ment, had been laid aside and grown obsolete, comes recommended again by a second, and returns into vogue as a novelty. So it seems to have been with circular building. Adopted at first as the readiest form in which a rude shelter could be constructed, with improving art, it gave way to the quadrilateral; and, in the farther progress and perfection of art, was restored for magnificence and luxury. Thus, in the age of the greatest perfection of the arts in Greece, the building at Athens, called the tower of the winds, though rectilinear, yet, as octagonal, appears to have been a novelty; and it might be a ready step to the circular, in that most elegant little structure the choragic monument of Lysicrates, commonly called the lantern of Demosthenes. Earlier the immense theaters of the Greeks were semicircular, their purpose requiring that form; but they were buildings without roof, and wholly of another character. For buildings on a smaller scale, it will be obvious, the progress was ready, from the monument of Lysicrates at Athens, to the Sibyl's temple at Tivoli. To increase dimensions, and find means to extend the roof, would be matters in the ordinary course of the progress of art, under favoring circumstances; and so, when the patronage, of those who commanded the wealth of the world, gave means for the exertion of the talents of architects, the plan still expanding, at length the graceful magnificence of the Pantheon rose.

LETTER X.

Characteristical Differences of Exterior and Interior Architecture.-Grecian Interior Architecture.

HAVING traced Architecture, as I best could, from earliest ages, through Egypt, Phenicia, Palestine, and Greece, to Rome, I reached, in my last letter, that splendid building the Pantheon; which, for grace and richness of design, with magnificent dimensions, perhaps never was excelled; and, fortunately, of all of its age, or nearly approaching its age, now above eighteen centuries, hath stood by far the most perfect. Gaining here then some breadth of ground, I reckon it expedient to halt a little, that we may, at some leisure, advert to a matter, which, although it must have forced itself upon the consideration of every practical architect, has, in my mind, not been sufficiently adverted to by any architectonic writer, of those whose works have fallen in my way; I mean the distinction of EXTERIOR and INTERIOR architecture.

OUTSIDE and INSIDE, in building, have different qualities, requiring different PRINCIPLES of DESIGN; and the difference holds equally for the USEFUL and the GRACEFUL. The distinctive qualities of the EXTERIOR, respecting the USEFUL,

are, that it should itself bear weather, and that it should protect all within. Respecting the graceful, First, the Exterior receives light from the uninterrupted rays of the sun, so that every part, in the same direction, receives the same light: Secondly, it may be seen from every variety of distance, within human ken; Thirdly, the whole cannot possibly be seen from one point of view; but, Fourthly, sufficient distance being taken, small in comparison of the stretch of human vision, all that can come in view, from one point, may be seen at one glance of the eye; so that, from any such point, no farther view can be gained by any turn of the eye. The different qualities of the INTERIOR, are, respecting the USEFUL, that it is secured within walls, and under a roof, so as not to be liable to injury from weather. Respecting the GRACEFUL, First, the Interior can receive daylight but unequally, through apertures, which it is for the architect to direct for the best advantage: Secondly, the point of sight is limited by the surrounding walls: Thirdly, the whole may be seen from one point, but from no one point can be seen without turning the eye whence, Fourthly, the interior, even of the simplest room, from one stand, exhibits always various views. That these characteristical and strongly distinguished differences, of interior and exterior architecture, must always require the,

designer's careful consideration, is I think enough obvious.

But, beside these two clearly distinguished characters of outside and inside, which must belong to every building with walls and a roof, there is, in some buildings, a middle character, partaking of both, yet differing from both; and this is eminent in the Grecian temple. The Grecian temple, which, in architecture, like the Greek and Roman classics in literature, will probably, while the world shall last, afford the surest test, and best measure of fine taste, had its interior generally dark and unadorned: all the display of elegance and richness was without. But what was without the complete interior,the cell, was far from being all equally outside of the building; a large proportion, all between the columns and the cell, was of a mixed character. As outside it was exposed laterally; as inside, sheltered above; as outside, visible from a distance in part, but not completely; as inside, to be seen intire, only by the eye within its bounds; and also, as inside, receiving daylight but interruptedly, through apertures disposed by the architect.

Fortunately for following times, when elegance. in architecture more completely interior became desirable, this midway portion, of the Grecian temple of the best ages, offered not only all the

nccessary principles for it, but a very large portion even of models for the parts. When a building is to be raised, what use demands being decided, the next consideration for the designer, for inside as well as for outside, is, no doubt, to harmonize the various parts, and give them graceful combination. When the temple was planned, the perpendicular lines of the columns on one hand, and of the wall of the cell on the other, were to be harmonized with the horizontal lines of the floor, on which both rested, and of the roof, which they together supported. In the Doric temple, the meeting of the COLUMN with the floor was abrupt, the matter of use, as I have formerly observed, so requiring. But no such obstacle to a more graceful connection of the WALL with the floor presenting itself, Grecian taste introduced those forms of skirting, seen in some of the early Doric temples, which have not been excelled by any invention since. So also the antæ, or pilasters, not being wanted for use, like the columns, as stands for arms, were raised on a projection of the skirting, which served them as a base.

The horizontal line of the ceiling then was to be connected, with the wall on one side, and with the intablature of the columns on the other. For this the earlier architects seem to have been contented with repeating, within, the simple form,