1588
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING,
among the Ionians, though all who celebrated the Aplurian festival, from which alone theEphesian and Colophonians were excluded, were afterwards called Ionians.
The appellations Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian are derived from "Vitruvius : but it ap-pears doubtful whether these terms were current among the Greeks: that authorasserts that the first is the most ancient; “for Dorus, the son of Hellen, and the nymphOrseis, built the temple of Juno at Argos of this order when he reigned over the whole ofAchaia and Peloponnesus: that many temples afterwards erected throughout Greece wereof the Doric order, but by command of the Delphic oracle in a general assembly of thedifferent states of Greece, thirteen colonies were sent into Asia , who built the citiesbefore mentioned, and erected temples; among the first they dedicated was one to ApolloPanionios, having Doric proportions, and another to Diana, in which some variations wasmade. The first was of a masculine proportion, the other feminine, and the latter was theinvention of the Ionian settlers, and afterwards called from them Ionic .
But if it be difficult to trace the Ionic order to its origin, we may analyse its proportions,and compare them with that order which prevailed so universally in Greece , which willlead us to remark that a very great change took place when the rules that guided theDoric builders were laid aside : at no other period were such material alterations made inthe proportions of the masses, the columns, entablatures, and intercolumniations ; to theCorinthian , so universally used in later times by the Romans, the feminine proportionswere applied which are stated by Vitruvius to have commenced with the Ionians.
There is of course much fable in all the accounts that have reached us upon these impor-tant changes, but among them is one which seems to carry with it some semblance of truth,and which is as follows:—“when Hermogenes was employed to erect the temple ofBacchus at Teos, according to Vitruvius , the marble was prepared for one in the Doricstyle ; but the architect changed his mind, from the idea that other proportions, afterwardscalled Ionic , were more suitable for the purpose, almost inducing the inference that Hermo-genes was the inventor of those delicate proportions; he appears unquestionably to have dis-played great skill and ingenuity in all his designs, and to have entertained the opinion thatsacred buildings should not be constructed with Doric proportions, as they obliged theadoption of false and incongruous arrangements.”
To obtain more delicate proportions, without sacrificing the great principle of making theweight supported equal to its supports, would seem at first difficult: in the example ofthe Doric order we have seen this practice universally adopted, and it is equally evidentin the Ionic , though not exactly after the same method; the columns and their entablatures,or what they carry, agree in quantity, but their distribution is different. The square orfigure which bounds the Ionic fa 9 ade is divided into four parts, one of which is given to theentablature, a second to the columns, and the other two, or one half, are distributed amongthe intercolumniations.
In the quantity of material for constructing the two varieties of temples there is a con-siderable difference, the Doric requiring one-third more than the Ionic ; for example, in aDoric tetrastyle portico where the area was 12, four parts would be given to the entablature,four to the columns, and four to the intercolumniations. In the Ionic three parts would berequired for the entablatures, and three for the columns, six being allowed for the inter-columniations ; thus one temple would have eight, and the other six parts solid out oftwelve, consequently, with a given quantity of materials, two very different porticoesmight be built, without making any change in the proportions which the columnsbear to their entablatures. Hermogenes could construct with the same material a muchlarger temple in the Ionic style than in the Doric ; and supposing the dimensions alreadydecided upon, there would be a saving of labour and material: from the imperfectstate of the Ionic temples remaining, it is scarcely possible to enter into a thorough exami-nation of their proportions; that on the llissus at Athens, measured by Stuart, no longerexists, but its dimensions, given by that very accurate delineator, may serve our purposeas an example of a tetrastyle portico. Its entire width was 18 feet inches, and heightto the top of the level cornice in front 18 feet 4| inches, to which must be added that ofthe tympanum of the pediment: multiplying the width by the height of the entablature andhalf the pediment, which together is 5 feet 7 inches and 10 parts, we have for the area ofthe portions supported 105 feet 4 inches and 9 parts: the quantity contained in the fourcolumns is found by multiplying their united diameters, 7 feet 1 inch and 7 parts, withtheir height, 14 feet 9 inches and 4 parts, giving a product of 105 feet 4 inches and 9 partsas their area. The united intercolumniations in this example are 11 feet 6 inches and 2parts, which multiplied by the height of the columns is 170 feet 1 inch and 9 parts for thearea; 40 feet 7 inches and 9 parts less than it would have been had it equalled the quantitycontained in the columns and their entablature, or been one-half the entire area of the facade.
The portico of this elegant example of Ionic was nearly a square without the pediment,and the supports and supported are in exact accordance as to quantity, whilst the inter-coUimniations are about 1| times the quantity contained in the columns, instead ofdouble. Departing a little from the proportions before us, let us endeavour to set out a