The Pedestal of the Order. The possible derivation of the ped estal treatment is suggested in Fig. 125, where the Ionic Order of the Theater of Marcellus is drawn out. It is here seen that the pedestal and its cap form a continuous belt course, merely breaking out around the projecting column; but the actual effect in the building is more that of a continuous dado, upon which are set the column shafts. The reason for this is evident, as otherwise the projecting cornice of the lower Order, the Doric, would completely cut off the lower portion of the Ionic column shaft when seen from the ordinary ground level.
As a matter of fact, there is, in Roman usage, no instance of what may strictly speaking be termed a "pedestal" occurring with any Order; and such apparent instances may be traced to one of the two methods already mentioned as used on the Colosseum or on the Tem ple at Cora. In Syria there are a few examples of pedestals, as at Kanawat, Mousmieh, Palmyra, and the Propyla at Baalbec; but in the temples, theaters, and amphitheaters of Rome they do not exist, except as parts of an attic or dado required to allow a space for the vaulting of the lower story, as in the Colosseum, or as a buttress used to bound the stepped approach to a temple, as in the Temple at Cora.
There is, moreover, no late and purely Roman form of the Doric Order used in a building where an angle treatment of the entablature has been required. This liberty of Vignola's, as well as the similar one where he has bestowed a pedestal under the Roman column, is not considered to have adequate foundation in true Roman work, although it undoubtedly expresses the general custom or usage during the Ren aissance period.
Vignola's Mutular Roman Doric. The mutular Roman Doric, according to Vignola, is shown in Plate IX, Part I. The entablature, as already stated, is one-quarter of the column height; and the cap ital—one module in height—occurs directly under the triglyph in the frieze, which is itself a module in breadth. This triglyph is sho.vn more particularly in Fig. 114; and by referring to this illustration, its peculiarities may be more readily comprehended and understood. At the left is shown a view of the end or side of the triglyph; while, be side it, is the elevation of the front, with a section through the channels (canals) on its face. Below is shown a plan looking up at the guttæ
hanging from it; while at the right is a perspective of the triglyph, which should be self-explanatory. It will be observed that half of the guttæ are shown circular in plan; and half, square or rectangular. The circular, conical shape is that more often used; but the square, py ramidal form occurs in many examples. The triglyph in Plate IX, Part I, is considered as always being placed over the columns and on the same axis, although this deduction rests on perhaps insufficient foundation, as we have already seen. Between the triglyphs is al lowed one and one-half modules, or, in distance, a space equal to the height of the frieze. This is kept for the metope, which in old ex amples is always square, or ap parently square. These spaces were sometimes ornamented by carvings of different objects, such as heads of animals, trophies of arms, etc.—a custom borrowed from the Greeks, and derived, as we know, from the placing of ac tual objects in the open space over the lintel beam.
The Roman Doric Order shown in this plate is of very good general proportions, and such as would actually be used on the ground story of a building or in the lower part of a monumental design. The pedestal may be sup pressed, as the ancients indeed seldom used it except when they carried the Order on an uninterrupted pedestal-base for the purpose of raising it above a projecting belt course. The shaft of this column is sometimes channeled with twenty channels, separated from each other by a sharp arris after the Greek fashion, and is as often left plain; while it is occasionally channeled as shown on the right side of the column in Plate IX, Part I, which treatment, for work of a distinctly modern character, is perhaps more appropriate. This plate also shows the use of the Roman mutule, which is drawn out separately in perspective in Fig. 115. The relations of the mouldings to each other, and the proportions of the smaller parts or members of the design, are fully shown in this plate and in Plate VII, Part I. The latter plate also shows the plan of the column and an elevation of the pedestal, as well as two impost mouldings which are used to receive the arches resting on the piers between the columns, when employed after the Roman fashion shown in Fig. 99.