pr.1. 1. I HAVE observed, Emperor, that many in their treatises and volumes of commentaries on architecture have not presented the subject with well-ordered completeness, but have merely made a beginning and left, as it were, only desultory fragments. I have therefore thought that it would be a worthy and very useful thing to reduce the whole of this great art to a complete and orderly form of presentation, and then in different books to lay down and explain the required characteristics of different departments. Hence, Caesar, in my first book I have set forth to you the function of the architect and the things in which he ought to be trained. In the second I have discussed the supplies of material of which buildings are constructed.
pr.1. Cum animadvertissem, imperator, plures de architectura praecepta voluminaque commentariorum non ordinata sed incepta uti particulas errabundas reliquisse, dignam et utilissimam rem putavi tantae disciplinae corpus ad perfectam ordinationem perducere et praescriptas in singulis voluminibus singulorum generum qualitates explicare. itaque, Caesar, primo volumine tibi de officio eius et quibus eruditum esse rebus architectum oporteat, exposui. secundo de copiis materiae, e quibus aedificia constituuntur, disputavi; tertio autem de aedium sacrarum dispositionibus et de earum generum varietate quasque et quot habeant species earumque quae sunt in singulis generibus distributiones.
pr.2. In the third, which deals with the arrangements of temples and their variety of form, I showed the nature and number of their classes, with the adjustments proper to each form according to the usage of the Ionic order, one of the three which exhibit the greatest delicacy of proportion in their symmetrical measurements. In the present book I shall speak of the established rules for the Doric and Corinthian orders, and shall explain their differences and peculiarities.
pr.2. Ex tribus generibus quae subtilissimas haberent proportionibus modulorum quantitates ionici generis moribus, docui; nunc hoc volumine de doricis corinthiisque constitutis et omnibus dicam eorumque discrimina et proprietates explicabo.
1.1. 1. CORINTHIAN columns are, excepting in their capitals of the same proportions in all respects as Ionic; but the height of their capitals gives them proportionately a taller and more slender effect. This is because the height of the Ionic capital is only one third of the thickness of the column, while that of the Corinthian is the entire thickness of the shaft. Hence, as two thirds are added in Corinthian capitals, their tallness gives a more slender appearance to the columns themselves.
1.1. Columnae corinthiae praeter capitula omnes symmetrias habent uti ionicae, sed capitulorum altitudines efficiunt eas pro rata excelsiores et graciliores, quod ionici capituli altitudo tertia pars est crassitudinis columnae, corinthii tota crassitudo scapi. igitur quod duae partes e crassitudine corinthiarum adiciuntur, efficiunt excelsitate speciem earum graciliorem.
1.2. 2. The other members which are placed above the columns, are, for Corinthian columns, composed either of the Doric proportions or according to the Ionic usages; for the Corinthian order never had any scheme peculiar to itself for its cornices or other ornaments, but may have mutules in the coronae and guttae on the architraves according to the triglyph system of the Doric style, or, according to Ionic practices, it may be arranged with a frieze adorned with sculptures and accompanied with dentils and coronae.
1.2. Cetera membra, quae supra columnas inponuntur, aut e doricis symmetriis aut ionicis moribus in corinthiis columnis conlocantur, quod ipsum corinthium genus propriam coronarum reliquorumque ornamentorum non habuerat institutionem, sed aut e triglyphorum rationibus mutuli in coronis et epistyliis guttae dorico more disponuntur, aut ex ionicis institutis zophoroe scalpturis ornati cum denticulis et coronis distribuuntur.
1.3. 3. Thus a third architectural order, distinguished by its capital, was produced out of the two other orders. To the forms of their columns are due the names of the three orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, of which the Doric was the first to arise, and in early times. For Dorus, the son of Hellen and the nymph Phthia, was king of Achaea and all the Peloponnesus, and he built a fane, which chanced to be of this order, in the precinct of Juno at Argolis, a very ancient city, and subsequently others of the same order in the other cities of Achaea, although the rules of symmetry were not yet in existence.
