Parallels of the Antique Architecture with the Moderne FOLLOWInG PRInCIPAl DIxS WHO WAS WRITTEN ON THE FIVE ORDERS. By ERRARD & DE CHAMBRAY. Augmented Feet for all five Orders, following the same Authors, & from the Parallele de Mr. Errard with Mr. Perrault, &c. By Charles Antoine Jombert IN PARIS, RUE DAUPHINE, At L'AUT E U R, Libraire du Roi for Artillery & the Genie, at the Image of Our Lady. MR. DC C. LXVI. With the King's Approval & Privilege. Disclaimer of the Library. The favourable reception given by the Public The first three volumes of my Portable Architectural Library, I was reluctant to give him the fourth, despite the considerable expense I had to make to fulfil the obligations set out in the Prospectus I published a few years ago. In fact, the various additions that I proposed to make to this work to make it more complete forming an increase of more than 24 plates, without counting several speech sheets necessary for their explanation, I would have found myself in the need to increase the price of this volume, if I had not had more at heart the satisfaction of the Public than my own particular interest. One will thus find here all that made one search with such eagerness for the first two editions of this Book, one made in 165o, under the eyes of the Author; & the other in 17o2, after his death, without any change or increase other than that of the ten plates. of ornamentation of the pedestal of the Trajan column. Thus we give in this new edition the speech of M. de Chambray in its entirety, & as he composed it under the title of Parallele des dix principaux Auteurs qui ont Žcrit of the five Orders of Architecture, etc.; there are will also find a continuation of the same. work for the pedestals of the five Orders, following the same Architeetes, with the parallel of the last six Authors for the Tuscan & Composite Orders, which Mr. de Chambray had neglected to give, & which Mr. Errard, his colleague, proposed to add to it in a new edition which did not take place. Finally, to show that it is with justice that I have spoken with praise of M. Errard in different places of this Book, I present here a choice of his compositions on the five Orders of Architecture, put in parallel with the profiles of the famous Perrault for the same Orders, which I announced in the Prospectus, with a precise history of what I was able to collect. [ocr errors] as on that of M. de Chambray, & the other Authors referred to in this book. Les ElŽmens d'Architecture, Peinture & Sculpture, which must form the fifth volume of this Portable Library, will be released next year. The sixth & last volume will then be published under the title of Manuel des Artistes, which will include an abridged Dictionary of the main terms from Archite?ture, Peinture & Sculpture, as well as the arts & crafts that depend on it: but as this last volume, by causing new research, requires a longer & more thorny work than the previous ones, it will only be published some time after the publication of the fifth volume. [ocr errors] [graphic] THIS WORK owes its origin to the thought that came to me to separate into two branches the five Orders of Architecture, & to form a body apart from the three that we received from the Greeks, which are Doric, Ionic, & Corinthian, which can be called with ¤ the flower & perfection of the Orders, since they contain not only all the beautiful, but also all the necessary of Architecture. In fact, there are only three ways of building: the solid, the average, and the delicate, all of which are perfectly expressed in these three Orders, therefore they do not need the other two, (the Tuscan and the Composite) which, being Latin and as foreign to them, embody in some way another species, so that, being mixed, they do not do well together. It is easy to agree with this, if one wants to strip away all prevention, especially if one considers that there is no ancient example of Greek Orders being used among the Latin Orders. It is not my intention to run to novelty, I would like on the contrary to go back, if it were possible, to the source of the Orders, & to draw from them the pure images & ideas of those admirable Masters who invented them, & to learn the use of them in their own way. own [graphic] sterile of themselves, their ideas are so low & disgraced that they produce nothing but masquerades, ugly cartridges, & ridiculous & impertinent grotesque semables, which modern Architecture is all infected with. The others, whom nature has better shared & who have a beautiful imagination, see that the true & essential beauty of Architecture is not simply in each part taken separately, but that it is mainly the result of symmetry, which is the union & the general competition of all ¤ which manages to form as a visible harmony that the eyes, purged & illuminated by the intelligence of art, consider with great pleasure. The evil is that these beautiful geniuses are always in strong number, instead of the vulgar workers swarming all over the place. If the Great Ones wanted to disabuse themselves a pcu of the contempt they have for the arts & for those who apply themselves to them, & consider the necessity they themselves have of it, on all of the one I am going to deal with, there is a great appearance that they are seen to bloom again now, & to be reborn, so to speak, new antiques. The experience is quite fresh, under the reign of Francis I, one of the most illustrious Kings of history, who by an extraordinary love for virtue and great things, populated with the rarest characters of his who raised superb monumens to the glory of this great Monarch. It is, in my opinion, the only remedy to restore all the arts to their first splendour, from which contempt made them decay. The Greeks, who were the inventors, & in whom they were perhaps seen in their perfection, hold them in such high esteem among themselves that the first of their republics practise the profession, but in a way that was not a century old. Their works pay themselves honours, & as they offer the glory & immortality of their name as a reward, they do only great things. What we read of this nation will be hard to believe, unless the faith of their Authors is without reproach, & if it does not remain today ¤ visible marks of what we are told about it. There is nothing recommendable to the world that this divine country has not produced in all excellence: the great Captains, the Philosophers of all sects, the Poets, the Orators, the Geometricians, the Painters, the Sculptors, the Architects, & generally everything that bears the name of virtue has come out of there. Do we want to do well? Let us not leave the path that these great Masters have opened to us, & let us follow in their footsteps, confessing in good faith that the few of these beautiful things that have passed to us, are still for their own good. This is the subject