"There they began to erect fanes, and constitute temples to the immortal gods. First, they erected the temple of Apollo Panionias, in the manner they had seen it in Achaia ; which manner they called Doric, because they had seen it first used in the Dorian cities. In this temple they were desi rous of using columns, but were ignorant of their symmetry, and of the proportions necessary to enable them to sustain the weight, and give them a handsome appearance : they measured the human foot, and finding the foot of a man to be the fifth part of his height, they gave that proportion to their columns, making the thickness of the shaft at the base equal to the sixth part of the height, including the capital. Thus the Doric column, having the proportion, firmness, and beauty of the human body, first began to be used in buildings." The former part of this statement may or may not be correct, but if its credit stands upon an equal footing with that of the latter part, we shall not be justified in placing much confidence in it ; for ere we can give credence to his opinion respecting the proportions of the order, we must suppose the men of that age to have been of a very different description to those of the present day.
If Vitruvius be correct in his supposition regarding the introduction of the order, we must suppose several temples to have been erected in this style before Homer's time, but, if so, it would appear strange that one, generally so minute in his descriptions of persons and places, should not have given us some description of them. It is true, that he alludes to three or four temples,—to those of Minerva at Athens and Troy, and of Apollo and Neptune at Delphi and iEgma, respectively,—still he has not given any description of them, and leaves us entirely to conjecture: according to the account of Pausanias, the temple at Delphi was nothing better than a hut covered with laurel and branches. But if we discard the account given by Vitruvius, we shall not be much nearer the goal, having no data to work upon. If we allow the name in the order to give us some clue as to its origin, we are still n the same predicament, for many provinces bore the name of Doris ; and at best, as Lord Aberdeen remarks, a name is often the least satisfactory mode of accounting for the birth of the thing which bears it. Many are of opinion that the order was first employed in the cities of Corinth, Sicyon, and Argos, shortly after the return of the Heraclidx, but others suppose it to have originated amongst the colonists of Asia Minor, and there certainly does appear some reason for supposing that the temples here were far in advance of those in Greece-proper.
]n whatever part of Greece the Doric order was first employed, there seems very good reason to believe that it had its origin in Egypt, or rather perhaps that the temples of that country suggested the idea ; nor is there any prima facie grounds for rejecting this supposition, for we know, in the first place, that Greece was, at least, to some extent, colo nized from Egypt ; Cecrops was from that country, and Cadmus from one not far distant ; and besides this, we know that in after times the Greeks were in the habit of trading with Egypt, and were held in so great esteem by Amasis, that he gave them the city of Naucratis, and afforded them every encouragement and convenience. Another internal
evidence of the connection of the two people is afforded in the identity of their mythology.
But let us consider the architectural features observable in the buildings of the two countries. In general appearance they agree ; they are both of massive proportions, and both consist of similar parts, columns, entablature, and such like. Nor arc they less similar in detail ; in Egyptian temples we have an entablature consisting of three members, architrave, frieze, and cornice, the first of which, like the Doric, is com paratively plain, and the last simple, but bold. The simi larity of the frieze in both styles is remarkable, extending even to triglyphs and mutules, and in both styles are those features equally essential. The similarity of the columns may not be at first so apparent, although we can point out many Egyptian columns without bases, with square plain abaci, and may suggest the probability of the Grecian echinus being copied from the lower portion of the bulging or cushion capitals of Egypt : the annulets round the necking of the capital are likewise of very frequent occurrence in that coun try. As regards the rest of the column, it is true, speaking generally, that Egyptian specimens are not fluted, neither do they diminish, like the Greek, from the lower to the upper diameter ; instead of concave flutes, however, we have convex rods, or probably reeds ; and if the latter, we have only to divide them vertically down the centre, and we have the Doric flutes. But even if this last idea he too fanciful, the difference between a cabled and fluted column is not so great, the ornamentation is decidedly of a similar cha racter; end even if this be disallowed, there are specimens of fluted columns in Egypt, and specimens which altogether bear a very marked resemblance to the Grecian-Doric. These columns were first noticed by Mr. Barry, who considers them of greater antiquity than any Grecian specimens. The first is a portico of two fluted columns in antis, about 5L diame ters in height, and surmounted by a plain abacus ; the flutes are 20 in number, and of shallow contour ; the columns are without bases. The next example is from Kalaptchic on the Nile, the abacus of which is square, and 11 inches thick ; the shaft, which has a trifling diminution, is 7 feet S inches high, and 3 feet 2 inches diameter. The circumference is in 24 divisions, whereof 4, which are at right angles with each other, are flat faces, covered with hieroglyphics, and the other intervening ones are sunk into flat elliptical flutes a quarter of an inch deep. Another specimen is to be seen at Amada in Nubia, consisting of two columns, one of which is a simple parallelopiped, and the other, at the corner of the building, is both cylindrical and fluted, leaving, however, a square abacus similar to that of the parallelopiped, which, in this case, is the only capital ; the base is also of a square plan. Of these two columns, the former is evidently the earlier design, the latter, previously of the same shape, whe ther for convenience or otherwise, has been rounded off at the corners and somewhat ornamented.