1.3. Ita e generibus duobus capitulo interposito tertium genus in operibus est procreatum. e columnarum enim formationibus trium generum factae sunt nominationes, dorica, ionica, corinthia, e quibus prima et antiquitus dorica est nata. Namque Achaia Peloponnensoque tota Dorus, Hellenos et Pthias nymphae filius, regnavit, isque Argis, vetusta civitate, Iunonis templo aedificavit eius generis fortuito formae fanum, deinde isdem generibus in ceteris Achaiae civitatibus, cum etiamnum non esset symmetriarum rationata.
1.4. 4. Later, the Athenians, in obedience to oracles of the Delphic Apollo, and with the general agreement of all Hellas, despatched thirteen colonies at one time to Asia Minor, appointing leaders for each colony and giving the command-in-chief to Ion, son of Xuthus and Creusa (whom further Apollo at Delphi in the oracles had acknowledged as his son). Ion conducted those colonies to Asia Minor, took possession of the land of Caria, and there founded the grand cities of Ephesus, Miletus, Myus (long ago engulfed by the water, and its sacred rites and suffrage handed over by the Ionians to the Milesians), Priene, Samos, Teos, Colophon, Chius, Erythrae, Phocaea, Clazomenae, Lebedos, and Melite. This Melite, on account of the arrogance of its citizens, was destroyed by the other cities in a war declared by general agreement, and in its place, through the kindness of King Attalus and Arsinoe, the city of the Smyrnaeans was admitted among the Ionians.
1.4. Postea autem quam Athenienses ex responsis Apollinis Delphici, communi consilio totius Hellados,XIII colonias uno tempore in Asiam deduxerunt ducesque singulis coloniis constituerunt et summam imperii potestatem Ioni, Xuthi et Creusae filio, dederunt, quem etiam Apollo Delphis suum filium in responsis est professus, isque eas colonias in Asiam deduxit et Cariae fines occupavit ibique civitates amplissimas constituit Ephesum, Miletum, Myunta, (quae olim ab aqua est devorata; cuius sacra et suffragium Milesiis Iones attribuerunt), Prienen, Samum, Teon, Colophona, Chium, Erythras, Phocaeam, Clazomenas, Lebedon, Meliten (haec Melite propter civium adrogantiam ab his civitatibus bello indicto communi consilio est sublata; cuius loco postea regis Attali et Arsinoes beneficio Zmyrnaeorum civitas inter Ionas est recepta): hae civitates, cum Caras et Lelegas eiecissent, eam terrae regionem a duce suo Ione appellaverunt Ioniam ibique deorum inmortalium templa constituentes coeperunt fana aedificare.
1.5. 5. Now these cities, after driving out the Carians and Lelegans, called that part of the world Ionia from their leader Ion, and there they set off precincts for the immortal gods and began to build fanes: first of all, a temple to Panionion Apollo such as they had seen in Achaea, calling it Doric because they had first seen that kind of temple built in the states of the Dorians.
1.5. et primum Apollini Panionio aedem, uti viderant in Achaia, constituerunt et eam Doricam appellaverunt, quod in Dorieon civitatibus primum factam eo genere viderunt.
1.6. 6. Wishing to set up columns in that temple, but not having rules for their symmetry, and being in search of some way by which they could render them fit to bear a load and also of a satisfactory beauty of appearance, they measured the imprint of a man's foot and compared this with his height. On finding that, in a man, the foot was one sixth of the height, they applied the same principle to the column, and reared the shaft, including the capital, to a height six times its thickness at its base. Thus the Doric column, as used in buildings, began to exhibit the proportions, strength, and beauty of the body of a man.
