Burke's Essay on the Sublime and Its Reviewers Author(s): Herbert A.

Wichelns Source: The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 1922), pp. 645661 Published by: University of Illinois Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27702674 Accessed: 28/05/2010 08:53
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of English and Germanic Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

BURKE'S ESSAY ON THE SUBLIME AND REVIEWERS

ITS

Burke's Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of has often been reprinted, and almost the Sublime and Beautiful since the second edition of January 10, 1759,1 'with an always, and several other Discourse Taste, concerning Introductory A comparison with the original edition, published Additions.' on April 21, 1757,2 shows that most of the changes by Dodsley were merely verbal and of a minor sort; these casual differences for the Burke, in his second Preface, passes over in silence?and we may follow his example. of importance is present Nothing There are, however, either deleted or rewritten. considerable additions. The significant changes, then, consist of a new Pre
face, an introductory essay on taste, and, in the text proper,

scattered
treatise on

additional
taste.

passages

in sum

larger by half

than

the

recounts in which the manner the original Preface came to be written; it briefly describes the common Inquiry of the essay, and the confusion of mind upon the subject-matter author's method of inquiry: The
He observed and that that the both ideas were of the sublime indiscriminately and beautiful were frequently greatly and sometimes of natures in differing, Longinus, directly his incomparable discourse has comprehended upon a part of this subject, one common name to each other under of the things extremely repugnant confounded, things sublime. attended Such The with abuse of the word beauty has been render still more general, and still worse consequences. of ideas must to applied Even opposite.

upon reasonings Could this admit subjects extremely of any remedy, of our I imagined it could only be from a diligent examination in our own breasts, from a careful survey of the properties of things passions and from a sober and which we find by experience to influence those passions, of this kind certainly and inaccurate inconclusive. attentive capable those of the laws of nature, investigation by which our passions.3 of affecting the body and thus of exciting properties are

a confusion

all our

The second Preface is altogether new, both in phrase and in idea; it omits any account of the origin of the work, but mentions
1 Robert Dodsley, Straus, Ralph p. 367. 2 Ibid., p. 255. 8 Inquiry, 1757, pp. vi-vii. Poet, Publisher, and Playwright, 1910,

645

646
the changes technically,
ingredient

Wicheins in the second edition, and discusses, this time more the method of investigation and its uses:

we ought In considering to examine any complex matter, every distinct one by one, and reduce everything to the utmost in the composition, since the condition of our nature binds us to a strict law and very simplicity; narrow limits. We ought afterwards to re-examine the principles by the effect of the composition, to compare ought We by that of the principles. composition and even with things of a similar nature, for discoveries nature; may be and often are made by the things of a contrary . . . The use of such us on the single view. would which escape contrast, turns the soul inward on itself Whatever may be very considerable. inquiries our subject with tends to concentre its forces and to fit it for greater and stronger flights of science.4 as well as the

tone of the second Preface reflects the The more positive which the first edition had been received. On favor with a former school 10, 1757, Burke wrote to Shackleton, August
mate: This not letter is accompanied by a little as ineffectual if it contributes of mine, performance to your amusement. It has not been with readers.6 which I will

consider

it out. for a good while, and I at last ventured on so abstracted a subject meets far as a matter

It lay by me so ill received,

David Hume, indeed, in spite of his interest in literary and which in 1757 led him to publish a dis aesthetic questions,
sertation on taste, and another on tragedy,6 was not among the

early readers; it was not until after the second edition that he to Adam Smith, in a letter of April 12, 1759, his mentioned an Irish gentleman, who wrote with acquaintance "Burke, a very pretty That Burke's treatise on the sublime."7 lately original edition was not ill-received may be seen from three in Johnson's Literary reviews, by Arthur Murphy contemporary an unknown writer in the Critical Review* and Magazine* by
1761, pp. v, viii; Works 1.58, 60. in the World's edition published 1906.) Press, University 6 and Correspondence Works 1852, of Burke, the In Four Dissertations. 7 2.55. Burton, Life and Correspondence of Hume, 8 2.182-189 This review was ascribed by Thomas Literary Magazine (1757). to Samuel Johnson, of Johnson's Davies and was inserted in the first edition works it to Murphy. but Boswell ascribed 10) by Sir John Hawkins; in the edition of Johnson's in 1792 with an works published introduction by Murphy. Johnson, (W. P. Courtney, Bibliography of Samuel p. 77; Boswell's 1.310.) Life, ed. by G. B. Hill, 9 Critical Review 3.361-374 (April, 1757). ( 1787; vol. It is not included 4 Inquiry, six-volume (In this paper, Classics Series 1.17. I cite as Works by the Oxford

