pronounce also that it is good; and believe that it is beautiful, because it is eminently useful; and as, without any consideration of utility, he pronounces that to be the most beautiful of all the varieties of the human form, which is the mean of them all, so infer the same conclusion, when he estimates the mean of all utilities, regard being had to the respective worth and dignity of these utilities.

It is therefore more than probable, that whether we estimate beauty by the mean of utility, or simply by the mean of form, we shall arrive at the same, or nearly the same conclusion; we shall attain the same standard. But the investigation of these utilities in all their comprehension and reference to their best result is more difficult, and, except in obvious and familiar instances, does not excite attention in common observers. This common sense of man, however, in the most familiar instances, is an evidence of vast import; the mind expects and is reconciled to the more delicate judgments of more atten

tive observers; and a persuasion is induced, that if man were competent to the complete analysis of himself, he would find that the mean of his whole form is admirably adapted to the mean of all his utilities.

It is surely agreeable that the standard of beauty derived from two very different

sources should be found to be one and the same. In receiving that as beautiful which is, we defer to the divine wisdom; in the appeal to the reason of man, the mind and act of the Deity are justified to the mind of

man.

But there is also a use in referring the judgment of beauty to these two tests, as they mutually serve to obviate some difficulties, to reply to some objections, and to correct some erroneous judgments to which we might be liable, if we had only one test to appeal to. The expectation of the beautiful, according to the sentimental standard, in all of the human kind, is repelled when we take into our view the varieties of human life, and admit that these varieties require a confor

conformation nicely adapted to the useful in all. Whether it be that difference of cli mate, of situation, of employment bodily or mental, and of age, induce, as the mere effect of a cause, such smaller variations of the human form; or that man generally issues from the hand of his Maker with such varia→ tions of form as may furnish all the diversified agents fitted to bear their several parts in the vast community of men, makes no difference in the conclusion. Wherever the

diversities of the useful require a deviation from the absolute standard of sentimental beauty, we submit our judgment thereto, and acknowledge a specific beauty; and with delight acknowledge, where adaptation to strength, to toil, to hardihood, to boldness, to enterprise, to speed, to versatility or any other peculiar end, is the predominating character of the form. In the distribution of men therefore into classes according to their situations and subservience in life, the rational standard admits a beauty peculiar and appropriate to each; which if not found

would

would be deemed to be a defect, though the degree in which this specific character is required would not be admitted either in the rational or sentimental standard of the mean perfect beauty of the whole human kind. Thus a length of arm and lightness of leg are well adapted to the manoeuvres of the sailor, but would be unsuited to the pedestrian, in whom is required a strong and muscular leg with as little super-incumbent weight of body as is consistent with general vigour. And thus, in the different occupations of men, the estimated beauty of form in each class will be adapted to the part which each has to sustain in life. A general, when he looks with pride on the manly figure of his soldiers, has a different standard of beauty in his eye from that by which he would judge of the graceful and elegant in an assembly of the higher ranks of life. We observe a similar rule in the judgment we form of the different classes of animals. The beautiful in the lion, the tiger, the elephant, the bull, the horse, and

the dog, is referred to a different standard in each; and even in those species which come more under the observation and use of man, as they are subdivided into different kinds, they have each their appropriate destination and appropriate character, and the mean form in each subordinate kind is allowed to be the standard of beauty in that kind, though varying from the standard of beauty in each other kind, and varying from the standard of the beautiful in the whole genus, where an aptitude to a particular destination is not contemplated. The horse for the dray, the road, the race, the field of chase and the field of war, have each their proper beautiful of form, while each partakes of those qualities which enter into the mean beautiful of them all. And the same is observed of the subdivisions of the canine race the shepherd's dog, the terrier, the spaniel, the fox-hound, the greyhound, the bull-dog and the mastiff, to which we may add the favourites of the ladies, are all estimated by very different standards of beau