1.6. In ea aede cum voluissent columnas conlocare, non habentes symmetrias earum et quaerentes, quibus rationibus efficere possent, uti et ad onus ferendum essent idoneae et in aspectu probatam haberent venustatem, dimensi sunt virilis pedis vestigium et id retulerunt in altitudinem. cum invenissent pedem sextam partem esse altitudinis in homine, item in columnam transtulerunt et, qua crassitudine fecerunt basim scapi, tantas sex cum capitulo in altitudinem extulerunt. ita dorica columna virilis corporis proportionem et firmitatem et venustatem in aedificiis praestare coepit.
1.7. 7. Just so afterwards, when they desired to construct a temple to Diana in a new style of beauty, they translated these footprints into terms characteristic of the slenderness of women, and thus first made a column the thickness of which was only one eighth of its height, so that it might have a taller look. At the foot they substituted the base in place of a shoe; in the capital they placed the volutes, hanging down at the right and left like curly ringlets, and ornamented its front with cymatia and with festoons of fruit arranged in place of hair, while they brought the flutes down the whole shaft, falling like the folds in the robes worn by matrons. Thus in the invention of the two different kinds of columns, they borrowed manly beauty, naked and unadorned, for the one, and for the other the delicacy, adornment, and proportions characteristic of women.
1.7. Item postea Dianae ⟨cum cogitarent⟩ constituere aedem, quaerentes novi generis speciem isdem vestigiis ad muliebrem transtulerunt gracilitatem, et fecerunt primum columnae crassitudinem altitudinis octava parte, ut haberet speciem excelsiorem. basi spiram supposuerunt pro calceo, capitulo volutas uti capillamento concrispatos cincinnos praependentes dextra ac sinistra conlocaverunt et cymatiis et encarpis pro crinibus dispositis frontes ornaverunt truncoque toto strias uti stolarum rugas matronali more demiserunt. ita duobus discriminibus columnarum inventionem, unam virili sine ornatu nuda specie, alteram muliebri Subtilitate et ornatu symmetriaque sunt mutuati.
1.8. 8. It is true that posterity, having made progress in refinement and delicacy of feeling, and finding pleasure in more slender proportions, has established seven diameters of the thickness as the height of the Doric column, and nine as that of the Ionic. The Ionians, however, originated the order which is therefore named Ionic. The third order, called Corinthian, is an imitation of the slenderness of a maiden; for the outlines and limbs of maidens, being more slender on account of their tender years, admit of prettier effects in the way of adornment.
1.8. posteri vero elegantia subtilitateque iudiciorum progressi et gracilioribus modulis delectati septem crassitudinis diametros in altitudinem columnae doricae, ionicae novem constituerunt. id autem ⟨genus⟩, quod Iones fecerunt primo, Ionicum est nominatum. Tertium vero, quod Corinthium dicitur, virginalis habet gracilitatis imitationem, quod virginis propter aetatis teneritatem gracilioribus membris figuratae effectus recipiunt ornatus venustiores.
1.9. 9. It is related that the original discovery of this form of capital was as follows. A freeborn maiden of Corinth, just of marriageable age, was attacked by an illness and passed away. After her burial, her nurse, collecting a few little things which used to give the girl pleasure while she was alive, put them in a basket, carried it to the tomb, and laid it on top thereof, covering it with a roof-tile so that the things might last longer in the open air. This basket happened to be placed just above the root of an acanthus. The acanthus root, pressed down meanwhile though it was by the weight, when springtime came round put forth leaves and stalks in the middle, and the stalks, growing up along the sides of the basket, and pressed out by the corners of the tile through the compulsion of its weight, were forced to bend into volutes at the outer edges.
1.9. Eius autem capituli prima inventio sic memoratur esse facta. virgo civis Corinthia iam matura nuptiis inplicata morbo decessit. post sepulturam eius, quibus ea virgo viva pupulis delectabatur, nutrix collecta et composita in calatho pertulit ad monumentum et in summo conlocavit et, uti ea permanerent diutius subdiu, tegula texit. is calathus fortuito supra acanthi radicem fuerat conlocatus. interim pondere pressa radix acanthi media folia et cauliculos circum vernum tempus profudit, cuius cauliculi secundum calathi latera crescentes et ab angulis tegulae ponderis necessitate expressi flexuras in extremas partes volutarum facere sunt coacti.
