FOOTNOTES:

Fig. 51.—Ancient Greek Wall of Unwrought Stone from Samothrace.

Showing entrance leading to round chamber with a side chamber

Fig. 52.—Plan of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenæ.

Showing the beehive-shaped round chamber

Fig. 52a.—Section of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenæ.

Showing highly curved top

Fig. 53.—Greek Doric Capital from Selinus.

Showing slightly curved top

Fig. 53a.—Greek Doric Capital from the Theseum.

Showing uncurved top

Fig. 53b.—Greek Doric Capital from Samothrace.

A wide interval of time and a great contrast in taste separate the early works of Pelasgic masonry and even the chamber at Mycenæ from even the rudest and most archaic of the remaining Hellenic works of Greece. The Doric temple at Corinth is attributed, as has been stated, to the seventh centuryB.C.This was a massive masonry structure with extremely short, stumpy columns, and strong mouldings, but presenting the main features of the Doric style, as we know it, in its earliest and rudest form.Successive examples (Figs.53to53b) show increasing slenderness of proportions and refinement of treatment, and are accompanied by sculpture which approaches nearer and nearer to perfection; but in the later and best buildings, as in the earliest and rudest, certain forms are retained for which it seems impossible to account, except on the supposition that they are reproductions in stone or marble of a timber construction. These occur in the entablature, while the column is of a type which it is hard to believe is not copied from originals in use in Egypt many centuries earlier, and already described (chap.II.).

We will now proceed to examine a fully-developed Greek Doric temple of the best period, and in doing so we shall be able to recognise the forms referred to in the preceding paragraph as we come to them. The most complete Greek Doric temple was the Parthenon, the work of the architect Ictinus, the temple of the Virgin Goddess Athene (Minerva) at Athens, and on many accounts this building will be the best to select for our purpose.[10]

Fig. 54.—Ruins of the Parthenon at Athens.

The Parthenon at Athens stood on the summit of a lofty rock, and within an irregularly shaped enclosure, something like a cathedral close; entered through a noble gateway.[11]The temple itself was of perfectly regular plan, and stood quite free from dependencies of any sort. It consisted of a cella, or sacred cell, in which stood the statue of the goddess, with one chamber (the treasury) behind. In the cella, and also in the chamber behind, there were columns. A series of columns surrounded this building, and at either end was a portico, eight columns wide, and two deep. There were two pediments, or gables, of flat pitch, one at each end. The whole stood on a basementof steps; the building, exclusive of the steps, being 228 ft. long by 101 ft. wide, and 64 ft. high. The columns were each 34 ft. 3 in. high, and more than 6 ft. in diameter at the base; a portion of the shaft and of the capital ofone is in the British Museum, and a magnificent reproduction, full size, of the column and its entablature may be seen at the École des Beaux Arts, Paris. The ornaments consisted almost exclusively of sculpture of the very finest quality, executed by or under the superintendence of Pheidias. Of this sculpture many specimens are now in the British Museum.

Fig. 55.—Plan of the Parthenon at Athens.

Fig. 56.—The Roof of a Greek Doric Temple, showing the Marble Tiles.

The construction of this temple was of the most solid and durable kind, marble being the material used; and the workmanship was most careful in every part of which remains have come down to us. The roof was, no doubt, made of timber and covered with marble tiles (Fig.56), carried on a timber framework, all traces of which have entirely perished; and the mode in which it was constructed is a subject upon which authorities differ, especially asto what provision was made for the admission of light. The internal columns, found in other temples as well as in the Parthenon, were no doubt employed to support this roof, as is shown in Bötticher’s restoration of the Temple at Pæstum which we reproduce (Fig.56a), though without pledging ourselves to its accuracy; for, indeed, it seems probable that something more or less like the clerestory of a Gothic church must have been employed to admit light to these buildings, as we know was the case in the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. But this structure, if it existed, has entirely disappeared.[12]

Showing internal columns employed to support the roof

Fig. 56a.—Section of the Greek Doric Temple at Pæstum. As restored by Bötticher.

Showing the different elements of the Doric orderSee larger image.

Fig. 57.—The Greek Doric Order from the Theseum.

