ded for these cafes. She hath implanted in the breast of every person, an efficacious principle, which leads to habit. By an ob ftinate perfeverance in the fame occupation, the pain of exceffive uniformity vanisheth; and by the like perfeverance in a quick circulation of different occupations, the pain of exceffive variety vanifheth. And thus we come to take delight in feveral occupations, that by nature, without habit, are not a little difguftful.

A middle rate alfo in our train of perceptions betwixt uniformity and variety, is not lefs pleasant, than betwixt quickness and flowness. The mind of man thus conftituted, is wonderfully adapted to the course of human affairs, which are continually changing, but not without connection. It is equally adapted to the acquifition of knowledge, which results chiefly from discovering resemblances among differing objects, and differences among refembling objects. Such occupation, even abstracting from the knowledge we acquire, is in itself delightful, by preferving a middle rate betwixt too great uniformity and too great variety.

We

We are now arrived at the chief purpose of the prefent chapter; and that is to examine how far uniformity or variety ought to be ftudied in the fine arts. And the knowledge we have obtained, will even at firft view fuggeft a general obfervation, That in every work of art, it must be agreeable to find that degree of variety which correfponds to the natural courfe of our perceptions; and that an excefs in variety or in uniformity, must be disagreeable by varying that natural courfe. For this reafon, works of art admit more or lefs variety according to the nature of the fubject. In a picture that ftrongly attaches the fpectator to a fingle object, the mind relifheth not a multiplicity of figures or of ornaments. A picture again reprefenting a gay fubject, admits great variety of figures and ornaments; because these are agreeable to the mind in a chearful tone. The fame obfervation is applicable to poetry and to mufic.

It must at the fame time be remarked, that one can bear a greater variety of natural objects than of objects in a picture; and a greater variety in a picture than in a defcrip3 E 2

tion.

tion. A real object presented to the view, makes an impreffion more readily than when reprefented in colours, and much more readily than when represented in words. Hence it is, that the profufe variety of objects in fome natural landscapes, neither breed confufion nor fatigue. And for the fame reason, there is place for greater variety of ornament in a picture, than in a poem.

From thefe general obfervations I proceed to particulars. In works expofed continually to public view, variety ought to be studied, It is a rule accordingly in fculpture, to contrast the different limbs of a ftatue, in order to give it all the variety poffible. Though the cone in a fingle view be more beautiful than the pyramid; yet a pyramidal fteeple, because of its variety, is juftly preferred. For the fame reason, the oval in compofitions is preferred before the circle; and painters, in copying buildings or any regular work, endeavour to give an air of variety by reprefenting the fubject in an angular view: we are pleased with the variety without lofing

fight of the regularity. In a landscape reprefenting animals, thofe efpecially of the fame kind, contraft ought to prevail. To draw one fleeping another awake, one fitting another in motion, one moving toward the fpectator another from him, is the life of fuch a performance,

In every fort of writing intended for amusement, variety is neceffary in proportion to the length of the work. Want of variety is fenfibly felt in Davila's hiftory of the civil wars of France. The events are indeed im

+

portant and various but the reader languifheth by a tirefome uniformity of character; every perfon engaged being figured a confummate politician, governed by interest only. It is hard to fay, whether Ovid difgufts more by too great variety or too great uniformity. His ftories are all of the fame kind, concluding invariably with the trans-formation of one being into another. So far he is tiresome with excefs in uniformity. He alfo fatigues with excess in variety, by hurrying his reader inceffantly from story to ftory. Ariofto is ftill more fatiguing than Ovid, by exceeding the juft bounds of va

riety,

riety. Not fatisfied, like Ovid, with a fucceffion in his ftories, he diftracts the reader by jumbling together a multitude of unconnected events. Nor is the Orlando Furiofo lefs tirefome by its uniformity than the Metamorphofes, though in a different manner. After a ftory is brought to a crifis, the reader, intent upon the cataftrophe, is fuddenly fnatched away to a new ftory, which is little regarded fo long as the mind is occupied with the former. This tantalizing method, from which the author never once fwerves -during the courfe of a long work, beside its -uniformity, hath another bad effect: it prevents that sympathy which is raised by an interefting event when the reader, meets with no interruption.

The emotions produced by our percep, tions in a train, have been little confidered, and lefs underfood. The fubject therefore required an elaborate difcuffion. It may surprise fome readers, to find variety treated as only contributing to make a train of perceptions pleafant, when it is commonly held to be a neceffary ingredient in beauty of whatever kind; according to the definition,