ARCHITECT (Latin Architectus, Greek Απηχτων, from the primitive words uζγr<, the beginning, origin, or cause, and τι ∖ rχω, to contrive, construct, build), an originator, a contriver of structures; one who designs and executes works of architecture. An architect is either civil, naval, or military. To a civil architect the term is applied simply, without the qualifying adjective, and to the others with the distinctive adjective prefixed. Architecture requires of its professor that he be both a man of science and an artist. He has to study it as a useful science and as a decorative art; the former requiring a more than ordinary knowledge of all that natural philosophy teaches, together with a technical acquaintance with the mechanical arts used in building; and the latter a fine perception of what is competent to produce pleasing effects, and in what manner they may be combined to produce grandeur and beauty. It often happens, and particularly on the Continent, where indeed they do not generally profess to be otherwise, that architects are totally devoid of all technical knowledge of the details of their profession, in which case a surveyor or supervisor is required to carry the architect’s designs into execution. Such architects are little better than mere draughtsmen. In this country there is a large class of persons called surveyors, most of whom are in fact mere measurers. They too assume the office and distinction of architects, and are frequently employed as such. Country builders, again, who are for the most part simply carpenters, masons, or plasterers, are not unfrequently allowed to execute their own designs, the result of which passes with the vulgar for architecture, and their authors are also called architects. Vitruvius, who, whatever may be his merits as an historian of architecture, certainly well understood what an architect should be, requires him to be versed in almost every branch of science and art that was taught at the time he wrote.

Very few names of the architects of antiquity most deserving of celebrity have descended to us through authentic channels. Vitruvius was himself so obscure as not to be mentioned, or in any way referred to, by any ancient author whose works remain to the present time. Of the authors of the splendid architectural monuments of Egypt and India we know absolutely nothing. It is indeed but with difficulty and uncertainty that we can indicate the architects of the middle ages, the inventors and perfecters of that magnificent and beautiful style which, in the absence of a better generic name, has been called Gothic. They were mostly ecclesiastics,—frequently bishops and abbots.

When learning began to extend itself beyond the cloister, and science and the liberal arts were allowed to shed their influence on the minds of men, their application to useful and agreeable purposes became the occupation or profession of distinct classes. These had of course to derive reasonable emolument from their respective professions, and it was generally made in the shape of fees. Fees, however, could not be well determined in some professions, and among them in that of architecture. At first the architect was paid so much for a design, and a salary as supervisor or surveyor of its execution; but the established custom in this country now is, that the architect shall be paid a commission of five per cent, on the cost of the structure he .is engaged to design and execute. For this he makes the design; an estimate of the expense, if required; a specification of every thing required to be done by the builder by contract or otherwise; with working drawings, and drawings of details. Re superintends the execution of the structure, and measures and values the whole of the work if necessary, when completed, to check the builder’s accounts.
[7:3:406]

The term Architecture is derived from the name of its professor, Architect. It is the art of contriving and constructing buildings; and the thing produced is by metonomy called by the name of the art which produces it, as the art itself is named from its professor. The word is directly from the Latin architectura, irregularly formed from the deponent verb architector, which is itself from the Greek substantive αξ∙χpri×τωv, Latinized architector, architecto, and architectus ; all of which are used by Latin authors. A more regular but less relevant derivation of the Latin words architectus and architectura is found in the substitution of the participles of the verb tego, to cover, &c. for the derivative of the Greek rευχω, to build, &c.

When architecture is spoken of simply, without a qualifying adjective, the designing and building civil and religious edifices, such as palaces, mansions, theatres, churches, courts, bridges, &c. is intended; and it is called civil, to distinguish it from naval and military architecture. Although every description of building may thus have the term applied to it, it is by common consent restricted to such edifices as display symmetrical arrangement in the general design and fitting proportions in its parts, with a certain degree of enrichment effected by means of cornices, blocking courses, architraves, or pillared, columnar, or arcaded arrangements. Architecture may indeed be said to bear the same analogy to building, that literature does to language. A plain brick wall covered in the ordinary way with bricks on their edges isnot architectural,because it is poor, rude, and unadorned: it produces no pleasing effect, and is such as a totally uninstructed workman would construct merely to answer the purpose required of it. As man, however, is endowed by nature with a taste for beauty and elegance, mere rugged utility does not delight him; as he becomes civilized, he seeks to embellish whatever he produces, that it may give him positive instead of negative pleasure, by presenting to his sense of vision what his mind may dwell on with complacency; and he is thus disposed to avail himself of the dispositions and decorations which constitute architecture. It maybe asked, what standard of beauty there is in this art, on which taste may be formed; though it must be obvious, that, like other children of the imagination, such as poetry and music, no other can be assigned than such compositions and modes of arrangement as by their harmony and simplicity attract the attention of the rudest mind, which is pleased without being conscious why, and of the most learned or practised, which discovers in them those proportions and peculiarities of form which always produce the most pleasing impressions, and appear to be dictated by nature. Painting and sculpture have, to a certain extent, their originals in the external works of nature, so that the most uncultured taste may be gratified, or otherwise, with them, as their works are faithful or unfaithful imitations; music is more artificial, and the taste must be cultivated to judge of and enjoy its higher productions; but architecture is purely conventional, requiring a knowledge of its system, and a mind informed as to the principles on which it depends for beauty, even to its appreciation.^[1. Count Algarotti, speaking of the absence of any thing in nature on which architecture may be modelled, says, “with good reason it may be said to hold the same place among the arts, that metaphysics does among the sciences.” (Opere del Conte Algaro , edizione novissima, tomo iii. p. 25.) ]

As it is necessary, in erecting a new edifice where an old one has stood, to remove all that was falsely constructed and insecure, if not entirely to clear out the foundations; so it is at this time necessary, in writing a treatise on architecture, to show the false grounds on which the old system is founded, and remove the false impressions which it has generally induced.

The earliest extant author on the subject is Vitruvius, who, being ignorant of any other than his native architecture, which was Roman, and generally derived from the Greek, concocted or adopted a silly fable about the origin of building, and pretends to trace from it the invention of what are called “the orders” by the Greeks; giving, however, to each a separate fable of its own. He professes to give the proportions, arrangements, and disposition of the architectural works of the latter people, and the rules by which they were composed. He describes with considerable minuteness various species of temples and other edifices of both the Greeks and Romans, and endeavours to give reasons for almost every thing connected with them. His account of the advance of man from a state of savage wildness to civilization, the discovery and acquisition of fire, and progress in the art of building, made by the early fathers of the human race, is only surpassed in absurdity by his stories of the invention and proportioning of the various columnar ordinances of which the ancients made use; if we except perhaps the fact, that this crude system has been received and propagated throughout the civilized world ever since the resuscitation of the work, four centuries ago. How could a man, who evidently knew nothing of the early history of the world, of the Celtic monuments, or of the history and architecture of Egypt and the East, be supposed capable of describing the inventions and advances in knowledge of the human race? Nor is this all: How can Vitruvius be received as an authority, when it is found that he does not correctly describe any existing edifice in either Greece or Italy, and that no example of ancient architecture, either Greek or Roman, is in perfect accordance with his laws? This we shall show in its proper place, and proceed now to take a view of the rise, progress, and history of our subject, without reference to the popular system, which is based on such fallacious ground.

Although it is very probable that men built houses to shelter themselves from the inclemencies of the weather before they constructed temples to the divinity, yet it must be obvious to all who have studied the early history of the human race in connection with its antiquities, and have considered the analogies afforded by the rude and simple nations of the world at the present time, and particularly by those who occupied the western side of the Americas on the discovery of those continents, that though the art of building may have originated in the personal wants of man, the science of architecture was the result of his devotional feelings and tendencies. In Egypt and in India, in Greece and in Italy, in Gaul and in Britain, in Mexicoand in Peru, structures connected with the worship of the divinity existed, and still exist, of the earliest date, or rather of dates beyond the range of positive chronological information; some evincing a greater and others a less advance in taste and refinement, but all retaining some analogy, bearing upon the same point, and tending to what may be called architectural arrangement-None[7:3:407] of those countries, however, nor any other with which we are acquainted, present any thing intended for the personal accommodation of man in the early ages; nor is there any thing in the sacred structures that could for a moment induce the idea, that the dispositions of architecture arose in the construction and composition of domestic buildings. Everything rather leads to the belief that devotion and superstition were the originators, carriers on, and, it may be almost said, perfecters of the science.

The modern tent and marquee may be assumed as the representatives of the earliest habitations of man; at first perhaps covered with leaves, then with the bark of trees, and, in a more advanced state, with the skins of animals. It would not be till men began to congregate in towns and cities for mutual defence from the aggressions of each other, that any thing more permanent than such tent-like habitations would be thought necessary, or even convenient, as most of the tribes, if not all, were nomadic. In what manner the cities were fortified, whether by being surrounded with brick walls, or with defences of earth or mud, as the forts in India are at the present day, is not for us here to inquire; but we have no reason to suppose that the houses within them were better than the hovels of the inhabitants of such places in the East now, if they were indeed so good. The rude New Zealanders arc found to fortify their villages very respectably, although their habitations are mere huts; and the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians arc reported by their discoverers and conquerors to have made their towns or cities very secure by means of walls and other defences, and to have had considerable structures dedicated to the divinity, while their houses were of a mean and unpretending description. It is probable that timber was principally used in the ruder ages by men in the construction of their permanent habitations, for such is the material employed by the South Sea islanders to whom we have referred; and more particularly by the simpler and less savage tribes inhabiting the Friendly and Society Islands of the same hemisphere, who, moreover, thatch their houses with the large leaves of the cocoa-nut and bread-fruit trees. This supposition is supported, too, by the general tenor of the Mosaic history, and by the command which the Israelites received to burn with fire cities whose inhabitants were given to idolatry, which would not have been an efficient mode of destruction if such materials had been employed in building them as were then used in temples; for similar commands enjoined them to “overthrow their altars and break their pillars.” Deut. chap. xii. and xiii. Jericho, also, and Hazor, were burnt ∖ >y Joshua. Even so late as the establishment of the kingdom of Israel in the person of David, that monarch is represented to have built himself“a house of cedar.” There is indeed no reason whatever for supposing that the dispositions of architecture were employed for domestic purposes till a comparatively late period; and at no time in the history of the human race has the science been rendered so subservient to the comfort and convenience of man in civilized communities, as it is at he present day. To that fact the remains of Herculaneum and Pompeii, for their age, give the most decisive and satisfactory evidence; and since their time the fact will not be disputed.

If what we understand by the term architecture did not originate in, or grow out of, the mode of building which men employed in the construction of their own habitations, our next object must be to discover, whether it can be deduced from the mode they adopted in arranging and constructing edifices for the worship of the divinity.

The earliest intelligible record in existence makes frequent mention of the building of altars, but without temples. The first act of Noah on coming out of the ark, was to build an altar; Abraham built altars at various times and in various places; Isaac and Jacob built altars, and the latter is the first said to have set up a stone under the circumstances detailed in the 28th chapter of Genesis. On awaking after his remarkable dream, he said, “Surely the Lord is in this place”—“this is none other but the house of God”—he “took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it, and he called the name of that place Bethel ;” and then dedicating it to the Deity, he said, “and this stone which I have set for a pillar shall be God’s house.” Jacob set up a stone again on which to ratify his agreement with Laban in the most sacred manner. In many other parts of the Old Testament, stones, or pillars as they are called in some places, were set up as witnesses and memorials of sacred engagements. In the covenant at Shechem (Josh. xxiv. 26, et seq.), Joshua “took a stone and set it up there under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord. And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us, for it hath heard all the words of the Lord.” After the battle with the Philistines at Mizpeh, in which the Israelites were conquerors, Samuel, who had prayed for their success, “took a stone and set it up between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Eben-ezer, saying, Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.” 1 Sam. vii. 12. The analogy between these stones and the cromlechs of the ancient Celtic nations is too clear not to be observed. “It is remarkable,” says General Vallancey, in his Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, “ that all the ancient altars found in Ireland, and now distinguished by the name of cromlechs, or sloping stones, were originally called Bothal, or the House of God; and they seem to be of the same species as those mentioned in the book of Genesis, called by the Hebrews Bethel, which has the same signification as the Irish Bothal.”^[2. Coll, de Reb. Hìb. tom. ii. p∙ 211. ] Of these cromlechs there are three kinds, the single upright stone or pillar; the same, with another stone laid on it crosswise; and two upright stones with a third placed on them, like an entablature on two columns; and this third kind, to distinguish it from the other two, has been called by the Greek descriptive name trilithon. It is evident, moreover, from the sacred text, that it was customary to offer sacrifices by these pillars or cromlechs; for on the return of the ark from Philistia (1 Sam. vi. 14, 15), the kine drew the cart on which it was placed into a field “where there was a great stone; and they (the people) clave the wood of the cart for a burnt-offering to the Lord,” having placed the ark and its contents on the stone. Now the sacrificial stone or altar at Stonehenge is immediately before the great trilithon which forms the end of the hypoethral temple within the external peribolus, and that temple itself is doubtless of the same species as those which Moses built at Mount Sinai, and directed the people to construct on their arrival in the promised land (Exod. xxiv. 4, and Deut, xxvii. 2-6), which they afterwards did under the command of Joshua, the stones or cromlechs being multiplied for special purposes. Moses and Joshua set up twelve stones (probably trilithons), because of the number of the tribes: at Stonehenge there were five. Strabo, speaking of the temples of the Egyptians, describes the most ancient as being of vast extent, but of rude workmanship, without elegance, without grace, and without embellishment of any sort. What could this have been [7:3:408]but the same simple combination of sacred stones which, we have found, was the earliest species of temple on record, and one of which we may presume to be the earliest, in manner if not in date, in existence? Indeed, late travellers have discovered, at Amada in Nubia, about halfway between the first and second cataracts of the Nile, a temple which consists of square piers supporting plain squared blocks of stone, which form a simple entablature, occupying the mid-distance between the ruder Celtic structure and the finished Egyptian columnar arrangement. The Egyptians had made considerable advances on the rude model to which the Greek geographer refers, when the Israelites escaped from them, having already fallen into polytheism and idolatry; and changes in faith inducing changes in form, their temples might no longer retain their monotheistic simplicity, but must be arranged with more complexity to suit the purposes of a complex religion. Lucian and Herodotus both say that the most ancient of the Egyptian temples had had no statues or images in them; but the express command given to the Israelites by Moses, in the passage just referred to in Deuteronomy, that the stones to be set up, and the altar to be made, should be of whole stones, and that no iron tool should be used upon them, warrants the supposition that it was to prevent them from doing what their late masters were then accustomed to do—carve the altar and piers or pillars with images, and so fall into idolatry; and may be admitted as a proof that the Egyptians had already made the advances in architecture which we have presumed: indeed we shall find that they had actually arrived at the splendid results which the ancient capital of Egypt even at this day presents. One of the colleagues of Denon, in a dissertation on the antiquity of Thebes, in the great work of the French Institute on the Antiquities of Egypt, says, “Let us add to all these considerations (that all the historians and philosophers of Greece and Rome agree in assigning the highest antiquity to the Egyptians) that most of the edifices of Thebes bear incontestable marks of great age. This is a fact not of a nature to produce a strong impression on those who have not seen the monuments themselves, but it helps to carry conviction to the minds of those who have been able, in the places where they exist, to compare the edifices of ancient Egypt with each other.”^[3. Description de l Egypte, tome i. p. 432. ] He goes on to speak of the causes of their preservation, and concludes with this passage :—“It may be remarked, moreover, that most of the ancient edifices of Thebes are composed of the ruins of other monuments which had perhaps themselves become ruined by age.”

But Strabo and Herodotus agree in saying that the Indian caverns or excavations were justly presumed to be more ancient than the temples of Egypt; and a learned modern antiquary (the Rev. Mr Maurice) asserts that they were made by the Celtae. Now the architectural arrangement of these excavations, and of Hindoo architecture generally, very much resembles the early Egyptian style. This coincidence strengthens the supposition that they had a common origin, and that indeed the science of architecture had its birth in the simple combinations which we see in what are called the Celtic or Druidical remains; and it is not doubted that they originated in devotional feelings.

In assuming Stonehenge to be the oldest architectural monument (in manner, it may be, rather than in the date of its execution), we do not pretend to lower the antiquity of any other, but to put this beyond them all; believing it to be a specimen of primeval columnar architecture, which led the way, as one of the numerous gradations, some of which may have left no traces on the face of the earth from the monolithic cromlech to the Parthenon of Athens the Pantheon of Rome, and the Minster of York. It i s ' not a sufficient argument against this assumption, that such structures are not found existing in the East at the present time; for they were doubtless swept away to make room for more ornate edifices, as the custom was, in the same sacred places, and to furnish materials for them; as the latter have in many cases been as completely obliterated from the face of the earth, with the cities to which they belonged. A specimen of the next step in advance exists in the temple at Amada; and, as we shall have occasion to show, it clearly demonstrates the truth of our position, by some of its square piers having been sculptured into cylinders, which exhibit the simplest form of the Greek Doric column.

This, however, is not the generally received opinion. It is thought that the trunks of trees used in the construction of human habitations first suggested the idea of columns; and that the lintels, transverse beams, wallplates, and rafters, first furnished that of an entablature. Neither authentic history nor analogy appear to us to bear this out; for the most ancient architectural remains, in various places, accord less with the arrangements consequent on such an origin than those which are more modern; and it requires a great stretch of fancy to imagine the derivation of the Titanic structures of Thebes, Paestum, and Selinus, from the posts of a woodman’s hut. But the inquiry, being more curious than instructive, is not worth pursuing further; for indeed no useful result could arise from its determination.

Such being the case, we now proceed to trace the progress of the science from its earliest regular formations, of which we have sufficient and authentic information, down to the present day.

Indian chronology being so vague and undefined, and the connection of the Hindoos with the civilized nations about the Mediterranean Sea having been so much restricted in the earlier ages that we can get little assistance from the Greek historians on the subject, the date of their architectural monuments can be determined only by analogy. That, however, is an uncertain guide, especially in the circumstances in which we are placed, without proper delineations, and indeed without any work that gives a competent idea of them. Though we have held India so long, and by a so much more honourable tenure than the French did Egypt, if we were now to be dispossessed we should leave nothing, and we should certainly retain nothing, to show to our credit that we had ever held it. Such an undertaking as the great work of the French Institute on the Architectural Antiquities of Egypt is far beyond the means of individuals; the constitution of our government appears to preclude the application of funds from the public purse to such purposes; and the East India Company, from whom perhaps something of the kind on the archaeology of India might have been expected, have, it would appear, occupations of more interest to them than the advancement of science and art. It may be generally stated, that, in its leading forms and more obvious features, Hindoo architecture strongly resembles Egyptian, and may be considered as of the same family with it.

No nation that ever existed within the annals of the human race has left structures that, .in extent, magnificence, and grandeur, can vie with those of ancient Egypt-We have the authority of historians for believing that [7:3:409] there were others in the same country which no longer , exist, that must have surpassed those which do remain; and they speak also of the cities of Assyria, as unparalleled in the extent and splendour of their edifices, whose sites, even, are not now determinable. The pyramids, however, mausoleums of a nation—and the temples, monuments of human folly—speak more strongly than any historian can, and compel our belief of what they have been by what they are; whereas the others do not exist but in name. Nineveh and Babylon were—but Thebes and Memphis still remain. It is strange, indeed, that a people who displayed such energies in the construction of tombs, pyramids, and temples, should have left no work of any description that could be applied to any really useful purpose. Denon, speaking of Thebes, says, “Still temples—nothing but temples—not a vestige of the hundred gates, so celebrated in history; no walls, quays, bridges, baths, or theatres; not a single edifice of public utility or convenience. Notwithstanding all the pains I took in the research, I could find nothing but temples, walls covered with obscure emblems, and hieroglyphics [which attested the ascendency of the priesthood, who still seemed to reign over the mighty ruins, and whose empire constantly haunted my imagination.”^[4. α S e la Baste et la Haute Egypte, p. 176. Par V. Denon. ] Champollion, however, in his late researches, speaks of the remains of quays, and calls some of the structures palaces instead of temples; but as the former exist only in connection with the latter, they can hardly be considered as any thing more than mere embankments; and the regal and hierarchical offices having been so closely connected in the economy of ancient Egypt, it is of little or no consequence to our position whether the same edifices be called palaces or temples. Diodorus Siculus says, in one place, that “Busiris,” believed to be one of the Pharaohs who persecuted Israel, “built that great city which the Egyptians call Heliopolis and the Greeks Thebes, and adorned it with stately public buildings and magnificent temples, with rich revenues ;” and that “he built all the private houses, some four, and others five stories high.”^[5. ιυd. Sic. lib. i. cap. iv. ] Shortly after, speaking of Memphis, to account for. the splendour with which the Egyptians built their tombs, and the comparative meanness of their houses, the same author says, “They call the houses of the living inns, because they stay in them but a little while; but the sepulchres of the dead they call everlasting habitations, because they abide in the grave to infinite generations. Therefore they are not very curious in the building of their houses; but in beautifying their sepulchres they leave nothing undone that can be thought of.” Strabo also speaks of a splendid dwelling which was erected for the priests at Heliopolis, but that probably was one of the sacred palaces just referred to; for none of the ancient writers describe the domestic structures of the Egyptians, from personal knowledge of them, as being worthy of any notice; and that assertion of Strabo is too loose and unsupported by contemporary authority or analogy to deserve confidence of itselí. Ίο the statement of Diodorus, that private houses were built to four and five stories high, we can give no credence whatever; for the construction of edifices in tiers or stories was very imperfectly understood even in his time, which was many centuries after the destruction even of Thebes; and none of the existing remains of that city give the slightest indication of a second story, or indeed of aptitude to construct one, except the rude landings in some of the propylaea. Herodotus says that the Egyptians were the first who erected altars, shrines, and temples; but of their private houses he says nothing; neither does he describe any of the temples as they existed in his time in Egypt; so that he in fact affords no assistance in determining the comparative antiquity of the various architectural structures which remain to the present time in that country. Indeed the ancient historians and topographers speak for the most part so wildly of dates and dimensions, that they are, at the best, most unsatisfactory, if not fallacious, guides; and in the present case, that of Egypt, the style of architecture is so uniform, or so imperfectly understood, that no argument can with safety be drawn from it, as there may in other cases. In Hamilton’s Aegyptiaca, the author says, with reference to this question: “In Egyptian architecture there is an uniformity of structure, both in the ornaments and in the masses, which, if unassisted by other circumstances, reduces us to mere conjecture; and that not only for the difference of a century or two, but perhaps for a thousand years.”^[6. Aegyptiaca, by Win. Hamilton, Esq. F. S. A. Part I. p∙ 280. ] Again: “The monuments of antiquity in Upper Egypt present a very uniform appearance; and his first impressions incline the traveller to attribute them to the same or nearly the same epoch. The plans and dispositions of the temples bear throughout a great resemblance to one another. The same character of hieroglyphics, the same forms of the divinity, bearing the same symbols and worshipped in the same manner, are sculptured on their walls from Hermopolis to Philae. They are built of the same species of stone; very little difference is discernible in the degrees of excellence of workmanship, or the quality of the materials; and where human force has not been evidently employed to destroy the buildings, they are all in the same state of preservation or decay.”^[7. Ibid. p. 18. ] But we are fortunately now about to be rid of that difficulty by the erudition and industry of those learned men who have given their attention to the hieroglyphic literature of the Egyptians. Μ. Champollion professes to have determined the date of every monument of antiquity in that country which is inscribed, by the inscriptions, which he has qualified himself to read. As yet, however, we are not in possession of the whole result of his discoveries.

Hypogea, spea, or caves formed by excavation, are found of earlier date than any existing structures. Internally they present square piers, which were left to support the superincumbent mass of mountain or rock when their magnitude rendered it necessary. These were originally tombs; and the cave of Machpelah, of which Abraham made the purchase as a burying-place for his family, was, doubtless, one of that kind. Oratories or chapels were afterwards made in the same manner, but, it would appear, not until columnar architecture had come into use; for their entrances are generally sculptured into the resemblance of the front of a rude portico or an actual porticoor pronaos is constructed before them. Many such are found on the banks of the Nile, in its course through Nubia and Egypt. At Ibrim, which the Greeks call Primis, in the former country, there are several of these cavern temples, the earliest of which, according to Μ. Champollion, bears date of the reign of one of the Pharaohs, who was contemporaneous with Abraham, or his son Isaac, or about eighteen centuries before Christ; the latest is of the time of Rhameses Sethos, the Sesostris of Greek history. To some of the cavern tombs and temples in Upper Egypt Μ. Champoilion accords even a still higher degree of antiquity. The earliest columnar structures which are found within the same range of country do not appear to bear a higher date than that of the [7:3:410]earliest kings or Pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty of Manetho, which began about the time of the Jewish patriarch Abraham, and ended with the Pharaoh from whom his descendants escaped under the conduct of Moses. The temple at Amada, to which we have already referred, is of the time of Moeris, who was contemporary with the patriarch Jacob, and consists of twelve square piers or pillars, and four columns, which possess the form and character of the Greek Doric, and may, it is suggested, be called protodoric. The same, intention, if it may be so called, is found in others of the ear)y monuments, but in none so perfect as in this, as almost all the structures of ancient Egypt were either destroyed or seriously damaged by the Persians at the time of their invasion under Cambyses; and they are supposed not to have ascended the Nile much above Psalcis or Dakkĕ, but to have turned off by the way across the desert to Ethiopia, so that the temple at Amada, which is considerably above Dakkè, escaped.

Of all the Pharaohs, Sesostris, the first of the nineteenth dynasty, was the most distinguished for the great and extensive works he executed in architecture. Most of the existing ruins in Egypt, anterior to the Persian invasion, are attributed to that monarch by Μ. Champollion. The immense ruins at Thebes, which have been by turns called the Memnonium and the. tomb of Osymandyas, and are popularly called Medinct Abou, are proved by that gentleman to be those of the Palatial Temple of Rhameses the Great, or Sesostris, and which he therefore calls the Rhamesscion, the ruins at Luxor being those of the Memnonium; that edifice or series of edifices having been constructed by Amenophis Memnon, of the eighteenth dynasty, one of the good and beneficent princes by whom the children of Israel were protected during their sojourn in Egypt. The magnificent structure at the village of Carnack, within the same city, appears however to excel all the rest in extent and grandeur, and is at least their equal in antiquity. It is generally known as the temple of Carnack, but it has been distinguished as that of Jupiter Ammon. It bears inscribed the name of Thothmosis IL, the predecessor of Amenophis Memnon. From the existing remains of Thebes, and the relations of historians combined, that city may be assumed to have attained its highest degree of splendour in the time of Sesostris; few of the ruins it presents being of later date than the time of that, monarch. This being admitted, and we believe it can hardly be denied, it must, be admitted also that the science of architecture, and the practice of the mechanical arts, were already well understood; for the composition of the monuments displays an exquisite combination of simplicity and harmony, which produce the finest effects of beauty and grandeur; while their construction is the apparent result of perfection in the use of mechanical powers. All the Pharaonic monuments, indeed, throughout Egypt and Nubia, are wonders of science and art. The structures of Ombos, Apollinopolis Magna, and Latopolis, between Thebes and the cataract, Μ. Champollion determines to be generally of the age of the Ptolemies, and some even of the Roman dominion; all, however, of these of epmpa? ratively modern date are evidently restorations; others, probably of the earliest ages, having occupied the same sites. Indeed Μ. Champollion asserts generally that the Ptolemies, and the Ethiopian Ergatnenes himself) only rebuilt temples where they had already stood in the times of the Pharaohs, and to the same divinities, that had always been worshipped there. 1 He goes on to say, that the religious system of this people was such a complete whole, so connected in all its parts, and fixed from time immemorial in so absolute and precise a manner, that the dominion of the Greeks and of the Romans did not produce any innovation; the Ptolemies and the C⅛sars only r e . stored in Nubia what the Persians had destroyed, and rebuilt temples where they had formerly stood, and dedicated them to the same gods.

Of the arrangements of an Egyptian temple we shall speak when we come to treat of Egyptian architecture as a style. In construction the Egyptians appear to have used wrought stones at a very early period: this probably was induced by the still earlier habit of excavating rocks to form tombs; for the walls in their oldest structures are composed of rectangularly cut blocks in parallel courses· whereas we shall find that the most ancient specimens of walling in Greece and Italy are not so. In the Pharaonic monuments, besides walls built in parallel courses of wrought stone, we find squared piers also; and frequently, in the same structure with them, the peculiarly formed tumescent column with a bulbous capital or head, covered with an abacus or square tablet, corresponding with the size of the piers, and warranting the supposition that that species of column is a mere refinement on the simple square pillar. What dictated its singular form must remain matter of speculation. The cylindrical column with a bell-shaped capital was the next advance, and that also is found in the same structures, though not in the simplest and earliest of them, in which piers occur. Terminal or Caryatic figures are common in those early works also; not absolutely supporting an entablature, but placed before piers which do, and having the appearance of doing it themselves when seen in front. Bold, massive, rectangular architraves extend from pier to pier and from column to column, and are generally surmounted externally by a deep coved coping, or cornice, with a large corded and torus-formed moulding intervening. This masks the ends of the stones which are placed transversely on the architraves to form the ceiling internally, the whole being flushed square on the top, and forming a flat terrace or floor. The pyramidal form of the moles or propylaea, peculiar to Egyptian temples, may have been suggested by the pyramids, as neither that form nor those adjuncts to a temple appear to have been used before the period at which it is supposed the former were constructed. The grandeur and dignity inherent to that form would indeed hardly be suspected till its appearance in the pyramids themselves; and certainly the impression of its effect must have been strong, to induce men to seek it in a truncated pyramid under a very acute angle, as in the propylaea, relying on the tendency of its outline alone. It was gradually, too, that this tendency was generally applied, for in the earliest Pharaonic structures the vertical outline is most common, except in the propylaea, where they exist; and in the structures of the Ptolemies the inclined outline pervades every thing. The monolithic obelisk is of Egyptian origin also. Its tapering form may be the consequence of the impression the pyramidal tendency had occasioned, though perhaps the object itself is the representative of the single stone by which religious feeling appears first to have expressed itself. Obelisks were set up by the Egyptians, sometimes in the courts or atria of their temples, and sometimes before the entrances to them.

Of all the architectural works of the Egyptians, however, none have excited so much the wonder and curiosity of men as the pyramids themselves; not in consequence of any particular beauty in their composition, or ingenuity m their construction, but simply because of their immense magnitude, and unknown use, and antiquity. Denon makes the following observation on his first visit to the great pyramid of Gizch, at Memphis. “If we reflect upon the sc pyramids, we shall be inclined to think the pride that constructed them greater even than these masses them
[7:3:411]

selves, and shall scarcely know whether to reprobate most the insolent tyranny which commanded, or the stupid servility of the people which executed, the undertaking. None but sacerdotal despots would ever have undertaken them, and none but a stupid fanatical people would ever have built them. The most honourable reason that can be assigned for their erection is the emulation of man to excel the works of nature in immensity and duration, and in this project he has not been altogether unsuccessful. The mountains near the pyramids are not so high, and have suffered more from time than the pyramids themselves.”^[8. 'Aj<rSο dam la Basse ei ta Haute Egypte, p. 77∙ Γ⅛ V. Denon. ι ] But Memphis itself was of late foundation in comparison with other cities on the Nile. According to Professor Heeren,^[9. Manual of Ancient History, p. S8. ] civilization descended by the Nile from Ethiopia with the caste of priests who brought with them the worship of Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha (the Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan of the Greeks), and “the spread of this worship, which was always connected with temples, affords the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those vestiges, combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to the conclusion that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, above Meroe, in Ethiopia, and, by the establishment of inland colonies around the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of their gods the dominant religion in Egypt. Proofs of the accuracy of this theory,” he asserts, “may be deduced from monuments and express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from Meroe; that it might indeed have been inferred from the preservation of the worship of Ammon in this last place.” The same author goes on to say, that “Thebes was, if not the most, one of the most, ancient cities of Egypt;” and that “Memphis and other cities of the vale of the Nile are known to have been founded from Thebes.” Now Thebes exists to the present time in the ruins of her magnificent temples, the works of the Pharaohs, but without the vestige of a pyramid, so that it may be concluded that none was ever built there; and Memphis may be said to exist in the everlasting pyramids of Gizch and Saccharah, which occupy two of its extremities; but no indication remains of the existence of a temple of any kind: indeed the exact site of the city cannot be determined except by the pyramids. Herodotus, however, speaks of temples at Memphis, particularly of that of Vulcan or’Phtha; but certainly no vestige of such has existed for a long period of time within that vicinity. Memphis was a great and ancient capital, and why should it not retain some evidence of the existence of temples in it? But Thebes was a greater and more ancient capital, and indeed the metropolis of all Egypt; and why has it no pyramids? These things are equally unaccountable and inexplicable, affording groundwork for almost any theory, but giving perfect support to none. Mr Hamilton, in his Aegyptiaca, before quoted, places Memphis considerably further south, where some ruins have been discovered which may be thought to give ä colour to his supposition. But the ruins are of very inconsiderable extent, and are all prostrate, so that nothing can be positively determined by them; and the statement oţ Pliny as to the relative distances of the Nile and the city from the pyramids of Gizeh being proved to be correct in the one, may be admitted in the other. If Herodotus s account of the building of the pyramids be received, they are of comparatively modern date, the oldeSt i hav- ln g been constructed several generations after the time ūí Sesostris, under whom Thebes attaiŋed its highest if gree of splendour; but this would leave unaccounted or the tendency to pyramidal forms in Egyptian architecture before referred to, unless every example exhibiting that tendency were itself referred to a date posterior to that assigned to Cheops and Cephron, which cannot be done in accordance with the assertions of Μ. Champollion as to the structures of Thebes, Elephantina, and Nubia generally.

From its immense size, the dimensions of the great pyramid of Gizch, at Memphis, are variously given by the various persons who have measured it. Μ. Nouet, who was of the French commission in Egypt, and had perhaps the best opportunity of being correct, determined its base to be a square whose side is 716 French or 768 English feet in length, occupying about the area of the great square of Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields in London; and its height 421 French or 452 English feet, or about one third as high again as St Paul’s cathedral. It is built in regular courses or layers of stone, which vary in thickness from two to three feet, each receding from the one below it, to the number of 202; though even this is variously stated from that number to 260, as indeed the height is given by varióus modern travellers at from 444 to 625 feet. And the ancient writers differ as widely, both among themselves and with the moderns. On the top course the area is about 10 English feet square, though it is believed to have been originally two courses higher, Which would bring it to the smallest that in regular gradation it could be. It is a solid mass of stone, with the exception of a narrow corridor leading to a small chamber in its centre; and a larger ascending corridor or gallery, from about half the distance of the first to another larger chamber at a considerable distance, vertically above the former, in which there is a single granite sarcophagus, not more than large enough for one body, putting the intention of the structure clearly beyond doubt. The other pyramids differ from that of Cheops (as the largest is called) in size, and slightly in form and mode of construction, some having the angles of the steps or courses of stone worked away to a plain surface, and some not diminishing in a right line. One of the middle-sized pyramids is unlike all the rest, in being neither smooth nor in small steps, but in six large steps or stories, apparently of equal height, and diminishing gradually. But the circumstance which most distinguishes it is, that it is' constructed of rude unshapen blocks of stone, cemented together with a very large proportion of mortar. Another is of unburnt brick, and has consequently become ruinous and mis-shapen.

The famous labyrinth, of which Herodotus speaks as having been built by the twelve kings of Egypt, beyond the lake Moeris, is believed by Denon, after examination of the described site, to be little better than fabulous, and-that the historian was imposed on by the priests, from whom he derived most of his information. He says, indeed, that he saw and examined it himself; but his description is so vague, that an architect who should endeavour to make a design from it, would be greatly embarrassed. As we can therefore derive no information from it with regard to architecture, it need not be further discussed here. It has.been suggested as probable, and indeed the opinion has been maintained, that the pyramids Stand over immense substructures; that their areas are occupied by chambers, in which maybe found the arcana of Egyptian lore, of which they are the depositories. If it really be so, may not the labyrinths just referred to have been’under the pyramid, which the historian says was’ constructed at the point where the labyrinth termi-nates, instead of near it? His expression is so ambiguous, that it leaves room for a suggestion of the kind.

Of the domestic architecture of the Egyptians we have [7:3:412]no knowledge whatever. The Statements of the ancient writers on the subject have been already mentioned; but supposing them to be more explicit, and more in conformity with probability, than they really are, without existing remains we could form but a very imperfect idea of what it was. Reasoning from analogy, and the slight in-, formation of historians, we should conclude that the habitations of the Egyptians were of a very unpretending description. The already quoted statement of Diodorus Siculus, that “they are not very curious in the building of their houses,” even in his time, after their long intercourse with Greece, and their more recent connection with luxurious Rome; added to the fact, that no indications of domestic structures exist in any part of the country, and that the presumed habitations of the priests, in the ancient temples, are small and inconvenient cells; and all these things, taken in conjunction with the mildness of the climate and the salubrity of the atmosphere, we think it must be admitted, warrant the conclusion.

No style of architecture of which we have any knowledge is so well qualified to produce impressive effects on the mind as the Egyptian. The mere assumption of its forms, however, is not sufficient to produce its effects; and drawing is more incompetent to convey an idea of it than perhaps of any thing else in art. To this point the authors of the great work of the French Institute on the antiquities of Egypt bear testimony in strong language. Speaking of the incompetence of drawings to convey just ideas of the grandeur, magnificence, and beauty of the Egyptian temples, and other remains of antiquity, they say, “Despite the care we have given ourselves to describe the Egyptian monuments, we cannot even hope that we have succeeded in giving' to others the ideas which we ourselves received from actual views and present contemplation of them; for there are things which drawings and descriptions cannot convey. Geometrical drawings are without doubt quite competent to show the form and proportions of an edifice, its disposition and distribution; but far indeed are they from giving satisfactory ideas of the elegance and effect of structures. Frequently we had to regret how much of the beauty of the original was lost in its geometrical representation on paper; for what in execution was light and graceful, often in the geometrical drawings appeared heavy and inelegant.”^[10. Description de l’ Egypte, vol. i. p. 292. , ]

The materials used in the construction of the Egyptian architectural monuments are, for the most part, granite, breccia, sandstone, and unburnt brick. The granite was principally supplied by the quarries at Elephantina and Syene, for which the Nile offered a ready mode of conveyance; some species were brought down the river from Ethiopia, but we do not find that the materials were at any time brought from any other foreign country. It may be remarked, too, that in the earliest structures the common grès or sandstone is principally employed. Excepting the obelisks and some few of the propylaea, all the temples at Thebes are of that material. In Lower Egypt, on the contrary, and in the works of later date generally, almost every thing is constructed of granite.

Herodotus informs us that the ancient Persians had neither statues, temples, nor altars; and Diodorus Siculus affirms that the palaces of Persepolis and Susa were not built till after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, and that they were constructed by architects of that nation. In this case, as in that of India, we are at a great loss for evidence. The Persepolitan remains, though frequently visited and slightly sketched, have not been explored and delineated by such men as Stuart and Revett, or the authors of the great French work we have so often alluded to. That the Persian style, though very different į Q particulars, does bear a relation to the Egyptian family, however, is very evident. Sir Robert Ker Porter, in his travels in the East, says that the first impression he received in his first walk among the ruins of Persepolis was, that “in mass and in detail they bore a strong resemblance to the architectural taste of Egypt.”^[11. Travels in Georgia, Persia, Qc. by Sir R. K. Porter, vol. L p. 579. ] Nevertheless, there is a strong probability that the Persian is itself an original style, and that the resemblance is merely for. tuitous, similar results arising from the same causes, as ⅛ Egypt and India; for the eastern parts of that country are believed to have been the earliest seat of the human race. Professor Heeren says of Persia, “it cannot be doubted, that long before the rise of the Persian power, mighty kingdoms existed in these regions, and particularly in the eastern part of Bactria; yet of those kingdoms we have by no means a consistent or chronological history—nothing but a few fragments, probably of dynastics which ruled in Media properly so called, immediately previous to the Persians ;”^[12. Manual of Ancient History, p. 28. ] from whom the style of archi-tecturc may be derived, though indeed we know of no remains of earlier date than those which are properly called Persian. But we may be said to know nothing of Bactria; it may, and probably does, rival Elora, Salsette, and the banks of the Nile> in primitive specimens of architecture.

W r e have neither historical nor archaeological information that can be depended on to prove what the state or style of architecture was among the ancient Assyrians. Lucian says, however, that their temples were less ancient than those of Egypt. The ruins believed to be those of the great capital of Babylonia present nothing but shapeless masses of brick, from which no idea whatever can be formed as to the style of architecture, or the progress it had made in that country; but some cylindrical and other seals and fragments, in terra cotta, lately found by excavation among those ruins, now in the British Museum, are sufficiently in accordance with the rest of the eastern antiquities to be received as evidence of the general assimilation of its style of design with that which was common to the neighbouring nations.

The Phoenicians, we are told by Lucian, built in the Egyptian style; but their country retains no memorials of its ancient architecture by which we might confirmor correct his information. Doubtless Carthage and the other colonies of Phoenicia followed their parent country in this particular.

As far as we can judge from the trifling documents we possess of the architecture of the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians, it was of a rude but massive character, and may be thought also to resemble the early architecture of India, Egypt, and Persia more than we can see any reason for, except in the tendency of the mind of man to the same result when he is placed under similar circumstances. An impression to this effect appears to have been made on Humboldt, who, when speaking of a pyramidal mass of ancient Mexico says, “It is impossible to read the descriptions which Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus have left us of the temple of Jupiter Belus, without being struck with the resemblance of that Babylonian monument to the teocallis of Anahuac.”^[13. Humboldt’s' Personal Narrative, vol. i. p∙ 82. ]

It is an illustration of the fact that the wants and fan· cies of man lead him to nearly the same results as he be· comes civilized, without communication and consequent imitation,· that the plans given by Sir William Chambers, of Chinese public and private buildings, might be taken, [7:3:413],ιt the first glance, for either Hindoo, Greek, Roman, or Moresco—of course not considering magnitude of parts, )U t general forms and arrangements. Indeed, the remark nay be extended beyond the mere plans; for all have, to i certain extent, insulated columns placed equidistant, and 'rowned with an entablature; and the general appearance ff many Chinese buildings is quite Moorish.

Architecture was not likely to flourish among the shep-ιerd tribes of Israel. It is in agricultural and commercial countries, such as Egypt and Greece, that its noblest works are produced, and not among the nomades of Arabia and Palestine. Saul, the first king of Israel, appears ∙ 0 have had no settled place of abode; and the most sabred ceremonies of the Jewish religion were performed at jilgal, where was the temple of unhewn stones set up ıy Joshua on taking possession of the promised land, and naking a covenant between God and the people, until he building of the temple at Jerusalem in the place ren-lered holy by Abraham’s great sacrifice. Saul himself vas confirmed in the kingdom at Gilgal, and there the ιation swore allegiance to him with sacrifices to the Almighty; butas yet nothing existed there in which to per-brm the rites, but the ancient Celtic structure to which ve have alluded. After the division of the tribes into two dngdoms, a splendid temple was erected on the site of ĵlilgal, in Mount Gerizim, as the national temple of the cingdom of Israel. Like his predecessor on the throne, David appears to have been but indifferently lodged till awards the end of his reign, when he is said to have juilt himself a house; and until the temple was built in he following reign, the ark of the covenant was never in ι fixed place ;—it was at one time in a private house, at mother in captivity among the Philistines; and, indeed, '<ing David expressed his shame that he had a house of :edar, whilst the ark of the Lord still dwelt in a tent. These things, and the fact that Solomon sent to Tyre for vorkmen, and indeed for an architect also, are, we think, conclusive evidence, that in whatever state architecture vas among the Jews from the building of the temple at Jerusalem, it was very low before that time; and from the lescriptions we have of that edifice itself in the Bible, it φpears to have exhibited a greater degree of barbaric ιplendour than of classic elegance. From mere descrip- .ion, however, it is impossible to understand an unknown ψecies of building, as many things we shall have occasion fo refer to will clearly prove.

Few things have occasioned controversies more amusing, from the singularity of some assumptions, and the absolute futility of them all, than the style and manner in ∙vhich Solomon’s temple was built. Villalpanda, a Spanish Jesuit, appended to a commentary which he wrote on the prophecies of Ezekiel, a long dissertation on the first and second temples of Jerusalem, in which he insists that the theory and practice of permanent architecture commenced with the building of that temple by Solomon—that with it, “the orders,” which, he says, are falsely attributed to the Greeks, came into existence—that indeed the design (from a passage in the first book of the Chronicles), per- ⅞ct in all its details, was given to David, drawn by the hand of God! He moreover pretends to show, that the proportions assigned by Vitruvius to the different orders accord exactly with the descriptions given of the temple of Solomon; and accuses Callimachus of usurping the honour of inventing the Corinthian capital, which could not belong to him, as it was of divine origin, and had been executed in the temple at Jerusalem centuries before he was born. Some learned, and in some respects sensible men, have attempted to support this theory; and others have thought it worth while to controvert it, by proving that the architect and the principal workmen were all either Egyptians or Phoenicians, and that consequently the edifice must have been in the Egyptian style. A learned architect of the present day has endeavoured to show that it was in the Greek style, and that its form, proportions, and distribution, were not dissimilar to those of the temple of Ceres at Eleusis. As the Phoenicians, who were principally employed by Solomon, themselves built in the Egyptian manner, we think the probability is great that it was in the Egyptian or Phoenician style, as far as the Jewish ceremonial would permit; and certainly the descriptions of its distribution accord better with that of an Egyptian than of a Grecian temple. The pillars of Jachim and Boaz, which are said to have been set up before the temple, correspond exactly in relative situation with the obelisks in temples at Thebes. Clemens of Alexandria, too, gives a description of an Egyptian temple very much like that of the Jewish; and the palm-leaves, roses,' fruits, and flowers, in the latter, are very common in existing specimens of the former, whereas in the Greek remains of early date no such things are to be found. Whether the Jews in after-times possessed a national style of architecture or not, we cannot tell: there is no reason, however, for supposing that they did; for their monotheistic structure at Jerusalem was not repeated in other places, as the temples of the heathen divinities were among the Greeks and Romans, by which they might have acquired a peculiar mode of composition and. combination. The non-existence of a national Jewish style of architecture tends also to strengthen our position, that architecture did not originate in the disposition and decoration of buildings for domestic purposes, of which the Jews must, when settled, have made as much use as other nations; and a multiplicity of religious edifices, in the construction of which they might have acquired one, was forbidden by their code.

In various parts of Greece and Italy, specimens of rude walling are found of such remote antiquity that they are, as by common consent, referred to the fabulous ages, and, for want of a more distinctive term, are called Cyclopaean. Nov/ it appears, from the concurring evidence and opinions of most antiquaries, that a people who have been called Pelasgi, or sailors, migrated from Asia Minor, or the coast of Syria, at a very early period, and possessed themselves of various countries, some of which were unoccupied, and others inhabited by Celtic tribes. Mr Godfrey Higgins says that the Pelasgi were Canaanites^ and being a hardy sea-faring race, they soon subdued the Celtic inhabitants of Delphi in Greece, or of Cuma in Italy, who, from their first quitting the parent hive, never had occasion for an offensive weapon, except against wild beasts; and that they were the people who settled Carthage, Spain, and Ireland. Bishop Marsh has proved the Pelasgi to be Dorians, Dr Clarke has proved the Etrusci to be Phoenicians, and Gallaeus has proved the Dorians to be Phoenicians. Thus, says Mr Higgins, the Pelasgi, the Etrusci, and the Phoenicians, are all proved to be the Same. According to Professor Heeren, also, who affixes dates to the various migrations, the Pelasgi were of Asiatic origin. “Their first arrival in the Peloponnesus was under Inachus, about 1800 years b. c. ; and according to their own traditions,” he says, “they made their first appearance in this quarter as uncultivated savages. They must, however, at an early period, have made some progress towards civilization, since the most ancient states, Argos and Sicyon, owed their origin to them; and to them, perhaps with great probability, are attributed the remains of those most ancient monuments generally termed Cyclopic.”^[14. Manual of Ansient History, p. 119. ] He adds, that the Hellenes, a people [7:3:414]of Asiatic origin also, expelled the Pelasgi from almost every part of Greece, about 300 years after their first occupation of it; the latter keeping their footing only in Arcadia and in the land of Dodona, whilst some of them migrated to Italy, and others to Crete and various islands. The arrival of the Egyptian and Phoenician colonies in Greece, Professor Heeren thinks, was between 1G00 and 1400 b. c. ≡ ’

The connection of Greece and Italy with each other, and with Egypt and Phoenicia, is thus made .evident. The Cyclopaean structures, however, were the works of the rude Pelasgi before that connection took place, except as far as it existed in their having a common origin. They occupied, either simultaneously or consecutively, both Greece and Italy; and this accounts for the sameness of that peculiar and original mode of structure which, we have said, is found in both countries, though no evidence exists of its ever having been practised elsewhere. If, indeed,' the things in question were the work of the earlier Celtic inhabitants, a still more remote date must be assigned them than they could derive from the Pelasgi; and this is the opinion of Mr Higgins, supported, he contends, by the suffrages of Dodwell, Clarke, and others, who say that the doorway called the Gate of the Lions, in the Acropolis of Mycenae, is built exactly like the remains of Stonehenge. The most ancient specimen of Cyclopic walling is found at Tyrinthus, near Mycenae.' It is composed of huge masses of rock roughly hewn and piled up together, with the interstices at the angles filled up by small stones, but without mortar or cement of any kind. The next species is in stones of various sizes also, shaped polygonally, and fitted with nicety one to another, but not laid in courses. Specimens of this are found at Iulis and Delphi, as well as at the places already mentioned, in Greece, and in various parts of Italy, particularly at Cossa, a town of the Volsci. This also was constructed without mortar. The mode of building walls, which took the place of that, is not called Cyclopaean; it is in parallel courses of rectangular stones, of unequal size, but of the same height. This is common in the∙Phocian cities, and in some parts of Boeotia and Argolis. To that succeeded the mode most common in, and which was chiefly confined to, Attica. It consists of horizontal courses of masonry, not always of the same height, but composed of rectangular stones.

