Plate 30. Examples of the Ionic Order from Grecian Monuments

The Ionic style formed itself in early times under the people of the same name. The monuments show, from the start, slender columns with decorated capitals which latter are to be considered as evolved from the Doric whose abacus has been extended in a movement like a snail shell or ramshorn and forms the characteristic decorative volutes of the Ionic capital. The slender columns divided into 24 flutes have been given a base for better stability. The entablature has the same principal parts as the Doric, though it does not resemble the latter's relation to wood construction. It is lighter and its members of elastic form are in harmony with the capital and base. The Ionic order compared with the heavy Doric has a fresh, graceful character.

The spacing of the columns is not governed by triglyphic divisions, and they are therefore set the same distance apart, varying from 1[…] to 3 diameters on different structures.

The earliest trace of Ionic style is first mentioned by Pausanias, who first saw it carried out in the erection of the Treasure House of Myron at Olympia about 648 B. C. A little later it appeared unfolded in full magnificence in the renowned Temple of Diana at Ephesus, founded about 600 B. C., of which ancient monument no remains exist at the present time.

Plate 30 represents the three best examples of the Ionic order; the first and second from the age of Pericles, the third a little later, about the time of Alexander the Great.

The first example represents a corner of the long side of the four columned Amphiprostyle Temple on the Ilissus (river). Attention is called to the fact that the column is moved nearer the antæ than was actually the case, the proper spacing being shown in the plan, and further that the column capital shown is one from the middle columns and not from the corner column, the corner volute of the capital of the latter as also the abacus being on the diagonal. The size of the Temple is very small, the lower diameter of the column measuring not much over .53 meters, and the height 4.47 meters. The capital appears bold, due to the small size of the Temple, and the entablature heavy, its height to the upper edge of the corona being two diameters. The antæ appear noticeably narrow, but the architect showed good judgment here; for, with the full width, they would have appeared too strong when considered in relation to the long wall with which they stood in connection. We mention this also as a further reason for this antæ arrangement as we have already justified its use in the Doric order on account of the triglyphic construction.

The second example is from the four columned north portico of the Temple of Minerva Polias on the Acropolis at Athens. The columns are considerably larger than those of the preceding example. They are also more slender and the other principal parts relatively finer, but actually larger, and for that reason better adapted to richer ornamentation. The anta in our example forms the end of the projecting rear wall of the portico. For this reason it was given considerable width on the outside so as to secure the stability of this wall. In order that the usual narrow width should appear on the outside the architect set the center portion of the wide surface back slightly and in this way divided the mass so dexteriously that instead of a clumsy arrangement a pleasing effect is produced. The anta capital in the Ionic order as in the Doric is considerably different from the column capital consisting only of moulded members, not only because an ornamentation which is pleasing in the round is not suited for the square, but principally because the members of the antæ capitals were carried along under the architrave as a crowning to the wall. Naturally the ornamentation of the column capital was not suitable for this purpose. For similar reasons the profile of the antæ base is also different from that of the column. On our plate the column is shown nearer the anta than is actually the case, but the plan shows the proper distance. The entablature is in the most perfect harmony with the excellent column and anta, without any reminiscence of wood construction and we consider this Athenian Ionic order of the time of Pericles the most elegant and exquisite example known.

The third example shows the order from the Temple of Minerva Polias at Priene,in Asia Minor. It shows us the finest example of a monument of the time of Alexander of Macedonia, and here, can be seen the essential difference of the Ionic order in the monuments of Asia Minor as compared with the foregoing examples of the time of Pericles. The height of the columns can not be measured, as the entire Temple is now a ruin. Dimensions given on the plate are established from analogies. The base is not the Attic, but the Ionic, with a plinth which, in order to be better seen, rises high and protects the fine members from damage. In comparison with the foregoing the scale of the column is very large, the capital smaller, and the luxurious development and vigor are missing. A frieze has been added to the entablature according to repeated restorations, although in all probability none was ever there.