the
<hi>God's-temple</hi> the condensed presentment of the
<hi>God's-grove</hi>. Now we have seen that if the man whose purpose
informed the builder's art had no thought for aught but the
immediate practical use, then this art could only stay a handiwork,
or return thereto; while if, on the contrary, he were an
<hi>artist</hi> and set himself in the forefront of this purpose, as
the man who had already become the subject and the matter of his
own artistic treatment, he also raised the building-handicraft to
Art. In like manner, so long as Man felt bound in brutish slavery
to Nature, he might indeed conceive the objects of his
nature-worship under the guise of a human form, but could only
shape their plastic images according to the standard by which he
measured <hi>himself</hi> namely in the garb and with the attributes
of that Nature on whom he felt so brutishly dependent. But in
measure as he raised <hi>himself</hi> his own uncrippled body, and
his inborn human faculties, to the stuff and purport of his
artistic handling, he gained the power to also show his
<pb id="pag164" n="164"/>
<hi>Gods</hi> in the image of a free, uncrippled human form; until at last he
frankly set before himself:, in highest glee, this beauteous human
shape itself as nothing but the likeness of a man.</p>

<p>Here we touch the fatal ridge on which the
living Human Artwork splintered, and left its fragments to linger
through an artificial life of petrefaction in the monumental fixity
of Plastic art. The discussion of this vital question we have been
forced to reserve for our present exposition of the art of
Sculpture.—</p>

<p>The first and earliest association of men was
the work of Nature. The purely tribal fellowship, <hi>i.e.</hi>, the
circle of all those who claimed descent from a common ancestor and
the lineal seed of his loins, is the original bond of union of
every race of people that we meet in history. This tribal stem
preserves in its traditional Sagas, as in an ever lively memory,
the instinctive knowledge of its common ancestry: while the
impressions derived from the particular natural features of its
surroundings exalt these legendary recollections to the rank of
religious ideas. Now, in however manifold accretion these ideas and
reminiscences may have heaped themselves together and crowded into
novel forms, among the quickest-witted historical nations, owing to
racial admixture on the one hand, and on the other to change of
natural surroundings as the result of tribal migration,—however
broadly, in their Sagas and religions, these peoples may
have stretched the narrowing bands of nationality, so that the idea
of their own particular origin was expanded to the theory of a
universal descent and derivation of men in general from their Gods,
as from the Gods in general,—yet in every epoch and every
land where Myth and Religion have flourished in the lively faith of
any racial stem, the peculiar bond of union of this particular stem
has always lain in its specific myth and its particular religion.
The Hellenic races solemnised the joint memorial celebration of
their common descent in their religious feasts, <hi>i.e.</hi>, in the
glorification and adoration of the God or Hero in whose being they
felt themselves included as one
<pb id="pag165" n="165"/>
common whole. Finally and with the
greatest truth to life—as though from a felt need to fix with
utmost definition their recollection of what was ever dropping
farther back into the past—they materialised their national
traditions in their Art, and most directly in that full-fledged
work of art, the Tragedy. The lyric and the dramatic art-works were
each a <hi>religious act</hi>: but there was already evinced in this
act, when compared with the simple primitve religious rite, a taint
of artificial effort; the effort, namely, to bring forward of set
purpose that common memory which had already lost its immediate
living impress on the life of every day. Thus Tragedy was the
religious rite become a <hi>work of Art</hi>, by side of which the
traditional observance of the genuine religious temple-rite was
necessarily docked of so much of its inwardness and truth that it
became indeed a mere conventional and soulless ceremony, whereas
its kernel lived on in the Art-work.</p>

<p>In the highly important matter of the
<hi>externals</hi> of the religious act, the tribal fellowship shows
its communal character by certain ancestral usages, by certain
forms and garments. The <hi>garb</hi> of Religion is, so to speak,
the <hi>costume</hi> of the Race by which it mutually recognises
itself, and that at the first glance. This garment, hallowed by the
use of ages, this—in a manner—religio-social
convention, had shifted from the religious to the artistic rite,
the Tragedy; in it and by it the Tragic actor embodied the
familiar, reverenced figure of the People's fellowship. It was by
no means the mere vastness of the theatre and the distance of the
audience, that prescribed the heightening of the human stature by
the <hi>cothurnus</hi>, or, precisely, that admitted the employment
of the immobile tragic mask;—but the cothurnus and the mask
were necessary, religiously significant attributes which,
accompanied by other symbolical tokens, first gave to the performer
his weighty character of Priest. Now where a religion, commencing
to fade from daily life and wholly withdrawing from its political
aspect, is discernible by its outer garb alone, but this garment,
as with the Athenians, can only now take on the folds of actual
Life when it forms the investiture
<pb id="pag166" n="166"/>
of Art: there must this actual
life at last confess itself the core of that religion, by frankly
throwing off its last disguise. But the core of the Hellenic
religion, the centre round which its whole system revolved, and
which instinctively asserted its exclusive rule in actual life,
was: <hi>Man</hi>. It was for Art to formulate aloud this plain
confession: she did it, when she cast aside the last concealing
garment of Religion, and showed its core in simple nakedness, the
<hi>actual</hi> bodily man.</p>

<p>Yet this unveiling was alike the final
annihilation of the collective Artwork: for its bond of union had
been that very garment of Religion. While the contents of the
common mythical religion, the traditional subject of Dramatic art,
were employed to point the poet's moral, developed to fit his
purpose, and finally disfigured by his selfwilled fancy, the
religious belief had already disappeared completely from the life
of the Folk-fellowship, now only linked by political interests.
This belief however, the honour paid to national Gods, the sure
assumption of the truth of primal race-traditions, had formed the
bond of all community. Was this now rent and hooted as a heresy, at
least the core of that religion had come to light as unconditioned,
actual, naked <hi>Man</hi>; but this Man was no longer the associate
man, united by the bond of racial fellowship: only the <hi>absolute,
egoistic, solitary unit</hi>—man beautiful and naked, but
loosed from the beauteous bond of brotherhood.</p>

<p>From here on, from the shattering of the Greek
religion, from the wreck of the Grecian Nature-State, and its
resolution into the Political State,—from the splintering of
the common Tragic Artwork,—the manhood of world-history
begins with measured tread its new gigantic march of evolution,
from the fallen <hi>natural kinsmanship of national community</hi> to
the <hi>universal fellowship of all mankind</hi>. The band which the
full-fledged Man, coming to consciousness in the national
Hellenian, disrupted as a cramping fetter—<hi>with</hi> this
awakened consciousness—must now expand into a universal
girdle embracing <hi>all</hi> mankind. The period from
<pb id="pag167" n="167"/>
that point of time down to our own to-day is, therefore, the history of
<hi>absolute Egoism;</hi> and the end of this period will be its
redemption into <hi>Communism</hi>.
<note id="rn29" corresp="n29" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>The art which has taken this solitary, egoistic,
naked Man, the point of departure of the said world-historical
period, and set him up before us as a beauteous monument of
admonition—is the <hi>art of Sculpture</hi>, which reached its
height exactly at the time when the conjoint human art-work of
Tragedy declined from its meridian.—</p>

<p><hi>The beauty of the human body</hi> was the
foundation ot all Hellenic Art, nay even of the natural State. We
know that with the noblest of Hellenic stems, the Doric Spartans,
the healthiness and unmarred beauty of the newborn child made out
the terms on which alone it was allowed to live, while puling
deformity was denied the right of life. This beauteous naked man is
the kernel of all Spartanhood: from genuine delight in the beauty
of the most perfect human body, that of the male, arose that spirit
of comradeship which pervades and shapes the whole economy of the
Spartan State. This love of man to man, in its primitive purity,
proclaims itself as the noblest and least selfish utterance of
man's sense of beauty, for it teaches man to sink and merge his
entire self in the object of his affection. And exactly in degree
as woman, in perfected womanhood, through love to man and sinking
of herself within his being, has developed the manly element of
that womanhood and brought it to a thorough balance with the purely
womanly, and thus in measure as she is no longer merely man's
<hi>beloved</hi> but his <hi>friend</hi>—can man find fullest
satisfaction in the love of woman.
<note id="rn30" corresp="n30" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<pb id="pag168" n="168"/>

<p>The higher element of that love of man to man
consisted even in this: that it excluded the motive of egoistic
physicalism. Nevertheless it not only included a purely spiritual
bond of friendship, but this spiritual friendship was the blossom
and the crown of the physical friendship. The latter sprang
directly from delight in the beauty, aye, in the material, bodily
beauty of the beloved comrade; yet this delight was no egoistic
yearning, but a thorough stepping out of self into unreserved
sympathy with the comrade's joy in himself involuntarily betrayed
by his life-glad, beauty-prompted bearing. This love, which had its
basis in the noblest pleasures of both eye and soul—not like
our modern postal correspondence of sober friendship, half
businesslike, half sentimental—was the Spartan's only
tutoress of youth, the never aging instructress alike of boy and
man, the ordainer of the common feasts and valiant enterprises;
nay, the inspiring helpmeet on the battlefield. For this it was
that knit the fellowships of love into battalions of war and
forewrote the tactics of death-daring, in rescue of the imperilled
or vengeance for the slaughtered comrade, by the infrangible laws
of the soul's most natural necessity.—</p>

<p>The Spartan who thus directly carried out
in Life his purely human, communistic artwork, instinctively
portrayed it also in his <hi>Lyric</hi>; that most direct expression
of joy in self and life, which hardly reached in its impulsive
(<hi>nothwendig</hi>) utterance to Art's self-consciousness. In the
prime of the Doric State, the Spartan Lyric bent so irresistibly
towards the original basis of all Art, the living <hi>Dance</hi>,
that— characteristically enough!—it has scarcely
handed down to us one single literary memento of itself; precisely
because it was a pure, physical expression of lovely life, and
warded off all separation of the art of Poetry from those of Dance
and Tone. Even the transitional stage from the Lyric to the Drama,
such as we may recognise in the Epic songs, remained a stranger to
the Spartans; and it is sufficiently significant, that the Homeric
songs were collected
<pb id="pag169" n="169"/>
in the Ionic, not the Doric dialect. Whereas
the Ionic peoples, and notably in the event, the Athenians,
developed themselves into political States under influence of the
liveliest mutual intercourse, and preserved in Tragedy the artistic
representation of the religion which was melting out of Life: the
Spartans, as a shut-off inland people, kept faithful to their
old-hellenic character, and held their unmixed Nature-state, as a
living monument of art, against the changeful fashionings of the
newer life of politics. Whatever in the hurry and confusion of the
destructive restlessness of these new times sought rescue or
support, now turned its gaze toward Sparta. The Statesman sought to
scrutinise the forms of this primeval State, to convey them
artificially to the political State of his day; while the
<hi>Artist</hi>, who saw the common artwork of the Tragedy sloughing
and crumbling before his very eyes, looked forth to where he might
descry the kernel of this artwork, the beauteous old-hellenic
<note id="rn31" corresp="n31" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
man, and preserve it for his art. As Sparta
towered up, a living monument of older times: so did the art of
Sculpture crystallise in stone the old-hellenic human being which
she had recognised within this living monument, and garner up the
lifeless monument of bygone beauty for coming times of quickening
barbarism.</p>

<p>But when Athens turned its eyes to Sparta, the
worm of general egoism was already gnawing its destructive path
into this fair State too. The Peloponnesian War had dragged it, all
unwilling, into the whirlpool of the newer times; and Sparta had
only been able to vanquish Athens by the very weapons which the
Athenians had erewhile made so terrible and unassailable to
<hi>it</hi>. Instead of their simple iron-bars—those tokens of
contempt for money, as compared with human worth—the minted
gold of Asia was heaped within the Spartan's coffers; leaving behind the
<pb id="pag170" n="170"/>
ancient, frugal "public mess," he retired to his
sumptuous banquet between his own four walls; and the noble love of
man to man—whose motive had been an even higher one than that
of love to woman—degenerated, as it had already done in the
other Hellenic states, into its unnatural counterpart.</p>

<p>This is the Man, lovely in his person but
unlovely in his selfish isolation, that the Sculptor's art has
handed down to us in marble and in bronze,—motionless and
cold, like a petrified remembrance, like the <hi>mummy of the
Grecian world</hi>.</p>

<p>This art, the hireling of the rich for the
adornment of their palaces, the easier won a troop of practisers as
its creative process lent itself to speedy degradation to a mere
mechanical labour. Certainly, the subject of the Sculptor's art is
Man, that protean host of countless hues of character and myriad
passions: but this art depicts alone his outer physical stature, in
which there only lies the husk and not the kernel of the human
being. True, that the inner man shows out most palpably through all
his outward semblance; but this he only does <hi>completely</hi> in,
and by means of; <hi>motion</hi>. The Sculptor can only seize and
reproduce <hi>one single</hi> moment from all this manifold play of
movements, and must leave the real motion itself to be unriddled
from the physical relief of the work of art, by a process of
mathematical computation. When once the most direct and surest mode
of reaching from this poverty of means to a speaking likeness of
actual life had been found,—when once the perfect measure of
outward human show had been thought into the bronze and marble, and
the power to persuade us of the truth of its reflection had been
wrested from them,—this method, once <hi>discovered</hi>, could
easily be <hi>learned</hi>; and Sculpture could live on from
imitation to copy <hi>ad infinitum</hi>, bringing forth her store of
products, graceful, beautiful, and true, without receiving any
sustenance from real creative force. Thus we find that in the era
of the Roman world-empire, when all artistic instinct had long
since died away, the art of
<pb id="pag171" n="171"/>
Sculpture brought a multitude of works
to mart in which there seemed to dwell an artist soul, despite
their really owing all their being to a mere mechanical gift of
imitation. She could become a lovely handicraft when she had ceased
to be an art—and the latter she was for only just so long as
she had aught to discover, aught to invent. But the repetition of a
discovery is nothing more nor less than imitation.</p>

