ng, that the Doric and Ionic orders were first perfectly constructed there; and it may be questioned if, in the lapse of more than twenty centuries, any improvement has been added to the august simplicity of the Doric, or to the unaffected elegance of the Ionic column. The Corinthian, which is of much later invention, though more elaborately ornamented than the other two, is, by many of the most approved taste, deemed inferior to them as an order. It retains less of the resemblance of the original natural model. It has more about it that may be regarded as superfluous, and the foliage of the capital is obviously a redundancy placed there for no other purpose than the display of skill and expense.→ The Corinthian pillars of the porticos of St Paul's in London are esteemed very pure specimens of that order; but their appearance is less impressive than that of the Doric columns, which still remain among the ruins of the Temple of Minerva at Athens. More than two thousand years have elapsed, and the remnants of the Greek architecture still afford models, which, never having been equalled, seem incapable of being further improved. It may indeed be said, that the genius of ancient Greece has furnished eternal models of art as well as of literature to Europe.

"About the time that the Doric was raised to perfection in Ionia, the Etruscans invented the Tuscan, a similar order, but a grosser style; and the Romans, after the simple and dignified manners of their republic had passed away, demonstrated, by the invention of the Composite, and their preference for that gaudy order, how much the corruption of their morals had infected their taste.

"The Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Tuscan, and Composite orders constitute what is properly understood by the classes of architecture. They are arranged with distinct, appropriate, and peculiar ornaments; and their

proportions are regulated by rules which cannot be violated without impairing their beauty. This is not the case with any other kind of architecture, and hence all other modifications of the art of building are called styles, in contradistinction to orders. It is true, that in England the Society of Antiquaries, and several private amateurs of the arts, have of late endeavoured to classify and illustrate the different styles of architecture in the ancient baronial and ecclesiastical edifices of Great Britain, but the inqury has not yet terminated, although it has ascertained that the Saxon, Norman, and Gothic, or, as the latter is now perhaps properly called, the English order, have characteristics as distinct as those of the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, and codes of general rules that may prove to be peculiar to each.

“ The human mind has an innate disposition to admire order, and to seek pleasure by the classification of objects. Hence architecture is considered as consisting of three distinct species, civil, military, and naval. I may be justified in adding a fourth, ecclesiastical; for it is impossible to visit any part of Europe, without being convinced that the buildings consecrated to religious rites could not, without radical alterations, be applied to any other use. The cathedral, with its vast aisles, its solemn vaults, and adjoining cloisters, is as obviously constructed for a special purpose, as the fortress, the ship, or the mansion.

"Phelones, of Byzantium, about three hundred years before the Christian era, composed a treatise on the engines of war and military architecture. He is, therefore, justly regarded as the father of engineers; and the principles which he is supposed to have elucidated continued to be acted upon till the invention of gunpowder. Italy, that has for so many ages been unknown as a military nation, claims, for Senmicheli of Verona, the glory of having established the principles

of the art of modern fortifications. Vauban, "Pagan, Blondel, Scheither, &c. only modified his suggestions and developed his principles. History ascribes, by a kind of courtesy, the honour of inventions and discoveries to the persons who first make them public, or bring them into use. It is thus that, in naval architecture, Usoo, a Phoenician, is considered as the father of the art, because he is the first on record that navigated a canoe. But in this the courtesy of history goes too far, for Noah has certainly a superior claim, both on account of the magnitude and the purpose of his vessel.

"Although the Greeks excelled all the world in the beauty of their works of art, they did not furnish any treatise on the theory of architecture till after they had constructed their finest buildings. This was natural.The rules which instruct us to produce beauties in any kind of art, must be derived from the practice of those who have previously, by the instinct of genius, produced excellent works. The rules for composing a perfect epic poem were derived from the practice of Homer, as it appeared in the Iliad. In like manner, the principles of architecture, as a science, are founded on the result, not of rules previously delivered, but of experiments; hence we are assured, that by an adherence to the rules, we shall produce the same beautiful effects as the result of the experiments from which the rules were deduced. Vitruvius was the first author who established the principles of ancient architecture; but he did not write until the finest specimens of the art had been long completed. He mentions, indeed, the names of many architects, but they were practical men-men of genius who had erected models, and thereby furnished the means of giving rules for the guidance of others.

"It is surprising, that although the work of Vitruvius is admitted by all students to be deficient, obscure,

and ill arranged, it is still the best of its kind, especially in what relates to the proper and appropriate use of the different orders. A work embracing the Saxon, Norman, and Gothic styles, in addition to the classic orders, and discriminating the uses to which they are respectively adapted, is a desideratum in the literature of Europe. In England, a work of this kind is particularly required, for the English are perhaps less than any other people of Europe, sensible or even acquainted, with the proprieties of architecture. In the St Paul's of London, one of the very finest works of the moderns, and admired by the English equal to its merits, the architect has employed the gayest orders, and in their most ornamented style. The sublime magnitude of the building diminishes, at the first view, the effect of its preposterous gaudiness. It is not, till after contemplating it with relation to its uses, that we perceive how much the style of the architecture is at variance with the purpose of the fabric. Surely, the flaunting luxuriance of the Corinthian and Composite orders are ill placed on a temple dedicated to the service of God, and appointed to receive the ashes of great and illustrious men. The decorum of architecture has been equally disregarded in the construction of the new theatre of Covent Garden. The portico is undoubtedly a beautiful specimen of the Grecian Doric, and as such would not have disgraced Athens itself; but the august simplicity of the Doric is as much out of place at the entrance of the playhouse, as the gaudier elegance of the Corinthian and Composite is on the church. Perhaps, if the theatre were entirely devoted to the exhibition of tragedies, the grave majesty of its portico would not be objectionable. Still, however, both the theatre and the cathedral are fine monuments of the skill of their respective architects, but they are curious examples of the want of that taste for propriety which is as requisite in the art of building

as in the compositions of the muse. It has been said of the English, that they build their hospitals like palaces, and their palaces like hospitals; it may be added, that they also ornament their churches like theatres, and their theatres like chuches.

"Of all the fine arts, architecture is not only that which is most easily traced to its origin in the wants of mankind, but that on which all the others are dependent. All the others, when compared with architecture, are only representative, and contribute only to the gratification of those wants which arise from the experience of pleasure. But this primeval art is, in its rudimental state, almost as necessary to man as food, and in its refined, no less essential to the improvement of every other.

66

Painting and sculpture are the arts which seem to have the greatest affinity to architecture, and to be immediately connected with its use and progress. For the origin of painting, we have no evidence of any such obvious instinct as that which led man to the art of building; and it may be doubted, whether it ought to be considered as an invention anterior or coeval with sculpture.

"The Greeks, with that vanity which their extraordinary proficiency in art and science almost justified them in assuming, a vanity which is probably constitutional, as it exists in them as strongly as ever, although they have nothing left of their ancestors but their vices, the lees and dregs of civilization, take to themselves the honour of the invention of painting; and tell us that, in particular, the art of portrait-painting was discovered among them by a girl, who was fond of a youth devoted to travelling, and who, to sweeten the time of his absence, delineated on the wall, with the assistance of a lamp, the profile of her lover. Instead, however, of accepting this as an historical fact, we ought to reflect how