Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

There is one subject, in which some attention to these principles might perhaps be productive of no unimportant effect: I mean in dramatic representation. Every one has perceived the impropriety of the greater part of the dresses which are seen upon the stage. The confusion of rich and tawdry, gay and grave drapery, in the same performance; the neglect of every kind of correspondence between the dress, and the character it distinguishes; comedy and tragedy clothed in the same colours; and instead of any relation among the different dresses of the same performance, or any correspondence to the character of that performance, each particular dress at variance with another, and all of them left to be determined by the caprice or vanity of the actor. If instead of this, we were to find in each distinguishing character, some agreement between the expression of the dress and the nature of that character; if different ages, and professions, and situations, were attired with the same regard to propriety that we expect in real life; if the whole of the dresses in every particular performance had some relation to the character of that performance, and to the emotion it is destined to excite in our minds; if no greater degree of variety was admitted in this respect, than was consistent with this unity of expression; and if the whole were so imagined, as to compose a beautiful mass or group of colouring, in those scenes where any number of personages were assembled together; some addition, I conceive, would be given to the effect of an art, which has the capacity, at least, of becoming one of the most powerful means we know, both of strengthening virtue, and of communicating knowledge.

Whether the principle which I have now explained, may not extend to what is called the harmony of colouring in historical painting; whether the beauty of the pre

vailing colour is not dependent upon the agreement of its expression, with that peculiar expression or character which distinguishes the scene; and whether the beauty of the composition of the subordinate colours is not de termined by its effect in preserving this unity of expression, I shall leave to be determined by those who are more learned in the art, and better acquainted with instances by which the truth of the observation may be tried.

SECTION II.

Of the Relative Beauty of Forms.

BESIDES those qualities of which forms in themselves are expressive to us, and which constitute what I have called their NATURAL beauty, there are other qualities of which they are the signs, from their being the subjects of art, or produced by wisdom or design, for some end. Whatever is the effect of art, naturally leads us to the consideration of that art which is its cause, and of that end or purpose for which it was produced. When we discover skill or wisdom in the one, or usefulness or propriety in the other, we are conscious of a very pleasing emotion; and the forms which we have found by experience to be associated with such qualities, become naturally and necessarily expressive of them, and affect us with the emotions which properly belong to the qualities they signify. There is therefore an additional source of beauty in forms, from the expression of such qualities; which, for the sake of perspicuity, I shall beg leave to call their RELATIVE beauty.

Every work of design may be considered in one or other of the following lights :-Either in relation to the art or design which produced it-to the nature of its construction, for the purpose or end intended-or to the

nature of the end which it is thus destined to serve; and its beauty accordingly depends, either upon the excellence or wisdom of this design, upon the fitness or propriety of this construction, or upon the utility of this end, The considerations of design, of fitness, and of utility, therefore, may be considered as the three great sources of the relative beauty of forms. In many cases, this beauty arises from all these expressions together; but it may be useful to consider them separately, and to remark the peculiar influence of each, upon the beauty of forms.

PART I,

Of the Influence of Design upon the Beauty of Forms.

I.

THAT the quality of design is in many cases productive of the emotion of beauty, seems to me too obvious to require any illustration. The beauty of design in a poem, in a painting, in a musical composition, or in a machine, are expressions which perpetually occur, both in books and in conversation, and which sufficiently indicate the cause or source of the emotion.

Wherever we discover fitness or utility, we infer the existence of design. In those forms, accordingly, which are distinguished by such qualities, the discovery of an end immediately suggests to us the belief of intention or design; and the same material qualities of form, which signify to us this fitness or usefulness, are the signs to us also of the design or thought which produced them.

It is obvious, however, that we often perceive the expression of design in forms, both in art and nature, in which we discover neither fitness nor utility. By what means then do we infer the existence of design in such cases; and are there any qualities of form, which are

in themselves expressive to us of design and intention? I apprehend that there are; that there are certain quali ties of form which are immediately and permanently expressive to us of these qualities of mind, and which derive their beauty from this expression.

1. In this view, it will easily be observed, that the material quality which is most naturally and most power. fully expressive to us of design, is UNIFORMITY OF REGULARITY. Wherever, in any form, we observe this quality, we immediately infer design. In every form, on the contrary, where we discover a total want of this quality, we are disposed to consider it as the production of chance, or of some power which has operated without thought or intention. "In all cases (says Dr. Reid) "regularity expresses design and art; for nothing regu "lar was ever the work of chance." In what manner this connexion is formed, whether it is derived from experience, or to be considered as an original principle of our nature, I do not inquire. It is however, very obvi ous in children, at a very early age; and it may be ob served, that the popular superstitions of all nations are in a great measure founded upon it; and that all uniform or regular appearances in nature are referred by them to some intelligent mind.

The terms regularity and uniformity are used so sy. nonymously, that it is difficult to explain their difference. As far as I am able to judge, the following account of this difference is not very distant from the truth.

With regard to both terms, when applied to forms, two things are observable. 1st, That they are only applied to such objects as compose a whole; and that they express a relation either between the parts of it considered separately, or among the parts considered as constituting the whole.

The relations between different wholes,

or the parts of different wholes, are expressed by other terms. 2dly, That they express always similarity or resemblance of parts. With regard to uniformity, the term itself is an evidence of it; uniformity being nothing but similarity of form. With regard to regularity, it is not less evident. A regular form is a

form where all the parts are similar: an irregular form is a form where all the parts are dissimilar. A form, partly regular and partly irregular, is a form where some parts are similar and others dissimilar. This is, I conceive, the literal meaning of regularity, as applied to forms, and what we always mean by it, when applied to natural objects. There is, however, another meaning of the term, when applied to works of art, viz. the imitation of a model. Thus, we say, that a pillar is regular, that a poem is regular, that any composition is regular, when they have the same proportions, and the same parts, which are found in the model, or prescribed by the rule. In this case, it is still the similarity of parts which constitutes regularity; the similarity between all the parts in the copy, and those in the original from which it is borrowed.

Considering then regularity and uniformity as both expressing similarity of parts in a whole, it is plain, that we may consider every form composed of parts, either in relation to the similarity of individual parts, or in relation to the similarity of the whole parts. In the first case, the resemblance of any two or more parts constitutes its uniformity. In the second, the resemblance or similarity of all the parts constitutes its regularity. Thus, we say that any two sides of a prism are uniform, but that the prism itself is a regular figure; that the sides of a cube are uniform, but that the cube itself is regular; that the sides of many of the different crystals are uniform, but that the crystals themselves are regular solids.

« PreviousContinue »