Transcriber’s Notes:
  Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
    in the original text.
  Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
  Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs.
  The advertisement for the book “ARCHITECTURE OF THE METROPOLIS” has
    been moved from the beginning of the book to the end of the book.




                              RUDIMENTARY
                             ARCHITECTURE:
                                  FOR
                         THE USE OF BEGINNERS.

                              THE ORDERS,
                    AND THEIR ÆSTHETIC PRINCIPLES.

                                  BY
                           W. H. LEEDS, ESQ.

                                London:
                              JOHN WEALE,
               ARCHITECTURAL LIBRARY, 59, HIGH HOLBORN.

                            M.DCCC.XLVIII.




CONTENTS.


                                                                   PAGE

    The Orders generally                                             3

    First Order: Ancient Doric                                      14
                 Modern Do.                                         25
                 Tuscan                                             28

    Second, or Voluted-capital, Order: Greek Ionic                  30
                                       Roman and Modern             46

    Third, or Foliaged-capital Order: Corinthian                    53
                                      Composite                     62

    Columniation: Forms and Denominations of Temples and Porticoes  68

    Intercolumniation                                               77

    Glossarial Index                                                82




PREFACE.


It is important that an elementary treatise,—more particularly if it
profess to be a popular one, intended for the use of beginners as
well as for professional students,—should not only give rules, but
explain principles also; and unless the latter be clearly defined,
the memory alone is exercised, perhaps fatigued, owing to the former
being unsupported by adequate reasoning. To confine instruction to
bare matter-of-fact is not to simplify, much less to popularize it;
since such mode entirely withholds all that explanation which is so
necessary for a beginner, who will else probably feel more disheartened
than interested. Any study which is presented in its very driest form
by being divested of all that imparts interest to the subject, will
soon become dry and uninteresting in itself, and prejudice may thus be
excited against it at the very outset.

Those who pursue the profession of Architecture must of course apply
themselves to the study of it technically, and acquire their knowledge
of it, both theoretical and practical, by methods which partake more or
less of routine instruction. Others neither will nor even can do so.
If the public are ever to become acquainted with Architecture,—not,
indeed, with its scientific and mechanical processes of construction,
but in its character of Fine Art and Design,—other methods of study
than those hitherto provided must be furnished, as it appears to
have been assumed that those alone who have been educated to it
professionally can properly understand any thing of even the _Art_ of
Architecture,—a fatal mistake, which, had it clearly perceived its own
interest, the Profession itself would long since have attempted to
remove; it being clearly to the interest of Architects that the public
should acquire a taste and relish for Architecture.

The study of Architecture, it may be said, has of late years acquired
an increased share of public attention; but it has been too exclusively
confined to the Mediæval and Ecclesiastical styles, which have
consequently been brought into repute and general favour,—a result
which strongly confirms what has just been recommended, namely, the
policy of diffusing architectural taste as widely as possible. As
yet, the taste for Architecture and the study of it, so promoted, has
not been duly extended; for next to that of being acquainted with the
Mediæval, the greatest merit, it would seem, is that of being ignorant
of Classical Architecture and its Orders; which last, however ill they
may have been understood, however greatly corrupted and perverted,
influence and pervade, in some degree, the Modern Architecture of all
Europe, and of all those countries also to which European civilization
has extended. Nevertheless, no popular Manual on the subject of the
Orders has yet been provided,—a desideratum which it is the object of
the following pages to supply.

                                                        W. H. LEEDS.




RUDIMENTARY ARCHITECTURE.




THE ORDERS.


Although this little treatise is limited to the consideration of
Ancient and Classic Architecture, we may be allowed to explain
briefly what is to be understood by Architecture in its quality of
one of the so-called Fine Arts, if only to guard against confused
and erroneous notions and misconceptions. It will therefore not be
deemed superfluous to state that there is a wide difference between
Building and Architecture,—one which is apparently so very obvious
that it is difficult to conceive how it can have been overlooked, as
it generally has been, by those who have written upon the subject.
Without building we cannot have architecture, any more than without
language we can have literature; but building and language are only the
_matériel_,—neither, the art which works upon that _matériel_, nor the
productions which it forms out of it. Building is _not_ a fine art,
any more than mere speaking or writing is eloquence or poetry. Many
have defined architecture to be the art of building according to rule:
just as well might they define eloquence to be the art of speaking
according to grammar, or poetry the art of composing according to
prosody. Infinitely more correct and rational would it be to say that
architecture is building greatly refined upon,—elevated to the rank
of art by being treated _æsthetically_, that is to say, artistically.
In short, architecture is building with something more than a view
to mere utility and convenience; it is building in such a manner as
to delight the eye by beauty of forms, to captivate the imagination,
and to satisfy that faculty of the mind which we denominate taste.
Further than this we shall not prosecute our remarks on the nature
of architecture, but come at once to that species of it which is
characterized by the Orders.

In its architectural meaning, the term ORDER refers to the system
of columniation practised by the Greeks and Romans, and is employed
to denote the columns and entablature together; in other words,
both the upright supporting pillars and the horizontal beams and
roof, or _trabeation_, supported by them. These two divisions,
combined, constitute an Order; and so far all Orders are alike, and
might accordingly be reduced to a single one, although, for greater
convenience, they are divided into _three_ leading classes or families,
distinguished as Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. It was formerly the
fashion to speak of the FIVE ORDERS, and also to treat of them as
if each Order were reduced to a positive standard, admitting of
very little deviation, instead of being in reality included in many
subordinate varieties, which, however they may differ from each other,
are all formed according to one common type, and are thereby plainly
distinguished from either of the two other Orders. The vulgar Five
Orders’ doctrine is, it is to be hoped, now altogether exploded; for if
the so-called Tuscan, which is only a ruder and bastard sort of Doric,
and of which no accredited ancient examples remain, is to be received
as a distinct Order, a similar distinction ought to be established
between the original Ancient or Grecian and the derivative Roman and
Italian Doric, which differ from the other quite as much, if not more
so, than the Tuscan does from either. Even the Grecian Doric itself
exhibits many decided varieties, which, though all partaking of one
and the same style, constitute so many Doric Orders. The Pæstum-Doric,
for instance, is altogether dissimilar from the Athenian or that of
the Parthenon. Again, if the Composite is to be received as a distinct
Order from the Corinthian, merely on account of its capital being of a
mixed character, partaking of the Ionic, inasmuch as it has volutes,
and of the Corinthian in its foliage, the Corinthian itself may with
equal propriety be subdivided into as many distinct Orders as there
are distinct varieties; and the more so, as some of the latter vary
from each other very considerably in many other respects than as
regards their capitals. Except that the same general name is applied
to them, there is very little in common between such an example of
the Corinthian or foliaged-capital class as that of the monument of
Lysicrates, and that of the Temple at Tivoli, or between either of
them or those of the Temple of Jupiter Stator and the Pantheon, not to
mention a great many others. Instances of the so-called Composite are,
moreover, so exceedingly few, as not even to warrant our calling it the
_Roman Order_, just as if it had been in general use among the Romans
in every period of their architecture. With far greater propriety might
the Corinthian itself, or what we now so designate, be termed the Roman
Order, being not only the one chiefly used by that people, but also the
one which they fairly appropriated to themselves, by entering into the
spirit of it, and treating it with freedom and artistic feeling. In
fact, we are indebted far more to Roman than to Grecian examples for
our knowledge of the Corinthian; and it is upon the former that the
moderns have modelled their ideal of that Order.

What has been said with regard to striking diversity in the several
examples of the Corinthian, holds equally good as to those of the
Ionic Order, in which we have to distinguish not only between Roman
and Grecian Ionic, but further, between Hellenic and Asiatic Ionic.
Nor is that all: there is a palpable difference between those examples
whose capitals have a _necking_ to them, and those which have none,—a
difference quite as great, if not greater, than that which is
recognized as sufficient to establish for the Composite the title of
a distinct Order from the Corinthian; inasmuch as the necking greatly
enlarges the proportion of the whole capital, and gives increased
importance to it. The Ionic capital further admits of a species of
variation which cannot possibly take place in those of either of the
other two Orders: it may have either _two faces_ and two baluster
sides, or four equal and similar sides,—the volutes being, in the
latter case, turned diagonally, the mode chiefly practised by the
Romans; but by the Greeks, and that not always, in the capitals at the
ends of a portico, by placing the diagonal volute at the angle only, so
as to obtain two outer faces for the capital, one in front, the other
on the ‘return’ or flank of the portico.

It is therefore unnecessary to say, that to divide the Orders into
_Five_, as has been done by all modern writers, until of late years,
and to establish for each of them one fixed, uniform character, is
altogether a mistake; and not only a mere mistake as regards names and
other distinctions, but one which has led to a plodding, mechanical
treatment of the respective Orders themselves, nothing being left
for the Architect to do, so far as the Order which he employs is
concerned, than merely to follow the example which he has selected,—in
other words, merely to _copy_ instead of _designing_, by _imitating_
his model with artistic freedom and spirit. Our view of the matter,
on the contrary, greatly simplifies and rationalizes the doctrine of
the Orders, and facilitates the study of them by clearing away the
contracted notions and prejudices which have been permitted to encumber
it; and owing to which, mere conventional rules, equally petty and
pedantic, have been substituted for intelligent guiding maxims and
principles.

Having thus far briefly explained the rationale of the Orders with
regard to the division of them into three leading _classes_, each of
which, distinct from the other two, yet comprises many varieties or
_species_,—which, however much they may differ with respect to minor
distinctions, all evidently belong to one and the same style, or what
we call Order,—we have now to consider their constituent parts, that
is, those which apply to every Order alike. Hitherto it has been usual
with most writers to treat of an Order as consisting of three principal
parts or divisions, viz. pedestal, column, and entablature. The first
of these, however, cannot by any means be regarded as an integral part
of an Order. So far from being an essential, it is only an _accidental_
one,—one, moreover, of Roman invention, and applicable only under
particular circumstances. The pedestal no more belongs to an Order
than an attic or _podium_ placed above the entablature. In the idea
of an Order we do not include what is extraneous to the Order itself:
it makes no difference whether the columns stand immediately upon the
ground or floor, or are raised above it. They almost invariably are
so raised, because, were the columns to stand immediately upon the
ground or a mere pavement, the effect would be comparatively mean and
unsatisfactory; the edifice would hardly seem to stand firmly, and, for
want of apparent footing, would look as if it had sunk into the ground,
or the soil had accumulated around it. With the view, therefore, of
increasing height for the whole structure, and otherwise enhancing
its effect, the Greeks placed their temples upon a bold substructure,
composed of _gradini_ or deep steps, or upon some sort of continuous
_stylobate_; either of which modes is altogether different from, and
affords no _precedent_ for, the pedestal of modern writers. And here
it may be remarked, that of the dignity imparted to a portico by a
stylobate forming an ascent up to it in front, we have a fine example
in that of St. George’s Church, Bloomsbury, which so far imitates the
celebrated Maison Carrée at Nismes. Nevertheless, essential as some
sort of stylobate is to the edifice itself, it does not properly belong
to it, any more than that equally essential—in fact more indispensable
part—the roof.

It is not without some regret that we abandon, as wholly untenable,
the doctrine of the pedestal being an integral part of an Order: it
would be so much more agreeable to say that the entire Order consists
of three principal divisions, just the same as each of the divisions
themselves. As regards the entire structure, such triplicity, that of
‘beginning, middle, and end,’ was observed. For ‘beginning,’ there was
substructure, however denominated, or whether expressly denominated at
all, or not; for ‘middle,’ there were the columns; and for ‘end’ or
completion, the entablature. For the whole of a structure, there is
or ought to be such ‘beginning, middle, and end;’ but from the Order
itself we exclude one of them, as not being dependent upon it either
for character or treatment.

The pedestal being discarded as something apart from the Order itself,
the latter is reduced to the two grand divisions of column and
entablature, each of which is subdivided into three distinct parts or
members, viz. the column, into _base_, _shaft_, and _capital_; the
entablature, into _architrave_, _frieze_, and _cornice_; so that the
latter is to the entablature what the capital is to the column, namely,
its crowning member,—that which completes it to the eye. Yet, although
the above divisions of column and entablature hold good with regard to
the general idea of an Order, the primitive Greek or Doric one does not
answer to what has just been said, inasmuch as it has no base,—that
is, no mouldings which distinctly mark the foot of the column as a
separate and ornamented member. Hence it will perhaps be thought that
this Order is not so complete as the others, since it wants that member
below which corresponds with the capital above. Still the Grecian
Doric column is complete in itself: it needs no base,—in fact, does
not admit of such addition without forfeiting much of its present
character, and thus becoming something different. Were there a distinct
base, the mouldings composing it could not very well exceed what is
now the lower diameter or actual foot of the column; because, were it
to do so, either the base would become too bulky in proportion to the
capital, or the latter must be increased so as to make it correspond
in size with the enlarged lower extremity. Even then that closeness
of _intercolumniation_ (spacing of the columns), which contributes so
much to the majestic solidity that characterizes the genuine Doric,
could not be observed; unless the columns were put considerably further
apart, the bases would scarcely allow sufficient passage between them.
The only way of escaping from these objections and difficulties is by
making the shaft of the column considerably more slender, so that what
was before the measure of the lower diameter of the shaft itself,
becomes that of the base. That can be done—has been done, at least
something like it; but the result is an attenuated Roman or Italian
Doric, differing altogether in proportions from the original type or
order. The shaft no longer tapers visibly upwards, or, what is the same
thing, expands below.

Before we come to speak of the Orders severally and more in detail,
there are some other matters which require to be noticed; one of which
is the origin of the Greek system of columniation, or the prototype
upon which it was modelled. Following Vitruvius, nearly all writers
have agreed to recognize in the columnar style of the ancients the
primitive timber hut, as furnishing the first hints for and rudiments
of it. Such theory, it must be admitted, is sufficiently plausible, if
only because it can be made to account very cleverly for many minor
circumstances. Unfortunately, it does not account at all for, or rather
is in strong contradiction to, the character of the earliest extant
monuments of Greek architecture. Timber construction would have led to
very different proportions and different taste. Had the prototype or
model been of that material, slenderness and lightness, rather than
ponderosity and solidity, would have been aimed at; and the progressive
changes in the character of the Orders would have been reversed, since
the earliest of them all would also have been the lightest of them
all. The principles of stone construction have so evidently dictated
and determined the forms and proportions of the original Doric style,
as to render the idea of its being fashioned upon a model in the other
material little better than an absurd though time-honoured fiction.
Infinitely more probable is it, that the Greeks derived their system of
architecture from the Egyptians; because, much as it differs from that
of the latter people with regard to taste and matters of ornamentation,
it partakes very largely of the same _constitutional_ character. At any
rate the doctrine of a timber origin applies as well to the Egyptian
as to the Hellenic or Grecian style. Indeed, if there be any thing at
all that favours such doctrine, it is, that construction with blocks
of stone would naturally have suggested _square_ pillars instead of
round ones; the latter requiring much greater labour and skill to
prepare them than the others. But, as their pyramids and obelisks
sufficiently testify, the most prodigal expenditure of labour was not
at all regarded by the Egyptians. That, it will perhaps be said, still
does not account for the adoption of the circular or cylindrical form
for columns. We have therefore to look for some sufficiently probable
motive for the adoption of that form; and we think that we find it in
_convenience_. In order to afford due support to the massive blocks
of stone placed upon them, the columns were not only very bulky in
proportion to their height, but were placed so closely together, not
only in the fronts of porticoes, but also within them, that they would
scarcely have left any open space. Such inconvenience was accordingly
remedied by making the pillars round instead of square. Should such
conjectural reason for the adoption of circular columns be rejected,
it is left to others to propound a more satisfactory one, or to abide,
as many probably will do, by the old notion of columns being so shaped
in order to imitate the stems of trees. It is enough that whatever
accounts for the columns being round in Egyptian architecture, accounts
also for their being the same in that of the Greeks.

Among other fanciful notions entertained with regard to columns and
their proportions, is that of the different orders of columns being
proportioned in accordance with the human figure. Thus the Doric
column is said to represent a robust male figure, and those of the
two other Orders, female ones,—the Ionic, a matron; the Corinthian, a
less portly specimen of feminality. Now, so far from there being any
general similitude between a Grecian Doric column and a robust man,
their proportions are directly opposite,—the greater diameter of the
column being at its foot, while that of the man is at his shoulders.
The one tapers _upwards_, the other _downwards_. If the human figure
and its proportions had been considered, columns would, in conformity
with such type, have been wider at the top of their shafts than below,
and would have assumed the shape of a terminus,[1] or of a mummy-chest.
With regard to the other two Orders, it is sufficient to observe,
that if so borrowed at all, the idea must have been preposterous. We
happen to have a well-known example of statues or human figures, and
those, moreover, female ones, being substituted for columns beneath
an entablature; and so far are they from confirming the pretended
analogy between the Ionic column and the proportions of a female, that
they decidedly contradict it, those figures being greatly bulkier in
their general mass than the bulkiest and stoutest columns of the Doric
Order. At any rate, one hypothesis might satisfy those who will not be
satisfied without some fancy of the kind, because two together do not
agree: if columns originated in the imitation of stems of trees, we can
dispense with the imitation of men and women, and _vice versá_.

[1] The species of statue so called, and consisting of the upper part
of a human figure growing out of a pedestal which tapers downwards, and
appears to enclose the rest of the body.

Some may think that it is hardly worth while to notice such mere
fancies; yet it is surely desirable to attempt to get rid of them by
exposing their absurdity, more especially as they still continue to
be gravely brought forward and handed down traditionally by those
who write upon the Orders, or who, if they do not actually _write_,
repeat what others have written. It is worth while to clear away, if
possible, and that, too, at the very outset of the study, erroneous
opinions, prejudices, and misconceptions. We do not pretend to explain
and trace, step by step, the progress of the Doric Order, and of
the columnar system of the Greeks, from their first rudiments and
formation. We have only the results of such progressive development
or formation; of the actual formation itself we neither know nor can
now ever know any thing. The utmost that can now be done is to take
the results themselves, and from them to reason backwards to causes
and motives. Adopting such a course, we may first observe, that there
is a very striking and characteristic difference between Egyptian
and Grecian taste and practice in one respect: in the former style
the columns are invariably _cylindrical_, or nearly so,—in the other
they are _conical_, that is, taper upwards, and in some instances so
much so, that were they prolonged to double their height, they would
be almost perfect cones, and terminate like a spire. This tapering
greatly exceeds that of the stems of trees, taking for their stem the
trunk, from above which the branches begin to shoot out. It appears
to have been adopted for purely artistic reasons, certainly not for
the sake of any positive advantage, since the diminution of the shaft,
and the great contraction of the diameter just below the capital, must
rather decrease than at all add to the strength of the column. What,
then, are the artistic qualities so obtained? We reply,—variety and
contrast, and the expression of strength without offensive heaviness.
The sudden or very perceptible diminution of the shaft,—it must be
borne in mind that our remarks refer exclusively to the original
Greek style or Doric Order,—produces a double effect; it gives the
column an expression of greater stability than it otherwise would,
combined with comparative lightness. What is _diminution_ upwards, is
also _expansion_ downwards; and similar difference and contrast take
place also with respect to the intercolumns, although in a reverse
manner, such intercolumns being wider at top than at bottom. So far the
principle of contrast here may be said to be twofold, although one of
the two sorts of contrast inevitably results from the other. Were it
not for the great diminution of the shaft, the columns would appear to
be too closely put together, and the intercolumns much too narrow, that
is, according, at least, to the mode of intercolumniation practised by
the Greeks in most of their structures in the Doric style; whereas such
offensive appearance was avoided by the shaft being made considerably
smaller at top than at bottom,—consequently the intercolumns wider
above than below, in the same ratio; so that columns which at their
bases were little more than one diameter apart, became more than two,
that is, two upper diameters apart at the top of their shafts, or the
neckings of their capitals. In this style every thing was calculated to
produce a character of majestic simplicity,—varying, however, or rather
progressing, from heaviness and stern severity to comparative lightness
of proportions,—for examples differ greatly in that respect: in some
of the earlier ones the columns are not more than four diameters in
height, while in some of the later they are upwards of six, which
last-mentioned proportions not only amount to slenderness, but also
destroy others. The capital itself may be proportioned the same as
before relatively to the diameter of the column, but it cannot possibly
bear the same ratio as before to its height. The average proportions
for that member are one diameter for its width at its abacus, and
half a diameter for its depth: consequently, if the entire column be
only four diameters in height, the capital is ⅛th of it, or equal to
⅐th of the shaft; whereas, if the column be six or more diameters,
the capital becomes only ¹/₁₂th of the column, or even less, so that
the latter appears thin and attenuated, and the other member too
small and insignificant. Yet though the original Greek Order or style
exhibits considerable diversity with respect to mere proportions, it
was otherwise very limited in its powers of expression, and moreover
something quite distinct from the nominal Doric of the Romans and the
Italians, as will be evident when we come to compare the latter with it.

