SO" 



need observe Nthat very different ideas tl.e tsvo 

 expressions convey. It must also be remember- 

 ed, that the exception is to the appearance, not 

 the reality of strength, and only to such an ap- 

 pearance oi it as \s remarkable; in other words, 

 such as exceeds tliat of most objects of the same 

 kind. Among natural objects, many derive a 

 grace and beauty from their manifest want of 

 strength an>i firmness, from their suppleness, their 

 pliancy, and even their inability to support them- 

 selves : such is the case uith vines, honey-suckles 

 and other climbing plants ; but in a building, how- 

 ever ele^^ant the design and the proportions, how- 

 ever light and airy tl.e effect, still the n.asonry 

 must bl firm and compact, just as in the most 

 massy structure, where nothing but strength and 

 durability are thought of. The question therefore 

 is— not whether the temple of which we are speak- 

 ing be firmly or solidly constructed ; whether it's 

 columns be formed of many or few, of large or 

 small blocks of stone ; still less what are its founda- 

 tions and substructions— but what, when compared 

 ^vith other temples, is its general appearance and 

 character. Now I conceive that there are few 

 forms of buUdings more opposite to our notions 

 of massines, in the appearance, than that of a 

 circular tower, surrounded by a circle of columns 

 detached fr^n it: the greater or less degree of 

 massiness in the tower itself will make no differ- 

 ence to Ihe eye, for tlu; appearance of the build- 

 ing altogether, would in either case be equally 