Burke's

Essav

647

Review. in the Monthly The London by Oliver Goldsmith Chronicle11 carried an account of the Inquiry which was spread over five issues, but Dodsley was its publisher, and the review Yet it is noteworthy that even largely consisted of quotations. not subscribe to Burke's theory, and was reviewer did Dodsley's struck, not so much by the soundness of the Inquiry, as by its "bold uncommon spirit" and its giving "criticism a face which
we never saw it wear before."12

severe of the the most Murphy, serious criticism, said: tempted

his

three

reviewers

who

at

the whole, in of this piece mistaken though we think? the author Upon from them, yet we must fundamental and also in his deductions principles, He has certainly much say we have read his book with pleasure. employed and elegant remarks which, there are many ingenious thinking; though they do enforce they system, or prove his first position, yet are new and just. And we by them detached considering cannot dismiss this article from his without

not

recommending recompensed harmonious

a perusal of the book to all our readers, as we think they will be a great deal of sentiment, and [and] perspicuous, elegant, both sublime and beautiful.13 passages style, in many

unknown writer in the Critical Review remarked that on a subject so abstruse he could give, not a critique, but a short some doubts without review of the work, proposing impugning the theory,14 and heartily recommending the book as "a perfor mance as superior to the common level of literary productions much as real ingenuity is superior to superficial petulance, and The study to the hasty produce of crude con contested Burke's jecture."15 Goldsmith, though he vigorously was yet the most cordial of the three. His summary theory, very largely borrowed Burke's phrasing, his objections he rele gated to footnotes, and he said: the fruit of mature
all the a subject requires, with so abstruse author thus, with all the sagacity to illustration and with all the genius of his system, learning necessary on principles that can render disquisition not suffi pleasing?by proceeding have been ins true has been only agreeable when he might ciently established, Our

10 Monthly Review 16.473-480 (May, 1757). The ascription to Goldsmith is found in Prior, Life ofOliverGoldsmith, 1837, pp. 226 ff.
11 London 21-23; Chronicle July 2.52. 7-9, 1.556-8, 14-16). 580-581, 595-596; 2.26-27, 50-53 (June 9-11, 16-18,

"Ibid., u 2.189. Literary Magazine 14 Critical Review 3.374. ?Ibid., 3.361.

648
tive. ...

Wicheins

mistake

in a very few instances, to point out any If we have, attempted or oversight in this very agreeable not a captious author's principles, for truth, was the motive; but concern and the ingenious spirit of controversy, a philosopher to resent our sometimes is too much Inquirer, we are persuaded, taking a*different course in pursuit of the game he has started.18

perhaps, together with the need for a new in his second Preface to omit the Burke edition, encouraged remark in his first: following These notices,
He probable now ventures conjectures, not to lay it before the public, proposing as things certain and indisputable.17 his notions as

True, in the later Preface, Burke did allude to the possibility of errors in his work and even of failure, but he asserted also, perhaps a little impatiently:
much theory founded as it explains. all against it.18 A on experiment Our inability and not to push is always good for so assumed, it indefinitely at is no argument

last remark, with the rest of its paragraph, evidently was was "to pass over both it evoked by the critics, whose practice trie premises and conclusion in silence, and to produce, as an some poetical passage which does not seem easily objection, I endeavor to establish."19 accounted for upon the principles This offense had been committed all three reviewers, and in by the same point, that terror and pain are not the only making This
sources of the sublime, nor sources of that alone.20

In his second Preface, Burke gives no explanation for the on Taste other than by saying: of the Discourse introduction
It is a matter inquiry.21 curious in itself, and it leads naturally enough to the principal

It is not within the design of this paper to discuss the origins of the Discourse; yet it may not be amiss to point out here that the on 1757 saw the appearance Dissertation of Hume's year Taste,22 and that of the seventh volume of the Encyclop?die, which contained the article Go?t. This article, by Voltaire,
18 Monthly 17 Inquiry, 18 Inquiry, 19 Inquiry, 20 Monthly 2.183. 21 Inquiry, 1761, p. iii; Works 22 In Four Dissertations. 1.57. Review 16.473, 480. 1757, p. viii. 1761, p. vii; Works

1.59. Review

1.59. 1761, p. vi; Works Review 16.475; Critical

3.363;

