# 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Order (architecture)

See also Classical order on Wikipedia; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
​ORDER, in classic architecture the term employed (Lat. genus, Ital. ordine, Sp. order, Ger. Ordnung) to distinguish the varieties of column and entablature which were employed by the Greeks and Romans in their temples and public buildings. The first attempt to classify the architectural orders was made by Vitruvius, who, to those found in Greek buildings, viz. the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian, added a fourth, the Tuscan. On the revival of classic art in Italy, the revivalists translated Vitruvius’s work De Architectura, and added a fifth example, the Composite, so that nominally there are five orders. The Tuscan, however, is only an undeveloped and crude modification of the Doric order, and the Composite is the same as the Corinthian with the exception of the capital, in which the volutes of the Ionic order were placed above the acanthus leaves of the Corinthian.
An order in architecture consists of several parts, constructive in their origin, but, as employed afterwards, partly constructive and partly decorative; its principal features are the column, consisting of base (except in the Greek Doric order), shaft and capital, and the entablature, subdivided into the architrave (the supporting member), the frieze (the decorative member) and the cornice (the crowning and protecting member). Two only of the orders were independently evolved, viz. the Doric in Greece and Magna Grecia, and the Ionic in Ionia. For the Corinthian order, the Greeks borrowed with slight variations the entablature for their Ionic order, and the Romans employed this modified entablature for their Composite order. Owing to a certain resemblance in form, it was at one time thought that the Greeks owed the origin of the Doric order to Egypt, but the Egyptian column has no echinus under its abacus, which in the earliest Doric examples is an extremely important element in its design, owing to its great size and projection; moreover, the Doric column ceased to be employed in Egypt after the XIXth Dynasty, some seven or eight centuries before the first Greek colony was established there. Dr Arthur Evans’s discoveries in the palace of Cnossus in Crete have shown that the earliest type of the Doric column (c. 1500 B.C.) is that painted in a fresco which represents the façades of three temples or shrines, the truth of this representation being borne out by actual remains in the palace; the columns were in timber, tapered from the top downwards, and were crowned by a projecting abacus supported by a large torus moulding, probably moulded in stucco. The next examples of the order are those in stone, which flank the entrance doorway of the tomb of Agamemnon at Mycenae (c. 1200 B.C.), the greater portions of which are now set up in the British Museum; and here both capital and shaft are richly decorated with the chevron pattern, probably derived from the metal plates which in Homeric times sheathed the wood columns. The columns of the Mycenae tombs are semi-detached only, and of very slender proportions, averaging 10 to 11 diameters in height; as isolated columns, therefore, they would have been incapable of carrying any weight, so that in the next examples known, those of the temple at Corinth, where the columns had to carry an entablature in stone supporting a stone ceiling over the peristyle, the relation of diameter to height is nearly one to four, so diffident were the Greek architects as to the bearing power of the stone. In the temple of Apollo at Syracuse, also a very archaic example, the projection of the capital was so great that the abaci nearly touched one another, and the columns are less than one diameter apart. The subsequent development which took place was in the lightening of the column and the introduction of many refinements, so that in the most perfected example known, the Parthenon, the columns are 11/4 diameters apart and nearly 51/2 diameters high. In a somewhat later example, the temple of the Nemaean Zeus (Argos) the columns are 61/2 diameters high. A similar lightening of the structure took place in the entablature, which in the earliest temple in Sicily is about half the height of the columns, in the Parthenon less than a third, and in the Temple of the Nemaean Zeus a little over a fourth.
The origin of the Ionic order is not so clear, and it cannot be traced beyond the remains of the archaic temple of Diana at Ephesus (c. 560 B.C.), now in the British Museum, in which the capitals and the lower drum of the shaft enriched with sculpture in their design and execution suggest many centuries of development. Here again attempts have been made to trace the source to Egypt, but the volute capital of the archaic temple of Diana at Ephesus and the decorative lotus bud of Egypt are entirely different in their form and object. The latter is purely decorative and vertical in its tendency, the former is a feature intended to carry a superincumbent weight, and is extended horizontally so as to perform the function of a bracket-capital, viz. to lessen the bearing of the architrave or beam which it carries. A similar constructive expedient is found in Persian work at Persepolis, which, however, dates about forty years later than the Ephesian work. The volutes of the capitals of the Lycian tombs are none of them older than the 4th century, being copies of Greek stone examples. As with the Doric order, the columns became more slender than at first, those of the archaic temple being probably between 6 and 7 diameters high, of the temple on the Ilissus (c. 450 B.C.) 81/3, and of the temple of Athena Polias at Priene (c. 345 B.C.) over 10 diameters high.
