the roofs of their houses by rails, or parapets, to prevent persons falling off. It is likely, therefore, that the houses both in Syria and Egypt were constructed with flat roofs in the time of Moses, as well as at the present day; since in those places the disposition to change has ever been wanting.

We know but little of the state of architecture in Greece, from the time of the Trojan war and of the incidental events referred to by Homer, until the time of the Ionic migration, which includes an interval of about 150 years. We are informed by Vitruvius of a temple, dedicated to Juno, being built at Argos, during the reign of DORUS, son of Helenus, which was probably abont 1200 years before the Christian ara; that this teinple was built according to certain rules laid down by Dorus himself; and that thus originated the DORIC order, which was afterwards extensively adopted throughout Greece. The proportions of the order were not, however, the subject of any fixed rule, and at the time we speak of, the Grecian buildings must have been very rude.

The arts of civilization received a sudden check on the return of the Heraclide to Peloponnesus. This people drove most of the inhabitants from a large portion of the country, and maintained a sanguinary warfare with those who remained; thus for a long time effectually preventing the growth of the arts of peace.

During this perturbed state of affairs, a body of adventurers, commanded by ION, son of Xanthus, colonized that part of Asia which was previously inhabited by the Carians and Leleges. It was then, according to Vitruvius, that the temple of Apollo Panionios was erected by the colonists, in a manner resembling the Doric temples of Greece. These colonists not being in possession of any architectural rules to guide them, and being ignorant of the proportions which the columns should have in order to support the roof, invented a rule, which was to guide, not only themselves, but all subsequent workmen, in order to maintain a sort of harmony among their structures: they conceived the idea of making their columns correspond with the dimensions of the human figure; the average height of which is about six times the breadth. They therefore made the diameter of the column at the lower part equal to one-sixth of its whole length; and the system or order resulting from these pro portions, they are said to have named the DORIC, because the Dorians were the people who had first adopted it; the name of which people was perhaps a term including all the Greeks who lived at that time north of the Gulf of Corinth. The order was perhaps also called the Doric, to distinguish it from another order, which, according to Vitruvius, was invented or adopted by Ion himself, and hence called the IONIC order.

It is stated by Vitruvius, that the proportions of the Ionic order were derived from the female form, which is more slender than that of the male. The height of the columns was increased to eight diameters; thus rendering their appearance more light and slender, and representing rather the delicacy of the female form than the robustness of the male. The ornamental parts of the Ionic column were, Vitruvius says, suggested by different parts of a woman's dress. The mouldings of the base were intended to represent the shoe; the volutes of the capitol, the tresses of hair curling on either side of the head; and the flutings of the shaft the folds of the hanging garment.

According to the same authority, a third order was afterwards invented by a sculptor named Callimachus, who probably flourished about the end of the Peloponnesian war, about 400 years B. C. This order afterwards receirved the name of the CORINTHIAN; and in order to give more grace and delicacy to the columns, the standard adopted was that of a youthful female form, instead of that of a matron, as in the case of the Ionic. It does not seem to have been determined what part of the whole length was equal to the diameter; the practice of different architects being probably various. The origin of the Corinthian capital has been stated in a very pretty story. Vitruvius says, that a young❘ woman of Corinth was betrothed, but before her marriage she fell ill and died after her burial, her nurse collected in a basket the toys which delighted her when alive, placed the basket on her grave, and covered it with a tile. Now it so happened that the basket was placed immediately over an acanthus root, which afterwards grew up round the basBy referring to Saturday Magazine, Vol. V., p. 147, the reader will find a pictorial representation of the origin of the Corinthian capital, together with views of capitals, &c., belonging to the five

orders.

ket, and curled up from under the angles of the tile. This was observed by Callimachus, and it suggested to him the idea of a new capital for a column: he therefore perpetuated it in marble.

The general form and ornamental details of a Grecian temple have been referred by Vitruvius to the wooden hut, which an infant community in a country abounding in forests would be likely to construct. The comparison of a simple hut with the early edifices of stone, will show the general correspondence which exists between their members, and will set the reputed origin of Grecian architecture in a clearer light.

one.