Literary

Magazine

Burke's

Essay

649

Montesquieu,

was as an and D'Alembert, later translated on Taste, to Gerard's Essay and Burke included a appendix treatise in the first volume of partial translation of Montesquieu's the Annual Register (that for 1758). Gerard's essay was written in competition for the gold medal offered in 1756 by the Edin of Arts, Sciences, Manu burgh Society for the Encouragement to know It would be interesting factures, and Agriculture.24
were the unsuccessful competitors of Gerard.

who

The changes in the body of the work fully justify Burke in the Preface to the second edition:

the words
to me

of
suffi

I have not found sufficient reason, or what Though appeared in my theory, I have found any material cient, for making changes in many and enforce it.25 illustrate, places to explain,

it necessary

were called all the explanations and enforcements Virtually The addi forth by the opinions expressed in the three reviews. Burke's side of a debate with his reviewers. tions, then, represent to try to discriminate It would hardly be profitable finally and in every case the influence of each of these upon Burke's addi tions. For a number of changes, it is clear that more than one criticism is responsible. The most important suggestions?or,
rather, occasions for rebuttal?concerning the first two parts,

are Goldsmith's; he was aided chiefly by Murphy. sion of the sections on proportion in the third part in called forth by the objections of the writer as were also the few additions to the fourth Review,

chiefly the Critical part. Mur to the additions the relatively remarks brought phy's large short final part on words. Save for the strictures of Goldsmith, Burke did not try to meet every objection. We may first attend to the changes occasioned by the criti cisms of Goldsmith. He first objects to Burke's distinction between positive pleasure and the feeling we experience upon the removal or moderation of pain, and thus states his objection :
Our the nervous contrary him with ? that positive upon us by relaxing imagines operates pleasure of pain] acts in a quite but that delight [on the removal system, manner. to a criminal often affects Yet it is evident that a reprieve author such pleasure that his whole frame is relaxed, and he faints away

The was

expan

1759. 24 to Gerard's Advertisement prefixed 25 1.57. Inquiry, 1761, p. iii; Works

Essay,

1759.

650
Here we then a diminution

Wicheins
of pain operates just as pleasure would it may not be called pleasure.26 have done, and

can see no reason why

This with
ferent

argument, which Murphy the remark:

It is most soever certain that in its manner

also

advanced,27

Burke

meets

or pleasure, how dif every species of satisfaction of affecting, nature in the mind of him is of a positive but the cause may be, as who feels it. The affection is undoubtedly positive; And it is very reasonable in this case it certainly that is, a sort of privation. we sure cannot should that in nature as a plea distinguish by some term two things so distinct and without from that pleasure which is such simply, any relation, a relation, and that too a relation to pain.28 exist without

concerns next objection a principal Goldsmith's part of Burke's theory, namely that the ideas of pain and danger are the sources of the sublime, as the strongest emotion which ultimate the mind is capable of feeling.
terror for the only source of the sublime, Our author, by assigning excludes etc. But to make with those the sublime an idea incompatible love, admiration, sense of mankind the general will be apt to contradict. is what It affections is certain we can have the most sublime without ideas of the Deity imagining him a God of terror. Whatever of an object described must raises our esteem be a powerful source of sublimity; and esteem is a passion nearly allied to love.29

This last sentence drew from Burke the frequently quoted dictum that "love approaches much nearer to contempt than is commonly Burke illustrates and enforces his imagined."30 as to the relation of terror and sublimity original statement with
on

the words:
I am satisfied of pain are more powerful than those which enter be Without all doubt, the torments which we may in their effect on the body and mind than any greater . . . the most I could learned suggest. Nay, voluptuary the ideas

the part of pleasure. made to suffer are much which pleasures am in great doubt the most justice

earn a life of whether could be found who would any man at the price of ending it in the torments which perfect satisfaction, in a few hours on the late unfortunate in France.31 inflicted regicide

To France

to the regicide in the argument strengthen by alluding was natural enough if Burke was making his corrections

26 Review 16.474-475. Monthly 27 2.183. Literary Magazine 28 1.88. Inquiry 1.4; 1761, pp. 52-53; Works sentence farther than the quotation above. 29 Review 16.475. Monthly 1.117. 10Inquiry 2.5; 1761, p. 116; Works 31 1.91. The Inquiry 1.7; 1761, p. 59; Works first sentence to one after the last quoted. quoted

The

addition

runs

one

addition

runs

from

the

Burkeys Essay shortly indeed, Burke,

651

of the three reviews. after the appearance Murphy, it by the remark, left unanswered had suggested by that "the iron bed of Damiens [is] capable of exciting alarming ideas of terror, but cannot be said to hold anything of Damiens the life of the sublime."32 attempted unsuccessfully Louis XV on January 5, 1757, and after other tortures was put to death by ?cart?lement on March 28 of the same year.33 The Review for May, 1757, referred to two lives of the Monthly regicide, but refused to review either, on the ground that "we A have seen enough of Damiens already in the newspapers." account of the trial and the later number34 gave a detailed
torture.

sentence already quoted, alleging that we can Goldsmith's have sublime ideas of the Deity without supposing him a god of was by Burke made the occasion of part of another and terror, the section on power.35 Burke held that to eloquent addition, is the most the human the power of the Deity imagination, This view he supported with quota striking of his attributes. the tions from Horace, and the Scriptures. Thus Lucretius, second half of the section on power (the whole appeared for the first time in the enlarged edition) finds its cause in the reviewer's allusion to the Deity. If reflection on the force of Goldsmith's remarks had not been sufficient to incite Burke to the account, in the first half of the inserted section, of the general idea of power as a cause of the sublime, a phrase in the Critical Review might well have done so:
to the impression We impute the idea of the sublime by an object that indicates power and greatness.3* made on the fancy

Still attacking of the Burke's fundamental separation on the basis of pain and pleasure, sublime and the beautiful Goldsmith had cited an instance in which painful and pleasant ideas are mingled:
When, after the horrors of a tempestuous night, the Poet hails us with a

32 2.183. Literary Magazine 33 La Grande Encyclop?die. 34 Review 17.57. Monthly 35 2.5. The addition Inquiry 4 in this Part. numbered M Critical Review 3.369.

of a whole

section

explains

the

two

sections

652
description contrast. of the beauties Our pleasure

Wie h eins
we feel double of the morning, arise from the beautiful from the enjoyment or the sublime.37

here must

to overthrow his author's fundamen had proceeded Goldsmith tal separation of the causes of these two on each hypothesis. The Critical Review, too, had more curtly refused to accept the Burke division.38 took a hint from Murphy's Accordingly, remark39 that "the sublime will exist with beauty," and said:
In the infinite of qualities same object. found united, are any way tradictory?40 things ... of natural variety the most remote we must to find the expect combinations, from each other united in the imaginable are sometimes of the sublime and beautiful it prove opposite that and they con

If the qualities this prove that they are the same? Does allied? it prove even that they are not Does does

next point of attack was Burke's view of the Goldsmith's of imagery and sublimity. relation between indistinctness is always detrimental to emo Burke's theory, that clearness tional effect, may have been among the opinions that led Arthur to say: Murphy
mind will seems to have been a very in his love of novelty leading principle and we fear that in endeavoring his whole to throughout composition; what was never said before him, he will find it his lot to have said what advance The not be adopted after him.41

refrained from a like censure, and even granted as indeed the sublime, sometimes produces obscurity said: also.42 Goldsmith merely Murphy Goldsmith
Distinctness more of The

that did

has ever been held of the sublime. imagery productive the picture he would the poet or orator impresses describe strongly it on the imagination the more apt will he be to paint of upon his own mind, . . . We in description. Not his reader. that, like Ovid, he should be minute far surpass the equally bold strokes of a Virg? only think the bold yet distinct confused ones of Lucan.43

yet

to deal with these arguments merely in Burke did not attempt were directed.44 which To this he the passage they against in which he argued that a clear idea, being added a paragraph
87 Review 16.475. Monthly 88Critical Review 3.366. 89 2.188. Literary Magazine 40 1.172-173. Inquiry 3.27; 1761, pp. 238-9; Works to the end of the section. from the first sentence quoted 41 2.183. Literary Magazine 42 Ibid., 2.185. 48 Review 16.477. Monthly "Inquiry last paragraph. 2.[4]; 1761, pp. 107-110; Works 1.114-115.

