A R C H 1 T 
appears the mod natural, and the mod confident with the 
rules of fitnefs and uniformity ; that is to fay, A pointed 
arch.in a pyramidal ftrmfture. An horizontal arch, (if 
the term be allowed,) in a fquare or oblong building; and 
a (emi-circular arch in a rotund. Whatever merit thefe 
different arches may poflefs, ub ft rafted from their proper¬ 
ties of ftrength, they ftiew it to molt advantage by this 
arrangement; but, on the contrary, if this arrangement 
were tranfpofed, the incongruity refulting from fuch a 
difcordant compolition would deftroy the effeCt of the whole 
Edifice. The Gothic architects appear to have been no ftra ti¬ 
gers to the propriety of the preceding ordinance, as is ma- 
nifeft from the various kinds of arches they employed, to 
coincide with the contingent forms of their buildings; and 
whoever fhould undertake to determine their ftyle of ar¬ 
chitecture, from the pointed tendency of the arch alone, 
would not always be correct in his decifion. Their beft ar- 
tifts made it a rule, to adopt the arch that was mod conge¬ 
nial in its form tothe figure of the edifice. The femicircle 
Was excluded, becaufe their iff ru flu res were never round : 
but, where the afpeft of the edifice was horizontal, the 
pperturcs alTo were clofed horizontally. The refeflory at 
Batalha, which is not an inelegant fpecimen of Gothic art, 
furnifhes us with a fitrking example of this nature, that 
enables us to reafon on fafls. The general figure of the 
plan, and of the elevation, of this refeflory, is nearly like 
that of a loyv Grecian pavilion; and all its apertures, with¬ 
out exception, are clofed in the Grecian manner; but if 
each of its buttrefles, inftead of terminating under the 
cornice had been carried above the railing and crow ned 
with a pinnacle, and the ends, if finifhed, with fharp point¬ 
ed-gables, its apertures, in that cafe, 1 conceive, would 
not have been clofed horizontally, but with a pointed arch, 
fomewhat fimilar to tliofe of King’s College Chapel, at 
Cambridge. Hence it appears, that it was propriety, and 
not caprice, that influenced the Gothic architefts in clof- 
ing the apertures of their edifices ; and that a building 
may be in the true ftyle of the modern Norman Gothic, 
without poffeifing a fingle pointed arch ; though that of a 
church cannot.” 
Upon the above reafoning of Mr. Murphy, the Month¬ 
ly Reviewers, with great difcrimination, have made the 
following remarks : “ Mr. M. maintains that the forms 
of buildings, in the whole or mafs, were adjufted a priori, 
and that the forms of inferior parts were confequent, or 
followed from them: the contrary of which may every 
where be remarked to be the cafe; for all architectural 
forms arofe from primitive modes of conftruflion; and 
this of the Gothic arch is deiived from the fmallnefs of 
materials then applied in buildings. The maflive archi¬ 
tecture of the Grecian building was firft rejected by the 
later Romans, and arches, from column to column, were 
fubftituted in its place. This was the model of the old or 
Saxon Gothic, being with femicircular arches. The more 
elegant modern or Norman Gothic was the fecond change, 
and arofe from the great facility w ith which pointed arches 
were conftrufted, wanting but little centering and thill lefs 
ponderous (tones. We have a convincing proof that faci¬ 
lity of conftrudfion,was the circumftance then moftly con- 
fidered, in many of the greateft works of this country; 
for the foft Norman (tone was brought here for the pur- 
pofe of eredting them. Maflive and ftrong (tone being 
then totally diluted in building, no other mode of cover¬ 
ing a void was left, than by the application of arches ; 
and, in the improved Gothic, we fee that arch judicioufly 
adopted which was mod ealily executed, and which had 
the leaft lateral preflure. To refift what little preflure it 
had, appropriate buttrefles were requifite ; fometimes con¬ 
verted into towers at the angles. Thus, by a gradual pro- 
grefs, the rife and perfection of Gothic forms, affefling 
the mafs of a building, are naturally explained ; and no 
other than a pyramidal form could well refult from a com¬ 
bination of (itch parts, being, in faft a great pyramid 
formed of fd many left pyramids. The architect being 
furniflied with a knowledge of the parts, it becomes his 
E C T U R E. 87 
province to combine them in the beft manner to form one 
beautiful mafs : fuggefting only fuch variations in thofe 
parts as the nature of them will admit, without prejudice 
to their fitnefs in refpe'Ct to utility or conftruflion. If, 
then, it be admitted, that, an architect muft have a know¬ 
ledge of the parts, previoufiy to forming a whole, (and 
furely there can be no other rational mode of procedure,) 
Mr. M’s argument in that relpefl muft be erroneous. The 
fame obfervations will apply to his reafoning on the Gre¬ 
cian forms of buildings confiding of horizontal lines, both 
in the parts and in the mafl'es. Can we imagine that ar¬ 
chitecture arofe from the defire of making a picture? cer¬ 
tainly not: it was originally provided for convenience ; 
and fitnefs of conftruCtion muft have had its fhare in de¬ 
ciding the form, as we univerfally find to have been the 
cafe in all original architecture. Beauty, therefore, was 
not confulted a priori to give the general forms of the 
parts, but was, and always is, the laft date of refinement 
in architecture, and conlifts of combining and converting 
the general forms of the component parts in the mod plea¬ 
ting manner. But, although we do not agree with Mr. M. 
