poi

IT may be imagined that the greatest part of the ef-
fects of beauty results from the symmetry of parts
in the object, which is beautiful: but I am very well
persuaded, this prevailing notion will soon appear to
have little or no foundation.
It may indeed have properties of greater consequence,
such as propriety, fitness, and use; and yet but little
serve the purposes of pleasing the eye, merely on the
score of beauty.
We have, indeed, in our nature, a love of imitation
from our infancy, and the eye is often entertained, as
well as surprised, with mimicry, and delighted with
the exactness of counterparts: but then this always
gives way to its superior love of variety, and soon grows
tiresome.
If the uniformity of figures, parts, or lines were truly
the chief cause of beauty, the more exactly uniform
their appearances were kept, the more pleasure the eye
would receive: but this is so far from being the case,
that when the mind has been once satisfied, that the
parts answer one another, with so exact an uniformity,
as to preserve to the whole the character of fitness to
stand, to move, to sink, to swim, to fly, &c. without
losing the balance: the eye is rejoiced to see the object

turn'd

turn'd, and shifted, so as to vary these uniform ap-
pearances.
Thus the profile of most objects, as well as faces,
are rather more pleasing than their full fronts.
Whence it is clear, the pleasure does not arise from
seeing the exact resemblance, which one side bears the
other, but from the knowledge that they do so on ac-
count of fitness, with design, and for use. For when
the head of a fine woman is turn'd a little to one side,
which takes off from the exact similarity of the two halves
of the face, and somewhat reclining, so varying still
more from the straight and parallel lines of a formal
front face : it is always look'd upon as most pleasing.
This is accordingly said to be a graceful air of the
head.
It is a constant rule in composition in painting to
avoid regularity. When we view a building, or any
other object in life, we have it in our power, by shift-
ing the ground, to take that view of it which pleases
us best; and in consequence of this, the painter if he is
left to his choice, takes it on the angle rather than in
front, as most agreeable to the eye; because the regu-
larity of the lines is taken away by their running into
perspective, without losing the idea of fitness: and
when he is of necessity obliged to give the front of a
building, with all its equalities and parallelisms, he ge-
nerally breaks (as it is term'd) such disagreeable appear-
ances, by throwing a tree before it, or the shadow of an

imaginary cloud, or some other object that may answer
the same purpose of adding variety, which is the same
with taking away uniformity.
If uniform objects were agreeable, why is there such
care taken to contrast, and vary all the limbs of a statue ?
The picture of Henry the eighth †, would be pre-
ferable to the finely contrasted figures of Guido or Cor-
reggio; and the Antinous's easy sway ‡, must submit to
the stiff and straight figure of the dancing master *;
and the uniform out-lines of the muscles in the || figure
taken from Albert Durar's book of proportions, would
have more taste in them than those in the famous part
of an antique § figure from which Michael Angelo ac-
quired so much of his skill in grace.
In short, whatever appears to be fit, and proper to an-
swer great purposes, ever satisfies the mind, and pleases
on that account. Uniformity is of this kind. We find it
necessary, in some degree, to give the idea of rest and
motion, without the possibility of falling. But when any
such purposes can be as well effected by more irregular
part, the eye is always better pleased on the account of
variety.
How pleasingly is the idea of firmness in standing
convey'd to the eye by the three elegant claws of a table,
the three feet of a tea-lamp, or the celebrated tripod of
the ancients?
Thus you see regularity, uniformity, or symmetry
please only as they serve to give the idea of fitness