DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29898#0297
Bk. III. Ch. II.
DORIC ORDER.
261
that rigidity and poverty to the column which is observable in modern
examples.1
In like manner, the architrave in all temples was carried upwards
so as to form a very flat arch, just sufficient to correct the optical
delusion arising from the interference of the sloping lines of the
pediment. This, I believe, was common to all temples, but in the
Parthenon the curve was applied to the sides also, though from what
motive it is not so easy to detect.
Another refinement was making all the columns slope slightly
inwards, so as to give an idea of strength and support to the whole.
Add to this, that all the curved lines used were either hyperbolas or
parabolas. With one exception only, no circular line was employed,
nor even an ellipse. Every part of the temple was also arranged
with the most unbounded care and accuracy, and every detail of the
masonry was carried out with a precision and beauty of execution
which is almost unrivalled, and it may be added that the material of
the whole was the purest and best white marble. All these delicate
adjustments, this exquisite finish and attention to even the smallest
details, are well bestowed on a design in itself simple, beautiful, and
appropriate. They combine to render this order, as found in the best
Greek temples, as nearly faultless as any work of art can possibly be,
and such as we may dwell upon with the most unmixed and unvarying
satisfaction.
The system of definite proportion which the Greeks employed in
the design of their temples, was another cause of the efiect they pro-
duce even on uneducated minds. It was not with them merely that
the height was equal to the width, or the length about twice the
breadth; but every part was proportioned to all those parts with
which it was related, in some such ratio as 1 to 6, 2 to 7, 3 to 8, 4 to 9,
or 5 to 10, &c. As the scheme advances these numbers become unde-
sirably high. In this case they reverted to some such simple ratios
as 4 to 5, 5 to 6, 6 to 7, and so on.
We do not yet quite understand the process of reasoning by which
the Greeks arrived at the laws which guided their practice in this
respect; but they evidently attached the utmost importance to it,
and when the ratio was cletermined upon, they set it out with such
accuracy that even now the calculated and the measured dimensions
seldom vary beyond such minute fractions as can only be expressed in
hundredths of an inch.
Though the existence of such a system of ratios has long been
suspected, it is only recently that any measurements of Greek temples
1 These facts have all been fully elu- | searches on the Parthenon and other
cidated by Mr. Penrose in his beautiful I temples of Greece, published by the
work containing the results of his re- I Dilettanti Society.
DORIC ORDER.
261
that rigidity and poverty to the column which is observable in modern
examples.1
In like manner, the architrave in all temples was carried upwards
so as to form a very flat arch, just sufficient to correct the optical
delusion arising from the interference of the sloping lines of the
pediment. This, I believe, was common to all temples, but in the
Parthenon the curve was applied to the sides also, though from what
motive it is not so easy to detect.
Another refinement was making all the columns slope slightly
inwards, so as to give an idea of strength and support to the whole.
Add to this, that all the curved lines used were either hyperbolas or
parabolas. With one exception only, no circular line was employed,
nor even an ellipse. Every part of the temple was also arranged
with the most unbounded care and accuracy, and every detail of the
masonry was carried out with a precision and beauty of execution
which is almost unrivalled, and it may be added that the material of
the whole was the purest and best white marble. All these delicate
adjustments, this exquisite finish and attention to even the smallest
details, are well bestowed on a design in itself simple, beautiful, and
appropriate. They combine to render this order, as found in the best
Greek temples, as nearly faultless as any work of art can possibly be,
and such as we may dwell upon with the most unmixed and unvarying
satisfaction.
The system of definite proportion which the Greeks employed in
the design of their temples, was another cause of the efiect they pro-
duce even on uneducated minds. It was not with them merely that
the height was equal to the width, or the length about twice the
breadth; but every part was proportioned to all those parts with
which it was related, in some such ratio as 1 to 6, 2 to 7, 3 to 8, 4 to 9,
or 5 to 10, &c. As the scheme advances these numbers become unde-
sirably high. In this case they reverted to some such simple ratios
as 4 to 5, 5 to 6, 6 to 7, and so on.
We do not yet quite understand the process of reasoning by which
the Greeks arrived at the laws which guided their practice in this
respect; but they evidently attached the utmost importance to it,
and when the ratio was cletermined upon, they set it out with such
accuracy that even now the calculated and the measured dimensions
seldom vary beyond such minute fractions as can only be expressed in
hundredths of an inch.
Though the existence of such a system of ratios has long been
suspected, it is only recently that any measurements of Greek temples
1 These facts have all been fully elu- | searches on the Parthenon and other
cidated by Mr. Penrose in his beautiful I temples of Greece, published by the
work containing the results of his re- I Dilettanti Society.