DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1519#0143
PROPORTIONS OF THE TEMPLE AT CORINTH. 93
As we have seen, the lower diameter does not measure the height of the peristyle column either at iEgina,
the Tbeseum, or Bassse.
The height of the abacus is just l-7th of its width; in many later examples, in the Pronaos at .ZEgina, in
some of the capitals of Bassse, and in the normal of the peristyle of the Parthenon, the favourite proportion is
1 : 6. The Corinthian example, therefore, is relatively flatter as well as wider.
The required rectangular symmetry of the columns on the front is gained by giving them a height equal
to the dimension from the axis of the column to the nearest margin of the third beyond. According to the
plates, which are without figured dimensions, the same symmetry applies to the ordinary columniations of the
flank, and as no contracted intercolumn is concerned here, it follows that, as at iEgina, the ordinary spacing of
the flank columns was closer than on the fronts.
According to this rule, the ordinary flank columniation would be about 7482. As thus :
Height of column 23714 less 1^ diameter of column 8-749 = 14-965-f-2 = 7-482.
We have now the elements for a fair conjecture that the temple, like that at iEgina, was set out on plan
by a double square, and, like that, had twelve columns on flank :
Diameter of column, 5833 x 12 .......... 69996
Pair of intercolumns by the angle, as given on Plate, 6-645 + 7'208 = . . . . 13-853
The same for the other end........... 13-853
Ordinary intercolumn of flank, as deduced, 7'482 x 7 to complete 11 = . . . . 52374
150-076
Add, for joint width of two steps at either end ........ 4-000
Conjectural length of temple on lowest step ........ 154-076
154-076 -+- 2 = 77'038, for width of front measured on lowest step,
to compare with width of top step, as obtained ; viz.
72-946 + 4000, for width of steps as above = 76-946 ; agreement, which
may be taken as absolute.
These conjectural dimensions have the same approximation to a simple ratio to the Hecatompedon, that
we have observed in the breadth and length of the iEginetan temple ; the exact limitation again evades us.
Arguing from the dimensions and spacing of the guttse tablets, the triglyph was proportioned to the metope
in breadth, as 5 : 7, or a degree nearer to equality than the proportion 5 : 8, which obtains at iEgina.
We are further quite safe in assuming that the height of the frieze was nearly equal to that of the
architrave, and if we were treating of remains of a later date, we should have the means now of restoring several
other main proportions. It is, however, high time to stop, for in the period during which the artist was feeling
after the beautiful, and approaching to the theory of essential propriety, it is manifest that he struck sometimes
beside the mark that at last was so happily attained, but not attained till afterwards. If, therefore, we are to
track him without aid of full records, it must also be without the guidance of those principles, which, when we
have once obtained a glimpse of, it is neither agreeable nor advantageous to have to struggle to forget, though
only provisionally.
Here, then, I bring to a conclusion the observations on the proportions of the Doric Temples, for the exposition
of which an opportunity has been so liberally afforded me. I have been allowed to aim my shafts, like another
Teucer, from the shelter of the ample shield of the iEacid hero. I can only hope that enough of my shots have
told, to compensate for those that have overshot, or swerved, or fallen short.
One word remains to be said in palliation of the latter, or of the inevitable incompleteness of my memoir,
whether as expository of a theory of architectural proportion or of its application. The subject could not have
been taken up at all but for the guidance derived from the materials for study provided in the detailed publication
* B B
As we have seen, the lower diameter does not measure the height of the peristyle column either at iEgina,
the Tbeseum, or Bassse.
The height of the abacus is just l-7th of its width; in many later examples, in the Pronaos at .ZEgina, in
some of the capitals of Bassse, and in the normal of the peristyle of the Parthenon, the favourite proportion is
1 : 6. The Corinthian example, therefore, is relatively flatter as well as wider.
The required rectangular symmetry of the columns on the front is gained by giving them a height equal
to the dimension from the axis of the column to the nearest margin of the third beyond. According to the
plates, which are without figured dimensions, the same symmetry applies to the ordinary columniations of the
flank, and as no contracted intercolumn is concerned here, it follows that, as at iEgina, the ordinary spacing of
the flank columns was closer than on the fronts.
According to this rule, the ordinary flank columniation would be about 7482. As thus :
Height of column 23714 less 1^ diameter of column 8-749 = 14-965-f-2 = 7-482.
We have now the elements for a fair conjecture that the temple, like that at iEgina, was set out on plan
by a double square, and, like that, had twelve columns on flank :
Diameter of column, 5833 x 12 .......... 69996
Pair of intercolumns by the angle, as given on Plate, 6-645 + 7'208 = . . . . 13-853
The same for the other end........... 13-853
Ordinary intercolumn of flank, as deduced, 7'482 x 7 to complete 11 = . . . . 52374
150-076
Add, for joint width of two steps at either end ........ 4-000
Conjectural length of temple on lowest step ........ 154-076
154-076 -+- 2 = 77'038, for width of front measured on lowest step,
to compare with width of top step, as obtained ; viz.
72-946 + 4000, for width of steps as above = 76-946 ; agreement, which
may be taken as absolute.
These conjectural dimensions have the same approximation to a simple ratio to the Hecatompedon, that
we have observed in the breadth and length of the iEginetan temple ; the exact limitation again evades us.
Arguing from the dimensions and spacing of the guttse tablets, the triglyph was proportioned to the metope
in breadth, as 5 : 7, or a degree nearer to equality than the proportion 5 : 8, which obtains at iEgina.
We are further quite safe in assuming that the height of the frieze was nearly equal to that of the
architrave, and if we were treating of remains of a later date, we should have the means now of restoring several
other main proportions. It is, however, high time to stop, for in the period during which the artist was feeling
after the beautiful, and approaching to the theory of essential propriety, it is manifest that he struck sometimes
beside the mark that at last was so happily attained, but not attained till afterwards. If, therefore, we are to
track him without aid of full records, it must also be without the guidance of those principles, which, when we
have once obtained a glimpse of, it is neither agreeable nor advantageous to have to struggle to forget, though
only provisionally.
Here, then, I bring to a conclusion the observations on the proportions of the Doric Temples, for the exposition
of which an opportunity has been so liberally afforded me. I have been allowed to aim my shafts, like another
Teucer, from the shelter of the ample shield of the iEacid hero. I can only hope that enough of my shots have
told, to compensate for those that have overshot, or swerved, or fallen short.
One word remains to be said in palliation of the latter, or of the inevitable incompleteness of my memoir,
whether as expository of a theory of architectural proportion or of its application. The subject could not have
been taken up at all but for the guidance derived from the materials for study provided in the detailed publication
* B B