the most simple to the most complex class of natural beings, or of the arts which relate to these respectively. Many partial views of perfect truth and great interest have been taken, and by every one of these it will be my duty here to profit: but, from the failure just pointed out, no philosophical and systematic doctrine of beauty, ascending from its origin in elements through its higher combinations has ever been attained by any of the numerous, deep, acute and elegant thinkers who have devoted their time to this subject, as the foundation of taste and of the fine or intellectual

arts.

Profiting, as I ought to do, by the partial views of these philosophers, I pretend here only to take one larger view,-to analyze, to generalize, to systematize the materials which they present to me.

In the hope of accomplishing this, I shall now endeavour successively to trace the elements of beauty which belong respectively to inanimate, living, and thinking beings, and to the useful, ornamental, and intellectual arts which have a reference to these, the neglect of all which I have described as the fundamental cause of previous failure.

Again I repeat, it is to this analysis and generalization alone, and to the systematization founded upon it, that I make any pretence. The mate

rials have long been presented by all the great writers on the subject: they have only left them in confusion, and without conclusion. I shall now proceed to employ them.

SECTION I.

ELEMENTS OF BEAUTY IN INANIMATE BEINGS.

Though Burke did not accurately trace the elements of beauty in any one class of the objects of nature or art, he yet states a preliminary truth on this subject so well, that I here quote it. "It would be absurd," he observes, "to say that all things affect us by association only; since some things must have been originally and naturally agreeable or disagreeable, from which the others derive their associated powers; and it would be, I fancy, to little purpose to look for the cause of our passions in association, until we fail of it in the natural properties of things."

Home, advancing farther, says, "If a tree be beautiful by means of its colour, its figure, its size, its motion, it is in reality possessed of so many different beauties, which ought to be examined separately, in order to have a clear notion of the whole.

"When any body is viewed as a whole, the

beauty of its figure arises from regularity* and simplicity; and viewing the parts with relation to each other, from uniformity*, proportion, and order.'

I will here only observe that these are the qualities, as will speedily appear, which Burke should have set down as the fundamental and first characteristics of beauty, instead of relative littleness, which belongs not to beauty generally, but only to the minor or subordinate beauty.

Even Home, having arrived thus far, says, "To inquire why an object, by means of the particulars mentioned, appears beautiful, would, I am afraid, be a vain attempt."

But he truly adds, "One thing is clear, that regularity, uniformity, order, and simplicity, contribute each of them to readiness of apprehension, and enable us to form more distinct images of objects than can be done, with the utmost attention, where these particulars are not found." And he subjoins, "This final cause is, I acknowledge, too slight, to account satisfactorily for a taste that makes a figure so illustrious in the nature of man; and that this branch of our constitution hath a purpose still more important, we have great reason to believe."

Regularity expresses the similarity of parts considered as constituting a whole; and uniformity, the similarity of parts considered separately.

Now had Home seen that the characteristics of general beauty always are, with regard to the object, accordant and agreeable relations, the importance of the qualities he has just enumerated would have been evident; for, without them, these characteristics of the object could not exist: simplicity, regularity, uniformity, order, &c. are the very elements of accordant and agreeable relations. This is in reality the still more important purpose in which Home believed, and to which the readiness of apprehension he now alludes to eminently contributes.

As to simplicity, he observes, that "a multitude of objects crowding into the mind at once, disturb the attention, and pass without making any impression, or any lasting impression; and in a group, no single object makes the figure it would do apart, when it occupies the whole attention. For the same reason, even a single object, when it divides the attention by the multiplicity of its parts, equals not, in strength of impression, a more simple object comprehended in a single view: parts extremely complex must be considered in portions successively; and a number of impressions in succession, which cannot unite because not simultaneous, never touch the mind like one entire impression made as it were at one stroke.

"A square is less beautiful than a circle, because it is less simple: a circle has parts as well as a square; but its parts not being distinct like those of a square, it makes one entire impression; whereas the attention is divided among the sides and angles of a square. . . A square, though not more regular than a hexagon or octagon, is more beautiful than either, because a square is more simple, and the attention less divided.

66

Simplicity thus contributes to beauty."

By regularity is meant that circumstance in a figure by which we perceive it to be formed according to a certain rule. Thus a circle, a square, a parallelogram, or triangle, please by their regularity.

"A square," says Home, (who here furnishes the best materials to a more general view, because he most frequently assigns physical causes, and whom, with some abbreviation, I therefore continue to quote,)" a square is more beautiful than a parallelogram, because the former exceeds the latter in regularity and in uniformity of parts. This is true with respect to intrinsic beauty only; for in many instances, utility comes in to cast the balance on the side of the parallelogram: this figure for the doors and windows of a dwellinghouse, is preferred because of utility; and here we find the beauty of utility prevailing over that of regularity and uniformity."