The dignified Doric capital of the Greeks illustrates these functions and conditions by its perfect adaptability, simple functional strength, beauty of profile, appropriateness of enrichment and proportion and harmony of parts, qualities which are essential to beauty of architecture. In the Parthenon, B.C. 438, we have the finest treatment of this capital—a treatment full of dignity, reserve, and unison of profile ([plate 6]). The many examples of the Doric Order in Greece and her colonies attest to the esteem in which this order was held by the Greeks. The Indian capital ([plate 24]) exhibits the same functional treatment by the use of brackets or modillions, which undoubtedly are a survival of a wooden construction, and which are typical of Eastern architecture.
The remarkable persistency of the profile, and enrichment of the capital extending through a period of 4,000 years, may be illustrated by a series of diagrams of typical examples. The profile of the capital has not varied to any appreciable extent in the examples here given, and the enrichment of the bell is remarkable for its persistency, though differentiated by racial influences. The Corinthian capital, with its volutes and acanthus foliage, is but the architectural continuity of the Egyptian capital. The only pure Greek example of this order is from the monument of Lysicrates, but the Romans continued the tradition, assimilating and elaborating until they produced the magnificent capitals of the portico of the Pantheon and the temple of Castor and Pollux. In these examples the leaves are arranged in series of two rows of eight leaves each, the volutes springing from sheaths and stems between the leaves, which support the angle of the volutes. The example of early French Gothic has similar characteristics and illustrates the continuity of style.
The Ionic capital, though one of the most persistent in the history of architecture, never reached the architectonic perfection of other capitals. This was undoubtedly owing to the wooden origin being incompatible with the necessities of stone and marble. There is a want of unity between the volutes and ovolo of the capital; in brief, it has neither coherence nor harmony of parts. The exquisite craftsmanship of the capitals of the Erectheum, with their anthemion enrichment of the greatest purity, the beauty of the ovolo and the subtility of the volutes compensates to some extent for the lack of unison ([plate 6]). The enrichment of the architectural capital is no doubt a survival of the primitive custom of binding floral forms round the simple functional capital, these forms being afterwards perpetuated in stone or marble.
In early Corinthian examples these floral forms were frequently of beaten metal, which, in turn, gave place to the beautiful marble foliage of the Greeks and Romans.
That the ancients used metal work in their capitals we have abundant proof. In the descriptions of the building of Solomon’s Temple we read of “Two chapiters of molten brass to set upon the pillars, and nets of chequer work and wreath of chain work to set upon the top of the pillars.”
The Composite capital is deficient in coherence and unity of parts, having the same defects as its prototype the Ionic. The annexed illustration from Ancient Rome gives an unusual treatment by the introduction of the human figure in the centre of the face of the capital.