The order of the Parthenon was Doric, and the leading proportions were as follows:—The column was 5·56diameters high; the whole height, including the stylobate or steps, might be divided into nine parts, of which two go to the stylobate, six to the column, and one to the entablature.

Fig. 58.—Plan of a Greek Doric Column.

Fig. 59.—The Fillets under a Greek Doric Capital.

The Greek Doric order is without a base; the shaft of the column springs from the top step and tapers towards the top, the outline being not, however, straight, but of a subtle curve, known technically as the entasis of the column. This shaft is channelled with twenty shallow channels,[13]the ridges separating one from another being very fine lines. A little below the moulding of the capital, fine sinkings, forming lines round the shaft, exist, and above these the channels of the flutes are stopped by or near the commencement of the projecting moulding of the capital. This moulding, which is of a section calculated to convey the idea of powerful support, is called the echinus, and its lower portion is encircled by a series of fillets (Fig.59), which are cut into it. Above the echinus, which is circular, like the shaft, comes the highest member—the abacus, a square stout slab of marble, which completes the capital of the column. Thewhole is most skilfully designed to convey the idea of sturdy support, and yet to clothe the support with grace. The strong proportions of the shaft, the slight curve of its outline, the lines traced upon its surface by the channels, and even the vigorous uncompromising planting of it on the square step from which it springs, all contribute to make the column look strong. The check given to the vigorous upward lines of the channels on the shaft by the first sinkings, and their arrest at the point where the capital spreads out, intensified as it is by the series of horizontal lines drawn round the echinus by the fillets cut into it, all seem to convey the idea of spreading the supporting energy of the column outwards; and the abacus appears naturally fitted, itself inert, to receive a burden placed upon it and to transmit its pressure to the capital and shaft below.

Showing key and leaf patterns

Fig. 60.—Capital of a Greek Doric Column from Ægina, with coloured decoration.

Fig. 61.—Section of the Entablature of the Greek Doric Order.

Fig. 62.—Plan looking up of part of a Greek Doric Peristyle.

The entablature which formed the superstructure consisted first of a square marble beam—the architrave, which, it may be assumed, represents a square timberbeam that occupied the same position in the primitive structures. On this rests a second member called the frieze, the prominent feature of which is a series ofslightly projecting features, known as triglyphs (three channels) (Fig.63), from the channels running down their face. These closely resemble, and no doubt actually represent, the ends of massive timber beams, which must have connected the colonnade to the wall of the cell in earlier buildings. At the bottom of each is a row of small pendants, known as guttæ, which closely resemble wooden pins, such as would be used to keep a timber beam in place. The panels between the triglyphs are usually as wide as they are high. They are termed metopes and sculpture commonly occupies them. The third division of the entablature, the cornice represents the overhanging eaves of the roof.

Fig. 63.—Details of the Triglyph.

Fig. 64.—Details of the Mutules.

The cornices employed in classic architecture may be almost invariably subdivided into three parts: the supporting part, which is the lowest,—the projecting part, which is the middle,—and the crowning part, which is the highest division of the cornice. The supporting part in a Greek Doric cornice is extremely small. There are no mouldings,such as we shall find in almost every other cornice, calculated to convey the idea of contributing to sustain the projection of the cornice, but there are slabs of marble, called mutules (Fig.64), dropping towards the outer end, of which one is placed over each triglyph and one between every two. These seem to recall, by their shape, their position, and their slope alike, the ends of the rafters of a timber roof; and their surface is covered with small projections which resemble the heads of wooden pins, similar to those already alluded to. The projecting part, in this as in almost all cornices, is a plain upright face of some height, called “the corona,” and recalling probably a “facia” or flat narrow board such as a carpenter of the present day would use in a similar position, secured in the original structure to the ends of the rafters and supporting the eaves. Lastly, the crowning part is, in the Greek Doric, a single convex moulding, not very dissimilar in profile to the ovolo of the capital, and forming what we commonly call an eaves-gutter.

