the difference on a philosophical footing. Using the language of mental science, he says of the mental conception, Likeness or Sameness, and its opposites, Unlikeness or Difference, taken as Thesis and Antithesis,-that Imitation is their Mesothesis or Indifference; of which abstract conceptions, when put in a concrete form, and expressed by the opposites, Thing and Thought, the Mesothesis or Indifference are the works of imitative art, such as painting and sculpture.* The Mesothesis or Indifference, being that which represents the act of the mind as mediating between two opposite conceptions, is inherently different from, while intimately related to both, and will constantly suggest both, though in different relations; but it must never put on the exclusive qualities of either, but always combine both in a unity, else it will forfeit its genuine character, and give rise to a hybrid, or patch-work. At the same time, as it may be placed nearer to, or more remote from, either of the opposites, it is susceptible of great variety in form; whence the extensive range in art, yet nothing arbitrary. Coleridge wishes to show, by these explanations, that the Fine Arts, as being the mediating representation to the mind between outward things and the thought of them, are not means of pleasing by mere arbitrary efforts at resemblance, and the illusion of the senses, but have a distinct place of their own to occupy, according to the known laws of the human mind, and hence have true principles.

Coleridge's editor quotes the following from Schelling, as being probably in his mind when writing of this subject:

"How comes it, that to every cultivated sense, imitations of the so-named real, carried even to illusion, appear in the highest degree untruthful,— -even convey the impression of specters; whereas a work, in which the idea is dominant, seizes us with the full force of truth,-nay, transports us, for the first time, into the genuine world of reality? Whence does this arise, save from the more or less obscure perception, which proclaims, that the idea is that alone which lives in things, that all else is beingless and empty shadow ?"

In this translation, "imitation" has the sense of "copy," or "fac-simile," in Coleridge. In conformity with the German dislike to dualism, and desire to impute everything to one

* See note on page 624.

immaterial principle, the ideal is here regarded by Schelling as being the only substance in what is seen in a work of art, instead of the truer view of Coleridge, which, by means of the Mesothesis, connects the mental consciousness with the sense, as well as with the mind, each according to its proper character. Both equally hold, that genuine works of art are something quite different from the illusive presentment of outward objects, and that works merely such would not deserve the

name.

The above may suffice as to the ground-work of these distinctions, without going deeper into their Metaphysics. That the distinctions themselves are real, has already appeared; and, in further proof of this, we shall add a few illustrations, chiefly taken from the effects observed in the use of the Stereoscope.

Let it be observed, that our minds have a positive satisfaction in associating a fine effect in statuary with the knowledge, forced on them by the eye, that it is fixed in a solid and enduring substance, such as bronze or marble, rather than in a soft and more perishable material-that is, that it is fixed in a material the most unlike to that of the human body, and to that to which life can pertain. So, the distinct perception of a painting being on a flat surface intensifies the impression of a fine effect in the work. In both cases, the mind is in fact looking at the mediated representation of its own conception, and can, by the means noticed, more perfectly close itself up to the mental impression, in its supersensual and enduring character of an image in thought. The incurable fault in almost all stereoscopic views consists in their unreal outward reality, in other words, their deceptiveness, arising from the absence of anything corresponding to what has just been pointed out, on which to rest the sense of Unlikeness or Difference, so as to qualify that of Likeness or Sameness, and thus cause the effect to coalesce with a genuine law of the mind. The sense of falsehood, conveyed by a mere copy of nature, as noticed by Coleridge, does not connect with anything in the intention of the maker of it, but arises from the offense being committed against the laws of the mind itself,-an offense,

from which there can, before the tribunal of just taste, be no exculpation, and no absolution.

