Table Of ContentThe Psychology of Beauty 1
The Psychology of Beauty
Project Gutenberg Etext The Psychology of Beauty, by Ethel D. Puffer Copyright laws are changing all over
the world, be sure to check the laws for your country before redistributing these files!!!
Please take a look at the important information in this header.
We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an electronic path open for the next readers.
Please do not remove this.
This should be the first thing seen when anyone opens the book. Do not change or edit it without written
permission. The words are carefully chosen to provide users with the information they need about what they
can legally do with the texts.
**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
*****These Etexts Are Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and further information is included below,
including for donations.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN [Employee
Identification Number] 64-6221541
Title: The Psychology of Beauty
Information about Project Gutenberg 2
Author: Ethel D. Puffer
Release Date: February, 2003 [Etext #3751] [Yes, we are about one year ahead of schedule] [The actual date
this file first posted = 08/21/01]
Edition: 10
Language: English
Project Gutenberg Etext The Psychology of Beauty, by Ethel D. Puffer ********This file should be named
psbty10.txt or psbty10.zip********
Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, psbty11.txt VERSIONS based on separate sources
get new LETTER, psbty10a.txt
This Project Gutenberg Etext prepared by Tony Adam [email protected]
Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions, all of which are in the Public Domain in
the United States, unless a copyright notice is included. Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any of these
books in compliance with any particular paper edition.
We are now trying to release all our books one year in advance of the official release dates, leaving time for
better editing. Please be encouraged to send us error messages even years after the official publication date.
Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til midnight of the last day of the month of any such
announcement. The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at Midnight, Central Time, of the
last day of the stated month. A preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment and editing
by those who wish to do so.
Most people start at our sites at: http://gutenberg.net http://promo.net/pg
Those of you who want to download any Etext before announcement can surf to them as follows, and just
download by date; this is also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the indexes our
cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg
Newsletter.
http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want, as it appears in our Newsletters.
Information about Project Gutenberg
(one page)
We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The time it takes us, a rather conservative
estimate, is fifty hours to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright searched and analyzed,
the copyright letters written, etc. This projected audience is one hundred million readers. If our value per text
is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 million dollars per hour this year as we release fifty
new Etext files per month, or 500 more Etexts in 2000 for a total of 3000+ If they reach just 1-2% of the
world's population then the total should reach over 300 billion Etexts given away by year's end.
Information about Project Gutenberg 3
The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext Files by December 31, 2001. [10,000 x
100,000,000 = 1 Trillion] This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, which is only about
4% of the present number of computer users.
At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 4,000
Etexts unless we manage to get some real funding.
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created to secure a future for Project Gutenberg
into the next millennium.
We need your donations more than ever!
As of July 12, 2001 contributions are only being solicited from people in: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
We have filed in about 45 states now, but these are the only ones that have responded.
As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be made and fund raising will begin in
the additional states. Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
In answer to various questions we have received on this:
We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally request donations in all 50 states. If your
state is not listed and you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have, just ask.
While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are not yet registered, we know of no
prohibition against accepting donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to donate.
International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about how to make them tax-deductible,
or even if they CAN be made deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are ways.
All donations should be made to:
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation PMB 113 1739 University Ave. Oxford, MS 38655-4109
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN [Employee
Identification Number] 64-6221541, and has been approved as a 501(c)(3) organization by the US Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). Donations are tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As the
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be made and fund raising will begin in the
additional states.
We need your donations more than ever!
You can get up to date donation information at:
http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
***
The Legal Small Print 4
If you can't reach Project Gutenberg, you can always email directly to:
Michael S. Hart <[email protected]>
[email protected] forwards to [email protected] and archive.org if your mail bounces from archive.org, I
will still see it, if it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .
Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
We would prefer to send you information by email.
***
Example command-line FTP session:
ftp ftp.ibiblio.org
login: anonymous
password: your@login
cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg
cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext02, etc.
dir [to see files]
get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
GET GUTINDEX.?? [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]
GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]
**
The Legal Small Print
**
(Three Pages)
***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START*** Why is this "Small
Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not
our fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement disclaims most of our liability to you. It also
tells you how you may distribute copies of this etext if you want to.
*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, you indicate that you understand,
agree to and accept this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for this etext by sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person you got it from. If you
received this etext on a physical medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts, is a "public domain"
work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright on or for this work, so the Project
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext under the
The Legal Small Print 5
"PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market any commercial products without
permission.
