Page images
PDF
EPUB

rooms this figure muft, for the most part, give place to a parallelogram, which can more eafily be adjusted, than a fquare, to the smaller rooms contrived entirely for convenience. A parallelogram, at the fame time, is the best calculated for receiving light; because, to avoid cross lights, all the windows ought to be in one wall; and the oppofite wall must be fo near as to be fully lighted, otherwife the room will be obfcure. The height of a room exceeding nine or ten feet, has little or no relation to utility; and therefore proportion is the only rule for determining a greater height.

As all artifts who love what is beautiful, are prone to entertain the eye, they have opportunity to exert their taste upon palaces and fumptuous buildings, where, as above obferved, intrinfic beauty ought to have the afcendant over that which is relative. But fush propensity is unhappy with refpect to dwelling-houses of moderate fize; becaufe in thefe, intrinfic beauty cannot be displayed in any perfection, without wounding relative beauty: a fmall house admits not much variety of form; and in fuch houses there is no inftance of internal convenience being accurately adjufted to external regularity: I am apt to believe that it is beyond the reach of art. And yet architects never give over attempting to reconcile these two incompatibles: how otherwife fhould it happen, that of the endless variety of private dwelling-houses, there is fcarce an inftance of any one being chofen for a pattern? the unwearied propenfity to make a house regular as well as convenient, forces the architect, in fome articles to facrifice convenience to regularity, and in others, regularity to convenience; and the houfe which turns out neither regular nor convenient, never fails to difpleafe: the faults are obvious.

and

and the difficulty of doing better is known to the artist only.*

Nothing can be more evident, than that the form of a dwelling-houfe ought to be fuited to the climate: and yet no error is more common, than to copy in Britain the form of Italian houses; not forgetting even those parts that are purpofely contrived for air, and for excluding the fun. I fhall give one or two instances. A colonnade along the front of a building, hath a fine effect in Greece and Italy, by producing coolness and obfcurity, agreeable properties in warm and luminous climates: but the cold climate of Britain is altogether averfe to that ornament; and therefore, a colonnade can never be proper in this country, unless for a portico, or to communicate with a detached building. Again, a logio laying the house open to the north, contrived in Italy for gathering cool air, is, if poffible, ftill more improper for this climate fcarce endurable in fummer, it, in winter, expofes the house to the bitter blasts of the north, and to every fhower of fnow and rain."

Having faid what appeared neceffary upon relative beauty, the next ftep is, to view architecture as one of the fine arts; which will lead us to the examination of fuch buildings, and parts of buildings, as are calculated folely to pleafe the eye. In the works of Nature, rich and magnificent, variety prevails; and in works of Art that are contrived to 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, the timid hand is guided by rule and compafs; and accordingly in architecture ftrict regularity and uniformity are ftudied, as far as confiftent with utility. Proportion "Houfes are built to live in, and not to look on; therefore let ufe be preferred before uniformity, except where both may be had." Lord Verulam, effay 45.

Proportion is no lefs agreeable than regularity and uniformity and therefore in buildings intended to please the eye, they are all equally effential. By many writers it is taken for granted, that in buildings there are certain proportions that please the eye, as in founds there are certain proportions that please the ear, and that in both equally the flightest deviation from the precife proportion is difagreeable. Others feem to relish more a comparison between proportion in numbers and proportion in quantity; and hold that the fame proportions are agreeable in both. The proportions for example, of the numbers 16, 24, and 36, are agreeable; and fo, fay they, are the proportions of a room, the height of which is 16 feet, the breadth 24, and the length 36. May I hope from the reader, that he will patiently accompany me in examining this point, which is ufeful as well as curious. To refute the notion of a resemblance between musical proportions and thofe of architecture, it might be fufficient to obferve in general, that the one is addressed to the ear, the other to the eye; and that objects of different senses have no refemblance, nor indeed any relation to each other. But more particularly, what pleases the ear in harmony, is not proportion among the ftrings of the inftrument, but among the founds that thefe ftrings produce. In architecture, on the contrary, it is the proportion of different quantities that pleafe the eye, without the leaft relation to found. Were quantity to be the ground of comparison, we have no reason to prefume, that there is any natural analogy between the proportions that please in a building, and the proportions of ftrings that produce concordant founds. Let us take for example an octave, produced by two fimilar ftrings, the one double of the other in length:

this is the moft perfect of all concords; and yet I know not that the proportion of one to two is agreeable in any two parts of a building. I add, that concordant notes are produced by wind-inftruments, which, as to proportion, appear not to have even the flighteft refemblance to a building.

With refpect to the other notion, namely, a comparison between proportion in numbers and proportion in quantity; I urge, that number and quantity are fo different, as to afford no probability of any natural relation between them. Quantity is a real quality of every body; number is not a real quality, but merely an idea that arifes upon viewing a plurality of things, whether conjunctly or in fucceffion, An arithmetical proportion is agreeable in numbers; but have we any reafon to infer that it must also be agreeable in quantity? At that rate, a geometrical proportion, and many others which are agreeable in numbers, ought alfo to be agreeable in quantity. In an endless variety of proportions, it would be wonderful, if there never fhould happen a coincidence of any one agreeable proportion in both. One example is given in the numbers 16, 24, and 36; but to be convinced that this agreeable coincidence is merely accidental, we need only reflect, that the fame proportions are not applicable to the external figure of a houfe, and far lefs to a column.

That we are framed by nature to relish proportion as well as regularity, is indifputable; but that agreeable proportion fhould, like concord in founds, be confined to certain precife measures, is not warranted by experience on the contrary, we learn from experience, that proportion admits more and lefs; that feveral proportions are each of them agreeable; and that we are not fenfible of difproportion, till the dif ference between the quantities compared become the

moft

most striking circumftance. Columns evidently admit different proportions, equally agreeable; and fo do houses, rooms, and other parts of a building. This leads to an interefting reflection: the foregoing difference between concord and proportion, is an additional instance of that admirable harmony which fubfifts among the feveral branches of the human frame. The ear is an accurate judge of founds, and of their smallest differences; and that concord in founds fhould be regulated by accurate measures, is perfectly well fuited to this accuracy of perception : the eye is more uncertain about the fize of a large object, than of one that is fmall; and at a distance an object appears lefs than at hand. Delicacy of perception, therefore, with respect to proportion in quan, tities, would be an ufelefs quality; and it is much better ordered, that there fhould be fuch a latitude with respect to agreeable proportions, as to correfpond to the uncertainty of the eye with refpect to quantity.

But all the beauties of this fubject are not yet difplayed; and it is too interefting to be paffed over in a curfory view. I proceed to obferve, that to make the eye as delicate with refpect to proportion as the ear is with refpect to concord, would not only be an ufelefs quality, but be the fource of continual pain and uneafinefs. I need go no farther for a proof than the very room I occupy at prefent; for every step I take varies to me, in appearance, the proportion of length to breadth at that rate, I fhould not be happy but in one precife fpot, where the proportion appears agreeable. Let me further obferve, that it would be fingular indeed to find, in the nature of man, any two principles in perpetual oppofition to each other and yet this would be the cafe, if proportion were circumfcribed like concord; for it

would

« PreviousContinue »