[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.