<p>Through the chinks of the iron-mailed, or
monk-cowled, Middle Ages there shone at last the glimmer of the
marble flesh of Grecian bodily beauty, and greeted hungry humankind
with its first new taste of life. It was in this lovely
<hi>stone</hi>, and not in the actual Life of the ancient world, that
the modern was to learn fair Man again. Our modern art of Sculpture
sprang from no lively impulse to portray the actual extant man,
whom it could scarcely see beneath his modish covering, but from a
longing to copy the counterfeit presentment of a physically extinct
race of men. It is the expression of an honourable wish to reach
back from an unlovely present to the past, and therefrom to
reconstruct lost beauty. As the gradual vanishing of human beauty
from actual existence was the first cause of the artistic
development of Sculpture, which, as though in a last effort to fix
the fading image of a common good, would fain preserve it in a
monumental token,—so the <hi>modern</hi> impulse to reproduce
those monuments could only find its motive in the total absence of
this beauteous man from modern life. Wherefore, since this impulse
could never spring <hi>from</hi> life and find <hi>in</hi> life its
satisfaction, but for ever swayed from monument to monument, from
image to image, stone to stone: our Modern Sculpture, a mere
plagiarism of the genuine art, was forced to take the character of
a craftsman's trade, in which the wealth of rules and canons by
which her hand was guided but bared her poverty as <hi>art</hi>, her
utter inability to <hi>invent</hi>. But while she busily set forth
her self and products, in place of vanished beauteous
Man,—while, in a sense, her art was only fostered by this
lack,—she fell at last into her present
<pb id="pag172" n="172"/>
selfish isolation, in
which she, so to say, but plays the barometer to the ugliness that
still prevails in life; and, indeed, with a certain complacent
feeling of her—<hi>relative</hi>—necessity amid such
atmospheric conditions.</p>

<p>Modern Sculpture can only answer to any vestige
of a need, for precisely so long as the loveliness of man is not at
hand in actual life: the resurrection of this beauty, its immediate
influence on the fashioning of life, must inevitably throw down our
present "plastics." For the need to which alone this art can
answer—nay, the need which she herself concocts—is that
which yearns to flee the unloveliness of life; not that which,
springing from an actual lovely life, strives toward the exhibition
of this life in living artwork. The true, creative, artistic
craving proceeds from fulness, not from void: while the fulness of
the modern art of Sculpture is merely the wealth of the monuments
bequeathed to us by Grecian plastic artists. Now, from this fulness
she cannot <hi>create</hi>, but is merely driven back to it from hack
of beauty in surrounding life; she plunges herself within this
fulness, in order to escape from lack.</p>

<p>Thus bare of all inventive power, she coquets at
last with the forms to hand in present life, in her despairing
attempt to invent—cost what it may. She casts around her the
garment of Fashion, and so as to be recognised and rewarded by this
life, she models the unbeautiful; in order to be true—that is
to say, true according to <hi>our</hi> notions—she gives up all
her hopes of <hi>beauty</hi>. So, during the continuance of those
same conditions which maintain her in her artificial life,
Sculpture falls into that wretched, sterile, or ugliness -
begetting state in which she must inevitably yearn for nothing but
redemption. The life-conditions, however, into which she desires to
be released are, rightly measured, the conditions of that very life
in presence of which the art of Sculpture must straightway cease to
be an independent art. To gain the power of creating, she yearns
for the reign of loveliness in actual life; from which she merely
hopes to win the living matter
<pb id="pag173" n="173"/>
for her invention. But the
fulfilment of this desire could only lay bare the egoism of its
indwelling self-delusion; inasmuch as the conditions for the
<hi>necessary</hi> operation of the art of Sculpture must, in any
case, he utterly annulled when <hi>actual life shall itself be fair
of body</hi>.</p>

<p>In present life the independent art of Sculpture
but answers to a relative need: although to this she stands
indebted for her existence of to-day, nay, for her very prime. But
that other state of things, the antithesis of the modern state, is
that in which an imperative <hi>need</hi> for the works of sculptural
art cannot be so much as reasonably imagined. If man's whole life
pay homage to the principle of beauty, if he make his living body
fair to see, rejoicing in the beauty that he himself displays: then
is the subject and the matter of the artistic exhibition of this
beauty, and of the delight therein, without a doubt the whole warm,
living man himself. His art-work is the <hi>Drama</hi>; and the
redemption of Sculpture is just this: <hi>the disenchantment of the
stone into the flesh and blood of man; out of immobility into
motion, out of the monumental into the temporal.</hi> Only when the
artistic impulse of the Sculptor shall have passed into the soul of
the <hi>Dancer</hi>—the <hi>mimetic expositor</hi> who sings
alike and speaks—can this impulse be conceived as truly
satisfied. Only when the statuary's art no longer exists, or
rather, has passed along another direction than that of the human
body, namely as "sculpture" into "<hi>architecture</hi>";
<note id="rn32" corresp="n32" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
when the frozen loneliness of this
<hi>solitary</hi> stone-hewn man shall have been resolved into the
endless-streaming multitude of actual living men; when we recall
the memory of the beloved dead in ever newborn, soul-filled
<pb id="pag174" n="174"/>
flesh and blood, and no more in lifeless brass or marble; when we take
the stones to build the living Art-work's shrine, and require them
no longer for our imaging of living Man,—then first will the
<hi>true Plastique</hi> be at our hand.</p>
</div>

<div type="section" n="3" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head rend="i">3. The Painter's Art.</head>

<p>Just as, when we are denied the pleasure of
hearing the symphonic playing of an orchestra, we seek to recall
our enjoyment by a pianoforte rendering; just as, when we are no
longer permitted to gaze upon the colours of an oil-painting in a
picture-gallery, we strive by aid of an engraving to refresh the
impression which they have left,
<note id="rn33" corresp="n33" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
so had <hi>Painting</hi>, if not in her origination, yet in her
<hi>artistic</hi> evolution, to answer to the yearning need of
calling back to memory the lost features of the living Human
Artwork.</p>

<p>We must pass by her raw beginnings, when, like
Sculpture, she sprang from the as yet unartistic impulse toward the
symbolising of religious ideas; for she first attained artistic
significance at the epoch when the living artwork of Tragedy was
paling, and the brilliant tints of Painting sought to fix the
vision of those wondrous, pregnant scenes which no longer offered
their immediate warmth of life to the beholder.</p>

<p>Thus the Grecian artwork solemnised its
after-math in Painting. This harvest was not that which sprang by
natural necessity from the wealth of Life; its necessity was the
rather that of <hi>Culture</hi>; it issued from a conscious,
arbitrary motive, to wit the <hi>knowledge</hi> of the loveliness of
Art, united with the <hi>wilful purpose</hi> to force, as it were,
this loveliness to linger in a life to which it no longer belonged
<pb id="pag175" n="175"/>
instinctively as the unconscious, necessary expression of that
life's inmost soul. That Art which, unbidden and of her own accord,
had blossomed from the communion of the People's life, had likewise
by her active presence, and through the regardal of her demeanour,
called up the <hi>mental concept (Begriff)</hi> of her essence; for
it was not the <hi>idea</hi> of Art that had summoned her to life,
but herself; the actual breathing Art, had evolved the "Idea" from
out herself.</p>

<p>The artistic power of the Folk, thrusting
forward with all the necessity of a nature-force, was dead and
buried; what it had done, lived only now in memory, or in the
artificial reproduction. Whereas the Folk, in all its actions and
especially in its self-wrought destruction of national, pent-up
insularity, has through all time proceeded by the law of inner
necessity, and thus in thorough harmony with the majestic evolution
of the human race: the lonely spirit of the Artist—to whose
yearning for the beautiful the unbeauteous manifestments of the
People's life-stress must ever stay a dark enigma—could only
console itself by looking backward to the artwork of a bygone era,
and, recognising the impossibility of arbitrarily relivening that
artwork, could only make this solace as lasting as might be, by
freshening up with lifelike details the harvest of its
recollections,—just as through a portrait we preserve to our
memory the features of a loved lost friend. Hereby Art herself
became an object of art; the "idea" derived from her became her
law; and <hi>cultured art</hi>—the art that can be learnt, and
always points back to itself—began its life-career. The
latter, as we may see to-day, can be pursued without a halt in the
least artistic times and amid the most sordid
circumstances,—yet only for the selfish pleasure of isolated,
life-divorced, and art-repining Culture.—</p>

<p>The senseless attempt to reconstruct the Tragic
Artwork by purely imitative reproduction—such as was engaged
in, for instance, by the poets of the Alexandrian court—was
most advantageously avoided by Painting; for she gave up the lost
as lost, and answered the impulse to restore it by
<pb id="pag176" n="176"/>
the cultivation
of a special, and peculiar, artistic faculty of man. Though this
faculty required a greater variety of media for its operation, yet
Painting soon won a marked advantage over Sculpture. The sculptor's
work displayed the material likeness of the <hi>whole</hi> man in
lifelike form, and, thus far, stood nearer to the living artwork of
self-portraying man than did the painter's work, which was only
able to render, so to speak, his tinted shadow. As in both
counterfeits, however, the breath of Life was unattainable, and
motion could only be indicated to the thought of the spectator, to
whose phantasy its conceivable extension must be left to be worked
out by certain natural laws of inductive reasoning,—so
Painting, in that she looked still farther aside from the reality,
and depended still more on artistic illusion than did Sculpture,
was able to take a more ideal poetic flight than she. Finally,
Painting was not obliged to content herself with the representation
of <hi>this one</hi> man, or of <hi>that particular</hi> group or
combination to which the art of Statuary was restricted; rather,
the artistic illusion became so preponderant a necessity to her,
that she had not only to draw into the sphere of her portrayal a
wealth of correlated human groups extended both in length and
breadth, but also the circle of their extrahuman surroundings, the
<hi>scenes of Nature</hi> herself. Hereon is based an entirely novel
step in the evolution of man's artistic faculties, both perceptive
and executive: namely, that of the inner comprehension and
reproduction of <hi>Nature</hi>, by means of
<hi>Landscape-painting</hi>.</p>

<p>This moment is of the highest importance for the
whole range of plastic art: it brings this art—which began,
in Architecture, with the observation and artistic exploitation of
Nature for the benefit of Man,—which in Sculpture, as though
for the deification of Man, exalted <hi>him</hi> as its only
subject—to its complete conclusion, by turning it at last,
with ever growing understanding, entirely back from Man to
<hi>Nature</hi>; and this inasmuch as it enabled plastic art to take
her by the hand of intimate friendship, and thus, as it were, to
broaden Architecture out to a full and lifelike portraiture
<pb id="pag177" n="177"/>
of Nature. Human Egoism, which in naked Architecture was forever
referring Nature to its own exclusive self; to some extent broke up
in Landscape-painting, which vindicated Nature's individual rights
and prompted artistic Man to loving absorption into her, in order
there to find himself again, immeasurably amplified.</p>

<p>When Grecian painters sought to fix the memory
of the scenes which had erstwhile been presented to their actual
sight and hearing in the Lyric, in the lyrical Epos, and in the
Tragedy, and to picture them again in outline and in
colour—without a doubt they considered men alone as worthy
objects of their exhibition; and it is to the so-called
<hi>historical</hi> tendency that we owe the raising of Painting to
her first artistic height. As she thus preserved the <hi>united</hi>
artwork green in memory, so when the conditions that summoned forth
the passionate preservation of these memories vanished quite away,
there yet remained two byways open, along which the art of Painting
could carry on her further independent self-development: the
Portrait and—the Landscape. True, that Landscape had already
been appropriated for the necessary background of the scenes from
Homer and the Tragic poets: but at the time of their painting's
prime the Greeks looked on landscape with no other eye than that
with which the peculiar bent of the Grecian character had caused
them to regard the whole of Nature. With the Greeks, <hi>Nature</hi>
was merely the distant background of the human being: well in the
foreground stood <hi>Man</hi> himself; and the Gods to whom he
assigned the force controlling Nature were anthropomorphic gods. He
sought to endue everything he saw in Nature with human shape and
human being; as humanised, she had for him that endless charm in
whose enjoyment it was impossible for his sense of beauty to look
on her from such a standpoint as that of our modern Judaistic
utilism, and make of her a mere inanimate object of his sensuous
pleasure. However, he but cherished this beautiful relationship
between himself and Nature from an involuntary error: in his
anthropomorphosis of Nature he credited her with
<pb id="pag178" n="178"/>
human motives
which, necessarily contrasted with the true character of Nature,
could be only arbitrarily assumed as operating within her.</p>

<p>As Man, in all his life and all his relations to
Nature, acts from a necessity peculiar to his own being, he
unwittingly distorts her character when he conceives Nature as
behaving not according to her own necessity but to that of Man.
Although this error took a beauteous form among the Greeks, while
among other races, especially those of Asia, its utterances were
for the most part hideous, it was none the less destructive in its
influence on Hellenic life. When the Hellenian broke adrift from
his ancestral bond of national communion, when he lost the standard
of life's beauty that he had drawn from it instinctively, he was
unable to replace this needful standard by one derived from a
correct survey of surrounding Nature. He had unconsciously
perceived in Nature a coherent, encompassing Necessity for just so
long as this same Necessity came before his consciousness as a
ground condition of his communal life. But when the latter crumbled
into its egoistic atoms, when the Greek was ruled by naught but the
caprice of his own selfwill, no longer harmonised by brotherhood,
or eventually submitted to an arbitrary outer force that gained its
leverage from this general selfwill,—then with his faulty
knowledge of Nature, whom he deemed as capricious as himself and
the worldly might that governed him, he lacked the certain standard
by which he could have learnt to measure out himself again; that
standard which Nature offers as their highest boon to <hi>those</hi>
men who recognise her innermost necessity and learn to know the
eternal harmony of her creative forces, working in widest compass
through every separate unit.</p>

<p>It is from this error alone, that arose those
vast excesses of the Grecian mind which we see attaining under the
Byzantine empire a pitch that quite obscures the old Hellenic
character, yet which were but, at bottom, the normal blemishes of
its good qualities. Philosophy might put forth its honestest
endeavour to grasp the harmony of
<pb id="pag179" n="179"/>
Nature: it only showed how
impotent is the might of abstract Intellect. In defiance of all the
saws of Aristotle, the Folk, in its desire to win itself an
absolute bliss from the midst of this million-headed Egoism, formed
itself a religion in which Nature was made the pitiful plaything of
the quibbling search for human blessedness. It only needed the
Grecian view of Nature's government by selfwilled, human-borrowed
motives to be wedded to the Judao-oriental theory of her
subservience to human Use,—for the disputations and decrees
of Councils anent the essence of the Trinity, and the interminable
strifes, nay national wars therefrom arising, to face astounded
history with the irrefutable fruits of this intermarriage.</p>

<p>Towards the close of the Middle Ages, the Roman
Church raised its assumption of the immobility of the earth to the
rank of an article of belief: but it could not prevent America from
being discovered, the conformation of the globe mapped out, and
Nature's self at last laid so far bare to knowledge that the inner
harmony of all her manifold phenomena has now been proved to
demonstration. The impulse that led toward these discoveries
sought, at like time, to find an utterance in that branch of art
which was of all best fitted for its artistic satisfaction. With
the Renaissance of Art, <hi>Painting</hi> also, in eager struggle for
ennoblement, linked on her own new birth to the revival of the
antique; beneath the shelter of the prosperous Church she waxed to
the portrayal of its chronicles, and passed from these to scenes of
veritable history and actual life, still profiting by the advantage
that she yet could take her form and colour from this actual life.
But the more the physical Present was crushed by the marring
influence of Fashion, and the more the newer school of Historical
painting, in order to be beautiful, saw itself compelled by the
unloveliness of Life to construct from its own fancy and to combine
from styles and manners twice borrowed from arthistory—not
from life,—the farther did Painting, departing from the
portraiture of modish man, strike out that path to which we owe the
loving understanding of Nature in the <hi>Landscape</hi>.</p>

