Galvanus Fiamma, who

fidered as abominable luxury. in the fourteenth century, wrote a hiftory of Milan, his native country, complains, that in his time plain living had given way to luxury and extravagance. He regrets the times of Frederick Barbaroffa and Frederick II. when the inhabitants of Milan, a great capital, had but three flesh meals in a week, when wine was a rarity, when the better fort made ufe of dried wood for candles, and when their shirts were of ferge, linen being confined to perfons of the highest rank. "Matters," fays he,

are wonderfully changed: linen is a common wear: "the women drefs in filk ornamented frequently with "gold and filver, and they wear golden pendents at "their ears." An hiftorian of the prefent times would laugh at Fiamma, for ftating as articles of luxury what are no more but decent for a tradefman and his wife. John Muffo, a native of Lombardy, who alfo wrote in the fourteenth century, declaims against the luxury of his time, and particularly against the luxury of the citizens of Placentia, his countrymen. "Luxury of the "table," fays he, " of drefs, of houfes and household "furniture, in Placentia, begun to creep in after the year "1300. Houses have at prefent halls, rooms with "chimneys, porticos, wells, gardens, and many other "conveniencies unknown to our ancestors. A house "that has now many chimneys, had none in the laft age. "The fire was placed in the middle of the house, without any vent for the fmoke but the tiles all the fa"mily fat round it, and the victuals were dreffed there. "The expence of houfehid furniture is ten times greater than it was fi The tafte for fuch ty years ago.. expence comes to us from France, from Flanders, and " from Spain. Eating tables, formerly but twelve are now grown to eighteen. They have "tablecloths, with cups, fpoons, and forks, of filver, ad large knives. Beds have filk coverings and curtains. They have got candles of tallow or wax, in candlesticks of iron or copper. Almoft every where "there are two fires, one for the chamber and one for "the kitchen. Confections have come greatly in use,

-66.

inches l

"and fenfuality regards no expence." Hollinfhed exclaims against the luxury and effeminacy of his time. "In times pat," fays he, men were contented to "dwell in houfes builded of fallow, willow, plumtree, "or elm; fo that the use of oak was dedicated to. "churches, religious houfes, princes palaces, noblemens'

lodgings, and navigation. But now thefe are rejected, ཙ༥ and nothing but oak any whit regarded, And yet fee the change; for when our houfes were builded of wil66 low, then had we oaken men; but now that our houses "are made of oak, our men are not only become willow,

་

but many, through Perfian delicacy crept in among us, altogether of ftraw, which is a fore alteration. In "thofe days, the courage of the owner was a fufficient. "defence to keep the house in fafety; but now, the affurance of the timber, double doors, locks and bolts, "must defend the man from robbing. Now have we "many chimnies, and our tenderlings complain of rheums, catarrhs, and poses. Then had we none but rere-doffes, and our heads did never ake. For as the fmoke in thofe days was, fuppofed to be a fufficient hardening for the timber of the house; fo it was reputed a far better medicine to keep the goodman and his family from the quack or pofe, wherewith very "few were then acquainted," Not many years above fifty, French wine, in the Edinburgh taverns, was prefented to the guests in a small tin veffel, measuring about an English pint. A fingle drinking glass served a company the whole evening: and the firft perfons who infifted for a clean glafs with every new pint were accused of luxury. A knot of highlanders benighted, wrapped themselves up in their plaids, and lay down on the fnow. to fleep. A young gentleman making up a ball of fnow, ufed it for a pillow. His father (e), ftriking away the ball with his foot, "What, Sir," fays he, "are you.

turning effeminate?" Crantz, defcribing the kingdom. of Norway, and the manners of the people, has the fol Ipwing reflection, Robuftiffimus educat viros, qui,,

(e) Sir Evan Cameron.

"nulla frugum luxuria moliti, fæpius impugnant alios "quam impugnantur *." In the mountainous island of Rum, one of the western islands of Scotland, the corn produced ferves the inhabitants but a few months in winter. The reft of the year, they live on fleth, fish, and milk; and yet are healthy and long lived. In the year 1568, a man died there, aged 105, who was fifty years old before he ever tafted bread. This old man frequent-' ly harangued upon the plain fare of former times, finding fault with his neighbours for indulging in bread; and upbraiding them with their toiling like flaves for the production of fuch an unneceffary article of luxury..

