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

mate;

Nothing can be more evident, than that the form of a dwelling-houfe ought to be fuited to the cliand yet no error is more common, than to copy in Britain the form of Italian houses; not forgetting even thofe parts that are purpofely contrived for air, and for excluding the fun. I fhall give one or two inftances. 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. The cold climate of Britain is altogether averfe to this ornament. A colonnade therefore, can never be proper in this country, unlefs when employ'd to communicate with a detached building. Again, a logio opening the houfe to the north, contrived in Italy for gathering cool air, is, if poffible, ftill more improper for this climate. Scarce endurable in fummer, it, in winter, expofes the house to the bitter blafts of the north, and to every fhower of fnow and rain.

Having difcuffed what appeared neceffary to be faid upon relative beauty, fingly confidered, or in combination with intrinfic beauty, the next step is, to view architecture as one of the fine arts, and to examine those buildings and parts of buildings that are folely calculated to pleafe the eye. In the works of nature, grand and magnificent, variety prevails. The timid hand of art, is guided by rule and compafs. Hence it is, that in works which imitate nature, the great art is to hide every appearance of art; which is done by avoiding regu

"Houfes are built to live in, and not to look on. "Therefore let ufe be preferred before uniformity, except where both may be had."

P 3

Lo. Verulam, effay 45, larity

larity and indulging variety. But in works of art that are original and not imitative, fuch as architecture, ftrict regularity and uniformity ought to be ftudied fo far as confiftent with utility.

In buildings intended to please the eye, proportion is not lefs effential than regularity and uniformity; for we are for framed by nature, as to be pleafed equally with each of thefe. By many writers it is taken for granted, that in all the parts of a building there are certain strict proportions which please the eye; precifely as there are certain ftri&t proportions of found which please the ear; and that in both the flighteft deviation is equally difagreeable. Others again feem to relish more a comparifon betwixt 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. This point, with relation to the prefent fubject, being of importance, the reader will examine it with attention and impartiality. To refute the notion of a refemblance betwixt mufical proportions and thofe of architecture, it might be fufficient to obferve in general, that the one is addreffed to the ear, the other to the eye; and that objects of different fenfes have no refemblance, nor indeed any relation to each other. But more particularly, what pleafes the ear in harmony, is not the proportion of the ftrings of the inftrument, but of the founds that thefe ftrings produce. In architecture, on the contrary, it is the proportion of different quantities that pleases the eye, without the leaft relation to found. Befide, were quantity here to be the fole ground of comparifon, we have no reafon to prefume, that there is any natural analogy betwixt the proportions that please

in a building and the proportions of strings that produce concordant founds. I inftance in particular an octave, the most complete of all concords. An octave is produced by two ftrings of the fame tenfion and diameter, and as to length in the proportion of one to two. I do not know, that this proportion will be 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 flightest resemblance to a building.

:

With refpect to the other notion inftituting a comparison betwixt proportion in numbers and proportion in quantity, I urge, that number and quantity are so diftin&t from each other, as to afford nơ probability of any natural relation betwixt them. Quantity is a real quality of every substance or body number is not a real quality, but merely a conception that arifes upon viewing a plurality of things in fucceffion. Because an arithmetical proportion is agreeable in numbers, have we any reafon to conclude that it muft alfo be agreeable in quantity? At this rate, a geometrical proportion and many others, ought alfo to be agreeable in both. A certain proportion may coincide in both and among an endless variety of proportions, it would be wonderful, if there never fhould 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 fame proportions are not applicable to the external figure of a houfe, and far lefs to a column.

1;

That we are framed by nature to relish proportion as well as regularity, is indifputable: but that agreeable proportion, like concord in founds, is confined to certain precife measures, is not warranted by experience: on the contrary, we learn from

P 4

1

from experience, that various proportions are equally agreeable, that proportion is never tied down to precife measures but admits more and lefs, and that we are not fenfible of difproportion till the difference betwixt the quantities compared become the moft ftriking circumftance. Columns evidently admit different proportions, equally agreeable. The cafe is the fame in houses, rooms, and other parts of a building. And this opens an interesting reflection. The foregoing difference betwixt concord and proportion, is an additional inftance of that admirable harmony which fubfifts among the several 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 meafures, is perfectly well fuited to this accuracy of perception. The eye is more uncertain about the size of a large object, than of that is fmall; and in different fituations the fame object appears of different fizes. Delicacy of feeling therefore with refpect to proportion in quantities, would be an ufelefs quality. It is much better ordered, that there fhould be fuch a latitude with respect to agreeable proportions, as to corre fpond to the uncertainty of the eye with refpect to quantity.

2

:

one

But this fcene is too interesting to be paffed over in a curfory view all its beauties are not yet difplay'd. I proceed to obferve, that to make the eye as delicate with refpect to proportion as the ear is with respect to concord, would not only be an uselefs quality, but be the fource of continual pain and uneafinefs. I need go no farther for a proof than the very room I poffefs at present: every step I take, varies to me, in appearance, the proportion of the length and 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

the nature of man, any two principles in perpetual oppofition to each other. This would precisely be the cafe, if proportion were circumfcribed like concord; for if it would exclude all but one of thofe proportions that utility requires in different buildings, and in different parts of the fame building.

It is ludicrous to obferve all writers acknowledging the neceflity of accurate proportions, and yet differing widely about them. Laying afide reafon and philofophy, one fact univerfally agreed on ought to have undeceived them, that the fame 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, looks like a gallery.

Perrault, in his comparison of the ancients and moderns*, is the only author who runs to the oppofite extreme; maintaining, that the different proportions affigned to each order of columns are arbitrary, and that the beauty of these proportions is entirely the effect of cuftom. This betrays ignorance of human nature, which evidently delights in proportion, as well as in regularity, order, propriety. But without any acquaintance with human nature, afingle reflection might have convinced him of his error; that if these proportions had not originally been agreeable, they could not have been established by cuftom. If a thing be univerfal, it must be natural.

and

To illuftrate the prefent point, I fhall add a few examples of the agreeableness of different proportions. In a fumptuous edifice, the capital rooms ought to be large, for otherwife they will not be proportioned to the fize of the building. On the other hand, a very large room in a small house, is difproportioned. But in things thus related, the mind requires not a precife or fingle proportion, * P. 94. rejecting

P 5