The employment of the two orders in Athens simultaneously, and sometimes in the same building, led to a reciprocal influence one on the other; in the Doric order to an increased refinement in the contour of its mouldings, in the Ionic order to greater severity in treatment, more particularly in the bedmould, the members of which were reduced in number and simplified, the dentil course (which in Ionia was a very important feature) being dispensed with in the temple on the Ilissus and in that of Nike Apteros, and employed only in the caryatide portico of the Erechtheum. The capital of the Corinthian order, its only original feature, may have been derived from the Egyptian bell-capital, which was constantly employed there, even in Roman times; its decoration was, however, purely Greek, and would seem to have been based on the application to the bell of foliage and ornament derived from metallic forms. The inventor of the capital is said to have been Callimachus of Corinth, who was a craftsman in metal and designed the bronze lamp and its cover for the Erechtheum in Corinthian bronze, which may account for the origin and title of the capital. The earliest example of the Corinthian capital is that found at Bassae by Cockerell, dating from about 430 B.C., and the more perfected type is that of the Tholos of Epidaurus (400 B.C.).
Whilst the entablatures of the Doric and Ionic orders suggest their origin from timber construction, that of the Corinthian was simply borrowed from the Ionic order, and its subsequent development by the Romans affords the only instance of their improvement of a Greek order (so far as the independent treatment of it was concerned) by the further enrichment of the bedmould of the cornice, where the introduction of the modillion gave an increased support to the corona and was a finer crowning feature.
The Greek Doric order was not understood by the Romans, and was, with one or two exceptions, utilized by them only as a decorative feature in their theatres and amphitheatres, where in the form of semi-detached columns they formed divisions between the arches; the same course was taken with the Ionic order, which, however, would seem to have been employed largely in porticoes. On the other hand, the Corinthian order, in consequence of its rich decoration, appealed more to the Roman taste; moreover, all its faces were the same, and it could be employed in rectangular or in circular buildings without any difficulty. The earliest examples are found in the temple of Castor and Pollux at Cora, near Rome, which is Greek in the style of its carving, and in the portico of the Pantheon at Rome erected by Agrippa (27 B.C.), where the Roman order is fully developed. The next developments of the orders are those which followed the revival of classic architecture in the 16th century, and these were largely influenced by the discovery in 1456 of the manuscript of Vitruvius, an architect who flourished in the latter half of the 1st century B.C. In his work De Architectura he refers constantly to drawings which he had prepared to illustrate his descriptions; these, however, have never been found, so that the translators of his work put their own interpretation on his text and published woodcuts representing ​ the Roman orders as defined by him. They did not, however, confine themselves to the actual remains, which in their day Fig. 1.—The Greek Doric Order. The Parthenon, Athens; section through front. were in much better preservation than at present, but attempted to complete the orders by the addition of pedestals to the columns, which were not employed by the Greeks, and only under special conditions by the Romans; as, however, they are included in the two chief authorities on the subject, Palladio and Vignola, the text-book of the former being the standard in England, and that of the latter in France, the rules and proportions set forth in them for pedestals, as also for the employment of the superposing of the orders with arches between, will follow the analysis of the Greek and Roman orders.