<pb id="pag180" n="180"/>

<p>Man, around whom the landscape had erstwhile
grouped itself as round its egoistic centre, shrank ever smaller
mid the fulness of his surroundings, in direct proportion as he
bowed beneath the unworthy yoke of disfiguring Fashion in his daily
life; so that at last he played the role in Landscape which before
had been assigned to landscape as a foil to him. <hi>Under the given
circumstances</hi>, we can only celebrate this advance of landscape
as a victory of <hi>Nature</hi> over base and man-degrading
<hi>Culture</hi>. For therein undisfigured Nature asserted herself;
in the only possible mode, against her foe; inasmuch as, seeking
for a sanctuary the while, she laid bare herself; as though from
very Want, to the inner understanding of artistic Man.</p>

<p>Modern <hi>Natural Science</hi> and
<hi>Landscape-Painting</hi> are the only outcomes of the Present
which, either from an artistic or a scientific point of view, offer
us the smallest consolation in our impotence, or refuge from our
madness. Amid the hopeless splintering of all our art-endeavours,
the solitary genius who for a moment binds them into almost violent
union, may accomplish feats the more astounding as neither the need
nor the conditions for his art-work are now to hand: the general
concensus of the Painter's art, however, takes almost solely the
direction of the Landscape. For here it finds exhaustless subjects,
and thereby an inexhaustible capacity; whereas in every other
attempt to shadow Nature forth, it can only proceed by arbitrary
sifting, sorting, and selecting, to garner from our absolutely
inartistic life an object worthy of artistic treatment.</p>

<p>The more the so-called Historical school of
painting is busied with its efforts to build up and explain to us
the genuine beauteous Man and genuine beauteous Life, by
reminiscences from the farthest past; the more, with all its
prodigious outlay of expedients, it confesses the heaviness of the
burden imposed upon it, to seek to be <hi>more</hi> and <hi>other</hi>
than behoves the nature of one single branch of art,—so much
the more must it long for a redemption which, like that destined
for Sculpture, can only consist in its ascension into <hi>that</hi>
from which it drew the original force
<pb id="pag181" n="181"/>
that gave to it artistic
life; and this is even the living human Art-work, whose very birth
from Life must heave away the conditions that made possible the
being and the prospering of Painting as an independent branch of
art. The <hi>man-portraying</hi> art of Painting will never find it
possible to lead a healthy, necessary life—when, without a
pencil or a canvas, in liveliest artistic setting, the beauteous
Man portrays <hi>himself</hi> in full perfection. What she now toils
to reach by <hi>honest</hi> effort, she then will reach in perfect
measure, when she bequeaths her colour and her skill of composition
to the living "plastic" of the real dramatic representant; when she
steps down from her canvas and her plaster, and stands upon the
<hi>Tragic stage</hi>; when she bids the artist carry out in his own
person what she toiled in vain to consummate by heaping up of
richest means without the breath of actual Life.</p>

<p>But <hi>Landscape-painting</hi>, as last and
perfected conclusion of all the plastic arts, will become the very
soul of Architecture; she will teach us so to rear the
<hi>stage</hi> for the dramatic Artwork of the Future that on it,
herself imbued with life, she may picture forth the warm
<hi>background of Nature</hi> for <hi>living</hi>, no longer
counterfeited, <hi>Man</hi>.—</p>

<p>If we may thus regard the <hi>scene</hi> of the
united Artwork of the Future as won by the highest power of
Plastic-Art, and therewith as attained the inmost <hi>knowledge of
familiar Nature</hi>: we may now proceed to take a closer view of
the nature of this Artwork itself.</p>
</div>
</div>

<div type="chapter" n="4" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag182"/>
<head rend="up">IV. Outlines of the Artwork of the Future.</head>

<p><hi rend="up">If</hi> we consider the relation of modern
art—so far as it is truly <hi>Art</hi>—to public life, we shall
recognise at once its complete inability to affect this public life
in the sense of its own noblest endeavour. The reason hereof is,
that our modern art is a mere product of Culture and has not sprung
from Life itself; therefore, being nothing but a hot-house plant,
it cannot strike root in the natural soil, or flourish in the
natural climate of the present. Art has become the private property
of an artist-caste; its taste it offers to those alone who
<hi>understand</hi> it; and for its understanding it demands a
special study, aloof from actual life, the study of
<hi>art-learning</hi>. This study, and the understanding to be
attained thereby, each individual who has acquired the gold
wherewith to pay the proffered delicacies of art conceives to-day
that he has made his own: if, however, we were to ask the Artist
whether the great majority of art's amateurs are able to understand
him in his best endeavours, he could only answer with a deep-drawn
sigh. But if he ponder on the infinitely greater mass of those who
are perforce shut out on every side by the evils of our present
social system from both the understanding and the tasting of the
sweets of modern art, then must the artist of to-day grow conscious
that his whole art-doings are, at bottom, but an egoistic,
self-concerning business; that his art, in the light of public
life, is nothing else than luxury and superfluity, a self-amusing
pastime. The daily emphasised, and bitterly deplored abyss between
so-called
<pb id="pag183" n="183"/>
culture and un-culture is so enormous; a bridge between
the two so inconceivable; a reconcilement so impossible; that, had
it any candour, our modern art, which grounds itself on this
unnatural culture, would be forced to admit, to its deepest shame,
that it owes its existence to a life-element which in turn can only
base <hi>its own</hi> existence on the utter dearth of culture among
the real masses of mankind.</p>

<p>The only thing which, in the position thus
assigned to her, our Modern Art should be able to effect—and
among honest folk, indeed, endeavours—namely, the
<hi>spreading abroad of culture</hi>, she cannot do; and simply for
the reason that, for Art to operate on Life, she must be herself
the blossom of a <hi>natural</hi> culture, <hi>i.e.</hi>, such an one
as has grown up from below, for she can never hope to rain down
culture from <hi>above</hi>. Therefore, taken at its best, our
"cultured" art resembles an orator who should seek to address
himself in a foreign tongue to a people which does not understand
it: his highest flights of rhetoric can only lead to the most
absurd misunderstandings and confusion.—</p>

<p>Let us first attempt to trace the
<hi>theoretic</hi> path upon which Modern Art must march forward to
redemption from her present lonely, misprised station, and toward
the widest understanding of general public Life. That this
redemption can only become possible by the <hi>practical</hi>
intermediation of public Life, will then appear self-evident</p>

<milestone unit="section" rend="hr"/>

<p>We have seen that <hi>Plastic Art</hi> can only
attain creative strength by going to her work in unison with
<hi>artistic</hi> Man, and not with men who purpose mere
<hi>utility</hi>.</p>

<p>Artistic Man can only fully content himself by
uniting every branch of Art into the <hi>common</hi> Artwork: in
every <hi>segregation</hi> of his artistic faculties he is
<hi>unfree</hi>, not fully that which he has power to be; whereas in
the <hi>common</hi> Artwork he is <hi>free</hi>, and fully that which
he has power to be.</p>

<p>The <hi>true</hi> endeavour of Art is therefore
all-embracing: each unit who is inspired with a true
<hi>art-instinct</hi> develops
<pb id="pag184" n="184"/>
to the highest his own particular
faculties, not for the glory of these special faculties, but for
the glory of <hi>general Manhood in Art</hi>.</p>

<p>The highest conjoint work of art is the
<hi>Drama:</hi> it can only be at hand in all its <hi>possible</hi>
fulness, when in it each <hi>separate branch of art</hi> is at hand
in <hi>its own utmost fulness</hi>.</p>

<p>The true Drama is only conceivable as proceeding
from a <hi>common urgence of every art</hi> towards the most direct
appeal to a <hi>common public</hi>. In this Drama, each separate art
can only bare its utmost secret to their common public through a
mutual parleying with the other arts; for the purpose of each
separate branch of art can only be fully attained by the reciprocal
agreement and co-operation of all the branches in their common
message.</p>

<milestone unit="section"/>

<p><hi>Architecture</hi> can set before herself no
higher task than to frame for a fellowship of artists, who in their
own persons portray the life of Man, the special surroundings
necessary for the display of the Human Artwork. Only that edifice
is built according to Necessity, which answers most befittingly an
aim of man: the highest aim of man is the artistic aim; the highest
artistic aim—the Drama. In buildings reared for daily use,
the builder has only to answer to the lowest aim of men: beauty is
therein a luxury. In buildings reared for luxury, he has to satisfy
an unnecessary and unnatural need: his fashioning therefore is
capricious, unproductive, and unlovely. On the other hand, in the
construction of that edifice whose every part shall answer to a
common and artistic aim alone,—thus in the building of the
<hi>Theatre</hi>, the master-builder needs only to comport himself as
<hi>artist</hi>, to keep a single eye upon the <hi>art-work</hi>. In a
perfect theatrical edifice, Art's need alone gives law and measure,
down even to the smallest detail. This need is twofold, that of
<hi>giving</hi> and that of <hi>receiving</hi>, which reciprocally
pervade and condition one another. The <hi>Scene</hi> has firstly to
comply with all the conditions of "space" imposed by the joint
(<hi>gemeinsam</hi>) dramatic action to be displayed thereon: but secondly,
<pb id="pag185" n="185"/>
it has to fulfil those conditions in the sense of
bringing this dramatic action to the eye and ear of the spectator
in intelligible fashion. In the arrangement of the <hi>space for the
spectators</hi>, the need for optic and acoustic understanding of
the artwork will give the necessary law, which can only be observed
by a union of beauty and fitness in the proportions; for the demand
of the collective (<hi>gemeinsam</hi>) audience is the demand for the
<hi>artwork,</hi> to whose comprehension it must be distinctly led by
everything that meets the eye.
<note id="rn34" corresp="n34" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
Thus the spectator transplants himself upon the stage, by means of all his
visual and aural faculties; while the performer becomes an artist
only by complete absorption into the public. Everything, that
breathes and moves upon the stage, thus breathes and moves alone
from eloquent desire to impart, to be seen and heard within those
walls which, however circumscribed their space, seem to the actor
from his scenic standpoint to embrace the whole of humankind;
whereas the public, that representative of daily life, forgets the
confines of the auditorium, and lives and breathes now only in the
artwork which seems to it as Life itself, and on the stage which
seems the wide expanse of the whole World.</p>

<p>Such marvels blossom from the fabric of the
Architect, to such enchantments can he give a solid base, when he
takes the purpose of the highest human artwork for his own, when he
summons forth the terms of its enlivening from the individual
resources of his art. On the other hand, how rigid, cold, and dead
does his handiwork appear when, without a higher helpmeet than the
aim of luxury,
<pb id="pag186" n="186"/>
without the artistic necessity which leads him, in
the Theatre, to invent and range each detail with the greatest
sense of fitness, he is forced to follow every speculative whim of
his self-glorifying caprice; to heap his masses and trick out his
ornament, in order to stereotype to-day the vanity of some boastful
plutocrat, to-morrow the honours of a modernised Jehovah!</p>

<p>But not the fairest form, the richest masonry,
can alone suffice the Dramatic Artwork for the perfectly befitting
spacial terms of its appearance. The Scene which is to mount the
picture of Human Life must, for a thorough understanding of this
life, have power to also show the lively counterfeit of Nature, in
which alone artistic Man can render up a speaking likeness of
himself. The casings of this Scene, which look down chill and
vacantly upon the artist and the public, must deck themselves with
the fresh tints of Nature, with the warm light of heaven's æther,
to be worthy to take their share in the human artwork. Plastic
<hi>Architecture</hi> here feels her bounds, her own unfreedom, and
casts herself, athirst for love, into the arms of Painting, who
shall work out her redemption into fairest Nature.</p>

<p>Here <hi>Landscape-painting</hi> enters, summoned
by a common need which she alone can satisfy. What the painter's
expert eye has seen in Nature, what he now, as artist, would fain
display for the artistic pleasure of the full community, he
dovetails into the united work of all the arts, as his own abundant
share. Through him the scene takes on complete artistic truth: his
drawing, his colour, his glowing breadths of light, compel Dame
Nature to serve the highest claims of Art. That which the
landscape-painter, in his struggle to impart what he had seen and
fathomed, had erstwhile forced into the narrow frames of
panel-pictures,—what he had hung up on the egoist's
secluded chamber-walls, or had made away to the inconsequent,
distracting medley of a picture-barn,—<hi>therewith</hi> will he
henceforth fill the ample framework of the Tragic stage, calling
the whole expanse of scene as witness to his power of recreating
Nature. The
<pb id="pag187" n="187"/>
illusion which his brush and finest blend of colours
could only hint at, could only distantly approach, he will here
bring to its consummation by artistic practice of every known
device of optics, by use of all the art of 'lighting. The apparent
roughness of his tools, the seeming grotesqueness of the method of
so-called 'scene-painting,' will not offend him; for he will
reflect that even 'the finest camel's-hair brush is but a
humiliating instrument, when compared with the perfect Artwork; and
the artist has no right to <hi>pride</hi> until he is <hi>free</hi>,
<hi>i.e.</hi>, until his artwork is completed and alive, and <hi>he</hi>,
with all his helping tools, has been absorbed into it. But the
finished artwork that greets him from the <hi>stage</hi> will, set
within this frame and held before the common gaze of full
publicity, immeasurably more content him than did his earlier work,
accomplished with more delicate tools. He will not, forsooth,
repent the right to use this scenic space to the benefit of such an
artwork, for sake of his earlier disposition of a flat-laid scrap
of canvas! For as, at the very worst, his work remains the same no
matter what the frame from which it looks, provided only it bring
its subject to intelligible show: so will his artwork, in
<hi>this</hi> framing, at any rate effect a livelier impression, a
greater and more universal understanding, than the whilom landscape
picture.</p>

