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 necessary for the purposes of civil life, such as houses, churches, halls, 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; tho' 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, wherewith 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 wig-

wams 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 perhaps 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 has appeared in the rudest form, they were no sooner collected into great bodies under the emperors of Mexico and Peru, 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 de- duced 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, and building them in the following manner: 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.

"Infinibly mankind improved in the art of buildings, 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 corona, the mutules, the modillions, and the dentils.

"The first buildings were in all likelihood rough and uncouth; 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 31,590 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 everything 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, five 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 staircases 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 more remarkable pyramids and obelisks of Egypt this is exceedingly conspicuous; but whether it was so in the labyrinth or cells that 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 some 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 of building was also quite destitute of what is now called tafle; 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 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 seized 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 feet of a man and the rest of his body. According to their ideas, the foot made a sixth part of the human height: in consequence, they gave at first to a Doric column, taking in its chapiter, six of its diameters; that is to say, they made it six 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, probably Solomon's temple. 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; though 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 balusters. 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 fort of building. building with statues; and no kind of ornament could answcr 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 every thing 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, show 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 10 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 gafonades 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 the more reasonable, when we consider what time the abovementioned 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 sethianord upon the ground, and covered with a square tile; there grew near it a plant of acanthus or bears-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 stopping 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 greater conveniences, but much less magnificence, than the Romans, whose houses as the former referred 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 buttresses 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 buttresses 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 soever 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 model 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 preserved 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 manner of 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.

Most writers who mention the ancient buildings in this island, particularly the religious ones, notwithstanding the striking difference in the styles of their construction, clasps them all under the common denomination of Gothic; a general appellation by them applied to buildings not exactly conformable to some one of the five orders of architecture. Our modern antiquaries, more accurately, divide them into Saxon,—Norman,—and Saracenic, or that species vulgarly tho' improperly called modern Gothic.

It has been maintained by some, that the Saxons of the Saxons churches, after they began to be built with stone, conformed only of upright walls, without pillars or arches, the construction of which it is alleged they were entirely ignorant of. But this opinion is not only contradicted by the testimony of several contemporary or very ancient writers, who expressly mention them both, but also by the remains of some edifices universally allowed to be of Saxon workmanship, one of them the ancient conventual church at Ely. Indeed, it is highly improbable that the Saxons could be ignorant of so useful a contrivance as the arch. Many of them, built by the Romans, they must have had before their eyes; some of which have reached our days: two particularly are now remaining in Canterbury only; one in the castle-yard, the other at Riding-gate. And it is not to be believed, that once knowing them and their convenience, they would neglect to make use of them; or having used, would relinquish them. Besides, as it appears from undoubted authorities they procured workmen from the Continent to construct their capital buildings "according to the Roman manner," this alone would be sufficient to confute that ill-grounded opinion; and at the same time proves, that what we commonly call Saxon, is in reality Roman architecture.

This was the style of building practised all over Europe; and it continued to be used by the Normans, after their arrival here, till the introduction of what is called the modern Gothic, which was not till about the end of the reign of Henry II. So that there seems to be little or no grounds for a distinction between the Saxon and Norman architecture. Indeed it is said, the buildings of the latter were of larger dimensions both in height and area; and they were constructed with a stone brought from Caen in Normandy, of which their workmen were peculiarly fond: but this was simply an alteration in the scale and materials, and not in the manner of the building. The ancient parts of most of our cathedrals are of this early Norman work.—The characteristic marks of this style are these: The walls are very thick, generally without buttresses; the arches, both within and without, as well as those over the doors and windows, semicircular, and supported by very very solid, or rather clumsy, columns, with a kind of regular base and capital; in short, plainness and fidelity constitute the striking features of this method of building. Nevertheless, the architects of those days sometimes deviated from this rule: their capitals were adorned with carvings of foliage, and even animals; and their massive columns decorated with small half columns united to them, and their surfaces ornamented with spirals, squares, lozenge net-work, and other figures, either engraved or in relievo. Various instances of these may be seen in the cathedral of Canterbury, particularly the undercroft, the monastery at Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, the cathedral at Durham, and the ruined choir at Orford in Suffolk. The columns (Plate XXXIII.) are at the monastery of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island. Those 2, 2, 2 belong to the ruined chancel at Orford in Suffolk. No. 3 is at Christ-church, Canterbury. No. 4, a column with two remarkable projections like claws, in the south aisle of Romsey church, Hampshire.

To what country or people the modern Gothic, or the style of building with pointed arches so called, owes its origin, seems by no means satisfactorily determined. Some have imagined it may possibly have taken its rise from those arcades we see in the early Norman or Saxon buildings or walls, where the wide semicircular arches cross and intersect each other, and form at their intersection a narrow and sharp-pointed arch: But it is more generally conjectured to be of Arabian extraction, and to have been introduced into Europe by some persons returning from the Crusades in the Holy Land. Sir Christopher Wren was of that opinion, and it has been subscribed to by most writers who have treated on this subject.

"Modern Gothic, as it is called (says Rious), is distinguished by the lightness of its work, by the excessive boldness of its elevations and of its sections; by the delicacy, profusion, and extravagant fancy of its ornaments. The pillars of this kind are as slender as those of the ancient Gothic are massive; such productions, so airy, cannot admit the heavy Goths for their author. How can be attributed to them a style of architecture, which was only introduced in the tenth century of our era, several years after the destruction of all those kingdoms which the Goths had raised upon the ruins of the Roman empire, and at a time when the very name of Goth was entirely forgotten? From all the marks of the new architecture, it can only be attributed to the Moors; or, what is the same thing, to the Arabians or Saracens, who have expressed, in their architecture, the same taste as in their poetry; both the one and the other falsify delicate, crowded with superfluous ornaments, and often very unnatural: the imagination is highly worked up in both; but it is an extravagant imagination; and this has rendered the edifices of the Arabians (we may include the other Orientals) as extraordinary as their thoughts. If any one doubts of this assertion, let us appeal to anyone who has seen the mosques and palaces of Fez, or some of the cathedrals in Spain built by the Moors: one model of this sort is the church at Burgos; and even in this island there are not wanting several examples of the same; such buildings have been vulgarly called modern Gothic, but their true appellation is Arabic, Saracenic, or Moresque.—This manner was introduced into Europe thro' Spain. Learning flourished among the Arabians all the time that their dominion was in full power; they studied philosophy, mathematics, physic and poetry. The love of learning was at once excited; in all places that were not too great a distance from Spain, these authors were read; and such of the Greek authors as they had translated into Arabic, were from thence turned into Latin. The physic and philosophy of the Arabians spread themselves in Europe, and with these their architecture: many churches were built after the Saracenic mode; and others with a mixture of heavy and light proportions, the alteration that the difference of the climate might require, was little, if at all considered. In most southern parts of Europe, and in Africa, the windows (before the use of glass), made with narrow apertures, and placed very high in the walls of the building, occasioned a shade and darkness within side, and were all contrived to guard against the fierce rays of the sun; yet were ill suited to latitudes, where that glorious luminary shades its feebler influences, and is rarely seen but through a watery cloud."

Mr Grofe, however, thinks the above opinion is not sufficiently favoured by the observations of several learned travellers who have accurately surveyed the ancient mode of building in those parts of the world. Thus Cornelius le Brun, an indefatigable and inquisitive traveller, has published many views of eastern buildings, particularly about the Holy Land: in all these, only one Gothic ruin, the church near Acre, and a few pointed arches occur; and those built by the Christians when in possession of the country. Near Isfahan, in Persia, he gives several buildings with pointed arches: but these are bridges and caravanserais, whose age cannot be ascertained; consequently are as likely to have been built after as before the introduction of this style into Europe. At Isfahan itself, the meydoon, or grand market-place, is surrounded by divers magnificent Gothic buildings; particularly the royal mosque, and the Talael Ali-kapie, or theatre. The magnificent bridge of Alla-wardie-chan, over the river Zenderoet, 540 paces long and 17 broad, having 33 pointed arches, is also a Gothic structure; but no mention is made when or by whom these are built. The Chiara Baeg, a royal garden, is decorated with Gothic buildings; but these were, it is said, built only in the reign of Scha Abbas, who died anno 1629. One building indeed, Mr Grofe admits, seems at first as if it would corroborate this assertion, and that the time when it was erected might be in some degree fixed; it is the tomb of Abdalla, one of the apostles of Mahomet, probably him named Abu Berc. "If this tomb (says he) is supposed to have been built soon after his death, estimating that even to have happened according to the common course of nature, it will place its erection about the middle of the seventh century; but this is by far too conjectural to be much depended on. It also seems as if this was not the common style of building at that time, from the temple of Mecca; where, if any credit is to be given to the print of it in Sale's Koran, the arches are semicircular. The tomb here mentioned has one evidence to prove its antiquity; that of being damaged by the injuries of time and weather. Its general appearance much resembles the east end of the chapel belonging to Ely House, London, except that which is filled up there by the great window: in the tomb is an open pointed arch, where also the columns or pinnacles on each side are higher in proportion."

As to the supposition that this kind of architecture was brought into Spain by the Moors (who possessed themselves of a great part of that country the beginning of the eighth century, which they held till the latter end of the fifteenth), and that from thence, by way of France, it was introduced into Britain; this at first seems plausible: though according to Mr Grofe, the only instance which seems to corroborate this hypothesis, or at least the only one proved by authentic drawings, is the mosque at Cordova in Spain; where, if we may judge from the views published by Mr Swinburn, although most of the arches are circular or horseshoe fashion, there are some pointed arches formed by the intersection of two segments of a circle. This mosque was, as it is there said, begun by Abdoulrahman I. who laid the foundation two years before his death, and was finished by his son Hiflem, or Ifcan, about the year 800. If these arches were part of the original structure, it would be much in favour of the supposition; but as it is also said that edifice has been more than once altered and enlarged by the Mahometans, before any well-grounded conclusion can be drawn, it is necessary to ascertain the date of the present building.

There are also several pointed arches in the Moorish palace at Grenada, called the Alhambra; but as that was not built till the year 1273, long after the introduction of pointed arches into Europe, they are as likely to be borrowed by the Moors from the Christians, as by the Christians from the Moors. The greatest peculiarity in the Moorish architecture is the horseshoe arch, which containing more than a semicircle, contracts towards its base, by which it is rendered unfit to bear any considerable weight, being solely calculated for ornament. In Romsey-church, Hampshire, there are several arches somewhat of that form.

The drawings of the Moorish buildings given in Les Delices de l'Espagne, said to be faithful representations, there are no traces of the style called Gothic architecture: there, as well as in the Moorish castle at Gibraltar, the arches are all represented circular. Perhaps a more general knowledge of these buildings would throw some light on the subject: possibly the Moors may, like us, at different periods have used different manners of building.

The marks which constitute the character of Gothic, or Saracenic architecture, are its numerous and prominent buttresses, its lofty spires and pinnacles, its large and ramified windows, its ornamental niches or canopies, its sculptured saints, the delicate lace-work of its fretted roofs, and the profusion of ornaments lavished indiscriminately over the whole building: but its peculiar distinguishing characteristics are, the small cluttered pillars and pointed arches formed by the segments of two intersecting circles; which arches, though last brought into use, are evidently of more simple and obvious construction than the semicircular ones; two flat stones, with their tops inclined to each other, and touching, form its rudiments; a number of boughs stuck into the ground opposite each other, and tied together at the top, in order to form a bower, exactly describe it: whereas a semicircular arch appears the result of deeper contrivance, as consisting of more parts; and it seems less probable chance, from whence all these inventions were first derived, should throw several wedge-like stones between two feet perpendicular, so as exactly to fit and fill up the interval.

Bishop Warburton, in his notes on Pope's Epistles, in the octavo edition, has the following ingenious observations on this subject:—"Our Gothic ancestors had jollier and manlier notions of magnificence, on Greek and Roman ideas, than these mimics of taste, who prefer to study only classic elegance; and because the thing does honour to the genius of those barbarians, I shall endeavour to explain it. All our ancient churches are called without distinction Gothic, but erroneously. They are of two sorts; the one built in the Saxon times, the other in the Norman. Several cathedral and collegiate churches of the first sort are yet remaining, either in whole or in part; of which this was the original: When the Saxon kings became Christians, their piety (which was the piety of the times) consisted chiefly in building churches at home, and performing pilgrimages abroad, especially to the Holy Land; and these spiritual exercises assisted and supported one another; for the most venerable as well as most elegant models of religious edifices were then in Palestine. From these the Saxon builders took the whole of their ideas, as may be seen by comparing the drawings which travellers have given us of the churches yet standing in that country, with the Saxon remains of what we find at home; and particularly in that same-ness of style in the latter religious edifices of the knights temporal (professedly built upon the model of the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem), with the earlier remains of our Saxon edifices. Now the architecture of the Holy Land was Grecian, but greatly fallen from its ancient elegance. Our Saxon performance was indeed a bad copy of it, and as much inferior to the works of St Helene and Justinian, as theirs were to the Grecian models they had followed; yet still the footsteps of ancient art appeared in the circular arches, the entire columns, the division of the entablature into a sort of architrave, frieze, and cornice, and a solidity equally diffused over the whole mass. This, by way of distinction, I would call the Saxon architecture. But our Norman works had a very different original. When the Goths had conquered Spain, and the genial warmth of the climate and the religion of the old inhabitants had ripened their wits and inflamed their mistaken piety, both kept in exercise by the neighbourhood of the Saracens, through emulation of their service, and aversion to their superstition, they struck out a new species of architecture, unknown to Greece and Rome, upon original principles, and ideas much nobler than what had given birth even to classical magnificence. For this northern people having been accustomed, during the gloom of paganism, to worship the deity in groves (a practice common to all nations); when their new religion required covered edifices, they ingeniously projected to make them resemble groves, as nearly as the distance of architecture would permit; at once indulging their old prejudices, and providing for their present conveniences, niences, by a cool receptacle in a sultry climate: and with what skill and success they executed the project by the assistance of Saracen architects, whose exotic style of building very luckily suited their purpose, appears from hence, that no attentive observer ever viewed a regular avenue of well grown trees intermixing their branches overhead, but it presently put him in mind of the long vista through the Gothic cathedral; or even entered one of the larger and more elegant edifices of this kind, but it presented to his imagination an avenue of trees; and this alone is what can be truly called the Gothic style of building. Under this idea of so extraordinary a species of architecture, all the irregular transgressions against art, all the monstrous offences against nature, disappear; every thing has its reason, every thing is in order, and an harmonious whole arises from the fluidious application of means proper and proportionate to the end. For could the arches be otherwise than pointed, when the workmen were to imitate that curve which branches of two opposite trees make by their insertion with one another? or could the columns be otherwise than split into distinct shafts, when they were to represent the stems of a clump of trees growing close together? On the same principles they formed the spreading ramification of the stone-work in the windows, and the stained glass in the interstices; the one to represent the branches, and the other the leaves of an opening grove, and both concurred to preserve that gloomy light which inspires religious reverence and dread. Lastly, we see the reason of their studied aversion to apparent solidity in these stupendous masses, deemed so absurd by men accustomed to the apparent as well as real strength of Grecian architecture. Had it been only a wanton exercise of the artist's skill, to show how he could give real strength without the appearance of any, we might indeed admire his superior science, but we must needs condemn his ill judgment. But when one considers, that this surprising lightness was necessary to complete the execution of his idea of a sylvan place of worship, one cannot sufficiently admire the ingenuity of the contrivance. This too will account for the contrary qualities in what I call the Saxon architecture. These artists copied, as has been said, from the churches in the Holy Land, which were built on the models of the Grecian architecture, but corrupted by prevailing barbarism; and still farther depraved by a religious idea. The first places of Christian worship were sepulchres and subterranean caverns, low and heavy from necessity. When Christianity became the religion of the state, and sumptuous temples began to be erected, they yet, in regard to the first pious ages, preserved the massive style, made still more venerable by the church of the Holy Sepulchre; where this style was, on a double account, followed and aggravated.

In Britain, before the Roman invasion, the natives appear to have had no better lodgings than thickets, dens, and caves. Some of these caves, which were their winter-habitations, and places of retreat in time of war, were formed and rendered secure and warm by art, like those of the ancient Germans, which are thus described by Tacitus: "They are used to dig deep caves in the ground and cover them with earth, where they lay up their provisions, and dwell in winter for the sake of warmth. Into these they retire also from their enemies, who plunder the open country, but cannot discover these subterranean recesses." Some of the subterraneous, or earth-houses, as they are called, are still remaining in the western isles of Scotland and in Cornwall. The summer habitations of the most ancient Britons were very slight; and, like those of the Finns, consisted only of a few stakes driven into the ground, intertwined with wattles, and covered over with the boughs of trees.

When Julius Cæsar invaded Britain, the inhabitants of Cantium (Kent), and of some other parts in the south, had learned to build houses a little more substantial and convenient. "The country (says Cæsar) abounds in houses which very much resemble those of Gaul." The first step towards this improvement seems to have been that of daubing the wattle walls of their houses with clay to fill up the chinks and make them warmer. "The Germans used for this purpose a kind of pure resplendent earth of different colours, which had an appearance of painting at a distance;" but the Gauls and Britons chose rather to whitewash the clay after it was dry with chalk. Instead of the boughs of trees, they thatched these houses with straw, as a much better security against the weather. They next proceeded to form the walls of large beams of wood, instead of stakes and wattles. This seems to have been the mode of building in Britain, when it was first invaded by the Romans. "The Britons (says Diodorus Siculus, who was contemporary with Cæsar) dwell in wretched cottages, which are constructed of wood, covered with straw." These wooden houses of the ancient Gauls and Britons were not square but circular, with high tapering roofs, at the top or centre of which was an aperture for the admission of light and emission of smoke. Those of Gaul are thus described by Strabo: "They build their houses of wood, in the form of a circle, with lofty tapering roofs." The foundations of some of the most magnificent of these circular houses were of stone, of which there are some vestiges still remaining in Anglesey and other places. It was probably in imitation of these wooden houses, that the most ancient stone edifices, of which there are still some remains in the western isles of Scotland, were built circular, and have a large aperture at the top.

