This section is from the book "Cyclopedia Of Architecture, Carpentry, And Building", by James C. et al. Also available from Amazon: Cyclopedia Of Architecture, Carpentry And Building.
It seems, therefore, that in Roman buildings the earlier usage followed very closely the Greek models in the position of the triglyph, and in the sections of the mouldings themselves; but the real Roman Doric Order is that shown in their later work. By the time of the building of the Theater of Marcellus (B. C. 33-13), the Order had taken on a distinctly Roman character, both in the treatment of the mouldings and in its general proportions. By referring to Fig. 110, it will be seen how different the employment of this Order was from the Greek Doric. The use of the dentil and treatment of the soffit are quite distinctive, and even when the Greek form of mutule is used, it is with essential differences of detail. This example is generally shown without a base to the column; in later Roman usage, however, it is quite safe to include a simple base as an essential part of the Doric Order. This may have been due to the influence of the Etruscans, who usually employed a simple base on their crude columns. In Fig. 111 are shown four examples of Roman Doric bases. Two of these (B and D) are from Vignola, one (C) from Palladio, and one (A) from an old example at Albani near Rome. The base at Cora, Fig. 107, very closely resembles that shown at B in this figure, with the small half-round below the fillet omitted. This base (B) is that used by Vignola in his denticular Order, while he assigns the section at D to the mutular form.
Use of Column in Connection with Arcade-The Tabularium. The Tabularium at Rome, built by Catullus in 78 B. C, carries the earliest known use of the Doric column employed to separate the arches of an arcade, after the manner shown in Fig. 99. This structure was built against the Capitoline Hill, and presented a face of immense wall, carrying, thirty-six feet above the ground, a series of arches facing toward the Forum and supported on piers.
The next examples, in chronological sequence, are those in the Theater of Marcellus, 23 B. C. (Fig. 113), and in the Colosseum, 72 A. D. (Fig. 112). In both these cases, the columns are engaged and set upon a continuous course or footing, which may be considered as suggesting the individual column pedestal shown by Vignola. The mouldings of the Theater of Mar-cellus and the Tabularium are suggestively Greek in character, while in the Colosseum the moulding sections are almost thoroughly Roman in outline and the Orders are all of a more ordinary type. All three of these buildings are in Rome, and the two last are also the two best known examples of the use of the Roman Doric Order.
Fig. 112. Exterior of Colosseum.
Interior of Colosseum, Rome.
THEATREOF MARCELLVS Fig. 113.
The Colosseum. The Colosseum is undoubtedly the best known amphitheater, and, while commenced in 72 A. D. by Vespasian, was continued by Titus, and finally inaugurated by Domi-tian in 82 A. D. At this time the three lower stories only were completed. These stories are each decorated on the face by an attached Order, the lowest being Tuscan (there are no triglyphs in the frieze), with mouldings following more the Etruscan than the Greek section. The second story is decorated with an Ionic Order, and the third with a Corinthian, set on a dado breaking out to form a sort of pedestal underneath each column shaft. The entablatures are all carried around the building without any break. The top story, above the arcades, was not added until the early part of the third century A.D.
Detail of Theater of Marcellus, Rome.
Showing Roman use of Ionic Order over Doric; also characteristic "engaged" columns and arcade treatment.-Restored by Ch. Girault and E. Poullu.
Theater of Marcellus. In Fig. 113 is drawn out the Roman Doric Order from the Theater of Marcellus. This shaft is shown rising directly from a series of steps. Later discoveries seem to indicate that this shaft had a very simple base treatment. Fig. 110 is a perspective of a supposititious corner angle showing the use of a Roman Order, with details taken from the Theater of Marcellus. This example of a Doric Order-with the cornice falsely shown as though broken around an outer angle or corner of the building-is not typical, in that it omits entirely the mutule in the cornice. The mu-tule is as important a part of the general use of the Roman Doric Order as it was of the Greek, save that in the later Roman usage the mutule was never spaced over the metope, but the soffit of the cornice from mutule to mutule was filled by means of a decorated panel. This particular cornice carries a row of dentils in place of the mutules, while a panel in the soffit occurring over the triglyph is filled with dependent guttae; and the Order shown here and in Plate VII, accompanying Part I, may be more appropriately termed Denticular Doric, an invention of the Romans. As a matter of fact, however, we have no authentic Roman example in which this corner treatment has been actually employed. Vignola, in placing his triglyph and metope over the center of the column and leaving the corner angle plain, as is shown in this perspective sketch, seems to have taken it for granted that the Romans, in case they employed the Order in this way, would so have treated the external angle of the frieze. But in the best late Roman instance of the use of this Order, the Theater of Marcellus-and that, too, the instance on which Vignola is supposed to have founded his version of the Order-there is no such corner angle treatment, the building itself being circular or elliptical in plan, and therefore requiring no angle treatment whatsoever.