a person skilled in architecture.

**Architecture**

In the utmost latitude of the word, signifies the art of building in general; but the term is most frequently applied only to the construction of such buildings as are for the purposes of civil life, such as houses, halls, churches, bridges, porticos, &c.

**History of Architecture**

The origin of this art, like that of most others, is totally unknown. We are assured, however, that it is as old as Cain: for Moses tells us that he built a city; though what were the materials, or how the buildings were constructed, we are entirely ignorant. It is commonly said, that the first materials employed in building were branches and twigs of trees, whereupon men constructed huts, such as the wigwams in use among the American Indians at present. This, however, appears disputable. The natural shelter afforded by hollows in the sides of mountains or rocks, it may be supposed, would much more readily suggest the idea of using stones and earth as materials for building houses. Indeed, considering that tents were not invented before the days of Jabal, Tubal-Cain's brother, it is very probable that such temporary houses as the Indian wigwams were not originally known; otherwise the method of covering poles with the skins of beasts, instead of small branches or twigs, must very soon have taken place. These temporary houses seem to have come into use only when men began to lead an idle wandering life, like the Tartars, and could not be at the trouble of constructing durable habitations in every place where they were obliged to wander with their cattle; and Jabal no doubt from them took the hint of making portable houses, or tents. Accordingly we see, that no nations, except those who are in a perpetually unsettled state, make use of such wretched materials. Even in America, where the human race have appeared in the most despicable form, they were no sooner collected into great bodies under the emperors of Mexico and Peru, who forced them to leave off their wandering way of life, than stone-buildings began to be erected.

We are not, therefore, to look for the origin of architecture in any single nation; but in every nation, when the inhabitants began to leave off their savage way of life, and to become civilized; and if there is any nation to be found which hath been always in a civilized state, we may be assured that architecture hath always had an existence there. But whatever may be in this, the origin of regular buildings hath been deduced from the construction of the meanest huts in a very natural and plausible manner by several authors.

"Anciently (says Vitruvius), men lived in woods, and inhabited caves; but in time, taking perhaps example from birds, who with great industry build their nests, they made themselves huts. At first they made these huts, very probably, of a conic figure; because that is a figure of the simplest structure; and, like the birds, whom they imitated, composed them of branches of trees, spreading them wide at the bottom, and joining them in a point at the top; covering the whole with reeds, leaves, and clay, to screen them from tempests and rain.

"But finding the conic figure inconvenient on account of its inclined sides, they changed both the form and construction of their huts, giving them a cubical figure," figure, and building them in the following manner:

Plate XXV. "Having marked out the space to be occupied by the hut, they fixed in the ground several upright trunks of trees to form the sides, filling the intervals between them with branches closely interwoven and covered with clay. The sides being thus completed, four large beams were placed on the upright trunks; which, being well joined at the angles, kept the sides firm, and likewise served to support the covering or roof of the building, composed of many joists, on which were laid several beds of reeds, leaves, and clay.

"Infinitely mankind improved in the art of building, and invented methods to make their huts lasting and handsome, as well as convenient. They took off the bark, and other unevenesses, from the trunks of trees that formed the sides; raised them, probably, above the dirt and humidity, on stones; and covered each of them with a flat stone or slate, to keep off the rain. The spaces between the ends of the joists were closed with clay, wax, or some other substance; and the ends of the joists covered with thin boards cut in the manner of triglyphs. The position of the roof was likewise altered: for being, on account of its flatness, unfit to throw off the rains that fell in great abundance during the winter season, they raised it in the middle; giving it the form of a gable roof, by placing rafters on the joists, to support the earth and other materials that composed the covering.

"From this simple construction the orders of architecture took their rise. For when buildings of wood were set aside, and men began to erect solid and stately edifices of stone, they imitated the parts which necessity had introduced into the primitive huts; in so much that the upright trees, with the stones at each end of them, were the origin of columns, bases, and capitals; and the beams, joists, rafters, and strata of materials that formed the covering, gave birth to architraves, friezes, triglyphs, and cornices, with the coffering, the mutules, the modillions, and the dentils.

"The first buildings were in all likelihood rough and uncoth; as the men of those times had neither experience nor tools; but when, by long experience and reasoning upon it, the artists had established certain rules, had invented many instruments, and by great practice had acquired a facility in executing their ideas, they made quick advances towards perfection, and at length discovered certain manners of building, which succeeding ages have regarded with the highest veneration."

Among the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Persians, this art was carried to an incredible length. The pyramids of Egypt are such structures as would exceed the power of the most potent monarch on earth to raise at this day. The largest of these, according to the account of M. Goguet, is near 500 feet high, and contains 313,590 solid fathoms. It is composed of stones enormously large; many of them being 30 feet long, four feet high, and three in breadth; and all this huge mass of building was coated over with square flags of marble—The structure called the labyrinth, in the same country, according to Herodotus, who saw it, excelled every thing which he could have conceived from the imagination either of himself or others. Within the same circuit of walls they had inclosed 3000 halls, 12 of which were of a singular form and beauty; and of these, half were above, and half below ground; and the whole was terminated by a pyramid 40 fathoms high. All this prodigious mass of building was composed of white marble, and the walls were adorned with engravings.—The obelisks were not less astonishing; the largest of them being entire pieces of granite, no less than 180 feet high.—Near Andera, in upper Egypt, are the ruins of a palace of gray granite, the ceilings of which are supported by columns of such thickness, that four men can scarcely fathom them. The ceilings themselves are composed of stones of the same kind, six or seven feet in breadth, and 18 feet in length. The grand hall is 112 feet long, 60 high, and 58 broad. The roof of the whole edifice is a terrace, on which the Arabs formerly built a very large village, the ruins of which are still visible.

Among the Babylonians and Persians, too, such immense piles of building have been raised, as appear utterly inconceivable, and incredible to many modern authors where their former grandeur is not demonstrable by ruins visible at this day. The ruins of Persepolis, the ancient capital of Persia, were so stupendous in the time of Avicenna the Arab physician, that his countrymen could not believe such structures possible to be erected but by evil spirits. Of their extraordinary magnificence, indeed, we may have some idea from the account of the stair-cases belonging to the palace. The remains, some time ago, consisted of 95 steps of white marble, so broad and flat, that 12 horses might conveniently go up abreast.

In these vast structures, however, the nations of whom we speak seem to have regarded the greatness, rather than the elegance or usefulness, of their works. In the pyramids and obelisks of Egypt this is exceedingly conspicuous; but whether it was so in the labyrinth, or in the palace at Thebes above-mentioned, it is impossible to determine, unless the buildings were entire, and we knew for what purpose they had been designed. If the kings who built the pyramids designed to immortalize their memories by building, they certainly could not have fallen upon any thing more proper for this purpose; though even in this they have done how or other failed, the names of those who erected them not being certainly known even in the time of Herodotus.—It is certain, however, that neither the ancient Assyrians nor Babylonians knew the method of constructing arches. The roofs of all their halls were flat, and covered with prodigiously large stones, some of them so big as to cover a whole room singly. Their manner of building was also quite destitute of what is now called taste; the columns were ill-proportioned, and their capitals executed in the poorest manner imaginable. This was observed by the Greeks, who improved upon the proportions formerly used, and were the inventors of three of the five orders of architecture, viz. the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. "Anciently," says Vitruvius, "they were ignorant of the art of proportioning the various parts of a building: they used columns; but they cut them at hazard, without rules, without principles, and without having any attention to the proportions which they ought to give them: they placed them likewise without any regard to the other parts of the edifice." Dorus, son of Helen and grandson of Deucalion, having caused a temple to be built at Argos in honour of Juno, that edifice was found by chance to be constructed according to the taste and proportions of order. the order which afterwards they called Doric. The form of this building having appeared agreeable, they conformed to it for the construction of edifices which they afterwards had to build.

About the same time, the Athenians sent into Asia a colony under the conduct of Ion, nephew of Dorus: this undertaking had very good success. Ion feigned on Caria, and there founded many cities; these new inhabitants thought to build temples. They proposed for a model that of Juno at Argos; but, ignorant of the proportion which they ought to give to the columns, and in general to the whole edifice, they sought for rules capable of regulating their operation. These people wanted, in making their columns sufficiently strong to support the whole edifice, to render them at the same time agreeable to the sight. For this purpose, they thought to have given it the same proportion that they found between the foot of a man and the rest of his body. According to their ideas, the foot made a fifth part of the human height: in consequence, they gave at first to a Doric column, taking in its chapiter, five of its diameters; that is to say, they made it five times as high as it was thick: afterwards they added to it a seventh diameter.

This new order of architecture was not long in giving birth to a second: they would immediately go beyond their first invention. The Ionians tried to throw still more delicacy and elegance into their edifices. They employed the same method which they had before put in practice for the composition of the Doric order: but instead of taking for a model the body of a man, the Ionians were regulated by that of a woman. With a view to make the columns of this new order more agreeable and more pleasing, they gave them eight times as much height as they had diameter. They also made channelings all along the trunk to imitate the folds of the robes of women: the volutes of the chapiter represented that part of the hair which hung in curls on each side of the face. The Ionians added, lastly, to these columns a base, which was not in use in the Doric order." According to Vitruvius, these bases were made in the manner of twisted cords, as a kind of case for the columns. This order of architecture was called Ionic, from the name of the people who had invented it.

Such is the account given by Vitruvius of the origin of improvements in the proportion of columns. Had these improvements, however, existed in such early times, Homer, who was greatly posterior to them, would certainly have made mention of something of that kind; but in all his writings he gives us no account of anything like columns of stone, but uses a word which would rather incline us to think that his columns were nothing more than bare posts.

It is remarkable, that improvements in architecture did not take place in any nation till after, or about, the time that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar. The grandest buildings erected among the Assyrians seem to have owed their existence to this monarch; and it can scarce be imagined that he would not endeavour to imitate the architecture of Solomon's temple, to which, by his conquest of Jerusalem, he had full access.—It is also remarkable, that the dimensions of the two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, set up by Solomon, very nearly correspond with those of the Doric order, first invented by the Greeks, and which originally came from their colonies settled in Asia Minor. The height of Solomon's pillars, without the chapiter, was 18 cubits; that of the chapiter itself was five cubits; the circumference was 12 cubits; from whence, according to the Scripture language, we may reckon the diameter to have been exactly four cubits. Had they been a single cubit higher, they would have been precisely of the same height with columns of the original Doric order. We do not indeed mean to assert, that this famous temple gave a model of architecture to the whole world; although it is scarce conceivable, but imitations of it, as far as it could be known, must have taken place among many nations.

Notwithstanding all their defects, however, the Egyptian buildings undoubtedly had an air of vast grandeur and magnificence, if we may credit the description given of one of their banqueting rooms by Vitruvius. The usual size of one of these rooms was from 100 to 150 feet in length, and its breadth somewhat more than half its length. At the upper end, and along the two sides, they placed rows of pillars tolerably well-proportioned to one another, though not of any regular order; and at the lower part they made a magnificent and spacious entrance: this, with its ornaments, seems to have taken up one end of the building entire. We are not told that there were any pillars there; tho' perhaps they placed two or more toward the angles on each side, for uniformity, the central space being enough for an entrance in the grandest and most august manner. These rows of columns were set at a distance from the wall, forming a noble portico along the two sides and upper end of the building. Upon the pillars was laid an architrave; and from this was carried up a continued wall with three quarter columns, answering directly to those below, and in proportion one fourth smaller in all their parts. Between these three quarter columns were placed the windows for enlightening the building. From the tops of the lower pillars to the wall was laid a floor: this covered the portico overhead within, and made on the outside a platform, which was surrounded by a corridor with rails and balustrades. This was terraced, and served as a plain for people to walk on; and from this they could look through the windows down into the room. To this terrace there was no covering required, as the Egyptians were in no fear of rain. The Egyptians decorated this sort of building with statues; and no kind of ornament could answer it so well, as the light cannot fall upon statues to such advantage in any direction, as when it comes from above, in such a regular, proportioned, and uninterrupted manner.

We have already taken notice, that among the ancient Egyptians, Persians, and Babylonians, the vast strength and extent of their buildings seems to have been what they chiefly valued; and in this they certainly as much excelled the Greeks and modern nations, as the latter excel them in the beautiful proportion and elegance of their structures. There are not wanting, however, some modern authors, who endeavour to deprive the ancients of what is justly their due, and will have everything to be exaggerated which seems beyond the power of modern princes to accomplish. In this way M. Goguet remarkably distinguishes himself, and that without giving any reason at all, but merely that he takes it into his head. Speaking of the wonders of ancient Babylon, "All these works (says he), so marvellous in the judgment of antiquity, appear to me to have been extremely exaggerated by the authors who have spoken of them. How can we conceive, in effect, that the walls of Babylon could have been 318 feet high, and 81 in thickness, in a compass of near ten leagues?" To this we may easily reply, that the pyramids of Egypt, and the immense wall which divides China from Tartary, shew us, that even such a work as the wall of ancient Babylon is said to have been is not altogether incredible. The lowest computation of the dimension of the Chinese wall is, that it extends in length 1200 miles, is 18 feet high at a medium, and as many thick; according to which computation, it must contain 9,504,000 solid fathoms; and yet, if we may credit the Chinese historians, this immense mass of building was finished in five years. If therefore we can suppose Nebuchadnezzar, or whoever fortified the city of Babylon, to have been capable of employing as many men for ten years as were employed in raising the Chinese wall, we may suppose him able to have fortified the city of Babylon as strongly as it is said to have been; for the mass of building is not quite double that of the Chinese wall, though nearly so, amounting to 18,189,600 solid fathoms. When our author afterwards gesticulates about the works of the French king, it is difficult to avoid laughter at hearing him declare, that "infinitely more money has been expended, and much more genius required, as well as more power, taste, and time, to finish Versailles, with all its defects, than to construct a pyramid, or erect an obelisk." The genius, taste, and time, we shall not dispute; but as the same author confesses that 100,000 men were employed for 30 years together in the construction of the largest pyramid, we think the power may justly be doubted. This doubt will appear still more reasonable, when we consider what time the aforementioned number of men would have taken to accomplish some of the works of which M. Goguet boasts so much. The canal of Languedoc, he tells us, extends in length upwards of 70 leagues, and required the removal of two millions of cubic fathoms of earth. This was no doubt a great work; but had 100,000 men been employed upon it at once, they must have removed this quantity of earth in three weeks, supposing each to have removed only a single fathom a-day. Nor can we imagine, that any modern work will at all stand in competition with the works of the ancients as to greatness, whatever they may do in other respects.

