DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9188#0085
Architecture
63
for certain ' mendosac ct inconvenientes symmetriae ' ; 1 but
that order, the true symbol of the sons of Heracles, was one
of the most momentous contributions ever made to the art
of architecture. It was the keynote of Greek architecture
throughout its finest period. Later it was superseded by the
Ionic order, and when Rome became paramount in the
western world, that, in its turn, yielded its place of pride to
the Corinthian order, opulent, luxurious, a little vulgar, a true
register of the lowering of the sense and standard of beauty
that followed the downfall of Athens.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Aegean, the Ionic
order was reaching its perfect form through a similar process
of systematic thought on a type definitely adopted. The
Greek colonies in Asia Minor were of very early origin.
Legend attributed their foundation to the earlier inhabitants
of Greece, driven out by the Dorians. By the sixth century
b. c. the Greek colonies were well established on the west
and south-west coasts of Asia Minor, and had evolved their
own characteristic architectural idiom in the Ionic order and
its column, more slender than the Doric, with its moulded base
and its strange characteristic capital, unsuitable from the
constructional point of view in stone or marble, yet ultimately
attaining the exquisite beauty of line and modelling of the
capitals of the Erechtheion at Athens. Two things seem
fairly certain as to the origin of this capital; first, that it was
derived from the wooden horizontal head-pieces fixed on
posts to reduce the bearing of the primitive wooden lintels;
and, secondly, that the first suggestion of the volute reached
1 Vitriivins, iii. I. The difficulty was, that if the triglyph was placed on
the angle of the building (the practice of the Greeks) and the next triglyph
was placed over the axis of the column, the metope (or panel) between
these two triglyphs would be larger than the metopes between the triglyphs
axial over the other columns. The Greeks solved it by reducing the width
of the end intercolumniation, but later critics disliked this, and solved it
by removing the end triglyph from the angle and placing it axial over the
end column.
F
63
for certain ' mendosac ct inconvenientes symmetriae ' ; 1 but
that order, the true symbol of the sons of Heracles, was one
of the most momentous contributions ever made to the art
of architecture. It was the keynote of Greek architecture
throughout its finest period. Later it was superseded by the
Ionic order, and when Rome became paramount in the
western world, that, in its turn, yielded its place of pride to
the Corinthian order, opulent, luxurious, a little vulgar, a true
register of the lowering of the sense and standard of beauty
that followed the downfall of Athens.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Aegean, the Ionic
order was reaching its perfect form through a similar process
of systematic thought on a type definitely adopted. The
Greek colonies in Asia Minor were of very early origin.
Legend attributed their foundation to the earlier inhabitants
of Greece, driven out by the Dorians. By the sixth century
b. c. the Greek colonies were well established on the west
and south-west coasts of Asia Minor, and had evolved their
own characteristic architectural idiom in the Ionic order and
its column, more slender than the Doric, with its moulded base
and its strange characteristic capital, unsuitable from the
constructional point of view in stone or marble, yet ultimately
attaining the exquisite beauty of line and modelling of the
capitals of the Erechtheion at Athens. Two things seem
fairly certain as to the origin of this capital; first, that it was
derived from the wooden horizontal head-pieces fixed on
posts to reduce the bearing of the primitive wooden lintels;
and, secondly, that the first suggestion of the volute reached
1 Vitriivins, iii. I. The difficulty was, that if the triglyph was placed on
the angle of the building (the practice of the Greeks) and the next triglyph
was placed over the axis of the column, the metope (or panel) between
these two triglyphs would be larger than the metopes between the triglyphs
axial over the other columns. The Greeks solved it by reducing the width
of the end intercolumniation, but later critics disliked this, and solved it
by removing the end triglyph from the angle and placing it axial over the
end column.
F