It may not be improper, in this place, to examine the influence of
bodily endowments, and of the goods of fortune, over our sentiments of
regard and esteem, and to consider whether these phenomena fortify
or weaken the present theory. It will naturally be expected, that the
beauty of the body, as is supposed by all ancient moralists, will be
similar, in some respects, to that of the mind; and that every kind
of esteem, which is paid to a man, will have something similar in
its origin, whether it arise from his mental endowments, or from the
situation of his exterior circumstances.
It is evident, that one considerable source of BEAUTY in all animals
is the advantage which they reap from the particular structure of their
limbs and members, suitably to the particular manner of life, to which
they are by nature destined. The just proportions of a horse, described
by Xenophon and Virgil, are the same that are received at this day by
our modern jockeys; because the foundation of them is the same, namely,
experience of what is detrimental or useful in the animal.
Broad shoulders, a lank belly, firm joints, taper legs; all these are
beautiful in our species, because signs of force and vigour. Ideas of
utility and its contrary, though they do not entirely determine what is
handsome or deformed, are evidently the source of a considerable part of
approbation or dislike.
In ancient times, bodily strength and dexterity, being of greater USE
and importance in war, was also much more esteemed and valued, than
at present. Not to insist on Homer and the poets, we may observe,
that historians scruple not to mention FORCE OF BODY among the other
accomplishments even of Epaminondas, whom they acknowledge to be the
greatest hero, statesman, and general of all the Greeks. [Footnote: CUM
ALACRIBUS, SALTU; CUMM VELOCIBUS, CURSU; CUM VALIDIS RECTE CERTABATA.
Sallust apud Veget.] A like praise is given to Pompey, one of the
greatest of the Romans. [Footnote: Diodorus Siculus, lib. xv. It may
be improper to give the character of Epaminondas, as drawn by the
historian, in order to show the idea of perfect merit, which prevailed
in those ages. In other illustrious men, say he, you will observe, that
each possessed some one shining quality, which was the foundation of his
fame: In Epaminondas all the VIRTUES are found united; force of body.
eloquence of expression, vigour of mind, contempt of riches, gentleness
of disposition, and what is chiefly to be regarded, courage and conduct
of war.] This instance is similar to what we observed above with regard
to memory.
What derision and contempt, with both sexes, attend IMPOTENCE; while the
unhappy object is regarded as one deprived of so capital a pleasure in
life, and at the same time, as disabled from communicating it to others.
BARRENNESS in women, being also a species of INUTILITY, is a reproach,
but not in the same degree: of which the reason is very obvious,
according to the present theory.
There is no rule in painting or statuary more indispensible than that of
balancing the figures, and placing them with the greatest exactness on
their proper centre of gravity. A figure, which is not justly balanced,
is ugly; because it conveys the disagreeable ideas of fall, harm, and
pain.
[Footenote: All men are equally liable to pain and disease and sickness;
and may again recover health and ease. These circumstances, as they make
no distinction between one man and another, are no source of pride or
humility, regard or contempt. But comparing our own species to superior
ones, it is a very mortifying consideration, that we should all be so
liable to diseases and infirmities; and divines accordingly employ this
topic, in order to depress self-conceit and vanity. They would have more
success, if the common bent of our thoughts were not perpetually turned
to compare ourselves with others.
The infirmities of old age are mortifying; because a comparison with
the young may take place. The king's evil is industriously concealed,
because it affects others, and is often transmitted to posterity. The
case is nearly the same with such diseases as convey any nauseous or
frightful images; the epilepsy, for instance, ulcers, sores, scabs, &c.]
A disposition or turn of mind, which qualifies a man to rise in the
world and advance his fortune, is entitled to esteem and regard, as has
already been explained. It may, therefore, naturally be supposed, that
the actual possession of riches and authority will have a considerable
influence over these sentiments.
Let us examine any hypothesis by which we can account for the regard
paid to the rich and powerful; we shall find none satisfactory, but that
which derives it from the enjoyment communicated to the spectator by
the images of prosperity, happiness, ease, plenty, authority, and the
gratification of every appetite. Self-love, for instance, which some
affect so much to consider as the source of every sentiment, is plainly
insufficient for this purpose. Where no good-will or friendship appears,
it is difficult to conceive on what we can found our hope of advantage
from the riches of others; though we naturally respect the rich, even
before they discover any such favourable disposition towards us.
