That member of the triglyph,—for such we must be allowed to consider it,—is of great value, serving, as it does, to impart somewhat of decoration to the architrave, to break the monotony of the otherwise uninterrupted line of the tænia, and to connect, to the eye at least, the architrave and frieze together. Although in a much fainter degree, the architrave is thus made to exhibit the same system of placing ornamental members at regular distances from each other, as is so energetically pronounced in the frieze itself. If it be asked why the same, or something equivalent to it, was not extended to the architrave in the other Orders, our answer is, because a similar motive for doing it does not exist. The triglyph being suppressed in the Ionic and Corinthian frieze, the accompanying guttæ beneath it were of necessity omitted also, otherwise they would have made evident that the triglyph ought to have been shown likewise. There is, indeed, one example, the monument of Thrasyllus, of a Grecian Doric entablature, whose frieze is without triglyphs (wreaths being substituted for them), and the guttæ are nevertheless retained. But how?—instead of being placed at intervals, as if there were triglyphs, they are continued uninterruptedly throughout, so that the idea of triglyph disappears; besides which, the example here referred to is altogether so anomalous and exceptional as to be not so much a specimen of the Doric _Order_ as of the Doric _style_, modified according to particular circumstances; on which account it is highly valuable, since we may learn from it that where peculiar circumstances required—at least admitted of peculiar treatment, the Greeks did not scruple to avail themselves of the liberty so afforded.