« PreviousContinue »
itor, and its lower diameter as a denominator, both in English feet; the third is the
43. Casting our eye down the third column of the above table, we find the height of
by the observations of Mr. Allason, was a refinement introduced probably at a period, though the mere diminution of them was adopted in the earliest tinies. practice is said to have its type in the law which Nature observes in the formation the trunks of trees. This diminution varies, in a number of examples, from one - to one third of the lower diameter ; a mean of sixteen examples gives one fourth. • mere diminution is not, however, the matter for consideration ; but the curved ine of the shaft, which is attributed to some refined perception of the Greeks.
relative to the apparent diminution of objects as their distance from the eye was increased, which Vitruvius imagines it was the object of the entasis to correct. It cannot be denied that in a merely conical shaft there is an appearance of concavity, for which it is difficult to account. The following explanation of this phenomenon, if it may be so called, is given by our esteemed and learned friend, Mr. Narrien, in the Encyc. Metropol. art. Architecture. “When," he observes, “we direct the axis of the eye to the middle of a tall column, the organ accommodates itself to the distance of that part of the object, in order to obtain distinctness of vision, and then the oblique pencils of light from the upper and lower parts of the column do not so accurately converge on the retina : hence arises a certain degree of obscurity, which always produces a perception of greater magnitude than would be produced by the same object if seen more distinctly. The same explanation may serve to account for the well-known fact, that the top of an undiminished pilaster appears so much broader than the body of its shaft; to which, in this case, may be added some prejudice, caused by our more frequently contemplating other objects, as trees, which taper towards their upper extremities.” Connected in some measure with the same optical deception is the rule which Vitruvius lays down (book iii. chap. 2.) for making the columns, at the angles of buildings, thicker than those in the middle by one fiftieth part of a diameter,— a law which we find followed out to a much greater extent in the temples of the Parthenon and of Theseus, at Athens, where the columns at the angles exceed in diameter the intermediate ones by one forty-fourth and one twenty-eighth respectively. Where, however, the columns were viewed against a dark ground, some artists think that a contrary deception of the eye seems to take place.
145. In the investigation of the Doric order, among its more remarkable features are to be noted the longitudinal striæ, called flutes, into which the column is cut; every two whereof unite, in almost every case, in an edge. Their horizontal section varies in different examples. In some, the Autes are formed by segments of circles ; in others, the form approaches that of an ellipsis. The number all round is usually twenty; such being the case at Athens; but at Pæstum the exterior order of the great temple has twenty-four, the lower interior order twenty, and the upper interior sixteen only. It has been strangely imagined, by some, that these futings, which, be it remembered, are applied to the other orders as well as to the Doric, were provided for the reception of the spears of persons visiting the temples. The conjecture is scarcely worth refutation, first, because no situation for the doups ookn (place for spears) would have led to their more continual displacement from accident; and secondly, because of the sloping or hemispherical form in the other orders, the foot of the spear must have immediately slid off. Their origin may probably be found in the polygonal column, whose sides received a greater play of light by being hollowed out, - 5 refinement which would not be long unperceived by the Greeks.
146. We shall now notice some of the more important Doric edifices, as connected with the later history of the Doric order, which was that most generally used by the European states of Greece, up to their subjugation by the Romans. The temple of Jupiter Panhellenius, at Egina, is probably one of the most ancient in Greece. The story, however, of Pausanias, that it was built by Æacus, before the war of Troy, is only useful as showing us its high antiquity. (Fig. 96.) The proportions of its columns and entablature are to be
noter age than is usually allowed to them, that is, 500 B.C.; they are dated 600 1,0, be
Its columns were on such a scale that their flutes
Its riches and magnificence were, however,
The Agrigentines were occupied upon it when the city was
A Corinthian colony established itself at Syracuse, as is said, 750
The city fell into the hands of the Lucanians about 350 years
3 after which, in about 70 years, it was a municipal town of the Roman empire. The
50. The dates of the edifices at Athens are, without difficulty, accurately fixed. The Pylæum (figs. 97 and 98.) was commenced by Mnesicles about 437 B.C., and, at a great
-; but no details of the history of the city furnish us with the means of ascertaining
49. The great Hypæthral temple at Pæstum was probably constructed during the
ens is unsupported by testimony,
As well as the building last mentioned, it was reared at the period when Pericles had the intendent sculptor employed ; and many of the productions which decorated this magnifi where a large portion of them are now deposited. Nearly coeval with the Propylæum and cent edifice have doubtless become known to the reader in his visits to the British Museum, is supposed, erected to receive the ashes of the national hero, when removed from Scyrol Parthenon, or perhaps a little earlier, is the temple of Theseus (fig. 101.), which was, il
The ruins of the architectural monuments of this city attest that the boasted enemies with having brought disgrace upon the Athenians by removing the public trea
Fig. 98. expense, was completed in five
years. It is a specimen of the military architecture of period, and at the same time forms a fine entrance to the Acropolis of Athens. of its Doric portico the roof of the vestibule was supported within by two rows of I columns, whose bases still remain. By the introduction of these an increased height obtained for the roof, the abaci of the Ionic capitals being thus brought level with the
Fig 99. terior frieze of the building. The Parthenon ( figs. 99. and 100.) erected a few years olai under the superintendence of Ictinus, is well known as one of the finest remains of antiquit KES
ELEVATION OF THE PARTH INOX. management of public affairs, and was without a rival in Athens.
