May 7, 1891] 



NATURE 



St. Peter's at Rome, so that these were temples of a vast- 

 ness absolutely unapproached in the modern world. 



In Denderah we have an example of the second group, 

 in which the massive pylon is omitted. In these the 

 front is entirely changed ; instead of the pylon we have ] 

 now an open front to the temple with columns — the Greek 

 form of temple is approached (Fig. 9). 



I shall not have time to get to the astronomical side of 

 the Greek temples in this course of lectures, but I am 

 anxious to take this opportunity to refer to the transi- 

 tion from the Egyptian form of temple to the Greek one. 

 The east front of the Parthenon at Athens very much 

 more resembles the temple of Denderah than it does the 

 early Egyptian temple — that is to say, the eastern front is 

 open ; it is not closed by pylons. 



In many Egyptian temples, in the progress from one end 

 to the other, one goes through various halls of different 

 styles of architecture and different stages of magnificence. 

 But in the Greek temple this is entirely changed ; the 

 approach to the temple was outside, the temple represent- 

 ing, so to speak, the core, almost the Holy of Holies, of 

 the Egyptian temple, and any magnificent approach to it 



Fig. 9.— Pl.in of the Temple ol Denderah (from Lepsius), showing the absence 

 of a pylon. 



which could be given, was given from the outside. But 

 although they were quite different in their aspects, they 

 were quite similar in their objects. Some Egyptian 

 temples took hundreds of years to build ; the obelisks 

 were all in single blocks like that on the Embankment, 

 and all were brought for hundreds of miles down the Nile. 

 A temple meant to the Egyptians a very serious thing 

 indeed. 



So much, then, for a general idea of an ancient temple. 

 Another point is very striking in these temples, notably 

 in the chief one at Karnak. 



From one end of the temple to the other we find the 

 axis marked out by narrow apertures in the various 

 pylons, and many walls with doors crossing the axis. 

 There are 17 or 18 of these limiting apertures, and in the 

 other temple which is back to back to this one we have 

 pylons in exactly the same way limiting the light which 

 falls into the Holy of Holies or the Sanctuary. This 

 construction gives one a very definite impression that 

 every part of the temple was built to subserve a special 

 object, viz. to limit the sunlight which fell on its front into a 

 narrow beam, and to carry it to the other extremity of the 

 NO. 1123, VOL. 44 J 



temple— intQ the s.-inctuary— which extremity was always 

 blocked. There is no case in which the beam of light 

 can pass absolutely through the temple. 



The idea is strengthened by considering the construction 

 of the astronomical telescope. Although the Egyptians 

 knew nothing about telescopes, it would seem that they 

 had the same problem before them which we solve by a 

 special arrangement in the modern telescope— they wanted 

 to keep the light pure, and to lead it into their sanctuary, 

 as we lead it to the eyepiece. To keep the light that 

 passes into the eyepiece of a modern telescope pure, we 



king south east, from outside 



L,, .-^D> 10 i"" vMuu. .V iJ..^ji^.j;iaiih by the author). 



have between the object-glass and the eyepiece a series 

 of what are called diaphragms ; that is a series of rings 

 right along the tube, the inner diameters of the rings 

 being greatest close to the object-glass, and smallest 

 close to the eyepiece ; these diaphragms must so be 

 made, that all the light from the object-glass shall fall 

 upon the eyepiece, without loss, or reflection by the tube. 

 These apertures in the pylons and separating walls of 

 Egyptian temples exactly represent the diaphragms in 

 the modern telescope. J. Norman Lockyer. 



( To be continued) 



