the critique of judgement-第47部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


t　is　possible。　Consequently　fine　art　cannot　of　its　own　self　excogitate　the　rule　according　to　which　it　is　to　effectuate　its　product。　But　since；　for　all　that；　a　product　can　never　be　called　art　unless　there　is　a　preceding　rule；　it　follows　that　nature　in　the　individual　（and　by　virtue　of　the　harmony　of　his　faculties）　must　give　the　rule　to　art；　i。e。；　fine　art　is　only　possible　as　a　product　of　genius。　　　From　this　it　may　be　seen　that　genius　（1）　is　a　talent　for　producing　that　for　which　no　definite　rule　can　be　given；　and　not　an　aptitude　in　the　way　of　cleverness　for　what　can　be　learned　according　to　some　rule；　and　that　consequently　originality　must　be　its　primary　property。　（2）　Since　there　may　also　be　original　nonsense；　its　products　must　at　the　same　time　be　models；　i。e。；　be　exemplary；　and；　consequently；　though　not　themselves　derived　from　imitation；　they　must　serve　that　purpose　for　others；　i。e。；　as　a　standard　or　rule　of　estimating。　（3）　It　cannot　indicate　scientifically　how　it　brings　about　its　product；　but　rather　gives　the　rule　as　nature。　Hence；　where　an　author　owes　a　product　to　his　genius；　he　does　not　himself　know　how　the　ideas　for　it　have　entered　into　his　head；　nor　has　he　it　in　his　power　to　invent　the　like　at　pleasure；　or　methodically；　and　communicate　the　same　to　others　in　such　precepts　as　would　put　them　in　a　position　to　produce　similar　products。　（Hence；　presumably；　our　word　Genie　is　derived　from　genius；　as　the　peculiar　guardian　and　guiding　spirit　given　to　a　man　at　his　birth；　by　the　inspiration　of　which　those　original　ideas　were　obtained。）　（4）　Nature　prescribes　the　rule　through　genius　not　to　science　but　to　art；　and　this　also　only　in　so　far　as　it　is　to　be　fine　art。

　　　　　　　　　SS　47。　Elucidation　and　confirmation　of　the　above　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　explanation　of　genius。

