DOR

301

DOR

ft tlier a .^ e fane. The same order was also used in thetstaki- C ' tles of Achaia before the laws of its symmetry were« " s ned.

spon Se tei ' w ard, when the Athenians , according to the re-al! A.pollo and Delphos, and the common consent of

Asi;, eece > transplanted, at one time, thirteen colonies intoapportioning to every colony a leader, they gave thealso f° n > *be 80,1 °f Xuthus and Creusa, whom

c olo, lies . e ’phian Apollo acknowledged for his son. These\* lr *a, *, e co nducted to Asia, seized on the territory of

there founded many large cities, as Ephesus ,' y iiler ) ! ^Jyouta, (which last was formerly overflowed withP® Ali?,? • ’’ s r ' tes !ln< f privileges, by Ion, transferred to^liraTp 18 )’ f :>1 'i ene ? Samos, Teos, Colophon, Chios ,i'fier. A -rhocis, Clazomenm, Lebedus, and Melite. This

j^hoy^j , ace °unt of the arrogance of the citizens, wasf ^tilin'. ' n t ’ le war declared against it, by the unanimousav °Ur of lt |'° n l ' le ot l ler cities? and, in its place, by theunited -Attains and Arsinoe , the city of Smyrna was

lle C,,..; lnon S«t the Ionians.tell?' 18 and Lei

t f’herp 01 '^ ^ on ' a -? the l ^ e y began to erect fanes, and constitute temples

JP°llo p n }°rtal gods. First, they erected the temple ofjj^ich nj^ 1011 * 88 ? in the manner they had seen it in Achaia;

°f ?h In “ c °l uu >ns, but were ignorant of their symmetry,^ tteio-] 6 P r °P°rtions necessary to enable them to sustainC>4 ) and give them a handsome appearance : theyto ^’ e fifth 16 ^ luman foot, and finding the foot of a man tob ^*®ir 0 , P a rt °f bis height, they gave that proportion®qu.q Umns ’ making the thickness of the shaft at the^tul. ? r , t0 ‘be sixth part of the height, including the

lia^ss, a , 8 Goric column, having the proportion,pj’ a biij'ijp eailt y t ' le ^ uman body, first began to be

tb^t, l),^ 11 ? 1 ’ Pnrl °f this statement may or may not bebi' 1 °f tfip ’ ts credit stands upon an equal footing witho>j? c b Coiiff] at(;ei ' part, we shall not be justified in placingr enc e in it ; for ere we can give credence to his^Se t],lb eot ing the proportions of the order, we must

o - —~ When those cities extirpated

lil t to„.. ans ai 'd Leleges, they, from their leader, Ion, called

fy, m me liutnuci miu seen 11 hi immiui,

Us e( | • ner they called Doric , because they had seen itof u ,' n *he Dorian cities. In this temple they were desi

4.

^‘IPhonV 1611 ° f that age to have been of a very different

tf'ruon r uc

V' ^bru 110se °f the present day.to ,°Vti 0n ,Us ' Je c °rrect in his supposition regarding theSo bgp tb e order, we must suppose several templesHij’j ''^Ulq 1 erec ted in this style before Homer ’s time, but, ifti, s ctinf a PP ear strange that one, generally so minute int|||, 0|l >e (| e ' 0n . s °f persons and places, should not have given° r f 0 SCri 'Ption of them. It is true, that he alludes toand % tem P'cs,—to those of Minerva at Athens and\l] iv e i v ° Apollo and Neptune at Delphi and ASgma,tf j, e nv es A s till he has not given any description of them,'L^anj. S e ”tirely to conjecture: according to the account\ 1 c uvef S , ^ le temple at Delphi was nothing better than% "bth laurel and branches. But if we discard

H^Wl, | 1 , l ®. lver > by Vitruvius , we shall not be much nearer\ ' a f tl le ln § no data to work upon. If we allow thebo till : °rder to give us some clue as to its origin, we

'^til! order

of ^ ® ame predicament, for many provinces boreIII 6 bi ofkT* 5 - ’ ant * at best, as Lord Aberdeen remarks,» ll'hi of f. 11 ’■he least satisfactory mode of accounting forthing which bears it. Many are of opinion»\|"Na Waa ^ ISt em P lo L ed the cities of Ccrinth,,^os, shortly after the return of the Heraclidas ,it to have originated amongst the colonists> and there certainly does appear some reason4 H

for supposing that the temples here were far in advance ofthose in Greece -proper.

In whatever part of Greece the Doric order was firstemployed, there seems very good reason to believe that ithad its origin in Egypt , or rather perhaps that the templesof that country suggested the idea ; nor is there any primafacie grounds for rejecting this supposition, for we know, inthe first place, that Greece was, at least, to some extent, colo-nized from Egypt ; Cecrops was from that country, andCadmus from one not far distant ; and besides this, we knowthat in after times the Greeks were in the habit of tradingwith Egypt, and were held in so great esteem by Amasis ,that he gave them the city of Naucratis, and afforded themevery encouragement and convenience. Another internalevidence of the connection of the two people is afforded inthe identity of their mythology.

But let us consider the architectural features observable inthe buildings of the two countries. In general appearancethey agree; they are both of massive proportions, and bothconsist of similar parts, columns, entablature, and such like.Nor are they less similar in detail; in Egyptian temples wehave an entablature consisting of three members, architrave,frieze, and cornice, the first of which, like the Doric , is com-paratively plain, and the last simple, but bold. The simi-larity of the frieze in both styles is remarkable, extendingeven to triglyphs and mutules, and in both styles tire thosefeatures equally essential. The similarity of the columns maynot be at first so apparent, although we can point out manyEgyptittn columns without bases, with square plain abaci,and may suggest the probability of the Grecian echinusbeing copied from the lower portion of the bulging or cushion-capitals of Egypt : the annulets round the necking of thecapital are likewise of very frequent occurrence in that coun-try. As regards the rest of the column, it is true, speakinggenerally, that Egyptian specimens are not fluted, neither dothey diminish, like the Greek, from the lower to the upperdiameter; instead of concave flutes, however, we haveconvex rods, or probably reeds; and if the latter, we haveonly to divide them vertically down the centre, and wehave the Doric flutes. But evc.i if this last idea be toofanciful, the difference between a cabled and fluted columnis not so great, the ornamentation is decidedly of a similar cha-racter ; and even if this be disallowed, there are specimens offluted columns in Egypt , and specimens which altogetherbear a very marked resemblance to the Grecian-Doric. Thesecolumns were first noticed by Mr. Barry, who considers themof greater antiquity than any Grecian specimens. The firstis a portico of two fluted columns in antis, about 5J diame-ters in height, and surmounted by a plain abacus; the flutesare 20 in number, and of shallow contour; the columns arewithout bases. The next example is from Kalaptchic on theNile , the abacus of which is square, and 11 inches thick ;the shaft, which has a trifling diminution, is 7 feet 8 incheshigh, and 3 feet 2 inches diameter. The circumference isin 24 divisions, whereof 4, which are at right angles witheach other, are flat faces, covered with hieroglyphics, and theother intervening ones are sunk into flat elliptical flutes aquarter of an inch deep. Another specimen is to be seen atAmada in Nubia, consisting of two columns, one of whichis a simple parallelopiped, and the other, at the corner of thebuilding, is both cylindrical and fluted, leaving, however, asquare abacus similar to that of the parallelopiped, which, inthis case, is the only capital; the base is also of a squareplan. Of these two columns, the former is evidently theearlier design, the latter, previously of the same shape, whe-ther for convenience or otherwise, has been rounded off afthe corners and somewhat ornamented.