The

addition

runs

The

addition

is the

Burke's

Essay

653

"is therefore another name for a little idea," readily perceived, scenes of horror, had achieved in picturing and that painters, and he quoted the vision of Job wild grotesques"; only "odd, as an instance of moving To the section on indistinctness. Burke added an instance of numerous confused Magnificence,45 in a passage from Shakespeare, and another from Eccle images siasticus; and to the section on Light46 was added a quotation from Milton the "power of a well-managed dark illustrating
ness."

to defense of obscurity may be thought paradoxical to a realistic from Burke's preference for an idealistic spring art, but one need only refer to his idea of imitation, expressed an in the introduction,46* to see that his was by no means on idealistic of art. Burke really derives his paradox theory from a rhetorician's of the human examination obscurity The as is evident from Part V of the Inquiry. The limi passions, are made tations of Burke's clear by contrast with theory some in the Idler**h published well-known papers Reynolds' edition. In these papers, months after Burke's it enlarged to the will be recalled, Reynolds the Italian painters prefers Dutch, because the Italians attend "only to the invariable, the great and general ideas which are fixed and inherent in universal ... to literal truth and a minute exactness nature; the Dutch in the detail."460 The opposition of the invariable idea, inherent in universal nature, to the accidental, is not parallel to Burke's of the great or obscure to the little or clear. The opposition extent of Reynolds' and Johnson debt to Burke has been there need be no but, in the passage here quoted, disputed, owes his idea of the invariable to his question: Reynolds friend Mudge,46d
46 "There Inquiry 2.13; are also many

who

taught

him Plato.46e
begins

1761, pp.

descriptions"

The addition 1.128-129. 141-143; Works and runs to the end of the section.

The addition 1.130-131. ?Inquiry 2.14; 1761, pp. 145-147; Works begins "Our great poet" and runs to the end of the section. 46a 1. 16, which 1.72. is formally Inquiry, 1761, pp. 15-16; Works, Inquiry on imitation, to the definition. adds nothing *b Nos. 10,1759. 76, 79, 82 ; Sept. 29, Oct. 20 and Nov. ?c No. 79. 46(1 1. 113-115. Northcote relies Northcote, Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds, on Burke's letter of 1797 to Malone. 4?eI owe to H. S. V. Jones the suggestion Professor of a comparison with as also the reference to Ruskin's on Rey Reynolds, interesting qualifications nolds' opinion: Modem Painters 3.4.1, ed. Cook and Wedderburn, 5.20 ff.

654
Another
beauty as

Wicheins objection
the cause of

of Goldsmith's
love. In a

was
passage47

to Burke's
somewhat

account
confused

of

in its terms, the reviewer held that love, or a sense of beauty, is not always caused by the mere physical aspect of objects, but by our reasonings as to the fitness of their structure for our uses or for their own; and he cited friendship as a kind of love based than on physical rather on interest attraction. Murphy48 but the writer in the Critical Review agreed with Goldsmith, Burke's rejection of utility as an element of beauty.49 approved his refutation of the argument Burke strengthened that fitness is a cause of beauty, by adding60 several instances of fit animals and defended his limita that yet are not considered beautiful, tion of the term51 to "the merely sensible qualities of things" on the ground of "preserving the utmost simplicity" in a difficult and complex subject. In his last note, Goldsmith brought his incomplete knowledge to bear on Burke's in of medicine of the manner explanation which darkness affects the eye. Burke, of course, consistently is terrible; and in with his whole theory, held that darkness Part IV, in which he explained the efficient?that is, the physical ?causes he had to show of the sublime and of the beautiful, is painful to the eye. This he did by referring to how darkness the painful contraction of the radial fibres of the iris as the or tension he opposed and this painful contraction pupil dilates; to relaxation, which he called pleasant. Goldsmith said in objection:
The dilatation state Hence muscles of the uvea act in the of the ciliary circle. Therefore, of relaxation, and the relaxed state darkness is a state of rest remarks in the but are relaxed contraction, the pupil dilates, when they are in a . . . of a muscle is its state of rest.

which he justly obscurity the sensory by no painful relaxation of the muscles

the organ, and consequently a cause of the sublime, can affect so that the sublime is often caused by a impression; as well as by a tension.82 to be often

to the visual

47 Review 16.476. Monthly 48 2.187. Literary Magazine 49 Critical Review 3.367. 60Ittquiry 3.6; 1761, pp. 193-195; Works 'I need say little on the trunk of the elephant' men 1.152-153. and ends The 'not very The addition different begins from

and beasts.' 51 1.138-139. Inquiry 3.1; 1761, pp. 162-163; Works of the section. includes all save the first three sentences 62 Review 16.480. MonMy

new matter

Burke's Burke

Essay

655

his original position by showing that the strengthened the radial fibres of the iris, are forcibly muscles, antagonist drawn back by the relaxation of the iris; and he alluded to the common experience of pain in trying to see in a dark place.53 the has thus described Forster in his life of Goldsmith article in the Monthly Review:
was elaborate to many he objected and well-studied; criticism parts on which it founded to the materialism the con theory, and especially of the nerves; with a necessary relaxation of pleasure but nection of objects as well as and thoroughly discreet these objections, gave strength considered, of his. friends of the pleasure it relish to its praise, and Burke .spoke to many had given him.54 His of the