<p>The organ for all understanding of Nature, is
Man: the landscape-painter had not only to impart to men this
understanding, but to make it for the first time plain to them by
depicting Man in the midst of Nature. Now by setting his artwork in
the frame of the Tragic stage, he will expand the individual man,
to whom he would address himself, to the associate manhood of full
publicity, and reap the satisfaction of having spread his
understanding out to that, and made it partner in his joy. But he
cannot fully bring about this public understanding until he allies
his work to a joint and all-intelligible aim of loftiest Art; while
this aim itself will be disclosed to the common understanding, past
all mistaking, by the actual bodily man with all his warmth of
life. Of all artistic things, the most directly
<pb id="pag188" n="188"/>
understandable is
the Dramatic-Action (<hi>Handlung</hi>), for reason that its art is
not complete until every helping artifice be cast behind it, as it
were, and genuine life attain the faithfullest and most
intelligible show. And thus each branch of art can only address
itself to the <hi>understanding</hi> in proportion as its
core—whose relation to Man, or derivation from him, alone can
animate and justify the artwork—is ripening toward the
<hi>Drama</hi>. In proportion as it passes over into Drama, as it
pulses with the Drama's light, will each domain of Art grow
all-intelligible, completely understood and justified.
<note id="rn35" corresp="n35" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>On to the stage, prepared by architect and
painter, now steps <hi>Artistic Man</hi>, as Natural Man steps on the
stage of Nature. What the statuary and the historical painter
endeavoured to limn on <hi>stone</hi> or <hi>canvas</hi>, they now limn
upon <hi>themselves</hi>, their form, their body's limbs, the
features of their visage, and raise it to the consciousness of full
artistic life. The same sense that led the sculptor in his grasp
and rendering of the human figure, now leads the <hi>Mime</hi> in the
handling and demeanour of his actual body. The same eye which
taught the historical painter, in drawing and in colour, in
arrangement of his drapery and composition of his groups, to find
the beautiful, the graceful and the characteristic, now orders the
whole breadth of <hi>actual human show</hi>. Sculptor and painter
once freed the
<pb id="pag189" n="189"/>
Greek Tragedian from his cothurnus and his mask,
upon and under which the real man could only move according to a
certain religious convention. With justice, did this pair of
plastic artists annihilate the last disfigurement of pure artistic
man, and thus prefigure in their stone and canvas the tragic Actor
of the Future. As they once descried him in his undistorted truth,
they now shall let him pass into reality and bring his form, in a
measure sketched by them, to bodily portrayal with all its wealth
of movement.</p>

<p>Thus the illusion of plastic art will turn to
truth in Drama: the plastic artist will reach out hands to the
<hi>dancer</hi>, to the <hi>mime</hi>, will lose himself in them, and
thus become himself both mime and dancer.—So far as lies
within his power, he will have to impart the inner man his feeling
and his will-ing, to the eye. The breadth and depth of scenic space
belong to him for the plastic message of his stature and his
motion, as a single unit or in union with his fellows. But where
his power ends, where the fulness of his will and feeling impels
him to the <hi>utter</hi>ing of the inner man by means of
<hi>Speech,</hi> there will the Word proclaim his plain and conscious
purpose: he becomes a <hi>Poet</hi> and, to be poet, a <hi>tone-artist
(Tonkünstler)</hi>. But as dancer, tone-artist, and poet, he
still is one and the same thing: nothing other than <hi>executant,
artistic Man, who, in the fullest measure of his faculties, imparts
himself to the highest expression of receptive power</hi>,</p>

<p>It is in him, the immediate executant, that the
three sister-arts unite their forces in one collective operation,
in which the highest faculty of each comes to its highest
unfolding. By working in common, each one of them attains the power
to be and do the very thing which, of her own and inmost essence,
she longs to do and be. Hereby: that each, where her own power
ends, can be absorbed within the other, whose power commences where
her's ends,—she maintains her own purity and freedom, her
independence as <hi>that</hi> which she is. The <hi>mimetic dancer</hi>
is stripped of his impotence, so soon as he can sing and speak; the
creations
<pb id="pag190" n="190"/>
of <hi>Tone</hi> win all-explaining meaning through the
mime, as well as through the poet's word, and that exactly in
degree as Tone itself is able to transcend into the motion of the
mime and the word of the poet; while the <hi>Poet</hi> first becomes
a Man through his translation to the flesh and blood of the
<hi>Performer</hi>: for though he metes to each artistic factor the
guiding purpose which binds them all into a common whole, yet this
purpose is first changed from "will" to "can" <hi>by the poet's Will
descending to the actor's Can</hi>.</p>

<p>Not one rich faculty of the separate arts will
remain unused in the United Artwork of the Future; in <hi>it</hi>
will each attain its first complete appraisement. Thus, especially,
will the manifold developments of Tone, so peculiar to our
instrumental music, unfold their utmost wealth within this Artwork;
nay, Tone will incite the mimetic art of Dance to entirely new
discoveries, and no less swell the breath of Poetry to unimagined
fill. For Music, in her solitude, has fashioned for herself an
organ which is capable of the highest reaches of expression. This
organ is the <hi>Orchestra</hi>. The tone-speech of Beethoven,
introduced into Drama by the orchestra, marks an entirely fresh
departure for the dramatic artwork. While Architecture and, more
especially, scenic Landscape-painting have power to set the
executant dramatic Artist in the surroundings of physical Nature,
and to dower him from the exhaustless stores of natural phenomena
with an ample and significant background,—so in the
Orchestra, that pulsing body of many-coloured harmony, the
personating individual Man is given, for his support, a stanchless
elemental spring, at once artistic, natural, and human.</p>

<p>The Orchestra is, so to speak, the loam of
endless, universal Feeling, from which the individual feeling of
the separate actor draws power to shoot aloft to fullest height of
growth: it, in a sense, dissolves
<note id="rn36" corresp="n36" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
the hard immobile
<pb id="pag191" n="191"/>
ground of the actual scene into a fluent, elastic,
impressionable æther, whose unmeasured bottom is the great
sea of Feeling itself. Thus the Orchestra is like the <hi>Earth</hi>
from which Antæus, so soon as ever his foot had grazed it, drew
new immortal life-force. By its essence diametrically opposed to the
scenic landscape which surrounds the actor, and therefore, as to
locality, most rightly placed in the deepened foreground outside
the scenic frame, it at like time forms the perfect complement of
these surroundings; inasmuch as it broadens out the exhaustless
<hi>physical</hi> element of Nature to the equally exhaustless
<hi>emotional</hi> element of artistic Man. These elements, thus knit
together, enclose the performer as with an atmospheric ring of Art
and Nature, in which, hike to the heavenly bodies, he moves secure
in fullest orbit, and whence, withal, he is free to radiate on
every side his feelings and his views of life,—broadened to
infinity, and showered, as it were, on distances as measureless as
those on which the stars of heaven cast their rays of light.</p>

<p>Thus supplementing one another in their
changeful dance, the united sister-arts will show themselves and
make good their claim; now all together, now in pairs, and again in
solitary splendour, according to the momentary need of the only
rule- and purpose-giver, the Dramatic Action. Now plastic Mimicry
will listen to the passionate plaint of Thought; now resolute
Thought will pour itself into the expressive mould of Gesture; now
Tone must vent alone the stream of Feeling, the shudder of alarm;
and now, in mutual embrace, all three will raise the Will of Drama
to immediate and potent Deed. For One thing there is that all the
three united arts must will, in order to be free: and that one
thing is the Drama: the reaching of the Drama's aim must be their
common goal. Are they conscious of this aim, do they put forth all
their will to work out that alone:
<pb id="pag192" n="192"/>
so will they also gain the power
to lop off from their several stems the egoistic offshoots of their
own peculiar being; that therewith the tree may not spread out in
formless mass to every wind of heaven, but proudly lift its wreath
of branches, boughs and leaves, into its lofty crown.</p>

<p>The nature of Man, like that of every branch of
Art, is manifold and over-fruitful: but <hi>one thing</hi> alone is
the <hi>Soul</hi> of every unit, its most imperious bent
(<hi>Nothwendigster Trieb</hi>), its strongest need-urged impulse.
When this One Thing is recognised by man as his fundamental
essence, then, to reach this One and indispensable, he has power to
ward off every weaker, subordinated appetite, each feeble wish,
whose satisfaction might stand between him and Its attainment. Only
the weak and impotent knows no imperious, no mightiest longing of
the soul: for him each instant is ruled by accidental, externally
incited appetites which, for reason that they are but appetites, he
never can allay; and therefore, hurled capriciously from one upon
another, to and fro, he never can attain a real enjoyment. But
should this need-reft one have strength to obstinately follow the
appeasement of his accidental appetite, there then crop up in Life
and Art those hideous, unnatural apparitions, the parasites of
headlong egoistic frenzy, which fill us with such untold loathing
in the murderous lust of despots, or in the wantonness
of—modern operatic music. If the individual, however, feel in
himself a mighty longing, an impulse that forces back all other
desires, and forms the necessary inner urgence which constitutes
his soul and being; and if he put forth all his force to satisfy
it: he thus will also lift aloft his own peculiar force, and all
his special faculties, to the fullest strength and height that e'er
can lie within his reach.</p>

<p>But the individual man, in full possession of
health of body, heart, and mind, can experience no higher need than
that which is common to all his kind; for, to be a <hi>true</hi>
Need, it can only be such an one as he can satisfy in Community
alone. The most imperious and strongest need of full-fledged
artist-man, however, is to impart
<pb id="pag193" n="193"/>
himself in highest compass of his
being to the fullest expression of Community; and .this he only
reaches with the necessary breadth of general understanding in the
<hi>Drama</hi>. In Drama he broadens out his own particular being, by
the portrayal of an individual personality not his own, to a
universally human being. He must completely step outside himself,
to grasp the inner nature of an alien personality with that
completeness which is needful before he can portray it. This he
will only Attain when he so exhaustively analyses this individual
in his contact with and penetration and completion by other
individualities,—and therefore also the nature of these other
individualities themselves,—when he forms thereof so lively a
conception, that he gains a sympathetic feeling of this
complementary influence on his own interior being. The perfectly
artistic Performer is, therefore, the unit Man expanded to the
<hi>essence of the Human Species</hi> by the utmost evolution of his
own particular nature.</p>

<p>The place in which this wondrous process comes
to pass, is the <hi>Theatric stage</hi>; the collective art-work
which it brings to light of day, the <hi>Drama</hi>. But to force his
own specific nature to the highest blossoming of its contents in
this <hi>one</hi> and highest art-work, the separate artist, like
each several art, must quell each selfish, arbitrary bent toward
untimely bushing into outgrowths unfurthersome to the whole; the
better then to put forth all his strength for reaching of the
highest common purpose, which cannot indeed be realised without the
unit, nor, on the other hand, without the unit's recurrent
limitation.</p>

<p>This purpose of the Drama, is withal the only
true artistic purpose that ever can be fully <hi>realised</hi>;
whatsoever lies aloof from that, must necessarily lose itself in
the sea of things indefinite, obscure, unfree. This purpose,
however, the separate art-branch will never reach <hi>alone</hi>,
<note id="rn37" corresp="n37" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
but only <hi>all</hi>
<pb id="pag194" n="194"/>
<hi>together</hi>; and
therefore the most <hi>universal</hi> is at like time the only real,
free, the only universally <hi>intelligible</hi> Art-work.</p>
</div>

<div type="chapter" n="5" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag195"/>
<head rend="up">V. The Artist of the Future.</head>

<p><hi rend="up">Having</hi> sketched in general outline the nature of
the Art-work into which the whole art-family must be absorbed, to
be there redeemed by universal understanding, it remains to ask:
What are the life-conditions which shall summon forth the Necessity
of this Art-work and this redemption? Will this be brought about by
Modern Art, in impatient need of understanding, from out her own
pre-meditated plan, by arbitrary choice of means, and with fixed
prescription of the 'modus' of the union that she has recognised as
necessary? Will she be able to draw up a constitutional chart, a
tariff of agreement with the so-called un-culture of the Folk? And
if she brought herself to stoop to this, would such an agreement be
actually effected by that 'constitution'? Can Cultured Art press
forward from her abstract standpoint <hi>into Life</hi>; or rather,
must not <hi>Life press forward into</hi> Art,—Life <hi>bear</hi>
from out itself its only fitting Art, and mount up into
that,—instead of art (well understood: the <hi>Cultured
Art</hi>, which sprang from regions outside Life) <hi>engendering
Life</hi> from out herself and mounting thereinto?</p>

<p>Let us therefore first agree as to <hi>whom</hi>
we must consider the creator of the Art-work of the Future; so that
we may argue back from him to the life-conditions which alone can
permit his art-work and himself to take their rise.</p>

<p><hi>Who</hi>, then, will be the <hi>Artist of the
Future?<lb/>
</hi>Without a doubt, the Poet.
<note id="rn38" corresp="n38" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
<lb/>
<pb id="pag196" n="196"/>
But <hi>who</hi> will be the Poet?<lb/>
Indisputably the <hi>Performer</hi>
<note id="rn39" corresp="n39" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
(<hi>Darsteller</hi>).<lb/>
Yet <hi>who</hi>, again, will be the Performer?<lb/>
Necessarily the <hi>Fellowship of all the Artists</hi>.—</p>

<p>In order to see the Performer and the Poet take
natural rise, we must first imagine to ourselves the artistic
Fellowship of the future; and that according to no arbitrary canon,
but following the logical course which we are bound to take in
drawing from the Art-work itself our conclusions as to those
artistic organs which alone can call it into natural
life.—</p>

<p>The Art-work of the Future is an associate work,
and only an associate demand can call it forth. This demand, which
we have hitherto merely treated theoretically, as a necessary
essential of the being of each separate branch of art, is
practically conceivable only in the <hi>fellowship of every
artist</hi>; and the union of every artist, according to the
exigencies of time and place, and for <hi>one definite aim</hi>, is
that which forms this fellowship. This definite aim is the
<hi>Drama</hi>, for which they all unite in order by their
participation therein to unfold their own peculiar art to the acme
of its being; in this unfoldment to permeate each other's essence,
and as fruit thereof to generate the living, breathing, moving
drama. But the thing that makes this sharing possible to
all—nay that renders it necessary, and which without their
coöperation can never come to manifestment—is the very
kernel of the Drama, the <hi>dramatic Action (dramatische
Handlung)</hi>.</p>

<p>The dramatic Action, as the first postulate of
Drama, is withal that moment in the entire art-work which ensures
its widest <hi>understanding</hi>. Directly borrowed from
<hi>Life</hi>, past or present, it forms the intelligible bond that links
<pb id="pag197" n="197"/>
this work therewith; exactly in degree as it mirrors back the
face of Life, and fitly satisfies its claim for understanding. The
dramatic Action is thus <hi>the bough from the Tree of Life</hi>
which, sprung therefrom by an unconscious instinct, has blossomed
and shed its fruit obediently to vital laws, and now, dissevered
from the stem, is <hi>planted in the soil of Art</hi>; there, in new,
more beautiful, eternal life, to grow into the spreading tree which
resembles fully in its inner, necessary force and truth the parent
tree of actual Life. But now, become its 'objectivation,' it
upholds to Life the picture of its own existence, and lifts
unconscious Life to conscious knowledge of itself.</p>

