ii 6 The Ordonance of the Part II.

C h. VlL tidrt, and natural Shape of things, which cannot be changed with-out rendering them visibly deform d* For all that has been, or canbe said, on this Subject, is, that it is not so fuse, that Distancemakes Proportions appear otherwise than they are, as it is cer-tain that the Change of Proportion is, in Effect, the Corruptionof it; and that there is much greater Danger, that a Proportionshould appear corrupt and vicious, when chang’d, than when it isnot so.

I n the mean time, what will become of the unanimous Opinionof all Architects, founded upon the Authority of VttruVius , whoteaches this Change of Proportion, and prescribes its Rules ? Is itCredible, that for near two thousand Years, that this Maxim hasbeen establish’d, no one has given himself the Leisure to examineit, and that so many great Persons, who have probably made Re-flexion on so important a Question, have not been able to discoverthe Truth ? There must certainly be something in this: and myOpinion is, that as one may have all the Genius necessary for anArchitect, without amusing ones self with things, which, we be-lieve, have nothing in them, but a vain and fruitless Subtlety 5those that have been capable of resolving the most subtle Questions,may have neglected this, whose Discussion was thought useless, be-cause of the Authority of VitruYms , who seems to have decided it 5and also, because there are some Cases, where the Change of Pro-portion, may, in some measure, be admitted. But, as on theseOccasions, the Change is not made on account of the Optics, aswill go near to be prov'd; the Truth of the Proposition remainsstill unshaken, namely, that the Proportions of Architecture are nonto be chang’d, according to the different Aspects.

The Ambition that every one has to magnifie the Art he pro-fesses, has indin’d Architects to turn all those things into Mysteries,which they could not give a Reason of: for making use of that greatConceit, we generally have of things of former times, as there arescarce any more ancient than those we see in the Remains of theBuildings of the Greeks and tymans^ they would fain establish it asan unmOueable Foundation, that there is nothing in those admira-ble Remains, that was not done with the greatest Reason; andwhen the Diversity of Proportions, in Buildings equally approvedof, is objected to them, they attribute it to the Diversity of Aspects,which they suppose was the Cause of this Change of Proportions,which ought to have had different Rules, by reason of the Diffe-rence of Situation.

The Examples mention’d in the beginning of this Chapter, ta-ken from the most approv’d Buildings of Antiquity , have plainlyshewn that this could not be, because, in the same Aspects, the

f Proportions