The Greek Doric Order.—The Doric was the favourite order of the Greeks, and the one in which they introduced all their principal refinements; these were of so subtle a nature that until the site was cleared in 1837 their existence was not known, and the earlier explorers, though recognizing the extreme beauty of the proportions and some of the refinements, were unable to grasp the extent to which they were carried, and it was reserved for Penrose in 1846 to verify by micrometrical studies the theories put forward by Pennethorne and other authors. The whole structure of the Doric temple (which consisted of the columns, subdivided into shaft and capital, and the entablature, subdivided into architrave, frieze and cornice) rested on a platform of three steps, of which the upper step was the stylobate or column base (fig. 1). The tread and rise of the steps varied in accordance with the diameter of the column; in temples of great dimensions, therefore, supplementary steps were provided for access to the stylobate, or, as found in many temples, slight inclined planes. Resting on the stylobate was the shaft of the column, which was either monolithic or composed of frusta or drums. The shaft tapered as it rose, the diminution of the upper diameter being more pronounced in early examples, as in one of the temples at Selinus and in the great temple at Paestum. In the Parthenon at Athens the lower diameter is 6 ft. 3 in. and the upper 4 ft. 9 in., which gives a diminution slightly over one-quarter of the lower diameter. The shaft was always fluted, with two or three exceptions, where the temples were not completed, and there were usually twenty flutes. In two temples at Syracuse, the most ancient temple at Selinus, the temple at Assos, and the temple at Sunium there are only sixteen flutes; the flutes were elliptic in section and intersected with an arris. In order to correct an optical illusion, which arises in a diminishing shaft, a slight entasis or swelling in the centre was given, the greatest departure from the straight line being about one-third up the shaft. The shaft was crowned by the capital, the juncture of the two being marked by a groove (one in the Parthenon, but up to three in more ancient examples) known as the hypotrachelion. Above this the trachelion or necking curves over, constructing what is known as the apophyge up to the fillets, round the base of the echinus, which forms the transition to the square abacus. The varying curve of the echinus, from the earliest times down to the later examples, is shown in the article on mouldings. The relative proportions of the lower diameter and the height of the columns vary according to the date of the example, in the early examples the column being just on 4 diameters high, in the Parthenon nearly 51/2 diameters and in the Temple of Jupiter Nemaeus 61/2 diameters high. The distance between the columns or intercolumniation varied also according to the date, that of the earliest examples in Sicily being about 1 diameter (that between the angle columns being always less), in the Parthenon in the proportion of 1 to 1·24, and in the temple at Argos as 1 to 1·53.
* Fig. 2.—The Greek Doric Order. The Parthenon, Athens.
Above the columns rested the entablature (fig. 2), of which the lower member, the architrave, was plain and crowned by a projecting fillet, known as the regula; under which, and below the triglyph, was a fillet (taenia), with six guttae underneath. The proportional height of the architrave, which was the chief supporting member, varied according to date, in one of the earliest examples at Syracuse being of greater depth than the diameter of the column, and in the Parthenon about two-thirds of the diameter. Above the architrave was the frieze, divided into triglyphs, so called because they are divided into three bands by two vertical grooves, and metopes or spaces between the triglyphs. It is supposed that the triglyphs represented the beams in the primitive cella before the peristyle was added, the spaces between being filled with shutters or boards to prevent the temple being entered by birds. The face of the metopes, which are nearly square, is set back behind that of the triglyphs, and is sometimes decorated with sculpture in high relief. There is generally one triglyph over each column and one between, but at each end of the temple there is a triglyph at the angle, so that the intercolumniation of the angle columns is less than that of the others, which gives a sense of increased strength. Above the frieze is the cornice, which projects forward about one-third of the diameter of the column and slopes downwards at an angle generally the same as the slope of the roof. On its under surface are mutules, one over each triglyph and one between, which are studded with guttae, probably representing the wood pins which secured the rafters in their position. Generally speaking, in the Doric temples there is no cymatium or gutter, and the rain fell directly off the roof; in order to prevent it trickling down there was an upper moulding, throated, with a bird’s beak moulding behind and a second throating near the bottom, so that the corona had an upper fillet projecting, and a lower fillet receding, from its fascia plane. The roof itself was covered with tiles in terra-cotta or marble, which consisted of flat slabs with raised edges and covering tiles over the joints; the lower ends of the covering tiles were decorated with antefixae, and the top of the roof was protected by ridge tiles, on the top of ​ which were sometimes additional antefixae placed parallel with the ridge tile. As the mouldings of the pediment were returned for a short distance along the side, there was a small cymatium or gutter with lions’ heads, through the mouth of which the water ran. In the principal and rear front of the temple the lines of the cornice were repeated up the slope of the pediment, which coincided with that of the roof, and the tympanum, which they enclosed, was enriched with sculpture. On the centre of the pediment and at each end were pedestals (acroteria), on which figures, or conventional ornaments, were placed. Supplementary to the order at the back of the peristyle were antae, slightly projecting pilasters which terminated the walls of the pronaos; these had a small base, were of the same diameter from the top to the bottom, and had a simple moulded capital. The Greek Ionic Order.—The Ionic order, like the Doric, owes its origin to timber prototypes, but varies in its features; the columns are more slender, being from 8 to 9 diameters high, with an intercolumniation of sometimes as much as 2 diameters; the architrave also is subdivided into three fascia, which suggests that in its origin it consisted of three beams superposed, in contradistinction to that of the Doric architrave, which consisted of a single beam. As in the Doric order, the Ionic temple rested on a stylobate of three steps (fig. 3).
