.>T79'^* on taste in architecture. l^ 



•■-tiation, it may not, in some respects, contribute more 

 to devotion than the natural and eiegant forms of 

 "Grecian architecture; I mean only to fliow that this 

 mode of architecture was adventitious, and not the in- 

 vention of the nations where it appeared. 



When, after the revival of science, and the fine 

 arts, the ancients came to be studied by the great Mi- 

 chael Angelo, it was the glory of that artist to rege- 

 nerate the art completely, and not to tamper with 

 the vicious forms that he fouud in Italy. Neither 

 was it Vitruvius that he s^tudied, but the remains of 

 Athenian perfection, which he traced in the rubbifh 

 ■ of Rome, and wherever they were to be discovered 

 in Italy. St Peter's and other fine modern buildings 

 were the fruits of his study, and of that of his afso- 

 ciates and succefsors ; but he copied them in their 

 chaste simplicity, and did not jumble forms together, 

 as has been done by our modern architects. 



He could not resist adopting the rotunda of the 

 temple of Agrippa for St Peter's, without which I am 

 apt to believe it would have been more perfect. 

 The dome is a clumsy heavy form, that fills the eye 

 without enlarging the imagination, and has been un- 

 fortunately too much a favourite with the succefsors 

 of Michael Angelo. 



Michael Angelo and Raphael, though worfliipped 

 by artists, are not admired, I believe, in the way 

 tiiey themselves would have chosen. They are ad- 

 mired for their genius, but would have claimed to be 

 praised for tlieir good sense and discernment. They 

 did not fill their portfolios with drawings of their 

 o?rn composition, but with studies from tlie antique. 

 From these without deviation (except where they 