At the ends of the building the two upper divisions of the cornice—namely, the projecting corona and the crowning ovolo—are made to follow the sloping line of the gable, a second corona being also carried across horizontally in a manner which can be best understood by inspecting a diagram of the corner of a Greek Doric building (Fig.57); and the triangular space thus formed was termed a pediment, and was the position in which the finest of the sculpture with which the building was enriched was placed.

In the Parthenon a continuous band of sculpture ran round the exterior of the cell, near the top of the wall.

One other feature was employed in Greek temple-architecture. Theantawas a square pillar or pier of masonry attached to the wall, and corresponded very closely to ourpilaster; but its capital always differed from that of the columns in the neighbourhood of which it was employed. The antæ of the Greek Doric order, as employed in the Parthenon, have a moulded base, which it will be remembered is not the case with the column, and their capital has for its principal feature an under-cut moulding, known as the bird’s beak, quite dissimilar from the ovolo of the capital of the column (Fig.65). Sometimes the portico of a temple consisted of the side walls prolonged, and ending in two antæ, with two or more columns standing between them. Such a portico is said to be in antis.

Fig. 65.—Elevation and Section of the Capital of a Greek Anta, with coloured decoration.

The Parthenon presents examples of the most extraordinary refinements in order to correct optical illusions. The delicacy and subtlety of these are extreme, but there can be no manner of doubt that they existed. The best known correction is the diminution in diameter or taper, and theentasisor convex curve of the tapered outline of the shaft of the column. Without the taper, which is perceptible enough in the order of this building, and much more marked in the order of earlier buildings, the columns would look top-heavy; but the entasis is an additional optical correction to prevent their outline from appearing hollowed, which it would have done had there been no curve. The columns of the Parthenon have shafts that are over 34 ft. high, and diminish from a diameter of 6·15 ft. atthe bottom to 4·81 ft. at the top. The outline between these points is convex, but so slightly so that the curve departs at the point of greatest curvature not more than ¾ in. from the straight line joining the top and bottom. This is, however, just sufficient to correct the tendency to look hollow in the middle.

A second correction is intended to overcome the apparent tendency of a building to spread outwards towards the top. This is met by inclining the columns slightly inwards. So slight, however, is the inclination, that were the axes of two columns on opposite sides of the Parthenon continued upwards till they met, the meeting-point would be 1952 yards, or, in other words, more than one mile from the ground.

Another optical correction is applied to the horizontal lines. In order to overcome a tendency which exists in all long lines to seem as though they droop in the middle, the lines of the architrave, of the top step, and of other horizontal features of the building, are all slightly curved. The difference between the outline of the top step of the Parthenon and a straight line joining its two ends is at the greatest only just over 2 inches.

The last correction which it is necessary to name here was applied to the vertical proportions of the building. The principles upon which this correction rests have been demonstrated by Mr. John Pennethorne;[14]and it would hardly come within the scope of this volume to attempt to state them here: suffice it to say, that small additions, amounting in the entire height of the order to less than 5 inches, were made to the heights of the various members of the order, with a view to secure that from one definite point of view the effect of foreshorteningshould be exactly compensated, and so the building should appear to the spectator to be perfectly proportioned.

The Parthenon, like many, if not all Greek buildings, was profusely decorated with coloured ornaments, of which nearly every trace has now disappeared, but which must have contributed largely to the splendid beauty of the building as a whole, and must have emphasised and set off its parts. The ornaments known as Doric frets were largely employed. They consist of patterns made entirely of straight lines interlacing, and, while preserving the severity which is characteristic of the style, they permit of the introduction of considerable richness.

The principal remaining examples or fragments of Greek Doric may be enumerated as follows:—

In Greece.Temple of (?) Athena, at Corinth, ab. 650B.C.Temple of (?) Zeus, in the island of Ægina, ab. 550B.C.Temple of Theseus (Theseum), at Athens, 465B.C.Temple of Athena (Parthenon), on the Acropolis at Athens, fin. 438B.C.The Propylæa, on the Acropolis at Athens, 436-431B.C.Temple of Zeus at Olympia.Temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Bassæ,[15]in Arcadia (designed by Ictinus).Temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Phigaleia, in Arcadia (built by Ictinus).Temple of Athena, on the rock of Sunium, in Attica.Temple of Nemesis, at Rhamnus, in Attica.Temple of Demeter (Ceres), at Eleusis, in Attica.In Sicily and South Italy.Temple of (?) Zeus, at Agrigentum, in Sicily (begunB.C.480).Temple at Ægesta (or Segesta), in Sicily.Temple of (?) Zeus, at Selinus, in Sicily (? ab. 410B.C.).Temple of (?) Athena, at Syracuse, in Sicily.Temple of Poseidon, at Pæstum, in South of Italy (? ab. 550B.C.).

