of the immortal qualities of the Classic and make it a potent factor in the architecture of to-day.

The three "Orders," or types of Greek columns, comprised later in the Roman "Five Orders," were symbols of Classic architecture, details of a much larger whole. And these "Orders" are architecturally fine not because Vignola, or "precedent" or the schools say they are fine, but because they were conceived in logic and executed in terms of purity of form.

The Greek relationship of column to entablature is a standard because it is logical and because the members are relatively complementary-not because the arrangement is " Greek." The merit of the Classic column and entablature rests in the fact that the column is (both structurally and apparently) adequate to support the entablature which rests upon it, and the entablature is of adequate weight to explain the girth of the column. A perfect balance exists.

Before proceeding further, it seems advisable to present a brief outline of the logical growth of the Classic column.

The first Greek order, the Doric, was massive and heavy, the columns placed closely together, and seeming (as well as being) more massive than necessary to support the entablature. The refinement of a base had not been thought of. Logical design, meaning a relation of form to structure, however, was apparent in the Doric capital. The shaft of the column was cylindrical, the beam resting upon it was rectilinear. It was necessary to effect a transition. It was also necessary to effect a transition from the vertical line of the column to the horizontal line of the architrave, or beam, which rested upon it. Hence the "abacus," the circular, bowl-shaped member surmounting the shaft.

"CLASSIC DERIVATIONS" FOR MODERN AMERICAN BANK BUILDINGS, BASED ON THE DORIC AND THE IONIC ORDERS OF ANCIENT GREECE

Photograph by Julian Buckly Buildings of the type called "monumental" are best rendered in terms of Classic dignity (The New York City Post-office)

Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge, Architects

Classic precedent is apparent in virtually all large buildings where dignity is a requisite (New building for the Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.)

The beauty-loving Greeks, however, were not long content with the heavy, often clumsy proportions of the Doric order. Their first effort toward lightening it appeared in the vertical fluting of the shaft. To add a little "detail" they designed a few rings, or "annulets," immediately below the abacus.

The next evolution was the Ionic capital, its spiral "volutes" derived from Asia Minor and used in conjunction with an almost concealed abacus. With the development of the Ionic order, it was found that the great girth of the Doric column was not necessary, and consequently the shaft was lightened and its verticality emphasised by delicate fluting.

The final development came in the Corinthian order, in which the design of the capital effected a perfect transition from shaft to entablature, from the vertical to the horizontal, and from round to square. It will be seen upon study of the Corinthian capital how this transition was achieved. First, the necking indicated the height of the clear shaft, without actually terminating it abruptly. The lines of the shaft continue upward through the foliation, gradually springing outward in the volutes which support the abacus. This abacus, in the form of a square with concave sides, performs the dual function of fitting the shape of the capital and conforming with the architrave which rests on it. The spread of the Corinthian capital immediately below the abacus gives the additional impression of the weight of the superimposed entablature, while any sense of too great weight is counteracted by the lightness and grace of the detail of leaves.

It can never be gainsaid that the Corinthian capital is a masterpiece of design, being both expressive of its function and beautiful in its form.

With the evolution of the Greek column, there naturally took place a corresponding evolution of the entablature, both in its proportions and its decoration.

The Greek Doric entablature (as exemplified in the Parthenon) consisted of a plain architrave, a frieze divided into triglyphs and metopes and a cornice, which was split to run upward into the great pediment.

The proportions of the Greek Ionic closely followed those of the Doric, but the frieze was a continuous band, allowing of a continuous decoration of bas-relief figures. The heavy appearance of the architrave was remarkably lightened by the expedient of splitting it up into three horizontal divisions, the upper two slightly overlapping the lower, and a fine decorated moulding marking the division from the frieze. The cornice member, also, was decoratively elaborated to some extent, introducing (in later examples) the dentils and modillions of the Corinthian cornice.

The Corinthian entablature is a model of skilful and adequate proportions and aptly applied decoration. The architrave and frieze remained as in the Ionic form, but the cornice, the last, or "finishing" member of the building, was elaborated to form a crown, and logically terminate the entire composition. It was required to effect "interest" in diversified shadows, so the "dentil" course was made a part of the Corinthian cornice, and the various mouldings were decorated. Greater projection was required, in order to cast a strong shadow at the top of the building, but it was evident that a plain "overhang" of stone, far beyond the face of the frieze, would seem as though likely to topple down, no matter how securely it might actually be anchored into the masonry of the entablature. To correct this illusion, the "modillions" were