Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Doric order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromDoric column)
Order of classical architecture
This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Doric order" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(March 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
The Doric order of theParthenon.Triglyphs marked "a",metopes "b",guttae "c" andmutules under thesoffit "d"

TheDoric order is one of thethree orders ofancient Greek and laterRoman architecture; the other twocanonical orders were theIonic and theCorinthian. The Doric is most easily recognized by the simple circularcapitals at the top of thecolumns. Originating in the western Doric region of Greece, it is the earliest and, in its essence, the simplest of the orders, though still with complex details in theentablature above.

The Greek Doric column wasfluted,[1] and had no base, dropping straight into thestylobate or platform on which the temple or other building stood. The capital was a simple circular form, with some mouldings, under a square cushion that is very wide in early versions, but later more restrained. Above a plainarchitrave, the complexity comes in thefrieze, where the two features originally unique to the Doric, thetriglyph andgutta, areskeuomorphic memories of the beams and retaining pegs of the wooden constructions that preceded stone Doric temples.[2] In stone they are purelyornamental.

The relatively uncommon Roman and Renaissance Doric retained these, and often introduced thin layers of moulding or further ornament, as well as often using plain columns. More often they used versions of theTuscan order, elaborated for nationalistic reasons byItalian Renaissance writers, which is in effect a simplified Doric, with un-fluted columns and a simpler entablature with no triglyphs or guttae. The Doric order was much used inGreek Revival architecture from the 18th century onwards; often earlier Greek versions were used, with wider columns and no bases to them.

The ancient architect and architectural historianVitruvius associates the Doric with masculine proportions (the Ionic representing the feminine).[3][4] It is also normally the cheapest of the orders to use. When the three orders aresuperposed, it is usual for the Doric to be at the bottom, with the Ionic and then the Corinthian above, and the Doric, as "strongest", is often used on the ground floor below another order in the storey above.[5]

History

[edit]

Greek

[edit]

In their original Greek version, Doriccolumns stood directly on the flat pavement (thestylobate) of atemple without a base. With a height only four to eight times their diameter, the columns were the most squat of all the classical orders; their vertical shafts werefluted with 20 parallel concavegrooves, each rising to a sharp edge called anarris. They were topped by a smoothcapital that flared from the column to meet a squareabacus at the intersection with the horizontalbeam (architrave) that they carried.

TheParthenon is in the Doric order, and in antiquity and subsequently has been recognized as the most perfect example of the evolved order. It was most popular in theArchaic Period (750–480 BC) in mainland Greece, and also found inMagna Graecia (southern Italy), as in the three temples atPaestum. These are in Archaic Doric, where the capitals spread wide from the column compared to later Classical forms, as exemplified in the Parthenon.

Pronounced features of both Greek and Roman versions of the Doric order are the alternatingtriglyphs andmetopes. The triglyphs are decoratively grooved with two vertical grooves ("tri-glyph") and represent the original wooden end-beams, which rest on the plain architrave that occupies the lower half of the entablature. Under each triglyph are peglike "stagons" or "guttae" (literally: drops) that appear as if they were hammered in from below to stabilize the post-and-beam (trabeated) construction. They also served to "organize" rainwater runoff from above. The spaces between the triglyphs are the "metopes". They may be left plain, or they may be carved in low relief.[6]

The Doric corner conflict

Spacing the triglyphs

[edit]

The spacing of the triglyphs caused problems which took some time to resolve. A triglyph is centered above every column, with another (or sometimes two) between columns, though the Greeks felt that the corner triglyph should form the corner of the entablature, creating an inharmonious mismatch with the supporting column.

The architecture followed rules of harmony. Since the original design probably came from wooden temples and the triglyphs were real heads of wooden beams, every column had to bear a beam which lay across the centre of the column. Triglyphs were arranged regularly; the last triglyph was centred upon the last column (illustration, right:I.). This was regarded as the ideal solution which had to be reached.

Changing to stone cubes instead of wooden beams required full support of thearchitrave load at the last column. At the first temples the final triglyph was moved (illustration, right:II.), still terminating the sequence, but leaving a gap disturbing the regular order. Even worse, the last triglyph was not centered with the corresponding column. That "archaic" manner was not regarded as a harmonious design. The resulting problem is calledthe doric corner conflict. Another approach was to apply a broader corner triglyph (III.) but was not really satisfying.

Because the metopes are somewhat flexible in their proportions, the modular space between columns ("intercolumniation") can be adjusted by the architect. Often the last two columns were set slightly closer together (corner contraction), to give a subtle visual strengthening to the corners. That is called the "classic" solution of the corner conflict (IV.). Triglyphs could be arranged in a harmonic manner again, and the corner was terminated with a triglyph, though the final triglyph and column were often not centered. Roman aesthetics did not demand that a triglyph form the corner, and filled it with a half (demi-) metope, allowing triglyphs centered over columns (illustration, right,V.).