In Greece.

Temple of (?) Athena, at Corinth, ab. 650B.C.Temple of (?) Zeus, in the island of Ægina, ab. 550B.C.Temple of Theseus (Theseum), at Athens, 465B.C.Temple of Athena (Parthenon), on the Acropolis at Athens, fin. 438B.C.The Propylæa, on the Acropolis at Athens, 436-431B.C.Temple of Zeus at Olympia.Temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Bassæ,[15]in Arcadia (designed by Ictinus).Temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Phigaleia, in Arcadia (built by Ictinus).Temple of Athena, on the rock of Sunium, in Attica.Temple of Nemesis, at Rhamnus, in Attica.Temple of Demeter (Ceres), at Eleusis, in Attica.

In Sicily and South Italy.

Temple of (?) Zeus, at Agrigentum, in Sicily (begunB.C.480).Temple at Ægesta (or Segesta), in Sicily.Temple of (?) Zeus, at Selinus, in Sicily (? ab. 410B.C.).Temple of (?) Athena, at Syracuse, in Sicily.Temple of Poseidon, at Pæstum, in South of Italy (? ab. 550B.C.).

FOOTNOTES:[10]SeeFrontispieceand Figs.54and55.[11]The Propylæa.[12]Mr. Fergusson’s investigations, soon, it is understood, to be published in a complete form, clearly show that the clerestory and roof can be restored with the greatest probability.[13]In a few instances a smaller number is found.[14]‘Geometry and Optics of Ancient Architecture.’[15]? Exterior Doric—Interior Ionic.

[10]SeeFrontispieceand Figs.54and55.

[11]The Propylæa.

[12]Mr. Fergusson’s investigations, soon, it is understood, to be published in a complete form, clearly show that the clerestory and roof can be restored with the greatest probability.

[13]In a few instances a smaller number is found.

[14]‘Geometry and Optics of Ancient Architecture.’

[15]? Exterior Doric—Interior Ionic.

Repeated linear design

Fig. 66.—Palmette and Honeysuckle.

THE Doric was the order in which the full strength and the complete refinement of the artistic character of the Greeks were most completely shown. There was a great deal of the spirit of severe dignity proper to Egyptian art in its aspect; but other nationalities contributed to the formation of the many-sided Greek nature, and we must look to some other country than Egypt for the spirit which inspired the Ionic order. This seems to have been brought into Greece by a distinct race, and shows marks of an Asiatic origin. The feature which is most distinctive is the one most distinctly Eastern—the capital of the column, ornamented always by volutes,i.e.scrolls, which bear a close resemblance to features similarly employed in the columns found at Persepolis. The same resemblance can be also detected in the moulded bases, and even the shafts of the columns, and in many of the ornaments employed throughout the buildings.

Fig. 67.—Shaft of Ionic Column showing the Flutes.

Showing palmette and honeysuckle design

Fig. 68.—Ionic Capital. Front Elevation.

Showing palmette and honeysuckle design

Fig. 69.—Ionic Capital. Side Elevation.