The oldest existing structure in Greece of regular form is of far superior construction to the Cyclopaean walling, and must be referred to the Egyptian or Phoenician colonists. It is at Mycenae, and consists of two subterranean chambers, one of which is much larger than the other. The outer and larger one is of circular form, and is entered by a huge doorway at the end of a long avenue of colossal walls, built in nearly parallel courses of rectangular stones, roughly hewn, however, and laid without mortar. Its external effect is that of an excavation, though the structure of the front is evident; and internally it assumes the form of an immense lime-kiln; its vertical section being of a somewhat conical form, under nearly parabolic curves, like a pointed, or what is vulgarly called a Gothic arch. The construction of this edifice was thought to afford clear evidence that the Greeks were acquainted with the properties of the arch; but in the most material point this whs destroyed on finding that it consisted of parallel projecting courses of stone in horizontal layers, in the manner called by our workmen battering, or more correctly perhaps corbelling. It proves, however, that its architect understood the principle of the arch in its horizontal position; for Mr Cockerell has discovered, by excavations above it, that the diminishing rings of which the dome is composed are complete in them selves for withstanding outward pressure; the joints of the stones being partly wrought concentric, and partly ren . dered so by wedges of small stones driven tightly int 0 them behind. The apex is formed, not by a key-stone for the construction does not admit of such, but by l covering stone, which is merely laid on the course immediately below it. It may be added, that internally the lower projecting angles of the stones are worked off to follow the general outline. Though this is the largest and most perfect, its internal diameter at the base beino 48 feet 6 inches, and its height from the floor to the co” vering stone 45 feet, yet edifices exhibiting similar struc∙ tnre are found in many other places in Greece itself, in Egypt, in Sicily, and in Italy. They all however tend to prove, that the principle of the construction of the vertical arch was unknown at the time of their erection in all those countries; and their erection is as evidently of the most remote antiquity, perhaps of the presumed era of Daedalus, to whom some have assigned many of them, at well as the discovery of so much of the principle of the arch as is exhibited in the arrangement of’ the horizontal rings or layers in the Mycenaean monument. Neither could the mechanical powers have been unknown to their constructors. In the edifice which we have described, and which is thought by some to be the Treasury of Atreus, or the Tomb of his son Agamemnon, mentioned by Pausanias as existing among the ruins of Mycenae in his time, the inner lintel of the doorway is 27 feet in length, 16 feet deep, and nearly 4 feet thick, weighing, it is computed, upwards of 130 tons; and the lintel of the Gate of the Lions in the Acropolis of the same city, is, from its immense magnitude, also strongly illustrative of the great mechanical skill of the people of those times. As the treasury of Atreus at present exists, it exhibits nothing like an attempt at decoration, except that the doorway is, on the outside, sunk in two faces all round, as if to harmonize with some architectural composition; and the interior of the edifice may be supposed to have been lined, probably with plates of metal, like the tower of Acrisius, as bronze nails for attaching them to the vault still remain. Some sculptured fragments of marble which have been found among the ruins of the fallen parts and the rubbish which chokes up the entrance, together with indications on the external front of the edifice that it was cased, have led to an ingenious attempt at restoration, upon the supposition that the fragments were parts of a frontispiece. The fact that such frontispieces were sometimes carved, and sometimes constructed, in connection' with the entrances of excavated tombs and other spea in Egypt and Nubia, gives a degree of probability to the idea that it would not otherwise have; for the fragments do not resemble the earliest existing specimens of Greek architectural forms; though indeed these latter may be traced to Persepolis, and Ibrim in Nubia, according to several ingenious antiquaries and architects. In curious accordance with this Mycenaean structure is the ancient monument at New Grange, near Drogheda, in Ireland. Ruder in every respect than the former, in form, construction, and mode of access, it bears such a striking similarity to it, that it is almost impossible to be supposed the effect of mere chance. The opinion of Mr Godfrey Higgins, that the Pelasgi, who peopled many of the countries on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, peopled Ireland also, appears to be supported by this coincidence between the so-called Treasury of Atreus, or Tomb of Agamemnon, in the Peloponnesus, and the monument at New Grange in Ireland.

We know of no columnar edifice in Greece, or elsewhere in the Grecian style, of earlier date than the ruined temple at Corinth, which is in the plainest and sim [7:3:415] plest form of what has been called the Doric Order, though it would be more correctly designated the Doric Style; for the term Order is objectionable, because it supposes rules and limitations to what in its best times was subjected to neither. As, however, it is the term best understood, we shall not hesitate to continue it. It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain where and in what manner the Doric order originated. The example we have referred to, though the earliest, does not differ in its leading features and characteristics from the more perfect specimens of later date; and it bears no direct and easy analogy to any species of columnar arrangement of other countries and earlier times. The story of Vitruvius, even supposing it rational, does not coincide with the Greek style of Doric at all, but, if with any thing, with the Roman examples of it, which at the best are mean and inelegant deteriorations of the simple and beautiful original. This author says that “Dorus, the son of Hellenus and of the nymph Orseis, king of Achaia and of all the Peloponnesus, having formerly built a temple to Juno in the ancient city of Argos, this temple was found by chance to be in that maimer which we call Doric.”^[15. Vitruvius, lib. i. cap. i. ] In another place he deduces the arrangements of this same order from those of a primitive log-hut in the first place, through all the refinements of carpentry, leaving nothing to chance, but settling with the utmost precision what, in the latter, suggested the various parts of the former. Chance in One case, and experience in another, however, are not enough for this author; but he also tells us that the Doric column was modelled by the Grecian colonists in Asia Minor, on the proportions of the male human figure, and was made six diameters in height, because a man was found to be six times the length of his foot; and that eventual improvements occasioned the column to be made one diameter more, or seven instead of six. “Thus the Doric column was first adapted to edifices, having the proportions, strength, and beauty of the body of a man !” The earliest examples of this order, however, are those which least agree with the primitive. forms and proportions of Vitruvius; the columns at Corinth hardly exceed four diameters in height, while in later examples they gradually extend, till, in the temple of Minerva on the promontory of Sunium, the columns are nearly six diameters, being one of the tallest specimens of pure Greek origin ever executed. If the trunks of trees used in the structure of tents suggested the first idea of columns, and of the Doric in particular, as. many contend, how is it that the earliest specimens discovered are the most massive? For the merest saplings would have formed the wooden protocolumns, and necessarily, when imitated in stone, they would not have been made more bulky than the less tenacious nature of the material required; much less would the slender wooden architrave have been magnified into the ponderous entablature of the primitive permanent architectural structures of all nations. In the construction öt edifices with the trunks of trees, and timber generally, then, we do not find the origin of Doric architecture. If we have recourse,to Egypt, the mother of the arts and sciences,.we shall indeed find many things even in the more ancient structures which may have furnished an idea of the Doric arrangements to the fertile imagination of a Greek. The later works of that country cannot be trusted for originality, as they may themselves have been influenced by Greek examples; but we hardly dare assert that the Doric order was suggested by any thing in Egyptian architecture, though in making such, assertion we should be supported by the opinions of many competent judges. The temple at Amada in Nubia can hardly be positively assumed as an example of the proto-Doric , though it may of the proto-columnar. Nevertheless, the example, is striking, as it certainly possesses the Doric character. The broad square abacus, and the cylindrical or even conoidal tendency of the shaft, marked as it is, as if for fluting, with the plain, simple, and massive epistyle or architrave superimposed, are all in accordance with the Hellenic columnar ordinance; but still there is nothing to connect that rude model with the positive and somewhat formally arranged example at Corinth with which we began. It must be remembered, however, that two connecting links between Egyptian and Greek architecture are lost; Lower Egypt, with its splendid capital Memphis, and Phoenicia; through which latter the,learning and taste of the inhabitants of the former country appear to have taken their course; but of neither of these do we possess architectural remains that bear on the subject in question. In the Pharaonic structures of Thebes we find both the tumescent and the cylindrical columns; and an amalgamation and modification of the two would, easily produce the Doric column, or something very much like it, which may have been executed in those places, and so transferred to Greece. Of the triglyphs, the most distinguishing part of the Doric entablature, there are many indications in the early works of Upper Egypt; and in the structures of the Ptolemies they are still more evident; though it may be objected that, in these, those indications were borrowed from the Greeks after the Macedonian conquest. But it must be borne in mind that the Egyptian nation did not change its character, religion, or usages by the change of its governors; and the Egyptians were, through, the whole period of their existence, as a nation, an originating and not an imitative people; whereas the Greeks seized on a beauty wherever they found one, and made it their own by improving it. The forms and .arrangement/ too, of many of the Greek mouldings, and the manner of carving to enrich them, are common in the earliest ornate works of the Egyptians; and such things are as strong evidence of community of origin, as the existence of similar words having the same meaning in different languages is of theirs. We may be asked, why the Greeks cannot be allowed to have originated that beautiful style of architecture which they brought to the perfection it displays in their works? To which we think it a sufficient answer, that it would be against the common course of events if it were so. In Egypt we can trace a progress from the ruder to the more advanced, and, with trifling discrepancies, to the most perfect; but in Greece, the earliest specimen of columnar architecture that presents itself displays almost all the qualities and perfections which are found in works of periods when learning and civility were at their acme in that country. We cannot find in Greece a stepping-stone from the Celtic or Pelasgic Gate of theLions of Mycenae, to the Doric columns at Corinth, and hardly to the Fane of Minerva in the Acropolis of Athens; and have therefore to seek the gradations among the people with whom we have seen they were connected, and whose country furnishes them in a great, measure, if not entirely. Differences in.· climate and in political constitution, as well as in forms of religion, account sufficiently for the differences between the arrangements of the religious structures of the Greeks and those, of Egypt. At the present day we find, that though they, may be built in the same style, and for the worship of the same divinity, there is a wide difference between a church in Italy and a church in England, and a still greater between a church in the former country and [7:3:416]one in Scotland. The model, however, of the Greek temple is found in many places in Egypt, generally placed as a chapel or aedicula, subsidiary to, and in connection with, the larger structures, as well as in the earlier Nubian temples themselves.

None other than the Doric style or order was used in Greece till after the Macedonian conquest, about which period that beautiful and graceful variety called the Ionic was brought into use. It is as difficult to determine its origin as that of the Doric. Vitruvius says that the Ionian colonists, on building a temple to Diana, wished to find some new manner that was beautiful; and by the method which they had pursued with the Doric, proportioning the column after a man, they gave to this the delicacy of the female figure; in the first place by making the diameter of the column one eighth of its height, then by putting a base to it in twisted cords, like the sandals of a woman, and putting volutes to the capital, like the hair which hangs on both sides of her face. To crown all, he says that they channelled or fluted the column, to resemble the folds of female garments, by which it would appear that Vitruvius did not know that the Greeks never executed the Doric order without fluting the columns. “Thus,” he goes on to say, “they invented these two species of columns, imitating in the one the naked simplicity and dignity of a man, and in the other the delicacy and the ornaments of a woman.” It can hardly be doubted that the voluted or Ionic order did originate in Ionia, at least we know of no earlier examples of it than those which exist there; and it does not appear to have been known to the European Greeks, and certainly was not practised by them, till after the period we have indicated. It probably took its rise from some peculiarities in Persian architecture; though many believe that the Ionic order had a much earlier origin, deriving it from Egypt, where, it is true, many indications are found of its volutes in the spiral enrichments of capitals; but it must be observed that they are in edifices now ascertained to be of the age of the Ptolemies, and consequently later than the structures which exhibit the voluted order in Ionia and its islands. We think, too, that many persons are influenced in assigning a higher degree of antiquity to this style than facts will bear out, by their respect for the authority of Vitruvius; though Mr Gwilt (his latest translator into English) confesses that “upon his authority in matters of historical research not much reliance is to be placed.”^[16. Gwilt’s Chambers'! Civil Architecture, p. 30. ] We are willing to admit that much may be adduced in support of the opinion, that this style was known and used in Greece even before the age of Pericles; specimens of it having been found in connection with sculpture, certainly less perfect, and therefore presumed to be of earlier date, than the works of Phidias and his pupils and compeers.

It is no less difficult to determine the origin of what is called the Corinthian order. The not inelegant traditionary tale by Vitruvius of the invention of its capital, is the only reason of the name it bears. His account of the origin of this third species of columnar composition is more summary, and not less absurd, than that of the preceding. He says that it was arranged “to represent the delicacy of a young girl whose age renders her figure more pleasing and more susceptible of ornaments which may enhance her natural beauty.” With much more reason might the Doric be called the Corinthian order; for, as we have stated, at Corinth there exists the oldest example of that style; whereas there is nothing, either in ruins or authentic record, to prove that the latter was ever known in that city. Columns with foliated capitals are not of very early date in Greéce; ’earlier exist ⅛ Asia Minor, and foliage adorns the capitals of columns in some' of the Pharaonic monuments of Egypt; not arranged, indeed, as in the later Corinthian capital, which by p 0s ' sibility may have been the result of some such accident as Vitruvius relates of Callimachus and the basket on the grave of the Corinthian virgin. The interior of the temple of Apollo Didymaeus at Miletus in Ionia exhibits the earliest example of the acanthus leaf arranged round the drum of a capital in a single row, surmounted by th e favourite honeysuckle; but that edifice was constructed about a century before Callimachus is understood to have lived. The only perfect columnar example in Greece it. self of this species of foliated capital is of later date than and is a great improvement on, that of Miletus; it is the beautiful little structure called the Choragic monument of Lysicrates at Athens. Specimens are less uncommon in Greece of square or antae capitals, enriched with foliage, than of circular or columnar capitals; but they are almost invariably found to have belonged to the interior of buildings, and not to have been used externally. In considering Greek architecture, it is necessary to bear in mind that it ceases almost immediately after the subjection of Greece to the Roman power; for there are many edifices in that country in the style of columnar arrangement of which we are now speaking besides those referred to, but they belong to Roman and not to Greek architecture. The earliest of them perhaps, and certainly the least influenced by Roman taste, is the structure called the Tower of the Winds, or of Andronicus Cyrrhestes, at Athens. A spurious example of Greek Doric, evidently executed under the Roman domination, may be referred to here; it is that of the Agora, or Doric portico as it is sometimes distinguished, in the same city.

Besides the three species of columnar arrangement we have enumerated, the Greeks employed another in which statues of women occupied the place of columns. The reason of this too Vitruvius furnishes in a story which is, as usual, totally unsupported by history or analogy; but the consequence of it is, that such figures are called Caryatides; and the arrangement has been called by some the Caryatic order. The use of representations of the human and other figures with or instead of columns is, however, common in the structures of Egypt and India; and to the former the Greeks were doubtless indebted for the idea, though they appear to have restricted its application to human female figures. Mr Gwilt infers, from various facts connected with the worship of Diana Caryatis, “that the statues called Caryatides were originally applied to or used about the temples of Diana; and instead of representing captives or persons in a state of ignominy (as the Vitruvian story goes), were in fact nothing more than the figures of the virgins who celebrated the worship of that goddess.”^[17. Ibid. p. δ7. ]

The only architectural works of the Greeks that remain to us of any consequence, besides temples, propylaea, and Choragic monuments, are theatres; but these latter do not retain any thing connected with architectural decoration to make them interesting, except to the architect and antiquary. They are generally situated on the side of a hill, and were rather excavated or carved out in the earth or rock, than built; except the proscenium and parascenium, which being at the lower part, ae front, and requiring elevation, must of necessity be built; but very little of the constructed portions in any case exists. It does not appear that the theatres afforded any provision for sheltering the spectators, or indeed the ac[7:3:417]tors, from rain, except perhaps a covered cyrtostylar colonnade within the upper boundary wall, which, even when it existed, was of necessity very narrow and small for so large a number of people as were generally assembled; for the theatres were calculated to hold from five to fifteen and even twenty thousand persons. This, to say the least of it, must have subjected the public to great inconveiences, even in so fine a climate as that of Greece; for they were unsheltered from the sun at all times, and effectually debarred of a favourite amusement in wet weather.

No remains exist of the domestic structures of the Greeks; and we are too well aware, from the example of others, of the futility of following mere descriptions on the subject, to attempt it here; especially as the most explicit are those of Vitruvius, whom we know to have been ignorant of the arrangement of Greek temples, by those of them which exist, and may therefore reasonably suspect of ignorance with regard to things of which we have no remains. It may be taken for granted that the houses of the Greeks were less extensive than those of the Romans, as they were a poorer and less luxurious people; and we shall be able to determine those of the later nation with great exactitude, from the actual remains of Roman towns and country mansions. The exquisite beauty of form and decoration which pervades every article of Greek origin, whether coins, medallions, vases, implements of war or husbandry, or even the meanest article of domestic or personal use of which we have specimens or representations, is evidence of the fine taste with which the mansions of the Greeks were furnished. However, ignorance of the use of the arch, inferior carpentry, the absence of glass, and ignorance of the use of chimneys, were disadvantages which the Greeks laboured under in the construction and convenient arrangement of their houses, that no degree of taste and elegance could completely countervail.

In the constructioň of their edifices, the Greeks seldom, if ever, had recourse to foreign materials; the stone used in their temples being almost invariably from the nearest convenient quarries, which supplied it of sufficiently good quality. The structures of Athens are built of marble from the quarries of Pentelicus, and those of Agrigentum of a fossil conglomerate which the place itself furnishes.

We have taken it for granted that the Greeks were ignorant of the properties of the arch, having too high an opinion of their good sense to think that they could be acquainted with so admirable and useful an expedient, and never use it; and no instance of its adaptation occurs in the construction of Greek edifices before the connection of Greece with Rome took place. Whether its invention should be referred to Italy or not is another question. If the great sewer at Rome called the Cloaca Maxima was constructed in the time of Tarquinius Priscus, it must be conceded that the properties of the arch were known and practised in that country at an earlier period than we know the principle to have been understood and applied elsewhere; for neither Egypt nor Greece, nor any of the Grecian colonies, can furnish evidence that it was known to either Egyptians or Grecians till a long time after the period referred to, and when it may have been communicated from Italy. But it is contended that the Cloaca Maxima, as it now exists, is a work of much more recent date, and that it may have succeeded the sewer constructed by the first Tarquinius, who was moreover himself a Greek. If the first part of the objection be correct, the evidence in favour of Italy is destroyed, as far as that work is concerned; the second is fallacious, because it is not necessary that the monarch should have brought the ' knowledge with him; though indeed he might have acquired it in Etruria, or it might have existed in Rome before his arrival there. Most writers on the subject are of opinion that the principle of the arch was not known, in Europe at least, nor to the nations of Western Asia and Africa, till after the Macedonian conquest, about which time it may have been invented, or acquired from some of the eastern nations who were visited by the conquerors. To these suggestions the objections hold that the arch was not applied in Egypt in the architectural works which remain of the Ptolemies, nor is it found in the Persian and Indian monuments which date beyond that period. The author of the Munimenta Antiqua, after a comprehensive review of all the authorities and examples on the subject, gives it as his own opinion that “Sicily was the country where this noble kind of ornament first appeared, and that Archimedes was the inventor of it.”^[18. Mιιnirn. Αntip by Edward King, Esq. F.R.S. and S. A. vol. ii. p. 268. ] The evidence appears, we think, generally stronger in favour of its Italian origin; but to whomsoever the invention may be attributed, and whensoever it was made, the Romans were the first to make extensive practical use of it; and by means of it they succeeded in doing what their predecessors in civilization never effected. It enabled them to carry permanent and secure roads across wide and rapid rivers, and to make a comparatively frail and fragile material, such as brick, more extensively useful than the finest marbles were in the hands of the Greeks without that principle. To the Greeks, however, the Romans were indebted for their knowledge of the more polished forms of columnar architecture; for, before the conquest of Greece, the structures of Rome appear to have been rude and inelegant. The few specimens of architecture which exist of date anterior to that period evidently resemble the works of the ancient Etrurians, who, though they had made considerable advances on the architecture of their Pelasgic ancestors, were far inferior in taste and refinement to the Greeks; yet it is to that people we are inclined to attribute the invention of the arch, from whom the Romans acquired their knowledge of its usc, and that degree of civilization which they possessed before the epoch referred to. It may be presumed that the Etrurians had also originated the style of columnar architecture which Vitruvius describes and calls Tuscan; but as no example of it exists, at least nothing that answers his description of it, we cannot tell positively what it really was; for, as we have before remarked, descriptions without a model, of architecture particularly, are quite unintelligible, as far as understanding a new style goes. Whatever then was the style of architecture in Rome before the conquest of Greece, it was either exploded by the superior merit and beauty of what the Romans found in that country, or combined with it, though frequently the combination tended to destroy the beauty of both. In the porticos of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina, and of the Pantheon, at Rome, the chaste simplicity of a Greek columnar composition is preserved; and in the magnificent dome of the latter edifice, and in the long extended aqueduct, it is fully equalled. But the triumphal arch of the Romans, a hybrid composed of columns and arches, is devoid alike of simplicity and harmony, indeed of every quality which constitutes beauty in architecture.

In the transference of Greek columnar architecture to Rome, a great change was effected, independently of those combinations. The less refined taste of the Romans [7:3:418]could not appreciate the simple grandeur and dignified beauty of the Doric, as it existed in Greece. They appear to have moulded it on what we suppose their own Tuscan to have been; and the result was the mean and characterless Ordinance exemplified in the lowest story of the theatre of Marcellus at Rome, and in the temple at Cora, between 30 and 40 miles south of that city. Not less inferior to the Athenian examples of the Ionic order, than the Doric of Cora is to the Doric of Athens, are the mean and tasteless deteriorations of them in the Roman temples of Manly Fortune and Concord. It was different, however, with the foliated Corinthian, which became to the Romans what the Doric had been to the Greeks—their national style. But though they borrowed the style, they did not copy the Greek examples of it. In Rome the Corinthian order assumed a new and not less beautiful form and character, and was varied to a wonderful extent, but without losing its original and distinctive features. The example of the temple of Vesta at Tivoli hardly differs less from that of the temple of Jupiter Stator in Rome, than the latter does from the ordinance of the Choragic monument of Lysicrates at Athens; and all three are among the most beautiful examples of the Corinthian order in existence—if indeed they are not pre-eminently so—and yet they do not possess a single proportion in common. It must be confessed, moreover, that if the Romans had not good taste enough to admire the Doric and Ionic models of Greece, they had too much to be fond of their own, for they seldom used them. Both at home and abroad, in all their conquests and colonies, wherever they built, they employed the Corinthian order. Corinthian edifices were raised in Iberia and in Gaul, in Istria and in Greece, in Syria and in Egypt; and to the present day Nismes,^[19. Bordeaux did. A century and a half ago there existed at Bordeaux very considerable remains of a most interesting Roman edifice, of which no authentic record is preserved but a slight sketch by Perrault, the architect of the great front of the Louvre, who delineated it a few years before its destruction by the government, and who termed it one of the most magnificent and most entire or the Roman monuments then remaining in France. The editor of the new edition of Stuart’s Athens, speaking of this, says, “on tms occasion the reflection presents itself, that while the Turks are reprobated for appropriating the columns of ancient Athens, in their haste to raise a wall to defend their town from the predatory Albanians, here, in the vaunted age of Louis XIV. (in his kingdom and under his government, may be added) the finest production of ancient architecture in France was more recklessly demolished o make place for the fortifications of Bordeaux, deliberately constructed by Vauban; and no architect, either of the city or government) has preserved for posterity the details of so noble a monument.” (Ani⅛aifies of Athens, new edition, vol. iii. c. xi. p∙ 120.) ] Pola, Athens, Palmyra, and the banks of the Nile, alike attest the fondness of the Romans for that peculiar style. We cannot agree with the generally received opinion, that Greek architects were employed by the Romans after the connection between the two countries took place; for the difference between the Greek and Roman styles of architecture is not merely in the preference given to one over another peculiar mode of columnar arrangement and composition, but a different taste pervades even the details: though the mouldings are the same, they differ more in spirit and character than do those of Greece and Egypt, which certainly would not have been the case if Roman architecture had been the work of Greek architects. Indeed, were it not for historical evidence, which cannot absolutely be refuted, an examination and comparison of the architectural monuments of the two countries would lead an architect to the conclusion, that the Corinthian order had its origin in Italy, and that the almost solitary perfect example of it in Greece was the result of an accidental communication with thatcountry,modified by Greek taste; or that the foliated style was common to both, without either being indebted to the other for it. The Romans conquered Egypt as well as Greece, but we do not find that they adopted any of the peculiarities of Egyptian architecture. They carried away indeed the obelisks and many of the sculptures of Egypt, as trophies of their conquests or as ornaments of their city; but they neither made obelisks nor constructed temples to Egyptian divinities in the Egyptian style. If, however, Greek architects were employed by the Romans, they must have made their taste and mode of design conform to those of their conquerors much more readily than we can imagine they would as the civilized slaves of barbarian masters; and it is too clear to be disputed, that the Roman architecture is a style essentially distinct from the Greek. This is elucidated by the fact that many of the minor works of sculpture in connection with architecture, such as candelabra, vases, and various articles of household furniture discovered at the villa of, Adrianus, near Rome, and at Herculaneum and Pompeii, are fashioned and ornamented in the Greek style, while others are as decidedly Roman in those particulars; rendering it evident that such things were either imported from Greece, or that Greek artisĭs and artisans were employed in Italy, who retained their own national taste and modes of design. It is probable nevertheless, that both the architects and artists, natives of Rome, qualified their own less elegant productions by reference to Greek models; but that the Romans derived their architecture entirely from the Greeks, may certainly be disputed.

Half the extent and magnificence of the architectural works of the Romans is attributable to their knowledge and use of the arch, which enabled them, as we have already intimated, to make small parallelopipedons of burnt earth more extensively applicable to useful purposes than any other material could be, from the greater cost of providing and preparing it; whereas brick can, in almost every place, be made on the spot in which it is wanted. There is a very false notion abroad as to the richness of the materials used for building in Rome, induced by the inflated accounts of travellers and poets, who attempt to disguise their ignorance, or their want of knowledge and taste, by raving of Vitruvian proportions, and marble temples, palaces, and baths. The truth is, that Rome was built, not of marble, nor even of stone, but of brick; for in comparison to the quantity of brick, it may be safely asserted that there is more stone in London than there was in imperial Rome. Almost all the structures of the Romans indeed were of brick—their aqueducts, their palaces, their villas, their baths, and their temples. Of the present remains, it is only a few columns and their entablatures that are of marble or granite, and two or three buildings of Travertine stone ;—all the rest are brick. The Colosseum, the Mausoleum of Adrian, the Cloaca Maxima, the Temple of Manly Fortune, and the ancient bridges on the Tiber, are of Travertine stone; the remaining columns of the more splendid temples, the internal columns and theiraccessories of the Pantheon, the exterior of the imperial arches, and the cenotaphial columns of Trajanus and Antoninus, are of marble: but the Imperial Mount of the Palatine, which holds the ruins of the Palace of the Caesars, is but one mass of brick; the Pantheon, except its porticoand internal columns, &c. is of brick; the Temples of Peace, of Venus and Rome, and of J^Iinerva Medica, are of brick; and so, for the most part, were the walls of others, though they may have been faced with marble or freestone. The Baths of Titus, of Caracalla, and of Diocletianus, are of brick; the city walls are of brick; so are the extensive remains of the splendid villa of Adrianus near Rome; [7:3:419]the villa of Mecaenas at Tivoli; the palaces of the Roman emperors and patricians at Baiae and in other parts of Italy; and so, it may be said, are the remains of Herculaneum and Pompeii, for the houses in those cities are generally built of alternate double courses of brick, and courses of stone or lava. In most cases, at Rome and in the provinces, stucco formed the surface which received the decorations. From the above enumeration, it will appear how much more variously the Romans built than any of their predecessors in civilization did. In Egypt we find no indications of edifices of real utility or convenience, nothing Out temples and tombs,—and in Greece there is but a small ιddition to this list; but in Rome are found specimens of almost every variety of structure that men in civilized communities require. Much of this also may be attributed to the knowledge they possessed of the properties of the arch, which may be considered among the most admirable and useful discoveries ever made in the practical applications of mechanical science. It entered into the composition of every structure, and made the rudest and cheapest material of more real value than the most costly. It not only superseded the use of long stone beams, but was constantly used in places where indeed joists of wood would have been much more convenient, giving support to the opinion that even the Romans were not skilled in he application of timber to their edifices; though, on the contrary, it is difficult to understand how Rome could become subject to such a dreadful conflagration as that vhich occurred in the reign of Nero, if timber had not been employed in the ordinary houses of the city to a much greater extent than would appear from existing remains. The domestic structures of Herculaneum and Pomeii were evidently never very susceptible of fire, from the small quantity of timber required in their construction; and discoveries which are made from time to time, of portions of the ordinary houses of ancient Rome, under the pavements of the modern city, evince that they were very similar to them in almost every particular. The infrequency of stairs, and the meanness of those which exist, leading to upper apartments in the houses of those cities, leads to the belief that the Romans seldom built above the ground story, and that their skill in carpentry was not very great; otherwise they would more frequently have had recourse to so easy and convenient a mode of extending room as upper stories offer. There are, however, other things which tend to prove that carpentry was well understood by the Romans; and the most remarkable is the bridge that Trajan built over the Danube, the piers of which are said by Dion Cassius to have been 150 feet high and 170 feet apart. Now, whether the bridge itself consisted of a wooden platform, as there is much reason to believe, or was of stone arches, as the historian intimates, the skill which contsructed centring for the latter, or laid the platform from pier to pier in the former case, of that immense extent, was amazing; nevertheless, such skill in carpentry is not evinced by the remains of the civic and domestic structures of the Romans, in which arching in all its varieties was used where carpentry would have been better. Of their joinery ye know nothing; but it does not appear, from the last-quoted mode of ascertaining such things, to have been much practised by them—mosaic pavements supplying the place of flooring, and stucco that of wainscoting: the luxury of windows being unknown, their fittings were not required; and doors, it would appear, were uncommon, except externally—the internal dooways being most probably covered with something equivalent to the quilted leather mats suspended from the lintel, which are used instead of swinging doors at the entrances of the churches in Italy at the present time. Although the Romans did not use marble to the extent that has been supposed, yet they were extremely luxurious in the use of costly stones. Marbles of every variety, and from all parts, were used in Rome; and columns were made of Egyptian and other granites, and porphyry. In Greece, and the Grecian colonies which were conquered by Rome, the edifices of the Romans might be distinguished by the foreign marbles used in them, if the style of their execution were not sufficient otherwise to determine them.

The mingling of columnar and arcaded arrangements in the same composition appears to have been the grand cause of the deterioration of Roman architecture. It occasioned unequal and inordinately distended intercolumniations and broken entablatures: these a vitiated taste repeated, where the necessity that had first occasioned them did not exist; and harmony and simplicity being thus destroyed, the practice of the science went on deteriorating, till it was made to produce such monstrous combinations as the Palace of Diocletian at Spalatro, and the Temple of Pallas, or ruins of the Forum of Nerva in Rome, present. It was indeed a fall from the grandeur, harmony, and noble simplicity of the interior of the Pantheon in its pristine state, to the hall or xystum of the baths of Diocletian, which now exists as the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, with its straggling columns and broken and imperfect entablature; or from the temple of Jupiter Stator to that of Concord or the arch of Septimius Severus.

Architecture was already extinct among the Romans when the seat of empire was transferred to Constantinople; so that, however great was the extent and splendour of its edifices, we cannot suppose them to have possessed any of those qualities which give to the Parthenon at Athens, and to the interior of the Pantheon at Rome, the charm they possess; unless the Greeks had recourse to the monuments of their own country, and used them as founts from which to draw matter for the composition of the edifices of their new capital. This, indeed, is possible, for there appears to have been, even in Rome, at and after the time of Constantine, a recurrence to the ancient simplicity, though, truly, without any of that beauty and elegance of form in the details, and of proportion in the general arrangement, which constitute half the merit of works of architecture. The change of religion which took place under Constantine led to the destruction or destitution of many of the noblest structures in Rome. The ancient Christian basilicas are for the most part constructed of the ruins of the more ancient Pagan temples, baths,and mausoleums; and in them a much greater degree of simplicity, and consequent beauty, pervades the columnar arrangements than existed perhaps in some of the previous combinations of the same materials. Frequently, however, the collocation of various parts was most unapt; and gross inconsistencies were recurred to, to get rid of the difficulty of combining discordant fragments. Sometimes it was necessary to make up with new, what was wanting of old materials, whose forms were rudely imitated.

In those countries which received the Christian religion from Rome, but which did not contain mines of architectural material in temples, amphitheatres, and palaces, as Italy did, and indeed in the other parts of Italy itself which did not contain them as Rom'e did, churches were constructed in imitation of those of the metropolis of the Christian world. These, being the work of a semibarbarous and unpolished people, were of necessity rude and clumsy. Hence arose the Gothic architecture of the middle ages, and not from any previously existing style of architecture among the northern nations who overran Italy and subverted the Roman power. The rude Celtic [7:3:420]monuments were the only specimens of architecture they possessed, and the performance of their unhallowed rites appears to have been long transferred even from them to the groves, or it may be that the stone circles and temples themselves were called groves. This, however, is of but little consequence to our purpose. The fact is indisputable, that nothing existed among those nations that could have given rise to the rude style of architecture referred to, which was indeed introduced to them by the Christian religion in the manner we have stated. It will be found in what are called the Saxon and Norman styles of this country, and to a greater or less extent in all the countries of Europe in which the Romans had been masters, and particularly in those which adhered to the Roman communion in the great division of the churches. The general forms and modes of arrangement peculiar to Roman architecture may be traced throughout; in some specimens they are more, and in others less obvious, but the leading features are the same. This is more evident in Italy than elsewhere. In the early Roman basilicas and churches, some of which are of the Ċonstantinian age, and which were constructed with the matter and in the manner related, the first divergencies occur; in those which are later they are still greater, and distance of time and place appears still to have increased them, till what may be called a new style was formed, having peculiarities of its own, but yet more clearly deducible from its origin than Roman is from Greek or Greek from Egyptian. As might be expected, this style was not the same in all the countries which practised it; it was derived, in them all, from the same source as we have shown, but was materially influenced by the habits, manners, and state of civilization in which the various nations were, and much too by their means of communication with Rome. This, with strict propriety, may be called Gothic architecture, as it was partly induced by the Gothic invasions of Italy, and was most generally practised by the nations to whom that term may with equal propriety be applied. It arose in the fourth century, and was subverted in the twelfth by the invention or introduction of the pointed arch, which marks a new era, and was destined to give birth to a new style in architecture. Where, when, and by whom it was invented or originated, has been more discussed and disputed than the discovery of the properties of the arch itself. Some have contended that it was suggested by the intersections of semicircular arches, as they were employed in ornamenting the fronts of edifices in the preceding Style; some, that groined arches of the same form gave the idea; others have referred it to the interlacing of the branches of trees when planted in parallel rows,—to an imitation of wicker-work,—to a figure used on conventual seals,—to the principle of the pyramid,—to Noah’s Ark, —to chance. Its invention has been accorded to almost every nation, civilized and uncivilized. It has been claimed by Germans for Germany, by Frenchmen for France, by Scotsmen for Scotland, and by Englishmen for England. Italians have not directly laid claim to the honour for themselves, but it has been given them by others. Such a mass of conflicting opinions, almost all supported by some show of reason, and more or less by evidence, may be called a proof of the impossibility of determining the question, and therefore we shall not attempt it. There is one striking fact, however, which has been too much overlooked by many of the theorists in the discussion of the question; it is, that the pointed arch made its appearance almost at the same moment of time in all the civilized countries of Europe. This is proved by the controversies of those who, more patriotically than philosophically, claim its invention for their respective nations; for none of them can produce genuine specimens of it before a certain period, to which they can all reach. Now, if ⅛ had been invented in any of the European nations, that one would certainly have been able to show specimens of it of a date considerably anterior to some of the others· for though it might by chance have been soon communicated to any one of them, the improbability is great that it would have reached them all, and have been adopted by all, to the subversion of their previously existing style of architecture, immediately. The infrequent and imperfect modes of communication between the different countries of Europe at the period referred to, furnish another reason why it is not probable that a discovery of the kind should travel rapidly from one to another. Con· ‘sidering these things, and particularly the fact of the almost simultaneous introduction of the pointed arch to the various nations of Europe, as it appears by their monuments immediately after the first crusade, in which they all bore a part, connected with existing evidence that it was commonly used in the East at and anterior to that period, it seems to be the most rational theory, that a knowledge of it was acquired by the crusaders in the Holy Land, and brought home to their respective countries by them. This, indeed, is the opinion of many of those who have written on the subject; and without contending that the evidence in its favour is quite conclusive, we think it more satisfactory than any other. In Europe there are found rude approaches to the pointed arch in some of the earlier Gothic structures; but we believe it may be safely asserted, that nothing can be indicated of a date beyond that of the first crusade, approaching the simple but perfect lancet arch, which, it is not denied, came into use immediately after that period; whereas tolerably well authenticated examples of it are found in the East, of sufficient antiquity to induce the opinion that it was at that time imported from thence. It is, moreover, indisputable that the Saracenic or Mahometan nations do use, and have used, the pointed arch; but they were never known to adopt any European custom or invention of any kind till very lately. How then can they be supposed to have availed themselves so readily as they must have done, if it be of European origin, of so unlikely a thing to attract a Moslem’s attention, as the peculiar form and structure of an arch? and when and where in Europe had they an opportunity of contemplating it till long after it is admitted to have been in common usc among them? With what nation of the East, and in what manner, the pointed arch originated, are points equally difficult to solve. We have not been able to discover that the properties of the arch were known to the Egyptians or the Greeks, and much less so were they to the Persians and Indians, till it may have been communicated from Italy; but structures are found among those nations, in which chambers are domed, and apertures headed, in the form of a pointed arch, but produced by battering or corbelling over. It is not improbable, therefore, that such things being before the cyes of men, when the principles of the arch had been acquired, that form would be repeated upon it, and the result would be the lancet arch,—the prototype, the germ of the style. The pointed arch, on its introduction into Europe, does not appear to have been accompanied by inordinary accessories in after-time; its light clustered pillars—its mullions, foliations or featherings, and gracefu tracery—these resulted from its adoption: so that whether the arch itself was invented in Europe, or imported from the East, to the European nations must be assigne > the credit of educing the beautiful style of architecture whose distinguishing feature it is.

It may be doubted whether Venice was not the paren of the style, for very early specimens of the pointed a [7:3:421]are certainly found there, in private houses as well as in the basilica of St Mark. In the former they are generally of the ogee or contrasted form, in windows formed by columns or mullions, with, in certain places, approaches to foliations and tracery; and in the basilica the lancet arch is not uncommon. The commercial connection of that city with the eastern nations may easily account for its presence there,even before the first crusade; and Venice is known to have been one of the thoroughfares from the other parts of Europe to the Holy Land. But the peculiar mode of arrangement in the Venetian style does not appear to have been adopted north of the Alps; so that, however original it may be, it can hardly be considered the progenetrix of the school, or the model on which it was formed.

Before proceeding further with this subject, it is necessary to determine by what name to call the style whose progress we have yet to contemplate. There would be no greater propriety in calling it Saracenic because its distinctive feature originated in the East, even if that point were conceded, than in calling all architectural combinations which derive their character from the use of columns in them by the name of the nation in whose works we find columns first used, and from whom the idea of them may have been acquired. Neither can it with any degree of fitness be called Gothic: that term, we have seen, applies to the style that preceded it, and was first given to the pointed-arch style opprobriously, during the of fuscation of good taste that succeeded its subversion. In Italy it had never taken root, as in the countries north of the Alps—the ancient Roman monuments having continued to influence the national architecture, it would appear, throughout the middle ages; for the ecclesiastical structures of that country, though rude, were never so rude as they were in other places, and a better style had so far formed itself before the introduction of the pointed arch, that it was hardly received there. Indeed, whatever edifices of merit Italy possesses in its manner, are, with hardly an exception, by German architects, few Italians having ever qualified themselves to practise it. When, therefore, what has been called “the revival of architecture” took place in the fifteenth century, under Brunelleschi and his successors, the rude structures of their own country, the precursors and contemporaries of our Saxon and Norman edifices, were called Gothic; but the pointed style was always distinguished as the German manner, Maniera Tedesea. The disgrace of applying the opprobrious term Gothic to it attaches itself to an Englishman, Sir Henry Wotton, who wrote on architecture early in the seventeenth century. It was continued by Evelyn, who applied it more directly; and the authority of Sir Christopher Wren finally settled its application. Its injustice is, however, rendered very obvious, by comparing the front of Pisa cathedral, the best example, perhaps, of Gothic, or merely deteriorated Roman architecture, with that of York Minster, which holds an equal rank in the pointed style. The presence of the pointed arch, on the singular oriental-looking cupola of the former, shows it to be one of the latest edifices in its style, overtaken by that before it was completely finished. Within the last half-century a better taste has been formed, in this country particularly, and has led to the appreciation of that, which is, indeed, our national style; and within that period many attempts have been made to explode the universally-decried, unjust, and totally irrelevant appellation, but without effect. Sir Christopher Wren himself attempted to change it to Saracenic, believing that not merely the arch, but the style generally, was borrowed from the Saracens. It was, however, too late—he had already used the other. Dr Stukely wished to call it Arabian. Some writers called it Italian, others German, others Norman or French, others British, and many have contended for the exclusive term English; and to this last the Society of Antiquaries lent its influence, but with equal inefficiency, for the term Gothic still prevails. Mr Britton, than whom perhaps no man possesses an equal right to affix an appellation to the pointed-arch style, from the splendid services he has done it in the publication of his Cathedral and Architectural Antiquities, wishes to introduce a term which is not at all unlikely to succeed, as it is equally appropriate and independent of national feeling and hypothetic origin. He calls it Christian architecture. This, as a generic term, would admit each nation possessing specimens of it to distinguish its own species or style; and as the varieties of Hellenic architecture are known by the names of the tribes or nations who are presumed to have originated them—Dorian, Ionian, and Corinthian—so might Christian architecture be English or British, German, French, &c. for each has its peculiarities. These species would again individually admit of classification, according to the changes each underwent in the course of its career. One strong objection, however, in our view of the case^ lies to Mr Britton’s distinctive appellation. It is, that “Christian” applies as well, if not better, to the real Gothic style—that which arose on the extinction of Roman architecture, and was subverted by the introduction of the pointed arch, and which, indeed, owed its diffusion and progress, if not its origin, to the Christian religion. We are therefore still left to seek an appellation; and, in the absence of a better, will use the term Pointed, which is not only distinctive, but descriptive; and it has, too, the merit of being general, so that it may mark the genus, while the national species and their varieties may be distinguished by their peculiarities as before.

The Pointed Arch was a graft on the Gothic architecture of northern Europe, as the circular arch of the Romans had been on the columnar ordinances of the Greeks; but with a widely different result. The amalgamation in the latter case destroyed the beauty of both the stock, and the scion; while in the former the stock lent itself to the modifying influence of its parasitical nursling, gradually gave up its heavy, dull, and cheerless forms, and was eventually lost in its beautiful offspring, as the unlovely caterpillar is in the gay and graceful butterfly.

We have seen that architecture had its origin in religious feelings and observances—that its noblest monuments among the pagan nations of antiquity were temples to the divinity—that the rude nations of the north in the middle ages devoted their energies, after their conversion to Christianity, to the construction of edifices for the worship of the Almighty; and we find, again, that the most extensive and most splendid structures raised by the same people, when the light of learning had begun to shine upon them, and a new and more beautiful style of architecture was introduced, were dedicated to the same purpose. In addition, however, many, hardly less magnificent, and not less beautiful, were raised for the purposes of education, and became the nurseries of science and literature. Kings and nobles also employed architecture in the composition, arrangement, and decoration of their palaces and castles; but still, for domestic purposes, its aid was hardly required beyond the carving grotesque ornaments on the wooden fronts of houses in towns.

When the practice of building houses in stories commenced cannot be correctly ascertained; but it appears to have arisen during the middle ages. We frequently, indeed, find an apparent equivalent for the term story used by the ancient writers, both sacred and profane; but it must have reference to something else—some peculiarity of which we are not aware; for none of the ancient re [7:3:422]mains, whether of public or private structures, give rea- ' son to believe that it was a common practice eveŵ among the Romans; much less was it likely to be so among the eastern nations, with whom the practice is not very general, nor is it carried to great extent even at the present day. Indeed, without considerable proficiency in the art of construction, it is hardly practicable to build in stories with such slight materials as were used by the Romans in their domestic edifices; and their remains do not evince the requisite degree of proficiency. We find, however, in the oldest existing works of the middle ages, and particularly in some of the secular structures of Venice which are among them, a degree of intelligence evinced in that respect far surpassing any thing in those of the ancients. Possibly the skill was principally acquired in that city from the necessity of making artificial foundations, in the first place, which in their turn exacted walls not unnecessarily cumbrous; and to make slight ones sufficiently strong, they must be skilfully bonded in themselves, and bound together, which could only be done by means of a material possessing considerable length and great fibrous tenacity—whence framed floors of timber. These, by their strength, their obvious utility and convenience, added to the want of space which existed in a thriving and populous community on a very restricted spot of dry land, superinduced, in the second place, the building of additional stories, which would soon be imitated in other places. But in what manner soever the improvement took place, the fact is certain that the acquisition was made; and we find it applied in all the works of the European nations, both ecclesiastical and civil, from the ninth and tenth centuries downwards. The combination of masonry and carpentry in building tended greatly to the advancement of both; for, it being required at times to make them act independently of each other, additional science and art were necessary, as the proportions must be retained that were given to similar works in which they co-operated. Hence the wondrous skill evinced in the vaulted roofs and ceilings, in the towers and lofty spires, of some of our Pointed cathedrals for the one, and the splendid piece of construction in the roof of Westminster Hall for the other. To this point Sir William Chambers, who was no deprcciator of the merits of the Romans in architecture, says, “In the constructive part of architecture the ancients do not seem to have been great proficients:”^[20. Gwilt’s Chambers’s Civ. Arch. p. 128. ] then having referred many of what he calls the “deformities observable in Grecian buildings” to want of skill in construction, he continues, “neither were the Romans much more skilful; the precepts of Vitruvius and Pliny on that subject are imperfect, sometimes erroneous, and the strength or duration of their structures is more owing to the quantity and goodness of their materials than to any great art in putting them together. It is not, therefore, from any of the ancient works that much information can be obtained in that branch of the art. To those usually called Gothic architects we are indebted for the first considerable improvement in construction. There is a lightness in their works, an art and boldness of execution, to which the ancients never arrived, and which the moderns comprehend and imitate with difficulty. England contains many magnificent specimens of this species of architecture, equally admirable for the art with which they are built, the taste and ingenuity with which they are composed.” To this Mr Gwilt, in his new edition of Sir William’s work, adds in a note, “there is more constructive skill shown in Salisbury, and others of our cathedrals, than in all the works of the ancients put together.”

Pointed architecture took root and grew with the greatest vigour in Germany and Great Britain, and in those provinces, principally, of France which were connected with England; but in this country its course is the most marked, and its advances are the most easily traceable. We find in various portions of the same edifice, according to the period of its construction, exemplifications of the style, from the ingrafting of the simple lancet arch on the Norman or Gothic piers in the time of Henry II. to the highly enriched groinings and ramified traceries of the age of Henry VII.; but the changes are so gradual, and are so finely blended, that the one in advance appears naturally to result from that which comes before it. Whether the nations of the Continent, then, borrowed from us, or were themselves originators, it is very clear tha t we did not borrow; for our structures bear the strongest possible marks of originality, as the advances can be traced from one thing to another on them; and such is not so completely the case with theirs. Moreover, the latest manner, and certainly not the least beautiful, the Corinthian order of Pointed architecture, is almost peculiar to this country. Neither Germany nor France can produce edifices in the style of St George’s Chapel at Windsor, King’s College Chapel at Cambridge, and Henry VH.’s Chapel at Westminster. The structures of Scotland in the Pointed style so much resemble those of England, that they must be considered of the same school; Roslin Chapel is one of the few specimens which indicate a connection with the Continent. Ireland contains but few examples in any degree of perfection, and they are, of course, of the English school. The German school was next in merit to the English in the practice of Pointed architecture. In the extent and magnificence of its attempts, perhaps, that country excelled; but few of the great structures in Germany were ever completed. In regularity, however, they have generally an advantage over those of England, being mostly in the same manner throughout, as far as they were carried; whereas few of the greater edifices of this country were begun and completed without considerable variations in the style. But the Germans were never so successful in the splendour and beauty of their interiors as the English; indeed in that particular our Pointed structures are strikingly superior to every other: nor is their ornament generally so effective as ours. The Flemish style of Pointed architecture is hardly a variety of the German, but may be classed with it through the whole course of its history. Italy, we have said, possesses but few structures in the Pointed style, and they are for the most part the work of German architects, which their appearance indeed bespeaks. Milan cathedral, or “the I)uomo," as it is called, is the most renowned edifice in the style that Italy contains; but it has few beauties in the eyes of those who are accustomed to the models of Great Britain, Normandy, and Germany. The Patriarchal Church of St Mark at Venice is a genus per se. It was constructed by a Constantinopolitan architect in the ninth or tenth century, and may be a specimen of the architecture of the Byzantine capital at that time. The few examples in Sicily of the pointed arch may be attributed to the Norman conquerors of that island; and so indeed may most of those which are found in the continental part of the same kingdom. Although France contains many fine specimens of Pointed architecture, it can hardly be considered indigenous to that country. On the German frontier they resemble the German style; and in the provinces which were formerly connected with England they are different, and more like the English styles: certain[7:3:423] it is» that a ^ ter t ^ elr c0nnectl0n with this country lS broken off, its practice fell into disuse, and nothing of consequence in it was posteriorly produced in any of them. This fact is an argument against the presumption that England was indebted to Normandy and Norman architects for its improvements in Pointed architécture; it tends rather to prove the opposite. It must be confessed, moreover, that there is an air of cumbrous massiveness in the Pointed style of Normandy which renders it peculiar, and perhaps marks its more close relationship with the earlier Norman Gothic. Like the German examples, too, those of France are generally inferior in internal richness and beauty to those of England. Pointed architecture in Spain never acquired that degree of consistency and elegance which might justify us in speaking of the Spanish specimens of it as forming a style. The edifices in Spain of the ages of Pointed architecture are more in accordance with the Moorish than with the European manner, and may perhaps be more correctly considered as an off-shoot of the former than of the latter. Though not in the Pointed style, the Moorish or Saracenic structures in Spain may be referred to here. They are in a very peculiar manner, which, it would appear, their authors brought with them from the East. Probably it grew out of some of the earlier styles of architecture, as the Gothic and Pointed did out of the Roman, and was not the result of design. The really distinctive feature of the Saracenic style is the horse-shoe arch, which is the greater segment of an ellipsis, nearly, on a conjugate chord. The columns from which the arches are sprung are slender, and the superincumbent masses are broad and heavy, giving an air of the intermingling of Chinese and Egyptian, both of which this style may be said to assimilate. The enrichments of Saracenic architecture are very much confined to flat surfaces, the walls being sculptured all over with monotonous ornaments, which produce an effect very similar to that produced by the hieroglyphics on the flat surfaces of the Egyptian temples, and possibly were derived from them. The most distinguished monument of this style in Spain is the Alhamrā at Granada. The most distinguished specimen of Pointed architecture in Portugal is the church of the convent of Batalha, which was constructed by an Irish architect, who appears to have modified the style of his own country (the English), by the manner of the country itself, which is nearly that of Spain.

