effect that is intended by it-to excite the mirth and the ridicule of the common people.

2. No dress is ever remarked to be beautiful, in which the prevailing color has not some pleasing or affecting expression. There are a variety of colors which are chosen for common apparel, which have no character or expression in themselves, and which are chosen for no other reason, than because they are convenient for the peculiar occupations or amusements in which we are engaged: such dress accordingly has no beauty. When we say, that it is a useful or a convenient color, we give it all the approbation to which it is entitled. There are on the contrary, a variety of colors which are expressive from peculiar associations, which are either gay, or delicate, or rich, or grave, or melancholy. It is always such colors that are chosen for what is properly called dress, or for that species of apparel, in which something more than mere convenience is intended. When we speak of such dress, accordingly, we generally describe its beauty by its character, by its being delicate or rich, or gay or magnificent, or in other words, by its being distinguished by some pleasing or affecting expression. We should feel an equal impropriety in any person's choosing the color of ornamental dress, on account of its convenience, as in his choosing the color of his common apparel, because it was gay, or delicate, or splendid.

This difference of expression constitutes the only distinction that seems to subsist between the colors that are fit for common, and those that are fit for ornamental apparel. But besides this, there is another constituent of the beauty of the prevailing color-its relation to the character or situation of the person who wears it. The same color, which would be beautiful in the dress of a prince, would be ridiculous in the dress of a peasant. We expect gay colors in the dress of youth, and sober and temperate colors in the dress of age. We feel a

marked to be beautiful, without what? How is this illustrated from the colors chosen for common apparel? When do we give it all the approbation to which it is entitled? There are, on the contrary, a variety of what colors; and what is observed of them? When we speak of such colors, accordingly, by what do we generally describe them? In what should we feel an equal impropriety? What does this difference of expression constitute? Besides this, what other constituent of the beauty of colors is there? How is this

propriety in the cheerful colors of a marriage, and in the melancholy coloring of mourning. There is a propriety of rela tion also, between the colors that distinguish the dress of certain situations, and these situations themselves, which we never see violated without some degree of pain. Besides all this, there is a relation of a still more delicate kind, between the colors of dress, and the character that distinguishes the countenance of the person who wears it; which, however little attended to, is one of the most important articles in the composition of dress, and which is never observed or violated with. out either increasing or diminishing the beauty of the person it distinguishes. As the general beauty of dress depends upon the predominant color being distinguished by some pleasing or interesting expression, so the beauty of dress in any particular situation or character, depends upon this expression being suited to that character or situation.

3. No dress is ever considered beautiful, in which the com. position of the inferior colors is not adapted to the peculiar expression of the prevailing color. The mere accumulation of different colors, without any regard to the general color of the dress, every one knows to be proverbially expressive of ignorance and vulgarity. To suit these colors, on the other hand, to the prevailing color, is considered the great criterion of taste in this kind of composition. If you inquire, accordingly, why, in any particular case, such colors are not suited to the dress, you will be told, that they are either too glaring, too solemn, too gay, or too delicate, for the predominant color; in other words, that they do not accord with the expression of the dress, and that on this account the composition is not beautiful. Wherever in this article, it is said, that colors either suit, or do not suit, what is meant or felt, I believe is, that their expressions either agree or do not agree.

illustrated? In what other relation is there also a propriety? What relation of a still more delicate kind is there; and what is said of it? What remark follows? Without what adaptation is no dress ever considered beautiful? What does every one know to be expressive of ignorance and vulgarity: and what is considered the great criterion of taste in this kind of composition? If you inquire, accordingly, why, in any particular case, such colors are not suited to the dress, what will you be told? Wherever it is said that colors suit or do not suit, what is meant? Of what do different colors in dress, on the same

It is upon the same account that different colors in dress, admit of very different degrees of variety, in the composition of the subordinate colors. Rich colors admit of little variety: grave or melancholy colors of less. Delicate colors admit more of contrast than of variety: gay or cheerful colors demand a great proportion of variety. In all these cases, the proportion which is beautiful is that which accords with the peculiar nature of the emotion that the predominant color excites. Strong emotions, and emotions which border upon pain, require uniformity in their objects: rieh, or magnificent, or mournful dresses, require therefore a great proportion of uniformity in the composition of the coloring. Weak emotions require to be supported and enlivened: dresses of a gentle or delicate character are therefore best illustrated by contrast. Emotions which belong to pleasure, demand variety in their objects; dresses of a gay character, admit therefore of a greater proportion of variety in their coloring, than any of the others.

These slight hints, and the subject deserves no more, may perhaps lead the reader to conclude, that the beauty of dress, so far as it relates to the composition of colors, depends upon the unity of expression; and that taste, in this respect, consists in the accurate perception of the expressions of colors, and of their relation, both to each other, and to the character or situation of the person for whom they are destined.

There is one subject in which some attention to these principles might, perhaps, be productive of no unimportant effect: I mean 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

account admit? How is this remark illustrated? In all these cases, what is the proportion which is beautiful? What do strong emotions require; and what do rich, or magnificent, or mournful dresses require? Of weak emotions what is observed; and what follows? What do emotions which belong to pleasure require; and what is the consequence? To what may these slight hints lead the reader? To what subject might attention to these principles be productive of important effects? What has every one perceived? What are left to be determined by the caprice or vanity of the actor? What

distinguishes-comedy and tragedy clothed in the same colors; 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 distinguished 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 com. pose a beautiful mass or group of coloring, 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 coloring in historical painting-whether the beauty of the prevailing color 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 colors is not determined 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.

would be giving some addition to the effect to this art; and of the art itself what is remarked? What does our author leave to be determined by those who are more learned in the art than he is himself?

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 useful. ness 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

Besides the natural beauty of forms, from what are they the signs of other qualities? Whatever is the effect of art, naturally leads us to what consideration? When we discover skill or wisdom in the one, or usefulness or propriety in the other, of what are we conscious; and of the forms, what is remarked? From what is there, therefore, an additional source of beauty in forms; and what is it called? In one or the other of what lights, may every work of design be considered; and upon what does its beauty, accordingly, depend? What may, therefore, be considered as the three great sources of