 So it is in the perception of objects of intellect—theorems, namely—that the internal sense of beauty has its raison d’être, and it is by resembling theorems in point of uniformity that other objects, including material objects, are beautiful. In this way Hutcheson recovers an element of Shaftesbury’s theory that had apparently been lost in his transformation of Shaftesbury’s notion of internal sense—he recovers a priority of the intellectual over the material as object of beauty. This is not to say, however, that Hutcheson recovers Shaftesbury’s priority exactly. Shaftesbury’s priority is reductive, having its ground in the distinction he draws between representative and original beauty. Hutcheson draws no corresponding distinction and so allows material objects to be beautiful in their own right. That difference is consequential. If material objects can be beautiful, then the sense by which we find them so must be capable of training outward. If the notion of internal sense that Hutcheson took over from Shaftesbury is essentially the one we find in Augustine, Plotinus, and Plato, the notion of aesthetic perception that Hutcheson left to us is essentially the one we find in Frank Sibley (Sibley 2001). 