The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-04-09
GOOD TASTE.
from the Saturday Revlew.l

An 8pQOr1Sm mas Deeu sOinO eih1S
about the world-which, like most otne1
aphorisms, is palpably false, or, we saou.o tha
rather say, palpably ncompletc-assernns Inc sne
improprety Of disputmg about tastes. IL ,iS mIS
of course superficial plauslblilty, OF IL moaa
not have attained so extensive curte91S; t:y.
When one person says ~ IKE 81 P ike ' mine line
roasted to a rag" there is apparently no in1-
the- room for argument. Each controVeLsiai-
lat relies upon the testimony OF his own palate,
and of that testimony no one, Dy tae necesslty
Of the case, can be sufficient judge except
himself Yet the doctrine inferred Is IN open
conflict with or daily experience. ClVlnzea
beings are. as q rule, rather unwilling to talk
at great length about such strictly sensual
pleasures as those of eating and DRINKING
Yet in certain places where the instincts Oh
the male animal are not kept in check By the
refining influence of feminine society-sucn,
for example, as rcgimental messes, college,
halls, and club coffee-rooms- ms-there are lew ls
top IS dicussed with more eaSerness tlan .'te ~
mLiits of wines and cookery. AccoIuiuS ~
the popular doctrine sucn aScasS,un' ;rasSau Wien
one man has confessed that ne likes
nublic-house port, black and sweet ana
strong and capable Of producing intoxicatlon
at q minimum of time and expenditure, anu
another has asserted his possession OF more re-
fined tastes, there should be no more to be
said The final appeal has been made, and
thereis no way of bringing the question again
again into court. Experience, however, SHOWS
that few men, even of most undonbted moral
courage, will dare to make such an assertion
as we have Just mentioned. Most men wsuld
be far more willing to admit that they were re-
Igious or political heretics than to confess to
perverted taste In regard to wine, and would
be almost as willing to admit that they were
inclined to some moral depraylty. 1t is q TACT,
therefore, that even in such matters-where,
as one might have thought the influence Of au-
itu 1u0nld ha rplucn0 tn minimum. and
the competence of each mans own conscious.
ness unreservedly admitted-there is q BODY OF
accepted dostrine, and that there are as great
varieties Of skill and Judgment as in questions
which by common consent are capaGle st VI W, .Sa
ing brought to some decisive test. In 1act, we
might with some degree of plausibility reverse
the ordinary doctrine. We might say that
matters of taste are precisely those on Wnlcn
any amount of discussion may lalrly take
place. There is not much use In arguing
mathematical question; because one man is
absolutely right and another Is absolutely
wrong, and the decision between them must
depend not, properly speaking, upon arsu-
ment but upon unravelling some CONFUSION OF
ideas. But where taste is In some way in
yolved, there is always room tor comparing
great variety of views, and for turning sub
feet about In diferentl lights until its true bear
ings become evident. f
The logic of the question Is worth little sx,
animation, because Is applies to matters OF
much more importance than those in which
the sense of taste, in its li!crai acceptation, Is
principally concerned, In most discussions
shout art, for example. we are met by simt-
lar terplexity. One rcah likes Raifaelle, ano-
ther has distinct preference for Hogarth; is 1t
a matter Of Fight OF wrong, or is 1t a perfectly
omen uiestion, to be settled ultimately by
counting heads? Most people would revolt
from the last conclusion, and yet they have
certain difficulty in seeing their way to the
hrst. We may talk about the eternal and I'M
mutable principles of the beautiful, and de
clare that failure to perceive them indicates
sIeer stupidity and bluntness of the percep-
tive faculties. But then the difficulty occurs
which presents itself in discussions about
morality. The assertion that certain princl-
pies are everlas' ingly true is very convenient,
and would sav3 much trouble If 1t were ac-
cens.d. But loes It mean more than that the
man who makes the assertion Is right, and
that his adversary is wrong? When we apply
1t to questions, If there are any such questions,
on which we are all agreed, it is superlluous
When we apply it to disputed questions, the
yery fact that there Is a dispute Is sufficient
answer. We are all agreed that it is wrong to
csmmit murder, and therefore, for practical
purposes, it does not much matter whetherwe
know that It is wrong by direct Intuition or
by q process of observation and reasoning. But
when we come to more doubtful point, such
as the comparative merits of an ascetic or q
ntilitarian school of morality, our intuitlons do
not help us out because they appear to tell in
opposite directions This Is the case in most
matters OF art; one mans consciousness tells
him that certain picture is beautiful, anu
another mans that it is ugly; which is right,
and who Is to be the Judge! There is not
even claimant to infalliIility upon such mat
ters and apparently we are landed IN nope
less and dianetrlcal contradiction OF opinion.
Yet II we give up these everlasting anu intll-
tive principles we apparently come 10 the
r.rIn nourluci0n that eyerV man Is
his >swn Pope, OF, in other words, that there Is
no right or wrong In the matter. 1hc adnirer
of Mozart is on the same level with the admir-
er of the popular melodies OF the music nails,
and all that can be said Is that anything whlch
pleases anybody is so hr good and the more
people it pleases the better. We have at best
She old doctrine of the greatest happiness OF
the greatest number, which would apparently
sanction any art, however vulgar and offensive
the most cultivated people may conceive 1t to
be, simply on the ground ofits popularity.
The escape from this dilemma Is, however,
tolerably plain, and it may clear up the argtl-
ment as tho real meaning of the aphorism
about tastes. Let US take for example, the
case In which individual taste appears 10 have
the most indisputable supremacy. One man,
to take our original illustration, likes his meat
underdone, whilst another prefers that It should
be roasted to the verge OF burning. Is it i'm
possible to get behind these simple assertions
Must we rem:in forever in . state OF absolute
indecSiOn, and admit that the Greenlander
who likes to bolt large gobbets OF raw blubber
Is as good a Judge as the most refined OF Pari-
sian artists? In one sense, OF course, there is
nothing shocking about this conclusion: One
thing may be suitable to savage within nail
of the North Pole, and quite different thing
to gentleman who boasts that he Is at the TO-
Gus Of modern civilization. But il the Partisan
were suddenly to take to raw blubber, We
should pronounce him to be wrong with rs
much confidence as If he were to declare that
he would give up washing, or to proclaim the
propriety Of lntanticide. On what grounds,
then, should we be entitled to base our decision,
and will they help us In determining more
delicate questions, suchsas the exact number
ofminutes during which a given piece OF meat
should be exposed to the fire ? The most Oh
vioas condition is :,,a. we should prefer that
taste which Is most conducive to health. A
gentleman who should take to gorging blub-
6erdn modern Paris would speedily become
offensive both to himself and others, though
he might be an ornament to ESquimauX socis-
ty. This. however, takes us but very little
way. The controversies which actually occur
require afar more delicate test for their salts
factory decision. We may say that nobody
should drink enough champagne to Interfere
with his digestive faculties, but that Will not
enable us to decide whether the lover Of sweet
orOfdry champagne is on the whole in the right
The next remark, therefore, must be that, with
certain qualifications. the man who has the
greatest powers of discrimination deserves tile