The reason for the disgust, excited by the painted wax figure and the stereoscopic colored portraits, is, as we have seen, that the condition of the mind's Indifference is destroyed, and that to the eye Identity takes its place; or, rather, that there is a heterogeneous mixture of the two, giving rise to a feeling even more distasteful. The work having thus, more or less, been taken out of its proper sphere, and brought into that of reality, the mind revolts from it, as was just said, as from a falsehood. Uncolored stereoscopic figures are more tolerable, because the want of color keeps, to a certain extent, the representations out of the range of reality, and causes the mind to retain somewhat of the state of Indifference. But the stereoscopic view of a good pictured statue, uncolored, is positively pleasing, because the change is for the better, by converting drawing into statuary, leaving Indifference wholly unaffected. Again, the stereoscopic view of a natural scene, such as a garden, or a forest, which pleases the eye when looked at as a drawing, may not, indeed, when seen through the stereoscopic glasses give rise to disgust, there being nothing in it calculated to rouse so powerful a sentiment, but it affords little satisfaction beyond that of surprise at a show so ingenious and unexpected, and presenting so much of the features of reality. The best that can be said of it is, that it is a bad or poor reality, not to be compared for a moment with the true, while it conveys nothing at all of the pleasure given by a work of the Fine Arts. Winter scenes, rocks, ruins, and buildings, without living figures, particularly those having picturesque forms, answer better, because, from the want of life, and the inert character, and sombre hues, of the materials, they seem to place the reality before us, somewhat as in the original scene; but still it is directly as a reality, and not by means of the subtle creation by the mind, conscious of its act towards what is seen at the moment not to be real, through which a well executed work of the Fine Arts delights us. Whilst the pleasure partly may not be unwarranted, arising from surprise at the novelty of the sight, and from the interest of the objects,

none of it springs from the gratification of the peculiar taste to which the Fine Arts appeal. The effects are a marvel in optics, and nothing more.

The principles to be gathered from what has been said, are these:

1. The aim of the imitative arts is not the illusive presentment to the eye of the real object, and successful, therefore, in proportion to the success of the illusion.

2. On the contrary, the more the actual presence of the object is suggested by illusion, the more the mental effect is shrouded, and the greater the departure from the true principles of art; for the absence of the object, yet its present likeress, should at once be consciously apparent to the mind, in the contemplation of the work.

3. Art has thus a substantive and peculiar province, equally distinct from reality, in the one direction, and from unmaterialized thought, in the other; which the mind can recognize, and the artist's powers replenish with appropriate objects.

4. The pleasure and instruction, derived from works of the Fine Arts, require the clear recognition by the mind of this distinct place, as one of their indispensable conditions.

5. Consequently, Art has laws of its own, differing as much from those of the real object, as from those of the mere thought of it.

It is a great point gained, when it is recognized that Art has a distinct and peculiar part of its own, and not merely the part of providing copies of nature. From not knowing, in what the excellence of works of art consists, and where to look for it, many never have any enjoyment of them; while others find a futile enjoyment, in searching for and discovering real or imagined illusions of the sense. It may be asked, how the peculiar characters of Art are to be distinguished and pursued?-a question which is to be answered by two considerations:

1. Art has in itself the means of preserving the sense of its separate province; of which, in painting, the flat surface is the chief, and, in sculpture, the material and its color; and of these the effects, in the just degree which Art requires, are in

nowise to be disguised or eluded. The degree is all that remains after artistic effect and expression are satisfied; the balance, when Likeness is provided for, is to be left for Dif ference, all of it, without a jot wasted on Illusion. The perspective of a painting is quite a different thing from the perspective of nature, as is shown by the different effects of the perspective in a landscape for the Stereoscope, when seen by the naked eye, and under the instrument. The former thus appears to be merely for pictorial ends on the face of the paper or canvas. The expression of a statue differs essentially from that of a living person, in this respect, that, consciously to our feeling, it is disjoined from life and reality, and made capable, by means of the material and its color, that is, by means of very unlikeness,--of being contemplated by the mind as such, not only without repugnance, but with equal power and satisfaction. Similar observations might be made as to all the other characteristics, which distinguish the representations of art from real objects. It is the business of the artist to work in the region thus indicated,-a region, which probably cannot be better distinguished than as Coleridge does, by assigning its place to the Mesothesis, or the Indifference, of the Thing and the Thought; and in which, as existing neither in the real, nor the ideal, the skilled artist is able to convey, by means of visible, expressive and powerful touches, what will make present to the feelings of the intelligent beholder the best and truest characters of both, as it were, brought out and isolated for that end,-(as Coleridge said of Chantrey's bust of Wordsworth, that it had more of Wordsworth than Wordsworth himself.") Nothing more is required to enable the artist to keep his work within this sphere, than the clear conviction of its existence, and the fit use, under this conviction, of his peculiar materials, avoiding all endeavors after the simulation of nature. What has now been adverted to will secure that the artist's work be genuine; but its excellence in the higher sense of the Fine Arts will depend chiefly on his successful attention to the second consideration.

2. To occupy the right sphere, is one thing; to occupy it well, is another. The absence of the knowledge of Art, in its