Th
*^ded, 6 lowing useful, though somewhat different table, is the compilation of the writer to whom we have previously
7% *
table exhibits at one view the proportions of the columns in some of the principal buildings in Greece andits colonies, concluding with the scale which the Roman and Italian schools assigned to the Doric .
DOR
295
DOR
ction.
° ^ 700
500
B.C.
B.C.
Name of Building.
Ah,
'°Ut 4
‘Off,
' er kles.
Ah,
IQ ttt
338
B.C.
1 V 100 B.
' *b,
t;- c -
“»t 8 o7 usti
Temple at Corinth.
Great Hypaethral Temple at Psestum.
Temple of Minerva at Syracuse . |
Temple of Hercules at Agrigentum ..
Temple of Jupiter Panhellenius at Egina ..
Temple of Theseus.
Temple of Minerva at Sunium.
Temple of Diana Propylaea at Eleusis. i..
Temple at Rhamnus. |
Portico of Philip of Macedon, Delos .
Temple of Jupiter Nemteua .
Agora, at Athens.....
Theatre of Marcellus, at Rome .
Coliseum..
Height
Number of
Number of
Number of
Name of
of
Diameter.
Diameters
Columns
Columns
Architect.
Column.
high.
on the side.
ft.
in.
ft.
in.
23
8
3
10
6
—
28
10
7
0
1-2*1
6
14 '
32
6
7
6
6
12
48
7
10
7
8
16
Probably Archiasof Corinth.
28
8
6
6
—
—
33
0
7
0
4f
6
14
22
2
4
8
4f
6
_
Eibon.
17
1
3
2
5 TV
6
_
18
7
3
3
523
6
13
Ictinus.
34
0
6
2
sit
8
17
Ictinus.
19
6
3
7
eH
6
15
Ictinus.
19
7
3
6
4
6
Supposed
6
—
Corabus.
—
5*
12
—
14
10
2
7
2 in antis.
—
13
4
2
4
5*
6
12
of Phidias.
18
S
2
11
—
_
18
8
2
10
—
_
33
8
5
2
®if
6
—
26
2
4
4
6 2T
4
—
21
0
3
0
7
_
27
3
2
10
®H
—
—
8
—
--
iy ,? t Ws7° lumniat ion of this order differs from that of alldis'^uch
'W; tfi glynh eters °f the column, but by the arrangement of
K. .r l lS ; lL . _^ _a.?_
as the intercolumns are determined not
t , i'el 1 7' s hed ’ an< ^ the different methods, instead of being^Cc Jt ,(7<l Pycnostyle, eustyle, arceostyle, fyc., are com-Jh e / Jlr ig to er the terms monotriglyph, ditriglyph, Sj-c.,'A tr, er tg ® number of triglyphs over each intercolumn ;Hijjj °Ue trjg .1 ^ e ®ignating the arrangement in which thereaf between the columns, the latter that in>s ihff tvv ° within the same limits. This methodtri .^ oojumns naturally arises from the employ-
es
St, ' of _
1 °bio. ‘he 1
K trjrrl AiaHAlttlljr CAl low li Dll* --£- J
01 in thg° ] ^ or this ornament forms so conspicuousrV t '„ c °nf 0r e ‘ e yation, that it was necessary to make itso'ol ^hid^.^’th the other principal members of thef'^ila,. 0ll, iad e ‘he column is the most important, so thatJx f hnr, em n<a en tablature might present to the eye aUhom t. p nt; ' ^ad the triglyphs been placed in the7 <> 0 ep Pas s ; n e eren ce to the position of the columns, the7 a^Use,} g up the length of the column, would haveit°hh e, l aif 011 reac hing the frieze, and probably woulda PWa rc j art a t that member, there being nothing totf V j Posit; ° t ^ le corn i ce - Did we adopt the Yitruvianti, \ 8,,Q the r ^ ^ triglyph would readily be accounted
‘'bon fa fte fa a y, for it stands to reason, that the feet
W'ould be placed immediately over their
It being necessary then that the triglyph should stand overthe centre of each column, and the proportion of the metopeor space between the triglyph being determined, we onlyrequire the height of the frieze, and the intercolumniation isfixed. The width of the metope being about equal to theheight of the frieze, and the triglyphs somewhat less, it isevident, that to place a column under every triglyph, wouldbe impracticable, without increasing the height of the friezequite beyond proportion; there would be scarcely room forthe feet of the columns, much less for any space between.It became necessary therefore to place another triglyph inthe centre of each intercolumn, with two metopes Instead ofone: this arrangement answered very well, and is the mostfrequent in Doric temples, and indeed is seldom departedfrom in any buildings. By inserting another triglyph, youare compelled to add another metope, and this makes theintercolumn half as wide again, which is almost too wide tosuit the requirements of taste, as well as the proportions andconstruction of Doric buildings. There are very few instancesof this arrangement, and these only in the centre intercolumnopposite the entrances, where greater space was required ;this is especially noticeable in the Propykea, where a largespace was required for the admission of chariots. It may besupposed, that the monotriglyphic method would cause thecolumns to appear too closely set, and this certainly would bethe case in some instances, where the columns are less than
i >