ROMAN DORIC ORDER.

241

column, is in the Roman style; the height of the architrave is much too low for the height of the frieze, as it is the principal beam and support of the frieze and cornice above it. The proportion of the capital is poor and flat, which follows in consequence of the Vitruvian manner of diminishing columns, and from the breadth of the abacus, being only two modules and one sixth; but if the mouldings in the capital of this example, which answers only to a column of fifteen feet high, are so very flat, how much more so must they be when the height of the column is fifty feet.*

It is evident, that if this rule were to be applied to columns still higher, the mouldings in the capital would be so exceedingly flat, as to approach nearly a right line; which would not agree with his words, where he says, in book iii, chap. iii, "That all mouldings in general will have the best effect when their projectures are made equal to their heights."

Another consequence would also follow from the application of this rule, that it would be absolutely impossible to execute one object or building similar to another, unless they were of equal magnitudes.

It does not appear from Vitruvius, that he has considered that the same distance of the eye at which any object may be viewed, is by no means suitable for one of a greater or less magnitude: for a building of a greater magnitude would require the eye to be at a greater distance, and a building of a less magnitude would require the eye to be at a less distance from it; and to produce similar images in the eye, by viewing different objects or buildings, would require these objects to be similarly constructed, and the point of view so taken for each object, that the distance of the eye may be respectively as their corresponding sides or dimensions, and the eye alike situated to each; then similar pyramids of rays will be conveyed from each object to their respective points of view, and therefore will also produce similar images on the retina of each respective eye.

I see no reason why the same quantity of diminution may not be applied to columns of every dimension.

However, in executing a public building of magnitude, and in case such building was to be exposed to view, and could be seen from a great distance, it would then be necessary to enlarge the parts of the order, beyond the proportion of the parts of the same order which would be executed on a building of less magnitude, so that they may appear to the best advantage at a distance from the object.

The ancients seem to have had such a rule in view, as appears from antique buildings now remaining. In the great temple of Minerva, at Athens, the parts are bold and massy; a circumstance that strikes the mind of the spectator at a distance, with the grandeur and elegant proportion of its parts, which are not exceeded by any other building in existence; such is also the case in the gigantic Doric order on one of the temples at Pæstum. The parts are few in number, but have a striking effect at a distance.

In smaller buildings, such as the Doric portico, and the temple of Theseus, at Athens, the parts of the order are small and well relieved, which make them sufficiently seen at a small distance. Indeed, if a number of small mouldings were executed on large buildings, they would appear so much diminished, when compared with the magnitude of the object, that the whole would seem like a mass of confusion.

Under such circumstances, it may be necessary to make such a difference in the execution of the parts of buildings, without making any allowance in the diminution of columns; but, notwithstanding what has now been said, the reader must not think that he can have a certain and invariable rule for the diminution of columns, so as to make the upper diameter a certain part of the lower diameter;

EXAMPLE II.

Elevation of the Doric Order, as executed in the Theatre of Marcellus, at Rome. PLATE 145.

This example, though executed in the age of Augustus, is not a model sufficient for restoring the Doric order. The upper part of the cornice, from the soffit of the corona to the top, is at present entirely destroyed; the profile of this part is restored according to M. de Chambray; the cavetto, which is the upper member, is not so beautiful as an ovolo; it contains too great a quantity of shade; whereas the degrees of shade on the ovolo will be softened or melted into the light, which will produce a beautiful variety of light and shade on its surface.

The dentils in the cornice do not by any means correspond with the Herculean character of this order; nor is there any precedent for them in any of the celebrated and more ancient edifices now remaining in Greece. The height and projection of the cornice renders it too ponderous for the height of the architrave, which supports the whole entablature.

The principal character of this cornice, viz. the mutules and their gutta, which ought to be as conspicuous in the elevation as any other members in the cornice, are entirely hidden by a continued cavetto on their fronts; and as the soffit of the corona, on which the mutules and guttæ are hung, is very much inclined, it is therefore impossible that they can be seen to advantage, unless the eye be almost under the building.

The disposition and proportion of the metopes and triglyphs in the frieze, and the epistylium or architrave, are

for it is almost beyond the power of reason to demonstrate that it shall be in any given ratio; this must entirely depend on the judgment of the architect; nor does it appear, from the remains of antiquity, that the ancients ever adhered closely to any rule, as we find the quantity of diminution vary in different buildings.

The columns of the temple at Corinth diminish one quarter of their diameter exactly.

The diminution of the columns of the Doric portico at Athens, and of the temples of Minerva and Theseus, at the same place, is between one quarter and one fifth of their diameter, but are nearer to one fifth than a quarter; so that to establish a rule, which would be a mean, according to the practice of the ancients, would be to make the upper diameter in Doric buildings seven ninths of the lower diameter. But these celebrated buildings do not confirm the Vitruvian rule; for the height of the columns of the temple of Theseus are not quite nineteen feet, and those of the temple of Minerva are above thirty-four; the former of these diminishes thirteen minutes, and the latter thirteen and one fifth, which ought to be less than the former, and is therefore quite contrary to that which the Vitruvian method would give.

