Andstill，afterallallowancehasbeenmade，itappearsthatthecanonsofpecuniaryreputabilitydo，directlyorindirectly，materiallyaffectournotionsoftheattributesofdivinity，aswellasournotionsofwhatarethefitandadequatemannerandcircumstancesofdivinecommunion。Itisfeltthatthedivinitymustbeofapeculiarlysereneandleisurelyhabitoflife。Andwheneverhislocalhabitationispicturedinpoeticimagery，foredificationorinappealtothedevoutfancy，thedevoutword-painter，asamatterofcourse，bringsoutbeforehisauditors’imaginationathronewithaprofusionoftheinsigniaofopulenceandpower，andsurroundedbyagreatnumberofservitors。Inthecommonrunofsuchpresentationsofthecelestialabodes，theofficeofthiscorpsofservantsisavicariousleisure，theirtimeandeffortsbeingingreatmeasuretakenupwithanindustriallyunproductiverehearsalofthemeritoriouscharacteristicsandexploitsofthedivinity；whilethebackgroundofthepresentationisfilledwiththeshimmerofthepreciousmetalsandofthemoreexpensivevarietiesofpreciousstones。Itisonlyinthecrasserexpressionsofdevoutfancythatthisintrusionofpecuniarycanonsintothedevoutidealsreachessuchanextreme。AnextremecaseoccursinthedevoutimageryoftheNegropopulationoftheSouth。Theirword-paintersareunabletodescendtoanythingcheaperthangold；sothatinthiscasetheinsistenceonpecuniarybeautygivesastartlingeffectinyellow——suchaswouldbeunbearabletoasoberertaste。Still，thereisprobablynocultinwhichidealsofpecuniarymerithavenotbeencalledintosupplementtheidealsofceremonialadequacythatguidemen’sconceptionofwhatisrightinthematterofsacredapparatus。
　　Similarlyitisfelt——andthesentimentisactedupon——
　　thatthepriestlyservitorsofthedivinityshouldnotengageinindustriallyproductivework；thatworkofanykind——anyemploymentwhichisoftangiblehumanuse——mustnotbecarriedoninthedivinepresence，orwithintheprecinctsofthesanctuary；thatwhoevercomesintothepresenceshouldcomecleansedofallprofaneindustrialfeaturesinhisapparelorperson，andshouldcomecladingarmentsofmorethaneverydayexpensiveness；thatonholidayssetapartinhonoroforforcommunionwiththedivinitynoworkthatisofhumanuseshouldbeperformedbyanyone。Eventheremoter，laydependentsshouldrenderavicariousleisuretotheextentofonedayinseven。
　　Inallthesedeliverancesofmen’suninstructedsenseofwhatisfitandproperindevoutobservanceandintherelationsofthedivinity，theeffectualpresenceofthecanonsofpecuniaryreputabilityisobviousenough，whetherthesecanonshavehadtheireffectonthedevoutjudgmentinthisrespectimmediatelyoratthesecondremove。
　　Thesecanonsofreputabilityhavehadasimilar，butmorefar-reachingandmorespecificallydeterminable，effectuponthepopularsenseofbeautyorserviceabilityinconsumablegoods。
　　Therequirementsofpecuniarydecencyhave，toaveryappreciableextent，influencedthesenseofbeautyandofutilityinarticlesofuseorbeauty。Articlesaretoanextentpreferredforuseonaccountoftheirbeingconspicuouslywasteful；theyarefelttobeserviceablesomewhatinproportionastheyarewastefulandilladaptedtotheirostensibleuse。
　　Theutilityofarticlesvaluedfortheirbeautydependscloselyupontheexpensivenessofthearticles。Ahomelyillustrationwillbringoutthisdependence。Ahand-wroughtsilverspoon，ofacommercialvalueofsometentotwentydollars，isnotordinarilymoreserviceable——inthefirstsenseoftheword——thanamachine-madespoonofthesamematerial。Itmaynotevenbemoreserviceablethanamachine-madespoonofsome“base“metal，suchasaluminum，thevalueofwhichmaybenomorethansometentotwentycents。Theformerofthetwoutensilsis，infact，commonlyalesseffectivecontrivanceforitsostensiblepurposethanthelatter。Theobjectionisofcoursereadytohandthat，intakingthisviewofthematter，oneofthechiefuses，ifnotthechiefuse，ofthecostlierspoonisignored；thehand-wroughtspoongratifiesourtaste，oursenseofthebeautiful，whilethatmadebymachineryoutofthebasemetalhasnousefulofficebeyondabruteefficiency。Thefactsarenodoubtastheobjectionstatesthem，butitwillbeevidentonreJectionthattheobjectionisafterallmoreplausiblethanconclusive。