GREEK ARCHITECTURE.
The supreme achievement of Greek architecture was the temple. In
imperial Rome, or in any typical city of the Roman Empire, the
most extensive and imposing buildings were secular--basilicas,
baths, amphitheaters, porticoes, aqueducts. In Athens, on the
other hand, or in any typical Greek city, there was little or
nothing to vie with the temples and the sacred edifices associated
with them. Public secular buildings, of course, there were, but
the little we know of them does not suggest that they often ranked
among the architectural glories of the country. Private houses
were in the best period of small pretensions. It was to the temple
and its adjunct buildings that the architectural genius and the
material resources of Greece were devoted. It is the temple, then,
which we have above all to study.
Before beginning, however, to analyze the artistic features of the
temple, it will be useful to consider the building materials which
a Greek architect had at his disposal and his methods of putting
them together. Greece is richly provided with good building stone.
At many points there are inexhaustible stores of white marble. The
island of Paros, one of the Cyclades, and Mount Pentelicus in
Attica--to name only the two best and most famous quarries--are
simply masses of white marble, suitable as well for the builder as
the sculptor. There are besides various beautiful colored marbles,
but it was left to the Romans to bring these into use. Then there
are many commoner sorts of stone ready to the builder's hand,
especially the rather soft, brown limestones which the Greeks
called by the general name of poros. [Footnote: The word has no
connection with porous] This material was not disdained, even for
important buildings. Thus the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, one of
the two most important religious centers in the Greek world, was
built of local poros. The same was the case with the numerous
temples of Acragas (Girgenti) and Selinus in Sicily. An even
meaner material, sun-dried brick, was sometimes, perhaps often,
employed for cella walls. Where poros or crude brick was used, it
was coated over with a very fine, hard stucco, which gave a
surface like that of marble.
It is remarkable that no use was made in Greece of baked bricks
before the period of Roman domination. Roof-tiles of terra-cotta
were in use from an early period, and Greek travelers to Babylonia
brought back word of the use of baked bricks in that country.
Nevertheless Greek builders showed no disposition to adopt baked
bricks for their masonry.
This probably hangs together with another important fact, the
absence of lime-mortar from Greek architecture. Lime-stucco was in
use from time immemorial. But lime-mortar, i.e., lime mixed with
sand and used as a bond for masonry, is all but unknown in Greek
work. [Footnote: The solitary exception at present known is an
Attic tomb built of crude bricks laid in lime-mortar] Consequently
in the walls of temples and other carefully constructed buildings
an elaborate system of bonding by means of clamps and dowels was
resorted to. Fig. 46 illustrates this and some other points. The
blocks of marble are seen to be perfectly rectangular and of
uniform length and height. Each end of every block is worked with
a slightly raised and well-smoothed border, for the purpose of
securing without unnecessary labor a perfectly accurate joint. The
shallow holes, III, III, in the upper surfaces are pry-holes,
which were of use in prying the blocks into position. The
adjustment having been made, contiguous blocks in the same course
were bonded to one another by clamps, I, I, embedded horizontally,
while the sliding of one course upon another was prevented by
upright dowels, II, II. Greek clamps and dowels were usually of
iron and they were fixed in their sockets by means of molten lead
run in. The form of the clamp differs at different periods. The
double-T shape shown in the illustration is characteristic of the
best age (cf. also Fig. 48).
Another important fact to be noted at the outset is the absence of
the arch from Greek architecture. It is reported by the Roman
philosopher, Seneca, that the principle of the arch was
"discovered" by the Greek philosopher, Democritus, who lived in
the latter half of the fifth century B. C. That he independently
discovered the arch as a practical possibility is most unlikely,
seeing that it had been used for ages in Egypt and Mesopotamia;
but it may be that he discussed, however imperfectly, the
mathematical theory of the subject. If so, it would seem likely
that he had practical illustrations about him; and this view
receives some support from the existence of a few subterranean
vaults which perhaps go back to the good Greek period. Be that as
it may, the arch plays absolutely no part in the columnar
architecture of Greece. In a Greek temple or similar building only
the flat ceiling was known. Above the exterior portico and the
vestibules of a temple the ceiling was sometimes of stone or
marble, sometimes of wood; in the interior it was always of wood.