| Fig. 3.—The Greek Ionic Order. Temple of Nike Apteros, Athens. | Fig. 4.—Greek Ionic Order. The Erechtheum, Athens. |
The columns consisted of base, shaft and capital. In the Ionic examples the base consisted of a torus moulding, fluted horizontally, beneath which were three double astragals divided by the scotia, sometimes, as in the temple at Priene, resting on a square plinth. In the Attic base employed in Athens, under the upper torus, which is either plain, fluted or carved with the guilloche, is a fillet and deep scotia, with a second torus underneath. The shaft tapers much less than in the Doric order; it has a slighter entasis, and is fluted, the flutes being elliptical in section but subdivided by fillets. The number of flutes is generally 24. The lower and upper parts of the shaft have an apophyge and a fillet, resting on the base in the former case and supporting the capital in the latter. The capital consists of an astragal, sometimes carved with the bead and reel, and an echinus moulding above enriched with the egg-and-dart, on which rests the capital with spiral volutes at each end, and from front to back with cushions which vary in design and enrichment. In the capitals of the angle columns the end volute is turned round on the diagonal, so as to present the same appearance on the front and the side; this results in an awkward arrangement at the back, where two half-volutes intersect one another at right angles. A small abacus, generally carved with ornament, crowns the capital. In early examples the channels between the fillets of the spiral are convex, in later examples concave. In the capitals of the Erechtheum (fig. 4), a greater richness is given by intermediary fillets. In all great examples the second fillet dips down in the centre of the front and a small anthemion ornament marks the receding of the echinus moulding, which is circular and sometimes nearly merged into the cushion. In the Erechtheum the enrichment of the capital is carried further in the necking, which is decorated with the anthemion and divided off from the upper part of the shaft by a bead and reel. The entablature is divided, like that of the Doric order, into architrave, frieze and cornice. The architrave is subdivided into three fasciae, the upper one projecting slightly beyond the lower, and crowned by small mouldings, the lower one sometimes carved with the Lesbian leaf. Above this is the frieze, sometimes plain and at other times enriched with figure sculpture in low relief. In the Ionian examples there was no frieze, its place being taken by dentils of great size and projection. The cornice consists of bedmould, corona and cymatium; in the Ionian examples the bedmould is of great richness, consisting of a lower moulding of egg-and-dart with bead and reel, a dentil course above, and another egg-and-dart with bead and reel above, sinking into the soffit of the corona, which projects in the Ionian examples more than half a diameter. The corona consists of a plain fascia with moulding and cymatium above, and as the cymatium or gutter is carried through from end to end of the temple it is provided with lions’ heads to throw off the water, and sometimes enriched with the anthemion ornament. In the Attic examples much greater simplicity, ascribed to Dorian influence, is given to the bedmould, in which only the cyma-reversa with the Lesbian leaf carved on it and the bead and reel are retained. The mouldings of the cornice, including the cymatium, are carried up as a pediment, as in the Doric temple, and the roofs are similar. The base and capital of the antae are more elaborate than in those of the Doric order, and are sometimes, both in Ionic and Attic examples, richly carved with the Lesbian leaf and egg-and-dart, in both cases with the bead and reel underneath. The chief variation from the usual entablature is found in that of the caryatide portico of the Erechtheum, where the frieze is omitted, dentils are introduced in the bedmould, paterae are carved on the upper fascia of the architrave, and the covering was a flat marble roof. The caryatide figures, the drapery of which recalls the fluting of the columns, stood on a podium which enriched cornice and base.
The Greek Corinthian Order (fig. 5).—As the entablature of this order was adapted by the Greeks from that of the Ionic order, the capital only need be described, and its evolution from the earliest examples known, that in the temple at Bassae, to the fully developed type in the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens, can be easily traced. It consisted of either a small range of leaves at the bottom, or of a bead-and-reel moulding, a bell decorated in various ways and a moulded abacus, the latter as a rule being concave in plan on each face and generally terminating in an arris or point. In the Bassae capital we find the first example of the spiral tendrils which rise up to and support the abacus with other spirals crossing to the centre and the acanthus leaf and flower. In the more perfected example of the Choragic ​ monument of Lysicrates (fig. 6), there is a lower range of small leaves of some river plant, between which and the tops of the flutes (which here are turned over as leaves) is a sinking which was probably filled with a metal band. From the lower range of leaves spring eight acanthus leaves, bending forward at the top, with small flowers between, representing the heads of nails which in the metal prototype fastened these leaves to the bell; from the caulicolae, on the right and left, spring spiral tendrils rising to the angles under the abacus, and from the same caulicolae double spirals which cross to the centre of the bell, the upper ones carrying the anthemion flower, which rises across the abacus. The abacus in this capital has a deep scotia with fillet, and an echinus above, and is one of the few great examples in which the angles are canted. The architrave, frieze and cornice are adaptations from the Ionic order. The corona has in the place of the cymatium a cresting of antefixae, which is purely decorative, as there are no covering tiles, the roof of the monument being in one block of marble carved with leaves.