What the expansive dome is to Roman architecture, the graceful spire is to Pointed. Bell-towers appear to have been added to Christian churches at a very early period; but it is much to be doubted whether the pyramidal pinnacle or spire was ever used before the introduction of the pointed arch, though one or two doubtful examples exist. These, certainly the earliest specimens of it, are simple cones, whose vertical bisection would be nearly an equilateral triangle: the angle at the apex was gradually made less, and as it diminished the altitude was increased, till at length resulted an object even more beautiful than in Egyptian obelisk, which would of itself indeed be a sufficient warranty for the appellation we have given to the style that it crowns. The spire was at first round, solid, u unornamented; it then became polygonal, and finally >ctagonal, though there are examples of square spires.

'ey were sometimes plainly ribbed, sometimes crocket-f “and in some instances were pierced; and were almost ιriably surmounted by a rich finial in the style of ornament peculiar to the time of its execution. In some cases the whole structure was a pyramis or spire, and in Ţļ 1C p Lle s P* rc rest θd on a rectangular and upright tower.

tev. W. L. Bowles has suggested that the spire was rst built on the bell-tower as a beacon or land-mark for the guidance of the traveller and the distant parishioner; and adduces as evidence, the fact, that in the hilly' parts of England spires are hardly to be found except, in modern churches. The old village church on a hill has a plain square tower, merely consisting of about two cubes, which can be seen at the greatest distance the nature of the country will allow any object to be distinguished; whereas in the level parts of the country, where a low tower would be lost amidst the foliage of its own churchyard, and be completely indistinguishable at a very short distance, spires are their almost invariable accompaniment. It may be added, that the tapering spire is almost unknown in Italy and France, except Normandy; and in no part of the Continent is it so common as in this country.

We have already given our reasons for thinking that the pointed arch originated in the East; but whether it did or did not, it has been very extensively used in various parts of Asia, and nowhere in more sumptuous edifices, or to such effect, as by the Mohammedan conquerors of India in various parts of that country.

The opening of the Italian school of architecture on the resuscitated dogmas of Vitruvius was the signal for the extinction of that of the beautiful Pointed style. Fortunately, however, its effects were a full century in reaching this country, and during that period many of our most elegant structures came into being; and many of those of earlier date which had been commenced before, or during the wars of the Roses, and left unfinished, were completed. The first indication we have of the presence of the Cinquecentist, the real Gothic, is in the tomb of Henry VII., which was executed by Torregiano, an Italian artist, who, it would appear, was obliged to have some respect to the style of the edifice in which his work was to rest; but his preconceived ideas of propriety and beauty were too strong to allow him to omit the characteristics of his school, and the result is a strange mixture of both. From that time the Pointed style was rapidly deteriorated, being overborne by the devices of Italy. On the Continent the latter were already predominant, for during the whole of the fifteenth century the current had been setting from Italy over every part of Europe which received its religion from Rome; and this country was only the last to be overwhelmed by it. Before quitting the part of the subject having reference to our national style of architecture, it may be well to controvert the absurd but too prevalent idea, that we are indebted to foreigners, and particularly Italians, for the excellence of our ancient works. After what has been already said, perhaps it may be unnecessary to do so here, seeing that we have described our specimens of the Pointed style as being not only fully equal in composition, construction, and execution to those of any other country, but that they are absolutely in a different manner, having peculiarities which no other nation has ever equalled in beauty and elegance. But, to put the case in a clear point of view: If foreigners were employed to design and execute for us, it is not less strange that they should surpass their own works at home, than that they should make inventions and improvements for us (or let them be called mere variations) which were not in turn executed in their own countries. We know very well that works of architecture and sculpture which have been executed by foreigners in this country, since the explosion of Pointed architecture, are in the style of Italy or France, and not according to the manner prevalent in this country at the time of their execution. Moreover, for one whole century this nation alone adhered to the Pointed style, during which works were produced, that, for originality, exuberance of fancy, and beauty, spirit, and excellence of ex [7:3:424]ecution, have been seldom equalled and never surpassed; while all the architects, artists, and workmen of the Continent were rendered totally unable to assist us by the change which had taken place in their practice. If this required proof, it is proved in the case of Torregiano just referred to, who sculptured Henry VII.’s tomb, and in that of Hans Holbein, who designed architectural works for us in the classical manner; and if the 1orregianos and Holbeins had been employed during the 15th century, would they not have done the same?

If the architecture of Italy never fell away so much from the more classic style of Imperial Rome as that of the northern nations did, neither did that country ever possess that more than equivalent, whose splendid course we have last noticed. Whilst the Pointed style was almost exclusively known and practised in Germany, France, and the British Islands, the Italians were gradually improving on their Gothic style; yet the improvement was more evinced in their secular than in their ecclesiastical structures. Florence, Bologna, Ferrara, Venice, and many other cities of Italy, contain palaces and mansions of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centùries, which for simplicity and classical beauty far excel most of those in the same and other places of the three subsecutive centuries. The contemporary churches, however, do not exhibit the same degree of improvement, forming, as it were, an anomaly in the history of architecture; a change in it being first developed in secular structures, and then applied to those devoted to the worship of the divinity; for many of the churches of the fifteenth century are in this, which may be called the early Italian style, or Trecento, as that which followed it is known as the Cinquecento. ^[21. nquecen ο means literally five hundred, but it is used as a contraction for fifteen hundred, or rather for one thousand five ħvndre y e omission o mi e, the century in which the revival of architecture, of which we are about to speak, took place; and the ιnan ner consequent is so designated. Trecento would be three hundred, or the third, for the thirteenth century. ] Circular arches, and plain continuous horizontal cornices, and pilasters but slightly projected, with simple but generally tasteful and elegant enrichments of foliage and carved mouldings, are the most striking characteristics of the Trecento ς but columns, and the arrangements depending on them, except as collocated with pilasters, arc very infrequent in it. In various parts of Italy, and particularly in I enice and some of the Venetian cities, this style produced many of its best works, both secular and ecclesiastical, even during the fifteenth century; but it gradually gave way to, though in some instances its influence may be traced even when it had been overborne by, the new style.

The first step taken towards the reformation of architecture was by Filippo Brunelleschi, a Florentine architect, who was employed to finish the cathedral or duomo of his native city early in the 15th century; a work which had been commenced more than a century before on the design of Arnolpho, a Florentine also, but which still required the cupola when its completion was intrusted to Brunelleschi. The edifice is in the Italian Gothic style, slightly modified by what we have termed the Trecento, which his superior taste and talent induced him to attempt to supersede, and bring the world back to the classic style of ancient Rome. The construction of the cupola gained him great reputation and the confidence of the public, which he employed to advance his favourite scheme. To use the words of an Italian writer on the subject,

On the example of so wise and skilled a man, other architects afterwards, devoted themselves to free architecture of the monstrosities introduced by barbarism and excessive license, and to restore it to its primitive simplicity and dignity.^[22. Lc Fab. e ι Disegnu dι A. Palladio da 0. B∙ Scamozzi, tonao i. p. 4. ] But to what did they have recourse to effect this? Did they examine and study the remains of antiquity in Greece and Rome, in Italy and elsewhere? No! they referred to the writings of an obscure Latin author, who professed to give the principles and practice of architecture among the Greeks and Romans, but paid no more attention to the existing architectural works of those nations than if they had never been, although one could hardly walk the streets of any of the old cities in the south of Italy without seeing Roman edifices, whilst Rome and its vicinity was, as it still is, full of them. Alt the use, however, that these self-called “restorers” of architecture made of the works of the ancients, was to use them as lay-figures, or frame-work, to model on, according to the proportions and directions given by Vitruvius; and the effect was formality and mannerism in those who adhered to the dogmas of the school, and wild grotesqueness in those who allowed themselves to wander from them, whilst simplicity, and its consequence good taste, were effectually banished from the works of them all.

It will be necessary here, perhaps, before we advance further in our remarks on the Italian school, to disabuse the public mind as to the merit of the works of Vitruvius, whose anilities have so long passed for authorities, that a writer would be suspected of prejudice who spoke of them slightingly without adducing reason and evidence to prove them valueless; except, indeed, as records of the architectural practice, and the opinions and acquirements of an architect of a distant age. It is of very little consequence that Vitruvius is only known by his own writings, but that mention of him by a contemporary or other ancient author) would probably determine the age in which he lived. From several things he mentions, and his inscription or dedication to the “Imperator Caesar,” it has been concluded that he lived in the time of Augustus; but certainly without sufficient reason; for if the man he speaks of as the son of Masinissa had been the son of the celebrated Numidian of that name, in the course of nature neither he nor Vitruvius could have lived to the time of Augustus. But he addresses an emperor who succeeded his father an emperor, and speaks of a temple of Augustus; so that he must have been a contemporary of some period of the empire. If that period had been the Augustan, he would doubtlessly have made some reference to some of the many distinguished men of that age, or have been refer red to by some of them if he had himself been at all known or distinguished as his admirers insist he was; neither of which is the case; and, moreover, his language is not that of an educated man of the Augustan age. This, however, does not affect the merit of his work as a treatise on architecture; but his fables about the origin of building, the invention of the orders, and the arrangements which grew out of certain modes of construction, do so; by proving his total ignorance not only o∣ the architectural works of the more ancient eastern nations, but of those of Greece itself, which he professes to describe. Now his classical taste, in consequence of his knowledge of antiquity, is vaunted by Perrault, one of his commentators, and given by him as a reason why Vitruvius was not much employed by the whimsical Romans in their love of variety, to which he would not administer How far his knowledge of antiquity, that is, according to himself, of the works of the Greeks, extended, may bţ readily determined by comparing the designs of Greet structures, made by Perrault and others, according to the directions of Vitruvius, with the Greek structures [7:3:425] themselves as they exist at the present time, and are faithfully delineated in various modern works, but especially in Stuart and Revett’s Antiquities of Athens. It is indeed not less strange than true, that not a single example of Greek architecture will bear out a single rule which Vitruvius prescribes, professedly on its authority; and not an existing edifice, or fragment of an edifice, in form or proportion, is in perfect accordance with any law of that author, nor indeed are they generally referable to the principles he lays down. Examples might be cited almost to infinity in support of this statement, and to prove the inutility of a work consisting of mere descriptions without delineations, even if it were otherwise correct. The latter may certainly be supplied from the ancient remains when they exist; but to a man in possession of the specimens, descriptions and directions for their composition are quite unnecessary. Even Sir William Chambers, a distinguished disciple of the Italian or Vitruvian school, speaks very lightly of the advantage to be gained from the study of the Vitruvian principles of construction; and Mr Gwilt, in the introductory treatises to and notes on Sir William Chambers’s work, has done much to undermine the authority, by exposing the absurdities and fallacies of the Magnus Apollo of pscudo-classical architecture. A student would acquire as correct a knowledge of history and geography from the Seven Champions of Christendom and Gulliver’s Travels, as of architecture from the text of Vitruvius!

The adoption of the Vitruvian laws by the Italian architects of the 15th century led to the formation of the “Five Orders.” It -will have been observed that, in speaking of the course of Greek and Roman architecture, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian styles were mentioned. Vitruvius describes, in addition to these, another, which he calls Tuscan—possibly a style of columnar arrangement peculiar to Italy, and most likely of Etrurian origin; but, in the absence of delineations, the Cinquecentists could only apply the proportions he laid down for it, to what appeared to approximate them in the ancient remains; and hence arose a fourth, or “the Tuscan Order.” lt is, however, a mere modification of the Roman debasement of the Doric, and may be considered, in its present form, as of purely modern Italian origin. The same “Revivers,” on looking among the ruins of ancient Rome for the forms of their Vitruvian orders, found specimens of a foliated ordinance, which the bad taste of the Romans had compounded of the foliated and voluted styles of the Greeks. This was seized upon as a fifth style, subjected to certain rules and proportions, and called “the Composite Order.” The very poor Roman specimens of Doric and Ionic fitted themselves without much difficulty to the Vitruvian laws; but the examples Rome afforded of the Corinthian were less tractable, and being as various as they are generally beautiful, they were all passed over, and their places supplied by a mere changeling—an epitome of the Vitruvian theory. Thus we have the “Five Orders” of the Italo-Vitruvian school, and in this manner they are arranged: First, the Tuscan, of which there is no recognised example of antiquity, but which owes its form to the descriptions of Vitruvius and the fancies of the revivers; second, the Doric, a poor and tasteless arrangement of the general features of the style on a Roman model; third, the Ionic, which is almost as great a debasement of the Grecian originals, and was produced in the same manner as the last-mentioned; fourth, the Corinthian, a something totally unlike the ancient examples of both Greece and Rome in beauty and spirit; aιA, fifth, the Composite, an inelegant variety of the Corinthian, or a 1 ybrid mixture of the horned or angular.-Ionic volutes, V ιth a deep necking of the foliage of the preceding order.

The first to publish this system was Leon Battista Alberti, a pupil of Brunelleschi. He has been followed by many others, the most distinguished of whom are, Palladio, Vignola, Scamozzi, Serlio, and De Lorme, architects; and Barbaro, a Venetian prelate, and an esteemed translator of, and commentator on, Vitruvius. None of these, it must be understood, agreed with any other of them, but each took his own view of the meaning of their common preceptor; and yet none of their productions evince the slightest approach to the elegance of form and beauty of proportion which distinguish the classic models of the columnar architecture of antiquity. Palladio and Serlio were the first to publish delineations and admeasurements of the Roman architectural remains in Italy; but the total absence of verisimilitude to the originals, and, in many cases, the absolute misrepresentations, in both works, prove how incompetent the authors were to appreciate their merits; and the exaggeration of their defects proves with equal clearness the general bad taste of the school in which they are masters. The worst qualities of the Roman school of architecture were embraced and perpetuated by the Cinquecento. The inharmonious and unpleasing combinations which arose out of the collocation of arches with columnar ordinances became the characteristics of the Italian: unequal intercolumniations, broken entablatures, and stylobates, enter alike into the productions of the best and of the worst of the Cinquecento architects. The style of this school is marked, too, by the constant attachment of columns and their accessories to the fronts or elevations of buildings; by the infrequency of their use in insulated (their naturaD positions to form porticos and colonnades; by the thinness or want of breadth in the smaller members of their entablatures, and the bad proportion of the larger parts, into which they are divided, to one another; by the general want of that degree of enrichment which fluting imparts to columns; by the too great projection of pilasters, and the inconsistent practice of diminishing, and sometimes fluting them; by the use of circular and twisted pediments, and the habit of making breaks in them to suit the broken ordinance they may crown; and by various other inconsistencies and deformities, which will be rendered more evident when we come to treat of the style in detail. The merit of the Italian school consists in the adaptation and collocation of the prolate hemi-sphcroidal cupola, which appears to have grown out of its opposite in the Roman works during the Gothic ages, as we find it in the early cathedrals; though it is highly probable that the idea was brought from the East, in the forms exhibited by the cupolas of St Marks at Venice, and of Pisa cathedral. A very noble style of Palatial architecture also was practised by many of the Italian architects. It consists of the use of a grand crowning cornice, running in one unbroken line, unsurmounted by an attic, or any thing of the kind, superimposing a broad, lofty, and generally well-proportioned front, made into graceful compartments, but not storied, by massive blocking courses and other things, which are at the disposal of the judicious architect. Not unfrequently, however, the faults of the school interfere to injure a composition of this kind; for, to produce variety in the decorations of the windows; some of them have been made like doors, with distyle arrangements of columns, surmounted by alternations of circular and angular pediments, and sometimes with all the vagaries which deform the front of an Italian church. It is indeed the ecclesiastical architecture of the school in which its faults are most rife and its merits most rare. An Italian church possesses nothing of the stern simplicity and imposing grandeur of an Egyptian sacred structure—nothing of the harmonious [7:3:426]beauty and classic dignity of a Grecian fane—nothing 'of the ornate and attractive elegance of a Roman temple —and nothing truly of the glittering grace and captivating harmony of a Pointed cathedral. No other style of architecture presents so great a contrast, in any two species of its productions, as the Italian does, in one of its ordinary church fronts, with the front of a nobleman’s mansion or palace, in the manner already referred to; and in no city of Italy is the contrast so strong, by the egregiousness of the examples it contains of both, as Rome. The stately porticois hardly known in Italian architecture; and in the rare cases which exist in it of insulated columns, they are for the most part so meagre in themselves, and so thinly set, according to the Vitruvian laws, that the effect produced by them is poor and wretched in the extreme. This applies most particularly to Italy itself: in some other countries, and especially in this, those architects who have been of the Italian school have generally preferred the proportions and arrangements which they found in the Roman examples of antiquity, to those laid down by their Italian masters. Still, Italian church architecture boasts the cupola,—certainly its redeeming feature; and the architects of Italy must have full credit for the use they have made of it, both internally and externally. Perhaps no two edifices display more, and in a greater degree, both the merits and defects of the school which produced them, than the Farnese palace and the basilica of St Peter in Rome. The principal front of the former edifice is exquisite in its proportions, but frittered in its details. It has an immense crowning cornice, whose general effect is surpassingly grand; but the mouldings are too much projected, and its vertical parts want the breadth which the blocking courses possess. The lowest of its three tiers of windows is characterized by the most charming simplicity and good taste in almost every particular; but the other two are crowded with sins against both those qualities, in the dressings of the windows. The cortile and back front, though both very differently arranged from the front, and from each other, are not less filled with contrarieties; and so of the structure throughout. The front of St Peter’s is not more distinguished by its magnitude than by its littleness and deformity. It contains the materials of a noble octaprostyle, and consists of an attached tetrastyle. It is divided into three unequal stories, within the height of the columns, whose entablature· is surmounted by a windowed attic. In length it is frittered into a multitude of compartments, between which not the slightest harmony is maintained; while tawdriness and poverty are the distinguishing characteristics of its detail. A total absence of every thing which produces grandeur and beauty in architecture, marks, indeed, the whole of the exterior of the edifice, except the glorious cupola, than which architecture never produced a more noble and magnificent object. Internally, the structure is open to similar praise and similar dispraise. Gorgeousness in matter and meanness in manner characterize the interior of St Peter’s, except the sublime concave which is formed by its redeeming feature without.

The Cinquecento architects of Italy were exceeding mannerists: but besides the manner of the school, each had his own peculiarities; so that there exists in their works what may almost be called monotonous variety 1 Brunelleschi’s designs are distinguished by a degree of simplicity and comparative good taste, which cause regret that he had not referred more to the remains of antiquity in Italy, and sought out those of Greece, and less to the dogmas of Vitruvius; for then his works would have been more elegant than they are, and the school he founded would have done him much more honour than it does.

The works of Bramante possess a riiore classical character than those of any other architect of the school. Bra· mante’s design for St Peter’s was preferred by Pope Julius II. to a great many others by the most esteemed men of the time. He it was who suggested the cupola; but, unfortunately, after his death men of less taste and talent were allowed to alter the design, and the edifice has resulted very differently from what it would have done had Bramante been adhered to. This we judge from his works generally, and not from any positive knowledge of the design, which indeed does not exist. The elder Sangallo was far inferior to his contemporary and rival Bramante, and his works are full of the faults of the school. Michel Angelo Buonaroti was a man of great genius, but of very bad taste in architecture; and to him may be attributed many of the bad qualities of the Italian style. His principal works are the buildings of the Capitol, and the College della Sapienza in Rome, and the Laurentian Library at Florence; and these are all distinguished for their singular want of architectural beauty and propriety in every particular. Michel Angelo was the Dante of Italian painting, but the Berni of its architecture. Raffaelle, too, had a very bad style in architecture, and so indeed had almost all the painters who professed to be architects also. They generally carried to extremes all the faults of the school. Sansovino and Sanmichele were men of considerable talent: their works display more originality and less servility than those of most of their contemporaries. Peruzzi was less employed than many who had not half his merit: his productions are with reason considered among the most classical of the Italian school. Vignola had a more correct taste than perhaps any other Italian architect of the 16th century: his works are indeed distinguishable by their superiority in harmony of composition and in general beauty of detail. Palladio very much affected the study of the antique, but his works do not indicate any appreciation of its· beauties. He appears to have been very well qualified by nature for an architect, but spoiled by education. He did not look at the remains of antiquity with his ownļ eyes, but with those of Vitruvius and Alberti, and of course was much influenced by the manner of the ad-; mired works of his predecessors. Palladio made greate use of insulated columns than the Italian architects generally, but his ordinances are deficient in every quality that produces beauty; his porticos may be Vitruvian, but they certainly are not classic; and all his works evince that he studied the Colosseum, the Theatre of Marcellus, and the Triumphal Arches, more than the columns of Jupiter Stator and Mars Ultor, the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, the Pantheon, the Porticoat Assisi, and the other classic models, which he drew, but clearly did not appreciate. His columns upon columns, his attached and clustered columns, his stilted post-like columns, his broken entablatures, his*numberless pilasters, straggling and unequal intercolumniations, inappropriate and inelegant ornaments, circular pediments and the like, are blemishes too numerous and too great to be passed over because of occasional elegance of proportion and beauty of detail. Scamozzi did not improve on the style of his master, which, however, he very much affected. Indeed the term Palladmn has long been in general use throughout the civilized world for beautiful and excellent in architecture, so that it cannot be wondered at that Palladio’s pupils and successors should imitate him; nor is it surprising that they did not surpass, or even, equal him, for they were taught to look to his works as the W plus ultra of excellence. Giacomo della Porta, a contemporary of Palladio, followed Michel Angelo in several, of his works, and imbibed much of his manner, on which [7:3:427]he certainly improved; but still his own is far from being good Della Porta was much employed in Rome; and it fell to him, in conjunction with DomenicoFontana, to put the cupola on St Peter’s. Fontana’s style of architecture is not particularly distinguished for its good or bad qualities; he obtained more reputation as an engineer than as an architect, having been engaged in removing and setting up most of the obelisks which give so much interest to the architectural scenery of Rome. The Lunghi, father, son, and grandson, the Rainaldi, Maderno, Borromini, Bernini, Carlo Fontana, Fuga, Vanvitelli, and many others in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, carried the peculiarities of the Italian school to the greatest extremes. Of those enumerated, Bernini was perhaps the least offensive, and Borromini the most extravagant; but throughout that period, except in extreme cases, individual manner is less distinguishable, and that of the school more strongly marked.

It may be gathered from the preceding remarks, that die secular architecture of the Italian school is generally preferable to the ecclesiastical, and that the architects of the 15th and 16th centuries were generally superior to those who followed them. In Italy the school has not yet ceased to exist, nor indeed has its style ceased to be studied. Designs are still made by the students of the various academies in the manner of the Cinquecento, and on the models with which the country abounds. The precepts of Vitruvius are yet inculcated, and the works of the men whose names we have mentioned are looked up to as master-works of architecture in the country which contains the Roman Pantheon and the Greek Neptunium, besides the power of referring to the more exquisite works of Greece herself.

In the 15th century such was the reverence of men for the revived works of ancient literature and science, that the profession of the Italians, that they had restored ancient classical architecture on the precepts of an architect of the Augustan age, was sufficient to open the way for them all over civilized Europe. In the course of that and the following century Italian architecture was adopted and Italian architects employed in France, Spain, Germany, Great Britain, and their respective dependencies; and now, in the !9th century, Vitruvius and Palladio are as predominant on the shores of the Baltic as on those of the Mediterranean Sea; though in this country and in some parts of the Continent their influence is considerably diminished since the time of Inigo Joncs and Claude Perrault. It has been already remarked, too, that the Cinquecento was later in gaining a footing here than on the Continent, in consequence of the existence of a beautiful national style of architecture, which our ancestors do not appear to have been induced to resign to the barbarian innovators of the South, as readily as the interjacent nations were to give up theirs; for which indeed the reason exists in the greater attractions of ours, and the consequent greater difficulty of inducing the nation to part with it The French, though they received the Vitruvian architecture from the Italians, were patriotic enough, as soon as they had acquired its principles, to confine the practice of it almost entirely to native architects, in whose hands it assumed a different character from that which it possessed in Italy, and became what may be called the trench style of Cinquecento. Its ecclesiastical structures arc less faulty than are those of the corresponding period in Italy, but its secular edifices are as far inferior to those of that country. The grand palatial style, which is exemplified in the Farnese palace in Rome, never found its way into France; but instead, there arose that monstrous and peculiarly French manner, of which the well-known palaces of the Tuilleries and Luxembourg are egregious examples. In the age of Louis XIV. the French appear to have reverted to the Italian manner in a certain degree, for the palace of Versailles includes almost all the extravagancies of that school in its worst period, and contains moreover architectural deformities which Italy never equalled till it imitated them. They consist in the style of enrichment which is distinguished by the name of that monarch in whose reign it had its origin, and of whose gross taste and vulgar mind it is an apt emblem. The same period produced one of the most classical architects of the French school—its Palladio or Inigo Jones, Perrault, whose design for the buildings of the Louvre was preferred to that of Bernini, though indeed the preference was no compliment to the one nor discredit to the other, considering to whom the decision was of necessity referred. The Hôtel des Invalides is of the same age: it exhibits the graces of the Italian cupola, surmounting a composition which includes more than all the faults of St Peter’s in Rome. The church of Sainte Genevieve, or the Pantheon, a work of the following reign, was intended to be in the ancient Roman style, and of Roman magnificence; but it is rather papally than imperially so. Ancient Rome was regarded in the columnar ordinance, but modern Rome in the architectural composition. In it the ecclesiastical style of the Cinquecento is commingled with the simple beauties of Roman architecture, almost indeed to the destruction of the latter: to this structure also there is a handsome cupola. Of late years the works of the ancients have been studied by the architects of France, greatly to the amelioration of their style; as yet, however, they are but imperfectly acquainted with the peculiarities of the Greek, and many of them still appear to retain their devotion to Vitruvius and the 15th century. Spain servilely received the Italo-Vitruvian architecture, and to the present’ day knows no other. Less patriotic than the French, the Spaniards have for their greatest works employed the architects of France and Italy; so that of course the country can boast of no peculiarity in the style of its architecture redounding to its own credit. The palace of the Escurial being by a French architect, and abounding in the deformities of the French and Italian schools, cannot be cited in favour of Spain. The Italian Revival was the means of extinguishing the Pointed style of architecture in Germany, and certainly without affording it an equivalent. Italian architects were employed in Germany, and Germans acquired their manner; but they did not improve it, nor did they make it productive of so many good effects as the Italians themselves did. The change in religion which supervened the change in architecture in so large a part of Germany, may have tended to prevent the latter from acquiring that degree of exuberance there which it did in Italy; but even in Catholic Germany the splendid Pointed cathedrals have never given way to modifications of the pscudo-classic St Peter’s. In the use of Cinquecento architecture for secular structures, it may be truly said that the Germans have not excelled the Italians; nor, on the other hand, have they equalled them in the absurdities and extravagancies which are so frequently observable in the works of some of the latter. The Germans also have lately turned their attention to the works of the ancients, and the fruit of it is already evident in many parts of the country, and most particularly in Prussia: still, however, they appear to have yet to learn the right use of the Greek models, and a proper sense of the exquisite perfection of their detail; as well as to emancipate themselves from many of the trammels of the Vitruvian school. The northern continental nations have been dependent on Germany, France, or Italy for their architecture, and can produce nothing that gives them a claim to our consideration in such a review as the [7:3:428]present. St Petersburg is exclusively the work of architects of the nations just enumerated, and presents a mass of the merest common-places of Italian architecture, in structures calculated by their extent, like Versailles, the Escurial and St Peter’s, to impose on the vulgar eye.

We have already more than once had occasion to refer incidentally to the introduction of Cinquecento architecture into Britain; and in noticing it more particularly, and tracing its course, we are saved the trouble of keeping up a distinction between the different parts of our triple nation, because, at the time it actually crossed the channel, the amalgamation of the kingdoms had taken place by the union of their crowns on the head of the Scotish sovereign.

When the Pointed style received its deathblow in England, in the reign of Henry VIII., it did not immediately cease to exist; nor was it immediately succeeded by the Italian when it became extinct. It was gradually declining through all the 16th century, during the latter part of which period, what has been called the Elizabethan style became somewhat permanent. It consists of a singular admixture of the Italian orders, with many peculiarities of the Pointed style, and in many examples the latter appears predominant. With such difficulty, indeed, did that fascinating manner give up its hold on the minds of men in this country, that the cinquecentists appear to have relinquished the hope of effecting its destruction,—unfortunately, however, not until the injury was done; and for some time we were left without architecture of any kind, unless that may be called by the name which marks the edifices of the reign of James I., and of which the oldest parts of St James’s palace are a specimen.

- The destruction of the Pointed style has been referred by some to the change in religion which took place under the Tudor line of English monarchs; but such was certainly not the case. It was the “Reformation” of architecture in Italy, and not that of religion in Great Britain, that affected it; and it may be doubted whether the change would not have taken place sooner in this country, if its connection with Italy had not been so materially affected by the moral change here, and so delayed that of architecture; for it was Germany and France that supplied us with architectural reformers during the reigns of Henry VIII. and his children, and not Italy, whose professors might possibly have obtained more credit than their disciples did.

So dilatory were we, indeed, in the cultivation of the Italian style, that the first professor of it who was actually employed on edifices in this country came hither from Denmark! It is true, he was an Englishman; but so little hope did he appear to have of success at home, that he accepted an invitation from the king of that country, when he was at Venice, whither he had gone to study painting; but becoming enamoured of architecture, as he saw it in the works of Palladio, he had made that his study instead, and had already acquired considerable reputation in that city, when Christian IV. of Denmark invited him to his Court to occupy the post of his first architect. A train of circumstances, to which we need not here advert, brought him to England a few years after James I. came to the English crown, and he was appointed architect at first to the queen, and subsequently to Henry prince of Wales. But he does not appear in consequence to have then obtained employment; for after the death of the prince, he went again to Italy, where he remained till the office of surveyor general, which had been promised him in reversion, fell vacant. This was the celebrated Inigo Jones, who has been called the English Palladio; and indeed he succeeded so well in acquiring the peculiar manner of that architect, that he richly deserves whatever credit the appellation conveys. It is unfortunate, however, for his own reputation, that he had not looked beyond Palladio and their common preceptor Vitruvius, to the models the latter pretends to describe; in which case he might have been the means of restoring, or at least of introducing, to his own country, the truly classical architecture of the ancients. But instead of that he brought nothing home but Italian rules and Italian prejudices. Jones commenced the truly Gothic custom of thrusting Cinquecento fittings into our Pointed cathedrals, by putting up an Italian screen in that of Winchester; and he barbarized the ancient cathedral of St Paul in London, by repairing it according to his notions of Pointed architecture, for it was in that style, and affixed to it an Italian front. Fortunately the great fire supervened, and made room for the present magnificent structure, by clearing away that early specimen of pseudo-classic taste. Of the Palladian style, however, it must be confessed Jones was a complete master. He designed a royal palace which was to have been built at Whitehall, in a manner as far superior to those of Versailles and the Escurial, as the works of Palladio are to those of Borromini. The only part of it ever executed is the structure called the Banqueting-House in London, whose exterior is an epitome of many of the faults, and most of the beauties, of the Palladian school. It rises boldly from the ground with a broad, simple, and nearly continuous basement or stereobate, and the various compartments of its principal front are beautifully proportioned; but the circular pediments to the windows, the attached unfluted columns, with broken entablatures and stylobates, the attic and balustrade, though they be the materials of Palladian, it may be confidently denied that they are consistent with classical architecture. Another well-known work of this architect is the Italo-Vitruvian Tuscan church of St Paul, Covent-Garden, whose eastern porticois well-proportioned in general, but grossly deformed in detail.

Architecture was in abeyance in this country, again, from the troublous times of Charles I. till the restoration of the monarchy in the person of his son, whose French taste would have completely Gallicized the architecture, as well as the manners and morals, of the nation, if the resplendent genius of Sir Christopher Wren had not been present to avert the infliction, or rather to modify it; for it cannot be denied that the influence of the French manner had an effect on the architecture of this country from that period down to the middle of the last century. Indeed Wren himself only knew the style he practised from books and the structures of France, except the few that existed of Inigo Jones in this country; and, in consequence of his visit to France, the peculiarities of the French style are obvious in many of his less esteemed works. Fortunately, however, he was proof against the grosser peculiarities of the Cinquecento, whether in the books of the Italians or in the edifices of the French; and his own productions evince that he had imbibed much of the spirit of the antique monuments of Italy, which he could have known only from engravings, and those very imperfect ones. The field that was opened to his genius by the great fire of London in 1666, and its result, are equally well known. It is true that the general of fuscation of taste and feeling with regard to the Pointed style extended even to him. Wren was guilty of many offences in that respect, besides giving authority to th e opprobrious term Gothic; and in no case more so than in the construction of the towers to Westminster Abbey, which are a lasting proof of his ignorance of its most obvious principles. Nevertheless, to the influence of our beautiful native style on his mind, architecture is indebted for some of its most charming works. If Wren had not been accustomed to contemplate the graceful and elegant pyramids or spires of his native country, he would never [7:3:429]have originated the tapering steeple, in the composition 0 f which with the materials of Italian architecture he still stands as unrivalled as he was original. Witness the steeples of Bow Church and St Bride’s in London, the former of which is hardly surpassed in grace and elegance by the Pointed spires themselves. It must remain a constant subject of regret that this great head of the English school of Cinquecento architecture did not know the remains of ancient Greece and Rome from personal observation. With his splendid genius and fine taste, if he had not been imposed on by the specious pretence of the Italo-Vitruvian school, his works would have been models for imitation and study, as they are objects of admiration: as it was, he avoided many of the faults of that school, and improved on many of its beauties. Without knowing the Greek style at all, and knowing the Roman only through imperfect mediums; without, indeed, ever having seen an example of either; whenever he has varied from the Italian practice, it has been towards the proportions and peculiarities of the Greek! The great west front of St Paul’s, though it is said to be imitated from that of St Peter’s in Rome, or rather from what it was proposed to be, with the two towers to form its wings, is a much finer, a more imposing, and more classical specimen of architecture than its prototype; for the advantage the latter should have in being of columns in one height is lost entirely in their poverty and the miserable arrangement of the whole front; whereas that of St Paul’s is in two noble pseudo-prostyle and recessed porticos, with the columns fluted, and generally conceived and executed in much better taste than those of the former. The entablatures, though massive, are finely proportioned, and sufficiently ornate to be elegant; they are, too, quite continuous, and the upper one is surmounted by a noble pediment, whose pyramidal form gives at the same time dignity and a finished appearance to the whole front. The coupling of the columns, however, and the putting of one columnar ordinance over another, can only be defended by the practice of the Italian school; though, in the present case, both are rendered less offensive by the judicious management of the architect. Nothing shows more strikingly the superiority of St Paul’s to St Peter’s, as an architectural composition, than a parallel of their flanks. The great magnitude of the latter may strike the vulgar eye with admiration in the contrast; but the rudest taste must appreciate the surpassing merit of the former in the form and arrangement of the cupola, and the noble peristylc with its unbroken entablature and stylobate, out of which it rises, when compared with the sharper form and depressed substructure of that of St Peter’s. The superiority of St Paul’s in the composition of the main body of the edifice is not less in degree, though perhaps less obvious, than in the superstructure. In the one it is broken and frittered, and in the other almost perfectly continuous, in broad, bold, and effective masses.

The history of the works of Sir Christopher Wren is the history of the architecture of the period in this country; and as it must be admitted that he was not so successful in the composition of the architecture of secular structures as of ecclesiastical, it will follow that our secular edifices of that time are of inferior merit. If it were not indeed an historical fact, it would hardly be credited, that Chelsea College, the old College of Physicians in London, and the halls of some of the city companies, are by the architect of Bow Church and St Paul’s.

The style introduced by Sir John Vanbrugh, who may be said to have succeeded Sir Christopher Wren in the direction of architecture in England, was distinguished by ≡ta eness unsuited to the style in which he built, which was of course Italian. It was, however, free from the vagaries and extravagancies which characterize that style generally in other countries at the same period, but was certainly more suited to the soberer character of ecclesiastical than of secular structures, whereas his principal works were noblemen’s mansions. Vanbrugh’s faults were generally those of Michel Angelo: he was a painter’s architect, and did not understand beauty of proportion and detail so well as the pictorial arrangement of lights and shadows; to produce which in the Cinquecento it is almost necessary to part with all the higher beauties of architecture. Hawksmoor added to the style of his master that noble ornament in which Italian works are so very deficient •—a prostyle portico His compositions are marked by severe simplicity, and only want to be absolved from a few faults and enriched with a few elegancies to be among the best of modern times. Not the least distinguished architect of the same age (the first half of the 18th century) was the Earl of Burlington, who was a passionate admirer of the style of Palladio and Inigo Jones. Many of the edifices erected by Kent are believed to be from the designs of that amiable nobleman, who, with considerable talent,, was, however, a somewhat bigoted devotee to Vitruvius and the Cinquecento generally, as well as to Palladio in particular; for he has frequently used columns representing half-barked trees, in conformity with the silly tales of Vitruvius, and the sillier whims of his disciples. The portal of his own house in Piccadilly, and that of the King’s Mews, are special examples of this bad taste, and of other faults of the school besides. Lord Burlington built for himself at Chiswick a villa on the model of the Villa Capra, or Rotonda, near Vicenza—a structure which has been called the masterpiece of Palladio. In form and proportion it is certainly elegant, but its details strongly exhibit the poverty of Italian columnar architecture, when unaided by the frittering which is its bane, and almost its sole dependence for effect. Gibbs was a contemporary of the same period. He too, like Hawksmoor, had imbibed a taste for the classic prostyle portico which he evinced in St Martin’s church in London; but that he also was in the trammels of the Italian school is no less evident, in the same structure, to a considerable extent, and still more so in the church of St Mary in the Strand, which is a bad specimen of architecture, and a favourable one of its style. During the following half-century (the latter half of the 18th) Sir William Chambers and Sir Robert Taylor were the most distinguished architects of this country. They were both men of talent and genius, who had availed themselves of the remains of Roman antiquity to good purpose; for as yet those of Greece were either unknown or unappreciated; and the former of them has left us, in the Strand front of Somerset House in London, perhaps the best specimen of its style in existence. Other parts of the same edifice, however, are far from deserving the same degree of praise: indeed, as an architectural composition, the river front is altogether inferior in merit to the other, though of much greater pretence. The inner fronts to the great quadrangle, though exhibiting good parts, are, as a whole, not above mediocrity. An air of littleness pervades them; and the general effect of the fronts themselves is made still worse by the little clock towers and cupolas by which they are surmounted; and to this maybe added the infinity of ill-arranged chimneys, which impart an air of meanness and confusion that nothing can excuse. While Sir William Chambers and a few others were applying the best qualities of Italian architecture, indeed improving its general character, and, it may be said, making an English style of it, there were many structures raised in various parts of the country in a manner hardly superior to that of the time of James I.; Structures in which all the meanness and poverty of the [7:3:430]Cinquecento are put forth, without any of its elegance of proportion, or that degree of effectiveness which men of talent contrived to give it. During the same period, too, the seeds of a revolution were sown, which has almost succeeded in ejecting the Italian style and its derivative from this country, without perhaps having as yet furnished a complete equivalent.

In the year 1748 James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, two painters pursuing their studies in Rome, having moreover paid some attention to architecture, issued “Proposals for publishing an accurate description of the Antiquities, of Athens, &c.” These proposals met with general approbation, and in consequence they determined on prosecuting their plan; but various hinderances prevented their arrival in Athens till March 1751, when they commenced measuring and delineating the architectural monuments of that city and its environs. In this work Messrs Stuart and Revett were unremittingly employed (as far as their own exertions went, for they were frequently interrupted by the Turks) for several years, so that they did not reach England with the result of their labours until 1755; and, by a series of almost unaccountable delays, the first volume of their work did not appear until the year 1762. Sixteen years more expired before the second issued from the press; and the third was not published until 1794, being nearly fifty years from the time the work was first announced! Avarice and envy had induced a Frenchman of the name of Le Roy, who was at Rome when our countrymen issued their proposals, to forestall them with the public, and rob them of the profit and reputation they were so hardly labouring to earn. This man went to Athens, and in a very short time collected some loose materials, with which he published at Paris, in 1758, a work which he called Les Pûmes des plus beaux Monumens de la Grèce, fye,, in which he makes not the slightest mention of Stuart and Revett, nor of their labours or intentions, with all of which he was well acquainted. This work is moreover notoriously and grossly incorrect; so incorrect indeed, as to make it difficult of belief that its author ever saw the objects of which he professes to give the representations. Such as it is, however, it was from Μ. le Roy’s work that the public had to judge of the merits and beauties of Greek architecture; for we have said that the first volume of Stuart and Revett’s did not appear for several years after it, and that does not contain any pure specimen of the national or Doric style: the second, which does, was not published for twenty years after Le Roy’s. Considering, therefore, the source from which the public had to derive information on the subject, it can hardly be wondered at that Greek architecture was vituperated on all sides; and by none with greater acrimony than by Sir William Chambers, whose apology must be, ignorance and the prejudices of education. He really did not know the style he carped at; and his education in the Italo-Vitruvian school had unfitted him for appreciating its grand, chaste, and simple beauties, even if he had known it. Notwithstanding the misrepresentations of Le Roy, the vituperations of Chambers, the established reputation of Italian architecture, and the trammels which Vitruvius and his disciples had fixed on the public mind, when Stuart and Revett’s work actually appeared, the Greek style gradually advanced in esteem, by dint of superior merit alone—for it has had no factitious aids; and since that period Greece and all her colonies which possess remains of her unrivalled architecture have been explored, and we now possess correct delineations of almost every Greek structure which has survived, though 4 in ruins, the wreck of time and the desolation of barbarism. To our country and nation, then, is due the honour of opening the temple of Greek architectural science,—of drawing away the veil of ignorance which obscured the beauties it contains,—and of snatching from perdition, and consequent oblivion, the noble relics of ancient architecture which bear the impress of the Grecian mind. Not only indeed were we the first to open the mine, but by us it has been principally worked; for among the numerous publications which now exist on the Hellenic remains, by far the greatest number, and indisputably the most correct, are by our countrymen, and were brought out in this country. It required, however, a generation for the effects of ignorance and prejudice in some, and imperfect knowledge in others, to wear away, before the beneficial effects of the Greek style could be obvious in our structures. The works of the Adamses who were contemporaries of and immediate successors to Sir William Chambers, evince a taste for the beauties of Greek architecture, but a very imperfect knowledge indeed of the means of reproducing them. The architects who have had the direction of our principal works during the first quarter of this century had the disadvantage of being pupils of those who were themselves, as we have shown, incompetent to appreciate the Greek style; and at a time too when the state of Europe shut up all access to the remains of Greece and Rome; so that no great improvement could perhaps be expected from them. When they shall have passed away, it is to be hoped that we shall find a new class, some of whom, indeed, are already before the world, who, having received their education since peace has opened the Continent, are prepared by the actual contemplation and study of the works of Egypt, Greece, Rome, and Italy, in all their varieties, to form new and pleasing combinations of their beauties, adapted to our wants,—to produce what may equal, if not surpass them all. The structures of Egypt may show how to arrange large masses harmoniously and effectively; those of Greece and Rome how to impart grace and dignity; and the structures of Italy how the materials of ancient architecture maybe moulded to modern uses, while at the same time they give practical warning of what may result from the abuse of the most obvious principles of the science.

The difference between the representations of the Athenian antiquities by Stuart and his colleague, and the misrepresentations of them by Le Roy, appear to have opened the eyes of the world to those of ancient Rome, to see if they too had not been dealt with unjustly; for of late years much more correct delineations of them have appeared than those of Palladio and Desgodetz,—delineations of them as they exist, exhibiting the spirit of the originals, and not warped to the Vitruvian precepts, and thereby stripped of their best quality, truth. The excavation of the ancient cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii has opened to us much interesting matter, and some that is instructive: their ruins too have the advantage of being correctly delineated; so that we are at this time in possession of more knowledge of the architecture of the ancients, acquired in a few years by the actual examination of its relics, than our predecessors of the last generation were, after talking, and writing, and reading Vitruvius about it, for nearly four centuries.

It is an argument in proof of the classical beauty of the Pointed style, that when the eyes of men were opened to the perfections of Greek architecture, they began to discover its merits also. Pointed architecture, under the opprobrious name Gothic, had long been a subject of discussion among antiquaries; that is, essays were written by them to prove how the Pointed arch originated, but none appreciated its beauties. Our Pointed cathedrals and churches were, after the example of Inigo Jones, ruth-lessly[7:3:431] barbarized in repairing and fitting up. If an architect were employed to do any thing in or to one of them, he appears to have thought it incumbent on him to convert it to the doctrines of his own faith—to Italicize it. Deans and chapters for the most part intrusted their commissions to country masons and plasterers, who also operated according to the laws of the “five orders.” About the middle of the 18th century one Batty Langley endeavoured to draw the attention of the world to Pointed architecture, by reducing it to rules, and dividing it into orders. Fortunately he was only laughed at, and both he and the book he published on the subject were soon forgotten. One of the first men in rank and influence of his time, in matters of taste particularly, Horace Walpole, patronized Pointed architecture, but ineffectually· He had himself neither taste nor feeling to appreciate its beauties, as his Strawberry Hill clearly evinces; so that his patronage of it must have been the effect of mere whim, or a wish to lead a fashion. Delineations were indeed put forth from time to time, but generally so rude and imperfect, that, like Μ. le Roy to Greek architecture, they did more harm than good. The Society of Antiquaries, however, at length took up the subject, engaged Mr John Carter, an ardent and judicious admirer of our national architecture, and commenced the publication of a series of splendid volumes, containing engravings of its best specimens, from drawings and admeasurements by him. The “Antiquities of Athens” had already done much to dispossess men of their prejudices, by showing that Greek architecture, though neither Vitruvian nor Palladian, was nevertheless beautiful; and the great work of the Society of Antiquaries did the same for Pointed architecture. Since the death of Mr Carter, our native style has been beautifully illustrated, in a series of valuable works by Mr Britton, and elucidated in detailed “specimens,” by Mr Pugin, a French gentleman but an English artist, and by a great variety of other useful and excellent publications; so that, at the present time, the Pointed style, too, is studied and understood, and not a few of our architects are now competent, not only to be intrusted with the repairs and restorations of the ancient structures, but also to originate new ones, which may rival all but their prototypes in beauty.

We have now, in this part of the subject, only to add a few remarks on the improvement which has taken place in domestic architecture, since men have begun to consider their own comfort and happiness of as much importance to them as the splendour of their religious edifices. The exhumated city of Pompeii has very clearly proved, that notwithstanding the extent and general beauty of the public buildings of the Romans, the houses of the commonalty were exceedingly plain and confined, while those of the higher classes, though internally elegant, were externally unpretending. The rooms were small and badly arranged, imperfectly secluded from the public gaze, and quite exposed to the inmates; pervious alike to the summer’s heat and winter’s cold. Indeed, the house of a Roman gentleman presents a very convenient model for a prison, but without many of the comforts which in modern times are thought necessary even in such places. Of this, however, we shall treat more in detail when we come to consider Roman architecture as a style. It has been stated as probable, that the use of wooden floors, and the consequent power of making additional stories without enormously thick walls, arose during the middle ages, that improvement, together with the use of glass for windows, gives an air of comfort and convenience to the earliest domestic structures of modern times, of which the ancients could have had no idea; but the latter were dement in elegance, though indeed the use of windows tended to the introduction of external architectural decoration. With learning and civilization came refinement' and luxury, and men began, though at a great distance, to imitate in their houses what they found of beautiful and splendid in the churches and monasteries. The exclusion, by glass windows, of currents of cold air, which carried the smoke off to the funnel in the roof of a hall or lar<m room, when the fire was exposed in the middle of it, led to the invention and use of chimneys, which should convey it away without occupying the room at all. This is more particularly applicable to the colder countries north of the Alps, and it is in them that domestic building is best understood, and is best applied to produce comfort and convenience. Not that the Palazzi of Italy are not generally more pretending in their external architecture than the town mansions of this country; but they are deficient in those internal arrangements which tend to produce the greatest possible advantages, which, indeed, promote the enjoyments of domestic life.

In consequence of the refinements which now pervade the manners, habits, and customs of civilized life, and civilization having extended itself from the noble and the learned through almost the whole social system, men are no longer contented to admire the beauty and magnificence of public edifices, whether ecclesiastical or civil, and to witness the splendour and elegance of the palaces and mansions of the wealthy; but all are anxious to see in their own habitations that degree of decoration and beauty which they find so productive of pleasure and pleasurable emotions. Thus architecture is no longer confined to the temples of the divinity and the palaces of the great, but its beauties are sought everywhere. In every edifice whose inhabitant has been fitted by education and habit to appreciate and enjoy the charm which arises from symmetry of form, beauty of proportion, and elegance of detail, the aid of architecture is required.

