DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1519#0137
In other words,—
PROPORTIONS OF REMAINS BY THE PORT. 87
The semi-breadth of front . . . 22*495
Plus two semi-diameters of columns . . 3'240
«2
25-735
Gives for central columniations . . . 8"578, to compare
with 8-541, as shown on the Plate.
From the columniation thus gained is derived the height of the column, which is made nearly equal to this
dimension x 2. Thus measured height 17'233-^2=8616 ; and, in consequence, the symmetry results of equality
of height of column to the breadth on plan from the centre of an ordinary column to the centre of a third
beyond. It is manifest that if this ratio of height of column to columniation were first decided on, columniation
might be derived from division of the architrave, and the diameter of the column be left free for future
determination by derivation from the height of column thus obtained independently.
Before proceeding further, I adduce the examples which makes me satisfied to accept the approximate
solution of the proportion of the column.
The pair of columns that remain by the Port of iEgina are ruins of a temple larger than that of Jupiter
Panhellenius, and probably of later date. It is remarkable how nearly they agree with the rule that we have
obtained a glimpse of, in having upper and lower diameter of shaft, and diameter of echinus, proportioned
as 3, 4, and 5,—
Upper diameter of shaft ....
Lower diameter of shaft . . . .
Diameter of echinus .....
The greatest divarication is in the lower diameter, the part most exposed to injury, and of which the measurement
may therefore be least to be relied on; apart from this consideration, the difference would be considerable.
In these instances, therefore, upper diameter is exceeded by lower, and lower diameter by that of the echinus
by the same absolute dimension; or we may say, there is twice the absolute difference between top of shaft and
echinus that there is between foot of shaft and echinus. The lower diameter, that is deducible from the echinus
by ratio 5 : 4, is 4216, and this is very exactly one-sixth of the height of the column :
Height of column.....25-27 -*• 6 = 4-211.
Again, this calculated diameter would bring out a ratio to intercolumn of 2 : 3 with great exactness.
Columniation ...... 1O500
Diameter of column ... . . 4-211 -*- 2 = 2-105.
3145 -
- 3 = 1-048
4-298 -
- 4 = 1-074
5-270 -
- 5 = 1-054
Intercolumn......6-289 -*- 3 = 2-0967.
On comparing the columniation with the height of the column, it appears that this height would, as nearly as
may be, equal the dimension on plan comprising two columniations plus two semi-diameters; in other words, three
diameters, and the two included intercolumn s.
10-50 x 2 = 21-0 + 4-211 = 25-211, to compare with 25-27 ;
or, taking the diameter as 4-298 = 25-298, „ „
This is the form of symmetry of height, with plan of columns, that was adopted in the Parthenon.
It seems certain, however, from the dimensions of the stylobate, that the iEginetan colums were those of a
Pronaos ; and if the temple was hexastyle, no third column would be grouped with them, being distyle in antis,
and the value of the symmetry in this form would fail; it was, however, probably saved, as was the case at
Bassse, by comprising an anta.
Guided by experience derived from study of temples of the perfected style, we now compare the height of
PROPORTIONS OF REMAINS BY THE PORT. 87
The semi-breadth of front . . . 22*495
Plus two semi-diameters of columns . . 3'240
«2
25-735
Gives for central columniations . . . 8"578, to compare
with 8-541, as shown on the Plate.
From the columniation thus gained is derived the height of the column, which is made nearly equal to this
dimension x 2. Thus measured height 17'233-^2=8616 ; and, in consequence, the symmetry results of equality
of height of column to the breadth on plan from the centre of an ordinary column to the centre of a third
beyond. It is manifest that if this ratio of height of column to columniation were first decided on, columniation
might be derived from division of the architrave, and the diameter of the column be left free for future
determination by derivation from the height of column thus obtained independently.
Before proceeding further, I adduce the examples which makes me satisfied to accept the approximate
solution of the proportion of the column.
The pair of columns that remain by the Port of iEgina are ruins of a temple larger than that of Jupiter
Panhellenius, and probably of later date. It is remarkable how nearly they agree with the rule that we have
obtained a glimpse of, in having upper and lower diameter of shaft, and diameter of echinus, proportioned
as 3, 4, and 5,—
Upper diameter of shaft ....
Lower diameter of shaft . . . .
Diameter of echinus .....
The greatest divarication is in the lower diameter, the part most exposed to injury, and of which the measurement
may therefore be least to be relied on; apart from this consideration, the difference would be considerable.
In these instances, therefore, upper diameter is exceeded by lower, and lower diameter by that of the echinus
by the same absolute dimension; or we may say, there is twice the absolute difference between top of shaft and
echinus that there is between foot of shaft and echinus. The lower diameter, that is deducible from the echinus
by ratio 5 : 4, is 4216, and this is very exactly one-sixth of the height of the column :
Height of column.....25-27 -*• 6 = 4-211.
Again, this calculated diameter would bring out a ratio to intercolumn of 2 : 3 with great exactness.
Columniation ...... 1O500
Diameter of column ... . . 4-211 -*- 2 = 2-105.
3145 -
- 3 = 1-048
4-298 -
- 4 = 1-074
5-270 -
- 5 = 1-054
Intercolumn......6-289 -*- 3 = 2-0967.
On comparing the columniation with the height of the column, it appears that this height would, as nearly as
may be, equal the dimension on plan comprising two columniations plus two semi-diameters; in other words, three
diameters, and the two included intercolumn s.
10-50 x 2 = 21-0 + 4-211 = 25-211, to compare with 25-27 ;
or, taking the diameter as 4-298 = 25-298, „ „
This is the form of symmetry of height, with plan of columns, that was adopted in the Parthenon.
It seems certain, however, from the dimensions of the stylobate, that the iEginetan colums were those of a
Pronaos ; and if the temple was hexastyle, no third column would be grouped with them, being distyle in antis,
and the value of the symmetry in this form would fail; it was, however, probably saved, as was the case at
Bassse, by comprising an anta.
Guided by experience derived from study of temples of the perfected style, we now compare the height of