one of the most eminent of the ancient mathematicians, was born at Syracuse in Sicily, about the year 280 before the Christian era. Hiero, king of Syracuse, deemed it an honour to have this philosopher for his relative and friend. History does not inform us, to whom he was indebted for the rudiments of literature, but he flourished about 50 years after Euclid. It is reported, that he was indebted to Egypt for much of his knowledge; but other accounts indicate, that he conferred more knowledge than he received from that celebrated nation; and, in particular, Diodorus mentions, that Egypt was indebted to him for the invention of the fire-pump, for drawing off water. And the same author narrates, that he was the inventor of several other useful machines, which conveyed his fame to every quarter of the globe. The following passage from Livy, proves, that he was dextrous both for the inventing warlike machines, and also for his accurate observation of the heavenly bodies, "Unicus spectator caeli siderumque, mirabilior tamen inventor ac machinator bellicorum tormentorum", &c. lib. xxiv. It appears also, that in Cicero's time, he had become proverbial for his skill in solving problems. In a letter to Atticus, he informs him, that he is now freed from a difficulty, which he termed an Archimedean problem, lib. xiii. ep. 28.

It may perhaps be impossible distinctly to ascertain the different inventions of this great man; but from the following passage, it appears that he formed a glass sphere, or some kind of planetarium, which, with no small degree of accuracy, represented the phenomena of the heavenly bodies. Hence says Claudian:

Jupiter, in parvo cum cerneret aethera vitro, Rijit, et ad superos talia dislia dedit: Hucius Huccine mortalis propega potentia cura? Jam mens in fragile ludotur orbe labor. Jura poli, rerumque fidem, legesque deorum, Ecce Syracusiae transtulit arti fenex. Inclusus variis famulatur spiritus aetris, Et verum certis moebus urget opus. Percurrat proprium mentitus signifer annum, Et simulata nova Cythria menfe redit. Jamque suam volvens audax indyfricia mundum Gaudet, et humana fidera mente regit. Quid falsi insontem nontrum Salmoena miror? Emula nature parva reperta manus.

"When in a glass's narrow sphere confin'd, Jove saw the fabric of th' Almighty mind; He smil'd, and said, 'Can mortals art alone Our heav'nly labours mimic with their own? The Syracusan's brittle work contains Th' eternal law that through all nature reigns. Fram'd by his art, see stars unnumber'd burn, And in their courses rolling orbs return; His sun, through various signs describe the year, And every month his mimic moons appear. Our rival's laws his little planets bind, And rule their motions by a human mind: Salmoene could our thunder imitate; But Archimedes can a world create."

In the following lines the same machine is mentioned by Ovid.

Arte Syracusia fulgens in aere clauso, Stat globus, immensi parva figura poli.

OVID, Fast. vi. 277.

Vitruvius mentions a fact, which proves Archimedes's knowledge in the doctrine of specific gravity. Hiero, the king, having given a certain quantity of gold wherewith to make a golden crown, and suspecting that the workmen had stolen part of the gold and substituted silver in its stead, he applied to Archimedes to employ his ingenuity in detecting the fraud. Ruminating upon this subject when he was bathing himself, he observed, that he dislodged a quantity of water, corresponding to the bulk of his own body; therefore, instantly quitting the bath with all the eagerness natural to an inventive mind upon a new discovery, he ran into the streets naked, crying, "Eureka! Eureka! I have found it out! I have found it out!" Then taking one mails of gold and another of silver, each equal in weight to the crown; he carefully observed the quantity of fluid which they alternately displaced, when introduced in the same vessel full of water. Next he ascertained how much water was displaced by the crown when put into the same vessel full of water; and, upon comparing the three quantities together, he ascertained the exact proportions of gold and silver, of which the crown was composed.

