Previous Page Close Next Page

fol. 42r    [fol. 41v is blank] 'Truth not easily Discerned'  (Pt II, Sn I, Ch II)  (3.146-47)
      
      
      
     Ask <one of the> {an} enthusiastic chatterer in the Sistine chapel, how
     many ribs he has ,  and you get no answer ,  but it is <ten to one> {odds}
     that you <pass> {do not get out of} the door without his informing you that he
     							                            considers
     such & such a figure badly drawn !      .
 5   A few such interrogations as these would indeed convict . if
     not convince - the mass of spectators of incapability .  were it not
     for the universal reply - that they can recognise . what they
     cannot describe  -  and feel what is truthful - though they do not
     know <it> {what is truth}  .     This is to a certain degree . true .    A man may
     recognise
10   a portrait of his friend - though he cannot if you ask him apart -
     tell you the shape of his <know*> nose . or the height of his forehead .
     And every one could tell nature herself from an imitation - why
     not then - it will be asked - what is like her . from what is not .
     For this simple reason - that we constantly recognise things, by their
15   least important attributes - and by help of very few of those  .
     <So that if the>     And if these attributes exist not in the imitation  -
     though there may be thousands of others far higher & more valuable
     yet if those be wanting , or imperfectly rendered - by which we
     {are accustomed} recognise the object -  we deny the likeness.  while if these be
     				                              given  -
20   though all the great & valuable and important <objects> attributes
     may be wanting - we affirm the likeness .   Recognition is no
     proof of real & intrinsic resemblance .      We recognise our books by
      

Previous Page Close Next Page

MW