The first step towards the construction of a hut would doubtless be, the placing of a number of posts vertically in the ground, which should enclose a space in the form of a square or parallelogram: let these be compared with the columns of a stone edifice. On the tops of these posts would be laid a horizontal beam along each of the four sides, corresponding to which we see the epistylium, or architrave. Over these would be placed other horizontal beams, parallel to one of the sides of the building, in order to support the roof. These being placed at equal distances from each other, and their extremities appearing over the face of the architrave were also afterwards represented in stone by rectangular divisions called triglyphs. Smaller beams might yet have been required for the support of the planks, or whatever formed the bed of the roof; and these also are copied, and their projecting ends called modillions, while the extremities of another upper course are called dentils. Now as a flat covering would not be the best form of roof, in a country subject to heavy rain or snow, an inclining roof supported by beams, placed obliquely along the vertical posts, would soon be adopted in place of the flat The temples of Greece and Rome, which were generally rectangular and surrounded by columns, were also frequently covered by roofs inclining on both sides from a ridge over the middle of the building, and parallel to its length. The modillions and dentils with the beams on which they appear to rest, and the part of the roof above them, form the cornice. The whole system of horizontal beams, comprehending architrave, triglyphs, and the spaces between them called metopes, (which together have the name of frieze,) and cornice, is called by the general name of entabiature. The inclining roof was formed of rafters or cantherii disposed in two planes, declining each way from the columen, or ridge, of the roof; the upper ends of the rafters were attached to this ridge, and the lower ends rested upon the entablature. Over these rafters were placed, in horizontal positions, small timbers, called at present purlines, (formerly templa,) parallel to the ridge of the roof; and over these again was another tier of rafters projecting beyond the architrave or frieze of the sides of the building, and supporting the tiles, or other covering of the roof. The roof of a building thus formed of two inclined planes, was called by the ancients fastigium. The triangular extremity is called the pediment, and the space within the cornice of this pediment is named the tympanum.

Having thus described the general points in which a simple hut and a Grecian temple resembled each other, we now descend to some of the minuter ornaments of the temple, in order to ascertain how far we may suppose these also to have taken their rise from the same source. If then trunks of trees are found to have given the idea of the columns which supported the edifice, from whence was derived the plinth or chief part of the base of the column? In the wooden hut, the main supports, if resting exclusively on the ground, would be liable to sink beneath the surface, and to fall into a state of decay owing to the effects of a humid soil. There would be perhaps an effort made to prevent these evils, by placing a tile or flat stone underneath the post, to prevent it from sinking; and the bottom of this post being liable to split by the weight above it, there might also have been a band surrounding it; from which the idea of the ornaments above the plinth were derived; so that, altogether, the base of the columns in the wooden hut might have afforded a model for imitation in the base of those of a more substantial edifice. We have already stated the conjectures which have been formed as to the origin of the capitals; but, as in some instances we find columns without bases, and in others we find them without capitals; and as, where they are adorned with both, dwell further on the probable origin of either the base or there is much diversity in the several parts, it is needless to capital, or to attach much importance to so doubtful a subject.

The spiral curves, or volutes, which adorned some columns, have been supposed, as before remarked, to be in imitation of the curls of hair on a woman's head; or to extend the conjecture, of the curling leaves of plants, or of the horns of animals slain in sacrifice. The capitals of other columns are adorned with double rows of leaves; and this, as we have said, arose from the casual observation of such foliage growing round a bell-shaped vessel at Corinth. The shaft of a column, when carved into longitudinal furrows, is ascribed to a wish to imitate the folds of a woman's dress; or this fluting is supposed to have been invented as a support or resting-place for spears, as warriors were entering the temple. Lastly, the triglyphs, and other members of the entablature, may have been derived from natural circumstances, such as the flowing of rain across the entablature, which furnished the idea of channeling the ends of the beams; and the suspension of drops of water, which might have been imitated in the gutta, or drops.

It is impossible, however, to account for all the mouldings which occur in the columns and entablature of a building, recognised by the terms torus, astragal, echinus, cavetto, cymatia, and the bird's beak moulding. All these mouldings are capable of being much embellished, and accordingly, we find them displaying the sculptor's skill in beautiful imitations of the leaves of various plants, or of the figures of animals.

Since the discovery of the massive temples of Egypt, it has been supposed that the primitive types of those buildings must have been the rudely excavated dwellings of the early inhabitants in the rocks of that country; but on examining their present huts, built of mud and reeds in the form of frusta of Pyramids, which are probably of the same character as those of their ancestors, we are struck by so great a similarity in their construction to those of the temples, as makes us think it more than probable that the latter also took their origin from the simple hut.

