Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 1.djvu/242
elation in the beholder. The Ludicrous, is defined by Mr Bain, improving on Aristotle and Hobbes, as the degradation of something possessing dignity in circumstances that excite no other strong emotion. The pleasure accompanying the impression may be referred either to the elation of a sense of power or superiority ideally or sympathetically excited, or to a sense of freedom from restraint, both of which have in common the element of a joyous rebound from pressure. Thus it will be seen that Professor Bain recognises no new mental principle in æsthetic effects, but regards them as peculiar combinations and transformations, according to known psychological laws, of other and simpler feelings.
An interesting turn has been given to the psychology of æsthetics by Mr Herbert Spencer. In some of his essays, as the one entitled "The Origin and Function of Music," and more fully in the concluding chapter of his Psychology (second edition), on the Æsthetic Sentiments, he offers a new theory of the genesis of the pleasures of beauty and art, based on his doctrine of evolution. He takes up Schiller's idea of the connection between æsthetic activity and play, only he deals with this latter not as an ideal tendency, but as a phenomenal reality, seeking to make it the actual starting-point in the order of evolution of æsthetic action. Play or sport is defined as the superfluous and useless exercise of faculties that have been quiescent for a time, and have in this way become so ready to discharge as to relieve themselves by simulated actions. Æsthetic activities yield to the higher powers of perception and emotion the substituted exercise which play yields to the lower impulses, agreeing with play in not directly subserving any processes conducive to life, but being gratifications sought for themselves only. This point of affinity between the two classes of pleasures is a valuable addition to æsthetic theory, and helps one to understand how the artistic impulse first arose. At the same time it is doubtful how far all present æsthetic pleasures, as the passive enjoyments of colour and tone, can be interpreted as substituted activities in Mr Spencer's sense. They seem rather to be original and instinctive modes of gratification not dependent on any previous exercises of life-function, except so far as the structure and functions of the senses as a whole may be viewed as the product of multitudinous life-processes in animal evolution. Mr Spencer, moreover, forms a hierarchy of æsthetic pleasures, the standard of height being either the number of powers duly exercised, or what comes to the same thing, the degree of complexity of the emotional faculty thus exercised. The first, and lowest class of pleasures, are those of simple sensation, as tone and colours, which are partly organic and partly the results of association. The second class are the pleasures of perception, as employed upon the combination of colours, &c. The highest order of pleasures are those of the æsthetic sentiments proper, consisting of the multitudinous emotions ideally excited by æsthetic objects, natural and artistic. Among these vaguely and partially revived emotions Mr Spencer reckons not only those of the individual, but also many of the constant feelings of the race. Thus he would attribute the vagueness and apparent depth of musical emotion to associations with vocal tones, built up during the course of vast ages. This graduated scheme is evidently dictated by the assumption that the higher the stage of evolution, the higher the pleasure. Yet Mr Spencer admits that this measure of æsthetic value will not suffice alone, and he adds, that the most perfect form of æsthetic gratification is realised when sensation, perception, and emotion, are present in fullest and most pleasurable action. Mr Spencer's supposition, that much of the pleasure of æsthetic emotion is referrible to transmitted experience, offers a very ingenious, even if not very definite, mode of explaining many of the mysterious effects of tone, and even of colour.
Among works on the history of æsthetic doctrines, the student may be referred to the following:—
In German literature, which contains the most complete histories Max Schasler's Kritische Geschichte der Æsthetik, forming the first two volumes of an æthetic system, is the fullest. Still he hardly does justice to English writers, there being no mention of Alison and recent thinkers. His stand-point is only definable as a new modification of Hegelianism. Zimmermann's Geschichte der Æsthetik is also to be recommended. Lotze's Geschichteder Æsthetik in Deutschland is a highly critical résumé of German systems, characterised by a good deal of caution, and a desire to mediate between opposing views, and if not very definite in its result, very appreciate and suggestive of the many-sidedness of the subject. In French, Lévèque's work, La Science du Beau, contains a very fair account of the most conspicuous systems, ancient and modern. In our own literature, numerous references to other systems are to be found in the essays of Alison; and Jeffrey attempts a brief historical survey of the doctrines of beauty in his article on the subject. Dugald Stewart's essays mostly fall into critical examination of the chief theories of beauty. Finally, Professor Bain, in his Compendium of Mental and Moral Science, supplies a brief but careful account of most of the known theories of the Beautiful.(J. S.)
Aetion, a painter, whose famous picture of the marriage of Roxana and Alexander was exhibited at the Olympic games, and gained Aëtion so much reputation that the president of the games gave him his daughter in marriage. The picture is minutely describes by Lucian. Aëtion appears from that author to have flourished in the times of Hadrian and the Antonines.
Aetius, a Roman general of the closing period of the western empire, born at Dorostolus in Mœsia, late in the 4th century. While detained for some time as a hostage in the camp of Rhuas, king of the Huns, he acquired an influence with the barbarians that was afterwards of much advantage to himself, though the same cannot be said of it as regards the empire. He led into Italy an army of 60,000 Huns, which he employed first to support the usurping Emperor John, and, on the death of the latter, to enforce his claim to the supreme command of the army in Gaul upon Placidia, the empress-mother and regent for Valentinian III. Afterwards, when he incurred the disfavour of Placidia for the death of his rival Boniface, he again employed an army of Huns to compel her to reinstate him in his former position. In Gaul he won his military reputation, upholding for nearly twenty years, by combined policy and daring, the falling fortunes of the western empire. His greatest victory was that of Chalons-sur-Marne (20th Sept. 451), in which he utterly routed Attila and the Huns—the number slain on both sides being, according to one computation, 300,000, though this is obviously an exaggeration. This was the last triumph of the empire. Three years later (454) Aëtius presented himself at court to claim the emperor's daughter in marriage for his son Gaudentius; but Valentinia, suspecting him of designs upon the crown, slew him with his own hand.
Aetius, surnamed "the Atheist," founder of an extreme sect of the Arians, was a native of Cœle-Syria. After working for some time as a coppersmith, he became a travelling doctor, and displayed great skill is disputations on medical subjects; but his controversial power soon found a wider field for its exercise in the great theological question of the time. He studied successively under the Arians, Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, Athanasius, bishop of Anazarbus, and the presbyter Antonius of Tarsus. In 350 he was ordained a deacon by Leontius of Antioch, but was shortly afterwards forced by the orthodox party to leave that town. At the first synod of Sirmium, he won a dialectic victory over the homoiousian bishops Basilius and Eustathius, who sought in consequence to stir up against him the enmity of Cæsar Gallus. In 356 he went to