1846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



141 



(low glass, causes a great difficuliy in the arrangement of the (Jreek tem- 

 plar eililiies. That the Romans were aware of this use of glass is evident 

 from the discovery of it at Fon)peii, as noticed in the secoudjseries of Sir 

 William (iell's work, but they appear to have availed themselves of it so 

 Geldoni that for a long time it was thought they were not acquainted with 

 it. The little use made of it by them is to be accounted for, partly from 

 the bad quality of their glass, and partly because their plans of buildings 

 were matured before the inveutioa was known ; and their in-door worship 

 did not require that the light of day should be admitted into their temples. 

 It is (juite idle now to dilate on the disadvantages of introducing windows 

 into (ireek compositions ; the necessity for them is paramount, and all that 

 remains for us to do is to render them as little discordant as we can ; nor 

 are we without Greek and Roman models to guide us, as may be seen in 

 the temple of Erechlheuni, at Athens, and that of the Sybil at Tivoli. In 

 both instances they are of the size and form of ordinary windows, and 

 Bierely ornamented with mouldings. The inside of the jambs of those in 

 tlie Erechtheum are revealed, as if for the insertion of window frames, and 

 tJiey were most probably filled up with thin plates of semi-transparent 

 marble, such as those spoken of by Pliny, and found in the Parthenon by 

 M' heeler. The Chinese sometimes use thin lamina of the mother of pearl 

 oyster-shell, but more generally oiled silk for the same purpose. 



lu the palace of Diocletian we also find the pulvinated frieze which was 

 taken inlo high favour by the Restorers, and not yet entirely laid aside in 

 modern practice, though otherwise left undefended from the condemna- 

 tion it has met with from all authors who have written on the subject : it 

 imiks in ell'ecl as if the frieze had been made of some soft material, and 

 hnd given way under the pressure of the cornice, a semblance of weakness 

 winch may harmonize with the works of the cinque-cento school, but is 

 totally inconsistent with Greek principles of construction ; indeed it is dif- 

 iicult lo conceive on wnat ground it could be recommended, or to guess 

 why, except from carelessness, any architect of ability should disgrace his 

 composition by its introduction, as we see it in the facade of one of the 

 most admired Club-houses in London; but as this edifice, like the Farnese 

 palace, has also a redeeming cornice, may we not be indebted for its win- 

 dow pediments, pulvinated friezes and balustrades to the taste of some 

 n>oderu Sau Gallo ! The pulvinated frieze was thought to be a proper 

 accompaniment to the Roman Ionic capital, and it must be admitted that 

 the capital is quite good enough for such a frieze. 



Many and great as the modifications of the Romans were, they are 

 diargeable with nothing so preposterous as turning the graceful column into 

 a hideous pigmy, for such is the dwarf column or baluster of the Re- 

 storers. Florence, the Athens of Italy, ia said to have been the city of its 

 birth in the first century of the revival ; that it ever could have entered 

 into the head of an architect to invent such a thing, is somewhat difficult lo 

 believe, indeed as much so as to discover the reason of its preservation in 

 modern practice in preference to various other forms of rails and piercings. 

 It may be described as an unhappy little column compressed into deformity 

 by some process analogous to that by which goblii (for which Italy also is 

 celebrated), are made; and it is often introduced into a composition into 

 which columns of due proportion enter, doubtless in perfect consistency 

 with some laws of harmony with which we are unacquainted. 



A striking difference in the practice of the Roman and Greek schools is 

 to be found in the formation of curved mouldings ; those of the former 

 being parts of a circle may be formed with compasses, whilst those of the 

 latter being excentric can only be drawn by the hand, and are in fact the 

 line of beauty of Hogarth, in whose time what are now known as Roman, 

 were supposed on the authority of the Restorers to be Greek mouldings. 

 For a careless architect, and an ignorant employer, the Roman forms may 

 do well enough, but by those who have eyes to see them the Greek will be 

 preferred. 



