AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF TASTE, AND OF THE ORIGIN OF
OUR IDEAS OF BEAUTY, ETC.
by
Frances Reynolds
1785
With an Introduction by James L. Clifford
The Augustan Reprint Society
Frances Reynolds
_An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste,
and of the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty, etc._
(1785)
With an Introduction by James L. Clifford
Publication 27
Los Angeles
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
University of California
1951
_GENERAL EDITORS_
H. RICHARD ARCHER, _Clark Memorial Library_
RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_
EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_
JOHN LOFTIS, _University of California, Los Angeles_
_ASSISTANT EDITORS_
W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_
_ADVISORY EDITORS_
EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_
BENJAMIN BOYCE, _Duke University_
LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_
CLEANTH BROOKS, _Yale University_
JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_
ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_
SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_
ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_
JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_
H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_
INTRODUCTION
Since the early nineteenth century it has been known that Frances
Reynolds, the sister of Sir Joshua, was the author of an essay on
taste, which she had printed but did not publish. Yet persistent
search failed to turn up a single copy. It remained one of those lost
pieces which every research scholar hoped someday to discover.
In 1935 it appeared that the search was over. Among some manuscripts
of Mrs. Thrale-Piozzi, long hidden in Wales, was found a printed copy
of an anonymous _Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste, and of
the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty_, which seemed to be the lost essay.
The date was correct; the _Enquiry_ was dedicated to Mrs. Montagu; it
contained a quotation from Dr. Johnson; and, best of all, there was
attached to the pamphlet a copy (in an unidentified handwriting) of
Johnson's well-known letter to Miss Reynolds concerning her essay.
Only one thing stood squarely in the way of the identification. James
Northcote in his _Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds_, published in 1818 (II,
116-19), after describing Johnson's connection with the manuscript,
gives two pages of short excerpts. Most of the quotations are general
statements such as "Dress is the strong indication of the moral
character" or "The fine arts comprehend all that is excellent in the
moral system, and, at the same time, open every path that tends to the
corruption of moral excellence." Unfortunately none of these excerpts
appears directly in the _Enquiry_. Although some of the ideas are
similar, the wording and specific details are different. By no stretch
of the imagination could they be considered to come from the same
piece. Thus Northcote blocked the solution of the mystery for nearly
fifteen years.
Recently, however, evidence has turned up which makes the attribution
a certainty. It is now obvious that Northcote must have been mistaken
in the source of his quotations. Writing as he did many years after
the events he was describing, Northcote either had found a copy of
the first draft of Miss Reynolds' essay, or erroneously quoted from
another anonymous piece which he assumed was by Miss Reynolds. In any
event he was not quoting from the final version which she wished the
world to see.
The story of Miss Reynolds' attempts to publish her essay can at
last be pieced together from various bits of evidence, some hitherto
unpublished. Just when the essay was written is uncertain. All that
we know is that a preliminary version was submitted to the rigorous
criticism of Dr. Johnson in 1781. Johnson, who had corrected some of
her verses in red ink the year before, commented on 21 July 1781:
There is in these such force of comprehension, and such nicety
of observation as Locke or Pascal might be proud of. This I
say with intention to have you think that I speak my opinion.
They cannot however be printed in their present state. Many
of your notions seem not very clear in your own mind, many are
not sufficiently developed and expanded for the common reader;
the expression almost every where wants to be made clearer and
smoother. You may by revisal and improvement make it a very
elegant and curious work.[1]
But Miss Reynolds was not easily discouraged, and Johnson wrote again
on 8 April 1782:
Your work is full of very penetrating meditation, and very
forcible sentiment. I read it with a full perception of the
sublime, with wonder and terrour, but I cannot think of any
profit from it; it seems not born to be popular.
Your system of the mental fabric is exceedingly obscure, and
without more attention than will be willingly bestowed,
is unintelligible. The Ideas of Beauty will be more easily
understood, and are often charming. I was delighted with the
different beauty of different ages.
I would make it produce something if I could but I have indeed
no hope. If a Bookseller would buy it at all, as it must be
published without a name, he would give nothing for it worth
your acceptance.[2]
In passing it might be pointed out that this letter has previously not
been associated with Miss Reynolds' essay on taste, largely because
the available text of the letter has been so faulty. Where Johnson
wrote "The Ideas of Beauty," obviously referring to the second section
of the _Enquiry_, Croker, followed by G.B. Hill, printed "The plans
of Burnaby." To this Hill added a note; "Burnaby, I conjecture, was a
character in the book," with the result that scholars have fruitlessly
been searching ever since for the fictitious Mr. Burnaby, One more
example of the dangers of using nineteenth-century transcripts!