Archimedes was well acquainted with the mechanical powers. His celebrated saying with regard to the power of the lever has been often repeated, "Give me a place to stand upon, and I will move the earth." In order to shew Hiero the effect of mechanical powers, it is said, that aided by ropes and pulleys, he drew towards him a galley, which lay on the shore manned and loaded: but the displays of his mechanical skill mentioned by Marcellus at the siege of Syracuse, were long deemed almost incredible; until the improvements in mechanics have demonstrated them practicable. He harassed the vessels of the besiegers, both when they approached and kept at a distance from the city. When they approached, he sunk them by means of long and huge beams of wood; or, by means of grappling hooks placed at the extremity of levers, he hoisted up the vessels into the air, and dashed them to pieces either against the walls or the rocks. When the enemy kept at a distance, he employed machines which threw from the walls such a quantity of stones, as shattered and destroyed their vessels. In short, his mechanical genius supplied strength and courage to the city, and filled the Romans with astonishment and terror. Until Buflon invented and framed a burning glass, composed of about 400 glass planes, capable of setting fire to wood at the distance of 200 feet, and of melting lead and tin at the distance of 120 feet, and silver at the distance of 50; the account of Archimedes's instrument for burning ships at a great distance by means of the rays of the sun, was deemed fabulous and impossible.

But, however eminent for mechanical invention, he was still more eminent for the investigation of abstract truths; and the formation of conclusive demonstrations in the branches of pure geometry. Plutarch also mentions, that Archimedes himself claimed mechanical invention greatly inferior in value to those speculations which convey irresistible conviction to the mind. His geometrical works afford numerous proofs of his success in this field of science. It is reported, that he was often so deeply engaged in mathematical speculations, as both to neglect his food and the care of his person; and at the bath he would sometimes draw geometrical figures in the silex, and sometimes upon his own body when it was anointed, according to the custom of that time. He valued himself so much upon the discovery of the ratio between the sphere and the containing cylinder, that, indifferent to all his other inventions, he ordered his friends to engrave upon his tomb a cylinder containing a sphere, with an inscription explanatory of its nature and use.

It must be extremely painful to every humane mind, but particularly to every lover of philosophic merit, to learn, that when Syracuse was taken by storm, he being ignorant of that fact, was run through the body, when engaged in drawing a geometrical figure upon the sand. As Marcellus had given express orders that both his person and his house should be held sacred; this appears to have happened through ignorance, and therefore removes a great part of the odium from the Roman name. This mournful event happened in the 142d Olympiad, or 212 years before the Christian era. Marcellus, in the midst of his triumphal laurels, lamented the death of Archimedes, conferred upon him an honourable burial, and took his surviving relations under his protection; but greater honour was conferred upon him when the philosopher of Arpinum, 140 years after, went in search of his long-neglected tomb. Hence, says Cicero, "I diligently sought to discover the sepulchre of Archimedes, which the Syracusans had totally neglected, and suffered to be overgrown with thorns and briars. Recollecting some verses, said to be inscribed on the tomb, which mentioned, that on the top was placed a sphere with a cylinder," ARCHITECTURE

In the utmost latitude of the word, signifies the art of building in general; but the term is most frequently applied only to the construction of such buildings as are 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; though what were the materials, or how the buildings were constructed, we are entirely ignorant. It is commonly said, that the first materials employed in building were branches and twigs of trees, 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 wigwams were not originally known; otherwise the method of covering poles with the skins of beasts, instead of small branches or twigs, must very soon have taken place. These temporary houses seem to have come into use only when men began to lead an idle wandering life, like the Tartars, and could not be at the trouble of constructing durable habitations in every place where they were obliged to wander with their cattle; and Jabal 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 deduced from the construction of the meanest huts in a very natural and plausible manner by several authors. "Anciently (says Vitruvius) men lived in woods, and inhabited caves; but in time, taking perhaps example from birds, who with great industry build their nests, they made themselves huts. At first they made these huts, very probably, of a conic figure; because huts 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 join- ing 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.

