330, note, 1, for ixes read i↓es. 385, 396, 420, 2, for quem read quam. 5, for in Pindar and Sophocles though read though in Pindar and Sophocles, with a semicolon preceding instead of a full stop. 8, for laudible read laudable. 437, note, 2, for hac read hoc. INTRODUCTION. -έστι δε τοις ευπορήσαι βελομένοις προυςγε το διαπορησαι καλώς" γας ὕστερον ευπορια λυσις των προτέρων απορεμένων εστι. Aristot. Metaphys. Lib. III. C. i. TION. 1. TASTE is a subject upon which it might INTRODUCnaturally be supposed that all mankind would agree; since all know instinctively what pleases, and what displeases them; and, as the organs of feeling and perception appear to be the same in the whole species, and only differing in degrees of sensibility, it should naturally follow that all would be pleased or displeased more or less, according to those different degrees of sensibility, with the same objects. 2. This is, however, so far from being the case, that there is scarcely any subject, upon which men differ more than concerning the objects of their pleasures and amusements; and this difference subsists, not only among individuals, but among ages and nations; almost every B TION. INTRODUC- generation accusing that which immediately preceded it, of bad taste in building, furniture, and dress; and almost every nation having its own peculiar modes and ideas of excellence in these matters, to which it pertinaciously adheres, until one particular people has acquired such an ascendancy in power and reputation, as to set what is called the fashion; when this fashion is universally and indiscriminately adopted upon the blind principle of imitation, and without any consideration of the differences of climate, constitution, or habits of life; and every one, who presumes to deviate from it, is thought an odd mortal-a humourist void of all just feeling, taste, or elegance. This fashion continues in the full exercise of its tyranny for a few years or months; when another, perhaps still more whimsical and unmeaning, starts into being and deposes it; all are then instantly astonished that they could ever have been pleased, even for a moment, with any thing so tasteless, barbarous, and absurd. The revolutions in dress only, not to mention those in building, furnishing, gardening, &c. which have taken place within the last two centuries, afford ample illustration; and it is not the least extraordinary circumstance in these revolutions, that they have been the most violent, sudden, and extravagant in the personal decorations of |