13 



ticularly upon the consideration of the leading principles on which their 

 works are to be judged of ; and here I would observe, that while in its 

 highest sense the term arcliitecture must be understood in its applica- 

 tion to structures included in the general name of buildings, it should 

 not, in my opinion, be limited to that sense ; and I would, notwith- 

 standing Burke's general decision against definitions, and the numer- 

 ous forms in which they have already been applied to architecture, 

 venture to add one more to the number, and define architecture as ** the 

 art of the beautiful in construction," thus extending its sphere to all 

 subordinate departments of decorative structure, and including, by the 

 wider term •' beautiful," aU other excellencies, tlie merely excellent in 

 construction not necessarily implying the intellectual quahty — beauty. 

 I mention this because I may make allusions, in illustrating my sub- 

 ject, to objects which may seem beyond the pale of what is generally 

 considered as architectural design. 



Architectural art, like its sisters, appeals to the understanding and 

 feelings, through the eye, by three principal means, viz. : — form, grada- 

 tion of light and shadow, (technically, chiar-oscuro,) and colour. 



Of these, in this art, as in the others kindred to it, form takes the 

 first place, because, while alone the other two qualities can convey but 

 indefinite though it may be pleasing impressions, form, when expressed 

 only by the simplest outline, may, to the educated eye, afford very 

 strong and distinct ones, and without undervaluing the qualities of 

 colour and chiar-oscuro, they must always, I think, be held secondarj' 

 to form. 



Form in architecture may be considered under two leading views, 

 general form or composition, and contour, or form of distinct parts ; the 

 former having its chief weight, I do not say its only one, in regard to 

 large structures, the latter alike always to large and small. In judging 

 of the forms used in architecture, several considerations must have 

 place, as, unlike the sculptor and pauiter, the architect labours under 

 the disadvantage of being frequently dictated to, not only by his patrons 

 or employers, but by the materials, site, and purpose of his building ; 

 and he alone also is unavoidably obliged to have his work criticised 

 while in progress, a fruitful source of prejudices and false opinions, 

 which the finished building, however excellent, can scarcely, with the 

 contemporary generation, ever entirely bear down. 



The critic then should have the best information he can obtain as to 

 the degree in which the architect has been bound by such restrictions, 

 and supposing he find him to have acted freely, he should first consider 

 in what way the form and arrangements of his work have been influenced 

 by its 8it« : as, whether it be open or confined, in the former of which 