It follows that no very wide space could be ceiled over without
extra supports. At Priene in Asia Minor we find a temple (Fig. 49)
whose cella, slightly over thirty feet in breadth, has no interior
columns. The architect of the Temple of Athena on the island of
AEgina (Fig. 52) was less venturesome. Although the cella there is
only 21 1/4 feet in breadth, we find, as in large temples, a
double row of columns to help support the ceiling. And when a
really large room was built, like the Hall of Initiation at
Eleusis or the Assembly Hall of the Arcadians at Megalopolis, such
a forest of pillars was required as must have seriously interfered
with the convenience of congregations. We are now ready to study
the plan of a Greek temple. The essential feature is an enclosed
chamber, commonly called by the Latin name cella, in which stood,
as a rule, the image of the god or goddess to whom the temple was
dedicated. Fig. 47 shows a very simple plan. Here the side walls
of the cella are prolonged in front and terminate in antae (see
below, page 88). Between the antae are two columns. This type of
temple is called a templum in antis. Were the vestibule (pronaos)
repeated at the other end of the building, it would be called an
opisthodomos, and the whole building would be a double templum in
antis. In Fig. 48 the vestibules are formed by rows of columns
extending across the whole width of the cella, whose side walls
are not prolonged. Did a vestibule exist at the front only, the
temple would be called prostyle; as it is, it is amphiprostyle.
Only small Greek temples have as simple a plan as those just
described. Larger temples are peripteral, i.e., are surrounded by
a colonnade or peristyle (Figs. 49. 50). In Fig. 49 the cella with
its vestibules has the form of a double templum in antis, in Fig
50 it is amphiprostyle. A further difference should be noted. In
Fig. 49, which is the plan of an Ionic temple, the antae and
columns of the vestibules are in line with columns of the outer
row, at both the ends and the sides; in Fig. 50, which is the plan
of a Doric temple, the exterior columns are set without regard to
the cella wall, and the columns of the vestibules. This is a
regular difference between Doric and Ionic temples, though the
rule is subject to a few exceptions in the case of the former.
The plan of almost any Greek temple will be found to be referable
to one or other of the types just described, although there are
great differences in the proportions of the several parts. It
remains only to add that in almost every case the principal front
was toward the east or nearly so. When Greek temples were
converted into Christian churches, as often happened, it was
necessary, in order to conform to the Christian ritual, to reverse
this arrangement and to place the principal entrance at the
western end.
The next thing is to study the principal elements of a Greek
temple as seen in elevation. This brings us to the subject of the
Greek "orders." There are two principal orders in Greek
architecture, the Doric and the Ionic. Figs. 51 and 61 show a
characteristic specimen of each. The term "order," it should be
said, is commonly restricted in architectural parlance to the
column and entablature. Our illustrations, however, show all the
features of a Doric and an Ionic facade. There are several points
of agreement between the two: in each the columns rest on a
stepped base, called the crepidoma, the uppermost step of which is
the stylobate; in each the shaft of the column tapers from the
lower to the upper end, is channeled or fluted vertically, and is
surmounted by a projecting member called a capital; in each the
entablature consists of three members--architrave, frieze, and
cornice. There the important points of agreement end. The
differences will best be fixed in mind by a detailed examination
of each order separately.
Our typical example of the Doric order (Fig. 51) is taken from the
Temple of Aphaia on the island of Aegina--a temple probably
erected about 480 B.C. (cf. Fig. 52.) The column consists of two
parts, shaft and capital. It is of sturdy proportions, its height
being about five and one half times the lower diameter of the
shaft. If the shaft tapered upward at a uniform rate, it would
have the form of a truncated cone. Instead of that, the shaft has
an ENTASIS or swelling. Imagine a vertical section to be made
through the middle of the column. If, then, the diminution of the
shaft were uniform, the sides of this section would be straight
lines. In reality, however, they are slightly curved lines, convex
outward. This addition to the form of a truncated cone is the
entasis. It is greatest at about one third or one half the height
of the shaft, and there amounts, in cases that have been measured,
to from 1/80 to 1/140 of the lower diameter of the
shaft.[Footnote: Observe that the entasis is so slight that the
lowest diameter of the shaft is always the greatest diameter. The
illustration is unfortunately not quite correct, since it gives
the shaft a uniform diameter for about one third of its height.]