that prompted me to begin this collection with the Greek Orders, which I drew from before examining what the modern Authors write about it. For the best books we have on this subject are the works of those ancient Masters that we still see on their feet today, whose beauty is so true & so universally recognized, that almost two thousand years ago everyone admired it. It is there that one should go to study to accustom the eyes and conform the imagination of young people (1) to the ideas of these excellent spirits who (1) The Academy of Painting maintained in Rome at the expense of the King to perfect the young Artists who won the first prize in [ocr errors] Paris in the Royal Academies of Painting and Architecture, not yet instituted at that time: it was only in 1665. [ocr errors] which crowns this great colossus of a building, the cornice does not resemble the other one below it, and although it is very peculiar, the capitals are nevertheless of the same order, as Scamozzi has very wisely noticed. This must warn us not to believe lightly what the books tell us, when we have the facility of going to the source and clearing up the truth: for often, after having carefully examined the designs of various Masters on the same subject and made an exact calculation of the measures they give, we rarely find them agreeing with each other, although they all assure us that they have carefully observed them. But in order not to hurt anyone, since each one does the best he can, & that we always have an obligation to those who have communicated their studies to us, I do not want to give other examples: it is enough that I have warned you to be careful. Those who will have the curiosity to do this research, which will not be without fruit, will first of all find enough difficulty in the confusion of the different ways of measuring of these Architects, the manuals instead of working on the report of the module columns, which is the natural method & particularly assigned to the proportions of Architecture, have been used with fins, feet, & other general measures, as simple Masons do, which so confuses the imagination is quite difficult to untangle, & which makes you lose a lot of time to finally bring them back to the scale of the module, otherwise all the studies would be useless. This is mainly what I've tried to remedy, by reducing all the purposes of this Book to a common module, which is the half media metre of the column, divided into 3o minutes, in order to get as close to accuracy as possible: which most Architects will not approve of at first, not being accustomed to looking for things so accurately in their work. I want nevertheless, to prevent their censorship, to refer them to the writings of AndrŽ Palladio & Vincent Scamozzi, the two greatest masters we have of the profession, who, in their treatises on the five Orders, taking the whole diameter of the column as the module, gave it 6o minutes, which they still often subdivide into halves, thirds & quarters, as they deem necessary. One will see in this collection that I have reported exactly their plans, one in paragon of the other, by a method so easy that in an instant one can see in what & how much they differ between them: so much so that by means of this comparison each one has the freedom to make a choice at his own ¤ & to follow which one he will want of the Authors that I propose, because they are all generally approved. In order not to make a mistake in this choice & in order not to proceed to it lightly, it is necessary to be well informed of the principles of Architecture, & to have made some study on the antiques, which are the rule of art. It is not that antiques indifferently are good to imitate; on the contrary, there are few good ones, & many mediocre ones: from there came this confused variety of our Authors, who dealing with Orders & their measures, spoke about them very differently. This is why I think it is always more certain to go to the source, & to follow precisely the modenatures & proportions of the ancient buildings which have the consent & universal approval of those in profession, as in Rome, the theatre of Marcellus, the tcmpie de la Rotonda, the three colonncs, on Capitol Hill, & a few other weekly monumens. I will show here the profiles of each of the Ordres, & then those of the modern Architects, so that by confronting them with these beautiful examples which are the originals of art, we can experience them as if they were on the touchstone: what I did with great pleasure while working on this work, & what everyone can now do as well as me, & at a better price, saving all the time I spent opening the way. FOREWORD It is rather difficult to determine precisely what the name of the Order means to Architects, although it is very necessary to hear it clearly. Of all the Moderns who have written of the five Orders, only Scamozzi has thought to give a definition: he says that it is a certain kind of excellence which greatly enhances the good grace & beauty of sacred & secular buildings. But, in my opinion, it would have been better to keep silent about it, as others have done, than to speak of it in such vague terms & with so little solidity. Vitruvius calls it ordinance, & this name is now much in use among Painters: they want to express the elegant composition They say that the prescription is beautiful. However, this is not yet exactly the intention of Architects, & Vitruvius striving to make it so. A [graphic] [graphic] [graphic] [ocr errors] of these words that I do not hear: that is why [ocr errors] l ties, & in the figure of their capitals. They still have some peculiar ornamentation, such as triglyphs in Doric, denticules in Ionic, & modillions in Corinthian; but this is not so great an obligation that the most regular antique ones have often dispensed with it. For ornamentation is only incidental to Orders & can be introduced in various ways, depending on the occasion, mainly in Corinthian, where Architects who have to represent a feminine & virginal beauty, as we can judge from what Vitruvius tells us of Callimachus, must spare nothing that can embellish & perfect a work. The Ancients gave us so many examples of this Order, & they made such an excessive profusion of ornamentation, that one could say that they wanted to exhaust their imagination to fill this masterpiece of Architecture. Nevertheless, the same is not true of the others, where beauty must be more male, above all in the Doric Order, whose solidity is repugnant to delicate ornamentation, so that it succeeds better in the simple regularity of its proportions. Bouquets and garlands do not belong to Hercules, he is more adorned with a very rough club. For there are beauties of several species, & often so dissimilar, that what is suitable for one is contrary to the other. For the Ionic Order, it is in the middle of the two extremes & stands as the balance between Doric solidity & Corinthian kindness. This is why we find it divinely used in ancient buildings, sometimes quite ornate, other times simpler, depending on the # of the Architect, or the quality of the building. Tel The three Orders provide all the necessary information for the [ocr errors] Orders being only the elements of Architecture, , - & the first three we got from the Greeks, ; including all species of builders, it is superfluous to increase their number any further. In order to make the difference between the Orders of Architecture known, it has been judged appropriate to give all five of them on the opposite design. See the first plate. : J UVG EME NT in general of all Authors reported in this collection. In order to bring the reader with some kind of preparation for the particular examination of the following designs, I am going to give him here a general knowledge of the various talents of spirit that I have noticed in each of the masters that we are going to see as paragons of each other. The first of them all, without question, is the famous AndrŽ Palladio (1), to whom we have the obligation of a very beautiful collection of ancient plans & profiles of all kinds of buildings, drawn in an excellent way, & measured with such exact diligence, that there is nothing left to be desired. Besides the fact that he had very advantageous opportunities in Venice & in all the Vicentine country, from where he drew his origin, from the monumens which show that he was not only a sectarian of these great masters of antiquity, but also an emulator & competitor of glory with them. The one who follows him more closely is a Vicentine named Vincent Scamozzi (2), a much greater [ocr errors] The man is a talker, as it appears in his book, but much less of a workman, & less sensitive to the fact of the design. One sees it enough by the profiles which he gave of the five Orders, whose manner holds a pcu of the dry, besides that it is very petty & trite in its ornaments, & of a bad taste: with that aside nevertheless it is the most regular in the proportions & the most worthy to enter in parallel with Palladio. Sebastien Serlio ( 1 ) & Jacques Barro77io, nicknamed de Vignole (2), hold the second class; & even though they both followed opposite paths & very different manners, I do not let them be placed on the same rank, & I am even quite unable to determine which of the two did more service to the public. Except to say that the one has worked for the masters, who need only see the big picture, without having to deal with the details of their proportions: & that the other has only offered to instruct the young men & to give them the rules of art, & good designs. But it would be much more advantageous for all if Serlio's book were drawn like Vignole's, or if Vignole had studied ...research as excellent as Serlio's. [ocr errors] The famous commentator of Vitruvius (1), Daniel Barbaro (2), Patriarch of Aquileia, who can be justly called the Vitruvius of our time, will be here in the midst of all the masters to preside over it, since he is the interpreter & oracle of the Father of Architects: his companion Pierre Cataneo (3) (that I only give him to keep an equal conformity in my designs of the paragon of Modern Authors), will be but a small Cleric following this great Prelate, although he could go along with most of the others. Of the last four, I consider one to be singular: . it is Leon-Baptiste Alberti (4), the oldest of all the moderns, & perhaps the most learned in the art of building, as can be judged by the excellent & rather large volume he has made of it, where he shows in depth all that it is necessary to know for an Architect. But with regard to the profiles of the Orders he has set, I am astonished at his neglect to draw them correctly & with more art, since it was a great help to him to draw them in the right way. We have reported the designs of Leon Baptist Alberti & Joseph Viola, only for the three Greek Orders; Alberti having left no profile of the Tuscan nor of the composite, & Viola having made himself too servile an imitator of Palladio, his master, in those he gave of these two Latin Orders. This is what obliged us, in order to fulfil our project of the parallel of the ten principal Authors who wrote on Architecture, to substitute two other Italian masters, Viola's conremporaries, for them. We will therefore find here in parallel R. Bruti (1), & Jean-Baptiste Montana (2), two modern Authors who have acquired some reputation & whose works are not without merit, as can be judged by the profiles given of these two masters for Tuscan & Composite only, waiting for them to appear in all their brilliance, accompanied by the other modern Architects, both Italian and Francois, in the last volume of l'Architecture Franoise. Of the two that remain, it cannot be said that they are less than all those that preceded them, nor that they are of the same strength as the first; but I estimate that they can compete with three or four of the last ones. They are two masters of our nation, quite renowned by their or [ocr errors] true & by their writings, Philibert de l'Orme (1) & Jean Bullant (2), which I do not intend to place here on the last row as inferior, but alone to separate them from the Italians, who are far more numerous. [ocr errors] [ocr errors] part of the honour & recognition that he has received from are owed for working on this joint work with Mr. de Chambray (1), & to have some with Mr. [ocr errors] continues after the death of his collegue, we give in this new edition one of his profiles for each of the five Orders paralleled with those of the illustrious Perrault (1), who acquired [ocr errors] an immortal name by its colonnade of the louvre & by its other works. The latter Author follows a general method which is very easy, by constantly giving the same height to all his entablatures in the five Orders, which is always four of our modules. With regard to the column, he lies forty minutes for each Order: & as he gives fourteen twenty-minute modules to the Tuscan column, including the base & capital, Doric will have sixteen modules; the Ionic column, seventeen ten-minute modules; Corinthian, eighteen twenty-minute modules; & Composite, twenty modules. The pedestals also go in crescents, but only for twenty minutes. The Tuscan pedestal has four height modules: Doric, four twenty-minute modules: Ionic, five ten-minute modules: Corinthian, six modules: & Composite, six twenty-minute modules. All its other subdivisions are in geometric rigour & in very exact ratios to each other, & all its profiles are of a regularity & precision worthy of the highest praise. Parallels of the Antique Architecture and the Moderne Part One Of the three Greek Orders Of the Doric order It is not a small recommendation for the Doric Order, to show that it was the