CHAPTER I.

Of the Origin of Architecture and the different Styles, and the purposes to which they have been applied.

WE shall preface the account of the life of Sir Christopher Wren, whose name is associated with all that is great in English architecture, with a few general observations on the rise and progress of the art, which will in some measure serve as an introduction to the Treatise on that subject intended to be published.

It is generally admitted that the early architecture of Greece was indebted to Egypt for some of its rudiments; and yet it is impossible to institute the most careless comparison, without observing the very different character displayed in the earliest specimens of Grecian art, and particularly in sculpture. The causes of this diversity it is difficult now to define, although every variety of speculation has been exhausted on the subject.

In all the advances of the art, the principles of the early attempts, which had their origin in necessity, appear to have been constantly adopted in the improvements of the succeeding ages: the dark and ponderous buildings of the Egyptians have a near affinity to the caverns of their ancestors; and the ornamental and elegant architecture of Greece bears striking testimony to the early use of the timber with which that country abounded. In India the original employment of reed and bamboo is discovered in the lofty and slender buildings of later times; in China the roofs are always constructed in imitation of

the moveable tents of the aboriginal Tartars; and the same observation applies to Turkish and Saracenic buildings.

One of the peculiar features of Egyptian buildings is, that none of the specimens afford much evidence of variation, either in principle or in the constituent parts, during a very considerable period of time. Without entertaining great admiration for the beauty, the grandeur, or the simplicity of Egyptian structures, it is yet impossible to contemplate without wonder those immense and gloomy monuments of labour, in which, independently of situation and size, a very striking effect is produced by the peculiarity in the arrangement of the different parts, and by their vast groves of columns, obelisks, and colossal statues.

The external character of the Egyptian style is, however, in a great degree simple and imposing; the columns and decorations usually are internal, contrary to the Grecian architecture, in which the interior of the temples is comparatively plain, the columns, the statuary, and other ornaments being nearly all external. This may be traced, in some degree, to the difference of the climate.

In the contemplation of the Egyptian temples, their resemblance to the ancient buildings of India is peculiarly striking; and this naturally leads to the consideration of the discussions to which the early progress of ancient nations in architecture and some other arts has given rise.

In tracing the origin of the arts first practised by man in his progress from barbarism to civilisation, after those

B

necessary to insure his subsistence and clothing, that of providing shelter from the inclemency of the weather must have been the earliest cultivated. It has been frequently remarked, how soon man became acquainted with the means of fabricating cloth; architecture and weaving are amongst the first complicated arts practised by barbarians, and were even at an early period carried to considerable perfection: next to the care of necessaries, the love of ornaments arises in the breast of a savage; and the art of fetching out the brilliancy of the precious stones and metals is, accordingly, one of the earliest which are noted in the progress of a rude people.

Architecture, weaving, and jewellery are the only arts for which the Hindoos have been celebrated, and even these, with the exception of weaving, attained but a low degree of perfection. The ancient buildings of Hindostan have been at different periods the subject of wonder, and considered as evidencing a high civilisation: yet there are productions in China of dimensions and importance vying with them. "The Mexicans, ignorant of iron, cranes, and scaffolds, with neither carts nor sledges, and no means of working their stones but with flints, or of polishing them but by rubbing them against each other, accomplished works which in magnitude and symmetry rival any of which Hindostan can boast."

The Pyramids of Egypt, vast as are their dimensions, afford intrinsic evidence of the rudeness of the period at which they were reared. The sepulchre of Belus at Babylon, according to Strabo, was built of different bodies or stages one rising above another, exactly in the manner of the great Temple at Mexico, as is noticed by Humboldt, who also observed the resemblance between the Pyramids of Egypt and the vast Pyramids the remains of which are to be found in South America. The Palace of Montezuma strongly resembled that of the Emperor of China; and Knox, after remarking the passion of the Cingalese for constructing temples and monuments of enormous magnitude in honour of their Gods, observes, "as if they had been born solely to hew rocks and great stones, and lay them in heaps" "the unsophisticated opinion," remarks Mr. Mill, "of a sound understanding on operations which the affectation of taste and antiquarian credu

lity have magnified into proofs of the highest civilisation."*

It is not intended to urge any arguments in detail as to the common origin of the buildings of India and the Monolithic (built of one rock) Temple of Egypt. The fact, however, that the Sepoys, in their march to join the army of Lord Hutchinson, conceived they had found their own temples in the ruins of Dendyra, is mentioned by Captain Light in his Travels, and so convinced were they of the identity, as actually to perform their devotions in them.

