§ 71. Instantaneousness of the decisions of taste. There is one distinctive peculiarity in the operations of taste, which may at first sight be thought to be inconsistent with that process of comparison and examination which has just been mentioned, viz., its rapidity of action, the instantaneousness of its decisions. It is this circumstance, probably, more than any other, which has originated and cherished the idea, too often prevalent, that taste is an original faculty, distinct from every other, and never possessed where it is not given by nature. The instantaneousness of operation which has been mentioned is undoubtedly the result of Habit, and is easily explainable by a reference to the tendencies and effects of that great principle of the mind. By the term Habit, in its application to the mind, we express the well-known fact, that the mental action acquires facility and strength from repetition and practice. But so many instances in illustration of its nature and results have already been given, we cannot suppose it to be necessary to delay upon the subject here. And if the nature of habit is understood, and if it is applicable, as it unquestionably is, to the matter under consideration, then the mystery which may be thought to rest on the instantaneousness of the operations of taste at once vanishes.

The military engineer, by a single glance of the eye, detects the aptitudes and peculiarities of a military position; the experienced mechanician, in like manner, detects with a rapidity which to others has the appearance of intuition, the parts and the relations, the hinderances and the impulsions of a complicated machine. It is HABIT which is the secret of the power manifested in both of these cases, and in a multitude of others like them. And, for the same reason, the man of taste, availing himself of the immense power which habit has given to his critical judgment, discriminates in the works of genius, by an instantaneous perception, the elements of their beauty or sublimity.

§ 72. Of the permanency of beauty.

Before leaving this subject, there is one other topic which is deserving of a brief notice. We refer to the question whether we are to regard beauty as truly real and permanent, or as accidental and transitory. In other words, whether we are to look upon it as something essential to nature, so that, in its original and intrinsic elements, it will be found to affect all mankind nearly alike in all countries and ages, or as merely a pleasing illusion of the imagination, dependant wholly upon some interesting conjuncture of time and circumstances.-The doctrines which have been advanced help us in answering this interesting question. Various considerations point distinctly to the conclusion that beauty, so far as it may exist independently of association, has its foundation in nature, possesses its fixed causes and relations, and may justÎy be regarded, in respect to the human mind at least, as something permanent.

This view is sustained, in the first place, by the fact which has already appeared, that beauty in the first instance is original, and not associated. That beauty, in some proper and real sense of the term, exists, is a fact; that the human mind is readily accessible to its influence is a fact also; and, in the case of primary or intrinsic beauty, no other reason can be given either of its existence or of its influence, than that such is the constitution of nature. And this state of things seems clearly to involve its permanency.-If all beauty were associated, as some seem to have contended, it would be very different; we could not, in that case, predicate of what is beautiful to-day that it would be so to-morrow; but it would be found constantly changing. But the fact that a large portion of it is intrinsic appears necessarily to furnish a basis of the permanency of that portion at least.

In the second place, the doctrine that beauty, in distinction from deformity, is permanent, and is in some way connected with the established nature of things, is confirmed by the fact that the standard of

beauty in one age has been essentially the standard of beauty in another, from the beginning of time down to the present hour. The great works of literature, which secured the suffrages of the universal mind in the age of Homer and the Hebrew prophets, retain their ascendency yet. The song of Virgil and the eloquence of Tully come over the heart of those who are able to appreciate them, with as much power as when they were first uttered. No later age or country has ever pronounced the great works of ancient architecture, the Temple of Theseus, the Parthenon, the Coliseum, and numberless others, to be destitute of those high attractions which the nations of antiquity concurred in ascribing to them. And in the sister art of sculpture, it is well known that the specimens of statuary which were the boast of the age of Phidias, have formed the study of the era of Canova. And it is the same in all the departments of the polite arts. Intrinsic Beauty, where it appears at all, stands forth imperishable in fact, which is certainly an evidence of an imperishable nature. Accordingly, under the conviction of its being of this character, Sir Joshua Reynolds says of the painter, if he aims at distinguished excellence, "he must disregard all local and temporary ornaments, and look only on those general habits which are everywhere and always the same; he addresses his works to the people of every country and every age; he calls upon posterity to be his spectators, and says with Zeuxis, IN ÆTERNITATEM PINGO."

CHAPTER VI.

EMOTIONS OF THE LUDICROUS.

§ 73. General nature of emotions of the ludicrous. IN prosecuting the general subject of emotions, we are next to consider another well-known class, which are of a character somewhat peculiar, viz., emotions of the ludicrous.

It is difficult to give a precise definition of this feeling, although the same may be said of it as in respect to emotions of beauty, that it is a pleasant or delightful one. But the pleasure which we experience receives a peculiar modification, and one which cannot be fully conveyed in words, in consequence of our perception of some incongruity in the person or thing which is the cause of it.-In this case, as in many other inquiries in mental philosophy, we are obliged to rely chiefly on our own consciousness, and our knowledge of what takes place in ourselves.

§ 74. Occasions of emotions of the ludicrous.

It may, however, assist us in the better understanding of them, if we say something of the occasions on which the emotions of the ludicrous are generally found to arise. And, among other things, it is exceedingly clear, that this feeling is never experienced except when we notice something, either in thoughts, or in outward objects and actions, which is unexpected and uncommon. That is to say, whenever this emotion is felt, there is always an unexpected discovery by us of some new relations.-But then it must be observed, that the feeling in question does not necessarily exist in consequence of the discovery of such new relations merely. Something more is necessary, as may be very readily seen.

Thus we are sometimes, in the physical sciences, presented with unexpected and novel combinations of the properties and qualities of bodies. But, whenever we discover in those sciences relations in objects which were not only unknown, but unsuspected, we find no emotion of ludicrousness, although we are very pleasantly surprised. Again, similes, metaphors, and other like figures of speech imply in general some new and unexpected relations of ideas. It is this trait in them which gives them their chief force. But, when employed in serious compositions, they are of a character far from being ludicrous.

Hence we infer that emotions of ludicrousness do

not exist on the discovery of new and unexpected relations, unless there is at the same time a perception, or supposed perception, of some incongruity or unsuitableness. Such perception of unsuitableness may be expected to give to the whole emotion a new and specific character, which every one is acquainted with from his own experience, but which, as before intimated, it is difficult to express in words.

§ 75. Of Hobbes' account of the ludicrous.

There has not been an entire uniformity on the subject of the emotions of the ludicrous.-It would seem that Hobbes (HUMAN NATURE, chap. ix.) considered feelings of this kind as depending on a modification of mere pride in a comparison of ourselves with others to our own advantage. He says of laughter, which, when considered in reference to the mind, and independently of the mere muscular action, is in many cases nothing more than a feeling of the ludicrous, that it is "a sudden glory, arising from a sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly."-To this notion of the origin of this class of our feelings there are some objections, viz.-(1.) In many instances we have the feeling in question when there is evidently no discovery of any infirmity, either in the witty person or in the subject of his wit, over which we can ourselves triumph with any good reason.-(2.) Further, if the doctrine which resolves the emotions of ludicrousness into a proud comparison of ourselves with others were correct, it would follow that the most proud and self-conceited men would be most inclined to mirth and sociability, which we do not find to be the fact.--According to Hobbes' notion of the origin of these feelings, we have only to go into the company of the most ignorant and stupid if we wish to be exceedingly merry. In such company we could not fail to be sensible of some eminency in ourselves, in comparison with the infirmities of others. We should here be in a situation corresponding to his