Abbildungen der Seite




Part I. The First Hypothesis, ABBE DU Bos begins his excellent reflections on poetry and painting with that very question which is the subject of this chapter, and in answer to it supports at some length* a theory, the substance of which I shall endeavour to comprise in a few words. Few things, according to him, are more disagreeable to the mind than that listlessness into which it falls when it has nothing to occupy it or to awake the passions. In order to get rid of this most painful situation, it seeks with avidity every amusement and pursuit ; business, gaming, news, shows, public executions, romances ; in short, whatever will rouse the passions, and take off the mind's attention from itself. It matters not what the emotion be, only the stronger it is, so much the better; and for this reason, those passions which, considered in themselves, are the most afflicting and disagreeable, are preferable to the pleasant, inasmuch as they most effectually relieve the soul from that oppressive languor which preys upon it in a state of inactivity. They afford it ample occupation, and by giving play to its latent movements and springs of action, convey a pleasure which more than counterbalances the pain.

I admit, with Mr. Humet that there is some weight in these observations, which may sufficiently account for the pleasure taken in gaming, hunting, and several other diversions and sports. But they are not quite satisfactory, as they do not assign a sufficient reason why poets, painters, and orators exercise themselves more in actuating the pain. ful passions than in exciting the pleasant. These,

one would think, ought in every respect to have the advantage, because, at the same time that they preserve the mind from a state of inaction, they convey a feeling that is allowed to be agreeable ; and though it were granted that passions of the former kind are stronger than those of the latter (which doth not hold invariably, there being, perhaps, more examples of persons who have been killed with joy than of those who have died of grief), strength alone will not account for the preference. It by no means holds here, that the stronger the emotion is, so much the fitter for this purpose. On the contrary, if you exceed but ever so little a certain measure, instead of that sympathetic, delightful sorrow which makes affliction itself wear a lovely aspect, and engages the mind to hug it, not only with tenderness, but with transport, you only excite

* Réftexions Critiques sur la Poésie et sur la Peinture, sect, i., ii., üü. + Essay on Tragedy.

horror and aversion. “It is certain,” says the author last. quoted, very justly,* " that the same object of distress which pleases in a tragedy, were it really set before us, would give the most unfeigned uneasiness, though it be then the most effectual cure of languor and indolence.” And it is more than barely possible, even in the representations of the tragedian, or in the descriptions of the orator or the poet, to exceed that measure. I acknowledge, indeed, that this measure or degree is not the same to every temper. Some are much sooner shocked with mournful representations than others. Our mental, like our bodily appetites and capacities, are exceedingly various. It is, however, the business of both the speaker and the writer to accommodate himself to what may be styled the common standard ; for there is a common standard in what regards the faculties of the mind, as well as in what concerns the powers of the body. Now if there be any quality in the afflictive passions, besides their strength, that renders them peculiarly adapted to rescue the mind from that torpid, but corrosive rest which is considered as the greatest of evils, that quality ought to have been pointed out ; for till then, the phenomenon under examination is not accounted for. The most that can be concluded from the abbe's premises is the utility of exciting passion of some kind or other, but nothing that can evince the superior fitness of the distressful affections.

Part II. The Second Hypothesis. The next hypothesis is Fontenelle's. Not having the original at hand at present, I shall give Mr. Hume's translation of the passage, in his Essay on Tragedy above quoted. “Pleasure and pain, which are two sentiments so different in themselves, differ not so much in their cause. From the instance of tickling, it appears that the movement of pleasure, pushed a little too far, becomes pain; and that the movement of pain, a little moderated, becomes pleasure. Hence it proceeds that there is such a thing as a sorrow soft and agreeable. It is a pain weakened and diminished. The heart likes naturally to be moved and affected. Melancholy objects suit it, and even disastrous and sorrowful, provided they are softened by some circumstance. It is certain that, on the theatre, the representation has almost the effect of reality ; but yet it has not altogether that effect. However we may be hurried away by the spectacle, whatever dominion the senses and imagination may usurp over the reason, there still lurks at the bottom a certain idea of falsehood in the whole of what we see. This idea, though weak and disguised, suffices to diminish the pain which we suffer from the misfortunes of those whom we love, and to reduce that * Essay on Tragedy. † Réflexions sur la Poétique, sect. XXXVI.

affliction to such a pitch as converts it into a pleasure. We weep for the misfortunes of a hero to whom we are attached. In the same instant we comfort ourselves by reflecting that it is nothing but a fiction; and it is precisely that mixture of sentiments which composes an agreeable sorrow, and tears that delight us. But as that affliction which is caused by exterior and sensible objects is stronger than the consolation which arises from an internal reflection, they are the effects and symptoms of sorrow which ought to prevail in the composition.

