position also, that is, not only what he has actually done, but also what he has hoped and striven to do, without perhaps having succeeded, so the artist will do justice to a thing only when he sees and represents not merely what it has actually become under stress of unpropitious circumstances, and only when he penetrates more deeply into the essence of the thing, and sees and gives expression to that for which the object is destined by its inner nature. This is what is called by Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Goethe, Plato, and other inspired poets and thinkers the Idea of a thing, its ideal. The ideal, therefore, is not something unnatural, something artificially constructed, on the contrary, it is nature itself in its inmost being. If all things had only an outside, if they were all merely empty vessels, husks without kernels, the extreme representatives of the naturalistic school would be right in representing only the accidental, superficial, outward semblance. But as nature has also a kernel, something within itself that forms its very the real nature of nature so to say, -the name essence, of naturalism sounds like mockery and derision when used in reference to a school which neglects precisely that inner essence of nature, its striving after existence, its desire for life, its impulse towards perfection. In like manner the name of realism for this kind of art is wholly inappropriate. For, according to Spinoza, reality and perfection in a thing are identical, seeing that the more perfectly shaped it is in all its parts, the more capacity for existence, the more vital truth, and the more reality it will possess. This false realism, in contrast to what its name is meant to convey, prefers to see in things that only which reduces their reality, their capacity for existence, all that is defective, faulty, common, ignoble, or ugly. One often observes in life that uncharitableness notices all defects, makes them as conspicuous and emphatic as possible, whereas love, on the other hand, seeks out what is good, sees and commends the beautiful. Many a blasé modern artist approaches things with indifference, nay, with repugnance and contempt, and hence his delight in depicting that which is awkward, ugly, jejune, common, or clumsy. He finds pleasure in seeking out and gathering together all the defects in nature, like the wicked man who makes a jest of the nakedness of a beggar, instead of finding him the wherewithal to cover it. The same principle holds good in all provinces of the beautiful. Whether it be a landscape we are looking at or the characters and fates of men, whether we study the marvellous structure of the human body, or listen to the song of the birds, the rustling of the forest, or the music of the human voice, it is always our hearts, our wishes that decide the impression things produce on us. Who has not at one time or another in his own experience, on meeting with an unhoped-for piece of good fortune or having a long-fostered, fervent desire suddenly realised, observed that the whole world immediately appeared to him in brighter colours, that everything at once seemed to him beautiful, good, and excellent, that he felt more kindly disposed and more ready to excuse the faults and failings of others; and found, on the other hand, that misfortune made him bitter, that everything was instantly seen in a gloomy light and appeared to him ugly and mean? And why so? Because mankind is always inclined to look upon good fortune as a benefit, and upon misfortune as an injustice. A benefit awakens love, an injustice hatred. The happy man sees beauty everywhere, because he sees with the eyes of love; to the unhappy man the world is ugly, because his eye is clouded by hatred. We must therefore never forget that it is not only in everyday life that love makes existence bearable and elevates it more and more to the full consciousness of a crowning happiness; it is love which even in their mere outward appearance reveals the deeper nature of things that deeper nature which even under the plainest covering shines forth in divine beauty to the seeing eye. Genius is love. II. PHILOSOPHIC ASPIRATION OF "GENIUS is simply the completest objectivity," are Schopenhauer's words; but objectivity is explained by him as "the objective tendency of the mind, as opposed to the subjective, which is directed to one's own selfin other words, to the" selfish "will."1 Subjectivity and self-seeking are identical, as are objectivity and love. Hence artistic genius depends on the objectivity with which impressions of the senses and the imagination are received, in other words, its essence lies in the artist's love for the object before him. To love is to desire the existence of a thing, to desire that on which its existence depends, on which its being is based. The existence of an object again is based on its perfection, and this is identical with the harmonious and uniform co-operation of all the various parts of the thing. Hence to love an object is to desire its capability of existence, its being built up of parts, perfectly, harmoniously, uniformly and systematically. Now, the total external sense-impression we receive from the harmonious organisation and purposeful arrangement of the various parts of an object is that of beauty, charm, grace. 1 The World as Will and Idea. vol. I, p. 240. In the contemplation of an object we see in it for the most part what we desire to see. We always direct our attention to those points in the object that are interesting to us, whereas we neglect or at most only superficially notice those features in which we take no interest. When we love an object, we see with interest everything in it which makes it fit to exist, which makes it perfect and its outward appearance beautiful; when we hate an object, those things in it interest us which make it incapable of existence, which make it imperfect, which make its outward appearance ugly. Love sees in an object all that is beautiful, hatred all that is ugly. The essence of things is not based on their imperfection, but on their perfection; for in the essence of all things lies the desire to exist, to be, to live. To all existence, to all life, perfection is necessary, that is, a harmonious and uniform co-operation of the parts of which each thing is composed. But if the essence, the real nature of all things consists in their striving after existence and therefore after perfection, the artist will the better grasp and succeed in representing that essence and real nature of the object before him, in proportion as he takes the more interest in its perfection of outward expression, that is, in its beauty, charm, and grace. The artist who idealises real things in the right manner will become thereby not untrue, but really true to nature. On the other hand, the artist will the more easily fail to appreciate the essence, the nature of the things to be represented, in proportion as he is inclined to give attention and prominence to their deficiencies, uglinesses, deformities, and faults; and to the same degree his efforts will be untrue and unnatural. Artistic genius is identical with the objectivity with which we receive impressions. The artistic genius grasps |