1.10. 10. Just then Callimachus, whom the Athenians called κατατηξίτεχνος for the refinement and delicacy of his artistic work, passed by this tomb and observed the basket with the tender young leaves growing round it. Delighted with the novel style and form, he built some columns after that pattern for the Corinthians, determined their symmetrical proportions, and established from that time forth the rules to be followed in finished works of the Corinthian order.
1.10. Tunc Callimachus, qui propter elegantiam et subtilitatem artis marmoreae ab Atheniensibus κατατηξίτεχνος fuerat nominatus, praeteriens hoc monumentum animadvertit eum calathum et circa foliorum nascentem teneritatem, delectatusque genere et formae novitate ad id exemplar columnas apud Corinthios fecit symmetriasque constituit ⟨et⟩ ex eo in operis perfectionibus Corinthii generis distribuit rationes.
1.11. 11. The proportions of this capital should be fixed as follows. Let the height of the capital, including its abacus, be equivalent to the thickness of the base of a column. Let the breadth of the abacus be proportioned so that diagonals drawn from one corner of it to the other shall be twice the height of the capitals, which will give the proper breadth to each face of the abacus. The faces should curve inwards, by one ninth of the breadth of the face, from the outside edge of the corners of the abacus. At the bottom the capital should be of the thickness of the top of the column omitting the congé and astragal. The height of the abacus is one seventh of the height of the capital.
1.11. Eius autem capituli symmetria sic est facienda, uti, quanta fuerit crassitudo imae columnae, tanta sit altitudo capituli cum abaco. abaci latitudo ita habeat rationem, ut, quanta fuerit altitudo, tanta duo sint diagonia ab angulo ad angulum spatia; ita enim iustas habebunt frontes quoquoversus latitudines. frontes sinuentur introrsus ab extremis angulis abaci suae frontis latitudinis nona. imum capituli tantam habeat crassitudinem, quantam habet summa columna praeter apothesim et astragalum. abaci crassitudo septima capituli altitudinis.
1.12. 12. Omitting the height of the abacus, let the rest be divided into three parts, of which one should be given to the lowest leaf. Let the second leaf occupy the middle part of the height. Of the same height should be the stalks, out of which grow leaves projected so as to support the volutes which proceed from the stalks, and run out to the utmost corners of the abacus; the smaller spirals between them should be carved just under the flower which is on the abacus. The flowers on the four sides are to be made as large as the height of the abacus. On these principles of proportion, Corinthian capitals will be finished as they ought to be. There are other kinds of capitals set upon these same columns and called by various names, but they have no peculiarities of proportion of which we can speak, nor can we recognize from them another order of columns. Even their very names are, as we can see, derived with some changes from the Corinthian, the cushion-shaped, and the Doric, whose symmetrical proportions have been thus transferred to delicate sculptures of novel form.
1.12. Dempta abaci crassitudine dividatur reliqua pars in partes tres, e quibus una imo folio detur; secundum folium mediam altitudinem teneat; coliculi eandem habeant altitudinem, e quibus folia nascuntur proiecta, uti excipiant quae ex coliculis natae procurrunt ad extremos angulos volutae; minoresque helices infra sinum medium, qui est in abaco, ⟨sub⟩ flores subiecti scalpantur. flores in quattuor partibus, quanta erit abaci crassitudo, tam magni formentur. ita his symmetriis corinthia capitula suas habebunt exactiones. Sunt autem, quae isdem columnis inponuntur, capitulorum genera variis vocabulis nominata, quorum nec proprietates symmetriarum nec columnarum genus aliud nominare possumus, sed ipsorum vocabula traducta et commutata ex corinthiis et pulvinatis et doricis videmus, quorum symmetriae sunt in novarum scalpturarum translatae subtilitatem.
