Were it allowable to select portions from these examplesand place them together at discretion, there would be no greatdifficulty in forming a very perfect specimen of Grecian-Doric , but even without such a metamorphosis, we suggest,there can be no difficulty in perceiving a great and indubi-table similarity between the structures of Egypt and theearlier ones of Greece , the likeness being more striking insome examples than in others, yet not being entirelyabsent'in any. We may conclude, therefore, we presume,that there is a very strong probability of the Doric orderhaving been derived from the architecture of Egypt .
This order, as practised by the Romans and Italians , differsin some essential particulars from that above described, andin process of time its original character seems to have beenall but entirely lost, the identity being evidenced only by theremains of some few details. The few points in whichthe resemblance between the Greek and Roman orders ispreserved, are—the employment of triglyphs and metopesin the frieze, and of mutules in the corona, the fluting witharrises instead of fillets, -when indeed flutes were introduced,and the general form of the capital consisting of echinus andabacus. The distinctions are much more numerous, amongst■which may be mentioned the elongation of the shaft andthe not unfrequent absence of flutes ; the addition of a base,variations in the form of the capital and of the several mem-bers of the entablature, the amplification of mouldings andsuch like ; so that were two examples, one of each kind,placed before a person unacquainted with the subject, hewould, have greater difficulty in tracing their resemblance,than in pointing out their incongruities.
The height of the column is increased from six to eightdiameters, and in some cases, as recommended by Vitruviusfor porticos, to eight and a half. It is either fluted or leftplain, and sometimes is partially fluted, the channels extend-ing about two-thirds of the shaft, the remaining portionbelow, from the base upwards, being left blank.
The addition of the base follows very naturally the elonga-tion of the shaft, for were it still to be omitted, the lowerportion of the column would look too small, and would giveto the edifice an appearance of weakness ; the columns wouldseem unsteady ; whereas in the Greek examples, the massiveproportions and the rapid spreading of the shaft from thecapital downwards, gives the effect of strength and stability.! The base generally used is that termed the attic, and consistsj of a plinth, a torus, a hollow moulding or scotia with a filletabove and below it, upon the uppermost of which is anothertorus and fdlet, out of which the shaft rises with an apophyge;a simpler base, however, is sometimes made use of, comprisingj only a torus and two shallow fillets above it, and occasionallymerely a plinth and simple fillet.
In the capital, the sunk annulets of the Greek examplesare converted into projecting fillets in the Roman ; the shaftis separated from the cap by an astragal which gives muchgreater distinctness to the necking, which again is sometimesrelieved with rosets and buds, or other ornament. Abovethe neck are three flat annular fillets, and these above theovolo surmounted by the abacus. The ovolo, however, isnot of so much importance as in the Greek order, nor of thesame severe contour; the abacus likewise is much shallower,and has the addition of mouldings on its top. The height ofthe capital is equal to ^ a diameter, or 1 module, but thisis not always the case, for in the Theatre of Marcellus atRome , it is 33 minutes, and in the Coliseum as much as 38.
The architrave is often similar in appearance to the Greek,but is of less height, being equal to only two-thirds of thefrieze, or half a diameter; in a few instances, the architraveis composed of two fascias. The new frieze is also very
similar to the old one, with some slight
excepti ° n t s ’ era5
mutules being frequently filled with ox-skulls ana t ^ 0 tand sometimes left plain ; the capitals of the tri f nUhegreater projection than before, and are returned at j fl l)l 1The triglyphs besides are in Roman examples, 111 ^ theplaced over the centre of the columns, so that the c’^.^lyph 3frieze are finished with half-metopes, and not * re
as in the Grecian order,entirely omitted.
In the Coliseum, the t r ‘S •
ha v
The cornice differs considerably from the Grecian rv -- - - - - ■ ■ dmih' 1 ’ 1111 •
ing
pal
its soffit flat and the mutules square, with a sinim 11 ^ ieril ll/between them. In Grecian examples, the g ut j® ® „ tl> e )appear in front below the mutules ; but in the ®° ia j‘ ul !g th edo not so, and are sometimes even omitted ; s0 ?jyp,i'cell u . 9 ’mutules entirely disappear, as in the Theatre of . fu f e d 111where dentils with an ogee bed-mould are substheir place, and the Basilica at Vicenza , designed 7,^has merely a bold ogee and ovolo in their place. p a n elvals between the mutules are frequently enriched w ^ n ted ^and sculpture. The mutules and .band are surm ___ nV ol 0a small ogee moulding, and under them is anforming a bed-moulding. The mutules su ri <— ...
ogee and
or
-pp 9
ice-
proper, consisting of the corona, ancavetto finished at the top with a fillet. c j u de
With Vitruvius’s account of the order, we con
th' 3
article ; it runs as follows :
tha 4 te " r
“ Some architects,” says he, “ have mairitai oC casi° aS
pies should not be built of the Doric order, because n -- . f 0 ran imperfection and an inconvenience in the symmetrisetins reason it was rejected by Tarchesius, Pylheus, aby Hermogenes : the latter, after he had prepared t ,, ematerials for a Doric temple, altered them, » nd 1 rjo""same materials, raised an Ionic temple to Bacchus. otever, it was not because the appearance was unhands®the manner or form ignoble; but because it \ n f e h3 ^(istubution, and the arrangement of the tr’4? ^ ( , e ssQ$facunars was unsuitable to the design ; for it " u9 rte r3that the triglyphs should be disposed over the e ..vh'P^
of the columns ; the metopes which are between the > » i0 ,Aeie made as long as high ; and the triglyphs over thecolumns he placed at the extremities, and ? ot . ° aB goWmiddle quarters. So that the metopes which adjoin 1
triglyphs, are not square, but more oblong by half tbo a tuglyph. I hose who would make all the niet°P . ff |yph>
contract the extreme intercolumn half the breadth of « r yJ . !>}
■ - metope nuV t,
but this, whether it is done by lengthening ^^'this aCC ,^-e; acontracting the intercolumn, is a defect. A ;n s ‘ ■
edifices. e f'o ] lowin^ d i! ,le USe of ti,e Dor, ° order J n p-e ^
explanation of tl "’ ovveve G our method, we shall g „ 0 „ithe masters : so , 0rder > as we have received 1 ,,-ill
here find described },? 08 ? who attend t0 these pre °flpie in the Doric nw 8 ’ U es which they mayerec,
“ The front of xvitbout fault or imperfection- ^
erected, is, if te L ‘' e , Dor,c temple, where the eo
•<‘to 44. Of ZT yh> divided into 28 parts; i£
Greek, embates hv° one wi!i he a module, c3 v0 rkregulated. ThJtT-", 0 ' t)le distriL| ution of the }vl ‘? u les >'
the height, inch,A' ll . c ’ :nes3 of the column is two , t ],e
^Pital one raodult 1 'f CapitaIs ’ 14 ' T,ie tbiC ?TJof 9module. The tl?i he breud th two and the sixth Pf thr ee
Parts, of which kneSS of the capital is divided ^t , hCh one » for the abacus with its cyf* {o r• — . an d the
in
the
ok*