1825.] 
direction as tests of his own knowledge 
or taste in architecture. They were 
not ‘constructed, as he very properly 
contended all architectural designs 
ought to be, with a primary and over- 
rulings»attention’ to: the’ purposes for 
whichsithey were designed, and the 
nature-of climate they were to adorn; 
norhad’ he been permitted to adhere 
with fidelity either to the purity of the 
Grecian, or of the best Italian mo- 
dels. He had been always obliged to 
sacrifice simplicity to the ostentatious 
ornament of what he called the Imperial 
Style,.as if the building were erected for 
the sake of the embellishments, instead of 
the embellishments being incidental and 
subservient to the parts, and the propor- 
tions themselves adapted to the accom- 
modations and conveniences designed. 
This may give us some pause in assign- 
ing the censure of unmeaning parts and 
meretricious ornaments to the bad taste 
of the artist. But what should we say 
to any specimens of absurdity which an 
architect might happen to present us 
with, in any house built for himself in 
any of the great squares of our me- 
tropolis ? 
We cannot resist the temptation of 
quoting the following observation on St. 
Peter’s at Rome; for, although, from 
never haying seen that famous temple, 
we are not qualified to decide peremp- 
torily upon the. question, we acknow- 
ledge ourselves to be satisfied with the 
reasoning; and Jelieve the Reviewer to 
be completely in the right. 
“ On entering St. Peter’s, every ob- 
server is astonished that its dimensions ap- 
pear so much less than they really are. 
This has been attributed to the justness 
of the proportions of the building, and, 
strangely enough, has been adduced as a 
merit. On a very little consideration this 
must appear a most extraordinary error. 
If, indeed, it be owing to the proportions 
of St. Peter’s that it appears less than it is, 
this must be considered as a proof, not that 
its proportions are exactly what they ought 
to be, but that there is something wrong 
about them: for its magnificent dimensions 
are generally and justly regarded as one fit 
cause of our admiration, and therefore that 
must be a defect which conceals their im- 
mensity. If, on the other hand, it be a 
merit, in the proportions of St. Peter’s, 
that they diminish to the eye its real size, 
then that size must be a defect, and the 
expense and labour of producing it must 
have been more than wasted. In truth, 
however; we doubt altogether the justness 
of the theory which attributes to the gene- 
ral proportions of a building, unassisted by 
its darkness or lightness, the power of 
Architecture—German Historians. 
429 
diminishing or augmenting the whole mag- 
nitude of a building. We think the true 
cause of the apparent diminution of St. 
Peter’s, in part at least, may be the great 
magnitude of the numerous statues/in the 
church. These are, in fact, .,all/colessal, 
and as our eye is accustomed, to statues 
more near the size of life, they serve as a 
false standard by which we measure,-the 
church in which they stand. We suspect, 
also, that statues of white marble haye, 
from their brilliancy of colour, the appear- 
ance of being much nearer to the eye than 
they really are, which must, of course, 
diminish their apparent magnitude, and 
render the scale afforded by them. still 
fallacious.” 
Art. III. is on the subject of Early 
Roman History. It takes for its themes 
three German publications,—1. History 
of Rome. By B.G.Nixezunr. 2 vols. 
Berlin, 1811, 1812.—2. An Inquiry into 
the, Early History of the Roman States. 
By W. WacusmvutH. 12mo. Halle, 
1819.—3. Creuzer’s Sketch of Roman 
Antiquities. Leipzig and Darmstadt, 
1824, This is a little more like a re- 
view than the generality of the essays 
before us: that is to say, it refers more 
frequently to the works enumerated in 
the title; but it is still an essay (an 
interesting one we admit), in which the 
writer affects rather to display his own 
acquaintance with the general subject, 
than to analyze the labours of his au- 
thors. The essayist does justice to the 
erudite researches of the German lite- 
rati. ‘“ We have a great deal to learn 
respecting the literature of Germany,” 
says he; “ andthere is a great deal in 
it that is worth our learning.’ He 
,Tefutes the idle assertion of Dr. John-. 
son, that an account of the ancient. 
Romans can only “ be drawn from writ-. 
ings that have been long known,” and. 
can, therefore, “ owe its value only to the 
language in which it is delivered, and the 
reflections with which it is accompa- 
nied ;” points out the neglected sources 
from which Niebuhr, &c. have drawn, 
and from which may still be drawn, the 
materials for correcting the misrepre- 
sentations of what we shall venture to 
call the ethical fad/es of Plutarch, and 
the elegant romance.of Livy, &c.; and 
throws, himself, no inconsiderable por- 
tion of light upon the early (and, gene- 
rally speaking, much misrepresented) 
periods of Roman history. There is one 
part of this subject in particular (a very 
important one) which, considering the 
political principles of the Quarterly Re- 
viewers, and considering, also, the un- 
fairness with which, even to the extent 
“~ 