<p>In the dramatic Action, therefore, the Necessity
of the art-work displays itself; without <hi>it</hi>, or some degree
of reference thereto, all art-fashioning is arbitrary, unneedful,
accidental, unintelligible. The first and truest fount of Art
reveals itself in the impulse that urges from <hi>Life</hi> into the
work of art; for it is the impulse to bring the unconscious,
instinctive principle of Life to understanding
(<hi>verständniss</hi>) and acknowledgment as Necessity.
<note id="rn40" corresp="n40" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
But the impulse toward agreement
(<hi>verständigung</hi>) presupposes <hi>commonality</hi>: the
Egoist has need of no one with whom to agree. Therefore, only from
a life in common, can proceed the impulse toward intelligible
objectification of this life by Art-work; the Community of artists
alone can give it vent; and only in communion, can they content it.
This impulse, however, can only find its full contentment in the
faithful representation of an episode (<hi>Handlung</hi>) taken from
Life: whilst only such an episode can be a fitting subject for
artistic Treatment as has already come in Life to definite
conclusion; as to which, as a series of causes and effects,
<note id="rn41" corresp="n41" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
<pb id="pag198" n="198"/>
there can no longer be any doubt; and as to
whose possible issue there is no longer room for arbitrary
assumption. Only when a thing has been consummated in Life, can we
grasp the necessity of its occurrence, the harmony of its separate
movements. But an episode is not completed, until the <hi>Man</hi>
who brought it about—who stood in the focus of a series of
events which, as a feeling, thinking, will-ing person, he guided by
the force of his own innate character,—until this man is
likewise no longer subject to our arbitrary assumptions as to his
possible doings. Now, every man is subject to these so long as he
lives: by Death is he first freed from this subjection, for then we
know All that he did, and that he was. That action, therefore, must
be the best fitted for dramatic art—and the worthiest object
of its rendering—which is rounded off together with the life
of the chief person that evolved it, and whose denouement is none
other than the conclusion of the life of this one man himself.</p>

<p>Only that action is completely truthful—and can
thoroughly convince us of its plain necessity—on
whose fulfilment a man had set the whole strength of his being, and
which was to him so imperative a necessity that he needs must pass
over into it with the whole force of his character. But hereof he
conclusively persuades us by this alone: that, in the effectuation
of his personal force, he literally <hi>went under</hi>, he veritably
threw overboard his personal existence, for sake of bringing to the
outer world the inner Necessity which ruled his being.
<note id="rn42" corresp="n42" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
He proves to us the verity of his nature, not only
in his actions—which might still appear capricious so long as
he yet were doing
<pb id="pag199" n="199"/>
—but by the consummated sacrifice of his
personality to this necessary course of action. The last,
completest renunciation (<hi>Entäusserung</hi>) of his personal
egoism, the demonstration of his full ascension into universalism,
a man can only show us by his <hi>Death</hi>; and that not by his
accidental, but by his <hi>necessary</hi> death, the logical sequel
to his actions, the last fulfilment of his being.</p>

<p><hi>The celebration of such a Death is the
noblest thing that men can enter on.</hi> It reveals to us in the
nature of this one man, laid bare by death, the whole content of
universal human nature. But we fix this revelation in surest hold
of memory by the conscious <hi>representation</hi> of that Death
itself and, in order to make its purport clear to us, by the
representation of those actions which found their necessary
conclusion in that death.
<note id="rn43" corresp="n43" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
Not in the repulsive funeral rites which, in our neo-christian mode of life,
we solemnise by meaningless hymns and churchyard platitudes; but by
the artistic re-animation of the lost one, by life-glad
reproduction and portrayal of his actions and his death, in the
dramatic Art-work, shall we celebrate that festival which lifts us
living to the highest bliss of love for the departed, and turns his
nature to our own.</p>

<p>Though the longing for this dramatic rite is
present in the whole brotherhood of artists, and though <hi>that</hi>
object alone can be a worthy one, and one that justifies the
impulse toward its representation, which awakes in us this impulse
<hi>in common</hi>: yet that <hi>Love</hi> which alone can be conceived
as the active and effectual power hereto, has its unfathomable seat
within the heart of each separate unit; in whom it exercises its
specific motive force in accordance with his individual
characteristics. This specific energy of Love will therefore show
itself most strenuously in that unit who, by reason of his general
character, or in this particular period of his life, feels drawn by
the closest bond of affinity toward this particular Hero; who by his
<pb id="pag200" n="200"/>
sympathy makes the nature of this hero the most especially his
own, and trains his artistic faculties the fittest to requicken by
his impersonation this hero, of all others, for the living memory
of himself, his fellows, and the whole community. The <hi>might of
individuality</hi> will never assert itself more positively than in
the free artistic fellowship; since the incitation to resolves in
common can only issue from precisely that unit in whom the
individuality speaks out so strongly that it determines the
<hi>free</hi> voices of the rest. The might of Individuality,
however, will only be able to operate thus upon the fellowship in
those specific cases where it has the wit to bring itself to real,
and not to merely artificial, currency. Should an art-comrade
proclaim his purpose to represent this one particular Hero, and
thereto crave that mutual co-operation of the fellowship which
alone can bring this to effect: he will not see his wish fulfilled
until he has succeeded in arousing for his project the same love
and enthusiasm which inspire himself, and which he can only impart
to others when his individuality stands possessed of a force in
complete accord with the specific object.</p>

<p>When once the artist has raised his project to a
<hi>common</hi> one, by the energy of his own enthusiasm, the
artistic undertaking becomes thenceforth <hi>itself an enterprise in
common</hi>. But as the dramatic action to be represented has its
focus in the Hero of that action, so does the common art-work group
itself around the <hi>Representant</hi> of this hero. His
fellow-actors, and all his other colleagues, bear to him the same
relation in the art-work as that which the co-enacting
persons—those, that is to say, who formed the foils of the
hero's character and the 'objects' of his action,—and,
withal, the general human and natural entourage,—bore in
<hi>Life</hi> to the Hero; only with this difference, that the hero's
impersonator shapes and arranges <hi>consciously</hi> that which came
<hi>instinctively</hi> to the actual hero. In his stress for artistic
reproduction of the Action, the performer thus becomes a poet; he
arranges his own action, and all its living outward issues, in
accordance with an artistic
<pb id="pag201" n="201"/>
standard. But he only attains his
special purpose in measure as he has raised it to a general aim, as
every unit is clamorous to lend himself to the furtherance of this
general aim,—therefore in exact measure as he himself, above
all others, is able to surrender his own specific personal purpose
to the general aim; and thus, in a sense, not merely
<hi>represents</hi> in the art-work the action of the fêted
hero, but <hi>repeats</hi> its moral lesson; insomuch as he proves by
this surrender of his personality that he also, in his artistic
action, is obeying a dictate of Necessity which consumes the whole
individuality of his being.
<note id="rn44" corresp="n44" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>The <hi>free Artistic Fellowship</hi> is therefore
the foundation, and the first condition, of the Art-work itself.
From it proceeds the <hi>Performer</hi>, who, in his enthusiasm for
this one particular hero whose nature harmonises with his own, now
raises himself to the rank of <hi>Poet</hi>, of artistic
<hi>Lawgiver</hi> to the fellowship; from this height, again, to
descend to complete absorption in the fellowship. The function of
this lawgiver is therefore never more than <hi>periodic</hi>, and is
confined to the one particular occasion which has been prompted by
his individuality and thereby raised to a common 'objective' for
the art of all; wherefore his rule can by no means be extended to
<hi>all</hi> occasions. The dictatorship
<pb id="pag202" n="202"/>
of the poet-actor comes to
its natural close together with the attainment of his specific
purpose: that purpose which he had raised into a common one, and in
which his personality was dissolved so soon as ever his message had
been shared with the community. Each separate member may lift
himself to the exercise of this dictatorship, when he bears a
definite message which so far answers to his individuality that in
its proclamation he has power to raise it to a common purpose. For
in that artistic fellowship which combines for no other aim than
the satisfaction of a joint artistic impulse, it is impossible that
any other thing should come to definite prescription and resolve,
than that which compasses the mutual satisfaction of this impulse:
namely, Art herself, and the laws which summon forth her perfect
manifestment by the union of the individual with the
universal.—</p>

<milestone unit="section"/>

<p>In all the mutual federations of the Manhood of
the Future, these selfsame laws of <hi>inner</hi> necessity will
assert their sole determinative might. A natural and unforced
association of men in larger or in smaller numbers, can only be
called forth by a need they feel in common. The satisfaction of
this need is the exclusive aim of the mutual undertaking: toward
this aim are directed the actions of each unit, so long as the
common need is alike his strongest personal need; this aim will
then, and of itself, prescribe the laws for the associate action.
For these laws are nothing but the fittest means for reaching the
common goal. The knowledge of the fittest means is denied to him
who is urged towards this goal by no sincere, imperative need: but
where the latter is at hand, the certain knowledge of these means
springs self-taught from the cogence of the need, and above all,
from its communal character.</p>

<p>Natural unions have, therefore, only so long a
natural continuance as the need on which they are grounded is a
common one, and as its satisfaction is still to be accomplished:
has the goal been reached, then this specific union is dissolved
<hi>together</hi> with the need that called it
<pb id="pag203" n="203"/>
forth; and first from
fresh-arising needs will there likewise rise fresh unions of those
who share these novel needs in common. Our modern <hi>States</hi> are
thus far the most unnatural unions of fellow men, that—called
into existence by mere external caprice, <hi>e.g.</hi> dynastic
interests—they yoke together a certain number of men <hi>for
once and all,</hi> in furtherance of an aim which either never
answered to a need they shared in common, or, from the change of
time and circumstance, is certainly no longer common to them
<hi>now</hi>.—All men have but <hi>one</hi> lasting need in
common; a need, however, which only in its most general purport
abides in them in equal measure: this is the need <hi>to live and to
be happy</hi>. Herein lies the natural bond of all mankind; a need
to which our mother Earth may give us perfect answer.</p>

<p>In the reasonable state of Future Manhood, the
special needs which take their rise, and mount aloft, in time and
place and individuality, can alone lay down the bases of those
special unions whose sum-total will make out the great association
of <hi>all</hi> Mankind. These Unions will alternate, shape
themselves afresh, unloose and knit themselves again, precisely as
the Needs shall change and come back on their course. They will be
lasting where they are of material sort, where they are rooted in
the common ground and soil, and in general affect the intercourse
of men in so far as this is necessarily founded on certain
like-remaining, local limitations. But they will ever shape
themselves anew, proclaim more complex and vivacious change, the
more do they proceed from higher, universal, spiritual needs.
Against the stiff political union of our time, upheld alone by
outward force, the <hi>free</hi> communions of the Future in their
pliant change—now spread out to bounds unheard-of, now linked
in finest meshes—will display the future Human Life itself,
whose inexhaustible charm will be preserved by ceaseless
alternation of the richest individualities; whereas our present life,
<note id="rn45" corresp="n45" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
with its fashion and red-tape
uniformity, affords alas! the but too
<pb id="pag204" n="204"/>
faithful likeness of the
modern <hi>State</hi>, with its <hi>stations</hi>, its <hi>posts</hi>,
its <hi>vested</hi> interests,
<note id="rn46" corresp="n46" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
its <hi>standing</hi> armies—and whatever else it has of
<hi>standing</hi>.</p>

<p>Yet no alliances of men will enjoy a richer,
more eventful change than those inspired by <hi>Art</hi> For in these
each individuality, so soon as ever it has wit to utter itself in
consonance with the spirit of community, will, by the exposition of
its passing purpose, call forth a fresh alliance to realise that
<hi>one specific</hi> purpose; inasmuch as it will widen out its own
particular need to the Need of a brotherhood which this very need
will have summoned into being. Each dramatic art-work, as it enters
upon life, will therefore be the work of a new and
never-hitherto-existing, and thus a never-to-be-repeated fellowship
of artists: its communion will take its rise from the moment when
the poet-actor of the hero's r6le exalts his purpose to the common
aim of the comrades whom he needed for its exposition, and will be
dissolved the very instant that this purpose is attained.</p>

<p>In this wise naught can pass into a standstill,
in this artistic union: it is formed for the one sole aim, attained
today, of celebrating this one particular hero; to be tomorrow,
under entirely fresh conditions, and through the inspiring purpose
of an entirely different individual, resolved into a fresh
association. While this fresh association will be as distinct from
that preceding it, as it will bring its work to light of day
according to <hi>specific laws</hi> which, constituting the fittest
means for the realisation of the new-adopted scheme, will evince
themselves as likewise new and never matched quite <hi>thus</hi> before.
<note id="rn47" corresp="n47" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>Thus, and thus only, must the future
Artist-guild be constituted, so soon as ever it is banded by no
other aim than that of the <hi>Art-work</hi>. Who, then, will be the
<hi>Artist of</hi>
<pb id="pag205" n="205"/>
<hi>the Future</hi>? The poet? The performer? The
musician? The plastician?—Let us say it in one word: the
<hi>Folk. That selfsame Folk to whom we owe the only genuine
Art-work, still living even in our modern memory, however much
distorted by our restorations; to whom alone we owe all Art
itself.</hi></p>

<milestone unit="section" rend="hr"/>

<p>When we repiece the past and consummated, in
order to conjure up the picture of a particular object in the light
of its general bearings on the history of mankind, we can depict
its singlest traits with surest touch,—nay, from the minute
regardal of such single traits there often springs for us the
surest understanding of the whole, which we are forced to rescue
from its hazy generalism by holding to this one particular feature.
Thus in our present inquiry into the phenomena of Art, the wealth
of details that confront us is so excessive that, in order to
present our object in its general bearings, we can only venture to
select a limited portion, and that which seems the best to
illustrate our line of thought; lest otherwise we lose ourselves in
branching by-ways, and our eyes be turned aside from the higher
general goal. Now the case is exactly opposite, when we desire to
portray a future state of things; we have only one scale for such a
picture, and that lies, decidedly not in the spaces of the Future,
on which the combination is to shape itself, but in the Past and in
the Present; even there where all those conditions are still in
lusty life which make the longed-for future state impossible
to-day, and allow its sheer antithesis to seem an unavoidable
necessity. The force of Need impels us to a general preconception;
yet we can only grasp it, not simply by an ardent aspiration of the
heart, but rather by a logical induction which tells us that this
state will be the very opposite of the evil which we recognise in
our system of to-day. All individual features
<note id="rn48" corresp="n48" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
<pb id="pag206" n="206"/>
must stay, perforce, outside this preconception;
since such could only figure as arbitrary assumptions of our
phantasy, and must constantly bewray their nature as borrowed from
the bad conditions of the present day. Only the consummated and
fulfilled, can be matter of our knowledge; the lifelike shaping of
the Future must be the work of Life itself alone! When this is
brought to pass, we shall conceive at the first glance what to-day
we could only palm off upon ourselves by the exercise of whim and
fancy, submitted as we are to the insuperable influence of our
present plight.</p>

