veral languages they are uttered, but every people conceive these ideas and sentiments better expressed in their own than in any other language. As for poetry, it is in the objects and thoughts themselves, but they must be treated of in a style suited to their nature, or their character is lost. A bouquet, to be beautiful, must in the first place be composed of fine flowers, this is essential; but, in order that these flowers may produce the happiest effect, they must be arranged with taste, so as to blend their hues in one place, to offer striking contrasts in another, and produce a perfect harmony in the whole.

But let us return to our direct object. We are now to speak of the observations to be made on literature in general.

Is literature generally cultivated in the country? Do the writings of various kinds keep pace with each other, or do some kinds abound while others are scarce, what kinds are in either of these cases, and to what may this inequality be described? Are the theological writings of the country marked by a spirit of persecution or toleration? Are the specially moral and philosophical writings exclusive and dogmatical in their character? Is the moral code of the nation mild, indulgent, beneficial and practical, or severe, metaphysical and impracticable?

Are the works of imagination, plays, novels, poetry, strictly analogous to the genius of the people, their manners, usages, institutions, character, general mode of life, &c.; if they are conceived in a different spirit what may be the reason of this anomaly and its consequences?

Do the writers of the country generally, aim at the public good in their several productions, or do they seek more particularly for fortune and the praises of the day, by flattering the vices and follies of their countrymen? Are the writings of the country distinguished generally by a national coloring and character, and of what kind; is it gloomy, cheerful, philosophical, witty, melancholy, grave, bold, noble, low, servile, independent, &c., or is each particular kind of writing marked only by its individual character?

Is the language of the country cultivated, purified, and fixed as far as the general civilisation of the country will admit? What are the works which are deemed authority for the beauty and purity of the language? Who are the authors who have most enriched the literature of their country, and when did they flourish?

What encouragements are given by the government or by public opinion to men of letters? Is the press entirely free or is there a censure; if the latter be the case, in what view has it been established, and what are its effects on literature and on the cultivation of the general mind?

Is the trade in books extensive? What are the principal printing establishments, are any particular processes followed in them. Is much attention paid to the perfection of typography, or the reverse? Are foreign works reprinted in the country to any extent? Are there many translations from foreign languages, from what languages particularly, and what are the subjects generally, of the books so translated? Are these translations faithful, does the language of the country admit of an easy transfer of the beauties of other languages, or is its genius so peculiar as to render this impossible? Are books very common in the houses of all generally, or only among certain classes? Are works got up with great attention to beauty of paper, engravings, binding, &c., or is it rather endeavoured to make books as cheap as possible, so as to be within the reach of all?

Such are the principal observations which should fix the attention of the traveller in what regards the literature of the country he examines. His penetration will easily supply what we may have omitted, our object being rather to refresh his memory by hints than to enter into details which he knows already. Miss Martineau, in her excellent book on "How to Observe Men and Manners," says very justly, "that national literature is national speech, and that without hearing this speech, we cannot judge of the mind of a nation."

DIVISION VII.

FINE ARTS.

SECTION I.

ARCHITECTURE.

In the chapter which treats of towns, we have already pointed out the observations which should be made on the general and particular style of the public edifices, and private houses of a country. We shall here offer a few words on the same subject, but under other points of view, and especially as an affair of luxury, and in relation to the particular taste of the nation.

In Europe, two particular and essentially different styles of architecture are to be found, the Greek, and that erroneously termed Gothic. That style which is called Roman is derived from the Greek, with which it has much in common. The name of the particular style which a building receives, is derived from the kind of columns, proportions and ornaments adopted in it, that is, its order. The Tuscan order is but a simplification of the Roman doric, or an improvement on the Grecian doric. The Roman doric itself is essentially different from the Grecian in its proportions and capital, and by having a base, which the latter has not. The Ionic is purely Grecian; the only essential alteration made to it in Italy, being in the capitals. The Corinthian is also purely Greek, and is unquestionably the most beautiful of the orders, though its capital is a glaring absurdity. The Composite is a Roman alteration of the Corinthian, and is remarkable for its richness.

