Page:History of Art in Primitive Greece - Mycenian Art Vol 2.djvu/205

t64 Primitive Greece: Mycenian Art. at the sides, we cannot have them on the facade ; and, conversely, if we put them on the facade, none can go at the sides. Hence, to get out of the net they have drawn about themselves, the upholders of the theoretical edifice — out of which they want to distil the classic temple — invariably give us a representation seen sideways of it. To assume that the Greeks placed mutules both on the fa9ade and at the sides,' is equivalent to saying that they set up part of the building for the sake of the decoration, that they subordinated the form to the ornament, a proposition which is diametrically opposed to what we know of the habits of Hellenic art. Would it not be much simpler to take the Mycenian buildings, whose existence is real and undisputable, as our point of departure ? The prodomos of the Mycenian palace is enclosed by two walls, on which rest the beam-ends of the entablature. Longitudinal beams are required to connect the columns and the entablature with the farther wall, whence originated triglyphs and metopes in elevation. The side-walls were adequately sheltered by the cornice. Accordingly, we are no longer faced by the dilemma of having to choose between triglyphs on the faQade or only at the sides. The main, front of the Mycenian palace, it is plain, was alone so adorned. To a builder the fact being as clear as noon-day, why not admit that the Hellenes adopted as type of entablement the Mycenian pro- domos ? • The form we are considering became a purely decorative system in poric_architecture, but the system had grown out of, a primitive mode oT^Building which made use of stone, brick, and wood, but which was wholly unsuspected before iichliemann's disco vi he Hellenes of later days forgot the borrowing, and with it ?he significance of not a few details ; the names they gave to certain members of the entablature, the old pegs for example, are apt to lead one astray. If our hypothesis be allowed, the difficulties besetting the ideal temple vanish into thin air. All the later architect did was to carry the entablature of the pro- domos around the temple, enclosing the cella by pillars on all the four sides. In point of fact, the Doric entablature represents architectonic forms, but transported and borrowed from an older building, the only one where they had a constructive value. The prototype of the Doric frieze has sometimes been sought in the cavetto which forms the crowning member of every Egyptian