Monsieur Legrand, in his very interesting Essay on Architecture, attaches much higher value to Egyptian architecture than it deserves, describing it as "noble, severe, and imposing in the highest degree, and appearing still to resist the destroying hand of time after a lapse of four thousand years;" and he thinks that such ideas were not generated in the infancy of the art, as has been often imagined, but were "the fruits of a long continued civilisation, great knowledge, and a tending to lasting glory." "This elevated style," continues the author, rising with his subject, "which is not sufficiently understood, deserves to be profoundly studied in all its parts, and again adopted by those men whose aim is to astonish the present age, and to ensure the admiration of posterity." That Pyramids will be again built for the admiration of the present or of future ages is not to be feared; and it may be doubted, if Monsieur Legrand will by his eloquence conjure up a hardy spirit, who will undertake the task of handing down to posterity, at a vast expense, the dark and dreary monotony of the Egyptian Temples, at least not till we shall be again reduced to a state of society resembling that in which they lived who commanded them to rise, and till some king shall exist, whose power being unlimited, is compelled to solace, by the erection of a Pyramid, the satiety of dominion, and tastelessness of pleasures, and the tediousness of declining life, by seeing

66

British India, vol. i. p. 430.-The chapter of Mr. Mill, on the Arts of Hindostan, is particularly interesting, and contains a vast variety of curious matter, tending to show that the facts usually sd civilisation amongst the Carnatic nations, do not duced as proofs of the early and complete state of

establish the position contended for, and that Hidostan had not in fact made any greater progress in the arts than China, Mexico, or other nations still considered in a state of semi-barbarism,

thousands labour without good, and one stone for no purpose laid on another."

In considering the history and progress of art, its real importance to the happiness of mankind is a question which naturally occurs. If it be true that what are termed the fine arts are of the importance sometimes ascribed to them, their effects on the welfare of mankind may be expected to increase in proportion as they advanced towards perfection; and it is the opinion of some eminent writers, that they have not yet reached the utmost verge of excellence, and that we have still much to hope and to attain. To determine, however, this point, we must have some standard admitted to be just, some uncontroverted principles or axioms with which we can institute comparison, or by which we can measure our progress: taste is too indefinite for the purpose; it is claimed equally by persons who hold the most discordant opinions on the point, and whose repugnant pretensions rest upon the most opposite principles. Being incapable of transmission by very accurate rules of description, in practice taste frequently appears a term convertible with that of fancy.

Whatever doubts may exist as to the importance of the fine arts, the case is different with the sciences. In them, scarcely a discovery or an improvement is suggested but it becomes converted to the use of mankind: they leave no room for conjecture as to their merits, nor any hesitation as to their advance. The navigator, manufacturer, statesman, and philosopher concur in their opinions of their progress and effect; and our ameliorated condition affords the best testimony of their improvement. Whatever may be the comparative importance of the results flowing from these different branches of our knowledge, it is plain that they require at least the same general circumstances to favour their growth-exemption from the desolation of war, opulence to furnish rewards, and leisure to permit application: but, above all, a government should exist, in which the preponderating influence of the people forbids that a nation should be subject to the narrow views and interests which, with few exceptions, appear at all periods to have regulated the dominion of despotism. The suspicion natural to tyranny, and the dread that light or information should expose its deformity, makes it

feelingly alive to the dangers resulting from all freedom of inquiry.

It is impossible, nevertheless, to consider the unrivalled excellence which the arts attained during the prosperity of some of the Italian republics, without being convinced of the prodigious effects sometimes produced on the energies of the human mind, by an exemption not merely from the restraint of absolute authority, but even from the languor and tameness often produced by very regular governments, though in effect calculated for the tranquillity and comfort of a people. The internal condition of these states was a perpetual struggle of faction amongst the citizens, a contest for power and popularity amongst the rich, a defective administration of the laws, and a doubtful state of private morals. The same observations may, in a great measure, be applied to some of the ancient Greek republics; and yet amidst such scenes were reared the most finished monuments of art, precious indeed, but purchased at far too high a price, if the alternations of anarchy and misrule were necessary for their production.