<p>Nothing has been more destructive of human
happiness, than this frenzied haste to regulate the Life of the
Future by given present laws. This loathly care about the Future,
which indeed is the sole heritage of moody, absolute Egoism, at
bottom seeks but to <hi>preserve</hi>, to <hi>ensure</hi> what we
possess to-day, for all our lifetime. It holds fast to
Property—the to-all-eternity to be clinched and riveted,
<hi>property</hi>—as the only worthy object of busy human
forethought, and therefore seeks to do its best to swathe the
Future's self-moved limbs, to pluck out by the roots its
self-shaping quick of Life, as a poisonous and maddening sting; in
order to protect from every careless jog this undying fund of
Property, that it may ever re-engender and swell out the fodder for
its comfortable chewing and devouring, by the natural law of five
per cent. Just as in this chief anxiety of the modern State, Man is
looked-on, to all future time, as an utterly feeble or eternally
to-be-mistrusted being, which can only be maintained by Property,
or restrained within the proper path by Law: so, in respect of Art
and Artists, we view the <hi>Art-institute</hi> as the only safeguard
of their common welfare. Without Academies, Statutes, and
Institutions, Art seems to us to run the constant danger
of—so to phrase it—giving up the ghost; for we cannot
reconcile a free,
<pb id="pag207" n="207"/>
a self-determining activity with our modern
notions of an Artist. The reason of this, however, is that in sooth
we are no genuine Artists, no more than we are genuine Men. And
thus the feeling of our pitiful incapacity, entirely brought upon
ourselves by cowardice and weakness, casts us back upon the
everlasting care to frame fixed canons for the Future; by whose
forcible upholding we, at bottom, but ensure that we shall
<hi>never</hi> be true Artists, and <hi>never</hi> truthful Men.</p>

<p>So is it! We always look towards the Future with
the eye of the Present, with the eye that can only measure all
future generations by the standard it has borrowed from the Men of
the Present, and sets up as the universal standard of mankind. If
we have finally proved that <hi>the Folk</hi> must of necessity be
the Artist of the future, we must be prepared to see the
intellectual egoism of the artists of the Present break forth in
contemptuous amazement at the discovery. They forget completely
that in the days of national blood-brotherhood, which preceded the
epoch when the absolute Egoism of the individual was elevated to a
religion,—the days which our historians betoken as those of
prehistoric myth and fable,—the Folk, in truth, was already
the only poet, the only artist; that all their matter, and all
their form—if it is to have any sound vitality—they can
derive alone from the fancy of these art-inventive Peoples. On the
contrary, they regard the Folk exclusively under the aspect lent it
nowadays by their culture-spectacled eyes. From their lofty
pedestal, they deem that only their direct antithesis, the raw
uncultured masses, can mean for them "the Folk." As they look down
upon the people, there rise but fumes of beer and spirits to their
nostrils; they fumble for their perfumed handkerchiefs, and ask
with civilised exasperation: "What! The <hi>rabble</hi> is in future
to replace us in Art-making? The rabble, which does not so much as
understand us, when <hi>we</hi> provide its art? Out of the reeking
gin-shop, out of the smoking dung-heap, are we to see arise the
mould of Beauty and of Art?"—</p>

<p>Quite so! Not from the filthy dregs of your Culture of
<pb id="pag208" n="208"/>
to-day, not from the loathsome subsoil of your modern
'polite education,' not from the conditions which give your modern
civilisation the sole conceivable base of its existence, shall
arise the Art-work of the Future. Yet reflect! that this rabble is
in no wise a normal product of real human nature, but rather the
artificial outcome of your denaturalised culture; that all the
crimes and abominations with which ye now upbraid this rabble, are
only the despairing gestures of the battle which the true nature of
Man wages against its hideous oppressor, modern Civilisation; and
that these revolting features are nowise the real face of Nature,
but rather the reflection of the hypocritical mask of your State-,
and Criminal-Culture. Further reflect: that, where one portion of
the social system busies itself alone with <hi>superfluous</hi> art
and literature, another portion must necessarily redress the
balance by scavenging the dirt of your useless lives; that, where
fashion and dilettantism fill up one whole unneedful life, there
coarseness and grossness must make out the substance of another
life,—a life ye cannot do without; that, where need-less
luxury seeks violently to still its all-devouring appetite, the
natural Need can only balance its side of the account with Luxury
by drudgery and want, amidst the most deforming cares.</p>

<p>So long as ye intellectual egoists and egoistic
purists shall blossom in your artificial atmosphere, there must
needs be somewhere a "stuff" from whose vital juices ye may distil
your own sweet perfumes; and this stuff from which ye have sucked
out all its inbred scent, is but that foul-breathed rabble whose
approach inspires you with disgust, and from whom ye only ward
yourselves by that very perfume ye have squeezed from out its
native comeliness. So long as a great portion of any nation,
installed in State, Judiciary, and University-posts, squanders its
precious vital forces on the most useless of employments: so long
must an equally great, or even greater portion replace those
squandered forces by its own employment in the harshest tasks of
bare Utility. And—saddest tale of all!—when in this
disproportionately burdened section of the Folk the
<pb id="pag209" n="209"/>
sheerest
utilitarianism has thus become the moving spirit of all its energy,
then must the revolting spectacle be exhibited of absolute Egoism
enforcing its laws of life on every hand and, from the visage of
the town and country rabble, reflecting back its hatefullest
grimaces upon yourselves.
<note id="rn49" corresp="n49" place="unspecified" anchored="yes"/>
</p>

<p>However, neither you nor this rabble do we
understand by the term, <hi>the Folk</hi>: only when neither Ye nor
It shall exist any longer, can we conceive the presence of the
Folk. Yet even now the Folk is living, wherever ye and the rabble
are not; or rather, it is living in your twin midst, but ye wist
not of it. Did ye <hi>know</hi> it, then were ye yourselves the Folk;
for no man can know the fulness of the Folk, without possessing a
share therein. The highest educated alike with the most uneducated,
the learned with the most unlearned, the high-placed with the
lowly, the nestling of the amplest lap of luxury with the
starveling of the filthiest den of Hunger, the ward of heartless
Science with the wastrel of the rawest vice,—so soon as e'er
he feels and nurtures in himself a stress which thrusts him out
from cowardly indifference to the criminal assemblage of our social
and political affairs, or heavy-witted submission
thereunder,—which inspires him with loathing for the shallow
joys of our inhuman Culture, or hatred for a Utilitarianism that
brings its uses only to the need-less and never to the
needy,—which fills him with contempt for those
self-sufficient thralls, the despicable Egoists! or wrath against
the arrogant outragers of human nature,—he, therefore, who
<hi>not</hi> from this conglomerate of pride and baseness, of
shamelessness and cringing, thus not from the <hi>statutory
rights</hi> which hold this composite together, but from the fulness
and the depth of naked <hi>human nature</hi> and the irrefutable
right of its absolute Need, draws force for resistance, for revolt,
for assault upon the oppressor of this nature,—he then who
<hi>must</hi> withstand, revolt, and deal
<pb id="pag210" n="210"/>
assault, and openly avows
this plain necessity in that he gladly suffers every other sorrow
for its sake, and, if need should be, will even offer up his
life,—he, <hi>and he alone belongs to the Folk</hi>; for he and
all his fellows feel a common <hi>Want</hi>.</p>

<p>This <hi>Want</hi> will give the Folk the mastery
of Life, will raise it to the only living might. <hi>This Want</hi>
once drove the <hi>Israelites</hi>, already turned to dull and sordid
beasts of burden, through the waters of the salt Red Sea; and
through the Red Sea also must Want drive <hi>us,</hi> if we are ever,
cleansed from shame, to reach the promised land. We shall not drown
beneath its waves; it is fatal only to the Pharaohs of this world,
who once with host and captains, with horse and rider, were
swallowed up therein,—those haughty, overweening Pharaohs
who had forgotten that once a poor herdsman's son had through his
prudent counsels saved their land and them from death by hunger!
But the <hi>Folk</hi>, the <hi>chosen people</hi>, passed scathless
through that sea towards the Land of Promise: and reached it when
the desert sand had washed its body of the last remaining stain of
slavery.—</p>

<p>Since the poor Israelites have led me thus into
the region of the fairest of all poetry, the ever fresh and ever
truthful <hi>poems of the Folk</hi>, I will take my leave—by
way of moral—with the outline of a glorious Saga which long
ago the raw, uncultured Folk of oldtime Germany indited for no
other reason than that of inner, free Necessity.</p>

<milestone id="wieland" unit="section" rend="hr"/>

<p><hi>Wieland the Smith</hi>, out of very joy in his
handiwork, forged cunning trinkets for himself, and weapons keen
and fair to see. One day as he was bathing on the shore, he saw a
Swan-maiden (<hi>Schwanenjungfrau</hi>) come flying with her sisters
through the air and, putting off her swan-apparel, plunge down into
the sea. Aflame with sudden love, he rushed into the deeper waters;
he wrestled with, and won the wondrous woman. Love, too, broke down
<pb id="pag211" n="211"/>
her pride; in tender care for one another, they lived in blissful
union.</p>

<p>A ring the Swan-maid gave to Wieland: this must
he never let her win back from him; for greatly as she loved him,
she had not lost her yearning for her ancient Freedom, for
wind-borne passage to her happy island home; and this ring it was,
that gave her strength to wing her flight. So Wieland wrought a
goodly store of rings alike to that his Swan-wife gave him, and
strung them on a hempen cord against his wall: amongst them all she
should not recognise her own.</p>

<p>He came home once from journeying. Alack! There
lay his house in ruins; his wife had flown away to farthest
distance!</p>

<p>There was a King, <hi>Neiding</hi> (Envy) by name,
who had heard much talk of Wieland's skill; he burned to trap the
Smith, that thenceforth he might work for him alone. He found at
last a valid pretext for such a deed of violence: the vein of gold
which Wieland wrought into his smitheries belonged to Neiding's
ground and soil; thus Wieland's art was a robbery of the royal
possessions.—It was he who burst into the smithy; and now he
fell upon the Smith himself; bound him with chains, and bore him
off</p>

<p>Set down in Neiding's court, Wieland must hammer
for the King all kinds of objects, useful, strong, and durable:
harness, tools, and armour, by aid of which the King might
broaden-out his realm. But since, for such a labour, Neiding must
loose the captive's bonds, his care was how to leave his body free
to move, yet hinder him from flight: and so he craftily bethought
him of severing the sinews of poor Wieland's feet. For he rightly
guessed that the Smith had only need of hands, and not of feet, to
do his work.</p>

<p>Thus sate he then, in all his misery, the
art-rich Wieland, the one-time blithesome wonder-smith: crippled,
behind his anvil, at which he now must slave to swell his master's
wealth; limping, lamed, and loathly, whene'er he strove to
<pb id="pag212" n="212"/>
stand erect! Who might measure all his suffering, when he thought back to
his Freedom, to his Art,—to his beloved wife! Who fathom all
his grudge against this King, who had wrought him such an untold
shame!</p>

<p>From his forge he gazed above to Heaven's blue,
through which the Swan-maid once had flown to him; this air was her
thrice-happy realm, through which she soared in blissful 'freedom,
the while he breathed the smithy's stench and fume—all for
the service of King Neiding's use! The shamed and self-bound man,
should he never find his wife again!</p>

<p>Ha! since he was doomed to wretchedness for
ever, since nevermore should joy or solace bloom for him,—if
he yet might gain at least one only thing: Revenge, revenge upon
this Neiding, who had brought him to this endless sorrow for his
own base use! If it were only possible to sweep this wretch and all
his brood from off the earth!—</p>

<p>Fearsome schemes of vengeance planned he; day by
day increased his misery; and day by day grew ranker the desperate
longing for revenge.—But how should he, the halting cripple,
make ready for the battle that should lay his torturer low? One
venturous forward step; and he must fall dishonoured to the ground,
the plaything for his foeman's scorn!</p>

<p>"Thou dearest, distant wife! Had I thy wings! Had I thy wings, to
wreak my vengeance, and swing myself aloft from out this
shame!"—</p>

<p>Then <hi>Want itself</hi> bent down its mighty pinions above the
tortured Wieland's breast, and fanned its inspiration about his
thoughtful brow. From <hi>Want</hi>, from terrible, all-powerful
Want, the fettered artist learnt to mould what no man's mind had
yet conceived. <hi>Wieland found it: found how to forge him WINGS.
Wings</hi> whereon to mount aloft to wreak revenge on his
tormentor,—<hi>Wings</hi>, to soar through Heaven's distance
to the blessed island of his Wife!—</p>

<p>He did it: he fulfilled <hi>the task that utmost Want had set</hi>
<pb id="pag213" n="213"/>
<hi>within him</hi>. Borne on <hi>the work of his own Art</hi>, he flew
aloft; he rained his deadly shafts into King Neiding's heart
;—he swung himself in blissful, daring flight athwart the
winds, to where he found the loved one of his youth.—</p>

<p><hi>O sole and glorious Folk! This is it, that thou thyself hast
sung. Thou art thyself this Wieland! Weld thou thy wings, and soar
on high!</hi></p>

</div>
</div>
</body>

<back>
<div type="notes" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<head>Notes</head>