In form and disposition an ordinary Ionic temple was similar to one of the Doric order, but the general proportions are more slender, and the mouldings of the order are more numerous and more profusely enriched. The column in the Ionic order had a base, often elaborately and sometimes singularly moulded (Figs.74,75). The shaft (Figs.67,70) is of more slender proportions than the Doric shaft. It was fluted, but its channels are more numerous, and are separated from one another by broaderfillets than in the Doric. The distinctive feature, as in all the orders, is the capital (Figs.68,69), which is recognised at a glance by the two remarkable ornaments already alluded to as like scrolls, and known as volutes. These generally formed the faces of a pair of cushion-shaped features, which could be seen in a side view of the capital; but sometimes volutes stand in a diagonal position, and in almost every building they differ slightly. The abacus is less deep than in the Greek Doric, and it is always moulded at the edge, which was never the case with the Doric abacus. The entablature (Fig.70) is, generally speaking, richer than that of the Doric order. The architrave, for example, has three facias instead of being plain. On the other hand, the frieze has no triglyphs, and but rarely sculpture. There are more members in the cornice, several mouldings being combined to fortify the supporting portion. These have sometimes been termed “the bed mouldings,” and among them occurs one which is almost typical of the order, and is termed a dentil band. This moulding presents the appearance of a plain square band of stone, in which a series of cuts had been made dividing it into blocks somewhat resembling teeth, whence the name. Such an ornament is more naturally constructed in wood than in stone or marble, but if the real derivation of the Ionic order, as of the Doric, be in fact from timber structures, the dentil band is apparently the only feature in which that origin can now be traced. The crowning member of the cornice is a partly hollow moulding, technically called a “cyma recta,” less vigorous than the convex ovolo, of the Doric: this moulding, and some of the bed mouldings, were commonly enriched with carving. Altogether more slenderness and less vigour, more carved enrichment and less painted decoration, more reliance on architectural ornamentand less on the work of the sculptor, appear to distinguish those examples of Greek Ionic which have come down to us, as compared with Doric buildings.

Fig. 70.—The Ionic Order. From Priene, Asia Minor.

Diagram showing elements of the Ionic orderSee larger image.

Fig. 71.—Ionic Order. From the Erechtheium, Athens.

Fig. 72.—North-west View of the Erechtheium, in the Time of Pericles.

The most numerous examples of the Ionic order of which remains exist are found in Asia Minor, but the most refined and complete is the Erechtheium at Athens (Figs.72,73), a composite structure containing three temples built in juxtaposition, but differing from one another in scale, levels, dimensions, and treatment. The principal order from the Erechtheium (Fig.71) shows a large amount of enrichment introduced with the most refined and severe taste. Specially remarkable are the ornaments (borrowed from the Assyrian honeysuckle)which encircle the upper part of the shaft at the point where it passes into the capital, and the splendid spirals of the volutes (Figs.68,69). The bases of the columns in the Erechtheium example are models of elegance and beauty. Those of some of the examples from Asia Minorare overloaded with a vast number of mouldings, by no means always producing a pleasing effect (Figs.74,75). Some of them bear a close resemblance to the bases of the columns at Persepolis.

Showing position of columns and other features

Fig. 73.—Plan of the Erechtheium.

Showing layers of mouldings

Fig. 74.—Ionic Base from the Temple of the Wingless Victory (Nikè Apteros).

Showing many layers of mouldings

Fig. 75.—Ionic Base Mouldings from Priene.

The most famous Greek building which was erected in the Ionic style was the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. This temple has been all but totally destroyed, and the very site of it had been for centuries lost and unknown till the energy and sagacity of an English architect (Mr. Wood) enabled him to discover and dig out the vestiges of the building. Fortunately sufficient traces of the foundation have remained to render it possible to recover the plan of the temple completely; and the discovery of fragments of the order, together with representations on ancient coins and a description by Pliny, have rendered it possible to make a restoration on paper, of the general appearance of this famous temple, which must be very nearly, if not absolutely, correct.

The walls of this temple enclosed, as usual, a cella (in which was the statue of the goddess), with apparently a treasury behind it: they were entirely surrounded by a double series of columns, with a pediment at each end. The exterior of the building, including these columns, was about twice the width of the cella. The whole structure, which was of marble, was planted on a spacious platform with steps. The account of Pliny refers to thirty-six columns, which he describes as “columnæ celatæ” (sculptured columns), adding that one was by Scopas, a very celebrated artist. The fortunate discovery by Mr. Wood of a few fragments of these columns shows that the lower part of the shaft immediately above the base was enriched by a group of figures—about life-size—carved in the boldest relief and encircling the column. One of these groups has been brought to the British Museum, and itsbeauty and vigour enable the imagination partly to restore this splendid feature, which certainly was one of the most sumptuous modes of decorating a building by the aid of sculpture which has ever been attempted; and the effect must have been rich beyond description.

