with that which is relative. A cube in itself is more agreeable than a parallelopipedon, which will constantly hold in finall figures: but a large building in the form of a cube, appears lumpish and heavy; while the other figure, fet on its fmaller bafe, is by its elevation more agreeable; and hence the beauty of a Gothic tower. But fuppofing that a parallelopipedon is deftin'd for a dwelling-house, to make way for relative beauty; we immediately perceive that utility ought chiefly to be regarded; and that this figure, inconvenient by its height, ought to be fet upon its larger bafe: the loftinefs is gone; but that lofs is more than compensated by additional convenience; and for that reafon the form of a building fpread more upon the ground than raifed in height, is always preferred for a dwelling-house, without excepting even the moft fumptuous palace.

With refpect to the divifions within, utility requires that the rooms be rectangular; for otherwise void spaces will be left of no ufe. A hexagonal figure leaves no void spaces; but then it determines the rooms to be all of one fize, which is extremely inconvenient. A cube will at first be pronounced the moft agreeable figure; and this may hold in a room of a moderate fize. But in a very large room, utility requires a different figure: the chief convenience of a great room, is unconfined motion, which directs us to the greatest length that can be obtained; but a fquare

fquare room of a great fize is inconvenient, by removing far from the hand, chairs and tables, which, when unemploy'd, must be ranged along the fides of the room. Utility therefore requires a large room to be a parallelogram: this figure, at the fame time, is the beft calculated for receiving light; because, to avoid cross lights, all the windows ought to be in one wall; and if the opposite wall be at fuch distance as not to be fully lighted, the room must be obfcure. The height of a room exceeding nine or ten feet, has little or no relation to utility; and therefore proportion is the only rule for determining the height when above that number of feet.

As all artifts who deal in the beautiful are naturally prone to entertain the eye, they have opportunity to exert their taste upon palaces and fumptuous buildings, where, as above obferved, intrinfic beauty ought to have the afcendant over that which is relative. But fuch propenfity is unhappy with respect to private dwelling-houses; because in these, relative beauty cannot be difplay'd in any perfection, without wounding intrinsic beauty. There is no opportunity for great variety of form in a finall houfe; and in an edifice of this kind, internal convenience has not hitherto been happily adjusted to external regularity: I am apt to believe, that an accurate coincidence here, is beyond the reach of art. And yet architects always fplit upon this rock; for they never will give over attempting to reconcile Ff2 these

these two incompatibles: how otherwife fhould it happen, that of the endless variety of private dwelling-houses, there is not one to be found, that is generally agreed upon as a good pattern? The unwearied propenfity to make a house regular as well as convenient, forces the architect, in fome articles, to facrifice convenience to regularity, and in others, regularity to convenience; and accordingly the houfe, which turns out neither regular nor convenient, never fails to difplease the faults are obvious, and the difficulty of doing better is known to the artist only *.

Nothing can be more evident, than that the form of a dwelling-houfe ought to be fuited to the climate; and yet no error is more common, than to copy in Britain the form of Italian houses; not forgetting even those parts that are purposely contrived for air, and for excluding the fun. I fhall give one or two inftances. A colonnade along the front of a building, hath a fine effect in Greece and Italy', by producing coolness and obfcurity, agrecable properties in warm and luminous climates: but the cold climate of Britain is altogether averfe to this ornament; and, therefore, a colonnade can never be proper in this country, unlefs for a portico, or to communicate with a detached building. Again, a logio

There

"Houses are built to live in, and not to look on. ❝fore let ufe be preferred before uniformity, except where both ff may be had." Lo. Verulam, effay 45.

opening

opening the house to the north, contrived in Italy for gathering cool air, is, if possible, still more improper for this climate: fcarce endurable in fummer, it, in winter, expofes the houfe to the bitter blasts of the north, and to every shower of fnow and rain.

Having faid what appeared neceffary upon relative beauty, the next step is, to view architecture as one of the fine arts; which will lead us to the examination of fuch buildings, and parts of buildings, as are calculated folely to please the eye. In the works of Nature, rich and magnifi cent, variety prevails: the timid hand of Art is guided by rule and compafs. Hence it is, that in fuch works of Art as imitate Nature, the great art is, to hide every appearance of art; which is done by avoiding regularity, and indulging varie→ ty: but in works of art that are original, and not imitative, such as architecture, strict regularity and uniformity ought to be studied fo far as confiftent with utility.

Proportion is not lefs agreeable than regularity and uniformity; and therefore in buildings intended to please the eye, they are all equally ef fential. By many writers it is taken for granted, that in all the parts of a building, there are certain ftrict proportions which pleafe the eye; precifely as in found there are certain ftrict proportions which please the ear; and that in both the. flighteft deviation is equally difagreeable. Others again feem to relish more a comparison beFf3

tween

tween proportion in numbers and proportion in quantity; and hold that the fame proportions are agreeable in both. The proportions, for example, of the numbers 16, 24, and 36, are agreeable; and fo, fay they, are the proportions of a room, the height of which is 16 feet, the breadth 24, and the length 36. This point, being both curious and useful, will be examined by the reader with attention and impartiality. To refute the notion of a resemblance between mufical proportions and those of architecture, it might be fufficient to observe in general, that the one is addreffed to the ear, the other to the eye; and that objects of different fenfes have no refemblance, nor indeed any relation to each other. But more particularly, what pleases the ear in harmony, is not the proportion of the ftrings of the inftrument, but of the founds that these ftrings produce in architecture, on the contrary, it is the proportion of different quantities that pleases the eye, without the least relation to found. Befide, were quantity here to be the fole ground of comparifon, we have no reason to prefume, that there is any natural analogy between the proportions that pleafe in a building, and the proportions of ftrings that produce concordant founds. Let us take for example an octave, the most complete of all concords: this concord is produced by two ftrings of the fame tenfion and diameter, and as to length in the proportion of one to two; and I know not that this

proportion