too--as a weakness, or an index only of a weak mind, or a feminine spirit. This is certainly very foolish--and a lamentable mistake. But it is easily accounted for. It will be observed that the doctrine is never held save by men who see beauty in things which other persons would hold abhorrent. They are men who are in love with metaphysics, or glory in a mathematical existence. They like, beyond all, the _features_ of a problem, and think only of the _good face_ of a speculation. They see, as they profess, at least, no proportions, save in some cold system of an absurd philosophy, and are only fit for judgment in things either too abstract for the mass of men, or too decidedly "earthy" to be worthy the attention of beings made for a better sphere, and capable of seeing something in much that is around us, which intimates the order and beauty by which that sphere is distinguished. This is enough to put an end to this objection, in reference to the subtle element of which we are venturing our humble, but we believe, orthodox sentiments. For ourselves, we know of no more sad or senseless mental condition in which we could be placed--we mean in the social relation--than this one of such ungraceful stupidity, as this of which a boast is made by such weary fellows as we have adverted to. If Beauty is an _outside_ principle, which they argue is of no utility, and quite unworthy of one who should look beyond the mere _coating_ of this existence for his reward or his satisfaction, then we say that even an _outside_ of loveliness and grace, is better than an _interior_ of deformity, uselessness, indefiniteness, chaos--even though it pretend to be all spiritual, while it suggests little but nonsense, and is quite certain to end in nothing.