When the Britons were invaded by the Romans, they had nothing among them answering to our ideas of a city or town, consisting of a great number of contiguous houses, disposed into regular streets, lanes, and courts. Their dwellings, like those of the ancient Germans, were scattered about the country, and generally situated on the brink of some rivulet for the sake of water, and on the skirt of some wood or forest for the convenience of hunting and pasture for their cattle. As these inviting circumstances were more conspicuous in some parts of the country than others, the princes and chiefs made choice of these places for their residence; and a number of their friends and followers, for various reasons, built their houses as near to them as they could with conveniency. This naturally produced an ancient British town, which is described by Cæsar and Strabo in the following manner: "From the Cafl he learnt that the town of Cassivelaunus was at no great distance: a place defended by woods and marshes, in which very great numbers of men and cattle were collected. For what the Britons call a town, is a tract of woody country, surrounded by a mound and ditch, for the security of themselves and their cattle against the incursions of their enemies." "The forests of the Britons are their cities: for when they have inclosed a very large circuit with felled trees, they build within it housetops for themselves and hovels for their cattle. These buildings are very slight, and not designed for long duration." The palaces of the British princes were probably built of the same materials, and on the same plan, with the housetops of their subjects, and differed from them only in solidity and magnitude.

Though the communication between this island and the Continent was more free and open after the first Roman invasion than it had been before, and some of the British princes and chieftains even visited Rome, then in its greatest glory; it doth not appear that the people of Britain made any considerable improvements in their manner of building for at least a hundred years after that invasion. For when the renowned Charactacus was carried prisoner to Rome, A.D. 52, and observed the beauty and magnificence of the buildings in that proud metropolis of the world, he is said to have expressed great surprize, "That the Romans, who had such magnificent palaces of their own, should envy the wretched cottages of the Britons."

It must appear very surprising that the ancient Britons, when they were so ignorant of architecture, were capable of erecting (if indeed it was erected by them) so stupendous a fabric as that of Stonehenge on Salisbury plain: A fabric which hath been the admiration of all succeeding ages, and hath outlasted all the solid and noble structures which were erected by the Romans in this island. See the article STONEHENGE.

Of another very extraordinary species of building several remains are found in the Highlands of Scotland. They consist of ruins; the walls of which, instead of being cemented with lime or some other similar substance, or of being raised with dry stones, as was the method before cement came into use, are described as having been vitrified, or the stones run and compacted together by the force of fire. Concerning the origin, use, &c. of these buildings, different opinions have been formed; and even the reality of them as works of contrivance has been called in question: of all which particulars the reader will find an account under the article FORTS (Vitrified).

But for whatever purposes, or by whatever means, the above and other similar structures of a peculiar nature were erected, we have sufficient evidence that the people of Britain, before they were subdued and instructed by the Romans, had but a rude knowledge of architecture, and were very meanly lodged. As soon, however, as the Romans began to form settlements and plant colonies in this island, a sudden and surprising change ensued in the state of architecture. For that wonderful people were as industrious as they were brave, and made haste to adorn every country that they conquered. The first Roman colony was planted at Camelodunum, A.D. 50; and when it was destroyed by the Britons in their great revolt under Boadicea, only eleven years after, it appears to have been a large and well built town, adorned with statues, temples, theatres, and other public edifices.

The Romans not only built a prodigious number of solid, convenient, and magnificent structures for their own accommodation, but they exhorted, encouraged, and instructed the Britons to imitate their example. This was one of the arts which Agricola, the most excellent of the Roman governors, employed to civilize the Britons, and reconcile them to the Roman government. "The following winter (says Tacitus) was spent by Agricola in very salutary measures. That the Britons who led a roaming and unfettered life, and were easily instigated to war, might contract a love to peace and tranquillity, by being accustomed to a more pleasant way of living, he exhorted and assisted them to build housetops, temples, courts, and marketplaces. By praising the diligent and reproaching the indolent, he excited so great an emulation among the Britons, that after they had erected all those necessary edifices in their towns, they proceeded to build others merely for ornament and pleasure, as porticoes, galleries, baths, banqueting-houses, &c." From this time, which was A.D. 80, to the middle of the fourth century, architecture and all the arts immediately connected with it greatly flourished in this island; and the same taste for erecting solid, convenient, and beautiful buildings, which had long prevailed in Italy, was introduced into Britain. Every Roman colony and free city (of which there was a great number in this country) was a little Rome, encompassed with strong walls, adorned with temples, palaces, courts, halls, basilicas, baths, markets, aqueducts, and many other fine buildings, both for use and ornament. The country everywhere abounded with well-built villages, towns, forts, and stations; and the whole was defended by that high and strong wall, with its many towers and castles, which reached from the mouth of the river Tine on the east to the Solway Firth on the west. This spirit of building, which was introduced and encouraged by the Romans, so much improved the taste and increased the number of the British builders, that in the third century this island was famous for the great number and excellence of its architects and artificers. When the emperor Constantius, father of Constantine the Great, rebuilt the city of Autun in Gaul, A.D. 296, he was chiefly furnished with workmen from Britain, "which (says Eumenius) very much abounded with the best artificers."

Not very long after this period, architecture and all the arts connected with it began to decline very sensibly in Britain, and in all the provinces of the western empire. This was partly owing to the building of Constantinople, which drew many of the most famous architects and other artificers into the east, and partly to the irruptions and depredations of the barbarous nations.

The final departure of the Romans was followed by the almost total destruction of architecture in this island. For the unhappy and unwarlike people whom they left behind, having neither skill nor courage to defend the numerous towns, forts, and cities which they possessed, they were seized by their ferocious invaders, who first plundered and then destroyed them. By this means, the many noble structures with which Provincial Britain had been adorned by the art and industry of the Romans, were ruined or defaced in a very little time; and the unfortunate Britons were quite incapable of repairing them, or of building others in their room. That long succession of miseries in which they were involved... volved by the Scots, Picts, and Saxons, deprived them of the many useful arts which they had learned from their former masters, and lodged them once more in forests, dens, and caves, like their savage ancestors.

The most wanton and extensive devastations were those committed by the Anglo-Saxons; among whom it seems to have been a maxim to destroy all the towns and castles which they took from their enemies, instead of preserving them for their own use.

It cannot be supposed, that a people who wantonly demolished so many beautiful and useful structures had any taste for the arts by which they had been erected. The truth is, that the Anglo-Saxons at their arrival in this island were almost totally ignorant of these arts; and, like all the other nations of Germany, had been accustomed to live in wretched hovels, built of wood or earth, and covered with straw or the branches of trees; nor did they much improve in the knowledge of architecture for 200 years after their arrival. During that period, masonry was quite unknown and unpractised in this island; and the walls even of cathedral churches were built of wood. "There was a time (says Venerable Bede) when there was not a stone church in all the land; but the custom was to build them all of wood. Finan, the second bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, built a church in that island, A.D. 652, for a cathedral, which yet was not of stone, but of wood, and covered with reeds; and so it continued till Eadbald, the successor of St Cuthbert, and seventh bishop of Lindisfarne, took away the reeds, and covered it all over, both roof and walls, with fleeces of lead." The first cathedral of York was built of the same materials; and a church of stone was esteemed a kind of prodigy in those times that merited a place in history. "Paulinus, the first bishop of York, built a church of stone in the city of Lincoln, whose walls (says Bede) are still standing, though the roof is fallen down; and some healing miracles are wrought in it every year, for the benefit of those who have the faith to seek them."

There does not seem to have been so much as one church of stone, nor any artists who could build one, in all Scotland, at the beginning of the eighth century. For Natan king of the Picts, in his famous letter to Ceolfrid abbot of Weremouth, A.D. 710, earnestly intreats him to send him some masons to build a church of stone in his kingdom, in imitation of the Romans; which he promises to dedicate to the honour of the apostle Peter, to whom the abbey of Weremouth was dedicated: and we are told by Bede, who was then living in that abbey, that the reverend abbot Ceolfrid granted this pious request, and sent masons according to his desire.

Masonry was restored, and some other arts connected with it introduced into England, towards the end of the seventh century, by two clergymen, who were great travellers, and had often visited Rome, where they had acquired some taste for these arts. These were, the famous Wilfrid bishop of York, and afterwards of Hexham, and Benedict Bishop, founder of the abbey of Weremouth. Wilfrid, who was one of the most ingenious, active, and magnificent prelates of the seventh century, was a great builder, and erected several structures at York, Rippon, and Hexham, which were the admiration of the age in which he flourished. The cathedral of Hexham, which was one of these structures, is thus described by his biographer: "Having obtained a piece of ground at Hexham from Wilfrid Queen Etheldreda, he there founded a most magnificent church, which he dedicated to the blessed apostle St Andrew. As the plan of this sacred structure seems to have been inspired by the Spirit of God, it would require a genius much superior to mine to describe it properly. How large and strong were the subterranean buildings, constructed of the finest polished stones! How magnificent the superstructure, with its lofty roof, supported by many pillars, its long and high walls, its sublime towers, and winding staircases! In one word, there is no church on this side of the Alps so great and beautiful." This admired edifice, of which some vestiges are still remaining, was built by masons and other artificers brought from Rome by the munificence of its generous founder. Benedict Bishop was the cotemporary and companion of Wilfrid in some of his journeys, and had the same taste for the arts. He made no fewer than five journeys to Rome, chiefly with a view of collecting books, pictures, statues, and other curiosities, and of persuading artificers of various kinds to come from Italy and France and settle in England. Having obtained a grant of a considerable estate from Egfrid king of Northumberland, near the mouth of the river Wear, he there founded a monastery, A.D. 674. "About a year after the foundation of this monastery were laid, Benedict crossed the Albula into France, where he collected a number of masons, and brought them over with him, in order to build the church of his monastery of stone after the Roman manner, of which he was a great admirer. His love to the apostle Peter, to whom he designed to dedicate his church, made him urge these workmen to labour so hard, that mass was celebrated in it about a year after it was founded. When the work was far advanced, he sent agents into France to procure if possible some glaziers, a kind of artificers quite unknown in England, and to bring them over to glaze the windows of his church and monastery. These agents were successful, and brought several glaziers with them; who not only performed the work required by Benedict, but instructed the English in the art of making glass for windows, lamps, drinking-vessels, and other uses."

But though these arts of building edifices of stone, with windows of glass and other ornaments, were thus introduced by these two prelates in the latter part of the seventh century, they do not seem to have flourished much for several centuries. It appears from many incidental hints in our ancient historians, that stone buildings were still very rare in the eighth and ninth ages; and that when any such buildings were erected, they were the objects of much admiration. When Alfred the Great, towards the end of the ninth century, formed the design of rebuilding his ruined cities, churches, and monasteries, and of adorning his domains with more magnificent structures, he was obliged to bring many of his artificers from foreign countries. "Of these (as we are told by his friend and companion Assarius) he had an almost innumerable multitude, collected from different nations; many of them the most excellent in their several arts."

In the other parts of this island architecture was, as migh naturally be imagined, in a still less flourishing state. It appears indeed to have been almost entirely lost among the posterity of the ancient Britons after they retired to the mountains of Wales. The chief palace of the kings of Wales, where the nobility and wise men assembled for making laws, was called the white palace, because the walls of it were woven with white wands which had the bark peeled off. By the laws of Wales, whoever burnt or destroyed the king's hall or palace was obliged to pay one pound and eighty pence, besides one hundred and twenty pence for each of the adjacent buildings, which were eight in number; viz., the dormitory, the kitchen, the chapel, the granary, the bake-house, the store-house, the stable, and the dog-house. From hence it appears, that a royal residence in Wales, with all its offices, when these laws were made, was valued at five pounds and eighty pence of the money of that age, equal in quantity of silver to fifteen pounds of our money, and in efficacy to one hundred and sixty. This is certainly a sufficient proof of the meanest of those buildings which were only of wood. Even the castles in Wales, in this period, that were built for the security of the country, appear to have been constructed of the same materials; for the laws required the king's vassals to come to the building of these castles with no other tools but an axe.

The arts of building do not seem to have been much better understood by the Scots and Piets than by the ancient Britons in the former part of this period. When Finan, the second bishop of Lindisfarne, built a church of wood in that island, A.D. 652, he is said to have done it more sectorum, after the manner of his countrymen the Scots; and it hath been already observed, that Naitan king of the Piets was obliged to bring masons from Northumberland when he resolved to build a church of stone in his dominions, A.D. 710. After this last period, it is probable that the Piets, and perhaps the Scots, began to learn and practise the art of masonry; because there are still some stone buildings of a very singular construction, and great antiquity, to be seen in Scotland. These buildings are all circular; though of two kinds so different from each other, that they seem to be the works of different ages and of different nations. The largest of these structures are in a very extraordinary taste of architecture; and are thus described by a modern antiquary, who viewed them with little attention: "Having arrived at the barrow-track of Glenelg, I was conducted to the remains of those stupendous fabrics, seated about two miles from thence, in a valley called Glenbeg, in which four of them anciently stood. Two of these are now almost quite demolished, the third is half fallen down, the fourth is almost entire. The first I met with lies towards the north side of the valley, and is called Castle Chalamine, or Malcolm's Castle. It stands upon a considerable eminence, and affords us a fine prospect of the island of Sky and a good part of the sea-coast. The foundation of this only appears; as also of that other, on the east end of the valley, called Castle Chonnel. About a quarter of a mile further, upon the bank of a rivulet which passes through the middle of the glen, stands the third fabric, called Castle Telve. I found it composed of stones without cement; not laid in regular courses, after the manner of elegant buildings, but rudely and without order. Those toward the base were pretty large, but ascending higher they were thin and flat, some of them scarce exceeding the thickness of an ordinary brick. I was surprised to find no windows on the outside, nor any manner of entrance into the fabric, except a hole towards the west, at the base, so very low and narrow, that I was forced to creep in upon hands and knees, and found that it carried me down four or five steps below the surface of the ground. When I was got within, I was environed betwixt two walls, having a cavity or void space which led me round the whole building. Opposite to the little entry on the outside was a pretty large door in the second or inner wall, which let me into the area or inner court. When I was there, I perceived that one half of the building was fallen down, and thereby had the opportunity of seeing a complete section thereof. The two walls join together at the top, round about, and have formed a large void space or area in the middle. But to give a more complete idea of these buildings, I shall describe the fourth, called Castle Troddan, which is by far the most entire of any in that country, and from whence I had a very clear notion how these fabrics were originally contrived. On the outside were no windows, nor were the materials of this castle any wise different from those of the other already described, only the entry on the outside was somewhat larger; but this might be occasioned by the falling of the stones from above. The area of this makes a complete circle; and there are four doors in the inner wall, which face the four cardinal points of the compass. These doors are each eight feet and a half high, and five feet wide, and lead from the area into the cavity between the two walls, which runs round the whole building. The perpendicular height of this fabric is exactly 33 feet; the thickness of both walls, including the cavity between, no more than 12 feet; and the cavity itself is hardly wide enough for two men to walk abreast; the external circumference is 178 feet. The whole height of the fabric is divided into four parts or stories, separated from each other by thin floorings of flat stones, which knit the two walls together, and run quite round the building; and there have been winding stairs of the same flat stones ascending betwixt wall and wall up to the top. The undermost partition is somewhat below the surface of the ground, and is the widest; the others grow narrower by degrees till the walls close at the top. Over each door are nine square windows, in a direct line above each other, for the admission of light; and between every row of windows are three others in the uppermost story, rising above a cornice which projects out from the inner wall and runs round the fabric." From this description of these singular edifices, it plainly appears, that they were designed both for lodging and defence; and considering the state of the times in which they were built, they were certainly very well contrived for answering both these purposes.

The stone edifices of the other kind which were probably erected in this period, and of which some few are still to be seen in Scotland, are not so large as the former, but more artificial. They are slender, lofty, circular towers, of cut stone, laid in regular rows, between 40 and 50 feet in external circumference, and from 70 to 100 feet high, with one door some feet from the ground. They are exactly similar to the round round tower of Ardmore, and several others, in Ireland; and therefore were probably built about the same time, which was in the tenth century, and for the same purposes; which are believed by some to have been for the confinement of penitents while they were performing penance. On this account these towers are always found in the neighbourhood of churches both in Scotland and Ireland; and are said to have been used in this manner: "The penitents were placed in the uppermost story of the tower (which commonly consisted of five or six stories); where having made probation, or done penance, such a limited time, according to the heinousness of their crimes, they then were permitted to descend to the next floor, and so on by degrees, until they came to the door, which always faced the entrance of the church, where they stood to receive absolution from the clergy, and the blessings of the people." A tedious process, to which few penitents in the present age would willingly submit. Other writers are of opinion, that the design of these circular towers (of which one is still remaining at Abernethy and another at Brechin) was to be places from whence the people were called to public worship by the sound of a horn or trumpet, before the introduction of bells.

This art received very great improvements in the 12th century; which indeed may be called the age of architecture; when the rage for building was more violent in England than at any other time. The great and general improvements that were made in the fabrics of houses and churches in the first years of this century, are thus described by a contemporary writer:

"The new cathedrals and innumerable churches that were built in all parts, together with the many magnificent cloisters and monasteries, and other apartments of monks, that were then erected, afford a sufficient proof of the great felicity of England in the reign of Henry I. The religious of every order, enjoying peace and prosperity, displayed the most astonishing ardour in every thing that might increase the splendor of divine worship. The fervent zeal of the faithful prompted them to pull down houses and churches everywhere, and rebuild them in a better manner. By this means the ancient edifices that had been raised in the days of Edgar, Edward, and other Christian kings, were demolished, and others of greater magnitude and magnificence, and of more elegant workmanship, were erected in their room, to the glory of God."

As the prodigious power of religious zeal, whatever turn it happens to take, when it is thoroughly heated, is well known, it may not be improper to give one example of the arts employed by the clergy and monks of this period, to inflame the pious ardour of the kings, nobles, and people, for building and adorning churches. When Joffred Abbot of Croyland resolved to rebuild the church of his monastery in a most magnificent manner, A.D. 1106, he obtained from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, a bull dispensing with the third part of all penances for sin to those who contributed anything towards the building of that church. This bull was directed not only to the king and people of England, but to the kings of France and Scotland, and to all other kings, earls, barons, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, rectors, prebendaries, and clerks, and to all true believers in Christ, rich and poor, in all Christian kingdoms. To make the best use of this bull, he sent two of his most eloquent monks to proclaim it over all France and Flanders, two other monks into Scotland, two into Denmark and Norway, two into Wales, Cornwall, and Ireland, and others into different parts of England. "By this means (says the historian) the wonderful benefits granted to all the contributors to the building of this church were published to the very ends of the earth; and great heaps of treasure and masses of yellow metal flowed in from all countries upon the venerable Abbot Joffred, and encouraged him to lay the foundations of his church."