In some early Doric temples, as the one at Assos in Asia Minor,
there is no entasis. The channels or flutes in our typical column
are twenty in number. More rarely we find sixteen; much more
rarely larger multiples of four. These channels are so placed that
one comes directly under the middle of each face of the capital.
They are comparatively shallow, and are separated from one another
by sharp edges or ARRISES. The capital, though worked out of one
block, may be regarded as consisting of two parts--a cushion-
shaped member called an ECHINUS, encircled below by three to five
ANNULETS, (cf. Figs. 59, 60) and a square slab called an ABACUS,
the latter so placed that its sides are parallel to the sides of
the building. The ARCHITRAVE is a succession of horizontal beams
resting upon the columns. The face of this member is plain, except
that along the upper edge there runs a slightly projecting flat
band called a TAENIA, with regulae and guttae at equal intervals;
these last are best considered in connection with the frieze. The
FRIEZE is made up of alternating triglyphs and metopes. A TRIGLYPH
is a block whose height is nearly twice its width; upon its face
are two furrows, triangular in plan, and its outer edges are
chamfered off. Thus we may say that the triglyph has two furrows
and two half-furrows; these do not extend to the top of the block.
A triglyph is placed over the center of each column and over the
center of each intercolumniation. But at the corners of the
buildings the intercolumniations are diminished, with the result
that the corner triglyphs do not stand over the centers of the
corner columns, but farther out (cf. Fig. 52). Under each triglyph
there is worked upon the face of the architrave, directly below
the taenia, a REGULA, shaped like a small cleat, and to the under
surface of this regula is attached a row of six cylindrical or
conical GUTTAE. Between every two triglyphs, and standing a little
farther back, there is a square or nearly square slab or block
called a METOPE. This has a flat band across the top; for the
rest, its face may be either plain or sculptured in relief. The
uppermost member of the entablature, the CORNICE, consists
principally of a projecting portion, the CORONA, on whose inclined
under surface or soffit are rectangular projections, the so-called
MUTULES (best seen in the frontispiece), one over each triglyph
and each metope. Three rows of six guttae each are attached to the
under surface of a mutule. Above the cornice, at the east and west
ends of the building, come the triangular PEDIMENTS or gables,
formed by the sloping roof and adapted for groups of sculpture.
The pediment is protected above by a "raking" cornice, which has
not the same form as the horizontal cornice, the principal
difference being that the under surface of the raking cornice is
concave and without mutules. Above the raking cornice comes a SIMA
or gutter-facing, which in buildings of good period has a
curvilinear profile. This sima is sometimes continued along the
long sides of the building, and sometimes not. When it is so
continued, water-spouts are inserted into it at intervals, usually
in the form of lions' heads. Fig 53 shows a fine lion's head of
this sort from a sixth century temple on the Athenian Acropolis.
If it be added that upon the apex and the lower corners of the
pediment there were commonly pedestals which supported statues or
other ornamental objects (Fig. 52), mention will have been made of
all the main features of the exterior of a Doric peripteral
temple.
Every other part of the building had likewise its established
form, but it will not be possible here to describe or even to
mention every detail. The most important member not yet treated of
is the ANTA. An anta may be described as a pilaster forming the
termination of a wall. It stands directly opposite a column and is
of the same height with it, its function being to receive one end
of an architrave block, the other end of which is borne by the
column. The breadth of its front face is slightly greater than the
thickness of the wall; the breadth of a side face depends upon
whether or not the anta supports an architrave on that side (Figs.
47, 48, 49, 50). The Doric anta has a special capital, quite
unlike the capital of the column. Fig. 54 shows an example from a
building erected in 437-32 B. C. Its most striking feature is the
DORIC CYMA, or HAWK'S-BEAK MOLDING, the characteristic molding of
the Doric style (Fig. 55), used also to crown the horizontal
cornice and in other situations (Fig. 51 and frontispiece). Below
the capital the anta is treated precisely like the wall of which
it forms a part; that is to say, its surfaces are plain, except
for the simple base-molding, which extends also along the foot of
the wall. The method of ceiling the peristyle and vestibules by
means of ceiling-beams on which rest slabs decorated with square,
recessed panels or COFFERS may be indistinctly seen in Fig. 56.
