the art of building; the walls of Nineveh and Babylon were of wonderful magnitude. Those of the latter were double, and surrounded with a ditch; the outer wall was regularly fortified; it was fifteen miles square, or sixty in circumference, 200 royal cubits high, and 50 thick; in the circumference were placed 100 massy gates of brass; and on the top watch-towers, corresponding to each other. The materials used in the construction of these works were square bricks, baked in a furnace, and heated bitumen mixed with the tops of reeds; this composition was placed between every thirteen courses of bricks; from this circumstance it is probable, that the method of reducing calcareous stones into lime, for mortar, was unknown at this time. The walls of Babylon are described to be one of the seven wonders of the world; they were first built by queen Semiramis, in the time of her regency, during the minority of her son Ninus ; and it would seem that they were afterwards improved by the great Nebuchadnezzar. Of these mighty works there are no remains, nor hardly any trace of the ancient city.

In the ruins of Persepolis, though the columns are of a character somewhat different from those of Egypt, yet the Egyptian style of building may be traced in various parts of these ruins. Diodorus Siculus says, that the famous palaces of Susa and Persepolis were not built till after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, and that they were both conducted by Egyptian architects; it therefore seems probable that the Persians received the art of building in the unwrought stone from the Egyptians.

The Phoenicians were also very celebrated for their arts of design, but few or none of their works have reached the present time.

In the vast structures of Asia and Africa, greatness of design, ponderosity of parts, and stones of immense magnitude, seem to have been more regarded than elegance or utility: in all those great works there is no trace of an arch, but what is excavated out of the solid rock, or may be made of a single stone. The Greeks profess to have derived the knowledge of architecture

:

from the Egyptians, but the art of building has been so much improved by transplanting, that scarcely any trace of the original remains their edifices were at first constructed of wood and clay, but they soon began to imitate the wooden posts and beams of the original hut in stone and marble: from this imitation arose the first order in architecture, which also gave birth to two others. This ingenious people, favoured by nature with marble and other building materials, and, like the Egyptians, being anxious to make their works durable, employed very weighty stones in the construction, which, although laid without cement, as was the practice of all ancient nations, yet they were jointed with the utmost accuracy, which is the reason of the perfect state of their edifices at this day. There is little doubt but that the Greeks were the inventors of the arch, though they never considered it as an ornament; it is only to be found in the theatres and gymnasia ; the aperture of walls and intercolumns being linteled.

Greece, though a mild climate, is sometimes liable to rain; the architects of this country, therefore, found it necessary to raise the roofs of their edifices to a ridge in the middle, the section being that of a rectilineal isosceles triangle; the base being the span or distance between the opposite walls. This form of roof, called a pediment roof, was frequently covered with marble tiles.

The Grecians surpassed all contemporary nations in the arts of design; the remains of their ancient structures are models of imitation, and confessed standards of excellence. They were the inventors of three orders of architecture, of which we have already hinted, and which we shall detail in a subsequent part of this article. The remains of their sculptures far exceed that of any other people, and are, even at this day, most perfect models. Modern artists have no means so certain, in attaining a just knowledge of their profession, as in the study of those exquisite masterpieces.

The progress of Grecian architecture appears to have occupied a period of about three centuries, from the age of Solon to the death of Alexander; and in this period it advanced rapidly, particularly from the defeat of Xerxes to the death of Pericles, at

which time it attained its utmost degree of excellence, and continued to flourish till the time it became a Roman province.

Prior to the Macedonian conquest all the temples of Greece, and its colonies in Sicily and Italy, appear to have been of the Doric order, and of one general form, though slightly varied in particular parts, as occasional circumstances might require : their plan was an oblong, having one column more on the front than the number of those in the back front.

The ancient Etrurians have left many excellent monuments of taste, and to them is generally ascribed the method of building with small stone, and mortar made of calcareous stone; and this seems probable, as the most ancient vestiges of cementitious buildings are to be found in the country which the present Tuscans inhabit.

