_Different Forms of the objective Theory._--Of those who take the opposite view, some seek for the hidden principle of beauty in _novelty_; others, as Galen and Marmontel, in _utility_; others, as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hogarth, in the principle of _unity in variety_; others, in that of _order and proportion_, as Aristotle, Augustine, Crousez. All these writers, while they admit the existence of beauty in the external object, make it to consist in some quality or conformation of matter, as such. _The spiritual Theory._--There is still another theory of the beautiful, which, while admitting its external objective reality, seeks to divest it of that material nature in which the writers last named present it, and searches for its essence among principles ethereal and spiritual. According to this view beauty is the _spiritual life in its immediate sensible manifestation_; the hidden, invisible principle--spirit in distinction from matter, animating, manifesting itself in, looking out through, the material form. It is not matter as such, it is not spirit as such, much less a mere mental quality or mental feeling; it is the expression of the invisible and spiritual under sensible material forms. This view was first fully developed by Schelling and Hegel, and is adopted, in the main, by Jouffroy in his Cours d'Esthetique, by Dr. August Ruhlert, of the university of Breslau, in his able system of æsthetics, and by many other philosophical writers of distinction in Europe. _Questions for Consideration._--The following questions grow out of these various and conflicting definitions, as presenting the real points at issue, and, as such, requiring investigation. I. Is beauty something objective, or merely subjective and emotional? II. If the former, then what is it in the object that constitutes its beauty? I. _Question stated._--Is beauty merely subjective, an emotion of our own minds, or is it a quality of objects? When we speak, _e. g._, of the beauty of a landscape, or of a painting, do we mean merely a certain excitement of our sensitive nature, a certain feeling awakened by the object, or do we mean some quality or property belonging to that object? If the latter, then are we _correct_ in attributing any such quality to the object? _Emotion admitted._--Unquestionably, certain pleasing emotions are awakened in the mind in view of certain objects which we term beautiful; unquestionably those objects are the cause or occasion of such emotions; they have, under favorable circumstances, the power of producing them; unquestionably they have this power by virtue, moreover, of some quality or property pertaining to them. All this will be admitted by those who deny the objective reality of beauty. The question is not, whether there is in the object any quality which is the occasion or cause of our emotion, but whether the term beauty is properly the name of that cause, or of the emotion it produces.