We are affected with the same sentiments, when we lie so much out of the
sphere of their activity, that they cannot even be supposed to possess
the power of serving us. A prisoner of war, in all civilized nations,
is treated with a regard suited to his condition; and riches, it is
evident, go far towards fixing the condition of any person. If birth
and quality enter for a share, this still affords us an argument to our
present purpose. For what is it we call a man of birth, but one who is
descended from a long succession of rich and powerful ancestors, and who
acquires our esteem by his connexion with persons whom we esteem? His
ancestors, therefore, though dead, are respected, in some measure,
on account of their riches; and consequently, without any kind of
expectation.
But not to go so far as prisoners of war or the dead, to find instances
of this disinterested regard for riches; we may only observe, with
a little attention, those phenomena which occur in common life and
conversation. A man, who is himself, we shall suppose, of a competent
fortune, and of no profession, being introduced to a company of
strangers, naturally treats them with different degrees of respect, as
he is informed of their different fortunes and conditions; though it
is impossible that he can so suddenly propose, and perhaps he would
not accept of, any pecuniary advantage from them. A traveller is always
admitted into company, and meets with civility, in proportion as his
train and equipage speak him a man of great or moderate fortune. In
short, the different ranks of men are, in a great measure, regulated
by riches; and that with regard to superiors as well as inferiors,
strangers as well as acquaintance.
What remains, therefore, but to conclude, that, as riches are desired
for ourselves only as the means of gratifying our appetites, either at
present or in some imaginary future period, they beget esteem in others
merely from their having that influence. This indeed is their very
nature or offence: they have a direct reference to the commodities,
conveniences, and pleasures of life. The bill of a banker, who is broke,
or gold in a desert island, would otherwise be full as valuable. When we
approach a man who is, as we say, at his ease, we are presented with the
pleasing ideas of plenty, satisfaction, cleanliness, warmth; a cheerful
house, elegant furniture, ready service, and whatever is desirable in
meat, drink, or apparel. On the contrary, when a poor man appears,
the disagreeable images of want, penury, hard labour, dirty furniture,
coarse or ragged clothes, nauseous meat and distasteful liquor,
immediately strike our fancy. What else do we mean by saying that one
is rich, the other poor? And as regard or contempt is the natural
consequence of those different situations in life, it is easily seen
what additional light and evidence this throws on our preceding theory,
with regard to all moral distinctions.
[Footnote: There is something extraordinary, and seemingly
unaccountable in the operation of our passions, when we consider the
fortune and situation of others. Very often another's advancement and
prosperity produces envy, which has a strong mixture of hatred, and
arises chiefly from the comparison of ourselves with the person. At the
very same time, or at least in very short intervals, we may feel the
passion of respect, which is a species of affection or good-will, with
a mixture of humility. On the other hand, the misfortunes of our fellows
often cause pity, which has in it a strong mixture of good-will. This
sentiment of pity is nearly allied to contempt, which is a species of
dislike, with a mixture of pride. I only point out these phenomena, as
a subject of speculation to such as are curious with regard to moral
enquiries. It is sufficient for the present purpose to observe in
general, that power and riches commonly cause respect, poverty and
meanness contempt, though particular views and incidents may sometimes
raise the passions of envy and of pity.]
A man who has cured himself of all ridiculous pre-possessions, and is
fully, sincerely, and steadily convinced, from experience as well as
philosophy, that the difference of fortune makes less difference in
happiness than is vulgarly imagined; such a one does not measure out
degrees of esteem according to the rent-rolls of his acquaintance. He
may, indeed, externally pay a superior deference to the great lord above
the vassal; because riches are the most convenient, being the most fixed
and determinate, source of distinction. But his internal sentiments are
more regulated by the personal characters of men, than by the accidental
and capricious favours of fortune.
In most countries of Europe, family, that is, hereditary riches, marked
with titles and symbols from the sovereign, is the chief source of
distinction. In England, more regard is paid to present opulence and
plenty. Each practice has its advantages and disadvantages. Where birth
is respected, unactive, spiritless minds remain in haughty indolence,
and dream of nothing but pedigrees and genealogies: the generous and
ambitious seek honour and authority, and reputation and favour. Where
riches are the chief idol, corruption, venality, rapine prevail: arts,
manufactures, commerce, agriculture flourish. The former prejudice,
being favourable to military virtue, is more suited to monarchies.
The latter, being the chief spur to industry, agrees better with a
republican government. And we accordingly find that each of these forms
of government, by varying the utility of those customs, has commonly a
proportionable effect on the sentiments of mankind.