The Pedestal of the Order. The possible derivation of the pedestal treatment is suggested in Fig. 125, where the Ionic Order of the Theater of Marcellus is drawn out. It is here seen that the pedestal and its cap form a continuous belt course, merely breaking out around the projecting column; but the actual effect in the building is more that of a continuous dado, upon which are set the column shafts. The reason for this is evident, as otherwise the projecting cornice of the lower Order, the Doric, would completely cut off the lower portion of the Ionic column shaft when seen from the ordinary ground level.

As a matter of fact, there is, in Roman usage, no instance of what may strictly speaking be termed a "pedestal" occurring with any Order; and such apparent instances may be traced to one of the two methods already mentioned as used on the Colosseum or on the Temple at Cora. In Syria there are a few examples of pedestals, as at Kanawat, Mousmieh, Palmyra, and the Propylaea at Baalbec; but in the temples, theaters, and amphitheaters of Rome they do not exist, except as parts of an attic or dado required to allow a space for the vaulting of the lower story, as in the Colosseum, or as a buttress used to bound the stepped approach to a temple, as in the Temple at Cora.

There is, moreover, no late and purely Roman form of the Doric Order used in a building where an angle treatment of the entablature has been required. This liberty of Vignola's, as well as the similar one where he has bestowed a pedestal under the Roman column, is not considered to have adequate foundation in true Roman work, although it undoubtedly expresses the general custom or usage during the Renaissance period.

Classic Roman Doric Continued 0800155

Fig. 114.

Vignola's Mutular Roman Doric. The mutular Roman Doric, according to Vignola, is shown in Plate IX, Part I. The entablature, as already stated, is one-quarter of the column height; and the capital-one module in height-occurs directly under the triglyph in the frieze, which is itself a module in breadth. This triglyph is shown more particularly in Fig. 114; and by referring to this illustration, its peculiarities may be more readily comprehended and understood. At the left is shown a view of the end or side of the triglyph; while, beside it, is the elevation of the front, with a section through the channels (canals) on its face. Below is shown a plan looking up at the guttae hanging from it; while at the right is a perspective of the triglyph, which should be self-explanatory. It will be observed that half of the guttae are shown circular in plan; and half, square or rectangular. The circular, conical shape is that more often used; but the square, pyramidal form occurs in many examples. The triglyph in Plate IX, Part I, is considered as always being placed over the columns and on the same axis, although this deduction rests on perhaps insufficient foundation, as we have already seen. Between the triglyphs is allowed one and one-half modules, or, in distance, a space equal to the height of the frieze. This is kept for the metope, which in old examples is always square, or apparently square. These spaces were sometimes ornamented by carvings of different objects, such as heads of animals, trophies of arms, etc.-a custom borrowed from the Greeks, and derived, as we know, from the placing of actual objects in the open space over the lintel beam.

The Roman Doric Order shown in this plate is of very good general proportions, and such as would actually be used on the ground story of a building or in the lower part of a monumental design. The pedestal may be suppressed, as the ancients indeed seldom used it except when they carried the Order on an uninterrupted pedestal-base for the purpose of raising it above a projecting belt course. The shaft of this column is sometimes channeled with twenty channels, separated from each other by a sharp arris after the Greek fashion, and is as often left plain; while it is occasionally channeled as shown on the right side of the column in Plate IX, Part I, which treatment, for work of a distinctly modern character, is perhaps more appropriate. This 2 10 plate also shows the use of the Roman mutule, which is drawn out separately in perspective in Fig. 115. The relations of the mouldings to each other, and the proportions of the smaller parts or members of the design, are fully shown in this plate and in Plate VII, Part I. The latter plate also shows the plan of the column and an elevation of the pedestal, as well as two impost mouldings which are used to receive the arches resting on the piers between the columns, when employed after the Roman fashion shown in Fig. 99.

Classic Roman Doric Continued 0800156

Fig. 115.

Classic Roman Doric Continued 0800157

Fig. 116.

Classic Roman Doric Continued 0800158

Fig. 117.

Classic Roman Doric Continued 0800159

Fig. 118.

It should be noted that throughout this Order the abacus is square in plan, and is ornamented around its upper edge with a cyma reversa and fillet. From the bottom of the abacus, the column and mouldings are round or circular in plan down through the torus of the base. This torus rests upon a plinth square in plan and rectangular in section. The soffit of the cornice, shown to this plate, is drawn out in Fig. 116. In Plate VIII, Part I, is shown another Roman Doric Order, after Palladio, in which there are no mutules in the cornice and the dentils are also omitted. This plate .should be compared with the two preceding plates in order to understand the great possible variation in the mouldings, sections, etc. It should be mentioned that a fault in the Order in Plate IX, Part I, is the slight projection of the triglyph, making necessary so flat a treatment of the half-channel occurring on its two edges that in practice it would be barely perceptible. This triglyph would much better have a section of as much projection as is shown in Fig. 114.

Other Forms of Doric. The Doric Order from the Villa at Albani near Rome, is shown in Fig. 117. It is an interesting but somewhat peculiar instance of the use of the Doric Order, especially in the treatment of the guttae on the mutule soffit, as well as in the triglyph and architrave treatment below. The Roman Order from the Baths of Diocletian at Rome, shown in Fig. 118, is of rather a late date (about A. D. 290), as is further borne out by the character of the mouldings and their over-ornamentation-all quite typical of later Roman architecture.

Neither this example nor the one shown in Fig. 117 is to be advocated for exact reproduction in general work, although both of them contain many valuable suggestions for the treatment of various parts of the Roman Doric Order.

The capital from Pompeii, illustrated in Fig. 110, is an interesting variation on the Greek form, that is typical of much of the early Roman work. The column shafts of this period were all tall and slender in their proportions.