430 .ESTHETICS 



ment of the spoken word of the poet; the existence of the works 

 of Bach, to mention no others, tells of the value of this differentiation. 



And here I think we may apply with justice the principle of criticism 

 above presented. The poet and the musician each do their best work, 

 other things being equal, when they emphasize the forms of beauty 

 which their several arts alone can give. We have here in my view 

 a rational ground for the repulsion many of us feel for the so-called 

 " programme music " of our day. 



Music and literature of the highest types nowadays present 

 sources of beauty of very diverse character, and any effort to make 

 one subsidiary to the other is likely to lessen the aesthetic worth of 

 each, and of the combination. 



Here again I may say that I have no objection to raise to a recom- 

 bination of the arts of hearing, provided a fuller sense of beauty 

 can thereby be reached. But this recombination becomes year by 

 year more difficult as the several arts become more clearly differen- 

 tiated, and must in my view soon reach its limit. 



The opera of to-day attempts such a recombination, but does so 

 either to the detriment of the musical or of the literary constituent ; 

 that is clear when we consider the musical ineptitude of such operas 

 as deal with a finely developed drama, and the literary crudeness of 

 the plot-interest in Wagner's very best works. Such a consideration 

 makes very clear to us how much each of the great divisions of the 

 arts of hearing has gained by their differentiation, and by their inde- 

 pendent development. 



Here as with the arts of sight we may, in my view, hope for 

 better aesthetic results from the development of each of the differ- 

 entiated arts in conjunction; rather from the persistent attempt to 

 recombine them, with the almost certain result that the aesthetic 

 value of each will be reduced. 



6 



But aesthetics demands more of philosophy than an account of the 

 genesis of art, with all the valuable lessons that this involves. It de- 

 mands, rightly, that it be given a place of honor in any system which 

 claims to give us a rationalized scheme of the universe of experience. 



The aesthetician tells the philosopher that he cannot but ask 

 himself what significance aesthetic facts have for his pluralism, or 

 for his monism. He claims that this question is too often overlooked 

 entirely or too lightly considered; but that it must be satisfactorily 

 answered if the system-maker is to find acceptance of his view. 

 And in the attempt to answer this and kindred questions, the aesthet- 

 ician is not without hope that no inconsiderable light may be thrown 

 by the philosopher upon the solution of the problems of aesthetics 

 itself. 