To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public
domain works. Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any medium they may be on may contain
"Defects". Among other things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data,
transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, [1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any
other party you may receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL
DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if
any) you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that time to the person you received it from. If you
received it on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and such person may choose to
alternatively give you a replacement copy. If you received it electronically, such person may choose to
alternatively give you a second opportunity to receive it electronically.
THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY
KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY
BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of consequential
damages, so the above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you may have other legal rights.
INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers
associated with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm texts harmless, from all liability, cost
and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following that you do or
cause: [1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification, or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.
DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by disk, book or any other medium if you either
delete this "Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, or:
[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
etext or this "small print!" statement. You may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from conversion by word
processing or hypertext software, but only so long as *EITHER*:
[*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and does *not* contain characters other than those intended
The Legal Small Print 6
by the author of the work, although tilde (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may be used to convey
punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters may be used to indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
form by the program that displays the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors); OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext
in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this "Small Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the gross profits you derive calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you don't derive profits, no royalty is due.
Royalties are payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation" the 60 days following each date
you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return. Please
contact us beforehand to let us know your plans and to work out the details.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form.
The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, public domain materials, or royalty free
copyright licenses. Money should be paid to the: "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or software or other items, please contact Michael
Hart at: [email protected]
[Portions of this header are copyright (C) 2001 by Michael S. Hart and may be reprinted only when these
Etexts are free of all fees.] [Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be used in any sales of Project
Gutenberg Etexts or other materials be they hardware or software or any other related product without express
permission.]
*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.07/27/01*END*
This Project Gutenberg Etext prepared by Tony Adam [email protected]
The Psychology of Beauty
by Ethel D. Puffer
PREFACE
THE human being who thrills to the experience of beauty in nature and in art does not forever rest with that
experience unquestioned. The day comes when he yearns to pierce the secret of his emotion, to discover what
it is, and why, that has so stung him--to defend and to justify his transport to himself and to others. He seeks a
reason for the faith that is in him. And so have arisen the speculative theories of the nature of beauty, on the
one hand, and the studies of concrete beauty and our feelings about it, on the other. Speculative theory has
taken its own way, however, as a part of philosophy, in relating the Beautiful to the other great concepts of the
True and the Good; building up an architectonic of abstract ideas, far from the immediate facts and problems
of the enjoyment of beauty. There has grown up, on the other hand, in the last years, a great literature of
special studies in the facts of aesthetic production and enjoyment. Experiments with the aesthetic elements;
The Legal Small Print 7
investigations into the physiological psychology of aesthetic reactions; studies in the genesis and development
of art forms, have multiplied apace. But these are still mere groups of facts for psychology; they have not been
taken up into a single authoritative principle. Psychology cannot do justice to the imperative of beauty, by
virtue of which, when we say "this is beautiful," we have a right to imply that the universe must agree with us.
A synthesis of these tendencies in the study of beauty is needed, in which the results of modern psychology
shall help to make intelligible a philosophical theory of beauty. The chief purpose of this book is to seek to
effect such a union.
A way of defining Beauty which grounds it in general principles, while allowing it to reach the concrete case,
is set forth in the essay on the Nature of Beauty. The following chapters aim to expand, to test, and to confirm
this central theory, by showing, partly by the aid of the aforesaid special studies, how it accounts for our
pleasure in pictures, music, and literature.
The whole field of beauty is thus brought under discussion; and therefore, though it nowhere seeks to be
exhaustive in treatment, the book may fairly claim to be a more or less consistent and complete aesthetic
theory, and hence to address itself to the student of aesthetics as well as to the general reader. The chapter on
the Nature of Beauty, indeed, will doubtless be found by the latter somewhat technical, and should be omitted
by all who definitely object to professional phraseology. The general conclusions of the book are sufficiently
stated in the less abstract papers.
Of the essays which compose the following volume, the first, third, and last are reprinted, in more or less
revised form, from the "Atlantic Monthly" and the "International Monthly." Although written as independent
papers, it is thought that they do not unduly repeat each other, but that they serve to verify, in each of the
several realms of beauty, the truth of the central theory of the book.
