47

a Roman Work and Temple .

« too dwarfish and gross, lest they imitate the Piles or Peers of Bridges.”

Gross it seems they must be, but not too gross. Now, Dr. Charle-ton well knowing this, ought to have examined these Proportionswith those in our Antiquity, before this frivolous Objection hadbeen made by him; which, seeing he did not, I will; and thoughin pursuance thereof, I might, taking the Advantage of his Weak-ness, affirm, that by his proportioning the Tufican Column “ by“ its Thickness in the biggest Part a little above the Bottom, which Pall. m. i." is the Plinth of the Base thereof,” the Height of the Pillars dothnot rife to five Diameters ; since nevertheless, that Crimes of Igno-rance are pardonable, PH contemn it, and in examining the Sym-metry of our Pylasters, grant the Tuscan Pillar, as was said, to be se-ven Diameters high ; as likewise finding there is no limited Propor-tions for the Peers of Bridges, they being to be made more or lessin Height, as the Course of the Water under the Bridge, or Passageover it requires, that the Ascent and Descent may be easy and com-modious, tender to you three such Examples for Works of this Na-ture, as Palladio hath afforded us. Who, from the Bridge at Ri~ rail. m. 3 .mino, built as he supposeth by Augufius Cæsar, makes the Heightof the Peers to be about a Square of their Breadth. From that ofVtcenza almost one fourth Part more •, and in the Invention madeby himself, for the grand Canal at Venice , far much less, viz. halfthe Breadth. In which Diversity I will be moderate, and for themost indifferent Way take the mean Proportion of about one Square,and fay, that the Pylasters of the greater Circle in our Antiquity,being in Height two Squares and a quarter of their Breadth, and thePylasters of the greater Hexagon above two Squares and an half,arrive to be neither so dwarfish as the Peers of Bridges, nor so tall■as Pillars, but come'to have the due Proportion, which, as Sir H.

Wotton told you, was observed anciently by the Romans in theirgreat Structures. And therefore, as it is utterly inapposite to enquireafter the Heights of their Pillars in the Work of Stone-Hengs so,where can be found a more exact Agreement with the Raman Di-mensions for the Crossness of their Pylasters, than in our Antiquity ?

“ Fifthly, faith he, - Their Intervals, or middle Spaces seem to be" about nine Foot. For, Mr. Jones himself computes the Length of« each Epfiylmrn, or Architrave, continued in round from Column-c to Column, to be precisely sixteen Foot; and there must be half“ the Breadth of the Column, at each End, allowed for the meeting<<■ of the two Architraves in the Middle, if not for the more firm“ bearing of their Weight: So that measuring the Distance of the« Supporters,, by the remaining Part of the Architrave, it will be“ nine Foots Which agrees not with the Intercolumpum of Taste an

Pillars.” 5 Should Theretrouble you again with the manifold Incon-gruities obvious 1 ; in this‘Objection, I should too; much offend yourEars with such Stuff. < J Wherefore, setting them aside, it is answered,that Vitruvius hath told 1 you, that in Tdstcan temples e grande li-beria di faregU spatii cpmesiace a ciastcttno, There is a great Liberty,syc. as you heard before. And Sir H. Wotton hath proved to youalso, that Pylasters in the stately Works of the Romans were asbroad as the half, and sometimes as ike whole Vacuity. So that thePylasters oi Stone-Heng, being, as 1$ granted, seven Foot in Breadth

i and