Having spent about four years in collecting mountains of different kinds of marble from quarries both at home and abroad, together with great quantities of lime, iron, brass, and other materials for building, he fixed a day for the great ceremony of laying the foundation, which he contrived to make a very effectual mean of raising the superstructure: For on the long-expected day, the feast of the Holy Virgins Felicitas and Perpetua, an immense multitude of earls, barons, and knights, with their ladies and families, of abbots, priors, monks, nuns, clerks, and persons of all ranks, arrived at Croyland, to assist at this ceremony. The pious Abbot Joffred began by saying certain prayers, and shedding a flood of tears on the foundation. Then each of the earls, barons, knights, with their ladies, sons, and daughters, the abbots, clerks, and others, laid a stone, and upon it deposited a sum of money, a grant of lands, tithes, or patronages, or a promise of stone, lime, wood, labour, or carriages, for building the church. After this the Abbot entertained the whole company, amounting to 5000 persons, at dinner. To this entertainment they were all intitled; for the money, and grants of different kinds, which they had deposited on the foundation-stones, were alone sufficient to have raised a very noble fabric. By such arts as these the clergy inspired kings, nobles, and people of all ranks, with so ardent a spirit for these pious works, that in the course of this period almost all the sacred edifices in England were rebuilt, and many hundreds of new ones raised from the foundation. Nor was this spirit confined to England, but prevailed as much in Scotland in proportion to its extent and riches. King David I. alone, besides several cathedrals and other churches, built no fewer than thirteen abbeys and priories, some of which were very magnificent structures.

The sacred architecture of the Anglo-Normans in the beginning of this period did not differ much in its style and manner from that of the Anglo-Saxons; their churches being in general plain, low, strong, and dark; the arches both of the doors and windows semicircular, with few or no ornaments. By degrees, through much practice, our architects, who were all monks or clergymen, improved in their taste and skill, and ventured to form plans of more noble, light, and elevated structures, with a great variety of ornaments; which led to that bold magnificent style of building, commonly, though perhaps not very properly, called the later Gothic. It is not improbable that our monkish architects were assisted in attaining this style of building by models from foreign countries, or by instructions from such of their own number as had visited Italy, France, Spain, or the East. But the origin of of this style of architecture has been already considered, and the characters by which it is distinguished from the ancient Gothic have also been described: (See n° 21, supra.) Its first appearance in England was towards the latter end of the reign of king Henry II. But it was not at once thoroughly adopted; some short solid columns and semicircular arches being retained and mixed with the pointed ones; as for example, in the west end of the Old Temple Church; and at York, where under the choir there remains much of the ancient work, the arches of which are but just pointed and rise on short round pillars. In the reign of Henry III, however, this manner of building seems to have gained a complete footing; the circular giving place to the pointed arch, and the massive column yielding to the slender pillar. Indeed, like all novelties, when once admitted, the rage of fashion made it become so prevalent, that many of the ancient and solid buildings, erected in former ages, were taken down in order to be re-edified in the new taste, or had additions patched to them, of this mode of architecture. The present cathedral church of Salisbury was begun early in this reign, and finished in the year 1258. It is entirely in the Saracenic style; and, according to Sir Christopher Wren, may be justly accounted one of the best patterns of architecture of the age in which it was built. Its excellency is undoubtedly in a great measure owing to its being constructed on one plan; whence arises that symmetry and agreement of parts, not to be met with in many of our other cathedral churches; which have mostly been built at different times, and in a variety of styles. From this time till the reign of Henry VIII, the fathomable pillars in churches were of Purbeck marble, very slender and round, encompassed with marble shafts a little detached, having each a capital adorned with foliage, which joining, formed one elegant capital for the whole pillar. The windows were long and narrow, with pointed arches and painted glass, which was introduced about that time, or at least became more common. In this century also they began to delight in lofty steeples, with spires and pinnacles. In the fourteenth century, the pillars consisted of an assemblage of shafts not detached, but united, forming one solid and elegant column; the windows, especially those in the east and west ends, were greatly enlarged, divided into several lights by stone mullions running into ramifications above, and forming numerous compartments in various fanciful shapes. Those windows, filled with stained glass of the most lively colours, representing kings, saints, and martyrs, and their histories, made a most solemn and glorious appearance. There were several other variations, especially in the taste of the carvings and other ornaments, which are too minute for general history.

As to the state of civil architecture during the same period: The houses of the common people in the country, and of the lower burgesses in towns and cities, were very little improved in their structure, that most numerous and useful order of men being much depressed in the times we are now delineating. Even in the capital city of London, all the houses of mechanics and common burgesses were built of wood, and covered with straw or reeds, towards the end of the twelfth century. But the palaces, or rather castles, of the Anglo-Norman kings, barons, and prelates, were very different from the residences of persons of the same rank in the Anglo-Saxon times. For this we have the testimony of a person of undoubted credit, who was well acquainted with them both. "The Anglo-Saxon nobles (says William of Malmesbury) squandered away their ample revenues in low and mean houses; but the French and Norman barons are very different from them, living at less expense, but in great and magnificent palaces." The truth is, that the rage of building fortified castles was no less violent among the Norman princes, prelates, and barons, than that of building churches. To this they were prompted not only by the custom of their native country, but also by their dangerous situation in this island. Surrounded by multitudes, whom they had deprived and plundered, and by whom they were abhorred, they could not think themselves safe without the protection of deep ditches and strong walls. The conqueror himself was sensible, that the want of fortified places in England had greatly facilitated his conquest, and might facilitate his expulsion; and therefore he made all possible haste to remedy this defect, by building very magnificent and strong castles in all the towns within the royal demesnes. "William (says Matthew Paris) excelled all his predecessors in building castles, and greatly harassed his subjects and vassals with these works." All his earls, barons, and even prelates, imitated his example; and it was the first care of every one who received the grant of an estate from the crown, to build a castle upon it for his defence and residence. The disputes about the succession in the following reigns, kept up this spirit for building great and strong castles. William Rufus was still a greater builder than his father. "This William (says Henry Knighton) was much addicted to building royal castles and palaces, as the castles of Dover, Windsor, Norwich, Exeter, the palace of Westminster, and many others, testify; nor was there any king of England before him that erected so many and such noble edifices." Henry I. was also a great builder both of castles and monasteries. But this rage for building never prevailed so much in any period of the English history as in the turbulent reign of king Stephen, from A.D. 1135 to A.D. 1154. "In this reign (as we are told by the author of the Saxon Chronicle) every one who was able built a castle; so that the poor people were worn out with the toil of these buildings, and the whole kingdom was covered with castles." This last expression will hardly appear too strong, when we are informed, that besides all the castles before that time in England, no fewer than 115 were raised from the foundation in the short space of 19 years. See the article CASTLE.

The castles, monasteries, and greater churches of this period, were generally covered with lead, the windows glazed; and when the walls were not of Ashlar, they were neatly plastered, and whitewashed on both sides. The doors, floors, and roof, were commonly made of oak planks and beams, exactly smoothed and jointed, and frequently carved. It is hardly necessary to observe, that the building one of these great and magnificent castles, monasteries, or churches, of which there were many in England, must have been a work of prodigious expense and labour; and that the architects and artificers, by whom that work was planned and executed, must have attained considerable dexterity. dexterity in their respective arts. Several of these architects have obtained a place in history, and are highly celebrated for their superior skill. William of Sens, architect to Archbishop Lanfranc in building his cathedral, is said, by Gervase of Canterbury, to have been a most exquisite artist both in stone and wood. He made not only a model of the whole cathedral, but of every particular piece of sculpture and carving, for the direction of the workmen, and invented many curious machines for loading and unloading ships, and conveying heavy weights by land, because all the stones were brought from Normandy. Matthew Paris speaks even in a higher strain of Walter of Coventry, who flourished towards the end of this period, when he says, that "so excellent an architect had never yet appeared, and probably never would appear, in the world." This encomium was undoubtedly too high; but it is impossible to view the remains of many magnificent fabrics, both sacred and civil, that were erected in this period, without admiring the genius of the architects by whom they were planned, and the dexterity of the workmen by whom they were executed.

In the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII, or rather towards the latter end of that of Henry VII, when brick building became common, a new kind of low pointed arch grew much in use: it was described from four centers, was very round at the haunches, and the angle at the top was very obtuse. This sort of arch is to be found in every one of Cardinal Wolsey's buildings; also at West Sheen; an ancient brick gate at Mile End, called King John's Gate; and in the great gate of the palace of Lambeth. From this time Gothic architecture began to decline; and was soon after supplanted by a mixed style, if one may venture to call it one; wherein the Grecian and Gothic, however discordant and irreconcilable, are jumbled together. Concerning this mode of building, Mr Warton, in his observations on Spencer's Fairy Queen, has the following anecdotes and remarks:

"Altho' the Roman or Grecian architecture did not begin to prevail in England till the time of Inigo Jones, yet our communication with the Italians, and our imitation of their manners, produced some specimens of that style much earlier. Perhaps the earliest was Somerset House in the Strand, built about the year 1549, by the Duke of Somerset, uncle to Edward VI. The monument of Bishop Gardiner, in Winchester cathedral, made in the reign of Mary, about 1555, is decorated with Ionic pillars. These verses of Spencer,

Did rise On stately pillars, fram'd after the Doric guise, Bear an allusion to some of the fashionable improvements in building, which at this time were growing more and more into esteem. Thus also Bishop Hall, who wrote about the same time, viz. 1598:

There findest thou some stately Doricke frame, Or neat Ionicke work.

But these ornaments were often absurdly introduced into the old Gothic style: as in the magnificent portico of the schools at Oxford, erected about the year 1613; where the builder, in a Gothic edifice, has affectedly displayed his universal skill in the modern architecture, by giving us all the five orders together. However, most of the great buildings of Queen Elizabeth's reign have a style peculiar to themselves both in form and finishing; where, though much of the old Gothic is retained, and great part of the new taste is adopted, yet neither predominates; while both, thus diffusely blended, compose a fantastic species, hardly reducible to any class or name. One of its characteristics is the affectation of large and lofty windows: where, says Bacon, "you shall have sometimes fair houles so full of glafs, that one cannot tell where to come to be out of the sun."

To return now to our general history, and to conclude: In the 15th and 16th centuries, when learning of all kinds began to revive, the chaste architecture of the Greeks and Romans seemed as it were 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.

**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, 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 of relative objects. 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 destined. 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 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 crofs-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 Utility and 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 incompatibles: 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 disappoint.

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 confining 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 difference; 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 of a building there are certain strict proportions which please the eye, in the same manner as in sound theretory. 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... Principles bers 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.

Perrault, 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 principal 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, structure which is perceived when the form and ornaments of a building 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 appear sumptuous and grand; a private dwelling, neat and modest; 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, which is the first that commonly receives us, is a bad house's contrivance in several respects. In the first place, when immediately from the open air we step into such principles. 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 to great.

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 destined 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, bas-relief 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 stair 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 destination is utility, where it cannot have even the appearance of use. As to carvings upon the external surface of a building, termed basso 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 basso 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, the chief ornament in great buildings. The definition 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 parallelopipedon. This last, in the language of architecture, is saying, that a column is a more agreeable figure than a plaster; 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 pilaster. 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 Herculian; 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 by... Principles distinguished from each other by their destination 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 destination. To make the first a distinguishing mark, without regard to the other, would multiply orders without end. Destination is more limited, and it leads us to distinguish three kinds of orders; one plain and strong, for the purpose of supporting plain and massy buildings; one delicate and graceful, for supporting buildings of that character; and between these, a third, for supporting buildings of a mixed nature. So that, if destination 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, produceth 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, ballusters, &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 Frize, 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.

Parts of an order divided into two different classes. In the first may be ranged all that have an 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 dentiles, which all of them represent the rafters, or some other pieces of timber used to support the covering; and the corona, representing the principle beds of materials that composed the covering. All these may properly be distinguished by the name of essential members. The subterranean 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 ogee; the cyma, cyma recta, or cymation; 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 XXXVIII.

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 assemblage of what are called essential parts profile, and mouldings is termed a profile. The most perfect what, 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 ancients 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 extent; for which they have The Tuscan Order Monteir 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 C D, 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 A B E, which will cut the indefinite line C D in E; and, from this point of intersection E, draw thro' the axis of the column any number of rays as E b a, on each of which, from the axis towards the circumference, setting off the interval C D, 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 principles, 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 C D E, take three rulers, either of wood or metal, as F G, I D, and A H; of which let F G and I D be fastened together at right angles in G. Cut a dovetail groove in the middle of F G, from top to bottom; and at the point E on the ruler I D (whose distance, from the middle of the groove in F G, is the same as that of the point of intersection from the axis of the column) fix a pin; then on the ruler A H set off the distance A B, equal to C D 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 F G, in which it is to slide; and, at the other extremity of the ruler A H, cut a slit or canal from H to K, whose length must not be less than the difference of length between E B and E D, and whose breadth must be sufficient to admit the pin fixed at L, 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 F G, be placed exactly over the axis of the column, it is evident that the ruler A H, in moving along the groove, will with the extremity A describe the curve A 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 A B, a b, is always the same; and the point E is the origin of an infinity of lines, of which the parts B A, ba, ba, extending from the axis to the circumference, are equal to each other and to D C. 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 A B and D E 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 fifth 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 massive, 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 Principles: the shaft is likewise one module; and the shaft, with its upper cincture and astragal, 12 modules.

There 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 Order.

This order is next in strength to the Tuscan; and, 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 and base, is 16 modules, and the height of the entablature four; the latter of which being divided into eight parts, two of them are for the architrave, three for the frieze, and three for the cornice.

In most of the antiques, the Doric column is executed without a base. Vitruvius likewise makes it without one; the base, according to him, having been first employed in the Ionic order, in imitation of the sandal of a woman's foot. Scamozzi blames this practice, and most of the modern architects are of his opinion.

Ornaments: In the profile of the theatre of Marcellus, the frieze is enriched with husks and roses; the architrave consists only of one fascia and a fillet; the drops are conical; the metope is enriched with a bull's skull, adorned with a garland of beads, in imitation of those on the temple of Jupiter Tonans, at the foot of the Capitol. In some antique fragments, and in a great many modern buildings, the metopes are alternately adorned with ox-skulls and pateras. But they may be filled with any other ornaments, according to the destination of the building.

The Ionic Order

Is of a more slender make than the Doric or Tuscan; its appearance is simple, yet graceful and majestic; its ornaments are few; so that it has been compared to a sedate matron, in decent, rather than magnificent, attire.

Among the ancients, the form of the Ionic profile appears to have been more positively determined than that of any other order; for, in all the antiques at Rome (the temple of Concord excepted), it is exactly the same.

The modern artists have likewise been unanimous in their opinions; all of them, excepting Palladio and his imitators, having employed the dentil, cornice, and the other parts of the profile, nearly as they are found in the Colosseum, the temple of Fortune, and the theatre of Marcellus.

The height of the Ionic column is 18 modules, and that of the entablature 4½, or one quarter of the height of the column, as in the other orders, which is a trifle less than in any of the antique Ionics. In all the antiques, the base is Attic; and the shaft of the column may either be plain, or fluted with 24 flutings, or 20 only, as in the temple of Fortune. The plan of the flutings may be a trifle more than a semicircle, as in the forum of Nerva, because they then appear more distinct. The fillets, or intervals between them, must not be broader than one third of the breadth of a fluting, nor narrower than one fourth. The ornaments of the capital must correspond with the flutings of the shaft; and there must be an ove above the middle of each fluting. The volutes ought to be traced according to Mr Goldman's method, which is as follows:

Plate XXXVIII. fig. 9. Draw the cathetus, F C, whose length must be 15 minutes, or one fourth of a drawing module; and, from the point C, describe the eye of the volute A E B D, of which the diameter is to be 6½ minutes; divide it into four equal sectors by the diameters A B, D E. Bisect the radii C A, C B, in 1 and 4; and on the line 1, 4, construct a square 1, 2, 3, 4. From the centre C, to the angles 2, 3, draw the diagonals C 2, C 3, and divide the side of the square 1, 4, into 6 equal parts, at 5, 9, C, 12, 8. Then through the points 5, 9, 12, 8, draw the lines 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 11, 8, 7, parallel to the diameter E D, which will cut the diagonals in 6, 7, 10, 11; and the points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, will be the centres of the volute. From the first centre 1, with the distance 1 F, describe the quadrant F G; from the second centre 2, with the distance 2 G, describe the quadrant G H; and, continuing the same operation from all the 12 centres, the contour of the volute will be completed.

Fig. 10. The centres for describing the fillet are found in this manner. Construct a triangle, of which the side A F is equal to the part of the cathetus contained between A F and the side F V, equal to C I; place the distance F S from F towards A, equal to F S the breadth of the fillet, and through the point S draw the line S T, which will be to C I in the same proportion as A S is to A F; place this line on the diameter of the eye A B; divide it into three equal parts; and, through the points of division, draw lines parallel to the diameter E D, which will cut the diagonals C 2, C 3, and you will have twelve new centres, from whence the interior contour of the fillet may be described in the same manner as the exterior one was from the first centres.

Of the Corinthian Order.

The proportions of this order are extremely delicate. It is divided into a great variety of members, and enriched with a profusion of ornaments. Scamozzi calls it the virginal order; and indeed it has all the delicacy in its make, and all the delicacy in its dress, peculiar to young girls.

The most perfect model of the Corinthian order is generally allowed to be in the three columns in the Campo Vaccino at Rome, the remains, as it is thought, of the temple of Jupiter Stator. The Doric Order The Ionic Order The Corinthian Order The Composite Order The Corinthian column should be 20 modules high, and the entablature 5; which proportions are a medium between those of the Pantheon and the three columns. The base of the column may be either Attic or Corinthian: They are both beautiful. If the entablature be enriched, the shaft may be fluted. The flutings may be filled, to one third of their height, with cabbings, as in the inside of the Pantheon; which will strengthen the lower part of the column, and make it less liable to injury.

In most of the antiques at Rome, the capital of this order is enriched with olive-leaves; the acanthus being seldom employed but in the Composite. De Cordemoy, however, prefers the acanthus.

The divisions of the entablature bear the same proportions to each other, as the Tuscan, Ionic, and Composite orders.

The Composite

Is, strictly speaking, only a species of the Corinthian; and therefore retains, in a great measure, the same character.

It does not appear that the ancients affected any particular form of entablature to this order. Sometimes the cornice is entirely plain, as in the temple of Bacchus; at others, as in the arch of Septimius Severus, it is enriched with dentils differing very little from the Ionic; and in the arch of Titus, there are both dentils and modillions; the whole form of the profile being the same with the Corinthian, as executed in the antiques at Rome.

The modern architects have varied more in this than in any other order, each following the bent of his own fancy.

