aoo 



< I V I L A R CH I T EC T U RE. 



c . <J 



r<e 



;m. 



.... 



Fiprron 

 ofdnipi 

 tubjrcl to 

 ibatofctu- 



c:tr. 



,!0. 



lalire 

 riuty. 



mounuiot, it considered U a defect, and behrld only with 

 turprtK. I'l'.iformity and regularity, therefore, ire only 

 beautiful wlirn attociated with intention or design. 



Uniformity being rxprruivr of detign, arid variety of 

 rmbcllithed dei^ i. the beauty of fortni will be mot 

 perfect when these two are duly proportioned ; that is, 

 " whe>. the unity of dctign it equal, the beauty of formi 

 will be in proportion to their embelliihment ; and when 

 the embellishment is equal, their beauty will be in pro- 

 portion to the unity of design." 



The qualities of uniformity and Tariety are beautiful 

 from thr txprct*ir>n of design. They are also beautiful 

 fro the effect of their composition, in maintaining and 

 promoting the emotion which the subject itself is capable 

 ling. Their composition is, in some cases, beau- 

 tiful, from being expressive of the skill of the artist, and 

 of ethers from being correspondent to the character or 

 expression of the subject. The confounding of these dis- 

 tinct expressions, has been the cause of the greater part 

 of the miilaket which have been made in the investiga- 

 tion of the beauty of these qualities. 



It ii of the greatest importance that the artist should 

 pay attention to this pan of the subject, because it is in 

 his power eith< r to sacrifice the beauty of design to that 

 rf character or expression, or the beauty of character to 

 that of design. He ought to be fully aware of the su- 

 periority of the beauty of character or expression, in pro- 

 ducing the greater and more affecting emotions over that 

 of design. Also of its being more universally felt, being 

 only dependent on our sensibility, while that of design 

 can only be fully felt by those who arc so far proficients 

 at to judge of skill, &c. ; and likewise, that the beauty 

 of character or expression, by depending upon invariable 

 principles of our nature, is much more permanent than 

 that of design, which is influenced by every period of 

 the art. It may therefore be considered a first or fun- 

 damental principle, " That the expression of design 

 should be subject to the expression of character ; and 

 that in every form, the proportion of uniformity ai.d va- 

 riety which the artist should study, ought to be, that 

 which is accommodated to the nature of this character, 

 and not to the expression of his own dexterity and skill." 



Fitness, or the proper adaptation of means to an end, is 

 another source of the relative beauty of forms. In every 

 profession, all machines, instruments, and even the most 

 common utensils, which arc well adapted to their several 

 purposes, are, by artists, denominated beautiful. A 

 physician talks of a beautiful theory of fevers, a surgeon 

 of a beautiful instrument for operation, an anatomist of 

 a beautiful subject or preparation ; these instances shew, 

 that even the objects which are most destitute of natural 

 beauty, become beautiful when they are regarded only 

 ifi the light of their fitness. Pleating or agreeable forms 

 receive additional beauty from being wisely adapted to 

 tome end. 



" The beauty of proportion affects us with the emo- 

 tion of beauty, not from any original capacity in such 

 qualities to excite this emotion, but from their being ex- 

 pressive to us of the fitness of the parts to the end de- 

 ugned." 



What we feel from observing an object which it well 

 proportioned, is not the mere sensation of pleasure from 

 an arrangement of parts, but an agreeable emotion from 

 ihe perception of the proper disposition of these parts 

 for an end designed. 



In mot familiar cases, this quality of fitness is so im- 

 .ediatcly expressed to us by the material form, that we 

 * tcniiblr of little difference between such judgment 



and the mere determination of tense ; but where the ob- l* ri ' 

 ject is not to familiar, or the construction is intricate, we *~ ". 

 do not discover the proportions until we have discovered 

 the principle of the machine, or the meant by which the 

 end it attained. Dut if proportions consisted in any de- 

 termined relation, discoverable only by a peculiar sense, 

 the consideration of fitness could no more influence our 

 opinions than any other consideration. 



" Every form which is susceptible of proportion, may Fitm 

 be considered in either one or other of the following lights. ]' . 

 1st, In the light of its whole or general relation to the ""- 

 end designed, or when it is considered as a whole, with- 

 out any distinction of parts ; or 2dly, In the light of thr 

 relation of its several parts to this end. Thus in tin 

 case of a machine, we may sometimes consider it in the 

 light of its general utility for the end it is destined to 

 serve, and sometimes in the light of the propriety of tht 

 different parts for the attainment of the end. When we 

 consider it in the first light, it it its fitness which we pro- 

 perly consider ; when we consider it in the second light, 

 it is its proportion we consider. Fitness may therefore 

 be supposed to express the general relation of propriety 

 between means and an end ; and proportion, a peculiar or 

 subordinate relation of this kind, viz. the proper relatioi. 

 of parts to an end. Both agree in expressing the rela- 

 tion of propriety between means and their ends. Fitness 

 expresses the proper relation of the whole of the means 

 to the end ; proportion, the proper relation of a part or 

 parts to their ends." 



Forma are susceptible of as many determinate propor- 

 tions, as they are susceptible of parts necessary for the 

 end for which they are inu tided. If they have any more 

 parts, these are not susceptible of any accurate propor- 

 tions, and are accordingly constantly varying , and we 

 are only sensible of the proportion of forms, at we be- 

 come acquainted with the fitness of its construction. Of 

 a new machine, with which we are unacquainted, we 

 not decide of the propriety or impropriety of its propor- 

 tions. The more extensive our knowledge is of the fit- 

 nest of the forms for their several ends, the better we 

 shall be qualified to judge of the propriety of their seve- 

 ral proportions ; " and in general it may be observed, 

 that the certainty of proportion is, in all cases, depen- 

 dent upon the certainty of fitness. 1st, When this fit- 

 ness is absolutely determined, as in many cases of me- 

 chanics, the proportion is equally determined. 2d, Where 

 it is determined only by experience, the opinion of the 

 beauty of proportion varies with the progress of such ex- 

 perience. 3d, Where this fitness cannot be subjected to 

 experience, as in the case of natural forms, the common 

 proportion is generally conceived to be fittest, and is 

 therefore considered as the most beautiful." In follow. General re. 

 ing the author through the foregoing discussions, we /lection*, 

 have merely endeavoured to preserve the connection of 

 his general principles, neglecting most of his beautiful 

 illustrations, and avoiding, as much as possible, the nu- 

 merous application of hit principles to the theory and 

 practice of the other fine arts, our object being only to 

 trace what was necessary to determine the principles of 

 architecture. We presume the reader, who has with at- 

 tention accompanied us this far, will already have disco- 

 vered more rational grounds for general principles, than 

 has been furuished by any other author. We are BOW to Principles 

 proceed to consider the merits of his application of the applied to- 

 foregoing principles more immediately to the art of ar- *^ 

 clu'tfcture. 



After remarking, that former writers have been una- 

 uimoui in considering proportions at deriving their ef- 