As to the improvements in architecture, the Greeks were undoubtedly the first European nation who began to distinguish themselves in this way. Whence they took the first hint of improvement, we have no means of knowing; though, as we have already hinted, it is scarce credible but that Solomon's temple must have somewhat contributed thereto; especially as we learn from Scripture, that the capitals of the columns there were ornamented in the richest manner. The origin of the Doric and Ionic orders we have already given an account of from Vitruvius; to which we may add, that the volutes, which are the peculiar ornament of the Ionic capital, are by some said to represent the natural curling down of a piece of bark from the top of a beam, which is supposed to have been the first kind of column.—The Corinthian order was not invented till long after the others, and is said to have taken its rise from the following accident: A basket had been set upon the ground, and covered with a square tile; there grew near it a plant of acanthus or bear's-breech; the leaves shot up and covered the outer surface of the basket; and as the stalks rose up among them, they soon reached the tile which overhung the edges of the basket at the top; this flopping their course upwards, they curled and twisted themselves into a kind of volutes. In this situation a sculptor, Callimachus, saw it; the twisted part of the stalk represented to him the volutes of the Ionic capital, which, as they were here smaller, and more numerous, appeared in a new form: he saw the beauty of raising them among leaves, and was struck with the representation of a noble and lofty capital; which being afterwards put into execution, has been universally admired.

In their private houses the Greeks had great conveniences, but much less magnificence than the Romans, as the former revered the use of their grandest architecture for their temples and public buildings. The entrance to their private houses, however large they were, was always small, narrow, and plain. The whole edifice usually consisted of two courts, and several ranges of building. The porter's lodge, if such a phrase may be allowed, was usually on the right hand of this narrow entrance, and opposite to this were the stables. From this entrance one came into the first or smaller court. This had piazzas on three sides; and on the fourth, which was usually the south side, there were buttments of pilasters, which supported the more inward parts of the ceiling.—A space being thus left between the one and the other, they had places for the lodgings of men and maid servants, and such as had the principal care of the house. Upon the same floor with these buttments they had several regular apartments, consisting of an antechamber, a chamber, and closets; and about the piazzas, rooms for eating and other common purposes.—Opposite to the entrance was a lobby or vestibule, through which lay the passage into the several rooms; and through this, in front, one entered a large passage, which led into the larger or principal square. Round this they had four piazzas, which, in the common way of building, were all of one height; but, in more magnificent houses, they made that which faced the great entrance loftier, and every way nobler, than the other three. A nobleman of Rhodes added this to the common method of building; and it was thence called the Rhodian manner. In this more noble part of the building were the apartments of the family. These were adorned with lofty galleries, and here were the best rooms: they were called the mens apartments; for, in rude times, the Greeks lodged their wives and female relations in the best rooms of the first court, where they had also their separate and detached place. The two sides of this larger court were kept for the reception of visitors; and servants were appointed to wait upon them. The master of the house entertained his guests the first day in his own apartments; but after this, how long ever they staid, they lived without restraint in one of those separate piazzas, and joined the family only when they chose it. Thus was the upper end and two sides of the great court disposed of; and its lower end, being the same range of building that was the upper end of the first court, held the lady of the house and her female friends.

The Romans borrowed their architecture from the Greeks, but did not imitate them in the modesty of their private dwellings. They placed the principal front of their house towards the south, and on this they bestowed all the decoration of expensive ornament. They had here lofty galleries and spacious rooms, and everything carried an air of greatness and show. In their country houses they preferred the same situation, and the same front; but the inner distribution was different. At the entrance they placed the meaner and more offensive offices, after the manner of the Greeks. The first gallery, which received the stranger at his entrance, had on one side a passage to the kitchen, and on the other to the stalls where they kept cattle, that their noise or smell might not be offensive within, while yet they were in readiness for all services. These stalls were placed to the left, as in the Greek houses; on the right was the kitchen, which had its light from above, and its chimney in the middle. Farther within the building were placed on one side bathing rooms, and on the other family-conveniences, in the manner of our butteries and store-rooms: the bathing rooms were on the left, and the others on the right. Backwards, and full to the north, they placed their cellars, for fear of the sun; and over these were other store-rooms. From this part of the structure one came into the court; for in these there generally was only one court: this was taken up by servants, and those who had the care of the cattle; and on each side there were stalls for the cattle. In front from the entrance, but very far from all these annoyances, stood the nobler apartments for the master of the family.

How magnificent the Romans were in their temples and public buildings, is yet to be seen in what remains of them, and which are not only models for all modern architects, but have never been surpassed or even equalled to this day. But though the art of architecture continued almost at its highest pitch among the Romans for two centuries, it declined exceedingly as the empire began to fail. Tacitus relates, that after the battle of Actium no men of genius appeared; and after the reign of Alexander Severus, a manner of building altogether confused and irregular was introduced, wherein nothing of the true graces and majesty of the former was preserved. When the empire was entirely overrun by the Goths, the conquerors naturally introduced their own method of building. Like the ancient Egyptians, the Goths seem to have been more studious to amaze people with the greatness of their buildings, than to please the eye with the regularity of their structure, or the propriety of their ornaments. They corrected themselves, however, a little by the models of the Roman edifices which they saw before them; but these models themselves were faulty; and the Goths being totally destitute of genius, neither architecture, nor any other art, could be improved by them.

When the Arabs conquered Spain, they introduced a mode of architecture which was just the reverse of the Gothic. This was as remarkable for its lightness as the Gothic was for its clumsiness; and the fantastic genius of the Arabs displayed itself in the great number of superfluous and unnatural ornaments wherewith it was loaded. Examples of this kind of building are extant in some cathedrals in Spain built by the Moors, particularly that of Burgos. It is falsely, though commonly, called the modern Gothic.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, when learning of all kinds began to revive, architecture seemed as it were the art to be recalled into life. The first improvements in it began in Italy, and owed their existence to the many ruins of the ancient Roman structures that were to be found in that country, from whence an improved method of building was gradually brought into the other countries of Europe: and though the Italians for a long time retained the superiority as architects over the other European nations; yet, as men of genius travelled from all quarters into Italy, where they had an opportunity of seeing the originals from whence the Italians copied, architects have arisen in other nations equal, if not superior, to any that ever appeared in Italy. Of this we have a recent instance in our own countryman Mr Mylne, who lately gained the prize in architecture at Rome, where it would no doubt be disputed by such natives of Italy as were best skilled in that art.

