Certainly.
Do we call each of these beautiful then in its Kind, on the same Account, or on some Account, peculiar to itself? You will judge of it, by this: since we see a Dog naturally formed for one thing, a Horse for another, and a Nightingale, for Instance, for another; in general, it will not be absurd to pronounce each of them beautiful, so far as it is in the Condition most suitable to its own Nature: but, since the Nature of each is different, I think each of them must be beautiful, in a different Way. Is it not so?
Agreed.
Then, what makes a Dog beautiful, makes a Horse deformed; and what makes a horse beautiful, a Dog deformed; if their Natures are different.
So it seems probable.
For, I suppose, what makes a good Pancratiast[1] makes no good Wrestler, and a very ridiculous Racer; and the very same Person who appears beautiful as a Pentathlete[1], would appear very deformed, in Wrestling.
Very true.
What then, makes a Man beautiful? Is it the same, in general, that makes a Dog or a Horse so?
The same.
What is it then, that makes a Dog beautiful?
That Excellency which belongs to a Dog.
What, a Horse?
The Excellency of a Horse.
What,
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 These are the Names of Combatants in the Olympic Games. A Pancratiast was one who united the Exercises of Wrestling and Boxing. A Pentathlete, one who contended in all the Five Games of Leaping, Running, Throwing the Discus, Darting, and Wrestling. See Potter's Grecian Antiquities, Vol. I. ch. 21.
