The Corinthian and Composite orders are considered by many to be the most refined orders.  While this may be a valid argument, it is apparent that it is an argument that differs from person to person.  While everyone has their favorite order, it appears that the Romans favored the Corinthian or Composite orders.

But why did the Romans use an order that originated in Greece?  The answer is found in the history of the order’s theoretical meaning.  By the time the Roman Empire was in a position, both in resources and architectural knowledge, to develop their own order, the Doric and Ionic origins and meanings had become lost in a cloud of forgetfulness.   However, the Corinthian order had a very specific origin, at least according to Vitruvius.  Shortly after a young woman had died, someone had placed several of her possessions in a basket, placed it near her tomb, and covered it with a tile.  Over time an acanthus plant grew up around the basket.  This scene inspired a sculptor to create the Corinthian capital.  While this story may be fact or fiction, it is the mythology behind the elements that appeal to the architect.  Acanthus leaves are a sign of triumph over death, which ultimately lead the order to be recognized as a symbol of victory and strength.

A basket with acanthus growing around it.	Choragic Monument of Lysicrates

As with other orders, the Corinthian was attributed to a human form, in this case a fair maiden with sensitive and delicate attributes.  The Goddesses Flora, Venus, and Persephone where often attributed to the Corinthian order.  However, unlike the other orders, the Corinthian also had proportions that where similar to the human form.  For example, the capital is similar in proportion to the human head; the Corinthian base is proportional to the human foot.  These literal parallels would have appealed to the Romans.

The Corinthian capital overlaid with a human head.	The Corinthian Order compared to a femail figure.

Now let us break from the reasons the Romans use the Corinthian and take a look at the first examples of the Corinthian column.  The order is said to have originated from the Parthenon, either in the room at the west end, or as part of a colossal statue of Athena Parthenos.  These, however, are only theories as there is no hard evidence to support it.  The first known example was found at the Temple of Apollo at Bassae.  The columns are found at the head of the cella (see fig. 1 and 2).  In this case the column is only a substitute for an ionic column and does not have the other ornament now associated with the Corinthian order.  However, this is clearly where the first thoughts for a new order began to emerge.

Temple of Apollo at Bassae	Capital from the Temple of Apollo at Bassae

As the years went by, the periodic trial and error lead to the columns found in the Tholos of Epidauros (360 BC), which is a close to finished column.  In 330 BC the columns were used externally on the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates.  By the 170’s BC the columns began to be chosen for the exterior of major temples, most notably the temple of Zeus at Athens.  During this time the Corinthian column borrowed the entablature from the Ionic order, or, less frequently, from the Doric order, which follows the writings of Vitruvius.  However, during the Augustan period the Corinthian column emerged as a whole order.  It also became the order most associated with the Roman Empire.

Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens	Parallel of orders from Robert Adam's Classical Architecture

Augustus is well known for turning Rome from “a city of brick into one of marble.”  At the time the Romans felt inferior only to Greece.  Augustus wanted to end this, to do this he intended to encourage normative codes in politics, behavior, and above all architecture.  The Corinthian column was embraced as a staple in monumental architecture, not just in Rome, but throughout the Empire.  Augustus enjoyed the classical Greek past the Corinthian evoked, but it was also flexible enough to be used in very Roman applications.

Parallel of Corinthian Columns	Corinthian Keywords

Now let us look at the order’s proportions and design.  The capital is noted for being the same dimension in height as the cross-sectional dimension of the abacus.   This rule of design appears to be one of the few common points between Corinthian capitals.  Some of the other design elements that generally remain similar are the presence of two bands of acanthus leaves and volutes and helices that spring from the same cauliculus.  In a Corinthian capital the abacus always bows in at the cardinal points.  This bow, depending on its depth, determines the height of the capital; this is based on the cross-section rule.  However, the abacus can only be altered to a certain point so it would meet the architrave in a visually pleasing manner.  These few rules allowed for a myriad of different Corinthian columns that all followed the basic rules.

The Corinthian columns generally have a ratio between the height of the column and its shaft of 6:5.  The height of the total column was designed to fit each building; however, ancient temples tend to have columns that are in multiples of 6 feet.  In most cases this would equal 8 times the diameter of the shaft’s base.  The shaft in turn is five-sixths the height of the column.  The base tends to be half of the shaft diameter and the capital twice the height of the base.  All of the following dimensions equal the diameter of the base of the shaft: the diameter of the astragal at the top of the shaft, half the diagonal width of the plinth of the base, half the diagonal width of the abacus of the capital, and the height of the kalathos.

Vertical Alignment	Corinthian Order after Vignola

These dimensions, which are based on each other, allow the Corinthian order to have a series of vertical lines to run through it.  For example, the astragal lines up with the body of the column, the kalathos sits directly above the flare of the shaft, and the diagonal points of the abacus align with the corners of the plinth. 

As with all of the orders these rules where made to be broken.  The heights of certain elements are many times supposed to be one dimension according to the rules, but needed to be changed to accommodate an appropriate visual appeal.  Other elements forced elements to have different dimensions.  Units of measure, in ancient times the foot rod was divided into 16 or 12 parts, but not smaller.  When calculations produced other units, the dimension was usually rounded. Similarly, the stone cutting also forced the dimensions to differ from building to building.

The proportions and iconography of the order was not the only thing that seemed to appeal to Roman architects.  The order was more flexible than the Doric and Ionic orders.  As Vitruvius shows, the order can be erected with either a Doric or Ionic entablature.  Similarly, the corner condition of the Corinthian order becomes easier to resolve, and therefore allowed for more complex applications of the columns.  Finally, the organic nature of the Corinthian order allowed it to be more adaptable, the Composite is the best example of this.

Corinthian Variants	Corinthian Variants

The Composite is a combination of the Corinthian order and the Ionic order.  One can see the two rows of acanthus leaves at the base with the traditional Ionic volutes at the top.  Unlike the Corinthian order the volutes are larger and the helices are replaced by an egg and dart motif.  The Composite order tended to be heavier than the Corinthian, it has fewer details , while the volutes follow the rules of the Ionic order.  However, this rule is often broken to create a more elegant visual effect. 

Composite after Palladio	Composite Order after Vignola

The Romans also used countless other variants of the Corinthian order.  Especially in small-scale work and interiors, the order was changed to meet certain iconographic ideals.  Other vegetal, animal, or even human motifs where used in place of acanthus leaves.  While these all followed a unified rule based upon those dictated by generations of work, they also managed to pave the way for future architects to break those rules and create new elements of design.

Bibliography:

Principles of Roman Architecture.  Jones, Mark Wilson.  Yale University Press.  New Haven, 2000.

Classical Architecture.  Adams, Robert.  Harry N. Abrams, Inc.  New York, 1948.

American Vignola.  Ware, William R.  General Publishing Company, Ltd.  Toronto, 1994.