We shall conclude this history with an account of the mode of architecture followed by those nations who never had any connection either with the Jews, Greeks, or Romans, and whose manner of building must consequently be reckoned quite original, and peculiar to themselves. These nations are the Chinese, the Americans, and the ancient Celts; by the last of which the island of Britain most probably was first peopled. The first are a very ingenious people, and pretend to very high antiquity; but their architecture is universally allowed to be much inferior to that of the Greeks and Romans. It is true, they excelled the ancient Egyptians in knowing the method of constructing arches; but though they make use of arches in constructing bridges, and build some of these of a prodigious height and length, they seem strangely deficient in the knowledge of finishing them with propriety. Their method of building them is as follows. As soon as they finish the sides of the arch next to the land, or, if there are more arches than one, as soon as they finish the piers that stand between them, they proceed to lay on the stones (which are commonly about four or five feet long, and half a foot broad) alternately upright and crosswise, so that the key-stones always lie horizontally. The top of the arch is usually no thicker than the stones; and because the bridges, especially those that have but one arch, are sometimes 40 or 50 feet between the piers, and consequently much higher than the causeway, they make an ascent on both sides by steps about three inches thick; the inconvenience of which for horses and carriages is very evident. In other respects, however, the Chinese bridges are well built, and some of them exceedingly beautiful. One in particular, near Pekin, was built of white marble curiously wrought and polished. It had 70 pillars on each side, divided by cartridges of fine marble, beautifully carved with flowers, foliage, birds, beasts, and a variety of other ornaments. On each side of the entrance on the bridge, at the east end, stood two lions of an extraordinary size, on two marble pedestals, with several other smaller lions in different attitudes. At the other end of the bridge stood likewise two curious pedestals, on which were skillfully carved two children; and all the rest of The size of some of the Chinese bridges is astonishing; some of them consisting of above 100 lofty arches, and being upwards of 160 fathoms in length. A very surprising one is to be seen at the city of Swen-chew-fu, built over the point of an arm of the sea, which otherwise must be crossed in a bark, and often not without danger. It is 2520 Chinese feet in length, and 20 in breadth; and is supported by 252 huge piers, 126 on each side. All the stones of it are of a greyish colour, and of such a length and thickness as to go across from one side to the other. Another sort of bridges are built over a valley, to join two mountains together. Of this kind there is one mentioned by travellers, called pas velans, which is reckoned to be 400 cubits in length, and 500 in height. Another still more stupendous is to be seen in the province of Shen-fu. It was built over several high hills, and employed 100,000 men. To erect this bridge, some of the hills were levelled, and vast arches built between others, some of which were supported by pillars of monstrous height and thickness, where the valley proved too wide.

The Chinese are likewise very fond of triumphal arches. These are to be seen in great numbers, not only in all their cities, but on the mountains and eminences along the roads. They were originally erected in memory of their heroes, or persons who had distinguished themselves by services done the state; but some of them are also erected to the memories of noble and illustrious women. The ornamental part of their ancient triumphal arches is so curiously wrought, the festoons and flowers so neatly cut, and the birds and other animals carved in such lively attitudes, that Father Le Compte looked upon them as Chinese master-pieces of that kind. These ornaments are so wonderfully detached from one another, that they seem to be only joined to, or run into, each other by small cordon, without the least confusion. This sufficiently shews the superior skill of their ancient workmen; for in those of later date the sculpture is sparing, looks coarse and heavy, and is without any piercing, or variety to enliven it. Except this neatness in the carving, however, neither the ancient nor modern architecture of the Chinese can be compared with the European, either with regard to the proportion, or the disposition of its parts. They have neither cornices nor capitals; and that which bears some resemblance to our friezes, is of such a height, that it rather shocks the eye that is unaccustomed to it; tho' it is so much the more agreeable to the Chinese taste, as affording more space for ornaments.

Among the Americans, as may be naturally imagined, architecture was in a much lower state than either among the ancient Egyptians, or perhaps any other nation whatever. The Peruvians, who were the most civilized nation in America, had indeed attained to the art of polishing stones and fitting them to one another; but they were entirely ignorant of the use of cement, and were equally destitute of contrivance in their buildings. Their temples were often of a vast extent. That of Pachacamac, together with a palace of the Inca, and a fortress, were so connected together, as to form a structure half a league in circuit. Being unacquainted, however, with the use of the pulley, they were unable to raise the large stones, employed in building it, to any considerable height, and consequently the walls of all their edifices were low. Those of the temple of Pachacamac rose only twelve feet from the ground. They were indeed built with so much nicety, that the seams could hardly be discerned; but the apartments, as far as they can be traced in the ruins, were ill disposed, and afforded little accommodation. There was not a single window in any part of the building; and no light could enter but by the door, the greatest part of the building must either have been totally dark, or artificially illuminated.

In the kingdom of Mexico, many magnificent cities and temples are said to have been found by the Spaniards; but, as not the least vestiges of any such buildings are now to be seen, it may justly be questioned whether they ever had an existence. Nor do even the exaggerated descriptions of the Spanish writers, when they descend to particulars, tend to give us any high idea of their magnificence. As far as can be gathered from their obscure and inaccurate descriptions, the famous temple of Mexico was only a square mass of earth partly faced with stone. It was raised to such a height, that the ascent to it was by a stair-case of 114 steps. Its base extended 90 feet on each side; and at the top it terminated in a quadrangle of 30 feet square, where were placed a shrine of the Deity, and two altars on which the victims were sacrificed. All the other celebrated temples in the kingdom were formed exactly on the same model; from which we can entertain no very high idea of the progress of the Mexicans in architecture.

The Celtic architecture is still visible in some remains of ancient Druidic temples, &c., in some parts of Britain. It appears to have been still more barbarous than the American; the stones being not only put together without any cement, but without the least polish; although, like other nations, they endeavoured to show their magnificence by the vast size of the stones whereof these rude structures were composed. Of this there is a remarkable instance in the ruin called Stonehenge*, near Salisbury in England. This, by Dr Stukeley, is reckoned to be the remains of the chief Druidic temple in the island; and some of its stones are so big, that it would require above 140 oxen to draw them.

Several circular buildings of stones placed upon one another without any cement are also to be seen in different parts of the Highlands of Scotland. A very extraordinary species of buildings, however, have lately been discovered in that country, in which the stones, instead of being cemented together with clay or lime, are melted together into a kind of half vitrified mass. What hath given occasion to such an extraordinary method of building, it is difficult to determine. It seems hard to suppose that our ancestors should have known how to vitrify walls, and at the same time remained ignorant of the use of every kind of cement; and if, on the other hand, they really were acquainted with cement, the total want of it in every one of their buildings is equally unaccountable. Be this as it will, the fact is now certainly established, and an account has been published by Mr Williams, mineral engineer, of several ruins in the Highlands, where "the walls have been vitrified, or run and compacted together, by the force of fire; and that so effectually, that the most of the stones have been melted down; and any part of the..." the stones not quite run to glass has been entirely enveloped by the vitrified matter; and in some places the vitrification has been so complete, that the ruins now appear like vast masses or fragments of coarse glass or flags."

In what age this unparalleled method of building was in use, we can by no means determine, as not only history, but even fable of every kind, is silent about it. Nay, so little has such a contrivance been dreamed of by the moderns, that Mr Pennant, and others, who have observed these vitrified ruins in Scotland, took them for the lava's of ancient burning mountains.

These vitrified walls, notwithstanding the apparent difficulty of erecting them, seem by no means to have been deficient in height: for Mr Williams mentions one, the remains of which are still 12 feet perpendicular, from which it may be supposed to have been originally much higher; though even this is a vast height, considering the materials. Concerning their construction Mr Williams has the following conjecture.

"I imagine, (says he), they have raised two parallel dykes of earth or sods in the direction or course of their intended wall or building, and left a space between them just wide enough for the wall. I suppose these two parallel dykes, the groove, or mould in which they were to run their wall. This groove between the two dykes I suppose they packed full of fuel, on which they would lay a proper quantity of the materials to be vitrified. There is no doubt but a hot fire would melt down the stones, especially if they were of the plum-pudding kind, and not too large; and the frame of earth would keep the materials, when in fusion, from running without the breadth of their intended wall.

