Part 3

_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.

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.

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.