Lastly, the critic of the faculty of the judgment (urtheilskraft) investigates its operations from an resthetical or teleological point of view. The totality of objects which constitute nature are in harmony with man's faculty of knowledge. Every object may be considered msthetically or teleologically ; it possesses as it were two natures, one methetical and one teleological. The former Is the point of view under which it appears to man; the latter consists in its formal or material concordance with the general harmony of things. Now the agreement which we perceive to subsist between a particular object and such an end does not belong to it and is not in the object Itself. It is, on the contrary, purely subjective; it belongs to the mind that discovers it, and is dependent upon the mental constitution. In the same manner the judgment is of two kinds. It may either refer to man's mode of conceiving and apprehending objects, and to the degree of pleasure, with which the perceptions of them are accom panied ; or it may consider the harmonious co-ordination of all things and their subordination to a general end, that is, the objective harmony of nature. The beautiful, the agreeable, and the useful are the forms of our icathetical judgments, and the perceptions of them are accompanied with pleasure. Nevertheless they affect us differently, and the sensation of pleasure which the beautiful occasions is of all the most complete. The beautiful is the most noble and most elevated of all the forms of aesthetics] judgments. It exists in us antecedently to and independently of all experience. It is inherent in us, and forms a constituent element of our proper nature. Our judgments of objects are as necessarily respective of the beautiful as the practical raison is of the just and the good, The knowledge of nature is only possible on these two conditions : that there are certain relations subsisting between tho system of nature and the human mind; and that harmony reigns throughout the system of natural objects, and the necessary subordination of each separately to some general end. Considered in this light, organical being is the most excellent production of nature. The examination of any organical body displays an admirable subordi nation of the parts to the whole, and the whole itself is in exquisite harmony with each of Its parts. But at the same time the whole itself is but a mean to other ends, a part io a greater totality. Conse
quently the most exalted form of the teleological judgment is that which considers the whole system of nature as one vast organical structure. Thus considered, the synthetic activity of the judgment exercises itself in two ways, either leathetically or teleologically. In the former case it refers all its decisions to the Idea of the beautiful ; in the latter, it subordinates all things to a final cause.
KANTEMI1t, PRINCE ANTIOCIIUS DMITRIJVITCII, des cended from a family of Turkish extraction, was born at Constan tinople, September 10, 1708. He received his first education at Kharkov, whence he proceeded to the academy at Moscow, where he made such proficiency In his studies that when scarcely ten years old he composed and recited a discourse in Greek on St. Demetrius. In 1722 he accompanied his father, who was hospodar of Moldavia, in the campaign against Persia, after which (1725) he prosecuted his studies in the Academy of Sciences at Sts Petersburg, directing his attention to that language whose literature he subsequently enriched. It was not long before his talents recommended him to the notice of the empress Anne ; and in 1731 he was despatched to the British court in quality of resident, but in the following year was promoted to be embassedor extraordinary and plenipotentiary, in which capacity he was sent in 1739 to the court of France. The empress Elizabeth confirmed all the dignities that had been bestowed upon him by her predecessor. Ho died at Paris, March 1, 1774, of dropsy In the chest, and his body was conveyed to Moscow for interment in the Greek cloister.
Equally amiable and intelligent, his aim as a writer was to Inform and correct, as is sufficiently attested by his Satires, which if now somewhat antiquated in regard to versification and style, are justly esteemed for their originality, truth, and forco of colouring, and for the philosophical mind which they display. Both Zhukovsky and Batiuskkov have eulogised the merits of KantemIr as a writer and a man ; the first in an analytical essay on his Satires, the other in a very interesting sketch entitled 'An Evening with Kantemir.' His other works were chiefly translationa, namely, ten of the Epistles of Horace,' Fontenelle's ' Plurality of Worlds,' Epictetus, Cornelius Nepos, Mon tesquicu's Persian Letters,' &c., several of which however remain unpublished.