COE
204
COE
Although the Romans in all probability borrowed the ideaof this order from the Greeks, and cannot therefore rightfullylay claim to its invention, they are fully entitled to the praisedue to its perfection; the order, as far as we know it, israther Roman than Greek. We cannot be said to know ofmore than three examples in Greece, and these are the Towerof the Winds, the Monument of Lysicrates , and the Tem-ple of Jupiter at Olympia ; there are others, it is true, as thetemple of Jupiter Olympius, at Athens , but this was erectedlong after the order had been practised by the Romans. Theprincipal Italian specimens are the temple of Jupiter Stator,three columns of which remain in the Campo, Rome , andhave been imitated at the office of the Board of Trade,London ; the Pantheon , copied in the portico of S. Martin’sChurch ; the temple of Yesta, or the Sibyl, at Tivoli, copiedat the Bank ; the temples of Mars Ultor , Jupiter Capi-tolinus, Vesta, at Rome , Antoninus and Faustina, and ofJupiter Tonans. Copies of the columns of Choragic monu-ment are to be seen at S. Philip’s Chapel, S. James’s, and atthe entrance to Exeter Hall; original fragments may be seenin the Elgin collection at the British Museum , where thereare also casts from the Pantheon , and the temples of JupiterStator and Mars Ultor . Amongst all the specimens whichhave come to our knowledge, there are not two alike, they allvary in detail, and some very much so ; some fragments bearevidence of the introduction of figures of animals, &c.
The Corinthian order is appropriate for all buildings inwhich magnificence, elegance, and gaiety are requisite. Itssplendour also recommends it in the decorations of palaces,galleries, theatres, banqueting-rooms, and other places con-secrated to festive mirth, or convivial recreation.
The Romans, in borrowing their architecture from theGreeks, appear to have indiscriminately employed the Corin-thian order, which they found possessed of an ornamentalcharacter, adapted to the splendour and magnificence of theirtaste, in the same manner that the early Greeks used theDoric , and the Ionians the order which bears their name.Thus the Romans erected temples to Jupiter, Neptune, andMars ; and the Greeks to the same deities, of the Doric order : Thus the temples of Minerva, at Athens and atSunium, are Doric, and the temple of Minerva, at Priene ,is Ionic . The temple of Jupiter Olympus, at Elis, wasDoric ; hut that erected to the same idol, by Adrian, atAthens, is Corinthian .
The orders of architecture appear to be altogether national;thus the numerous temples of Greece , and its Sicilian colo-nies, are Doric , and bear one general character : the Ioniancities present the best, the most elegant, and chaste examplesof the Ionic order: while Italy, Balbec , and Palmyra exhibitthe Corinthian order, almost to the exclusion of any other.
Plate I. Figure 1.—Nos. 1 and 2 show the method of pro-jecting the plan and elevation of the capital: thus, beginningwith the plan, divide the semi-circumference of the top of theshaft into four equal parts, commencing and terminating withhalf a part, which will give the stems of the lower range ofleaves, then complete the contour of the leaves, both in theelevation and plan, as shown under the article Projection ;divide each of the parts into halves on the said semi-circum-ference, and the points of bisection will mark the stems ofthe second or superior range of leaves. But if the true forms,as ascertained by the principles of projection, be impressedon the mind of the delineator, and if great nicety be notrequisite, after dividing as above, and completing the outlinesof the leaves on the plan by his eye, he may then draw linesfrom the bottom of each stem, and from the tips of each onthe plan, to their respective places on the elevation, and therecomplete the two ranges of leaves entirely by the eye ; here
the jutting points, the stems, and breadths of the leave^i 9
This p r . -
the only guides in the formation of the outline. XIUl ’being only a preliminary, though necessary step to the l jof the leaves, the general contours, thus found, must be >out, after inking the subdivisions, in order to w afoliage appear. ■ ff tl> e
Figure 2, is the profile of the modillions ; No. 1* J . ”tioi>plan, showing the soffit inverted ; and No. 2, the eof the same. gC ale >
Figure 3, is a leaf completely raffled to a larg®
No. 1, is the front view ; No. 2, the profile or side g(l »Figure 4, shows the finished flower of the cap 1large scale. e-Gr eeCe
Plate II. Some few of the more noted exampl es 0and Rome . _ . b» se ’
Plate III. A finished elevation of the Corinthi*,^£. 0 jucapital, and entablature. The example here chose 0 *the three famed columns in the Campo Vaccine* a g t .,to r >supposed to be the remains of the temple of Jupi tel j ll9 0and certainly one of the most perfect and elegant rthis order, that antiquity can produce. _ , prop° r
Plate IV. A general outline of the same, with the ytions of the members figured in minutes.
Corinthian CEcus, an cecus decorated with the Corder. See CEcus. - nff )
CORNICE (from the Latin , corona, a crow 01 “ a) .j tomoulded projection which crowns or finishes t 1 fygr, oiwhich it is affixed ; thus we have the cornice °^. aI Jj 0 w, ja pedestal, of a house, of a pier, of a door, of a win 0 r a< )Cornice of an Order, a secondary member ot e e0 t^ j
itself, or a primary member of the entablature. el - o” ;
blature is divided into three principal parts,.the ‘ coT ti\o e •being the cornice. The forms of the particulap^ poih ’ j
According to Vitruvius , the application of cornic ^ ^ firbuildings originated in the juttings of the eaves 0 perh 1 ^wooden structures, the cornice representingbeams of the roof, which are described by th 1 ^ gupp 05 ^assers, templates, and canthers, of which the ^ ast J l6 th 11 ^^to apply to the commoh rafters, the first to tot b« cr jsimmediately beneath the tiles, and the templates ^ t j, e eOpieces between the two. The mutules represen t j„<r „of rafters, and dentils the ends of laths for sU P?j gh^'Liitiles, or covering ; but as the lath is more lofty * j 0 fty j L;than the rafters, so ought the dentils to be moj^ the )°the mutules : this, however, is not the case^ ^ ^
gW
$0
application of these members in modern cornices- tr^Our present practice of architecture was ^h<j jnn
' vtC 1
athers
invert
the Romans, who, in all their works,disposition of these members.
mutules represent the projectures of the can f , u ‘,“ e pr^'v,,^)the dentils of the Ionic order are in imitation o ^ b 01of the assers (laths) For this reason, in G’- e ^ sse rs c ‘ g t i)6dentils are never placed under the mutules ; a b<>'. el g,
be under canthers. As, therefore, they shou <■ ^ e \ 0 vr 1 jjdcanthers and templates, if they are represente pi-eW^^u 1 ,
the work is on false principles. The ancients,^not approve of placing mutules or dentils in ^ iior_‘ t j l8 r®
but in the corona only*- because neither canthers ,are laid towards the front of the fastigium, nor can ' J Mproject, for they are laid inclining towards the ea it ^)eie ore, it could not be done in reality, theyj u “ t y of ^proper to be done in representation, for the P v0 P 'Jn, ‘‘jthings which they introduced in works of P e f e *iy t,)0derived from truth and nature, and approved oiic could bear the test of rational argument'
th e