It is, however, by no means necessary to look further for a type, whence originated all the details of the splendid temples of ancient Greece. We are disposed to admit the wooden hut as the rude idea of a temple, because natural circumstances are powerful in directing and constraining the proceedings of mankind; but still, we ought to render due respect to the inventive genius of man. An infant community is, in great measure, constrained to make choice of the materials which nature has prepared in the locality of their settlement; and doubtless the forms of houses which they are thus compelled to adopt, must, to a certain extent, influence the style of architecture, should that community afterwards become so far civilized as to build extensively. But one of the direct effects of civilization is to foster intellect, and to afford scope for the display of genius, whose prominent characteristic is invention. Now whether we take the cave, the tent, or the wooden hut, as the origin of any one particular style, we ought rather to allow that the inventive genius of man through successive ages, has exalted the humble model into a master-piece of art, than that recourse should have been had either to the natural circumstances of the vicinity, or to the older structures of some distant country, for the suggestion of prominent features or ornamental details. In the spirit of these remarks a modern writer says, "It must not be understood that this hypothesis [the Vitruvian] alone is capable of guiding an artist in his constructions, or of restraining the excesses of a capricious fancy; since the nature of the building to be raised, and our perceptions of beauty may be, together, sufficient to obtain these ends. In forming a portico, for example, we have to support a roof by means which may leave one or more of the sides open to the air. The roof must, therefore, be borne on columns, and between the breadth and height of these, certain proportions must subsist, which experience would soon determine for the best. The entablature might be, origi. nally, one plain mass of stone; but it would be subsequently found more pleasing to divide its exterior surface horizontally, into two or more parts by projecting mouldings, and to ornament the facia in various ways, which would produce an agreeable play of light and shadow; and lastly, the capitals of the columns may have been, originally, simple blocks broader than the shafts, in order to increase the points of support under the entablature; and these would soon, by the taste of artists, be brought to the graceful forms they have since exhibited"."

Encyc. Metropol.; article, Architecture.

It cannot be wondered at, that so imaginative a people as the Greeks should be in possession of many traditions respecting their architecture. We do not of course presume to decide whether they derived it from Egypt, and improved upon the cumbrous model which that country afforded; or whether, as has been asserted, "the hut of Pelasgus, the last entirely wooden cottage in Arcadia, remained the unvarying model of every subsequent fabric in stone and marble, however stupendous, which arose throughout Greece."

Such, then, according to Vitruvius, is the origin of the orders of architecture among the Greeks. This origin may or may not be true; and we do not lay any particular stress upon it, because Vitruvius is not altogether a safe authority. Without, therefore, attempting to unravel the complicated and contradictory appearances which theory and conjecture have thrown upon the origin of the orders, we may proceed to lay before the reader a statement of their principal characteristics, while at the same time we will not altogether. disregard the theories which have been advanced, to account for their introduction.

It will be understood, that an order, in architecture, is that proportional disposition of building-materials which is peculiar to itself, and distinguished by two principal features; namely, the ENTABLATURE and the COLUMN. The former consists of the cornice, the frieze, and the architrave; the latter of the capital, the shaft, and the base.

The architrave, or, as the Greeks call it, the epistyle, is that part which immediately rests on the columns, and is supposed to represent the main beam of the primitive wooden temples.

The frieze is the central division, which rests on the architrave, and is usually ornamented. The Romans called it phrygium, which means phrygian, or embroidery-work; and the Greeks zoophorus, because they often adorned it with animals.

The cornice, from the Latin coronis, is the upper part, which supports the roof: it projects considerably beyond the rest, for the purpose of protecting the lower parts. The cornice is subdivided into many parts, which are ornamented according to the style.

The capital is the upper part, or crown, of the column. On this the architrave rests: it is ornamented in a manner peculiar to the order to which it belongs.

The shaft is that part of the column included between the capital and the base. The shaft was often ornamented with vertical channels or flutes, the origin and use of which, as we said before, have been variously stated; some, however, refusing to consider the flutings as forming spearholders, call it an imitation of the striated or indented bark in the wooden pillars of the primitive temple; others, again, state that the idea was horrowed from the Egyptians, whose columns were suggested by bundles of reeds, papyrus stems, date-palms, &c.

The base is the lower termination of the column, resting on the flooring, or on a pedestal. It is formed of projecting mouldings, and a plinth, in number and form according to the order. The word plinth is from the Greek, and implies a square tile.

The proportions of all the parts of an architectural structure are regulated by the lower diameter of the shaft of the columns, which is divided into sixty parts, or lines. This is the module, or architectural scale.

The façade, or front of a building, is its most finished part, and is usually ornamented with a projecting portico, surmounted by a pediment.

The pediment is that part of a portico which rises above its entablature, to cover the end of the roof, the triangular form of which it assumes. A pediment is composed of two parts; viz., the tympanum and the cornice: the former is the interior area or panel, and is usually devoted to ornament or inscriptions: the latter is the highest part, and is placed last on the building, and crowns the whole.

The distance from column to column, or the clear space between columns, is called an intercolumniation.

