A R C H I T 
appropriated for fpring and autumn maj' be in a medium 
fituation to thefe, and (hould have their windows to look 
into the different gardens or green walks. Libraries, ftu- 
dies, breakfaft and other morning rooms, fhould have the 
fame fort of profpeCt, as being moft conformable to morn¬ 
ing exercifes. Finally, if the houfe be built on fo large 
and magnificent a fcale as to admit the fame variety in all 
the different apartments, then the dining-parlours, bed¬ 
rooms, See. will be fubjeCt to the fame laws of fituation, 
and anfwerable to the different feafons of the year. 
It has been a queltion, whether or not the principal 
rooms fhould lie nearelt the grand entrance, as being bed 
fuited to give them their full effeCt. We (hall not decide 
upon this nice point, but will cite the reafons of an emi¬ 
nent writer why they ought not. “ A large and fpacious 
room, which is generally the firfl that receives us, is a bad 
contrivance in feveral refpeCts. In the firfl: place, when 
immediately from the open air we ftep into fuch a room, 
its fize is apparently diminifhed by contrafl ; and looks lit¬ 
tle, compared with the great canopy of the fky. In the 
next place, when it recovers its grandeur, as it foon does, 
it gives a minute appearance to the reft of the houfe ; 
palling from it, every apartment looks little. In the third 
place, by its fituation it ferves only for a waiting-room, 
and a paffiige to the principal apartments. Rejecting there¬ 
fore this form, a hint may be taken from the climax in 
writing for another that appears more fuitable: a hand- 
fome portico, proportioned to the fize and fafhion of the 
front, leads into a waiting-room of a larger fize, and this to 
the great room, all by a progreffion of frnall to great. 7 ’ 
The feveral offices, which have a place in the plan of 
houfes, fhould be fo arranged, as to appear to compofe an 
inferior part of the whole building, not totally detached, 
yet in fuch order as to keep the more offenfive ones as re¬ 
mote as poffible from the principal parts of the houfe. 
This indeed is the true doClrine of nature ; for, if we com¬ 
pare the feveral parts of a building to the various mem¬ 
bers which compofe an animal frame, we fee that the 
moft beautiful parts are moft confpicuous, whilft thofe 
that are lefs comely either recede from the view, or are 
quite concealed. 
It has been doubted whether a building can admit of 
any ornaments beyond fuch as are ufeful, or at lead have 
the appearance of being fo. But confidering architecture 
no lefs as a fine than as an ufeful art, both kinds may be 
introduced ; though it requires great judgment both as to 
the quantity and the arrangement. A private houfe, and 
other edifices, where ufe is the chief aim, admit not in¬ 
deed of any ornaments but fuch as have the appearance of 
utility. But temples, triumphal arches, and fuch build¬ 
ings as are chiefly intended for Ihow, may be highly orna¬ 
mented without any regard to their feeming ufetulnefs. 
Hence it is that a threefold divifion of Ornaments has been 
fuggefted. Thefe are, firfl, ornaments that are beautiful 
without relation to ufe ; fuch as ftatues, vafes, &c. Se¬ 
cond, objefts in themfelves not beautiful, but poflefling 
the beauty of utility, by impofing on the IpeCtator, and 
appearing to be ufeful; fuch as blind windows. Third, 
where things are beautiful in themfelves, and at the fame 
time affume the appearance of ufe ; fuch as pilafters. With 
regard to the firfl, we naturally require that a flatue fhall 
be fo placed as that it may be feen in every direction, and 
at various diftances, by having an opportunity of receding 
or advancing as we pleafe. Statues placed in the niches 
of fronts of houfes, or on the tops of their walls and roofs, 
ought not to be admitted. Their proper places are in large 
halls, and in paflages that lead to a grand flair-cafe, &c. 
To adorn the top of the wall with a row of vafes, is an 
unhappy conceit, by placing a thing, whofe natural defti- 
nation is utility, where it cannot have even the leaft ap¬ 
pearance of it. Now, firmnefs and folidity being the pro¬ 
per expreffions of a pedeflal, and, on the contrary, light- 
nefs and delicacy of carved work, the pedeflal, whether of 
a column or of a flatue, ought to be fparingly ornamented. 
The ancients never ventured on any bolder ornament than 
the ba(To relievo. 