Within the cella, when columns were used to help support the
wooden ceiling, there seem to have been regularly two ranges, one
above the other. This is the only case, so far as we know, in
which Greek architecture of the best period put one range of
columns above another. There were probably no windows of any kind,
so that the cella received no daylight, except such as entered by
the great front doorway, when the doors were open. [Footnote: This
whole matter, however, is in dispute. Some authorities believe
that large temples were HYPOETHRAL, i. e., open, or partly open,
to the sky, or in some way lighted from above. In Fig. 56 an open
grating has been inserted above the doors, but for such an
arrangement in a Greek temple there is no evidence, so far as I am
aware.] The roof-beams were of wood. The roof was covered with
terra-cotta or marble tiles.
Such are the main features of a Doric temple (those last mentioned
not being peculiar to the Doric style). Little has been said thus
far of variation in these features. Yet variation there was. Not
to dwell on local differences, as between Greece proper and the
Greek colonies in Sicily, there was a development constantly going
on, changing the forms of details and the relative proportions of
parts and even introducing new features originally foreign to the
style. Thus the column grows slenderer from century to century. In
early examples it is from four to five lower diameters in height
in the best period (fifth and fourth centuries) about five and one
half, in the post classical period, six to seven. The difference
in this respect between early and late examples may be seen by
comparing the sixth century Temple of Posidon (?) at Paestum in
southern Italy (Fig. 57) with the third (?) century Temple of Zeus
at Nemea (Fig. 58). Again, the echinus of the capital is in the
early period widely flaring, making in some very early examples an
angle at the start of not more than fifteen or twenty degrees with
the horizontal (Fig. 59); in the best period it rises more
steeply, starting at an angle of about fifty degrees with the
horizontal and having a profile which closely approaches a
straight line, until it curves inward under the abacus (Fig. 51);
in the post-classical period it is low and sometimes quite conical
(Fig. 60). In general, the degeneracy of post-classical Greek
architecture is in nothing more marked than in the loss of those
subtle curves which characterize the best Greek work. Other
differences must be learned from more extended treatises.
The Ionic order was of a much more luxuriant character than the
Doric. Our typical example (Fig. 61) is taken from the Temple of
Priene in Asia Minor--a temple erected about 340-30 B. C. The
column has a base consisting of a plain square PLINTH, two
TROCHILI with moldings, and a TORUS fluted horizontally. The Ionic
shaft is much slenderer than the Doric, the height of the column
(including base and capital) being in different examples from
eight to ten times the lower diameter of the shaft. The diminution
of the shaft is naturally less than in the Doric, and the entasis,
where any has been detected, is exceedingly slight. The flutes,
twenty-four in number, are deeper than in the Doric shaft, being
in fact nearly or quite semicircular, and they are separated from
one another by flat bands or fillets. For the form of the capital
it will be better to refer to Fig. 62, taken from an Attic
building of the latter half of the fifth century. The principal
parts are an OVOLO and a SPIRAL ROLL (the latter name not in
general use). The ovolo has a convex profile, and is sometimes
called a quarter-round; it is enriched with an EGG-AND-DART
ornament The spiral roll may be conceived as a long cushion, whose
ends are rolled under to form the VOLUTES. The part connecting the
volutes is slightly hollowed, and the channel thus formed is
continued into the volutes. As seen from the side (Fig. 63), the
end of the spiral roll is called a BOLSTER; it has the appearance
of being drawn together by a number of encircling bands. On the
front, the angles formed by the spiral roll are filled by a
conventionalized floral ornament (the so-called PALMETTE). Above
the spiral roll is a low abacus, oblong or square in plan. In Fig.
62 the profile of the abacus is an ovolo on which the egg-and-dart
ornament was painted (cf. Fig. 66, where the ornament is
sculptured). In Fig. 61, as in Fig. 71, the profile is a complex
curve called a CYMA REVERSA, convex above and concave below,
enriched with a sculptured LEAF-AND-DART ornament. [Footnote: The
egg-and-dart is found only on the ovolo, the leaf-and-dart only on
the cyma reversa or the cyma recta (concave above and convex
below) Both ornaments are in origin leaf-patterns one row of
leaves showing their points behind another row.] Finally,
attention may be called to the ASTRAGAL or PEARL-BEADING just
under the ovolo in Figs. 61, 71. This might be described as a
string of beads and buttons, two buttons alternating with a single
bead.