Temples

[edit]

There are many theories as to the origins of the Doric order in temples. The term Doric is believed to have originated from the Greek-speaking Dorian tribes.[7] One belief is that the Doric order is the result of early wood prototypes of previous temples.[8] With no hard proof and the sudden appearance of stone temples from one period after the other, this becomes mostly speculation. Another belief is that the Doric was inspired by the architecture ofEgypt.[9] With the Greeks being present in Ancient Egypt as soon the 7th-century BC, it is possible that Greek traders were inspired by the structures they saw in what they would consider foreign land. Finally, another theory states that the inspiration for the Doric came from Mycenae. At the ruins of this civilization lies architecture very similar to the Doric order. It is also in Greece, which would make it very accessible.

Left image: Characteristic shape of the Doricantacapital.
Right image: Doric anta capital at theAthenian Treasury (c. 500 BC).

Some of the earliest examples of the Doric order come from the 7th-century BC. These examples include theTemple of Apollo atCorinth and theTemple of Zeus at Nemea.[10] Other examples of the Doric order include the three 6th-century BC temples at Paestum in southern Italy, a region called Magna Graecia, which was settled by Greek colonists. Compared to later versions, the columns are much more massive, with a strongentasis or swelling, and wider capitals.

The Temple of the Delians is a "peripteral" Doric order temple, the largest of three dedicated toApollo on the island ofDelos. It was begun in 478 BC and never completely finished. During their period of independence from Athens, the Delians reassigned the temple to the island ofPoros. It is "hexastyle", with six columns across thepedimented end and thirteen along each long face. All the columns are centered under a triglyph in thefrieze, except for the corner columns. The plain, unfluted shafts on the columns stand directly on the platform (thestylobate), without bases. The recessed "necking" in the nature of fluting at the top of the shafts and the wide cushionlike echinus may be interpreted as slightly self-conscious archaising features, for Delos is Apollo's ancient birthplace. However, the similar fluting at the base of the shafts might indicate an intention for the plain shafts to be capable of wrapping in drapery.

A classic statement of the Greek Doric order is theTemple of Hephaestus in Athens, built about 447 BC. The contemporary Parthenon, the largest temple in classicalAthens, is also in the Doric order, although the sculptural enrichment is more familiar in the Ionic order: the Greeks were never as doctrinaire in the use of the Classical vocabulary asRenaissance theorists orNeoclassical architects. The detail, part of the basic vocabulary of trained architects from the later 18th century onwards, shows how the width of the metopes was flexible: here they bear the famoussculptures including the battle of Lapiths and Centaurs.

The Roman Doric order from theTheater of Marcellus: triglyphs centered over the end column

Roman

[edit]

In the Roman Doric version, the height of the entablature has been reduced. The endmost triglyph is centered over the column rather than occupying the corner of the architrave. The columns are slightly less robust in their proportions. Below their caps, anastragal molding encircles the column like a ring.Crown moldings soften transitions between frieze andcornice and emphasize the upper edge of theabacus, which is the upper part of the capital.

Roman Doric columns also have moldings at their bases and stand on low square pads or are even raised onplinths. In the Roman Doric mode, columns are not usually fluted; indeed, fluting is rare. Since the Romans did not insist on a triglyph covered corner, now both columns and triglyphs could be arranged equidistantly again and centered together. The architrave corner needed to be left "blank", which is sometimes referred to as a half, ordemi-, metope (illustration,V., in Spacing the Columns above).

The Roman architectVitruvius, following contemporary practice, outlined inhis treatise the procedure for laying out constructions based on a module, which he took to be one half a column's diameter, taken at the base. An illustration ofAndrea Palladio's Doric order, as it was laid out, with modules identified, by Isaac Ware, inThe Four Books of Palladio's Architecture (London, 1738) is illustrated atVitruvian module.

According to Vitruvius, the height of Doric columns is six or seven times the diameter at the base.[11] This gives the Doric columns a shorter, thicker look than Ionic columns, which have 8:1 proportions. It is suggested that these proportions give the Doric columns a masculine appearance, whereas the more slender Ionic columns appear to represent a more feminine look. This sense of masculinity and femininity was often used to determine which type of column would be used for a particular structure.

