Beauty: Illustrated Chiefly by an Analysis and Classificatin of Beauty in Woman

“The same principles which apply to the beauty of form of inanimate objects are applicable to the paths described by them in motion. The intrinsic beauty of their motions is exclusively referrible to sensations in the ocular muscles of the observer, while the gracefulness of human motions is referrible in part to these, and in part to sensations in other muscles.

“It would be foreign to the subject of the present memoir, to consider the beauty of expression of the human countenance; although this species of beauty is in a great degree referrible to muscular action. That muscular action which belongs to the present topic is not that of the object, but that of the observer. It may be scarcely necessary again to disclaim any design of giving a complete analysis of beauty in general, or to repeat the concession that man’s notions of beauty are modified by various associations.

“Final Cause.—The benevolence of the Author of nature is strikingly manifested in connecting present pleasure with obedience to the natural laws. It has been shown that vision is attended with muscular action which is generally pleasurable. If seeing had required no muscular action, we should have wanted one of our present stimuli to the acquisition of knowledge. This stimulus is especially necessary in infancy, and then powerfully prompts to observation, even anterior to the dawnings of intellectual curiosity, with which it subsequently co-operates. We see, in this arrangement, the exemplification of a principle which extensively pervades the laws under which we are placed by the Creator—which is, that mental attainments, as well as other acquisitions, shall require action; and that action shall be attended with pleasure. Whether the acquisition is to be made by the manual labor of the artisan, by the manipulations of the artist, the chymist, or the experimental philosopher, by the sedentary student of books, or by the observer of natural phenomena in his original survey of the universe—in every case it is muscular action.

“This application to natural theology, has thus far had reference to that degree of intrinsic agreeableness which is common to forms in general. But the laws of nature specially tend to the production of curved, regular, and symmetrical objects and motions, in inorganic vegetable and animal bodies; and impose the necessity of similar forms in artificial structures. With a different structure and arrangement of the ocular muscles, those forms peculiarly conducive to our welfare and that of the universe, had possessed no peculiar attractions; and we had felt no special impulse of this kind to conform our own artificial structures to those laws of nature, or to investigate many of the most important works of the Creator. Yet neither gravity or any other law of the external world could have determined the peculiar formation of the muscles of the human eye. We must, therefore, refer their actual structure and location to that Being who gives to the objects of his creative power, and to the principles by which he governs them, such a mutual adaptation as conduces to the greatest achievable good. Thus, while muscular pleasure originally prompts to the observation of the Creator’s works, this observation is rewarded and subsequently prompted by a pleasure of an incomparably higher order, of a character purely mental, by the discovery of moral beauty, which in rank and refinement surpasses all others. Still, the muscular pleasure of the eye strongly incites to the examination of the numberless forms of beauty in the organic and inorganic kingdoms, such as the symmetrical leaf, the bending bough, the symmetry of the tree itself that of inferior animals, and of the human form. Or we may extend our view to the circular or undulating horizon, the apparent limits of the apparently round world; or we may elevate the eyes to the arched dome of the firmament, on which the arches of the iris and aurora occasionally confer additional beauty. Or with the telescope we may pierce this apparent limit of upward vision, and discover beyond it a universe of spherical and spheroidal worlds, revolving in circular and elliptical orbits, worlds and orbits which present, even in our diminutive diagrams, a high order of beauty, designed to incite us to the contemplation of these most magnificent works of the Creator.