first regular idea of Architecture, & that as the eldest son of this Queen of Arts, he also had the honour of being the first employee to build temples & palaces. The antiquity of his origin, according to all who have written about him, is almost immemorial. Nevertheless Vitruvius restricted it with enough appearance to a Prince of Achaia named Dorus, who being sovereign of the Peloponnese, had a superb temple built in the famous city of Argos to the Goddess Juno, which was the first model of this Order, in imitation of which the neighbouring peoples erected several others: among which the most famous was the one that the inhabitants of the city Olympia dedicated to Jupiter, whom they called Olympian. The Isle of Delos also raised a very famous one to the God Apollo, in memory of what he was born there, of which we can still see some remains today. It was in that God Apollo that the first triglyphs were put in the form we see them now, representing the figure of an ancient lyre, of which that God was the inventor. In Elide, a town in the same region, there were several memorable factories, all of this Order, the main ones being a great peristyle serving as a public square, with a triple row of porticoes with columns around it; & three magnificent temples, according to the report of Pausanias, one to the Goddess Juno, all surrounded by [graphic] the other to the mother of the ¤ , Dyndima; & the third to Minerva, which they called by the name of their town. The latter was undoubtedly an admirable masterpiece, since it was built by that illustrious Scopas, a competitor of Praxitele, in the structure of the marvellous mausoleum that Queen Artemisia erected in memory of her husband. Vitruvius reports others in his preface to the seventh book, among which he notes that of Ceres & Proserpine, ¤ city of Eleusia, as a monument of prodigious grandeur. But it would be useless to make here a longer search for these buildings, since those who have visited have not noticed anything particular about their form, which can be used for imitation. They also teach us the names of several great Architects of those temples, who wrote the rules of their art, among whom a man named Silenus wrote about the Doric proportion, & a certain Theodorus described a temple of the same Order, built to the Goddess Juno by the inhabitants of the isle of Samos, with several others mentioned in the same article. [ocr errors] [ocr errors] are two drawbacks of great importance. Finally, when all the fruit of my work in this collection of authors, will only benefit the students of Architecture to have adjusted them together in this way, I think they could make do with it. But back to the Doric Order, & consider C11. roughly its shape, its properties & its difference from the others, before going into the detail of its proportions: because general rules must precede particular ones. Having thus laid down as a foundation that this Order represents solidity, which is its specific and principal quality, it should only be used in large buildings and buildings of this nature, such as at the gates of citadels and cities, outside temples, public squares and other similar places, where the delicacy of ornamentation is useless and unsuitable: so much so that the heroic and gigantic manner of this Order is wonderfully effective there, and shows a certain male and naive beauty which is properly what is called the great manner. I will notice on this occasion something, in my opinion, rather curious, concerning the principle of the difference of manners, which makes that in such a quantity of surface, one seems great and magnificent, and the other appears small and petty: the reason for this is very beautiful and is not common. In order to introduce into Architecture the grandeur of which we speak, it is necessary that the division of the principal members of the Orders should have few parts, and that they should all be large and of great relief, so that the eye does not see anything small, and the imagination is greatly affected. In a cornice, for example, if the softness of the coronation, the drip, the modillions or the denticules come to make a beautiful watch with large projections, and if one does not notice this ordinary confusion of small cellars, quarter-rounds, astragals, and I do not know what other intermingled particles, which have no good effect in large works, and which take up space unnecessarily at the expense of the principal members, it is very certain that the manner in which they are divided will appear proud and large: on the contrary, clle dcvicndra small & chetive ar the quantity of these ornamental menus that share of the sight in so many rays & so hurried that everything seems confused to him. For even though it was first judged that the multiplicity of the parts must have contributed in quel something to the appearance of greatness, nevertheless 11 cn happens quite differently, as we will see by examining it with examples & in the designs of the masters that I have collected here, where we will know at the same time & the quality of their genius & the variety of their judgments. Indeed some consider rich & delicate what others call small & confused: & what seems to us in a great way, those find it gross & heavy: which could be true if one exceeds the terms of the proportion, & if one leaned too much towards one or the other of the extremes. But this, by the way, & let's come back to our general rules. The columns of the Doric Order are remarkable among the others in that in the most beautiful works of antiquity in which they have been used, they are seen without a base, as in the theatre of Marcellus in Rome, in the theatre of Vicenza, and in a very magnificent triumphal arch in Verona. Vitruvius, having treated the Order more exactly than any other, does not speak of its basis, although he has described at length the measures of the Ionic, & the Attic for the Corinthian, not even forgetting that of the Tuscan. Nevertheless, there is not a modern architect who does not find this to be a fault, & who did not want to accommodate one to his fashion. For me, I will be very scrupulous in condemning these old masters who did everything with such circumspection: it is much better to try to discover their intention, which will undoubtedly have been very judicious, so as not to add anything inappropriate to this Order, which is contrary to its principles. Let us therefore take the thing from its origin, & consider to what effect the bases at the foot of the columns were accommodated & what they represent, in order to infer therefrom whether they are suitable for these as for the others. Vitruvius (Liv. IV. chap. 1.), beginning to speak of it only on the occasion of the Ionic column, which he says was composed on the model of a feminine beauty, matching all the parts, such as the volutes of the capital