Later periods revivingclassical architecture used the Roman Doric untilNeoclassical architecture arrived in the later 18th century. This followed the first good illustrations and measured descriptions of Greek Doric buildings. The most influential, and perhaps the earliest, use of the Doric inRenaissance architecture was in the circularTempietto byDonato Bramante (1502 or later), in the courtyard ofSan Pietro in Montorio, Rome.[12]

Graphics of ancient forms

[edit]

Modern

[edit]
The Grange, nearbyNorthington, England, byWilliam Wilkins, 1804, Europe's first house designed with all external detail of a Greek temple[citation needed]

BeforeGreek Revival architecture grew, initially in England, in the 18th century, the Greek or elaborated Roman Doric order had not been very widely used, though "Tuscan" types of round capitals were always popular, especially in less formal buildings. It was sometimes used in military contexts, for example theRoyal Hospital Chelsea (1682 onwards, byChristopher Wren). The first engraved illustrations of the Greek Doric order dated to the mid-18th century. Its appearance in the new phase ofClassicism brought with it new connotations of high-minded primitive simplicity, seriousness of purpose, noble sobriety.

In Germany it suggested a contrast with the French, and in the United Statesrepublican virtues. In a customs house, Greek Doric suggested incorruptibility; in a Protestant church a Greek Doric porch promised a return to an untainted early church; it was equally appropriate for a library, a bank or a trustworthy public utility. The revived Doric did not return toSicily until 1789,when a French architect researching the ancient Greek temples designed an entrance to the Botanical Gardens inPalermo.

Examples

[edit]
Ancient Greek, Archaic
Ancient Greek, Classical
Renaissance and Baroque
Neoclassical and Greek Revival
United States

Gallery

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^Art a Brief History 6th Edition
  2. ^Summerson, 13–14
  3. ^Vitruvius.De architectura. p. 4.1. Archived fromthe original on 31 March 2022. Retrieved25 April 2020.
  4. ^Summerson, 14–15
  5. ^Palladio,First Book, Chapter 12
  6. ^Summerson, 13–15, 126
  7. ^Ian Jenkins,Greek Architecture And Its Sculpture (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2006), 15.
  8. ^Jenkins, 16.
  9. ^Jenkins, 16–17.
  10. ^Robin F. Rhodes, "Early Corinthian Architecture and the Origins of the Doric Order" in theAmerican Journal of Archaeology 91, no. 3 (1987), 478.
  11. ^"... they measured a man's foot, and finding its length the sixth part of his height, they gave the column a similar proportion, that is, they made its height, including the capital, six times the thickness of the shaft, measured at the base. Thus the Doric order obtained its proportion, its strength, and its beauty, from the human figure." (Vitruvius, iv.6) "The successors of these people, improving in taste, and preferring a more slender proportion, assigned seven diameters to the height of the Doric column." (Vitruvius, iv.8)
  12. ^Summerson, 41–43
  13. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 32.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  14. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 27.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  15. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 32.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  16. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 40.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  17. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 43.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  18. ^Fullerton, Mark D. (2020).Art & Archaeology of The Roman World. Thames & Hudson. p. 87.ISBN 978-0-500-051931.
  19. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 224.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  20. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  21. ^Hopkins 2014, p. 85.
  22. ^"Ancien Hôtel de Castries à Montpellier".monumentum.fr. Retrieved12 September 2023.
  23. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 333.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  24. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 383.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  25. ^Hall, William (2019).Stone. Phaidon. p. 159.ISBN 978-0-7148-7925-3.
  26. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 447.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  27. ^Robertson, Hutton (2022).The History of Art - From Prehistory to Presentday - A Global View. Thames & Hudson. p. 989.ISBN 978-0-500-02236-8.
  28. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 457.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  29. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 560.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.
  30. ^Les Arts Decoratifs Modernes - France (in French). Larousse. 1925. p. 17.
  31. ^"History Above Your Eyeline on Regent Street".lookup.london. 23 June 2020. Retrieved20 June 2024.
  32. ^Hall, William (2019).Stone. Phaidon. p. 79.ISBN 978-0-7148-7925-3.
  33. ^Gura, Judith (2017).Postmodern Design Complete. Thames & Hudson. p. 77.ISBN 978-0-500-51914-1.
  34. ^Gura, Judith (2017).Postmodern Design Complete. Thames & Hudson. p. 120.ISBN 978-0-500-51914-1.
  35. ^Lizzie Crook (February 14, 2020)."Less is a Bore book celebrates "postmodern architecture in all its forms"".dezeen.com. Retrieved25 June 2023.
  36. ^Watkin, David (2022).A History of Western Architecture. Laurence King. p. 673.ISBN 978-1-52942-030-2.

References

[edit]

External links

[edit]

Media related toDoric columns at Wikimedia Commons

Greco-Roman orders
Other orders
Related articles
International
National
Other
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doric_order&oldid=1317109091"
Categories:
Hidden categories:
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp