present purpose goes, is the beautiful; and this may be expressed either in prose or in poetry. No one, perhaps, will assert that all the poetry in our literature is to be found in verse; any more than that all the verse in our literature is poetry.

Poetry, more closely defined, is the poetical expressed in rhythmical language. The two meanings need not be confounded.

Poetry in the English language is that of which we propose to speak.

POETRY.-The fact that all poetry must correspond and vary both with the character of the people and with the genius of the time follows from our definition of poetry so inevitably that it cannot need proof, and not much illustration, but merely statement.

There is in the poetry of the individual, say Anakreon, elements of character that mark it as Anakreontic and that distinguish it from the Homeric, the Pindaric, the Sophoklean, and others. There are also in the same, elements that mark it as Grecian, and distinguish it from the Hebraic, the Roman, the Persian, and others. There are, again, also elements in it that mark it as ancient, and

distinguish it from the medieval, the modern, and, doubtiess, the future.

That is to say, the poems of Anakreon are, in the first place, Anakreontic; in the second place, Grecian; and, in the third place, ancient. And this is the same thing as saying that the poet projects into his work, his individuality, his nationality and his time.

The poet, then, is the utterer of his surroundings and of his time; so far, that is to say, as poetry goes. The same is true of the historian; the main difference between the two arising out of the use of their respective

utterances.

The poet is also a prophet and ahead of his time; but this only so far as all Presents are prophetic of their imminent Futures. In a truthful utterance of any To-day there must be a prophecy of its To-morrow. Any one fact-not necessarily perhaps any mere event -is at the same time the record of a Past and the reflection of a Future. There is nothing new under the sun, and yet eternal novelty greets us at every step.

If we admit that "nothing natural or material exists without a spiritual cause,"-and

we have here time only to insist, not to prove, that not only reason shows it, but that all human language as we have already stated, is constructed upon the postulate that it is true-the way is clear and short, to the conclusion that there is but one answer to the question, what is Beauty?

We have attempted to show that, whether we admit our theory of a cause-and-effect relation between the seer and the seen or deny it, it is recognized at least in all language; and the objector may find it a difficult task to account for this recognition while he excludes the most obvious and satisfactory explanation of it. To that task we commend him.

The use of insisting upon this relation is to have a pou sto upon which to rest a definition of Beauty.

It

BEAUTY is a relation between the perceiving man and the object perceived; as Sir William Hamilton might say, between the percipient mind and the percept proper. is a relation, and not a quality nor a congeries of qualities in the object itself, All objects are beautiful-when perceived aright. Some French writer has said pithily that Beauty is

the woman one loves. He was nearer the truth than those who peer about over the woman's face in order to find what makes her beautiful.

Beauty has been defined as symmetry; while it has only certain relations to it. Symmetry is a natural and therefore a necessary part of beauty. It is harmony of parts—a relation between or among the parts of an object. It is objective. It is to beauty what ratio is to proportion.

In arithmetic ratio is a relation between two numbers; while proportion involves two ratios. Proportion is an equality of ratios. Symmetry is analogous to ratio; beauty to proportion. That is to say, symmetry is to beauty what ratio is to proportion. Thus : 3:4

is a ratio, but only a ratio; although the ratio is complete and perfect as a ratio. It is to the numbers 3 and 4 what symmetry is to the parts of a natural object—a face, an animal, a tree, or a stone. But

3:4:9:12

is a proportion; and expresses a relation of equality between the two ratios-that is be

tween the 3:4 and the 9:12. It is a harmony between the 3:4 and the 9:12 which would not exist were either other than it is. That is to say, if the first ratio were 3:5, or the second 9:10, there would be no proportion; but the whole would be nonsense-mathematical ugliness. Thus:

Beauty-bear with us while we repeat-is a relation between man and the outer world, man being a spirit using a body with senses, which enables him to communicate with the material world and thence with its spiritual counterpart lying always above or beyond it. The outer world, as matter merely, has no character; but, as mentioned above, every object has character as the representative of an idea, simple or complex.

Nature, it follows, then, has no beauty in itself