2.1. 1. SINCE the origin and invention of the orders of columns have been described above, I think it not out of place to speak in the same way about their ornaments, showing how these arose and from what original elements they were devised. The upper parts of all buildings contain timber work to which various terms are applied. And not only in its terminology but actually in its uses it exhibits variety. The main beams are those which are laid upon columns, pilasters, and antae; tie-beams and rafters are found in the framing. Under the roof, if the span is pretty large, are the crossbeams and struts; if it is of moderate extent, only the ridgepole, with the principal rafters extending to the outer edge of the eaves. Over the principal rafters are the purlines, and then above these and under the roof-tiles come the common rafters, extending so far that the walls are covered by their projection.
2.1. Quoniam autem de generibus columnarum origines et inventiones supra sunt scriptae, non alienum mihi videtur isdem rationibus de ornamentis eorum, quemadmodum sunt prognata et quibus principiis et originibus inventa, dicere. in aedificiis omnibus insuper conlocatur materiatio variis vocabulis nominata. ea autem uti in nominationibus, ita in re varias habet utilitates. trabes enim supra columnas et parastaticas et antas ponuntur; in contignationibus tigna et axes; sub tectis, si maiora spatia sunt, et transtra et capreoli, si commoda, columen, et cantherii prominentes ad extremam suggrundationem; supra cantherios templa; deinde insuper sub tegulas asseres ita prominentes, uti parietes proiecturis eorum tegantur.
2.2. 2. Thus each and every detail has a place, origin, and order of its own. In accordance with these details, and starting from carpenter's work, artists in building temples of stone and marble imitated those arrangements in their sculptures, believing that they must follow those inventions. So it was that some ancient carpenters, engaged in building somewhere or other, after laying the tie-beams so that they projected from the inside to the outside of the walls, closed up the space between the beams, and above them ornamented the coronae and gables with carpentry work of beauty greater than usual; then they cut off the projecting ends of the beams, bringing them into line and flush with the face of the walls; next, as this had an ugly look to them, they fastened boards, shaped as triglyphs are now made, on the ends of the beams, where they had been cut off in front, and painted them with blue wax so that the cutting off of the ends of the beams, being concealed, would not offend the eye. Hence it was in imitation of the arrangement of the tie-beams that men began to employ, in Doric buildings, the device of triglyphs and the metopes between the beams.
2.2. Ita unaquaeque res et locum et genus et ordinem proprium tuetur. e quibus rebus et a materiatura fabrili in lapideis et marmoreis aedium sacrarum aedificationibus artifices dispositiones eorum scalpturis sunt imitati et eas inventiones persequendas putaverunt. ideo, quod antiqui fabri quodam in loco aedificantes, cum ita ab interioribus parietibus ad extremas partes tigna prominentia habuissent conlocata, inter tigna struxerunt supraque coronas et fastigia venustiore specie fabrilibus operibus ornaverunt, tum proiecturas tignorum, quantum eminebant, ad lineam et perpendiculum parietum praesecuerunt, quae species cum invenusta îs visa esset, tabellas ita formatas, uti nunc fiunt triglyphi, contra tignorum praecisiones in fronte fixerunt et eas cera caerulea depinxerunt, ut praecisiones tignorum tectae non offenderent visum: ita divisiones triglyphorum et ⟨met⟩oparum tignorum dispositione et intertigniûm habere in doricis operibus coeperunt.
2.3. 3. Later, others in other buildings allowed the projecting principal rafters to run out till they were flush with the triglyphs, and then formed their projections into simae. From that practice, like the triglyphs from the arrangement of the tie-beams, the system of mutules under the coronae was devised from the projections of the principal rafters. Hence generally, in buildings of stone and marble, the mutules are carved with a downward slant, in imitation of the principal rafters. For these necessarily have a slanting and projecting position to let the water drip down. The scheme of triglyphs and mutules in Doric buildings was, therefore, the imitative device that I have described.