to the shape of the hairstyles & the braids of women's hair, the stem of the column to their allegorical waist, the flutes to the folds of their dresses, & the base to their shoes. In the same place he compares our Doric column to a strong man, such as a Hercules, who has never been represented with nothing but bare feet: tcllemcnt that we can well judge by this that the bases are not suitable for the Doric Order either. But the use which has been introduced licentiously against so many examples as we have in ancient times, has so much warned the imagination, by I do not know what false ap arence of beauty, let him now prevail on reason. Nevertheless, the purged eyes, being warned of this abuse, are disconcerted by it; & as the probable is false when examined, so the appearances of the beautiful, against reason, become extravagant at last. This observation being based on the great examples that [ocr errors] underneath the triglyphs, which seem somehow to be attached to them & to be one and the same thing, because you never see one without the other. The whole body of the architrave must appear strong and solid. For this purpose I would only like it to be full on one side, lest by dividing it in two it would not show itself any more ¤ according to the principle we have just established on the diversity of manners. Nevertheless, this is of little consequence here, provided that one does not pass to three sides, as in the case of other Orders, in which case the fault lies in the fact that one does not pass to three sides, as in the case of the other Orders, in which case the fault lies in the fact that one does not pass to three sides. will be notable. This is basically a draft of the Doric Order, on which one can conveniently look up all the details of its particular members with their measurements, which will always be found by this means in the regular terms of its scope. I am going to touch only some of the main ones, in order to open the way, making the rest visible again in the designs, where everything is so clear & so precise, that having a be conceived that the module I use for everything is the half diameter of the column, divided in 3o minutes, & that I also always start to measure the projections of each profile from the central line of the column, to have the same time with the modenature of the members, the position & the right alignment of the column, all the rest afterwards can make no difficulty at all. Because we will see first of all that 3o minutes making the half diametre, 6o minutes must make the whole diametre: 45 make the three quarters: 4o, two thirds: 2o, one third: 15, one quarter, & so on. What I am pointing out expressly, in order to show that I have also reduced all the measures of my [ocr errors] of diameter, thirds, quarters, or other similar proportions, so as not to embarrass the profiles of so much writing, apart from the fact that they are not precise enough, & that it would still often have been necessary to add minutes, & say a module & 3 minutes; two thirds of a module & 4 minutes; a quarter of a module & one minute; a quarter of a module & one minute; a half a module & 2 minutes, & a number of other similar fractions, which would have given unnecessary trouble & brought confusion. Having said that, let's come to the application & let's go over our Doric Order in detail. But lest the variety which is to be found in the designs of the modern Authors which I have collected here, should prevent us from being able to stop in any way determined, I want to follow only the ancient example taken from the theatre of sMarcellus, as the most regular of all, of the universal consent of the ccux of the profession, & so conforming to what Vitruvius writes of the general proportions of this Order, that some are persuaded that it is the only one which can be used as a model for the Order. since he was the architect of this great work. I [ocr errors] denticules which are notched in the cornice, because Vitruvius (Liv. # chap. 2. ), forbids them to the Doric Order, as being naturally affected to the Ionic; but this question has nothing to do with our present discourse. I therefore find that the stem alone of the column is seven times its diameter, which makes the foot of the division of the half-moon into thirty minutes (for in any cct work I always take the half-moon from the column for the Orders module), which makes, I say, the column a half diameter, 42o minutes, equivalent to 14 modules : the height of the cha [ocr errors] piteau is 3o minutes, which makes one module: the architrave has the same module or 3o minutes: the frieze with its listeau (it is this flowerbed that separates it from the cornice), has a module & a half, worth 45 minutes: the cornice has a module & a quarter, which makes 37 minutes & a half. So much so that all these modules being put together & the quantity of their minutes being reduced to a total sumc, the height of the whole Order amounts to 18 modules & three quarters, which amount to 562 minutes & a half: & the entablature, which consists of the architrave, the frieze & the cornice, having to have the quarter of the column, which is its regular proportion, contains precisely 1 12 minutes & a half, which amount to three modules & three quarters. I repeat exl to add that, although all examples of this Order, which are found in both the ancient and the modern, do not always have their entablature in the same terms as the modules of this one, nevertheless they can be regular in the general proportion, provided that the entablature has a quarter of the column, which is not limited to 14 modules, or even 15, sometimes up to 16, & even more, depending on the occasion. So much so that a column of 16 modules will have its entablature higher than one of 14; but all the difference from one entablature to the other must necessarily be in the cornice, because the frieze and the architrave have their determined and precise measurements; the first has one and a half modules, and the second has one module, without regard to the different heights of the columns. But the cornice must make up for this who whips them to make the quarter. of the column, it is obvious that its particular proportion will depend on that of the column, & that the cornice of one profile cannot be used for another, what ue of the same Order, if the height of the columns is not equal in one & in the other. This must be carefully noted, so that by this observation we may arrive at a good & judicious examination of all the profiles that the moderns have given us of this Order, & know which ones are worth following. For the general proportion being defective, it is useless to look for it in detail or in parts, since it is necessarily relative & that one cannot exist without the other. But in order to make this discussion easy for the reader, who perhaps, for lack of