The height of the Composite column, and parts of the entablature, is the same with that of the Corinthian. The foot of the leaves of the capital ought not to project beyond the upper part of the shaft. The different bunches of leaves should be strongly marked; the sprigs which arise between the upper ones should be kept flat upon the vase; and the ornaments of the volutes must not project beyond the fillets that inclose them.

**Chap. II. Of Pilasters.**

These differ from columns only in their plan; which is a square, as that of columns is round. Their bases, capitals, and entablatures, have the same parts, with the same heights and projections, as those of columns: they are also distinguished in the same manner, by the names of Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite.

The column is undoubtedly more perfect than the pilaster. However, they may be employed with great propriety on many occasions. Some authors declaim against pilasters, because, according to them, they do not admit of diminution. But this is a mistake; there are many instances, in the remains of antiquity, of their being diminished. Scamozzi always gave his pilasters the same diminution as his columns: Palladio and Inigo Jones have likewise diminished them in many of their buildings.

Pilasters are employed in churches, galleries, halls, and other interior decorations, to save room; for, as they seldom project beyond the solid wall above one quarter of their diameter, they do not occupy near so much space as columns. They are likewise used in exterior decorations; sometimes alone, instead of columns, on account of their being less expensive; and sometimes they accompany columns, being placed behind them to support the architraves, where they enter the building, as in the Pantheon at Rome; or, in the same line with them, to fortify the angles, as in the portico of Septimius.

When pilasters are used alone, they should project one quarter of their diameter beyond the walls. When placed behind columns, especially if they be very near them, they need not project above one eighth of their diameter. But, when placed on a line with columns, their projection must be regulated by that of the columns; and consequently, it can never be less than a semidiameter, even when the columns are engaged as much as possible.

The shafts of pilasters are frequently adorned with How ornamental flutings, in the same manner as those of columns; the plan of which may be a trifle more than a semicircle: their number must be seven on each face, which makes them nearly of the same size with those of columns. The intervals, or fillets, must either be one third or one fourth of the fluting in breadth.

The capitals of pilasters are profiled nearly in the same manner as those of columns.

**Chap. III. Of Attics.**

These very properly follow the pilasters; being nothing more than square pillars with their cornices. They had their origin in Athens, where it was for many ages a rule in building to conceal the roof. For this purpose, nothing served so well as a kind of low or little order ranged in a continued line, singly, or with the interruption of balusters; which, rising above the rest of the work and before the roof, hid it perfectly, and placed something agreeable in view. The place of Attics, therefore, is at the uppermost extremity of a building, to which they serve as a crown, or very properly make a finishing for the other orders when they have been used in the structure. They must never stand under anything except such ornaments as are placed at the very top. These Attics should never exceed in height one third of the height of the order on which they are placed, nor be less than one quarter of it. The base, dye, and cornice, of which they are composed, may bear the same proportions to each other as those of pedestals do; and the base and cornice may be composed of the same mouldings as those pedestals. Sometimes the Attic is continued throughout; at others, it projects, and forms a pilaster over each column of the order. The breadth of this pilaster is seldom made narrower than the upper diameter of the column below it, and never broader. Its projection may be equal to one quarter of its breadth.

**Chap. IV. Of Persians, Caryatides, and Terminals.**

Besides columns and pilasters, it is sometimes customary to employ representations of the human figure, to support entablatures in buildings. The male figures are called Persians; and the female, Carians, or Caryatides. The Persians are so called from a victory gained over the Persians by Paufanias, who having brought home spoils and trophies to the Athenians, they fixed upon Persian figures for those which should support entablatures, and thus kept in mind that there were once Persian slaves in Athens. To represent these conquered people in the lowest state possible, they loaded them with the heaviest entablature, viz., that of the Doric order. In process of time, however, other figures besides those of Persians were introduced, and other entablatures put over them; but the name was still retained.

The proper Caryatides are women dressed in long robes, after the Asiatic manner; and the origin of the device was as follows.—The Carians had been long at war with the Athenians; but being at length totally vanquished, their wives were led away captives; and, to perpetuate the memory of this event, trophies were erected, in which figures of women dressed in the Caryatic manner, were used to support entablatures like the Persians; and though other female figures were afterwards used in the same manner, the name of Caryatides was always retained.

The ancients made frequent use of Persians and Caryatides, and delighted in diversifying them a thousand ways. The modern artists have followed their example; and there is a great variety of compositions of this kind to be met with in different parts of Europe.

Indecent attitudes, distorted features, and all monstrous productions, ought to be avoided, of which there are many examples in Gothic buildings. On the contrary, the attitudes should be simple and graceful, the countenance always pleasing, though varied and strongly marked agreeable to the nature of the object represented.

The Caryatides, or female figures, should never much exceed the human size. But the Persians or male figures, may be of any size; and the larger the better, as they will strike the beholder with the greater awe and astonishment. Persians may be used with propriety in arsenals, galleries of armour, &c. under the figures of captives, heroic virtues, &c. Their entablature ought to be Doric, and bear the same proportion to them as to columns of the same height. The entablature for Caryatides ought to be either Ionic or Corinthian, according as the character of the figures is more or less delicate.

Termini are sometimes employed, instead of Persians or Caryatides, to support the entablatures of monuments, chimney-pieces, and such like compositions. These figures owe their origin to the stones used by the ancients to mark the limits of particular possessions. Numa Pompilius, to render these inviolable, consecrated the terminus into a deity, and instituted festivals and sacrifices to his honour. In a short time, what was formerly only large upright stones, were represented in human shape; and afterwards introduced as ornaments to temples and other buildings. The termini are now principally used as ornaments for gardens and fields.

**Chap. V. Of Pedestals.**

Most writers consider the Pedestal as a necessary part of the order, without which it is not complete. It is indeed a matter of little importance whether principles be considered in that light, or as a distinct composition: we shall therefore treat of a pedestal as a distinct body, having no more connection with the order than an attic, a basement, or any other part with which it may on some occasions be associated.

A pedestal consists of three principal parts: the base, the dye, and the cornice. The dye is always nearly of the same figure; being constantly either a cube or a parallelopipedon: but the base and cornice are varied and adorned with more or fewer mouldings, according to the simplicity or richness of the composition in which the pedestal is employed. Hence pedestals are, like columns, distinguished by the names of Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite.

Some authors are adverse to pedestals, and compare a column raised on a pedestal to a man mounted on stilts; imagining that they were introduced merely from necessity, and for want of columns of a sufficient length. It is indeed true, that the ancients often made use of artifices to lengthen their columns; as appears by some that are in the Baptistery of Constantine at Rome; the shafts of which, being too short for the building, were lengthened and joined to their bases by an undulated sweep, adorned with acanthus leaves. Nevertheless, there are many occasions where pedestals are evidently necessary; and some in which the order, were it not so raised, would lose much of its beautiful appearance. Thus, in the insides of churches, if the columns that support the vault were placed immediately on the ground, the seats would hide their bases and a good part of their shafts; and in the theatres of the ancients, if the columns of the scene had been placed immediately on the stage, the actors would have hid a part of them from the audience. In anterior decorations, a pedestal diminishes the parts of the order, which otherwise might perhaps appear too clumsy, and hath the advantage of placing the column in a more favourable view, by raising its base nearer the level of the spectator's eye. In a second order of arcades, there is no avoiding pedestals; as without them it is impossible to give the arches any tolerable proportion.

With regard to the proportion that pedestals ought to bear to that of the columns they support, it is by no means fixed. Both the ancients and moderns vary greatly on this head. Vignola's proportions are generally reckoned the best. He makes his pedestals in all the orders of the same height, viz., one third of the column; and as their breadth of course increases or diminishes in the same degree as the diameters of their respective columns do, the character of the order is always preserved, which, according to any other method, is impossible.

As to the divisions of the pedestals; if the whole height be divided into nine parts, one of them may be given to the height of the cornice, two to the base, and the six remaining to the dye. The breadth of the dye is always made equal to that of the plinth of the column. The projection of the cornice may be made equal to its height; and the base being divided into three parts, two of them will be for the height of the plinth, and one for the mouldings, whose projection must be less than that of the cornice. These measures Chap. VI. Of Intercolumniations.

Columns are either engaged, or insulated; and, when insulated, are either very near the wall, or at a considerable distance from it. Engaged columns, or such as are near the walls of a building, are not limited in their intercolumniations, as these depend on the breadths of the arches, windows, niches, or other decorations placed between the columns. But columns that are entirely detached, and perform alone the office of supporting the entablature, as in peristyles, porches and galleries, must be near each other, for the sake both of real and apparent solidity.

The intercolumniations among the ancients were various. Those used in the Ionic and Corinthian orders were the pycnoptyle, of which the interval was equal to one diameter and a half of the column; the stylople, whose interval was equal to two diameters; the euptyle, to two and a quarter; the diaystyle to three, and the araeoptyle to four. In the Doric order, they used other intercolumniations, regulating them by the triglyphs, one of which was always placed directly over the middle of each column; so that they were either stylople, monotriglyph, of one diameter and a half; diaystyle, of two diameters and three quarters; or araeoptyle, of four diameters; and the Tuscan intervals were very wide, some of them being above seven diameters, which was very practicable, as the architraves were of wood.

Among these different intercolumniations, the pycnoptyle and stylople are too narrow; for although the ancients made frequent use of them, that ought rather to be ascribed to necessity than choice. For as the architraves were composed of single stones, extending from the middle of one column to the middle of another, it would have been difficult, especially in large buildings, to find blocks of a sufficient length for diaystyle intervals. With regard to the araeoptyle and Tuscan intercolumniations, they are by much too wide, and can only be used in rustic buildings, where the architraves are of wood; neither is the diaystyle sufficiently solid in large compositions. The euptyle is a medium between the narrow and broad intervals; and being at the same time both spacious and solid, hath been preferred to any of the rest by the ancients as well as the moderns.

Vignola observed nearly the same proportion in all his intercolumniations; which practice, though condemned by several writers, is certainly preferable to any other; as it preserves the character of each order, and maintains in all of them an equal degree of real solidity. Setting aside therefore the pycnoptyle and stylople dispositions on account of their want of space, and the araeoptyle for its deficiency in point of strength, it may be established, that the diaystyle and euptyle intercolumniations (the latter of which on most occasions, ought to have the preference) may be employed in all the orders without distinction, excepting the Doric; in which the most perfect interval is ditriglyph; neither the monotriglyph, nor the araeoptyle, being to be suffered but in cases of necessity.

Sometimes, on account of the windows, doors, niches, and other decorations, which correspond with the intercolumniations of the peristyle, or gallery, it is impossible to make the intervals so narrow as euptyle, or even as diaystyle; wherefore the moderns, authorized by some few examples of the ancients, where grouped columns are employed, have invented a manner of disposing them, called by Perrault araeoptyle, which admits of a larger interval, without any detriment to the apparent solidity of the building. This kind of disposition is composed of two stylople intercolumniations; the column that separates them being approached towards one of those at the extremities, sufficient room only being left between them for the projection of the capitals; so that the great space is three diameters and a half wide, and the little one half a diameter.

In peristyles, galleries, or porticos, all the intercolumniations must be equal; but in a loggia, or porch, the middle interval may be broader than the others, by a triglyph or modillion, or three or four dentils; unless the columns at the angles be coupled or grouped with pilasters; in which case, all the intervals should be of the same dimensions.

When buildings are very small, as is frequently the case in temples and other inventions used for ornamenting gardens, the intercolumniations may be broader, in proportion to the diameter of the columns, than usual; because, when they are nearer each other than three feet, there is hardly room for a bulky person to pass between them.

Chap. VII. Of Arches.

Arches are not so magnificent as colonnades; but Arches, they are more solid and less expensive. They are proper for triumphal entrances, gates of cities, of palaces, of gardens, and of parks, and, in general, for all openings that require an extraordinary breadth.

There are various manners of adorning arches. Sometimes their piers are fluted; sometimes they are adorned with pilasters, termini, or caryatides; and sometimes they are made sufficiently broad to admit niches or windows. The circular part of the arch is either surrounded with rustic key-stones, or with an archivolt enriched with mouldings; which, in the middle, is sometimes interrupted by a console, a mask, serving at the same time as a key to the arch, and as a support to the architrave of the order. The archivolt is sometimes supported by an impost, at the head of the pier; and at others by columns placed on each side of it, with a regular entablature, or architrave and cornice. There are likewise instances of arcades without piers, the arches being turned on single columns as in the temple of Faunus at Rome, &c. This practice, however, ought to be seldom imitated, as it is neither solid nor handsome.

When arches are large, the key-stone should never be omitted, but cut in the form of a console, and carried close under the soffit of the architrave, which on account of its extraordinary length, requires a support in the middle. The imposts of arches should never be omitted; at least, if they be, a platform ought to supply their place. If columns are employed without pedestals in arcades, they should always be raised on a plinth. In all arches, the circular part ought not to spring immediately from the impost, but take take its rise at such a distance above it as is necessary in order to have the whole curve seen at the proper point of view.

The void or aperture of arches should never be higher nor much lower than double their breadth; the breadth of the pier should seldom exceed two thirds, nor be less than one third, of the breadth of the arch; and the angular pier ought to be broader than the others, by one half, one third, or one fourth; the impost should not be more than one seventh, nor less than one ninth of the aperture; and the archivolt must not be more than one eighth, nor less than one tenth of it. The breadth of the console must, at the bottom, be equal to that of the archivolt; and its sides must be drawn from the centre of the arch; the length of it must not be less than one and a half of its smallest breadth, nor more than double. The thickness of the pier depends on the breadth of the portico; for it must be strong enough to resist the pressure of its vault. But with regard to the beauty of the building, it should not be less than one quarter of the breadth of the arch, nor more than one third. These are the general dimensions of arches.

**CHAP. VIII. Of Orders above Orders.**

When, in a building, two or more orders are employed, one above another, the laws of solidity require the strongest should be placed lowermost. Hence the Tuscan must support the Doric, the Doric the Ionic, the Ionic the Composite or Corinthian, and the Composite the Corinthian.

This rule, however, is not always strictly adhered to. Most authors place the Composite above the Corinthian. There are likewise examples where the same order is repeated, as in the theatre of Statilus Taurus, and the Coliseum; and others, where an intermediate order is omitted, and the Ionic placed on the Tuscan, or the Corinthian on the Doric. But none of these practices ought to be imitated.

In placing columns above one another, the axis of all the columns ought to correspond, or be in the same perpendicular line, at least in front.

With regard to the proportions of columns placed above each other, Scamozzi's rule, That the lower diameter of the superior column should constantly be equal to the upper diameter of the inferior one, is universally esteemed the best, and gives all the columns the appearance of one long tapering tree, cut into several pieces. According to this rule, the Doric column will be to the Tuscan, as $13\frac{1}{2}$ to $14$; the Ionic to the Doric, as $15$ to $16$; the Composite or Corinthian to the Ionic, as $16\frac{1}{2}$ to $18$; and the Corinthian to the Composite, as $16\frac{1}{2}$ to $20$.

In Britain there are few examples of more than two stories of columns in the same aspect; and though in Italy, and other parts of Europe, we frequently meet with three, and sometimes more; yet it is a practice by no means to be imitated; for there is no possibility of avoiding many striking inconveniences, or of preserving the character of each order in its intercolumnial decorations.

**CHAP. IX. Of Basements.**

Instead of employing several orders one above the other in a composition, the ground-floor is sometimes made in the form of a basement, on which the order that decorates the principal story is placed. The proportion of these basements is not fixed, but depends on the nature of the rooms on the ground-floor. In the palace of the Porti in Vicenza, the height of the basement is equal to that of the order. In some buildings, its height exceeds two thirds of that of the order; and, in others, only half the height of the order. It is not, however, advisable to make the basement higher than the order it supports; neither should it be lower than one half of the order.

The usual method of decorating basements is with Decorations of different kinds. The best, where neatness, and finishing is aimed at, are such as have a smooth, flat surface. Their height, including the joint, should never be less, nor much more, than half a module of the order placed on the basement. Their figure may be from a square to a sefquiltera; and their joints may be either square or chamfered. The square ones should not be broader than one eighth of the height of the rustic, nor narrower than one tenth; and their depth must be equal to their breadth; those that are chamfered must form a rectangle; and the breadth of the whole joint may be from one fourth to one third of the height of the flat surface of the rustic.

**CHAP. X. Of Pediments.**

Pediments, among the Romans, were used only as coverings to their sacred buildings, till Caesar obtained leave to cover his house with a pointed roof, after the manner of temples. In the remains of antiquity we meet with two kinds of pediments, the triangular and the circular. The former of these are promiscuously applied to cover small or large bodies; but the latter, being of a heavier figure, are never used but as coverings to doors, niches, windows, or gates.

As a pediment represents the roof, it should never be employed but as a finishing to the whole composition.

The ancients introduced but few pediments into their buildings, usually contenting themselves with a single one to adorn the middle or principal part. But some of the moderns, and particularly the Italians, have been so immoderately fond of them, that their buildings frequently consist of almost nothing else.

The girder being a necessary part in the construction of a roof, it is an impropriety to intermit the horizontal entablature of a pediment, by which it is represented, to make room for a niche, an arch, or a window.

In regular architecture, no other form of pediments can be admitted, besides the triangular and circular. Both of them are beautiful; and when a considerable number of pediments are introduced, as when a range of windows are adorned with them, these two figures may be used alternately, as in the niches of the Pantheon, and in those of the temple of Diana at Nîmes.

The proportion of pediments depends upon their size; for the same proportions will not do in all cases.

When the base of the pediment is short, its height must be increased; and when the pediment is long, the height must be diminished. The best proportion The general proportion for the apertures, both of gates and doors, whether arched or square, is, that the height be about double the breadth.

The most common, and indeed almost the only ornaments for gates are the piers by which they are supported, and which were originally no more than bare posts into which the hinges of the gate were driven. Though this, however, is the only proper use of piers, it must be concealed as much as possible, and they must seem as if placed there only for ornament. As they are to be fixed to the wall before the house, so they must also be proportioned to it; and as they are to be seen in the same view with the front of the house, their correspondence with it is equally necessary. They are to be placed on a plinth, and something must be allowed by way of ornament and finishing at the top. All the luxuriance of fancy may be employed in the decoration of piers: but it will be proper to observe this general rule, that the pier being an inferior building, it must never be richer than the front of the house. If, for instance, the front of the house is ornamented with columns of the Doric order, the Ionic must not be used in the piers; and it will be found better to omit columns altogether, than to make use of the Tuscan order for piers in any case. If the Ionic or Corinthian orders are employed in the front of the house, the Doric or Ionic may be used with propriety in the piers. One piece of ornament is almost universal in piers, namely, a niche with its seat, made as if for the convenience of weary travellers. On this account, it will be proper to raise the columns on pedestals, because the continued moulding from their cap will be a good ornament under the niche. The base of the columns ought always to be the Attic.