ROMAN DORIC ORDER.

243

according to the description of Vitruvius, which I have already taken notice of.

The members of the capital are of the same kind, and disposed in the same manner as those in the Vitruvian capital; but the proportion of the heights, and projections of the latter, do not correspond with those of the former.

Although this example has in general been esteemed one of the most perfect models of the Doric order, the restoration. of the Grecian Doric will convince us to the contrary the parts are too much multiplied, and the columns are too slender; which make the order appear trifling and confused at a distance.

PLATE 146.

The proportion of the parts in numbers.

FIG. 1.-Outline of the preceding Plate, with the heights and projections of the members.

2.-A profile of the moulding in the capital, drawn to a larger scale.

Note. This column has no base; but the bottom of the shaft rests upon a step, the same as in the Grecian examples of this order.

PLATE 147.

FIG. 1.—Entablature to a larger scale, with a section through the upper part of the cornice, showing the contours of the mouldings and form of the drops.

2.-The soffit of the cornice inverted, showing the coffers and the mutules, with the drops.

Vitruvius says, that the mutules ought to be placed exactly over every triglyph, and also over every metope; which is perfectly consistent with almost every example of the Grecian Doric now remaining at Athens and other parts of Greece, and also at Ionia, and Pæstum in Italy; but in the present example, and all others of the Roman Doric, the mutules are always omitted over the metopes, and sometimes over the triglyphs, which deprive this order of one of its chief characters, insomuch, that if the same cornice were executed over any other kind of column, architrave, and frieze, it would not be a Doric cornice.

EXAMPLE III.

Elevation of a Doric Order found at Albano, near Rome, with the measures in numbers.

PLATE 148.

This Doric was discovered at Albano, adjoining the church of St. Mary, with some other curious antique fragments of architecture.

The upper members of the cornice above the corona, in this example, are the same as in the theatre of Marcellus, at Rome, on which I have already made some observations. Under the corona, and perpendicular to the triglyph, are placed mutules with drops, which agree better with the true character of the original Grecian Doric, than that of the theatre of Marcellus, above mentioned, where the ends of the mutule and drops are hid by the corona in that example. In this example, the drops under the mutules being six in width, as well as six in length, make the projection of the corona unavoidably too great.

The capital of the triglyph joining immediately to the fascia, from which the mutules project, without having any other mouldings between them, has all the simplicity of the Grecian Doric; this cornice, upon the whole, is not a bad composition.

The disposition of the triglyphs and metopes in the frieze are according to the rules of Vitruvius; the metope is enriched with pateræ.

The height of the architrave is nearly the same as that allowed by Vitruvius; but its being divided into too many parts, by mouldings, renders it profile confused, and not consistent with that simplicity which characterises the genuine Grecian Doric.

The capital of the column of this example differs from the description of Vitruvius, as follows: there is a fillet under the cimatium, which is not in the Vitruvian capital; and, instead of the annulets which he describes, and which are the principal feature of the Doric capital, there is placed an astragal, or bead and fillet.

The carving of the echinus with eggs and acorns, and the enriched cimatium round the abacus, destroy the simplicity which the capital ought to have.

The column has no base, but rests upon a step, as in the theatre of Marcellus.

ROMAN DORIC ORDER.

245

FIG. 1.-Entablature and capital of the column, with part of the shaft.

2. The lower part of the shaft, showing the step on

which it rests.

PLATE 149.

The contents of Plate 148 shadowed.

EXAMPLE IV.

Elevation of the Doric Order, from the Baths of Dioclesian, at Rome, with the proportions in numbers. PLATE 150.

The cornice of this example is not Doric; it is too abundant with mouldings, and overcharged with enrichments.

The disposition of the triglyphs and metopes in the frieze is according to the rules of Vitruvius.

To the architrave the same objections apply as in the last example.

The capital is not Doric, nor could this composition be known to have the least resemblance to the Doric order, if the triglyphs in the frieze were omitted.

Elevation of the entablature and capital of the column with part of the shaft.

The two last examples of this order are now entirely demolished; the drawings, according to M. de Chambray, were made by Pyrrho Ligorio, from some fragments of those buildings which remained in his time. For the first of these examples, viz. that on the theatre of Marcellus, we have sufficient authority, as great remains of that building still exists; the proportions here given are from M. Desgodetz, who has been universally allowed to be more accurate in his dimensions than any other person that has measured the Roman buildings.

PLATE 151.

The contents of Plate 150 shadowed.

EXAMPLE V.

Elevation of the Entablature and Base of the Doric Order, on the Temple of Apollo, at Cora.

PLATE 152.

This is a singular example; it is neither pure Grecian nor Roman architecture, but a mixture of both.

The great cavetto, which is the upper member of the cornice, is not in the Grecian style, but in the Roman.