Page:History of Art in Primitive Greece - Mycenian Art Vol 2.djvu/96

Description and Restoration of Tomh I. yt a very similar entasis, and there it reaches the soil without any intervening member, pedestal or otherwise {Fig. ig8). The difference between the upper and lower diameter may have been a trifle over ten centimetres, but certainly not more. The above result is obtained by reckoning the upper diameter at about 548 centimetres, and the breadth of the base surface fifty centimetres. The uppermost step of the base must have had a slight salience beyond the shaft. Were these shafts all monoliths, or made up of several pieces ? We know not. The marks left on the wall by the sealing system will fit either hypothesis {s,s). In any case, the shaft was distinct from the wall ; it give^ on plan a semi-circle, and looks as if the architect Fio. 879. — Tomb I. Green breccia fragment of Ihe shaft. Upper diameter, o m., 5480, had taken a column and split it lengthwise in twain, and then applied the two halves to the wall. In principle, semi-columns are totally different from engaged pillars, of which classic archi- tecture will presently make so liberal a use. These are contrived in the masonry, and incorporated with it. Here the straight (back) face is smooth, and recalls those baguettes which a cabinet- maker glues on to the panels of a piece of furniture ; the semi- columns were only held in position against the wall by clamps and pins. The largest of these occurs at about one-third of the total height of the shaft (ss). Traces of smaller dowel-holes are visible on the base and lintel, where they occur on a plane with the abacus, which is itself fixed to the corbel with bronze pegs. Multitudinous clamps served very well their purpose, which was to attach the pillars to the walls ; but their want of mass