t the parts must be uniform, as well as circularly
disposed, to give this figure its full force; because any difference,
whether it be in the disposition, or in the figure, or even in the color
of the parts, is highly prejudicial to the idea of infinity, which every
change must check and interrupt, at every alteration commencing a new
series. On the same principles of succession and uniformity, the grand
appearance of the ancient heathen temples, which were generally oblong
forms, with a range of uniform pillars on every side, will be easily
accounted for. From the same cause also may be derived the grand effect
of the aisles in many of our own old cathedrals. The form of a cross
used in some churches seems to me not so eligible as the parallelogram
of the ancients; at least, I imagine it is not so proper for the
outside. For, supposing the arms of the cross every way equal, if you
stand in a direction parallel to any of the side walls, or colonnades,
instead of a deception that makes the building more extended than it is,
you are cut off from a considerable part (two thirds) of its _actual_
length; and, to prevent all possibility of progression, the arms of the
cross taking a new direction, make a right angle with the beam, and
thereby wholly turn the imagination from the repetition of the former
idea. Or suppose the spectator placed where he may take a direct view of
such a building, what will be the consequence? the necessary consequence
will be, that a good part of the basis of each angle formed by the
intersection of the arms of the cross, must be inevitably lost; the
whole must of course assume a broken, unconnected figure; the lights
must be unequal, here strong, and there weak; without that noble
gradation which the perspective always effects on parts disposed
uninterruptedly in a right line. Some or all of these objections will
lie against every figure of a cross, in whatever view you take it. I
exemplified them in the Greek cross, in which these faults appear the
most strongly; but they appear in some degree in all sorts of crosses.
Indeed, there is nothing more prejudicial to the grandeur of buildings
than to abound in angles; a fault obvious in many; and owing to an
inordinate thirst for variety, which, whenever it prevails, is sure to
leave very little true taste.

SECTION X.

MAGNITUDE IN BUILDING.

To the sublime in building, greatness of dimension seems requisite; for
on a few parts, and those small