It is worth remark that the Erechtheium, which has been already referred to, contains an example of a different, and perhaps a not less remarkable, mode of combining sculpture with architecture. In one of its three porticoes (Fig.72) the columns are replaced by standing female figures, known as caryatidæ, and the entablature rests on their heads. This device has frequently been repeated in ancient and in modern architecture, but, except in some comparatively obscure examples, the sculptured columns of Ephesus do not appear to have been imitated.

Another famous Greek work of art, the remains of which have been, like the Temple of Diana, disinterred by the energy and skill of a learned Englishman, belonged to the Ionic order. To Mr. Newton we owe the recovery of the site, and considerable fragments of the architectural features, of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, one of the ancient wonders of the world. The general outline of this monument must have resembled other Greek tombs which have been preserved, such, for example, as the Lion Tomb at Cnidus; that is to say, the plan was square: there was a basement, above this an order, and above that a steep pyramidal roof rising in steps, not carried to a point, but stopping short to form a platform, on which was placed a quadriga (or four-horsed chariot). This building is known to have been richly sculptured, and many fragments of great beauty have been recovered. Indeed it was probably its elaboration, as well as its very unusual height (for the Greek buildings were seldom lofty), which led to its being so celebrated.

Showing columns with decorated frieze above, including figures and inscription

Fig. 76.—The Corinthian Order. From the Monument of Lysicrates at Athens.

Featuring floral and foliage design

Fig. 77.—Corinthian Capital from the Monument of Lysicrates at Athens.

The Corinthian order, the last to make its appearance, was almost as much Roman as Greek, and is hardly found in any of the great temples of the best period of which remains exist in Greece, though we hear of its use. For example, Pausanias states that the Corinthian order was employed in the interior of the Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, built by Scopas, to which a date shortly after the year 394B.C.is assigned. The examples which we possess are comparatively small works, and in them the order resembles the Ionic, but with the important exceptions that the capital of the column is quite different, that the proportions are altogether a little slenderer, and that the enrichments are somewhat more florid.

Fig. 78.—Monument of Lysicrates at Athens, as in the Time of Pericles.

The capital of the Greek Corinthian order, as seen in the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates at Athens (Fig.78)—a comparatively miniature example, but the most perfect we have—is a work of art of marvellous beauty (Fig.77).It retains a feature resembling the Ionic volute, but reduced to a very small size, set obliquely and appearing to spring from the sides of a kind of long bell-shaped termination to the column. This bell is clothed with foliage, symmetrically arranged and much of it studied, but in a conventional manner, from the graceful foliage of the acanthus; between the two small volutes appears an Assyrian honeysuckle, and tendrils of honeysuckle, conventionally treated, occupy part of the upper portion of the capital. The abacus is moulded, and is curved on plan, and the base of the capital is marked by a very unusual turning-down of the flutes of the columns. The entire structure to which this belonged is a model of elegance, and the large sculptured mass of leaves and tendrils with which it is crowned is especially noteworthy.

Showing floral design

Fig. 79.—Capital of Antæ from Miletus. Side View.

A somewhat simpler Corinthian capital, and another of very rich design, are found in the Temple of Apollo Didymæus at Miletus, where also a very elegant capital for the antæ—or pilasters—is employed (Figs.79,81). A more ornamental design for a capital could hardly be adopted than that of the Lysicrates example, but there was room for more elaboration in the entablature, and accordingly largerichly-sculptured brackets seem to have been introduced, and a profusion of ornament was employed. The examples of this treatment which remain are, however, of Roman origin rather than Greek.

View looking directly towards the stage

Fig. 80.—Restoration of the Greek Theatre of Segesta.

