for its breaks are not embellished with carving, or even molding, as became afterward common. If therefore it was not formed of three distinct stones, in height (how that was I know not) the purpose of the breaks could only be to accommodate the apparent proportions to those of the members above. As for a frieze, whether this temple has one or not, seems questionable. Immediately on the triple architrave rests a range of that form of projecting members, commonly called dentiles, but of a much larger proportion than those which became ordinary in the Ionic intablature. They seem to have been proposed to supersede the Doric triglyphs. These were originally the embellished ends of beams. The dentiles of the temple of Pandrosos seem representatives of unadorned ends of smaller beams, or joists. The occupation of the place of the frieze, by this range of ends of joists, with the other peculiarities of this mingled frieze and cornice, evidently has not been so approved by the public voice as to lead to any extensive imitation of it. The joistends, however, or dentiles, reduced in size, wholly detached from the frieze, and formed into a member of the cornice, though not seen in the oldest example of the Ionic order at Athens, obtained such favor, apparently for the effect of light and shade, as to become a distinguishing, eharacteristic of the Ionic intablature.

But the greatest novelty, which obtained establishment in the new order of architecture, was the addition of a member at the bottom of the shaft, with the name of the BASE. And here I must request you to look into the first volume of Ionian Antiquities, in your library, for the Ionic başe represented in the second plate of the second chapter. It projects from the foot of the shaft as a surrounding table, having on its surface a groove throughout its circuit. Can you tell me the purpose of this tabular projection and its groove? Was it not to give footing for the spears, whose.. heads were to be confined, as in the Doric order, by the flutings? If I am warranted in this fancy, the purpose of the additional member of the new order was double; utility and grace; at the same time to connect the foot of the column more elegantly with the floor, and to furnish a stand for the spears, more out of the way of disturbance, Do not imagine that I would recommend this form of base for modern imitation: it ceased among the ancients when the purpose of use ceased. But I think some witty critics, who have jeered the Ionic base as an absurd form, might not unreasonably be advised to look before they leap, to inquire before they judge.

The order called the CORINTHIAN is said to have been invented, and introduced to public favor, by an Athenian architect, very soon after

the first use of the Ionic at Athens. And here it appears to me highly to deserve notice, that the Greeks, in the course of improvement, still went on simplifying. The Ionic order rejected the inconvenient complexity occasioned by the Doric triglyph. So, I think, the Corinthian has been originally proposed and recon:mended as an improvement on the Ionic, less in richness, than in simplicity; less for advancement of luxury in architecture, than for its accommodating form, its superior readiness, through its simplicity, for every situation in which a column could be desired. The characteristical member of the Corinthian, the capital, has a kind of native richness beyond the other orders; but, in general outline, the capital apart, it is eminent in simplicity; and it is always ready, which cannot be said of either the Doric or Ionic, in its proper form, and with its proper accompaniments, for all situations.

It is indeed through this very simplicity of general character, that the Corinthian has its superior aptitude for receiving, in greatest amount, the highest decoration. The triglyph of the Doric frieze not only throws difficulties in the way of Design, from which the Ionic and Corinthian orders are free, but in denying the simplicity, it denies also the decoration, for both of which the other orders afford the architect scope for choice. The essential defect of the Ionic, the necessary

distortion of its capital to accommodate an angle, is not, I will own, in my eye, a very great one; yet it must be owned that the Corinthian capital, in its proper form suited to every situation, is more perfect. Vitruvius has reckoned the Ionic and Corinthian orders to differ only in their capitals. It is however certain that the cultivators of the Corinthian introduced greater simplicity in the general form of the cornice, furnishing nevertheless increased opportunity for embellishment of the parts; and they gave to the base a new form, simpler, and yet better adapted to its situation. and office. Altogether, in the Corinthian order, Grecian architecture reached its highest grace, holding still the general principles of the earliest Dorie. In surveying the richest building of the new order, the eye found similar conducting lines, similar interrupting lines, different proportions, but similar analogy of proportions, and, with decoration carried to the greatest luxuriance, a similar limitation of place for it; so that, with al the richness of ornament, through advantageous distribution simplicity remained an eminent characteristic of the whole.

I know not where or when first that simple kind of ornament was introduced, which builders call the staffing of the fluting. I admire the name, for its just description of what I believe to have been the thing. It seems to me evidently to represent

the spear in its sheathing; though I must own I have not observed it in any representation of any early Grecian building, of any of the orders, that I can recollect. Possibly you can furnish me with some information about it.

LETTER VIII.

Grecian Architecture not limited to the Three Orders.Grecian Civil Building-Grecian Architecture after Alexander's Age.

THE Egyptians were, in their statuary, singularly precise and monotonous; and those stupendous examples of their monumental architecture, the pyramids, are monotonous as their statues: magnificent, not without elegance in their simplicity, they afford however example for no building but a pyramid. But the numerous and some splendid temples, or edifices for sacred purposes, of which ruins remain in Egypt, vary so much in style that they deny classification; their varieties are not to be brought under rule and system, like the Greek, in what we call Orders of architecture; and, though we may find among them what to admire, what may suggest bold and great ideas to the discriminating designer, what may even suggest great and just principles of the