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

"From this simple construction the orders of architecture took their rise. For when buildings of wood were let aside, and men began to erect solid and stately edifices of stone, they imitated the parts which necessity had introduced into the primitive huts; inasmuch 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 313,990 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 lady-rimth, in the same country, according to Herodotus, who saw it, excelled every thing which he could have conceived from the imagination either of himself or others. Within the same circuit of walls they had enclosed 3000 halls, 12 of which were of a singular form and beauty; and of these, half were above, and half below ground; and the whole was terminated by a pyramid 40 fathoms high. All this prodigious mass of building was composed of white marble, and the walls were adorned with engravings.—The obelisks were not less astonishing; the largest of them being entire pieces of granite, no less than 180 feet high.—Near Andera, in Upper Egypt are the ruins of a palace of gray granite, the ceilings of which are supported by columns of such thickness, that four men can scarcely fathom them. The ceilings themselves are composed of stones of the same kind, six or seven feet in breadth and 18 feet in length. The grand hall is 112 feet long, 60 high, and 58 broad. The roof of the whole edifice is a terrace, on which the Arabs formerly built a very large village, the ruins of which are still visible.

Among the Babylonians and Persians, too, such immense piles of building have been raised, as appear utterly inconceivable and incredible to many modern authors whose 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 Xerxes 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 remarkable pyramids and obelisks of Egypt this is exceedingly for great conspicuous; but whether it was so in the labyrinth or temple 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 anything more proper for this purpose; though even in this they have somehow 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 the use of ing arches. The roofs of all their halls were flat, and arches, covered with prodigiously large stones, some of them so big as to cover a whole room singly. Their manner of building was also quite destitute of what is now called style; 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 and of proportioning the various parts of a building; they used columns; but they cut them at hazard, without rules, without 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 professed for a model that of Juno at Argos; but, ignorant of the proportion which they ought to give to the columns, and in general to the whole edifice, they sought for rules capable of regulating their operation. These people wanted, in making their columns sufficiently strong to support the whole edifice, to render them at the same time agreeable to the sight. For this purpose, they thought to have given it the same proportion that they found between the foot of a man and the rest of his body. According to their ideas, the foot made a 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 five times as high as it was thick; afterwards they added to it a seventh diameter.

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

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

It is remarkable, that improvements in architecture did not take place in any nation till after, or about, the time that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar.

The grandest buildings erected among the Assyrians seem to have owed their existence to this monarch; and it can scarce be imagined that he would not endeavour to imitate the architecture of Solomon's temple, to which, by his conquest of Jerusalem he had full access. It is also remarkable, that the dimensions of the two pillars, Jachin and Boaz, set up by Solomon, very nearly correspond with those of the Doric order, first invented by the Greeks, and which originally came from their colonies settled in Asia Minor. The height of Solomon's pillars, without the chapiter, was 18 cubits; that of the chapiter itself was five cubits; the circumference was 12 cubits; from whence, according to the Scripture language, we may reckon the diameter to have been exactly four cubits. Had they been a single cubit higher, they would have been precisely of the same height with columns of the original Doric order. We do not indeed mean to assert, that this famous temple gave a model of architecture to the whole world; although it is scarcely 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 make 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 sort of building with statues; and no kind of ornament could answer 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 architecture 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 dimensions 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 93,504,000 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, gaffecones 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 above-mentioned 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 72 leagues, and required the removal of two millions of cubic fathoms of earth. This was no doubt a great work; but had 100,000 men been employed upon it at once, they must have removed this quantity of earth in three weeks, supposing each to have removed only a single fathom a-day. Nor can we imagine, that any modern work will at all stand in competition with the works of the ancients as to greatness, whatever they may do in other respects.