Evidently Johnson's stringent objections temporarily halted her plans,
for we hear nothing more about the essay for two years. Meanwhile, as
appears from a later letter, she showed it to Bennett Langton, hoping
in vain for his help. Nevertheless, she was determined to go ahead and
print the work, even at her own expense. Johnson, still counted upon
for aid, wrote to her on 12 April 1784:
I am not yet able to wait on you, but I can do your business
commodiously enough. You must send me the copy to show the
printer. If you will come to tea this afternoon we will talk
together about it.[3]
On 30 April he commented further: "Mr. Allen has looked over the
papers and thinks one hundred copies will come to five pounds."
Something, however, made her suspicious of his advice, and on 28 May
there came an end to Johnson's connection with the matter. He wrote:
"I have returned your papers, and am glad that you laid aside the
thought of printing them."
But Miss Reynolds had no intention of permanently giving up her
project. Instead she rewrote parts of the essay which had displeased
her critics, and shortly after Johnson's death proceeded to have 250
copies privately printed, with a dedication to Mrs. Montagu. With
Johnson gone, "The Queen of the Bluestockings" must have appeared the
next best patron. That Mrs. Montagu, while no doubt flattered by the
dedication, was herself not overly enthusiastic about the essay may
be gathered from a letter written to her by Miss Reynolds on 12 July
1785. Miss Reynolds began by insisting that "the slightest hint" of
disapprobation on the part of Mrs. Montagu would "consign the work to
oblivion"; then continued:
I never did entertain any desire to publish it, tho I might
to sell it. And my desire of printing it, originated from a
motive which tho' vain I allow, is an natural vanity I wishd
to leave behind me a respectable memorial of my existence,
which I then flatterd myself this would be. Ten impressions or
twenty at the most, were all I wishd to have taken off. Why I
had so many as 250 was because Dr. Johnson advised me to print
that number, and to sell them, to stand the sale of them was
his expression, but I must do Dr. Johnson the justice to say,
that, that advice was given me with a proviso that no person
was in the secret but himself, for on my informing him to
the contrary, he declined or seemd to decline the affair of
getting them printed for me, which I perceiving sent to him
for the manuscript, foolishly entertaining a slight suspicion
which I much reproach myself for, that some other motives
besides the want of merit in the work had influenced this
change of behaviour. Unluckily from the beginning I made too
great allowance in its favour, from an opinion I had con
too of Dr. Johnsons being strongly prejudiced against womens
literary productions. But I deceived myself. He was sincere,
he judged justly of the work, and his opinion exactly
corresponded with yours![4]
Not that she regretted the cost of printing the 250 copies. That was a
minor consideration. She concluded:
If I ever should shew it to any person it will be to Mr.
Langton, from a motive of wishing him to see the alteration I
have made in it for the better, since he saw it, and as it is
also since Dr. Johnson saw it, and particularly that part
he most objected to, my belief that I had obviated that
objection, is another apology for my printing it.
To this Mrs. Montagu returned a wordy and diffuse reply, commenting
that "having for many years past left off all metaphysical studies,"
she was "not a competent judge of any work on subjects of that
nature," yet insisting that she doubted if contemporary readers would
like it. It was obvious that Mrs. Montagu refused to be a party to
further dissemination of the printed copies. And there the matter
rested for almost three more years.
The wish to have some of the copies read by the general public proved
too strong, and on 15 April 1788 Miss Reynolds wrote again to Mrs.
Montagu, asking her aid in recovering a letter, or transcription of a
letter, of Johnson's:
It is of great importance to me the recovery of this letter
particularly so as I perceive I must not presume to hope for
the only patronage that could countervail the loss of Dr.