2.3. Postea alii in aliis operibus ad perpendiculum triglyphorum cantherios prominentes proiecerunt eorumque proiecturas simaverunt. ex eo, uti tignorum dispositionibus triglyphi, ita e cantheriorum proiecturis mutulorum sub coronis ratio est inventa. ita fere in operibus lapideis et marmoreis mutuli inclinatis scalpturis deformantur, quod imitatio est cantheriorum; etenim necessario propter stillicidia proclinati conlocantur. ergo et triglyphorum et mutulorum in doricis operibus ratio ex ea imitatione inventa est.
2.4. 4. It cannot be that the triglyphs represent windows, as some have erroneously said, since the triglyphs are placed at the corners and over the middle of columns—places where, from the nature of the case, there can be no windows at all. For buildings are wholly disconnected at the corners if openings for windows are left at those points. Again, if we are to suppose that there were open windows where the triglyphs now stand, it will follow, on the same principle, that the dentils of the Ionic order have likewise taken the places of windows. For the term “metope” is used of the intervals between dentils as well as of those between triglyphs. The Greeks call the seats of tie-beams and rafters ὀπαί, while our people call these cavities columbaria (dovecotes). Hence, the space between the tie-beams, being the space between two “opae,” was named by them μετόπη.
2.4. Non enim, quemadmodum nonnulli errantes dixerunt fenestrarum imagines esse triglyphos, ita potest esse, quod in angulis contraque tetrantes columnarum triglyphi constituuntur, quibus in locis omnino non patitur res fenestras fieri. dissolvuntur enim angulorum in aedificiis iuncturae, si in îs fenestrarum fuerint lumina relicta. etiamque ubi nunc triglyphi constituuntur, si ibi luminum spatia fuisse iudicabuntur, isdem rationibus denticuli in ionicis fenestrarum occupavisse loca videbuntur. utraque enim, et inter denticulos et inter triglyphos quae sunt intervalla, metopae nominantur. ὀπαι enim Graeci tignorum cubicula et asserum appellant, uti nostri ea cava columbaria. ita quod inter duas opas est intertignium, id μετόπη est apud eos nominata.
2.5. 5. The system of triglyphs and mutules was invented for the Doric order, and similarly the scheme of dentils belongs to the Ionic, in which there are proper grounds for its use in buildings. Just as mutules represent the projection of the principal rafters, so dentils in the Ionic are an imitation of the projections of the common rafters. And so in Greek works nobody ever put dentils under mutules, as it is impossible that common rafters should be underneath principal rafters. Therefore, if that which in the original must be placed above the principal rafters, is put in the copy below them, the result will be a work constructed on false principles. Neither did the ancients approve of or employ mutules or dentils in pediments, but only plain coronae, for the reason that neither principal nor common rafters tail into the fronts of pediments, nor can they overhang them, but they are laid with a slope towards the eaves. Hence the ancients held that what could not happen in the original would have no valid reason for existence in the copy.
2.5. Ita uti autem in doricis triglyphorum et mutulorum est inventa ratio, item in ionicis denticulorum constitutio propriam in operibus habet rationem, et quemadmodum mutuli cantheriorum proiecturae ferunt imaginem, sic in ionicis denticuli ex proiecturis asserum habent imitationem. itaque in graecis operibus nemo sub mutulo denticulos constituit; non enim possunt subtus cantherios asseres esse. quod ergo supra cantherios et templa in veritate debet esse conlocatum, id in imaginibus si infra constitutum fuerit, mendosam habebit operis rationem. etiam quod antiqui non probaverunt, neque instituerunt in fastigiis ⟨mutulos aut⟩ denticulos fieri sed puras coronas, ideo quod nec cantherii nec asseres contra fastigiorum frontes distribuuntur nec possunt prominere, sed ad stillicidia proclinati conlocantur. ita quod non potest in veritate fieri, id non putaverunt in imaginibus factum posse certam rationem habere.