As to the improvements in architecture, the Greeks were undoubtedly the first European nation who began to distinguish themselves in this way. Whence they took the first hint of improvement, we have no means of knowing: though, as we have already hinted, it is scarce credible but that Solomon's temple must have somewhat contributed thereto; especially as we learn from Scripture, that the capitals of the columns there were ornamented in the richest manner. The origin of the Doric and Ionic orders we have already given an account of from Vitruvius; to which we may add, that the volutes, which are the peculiar ornament of the Ionic capital, are by some said to represent the natural curling down of a piece of bark from the top of a beam, which is supposed to have been the first kind of column. The Corinthian order was not invented till long after the others, and is said to have taken its rise from the following accident: A basket had been set upon the ground, and covered with a square tile; there grew near it a plant of acanthus or bear's breech; the leaves shot up and covered the outer surface of the basket; and, as the stalks rose up among them, they soon reached the tile which overhung the edges of the basket at the top; this 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; 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 buildings. 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 piazza, 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 men's 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 stayed, 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 divided off; 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 modelity 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 master and more offensive offices, after the manner of the Greeks. The first gallery, which received the stranger at his entrance, had on one side a passage to the kitchen, and on the other to the stalls where they kept cattle, that their noise or smell might not be offensive within, while yet they were in readiness for all services. These stalls were placed to the left, as in the Greek houses; on the right was the kitchen, which had its light from above, and its chimney in the middle. Farther within the building were placed on one side bathing rooms, and on the other family conveniences, in the manner of our butteries and store rooms: the bathing rooms were on the left, and the others on the right. Backwards, and full to the north, they placed their cellars, for fear of the sun, and over these were other store rooms. From this part of the structure one came into the court; for in these there generally was only one court: this was taken up by servants, and those who had the care of the cattle; and on each side there were stalls for the cattle. In front from the entrance, but very far from all these annoyances, stood the nobler apartments for the master of the family.

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

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, though improperly, called modern Gothic.

It has been maintained by some, that the Saxons of the Saxo-churches, after they began to be built with stone, conformed only to 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 solid, or rather clumsy, columns, with a kind of regular base and capital: in short, plainness and solidity 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 their surfaces ornamented with spirals, squares, lozenge net-work, and other figures, either engraven or in relief. 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 1, 1, 1, (Plate XXXVII), 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 Arabs or Saracens, who have expressed, in their architecture, the same taste as in their poetry; both the one and the other falsely 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 Arabs (we may include the other orientals) as extraordinary as their thoughts. If any one doubts of this assertion, let us appeal to any one 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 Moorish.—This manner was introduced into Europe through Spain. Learning flourished among the Arabs 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 at 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 Arabs 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 Ispahan, 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 Ispahan itself, the city gate, or grand market-place, is surrounded by divers magnificent Gothic buildings; particularly the royal mosque, and the Tasil 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 Chaier Baeg, a royal garden, is decorated with Gothic buildings; but these were, it is said, built only in the reign of Schah 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 surnamed Abu Beir. "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 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 Grose, 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 Swinburne, although most of the arches are circular or horse-shoe 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 Hissam or Ismael 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 Moors, 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 Granada, 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 horse-shoe 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 of this form.

In 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 cattle 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 fagots, 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 clustered 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 set 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 juter and manlier notions of magnificence, on Greek and Roman ideas, than these mimics of taste, who profess to study only clastic 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), confined 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 modes 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 famenous style in the latter religious edifices of the knights temporalis (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 Helena and Julian, 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 fort 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 clastic 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, 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 fitted 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 viato through the Gothic cathedral; or ever 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 studious 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 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, interwoven with wattles, and covered over with the boughs of trees.