practice, may find it embarrassing, I will give him here a very short method, by means of which he will be able to do it in an instant & without confusion. It is necessary to take the height of the entablature of the design nyone examines, & multiplies it by the proportion that it must have with its column, having regard to the Order that it represents. If it is, for example, a quarter, as in this Doric, this entablature must be multiplied by four: if it is a fifth, as we shall see later in some Corinthian examples, it must be multiplied by five, & so on and so forth. For the total of this multiplication must give us just the height of the column, & in the examples where this rule will not be followed, it is certain that the profile is not regular. [ocr errors] Doric profile from Marcellus' theatre in Rome. Plate 2. I am surprised that of all our modern Architects, most of whom have seen & spoken of this example as the most excellent model of the Doric Order that we have from antiquity, none of them, however, have followed or perhaps even noticed in the original the right compartment for the members of the capital, nor the height of the frieze, which I find here considerably smaller than that which they give to their designs: although some of them (particularly Vignole) have proposed the same profile as a rule of the Order, but so altered in all its members that there is not a single whole one left. It is easy to see this when they are conferred together: for all the designs in this collection are adjusted to the same scale. With regard to the capital, they all affect, without exception, to divide it into three parts, as requested by Vitruvius (Liv. IV. chap. 3. ), to give one to the gorgerin, or necklace; the other to the quarter round with its rings, & the last to the tailloir: but they had to consider that the text of this Author is often quite suspicious, mainly when it is not in conformity with the practice of the old masters his contemporaries: moreover it is not yet right revale absolumcnt on examples such as this one, which is without reproach. It would have been more reasonable that those who give it as a model would have at least had the discretion not to change anything & to leave it in its original proportion. As for the others who have formed designs to their fancy, one cannot have them to have Another profile taken from some fragments of Diocletian's baths in Rome. Plate 3. [ochre errors] Elevation-perspective of another very old profile & in a great way, which can be seen in Albania, near Rome. Plate 4. - [ocr errors] is the regular proportion of the Doric entablature to the height of its column. I have not set the profile of the capital for lack of space, & also because it is very little different from the ordinary by its mouldings, & all similar in proporf1OI]. What is most noteworthy & admired in this composition is the richness & the extraordinary shape of the modillions which, resting plumb on the triglyphs & serving them as a kind of capital, produce a marvellous effect, which is further ¤ enhanced by the rosons of the sophite of the crown, which, having an astonishing projection, makes the whole Order appear : & this is properly what is called the great way. Palladio & Scamozzi, on the Doric Order. Pl. 5. Let us now move on to the ocular demonstration of the judgment I made in my foreword on our modern Architects, whose designs I will examine in the paragon of our three ancient profiles, so that, according to the more or less conformity they will have to these original models, we may come to judge their merit, to know the esteem we should hold for them. It is by this consideration that I have drawn as outstanding the other masters Palladio & Scamozzi, who, having proposed to imitate ancient architecture, by the study of these admirable monumens that still remain from ancient Rome, have followed a much nobler way & more elegant tions than those of the Vitruvian school. This first profile of Palladio has a great relation to our second ancient example taken from the baths of Diocletian: for to the ¤ of the denticules, which he may have rightly cut, all the rest of the entablature is more or less similar. He still had the discretion, being perhaps obliged to follow the common error, which gives a basis to the column of this Order here, as well as to the others, to warn beforehand by an example that the ancients put it into practice in this way. He gives only fifteen modules to the column, without a base; & with the base he makes it sixteen, & sometimes even goes as high as seventeen, adding again that if it has a pedestal, it should be given seventeen & a third. All other measurements are so clearly marked on the profile that they need no explanation. [ocr errors] Serlio & Vignole, on the Doric Order. Plate 6. These two masters have a great obligation to their translators who produced them in the mountains, especially to our workers Francis who hold them in very high esteem. For though they are indeed worthy of it, nevertheless, being compared to the two preceding ones, they are not in their lustre & even follow them from quite a distance. The reader will be able to make the discernment by comparing them with the antique originals that I have put in their heads, like the lantern and compass of true Architecture. However, in this examination it would not be fair to hold Serlio's rigour as high as that of his companion, because having offered to follow Vitruvius, who is a famous author and very venerable to Architects, he has done so praiseworthy: instead of Vignole, who had taken a different path, more noble to the truth, the same one I am holding here, he did not know how to go there without going astray. The Doric profile that he gives us is taken from the first Order of the Theatre of Marcellus, the most worthy example of this species which is found in Roman antiquity, ¤ I chose in the same way to be the first model of this collection: with this difference, however, I have observed precisely all the measures & the sacomes of the original, which in this Author are well altered, especially at the cornice & the capital. The confrontation of the two designs will enlighten the reader more in a moment on this subject than I could do. by a full-page speech. Serlio Serlio only here gives fourteen modules to his column, including the base & the capital, & the height of the entablature is three modules & a little over two thirds: so that it exceeds considerably & against its ordinary beyond the quarter of the column, which is the highest proportion that the ancients practiced. This great excess leads me to believe that Vitruvius' text, on which he has settled, may well be corrupted here, or that when talking about the column, he will have heard only fust, without the capital. For then by adding one more module (which is precisely the height of the capital) the