lectures is much more confined, and comprehends only a branch of the literary history of the German people; which I intend to treat somewhat in detail, when we come to the literature of the three last centuries. In order to show the connexion subsisting between the history of literature and the general progress of mental cultivation, it was necessary to give the general outlines just described; and I now propose to touch upon some topics, standing in close relation to the subject of the course of Lectures which is to follow.

Science and Art are forms by which the human mind represents the nature of its divine origin. The former is called into life through the activity of intellect; the latter, through that of feeling and fancy. Both, then, are subjects of the history of human cultivation, as far as this history shows the development and progress of the mind. Both, though by different ways, contend for truth as their highest aim. Science, by intellectual operation, either gives axioms to human reason as its inheritance, from which further truths may be derived which is the synthetical method; or, it takes an opposite direction, and analyzes the existing appearances of its elements, tracing results to their primitive sources-which is the analytical method: and these different modes of searching after truth form, what is called, the scientific method. Art, on the contrary, is the representation ofthe innate ideas and intuitions of the human mind, by the power of feeling and fancy: a representation which may be

F

effected in a twofold manner; either by means of sounds and language, in the forms of music, oratory, or poetry; or by means of what is more strictly understood by art, in the forms of architecture, sculpture, and painting. In the field of science, intellect uses logic as a means of arriving at truth; in the field of art, technical skill is employed for expressing the internal perception and imbodying the idea.

Sciences, then, belong to mankind generally, and have no particular country or nation, where they flourish in especial colours. There is not an English, French, Greek, or German science, because there is not an English, French, Greek, or German intellect, but a general human intellect. One science may, it is true, have made more striking progress among one people than another; yet this proves, not its national character, but merely its having been the exclusive object of attention with the distinguished men of such particular country. The mode of practically applying any science may impart to it a national interest, and in this sense we indeed speak of a Roman, French, or English law; yet this implies only the appropriation of peculiar laws to peculiar political and social wants; a remark which holds good also in theology, history, and the other sciences. Still this great principle remains incontrovertible, namely, that in all climes intellect must act by the self-same laws.

With art, however, the case is different. Art is a production of feeling and fancy, representing an intuitive idea; but this representation is connected

with some external accident, as sounds, or material forms. Now, as feelings and sentiments are variously expressed in various individuals, according to personal character; so the general character of many individuals, who form one people, will give a peculiar character to art among them. The sentiments of a southern will always be more vivacious than those of a northman. The same may be said of the fancy : its character is not general, but personal, and differs in different individuals; consequently, between aggregates of individuals, or, in other words, nations, its distinction is equally marked. Eastern fancy reflects images which are entirely different from those represented by the western; and a Spaniard's fancy varies as widely from that of a Swede. Fancy, as the daughter of nature, is subject to the influences of climate, manners, and customs; and though the eternal idea of the beautiful belongs to mankind generally, yet the form of its expression is always national; that is, every nation must give its particular character to the art which it cultivates. Man himself may be taken as the best illustration of this: every where, he is an image of the divinity, yet every where, this image is national; a beautiful Greek differing essentially from a beauty of the north.

Religion, morals, customs, climate, and political constitution must, in every nation, have a decided influence on art. Speaking of the arts of design, I must assert, that the artist creates according to his peculiar perception of an idea. Thus, a Phidias will represent

the idea of Jupiter differently from a Praxiteles, though both may concur in their view and belief of the divine dignity of the Olympian father. Homer, again, delineates his Jove in a different form from that chosen by the northern skald, who sings of Odin; and this because the ideas of both differ concerning the Supreme Deity. We cannot, strictly speaking, compare the Venus of a Greek sculptor with the Madonna of Raphael; not only because that is a statue and this a painting, but because also the conceptions of both artists differ. Nay, we may go farther, and affirm that the works of the two great modern masters of sculpture, Thorwaldson and Canova, must differ in character, not only personally, but nationally; for Thorwaldson is a northman, Canova a southlander. A work of art is the offspring of the artist's intuition, a sort of internal revelation; for the idea of beauty must have been revealed to his mind previously to its representation; and this representation will be effected in an individual and national manner, because the feeling and fancy of the artist are subject to the influence of religious and political relations, and of the education, manners, and customs, which have formed their direction and cultivation.

Although a general conception of the beautiful be acknowledged to exist, still in no degree can we admit a general representation thereof. As long as the connexion between spirit and form endures, they must be influenced by climate, education, manners; and

therefore the representation of intuitive perceptions of the beautiful must nationally vary. A similar variety is found in the most sacred concern of the human race the christian religion: in its leading truths, Christians of all sects and countries agree; but in the symbolic expression of it, and in the mode of penetrating to the source of truth, a great variety exists. Feeling and fancy, differing in the south from those in the north, differing also among the different nations, will variously clothe the eternal truths of revelation. Thus catholicism and protestantism have each their peculiar features; each, too, has for particular peoples a particular form, notwithstanding generally prescribed dogmas and professions of faith. And the cause of this lies, as we have seen, in the construction of the human mind, and in the divine order, that every where, in the universe, individuality and variety shall consist with uniformity.

By these rules, the art of poetry, which may be termed the mother of all art, must be judged. She represents the eternal ideas of beauty, by imbodying them in language, the eternal form of thought. The idea of beauty being an intuition, and not subject to the laws of demonstrative intellect, can only be conceived and felt; but fancy, as it were, lends it wings, by which it moves within the soul, and attempts to gain a form. Then, in order to be perceptible for others, it employs the power of language; and in the exercise of this power, in the giving outward form and life to the internal revelation, in making