Before we enter upon this part of our subject, and previous to an
examination of the details of the several Orders, it should be observed
that the diameter, that is, the _lower_ diameter of the column, is
the standard by which all the other parts and members of an Order are
measured. The diameter is divided into 60 _minutes_, or into two halves
or _modules_ of 30 minutes each; and those minutes are again subdivided
into parts or _seconds_ when extreme accuracy of measurement is
required; which two last are noted thus: 5′ 10″, for instance, meaning
five minutes and ten seconds.


DORIC ORDER.

[Illustration]

It has been already observed, that in the genuine Doric the column
consists of only shaft and capital, which latter is composed of
merely an _echinus_ and _abacus_, the first being a circular convex
moulding, spreading out beneath the other member, which, although a
very important one, is no more than a plain and shallow square block
upon which the architrave rests, not only firmly and safely, but so
that the utmost expression of security is obtained, and pronounced
emphatically to the eye. Such expression arises from the abacus being
larger than the _soffit_ or under surface of the architrave itself;
and as the former corresponds, or nearly so, with the lower diameter
of the shaft, it serves to make evident at a glance that the foot of
the column is greater than the soffit of the architrave placed upon
the columns. Thus, as measured at either extremity, the column is
greater than the depth or thickness of the architrave, and projects
beyond the architrave and general plane of the entablature. Now this
would produce a most unsightly effect were the columns of the same, or
nearly the same diameter throughout. In such case they would appear not
only too large, but most clumsily so, and the entablature would have
the look of being set back in the most awkward and most unaccountable
manner. Instead of which, the architrave, and consequently the general
plane of the whole entablature, actually overhangs the upper part
of the shaft, in a plane about midway between the smallest diameter
of the column, just below the capital and the face of the abacus.
Even this, the overhanging of the entablature, would be not a little
offensive to the eye, were the abacus no larger than the architrave is
deep; whereas, being larger, it projects forwarder than the face of
the architrave, thereby producing a powerful degree of one species of
æsthetic effect, namely, contrast,—and if contrast, of course variety
also; for though there may be variety without contrast, there cannot
be contrast without variety. Another circumstance to be considered is,
that were not such projection beyond the face of the architrave given
to the abacus, that and the rest of the capital could not correspond
with the foot of the shaft, and thus equalize the two extremities of
the entire column. As now managed, all contradictions are reconciled,
and the different sorts of contrast are made to contribute to and
greatly enhance general harmony. In the outline of the column we
perceive, first, contraction,—then expansion, and that in both
directions,—for in like manner as the column diminishes upwards and the
capital expands from it, its shaft may be said to expand and increase
in bulk downwards, so as to agree with the abacus or upper extremity.

Though a few exceptions to the contrary exist, the shaft of the Doric
column was generally what is technically called _fluted_, that is,
cut into a series of channels touching each other, and thus forming
a series of ridges upon its surfaces,—a mode of decoration, we may
observe, altogether the reverse of that which was practised by the
Egyptians, some of whose columns exhibit, instead of channels or
hollows, a series of convex mouldings that give them the appearance of
being composed of very slender pillars or rods bound together. Many
have attempted, with perhaps pains-taking but idle inquiry, to account
for the origin of such fluting or channeling, supposing, among other
things, that it was derived from the cracks and crevices in the stems
of trees, or from the streakings occasioned by rain on the shafts of
the columns. Most perverse ingenuity! We do not find any thing like
such marked streakings on columns even in this rainy English climate of
ours; much less would they have been at all visible in such a climate
as that of Greece. Others have supposed that these channels were at
first intended to hold spears! that is, to prevent them from slipping
and falling down when set up against a column; than which idea it is
hardly possible for the utmost stretch of ingenuity to go farther in
absurdity.

We, who are less ambitious, content ourselves with supposing that the
fluting of columns was introduced and adopted principally for the sake
of effect. If other motives for doing so existed, we know them not,
nor need we care, since study of effect alone suffices to account
for such mode of decoration. By multiplying its surfaces, it gives
variety to the shaft of the column, and prevents it from showing as
a mere mass. With the same, or very nearly the same bulk and degree
of solidity as before, it causes the column to appear much less heavy
than it otherwise would do, and contributes to a pleasing diversity
of light and shade, reminding us of Titian’s ‘bunch of grapes.’ Being
upon a curved surface, the channels serve to render the circularity
of the column more apparent, since, though they are all of the same
width, they show to the eye narrower and narrower on each side of the
centre one,—no matter in what direction the column is viewed. Here
then we have variety combined with uniformity, and a certain apparent
or optical irregularity with what we know to be perfect regularity.
In the Doric Order the number of channels is either sixteen or
twenty,—afterwards increased in the other Orders to twenty-four; for
they are invariably of an even number, capable of being divided by
four; so that there shall always be a centre flute on each side of the
column, that is, in a line with the middle of each side of the abacus.
Doric flutings are much broader and shallower than those of the Ionic
or Corinthian Orders;—broader for two reasons,—first, because they
are fewer in number; and secondly, because there are no _fillets_ or
plain spaces left between them upon the surface of the shaft. Their
proportionably much greater shallowness, again, may be accounted for
equally well: were the channels deeper, not only would they seem to
cut into the shaft too much, and weaken it, but also produce much too
strong shadows; and another inconvenience would be occasioned, for
the _arrises_ or ridges between the channels would become very sharp
and thin, and liable to be injured. The mode of fluting Doric columns
with mere arrises between the channels, instead of _fillets_, has
been retained by the moderns as characteristic of the Order; but as
the Order has been treated by them, it is little better than a mere
distinction, with very little regard to general character. In the
original Doric almost every part is marked by breadth, or by flatness,
or by sharpness. There are no curved mouldings or surfaces, except the
_cymatium_ of the cornice and the _echinus_ of the capital, which last
is generally kept exceedingly flat. The breadth and shallowness of the
channels, and the flat curves in which they commence and terminate, are
therefore in perfect keeping with the style in other respects; so also
are the sharp arrises or ridges between the channels or flutings on the
surface of the shaft, they being expressive of a severe simplicity.
The same remark applies to the horizontal annular narrower channels or
incisions immediately beneath the echinus of the capital, and lower
down, which last are just the reverse of the projecting astragal
or convex moulding given to the Doric capital by the moderns. Why
such horizontal channels or grooves should have been cut in the very
thinnest and weakest part of the column, where they diminish instead
of adding to strength, it is not easy to say, except that they were
merely for the sake of effect,—of producing shadow, and increasing the
proportions of the capital, to which they seem to belong. We leave
others, should any be so disposed, to object that the lowermost groove
or grooves, as the case may be, give the capital the appearance of
being a separate piece, merely joined on to the shaft without such
joining being concealed. Looking at it differently, we will rather say
that such groove is intended to mark to the eye the commencement of the
capital, the portion above it of the shaft being thereby converted into
the _hypotrachelium_ or necking of the capital itself, which is thus
enlarged in appearance without being actually increased, and rendered
unduly heavy. It is not, however, every example of the Order that has
such necking: while in some the groove separating the capital from
the shaft is diminished to a mere line,—which looks like a joining
not intended to show itself,—in others it is omitted altogether. With
respect to the _echinus_, we have little more to remark than that its
office—which it performs admirably—is, by expanding out, to connect the
diminished upper end of the column with the overhanging abacus; and the
former being circular and the latter square, but adapted to each other
in size, a beautiful combination is produced of a circle inscribed
within a square; and the result is variety, contrast, and harmony.
In its profile or _section_,—by which latter term is understood the
contour of any moulding or other member,—it is usually very flat,
little more than a portion of a cone (turned downwards), with scarcely
any perceptible degree of convexity, except just beneath the abacus,
where it is suddenly rounded and diminished, so that the abacus does
not seem to press upon or compress it too much.

We arrive now at the entablature, the first or lowermost division
of which, the architrave, otherwise called by the Greek name of
_epistylium_ (from ἐπι, upon, and στύλος, column), is no more than
a plain surface whose height, including the _tænia_ or fillet which
finishes it and separates it from the frieze, is equal to the
upper diameter of the column. Such, at least, may be considered
its standard proportion, that by means of which it conforms to and
harmonizes with the column itself. The second or middle division of the
entablature, namely, the frieze, constitutes in the Doric style a very
characteristic feature of the Order, being invariably distinguished by
its triglyphs and metopes. The former of these are upright channeled
blocks, affixed to or projecting from the frieze, and are supposed to
have been originally intended to represent the ends of inner beams laid
upon the architrave transversely to it. The _metopes_, on the contrary,
are not actually architectural members, but merely the intervals or
spaces between the triglyphs; so that without the latter there could
not be the others, because it is the triglyphs which produce the
metopes. With slight variations in different examples, the frieze is
of about the same height as the architrave,—a trifle less, rather than
more; and the average proportion for the breadth of the triglyphs is
the mean diameter of the column, or that taken midway of the shaft. The
face of the triglyph has two _glyphs_ or channels carved upon it, and
its edges beveled off into a half channel, thus making what is equal
to a third glyph, whence the name triglyph, or _three-channeled_. We
have till now reserved speaking of what, although it shows itself upon
the architrave, belongs to the triglyph, and is in continuation of it,
namely, the fillet and _guttæ_ attached to the tænia of the architrave
immediately beneath each triglyph, and corresponding with it in width.
These small conical guttæ or _drops_ are supposed, rather whimsically,
by some to represent drops of rain that have trickled down the channels
of the triglyph, and settled beneath the ledge of the architrave.
Others suppose them to have been intended to indicate the heads of
nails, screws, or studs. Leaving all such suppositions to those who
have a taste for them, we will be satisfied with discerning artistic
intention and æsthetic effect. That member of the triglyph,—for such
we must be allowed to consider it,—is of great value, serving, as it
does, to impart somewhat of decoration to the architrave, to break
the monotony of the otherwise uninterrupted line of the tænia, and
to connect, to the eye at least, the architrave and frieze together.
Although in a much fainter degree, the architrave is thus made to
exhibit the same system of placing ornamental members at regular
distances from each other, as is so energetically pronounced in the
frieze itself. If it be asked why the same, or something equivalent to
it, was not extended to the architrave in the other Orders, our answer
is, because a similar motive for doing it does not exist. The triglyph
being suppressed in the Ionic and Corinthian frieze, the accompanying
guttæ beneath it were of necessity omitted also, otherwise they would
have made evident that the triglyph ought to have been shown likewise.
There is, indeed, one example, the monument of Thrasyllus, of a Grecian
Doric entablature, whose frieze is without triglyphs (wreaths being
substituted for them), and the guttæ are nevertheless retained. But
how?—instead of being placed at intervals, as if there were triglyphs,
they are continued uninterruptedly throughout, so that the idea of
triglyph disappears; besides which, the example here referred to is
altogether so anomalous and exceptional as to be not so much a specimen
of the Doric _Order_ as of the Doric _style_, modified according to
particular circumstances; on which account it is highly valuable, since
we may learn from it that where peculiar circumstances required—at
least admitted of peculiar treatment, the Greeks did not scruple to
avail themselves of the liberty so afforded.

With regard to the arrangement of the triglyphs, one is placed over
every column, and one or more intermediately over every _intercolumn_
(or space between two columns), at such distance from each other that
the metopes are square; in other words, the height of the triglyph is
the measure for the distance between it and the next one. In the best
Greek examples of the Order there is only a single triglyph over each
intercolumn, whence that mode is sometimes called _monotriglyphic_ or
single-triglyphed intercolumniation; which is the closest of all, the
distance from axis to axis of the columns being limited to the space
occupied above by two metopes and two triglyphs, _i. e._ one whole
triglyph and two halves of triglyphs. In such intercolumniation the
number of the triglyphs is double the number of the columns, minus one.
Further, it is evident that as there must be a triglyph over every
column, the triglyphs must regulate the intercolumniation. The width
of the intercolumns cannot be at all less than the proportion above
mentioned; neither can it be increased, except by introducing a second
triglyph,—and if a second triglyph, a second metope also, over each
intercolumn, thus augmenting the distance between the columns to half
as much again, which becomes, perhaps, too much, the difference between
that and the other mode being considerably more than the diameter of a
column; whereas in the other Orders the intercolumns may be made, at
pleasure, either a little wider or a little narrower than usual. One
peculiarity of the Grecian Doric frieze is, that the end triglyphs,
instead of being, like the others, in the same axis or central line as
the columns beneath, are placed quite up to the edge or outer angle
of the frieze. In itself this is, perhaps, rather a defect than the
contrary, although intended to obviate another defect,—that of a half
metope or blank space there,—for it produces not only some degree of
irregularity, but of æsthetic inconsistency also, the triglyph so
placed being, as it were, on one side of, instead of directly over the
column. One advantage attending it is, that the extreme intercolumns
become in consequence narrower than the others by half a triglyph, and
accordingly a greater degree and expression of strength is given to the
extremities of a portico.

The Doric _Cornice_.—The third and last division of the entablature
which remains to be considered is, although exceedingly simple,
strongly characteristic, and boldly marked. With regard to its
proportions, it is about a third or even more than a third less
than the other two, and may itself be divided into three principal
parts or members, viz. the _corona_, with the _mutules_ and other
_bed-mouldings_, as they are termed, beneath it and the _epitithedas_
above it. The mutules are thin plates or shallow blocks attached to
the under side or soffit of the corona, over each triglyph and each
metope, with the former of which they correspond in breadth, and their
soffits or under-surfaces are wrought into three rows of _guttæ_ or
drops, conical or otherwise shaped, each row consisting of six guttæ,
or the same number as those beneath each triglyph. Nothing can be more
artistically disposed: in like manner, as an intermediate triglyph is
placed over every two columns, so is an intermediate mutule over every
two triglyphs. The smaller members increase in number as they decrease
in size; and in the upper and finishing part of the Order, the eye
is led on horizontally, instead of being confined vertically to the
lines indicated by the columns below. The corona is merely a boldly
projecting flat member, not greatly exceeding in its depth the abacus
of the capital; in some examples it is even less. The epitithedas,
or uppermost member of the cornice, is sometimes a cymatium, or
_wavy_ moulding, convex below and concave above; sometimes an echinus
moulding, similar in profile to the echinus of the capital. The cornice
may be said to be to the entablature, and indeed to the whole Order,
what the capital is to the column,—completing and concluding it in a
very artistic manner. By its projection and the shadow which it casts,
the cornice gives great spirit and relief to the entablature, which
would else appear both heavy and unfinished. In the horizontal cornice
beneath a pediment, the epitithedas is omitted, and shows itself only
in the sloping or _raking_ cornices, as they are called, along the
sides of the pediment.

[Illustration]

_Antæ._—Pilasters, as well as columns, belong to an Order, and in
modern practice are frequently substituted indifferently for columns,
where the latter would be _engaged_ or attached to a wall. In Grecian
architecture, however, the _antæ_,—as they are thus termed, to
distinguish them from other pilasters,—are never so employed. They are
never placed consecutively, or in any series, but merely as a facing at
the end of a projecting wall, as where a portico is enclosed at each
end by the walls forming the sides of the structure, in which case it
is described as a portico _in antis_. Although they accompany columns,
and in the case just mentioned range in the same line with them, antæ
differ from them, inasmuch as their shafts are not diminished; for
which reason their faces are not made so wide as the diameter of the
columns, neither are their capitals treated in the same manner, as both
shaft and capital would be exceedingly clumsy. The expanding echinus
of the column capital is therefore suppressed, and one or more very
slightly projecting _faciæ_, the uppermost of which is frequently
hollowed out below, so as to form in section what is called the ‘bird’s
beak’ moulding. In a portico _in antis_ the want of greater congruity
between the antæ and the columns is made up for by various contrasts.
Flatness of surface is opposed to rotundity, vertical lines to inclined
ones (those of the outline and flutings of the column), and uniformity,
in regard to light, to the mingled play of light and shade on the
shafts of the columns. Instead of attempting to keep up similarity
as far as possible, the Greeks made a studied distinction between
antæ and columns, not only in those respects which have been noted
above, but carried difference still further, inasmuch as they never
channeled the faces of their antæ, whereas the moderns flute their
pilasters as well as columns. Hardly was such marked distinction a mere
arbitrary fashion; it is more rational to suppose that it was adopted
for sufficient æsthetic reasons and motives; nor is it difficult to
account, according to them, for the omission of channeling on the
shafts of antæ. Upon a plain surface the _arrises_ between the channels
would have occasioned an unpleasing harshness and dryness of effect, as
is the case with fluted Doric pilasters, and would have been attended
with monotony also, the lines being all vertical, and consequently
parallel to each other; whereas in the column, the channels diminish
in breadth upwards, and all the lines are inclined, and instead of
being parallel, converge towards each other, so that were the shaft
sufficiently prolonged, they would at last meet in a common point
or apex similar to that of a spire. Owing to this convergency, the
lines on one side of a vertical line dividing the column, or rather a
geometrical drawing or _elevation_ of it, into two halves, instead of
being parallel, are opposed to each other, like the opposite sides of
an isosceles triangle; and this opposition produces _correspondence_.

PEDIMENT.—In addition to what has been already said relative to this
very important feature of Grecian architecture, some further remarks
will not be at all superfluous. In the first place, then, the pediment
proves to us most convincingly that a figure which, considered merely
in itself, is generally regarded as neither beautiful nor applicable
to architectural purposes, may be rendered eminently beautiful and
satisfactory to the eye. Reasoning abstractedly, it would seem
that if such figure is to be made use of at all, the _equilateral_
triangle would recommend itself in preference to any other, as being
obviously the most perfect and regular of all triangles. For a
pediment, however, such form would be truly monstrous; and yet even the
equilateral triangle, or even one of still loftier pitch, may, under
some circumstances, become a pleasing architectural form, as we may
perceive from pyramids and Gothic gables. How, then, is this seeming
inconsistency or contradiction to be explained? It explains itself,
if we merely reflect, as we ought to do, that in architecture, forms
and proportions are beautiful not _positively_ but only _relatively_.
Were it not so, the same forms and proportions would be beautiful,
and equally so under all circumstances, without any regard to purpose
or propriety. It must also be taken into account that habit, custom,
association of ideas, or prejudice, greatly influence our notions of
architectural beauty. We are _prejudiced_ in favour of the low Greek
pediment, if for no other reason, because it is sanctioned by Greek
authority and is according to Greek precedent. In all probability, had
that people employed high-pitched instead of low-pitched pediments,
we should, without inquiring further, have admired the former rather
than the latter. What we have now to inquire is, why lowness of pitch
for the pediment best agrees with the Greek system and its principles.
Notwithstanding that the pediment forms no part of the Order, since
the latter is complete without it,—and in fact the pediment occurs
only at the ends of a sloping roof,—the pediment must, when it does
appear, be in accordance with the Order itself, or that front of the
building which is beneath the pediment; consequently the pitch of the
latter must be regulated by circumstances,—must be either greater
or less, according to the proportions of the front itself. So far
from being increased in the same ratio, the wider the front,—the
greater the number of columns at that end of the building,—the lower
must the pediment be kept, because the front itself becomes of _low
proportions_ in the same degree as it is extended or widened. Under all
circumstances, the height of the pediment must remain pretty nearly
the same, and be determined, not by width or horizontal extent, but
by the _height_ of what is beneath it. The height of the pediment or
its _tympanum_ (the triangular surface included between the horizontal
cornice of the Order, and the two _raking_ cornices of the pediment)
never greatly exceeds the depth or height of the entablature; for were
it to do so, the pediment would become too large and heavy, would
take off from the importance of the Order, and appear to load its
entablature with an extraneous mass which it was never calculated to
bear.

We hardly need observe that it was, if not a constant, a very usual
practice with the Ancients to fill in the whole of the tympanum of the
pediment with sculpture, and also the metopes of the frieze, by which
the latter, instead of being mere blank spaces between the triglyphs,
were converted into highly ornamental features.


MODERN DORIC.