Inside-doors, however small the building may be, should never be narrower than two feet nine inches; nor should they ever, in private houses, exceed three feet six inches in breadth, which is more than sufficient to admit the bulkiest person. Their height should at least be five feet three or four inches; otherwise a tall person cannot pass without stooping. In churches, palaces, &c., where there is a constant ingress and egress of people, the apertures must be larger. The smallest breadth that can be given to a gate is 8½ or 9 feet, which is just sufficient for the passage of a coach.

Plate XLII. fig. 1. Is a rustic door, composed by the celebrated Vignola, in which the aperture occupies two thirds of the whole height, and one half of the whole breadth; the figure of it being a double square. The rafters may be either smooth or hatched; their joints must form a rectangle, and the breadth of each joint may be one third, or two sevenths, of the vertical surface of a rustic. The joints of the claveaux, or key-stones, must be drawn to the summit of an equilateral triangle, whose base is the top of the aperture. The architrave surrounding the aperture may be composed either of a large ogee and fillet, or of a platband and fillet. Its whole breadth must be one tenth of the breadth of the aperture; the remaining part of each pier being for the rafters. The entablature is Tuscan: the cornice is to be one fifteenth of the whole height of the door; and what remains below it being divided into 21 equal parts. the two uppermost of them will be for the frieze and architrave, and the remaining 19 for the rustics and plinth at the foot of the door.

Fig. 2. Is a disposition of Michael Angelo's. The windows of the Capitol at Rome are of this kind; and Sir Christopher Wren hath executed doors of the same kind under the semicircular porches in the flanks of St Paul's. The figure of the aperture may be a double square; the architrave one fifth of the breadth of the aperture; and the whole entablature one quarter of its height. The front of the pilasters or columns on each side, must be on a line with the fascia of the architrave; and their breadth must be a semi-diameter.

Fig. 3. Is likewise a design of Vignola's. It is of the Corinthian order, and executed in the Cancelleria at Rome. The height is equal to double its breadth; and the whole ornament at the top is equal to one third of the height of the aperture. The architrave is in breadth one fifth of the breadth of the aperture; and the pilasters, that support the consoles are half as broad as the architrave. The whole is well imagined, but rather heavy; and it will be best to reduce the architrave to one sixth of the aperture, diminishing the entablature proportionally.

Fig. 4. Is a design of Serlio's. The aperture may be either twice as high as broad, or a trifle less. The diameter of the columns may be equal to one quarter of the breadth of the aperture; and their height may be from eight diameters to eight and a half. The entablature must be somewhat less than one quarter of the height of the columns; and the height of the pediment may be one quarter of its base.

Fig. 5. Is a door in the salon of the Farnese at Rome, designed by Vignola. The aperture forms a double square. The entablature is equal to three elevenths of its height, the architrave being one of these elevenths; and the whole ornaments on the sides, consisting of the architrave and pilasters, is equal to two sevenths of the breadth of the aperture; the cornice is Composite, enriched with mutules and dentils; and the frieze is adorned with a festoon of laurel.

Fig. 6. Is copied from a door at Florence, said to be a design of Cigoli's. The height of the aperture is a trifle more than twice its breadth. It is arched; and the impost is equal to half a diameter. The columns are Ionic, somewhat above nine diameters high; and their shafts are garnished each with five rustic cinctures. The entablature is less than one quarter of the column; and the breadth of the tablet, in which there is an inscription, is equal to the breadth of the aperture.

Plate LIII. fig. 1. Is a pier invented by Mr Chambers. Its diameter may be one quarter of its height, exclusive of the plinth and base; and the height of both these may be equal to one diameter of the pier, or a trifle less. The rustics may either be plain, hatched, or vermiculated: the height of each course may be one eleventh part of the height of the pier, counting to the top of the entablature; the entablature two elevenths; and the base of the pier one eleventh part.

Fig. 2. Is likewise a composition of Mr Chambers, imitated from M. Angelo Buonaroti's design for Cardinal Sermonetti. The height of the aperture is somewhat more than twice its breadth; which breadth occupies one third of the breadth of the whole composition. The order is Composite; and the height of the entablature is equal to one quarter of the height of the column. He has made a break in it over each column; but, unless the column project considerably, it will be as well to carry the entablature on in a straight line. The dimensions of the particular parts may be measured on the design.

Fig. 3. Is also a composition of Mr Chambers, executed at Goodwood, the seat of his grace the duke of Richmond, in Sussex. The diameter is one quarter of the height, exclusive of the finishing, which is equal to one diameter; and the height of the pier, from the top of the entablature downwards, being divided into eleven and a half parts, one of these parts is given to the base, one to each rustic, and one and a half to the astragal, frieze and cornice.

Fig. 4. Is a composition of the late earl of Burlington's, that great architect and patron of the fine arts, which is executed at Chiswick, and at Bedford-house in Bloomsbury-square, with some little difference.

Fig. 5. Is an invention of Mr Chambers.

Fig. 6. Is one of Inigo Jones's; of which kind he hath executed a couple at Ainsbury in Wiltshire, the seat of his grace the duke of Queensberry.

**CHAP. XIII. Of Windows.**

The first consideration with regard to windows is proportion their size, which varies according to the climate, the definition of the building, &c. In Britain, the windows of the finest private houses are commonly from 3 to 3½ feet broad; and being generally twice their breadth in height, or somewhat more, in the principal apartments, they generally rise to within a foot or two of the ceilings of the rooms, which are frequently no higher than 10 feet, and at most 12 or 13. But, in more considerable houses, the apartments are from 15 to 20 feet high, and sometimes more; and in these the windows are from 4 to 5 and 5½ feet broad, and high in proportion. These dimensions are sufficient for dwelling-houses of any size in this country; when they are larger, they admit too much of the cold air in winter. But churches, and other buildings of that kind, may have larger windows, proportioned to the size of the structures.

The proportions of the apertures of windows depend upon their situation. Their breadth in all the stories must be the same; but the different heights of the apartments make it necessary to vary the height of the windows likewise. In the principal floor, it may be from 2½ of the breadth to 2¾, according as the rooms have more or less elevation. In the ground-floor, where the apartments are lower, the apertures of the windows seldom exceed a double square; and, when they are in a rustic basement, they are frequently made much lower. The height of the windows of the second floor may be from 1¼ of their breadth to 1½; and Attics and Mezzanines may be either a perfect square, or somewhat lower.

The windows of the principal floor are generally most enriched. The simplest method of adorning them is, with an architrave surrounding the aperture, The windows of the ground-floor are sometimes left entirely plain, without any ornament; and at others they are surrounded with rustics, or a regular architrave with a frieze and cornice. Those of the second floor have generally an architrave carried entirely round the aperture; and the same is the method of adorning Attic and Mezzanine windows: but the two last have seldom either frieze or cornice; whereas the second-floor windows are often crowned with both.

The breadth of all the windows on the same floor should be on the same level, and raised above the floor from two feet nine inches to three feet six inches at the very most. When the walls are thick, the breasts should be reduced under the apertures, for the convenience of looking out. In France, the windows are frequently carried quite down to the floor. When the building is surrounded with gardens, or other beautiful objects, this method renders the rooms exceeding pleasant.

The interval between the apertures of windows depends in a great measure on their enrichments. The breadth of the aperture is the least distance that can be between them; and twice that breadth should be the largest in dwelling-houses; otherwise the rooms will not be sufficiently lighted. The windows in all the stories of the same aspect must be placed exactly above one another.

Plate XLIII. fig. 1. Is a design of P. Lefcot, abbot of Clagny, executed in the old Louvre at Paris. The apertures may be a double square, or a trifle more; the architrave from one sixth to one seventh of the breadth of the aperture: the pilaster is equal to that breadth, when the architrave is narrow; or less by one quarter, or one fifth, when it is broad. The whole entablature should not exceed one quarter of the height of the aperture, nor be much lower. The consoles may be equal in length to half the breadth of the aperture at most, and to one third of it at least.

Fig. 2. Is a design of Palladio's, executed at the Chiericato in Vicenza: its proportions are not much different from the following. The plat-band that supports the window is equal to the breadth of the architrave.

Fig. 3. Is likewise a design of Palladio's, executed by him in many of his buildings. The aperture is a double square. The breadth of the architrave is one sixth of the breadth of the aperture; and the frieze and cornice together are double the height of the architrave. The breadth of the consoles is two thirds of the breadth of the architrave.

Fig. 4. Is a design of Ludovico da Cigoli; and executed in the ground-floor of the Ranuncini palace at Florence.

Fig. 5. Is a design of Inigo Jones, executed at the Banqueting-house. The aperture may be a double square; the architrave may be one fifth of its breadth; the whole entablature one quarter of its height; and the breadth of the consoles two thirds of the breadth of the architrave.

Fig. 6. Is a design of M. Angelo Buonarroti, executed at the Farnese.

Chap. XIV. Of Niches and Statues.

It hath been customary, in all ages, to enrich different parts of buildings with representations of the human body. Thus the ancients adorned their temples, baths, theatres, &c. with statues of their deities, heroes, and legislators. The moderns still preserve the same custom, placing in their churches, palaces, &c. statues of illustrious persons, and even groups composed of various figures, representing occurrences collected from history, fables, &c. Sometimes these statues or groups are detached, raised on pedestals, and placed contiguous to the walls of a building, or in the middle of a room, court or public square. But they are most frequently placed in cavities made in the walls, called niches. Of these there are two sorts; the one formed like an arch in its elevation, and semicircular or semi-elliptical in its plan; the other is a parallelogram both in its plan and elevation.

The proportion of both these niches depends on the characters of the statues, or the general form of the groups placed in them. The lowest are at least a double square in height; and the highest never exceed 2½ of their breadth.

With regard to the manner of decorating them, when they are alone in a composition, they are generally inclosed in a panel, formed and proportioned like the aperture of a window, and adorned in the same manner. In this case the niche is carried quite down to the bottom; but on the sides and at the top, a small space is left between the niche and the architrave of the panel. And when niches are intermixed with windows, they may be adorned in the same manner with the windows, provided the ornaments be of the same figure and dimensions with those of the windows.

The size of the statue depends on the dimensions of the niches. They should neither be so large as to have the appearance of being rammed into the niches as in Santa Maria Major at Rome; nor so narrow as to seem lost in them, as in the Pantheon. The distance between the outline of the statue and side of the niche should never be less than one third of a head; nor more than one half, whether the niche be square or arched; and when it is square, the distance from the top of the head to the ceiling of the niche should not be greater than the distance on the sides. Statues are generally raised on a plinth, the height of which may be from one third to one half of a head; and sometimes, where the niches are large, the statues may be raised on small pedestals.

The character of the statue should always correspond with the character of the architecture with which it is surrounded. Thus, if the order be Doric, Hercules, Jupiter, Mars, Esculapius, and all male statues, representing beings of a robust and grave nature, may be introduced; if Ionic, then Apollo, Bacchus, &c.; and if Corinthian, Venus, Flora, and others of a delicate nature, should be employed.

Chap. XV. Of Chimney-pieces.

Among the ancients there are very few examples of chimney-pieces to be met with. Neither the Italians nor French have excelled in compositions of this kind. Britain, by being possessed of many able sculptors at different times, has surpassed all other nations, both in taste of design, and workmanship. The size of the chimney must be regulated by the dimensions of the room where it is placed. In the smallest apartments, the breadth of the aperture should never be less than three feet, or three feet six inches. In rooms from 20 to 24 feet square, or of equal superficial dimensions, it may be from 4 to 4½ feet broad; in those of 24 to 27, from 4½ to 5; and in such as exceed these dimensions, the aperture may even be extended to 5½ or 6 feet.

The chimney should always be situated so as to be immediately seen by those who enter the room. The middle of the partition wall is the most proper place in halls, salons, and other rooms of passage; but in drawing-rooms, dressing-rooms, and the like, the middle of the back-wall is the best situation. In bedrooms, the chimney is always in the middle of one of the partition-walls; and in closets and other very small places, to save room, it is put in a corner. Wherever two chimneys are used in the same room, they should be placed either directly facing each other, if in different walls, or at equal distances from the centre of the wall in which they both are.

The proportion of the apertures of chimney-pieces of a moderate size is generally a perfect square; in small ones, it is a trifle higher; and in large ones, a trifle lower. Their ornaments consist in architraves, frizes, cornices, columns, pilasters, termini, caryatides, consoles, and all kinds of ornaments of sculpture, representing animals and vegetables, &c. likewise vases, chalices, trophies of arms, &c. In designing them regard must be had to the nature of the place where they are to be employed. Such as are intended for halls, salons, guard rooms, galleries, and other large places, must be composed of large parts, few in number, of distinct and simple forms, and having a bold relief; but chimney-pieces for drawing-rooms, dressing-rooms, &c. may be of a more delicate and complicated nature.

Chimney-pieces are composed of wood, stone, or marble; the last of which ought to be preferred, as figures or profiles are best represented in a pure white.

Plate XLIV. Exhibits different designs for chimney-pieces by Palladio and Inigo Jones. Their proportion may be gathered from the designs, which are accurately executed.

**CHAP. XVI. Of the Proportions of Rooms.**

The proportions of rooms depend in a great measure on their use, and actual dimensions; but, with regard to beauty, all figures, from a square to a regular quadrilateral, may be employed for the plan.

The height of rooms depends on their figure. Flat cieled ones may be lower than those that are coved. If their plan be a square, their height should not exceed five fifths of the side, nor be less than four fifths; and when it is oblong, their height may be equal to their breadth. But coved rooms, if square, must be as high as broad; and when oblong, they may have their height equal to their breadth, more one fifth, one quarter, or even one third of the difference between the length and breadth; and galleries should at least be in height one and one third of their breadth, and at most one and a half, or one and three-fifths.

The coldness of the British climate is a strong objection to high rooms; so that it is not uncommon to see the most magnificent apartments not above 15, 16, 17, or at most 18 feet high; though the extent of the improper rooms would require a much more considerable elevation. But where beauty is aimed at, this practice ought not to be imitated.

When rooms are adorned with an entire order, the entablature should never exceed one sixth of the whole height in flat-ceiled rooms, and one fifth of the upright part in coved ones; and when there are neither columns nor pilasters, but only an entablature, its height should not be above one seventh of these heights. If the rooms be finished with a simple cornice, it should never exceed one fourteenth, nor ever be less than one fifteenth part of the above mentioned height.

**CHAP. XVII. Of Ceilings.**

Ceilings are either flat, or coved in different manners. The simplest of the flat kind are those adorned with large compartments, surrounded with one or several mouldings, either let into the ceiling, or projecting beyond its surface: and when the mouldings that form the compartments are enriched, and some of the compartments adorned with well executed ornaments, such ceilings have a good effect, and are very proper for common dwelling-houses, and all low apartments. Their ornaments and mouldings do not require a bold relief; but, being near the eye, they must be finished with taste and neatness. For higher rooms, a flat ceiling which has the appearance of being composed of various joints framed into each other, and forming compartments of various geometrical figures, should be employed. The sides of the joints forming the compartments are generally adorned with mouldings, and represent either a simple architrave, or an architrave-cornice, according to the size of the compartments and the height of the room.

Coved ceilings are more expensive; but they are likewise more beautiful. They are used promiscuously in large and small rooms, and occupy from one fifth to one third of the height of the room. If the room be low in proportion to its breadth, the cove must likewise be low; and when it is high, the cove must be so likewise: by which means the excess of the height will be rendered less perceptible. But, where the architect is at liberty to proportion the height of the room to its superficial dimensions, the most eligible proportion for the cove is one fourth of the whole height. In parallelogram-figured rooms, the middle of the ceiling is generally formed into a large flat panel. This panel, with the border that surrounds it, may occupy from one half to three fifths of the breadth of the room. The figure of the cove is commonly either a quadrant of a circle or of an ellipse, taking its rise a little above the cornice, and finishing at the border round the great panel in the centre. The border projects somewhat beyond the coves on the outside; and, on the side towards the panel, it is generally made of sufficient depth to admit the ornaments of an architrave, or architrave and cornice.

In Britain circular rooms are not much in use; but they are very beautiful. Their height must be the same with that of square rooms; their ceilings may be flat; but they are handier when coved, or of a concave form.

Arcs doublaux, or soffits of arches, when narrow, are ornamented with guilloches, or frets; but when broad, they may be adorned in a different manner.

When the profiles of the room are gilt, the ceilings ought likewise to be gilt. The usual method is to gild all the ornaments, and to leave the grounds white, pearl colour, light blue, or of any other tint proper to set off the gilding to advantage. Painted ceilings, so common in France and Italy, are but little used in Britain.

**CHAP. XVIII. Of Stairs and Stair-cases.**

There are many kinds of Stair-cases: for, in some, the steps are made straight; in others winding; in others, mixed of both. Of straight stairs, some fly directly forward, others are square, others triangular. Others are called French flights, or winding-stairs, (which in general are called spiral, or cockle-stairs); of which some are square, some circular or round, and some elliptical or oval; and these again are various, some winding about a solid, others about an open newel. Stairs mixed of straight and winding steps are also of various kinds; some are called dog legged; some are that wind about a solid newel, and others that fly about a square open newel.

Great care ought to be taken in placing of the stair-case in any building; and therefore stair-cases ought to be described and accounted for justly when the plan of a building is made. For want of this, sometimes unpardonable errors have been committed: such as having a little blind stair-case to a large house, or, on the other hand, a large spacious stair-case to a little one.

Palladio says, in placing stair-cases, the utmost care ought to be taken; it being difficult to find a place convenient for them, that will not at the same time prejudice the rest of the building. But commonly the stairs are placed in the angle, wing, or middle of the front.

To every stair-case are required three openings. First, the door leading thereto.

Secondly, the window, or windows that give light to it;

And, thirdly, the landing.

First, the door leading to the stair-case should be so placed, that most of the building may be seen before you come at the stairs, and in such a manner that it may be easy for anyone to find out.

Secondly, for the windows; if there be but one, it must be placed in the middle of the stair-case, that thereby the whole may be enlightened.

Thirdly, the landing of stairs should be large and spacious for the convenient entering into rooms: in a word, stair-cases should be spacious, light, and easy in ascent. The height of large steps must never be less than six inches, nor more than seven inches and a half.