"This being the foundation, I suppose they have added new fires, and more materials, and raised their mould of earth by degrees, till they brought the whole to the intended height, and then have removed the earth from both sides the vitrified wall.

I am confident, from the appearance of the ruins, that the materials were run down by the fire in some such method as this. In all the sections of the larger and smaller fragments of the vitrified ruins I have seen, I never saw the least appearance of a stone being laid in any particular way. I never saw a large stone in any fragment of these ruins; nor any stone, nor piece of a stone, that was not affected by the fire, and some part of it vitrified; and all the bits of stones that appear in these fragments, appear higgledy piggledy, just as we would suppose they would fall down in the fire when the materials were in a state of fusion.

"I have often seen lime-stone for land burnt in turf-kilns, which were nothing but two parallel dykes raised about six or seven feet high, and the ends built up as they filled in the stone and fuel.

"These answer very well in moderate weather; but in a high wind, I have seen the lime-stone vitrified to that degree, that it would cost the farmers much labour to dig out the vitrified matter, and they would have but very little lime for their pains; yet the turf-kiln would stand it so well, that they would burn more than once in the same kiln.

"This I give as an example that they might run their vitrified wall in a groove between two turf-walls.

"A gentleman in Edinburgh, of great knowledge and veracity, told me, that his father had a brick-kiln built on the edge of a pretty steep bank; and that, while the kiln was burning, a high wind one night increased the heat to such a degree, that in the morning great part of the kiln was vitrified, which ran in a lava a considerable way down the hill."

These vitrified ruins are generally found on the tops of small hills, and have always the remains of some dry stone inclosures on the south side of them, which are by our author thought to have been places where their cattle were confined, and kept out of the reach of their enemies.—As to any other species of architecture in Britain, we know of none but what was introduced by the Romans, and, after being almost entirely lost, was considerably improved by the Normans, and still more, on the revival of the polite arts in the 15th and 16th centuries, as already observed.

PART I. PRINCIPLES OF ARCHITECTURE.

Many ages must have elapsed before architecture came to be considered as a fine art. Utility was its original definition, and still continues to be its principal end. Experience, however, has taught us, that architecture is capable of exciting a variety of agreeable feelings. Of these, utility, grandeur, regularity, order, and proportion, are the chief.

Architecture being an useful as well as a fine art, leads us to distinguish buildings, and parts of buildings, into three kinds, viz. what are intended for use solely, what for ornament solely, and what for both. Buildings intended for utility solely, ought in every part to correspond precisely to that intention: the least deviation from use, though contributing to ornament, will be disagreeable; for every work of use being considered as a mean to an end, its perfection as a mean is the capital circumstance, and every other beauty in opposition is neglected as improper. On the other hand, in such things as are intended solely for ornament, as columns, obelisks, triumphal arches, &c. beauty alone ought to be regarded. The principal difficulty in architecture lies in combining use and ornament. In order to accomplish these ends, different and even opposite means must be employed; which is the reason why they are so seldom united in perfection; and hence, in buildings of this kind, the only practicable method is, to prefer utility to ornament according to the character of the building: in palaces, and such buildings as admit of a variety of useful contrivance, regularity ought to be preferred; but in dwelling-houses that are too small for variety of contrivance, utility ought to prevail, neglecting regularity as far as it stands in opposition to convenience.

In considering attentively the beauty of visible objects, we discover two kinds. The first may be termed intrinsic beauty, because it is discovered in a single object, without relation to any other. The second may be termed relative beauty, being founded on a combination... Architectural Principles

Architecture admits of both kinds. We shall first give a few examples of relative beauty.

The proportions of a door are determined by the use to which it is defined. The door of a dwelling-house, which ought to correspond to the human size, is confined to seven or eight feet in height, and three or four in breadth. The proportions proper for a stable or coach-house are different. The door of a church ought to be wide, in order to afford an easy passage for a multitude; and its height must be regulated by its wideness, that the proportion may please the eye. The size of the windows ought always to be proportioned to that of the room they are destined to illuminate; for if the apertures be not large enough to convey light to every corner, the room must be unequally lighted, which is a great deformity. Steps of stairs should likewise be accommodated to the human figure, without regarding any other proportion; they are accordingly the same in large and in small buildings, because both are inhabited by men of the same size.

We shall next consider intrinsic beauty, blended with that which is relative. A cube itself is more agreeable than a parallelopipedon; this constantly holds in small figures: but a large building in the form of a cube is lumpish and heavy; while a parallelopipedon, set on its smaller base, is more agreeable on account of its elevation: Hence the beauty of Gothic towers. But if this figure were to be used in a dwelling-house, to make way for relative beauty, we would immediately perceive that utility ought chiefly to be regarded; and this figure, inconvenient by its height, ought to be set on its larger base: the loftiness in this case would be lost; but that loss will be more than sufficiently compensated by the additional convenience. Hence the form of buildings spread more upon the ground than raised in height, is always preferred for a dwelling-house.

With regard to the internal divisions, utility requires that the rooms be rectangular, to avoid useless spaces. An hexagonal figure leaves no void spaces; but it determines the rooms to be all of one size, which is both inconvenient and disagreeable for want of variety. Though a cube be the most agreeable figure, and may answer for a room of a moderate size; yet, in a very large room, utility requires a different figure. Unconfined motion is the chief convenience of a great room; to obtain this, the greatest length that can be had is necessary. But a square room of large size is inconvenient. It removes chairs, tables, &c. at too great a distance from the hand, which, when unemployed, must be ranged along the sides of the room. Utility therefore requires a large room to be a parallelogram. This figure is likewise best calculated for the admission of light; because, to avoid cross-lights, all the windows ought to be in one wall; and if the opposite wall be at such a distance as not to be fully lighted, the room must be obscure. The height of a room exceeding nine or ten feet has little relation to utility; therefore proportion is the only rule for determining the height, when above that number of feet.

Artists who deal in the beautiful, love to entertain the eye; palaces and sumptuous buildings, in which intrinsic beauty may be fully displayed, give them an opportunity of exerting their taste. But such a propensity is peculiarly unhappy with regard to private dwelling-houses; because, in these, relative beauty cannot be displayed to perfection, without hurting intrinsic beauty. There is no opportunity for great variety of form in a small house; and in edifices of this kind, internal convenience has not hitherto been happily adjusted to external regularity. Perhaps an accurate coincidence in this respect is beyond the reach of art. Architects, however, constantly split upon this rock; for they never can be persuaded to give over attempting to reconcile these two incompatibilities: how otherwise should it happen, that of the endless variety of private dwelling-houses, there should not be one found that is generally agreed upon as a good pattern? the unwearyed propensity to make a house regular as well as convenient obliges the architect, in some articles, to sacrifice convenience to regularity; and, in others, regularity to convenience; and accordingly the house which turns out neither regular nor convenient, never fails to displease.

Nothing can be more evident, than that the form of a dwelling-house ought to be suited to the climate; yet no error is more common than to copy in Britain the form of Italian houses, not forgetting even those parts that are purposely contrived for collecting air, and for excluding the sun: witness our colonnades and loggias, designed by the Italians to gather cool air, and exclude the beams of the sun, conveniences which the climate of this country does not require.

