Plate 3. The Doric Order

The proportions of the columns considered as a mass are the chief characteristics of the architectural orders.

The gradual change in the proportion of the orders is in keeping, primarily with the continued development and refinement which we find in all branches of art, and with the strength of the materials used. The heights of the most ancient columns are little more than four times their lower diameters, the most beautiful from five and one-half to six and one-half and the Roman examples from seven and one-half to eight diameters.

An exception to this is found in the monuments of Sicily. The columns there are generally four and one-half to five diameters in height, strongly tapered and closely spaced. The great fear of earthquakes in all probability contributed to the adoption of the ancient substantial forms.

The experiences with the strength of the materials were naturally very influential. We find, for this reason, the architraves of the majority of monuments very deep (about 3/4 of a diameter in height) and at the same time so short that it was possible to place only one triglyph in the centre and only one-half at each end. And in this way the triglyphic intercolumnation was brought about. Because a triglyph is generally placed at the beginning of the frieze and it not being desirable to make the following metopes wider than the remainder, the corner or end column was, of necessity, placed somewhat nearer its neighbor, than the rest.

After the age of Pericles the Doric Column rose in height and at the same time the architrave became lower, whereby the whole order gradually lost its substantial character.

On plate 3 are the most exquisite of the orders, taken from five Grecian monuments, and represented at the same module scale and also in chronological order, so that the gradual change in their proportions is brought out. The actual measurements are also given and it will be seen that the larger the order the finer the different parts were made, which was usually the rule among the old masters.

1 The order taken from the Temple of CERES at Pæstum is here used only as an example to show the heavy proportion of the ancient times, and that the relations of the following styles may be all the more prominent. For the details of this order see plate 5.

2 The elevation of the order from the eave side of the Propylæa in Eleusis is not taken merely as an example of beautiful proportions, but also to show the logical and consistent arrangement of the antæ in relation to the architrave and the triglyphic division. Because the walls, which carry the same entablature as the columns, were thinner than the width of the architrave, it became necessary, where the architrave continued out over the corbel of the wall and onto the column, to give the antæ the same width as that of the architrave so that a secure and substantial bearing was provided for it, and besides the wall was thereby given the appearance of stability.

Internally the antæ was given the same width as externally. This is the case in the small halls of both Propylæ in Athens and in Eleusis. Nevertheless where, for instance in the larger hall (pl. 12, fig. 8), the internal side of the antæ corresponds with a column to which it is connected by a beam, it was given a greater width.

3 The Temple of Diana Propylæa at Eleusis shows us an antæ with equal faces (see plan fig. 5, pl. 13), an arrangement which was probably necessary on the vestibule of the Temple at Rhamnus, so that the beams of the architrave which lie free on both sides could have a substantial bearing.

The antæ of the Temple of Diana seems to be very heavy and in inharmonious relation with the corner triglyph and the height of the architrave, which rests upon the outward wall. It is possible that instances can arise where it is necessary to use a very broad antæ, as in the case of the Erechtheum at Athens (see plan, pl. 30). The artistic taste of the builders in this case knew how to use the broad face of the antæ so that it would be in excellent scale with the superb architecture of the rest of the monument.

4 The fourth example is the order from the Temple of Jupiter at Nemea, the details of which are given on plate 14. The remains show us the most elegant relations of all Doric monuments which were produced at the time when Grecian art was at its height.

5 The last example on our plate is the Monument of Thrasyllus in Athens, and was selected because it offers an interesting illustration of pilaster architecture. Later, on plate 17, we will refer to this monument, but here we desire only to call attention to the lack of a pilaster base, which, when we consider the second and third examples, we are reluctant to miss.