I cannot affirm that this solution appears to me so just and convincing as it seems it did to Mr. Hume. If this English version, like a faithful mirror, reflect the true image of the French original, I think the author in some degree chargeable with what, in that language, is emphatically enough styled verbiage, a manner of writing very common with those of his. nation, and with their imitators in ours. The only truth that I can discover in his hypothesis lies in one small circumstance, which is so far from being applicable to the whole case under consideration, that it can properly be applied but to a very few particular instances, and is therefore no solution at all. That there are at least many cases to which it cannot be applied, the author last mentioned declares himself to be perfectly sensible,

But let us examine the passage more narrowly. He begins with laying it down as a general principle, that however different the feelings of pleasure and of pain in themselves, they differ not much in their cause ; that the movement of pleasure, pushed a little too far, becomes pain ; and that the movement of pain, a little moderated, becomes pleasure. For an illustration of this, he gives an example in tickling. I will admit that there are several other similar instances in which the observation to appearance holds. The warmth received from sitting near the fire, by one who hath been almost chilled with cold, is very pleasing ; yet you may increase this warmth, first to a disagreeable heat, and then to burning, which is one of the greatest torments. It is nevertheless extremely hazardous, on a few instances, and those not perfectly parallel to the case in hand, to found a general theory. Let us make the experiment how the application of this doctrine to the passions of the mind will answer. And for our greater security against mistake, let us begin with the simplest cases in the direct, and not in the reflex or sympathetic passions, in which hardly ever any feeling or affection comes alone. A merchant loseth all his fortune by a shipwreck, and is reduced at one stroke from opulence to indigence. His grief, we may suppose, will be very violent. If he had lost half his stock only, it is natural to think he would have borne the loss more easily, though still he would

have been affected-perhaps the loss of fifty pounds he would scarcely have felt-but I should be glad to know how much the movement or passion must be moderated; or, in other words, as the difference ariseth solely from the different degress of the cause, how small the loss must be when the sens timent or feeling of it begins to be converted into a real pleasure ; for to me it doth not appear natural that any the most trifling loss, were it of a single shilling, should be the subject of positive delight.

But to try another instance : a gross and public insult commonly provokes a very high degree of resentment, and gives a most pungent vexation to a person of sensibility. I would gladly know whether a smaller affront, or some slight instance of neglect or contempt, gives such a person any pleasure. Try the experiment also on friendship and hatred, and you will find the same success. As the warmest friendship is highly agreeable to the mind, the slightest liking is also agreeable, though in a less degree. Perfect hatred is a kind of torture to the breast that harbours it, which will not be found capable of being mitigated into pleasure ; for there is no degree of ill-will without pain. The gradation in the cause and in the effect are entirely correspondent.

Nor can any just conclusion be drawn from the affections of the body, as in these the consequence is often solely imputable to a certain proportion of strength in the cause that operates, to the present disposition of the organs. But though I cannot find that in any uncompounded passion the most remote degrees are productive of such contrary effects, I do not deny that when different passions are blended, some of them pleasing and some painful, the pleasure or the pain of those which predominate may, through the wonderful mechanism* of our mental frame, be considerably augmented by the mixture.

The only truth which, as I hinted already, I can discover in the preceding hypothesis, is, that the mind in certain cases avails itself of the notion of falsehood in order to prevent the representation or narrative from producing too strong an effect upon the imagination, and, consequently, to relieve itself from such an excess of passion as could not otherwise fail to be painful. But let it be observed that this notion is not a necessary concomitant of the pleasure that results from pity and other such affections, but is merely accidental. It was remarked above, that if the pathetic exceeds a certain

The word mechanisin, applied to the mind, ought not reasonably to give offence to any. I only use the term metaphorically for those effects in the operation of the mental faculties produced in consequence of such fixed laws as are independent of the will. It hath here, therefore, no refer ence to the doctrine of the Materialists, a system which, in my opinion, is not only untenable, but absurd.


measure, from being very pleasant it becomes very painful. Then the mind recurs to every expedient, and to disbelief among others, by which it may be enabled to disburden itself of what distresseth it; and, indeed, whenever this recourse is had by any, it is a sure indication that, with regard to such, the poet, orator, or historian hath exceeded the proper meas

But that this only holds when we are too deeply interested by the sympathetic sorrow, will appear from the following considerations : first, from the great pains often taken by writers (whose design is certainly not to shock, but to please their readers) to make the most moving stories they relate be firmly believed; secondly, from the tendency, nay, fondness, of the generality of mankind to believe what moves them, and their averseness to be convinced that it is a fiction. This can result only from the consciousness that, in ordina. ry cases, disbelief, by weakening their pity, would diminish, instead of increasing, their pleasure. They must be very far, then, from entertaining Fontenelle's notion that it is necessary to the producing of that pleasure, for we cannot well suspect them of a plot against their own enjoyment; thirdly, and lastly, from the delight which we take in reading or hearing the most tragical narrations of orators and historians, of the reality of which we entertain no doubt; I might add, in revolving in our minds, and in relating to others, disastrous incidents which have fallen within the compass of our own knowledge, and as to which, consequently, we have an absolute assurance of the fact.

Part. III. The Third Hypothesis. The third hypothesis which I shall produce on this subject is Mr. Hume's; only it ought to be remarked previously that he doth not propose it as a full solution of the question, but rather as a supplement to the former two, in the doctrine of both which he, in a great measure, acquiesces. Take his theory in his own words. He begins with putting the question, “ What is it, then, which in this case," that is, when the sorrow is not softened by fiction,“ raises a pleasure from the bosom of uneasiness, so to speak ; and a pleasure, which still retains all the features and outward symptoms of distress and sorrow? I answer, This extraordinary effect proceeds from that very eloquence with which the melancholy scene is represented. The genius required to paint objects in a lively manner, the art employed in collecting all the pathetic circumstances, the judgment displayed in disposing them—the exercise, I say, of these noble talents, together with the force of expression and beauty of oratorical numbers, diffuse the highest satisfaction on the audience, and excite the most delightful movements. By this means, the uneasiness of the

« ZurückWeiter »