Of the Roman and the modern varieties of this Order we shall treat
much more briefly, because our remarks may be confined to comparison
and the notice of differences. Certain it is that the original
character of the Order was gradually lost sight of more and more, till
at length it was converted into something quite different from its
Greek type. The few circumstances in which Modern Doric, as we may
call it, resembles the original one, are little more than the mode of
fluting with _arrises_ instead of fillets,—the general form of capital
composed of echinus and abacus, and the triglyphs upon the frieze.
The differences are, if not greater, far more numerous. The column
becomes greatly elongated, being increased from six to eight diameters.
The sunk annulets beneath the capital were omitted or converted into
fillets; the capital was increased in depth by a distinct necking
being given to it, divided from the shaft by a projecting moulding,
which in that situation is called an _astragal_. The abacus, too, is
made shallower, and has mouldings added to it. One of the greatest
changes of all, as far as the column is concerned, is the addition
of a base to it, which is partly both consequence and cause of the
greater slenderness of the shaft; for were the shaft not reduced in
diameter,—which is the same as being made more diameters in height,—the
base added to it would enlarge the foot of the column: so again, on the
other hand, were only the shaft decreased in thickness, without any
mouldings for a base being added to it, that end of the column would
be as much too small. The base best adapted to the Order, as being the
most simple, though not uniformly made use of, is that which consists
of merely a _torus_, or large circular and convex-sided block, and
two shallow fillets above it. It may here further be noticed, that
besides the base itself, or the base _proper_, the moderns have, for
all the Orders alike, adopted an additional member, namely, a rather
deep and square block, which, when so applied, is termed a _plinth_;
and beneath this is frequently placed another and deeper one, called
a _sub-plinth_. Contrary as this is to the practice of the Greeks, it
is by no means an unwarrantable license, for had no greater liberty
been taken with the Orders and the modes of applying them, they would
have remained comparatively quite pure. In apology for the plinth
beneath a base, it may be said to produce a pleasing agreement between
both extremities of the column,—in the Doric Order at least, where
the square plinth beneath the circular torus of the base answers to
the square abacus (which is itself another plinth, though differently
named) placed upon the circular echinus of the capital.

Passing over several particulars which our confined limits will not
permit us to notice, we may remark, that if greatly altered, not to say
corrupted, from its primitive character, the Doric Order, as treated
by the moderns, has been assimilated to the other Orders,—so much so
as, though still differing from them in its details, to belong to the
same general style. One advantage, if no other, of which is, that it
may, should occasion require, be used along with the other Orders;
whereas the original or Grecian Doric is so obstinately inflexible
that it cannot be made to combine with any thing else, or to bend
to modern purposes. So long as a mere portico or colonnade, and
nothing more, is required, backed by a wall unperforated by windows,
its character and characteristic system of intercolumniation can be
kept up, but no longer; or if it is to be done, it is more than has
yet been accomplished. Nothing could be more preposterous, or show
greater want of proper æsthetic feeling, or greater disregard of
æsthetic principles, than the attempt to combine, as was done by Nash
in the Park façade of Buckingham Palace, a Grecian Doric Order with a
Corinthian one. So totally irreconcileable are the two _styles_, that
it was like placing Tudor or florid Perpendicular Gothic upon the early
Lancet style. Besides, in that instance, the Doric, though affecting
to be Greek, was depravated most offensively, as may still be seen in
what is now left in the two low wings, the architrave and frieze being
thrown together into one blank surface.


TUSCAN ORDER.

[Illustration]

This, as already stated, is not entitled to rank as a distinct Order,
being, in fact, nothing more than a simplified, if not a spurious
and debased variety of the Doric. No authentic examples of it exist:
it is known only from what Vitruvius says of it, following whose
imperfect account, modern writers and architects have endeavoured to
make out something answering to it. Yet what has been so produced is
to all intents and purposes Doric,—though not Grecian Doric,—excepting
that the shafts are unfluted and the frieze quite plain; which last
circumstance, and much more, as has just above been intimated, is
a mere trifling discrepancy, since not the triglyphs merely, but
the frieze may, it seems, be omitted without thereby forfeiting the
character of Doric for the Order. Though the Tuscan is spoken of, it
is not practised. Almost the only example of what is called by that
name in this country is Inigo Jones’s portico of St. Paul’s, Covent
Garden, which, though not devoid of character and effect, is remarkable
chiefly for the great width of the intercolumns, and the great
projection of its very shallow, and therefore too shelf-like cornice,
which, if no other part, must be admitted to differ widely from the
comparatively slightly projecting and massive Doric cornice. The Tuscan
has, however, been treated differently by different Architects, and
some of them have given it what is merely a modification of the Doric
cornice without its mutules. Their Tuscan becomes, in fact, very little
more than a plainer sort of their own Doric, distinguished from it
chiefly, and that only negatively, by the omission of triglyphs on the
frieze. One thing which the Moderns have done, both in their Doric
and their Tuscan, is to assimilate pilasters to columns, giving to
the former precisely the same bases and capitals as the others have,
and also generally diminishing their shafts in the same manner. Still
all the differences here pointed out, together with many minor ones
besides, do not constitute different Orders, unless they are to be
multiplied by being subdivided into almost as many distinct Orders as
there are varieties of one and the same class. All the Dorics and the
Tuscan agree in having the _echino-abacus capital_. Therefore, if we
want a quite different and distinct Order, we must turn, as we now do,
to the _voluted-capital_ class of columns, or that which bears the name
of the


IONIC ORDER.

[Illustration]

How this Order originated,—what first led to the adoption of volutes
as a suitable decoration for the capital,—whether they were mere
decoration, or were at first intended to express some meaning,—whether
they were intentionally devised for the latter purpose, or grew out of
some accidental hint,—must now be entirely matter of conjecture. Of one
thing we may be quite certain, that the Order as we now find it in the
best and best known examples, was not struck out all at once, but must
have passed through several stages till it was ultimately matured into
perfection.

Although the capital is the _indicial_ mark of the Order,—that by which
the eye immediately recognizes and distinguishes it,—the entire column
is of quite a different character from the Doric. Besides having the
addition of a base, the shaft is of more slender or taller proportions,
and consequently made much less visibly tapering; for if it diminished
in the same degree as the Doric shaft does,—the Ionic being about two
diameters longer,—the upper one would, in consequence of such tapering,
become much too small; and a further consequence would be that the
foot and base of the column would appear much too large,—perhaps
clumsily so. Not knowing expressly to the contrary, we are at liberty
to suppose that it was the altered form and character of the capital
itself which first led to the formation of a base or series of
mouldings at the bottom of the shaft, in order to produce such degree
of finish below as would correspond with and balance the richness and
flow of outline given to the capital. And it must be allowed that the
swelling contours of the base are admirably in keeping, and harmonize
with the play of curves in the volutes; whereas, were the shaft to
stand immediately upon the floor or pavement without any base, as in
the Doric Order, although such treatment is in perfect correspondence
with the character of that echino-abacus Order, it would be just the
reverse in the _voluted_ one. There would be a harshness and abruptness
below, in grating discord with the graceful flow of lines in the
capital above. This feeling dictated the necessity for a corresponding
base, which, although generally spoken of as an addition _to_ the
shaft, may with far greater propriety be said to have been _taken
out_ of it. Any actual addition to the foot of the shaft would have
been the same as an enlargement of it, producing disproportion, and
therefore deformity. The most rational explanation therefore is, that
the original diameter for the foot of the shaft was retained, but the
foot itself shaped into mouldings, and the portion immediately above
it pared away or reduced, so that the column became more diameters in
height than before. That being done, and a distinct base so obtained,
it was found necessary to make a further change, for the sharp arrises
of the Doric mode of fluting occasioned a degree of harshness quite
at variance with the greater delicacy aimed at in other respects.
Those arrises were accordingly converted into _fillets_, which are not
actual members, but merely spaces left between the channels or flutes
themselves, which last are consequently narrower than in the Doric
column; and their comparative narrowness is further increased by their
being augmented in number, from that of twenty to twenty-four. Thus
the change from the Doric to the Ionic column may be accounted for,
rationally at least, and æsthetically, if not historically. We do not,
indeed, profess to know and determine the actual origin of the volutes
of the capital, and therefore leave those who put faith in Vitruvius to
believe, if they can, that they were derived from the imitation of the
curls in a lady’s head-dress; or, as others will have it, that the idea
was borrowed either from rams’ horns, or the slender and flexile twigs
of trees placed upon the capital for ornament! We also leave those who
are not satisfied with our way of accounting for the base given to the
Ionic column to fancy that this member was intended to imitate the
ancient _chaussure_ or sandals.

The Ionic capital is far more complex than that of the Doric, and
not only more complex, but more irregular also: instead of showing,
like the other, four equal sides, it exhibits two faces or fronts
parallel to the architrave above it, and two narrower _baluster_
sides, as they are termed, beneath the architrave. Some consider this
irregularity a defect, which, if such it be, is to be got over only
by either turning the volutes diagonally, as in some Roman and modern
examples, or by curving concavely the faces of the capital, instead
of making them planes, so as to obtain four equal faces or sides, as
is done in the capitals of the inner Order of the Temple of Apollo at
Bassæ. At least that method, and the other one of turning the volutes
diagonally, are the only methods that have been practised for giving
perfect regularity to the Ionic capital by means of four equal faces;
for, though difficult, it is possible to accomplish the same purpose
differently, by making the abacus quite square, as in the Doric Order,
and letting the volutes grow out of it on each side or face, their
curvature commencing not on the upper horizontal edge, but descending
from the vertical edges of the abacus. In fact, the volutes might be
fancied to have originated in a prolonged abacus, first falling down
on each side beneath the architrave, and then coiled up on the back
and front of the column for the two faces, which thus became greater
in width; after which a smaller ornamental abacus was introduced as
a crowning member, immediately beneath the architrave. As it is now
treated, the great extent of the two flat voluted faces prevents the
capital from being square. Let us endeavour to explain this: as average
measurement, we may put down 50 minutes, or 10 less than the lower
diameter, for that of the upper diameter of the shaft; 65 for the sides
of the abacus; from 56 to 60 for the soffit of the architrave, which
last accordingly overhangs the upper part of the shaft; and 90 minutes,
that is, three modules, or a diameter and a half, for the faces of the
capital, measured across the volutes. Now, were the capital square—as
deep from back to front as it is wide in front—its bulk would be
excessive, and out of proportion with the column and other parts of the
Order, and inconsistent with the delicacy aimed at in all respects. The
mere _lateral_ expansion of the capital, on the contrary, as viewed
in front, does not occasion any appearance of heaviness,—rather that
of richness; more especially as the bulk is greatly diminished by the
following ingenious expedient. Instead of the _baluster side_ being
made cylindrical by being kept of the same diameter throughout, and
equal to the face of the volute, it is gradually diminished from each
face; so that the side of the capital thus becomes in a manner hollowed
out; and not only that, but great play of form is imparted to it, and
its curvature both contrasts and harmonizes with the curves of the
volutes themselves.

If there be not the same completeness with respect to uniformity in all
the four sides as is obtained in the Doric and Corinthian capitals,
at any rate the most admirable artistic contrivance and propriety are
exhibited. The only thing to be objected against the Ionic capital is,
that in the end columns of a portico the form of capital just described
occasioned obvious if not offensive irregularity, because on the
return or side of the building the baluster side showed itself beneath
the face of the architrave: yet even this was of little consequence
if there was merely a single row of columns in front; but where the
colonnade was continued along the flanks of the building also, a very
unsightly sort of irregularity was produced; for while all the other
columns on those flanks showed the faces of their capitals, the end
one would show its baluster side. Here then a difficulty presented
itself that demanded some ingenuity to overcome it; and hardly can we
sufficiently admire the happy expedient by which it was surmounted. It
was necessary to give the capital at the angle two adjoining voluted
faces, so that it should agree with those of the other columns both in
front and on the flank of the building. This was accordingly effected
by placing the volute at the angle, diagonally, so as to obtain there
two voluted surfaces placed immediately back to back,—a most happy and
simple contrivance, which, now that it has been applied, every one is
at liberty to fancy he could have found out for himself. Nevertheless
it is not every one that approves of it, for there are some who affect
to regard that disposition of the volute at the angle as a defect.
If it be strictly considered merely in itself, it may, perhaps, be
objected to such capital that in itself it is irregular, one of the
volutes in each of its faces being turned obliquely and foreshortened,
while the other volute in the same face is seen directly in front,
as in all the other capitals. Yet surely such partial and trifling
irregularity may very well be excused, instead of being imputed as a
defect, since it obviates far greater irregularities, and contributes
so effectively to general harmony and symmetry. At all events, it is
incumbent upon those who make the objection to show how much better
they could have managed matters. So far are we from objecting to it,
that we do not see why the same diagonal disposition of the volutes
should not, _occasionally_ at least, be employed for all the capitals
alike, thereby giving them, although in all other respects perfectly
Greek as to style, four uniform faces, as in some of the Roman and
Italian examples of the Order.

How little modern Architects are capable of modifying the Ionic
capital, and adapting it to particular circumstances, may be seen in
the colonnades of the façade of the British Museum, where, at the
re-entering or internal angle formed by colonnades at right angles to
each other, the column at the angle has two adjoining voluted faces
given to it; but as a re-entering or inner angle is circumstanced
quite differently from an external one, the consequence is that each
of those faces falls opposite the baluster side of the columns ranging
with it either way. We explain this briefly in two simple diagrams, in
which _f_ indicates the face or voluted side of the capital, and _b_
the baluster side. In an external angle, or the return of a portico,
the faces and sides are arranged thus, so that _b b b b_ come opposite
each other; but in an internal or re-entering angle, the reverse takes
place; for we have then this disposition of the faces and sides of the
capitals, in which a voluted face comes opposite to the baluster side
of the next capital,—a most unsightly irregularity, and one all the
more unpardonable because it could have been got over, if in no other
way, by converting that column (_a_) into a square pillar, which would
besides give strength, or the expression of it, where such expression
is very desirable.

[Illustration]

[Illustration]

If these observations on the Ionic capital seem to detain us too
long, we cannot help it: they are nothing less than indispensable
for a proper understanding of its nature, and the peculiarity of
circumstances attending it. What remains to be observed is, that
owing to its complexity, that capital admits of very great diversity
of character and decoration. It is sometimes without, and sometimes
has a necking to it, which may either be plain or decorated, as may
best accord with the particular expression, either as to richness
or quiet simplicity, which is aimed at as the characteristic of the
entire design. The capital may be modified almost infinitely in its
proportions; first, as regards its general proportion to the column;
secondly, as regards the size of the volutes compared with the width of
the face. In the best Greek examples the volutes are much bolder and
larger than in those of the Roman and Italian, in some of which they
are so greatly reduced in size, and become consequently so far apart
from each other, as to be insignificant in themselves, and give the
whole capital an expression of meagreness and meanness. The _spirals_
forming the volute supply another source of variety, since they may
be either single or manifold. In what is called the Ilissus Ionic
capital there is only a single spiral, or _hem_, whose revolutions form
the volute, which mode, indeed, prevails in all the Roman and modern
Ionics; but in the capitals of the Temple of Erechtheus at Athens,
there are, besides that principal spiral, other intermediate ones which
follow the course of its revolutions. Again, the _cathetus_, or eye of
the volute, where the spiral or spirals terminate, admits of being made
smaller or larger. It is, besides, sometimes flat, sometimes convex,
and occasionally carved as a _rosette_. All these variations are
independent of the general composition of the capital, and though not
all equally good, they both suggest and authorize other modifications
of the Ionic type, and fresh combinations.

[Illustration]

One exceedingly interesting example, highly valuable as suggestive
study,—one quite _sui generis_, and perhaps on that account viewed with
more of prejudice than relish, is the internal Order of the Temple of
Apollo at Bassæ, delineated and described by Mr. T. L. Donaldson, in
the supplementary volume to Stuart’s ‘Athens.’ This example, which
seems to have found favour only in the eyes of Mr. C. R. Cockerell, who
has employed it on more than one occasion, has, as already intimated,
four similar faces; yet if it so far agrees with many Roman and modern
Ionic capitals, it differs from them totally in every other respect.
While the faces of the latter are formed rather by merely _sticking on_
the volutes diagonally, instead of _turning_ them, so in the example
now under notice, each face may be said to be arched, since it curves
downwards on each side from the middle of its upper edge, instead
of being there straight or horizontal beneath the architrave. Owing
to this circumstance the faces of the capital have the look of being
rather affixed to than properly connected with the abacus, and there
is a certain degree of incongruousness and want of finish. So far,
then, there is room for improvement, and perhaps in some other respects
also; yet upon the whole there is much to approve of and admire in this
capital, among whose peculiarities it deserves to be noted that the
space between the volutes is not above half the width of the volutes
themselves. Nor is it for its capital alone this that example of the
Order is remarkable, its base being equally peculiar, on account of
its simplicity of form, and still more so, perhaps, on account of its
very great expansion, spreading out below to considerably more than
two upper diameters of the shaft; which perhaps causes the capital to
appear rather too small in comparison with it. This base is all the
more remarkable because it differs entirely from what is called the
_Ionic base_, although not employed by the European Greeks for that
Order, who made use of what is styled the _Attic base_, consisting
of two _tori_ and a _scotia_, or deep curved hollow, between them.
The proper Ionic base, or what is so called, differs from every other
form of that member, being greatly contracted in its lower mouldings,
which, if not a deformity, is not a particular beauty, as it gives the
base too much the appearance of being reversed or turned upside down;
and hence it is difficult to assign any probable or sufficient motive
for such conformation of mouldings in the foot of a column. Perhaps
the only modern instance of the application of that base occurs in
the _tetrastyle_ (_four_-columned) portico of Hanover Chapel, Regent
Street, whose Order is copied from the Temple of Minerva Polias at
Priene, in Asia Minor; to which example we shall presently have
occasion to refer again when we come to speak of the Ionic entablature.
Before so doing we have to call attention to another peculiarity in
the columns within the Temple at Bassæ, whose base is above shown:
we allude to the mode in which the shafts are fluted, which seems to
indicate a transition from the Doric to the Ionic style, the fillets
being exceedingly narrow, and the channels shallow and very slightly
curved, which gives the shaft altogether a different character from
that attending the usual mode of fluting practised for this Order.

Although it is a modern composition, derived from the study of Greek
fragments, yet certainly not on that account the less meritorious
than if it were an express copy from some one particular example, we
may be allowed to speak of the Order, or rather the columns of the
_hexastyle_ (_six_-columned) portico of the Church in Regent Square,
Gray’s Inn Road, erected between twenty and thirty years ago by Mr.
Inwood, soon after the completion of St. Pancras’ Church, whose portico
so admirably exemplifies the florid and elaborately wrought Ionic of
the Temple of Erechtheus at Athens. The columns of the Regent Square
Church,—and it is on account of the columns alone that we allude to
it,—differ from all other known examples; not only in their bases and
capitals, but also in the very peculiar mode of fluting, or rather
_striating_, employed for their shafts. Not having detailed drawings,
or any drawings at all to assist us, we cannot pretend to enter into
description, but can only say that base, shaft, and capital are unlike
all received examples, and at the same time so well adapted to each
other as to produce artistic unity and consistency of character; and
that character is stamped by _breadth_ and simplicity. With respect to
the fluting, it partakes of what may be called _striating_, the fillets
showing themselves rather as narrow surfaces raised upon the shaft,
than the channels as positive hollows between them. The capital is at
once graceful and simple, and derives much of its peculiar character
from the enlarged eye of the volute, which is occupied by a rosette
ornament.

Interesting as it would be to particularize other examples, we cannot
do so here, which is the less to be regretted because mere verbal
remarks, unaccompanied by drawings on such a scale as to fully show
all their minutiæ, would not be very satisfactory. Perhaps we shall be
thought to have already dwelt rather too long on the mere column, for
we have not yet quite done with that part of the Order. It remains to
be observed, that notwithstanding its situation is such as to render
detail there hardly noticeable, the baluster side of the capital was
always enriched. In Greek examples it had a series of wide channels
with broad fillets between them, and where great richness was affected,
as in the Ionic of the Temple of Erechtheus, the fillets had an
additional moulding upon them, carved into beads. In the Asiatic
examples, on the contrary, and Roman ones also, the baluster side is
usually cut into the form of leaves, bound together, as it were, in
the centre by a broad moulded ring, which produces an exceedingly
good effect; and indeed, in several instances, much better taste is
manifested in that obscure part of the capital than in the face itself.

Although it is repetition to say that the base usually given to this
Order by the Greeks was the _Attic_ one, consisting of two _tori_,
divided by a _scotia_, we here refer to that part of the column again
for the purpose of noting a species of enrichment applied to it, the
upper torus being sometimes fluted horizontally, at others cut to
resemble an interlaced chain-like ornament, now called a _guilloche_.
Modern Architects, however, invariably leave the upper torus of the
base quite plain, even when they scrupulously copy every other part
of the column. The only instance of channeling upon the upper torus,
to which we can point, is that of the portico of St. Pancras’ Church,
which building well deserves to be carefully examined and studied by
those who would acquire a correct idea of the exquisite finish and
richness of Grecian Ionic details, and their effect in execution.

For Ionic Antæ a few words will suffice. Without exactly agreeing with
that of the column, the base does not differ very materially from it,
except, indeed, in the Ilissus example, where it is lower than the
other, and consists only of a shallow scotia with a channeled torus
above it. In the Erechtheum example it is distinguished from the
column base chiefly by both lower and upper torus being channeled.
The capital, or, as it is more commonly termed, _anta-cap_, on the
contrary, is differently shaped from that of the column, in consequence
of having no volutes; wherefore it is not by any means so wide, neither
is it so deep. The mouldings, too, though of the same character, are
differently disposed. Still the anta-cap corresponds with the capital
as to plainness or enrichment,—being either carved or not, as those
of the latter happen to be; and if the capital has an ornamented
necking, so also has the anta. One singularity in the treatment of
Ionic antæ, is that of the face of the anta, a slight break being
made down the middle of it, which causes it to appear composed of two
very narrow faces put together side by side, but not exactly _flush_
with each other. This kind of antæ, in imitation of those of the
Erechtheum—perhaps the only precedent for it—has been adopted for St.
Pancras’ Church. What could have led to it is rather difficult to
conjecture, since there does not appear to be any adequate motive for
it, or any purpose gained by it.