whole column will be fifteen modules, & by this means I entablature a proportion conforming to the antique. Vignole makes his column of sixteen modules, & the entablature of four, which is exactly a quarter of the column, in which it is very regular. As for the base, which the Moderns have introduced into this Order, I have already said above my feeling about it. [graphic] Daniel Barbaro & Pierre Catanco, on the Order - Doric. Plate 7: Charles Errard & Claude Perrault, on the Order Doric. Board 1o. We publish here for the first time two modern Authors, of great reputation, put in parallel one beside the other, so that each one can compare them more easily & judge the merit of ¤ profiles. By considering these two designs, one sees in general that Errard, in imitation of Scamozzi, has a little too much multiplied his mouldings, & has spread the ornamentation with kind of profusion, what we will have even more occasion to notice in his pedestals. Perrault, on the contrary, a skilful imitator of Antiquity & Palladio, has always looked for the so-called "grande manire", leaving in his profiles large parts, & composing them with only a few limbs whose proportions are reflected, so that the smaller parts have an exact relationship with the larger ones: in a word, he has taken a happy medium between the ancient & modern examples, to regulate his general measures & establish his subdivisions. Our two masters Francis imitated the Attic base, which Palladio, Scamozzi, Serlio, Barbaro, & the other sectarians of Vitruvius gave to this Order, although it seems more suitable for the Ionic than for this one: Errard has added an astragal above the upper torus, which has a bad effect, One recognizes in the capital of Errard, the same ornaments carved in the ove, that Scamozzi put in his, according to the Doric of Albanus; & in that of Perrault, the three fillets or reglets of the capital of Palladio, according to the Doric of the theatre of Marcellus, from which this capital is taken. Errard, always abundant in mouldings, puts two faces to his architrave, separated by a net, in imitation of the Doric of the baths ¤ Diocletian, & of that of Albane: Perrault, larger & simpler, composes it only on one face, as in the theatre of Marcellus. Errard's entablature has some relation with that of the same theatre, with the difference that its cornice is a third higher in modulus; that he has rightly removed the denticules which are suitable only for the Ionic Order; that he has enriched the ove, substituted for the [ocr errors] [graphic] A very ancient burial place that can be seen in the surroundings of Terracine, next to the large path leading towards Of the ionic order Serlio only here gives fourteen modules to his column, including the base & the capital, & the height of the entablature is three modules & a little over two thirds: so that it exceeds considerably & against its ordinary beyond the quarter of the column, which is the highest proportion that the ancients practiced. This great excess leads me to believe that Vitruvius' text, on which he has settled, may well be corrupted here, or that when talking about the column, he will have heard only fust, without the capital. For then by adding one more module (which is precisely the height of the capital) the whole column will be fifteen modules, & by this means I entablature a proportion conforming to the antique. Vignole makes his column of sixteen modules, & the entablature of four, which is exactly a quarter of the column, in which it is very regular. As for the base, which the Moderns have introduced into this Order, I have already said above my feeling about it. [graphic] Daniel Barbaro & Pierre Catanco, on the Order - Doric. Plate 7: Following the opinion of the three times great antique dealer, Painter & Architect Pyrro Ligorio, of whom I have spoken above, & from whom I have borrowed this profile, I can well propose him as one of the most regular examples of the Ionic Order that has remained of Ancient Architecture. Add to this the fact that Palladio the rap orte in his Book of Orders, where he is the only one of this Order that he has inserted in the whole collection of his studies. So much so that these two great masters support the choice & judgement I have made of it, there is no doubt that it is a masterpiece of high perfection. I will therefore give a general description of it, roughly deducing the main members and their proportions, without stopping at the detail of the measurements of each part, the opposite design being able to make up for it. The whole Order, from the ground floor to the cornice, has 1 1 diameters of the column, which makes 22 modules. The column, with base & capital, has 18 modules. The entablature, i.e. the architrave, frieze & cornice, has 4 modules minus 4 minutes, which are by no means considerable out of the total. This height, making two ninths of the column, produces a proportional average G IntrG that of the Doric Order described above, whose entablature is a quarter, & the height of the Corinthian, which we shall see below, to which the Moderns usually give a fifth of the column. The scroll of the capital is oval & produces a very good effect. Nevertheless none of our Modern Architects have imitated it: but the reason for this is, in my opinion, that it is difficult to get around gracefully & that they are accustomed to do everything by ruler & compass, which here are almost useless. Another Ionic profile from Marcellus' theatre in Rome. Plate 16. Someone might believe that I should establish my Ionic Order on this example, since it is like the brother Gemini of the first Doric by whom I began this collection of Architecture, having drawn them both from the same building, which is Marcellus' theatre. In fact, this was also my first design, but the second thoughts being usually the most judicious, I have since considered that the grandeur of the entablature, together with its extraordinary ¤, had a particular effect of the discretion of the Architect, who wanted to place this Order in a very large building, & moreover in a very high place, where the sight could enjoy only with difficulty the ornaments of which one is accustomed to enrich it, it only cuts attention to repair by the rules of what the eye should find to be reproachable in the grace of the general proportions, by the distance of ¤ So that we can say of this profile that it makes excellently well in work, as it is placed in the original; but that it does not succeed in the same way in another work mediocre, & especially in a single Order, if it were not of colossal grandeur: which is still neither proper nor natural to his species, which is feminine. I will nevertheless deduce the proportions, as I have done those of others. The total height of the Order is twenty-two two-thirds modules. The column, with its base & capital, has only