Capper : Darwinism akd Beauty. 



185 



To illustrate how liable we are to err on such a point, I may mention 



the case of a lady, who declared that she could not bear to see beetles 



of any kind ; and when I protested that many beetles are beautifully 



decorated, she said she detested their very form. She nevertheless 



wore as a brooch an imitation of a red beetle, but a poor reproduction 



of the original type. This repulsion to beetles in this case was 



obviously due to association. At the same time it would be rash to 



assert that no truly ugly natural object exists. Darwin mentions 



certain sea-snakes as being such, but the very fact that he has to go so 



far for an instance proves how difficult it is to find one. Nor is it 



necessary for my argument that its non-existence should be assumed. 



It is important to remember that pleasures derived from beauty are 



entirely different in character from those derived from any sensual 



source. If they be, as the pure materialists would tell us, simply and 



solely due to certain unknown movements of the molecules of the 



brain, where is the distinction from sensual pleasure which they 



would tell us was due to other similar movements 1 Can one set of 



molecular movements be higher or more refined than another In 



our present state of knowledge it is impossible to state whether such 



movements do or do not occur, but this cannot be proved to be the 



case ; and even were it proved, there remains something beyond 



which materialism cannot explain. The question as to whether the 



sense of beauty, and other similar ideas, are or are not self-existent 



in the human mind, is one far too wide for discussion here. There 



are great authorities on both sides of the question, and it is beset 



with many difficulties. You will remember that Professor Cayley, in 



that minute portion of his address before the British Association 



which was intelligible to ordinary mortals, gave his support to the 



theory of self-existence, and this after a full consideration of what 



Mill says in favour of the other view. You will doubtless by this 



time have perceived that I have assumed that his view is correct. 



Those who do not agree with me may be unable to agree with my 



conclusion, but the present is not the time to discuss the matter with 



them. When we consider that throughout nature we so universally 



find that which appeals to our sense of beauty, we are led to one of 



two conclusions — either beauty has been created for the purpose of 



gratifying this sense, or it is itself the product of an intellect having 



a similar sense of beauty. The former theory, once so universally 



accepted, is not supported by known facts. 



" Full many a gem, of purest ray serene, 



The dark, unfathomed caves of ocean bear ; 

 Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, 

 And waste its sweetness on the desert air," 