“All this beauty had been lost to man, but for the property of the eye, which, on a superficial reflection, might seem a defect. It is no less true than paradoxical, that the perception of these beauties depends on indistinctness of vision. To a being so constituted as to see with equal distinctness by oblique and direct vision, the same forms might be presented, but not as forms of beauty. Has the Creator, then, sacrificed a portion of our perceptive powers to our sensual gratification? I answer no. Has he, then, sacrificed a portion of our direct means of acquiring knowledge, to afford an incitement which should ultimately and indirectly enhance our attainments? Again I am compelled to answer in the negative. There is, in this arrangement, no intellectual sacrifice whatever, direct or indirect. This indistinctness of oblique vision, which might seem a defect, I consider an excellence. A simultaneous and distinct impression received from the whole field of vision, would distract the attention and preclude a minute and accurate examination of any particular part. But as our eyes are so constituted as to receive a strong and distinct impression only from the images of those objects toward which their axes are directed, and as our minds are so constituted that we can in a great measure neglect the weaker or less distinct impressions, we are able to acquire a more exact knowledge of any part of the field to which we choose to attend. To see every thing at once, would be to examine nothing. Such a constitution of the eye would be to vision what an indiscriminating memory is to the understanding.

E

STANDARD OF BEAUTY

To show that the sentiments of mankind with regard to female beauty, have been very various in different ages and nations, and that it is not possible to establish a standard which shall comprehend all, without discriminations, a few facts may be mentioned. Among the ancients, a small forehead and joined eyebrows were much admired in a female countenance; and in Persia, large joined eyebrows are still highly esteemed. In some parts of Asia, black teeth and white hair, are essential ingredients in the character of a beauty; and in the Marian Islands, it is customary among the ladies to blacken their teeth with herbs, and to black their hair with certain liquors. Beauty, in China and Japan, is composed of a large countenance, small, and half-concealed eyes, a broad nose, little and useless feet, and a prominent belly. The Flat-head Indians compress the heads of their children between two boards, with a view to enlarge and beautify the face; some tribes compress the head laterally; others depress the crown, and others make the head as round as possible. “The Moors of Africa,” says Park, “have singular ideas of female perfection; the gracefulness of figure and motion, and a countenance enlivened by expression, are by no means operative points in their standard; with them corpulency and beauty are terms nearly synonymous. Or women of even moderate pretensions, must be one who cannot walk without a slave under each arm to support her, and a perfect beauty is a load for a camel. In consequence of this prevalent taste for unwieldiness of bulk, the Moorish ladies take great pains to acquire it early in life, and for this purpose many of the young girls are compelled by their mothers to swallow a great quantity of kouskous, and drink a large bowl of camel’s milk every morning. It is of no importance whether the girl has an appetite or not, the kouskous and milk must be swallowed, and obedience is frequently enforced by blows. I have seen a poor girl sit crying with the bowl at her lips for more than an hour, and her mother with a stick in her hand watching her all the while, and using the stick without mercy whenever she observed that her daughter was not swallowing. This singular practice, instead of producing indigestion and disease, soon covers the young lady with that degree of plumpness, which in the eye of a Moor, is perfection itself.” These facts show that every nation almost has ideas of beauty peculiar to itself; and it is no less evident that nearly every individual has his own notions and taste concerning it. “The empire of beauty, however,” says a writer already quoted, “amid these discordant ideas, with respect to the qualities in which it consists, has been very generally acknowledged, and particularly in all civilized countries; and when it is united with other accomplishments that tend to render females amiable, it contributes in no small degree, to give them importance and influence, to polish the manners of society, and to contribute to its order and happiness.”