Johnsons, should I ever be induced to publish the work. I
do not mean that I would publish the letter, but that the
testimony it conveys of Dr. Johnsons approbation, would be
highly advantageous to me in the disposal of the copy to
a Bookseller, indeed _approbation_ is an improper Word,
inadequate to the
praises he bestows on the work, I durst not repeat his
expressions tho I well remember them. Some friendly strictures
also the letter contained, all these I remember I transcribed
verbatim in a letter I sent to you in the beginning of the
year 82. they begin
Many of your notions seem not to be very clear in your own
imagination....[5]
It was not until the next year that with the help of James Northcote
she finally made active preparations to have the work published. As
Miss Reynolds wrote to Mrs. Montagu on 5 February,
I forgot to say that Mr. Nurse recommended Mr. Northcote to a
Mr. Bladen in Paternoster Row for a Publisher, but I sent
in the utmost haste to him to prevent his taking any steps
towards so disgraceful a place as I imagine that to be so
incongruous.[6]
In preparation for the new printing, Miss Reynolds had further revised
her essay, and in order to enhance the value of the piece for general
readers she decided to add three letters from Johnson of which she
chanced to have copies. Totally unconnected with the essay, one was
to Sir Joseph Banks concerning the motto for his goat's collar; the
others concerned the unfortunate Dr. Dodd. But before going ahead she
again asked the advice of her patroness. Mrs. Montagu replied:
I do not see that there is any objection to publishing the 3
letters, but I own I think Dr Johnson judges too lightly of
the crime of forgery ... I believe the tenderness of sentiment
Dr Johnson expresses for Dr Dodd in his afflictions will do
him honour in the eyes of the Publick, & therefore as his
friend you may with propriety publish the letters.[7]
Mrs. Montagu concluded, "I wish some name that would do more honour to
your work was to appear in the dedication, but to be presented to
the publick with such a mark of Mrs Reynolds' friendly regard, will
certainly be esteemed an honour...."
Sometime between February and July 1789 the _Enquiry_ was reprinted,
this time by J. Smeeton (copies of this version may be found in the
Bodleian Library and the Library of Congress). The terminal date for
the reprinting is established by the fact that the three letters
of Johnson which were appended to the essay were reprinted without
comment in the July issue of the _European Magazine_.
Just where Miss Reynolds secured copies of the Johnson letters is
not certain. It is suggestive, however, that the letter to Banks had
originally been sent under cover to Sir Joshua Reynolds and that Sir
Joshua's copy is now among the Boswell papers at Yale University.
There would have been ample opportunity for Frances Reynolds also to
have secured a copy. And the letter to Charles Jenkinson of 20 June
1777 and to Dr. Dodd of 26 June were of the sort that an enterprising
lady might well have wheedled copies from the Doctor. The important
point is that the inclusion of the letters in the 1789 printing of the
_Enquiry_ provides incontrovertible proof of Miss Reynolds' connection
with the piece.
For this second printing the entire pamphlet was reset, with
numerous minor changes of wording and punctuation, but with no major
alterations in meaning. In general the textual improvements are such
as a bluestocking lady might well wish to make. It will be noted that
on pages 25 and 49 of the copy here reproduced someone has made minor
changes in wording in ink. These corrections are made in the later
printing. Moreover, at the end of the 1789 version there is an errata
list, indicating three alterations from the 1785 text which were
mistakes. The Dedication remained unchanged, but the geometrical
illustration was now placed facing the beginning of Chapter I.
The _Enquiry_ was written in what is now recognized as one of the most
exciting periods in the history of aesthetics, the late eighteenth
century being a crucial point in the gradual shift from absolute
classical standards to the relative approaches of the next age. Most
of the important thinkers of the day--Hume, Burke, Lord Kames, Adam
Smith, among others--were thinking deeply about the problem of taste.
And if Miss Reynolds' essay is not one of the most perceptive of the
discussions, it is at least one of the liveliest.
In brief, the _Enquiry_ is what one might expect from an intelligent
amateur, from one not a professional writer, yet one who has given
much thought to the problems of aesthetics. Of course, many of the
ideas are derivative, with echoes of the "moral sense" of Hutcheson,
the "line of grace" of Hogarth, and the terrible sublime of Burke. The
three divisions of the essay--the development of a mental system, the
origin of our ideas of Beauty, and the analysis of taste--follow the
customary pattern of eighteenth-century discussions. Yet the piece
is no slavish refurbishing of old phrases. It is packed with fresh
arguments and novel suggestions. If these are not always completely
coherent or logical, they do represent original thinking.
Twentieth-century readers may be astonished by some of the ideas:
witness the claim that Negroes could never arrive at true taste,
because their eyes were so accustomed to objects diametrically
opposite to taste. As a further example of Miss Reynolds' occasionally
muddled thinking there is the development of her initial assumption.