The various influences which have served to shape a work of this kind become evident in the reading; but I
cannot refrain from a word of thanks to the teachers whose inspiration and encouragement first made it
possible. I owe much gratitude to Professor Mary A. Jordan and Professor H. Norman Gardiner of Smith
College, who in literature and in philosophy first set me in the way of aesthetic interest and inquiry, and to
Professor Hugo Munsterberg of Harvard University, whose philosophical theories and scientific guidance
have largely influenced my thought.
WELLESLEY COLLEGE, April 24, 1905.
CONTENTS PAGE I. CRITICISM AND AESTHETICS.............................1 II. THE NATURE OF
BEAUTY................................27 III. THE AESTHETIC REPOSE................................57 IV. THE BEAUTY
OF FINE ART..............................89 A. THE BEAUTY OF VISUAL FORM.....................91 B. SPACE
COMPOSITION AMONG THE OLD MASTERS......128 V. THE BEAUTY OF
MUSIC................................149 VI. THE BEAUTY OF LITERATURE...........................203 VII. THE
NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS OF THE DRAMA............229 VIII. THE BEAUTY OF
IDEAS................................263
I CRITICISM AND AESTHETICS
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BEAUTY
I CRITICISM AND AESTHETICS
IT is not so long ago that the field of literary criticism was divided into two opposing camps. France being the
only country in the world where criticism is a serious matter, the battle waged most fiercely there, and
doubtless greatly served to bring about the present general interest and understanding of the theoretical
questions at issue. The combatants were, of course, the impressionistic and scientific schools of criticism, and
The Legal Small Print 8
particularly enlightening were the more or less recent controversies between MM. Anatole France and Jules
Lemaitre as representatives of the first, and M. Brunetiere as the chief exponent of the second. They have
planted their standards; and we see that they stand for tendencies in the critical activity of every nation. The
ideal of the impressionist is to bring a new piece of literature into being in some exquisitely happy
characterization,-- to create a lyric of criticism out of the unique pleasure of an aesthetic hour. The stronghold
of the scientist, on the other hand, is the doctrine of literary evolution, and his aim is to show the history of
literature as the history of a process, and the work of literature as a product; to explain it from its preceding
causes, and to detect thereby the general laws of literary metamorphosis.
Such are the two great lines of modern criticism; their purposes and ideals stand diametrically opposed. Of
late, however, there have not been wanting signs of a spirit of reconciliation, and of a tendency to concede the
value, each in its own sphere, of different but complementary activities. Now and again the lion and the lamb
have lain down together; one might almost say, on reading a delightful paper of Mr. Lewis E. Gates on
Impressionism and Appreciation,<1> that the lamb had assimilated the lion. For the heir of all literary studies,
according to Professor Gates, is the appreciative critic; and he it is who shall fulfill the true function of
criticism. He is to consider the work of art in its historical setting and its psychological origin, "as a
characteristic moment in the development of human spirit, and as a delicately transparent illustration of
aesthetic law." But, "in regarding the work of art under all these aspects, his aim is, primarily, not to explain,
and not to judge or dogmatize, but to enjoy; to realize the manifold charms the work of art has gathered unto
itself from all sources, and to interpret this charm imaginatively to the men of his own day and generation."
<1> Atlantic Monthly, July, 1900.
Thus it would seem that if the report of his personal reactions to a work of literary art is the intention of the
impressionist, and its explanation that of the scientist, the purpose of the appreciative critic is fairly named as
the illuminating and interpreting reproduction of that work, from material furnished by those other forms of
critical activity. Must, then, the method of appreciation, as combining and reconciling the two opposed views,
forthwith claim our adherence? To put to use all the devices of science and all the treasures of scholarship for
the single end of imaginative interpretation, for the sake of giving with the original melody all the harmonies
of subtle association and profound meaning the ages have added, is, indeed, a great undertaking. But is it as
valuable as it is vast? M. Brunetiere has poured out his irony upon the critics who believe that their own
reactions upon literature are anything to us in the presence of the works to which they have thrilled. May it not
also be asked of the interpreter if its function is a necessary one? Do we require so much enlightenment, only
to enjoy? Appreciative criticism is a salt to give the dull palate its full savor; but what literary epicure, what
real boo-lover, will acknowledge his own need of it? If the whole aim of appreciative criticism is to reproduce
in other arrangement the contents, expressed and implied, and the emotional value, original and derived, of a
piece of literature, the value of the end, at least to the intelligent reader, is out of all proportion to the
laboriousness of the means. Sing, reading's a joy! For me, I read.