IONIC ENTABLATURE.—As expressed in the terms of the diameter of the
column, that is, measured by it, the entablature exceeds that of the
Doric Order. In the Parthenon the entire height of the entablature is
not more than 2 diameters; while in both the Ionic and Erechtheum it is
2 diameters and 17 parts, or the third of a diameter more; whereas it
would seem that the Ionic column being much slenderer, the entablature
ought to be less than 2 diameters in height, instead of being more. And
so it is, and less in a considerable degree: it is the height, not the
diameter, of the column which regulates the height of the entablature;
in other words, the height of the latter must be in proportion to that
of the former.[2] Now 2⅓ diameters for the entablature is much less in
proportion to a column 8 or 9 diameters high, than 2 diameters for the
entablature is to one that is only 6 diameters high. In the latter case
the entablature is equal to one-third of the column, and one-fourth
of the whole Order; but in the other, 2⅓ diameters amount to only a
fourth, or thereabouts, of the height of the column, and consequently
to only about a fifth of the entire Order.

[2] The necessity for agreement in this respect between the column and
its entablature will be rendered apparent by the preposterous effect
produced in two instances where the columns have been prolonged to
an absurd height without the entablature being deepened in the same
degree; namely, the portico of the Admiralty, and that within the court
of Furnival’s Inn; the first of which is bad enough, the other far
worse in every respect.

The Ionic _architrave_ does not differ materially from that of the
Doric. Its average or standard height is the upper diameter of the
column. In the plainer examples of Ionic, such as the Ilissus one, the
face of the architrave is quite plain, as in the preceding Order, and
distinguished from it only by the Doric tenia being converted into a
moulding of a plain bead and small echinus, surmounted by a narrow
tenia or broad fillet. In more decorated examples, as that of the
Erechtheum, the face of the architrave is divided into three surfaces
or courses, called _faciæ_, which very slightly project before or
overhang each other, and the moulding between the architrave and frieze
is increased in depth; there is a greater number of mouldings, and some
of them are enriched by being carved, or, as it is termed, _cut_.

As to the Ionic frieze, triglyphs being discarded for it, and no other
characteristic members substituted for them, it becomes no more than a
plain surface interposed between the architrave and cornice, unless,—as
is now never done, although it was, in all probability, generally done
by the Ancients,—it is enriched with figures in bas-relief or other
sculpture. Yet as _mere_ sculpture of that kind, however essential to
effect, is not taken into account, or considered to belong even to the
character of an Order, but to be something quite extraneous that may
either be introduced or omitted at pleasure, it is omitted accordingly;
whereby the frieze is reduced to a mere blank surface, which leaves
nothing more to be said concerning it.

The Ionic cornice affords but little scope for further observation,
more particularly in the Athenian examples, in which it consists of
little more than the _corona_ and cymatium above it, and some narrow
_bed-mouldings_ beneath the former member, partly got out of its
hollowed soffit or under surface. Consequently the whole cornice looks
rather meagre and poor, especially if the richer form of capital with
a necking to it be employed for the columns. In such case there is no
corresponding degree of richness and increased importance in what is,
nevertheless, the completing member or division of the entire Order,
and ought accordingly to be treated as such. On this account we hold
the cornice of the Erechtheum example to be very unsatisfactory, and to
derogate from what is the character of the Order in all other respects:
while the capital is particularly ornate, luxuriant, and complicated
in design, the cornice, which, as has been before remarked, is to be
considered as the capital of the entire Order, is particularly simple
and severe; and owing to the want of a sufficiency of bed-mouldings
beneath it, the corona appears to jut out too abruptly immediately
over the frieze, without due preparation for it. Were the frieze
sculptured, such enrichment would, perhaps, without any thing further,
confer an adequate degree of ornateness upon the whole entablature,
and bring it into keeping with the highly finished columns. If, on
the contrary, the frieze is to be left plain, the best way would be
to reduce its height a little, and perhaps that of the architrave
also, and enlarge the cornice by introducing _dentels_ into it. These
last-mentioned members,—which, although considered by modern writers
to be characteristic of the Ionic Order, and to be to its cornice what
_mutules_ are to the Doric, and _modillions_ to the Corinthian, do
not appear to have been so regarded by the Greeks themselves,—consist
of a series of narrow upright blocks (supposed to represent the ends
of joists), placed closely together, so that the spaces between them,
which are only about half as wide as the blocks themselves, appear to
_indent_ that portion of the cornice, which, when introduced without
being so ornamented, is called an uncut _dentel band_.

The Priene example, to which we referred when speaking of Ionic bases,
offers what, in our opinion at least, is a far better model for an
Ionic cornice than that of the Erechtheum, and which, with perhaps
some modification of it, might very well be applied to the more florid
Athenian Order; and though to do so would be contrary to _precedent_,
that would matter little, so that the change itself were in conformity
with artistic effect and æsthetic principles.

The Temple of Jupiter at Aizani in Asia Minor exhibits a remarkable
example of the Ionic Order, the details of which were recently
published, for the first time, by M. Texier. In its general
conformation the base resembles the Priene example; but the entablature
is quite different. The architrave is divided into three faciæ,
separated by a cut moulding; and the upper faciæ is surmounted by an
exceedingly deep and highly enriched course of mouldings. The frieze,
too, is ornamented in a very unusual fashion, acanthus leaves being
placed upon it at intervals, somewhat after the manner of triglyphs,
and connected together with scrolls. The cornice has both dentels and
modillions and a narrow corona, but a deep cymatium or epitithedas,
enriched with carving.

We will not pursue our notice of the Greek or Ancient Ionic any
farther, but here conclude it with observing, that notwithstanding its
decided superiority to the Roman, &c., especially in its capital, the
former has not been adopted by the Italian and French Architects of the
present day. In this country, on the contrary, the Greek Ionic has been
employed almost to the entire exclusion of the other, from the time
of its being first made known to us by means of Stuart and Revett’s
‘Antiquities of Athens,’ and the ‘Ionian Antiquities;’ to which
publications may be added the ‘Unedited Antiquities of Attica,’ which
contains other specimens of the Order, found at Eleusis, remarkable for
their refined simplicity and also their gracefulness. Not the least
important lesson to be derived from these and similar publications is,
we permit ourselves to say, the learning from them that the Greeks
treated their Orders with artistic spirit and freedom, conforming to a
certain type or general standard for each, but varying their details
and modifying their proportions.

For examples of Grecian Doric and Ionic which may be seen in London,
and which the student would therefore do well to look at and carefully
examine for himself, since he will from these learn more than he
possibly can do from books alone, we refer to the following buildings:
for Doric, the _tetrastyle_ portico of Covent Garden Theatre, and the
_hexastyle_ one of the Colosseum in the Regent’s Park; which latter
shows the Order to much greater advantage than the other, owing to
its being free from such disturbing and very un-antique additions
as several doors and windows within it, which inevitably destroy
all breadth and repose;—it has also the advantage of a west aspect,
by which the full effect of light and shade is produced. For Ionic
examples, we refer to St. Pancras’ Church, New Road, whose order is
a faithful transcript from that of the Erechtheum; the same building
also affords an instance of the application of a caryatid order of
female figures in the porch, or rather the porch-like structure, on its
north and south sides,—the idea of which is taken from a similar small
structure attached to the Athenian Temple;—the University Club House,
Pall Mall East, where the same Order is applied upon a much smaller
scale, and raised upon a basement floor;—the Chapel in South Audley
Street;—the portico of the Post Office, and the façade of the British
Museum;—the portico of the College of Surgeons, Lincoln’s Inn Fields,
whose columns, proportioned according to the Ilissus example, were
originally plain, but were fluted, and the mouldings of the entablature
cut, when the building was altered and greatly improved some years ago,
by Mr. Barry;—the portico of Hanover Chapel, Regent Street, which, as
the reader is already aware, shows the Priene Ionic;—and lastly, for
we will not further extend this list, the portico of the India House,
Leadenhall Street, which is remarkable for its frieze being sculptured,
and its pediment also filled in with figures in relief. Of similar
decoration for the Doric Order we cannot point out any instance here,
both the metopes of the frieze, and the pediment, being left plain in
all our English specimens of that Order.


ROMAN AND MODERN IONIC.

To elucidate this part of our subject at all satisfactorily would
require a great number of drawings; accordingly we must make shift
as well as we can without them, leaving the student to turn to other
works for examples,—should he, as we trust he will, have imbibed
from our remarks any relish for the study of the Orders by accurate
comparison of various examples of one and the same Order. Neither
the Romans nor their modern successors appear to have comprehended
the genius of the Ionic Order any more than of the Doric. Their best
imitations, both of the one and the other, were of but a bungling
kind. They certainly had no great affection for either, for we find
comparatively very few instances of them in Roman remains. As treated
by them, the Ionic capital was not only greatly impoverished, but
deformed also,—impoverished by the volutes being greatly reduced in
size, and consequently in importance also, as characteristic marks of
the Order,—and deformed, owing to the tasteless treatment of it in
other respects. Instead of the gracefully flowing _festoon_ hem, or
mouldings over the echinus, which seems to connect the two volutes or
sides of the face of the capital together, there is a straight line
without any moulding to it, and the echinus, projecting before it,
produces an appearance of clumsiness—of the several members not being
properly adjusted to each other. As in all the Greek examples, the
echinus of the capital, which passes behind the volutes, is invariably
carved with that sort of pattern which workmen call ‘eggs and darts,’
_ova_ or egg-shaped ornaments, almost naturally resulting from the
contour of the moulding before it is cut; and the echinus of the
Ionic, being always so carved, is on that account distinguished by the
name of _ovolo_,—not because its section or profile is any portion
of an oval or elliptic curve; for among other things the Roman style
differs from the Greek in having all its moulding, both convex and
concave, formed of portions of circles, by which its details become
less elegant in contour. But we cannot enter into such niceties in a
mere rudimentary work. Even in the best Roman and modern examples, the
volutes are decidedly inferior to Greek, being comparatively tame and
meagre, yet coarse also. Italian Architects have sometimes made them
so small and insignificant that they give scarcely any character to
the capital, or render it distinguishable, at a little distance, from
the Doric, its general mass being no greater. The spiral makes fewer
revolutions, and the _hem_ or moulding which forms it is flat, as is
also the inter-spiral or general surface of the volute, which has never
any secondary spirals upon it, though that and the _intervolute_ are
sometimes enriched with foliage.

Of the Roman Ionic Order, as a whole, we know very little, there being
only three accredited examples of it, viz. the Theatre of Marcellus,
the Temple of Fortuna Virilis, and the Temple of Concord. Of the first
of these, the capital is the simplest and plainest, and also the
smallest in its proportions; that of the second is by very far the
best, its volutes retaining most of the Greek character; and that of
the third is remarkable, if not for its ugliness in other respects,
for its volutes being turned outwards diagonally, so as to present
four equal faces,—a mode afterwards _re-invented_ and brought up as a
novelty by Scamozzi, in honour of whom it has since been distinguished
by the name of the Scamozzi capital. But if there are few ancient
buildings remaining of the Roman Ionic Order, there are numerous
detached specimens of it in antique columns that have been preserved by
having been made use of in other buildings, or deposited in collections
of sculpture. Many of these have been delineated and published by
Piranesi and others; and they are so numerous and so varied that we
cannot pretend either to classify them, or to particularize even the
principal ones. All that we can here say is, that although they fall
far short of the refined taste exhibited in Greek examples, some of
them possess considerable merit, and supply ideas for other and better
varieties. They also serve to convince us that, like the Greeks, the
Romans did not abide by a single stereotype pattern for each Order:
the attempt to establish such uniformity and conformity to rule was
reserved for the Palladios and Vignolas of the 16th century.

There is a fine antique example of the kind in the British Museum, in
which the volutes are placed diagonally, and beneath each face of the
capital there is not a mere flat mask, but a head, cut out in bold
relief, all of them different from each other. The whole is excellently
well composed, and highly interesting as a study. One of the varieties
of Ionic capitals shown by Piranesi is that from a column in the Church
of Santa Maria Transtevere at Rome, which is ornamented on its face
with a small head or bust upon the face of the intervolute and abacus,
and the eye of the volutes themselves is unusually large, and contains
a small half-length female figure carved upon it,—which, though it
can be distinctly seen in a drawing, can be hardly perceptible in the
column itself. The only other variety of or _invention_ for the Ionic
capital that we can notice is one that has frequently been practised by
Italian Architects, and which may be distinguished as the _festoon_ or
festooned capital, the volutes being turned diagonally, and a festoon
being suspended from the eye one volute to that of the other beneath
each face. This not only gives variety and richness to the capital, but
by increasing its volume or bulk, increases its importance also, and
produces great play of light and shade: there is harmony together with
diversity in the combination of forms, the curve of the festoon being,
though dissimilar, in agreement with the outline of the volutes. The
columns of the circular portico to the Church in Langham Place have
capitals of this description, in which cherub heads are introduced into
the festoons; and so far as the mere capitals go, that specimen of
Ionic is entitled to much praise: the misfortune is, that the Order is
not satisfactory as a whole; for the increased richness of the capitals
requires that there should be a corresponding degree of richness given
to the entablature. At present there is no proportion—that is, with
regard to decoration—observed; for the same entablature, or cornice at
least, which is in keeping with a smaller and plainer capital, cannot
be equally adapted to a larger and more ornate one, but partakes of
either excess, or the ‘too much’ in the one case, or of deficiency, or
the ‘too little’ in the other,—not perhaps as to size, but in regard
to the _quantum_ of embellishment. To obviate the meagreness and
insignificance of the usual Italian Ionic capital, Sansovino and some
others have frequently given it a necking, either plain or enriched,
which, even when plain, greatly improves the general appearance of the
column by increasing the depth of the capital and reducing the height
of the shaft. To make this the clearer, let us, without pretending
at all to exactness, call the column nine diameters high, and the
capital either half a diameter, or a whole one, accordingly as it is
without or with a necking: now in the first case the capital will be
to the shaft (base included) only as one to _seventeen_, whereas in
the other it becomes as one to _eight_; which is not at all too much,
while the other way the shaft is much too lanky, and the capital too
low,—as is probably felt by those who cannot explain the cause of such
disagreement and disproportion.

ENTABLATURE.—There is not much to say, at least there is no occasion
for saying much, relative to this part of the Roman and Modern Ionic
Order. The ancient examples of it are by far too few to admit of any
general laws for it being derived from them; nor are the examples
themselves very satisfactory. That of the Ionic of the Theatre of
Marcellus is, perhaps, the best upon the whole, and seems to have
been that which has guided the Moderns in the composition of their
entablature, although they have very greatly diminished the proportions
of the cornice, which is there nearly equal to both architrave and
frieze together. In the Athenian Ionic we may set down the architrave,
frieze, and cornice as about 50, 50, and 35 minutes respectively,
making altogether two diameters and 15 minutes (or a quarter of a
diameter); therefore the cornice is to each of the other two divisions
of the entablature only as 35 to 50. In the Roman Ionic, on the
contrary, the cornice is by much the largest division: in the Fortuna
Virilis example the measures are,—architrave 38', frieze 19', cornice
70'; in that of the Theatre of Marcellus, 43'—36'—66', making the
entire entablature 127', or 2 diameters 7'. Although modern Architects
vary from these proportions, and some of them make the frieze equal
to or more than the architrave, they all agree—in doctrine at least,
if not in practice—in making the cornice the largest division of the
entablature; and as the projection is usually equal to its height,
or thereabouts, the cornice thus gains in importance both ways, and,
as far as its mere proportions are concerned, becomes an adequate
finishing to the entire Order. This latter mode certainly appears
more in accordance with artistic principle: shall we then presume
to say that the Greeks were wrong in their treatment of the Ionic
cornice?—Well, let us say then, that they were not quite so right as
they might have been. To us, the Asiatic Ionic cornice (for instance
that of the Priene Order) is far more satisfactory than either the
Hellenic or Athenian; and in our opinion it would require a cornice
richer still, to correspond with the highly elaborated Erechtheum
capital, and maintain due artistic keeping in the whole of that Order.
These remarks partake, perhaps, too much of digression: we will
therefore dismiss them, and the cornice also, merely adding that either
dentels, or larger plain blocks, placed rather wide apart from each
other, are considered the proper characteristic marks of the Ionic
cornice.

There is nothing in either the architrave or the frieze that calls
for observation, except that the Moderns have frequently given to
this Order, by way of distinction, a convex frieze, technically
termed a _pulvinated_ one from its fancied resemblance to a cushion
(_pulvinar_), whose sides swell out by compression when sat upon. A
frieze of the kind occurs in what is otherwise a very corrupt specimen
of the Order, in the Baths of Diocletian. It would be absurd to
suppose that such form of frieze originated in an imitation of the
thing after which it is now named; and there are two motives, either
of which, or both combined, may have led to it. The first of them is,
that such curvature in the face of the frieze may have been thought
very suitable for the Ionic Order, as agreeing with the curved forms
predominating in the character of the capital, namely, the volutes.
The second is, that a convex surface produces greater diversity of
light and shade than a plain one; and coming between the architrave
and cornice, is sufficiently distinguished by contour alone. Still it
must be admitted that such form is somewhat too arbitrary and fanciful
to be in accordance with strict architectural principles. It is well
enough suited for interiors, or for entablatures upon a small scale,
such as those of doors and windows, but not for a large external
Order. The pulvinated frieze occurs frequently in the Cinque-cento and
Renaissance styles, and in our own English Renaissance, or Elizabethan.
An instance of it may be seen in that well-known and celebrated piece
of architecture by Jones, the front of Whitehall Chapel, whose Ionic
Order generally will convey an idea of the Italian mode of treating
it. And it so happens that the tasteful little screen front of Dover
House (added by Holland to the original mansion), on the opposite
side of the street, offers an example of the Ilissus Ionic, whereby
immediate comparison between the two styles may easily be made. Another
specimen of Italian Ionic, and of Italian Doric, is the new portion
lately added to the Carlton Club House, Pall Mall, which is all but a
literal copy from Sansovino’s Library of St. Mark at Venice. Sansovino
seems there to have aimed at the greatest possible richness for both
Orders; and in his building the Doric metopes are sculptured, but are
left plain in the Club House, although such decoration for them would
have been novelty here, and would have brought that lower Order more
into keeping with the upper one. The shafts of the columns are not
fluted as in the Italian building, but for very sufficient reason:
being of dark polished granite, they would have acquired no great
richness in consequence of their being so cut; on the contrary, the
effect of the material itself would have been impaired. The Ionic
capitals have an ornamented necking, which is here not only a beauty
but a great propriety, because without it the capitals would have
looked diminutive, more especially beneath such a greatly exaggerated
entablature. Tested by ordinary rules, this last must be pronounced
monstrous, licentious in the extreme, perhaps downright barbarous; and,
no doubt, would be so, were it not protected by the name of Sansovino.
His English copyist has therefore sufficient authority for it,—not so,
Sansovino himself: whence, then, did he get his _precedent_? Well, he
dispensed with precedent, and using the privilege of a Master in his
Art, ventured beyond its written rules and conventionalities,—ventured
where he might have failed, and exposed himself to derision,—but
succeeded, and has been crowned by applause. In Art, as in other
things, success sanctifies enterprize: if you fail, the world calls
you a madman or fool; if you succeed, it bows down to you as a genius.
It must be confessed that such an entablature as Sansovino has there
given his Ionic Order would be nothing less than monstrous, did the
Order itself constitute the edifice, as in the antique temple; instead
of which, the two Orders there introduced are no more than ornamental
accessories, and the greatly enlarged entablature of the upper one is
to be regarded as proportioned with reference not so much to its own
columns as to the general mass of the entire façade. It may be as well
to remark here, that both the Carlton Club House and Whitehall Chapel
are instances of _super-columniation_, or two Orders placed one over
the other—in the former building, an Ionic over a Doric—in the latter,
a Corinthian over an Ionic Order. And in both cases the columns are
_attached_ or _engaged_, as is said of columns which are united to the
face of a wall so as not to project from it as much as their diameter,
but only about half or three-quarters of it, and are therefore termed
respectively _half_ or _three-quarter_ columns.


CORINTHIAN ORDER.

