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," continu 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 • 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 adcivilisation amongst the Carnatic nations, do not duced as proofs of the early and complete state of establish the position contended for, and that Hindostan 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 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 character is so different. Whilst struck we proceed to the Greek temples, whose 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 to be supported, being the entablature: the fitness, therefore, here, consists in its appearing adequate to the support of the entablature:-" and the appearance of these proportions," observes Mr. Alison, "seems to lead us to this conclusion Thus in the Tuscan, where the entablature is heavier than in the rest, the column and base are proportionably stronger; while in the Corinthian, where the entablature is lightest, the column and base are proportionably slighter: this position is confirmed by the general use of the term proportion in its general acceptation, which implies fitness to the end designed: heaviness and slightness are the terms more generally used to express a deviation on either side from the proper relation; both obviously including the consideration of support, and expressing the want of proportion. If our perception of the beauty of proportion were in such cases altogether independent of any such considerations, these circumstances in language could not possibly take place; and it would be as possible to explain the nature and beauty of proportion by terms expressive of sound or colour, as by terms expressive of fitness or propriety. "That there is no absolute beauty in the proportions of the orders, independent of that arising from fitness, is obvious. Mankind, however, soon acquire ideas of bulk and support; and the feelings of persons in general, on viewing the proportions of an order, are to be considered rather as satisfaction than delight that which creates the delight, is the magnificence, the grandeur, and the costliness, which such buildings usually display. This is well illustrated by conceiving the entablature as the weight to be supported; and, of course, a certain form and size in the column is demanded for this; and in the base, for the support of both. A plain stone, for instance, set upon its end, has no proportion further than for the purpose of stability; if it appears firm, it has all the proportions we desire, and its form may be varied in a thousand ways, without interfering with our sense of its proportion. Place a column, or any other weight, on this stone, immediately another proportion is demanded, namely, that which is the proportion adapted to support this weight; though the form supported has no proportion further than that which is necessary for its stability, or for continuing in its situation. Above this, again, place an additional body, and immediately the intermediate one demands a new proportion; viz. a proportion suited to the weight it supports; and the first part, or the base, demands also another proportion in consideration of the additional weight which is thus imposed upon it. On this supposition, it is obvious that the consideration of fitness alone leads us to expect a certain proportion in each of these parts, and the parts are pleasing or beautiful just as they answer this demand." Mr. Alison, however, admits, that the mere consideration of fitness is insufficient to account for the pleasure so uni versally derived from the established or ders, which have been so long adhered to without any attempt at deviation. This is justly to be attributed to other feelings unconnected with proportion, arising from the ornaments, the materials, and the size; and more particularly from the associations which arise on a contemplation of the Grecian orders; although we are inclined to attribute our admiration to the style of the architecture alone. One of the objections which may be urged against these positions, is the fact, that notwithstanding there is no intrinsic beauty in the proportions of the orders, yet they have, for a long period, been adopted without any attempt at alteration, which would seem to indicate that they were intrinsically beautiful. But the feelings and motives which would in most other objects of art lead to a variation, do not exist with respect to architecture. Of all the fine arts, architecture is the most costly; and the wealth even of nations is equal only to slow and infrequent productions. The value of such objects. is therefore, in a great measure, independent of fashion; the invention of men is little exerted to give an additional value to subjects, which in themselves are valuable; and the art itself, after having arrived at a certain necessary degree of perfection, remains in a great measure stationary, both from the infrequency of cases in which invention can be employed, and the little demand there is for its exercise. In addition to the costliness of the production, we must consider its durability; since it is only those productions of which the materials are perishable, and require often to be renewed, that are subjected to the in. Яuence of variety. The works of architecture are designed to last, and do last for centuries: the life of man is of far less duration than such productions; and the present period of the world, though old with respect to those arts which are employed upon perishable subjects, may be considered as yet young in relation to an art which is employed upon such durable materials as those of architecture. Centuries must elapse before works of this class demand to be renewed. The sacredness of antiquity is acquired in the mean time, and a new motive given for the preservation of similar forms. We have considered Mr. Alison's positions so true, and so important to the due consideration of the subject of the orders, that it has been necessary to give them at length. In observing on the nature and effect of Grecian architecture, it is necessary to advert to a singular position of the learned writer of the Introduction to the translation, of Vitruvius, (Lord Aberdeen,) namely, that the ancients never possessed any knowledge or perception of those qualities of external objects which are called picturesque. The admirable positions of the Temple of Minerva, the approach (on the angle) to the Temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens and Sunium, and many other examples, may, we think, be quoted as ample testimony that the ancients possessed a fine and just sentiment for the picturesque position and effect of these monuments, although they practised landscape painting very little, and the illusion of perspective was not much used by them in their compositions. The villa of Pliny, so elegant and so interesting in the description, and which has been considered as a proof of the opinion we have advanced, is viewed by the writer above noticed as not in truth affording any grounds for such an opinion: and he suggests, that if any external irregularity may be considered to have existed, it must have been purely accidental, and only produced in consequence of the necessary arrangement of the interior apartments, and without the least reference to any general or preconceived design. With regard, however, to the private houses of the ancients in cities, there are but very few instances of much attention being paid to the exterior architectural design; and they were of slight construction. Those of Pompeii, as well as those designed in the various paintings found on the walls of that city, seem to prove that exterior architecture was not an object, and was generally sacrificed to that of the interior. The habits of domestic privacy of a people which required that the apartments should receive light and air only from an interior court or atrium, and the climate which made such a court desirable on account of its coolness, induced them to lavish the graces and expense of their architecture on the interior rather than the exterior of their houses. Julius Cæsar obtained a special decree to enable him to adorn the front of his house with a pediment: and Gibbon observes, that in the commonwealths of Athens and Rome the modes and simplicity of private houses announced the equal condition of freemen, whilst the sovereignty of the people was represented in the majestic edifices designed to the public use; every part of the empire was fitted with ample theatres, temples, porticoes, triumphal arches, baths, and aqueducts, all variously conducive to the health, the devotion, and the pleasures of the meanest subject. Gothic Architecture. In the foregoing observations on the different styles, the Gothic has been omitted. Whatever may be its beauties, and whatever may be the feelings of admiration arising from association, there can be no question that the style is but little adapted to utility; and the expense of producing what might be considered as perfect specimens of this branch of the art, would alone in these days, in a great degree, preclude its revival. The style termed Gothic, (concerning the origin of which we shall not add to the number of discussions,) probably took its rise in the East; this hypothesis has been the most successfully supported by the fact of its appearing nearly at once throughout Christendom, and at a time when all the different states of Europe were attracted to the East by the Crusades; and it seems that the Goths had no share in the invention of the style which now bears their name, it being, in fact, a term of vituperation used by those who had introduced the restored Grecian. In Italy the term had its origin with |