While the groundwork of man is perfection, this perfection has been
blemished and man is impelled to recapture it in the sublime. Yet
instead of analyzing this impulse, Miss Reynolds appears to take it
for granted. Nor does she consider how perfection is to be achieved
in taste, preferring to conclude with a diatribe in the manner of
Rousseau on the depravity of the times and the corrupting effect of
the arts. (For this and many of the following comments I am indebted
to Mr. Ralph Cohen of the College of the City of New York.)
The cause of some of the ambiguities in her discussion may perhaps be
traced to a rather careless use of terms. At one time "instinct"
or "impulsion," the moral force driving man toward perfection, is a
potentiality developed by cultivation, and at another a force that
is created by cultivation. Although the sublime is the apex of her
mathematically-definite program and is a moral quality attained by
the few, every human being has his point of sublimity in the idea of
a Supreme Being. On the one hand, beauty is a preconceived idea in
the human species; on the other it is not preconceived, but developed.
Finally, the rules of art are perceptions of moral virtue, yet art
which exhibits these rules can corrupt.
It is easy to pick flaws in Miss Reynolds' thinking, for the lack of
sustained logic which Johnson early recognized is apparent at every
turn. Yet for students of the history of ideas the _Enquiry_ contains
much of interest. As a painter, Miss Reynolds throughout stresses the
visual, a concentration which leads her to several valuable insights.
She divides form into two categories, masculine and feminine, but
makes a novel use of these Ciceronian divisions. All non-human
objects--flowers, animals, etc.--are seen as exhibiting male or female
attributes. It might almost be said that with this anthropomorphic
approach she is attempting to develop a "philosophical" basis for the
pathetic fallacy. Furthermore, if the human is used to measure beauty
in the non-human, the implication is that man, not God, is the measure
of beauty. By setting up man as the mediator between the material and
the divine, she points to the concentration in the next century on
human values.
When discussing the _Enquiry_ in his book on the _Sublime_, Samuel
Monk pointed out certain other tendencies which fore-shadow the
coming Romantic revolt. This shift may also be noted in Miss Reynolds'
extension of countenance, the reflection of internal virtue, to mean
"form," and the extension of internal virtue to mean "disposition,"
"object," or content. In developing this form-content division, she
stumbles on a key criticism of associationism: "From association of
ideas, any object may be pleasing, though absolutely devoid of beauty,
and displeasing with it. The form is _then_ out of the question; it is
some _real_ good or evil, with which the object, but not its form, is
associated." This notion that associationism leads away from the
work of art as such is a perceptive comment. Her notion that form and
disposition (or content) must correspond in order to give aesthetic
pleasure suggests, though the terms are different, certain of
Coleridge's basic ideas.
One other point might be stressed: Miss Reynolds takes an extreme
moralistic position toward the arts. Again and again it is insisted
that taste and beauty are moral attributes, not purely aesthetic
concepts. Chapter II ends with the ringing statement: "Of this I
am certain, that true refinement is the effect of true virtue; that
virtue is truth, and good; and that beauty dwells in them, and they
in her." And the next chapter begins: "Taste seems to be an inherent
impulsive tendency of the soul towards true good." On the other
hand, she sees that the arts are not to be encouraged because such
encouragement is apt to lead to the destruction of moral virtue--the
desire for fame and wealth. The value of art as education is dismissed
as of importance only to the few; the dangers of encouragement will
imperil the many. "Though the arts are thus beneficial to the growing
principles of taste, respecting a few individuals, it is well known
that their establishment in every nation has had a contrary effect on
the community in general...."
To conclude: despite its many deficiencies Frances Reynolds' _Enquiry_
is worth reading. It serves admirably to mirror the conflicting
eighteenth-century theories out of which our own aesthetic concepts
have been formed.
James L. Clifford
Columbia University
Notes to the Introduction
1. _Letters_, II, 223-24; corrected from original letter in possession
of Professor F.W. Hilles of Yale University, who has given invaluable
aid in the present investigation.
2. _Letters_, II, 249-50, corrected from the original by Dr. R.W.
Chapman.