[Illustration]

We now arrive at the third and last of the Orders, or that which is
distinguished from the other two, more by its deep and foliaged capital
than by its proportions,—at least it is chiefly so distinguished
from the Ionic, with which it has in other respects many points in
common; for the columns of both have bases differing but little from
each other, and their shafts are fluted in the same manner. How this
Order came to obtain the name of Corinthian is not very clear; nor
is it, architecturally, of any moment whether such name be right or
wrong. All that is certain is, that examples of this Order have not
been found at Corinth itself, where, judging from its name, it would
seem to have been the prevalent style of building, and there brought
to perfection. There is a pretty legend relative to the origin of the
Corinthian capital, which, if not true, has at least probability in
its favour, and is many degrees less nonsensical than the supposed
origin of the Ionic one. Nay, it is even valuable and instructive, as
showing how well a skilful artist can derive hints from trivial or
accidental circumstances, and by improving upon them, turn them to
account. As the story goes, the sculptor Callicrates was so struck by
the graceful forms into which the leaves of an acanthus plant had grown
up around a tall basket covered by a square slab, that he sketched
it, and conceived the idea of fashioning the capital of a column
after it. It must be owned that the anecdote seems itself to be an
invention intended to account poetically for the origin of such form
of capital, and perhaps on no better grounds than that of a fancied
general resemblance,—just as some dreamers have detected the origin of
the Gothic style in an avenue of lofty over-arching trees, or in the
interlacing stems of a framing of wicker-work. Unluckily for the credit
of so respectable a legend, the earliest examples exhibit, instead of
the strongest and most direct resemblance to the presumed prototype,
the faintest and most vague of all. The Corinthian capital seems rather
to have developed itself gradually out of the Doric one; first, by its
necking being deepened and ornamented with a row of leaves, and then
afterwards the echinus suppressed, and the whole body of the capital
made to expand in a concave curve up to the abacus, with a second row
of plain and flatter leaves above the first one. At least the capitals
to the small columns of the porches of the Tower of the Winds at
Athens, and others discovered at Miletus and elsewhere, seem to favour
such hypothesis; and in further evidence of such Doric derivation
is the circumstance of the columns of the Tower of the Winds being
without bases. It will be argued, perhaps, that such examples do not
all answer to the character afterwards established and adhered to for
capitals belonging to that Order. Very true: but then they may surely
be received as incipient efforts and attempts towards the formation
of a third class of capitals; and in the instances just referred to,
the overhanging square abacus without any foliage or curling tendrils
spreading out to support its extremities, points, in our opinion,
clearly enough to a derivation from the Doric capital, considerably
enlarged downwards, and also greatly enriched. However, we leave others
either to adopt or reject this notion, just as they may be disposed.
At the best, all such questions are little better than matters of idle
curiosity, and must always remain questions after all.

To quit conjecture for fact, the fact is the Corinthian Order does
not appear to have been ever matured into a distinct style and
complete system by the Greeks. There is, indeed, one solitary Athenian
example of Corinthian, which exhibits the utmost refinement of
exquisite richness attempered by exquisite delicacy. In the Lysicrates
capital,—as we will for convenience call it (the example alluded to
being that of the monument of Lysicrates, otherwise called the Lantern
of Demosthenes, at Athens),—foliation may be said to have attained its
culminating point: rivalled it may be, but hardly surpassed. Still it
must be confessed, as a whole, that Order leaves much to be desired
for it, there being nothing of corresponding beauty and luxuriance in
the rest of it. The cornice, for instance, is only a simple dentelled
Ionic one, nor are any of the mouldings of the entablature cut. There
was, however, in that particular case, above the entablature, what
fully counterbalances and carries out the idea and expression of the
capitals, namely, the ornamental roofing, and the matchless finial
which crowns the structure, and produces a full climax of beauty and of
grace. Charming as the original itself is, or, more correctly speaking,
_was_, it has perhaps been more blunderingly copied and imitated
than almost any other antique structure. Although the whole—its
lofty-proportioned basement included—is not above 36 feet high, a copy
of it, or what calls itself such, has sometimes been hoisted up on the
top of a lofty tower, or raised on a modern church or chapel to serve
as its belfry; or else the columns and entablature have been taken just
verbatim, and applied, by way of change, as an Order, upon a scale for
which the capitals, at least, were never intended. The Strand front or
entrance of Exeter Hall consists of a loggia with lofty columns of the
kind, whose capitals, being placed at such a height, show as no better
than heavy sculptured masses whose details it is impossible, or at
least requires great patience, to make out. More preposterously still,
the Girard College at Philadelphia plumes itself upon exhibiting an
exact copy of this Order, where the columns are magnified to the height
of between fifty and sixty feet, so that all that can be made out of
the capital is, that it is exceedingly rich,—by very far too much so
for any other part or feature in the building;—and that is called being
classical!

Let us now consider the Corinthian Order in its general and prominent
characteristics, belonging to all varieties of it alike. Although
the Order itself is the most delicate and lightest of the three,
the capital is the largest, being considerably more than a diameter
in height,—upon the average, about a diameter and a quarter. This,
however, will cause the reader no surprise, if he bears in mind what
has been before said as to the proportion to be observed between the
column and its capital. The taller the former is, the taller must
be the latter also, and so far bulkier; although, while actually
increasing its bulk, its tallness corrects the appearance of heaviness
by giving the _proportion_ of slenderness. A capital whose height is
only half a diameter is, of course, by no means positively so bulky as
one which is upwards of an entire diameter in height, but then it is
much bulkier or broader in its proportions, being about twice as broad
as it is high,—whereas the other is much higher than it is wide. This
explanation makes, we hope, the matter sufficiently clear, and that
after it the reader will not feel himself at all puzzled about it.

The capital has two rows of leaves, eight in each row, so disposed that
of the taller ones composing the upper row, one comes in the middle,
beneath each face of the abacus, and the lower leaves _alternate_
with the upper ones, coming between the stems of the latter; so that
in the first or lower tier of leaves there is in the middle of each
face a space between two leaves occupied by the stem of the central
leaf above them. Over these two rows is a third series of four leaves,
turned so as to support the small volutes which, in turn, support the
angles of the abacus. Besides these outer volutes, which are invariably
turned diagonally, as in the four-faced Ionic capital, there are two
other smaller ones, termed _caulicoli_, which meet each other beneath
a flower on the face of the abacus. The abacus itself is differently
shaped from what it is in either of the other two Orders. In the Doric
it is, as we have seen, merely a thick square slab, fitting the echinus
beneath it, and left perfectly plain. In the Ionic it is square, but
its sides are moulded, whether they are carved or not. The Corinthian
abacus, on the contrary, is not, properly speaking, a square, although
it may be said to be so in its general form, inasmuch as it possesses
_squareness_, having four equal sides. Instead of being straight, the
sides of the abacus are concave in plan, being curved outwards so as
to produce a sharp point at each corner, which is accordingly cut off.
Thus we find that the abacus here assumes a very different shape from
its original one; yet merely to know this is to know very little. Such
form of it is of course a distinction, but it was not for the sake of
distinction that it was adopted. It grew out of intention and purpose:
it was dictated by necessity—by artistic necessity at least, which
requires that the abacus should be adjusted to and conform to the upper
part of the capital, so that they fit each other. Now a square abacus
would not at all suit a capital whose foliage spreads out so widely at
its angles. We have spoken of the capitals of the Tower of the Winds,
as, according to our opinion, showing the earliest formation of what we
now call the Corinthian capital. In that example the abacus is square,
and the upper row of leaves are of the kind called _water-leaves_, from
their resemblance to those of water-plants, being broad and flat, and
merely carved upon the _vase_ or body of the capital. The next stage
of progress or transition was to add larger curling leaves and volutes
to support the angles of the abacus; but then if the abacus remained
square as before, it would either overhang the capital too much in the
centre of each face of it, or would not cover the enlarged sweep of
the leaves and volutes at the angles. Consequently, it was necessary to
effect both extension and reduction for the abacus,—extension at its
angles, and reduction as regards its general bulk, which beforehand
apparently very difficult, if not impossible feat, was accomplished
in the simplest manner possible, by merely curving the sides of the
abacus. Thus not only is the abacus expressly shaped in conformity with
the great projection of the leaves, &c., at the four angles of the
capital,[3] but a beautiful contrast, contributing to general harmony,
ensues in consequence,—the concave sides of the abacus corresponding
antithetically—in other words, contrasting with the general convexity
of the capital.

The general structure and configuration of the Corinthian capital are
now described, and, it is to be hoped, understood also. It may be
as well, however, just to recapitulate: the body of the capital is
surrounded by two rows of leaves, eight in each row; besides which
there are four leaves, which, with the volutes over them, serve to
support the four angles of the abacus, which is fashioned as we have
just been explaining. Simple and limited as these elementary and
_constitutional_ forms may be thought to be,—insufficient for any
great variety or range of character, the Corinthian capital admits of
almost infinite modification. Putting entirely aside all details and
their minutiæ, the capital of this Order is susceptible of very great
diversity of character in regard to its general proportions alone, as
may be seen by a comparison of a few—and they but a very _few_—examples
given in a note below.[4]

[3] For similar reason, the same concavity in the sides of the abacus
takes place in the four-faced Ionic capital, the abacus being so shaped
in order that it may subtend over and cover the diagonally turned
volutes.

[4] We place these examples according to their respective proportional
heights, beginning with the highest, and descending to the lowest,
and note their measurements in _minutes_ rather than in diameters
and fractional parts, as being the most direct and convenient mode
of comparison. The height of the capital is taken exclusive of the
astragal which divides it from the shaft of the column; and as the
_expansion_ of the capital upwards has also to be considered, the
extreme width of the abacus is also indicated.

Height of Diagonal of capital. abacus.

Lysicrates example 87' 94' Nerva do. (columns of the Forum of Nerva)
73' 90' Pantheon at Rome 69' 90' Jupiter Stator, Temple of, 66' 97'
Tivoli, Temple of the Sibyls, 60' 81'

Almost every antique example is marked by something peculiar to itself;
wherefore, properly to analyze them and compare them all, would require
not only some scores, but some hundreds of drawings, and hundreds
might be multiplied into thousands, were we to collect together all
the varieties of the descendants of the Corinthian or foliaged-capital
column that are to be found in buildings of the so-called Byzantine
style, when the original idea of an Order had been entirely lost
sight of. In fact, all the compositions that have been produced with
the intention of producing a _new_, and what as such ought to be a
perfectly distinct Order, congruent in all its parts, have consisted of
little more than variations of the Corinthian capital; as if difference
in the details of the capital sufficed to constitute a different and
quite distinct Order. Properly understood, _Order_ is, if not exactly
so, little more than another word for style; and a new style is not to
be invented or established, like the alteration from old to new style
of the almanac by Act of Parliament. Style must of necessity grow up
gradually: the ideas of many minds must contribute to its formation.

From the examples whose proportions are stated in the preceding note,
it will be seen that the height of the capital varies from 60', or
just a diameter, to 87', or nearly half as much again; although it
must be allowed that the latter is a very unusual degree of height,
nor does that example (the Lysicrates one) belong, like the others,
to the Roman Corinthian class. Reserving our remarks on one or two
particular specimens of the latter till after we have spoken generally
of the other parts of the Order, we continue by saying that the proper
Corinthian base differs from that of the usual Ionic or Attic in having
two smaller scotiæ, separated by two astragals: however, both kinds are
employed indiscriminately, and the Attic is that which is generally
used, except a greater degree of delicacy and richness than ordinary
be required. As the shaft is fluted similarly to that of the Ionic
column, viz. with twenty-four channels, there is nothing for notice or
remark there, unless it be that the flutes are sometimes _cabled_, as
it is called, that is, the channels are hollowed out for only about
two-thirds of the upper part of the shaft, and the remainder cut so
that each channel has the appearance of being partly filled up by a
round staff or piece of rope, whence the term _cabling_. Though not
approved by puritan critics,—who, nevertheless, wink at, or else are
blind to much greater licenses,—this mode of fluting certainly gives
an expression of greater strength to the lower part of the column,
and, by contrast, that of greater delicacy to the upper one. Although
fluting, for the columns, seems to have been considered by the Ancients
essential to the character of this Order, the Moderns appear to
consider it quite a matter of indifference, and what may be omitted _at
discretion_. Undoubtedly there are several antique examples exceedingly
richly decorated in all other respects, yet with the shafts of the
columns unfluted; but then that was for very good reason, the shafts
being either of polished granite, or precious marble, whose intrinsic
value and beauty fully supplied the place of further embellishment.

ENTABLATURE.—The architrave is generally divided into three faciæ,
(the lower one much narrower than the others, which is rather contrary
to architectonic principle, the weaker member being placed under
heavier ones,) with mouldings between them, which, though frequently
left plain, are properly enriched in the best and most consistently
finished-up examples. We pass over the frieze, that being merely a
single surface, either plain or sculptured. The cornice is very much
larger than in the other Orders,—larger as to height, and consequently
as to projection also; which increased height and projection, and we
may add, increased richness, are demanded by the greatly enlarged
bulk of the capital and its more elaborate decoration. Examples vary
so greatly that we can give only approximating mean and average
proportions, which may be set down at about 2 diam. 12' for the whole
entablature, and 54', or something less than a diameter, for the
cornice; but it is in many instances more, in others as much less.
As may be supposed from this greatly increased depth of the cornice,
it consists of a greater number of mouldings beneath the corona, for
that and the cymatium over it invariably retain their places as the
crowning members of the whole series of mouldings. To the dentels of
the Ionic cornice is added a row of _modillions_, immediately beneath
and supporting the corona. These modillions are ornamental blocks,
curved in their under surface somewhat after the manner of the letter S
turned thus [symbol]; and between them and the dentels, and also below
the latter, are other mouldings, sometimes cut, at others left plain.
Sometimes a plain uncut _dentel band_ is substituted for dentels;
sometimes, in simpler cornices, that is omitted altogether, and plainer
blocks are employed instead of modillions; or else both dentels and
modillions are omitted, as in the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina,
notwithstanding that it is considerably enriched, even the face of the
corona being fluted.

[Illustration]

Besides the several varieties of the Corinthian shown in the whole
composition of the Order, or the columns and entablature together,
there are numerous fragmentary examples existing, either in single
columns or capitals alone, or in cornices and other parts of
entablatures; some of which display such prodigality of decoration
and such difference of character from the usual Corinthian, that they
might very well pass for belonging to a distinct Order, if that variety
which is classed as a separate one, under the name of COMPOSITE, can
with any propriety be reckoned such, merely because the volutes at the
angles of the capital are expanded into the proportions of those in the
Roman Ionic capital.

The very dissimilar varieties to be met with, all belonging to one and
the same Order, show plainly enough that the Architects of antiquity
considered themselves at liberty to design their own detail, and to
treat an Order as a composition marked out for them in its leading
forms and general proportions, but which they might fashion nearly _ad
libitum_ in other respects. Modern Architects adopt a contrary course,
which, if not particularly artistic, or even rational, is certainly
convenient; although in spite of all precaution to secure conformity
and maintain architectural orthodoxy, grievous licentiousness will
creep in. It is something to get what is only a faithful copy of an
ancient example, but it is only very rarely we get even that. For
instance, fluting is omitted for the columns where such decoration
may be required, in order to make them correspond with the degree of
richness given to the entablature; or else it is the latter with
which wholesale liberty is taken,—mouldings which in the cornice of
the original are more or less enriched, being left plain, or a bare
frieze substituted for a sculptured one, and other little liberties of
that kind, which are considered perfectly allowable, and to make hardly
any real difference, although they in fact alter the character of the
whole composition. Either the original is itself faulty, or it must
suffer by _piecemeal_ alteration. It will, perhaps, bear to be somewhat
reduced in richness, or, _vice versâ_, to have a greater degree of
decoration given it; but in whichever way such kind of alteration takes
place, it should be conducted uniformly for the whole composition. No
excellence of proportions can atone for _disproportion_ in regard to
consistency of embellishment, and for the general disharmony of the
whole composition. Italian Architects not unfrequently either overload
their compositions with ornament, or leave them quite bare, and make no
scruple of putting a cornice of the most meagre description, without
either dentels or modillions, to an Order whose capitals denote it to
be intended for Ionic or Corinthian.

It was, perhaps, fortunate both for Sir John Soane, and that example
of the Corinthian which he employed for the Bank of England, that it
was not an invention of his own, or it would, in all probability, have
been ridiculed as a monstrosity; and he would have been thought to
have there out-Soaned himself in whimsicality and capriciousness. As
it happens to be, however, an express copy from the circular Temple
at Tivoli, people are at liberty to admire it, more especially as the
mere application of it for the first time in this country—the only one
where it has been adopted—does not exalt Soane into the successful
inventor of a ‘new Order.’ In the system of the Orders it may certainly
be regarded as a newly-discovered planet, being so distinct from every
other example of the foliaged-capital class; distinct not only in the
capital itself, but in all its members, in all its proportions, in the
style of all its details, and, consequently, in its character. The
height of the column is only 9·25' diameters; the capital, measured
from above the astragal, only 1 diameter, and the entablature only
1·42' diameter. These proportions give the whole Order a certain
expression of masculine simplicity, more especially as the column is
hardly diminished at all, the difference between the upper and lower
diameter amounting to no more than 4', or only ¹/₁₅th of the larger
diameter, that being of course 60', and the other 56'. The base
consists of two _tori_, but instead of the usual scotiæ between, there
is merely a narrow plain fillet, and a second broader one, overhung by
the upper torus. Besides which, another peculiarity is, that the lower
torus is somewhat detached from the surface on which the column stands,
by a very narrow but deep incision beneath it,—a mode of treatment
quite different from the usual one of placing the base upon a square
plinth, but which, different as it is, does not produce, as might be
supposed, any appearance of weakness, the incision being no more than
a mere line—a delicate artistic touch. The fluting (at least the mode
in which the flutes are terminated) is not a little remarkable; for
below, they and the fillets are continued, and die into the upper edge
of the base; while above, they are terminated horizontally instead
of by a semicircular curve, as in all other examples of both Ionic
and Corinthian fluting. The capital is so exceedingly peculiar in
conformation and detail as to defy verbal description. The leaves
have nothing in common with those of the usual acanthus; the volutes
are of peculiar shape, and the flower which ornaments the abacus
is as singularly large, and descends to the top of the upper leaf:
boldness and breadth of parts characterize the whole composition, and
also that of the entablature. As all its mouldings are uncut, this
last would be much too plain to be in keeping with the column, were
not the frieze sculptured with rich and ‘bossy’ festoons in the same
energetic style as the capitals. Such ornamentation of the frieze is
absolutely part and parcel of the Order; and the value of it will be
best understood by comparing those parts of the Bank, in which it is
retained, with others in which it is omitted. The same Order, with
the frieze enriched, has also been since employed in the front of St.
Paul’s School, St. Paul’s Churchyard; but there, owing to windows and
other disturbing circumstances, its effect is greatly impaired, as
is the case even in the centre of the south front of the Bank itself,
where it differs widely from the beautiful loggia at the north-west
angle of that edifice, and compared with which it manifests in the part
first mentioned a sad falling off, becoming no better than a dull,
spiritless, prosaic version of its real self. In a word, it is out of
its element.

[Illustration]

The next, and it must be the last example which can here be noticed,
is that of the so-called ‘Jupiter Stator,’ which may be said to
exhibit _Corinthianism_ in its fullest luxuriance. Great as is the
dissimilarity between this and the preceding example of the Order, they
are alike in one respect, each being perfect in its way, complete, and
harmonious in all its parts; and we ought to be thankful that two such
opposite specimens of one and the same—namely, the foliaged-capital
style—have been preserved to us for our admiration, and for our
instruction also, as if on purpose to convince us what opposite kinds
of beauty may be arrived at where, though the general configuration of
the Order is adhered to, a different spirit and character are infused
into it. Of the example now referred to, the character is elaborate
richness subdued by refined taste. Though of lower proportions than
usual, the capital is singularly ornate, and a corresponding degree
of ornateness is diffused over the entire Order. The second or middle
facia of the architrave, and all the members of the cornice, except
the dentels and the cymatium over the corona, are sculptured, and the
whole is consistently finished up in every part. The first application
among us of this superb example of the Corinthian was in Holland’s
beautiful portico to Carlton House, where, instead of being moderated,
its richness was even augmented, the bases of the columns being carved,
and the frieze sculptured. That portico has disappeared: the columns,
indeed, still remain, having been used for the portico of the National
Gallery, but the Order itself exists no more—at least not there.
Another copy of it we now have in the Treasury Buildings, Whitehall,
where it was applied by Soane, but with no great judgment or taste,
his building being quite at variance with the Order he selected for
it, the former being any thing but Corinthian in character. Perhaps he
selected it, as we have done, for the purpose of exhibiting in two of
his works such very distinct styles of Corinthian as are the Tivoli and
the Jupiter Stator Orders. As now altered by Mr. Barry, the Treasury
Buildings have received a great accession of richness, and the frieze,
which was before plain, is now ornamented. But the Order itself is
not improved, at least does not show itself to the same advantage as
before, by being raised so much higher above the eye than it was at
first; it looks comparatively diminished, and the beauty of its details
is lost. We have, indeed, the Order; and nothing is wanting but that
impressiveness and effect which gave such charm to the portico of
Carlton House.

