Page:A history of architecture on the comparative method for the student, craftsman, and amateur.djvu/117

 GREEK ARCHITECTURE. 5g form as in the Pantheon (Nos. 54, 57 e), and also planned smaller circular temples as follows : — (a.) Pevipteral. Temple of Vesta, Tivoli (No. 18 c), and Temple of Vesta, Rome (No. 47). {b.) Monoptcval (in which the roof was supported by columns only, without walls). (c.) Pseudo-peripteral (the cella wall having attached columns). The varieties of temples described were erected in either the Doric, Ionic, or Corinthian style, which will be referred to now in detail with their principal examples. THE DORIC ORDER. The Doric order, the oldest, plainest, and most sturdy, is traced by many to an Egyptian prototype as exemplified at Beni-Hasan (No. 6) ; but as the origin of this, the earliest of the Greek orders, is of special interest, the theories put forward by several authorities, are here stated. Perrot and Chipiez, in their monumental work on " Art in Primitive Greece," discuss the question of the wooden origin of the Greek Doric column and its entablature, and endeavour to show its derivation from the wooden-built prodomus or porch of the Mycenaean palace (No. 16). They themselves suggest no origin of the Capital, and decline to consider the derivation from the examples at Beni-Hasan in Egypt. They make various interesting suggestions, e.g., the derivation of the " guttae " from constructive wooden pegs, and the restora- tion they give of the timber architecture of Mycenaean palaces, and the explanation of the wooden types used decoratively in the later stone architecture, form a consistent and attractive theory — • a theory, moreover, which is yearly gaining ground and is to many minds convincing. Illustrations showing these reconstructions are given in No. 16. Viollet-le-Duc, however, held a decided opinion that the orders of Greek architecture involved an original stone treatment. He was unable to conceive how the Greek Doric capital could have been derived from a timber form, and he considered the triglyphs in the frieze, not as the petrified ends of wooden beams — which could not be seen on four sides of a building, and which would be very difficult to flute across the grain of the wood — but as original stone uprights, fluted to express their function of vertical support, and therefore treated in this respect in the same manner as the columns, which were certainly fluted when in position. He like- wise observed that " the form given to the entablature of the Doric order can be adapted with some unimportant variations to a structure in stone as well as of wood, in neither case involving