Of the

Of the Gothic, we shall say a word presently. architecture of other parts of the world, the Egyptian is particularly distinguished by its pyramidal form, the want of parallelism in the upright sides of the openings, as doors, &c., and the colossal dimensions of the edifices.

Indian architecture, which partakes of the Egyptian and the Moorish, is lavish in ornament, and monstrous in its details; but is generally imposing, and often remarkably beautiful as a whole.

Chinese architecture is quite peculiar, whether we consider the distribution and divisions of the plan, the strange forms of the roof, or the monstrous and grotesque figures with which these edifices are ornamented, the brilliant colours with which they are chequered, &c.

These different styles of architecture have their particular merits, either as regards convenience and fitness for the respective countries in which they exist, or as regards taste; for, although there is unquestionably a good and a bad taste, it is in a great measure arbitrary, and very different objects may be in equally good taste.

All pure colours are equally beautiful in themselves, but they may be blended in an agreeable or a disagreeable manner, and cannot be applied indifferently to all objects, so is it with the elements of architecture; the styles which result from these various combinations cannot be employed with equal propriety in all places, and to constructions of different destinations. Thus, what is appropriate in one country would be inconvenient in another; what would have peculiar fitness for one edifice would be absurd in another; what would be strictly proper for a theatre, would be preposterous in a temple destined for the worship of the Most High; that which would be appropriate in a saloon of amusement or in the palace of a sovereign, would not do for a prison, a hall of justice, or an hospital, &c. Good taste in all things depends on judgment and fitness. In a word, the counsel given by Leonard de Vinci for painting is equally applicable to architecture;-"Give to each object all the perfection of which it is susceptible, and a character which shall distinguish it from every other object."

It is often erroneously imagined that there is no architecture in an edifice unless it be surrounded with porticoes, plastered with pilasters, cut up into salient and retreating parts, flanked with wings, &c. Now some of the most beautiful specimens of architecture are precisely those

wherein these objects are the most sparingly introduced. The beauty of architecture, however, consists neither in the total absence, nor in the great profusion of embellishments, (though in this respect much depends on the particular style of architecture), but rather on a happy mixture of simplicity and elegance, beautiful proportion, and a perfect adaptation of the character of the edifice to its particular destination,

Architecture like every other art, has its principles; and although the chief rules are very limited in number, they are susceptible of almost infinite modifications in their application. In these modifications three things are to be considered, convenience, beauty, and the union of the two. In the construction of private dwellings, convenience is the principle object to be attended to. The sumptuous edifices of the rich and great come under the denomination of palaces; nevertheless, even here, convenience should have the preference over beauty. The construction of a palace is defective when convenience is sacrificed to appearance: it is in the happy combination of use and beauty that perfect fitness consists, without which, there is no true beauty in architecture. It will be evident that we take the words use and beauty in a very wide signification, for the former applies to the state-rooms of a palace as to the strictly necessary apartments of an ordinary dwelling-house, and the latter may characterize the simple facade as well as the imposing portico. Fitness consists in this, that no edifice shall have more ornament, nor ornament of any other kind, than is proper for it in accordance with its object.

Climate, soil, and customs modify architecture. The climate by its nature, as hot, cold, temperate, rainy, dry, &c.; the soil by its building productions, stone, timber, clay, &c., and by the solidity or loose nature of the foundation it affords; the customs by the social habits they prescribe, &c. Wealth exercises its influence on the extent and magnificence of buildings; taste determines their embellishments; and judgment presides over the whole.

We repeat that what are termed the orders, are only a part of architecture, its ornamental part; moreover, they are known only to Europeans. But as it is more exclusively in the nature of the ornamental parts of architecture, their proper distribution, and their fit profusion or variety, that taste is most distinguishable, it is in public edifices and

www