As to that variety of the Corinthian which passes under the name
of _Composite_, the reader may now, after what has been said and
shown, be left to judge whether it can with any propriety be classed
as a distinct Order, instead of being reckoned merely as a variety
of the other, and by no means the most striking variety of that
foliaged-capital class. The difference between the two extends to no
more than a part of the detail of the capital, the general normal
character or Corinthianism of which is no way affected. And if the
Ionic Order be allowed to comprehend many decidedly marked varieties
of the voluted-capital type, there surely can be no necessity for
splitting Doric and Corinthian, and getting out of them the Tuscan and
Composite Orders. It will, perhaps, be fancied by some that by thus
reducing the number of the Orders to three, we in some degree limit the
resources which the Architect derives from them. The fact, however, is
precisely the reverse; for although we limit them in number, we set no
limits to their respective powers. A hundred different examples, each
marked by individual character, or peculiarity of treatment, may yet
all belong to the same generic type or order. Ancient examples are not
to be considered merely as _patterns_, to be copied mechanically, but
as studies for the Architect’s guidance and instruction.


COLUMNIATION.

Columns and entablatures in themselves do not, properly speaking,
constitute an Order, although they serve as specimens of it. They must
enter into and regulate the organization of a structure before they
can become by composition what is, strictly speaking, an Order. As
exhibited in their temples, the system of columniation practised by the
Ancients was strictly organic and natural. Instead of being something
accessory, supplementary to, and independent of the fabric, that
might be either omitted or applied at pleasure, as commonly practised
in Italian and modern composition, the Order itself constituted the
exterior of the building, at least of that side or front of it where it
was introduced, when it was not continued throughout; so that the Order
and its dimensions once established, and the mode of intercolumniation
determined, the edifice shaped itself. Before we enter upon the subject
of intercolumniation, it will be desirable to explain the various forms
of temples, and the technical terms by which they are distinguished.

The _naos_, or _cella_, as it is more usually called, or temple itself,
was comparatively small, even where the entire mass was of considerable
size, gradual extension of plan being produced not so much by any
great enlargement of the interior as by external columniation and its
gradual development. It is probable that the earliest Greek temples
consisted of the _naos_ only, and were accordingly plain ASTYLAR
buildings, or without columns, except in front or at the entrance
end, where an enclosed porch was formed by introducing columns, by
continuing the side walls, and placing columns between them _in
antis_, that is, between the two _antæ_ or pilasters forming the ends
of those walls. The next step seems to have been to advance the porch
before the main building, instead of keeping it recessed within the
side walls, thereby converting it from a portico in antis, into a
_prostyle_, or projecting line of columns: thus a _distyle in antis_,
or a portico consisting of two columns between antæ, consequently of
three _intercolumns_, or open spaces between the antæ and columns,
would become a _tetrastyle_, or projecting portico of four columns and
three intercolumns. By the other end of the building being similarly
treated, the temple became _amphiprostyle_, or prostyle at both ends,
in rear as well as in front, the sides still remaining _astylar_. The
next and last style of advancement was to continue columniation all
round, enclosing the _cella_ within colonnades along its sides as well
as at its ends, which disposition of plan is expressed by the terms
_peristyle_, or _peristylar_, and _peripteral_, which of necessity
produces two columns and two intercolumns more in front; for what would
otherwise be merely a tetrastyle prostyle, with four columns and three
intercolumns (the number of the latter being always one less than that
of the others), becomes by the colonnades being continued along the
side, a _hexastyle_ (_six_ columns and _five_ intercolumns); or if
originally a prostyle hexastyle, it would be rendered an _octastyle_
(_eight_ columns and _seven_ intercolumns), and so on.[5] It should be
observed, too, that a building cannot at the same time be _peristylar_
and have a _prostyle_ portico, the latter being merged in the general
columniation, instead of projecting from the rest of the edifice as
a distinct feature. Of peristylar temples there were two sorts, viz.
those with a single row of columns on each side, and those which have
two, which last are distinguished by the term _dipteral_, i. e. having
two wings or _aisles_ on each side. Although it did not at all affect
the general external appearance, notwithstanding that it extended the
plan by adding two more columns and intercolumns to the front, this
last-mentioned mode was attended with greater richness of columniation,
and the inner columns contributed not a little to variety of effect and
play of perspective; besides which, greater sheltered space was gained
for ambulatories; whereas in the usual simple peristyle, where the
space between the outer columns and the walls of the cella was limited
to the width of a single intercolumn, the side colonnades were mere
narrow passages, very little wider—at least in Doric temples—than the
diameter of the columns themselves, consequently of very little actual
service. In what is called the _pseudo-dipteral_ mode, more of clear
space within the colonnades was provided by omitting the inner columns,
which mode reduced the plan to that of a simple peristyle, the only
difference being, that instead of the width of a single intercolumn,
a clear space, equal to two intercolumns and one column, was gained
for the ambulatories. The Temple of Jupiter at Selinus was of this
description, and being only octastyle in front,—the least possible
width for a dipteral or pseudo-dipteral plan,—of the seven front
intercolumns, four (_i. e._ two on each side) were given to the lateral
colonnades, and only three left for the breadth of the _cella_, which
must have looked like a smaller edifice standing within a colonnaded
and covered enclosure.

[5] By way of illustrating these terms more directly by instances
taken from well-known modern porticoes which answer to the respective
denominations and distinctions above noted, we here give a classified
list of some of them:

Distyle { Two columns } St. Paul’s, Covent Garden. in antis. { & two
antæ. } Three } inter- { Hanover Chapel, Regent Street. Tetrastyle.
Four columns. } columns. { *Covent Garden Theatre.

{ St. George’s Church, { Bloomsbury. { *St. George’s, Hanover Square.
{ St. Martin’s Church. { Five { *St. Pancras’ Church. Hexastyle. Six
columns. { inter- { India House. { columns. { Post Office. { *College
of Surgeons. { *College of Physicians. { *Colosseum.

{ Seven { National Gallery. Octastyle. Eight columns. { inter- { Royal
Exchange. { columns. { British Museum.

{ Nine } Decastyle. Ten columns. { inter- } London University College.
{ columns. }

The porticoes marked with the * are simple prostyles, or
_monoprostyle_, advancing only a single intercolumn forwarder than the
rest of the building; while the others are _diprostyle_, or show two
open intercolumns on their flanks; except Hanover Chapel, whose portico
is partly prostyle and partly recessed, and that of the India House,
which is entirely recessed, although its elevation is not a composition
_in antis_; had it been such, it would have been a _tetrastyle in
antis_, that and a hexastyle having the same number of intercolumns,
viz. five.

The above few and simple arrangements of plan are nearly all the
varieties that the Greek temple style offers; and some of them are
little better than distinctions without differences, inasmuch as the
differences do not affect general external appearance. Peripteral,
dipteral, and pseudo-dipteral, all agree in the main point, and the two
latter answer to the name of peripteral as well as the first, being
merely modifications of it. Great as were its æsthetic beauties, Greek
Architecture was—why should we scruple to confess it?—exceedingly
limited in its compass and power of expression: what it did, it did
admirably, but it confined itself too much to one idea. “When you have
seen one green field,” says Johnson, “you have seen all green fields;”
and so we may say of Greek temples,—when you have seen one or two of
them, you have seen all of them. However they may differ from one
another as to the treatment of the Order adopted for them, the number
of their columns, and mere particulars of that kind, they resemble each
other very nearly in all leading points. Not only were their plans
invariably parallelograms, but alike also as to proportion, forming a
double square, or being about twice as much in length as in breadth;
for so exceedingly _methodical_ was the Greek system, that the number
of columns on the flanks or sides of a peripteral temple was regulated
and determined by the number of those in front. The number of the
columns in front was invariably an even one, as otherwise there would
be no middle intercolumn; but on the flanks of the edifice, where there
was no entrance, the number of the intercolumns was an even, and that
of the columns an uneven one, so that a column came in the centre of
these side elevations.

As to the mode in which the front influenced the sides by determining
the number of columns for them, the established rule seems to have
been to give the flanks twice as many intercolumns as there were
columns at each end: thus the Parthenon, which is octastyle, has
_sixteen_ intercolumns, consequently seventeen columns, on each flank.
In like manner, a hexastyle temple would have _twelve_ intercolumns
and thirteen columns on its sides. There are, however, exceptions;
for instance, the temple at Selinus, which has been mentioned as an
example of the pseudo-dipteral mode of columniation, is an octastyle,
with sixteen, or just twice as many columns on its sides as in front;
consequently the intercolumns are only fifteen, and being uneven in
number, there is a middle one, as in the front itself. After all, the
difference caused by there being an intercolumn more or less than usual
is but a very slight one, such as is to be ascertained only by counting
the columns, and such as not to occasion any perceptible difference in
the general physiognomy of the building.[6]

[6] Should the reader be quite fresh to the subject, he is recommended
to draw out for himself,—merely roughly mark down,—the several
dispositions of columns which have been spoken of; for by compelling
him to consider them carefully, he will be better able to understand
them, and have them distinctly impressed upon his memory. The annexed
may serve as a specimen of such short-hand architectural notation, in
asterisks.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * Peripteral Hexastyle, *
    *    12 intercolumns    *
    *       on sides.       *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Besides the restriction as to general proportion of plan, namely, the
fixed relationship between the length and the breadth of the building,
proportion with regard to height was limited in a different way, and in
such a manner that the character of increased richness and importance
derived from a greater number of columns was attended, not indeed by
decreased height, but by _decreased loftiness_, or proportional height,
that is, height as measured by either breadth or length. Paradoxical as
this may sound at first, nothing can be more clear when once explained.
Discarding nicety of measurement, we will call a _tetrastyle_ portico
about a square in height, that is, about as high as wide; but add four
more columns, extend it from a tetrastyle to an octastyle, so that it
becomes about a double square in breadth, or twice as wide again, and
the inevitable consequence is, that it is then only half as high as
wide; that is, as to proportion, only half as _lofty_ as it was before.
The expression of _loftiness_, in which altitude greatly predominates
over breadth, was quite beyond the reach of the Greek system. Their
temples might be planted on lofty eminences, but the structures
themselves never towered upwards. As far as it went, their system was
perfect,—so complete indeed in itself as to be unfit for almost any
other purposes than that for which it was expressly framed.

If the Romans corrupted the Greek Orders, the Doric and Ionic, they
developed and matured the Corinthian Order, and also worked out a
freer and more complex and comprehensive system of Architecture. To
say nothing of their introduction and application of those important
elements of both construction and design, the arch and vault—which
hardly belong to a mere treatise on the Orders—it is to the Romans that
we are indebted for varieties and combinations of plan that will be
sought for in vain among Grecian structures.

Of the Romans it may be said, “Mutant quadrata _rotundis_,”—circular
forms and curves displaying themselves not only in elevation and
section, but in plan; and while, among the Greeks, Architecture was
confined almost exclusively to external appearance and effect, in the
hands of the Romans it was made to minister to internal display of
the most enchantingly picturesque kind, as would be amply attested
by the Pantheon alone. In that edifice, and Hadrian’s Mausoleum (now
barbarized into the Castello di S. Angelo), the cylindrical form was
exhibited upon an imposing scale; in the Temple at Tivoli, in far
lesser dimensions, but with most captivating taste; and again in
the Tomb of Cæcilia Metella, we have a fine example of an unbroken
_astylar_ circular mass. In such structures as the Colosseum and
other Roman Amphitheatres, a different form of curvature, namely,
the ellipsis, was employed with admirable propriety and effect. In
interiors, again, we find the hemicycle or concave semicircular form
both frequently and variously applied by the Romans in such edifices as
their Baths, which afford many excellent studies for combinations of
_plan_.

To enter into the system of Roman Architecture as the subject itself
would require, would very far exceed our present purpose and limits;
much less can we pretend to treat here of the still more varied and
complex Italian or Modern-European system, into which _fenestration_
so largely enters, _columniation_ being, more frequently than not,
subordinate. Were we to touch upon the last-mentioned style and its
various elements, it could be only so superficially as to be more
disappointing than instructive. Better that the reader should admire
our forbearance than complain of our unsatisfactory jejuneness. We may,
however, permit ourselves to throw out one or two general remarks;
the first of which is, that it is a great error to confound with the
Italian the two Ancient Classical styles, applying to them alike the
epithet ‘Grecian,’ merely in contradistinction to Gothic or Mediæval
Architecture. It is absurd, too, to pretend to test by the Greek style,
one so totally differently constituted as the Italian; an error that
could hardly have been fallen into but for the practice of applying
the same names to very different things. The term ‘Order’ has quite
a different meaning, as applied to the original classical mode of
the Art, from what it has in the other. In Italian composition, an
Order is more frequently than not, mere decoration in the shape of
columns and entablatures, fashioned _secundum artem_ (a very different
thing from _artistically_), so as to resemble in detail and certain
conventional distinctions those of the Ancients. Infinitely better
would it have been, if, instead of allowing themselves to be misled by
the pedantry of Vitruvius, the Architects of the so-called Revival,
who showed much happiness of invention in other respects, had treated
the Orders freely; or perhaps still better, had they worked out ideas
of their own for columns and entablatures, whenever they had occasion
for them either as matters of necessity, or as mere decoration. Had
the Italians allowed themselves greater latitude in that respect, they
would, in all probability, have been far less licentious upon the whole
than they frequently were, and their buildings would have been more
homogeneous—more of a piece. But they must, forsooth, be Doric, Ionic,
or Corinthian, ofttimes all the three at once, and a very great deal
else into the bargain. Therefore the affecting to retain the ancient
Orders in their purity served no other purpose than that of making all
the more evident how completely their first intention and character had
been lost sight of.

The clinging with scrupulous punctilio to what had become dead-letter
forms after the system which had produced them had been abandoned and
exchanged for another and widely different one, was merely superstition
and pedantry. It might show acquaintance with traditional learning
and the writings of Vitruvius; but it also showed dulness of æsthetic
feeling, or, what is not much better, deficiency of æsthetic power.
There was, however, one mode of applying columns, which, although
generally regarded as the most licentious and unorthodox,—nay, even
preposterous, because quite contrary to all classical practice and
precedent,—has at least one propriety, that of being rational, since
columns there officiate as columns—as real supports; whereas in a
great deal of Modern Architecture that is admired for the correct
taste it displays, columns and their entablatures are mere expletives,
instead of actual component parts of the fabric, and simulate a mode of
construction neither required for nor practised in the fabric itself.
The particular mode here alluded to is that in which arches are not
only introduced together with columns, but the arches and columns
are so indissolubly married together that they cannot be divorced,
inasmuch as the arches are supported by the columns themselves, the
former springing immediately from the capitals of the latter.[7]
Such combination, it might be supposed, would be gladly admitted as
sufficiently legitimate, both because in accordance with rational
architectonic principles, and because it greatly extends the resources
of the Art; nevertheless, such is the omnipotence of prejudice, that
instead of being welcomed and adopted by us, it has been decried as
a barbarism. As an irresistible and crushing argument against it,
we are told that columns were not _originally_ intended to be so
applied;—admirable logic, truly! There are a great many other things
besides columns which have in course of time come to be applied to
uses not originally contemplated. In regard to that combination of
columns and arches according to which the latter spring immediately
from the others, and are supported by them, there are two questions:
the first and practical one is; Do the columns afford sufficient
support?—the second and æsthetic one is; Is there also appearance of
sufficient support; or, is there any thing contradictory to principle,
to judgment, and good taste? The first question needs no answer,
since it answers itself, it being an indisputable fact that columns
so employed do answer the purpose to which they are turned. The other
question is not so easily answered: the prejudiced will of course
answer it according to their own contracted taste and narrow notions,
condemning the mode alluded to, without any inquiry into its merits
and advantages, merely on the ground of its being quite at variance
with the classical system of _trabeated_ columniation, that is, with
columns supporting a horizontal architrave and entablature, or general
horizontal _trabeation_. That by the substitution of arches for
architraves, the character of the Greek system is forfeited, cannot be
denied; but then another character is established, whose difference
from the original one ought not to be made its condemnation. To demand
of a different mode that it should resemble and conform to the laws
of that from which it differs, is absurdity in the extreme, for it is
requiring that it should be at once a different one and the same. To
compare different styles is a very useful sort of study; but to make
any one style the criterion or standard by which others are to be
judged, is preposterous.

[7] This mode of uniting together columns and arches is perfectly
legitimate, whereas that in which a fragment of the usual entablature
is left sticking or added to each column, (as, for instance, in
the interior of St. Martin’s Church,) is decidedly solecistical,
since it is injuriously reminiscent of _epistylar_ construction or
trabeation,—is in itself unmeaning, and causes the columns to appear
to have been too short, and therefore to have been eked out in height
by blocks upon them, fashioned to resemble so many detached bits of an
entablature.

The style in which the arch and column enter into direct combination
with each other, and for which there is no specific name, has at all
events some economical recommendations, inasmuch as shorter columns,
and fewer of them, are required, than would be necessary for the same
height and length according to the trabeated mode. In itself, too,
it possesses much ‘capability;’ yet, as is the case with every other
style, the merit of the works produced in it depends upon the manner in
which it is treated, and the talent brought to it. There is no style of
the Art so poetical that the flattest prose may not be made out of it;
and hardly any so utterly prosaic as to be incapable of being kindled
into poetry by the Promethean torch of geniality—artistic treatment,
and, _con amore_, æsthetic feeling.


INTERCOLUMNIATION.

Although Intercolumniation consists only in regulating and determining
the spaces between the columns, and consequently does not affect the
nature of the composition,—for a tetrastyle, hexastyle, &c., would
still be such, no matter how narrow or wide the _intercolumns_ or
intervals between the columns may be,—very much depends upon it, with
regard to expression and effect. How intercolumniation is regulated in
the Doric Order has been already explained at page 20: in that, the
distances between the columns is governed entirely by the triglyphs of
the frieze, so that there can be no medium between _monotriglyphic and
ditriglyphic_ intercolumniation, accordingly as there is either one or
two triglyphs over each intercolumn. But in the other Orders there
is no such restriction; in them the intercolumns may be made wider or
narrower, as circumstances require, but of course under the guidance
of judgment and good taste; for what is left _à discrétion_ is not
always very discreetly used. Vitruvius and his followers, however, have
not cared to trust to individual discretion or indiscretion, but have
fixed certain positive and distinct modes of intercolumniation, viz.
five,—perhaps out of compliment to the _five_ Orders, to wit:

    Pycnostyle, or _closely set_, in which the
        intercolumns are one diameter and a quarter, or a
        half, in width.
    Systyle, in which they are two diameters wide.
    Eustyle, or _well spaced_, in which they are two
        diameters and a half.
    Diastyle, in which they are three diameters.
    Aræostyle, or _thinly set_, in which they are four
        diameters.

Let us repudiate for Architecture all such formal act-of-parliament
legislation, and take pycnostyle and aræostyle as the greatest
allowable degree of closeness or of distance at which the columns can
be placed; and it follows that between such maximum and minimum any
intermediate measure is admissible, and that there is no occasion to
fix it positively and arithmetically, and make distinctions which are,
after all, only arbitrary. There are a great many matters in design
which must be left to the Architect, and intercolumniation is one of
them. It is not possible to have precise rules for every thing, neither
is it desirable; for if every thing in it could be done by rule,
Architecture would forfeit its nature as one of the Fine Arts, and be
reduced to a merely mechanical one. What is done by rule can be done by
one man just as well as by another.

Excepting the terms pycnostyle and aræostyle, which are useful
as expressing the greatest degree of closeness or of openness of
intercolumniation consistent with well-proportioned arrangement, the
others may be dispensed with. To designate one mode as _eustyle_,
_par excellence_, is very much like saying that the proportions
assigned to it, viz. 2·30′ or 2½ diameters, are the very best, and
all the rest comparatively defective; according to which doctrine,
the _monotriglyphic_ mode of intercolumniation usually employed by
the Greeks in their Doric temples, and which answers to the character
of pycnostyle, is not so well proportioned as what is emphatically
called eustyle. Let it be whatever it may, as expressed in terms of the
diameter of the columns, intercolumniation should always deserve the
name of eustyle, or _well-proportioned_, by being such as satisfies
the eye, and contributes to the particular character that befits the
occasion and harmonizes with the other proportions of the structure.
Pycnostyle, or _close spacing_, carries with it the expression of both
richness and strength, the solids or columns being very little less
than the voids or intercolumns. Aræostyle, or _wide spacing_,—and
_ditriglyphic_ Doric intercolumniation may be called such,—produces
an effect of openness and lightness, but also partakes of meagreness
and weakness, owing to the want of sufficient apparent support for
the entablature,—a very frequent fault in Modern Architecture, where
frugality as to columniation has often been allowed to produce a
degree of poverty which contrasts very disagreeably with that of the
decoration affected by the Order itself. Intercolumniation ought to
be made to depend in some measure upon the nature of the composition:
a tetrastyle portico, for instance, or a distyle in antis, admits
of wider intercolumniation than would be suitable for an octastyle,
because pycnostyle, where there are only three intercolumns, would
produce too great narrowness of general proportions for a portico.

