Page:History of Art in Primitive Greece - Mycenian Art Vol 2.djvu/204

Ttie Origin of Doric Architecture. 163 in our restorations, we have not hesitated to admit that this pattern, originally suggested by the necessity of protecting the beam-ends, was afterwards retained for artistic reasons, although no longer fulfilling any constructional purpose. We have put it, at regular intervals, in front of the joists, along the entire breadth of the entablature. This part of the building is that towards which the eye instinctively turns from the first, and should, therefore, be most richly embellished (Fig. 303). Fig. 315 shows how the joisted ceiling was pieced together. Its arrangement is a matter of taste, and in no way invalidates the explanation we have advanced relating to the origin of the Doric friezg, "^ complete entablature, furnished with all its members, and Via. 315, — Myccnian palace. Second epoch. Plan gf limlier frame of proiiomos above ihc Cika:. its full value, is never met with except over a porch such as L that which graces the principal facade of the Mycenian palace. j Heavy architraves would be useless and meaningless on the - lateral fronts, where a simple cornice resting on a thin plate, or plat-band, is all that is required in good construction ; for the wall itself supports the cornice, and does duty as architrave. The wall has no need of cross-beams ; constructional intentions are sufficiendy met by making the joists bear upon it, either tailed into channellings or placed upon off-sets, so as to shield it against the weather. Thus we are brought round to the pro- domos of the Mycenian palace as the one which best accounts for the Doric entablature. To explain away the forms constituting it there is no need to appeal, as some have done, to an ideal temple, with or without an external colonnade. With the hypothesis of an ideal temple, we are faced, and have always been faced, by an insuperable difficulty. If we put mutules