“And I am extremely sorry you cannot take your thoughts from Bessie long enough at least to hear the conclusion of Aunt Melville’s letter.”

“My dear, like John Gilpin, ‘of womankind I do admire but one.’  I shall listen with undivided attention to whatever you lay before my ears.  Pray go on.”

“’I was fortunate enough to get a drawing of the interior of the reception hall, which, while it is simple and inexpensive, is also dignified and impressive.  Houses often resemble people, and you will easily recall among your friends certain ones who, without being either wealthy or brilliant, are still very impressive.  The other rooms which we visited are ample for your needs, as you will find it far more advantageous to entertain but few people at a time, and those of the best society, than to have larger and more indiscriminate gatherings.  The amount of room in the house is surprising; but that, of course, is because it is so nearly square.’”

“That is feminine logic.  A man would have said that the size of a house determines the amount of room it contains.”

“Undoubtedly he would; but it does not,” said Jill, decidedly.  “I can show you houses that look large and are large, that make great pretensions in point of style, that cost a great deal of money, and yet have no room in them.  They have no place for the beds to stand, no room for the doors to swing, no room for a piano, no room for a generous sofa, no room for the book-cases, no room for easy stairs, no room for fireplaces, no room for convenient attendance at the dining-table, no room for wholesome cooking, no room for sick people, no room for fresh air, no room for sunlight, no room for an unexpected guest.  They have plenty of rooms, apartments, cells—­but no real, generous, comfortable house room.”

“I suppose Aunt Melville refers to the mathematical fact that a house forty feet square contains more cubic feet than the same length of walls would hold in a more elongated or irregular shape.”

“By the same rule an octagon or circle would be better still, which is absurd.  No; her feminine logic is no worse than yours, and no better.  The amount of room a house contains depends neither upon its size nor its shape.  Her analogy, too, is at fault when she implies that the outside of a house bears the same relation to the interior that clothing bears to the person who wears it.  The art of the tailor and dressmaker has at present no other test of merit than fashion and costliness, elements to which real art, architectural or otherwise, is always and absolutely indifferent.  The external aspect of the house should be the natural spontaneous outgrowth of its legitimate use and proper construction, as face, form and carriage express the character of each individual.”

[Illustration:  NOT BRILLIANT BUT IMPRESSIVE.]

[Illustration:  WOODEN RICHNESS.]