have imagined that they were able to discover the origin or foundation of all emotions of beauty in this perception; understanding by the term utility a fitness or adaptation of the beautiful object to some beneficial purpose. And it is undoubtedly true, that we contemplate this quality, whenever we discern it, with a degree of complacency and approbation. Many objects, when their use or adaptation to some beneficial purpose has become known to us, have at once been clothed with an interest which they did not before possess. We do not hesitate, therefore, to admit, that a share of our emotions of associated beauty may be traced to this source. But when the perception of utility (that is to say, of the fitness of the object for some profitable ends) is proposed as the ground and origin of all emotions of beauty, including those that are original as well as those that are associated, the doctrine evidently cannot be sustained.

Mr. Burke, in his Treatise on the Sublime and Beautiful, has paid some attention to this doctrine. He rejects it altogether, considered as the universal basis of beauty. If it be admitted to be true, he considers it a fair inference from it that the wedgelike snout of the swine, with its tough cartilage at the end, and the general make of its head, so well adapted to digging and rooting, are extremely beautiful; and that hedgehogs and porcupines, which are so admirably secured against all assaults by their prickly hides, can justly be considered creatures of no small elegance.

On the theory, therefore, which proposes the perception of utility as the true ground of all emotions of beauty, both associated and original, it is enough for us to say that it goes too far. It does, indeed, in connexion with the laws of association, suggest a happy explanation of many such emotions coming under the class of associated, but by no means of all even of these.

§ 46. Of proportion as an element of associated beauty. There are some who imagine they find the source

of beauty in a certain symmetry and determinate proportion of parts. This idea has been particularly advocated by artists, who seem to have supposed that the elements of beauty might not only be discovered, but even measured in the great models of architecture, statuary, and painting. They assign, perhaps, to the height of a column, the measurement of six or seven of its own diameters, and designate to an inch the length and breadth which constitute the beautiful in other cases. Mr. Burke has examined this opinion. also; directing his inquiries to vegetables, the inferior animals, and man. He has shown that, in all cases, there are no certain measures on which the beautiful can justly be said to depend.

For instance, in the vegetable creation we find nothing more beautiful than flowers, but there is a very great variety in their shape, and in the disposition of the parts which pertain to them. In the rose, the stalk is slender, but the flower is large. The flower or blossom of the apple, on the other hand, is very small, but the tree large. Now if one of these be in proportion, the other wants it; and yet, by general consent, both the rose and the apple blossom possess beauty; and the bush of the one and the tree of the other allowedly present a very engaging appearance. -If, again, we inquire in respect to man and in respect to the inferior animal creation, we are brought to the same result, viz., that beauty does not depend upon a fixed relative size of the parts, that is, upon proportion.

It is proper to remark, however, that the word proportion is sometimes used, not to signify something which is definite, fixed, and invariable, but as synonymous with a fitness or propriety which is gathered up from the general relations and aspects of the object, and is represented by a state of mind itself. This subject we have already briefly considered. And we readily admit, wherever there is a distinct suggestion of such an idea of fitness, there is also an additional sentiment of the beautiful; and, wherever there

is a perception of unfitness or want of propriety, there is a diminution of it.

"The sense of propriety," says Kames, in some remarks on Gardening and Architecture, "dictates the following rule, That every building ought to have an expression corresponding to its destination. A palace ought to be sumptuous and grand; a private dwelling neat and modest; a playhouse gay and splendid; and a monument gloomy and melancholy." And it is entirely obvious, whenever this sense of propriety is violated, whether in these cases or in others like them, we fail to experience that pleasure, or to regard the object with that degree of complacency which we otherwise should.

§ 47. Relation of emotions of beauty to the fine arts.

The remarks of the last section lead us further to observe, that the study of this part of our constitution is exceedingly important in its applications to the fine arts. As a general statement, the true measurement of beauty in outward objects is the amount of pleasure or satisfaction which is caused within ourselves. The fine arts are outward representations, addressed in the first instance to the senses of sight and hearing in particular, and through them to that susceptibility of the beautiful which exists in the interior of the soul; and we can judge of their excellence only by their effects in relation to that susceptibility. How great ignorance, therefore, must we discover in all inquiries where the fine arts are concerned, if we are not thoroughly acquainted with this part of our sentient nature!

Perhaps these remarks should be accompanied with a precautionary suggestion. The observation we wish to make is this. We are not at liberty, as a general thing, to pass a positive judgment on works of art, founded on our own emotions merely, and wholly exclusive of any consideration of the feelings of others. Some accidental circumstance, or some casual association of a more permanent kind, may either unduly

increase or diminish the precise effects which would otherwise have been produced; and we shall not be likely to be sensible of this perversion of feeling if we rely on ourselves alone. Although, therefore, it is important that we should correct our own judgments by comparing them with the emotions and judgments of others, it will still remain true that the great grounds of decision, in all cases of beauty or deformity in the works of art, will be found in ourselves.

§ 48. Differences of original susceptibility of this emotion. Supposing it to be true that we possess an original susceptibility of emotions of beauty, independently of what we derive from association, it seems, however, to be the fact, that this susceptibility is found existing in different degrees in different persons. Let the same beautiful object be presented to two persons, and one will be found to be not only affected, but ravished, as it were, with feelings of beauty; while the other will have the same kind of emotions, but in a very diminished degree.-A great degree of susceptibility of emotions of beauty, with a somewhat restricted import of the word, is usually termed SENSIBILITY.

The differences of men in this respect may justly be thought, where we cannot account for it by anything in their education or mental culture, to be constitutional. Nor is it more strange that men should be differently affected by the same beautiful objects, in consequence of some difference of constitution, than that they should constitutionally have different passions; that one should be choleric, another of a peaceable turn; that one should be mild and yielding, another inflexible.

§ 49. Objection to the doctrine of original beauty.

We stop here to notice one of the objections which may occur to the views which have been given on the subject of beauty. Supposing, as we do, that the mind has originally certain tendencies to emotions of beauty, we readily admit the power of various cir

cumstances in modifying, and, in some cases, of overcoming such original tendencies. Nor, in point of fact, can it be denied that the character of our feelings of beauty sometimes changes; that is, what is regarded by us as beautiful at one time, is not at another; what is beautiful in the eyes of one age or of one nation, sometimes loses its lustre in the view of another.—The objection is, that such changes of feeling in regard to the beautiful are inconsistent with an original susceptibility of such emotions.

(1.) In answer to this difficulty, we would suggest, in the first place, that we experience analogous variations in other parts of the mind.-Take, for instance, the susceptibility of Belief; that power by which we are led to regard anything as true or false. It will surely be admitted that there is in the mind an original tendency to assent to certain propositions, rather than others of an opposite kind. It cannot be supposed that the characteristic of mind, which leads us to regard one thing as true and another as false, is something which is wholly superinduced; the result merely of accidental circumstances. But that which is felt by us to be true to-day, may be felt by us to be false to-morrow, because we have then new facts before the mind, and new sources of evidence are disclosed.

(2.) It is also well known, that our estimates of subjects in a moral point of view frequently alter. Those objects which appeared just and worthy in youth, have sometimes a different appearance in manhood, and again have a different aspect in old age. This is not because the mind, particularly the moral susceptibility, in its intrinsic nature, alters, but because objects are seen by us under different lights. Changes of opinion, similar to what may be noticed in individuals, may also be clearly noticed in the moral and religious history of different ages and nations.

(3.) Again, we find the same tendency to frequent fluctuations in the feelings of cheerfulness and melancholy, of mere pleasure and pain, of desire and aversion, as well as of beauty, and grandeur, and sub