In the normal Ionic capital the opposite faces are of identical
appearance. If this were the case with the capital at the corner
of a building, the result would be that on the side of the
building all the capitals would present their bolsters instead of
their volutes to the spectator. The only way to prevent this was
to distort the corner capital into the form shown by Fig. 64; cf.
also Figs. 61 and 70.
The Ionic architrave is divided horizontally into three (or
sometimes two) bands, each of the upper ones projecting slightly
over the one below it. It is crowned by a sort of cornice enriched
with moldings. The frieze is not divided like the Doric frieze,
but presents an uninterrupted surface. It may be either plain or
covered with relief-sculpture. It is finished off with moldings
along the upper edge. The cornice (cf. Fig. 65) consists of two
principal parts. First comes a projecting block, into whose face
rectangular cuttings have been made at short intervals, thus
leaving a succession of cogs or DENTELS; above these are moldings.
Secondly there is a much more widely projecting block, the CORONA,
whose under surface is hollowed to lighten the weight and whose
face is capped with moldings. The raking cornice is like the
horizontal cornice except that it has no dentels. The sima or
gutter-facing, whose profile is here a cyma recta (concave above
and convex below), is enriched with sculptured floral ornament.
In the Ionic buildings of Attica the base of the column consists
of two tori separated by a trochilus. The proportions of these
parts vary considerably. The base in Fig. 66 (from a building
finished about 408 B.C.) is worthy of attentive examination by
reason of its harmonious proportions. In the Roman form of this
base, too often imitated nowadays, the trochilus has too small a
diameter. The Attic-Ionic cornice never has dentels, unless the
cornice of the Caryatid portico of the Erechtheum ought to be
reckoned as an instance (Fig. 67).
The capital shown in Fig. 66 is a special variety of the Ionic
capital, of rather rare occurrence. Its distinguishing features
are the insertion between ovolo and spiral roll of a torus
ornamented with a braided pattern, called a GUILLOCHE; the absence
of the palmettes from the corners formed by the spiral roll; and
the fact that the channel of the roll is double instead of single,
which gives a more elaborate character to that member. Finally, in
the Erechtheum the upper part or necking of the shaft is enriched
with an exquisitely wrought band of floral ornament, the so-called
honeysuckle pattern. This feature is met with in some other
examples.
As in the Doric style, so in the Ionic, the anta-capital is quite
unlike the column-capital. Fig. 68 shows an anta-capital from the
Erechtheum, with an adjacent portion of the wall-band; cf. also
Fig. 69. Perhaps it is inaccurate in this case to speak of an
anta-capital at all, seeing that the anta simply shares the
moldings which crown the wall. The floral frieze under the
moldings is, however, somewhat more elaborate on the anta than on
the adjacent wall. The Ionic method of ceiling a peristyle or
portico may be partly seen in Fig 69. The principal ceiling-beams
here rest upon the architrave, instead of upon the frieze, as in a
Doric building (cf. Fig. 56). Above were the usual coffered slabs.
The same illustration shows a well-preserved and finely
proportioned doorway, but unfortunately leaves the details of its
ornamentation indistinct.
The Ionic order was much used in the Greek cities of Asia Minor
for peripteral temples. The most considerable remains of such
buildings, at Ephesus, Priene, etc., belong to the fourth century
or later. In Greece proper there is no known instance of a
peripteral Ionic temple, but the order was sometimes used for
small prostyle and amphiprostyle buildings, such as the Temple of
Wingless Victory in Athens (Fig. 70). Furthermore, Ionic columns
were sometimes employed in the interior of Doric temples, as at
Bassae in Arcadia and (probably) in the temple built by Scopas at
Tegea. In the Propylaea or gateway of the Athenian Acropolis we
even find the Doric and Ionic orders juxtaposed, the exterior
architecture being Doric and the interior Ionic, with no wall to
separate them. One more interesting occurrence of the Ionic order
in Greece proper may be mentioned, viz., in the Philippeum at
Olympia (about 336 B.C.). This is a circular building, surrounded
by an Ionic colonnade. Still other types of building afforded
opportunity enough for the employment of this style.
