culty of contrivance, refpects buildings that are intended for pleafure as well as for ufe. These ends, employing different and often oppofite means, are with difficulty reconciled. In palaces, and other buildings fufficiently extenfive to admit a variety of useful contrivance, regularity juftly takes the lead. But in dwelling-houses that are too small for variety of contrivance, utility ought to prevail; neglecting regularity fo far as it stands in oppofition to convenience.

Intrinfic and relative beauty being founded on different principles, must be handled separately; and I begin with relative beauty, as of the greater importance.

The proportions of a door, are determined by the ufe to which it is destined. The door of a dwelling-house, which ought to correspond to the human fize, is confined to feven or eight feet in height, and three or four in breadth. The proportions proper for the door of a barn or coach-house, are widely different. Another confideration enters. To study intrinfic beauty in a coach-house or barn, intended merely for ufe, is obviously improper. But a dwell

ing-house may admit ornaments; and the principal door of a palace demands all the grandeur that is confiftent with the foregoing proportions dictated by utility. It ought to be elevated and approached by fteps; and it may be adorned with pillars supporting an architrave, or in any other beautiful manner. The door of a church ought to be wide, in order to afford an easy paffage for a multitude. The wideness, at the fame time, regulates the height, as will appear by and by. The fize of windows ought to be proportioned to that of the room they ferve with light; for if the apperture be not fufficiently large to convey light to every corner, the room is dark and gloomy. Steps of ftairs ought to be accommodated to the human figure, without regarding any other proportion: these steps accordingly are the fame in large and in fmall buildings, because both are inhabited by men of the fame fize.

I proceed to confider intrinfic beauty blended with that which is relative. A cube in itself is more agreeable than a parallelopipedon, which will conftantly hold in small Sf 2 figures.

figures. But a large building in the form a cube, appears lumpish and heavy; while the other figure, fet on its fmaller base, is by its elevation more agreeable: and hence the beauty of a Gothic tower. But let us fuppofe this parallelopipedon deftin'd for a dwelling-house, to make way for relative beauty. Here utility prevails over elevation; and a parallelopipedon, inconvenient by its height, is fet upon its larger base. The loftiness is gone; but that lofs is more than compensated by additional convenience; and for that reason the form of a building spread more upon the ground than raised in height, is always preferred for a dwelling-houfe, without excepting even the most fumptuous palace.

With respect to the divifions within, utility requires that the rooms be rectangular; for otherwise void spaces will be left of noufe, A hexagonal figure leaves no void fpaces; but then it determines the rooms to be all of one fize, which is extremely inconvenient. A cube will at first be pronounced the most agreeable figure; and this. may hold in a room of a moderate fize.

But

1

But in a very large room, utility requires a different figure. The chief convenience of a great room, is unconfined motion. This directs us to the greateft length that can be obtained. But a fquare room of a great fize is inconvenient, by removing far from the hand, chairs and tables, which, when unemploy'd, must be ranged along the fides of the room. Utility therefore requires a large room to be a parallelogram. This figure, at the fame time, is the best calcul lated for receiving light; becaufe, to avoid cross-light, all the windows ought to be int one wall; and if the oppofite wall beat fuch distance as not to be fully lighted, the room must be obfcure. The height of a room exceeding nine or ten feet, has little or no relation to utility; and therefore proportion is the only rule for determining the height when above that number of feet.

As all artifts who deal in the beautiful are naturally prone to entertain the eye, they have great opportunity to exert their taste upon palaces and fumptuous buildings, where, as above obferved, intrinfic beauty ought to have the afcendant over that which

is

is relative. But fuch propenfity is unhappy with respect to private dwelling-houses; because in these, relative beauty cannot be difplay'd in any perfection, without abandoning intrinfic beauty. There is no opportunity for great variety of form in a small house; and in an edifice of this kind, internal convenience has not hitherto been happily adjusted to external regularity. I am apt to believe, that an accurate coincidence here, is beyond the reach of art. And yet architects always fplit upon this rock; for they never will give over attempting to reconcile these two incompatibles. How elfe fhould it be accounted for, that of the endless variety of private dwelling-houses, there is not one to be found, that is generally a greed upon as a good pattern? The unwearied propenfity to make a house regular as well as convenient, forces the architect, in fome articles, to facrifice convenience to regularity, and in others, regularity to convenience. By this means, the house, which turns out neither regular nor convenient, never fails to displease. The faults are ob