Both schools (as far as our observations extend) appear to have agreed 

 in all cases on the necessity for a stylobate, although they diH'ered much 

 as to its form ; in that respect modern practice is not similar— for we have 

 seeu many porticoes without any, though none so circumstanced that would 

 not have been improved by the addition. With the Greeks it was formed 

 iQ three receding courses, proportioned to the diameter of the column ; but 

 with their imitators no rule of any kind seems to have existed, except in- 

 deed, that the ancients, when it was formed in receding courses, (bought it 

 necessary that the number of the courses should be odd, in order that the 

 innple might be entered with the right foot in advance. It might appear 

 without due examination, that the triple arrangement of the stjlobale was 

 iq, itself a matter of small importance, but those who have observed the 

 Greek plan particularly, in the Doric order, will not be of this opioion, or 



admit that any other numerical arrangement could produce the same pleas- 

 ing effect. The most searching scrutiny into the practice of the Greeks, 

 not only in this but in every particular relating to the art, must end in con- 

 vincing the mind that they exactly attained the point of beauty. It would 

 appear from all the Greek examples, with the exception of the Choragi<t 

 monument of Lysicrates, that columus when used externally, were intended 

 to have the appearance of affording facility of entrance into the edifice, or 

 to harmonize with those that did ; which intention would be entirely de- 

 feated by a lofty stylobate, and in modern practice it has often too much 

 the appearance of a penurious expedient in giving a small column instead 

 of a large oue, thus showing a starved design. Besides, when column.i 

 are placed so much above the point of sight, as they frequently are, they 

 fail in producing the desired effect. In modern adaptation we see an un- 

 happy expedient, if possible more fatal than that of endeavouring to gain 

 elevation by a lofty stylobate ; we allude to the practice of piling''columns 

 upon columns. It cannot be denied that the entablature ought to be iu 

 proportion to the height of the fafade, and therefore the superior must have 

 iu such cases a greater projection than the inferior ones. How can any 

 harmony, any just proportion, any simplicity be attained in such composi- 

 tions? 



In this adaptation, for which they are not adapted, the columns and their 

 accessories, whether they be of the same order or not, or whatever the 

 scholastic arrangement may be by which their order of succession is regu- 

 lated, are debased, and the expedient reflects no credit on their compilers. 

 The most remarkable instance in this country of the practice is the fa9ade 

 of St. Paul's. Sir C. Wren never saw either a Greek or Roman edifice, 

 yet his first thought (and first thoughts are sometimes best), was to make 

 it with only one range. The practice seems to have arisen with tlie 

 Romans, in the construction of the amphitheatres, for the interior arrange- 

 ment of some of the Greek temples can scarcely be considered as a pre- 

 cedent. 



By far the most important modification which awaited Grecian archi- 

 tecture on its reaching the banks of the Tiber, was the engrailing of iIk; 

 arch. That the Greeks were acquainted with this valuable addition lo tfie 

 science of construction is not certain, for although many persons have in- 

 ferred it, yet none have been able to prove the affirmative. It is certain, 

 however, from the corbelled dome of the treasury or tomb at Mycene, that 

 they were at a very remote period acquainted at least with its form, though 

 not its principle. To the Romans has been given the credit of its iuven- 

 tion, and they may be entitled to it, but not exclusively ; for the discovery 

 of IMr. Hoskins the traveller, in Kihiopia, sets that point at rest. At 

 Meroe, the ancient capital of Ethiopia, he found in the porch or entrance 

 to one of the pjiamidal tombs, which he fairly supposes to be of greater 

 antiquity than any similar structure now existing in Egypt, a regularly 

 constructed circular headed arch, with a key stone, supported by°lateral 

 pressure. This arch consists of alternate courses of four and five stones, 

 and when there are only the smaller number, there is no single keystone! 

 The span of the arch is five feet. At Gebel el Birkel, near the fourth 

 cataract of the Nile, in the interior of another pyramid, he found a pointed 

 arch supported in the same manner, having a joint at the apex, and appa- 

 rently of a later date than the former ; he also found a brick arch forming 

 the tomb of Amuuolph 1st., at Thebes, and this arch was constructed ex- 

 actly like those of the present day, and had a span of eight feet six inches. 

 As this king reigned 1550 years before our era, we can at once fix its dale 

 as nearly bOO years anterior to the building of Rome.' It has been said 

 that probably the bow which the Great Archiiect of the Universe has placed 

 in the Heavens, furnished to the Romans the idea of Ihe arch in construc- 

 tion, if so, they soon attempted to improve on the model, by the introduc- 

 tion of the dropping keystone, which destroys the similitude. Or it may 

 have been that as mathematicians assert, the circle to be the most perfect 

 of all figures, it was desired to refute this and " relieve the eye" from its 

 monotony, by giving a figure wilh a broken outline. 



But, however the Romans may have arrived at the knowledge of the 

 arch, it soon became general, and its introduction was fated lo destroy, for 

 a time, the architecture of Greece, and raise out of its ruins another style 

 to compete with it for a share of the adrairalion of mankind. Long before 

 we find any traces of Ihe Greek orders in Rome, we see the arch in the 

 Cloaca Maxima, which was constructed about the year 519 before our 

 era ; after ihis we have it at Pompeii, and iu the triuniphdl arches and 

 amphitheatres ot the first and tecoiid centuries, when we see a striking and 

 fatal departure from the Grecian rule, as lo the width of the inteicolumnia- 



J, Volfyu!, pagriSMWo"."''" "' ^'"" ^ "" '^'"' ^°^"'^" ""^ Archit«fs Jcur- 



