to the taste, resembling the effects of plain smooth bodies to the touch; for if a body be composed of round parts, excessively small, and packed pretty closely together, the surface will be, both to the sight and touch, as if it were nearly plain and smooth. It is clear, from their unveiling their figure to the microscope, that the particles of sugar are considerably larger than those of water or oil; and consequently, that their effects, from their roundness, will be more distinct and palpable to the nervous papillæ of that nice organ the tongue. They will induce that sense called sweetness, which, in a weak manner, we discover in oil, and in a yet weaker in water; for, insipid as they are, water and oil are, in some degree, sweet; and it may be observed, that insipid things of all kinds approach more nearly to the nature of sweetness than to that of any other taste.

"In the other senses, we have remarked that smooth things are relaxing. Now, it ought to appear that sweet things, which are the smooth of taste, are relaxing too."-" That sweet things are generally relaxing is evident, because all such, especially those which are most oily, taken frequently and in a large quantity, very much enfeeble the tone of the stomach. Sweet smells, which bear a great affinity to sweet tastes, relax very remarkably. The smell of flowers disposes people to drowsiness; and this relaxing effect is further apparent from the prejudice which people of weak nerves receive from their use."*

If this theory of Mr. Burke had led to no practical consequences, I should not have thought it worth while, notwithstanding its repugnance to my own opinions, to have made any reference to it here; but as it is intimately connected with some of his subsequent conclusions concerning Beauty, which I consider as not only unsound in their logical foundation, but as calculated to bias and mislead the taste, I was anxious, before proceeding to an examination of these, to satisfy my readers, how little support they derive from the hypothetical disquisitions premised to them, in order to prepare the way for their

* [On the Sublime and Beautiful, part iii. sects. 20-22.]

more easy admission. As for the physiological discussion itself, I am inclined to think that few, even of Mr. Burke's most partial admirers, will now be disposed to estimate its merits very highly. By some others, I would willingly believe, that it may be valued chiefly as an illustration of the absurdities in which men of the most exalted genius are sure to involve themselves, the moment they lose sight, in their inquiries concerning the Human Mind, of the sober rules of experimental science.

CHAPTER IV.

CONTINUATION OF THE CRITICAL STRICTURES ON MR. BURKE'S FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING BEAUTY.-INFLUENCE OF THESE PRINCIPLES ON THE SPECULATIONS OF MR. PRICE.

IN enumerating the qualities constantly observable in beautiful objects, Mr. Burke lays a peculiar stress on that of smoothness; "a quality," he observes, "so essential to beauty, that he cannot recollect anything beautiful that is not smooth. In trees and flowers, smooth leaves are beautiful; smooth slopes of earth in gardens; smooth streams in landscapes; smooth coats of birds and beasts in animal beauty; in fine women, smooth skins; and, in several sorts of ornamental furniture, smooth and polished surfaces. A very considerable part of the effect of beauty is owing to this quality; indeed, the most considerable. For, take any beautiful object, and give it a broken and rugged surface, and however well formed it may be in other respects, it pleases no longer. Whereas, let it want ever so many of the other constituents, if it wants not this, it becomes more pleasing than almost all the others without it. This seems to me," continues Mr. Burke, "so evident, that I am a good deal surprised that none who have handled the subject have made any mention of the quality of smoothness, in the enumeration of those that go to the forming of beauty. For, indeed, any rugged, any sudden projection, any sharp angle, is in the highest degree contrary to that idea."

These observations contain the whole of Mr. Burke's doctrine on this essential constituent of beauty; and, I confess, I cannot

recollect any philosophical conclusion whatever, more erroneous in itself, or more feebly supported.