The breadth of steps should never be less than ten inches, nor more than eighteen inches; and the length of them not less than three feet, nor more than twelve.

Plate XLV. fig. 1. A stair-case of two flights.—Plate XLVI. fig. 1. Represents a stair-case, with flights, and its landing-rail.

Fig. 2. Shews the solid part of the step out of which the scroll is formed; where \(a\) represents the overfold of the step; \(b\), The thickness of the bracket, with its mirroring to the riser; and, \(c\), The string-board.

Fig. 4. Shews the scale for drawing the scroll of fig. 3.—To perform which, take the distance from 1 to the centre, in fig. 3, and set it from 1 to the centre in fig. 4; divide that extent into three parts, then set 4 such parts on the upper side of the scale, and draw the line from 4 to one; set one foot of your compasses at 4, and strike the circular line; let that be divided into 12 equal parts, and then draw lines from 4 through those divisions to the upright line.

The scale being thus made, draw the scroll of fig. 3, by it in the following manner.

Set one foot of your compasses in 1, and describe a stroke at \(c\); take the same distance, and with one foot in 2, cross the stroke at \(c\); then from \(c\), turn the part from 1 to 2, and proceed in the same manner; for if the distance were taken in the scale from 1 to the centre, it would strike the circle too flat; and if taken from 2, it would strike the circle too quick.

When this is well understood, there will be little difficulty in drawing the scroll below fig. 2; which throws itself out farther in proportion than that in fig. 3; for this will always be the case when the upper line of the scale, which consists of four divisions in fig. 4, is made but with three divisions or less; whence it appears, that the upper line of the scale may be drawn at what length you please, according as you would bring in or keep out the scroll.

Plate XLVII. Shews the manner of squaring twist-rails.

Fig. 2. Exhibits the pitch-board, to shew what part of the step the twisted part of the rail contains; the three dotted lines drawn from the rail to the pitch-board represent the width of the rail, which is to be kept level. The dotted lines \(a\) and \(b\) shew how much half the width of the rail turns up from its first beginning to 3.

Fig. 3. Shews the same pitch-board with the manner of the rail's turning up. If the sides of the twisted part of the rail be shaped by the rail-mould, so that they direct down to its ground-plan, that is, the upper side of the rail being first struck by the mould, then apply the mould to the under side, as much back as the level of the pitch-board shews, by being struck on the side of the rail, and then fig. 3, being applied to the outside of the rail, from its first twisting part to 3, will show how much wood is to be taken off. Fig. 5. Exhibits the square of the rail, with the raking line of the pitch-board drawn through the middle on the upper side; then draw the depth of the side the rail parallel to this, and the dotted lines from the diagonal of the rail, these lines shew what quantity of wood will be wanting on the upper and lower sides of the rail. Set your compasses at c, and draw the circular stroke from the raking part of the pitch-board to b; take the distance a b and transfer it from a to b, in fig. 7. The several distances thus found may be set at any number of places, ranging with the straight part of the rail; and it then forms the width of the mould for the twisting part of the rail.

Fig. 7. Shows the sweep of the rail. The rail cannot be fixed less than one fourth part from the nosing or front of the step.

The remaining part of the pitch-board may be divided into any number of parts, as here into four; from these divisions draw lines across the pitch-board to the ranking line; then take the distances from the ground-line of the pitch-board to the plan of the rail, and set them perpendicular from the ranking line of the pitch-board; and these divisions, when the rail is in its proper position, lie directly over the divisions on the ground plan.

In this figure, l, m, and n, rise as much above o as the dotted line in fig. 5, does above the width of the rail; and they sink as much below o as the other dotted line in fig. 5, falls below the width of the rail; the same thickness must be glued upon o, though the greatest part will come off in squaring. The reason of placing the letters l, m, and n, where they are, is, that they might not obstruct the small divisions of the rail-mould.

Fig. 4. Shews how to find the rail when it takes more than one step. The remaining part of the pitch-board is divided into four parts, as before in fig. 7, and it takes in two such parts of the next step. Draw lines from these divisions to the diagonal of the pitch-board as in fig. 7, then take the distance a b, and set it from c to d, and so proceed with the other divisions.

Another way to find the outside of the rail-mould is, to draw all the divisions across the plan of the rail; then take the distance from the ground line of the pitch-board to 4, transfer it from the diagonal of the pitch-board to 4 on the rail; and so proceed with the other distances. Now, when the rail is put in its proper situation c will be perpendicular to b, and all the divisions, as 1, 2, 3, 4, &c., in the rail, will be perpendicular to 1, 2, 3, 4, &c., in the ground-plan.

Fig. 6. Shews the plan of a rail of five steps.

To find the rail.—Set five divisions, as from e to b, which is the height of the five steps; draw the diagonal b to the plan of the rail; then take the distance ef, and transfer it to g b, and proceed in the same manner with the other seven distances.

To find the width of the rail-mould.—Draw the lines across the plan of the rail, as at k; set that distance from the diagonal to i; and so proceed with the rest, as shewn in fig. 4.

Having formed the sides of the rail perpendicular to its ground-plan, and having squared the lower end of the rail, then take a thin lath, and bend it with the rail, as is represented by m, fig. 1.

This is the readiest method of squaring a solid rail; but if the rail be bent in the thicknesses, the nosing of the steps must be drawn upon a cylinder, or some other solid body of a sufficient width to contain the width of the rail or string board.

r Represents the depth of the rail, touching the nose of each step. Take a sufficient number of thicknesses of this width, to make the thickness of your rail, glue them altogether upon your cylinder or templet, confine them till they are dry, and the rail taken off is ready squared. Proceed in the same manner with the architrave, marked a.

CHAP. XIX. Of Roofs.

PLATE XLVIII. Fig. 1. Shews the form of a trussed roof, with three ring posts, that may carry seventy feet or upwards.

Fig. 2. Exhibits an M roof, capable of carrying as great an extent as the former. Indeed both these designs are capable of carrying almost any extent.

Fig. 3. Represents two different sorts of trusses.

Fig. 4. Shews the manner of piecing timber. Sometimes the joint may be extended as far as a, with another bolt through it. To the right is shewn a different sort of joint.

Fig. 5. Shews the manner of trussing a girder. If the trusses are full long, with the pieces b and c, you may make them as light as you please.

Fig. 6. Represents the manner of trussing partitions.

PART II. PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE.

Having thus described and given rules for the most generally received proportions of the different parts of buildings, both of the useful and ornamental kind, we must next give an account of the method of erecting different kinds of edifices; and here the judgment of the architect must necessarily be very much employed, as no fixed rules have been laid down by which he can be directed in all cases. As a necessary preliminary, however, to the construction, we must first consider,

CHAP. I. The Situations of Houses.

Though it must be, in many cases, impossible to choose such a situation as might be agreeable either to the architect or the proprietor, yet where a choice can be made, there are certainly a great many circumstances that will determine one situation to be preferable to another. These circumstances depend entirely on the person who is to inhabit the house. A farmer, for instance, ought to dwell in the most central part of his farm; an independent gentleman must regard the healthiness, the neighbours with whom he can converse, the prospect from his house, and also the aspect of the ground near it. To answer these purposes of health and pleasure, an open elevated situation is the best, as the air is there pure, and the prospect extensive; but two elevated a situation is disagreeable, as being both difficult of access, and exposed to cold and bleak winds. To build in bottoms between hills is both unhealthful and unpleasant, the house being in a manner buried, buried, and the ground near it generally marshy from the rain-water which runs down from the hills, which renders the air unwholesome. As a garden also is a very necessary article to a country habitation, the soil is by no means a matter of indifference; and therefore it may be concluded, that an elevated situation on a gravelly loam, near some running water, is the best situation for a country house.

**Chap. II. Of the construction of Edifices in general.**

The proper situation of a house, or any other building, being chosen, according to its intended nature, the next thing to be considered is to lay the foundation in a proper manner. The only security of a house, or any other building whatever, is in having a good foundation, and no error is so dangerous as that which is committed here; as the shrinking of the foundation but the breadth of a straw may cause a rent of five or six inches wide in the superstructure. To guard against errors of this kind, the qualities of the ground examined for a considerable depth must be carefully observed.

The best foundation is that which consists of gravel or stone; but, in order to know whether the inferior strata are sufficient for the support of the building, it will be advisable to sink wells at some little distance. By attending to what is thrown up in digging these, the architect will be acquainted with what lies under the stony or gravelly bed which on the surface promises so much security, and will know what measures to take.

But though a stony or gravelly bottom is undoubtedly the most sure and firm, where all is found beneath, there is no kind of ground which may prove more fallacious, or occasion such terrible accidents. The reason of this is, that such kind of ground often contains absolute vacuities; nor is rock itself, though a foundation upon a rock is strong even to a proverb, free from dangers of the same kind. Caverns are very frequent in rocky places; and should an heavy building be erected over one of these, it might suddenly fall down altogether. To guard against accidents of this kind, Palladio advises the throwing down great weights forcibly on the ground, and observing whether it sounds hollow, or shakes; and the beating of a drum upon it, by the sound of which an accustomed ear will know whether the earth is hollow or not.

Where the foundation is gravel, it will be proper to examine the thickness of the stratum, and the qualities of those that lie under it, as they have appeared in digging. If the bed of gravel is thick, and the under strata of a sound and firm kind, there needs no assistance; if otherwise, we must have recourse to various methods in order to supply the defect.

The other matters which may occur for a foundation are clay, land, common earth or rotten boggy ground. Clay will often both raise and sink a foundation; yet it has a solidity which, with proper management, is very useful. The marshy, rotten or boggy ground is of all others the worst; yet even upon this great buildings may be raised with perfect safety, provided proper care be taken. In case of boggy earths, or uniform sand, piling is one of the most common methods of securing a foundation; and notwithstanding the natural disadvantage of the earth, piles, when properly executed, are one of the firmest and most secure foundations.

In foundations near the edge of waters, we should always be careful to found to the very bottom, as many terrible accidents have happened from the ground being undermined by rivers. The same method is to be followed when the ground on which we build has been dug or wrought before. It ought never to be trusted in the condition in which it is left; but we must dig through it into the solid and unmoved ground, and some way into that, according to the weight and bigness of the intended edifice. The church of St. Peter's at Rome is an instance of the importance of this last observation. That church is in great part built upon the old circus of Nero; and the builders having neglected to dig through the old foundation, the structure is consequently so much the weaker. The walls were judged of strength enough to bear two steeples upon the corners of the frontispiece; but the foundation was found too weak when it was impossible to remedy the defect perfectly.

Before the architect, however, begins to lay the foundation of the building, it will be proper to construct such drains as may be necessary for carrying off the rain, or other refuse water that would otherwise be collected and lodge about the house. In making of Drainshow made. drains for carrying off this water, it will be necessary to make large allowances for the different quantities that may be collected at different times. It must also be considered, that water of this kind is always loaded with a vast quantity of sediment, which by its continual falling to the bottom will be very apt to choke up the drain, especially at those places where there happen to be angles or corners in its course. The only method of preventing this is by means of certain cavities disposed at proper distances from one another. Into these the sediment will be collected, and they are for that reason called *sepspools*. With regard to these, the only directions necessary are, that they be placed at proper distances, be sufficiently large, and placed so as to be easily cleaned. It is a good rule to make a sepspool at each place where the water enters the drain; as by this means a considerable quantity of the sediment will be prevented from entering the channel at all. Others are to be made at proper distances, especially where there are any angles. They must be made sufficiently large; the bigger, in moderation, the better; and they must also be covered in such a manner as to be easily got at in order to be cleaned. But as putrid water is exceedingly noxious, it will be necessary to carry up a brick funnel over every sepspool, in order to prevent the collection of the putrid effluvia, which would otherwise occasion the death of the person who cleaned it.

All drains ought to be arched over at top, and may be most conveniently built of brick. According to their different sizes, the following proportions of height and thickness may be observed. If the drain is 18 inches wide, the height of the walls may be one foot, and their thickness nine inches; the bottom may be paved with brick laid flatwise, and the arch turned four inches. If the drain is 22 inches wide, the side walls are then to be one foot three inches in height, and the rest constructed as before. If it is 14 inches wide, the height of the walls may be nine inches, and the sweep of the arch four. A drain of a yard wide should have the same fame height, and the arch turned over it ought to be 9 inches thick. Upon the same principles and proportions may other drains of any size be constructed.

The sewers and drains being constructed in a manner proportioned to the size of the intended building, the architect may next proceed to lay the foundation of the walls. Here the first care must be, that the floor of the foundation be perfectly smooth and level. The Italians begin with laying over it an even covering of strong oak plank; and upon that they lay, with the most exact care, the first course of the materials. Whether we take this method, or begin upon the naked floor, all must be laid with the most exact truth by rule and line. When the board plat is laid, a course of stone is the best first bed, and this is to be laid without mortar; for lime would make the wood decay, which otherwise, in a tolerably good soil, will last for ages. After this, all the courses should follow with the same perfect evenness and regularity. If the materials are brick, they should be laid on with an equal, and not too great quantity of mortar: if stone, they ought to be placed regularly, and in the same situation in which they lay in the quarry: for many stones which will bear any weight flatwise, and in their natural position, are of such a grain, that they will split otherwise. The joinings of the under course must be covered by the solid of the next course all the way up; and the utmost care must be taken that there be no vacancy left in the wall, for the weight will most certainly crush it in. The less mortar there is in a foundation, the better. Its use is to cement the bricks and stones together; and the fewer they are, the less will be required for that purpose. Where mortar is used to fill up cavities, it becomes part of the wall; and not being of equal strength with the solid materials, it takes from the firmness of the building. For the same reason, nothing can be more absurd than to fill up a foundation with loose stones or bricks thrown in at random; and where this is done, the ruin of the building is inevitable. Where the foundation of a principal wall is laid upon piles, it will be necessary also to pile the foundations of the partitions, though not so strongly.

The thicknesses of foundation-walls in general ought to be double that of the walls which they are to support. The looser the ground, the thicker the foundation-wall ought to be; and it will require the same addition all in proportion of what is to be raised upon it. The plane of the ground must be perfectly level, that the weight may press equally every where: for when it inclines more to one side than another, the wall will split. The foundations must diminish as they rise, but the perpendicular is to be exactly kept in the upper and lower parts of the wall; and this caution ought to be observed all the way up with the same strictness. In some ground, the foundation may be arched; which will save materials and labour, at the same time that the superstructure has an equal security. This practice is peculiarly serviceable where the foundation is piled.

As the foundation-walls are to diminish in thickness, so are those which are built upon them. This is necessary in order to save expense, but is not absolutely so to strengthen the wall; for this would be no less strong though it was continued all the way to the top of an equal thickness, provided the perpendicular was exactly kept. In this the ancients were very expert; for we see, in the remains of their works, walls thus carried up to an exorbitant height. It is to be observed, however, that, besides perfect truth in their perpendiculares, they never grudged iron-work, which contributed greatly to the strength of their buildings. The thicknesses and diminution of walls is in a great measure arbitrary. In common houses built of brick, the general diminution from the bottom to the top is one half the thickness at the bottom; the beginning is two bricks, then a brick and a half, and lastly one brick, thicknesses. In larger edifices, the walls must be made proportionally thicker; but the diminution is preserved much in the same manner. Where stones are used regard must be had to their nature, and the propriety as their figures for holding one another. Where the wall is to be composed of two materials, as stone and brick, the heaviest ought always to be placed undermost.

There is one farther particular regarding the strength Angles of a plain wall, and that is, the fortifying its angles, fortified. This is best done with good stone on each side, which gives not only a great deal of strength, but a great deal of beauty. Pilasters properly applied are a great strengthening to walls. Their best distance is about every 20 feet, and they should rise five or six inches from the naked of the wall. A much lighter wall of brick with this affluence, is stronger than a heavier and matter one built plain. In brick walls of every kind, it is also a great addition to their strength to lay some chief courses of a larger and harder matter; for these serve like fineness to keep all the rest firmly together, and are of great use where a wall happens to sink more on one side than another. As the openings in a wall are all weakenings, and as the corners require to Windows be the strongest parts, there should never be a window improper very near a corner. Properly, there should always be near the breadth of the opening firm to the corner. In the most perfect way of forming the diminution of walls, the middle of the thinnest part being directly over the middle of the thickest, the whole is of a pyramidal form; but where one side of the wall must be perpendicular and plain, it ought to be the inner, for the sake of the floors and cross walls. The diminished side, in this case, may be covered with a fascia or cornice, which will at once be a strength and ornament.

Along with the construction of walls, that of the chimneys' chimneys must also be considered; for errors in the construction of these, will render the most elegant building extremely disagreeable. The common causes of smoking are either that the wind is too much let in above at the mouth of the shaft, or the smoke is stifled below; and sometimes a higher building, or a great elevation of the ground behind, is the source of the mischief; or lastly, the room in which the chimney is may be too small or close, that there is not a sufficient current of air to drive up the smoke. Almost all that can be done, while the walls are constructing, to prevent smoke, is, to make the chimney vent narrower at bottom than at top: yet this must not be carried to an extreme; because the smoke will then linger in the upper part, and all the force of the draught will not be able to send it up. As for the methods of curing smoky chimneys in houses already built, see the article CHIMNEY. After the walls are finished, the roof is the next consideration: but concerning it very little can be said; only that its weight must be proportioned to the strength of the walls. It must also be so contrived as to press equally upon the building; and the inner walls must bear their share of the load as well as the outer ones. A roof ought neither to be too heavy nor too light; as being necessary for keeping the walls together by its pressure, which it is incapable of doing while too light; and if too heavy, it is in danger of throwing them down. Of these two extremes, however, the last is to be accounted the worst.

With regard to the floors, they are most commonly made of wood; in which case, it will be necessary that it should be well seasoned by being kept a considerable time before it is used. The floors of the same story should be all perfectly on a level; not even a threshold rising above the rest: and if in any part there is a room or closet whose floor is not perfectly level, it ought not to be left so, but raised to an equality with the rest; what is wanting of the true floor being supplied by a false one.

In mean houses, the floors may be made of clay, ox blood, and a moderate portion of sharp sand. These three ingredients, beaten thoroughly together and well spread, make a firm good floor, and of a beautiful colour. In elegant houses, the floors of this kind are made of plaster of Paris, beaten and sifted, and mixed with other ingredients. This may be coloured to any hue by the addition of proper substances; and, when well worked and laid, makes a very beautiful floor. Besides these, halls, and some other ground-rooms, are paved or floored with marble or stone; and this either plain or dotted, or of a variety of colours: but the universal practice of carpeting has, in a great measure let aside the following any ornamental workmanship upon floors. In country buildings, also, floors are frequently made of bricks and tiles. These, according to their shapes, may be laid in a variety of figures; and they are also incapable of some variation in colour, according to the nature of the earth from which they were made. They may be laid at any time; but for those of earth or plaster, they are best made in the beginning of summer, for the sake of their drying.