But a feeling of this kind is, after all, not a reason to be urged against the method. The real weakness of
appreciative criticism lies elsewhere. It teaches us to enjoy; but are we to enjoy everything? Since its only aim
is to reveal the "intricate implications" of a work of art; since it offers, and professes to offer, no literary
judgments,--having indeed no explicit standard of literary value,--it must, at least on its own theory, take its
objects of appreciation ready-made, so to speak, by popular acclaim. It possesses no criterion; it likes whate'er
it looks on; and it can never tell us what we are not to like. That is unsatisfactory; and it is worse,-- it is
self-destructive. For, not being able to reject, appreciation cannot, in logic, choose the objects of its attention.
But a method which cannot limit on its own principles the field within which it is to work is condemned from
the beginning; it bears a fallacy at its core. In order to make criticism theoretically possible at all, the power to
choose and reject, and so the pronouncing of judgment, must be an integral part of it.
To such a task the critic may lend himself without arousing our antagonism. We have no pressing need to
know the latent possibilities of emotion for us in a book or a poem; but whether it is excellent or the reverse,
The Legal Small Print 9
whether "we were right in being moved by it," we are indeed willing to hear, for we desire to justify the faith
that is in us.
If, then, the office of the judge be an essential part of the critical function, the appreciative critic, whatever his
other merits,--and we shall examine them later,--fails at least of perfection. His scheme is not the ideal one;
and we may turn back, in our search for it, to a closer view of those which his was to supersede.
Impressionism, however, is at once out of the running; it has always vigorously repudiated the notion of the
standard, and we know, therefore, that no more than appreciation can it choose its material and stand alone.
But scientific criticism professes, at least, the true faith M. Brunetiere holds that his own method is the only
one by which an impersonal and stable judgment can be rendered.
The doctrine of the evolution of literary species is more or less explained in naming it. Literary species, M.
Brunetiere maintains, do exist. They develop and are transformed into others in a way more or less analogous
to the evolution of natural types. It remains to see on what basis an objective judgment can be given. Although
M. Brunetiere seems to make classification the disposal of a work in the hierarchy of species, and judgment
the disposal of it in relation to others of its own species, he has never sharply distinguished between them; so
that we shall not be wrong in taking his three principles of classification, scientific, moral, and aesthetic, as
three principles by which he estimates the excellence of a work. His own examples, indeed, prove that to him
a thing is already judged in being classified. The work of art is judged, then, by its relation to the type. Is this
position tenable? I hold that, on the contrary, it precludes the possibility of a critical judgment; for the
judgment of anything always means judgment with reference to the end for which is exists. A bad king is not
the less a bad king for being a good father; and if his kingship is his essential function, he must be judged with
reference to that alone. Now a piece of literature is, with reference to its end, first of all a work of art. It
represents life and it enjoins morality, but it is only as a work of art that it attains consideration; that, in the
words of M. Lemaitre, it "exists" for us at all. Its aim is beauty, and beauty is its excuse for being.
The type belongs to natural history. The one principle at the basis of scientific criticism is, as we have seen,
the conception of literary history as a process, and of the work of art as a product. The work of art is, then, a
moment in a necessary succession, governed by laws of change and adaptation like those of natural evolution.
But how can the conception of values enter here? Excellence can be attributed only to that which attains an
ideal end; and a necessary succession has no end in itself. The "type," in this sense, is perfectly hollow. To say
that the modern chrysanthemum is better than that of our forbears because it is more chrysanthemum-like is
true only if we make the latter form the arbitrary standard of the chrysanthemum. If the horse of the Eocene
age is inferior to the horse of to-day, it is because, on M. Brunetiere's principle, he is less horse-like. But who
shall decide which is more like a horse, the original or the latter development? No species which is constituted
by its own history can be said to have an end in itself, and can, therefore, have an excellence to which it shall
attain. In short, good and bad can be applied to the moments in a necessary evolution only by imputing a
fictitious superiority to the last term; and so one type cannot logically be preferred to another. As for the
individual specimens, since the conception of the type does not admit the principle of excellence, conformity
thereto means nothing.
