[9]We may add, that the circumstance of being obliged to reduce our drawing (which is a large one) to the size of a quarto plate, has, at the same time, operated to its disadvantage, as might naturally indeed have been expected.
[10]It must be recollected that these façades were merely representations of porticoes, and that the columns did not project farther from the surface than half their own diameter.
[11]All the excavated tombs were not provided with antechambers, and the cellæ in such cases commenced from the surface of the external façade.
[12]The metopes are often far from being square, and the mutules are placed at different distances from the triglyphs according to the fancy of the architect. The capital of the triglyphs is very rarely continued, in the same line, across the metopes; but is almost always deeper in the last-mentioned division, forming a moulding in the space between the triglyphs, which gives an air of finish to this part of the entablature. Above the capital of the triglyphs, between it and the cymatium below the corona, there is usually a band or fillet, of the same depth, for the most part, with the capital, and on the same plane with it; and the capital itself sometimes projects a little beyond the femora of the triglyph, and sometimes is on the same level with it. The cymatium below the corona is for the most part much deeper than the usual proportion of that member; which appears to have been done in order to show the ornament upon it, which would not otherwise, from the projection of the corona and the depth of the mutules, be conspicuous. The proportion of the corona itself also varies, and the scotia beneath it is sometimes introduced, and sometimes omitted altogether. Much difference exists in the depth of the cyma, as well as in that of its fastigium; and the lions’ heads, which are often sculptured upon it, are sometimes introduced and sometimes omitted. Whenever these are placed, as they usually are, over the axes of the columns, an ornament representing the end of a tile is often found to accompany them, placed on the fastigium, exactly over the centre of the metopes. There is also a difference in the depth of the regulæ and mutules, as well as in the thickness and depth of the guttæ, the form of the latter being sometimes conical and sometimes cylindrical, and on some occasions almost square. The upper part of the two outer channels of the triglyphs are sometimes cut parallel with the line of the capital; but more frequently inclined a little downwards, so as to meet the bottom of the moulding above the metopes, which we have already stated is not often in a line with that of the capitals of the triglyphs. The depth of the tænia, also, and that of the epistylium (or architrave) varies in different instances; as well as the proportions of the columns themselves, and those of their abaci, or plinths: the latter are generally surmounted with an elegantly proportioned cymatium, which is itself almost always crowned with a fillet. We may add that the curve of the echinus also varies, but is usually of a light and elegant proportion; and the annulets sometimes follow the line of the curve, and sometimes range with that of the hypotrachelium: the number of these occasionally two, but more frequently three; and the upper and lower ones (in the last-mentioned instance) are frequently cut square, while the central one forms an angle, the apex of which projects beyond the two others. This, however, only occurs when the annulets range with the shafts of the columns, for when they range with the line of the echinus they are generally cut like the teeth of a saw, as the central one is in the instance just mentioned. We observed that for the most part when annulets were adopted there were no channels, or grooves, hollowed in the hypotrachelium, and this equally obtained whether the annulets followed the line of the echinus or that of the shaft. There was commonly a fillet dividing the channels, or fluting of the shaft, the proportion of which was not always the same, and we rarely saw any fluting where these were not adopted, and very seldom any columns where the shafts were left plain. The difficulty of preserving the edges of the fluting with nicety, and of keeping them from being chipped and broken, appears to have been the reason for adopting the fillet; for as the proportions of the façades, particularly those of the interior ones, were necessarily on a small scale, the edges of the fluting, where no fillet was used, must have been nearly as sharp as the edge of a sword, and consequently very liable to accident. We may add that the width of the fillet accommodated itself to the entasis of the shaft, and was continued round the upper part of the channels, so as to form the crown of the hypotrachelium, when no annulets were made use of; for in that case the channels finished in these, forming an elegant curve from the line of the column to the lowest of the annulets, which sometimes projected considerably from the upper part of the shaft. With regard to the disposition of the triglyphs with respect to the columns, we usually found them placed over the axes of the latter, with sometimes one, and sometimes two intervening, as we have already mentioned above; with the exception, however, of those at the extremities of the zophorus, which were sometimes placed in the angle, and sometimes a little removed from it, being in the latter case placed over the joint centre of the half column and pilaster which usually terminated the façade at both extremities. We must remark, with respect to the introduction of the pilaster conjointly with the columns at the angles, that the shafts and the capitals were not wholly relieved from the surface, although they were more so than half their diameter. It must be recollected at the same time that the whole façade was generally formed in the rock itself, and had consequently no weight to support, and no internal arrangements to which it was necessary that it should be accommodated. The placing of the triglyphs was therefore purely optional, and might be adapted to the taste or the fancy of the architect, who was thus enabled to follow his own ideas of proportion and arrangement, without reference to any standard but the eye.
[13]In the tomb of Theron at Agrigentum we have a similar instance of a Doric entablature supported by Ionic columns.
[14]An operation which is at present necessary, in order to make them bear out.
[15]Each of these customs (as practised by the Greeks) had well-founded claims to great antiquity; for interment appears to have been in use in the time of Cecrops, and burning must at any rate be allowed to have been practised by the Grecians, as far back as the Trojan war, if we rely upon the testimony of Homer. The custom of burning was perhaps the most peculiar to the Greeks, of the two modes in question; for Lucian, in enumerating the various methods resorted to by different nations in the disposal of their dead, expressly assigns burning to the Greeks, and interment to the Persians—διελομενοι κατα εθνη τας ταφας, ὁ μεν Ἕλλην εκαυσεν, ὁ δε Περσης εθαψεν . . . (περι πενθους, § 21.) Some, however, considered the former as an inhuman custom, and philosophers were divided in their opinions on the subject: each sect esteeming that method the most reasonable by which bodies would, according to their tenets, be soonest reduced to their first principles.—See Potter’s Archæologia, vol. ii. p. 207-8, &c.
Plan of DERNA,
BY Captn. F. W. Beechey R.N.