We shall next view architecture as one of the fine arts; which will lead us to the examination of such buildings, and parts of buildings, as are calculated solely to please the eye. Variety prevails in the works of nature; but art requires to be guided by rule and compass. Hence it is, that in such works of art as imitate nature, the great art is, to hide every appearance of art; which is done by avoiding regularity, and indulging variety. But in works of art that are original and not imitative, such as architecture, strict regularity and uniformity ought to be studied, so far as consistent with utility.

Proportion is not less agreeable than regularity and uniformity; and therefore, in buildings intended to please the eye, they are all equally essential. It is taken for granted by many writers, that in all the parts and quantities of a building there are certain strict proportions which please the eye, in the same manner as in sound there are certain strict proportions which please the ear; and that, in both, the slightest deviation is equally disagreeable. Others seem to relish more a comparison between proportion in numbers, and proportion in quantity; and maintain, that the same proportions are agreeable in both. The proportions, for example, of the numbers 16, 24, and 36, are agreeable; and so, say they, are the proportions of a room, whose height is 16 feet, the breadth 24, and the length 36. But it ought to be considered, that there is no resemblance or relation between the objects of different senses. What pleases the ear in harmony, is not the proportion of the strings of the instrument, but of the sound which these strings produce. In architecture, on the contrary, it is the proportion of different quantities that pleases the eye, without the least relation to sound. The same thing may be said of numbers. Quantity is a real quality of every body; number is not a real quality, but merely an idea that arises upon viewing a plurality of things in succession. An arithmetical proportion is agreeable in numbers; but have we from this any reason to conclude, that it must also be agreeable in quantity? At this rate, a geometrical proportion, and many others, ought also to be agreeable in both. A certain proportion may coincide in quantity and number; and amongst an endless variety of proportions, it would be wonderful if there never should be a coincidence. One example is given of this coincidence in the numbers 16, 24, and 36; but, to be convinced that it is merely accidental, we need but reflect, that the same proportions are not applicable to the external figure of a house, and far less to a column.

It is ludicrous to observe writers acknowledging the necessity of accurate proportions, and yet differing widely about them. Laying aside reasoning and philosophy, one fact universally agreed on ought to have undeceived them, that the same 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, approaches to a gallery.

Povault, in his comparison of the ancients and moderns, goes to the opposite extreme; maintaining, that the different proportions assigned to each order of columns are arbitrary, and that the beauty of these proportions is entirely the effect of custom. But he should have considered, that if these proportions had not originally been agreeable, they could never have been established by custom.

For illustrating this point, we shall add a few examples of the agreeableness of different proportions. In a sumptuous edifice, the capital rooms ought to be large, otherwise they will not be proportioned to the size of the building; for the same reason, a very large room is improper in a small house. But in things thus related, the mind requires not a precise or single proportion, rejecting all others; on the contrary, many different proportions are equally agreeable. It is only when a proportion becomes loose and distant, that the agreeableness abates, and at last vanishes. Accordingly, in buildings, rooms of different proportions are found to be equally agreeable, even where the proportion is not influenced by utility. With regard to the proportion the height of a room should bear to the length and breadth, it must be extremely arbitrary, considering the uncertainty of the eye as to the height of a room when it exceeds 16 or 17 feet. In columns, again, every architect must confess that the proportion of height and thickness varies between 8 diameters and 10, and that every proportion between these two extremes is agreeable. Besides, there must certainly be a further variation of proportion, depending on the size of the column. A row of columns 10 feet high, and a row twice that height, requires different proportions: The intercolumniations must also differ in proportion according to the height of the row.

Proportion of parts is not only itself a beauty, but inseparably connected with a beauty of the highest relish, that of concord and harmony: which will be plain from what follows: A room, the parts of which are all finely adjusted to each other, strikes us not only with the beauty of proportion, but with a pleasure far superior. The length, the breadth, the height, the windows, raise each of them a separate emotion: These emotions are similar; and, though faint when separately felt, they produce in conjunction the emotion of concord or harmony, which is very pleasant. On the other hand, where the length of a room far exceeds the breadth, the mind, comparing together parts so intimately connected, immediately perceives a disagreement or disproportion which disgusts. Hence a long gallery, however convenient for exercise, is not an agreeable figure of a room.

In buildings destined chiefly or solely to please the eye, regularity and proportion are essentially necessary, because they are the means of producing intrinsic beauty. But a skilful artist will not confine his view to regularity and proportion; he will also study congruity, which is perceived when the form and ornaments of a structure are suited to the purpose for which it is appointed. Hence every building ought to have an expression suited to its destination. A palace ought to be sumptuous and grand; a private dwelling, neat and tended. Model; a play-house, gay and splendid; and a monument, gloomy and melancholy. A heathen temple has a double destination: It is considered as a house dedicated to some divinity; therefore it ought to be grand, elevated, and magnificent: It is also considered as a place of worship; and therefore ought to be somewhat dark and gloomy, because dimness or obscurity produces that tone of mind which is favourable to humility and devotion. Columns, besides their chief destination of being supports, contribute to that peculiar expression which the destination of a building requires. Columns of different proportions serve to express loftiness, lightness, &c., as well as strength. Situation may also contribute to expression: Convenience regulates the situation of a private dwelling-house; and the situation of a palace ought to be lofty. This leads to a question, Whether the situation, where there happens to be no choice, ought, in any measure, to regulate the form of the edifice? The connection between a great house and a neighbouring field, though not extremely intimate, demands however some congruity. It would, for example, displease us to find an elegant building thrown away upon a wild uncultivated country: congruity requires a polished field for such a building. The old Gothic form of building was well suited to the rough uncultivated regions where it was invented; but was very ill adapted to the fine plains of France and Italy.

The external structure of a house leads naturally to its internal structure. A large and spacious room, vision of which is the first that commonly receives us, is a bad house. Contrivance in several respects. In the first place, when immediately from the open air we step into such a room, its size in appearance is diminished by contrast; it looks little, compared with the great canopy of the sky. In the next place, when it recovers its grandeur, as it soon doth, it gives a diminutive appearance to the rest of the house; passing from it, every apartment looks little. In the third place, by its situation it serves only for a waiting-room, and a passage to the principal apartments. Rejecting therefore this form, a hint may be taken from the climax in writing for another that appears more suitable: A handsome portico, proportioned to the size and fashion of the front, leads into a waiting-room of a larger size, and this to the great room, all by a progression of small Grandeur is the principal emotion that architecture is capable of raising in the mind; it might therefore be the chief study of the artist, in great buildings defined to please the eye. But as grandeur depends partly on size, it is unlucky for architecture that it is governed by regularity and proportion, which never deceive the eye by making objects appear larger than they are in reality. But though regularity and proportion contribute nothing to grandeur, so far as that emotion depends on size; yet they contribute greatly to it by confining the size within such bounds that it can be taken in and examined at one view; for when objects are so large as not to be comprehended but in parts, they tend rather to distract than satisfy the mind.

We shall next pass to such ornaments as contribute to give buildings a peculiar expression. It has been doubted, whether a building can regularly admit any ornament but what is useful, or at least has that appearance. But, considering the double aim of architecture as a fine, as well as an useful art, there is no reason why ornaments may not be added to please the eye, without any relation to utility. A private dwelling-house, it is true, and other edifices, where use is the chief aim, admit not regularly any ornament but what has at least the appearance of use; but temples, triumphal arches, and other buildings intended chiefly or solely for show, may be highly ornamented.

