"Afterward, in other works, some made the canthers, that were perpendicularly over the triglyphs, to project outward, and carved their projecture ; hence, as the triglyphs arose from the disposition of the joists, so the smithies under the corona were derived from the projeeture of the cambers; wherefore, in stone or marble structures, the in 10 miles are represented declining, in imitation of the canthers ; and, also, on account of the droppings front the eaves, it is proper they should have such declination.
From this imitation, therefore, arose the use of t•iglyphs and mutules in Doric work ; for it cannot be, as some erro neously assert, that the triglyphs represent windows ; because t-•glyphs are disposed in the angles, and over the quarters of the columns, in which places windows are not permitted ; for, if windows were there left, the union of the angles of buildings would be dissolved ; also, if the triglyphs are sup posed to be situated in the place of the windows, by the smile reason, the (lentils in Ionic work may be thought to occupy the places of windows ; for the intervals between the (lentils, as well as between the triglyphs, are called ntelopa• ; the Greeks calling the bed of the joists and asset's, alarm (as we call it coca, columba•ia); so, because the interjoist is between two opse, it is by them called met-opoy. As the tri glyphs and mutules in the Doric order are founded upon those so the dentils, in the Ionic, derive their proper origin from the workmanship; and as the inutules represent the projectures of the canthers, the (lentils in the Ionoic order are in imitation of the projecture of the assers." This theory is a very plausible one, so far as it goes ; and were we unable to account for such matters in a different way, it might be passed over as correct, but f t• one objection, and that alone at once throws discredit upon the whole account. The difficulty may be put in this way : if' the prototype of the stone structure were cmistructed of timber, how' e0111 es it, that the proportions of the limner are of so heavy mid massive it character? and how is it, that the columns are so thickly set ? Timber construction would have led to very different results ; slenderness and lightness are the charac teristics of buildings of such material, and so, necessarily, of' its antitvpe. The reverse, however, is the case ; and not
Only so, 'but we find, that the older the edifice, (and therefore the more similar to its prototype) the he;svier, also, its proportions ; whereas, if' Vitruvius's theory be correct, the contrary should be observable. But, besides this, we can :lemma for all the details alluded to by Vit•uvins in a very different, and, to our mind, far more satisfactory manner, as we shall attempt to explain presently.
As regards the date of the introduction of this style of building into Greece, nothing can be stated with certainty ; neither can it be satisfactorily ascertained in what locality it first appeared : great differences of opinion exist on both subjects. Vitruvius, as usual, decides the matter without any apparent difficulty. He says : The most ancient and first invented of the three kinds of columns is the Doric; when Dorus, the son of I lellenus, and the nymph Opticos, reigned over all Achaia and Peloponnesus, the temple of Juno, in the ancient city of Argos, was erected, and this order happened to be used in the time. The same order was also used in the other cities of Achaia before the laws of its symmetry were established.
" Afterward, when the Athenians, according to the re sponses of Apollo and Delphos and the common consent of all Greece, transplanted, at one time, thirteen colonies into Asia, apportioning to every colony a leader, they gave the chief command to Ion, the son of Xuthus and Creusa, whom also the Delphian Apollo acknowledged for his son. These colonies he conducted to Asia, seized on the territory of Carla, and there founded many large cities, as Ephesus, Mynuta, (which last was formerly overflowed with water, and its rites and privileges, by Ion, transferred to the Milesians), I'riene, Samos, Teos, Colophon, Chios, Erythrze, Phoeis, Clazomeme, Lebedus, and Melite. This latter, on account of the arrogance of the citizens, was destroyed in the war declared against it, by the unanimous determination of the other cities, and, in its place, by the favour of king Attains and Arsinoe, the city of Smyrna was received amongst the Ionians. When those cities extirpated the Carians and Leleges, they, from their leader, Ion, called that territory Ionia.