Dial. II. whenever they talk upon the Subject; either they refolve Delicacy into a certain Je ne sçai quoi, or else explain it in fo vague and unprecise a Manner, as to leave the Matter abfolutely undetermined, to a Mind that cannot embrace any Principle, but what it clearly apprehends.

However loosely, replied Philocles, this Term may have been used heretofore in our Language; or how much foever it is sometimes depreciated by a mistaken Application both in Writings and Conversation; yet with the most approved Authors amongst us, it seems now to have obtained a determinate Meaning, and is always mentioned by them as an high Quality, and the finishing Excellence of Compofition and Manners.

As no Man, Philocles, is more clear in his Conceptions than yourself; poffibly I may receive that Satisfaction from you, which I have in vain fought for elsewhere. Tell me then, I intreat you, wherein this Quality, according to your Notion, confists.

Delicacy, replied Philocles, is good Sense; but good Senfe refined; which produces an inviolable Attachment to Decorum, and Sanctity as well as Elegance of Manners, with a clear Discernment and warm Senfibility of whatever is pure, regular, and polite; and, at the fame Time, an Abhorrence of whatever is grofs, ruftic, or impure, of unnatural, effeminate, and over-wrought Ornaments of every Kind. It is, in fhort, the graceful and the beautiful added to the juft and the good.

According

According to this Account, said Sophronius, Delicacy feems to be exactly the fame Thing, that Urbanity was among the Romans.

When that illuftrious People, anfwered Philocles, had spread their military Fame over the World, and fubdued all the Nations around; they then turned their Attention to the Embellishments of Life. Their Succefs was equal to the Vigour of their Attempts; and they foon learned to polish their Language, refine their Pronunciation, cultivate Humanity, and adorn their Manners. A Lælius and a Scipio [a] arofe, and transplanted liberal Wit from Greece; which afterwards grew and profpered with a Bloom and Vigour scarce inferior to what it drew from its native Soil.

Rome was now become the Seat of Elegance, as well as Empire: nor were her Eagles more dreaded, than her Refinement was admired. The Attainment of thefe Accomplishments, they ftyled Urbanity; as they were the peculiar Characteristics of the diftinguished Inhabitants of this imperial City.

This I take to be the genuine Acceptation of that Word amongst the ancient Romans. It seems to have

[a] Scipio tam elegans liberalium artium omnifque doctrinæ et auctor et admirator fuit, ut Polybium Panætiumque præcellentes ingenio viros domi militiæque fecum habuerit. Neque quifquam hoc Scipione elegantius intervalla negotiorum otio disjunxit, femperque inter arma ac ftudia verfatus, aut corpus periculis, aut animum difciplinis exercuit. V. PATERC. 1. i. c. 13. been

Dial. If, been confined to the Qualities I have mentioned, and never applied to the fine Arts, as Delicacy is with us, and therefore differs from it only as a Part from the whole.

To admit for the prefent, faid Sophronius, that all those Ideas are justly comprehended under the Word Delicacy, which you have collected in your Defcription-Yet by what Criterion is this Property in any Subject to be tried? In that Operation of the Faculties, which we call Reafoning, the Mind examines the Objects, as they ftand in Reality: and for our Direction, there is always a Standard in the Nature of Things. But is this the Cafe with regard to what Connoiffeurs call Amiable or Delicate? Beauty and Pleasure are nothing but an Agreement between the Object and the Faculty. What then can determine a Man's Approbation or Diflike in these Points, but the peculiar Caft of his Mind?

Though it fhould not be poffible, anfwered Philocles, precisely to fix the Criterion you are enquiring after; yet would it not neceffarily follow, that there is abfolutely no fuch Thing? Several Inftances might be mentioned, wherein the Mind has, undoubtedly, a certain fixed Rule by which it judges; when, nevertheless, it is not able to explain pofitively, in what

that Rule confifts.

Will not a true Judge in Painting, who has been long converfant among the noble Remains of that charming Art, be able to distinguish a Copy from an Original ?

Original? And would not you, Sophronius, venture to give your Teftimony, in a Court of Juftice, to your Friend's Hand-writing? And yet, were you, or the Connoiffeur I juft now mentioned, to be asked by what Criterion you were able to determine fo affuredly in the refpective Cafes before you; neither of you, moft certainly, would be capable of ascertaining, to the Satisfaction of the Enquirer, that Standard in your Mind, by which you formed your feveral Judgments.

But the Standard, by which we are to be guided in the Affair of Delicacy, is no doubtful or chimerical Notion it has a real and fure Foundation.

'Nature has implanted in us an internal Sense; - which gives us a juft Perception of the Relation between our Faculties of apprehending, and the Objects prefented to them. We are framed in fuch a Manner, that fome Actions, Ideas, or Forms, which occur to us, as neceffarily excite Satisfaction and Delight, as others create Diftate and Averfion. When we look upon a beautiful Picture, the Mind immediately recurs to Nature; and finding a certain Agreement between its own Ideas of Beauty, and the Re-, presentation which stands before us, it inftantly acknowledges the fimilar Graces, and recognizes the true and proper Standard.

The Criterion then of Delicacy in any Action or Compofition, is the fure Feeling and Confciousness of its Conformity to a like natural Senfation within us, operating neceffarily on the Mind, the very Inftant VOL. I. Z

that

Dial. II. that the kindred Forms or Ideas are exhibited to us. This Senfe and Tafte of Beauty may, indeed, like all our other Faculties, be greatly improved by Difcipline and Exercife; as on the contrary, for want of them, it may be much impaired. But ftill, it is evident, that this difcerning Power is born with us, and is as certain a Principle, as any belonging to our Nature. For do we not fee, that even Infants are delighted with the first View of a round Ball, and prefer it to a lefs regular Figure? The untaught Mind discovers a Sympathy between the Ideas and Objects, and eafily diftinguishes the fair and fhapely, from the irregular and deformed.

Hardly, faid Sophronius, can this internal Senfe be looked upon as a fure Criterion; fince Men's Notions are fo widely different, that what raises the Idea of Beauty in one, may have a contrary Effect upon another.

This kind of Objection, returned Philocles, may be urged with equal Force against the Evidence even of mathematical Demonftration. Though the Philofopher has evinced the Truth of a Propofition by the moft infallible Deductions of Reafoning; yet there may be fome particular Minds, which, either through a Weaknefs of their Faculties, or the Intervention of wrong Ideas, cannot feel the Force of his Conclufions. But this, you know, is no Argument against the Truth and Certainty of the Reafoning: The Demonftration is no lefs clear, though not apprehended by every Individual. It is the very fame

4

in