This suggests a division of ornaments into three kinds, viz. 1. Ornaments that are beautiful without relation to use; such as statues, vases, baso or alto relievo; 2. Things in themselves not beautiful, but possessing the beauty of utility, by imposing on the spectator, and appearing to be useful; such as blind windows; 3. Where things are beautiful in themselves, and at the same time take on the appearance of use; such as pilasters.

With regard to the first, we naturally require that a statue be so placed, as to be seen in every direction, and examined at different distances. Statues, therefore, are properly introduced to adorn the great flair that leads to the principal door of a palace, or to lessen the void between pillars. But a niche in the external front is an improper place for a statue. There is an additional reason against placing them upon the roof or top of the walls: their ticklish situation gives pain, as they have the appearance of being in danger of tumbling down; besides, we are inclined to feel from their being too much exposed to the inclemencies of the weather.

To adorn the top of the wall with a row of vases, is an unhappy conceit, by placing a thing, whose natural definition is utility, where it cannot have even the appearance of use. As to carvings upon the external surface of a building, termed baso relievo when flat, and alto relievo when prominent, all contradictory expressions ought to be avoided. Now, firmness and solidity being the proper expressions of a pedestal, and, on the contrary, lightness and delicacy of carved work, the pedestal, whether of a column or of a statue, ought to be sparingly ornamented. The ancients never ventured any bolder ornament than the baso relievo.

With respect to ornaments of the second kind, it is a great blunder to contrive them so as to make them appear useless. A blind window, therefore, when necessary for regularity, ought to be so disguised as to appear a real window: when it appears without disguise, it is disagreeable, as a vain attempt to supply the want of invention; it shows the irregularity in a stronger light, by signifying that a window ought to be there in point of regularity, but that the architect had not skill sufficient to connect external regularity with internal convenience.

As to the third, it is an error to sink pilasters so far into the wall, as to remove totally, or mostly, the appearance of use. They should always project so much from the wall, as to have the appearance of supporting the entablature over them.

From ornaments in general, we descend to a pillar, Columns, the chief ornament in great buildings. The destination of a pillar is to support, really, or in appearance, another part termed the entablature. With regard to the form of a pillar, it must be observed, that a circle is a more agreeable figure than a square, a globe than a cube, and a cylinder than a parallelopipedon. This last, in the language of architecture, is saying, that a column is a more agreeable figure than a pillar; and for that reason it ought to be preferred, when all other circumstances are equal. Another reason concurs, that a column annexed to a wall, which is a plain surface, makes a greater variety than a pillar. Besides, pilasters at a distance are apt to be mistaken for pillars; and the spectator is disappointed, when, on a nearer approach, he discovers them to be only pilasters.

As to the parts of a column, a bare uniform cylinder, without a capital, appears naked; and without a base, appears too ticklishly placed to stand firm: it ought therefore to have some finishing at the top and bottom: Hence the three chief parts of a column, the shaft, the base, and the capital. Nature undoubtedly requires proportion among these parts, but it admits of variety of proportion. Vitruvius and some of the elder writers seem to think, that the proportions of columns were derived from the human figure, the capital representing the head, the base the feet, and the shaft the body. The Tuscan has been accordingly denominated the Gigantic; the Doric, the Herculane; the Ionic, the Matronal; and the Corinthian, the Virginal;—the Composite is a mixture of the Corinthian and Ionic. As to the base, the principle of utility interposes to vary it from the human figure, and to proportion it so to the whole, as to give the column the appearance of stability.

Among the Greeks, we find only three orders of columns, the Doric, the Ionic, and the Corinthian, distinguished from each other by their definition as well as by their ornaments. It has been disputed, whether any new order can be added to these: some hold the affirmative, and give for instances the Tuscan and Composite; others maintain, that these properly are not distinct orders, but only the original orders with some slight variation. The only circumstances that can serve to distinguish one order from another, are the form of the column, and its definition. To make the first a distinguishing mark, without regard to the other, would multiply orders without end. Definition is more limited, and it leads us to distinguish three kinds of orders; one plain and strong, for the purpose of Part I. ARCHITECTURE.

Principles supporting plain and massy buildings; one delicate and graceful, for supporting buildings of that character; and between these, a third, supporting buildings of a mixed nature. So that, if definition alone is to be regarded, the Tuscan is of the same order with the Doric, and the Composite with the Corinthian.

The ornaments of these three orders ought to be suited to the purposes for which they are intended. Plain and rustic ornaments would not be a little discordant with the elegance of the Corinthian order, and sweet and delicate ornaments not less with the strength of the Doric.

With respect to buildings of every kind, one rule, dictated by utility, is, that they be firm and stable. Another, dictated by beauty, is, that they also appear so to the eye; for every thing that appears tottering, and in hazard of tumbling down, produces in the spectator the painful emotion of fear, instead of the pleasing emotion of beauty; and accordingly it should be the great care of the artist, that every part of his edifice appear to be well supported. Some have introduced a kind of conceit in architecture, by giving parts of buildings the appearance of falling; of this kind is the church of St Sophia in Constantinople; the round towers in the uppermost stories of Gothic buildings is in the same false taste.

The most considerable ornaments used in architecture are the five orders of columns, pediments, arches, balusters, &c. of which in the following chapters.

CHAP. I. Of the Orders of Architecture.

An Order consists of two principal members, the Column and the Entablature; each of which is composed of three principal parts. Those of the Column are, the Base, the Shaft, and the Capital; and those of the Entablature are, the Architrave, the Frieze, and the Cornice. All these are subdivided into many lesser parts, whose number, form, and dimensions, characterize each order, and express the degree of strength, delicacy, richness, or simplicity peculiar to it.

The parts that compose an order may be distributed into two different classes. In the first may be ranged all that have any analogy to the primitive huts, and represent some part that was necessary in their construction. Such are the shaft of the column, with the plinth of its base, and the abacus of its capital; likewise the architrave and triglyphs, the mutules, modillions, or dentils, which all of them represent the rafters, or some other pieces of timber used to support the covering; and the cornice, representing the beds of materials that composed the covering. All these may properly be distinguished by the name of essential members. The subservient parts, contrived for the use or ornaments of the former, and commonly called mouldings, may constitute the second class.

There are eight regular mouldings in ornamenting columns: the fillet, listel, or square; the astragal, or bead; the torus, or tore; the scotia, mouth, or cymatium; the echinus, ovolo, or quarter-round; the inverted cyma, talon, or ogive; the cyma, cyma recta, or cymatium; the cavetto, or hollow. The names of these allude to their forms, and their forms are adapted to the purposes for which they are intended. See Plate XXIX.

The ovolo and talon, as they are strong at the extremities, are fit for supports; the cyma and cavetto, though improper for supports, serve for coverings to shelter other members; the torus and astragal, being shaped like ropes, are intended to bind and fortify the parts with which they are connected: But the use of the scotia and fillet is only to separate and distinguish the other mouldings, to give a graceful turn to the profile, and to prevent the confusion which would arise from joining several curved members together.

There are various methods of describing the contours of mouldings; but the simplest and best is to form them of quadrants of circles.

