303 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[April 10, 1885. 



intrinsically the same. Yet, if there be any inhabitants of 

 the planet Mars, possessing powers of vision and taste in 

 art, it is probable, consiJering the conditions under which 

 they must live, that tliey would regard Titian's Venus or 

 Raphael's Madonna della Sedia as the portrait of a mon- 

 strosity. And there would be no reason, other than 

 planetary patriotism, for rating our own taste higher than 

 theirs. We need not go so far as Mars for an example ; 

 save that an art-critic might be moved to a scornful smile 

 were the opinion of auy terrestrial mortal urged against his 

 own. Therefore, we may pass lightly over the familiar 

 examples of the Botocudos, with their perforated lower lips, 

 distended by a disc of wood ; the Malayans, with their 

 filed and blackened teeth ; the American Indians, with 

 their red paint and tattooing ; and the Cochin Chinese, 

 who speak with disdain of white teeth like a dog's, and a 

 complexion like potato-flo-vers. 



But to retnrn to our problem, which must be formulated 

 a third time. This, perhaps, is better : " What is the 

 genesis of the setue of beauty, and in what manner has it 

 been evolved 1 " Kow we shall offend no one, saving 

 possibly some dogmatist of the " Quod ubique, quod semjie?; 

 quod ab omnihus" school, and even Le may listen with 

 some languid interest if the question be worded thus : — 

 "What has caused us to tike pleasure in various classes 

 of objects, natural and artificial ? " Even supposing our 

 lestbetic views to be utterly wrong, the history of their 

 development may be as instructive as the history of the 

 rise and progress of any other heresy. 



First, it is as well to indicate in a general way the 

 nature of the resthetic j)leasures. All philosophers, fiom 

 Aristotle to Herbert Spencer, have insisted on their neces- 

 .sarily disinterested character ; and they may be defined as 

 " those pleasures which are shareable ; which are not 

 directly connected with essential life-serving function; and 

 which do not involve muscular exertion on a large scale, or 

 of great intensity." 



It is also possible to classify the materials with which 

 the sense of visual beauty has to deal. 



These are colour and form* A colour which pleases 

 may be bright, or rich, or delicate. A combination of 

 colours may charm by contrast or gradation. A line may 

 please by straightness or curvature ; a combination of 

 lines by symmetry or variety, or by the tivo united. 



But it by no means follows that we are delighted by all 

 bright, rich, delicate, contrasted, or gradated colours ; by 

 fdl straight or curved lines, or symmetrical or varied 

 shapes ; and it does not yet appear why they should ever 

 give us delight. 



However, we will not begin with our exalted selves. 

 Let us '• consider the lilies of the field," and " behold the 

 fo v!s of the air." They are far more likely to be helpful 

 companions than the most accomplished lounger through 

 Italian picture-galleries. 



The " lilies of the field " and the '-fowls of the air " are 

 to guide us in our search for the well-springs of the sense 

 of beiuty. And, first, we take the flowers. Here the 

 inquiry splits into two parts. How have they gained their 

 varied shapes, their delicacy of texture, their brilliancy of 

 colour ? And how is it that these qualities give us 

 pleasure ? 



The latter question must be postponed for a time, but 

 the answer to the former is becoming an evolutional 

 commonplace. Look, for instance, at the broad yellow 

 sepals of the marsh marigold ; look at the wastefully-beau- 

 tiful water-lily ; or, better still, look at the quaint form and 

 ejouomical adornments of the lotus. Notice how she 



* Light and shade, for present purposes, are included in colour- 

 contrast, and gradation. 



leaves a space in her stamen-tube through which the bee 

 can suck honey, and spreads her yellow wings to give him 

 an alluring seat, but a seat so cunningly contrived that he 

 cannot alight on it without pressing open a casket of pollen 

 and receiving some of its grains upon his breast. Directly 

 he flies away, the casket shuts with a spring. Now, 

 brightness of colour in flowers tends to what we call 

 beauty, and clever mechanical arrangements may or may 

 not have the same tendency ; but the important point to 

 notice is, that both have the same object. The flower 

 wants to send her golden treasure to another flower, and, 

 not being able to travel herself, employs aud pays a com- 

 mercial traveller. Are we to suppose that the bee fiuda the 

 lotus beautiful, and is therefore attracted ? No, but the 

 bee finds the lotus conspicuous, and learns to regard this 

 particular kind of conspicuousness as an index of sweetness. 

 As we shall see, bright colour does probably produce some 

 faint gratification of the bee's senses, but doubtless the 

 agreeable sensation aroused in the bee by purple or golden 

 petals is chiefly of the same kind as the agreeable sensation 

 aroused in the " honOfide traveller " by the sign of the 

 White Lion. The lUies of the field, then, have gained 

 their charm simply by making themselves conspicuous — 

 primarily for their own benefit, and secondarily for that of 

 the bee ; and the bee approves these charms from the most 

 mercenary of motives. 



Turn we now to the fowls of the air. Here, also, we 

 will take up the first part of the inquiry, leaving the second 

 for future consideration. 



How did the birds obtain their fine feathers 'i They 

 obtained them by courtsliip. How the Hupicola crocea 

 capers about, spreads his beautiful orange wings, and opens 

 his tail like an orange fan, that so he may win him a bride ; 

 how the gold pheasants "expand and raise their splendid 

 frills," aud even " twist them obliquely towards the female, 

 on whichever side she may be standing," at the same time 

 turning " their beautiful tails and tail-coverts a little 

 toward the same side " ; how the peacock shows similar 

 good judgment in displaying to the best advantage, not 

 only his train, but his rich blue throat aud breast ; is it 

 not written in the book of Darwin, in the book of the 

 Chronicles of the Descent of Man 1 Is it not likewise 

 written how the fancy of the female birds has continually 

 been caught by accidental variations of form or colour ; 

 how, generation after generation, they have consistently 

 chosen the more ornamented males, and thus put a pre- 

 mium on beauty — a prize offered to much better purpose 

 than that golden apple which bred dissension among the 

 gods, and all the woes of Ilion 1 



But we do not learn 2rJiy the female prefers a bright- 

 hued mate to a sombre-hued mate, or a husband who sports 

 eccentrically shaped tail-feathers to one with a tail of the 

 ordinary orthodox cut. She is not guided by utilitarian 

 principles, fur the variations which she approves are not 

 usually helpful in the "struggle for existence." Some- 

 times, indeed, they are absolutely disadvantageous. Why 

 should any sane aud sensible bird-'uride prefer a bird- 

 bridegroom who finds his streaming wiugs or tail-feathers 

 as much in his way as a newly-presented courtier finds his 

 sword ! The African night-jar, the Argus pheasant, and 

 the widow-bii-d are among those who in this way sacrifice 

 comfort and safety to magnificence. How can we explain 

 the fact that a game hen admires her hero for the possession 

 of an ornament which adds to the dangers of battle, because 

 it offers so easy a hold to his enemy's beak, and which, 

 indeed, is always trimmed away by cock-fighters 1 Shall 

 we set down her conduct to mere feminine caprice, or 

 believe her to be a votary of " art for art's sake ? " 



"It is easy," perhaps you sax, "to explain the bird's 



