THE ART-PRINCIPLE IN POETRY 20/ 



Aristotle throws these into two main groups : the 

 mimetic or imitative, embraced in sculpture and 

 painting ; and the poetic or creative, which are archi- 

 tecture, music, and poetry. But this Aristotelian 

 division calls for criticism, and to bring its question- 

 able character out, let me first emphasise Professor 

 Le Conte's statement, that the so-called mimetic arts 

 "are more than imitative, otherwise they would not 

 belong to the category of fine art." And I would 

 not only emphasise the statement, but add to it 

 this : that fine art, as such, is not mimetic at all, 

 and that the distinction between the various fine 

 arts is not founded on their relation or non-relation 

 to the sensible world. In fact, architecture, music, 

 and poetry must as truly derive their materials from 

 the world of sensible experience as sculpture and 

 painting ; while sculpture and painting must as 

 really contain imaginative creation as architecture, 

 music, and poetry. That the sense-world which sup- 

 plies the basis of music and poetry is a world of inner 

 sense, while that which gives a footing to all the 

 others is an external world, is a point of no material 

 import. The vital thing in all the fine arts is their 

 self-motived creative function ; and any real distinc- 

 tion among them must refer to a gradation in the 

 perfection with which they give this function free 

 play. If one, but only one, of the arts recognised 

 as fine is so hampered by relations to the mechani- 



