CHAPTER THIRD.

DIFFERENT MODIFICATIONS OF TASTE.-DISTINCTION BETWEEN TASTE, AND THE NATURAL SENSIBILITY TO BEAUTY.

FROM the account formerly given of the origin and progress of our notions with respect to the Beautiful, it appeared, that the circumstances which please in objects of Taste, are of two very different kinds. First, those which derive their effect from the organical adaptation of the human frame to the external universe; and Secondly, those which please in consequence of associations formed gradually by experience. Among the various particulars belonging to this second class (a class which comprehends by far the most important elements which, in such an age as ours, enter into the composition of the beautiful) a very obvious distinction may be made. (1.) Such beauties as owe their existence to associations resulting necessarily from the common circumstances of the human race; and therefore extending their influence, more or less, to all mankind. Examples of these universal associations occur in the uniformity of language (remarked in the two preceding Essays) among various civilized nations, in speaking of Beauty and of Sublimity. (2.) Beauties which have no merit but what depends on custom

and fashion; or on certain peculiarities in the situation and history of the individual. Of the two last descriptions of beauty, the former, it is evident, agree in one very essential respect, with the organical beauties first mentioned. Both of them have their source in the principles of Human Nature (comprehending, under this phrase, not only the natural constitution, but the natural condition of man); and, accordingly, they both fall under the consideration of that sort of criticism which forms a branch of the philosophy of the human mind. The associations on which they are founded, have equally a claim to a place among the elements of the Beautiful; nor can any theory of Beauty be admitted as sufficiently comprehensive, in which either the one or the other is overlooked. As an illustration of this, I shall mention only Mr. Burke's theory, which excludes from the idea of Beauty all considerations of proportion, fitness, and utility. In order to justify such exclusions as these, it surely is not sufficient to shew, that the qualities just mentioned cannot be brought under a particular and arbitrary definition. The question for the philosopher to consider is, what has led mankind, in ancient as well as in modern times, to class together these, and a variety of other qualities, under one common name; and frequently to employ the name of some one of them to comprehend the whole? A passage formerly quoted from Cicero affords an instance in point: "Itaque eorum ipsorum, quæ adspectu sentiuntur, "nullum aliud animal pulchritudinem, venustatem, con"venientiam partium sentit; quam similitudinem natura ratioque ab oculis ad animum transferens, multo etiam "magis pulchritudinem, constantiam, ordinem in con

"siliis factisque conservandum putat," &c. &c.-" For“ mam quidem ipsam, Marce fili, et tanquam faciem Ho"nesti vides; quæ, si oculis cerneretur, mirabiles amores (ut ait Plato) excitaret sapientiæ."

In favour of Mr. Burke's opinion, it must indeed be admitted, that those systems are completely erroneous, which would resolve the whole of Beauty into any one of the three qualities which he excludes from the idea of it, or even into all the three combined, without the coopera tion of any thing else. But it is going, at least, as far into the opposite extreme, to say that none of these is entitled to a place among the elements which can possibly belong to its composition.*

According to this view of the subject, it would be quite unnecessary to distinguish, in our subsequent reasonings, that species of beauty which results from the physical relation between our organs of perception and external objects, from that which depends on natural and universal associations; and I shall therefore apply to them the common appellation of Universal Beauties, in opposition to those Arbitrary Beauties, the admiration of which has been confined to particular places, or to particular periods.

Among the associations, however, on which these arbitrary beauties depend, there are some varieties, of which it may be proper to take notice, before we proceed to consider the various appearances which Taste may assume in different minds. The following list seems to compre. hend those which are chiefly entitled to our attention.

* Note (P p).

1. Classical Associations:-Inspired by the remains of ancient Greece and Rome; and, of course, extending to all who receive the advantages of a learned education in every quarter of the civilized world. The authority of these is, in all cases, great; and, in some cases, (particularly in sculpture and in architecture) is now so conse. crated by established opinion, as almost to preclude all criticism or discussion. In poetry, also, they have added immensely to our natural resources, particularly by the beautiful system of mythology with which they are interwoven;-but they have, at the same time, warped our Taste in various instances; and have certainly no claims to our servile imitation, where they happen to deviate from the standard of nature. In every instance where there is no such deviation, their authority seems justly entitled to the next place (but a very subordinate place) after those associations which belong universally to our species. It must not, however, be imagined, that, in any instance, they furnish us with principles from which there lies no appeal; nor should it be forgotten, that their influence does not reach to the most numerous class of the people, in the most refined societies.

2. National or local Associations.-Where these are not widely at variance with universal associations, they exert over the heart a power greater perhaps than that of any other associations whatsoever; and sometimes (as seems to have happened in the case of most French critics) they acquire an ascendant even over the impressions of Nature herself. But this influence being confined necessarily within the national pale (however ample the resources are which it furnishes for local and fugitive

Poetry), is much more likely to mislead than to guide our researches concerning the principles of philosophical

criticism.

3. Personal Associations:-Such as those which arise from the accidental style of natural beauty in the spot where we have passed our childhood and early youth; from the peculiarities in the features of those whom we have loved; and other circumstances connected with our own individual feelings. Of these it is necessary that every man, who aspires to please or to instruct others, should divest himself to the utmost of his power; or, at least, that he should guard against their undue ascendant over his mind, when he exercises either his Imagination or his Taste, in works addressed to the public.

Under this head, I must not omit to mention the influence of vanity and selfishness on the judgments of some men, even concerning the beauties of nature;-the interest which the attachment to property creates, rendering them alive to every trifling recommendation belonging to what is their own, while it blinds them to the most prominent beauties in the property of their neighbours. Gresset has seized happily this intellectual and moral weakness, in his charming comedy of the Méchant. But, as it is more connected with the study of Character, than with that of Philosophical Criticism, I shall not enlarge upon it farther at present.

Corresponding to the distinction which I have been attempting to illustrate between Universal and Arbitrary Beauties, there are two different modifications of Taste; modifications which are not always united, (perhaps seldom united) in the same person. The one enables a writer or