Chap. III. Of the distribution of the Apartments of Houses, with other conveniences.

As houses are built only for the sake of their inhabitants, the distribution of the apartments must necessarily be directed by the way of life in which the inhabitants are engaged. In the country, this is commonly farming; and here, besides the house for the family, there is also necessary a barn for the reception of the produce of the ground, a stable for cattle, a cart-house for keeping the utensils under cover, and sheds for other uses.—To accomplish these purposes, let a piece of ground be taken of five times the extent of the front of the house, and inclosed in the least expensive manner. Back in the centre of this let the house be placed, and in the front of the ground the barn and the stable, with the adjoining sheds. There are to be set, one on each side, to the extreme measure of the inclosed ground: they will thus fill up a part of the entrance, and will leave all about the house some inclosed ground by way of yard. From the barn to the stable may be extended a fence with a gate in the middle, and this gate ought to front the door of the house.

This much being settled, the plan of the house and out buildings may be made as follows. The door may open into a plain brick passage, at the end of which may be carried up a small stair-case. On one side of the passage may be a common kitchen; and on the other side a better or larger room, which will serve the family by way of parlour. Beyond this may stand on one side the pantry, and on the other the dairy-room, the last being twice the size of the former. They are placed on the same side with the parlour, on account of the heat of the kitchen, which renders it improper to be near them. On the kitchen side, a brew-house may very conveniently be placed. More rooms may be added on the ground-floor as occasion requires; and the upper story is to be divided into bed-chambers for the family, with garrets over them for the servants.—A house of this kind is represented Plate XLIX, fig. 1; and one of a somewhat better kind fig. 2, where a private gentleman who has a small family may find conveniency.

On Plate L is represented a gentleman’s country seat, built on a more elegant plan. Here the front gant centre may extend 65 feet in length, the depth in the centre being 40 feet, and in each of the wings 45. The offices may be disposed in wings; the kitchen in the one, and the stables in the other; both of which, however, may correspond in their front with the rest of the building, which they ought also to do with one another. These wings may have a projection of 13 feet from the dwelling-house, to which they ought to be connected, not by straight lines, but by curves, as represented fig. 2.

The best proportion of these offices to a house extending 65 feet in front, is 35 feet. If they are smaller, the house will look gigantic; if larger, they will lessen its aspect. To a front of 35 feet, a depth of 48 is a very good proportion. There ought also to be a covered communication between the dwelling-house and offices, which must not appear only to be a plain blank wall, but must be ornamented with gates, as in the figure. The arch by which the offices are joined to the dwelling-house must be proportioned to the extent of the buildings; and there cannot be a better proportion than five feet within the angles of the buildings. By this means the wings, which have only a projection of 13 feet, will appear to have one of 18, and the light will be agreeably broken.

With regard to the internal distribution of a house of this kind, the under story may be conveniently divided into three rooms. The hall, which is in the centre, will occupy the whole of the projecting part, having a room on each side. The length of the hall must be 24 feet, and its breadth 12: the rooms on each side of it must be 16 feet long, and 11 wide. Of these two front rooms, that on the right hand may be conveniently made a waiting-room for persons of better rank, and that on the left hand a dressing-room for the master of the house. Behind the hall may run a passage of four feet and an half, leading to the apartments in the hinder part of the house and the stair-case. These may be disposed as follows. Directly behind the hall and this passage the space may be occupied by a saloon, whose length is 24 feet and its breadth 17. On the left hand of the passage, behind the hall, is to be placed the grand stair-case; and as it will not fill the whole depth, a pleasant common parlour may terminate on that side of the house. On the other side, the passage is to lead to the door of the great dining parlour, which may occupy the whole space.

A plan of a house of the same kind, but somewhat different in the distribution, is represented below in the same plate. The front here extends 68 feet, and the wings project 28 feet; their depth is 48, and their breadth 35. The hall may be 26 feet long and 17 broad. On the left hand of the hall may be a waiting-room 16 feet long and 10 broad; behind which may be a handsome dining-room. The passage into this waiting-room should be at the lower end of the hall; and it must have another opening into the room behind it. On the right hand of the hall is the place of the great stair-case, for which a breadth of 16 feet three inches is to be allowed. In the centre of the building, behind the hall, may be a drawing room 26 feet long and 16 broad; and behind the stair-case will be room for a common parlour of 16 feet square. The passage of communication between the house and wings may be formed into colonnades in a cheap manner behind: a flight of steps, raised with a sweep, occupying the centre of each, and leading up to a door, and the covering being no more than a shed supported by the plainest and cheapest columns.

The two wings now remain to be disposed of. That on the right hand may contain the kitchen and offices belonging to it, and the other the stables. The front of the right-hand wing may be occupied by a kitchen entirely, which will then be 30 feet long and 16½ wide; or it may be made smaller, by setting off a small room to the right. Twenty-two feet by 16 will then be a good bigness. The other room will then have the same depth of 16 feet, and the width to the front may be 7½. Beyond the kitchen may stand the stair-case, for which 7½ feet will be a proper allowance; and to the right of this may be a scullery 12 feet 10 inches deep from the back front by 7 in breadth. To the left of the stair may be a servants hall 16 feet square, and behind that a larder 12 feet 10 by 14 feet 6. In the centre of the other wing may be a double coach-house: for which there should be allowed the whole breadth of the wing, with 10 feet 6 inches in the clear; and on each side of this may be the stables. The external decorations of the front and wings will be better understood from the figure than they can be by any description.

Plate L.I. shows the plan and elevation of the house of the Earl of Wemyss at Newmills. The proportions of the rooms are marked in the plan; and the front, being decorated with columns of the Ionic order, will sufficiently show in what manner any of the five orders may be induced with propriety and elegance.

**CHAP. IV. Of Aquatic Buildings.**

I. Of Bridges.

These are constructed either of wood or stone; of which the last are evidently the strongest and most durable, and therefore, in all cases to be preferred where the expense of erecting them can be borne. The proper situation for them is easily known, and requires no explanation; the only thing to be observed is, to make them cross the stream at right angles, for the sake of the boats that pass through the arches, with the current of the river; and to prevent the continual striking of the stream against the piers, which in a long course may endanger their being damaged and destroyed in the end.

Bridges built for a communication of high roads, ought to be so strong and substantial as to be proof against all accidents that may happen, to have a free entrance for carriages, afford an easy passage to the waters, and be properly adapted for navigation, if the river admits of it. Therefore the bridge ought to be at least as long as the river is wide in the time of its greatest flood: because the slopping of the waters above may cause too great a fall, which may prove dangerous to the vessels, and occasion the under graveling the foundation of the piers and abutments; or, by reducing the passage of the water too much in time of a great flood, it might break through the banks of the river, and overflow the adjacent country, which would cause very great damages; or if this should not happen, the water might rise above the arches, and endanger the bridge to be overflown, as has happened in many places.

When the length of the bridge is equal to the breadth of the river, which is commonly the case, the current is lessened by the space taken up by the piers; for which reason this thickness should be no more than is necessary to support the arches; and it depends, as well as that of the abutments, on the width of the arches, their thickness, and the height of the piers.

The form of the arch is commonly semicircular; but when they are of any great width, they are made elliptical, because they would otherwise become too high. This has been done at the Pont Royal at Paris, where the middle arch is 75 feet, and its height would have been 37.5 feet, instead of which it is only 24 by being made elliptical.

Another advantage of much more importance arises from the oval figure, which is, that the quantity of masonry of the arches is reduced in the same proportion as the radius of the arch is to its height. That is, if the radius is 36 feet, and the height of the arch 24, or three-fourths of the radius, the quantity of masonry of the arches is likewise reduced to three-fourths; which must lessen the expense of the bridge considerably. Notwithstanding these advantages, however, the latest experiments have determined segments of circles to be preferable to curves of any other kind; and of these the semicircle is undoubtedly the best, as preying most perpendicularly on the piers.

When the height of the piers is about six feet, and the arches are circular, experience has shown, says Mr. Belidor, Belidor, that it is sufficient to make the thicknesses of the piers the sixth part of the width of the arch, and two feet more; that is, the thicknesses of the piers of an arch of 36 feet, ought to be 8 feet; those of an arch of 48 feet, to be 10.

When the arches are of a great width, the thicknesses of the piers may be reduced to the sixth part of that width; but the depression of the two feet is not done at once; that is, in an arch of above 48 feet, 3 inches are taken off for every 6 feet of increase of the width of the arch. For instance, the thickness of the piers supporting an arch of 72 feet wide, should be 14 feet, according to the preceding rule; but by taking off 3 inches for every 6 feet, above an arch of 48 feet wide, the thickness of the piers is reduced to 13 feet; consequently, by following the same rule, the thicknesses of the piers supporting an arch of 16 fathoms wide, will be 16 feet; all the others above that width are the sixth part of the width.

After this, Mr Belidor gives a rule for finding the thicknesses of the piers which support elliptic arches, and makes them stronger than the former: the abutments he makes one fifth part more than the piers of the largest arch. But it is plain that these rules are insufficient, being merely guess-work, determined from some works that have been executed.

The thickness of the arch-stones is not to be determined by theory, nor do those authors who have written on the subject agree amongst themselves. Mr Gautier, an experienced engineer, in his works, makes the length of the arch-stones, of an arch 24 feet wide, two feet; of an arch 45, 60, 75, 90 wide, to be 3, 4, 5, 6, feet long respectively, when they are hard and durable, and something longer when they are of a soft nature: on the contrary, Mr Belidor says, they ought to be always one twenty-fourth part of the width of the arch, whether the stone be hard or soft; because, if they are soft, they weigh not so much.

But that the length of the arch-stones should be but a foot in an arch of 24 feet wide, 2, 3, 4, in arches of 48, 72, 96 feet, seems incredible; because the great weight of the arches would crush them to pieces, by the pressure against one another; and therefore Mr Gautier's rule appears preferable; as he made the length of the arch-stones to increase in a slower proportion, from 10 to 45 feet wide, than in those above that width, we imagine that the latter will be sufficient for all widths, whether they are great or little; therefore we shall suppose the length of the arch-stones of 30 feet in width to be two feet, and to increase one foot in 15; that is, 3 feet in an arch of 45 feet; 4, 5, 6, in an arch of 60, 75, and 90 feet: and so the rest in the same proportion.

| Thicknesses of Piers | |----------------------| | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 21 | 24 | |----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------| | 20 | 4.574 | 4.918 | 5.165 | 5.350 | 5.492 | 5.610 | 5.698 | | 25 | 5.490 | 5.913 | 6.216 | 6.455 | 6.643 | 6.801 | 7.930 | | 30 | 6.386 | 6.816 | 7.225 | 7.513 | 7.746 | 7.939 | 8.102 | | 35 | 7.258 | 7.780 | 8.200 | 8.532 | 8.807 | 9.037 | 9.233 | | 40 | 8.404 | 8.691 | 9.148 | 9.523 | 9.825 | 10.101 | 10.328 | | 45 | 8.965 | 9.579 | 10.077 | 10.489 | 10.837 | 11.136 | 11.394 | | 50 | 9.805 | 10.454 | 10.987 | 11.435 | 11.817 | 12.146 | 12.434 | | 55 | 10.640 | 11.245 | 11.882 | 12.364 | 13.019 | 13.149 | 13.218 | | 60 | 11.400 | 12.110 | 12.718 | 13.281 | 13.773 | 14.109 | 14.314 | | 65 | 12.265 | 13.025 | 13.648 | 14.185 | 14.654 | 15.082 | 15.433 | | 70 | 13.114 | 13.869 | 14.517 | 15.049 | 15.573 | 16.011 | 16.400 | | 75 | 14.000 | 14.705 | 15.336 | 15.965 | 16.490 | 16.940 | 17.354 | | 80 | 14.747 | 15.542 | 16.234 | 16.843 | 17.381 | 17.864 | 18.268 | | 85 | 15.513 | 16.329 | 17.041 | 17.674 | 18.237 | 18.742 | 19.198 | | 90 | 16.373 | 17.201 | 17.929 | 18.578 | 19.157 | 19.679 | 20.152 | | 95 | 17.184 | 17.826 | 18.772 | 19.438 | 20.036 | 20.577 | 21.068 | | 100 | 17.991 | 18.848 | 19.610 | 20.293 | 20.908 | 21.466 | 21.976 |

The first horizontal line expresses the height of the Explanatory piers in feet, from 6 to 24 feet, each increasing by 3; the first vertical column, the width of arches from 20 feet to 100 feet, for every five feet.

The other columns express the thicknesses of piers in feet and decimals, according to the respective height at the head of the column, and the width of the arch against it in the first column.

Thus, for example, let the width of the arch be 60 feet, and the height of the piers 12; then the number 12.718, under 12, and against 60, expresses the thickness of the piers, that is 12 feet and 8.6 inches: we must observe again, that the length of the key-stone is 2 feet in an arch of 30 feet wide; 3, 4, 5, 6, in an arch of 45, 60, 75, 90; that of 20 feet wide, 1 foot 4 inches; and the length of any other width is found by adding 4 inches for every 5 feet in width.

As this table contains the thicknesses of piers in respect to arches that are commonly used in practice, we imagined, that to carry it farther would be needless; because the difference between the thicknesses of the piers of any contiguous arches being but small, those between any two marked here, may be made equal to half the sum of the next below and above it: thus the thickness of the piers of an arch 52 or 53 feet wide is nearly equal to 10.222, half the sum of the thicknesses 9.805 and 10.64 of the arches 50 and 55 feet wide, when the height of the piers is 6 feet.

Rectangular piers are seldom used but in bridges over small rivers. In all others, they project the bridge piers by a triangular prism, which presents an edge to the stream, stream, in order to divide the water more easily, and to prevent the ice from sheltering there, as well as vessels from running foul against them: that edge is terminated by the adjacent surfaces at right angles to each other at Westminster-bridge, and make an acute angle at the Pont Royal of about 60 degrees; but of late the French terminate this angle by two cylindric surfaces, whose bases are arcs of 60 degrees, in all their new bridges.

When the banks of the rivers are pretty high, the bridge is made quite level above, and all the arches of an equal width; but where they are low, or for the sake of navigation, a large arch is made in the middle of the stream, then the bridge is made higher in the middle than at the ends: in this case, the slope must be made easy and gradual on both sides, so as to form above one continued curve line, otherwise it appears disagreeable to the eye. Mr Belidor will have the descent of that slope to be one twenty-fourth-part of the length; but this is undoubtedly too much, as one fiftieth part of the length is quite sufficient for the descent.

The width commonly allowed to small bridges is 30 feet: but in large ones near great towns, these 30 feet are allowed clear for horses and carriages, besides a banquet at each side for foot passengers of 6 to 9 feet each, raised about a foot above the common road; the parapet-walls on each side are about 18 inches thick, and 4 feet high; they generally project the bridge with a cornith underneath: sometimes ballustrades of stone or iron are placed upon the parapet, as at Westminster; but this is only practised where a bridge of a great length is made near the capital of a country.

The ends of bridges open from the middle of the two large arches with two wings, making an angle of 45 degrees with the rest, in order to make their entrance more free and easy: these wings are supported by the same arches of the bridge next to them, being continued in the manner of an arch, of which one pier is much longer than the other.

How the work is to be carried on.

As the laying the foundation of the piers is the most difficult part of the whole work, it is necessary we should begin with an easy case, that is, when the depth of the water does not exceed 6 or 8 feet; and then proceed to those which may happen in a greater depth of water.

One of the abutments, with the adjacent piers, is inclosed by a dyke called batardeau by the French, of a sufficient width for the work, and room for the workmen. This batardeau is made by driving a double row of piles, whose distance is equal to the depth of water, and the piles in each row are 3 feet from each other: they are fastened together on the outside by bonds of 6 by 4 inches: this being done, frames of about 9 feet wide are placed on the inside to receive the boards which are to form the inclosure: the two uprights of these frames are two boards of an inch and half thick, sharpened below to be driven into the ground, and fastened together by double bonds, one below and the other above, each separated by the thickness of the uprights; these bonds serve to slide the boards between: after these frames have been driven into the ground as hard as can be, then the boards themselves are likewise driven in till they reach the firm ground underneath.

Between every two piles tie-beams are fastened to the bonds of the piles, to fasten the inside wall to the outside one; these tie-beams are let into the bonds and bolted to the adjacent piles: this being done, the bottom is cleared from the loose sand and gravel, by a machine like those used by ballast-heavers; and when well prepared clay is rammed into this coffer very tight and firm, to prevent the water from oozing through.

Sometimes these inclosures are made with piles only driven close to each other; at others, the piles are notched or dove-tailed one into the other; but the most usual method is to drive piles with grooves in them, 5 or 6 feet distant from each other, and boards are let down between them.

This being done, pumps and other engines are used to draw the water out of the inclosure, so as to be quite dry; then the foundation is dug, and the stones are laid with the usual precautions, observing to keep some of the engines always standing, in order to draw out the water that may ooze through the batardeau.

The foundation being cleared, and everything ready to begin the work, a course of stones is laid; the outside all round with the largest stretchers and headers that can be had, and the inside filled with adlers well jointed, the whole laid in terracotta mortar: the facings are cramped together, and let in lead; and some cramps are also used to fasten the facings with the inside. The same manner is to be observed throughout all the courses to the height of low-water mark; after which the facings alone are laid in terracotta mortar, and the inside with the best of the common sort. When the foundation is carried to the height of low-water mark, or to the height where the arches begin, then the shaft or middle wall is to be carried up nearly to the height of the arches, and there left standing till all the piers are finished, in order that the masonry may be sufficiently dry and settled before the arches are begun.

As the piers end generally with an arch at each end, proper form of the base angular quite to the ends of the piers, and as high as low-water mark; both because the foundation becomes then so much broader, and also because the water will not be able to get under it: for when the current acts against a flat surface, it drives the sand and mud against it so as to cover it entirely; whereas if a sharp edge be presented to the stream, it carries everything away, and exposes the foundation to the continual action of the water, which in course of time must destroy it.

After the intervals between the arches are filled up with stones laid in a regular manner without mortar, and the gravel is laid over them; two drains or gutters are to be made lengthwise over the bridge, one on each side next to the foot-path, about six feet wide and a foot deep; which being filled with small pebble stones, serve to carry off the rain water that falls on the bridge, and to prevent its filtering through the joints of the arches, as often happens.