in tracing the rife of certain forms, yet his conclufions with 
refpeCt to their application are very juft ; and we cannot 
conclude our remarks on his work, without acknowledging 
the gratification it has afforded us by its general excel¬ 
lence.”—See Monthly Review, July 1796. 
The annexed Plate exhibits a correfl view of different 
arches; of which the following is a defcription : Fig. 1. 
The common pointed arch. 2. An arch of the third point: 
this arch is i". fed in many parts of the church of Batalha ; 
in the fide elevations of churches it has an agreeable ap¬ 
pearance, as being an equation between the high pointed 
and low arch. 3. A lection of the common pointed arch, 
jig. 1. 4 and 5. Pointed arches, of contrary flexion. The 
manner of forming the(e, and the foregoing pointed arches, 
is (hewn by the lines and indexes of the relpeflive figures. 
6. The quadratrix of Dinoftratus. 7 and 8. Horizontal 
arches : the former is taken from the convent of the 
church of the blefled Conception at Baja ; the latter is 
copied from a Gothic ruin at Evora, both in tine province 
of Alem-tejo, in Portugal. The fubtenfe of half this 
arch, appears to be equal to the interval between the pil¬ 
lars, and is the v eakeft manner of forming a Gothic arch. 
The ratio of its ftrength, being to the ftrength of a femi¬ 
circular arch of equal fpan, as 10 is to 13. The architect 
appears to jiave been fenfible of this weaknefs, by the 
manner in which he has guarded againft the incumbent 
weight. All the above arches properly belong to that 
fpecies of architecture called modern Norman Gothic. 
9. The crefcent, horfe-fhoe, or Moorifque, arch. 10. A 
Moorifque pointed arch. 11. A Moorifque pointed arch 
of contrary flexion. Thefe three arches may be feen at 
the Puerta de los (iete Suelos, and at the Torre de las dos 
Hermanos.—Alhambra. The method of forming them is 
(hewn by the lines and indexes to each. 12. A window in 
the Arabian ftyle of architecture, (Fetched from the roval 
palace at Cintra, near Lilbon. 13. Saxon arches. 14. The 
femicircular arch often ufed by the Romans, particularly 
in their rotund buildings. 15. The Dos d’Ane, ufed by 
the Egyptians, in the vaulting of the galleries, and fepul- 
chral chambers of their pyramids.—See Norden’s Travels, 
plate 49 and 50. 16, and 17, Shews the Norman Gothic 
method of vaulting the roofs. 
To jind the Joints of any Arch formed of Segments of the Ellip- 
fis , Parabola, or Hyperbola. See fig. 18, 19, and 20, of 
the annexed Plate of Arches. 
Problem I. Of the. El/ipfs. From the focus point F, 
of the ellipfts, draw as many right lines F e, as there are 
joints required in the arch, and from G, the other focus 
point, draw the lines G a, G a, &c. which (ha)l cut the 
former lines at the points e. c. Bifefl the feveral angles 
ace, and you have c b, the joints required ; as in fig. 18. 
Problem II. Of the Parabola. From the point F, the 
focus of the parabola, draw lines F a, F a, through as many 
points 