Hardly is there need for observing, that be their proportions what they
may, the intercolumns in a colonnade or portico must be all alike;
nevertheless in a Grecian Doric portico there is, as we have seen, some
difference, the two extreme intercolumns being there narrower by the
width of half a triglyph. There is, besides, another exception from
the general principle, for the centre intercolumn of a portico was
frequently made somewhat wider than the others, in order to mark the
entrance, and the better to display and afford greater space for access
to the door within.

One mode of columniation and intercolumniation which remains to be
spoken of, is that which has sometimes been practised by Modern
Architects, and combines the two extremes of pycnostyle, or still
closer intercolumniation, and aræostyle. This consists in coupling the
columns and making a wide intercolumn between every pair of columns,
so that as regards the average proportion between solids and voids,
that disposition does not differ from what it would be were the columns
placed singly. Although denounced by some critics, more especially
Algarotti, as altogether licentious and indefensible, and although it
is not to be especially recommended, or indeed practicable on every
occasion, the coupling of columns may, under some circumstances, be
not only excusable, but advisable and proper. As is the case with
almost every thing else in matters of art, all depends upon _how_ it
is done, and whether with or without sufficient reason. That there is
no classical authority for it, is no valid reason against it; in the
constitution of the ancient temples there was nothing to require or
_motive_ it. It may be conceded, however, that coupled columns, forming
a prostyle surmounted by a pediment, are objectionable; because where
so strong a resemblance to the antique model is preserved in other
respects, a departure from it in regard to the disposition of the
columns has a disagreeably disturbing effect.

Having gone through the Classical Orders, and explained their elements
and constitution, we have performed as much as we purposed, or as we
promised. Within the same compass we might, no doubt, have touched
upon a great deal besides that belongs to the study of Greek and
Roman Architecture, by restricting ourselves to bare matter-of-fact,
and suppressing all comment, and so treating the subject drily and
superficially. Proceeding upon the principle of _multum haud multa_,
we have aimed at nothing more than to initiate the reader in such
manner as to excite interest in the subject, and stimulate to further
inquiry. Should we have effected that, and should we have disabused
him of the prejudices and contracted notions generally entertained in
regard to the Orders, or else armed him against them, we shall have
accomplished the _multum_—the main point of all. _Much_ shall we have
taught, and much will he have learnt, should he now reject the fatal
doctrine of the Five Orders, and relinquish it to school-boys and
school-masters,—to the plodders who work by pattern, and design by rote
and by routine. Much, very much indeed, will have been learnt, by the
reader, should he have learnt or have been put in the way of learning,
to look upon those various compositions in the three several styles of
columniation, which are called Orders, not with the eyes of a Builder
or a Mechanic, but with the intuition and the feeling of an Artist; in
short, to look upon them as general _types_ to be diligently studied,
and then imitated with congenial gusto.


GLOSSARIAL INDEX.

We here make one alphabetical arrangement serve the double purpose
of an Index referring to the pages where the respective matters are
treated of, and of a Glossary affording explanation, or further remark,
as may be, where required. This latter is by no means to be considered
a complete or general Glossary of Architectural Terms, but merely as an
accompaniment to the present Treatise, and a specimen, perhaps, of what
is still a desideratum, namely, a _real Lexicon_—that is, one which
explains _things_ as well as terms—of Ancient and Modern Architecture,
similar to what has been provided with regard to the Mediæval Styles of
the Art.

    ABACUS.—The _plate_ or shallow block forming the
        uppermost member of a capital is so called for the
        sake of distinction, for when a similar one is
        placed beneath the base of a column, it is called
        a _plinth_. The Doric abacus is spoken of at page
        14, and is here shown in a plan of the capital
        and architrave; _a a a a_ being the angles of the
        soffit or underside of the abacus which overhang
        the echinus _e e e e_; and _s s_ the soffit of the
        architrave. From this, the relation between the
        abacus and architrave, and how much the former
        exceeds or projects out beyond the latter, will be
        better understood than by the engraving at page 14,
        where the capital is shown only in _elevation_.

[Illustration]

      The next figure is still more indispensable
    for understanding the conformation of the Ionic
    capital. (See page 32.) Here the abacus shows
    itself only in front at _f f_, over the
    two voluted faces, the rest being concealed by
    the baluster sides _b b_ of the capital,
    which extend beyond the abacus, and convert the
    general plan into more than a square. Although
    the channels and other details of the baluster
    sides are omitted, and only their general shape
    shown, the engraving explains how those sides are
    _reduced_ (p. 33) by being hollowed out or
    curved concavely on the plan.

[Illustration]

      In the next, or Corinthian Order, a similar
    curvature is given to the abacus itself on all its
    four sides; the capital of this Third Order having
    that in common with the First one, that it is quite
    regular. One great point of difference between
    the Doric and Corinthian abacus is, that in the
    former the angles are unsupported, and overhang
    the circular body of the capital, while in the
    Corinthian they are extended outwards diagonally,
    as _a a a a_ in the figure, and supported by
    the _caulicoli_ or small volutes, which they
    in turn serve to cover. The letters _f f f f_
    indicate the rosettes or flowers on the four faces
    of the abacus.

[Illustration]

     ÆSTHETICS—ÆSTHETIC.—A modern architectural writer
         condemns these terms as ‘silly and pedantic’ ones
         that have ‘lately come into use in the Arts,’
         and as ‘useless additions to the nomenclature’
         and language of art-criticism. In what respect
         ‘Æsthetics’ is at all more pedantic than
         ‘Optics,’ ‘Mathematics,’ ‘Physics,’ and other
         words of a similar class now familiar to English
         ears,—although they are all of them essentially
         Greek,—or more pedantic than a great many
         architectural terms which are not only Greek but
         altogether technical, it is not easy to divine;
         while as to silliness, there seems to be far
         greater silliness in rejecting, or objecting to,
         than in adopting terms which are not only highly
         expressive and convenient, but have found their way
         into every European language, from that of Russia
         to that of Spain.

           The term Æsthetics implies the perception and
         the study of those qualities which constitute
         the beautiful and artistic, and form the finer
         essence of all productions of Fine Art. It carries
         with it, therefore, a more exact and philosophic
         meaning than the word Taste. In its adjective
         form, in which it more frequently occurs, it is
         particularly useful, as no adequate epithet can
         be substituted for ‘Æsthetic.’ Thus we speak of
         the ‘æsthetic sense,’ of ‘æsthetic feeling,’ or
         ‘study,’ or ‘principles,’ &c.; but we cannot say
         the ‘tasteful sense,’ or ‘tasteful study.’ As to
         the species of study just alluded to, no term may
         be required to designate it, because study of the
         kind is generally dispensed with for Architecture,
         an historical and technical knowledge of it being
         deemed sufficient, without any acquaintance with
         those comprehensive _æsthetic_ principles of
         the Art which can guide us where technical rules
         stop short, and mere rules abandon us to error or
         to doubt.

     ANTÆ, Doric, 22.

     ————, Ionic, 40.

     ANTEFIXÆ.—Called by some, _Greek Tiles_,—upright
         ornamental blocks placed at intervals on the
         cornice along the side of a roof, to conceal
         or rather terminate the ridges formed by the
         overlapping of the roof tiles.

     ARÆOSTYLE.—The widest mode of intercolumniation, 78.

     ASTRAGAL.—A small convex moulding. The term is applied
         chiefly to that which is employed to separate the
         capital from the shaft of a column.

     ASTYLAR.—From the Greek privative α, and στύλος
         (stylos), a column: columnless or without columns,
         a term that expresses the absence of columns or
         pilasters, where they might otherwise be supposed
         to occur.

     ATTIC.—This is usually defined to be a small Order
         placed over a principal one; from which it might
         be supposed that it differed from the Orders in
         general chiefly by being applied on a smaller
         scale; instead of which it has nothing of
         columniation and trabeation in it. There is far
         greater analogy between an attic and a stylobate,
         or continuous pedestal, both of them consisting
         of base, a dado or die, and a simple cornice, and
         the difference between them consisting chiefly
         in their application, the stylobate being below,
         and the attic above the Order. Attics are either
         plain or pilastered accordingly as the building
         itself is astylar or the contrary; but what are
         called attic pilasters are no more than slight
         _breaks_ or projections on the general surface,
         with the mouldings above and below breaking round
         them, without any sort of capital, but just after
         the manner of pedestals: their faces, however,
         are sometimes distinguished from the intermediate
         surfaces by being panelled and otherwise enriched,
         as is done, for instance, in the façade of the new
         Treasury Buildings: another mode of decoration
         is to place either a statue, or else a caryatid
         figure, before each break in the front of the
         Attic, an example of which occurs in the Strand
         front of Somerset House. When introduced only over
         particular portions of a façade, such as the centre
         or extremities, the Attic is an exceedingly useful
         element in composition, inasmuch as it serves
         not only to give such parts greater importance,
         but also to produce play of outline or sky-line;
         whereas, if continued throughout, it is apt to
         produce heaviness as well as monotony, and some
         degree of feebleness of expression also, its
         cornice forming, in comparison with the principal
         cornice below, but a very insignificant finish to
         the general structure.

     AXIS.—An imaginary line through the centre of a column,
         &c., or its geometrical representation. Where
         different members are placed over each other, so
         that the same vertical line, on the elevation,
         divides them equally, they are said to be on the
         same axis, although they may be on different
         planes. Thus, triglyphs and modillions are so
         arranged that one coincides with the axis or line
         of axis of each column. In like manner, the windows
         or other openings in the several stories of a
         façade must all be in the same respective axis,
         whether they are all of the same breadth or not.

     BALUSTER side of Ionic capital, 33.

     BED-MOULDINGS.—This may be understood as a collective
         term for all the mouldings beneath the corona or
         principal projecting member of a cornice, which,
         without bed-mouldings, would appear too much like a
         mere shelf.

     CABLED fluting, 60.

     CAPITAL.—The capitals of the columns constitute the
         principal and most obvious indicial mark of the
         respective Orders. For those of each of the Three
         Classes or Orders a certain character conformably
         with the rest of the Order is to be observed;
         but that attended to, further restriction is
         unnecessary. Between several examples, all
         decidedly referable to one and the same Order,
         very great special differences occur, and there
         might easily be a very great many more. Although
         the capital itself is indispensable, it is so only
         _æsthetically_, and not out of positive necessity.
         The necessity is only artistic: decoration of the
         kind there must be, but the express mode of it
         is one of those matters which should be left to
         design, to which it properly belongs. Capitals are
         just as legitimate subjects for the exercise of
         taste and invention as any thing else in decorative
         design. The capital is only an ornamental head to
         the column, and therefore admits of being as freely
         designed as any other piece of ornament, on the
         conditions of its being accordant in character with
         the rest of the Order, and of forming an agreeable
         transition from the shaft of the column to the
         architrave.

     CARYATIDES.—Anthropostylar pillars or human figures
         (usually female ones) employed instead of
         columns to support an entablature. Such figures
         ought always to be perfectly free from all
         _attitudinizing_, and to appear to support their
         burden without any effort. Some very matter-of-fact
         critics object to caryatides as being at the best
         only beautiful absurdities; as if statues so
         applied were particularly liable to be mistaken
         for living persons subjected to a more severe
         punishment than that of being posted up in a niche,
         or on the top of a building.

     COLUMNIATION, 68.

     CORINTHIAN, or Third Order, 53; Lysicrates example, 55;
         Tivoli, 65; ‘Composite,’ or Ionico-Corinthian, 62.

     CORNICE.—Doric, 21; Ionic, 42; Corinthian, 61.

     CORONA.—That part or member of a cornice which projects
         out over and protects the bed-mouldings (see
         _Bed-Mouldings_), and throws off the rain from the
         rest of the entablature.

     CYMATIUM.—A moulding whose section or profile is convex
         below and concave above. See _Mouldings_.

     DADO.—The general plane surface of a pedestal or
         stylobate between the upper and lower mouldings.

     DENTELS.—The series of small upright blocks introduced
         among the bed-mouldings of a cornice. They are
         supposed to be peculiarly characteristic of the
         Ionic cornice, but are also employed for the
         Corinthian one, beneath the modillions, which
         latter are the principal characteristic of the
         Corinthian cornice, as dentels alone of the Ionic.

     DIAMETER.—The lower diameter of the column is taken as
         the _proportional_ measure for all the other parts
         and members of an Order, for which purpose it is
         subdivided into 60 parts, called minutes, or into
         two _modules_ of 30 minutes each; but the module
         is quite an unnecessary distinction, not being,
         like the diameter, the constant measure of any
         one member of the Order, and the use of it merely
         adding to the terms of computation. It is surely
         much more simple and convenient to write 1·40′,
         meaning 1 diameter and 40 minutes, than 1d. 1m.
         10′. Being proportional measures, diameters and
         minutes are not fixed ones, like feet and inches,
         but are variable as to the actual dimensions which
         they express—larger or smaller, according to the
         actual size of the diameter of the column. For
         instance, if the diameter be just 5 feet, a minute,
         being ¹/₆₀, will be exactly 1 inch; if 2½ feet, the
         minute will be half an inch; or if the diameter be
         only one foot, the minute is ¹/₆₀ of a foot, or ⅕
         of an inch.

     DIE.—See _Dado_.

     DIMENSIONS.—In architectural description, some positive
         dimensions or approximation to them should always
         be stated. Such mere epithets as _large_, _lofty_,
         _spacious_, &c., mean nothing,—convey only an
         exceedingly vague, general idea according to the
         particular notions of those who employ them; and,
         like all epithets, they are liable to the most
         shameful abuse.

     ECHINUS.—A large convex moulding, generally of
         elliptical or eccentric contour in the Greek
         style, and forming the quarter of a circle in the
         Roman. The echinus is the indicial mark of and
         constitutes the principal portion of the Doric
         capital, the other being the abacus; at least the
         term echinus is applied especially to that member
         of the capital, although in many Greek examples
         its profile has scarcely any convexity, but more
         resembles a portion of an inverted cone (18).
         In Roman and Modern Architecture the echinus is
         usually called the _ovolo_. See _Mouldings_.

     ELEVATION may be defined to be the _upright plan_ of a
         building, or any part of a building, showing its
         exact form and dimensions as they actually exist;
         whereas in perspective the forms are shown not as
         they exist, or are in themselves, but merely as
         they appear to the eye, according to the station of
         the spectator. Elevations are of two kinds, viz.
         _geometrical_ and _perspective_. In the former,
         the whole is projected upon the same _plane_, the
         remote parts are shown of their full size, and
         distance can be expressed only by shadow thrown
         upon the second plane by parts in the nearest
         one; whereas Perspective elevation partakes of
         parallel perspective, and the parts beyond the
         first plane are shown diminished by distance, and
         also come into view, although they may be behind
         others on the first plane by which they would be
         concealed in a geometrical representation. For
         instance, supposing a portico to have a second row
         of columns in the same axes as those in front,
         that circumstance would not be at all apparent in
         a geometrical elevation, but could be understood
         only by means of the plan, the inner columns
         being concealed by those before them; but in a
         perspective elevation they would show themselves,
         as would also the ceiling and floor.

     ENTABLATURE.—The horizontal portion of an Order; the
         _trabeation_ or system of beams supported by the
         columns. There may, however, be entablature without
         columns,—where the latter are suppressed, as on the
         flanks of an _apteral_ temple; or omitted entirely,
         as in _astylar_ building. For the entablatures of
         the respective Orders, see pages 18, 41, 60.

     ENTASIS.—A slightly convex curvature given in
         execution to the outline of the shaft of a column,
         just sufficient to counteract and correct the
         appearance, or fancied appearance, of curvature in
         a contrary direction (_i. e._ concavely), which
         might else take place and cause the middle of the
         shaft to appear thinner than it really is. Entasis
         is therefore nothing _positive_: it is not intended
         to show itself, for were it to do so,—were there to
         be any visible swelling,—it would be a deformity;
         yet such deformity has been studiously adopted by
         many Modern Architects, merely, it would seem, for
         the sake of making evident that at all events they
         took pains to guard against an imaginary defect.
         The subject of entasis has been made one of those
         _nugæ difficiles_ which those who can do nothing
         else make great parade with. To such, then, be
         left all such sublimated transcendental niceties.
         If a column only 30 or 40 feet high would appear
         thinner in the middle than it really is, unless
         there made somewhat thicker than it would be were
         its profile a straight line, the same appearance
         would take place in any other lofty object, and in
         a greater degree in proportion to actual height; so
         that a tower of great loftiness, both positively
         and proportionally, _ought_—unless entasis were
         given it, to look thinner in the middle than at top
         and bottom. If such appearance really does take
         place, it is one perfectly in accordance with the
         laws of vision, therefore no more than a natural
         and perfectly proper one. In all such cases the
         judgment corrects the eye, and prevents mistakes.
         It would, in fact, require a very great stretch of
         imagination to fancy what we know to be straight,
         and of the same breadth throughout, is not so:
         if we can fancy that, we can also fancy that the
         further end of a building is not so high as the
         nearer one, and that instead of being horizontal,
         the cornices slope downwards. So much for the
         fuss made about entasis, including that about the
         hypothetical curvature in the horizontal lines of
         the Parthenon, where curvature was administered, if
         administered at all, in an exceedingly homœopathic
         ratio.

     EPISTYLIUM.—The architrave or horizontal course resting
         immediately upon the columns. Hence we should
         denote as _Epistylar Arcuation_ that system in
         which columns support arches instead of horizontal
         architraves and entablatures. See p. 75.

     EPITITHEDAS.—A term applied by some writers, by way
         of distinction, to the cymatium on the sloping
         or _raking_ cornices of a pediment, which
         _superimposed_ moulding (as its name implies) was
         frequently largely developed, and enriched with an
         ornamental pattern.

     FENESTRATION, termed by the Germans
         _Fenster-architektur_, is, in contradistinction
         from columniation, the system of construction and
         mode of design marked by windows. Fenestration
         and Columniation are so far antagonistic and
         irreconcileable, that fenestration either
         interferes with the effect aimed at by columniation
         with insulated columns, as in a portico or
         colonnade, or reduces it, as is the case with an
         engaged Order, to something quite secondary and
         merely decorative. Astylar and Fenestrated ought,
         therefore, to be merely convertible terms; but as
         they are not, we may be allowed to invent that of
         _columnar-fenestrated_, to denote that mode of
         composition which unites fenestration with the
         _semblance_, at least, of the other. Employed
         as a collective term, Fenestration serves to
         express the character of a building or design with
         regard to the windows generally: thus we say, the
         Fenestration is excellent, or the contrary,—ornate
         or meagre,—well arranged or too crowded,—which
         last circumstance is a very common fault, and is
         destructive both of grandeur and of repose. _Si
         quæris exemplum, circumspice._

     FILLET.—Any narrow flat moulding or surface is so
         termed. Fillets are used either to separate or
         finish other mouldings. The intervals or spaces
         between the flutes on the shaft of a column are
         also called fillets, although not actual members,
         but merely the surface left between the hollowed
         channels or flutes themselves.

     FLUTING.—The collective term for the channels cut on
         the shafts of columns. Hitherto this has been
         restricted to little more than two modes, viz. with
         arrises or sharp ridges, as in the Doric Order
         (p. 17), or with fillets. A different mode of
         _striating_ the shafts of columns is described at
         page 39, and many others might easily be devised.

     FRIEZE.—The middle one of the three divisions of an
         entablature. It derives its name from the Italian
         _Fregio_, ornament, as being that part of the
         entablature especially appropriate for sculptural
         embellishment, yet, in contradiction to such
         signification, the frieze is all but invariably
         made a mere plain surface by Modern Architects;
         except the Order employed happens to be Doric, and
         then triglyphs are introduced as matter of course,
         but the metopes left blank, even though ornateness
         is studied in other respects, and in parts not
         comprehended in the Order itself. For the Ionic
         Order, Modern Architects have sometimes employed
         the so-called _pulvinated_ frieze (p. 50), that is,
         one whose face is curved convexly; but upon what
         principle they have appropriated such form of the
         frieze to that Order in particular, when it is just
         as suitable for the Corinthian, is not said, and
         not to be guessed.

     HYPOTRACHELIUM.—The necking of a capital introduced
         between the capital itself and the shaft of the
         column. In the Grecian Doric, the hypotrachelium
         is little more than nominal, being marked only by
         one or more horizontal channels or incisions, and
         the flutings continued through them; whereas to the
         Modern Doric capital a distinct necking is given
         by the astragal which separates the capital from
         the shaft, and marks its commencement. But that is
         considered an essential part of the capital, and
         as to the Corinthian capital it does not admit of
         any necking; wherefore the Ionic one possesses a
         great advantage over either of them, inasmuch as it
         may have a distinct necking or not, and it may be
         either plain or enriched.