　　Every　one　is　agreed　on　the　point　of　the　complete　opposition　between　genius　and　the　spirit　of　imitation。　Now　since　learning　is　nothing　but　imitation；　the　greatest　ability；　or　aptness　as　a　pupil　（capacity）；　is　still；　as　such；　not　equivalent　to　genius。　Even　though　a　man　weaves　his　own　thoughts　or　fancies；　instead　of　merely　taking　in　what　others　have　thought；　and　even　though　he　go　so　far　as　to　bring　fresh　gains　to　art　and　science；　this　does　not　afford　a　valid　reason　for　calling　such　a　man　of　brains；　and　often　great　brains；　a　genius；　in　contradistinction　to　one　who　goes　by　the　name　of　shallow…pate；　because　he　can　never　do　more　than　merely　learn　and　follow　a　lead。　For　what　is　accomplished　in　this　way　is　something　that　could　have　been　learned。　Hence　it　all　lies　in　the　natural　path　of　investigation　and　reflection　according　to　rules；　and　so　is　not　specifically　distinguishable　from　what　may　be　acquired　as　the　result　of　industry　backed　up　by　imitation。　So　all　that　Newton　bas　set　forth　in　his　immortal　work　on　the　Principles　of　Natural　Philosophy　may　well　be　learned；　however　great　a　mind　it　took　to　find　it　all　out；　but　we　cannot　learn　to　write　in　a　true　poetic　vein；　no　matter　how　complete　all　the　precepts　of　the　poetic　art　may　be；　or　however　excellent　its　models。　The　reason　is　that　all　the　steps　that　Newton　had　to　take　from　the　first　elements　of　geometry　to　his　greatest　and　most　profound　discoveries　were　such　as　he　could　make　intuitively　evident　and　plain　to　follow；　not　only　for　himself　but　for　every　one　else。　On　the　other　hand；　no　Homer　or　Wieland　can　show　how　his　ideas；　so　rich　at　once　in　fancy　and　in　thought；　enter　and　assemble　themselves　in　his　brain；　for　the　good　reason　that　he　does　not　himself　know；　and　so　cannot　teach　others。　In　matters　of　science；　therefore；　the　greatest　inventor　differs　only　in　degree　from　the　most　laborious　imitator　and　apprentice；　whereas　he　differs　specifically　from　one　endowed　by　nature　for　fine　art。　No　disparagement；　however；　of　those　great　men；　to　whom　the　human　race　is　so　deeply　indebted；　is　involved　in　this　comparison　of　them　with　those　who　on　the　score　of　their　talent　for　fine　art　are　the　elect　of　nature。　The　talent　for　science　is　formed　for　the　continued　advances　of　greater　perfection　in　knowledge；　with　all　its　dependent　practical　advantages；　as　also　for　imparting　the　same　to　others。　Hence　scientists　can　boast　a　ground　of　considerable　superiority　over　those　who　merit　the　honour　of　being　called　geniuses；　since　genius　reaches　a　point　at　which　art　must　make　a　halt；　as　there　is　a　limit　imposed　upon　it　which　it　cannot　transcend。　This　limit　has　in　all　probability　been　long　since　attained。　In　addition；　such　skill　cannot　be　communicated；　but　requires　to　be　bestowed　directly　from　the　hand　of　nature　upon　each　individual；　and　so　with　him　it　dies；　awaiting　the　day　when　nature　once　again　endows　another　in　the　same　way…one　who　needs　no　more　than　an　example　to　set　the　talent　of　which　he　is　conscious　at　work　on　similar　lines。　　　Seeing；　then；　that　the　natural　endowment　of　art　（as　fine　art）　must　furnish　the　rule；　what　kind　of　rule　must　this　be？　It　cannot　be　one　set　down　in　a　formula　and　serving　as　a　precept…for　then　the　judgement　upon　the　beautiful　would　be　determinable　according　to　concepts。　Rather　must　the　rule　be　gathered　from　the　performance；　i。e。；　from　the　product；　which　others　may　use　to　put　their　own　talent　to　the　test；　so　as　to　let　it　serve　as　a　model；　not　for　imitation；　but　for　following。　The　possibility　of　this　is　difficult　to　explain。　The　artist's　ideas　arouse　like　ideas　on　the　part　of　his　pupil；　presuming　nature　to　have　visited　him　with　a　like　proportion　of　the　mental　Powers。　For　this　reason；　the　models　of　fine　art　are　the　only　means　of　handing　down　this　art　to　posterity。　This　is　something　which　cannot　be　done　by　mere　descriptions　（especially　not　in　the　line　of　the　arts　of　speech）；　and　in　these　arts；　furthermore；　only　those　models　can　become　classical　of　which　the　ancient；　dead　languages；　preserved　as　learned；　are　the　medium。　　　Despite　the　marked　difference　that　distinguishes　mechanical　art；　as　an　art　merely　depending　upon　industry　and　learning；　from　fine　art；　as　that　of　genius；　there　is　still　no　fine　art　in　which　something　mechanical；　capable　of　being　at　once　comprehended　and　followed　in　obedience　to　rules；　and　consequently　something　academic；　does　not　constitute　the　essential　condition　of　the　art。　For　the　thought　of　something　as　end　must　be　present；　or　else　its　product　would　not　be　ascribed　to　an　art　at　all；　but　would　be　a　mere　product　of　chance。　But　the　effectuation　of　an　end　necessitates　determinate　rules　which　we　cannot　venture　to　dispense　with。　Now；　seeing　that　originality　of　talent　is　one　（though　not　the　sole）　essential　factor　that　goes　to　make　up　the　character　of　genius；　shallow　minds　fancy　that　the　best　evidence　they　can　give　of　their　being　full…blown　geniuses　is　by　emancipating　themselves　from　all　academic　constraint　of　rules；　in　the　belief　that　one　cuts　a　finer　figure　on　the　back　of　an　ill…tempered　than　of　a　trained　horse。　Genius　can　do　no　more　than　furnish　rich　material　for　products　of　fine　art；　its　elaboration　and　its　form　require　a　talent　academically　trained；　so　that　it　may　be　employed　in　such　a　way　as　to　stand　the　test　of　judgement。　But；　for　a　person　to　hold　forth　and　pass　sentence　like　a　genius　in　matters　that　fall　to　the　province　of　the　most　patient　rational　investigation；　is　ridiculous　in　the　extreme。1　One　is　at　a　loss　to　know　whether　to　laug