eighteen, still enough for a total height of twenty-two two-thirds. [ocr errors] just: so that the entablature being of four modules & two thirds, it is of an extraordinary size, in that it exceeds a quarter of the column, which is the greatest proportion that can be given, even to Doric. The projection or projection of the cornice is also in some way disproportionate; but the architect was judicious, having regard to the whole mass of the building, and to the height of the position of this Second Order. For the same reason he has given very little reduction to the column from above. The scrolls of the capital are oval, as in the preceding Order: this particular type of scroll was very much practised by the Ancients; but the method of getting around them with the compass is very difficult, & has not yet been demonstrated, - [ocr errors] [graphic] Elevation-perspective of a profile from Diocletian's Baths in Rome. Plate 17. I was happy to give an elevation-perspective of this profil, in order to bring some variety to my designs, & also because it is an advantageous means of giving the idea of an Order & its esfet being implemented, in favour of those who do not have much practice in the profession. It was at the Baths of Diocletian, at the corner of a return of wall: what I have known by a design which is very old & of good hand, where the measures, as much of the plan as of the profile, are marked exactly until the least parts. I have reduced & accommodated them to the division of my ordinary module, as seen on the profile below the perspective entablature. The height of the entire Order, from the base of the column to the top of the cornice, is 1o diameters & a quarter, which, according to our way of measuring, makes 2o modules & a half. Dividing this dimension between the column & the entablature, it takes 17, & the remaining three & a half modules make the height of the entablature. Now, although there is a considerable difference in height from our first Ionic example to this one, nevertheless it consists more in the total quantity of the Order, rather than in the proportion of their parts. Indeed I find here that the entablature, compared to its column, has the same relation of the two ninths, that is to say that the height of the column being divided into nine parts, the entablature contains two: which is a symmetry particularly assigned to this Order, as I have noted above.... The volutes of the capital are circumvented with the compass in the manner I will describe below, in a particular discourse that will make the conclusion of this Order. [ocr errors] Palladio & Scamozzi, on the pedestal of the Order , - Ionique. Plate 28. Two different designs of the Ionic pedestal, according to Palladio, are given here, so that each may choose the one which seems most suitable for the type of building in question. Moreover, all the profiles shown on this plate, although of different proportions, can be used in different situations: one must take into account the quality of the building and the distance or height from which the Order is to be seen. The Ancient Lcs did not so much study the proper proportion to the footpieces for each Order as they did these two parts, and this is what has prevented us from proposing any examples from their works. Serlio & Vignole, on the pedestal of the Ionic Order - Same plate. [ocr errors] [ocr errors] The ancient Architects usually give the base of their pedestals the same protrusion as the cymaise of the cornice, however none of our Authors followed this method, some even, such as Scamozzi & Vignole, did the opposite. In order to reconcile one & the other, it is better to give an equal projection to one & the other. It will be noticed that Viola's profile is copied line for line from the first design we gave by Palladio in the previous plank adjoining the border, which is the weakest and most embarrassed one. small parts. Jean Bullant & Philibert de l'Orme, on the piedesal of the Ionic Order. Same board. [ocr errors] It is not clear who actually built this monument, nor what use it could serve: some believe it was a temple built by the Emperor Aurelian, & dedicated to the sun: some others believe it was a palace. The vulgar . holds by tradition that Nero had it raised to see Rome burn: which is unlikely, such a great work can only be done with a lot of time. In any case, it is certain that it was the most magnificent & the greatest Corinthian Order that we saw in Rome, as we will know by the design that I will give after the profile of the portico of the Rotunda, which is the model which I set the proportions of the Corinthian modenatures. [ocr errors] [graphic] Corinthian profile from the portico of the Rotunda in Rome. Full height of the Order, from the base to the top of the portico. that at the cornice, is 23 modules & two thirds, of which the column with its base & capital contains 19, & the entablature which consists of architrave, frieze & cornice, 4 modules & two thirds, so that this entablature has a quarter of its column. It seems that it would be quite reasonable to follow the feeling of some Authors who give it only a fifth: nevertheless one finds that the most famous Antiquities, such as this one, our frontispiece by Nero, & the three columns of Campo vaccino, in Rome, which pass to the judgment of the Architects for the most beautiful remainder of antiquity, have the entablature of a whole quarter. ¤ why I think it safer to stand within the bounds of our example of the Rotunda, lest, in thinking of making this Order more cheerful, it should no longer become petty. Here is composition in general & the measures of the principal members, whose module is always the half-diameter of the column, divided into 3o It l11lUltCS, The whole Order is 23 modules & two thirds, which are | 71o minutesThe base has precisely one module 3o The column stem has 15 modules & two thirds, minus two minutes, 468 The capital has two modules & one third ¤, 7o The entablature, i.e. the architrave, frieze & cornice, has 4 modules 2 thirds, & two minutes more, 142 As for the detail menu of each part, it would be too long & superfluous to specify it here, the design will show it more intelligibly. I have taught above (p. 24) how to do the calculation of a College examine the proportion that the entablature must have with its column, & to see if it is regular. It will not be an erroneous tems for the reader to prove this on each profile; but I warn him beforehand that there are three different kinds of proportions, all beautiful & which may suit this Corinthian Order: namely the quarter, as in this profile & the following ones: the two ninths, which are a proportional average between the fourth & fifth, as in the third profile from the Duocletian Baths: & the fifth, as in the profiles of Palladio & Scamozzi, which is more rarely found in the Ancients.