<note id="n01" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn01" anchored="yes">
<p>The above sentences, whose peculiar epigrammatic force it is welnigh
impossible to convey in a translation, are of the highest
significance as bearing upon the much debated question whether
Wagner's philosophy was self-originated or derived from that of
Schopenhauer. In our opinion, they and the following sections of
this chapter give most positive answer in the former sense. Except
that Wagner does not employ the term "Will," but rather
"Necessity," the whole scheme is Schopenhauerian from beginning to
end, and the gradual evolution of the "Will's" manifestation, from
elementary force to Intellect and Spirit, might have been written
by that greatest philosopher of the century. It is unnecessary to
draw special attention to individual sentences; but an attentive
perusal of this pregnant chapter cannot fall to bring home to those
conversant with Schopenhauer's "<hi>Wille und Vorstellung</hi>" the
remarkable fact that two cognate minds have developed an almost
identical system of philosophy. For it must not be forgotten that
R. Wagner was at the period of writing this essay, and long after,
completely ignorant—as indeed was almost the whole
world—of even the existence of the sage of Frankfort
(<hi>vide</hi> Wagner's letters to Liszt). Another curious reflection
aroused by this chapter is, that it should have been written when
the Darwinian theory of the influence of environment upon evolution
was as yet unpublished, if even formed.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n02" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn02" anchored="yes">
<p>I.e. Art in general, or the Art of the Future in particular.—R.
WAGNER.—The word 'Science' (<hi>Wissenschaft</hi>), also, must
be understood in the broad sense in which it is employed in the
next section (2).—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n03" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn03" anchored="yes">
<p>For who can nurse less hopes of the success of his reforming efforts,
than he who acts therein with greatest <hi>honesty</hi>?—R.
WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n04" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn04" anchored="yes">
<p>The slap at Meyerbeer's <hi>Huguenots, Prophète,</hi> etc,
is obvious.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n05" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn05" anchored="yes">
<p>"<hi>Verdichtete</hi>" = "condensed"; but the mere English
equivalent will not convey the hidden allusion—worked out
later on—to "<hi>Dichtkunst</hi>" (Poetry), which is thus shown
to be the condensation into spoken words of the nebulous ideas of
fancy.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n06" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn06" anchored="yes">
<p>"<hi>Reinmenschliche</hi>," lit. "purely human."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n07" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn07" anchored="yes">
<p>It must be distinctly understood that by "Dance" Wagner does not refer to the
Ballet, or anything approaching it; it is the grace of gesture and
of motion which he sums up in this terse and comprehensive
term.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n08" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn08" anchored="yes">
<p>The verb "<hi>unterscheiden</hi>" is here used in so many different
shades of its meaning that it is impossible to do justice in a
translation to the philosophical play of words. Literally it means:
"to cleave asunder," and hence, "to separate, to distinguish, to discern, to
discriminate, to differentiate." There being no one English word
that will embrace the varying sense in which the term is here
employed, I have heen forced to replace it by varying
expressions.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n09" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn09" anchored="yes">
<p>Compare Carlyle 
<xref resp="url" type="http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=1091" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO"><hi>On Heroes</hi></xref>:—"King,
<hi>Könning</hi>, which means <hi>Can</hi>-ning, Able-man. . ..
Find me the true <hi>Könning</hi>, King, or Able-man, and he <hi>has</hi>
a divine right over me."—TR</p>
</note>

<note id="n10" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn10" anchored="yes">
<p>The German equivalent for "compact" is "<hi>dicht</hi>"; the term seems
to have been purposely chosen by the author, in order to bring out
the true meaning of "<hi>Dichtkunst</hi>," "The art of Poetry," as a
crystallisation—so to say—of ideas and emotions only
vaguely felt before.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n11" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn11" anchored="yes">
<p>Compare <hi>Tristan u. Isolde</hi>, Act 3, "Sehnen! Sehnen—im Sterben
mich zu sehnen, vor Sehnsucht nicht zu sterben!"—a passage
which has more than any other been ascribed to Schopenhauer's
influence, but which is almost a literal reproduction of the words
used in the present instance.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n12" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn12" anchored="yes">
<p>See Wagner's <hi>Letters to Uhlig</hi> (Letter 67,—July,
1852). "E. D. <hi>defends music against me</hi>. Is not that
delicious? He appeals to 'harmonies of the spheres,' and 'groanings
and sighings of the soul!' Well, I have got a pretty millstone
hung about my neck!"—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n13" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn13" anchored="yes">
<p>Amid the solemn-striding rhythm of the second section, a secondary theme
uplifts its wailing, yearning song; to that rhythm, which shows its
firm-set tread throughout the entire piece, without a pause, this
longing melody clings like the ivy to the oak, which without its
clasping of the mighty bole would trail its crumpled, straggling
wreaths upon the soil, in forlorn rankness; but now, while weaving
a rich trapping for the rough oak-rind, it gains for itself a sure
and undishevelled outline from the stalwart figure of the tree. How
brainlessly has this deeply significant device of Beethoven been
exploited by our modern instrumental-composers, with their eternal
"subsidiary themes"—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n14" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn14" anchored="yes">
<p>Whosoever may undertake to write the special history of
instrumental music since Beethoven, will
undoubtedly have to take account of isolated phenomena which are of
such a nature as to merit a particular and close attention. He who
regards the history of Art, however, from so wide-reaching a point
of view as here was necessary, can only keep to its decisive
moments; he must leave unconsidered whatever lies aside from these
'moments,' or is merely their derivative. But the more undeniably
is great ability evinced by such detached phenomena, so much the
more strikingly do <hi>they themselves</hi> prove, by the barrenness
of all their art-endeavour, that in their peculiar art-province
somewhat may have yet been left to discover in respect of technical
treatment, but nothing in respect of the living spirit, now that
<hi>that</hi> has once been spoken which Beethoven spoke through
Music. In the great universal Art-work of the Future there will
ever be fresh regions to discover; but not in the separate branch
of art, when once the latter—as Music, by Beethoven. has
already been led to universalism but yet would linger in her
solitary round.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n15" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn15" anchored="yes">
<p>The original sentence is somewhat too forcible for English notions
"nachdem er geholfen hat, drei vorangehende Instrumentalsätze
so geschickt wie möglich zu Stande zu bringen." The reference
is, of course, to Mendelssohn's "<hi>Lobgesang</hi>."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n16" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn16" anchored="yes">
<p>However lengthily I have here expressed myself upon the nature of Music, in
comparison with what I have said upon the other branches of Art (my
reasons lying in both the highly individual character of Music and
its special and eventful evolutionary course, proceeding from this
individuality), yet I am well aware of the countless gaps in my
recital. But it would need not one book but an entire library, to
lay hare the whole unseemliness, the flabbiness and ignominy of the
bonds uniting our modern music with our modern life; to penetrate
the piteous, over-sentimental idiosyncracy of our art of Tone,
which makes her the object of the speculation of our educational
"Folk-improvers," who would trickle drops of Music's honey upon the
acid sweat of ill-used factory-hands as the only possible
alleviation of their sufferings (very much as our sages of the
State and Bourse are all agog to stuff their pliant patches of
religion between the gaping rents of the police-officials' tender
care of men); and finally to explain the mournful psychological
phenomenon, that a man may be not only base and bad, but also
dull—without these qualities hindering him from being a quite
respectable musician.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n17" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn17" anchored="yes">
<p><hi>Stabreim</hi> and Alliteration.—A fuller explanation of
this form of 'rhyme' will be found in <hi>"Opera and Drama"</hi> (Part II.,
<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0063" n="pag224" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">chap. vi.</xref> and Part III.,
<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0063" n="pag254" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">chap. ii.</xref>), which work will
form the second volume of this series of translations. Meanwhile a
few words of elucidation may not be found amiss,—The English
equivalent, "Alliteration," does not convey the full force of this
method of versification, as may be seen at once by the oft-quoted
specimen from Churchill, "with apt alliteration's artful aid," for
therein one of the fundamental rules is violated in such a manner
as to show how little the true principle of this 'rhyme' is now
understood in England; the rule in question being, that if vowels
are employed for this artifice, they must be of different sound; as
in Wagner's own lines "<hi>U</hi>nh<hi>ei</hi>lig <hi> | a</hi>cht' ich
den Eid" (the <hi>stabreim</hi> being here reduplicated in the
immediately following line: "der <hi>U</hi>nliebende <hi>ei</hi>nt").
The simple rule, as given in the <hi>Encyclopædia Britannica</hi>,
is that this rhyme is "indifferent as to the <hi>number of
syllables</hi> in a couplet; but imperative as to the number of
<hi>accented</hi> syllables, of which there must be four (two in each
half), the <hi>first three</hi> beginning with the <hi>same</hi>
letter" (in the case of consonants), the writer adducing the lines
from <hi>Piers the Ploughman:</hi> "I was <hi>w</hi>eary of
<hi>w</hi>andering I and <hi>w</hi>ent me to rest" &amp;c. In
Brockhaus' <hi>Conversations-lexikon,</hi> however, it is stated that
the original rule was: that in a couplet the first half should
contain <hi>one</hi> or <hi>two</hi> rhyming initials, the second only
<hi>one—</hi>in each case the rhyme being borne by the strongly
accented syllable; but that this rule was extended to allow of the
use of two rhymes also in the second half, but never more. This
authority cites a couplet from the 9th Century Saxon poem
<hi>"Hêliand,"</hi> which runs thus: "so <hi>l</hi>erda he tho
thea <hi>L</hi>iudi <hi>| l</hi>iot hon wordon"; and adds that the word
"Stabreim" is an abbreviation from "Buchstabenreim" (lit. =
"spelling-rhyme"); that the first verse-half of the couplet
<hi>("Langzeile"</hi> or <hi>"Liedstäbe")</hi> was called
"Stollen," the second: "Hauptstab," or principal rhyme. —a
circumstance emphasised by Wagner above. In his great tetralogy,
the <hi>Ring des Nibelungen,</hi> the poet-composer has made almost
exclusive use of this form of versification, amplifying its rules
much in the same way as he amplified those of Music, from that
plastic power of genius which melts all rules into new moulds. But
the great characteristic of the <hi>Stabreim</hi> proper, he has
almost invariably preserved, viz.:—the marking thereby of the
accented, <hi>i.e.</hi> the <hi>root</hi> word, and the commencing of
the line by a strong (or 'long') syllable. As a perfect specimen
may he instanced: "<hi>L</hi>achend muss ich dich <hi>l</hi>ieben; <hi>|
l</hi>achend will ich erblinden" <hi>(Siegfried,—</hi> last
Scene); while a rich example of doubled and re-doubled
<hi>Stabreim</hi> is found at the end of the
<hi>Götterdämmerung:</hi> "<hi>N</hi>icht <hi>G</hi>ut,
<hi>n</hi>icht <hi>G</hi>old, | <hi>n</hi>och <hi>G</hi>öttliche
<hi>P</hi>racht; | nicht <hi>H</hi>aus, nicht <hi>H</hi>of,
| noch <hi>h</hi>errischer <hi>P</hi>runk:"—These
specimens, taken at <sic corr="random">ramdom</sic> from the <hi>Ring,</hi>
must suffice for the present purpose.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n18" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn18" anchored="yes">
<p>Compare <hi>Die Meistersinger</hi>, Act 3.—"<hi>Ob euch gelang ein
rechtes Paar zu finden, das zeigt sich jetzt an den Kinden</hi>,"
"If you've had wit to match your pair, <hi>that</hi> we shall see in
their son and heir,"—where Hans Sachs is instructing Walther
in the mysteries of the old Meistersingers' 'After-song.'—It
is curious also that Wagner should have again hit upon the same
thought as Schopenhauer, who explains the love of man to woman as
governed by the 'Will-to-live' of their future progeny.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n19" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn19" anchored="yes">
<p>"Die einsame Dichtkunst—<hi>dichtete</hi> nicht mehr."—Again
it is impossible to translate "<hi>dichten</hi>," for lack of an
English <hi>verb</hi>; our "poetise" has a derogatory strain in it;
'compose' and 'indite' will neither of them here take the place of
the German original; and we are forced upon a paraphrase, which may
perhaps find justification from the analogous term for him who
'prophesies,' namely, 'Seer,'—which Carlyle has so often
applied to the true Poet.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n20" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn20" anchored="yes">
<p>"O himmel! wie entstellt, wie unkennbar klangen ihm seine, in
dichterische Musik gebrachten, Anschauungen entgegen!" Probably
Wagner here refers to the opera-texts, such as <hi>Proserpina,</hi>
written by Goethe for the Weimar Court-theatre, the direction of
which was entrusted to him by the Duke; for in his article,
"Zukunftsmusik" (The "Music of the Future," vol. vii. of the <hi>Ges.
Schriften</hi>) our author writes as follows: "Goethe himself
indited several opera-texts (libretti), and, in order to place
himself on the level of that <hi>genre</hi>, he thought right to keep
both his invention and his working-out as trivial as possible; so
that it is only with regret, that we can see these extremely
mawkish pieces numbered in the ranks of his poems."—As to
the allusion to the "poodle" at the end of the present paragraph,
it is an absolute statement of fact. In 1817 Goethe, who had long
felt the growing impossibility of maintaining the high standard of
the Weimar theatrical performances, in face of the favour shown to
Kotzebue and his claptrap, finally laid down the reins of direction
in consequence of the production, against his express desire, of a
piece called the "<hi>Hund des Aubry</hi>." We cannot discover
whether Kotzebue had a hand in this piece or not, for it is merely
described in Schaefer's "Life of Goethe" as imported from France;
the biographer adds, that in it a <hi>rôle was assigned to a
trained Poodle</hi>!—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n21" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn21 rn22 rn23" anchored="yes">
<p>—The same word, "Öffentlichkeit," is used in these
three instances; it has
seemed, however, impossible to translate this half abstract, half
concrete term, excepting by the use of three different expressions,
in order to keep touch with the meaning.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n24" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn24" anchored="yes">
<p>From all that Wagner has written about Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient, it
cannot be doubted that it is to her that he here refers. Compare
<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0033" n="pag9" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">page 9</xref>
of the "<hi>Autobiographic Sketch</hi>," also
"<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0014" n="pag36" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO"><hi>A Pilgrimage to Beethoven</hi></xref>,"
the
"<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0079" n="pag320" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO"><hi>Communication to my Friends</hi></xref>,"
and "<hi>On Actors and Singers</hi>."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n25" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn25" anchored="yes">
<p>Among these, the masters of the French-school of the beginning of this
century should be specially noted.—R. Wagner.—See also
<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0033" n="pag16" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">p. 16</xref>,
"<hi>Autobiographic Sketch</hi>."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n26" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn26" anchored="yes">
<p>The title of this chapter, "<hi>Der Mensch als künstlerischer Bildner aus
natürlichen Stoffen</hi>," presents many difficulties to the
translator. If we possessed a good equivalent for "Bildner" (from
"<hi>bilden</hi>," to fashion, shape or form, <hi>e.g.</hi> a picture)
that would cover the three different varieties of 'plastic' artist,
we should still be short of a generally accepted substitute for
"<hi>Stoff</hi>." The idea of the original is to include in the term
"stuff" not only the <hi>raw material</hi>, as in Architecture or
Sculpture, but also the <hi>subject-matter</hi>, as in
Landscape-painting. This being thus, perhaps we may be permitted to
employ the word in the sense in which Shakespeare uses it, in the
line "We are such stuff as dreams are made on."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n27" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn27" anchored="yes">
<p>Compare <hi>Götterdämmerung</hi>, Act 3, "Der Wecker
kam; er küsst dich wach. . . . da lacht ihm Brünnhilde's
Lust!"—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n28" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn28" anchored="yes">
<p>Certainly the provision of the useful, is the first and greatest necessity:
but an epoch which can never soar beyond this care nor cast it
behind it in order to attain the beautiful, but makes this care the
sole prescriptor of every branch of public life and drags it even
into Art,—that epoch is in truth <hi>barbarian</hi>. Yet it is
only the most unnatural <hi>civilisation,</hi> that can produce such
absolute barbarism: it is for ever heaping up obstructions to the
useful, to give itself the air of for ever taking thought for
utility alone.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n29" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn29" anchored="yes">
<p>It is a political crime to use this word: however, there is none which will
better describe the direct antithesis of <hi>Egoism.</hi> Whosoever
is ashamed to-day to pass current as an Egoist—and indeed no
one will openly confess himself as such—must allow us to take
the liberty of calling him a Communist.—R.WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n30" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn30" anchored="yes">
<p>The redemption of woman into participation in the nature of
man is the outcome of christian-Germanic evolution. The Greek
remained in ignorance of the psychic process of the ennobling of
woman to the rank of man, To him everything appeared under its
direct, unmediated aspect,—woman to him was woman, and man
was man; and thus at the point where his love to woman was
satisfied in accordance with nature, arose the spiritual demand for
man.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n31" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn31" anchored="yes">
<p>One feels almost tempted to concoct a hybrid equivalent for this expressive
"<hi>ur-hellenisch</hi>," and boldly write it down as "ur-hellenic;"
but the fear of a literary Mrs Grundy is too powerful for the rash
desire. We cannot, however, help envying the Germans their pregnant
prefix "<hi>ur</hi>," a shadow of which we fancy we may still detect
in our English "early," "<hi>ere</hi>-while" or "erst"; again perhaps
in our "hoary"; and almost certainly in "yore."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n32" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn32" anchored="yes">
<p>The words "<hi>Skulptur</hi>" and "<hi>Architektur</hi>" here appear for the
first time, in the original. Hitherto these arts have been spoken
of under the terms "<hi>Baukunst</hi>" (the building art) and
"<hi>Bildhauerkunst</hi>" (the image- or likeness-hewer's art); but I
have found it more convenient to employ, in general, the
equivalents "Sculpture" and "Architecture." Here, however, I have
deemed it necessary to use the more exact, though more cumbersome
expression "the statuary's art," in the opening of the sentence, in
order to reserve the term "Sculpture" to render the more general
idea of "carving," in which sense it is evident that Wagner has
here employed the Latin noun.—W.A.E.</p>
</note>