| Fig. 5. — Greek Corinthian Order Choragic monu- ment of Lysicrates. | Fig. 6. |
Set back and on the same plane as the architrave and frieze is a second cresting with the Greek wave scroll. There are other types of Greek Corinthian capital, of which the finest example is in the interior of the Tholos at Epidaurus (c. 400 B.C.), with two rows of leaves round the lower part, angle and central spirals, and a flower in the centre of the abacus. Of other examples the capitals of the interior of the temple of Apollo Branchidae in Asia Minor, and of the vestibule at Eleusis, and of the two porches of the temple of the Winds at Athens, are the best known. Except for the pointed ends of the abacus, which are Greek, the capital of the temple of Zeus Olympius might almost be classed among the Roman examples, and it is thought to have been the model copied by the Romans from those which Sulla took to Rome for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
* Fig. 7.
The Roman Doric Order.—The earliest example of this order is probably that of the temple at Cora, about 20 m. from Rome, attributed to Sulla (80 B.C.), in which the leading features of the Greek Doric order are employed, but extremely degraded in style. The temple was raised on a podium with a flight of steps in front; the shaft has 20 flutes and is carried on a small torus base, and the echinus of the capital is very poor. The architrave and triglyph-frieze are cut out of the same stone, the former being much too shallow to allow of its carrying the frieze and cornice. Two other early examples are those employed in the decoration of the arcades of the Tabularium and of the theatre of Marcellus (fig. 7); they are only semi-detached. The Doric order was not a favourite with the Romans, and did not appeal to their tastes for rich decoration; the only other examples known are those at Praeneste, at Albano, and in the thermae of Diocletian. At Albano the echinus of the capital is carved with the egg and anchor, and in the thermae a cyma-recta carved with a leaf ornament takes the place of the echinus. There is no base to any of these examples, the Albano base consisting only of an apophyge and fillet, and only the Diocletian example is fluted.
The Roman Ionic Order.—The complete degradation of the Ionic order is clearly shown in the so-called temple of Fortuna Virilis (ascribed to about 100 B.C.), in the profuse decoration of architrave, frieze and cornice with coarse ornament, and, in the capital, the raising of the echinus to the same level as the top of the second fillet of the volute, so that it is no longer visible under the cushion. The shaft has twenty flutes, the fillet being much wider than in the Greek examples, and the flute is semicircular. Much more refinement is shown in the order as employed on the upper storey of the theatre of Marcellus (fig. 8), where the only part enriched with ornament is in the egg and tongue of the bedmould. In the capital the fillet of the volute runs across above the echinus, and the canalis is stopped at each end over the volute, an original treatment. The most corrupt example of the Roman Ionic capital is that of the temple of Saturn on the Forum Romanum. which fortunately does not seem to have been copied later. The base of all the Roman Ionic columns is that known as the Attic base, viz. a lower and upper torus with scotia and fillets between, always raised on a square plinth.
The Roman Corinthian Order.—The great varieties of design in the Greek Corinthian capital (fig. 9), and the fact that its entablature was copied from Ionic examples, suggests that no definite type sufficient to constitute an order had been evolved by the Greeks; it remained therefore a problem to be worked out by the Romans, who, with the assistance of Greek artists, ​ employed generally by the Romans, not only in Rome but throughout Greece, Asia Minor and Syria, developed an order which, though wanting in the refinement and subtlety found in Greek work, is one of the most monumental kind, and has in its adoption by the Italian revivalists had more influence than any other in the raising of palatial structures. Even in Rome itself the portico of the Pantheon, erected by Agrippa (27 B.C.), and the temple of Castor (rebuilt by Domitian A.D. 86) in the Forum, are remarkable instances of early work, which hold their own with some of the later examples even of Greek art.