The work of art, on the other hand, as a thing of beauty, is an attainment of an ideal, not a product, and, from
this point of view, is related not at all to the other terms of a succession, its causes and its effects, but only to
the abstract principles of that beauty at which it aims. Strangely enough, the whole principle of this contention
has been admitted by M. Brunetiere in a casual sentence, of which he does not appear to recognize the full
significance. "We acknowledge, of course," he says, "that there is in criticism a certain difference from natural
history, since we cannot eliminate the subjective element if the capacity works of art have of producing
impressions on us makes a part of their definition. It is not in order to be eaten that the tree produces its fruit."
But this is giving away his whole position! As little as the conformity of the fruit to its species has to do with
our pleasure in eating it, just so little has the conformity of a literary work to its genre to do with the quality
by virtue of which it is defined as art.
The Legal Small Print 10
The Greek temple is a product of Greek religion applied to geographical conditions. To comprehend it as a
type, we must know that it was an adaptation of the open hilltop to the purpose of the worship of images of
the gods. But the most penetrating study of the slow moulding of this type will never reveal how and why just
those proportions were chosen which make the joy and the despair of all beholders. Early Italian art was
purely ecclesiastical in its origin. The exigencies of adaptation to altars, convent walls, or cathedral domes
explain the choice of subjects, the composition, even perhaps the color schemes (as of frescoes, for instance);
and yet all that makes a Giotto greater than a Pictor Ignotus is quite unaccounted for by these considerations.
The quality of beauty is not evolved. All that comes under the category of material and practical purpose, of
idea or of moral attitude, belongs to the succession, the evolution, the type But the defining characters of the
work of art are independent of time. The temple, the fresco, and the symphony, in the moment they become
objects of the critical judgment, become also qualities of beauty and transparent examples of its laws.
If the true critical judgment, then, belongs to an order of ideas of which natural science can take no
cognizance, the self-styled scientific criticism must show the strange paradox of ignoring the very qualities by
virtue of which a given work has any value, or can come at all to be the object of aesthetic judgment. In two
words, the world of beauty and the world of natural processes are incommensurable, and scientific criticism of
literary art is a logical impossibility.
But the citadel of scientific criticism has yet one more stronghold. Granted that beauty, as an abstract quality,
is timeless; granted that, in the judgment of a piece of literary art, the standard of value is the canon of beauty,
not the type; yet the old order changeth. Primitive and civilized man, the Hottentot and the Laplander, the
Oriental and the Slav, have desired differing beauties. May it, then, still be said that although a given
embodiment of beauty is to be judged with reference to the idea of beauty alone, yet the concrete ideal of
beauty must wear the manacles of space and time,-- that the metamorphoses of taste preclude the notion of an
objective beauty? And if this is true, are we not thrown back again on questions of genesis and development,
and a study of the evolution, not of particular types of art, but of general aesthetic feeling; and, in
consequence, upon a form of criticism which is scientific in the sense of being based on succession, and not
on absolute value?
It is indeed true that the very possibility of a criticism which shall judge of aesthetic excellence must stand or
fall with this other question of a beauty in itself, as an objective foundation for criticism. If there is an absolute
beauty, it must be possible to work out a system of principles which shall embody its laws,--an aesthetic, in
other words; and on the basis of that aesthetic to deliver a well-founded critical judgment. Is there, then, a
beauty in itself? And if so, in what does it consist?
We can approach such an aesthetic canon in two ways: from the standpoint of philosophy, which develops the
idea of beauty as a factor in the system of our absolute values, side by side with the ideas of truth and of
morality, or from the standpoint of empirical science. For our present purpose, we may confine ourselves to
the empirical facts of psychology and physiology.
When I feel the rhythm of poetry, or of perfect prose, which is, of course, in its own way, no less rhythmical,
every sensation of sound sends through me a diffusive wave of nervous energy. I am the rhythm because I
imitate it in myself. I march to noble music in all my veins, even though I may be sitting decorously by my
own hearthstone; and when I sweep with my eyes the outlines of a great picture, the curve of a Greek vase, the
arches of a cathedral, every line is lived over again in my own frame. And when rhythm and melody and
forms and colors give me pleasure, it is because the imitating impulses and movements that have arisen in me
are such as suit, help, heighten my physical organization in general and in particular. It may seem somewhat
trivial to say that a curved line is pleasing because the eye is so hung as to move best in it; but we may take it
as one instance of the numberless conditions for healthy action which a beautiful form fulfills. A well-
composed picture calls up in the spectator just such a balanced relation of impulses of attention and incipient
movements as suits an organism which is also balanced--bilateral--in its own impulses to movement, and at
