and positive advantage. By the path of beauty she would lead us on to the temple of virtue.

6. We observe that Nature embellishes certain objects in order to render them more desirable, and deforms others to make them less attractive. Why is the hemlock offensive to the smell, the scorpion loathsome to the sight? That we may not be enticed to taste the one, or touch the other. Why is beauty an attendant upon youth instead of age? Clearly for our good. Flowers blossom for the fruits they bear. It is well to feel that what is most beautiful is best, and the most conducive to our interest; and to know that man will never err while he pursues the same course which nature does. His art is intended as a source of gratification; but that gratification will be fallacious, unless it is beneficial; and it cannot be beneficial unless it strives to render us wiser or better than we are, by

attaching us to those objects which are the most

beautiful, and, at the same time, the most preg

nant with utility.

7. He who first designated the arts of design by the name of fine arts (beaux arts) must have felt this truth, and known that their spirit consisted in the union of beauty with utility, for the purpose of embellishing all the common necessaries which administer to our every-day wants. The first savage who, in building his hut, knew how to keep proportions adapted to convenience and solidity, invented architecture. The first shepherd who beautified the shape of his flask, or cut out certain figures on his staff, was the inventor of sculpture. And the damsel who delineated the outlines of her lover's shadow with a piece of burnt stick upon the wall invented painting.

8. The essential duty of the fine arts is, therefore, to place those objects which are subjected to the senses in such a light as shall cause them to act upon us with extraordinary energy.

THE OBJECT OF ART.

13

A painting does not deserve to pass for a picture; a house is not a production of architecture; nor

1

is a block of marble to be called a statue, - unless the work of the artist possesses beauty of such description that it attracts and rivets our attention by means of the pleasure which it gives us. Nor is this enough. That pleasure must be fruitful of utility and instruction. Without such an object, the Parnassus would be nothing but vanity and seduction. By presenting us with specimens of perfection, these arts ought to render us more perfect. By giving us good taste, choice, and order, they prepare us for an improved existence. They are, or should be, the eloquent records of real moral worth; the charming guides which lead us on towards honour, glory, virtue, by ennobling and beautifying all that is great and good; whilst they make vice hideous, to make it the more detestable. It was with this intent that Cicero

wished to present a beautiful image of Virtue to his son, in order that he might become enamoured of her; for beauty is the mainspring of real moral interest; and it will therefore be the triumph of art to consecrate the enchantment of its graces to the two greatest blessings which can befall mankind - truth and virtue. This is its final scope, this its noblest attainment.

9. Hence it follows, that a painter who only knows how to colour, if he colours well has made himself master of a difficult craft, and deserves such praise as you would bestow upon a good workman; but he is not an artist.

10. A painter who invents, composes, and colours subjects which are pretty and pleasing enough in themselves, but produce no effect upon the mind, nor any result beyond the visual gratification of the observer, merits undoubtedly the first rank amongst decorators; but he is not an artist.

11. But the painter who represents ideas exalted, just, and noble, in such a manner as to transmit them from the canvass into the breasts of those who behold it, and to excite in them the emotions, thoughts, affections, or antipathies with which he is himself inspired, he is an artist, equal in all respects to the first of orators, poets, or historians.

12. If this be true, as true it undoubtedly is, it will be readily conceded that the vision, unaided by education or other intellectual endowments, is no longer a sufficient guide to the spectator, when he is called upon to examine the highest productions of art. An ignorant or illiterate person cannot appreciate, because he cannot understand, the writings of Homer, Shakspeare, or Milton. How, then, can he pretend to judge of works which contain not only the same elements as the finest page of poetry, but some others peculiar to themselves? All the