The Greek cities must have included structures of great beauty and adapted to many purposes, of which in most cases few traces, if any, have been preserved. We have no remains of a Greek palace, or of Greek dwelling-houses, although those at Pompeii were probably erected and decorated by Greek artificers, for Roman occupation. The agora of a Greek city, which was a place of public assembly something like the Roman Forum, is known to us only by descriptions in ancient writers, but we possess some remains of Greek theatres; and from these, aided by Roman examples and written descriptions, can understand what these buildings were. The auditory was curved in plan, occupying rather more than a semicircle; the seats rose in tiers one behind another; a circular space was reserved for the chorus in the centre of the seats, and behind it was a raised stage, bounded by a wall forming its back and sides: a rough notion of the arrangement can be obtained from the lecture theatre of many modern colleges, and our illustration (Fig.80) gives a general idea of what must have been the appearance of one of these structures. Much of the detail of these buildings is, however, a matter of pure speculation, and consequently does not enter into the scheme of this manual.

Showing floral and bead patterns

Fig. 81.—Capital of Antæ from Miletus.

THEPlanor floor-disposition of a Greek building was always simple however great its extent, was well judged for effect, and capable of being understood at once. The grandest results were obtained by simple means, and all confusion, uncertainty, or complication were scrupulously avoided. Refined precision, order, symmetry, and exactness mark the plan as well as every part of the work.

The plan of a Greek temple may be said to present many of the same elements as that of an Egyptian temple, but, so to speak, turned inside out. Columns are relied on by the Greek artist, as they were by the Egyptian artist, as a means of giving effect; but they are placed by him outside the building instead of within its courts and halls. The Greek, starting with a comparatively small nucleus formed by the cell and the treasury, encircles them bya magnificent girdle of pillars, and so makes a grand structure, the first hint or suggestion being in all probability to be found in certain small Egyptian buildings to which reference has already been made. The disposition of these columns and of the great range of steps, or stylobate, is the most marked feature in Greek temple plans. Columns also existed, it is true, in the interior of the building, but these were of smaller size, and seem to have been introduced to aid in carrying the roof and the clerestory, if there was one. They have in several instances disappeared, and there is certainly no ground for supposing that in any Greek interior the grand but oppressive effect of a hypostyle hall was attempted to be reproduced. That was abandoned, together with the complication, seclusion, and gloom of the long series of chambers, cells, &c., placed one behind another, just as the contrasts and surprises of the series of courts and halls following in succession were abandoned for the one simple but grand mass built to be seen from without rather than from within. In the greater number of Greek buildings a degree of precision is exhibited, to which the Egyptians did not attain. All right angles are absolutely true; the setting-out (or spacing) of the different columns, piers, openings, &c., is perfectly exact; and, in the Parthenon, the patient investigations of Mr. Penrose and other skilled observers have disclosed a degree of accuracy as well as refinement which resembles the precision with which astronomical instruments are adjusted in Europe at the present day, rather than the rough-and-ready measurements of a modern mason or bricklayer.

What the plans of Greek palaces might have exhibited, did any remains exist, is merely matter for inference and conjecture, and it is not proposed in this volume topass far beyond ascertained and observed facts. There can be, however, little doubt that the palaces of the West Asiatic style must have at least contributed suggestions as to internal disposition of the later and more magnificent Greek mansions. The ordinary dwelling-houses of citizens, as described by ancient writers, resembled those now visible in the disinterred cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum, which will be referred to under Roman Architecture.[16]The chief characteristic of the plan of these is that they retain the disposition which in the temples was discarded; that is to say, all the doors and windows looked into an inner court, and the house was as far as possible secluded within an encircling wall. The contrast between the openness of the public life led by the men in Greek cities, and the seclusion of the women and the families when at home, is remarkably illustrated by this difference between the public and private buildings.

The plan of the triple building called the Erechtheium (Fig.72) deserves special mention, as an example of an exceptional arrangement which appears to set the ordinary laws of symmetry at defiance, and which is calculated to produce a result into which the picturesque enters at least as much as the beautiful. Though the central temple is symmetrical, the two attached porticoes are not so, and do not, in position, dimensions, or treatment, balance one another. The result is a charming group, and we cannot doubt that other examples of freedom of planning would have been found, had more remains of the architecture of the great cities of Greece come down to our own day.

