pain, than that which is expressive of perfect sufficiency in the beams for the support of the roof. As there is thus no uniform emotion which attends the perception of these proportions, as would necessarily be the case, if their beauty were perceived by any peculiar sense; and as the emotion which we in fact receive from them is different, according to their different expressions of fitness, it seems reasonable to ascribe their beauty to this expression, and not to any original beauty in the proportions themselves.

4. If there were any original beauty in such proportions, they would necessarily be as certain as the objects of any other sense; and there would be one precise proportion of the three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, solely and permanently beautiful. Every one knows, howeyer, that this is not the case; no artist has ever presumed to fix on such proportions; and so far is there from being any permanent beauty in any one relation of these dimensions, that the same proportions which are beautiful in one apartment, are not beautiful in othFrom whatever causes these variations in the beauty of proportion arise, they conclude immediately against the doctrine of their original beauty. There seem, however, to be thrée principal causes of this difference in our opinion of the beauty of proportion, which I must confine myself barely to mention, without attempting the full illustration of them.

ers.

1. The first is the consideration of the weight' sup ported. As all roofs are supported by the side walls, and composed in general of the uniform material of wood, there is a certain, though not a very precise limit which we impose to their breadth, from our knowledge that if they pass this limit, they are insufficient and insecure. To the length and to the height, on the other hand, we do

not impose any such rigorous limits, because neither of these proportions interfere materially with our opinion of security. Within this limit of breadth, there may be several proportions to the length and height, which shall be universally pleasing. But beyond this limit, these proportions cease to be pleasing, and become painful in the same degree that they pass this boundary of apparent security. Thus, a room of twelve feet square, may constitute a pleasing form; but a room of sixty feet square would be positively disagreeable. A room twenty-four feet in length, by eighteen in breadth, may be sufficiently pleasing; but a room sixty feet in length, by fifty in breadth, would constitute a very unpleasing form. Many other instances might easily be produced, to show, that the beauty of every apartment depends on the appearance of proper support to the roof; and that, on this account, the same proportion of breadth that is beautiful in one case, becomes positively painful in others.

.

2. A second cause of this difference in our opinion of the beauty of proportion, arises from the character of the apartment. Every one must have observed, that the different forms of rooms, their difference of magnitude, and various other causes, give them distinct characters, as those of gaiety, simplicity, solemnity, grandeur, magnificence, &c. No room is ever beautiful which has not some such pleasing character; the terms by which we express this beauty are significant of these characters; and however regular the proportions of an apartment may be, if they do not correspond to the general expression, we consider the form as defective or imperfect. Thus, the same proportion of height which is beautiful in a room of gaiety, or cheerfulness, would be felt as a defect in an apartment of which the character was severity or melancholy. The same proportion of length which is

pleasing in an elegant or convenient room, would be a defect in an apartment of magnificence or splendour. The great proportion of breadth which suits a temple or a senate-house, as according with the severe and solemn character of the apartment, would be positively unpleasing in any room which was expressive of cheerfulness or lightness. In proportion also as apartments differ in size, different proportions become necessary in this respect, to accord with the characters which the difference of magnitude produces. The same proportion of height which is pleasing in a cheerful room, would be too little for the hall of a great castle, where vastness is necessary to agree with the sublimity of its character; and the same relation of breadth and height which is so wonderfully affecting in the Gothic cathedral, although at variance with all the classic rules of proportion, would be both absurd and painful, in the forms of any common apartment. In general, I believe it will be found, that the great and positive beauty of apartments arises from their character; that where no character is discovered, the generality of men express little admiration even at the most regular proportions; that every difference of character requires a correspondent difference in the composition of the dimensions; and that this demand is satisfied, or a beautiful form produced, only, when the composition of the different proportions is such as to produce one pure and unmingled expression.

3. The third cause of the difference of our opinion of the beauty of proportion arises from the destination of the apartment. All apartments are intended for some use or purpose of human life. We demand, therefore,

that the form of them should be accommodated to these ends; and wherever the form is at variance with the end, however regular, or generally beautiful its propor

tions may be, we are conscious of an emotion of dissat isfaction and discontent. The most obvious illustration of the dependence of the beauty of proportion, on this species of utility, may be taken from the common system that natural taste has dictated in the proportion of different apartments in great houses. The hall, the saloon, the anti-chamber, the drawing-room, the diningroom, the bed-chamber, the dressing room, the library, the chapel, &c. have all different forms and different proportions. Change these proportions; give to the dining-room the proportions of the saloon, to the dressingroom those of the library, to the chapel the proportions of the anti-chamber, or to the drawing-room those of the hall, &c. and every one will consider them as unpleasing and defective forms, because they are unfitted to the ends they are destined to serve.

The observations which I have now offered on the beauty of the internal proportions of architecture, seem to afford sufficient evidence for concluding in general,

That the beauty of these proportions is not original and independent, but that it arises in all cases from the expression of some species of FITNESS.

The fitness, however, which such proportions may express, is of different kinds; and the reader who will pursue the slight hints that I have suggested upon the subject, may perhaps agree with me in the following conclusions:

1. That one beauty of these proportions arises from their expression of fitness for the support of the weight. imposed.

2. That a second source of their beauty consists in their expression of fitness for the preservation of the character of the apartment.

3. That a third source of their beauty consists in

their expression of fitness, in the general form, for its peculiar purpose or end.

The two first expressions constitute the PERMANENT beauty, and the third the ACCIDENTAL beauty of an apartment.

In every beautiful apartment the two first expressions must be united. An apartment, of which the proportions express the most perfect fitness for the support of the roof, but which is itself expressive of no character, is beheld rather with satisfaction than delight, and is never remarked as beautiful. The beauty of character on the other hand, is neglected, if the proportions of the apartment are such as to indicate insufficiency or insecurity. The first constitutes what may be called the negative, and the second the positive beauty of an apartment; and every apartment (considered only in relation to its proportions, and without any respect to its end) will be beautiful in the same degree in which these expressions are united, or in which the same proportions that produce the appearance of perfect sufficiency, agree also in maintaining the general character of the apartment.

When, however, the apartment is considered in relation to its end, the beauty of its proportions is determined in a great measure by their expression of fitness for this end. To this, as to every other species of apart ment, the expression of security is necessary, and such an apartment will accordingly be beautiful, when these expressions coincide.

The most perfect beauty that the proportions of an apartment can exhibit, will be when all these expressions unite; or when the same relations of dimension which are productive of the expression of sufficiency, agree also in the preservation of character, and in the indication of use.