Of Egyptian Structures.

The architecture of ancient Egypt is characterized by the boldness and magnitude of its parts, and the almost monotonous uniformity which pervades its features. The existing monuments of Egyptian architecture consist for the most part of temples and pyramids. Obelisks are generally found in connection with the former, so that perhaps they can only be considered as belonging to them, and not as distinct architectural works, or the sphinxes and other things of a similar nature must be considered as such also. Neither can the hypogea or excavations be correctly described as belonging to architecture, though they bear many of its features, and were perhaps the antitypes of regular architectural combinations.

The pyramids are almost solid masses of masonry, whose bases are squares, and whose inclined sides are nearly equilateral triangles: some of them are truncated, and some rim up to a point. They are generally much injured on the surface by long exposure, so that it is impossible to say whether any of them were considered finished while in steps or receding courses, or if the angles were either filled up or worked off, to make smooth surfaces on the exterior. Some of them not only were made plain by working off, but remain so still; whilst others bear no indication of ever having been finished in that manner. In one existing example, that of the great southern pyramid of Dashour, the angles of the receding courses have been wrought off; and it is singular that the blocks of stone are not laid in horizontal courses, but at an angle inclined to the base; nor are its sides carried up to the top in one continued plane, but at about two thirds from the base they incline towards each other under a more obtuse angle.

It has been imagined, but not determined, that most of [7:3:432]them have natural hills, either of earth or stone, for cores, or rather that hills have been cut to the shape, and built over with large courses of stone to give them the appearance of being solid masonry. If this be the case, the chambers and the passages to them, which have been discovered in some of the pyramids, have been carefully built around to have the appearance of being left in the construction, which is not very probable. Another suggestion, to account in some measure for the immense quantity of matter in them, is, that they are actually cut in living rock to a considerable height, and built above. This may be the case with regard to those which are of the stone the place affords; but some of them are of foreign material, externally at least, and of consequence cannot have been hewn in the native rock. More consistent with the genius of Egyptian undertakings, but hardly more probable is it, that the pyramids include or cover some such constructions as the labyrinth beyond Lake Moeris, spoken of by Herodotus, according to the suggestion we have made in another place, or chambers of some kind which may have been the depositories of the arcana of Egyptian learning and science. Such indeed is the immense extent of some of these extraordinary monuments of human industry and human folly, that no suggestion with regard to them can be considered wild, as they afford full scope for the imagination, without presenting any thing to support or refute any theory that may be applied to them.

The Egyptian temples, without possessing that entire uniformity of plan which those of the Greeks do, are very similar in arrangement and manner. The larger and more perfect structures do not externally present the appearance of being columned, a boundary wall or peribolus girding the whole, and preventing the view of any part of the interior, except perhaps the towering magnificence of some inner pylônes; of the lofty tops of an extraordinary avenue of columns, with their superimposed terrace; of the tapering obelisks which occupy, at times, some of the courts; or of a dense mass of structure, which is the body of the temple itself, inclosing the thickly columned halls. The immense magnitude of these edifices may perhaps have made them independent, in their perfect state, of considerations which have weight in architectural composition at the present time, and on which indeed its harmony depends. The various portions of the same temple differ in size and proportion; and being intermingled, the cornices of the lower abut indefinitely against the walls of the higher parts, while the latter are not at all in accordance among themselves.

The structure we produce to exemplify Egyptian architecture, though not, according to Mr Champollion, one of the Pharaonic monuments, is perfectly characteristic of the style and arrangement of Egyptian temples, and is a more regular specimen than any other possessing the national peculiarities. It is known as the temple of Apollinopolis Magna, or of Edfou, in Upper Egypt, on the banks of the Nile, between Thebes and the first cataracts.

The plan of the inclosure behind the propylaea is a long parallelogram, the moles or propylaea themselves forming another across one of its ends. The grand entrance to the great court of the temple is by a doorway between the moles, to which there may have been folding gates, as the notches for their hinges are still to be seen. Small chambers, right and left of the entrance, and in the core of the propylaea, were probably for the porters or guards of the temple: a staircase remains on each side, which leads to other chambers at different heights. To furnish these with light and air, loop-holes have been cut through the external walls, which disfigure the front of the structure. The court-yard, cloister, or vestibule, has on three of its sides a colonnade, against the wall of the peribolus, forming a covered gallery. This, and the gradual ascent by corded steps to the great porticoor pronaos, will be better understood by reference to the plan and section. The pronaos or covered portico consists of three rows of six columns each, parallel and equidistant, except in the middle, where the intercolumniation is greater, because of the passage through. The front row of columns is closed by a sort of breast-work or dado, extending to nearly half their height, in which moreover they are half-imbedded; and in the central opening a peculiar doorway is formed, consisting of piers, with the lintel and cornice over them cut through, as exhibited in the elevation of the portico From the pronaos another doorway leads to an atrium or inner vestibule, consisting of three rows of smaller columns, with four in each, distributed as those of the pronaos are. Beyond this vestibule there are sundry close rooms and cells, with passages and staircases, whose intention is not obvious. The insulated chamber within the sixth door was most probably the adytum or sanctuary, the holy of holies, which was honoured by the presence of the divinity: the rest is inexplicable.

In many cases the temples are without the peribolus and propylaea, the edifice consisting of no more than the pronaos and the parts beyond it; and in others, particularly in those of Thebes, this arrangement is doubled, and there are two pairs of the colossal moles, the second being placed where the pronaos is in this, and another open court or second vestibule intervening them and the portico In these the central line across the courts is formed by a covered avenue of columns, of much larger size than ordinary; and the galleries around are of double rows of columns instead of one row with the walls, as in this case. The obelisks marked in the plan, and indicated in the section, before the propylaea, occupy the situation in which they are generally found, though they do not exist with this example. Colossal sedent figures are sometimes found before the piers of the gateway; and from them, as a base, a long avenue of sphinxes is frequently found ranged like an alley or avenue of trees from a mansion to the park-gate, straight or winding, as the case may require.

The longitudinal section of the edifice shows the relative heights of the various parts, and the mode of constructing the soffits or ceilings, which are of the same material of which the walls and columnar ordinances are composed: this is in some cases granite, and in others freestone. The elevation of the pronaos shows also a transverse section of the colonnades and peribolus. It displays most of the general features of Egyptian columnar architecture; the unbroken continuity of outline, the pyramidal tendency of the composition, and the boldness and breadth of every part. The good taste with which the interspaces of the columns are covered may be remarked. Panels standing between the columns would have had a very ill effect, both internally and externally; and if a continued screen had been made, the effect would be still worse, as the columns must then have appeared from the outside absurdly short; but as it is, their height is perfectly obvious, and their form is rendered clear by the contrast of light and shade occasioned by the projection of the panels, which would not exist if they had been detailed between the columns. The lotus ornament at the foot of the panels is particularly simple and elegant; and nothing can be more graceful and effective than the cyma above their cornice, which is singularly enriched with ibis mummy-cascs. The jambs forming a false doorway in the central interspace, are a blemish in the composition; and they injure it very much by the abruptness of their form, and their want of harmony with any thing else in it. Ŗ n 1 A v be remarked, that the effect of the front generally > s t ' ιat [7:3:433] of an excavation rather than of a structure, the end piers and entablature having a unity of purpose, which leads to the idea that the rest was similar, or the whole at first a plain wall afterwards pierced and carved into its present form. This view of it would support the supposition that the excavations or hypogea are the antitypes of columnar architecture.

The front elevation of the moles or propylaea, with the orand entrance between them, is peculiarly Egyptian; and very little variety is discoverable between the earliestand latest specimens of this species of structure. It is an object that must be seen to be appreciated; simplicity and an inherent impressiveness in the pyramidal tendency are all on which it has to depend for effect, except magnitude, which alone would certainly make no agreeable impression on the mind. The projecting fillet and coving which form a cornice to the structures, though large and bold, appear small and inefficient when compared with the bulk they crown; and there is nothing particularly striking in the torus which marks the lateral outline and separates the straight line of the front from the circular of the cornice. Neither are they dependent for their effect on the sculpture, for their appearance is as impressive at such a distance as to make the latter indistinct, as near, if not more so. The effect of the sculptures and hieroglyphics generally on Egyptian architecture is to enrich the surfaces, but not to interfere with the general form of a structure, or even with those of its minor parts.

A portion of the porticois given on a larger scale, to show more clearly the forms and arrangement of Egyptian columnar composition. The shaft of the column in this example is perfectly cylindrical. It rests on a square step, or continued stylobate, without the intervention of a plinth or base of any kind; and has no regular vertical channelling or enrichment, such as fluting, but is marked horizontally with series of grooves, and inscribed with hieroglyphics. The capitals are of different sizes and forms in the same ordinance. This example is about one diameter of the column in height, exclusive of its receding abacus. Its outline is that of the cyma, with a reversed ovalo fillet above, and its enrichment consists principally of lotus flowers. The capital of the column next to this, in the front line, is much taller, differently formed, and ornamented with palm leaves; the third is of the same size and outline as the first, but differently ornamented; and the corresponding columns on the other side of the centre have capitals corresponding with these, each to its fellow, in the arrangement. Above the capital there is a square block or receding abacus, which has the effect of a deepening of the entablature, instead of a covering of the columns when the capitals spread, as in this case. In the earlier Egyptian examples, however, in which the columns are swollen, and diminished in two unequal lengths, the result is different, and the form and size of the abacus appear perfectly consistent. The height of this column and its capital, without the abacus, is six diameters, lhe entablature consists of an architrave and cornice, there being no equivalent for the frieze of a Greek entablature, unless the coving be so considered, in which case the cornice becomes a mere shelf. The architrave, including the torus, is about three quarters of a diameter h e ⅛ht> which is half that of the whole entablature, lhe architrave itself is in this example sculptured in low chef, but otherwise plain. The torus, which returns and uns down the angles of the building, is gracefully band- ’ something like the manner in which the fasces are represented in Roman works. The coving is divided into 0 ∏ιpartments by vertical flutes, which have been thought 0 be ^ le origin of triglyphs in a Doric frieze; but these rc arranged without reference to the columns, and are in other respects so totally different from them as to give but little weight to the opinion. The compartments are beautifully enriched with hieroglyphics, except in the centre, where a winged globe is sculptured, surmounting another on the architrave, as shown in the elevation of the pronaos. The crowning tablet or fillet is quite plain and unornamented. Angular roofs are unknown in ancient Egyptian buildings, and consequently pediments are unknown in its architecture.

Of the style of architecture used in the domestic edifices of the Egyptians we can give no idea, as no documents remain by which it may be known; neither can we judge of it by analogy from what we know of that of other nations of antiquity, for no direct analogy exists between the styles of their mutually existing structures. Indeed the Romans are the only people, above the Christian era, of whose domestic architecture we know any thing with certainty; and the advantages they possessed over their predecessors in their knowledge of the use of the arch was so great, for that purpose especially, that theirs affords no ratio for that of the Greeks even, and still less for that of the Egyptians.

Or Hindoo Structures.

From local circumstances, structures in India are exposed to rapid destruction as soon as they lose the protecting power of man; and thus the absence of any positive architectural works in that country which can be determined to be of high antiquity maybe partly accounted for. But religious intolerance and devastating war have conspired together to aid natural causes in the destruction of the ancient edifices of the Hindoos. Whatever of antiquity fell in the route of that ruthless conqueror Mahmood of Ghizni, in his twelve expeditions into India, was defaced or destroyed; and those structures in the more remote parts, impervious to his march, either want data to pronounce on their antiquity, or, when they possess any, it is in a character still unintelligible to the learned. But there are some to which tradition—and this we should not altogether reject—assigns a date beyond the age of Alexander; and we understand that the unity of style of these warrants the assumption of immense priority for them to all now existing in Gangetic India. It is from Rajpootana that we may yet look for developments of the ancient architecture of the Hindoos; a field of great magnitude, only just begun to be explored, and still remaining unde-lineated. Extensive excavations, however, of much greater magnitude even than those of Egypt, and, it is presumed, of at least equal antiquity, are found in various parts of India; and they may be supposed to bear some resemblance to their contemporaneous structures, of which, most likely, they were either the representations or the originals. But we thus arrive only at the style: the composition and arrangement of structures cannot be deduced from the hypogea; for though these latter in Egypt agree in style with the architecture, they would not suggest the other particulars.

The most common Hindoo pagoda of the present day is composed of a rectangular mass, surmounted by a graduated truncate pyramid. That this species of structure is of very considerable antiquity, may be concluded from the fact, that every thing in its composition and arrangement is determined by immutable precepts of a religious nature. This was ascertained by Colonel Tod, the learned annalist of Central India, from a man to whom the precept had descended with his profession from his ancestors through more than forty generations.

These kinds of evidence, however, though interesting, are not conclusive; and we must consent, for the present at least, to remain in ignorance of the Hindoo architecture, [7:3:434]of the early ages, to which our inquiry is more immediately directed. The splendid works of the Moslem conquerors of that country bear no relation whatever to its indigenous architecture.

Of Grecian Structures.

As no nation has ever equalled the Egyptians in the extent and magnitude of their architectural monuments, neither have the Greeks been surpassed in the exquisite beauty of form and proportion which theirs possess. Extreme simplicity and perfect harmony pervade every part of a Greek structure; and to the evanescence of the finer spirit of these qualities may be referred the difficulty— for great difficulty certainly exists—of applying Grecian architecture to modern practice. The national style, or Doric Order, is in every respect the most distinguished and the most intractable. The voluted Ionic being more complicated, is more plastic; and the foliated Corinthian, from its still greater divergence from Doric simplicity and harmony, is the most easily moulded to various purposes. Unfortunately nothing remains from which we might acquire a knowledge of the practice of the Greeks themselves in the architecture of domestic and general structures; but it may be inferred from some existing edifices, particularly the Choragic monuments, that the Doric columnar style was not used by them except for the temples of the gods and some of their accessories. But whether this arose—if the feeling really did exist—from the sanctity of its character, in consequence of that appropriation, or from the difficulty of moulding it to general purposes, cannot be determined. It is very certain, however, that the few structures which do exist of Greek origin, not of a religious character, are either Ionic or Corinthian, or a mixture of one of them with some of the features of the Doric; and in all Greece and the Grecian colonies, except Ionia, there are very few examples of religious edifices not of the Doric order, and none which are of the Corinthian.

We have already given our reasons for mistrusting the descriptions of ancient writers on architectural subjects; and when they merely make reference to different parts of a structure, without pretending to describe, in the absence of examples or models they must be unintelligible, and therefore no more valuable to the architectural antiquary than those of the others, whom existing specimens of what they profess to describe prove to have been totally ignorant of their subject. We shall therefore not attempt to develope what does not exist, either from inferences to be drawn from Homer and others, from the professional dicta of Vitruvius, or from the description of Pausanias; but confine ourselves to the remains of the architecture itself of the Greeks, which are actually before our eyes, for the elucidation and exemplification of the Grecian style.

Like the architecture of Egypt, that of Greece is known to us principally by means of its sacred monuments, and from them is deduced almost all we know of its principles. The Doric temples of the Greeks are uniform in plan, and differ only in arrangement and proportion, as they are of greater or less size; for every part depends on the same thing. If the dimensions of a single column, and the proportion the entablature shall bear to it, were given to two individuals acquainted with the style, with directions to compose a hexastyle peripteral temple, or one of any other description, they would produce designs exactly similar in size, arrangement, features, and general proportions, differing only, if at all, in the relative proportions of minor parts, and slightly perhaps in the contour of some of the mouldings. This can only be the case with the Doric, and it arises from the intercolumniation being determined by the arrangement of the frieze with triglyphs and metopes; the frieze bearing a certain proportion in the entablature to the diameter of the column, and so on in such a manner that the most perfect harmony is p re . served between every part. Thus, in the example, the column is so many of its diameters in height; it diminishes gradually from the base upwards, with a slightly convex-ed tendency or swelling downwards; and is superimposed by a capital proportioned to it, and coming within its height. The entablature is so many diameters high also and is divided, according to slightly varying proportions into three parts—architrave, frieze, and cornice. A triglyph bearing a certain proportion to the diameter of the column is drawn immediately over its centre; the metope is then set off equal to the height of the frieze; another triglyph is drawn, which hangs over the void; then a metope as before; and a second triglyph, the centre of which is the central line for another column; and so on to the number required, which, in a front, will be four, six, eight, or ten columns,'as the case may be, the temple being tetrastyle, hexastyle, octastyle, or decastyle; and on the flanks twice the number of those on the front and one more, counting the columns on the angles both ways. Thus a hexastyle temple will have thirteen columns on each flank, an octastyle seventeen, and so on. It must be observed, however, that to ease the columns at the angles, they are not placed so that the triglyph over them shall impend their centre as the others, but are set in towards the next columns so far that a line let fall from the outer edge of the triglyph will touch the circumferential line of the column at the base, or at its greatest diameter. It has been generally thought that the object in this disposition was to bring the triglyph to the extreme angle, to obviate the necessity of a half-metope there; and many imitators have puzzled themselves to no avail to effect it, without contracting the intercolumniation or elongating the first metope; though it is perfectly obvious that the intention of the Greek architects was to ease the columns in those important situations of a part of their burden, and for no such purpose as Vitruvius and his disciples have thought. Indeed, this has been a problem to the whole school, which their master proposed, and which they have settled only by putting a half-metope beyond the outer triglyph; thus preserving the intercolumniation equal, but rendering the angles more infirm, or perhaps less stable, than the Greek architects judiciously thought they should be. Besides contracting the intercolumniation, the Greeks also made the corner columns a little larger than the rest, thus counteracting in every way the danger that might accrue to them, or to the structure through them, from their exposed and partly unconnected situation. The graduated pyramidal stylobate on which the structure rests also bears a certain proportion to the standard which is the measure of all the rest; and so every part is determined by the capacity of the sustaining power. Though the Doric order thus possesses, as ıe were, a self-proportioning power, which will secure harmony in its composition under any circumstances, yet skill and taste in the architect are necessary to determine, according to them, the number of diameters the column shall have in height, and according to that assign the height of the entablature. For these two points in proportioning, and for appropriate detail and enrichment, he may, without servility, refer to the ancient examples; with the confidence, moreover, that in availing himselí of their beauties he acquires the power of producing an object that shall be itself beautiful, while he can avoid being a mere copyist in the adaptation and arrangement of the materials of his composition, as well as in the selection [7:3:435]of them. We cannot discover that the elevation of the pediment depended so immediately on the common standard, though in the best examples the tympanum will be found to be about one diameter and a half in height.

The Ionic and Corinthian, or Voluted and Foliate orders, do not possess that innate principle of harmony which pervades the Doric, and therefore they are, as styles, less perfect, and depend more on factitious combinations. The Greek compositions of Ionie and Corinthian are of such consummate beauty in every particular, that their examples appear perfect, and may therefore be taken as models for study, in preference to the rules which have been laid down for those orders, without a knowledge of these exemplifications. With a consciousness of their inferior capacity to produce grand and harmonious effects in such arrangements as their temples require, the Greeks never applied either the Ionic or the Corinthian peripterally, and, as far as we have certain knowledge, only the latter in prostyles. Whether the Ionians did or did not, cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, as their temples are in every case so much destroyed, that it is impossible, at least without more care and attention than they have yet received, to make out satisfactorily what their plans were, ln the Ionic and Corinthian orders, the proportions of the various parts are generally made dependent on the diameter of the column, as in the Dorie; but the intereolumniations, and consequently the general proportions, of a composition, are not determined by the column and its accessories according to their capacity, but must be left to the taste and skill of the architect, as well as the columnar proportions themselves. This gave rise to the rules referred to, which are laid down by Vitruvius, for what he calls the “Five Sorts of Edifiées,” or, more correctly, species of intereolumniation. They are pyenostyle, systyle, diastylc, araeostyle, and eustyle, to each of which a fixed space is assigned. Architects will, however, act more wisely in judging for themselves, by reference to the best models of antiquity, what proportion constitutes an Eustyle intercolunmiation, according to the application of his ordinance, than by attending to such irrational dogmas as are contained in that classification.

The temples of the Greeks are described, according to their external arrangement, as being either in antis, prostyle, amphiprostyle, peripteral, pseudo-peripteral, dipteral, or pseudo-dipteral; and internally, as cleithral or hypaethral. The columnar arrangement in antis is not common in Greek architecture, though there are examples of it, generally of the Dorie order. The inner porticos or 'pronaoi of peripteral temples are for the most part placed ’ ι∏ antis, as may be seen by reference to the examples, in which columns stand between the antae. The Ionie temples of Athens are the principal examples of the simple prostyle. They may be called apteral, if it be necessary to distinguish them from peripteral, as the latter we prostylar; but the former term alone is sufficient. 5either does Greek architecture present more than one xample, and that is at Athens also, of an amphiprostyle, except in the same peripteral structures, which are also amphiprostylar. Almost all the Dorie temples are peripteral, and being peripteral, they are, as a matter of course, am phiprostylar, as we have just remarked; so that the former term alone is used in describing an edifice of that •nd, with the numeral which expresses the number of co umns in each of its prostyles. There is but one known example of Greek antiquity of a pseudo-peripteral temple, an that is the gigantic fane of Jupiter Olympius at Agrigentum in Sicily. It is not even prostylar, for the columns on its fronts are attached, as well as those on its flanks. The dipteral arrangement is found at Selinus, in an octastyle temple; and in some cases the porticos of peripteral temples have a pseudo-dipteral projection, though no perfect example of the pseudo-dipteros exists.

Most of the temples of the Greeks were eleithral; those to the inferior and demi-gods were invariably so. The fanes of the supreme divinity were almost as invariably hypaethral, and frequently those of other superior gods were of the latter description also. The Dorie order was never used by the Greeks in mere prostyles; consequently there is no Dorie temple of the tetrastyle arrangement, for it is incompatible with the peripteral, the tetrastyle examples which do exist being all Ionie.^[23. Athens itself containing a Doric tetraprostvle, may seem to contradict this; but it must be recollected that we have already Uiìd i e 33 ŋ’ that in s P cakin g of Greek architecture, we exclude all the examples, even in Greece itself, which were executed er the Roman dominion, for they bear the Roman impress; and that is one of them. ] With very few exceptions, all the Doric temples of the Greeks are hexastyle. Their queen, however, the unmatched Parthenon, is octastyle; and the pseudo-peripteral fane of Jupiter Olympius at Agrigentum, just referred to, presents the singular arrangement, heptastyle. No example exists in Greek architecture of a porticoof more than eight columns, except the mis-shapen monument called the Basilica ∙at Paestum, the Thersites of its style, be so considered, and that has a front of nine columns, or an enneastyle arrangement.

It may be here remarked, in support of the opinion we have given as to the authority of Vitruvius, that, according to him, peripteral temples have on each flank twice the number of intereolumniations they have in front; thus giving to a hexastyle eleven, to an octastyle fifteen columns, and so on, whereas in the Greek temples this is never the ease, for they always have more. The best examples have two, some have but one, but many have three, and in one instance there are four intereolumniations more in flank than in front. Again, he limits the internal hypaethral arrangement to those structures which are externally deeastyle and dipteral, though an example, he says, existed in Greece of an octastyle hypaethros, and that was a Roman structure. Now, the Parthenon is an octastyle hypaethros, but all the other hypaethral temples, both in Greece and her colonies, are hexastyles, except perhaps the octastyle dipteral at Selinus; and there is no evidence in existence that the Greeks ever constructed a deeastyle dipteral temple.

A Greek temple, whose columnar arrangement is simply in antis, whether distyle or tetrastyle, consists of pronaos and naos or cella. A tetraprostyle may have behind it a pronaos and naos. An amphiprostyle has, in addition to the preceding, a postieum, but is not understood to have a second entrance. The portieoes of a peripteral temple are distinguished as the portieus and postieum, and the lateral ambulatories are incorrectly called peristyles. It may indeed be here suggested, that as the admixture of Latin with Greek terms in the description of a Grecian edifice cannot be approved of, it would perhaps be better to apply the term stoa to the colonnaded platform or ambitus altogether, and distinguish the various parts of it by the addition of English adjectives: or the common term portieo would be quite as well with front, back, and side or lateral, prefixed, as the ease may be. Within the back and front stoas or porticos, then, a peripteral temple has similar arrangements in antis, which are relatively termed the pronaos and opisthodomus, with an entrance only from the former; unless there should exist, as there does in the Parthenon, a room or chamber within the opisthodomus, supposed to be the treasury, when a door opens into it from the latter. Besides these, [7:3:436] a Greek temple of the most ramified description consists only of a cell, in those which are cleithral; and of a naos, which is divided into nave and aisles, to use modern ecclesiastical terms, in an hypaethral temple. .

The only pure Greek architectural works that remain to us, and of which we have certain information, besides temples, are, it has been already stated, propylaea, chora- .gic monuments, and theatres. The Propylaeum, by way of eminence, that to the Acropolis of Athens, is the entrance or gateway through the wall of the peribolus into it. It consists of a Doric hexaprostyle portico internally, with a very singular arrangement of its columns, the central intercolumniation being ditriglyph. This was done probably to allow a certain procession to pass, which would have been incommoded by a narrower space. Within the porticothere is a deep recess, similar to the pronaos in a temple, but without columns in antis; a wall pierced with five doorways corresponding to the intercolumniations of the portico close the entrance; and beyond it is a vestibule, divided into three parts by two rows of three Ionic columns, and forming an outer portico fronted externally by a hexaprostyle exactly similar to that on the outside. Right and left of it, and setting out about one intercolumniation of the porticofrom its end columns, at right angles, are two small triastyle porticos in antis, with chambers behind them. These have been called temples, but most probably they were nothing more than porters’ lodges or guard-houses. The whole structure, though extremely elegant, and possessing many beauties, is not a good architectural composition: the unequal intereolumniation detracts from its simplicity and harmony. The use of Ionic columns in a Doric ordinance is equally objectionable; and their elevation from the floor of the porticoon insulated pedestals is even worse, though their intention is obvious; and without raising them, the ceiling might have been too low, or they must have been made taller.^[24. An editorial note in the new edition of The Antiquities of Athens says that “they are incorrectly mounted on pedestals” in Stuart and llevett s Restoration. This structure cannot perhaps fairly be judged of, until its site and remains shall have been examine without the jealous supervision of a Turkish governor. ] The uneven style of the small temples or lodges is not pleasing, even though they be taken as flank and not as front compositions; and, moreover, their entablature abuts indefinitely against the walls of the larger structure, both internally and externally, to the total destruction of the harmony of the general composition. Indeed the unequal heights of the entablature of the greater ordinance involves a fault, if there were not something to prevent them from being seen in the same view, which it requires more than all the beauties of detail and harmony of proportion to countervail.

The choragic monument of Lysicrates, vulgarly called the Lanthorn of Demosthenes, at Athens, is a small structure, consisting of an elegant rusticated quadrangular basement or podium, which is more than two fifths of the whole height, surmounted by a cyclostyle of six Corinthian columns, attached to, and projecting rather more than one half from, a wall which perfects the cylinder up to the top of their shafts, where it forms a podium for tripods the height of the capitals. A characteristic entablature rests on the columns, and receives a tholus or dome, which is richly ornamented, and terminates in a foliated and heliced acroterium. To this Stuart has added dolphins as supporters, and has placed on the summit a tripod, which was the prize in the choragic festival; thus completing perhaps the most beautiful composition in its style ever executed. In Vitruvian language the arrangement of this edifice would be called monopteral; • but it is more correctly cyclostylar, or, perhaps, because of the wall or core, it may be termed a pseudo or attached cyclostyle. The basement of this monument is eminently bold and simple, admirably proportioned to the rest of the structure, and harmonizing perfectly with it. The columnar ordinance is the only perfect specimen of the style in existence of pure Greek origin, and it has never been surpassed, perhaps not equalled, in beauty elsewhere. The most exquisite harmony reigns throughout its composition: it is simple without being poor, and rich without being meretricious; and the same applies to the superimposed tripod and its supports.

Totally different in style and arrangement, and far inferior in merit, is the choragic monument of Thrasyllus. It bears, however, the impress of the Grecian mind. This composition is merely a front to a cave, consisting of three pilasters proportioned and moulded like Doric antae, and supporting an entablature similar in style, but too shallow to harmonize with them. Above the entablature there is an attic or parapet, divided into three compartments horizontally. The two external form tablets with a cornice or impost on them, and the central is composed of three receding courses, on the summit of which is seated a draped human figure, whether male or female, in its mutilated state is not determinable. The entablature, instead of triglyphs in the frieze, has laurel wreaths; and it would appear as if the absence of that feature had deranged the whole composition. The two outer pilasters are of good proportion, and the architrave is well proportioned to them; but the frieze and cornice are both too narrow, and the spaces between the pilasters, equivalent to intercolumniations, are too wide. The third pilaster, itself inharmonious, is absurdly narrow, being narrower than the others; and, standing immediately under the statue, evidently to support it, its mcagreness is the more obvious and striking. In spite of all this, the general outline of the structure is simple and pleasing, the detail is elegant, and the execution spirited and effective. This little monument is, however, a proof that the Greeks were not so excellent in architectural compositions at all times, as in the self-composing Doric temples, and in the choragic monument of Lysicrates; and to this evidence may be added that of the triple temple in the Acropolis of Athens. It consists of an Ionic hexaprostyle in front, resting on a' bold, continuous, and well-proportioned stylobate, and forming the entrance to a parallelogramic cella, but, from all that has yet been discovered, without a pronaos in antis. The back-front consists of four columns like those of the portico attached in antis; and the flanks are broad and bold, crowned by the well-proportioned and chaste entablature, with the enriched congeries of mouldings and running ornament of the antae under it. In the absence of a pronaos to give depth to the portico the composition was defective, but otherwise simple and harmonious. It was, however, completely spoiled by the attachment of a tetraprostyle to one of its sides, Ionic certainly, like that in front, but not only in a different manner, but of a different size; beautiful in itself, but a blot on the main building, with which it harmonizes in no one particular, being altogether lower; for the apex of its pediment only reaches to the cornice of the former. This and the Caryatidean porticoare omitted in the example. In a similar situation, against the other side is attached a similar arrangement of Caryatides, a tetraprostyle of female figures raised on a lofty basement, and yet not reaching to the entablature of the main building,—according in no one particular either with it or with the porticoon the other side, and altogether forming the most heterogeneous [7:3:437]and inharmonious combination imaginable. Yet the two Ionic porticos are the most beautiful examples of their order in existence, and perhaps, it may be added, that were ever executed,—arranged in the finest proportion, and with the most exquisite details and enrichments. The Caryatidean frontispiece, also, for more it cannot be called is full of architectural beauties, though it is most injudiciously collocated. .

The theatres of the Greeks, it has been already intimated, present but little to interest in the view we are taking of architecture. They were not structures, but excavations; and whatever decoration they may have received to make them objects of interest externally, is, in every known example, entirely gone; and attempts to restore them from their existing remains, and the information to be derived from ancient writers, would be futile, without a knowledge of Greek architecture gained elsewhere, proving that they themselves cannot furnish it, and of course cannot yield it to us. No example of it furnishing us with matter for architectural illustration, we should gain no information in furtherance of our present subject by treating of it here.

The division of che columnar architecture of the Greeks and Romans into orders by the Italian architects of the fifteenth century, according to the laws of Vitruvius, and the universal reception of that mode of arranging it, almost imposes on us the necessity of adopting the same course, and laying down a standard or model for each. But instead of so doing, we think it better to give each school separately, and describe the general features of the orders as they occur in the works of each,—pointing out, moreover, the varieties that exist, and prevent the monotony consequent on restricted forms and proportions. We retain, too, the term “Order,” and the names in general use, without consenting to the propriety of either the one or the other; for if it be judicious to divide Greek and Roman columnar architecture into orders, there can be no reason why Egyptian, Hindoo, Persian, or any other style, should not be classed in a similar manner. Moreover, there is nothing in any one “order” that, were it not for custom, would not be thought as fitting in any other as in that to which it may belong. The Greeks did not hesitate to put triglyphs in the frieze of an entablature whose columns were fillet-fluted and had foliated capitals, as some ruins at Paestum attest. As to names, the Doric might, as we have said, be called Corinthian with more propriety; the Ionic, Samian; and the Corinthian, Athenian; referring to the oldest known examples of each. The term Style would be more correct than Order, as it would indicate the column as the feature referred to, without conveying the idea of fixed rules; and architectural works into which columns do not enter need not be constrained to admit the arrangement of some Order in the composition, proportion, and detail of its various arts. In naming, too, the Doric might be called the Greek sacred or triglyphed style; the Ionic, the Voluted style; and the Corinthian, the Foliated; thus admitting any varieties of combination which could be expressed as composites of the voluted and foliate, or of the foliate and triglyphed, as the case might be.

An Order, according to Mr Gwilt, is “an assemblage of parts, consisting of a base, shaft, capital, architrave, irιeze, and cornice, whose several services requiring some distinction in strength, have been contrived or designed m five several species,...each of which has its ornaments as well as general fabric proportioned to its strength and character.” Perrault says that an order may be defined a rule for the proportion of columns, and for the form θι certain parts which belong to them, according to the dineront proportions which they have.” We would have it understood to be a species of columnar arrangement, differing in its forms and general proportions, and in some leading features, from any other. Greek columnar architecture may thus be divided into the three arrangements or orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, which form its classes or styles. In considering them, however, it is necessary to discharge the mind of all the absurdities of the Italo-Vitruvian school about the proportions of the human figure being applied to columns, whether virile, matronal, or virginal; about the trunks of trees and rafters’ feet; whether Doric columns should not have bases because men have feet, or that Ionic columns should have them because women wore sandals; that the guttae in a Doric entablature should be conical, and not pyramidal, because they are to look like drops of water; that sculls, furies, thunderbolts, and daggers may be used to enrich a Doric frieze, but that spears, and swords, and stars, and garters may not;—these, with the thousand other puerilities of the Cinquecentists, whether Italian, French, or English,—whether acquired from the writings of Palladio and Scamozzi, of Perrault and Leclerc, or of Wotton and Chambers,—must be forgotten, and the greater or less degree of beauty resulting from this or that mode of arrangement and detail alone attended to.

Not to induce the idea that the quoted examples of the antique should be imitated to the line and letter, but rather in spirit, we shall speak of the proportions of their various parts generally; though it must at the same time be understood that much of the beauty of a columnar composition depends on its minutiae: still it is not necessary that these minutiae should be mere repetitions of an original; it is in the spirit of the antique models that excellence is to be sought, and not in crude rules for their reproduction.

Of the Grecian Doric.

This order may be divided into three parts, Stylobate, Column, and Entablature. The stylobate is from two thirds to a whole diameter of the column in height, in three equal courses, which recede gradually the one above from the one below it, and on the floor or upper step the column rests. That graduation, it may be remarked, does not appear to have been made by the ancients to facilitate the access to the floor of the stoa or portico but on the principle of the spreading footings of a wall, to give both real and apparent firmness to the structure, both of which it does in an eminent degree.

The column varies in different examples from four to six diameters in height, of which the capital, including the necking, is rather less than half a diameter: in those cases in which a necking does not exist, the capital itself occupies nearly the same proportion. The shaft diminishes in a slightly curved line, called entasis, from its base or inferior diameter upwards to the hypotrachelium, leaving it at that place, or at the superior diameter, from two thirds to four fifths of the lower or inferior, which latter is the diameter always intended when the term is used as a measure of proportion. The capital consists of a necking, an echinus or ovalo, and an abacus; the necking is about one fifth of the height of the capital, and the other two members equally divide the remaining four fifths: when there is no necking, the ovalo occupies the greater proportion of the whole height. The abacus is a square tablet, whose sides are rather more than the inferior diameter of the column. The corbelling of the ovalo adapts it to both the diminished head of the shaft and the extended abacus, flowing into the one, and forming a bed for the other by means of a graceful cyma-reversa; but ] its lower part is encircled by three or four rings or annulets, which are variously formed in different examples, [7:3:438]and which are the means of giving the echinus form to the great moulding, although it is, as we have said, part of a cyma-reversa. The shaft is divided generally into twenty flutes; but there are several examples with sixteen, and there is one with twenty-four. The flutes are sometimes segments of circles, sometimes semiellipses, and sometimes eccentric curves. They always meet in an arris or edge, and follow the entasis and diminution of the column up through the hypotrachelium to the annulets, under which they finish, sometimes with a straight and sometimes with a curved head. At the base they detail on the pavement or floor of the stylobate.

The third part of the order, the entablature, ranges in various examples from one diameter and three quarters to rather more than two diameters in height, of which about four fifths is nearly equally divided between the architrave and frieze, and the cornice occupies the remaining one fifth: this is in some cases exactly the distribution of the entablature. The architrave is in one broad face, four fifths, and sometimes five sixths of its whole height; and the remaining fifth or sixth is given to a projecting continuous fillet called the taenia, which occupies one half the space, and a regula or small lintel attached to it, in lengths equal to the breadth of the triglyphs above in the frieze. From the regulae six small cylindrical drops called guttae depend. There are examples to the contrary, but it may be taken as a general rule, that the architrave is not in the same vertical line with the upper face of the shaft, or its circumferential line, at the superior diameter, but is projected nearly as much as to impend the line or face of the column at the base. The frieze, vertically, is plain about six sevenths of its whole height, and is bounded above by a fascia, slightly projecting from it, which occupies the remaining seventh. Horizontally, however, it is divided into triglyphs and metopes, which regulate the intercolumniations in the manner that has been already described; the former being nearly a semidiameter in width, and the latter the space interposed between two triglyphs, generally an exact square, its breadth being equal to the whole height of the frieze, including the fascia. This latter breaks round the triglyphs horizontally, and is a little increased in depth on them. Each glyph, of which there are two whole ones and two halves to every tablet, is one fifth of the width of the whole, and the interglyphs are each one seventh of the whole tablet or triglyph. The glyphs detail on the taenia of the architrave, but are variously finished above. In some examples they are nearly square-headed, with the angles rounded off; in others the heads are regular curves, from a flat segment to a semiellipsis. The semiglyphs are finished above in a manner peculiar to themselves, with a turn or drop; but hardly two examples correspond in that particular. The tablets in which the glyphs are cut are vertical to the face of the architrave, the metopes recede from them like sunk panels; these are often charged with sculptures, and indeed almost appear contrived to receive them. The third and crowning part of the entablature, the cornice, in what may be considered the best examples, projects from the face of the triglyphs and architrave about its own height. Vertically, it is divided into four equal parts, one of which is given to a square projecting fillet at the top, with a small congeries of mouldings, dif-erent, and differently proportioned to each other, in various examples. Two other parts are given to the corona, and the remaining fourth to a narrow sunk face below it, with the mutules and their guttae. These latter form the soffit or planceer of the cornice, which is not horizontal or at right angles to the vertical face of the entablature generally, but is cut up inwards at an angle of about 80°. The width of the mutules themselves is regulated by that of the triglyphs over which they are placed, to which it is exactly equal. They are ornamented each with three rows of six small cylinders, similar to those which depend from the regulae under the triglyphs and on the architrave. There are twice the number of mutules that there are of triglyphs, one of the former being placed over every metope also in the manner the examples indicate.

This completes the Greek Doric Order according to the generally received sense of the term; but there are other parts necessary to it. In the front or on the ends of a] temple, or over a portico a pediment is placed. Its i∏-l tention is obviously to inclose the ends of the roof, but it forms no less a part of the architectural composition, hi reason, it should be raised as much as the roof required; but when the span is great that would be unsightly; and reference appears to have been made to the common standard of proportion, as the pediments of most Doric temples are found to be about one diameter and a half in height at the apex of the tympanum, which in a hexastyle arrangement makes an angle at the base of about 14°, and in an octastyle about 12∣ 0 . The pediment is covered by the cornice, without its mutules, rising from the point of its crowning fillet, so that no part of it is repeated in profile. Another moulding, however, is superimposed: sometimes this is an ovalo with a fillet oyer it, and sometimes a cymatium. It varies much in its proportion to the cornice, but in the best examples it is about one half the depth of the latter without its mutules. Ornaments of various kinds, statues or foliage, are believed to have been placed on the apices and at the feet of pediments as acroteria. Of these, however, we have no actual remains; but indications of the plinths or blocks which may have received them exist, and such things appear represented in ancient coins and medallions. The tympana of pediments are well known as receptacles of ornamental sculpture. On the flank of a Doric temple, the cornice supported a row of ornamented tiles called antefixae. These formed a rich and appropriate ornament, but they rather belonged to the roof than to the columnar arrangement or order. The antefixae covered the ends of the joint-tiles as the pediments did those of the roofs; and corresponding ornaments called stelai rose out of the apices of the joint-tiles, forming a highly enriched ridge.

A secondary Doric order arises in the disposition of a; Grecian temple, from the columns of the pronaos and the inner part of the external entablature continued and repeated. Of this the frieze is generally without triglyphs, though there may be regulae and guttae on the architrave. The fascia of the frieze is either moulded or enriched on the face; and, instead of a cornice, the beams of the ceiling are laid at equal intervals to support sunk panels or coffers, in which there maybe flowers or other enrichments.

The proper composition and arrangement of antae are as necessary to the perfection of the Doric order as that of the columnar ordinance itself, especially if the latter be in antis. A slight projection is made from the end and side face of a wall, forming a species of pilaster, whose front shall be nearly equal to the diameter of the columns to which it is attached, exactly equal indeed to the soffit of the entablature, whose faces have been described to impend the circumferential line of the column a little above its base. This rests on the stylobate in the same manner as the columns do, with sometimes a small continuous moulding as a base; and its capital is a congeries of mouldings, about the depth of the abacus, with a plain fascia corresponding to the ovalo of the columnar capital. The entablature of the order to which it is attached rests on it, and, continuing along the flank of the building, is received by a similar combination at the other end. These, it may be remarked, were never diminished or fluted.
[7:3:439]

Being projections from the ends of walls, they could not be diminished without involving an absurdity; and fluting on a straight surface must be productive of monotony, as the flutes can only project a series of equal and parallel shadows. Not so, however, with columns, on whose rotund surface fluting produces a beautiful variety of light and shade in all their gradations, which it could not possess without that enrichment; for on a plain column neither are the lights so bright nor the shadows so dark as in the former case, nor are they so finely diffused over the whole surface in the one as in the other.

In the only example which occurs in the ancient architectural remains of attached Doric columns, that of the pseudo-peripteral temple of Jupiter Olympius at Agrigentum, the stylobate is peculiarly arranged. The upper gradus is grooved, and detailed round the columns and along the walls between them; and a congeries of vertically arranged mouldings and fillets rests on it, and receives the base of the column.

Such are the materials of which the Greeks composed their beautiful temples, the manner of whose composition has been already described. Of their effect, however, it is impossible to form a competent idea without seeing one. And whence, it may be asked, does their interest arise? From their simplicity and harmony;—simplicity, in the long unbroken lines which bound their forms, and the breadth and boldness of every part; such as the lines of the entablature and stylobate, the breadth of the corona, of the architrave, of the abaci, of the capitals, and of their ovalos also; in the defined form of the columns, and the breadth of the members of the stylobate ;—harmony, in the evident fitness of every part to all the rest. The entablature, though massive, is fully upborne by the columns, whose spreading abaci receive it, and transmit the weight downwards by the shafts, which rest on a horizontal and spreading basement; the magnitude of every part, as we have before had occasion to remark, being determined by the capacity of the sustaining power. Besides graceful and elegant outline, and simple and harmonious forms, these structures possess a bewitching variety of fight and shade, arising from the judicious contour and arrangement of mouldings, every one of which is rendered effective,—by the fluting of the columns and the peculiar form of the columnar capital, whose broad, square abacus projects a deep shadow on the bold ovalo, which mingles it with reflections, and. produces on itself almost every variety. The play of light and shade, again, about the insulated columns, is strongly relieved and corrected by the deep shadows on the walls behind them; and in the fronts, where the inner columns appear, the effect is enchanting. For all the highest effects which architecture is capable of producing, a Greek peripteral temple of the Doric order is perhaps unrivalled.

Of the Grecian Ionic.

Not less Hellenic in its detail than the national Doric is the graceful and elegant style called the Ionian, whose proportions and peculiarities we take from the perfect examples of the Athenian Acropolis.

This order may also be considered in three similar parts, Stylobate, Column, and Entablature. The stylobate is in three receding equal courses or steps, whose total height is from four fifths of to a whole diameter. The column, consisting of base, shaft, and capital, is rather more than nine diameters in height, of which the base is two fifths of a diameter; and the capital, including the hypotrachelium, ιs ιn one case three fourths, and in the other seven eighths of a diameter high. The base consists of a congeries of mouldings, extending gradually from one diameter and a third to a diameter and a half, and its height is in three nearly equal parts, with two equal fillets separating them. The lowest, a torus, rests on the top of the stylobate or floor of the portico a fillet divides that from a scotia, a second fillet intervenes that and a second torus, and a third fillet bases the apophyge or escape*of the shaft. The upper torus of the base is, in one example, fillet-fluted horizontally; and, in the other, the same member is enriched with the guilochos. The shaft diminishes with entasis from its lower or whole diameter, to above five sixths of it immediately under the hypotrachelium. It is fluted with twenty-four flutes and alternating fillets, which follow the diminution and entasis of the column. The flutes in plan are nearly semiellipses, and they finish at both ends with the same curve: a fillet is in thickness nearly one fourth the width of a flute. The difference in the height of the capital is in the length of the necking, which in one case is separated from the head of the'shaft by a carved bead, and in the other by a plain fillet. Above the necking, a height of about one third of a diameter is occupied by a congeries of three spreading or corbelling mouldings, a bead, an ovalo, and a torus, which are all appropriately carved. On these rest the parallelogramic block, on whose faces are the volutes, and whose ends are concaved into what is technically termed a bolster, to connect them. This part is about one third of a diameter in height, and includes a rectilinear abacus, whose edges are moulded to an ovalo, and carved with the egg and tongue ornament. The volutes are three fifths of a diameter in depth, and extend in front to one diameter and a half; and they are nearly a semidiameter apart. The flowing lines which connect the volutes can only be understood by reference to the example. The bolsters are fluted vertically, with alternate fillets, on which are carved beads. An ornament composed of the honeysuckle with tendrils encircles the necking of the column. It must be remarked, that as the capitals are parallelogramic, and present but two similar fronts, to preserve the appearance of volutes externally on all sides, the capitals of those columns which occupy the external angles of porticos are differently arranged. The outer. volute is bent out at an angle of 45°, and volutes are put on the end or side-front of the capital also, the outer one being the other side of the angular volute of the front. To suit the angle internally, the two volutes of the inner face are placed at right angles to each other: this is, however, at best but an awkward expedient, and need not be employed when a porticoprojects only one intercolumniation.

The entablature, which is rather more than two diameters in height, is also divided into three parts—architrave, frieze, and cornice—which may be proportioned by dividing the whole height into 'five parts, four of which, as in the Doric, may be again equally divided between the architrave and frieze. The cornice, however, in the examples referred to, does not occupy one fifth of the entablature; but if it had a fillet over the upper moulding, which it appears to want, that would be just its proportion. If the architrave be divided into nine parts, seven of them may be given to three equal fascias, which slightly project the one before the other; the first or lowest, which is vertical to the circumferential line of the inferior diameter, being covered by the second, and the second by the third. The-remaining two ninths form a band of mouldings corbelling a broad fillet, which separates the architrave from the frieze: these mouldings are enriched. The frieze, which does not project quite so much as the lowest fascia of the architrave, is, in the Athenian examples, quite plain; but it may be enriched with foliage, or made the receptacle of sculpture in low relief. The cornice projects from the face of the frieze rather more than [7:3:440] as much as its whole height, and is composed of bed mouldings, a corona, and crown mouldings, she first are a carved bead and carved cyma-reversa, the former of which only occupies a portion of the height of the cornice, as the planceer is cut up inwards in the manner represented by dotted lines in the example, to a sufficient depth for it; the crown mouldings, which consist of a carved ovalo above a carved bead, 'are rather more than one fourth of the whole cornice; and the corona occupies the rest of its height, except that small portion given to the bead of the bed mould. A fillet above the crown mouldings, as already intimated, is certainly necessary to complete the order and receive the antefixae, as described in the Doric, for the flank of a temple.

The pediments in the Ionic examples are rather flatter than in the Doric, the angle made by the covering cornice with the base being, in a hexastyle, less than 14< o . A vertical fillet, with a small moulding, equal in depth to the two crown mouldings of the cornice, covers them in the pediment, in the place of the cyma-recta or ovalo used in the Doric order. The intercolumniation used in these examples is, in the one two diameters, and in the other three diameters and one sixth.

A much greater variety is found in the composition of the Ionic than of the Doric order. Indeed the examples of the Athenian Acropolis alone have neckings; in all the others the shaft runs up to the corbelled mouldings, which bed the block of the volutes, and the flutes finish under them. Neither have they a torus in that congeries, but a bead and ovalo alone, which latter makes an inconvenient projection under the pendent lines that connect the volutes, and thus the capital is not more than half a diameter in height.

The Ionian or Asiatic examples of this order are far inferior to those we have referred to. Their bases are differently, and certainly less elegantly composed. They are without hypotrachelia, as may have been inferred; they want the torus in the capital; and, in most cases, instead of flowing, pendent lines, they have straight lines connecting the volutes. Their entablatures are not so finely proportioned, nor so delicately executed. The coronas want breadth, and the bed moulds of the cornice are as much too heavy as those of Athens are perhaps too light. Indeed, upon the whole, they have more of the grossness of Roman architecture than of the delicacy and elegance of Grecian, though the Ionian examples are supposed to be the models of those of Athens.