F

TEMPERAMENT

The views of Mr. Walker in relation to Temperaments, correspond with those usually entertained by physiological writers. It is to be observed, however, that they rarely occur simple in any individual, two or more being generally combined. The bilious and nervous, for example, is a common combination, which gives strength and activity; the lymphatic and nervous, is also common, and produces sensitive delicacy of mental constitution, conjoined with indolence. The nervous and sanguine combined, give extreme vivacity, but without corresponding vigor. Dr. Thomas of Paris, has advanced the following theory of the temperaments: When the digestive organs, filling the abdominal cavity, are large, and the lungs and brain small, the individual is lymphatic; he is fond of feeding, and averse to mental and muscular exertion. When the heart and lungs are large, and the brain and abdomen small, the individual is sanguine; blood abounds, and is propelled with vigor; he is therefore fond of muscular exercise, but averse to thought. When the brain is large, and the abdominal and thoracic viscera small, great mental energy is the consequence. These proportions may be combined in great varieties, and modified results will ensue.⁵⁹ Mr. Combe, in his late lectures in this city, laid great stress on the relative size of the three great visceral cavities, in determining the temperament. Thus, if the abdominal and thoracic cavities be small, and the cranial cavity large, the nervous temperament is indicated. If the abdomen and scull be comparatively small, and the chest large, the sanguine temperament is indicated. The predominance of the abdominal cavity indicates the lymphatic temperament. Mr. C. also pointed out the important changes produced in the temperament by a long continued course of training. It is common for the bilious, to be changed into the nervous temperament, by habits of mental activity, and close study; and, on the other hand, we often see the nervous or bilious changed into the lymphatic about the age of 40, when the nutritive system seems to acquire the preponderance. Spurzheim used to say, that he had originally a large portion of the lymphatic temperament, as had all his family; but that in himself the lymphatic had gradually diminished, and the nervous gradually increased; whereas, in his sisters, owing to mental inactivity, the reverse had happened, and when he visited them, after being absent many years, he found them, to use his own expression, “as large as tuns.” The subject of temperament has been treated with consummate ability by Dr. Charles Caldwell of Kentucky; and as his essay is but little known, we shall present some extracts from it. It will be seen that his views bear a close resemblance to those of Dr. Thomas, already mentioned; but Dr. C. has shown that they were publicly maintained by him, at least two years before the appearance of Dr. Thomas’s work.⁶⁰ After explaining the doctrine of the temperaments, as taught by the ancients, and showing that it is founded on the exploded hypothesis of humoralism, Dr. C. goes on to show, that it is the solids of the body which make man what he is; that they form the fluids, and give them their character; that they are, in short, the cause, and the fluids the effect.

“The difference,” says Dr. C., “between individuals, or rather classes, of the human family, which temperament is made to designate, appears to depend on two causes; diversity of organization in parts or the whole of the bodies of different persons, giving rise to a corresponding diversity in the vital properties; and difference of size and vigor in certain ruling organs of the system. The existence and influence of the former of these causes are in the highest degree probable; those of the latter certain. The one is susceptible of strong support, the other of proof that may be termed positive. By ‘organization’ is here meant, the minute interior or radical structure of the tissues which compose the human body. That diversity in this creates a diversity in the vital properties, and that again a diversity in character, cannot I think be doubted. Whether the difference of organization here referred to, consists in different proportions of the element of living matter that form the tissues, united in the same way, or in their different modes of arrangement and union, or both, or whether it may not arise in part from different proportions of the simpler tissues entering into the formation of the more compound organs, is not known. Minute anatomy has not yet attained a degree of perfection competent to settle a point of such subtility.”

Dr. C. afterward goes on to prove that no single nerve, or organ, can perform two distinct functions, but that each is capable of one mode of action, and no more; that between a nerve, a muscle, and a gland, the only difference known to exist, is that of organization; and that if they are organized alike, and endowed with life, their properties will be similar, and they will act in the same way. So also between animals of the same race, we discover innumerable differences, which can be referred to nothing but differences in organization, and the same may be affirmed of vegetables. The conclusion to which Dr. C. arrives, and which he maintains with great ingenuity is, that independently of all other causes, differences in human temperament are to be attributed, in part, to corresponding differences in the organization of certain portions, or the whole of the body; and that, other things being equal, in consequence of this source of influence alone, one person differs from another in many of the qualities of both person and intellect. In other words, he is more highly gifted, sprightly, and vigorous, or the reverse; or he is more courageous or timid, generous or selfish, according to his organization.

