A R C H I T 
from tliofe fpurious contortions which had gained ground. 
The publication, replete with judicious remarks on the 
detail in architecture, and containing many ufeful deduc¬ 
tions from the moft-efteemed works, lias for many years 
been contidered, among architects, as their belt guide. 
Sir William declaims againlt general principles, and not 
againft perfons; whereas Mr. Revely, in the preface to 
his third volume of the Antiquities of Athens, has direct¬ 
ed his attack, perfonaiiy, againft his old mafter; with what 
degree of juftice, we ftiall now proceed to examine. 
“ Mr. Revely has endeavoured to refute Sir William’s 
afterfion, ‘ that the Parthenon was not fo conftderable as 
the church of St. Martin’s in the Fields,’ by comparing 
the aCtual dimenfions of thofe two buildings : for the fpace 
w hich they occupied, Mr. Revely takes the ineafures from 
the upper ftep of each, including the periftyle of columns 
which furrounded the Parthenon : but, we think, a fairer 
comparison will be made by taking the meafures of the 
bodies, or walls of the buildings, which will make the 
contents of the Parthenon only 123 fquare feet more than 
St. Martin’s church; and, as the Parthenon was an hype- 
thral temple, the uncovered fpace ought to be deducted, 
which will leave a very confiderable difference in favour 
of St. Martin’s church. Suppofing the periftyle of columns 
to be included in the comparifons, we have (till reafon to 
believe that the dimenfions will be in favour of St. Mar¬ 
tin’s; fo much of the Parthenon remaining uncovered. 
Mr. Revely’s mifreprel'entation of Sir William’s obferva- 
tion on St. Martin’s fteeple is, furely, unworthy of notice. 
The comparifon made by Mr. Revely between the maflive 
and the lighter Doric columns, we apprehend, will ftill 
remain matter of opinion; few, even of tlie advocates in 
their favour, as Sir William obferves, will have the har- 
dinefs to employ thefe Grecian proportions which they fo 
much extol. Mr. Stuart, after having been feafted with 
the light of the ‘ fublime’ Doric at Athens, feems to have 
been enraptured with the lighter Doric of the portico of 
Philip in the ifland of Delos. Many works, both in art 
and nature, produce a lublime effeft, of which it would 
be ridiculous to attempt an imitation. India produces many 
inftances of art, the native works of the country, which 
exhibit Specimens of the lvigheft clafs of the fublime : yet, 
who, in thefe enlightened parts of the world, would re¬ 
commend them for models ? The fublime, as has been de- 
monftrated, is produced by the comparative magnitude of 
the object, exciting, in the mind of the beholder, a degree 
of mingled terror and admiration ; and a c ha rafter of eter¬ 
nity, no doubt, nnift greatly heighten that ert'eft. 
“ By the Several veltiges which remain of primitive 
Grecian works, it appears that columns were in a progref- 
five ftate of increale, in their proportionate height, until 
a certain degree of flendernefs was proved, by the many 
works erefted by the Romans, to be Sufficient. What 
then was the refillt of this experience ? certainly that they, 
at laft, thought it ufelefs to give more fubftance than was 
by experience found to be necelfary for the columns, with 
Sufficient variation to charafterife the different orders. We 
do not fee how Mr. Revely can prove that the Grecian 
inaftive Doric * was applied only where the greateft dig¬ 
nity and Strength were required in all the very old ex¬ 
amples of the Same age, we find nearly the fame propor¬ 
tions pref'erved ; and no inftances occur, among tliofe very 
ancient Specimens of the fame age, in which (lighter co¬ 
lumns, of the fame order, were ufed in different buildings. 
“ Sir William’s conjecture, that the hypethral temples 
were left open, from ignorance of the means of covering 
them, is not refuted by Mr. Revely’s observations. The 
Opillthodemos, though equal one way to the breadth of 
the cell, was yet much narrower the other way, and conse¬ 
quently much ealier to be roofed. Mr. Rev-el p's idea, 
« that it would have been juft as reafor.able to fuppofe that 
the Romans left the circular opening in the dome of the 
Pantheon from Similar ignorance,’ is puerile in the ex¬ 
treme. He is rather unfortunate in citing the Pantheon ; 
for this Specimen is a decifive proof of the Superiority of 
E C T U R E. 
the Romans in the conftruftive part of the architefture, 
and Strongly operates againft his argument on that fubjeft. 