The width of the antae of the Ionic order is determined, as in the Doric, by the soffit of the entablature; and it will, of course, be exactly the same as, or rather less than, the inferior diameter of the column. It is slightly raised, too, from the face of the wall at the ends of which it stands. The base of the antae is, in one of the two examples of the Acropolis, a little deeper than that of the column, having a small projecting moulding between the lower torus and the floor; and the lower torus itself is reeded. In the other example there is no difference in the form and proportion of the antae and columnar bases, but both the tori are fluted horizontally, with beaded fillets between the flutes. The antae cap consists of a congeries or corbelling mouldings, nearly one third of a diameter in height. It is divided into three nearly equal parts, the lowest of which is composed of a bead and an ovalo; the seepnd of another bead and a cyma-reversa, all carved; and the third of a plain flat cavetto, with a narrow fillet and small crowning cyma-reversa, forming an abacus. The necking is like that of the capital, and is enriched in the same manner. The cap or cornice thus formed breaks round the projection of the antae, and is continued along the wall under the entablature the whole length of the building, or till it is impeded by some other construction, and the base is continued in like manner. ⅛

Attached columns have the voluted capital, but their base is that of the antae; and it is detailed round them and along the wall to which they belong, as with the antae. It must be remembered, however, that the attached columns in the triple temple are about one ninth less in diameter than those which are insulated, though they are similar in other respects, and have the same entablature.

The back of the triple temple, between the attached columns, presents the only example in Greek architecture of windows. These are rather more than twice their width in height, and are narrower at the top than at the bottom. They rest on a broad, bold sill, which is equal in depth to two sixths of the opening, and are surrounded externally by a congeries of mouldings, which, with a plain fascia, constitute an architrave. This architrave is one fourth the opening in width; it diminishes with the window, and in the same proportion, and is returned above in two knees, which are made vertical to its extreme point at the base.

Of the Grecian Corinthian.

The importance which the Greeks attached to a gradu-i ated stylobate, and the necessity of giving it a relevant proportion in a columnar ordinance, are evinced in the only example of this order which remains to us of Grecian origin. Unlike the Doric and Ionic in its application, which is in temples of rectangular form, whose whole height they occupy, this is attached to a small circular structure, resting on a lofty square basement; and yet, like those orders, it has a stylobate in receding courses, and in plan, too, corresponding with the arrangement of the columns, and not with that of the substructure; thus offering further proof that the stylobate was considered a part of the columnar ordinance. Thus the Corinthian j order also consists of stylobate, column, and entablature. The stylobate is rather more than a diameter in height, and is divided into three parts, but not equally, in consequence, it is probable, of the peculiar position of the ordinance. The two lower grades have vertical faces, are of equal depth, and they occupy three fourths of the whole height; the third step occupies the remaining one fourth, and is moulded on the edge, in exquisite harmony with the more ornate style, of which it forms a part. Like the column of the Ionic order, that of the Corinthian consists of base, shaft, and capital: it is ten diameters in height. The base is rather more than one third of a diameter high, and is composed of a torus and fillet, which are nearly two fifths of its whole height; a scotia and another similar fillet, rather less than the former; and a second torus or reversed ovalo, one fifth the height of the base, on which rests a third fillet basing the apophyge of the shaft. The extent or diameter of the base, at the lower torus, is rather more than one diameter and a half. The shaft diminishes with entasis to five sixths of its diameter at the hypotrachelium, and, like that of the Ionic order, has twenty-four flutes and fillets. The flutes are semieliipses, so deep as nearly to approach semicircles: they finish in the apophyge at the foot of the shaft, in the same manner and form; and at the head they terminate in leaves, to which the fillets are stalks. The fillets are rather more than one fourth the width of the flutes. The hypotrachelium is a simple channel or groove immediately under the capital. The capital itself is a diameter and rather more than one third in height: its core is a perfect cylinder, in bulk rather less than the superior diameter of the shaft. This is banded by a row of water leaves, whose profile is a flat cavetto, one sixth of the whole height, and another of leaves of the acanthus, with flowered buttons attaching them tothecyl⅛∙
[7:3:441]

der. These latter have the contour of a cyma-recta, and are twice the height of the last, or one third of the whole capital. Rather more than another third is occupied by helices and tendrils, which latter support a honeysuckle against the middle of the abacus; and the abacus itself, resting on and covering the whole mass, is but little more than one seventh of the whole height. This member in plan can only be described as a square whose angles are cut off at 45°, and whose sides arc deeply concaved. In profile it consists of a narrow fillet, an elliptical cavetto or reversed scotia, and another fillet surmounted by a small ovalo, or rather a moulding whose profile is the quadrant of an ellipsis.

The entablature of this order is two diameters and two sevenths in height. It also consists of architrave, frieze, and cornice, of which the first occupies one tenth more than a third, the second rather more than as much less than that proportion, and the cornice is so much more again above one third. The architrave is divided, like that of the Ionic order, into three equal fascias, which occupy all but one sixth of its whole height, and that is given to a corbelled band, consisting of a bead, cyma-reversa,' and fillet, separating the two members of the entablature. The fascias of the architrave, it must be remarked, arc not perpendicular, but incline inwards, so that their lower angles are all in the same vertical line, which impends the surface of the shaft about one third of its height from the base. The frieze is one plain band, slightly inclining inwards, like the fascias of the architrave, and slightly projected beyond them: in this example it is enriched with sculptures. The cornice consists of a deep congeries of bed mouldings, and a corona, with the accustomed small crown mouldings and fillet. Its extreme projection is nearly equal to its whole height: of this the bed-mouldings project about two fifths. As in the Ionic cornice, additional height is given to the bedmoulds, by undercutting the planceer. In this case, indeed, it is done to nearly one fourth the height of the corona. One sixth the height of the cornice is given to a flat bead and an ovalo, which are immediately above the frieze, and which base a broad dentilled member that occupies more than one fourth of the whole cornice. This is surmounted by a listel or broad fillet, above which is a cyma-recta, whose narrow fillet nearly reaches the horizontal plane of the planceer, and separates it from a cyma-reversa that beds the superimposed projecting corona. This latter is only three eighths of the whole cornice, and nearly one of the three is given to the ovalo and fillet, the bedmoulds alone occupying five eighths. The cornice is surmounted by a cut fascia supporting honeysuckle antefixae, which may indeed be taken as a part of the order, as the solitary example in question presents it. This, however, we know, from the Doric and Ionic structures, to be a modification of the flank ornament of temples; and we may suppose from analogy, that if used in a portico the cornice of this order would have a cyma-recta to crown it on the inclined side of the pediment. The intercolumniation of this example is two diameters and one third.

Of Corinthian antae we have no examples, nor indeed have we of insulated columns; but as we find in the Ionic examples quoted, that the attached columns are less in proportion to the entablature than those which are insulated, we may conclude that it would be the same with this; thus reducing the entablature to two diameters, the ordinary average of that part in Greek columnar architecture.

Of the Caryatides, or Caryatic Order.

The solecism in architecture of which we have now to speak has but the one existing example in the works of the Greeks, to which we have already referred. It is the third portion of the triple temple in the Athenian Acropolis, and is a projection from the flank of the principal Ionic structure, formed by a stereobatic dado raised on the stylobate and antae-base mouldings of it, with a surbase consisting of a carved bead and carved ovalo corbelling a broad lintel, with a narrow projecting fillet above it. On this rests a square plinth, which bases a draped female figure, on the head of which there is imposed a circular moulded block, with a deep rectangular abacus, two thirds of whose face is vertical, and the other third is a cavetto, fillet, and small cyma-reversa. The stereobate, including the moulded base of the temple, is about three fourths the height of the statue-pillar with its base and capital. The entablature is rather less than two fifths of the same, but it consists of architrave and cornice alone, between which parts the height is nearly equally divided. Rather more than one fifth of the former is given to a carved bead and carved cyma-reversa, with the flat, plain cavetto and fillet which they corbel; the other four fifths are divided nearly equally into three fascias, of which the third or upper one has a fraction more than the other two, and is studded with plain circular tablets, whose diameter is five sixths of its depth. The cornice consists of bedmouldings, corona, and crown mouldings. Two fifths of its whole height is given to the bed-mould, to which one seventh of that may be added for the portion cut up in the planceer. Half that increased height is occupied by a dentilled member, and the other half by a broad plain fillet, a carved bead, carved cyma-reversa, and a narrow fillet above it. The remaining three fifths of the whole cornice being again divided into five parts, rather less than two of them is given to the corona; a little more than one to a plain cyma-reversa and fillet, of which the latter is the wider; and of the rest a carved ovalo occupies five sevenths, and a listel or crowning fillet, with a carved bead on it, the other two. A pier, pilaster, or antae, projects from the wall of the greater temple, and receives the end of the entablature behind the inner figure;for the projection is of two statues and their interspaces. It does not, however, rest on the stereobate, but runs down to the basemouldings of the temple, the dado and surbase abutting against it. The antae is capped by a congeries of carved mouldings, which support a narrow cavetto and fillet: the height of the cap is half the diameter of the antae. There is also a hypotrachelium, consisting of a carved bead and the honeysuckle ornament, occupying about one third of a diameter in height. This Caryatidean portico displays very clearly the arrangement of the ceiling, with its coffers or cassoons. Internally the architrave is plain two thirds of its height; of the remaining third rather more than one half is a plain, slightly projected fascia; and the other is occupied by a carved bead and ovalo. In the absence of a frieze, the ceiling rests on this, and is divided by carved beads into panels, which are deeply coffered, and diminished by three horizontal moulded tascias.

Of Grecian Mouldings and Ornament.

Greek architecture is distinguished for nothing more than for the grace and beauty of its mouldings; and it may be remarked of them generally, that they are eccentric, and not regular curves. They must be drawn, for they cannot be described or struck; so that though they be called circular, or elliptical, it is seldom that they are really so: not but that they may be, but, if they are, it is evidently the result of chance, and not of design. Hence all attempts to give rules for striking mouldings are worse than useless, for they are injurious: the hand alone, directed by good taste, can adapt them to their purpose, and give them the spirit and feeling which renders them effective and pleasing.
[7:3:442]

The leading outline of Greek moulding is the gracefully flowing cyma. This will indeed be found to enter into the composition of almost every thing that diverges from a right line; and even combinations of mouldings are frequently made with this tendency. It is concave above and convex below, or the reverse; and though a long and but slightly fleeted line connect the two ends, they will always be found to correspond; that is, the convexity and the concavity will be in exactly the same curve, so that if the moulded surface were reversed, and the one made to assume the place, it would also have the appearance, of the other, and the effect would be the same. It is, in fact, the Hogarthian line of beauty; and it is not a little singular that Hogarth, in his well-known Analysis of Beauty, although he did not know, and indeed could not have known, the contours of Greek architectural mouldings, has given the principle of them, and, under his line of beauty, has described many of the finest Greek forms. The Roman and Italian mouldings were called Greek in his day, and he assumed them to be so; but they evidently do not agree with his theory, whereas, in principle, the now well-known Greek forms do most completely.

The cyma-recta is generally found to be more upright and less deeply fleeted than the cyma-reversa; it is almost always the profile of enrichments on flat surfaces, of foliage, of the covering moulding of pediments, of the undercut or hooked mouldings in antae-caps, the overhanging not affecting the general principle; and it pervades, as we have said, fleeted architectural lines generally, whether horizontal or vertical. The cyma-reversa has all the variety of inflection that its opposite possesses, but the line connecting its two ends is, for the most part, more horizontal, and its curves are deeper. It pervades many architectural combinations, but is most singularly evinced in the composition of the Greek Doric capital, which is a perfect cyma-reversa, with the ends slightly but sharply fleeted, as it flows out of the shaft below, and ’ turns in under the abacus above. The obviousness of the former is prevented by the annulets which divide the cyma into an ovalo and a cavetto, but the principle is clear.^[25. The presence of the cyma in the Dorie capital was, we believe, first pointed out by Mr T. L. Donaldson, in the supplementary atteιHk>n° θ θ 1 s ^^ icns ∙> though the true contour of the cyma itself appears to have escaped that gentleman’s ] The cyma is the governing outline in the congeries of mouldings in bases also, as may be noticed in the Ionic and Corinthian examples quoted and referred to.

An ovalo is but the upper half of a cyma-reversa, even when it is used as a distinct moulding, and unconnected with the waving form. Its name expresses its apparent rather than its real tendency; for its contour is not that of an egg in any section, though the ornament which is carved on it, when used as a running moulding, is formed like an egg; and from that it was named.

The upper torus of a base forms, with the escape or apophyge of the shaft, a perfect cyma, and the scotia and lower torus do the same; so that the torus and scotia are referable to the same principle when in composition, and they are not found together except in the combination referred to.

The bead is an independent moulding, varying in contour; but it is generally the larger segment of a circle. It is used, however, sometimes to mask the waving form, and sometimes to separate it.

The cavetto, or simple hollow, is part of a cyma also, as we have shown; but it is also applied independently, to obviate a sharp ang<e, or to take from the formality of a vertical line, as. in the abaci or Ionic antae-caps. Its form, nevertheless, is not the segment of a circle, for the tipper part of a cavetto is the most fleeted, and it falls below almost into a straight line.

There is a hooked moulding common in Greek architecture, particularly in the Doric antae-caps, which is technically called the hawk’s-beak. It is a combination of curves which cannot be described in words; but it has been already referred to in speaking of the cyma-recta, which is brought into its composition.

The cyma-recta is never found carved, or sunk within itself; but it sometimes has the honeysuckle, or other ornament of the kind, wrought on it in relief, particularly when used as the covering moulding—the cymatium—of a pediment. The enrichment of the cyma-reversa consists of a contrasted repetition of its own contour meeting in a broad point below, and joining by a circular line above, and making a sort of tongued or leafed ornament, whose surface is inflected horizontally also. Between the leaves a dart-formed tongue is wrought, extending from the circular flexure above to the bottom of the moulding, whose contour it takes in front alone. As this would not mitre or join well on the angles of the cyma, a honeysuckle is gracefully introduced in the manner shown in the example. This enrichment is not wrought in relief on the moulding, but is carved into it, so that the surfaces of the parts of the ornament alone retain the full outline of the cyma. The ovalo is enriched with what is called the egg and dart ornament. This will be best understood by reference to the example. Its angles also are made with a honeysuckle, and the inflections are made in the moulding itself. The torus is sometimes enriched with the interlaced ornament called the guilochos: this too is cut into the moulding itself. We have no Greek example of an enriched scotia, and from its form and position, which, to be effective, must be below the eye, it hardly seems susceptible of ornament which could operate beneficially. The bead is carved in spheres or slightly prolate spheroids, with two thin rings or buttons, dilated at their axes, placed vertically between them. A cavetto is not enriched at all, nor is the hawk’s beak, except by painting, which does not appear to have been an uncommon mode of enriching mouldings among the Greeks; that is, the ornament was painted on the moulded surface instead of being carved into it. Fascias are also found enriched by painted running ornaments, such as the fret or meander, the honeysuckle, and the lotus. Sometimes plain colour was given to a member, to heighten the effect it was intended to produce. Ornaments were painted and gilt on the coffered panels of ceilings too.

The few examples which exist of sculptured ornament on straight surfaces exhibit varieties of nearly the same combinations as those last mentioned,—the honeysuckle with the lotus, and sometimes a variety of itself on scrolls, either throwing out tendrils, or plain. This is found on the necking of the Ionic columns of the Athenian Acropolis, and on those of their antae, and continuing along under the congeries of mouldings, as previously described. The varieties of foliage used in the enrichments of Greek architecture are few, and will be found generally exemplified in the Corinthian capital of the choragic monument of Lysicrates, and in the rich acroteral pedestal or stem of the same edifice, than which we possess no more elaborate specimen of foliate enrichment of the Greek school. There exist many specimens of architectural ornament on vases and fragments, in marble and terracotta, [7:3:443]in which human figures, both male and female, are composed, with a greater variety of foliage than is generally found in Greek architectural works; and many of the beautiful marble and bronze utensils discovered in Herculaneum and Pompeii have enrichments obviously of Greek origin, from which, as well as from the specimens of ornament on positive architectural monuments, we may judge of their productions generally, as well as acquire or imbibe somewhat of the fine taste which originated them.

It would be puerile to speculate on the domestic edifices of the Greeks any further than we have done, as we possess no genuine data on which to proceed. Their sacred structures have taught us their style of architecture; but for its application to general purposes we have no resource but to consult the Roman remains of the exhumated Campanian cities and other places, and gather from analogy what Greek domestic architecture was.

Of Roman Structures.

With a treatise on Roman architecture by a Roman architect, in our hands, mere transcription would appear to be all that is necessary in writing on the subject. But finding that author and existing specimens at variance, we cannot help determining in favour of the superior authority of the latter, to which, therefore, we shall refer to elucidate Roman edifices and the Roman style, as we did to the Greek remains to elucidate the Grecian.

Though far inferior in simplicity and harmony to the columnar architecture of the Greeks, that of the Romans, whether derived from it or not, is evidently of the same family, and is distinguished by boldness of execution and elaborate profusion of ornament. The tastes of the two nations are exemplified in the Doric of the former and the Corinthian of the latter; the one a model of simple grandeur, perfect in its peculiar adaptation, but almost inapplicable to any other purpose; and the other, less refined, but more ornate, making up in extrinsic what it wants in intrinsic beauty—imperfect in every combination, but almost equally applicable to every purpose. As in Greece, so also in Rome, the noblest specimens of columnar architecture are in the temples of the divinity; but it does not appear that the Romans were in the habit of constructing them peripterally, as the Greeks so constantly did. There are indeed ruins which induce the belief that they at times built dipteral temples; but their common practice (as far as existing examples are authorities) was to make them pseudo-peripteral, or apteral and prostylar: of an amphiprostyle, even, we have not an example. It certainly is the custom to restore the ruined temples; whose remains are a few columns only, as if they had been peripteral; but it is done not only without sufficient authority, but against that which the more perfect structures present. The great projection, too, that the Romans gave their porticos, is evidence that they were dependent entirely on themselves for effect; for they are generally projected three columns and their interspaces before the cella, which, however, has no pronaos with columns in antis; nor does it appear from existing remains that the Romans were accustomed to use that arrangement. Circular or peristylar temples are not uncommon m Roman architecture; and there are temples to which it can hardly be supposed that columns were ever attached: these are for the most part polygonal. Neither do the Romans appear ever to have constructed hypaethral temples with columns internally, as the Greeks did. Indeed it is a question whether all their temples were not cleithral; for it is not generally admitted that the Pantheon, which is hypaethral by the open eye of the dome, was originally a temple; and where the structures remain tolerably perfect, the ceilings and roofs appear to have been formed by arching from flank to flank, and thereby quite inclosing them.

The application of columns internally is most strikingly effective in the Pantheon, where they are arranged & in front of niches, or deep recesses, composed with antae to carry a crowning entablature round under an attic on which the cupola rests. No representation can convey even the most incompetent idea of the effect of this arrangement, to those who cannot gather it from the plan. A section presents only one compartment correctly; all the rest must of necessity be foreshortened. It is far otherwise with the temple of peace and the hall of the baths of Diocletian, in which columns stand before the piers to have the entablature broken over them. This, indeed, was the result, as we have before intimated, of the combination of columns with arches; and it is most clearly exemplified in those works which most probably originated the practice, and which are next in pretence to the temples :—these are the triumphal arches.

The Romans had not adopted the simple graduated stylobate of Greek columnar architecture in their temples, but made the access to their porticos in front with thin steps, and built vertical stereobates along the flanks for the walls of the cella, or as stylobates, if there were attached columns. In applying a columnar arrangement to the triumphal arch, this lofty stylobate was taken also. The breadth of the opening prevented the columns from being placed equidistant; they were, therefore, coupled, the entablature was broken over them, and necessarily the stylobate was cut through, leaving mere attached pedestals to stilt the columns, so that the whole ordinance was deprived of every thing that could render it as a composition beautiful: its simplicity and harmony were entirely gone; and instead of giving a graceful character to the structure, it became a mere attached frontispiece, that could only deform it. As if conscious that the Corinthian was too beautiful to maltreat in such a manner, the Roman architects produced the hybrid, which has since been called the Composite order, to use in these compositions: in them, indeed, it is chiefly found; and if it were not evidently a mere deterioration of the Corinthian, it might with truth and propriety be called the Roman order.

Coupled columns, broken and recessed entablatures and pedestals, and the Composite order, are among the greatest blemishes in Roman architecture; for the misformed and inappropriate abortions which have obtained the name of Ionic and Doric, in Roman works, are hardly to be attributed to the school, but to individuals of it, as they are of very infrequent occurrence, and generally appear only in works which are otherwise ungainly. Such are the amphitheatres, whose elliptical forms can never be graceful, and whose architecture was invariably the worst the time produced. The immense structure in Rome, which, from its magnitude, has been called the Colosseum, bears in relief the gross architectural solecism of columns in stories, which, moreover, have recessed stylobates and immense intercolumniations, with large arches in them, which again reduce the effect of the column still more, making the continuity of the entablatures themselves a fault, by their consequent infirmity. The architectural details of this structure are coarse and inelegant, plain without simplicity, and laboured without elegance. But internally these blemishes disappear, columns and arches piled upon columns and arches give way to the long continuous lines which graduated from the arena to the gallery, and must have produced as grand an effect as almost any object in architecture: its magnitude and ruined state produce the imposing effect so striking at the present time; but the mind can easily restore it, or it may [7:3:444]be contemplated in miniature in the amphitheatre at Verona.

The most perfect specimens of the Roman theatre remaining are those of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Like those of the Greeks, they, too, rest on the side of a hill; but instead of being hewn, they are built in it, as there is no rock out of which they might have been excavated. Their general form, however, is very similar to that of the Greek theatre, but they received a greater degree of architectural decoration than the latter was susceptible of. Of this the theatre of Marcellus in Rome is an example; for though otherwise destroyed, its external wall remains, and presents columnar ordinances, with intervening arches in stories, according to the vicious and inelegant practice of the Roman school. This, however, is on a plain, and presents external walls, which other examples do not so completely.

The baths of the Romans were structures of immense extent, and of splendid appearance internally. What their exteriors were we have no competent means of determining; fragments, however, give us reason to believe, that in architectural merit they did not surpass the exteriors of the amphitheatres. The walls internally were covered with stucco, and painted with foliage, figures of animals, and compositions, architectural landscape or history: the floors were of mosaic, laid in compartments, and variously ornamented: the ceilings were vaulted and stuccoed like the walls; sometimes they were enriched with coffered panels containing sculptured flowers or other architectural ornament, and sometimes they were merely painted with what are termed arabesques. Columnar ordinances do not appear to have been much used, and when they were, it was not always with good taste, as we have had occasion already to remark; though the structure called the Pantheon, which, with a great show of probability, is believed to have been a saloon in the baths, perhaps of Agrippa, on the contrary presents a beautiful adaptation of one. That the Pantheon was part of a more extended edifice, is very clear from its external form and appearance, which are unsightly in the extreme, presenting a mis-shapen and unfinished mass. Now, domed chambers are very common in the baths and palaces of the Romans. They are not only more effective than rectangular apartments, but were much more convenient in the absence of glass; for a small opening left in the apex lights and ventilates the vaulted saloon most completely, whilst the rain that could pass through it was necessarily small in quantity, and could be easily avoided by those walking on the floor. In rectangular vaults this could not be effected, so that rooms of that form depended on lateral openings for light and air, and were thereby exposed and uncomfortable. Again, there is a rectangular portico attached to the Pantheon, having no single feature in common with it, the former being a noble Corinthian octaprostyle of three in-tercolumniations projecting, with two others of antae and pilasters behind; and the other a polygonal, bulbous mass of brickwork, much loftier than the portico having cornices and blocking courses, too, none of which range with the entablature or any part of it. A conclusive argument, moreover, against the commonly received opinion, that the porticoand the circular temple arc an original composition, proving indeed that the former was an adaptation of what most likely had previously existed elsewhere in a different situation, and of course could not be intended foi its present adjunct, is, that it now fronts north, and consequently the sun never shines full on it, so that it is in fact always in shadow; and that was never permitted by the ancients in their original compositions; for two thiids of the beauty of a portico consistingin the beautiful play and contrast of light and shade it affords, are thus sacrificed. But in an after-appropriation, as we imagine in this case, it might have been, and clearly was done; pro- 1 bably through ignorance, as well as bad taste, in those who did it. If, then, the Pantheon, whose diameter is nearly 150 feet, was but an apartment—suppose the grand saloon or xystum—in the baths, the whole structure must have been immense; and if its proportions and internal architecture be taken, as they certainly may be, as a specimen of the style and manner of the interior of the edifice generally, we shall obtain a very high opinion of the magnifi. cence of the Roman baths or thermae. That they were adorned with admirable works of sculpture, too, is proved by the fact, that some of the noblest specimens of that art have been discovered in and among the ruins of the baths in Rome. It may be further remarked of the Pantheon, that its effect has been seriously injured since its original construction, by the removal of the columns from the recess opposite to the entrance, making the opening greater, fixing the columns before the antae with the entablature broken round them, and turning an arch over the whole; thus destroying, as far as that part could affect it, the simplicity and perfect harmony of the primitive composition. The same bad taste which dictated that alteration affixed little pedimented excrescences, now used as altars, against the piers which alternate with the compartments of columns.

The still extensive remains of the villa of Adrian, near Tivoli, bespeak its original magnificence; and the archi- l tectural fragments with which the site even now abounds, though it has furnished specimens to almost every country in Europe, after having suffered the spoliation and destruction attending the incursions of barbarians and the lapse of so many centuries, attest its pristine beauty, and the fine taste of its imperial builder. This, however, furnishes no evidence that its exterior was attractive. Every thing about it appears directed to internal splendour and effect alone; and indeed all collateral evidence tends to the same point, that the exterior of Roman palaces and mansions was not heeded, being merely plain brick walls. This is the case at Pompeii, as we shall see; and the ruins of mansions in various parts of Italy, from that of Sallust on the Benacus or Lago di Garda, to those of other Roman nobles on the. shores of the Bay of Baiae, present no indications whatever that their exteriors were subjected to architectural decoration. The palace of Diocletian at Spalatro, and the splendid remains of Balbec and Palmyra, some of which perhaps belonged to secular structures, offer evidence to the contrary of this, if they are correctly restored in the works which treat of them; for they present in their elevations so many of the worst features of the Italian school, that there would be room for doubt, if views of the ruins did not help to bear the restorers out. But this does not appear to have been the case in the earlier ages of the empire, when architecture among the Romans was in its best state. Notwithstanding the extent of the structure, and its general magnificence, however, the mouldings and ornaments in the interior of the villa of Adrian, though in themselves classical and elegant, are small, and have a general air of littleness, especially when compared with the apartments to which they belong ;—not that the apartments are generally large, but they are for the most part lofty. The ceilings appear to have been formed by vaulting; there are no indications of windows, and none of stairs of any magnitude—so that the rooms must have been nearly if not quite open at one end, to admit light and air; and the probability is that there were no apartments above the ground floor, though it is likely enough that terraces formed on the vaulted roofs were used for the purposes of recreation and pleasure. The floors were of mosaic, several of [7:3:445]which are preserved entire in the Museum of the Vatican ∙ and many fine specimens of ornamental sculpture in vases and candelabra, besides busts, statues, and groups in bronze, marble, porphyry, and granite, of various styles, the remains of the noble collection Adrian made during his progress through his extensive dominions, found among the ruins of the villa, are conserved in the same place.

The ruins of the palace of the Caesars present no forms or arrangements from which it would be possible to form a rational notion of its original plan, still less of its general elevation, or indeed of the elevation of any part of it. Large vaulted apartments, with here and there a little stucco, sometimes moulded and sometimes plain or painted, and a few small unconnected chambers scattered up and down in a mountain of brick and rubble, convey too vague an idea, or rather they are incompetent to convey an idea of a palace at all.

If evidence were required to prove the futility of written descriptions of buildings when their general model is unknown, it would be enough to compare the house of a Roman gentleman in Pompeii with the various designs which have been made of the same thing from the descriptions and directions of Vitruvius, before the exhumation of that city. Their authors could only work upon the notion they had of laying out houses; and therefore the plans produced are those of ill-contrived modern residences, so arranged that they may present a uniform and architectural external elevation, which the Roman houses have not; with windows properly lighting every apartment, which are totally wanting in the latter; with staircases to upper stories that did not exist; with corridors and doors uniformly disposed, which was unheeded in laying out a Roman house. The Vitruvian restorers put columns wherever they could, whereas the Roman architects appear only to have put them where they could not avoid it. In dimensions, too, the former erred no less than in distribution; they thought none too extensive for a Roman domicile: but the apartments in Roman houses, wherever they are, are generally small, and in ordinary cases their whole site is exceedingly restricted. In proportioning the various parts, they adhered to rules the Romans never heeded; and applied the details of the architecture of temples and triumphal arches to domestic edifices, in whose composition the plasterer, painter, and mason, almost appear to have been the only architects!

Far inferior as Pompeii was to Rome in magnitude and splendour, there is no more reason for supposing that houses in the latter were so very differently arranged from those in the former that the same general description of them should not apply to both, than there would be for a future antiquary to hesitate in applying the plan of a Brighton or Bath house, which may be preserved, to a London mansion; for we know that in ordinary cases they nearly coincide. It is, too, a recorded fact, that wealthy Roman citizens had mansions at Pompeii and Herculaneum; and we have already stated that discoveries made of ordinary houses under the present level of Rome show them to be exactly like the more perfect ones of the Campanian city, except in their state of preservation; so that, “parvis componere magna” in Pompeii we may see the domestic as well as public architecture of ancient Rome.

The streets of Pompeii are very narrow, their average width being not more than twelve or fifteen feet; frequently they are not more than eight feet wide, and very few in any part exceed twenty. The principal excavated street in the city, that leading from the Forum to the gate towards Herculaneum and the street of the tombs, is, at the widest, twenty-three feet six inches, including two footways, each five feet wide. The streets are all paved with lava, and almost all have side pavements or footways, which, however, are for the most part so narrow, that,' with few exceptions, two persons cannot pass on any of' them. That the cars or carriages of the inhabitants could not pass each other in most of the streets, is proved by the wheel-ruts which have been worn on the stones, and the recesses made here and there for the purpose of passing. Their narrowness and inconvenience are aptly exemplified in London by the narrow lanes which come between St Paul’s and Thames Street, about Doctors’ Commons. The Forums, on the contrary, though not very spacious, are of regular forms, and have wide and convenient footways, completely colonnaded. In immediate connection with them are the theatres, the principal temples, the basilica, the courts of justice, and other public edifices: the amphitheatre is by itself, in an extreme angle of the city. The use of some of the buildings on one flank of the great Forum is not obvious: they are not arranged like temples, and indeed possess no peculiar character by which they may be distinguished: it is tolerably clear, however, from circumstances, that they were for the use of the public. The temples differ but little from the ordinary Roman structures of that description, but are generally inferior to them in the quality of the materials of which they are constructed, in the style of their architecture, and in the manner of its execution. The basilica is not unlike a modern church, it being a long rectangular edifice, having an arcaded porch at one end, being divided internally by rows of columns into nave and-aisles, and having a columned reecss at the west end of the nave for a tribunal. There are, however, no indications of windows, so that it was probably hypaethral, though that arrangement would have made the place very inconvenient for its purpose.

The streets of Pompeii are lined on either side with small cells, which served for shops of various kinds; and they are strikingly like the ordinary shops in towns in the south of Italy and in Sicily at the present time. Like them, too, there appear in very few cases to be accommodations in connection with the shops for the occupiers and their families, who must have lived elsewhere, as modern Italian shopkeepers very commonly do. These present no architectural decoration whatever; the fronts are merely plain stuccoed brick walls, with a large square opening in each, part of which is the door, and part the window, for lighting the place and showing the goods.

WTιenever a private house or gentleman’s mansion occurs in a good place for business, like the ground floor of many moderni talian noblemen’s palaces, the street-front, or fronts, was entirely occupied with shops, a comparatively narrow entrance being preserved to the house in a convenient part between some two of them. The door to this is sometimes quite plain, but at times it is decorated with pilasters. When the site permitted such an arrangement, the entrance door being open, a passer by could look completely through the house to the garden, or, in the absence of a garden, to the extreme boundary wall, on which was painted a landscape or other picture. An arrangement, it may be observed, not unlike this, is common in some of the Italian cities at the present day; but the mansions being now built in stories, and the upper stories alone being occupied by the families, a merely pleasing effect is produced; but in the former, persons crossing from one apartment to another were exposed, and domestic privacy thus completely invaded to produce a pretty picture. Within the entrance passage, which may be from ten to twelve feet in depth, there is a vestibule or atrium, generally square, or nearly so, on which various rooms open, that vary in size from ten feet square to ten feet by twelve, or even twelve feet square: they [7:3:446]have doors only, and were probably used as sleeping-chambers by the male servants of the family. In the centre of this court there is a sunk basin or reservoir for receiving the rain, called the compluvium, rendering it likely that this was roofed over, with a well-hole to admit light and air, and allow the rain to drop from the roof into the reservoirs. Connected with this outer couιt was the kitchen and its accessories. If the site allowed the second court to be placed beyond the first in the same direction from the entrance, the communication was by a wide opening not unlike folding doors between rooms in modern houses, generally with a space intervening, which was variously occupied; if the site did not allow of that arrangement, a mere passage led from one to the other. The second or inner vestibule, atrium, or court, is generally much larger than the first, is for the most part parallelogramic, but variously proportioned. It forms a tetrastoön, being open in the middle and arranged with a peristyle of columns, colonnading a covered walk all round. On this the best and most finished apartments open; but they are of such various sizes, and are so variously arranged, that it is not easy to determine more than that they included the refectory, the library, and sleepingrooms. Some of them, indeed, are such as must have been useless except for the last purpose: these, perhaps, were the apartments of the female branches of a family, at least in most cases. Some houses, however, have a nest of small cells in an inner corner or secluded recess, which may have been the Gynaeceum; but that is far from being common. Exhedrae or recesses, open in front to the atrium, are common, and are often painted with more care and elegance than any other part of the house; but generally the walls are everywhere painted—in the more common places flat, with a slight degree of ornament perhaps, and in the best rooms with arabesques and pictures in compartments. The architectural decorations are mostly painted: the ornaments are not unfrequently elegant, but the architecture itself of the mansions is bad in almost every sense. The rooms being windowless, would, when covered, be necessarily dark; the doors are arranged without any regard to uniformity, either in size or situation. The street-fronts of those houses which, not being in a good business situation, were not occupied with shops, were not merely unadorned, but were actually deformed by loop-holes to light some passage or inner closet which had no door on one of the courts. The columns of the second courts are generally in the worst style possible: those which have foliated capitals, and may be considered compositions of the Corinthian order, are the best; but the imitations of Doric and Ionic are both mean and ugly. From the duty they had to perform, and the wideness of their intercolumniations, together with the fact that none of them remain, it is probable that the entablatures were of wood, and were consequently burnt at the time of the destruction of the city, and broken up by the inhabitants, almost all of whom certainly escaped, and who, it is very evident, returned, when the fiery shower and the conflagration had ceased, to remove whatever they could find of their property undestroved; for it must be remembered that the roofs and ceilings all over the city are entirely gone, and the uncovered and broken walls remain, from eight to ten feet only in height. Every thing, indeed, clearly demonstrates that great exertions were used to recover whatever was valuable; and it is very probable, moreover, that the place was constantly resorted to by treasure-seekers for perhaps centuries after the calamity occurred. It may also be remarked that the loftier edifices, which would have been unburied by the ashes, had been thrown down by a terrible earthquake about sixteen years before the volcanic shower fell, and therefore were the more easily covered. Other showers must have fallen since that which destroyed the city, to! produce the complete filling up of every part and the general level throughout; as the one must have been prevented by those roofs and ceilings which were fire-proof in the first instance, and the other would be the result of the same, if it were not deranged by the subsequent excavations. It is indeed the fact, that the superstrata of ashes are evident and unbroken, while the substratum is mingled with ruins. Hence we are still uninformed as to the structure and disposition of the roofs and ceilings of the houses of the ancients. The doors, too, of whatever materials they were composed, are entirely gone: there remain, however, here and there, indications of wooden door-posts—in some cases, indeed, charred fragments of them—but they are to outer or street-doors, leaving it probable, as we have before suggested, that a matting of some kind, suspended from the lintel, formed the usual doors to rooms,—or perhaps they were closed by curtains only. In these particulars, unfortunately, Herculaneum affords but little assistance, as the mode of its destruction was similar to that of Pompeii, and it, too, was doubtlessly exposed in nearly the same manner; its subterranean situation, moreover, at present, renders it difficult to examine; but, upon the whole, Herculaneum is more likely to furnish information on these particulars than its sister in misfortune. Although it has been ascertained that the Romans understood the manufacture of glass, or at least that they possessed some utensils of that material, it must not be supposed that they were accustomed to apply it to exclude the weather and transmit light; for in no case has a glass window of any kind been discovered in any ancient structure; and, without contemplating the houses of Pompeii, it is impossible to appreciate the advantages we derive in our habitations from the application of that beautiful production of the useful arts, and how much superior it alone renders them to those of the ancients. The floors of the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum are all of mosaic work, coarser and simpler in the less esteemed parts, and finer and more ornate in the more finished apartments: the ornaments are borders, dots, frets, labyrinths, flowers, and sometimes figures. In this, too, the superior advantages the moderns enjoy are evident. The ancients did not understand how to construct wooden floors, at least the application of timber to that use was not made by them; for, though it were admitted, which, however, it cannot be with justice, that, in the warmer climate of the south of Italy, lithic floors would be more grateful, that would not be the case in this country; and we find the remains of Roman houses, baths, &c. in England, with floors of mosaic, as in Naples and Sicily. All the indications which are found in Pompeii of an upper story consist in a few rude and narrow staircases, which, it is very probable, were to afford access to the terraces or flat roofs, for they are not common, and no portion of an upper story remains in any part, though the lower or ground-floor rooms, it is most likely, were arched over. In one part of the city the houses on one side of a street are on a declivity: there a commodious flight of stairs is found to lead from the atrium in front, to another atrium and rooms below, not under the houses, but behind them; for neither do we find an under-ground or cellar story in the Pompeian houses. On the shores of the Bay of Baiae, and of the Gulf of Gaeta, at Cicero’s Formian Villa, however, there arc crypts or arched chambers under the level of the mansions; for the sites require substructions; but it may be questioned whether even these were used as parts of the house, and as we use cellars; for they present no indications of stairs, and have no regular means of intercommu [7:3:447]nication. Neither had the houses of the Romans chimneys of any kind; their only mode of warming their apartments was by means of braziers, many specimens of which have been taken out of both Herculaneum and Pompeii; and their cooking fires were on fixed gratings over a sort of stove, but without flues; so that most probably charcoal alone was burnt for domestic purposes. In this respect the modern Italians are not far beyond their predecessors; and the mode used by them of applying fire in warming and cooking appears very similar to that used by the Romans. Indeed many of the peculiarities we have noticed in the Pompeian houses are still found in various parts of Italy and Sicily; the cortili, courts, or cloisters of palaces, mansions, monasteries, and inns, are representatives of the cavaedia, vestibula, atria or courts, of Pompeian or Roman mansions. It is common, too, in the former, for bed-rooms to open on open galleries, as on the colonnaded courts of the latter. There are instances also in the countries referred to, of rooms which have no aperture but the doorway. Shops, we have said, are frequently mere cells, having an opening towards the street, part of which is a door, and the other part, with a low dado, a window. It was only in the forums and public places, then, that architectural beauty and magnificence were displayed in a Roman city. Street architecture was unknown, and the decoration of houses was the work of the plasterer and painter rather than of the architect.

If such as we have described were the imperfections and inferiority of the domestic architecture of the Romans, who knew that of the Greeks and Egyptians, and had, moreover, knowledge of the use of the arch, and were, we have reason to believe, better carpenters than either, besides possessing greater wealth, and a greater taste for luxury than they, with a less mild and serene climate than Greece and Egypt,—what must the domestic edifices of those nations have been! A person accustomed to the comforts and conveniences of houses in this country finds much to complain of in a modern Italian mansion, but not so much as an Italian would in the house of an ancient Roman; and from analogy we may believe that a Roman of the empire would have had reason to complain of a Grecian domicile, even of the Periclean age; and a Greek, again, might have been abridged of the comforts of his house in the palace of an Egyptian.

Superior as the habitations of civilized men in modern times may be to those of the ancients, a degree of classic beauty and elegance pervaded the decorations and furniture, and even the domestic utensils, in the houses of Pompeii and Herculaneum, which we do not equal, though we imitate them; and from the Hellenic taste which reigns in their forms and enrichments, their origin may generally be attributed to Greek artists; so that, it may be supposed, in these particulars the Greeks even excelled the Romans. It is indeed not a little singular, that though the architecture of these cities is completely Roman, the painted ornaments and ornamental sculpture generally are in style and manner perfectly Greek. There are certainly modifications found of Greek Doric columns in Pompeii; but they bear so slight a degree of relationship to their original, that its existence may almost be denied,—they have the form without the feeling.

As works of architecture, the sepulchral monuments of the Romans were of more importance than their domestic structures. There is more architectural display in the street of the tombs at Pompeii, than in any street of the city itself; and the mausoleum of Adrian on the right bank of the Tiber at Rome was a much more important object in its perfect state than his villa near Tivoli could ever have been. It was perhaps the most splendid structure of the kind ever executed; excelling the Memphian pyramids as much in architectural pretence as they surpass it in magnitude. There was, too,, a degree of harmony and simplicity in its composition, which can only be accounted tor by supposing that the imperial builder, who was ļiimself an adept in architecture, had acquired better taste than the architects of Rome generally possessed, by the contemplation of the monuments of Greece and Egypt. It consisted of a deep quadrangular basement, each of whose sides was about 250 feet in length. This was surmounted by a lofty circular mass, on which was a graduated stylobate, supporting a noble peristyle of Corinthian columns, with their entablature; forming, with its circular cone, a species of peristylar temple, something like that below the cupola of St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Above this there was, most probably, a species of dome, whose acroterium is said to have been a metal pind-cone, which was the receptacle of the ashes of the emperor. The mausoleum of Augustus was inferior in size, in splendour, and in good taste, we may believe, from the descriptions which exist of it when in a more perfect state than it is at present, to that of Adrian; but it was nevertheless a magnificent monument. Its form was conical; it diminished in stories and terraces, probably columned round, and terminated at the apex in a bronze figure of its founder. The sepulchral monuments of Cecilia Metella, of the Plautian family, and others, are evidences of the same fact. The sarcophagus from the first-mentioned of these is simple and elegant in the extreme; and indeed it exhibits a greater degree of good taste than almost any thing of the same kind that remains to us of the ancients.

Of the Roman Corinthian.

Like the Greek orders, the Roman Corinthian may be said to consist of three parts, stylobate, column, and entablature; but, unlike them, the stylobate is much loftier, and is not graduated, except for the purposes of access before a portico Its usual height is not exactly determinable, in consequence of the ruined state of most of the best examples; but it may be taken at from two and a half to three diameters. In the triumphal arches the height of the stylobate sometimes amounts to four, and even to five diameters. It is variously arranged, moreover, having, in the shallower examples, simply a congeries of mouldings forming its base, with perhaps a narrow square member under it, a plain dado, and a covering cornice or coping, on the back of which the columns rest. In the loftier examples a single, and sometimes a double plinth, comes under the base mouldings; and a blocking cornice superimposes the coping, to receive the bases of the columns. This last is only necessary when the height of the stylobate is such as to take the columnar base above the human eye, when the coping cornice would intercept it if a blocking cornice did not intervene.

The column consists of base, shaft, and capital, and] varies in height from nine and a half to ten diameters. The base has, ordinarily, in addition to the diminishing congeries of mouldings which follows the circular form of the shafts, a square member or plinth, whose edges are vertical: with this the whole height of the base is about half a diameter. The rest of this part of the column is variously composed, but it generally consists of two plain tori and, a scotia, with fillets intervening, as in the Greek examples of this order, but differently proportioned and projected, as the examples indicate. Sometimes the scotia is divided into two parts, by two beads with fillets, as in the Jupiter Stator example, in which also a bead is placed between the upper torus and the fillet of the apophyge. The spread of the base varies from a diameter and one third to a diameter[7:3:448] and four ninths. In the best Roman examples, as well as in the Greek, the shaft diminishes with entasis: the average diminution is one eighth of a diameter. The shaft was always fluted when the material of which it was composed did not oppose itself; for the Romans often used granites, and sometimes a stratified or laminous marble called cipollino, for the shafts of columns; the former of which could not be easily wrought and polished in flutes, and the latter would scale away if it were cut into narrow fillets. Like the Greek Corinthian and Ionic orders, the Roman Corinthian has twenty-four fillets and flutes. The flutes are generally semicircles, and they terminate at both ends, for the most part, with that contour. Dividing the space for a fillet and a flute into five parts, four are given to the latter, and one to the former. The hypotrachelium is a plain torus, about half the size of the upper torus of the base, or half the width of a flute, as these nearly correspond: it rests on a fillet above the cavetto at the head of the shaft.

The ordinary height of the capital is a diameter and one eighth; but there is a very fine example in which it hardly exceeds one diameter, and another in which it is not quite so much. It is composed of two rows or bands of acanthus leaves, each consisting of six, placed upright, and ranged side by side, but not in contact; of helices and tendrils trussed with foliage; and an abacus, whose faces are moulded and variously enriched. The lower row of acanthus leaves is two sevenths the whole height of the capital; the upper row is two thirds the height of the lower above it, and its leaves rest on the hypotrachelium below, in the space left between the others. They are placed regularly, too, under the helices and tendrils above, which support the angles, and are under the middle of each side of the abacus. The construction and arrangement of the next compartment above must be gathered from the examples; for an idea of them cannot be conveyed in words. The abacus is one seventh of the height of the capital; in plan it is a square whose angles are cut off, and whose sides are concaved in segments of a circle, under an angle at the centre of from 55° to 60°. Its vertical face is generally a flat cavetto, with a fillet and carved ovalo corbelling over at an angle of about 125°. The cavetto is sometimes enriched with trailing foliage, and a rosette or flower of some kind overhangs the tendrils from the middle of each side of the abacus.

Every example of this order differs so much in the form, proportion, and distribution of the various parts, of its capital particularly, that it cannot be described in general terms, like the Greek Doric and Ionic: the example we have referred to in this definition is that of the Jupiter Stator, the most elegant, perhaps, of all the Roman specimens.

The entablature varies in different examples from one diameter and seven eighths to more than two diameters and a half in height. Perhaps the best proportioned are those of the porticoof the Pantheon, and of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina; the former being rather more than two diameters and a quarter, and the latter rather less than that ratio. The entablature of the temple of Jupiter Stator is more than two diameters and a half in height, of which the cornice alone occupies one sixth more than a full diameter, leaving to the frieze and architrave something less than one diameter and a half between them. In this latter particular it nearly agrees with the other two quoted examples, so that the great difference in the general height is in the cornice almost alone, the cornices of the others being about a sixth less, instead of as much more, than a diameter in height. The Roman Corinthian entablature may be taken, then, at two diameters and a quarter in height. Rather more than three fifths of this is nearly equally divided between the architrave and frieze, the advantage, if any, being given to the former; the cornice, of course, takes the remaining two fifths, or thereabouts. The architrave is divided into threé unequal fascias and a small congeries of mouldings, separating it from the frieze. The first fascia is one filth the whole height; one third of what remains is given to the second, and the remainder is divided between the third fascia and the band of mouldings,—two thirds to the former, and one to the latter. A bead, sometimes plain and sometimes carved, taken from the second fascia, which is itself enriched in the Jupiter Stator example, marksits projection over the first; and a small cyma-reversa, carved or plain as the bead may be, taken from the third fascia, marks its projection over the second. The band consists of a bead, a cyma-reversa, carved or plain according to the general character of the ordinance, and a fillet. In non-aċcordance with the practice of the Greeks, the face of the lowest or first fascia of the architrave, in the Roman Corinthian, impends the face of the column at the top of the shaft, or at its smallest diameter; and every face inclines inwards from its lowest face up. The whole projection of the architrave, that of the covering fillet of the band, is nearly equal to the height of the first fascia. The frieze impends the lowest angle of the architrave. Its face is either perpendicular, or it slightly inclines inwards, like the fascias of that part of the entablature: in some cases it is quite plain, and in others is enriched with a foliate composition, or with sculptures in low or half relief. The cornice consists of a deep bed-mould, variously proportioned to the corona; but it may be taken generally, when it has modifiions, at three fifths, and when it has none, at one half the whole height. It is composed of a bead, an ovalo or cyma-reversa and fillet, a plain vertical member, sometimes dentilled, another bead, and a cyma-reversa and fillet or ovalo, as the lower may not be: this is surmounted, when modifiions are used, by another plain member, with a small carved cyma-reversa above it. On this the modifiions are placed, and the cyma breaks round them. They are about as wide as the member from which they project, and are about two thicknesses apart. In form they are horizontal trusses or consols, with a wavy profile, finishing at one end in a large, and at the other in a small, volute; and under each there is generally placed a raffled or acanthus leaf. In proportioning the parts of this bed-mould in itself, one third of its height may be given to the modillion member, and the other two thirds divided nearly equally, but increasing upwards into three parts, one for the lowest mouldings, one for the plain or dentil member, and the third and rather largest portion for the mouldings under the modillion member. The mouldings of this part of the cornice are carved or left plain, according to the character of the ordinance; and its greatest projection, except the modillions themselves, that of the modillion member, is about equal to half its height. The upper part of the cornice,—the corona, with its crown mouldings,—consists of the vertical member called the corona, which is two fifths the whole height;—this, in the examples of the temples of Jupiter Stator and Antoninus and Faustina, is enriched with vertical flutes ;—a narrow fillet, an ovalo, and a wider fillet, occupy one third of the rest, the other two thirds being given to cyma-recta, with a covering fillet which crowns the whole. Its extreme projection is nearly equal to the whole height of the cornice.

The ordinance of the temple of Vesta, or of the sibyl at Tivoli, whose entablature is the very low one mentioned, is not generally in accordance with the scale we have given, and it must be referred to for its own peculiar proportions.
[7:3:449]

Pediments with the Roman Corinthian order are found to be steeper than they were made by the Greeks, varying in inclination from eighteen to twenty-five degrees; but they are formed by the cornice of the entablature in the same manner. Antefixae do not appear to have been used on flank cornices as in Greek ordinances, in which the cymatium is confined to pediments; but in Roman .works it is continued over the horizontal or flank cornice, as we have described; and frequently it is enriched with lions’ heads, which were at the first introduced as waterspouts. The planceer or soffit of the corona is, in the Jupiter Stator example, coffered between the modillions, and in every coffer there is a flower. The soffit of the ‘entablature in this order is generally panelled and enriched with foliate or other ornament. The intercolumniation is not the same in any two examples. In the temple of Vesta in Rome it hardly exceeds a diameter and a quarter; in the Jupiter Stator example it is a fraction less than one diameter and a half; in that of Antoninus and Faustina, nearly a diameter and three quarters; in the porticoat Assisi, rather more than that ratio; in the portico of the Pantheon, almost two diameters; and in the Tivoli example, a fraction more than that proportion.