Itappears1thatwhilethedifferentmaterialsofwhichthetwospoonsaremadeeachpossessesbeautyandserviceabilityforthepurposeforwhichitisused，thematerialofthehand-wroughtspoonissomeonehundredtimesmorevaluablethanthebasermetal，withoutverygreatlyexcellingthelatterinintrinsicbeautyofgrainorcolor，andwithoutbeinginanyappreciabledegreesuperiorinpointofmechanicalserviceability；2ifacloseinspectionshouldshowthatthesupposedhand-wroughtspoonwereinrealityonlyaveryclevercitationofhand-wroughtgoods，butanimitationsocleverlywroughtastogivethesameimpressionoflineandsurfacetoanybutaminuteexaminationbyatrainedeye，theutilityofthearticle，includingthegratificationwhichtheuserderivesfromitscontemplationasanobjectofbeauty，wouldimmediatelydeclinebysomeeightyorninetypercent，orevenmore；3ifthetwospoonsare，toafairlycloseobserver，sonearlyidenticalinappearancethatthelighterweightofthespuriousarticlealonebetraysit，thisidentityofformandcolorwillscarcelyaddtothevalueofthemachine-madespoon，norappreciablyenhancethegratificationoftheuser’s“senseofbeauty“incontemplatingit，solongasthecheaperspoonisnotanovelty，adsolongasitcanbeprocuredatanominalcost。
　　Thecaseofthespoonsistypical。Thesuperiorgratificationderivedfromtheuseandcontemplationofcostlyandsupposedlybeautifulproductsis，commonly，ingreatmeasureagratificationofoursenseofcostlinessmasqueradingunderthenameofbeauty。Ourhigherappreciationofthesuperiorarticleisanappreciationofitssuperiorhonorificcharacter，muchmorefrequentlythanitisanunsophisticatedappreciationofitsbeauty。Therequirementofconspicuouswastefulnessisnotcommonlypresent，consciously，inourcanonsoftaste，butitisnonethelesspresentasaconstrainingnormselectivelyshapingandsustainingoursenseofwhatisbeautiful，andguidingourdiscriminationwithrespecttowhatmaylegitimatelybeapprovedasbeautifulandwhatmaynot。
　　Itisatthispoint，wherethebeautifulandthehonorificmeetandblend，thatadiscriminationbetweenserviceabilityandwastefulnessismostdifficultinanyconcretecase。Itfrequentlyhappensthatanarticlewhichservesthehonorificpurposeofconspicuouswasteisatthesametimeabeautifulobject；andthesameapplicationoflabortowhichitowesitsutilityfortheformerpurposemay，andoftendoes，givebeautyofformandcolortothearticle。Thequestionisfurthercomplicatedbythefactthatmanyobjects，as，forinstance，thepreciousstonesandthemetalsandsomeothermaterialsusedforadornmentanddecoration，owetheirutilityasitemsofconspicuouswastetoanantecedentutilityasobjectsofbeauty。
　　Gold，forinstance，hasahighdegreeofsensuousbeautyverymanyifnotmostofthehighlyprizedworksofartareintrinsicallybeautiful，thoughoftenwithmaterialqualification；thelikeistrueofsomestuffsusedforclothing，ofsomelandscapes，andofmanyotherthingsinlessdegree。
　　Exceptforthisintrinsicbeautywhichtheypossess，theseobjectswouldscarcelyhavebeencovetedastheyare，orhavebecomemonopolizedobjectsofpridetotheirpossessorsandusers。Buttheutilityofthesethingstothepossessoriscommonlyduelesstotheirintrinsicbeautythantothehonorwhichtheirpossessionandconsumptionconfers，ortotheobloquywhichitwardsoff。
　　Apartfromtheirserviceabilityinotherrespects，theseobjectsarebeautifulandhaveautilityassuch；theyarevaluableonthisaccountiftheycanbeappropriatedormonopolized；theyare，therefore，covetedasvaluablepossessions，andtheirexclusiveenjoymentgratifiesthepossessor’ssenseofpecuniarysuperiorityatthesametimethattheircontemplationgratifieshissenseofbeauty。Buttheirbeauty，inthenaivesenseoftheword，istheoccasionratherthanthegroundoftheirmonopolizationoroftheircommercialvalue。“Greatasisthesensuousbeautyofgems，theirrarityandpriceaddsanexpressionofdistinctiontothem，whichtheywouldneverhaveiftheywerecheap。“Thereis，indeed，inthecommonrunofcasesunderthishead，relativelylittleincentivetotheexclusivepossessionanduseofthesebeautifulthings，exceptonthegroundoftheirhonorificcharacterasitemsofconspicuouswaste。Mostobjectsofthisgeneralclass，withthepartialexceptionofarticlesofpersonaladornment，wouldserveallotherpurposesthanthehonorificoneequallywell，whetherownedbythepersonviewingthemornot；andevenasregardspersonalornamentsitistobeaddedthattheirchiefpurposeistolend衢醕lattothepersonoftheirwearerorownerbycomparisonwithotherpersonswhoarecompelledtodowithout。Theaestheticserviceabilityofobjectsofbeautyisnotgreatlynoruniversallyheightenedbypossession。
