Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T11:24:59.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doric Order: Hellenistic Critics and Criticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

R. A. Tomlinson
R. A. Tomlinson
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many authorities on ancient Greek architecture state that during the fourth century B.C. the Doric order was in a decline, and that by the Hellenistic period it was virtually abandoned for temples. The archaeological evidence, it is argued, seems to bear this out. Doric temples were built during this period, but they can be dismissed, for instance by Dinsmoor (Architecture of Ancient Greece 267) as ‘for the most part imitations of earlier works, and completion of earlier undertakings, together with a few sporadic but minor structures in which the style was adopted for conservative reasons’. It is clear, however, that the objection was not against the Doric order as such, since it was employed in all Greek areas to the virtual exclusion of the other orders (at any rate externally) in such buildings as stoas, of which large numbers were constructed during this period. We are to suppose, therefore, that it was only for temples that the other orders, Ionic and Corinthian, were considered superior to Doric, and that it was this belief that led to the decline and eventual abandoning of the Doric order. Since Vitruvius (iv 3.1) refers to statements by certain distinguished architects of the period to the effect that Doric was not suitable for temples, it would seem that the case is proved; moreover we are given the causes of this revulsion, quod mendosae et disconvenientes in his symmetriae conficiebantur, and more specifically, quod impedita est distributio et incommoda in opere triglyphorum et lacunariorum. The problems caused by the corner triglyphs in Doric buildings have been admirably expounded by Professor Robertson, and it is not my purpose to discuss them further. I intend instead to discuss whether their effects, during the Hellenistic period, were quite as catastrophic as have been thought.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 83 , November 1963 , pp. 133 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am indebted to the University of Birmingham for a research grant which enabled me to inspect during the summer of 1960 the principal Hellenistic temples of mainland Greece.

2 Greek and Roman Architecture 106 f.

3 Robertson, op. cit., no: ‘It is not surprising that the triglyph problem killed the Doric tradition.’

4 For preliminary reports of Klaros, see, e.g., J. M. Cook in Archaeological Reports for 1959–60 42.

5 Dinsmoor considers that the Ionic capital found at Korone in Messenia belongs to an early votive monument, not the fourth-century temple (AAG 3 121).

6 Greek Architecture 216.

7 This was not the ancient view, at least as reported by Strabo (xiv 647) who compares the temple favourably with that of Artemis at Ephesus. I inspected the sorry remains at Magnesia in 1956.

8 Pullan, , Antiquities of Ionia iv 39 Google Scholar: ‘It is evident from the plan that this temple was not that erected by Hermogenes and described by Vitruvius as being eustyle. … The inferior character of the sculptures of the frieze and the inscription on the architrave prove that it was rebuilt in Roman times.’

9 I use the spelling of Krohn's edition of Vitruvius (Teubner).

10 Lawrence, op. cit., 206.

11 Inschriften von Priene no. 207 the absence of a reference to country or place of origin makes it likely that he came from Priene itself.

12 Jeppesen, K., Paradeigmata; three mid-fourth century main works of Hellenic architecture reconsidered 153 f.Google Scholar

13 See appendix.

14 Hecatomnid architecture is far from being pure Greek, and its peculiarities must not be attributed also to Greek architecture, though they may anticipate late Hellenistic ideas. Another instance is the almost square plan of certain peripteral Ionic temples, Zeus at Labranda, and Augustus at Mylasa.

15 A certain Silenus wrote de symmetries Doricorum, and Philo, architect of the Piraeus arsenal, de aedium sacrarum symmetriis (Vitr. vii praef. 12). Both these books may well have been factual, referring to the actual proportions employed in their time (not, of course, symmetry in our sense).

16 It is not unusual for cities building in the great sanctuaries to use their own local style, rather than that of the sanctuary or its surrounding region: e.g. the treasuries of Siphnos, Cnidus and Cyrene at Delphi.

17 Further east Neapolis (Kavala) was an Ionian foundation, and so comes within the Ionic sphere of influence, as witness the important Ionic temple recently found there.

18 Levkadhia, : Archaeological Supplement to JHS lxxv (1955) 15.Google Scholar

19 Vergina: Rhomaios, Ὁ Μακεδονικός Τάφος τῆς Βεργίνας; Lawrence, , Greek Architecture pl. 103.Google Scholar

20 Hermopolis: Dinsmoor, , AAG 3 268 Google Scholar; Seleucia, : Antioch on the Orontes iii 33.Google Scholar

21 Zschietzschmann, , Ber. VI Kong. Arch. 426 Google Scholar; Schleif, , AA 1935 314.Google Scholar Now published by Goethert and Schleif, Der Athenatempel von Ilion. Goethert, following Dörpfeld, prefers to date this temple to the time of Augustus. For reasons which I have stated in my review of this book (see below) I am not convinced by his arguments.

22 Altertümer von Pergamon ii.

23 References conveniently collected by Hansen, Esther V., The Attalids of Pergamum 417.Google Scholar

24 This is not affected by the controversy over Hermogenes' date. Whether he belongs to the first half of the second century (Dinsmoor) or the second half (Robertson, Lawrence) his floruit must fall within the period of Pergamene independence.

25 Professor Martin Robertson reminds me also of a fourth-century example of Ionic columns supporting an entablature which includes Doric triglyphs over an Ionic architrave ( Robertson, , Greek Painting 162, 164Google Scholar). This is a Tarentine vase painting. To judge from the spindly character of the columns, it represents a temporary wooden structure (presumably stage scenery) rather than actual architecture.

26 Compare Jeppesen, fig. 80, with, e.g., Dinsmoor, AAG 3 pl. 66.Google Scholar