The antae of the Roman Corinthian order is generally parallel; but pilasters are mostly diminished and fluted as the columns. Of two of the existing examples of antae, in one—that of the temple of Mars Ultor—they are plain, to fluted columns; and in the other—that of the Pantheon porticothey are fluted, to plain columns. The capitals and bases are transcripts of those of the columns, fitted to the square forms.

Ceilings of porticos are formed, as in the Greek orders, by the frieze returning in beams from the internal architrave to the wall or front of the structure, supporting coffers more or less enriched with foliage or flowers. This, however, could only have been effected when the projection was not more than one, or at the most two intercolumniations, if stone was used; and it is only in such that examples exist. Porticos ordinarily must have had arched ceilings, as that of the Pantheon has, or the beams must have been of wood; in which latter case probably the compartments of the ceiling would be larger. How, in the former, it was arranged we cannot tell, as the arches only remain; and they may not be of the date of the rest of the portico . The ancient examples of what is called the Composite order do not differ so much from the ordinary examples of the Corinthian as the latter do among themselves, except in the peculiar conformation of the capital of the column. In other respects, indeed, its arrangement and general proportions are exactly those of the Corinthian. The Composite was used, we have said, in triumphal arches, and, in the best ages of Roman architecture, in them alone. The difference in the capital consists in the enlargement of the volutes to nearly one fourth the whole height of the capital, and in connecting their stems horizontally under the abacus, giving the appearance of a distorted Ionic capital. The central tendrils of the Corinthian are omitted, and the bell of the capital is girded under the stem of the volutes by an ovalo and bead, as in the Ionic. Acanthus leaves, in two rows, fill up the whole heightfrom the hypotrachelium to the bottom of the volutes, and are consequently higher than in the Corinthian capital: this difference is given to the upper row. Besides this Composite, however, the Romans made many others, the arrangements and proportions of the ordinances being generally those of the Corinthian order, and the capitals corresponding also in general form, though in themselves differently composed. In these, animals of different species, the human figure, armour, a variety of foliage, and other peculiarities, are found. Shafts of columns also are sometimes corded or cabled instead of being fluted: those of the internal ordinance of the Pantheon are cabled one third their height, and the flutes of the antae of that ordinance are flat, eccentric curves. There are fragments of others existing, in which the fillets between the flutes are beaded; some in which they are wider than usual, and grooved; others, again, whose whole surface is wrought with foliage in various ways; and it would be no less absurd to arrange all these in different orders, than it is to make a distorted foliate capital the ground-work of an order.

Of the Roman Ionic.

The only existing example of this in Rome, in which the columns are insulated, is in the Temple of Manly Fortune, except that of the Temple of Concord, which is too barbarous to deserve consideration. Its stylobate, like that of the Roman Corinthian, is lofty and not graduated, having a moulded base and cornice or surbase. The' column is nearly nine diameters in height; its base is half a diameter in height, and consists of a plinth, two tori, a scotia, and two fillets; the shaft has twenty fillets and flutes, and diminishes one tenth of a diameter; the capital is two fifths of a diameter in height; the volutes, however, dip a little lower, being themselves about that depth without the abacus; the corbelling for the volutes is formed by a bead and large ovalo, half the height of the capital; the latter of these is carved: a straight band connects the generating lines of the volμtes, whose ends are bolstered and enriched with foliage; and a square abacus, moulded on the edges, covers the whole. The entablature is rather less than two diameters high; three tenths of this are given to the architrave, the same to the frieze, and the cornice occupies the remaining two fifths. The architrave is unequally divided into three fascias, and a band consisting of a cyma-reversa and fillet; the lowest angle impends the upper face of the shaft of the column. The frieze is in the same vertical line, and is covered with a fillet which receives the cornice; it is also enriched with a composition of figures and foliage. The cornice consists of a bed-mould, two fifths of its height, and a corona with crown mouldings. The bed-mould is divided nearly equally between a cyma-reversa and fillet, a square dentilled member and fillet, and another fillet and ovalo. The corona is two fifths the height of the rest of the cornice; another fifth is occupied by two fillets and a cyma-reversa, and the rest is given to a cyma-recta and crowning fillet. The whole projection is nearly equal to the height of the cornice. The cymatium is enriched with acanthus leaves and lions’ heads, and the mouldings of the bedmould and architrave band are carved. The soffit of the corona is hollowed out in a wide groove, whose internal angles are rounded off in a cavetto, but without ornament of any kind, forming indeed a mere throating. Like the angular capitals of the Greek Ionic, the external volute of this is turned out and repeated on the flank: either that or the abuse of it in the Composite capital gave rise to distortions of this order, in which all the volutes of the capital are angular, and consequently all its four faces are alike. In other respects, however, it does not differ generally from the ordinary Roman examples of Ionic. The Temple of Manly Fortune is pseudo-peripteral, and consequently has neither antae nor pilasters, nor do ancient examples exist of either.

Of the Roman Doric.

This is even a ruder imitation of the Grecian original than the mean and tasteless deterioration of the voluted Ionic is of the graceful Athenian examples. The specimen of it which is considered preferable to the others is [7:3:450] that of the theatre of Marcellus in Rome. The column is nearly eight diameters in height: it consists of shaft and capital only. The shaft is quite plain, except fillets above and below, with escape and cavetto; and it diminishes one fifth of its diameter. The capital is four sevenths of a diameter high, and is composed of a torus which forms the hypotrachelium, and, with the necking, occupies one third the whole height. Three deep fillets, with a semitorus or quarter-round moulding, are intended to represent the ovalo and its annulets of the Greek capital. They occupy three sevenths of the rest; the other four sevenths are given to the abacus, three fifths of whose depth is plain and vertical; and the other two are divided between a cyma-reversa and a fillet.

The corona and crown mouldings of the cornice being destroyed, the whole height of the entablature cannot be correctly ascertained; but from analogy it may be taken, with the bed-mould, part of which exists, at about two thirds of a diameter, making, with the architrave and frieze, an entablature nearly two diameters high. Of this the architrave is rather more than one fourth, indeed exactly half a diameter. Three tenths of its depth are unequally occupied by the taenia, regula, and guttae, the first being rather the widest, projecting more than its own depth, and the second the narrowest. The guttae are six in number, and are truncate semicoes in form. The rest of the surface of the architrave is plain and vertical, impending a point rather within the superior diameter of the column. The frieze is two fifths the whole height of the entablature. A fascia, one eighth of its own height, bands it above the triglyphs, and projects about one third of its depth; the rest of its surface is plain vertically, but horizontally it is divided into triglyphs, which are half a diameter in width, and are placed over the centres of the columns. These are channelled with two full and two hemi-glyphs, whose heads are cut square on the outer edge, but inclined downwards at the angle of the glyphs. The space between the triglyphs is equal to the height of the frieze without its plat-band or fascia, making in effect perfectly square metopes. All that can be traced of the cornice is a small cyma-reversa, immediately over the frieze, and a square member with dentils on it. In the example the cornice is completed from that of the Doric of the Colosseum.

The temple at Cora presents a singular specimen of the Doric order, evidently the result of an examination of some Greek examples, but moulded to the Roman proportions and to Roman taste. The columns are enormously tall, but the shafts are partly fluted and partly chamfered for fluting, like the Greek. The capital is ridiculously shallow, but the abacus is plain, and the echinus of a somewhat Hellenic form. The entablature is very little more than a diameter and one third in height, and the architrave of it is shallower even than the capital; but the frieze and cornice are tolerably well proportioned, though the triglyphs in the former are meagre, narrow slips, and the latter is covered by a deep widely projecting cavetto, that would be injurious to even a better composition. Instead of regular mutules with guttae, the whole of the planceer of the cornice is studded with the latter; but, like the Greek, the triglyph over the angular column extends to the angle of the architrave, which does not appear to have been the practice of the Romans; yet the reason for so doing does not appear to have been understood, for the external intercolumniations are the same as the others.

As far as we have the means of judging, the Romans made the antae of their Doric similar to the columns, only that they were of course square instead of round; though indeed an attached column appears to have been generally preferred.

It may, however, be here again intimated, that these two orders, the Ionic and Doric of the Roman school, ought· hardly to be considered as belonging to the architecture of the Romans. They are merely coarse and vulgar adaptations of the Greek originals, of which we now possess records of the finest examples. If it were not, therefore, that custom required it, we should have omitted all mention of them, or at least have left them to the Italo-Vitruvian school, to which they properly belong. Yet their meanness and tastelessness, when compared with the Grecian models, will more strikingly show the superiority of the latter, and show, moreover, how the architects of the Italian school must have been blinded by their system, when they fancied such wretched exemplars as those of which we have been speaking to be beautiful.

Of Roman Mouldings and Ornament.

The mouldings used in Roman architectural works are the same as the Grecian in general form, but they vary materially from them in contour. The Roman cyma-recta is projected much more than the Greek, with a deeper flexure; and the two parts or ends seldom correspond, the one being generally larger than the other. On the contrary, the Roman cyma-reversa does not project so much, or at so large an angle with its base, as the Grecian, nor is it so deeply fleeted as the Greeks made it. The upper or convex part of this moulding is almost always larger than the lower or concave; and it is frequently allowed to finish below in a sharp arris projecting from whatever may be below it, and above it abuts the horizontal soffit of its covering fillet in a similarly harsh manner. The ovalo of Greek architecture is represented in the Roman style by a moulding whose outline is nearly the convex quadrant of a circle, or a quarter round, and sometimes it is nearly that of the quadrant of an ellipsis. The Roman torus is either a semicircle or a semiellipsis; and the bead is a torus, except in its application, and in being smaller, and generally projected rather more than half the figure whose form it bears. The cavetto, in Roman architecture, is nearly a regular curve, being sometimes the concave quadrant of a circle, or indeed the reverse of an ovalo, and sometimes a smaller segment. A Roman scotia is more deeply cut, and is consequently less delicate than the same member in a Greek congeries: its form frequently approaches that of a concave semiellipsis.

This correspondence in general form, and disagreement in spirit, of Greek and Roman mouldings, appear to have arisen entirely from the ignorance or inattention of the Romans to the governing principle of Greek combinations; as we have seen that in these the individual mouldings are not independent, as the Romans made them, but that they take their contour and direction from each other, under a certain pervading outline.

The enrichments of Roman mouldings are for the most part similar to those of the Greek, but less delicate and graceful both in design and drawing. Those of the cyma and ovalo are particularly referred to, but the Romans used others besides. Raffled leaves form a favourite enrichment in the architecture of the Romans: indeed these are hardly less frequent in their works than the honeysuckle is in those of the Greeks. Mouldings were enriched with them; and a raffled leaf masks the angles of carved cymas and ovalos in the former, as a honeysuckle does in the latter. Nevertheless, the honeysuckle and lotus are both found in Roman enrichments, particularly the latter, and perhaps even more than in Greek. It is not uncommon to find examples of Roman architecture completely overdone with ornament,—every moulding carved, and every straight surface, whether vertical or [7:3:451]horizontal, sculptured with foliage, or with historical or characteristic subjects in relief. This fault is most obvious in those works which exhibit similar bad taste in the general composition. The triumphal arch of Septimius Severus, the little arch of the goldsmiths, and the halfburied ruin called the temple of Pallas, in the forum of Nerva at Rome, are egregious specimens. The entablature of the arch of Titus, too, is overloaded with ornament·

Frieze enrichments, consisting of foliage composed with animals, and a variety of other things, are very common in Roman architecture. Many specimens indeed are not found in existing structures, but there are numerous fragments of entablatures of destroyed edifices which exhibit them in great variety. Their general character is exuberance, and a tendency to frittering, from the variety and incoherence of form in their composition; but their effect can only fairly be judged of when seen in appropriate situations. One existing example of an enriched frieze of the kind referred to, that of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina, speaks strongly in its favour, for nothing can surpass its efficiency and simple beauty; but it must, moreover, be confessed that, when examined in detail, the enrichment is less exuberant, and is composed of fewer parts, than most others of the species to which that example belongs. Architectural ornament, however, is not confined to purely architectural works. We find many beautiful specimens of it on the vases and candelabra which decorated the baths and mansions of the ancient Romans, and whose elegance of form rivals even the beauty and delicacy of their enrichments. Whether these should be referred or not to the Romans, is doubtful; for it has been already intimated, from the style of many of them, both in outline and ornament, which appertain more to the Greek, that they are the productions of Grecian artists; but indeed they belong exactly to neither, for they frequently possess the beauties, and sometimes exhibit the defects, of both. There are existing works, too, clearly of Roman origin, and far inferior in every respect to the things just quoted. These are for the most part cenotaphial monuments, sarcophagi, and altars, whose composition, details, and enrichments, are gross and inelegant when compared with the objects alluded to. The difference may arise merely from the inferiority of the artists of the one to those of the other, and not from the difference of their schools; but the prevalence of Greek taste in the superior productions is not the less striking because it was acquired by education, while it is wanting in the inferior, whose authors had not been imbued with the spirit and fine feeling of the Greek style.

Of Italian Architecture.

Gothic architecture,—that is, the style which preceded the Pointed,—being for the most part a mere deterioration of Roman, and possessing no peculiar character which can recommend it as a subject for study and imitation that may not be deduced from the Roman style, and Pointed architecture being a genus per se, we have thought it better to allow the Italian, or revived Roman style, to usurp its chronological place; as the latter more naturally follows what it pretends to be derived from, than it would follow the Pointed, or than the Pointed would the Roman.

We have already stated that Italian architecture, though professedly a revival of the classical styles of Greece and Rome, was formed without reference to the existing specimens of either, but on the dogmas of an obscure Roman author, and the glosses of the “revivers” on his text. Vitruvius described four classes or orders of columnar composition; and, on the principles which governed him in subjecting to fixed laws all the varieties with which he appears to have been acquainted, they formed a fifth, of a medley of two of his, thus completing the Italian orders of architecture. The school which' was founded on the Vitruvian theories has systematized every thing, and laid down laws for collocating and proportioning all the matter it furnishes for architectural composition and decoration. It teaches that columns are modelled from the human figure; that the Tuscan column is like a sturdy labourer—a rustic; the Doric is somewhat trimmer, though equally masculine—a gentleman, perhaps; the Ionic is a sedate matron; the Corinthian a lascivious courtesan; and the Composite an amalgam of the two last! In a composition which admits any two or more of them, the rustic must take the lowest place; on his head stands the stately Doric, who in his turn bears the comely matron, on whose head is placed the wanton, and the wanton again is made to support the lady of doubtful character I But as we in this place are neither apologists for nor impugners of any particular doctrines, we proceed at once to point out the general features of the Italian style; premising only, that, according to the practice of the school, every thing is confined to an exclusive use and appropriation; such columns may be fluted, and such must not; such a moulding may be used here, but not there; and so on. The proportions and arrangements of an order, of any part of one, or of any thing that may come within an architectural composition, are fixed and unchangeable, whatever may be the purpose or situation for which it is required; whether, for instance, an order be attached or insulate, the column must have exactly the same number of modules and minutes in height. It is true that the masters of the school are not agreed among themselves as to those things in which they are not bound by Vitruvius; but every one not the less contends for the principle, each, of course, prescribing his own doctrine as orthodox on the unsettled points.

Mouldings are considered as constituent parts of an order, and are limited to eight in number, strangely enough including the fillet. They are the cyma-recta, cyma-reversa, commonly called the ogive or ogee, the ovalo, the torus, the astragal or bead, the cavetto, the scotia, and the fillet They are gathered from the Roman remains, but reduced to regular lines or curves, which may be drawn with a rule or struck with a pair of compasses. Arranged according to certain proportions, with flat surfaces, modillions, and dentils, a profile is formed; no two conjoined mouldings maybe enriched, but their ornaments, as well as the modillions and dentils, must be disposed so as to fall regularly under one another, and, when columns occur, above the middle of them.

An order is said to be composed of two principal parts, the column and the entablature; these are divided into base, shaft, and capital, in the one, and architrave, frieze, and cornice in the other, and are variously subdivided in the different orders. The Tuscan column must be made seven diameters in height, the Doric eight, the Ionic nine, and the Corinthian and Composite ten. The height of the entablature, according to some authorities, should be one fourth the height of the column, and, according to others, two of its diameters. The parts of the entablature of all but the Doric may be divided into ten equal parts, four of which are given to the cornice, three to the frieze, and three to the architrave; and in the Doric, the entablature being divided into eight parts, three must be given to the cornice, three to the frieze, and the remaining two. to the architrave. For the minor divisions a diameter or the column is made into a scale of sixty minutes, by which they are arranged; but this is obviously irrelevant if the whole height of the entablature is determined by [7:3:452]the height of the column, and not by its diameter; in this case, therefore, they must be proportioned from the general divisions already ascertained. Columns must be diminished, according to Vitruvius, more or less as their altitude is greater or less; those of fifteen feet high, or thereabout, being made one sixth less at their superior than at their inferior diameter, and that proportion is lessened gradually, so that columns fifty feet high shall be diminished one eighth only. On this subject, however, many of his disciples controvert the authority of their master; and some of them have fixed the diminution at one sixth of a diameter for columns of all sizes in all the orders. The entasis of columns is disputed also, some authorities making it consist in preserving the cylinder perfect one quarter or one third the height of the shaft from below, and thence diminishing in a right line to the top; while others, following Vitruvius, make the column increase in bulk in a curved line from the base to three sevenths of its height, and then diminish in the same manner for the remaining four sevenths, thus making the greatest diameter near the middle.

It being difficult to determine among the masters of the Italo-Vitruvian school whose designs of the various orders arc to be preferred, we have selected those of Palladio, certainly not for any superior merit they possess, but because he is more generally esteemed than any other, and because he the most strictly adhered, as far as he could understand them, to the precepts of Vitruvius. It should be remarked, however, that although Palladio has fluted all but the shaft of the Tuscan column, he very seldom fluted columns in his own practice; and indeed it may be called the custom of the Italian school not to flute, how much soever their doctrine may be to the contrary; for fluted columns in Italian architecture are exceptions to the general practice. Swelled or pillowed friezes are not peculiar to Palladio; they are more or less common to the works of most of the masters of the same school. Prostyles being almost unknown in Italian architecture, antae are not often required; but when they are, the meanest succedaneum imaginable is recurred to. Of this, Palladio’s Villa Capra, near Vicenza, and Lord Burlington’s Palladian Villa at Chiswick, afford striking examples. Pilasters, however, arc very common, so common, indeed, that they may be called pro-columns, as they arc often used as an apology for applying an entablature. They are described as differing from columns in their plan only, the latter being round, and the former square; for they are composed with bases and capitals, they are made to support entablatures according to the order to which they belong, and are fluted and diminished with or without entasis, just as columns of the same style would be. When they are fluted, the flutes are limited to seven in number on the face, which, it is said, makes them nearly correspond with the flutes of columns; and their projection must be one eighth of their diameter or width when the returns are not fluted; but if they arc, a fillet must come against the wall. Pedestals are not considered by the Italo-Vitruvian school as belonging to the orders, but they may be employed with them all, and have bases and surbases or cornices to correspond with the order with which they may be associated. The dado of a pedestal must be a square whose side shall be equal to that of the plinth of the column or pilaster which rests on it, or a parallelogram a sixth or even a fourth of a diameter taller, lhe intercolumniations of columns are called pyenostyle, systyle, eustyle, diastyle, and araeostyle, and are strictly adhered to in Italian architecture when columns are insulated, and that is not very often; when they are attached, the interspaces are not limited, except when a peculiar arrangement called araeosystyle is adopted. This consists of two systyle intercolumniations, the column that should stand in the mid-distance between two others being placed within half a diameter of one of them, making in fact coupled columns or pilasters. It is applied to insulated columns as well as to those which are attached. Following Vitruvius, the Italian school makes the central intercolumniation of a porticowider than any of the others. Arched openings, in arcades or otherwise, are generally about twice their width in height; if, however, they are arranged with a columnar ordinance, having columns against the piers, they are made to partake of the order to which the columns belong, being lower in proportion to their width with the Tuscan than with the Doric, and so on; and the piers are allowed to vary in the same manner, from two fifths to one half of the opening. With columnar arrangements, moulded imposts and archivolts are used; the former being made rather more than a semidiameter of the engaged columns in height, and the latter exactly that proportion. Variously moulded key-stones are used, too, projecting so that they give an appearance of support to the superimposed entablature. Smaller columns with their entablature are sometimes made to do the duty of imposts, and sometimes single columns are similarly applied; at others, columns in couples are allowed to stand for piers to carry arches. In plain arcades the masonry is generally rusticated, without any other projection than a plain blocking course for an impost, and a blocking course or cornice crowning the ordinance. Niches and other recesses are at times introduced in the plain piers, which are in that case considerably wider than usual, or in the spandrels over wide piers. Very considerable variety is allowed in these combinations, which will be best understood by reference to the examples. Doors and windows, whether arched or square, follow nearly the same proportions, being made, in rustic stories, generally rather less than twice their width in height, and in others either exactly of that proportion, or an eighth or a tenth more. If they have columned or pilastered frontispieces, these are sometimes pedimented; and, except in rustic stories, whether with or without columns, a plain or moulded lining called an architrave is applied to the head and sides of a door or window. This architrave is made from one sixth to one eighth the width of the opening it bounds, and it rests on a blocking course or other sill, as the case may be. In the absence of columns or pilasters in the frontispiece, their place is fre-] quently supplied by consols or trusses of various form and i arrangement, backed out by a narrow pilaster, which may-ļ be considered as the return of the frieze of the entablature, 1 and supporting the cornice. It is not uncommon for the architrave lining to project knees at the upper angles, and this is sometimes done even with consols and their pilasters. With columned frontispieces to gateways, doors, and windows, arose the custom, so frequent in Italian architecture, of rusticating columns, by making them alternately square and cylindrical, according to the heights of the courses of rustic masonry to which they are generally attached, and with which they are less offensive than in other collocations. The practice of the Cinquecento school of piling columns on columns, with their accessories, is warranted by the doctrine of its master; but his precepts not being practicable, recourse has been had to the inferior works of the Romans, which present examples of 1 it. The difficulty of preserving any thing like a rational arrangement is acknowledged on all hands to be great, if not insurmountable; for if the first or lowest order be at an intercolumniation fitting its proportions, the second or next above it, though diminished ever so little, is already deranged, for it has the same distance from column to column that the inferior order has, whilst the columns themselves are smaller in diameter, and their entablature [7:3:453]consequently shallower. This derangement must of course increase with every succeeding ordinance, rendering it indeed impossible to make such a composition consistent. The most approved practice in arranging order above order appears to be, that the upper column shall take for its diameter the superior diameter of the one below it; that when the columns are detached their axes shall be in the same perpendicular line; but when attached or engaged, the plinth of the pedestal of the upper shall impend the top of the shaft of the lower column. The most rational mode, however, for diminishing, if reason can be applied to such compositions, is to carry the diminution through, the outlines of the columns of the lowest order being drawn up in the same direction, and so the columns of every story would take up their place and be diminished in regular gradation. When columns are attached, or pilasters used, in Italian architecture, the almost invariable custom is to break the entablature over every column or pilaster, or over every two when they are in couples. Because of the great length of the intercolumniation, it would appear to have been done at first; but it has frequently been done by some of the most esteemed practitioners of the school, even without that excuse, so that it may be held as approved by them. A basement is either a low stereobate or a lofty story, as it may be intended to supporta single ordinance the whole height of the main body of the structure, or indeed the lowest of two or more orders; or as it may occupy the ground story of a building, and support an ordinance, or the appearance of one, above. In either case, much is necessarily left to the discretion of the architect; but in the latter the height of the order it is to support is the generally prescribed height of the basement. A basement may be rusticated or plain; if it be low, and is not arranged like a continued pedestal, it must have neither cornice nor blocking course; but if lofty, a deep, bold, blocking course is indispensable. An attic may vary in height from one quarter to one third the height of the order it surmounts; attics are arranged with a base, dado, and coping cornice, like pedestals, and generally have pilasters broken over the columns below. The rule for the form, composition, and application of pediments in Italian architecture, if it may be gathered from the practice of the school, appears to be to set good taste at defiance in them all. We find pediments of every shape, composed of cornices, busts, scrolls, festoons, and what not, and applied in every situation, and even one within another, to the number of three or four, and each of these of different form and various composition. The proportion laid down for the height of a pediment is from one fourth to one fifth the length of its base, or the cornice on which it is to rest. Balustrades are used in various situations, but their most common application is in attics or as parapets, on the summits of buildings, before windows, in otherwise close continued stereobates, to flank flights of steps, to front terraces, or flank bridges. Their shapes and proportions are even more diversified than their application: that of most frequent use is shaped like an Italian Doric column, compressed to a dwarfish stature, and consequently swollen in the shaft to an inordinate bulk in the lower part, and having its capital, to the hypotrachelium, reversed to form a base to receive its grotesque form. The base and coping cornice of a balustrade arc those of an ordinary attic, or of a pedestal whose dado may be pierced into balusters. The general external proportions of an edifice, when they are not determined by single columnar ordinances, appear to be unsettled. The grand front of the • Farnese Palace in Rome is in two squares, its length being twice its height; the length of each front of Vignola’s celebrated pentagonal palace of Caprarola is twice and a quarter its height above the bastions. In Palladio’s works we find the proportions of fronts to vary so considerably, as to make it evident that he did not consider himself bound by any rule on that point. In some cases we find the length to be once and one sixth the height, in others’ once and a fourth, once and a half, twice, twice and a sixth, and even three and a sixth; and elevations by other masters of the school are found to vary to the same extent. The proportions of rooms, again, range from one to two cubes inclusive, though it is preferred that the height should be a sixth, or even a fifth less than a side when the plan is a square; but the sesquialteral form, with the height equal to the breadth, and the length one half more, is considered the most perfect proportion for a room. There is considerable variety and beauty in the foliate and other enrichments of an architectural character in many structures in Italy, but very little ornament enters into the columnar composition of Italian architecture. Friezes, instead of being sculptured, are swollen; the shafts of columns, it has been already remarked, are very seldom fluted, and their capitals are generally poor in the extreme; mouldings are indeed sometimes carved, but not often; rustic masonry, ill-formed festoons, and gouty balustrades, for the most part supply the place of chaste and classic ornaments. This refers more particularly to the more classic works of the school; in many of the earlier Trecento structures of Italy, and on monuments of various kinds, we find what may be called a graceful profusion of ornament, of the most tasteful and elegant kind; few carved mouldings, however, and very few well-profiled cornices, are to be met with in Italian compositions of any kind. In many of the later architectural works of that country we find again a profusion of ornament of the most tasteless and inelegant description, chiefly in the gross and vulgar style, which is distinguished as that of Louis XIV. of France.

Of Pointed Architecture.

There are so many varieties of this beautiful style, and the variations are at the same time so considerable and so minute, that it is impossible to describe it generally. Every country in which it was practised had some peculiarities in its composition, and, to develope it perfectly, all of them should be pointed out. This, however, would far exceed our limits; and as the specimens of our own are not excelled, if indeed they are equalled, by those of any other country, a consideration of the style as exhibited by them will afford us a better opportunity of developing it than could be obtained by making our observations more general.

Various classifications of Pointed architecture have been made, and in almost all of them the arch is considered the index, as the column is in columnar architecture; for, like that, it is more expressive of variety than any other feature in the composition to which each belongs. These, too, form the grand distinctions between the Greek and its derivative styles, and the Pointed; but, independently of the column in the one and the arch in the other, the two species of architecture maybe said each to have certain governing principles, which sufficiently distinguish and make it impossible to mould them together in one composition, and almost to apply any of the leading forms of the one to the other. They may be thus generally laid down. In Greek and Roman architecture the general running lines are horizontal, as in entablatures and single cornices. In Pointed, the general running lines are vertical. In the former, arches are not necessary to a composition; in the latter, arches are a really fundamental principle. In Greek and Roman, again, columns require an entablature; in the Pointed style no such thing as an entablature composed of parts is appli [7:3:454] cable to the pillars, columns, or shafts. ( Vide Rickman’s Attempt, &c. p. 110.)

These, however, only determine the generic differences f which exist; the varieties in the former style we have found to be marked by such and such distinctive featuι es in the columns and their accessories, which allowed them to be divided into orders. In the latter the varieties arise chronologically, and, consisting for the most .part in the forms and arrangements of details, are not incoherent, nor are certain proportions either fixed or determinable, and consequently they cannot be rendered into orders.

It has been customary, in treating of Pointed architecture, to class with it the Saxon and Norman Gothic styļes. This is at least unnecessary, as they have no direct relation to it, except that of immediate precedence in point of time, and that the one was the stock on which the other was grafted. The peculiarities of Pointed architecture are indeed totally independent of those of its predecessor the Gothic; nevertheless we should hardly be excused for passing over the latter in total silence.

According to the best authorities, there are very few specimens of architecture now in existence in this country which can properly be called Saxon, that is, of a date anterior to the Conquest, and not of Roman origin; and those few are of the rudest and most inferior description. Saxon, therefore, as far as the architecture of this country is concerned, is an improper term. All the ancient structures which are distinguished by the semicircular .arch may be called Anglo or Anglo-Norman Gothic. It consists principally of massive columnar piers supporting semicircular arches, similarly arched doors and windows, and arches on small columns in relief, against a dead wall, to ornament it. The pier when round has a rude foliate or rounded capital, and generally a moulded base, and is variously ornamented on the surface, being altogether a rude resemblance of the columns of Roman architecture: it is at times polygonal, and sometimes piers consist of clusters of small round shafts. In doors and windows thin columns with rude capitals and bases frequently receive the mouldings of the arch; and, when the opening is divided, they are placed like mullions, to support the inner arches. There are examples of this style which are quite plain in every particular; but it is generally enriched by deep congeries of mouldings on the arches, and, when there are no columns, running down the jambs of doors. These are again frequently carved, and mostly with the zigzag or chevron ornament: grotesque masks, and rude representations of animals, foliage, and flowers, form also common enrichments in Anglo-Gothic architecture.

This style prevailed down to the reign of Henry IL of England, when the pointed arch made its appearance. A degree of impressive grandeur pervades its productions, notwithstanding their clumsiness, arising from the great simplicity of manner and massiveness of proportion by which it is distinguished. The best existing specimens in London are the vestibule of the Inner Temple church, which, moreover, exemplifies the transition; many parts of the church of St Bartholomew in Smithfield, and the chapel of the Tower of London. Exemplifications of the style are also to be found in the interiors of Norwich, Chichester, Gloucester, Canterbury, Worcester, Rochester, Winchester, Durham, Peterborough, Oxford,andHere-fθ r ⅛ 1 Cathedrals. According to Mr Rickman, the naves of Peterborough and Rochester arc the most unmixed specimens. Parts, which are easily distinguished, of the exteriors of many of the same edifices, portions of Lincoln, and the towers of Exeter Cathedrals, Bigod’s Tower at Norwich, and the White Tower in the Tower of London, afford characteristic external examples of the Anglo-Gothic style. The most striking castellated remains are those of Rochester in Kent, Hedingham in Essex, Conis-brough in Yorkshire., and Guildford in Surrey. Many minor edifices, principally ecclesiastical, exist in almost every county in Great Britain.^ Mr Rickman remarks two specimens of this style as peculiarly deserving of attention; the one in the vestibule or entrance of the chapter-house at Bristol, and the other in the staircase leading to the registry of Canterbury Cathedra!; the former for its simplicity and beauty of composition, and the latter for its singularity, and as exhibiting a very fine specimen of enrichment. The roofs, or ceilings rather, of the Anglo-Gothic edifices, were mostly of wood; but there are various examples of stone-groined ceilings to be found in crypts, which appertain to this style. Spires were unknown: there are, however, turrets crowned with large pinnacles of a date anterior to the introduction of the pointed arch, as in Rochester Cathedral, and the Church of St Peter in the East at Oxford. Towers were not uncommon; they are square massive structures, rising to no great height above the roof of the buildings to which they are attached. It may be remarked in addition, that many of our ancient structures retain the circular-headed or Anglo-Gothic door, when all the rest has been removed, and replaced by work of a later date.

Architects and antiquaries have generally agreed in dividing Pointed architecture into three styles of three succeeding periods. The first commences with the establishment of the pointed arch, and the formation of the style or manner which accompanies it, in the latter part of the twelfth century, the time of Henry II. of England; the second arose in the beginning of the fourteenth century, in the latter part of the reign of Edward I., and was itself superseded before that century closed, about the time of Richard the IL, by the third style, which is the latest, for with it, on the introduction of the Cinquecento, Pointed architecture ceased to exist. A difficulty arises· in appropriately naming these three styles, for on that point there is no degree of accordance among those who are best qualified to be considered as authorities. Mr Rickman calls the first the “Early English” style, the second the “Decorated English,” and the third the “Perpendicular English ;” to all of which terms Mr Britton objects, and, without giving appellations, except to the first, which he calls the “Lancet Order of Pointed Architecture,” suggests that the second might be named with propriety the “Triangular Arched,” and the third the “Obtuse Arched.” Objecting strongly to the term “Order,” used by Mr Britton, we think with him that the first might be appropriately called the “Lancet Arch” style; but his other distinctions are certainly not more defensible than Mr Rickman’s. In the absence, therefore, of unobjectionable distinctive terms, as the varieties arise chronologically, we will speak of them as Periods.

Of the First Period of Pointed Architecture.

Mr Rickman describes this style as being distinguished by pointed arches, and long narrow windows without mullions, and a peculiar ornament, which, from its resemblance to the teeth of a shark, he calls the toothed ornament. There is very considerable variety in the forms and proportions of its different examples, as they retain the massive character of the Anglo-Gothic, or tend to the more florid style of the next period. In the former the sharp lancet arch is found at times, in a series of its narrow windows, with rude piers between them, occupying the place of the precedent large circular-headed opening; and in other places springing from the round columnar piers of the former period. In its more advanced works we find the same long narrow window systematically arranged, singly or triply, with light clustered columns, against the [7:3:455]piers which divide them, receiving the deep congeries of mouldings which forms the archivolt. Its columned pier, too, consists of clustered shafts, generally on a round core, and always forming cylindrical masses, girded at different heights with slight rings or belts of mouldings. Their capitals consist for the most part of congeries of mouldings following the form of the shafts, though rich and flowering capitals are not uncommon. Moulded bases, too, are generally used, not dissimilar in form to what is called the attic base of Italian architecture.

The lancet arch is described from two centres about an acute-angled isosceles triangle in the line of its base, with a radius equal to twice and one third (in some cases more, and in some less) the length of that base, or of the span the arch is to embrace. This, though the ordinary, is not, however, the universal form of the arch in the first period; but the absence of mullions, and in general of tracery, may almost be considered a criterion: yet foliations or featherings are not uncommon, especially in doors, and as enrichments to flat surfaces, though every thing of the kind certainly indicates an approach to the style of the succeeding period. Ribs on the angles formed by the intersections of arches in groined ceilings, not in ramified tracery, but with bosses at their apices alone, appertain to works of the first period. These ribs sometimes spring from corbels, and sometimes from the heads of slight shafts, which may run uninterruptedly from the floor to the springing of the arched ceiling, against the walls or against the columnar piers; and a small cornice or tablet continuing round them, runs along horizontally to separate the vertical from the vaulted surface. Buttresses in general, of various forms, sometimes in diminishing stages and sometimes upright, with acutely gabled heads without crockets, but having finials—and flying buttresses in particular—belong to this style. The tablets or cornices, mouldings, ornaments, and the variety and arrangement of niches, must be gathered from examples. The parapet or battlement is straight and uninterrupted, and is either plain or ornamented with series of arches or panels with foliations. Turrets are in some cases square, in others octagonal; but the pinnacles which surmount them are almost always of the latter form, and plain or crocketed, as the work may be more or less ornate. Towers, in the style of this period, were generally made to receive that beautiful characteristic of Pointed architecture, the spire. This, in the best examples, is octagonal in its plan, and of pyramidal elevation, running to a point, or nearly so, under an angle of about 12°, the angle at the base being consequently 84°. In some cases the spire is richly crocketed like the pinnacles; but whether plain or crocketed, it is surmounted by a bold finial.

The most perfect structure in this style throughout is Salisbury Cathedral, which, unlike any other Pointed cathedral in England, except perhaps that of Bath, was begun and finished in the same manner; and so excellent an example is it, that it has been proposed to call the style of the period the Salisbury style. Not inferior in merit, and hardly less perfect a model of the same, is Beverley Minster. That which is of later date in it is easily distinguishable; and being confined to particular parts, it hardly interferes with the unity of the composition. The transepts of York Minster are also of the first period, and so is a great part of Westminster Abbey. The fronts of Ely, Lincoln, and Peterborough Cathedrals exhibit good specimens of it. Indeed there is hardly one of all our Pointed cathedrals which does not partake of this style in a greater or less degree. It will be most generally found interwoven with and superimposing the Anglo-Gothic where that exists, and inferior to, when in connection with, works of a later period. Many of the monastic structures with which this country abounds present very beautiful specimens of this style also. Among other excellent examples of it may be particularized the chapter-houses of Lincoln and Lichfield. Those beautiful monuments which the affection of Edward I. induced him to raise to the memory of his wife, called the Crosses of Queen Eleanor, are in the style of the first period, though they verge on that of the second, and indeed mark the transition which took place in the latter part of that king’s reign.

Of the Second Period of Pointed Architecture.

The style of this period, which is thought by many to be the classic age of Pointed Architecture, is described by Mr Rickman as being distinguished “by its large windows, which have pointed arches divided by mullions, and the tracery in flowing lines forming circles, arches, and other figures, not running perpendicularly; its ornaments numerous and very delicately carved.” Mr Britton says that “during this period the Pointed style received its greatest improvements ;” and that, limiting it to the time of Edward III., “the form of the arch then principally in vogue admitted of an equilateral triangle being precisely inscribed between the crowning point of the arch and its points of springing at the imposts.” The mullions of this style clearly result from the slender shafts which were used in that of the first period against the piers dividing a number of windows. The piers being removed, it became necessary that an arch should be turned from side to side, leaving a space to be filled up in the head above the smaller arches. This was done by repeating and continuing their contours, and connecting them by gracefully flowing lines and foliations. It is indeed but an extension of the former; for in some of the early examples the mullions are thin columnar shafts having capitals and bases, and the head of the arch is generally filled up with regular figures, such as foliated circles, leaving spandrels or triangular circular-sided spaces in various parts. It is in the more advanced works of this period that the tracery becomes what may be truly called flowing. The mullion is angular and moulded, and the mouldings run all through the composition; the jamb or architrave mouldings also run through, and for the most part without the intervention of any horizontal mouldings at the impost or springing of the arch. Besides the ordinary covering cornice or drip-stone following the form of the arch, we find a moulded cornice, generally arranged pediment-wise, embracing a window or door, having crockets and finials, and resting on corbels, which are almost always masks. This may be called an attached canopy. The columnar piers of this period are nearly square in plan, and are placed diagonally. They are sometimes composed of clustered shafts, and sometimes of shafts separated by deep hollows. Their capitals are either moulded simply in rather a deep congeries, or with woven foliage under a moulded abacus. Their bases are a diminishing series of bold mouldings, supported generally by a vertical-faced octagonal plinth. The shafts which support the ribs of the roof or ceiling tracery, in the finest examples of this style, spring from rich and bold corbels in the angles of the arches, or the spandrels, immediately above the piers. The groining ribs do not adhere to the angles of the groins merely, but are set more profusely to form tracery; and rich bosses are put at every intersection. Buttresses of the second period are exceedingly various: on angles they are mostly set diagonally. They either diminish gradually in heights or stories, and finish under the cornice, or they run through-and are surmounted by pinnacles. In some cases the sets-off in diminishing are made simply with an inclined shelf; in others every set-off is formed with a pediment properly [7:3:456] enriched, and the face of the buttress is generally ornamented with blank tracery in panels or niches. Flying buttresses in this style are also more ornate than those of the preceding; indeed in this they became ornaments, whereas in the former they appear to have been kept out of sight as much as possible. Parapets are either pierced or embattled, and a similar variety is maintained in pediments. Pinnacles are generally square, but they stand diagonallv with regard to the turret or buttress on which they arc placed, their angles resting on the apices of the pediments which surmount the faces of the substiucture. These pinnacles are richly ornamented with crockets and finials. Spires are less common in the more extensive works of this period than in the precedent; but in those of minor importance they are frequent, differing little, however, from the same object in works of the first period, except in being more highly enriched. Towers are richly pinnacled; but the pinnacles rest for the most part on small turrets rising from the angles of the tower itself, and seldom from projecting turrets or from the heads of buttresses, which latter are generally found to die away below the cornice. The details and enrichments of this style are too curious and complicated for verbal description, but they may be gathered from the examples.

We possess no one complete cathedral of the second period, but almost all our larger Pointed structures present specimens of it in a greater or less degree. Excepting perhaps the upper story or belfries of the towers of York Minster, which are of the third period, its west front is a model for this style, and it presents specimens of almost all its external peculiarities. The nave of the same edifice, and the interior of Exeter Cathedral, are perhaps the finest examples of the second period. The latter edifice, indeed, has the reputation of presenting a greater and more pleasing variety of tracery than any other of the same style. To these may be added the cathedrals of Lincoln and Ely, both of which contain much that is valuable. Next to these cathedrals may be placed Beverley Minster, which is not only a mine of beauty of the first, but it presents many exquisite specimens of this period also. The steeple of St Mary’s Church, Oxford, is a fine example in this style of the combination of tower and spire. Manv minor works in England, and several in Scotland, are excellent; particularly much of what remains of the High Church, Edinburgh, much of the remains of Elgin Cathedral, and the largest portion of those of Melrose Abbey, which, it would appear, was not excelled. when perfect, by any thing in the kingdom.

Of the Third Period of Pointed Architecture.

This is that period of the style commonly known as florid Gothic. The first authority quoted with regard to the styles of the two preceding periods calls it the Perpendicular English, and says that this name clearly designates it; “for the mullions of the windows and the ornamental panellings run in perpendicular lines, and form a complete distinction from the last style.” Mr Britton, however, insists that the term perpendicular, though perhaps proper enough, if the style could be sufficiently distinguished by the mullions of the windows and the upright forms and continuity of the panelling over entire surfaces, “gives no idea of the increased expansion of the windows, nor of the gorgeous fan-like tracery of the vaultings, noι of the heraldic description of the enrichments which peculiarly distinguished this period; neither does it convey any information of the horizontal lines of the door-ways, noι of the embattled transoms of the windows, nor of the vast pendents that constitute such important features in the third division.” Although windows with tracery in them may be determined as belonging to this period, by the perpendicular and parallel lines found in the head or arch, and by the use of transoms to divide the bays into heights, yet the presence of a window of this kind does nothing towards fixing the style of the edifice generally to which it may belong; for in hundreds of cases this sort of window will be found where it is the only specimen of its age or style in the structure. Other points must therefore be attended to.

The simpler arches of this style are, like those of the preceding periods, struck from two centres only; the two sides or halves of the arch are similar segments of a circle whose radius in this case is about three fourths the width of the opening. Others are segments of ellipses, and are of course struck from four centres; but some are eccentric curves, which may be drawn, but cannot be described. Many of both the latter descriptions are extremely fiat or depressed, the angle at their apex being very obtuse. The ogee or contrasted arch is also found in works of this period, but this is more common in internal tracery than in external form. The modes of arranging tracery must be gathered from examples, for they possess no degree of regularity to render it possible to describe them generally in words. Mullions are richly moulded, and so are the architraves of both doors and windows; the deep congeries of mouldings forming architraves are not intercepted by horizontal or impost mouldings, but run through from the head down the sides or legs. The angular or pedimented canopy to an arched opening in the style of the second period assumes in this the form of a contrasted arch; it is corbelled and enriched with crockets and finials as in that. Doors, however, in this style are peculiar, because whatever the form of the arched head may be, it is inscribed in a square frame or canopy, the spandrels being variously enriched. Columnar piers of this period are of almost parallelogramic form, thinner in the direction of the arches, and generally plain on the longer sides, but deeply moulded and running to a thin shaft on the outer edges. These mouldings are those which enrich the arch, there being no capital of any kind to intercept them, so that they run, as in windows and doors, all round the opening. To this, however, there are exceptions. The thin shaft which is formed on the outer edge of the pier continues through from floor to ceiling, to receive the groining ribs; and it has a thin congeries of mouldings at either end to form base and capital. The tracery of the ribs of groined ceilings of this period is most profuse, and beyond description intricate. To this also belongs the absurdity called basket groining, in which the arches are made to spring on one of their sides from a pendent mass, which, though rich and gorgeous in appearance, threatens constant ruin. Corner buttresses standing diagonally are not so common in this as in the preceding style; in form, however, they are not dissimilar, excepting that the sets-off are plain moulded slopes for the most part, instead of having pedimented or triangular vertical heads, as in that. Flying buttresses are, like the style generally, very much enriched, and are very commonly used. Parapets are variously arranged; indeed they embrace almost every peculiarity, being either plain, panelled, pierced, or embattled; and each of the latter modes is effected by different means. Pinnacles in this style are generally square, but there are examples of them having a greater number than four sides; in the former and most usual case they are sometimes placed with their sides parallel to those of their pedestals, and sometimes diagonally: they are of course in every case highly enriched with crockets and finials. Spires of this are hardly distinguishable from those of the preceding period; and towers, of which there are innumerable specimens, may be known by the construction of their buttresses, and by the arrangement of the tracery in the heads [7:3:457]of their windows, as the windows of towers are generally contemporaneous with that story, or stage of it at least, to which they belong. Octagonal or otherwise polygonal turrets at the angles of buildings are not uncommon, and they generally finish with an embattled parapet. The pedestals which support the pinnacles on the angles of towers, and at the heads of buttresses, seldom have pedimented faces, as in the preceding period, but finish with a corbelled battlement, and not unfrequently send up minor turrets and pinnacles from its angles.

In the more ornate works of this style the enrichment of flat surfaces is carried to great excess, and it is generally effected by means of panelling. Niches with their canopies, tabernacles, screens, and stalls, exhibit the most exuberant profusion of ornament, for the most part effected in this manner; but we find, besides, a considerable variety of ornaments, foliate and heraldic; of the former the Tudor flower, which is a combination of the roses, is pleasingly predominant.

The only one of the cathedrals entirely of this period is that of Bath; þut being generally inferior in merit to many other examples, it need not be cited. Many of the cathedrals, however, have large portions in this style, which can hardly be mistaken if the form of the arches, the arrangement of the tracery, and the mode of enrichment, be attended to. The finest west fronts to any of them are possessed by those of Gloucester, Winchester, and Chester; but that of Beverley Minster is by far the most perfect and most classic specimen in existence, if we except the front of Westminster Hall, which is also of surpassing merit, and is moreover a classic exemplification of most of the peculiarities of the style. Taken as separate edifices, the chapels of St George at Windsor, of Henry VII. at Westminster, and of King’s College at Cambridge, are the most complete, as they are entirely and peculiarly of the third period. The central towers of the archiepiscopal fanes of Canterbury and York, the tower of Gloucester Cathedral, that of Magdalene College, Oxford, Boston Tower, and the tower of St Mary Magdalene at Taunton, are singularly excellent examples of the style. To smaller edifices, those of W rexham and Gres-ford in Wales, and of St Neot’s in Huntingdonshire, are particularly beautiful. Of steeples, that is, towers having spires superimposed, there are many fine specimens; but the most perfect, perhaps, in composition are those of Bloxham in Oxfordshire, and of Louth in Lincolnshire: the former is most admirable rather in general than in detail. Many of the monastic ruins throughout the country present excellent specimens of this style also; indeed it is to ecclesiastical structures we must look for architectural display in Pointed architecture, as in that of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. We have just specimens enough existing of the architecture of the secular structures of our ancestors to show how inferior it was in merit to that of the ecclesiastical; and if the castellated mansions of the nobility, and the palaces of the sovereigns, cannot vie in excellence with the cloistered cells of the monks, we may be well assured that ordinary domestic architecture was of a still more inferior cast.

Elements of Beauty in Architecture.

Simplicity and harmony are the elements of beauty in architecture; simplicity in the general fornr and arrangement of a subject, and harmony in the collocation and combination of its various parts. Without these qualities a structure can never possess either dignity or grace, and with them it will certainly possess the attractions of both. 1he outline, then, most conducive to beauty in architecture, is that which bounds the most simple forms. These are the parallelogramic and pyramidal, in which the lines are straight and uninterrupted throughout their whole length. The ancient monuments of Egypt, of Greece, and of Rome, offer the most complete exemplifications of this. No other than the long, unbroken line which bounds the temples of Egypt could produce an effect so grand; and no other than the simple, square, and pyramidal forms, could be productive of so much dignity as they possess. In the pyramids and obelisks of the same country the effect of this simplicity is even more obvious. In the temples of Greece, again, the same dignified simplicity is still predominant; for although in them the parallelogram and pyramid are combined, they are not confused; their mass consisting of a parallelopipedon whose ends are surmounted by vertically faced pyramids, connected by an unbroken line of ridge running parallel to the horizontal boundaries of the sides. Those of the Roman monuments which are deficient in simplicity are also deficient in beauty. Such are the triumphal arches, whose general form is broken by columns and arches which subject themselves to no commanding outline, but are all at the same time prominent features of and excrescences from the general composition. In the temples which are on the Greek model it is not so; nor is it so in the long series of arches in the Roman aqueducts, which are crowned and connected by commanding lines, unimpeded by projections or protuberances of any kind. The crucial form of the Pointed cathedral may be thought to detract somewhat from its simplicity, and so much from its beauty; but it is an aggregation of simple forms, perfectly coherent with the tendency of the leading lines in the style, which, we have seen, is vertical; and the lines are therefore not broken by the projected masses of the transepts, as they would be in the Egyptian and other styles, the tendency of whose commanding lines is horizontal. Otherwise the Pointed cathedral is a modification merely of the form of a Greek temple, with other parallelogramic forms added to it, as towers, or pyramidal, as spires. The same principle will be found to pervade the best works of the Italian school, more or less modified according to its application.