<note id="n33" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn33" anchored="yes">
<p>The personality of the Zurich exile here peeps out from beneath the
robes of the art-philosopher. No one could feel more keenly than
Wagner himself, at the time of writing this essay, the
insufficiency of the suggested substitute, cut off as he then was
from enjoyment of all the higher walks of art.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n34" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn34" anchored="yes">
<p>The problem of the Theatrical edifice of the Future
can in no wise be considered as solved by our modern stage
buildings: for they are laid out in accord with traditional laws
and canons which have nothing in common with the requirements of
pure Art. Where speculation for gain, on the one side, joins forces
with luxurious ostentation on the other, the absolute interests of
Art must be cryingly affected; and thus no architect in the world
will be able to raise our stratified and fenced-off
auditoria—dictated by the parcelling of our public into the
most diverse categories of class and civil station—to
conformity with any law of beauty. If one imagine oneself, for a
moment, within the walls of the common Theatre of the Future, one
will recognise with little trouble, that an undreamt width of field
lies therein open for invention.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n35" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn35" anchored="yes">
<p>It can scarcely be indifferent to the modern landscape-painter to observe
by how few his work is really understood to-day, and with what
blear-eyed stupidity his nature-paintings are devoured by the
Philistine world that pays for them; how the so-called "charming
prospect" is purchased to assuage the idle, unintelligent, visual
gluttony of those same need-less men whose sense of hearing is
tickled by our modern, empty music-manufacture to that idiotic joy
which is as repugnant a reward of his performance to the artist as
it fully answers the intention of the <hi>artisan</hi>. Between the
"charming prospect" and the "pretty tune" of our modern times there
subsists a doleful affinity, whose bond of union is certainly not
the musing calm of Thought, but that vulgar slipshod
<hi>sentimentality</hi> which draws back in selfish horror from the
sight of human suffering in its surroundings, to hire for itself a
private heavenlet in the blue mists of Nature's generality. These
sentimentals are willing enough to see and hear everything: only
<hi>not</hi> the <hi>actual, undistorted Man,</hi> who lifts his
warning finger on the threshold of their dreams. <hi>But this is the
very man whom we must set up in the forefront of our
show</hi>!—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n36" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn36" anchored="yes">
<p>It is a little difficult to quite unravel this part of the metaphor, for
the same word "<hi>Boden</hi>" is used twice over. I have thought it
best to translate it in the first place as "loam," and in the
second as "ground"; for it appears as though the idea were, in the
former case, that of what agriculturists call a "top-dressing," and
thus a substance which could break up the lower soil and make it
fruitful. The "it" which occurs after the colon may refer either to
the "feeling" or to the "orchestra," for both are neuter nouns.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n37" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn37" anchored="yes">
<p>The modern <hi>Playwright</hi> will feel little tempted to concede that
Drama ought not to belong exclusively to <hi>his</hi> branch of art,
the art of <hi>Poesy</hi>; above all will he not be able to constrain
himself to share it with the Tone-poet,—to wit, as he
understands us, allow the Play to be swallowed up by the Opera.
Perfectly correct!—so long as Opera subsists, the Play must
also stand, and, for the matter of that, the Pantomime too; so long
as any dispute hereon is thinkable, the Drama of the Future must
itself remain un-thinkable. If, however, the Poet's doubt lie
deeper, and consist in this, that he cannot conceive how
<hi>Song</hi> should be entitled to usurp entirely the place of
spoken dialogue: then he must take for rejoinder, that in two
several regards he has not as yet a clear idea of the character of
the Art-work of the Future. Firstly, he does not reflect that Music
has to occupy a very different position in this Art-work to what
she takes in modern Opera: that only where her power is thefittest,
has she to open out her full expanse; while, on the contrary,
wherever another power, for instance that of dramatic Speech, is
the most <hi>necessary</hi>, she has to subordinate herself to that;
still, that Music possesses the peculiar faculty of, without
entirely keeping silence, so imperceptibly linking herself to the
thought-full element of Speech that she lets the latter seem to
walk abroad alone, the while she still supports it. Should the poet
acknowledge this, then he has to recognise in the second place,
that thoughts and situations to which the lightest and most
restrained accompaniment of Music should seem importunate and
burdensome, can only be such as are borrowed from the spirit of our
modern Play; which, from beginning to end, will find no inch of
breathing-space within the Art-work of the Future. The Man who will
portray himself in the Drama of the Future has done for ever with
all the prosaic hurly-burly of fashionable manners or polite
intrigue, which our modern "poets" have to tangle and to
disentangle in their plays, with greatest circumstantiality. His
nature-bidden action and his speech are: Yea, yea! and Nay, nay
!—and all beyond is evil, <hi>i.e.</hi> modern and
superfluous.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n38" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn38" anchored="yes">
<p>We must beg to be allowed to regard the Tone-poet as included in the
Word-poet,—whether personally or by fellowship, is here a
matter of indifference.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n39" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn39" anchored="yes">
<p>The terms derived from the root "<hi>dar-stellen</hi>"—to set, or show,
forth—have been used throughout this essay so frequently
and so variously, that I deem it necessary to call attention to the
fact that in English we have no thoroughly satisfactory equivalent.
I have, therefore, been obliged to render this concept by distinct
expressions: sometimes as "performer," again as "executant,"
"actor," "representant," &amp;c. while in the <hi>verbal</hi> sense I
have taken refuge in "portray," "display," "perform,"
"impersonate," &amp;c.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n40" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn40" anchored="yes">
<p>If we substitute "Will" for "Necessity" in this sentence
(see <ref target="n01" targOrder="U">footnote on page 69</ref>)
we shall here obtain a complete summary of Schopenhauer's
system of æsthetics; while, even as it stands, it
significantly foreshadows E. von Hartmann's "<hi>Philosophy of the
Unconscious."</hi>—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n41" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn41" anchored="yes">
<p>"Über die als reine Thatsache kein zweifel mehr vorhanden
ist"—to translate this sentence literally, "as a matter of
fact," could only be misleading. Taken apart from the context, it
might then be read as a confession of faith in the realistic school;
whereas the whole passage shows that Wagner went strongly for a
search below the incidental surface for the broad principles of
life that govern human action. Witness, that, of the two schemes
with which he was at this time busied, <hi>Barbarossa</hi> and
<hi>Siegfried</hi>, he abandoned the historical in favour of the
mythical.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n42" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn42" anchored="yes">
<p>In the original, the passage runs: "um der entausserten Nothwendigkeit
seines Wesens willen"; it is impossible, however, to convey the
idea of 'renunciation' connoted by the term "entausserung" (as
employed in the next sentence) at like time with that of
the—so to speak—'turning inside out' of a man's
character.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n43" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn43" anchored="yes">
<p>We must not forget that, only a few months before writing this essay,
Wagner had prepared a sketch for a tragedy on the subject of
<hi>Jesus of Nazareth</hi>.—TR,</p>
</note>

<note id="n44" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn44" anchored="yes">
<p>Whilst we here have only touched upon the <hi>Tragic</hi> element of the
Artwork of the Future, in its evolution out of Life, and by
artistic fellowship, we may infer its <hi>Comic</hi> element by
reversing the conditions which bring the Tragic to a natural birth.
The hero of the Comedy will he the obverse of the hero of the
Tragedy. Just as the one instinctively directed all his actions to
his surroundings and his foils—as a Communist, <hi>i.e.</hi> as
a unit who of his inner, free Necessity, and by his force of
character, ascends into the Generality—so the other in his
rôle of Egoist, of foe to the principle of Generality, will
strive to withdraw himself therefrom, or else to arbitrarily direct
it to his sole self-interest; hut he will be withstood by this
principle of generality in its most multifarious forms, hard
pressed by it, and finally subdued. The Egoist will be
<hi>compelled</hi> to ascend into <hi>Community</hi>; and <hi>this</hi>
will therefore he the virtual enacting, many-headed personality
which will ever appear to the action-wishing, but never can-ning,
egoist as a capriciously changing Chance; until it fences him
around within its closest circle and, without further
breathing-space for his self-seeking, he sees at last his only
rescue in the unconditional acknowledgment of its necessity. The
artistic Fellowship, as the representative of Generality, will
therefore have in Comedy an even directer share in the framing of
the poem itself, than in Tragedy.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n45" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn45" anchored="yes">
<p>And especially our modern Theatrical institutions.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n46" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn46" anchored="yes">
<p>"<hi>Stand</hi>-rechten," generally employed to signify a
'court-martial.' The whole group of derivatives from the root-idea
of 'standing' reads thus—"das getreue Abbild des modernen
<hi>Staates,</hi> mit semen <hi>Ständen, Anstellungen,
Stand</hi>rechten, <hi>stehenden</hi> Heeren—und was sonst noch
Alles in ihm <hi>stehen</hi> möge"; the italics being reproduced
from the original.—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n47" resp="translator" place="foot" corresp="rn47" anchored="yes">
<p>See <hi>Meistersinger</hi>, Act 3.— <hi>Walther</hi>: "Wie
fang ich nach der Regel an?"—<hi>Hans Sachs</hi>: "Ihr stellt
sie selbst, und folgt ihr dann."—TR.</p>
</note>

<note id="n48" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn48" anchored="yes">
<p>Whosoever is unable to lift himself above his thraldom to the trivial,
unnatural system of our Modern Art, will be sure to pose the
vapidest of questions anent these details; to throw out doubts; to
decline to understand. That he should answer in advance the myriad
possible doubts and questions of this sort, no one, surely, will
demand of an author who addresses himself above all to the
<hi>thinking artist</hi>, and not to the thick-headed modern
art-industrial—no matter whether the latter's literary
calling be critical or creative.—R. WAGNER.</p>
</note>

<note id="n49" resp="author" place="foot" corresp="rn49" anchored="yes">
<p>It would almost seem that the author had caught a slight foreboding of the
character of the latest Parisian "Commune."—The Editor.
(TR.—<hi>i.e.</hi> of the edition of 1872; in other
words—Richard Wagner.)</p>
</note>

</div>

<div type="appendix" org="uniform" sample="complete" part="N">
<pb id="pag393"/>
<head>Appendix</head>

<p>Author's variants, in the original editions of the works included in
this volume; omitting such as either are altogether
insignificant, and would have called for no difference in
translation, or have already been reproduced in the Footnotes to
the text.</p>

<pb id="pag395" n="395"/>

<p><ref target="pag77" targOrder="U">Page 77</ref>, line 3, "abstract" (1850 edition)
for "deistic."</p>

<p><ref target="pag97" targOrder="U">Page 97</ref> in connection with
the top paragraph there stood a footnote:</p>

<quote>"This cultivated man-consumer is only
distinguished from the savage cannibal by a greater daintiness;
inasmuch as he consumes alone the life-sap of his fellow-man,
whereas the savage gulps down all the gross accessories. The first,
therefore, is able to feast off a goodly number of human victims at
one sitting; while the second, with the best appetite in the world,
can hardly get through one."</quote>

<p><ref target="pag101" targOrder="U">Page 101</ref>, line 2 of second paragraph,
"wills to" for "shall."</p>

<p><ref target="pag103" targOrder="U">Page 103</ref>, line 8, after "corporeal motion",
appeared "the movement of motion" (die Bewegung der Bewegung).</p>

<p><ref target="pag106" targOrder="U">Page 106</ref>, line 11 from bottom,
"in public private life", for "in private life".</p>

<p><ref target="pag183" targOrder="U">Page 183</ref>, line 16 after "from above." there
appeared: "Our art, like our whole culture, bears the same relation
to the life of modern Europe, as does their civilisation, imported
from outside, to the national character of the Russians. Not only
is it, that, beneath the thin veneer of this civilisation, the real
Russian remains a barbarian, and for the matter of that, a
hideously. enslaved barbarian; but that any member of the Folk who
shares in it, thereby becomes at once the most abandoned rascal,
since he only sees therein a school of over-reaching and hypocrisy,
in which he also learns his part. But, taken at its best . .</p>

<p><ref target="pag186" targOrder="U">Page 186</ref>, line 7, "abstract God", for
"modernised Jehova!"—A similar substitution of "Jehova" for
"God" has been made in that page of the Ges. Schr. which corresponds to
<xref resp="wl" type="wlpr0065" n="pag255" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">255 of Art and Climate</xref>.</p>

</div>

</back>
</text>
</TEI.2>