More remarkable than these monuments at Castel d’Asso are the rock-cut façades of Norchia, to the west of Viterbo, upon which are imitated the fronts of temples. The four columns or pilasters, now destroyed, were placed wide apart, according to the proportions of the Tuscan order. The entablature consists of a narrow epistyle and a frieze decorated with clumsy triglyphs, or rather diglyphs, with pointed trunnels under the regula, above which follows a weak cornice with dentils. The gable is still more peculiar. Its outer ends curl into a volute, with a Gorgoneion in its centre, which originally served as a base for the acroteria; the triangle is filled with reliefs. The whole front gives the impression of a barbarous mixture of indigenous elements with Grecian forms, ill understood and roughly rendered. (Fig. 253.)
These remains are interesting, but elements seem to have crept in which could not originally have belonged to the Etruscan style, and the façades of Norchia can hence be deemed of but secondary importance in the study of the temple structures. The plan of these was quite different from that of the Doric temple. Instead of the length being at least double the width of the front, as in Greece, the breadth was here to the length as five to six. The cella did not form a centre around which stood the columns, but it entirely occupied the rear half of the area, while the front remained open as a columned porch. Three cellas, with the images of nearly related deities, were usually grouped together, the middle one being the largest, and also of the greatest hieratic importance. In some instances rows of columns were ranged upon the two long sides of a cella; but the rear wall was always bare. All artistic effect was here abandoned, and the building was, on this account, often so placed as to abut immediately against an enclosing rampart, or against a natural cliff.
The plan and general arrangement were thus entirely different from those of the Greek temple. But the same thing is by no means to be said in regard to the architectural details and members of the building. The Etruscan column was closely allied to the Doric, and greatly resembled it, in spite of some marked variations arising from the lingering influence of the original timbered construction, and the inferior perception of artistic proportions. The Etruscan shaft, in contrast to the Doric, had a base consisting of a circular plinth and a tore, both of equal height. The capital was formed of three parts, equally high, of which the two upper, the echinos and abacus, were similar to the Doric. The third beneath—the necking of the column—which, in the Greek prototype, was divided from the shaft only by slight incisions or an apophyge, was in this separated by a roundlet; what in Greek architecture was based upon technical necessities, in Etruria became an unmeaning decoration. The shaft, apparently not channelled, rose in a lightness akin to the Ionic, tapering to three quarters of its lower diameter, and reached a height of seven diameters. The unusually wide distance between the columns—seven times the lower diameter of the shaft—in contrast to that in the intercolumniation of the Doric style, which rarely equalled two diameters, had its origin in the light wooden beams, which did not require such frequent and powerful supports as did the stone epistyle of the Greeks.
The entablature consisted of wooden epistyle beams placed one over another, fastened together by iron clamps, in at least two courses. From the text of Vitruvius—from whom the entire description must be taken, since, on account of the wooden beams, there are no remains of Etruscan temples—we cannot learn whether these smooth layers took the place of both architrave and frieze, or whether the upper member resembled the Doric frieze with triglyphs. From a remark of this writer, the former appears more probable, as many epistyle timbers being fastened one above another as the size of the building seemed to require; moreover, notwithstanding the Hellenic influence, triglyphs were not always introduced into the Roman Tuscan order. The arrangement of the roof rafters was doubtless such that their support upon the beams of the epistyle beneath was hidden, and perhaps rendered more solid by mortising or dovetailing. Upon the longer sides the roof projected considerably, fully one quarter of the height of the columns. By this means the size of the gable was decidedly increased. These gables may have been decorated with sculptural ornament in the tympanon, of clay or bronze, and with acroteria, as may be gathered from several notices, as well as from the rock-tombs of Norchia. Concerning these decorations Vitruvius is silent; but they could not have altered the heavy, low, and clumsy character of which he complains, and which is apparent in the restorations that have been made according to his theory. (Fig. 254.) The Etruscan temple could not become really monumental so long as it retained the wooden construction in its most essential constituents, and this seems never to have been given up in the entablature, even when the direct Grecian influence first made itself felt among the Romans. How this ultimately changed the fundamental architectural forms of Central Italy will be explained in the section upon Roman building, which united the traditions of Etruscan and Hellenic art.
