5. “The principal ornaments of architecture are its orders, which in fact are rather to be considered as the skeleton, and most essential part of the edifice, than as mere ornament. We might therefore define the orders, necessary ornaments arising from the nature of the edifice. All the other decorations of architecture are subject to the same law.
6. “Consequently, in architecture the decoration is the result of the construction. Nothing is ever to be seen in a fabric, that has not its appropriate use, and is not an essential part of the structure: the office that it indicates, it ought to perform.
7. “Consequently, nothing is admissible for which a good reason cannot be rendered.
8. “These reasons are to be deduced from the origin and analysis of that primitive natural architecture, the hut; from whence has arisen the beautiful imitative art of civil architecture. This is the pole-star of the artist in his works, and of the intelligent observer in examining them. Everything should rest upon truth and verisimilitude. What could not really exist, cannot be approved, although evidently a matter of mere show.
9. “Examples and authority, however they may be appealed to, will never influence him who wishes to be reasonable.
“These principles are constant, positive, general; because they depend on the nature of the thing itself; and on good sense. Taken together, they constitute the true and essential beauty of architecture; if they are kept out of view, adieu architecture. It is no more a science or an art, but is changed into mere fashion, caprice, or delirium.”
You see there are some things in these first principles which might be criticised, or at least, which require explanation; there is much more of a disputable nature in the details, but all is laid down in the same authoritative manner. Other rules are to be despised; his are to be obeyed; and he seems to think, that if the rules are good, the artist has only to follow them in order to produce the highest degree of beauty; a theory, you know, totally opposite to mine, who hold, that in all the fine arts, rules can do comparatively little to produce beauty; the expression of Mind is the great essential; and if the mind itself contain it not, no rules, no labour, can ever make good the deficiency.
The work itself consists of a chronological account of architects, a mode of compilation in which the Italians are very rich, and where the names of Tiraboschi, Lanzi, and Milizia, will always be mentioned with praise. In the earlier parts there are perhaps many things on very slight authority, but the author seems always to have sought carefully, the best within his reach. The criticisms are more severe, where he had the opportunity of judging for himself, than where he adopts them from others; but he is always animated, and ready to admire what is excellent, as well as to ridicule what is defective. It is gratifying to an architect to observe, that almost all the great men in that profession were long lived, and of a good moral character.
The Principii di Architettura Civile, in three octavo volumes, contains the same view of the subject, carried out into all its bearings, as that sketched in the preface to the Memorie degli Architetti. In spite of the apparently limited nature of the subject, he has made great part of his book interesting, and even amusing. Like Vitruvius, he is fond of introducing a little natural history, and he is hardly more correct, or more to the purpose than his Latin original. I have sometimes had thoughts of translating both this and the preceding, but I must be permitted to leave out some of these accessories.
Of the Arte di Vedere, I have already made mention on two or three occasions. Milizia had probably been disgusted by the extravagant praises so lavishly bestowed on Michael Angelo, and echoed from one writer to another; and in this book he sees nothing but his defects. No wonder then, that it offended the “stupid adorers of Buonarroti,” and the sensible ones too. On this, and several other occasions, Milizia gives to Mengs a degree of praise which the present age disclaims. In the Roma delle belle Arti, praise and blame are more mixed. The offence seems to have been taken from the force and spirit of the remarks, rather than their direction; he may sometimes exaggerate, but he rarely blames on grounds either insufficient or mistaken. The Dictionary is by no means a mere compilation; Milizia could not write without criticising, and no man was less disposed to adopt implicitly the observations and sentiments of another. He has in these works frequently repeated himself, but they all contain much original matter.