After what has been said of the gradual changes in the Doric
order, it will be understood that the Ionic order was not the same
in the sixth century as in the fifth, nor in the fifth the same as
in the third. The most striking change concerns the spiral roll of
the capital. In the good period the portion of this member which
connects the volutes is bounded below by a depressed curve,
graceful and vigorous. With the gradual degradation of taste this
curve tended to become a straight line, the result being the
unlovely, mechanical form shown in Fig. 71 (from a building of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, who reigned from 283 to 246 B.C.). Better
formed capitals than this continued for some time to be made in
Greek lands; but the type just shown, or rather something
resembling it in the disagreeable feature noted, became canonical
with Roman architects.
The Corinthian order, as it is commonly called, hardly deserves to
be called a distinct order. Its only peculiar feature is the
capital; otherwise it agrees with the Ionic order. The Corinthian
capital is said to have been invented in the fifth century; and a
solitary specimen, of a meager and rudimentary type, found in 1812
in the Temple of Apollo at Bassae, but since lost, was perhaps an
original part of that building (about 430 B. C). At present the
earliest extant specimens are from the interior of a round
building of the fourth century near Epidaurus in Argolis (Fig.
72). [Footnote: For some reason or other the particular capital
shown in our illustration was not used in the building, but it is
of the same model as those actually used, except that the edge of
the abacus is not finished.] It was from such a form as this that
the luxuriant type of Corinthian capital so much in favor with
Roman architects and their public was derived. On the other hand,
the form shown in Fig. 73, from a little building erected in 334
B.C. or soon after, is a variant which seems to have left no
lineal successors. In its usual form the Corinthian capital has a
cylindrical core, which expands slightly toward the top so as to
become bell-shaped; around the lower part of this core are two
rows of conventionalized acanthus leaves, eight in each row; from
these rise eight principal stalks (each, in fully developed
examples, wrapped about its base with an acanthus leaf) which
combine, two and two, to form four volutes (HELICES), one under
each corner of the abacus, while smaller stalks, branching from
the first, cover the rest of the upper part of the core; there is
commonly a floral ornament on the middle of each face at the top;
finally the abacus has, in plan, the form of a square whose sides
have been hollowed out and whose corners have been truncated. In
the form shown in Fig. 73 we find, first, a row of sixteen simple
leaves, like those of a reed, with the points of a second row
showing between them; then a single row of eight acanthus leaves;
then the scroll-work, supporting a palmette on each side; and
finally an abacus whose profile is made up of a trochilus and an
ovolo. This capital, though extremely elegant, is open to the
charge of appearing weak at its middle. There is a much less
ornate variety, also reckoned as Corinthian, which has no scroll-
work, but only a row of acanthus leaves with a row of reed leaves
above them around a bell-shaped core, the whole surmounted by a
square abacus. In the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates the cornice
has dentels, and this was always the case, so far as we know,
where the Corinthian capital was used. In Corinthian buildings the
anta, where met with, has a capital like that of the column. But
there is very little material to generalize from until we descend
to Roman times.
Some allusion has been made in the foregoing to other types of
columnar buildings besides the temple. The principal ones of which
remains exist are PROPYLAEA and STOAS. Propylaea is the Greek name
for a form of gateway, consisting essentially of a cross wall
between side walls, with a portico on each front. Such gateways
occur in many places as entrances to sacred precincts. The finest
example, and one of the noblest monuments of Greek architecture,
is that at the west end of the Athenian Acropolis. The stoa may be
defined as a building having an open range of columns on at least
one side. Usually its length was much greater than its depth.
Stoas were often built in sacred precincts, as at Olympia, and
also for secular purposes along public streets, as in Athens.
These and other buildings into which the column entered as an
integral feature involved no new architectural elements or
principles.
One highly important fact about Greek architecture has thus far
been only touched upon; that is, the liberal use it made of color.
The ruins of Greek temples are to-day monochromatic, either
glittering white, as is the temple at Sunium, or of a golden
brown, as are the Parthenon and other buildings of Pentelic
marble, or of a still warmer brown, as are the limestone temples
of Paestum and Girgenti (Acragas). But this uniformity of tint is
due only to time. A "White City," such as made the pride of
Chicago in 1893, would have been unimaginable to an ancient Greek.