“But the second cause that was represented to be instrumental in diversifying the human temperaments is by far the most powerful. It will be remembered to have been, ‘difference of size and vigor in certain ruling organs of the system.’ The organs alluded to are those contained in the three great cavities of the body; the chylopoetic, situated in the abdomen, and including the stomach and intestines, with the liver, pancreas, mesentery, and lacteals; those of sanguification and circulation, situated in the thorax, and consisting of the lungs, heart, and bloodvessels; and the brain, with its appendages, the spinal cord and nerves. These three groups (for the brain is multiplex as well as the other two) are not only the ruling organs in the person of man; connected with the hard and soft parts that enclose them, they constitute the person. The upper and lower extremities are but appendages; important and necessary, it must be acknowledged; but still appendages. The individual can exist and be a human being without them. Nor have they any influence in imparting constitutional character to their possessors. Standing only in the capacity of subordinates to the controlling organs, they are not only nourished and put in motion by them; they labor mechanically for their uses, and serve as instruments to execute their purposes. They are composed of the extreme ends of the organized matter of the system, constitute only its outworks, and possess but little influence over its central parts. This representation rests on evidence that may be termed demonstrative. Many persons destitute of the upper or lower extremities, or both, have strong characters and well-marked temperaments. But the extremities, if deprived of the influence of any one group of the ruling organs, are converted not only into useless but lifeless masses. Of the skin, muscles, and bones, which compose the head, neck, and trunk of the body, the same is true. Of themselves they possess no character, and can therefore bestow none. They also are but appendages to the organs they cover, affording them a secure lodgment and protection from external injuries, and aiding them in the performance of some of their functions. And from this alone is their importance derived. Were it possible for them to exist apart from the viscera they contain, their grade of being would be below that of many vegetables. Most fatal diseases, moreover, have their original seat in the viscera of one of the three great cavities of the body, and no disease originating elsewhere can become fatal, until, by sympathy or metastasis, some of those parts are deeply affected. To enlightened physiologists this statement presents but a series of familiar truths. To the groups of organs exclusively, then, I repeat, contained in the abdomen, the thorax, and the cranium, must we look as the main source of human character. And that character is different according to the predominance, in different individuals, of one group or another, or of any two of them. An equilibrium between the three groups constitutes another variety, by bestowing on character a corresponding equilibrium. Let the word temperament be substituted for ‘character,’ and what is true of the latter will be so of the former. As already mentioned, the organs referred to will be its source; and the differences in their predominance will give diversity to it.”

Dr. C. then shows that the strength and perfection of each of the senses are proportioned to the size of the nerve on which that sense depends. This is illustrated by a powerful array of facts, drawn from different orders of the animal kingdom, as well as from the different varieties of mankind. It is also stated, that where any nerve or set of nerves, is peculiarly large, the portion of the brain to which they belong, and by which they are influenced and commanded, is correspondingly large.

“Inasmuch, then, as, other things being equal, size gives power to everything else, we are not only justified in believing, on grounds of analogy we are compelled to believe, that the same is true of the organs contained in the cranium, the thorax, and the abdomen. When they are in a sound and natural condition, their size is also the measure of their power. Were not this the case, they would be either altogether abnormal, or subject to laws that govern no other kind of matter, whether organic or inorganic, of which we have any knowledge. But the position I am contending for is not to be regarded as a mere inference in a process of reasoning. It will appear hereafter that it is a positive fact, which observation has discovered, and continues to confirm.