When Julius Caesar 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 Caesar) abounds in houses, which very much resemble those of Gaul." The first step towards this improvement seems to have been that of daubing the wattled 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 Caesar) 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 islands 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 housetops 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 convenience. This naturally produced an ancient British town, which is described by Caesar and Strabo in the following manner: "From the Cafla he learnt that the town of Caffivelaunus 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 enclosed 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 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 houses 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 none of the British princes or 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 Caractacus 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 surprise, "That the Romans, who had such magnificent palaces of their own, should envy the wretched cabins 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 unsettled life, and were easily inflamed to war, might contract a love to peace and tranquility, by being accustomed to a more pleasant way of living, he exhorted and afflicted them to build houses, temples, courts, and market-places. By praising the diligent and reproaching the indolent, he excited to 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 Tyne on the east to the Solway Frith on the west. This spirit of building, which was introduced and encouraged by the Romans, to 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 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 it seems to have been a maxim to destroy all the towns and castles which they took from their enemies, instead of preferring 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 Eadbert, the successor of St Cuthbert, and seventh bishop of Lindisfarne, took away the reeds, and covered it all over, both roof and walls, with sheets 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 Naitan king of the Picts, in his famous letter to Ceolfrid abbot of Weremouth, A.D. 710, earnestly entreats 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 Queen Etheldreda, he there founded a most magnificent church, which he dedicated to the blest 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 stairs! 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 contemporary 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 foundations of this monastery were laid, Benedict crossed the sea into France, where he collected a number of masons, and brought them over with him, on 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 the 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 glas-makers, 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 glas-makers with them; who not only performed the work required by Benedict, but instructed the English in the art of making glas for windows, lamps, drinking vessels, and other uses."

But though these arts of building edifices of stone, with windows of glas 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 Asserius) 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 might naturally be imagined, in a still less flourishing state. It appears indeed to have been almost entirely left 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 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 bakehouse, the storehouse, the stable, and the doghouse. 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 meanness 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 Picts 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 Scotorum, after the manner of his countrymen the Scots; and it hath been already observed, that Naitan king of the Picts 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 Picts, 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 work 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 no little attention: "Having arrived at the barack 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 Caflle Chalamine, or Malcolm's Caflle. 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 Caflle Chanel. 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 Caflle Telloe. 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 surprized 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 Caflle 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 anywise 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 compasses. 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 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... 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 the 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 splendour 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, prebys ters, 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 Virgin 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 entitled; 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 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 No. 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 fashionable 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 1115 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 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... 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 centres, 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 Spenser's Faery Queene, has the following anecdotes and remarks:

"Although 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 Spenser,

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 Doric 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 distinctly 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 houses so full of glass, 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 destination, 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 coachhouse 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.

Artificers 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 figures, buildings, and parts of buildings, as are calculated solely as a means 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 uniformity; and therefore, in buildings intended to please the eye, they are all equally essential. It is taken for granted by many writers, that in all the parts of a building there are certain strict proportions which please the eye, in the same manner as is found there are certain strict proportions which please the ear; and that, in both, the slightest deviation is equally disagreeable. Others seem to relish more a comparison between proportion in numbers and proportion in quantity; and maintain, that the same proportions are agreeable in both. The proportions, for example, of the numbers... 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 fenestrae. 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 dilapidated, 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 eight diameters and 10, and that every proportion between these two extremes is agreeable. Besides, there must certainly be a further variation of proportion, depending on the size of the column. A row of columns 10 feet high, and a row twice that height, require 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 is 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 defined 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, structures 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 be sumptuous and grand; a private dwelling, neat and intended modestly; a playhouse, gay and splendid; and a monument, gloomy and melancholy. A heathen temple has a double definition: 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 definition of being supports, contribute to that peculiar expression which the definition 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 connexion 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, division of which is the first that commonly receives us, is a bad house. Contrivance in several respects. In the first place, when immediately from the open air we step into such Part I. ARCHITECTURE.

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 definition 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 disfigured, 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 too much from the wall, as to have the appearance of supporting the entablature over them.

From ornaments in general, we descend to a pillar, columns, the chief ornament in great buildings. The 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 a parallelepipedon. This last, in the language of architecture, is saying, that a column is a more agreeable figure than a pilaster; and for that reason it ought to be preferred, when all other circumstances are equal. Another reason occurs, that a column annexed to a wall, which is a plain surface, makes a greater variety than a pilaster. Besides, pilasters as 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 Herculean; 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.