Pycnostyle, orclosely set, in which the intercolumns are one diameter and a quarter, or a half, in width.Systyle, in which they are two diameters wide.Eustyle, orwell spaced, in which they are two diameters and a half.Diastyle, in which they are three diameters.Aræostyle, orthinly set, in which they are four diameters.
Pycnostyle, orclosely set, in which the intercolumns are one diameter and a quarter, or a half, in width.
Systyle, in which they are two diameters wide.
Eustyle, orwell spaced, in which they are two diameters and a half.
Diastyle, in which they are three diameters.
Aræostyle, orthinly set, in which they are four diameters.
Let us repudiate for Architecture all such formal act-of-parliament legislation, and take pycnostyle and aræostyle as the greatest allowable degree of closeness or of distance at which the columns can be placed; and it follows that between such maximum and minimum any intermediate measure is admissible, and that there is no occasion to fix it positively and arithmetically, and make distinctions which are, after all, only arbitrary. There are a great many matters in design which must be left to the Architect, and intercolumniation is one of them. It is not possible to have precise rules for every thing, neither is it desirable; for if every thing in it could be done by rule, Architecture would forfeit its nature as one of the Fine Arts, and be reduced to a merely mechanical one. What is done by rule can be done by one man just as well as by another.
Excepting the terms pycnostyle and aræostyle, which are useful as expressing the greatest degree of closeness or of openness of intercolumniation consistent with well-proportioned arrangement, the others may be dispensed with. To designate one mode aseustyle,par excellence, is very much like saying that the proportionsassigned to it, viz. 2·30′ or 2½ diameters, are the very best, and all the rest comparatively defective; according to which doctrine, themonotriglyphicmode of intercolumniation usually employed by the Greeks in their Doric temples, and which answers to the character of pycnostyle, is not so well proportioned as what is emphatically called eustyle. Let it be whatever it may, as expressed in terms of the diameter of the columns, intercolumniation should always deserve the name of eustyle, orwell-proportioned, by being such as satisfies the eye, and contributes to the particular character that befits the occasion and harmonizes with the other proportions of the structure. Pycnostyle, orclose spacing, carries with it the expression of both richness and strength, the solids or columns being very little less than the voids or intercolumns. Aræostyle, orwide spacing,—andditriglyphicDoric intercolumniation may be called such,—produces an effect of openness and lightness, but also partakes of meagreness and weakness, owing to the want of sufficient apparent support for the entablature,—a very frequent fault in Modern Architecture, where frugality as to columniation has often been allowed to produce a degree of poverty which contrasts very disagreeably with that of the decoration affected by the Order itself. Intercolumniation ought to be made to depend in some measure upon the nature of the composition: a tetrastyle portico, for instance, or a distyle in antis, admits of wider intercolumniation than would be suitable for an octastyle, because pycnostyle, where there are only three intercolumns, would produce too great narrowness of general proportions for a portico.
Hardly is there need for observing, that be their proportions what they may, the intercolumns in a colonnade or portico must be all alike; nevertheless in a Grecian Doric portico there is, as we have seen, some difference, the two extreme intercolumns being there narrower by the width of half a triglyph. There is, besides, another exception from the general principle, for the centre intercolumn of a portico wasfrequently made somewhat wider than the others, in order to mark the entrance, and the better to display and afford greater space for access to the door within.
One mode of columniation and intercolumniation which remains to be spoken of, is that which has sometimes been practised by Modern Architects, and combines the two extremes of pycnostyle, or still closer intercolumniation, and aræostyle. This consists in coupling the columns and making a wide intercolumn between every pair of columns, so that as regards the average proportion between solids and voids, that disposition does not differ from what it would be were the columns placed singly. Although denounced by some critics, more especially Algarotti, as altogether licentious and indefensible, and although it is not to be especially recommended, or indeed practicable on every occasion, the coupling of columns may, under some circumstances, be not only excusable, but advisable and proper. As is the case with almost every thing else in matters of art, all depends uponhowit is done, and whether with or without sufficient reason. That there is no classical authority for it, is no valid reason against it; in the constitution of the ancient temples there was nothing to require ormotiveit. It may be conceded, however, that coupled columns, forming a prostyle surmounted by a pediment, are objectionable; because where so strong a resemblance to the antique model is preserved in other respects, a departure from it in regard to the disposition of the columns has a disagreeably disturbing effect.
Having gone through the Classical Orders, and explained their elements and constitution, we have performed as much as we purposed, or as we promised. Within the same compass we might, no doubt, have touched upon a great deal besides that belongs to the study of Greek and Roman Architecture, by restricting ourselves to bare matter-of-fact, and suppressing all comment, and so treating the subject drily and superficially. Proceeding upon the principle ofmultum haud multa, we have aimed at nothing more than to initiate the reader in such manner as to excite interest in the subject, and stimulate tofurther inquiry. Should we have effected that, and should we have disabused him of the prejudices and contracted notions generally entertained in regard to the Orders, or else armed him against them, we shall have accomplished themultum—the main point of all.Muchshall we have taught, and much will he have learnt, should he now reject the fatal doctrine of the Five Orders, and relinquish it to school-boys and school-masters,—to the plodders who work by pattern, and design by rote and by routine. Much, very much indeed, will have been learnt, by the reader, should he have learnt or have been put in the way of learning, to look upon those various compositions in the three several styles of columniation, which are called Orders, not with the eyes of a Builder or a Mechanic, but with the intuition and the feeling of an Artist; in short, to look upon them as generaltypesto be diligently studied, and then imitated with congenial gusto.