I have alleged that the size of the three groups of ruling organs may be ascertained by that of the cases in which they are contained. Nor do I perceive on what ground any one, who is even moderately acquainted with the structure of the human body, can controvert the belief, or cherish the slightest doubt on the subject of it. In healthy persons (and my remarks relate only to such) the size of the brain is necessarily known by that of the head. As the viscus completely fills the cranium, the case cannot be otherwise. Although the bones of the head and the soft parts that cover them are thicker in some individuals than in others, the difference is so small as not materially to affect the result. The chest is filled by the lungs, heart, and large bloodvessels. Its measure, therefore, cannot fail to be the measure of them. Any deviation from exactness in this, that may be produced by varieties in the thickness of the skin, muscles, and other parts, is of no moment. Of the chylopoetic viscera the same is true. They also fill exactly the cavity prepared for them. The size of the abdomen, therefore, affords a knowledge of their size sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes. By a mere inspection of the person of man, then, the absolute measure of the groups of organs I am considering, as well as their magnitude in relation to each other, can be fairly ascertained. And it will appear on examination, as already stated, that the predominance in size and energy of any one or two of them, always imparts a corresponding diversity to the human character. Does the brain predominate? The individual to whom it belongs is more remarkable for the vigor of his intellect or feeling, or both, than for any other constitutional quality. These modes of mental manifestation constitute the natural functions of the brain; and when of an order unusually high, they give a peculiarity of character to the whole system. The person thus endowed feels more keenly, thinks more strongly, is more eager in pursuit of knowledge, and attains it with more facility. His relish for pleasure is also inordinately keen, and he pursues it at times with burning ardor. Such was the constitutional character of Mr. Fox, and also of our distinguished countryman the late Mr. Bayard. I need scarcely add, that this predominance of sensibility and mental action must necessarily modify the diseases the individual may sustain. But of this I shall speak hereafter. Do the lungs, heart, and bloodvessels predominate? A larger volume of highly arterialized blood is formed, and thrown more forcibly and in greater quantities throughout the system. From the abundance of that fluid, and the superior size of the vessels conveying it, those parts of the body nourished by the red blood will be comparatively most copiously supplied. But it is more especially the muscles that are thus nourished. They will be therefore large and powerful. Hence persons with broad and full chests have well-developed and vigorous muscles. In proportion to their size their animal strength is necessarily great. Nor can such constitutional peculiarities fail to be productive of peculiarities in disease? Do the chylopoetic viscera predominate? The amount of chyle formed is very large in proportion to the quantity of food eaten. But the lungs, heart, and bloodvessels being comparatively small, neither is sanguification abundant and perfect nor circulation vigorous. The blood is not either highly arterialized or animalized. Its amount of red globules is small, and it circulates feebly through vessels of a limited size. The consequence is, that the muscles receive less red blood, and are less fully nourished; the system at large is not so highly endued with life, and the soft parts generally have a lower tone. The individual thus marked is less robust and vigorous than one whose system is supplied abundantly with highly arterialized blood, and less intellectual and sprightly than those whose brain predominates. It is almost needless to say, that, under such circumstances, disease must be modified in conformity to the constitution.

“From the preceding views it clearly appears, that the comparative standing of individual man, as relates to his race, is graduated by the predominance of his leading organs. Do his abdominal viscera preponderate? He has much of the animal in him, and his grade is low. Are his thoracic viscera most highly developed? His qualities are of a superior order; but he still partakes too much of the animal. Does his cerebral system predominate; and is it well developed in all its parts? He rises above the sphere of animal nature, and stands high in that of humanity. He is formed for an intellectual and moral being, with no more of animality in his constitution, than is necessary to give him practical energy of character.