     INTERCOLUMN and INTERCOLUMNIATION.—The subject of
         Intercolumniation is treated of at page 77,
         &c. These two terms are generally confounded
         together; or rather, the second is very
         improperly substituted for the other, contrary
         to all analogy of language and distinctness of
         meaning. Having only a general collective import,
         _Intercolumniation_ can, like _Columniation_, be
         used only in the singular. We may say of a portico,
         &c., that its intercolumniation is good or poor,
         close or straggling, but not that it consists
         of so many intercolumniations (according as the
         number may be), since such mode of expression is no
         better than a solecistical vulgarism. We might just
         as well describe a tetrastyle portico as having
         four _columniations_, as say that it has three
         _intercolumniations_.

    ‘LYSICRATES’ CAPITAL, 55.

     METOPE.—The spaces between the triglyphs of the Doric
         frieze, which in the Parthenon, for instance, were
         filled in with sculpture; but in modern porticoes
         that pique themselves upon being _after the
         Parthenon_, they are mere blanks.

     MINUTE.—The sixtieth part of the diameter of the column
         as a proportional measure. Minutes are written
         thus, 10′, _i. e._ ten minutes.

     MODILLION.—The small bracket-shaped members or
         ornaments in the Corinthian cornice are termed
         _modillions_. See page 61.

     MODULE.—The semi-diameter of the column, or 30 minutes.
         See _Diameter_.

     MOULDINGS.—The principal mouldings and the difference
         of their profiles in the Grecian and Roman styles
         are here exhibited.

[Illustration: Greek. Roman.

Echinus or Ovolo.]

[Illustration: Cyma Recta.]

[Illustration: Cyma Reversa.]

[Illustration: Scotia.]

[Illustration: Torus.]

      MONOTRIGLYPHIC.—That mode of intercolumniation in the
          Doric Order according to which there is only a
          single triglyph over each intercolumn, 20.

      MUTULES.—The small blocks or plates attached to the
          soffit of the corona in the Doric cornice.

      NECKING.—See _Hypotrachelium_.

      OVOLO.—See _Echinus_.

      PEDESTAL.—No constituent or essential part of an Order,
          but merely a casual addition to it, 7.

      PEDIMENT answers to the Gable in Gothic Architecture,
          &c., it being the vertical triangular plane at
          the end of a roof which slopes downwards on each
          side from its ridge. The Pediment differs from the
          Gable in having a _tympanum_, or clearly defined
          triangular surface with a horizontal cornice below
          and two sloping or raking cornices. See page 24.

      PILASTER.—Unknown to Greek Architecture, in which
          only antæ (see _Antæ_) were admitted: Pilasters
          are employed by the Moderns as substitutes for an
          Order in engaged columns, and are, perhaps, even
          preferable to the latter, inasmuch as they combine
          better and more naturally with the wall to which
          they are attached.

      PLAN.—A plan may be familiarly described as an
          architectural _map_, or map of a building:
          therefore only those who cannot comprehend a
          geographical or topographical map—a degree of
          obtuseness hardly credible—can be at any loss to
          understand an architectural one, the latter being
          precisely of the same nature as the others, with
          this difference in its favour, that it is much less
          conventional. To define it more exactly,—a plan is
          a _horizontal section_ supposed to be taken on the
          level of the floor through the solid parts of the
          fabric—walls, columns, &c., so as to show their
          various thicknesses and situations, the dimensions
          of the several spaces or rooms, the position of the
          doors by which they communicate with each other,
          and various particulars that cannot otherwise be
          explained. Studying buildings without plans is like
          studying geography without maps. Nevertheless,
          most persons ignore—affect a genteel ignorance of
          such vulgar and technical drawings as plans. Plan
          frequently costs the Architect more study than all
          the rest of his design. Very much mistaken are they
          who suppose that convenience alone has chiefly to
          be considered. Convenience is, of course, or ought
          to be, made a _sine quâ non_; yet it is not so much
          a positive merit in itself, as the want of it
          is a positive defect. Mere convenience is not an
          artistic quality: from that to beauty of plan,—to
          striking combinations, and studied effects, and
          varied play of arrangement, the distance is very
          great. A common-place plan is but a very dull
          uninteresting affair. It is no more than what
          any builder can accomplish; but a plan replete
          with imagination, piquant play, and well-imagined
          contrasts, is no every-day matter.

      PODIUM.—A continued pedestal; a dwarf pedestal wall;
          a closed parapet employed instead of an open
          balustrade.

      POLYSTYLE.—Having a number of columns. Where columns
          occur behind columns, as where a portico has inner
          columns, like that of the Royal Exchange, such
          portico may be termed _polystyle_.

      PORCH.—Any small portico considerably lower than the
          main structure to which it is attached may be so
          termed, in contradistinction from one carried up
          the height of the building, or as high as the
          principal cornice.

      PORTICO.—For the different plans and denominations of
          porticoes, see p. 69.

      PROFILE.—The outline of a series of mouldings, or of
          any other parts, as shown by a section through them.

      PROPORTION.—The magnitude of one part as compared
          with some other. The term ‘proportion’ is used
          absolutely in the sense of ‘good proportion;’
          although every thing that has shape has proportions
          of some kind or other. The subject of Proportions
          has been greatly mystified by writers who have
          laid down certain fixed proportions as the best of
          all on every occasion, and as the _ne plus ultra_
          of artistic taste. But fixed proportions can be
          followed mechanically by every one alike; whereas
          it requires ability to deviate successfully from
          routine measurement, and apply the _poco piu_ or
          the _poco meno_ as the particular occasion or the
          particular effect aimed at may require—at least
          justify. It is the eye that takes cognizance of
          proportions; and the Architect’s own eye ought to
          be quite as correct as that of other people.

      PROSTYLE.—A portico which projects from the body of a
          building, or the rest of a façade. See page 69.

      PULVINATED.—A frieze whose face is convex instead of
          plain is said to be _pulvinated_, from its supposed
          resemblance to the side of a cushion, which swells
          out when pressed upon. See page 50.

      RAKING CORNICES.—A term, rather unmeaning in itself,
          applied to the inclined cornices on the sloping
          sides of a pediment.

      RUSTICATION.—Although Rustication is not spoken of
          in this treatise, the term is here inserted for
          the purpose of remarking that what is so called
          might frequently be more correctly described
          as _Decorative Masonry_, since, so far from
          expressing rudeness or coarseness, it may be made
          to display the most studied nicety and elaborate
          finish. Rustication, no doubt, originated in a
          very rude mode of construction; but what was at
          first clumsiness and irregularity, was afterwards
          refined into an artful and symmetrical disposition
          of the stones and courses of masonry, by a similar
          æsthetic process to that which converted the
          original amorphous stone pillar into the Doric
          column. To call such masonry, as some have done,
          only _cicatrizing_ and _gashing_, betrays a loss
          for both arguments and words. Decorative masonry
          is most assuredly not according to Greek taste
          or practice; for the Greeks affected to suppress
          the appearance of _articulation_ in masonry,
          and thereby to give their buildings, as far as
          possible, the look of not being _fabricated_, but
          _carved_ out of one block of solid material. Yet it
          does not therefore follow that the other mode of
          decidedly articulating and pronouncing the joints
          and courses of the stones is bad, because it is
          an opposite one. So far from being unæsthetic, it
          possesses much that recommends it artistically,
          for it gives _colour_, and produces richness of
          surface where there would else be blankness. A
          wall whose face is so decorated forms an admirable
          ground to columns or pilasters, which it serves
          to relieve very effectively, as is exemplified
          in the screen façade of Dover House, that little
          architectural gem by Holland, which, though by
          no means faultless, has more of genuine artistic
          quality than any other building of its time in the
          whole Metropolis.

      SECTION.—A vertical plan of the interior of a building,
          showing it as it would appear upon an upright plane
          _cutting through it_. Though rarely shown, sections
          are almost as indispensable as plans, like which,
          they show the thicknesses of the walls; and in
          addition those of the ceilings and floors; and show
          also _heights_, both of the rooms themselves, and
          of doors and windows;—moreover, the forms of the
          ceilings, whether flat, or coved, or vaulted. In
          one respect, too, a section partakes of the nature
          of an elevation, the plane parallel to the line
          of section being an elevation of the interior, or
          rather consisting of as many elevations as there
          are separate rooms or divisions. Sections may be
          described as either _furnished_ or _unfurnished_;
          the former show only construction and the strictly
          architectural parts, wherefore, if the side of
          a room happens to be quite plain, without door,
          chimney-piece, or other feature, that side or
          space will be a blank, or little better. Furnished
          sections, on the contrary, exhibit, besides what
          strictly belongs to the Architecture and its
          decoration, mirrors, pictures, statues, furniture,
          draperies, and all other accessories. The number
          of sections required depends upon the nature
          of the plan, and what there is worth showing.
          If the design be worthy of it, there should be
          as many sections as will suffice to show every
          side of every principal apartment; though it may
          not be necessary to repeat the entire section
          through every floor. Sections are the _deliciæ_ of
          architectural illustration, and, it would seem, far
          too precious to be frequently exhibited.

      SOFFIT.—From the Italian _soffitto_, a ceiling; the
          under surface of any projecting moulding or member.

      STYLE, in the sense of a column (from the Greek στύλος,
          a column), enters into a great number of useful
          compound terms referring to matters connected
          with columniation, and which may here be grouped
          together, so that any word ending in ‘style’ may be
          found here, though passed over in its alphabetical
          order. The number of columns in the front of a
          pedimented portico is briefly expressed at once by
          any of the following terms:

              Distyle in antis, two columns and two antæ.
              Tetrastyle   ”    four columns.
              Hexastyle    ”    six    ”
              Octastyle    ”    eight  ”
              Decastyle    ”    ten    ” almost the greatest
                 number that can be placed beneath a pediment.

          As regards Intercolumniation, we
              have—Pycnostyle—Eustyle—Aræostyle, 79.
          The terms descriptive of the plans and
              columniation of ancient temples
              are—Prostyle—Amphiprostyle—Peristyle, 69.
    Also,
      Monoprostyle, a prostyle with _one_ intercolumn on its flanks.
      Diprostyle        ”       ”   _two_       ”           ”
      Triprostyle       ”       ”   _three_     ”           ”
    To which may be added—
      Heterostyle, composed of different Orders, as where one
          Order is employed for the centre of a composition,
          and another for the wings.
      Macrostyle denotes a large Order, that is, one forming
          the height of the building.
      Microstyle, on the contrary, denotes a lesser Order,
          belonging only to some low division of the
          building, as for instance, a porch. Thus porticoes
          are _macrostylar_, porches _microstylar_.
          In Italian composition, microstylar doors and
          windows, _i. e._ doors and windows decorated
          with small columns, are of frequent occurrence.

      STYLOBATE.—That part of a structure on which an Order
          is raised, and on which the columns immediately
          stand. The term is, however, restricted to what
          partakes of the character of a pedestal, and not
          to a mere plinth or socle on the one hand, or to a
          lower fenestrated floor on the other.

      VOLUTE.—The characteristic ornaments and indicial marks
          of the Ionic capital formed by circumvolving spiral
          mouldings are termed volutes. The small circle in
          which the spiral or springs terminate is called the
          _eye_ of the volute.

[Illustration]

Printed by Hughes & Robinson, King’s Head Court, Gough Square.

                    ARCHITECTURE OF THE METROPOLIS.

               A New and considerably Enlarged Edition,
               with many additional Subjects and Plates.

    It is proposed to publish, in 20 Monthly Parts,
    this very important work, to contain 180 plates and
    800 pages of letterpress description of the Public
    Buildings of London. Each Part will contain 9 plates
    and 40 pages of text, Price 2_s._ 6_d._, to be ready
    for delivery on the Magazine day of each month,
    beginning with (December 31, 1848) January 1, 1849.

    To the Architect, Builder, the Student in Architecture,
    and the Amateur, this desirable work for professional
    use and study is offered at an extremely small charge,
    and published at such intervals as to be convenient for
    all classes, entitled

                             ILLUSTRATIONS
                                  OF
                    THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF LONDON:

             Originally edited by the late AUGUSTUS PUGIN,
                   JOS. GWILT, BRITTON, and others.

               NEWLY EDITED AND ENLARGED BY W. H. LEEDS.

    Manifold as are the publications which represent the
    various structures of the metropolis, this is the only
    work which describes them, not _ad libitum_, in
    views which, even when perfectly correct, show no
    more than the general aspect and locality of each
    building from a certain point, and consequently afford
    no information beyond mere external appearance—but
    exhibits them _architecturally_ by means of plans,
    elevations, and occasionally both sections and interior
    perspective views. Thus a far more complete and correct
    knowledge may be obtained of each edifice, in its
    entire arrangement in all its parts and dimensions,
    than by pictorial views of them.

    As studies for the Architect, the subjects contained
    in these volumes strongly recommend themselves,—more
    particularly so, as of the majority of them no plans
    and elevations are to be met with in any other
    publication, which materially enhances the interest
    of this collection, and it preserves to us authentic
    and tolerably complete records of many buildings
    which no longer exist. Among these are CARLTON
    HOUSE, illustrated with several plates, including
    sections, and a plan of the private apartments; the
    late ENGLISH OPERA HOUSE; MR. NASH’S GALLERY, which
    has since been dismantled of its embellishments;
    THE ROYAL EXCHANGE, and the BOARD OF TRADE.

    Among the new subjects introduced in this new
    edition will be found:—The New Plan and Elevation
    of the BRITISH MUSEUM—NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—ROYAL
    EXCHANGE—ARMY AND NAVY CLUB—NEW CONSERVATIVE
    CLUB—REFORM CLUB—MUSEUM OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY—MANSION
    OF THE EARL OF ELLESMERE (Bridgewater House); together
    with several Plans of Basements, showing kitchens and
    domestic offices, and conveniences not hitherto given.

            List of Plates and short abstract of Subjects.

    Adam, R., architect.—All Saints’ Church, Poplar.—All
        Souls’ Church, Langham Place.—Ancient
        Theatres.—Astley’s Amphitheatre.

    Beazley, S., architect.—Berlin, theatre at.—Bordeaux,
        theatre at.—St. Bride’s Church, Fleet Street;
        spire, interior, and altar-piece.—Burton, Decimus,
        architect.

    Chelsea, church of St. Luke at.—Churches,
        remarks on galleries in.—Cockerell, C. R.,
        architect.—Colosseum.—Covent Garden, St. Paul’s
        Church.—Covent Garden Theatre.

    Dimensions of domes.—Diorama.—Domes, table of
        dimensions of the principal ones.—Drury Lane
        Theatre.—Dunstan’s, St., in the East, tower
        of.—Dunstan’s, St., in the West, Fleet Street.

    Elmes, Mr., his plan for improving the area around
        St. Paul’s.—English Opera House.

    Gallery, Royal, and staircase, House of
        Lords.—George’s, St., in the East.—George’s, St.,
        Bloomsbury, its steeple.—Gibbs, James, architect.

    Halls, dimensions of.—Hanover Chapel.—Hardwick,
        T., architect.—Hawksmoor, Nicholas,
        architect.—Haymarket Theatre.—Henry the Seventh’s
        Chapel.—Hosking, Mr.—Hope, Mr.—House of Lords,
        staircase, and Royal gallery.

    Inwood, Messrs., architects.

    James’s, St., Piccadilly.—James’s, St.,
        Theatre.—Jones, Inigo, architect.

    Knights Templars.—Knights Hospitallers.

    Law Courts, Westminster.—Lyceum Theatre.

    Mary, St., Woolnoth, church of.—Mary-le-bone
        Church, account of.—Mary-le-Bow, St., church,
        steeple.—Mikhaelov, architect.—Moller,
        architect.—Monuments, at St. Paul’s.

    Nash, J., architect.—Newman, J., architect.

    Opera House, Italian.

    Paul’s, St., Cathedral; description of the former
        cathedral; history of the present edifice;
        description; compared with St. Peter’s;
        monumental sculpture.—Paul’s, St., Covent
        Garden.—Peter-le-Poor, St., church of.—Porticoes,
        remarks on, by J. B. Papworth.—Pugin, A.,
        architect.

    Ralph, his opinion on St. Stephen’s, Walbrook;
        St. Paul’s, Covent Garden.—Repton, G. S.,
        architect.—Royal Amphitheatre, Westminster.

    Savage, James, architect; his justification of
        the tower of Chelsea Church.—Shaw, J.,
        architect.—Smirke, Sir R., architect.—Soane, Sir
        J., architect.—Spires, remarks on.—Stephen’s,
        St., Walbrook.

    Temple Church, history; monuments;
        description.—Theatres, remarks on,—Thomond,
        architect.

    Walbrook, St. Stephen’s.—Walpole, Horace, his opinion
        of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden.—Westminster
        Abbey.—Westminster Hall.—Willement, T., painted
        window by, in St. Dunstan’s West.—Wilson, E. J.,
        remarks on spires by; description of Westminster
        Hall.—Wren, Sir Christopher.—Wyatt, Benjamin,
        architect.

       *       *       *       *       *

    Abraham, R., architect.—Adam, Robert,
        architect.—Arch, Green Park.—Ashburnham House.

    Bank of England, account of; New Dividend Pay
        Office—Basevi, G., architect.—Banqueting
        House, Whitehall.—Barry, C., architect.—Barry,
        James, painter.—Belgrave Square.—Bethlehem
        Hospital.—Blackfriars’ Bridge.—Bonomi, Jos.,
        architect.—Bridges, London Bridge.—British
        Museum, account of; description of the new
        building.—Brooks, W., architect.—Burlington
        House—Burton, D., architect.

    Carlton Palace.—Chambers, Sir W., architect.—Christ’s
        Hospital, new Hall.—Club House, Travellers’.—Club
        House, Union.—Club House, University.—Cockerell,
        C. R., architect.—College of Physicians,
        Warwick Lane.—College of Physicians, Pall Mall
        East.—Column, the York.—Corn Exchange.—Cornwall
        Terrace.—County Fire Office.—Custom
        House.—Cunningham, Allan.

    Dance, Mr., architect.—Dodd, Ralph, engineer.

    Eaton Square.

    Fishmongers’ Hall; former building; new Hall; interior
        described.—Freemasons’ Hall.

    Galleries, dimensions of various.—Gandy-Deering,
        architect.—George’s, St., Hospital.—George’s,
        St., Bloomsbury, portico of.—Grecian architecture,
        modern, remarks on.—Greenough’s, Mr., Villa.

    Holkam House.—Holland, H., architect.—Hope’s,
        Mr., House.—Horse-Guards.—Hospital,
        Bethlehem.—Hospital, St. George’s.

    India House.—Intercolumniation, remark on the term.

    Jones, Inigo.—Jupp, R., architect.

    Kendall, H. E., architect.—Kent, W.,
        architect.—King’s College.

    Labelye, architect.—Lewis, J. architect.—Libraries,
        dimensions of some.—London Institution—London
        University.—London Bridge, the old one; the new
        one.

    Mansion House.—Mark’s, St., North Audley Street.—Museum,
        British.—Museum, Soanean.—Mylne, R., architect.

    Nash, J., architect.—Nash’s, J., House and
        Gallery.—National Gallery.—Newgate.

    Palace, Buckingham; interior; sculpture gallery; state
        apartments.—Papworth’s remarks on Somerset House;
        on English Villas.—Pimlico Institution, portico
        of.—Pitts, W., sculpture by.—Ponz, remark by,
        on the Royal Exchange.—Portico, St. George’s
        Hospital;—National Gallery; London University;
        St. Martin’s; St. George’s, Bloomsbury; Carlton
        Palace.—Post Office.—Privy Council Office, &c.,
        account of.

    Ralph, Mr.—Regent’s Park.—Rennie, J., engineer.
        —Roberts, H., architect.—Royal Exchange;
        destruction of the building by fire.—Russell
        Institution.

    Sandby, T., architect.—Saunders, G., architect.—Shaw,
        J., architect.—Sion Park Gateway.—Smirke, Sir
        Robert, architect.—Smith, G., architect.—Soane,
        Sir J., architect, his House and Museum.—Society
        of Arts.—Somerset House.—Southwark Bridge.

    Taylor, Sir R., architect.—Telford, Mr., his opinion
        of the Mansion House. Temple Bar.—Terraces in
        Regent’s Park.—Travellers’ Club House.

    Vardy, Mr., architect.—Vauxhall Bridge.—Villa, Mr.
        Burton’s.—Villa, Mr. Greenough’s.—Villa, Mr. Kemp’s.

    Union Club House.—University Club House.—Uxbridge House.

    Walpole, Horace, his character of Lord Burlington:
        remark on Burlington House.—Ware, S.,
        architect.—Waterloo Bridge.—Westminster
        Bridge.—Wellington House.—Wilkins, W.,
        architect.—Wren, Sir C., architect.

    York Column.—York Stairs Water-gate, &c.