They were employed by the Romans in many public works; the walls of the city of Rome were made of hewn stone, the capitol and the cloaca maxima are of their construction; the last of these is esteemed a very extraordinary piece of architecture, as is sufficiently proved by its remains. To these people is attributed the invention of one of the orders of architecture, called after them the Tuscan.

We are told by Vitruvius, that the intercolumns of their tem ples were wide, and that they were linteled with wooden archi

traves.

The Romans appear to have had their first knowledge of architecture from the Etrurians; but it was not till after the conquest of Greece that they acquired a just relish for its beauties.

It seems to have attained to its highest degree of excellence in the reign of Augustus, and continued to flourish till the seat of empire was removed to Byzantium. The works of the Romans were much more numerous than those of any other people. The remains of their palaces, theatres, amphitheatres, baths, mauso

different diameters, the capitals more complicated, the vaults at the intersection of the ribs were studded with knots of foliage, the canopies of the arches were universally purfled, and terminated with a rich knot of flowers: the pilastered buttresses flanking the sides were crowned with elaborate finials, the flying buttresses were formed on segments of circles in order to give them lightness, and strength at the same time.

From the close of the fourteenth century no remarkable change appears to have taken place; the grander members continued their original dimensions and form, and the ornamental parts became distinguished by greater richness and exuberance.

Another change took place in the reign of Edward IV.; its leading features are principally to be seen in the vaultings, the horizontal sections of which had been generally projecting right angles, but were now arches of circles-the surface of the vaults being such as might be generated by a concave curve revolving round a vertical line, as an axis which was immediately over the pillars. This species of groining, unknown in preceding ages, was favourable for a beautiful display of tracery. Equidistant concave ribs, in vertical planes, were intersected by horizontal convex circular ribs, and the included pannels were beautifully ornamented with cusps, forming an infinite variety of the most elegant tracery, which from its appearance has been denominated fan-work.

From the commencement of the reign of King Henry VIII. a mixed or debased style began to take place, from our intercourse with the Italians. The ingenious Mr. Britton, in his valuable Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain, has classed the various styles in the following order, which we shall adopt, and shall be happy to find the same appropriate terms adopted also in future publications, wherever ideas of the objects represented by them are the subjects of inquiry. We are sensible this is the only means of facilitating a knowledge of this study, by removing equivocal words, and thereby making architectural language intelligible.

First Style. Anglo-Saxon: this will embrace all buildings that were erected between the times of the conversion of the Saxons and the Norman conquest, from a. D. 599, to a. D. 1066.

Second Style. Anglo-Norman, by which will be meant that style which prevailed from 1066 to 1189, including the reigns of William I. and II., Henry I., Stephen, and Henry II.

Third Style. English, from 1189 to 1272, embracing the reigns of Richard I., John, and Henry III.

Fourth Style. Decorated English, from 1272 to 1461, including the reigns of Edwards I., II., III., Richard II., Henry IV., V., and VI.

Fifth Style. Highly decorated florid English, from 1461 to 1509, including the reigns of Edwards IV. and V., Richard III., and Henry VII.

From this æra we lose all sight of congruity; and the public buildings erected during the reigns of Henry VIII., Elizabeth, and James I., may be characterised by the terms of debased English, or Anglo-Italian. Mr. Britton observes that, "during the intermediate time when one style was growing into repute and the other sinking in favour, there will be found a mixture of both in one building, which is not referable to either, and which has constituted the greatest problem in antiquarian science."

After having thus discussed the several styles of building which have been generally and unmeaningly classed under the appellation of Gothic, we must now make a retrogression to Italy, where the Grecian style had been revived for a considerable time, and was flourishing in great purity. Let us, therefore, retrace the steps by which it again arose to its ancient splendour and magnificence.

Fillipo Brunelleschi, born 1377, may be looked upon as the restorer of ancient architecture, and the founder of the modern style.