Again, if, in our own species, beauty were annexed only to usefulness, men would be considered as much more lovely- than women ; and strength and agility would be considered as the only beauties. The sto mach, the lungs, the liver, as well as many other parts of the body, are incomparably well adapted to "their purposes : yet they are far from having .any beauty. A plough is a highly useful machine, and excellently adapted to its end ; yet we by no means consider it as beautiful; while this term may be pro perly applied to some insignificant trinket of no va lue at all. When we examine the structure of a watch, and even come to know thoroughly the use of all its parts, we may indeed admit the fitness of the whole; but are far enough from perceiving any thing like beauty in the work ; but if its case be curiously chased and engraved, it will excite in us a very lively idea of beauty, although this kind of or nament is not of the smallest use. It is plain, then, that it is not utility, or the fitness of an object to produce some important end, that constitutes beauty.
Somewhat allied to the theories already mentioned, is that which ascribes beauty to perfection in a par ticular kind or species ; or to the exact conformity of an object to the generally prevailing character of the co-related objects. This theory has been adopt ed and illustrated by the learned and ingenious Fa ther Baffler. It is supposed to explain, why, in Africa, a black complexion, woolly hair, a flat nose, and thick lips, are esteemed beauties, while their op posites only are admired in Europe : And it pro fesses to determine what is justly considered as a de sideratum, the standard of beauty ; which, according to this theory, is that which is most common to all the individuals of a species ; and of which, though the whole parts may not be found in any one indivi dual, yet something may be contributed by them all. Specious, however, as this theory seems to be, it will by no means apply in a multiplicity of instances ; for numberless beautiful objects are to be found, which deviate very widely from the common standard of their species. The most common, or standard forms, of any species, are those which are viewed, perhaps, with the gre.stest indifference, being possess ed of no other quality 'than mediocrity, which is as remote from beauty, on the one hand, as it is from deformity on the other.
" So far is perfection, considered' as such, from being the cause of beauty," remarks Mr Burke, " that this quality, where it is highest in the female sex, almost always carries with it an idea of weakness and imperfection. Women are very sensible of this ; for which reason they learn to lisp, to totter in their walk, to counterfeit weakness, and even sickness. Jo all this they are guided by nature. Beauty in distress is much the most affecting beauty. Blush ing has little less power ; and modesty in general, ' which is a tacit allowance of imperfection, is itself considered as an amiable quality, and certainly heigh-, tens every other that is so. I know it is in every
body's mouth, that to love perfection. This is to me a sufficient proof, that it is not the proper object of love. Who ever said, we ought to love a fine woman, or even any of those beautiful animals which please us ? Here to be affected there is no need of the concurrence of our will." Part iii. 'sect. 10.
The celebrated Dr Hutcheson of Glasgow propo sed a theory of beauty, which was greatly admired in its time, and likewise, for a while, very generally adopted. According to this theory, beauty consists in a certain determinate combination of variety of parts, with uniformity of structure. This system, which is sustained by all the formality of mathema tical demonstration, lays it down, that of two given bodies, if the number of parts be the same, the beau ty will be as the uniformity of structure ; if the uniformity be the same, the beauty will be as the va riety of parts ; if neither be the same, the beauty will be in the compound ratio of the variety and unifor mity. Thus, an equilateral triangle is more beautiful than one with unequal sides, because, with the same number of parts, it possesses more uniformity of structure. A square is more beautiful than an equi lateral triangle, because, with the same uniformity of structure, it possesses a greater variety of parts. An ellipsis nearly equals the beauty of a circle, because, with less uniformity of -structure, it has greater va riety of parts ; and so forth.
" The beauty of an equilateral triangle," says Dr Hutcheson, " is less than that of a square, which is less than that of a pentagon, and this again is sur passed by the hexagon. When, indeed, the number of the sides is much increased, the proportion of them to the radius, or diameter of the figure, is so much lost to our observation, that the beauty does not al ways increase with the number of sides ; and the want of parallelism, in the sides of heptagons, and other figures of odd numbers, may also diminish their beauty. So in solids, the eicosiedron surpasses the octaedron, which is still more beautiful than the cube, and this again surpasses the regular pyramid ; the obvious ground of this is greater variety with equal uniformity."—" Instances of the compound ratio we have, in comparing circles or spheres with ellipses or spheroids, not very eccentric ; and in comparing the compound solids, the exoctaedron, and eicosidode caedron, with the perfectly regular ones of which they are compounded ; and we shall find, that the want of that most perfect uniformity observable in the latter, is compensated by the greater variety in the others, so that the beauty is nearly equal." In quiry concerning Beauty, Order, kc. p. IG.