Thus, Mr. Revely’s observation, that Sir William’s dif- 
quifition conlifts ‘ entirely ir. aflertions,’ will apply to his 
own ; for no one argument is advanced whence we can 
conclude, that the Grecian works in architefture were 
Superior to thofe of the Romans. This might however be 
an endlefs controversy, while no data are eftablifhed by 
which the arguments may be examined. 
“ The Sum of this controversy appears to be that, on 
the one fide, the panegyrists of Grecian architefture are of 
opinion that that art kept pace with fculpturc, and arrived at 
its higheft perfection in the time of Pericles : or, perhaps 
allured by the fight of Something novel to them, they are 
won by its ‘ fublime appearance,’ and efteem all other Spe¬ 
cimens as of inferior excellence : on the other fide, the 
partifans in favour of the Roman Specimens of architec¬ 
ture, perhaps accuftOmed to tire fight of thofe”proportions, 
think that no other can be more beautiful ; and that, if a 
column, of a certain proportioned fubftance, be found, by 
experience, to anfwer the purpofe, it is unneceffary to 
increafe it to more than double its fubftance ; which is 
the difference between the Athenian Doric column of five 
and a half diameters high, and the Roman Doric of eight. 
“ It has, in our opinion, been demonftrated by many 
able authors, that architefture did not arrive at its utmoft 
perfection in the time of Pericles, but was in a gradual 
State of improvement until the Romans, by their innume¬ 
rable works, had an opportunity of proving all its varie¬ 
ties. They fay that architefture was later in improvement 
than her filler art, Sculpture; becaufe that, in the laft, the 
artift had a model and certain guide in nature ; while, ar¬ 
chitefture not being furnifhed with any other model than 
Such as arofe from an analogous imitation, its advances 
muff have been gradual, and muft have depended on ex¬ 
perience for the proof of its juft proportions: accordingly, 
Sculpture might quickly emerge from barbarifm, to its ut¬ 
moft ftate of perfection, in the time of Pericles; but ar¬ 
chitefture, as being necefliirily founded on ages of expe¬ 
rience, could not be fo Suddenly brought to excellence. 
The many architects, fo much celebrated by Vitruvius, &c. 
and who flourished Since the time of Pericles, considerably 
diminished the proportionate bulk of the columns ; un¬ 
doubtedly regarding that diminution as an improvement of 
their beauty. They had the advantage of experience in 
the great works produced antecedently to their time; and, 
certainly, better opportunity of appreciating their merits 
than we can poffibly have from the few Scattered and mu¬ 
tilated remains of the ancient buildings which time has 
Spared. Who then are to be efteemed the beft.judges ? 
Will any modern, with all thefe disadvantages, prefume 
to enter into competition w ith thefe celebrated ancients ? 
The examples of Grecian architecture, regarded in a pro¬ 
per light, will not want due appreciation : purer, as it was 
nearer to its Source, it is Seen without any of thofe impu¬ 
rities which afterward aroSe. In it we may trace the Sim¬ 
ple origins, from which that excellent art has Since deri¬ 
ved So many beautiful forms, and has become fubfervient 
to the pleaf’ures as well as to the wants of mankind.”—See 
Monthly Review, June, 1795. 
RULES for WORKING the FIVE ORDERS. 
A competent knowledge of the methods of drawing and 
working the five orders, may be Said to be tire very foun¬ 
dation of the art of building ; Since from thefe, with their 
•Several proportions and variations, arifes all that is great, 
elegant, or harmonious, in the nobleft ftriicture. It Should 
therefore be the earned endeavours of thofe who ftudy ar¬ 
chitecture, to obtain a thorough knowledge of each diftinft 
order, its parts, proportions, and genuine figure, as being 
abfolutely neceffary to every one who afpires to eminence 
in this profefllon. The following Rules are given with 
this view, and are adapted to the prefent tafte ; and they 
are fo clearly explained by the figures and meafurements 
on the plates, that a little attention will enable every per- 
