The
Doric order was one of the
three orders or organizational
systems of
Ancient
Greek or
classical
architecture; the other two
canonical
orders were the
Ionic and the
Corinthian.
In their original Greek version, Doric
columns stood directly on the flat pavement (the
stylobate) of a
temple without a
base; their vertical shafts were fluted with 20 parallel
concave
grooves; and they
were topped by a smooth
capital that flared from the column
to meet a square
abacus at the
intersection with the horizontal
beam (
entablature) that they carried.
Pronounced features of both Greek and Roman versions of the Doric
order are the alternating
triglyphs and
metopes. The triglyphs are
decoratively grooved with three vertical grooves
(
tri-glyph) and represent the original wooden end-beams,
which rest on the plain
architrave that
occupies the lower half of the entablature. Under each triglyph are
peglike
stagons or
guttae (literally: drops) that
appear as if they were hammered in from below to stabilize the
post-and-beam (
trabeated)
construction. They also served to "organize" rainwater runoff from
above. A triglyph is centered above every column, with another (or
sometimes two) between columns, though the Greeks felt that the
corner triglyph should form the corner of the entablature, creating
an inharmonious mismatch with the supporting column. The spaces
between the triglyphs are the
metopes. They may be left
plain, or they may be carved in low relief.
The architecture followed rules of harmony. Since the original
design came from wooden temples and the triglyphs were real heads
of wooden beams, every column had to bear a beam which laid in the
mid of the column. Triglyphs were arranged regularly; the last
triglyph met the mid of the last column (
illustration, right:
'I.
). This was regarded
as the ideal solution which had to be reached.
Changing to stone cubes instead of wooden beams required full
support of the
architrave load at the
last column. At the first temples the final triglyph was moved
(
illustration, right: 'II.
), still terminating
the sequence, but leaving a gap disturbing the regular
order. Even worse, the last triglyph was
not centered with the corresponding column.
That “archaic” manner was not regarded as a harmonious
design. The resulting problem is called
The doric corner conflict.
Another approach was to apply a broader corner
triglyph (III.
) but was not really
satisfying.

The Doric corner conflict
Because the metopes are somewhat flexible in their proportions, the
modular space between columns (“intercolumniation”) can be adjusted
by the architect. Often the last two columns were set slightly
closer together (
corner contraction), to give a subtle
visual strengthening to the corners. That is called the “classic”
solution of the corner
conflict (
IV.). Triglyphs could be
arranged in a harmonic manner again, and the corner was terminated
with a triglyph. However, final triglyph and column were often not
centered.
Early
examples of the Doric order include the temples at Paestum
, in southern
Italy
, a region called Magna
Graecia, which was settled by Greek colonists and retained a
strongly Hellenic culture.
The
Temple of the Delians is a “peripteral” Doric order temple, the largest of
three dedicated to Apollo on the island of
Delos
. It was begun in 478 BC and never completely
finished. During their period of independence from Athens, the
Delians reassigned the temple to the island of Poros. It is
“hexastyle”, with six columns across the pedimented end and
thirteen along each long face. All the columns are centered under a
triglyph in the frieze, except for the corner columns. The plain,
unfluted shafts on the columns stand directly on the platform (the
stylobate), without bases. The recessed “necking” at the
top of the shafts and the wide cushionlike echinus are slightly
self-conscious archaicizing features, for Delos is Apollo's ancient
birthplace.
A classic
statement of the Greek Doric order is the Temple of
Hephaestus
in Athens, built about 449 BC. The contemporary
Parthenon
, the largest temple in classical Athens
, is also in
the Doric order, although the sculptural enrichment is more
familiar in the Ionic order: the Greeks were never as doctrinaire
in the use of the Classical vocabulary as Renaissance theorists or neoclassical architects. The detail
(
illustration, left), part of the basic vocabulary of
trained architects from the later 18th century onwards, shows how
the width of the metopes was flexible: here they bear the famous
bas-relief sculptures of the battle of
Lapiths and
Centaurs.
In the Roman Doric version (
illustration, left), the
height of the entablature has been reduced. The endmost triglyph is
centered over the column rather than occupying the corner of the
architrave. The columns are slightly less robust in their
proportions. Below their caps, an astragal molding encircles the
column like a ring. Crown moldings soften transitions between
frieze and
cornice and emphasize the upper
edge of the
abacus, which is
the upper part of the capital. Roman Doric columns also have
moldings at their bases and stand on low square pads or are even
raised on
plinths. In the Roman Doric mode,
columns are not invariably fluted. Since the Romans dropped the
request of the triglyph covered corner, now both columns and
triglyphs could be arranged in equidistant order again and well
centered together. The architrave corner needed to be left “blank”
(
illustration, right,
'V.
).
The Roman architect
Vitruvius, following
contemporary practice, outlined in his treatise the procedure for
laying out constructions based on a module, which he took to be one
half a column's diameter, taken at the base. An illustration of
Andrea Palladio's Doric order, as it
was laid out, with modules identified, by Isaac Ware, in
The
Four Books of Palladio's Architecture (London, 1738) is
illustrated at
Vitruvian
module.
When
Greek Revival architecture was
introduced at the beginning of the 19th century, the Greek Doric
order had not previously been widely used. The first engraved
illustrations of the Greek Doric order dated to the mid-18th
century. Its appearance in the new phase of
Classicism brought with it new connotations of
high-minded primitive simplicity, seriousness of purpose, noble
sobriety, and, in the United States,
republican virtues. In a customs house, Greek
Doric suggested incorruptibility; in a Protestant church a Greek
Doric porch promised a return to an untainted early church; it was
equally appropriate for a library, a bank or a trustworthy public
utility (
illustration, left).

Modern reproduction of the classical
Doric order.
According to Vitruvius the height of Doric columns is six or seven
times the diameter at the base. This gives the Doric columns a
shorter, thicker look than Ionic columns, which have 8:1
proportions. It is suggested that these proportions give the Doric
columns a masculine appearance, whereas the more slender Ionic
columns appear represent a more feminine look. This sense of
masculinity and femininity was often used to determine which type
of column would be used for a particular structure.
Examples
Doric is the most common column
See also
References
- "...they measured a man's foot, and finding its length the
sixth part of his height, they gave the column a similar
proportion, that is, they made its height, including the capital,
six times the thickness of the shaft, measured at the base. Thus
the Doric order obtained its proportion, its strength, and its
beauty, from the human figure." (Vitruvius, iv.6) "The successors
of these people, improving in taste, and preferring a more slender
proportion, assigned seven diameters to the height of the Doric
column." (Vitruvius, iv.8
Sources
- Labeled Doric Column
- Sir John Summerson, The
Classical Language of Architecture Revised edition, 1980 (W.W.
Norton)
- James Stevens Curl, Classical Architecture: An Introduction
to Its Vocabulary and Essentials, with a Select Glossary of
Terms
- Georges Gromort, The Elements of Classical
Architecture
- Alexander Tzonis, Classical Architecture: The Poetics of
Order ( Alexander Tzonis website)