VITRUVIUS.
Thus the metops, intercolumns, and lacunars, being regularly distributed, all defedts wil
be avoded. The capital (p) of the tiglyph is made the fixth part of a module.
QVER the capital of the triglyphs is placed the corona (q), projecting the half and the sixth
part of a module, having a Doric cymatium (y) below, and another (v) above. The thicknes
of the corona, with the cymatiums, is half a module. In the under part of the corona,
perpendicular to the triglyphs, and to the middle of the metops, the directions of the viae (2),
and the distribution of the guttae (i), are to be so contrived, that there may be lix guttae in
length, and three in breadth. The remaining spaces (y), the metops being broader than the
triglyphs, are left plain, or have the sculptures of thunder-bolts. Near the edge of the same
corona, a line is enchased, which is called scotia (a). The tympan, sima, coronae, and the rest,
are executed in the same manner as has been described for the lonic order.
THE foregoing is the method for composing diastyle works; but, if the structure
Fig. XVII.
is to be made systyle and monotriglyph, the front of the temple, if tetrastyle,
is divided into XXIII parts; if hexastyle, into XXXV. Of these one part will be a
(5*) Whether the capital of the triglyphs is included or
excluded from the module and half, allowed to their heighth,
Vitruvius leaves uncertain; neither will the ancient ex-
amples help to determine it; some having it included, and
others excluded.
(6*) Vitruvius does not inform us whether or not this
projection of the corona is exclusive of the projection of the
cymatiums; but judging from the examples of antiquity,
and the space the guttae in the soffite require, I think it
should be understood to be exclusive. The projecture of
the corona in the theatre of Marcellus is much greater.
(7*) Cymatium, in a general sense, signifies a subordi¬
nate moulding of any shape that relates to one of the prin¬
cipal members; what particular moulding is meant by the
Doric Cymatium is not known.
(8*) Galiani has just before reproved Perault for having de
viated from the text, by altering the projection of the Doric
capital; and here (so unfortunate we are) has himself fallen
into a limilar error, having in his transtation taken the liberty
to add a sixth part of a module to the half module, whick
the text allows to the thickness of the corona; giving for
realon, the general rule prescribed by Vitruvius, that the
heights fhould be equal to the projectures; and his own
opinion, that the cornice wants that increment. But these
are not sufficient reasons for deviating from the expres di¬
rection of the text twice repeated; and (turning his own
argument against himself) as the projecture prescribed by
the text, is not impracticable. Therefore, although I have
a due value for his opinion in general, I think it not proper
in this case to follow his example.
(9*) Vitruvius directs mutules to be made over the metops
as well as over the triglyphs. This is so contrary to the custom
of the moderns, that none of the preceding translators have
understood the passage; not believing it could possibly have
that meaning: but since the remains of the Grecian build¬
ings have become known to us, we are no longer doubtful
of its being the author's intention that mutules should be
made over the metops as well as over the triglyphs, (as
fig. XXVI. shews.) This also clears the succeeding passage,
reliqua spatia quod latiores sunt metopae quam triglyphi, which
has much puzzled the commentators, and which they have
all understood and explained, by their draughts, in a man-
ner different to each other.
(10*) The Viae, I conceive to be the intervals or spaces
between the guttae; and that they are so called because they
resemble the viae, or streets, about the islands of houses in a
city. Galiani supposes them to be the margins of the pannels
in the soffite of the corona.
(11*) This is a groove made to check the rain water.
(12*) Monotriglyph signifies that manner which has only
one triglyph in the intercolumns.
If the metops are allowed to be no more than a module
and a half broad, the intercolumns can be no more than a
diameter and half wide. Wherefore, it has been generally
supposed that systylon has been wrote, by mistake, instead of
pycnostylon, to which Galiani has altered the text. This point
will be discussed in the following notes.