In public buildings other than temples—such as thetheatre, the agora, and the basilica—the Greek architects seem to have had great scope for their genius; the planning of the theatres shows skilful and thoroughly complete provisions to meet the requirements of the case. A circular disposition was here introduced—not, it is true, for the first time, since it is rendered probable by the representations on sculptured slabs that some circular buildings existed in Assyria, and circular buildings remain in the archaic works at Mycenæ; but it was now elaborated with remarkable completeness, beauty, and mastery over all the difficulties involved. Could we see the great theatre of Athens as it was when perfect, we should probably find that as an interior it was almost unrivalled, alike for convenience and for beauty; and for these excellences it was mainly indebted to the elegance of its planning. The actual floor of many of the Greek temples appears to have been of marble of different colours.

The construction of the walls of the Greek temples rivalled that of the Egyptians in accuracy and beauty of workmanship, and resembled them in the use of solid materials. The Greeks had within reach quarries of marble, the most beautiful material which nature has provided for the use of the builder; and great fineness of surface and high finish were attained. Some interesting examples of hollow walling occur in the construction of the Parthenon. The wall was not an element of the building on which the Greek architect seemed to dwell with pleasure; much of it is almost invariably overshadowed by the lines of columns which form the main features of the building.

The pediment (or gable) of a temple is a grand development of the walls, and perhaps the most striking of the additions which the Greeks made to the resources of the architect. It offers a fine field for sculpture, and adds real and apparent height beyond anything that the Egyptians ever attempted since the days of the Pyramid-builders; and it has remained in constant use to the present hour.

We do not hear of towers being attached to buildings, and, although such monumental structures as the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus approached the proportions of a tower, height does not seem to have commended itself to the mind of the Greek architect as necessary to the buildings which he designed. It was reserved for Roman and Christian art to introduce this element of architectural effect in all its power. On the other hand, the Greek, like the Persian architect, emphasised the base of his building in a remarkable manner, not only by base mouldings, but by planting the whole structure on a great range of steps which formed an essential part of the composition.

The construction of the roofs of Greek temples has been the subject of much debate. It is almost certain that they were in some way so made as to admit light. They were framed of timber and covered by tiles, often, if not always, of marble. Although all traces of the timber framing have disappeared, we can at least know that the pitch was not steep, by the slope of the outline of the pediments, which formed, as has already been said, perhaps the chief glory of a Greek temple. The flat stone roofs sometimes used by the Egyptians, and necessitating the placing of columns or other supports close together,seem to have become disused, with the exception that where a temple was surrounded by a range of columns the space between the main wall and the columns was so covered.

The vaulted stone roofs of the archaic buildings, of which the treasury of Atreus (Figs.52,52a) was the type, do not seem to have prevailed in a later period, or, so far as we know, to have been succeeded by any similar covering or vault of a more scientific construction.

It is hardly necessary to add that the Greek theatres were not roofed. The Romans shaded the spectators in their theatres and amphitheatres by means of a velarium or awning, but it is extremely doubtful whether even this expedient was in use in Greek theatres.

The most important characteristic of the openings in Greek buildings is that they were flat-topped,—covered by a lintel of stone or marble,—and never arched. We have already[17]shown that this circumstance is really of the first importance as determining the architectural character of buildings. Doors and window openings were often a little narrower at the top than the bottom, and were marked by a band of mouldings, known as the architrave, on the face of the wall, and, so to speak, framing in the opening. There was often also a small cornice over each (Figs.82,83). Openings were seldom advanced into prominence or employed as features in the exterior of a building; in fact, the same effects which windows produce in other styles were in Greek buildings created by the interspaces between the columns.

These features, together with the superstructure or entablature, which they customarily carried, were the prominent parts of Greek architecture, occupying as they did the entire height of the building. The development of the orders (which we have explained to be really decorative systems, each of which involved the use of one sort of column, though the term is constantly understood as meaning merely the column and entablature) is a very interesting subject, and illustrates the acuteness with which the Greeks selected from those models which were accessible to them, exactly what was suited to their purpose, and the skill with which they altered and refined, and almost redesigned, everything which they so selected.

Back to Index Next