The author has dwelt, especially in the theoretical part, upon general questions which are side-issues in respect to the theme that he has treated. But this will not seem a digression to those who remember that, strictly speaking, there are no particular philosophical sciences, standing by themselves. Philosophy is unity, and when we treat of Æsthetic or of Logic or of Ethics, we treat always of the whole of philosophy, although illustrating for didactic purposes only one side of that inseparable unity. In like manner, owing to this intimate connexion of all the parts of philosophy, the uncertainty and misunderstanding as to the æsthetic activity, the representative and productive imagination, this firstborn of the spiritual activities, mainstay of the others, generates everywhere else misunderstandings, uncertainties and errors: in Psychology as in Logic, in History as in the Philosophy of Practice. If language is the first spiritual manifestation, and if the æsthetic form is language itself, taken in all its true scientific extension, it is hopeless to try to understand clearly the later and more complicated phases of the life of the spirit, when their first and simplest moment is ill known, mutilated and disfigured. From the explanation of the æsthetic activity is also to be expected the correction of several concepts and the solution of certain philosophic problems which generally seem to be almost desperate. Such is precisely the spirit animating the present work. And if the present attempt and the historical illustrations which accompany it may be of use in winning friends to these studies, by levelling obstacles and indicating paths to be followed; if this happen, especially here in Italy, whose æsthetic traditions (as has been demonstrated in its place) are very noble, the author will consider that he has gained his end, and one of his keenest desires will have been satisfied.

Divan şiiri, büyük şairlerini XVI. yüzyılda yetiştirirken, mûsikî de büyük bestekârlarını XVIII. yüzyılda yetiştirir. XVIII. yüzyıl divan şairlerinde, şiir ve mûsikînin kendi aralarında bir bütünlük oluşturduğu görülür. Mûsıkî, şiirin sınırlarını, tesir sahasını genişletir, şiir de duygulara hitap eden hakikatleri dile getirirken, taşıdığı değerler itibariyle mûsıkîyi anlamlı kılar. Dolayısıyla şiir, bir yandan sesleriyle mûsıkînin müzikalitesine katkıda bulunurken, diğer yandan da eserin anlamına katkıda bulunarak eserden duyulan hazzı genişletir. Divan şiiri geleneği içinde oluşan şarkı; mûsıkî eserine dönüştükten sonra, klâsik Türk mûsıkîsi içinde yer alışı ve de türkülerde güfte olarak kullanılışıyla halka mal olarak toplum tarafından benimsenmiş olan bir edebî ürün olur. Türk şiir geleneğinin ve zevkinin doğurduğu millî bir edebî ürün olarak şarkı, divan şiirinin çevreye açılan, yerliliğe en fazla yaklaşan bir yönüdür.

“Originally published in 1896.”

In the following pages my aim has been to sketch the development of criticism, and particularly of critical method, in England; and to illustrate each phase of its growth by one or two samples taken from the most typical writers. I have in no way attempted to make a full collection of what might be thought the most striking pieces of criticism to be found in our literature.

Owing to the great wealth of such writing produced during the last sixty years, it is clearly impossible to give so complete a picture of what has been done in this period as in others. I am obliged to content myself with one specimen of one writer. But that is the writer who, in the opinion of many, is the most remarkable of all English critics. For the permission, so kindly granted, to include the Essay on Sandro Botticelli I desire to offer my sincerest thanks to Messrs. Macmillan and to the other representatives of the late Mr. Pater.

It may seem strange to close a volume of literary criticism with a study on the work and temperament of a painter. I have been led to do so for more than one reason. A noticeable tendency of modern criticism, from the time of Burke and Lessing, has been to break down the barrier between poetry and the kindred arts; and it is perhaps well that this tendency should find expression in the following selection. But a further reason is that Mr. Pater was never so much himself, was never so entirely master of his craft, as when interpreting the secrets of form and colour. Most of all was this the case when he had chosen for his theme one who, like Botticelli, “is before all things a poetical painter”.

1. E. VAUGHAN

February, 1896.