Even to-day the attentive observer may sometimes see upon old
Greek buildings, as, for example, upon ceiling-beams of the
Parthenon, traces left by patterns from which the color has
vanished. In other instances remains of actual color exist. So
specks of blue paint may still be seen, or might a few years ago,
on blocks belonging to the Athenian Propylaea. But our most
abundant evidence for the original use of color comes from
architectural fragments recently unearthed. During the excavation
of Olympia (1875-81) this matter of the coloring of architecture
was constantly in mind and a large body of facts relating to it
was accumulated. Every new and important excavation adds to the
store. At present our information is much fuller in regard to the
polychromy of Doric than of Ionic buildings. It appears that, just
as the forms and proportions of a building and of all its details
were determined by precedent, yet not so absolutely as to leave no
scope for the exercise of individual genius, so there was an
established system in the coloring of a building, yet a system
which varied somewhat according to time and place and the taste of
the architect. The frontispiece attempts to suggest what the
coloring of the Parthenon was like, and thus to illustrate the
general scheme of Doric polychromy. The colors used were chiefly
dark blue, sometimes almost black, and red; green and yellow also
occur, and some details were gilded. The coloration of the
building was far from total. Plain surfaces, as walls, were
unpainted. So too were the columns, including, probably, their
capitals, except between the annulets. Thus color was confined to
the upper members--the triglyphs, the under surface (soffit) of
the cornice, the sima, the anta-capitals (cf. Fig. 54), the
ornamental details generally, the coffers of the ceiling, and the
backgrounds of sculpture. [Footnote: Our frontispiece gives the
backgrounds of the metopes as plain, but this is probably an
error] The triglyphs, regulae, and mutules were blue; the taenia
of the architrave and the soffit of the cornice between the
mutules with the adjacent narrow bands were red; the backgrounds
of sculpture, either blue or red; the hawk's-beak molding,
alternating blue and red; and so on. The principal uncertainty
regards the treatment of the unpainted members. Were these left of
a glittering white, or were they toned down, in the case of marble
buildings, by some application or other, so as to contrast less
glaringly with the painted portions? The latter supposition
receives some confirmation from Vitruvius, a Roman writer on
architecture of the age of Augustus, and seems to some modern
writers to be demanded by aesthetic considerations. On the other
hand, the evidence of the Olympia buildings points the other way.
Perhaps the actual practice varied. As for the coloring of Ionic
architecture, we know that the capital of the column was painted,
but otherwise our information is very scanty.
If it be asked what led the Greeks to a use of color so strange to
us and, on first acquaintance, so little to our taste, it may be
answered that possibly the example of their neighbors had
something to do with it. The architecture of Egypt, of
Mesopotamia, of Persia, was polychromatic. But probably the
practice of the Greeks was in the main an inheritance from the
early days of their own civilization. According to a well-
supported theory, the Doric temple of the historical period is a
translation into stone or marble of a primitive edifice whose
walls were of sun-dried bricks and whose columns and entablature
were of wood. Now it is natural and appropriate to paint wood; and
we may suppose that the taste for a partially colored architecture
was thus formed. This theory does not indeed explain everything.
It does not, for example, explain why the columns or the
architrave should be uncolored. In short, the Greek system of
polychromy presents itself to us as a largely arbitrary system.
More interesting than the question of origin is the question of
aesthetic effect. Was the Greek use of color in good taste? It is
not easy to answer with a simple yes or no. Many of the attempts
to represent the facts by restorations on paper have been crude
and vulgar enough. On the other hand, some experiments in
decorating modern buildings with color, in a fashion, to be sure,
much less liberal than that of ancient Greece, have produced
pleasing results. At present the question is rather one of faith
than of sight; and most students of the subject have faith to
believe that the appearance of a Greek temple in all its pomp of
color was not only sumptuous, but harmonious and appropriate.
When we compare the architecture of Greece with that of other
countries, we must be struck with the remarkable degree in which
the former adhered to established usage, both in the general plan
of a building and in the forms and proportions of each feature.
Some measure of adherence to precedent is indeed implied in the
very existence of an architectural style. What is meant is that
the Greek measure was unusual, perhaps unparalleled. Yet the
following of established canons was not pushed to a slavish
extreme. A fine Greek temple could not be built according to a
hard and fast rule. While the architect refrained from bold and
lawless innovations, he yet had scope to exercise his genius. The
differences between the Parthenon and any other contemporary Doric
temple would seem slight, when regarded singly; but the preeminent
perfection of the Parthenon lay in just those skilfully calculated
differences
A Greek columnar building is extremely simple in form.[Footnote:
The substance of this paragraph and the following is borrowed from
Boutmy, "Philosophie de l'Architecture en Grece" (Paris, 1870)]
The outlines of an ordinary temple are those of an oblong
rectangular block surmounted by a triangular roof. With a
qualification to be explained presently, all the lines of the
building, except those of the roof, are either horizontal or
perpendicular. The most complicated Greek columnar buildings
known, the Erechtheum and the Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis,
are simplicity itself when compared to a Gothic cathedral, with
its irregular plan, its towers, its wheel windows, its
multitudinous diagonal lines.
