The Corner Conflict
_The origin of this “conflict” lies in the fact that there was commonly one triglyph over each column and one in between. In the corners, however, the outermost triglyph was always situated in the corner, and because the thickness of the architrave was greater than the breath of the triglyph, the corner triglyph didn’t fall in the middle of the corner column but outside of it. As a result of this, one had either to make the corner metopes broader, (see A, the archaic solution) or shorten the corner intercolumniation (see B, the classical solution).
Vitruvius, on the other hand, suggested that there should be a half metope left at the corner outside the outermost triglyph (C). It is a generally accepted convention that this “conflict” eventually led to the abandonment of the whole Doric order along with the development of “taste.” This Vitruvian corner was, however, never used by the archaic and classical Greeks, and the interesting question is, of course, why? The suggestion that skillful, even brilliant architects on the level of Ictinus for instance, would have been struggling with this kind of “problem” for centuries without having invented the Vitruvian “solution” because of plain lack of skill, is simply ridiculous. Sorry guys, but even us architects are not that stupid!
There simply must be a positive reason why the Vitruvian corner was not acceptable for the ancient Greeks. If we take a close look at the above pictures and compare the effects of B and C, it is easy to see that the half metope in the corner opens up the corner; it implicates continuity, infinity, and this was a contradiction in terms for the ancient Greeks. A good totality had to be a unity although composed of many, a unity in plurality, not only a row of mute columns. The triglyph in the corner, which was painted dark, on the other hand, closes the corner effectively, thus gathering the row of columns into a sculptural body. This is the real reason why the Greeks never used the Vitruvian corner. On the other hand, the shortening of the corner intercolumniation serves the same purpose, and therefore there never was a “corner conflict” in a classical Doric temple; everything serves the same positive intention in complete harmony. This was not formed into a problem until Hellenism when the conception of the nature of a good totality became different along with political and social development. The whole idea of a conflict or a problem here was the invention of Vitruvius and his contemporaries who living centuries after the construction of the Doric temples in an entirely different world with different evaluations were not able to understand the basic ideals behind the temples.
It is true, of course, that in many archaic temples there is a certain kind of a corner conflict leading to the use of broader metopes, sometimes broader triglyphs; in some archaic temples so heavy constructions were used that this problem never even appeared. In classical temples, however, there is no sign of a corner conflict left. The extreme example is the Parthenon where even shorter metopes were deliberately used in the corners contrary to the usually suggested pursuit to solve the "problem." This phenomenon would be impossible to explain by any other theory but the one presented in my book.
Vitruvius, on the other hand, suggested that there should be a half metope left at the corner outside the outermost triglyph (C). It is a generally accepted convention that this “conflict” eventually led to the abandonment of the whole Doric order along with the development of “taste.” This Vitruvian corner was, however, never used by the archaic and classical Greeks, and the interesting question is, of course, why? The suggestion that skillful, even brilliant architects on the level of Ictinus for instance, would have been struggling with this kind of “problem” for centuries without having invented the Vitruvian “solution” because of plain lack of skill, is simply ridiculous. Sorry guys, but even us architects are not that stupid!
There simply must be a positive reason why the Vitruvian corner was not acceptable for the ancient Greeks. If we take a close look at the above pictures and compare the effects of B and C, it is easy to see that the half metope in the corner opens up the corner; it implicates continuity, infinity, and this was a contradiction in terms for the ancient Greeks. A good totality had to be a unity although composed of many, a unity in plurality, not only a row of mute columns. The triglyph in the corner, which was painted dark, on the other hand, closes the corner effectively, thus gathering the row of columns into a sculptural body. This is the real reason why the Greeks never used the Vitruvian corner. On the other hand, the shortening of the corner intercolumniation serves the same purpose, and therefore there never was a “corner conflict” in a classical Doric temple; everything serves the same positive intention in complete harmony. This was not formed into a problem until Hellenism when the conception of the nature of a good totality became different along with political and social development. The whole idea of a conflict or a problem here was the invention of Vitruvius and his contemporaries who living centuries after the construction of the Doric temples in an entirely different world with different evaluations were not able to understand the basic ideals behind the temples.
It is true, of course, that in many archaic temples there is a certain kind of a corner conflict leading to the use of broader metopes, sometimes broader triglyphs; in some archaic temples so heavy constructions were used that this problem never even appeared. In classical temples, however, there is no sign of a corner conflict left. The extreme example is the Parthenon where even shorter metopes were deliberately used in the corners contrary to the usually suggested pursuit to solve the "problem." This phenomenon would be impossible to explain by any other theory but the one presented in my book.