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.