Full text: Vitruvius: The architecture of M. Vitruvius Pollio

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.
	        
Waiting...

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.

powered by Goobi viewer