that you are not aware of its great size, etc.—­a criticism which has been slain over and over again, but continues to come to life again.  The fact that this building does not show its size is true.  But the inference drawn is the very reverse of the truth.  One object in architectural design is to give full value to the size of a building, even to magnify its apparent size; and St. Peter’s does not show its size, because it is ill proportioned, being merely like a smaller building, with all its parts magnified.  Hence the deception to the eye, which sees details which it is accustomed to see on a smaller scale, and underrates their actual size, which is only to be ascertained by deliberate investigation.  This confusion as to scale is a weakness inherent in the classical forms of columnar architecture, in which the scale of all the parts is always in the same proportion to each other and to the total size of the building so that a large Doric temple is in most respects only a small one magnified.  In Gothic architecture the scale is the human figure, and a larger building is treated, not by magnifying its parts, but by multiplying them.  Had this procedure been adopted in the case of St. Peter’s, instead of merely treating it with a columnar order of vast size, with all its details magnified in proportion, we should not have the fault to find with it that it does not produce the effect of its real size.  In another sense, the word “proportion” in architecture refers to the system of designing buildings on some definite geometrical system of regulating the sizes of the different parts.  The Greeks certainly employed such a system, though there are not sufficient data for us to judge exactly on what principle it was worked out.  In regard to the Parthenon, and some other Greek buildings, Mr. Watkiss Lloyd has worked out a very probable theory, which will be found stated in a paper in the “Transactions of the Institute of Architects.”

Vitruvius gives elaborate directions for the proportioning of the size of all the details in the various orders; and though we may doubt whether his system is really a correct representation of the Greek one, we can have no doubt that some such system was employed by them.  Various theorists have endeavored to show that the system has prevailed of proportioning the principal heights and widths of buildings in accordance with geometrical figures, triangles of various angles especially; and very probably this system has from time to time been applied, in Gothic as well as in classical buildings.  This idea is open to two criticisms, however.  First, the facts and measurements which have been adduced in support of it, especially in regard to Gothic buildings, are commonly found on investigation to be only approximately true.  The diagram of the section of the building has nearly always, according to my experience, to be “coaxed” a little in order to fit the theory; or it is found that though the geometrical figure suggested corresponds