Ayrton contrasts the Doric frame with the Egyptian frame in the context of the geography surrounding the temples, for whereas the deserts of Egypt require "exclamations in architecture" for a compelling structural statement to be made, Greek monumental architecture, and particularly the Doric Order, can accommodate and rationalize the rolling hills of Greece that encased it. The barren wastes of Egypt required decisive monuments, and the pyramids provided them. In the more temperate physical environment of Greece, however, monuments such as pyramids would probably not achieve the effect of harmony and cultural integration that the Greek temples did. This point is made in one form or another by all commentators consulted for this research. The implication is that the Doric Order, once it emerged, was far superior aesthetically and architecturally to earlier examples of civilization bound architecture, and one could conclude that a certain amount of ethnocentrism is at work in the description of the transition from ancient Egypt to Ancient Greece. This is a point to which we shall return, not least because there is compelling evidence that Egyptian architects were every bit as ethnocentric on their own behalf as the British are in behalf of the Golden Age of Greece. Nevertheless, as Ayrton indirectly acknowledges, the Doric Order did not spring forth overnight; she says it can be traced "directly back to the primitive temple built of wood and mud-brick." She continues, because they became associated with temple building and were therefore in some degree traditional and sacred; secondly, In no case could Egyptian or Persian architecture style be lifted whole and deposited on Greek culture, in part because it was the more vibrant receiving culture that transformed its observations of the transmitting one, in part because Egypt does not appear to have been interested in anything not Egyptian. Things might have been different if Egypt had been th |
