the claim of either nation, but the claim of the vulture to the leveret, of the tiger to the fawn?  Let them then continue to dispute their title to regions which they cannot people, to purchase by danger and blood the empty dignity of dominion over mountains which they will never climb, and rivers which they will never pass.  Let us endeavour, in the mean time, to learn their discipline, and to forge their weapons; and, when they shall be weakened with mutual slaughter, let us rush down upon them, force their remains to take shelter in their ships, and reign once more in our native country[1].”

[1] “How far the seizing on countries already peopled, and driving out
    or massacring the innocent and defenceless natives, merely because
    they differed from their invaders in language, in religion, in
    customs, in government or in colour; how far such a conduct was
    consonant to nature, to reason or to Christianity, deserved well to
    be considered by those who have rendered their names immortal by
    thus civilizing mankind.”  Blackstone, Com. ii. 7.

I love the University of Salamanca, said Johnson, with warm emotion, for when the Spaniards were in doubt as to the lawfulness of their conquering America, the University of Salamanca gave it as their opinion, that it was not lawful.  Boswell, i. 434.

    The untaught eloquence of Indian feeling is well preserved in the
    language of Gertrude of Wyoming.

No. 82.  SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1759.

TO THE IDLER.

Sir,

Discoursing in my last letter on the different practice of the Italian and Dutch painters, I observed, that “the Italian painter attends only to the invariable, the great and general ideas which are fixed and inherent in universal nature.”

I was led into the subject of this letter by endeavouring to fix the original cause of this conduct of the Italian masters.  If it can be proved that by this choice they selected the most beautiful part of the creation, it will show how much their principles are founded on reason, and, at the same time, discover the origin of our ideas of beauty.

I suppose it will be easily granted, that no man can judge whether any animal be beautiful in its kind, or deformed, who has seen only one of that species:  this is as conclusive in regard to the human figure; so that if a man, born blind, was to recover his sight, and the most beautiful woman was brought before him, he could not determine whether she was handsome or not; nor, if the most beautiful and most deformed were produced, could he any better determine to which he should give the preference, having seen only those two.  To distinguish beauty, then, implies the having seen many individuals of that species.  If it is asked, how is more skill acquired by the observation of greater numbers?  I answer that, in consequence of having seen many, the power is acquired, even without seeking after it, of distinguishing between accidental blemishes and excrescences which are continually varying the surface of Nature’s works, and the invariable general form which Nature most frequently produces, and always seems to intend in her productions.