| Fig. 8 | Fig. 9.—Roman Corinthian Order; Pantheon. |
The development of the Roman Corinthian order will be best understood by a description in detail similar to that given of the great Doric and Ionic orders. Taking the Pantheon portico as the earlier example, the base consists of an upper and lower torus separated by a double astragal with scotia and fillet above and below, and resting on a square plinth. The shaft, a monolith, is unfluted, tapering upwards, 93/4 diameters in height, with apophyge and fillet at the bottom, and an apophyge, fillet and astragal at the top. The capital consisted of a square abacus with concave sides carried on a circular inverted bell, two rows of acanthus leaves, rising three-fifths of the bell, being carved round it (fig. 10), the stems of the upper range of eight leaves lying in the axis of each face and of the diagonals, and those of the lower range between them; the stems of the caulicolae from which spring the spirals, which rise to support the angles of the abacus, and to the centre of the capital, carrying the central flower, start from between the upper range of leaves. The abacus has concave sides, canted angles. moulded, with a quarter round, fillet and cavetto. The architrave, like that of the Greek Ionic order, has three fasciae, but they are further elaborated by a small cyma-reversa under the upper fascia and a bead under the second fascia. The architrave is crowned with a moulding, consisting of a fillet with cyma-reversa and bead underneath. The frieze is plain, its only decoration being the well-known inscription of Agrippa.
* Fig. 10.—The Roman Corinthian Order; Pantheon.
The bedmould consists of a bead, cyma-reversa and fillet, under a plain dentil course, in which the dentils are not carved; bead-and-reel and egg-and-dart above these carried a plain face on which is found the new feature introduced by the Romans, viz. the modillion. This, though carved out of one solid block with the whole bedmould, suggested an appropriate support to the projecting cornice. The modillion was a bracket, a horizontal version of the ancones which supported the cornice of the Greek doorway cornice, and was here crowned by a small cyma-reversa carved with leaves which profiled round the modillion and along the upper part of the plain face. The cornice is simple, consisting of a corona, fillet and cymatium, the latter omitted across the front of the temple, but carried up over the cornice of the pediment. All the columns are equidistant with an intercolumniation of 21/2 diameters. The order of the interior of the rotunda built by Hadrian (A.D. 121) is similar to that of the portico, the lower moulding of the bedmould and the bead being carved, and the tongue or anchor taking the place of the dart between the eggs.
The order of the temple of Castor (fig. 11) was enriched to a far greater extent, and parts were carved with ornament, which in Greek examples was probably only painted. The base was similar, but the columns (10 diameters high) had twenty-four flutes, with fillets between. The capital was further enriched with foliage, which rising from the caulicolae was carried along the cavetto of the abacus, whose upper moulding was carved with the egg-and-dart. The middle fascia of the architrave was carved with a version of the Greek anthemion, the cyma-reversa under the upper fascia being carved with leaves and bead-and-reel under. The lower moulding of the bedmould was carved with the egg-and-tongue; the dentil course was carved with finely proportioned dentils, the cyma-reversa and mouldings above being similar to those of the Pantheon portico. In the latter, on the soffit of the corona, square panels are sunk with a flower in the centre. In the temple of Castor the panel is square, but there is a border in front and back, which shows that the cornice had a greater projection. The corona was carved with fluting, departing from the simplicity of the Pantheon example, but evidently more to the taste of the Romans, as it is found in many subsequent examples. The intercolumniation is only two and one-third of the diameter. Though not quite equal to Greek foliage, that of the capitals of the temple of Castor is of great beauty, and there is one other feature in the capital ​ which is unique; the spirals of the centre are larger than usual and interlace one another. A variety of the bedmould of the cornice is found in the so-called Temple of the Sun on the Quirinal Hill; although of late date, the entablature has the character of the Renaissance of the Augustan era, so fine and simple are its proportions and details; there are only two fasciae to the architrave, and the upper feature of the bedmould consisted of large projecting blocks with two fascia and an upper egg-and-tongue moulding, lilce the Ionic dentil, these blocks projecting half-way between the fascia of the frieze and the edge of the corona.
Fig. 11.—The Roman Corinthian Order; Temple of Castor.
The Roman Composite Order.—As already noted, the Composite order differs from the Corinthian only in the design of its capital, which is a compound of the foliage of the Corinthian and the volutes of the Ionic capital. Already, in the Ionic capital of the Erechtheum, a further enrichment with the anthemion was provided round the necking; this was copied in the capitals of the interior of Trajan’s basilica; in Asia Minor at Aizani (1st century A.D.) a single row of leaves was employed round the capitals of the pronaos under the volutes of an Ionic capital; the architect of the Arch of Titus (A.D. 81) went one step farther and introduced the double row of leaves; both examples exist in the Arch of Septimus Severus (fig. 12), in the tepidarium of the thermae of Diocletian; and, to judge by the numerous examples still existing in the churches at Rome, it would seem to have been the favourite capital. The Byzantine architects also based most of their capitals on the Roman Composite examples. There are other hybrid Roman capitals, in which figures of a winged Victory, rams’ heads or cornucopia, take the place of the angle spirals of the Corinthian capital.
