is good proportion; or, if it pleases scientific ears more, what is good analogy. Modern 14. Though I do not think that either Michael knowledge. Angelo, or any other modern authors or Architects, have taken a clear and comprehensive view, either in their writings, or buildings, of the distinction between eurithm and symmetry, yet the question, What is good proportion? seems to have been well understood by many of them. No mystery in proportion; 15. Thus, though many of our predecessors have thought analogy, or proportion, so great a mystery, I think I may be so bold as to argue, from the systems of a few others, that it is no mystery at all: it is very true, that when, as in future essays, proportion is brought in aid of scientific contrast, and (to use the words of the author just quoted) of the "touching and moving unity, and pathetic agreement, and concord," which causes the delineations of character to make such an impression on the beholder; in such a case, though there is no mystery, yet abstraction, consideration, and a thorough knowledge of the strong holds of the art, are eminently called for; and from imbecility in these, proportion would certainly appear a mystery: these things are, however, the subject of future essays at present all, that can be considered essential to proportion, is, it requires that it should be simple. It is impossible to work up the more brilliant touches of the art without simple elements; it must be evident, that no bold and dignified contrast of important parts, can be effected, if the composition is crowded with a multitude of uselessly varied parts; much less can any simplicity. such contrast, or any scheme whatever, under such circumstances, produce character; but, without drawing our arguments from the higher branches of the art, it seems evident, that even the love of order, and system, which is so natural to the human mind, would be alone sufficient to point out, that the only aptitude, order, or system, that can exist in proportion abstractedly, is in the principles of simplicity; and therefore, that from the natural bent of our inclination, simplicity must be the soul of elegant proportions. We have, however, better arguments than these, arguments drawn from an examination of wellapproved specimens; there is no exquisite specimen in existence, in which one of its prevailing perfections is not simplicity in proportion. Angelo ad 16. Even modern artists have dwelt upon the im- Michael portance of this qualification: Michael Angelo, the great sculptor, is said to have advised his pupils plicity. always to make their figures proportioned by one, two, or three; this will at least show, that simplicity is no new theory in proportion, however remotely modern Architects, by following Roman instead of Grecian specimens, have deviated from it. 17. In order to obtain a ready guide to simple A module. proportions, the ancients invented the module; how the use of this has been perverted, and rendered almost useless by division into minute fractions, is lamentable to behold: but we may still hope, that as the art improves, a more rational plan will be adopted, and that the same system of modulation will not, as now, be followed in every the most different cha racter. Vitruvius on the module. Modern module. Its divisions. 18. A module, called by the Greeks Eußarns, is not satisfactorily explained by Vitruvius; but he says enough to convince us, that if we follow the practice of the ancients, we may make any part, we choose, a module; for he only defines a module in the Doric order, in a manner which could not apply to any other in fact he expressly mentions the Doric order. (Vitr. lib. iv. c. 3.) 19. Although moderns have assumed either from this passage, or some other, that a module in trabecolumnal Architecture, is half a diameter, it must be evident, that in all cases this would be a dangerous assumption, and upon the whole, it would perhaps be better to allow an Architect to assume his own module according to the circumstances of the case. 20. A worse system, however, than always assuming the same part as module in every contingency, is, always dividing it into the same number of parts. If there is any power in simple proportions to affect the perfections, which have just been hinted at, such a system as this, as also dividing it into so great a number of parts as thirty, which is the commen practice, must at once defeat the strongest instrument of producing effect by proportion, and totally destroy every power of producing elegant proportions either in symmetry, or eurithm. In fact, no general rule can be given, where, under all circumstances, a module should be taken, or how divided; for it is obvious, as different buildings are composed of a different number of parts, and as many, which are even composed of the same number, may have those parts disposed according to different ratios, or analogies, a different system must be adopted in each, which nothing but experience will lead us to: but to pro ceed. defined. 21. A module may be defined, the whole, or that A module simple fraction of any very conspicuous member in the scheme of a design, by which the proportion of all the other members are governed: it is in fact to the proportions of Architecture what the key note is in music, and should like that in some varied way or other constantly recur in the design: with this view it is a very good system for the designer constantly to have one pair of compasses open to his module, and to have another pair to take the simple multiples and simple fractions. propor 22. It will be easily conceived, what is meant by Simple simple proportion, being such, that a correct eye tions. would without the aid of a pair of compasses soonest detect, they are the proportions of one, two, three, and perhaps four, taken in any order as three to four, or two to three, or one to three; and also the proportion of one to any number not much above ten. cation of 23. The next question that presents itself, is, how The appliare these proportions to be applied? It seems that proportion. the principal cases where Architects have failed in giving effect to their design, are owing to the circumstance of considering the eurithms of their designs of more consequence than the symmetry: so that we constantly see cases, in which the whole, and every individual part are beautifully proportioned, and yet the effect is bad; and though we often see symmetry treated of by authors, it is quite clear they mean no more than proportion, in the usual acceptation of the Contrast and cha after considered. word, and that that symmetry, which makes the beautiful proportion of one part set off the beautiful proportion of another, has not entered into their calculation. 21. It is a fact, that greatness, grandeur, and all racterhere the most important powers of proportion are the effect of symmetry, more than of eurithm; and as these are derived from contrast and character, each will appear in a future essay at present it is only necessary to remark, that although no building can be beautiful without eurithmic proportion, it is the least part of proportion in producing a great or striking effect, this alone is the property of symmetric proportion. Eurithm alone incapable of effect: Many instances of this. St. Peter's at Rome. observa tion. 25. Innumerable instances must have occurred to every one, where every individual part seems to possess all that is necessary to proportion, and yet the design looks small and insignificant: such are the cases in which eurithm alone has been followed, in which the beholder, being unable to put his finger on a defect, wonders where the error lies. 26. St. Peter's at Rome is a memorable instance of the imbecility of mere eurithm. "St. Peter's," says Duppa's Duppa, in his life of M. Angelo, " in its present state, with all the advantages of dimensions every way, is a remarkable instance how human ingenuity can be exercised in diminishing the effect of its own powers. Instead of the awful grandeur which might reasonably be expected from the magnitude of the building, splendour and variety divert the attention, its solemnity is lost in the diffusion of light, and its size apparently diminished by the parts occupying |