3. Copy in possession of Mrs. Doreen Ashworth, Windlesham, Surrey.
4. Original in Huntington Library.
5. Original in possession of Mrs. Ashworth.
6. Rough draft in possession of Mrs. Ashworth.
7. Original in possession of Professor F.W. Hilles.
AN ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES of TASTE, AND OF THE ORIGIN OF
OUR IDEAS of BEAUTY, &c.
Sunt certi denique fines,
Quos ultra citraquè nequit consistere rectum.
HOR.
To Mrs. MONTAGU.
MADAM,
Were I not prompted by gratitude, admiration, and affection, to
dedicate to you the best produce of my abilities, which I imagine this
to be, yet, as the subject, of which it particularly treats, is moral
excellence, the universal voice of mankind, with whom your very name
is synonymous with virtue itself, must plead my apology for taking
this liberty. Besides, madam, it was natural for me, as an author, to
with to avail myself of the advantage, which this address affords
me, of prepossessing the minds of my readers with an example of that
perfection to which all my arguments tend, as a preparative, or aid,
to their better comprehending my meaning.
The influence of virtue is every way beneficial! Your character,
not only secures me from all imputation of flattery, but this public
avowal of my admiration of its excellence conveys an honourable
testimony of the consistency of my principles; having endeavoured to
inculcate, that the love and esteem of true virtue is true honour. And
I may add, that the sweet gratification I feel, in the indulging the
strongest and best propension of my nature, in thus expatiating in its
praise, is true pleasure, true happiness.
I am, Madam,
Your obliged,
Most obedient,
And most humble, servant,
The AUTHOR.
CHAPTER I.
A SKETCH of the MENTAL SYSTEM respecting our Perceptions of Taste, &c.
The mind of man, introspecting itself, seems, as it were, (in
conjunction with the inscrutable principles of nature,) placed in the
central point of the creation: from whence, impelled by her energetic
powers and illumined by her light, the intellectual faculties, like
rays, shoot forth in direct tendency to their ultimate point of
perfection; and, as they advance, each individual mind imperceptibly
imbibes the influence and light of each, and is by this imbibition
alone enabled to approach it.
But, though the light of nature and of reason direct the human mind
to perfection, or true good, yet, being in its progress perpetually
impeded by adventitious causes, casual occurrences, &c. &c. which
induce false opinions of good and evil, its progressive powers
generally stop at a middle point between mere uncultivated nature and
perfection, a medium which constitutes what we call common sense, and
which, in degree, seems as distant from the perfection of the mental
faculties as common form is from the perfection of form, _beauty_.
[Illustration:
SUBLIMITY.
|
GRACE
|
BEAUTY | TRUTH
|
COMMON SENSE | COMMON FORM
|
NATURE]
On meditating on this subject, and marking the progressive stages
or degrees of human excellence, the great leading general truths,
or mental rests, as I may call them, _the common, the beautiful, the
graceful, and the sublime_, I have been naturally led to form a kind
of diagrammatic representation of their respective distances, &c. &c.
which I present to my reader on the opposite page, requesting him to
refer to it now and then as he goes on, in order to facilitate his
comprehension of my meaning.
And here it may be necessary to premise, that, however whimsical and
absurd this delineation may appear to my reader, something analogous
to the thought may be found in the works of many eminent philosophers,
particularly in those of Bacon[A] and of Locke:[B] the latter
suggesting that the whole system of morality might be reduced to
mathematical demonstration; and the former, in his treatise on the
Advancement of Learning, gives a description of the stages of science
very much resembling my delineation of the stages of intellectual
perfection, or taste.
[Footnote A: Advancement of Learning, Book 2d.]
[Footnote B: Essay on human Understanding, Chap. 3d, Book the 4th, and
Chap. 12th, same Book, Sect. 8th.]
It could have been no dishonour to me to have been led by such
conductors! Yet, as the truth cannot dishonour me neither, I must
aver, that my little system was projected, and brought to the exact
state it now is in, without my having the least apprehension that any
thing similar had been suggested before by any person whatever; nor
have I, in consequence of the discovery I have lately made of the
opinions of these respectable authors, added or omitted a single
thought in my treatise. But to return from my digression.
In the exact center of my circle of humanity, I have placed nature,
or the springs of the intellectual powers, which tend, in a
straight line, to its boundary; and, on its boundary, I have placed
demonstrable beauty and truth, and the utmost power of rules; and,
midway; I have placed common sense and common form, half deriving
their existence from pure nature, and half from its highest
cultivation, as far as art or rules can teach. A conjunction which
would itself be the perfection of humanity, but that it is mixed with
all that is not nature, and all that is not art, and thereby made
mediocrity, i.e. _common sense_.
