T E M 



J83 



T K M 



portions, nothing of combination or of design, as the last 

 term is usually uodenkuxL; but the difference oi' effect 

 depended altogether upon the actual dimensions of the 

 structures, upon material and execution, upon circum- 

 stances of detail and finish, and on the degree and particu- 

 lar kind of decoration in regard to sculpture and poly- 

 chromic embellishment. The, only instance of combina- 

 tion and grouping is that afforded by the Erechtheion, or 

 triple temple on the Acropolis at Athens, which has two 

 distinct porticos, viz. an Ionic hexa.-tvk nionoprostyle at 



-t end, and a tetrast.yle diprostyle of the same order 

 on hs north side, and upon a lower level ; besides which 

 there is a smaller attached or projecting structure at the 

 south-west angle, forming a tetrastyle diprostyle arrange- 

 ment of caryatic figures, raised upon a screen-wall or 

 podium. The combination is here not very harmonious, 

 since no regard has been paid to symmetry ; for which very 

 reason it is all the more striking, as forming a decided con- 

 trast to the unvaried and even monotonous uniformity 

 pervading the temple-architecture of the Greeks. It is 

 almost the only Grecian structure that can be said to be as 

 much distinguished by picturesqueness as by elegance of 

 architectural detail, and it is therefore to be regretted that 

 it has not been studied by modern architects, with especial 

 reference to such quality, instead of their attention being 

 almost exclusively given to the details and proportions of 

 the individual parts. Tliis edifice moreover affords almost 

 the only instance in the Grecian style of distinct porticos 

 or prostyles projecting from a building [PORTICO], other 

 porticos being either in a/iti\, so as to be renewed within 

 the main walls forming the sides of the edifice ; or are 

 only the end or ends of the colonnades continued through- 

 out the whole exterior : consequently in neither case does 

 such portico show itself as an actual prostyle. The only 

 other known examples of Greek prostyles are the two 

 small Ionic temples at Athens, that on the banks of 

 the Jlissus, called the temple of Panops ; and that dedi- 

 cated to Nike Apteros, or Wingless Victory. Both these 

 were amphipiustyle, and not ' anlis, consequently had 

 a projecting portico at each end; and in both the porticos 

 were tetrastvle. Of the former nothing now remains, 

 but it is well known from Stuart's delineation.-;, and the 

 order itself of plain and bold but elegant character has 

 been adopted as the type not to say stereotype of 

 most of our modem Grecian Ionic. Though amphipro- 

 stvle, the porticos were not exactly similar in plan ; for 

 while the one was a mere monoprostyle, that forming the 

 entrance end was also deeply recessed within the main 

 walls, after the manner of a portico in antis without 

 columns. The other temple, the ruins of which have been 

 explored within only a very few years, was a very small 

 structure, a mere votive ch -< by the west front of 



the 1' ' i the Acropolis, with its hinder portico 



: the si-r.th wing of that edifice, yet turned obliquely 

 from it, which want of parallelism is utterly ut variance 

 with all modern notions of architectural symmetry and 

 order. Yet although they earned regularity almost to 

 faulty e\c rks seem to have paid no regard to it 



whatever indisposing buildings relatively to each other, fur 

 is a similar and apparently intentional want of paral- 



: between the Parthenon and Krechtheion on the 

 Acropolis itself; nor are either of them in a line with the 

 Propylaea, or equidistant from such line or axis. [PAR- 

 THENON Plan.] 



This iiiMtmition to uniformity of arrangement, where 

 different buildings are IIP ,-thcr on one general 



plan, shows a striking difference ol taste in that, p 

 between the Egyptians ;tnd the Greeks. The temp 

 tin- Egyptian-, consUl oi' various architectural p. 

