[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.