[ oT 
8. Tue fifth opinion is that which has been given by Mr. 
Barry, in his very ingeniousand elegant Enguiry into the real and 
imaginary obftructions to the arts in England, where he endeavours to 
fhew us the fucceffive corruptions of architefture, as they grew 
out of one another, by which it was led infenfibly from the 
Grecian to the Gothic tafte. “ There are at the dome of Viterbo,” 
fays he, “ and at St. Mark’s, Venice, ranges of columns, from 
“ which regular arches, of half a circle, interfe@ one another, 
““ by being made to fpring from every third column, which gives 
“ a Gothic arch between every two.’ And he farther adds, 
that before the great nich, which has been cut through the attic 
of the pantheon, there are two columns which are remarkable, 
as the flutes are more than a diameter of a circle deep. ‘This 
outrayed a little, by finking the flutes deeper, and leffening their 
number, he thinks, led to the Gothic bundle of columns. 
Tuat the Saxon, Gothic, Moorifh and Eaftern ftyles of build- 
ing are but various corruptions of the Grecian, feems evident: 
The fimilar divifion of the column into pedeftal, fhaft, and ca- 
pital, the imperfect acanthus, and the faint traces of the Ionic 
volute which we fometimes meet with, will not fuffer us to 
doubt of this; but that the Gothic arch derived its origin from 
the identical circumftance in Grecian. architeture here pointed 
out, feems by no means fufficiently evident. For St. Mark’s, 
Venice, according to the teftimony of Vafari, was built towards 
the conclufion, not commencement of the period of corrupt archi- 
te€ture. So that if the pointed arch was indeed fuggefted in this 
manner, which however is extremely uncertain, it muft rather 
K 2 “ have 
