Vitruvius a diligent learning, in the wilderness of time, never could have been handed down from such a remote period, unless of inestimable value and importance to the science of Architecture at some period: and when we consider the eminence to which Grecian art had arrived, every vestige of it should be considered of the utmost consequence it is not, therefore, too much to say, that this ancient analysis, comprised in the second chapter of Vitruvius, may be considered as the only remaining seeds from the withered branches of old Grecian art, which, though buried for two thousand years, it is not impossible may yet bud and blossom into life. When, however, we consider the importance of the subject, it is to be regretted that the investigation has not fallen into better hands; feeble, however, as these efforts may be, they will at least lay the foundation of a more complete system. 2. We may observe in the writings of Vitruvius, compiler of that he was evidently a learned compiler; he seems, then however, in very few instances, to have given us any tradition. original ideas of his own; his chief anxiety seems to known by have been to display as much of the learning of his day, as he could collect from the treatises, and scientific persons, to whom he had access; so that he might by some be called a pedant; his pedantry has, however, turned out of inestimable benefit to Architecture, as it is from this that we have handed down to us the phrases, by which the Greek artists designated the principles of their art, which, as we learn from various sources, they were very jealous of communicating to their protectors the Romans, from whose employment they derived great benefit. Though, 45 however, they kept the secrets of their art as much as possible to themselves, it is more than probable, that the Greeks in the time of Vitruvius, had actually lost the real explanation of the terms alluded to, and retained them only to keep up the apparent mystery of the art : the confusion of Vitruvius, therefore, is not to be wondered at; and his explanation is evidently not that, which would have been given by the ancient Greeks in no case is this more evident, than in the subject of the present essay. Vitruvius translates raeus, ordinatio; now it is evident, that with this translation we cannot help confusing it with dispositio, by which he latinizes diabeσic; for ordinatio and dispositio may both be Englished, as disposing, or setting in order, both terms having reference to the position of the parts. Let us, however, examine the passage, which is as follows:-"Ordinatio est modica membrorum operis commoditas separatim, universæque proportionis ad symmetriam comparatio. Hæc componitur ex quantitate quæ Græce Tooorns dicitur. Quantitas autem est_modulorum ex ipsius operis sumptione, singulisque membrorum partibus universi operis conveniens effectus." From this we see ražic confused not only with dispositio and distributio, but also with proportion, so that we must give up all hopes of obtaining a distinct analysis from the explanation of Vitruvius, and have recourse to the word itself. The word rate not only means or- tinized by dinatio, but officium. Now the office, utility, or what some writers have called the fitness of the parts, is a material excellence in composition, and there is no other of these terms can be interpreted to mean Tafis is la officium, not ordina tio. confusion arises from the nature of the sub ject, as the excellencies theoreti cally separated, are tion blend this; we may, therefore, most safely infer, that this was the meaning which the Greeks in the time of Pericles gave the word rage, and that this explanation had not reached the Greeks in the time of Vitruvius; the word taxis may therefore in this sense be conveniently introduced into our own language. 3. There is, however, another deduction which may be drawn from the above passage, and from what has been said about the confusion of terms. We have seen, that in this same passage, utility is confused Vitruvius's with position: it may be said, that it was not so much. partly the absolute impropriety of the explanation of Vitruvius, that created confusion, as the actual nature of the subject itself; it was the extreme difficulty of treating of one excellence of architecture, without the others, that gave them the appearance of assimilation; we can hardly talk of the office or utility of a part, which arises in some measure from its strength, in applica- without noticing its dimensions and adjustment, its ποσοτης and διαθεσις. So that the argument that may be fairly drawn from the circumstance is, that there must have been some traditionary explanation of these principles among some of the architects of the day to account for an outline so near the truth, and that not only not filled up and analysed, but giving us so little apparent conception of its real meaning: it should be our business, however, to keep distinct and separate, differently definable excellencies, that we may be better able to unite them in an appropriate manner; with this view, and for the reasons above stated for using officium instead of ordinatio, for the Latin of ragic, and also in com ed. pliance with the first part of the passage above quoted from Vitruvius, which talks of the "operis commoditas," the fitness of the work, we must endeavour to confine our attention at present entirely to the fitness of forms, and of members, which are composed of forms. 4. Utility, fitness, or what is very similar to it in other arts, propriety, (though this latter term may be as well applied to all the excellencies,) must be confessed to be universally pleasing to the human mind; it is in painting, what makes us pleased at seeing the portrait of a person in some action, an effect universally aimed at by portrait painters; it is, in some measure, a love for utility, which makes the display of the useful parts, as the joints, muscles, and even veins of a figure, a beauty. We feel, in ourselves, such a natural fondness for fitness upon all occasions, and writers have so repeatedly dwelt on the subject, that it seems hardly necessary to use any arguments to enforce its importance. Utility im portant in other arts. consider 5. A very popular writer, however, whether for Burke's objection the purpose of showing his talent for argument, or to fitness with a real conviction, is immaterial, (as either way ed. people might be misled,) has endeavoured to prove that fitness is not a source of beauty. "Fitness," says Burke, "cannot be reckoned among the causes of beauty, for on that principle the wedge-like snout of the sow, with its tough cartilage at the end, the little sunk eyes, and the whole make of the head, so well adapted to its office of digging and routing, would be extremely beautiful." What! shall we say that salt is not among the causes of pleasure to the Fitness alone not beauty. Utility in architec taste, because if put into tea or coffee, it would be very disagreeable? Or shall we say plums are not an ingredient in a pudding, because if you mix plums together without any thing else, it would not be a pudding; this is a similar argument to that of the pig's snout, which possesses no other quality of beauty, or next to none, but fitness alone. 6. Fitness alone will not produce beauty: if it would, the timber original would be as beautiful as the Doric temple; if, however, there was not the greatest fitness in the Doric temple, it would be worse than its timber original. We must not, therefore, be persuaded that fitness is no part of the beauty of Architecture. 7. The utility, taxis, or fitness of Architecture, lies ture, what. in a very small compass: it is nothing more than an outward refined display of the machinery of the art. The great end and aim of the art is shelter; to secure these we not only require a roof, but walls or support, and in order that the support may appear firm, and not rise too abruptly from the earth, we require a foundation. In a perfect building, these three parts are clearly and separately portrayed, as in Grecian Architecture, under the terms pedestal, column or style, and entablature or trabeation. Founda tion, support, shelter. 8. It appears to me that architecture, of whatever denomination, when in perfection, in reason should not, and naturally cannot, be divided into more parts, than foundation, support, and shelter; nor does it in approved specimens omit any. This division appears as essential as to divide four-footed animals into head, body, and legs. Whether the design be |