The former method of laying the foundation by means of batardeaux is very expensive, and often meets building with great difficulties: for when the depth of water is as was practised at Westminster, it is scarcely possible to make the batardeau so tight as to prevent the water from oozing through them; and in that case the number of engines required, as well as the hands to work them, become very extensive; and if part of the batardeau should break... Practice. break by some extraordinary wind or tide, the workmen would be exposed to very great danger.

The next and best method therefore is to build with coffers, when it is practicable, such as were used at Westminster bridge. Here the height of water was 6 feet at a medium when lowest, and the tide rose about 10 feet at a medium all so; so that the greatest depth of water was about 16 feet. At the place where one of the piers of the middle or great arch was to be, the workmen began to drive piles of about 13 or 14 inches square, and 34 feet long, thod with iron, so as to enter into the gravel with more ease, and hooped above to prevent their splitting in driving them: these piles were driven as deep as could be done, which was 13 or 14 feet below the surface of the bed of the river, and 7 feet distant from each other, parallel to the short ends of the pier, and at about 30 feet distant from them: the number of these piles was 34, and their intent to prevent any vessels or barges from approaching the work; and in order to hinder boats from pailling between them, booms were placed so as to rise and fall with the water.

This being done, the ballast-men began to dig the foundation under the water of about 6 feet deep, and 5 wider all round than the intended coffer was to be, with any easy slope to prevent the ground from falling in: in order to prevent the current from washing the sand into the pit, short grooved piles were driven before the two ends and part of the sides, not above 4 feet higher than low-water mark, and about 15 feet distant from the coffer: between these piles rows of boards were let into the grooves down to the bed of the river, and fixed there.

The bottom of the coffer was made of a strong grate, consisting of two rows of large timbers, the one long-wise and the other cross-wise, bolted together with wooden trunnels, ten feet wider than the intended foundation. The sides of the coffer were made with fir timbers laid horizontally close one over another, pinned with oaken trunnels, and framed together at the corners, excepting at the two salient angles, where they were secured with proper irons, so that the one half might be loosed from the other if it should be thought necessary; these sides were lined on the inside as well as on the outside with three-inch planks placed vertically; the thickness of those sides was 18 inches at the bottom, reduced to 15 above, and they were 16 feet high; besides, knee-timbers were bolted at the angles, in order to secure them in the strongest manner. The sides were fastened to the bottom by 28 pieces of timber on the outside, and 18 within, called straps, about 8 inches broad, and 3 or 4 inches thick, reaching and lapping over the ends of the sides: the lower part of these straps had one side cut dove-tail fashion, in order to fit the mortises made near the edge of the bottom to receive them, and were kept in their places by iron wedges; which being drawn out when the sides were to be taken away, gave liberty to clear the straps from the mortises.

Before the coffer was launched, the foundation was examined, in order to know whether it was level; for which purpose several gauges were made, each of which consisted of a stone of about 15 inches square and three thick, with a wooden pole in the middle of about 18 feet long. The foundation being levelled and the coffin fixed directly over the place with cables fastened to the adjacent piles, the masons laid the first course of the stones for the foundation within it; which being finished, a sluice made in the side was opened near the time of low water; on which the coffer sunk to the bottom; and if it did not set level, the sluice was shut, and the water pumped out, so as to make it float till such time as the foundation was levelled: then the masons cramp the stones of the first course, and laid a second; which being likewise cramped, a third course was laid: then the sluice being opened again, proper care was taken that the coffer should settle in its due place. The stone-work being thus raised to within two feet of the common low-water mark, about two hours before low-water the sluice was shut, and the water pumped out so far as that the masons could lay the next course of stone, which they continued to do till the water was risen so high as to make it unsafe to proceed any farther: then they left off the work, and opened the sluice to let in the water. Thus they continued to work night and day at low-water till they had carried their work some feet higher than the low-water mark: after this, the sides of the coffer were loosed from the bottom, which made them float; and then were carried ashore to be fixed to another bottom, in order to serve for the next pier.

It must be observed, that the coffer being no higher than 16 feet, which is equal to the greatest depth of water, and the foundation being 6 feet under the bed of the river; the coffer was therefore 6 feet under water when the tide was in; but being loaded with three courses of stones, and well secured with ropes fastened to the piles, it could not move from its place. By making it no higher, much labour and expense were saved; yet it answered the intent full as well as if it had been high enough to reach above the highest flood.

The pier being thus carried on above low-water mark, the masons finished the rest of it during the intervals of the tides in the usual way; and after all the piers and abutments were finished in a like manner, the arches were begun and completed as mentioned before: the whole bridge was built in about seven years, without any accidents happening either in the work or to the workmen, which is seldom the case in works of this nature.

Materials

It may be observed, that all the piers were built with solid Portland stone, some of which weighed four tons. The arch-stones were likewise of the same sort; but the rest of the masonry was finished with Kentish rag-stones; and the paths for foot passengers were paved with purbeck, which is the hardest stone to be had in England, excepting Plymouth marble.

This method of building bridges is certainly the easiest and cheapest that can be thought of, but cannot be used in many cases: when the foundation is so bad times impossible to cut them off in the same level five or six feet below the bed of the river, notwithstanding that saws have been invented for that purpose: because if they are cut off separately, it will be a hard matter to do it so nicely that the one shall not exceed the other in height; and if this is not done, the grating or bottom of the coffer will not be equally sup- Practice, supported, whereby the foundation becomes precarious; neither can they be cut off altogether; for piles are to be driven as far as the bottom of the coffer extends, which at Westminster bridge was 27 feet; the faw must have three feet play, which makes the total length of the faw 30 feet; now, if either the water is deeper than it is there, or the arches are wider, the faw must still be longer; so that this method is impracticable in any such cases.

In a great depth of water that has a strong current and no tide, the coffers must reach above the water, which makes them very expensive, and unwieldy to manage, as well as very difficult to be secured in their places, and kept steady; so that there is no probability of using them in such a case.

In some cases, when there is a great depth of water, and the bed of the river is tolerably level, or where it can be made so by any contrivance, a very strong frame of timber about four times as large as the base of the piers may be let down with stones upon it round the edges to make it sink; after fixing it level, piles must be driven about it to keep it in its place; and then the foundation may be laid in coffers as before, which are to be kept steady by means of ropes tied to the piles.

This method has frequently been used in Russia; and though the bed of the river is not very solid, yet such a grate, when once well settled with the weight of the pier upon it, will be as firm as if piles had been driven under the foundation; but to prevent the water from gulling under the foundation, and to secure it against all accidents, a row of dove-tail piles must be driven quite round the grating: this precaution being taken, the foundation will be as secure as any that can be made.

The French engineers make use of another method in raising the foundations of masonry under water; which is, to drive a row of piles round the intended place, nearer to, or farther from, each other, according as the water is more deep or shallow: these piles being strongly bound together in several places with horizontal tie-beams, serve to support a row of dove-tail piles driven within them: when this is done, and all well secured according to the nature of the situation and circumstances, they dig the foundation by means of a machine with scoops, invented for that purpose, until they come to a solid bed of gravel or clay; or if the bed of the river is of a soft consistence to a great depth, it is dug only to about six feet, and a grate of timber is laid upon it, which is well secured with piles driven into the opposite corners of each square, not minding whether they exceed the upper surface of the grate much or little.

When the foundation is thus prepared, they make a kind of mortar called beton, which consists of twelve parts of pozolano or Dutch terrals, five of good sand, nine of unshaded lime, the best that can be had, thirteen of stone splinters not exceeding the bigness of an egg, and three parts of tile-dust, or cinders, or else scales of iron out of a forge: this being well worked together must be left standing for about 24 hours, or till it becomes so hard as not to be separated without a pick-ax.

This mortar being thus prepared, they throw into the coffer a bed of rubble-stone, not very large, and spread them all over the bottom as nearly level as they can; then they sink a box full of this hard mortar, broken into pieces, till it come within a little of the bottom; the box is so contrived as to be overflown or turned upside down at any depth; which being done, the pieces of mortar soften, and to fill up the vacant spaces between the stones; by these means they sink as much of it as will form a bed of about 12 inches deep all over: then they throw in another bed of stone, and continue alternately to throw one of mortar and one of stone till the work approaches near the surface of the water where it is levelled, and then the rest is finished with stones in the usual manner.

Mr Belidor says, in the second part of his Hydraulics, vol. ii. p. 183, that Mr Miller de Montville having filled a coffer containing 27 cubic feet, with masonry made of this mortar, and sunk it into the sea, it was there left standing for two months, and when it was taken out again it was harder than stone itself.

We have hitherto mentioned such situations only where the ground is of a soft nature; but where it is rocky and uneven, all the former methods prove ineffectual; nor indeed has there yet been any one proposed which can be always used upon such occasions, especially in a great depth of water. When the water is not so deep but that the unevenness of the rock can be perceived by the eye, piles strongly fixed with iron may be raised and let fall down, by means of a machine, upon the higher parts, so as to break them off piece by piece, till the foundation is tolerably even, especially when the rock is not very hard; which being done either this or in any other way that can be thought of, a coffer is made without any bottom, which is let down and well secured, so as not to move from its place: to make it sink, heavy stones should be fixed on the outside; then strong mortar and stones must be thrown into it; and if the foundation is once brought to a level, large hewn stones may be let down so as to lie flat and even: by these means the work may be carried on quite up to the surface of the water. But when the water is so deep, or the rock so hard as not to be levelled, the foundation must be founded, so as to get nearly the risings and fallings; then the lower part of the coffer must be cut nearly in the same manner, and the rest finished as before. It must however be observed, that we suppose a possibility of sinking a coffer; but where this cannot be done, no method that we know of will answer.

Among the aquatic buildings of the ancients none Trajan's appears to have been more magnificent than Trajan's bridge over the Danube. Dion Cassius gives the following account of it: "Trajan built a bridge over the Danube, which in truth one cannot sufficiently admire; for though all the works of Trajan are very magnificent, yet this far exceeds all the others: the piers were 20 in number, of square stone: each of them 150 feet high above the foundation, 60 feet in breadth, and distant from one another 170 feet. Though the expense of this work must have been exceeding great, yet it becomes more extraordinary by the river's being very rapid, and its bottom of a soft nature: where the bridge was built, was the narrowest part of the river thereabout, for in most others it is double or treble this breadth; and although on this account it became so much the deeper and the more rigid, yet no other place was so suitable for this undertaking. The arches were afterwards broken..." broken down by Adrian; but the piers are still remaining, which seem as it were to testify that there is nothing which human ingenuity is not able to effect." The whole length then of this bridge was 1590 yards; some authors add, that it was built in one summer, and that Apollodorus of Damascus was the architect, who left behind him a description of this great work.

Where stone bridges cannot be erected on account of the expense, very strong and durable ones may be constructed of wood: in which case they ought to be so framed, as that all the parts may press upon one another like the arch of a stone bridge; and thus, instead of being weakened by great weights passing over them, they will become the stronger. How this is to be accomplished, will be better understood from the figure at bottom of Plate L, which represents a wooden bridge constructed after this manner, than it can be by any description.

2. Of Harbours.

In these, the first thing to be considered is the situation; which may be some large creek or basin of water, in or near the place where the harbour is intended to be made, or at the entrance of a large river, or near the sea: for a harbour should never be dug entirely out of dry land, unless upon some extraordinary occasions, where it is impossible to do otherwise, and yet a harbour is absolutely necessary. When a proper place is found, before it is fixed upon, it must be considered whether ships can lie there safe in stormy weather, especially when those winds blow which are most dangerous upon that coast; whether there be any hills, rising ground, or high buildings, that will cover it; in these cases, the situation is very proper: but if there be nothing already that will cover the ships, it must be observed whether any covering can be made at a moderate expense, otherwise it would be useless to build a harbour there.

The next thing to be considered is, whether there be a sufficient depth of water for large ships to enter with safety, and lie there without touching the ground; and if not, whether the entrance and inside might not be made deeper at a moderate expense: or, in case a sufficient depth of water is not to be had for large ships, whether the harbour would not be useful for small merchantmen; for such a one is often of great advantage, when situated upon a coast much frequented by small coasting vessels.

The form of the harbour must be determined in such a manner, that the ships which come in when it is stormy weather may lie safe, and so as there may be sufficient room for as many as pass that way: the depths of water where the piers are to be built must be taken at every 10, 15, or 20 feet distance, and marked upon piles driven here and there, in order that the workmen may be directed in laying the foundation.

This being done, it must be considered what kind of materials are to be used, whether stone, brick, or wood. When stones are to be had at a moderate price, they ought to be preferred, because the work will be much stronger, more lasting, and need fewer repairs, than if made with any other materials: but when stones are scarce, and the expense becomes greater than what is allowed for building the harbour, the foundation may be made of stone as high as low-water mark, and the rest finished with brick. If this manner of building should still be too expensive, wood must be used; that is, piles are driven as close as is thought necessary; which being fastened together by cross-bars, and covered with strong oaken planks, from a kind of coffer, which is filled with all kinds of stones, chalk, and shingles.

The manner of laying the foundation in different depths of water, and in various soils, requires particular methods to be followed. When the water is very deep, the French throw in a great quantity of stones at random, so as to form a much larger base than would be required upon dry land; this they continue to within 3 or 4 feet of the surface of the water, where they lay the stones in a regular manner, till the foundation is raised above the water: they then lay a great weight of stones upon it, and let it stand during the winter to settle; as likewise to see whether it is firm, and resists the force of the waves and winds: after that, they finish the superstructure with large stones in the usual manner.

As this method requires a great quantity of stones, it can be practised only in places where stones are in plenty; and therefore the following one is much preferable. A coffer is made with dove-tail piles of about 30 yards long, and as wide as the thickness of the foundation is to be; then the ground is dug and levelled, and the wall is built with the best mortar.

As soon as the mortar is tolerably dry, those piles at the end of the wall are drawn out, the side-rows are continued to about 30 yards farther, and the end inclosed; then the foundation is cleared, and the stones laid as before. But it must be observed, that the end of the foundation finished is left rough, in order that the part next to it may incorporate with it in a proper manner; but if it is not very dry, it will incline that way of itself, and bind with the mortar that is thrown in next to it: this method is continued till the whole pier is entirely finished.

It must likewise be observed, that the piers are not made of one continued solid wall; because in deep water it would be too expensive: for which reason, two walls are built parallel to each other, and the interval between them is filled up with shingle, chalk, and stone. As these walls are in danger of being thrust out or overthrown by the corps in the middle, together with the great weight laid at times on the pier, they are tied or bound together by cross-walls at every 30 or 40 yards distance, by which they support each other in a firm and strong manner.

In a country where there is a great plenty of stones, piles may be driven in as deep as they will go, at about two or three feet distance; and when the foundation is sunk and levelled, large stones may be let down, which will bed themselves: but care must be taken to lay them close, and so as to have no two joints over each other; and when the wall is come within reach, the stones must be cramp together.

Another method practised, is to build in coffers much after the same manner as has been done in building the method of Westminster bridge; but as in this case the ends of the coffers are left in the wall, and prevent their joining so well as to be water-tight, the water that penetrates through and enters into the corps may occasion...

To prevent these inconveniences, the best method is to take the wood away, and joggle the ends of the walls together with large stones, pouring terras-mortar into the joints; when this is done, the water between the two walls may be pumpt out, and the void space filled up with stone and shingle as usual; or if these joggles cannot be made watertight, some dove-tail piles must be driven at each end as close to the wall as can be done, and a strong sail-cloth put on the outside of them, which, when the water is pumpt out, will stick so close to the piles and wall, that no water can come in. This method is commonly used in Russia.

The thickness of a pier depends on two considerations: it ought to be both such as may be able to resist the shock of the waves in stormy weather; and also to be of a sufficient breadth above, that ships may be laden or unladed whenever it is thought necessary. Now, because the specific gravity of sea-water is about one half that of brick, and as 2 to 5 in comparison of stone; and since the pressure of stagnated water against any surface is equal to the weight of a prism of water whose altitude is the length of that surface, and whose base is a right angled isosceles triangle, each of the equal sides being equal to the depth of the water; therefore a pier built with bricks, whose thickness is equal to the depth of the water, will weigh about four times as much as the pressure of the water against it; and one of stone of the same breadth, about six times and a quarter as much. Now this is not the force to be considered, since this pressure is the same within as without the pier: but it is that force with which the waves strike against the piers, and that depends on the weight and velocity of the waves, which can hardly be determined; because they vary according to the different depths of water, the distance from the shore, and according to the tides, winds, and other causes. Consequently the proper thickness of the piers cannot be determined by any other means than by experience.

Practitioners suppose, that if the thickness of a pier is equal to the depth of the water, it is sufficient; but for a greater security they allow 2, 3, or 4 feet more. This might probably do, if piers were built with solid stones cramp together; but as this is hardly ever the case, and on the contrary, as the inside is filled up with shingle, chalk, or other loose materials, their rule is not to be depended upon; besides it makes the space above too narrow for lading and unloading the ships, unless in a great depth of water; so that it does not appear that their method can be followed, excepting in a very few cases where the water has but very little motion.

When stone can be had, no other materials should be used, because they being of a larger bulk than brick, will better resist the waves by their own weight, till such time as the mortar is grown hard; for after this is effected, brick will resist better against the action of sea-water than soft stones.

The wall must be built with terras-mortar from the bottom to the height of low-water mark, and the rest finished with cinder or tile-dust mortar, which has been found sufficiently good in those places where the wall is wet and dry alternately. The upper part of the pier should be paved with flat hewn stones laid in strong mortar, in order to prevent any water from penetrating into it: iron rings ought also to be fixed here and there at proper distances, to fasten the ships, and prevent them from striking against the pier when agitated by the waves.

Wooden fenders or piles should be driven at the inside close to the wall, and cramp it to it with iron, to prevent the ships from touching them, and from being worn by the continual motion. Where the sea breaks against the piers with great violence, breakers should be made at proper distances; that is, two rows of piles are driven nearly at right angles to the piers for the length of about 12 or 15 feet, and at about 8 or 10 feet distant from each other; and then another to join the two former: these piles being covered with planks, and the inside being filled with shingle and rubble-stones, then the top is paved with stones of about a foot in length, set long-wise to prevent the waves from tearing them up. This precaution is absolutely necessary where the water rushes in very strongly.

Military Architecture, the same with what is otherwise called fortification. See Fortification.

Naval Architecture, the art of building ships. See Ship Building.