of beauty maintain one common character, that of fweetnefs and gaiety.

Confidering attentively the beauty of vifible objects, we discover two kinds. The firft may be termed intrinfic beauty, because it is difcovered in a single object viewed apart without relation to any other : the examples above given are of that kind. The other may be termed relative beauty, being founded on the relation of objects. The purpofed diftribution would lead me to handle these beauties feparately; but they are frequently fo intimately connected, that, for the fake of connection, I am forced, in this instance, to vary from the plan, and to bring them both into the fame chapter. Intrinfic beauty is an object of fenfe merely to perceive the beauty of a fpreading oak, or of a flowing river, no more is required but fingly an act of vifion. The perception of relative beauty is accompanied with an act of understanding and reflection for of a fine inftrument or engine, we perceive not the relative beauty, until we be made acquainted with its ufe and deftination. In a word, intrinfic beauty is ultimate : relative beauty is that of means relating to fome good end or purpose. These different beauties agree in one capital circumftance, that both are equally perceived as belonging to the object. This is evident with refpect to intrinfic beauty; but will not be fo readily admitted with respect to the other: the utility of the plough, for example, may make it an object of admiration or of defire; but why should utility make it appear beautiful? A natural propenfity mentioned above* will explain that doubt: the beauty of the effect, by an eafy tranfition of ideas, is transferred to the cause; and is perceived as one of the qualities of

* Chap, 2. part 1. fe&t. 5.

the

the caufe. Thus a fubject void of intrinfic beauty appears beautiful from its utility; an old Gothic tower, that has no beauty in itself, appears beautiful, confidered as proper to defend against an enemy; a dwelling-houfe void of all regularity, is however beautiful in the view of convenience; and the want of form or fymmetry in a tree, will not, prevent its appearing beautiful, if it be known to produce good fruit.

When these two beauties coincide in any object, it ap pears delightful every member of the human body poffeffes both in a high degree: the fine proportions and flender make of a horse defțined for running, please every eye; partly from fymmetry, and partly from utility.

The beauty of utility, being proportioned accurately to the degree of utility, requires no illuftration but intrinfic beauty, fo complex as I have faid, cannot be handled diftinctly without being analyfed into its conftituent parts. If a tree be beautiful by means of its colour, its figure, its fize, its motion, it is in reality poffeffed of fo many different beauties, which ought to be examined feparately, in order to have a clear notion of them when combined. The beauty of colour is too familiar to nced explanation. Do not the bright and cheerful colours of gold and filver contribute to preserve these metals in high efti mation? The beauty of figure, arifing from various circumftances and different views, is more complex: for example, viewing any body as a whole, the beau ty of its figure arifes from regularity and fimplicity; viewing the parts with relation to each other, uniformity, proportion, and order, contribute to its beauty. The beauty of motion deferves a chapter by itfelf; and another chapter is deftined for grandeur, being distinguishable from beauty in its proper fenfe,

For

For a description of regularity, uniformity, propor. tion, and order, if thought neceffary, I remit my reader to the Appendix at the end of the book. Upon fimplicity I must make a few cursory obfervations, fuch as may be of ufe in examining the beauty of fingle objects.

A multitude of objects crowding into the mind at once, disturb the attention, and pafs without making any impreffion, or any diftinct impreffion; in a group, no fingle object makes the figure it would do apart, when it occupies the whole attention.* For the fame reason, the impreffion made by an object that divides the attention by the multiplicity of its parts, equals not that of a more fimple object comprehended in a single view: parts extremely complex must be confidered in portions fucceffively; and a number of impreffions in fucceffion, which cannot unite because not fimultaneous, never touch the mind like one entire impreffion made as it were at one ftroke. This juftifies fimplicity in works of art, as oppofed to complicated circumftances and crowded ornaments. There is an additional reafon for fim, plicity, in works of dignity or elevation; which is, that the mind attached to beauties of a high rank, cannot defcend to inferior beauties. The beft artifts accordingly have in all ages been governed by a tafte for fimplicity. How comes it then that we find profufe decoration prevailing in works of art? The reas fon plainly is, that authors and architects who cannot reach the higher beauties, endeavour to fupply want of genius by multiplying those that are inferior,

These things premifed, I proceed to examine the beauty of figure as arifing from the above-mentioned particulars,

*See the Appendix, containing definitions, and explanation of terms, feet. 33.

particulars, namely, regularity, uniformity, proportion, order, and fimplicity. To exhaust this subject would require a volume; and I have not even whole chapter to fpare. To inquire why an object, by means of the particulars mentioned, appears beautiful, would, I am afraid, be a vain attempt: it feems the most probable opinion, that the nature of man was originally framed with a relifh for them, in order to anfwer wife and good purpofes. To explain thefe purposes or final caufes, though a subject of great importance, has fcarce been attempted by any writer. One thing is evident, that our relifh for the particulars mentioned adds much beauty to the objects that furround us; which of courfe tends to our happinefs and the Author of our nature has given many fignal proofs that this final caufe is not below his care. We may be confirmed in this thought upon reflecting, that our tafte for these particulars is not accidental, but uniform and univerfal, making a branch of our nature. At the fame time, it ought not to be overlooked, that regularity, uniformity, order, and fimplicity, contribute each of them to readinefs of apprehenfion; enabling us to form more diftinct images of objects, than can be done with the utmost attention where these particulars are not found. With refpect to proportion, it is in fome inftances connected with a ufeful end, as in animals, where the best proportioned are the strongest and most active; but inftances are ftill more numerous, where the proportions we relifh have no connection with utility. Writers on architecture infift much on the proportions of a column, and affign different proportions to the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian: but no architect will maintain, that the most accurate proportions contribute more to use, than feveral that are efs accurate and lefs agreeable; neither will it be maintained,

maintained, that the length, breadth, and height of rooms affigned as the most beautiful proportions, tend realfo to make them the more commodious. With respect then to the final caufe of proportion, I fee not more to be made of it but to reft upon the final cause first mentioned, namely, its contributing to our happiness, by increafing the beauty of vifible objects.

And now with refpect to the beauty of figure as far as it depends on the other circumftances mentioned; as to which, having room only for a flight fpecimen, I confine myself to the fimpleft figures. A circle and a fquare are each of them perfectly regular, being equally confined to a precise form, which admits not the flightest variation: a fquare, however, is lefs beautiful than a circle. And the reason feems to be, that the attention is divided among the fides and angles of a fquare: whereas the circumference of a circle, being a fingle object, makes one entire impreffion. And thus fimplicity contributes to beauty which may be illuftrated by another example: a fquare, though not more regular than a hexagon or octagon, is more beautiful than either; for what other reason, but that a square is more fimple, and the attention lefs divided? This reafoning will appear ftill more conclufive, when we confider any regular polygon of very many fides; for of this figure the mind can never have any diftinct perception.

A fquare is more regular than a parallelogram, and its parts more uniform; and for thefe reafons it is more beautiful. But that holds with respect to intrinfic beauty only; for in many inftances utility turns the scale on the fide of the parallelogram: this figure for the doors and windows of a dwelling-house is preferred, becaufe of utility; and here we find the beauty of utility prevailing over that of regularity and uniformity. A parallelogram