COTTAGE DWELLINGS IN VARIOUS STYLES. 53 soon followed by Mr. Knight, in his poem The Landscape ; by Malton,in his works on Cottage Architecture, and subsequently by various others. Uvedale Price, who was a great admirer of Sir Joshua Reynolds, and of the works of the great painters of Italy, probably was strengthened in his ideas in favour of irregularity, by the following passage in one of Sir Joshua's Discourses : — " Architects may take advantage sometimes of the use of accidents to follow where they lead, and to improve them, rather than always trust to a regular plan. It often happens that additions have been made to houses at various times, for use or pleasure. As such buildings depart from regularity, they now and then acquire something of scenery by this accident, which I think might not unsuccessfully be adopted by an Architect in an original plan, if it does not too much interfere with convenience. Variety and intricacy is a beauty and excellence in every other of the arts which address the imagination ; and why not in Architecture ?" This passage is quoted by Knight, in his Jnalytkal Inquiry into the Principles of Taste, as an authority for the praise which he also has bestowed on irregularity in Architecture. The practice at present needs no recommendation ; being, as every one knows, followed in dwellings of every description, of extent, and of every kind of style. AIL that we are anxious to remark on the subject is, that irregularity can seldom or never be adopted in cottage dwellings where economy is a main object. On this subject we entirely agree with Laing, who, in the preface to his Hints on Dwellings, has the following remarks : 118. The nearer the plan of a building approaches to a square, says Laing, " the greater are its conveniences, and the cost proportionably less. A square, equal in superficial extent to a parallelogram, requires less external walling, and, consequently, less internal finishing. By compactness, convenience is produced, and expense is saved : when the apartments are scattered and lie wide from each other, with long passages between, much unpleasantness must be experienced ; and a much larger expense must be incurred from covering a larger space of ground than is absolutely necessary." This objection, he adds, " may fairly be urged against some schemes, which I have lately seen by an ingenious artist, in which his anxiety to produce variety and want of uniformity, has led him to devise plans void of convenience and economy ; how far void of taste, I will not say ; yet, surely, uniformity is essential to beauty. I say this merely to oppose a taste which I consider false, and an economy which is profusion." {Hints on Dwellings, Preface.) 119. Irregular Buildings please their admirers partly with reference to their picturesque effect ; and partly as being characteristic of some particular architectural style, as it is found to exist in ancient buildings. The castellated architecture of the present day is evidently more an imitative style, than one of picturesque beauty; and the irregular cottage style depends more on its picturesqueness, than on its being an imitation of any thing that has previously existed. Dugald Stewart, in one of his Essays on the Beautiful, has traced the progress of the taste for the several kinds of beauty from that of the rudest appearance of Design, to the greatest irregularities of form. He notices the pleasure which children very early manifest at the sight of regular forms and uniform arrangements. The same love of regular forms and of uniform arrangements, he says, " continues to influence powerfully in the maturity of reason and experience, the judgments we pronounce on all works of human art, whose regularity and uniformity do not interfere with purposes of utility. In recommending these forms and arrangements in the particular circumstances just mentioned, there is one principle which seems to me to have no inconsiderable influence, and which I shall take this opportunity of hinting at slightly, as I do not recollect to have seen it anywhere applied to questions of criticism. The principle I allude to is, that of the sufficient reason, of which so much use is made (and in my opinion sometimes very erroneously made), in the philosophy of Leibnitz. What is it that, in any thing which is merely ornamental, and which, at the same time, does not profess to be an imitation of nature, renders irregular forms displeasing ? Is it not, at least in part, that irregularities are infinite ; and that no circumstance can be imagined which should have decided the choice of the artist in favour of that particular figure which he has selected ? The variety of regular figures (it must be acknowledged) is infinite also ; but supposing the choice to be once fixed about the number of sides, no apparent caprice of the artist in adjusting their relative proportions, presents a disagreeable and inexplicable puzzle to the spectator. Is it not also owing, in part, to this, that in things merely ornamental, where no use, even the most trifling, is intended, the circular form possesses a superiority over all others ? 120. In a house, which is commonly detached from all other buildings, and which stands on a perfectly level foundation, why are we offended when the door is not placed exactly in the middle ; or when there is a window on one side of the door, and none corresponding to it on the other ? Is it not that we are at a loss to conceive how the choice of the Architect could be thus determined, where all circumstances appear to be so exactly alike ? Thi9