Next to the straight line is the circular; but the greater complexity of this latter, and the variety of which it is capable, render it more subtile, and for the most part less competent to produce grand and impressive effects, except under peculiar circumstances of situation and combination. A cupola such as the cupolas of St Peter’s at Rome and St Paul’s in London, if placed on its base on the ground, or even on a low structure, like a large beehive, would be not merely ineffective, but absolutely ugly; and if, in the situations they occupy, the cupolas referred to were without the diminishing pinnacles above them, to bring their general outlines within that of the pyramid, it is a question whether they would possess the attractive beauty they now do. If St Paul’s be looked at in the gray twilight of morning or evening, or when a mist renders its form indistinct, the impression conveyed by the mass is that of a lofty pyramid or cone, rising out of the substruction which the cathedral forms, and running off to a point in the sky. The superstructure of St Peter’s is, as we have seen, more depressed, and less perfectly formed in this particular; yet nevertheless it maybe submitted to the same test, and the same or nearly the same result will follow. Furthermore, let a hemisphere or an oblate hemispheroid be supposed in the place of the prolate hemispheroid, as at present, and this reasoning will be rendered more clear; for neither of those forms, even with the accessories these possess, would be as beautiful; and without them they would be ungainly deformities, as is proved by that example on the new nalace in London, on the site of Buckingham House.
[7:3:458]

The cupola of the London University exemplifies this point also; for though its profile is elegant, and its accessories are generally good, the composition does not resolve itself into a simple form, and the result is far from being beautiful.

When the circular form is employed cylindrically, the utmost simplicity is required to be preserved in its horizontal, as well as in its vertical lines, or the result will be totally devoid of all architectural beauty. In proof of this, let the broken and dentilled columnar ordinance which surrounds the tholobate of St Peter’s be compared with the noble, unbroken peristyle in the corresponding part of St Paul’s. In the former the cylindrical mass is studded with a series of minute excrescences of coupled columns; and in the latter it forms a grand, beautiful, and effective compartment of the composition.

The preceding remarks do not of course apply to the interior of a structure in the same manner; for although as high a degree of simplicity is required internally as-externally, similar combinations are not necessary, nor are they indeed always available. A spacious concave, of whatever form its profile may be, so that its plan be a perfect circle, is one of the grandest works of architecture, and at the same time one of the most simple, whether it occupy a compartment of the structure to which it belongs, as in St Peter’s and St Paul’s, or cover the complete edifice to .which it appertains, as in the Pantheon at Rome. In such situations it is indeed almost impossible to destroy its inherent simplicity; and being unconnected with external circumstances, it requires no coherence with any thing else, being as independent of its substructure as of its external contour for effect. Irregular and intricate forms, however, in works of architecture, whether internally or externally, will be found unpleasing. Few can admire the • external effect of the Pantheon, or of the structure in London called the Colosseum, which has been subjected to the same arrangement, though certain features in both may be indisputably good. To these may be added the church in Langham Place, London, and indeed many others; but that is an egregious example in point. The complication of straight and circular in their composition, and the consequent irregular forms and undefined outlines, totally destroy both simplicity and harmony. The comparison of an Egyptian obelisk with a monumental column of the same relative size will afford the strongest proof of the superiority the more simple form possesses over the more complicate. None, however, but those who have visited Rome, in which city alone the comparison can properly be made, can duly appreciate this evidence; but London furnishes a contrast almost as much to the purpose, in the monument on Fish Street Hill, and the lofty shot tower by the south-west angle of Waterloo Bridge. They are both of cylindrical form; but the one is crowned by a square abacus, and the other by a bold cornice, which follows its own outline. The greater simplicity and consequent beauty of the latter is such as to strike the most unobservant.

Not only in general form and outline is simplicity necessary to beauty in architecture, but in all its details, and even in its enrichments, also. In exemplification of this, a Greek entablature may be compared with one in the Roman style, in which every thing is sacrificed to profuse ornament; and the style of ornament in the latter may again with equal advantage be compared with that of the age of Louis XIV. of France. In the arrangement o f the parts of a composition, as well as in the composition itself, simplicity is essentially necessary to the beauty of the whole; every style will afford exemplifications of this also, in the comparison of the more simple with the more complicate specimens of the same. Compare the few simple and well-defined parts of a Grecian Ionic entablature with a Roman or Italian example of that order: in the latter will be found a complexity and straining at effect not at all consistent with beauty and dignity, determining the comparison much in favour of the first; and so in many other cases which might be cited. That the more simple arrangement of columns at equal distances is superior to that in which they are coupled or placed only alternately equidistant, is clear from the fact that the latter mode was first proposed, and is only used to obviate difficulties, and not from choice, except in the works of the merest pretenders.

Harmony, concord, or fitness—of proportion, of form, of one part of a composition to another, and in the collocation of the various enrichments which architecture requires,—is as necessary to its beauty as simplicity. We do not speak of the agreement which should exist between the manner or character of a structure and its application, for that is purely conventional, and totally independent of any architectural consideration. The merit or demerit of a composition is not at all affected by the use to which the edifice is applied; neither would its front be more tolerable, nor its cupola less beautiful, if St Peter’s in Rome were, by the course of events, to become a democratic forum instead of a papal basilica; nor is the monument of London a more or less elegant object, whether it be understood to record a triumph or a defeat—the burning of the city, or its re-edification. Harmony in architecture is that agreement which exists between its various parts, as in the relation of a column to its entablature and stylobate, in the accordance of a cornice with the elevation it crowns, and in the coherence of one part of a composition with another. It is that which exists in the common tendency of the leading lines of a structure; and it is that which blends the straight and circular in enrichment or decoration, as in the capital of an Ionic column whose square and horizontal form is harmoniously adapted to the vertical lines and cylindrical form of the shaft, by the intervention of the volutes. An inharmonious combination arises out of the collocation of the same voluted capital with a pilaster or square pier. This quality requires a judicious arrangement of ornament. That a certain degree of enrichment should pervade the whole of a composition, and not be confined to one part of it—for instance a Corinthian ordinance, in which the columns are unfluted and the entablature is quite plain—is inharmonious; for the capitals being masses of rich foliage, are spots, having nothing to connect them with the rest. A degree of harmony must exist, too, between the solids and vacuities of an edifice. An Italian portico with its thin and straggling columns, is an inharmonious object, for it conveys an idea of infirmity and poverty, which is not the case with one proportioned like the best Greek and Roman examples. In the front of a house, windows and the piers between them being too wide or too narrow will affect its character in this respect. The comparative size of various portions of the same composition, though they be in themselves simple and harmonious, may be such that they shall not be so in combination. The porticoof the London University is of almost unequalled magnificence and beauty, and the cupola behind and above it is of elegant form, though deficient in another particular, as we have already stated; yet they do not harmonize—the one is much too large for the other, and their forms are incoherent. .

Thus harmony has reference to comparative magnitude, strength, decoration, disposition, and proportion. To acquire a knowledge of all these sufficient to produce a worthy result, a long course of study and careful observation are necessary: but such can only be necessary to the architect; it is enough for the general student to be [7:3:459]able to appreciate them when present, and to detect their absence.

Principles of Architectural Composition.

These must be different in the widely differing species of architecture, whose tendencies in the one are to horizontal or depressed, and in the other to vertical or upright lines and forms; the former including all those varieties which derive from the Greek and Roman modes of design, or columnar and circular-arched architecture; and the latter embracing those which arise out of the pointed arch, and which we have distinguished by the term Pointed. Except in the elements of architectural beauty, which must be the same in all architectural works, there is no similarity whatever between the principles which govern composition in the two species. Simplicity of form, and harmony between the parts, are as essentially necessary to the one as to the other; but instead of the leading horizontal lines required by the former, the latter is distinguished by the absence of commanding lines having that tendency, and by the presence of strongly marked lateral projections and vertically inclined lines. The rectangular figure formed by the front of a Greek temple, below the pediment, rests on one of its longer sides as a base. In a Pointed composition that order is reversed, and one of the shorter sides becomes the base; and the pediment, instead of being a depressed obtuse-angled triangle, becomes upright and acute-angled; the whole mass, moreover, follows the change thus described, so that the same figure, a parallelepiped, is set for horizontal or vertical composition, as a larger or smaller side is made the base. This being the case, it will be necessary to treat of them separately; for rules which apply to the one are totally inapplicable to the other, and the former, being of most comnhon application, may be taken first. We shall quote the principles which appear to have actuated the Greek and Roman architects in the production of their best works, or rather the principles which those works develope, instead of citing all existing ancient works as authorities; and determine on those principles how to produce similar results in cases of which examples do not appear in ancient practice. In the same manner, we must deduce the principles for general composition in the Pointed style, from those which appear to enter into its best existing works.

Of Horizontal Composition.

Every thing tending to break the continuity of the leading horizontal lines in a composition should be avoided. The advantage of adhering to this, and the disadvantage • resulting from the breach of it, are clearly exemplified in the front of the Farnese Palace, and in the flank of St i. Peter’s at Rome. In London, too, the fronts of the Banqueting House at W hitehall, and of Somerset House to the Strand, offer similar exemplifications of the principle; the former having both the entablatures and the stylobate of the upper ordinance broken round every column, which makes the ordinances mere excrescences, and the latter preserving the leading lines continuous and unbroken throughout, to the manifest advantage of the whole composition. This applies equally to columned and arcaded ordinances, and to compositions in which neither is used; and it is as much opposed to the projection of masses to form wings and centres, whether shallow or deep, as to the breaking of an entablature or stylobate round one or two columns. Sufficient variety of light and shadow is attainable without the use of columnar ordinances at all, as the Farnese Palace evinces. But if, however, it be required to give a greater degree of importance to an elevation than can be attained in that manner, it may be produced without either attaching or insulating columns the whole extent, by means of antae and recessed compartments with columns in them, as on either side of the gates in the north or Lothbury front of the Bank of England, and on the flanks of the churches of St Paneras and St Martin in London; but a mere pilastraded ordinance, or pilasters with an entablature and without columns, is bald, tasteless, and unmeaning, as the front of Crockford’s Club-house, in London also, very clearly shows. In speaking of the Italian style, we have shown the injudiciousness of putting order above order, because of the impossibility of maintaining a rational arrangement with regard to diminution and intercolumniation. We made that, too, an objection to the elevation of the Roman Colosseum; but the practice is moreover objectionable, because of the repetition of the similar parallel lines of the entablatures,similarly projected too, which destroy the breadth a composition should possess; and because the upper and crowning cornice, if in proportion to its own ordinance, must be disproportioned to the whole elevation which takes from that member a character of grandeur or meanness, as it may or may not be fitted to its whole height. This is made very evident by the opposed fronts of the United Service and Athenaeum Club-houses in London, the former of which is finished by the thin shelf-like cornice of a second order, and the latter by a bold massive crowning cornice in the style of that of the Farnese Palace. In a similar manner, and for the same reason, the practice of raising lofty basements to support columnar ordinances is injudicious; and this detracts much from the merit of the front of Somerset House just referred to, by making the crowning cornice of less importance than it should be. In St Paul’s this fault is partially relieved by the somewhat exaggerated size of the cornice of the upper order, and by the insertion of cut blocks, in the manner of upright modifiions, under it the whole depth of the frieze. Nothing, again, should be allowed to superimpose a crowning cornice, except what may form a part of itself, as antefixae; where, however, something is absolutely necessary, as on a bridge, a close simple parapet, as low as it may be conveniently, should be resorted to. On the principle first developed, porticos should not be projected from the front of a building, unless they occupy the whole extent of it, as in a Greek or Roman temple, and so carry the horizontal lines unbroken to the flanks; or they should be made distinct and independent objects, to which the rest of the composition may be subservient, as in the London University. A porticoshould moreover be considerably projected, or the surface behind it recessed, that the columns may have a background of shadow, otherwise it will be poor and inefficient. Of this the Greek temples offer a favourable exemplification; and most of our churches, and other modern edifices which have porticos to them, prove the correctness of the principle in the breach of it. Exceptions more or less favourable certainly exist, whose superior merit is sufficient to indicate them. A pediment should never be used unless it is made to embrace the whole of the end or front to which it is attached. Numberless absurdities have arisen in Italian architecture from the injudicious application of this form; so general, indeed, is it, that the fact of a pediment existing under any circumstance in a work of that style is almost a sufficient reason for avoiding a similar use of it. Nothing is more difficult than to combine straight and circular, or otherwise bending lines, with propriety and good taste, and therefore their collocation, in general composition particularly, should be seldom attempted. It is when they harshly contrast, as in circular pediments, and in mixed compositions of columns or pilasters, with their accessories, and arches and [7:3:460] their piers, that the combination is bad; but not so in the connection of the arch with its pier, so that the former be semicircular or semielliptical, and not smaller segments, in which cases they fall naturally and gracefully together. The incoherence and inelegance of contrasted straight and circular forms are very evident in the New Exchange at Paris, where two tiers of circular-headed windows are seen within a Corinthian peristyle. Circular prostyles or cyr-toprostyles should be avoided, as their horizontal lines cannot be made to harmonize perfectly with any form to which they may be attached. This however does not apply to peristyles; and both the one and the other are exemplified by the transept porticos and columned tholobate of St Paul’s. The use of coupled columns is so absurd, and they are confessedly so inelegant, that it seems almost unnecessary to proscribe them. Suppose apertures, such as windows, arranged in couples throughout an elevation, with very narrow and very wide piers alternating, and both the absurdity and the inelegance become manifest: now, neither the one nor the other can be either lessened or changed by reversing the case, and putting alternately wide and narrow openings, as in coupled columnar ordinances. Columns may with propriety be put further apart when they are attached than when they are insulated, because the entablature, resting "in part on the wall, is neither in fact nor in appearance made infirm by the distension, as it would be if it rested on the columns alone. All the parts of the same edifice which come into view, under any circumstances at the same time, should correspond; but insulated and attached columns of the same ordinance and in the same elevation may, under certain circumstances, without impropriety be arranged with a different intercolumniation.

An arcaded ordinance should be considered as only more massive than, and differently shaped from, a columnar, and may therefore be governed by nearly the same principles. A pier is but a differently shaped and more massive column, and the archivolt but a succedaneum for the architrave; while a bold blocking course, or a commensurate cornice and frieze, as the composition may be more or less ornate, will complete the ordinance. Under this view nothing can be more absurd than to affix columns or pilasters to the piers of an arcade to support an entablature, and certainly nothing can be more inharmonious, from the contrast which arises, as we have just remarked, between the rectangular lines of the latter, and the inscribed circular lines of the arch, as well as the incongruity necessarily attending the interspaces of the columns.

In speaking of Greek and Roman architecture, we have shown why columns should, and why antae and pilasters should not, be fluted; and have shown also, that a certain degree of richness or plainness of surface should pervade a composition, and not be confined to particular parts of it. It will now be enough to add, that in composing, lights and shadows should not be scattered on a surface as they are on the front of the Banqueting House, by broken ordinances; nor should either be too much narrowed, as the light on the corona of a Roman cornice too frequently is, by the too great projection of the cymatium. It will be found, moreover, that shadows projected horizontally are mosre in coherence with the horizontal style of composition, than those which fall laterally, or from a vertically projecting object.

ι Columns, Šļc. — The proportions of the columnar orders will be best sought in the existing examples of the ancients; and those we give of them afford sufficient variety. What is deficient in one may be made up from another; and what appears superfluous in one example may be omitted, as its omission may appear beneficially to affect another. The Doric may be adopted from the Parthenon or the temple of Theseus, as the best existing models of the order. If an ungraduated stylobate be used, which should be avoided if possible, it should not exceed one diameter in height. The intercolumniation should not exceed one triglyph, as in the Greek temples, though for compositions of a generally less dignified character it may, perhaps, be extended to two. A good modern example of the Doric order, in a work pf the latter description, may be seen in the small entrance porticoto the University Club-house in Lpndon. The Ionic example from the Erechtheum, which we have given, may be used as a model for that order, with the same restriction with regard to the stylobate which is made to the Doric. Additional depth may with advantage be allowed to the bed-mould of the cornice, and it may be effected by the insertion of a dentilled member, which indeed some of the ancient Greek (though not Athenian) examples possess. The intercolumniation should not be less than one diameter and a half, nor should it exceed two diameters. In London this order is admirably applied in the front of an Episcopal chapel on the east side of North Audley Street; and this particular example is very correctly copied on the exterior of the church of St Pancras. The. great inferiority of the Roman examples of the Doric and Ionic orders is too evident to require that what it consists in should be pointed out, and they are the models of the Italian. The Greek example of the Corinthian order 1 might perhaps be improved by making the dentil member J of the cornice a little shallower, by projecting the corona rather less, and by correcting the form of some of the mouldings of the entablature generally. If the columns be used in a prostyle or other insulate position, they may with advantage be made half a diameter less in height; and the intercolumniation also should be made less than it appears in the original, where the columns are attached. This example has been well executed in the entrance to the Philadelpheion or Exeter Hall, in the Strand; but the pedestals and the attic are blemishes in the composition. Of the Roman examples of this order, that of the templei of Jupiter Stator is certainly the best. Its greatest fault 1 is the too great magnitude of the cornice, of which every member, except the corona, might advantageously be restricted one tenth of its height; that which is dentilled might indeed be reduced one fifth. The projections might also be diminished in the same proportion, removing the greater diminution of one fifth in this particular from the dentilled member to the cymatium, and the ovalo under it, both of which project by far too much. The three fascias of the architrave are too unequally divided. The lowest may be made as wide as the middle one, by deducting their difference from the third or upper one. In the Tivoli example the architrave is too shallow, and sol are the dentil band and corona of the cornice; and the cymatium is both too deep and too much projected. The cornice would moreover be improved by denticulating the dentil band, and by enriching the frieze with an ornament less coarse and less massive. If this example be used in a generally ornate composition, some of the mouldings of the entablature should be enriched. The parts of the entablature of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina arel well proportioned to each other. The cornice of this example would be improved by giving additional height to the dentil band at the expense of the moulding above it, and by denticulating it also. The cymatium is rather too shallow, and may be widened out of the moulding under it; and both should be restricted in their projection at least one fifth. The capital of this example is poor, and its abacus is too shallow. The shaft requires fluting, and one half the depth of the upper fillet of the base might be added with advantage to the tori and scotia. The cited [7:3:461]example from the porticoof the Pantheon has, like the last mentioned, the parts of its entablature well proportioned to each other. As in the Jupiter Stator example, the architrave should be more equally divided. The mouldings, too, separating the fascias, should be made less ’ and the superior moulding, at least of the architrave, carved, unless the frieze were enriched, and then it would not be necessary. In the cornice a fifth or sixth should be taken from every member of the bed-mould and added to the corona. In the presence of modillions, however, the dentil band is judiciously kept plain, though the moulding below it would be better if enriched. The capital of this example is as faulty as that of Antoninus and Faustina, and in the same particulars. The shaft also requires fluting, and the base might with advantage be made to spread more. The ordinance of the temple of Mars Ultor, though the most masculine, is, from its good proportions, and the bold character of its foliage, one of the most excellent of the Roman Corinthian examples. Most of the entablature being supplied from a not well authenticated source, may not be original; but that is of no consequence, if it be beautiful. The corona, like that member in most Roman entablatures, wants greater depth; and the cymatium perhaps less, and certainly less projection. In this, as in the first-mentioned Roman example, with modillions there are dentils. This is injudicious; the member would be better plain, as in the Pantheon ordinance. The architrave, which is authentic, is exceedingly well proportioned, and the column is fine in all its parts. These examples all vary in their intercolumniation, from rather less than one diameter and a half to a fraction more than two diameters, beyond which proportions, either less or more, it would not be well to go. A stylobate to the order might judiciously be adapted from the Greek; for the stilted effects produced by insulated pedestals, and even by continuous vertical stylobates, are injurious to the general appearance of a columnar composition; and the thin steps in common use detract exceedingly from its beauty under any circumstances.

There are many varieties of the foliate capital which may be used with advantage; one of the least elegant, however, is that which assumes the distinction of being called the Composite order. The example of it from the arch of Titus is one of the best, if not the best; but it will be seen, on comparison, to be strikingly inferior to the Corinthian examples, or those in which the volutes of the capital are made subservient to the foliage, instead of being distended into huge mis-shapen knobs. The entablature, too, is only an exaggerated Corinthian. If it be wished to use foliate capitals differently composed from the ordinary, it may be well to preserve the character and proportions of the entablature the same, or nearly so. Under any circumstances, however, care should be taken in composing an entablature, that it have sufficient height, and yet not be too heavy; that it be sufficiently divided, and yet not frittered; that the parts have sufficient breadth, and be not so much projected as to bury all that is below them in shadow; and that ornament be properly distributed, and in sufficient quantity, without overloading the composition with it, as in the ordinance of the arch of Titus.

If again it be wished, under any circumstances (though the practice cannot be recommended), to use human figures as columns, there appears to be no reason why the entablature should be executed without a frieze, as it is in the example of the Pandroseum; and if a frieze be inserted, it should be by lessening the other parts, and not by increasing the whole, as that entablature (taking it as a modeD is quite deep enough in proportion to the height of the ordinance.

Entasis in columns need not be regarded, unless they exceed eighteen or twenty feet in height; but it adds much to their beauty, and should not be neglected when they are above that magnitude. No rule can be given for its production, but it may be thus described. The shaft, instead of being the frustrum of a regular cone, is the frystrum of a cone whose outline is not straight, but slightly convex; so that if it were perfect, its vertical section would have the form of a very acute pointed arch. This convexity should, however, be so slight as in the finished shaft to be hardly perceptible. Its abuse is evident in the columns of the east front of the church of St Paul, Covent Garden, and indeed in some of the less esteemed works of the Greeks themselves. The modes of fluting in the different orders may be gathered from the examples. The flutes should be deeper .or shallower, as the collocation of the ordinance may require a greater or less depth of shadow on the surface of the columns. The elliptical or nearly elliptical contour seems to be the most generally pleasing. The flutes meet in an arris on columns of the Doric order, and are separated from each other by alternating fillets in the Ionic and Corinthian.

Antae and Pilasters. — These should seldom be used, externally at least, unless with columns, for their real use is to connect a columnar ordinance with the walls to which it is attached; and being, as they are, but slight projections from walls for that purpose, nothing can be more absurd than to give them the features of columns, either by the application to them of similar capitals and bases, by diminishing, or by fluting. The use of antae was rightly understood by the Greeks, but not by the Romans; and their proper use may be seen in the works of the former. The examples in London of their judicious application, most worthy of remark, are in those edifices already mentioned as exhibiting good specimens of the Greek orders, in the Bank of England, and in the porticoonly of the London University. The adaptation in these of other than the bold foliage and branching cauliculi of the columnar capitals in the Corinthian ordinances to the antae caps is particularly worthy of notice (though they are not all of equal merit as compositions), as the Greek remains are without a regular example of Corinthian antae, a*ιd the Roman practice is inelegant.

Pediments. — As there is no mode by which the pitch of a pediment can be determined, it must be left to the taste of the designer to be governed or not by the examples of Greek and Roman antiquity: it may, however, be premised of them generally, that those of the former school are too flat, and those of the latter too steep. The pediment of the porticoof the London university is admirably proportioned to the rest of the composition, but its pitch would be absurdly flat if applied to a tetrastyle portico The inclined sides of a pediment are covered by a cornice similar to that which forms its base, except that all blocks, modifiions, and dentils are omitted; even if the bed-mould itself be retained, and a cymatium superadded.

Cornices, 8çc. —Although a perfect entablature should not be applied to crown an edifice, except it be in connection with columns of some sort, or their legitimate representatives, piers, yet a single cornice, or a cornice and frieze, is not so; and it forms the most pleasing termination to an elevation in which columns are not used. The proportion of one or the other may be best found by setting out a columnar ordinance of the style preferred at the height of the elevation; and the size of the cornice or cornice and frieze thus given will aptly become it. The Vignolan or block cornice, in which the frieze is occupied by cut blocks, is exceedingly effective: it is this which Sir Christopher Wren has employed in the upper; entablature of St Paul’s, and Vignola himself in the iront 1 [7:3:462]of the Villa Guilia. With these cornices rustic quoins consort very pleasingly, and so they do indeed with all single cornices which are of a bold character, and all such should be so. .

Arcades, ⅛∙c.-The most graceful average proportion for these is, that the opening be twice the width of the pier, and twice its own width in height to the crown of the arch. The practice of the Italian school in the composition of arcaded ordinances may be generally followed with advantage, except in mingling and confusing them with columnar. The pier is based by a deep square plinth, and surmounted by a square or moulded cap or impost, the upper surface of which is the base line of the arch. In rusticated work the radiating stones of the arch show their joints, and are cut to a uniform appearance with the ordinary surface of the wall. In other cases there is a moulded archivolt, whose width varies from an eighth to a tenth of the opening of the arch. A dropping keystone is generally used; but this very much injures the simplicity, and consequently the beauty of the arch, and should be avoided.

Doors and Windows, <$'£·—The most approved proportion for these apertures, also, is twice their width in height. In an elevation which comprises several tiers or stories, it is customary to make those of the lowest or ground story rather less than that proportion in height; those of the first or principal story rather more; those of the second somewhat less again; and those of the third (if there be so many) square or even lower. If, however, the elevation consist of but two, the ground story should be the principal, and its windows of the most importance (if any difference be made between them at alD, those of the upper story being then less than the stated proportion in height. The modes of ornamenting doors and windows are so various, and they depend so much on the coherent parts of the composition, that it is impossible here to go into their varieties, or to give particular instructions for their adaptation. The practice of the Italian school may in this case also be generally followed, avoiding those things in it which are injurious, and referring to the Greek for the details of mouldings and ornament. The application of a columnar ordinance to every door or window, giving it the effect of a little edifice in relief, exemplified by the windows of the principal story of the Farnese Palace, must be censured as injudicious; and so must pediments of all kinds, but particularly those formed with circular lines, or lines twisted in any way, or, though right lined, not meeting in a point at the apex. In basements or ground stories windows or doors may be lined with rustic courses with good effect, though the face of the wall be not rusticated; and if it be so, no other lining is thought necessary. The windows of a principal story may be lined with an architrave, either quite straight or returning in knees at the head, and resting on a continuous blocking course below. This architrave may be surmounted by an enriched frieze and cornice, the former bounded at the ends, and the latter upborne by trusses or consoles, which may rest on or be affixed to a species of pilaster, outside the architrave, and parallel to it; if detached sills are preferred, a shorter and bolder truss may be judiciously applied below the sill, under the foot of each pilaster, to complete the composition: the architrave is generally a sixth or a seventh of the opening in width, and the con sole and its pilaster about a ninth or tenth. Upon no account should rustics be run through the architrave lining of a window, as on the flanks of St Martin’s Church in London. A sei ies of circular-headed windows conjoined, as in the earlier works of the Venetian school, is productive of a pleasing effect; but the large circular-headed, with two conjoined smaller rectangular windows, found in the later works of the Italian school, and called Venetian, is radically inelegant; and there is such a one in the east end of the structure last mentioned. Blank windows should be recurred to as seldom as possible; and when they cannot be avoided, they should have sash-frames and sashes as if they were real windows, otherwise they give a maimed effect to an elevation.

Niches. — There are very few cases in which these do not act injuriously on a composition, from the difficulty of making them cohere with the other parts: the usual mode in Italian practice is to give them the effect of windows, which cannot be approved of. Internally they may be used with much better effect than on exteriors. If a niche is intended to receive a statue, it should have a circular head; if a vase, it will perhaps be better straight; the plan of a niche is semicircular.

Parapets. — The pierced parapet or balustrade is not inelegant when the forms of which it is composed are simple and chaste, as piers; but the close continuous parapet is generally preferable, because of its greater simplicity, and its accordance with the principles developed in the most classic works of architecture. The parapet of a projected balcony, to give an appearance of lightness, may perhaps be better pierced; but if a stereobate continue straight through a window without projection, it should remain close and uncut, unless there exist some special reason for wishing to make the window appear so much higher.

Balconies. — These, whether continuous or broken to every window, act for the most part injuriously in a composition. In the former case they cannot be kept sufficiently under not to appear of too much importance; and in the latter they have the effect of a broken cornice or entablature. In both cases, when a balcony is above the eye, it destroys the proportion of the windows opening on it, by intercepting more or less of their height.

Proportion and Arrangement of Rooms. —Whatever the length of a room may be, it will not be disagreeably proportioned if its height and breadth are the same; and if the length may be limited, once and a half the breadth is the most pleasing. Galleries, of course, will be much longer than that proportion; and corridors will necessarily be narrower than they are high. Entrance-halls should be cubical, regularly polygonal, or circular. Access should be given to a room by the end; it should be lighted on one side, and the fire-place may be at the other end, or on the other side: if the former, there should be two doors, or one and the appearance of another, that the fireplace may not be immediately opposite to a door. Many things, however, from localities and otherwise, constantly occur to make it absolutely impossible to attend to such suggestions as these. In halls and saloons not commanding a pleasing view, the windows may be advantageously placed above the usual level, for agreeable effect, for light, and for ventilation. In rooms lighted from above, as the Pantheon in Rome is, a columnar ordinance may be judiciously adapted; but otherwise columns and their accessories can seldom be well disposed internally.

Chimneys. — If a chimney be in the end of a room, it should be similarly proportioned, the height and breadth of its opening corresponding with the height and breadth of the room; if it be on a side, it should be somewhat wider than it is high; if the room be longer than the sesquialteral proportion, it should have two fire-places, either at the two ends or equidistant from the centre of one of the two sides. The chimney-piece should be bold and massive, not frittered into small parts and much moulded; it may, however, have its vertical faces enriched with great advantage.

Ceilings. — The ceiling of a room should be nearly plain, [7:3:463]but it may rest on a bold and enriched cornice, not composed like an external cornice, as it is differently lighted, but with deep covings instead of broad flat surfaces. Such cornices are highly susceptible of ornament, and they may have additional effect given to them by means of colour. In large rooms the area of the ceiling may be pleasingly contracted, and so made to appear lighter, by coving the angles altogether, and thus bringing the cornice on which it rests lower down on the walls. This mode of arrangement is used, too, in the small rooms of a lofty story, to take off from their too great height. The horizontal surface of a ceiling may be treated like a large panel, with broad borders and slight sinkings; or, if it be very large and lofty, coffering or panelling all over, with moulded or painted ornaments, will produce an agreeable effect. Domed ceilings should be coffered, especially when they are lighted from above; but if the light be from below, as in St Paul’s and St Peter’s Cathedrals, ribbing is far better. Heavy cumbrous masses of foliage in a ceiling should be avoided; frets, guiloches, and arabesque ornaments, are the best suited enrichments for a ceiling on which ornament is necessary.

Stairs. — In a structure whose principal apartments are on the ground floor, the stairease is a secondary consideration, and should be secluded; but where they are above the level of the entrance door, it becomes an important part of the interior, and should be of immediate and easy access. The rise of a step should not be more than six inches, and the tread not less than twelve. In a square staircase winders should not be used; and in no case should there be more than ten or twelve flyers without a quarter or half space, both to prevent fatigue in ascending, and to avoid even the appearance of danger in the descent. Winding staircases are less convenient and less pleasing in effect than those which are square and without winders. Mueh room may be saved, however, where it is of consequence, by using the former. Handrails should follow the character of the staircases to which they are attached; but a somewhat square form, with the sides or edges moulded, should be given to them under all circumstances, because of its simplicity, as well as the greater degree of firmness or solidity which the whole composition derives from it, both in effect and in appearance, than can be acquired for it otherwise. The handrail and balusters of an in-door staircase is indeed but the parapet of an external flight of steps or of a terrace, executed with more lightness and a greater degree of delicacy because of their location. The balustrading, also, should therefore be characterized by boldness and simplicity, though it is indeed a difficult thing to compose with propriety, because of its inclination, and the want of parallelism between the graduating base formed by the ends of the steps and the hanging level of the coping or handrail. The first step of a staircase has a voluted or curtail end (or ends if it be insulated, as in a staircase with a double returning flight) supporting a column or newel, on which the voluted or scrolled end of the handrail rests. The steps of a staircase are wrought with moulded nosings, which are returned at the exposed ends; the under surface is either cut straight and parallel to the inclination of the flight, or moulded to form a pleasing object when seen from below.

Mouldings and Ornament. — The Greek examples offer the most beautiful forms for mouldings, and the Grecian mode of enriching them is unsurpassed for beauty and efficiency. By adhering to them, and observing the manner m which they are produced and combined, it will not be difficult to produce and combine mouldings in sufficient variety for every purpose.

For ornament the Roman examples may vie with the Greek; but in composing or adapting, it is necessary to avoid alike the tendency to too great luxuriance in the one, and to poverty in the other. The remains of Herculaneum and Pompeii have furnished us with a great deal of ornament that is new and beautiful; and much that is execllent may be found on the earlier architectural and sculptural monuments of Italy of the middle ages.

It should nevertheless be always borne in mind that the object in architectural enrichment is not to show the ornament, but to enrich the surface, by producing an effective and pleasing variety of light and shade; but still, although the ornament should be a secondary consideration, it will develope itself, and should therefore be of elegant form and composition, as well as the means of produeing a good effect on the architecture to which it is attached.

Of Vertical or Pointed Composition.

The towers of Westminster Abbey are an excellent practical illustration of the essential difference which exists between the horizontal and vertical styles of architectural composition. In general form they belong to the Pointed style, and in so far cohere with the structure generally; but the running lines of the buttresses, if their angle piers may be so called, are constantly intercepted by transverse cornices; and all the details are strangely in discordance with the character derived from the pointed arch.

Buttresses in a Pointed composition must not be considered simply as buttresses, or supports to the angles, or sides of a structure, any more than a cornice in horizontal composition may be thought only necessary to cover or protect the wall on which it rests. That these were the uses for which they were severally applied originally, cannot perhaps be doubted; but although they may be useful as such, we must now consider them as aids to architectural effect. Buttresses, then, are of the same use in the vertical style that cornices are in the horizontal— to give character to an elevation, by throwing a mass of shadow, to relieve it of the monotony necessarily attendant on a flat surface, however it may be pierced or enriched. The sides of the buttresses should be either quite perpendicular the whole height they have to run, or be slightly diminished, if the wall behind them diminishes, in lengths and not by inclined lines. Their faces also must run up vertically to the sets-off, and these should be in the same inclined line, and that line pointing to the apex of their pinnacles, when pinnacles surmount them. Indeed it cannot be too strongly enforced that there should be a constant tendency in the outlines of compositions in this style to meet, although the surfaces be themselves so generally perpendicular; and the more acute the angle under which they incline, the more graceful and becoming the style the result will be. The commanding lines of every part of a composition should lead through from its summit to the base. Thus, a spire or pinnacle should rest on a tower or turret whose angles are not interrupted, but never on a merely flat wall, however it may be faced with buttresses to give an apparent projection. Neither should low porches be projected from the face of a structure, for such can only have the effect of excrescences, and tend to injure a composition; nor should external doors be made but in places where the harmony of the composition is not injured by them as irregular apertures. Internally, square forms are seldom used; but piers consist of clustered cylindrical shafts, and thin shafts of the same form, lofty, and uninterrupted by crossing lines, act as pilasters. On these, capped with deeply inflected congeries of mouldings or foliage for the former, and lighter ones made continuous and breaking round them for the latter, rest the arches and arched ceilings. Flat surfaces are susceptible of high enrichment by means of tracery and panelling; [7:3:464]mouldings are enriched, not by carving on them, but by rounding out foliage and other ornament in covings and other deep inflections. Corbels should not be substituted for shafts to support arches when it can be avoided; but they have a pleasing effect as supports to the dripstone or canopy of a door or window; and indeed there are many other situations in which they are almost necessary, but they should always be considered as succedaneous, and not as necessary to a composition. .*. ...

To avoid glaring inconsistencies in composing, it will be well to adhere generally to the style of some particular period, and to employ the proportions and enrichments, as well as the forms, peculiar to it; but, nevertheless, a more ornate may superimpose a plainer part, so that the difference be not violent. Windows of the second period may be placed over an arched composition of the first, and appear naturally to result from it; but the transition would be so great from the first to the third, as to make the result inharmonious. It need not however be denied, to those who feel themselves competent to use the materials with good taste and propriety, to select matter from examples of the various periods, and make compositions not exactly in the style of any of them. With a clear perception of the principles of the style generally, which we have endeavoured to point out, and a practical acquaintance with the classic exemplars of it, such may certainly be produced; and they may as certainly be adapted to all the purposes to which any species of architecture can be applied.

Rules for practice might be made to infinity, but they are unnecessary in this case, there being no authorized modern practice, like that of the Italian school in horizontal composition, to counteract. It is but to use the forms, proportions, decorations, and enrichments, and follow the mode of combination, which appear in the examples: these, with constant reference to the principles we have attempted to develope, will be the surest and safest guides in composing and arranging any subject. They are, too, so rife with materials for general purposes, that few cases can occur in which there need be any difficulty in finding parallels. Buttresses, piers, shafts, arches, pediments, parapets, turrets, pinnacles, windows, doors, niches, ceilings, tablets, with mouldings and ornaments in great profusion,—indeed almost every thing that can be required in practice,—appear in existing works of the style; preventing the necessity of determining from the mode of procedure in one case how we should act in another, as the comparative paucity of materials in the Greek and Roman remains rendered it necessary to do in developing the horizontal style. (h. h.) Errata. —P. 421, 1st col. note, for Pl. lxxi. read lxxiv. ; p. 423, 2d col. line 31, for gothic read Goth; p. 435, note, for p. 331 read 416.

GLOSSARY OF NAMES AND TERMS USED IN ARCHITECTURE.^[26. Those, marked thus -ļ-are either entirely, or almost entirely, peculiar to Pointed Architecture. ] Abaciscus (diminutive of Abacus, q. vD. This term is applied to the chequers or squares of a tessellated pavement.

Abacus (Gr. αCαξ, a square tile or table). The rectangular and equilateral tablet covering the ovalo of the capital of the Doric column, and on which the superimposed entablature rests, is called the abacus; and from it the similar part (though differently shaped) of all capitals is distinguished by the same term. Abacus means the same thing, but is opposed in application to Plinth, q. v. See also Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Acroterium (Gr. ακgωτ^wov, the summit or vertex), a statue or ornament of any kind placed on the apex of a pediment. The term is often incorrectly restricted to the plinth, which forms the podium merely for the acroterium. The statue of the saint on the apex of the pediment of the western frontof St Paul’s is an acroterium; the other statues may be called acroteral figures. Amphiprostyle (Gr. aμφ ∣ , around or about, and prostyle, q. v.). A temple with a porticoat each end is said to be an amphiprostyle. This term would be more correctly applied to a structure having projecting porticos on all its sides, especially if it be equilateral like the Bourse or Exchange at Paris, allowing no distinction of flunks or wings to make it peripteral. See Plate LIX. fig. 3 and 4, and Description, page 472.

Annulet (Lat. annulus, a ring). This term is applied to the small fillets or bands which encircle the lower part of the Doric capital immediately above the neck or trachelium.

Antae (probably from the Gr. aντιος, or some other compound of the preposition aντι, for, or opposite to; it has no singular), the pier-formed ends of the walls of a building, as in the porticoof a Greek temple. A porticois said to be in antis when columns stand between antae, as in the temple of Theseus, supposing the peristyle or surrounding columns removed. Plate LVIII. fig. 1, 2, and 3.

Antefixae (Lat. ante, before, and Jìxus, fixed), upright blocks with an ornamented face placed at regular intervals on a cornice. Antefixae were originally adapted to close and hide the lower ends of the joints of the covering tiles on the roof of a temple as they appear in the examples. Plate LVII. fig. 1, 2, and 4; and Plate LIX. fig. 3.

Apophyge (Gr. aποZvγr i , a flying off), the lowest part of the shaft of an Ionic or Corinthian column, or the highest member of its base if the column be considered as a whole. The apophyge is the inverted cavetto or concave sweep, on the upper edge of which the cylindrical shaft rests. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Apteral (Gr. “priv. and <mgo∣∕, a wing), a temple without columns on the flanks or sides. The Greek Ionic temple, Plate LIX., is apteral.

Araeostyle (Gr. aξαιος, rare or weak, and o ’ ruaoj, a column), a wide intercolumniation. (See Eustyle.) The space assigned to this term is four diameters.

Araeosystyle (compounded of araeostyle and systyle, q. v.). This term is used to express the arrangement attendant on coupled columns, as in the western front of St Paul’s Cathedral. Plate LXVIII. fig. 1.

Arcade, a series of arches.

Arch (Lat. arcus, a bow), a construction of separate or distinct blocks or masses of any hard material, cut wedge-wise, and arranged in a bowed form, so as to bear from end to end horizontally, or across an opening, though abutting or being supported only at the ends.

Architrave (Gr. a%γp, chief, and Lat. trabs, a beam), the chief beam,—that part of the entablature which rests immediately on the heads of the columns, and is surmounted by the frieze: it is also called the epistylium or epistyde. Plate LXVI. fig. 1. The moulded enrichment on the sides and head of a door or window is called an architrave.

Archivolt. This term is a contraction of the Italian [7:3:465] architrave voltato. It is applied to the architrave moulding on the face of an arch, and following its contour· . . .

Ari∏s, tb e sharp edge or angle in which two sides or surfaces meet. . .

Astragal (Gr. αβτξαγαλος, a vertebral joint), a convex moulding. This term is generally applied to small mouldings, and torus to large ones of the same form. (See Torus.) Attic, a low story above an entablature, or above a cornice which limits the height of the main part of an elevation. The etymology of this term is unsettled: probably the upper range of columns in a Greek hypaethral temple (see Plate LVII. fig. 1) was called αrnxoν, from having no coherent wall; whence the Latin atticum, and its application to a story superimposing the general ordinance. Otherwise such a thing is unknown in Greek architecture; but it is very common in both Roman and Italian practice. What is here termed the tholobate in St Peter’s and St Paul’s cathedrals are generally termed attics.

Baluster, a small column or pier supporting the coping in a pierced parapet: the parapet itself when pierced is hence called a balustrade.

Band or Taenia, nearly synonymous with Fillet, q. v. This term is, however, most generally applied to that listel in the Doric entablature which separates the frieze from the architrave, and connects the lower parts of the triglyphs.

Base (Gr. ζα,δις, from the verb to bear). The congeries of mouldings generally placed under the shaft of an Ionic or Corinthian column is called its base. Plate LXVI. fig. 1. The term is applied also to the lowest part of a pedestal or stylobate; to the vertical moulded fittings which go round walls on the floor; and generally to every thing that is put lowest, for any thing to rest on.

Baiter (Fr. battre, to beat). Building over in projecting courses, like inverted steps, is termed battering, beating, or corbelling over.

j∙ Battlement, a pierced or machicoated parapet.

f Bay. The space between the mullions of a window, between piers, and between the principal beams of a roof, 1 floor, or ceiling, is a bay.

Bead, a small cylindrical moulding of frequent use. Plate LXI.

Bed-mould, the congeries of mouldings whica is under the projecting part of almost every cornice, and of which indeed it is a part. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Blocking-course, a deep but slightly projecting course in an elevation, to act as cornice to an arcade, or to separate a basement from a superior story. (See String-course.) t Boss, a sculptured knob which is placed on the intersections uf ribs in groined ceilings.

f Buttress, the projected piers against the angles of towers, and against the ordinary piers of walls, to strengthen them, and receive the outward thrust of the inner transverse arches.

Cabling. The flutes of columns are said to be cabled when they are partly occupied by solid convex masses, or appear to be refilled with cylinders after they had been formed.

t Canopy, a covering or hood, the enriched projecting head to a niche or tabernacle. The tablet or drip-stone, whether straight or circular, over the heads of doors or windows, if enriched, is called a canopy Capital, Cap (Gr. κφαλ¾ the head), the spreading, moulded, voluted, foliate, or otherwise enriched head of a column. Plate LXVI. fig. 1. The term cap is' applied, in contradistinction,to the congeries of mouldings which forms the head of a pier or pilaster.

Caryatides. Human female figures used as piers, columns, or supports, are called Caryatides ; and, adjec-tively, Caryatic is applied to the human figure generally, when used in the manner of Caryatides. Plate LX. fig. 4 and 6.

Cassoon (Ital.), a deep panel or coffer in a soffit or ceiling. This term is often written, after the French caisson, whereas we derive it directly from the Italian cassone, the augmentative of cassa, a chest or coffer.

Cathetus (Gr. ×α∂trος, a perpendicular line). The eye of the volute is so termed because its position is determined, in an Ionic or voluted capital, by a line let down from the point in which the volute generates.

Cauliculus (Lat. a stalk or stem), the inner scrolls or tendrils of the Corinthian capital are called Cauliculi. It is not uncommon, however, to apply this term to the larger scrolls or volutes of the same also. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Cavetto (Ital. cavare, to dig out), a moulding whose form is a simple concave, and impending. Plate LXI.

Cella (Lat.), the cell or interior of a Cleithral temple. The Greek term is Naos, q. v. Chamfer. An edge or arris taken off equally on the two sides which form it, leaves what is called a chamfer, or a chamfered edge. If the arris be taken off more on one side than the other, it is said to be splayed or bevelled.

φ Cinquefoil, tracery in five foliations or featherings. The windows in the towers of Westminster Hall, Plate LXXV., are cinquefoiled.

Cleithral (vide Cleitiiros). This is used of a covered Greek temple, in contradistinction to Hypoethral, which designates one that is uncovered.

Cleitiiros (Gr. κλε∕⅛og, an inclosed or shut up place). A temple whose roof completely covers or incloses it is a Cleithros. Plate LVIII. fig. 1, 2, 3; and Plate LIX. fig. 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Coffer, a deep panel in a ceiling.

Column (Lat. columned), a tapering cylindrical mass, placed vertically on a level stylobate, in some cases with a spreading congeries of mouldings called a base, and having always at its upper and smaller end a dilating mass called a capital. Columns are either insulated or attached. They are said to be attached or engaged when they form part of a wall, projecting one half or more, but not the whole of their substance. Plate LIX. fig. 1 exhibits insulated, and fig. 2 attached columns. See also Plate LXVÍ. fig. 1.

Consol or Console, a bracket or truss, generally with scrolls, or volutes, at the two ends, of unequal size and contrasted, but connected by a flowing line from the back of the upper one to the inner convolving face of the lower.

Coping, the covering course or cornice of a wall or parapet. The term coping is generally applied to a plain, slightly projected, covering course, and cornice to a larger moulded coping.

-ļ- Corbel, a knob, boss, or consol, projecting from a vertical face, to act as a prop or support. Its jutting or overhanging has induced the application of the term to describe the projection of one thing over another.

Cornice (Gr. xogωνις, the highest part, that which is placed last on a building), the highest part of an entablature—that which rests on the frieze. Plate LXVI. fig. 1. The term cornice is very generally applied to any bold congeries of mouldings occupying the highest [7:3:466]place in a composition, whether external or internal. A plain covering to a wall or parapet is called a coping, q. v. Corona (vide Cornice). This term is applied to the deep vertical face of the projected part of the cornice between the bed-mould and the covering mouldings. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

+ Crocket (probably from the old English word croh, a curD, an ornament of foliage or animals running up the back of a pediment, arch, pinnacle, or spire, from the corbels below to the finial above, in which latter the crockets on both sides appear to merge. Plate LXXV. fig. 3 and 5. In the earlier examples the crocket is a mere curl, or bent tendril, with an enriched end.

Cupola (Ital. cupo, concave, profound), a spherical or spheroidal covering to a building, or to any part of it. Plate LXIV. fig. 2, 3, and 4; Plate LXIX.; and Plate LXXIV. fig. 2.

φ Cusp (Lat. cuspis, a spear), the points in which the foliations of tracery finish. These are sometimes themselves enriched, and are sometimes plain.

Cyclostylar (Gr. κύκλος, a circle, and tfruλoς, a column). A structure composed of a circular range of columns without a core is cyclostylar, for with a core the range would be a peristyle. This is the species of edifice falsely called by Vitruvius Monopteral. (See Monopteros.) Cyma (Gr. κυμα, a wave), the name of a moulding of very frequent use. It is a simple, waved line, concave at one end and convex at the other, like an Italic f In that manner it is called a cyma-rccta; but if the convexity appear above, and the concavity below on the right hand, it is then a cyma-reversa. Plate LXI.

Cyrtostyle (Gr. ×υξτος, convex, and <rn∣λoς, a column), a circular projecting portico Such are those to the transept entrances to St Paul’s cathedral, Plate LXIX. fig. 1.

Dado or Die, the vertical face of an insulated pedestal, between the base and cornice or surbase. It is extended also to the similar part of all stereobates which are arranged like pedestals in Roman and Italian architecture.

Decastyle (Gr. osκα, ten, and σrυλoς, a column), a porticoof ten columns in front. (See note to the term Hexastyle.) The porticoto the London University is of this description; more particularly described, it is deca-prostyle and recessed.

Dentil (Lat. dens, a tooth). The cogged or toothed member, so common in the bed-mould of a Corinthian entablature, is said to be dentilled; and each cog or tooth is called a dentil. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Design. Architects apply this term to what is vulgarly called a plan, intending by it the scheme or design of a building in all its parts, the term plan having a distinct application to a technical portion of the design. (See Plan.) The plans, elevations, sections, and whatever other drawings may be necessary for an edifice, exhibit the design.

Detail. As used by architects, detail means the smaller parts into which a composition may be divided. It is applied generally to mouldings and other enrichments, and again to their minutiae.

Diameter (superior and inferior). The greater diameter of the shaft of a column is technically termed its inferior, because it is that of the lower end; and the lesser, that of the upper end, its superior diameter.

