wonder. In architecture, regularity, order, and proportion, and the beauties that refult from them, are ftill more confpicuous than in gardening. But with refpect to the beauty of colour, architecture is far inferior. Grandeur can be expreffed in a building, perhaps more fuccessfully than in a garden; but as to the other emotions above men tioned, architecture hitherto has not been brought to the perfection of expreffing them diftinctly. To balance this defect, architecture can display the beauty of utility in the highest perfection. nun sonu) But gardening poffeffes one advantage, which never can be equalled in the other lastbAy garden may be fo contrived, as in vatious fcenes to raife fucceffively all its different emotions. But to operate this delicious effect, the garden must be extenfive, fo as to admit a flow fucceffion : for a small garden, comprehended at one view, ought to be confined to one expreffion *: it may be gay, it may be sweet, it may be gloomy; but an attempt to mix thefe, would create

a

jumble of emotions not a little unpleasant. For the fame reason, a building, even the moft magnificent, is neceffarily confined to one expreffion.

Architecture, confidered as a fine art, inftead of rivaling gardening in its progrefs toward perfection, feems not far advanced beyond its infant-ftate. To bring it to maturity, two things mainly are wanted. First, A greater variety of parts and ornaments than it seems provided with. Gardening here has greatly the advantage: it is provided with fuch plenty and fuch variety of materials, that it must be the fault of the artifts, if the spectator be not entertained with different fcenes, and affected with various emotions. But materials in architecture are fo fcanty, that artifts hitherto have not been successful in raifing emotions, other than thofe of beauty and grandeur, With refpect to the former, there are indeed plenty of means, regularity, order, fymmetry, fimplicity and with refpect to the lat ter, the addition of fize is fufficient. But though it be evident, that every building aught to have a certain character or expref

4

flon

fion fuitable to its deftination; yet this is a refinement which artifts have fcarce ventured upon. A death's head and bones employ'd in monumental buildings, will indeed produce an emotion of gloom and melancholy: but every ornament of this kind, if these can be termed fo, ought to be rejected, because they are in themselves difagreeable. The other thing wanted to bring the art to perfection, is, to afcertain the precife impreffion made by every fingle part and ornament, cupolas, fpires, columns, carvings, ftatues, vafes, &c. For in vain will an artist attempt rules for employing thefe, either fingly or in combination, until the different emotions or feelings they produce be distinctly explained. Gardening in this particular hath alfo the advantage. The feveral emotions raised by trees, rivers, cafcades, plains, eminences, and other materials it employs, are understood ; and the nature of each can be defcribed with fome degree of precifion, which is done occafionally in the foregoing parts of

1

In

In gardening as well as in architecture, fimplicity ought to be the governing taste. Profufe ornament hath no better effect than to confound the eye, and to prevent the object from making an impreffion as one entire whole. An artist destitute of genius for capital beauties, is naturally prompted to fupply the defect by crowding his plan with flight embellishments. Hence in gardens, triumphal arches, Chinese houses, temples, obelisks, cafcades, fountains, without end; and hence in buildings, pillars, vafes, ftatues, and a profufion of carved work. Thus a woman who has no juft tafte, is apt to overcharge every part of her dress with ornament. Superfluity of decoration hath another bad effect: it gives the object a diminutive look. Am island in a wide extended lake, makes it appear larger; but an artificial lake, which must always be little, appears ftill lefs by making an inland in it *.

In forming plans for embellishing a field, an artist void of tafte deals in ftraight lines,

circles, fquares; because these show beft upon paper. He perceives not, that to hu mour and adorn nature is the perfection of his art and that nature, neglecting regularity, reacheth fuperior beauties by distribu ting her objects in great variety with a bold hand. A large field laid out with strict regularity, is stiff and artificial. Nature indeed, in organized bodies comprehended under one view, ftudies regularity; which, for the fame reason, ought to be studied in architecture: but in large objects, which cannot otherwise be surveyed than in parts and by fucceffion, regularity and uniformity would be useless properties, because they cannot be discovered by the eye*. Nature therefore, in her large works, neglects thefe properties; and in copying nature the artist ought to neglect them.

Having thus far carried on a comparison betwixt gardening and architecture, I proceed to rules peculiar to each; and I begin

* A fquare field appears not fuch to the eye when viewed from any part of it; and the centre is the only place where a circular field preferves in appearance its real figure..

with