practice. I know that it has been faid long fince, and echoed backward and forward from one writer to another a thousand times, that the proportions of building have been taken from thofe of the human body. To make this forced analogy complete, they represent a man with his arms raised and extended at full length, and then defcribe a fort of fquare, as it is formed by paffing lines along the extremities of this ftrange figure, But it appears very clearly to me, that the human figure never fupplied the architect with any of his ideas. For in the first place, men are very rarely seen in this strained posture; it is not natural to them; neither is it at all becoming. Secondly, the view of the human figure fo difpofed, does not naturally suggest the idea of a fquare, but ra ther of a crofs; as that large space between the arms and the ground, muft be filled with fomething before it can make any body think of a fquare. Thirdly, feveral buildings are by no means of the form of that particular square, which are notwithstanding planned by the best architects, and produce an effect altogether as good, and perhaps a better. And certainly nothing could be more unaccountably whimfical, than for an architect to model his performance by the human figure, fince no two things can have lefs refemblance or analogy, than a man, and an houfe or temple: do we need to obferve, that their pur

pofes

pofes are entirely different? What I am apt to fufpect is this: that thefe analogies were devifed to give a credit to the works of art, by fhewing a conformity between them and the nobleft works in nature; not that the latter ferved at all to fupply hints for the perfection of the former. And I am the more fully convinced, that the patrons of proportion have transferred their artificial ideas to nature, and not borrowed from thence the proportions they ufe in works of art; because in any difcuffion of this fubject they always quit as foon as poffible the open field of natural beauties, the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and fortify themselves within the artificial lines and angles of architecture. For there is in mankind an unfortunate propenfity to make themfelves, their views, and their works, the measure of excellence in every thing whatsoever. Therefore having obferved that their dwellings were most commodious and firm when they were thrown into regular figures, with parts anfwerable to each other; they transferred thefe ideas to their gardens; they turned their trees into pillars, pyramids, and obelifks; they formed their hedges into fo many green walls, and fashioned their walks into squares, triangles, and other mathematical figures, with exactness and fymmetry; and they thought, if they were not imitating, they were at least improving nature, and teaching her to know her bufinefs.

bufinefs. But nature has at last escaped from their difcipline and their fetters; and our gardens, if nothing else, declare, we begin to feel that mathematical ideas are not the true measures of beauty. And furely they are full as little fo in the animal, as the vegetable world. For is it not extraordinary, that in these fine defcriptive pieces, these innumerable odes and elegies which are in the mouths of all the world, and many of which have been the entertainment of ages, that in these pieces which defcribe love with fuch a paffionate energy, and reprefent its object in fuch an infinite variety of lights, not one word is faid of proportion, if it be, what fome infift it is, the principal component of beauty; whilst at the fame time, feveral other qualities are very frequently and warmly mentioned? But if proportion has not this power, it may appear odd how men came originally to be fo prepoffeffed in its favour. It arose, I imagine, from the fondness I have juft mentioned, which men bear fo remarkably to their own works and notions; it arose from falfe reafonings on the effects of the customary figure of animals; it arose from the Platonick theory of fitnefs and aptitude. For which reafon, in the next fection, I fhall confider the effects of cuftom in the figure of animals; and afterwards the idea of fitnefs: fince if proportion does not operate by a natural power attending fome measures, it must be either by custom, or the idea of utility; there is no other way.

SECT.

SECT. V.

PROPORTION FURTHER CONSIDERED.

IF I am not mistaken, a great deal of the prejudice in favour of proportion has arifen, not fo much from the obfervation of any certain mea, fures found in beautiful bodies, as from a wrong idea of the relation which deformity bears to beauty, to which it has been confidered as the oppofite; on this principle it was concluded, that where the caufes of deformity were removed, beauty muft naturally and neceffarily be introduced. This I believe is a mistake, For deformity is oppofed not to beauty, but to the complete, common form. If one of the legs of a man be found fhorter than the other, the man is deformed; because there is fomething wanting to complete the whole idea we form of a man; and this has the fame effect in natural faults, as maiming and mutilation produce from accidents. So if the back be humped, the man is deformed; because his back has an unusual figure, and what carries with it the idea of fome difeafe or misfortune; fo if a man's neck be confiderably longer or fhorter than ufual, we fay he is deformed in that part, because men are not commonly made in that manner. But furely every hour's experience may convince us, that a man may have his legs of an equal length,

and

and refembling each other in all refpects, and his neck of a just size, and his back quite straight, with out having at the fame time the least perceivable beauty. Indeed beauty is fo far from belonging to the idea of custom, that in reality what affects us in that manner is extremely rare and uncommon. The beautiful strikes us as much by its novelty as the deformed itfelf. It is thus in those fpecies of animals with which we are acquainted; and if one of a new fpecies were reprefented, we fhould by no means wait until cuftom had fettled an idea of proportion, before we decided concerning its beauty or uglinefs: which fhews that the general idea of beauty can be no more owing to cuftomary than to natural proportion. Deformity arifes from the want of the common proportions; but the neceffary refult of their exiftence in any object is not beauty. If we fuppofe proportion in natural things to be relative to cuftom and ufe, the nature of use and cuftom will fhew, that beauty, which is a pofitive and powerful quality, cannot refult from it. We are fo wonderfully formed, that, whilst we are creatures vehemently defirous of novelty, we are as ftrongly attached to habit and cuftom. But it is the nature of things which hold us by cuftom, to affect us very little whilft we are in poffeffion of them, but ftrongly when they are abfent. I remember to have frez quented a certain place, every day for a long time together;