No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2011
The adjective ‘Doric’, as applied to a certain well-defined style of art, has become a convention of such long standing, and so widely spread, that to question its appropriateness would be both meticulous and embarrassing. At the same time its origin affords considerable ground for speculation. It may, as Mitford suggested in the eighteenth century, have expressed to the ancients the idea of an out-of-date, old-fashioned style, at a time when the Athenians were introducing the Ionic or Asia Minor fashions on the Acropolis. At the same time it is difficult to imagine or explain why the Dorians, always regarded as a rude or rustic element in the formation of the conglomerate Greek world of the first millennium b.c., should be credited with the invention of the most refined form of architecture ever known, or how Phidias came to select it for enshrining his sculpture at the Parthenon. We must, perhaps, presume that the unintentional honour conferred upon the Dorians may have been due to some phase of that inter-racial and political antagonism between different factions which constitutes so much of the history of ancient Greece. The term ‘Doric Art’ must have originated long after the erection of the Parthenon, if it was used in any sense as an expression of reproach or contempt, and its connexion with the people from the north who invaded the Peloponnesus c. 1100 B.C. can only be of the very vaguest.
page 40 note 1 Archaeologia, lxvi, 159.
page 43 note 1 Now in the British Museum; Bossert, Alt Kreta, Berlin, 1923, nos. 202, 203: compare the column above the Lion-gate at Mycenae, Bossert, nos. 195, 236; the gem, Bossert, no. 321 c; and the capitals at Cnossus, Bossert, nos. 36–9, as restored by Sir Arthur Evans.
page 50 note 1 Sir Samuel Baker in his Cyprus in 1879, says: ‘I have never seen pitsaws used, but as a rule, should a beam or stout plank be required, a whole tree is adzed away to produce it, and great piles of chips are continually met with in the forests where some large tree has thus perished under this exhaustive process.’
page 54 note 1 Another reasonable supposition suggests itself: that the triglyph may have merely been first introduced at the time when terra-cotta coverings not merely to wood and mud-brick were in vogue, but also to the stone-work. In other words, that whilst the general design of the Doric temple displays its timber and mud-wall construction, the triglyph may be a survivor of its elaborate terra-cotta decorations.
page 60 note 1 For other Doric capitals resembling those discussed by Mr. Jeffery see Fouilles de Delphes, ii, 3, 1, p. 33, and fig. 41 (Paris, Boccard, 1923).