Page:Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Volume 1, 1869.djvu/872

 704 The Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal. [May, The gods and goddesses of their early mythology had all the forms and attri- butes of mankind ; hence we see that the Greeks continually aimed r„t a repro- duction of deified humanity. It is even said that the origin of the Doric style was merely the result of an attempt to combine something resembling the human figure, with the 'massive uni- formity of a column, for instance, a sturdy peasant, showing strength with plainness of appearance. On the same principle, the Ionic order was typical of the more graceful and less severe proportions of a woman. We have a still more forcible illustra- tion of this idea, in the use of Caryatides, which, although derived from Egypt, were introduced as pillars only by the Greeks, the Egyptians merely using them as statues in front of the pillars. Many highly poetical, but decidedly improbable theories with regard to the origin of the Corinthian capital have been brought forward, but where opinion is so much divided, we may as well attribute it to the desire to typify the bounties of Flora and Ceres as to any other cause, and settling comfortably under this conviction, conclude that we have discovered another indubitable proof that religion was at the bottom of the whole matter. The oldest specimens of the Doric order extant, are the temples at Corinth (650 B. C.) and at Egina, (550 B. C.,) in both of which we may see the im- posing effect, which (because of its very simplicity) this st}de produces. In the temple of Corinth, however, the great massiveness is thought to exist to excess, and it is probable the Greeks thought likewise, for in the Parthenon (the finest example of the style) the proportions were considerably modified, the columns in the former temple being only 4.47 diameters in height, while those in the latter were erected to an altitude of 6.025 diameters. Had the modifications ceased at this point it would have been well, but like man3 r matters in our own days, the Greeks continued their "improvements" until they came into the opposite ex- treme, and, in several of their later edifices, lost much of the boldness formerly characteristic of the Doric style, by the attenuated columns and general meagreness of outline which they introduced. The Ionic cannot be deemed as pure a style as the Doric, inasmuch as it was in a great measure derived from it. The additional grace which it possesses may be regarded as the result of an increase of refinement, or, perhaps, eifeininacy, in Greece. The stern simplicity of the Doric had become too severe to suit the increasing cultivation and elegance of the Greeks, and it is for this reason that we see the rise of a more congenial style, about the end of the sixth century B. C. We find the further development of this disposition in the invention, or rather introduction, of a yet more elab- orate order of Architecture, — an order which, although possessing the charac- teristics of both the preceding ones, is nevertheless, in its general effects, en- tirely distinctive from either. In the temple of Jupiter Olympius, at Athens, we have an admirable specimen, (the best in existence) of the Corinthian order. That it is beautiful none will deny, but most persons will agree that what is added to it in this respect is deducted from the appearance of grandeur which the other orders exhibit, and the feelings of awe which they inspire. Such feelings, however, are induced to a yet greater degree by the Gothic, than by any of the Greek orders. An intelligent writer upon the subject makes a fine definition, and draws a delicate comparison between the two, in denomi- nating the Greek temple, an embodiment of the abstract conception of all-pervad- ing Deit}', while the Gothic cathedral shadows forth the religious aspiration after a personal God.