The Arcade Order.—This, which was defined by Fergusson as the true Roman order, is a compound of two distinct types of construction, the arcuated and the trabeated, the former derived from the Etruscans, the latter from the Greeks. Whilst, however, the arcade was a constructive feature, the employment of the semi- or three-quarter detached column with its entablature complete, as a decorative screen, was a travesty of its original constructive function, without even the excuse of its adding in any way to the solidity of the structure, for the whole screen could be taken off from the Roman theatres and amphitheatres without in any sense interfering with their stability. The employment of the attached column only, as a vertical decorative feature subdividing the arches, might have been admissible, but to add the entablature was a mistake, on account of the intercolumniation, which was far in excess of that employed in any order, so that not only was it necessary to cut the architrave into voussoirs, thus forming a flat arch, but the stones composing it had to be built into the wall to ensure their stability; the entablature thus became an element of weakness instead of strength (fig. 13). The earliest example of the Arcade order is the Tabularium in Rome (80 B.C.) where it was employed to light a vaulted corridor running from one end to the other of the structure and raised some 50 ft. from the ground. The column is semi-detached, 71/2 diameters high with an intercolumniation of nearly 4 diameters, and an entablature with an architrave which is less than half a diameter, quite incapable, therefore, of carrying itself, much less than the rest of the entablature; the impost pier of the arch is half a diameter, and the height of the open arcade a little more than half its width.
Fig. 12. — The Composite Order; Arch of Septimus Severus.
The shaft had twenty-four flutes with arrises, and rested on a square plinth, and in the capital the echinus was only about one-twelfth of the diameter, the shallowest known. The frieze was divided by triglyphs, there being four between those over the axis of each column; the correct number in the Greek Doric order being one. In the theatre of Marcellus there were three triglyphs; the impost pier was 5/8 diameter, thus giving greater solidity to the wall, but resulting in a narrower opening. The Tabularium had originally a second arcade above that now existing, with ​ semi-detached columns of the Ionic order, and these are found in the upper storey of the theatre of Marcellus, the earliest example existing of the superposed orders. A certain proportion exists between the orders employed; thus the upper diameter of the Doric column (which is 71/2 diameters high with a diminution of between one-fifth and one-sixth of the lower diameter) is the same as the lower diameter of the Ionic column, which is 81/2 diameters high and a much slighter diminution.
Fig. 13.—The Arcade Order; Theatre of Marcellus.
In the Colosseum there were three storeys pierced with arcades, with the Corinthian order on the third storey, and a superstructure (added at a later date) without an arcade, and decorated with Corinthian pilasters only. Apparently this scheme of decoration was considered to be the best for the purpose, and with some slight changes was employed for all the amphitheatres throughout the Empire. The intercolumniation, on which the design is made, varies in the examples of later date. With an intercolumniation of 6 diameters, the arcades are wider and a lighter effect is obtained, and this is the proportion in the Colosseum.
The Five Orders: Italian.—The two Italian architects whose text-books with illustrations of the five orders have been accepted generally as the chief authorities on the subject are Vignola
and Palladio, the former in France and the latter in England, the dates of the publication of their works being 1563 and 1570 respectively. In 1759 Sir William Chambers published a treatise on civil architecture, in which he set forth his interpretation of the five orders, and his treatise is still consulted by students. They all of them based their conjectural restorations on the descriptions given by Vitruvius, who, however, avoids using the same term throughout, the words genus, ratio, species, mores being employed, from which it may be concluded that the Greeks themselves had no such term as that which is now defined as “order,” especially as in his book he invariably quotes the Greek name when describing various parts of the temple. In the preface to the fourth book he speaks only of the three orders (genus), so that the Tuscan described in Book IV. chap. vii. would seem to have been an afterthought, and his description of the entablature shows that it was entirely in wood and therefore an incomplete development. The Italian revivalists, however, evolved one of their orders out of it and added a fifth, the Composite, of which there was no example in Rome before A.D. 82. In the description which follows it must be understood that it refers only to the Italian version of what the revivalists considered the Roman orders to consist of, and as a rule Vignola's interpretation will be given, because he seems to have kept closer to Vitruvius's descriptions and to have taken as his models the finest examples then existing in Rome.