is not more correct than the The critical part of this description The review itself was avowedly is substantiated. last statement in but five a bundle of extracts, the criticism was contained was not to the chief objection and Goldsmith's footnotes, but to his strict division of the sublime and author's materialism, beautiful on the basis of pain and pleasure; all his comments on the relation of pleasure and relaxation are to this end. had ranged with Burke over a wide field of fact Goldsmith unsaid. The but not without and deduction, leaving much Review directed his objections in the Critical writer chiefly to had dismissed and beauty. the relation of proportion Murphy Burke's reasons for not considering proportion a cause of beauty and others," saying "Hutchinson by referring to the authorities, at the same time that the "gradual variation"55 Burke found This com beautiful was simply another name for proportion. ment
are: to find that I can strengthen It gives me no small pleasure my theory to beauty] of in this point is necessary by the opinion [that gradual variation I take in gen whose idea of the line of beauty the very ingenious Mr. Hogarth, . . . ... I must add, too, that, eral to be extremely though the varied just. is found, yet there is no particular line is that alone in which beauty complete line which is always found in the most completely beautiful.56 constitutes

to Hogarth's of Murphy drew from Burke an allusion Burke's words which requires explanation. Analysis of Beauty

53 1.191. The addition 1761, pp. 279-280; Works Inquiry 4.16; sentences 5-7 of the section. 54 ed. 1871, 1.107. Forster, Life and Times of Oliver Goldsmith, 85 2.187. Literary Magazine 86 1.163. The addition Inquiry 3.15; 1761, pp. 216-217; Works the last six sentences of the section.

comprises

656

Wicheins

This addition either that Burke, suggests though he finished his work in 1753, did not come upon Hogarth's book, which was in December, 1753,57 until his own first edition had published appeared; or else that he made no changes in the writing during is the four years in which it lay by him; the latter supposition in his first Preface: strenghthened by Burke's own statement
author It is four years now since this inquiry was finished, alteration found no cause to make any material time during which in his theory.58 the

in his extended that Burke, is unlikely refutation59 of and fitness as causes of beauty, was for proportion the arguments as Bosanquet60 asserts. There is little in glancing at Hogarth, confused work that could be taken for the set of Hogarth's It is true that in one passage61 ideas Burke was opposing. Burke seems to notice a view held by Hogarth62 that our judg ment of beauty depends upon an intuitive perception of the It for use; but much of Burke's fitness of the observed proportion attack on proportion and fitness is found in the first edition, and at the time of writing this, Burke, as we see, probably did not of proportion and The principal advocates know the Analysis. fitness were writers who had been longer known and better than Hogarth. and Hutcheson had received Shaftesbury the idea of a "sense of beauty" that responds to per developed and Bishop Berkeley ceived proportions. had, Shaftesbury with varying emphasis, united proportion, fitness, and beauty.63 inserted in the second edition, has The passage on fitness, for in the discussion of Goldsmith's been accounted already on Burke. on proportion can be The additions influence attributed ful and curt insistence64 that "a beauti in part to Murphy's and entire whole never existed without proportion,"

57 27.89. Dictionary of National Biography 58 Inquiry, 1757, p. vii. 59 3.1-8. Inquiry 60 History 1917, p. 208. of Aesthetic, ? 1.151 ff. 3.6; 1761, p. 191 ff.; Works Inquiry 82 ch. 11. Analysis of Beauty, 63 Miscellaneous 3.2; Moralists Shaftesbury, Reflections and Design Inquiry Order, Harmony, concerning Beauty, Alciphron 3.8, 9. Berkeley, 84 2.187. Literary Magazine

2.4. 1.12;

Hutcheson, 2.7, 8, 10, 11.

