Another Explanation of Origin of Doric Entablature. First, we must remember that the wall below is of stone, and that it is unbroken by openings (as at l C, Fig. 54). It has no windows, as they would be too much exposed to the inclemencies of the weather. Across the top of this stone wall is placed a continuous band of coping (2 C), to protect its upper surface; and upon this are set a number of short, square upright posts or blocks (3 C), leaving openings between them for the admission of light and air. The beams and rafters of the roof are set immediately upon these square blocks (4 C), and the eaves of the roof overhang the wall so as to protect both it and the windows. The rafters or mutules (4 C), of course, would naturally come directly over the blocks or triglyphs (3 C), which are set on the coping or tænia (2 C); and when the porch of the temple or building is reached, the same treatment is continued; only here the lintel laid across the col umns becomes the architrave in stead of the upper part of a plain wall.
This process of development is further supported by several bits of internal evidence. It will be found that the face of the Greek triglyph was set flush or in plane with the face of the wall or architrave below, while the face of the metope was set back from this surface in order to mark distinctly the corners am treatment of the triglyph. The fact above does something to support the assumption that the triglyph was not an ornament applied upon the face of the frieze, but was rather an tant structural member in the support of the cornice and roof overhead. This receives even more striking corroboration in the method of constructing these stone entablatures. By referring again to Fig. 54, the section through the entablature at B, and the plan through the frieze in the entablature at A, are both taken from the Parthenon—a late example, as we have seen—and these two drawings reveal at once the fact that the triglyph itself is the most important structural block in the entire frieze. The space between, or otherwise the metope, is filled at the front by a shallow panel of marble set in between the triglyphs, and the space behind it is filled with another stone which does not exer cise any direct significance upon the construction of the entablature.
Again, it must be remembered that the triglyphs come directly over the columns beneath; and this fact,.along with the use of the triglyphs on the exact corner or angle in Greek work—where support for the work overhead on both sides of the building is most essential— is explained only by this method of reasoning. Of course, it would be
most natural for the rafters of the roof to be spaced directly over these supporting blocks; and again—as occurs in the frieze below, where one triglyph, at least, comes over the space between the columns—one rafter comes in the space between the triglyphs; and so we have the elements necessary to produce the characteristic treatment of the Greek Doric entablature.
One other point should be mentioned. The carving that fre quently ornaments the face of the metope in many of the Greek tem ples indicates by its character another reason in support of this theory. This carving was most frequently in the nature of trophies or decora tive groups composed of various arms and pieces of body armor; and it seems very probable that this style of ornament originated from the fact that in earlier buildings this open space between the triglyphs was often filled with votive offerings of arms taken from captives and placed around the temple in this fashion. So, when this space was closed in in later work, the decoration of its face by a presentment of the trophy itself would seem very natural to the builders.
As the temples increased in size, they became more difficult to light from these small openings beneath the cornice, and it became necessary to open a large space in the roof for this purpose. It must have been about this time that the metope space began to be encum bered with trophies of armor, and soon thereafter it was closed en tirely by blocks of marble, until its ancient purpose was entirely given up and disregarded. _ Stone Character of Greek Buildings with Doric Order. Which ever of these theories be the more nearly correct, there can be no question as to the merit of the Grecian architecture of the latter part of the 7th century B. C. The builders of that day broke completely with the traditions of timber construction with which they were familiar and whose slightness they might have been tempted to imitate, whereas they established with real force and complete reasonableness the essential principles of a new mode of building.
From this standpoint the monumental works of Doric archi tecture that arose at the end of the 7th century and at the beginning of the 6th in Corinth, Agrigentum, Syracuse, Segesta, and Pæstum, are beyond criticism. By the 5th century, the proportions have been modified, and practiced hands and eyes have given to them greater elegance of detail and more refinement in the mass; but the new system of construction remains unchanged.