Von. II. No, Co, 
With refpeCl to ornaments of the feccnd kind, ft is a great 
error to contrive them fo as to appear ufelels. A blind 
window, therefore, when neceflary for regularity, ought to 
be fo difguifed as to appear a real window : when it appears 
without difguife, it is difguftful, as a vain attempt to flip.. 
ply the want of invention ; it thews the irregularity in a 
flronger light, by (ignifying that a window ought to be 
there in point of regularity, but that the architect had not 
(kill fufficient to conneCt external regularity w ith internal 
convenience. As to the third, it is very injudicious to fink 
pilafters fo far into the wall, as to remove totally, or moft- 
ly, the appearance of ufe. They fhould always projeCt fo 
much from the wall, as to have the appearance of fupport- 
ing the entablature over them. 
Ot all ornaments the pillar gives the greateft elegance to 
extenfive buildings. The deftination of a pillar is to lup- 
port, really, or in appearance, another part, termed the 
entablature. With regard to the form of a pillar, it mull 
be obferved, that a circle is a more agreeable figure than 
a fquare, a globe than a cube, and a cylinder than a paral- 
lelopipedon. This laft, in the language of architecture, 
is faying, that a column is a more agreeable figure than a 
pilafler; and for that reafon it ought to be preferred, when 
all other circumftances are equal. Another realon con¬ 
curs, that a column annexed to a wall, which is a plain 
furface, makes a greater variety than a pilafler. Belides, 
pilafters at a diftance are apt to be miltaken for pillars ; 
and the fpedbator is difappointed, when, on a nearer ap¬ 
proach, he difeovers them to be only pilafters. 
Ornaments intended to decorate the orders, ftiould be 
judicioufly adapted to the proper character of each. Plain 
and rufticated embelliffiments would be extremely difeord- 
ant with the elegance of the Corinthian column ; and fiveet 
and delicate enrichments very ill fuit the ftrength and fim- 
plicity of the Doric. All kinds of fanciful and trifling 
devices, all fafhionable finery, fhould be for ever excluded 
from the fmalleft place in our works. Sir Chrift. Wren 
very juftly cenfures this fpecies of frivolity, when fpeak- 
ing of the palace of Verfailles. “ This building (fays he) 
called me twice to infpeCt it: the mixtures of brick and 
ftone, of blue tile and gold, made it look like a rich livery; 
not a niche in it but is covered with curiofities. Works of 
filgrand and little trinkets appear in vogue ; but building 
ought always to have the attribute of eternal, and there¬ 
fore the only thing incapable of new fafhions.” Much fo 
the honour of Sir William Chambers, architect of that 
great national ornament Somerfet-houfe, he has never de¬ 
praved the art with any kind of capricious innovation. He 
has ever made the ancients his models; and he lias not 
pretended to vary and to invent, where variation and in¬ 
vention are not only fnperfluous, but mifehievous. He 
has only, with great taft_e and judgment, felected and com¬ 
pounded what he has already found perfect to his hands. 
His buildings are confequently always grand, yet Ample ; 
not didrafting the eye with broken lines, petty divilions, 
or arbitrary and meretricious ornaments; but preferving 
always that unity of defign, and that magic of effeCt, 
which render them the belt comment on his own excellent 
Treatife on the Science of Architecture. We are ex¬ 
tremely forry to notice, in the third volume of Stuart’s 
Antiquities of Athens, pnblifhed by Mr. Revely, an at¬ 
tack made on the acknowledged reputation of this gentle¬ 
man ; to which we are fatisfied the liberal author himfelf, 
had he lived to edit his own work, would never have de- 
feended. The arguments are founded on an erroneous, 
or, at lead, an over-ftrained, hypothefis, which might mil- 
lead thofe who are not well acquainted with the lubjeft ; 
and therefore, as it will tend to explain a controverfy on 
the refpeCtive merits of the Grecian and Roman architec¬ 
ture, we think it right to ftate the obfervations made upon 
this difpute by the authors of the Monthly Review. 
“ Sir William Chambers ftudied in the Roman fchool, 
as is evident from the treatife which he publilhed on the 
decorative parts of civil architecture ; which was, and Hill 
is, confidered as a mafterly work : he took much pains to 
guide the Englilh fchool of architecture, and to free i: 
C c from 
