bolder ftrokes are rifked. They fometimes introduce rough rocks, dark caverns, trees ill formed and feemingly rent by tempefts, or blafted by lightning, a building in ruins or half confumed by fire. But to relieve the mind from the harshness of such objects, they are always fucceeded by the sweetest and most beautiful scenes.

The Chinese study to give play to the imagination. They hide the termination of their lakes: the view of a cafcade is frequently interrupted by trees, through which are feen obfcurely the waters as they fall. The imagination once roufed, is difpofed to magnify every object.

Nothing is more ftudied in Chinese gardens than to raise wonder or furprise. In fcenes calculated for that end, every thing appears like fairy-land; a torrent, for example, convey'd under ground, producing an uncommon found that puzzles a ftranger to guess what it may be; and, to increase our wonder by multiplying fuch uncommon founds, the rocks and buildings are contrived with cavities and interftices. Sometimes one is led infenfibly into dark caverns, terminating unexpectedly in a landscape enriched with all that nature affords the moft delicious. At other times, beautiful walks infenfibly conduct us to a rough uncultivated field, where bushes, briers and ftones interrupt the paffage when we look about for an outlet, fome rich profpect unexpectedly opens to view. Another artifice is, to obfcure fome capital part by trees or other interpofed objects: our curiofity is raifed to know what lies beyond; and after a few fteps, we are greatly surprised with fome fcene totally different from what was expected.

I close these curfory obfervations upon gardening, with a remark that muft touch every reader. Rough uncultivated ground, difmal to the eye, infpires peevifhness and discontent. May not

this be one cause of the harth manners of favages? In a field richly ornamented, are collected beautiful objects of various kinds. Such a field difplays in full luftre, the goodness of the Deity and the ample provifion he has made for our happiness; which must fill every fpectator with gratitude to his Maker and with benevolence to his fellowcreatures. Other fine arts may be perverted to excite irregular, and even vicious, emotions: but gardening, which inspires the purest and most refined pleasures, cannot but promote every good affection. The gaiety and harmony of mind it produceth, muft naturally incline the fpectator to communicate his fatisfaction to others by acts of humanity and kindness.

Having finished what occurred on gardening, I proceed to rules and obfervations that more peculiarly concern architecture. Architecture being an ufeful as well as a fine art, buildings and parts of buildings must be diftinguished into three kinds, viz. what are intended for utility folely, what for ornament folely, and what for both. A building intended for utility folely, fuch as detached offices, ought in every part to correfpond precifely to that intention. The leaft deviation from ufe, though contributing to ornament, will be difagreeable. For every work of ufe being confidered as a means to an end, its perfection as a means is the capital circumstance; and every other beauty, in oppofition, is neglected as improper and impertinent. In things again intended for ornament, fuch as pillars, obelifks, triumphal arches, beauty folely ought to be regarded. A Heathen temple must be confidered as merely ornamental; for being dedicated to fome deity, and not intended for habitation, it is fufceptible of any figure and any embellishment that fancy can fuggeft and beauty require. The great difVOL. II.

Р

ficulty

ficulty of contrivance, refpects buildings that are intended for pleasure as well as for ufe. These ends, employing different and often oppofite means, are with difficulty reconciled. In palaces, and other buildings fufficiently extenfive to admit a variety of ufeful contrivance, regularity justly takes the lead. But in dwelling-houfes that are too fmall for variety of contrivance, utility ought to prevail; neglecting regularity so far as it ftands in oppofition to convenience.

Intrinfic and relative beauty being founded on different principles, must be handled separately; and I begin with relative beauty, as of the greater importance.

The proportions of a door, are determined by the use to which it is deftined. The door of a dwelling-house, which ought to correspond to the human fize, is confined to feven or eight feet in height, and three or four in breadth. The proportions proper for the deor of a barn or coachhoufe, are widely different. Another confideration enters. To ftudy intrinfic beauty in a coachhoufe or barn, intended merely for ufe, is obvioufly improper. But a dwelling-houfe may admit ornaments; and the principal door of a palace demands all the grandeur that is confiftent with the foregoing proportions dictated by utility. It ought to be elevated and approached by steps; and it may be adorned with pillars fupporting an architrave, other beautiful manner. The door of a church ought to be wide, in order to afford an easy paffage for a multitude. The wideness, at the fame time, regulates the height, as will appear by and by. The fize of windows ought to be proportioned to that of the room they serve with light; for if the aperture be not fufficiently large to convey light to every corner, the room is dark and gloomy.

or in

any

་

gloomy. Steps of stairs ought to be accommodated to the human figure, without regarding any other proportion: these steps accordingly are the fame in large and in fmall buildings, becaufe both are inhabited by men of the fame size.

I proceed to confider intrinfic beauty blended with that which is relative. A cube in itself is more agreeable than a parallelopipedon, which will conftantly hold in fmall figures. But a large building in the form a of cube, appears lumpish and heavy; while the other figure, fet on its smaller base, is by its elevation more agreeable; and hence the beauty of a Gothic tower. But let us suppose this parallelopipedon deftin'd for a dwelling-house, to make way for relative beauty. Here utility prevails over elevation; and a parallelopipedon, inconvenient by its height, is fet upon its larger base. The loftinefs is gone; but that lofs is more than compenfated by additional convenience; and for that reafon the form of a building fpread more upon the ground than raifed in height, is always preferred for a dwelling-house, without excepting even the most sumptuous palace.com

utility refor otherA hexago

With respect to the divifions within, quires that the rooms be rectangular; wife void spaces will be left of no use. nal figure leaves no void fpaces; but then it determines the rooms to be all of one fize, which is extremely inconvenient. A cube will at first be pronounced the most agreeable figure; and this may -hold in a room of a moderate fize. But in a very large room, utility requires a different figure. The chief convenience of a great room, is unconfined motion. This directs us to the greatest length that can be obtained. But a fquare room of a great fize is inconvenient, by removing far from the hand, chairs and tables, which, when unemploy'd,

P 2

muft

must be ranged along the fides of the room. Utility therefore requires a large room to be a parallelogram. This figure, at the fame time, is the best calculated for receiving light; because, to avoid cross-light, all the windows ought to be in one wall; and if the oppofite wall be at fuch distance as not to be fully lighted, the room must 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 the height when above that number of feet.

As all artifts who deal in the beautiful are naturally prone to entertain the eye, they have great opportunity to exert their tafte upon palaces and fumptuous buildings, where, as above obferved, intrinfic beauty ought to have the afcendant over that which is relative. But fuch propenfity is unhappy with respect to private dwelling-houses; because in these, relative beauty cannot be display'd in any perfection, without abandoning intrinfic beauty. There is no opportunity for great variety of form in a fmall house; and in an edifice of this kind, internal convenience has not hitherto been happily adjusted to external regularity. I am apt to believe, that an accurate coincidence here, is beyond the reach of art. And yet architects always fplit upon this rock; for they never will give over attempting to reconcile thefe two incompatibles. How elfe fhould it be accounted for, that of the endless variety of private dwelling-houses, there is not one to be found, that is generally agreed upon as a good pattern? The unwearied propensity to make a house regular as well as convenient, forces the architect, in some articles, to facrifice convenience to regularity, and in others, regularity to convenience. By this means, the house, which turns out neither regular nor convenient, never fails to difpleafe. The faults are obvious, and

the