Burke's

Essay

657

in the Critical Review?* which chiefly to the longer argument stress on a general range of proportions in each type laid great that "proportion is symmetry." of beauty, and asserted The vague ideas of proportion held by his critics led Burke to insert of reasoning about two pages66 on its definition and his method he defined to be the measure of relative quantity. it. Proportion of his opponents demonstrative He demanded proof that in of beautiful object there is a fixed quantitative rela every type to tion of parts. He himself in subsequent passages undertook the absence of such a relation. With one exception, show these passages are not new; the single change is the argument from the of the sexes in the same species.67 It is of different proportions to definite ratios interest that Burke's refusal to reduce beauty won Ruskin's cordial assent in Modern Painters.** in the Critical Review, of the human body are parts proportioned Burke met with the challenge: beautiful," The declaration
You body, may assign any proportions and I undertake that a painter produce, if he please,

that

"the well found

constantly

to every part you please observe shall religiously a very ugly figure.70

of the human them all, and

notwithstanding

Burke now turned to the broader meaning, in the suggested words already quoted from the Critical Review, of proportion as a common form of a species within which individuals vary con The confusion of beauty and proportion taken as siderably.71 the common form he found to be due to this, that beauty was Burke rightly held that the opposed to deformity. commonly of beauty is ugliness, not deformity, and he streng opposite
65 Critical Review 3.366-367. The addition 1.139-141. pp. 164-168; Works ends 'whilst we inquire in the first place.' The 1.145-146. pp. 177-179; Works on this point' 'Let us rest a moment ed. by Cook and Wedderburn, addition and begins so far six

?Inquiry 3.2; 1761, 'what proportion is' and 67 Inquiry 3.4; 1761, as here in point begins sentences. 8 Modern 9 Critical 70 Inquiry Painters Review

covers

3.1.6; 3.367.

4.109.

The addition 1.144-145. is one of three 3.4; 1761, p. 176; Works 'You may asign any proportions.' sentences, beginning 71 1.146-149. The addition here 3.4; 1761, pp. 179-186; Works Inquiry in question is the rest of the section after the matter mentioned in note 67.

658
thened his

Wicheins

case72 against the common or customary form by the argument of the first section of the Inquiry. In repeating to beauty, and that is necessary this he had held that novelty
custom soon stales all beauty.

for the long section on Power, Except the most and fitness constitutes proportion to the Inquiry proper. additions

on the new matter of the considerable

on The Critical Review in the attack joined Goldsmith a mode that the sublime is caused by Burke's central position, of pain, as some tension or labor of the physical organism, or by is caused by a with pain, and that pleasure ideas associated or by related nerves of the relaxation ideas. Goldsmith's instance has been mentioned. citation of a mixed The Critical Review73 suggested that the pleasures of love might be con of the nerves to a tension that borders upon sidered "an exertion of positive Since this would be an instance, if admitted, pain." pleasure derived from a relation to pain, it would break down the distinction. fundamental struck out of his Burke, therefore, is an energy of the of love, "desire or lust, which definition mind, that hurries us on to the possession of certain objects, that but by means altogether do not affect us as they are beautiful, But this arbitrary exclusion did not satisfy him; different."74 cause of love, accordingly, he in the section on the physical and added both an appeal to the general experience of mankind, an admission that partial exceptions might occur:
Who and in all is a stranger countries, to that manner of expression so common in all times of being softened, The universal voice dissolved, enervated, relaxed, to their of mankind, faithful melted

away by pleasure? feelings, some odd concurs in affirming and general this uniform effect; and although a con be found, wherein instance may and particular there appears perhaps siderable we must of many may of relaxation, all the characters without degree of positive pleasure, we had drawn from a concurrence not therefore reject the conclusion but we must to the judicious still retain the exceptions it, subjoining rule laid down by Sir Isaac Newton which in the

experiments; occur according

third book of his Optics?*

72 Three 189-190; Works Inquiry 3.5; 1761, pp. 187-188, 1.150, 150-151. sentences 'Indeed beauty is so far'; and five sentences beginning beginning so far are use and habit.' 'Indeed, 73Critical Review 3.369. 74 Inquiry 75 Inquiry 3.1; 4.19; 1761, p. 162; Works 1761, p. 288; Works 1.138. 1.195.

Burke's

Essay

659

it will be remembered, To Part IV, which, deals with the causes of the sublime and the beautiful, efficient or physical two other small additions were evoked by the Critical Review.
he is mistaken in his theory, when he affirms that likewise conceive now to blue, vary their nature, rays falling on the eye, if they frequently a sort of relaxation or rest to the organ, now to red, and so on . . . produce or labor allied to pain, the cause of the sublime. which that tension prevents of contrasted Such a quick and abrupt succession colors and shapes, will de a quick succession in the . . . eye, which, of changes mand instead of relaxing and refreshing, harass the organ into the most exertions.76 painful We the

Burke

"the different effects of some replied77 by contrasting The reviewer's exercise and some little piddling action." strong sweet things with second objection was to Burke's classifying those that are smooth and relaxing; he held instead "that sweet upon the taste as well as upon the things act by stimulation, smell."78 The author's rejoinder was an appeal to the custom of languages: in Latin,
one name."79

