B 0
K.
it is clearly expressed, that the under part is meant in both
as to leave but a narow space in the middle, and that dicases. -
This is more extraordinary in them, who conceive
rectly under the lumen or opening in the roof; or if to
the atrium to be the same as the cavæedium, where the
make the space in the middle larger, the columns were
columns are expressly said to be placed under the beams;
placed within the space allowed to the alae, those columns
plainly indicating that, by the beams, Vitruvius means
being proportioned according to their great height, would
those timbers which lie immediately over the heads of
occupy so much of the breadth of the ala as to leave
the columns.
but a very narrow and incommodious passage between
Galiani agrees with Barbaro and Palladio in underthem -
and the wall; as may be found upon trial of a plan
standing the breadth mentioned, to mean that of the
according to the proportions mentioned. In either case
whole atrium; but he supposes the height also to mean
the columns would engross so much as to render the apart.
that of the atrium, and not, as they do, of the alae; alment -
very unlike the idea authors give of the atrium,
though the height of the atrium has been before ascerà -
spacious hall where great numbers of people sometimes
tained: and to reconcile this with the height before alallembled, -
and where the busines of justice and the state
lowed to the atrium, he understands this latter to allude
was oftentimes transacted.
only to atriums of eighty feet long and upward, because
The example given by Galiani in his plate XXII, is
that is the length mentioned by Vitruvius immediately
not drawn according to the proportions prescribed, partibefore -
he speaks of this latter height. But this is far from
cularly in the heights.
being satisfactory; it might with equal reason be sup¬Barbaro -
also has not observed the proportions; as for
posed that where the height of the tablinum or atrium is
Perault's examples, being in perspective, their propormentioned, -
it alludes only to tablinums or atriums of the
tions cannot easily be judged of.
dimensions immediately preceding; the words so inter-It -
is certainly difficult to conceive any form for the
preted occur in describing the alae, they are trabes earum
liminares, their lintel beams; these must mean the lintel
beams of the things in description (i. e. the alae), and
cannot mean those of the atrium, because earum being
plural signifies the lintel beams of two or more things.
There is the same reason also, for supposing the word latitudinibus -
alludes to the breadth of the alae, for it should
have been in the singular, if it had meant that of the
atrium ; and it would have been more like Vitruvius's
manner to have added the word atrii after it, as he does
in describing the tablinum, and farther on in speaking of
the impluvium: Impluvii lumen latum latitudinis atrii.
Indeed it would have been necessary so to have done, to
shew that he did not speak of the thing under description;
and the omission of it is a strong implication that it does
not mean the breadth of the atrium, or of any thing but
the subject in description, viz. the alae.
If these arguments be admitted to be just, then the
other doubtful points will be hereby determined; for if
the height of the alae be no more than equal to their own
breadth, it will necessarily follow, that the proportion
assigned must be given to the breadth of each alae, and
must not be divided between the two, for if it were, the
height of the alae in small atriums would be but five feet,
which cannot be supposed.
If then each ala has in breadth the proportion assigned,
they must be excluded from the proportional measure
before given to the atrium; for should they be included,
they would occupy almost the whole breadth of the
atrium, and meet in the middle. Even upon the sup
position that the breadth assigned were divided between
the two alae, they would occupy so much of the atrium
atrium that will agree with the description, the implication -
of the context, and the style of the antique architecture: -
if the height of the alae be no more than equal
to their own breadth, their height must be much less
than that of the atrium, the latter being three fourths of
the atrium's length, and the former only a third, fourth.
or fifth of the same; so that if the alae were separated
from the atrium by a range of columns supporting the
beams of the atrium, the question arises, how the par
between the beams of the alae and those of the atrium was
finished? It could not be left open to the air, because
the opening for air and light is described to be in the
ceiling of the atrium, and a double floor in the alæe is
neither mentioned nor implied by the text; also how the
beams of the alae, on the side next the atrium, were supported, -
is not ascertained; for there are no parastae mentioned, -
as in the Basilica of Fano, described in the fifth
book: it cannot be supposed that their ends laid in the
columns, for that would be contrary to the practice of
the antients; nor can the idea of having columns no
higher than the beams of the alae supporting a solid wall
from thence to the top of the atrium be approved.
From the foregoing arguments it seems that the atrium
must be of a very different form to that usually represented;
the whole was probably one large apartment,
undivided by columns, and the alae entirely without it;
but whether separated therefrom by a wall, or open by
columns or arches, or how connected with the atrium, we
are left entirely uninformed.
That columns were sometimes used in atriums, although
we know not how or in what part they were disposed,
we may learn from the words of Pliny, book 36, chap. 2,
