Lmaf 1!. GRECIAN.

R1
Skct. XI.
G 11 r.Cl A N A KCH ITECTU HE,
I3;i Tlio architectiii-f of Greece is ulentieal with coluiiinar arcliitecture. 'Writers on
;lie subject liave so invarial)ly treated the hut as the type on which it is formed, that, tliough
we are not thoroui^hly satisfied of the theory being correct, it wouki be difficult to wancier
from the path they liave trodden. In the section on Egyi)tian architecture, we have aiinded
to tlie tombs at Beni-liassan, and we here ])resent a representation of a portion of tliem
^I'om a sketch with uhicli we were tavoiued many years since by the late Su- Cliai les.
Barry
Jiy.
90. ). Tlie reader; w ill perceive
.
_
in it the a!>peHrance of the Doric column
^
^
'"~"
almost in its purity. Wilkinson ( il/?i/(c;-i
and Ci(stotns
of
tlie Ancient Et/i/jififivs) is
(if ojiinion that the date of these tombs is
1740 js. c, that is, in the time of the first
Osirtpsen, an anti(]uity which can be as-
signed to no exam])le in (ireeee. These
tombs are excavated in a rock, a short dis-
tance from the Nile, on its right bank, about
forty-eight French leagues south of Cairo.
Two of them have architectural fronts like
the above plate. The columns are five
diameters and a half in height. The num-
ber of the flutes, which are shallow, is i'O,
J.-,, ,j,) r...Mii Ai- MK.Nf-iiAssAN.
''11(1 tlic Capital coDsi s t
s of a SI lu p I c ahac us.
'i'here are no indications ofa base or |)linth.
Above the architrave, which is plain, there is a projecting Itdge of the rock, somewhat re-
sembling a cornice, whose sofHt is sculptured, ajipirently in imitation of a series of reeds, laid
transversely and horizontally. There certainly does, in this, apjiear some reference to
imitation of a hut, and the refinement of the Greeks, in after ages, may have so ex-
tended the analogy as in the end to account for all ])arts of the entablature. The tra-
dition doubtless existed long before \'itruvius wrote, who gives us nothing more than the
belief of the architects of his time. The j)oint is not, at this time, likely to be answered
satisfactorily ; if it could, it might be important, as leading to the solution of some jioints
of detail, wliich limit the propriety or imjiropriety of certain forms in particular situations.
Having thus cautioned the reader against iini)licit faith in the system we are about to
develope, we shall ])reface it by the opinion, on this subject, of i\I. Qiiatremere de Quincy,
an authority of great value in everything that rel.ites to the art. Carpentry, says that
writer, is incontestabiy the model upon which Greek architecture is founded
; and of the
three models which nature has su])i)lied to the art, this is, beyond doubt, the finest and most
perfect of all. And again, he observes, whoever bestows his attention on the subject, will
easily ])erceive tliat, by the nature of it, it includes all those ))arts that are efl'ective for
utility and beauty, and that the simplest wooden hut has in it the germ of the most mag-
nificent i)alace.
l;i4. We must here premise that this section is strictly confined to the architecture of
Greece and its colonies. Rluch confusion has arisen from the want of strict limits to the
term Grecian Architecture, one which lias been indiscriminately ai)])lied to all !)i:ildings in
whicii the orders appear. The orders were altered in their jn-ofiles, pro|)ortions, and details
bv the Romans; and though l)etween them and th;)se of the Greeks there is a general resem-
blance, and their members are generally similar, yet, on a minute examination, great iliHer-
ence will be foimd. In the former, for instance, the contour of every moulding is a portion
of a circle ; in the latter, the contours of the mouldings are ])ortions of conic sections. In
Roman architecture, we find the dome, which in Greek architecture never occurs. In the
latter, the arch is never seen; in the former, it is often an im])ortant feature. Indeed, the
columnar style, as used by the Greeks, rendered arches unnecessary ; hence, in all imitation
of that style, its introduction jiroduces a discord which no skill can render agreeal)le to the
educated eve. Attemjjts have been made by the modern Cierman architects to introduce
the use of the arch with Greek forms; but they have been all signal failin-es, and that
because it is incapable of amalgamation with the solenm ir.ajesty and pm'ity of Greek com-
position. Before such blending can be accomplished with success, the nature of pure Cireek
architecture must be changed.
135. Following, then, the authors, ancient and modern, on the origin of the art, we now
proceed to a development of its origin. The first trees or posts which were (ixed in the
earth for supporting a co\ er against the elements, were the origin of the isolated c(ilu:;uis
nliicli afterwards became the supports of porticoes in temi)les. DiMiinisliing in diauicter