Thus every one exclaims against the luxury of the prefent times, judging more favourably of the paft; as if what is luxury at prefent, would ceafe to be luxury when it becomes cuftomary. What is the foundation of a fentiment fo univerfal? In point of dignity, corporeal pleafures are the lowest of all that belong to our nature: and for that reafon perfons of delicacy diffemble the pleasure they take in eating and drinking (f). When corporeal pleasure is indulged to excefs, it is not only low, but mean. But as in judging of things that admit of degrees, comparison is the ordinary ftandard, every refinement in corporeal pleasure beyond what is cuftomary, is held to be an excefs, blameable as below the dignity of human nature. Thus every improvement in living is pronounced to be luxury while recent, and drops that character when it comes into common use. For the fame reason, what is moderation in the capital, is esteemed luxury in a country town. Doth luxury then depend entirely on comparison is there no other foundation for diftinguishing moderation from excefs? This will hardly be maintained.

This fubject is thrown into obfcurity by giving different meanings to the term luxury. A French writer holds: every fort of food to be luxury but raw flesh and acorns,,

* It produces a most robuft race of men, who are enervated by no luxury of food, and are more prone to attack and harass, "their neighbours than fubjected to their attacks."

(f) Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. p. 356, edit. 5p.

which were the original food of favages: and every fort of covering to be luxury but skins, which were their original cloathing. According to that definition, the plough, the fpade, the loom, are all of them inftruments of luxury; and in that view he justly extols luxury to the skies. Let every man enjoy the privilege of giving his own meaning to words: at the fame time, when a man deviates fo far from their usual meaning, the neglect to define them is inexcufable. In common language, and in common apprehenfion, luxury always implies a faulty excefs: and upon that account is condemned by all writers, fuch only excepted as affect to be fingular.

This is clearly one branch of the definition of luxury. Another is, that the excefs must be habitual: a single act of intemperance, however faulty, is not denominated luxury: reiteration must be fo frequent as to become a confirmed habit.

Nor are these particulars all that enter into the definition of luxury. There are many pleasures, however intemperate or habitual, that are not branded with that odious name. Mental pleasure, fuch as arifes from fentiment or reafoning, falls not within the verge of luxury, to whatever excels indulged. If to relieve merit in diftrefs be luxury, it is only fo in a metaphorical fense: nor is it deemed luxury in a damfel of fifteen to perufe lovenovels from morning to evening. Luxury is confined to the external fenfes: nor does it belong to every one of thefe; the fine arts have no relation to luxury. A man is not even faid to be luxurious, merely for indulging in drefs, or in fine furniture. Hollinfhed inveighs against drinking glaffes as an article of luxury. At that rate, a houfe adorned with fine pictures or ftatues would be an imputation on the proprietor. Thus paffing in review every pleasure of external sense, we find, that in proper language the term luxury is not applicable to any pleafure of the eye or ear. That term is confined to the pleafures of tafte, touch, and smell, which appear as exifting at the organ of fenfe, and upon that account are held to be merely corporeal (g).

(g) See Elements of Criticism, Introduction.

Having thus circumfcribed our object within its proper bounds, the important point that remains to be ascertained is, Whether we have any rule for determining what excefs in corporeal pleasure may juftly be denominated faul

ty. About that point we are at no lofs. Though our prefent life be a ftate of trial, yet our Maker has kindly indulged us in every pleasure that is not hurtful to the mind, or to the body; and therefore it can only be hurtful excess that falls uuder the cenfure of being luxurious. It is faulty as a tranfgreffion of felf-duty; and as fuch it is condemned by the moral fenfe. The moft violent declaimer against luxury will not affirm, that bread is luxury, or a fnow-ball used for a pillow; for these are innocent, because they do no harm. As little will it be affirmed, that dwelling-houses more capacious than those originally built ought to be condemned as luxury, fince they contribute to chearfulness as well as to health. The plague, fome centuries ago, made frequent vifits in London, promoted by air ftagnating in narrow ftreets, and fmall houses. After the great fire anno 1666, the houfes and ftreets were enlarged, and the plague has not once been known in London.

-Man confifts of foul and body, fo intimately connected, that the one cannot be at eafe while the other fuffers. In order to have " mens fana in corpore fano," it is neceffary to study the health of both: bodily health fupports the mind; and nothing tends more than chearfulness to support the body, even under a disease. To preferve this complicated machine in order, certain exercises are proper for the body, and certain for the mind; which ought never to encroach the one on the other. Much motion and bodily exercife tend to make us robuft; but in the mean time the mind is ftarved: much reading and reflection fortify the mind, but in the mean time the body is ftarved. Nor is this all: excefs in either is deftructive to both; for exercife too violent, whether of mind or body, wears the machine. Indolence, on the other hand, relaxes the machine, and renders it weak or languid. Bodily indolence breeds the gout, the gravel, and many other difeafes: nor is mental indolence lefs pernicious,