however, to ascertain that the portico was hexastyle, and the columns
about four feet and a half in diameter: those on the south side are
so completely buried that no traces of them whatever are visible;
but from those which are still in their places on the opposite side we
were led to suppose that the number of columns was no more than
ten, instead of eleven, which is the usual proportion in peripteral
temples according to the rules laid down by Vitruvius *. As the
number of lateral intercolumniations would not, with this disposition,
be double the number of those in the front, the whole length of the
temple in question could not be equal to twice its breadth, which
we accordingly find to be the case: and it is probable, therefore, that
the aedes, or body of the temple, was built before the other parts of
it, and that the columns and porticoes were added at a subsequent
period, and the number of pillars regulated by the dimensions of
what was already constructed. At the same time the width of
the intercolumniations does not appear to have been greater than
seven feet, which is scarcely more (as compared with the 1 size of
the shaft) than the shortest space allowed between columns in Greek
and Koman architecturef. There are no columns, at either end,
* There are, however, many exceptions to this rule, which does not appear to have
been by any means generally adopted by the Greeks. The number of columns on the
flanks of temples seem to have been usually (at the same time) more than double the
number in front, and seldom less by more than one, the proportion given by Vitruvius.
y The pycnostyle is the least intercolunmiation allowed by Vitruvius, and is one diameter
and a half of the column a t the bottom of the shaft; but neither this proportion*
nor that o f the systyle, which is equal to two diameters of the column, are recommended
by him for general adoption: since “ the matrons (he adds) who go to their supplications,
mutually supporting each other, cannot pass through the intercolumniations
betwecp.tjie ante, in t}ii§ tepjple; and the walls.of the aedes.must;
have been continued from the angle till they reached the jambs of
the doorways.. If the statue of the.deity looked towards the west (as
recommended by Vitruvius, chap, v.)* it must have been placed in
the pronaos, and not in the cella, to have been seen through the
doorway from without; for the wall which divides the cella from the
pronaos continued too far across the interior to have allowed of any
door in the centre of it, opening from one of these to the other, (as
will appear by the plan;) and it would be absurd to look for a communication
between them in any other part of the wall. Under this
disposition, had the statue been in the cella, and its face turned
towards the west, it must have looked against the wall in question ;
and coqld not have been seen at all from the western front of the
templef, From the portions of Doric entablature which we per-
(those of the pycnostyle and systyle dimensions are intended) unless they separate and
walk.'in ranks. The view of the entrance, and o f the .statues themsel ves, is also obstructed
when the columns are placed so little a p a r t; and the ambulatory, whose width is
governed by the interval between the columns, is inconvenient from its being so narrow.“
—Wilkins’s Vitruvius, vol. i. p. 11 ,h|2 . .
* “ The temples of the gods ought to be so placed that the statue^ which has its station
in the cella, should, if there be nothing to interfere with such ¿ disposition, face the
west i (in order that those who come, to make oblations and;offer sacrifices may. face the
east, when their view is directed towards the statue: and those who come to impose upon,
themselves the performance of vows, may have the temple and the east immediately
before, them. Thus the statues they regard will appear as i f rising from the east and
looking down upon the suppliants.”-—(Wilkins’s Vitruvius, vol. i. p. 79.)
+ The most ancient position of temples appears to have been east and west, with the
entrance, or frontispiece, towards the west ; and-the-statue* of the deity looking towards
the same p o in t; so that they who worshipped should have their faces turned towards the
rising sun. The contrary aspect was, however, adopted a t an early period, and appears
to have been universal in later ages whenever local causes did not interfere with such an
arrangement.