2.6. 6. For in all their works they proceeded on definite principles of fitness and in ways derived from the truth of Nature. Thus they reached perfection, approving only those things which, if challenged, can be explained on grounds of the truth. Hence, from the sources which have been described they established and left us the rules of symmetry and proportion for each order. Following in their steps, I have spoken above on the Ionic and Corinthian styles, and I shall now briefly explain the theory of the Doric and its general appearance.
2.6. Omnia enim certa proprietate et a veris naturae deducta moribus transduxerunt in operum perfectiones, et ea probaverunt, quorum explicationes in disputationibus rationem possunt habere veritatis. itaque ex eis originibus symmetrias et proportiones uniuscuiusque generis constitutas reliquerunt. quorum ingressus persecutus de ionicis et corinthiis institutionibus supra dixi; nunc vero doricam rationem summamque eius speciem breviter exponam.
3.1. 1. SOME of the ancient architects said that the Doric order ought not to be used for temples, because faults and incongruities were caused by the laws of its symmetry. Arcesius and Pytheos said so, as well as Hermogenes. He, for instance, after getting together a supply of marble for the construction of a Doric temple, changed his mind and built an Ionic temple to Father Bacchus with the same materials. This is not because it is unlovely in appearance or origin or dignity of form, but because the arrangement of the triglyphs and metopes (lacunaria) is an embarrassment and inconvenience to the work.
3.1. Nonnulli antiqui architecti negaverunt dorico genere aedes sacras oportere fieri, quod mendosae et disconvenientes in his symmetriae conficiebantur. itaque negavit Arcesius, item Pytheos, non minus Hermogenes. nam is cum paratam habuisset marmoris copiam in doricae aedis perfectionem, commutavit ex eadem copia et eam ionicam Libero Patri fecit. sed tamen non quod invenusta est species aut genus aut formae dignitas, sed quod inpedita est distributio et incommoda in opere triglyphorum et lacunariorum [distributione].
3.2. For the triglyphs ought to be placed so as to correspond to the centres of the columns, and the metopes between the triglyphs ought to be as broad as they are high. But in violation of this rule, at the corner columns triglyphs are placed at the outside edges and not corresponding to the centre of the columns. Hence the metopes next to the corner columns do not come out perfectly square, but are too broad by half the width of a triglyph. Those who would make the metopes all alike, make the outermost intercolumniations narrower by half the width of a triglyph. But the result is faulty, whether it is attained by broader metopes or narrower intercolumniations. For this reason, the ancients appear to have avoided the scheme of the Doric order in their temples.
3.2. Namque necesse est triglyphos constitui contra medios tetrantes columnarum, metopasque, quae inter triglyphos fient, aeque longas esse quam altas. contraque in angulares columnas triglyphi in extremis partibus constituuntur et non contra medios tetrantes. ita metopae, quae proximae ad angulares triglyphos fiunt, non exeunt quadratae sed oblongiores triglyphi dimidia latitudine. at qui metopas aequales volun facere, intercolumnia extrema contrahunt triglyphi dimidia latitudine. hoc autem, sive metoparum longitudinibus sive intercolumniorum contractionibus efficietur, est mendosum. quapropter antiqui vitare visi sunt in aedibus sacris doricae symmetriae rationem.
3.3. 3. However, since our plan calls for it, we set it forth as we have received it from our teachers, so that if anybody cares to set to work with attention to these laws, he may find the proportions stated by which he can construct correct and faultless examples of temples in the Doric fashion. Let the front of a Doric temple, at the place where the columns are put up, be divided, if it is to be tetrastyle, into twenty-seven parts; if hexastyle, into forty-two. One of these parts will be the module (in Greek ἐμβάτης); and this module once fixed, all the parts of the work are adjusted by means of calculations based upon it.
