DOR

300

DOR

i

It is 108 feet long, and 48 feet broad, with the same numberof columns, as in the temple of Neptune; the diameter ofthe columns is at bottom 4 feet 3 inches; at top, 3 feet 3inches ; and their shafts have 20 Sittings. The third build-ing is called a Basilica, because there is no appearance of acell, or altar. It is 170 feet long, and 80 broad; and it israised on three steps, having nine columns in each front (theonly example of such arrangement), and eighteen on eachside, with the dower diameter 4 feet 6 inches, and 20 flutings.Both fronts have a vestibule, and the interior was divided bycolumns. The date of these structures is unknown. One ofthe most ancient Doric temples in Greece is in the island ofEgina ; this was a hexastyle temple, dedicated to JupiterPanhellenius. “ It is said by Pausanias to have been builtby Eacus, considerably before the Trojan war , a story whollyincredible, but which serves to prove that it had outlived alltradition of its real origin. It is still nearly entire.” Therewere twelve columns on each flank, making thirty-six in all,of a porous stone, covered with a thin stucco, and the archi-trave and cornice were painted in colours. Fifteen statues,formerly belonging to this temple, are now at Munich : theyare supposed to represent the Greeks and Trojans contend-ing for the body of Patroclus : they have been restoredby Thorwaldsen. Illustrations of the Temple of Jupiterhave been published by Mr. C. R. Cockerell, and haveproved a valuable addition to our knowledge of Doric archi-tecture.

Modern examples of this order are to be seen in CoventGarden Theatre; the Corn Market, Mark Lane , where thedetails of the monument of Thrasyllus are copied; in thenew galleries and entrance of the British Museum , wherepolychrome is introduced; and at the entrance-gateway tothe Terminus of the North Western Railway.

The origin of the Doric order has ever been a disputedpoint amongst writers upon the subject, some following onetheory, and some another. Vitruvius , whose opinion isvaluable, as coming from the oldest writer upon architecturalmatters, will have it, that the earliest stone temples of Greece were but imitations of the wooden structures previously em-ployed, and that the members of the Doric order, both struc-tural and ornamental, owe their origin to similar parts in theless permanent building. This primitive mode of building issupposed to have been similar, in some respects, to the loghouses erected by colonists of the present day, consisting oftrunks of trees fixed vertically in the ground, at short dis-tances from each other, and forming the support to the seve-ral members of the roof. From the various portions of thistimber construction, are supposed to have been derived thoseof the later stone edifice. The following opinion as to some ofthe corresponding parts of the two kinds of structures, isgiven by Vitruvius :

“ In the upper part of all edifices, timbers, called by vari-ous names, are disposed, which, as in names so in uses, differ.The trabes are those laid over the columns, parastat® andant®, in the contiguations and floors. If the span of theroof is great, under the culmen, in the top of the fastigium,are disposed columens (from whence columns derive theirname), transtr®, and capreols; but if the span is small,columens and canthers, projecting to the extremities of theeaves. Above the canthers are the templats, and over them,but under the tiles, are the assers, projecting so far as to shel-ter the walls. Thus each, according to its use, has its properplace and order. This disposition of the work, the artificers,when they erected sacred edifices, imitated in sculptures ofstone and marble; and this invention the ancient workmenthought proper to pursue. Thus, whenever they constructedany building, they laid the joists from the interior walls to the

extreme parts, then built up the interjoist, and, ^ ^ c ot n ' C j

work a pleasing appearance, adorned the top witn ^yoB®

and fastigium ; then, as much of the joists as projec e ^

the wall they sawed off, which, appearing unhands^.^ th 6

made tablets, like triglyphs now in use, fixed them a n ^ tl> 6

sawed ends of the joists, and painted them in

sectures of the joists might not offend the sight- ^ th e ' r

triglyphs, interjoists, and op®, in Doric work,

origin from the disposition of the timbers of the r S) th®

“ Afterward, in other works, some made the ca oU tvv® r ®’

were perpendicularly over the triglyphs, to projec a ro* e

and carved their projecture; hence, as the trig .

from the disposition of the joists, so the mutules

corona were derived from the projecture of th ^\gs &

wherefore, in stone or marble structures, the . »b ’

represented declining, in imitation of the c an . g prop 6

also, on account of the droppings from the eaves,

they should have such declination. p ^.jglyP _

“ From this imitation, therefore, arose the use 0 ^

and mutules in Doric work; for it cannot be, a® _ jjeca u ^

neously assert, that the triglyphs represent windo ’ ar tet 9 ^,

triglyphs are disposed in the angles, and over tn 4

the columns, in which places windows are

- - . 0 f tne s ujr

for, if windows were there left, the union -- , g a re ■buildings would be dissolved ; also, if the trig by t0posed to be situated in the place of the win t p lo0 gh*'

th 6

■“ — be tiw-f j[ie

same reason, the dentils in Ionic work may ^ e tv/e eVoccupy the places of windows; for the interva ni e ^ug

dentils, as well as between the triglyphs, are ca _ ®f® , ja

the Greeks calling the bed of the joists and as ter joi® ■

the tb e . , O 0

the Greeks calling the bed of the joistswe call it cava, columbariaJ; so, becausebetween two op®, it is by them called met-opcB. - 1 *' nglyphs and mutules in the Doric order are founded up . g peiprinciples, so the dentils, in the Ionic , deriveorigin from the workmanship ; and as the mutules r of Jeithe projectures of the canthers, the dentils in theare m imitation of the projecture of the assers. g . fl®This theory is a very plausible one, so far 83 lt f

unable to account for such matters ^ \ec^° !

for °. ne ,!acco<;

were we

and that alone at omwi! ° Ver as correct > hut lor w—

The difficulty mavh throws Credit upon the whole _

the stone PUt in this way: if the

it, that the pr0D "!. were constructed of timber, to*'

massive a character tIle former are of so bet 1 fgB c

thickly set ? ' and how is h > that the co!u "i to

different results ■ a , el , comtr nction would have led .^e-teristics of buildin enderness and lightness are the t 0 tits antitype. ThT mcb material, and so, aeceSS „j n otonl yso, but We fi n j r fi Vers ?’ however, is the ( ; ase ' , t Lrefo (0

the more similar t * le older the edifice, (and t psProportions ; whereas ‘t hfomtype,) the heavier, t i>*contrary should l lf Vltru vius’s theory be corr^ ^account for all ti “observable. But, besides thi , fS rf

different, andtT ^ alluded t0 b 7 VitrUV ‘Za»n er> “*

we shall at temnt * r rn,,ld ’ ^ ar more satisfactory 10

As reSth t 0 f x P ,a,n presently. , ° (

building T n to CT ^ ate °f the introduction of t ’ r£a ;fl‘y'ocilher°can °tt eee >, not hingcan be statedfirst appeared ■ Sat,s actor >ly ascertained in wh» { gn ik®,subjects^ Vitr’uv- reat differe “ces of opinion exij

^JPparent'dS^ ** ^

°f cohm ) ns° S i s an t ; 1 ie,> T. and first invented of tbe^ so* t

Hellenus and it, 16 ® oric ’ f° r > when Dorus, (and PeloDonn ° nytn Ph Opticos, reigned ove 0 c’

^7 of TTT’ the te “P ,e ^ Juao >

S a, was erected, and this order bapP