That the smoothness of many objects is one constituent of their beauty, cannot be disputed. In consequence of that intimate association which is formed in the mind between the perceptions of sight and those of touch, it is reasonable to expect that those qualities which give pleasure to the latter sense, should also be agreeable to the former. Hence the agreeable impression which the eye receives from all those smooth objects about which the sense of touch is habitually conversant; and hence, in such instances, the unpleasant appearance of ruggedness or of asperity. The agreeable effect, too, of smoothness is often heightened by its reflecting so copiously the rays of light; as in the surface of water, in polished mirrors, and in the fine kinds of wood employed in ornamental furniture. In some instances, besides, as in the last now mentioned, smoothness derives an additional recommendation from its being considered as a mark of finished work, and of a skilful artist.1

To all this we may add, that the ideas of beauty formed by our sex are warped, not a little, by the notions we are led to entertain concerning the charms of the other. That in female beauty a smooth skin is an essential ingredient, must be granted in favour of Mr. Burke's theory: Nor is it at all difficult to conceive how this association may influence our taste in various other instances.2

In general, we consider roughness as characterizing the productions of nature; smoothness as the effect of human industry. I speak of those natural productions which were intended to furnish the materials of our various arts. In other cases, as in the plumage of birds, the glossy skins of many quadrupeds, &c., &c., Nature has given to her own work a finished perfection, which no art can rival.

By an easy metaphor, we transfer these words to human character. We speak of rough good sense as familiarly as of a rough diamond; while to the

artificial manners formed by the intercourse of the world, we apply the epithets smooth, polished, polite.

The idea of female beauty was evidently uppermost in Mr. Burke's mind when he wrote his book; and it is from an induction, confined almost exclusively to the qualities which enter into its composition, that he draws the whole of his inferences with respect to beauty in general. Even in treating of the beauty of Nature, his imagination always delights to repose on her softest and most feminine features; or, to use

Still, however, Mr. Burke's general proposition is very far from holding universally. In objects which have little or no relation to the sense of touch, it fails in numberless instances. What more beautiful objects in nature than the stalk and buds of the moss-rose! To the sense of touch they are positively disagreeable; but we think of them only with a reference to the sense of smelling and sight; and the effect is, on the whole, delightful.1

his own language, on "such qualities as

induce in us a sense of tenderness and affection, or some other passion the most nearly resembling these." So far as this particular application of the word is concerned, the induction appears to me just and comprehensive; and I readily subscribe to the opinion of Mr. Price, when he assumes it "as perfectly clear, that Mr. Burke's general principles of beauty-smoothness, gradual variation, delicacy of make, tender colours, and such as insensibly melt into each other, are strictly applicable to female beauty; so much so, that not one of them can be changed or diminished without manifest diminution of beauty."-Essay on Beauty, prefixed to Mr. Price's Dialogue, p. 22.

In speculating on the idea of the beautiful in general, it seems evident that we ought to begin with selecting our instances from objects intended to produce their effect on the eye alone; and afterwards proceed to examine the various modifications of this idea, produced by associations arising from the perceptions of the other senses;-by associations of a moral nature;-by considerations of utility, &c. &c. By following the opposite plan, and fixing (unconsciously perhaps) on female beauty as his standard, Burke has fallen into the very mistake against which he has so judiciously cautioned his readers; that of "circumscribing nature within the bounds of a partial definition or

description."-See the Essay on Taste, prefixed to the Inquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful.

Mr. Price has not only acknowledged the beauty of the moss-rose, but has connected with this fact some others, all of them equally inconsistent, in my opinion, with the peculiar notions which he has adopted from Mr. Burke. "Flowers are the most delicate and beautiful of inanimate objects; but their queen, the rose, grows on a rough bush, whose leaves are serrated, and which is full of thorns. The moss-rose has the addition of a rough hairy fringe, that almost makes a part of the flower itself." Among the foreign oaks, maples, &c., those are particularly esteemed whose leaves (according to a common, though perhaps contradictory phrase) are BEAUTIFULLY JAGGED."

...

"The vine leaf has, in all respects, a strong resemblance to the leaf of the plane, and that extreme richness of effect, which everybody must be struck with in them both, is greatly owing to those sharp angles, those sudden variations, so contrary to the idea of beauty, when considered by itself." . . . "The effect of these jagged points and angles is more strongly marked in sculpture, especially of vases of metal, where the vine leaf, if imprudently handled, would at least prove that sharpness is very contrary to the beautiful in feeling."Price on the Picturesque, p. 94, et seq.