　　Thegeneralizationforwhichthediscussionsofaraffordsgroundisthatanyvaluableobjectinordertoappealtooursenseofbeautymustconformtotherequirementsofbeautyandofexpensivenessboth。Butthisisnotall。Beyondthisthecanonofexpensivenessalsoaffectsourtastesinsuchawayastoinextricablyblendthemarksofexpensiveness，inourappreciation，withthebeautifulfeaturesoftheobject，andtosubsumetheresultanteffectundertheheadofanappreciationofbeautysimply。Themarksofexpensivenesscometobeacceptedasbeautifulfeaturesoftheexpensivearticles。Theyarepleasingasbeingmarksofhonorificcostliness，andthepleasurewhichtheyaffordonthisscoreblendswiththataffordedbythebeautifulformandcoloroftheobject；sothatweoftendeclarethatanarticleofapparel，forinstance，is“perfectlylovely，“
　　whenprettymuchallthatananalysisoftheaestheticvalueofthearticlewouldleavegroundforisthedeclarationthatitispecuniarilyhonorific。
　　Thisblendingandconfusionoftheelementsofexpensivenessandofbeautyis，perhaps，bestexemplifiedinarticlesofdressandofhouseholdfurniture。Thecodeofreputabilityinmattersofdressdecideswhatshapes，colors，materials，andgeneraleffectsinhumanapparelareforthetimetobeacceptedassuitable；anddeparturesfromthecodeareoffensivetoourtaste，supposedlyasbeingdeparturesfromaesthetictruth。Theapprovalwithwhichwelookuponfashionableattireisbynomeanstobeaccountedpuremake-believe。Wereadily，andforthemostpartwithuttersincerity，findthosethingspleasingthatareinvogue。Shaggydress-stuffsandpronouncedcoloreffects，forinstance，offendusattimeswhenthevogueisgoodsofahigh，glossyfinishandneutralcolors。Afancybonnetofthisyear’smodelunquestionablyappealstooursensibilitiestodaymuchmoreforciblythananequallyfancybonnetofthemodeloflastyear；althoughwhenviewedintheperspectiveofaquarterofacentury，itwould，Iapprehend，beamatteroftheutmostdifficultytoawardthepalmforintrinsicbeautytotheoneratherthantotheotherofthesestructures。So，again，itmayberemarkedthat，consideredsimplyintheirphysicaljuxtapositionwiththehumanform，thehighglossofagentleman’shatorofapatent-leathershoehasnomoreofintrinsicbeautythanasimiliarlyhighglossonathreadbaresleeve；andyetthereisnoquestionbutthatallwell-bredpeopleintheOccidentalcivilizedcommunitiesinstinctivelyandunaffectedlycleavetotheoneasaphenomenonofgreatbeauty，andeschewtheotherasoffensivetoeverysensetowhichitcanappeal。Itisextremelydoubtfulifanyonecouldbeinducedtowearsuchacontrivanceasthehighhatofcivilizedsociety，exceptforsomeurgentreasonbasedonotherthanaestheticgrounds。
　　Byfurtherhabituationtoanappreciativeperceptionofthemarksofexpensivenessingoods，andbyhabituallyidentifyingbeautywithreputability，itcomesaboutthatabeautifularticlewhichisnotexpensiveisaccountednotbeautiful。Inthiswayithashappened，forinstance，thatsomebeautifulflowerspassconventionallyforoffensiveweeds；othersthatcanbecultivatedwithrelativeeaseareacceptedandadmiredbythelowermiddleclass，whocanaffordnomoreexpensiveluxuriesofthiskind；
　　butthesevarietiesarerejectedasvulgarbythosepeoplewhoarebetterabletopayforexpensiveflowersandwhoareeducatedtoahigherscheduleofpecuniarybeautyintheflorist’sproducts；whilestillotherflowers，ofnogreaterintrinsicbeautythanthese，arecultivatedatgreatcostandcalloutmuchadmirationfromflower-loverswhosetasteshavebeenmaturedunderthecriticalguidanceofapoliteenvironment。
　　Thesamevariationinmattersoftaste，fromoneclassofsocietytoanother，isvisiblealsoasregardsmanyotherkindsofconsumablegoods，as，forexample，isthecasewithfurniture，houses，parks，andgardens。Thisdiversityofviewsastowhatisbeautifulinthesevariousclassesofgoodsisnotadiversityofthenormaccordingtowhichtheunsophisticatedsenseofthebeautifulworks。Itisnotaconstitutionaldifferenceofendowmentsintheaestheticrespect，butratheradifferenceinthecodeofreputabilitywhichspecifieswhatobjectsproperlyliewithinthescopeofhonorificconsumptionfortheclasstowhichthecriticbelongs。Itisadifferenceinthetraditionsofproprietywithrespecttothekindsofthingswhichmay，withoutderogationtotheconsumer，beconsumedundertheheadofobjectsoftasteandart。Withacertainallowanceforvariationstobeaccountedforonothergrounds，thesetraditionsaredetermined，moreorlessrigidly，bythepecuniaryplaneoflifeoftheclass。