Diastyle (Gr. ðia, through, and cτ∙j ∖ ος, a column), a spacious intercolumniation, to which three diameters are assigned. ( Vide Eustyle.) Dipteral. (See Dipteros.) Dipteros (Gr. δ∕ς, twice, and nrtζw, a wing), a double winged temple. The Greeks are said to have constructed temples with two ranges of columns all round, which were called dipteroi. A porticoprojecting two columns and their interspaces is of dipteral or pseudodipteral arrangement. See description of fig. 3, Plate LVIII. page 472.

Distyle (Gr. δ∕ς, twice, and βτνλος, a column), a porticoof two columns. This term is not generally applied to the mere porch with two columns, but to describe a porticowith two columns in antis. The elevation of the pronaos of the hexastyle peripteral temple, Plate LVIII. fig. 2, exhibits an example of distyle in antis.

Ditriglyph (Gr. δ∕ς, twice, and triglyph, q. v.), an intercolumniation in the Doric order, of two triglyphs, (See Monotriglyph.) Dodecastyle (Gr. 0ωδ∈κα, twelve, and tfrυλoς, a column), a porticoof twelve columns in front. (Sec note to Hexastyle.) There is no porticoof this description in London at present. The lower one of the west front of St Paul’s Cathedral (Plate LXVHL) is of twelve columns, but they are coupled, making the arrangement pseudo-dodecastyle. (See Pseudo-Prostyle.) The Chamber of Deputies in Paris has a true dodecastyle.

Dome (Gr. 0wμa, a structure of any kind; whence the Latin domus, a house or temple), a cupola or inverted cup on a building. The application of this term to its generally received purpose is from the Italian custom of calling an archiepiscopal church, by way of eminence, Il duomo, the temple; for to one of that rank, the cathedral of Florence, the cupola was first applied in modern practice. The Italians themselves never call a cupola a dome: it is on this side the Alps the mistake has arisen, from the circumstance, it would appear, that the Italians use the term with reference to those structures whose most distinguishing feature is the cupola, tholus, or (as we now call it) dome. (See Cupola.) f Dripstone, the moulding or cornice which acts as a canopy to doors and windows. Horizontal running mouldings are sometimes called tablets and sometimes dripstones.

Drops. (Sec Guttae.) Echinus (Gr. zγιwς, an egg), a moulding of eccentric curve, which (when it is carved) being generally cut into the forms of eggs and anchors alternating, the moulding is called by the name of the more conspicuous. It is the same as Ovalo, q. v. Elevation, the front, or façade as the French term it, osa structure. A geometrical drawing of the external upright parts of a building. Architects speak of front, back-front, and side or end elevations.

Entablature or Intablature (Lat∙⅛, upon, Ðxiåiabula, a tablet). The superimposed horizontal mass in a columnar ordinance, which rests upon the tablet or abacus of a column, is so called. It is conventionally composed of three parts, architrave, frieze, and cornice, q∙ ?· Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Entasis (Gr. ινταΰις, a stretching or swelling). Columns are said to have entasis when they do not diminish regularly, but in a curved line. (See page 461.)

Epistylium or Epistyle (Gr. titi, upon, and tfrυλβc, a column). This term may with propriety be applied to the whole entablature, with which it is synonymous; but it is restricted in use to the architrave or lowest member of the entablature.

Escape, a term sometimes used for the apophyge of a column. (See Apophyge.) Eustyle (Gr. sυ, well, and <rn∣λoς, a column), a species of intercolumniation, to which a proportion of two diameters[7:3:467] and a quarter is assigned. This term, together with the others of similar import,—pyenostyle, systyle, diastyle, and araeostyle,—referring to the distances of columns from one another in composition, is from Vitruvius, who assigns to each the space it is to express. It will be seen, however, by reference to them individually, that the words themselves, though perhaps sufficiently applicable, convey no idea of an exactly defined space, and by reference to the columnar struc- ' tures of the ancients, that no attention was paid by them to such limitations. It follows, then, that the proportions assigned to each are purely conventional, and may or may not be attended to without vitiating the power of applying the terms. Eustyle means the best or most beautiful arrangement; but as the effect of a columnar composition depends on many things besides the diameter of the columns, the same proportioned intercolumniation would look well or ill, according to those other circumstances; so that the limitation of eustyle to two diameters and a quarter is absurd, and so it is in the case of the other similar terms. With Doric intercolumniation it is different, as may be seen by reference to the word Monotriglyph. Façade. (See Elevation.) Fascia (Lat. a band). The narrow vertical bands or broad fillets into which the architraves of Corinthian and Ionic entablatures are divided, are called fasciae or fascias; and the term is generally applied to any similar member in architecture.

j∙ Featherings. (See Foliations.) Fillet, a narrow vertical band or listel, of frequent use in congeries of mouldings, to separate and combine them, and also to give breadth and firmness to the upper edge of a crowning cyma or cavetto, as in an external cornice. The narrow slips or breadths between the flutes of Corinthian and Ionic columns are also called fillets.

j∙ Finial (Lat jřms, the end). This term is equivalent to the Greek Acroterium. It is applied to the carved apex of pediments, piers, pinnacles, and canopies.

Flute, a concave channel. Columns whose shafts are channelled are said to be fluted, and the flutes are collectively called flutings.

j∙ Foliations or Featherings, small arches meeting in points or cusps, which are plain or enriched. They are used as an enrichment in tracery, and are distinguished as trefoils, quatrefoils, and cinquefoils, as the case may be.

Frieze (Ital. fregio, from the Lat. phrygionius, enriched or embroidered), that portion of an entablature between the cornice above and the architrave below. Plate LXVI. fig. 1. It derives its name from being the recipient of the sculptured enrichments either of foliage or figures which may be relevant to the object of the structure. The frieze is also called the zoophorus, q. v. Frontispiece, the front or principal elevation of a structure. This term, however, is generally restricted in application to a decorated entrance.

Gable. When a roof is not hipped or returned on itself at the ends, its ends are stopped by carrying up the walls under them in the triangular form of the roof itself. This is called the gable, or, indeed, the pediment. The latter term, however, is restricted to the ornamental and ornamented gable; and gable itself is applied to a plain triangular end.

Grading (Ital. dim. of gradus, a step). Architects frequently use the plural of this term, gradini, and to gra-dinate, instead of the English, steps, and to graduate, perhaps without sufficient reason, though they find them useful to distinguish what they intend from the meaning of the latter words in their ordinary acceptation.

Groining. In vaulting 'or arching over from insulated piers, the cross vaults meet in angles, and lead to a common centre or apex. This is called groining.

Gui loche or Guilochos (Gr. q ∖ nον, a member, and ^Koγpς, a snare). An interlaced ornament like network, used most frequently to enrich the torus. Plate LXI.

Guttae (Lat. drops). The small cylindrical drops used to enrich the mutules and regulae of the Doric entablature are so called.

Helix (Gr. iλ√ξ, a wreath or ringlet), used synonymously with Cauliculus, q. v. It forms in the plural Helices.

Hemiglyph (Gr. ημt<Sυς, half, and yaup>j, an incision or channeD. The half-channels, or rather chamfered edges, of a triglyph tablet, may be so called. The two hémiglyphs are included to make the third channel, and complete the triglyph. (See Triglyph.) Hexastyle (Gr. iξ, six, and crυλος, a column). A porticoof six columns in front^[27. The words “in front” are used to prevent the mistake which might arise from a supposition that all the columns in a porticoshould be counted to designate it. The porticos of the churches of St Martin in the Fields, and St Mary-le-bone, in London, tor instance, have eight columns each, but are hexastyle, there being but six in their front rows. ] is of this description. Most of the churches in London which have porticos have hexa-prostyles. (See Prostyle.) Hypaethral. (See Hypaethros.) Hypaethros (Gr. ìwro, under, and α∕0gα, the air), a temple open to the air, or uncovered. The Greeks frequently made the temples of the supreme divinities hypaethral. For instance, those of Jupiter Olympius at Agrigentum in Sicily, of Neptune at Paestum, and of Minerva Parthenon at Athens, are all of this description. The term may be the more easily understood by supposing the roof removed from over the nave of a church in which columns or piers go up from the floor to the ceiling, leaving the aisles still covered. In that case it would be hypaethral, after the manner of the Greek hypaethros. The Pantheon in Rome having an opening in the centre of the dome, is thereby rendered hypaethral. See Plates LVII. and LXIV. fig. 4 and 5.

Hypogea (Gr. wro, upon, and qη, the earth). Constructions under the surface of the earth, or into the sides of a hill or mountain, are hypogea.

Hypotrachelium (Gr. ùwo, upon, and r^aγrlκος, the neck), the part forming the junction of the shaft with the capital of a column; the neck of the capital itself. In some styles it is a projecting fillet or moulding, and in others, as the Doric, it is composed of a channel or groove, and sometimes of more than one. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Jamb, the side-post or lining of a door-way or other ’ aperture. The jambs of a window outside the frame are called reveals.

Ichnography (Gr. ιγjος, a footstep or track, and ygap¾ a description or representation). A plan, or the representation of the site of an object on a horizontal plane, is its ichnography. The term plan (q. v.) is, however, much more frequently used than this.
[7:3:468]

Impost (Lat. impositus, laid upon). The horizontal con' geries of mouldings forming the capital of a pier, or edge pilaster, which has to support one leg of an arch, is called the impost; sometimes, and more conveniently, this term is used for the pilaster itself, when its capital is called the impost cap or impost mouldings.

Intercolumniation (Lat. inter, between, and column, q. v.). The distance from column to column, the clear space between columns, is called the intercolumniation.

-ļ- Libel, the level moulding or dripstone over a door or window, common in the later Pointed works. It is generally turned down at the ends at right angles, and slightly returned again horizontally and outwards.

Lacunar (Lat.), a panelled or coffered ceiling or soffit. The panels or cassoons of a ceiling are more classically called lacunaria.

-ļ- Lantern (Lat. lanterna), a turret raised above a roof or tower, and very much pierced, the better to trans

- mit light. In modern practice this term is generally applied to any raised part in a roof or ceiling, containing vertical windows, but covered in horizontally.

Metope (Gr. μνrοτη, a middle space), the square recess between the triglyphs in a Doric frieze. It is sometimes occupied by sculptures. Plates LVII. and LVIII. fig. 4.

Mezzanine (Ital. mezzanino, dim. of mezzo, the middle), a low story between two lofty ones. It is called by the French entresol, or inter-story.

Modillion (Lat. modulus, a measure of proportion), so called because of its arrangement in regulated distances; the enriched block or horizontal bracket generally found under the cornice of the Corinthian entablature. Plate LXVI. fig. 1. Less ornamented, it is sometimes used in the Ionic. See also Mutule. Module (Lat. modulus, à hrodus, a measure or rule). This is a term which has been generally used by architects in determining the relative proportions of the various parts of a columnar ordinance. The semidiameter of the column is the module, which being divided into thirty parts called minutes, any part of the composition is said to be of so many modules and minutes, or minutes alone, in height, breadth, or projection. The whole diameter is now generally preferred as a modus, it being a better rule of proportion than its half.

Monopteral. (See Monopteros.) Monopteros (Gr. μονος, one, or single, and ¢maor, a wing). This term is incorrectly used by Vitruvius to describe a temple composed of a circular range of columns supporting a tholus, cupola, or dome, but without walls. (See Peripteral.) Such an edifice would be more correctly designated as Cyclostylar, q. v. Monotriglyph (Gτ.μwoς, one,or single,and triglyph, q. t.).

The intercolumniations of the Doric order are determin- • ed by the number of triglyphs which intervene, instead of the number of diameters of the column, as in other cases; and this term designates the ordinary intercolumniation of one triglyph. Plate LVIII. fig. 1.

Mouldings, eccentric curves of various kinds, intended to enrich and ornament, by producing light and shade, and obviating the monotony attendant on many flat and angular surfaces. They may be variously carved to increase their efficiency. The most usual forms of mouldings are called the cyma-recta and reversa, cavetto, scotia, torus, astragal or bead, and the echinus or ovalo, q. v. Plate LXI. In Pointed architecture, mouldings are not limited either to those names or to the forms they are intended to designate, nor indeed is any other style, except by absurd custom and authority.

t Mullion, the columnar vertical bar used to divide a window into breadths; the trunk out of which tracery flows.

Mutule (Lat. mutulus, a stay or bracket), the rectangular impending blocks under the corona of the Doric cornice, from which guttae or drops depend. Mutule is equivalent to modillion, but the latter term is applied more particularly to enriched blocks or brackets, such as those of Ionic and Corinthian entablatures.

Nags (Gr. νaος, a temple). This term js sometimes used instead of the Latin Cella, as applied to the interior· strictly, however, it means the body of the edifice itself, and not merely its interior or cell.

Newel, the solidor hollow column or cylinder which bears up the handrail of a staircase at the foot and in the most material parts. It means also the core or hollow, as the case may be, about which a circular staircase winds.

Niche, a concave recess in a wall, with a straight or circular head. Niches are generally made to receive statues, vases, &c.

Octastyle (Gr. oκrω, eight, and rfn∣λoς, a column). A porticoof eight columns in front. (See note to Hexastyle.) There is no porticoin London of this description at present, though the upper one of the west front of St Paul’s (Plate LXVIIL) is of eight columns; but they are coupled, making the arrangement tetrastyle. It may indeed be called a pseudo-octa-prostyle. (See Pseudoprostyle.) Ogee, the vulgar name for the Cyma, q. v. Opisthodomus (Gr. οiti<Aw, behind, and e>ομος, a house or other edifice), the part behind a Greek temple corresponding with the Pronaos before it. (See Pronaos.) Order. A column with its entablature and stylobate is so called. (Plate L^VI. fig. 1.) The term is the result of the dogmatic laws deduced from the writings of Vitruvius, and has been exclusively applied to those arrangements which they were thought to warrant.

Ordinance, a composition of some particular order or style. It need not, however, be restricted to a columnar composition, for it will apply to any species which is subjected to conventional rules for its arrangement.

Orthography (Gr. ο°βος, straight or true, and yp ∣ ρr i , a description or representation). A geometrical elevation of a building or other object, in which it is represented as it actually exists, or may exist, and not perspectively, or as it would appear, is called its orthography.

Orthostyle (Gr. t>gfoς, straight or true, and <trυλoς, a column), any straight range of columns. This is a term suggested to designate what is generally but improperly called a peristyle, q. v. ; that is, columns in a straight row or range, but not forming a portico

Ovalo (Ital.), egg-formed (see Echinus). This is the name most commonly applied to the moulding which appears to have originated in the moulded head of the

• Doric column, and, with an abacus, forming its capital.

Panel, χ a compartment with raised margins, moulded or otherwise. Deep panels in a ceiling are called Cassoons and Lacunaria, q. v. Parapet (Ital. parapetto, against the breast, or breast-high), the low breast-high wall which is used to front terraces and balconies, to flank bridges, &c. The most • common application of the term in this country is to so much of the external walls of a house as stands above the level gutters of the roof behind.

Parastas (Gr. wαgαrfraς, standing before), an antae or end pilaster. This is the Greek term for which the Latin antae is generally used, and it has the same meaning. (See Antae.) [7:3:469] Pedestal (Gr. πους, a foot, and crυλoς, a column). An insulated stylobate is for the most part so called. The term is, moreover, generally applied to any parallelogramic or cylindrical mass used as the basement of any single object, as a statue or vase.

Pediment, that part of a porticowhich rises above its entablature to cover the end of the roof, whose triangular form it takes. The cornice of the entablature, or its corona and part of the bed-mould only, with the addition of a cymatium, bounds its inclined sides, and joins in an obtuse angle at the apex. In Pointed architecture, however, the angle of a pediment is for the most part acute.

-ļ- Pendent (Lat. pendens, nanging). In some of the later works of the Pointed style, large masses depend from enriched ceilings, and appear to be formed by the other legs of intersecting arches: these are called pendents. They also occur in canopies. See Plate LXXV. fig. 1, 8, 9, 11, and 12.

Peribolus (Gr. σ∈s∕, around or about, and Sαλλw, to gird or throw around), an inclosure. Any inclosed space is a peribolus; but the term is applied more particularly to the sacred inclosure about a temple. The wall forming the inclosure is also called the peribolus.

Peripteral. (See Peripteros.) Peripteros (Gr. σ≡g∕, around or about, and π∏ρov, a wing). A temple or other structure with the columns of its end, prostyles or porticos, returned on its sides or wings, and one intercolumniation distant from the walls. Almost all the Doric temples of the Greeks were peripteral. The term is, however, incorrectly applied by Vitruvius to peristylar structures, though it is clear that a perfectly round building, such as he describes to be peripteral, cannot be said to be winged or to have wings.

Peristylar, having a peristyle. (See Peristyle.) Peristyle (Gr. wsg∕, around or about, and στύλος, a column), a range of columns encircling an edifice, such as that which surrounds the cylindrical drum under the cupola of St Paul’s. The columns of a Greek peripteral temple form a peristyle also, the former being a circular and the latter a quadrilateral peristyle. The same term is generally but incorrectly applied to a range of columns in almost any situation when they do not form a portico (See Ortiiostyle.) Pier. The solid parts of a wall between windows, and between openings generally, are called piers. The term is also applied to masses of brickwork or masonry, which are insulated to form sunoorts to gates or to carry arches.

Pilaster (Lat. ρila, a pillar, and the Ital. augmentative astro, which indicates an inferior quality), an inferior sort of column or pillar; a projection from or against a pier, having the form and decorations of antae, when used correctly; but too frequently they have capitals, like those of columns, assigned them.

Pillar (Lat. pila, and Ital. piliere), a columnar mass of no particular form. Columns are vulgarly called pillars; but architects make a distinction, restricting this term to such pillars as do not come within the description of a column. (See Column.) Pillowed. A swollen or rounded frieze is said to be pillowed or pulvinated.

t Pinnacle, the slender tapering head of a turret or buttress. A small spire, or the head of a spire or steeple.

Plan, a horizontal geometrical section of the walls of a building; or indications, on a horizontal plane, of the relative positions of the walls and partitions, with the various openings, such as windows and doors,—recesses and projections, as chimneys and chimney-breasts,— columns, pilasters, &c. This term is often incorrectly used in the sense of Design, q. v. Planceer is sometimes used in the same sense as soffit, but incorrectly, as it is from the French plancher, to board or floor. It is more particularly applied to the soffit of the corona in a cornice.

Plinth (Gr. πλ∕⅛ς, a square tile). In the Roman orders the lowest member of the base of a column is square and vertically faced; this is called a plinth.

Polytriglyph (Gr. πoλuς, many, and triglyph, q. v.). An intercolumniation in the Doric order of more than two triglyphs. (See Monotriglyph and Ditri-glypii.) Portico (an Italicism of the Lat. Porticus), an open space before the door or other entrance to any building, fronted with columns. A porticois distinguished as prostyle, or in antis, as it may project from or recede within the building, and is designated with either of these terms by the number of columns its front may consist of. (See Distyle, Tetrastyle, Hexastyle, Octastyle, &c.) Porticus (Lat. See Portico. In an amphiprostylar or peripteral temple, this term is used to distinguish the porticoat the entrance from that behind, which is called the posticum.

Posticum (Lat.). A porticobehind a temple. (See Porticus and Portico) Pronaos (Gr. wgo, before, and uzo¢, a temple). The inner porticoof a temple, or the space between the porticus, or outer portico and the door opening into the cella. This is a conventional use of the term; for, strictly, the pronaos is the porticoitself.

Propylaeum (Gr. srξo, before, and wuaij, a portaD, any structure or structures forming the entrance to the peribolus of a temple; also the space lying between the entrance and the temple. In common usage this term, in the plural (propylaea), is almost restricted to tue entrance to the Acropolis of Athens, which is known by it as a name.

Prostyle (Gr. wgo, before, and Grυλος, a column). A porticoin which the columns project from the building to which it is attached is called a prostyle. It is tau-tologous to say a prostyle portico—a prostyle is a portico Custom, however, seems to warrant the impropriety, for the word porticois always superadded. In determining the number of columns of which a porticoconsists, the Greek numerals are prefixed to the term Style, q. v., and prostyle is repeated. It would be more concise, and, at the least, equally correct, to put the numeral. before prostyle, and say tetra-prostyle, hexa-prostylc, &c. instead of tetrastyle-prostyle, &c.; as the custom is; that mode is adopted in this article throughout.

Pseudo-dipteral (Gr. ψeυ0r l ς, false, and dipteral, q. v.), false double-winged. When the inner row of columns of a dipteral arrangement is omitted, and the space from the wall of the building to . the columns is preserved of the consequent double projection, it is pseudodipteral. The porticoof the London University is pseudo-dipterally arranged, the returning columns , on the ends or sides not being carried through behind those in front.

Pseudo-peripteral (Gr. ∙ψii∣⅜ς, false, and peripteral, q. v.), false-winged. A temple having the columns on its flanks attached to the walls, instead of being arranged as in a peripteros, is said to be pseudo-peripteral.

Pseudo-prostyle (Gr. ∙ψsu¾ς, false, and prostyle, q. v∙)∙ This is a term not in general use, but is suggested to designate a porticoprojecting less than the space from one column to another, as the western porticos to St [7:3:470]Paul’s Cathedral, and the porticoto the East India ' House, in London; but that they are recessed also, and therefore may be described as pseudo-prostyle and recessed. The front of Trinity Church in the new road, near the Regent’s Park, in London also, presents a mere pseudo-prostyle.

Pulvinated (Lat. pulvinus, a cushion or bolster), a term used to express the swelling or bolstering of the frieze which is found in some of the inferior works of the Roman school, and is common in Italian practice. It is used indifferently with pillowed.

Pyenostyle (Gr. ¢rw>í, dense, and tfruaoς, a column), columns thickly set. The space or intercolumniation assigned to this term is one diameter and a half. (See Eustyle.)

-ļ* Quatre-foil, tracery in four foliations or featherings; but applicable only to circular or square panels, and not to arches.

Quoin (Lat. ancon, an elbow or corner, whence the Fr. com), a corner-stone. The stones which are made to project from the regular surface of the walls at the angles of a building are technically called quoins. The front of the Farnese Palace exemplifies them. (See Plate LXX.)

Regula (Lat.), a rule or square. The short fillet or rectangular block, under the taenia, on the architrave of the Doric entablature, is so called.

f Rose or Catherine-wheel Window, the large circular window filled with various tracery, which is common in the upper part of transept fronts in churches and cathedrals. Plate LXXII. fig. 1.

Scotia (Gr. tfκoτ∕α, shadow or darkness), a concave moulding, most commonly used in bases, which projects a deeper shadow on itself than any other form would possess in an underview position. It is like a reversed ovalo, or rather what the mould of an ovalo would present. Plate LXI.

Scroll, synonymous with volute. The term scroll is commonly applied to the more ordinary purposes, while volute is generally restricted to the scrolls of the Ionic capital.

Section, a drawing showing the internal heights of the various parts of a building. It supposes it to be cut through entirely, so as to exhibit the walls, the heights of the internal doors, and other apertures; the heights of the stories, thicknesses of the floors, &c. It is one of the species of drawings necessary to the exhibition of a Design, q. v. Shaft. The body or tapering cylindrical mass of a column, from the base below to the capital above, is so called. Plate LXVI. fig. 1.

Sill or Sole (Lat. solum, a threshold, whence the Fr. seuiD. The horizontal base of a door or window-frame is called its sill, though in practice a technical distinction is made between the inner or wooden base of the window-frame and the stone base on which it rests, the latter being called the sill of the window, and the former that of its frame. This term is not restricted to the bases of apertures; the lower horizontal part of framed partition is called its sill. It is often incorrectly written cill.

Soffit (Ital. soffitta, a ceiling), the inverted horizontal race of any thing. The horizontal face of an entablature resting on, and lying open between, the columns, is its soffit. The underface of an arch, where its thickness is seen, is its soffit.

Spandrel. The unoccupied angles, or rather the excluded triangles, of a square, described about a circle, are called spandrels; whence almost any triangular space is designated by the same term.

f Spire, the tapering mass which forms the summit of a steeple.

Steeple. This term is used in contradistinction to tower, the latter being upright, or nearly so, and terminating almost abruptly, or with pinnacles, and the steeple running to a point with sides converging from the base upwards, or from a certain height only.

Stele (Gr. δrηKη, a cippus or small monument). The ornaments on the ridge of a Greek temple, answering to the antefixae on the summit of the flank entablatures, are thus designated.

∣Stereobate (Gr. d’Tř^Eo¢, firm or solid, and Cα<57ς, a base or fulciment), a basement. It is sought to make a distinction between this term and Stylobate, q. ν., by restricting the latter to its real import, and applying stereobate to a basement in the absence of columns.

Stoa (Gr. tfroa, a portico. This is the Greek equivalent for the Latin porticus and the Italo-English portico q. v. String or String-course, a narrow, vertical-faced, and slightly projecting course in an elevation. If windowsills are made continuous, they form a string-course; but if this course is made thicker or deeper than ordinary window-sills, it becomes a blocking-course.

Stvle (Gr. 0 ’ ruaoς, a column). The term style is of very constant use in the composition of architectural names and distinctions, and in those compositions it is not to be understood in its ordinary and almost unlimited application, but in its simple and original meaning,—a column. It is, however, not used in that sense unless in composition; but in its ordinary acceptation it is applied to the varieties of architecture, as the Greek and Roman styles, &c.

Stylobate (Gr. erυλοζ, a column, and ζαδις, a base or fulciment), a basement to columns. (See Stereobate.) Stylobate is synonymous with pedestal, but is applied to a continued and unbroken substructure or basement to columns, while the latter term is confined to insulated supports.

Surbase (Lat. super, whence the Fr. sur, above or upon, and base, q. v.), an upper base. This term is applied to what, in the fittings of a room, is familiarly called the chair-rail. It is also used to designate the cornice of a pedestal or stereobate, and is separated from the base by the dado or die.

Systyle (Gr. <rυν, together with, and crdaος, a column), columns rather thickly set. An intercolumniation to which two diameters are assigned. (See Eustyle.)

∙f Tabernacle, a canopied recess or niche. The rich ornamental tracery forming the canopy, &c. to a tabernacle, is called tabernacle-work: it is common in the stalls and screens of cathedrals, and in them is generally open or pierced through.

f Tablet. Projecting mouldings, or moulded strings in the Pointed style, are better described as tablets than as cornices.

Taenia (Lat.) a band. (See Band.) Terminal. Figures of which the upper parts only, or perhaps the head and shoulders alone, are carved, the rest running into a parallelopiped, and sometimes into a diminishing pedestal, with feet indicated below, or even without them, are called terminal figures.

Tetrastoön (Gr. τtrga, four, and δτοα, a portico. An atrium or rectangular court-yard, having a colonnade or projected orthostyle on every side, is called a tetrastoön.
[7:3:471]

Tetrastyle (Gr. rsrga, four, and crυλος, a column), a porticoof four columns in front. (See note to Hexastyle.) Tholobate (Gr. βολος, a dome or cupola, and ζaa ∣ ς, a base or substructure), that on which a dome or cupola rests. This is a term not in general use, but not the less of useful application. What is generally termed the attic above the peristyle and under the cupola of St Paul’s, would be correctly designated the tholobate. A tholobate of a different description, and one to which no other name can well be applied, is the circular substructure to the cupola of the London University.

Tholus or Tholos (Gr.), a dome or cupola, or any round edifice. This is the only term used by Greek writers that can be supposed to apply to the conical chambers which approach, in internal form, to that of the modern cupola or dome, and is therefore made the Greek equivalent for those terms.

Torus (Lat.), a protuberance or swelling, a moulding whose form is convex, and generally nearly approaches a semicircle. It is most frequently used in bases, and is for the most part the lowest moulding in a base. Plate LXI.

Tower, a circular, square, or polygonal structure, with upright or slightly converging sides, running to a height equal to or greater than its diameter or base, and terminating abruptly or in horizontal lines. A tower may be flanked by buttresses whose pinnacles surmount it, and be superimposed by a turret, lantern, or spire.

I Tracery. The transoms, mullions, and interlaced or flowing continuations of the latter, with their foliations in windows, on doors, panels, and in tabernacle-work, are so called. The ribs on groined ceilings, and almost all eccentric moulded enrichments, come under the same denomination.

Traciielium (Gr. rgaxrιλoζ, the neck). In Doric and Ionic columns there is generally a short space intervening the hypotrachelium and the mass of the capital, which may be called the trachelium or neck.

t Transom, the horizontal bar used to divide a mullioned window into heights; the straight and horizontal parts of tracery.

t Trefoil, tracery in three foliations or featherings.

Triglyph (Gr. τξεις, three, and γλυ<pη, an incision or channeD. The vertically channelled tablets of the Doric frieze are called triglyphs, because of the three angular channels in them, two perfect and one divided; the two chamfered angles or hemiglyphs being reckoned as one. The square sunk spaces between the triglyphs on a frieze are called metopes, t Turret, a small tower, or a tower of small base in proportion to its height. Turrets are sometimes placed on the angles of towers; but in the later works of the style they are attached to the angles of structures instead of buttresses, and they run up above their height in lieu of pinnacles.

Tympanum, the triangular recessed space inclosed by the cornice which bounds a pediment. The Greeks sometimes placed sculptures representing subjects in connection with the purposes of the edifice, in the tympana of temples.

Vault, an arched ceiling or roof. A vault is, indeed, a laterally conjoined series of arches. The arch of a bridge is, strictly speaking, a vault. Intersecting vaults are said to be groined. (See Groining.) Volute (Lat. volutum, a volvo, rolling up or over, convolving). The convolved or spiral ornament which forms the characteristic of the Ionic capital is so called. The common English term is scroll, q. v. Volute, scroll, helix, and cauliculus, are used indifferently for the angular horns of the Corinthian capital.

Zoöphorus (Gr. ξωον, an animal, and <pεgω, to bear). This term is used in the same sense as frieze, and is so called because that part of the entablature is made the receptacle of sculptures which are frequently composed of various animals.

DESCRIPTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE PLATES.
[7:3:472]

ruins at Corinth, being the earliest known example of their style. .

Fig. 11, ancient Persian columns from Persepolis, in front and in profile, the latter showing the mode in which they were probably made to receive an entablature, though a distinguished oriental traveller asserts that the capitals are wrought on the backs in such a manner as to render it improbable that they were ever intended to have any thing placed on them.

Fig. 12, columns in front of the rock sculptures at Mundore, in Marwar, from Colonel Tod’s first volume.

Fig. 13, from the ruins of Bheems Chlori, also in the Mokundra pass, from Colonel Tod’s unpublished volume. These present another variety of Hindoo columnar composition of early date, though later, it is probable, than the example, fig. 9, supra. Figs. 14 and 16 exhibit the modes of structure described in the text at page 414; and fig. 15 is a view of the entrance to the great pyramid at Memphis from Denon and shows the mode of its structure.

Plate LVI. An example of the Egyptian style, sufficiently explained at pp. 410, 432, et seq.

Plate LVII. A Greek Doric octastyle, peripteral, and hypaethral temple, with the details of the Parthenon. The plan (fig. 3) is that of the Parthenon (vide Plate LIV.) slightly modified, the better to include the class to which it belongs. In the Parthenon the opisthodomus has six columns, as in the pronaos, and not four in antis as here laid down: this, however, exhibits the ordinary mode of arrangement. The internal columns are arranged in this plan as they are generally found in other similar structures; and the pedestal for the statue of the divinity is placed in its most probable position.

Fig. 1 shows part of the flank of the temple and the internal composition of the hypaethral cella with its upper range of columns or attic, of the inner chamber or treasury, and of the opisthodomus and posticum: much of this, however, is necessarily taken at a venture, because of the imperfection of the remains of the Grecian edifices.

Fig. 2 exhibits an elevation of the opisthodomus behind the outer range of the nortico not according to the Parthenon, but in antis.

Fig. 3 is the plan. In front, on the left-hand side, is the entrance porticus; behind this is the pronaos; within the pronaos is the hypaethral naos or cella, the middle space between the columns being open; the spaces between the columns and the walls on either side are covered; doors (these are not generally laid down to the Parthenon, but are assumed as probable) lead to the inner chamber, said to be the treasury,—this is by some called the opisthodomus, into which it opens, and the opisthodomus stands in the same relation to the posticum that the pronaos does to the porticus.

Fig. 4 is the external order of the Parthenon; fig. 5 the profile of its corona to a larger scale, to show its detail; fig. 6 a half-capital of the same, enlarged also with its annulets larger still.

Fig. 9 is the order of the pronaos; fig. 8 the profile of its corona enlarged; fig. 7 its capital enlarged, with the annulets still larger.

Fig. 10 the antae cap enlarged; and fig. 12 a half-plan of a column of the Parthenon, showing the contour of its flutes. ( Vide page 437 et seq.')

Plate LVIII. A Greek Doric hexastyle, peripteral, and cleithral temple, with the details of the temple of Theseus at Athens

Fig. 1, front elevation of the temple.

Fig. 2, section behind the outer range of the portico showing the elevation of the pronaos. '

Fig. 3, plan of the temple. The arrangement of the porticus here (to the left) is pseudo-dipteral; a space equal to two intercolumniations and the intervening column being left between the external range and the front of the pronaos,—the projection of the posticum is irregular.

Fig. 4, the external order of the temple of Theseus, with a half-plan of the column; fig. 5, the profile of the corona enlarged; fig. 6, half the capital enlarged; fig. 7, half the capital of the order of the pronaos enlarged also; fig. 9, the antae, with profiles of the outer and inner entablatures of the pronaos,—this shows also the arrangement of the ceilings.

Fig. 10, enlarged profile of the antae cap.

Fig. 11, inverted plan of part of the ceilings of the porticus and pronaos, showing the arrangement of the coffers, lacunae, or cassoons.

Fig. 12, inverted plan of the planceer of the cornice, showing the form and arrangement of the mutules of the external entablature.

Fig. 13 is a plan of the triglyphs of the same on an external angle.

Figs. 8 and 14 are enlarged plans of the flutings of the columns, to show their contours. (Vide p. 437 etseq.') Plate LIX. A Greek Ionic hexa-prostyle apteral temple, with details of the temple of Erechtheus at Athens.

Fig. 1, elevation of the portico

Fig. 2, rear elevation of the temple, showing an attached tetrastyle in antis, with windows as they exist in that of the temple of Erechtheus.

Fig. 3, flank elevation. The dotted projection to the right, of the posticum, indicates the amphiprostylar arrangement, which is shown on the plan fig. 4 also, and in the same manner.

Fig. 5, the order of the temple of Erechtoeus, except the two lowest steps of the stylobate, which maybe easily supplied, to a larger scale, with indications of the carved mouldings, &c.

Figs. 6, 7, and 8 are enlarged profiles of those parts of the entablature which are immediately behind and above them.

Fig. 10, the antae of the same example, showing the ornament which enriches its necking, and runs along the flank of the edifice; fig. 11, profile of the antae cap enlarged.

Fig. 12, flank elevation of t∩e capital; all the vertical beads in this are carved. Fig. 13. transverse section of the capital.

Fig. 14, half the longitudinal section of the capital.

Fig. 15, an inverted plan of the capital, showing the arrangement of the flutings.

Fig. 16, an inverted plan of one of the angular capitals. (Vide p. 439 et seq.)

Fig. 9, the Ionic volute, enlarged to show the mode of striking it, and the contour of its face.

The point at which the volute shall commence, its height, and the diameter of its eye, must be given or assumed; then, “from either end of the whole height of the spiral, cut off the diameter of the given circle (o — o); divide the remainder into as many equal parts as there are to be revolutions, in the spiral (this example is of three revolutions), and divide each of those parts again into four others, so that the remainder or difference between the given circle and the height will be divided into four times the number of revolutions (making in this case twelve); then take half the number of these parts and one part more (seven), together with half the diameter of the eye (o — ο), and set it from the top of the perpendicular downwards, it will give the centre of the volute; take half of one of the parts, and set it from the centre, cutting the per-pendicular[7:3:473] or height of the volute upwards; through that point draw a horizontal line; take half of one of the parts, and set it on each side of the perpendicular, on the horizontal line; from these two points draw diagonals to the centre (refer to the larger diagram to the right of the volute); through the centre draw

, another line parallel to the horizontal line; through the upper end of each diagonal draw lines parallel to the perpendicular, cutting the horizontal line that passes through the centre into two equal parts; divide each of those parts into as many equal parts as you intend to have revolutions (three). If the volute is intended to be on the left hand (as this is), divide the part next to the centre on that side into two equal parts, but for the right-hand volute on the contrary; from the point of bisection draw two lines parallel to the diagonals downwards; then through each of the divisions on the line which passes through the centre draw lines parallel to the perpendicular, cutting the diagonals at both ends of these perpendicular lines; then join the opposite points of each diagonal by horizontal lines, and the centres will be completed upon each angle of the fret. Begin at the right hand on the upper centre, extend the compass to the height of the perpendicular, and describe the quadrant of a circle to the left hand; then set the compass on the next centre on the left hand, and extend the other leg of the compass to the end of the quadrant, where you left off in the last quadrant; go the same way round to the next centre, and proceed in this manner till you arrive at the last quadrant, which ought to touch the given circle on the upper side upon the perpendicular. Lastly, with one leg of the compasses on the centre of the spiral, and the other foot extended to the distance that the last quadrant cuts the perpendicular, describe a circle, and the spiral will be completed.” (Nicholson’s Principles, &c. vol. ii. p. 23.) To complete the volute as in fig. 5, this process should be repeated for every line indicated at the point of springing in fig. 9, the height of course altering to every one but the eye of the volute, and the point of springing remaining the same.

Plate LX. Fig. 1 the elevation, fig. 2 the plan, and fig. 3 the details, of the order of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates at Athens. ( Vide p. 440.)

Fig. 4 presents the elevation, and fig. 5 the plan, of the Caryatic prostyle, which is attached to the flanks of the temple of Erechtheus at Athens.

Fig. 6 shows the detail of the hands and feet of the figure, and of the entablature and stereobate of the same. ( Vide p. 441.)

Plate LXI. contains Greek and Roman mouldings, with their usual enrichments, all drawn from ancient examples, and detached profiles of them all, together with two examples of Greek and one of Roman ornament. The spee , 'men of Greek ornament on the left hand of the centre is from the neck of the antae-cap of the tetrastyle porticoon the flank of the temple of Erechtheus, generally known as that of Minerva Polias; and the other half of the same is the enrichment of the neck of the antae of the temple of Erechtheus itself, as shown in Plate LIX. figs. 3 and 10. The Roman specimen of ornament is that of the frieze of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina in Rome. (Vide Plate LXII. Ex. 3, and p. 441 and 451.)

Plate LXII. Four Roman examples of the Corinthian o der. Ex. 1 is that of the temple of Jupiter Stator in Rome; Ex. 2 is that of the temple of Vesta at Tivoli ( l 'ide Plate LXIV. fig. 9); Ex. 3 is that of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina in Rome (vide Plate LXIV. figs. 6, 7, and 8) and Ex. 4 is the example of the porticoof the Pantheon in Rome (vide Plate LXIV. figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5). To every example fig. 1 shows the details enlarged, the shafts being cut away; and fig. 2 the elevation of the column and entablature. In every case, also, the distance from the inner surface of the column fig. 2 to the vertical line dividing the examples is one half the intercolumniation at which that example is composed. ( Vide p. 447 et seq.)

Plate LXIII. Examples of the Roman orders. Ex. 1 is the Corinthian of the temple of Mars UÌtor; Ex. 2 the Composite of the arch of Titus (vide Plate IXIV. fig. 11); Ex. 3 the Ionic of the temple of Fortuna Virilis (vide Plate LXIV. fig. 12); and Ex. 4 the Doric of the Theatre of Marcellus, completed from that of the Colosseum. All of these are in Rome. Figs. 1, as in Plate LXII., show the entablatures, capitals, and bases, &c. at an enlarged scale; and figs. 2 the complete elevation of each order, except their stylobates, some of which are not ascertained, and those which are may be obtained from the structures they are referred to in Plate LXIV. ( Vide p. 447 et seq.')

Plate LXIV. Elevations, plans, and sections of sundry Roman edifices, all drawn to the same scale.

Fig. 1 is a longitudinal elevation of the Colosseum. ( Vide p. 443.)

Fig. 2 is the front elevation, fig. 3 the flank elevation, fig. 4 a section, and fig. 5 the plan, of the Pantheon. The dotted lines before the recess opposite the entrance, fig. 5, show the places the outstanding columns originally occupied. ( Vide p. 443 and 444.)

Fig. 6 is the front elevation, fig. 7 the plan, and fig. 8 the flank elevation, of the temple of Antoninus and Faustina: of this the front steps and stylobate are restorations. ( Vide p. 443, and Pl. LXII. Ex. 3.)

Fig. 9 is the plan and elevation of the temple of Vesta at Tivoli; of this the antefixae and roof are restorations. ( Vide Pl. LXII. Ex. 2.)

Fig. 10 is the plan and elevation of the triumphal arch of Septimius Severus. ( Vide p. 443.)

Fig. 11 is a plan and elevation of the arch of Titus. ( Vide ut sup. and Pl. LXIΠ. Ex. 2.)

Fig. 12 is a plan and elevation of the temple of Fortuna Virlis. ( Vide ’ γ. 443, and Pl. LXIII. Ex. 3.) Plate LXV. Plans, sections, elevations, &c. of Roman mansions from Pompeii.

Fig. 1 is a plan of one of the most extensive and most regular of the domestic structures of Pompeii, with its immediate vicinage; it is known as the house of Pansa. The following nomenclature is generally that of Sir William Gell:—1, The entrance or recessed porch; 2, . the vestibule; 3, the cavaedium or atrium; 4, the compluvium or well for receiving the rain from the roof covering this part of the house (vide fig. 2); 5, penaria, or perhaps cubicula; 6, alae or wings; 7, tablinum or parlour; 8, pinacotheca, or perhaps the library; 9, a passage from the first to the second atrium without passing through the tablinum; 10, cubiculum or bedchamber; 11, peristylium or oicus—the house; 12, impluvium (vide sup. in 4, et fig. 2); 13, exhedrae or alae—in these the siesta was taken—they were also used for conversation; 14, cellae familiaricae; 15, triclinium—here • couches and seats were placed, and company received;

16, lararium or receptacle for the family gods; 17, cubiculum; 18, hall to the gynaeceum or women’s apartment; 19, the gynaeceum—this is believed by some to be a distinct house, and not a part of that of Pansa; - 20, porticus or pergula; 21, hortus or garden; 22, a passage from the oicus to the pergula and garden, to avoid the necessity of passing through the triclinium; 23, kitchen; 24, store-room or larder; 25, an open court, [7:3:474]communicating with the street by a doorway. This comprehends the whole of the apartments, &c. appropriated to domestic use—the residence; the other portions of the edifice are distinct from it. 26 is another smaller house; 27, a passage leading to the house of Pansa from the street on the right-hand side; all the places marked 28 are shops open to the street, as shown in the elevation, fig. 3; the rooms marked 29 are storerooms to the shops into which they open; 30 is a bakehouse, in which the mills, &c. are indicated as they exist; 31 is the oven; in the angle of the two adjoining streets on the left hand (32) is the shop of a seller of wine and hot drinks; 33 is a fountain. The walls indicated on the other sides of the streets surrounding the house, &c. of Pansa are the fronts of shops and of some private houses, &c.

Fig. 2 is a section through the house of Pansa from the street to the garden, showing the manner in which it is probable the roofs, &c. were arranged.

Fig. 3 is the probable elevation of the entrance front of this mansion, though the sketch (fig. 4) of part of the same in its present state shows how slight the evidence for it is.

Fig. 5 is an outline of the side of a room, with the ornaments, &c. with which it is decorated. This is an average specimen; many were much plainer, and some were more enriched.

Fig. 6 is the plan of an ordinary sized house in one of the private streets of Pompeii: the uses of the various parts may be generally gathered from those of the similar portions of the house of Pansa. The word Salve, printed across the threshold, is there wrought in mosaic.

Fig. 7 presents the presumed arrangement of the roofs, &c. of this house in section.

Fig. 8 is the elevation of it towards the street. This absolutely cannot have been better than it appears here, and must have been the ordinary average appearance of the street fronts of Pompeian houses. ( Vide p. 445 et seq.)

Plate LXVI. Fig. 1, an example to show how the term order is applied, and to what parts of it the various technical terms are applied, or are intended to indicate.

Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, are the orders of the Italo-Vitruvian school as arranged by Palladio; fig. 2, the Tuscan.; fig. 3, the Doric; fig. 4, the Ionic; fig. 5, the Corinthian; and fig. 6, the Composite. (Vide p. 451.) Plate LXVII. Varieties of Italian composition from existing structures in Italy and elsewhere, in the Italian style.

Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, are windows of various form and arrangement.

Figs. 6, 7, 8, and 9, are doors of various composition, with plans to show their arrangement and ichnographic projections, &c.

Figs. 10, 11, 12, and 13, are arches and arcades, rusticated and with columns, &c. The plans show their forms and ichnographic projections. (Vide p. 452 et seq.) Plate LXVIII. Front elevations alone of the fronts of St Paul’s in London and St Peter’s in Rome. These two structures exhibit many of the peculiarities of the ecclesiastical architecture of the Italian school. In this plate their comparative magnitude has not been attended to; they are drawn to different scales to bring them more nearly of the same size, so as to render the contrast more effective. ( Vide p. 426 and 429.)

Plate LXIX. Flank elevations of St Peter’s and St Paul’s, drawn to the same scale,· to show their comparative magnitude, and to enable the reader to judge of their respective merits, as well as to elucidate observations which

; will be found in the text passim. ( Vide p. 429, &c.)

Plate LXX. Elevations of three esteemed Italian mansions. The merit of this (the principaD elevation of the Farnese Palace is divided between Antonio Sangallo and Μ. A. Buonaroti. The villa Giulia, near Rome, is esteemed one of the best works of Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola· and the villa Capra near Vicenza, by Palladio, is, by the’ admirers of his style, considered the most perfect of his works. (Vide p. 426, 429, 452, 453, &c.)

Plate LXXI. A series of arches in the Gothic and Pointed styles, from various structures in England. It exhibits the advance of the circular arch from the plainness exhibited in figs. 1 and 2, to the richer and more complicate arrangements of those examples which follow, until the ingrafting and gradual advance of the pointed arch. This first appears in fig. 10. Fig. 12 shows the substitution of the latter for the circular of fig. 9 in a similar composition. Fig. 13 exhibits the pointed arch on Gothic pillars or columns; and fig. 14 the perfected pointed arch with the clustered shafts which become identified with the Pointed style. (Vide p. 453 et seq.)

Plate LXXII. the elevation of the south transept of Beverley Minster. This affords a perfect and beautiful example of external composition of the first period of Pointed architecture. The presence of the circular arch embracing the pointed arches of the doorway, and composing with others, shows how gradual the advance of the new style was; the upper part of the front showing also how completely it was already systematized when the circular arch was not yet quite discarded. The plan of this front shows the various ichnographic projections, and the arrangement of the clustered shafts of the doors and windows. Fig. 2 is a niche in front of, and fig. 3 a pinnacle to, one of the buttresses of the nave of the same edifice: these are of the second period. Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, are windows from various edifices, showing the gradual advance from the plain lancet arch of the Beverley Minster transept to the arch the most elaborately enriched with tracery. Fig. 4 is but a modification of the composition of the doorways of fig. 1, as that is of figs. 9 and 12, Plate LXXI.; and the advance from that may be almost termed natural.

Plate LXXIII. Fig. 1 is a sectional compartment of the nave of Lincoln Cathedral; it exhibits the mode of internal composition peculiar to the style of the first period; tending, however, to the transition, it will be observed, in many particulars, and as a comparison of it with the adjacent example, of the next period, will more clearly show.

Fig. 2 is a similar sectional compartment of the choir of Lincoln Cathedral, exemplifying the internal composition of the second period of the Pointed style; the plans of the shafts to both examples show their forms and arrangement. The subjects of the three last plates are drawn entirely, by his kind permission, from Mr Britton’s Chronological History of Ecclesiastical Architecture.

Plate LXXIV., the front of York Minster, exemplifies the external composition of the second period, as that of Beverley Minster transept (Plate LXXII. fig. 1) does that of the first period; and the difference will be rendered very clear by comparing them. The upper part of the towers of the front of York Minster, however, it must be remembered (vide p. 456), are of the third period, and so is the central tower which appears in the distance between them.

The front of Pisa Cathedral is here, introduced in contrast, with that of York Minster, to show the striking difference which exists between the real Gothic archi- . tecture of Italy and the Pointed style which superseded it so completely, in this country particularly, and to [7:3:475]elucidate our observations to that effect at page 419 d seq. The cupola which appears behind and in the distance is surrounded at the base by pointed arches and pinnacles, all of which are evidently of much later date than the Gothic front.

Plate LXXV. Fig. 1 is an elevation of Westminster Hall. It exemplifies the style of external composition of the third period. It was selected because of the variety of matter it contains elucidatory of the period to which it belongs particularly, and of the Pointed style generally. The door, windows, and canopied tabernacles on the second story of the towers are peculiar; the lower tabernacles are more general, and the pinnacles, crockets, corbels, tablets, &c. may also be taken in exemplification of such things in the style generally.

Fig. 2 is a plan of the front, showing the ribs of the groined entrance, the ichnographic projections of the tabernacles, &c.

Fig. 3 is one of the flying buttresses of the flank of the edifice.

Fig. 4 is a spandrel of the entrance porch enlarged.

Fig. 5, crockets of the gable running from the towers to the crowning turret, enlarged.;

^ig∙ θ> part of the head of one of the upper windows of the towers, enlarged.

Fig. 7, a foliated heraldic panel from under the pedestals of the lower tabernacles or niches of the front, enlarged.

Fig. 8, canopies and pinnacles, &c. of the lower tabernacles, enlarged; the buttresses on which they rest are also shown at large in intercepted lengths.

Fig. 9, an enriched foliate pendent of the foregoing example, marked a, at a still larger scale.

Fig. 10, one of the pedestals for the reception of statues within the niches or tabernacles, enlarged.

Fig. 11, part of one of the canopies, &c. of the tower tabernacles, enlarged.

Fig. 12, one of the foliate pendents, marked b, of the foregoing; and fig. 13 the corbel, marked c, of the same, at a still larger scale.