An affinage of what are called essential parts and mouldings is termed a profile. The most perfect profiles are such as are composed of few mouldings, varied in form and size; and so disposed, that the straight and curved ones succeed each other alternately. When ornaments are employed in mouldings, some of them should be left plain, in order to give a proper repose: For, when all are ornamented, the figure of the profile is lost.

Columns, in imitation of trees, from which they drew their origin, are tapered in their shafts. In the antiques the diminution is variously performed; beginning sometimes from the foot of the shaft, and at others from one quarter, or one third of its height; the lower part being perfectly cylindrical. The former of these was most in use amongst the ancients, and, being the most natural and graceful, ought to have the preference, though the latter hath been more universally practised by modern artists.

The first architects, says Mr Auzoult, probably made their columns in straight lines, in imitation of trees; so that their shaft was a frustum of a cone: but finding this form abrupt and disagreeable, they made use of some curve, which, springing from the extremities of the superior and inferior diameters of the column, swelled beyond the sides of the cone, and by that means gave a more pleasing figure to the contour.

Vitruvius, in the second chapter of his third book, mentions this practice, but in so obscure and cursory a manner, that his meaning hath not been understood; and several of the modern architects, intending to conform themselves to his doctrine, have made the diameters of their columns greater in the middle than at the foot of the shaft. Leon Battista Alberti, and others of the Florentine and Roman architects, have carried this to a very great excess; for which they have been justly blamed, as it is neither natural, reasonable, nor beautiful.

Monsieur Auzoult observes, that a column, supposing its shafts to be the frustum of a cone, may have an additional thickness in the middle, without being swelled there beyond the bulk of its inferior parts; and supposes the addition mentioned by Vitruvius to signify nothing but the increase towards the middle of the column, occasioned by changing the straight line, which at first was in use, for a curve.

This supposition is extremely just, and founded on what is observed in the works of antiquity; where there is no instance of columns thicker in the middle than at the bottom, though all have the swelling hinted at by Vitruvius, all of them being terminated by curves; some granite columns excepted, which are bounded by straight lines; a proof, perhaps, of their antiquity, or of their having been wrought in the quarries of Egypt by bungling and unskilful workmen.

Monsieur Blondel, in his book entitled "Resolution des quatre principaux problèmes d'Architecture," teaches various manners of diminishing columns; the best and simplest of which is by means of the instrument which Nicomedes invented to describe the first conchoid: for this, being applied at the bottom of the shaft, performs at one sweep both the swelling and the diminution; giving such a graceful form to the column, that it is universally allowed to be the most perfect practice hitherto discovered. The columns in the Pantheon, accounted the most beautiful among the antiques, are made in this manner; as appears by the exact measures of one of them to be found in Defgodet's antiquities of Rome.

To give an accurate idea of the operation, it will be necessary first to describe Vignola's method of diminution, on which it is grounded. "As to this second method," says Vignola, "it is a discovery of my own; and although it be less known than the former, it will be easily comprehended by the figure. Having therefore determined the measures of your column, (that is to say, the height of the shaft, and its inferior and superior diameters), draw a line indefinitely from C through D, perpendicular to the axis of the column; this done, set off the distance CD, which is the inferior semi-diameter, from A, the extreme point of the superior semi-diameter, to B, a point in the axis; then from A, through B, draw the line AB E, which will cut the indefinite line CD in E; and, from this point of intersection E, draw thro' the axis of the column any number of rays as EB n, on each of which, from the axis towards the circumference, setting off the interval CD, you may find any number of points, a, a, a, through which if a curve be drawn, it will describe the swelling and diminution of the column."

Though this method be sufficiently accurate for practice, especially if a considerable number of points be found, yet, strictly speaking, it is defective; as the curve must either be drawn by hand, or by applying a flexible ruler to all the points; both of which are liable to variations. Blondel therefore, to obviate this objection, (after having proved the curve passing from A to C through the points a, a, to be of the same nature with the first conchoid of the ancients), employed the instrument of Nicomedes to describe it; the construction of which is as follows:

Having determined, as above, the length of the shaft, with the inferior and superior diameters of the column, and having likewise found the length of the line CDE, take three rulers, either of wood or metal, as FG, ID, and AH; of which let FG and ID be fastened together at right angles in G. Cut a dove-tail groove in the middle of FG, from top to bottom; and at the point E on the ruler ID (whose distance, from the middle of the groove in FG, is the same as that of the point of intersection from the axis of the column) fix a pin; then on the ruler AH set off the distance AB, equal to CD the inferior semi-diameter of the column, and at the point B fix a button, whose head must be exactly fitted to the groove made in FG, in which it is to slide; and, at the other extremity of the ruler AH, cut a slit or canal from H to K, whose length must not be less than the difference of length between EB and ED, and whose breadth must be sufficient to admit the pin fixed at E, which must pass through the slit, that the ruler may slide thereon.

The instrument being thus completed, if the middle of the groove, in the ruler FG, be placed exactly over the axis of the column, it is evident that the ruler AH, in moving along the groove, will with the extremity A describe the curve A a C; which curve is the same as that produced by Vignola's method of diminution, supposing it done with the utmost accuracy: for the interval AB, a b, is always the same; and the point E is the origin of an infinity of lines, of which the parts BA, ba, ba, extending from the axis to the circumference, are equal to each other and to DC. And if the rulers be of an indefinite size, and the pins at E and B be made to move along their respective rulers, so that the intervals AB and DE may be augmented or diminished at pleasure, it is likewise evident that the same instrument may be thus applied to columns of any size.

In the remains of antiquity the quantity of the diminution is various; but seldom less than one eighth of the inferior diameter of the column, nor more than one sixth of it. The last of these is by Vitruvius esteemed the most perfect.

Of the Tuscan Order.

This is the most solid and simple of all the orders. It is composed of few parts, devoid of ornaments, and so massy, that it seems capable of supporting the heaviest burden. There are no remains of a regular Tuscan order among the antiques: the doctrine of Vitruvius concerning it is obscure; and the profiles of Palladio, Scamozzi, Serlio, de l'Orme, and Vignola, are all imperfect.

The height of the Tuscan column is 14 modules, or semi-diameters, each consisting of 30 minutes; and that of the whole entablature 3½ modules; which being divided into 10 equal parts, three of them are for the height of the architrave, three for the frieze, and the remaining four for the cornice: The capital is one module; the base, including the lower cincture of the shaft, is likewise one module; and the shaft, with its upper cincture and astragal, 12 modules.

These are the general dimensions of the order; the particular dimensions may be learned by inspection of the plates.

In the remains of antiquity, the quantity of diminution at the top of the Tuscan column is various; but seldom less than one eighth, nor more than one sixth, of the inferior diameter of the column. The last of these is generally preferred; and Chalmers and others make the same diminution in all columns, without regard to their order.

Of the Doric.

This order is next in strength to the Tuscan; and, Pl. XXVII., being of a grave, robust, and masculine aspect, is by Scamozzi called the Herculean. As it is the most ancient of all the orders, it retains more of the structure of the primitive huts than any of the rest; the triglyphs in its frieze representing the ends of the joists, and the mutules in its cornice representing the rafters.

The height of the Doric column, including its capital The Tuscan Order The Doric Order The Ionic Order The Corinthian Order The Composite Order Part I.