qually agreeable, that proportion is fievery tied down to precife measures but admits? more and lefs, and that we are not fenfible of disproportion till the difference betwixt the quantities compared become the moft ftriking circumitance. Columns evidently admit different proportions, equally agreeable. The cafe is the fame in houses, rooms, and other parts of a building. And this opens an interesting reflection. The foregoing difference betwixt concord and proportion, is an additional inftance of that admirable harmony which fubfifts among the feveral branches of the human frame. The ear is an accurate judge of founds and of their smallest differences; and that concord in founds fhould be regulated by accurate measures, is perfectly well fuited to this accuracy of perception. The eye is more un certain about the fize of a large object, than of one that is fmall; and in different fituations the fame object appears of different fizes. Delicacy of feeling therefore with refpect to proportion in quantities, would be an ufelets quality. It is much better ordered, that there fhould be fuch a latitude with

refpect

refpect to agreeable proportions, as to cor-p refpond to the uncertainty of the eye with respect to quantity is basal la 5 om But this scene is too interefting to be paffed overminal curfory view all its beauties are not yet display'd. I proceed to obferve, that to make the eye as delicate with res spect to proportion as the ear is with respect to concord, would not only be an useless quality, but be the fource of continual pain and uneafinefs. I need go no farther for a proof than the very room I poffefs at prefent: every step I take, varies to me, în appearance, the proportion of the length and breadth. At that rate, I fhould not be happy but in one precife fpot, where the proportion appears agreeable. Let me fur-" ther obferve, that it would be fingular'' indeed, to find in the nature of man, any two principles in perpetual oppofition to each other. This would precifely be the cafe, if proportion were circumfcribed like concord; for it would exclude all but one of those proportions that utility requires in different buildings, and in different parts of the fame building.

It

It is ludicrous to obferve all writers ade knowledging the neceffity of accurate proportions, and yet differing widely about them. Laying afide reasoning and philoso phy, one fact univerfally agreed on ought to have undeceived them, that the fame proportions which please in a model are not agreeable in a large building. A room 48 feet in length and 24 in breadth and height, is well proportioned; but a room 12 feet wide and high and 24 long, looks like a gallery.

Perrault, in his comparison of the ancients and moderns *, is the only author who runs to the oppofite extreme; maintaining, that the different proportions affigned to each order of columns are arbitrary, and that the beauty of these proportions is entirely the effect of cuftom. This bewrays ignorance of human nature, which evidently delights in proportion, as well as in regularity, order, and propriety. But without any acquaintance with human nature, å fingle reflection might have convinced him

p. 94.

of

of his error; that if these proportions had not originally been agreeable, they could not have been established by cuftom. If a thing be univerfal, it must be natural.

To illuftrate the prefent point, I fhall add a few examples of the agreeableness of different proportions. In a fumptuous edifice, the capital rooms ought to be large, for otherwise they will not be proportioned to the fize of the building. On the other hand, a very large room in a small house, is difproportioned. But in things thus related, the mind requires not a precife or fingle proportion, rejecting all others; on the contrary, many different proportions are made e qually welcome. It is only when a propor→ tion becomes loose and distant, that the agreeableness abates, and at last vanifheth. In all buildings accordingly, we find rooms of different proportions equally agreeable, even where the proportion is not influenced by utility. With respect to the height of a room, the proportion it ought to bear to the length and breadth, is extremely arbitrary; and it cannot be otherwife, confidering the uncertainty of the eye as to the height

of

room,

room, when it exceeds 17 or 18 feet In columns again, even architects must con fefs, that the proportion of height and thicknefs varies betwixt 8 diameters and 10, and that every proportion betwixt these two extremes is agreeable. But this is not all. There must certainly be a further variation of proportion, depending on the fize of the column. A row of columns 10 feet high, and a row twice that height, require differ ent proportions. The intercolumniations muft alfo differ in proportion according to the height of the row.

Proportion of parts is not only itfelf beauty, but is infeparably connected with a beauty of the first magnitude. Parts that in conjunction appear proportional, never fail separately to produce fimilar emotions which exifting together, are extremely pleafant, as I have had occafion to show Thus a room of which the parts are all finely adjusted to each other, ftrikes us with the beauty of proportion. It produceth at the fame time a pleasure far fuperior. The

泉 Chap. 2. part 4.

length,