In some such way as this was developed the character of the fluting and capital of the Greek Doric column. By referring to Fig. 48 again, it will be found that the outline of the pier shown at A suggests more the outline of the capital formed of an echinus and abacus, as in the later examples, than do the next successive stages, B and C.
The further growth of the fl,iting is shown in Fig. 49. At C is indicated a section of greater depth and decision. In D we find that three circles are em ployed to get the effect, one of large radius for the flat center sweep, and at either end one of short radius, in order to obtain a sharp corner edge, or arris, at the meeting of the flutings. This presages the appearance of the fillet separating the flutings, al though this character is after wards relegated to the second Order, the Ionic.
The presumption is that the flutes were finished in place at the time the building was constructed. There are certain buildings which seems to prove this theory, such as the Temple of Apollo at Delos, where the channels are begun at the top and the bottom of the shaft and left unfinished.
Monoliths are rare in Greek architecture, and the cylinder or shaft of the column is generally formed of a series of courses or drums, placed one above the other.
The flutings of the Ionic and Corinthian Orders are generally twenty-four in number; each flute is separated by a small fillet, about one-third, or less, the width of the flute itself, which is practically a semicircle in section (F, Fig. 49). The shallow Doric flutings with sharp points or arrises between them, radically different from these semicircular flutings, should be considered as a distinctive feature of the Greek Doric column. They are invariably used in modern prac tice on any fluted example of this Order, although the Ionic system of fluting may sometimes be rightly used with the Roman Doric Order.
Comparison of Greek and Roman Orders. Reference to the cut entitled "Parallel of the Orders" (Fig. 50) will give more plainly the general proportions of the Greek Orders, and show something of the difference between the Greek and Roman examples in the use of the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns. It may be understood that all the plates given as "Orders," when not specifically named, are intended as representative examples of each Order, of which in reality there may be many widely different• existing remains. In Fig. 50, the types of Greek Orders of architecture are as taken from Asher Benjamin; and the Roman Orders are those as given by Vignola. It is readily seen from this figure that the so-called Roman Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns were derived from the earlier Greek forms, and that the Roman variety of each style is a comparatively direct growth from the original, even though it varies from it in many essentials.
System of Measurement for the "Order." It is necessary, in
order to arrive at a proper comparison of the Order, to adopt a general Unit of Measurement, which will be the Diameter of the column at the base, this diameter, in the Greek Orders, being divided into sixty parts, called Minutes; which are as often used to form two Modules of 30 Parts each. The term "diameter" when used as a unit of measurement, always refers to the diameter through the bottom of the column or shaft directly above the mouldings at the base.
The diameter of the Roman column is divided into two modules as a unit of measurement. The Roman module is subdivided into twelve parts for the Doric Order, and eighteen parts for the Ionic and Corinthian Orders. Thus each module is equal to one-half a diameter; and two modules in the Roman Order is the same unit as the diameter of sixty minutes in the Greek.
At the right of the Roman and at the left of the Greek Orders on Fig. 50, are shown lines marked for divisions in height, these divi sions being multiples of the diameters at the base of the columns. The three Roman Orders given are all of the same diameter; and the three Greek columns, while larger at the base than the Roman ex amples, are also each of the same diameter. This plate, accordingly, indicates the comparative height, to one another, of each of the three Orders. In the Greek Orders, it will be noticed that the pedestal is omitted as consistently as it is included in the Roman examples. After briefly describing the three type-examples of the Greek Orders shown in this plate, they will each be examined and illustrated more particularly.
It will be noticed that the Doric Order is by far the heaviest in both sets of examples. The height of the Doric columns is seven diameters. Its cap, above the upper line of necking, is thirty minutes, or one-half a diameter. The height of the entablature is two diameters, the architrave being forty-two minutes and the cornice thirty-six minutes in height. In the Greek Doric, the architrave and frieze are each about three-fourths the diameter in height, the whole entablature being therefore about two diameters high.
The Greek Ionic column is nine diameters in height, with a base twenty-five minutes and capital twenty-eight and one-half minutes high. The entablature is two diameters high, consisting of an archi trave of forty-five minutes, frieze of forty-three minutes, and cornice thirty-two minutes in height.
The Greek Corinthian column is ten diameters in height, the base twenty-five and the cap seventy minutes high; the entablature is two and one-fourth diameters high, with an architrave of forty-three minutes, the frieze of forty minutes, and the cornice of fifty-two minutes in height.
The projection of the cornices varies, in the Doric being thirty three minutes, in the Ionic thirty-four minutes, and in the Corinthian forty-four minutes.