 dinate to the principal strut-tin Lining with that 



and with each other to form a whole ; which scheme w;n 

 sometimes further extended bv an architectural avenue of 

 sphir ,-it of the bonding!; The Greeks, on the 



inly did not attempt to imitate or rival 

 in the extent and complex arrang< 



there can be little doubt that 



md"litcd to them for much of their 



Their temples were aim- 



not only detached from but 



adjacent ones, instead of 



::% ttlth t 



.1.* in the immediate 



neighbourhood of each other, and in a part icular district of 

 a city, as was the case in the Paru m and Capitol at Rome, 

 where temple succeeded to temple almost uninterruptedly; 

 and the ruins of Paestum, Agrigentum, Selinus, and other 

 places show a somewhat similar concentration of sacred 

 edifices about the same spot. Temples were frequently 

 surrounded by a sacred grove or plantation of trees, Ti'inr- 

 iinx, or else placed within an enclosure, Perilmhis, formed 

 either by mere walls or by colonnades, but there are 

 scarcely any examples, .of the kind now remaining ; and 

 they are chiefly Roman works, viz. the temples at Baalbec 

 and Palmyra. Similarly enclosed and standing in the 

 centre of a peribolus or piazza (therefore very different in 

 plan from an Egyptian temple preceded by a fore-court), 

 were the temples of Jupiter and Juno, Venus and Roma, 

 at Rome [ROMAN ARCHITECTURE, p. 74] ; that of Jupiter 

 Olympius at Athens, a work completed in the time of 

 Hadrian ; and also, among Gneco-Asiatic examples, the 

 temples of Minerva Polias at Prienc, and Apollo Didy- 

 ma-us at Miletus. 



Similar as it is upon the whole to that of the Greeks, the 

 temple-architecture of the Romans differs from it in many 

 other circumstances besides those of style ; which latter 

 was, with very few exceptions, Corinthian the national 

 style of the Romans, as the Doric was of Greece and its 

 Italian colonies. One leading distinction in regard to gene- 

 ral arrangement is, that Roman plans were hardly ever /'// 

 snd not often peripteral, but generally prostyle, with 

 the portico projecting out from the cella, or body of the 

 structure, three or more intercolumns, so as to be tripro- 

 xhjli', &e. [PORTICO.] Such facade was generally i'; 1 

 distinguished by having a flight of steps enclosed within 

 pedestals at its ends, which were continued as a podium or 

 moulded basement along the sides of the editiee ; whereas 

 the Greeks raised the temples only three steps or so abo\!- 

 tin,' ground, and carried those gradini quite round the 

 structure, wherefore each elevation or side of their perip- 

 teral temples was uniform in design, having no other variety 

 than that produced by greater extent and number (if 

 columns in one direction, and by the pediments at the 

 extremities. The Romans certainly evinced greater 

 for both contrast and picturesque combination than 

 the Greeks, although decidedly inferior to them in beauty 

 of detail and finish of execution ; except perhaps in one 

 or two particular examples of that order which, although 

 called Corinthian, is so peculiarly their own, that Roman 

 would be the more correct name for it. In order to gi\u 

 greater dignity to the whole temple or to the principal 

 structure in an architectural group, they elevated it upon 

 not a mere basement or substructure with an ascent in 

 front or at both ends, but upon a spreading-out platform, 

 luting a terrace on every side. They appear to have 

 lonally formed a succession of terraces of flights of 

 steps, leading tip to if not continued .on every side of this 

 building. The celebrated Temple of Fortune at Prsenest e, 

 usually supposed to have been originally founded>by Sulla, 

 was a very remarkable example of the kind. Very little 

 now remains of it, except the terraces themselves ; neither 

 have we any account of the architecture, but besides the 

 principal edifice or temple there were several subordinate 

 ones, on the different platforms. ' I know of no other 

 example,' says Woods, in his ' Letters of an Architect,' 

 ' either of antient or modern times, where so great a num- 

 ber of edifices, and occupying so great an extent, 

 combined into one regular and symmetrical plan ; and our 

 admiration is still increased when we consider that it v.as 

 ary not only to erect the building, but absolutely to 

 build a place for it to stand on.' 



Circular plans for temples are peculiar to the Romans, 

 and occasion a diversity of character not to be met with in 

 those of the Greeks. Besides the two simplest forms, the 

 monopteral and peripteral, which have been shown above, 

 there were other varieties and combinations. For a 

 notice of some of them we refer to ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 

 (p. 73). 



Instead of entering into formal descriptions of particular 

 temples, we subjoin a synopsis with accompanying ren 

 Some of (lie measurements and other particulars stated in 

 it may not exactly accord with other accounts of the 

 -tract nms ; for so great is frequently the di-,- 

 icy between different authorities, whether write 

 delineators and restorers, that it is impossible to obtain 

 complete accuracy. 