3.3. Nos autem exponimus, uti ordo postulat, quemadmodum a praeceptoribus accepimus, uti, si qui voluerit his rationibus attendens ita ingredi, habeat proportiones explicatas, quibus emendatas et sine vitiis efficere possit aedium sacrarum dorico more perfectiones. frons aedis doricae in loco, quo columnae constituuntur, dividatur, si tetrastylos erit, in partes XXVII, si hexastylos,XXXXII. ex his pars una erit modulus, qui graece ἐμβάτης dicitur, cuius moduli constitutione ratiocinationibus efficiuntur omnis operis distributiones.
3.4. 4. The thickness of the columns will be two modules, and their height, including the capitals, fourteen. The height of a capital will be one module, and its breadth two and one sixth modules. Let the height of the capital be divided into three parts, of which one will form the abacus with its cymatium, the second the echinus with its annulets, and the third the necking. The diminution of the column should be the same as described for Ionic columns in the third book. The height of the architrave, including taenia and guttae, is one module, and of the taenia, one seventh of a module. The guttae, extending as wide as the triglyphs and beneath the taenia, should hang down for one sixth of a module, including their regula. The depth of the architrave on its under side should answer to the necking at the top of the column. Above the architrave, the triglyphs and metopes are to be placed: the triglyphs one and one half modules high, and one module wide in front. They are to be arranged so that one is placed to correspond to the centre of each corner and intermediate column, and two over each intercolumniation except the middle intercolumniations of the front and rear porticoes, which have three each. The intervals in the middle being thus extended, a free passage will be afforded to those who would approach the statues of the gods.
3.4. Crassitudo columnarum erit duorum modulorum, altitudo cum capitulo XIIII. capituli crassitudo unius moduli, latitudo duorum et moduli sextae partis. crassitudo capituli dividatur in partes tres, e quibus una plinthus cum cymatio fiat, altera echinus cum anulis, tertia hypotrachelion. contrahatur columna ita, uti in tertio libro de ionicis est scriptum. epistylii altitudo unius moduli cum taenia et guttis; taenia moduli septima; guttarum longitudo sub taenia contra triglyphos alta cum regula parte sexta moduli praependeat. item epistylii latitudo ima respondeat hypotrachelio summae columnae. supra epistylium conlocandi sunt triglyphi cum suis metopis, alti unius ⟨et⟩ dimidiati moduli, lati in fronte unius moduli, ita divisi, ut in angularibus columnis et in mediis contra tetrantes medios sint conlocati, et intercolumniis reliquis bini, in mediis pronao et postico terni. ita relaxatis mediis intervallis sine inpeditionibus aditus accedentibus erit ad deorum simulacra.
3.5. 5. The width of the triglyph should be divided into six parts, and five of these marked off in the middle by means of the rule, and two half parts at the right and left. Let one part, that in the centre, form a “femur” (in Greek μηρός). On each side of it are the channels, to be cut in to fit the tip of a carpenter's square, and in succession the other femora, one at the right and the other at the left of a channel. To the outsides are relegated the semichannels. The triglyphs having been thus arranged, let the metopes between the triglyphs be as high as they are wide, while at the outer corners there should be semimetopes inserted, with the width of half a module. In these ways all defects will be corrected, whether in metopes or intercolumniations or lacunaria, as all the arrangements have been made with uniformity.
3.5. Triglyphorum latitudo dividatur in partes sex, ex quibus partibus quinque in medio, duae dimidiae dextra ac sinistra designentur regula. una in medio deformetur femur, quod graece μηρός dicitur; secundum eam canaliculi ad normae cacumen inprimantur; ex ordine eorum dextra ac sinistra altera femina constituantur; in extremis partibus semicanaliculi intervertantur. triglyphis ita conlocatis, metopae, quae sunt inter triglyphos, aeque altae sint quam longae; item in extremis angulis hemimetopia sint inpressa dimidia moduli latitudine. ita enim erit, ut omnia vitia et metoparum et intercolumniorum et lacunariorum, quod aequales divisiones factae erunt, emendentur.