THE cafe I own is fomewhat different with those arts which are entirely founded on experiment and obfervation, and are not derived, like pure mathematics, from abftract and univerfal axioms.

But even in thefe, when we rife from the individual to the species, from the fpecies to the genus, and thence to the moft extensive orders and claffes, we arrive, though in a different way, at the knowledge of general truths, which, in a certain sense, are also fcientific, and answer a fimilar purpose. Our acquaintance with nature and its laws is fo much extended, that we shall be enabled, in numberlefs cafes, not only to apply to the moft profitable purposes the knowledge we have thus acquired, but to determine before-hand, with fufficient certainty, the fuccefs of every new application. In this progress we are like people, who, from a low and narrow bottom, where the view is confined to a few acres, gradually afcend a lofty peak or promontory. The prospect is perpetually enlarging as we mount, and when we reach the fummit, the boundless horizon, comprehending all the variety of fea and land, hill and valley, town and country, arable and defert, lies under the eye at once.

THOSE who in medicine have fcarcely rifen. to the difcernment of any general principles, and have no other directory but the experiences gained in the firft and loweft ftage, or as it were at the foot of the mountain, are commonly diftinguished by the name of empiries. Something fimilar may be faid to obtain in the other liberal arts; for in all of them more enlargement of mind is neceffary, than is required for the exercise of thofe called mechanical. The character directly oppofite to the empiric is the visionary; for it is not in theology only that there are vifionaries. Of the two extremes I acknowledge that the latter is the worfe. The firft founds upon facts, but the facts are few, and commonly in his reafonings, through his imperfect knowledge of the fubject, mifapplied. The fecond often argues very confequentially from principles, which, having no foundation in nature, may justly be denominated the illegitimate iffue of his own imagination. He in this refembles the man of feience, that he acts fyftematically, for there are falfe as well as true theorifts, and is influenced by certain general propofitions, real or imaginary. But the difference lies here, that in the one they are real, in the other imaginary. The fyftem of the one is

reared

reared on the firm bafis of experience, the theory of the other is no better than a caftle in the air. I mention characters only in the extreme, becaufe in this manner they are beft difcriminated. In real life, however, any two of these, fometimes all the three, in various proportions, may be found blended in the fame perfón.

THE arts are frequently divided into the ufeful, and the polite, fine, or elegant; for thefe words are, in this application, ufed fynonymoufly. This divifion is not coincident with that into the mechanical and the liberal. Phyfic, navigation, and the art of war, though properly liberal arts, fall entirely under the denomination of the useful; whereas painting and fculpture, though requiring a good deal of manual labour, and in that respect more nearly" related to the mechanical, belong to the clafs denominated elegant. The firft divifion arifes purely from the confideration of the end to be attained, the fecond from the confideration of the means to be employed. In respect of the end, an art is either ufeful or elegant; in refpect of the means, it is either mechanical or liberal. The true foundation of the former diftribution

B 4

diftribution is, that certain arts are manifeftly and ultimately calculated for profit or use, whilst others, on the contrary, feem to terminate in pleafing. The one fupplies a real want, the other only gratifies fome mental tafte. Yet in ftrictness, in the execution of the useful arts, there is often fcape for elegance, and the arts called elegant are by no means deftitute of use, The principal difference is, that ufe is the direct and avowed purpofe of the former, whereas it is more latently and indirectly effected by thelatter. Under this clafs are commonly included, not only the arts of the painter and the ftatuary, but thofe alfo of the musician and the poet. Eloquence and architecture, by which laft term is always understood more than building merely for accommodation, are to be confidered as of a mixed nature, wherein utility and beauty have almoft equal influence,

THE elegant arts, as well as the useful, are founded in experience, but from the difference of their nature, there arifes a confiderable difference both in their origin and in their growth. Neceffity, the mother of invention, drives men, in the earliest state of fociety, to the study and cultivation of the ufeful arts; it is always leifure

and

1

and abundance which lead men to feek gratifications no way conducive to the preservation either of the individual or of the fpecies. The elegant arts, therefore, are doubtlefs to be confidered as the younger fifters. The progrefs of the former towards perfection is, however, much flower than that of the latter. Indeed, with regard to the firft, it is impoffible to fay, as to several arts, what is the perfection of the art; fince we are incapable of conceiving how far the united difcernment and industry of men, properly ap-. plied, may yet carry them. For fome centuries backwards, the men of every age have made great and unexpected improvements on the labours of their predeceffors. And it is very probable that the fubfequent age will produce discoveries and acquifitions, which we of this age are as little capable of foreseeing, as thofe who preceded us in the last century were capable of conjecturing the progrefs that would be made in the prefent. The cafe is not entirely fimilar in the fine arts. Thefe, though later in their appearing, are more rapid in their advancement. There may, indeed, be in these a degree of perfection beyond what we have experienced; but we have fome conception of the very utmost to which it can proceed. For inftance, where re