Architecture, as an ornamental science, may be supposed to have kept pace with the art of design, the improvements in each depending nearly on the same vigour of imagination and general refinement of taste; and the same powerful cause, or combination of causes, which (in Greece) so early produced by the operations of genius such a magical effect on the arts of design, exerted a similar influence on the state of architecture.*

Grecian Architecture.

From the contemplation of the solemn grandeur of the Egyptian monuments we proceed to the Greek temples, whose character is so different. Whilst struck with the size of the Egyptian buildings, we feel that they are the effect of incessant labour, the works of slaves, without much of the assistance of intellectual greatness, and that their importance arises chiefly from their extent. It is far otherwise with the works of Greece, where every line is expressive of the genius and imagination of the author; and, though great labour must have been exerted in their construction, yet the mind is relieved from all sense of pain by admiration of the result.

• Introduct. to Trans. of Vitruvius.

The Greeks being more lively in their manners than the Egyptians, and fonder of external show and processions, their temples exhibited a corresponding change; the front was adorned with a peristyle, sometimes double and even triple, as is seen in some of the remains in Sicily, Italy, Syria, &c.

The most perfect simplicity of form was united with the grandeur produced by the rows of columns: a low pediment crowned the façade for the purpose of receiving the slanting concealed roof; and the buildings were large and grand without partaking of the colossal appearance of the Egyptian. The interiors were unadorned, although at times some of the choicest specimens of sculpture were enshrined in them.

The simple grandeur of the Doric, bold without heaviness, rich without being overloaded with ornament, recording in its metopes all the eloquence of sculpture, and typical at once of the artless manners and bold deeds of the Greeks, was preferred by them during the best ages, to the Ionic and Corinthian, in all their great edifices. The Doric also had the peculiar advantage of being equally adapted to great and small edifices; to small, by the simplicity of the divisions and members; to large, by its bold proportions and the massiveness of the entablature.

The Romans followed the Greeks in the form of their temples, but added to their richness by the new and elegant orders with which they decorated them; they frequently substituted a stylobate (pedestal) in place of the steps which supported the Doric columns forming a continuous base, and preferred to this chaste and simple order the elegant and more refined Ionic and Corinthian; and even these they enriched to profusion, lengthening the pediment, and surrounding it by triumphal cars and statues of terra cotta and gilt bronze. The buildings themselves they surrounded by enclosures and colonnades.

The Orders of Architecture ana Proportion.

The origin of the orders of architecture is a subject which has given rise to much fruitless and absurd discussion. Every member of the different orders, every part of the columns and the entablatures, has a variety of origins assigned to it, and each supported by a variety of advocates. One idea which

seems to have been very stoutly maintained, is the analogy between the proportions of the human figure and those of the orders; and so far is this idea carried by Michael Angelo, that he declares a knowledge of anatomy to be indispensable to an architect, who without it must be necessarily ignorant of his profession. It is certain, he observes, that the members of architecture have a reference to those of the human body; and he who does not understand the human figure, and particularly anatomy, can know nothing of the subject.

The intrinsic beauty of the Grecian orders has long been one of the dogmas of the connoisseurs. This has been, we think, completely exposed by Mr. Alison in his Essay on Taste. The true cause of this beauty may be reduced to the propriety or fitness of the building for the end designed, and nothing further: as, in plain buildings, and without any view to ornament, if the walls are of such a height as with our previous experience seems sufficient for their own stability, and for the sup port of the weight which is imposed on them, we consider the house to be rightly proportioned; whilst if the walls are so large as to appear insecure, or the roof so high as to seem too heavy for its support, the notion of ill proportion immediately occurs. This fitness, however, cannot be accurately measured, and, accordingly, no proportions are defined, and the general conclusions we have formed are our only guides.

But in what are termed the Orders of Architecture this is otherwise, and the proportions have been absolutely determined. They are five: the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite. The first and last, however, are generally rejected. In considering the orders, it must be remembered, that the proportion, not the ornament, constitutes the order. Every order consists of three great divisions: the base, the column, and the entablature, or that the capital of the column; and the gopart which is placed immediately above verning proportions relate to this division, the whole in fact composing a wall, or what in common buildings would be the wall. Though the wall derives its proportion in an order, from the intention of supporting the roof, yet it is complete without the roof; and when there is one, it is generally so contrived as not to appear: the weight which is, or appears