The Secrets of the Doric Temple
The Greek Doric temple is one of the most peculiar building-types in the history of architecture. The generally accepted interpretations of it are still based on the words of the Roman writer and architect Vitruvius although, in fact, he lived about half a millennium later. On these pages we will show, how and why these interpretations are unacceptable in many ways. An alternative interpretation is presented in my book “The Optical Corrections of the Doric Temple”
The temple of Hera II at Paestum
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Meaning of the Optical Corrections of the Doric Temple in a Nutshell
In my book: “The Optical Corrections of the Doric
Temple” I have tried to show that the true meaning of the corrections is the
intention to make the temple a unity
although it was composed of many, so it would correspond with the ideal of the
Doric polis, which was: a heroic autarkic unity composed of many equal, heroic
and autarkic individuals. The most important component of the temple, the Doric
column, is an entirely autarkic building component. Because of its round form,
its tapering and entasis, its flutings and its capital, it cannot be connected
with any other building component horizontally without violence. The most
important problem facing the architect of the temple was: how to make a unity
out of a row of these autarkic building components?
In the above pictures
we have two versions of a Doric temple front. The first one is depicted without
any corrections, featuring thus the corner solution suggested by Vitruvius. It is
easy to see that the tapering and entasis of the columns make the temple seem
to fall apart on the upper level. The second picture with the corrections shows
clearly the gathering and uniting effect of the corrections. The corrections were
the most important tool of the architects to make the temple the true symbol of
the city-state.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The meaning of the
Doric column
Why did the architects
of Doric temples never even experiment with different approaches to the basic
conception of the Doric temple? This temple type was implemented in the seventh
century BC, and it was one of the most insisting building types in the history
of architecture, continuing its existence with little variation for several
centuries. There is good reason to believe that the architectural intention
behind this temple building was based on some very fundamental values of the
Dorian city-states building these temples. In my book, “The Optical Corrections
of the Doric Temple”, I have tried to show that this intention was based on the
most fundamental ideal of these poleis, the ideal of “unity in plurality”,
which was based on the heroic outlook inherited from the alleged heroic past
and became common to all layers of the citizen-body along with the development
of the polis. All the most important aspects of life were organized according
to this principle: the polis itself, its military organization, the hoplite
phalanx, and finally the Doric temple that was the ultimate symbol of the polis.
According to this principle, the optical corrections can be seen as tools in
the hands of the architects designing these temples to achieve this goal, to
make the temple a unity although it was composed of many.
All
this points so strongly toward the suggestion that the Doric column would have
been symbolizing the citizen-hoplite of the polis that there is even a good
reason to ask whether there was any visual similarity between the Doric column
and the hoplite soldier. And indeed, the main body of the hoplite cuirass
consisted of several plates of composite material. The groin, on the other
hand, was protected by a double layer of groin-flaps, the second flap covering
the gaps in the first. These flaps were made of stiffened leather, and they
were permanently fastened to the bottom end of the cuirass. It may seem
far-fetched to point out the obvious visual similarity between this part of the
cuirass and the Doric column. However, the roundish, upward curvilinearly
tapering form and the visual effect caused by the flaps reminiscent of the
Doric flutings certainly makes one wonder, whether this similarity has had any
effect on the development, and above all the persistence of the nature of the
Doric column. Some might even be able to see a visual resemblance between the
Corinthian helmet and the triglyph, see the picture. All this may sound
fanciful to the reader. On the other hand, as an architect myself, I can assure
that for most modern architects this kind of associations would be quite
legitimate ways of searching motives for their design.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Was Vitruvius right when he stated that the optical corrections of the Doric temple were meant to counteract optical distortions that would make the temple look faulty? The corrections were certainly used by the architects designing these temples to achieve a certain aesthetic goal; they were tools to help the architects to achieve the result that they felt to be correct. In this sense, taken strictly literally, we can say that Vitruvius was actually right; the corrections were indeed used to avoid some negative impression that was felt to be unacceptable. However, when we go a bit deeper and analyze his whole approach to the question, it appears in somewhat different light.
Vitruvius was a typical Hellenistic pedant collecting and classifying ancient knowledge; understanding it properly was not always the prime goal. There is no reason to doubt that he had, indeed, been acquainted with the book written by Ictinus about the design of the Parthenon, and in this sense, he was most likely repeating Ictinus’ words. He lived, however, half a millennium after the flourishing of Doric temple architecture in an entirely different world with different values and ideals, and therefore these words became to mean different things to him. Vitruvius’ well known suggestion to solve the so called “corner conflict” of the Doric order actually proves beyond any doubt that he didn’t understand at all what the corrections were about. His corner solution with the half metope in the corner would turn the temple into a mechanical collection of an amount of similar columns; it would deprive of the temple its most important quality, which is unity in plurality; i.e. a unity although it was composed of many equal members (Doric columns). However, this ideal was the very reason for the invention of the corrections in the first place, and therefore the “solution” of Vitruvius would destroy the very essence of the Doric temple entirely.
Vitruvius was a typical Hellenistic pedant collecting and classifying ancient knowledge; understanding it properly was not always the prime goal. There is no reason to doubt that he had, indeed, been acquainted with the book written by Ictinus about the design of the Parthenon, and in this sense, he was most likely repeating Ictinus’ words. He lived, however, half a millennium after the flourishing of Doric temple architecture in an entirely different world with different values and ideals, and therefore these words became to mean different things to him. Vitruvius’ well known suggestion to solve the so called “corner conflict” of the Doric order actually proves beyond any doubt that he didn’t understand at all what the corrections were about. His corner solution with the half metope in the corner would turn the temple into a mechanical collection of an amount of similar columns; it would deprive of the temple its most important quality, which is unity in plurality; i.e. a unity although it was composed of many equal members (Doric columns). However, this ideal was the very reason for the invention of the corrections in the first place, and therefore the “solution” of Vitruvius would destroy the very essence of the Doric temple entirely.
Friday, January 13, 2012
THE CORNER CONFLICT OF THE DORIC ORDER
The origin of this “problem” lies in the fact that for constructive reasons the corner column should be placed in the middle of the architrave—in both directions. Further, the outermost triglyph was without exception placed in the corner—in both directions. On the other hand, the breath of the triglyph was smaller than the depth of the architrave because of what the triglyph in the corner was not situated in the middle of the column as otherwise was the rule. Accordingly, if one wanted to keep the rhythm even in the frieze, one had to make the corner intercolumniation smaller. If, on the other hand, one wanted to keep the rhythm of the columns even, one had to make metopes, triglyphs, or both broader in the corner. Based on the testimony of Vitruvius, this has been interpreted by scholars as an antagonism characteristic for the Doric order, which later by the development of working methods, constructions, and refinement of taste led to awareness of this “problem” and eventually to the abandonment of the entire Doric order.
This commonly accepted view about the Doric “corner conflict” is not tenable. It is true that during the archaic age there were different approaches to this question. Some architects used longer metopes; some used wider triglyphs in the corner. Some temples, on the other hand, were constructed using so heavy constructions that this conflict never even appeared, especially in Sicily. In classical temples, however, there is no sign of a corner conflict left. The outermost triglyph was without exception situated in the corner. The reason for this is that the Doric architects wanted to make the temple a unity although it was composed of many (Doric columns). This will, on the other hand, was based on the most fundamental ideal of the Dorian city-states, the ideal of unity in plurality. The shortening of the corner intercolumniation that followed from this, however, serves the same purpose, and therefore there is no conflict at all; everything serves the same purpose in perfect harmony. This feature didn’t turn into a “problem” until Hellenism, when architectural intentions had changed because of different ideals. More information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)