柱間寸法と基壇長さの分析方法 : ドリス式神殿の設計技法に関する研究(1)

Abstract

This is a part of studies on the design procedure of ancient Greek Doric temples, specifically on the planning of outer peristyles. For this kind of studies it is necessary to find some formulae which enable us to compute objectively the relations between axial intercolumnar spaces and front and flank lengths of stylobate. The purpose of this paper is a propose of these formulae. The most fundamental data of a temple are numbers of front and flank columns and lengths of stylobate. Although it is not easy to say the actual sequence of planning steps, it seems more likely that numbers of columns and axial spaces had been determined when front and flank lengths of stylobate were decided, and the lengths of stylobate were calculated as the sum of axial spaces and width of stylobate S (here, it means twice the distance from the centre of angle column to the edge of stylobate), than that stylobate lengths had been decided first and axial spaces were calculated by dividing the stylobate lengths. On these assumptions, I have formulated four Rules and their variations. First of all, if front axial space had been equal to flank axial space, front stylobate width had been same as flank stylobate width, and amount of angle contraction on the front had been equal to that on the flank, the common axial space would have always been computed as follows, whichever Rule might be applied. If we designate common axial space as I, front length of stylobate as W, flank length of stylobate as L, number of front columns as C_w, and number of flank columns as C_1. I=(L-W)/(C_L-C_W) Rule 1 is for those temples that had the same axial space both on front and flank, and stylobate width was equal to a half of axial space M (Fig. 1). Rule 1 a, a variation of Rule 1, is for those temples that although front axial space I_w was not equal to flank axial space I_L, front width of stylobate S_w was still equal to a half of front axial space M_w, and flank width of stylobate S_L was equal to a half of flank axial space M_L. In both Rule 1 and Rule 1 a, we get following equations : I_W=2・W/(2C_W-1),I_L=2・L/(2C_L-1) Rule 2 is for those temples that front and flank axial spaces were same, but stylobate width was not equal to a half of axial space (Fig. 2). Let us designate stylobate width in this case as K_2・M, number of intercolumniations on front as N_w, number of intercolumniations on flank as N_L, we can compute K_2 as follows K_2=(2(N_L・W-N_W・L))/(L-W) when front and flank axial spaces were not same, it would be classified as Rule 2 a, a variafion of Rule 2. In this case, we can not make any equations to define I_w, I_L or S. We must find out these dimensions by try and error method. When Rule 1 Temple had angle contraction, it would be classified as Rule 3 (Fig.3). If we designate the amount of contraction as (1 -K_3)・M, we can compute K_3 by the following equation, K_3=((2C_L-3)・W-(2C_W-3)・L)/(2(L-W)), (2・K_3+K_2+1) When Rule 2 temple had angle contraction, it would be classified as Rule 4. In this case, we can not but compute by Rule 3 and divide the value of (1 - K_3)・M among the contractions of angle intercolumiation and stylobate width. The principle of angle contraction by Rule 3 and Rule 4 is to move the angle columns inwards to get even triglyph interval. It is the easiest way to realize angle contraction, at the same time, it is in accordance with the generally accepted comprehension of angle contraction. But there is another method to make every triglyph interval same, without moving the angle columns. I have formulated this latter method as Rule AC. Let us reconsider the triglyph problem. If angle intercolumniation had not been contracted, angle metope would have become wider than normal metope. If, instead of contracting angle intercolumniation, the amount of elongation of angle metope had been evenly distributed to every metope, all the metope width would have become equal. By this