DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8#0184
f 185 I
SECT. IV.
Of the hinds and characters of Columns^
THERE are four distinct characters of Grecia^
.polumns, though some authors contend, there are but
three, the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian ; because Vitra*
vius treats of Tuscan architecture, and of course of the
Tuscan column, after he had described the other three
jstyles of Temples. But I shall adduce reasons for con-
cluding that the Tuscan style was not only of Grecian
origin, but even practised at Athens long before the Co*
iinthian cohunn was there known.
As to the pretence of a fifth character of column,
denominated the composite, Vitruvius recognizes such
& kind, in his time, but allows it not to be a distinct co*
lumn, and says it can be called nothing but a variation
sof the Corinthian, by assumptions of Ionic volutes, and
Doric echinos; retaining the Corintbjap symmetries anti
diversifying the sculpture,
And in fact the Doric column, differs very little
.from that which Vitruvius assigns to Tuscan Temples*
with the exception of the base, which was not originally
a part of the Doric column: the symmetry, however,
is not the same in both, though in their capitals even
4hat is not much different ; the Doric is much less de-
licate than the Tuscan, at which Perrault, Sir Henry
Wotton, and other moderns, express their dissatisfac-
tion, and certainly they would have reason to doso, had
Vitruvius taught, what they have practised ; viz, assign-
ed Tuscan columns as supporters to the Doric; but
•euch a disposition is foreign from the documents of
-Vitruvius, and is one of the abuses jn modern architec-
ture, as will be seen in the next chapter, on Tuscan
Templets*
SECT. IV.
Of the hinds and characters of Columns^
THERE are four distinct characters of Grecia^
.polumns, though some authors contend, there are but
three, the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian ; because Vitra*
vius treats of Tuscan architecture, and of course of the
Tuscan column, after he had described the other three
jstyles of Temples. But I shall adduce reasons for con-
cluding that the Tuscan style was not only of Grecian
origin, but even practised at Athens long before the Co*
iinthian cohunn was there known.
As to the pretence of a fifth character of column,
denominated the composite, Vitruvius recognizes such
& kind, in his time, but allows it not to be a distinct co*
lumn, and says it can be called nothing but a variation
sof the Corinthian, by assumptions of Ionic volutes, and
Doric echinos; retaining the Corintbjap symmetries anti
diversifying the sculpture,
And in fact the Doric column, differs very little
.from that which Vitruvius assigns to Tuscan Temples*
with the exception of the base, which was not originally
a part of the Doric column: the symmetry, however,
is not the same in both, though in their capitals even
4hat is not much different ; the Doric is much less de-
licate than the Tuscan, at which Perrault, Sir Henry
Wotton, and other moderns, express their dissatisfac-
tion, and certainly they would have reason to doso, had
Vitruvius taught, what they have practised ; viz, assign-
ed Tuscan columns as supporters to the Doric; but
•euch a disposition is foreign from the documents of
-Vitruvius, and is one of the abuses jn modern architec-
ture, as will be seen in the next chapter, on Tuscan
Templets*