French,

and

Italian,

"soft

and

sweet

have

but

in so far as they did not The effect of Murphy's criticisms, coincide with those of the other two reviewers, is easily traced. is perhaps that state of the His speculation,80 that "astonishment soul, when the powers of the mind are suspended with wonder," rather than with horror, drove Burke to defend his own theory the use of several languages.81 argu by instancing Murphy's 82 ment idea that words affect the emotions against Burke's without led to two long additions, raising images in the mind, the first argument argument
not instantly

of which

shows

Burke and

at his

by apt quotation had been:

any of these words have in view all the Review 3.369.

best, comment.

his illustrating The reviewer's

On hearing

a man may [virtue, honor, cited by Burke], one in the complex ideas that are combined

Review 3.370. 79 4.22; Inquiry 1761, p. 296; Works sentences 3-5. comprises 80 2.185. Literary Magazine 81 2.2; 1761, pp. 97-98; Works Inquiry last seven sentences of the section. 82 2.188. Literary Magazine

76 Critical 71 Inquiry third sentence 78Critical

4.10; 1761, pp. 262-263; of the section.

Works

1.183.

The

addition

is

the

1.199.

The

addition

in this

section

1.109.

The

addition

comprises

the

660
. . . but he may purpose. have the general

Wicheins
idea . . . and that is enough for the poet's

Burke's

reply began:

so little does poetry for its effect on the power of raising Indeed, depend it would sensible lose a very considerable images, that I am convinced part of result of a description. its energy if this were the necessary Because that union of affecting is the most powerful of all poetical would words, which instruments, lose its force along with and consistency, its propriety if the sensible frequently excited.83 images were always

Citations illustrate

are brought from Virgil, Homer, and Lucretius to the confusion of images by which poets affect the in this part is a passage distin The second addition passions. It is directed against guishing a clear from a strong expression. a statement of Murphy's:
He best who is most poet, because and clearest in his imagery, is ever styled picturesque from such a one we see things clearer, and of course we to feel the force of words, and to combine It is a disposition quickness, that shows one man's imagination the feel the to be

more

intensely. ideas annexed

to them with

better

than another's.

The

distinction between clearness and force which Burke made he had already stated quite definitely in a different con here, text and even in the first edition.84
But

which

can move to conceive how words the passions still it will be difficult to real objects without these objects This belong clearly. representing to us, because we do not sufficiently in our observations is difficult distinguish, a clear expression are between and a strong expression. These upon language, with each other, confounded frequently extremely though they are in reality The The former regards the understanding, the latter a thing as it is, the latter describes one describes to the belongs it as it is felt.8*

different. passions.

Here we may conclude the account of Burke's alterations so far as they were inspired by objections to his thought. A in illus word may be said of Burke's use of BibHcal quotations of his ideas. Except for a brief reference tration or enforcement to the phrase "the angel of the Lord,"86 all the passages from the
83 1.213-215. The addition Inquiry 5.5; 1761, pp. 328-332; Works begins the sentences and runs to the end of the section. quoted 84 between Clearness and Obscurity with regard Inquiry 2.4, Of the difference to the Passions. 85 runs 1.218-219. The addition Inquiry 5.7; 1761, pp. 338-341; Works be called ideas' to the end of the paragraph. from ?if they may properly 86 1.217. Inquiry 5.7; 1761, p. 336; Works

with

Burke's

Essay

661

All are Bible appear for the first time in the enlarged edition. two exceptions, adduced as examples of the sublime. With all in the section on Power.87 One passage is drawn from appear all the others come either from Job or from the Ecclesiasticus; It is probable that two papers by Joseph Warton Psalms. in the are in these additions. Warton's Adventurer essays inspired letter from Longinus in praise the form of a newly-discovered of the Hebrew writings, and include, among others, passages from the Psalms and from Job, though none of those used by
Burke.

collation of the two editions has then shown that no changes in structure or substance were made by Burke; that in to the turn of a sentence, and point of style he was sensitive to alter details of expression; and that he was so quite willing keenly sensitive to the public reception of his work as to regard to raised against him as a challenge almost every objection The defend New his position. Herbert York University
2.[4], 2.13. last paragraph, authorship and is

A. Wichelns

87 are the vision of Job, Inquiry The exceptions of Simon from Ecclesiasticus, the panegyric Inquiry 88 as statement Nos. Adventurer 51, 57. The found in a note to the final essay of the series.

to Warton's