Any one particular order may be easily recognised, by attending to a few simple points of difference, which we now proceed to numerate. In the Doric order there is no base or moulding at the bottom of the column: the plain capital consists merely of an echinus, or convex moulding, and the abacus, or square stone. There is also a triglyphed, or three-channeled frieze. The Ionic or Corinthian is recognised by the voluted or the foliaged capital, the chief distinction between these two orders being confined to the capital; since there is no precise difference between the

columns or entablatures of either order, except the modillions, which are certain regularly recurring ornaments, peculiar to the Corinthian. Again, with respect to the shaft: the flutes in the Doric order are broad and shallow, forming sharp ridges on the circumference of the shaft; but, in the other two orders, the flutes are narrower and deeper, and are separated from each other by spaces left between the flutings on the surface of the shaft. With respect to the architrave, the Doric consists of a plain face, surmounted by the taenia, or band, to which is attached, beneath each triglyph, another fillet, holding the gutte, or drops; but, in the other two orders, the architraves are generally divided into three faces, projecting somewhat the one above the other, with curved mouldings, plain or ornamented.

No one can rise from an attentive study of a Grecian Doric temple, without being struck with the masterly degree of skill with which its various parts are combined, so as to produce a grand and effective whole.

In proceeding to lay before the reader a somewhat detailed account of a Doric temple, we need scarcely offer an apology for using a variety of architectural terms, which may at first sight appear new and difficult. The great advantage of technical terms, at all times, is to convey concisely and emphatically to the mind, certain meanings or definitions which have been conventionally decided upon, and which, if attempted to be conveyed in what is called "popular language," would not only involve a description in much circumlocution, but would embarrass the careful reader, rather than assist him. At the same time, we must confess that a clear idea of the details and entire harmony of a fine building, cannot be obtained without a certain degree of fixed attention on the part of the reader. We therefore invite him to bestow this attention, with the assurance that, if he understand the means employed to confer so much simple beauty upon a mere collection of stones, he will find an additional interest imparted to his rambles, by his being able to appreciate the results of an architect's study, and to pronounce with some degree of confidence upon the good or bad taste of any structure which may come under his notice.

Without at a.. attempting to fix a standard of taste, we may offer a few remarks, by way of answer, to the very general questions,-"How am I to know when such a building is in good or bad taste?" "Why should a build. ing be in good or bad taste, according as it does or does not agree with the structures of the ancient Greeks?" The answer to these questions is very simple. It has been admitted by the almost universal voice of men of talent and genius of all nations, who have studied the subject, that the public edifices of the ancient Greeks are perfect in their

kind; that their minutest, as well as their grandest parts, are combined with such consummate skill, that any alteration must be a deterioration. This combination was doubtless the result of much study and variation: this perfection of architecture must have occupied many first-rate architectural minds, through a course of ages. In a country, too, where polytheism prevailed; where temples were erected to so many objects of devotion, and the character of each temple was regulated by the properties (so to speak) of its presiding deity; and where public buildings of other kinds than those devoted to public worship, so greatly abounded; all such variety must have given experience to a civilized people bent upon the adornment of their cities. Here also the meanest member of the community felt a zeal and pride in such adornment; thus doubtless making it become matter of competition with architects who should excel: and where the people themselves had the taste to decide upon excellence, we can no longer wonder that the remains of ancient art are now looked upon with reverence, trea sured up in our museums, and imitated in our own structures, as the works of our masters in architectural art;for such they surely were, else why do we copy their productions? and what else is it but a disregard of such perfect models at the present day, that has produced the general authorized opinion, that the modern taste for architecture in England is decidedly bad?

"No art, says Mr. Eustace, " deserves more attention than architecture, because no art is so often called into action, tends so much to the embellishment, or contributes more to the reputation of a country. It ought, therefore, at all events, to occupy some portion of time in a liberal education. Had such a method of instruction as that which is here recommended, been adopted a century ago, the streets of London, Oxford, and Cambridge would not present so many shapeless buildings, raised at an enormous expense, as if designed for eternal monuments of the opulence and of the bad taste of the British nation. We should not see such a multitude of absurd edifices, under the names of temples, ruins, &c., disgrace the scenery of England, so much admired by foreigners. In short, instead of allowing architects to pursue novelty at the expense of taste, and seek for reputation by adaptations and pretended improvements of their own invention, a method which has never yet succeeded, their employers should oblige them to adhere strictly to the ancients, and by adopting their forms and proportions, to adorn England with the noblest edifices of Greece and of Italy."

In our next Supplement on Architecture, we will conclude our details of the Grecian orders, and enter upon the fourth era of our history, including Roman Architecture.