human life full of originality and suggestiveness.

Schiller worked in practically the same direction. A moral standpoint of
a high order [p.121] is to be discovered in his writings, and he
believed this standard to be possible of preservation alongside of a
legitimate "freedom granted in the phenomenon." "Then the two tendencies
again became divided. Romanticism gave a peculiar definite and
self-conscious expression to the priority of art and the aesthetical
view of life, while Fichte and the other leaders of the national
movement exerted a powerful influence in the direction of strengthening
morality. The social and industrial type of civilisation, which became
more and more powerful during the course of the nineteenth century, was
inclined, with its tendency towards social welfare and utility, to
assign a subordinate part to art. Modern art arises in protest against
this and is ambitious to influence the whole of life; in opposition to
morality it holds up an aesthetic view of life as being alone
justifiable. Hence at the present time the two spheres stand wide
apart."[39]

Eucken shows how such an antithesis between morality and art has
partially existed for thousands of years. But whenever a cleavage takes
place both morality and art suffer. On the one hand, morality tends to
become a system of rules for the performance of which a reward is
promised either in this world or in the world to come. On the other
hand, art is stripped of the distinction between the values of sensuous
things as these express [p.122] themselves in their relation to human
life. In the former case, insistence on morality (even on morality
alone) has deepened human life; it has given it a more strenuous tone;
and it has created a scale of values which alters the whole meaning of
life. But morality conceived as a system of regulations and laws has