The extreme simplicity which characterizes the general form of a
Greek building extends also to its sculptured and painted
ornaments. In the Doric style these are very sparingly used; and
even the Ionic style, though more luxuriant, seems reserved in
comparison with the wealth of ornamental detail in a Gothic
cathedral. Moreover, the Greek ornaments are simple in character.
Examine again the hawk's-beak, the egg-and-dart, the leaf-and-
dart, the astragal, the guilloche, the honeysuckle, the meander or
fret. These are almost the only continuous patterns in use in
Greek architecture. Each consists of a small number of elements
recurring in unvarying order; a short section is enough to give
the entire pattern. Contrast this with the string-course in the
nave of the Cathedral of Amiens, where the motive of the design
undergoes constant variation, no piece exactly duplicating its
neighbor, or with the intricate interlacing patterns of Arabic
decoration, and you will have a striking illustration of the Greek
love for the finite and comprehensible.
When it was said just now that the main lines of a Greek temple
are either horizontal or perpendicular, the statement called for
qualification. The elevations of the most perfect of Doric
buildings, the Parthenon, could not be drawn with a ruler. Some of
the apparently straight lines are really curved. The stylobate is
not level, but convex, the rise of the curve amounting to 1/450 of
the length of the building; the architrave has also a rising
curve, but slighter than that of the stylobate. Then again, many
of the lines that would commonly be taken for vertical are in
reality slightly inclined. The columns slope inward and so do the
principal surfaces of the building, while the anta-capitals slope
forward. These refinements, or some of them, have been observed in
several other buildings. They are commonly regarded as designed to
obviate certain optical illusions supposed to arise in their
absence. But perhaps, as one writer has suggested, their principal
office was to save the building from an appearance of mathematical
rigidity, to give it something of the semblance of a living thing.
Be that as it may, these manifold subtle curves and sloping lines
testify to the extraordinary nicety of Greek workmanship. A column
of the Parthenon, with its inclination, its tapering, its entasis,
and its fluting, could not have been constructed without the most
conscientious skill. In fact, the capabilities of the workmen kept
pace with the demands of the architects. No matter how delicate
the adjustment to be made, the task was perfectly achieved. And
when it came to the execution of ornamental details, these were
wrought with a free hand and, in the best period, with fine
artistic feeling. The wall-band of the Erechtheum is one of the
most exquisite things which Greece has left us.
Simplicity in general form, harmony of proportion, refinement of
line--these are the great features of Greek columnar architecture.
One other type of Greek building, into which the column does not
enter, or enters only in a very subordinate way, remains to be
mentioned--the theater. Theaters abounded in Greece. Every
considerable city and many a smaller place had at least one, and
the ruins of these structures rank with temples and walls of
fortification among the commonest classes of ruins in Greek lands.
But in a sketch of Greek art they may be rapidly dismissed. That
part of the theater which was occupied by spectators--the
auditorium, as we may call it--was commonly built into a natural
slope, helped out by means of artificial embankments and
supporting walls. There was no roof. The building, therefore, had
no exterior, or none to speak of. Such beauty as it possessed was
due mainly to its proportions. The theater at the sanctuary of
Asclepius near Epidaurus, the work of the same architect who built
the round building with the Corinthian columns referred to on page
103, was distinguished in ancient times for "harmony and beauty,"
as the Greek traveler, Pausamas (about 165 A. D.), puts it. It is
fortunately one of the best preserved. Fig. 74, a view taken from
a considerable distance will give some idea of that quality which
Pausanias justly admired. Fronting the auditorium was the stage
building, of which little but foundations remains anywhere. So far
as can be ascertained, this stage building had but small
architectural pretensions until the post classical period (i.e.,
after Alexander) But there was opportunity for elegance as well as
convenience in the form given to the stone or marble seats with
which the auditorium was provided.