Pericles, indeed, was
PLAN OY THE PARTHENON.
Phidias was the super
charged by hit
sures of Greece from Delos, and lavishing them in gilding their city, and ornamen
with statues and temples
cost a thousand talents,
TEXPLE OF THESEUS.
this architect was the temple of Apollo Epicurius, in Arcadia, still nearly entire. The peculiarities found in it we will shortly detail. The front has six columns, and instead of thirteen in each flank (the usual number) there are fifteen. In
the interior, buttresses on each Fig. 101
side, to the number of six, return inwards from the walls of the cell, each ending in semicircular pilasters of the Ionic order. These seem to have been brought up for the facility of supporting the roof, which was of stone. With the exception of the temple of Minerva at Tegea, its reputation for beauty was such, that it surpassed, if that be a true test, all other buildings in Peloponnesus. Its situation is about three or four miles from the ruins of Phigalia, on an elevated part of Mount Cotylus, commanding a splendid landscape, which is terminated by the sea in the distance.
151. About 370 B.C., Epaminondas restored the Messenians to independence, and built the city of Messene. The ruins still extant prove that the art at that period had not materially declined. Its walls, in many parts, are entire, and exhibit a fine example of Grecian military architecture in their towers and gates. At no distant time from the age in question the portico of Philip of Macedon, at least his name is inscribed on it, shows that the Doric order had undergone a great change in its proportions. This portico must have been erected about 338 B.C., and after it the Ionic order seems to have been more favoured and cultivated. The last example of the Doric is perhaps the portico of Augustus, at Athens.
152. Before proceeding to the investigation of the Ionic order, it may here, perhaps, be as well to speak of the proportions between the length and breadth of temples, as compared with the rules given by Vitruvius (book iv. chap. 4.), that the length of a temple shall be double its breadth, and the cell itself in length one fourth part more than the breadth, including the wall in which the doors are placed. Though in the Greek examples these proportions are approximated, an exact conformity with the rule is not observed in any. The length, for instance, of the temple of Jupiter, at Selinus, is to the breadth as 2.05 to 1; in the temple of Theseus, as 2.3 to 1; and from the mean of six examples of the Doric order, selected in Greece and Sicily, is 2.21 to 1. If the flanks be regulated in length by making the number of intercolumniations exactly double those in front, it will be immediately seen that the proportions of Vitruvius are obtained on a line passing through the axes of the columns. But as in most of the Greek temples the central intercolumniation in front is wider than the rest, the length of the temple would necessarily be less than twice the width. In the earlier specimens of the Doric order the length is certainly, as above mentioned in the temple of Jupiter at Selinus, very nearly in accordance with the rule; but in order to counteract the effect of the central intercolumniation being wider, the number of columns, instead of intercolumniations on the flank, is made exactly double those in front. In the later examples, however, as in the temples of Theseus and the Parthenon, and some others, the number of intercolumniations on the flank was made double the number of columns in the front, whence the number of columns on the flanks was double the number of those in front and one more; so that the proportion became nearly in the ratio of 2.3 to 1. The simplicity which flowed from these arrangements in the Grecian temples was such that it seems little more than arithmetical architecture,—so symmetrical at from the three data, the diameter of the column, the width of the intercolumniation, and the number of columns in front, all the other parts might be found.
153. The loxic order, at first chiefly confined to the states of Asia Minor, appears to have been coeval with the Doric order. The most ancient example of it on record is the temple of Juno, at Samos. Herodotus (Euterpe) says, it was one of the most stupendous edifices erected by the Greeks. In the Ionian Antiquities (2d edit. vol. i. c. 5.) is to be found an account of its ruins. It was erected about 540 years B.c., by Rhæcus and Theodorus, two natives of the island. The octastyle temple of Bacchus, at Teos, in whose praise Vitruvius was lavish, shows by its ruins that the old master of our art was well capable of appreciating the beauties of an edifice. Hermogenes, of Alabanda, was its architect, and he seems to have been the promoter of a great change in the taste of his day. Vitruvius