The intellectual powers, arriving at the limit of my common circle,
i.e. at the limit of the basis of my pyramidical system, where I
have placed the fixed proportions of beauty and of truth, (if they
progress,) mount up as a flame, with undulating[A] motion, refining
as they advance, and terminate in the pinnacle, or ultimate point,
_sublimity_; forming in the imagination the figure of a pyramid,
or cone, from the limit of whose base, (on which, as I have before
observed, I have placed demonstrable truth and beauty, the utmost
power of rules, &c.) from that limit up to the ultimate point of
sublimity, I call the region of intellectual pleasure, genius, or
taste; and in its center I place grace, whose influence pervades,
cheers, and nourishes, every part of it, an object which, in this
ideal region, is similar in its situation and degree to that of common
sense in the common or fundamental region. Grace seems to partake
of the perception both of beauty and of sublimity, as common sense
partakes of nature and of art. Grace is the characteristic object or
general form of the ideal region, and its perception is the general
limit of the powers of imagination or taste. Few, very few, attain to
the point of sublimity; the _ne plus ultra_ of human conception! the
alpha and omega. The sentiment of sublimity sinks into the source of
nature, and that of the source of nature mounts to the sentiment of
sublimity, each point seeming to each the cause and the effect; the
origin and the end!
[Footnote A: I use that expression, because it is the peculiar motion
of grace as well as of a flame.]
Having thus drawn the outline of my pyramidical mental system, I
propose to expatiate a little on each point or stage throughout the
great characteristic line of intellectual power.
The first point The exact center, _nature_, or the origin of our
intellectual faculties, admits of no investigation, its idea, as I
have observed before, loses itself in the sentiment of sublimity,
and we see nothing; and therefore I pass on to an object which is
perceptible, _the common general character of humanity_, _exterior and
inferior_. I have placed them on a line, because their ideas are so
analogous, that they unite in one.
Section 1. _Common Sense and common Form_.
Perfection seems to be the ground-work both of common sense and
of common form; and, what prevents each from being perfect, is the
adventitious blemishes, the additions to, and the diminutions from,
what is perfect, making the too little and the too large. But, these
defects being distributed in, small portions throughout the general
common form and common mind, they constitute an object, whether
visible or intellectual, between perfection and imperfection, namely,
that of mediocrity, neither exciting admiration nor disgust. And, as
experience gives the general idea of the common and true appearance
of the human form, as well to the rustic as to the most enlightened
philosopher, so consequently does it enable him to see deformity, or
what is an unusual appearance in that form.
But, though unusual defects seem to be evident to every eye, it is
only to the man of taste and nice discernment that the same degree of
unusual beauties are equally perceptible; which corresponds with my
opinion, that the ground-work of humanity is perfection, and that its
blemishes only tinge its pure white, not discolour it so much, but,
when held at a distance, i.e. in abstract idea, it is still a white,
like a sheet of paper, or cloth of the most perfect white, regularly
checkered over with a variety of figures of every colour, and placed
at a distance, appearing to the eye a white, a mezzo common white;
and, as any unusual figure, I mean unusually large and opaque, on this
mezzo ground, would be more conspicuous than any of a greater degree
of transparency or a more perfect white could be by an absence of any
of the figures; so any degree of deformity is, more opposite to the
general common form than beauty, and any degree of insanity is more
opposite to common sense than intellectual excellence.
And, (to continue my allusion,) as those tints, or blemishes, which
obscure the ground, must be discharged to make a perfect white, so
must the artist, in creating beauty, discharge the blemishes that
tinge and obscure the human form, and which give it the character of
mediocrity, till the perfect white, or total absence of defect, or
beauty, result.
Common sense seems to be diffusive truth, and common form diffusive
beauty; and, as this diffusion is always existing with us, externally
and internally, it is no wonder that we should more easily perceive
what is in opposition to it, _evil_, than what is in unison with it,
_good_.
On a line with common form and common sense I place common ease of
body and of mind: unfelt health, unfelt good, or that arising to the
degree of _satisfaction_ and _content_; in fine, whatever we call
_commonly_ good, and requisite for the well-being of humanity.