to convey light to every corner, the room is unequally lighted, which is a great deformity. The steps of a stair ought to be accommodated to the human figure, without regarding any other proportion they are accordingly the fame in large and in small buildings, because both are inhabited by men of the fame fize.

I proceed to confider intrinfic beauty blended with that which is relative. Though a cube in itself is more agreeable than a parallelopipedon, yet a large parallelopipedon set on its smaller base, is by its elevation more agreeable; and hence the beauty of a Gothic tower. But fuppofing this figure to be destined for a dwelling-house, to make way for relative beauty, we immediately perceive that utility ought chiefly to be regarded, and that the figure, inconvenient by its height, ought to be fet upon its larger bafe: the loftiness is gone; but that lofs is more than compensated by additional convenience; for which reafon, a figure spread more upon the ground than raised in height, is always preferred for a dwelling-house, without excepting even the most superb palace.

As to the divifions within, utility requires that the rooms be rectangular; for otherwife void fpaces will be left, which are of no ufe. A hexagonal figure leaves no void spaces; but it determines the rooms to be all of one fize, which is inconvenient. A room of a moderate fize may be a fquare; but in very large rooms this figure muft, VOL. II.

G g

for

for the most part, give place to a parallelogram, which can more eafily be adjufted, than a square, to the smaller rooms contrived entirely for convenience. A parallelogram, at the same 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 so near as to be fully lighted, otherwise 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 artists 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 observed, intrinfic beauty ought to have the afcendant over that which is relative. But fuch propensity is unhappy with refpect to dwelling-houfes of moderate fize; because in these, intrinfic beauty cannot be difplayed 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 adjusted 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 otherwise fhould it happen, that of the endless variety of private dwellinghouses, there is scarce an inftance of any one being

chofen

chofen for a pattern? The unwearied propenfity to make a houfe regular as well as convenient, forces the architect, in fome articles, to facrifice convenience to regularity, and in others, regularity to convenience; and the house, which turns out neither regular nor convenient, never fails to displease the faults are obvious; and the difficulty of doing better is known to the artist only *. Nothing can be more evident, than that the form of a dwelling-house 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 purposely 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: 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 Gg 2 this

"Houses are built to live in, and not to look on; there"fore let ufe be preferred before uniformity, except where "both may be had." Lord Verulam, essay 45.

this climate scarce endurable in summer, it, in winter, exposes the house to the bitter blafts of the north, and to every fhower of fnow and rain.

Having faid what appeared neceffary upon relative beauty, the next step 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 please 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 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 same pro

portions

I

I

portions 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 those 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 resemblance, nor indeed any relation to each other. But more particularly, what pleases the ear in harmony, is not proportion among the strings of the inftrument, but among the founds that these ftrings produce. In architecture, on the contrary, it is the proportion of different quantities that please the eye, without the least 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 most 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 pro

1