SS aa | eee 
6 REMARKS ON THE FIGURES OF PLATE LIV.- 
units of this series with one another, the only idea which 
springs from this comparison is, that all those units are 
samenesses, and that an uninterrupted continuity of linear 
forms is the result. In fig. G, therefore, we find that the 
form of unity enshrines itself; and that the plurality of 
this unity, that is to say, the repetition of one in a succes- 
sion, is the cause of uniformity. The repetition of unit 
30a, which is a costo-vertebral quantity, when drawn 
sixty-one times in linear series, produces the structure 
represented by fig.G. Now, while Nature terminates at a 
given point, the series of uniform quantities comprising 
the design, fig. G, and while she establishes its finality at 
this point, still we may, in idea, by an imitation of this 
simple process of repeating a first quantity, imagine fig. G 
produced of such a serial length as would be sufficient to 
traverse the whole region of space; and hence it is that 
every uniform series in Nature is generative of the idea of 
the sublime. The idea of an infinite series of any uniform 
quantities cannot be conceived apart from the majesty 
which attends upon.the sublime always.* 
Ninthly.—But Nature has given to fig. G its finity, and 
cuts it as a proportional ofthe line of infinity, because no 
form can exist in the shape of animality unless it be of 
limited length; and, in fact, the knowledge of this is a 
proof that mind is a something distinct from physical 
sense, inasmuch as it can extend the thought, not only 
poetically, but mathematically, beyond what the mere 
sense receives the impression of; for though the eye reads 
the finity of the presential series of fig. G, still this gene- 
rates in the mind the idea of an infinite series of fig. G, 
produced to any length whatever through space, and thus 
the finite series which is, may be comparatively mated with 
the infinite of a lke series which és not. To be sure, we 
will here not presume to imagine what order of beings the 
infinite series of fig. G will encounter, when, with this 
idea of a continuous infinitely lmear uniformity, we trans- 
fix the orbits of Mercury, Saturn or Herschel, but, bating 
this flight of the soaring imagination, and resting careless 
for the time whether the animal population of these planets 
produce skeleton forms bearing any analogy to the whole 
or the part of fig. G, we shall here content ourselves with 
the homestead earthly question, whether or not all the 
skeleton axes of the animal kingdom, which surrounds us 
and breathes the same air with ourselves, may be inter- 
preted as various finite lengths of an infinite serial line of 
costo-vertebral quantities undergoing metamorphosis. To 
this inquiry as to whether it be possible to develope the 
ideas of uniformity by comparison held between the 
members of our Mundane ahimal kingdom, and also as to 
the source of its variety, we have heard it gravely stated by 
more than one philosophic anatomist, that to do so would 
‘may further add, that fig. I, compared with fig. G 
require a knowledge of the inhabitants of other planets, 
wherein some links which now seem wanting to the uni- 
versal chain of form were no doubt to be found. But as 
a journey to these places is scarcely to be hoped for under 
existing circumstances, we must rest satisfied with an 
examination of what we have placed within our reach, such 
as fig. I in the presence of fig. G,—the proportional side by 
side with the whole quantity, and ordinary reason brought 
to bear in the comparison of the two. 
Tenthly—Our knowledge of the law of anatomical 
form must mount by the steps of reason’s ladder rather 
than soar upon the wing of imagination; and the speech 
of reason must be by facts demonstrable, rather than by 
words impeachable. It is not by the fact, but by the 
word that we are liable to be misled; and fig. G is a fact, 
laid sidelong with fig. I, whereas uniformity is a word 
which apples to the serial form of fig. G, while species is 
a word applying to the form of fig. I. Now, fig. I is a 
fact which no living anatomist can account as uniform 
with fig. G, even if he were the metempsychosis of a 
Gothe or a Geoffroy, for fig. I is a quantity as unequal 
to fig. G, as the series 9, 8, 7,6, 5,4, 3,2,1, is to the plus 
series 9, 9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9. And this being the case, we 
3 
explains a difference which cannot be called species in any 
other sense save that of quantity by any modern anatomist, 
even if the soul of Cuvier be transmigrated into him; 
and therefore we conclude, that as fig. I is to fig. G, so is 
the word “species” to the word “ uniform.” 
Eleventhly.—To what form or quantity as a whole have 
our comparisons conducted us? To the costo-vertebral 
quantity ; which, as unity, or a whole, we believe to be a 
more capable instrument for generalising upon the law of 
skeleton formation, than that figure which anatomists 
name the vertebra ; for the costo-vertebral quantity as plus 
unity can, by metamorphosis or subtraction, yield the ver- 
tebral quantity, as minus variety or species; but this latter 
cannot be metamorphosed so as to yield the quantity of the 
former, or the idea of a unity of type, even if we built syna- 
gogues instead of hospitals or museums, for biassing the 
anatomical belief to its possibility. 
Twelfthly.—If, therefore, the vertebra be a proportional 
of its costo-vertebral archetype, it will be observed that this 
idea, while rising from the root or basement of comparative 
method, must move the superstructure of the facts of cranial 
vertebre reared prematurely over itself, and prove, that 
before we can with any degree of correctness interpret the 
composition of the osseous skull as being that of vertebrze 
modified, we should first ascertain the character of a spmal 
vertebra itself, and decide whether or not it be a propor- 
tional of a whole Archetype Costo- Vertebral Quantity. 
* Another source of this sublime is infinity ; there are scarce-any things which can become the objects of our senses, that are really and in 
their own nature infinite ; but the eye not being able to perceive the bounds of many things, they seem to be indefinite, and they produce the 
same effects as if they were really so. We are deceived in like manner, if the parts of some large object are so continued to any indefinite 
number, that the imagination meets no check which may hinder its extending them at pleasure. 
Succession and uniformity of parts are what constitute the artificial infinite. %érst, Succession ; which is requisite that the parts may be 
continued so long and in such a direction as, by their frequent impulses on the sense, to impress the imagination with an idea of their progress 
beyond their actual limits. Second, Uniformity ; because, if the figures of the parts should be changed, the imagination at every change finds a 
check ; you are presented at every alteration with the termination of one idea and the beginning of another ; by which means it becomes 
impossible to continue that uninterrupted progression which alone can stamp on bounded objects the character of infinity. To produce, therefore, 
a perfect grandeur in such things as we have been mentioning, there should be a perfect simplicity, an absolute uniformity in disposition, 
shape, and colouring.—Burke, Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. 