The Tuscan Order.—The base consists of a torus moulding, resting on square plinths; the shaft is terminated below by an apophyge and fillet and tapers upwards, the diminution being between one-quarter and one-fifth of the lower diameter, with an apophyge, fillet and astragal at the top, the capital consists of a square abacus with fillet and cavetto, an echinus, fillet and a necking; the whole column being 7 diameters high. The intercolumniation given by Vignola is 21/2 diameters, instead of the 31/2 diameters of Vitruvius’s areostyle. The architrave, frieze and cornice, are simple versions of the Doric, except that there are no triglyphs in the frieze.
The Doric Order.—In his Doric order Vignola has followed the Roman Doric order of the theatre of Marcellus, but he gives it a base consisting of an astragal and torus resting on a square plinth; in his shaft he copies the fluting (24 flutes) with the arris of the columns of the thermae of Diocletian; his capital, except the flowers decorating the necking and his entablature, are entirely taken from the theatre of Marcellus; in a second study he introduces an Attic base, carves the echinus of the capital with the egg-and-tongue, introduces two fasciae in his architrave, and to support the cornice provides shallow plain modillions with guttae on the soffits. In both the examples given the columns taper upwards and are 8 diameters high.
The Ionic Order.—For the Ionic order Vignola discards the temple of Fortuna Virilis, but enriches the order of the theatre of Marcellus, adopting the base of the temple of Castor and the fluted columns of the same; in his frieze he introduces that of the Corinthian temple of Antoninus and Faustina, and in the bedmould and cornice copies that of the thermae of Diocletian. Palladio in his entablature introduces the convex friezes and adopts a single uncarved modillion under the cornice. In both cases the columns are fluted and 9 diameters high.
The Corinthian Order.—In this order Vignola, for his base, returns to the temple of Castor, makes his columns 10 diameters high, copies the capital of the portico of the Pantheon, introduces a rib frieze with winged female figures and a bull about to be sacrificed, and adopts the bedmould of the temple of Castor, reversing the carving of two of the mouldings and the cornice, and omitting the fluting of the corona of that temple. In Palladio's Corinthian order the frieze is too narrow and the bedmould, though copied from the temple of Castor, is of smaller scale.
The Composite Order.—As in the Roman Composite order the only original feature was the capital, there were no new versions to be given of the entablature, but unfortunately they were unable to copy the many examples in Rome. In the three best-known capitals, those of the arches of Titus and Septimus ​Severus and in the thermae of Diocletian, the upper fillet of the volute runs straight across the capital, being partially sunk in the cavetto of the abacus; in the canalis of the volutes of all these examples is a band of foliage which dips down to carry the centre flower, and, on account of its projection, it hides, from those looking only from below, the upper fillet of the volute.
* Tuscan. Doric. Ionic. Corinthian. Composite.
* Fig. 14.—The Italian Orders.
The architects of the Revival, therefore, in their studies of the capital, turned the volutes (which they would seem, like Ruskin, to have thought were horns) down on to the top of the echinus, producing a composition which is not in accordance with ancient examples and shows ignorance of the origin and development of the Ionic volute; unfortunately their interpretations of the Composite capital were followed by Inigo Jones, and are employed even in Regent Street, London, at the present day; there are, however, two or three Renaissance examples in Paris, in which the true Composite capital has been retained.
The Pedestal.—The architects of the Revival would seem to have conceived the idea that no order was complete without a pedestal. The only Roman examples of isolated columns with pedestals known are those of the columns of Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus Pius and others of less importance, but they carried statues only and had no structural functions as supports to an entablature; the pedestals under the columns which decorated the arches of triumph were built into and formed part of the structure of the arch. The columns of the tepidarium of the Roman thermae had pedestals of moderate height (about 3 to 4 ft.) which bore no proportional relation to the diameter of the column. Vignola, however, gave definite proportions for the pedestal, which in the Doric order was to be 2 diameters in height, in the Ionic 21/2 diameters, and in the Corinthian order 3 diameters, the result being that in the front of the church of St John Lateran, where the Corinthian pilasters are of great height, the pedestals are 12 to 13 ft. high. In conjunction with the arcade there was more reason for pedestals to the semi-detached columns on the upper storeys, but none was employed on the ground storey, either in the theatre of Marcellus or in the Colosseum. (R. P. S.)