“This subject may be farther illustrated by a reference to some of the animals below us. The worm commonly denominated a grub is but little else than a mass of abdominal matter. It is therefore one of the humblest and grossest of worms. The insect has also a large abdomen, with a very small chest, and a smaller head. Hence, though superior to the grub, it is low in the scale of animal nature. Reptiles and fish are more elevated, because their abdominal viscera preponderate less. But still they do preponderate; and therefore the rank of the animals is humble. In the hog the abdominal viscera are most strongly developed, and hence his standing among quadrupeds is low. The same is true of the bear and the ox, and also of the sheep and the goat, but in an inferior degree. The horse, especially the barb and the racehorse, furnish no bad specimens of the mixed or balanced temperament. When the latter is undergoing preparation for the course, the object of his keeper is to make the thoracic temperament preponderate as much as possible, for the time, in order to increase his vigor and endurance; in the language of the turf, to give him more strength and ‘better bottom.’ The warhorse approaches the thoracic temperament. In the canine race, more especially in the greyhound, the thoracic viscera hold the ascendency. Hence the muscular power of the dog is greater, and his grade among quadrupeds higher than those of most of the preceding animals. The same is true of the wolf, the panther, and the tiger. In some dogs there is a considerable cerebral development, but it is never large enough to counterbalance the thoracic. Of all animals, the lion affords the most finished specimen of thoracic preponderance. In proportion to his size, his lungs and heart, especially the latter, are immensely large. And his muscular power corresponds to them. The magnitude of his heart is generally considered the cause of his boldness. Hence a very courageous man is said to have a great heart, or to be lion-hearted. All this is popular error. The heart is but a muscle; and, in man, has no more connexion with courage than the gastrocnemii muscles; nor, in the lion, than the muscles that move his tail. Courage is exclusively a cerebral attribute, and has its seat in an organ specifically appropriated to it. In none of the inferior animals does the brain preponderate. That preponderance belongs to humanity, and, as already mentioned, indicates its highest grade. Of all the beings below us, some of the ape tribe have the highest cerebral development. And they approach nearest to man in their degree of intellect. This is farther proof that, other things being alike, the brain gives the measure of mental power. I have lately seen a publication, in which it is gravely asserted, that the large orang-outang catches crabs with a stick, and makes a rude basket of osiers to contain them. Notwithstanding the well-known sagacity of that animal, this statement savors strongly of the ‘tale of a traveller.’”

“Considered in relation to these principles, temperament may be divided into seven varieties. 1, the mixed or balanced, in which the ruling organs are in fair proportion to each other; 2, the encephalic; 3, the thoracic; 4, the abdominal; 5, the encephalo-thoracic; 6, the encephalo-abdominal; and 7, the thoracico-abdominal.”

“1. The mixed or balanced variety. In this the name explains the temperament. The external marks of it are plain. They consist in a well-adjusted proportion between the sizes of the head, thorax, and abdomen. If the limbs are in harmony, the symmetry of the entire person is complete. Although individuals, in whom this temperament prevails, are usually above the middle height, and well-formed, they are not necessarily so. They may be of any stature, and any shape, straight or crooked, provided the three great cavities and their contents be accurately balanced. This is not the temperament of either early life or old age. It commences with manhood, and continues until the fortieth or forty-fifth year, and then passes into somewhat of the abdominal. The Apollo Belvidere, by Phidias, is an exquisite specimen of it. But some modern artists have violated it, in painting that statue, by making the chest and the head loo large. Although the manifestation of strength, majesty, and intellect, is heightened by this, the beauty of the youthful god is marred. The figure, though more imposing, has lost its charm.”

“2. The encephalic. In this variety the head is relatively large, but is not always equally developed in every part, a circumstance which varies greatly, as will presently appear, the characters of those who possess the temperament. The development of the thorax and abdomen is moderate, the person lean, and the countenance expressive of intense feeling and deep passion. In some individuals, however, the countenance beams with intelligence, without much passion, while, in others, manifestations of powerful intellect and passion are united. The thoracic and abdominal activity is never high; yet in many instances the personal hardihood and endurance are invincible. It is men of this temperament alone that can immortalize themselves by great achievements, good or bad. All history and observation testify to this. Is the development very large in the moral and intellectual regions of the brain, and so moderate in the animal as to be held fully in check? The individual will distinguish himself by a dignified purity of deportment, and by the performance of great and good deeds.”

“Are the animal and mere knowing compartments largely developed, and the moral and reflecting very slightly? As relates to vice and profligacy in their foulest shapes, this is the worst of all temperaments. Nothing more prone to depravity can be imagined. The person possessed of it delights in some sort of animality alone; and if he ever engages in anything higher or purer, it is for a sinister purpose, that he may return to his chosen indulgences in more security, or on a broader scale.”