Ten Books on Architecture/Book III
From Wikisource
| ←Book II | Ten Books on Architecture by , translated by Morris Hicky Morgan Book III |
Book IV→ |
Book III [edit]
| Page 69 | |
| Page 72 | |
| Page 75 | |
| Page 78 | |
| Page 86 | |
| Page 90 |
SCAMILLI IMPARES (BOOK III, ch. 4)
No passage in Vitruvius has given rise to so much discussion or
been the subject of such various interpretations as this phrase.
The most reasonable explanation of its meaning seems to be that of
Émile Burnouf, at one time Director of the French School at Athens,
published in the _Revue Générale del' Architecture_ for 1875, as a
note to a brief article of his on the explanation of the curves of
Greek Doric buildings. This explanation was accepted by Professor
Morgan, who called my attention to it in a note dated December 12,
1905. It has also quite recently been adopted by Professor Goodyear
in his interesting book on _Greek Refinements_.
Burnouf would translate it _nivelettes inégales_, "unequal
levellers." He states that in many parts of France in setting a
long course of cut stone the masons make use of a simple device
consisting of three pointed blocks of equal height used as
levellers, of which two are placed one at each extremity of the
course, while the third is used to level the stones, as they are
successively set in place, by setting it upon the stone to be set
and sighting across the other two levellers. If two "levellers" of
equal height are used with a third of less height placed at the
centre of the course, with perhaps others of intermediate height
used at intermediate points, it would obviously be equally easy to
set out a curved course, as, for instance, the curved stylobate of
the Parthenon which rises about three inches in its length of one
hundred feet. By a simple calculation any desired curve could be
laid out in this way. The word scamillus is a diminutive of
_scamnum_, a mounting-block or bench.
Practically the same explanation is given by G. Georges in a memoir
submitted to the Sorbonne in April, 1875. Georges adds an
interesting list, by no means complete, of the various explanations
that have been offered at different times.
Philander (1522-1552). Projections of the stylobate or pedestals.
Barbaro (1556-1690). The same.
Bertano (1558). Swellings of the die of the stylobate or bosses
in the stylobate or the frieze of the
entablature.
Baldus (1612). Sub-plinths placed under the bases of the columns.
Perrault (1673-1684). Projection of the stylobate.
Polleni (1739). The same.
Galiani (1758-1790). Projection of the stylobate with hypothesis of
embossments on the stylobates and the bases of
the columns.
Tardieu and Coussin (1837) and Mauffras (1847). Projection of the stylobates.
Aurès (1865). Steps or offsets between the stylobate and the columns.
The list of Georges is wholly French and Italian.
Fra Giocondo's interpretation is indicated in our reproduction of
the illustration in his edition of 1511.
Hoffer (1838) and afterwards Pennethorne (1846) and Penrose (1851)
gave measurements showing the curvatures in the Parthenon and the
temple of Theseus in Athens. Penrose and most writers who followed
him supposed the "scamilli impares" to be projections or offsets on
the stylobate required on account of the curves to bring the column
into relation with the architraves above, and similar offsets of
unequal or sloping form were supposed to be required above the
abaci of the capitals, but such offsets, although sometimes
existing, have no obvious connection with the passage in Vitruvius.
C. Bötticher (1863) and more recently Durm have denied the original
intention of the curves and ascribe them to settlement, a
supposition which hardly accords with the observed facts. Reber, in
the note on this passage in his translation of Vitruvius (1865),
thinks the scamilli were sloping offsets on the stylobate to cause
the inclination of the columns, but admits that nothing of the kind
has been found in the remains so far examined. It may be added that
this is at variance with the statement of the purpose of the
scamilli which Vitruvius gives.
Assuming, as I think we must, that the horizontal curvature of the
stylobate in such buildings as the Parthenon was intended and
carefully planned, Burnouf's explanation fits the case precisely
and makes this passage of Vitruvius straightforward and simple.
This can be said of no other explanation, for all the others leave
the passage obscure and more or less nonsensical. Durm's attempt to
refer the passage to the case of the temple with a podium which has
just been spoken of by Vitruvius is somewhat forced, or at least
unnecessary. Clearly the passage refers to stylobates in general;
but Reber also so translates and punctuates as to make the use of
the "scamilli impares" refer only to the case of temples built in
the Roman manner with the podium. His resulting explanation still
leaves the passage obscure and unsatisfactory. One may finally
refer to the ingenious but improbable explanation of Choisy, who
translates it echelons impairs, and explains them as offsets
arranged according to the odd numbers, _nombres impairs_, i. e.,
offsets varying at equal intervals in the proportion of 1, 3, 5, 7,
9, etc., and which he claims was applied also to the entasis of
columns.
H. L. WARREN.
