The object of this paper is to discover some of the sources of our pleasure in repeated space forms, and the laws which govern this repetition. The repetition of an object, and its regular recurrence subject to certain possible variations, is one of the basal principles of art, and of architecture in particular.

It is necessary at the outset to define our use of the word repetition more exactly, for there are obviously different meanings of the word, which may lead to confusion.

1. The term repetition may be applied to the existence of any two objects similar to each other, whether they are near together or widely sundered. Our pleasure in such a repetition would be merely that of re-seeing and recognizing the two as counterparts of each other. This kind of repetition I call conceptual, for it requires only that the memory-picture of the object be held in mind and the two recognized as similar when met again. This is not the kind of repetition which I have in mind, and I shall never use the word in this sense during the discussion.

2. In any one work of art there may be some feature repeated, some motif which is taken up and carried out in different ways throughout the whole, and these features we recognize as having an orderly relation to one another in the unity. This might be termed repetition of content, and be applied to the recurrence of some type of decoration over a window or a peculiar arch taken up in various ways throughout a cathedral. I do not use the word in this sense, but limit it still further.

3. By repetition is meant during this discussion the regular recurrence of an object, and an equally regular recurrence of intervals. The repeated object must come at uniform intervals, and this restricts us to the consideration of that repetition alone which consists of recurrence at regular intervals of some object more or less beautiful in itself, and the description of the nature of our æsthetic feeling in experiencing such a series.

Although this discussion is divided into the two divisions of experiments and analysis of architectural examples, and the experiments are described first, the investigation was not carried out separately in this order. The two went along together, the art-analysis suggesting experiments, and the experiments in turn throwing light on the analysis. The two parts of the discussion are kept separate merely for the convenience of the reader, and in the experimental discussion all allusions to the art-illustrations are excluded in order to avoid confusion. In reality the two went hand in hand, but the connection between the experiments and art-analysis will be reserved for the latter half of the paper.

The experiments were begun in the following manner: In a velvet screen about a foot high was cut a window 460 mm. by 35 mm. in size. Behind the window was a metre measure and a rod from which hung small strips of cardboard 10 mm. wide. First two, three, and four strips were hung behind the window, and the subjects were required to arrange them at the intervals where they preferred to see them repeated. The results were uniform in certain particulars and very suggestive. In their arrangements of two, three and four strips, the subjects were guided by considerations of symmetry or proportion. They insisted that although they knew that the strips were repeated, they did not feel the repetition, but the strips seemed like parts of some larger unity to be arranged with reference to the unity of the whole. With the addition of the fifth strip came a difference in their apperception. Instead of the strips seeming parts of a whole including figure they seemed like repeated units.

FAVORITE ARRANGEMENTS

2 strips3 strips4 strips5 strips
J.30 mms.4 mms. { mid. sp. = 25any symmetrical
{ ends = 10arrangement better than equality
S. 170 12 { mid. sp. = 15 { mid. sp. = 40
{ ends = 12{ ends = 30
U. 40 20 30 35
R. 30 130 { mid. sp. = 30
{ ends = 10 10
L. 23 40 70 70
W. 40 10 30 30
V. 20 10 { mid. sp. = 100
{ ends = 60 15