428 
referred to: though to the following 
passage, the first of this description 
which occurs, we feel ourselves called 
upon to state some objections. 
““ Phe great principles on which archi- 
tectural beauty’ and grandeur depend, ap- 
pear to us tobe these: Utility, Simplicity, 
Variety; Riéliness, or Ornament ; and to 
these’ we may add a fifth quality, where it 
is applicable, we mean Magnitude. Many 
of our readers would perhaps increase the 
list ‘by introducing Proportion into it; but 
we believe that, in all cases, the beauty of 
proportion may, in a very great degree, be 
referred to one or other of the qualities we 
have before mentioned; and in whatever 
degree it cannot, we think that it falls com- 
pletely within the due limits of the maxim 
already quoted, and that it must be left to 
the judgment and improved eye of taste. 
The merit, then, of any species of architec- 
ture, must consist in its possessing the 
four great characteristics, of Utility, Sim- 
plicity, Variety, and Richness, or, at any 
rate, the three first, which may be considered 
as absolutely essential.” 
Now, in our estimation, Utility and 
Proportion are the two fundamental 
principles and requisites of all archi- 
tecture ; and whenever the semblances 
of these are not obvious, at once, to the 
eye of taste and judgment, in every part 
of an edifice, the architecture is radi- 
cally vicious. That Simplicity, also, is 
equally indispensable to the perfection 
of architecture, we are so far from de- 
nying, that we maintainit as a demon- 
strable principle, that it can never be 
departed from without the semblance of 
one or both of the former requisites 
being violated: for simplicity consists 
in attaining the objects in view (which, 
in architecture, are usefulness and 
beauty—of which proportion is the 
fundamental basis) in the easiest and 
directest way: and the majesty of gran- 
deur itself, to which edifices of magni- 
tude, and they only, should aspire, be- 
ing only a higher order of beauty, can 
never be attained by any departure from 
simplicity in the obvious utility and 
proportions of its parts. As for va- 
riety, in any conspicuous extent, it is 
not applicable to every order of archi- 
tecture, or every structure: and richness, 
or ornament, is applicable, compara- 
tively, but to few. The unreasonable 
quest of these is the vice of owr modern 
architects. Itis this that has introduced 
much fantastic absurdity and deformity 
into ranges of new buildings, to which a 
due attention to the harmonies of ob- 
vious utility, proportion and simplicity, 
might have imparted real magnificence. 
Contemporary Criticism.— Architecture. 
[Dec. 1, 
We throw together, with more un- 
qualified approbation, from several suc- 
cessive pages, the following;-nemarks, 
and leave the reader, to|.draw-his, own 
inferences from them. 4;),, o{ 6? tdi 
“We may here, observe, by-the svay, how 
admirably adapted .was,the, colurhnar'-Gte- 
cian architecture to the ..warm) climates 
whence it drew its origin, not only in!peint 
of utility as a shelter from the heat of; the 
sun, but also in point of beauty, as every 
hour of the day would furnish a new and 
picturesgue variety of light and shade,’”’ 
“In the colder climates of France and 
England, disengaged columns are’ fre- 
quently objectionable, as intercepting the 
welcome rays of the sun, which at the same 
time are not sufficiently constant for the 
beautiful varieties of light and shade to 
which we have already alluded.””* 
After speaking of the merits and de- 
fects of Giulio Romano, Raphael’s first 
scholar, the Reviewer observes, that 
“ After this period the architecture of 
Italy began rapidly to decline; all taste 
for simplicity and grandeur gave way to the 
overruling loye of ornament, and every 
architect added to the innovations of a for- 
mer age those of his own distempered 
imagination.” 
Architecture has begun in England 
—or, perhaps, we should say (for we 
must not forget St. Paul’s and the 
days of Inigo Jones, and of Sir Chris- 
topher Wren) has recommenced, where 
in Italy it ended: though we have one 
or two indications that it is beginning 
to recover from its distempered va- 
garies. The following remarkis worthy 
of attention : 
“‘ The palaces built in the age of Pal-. 
ladio are perhaps generally better than the 
churches. Those by himself, at Vicenza, 
are not, in general, the best of the time ; 
but we should here recollect that the taste 
and science of an architect are frequently 
obliged to bend to the ignorant caprice of 
his patrons.”” ; 
This is a consideration that ought 
never to be overlooked in criticizing 
the particular works of any architect. 
We remember, in conversing on this 
subject with M. Percier (the superin- 
tendent of the public works of Paris) in 
the year 1814, his particular lamenta- 
tions on this head. He utterly re- 
jected the idea of considering any of 
the edifices erected under his nominal 
direction 
* We may “observe by the way,’’ 
that the latter part of this predicament bas 
little dependence on the warmth of the 
climate. 1 1G: Be if 
