DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0014
6 INTRODUCTION.
It is now generally considered as an established fact among archaeologists that the date of the earliest group
of Greek Doric temples may be carried back to within the limits of the seventh century B.C., but no one has
ventured to propose that even the archaic remains at Corinth can be dated earlier than the time of Cypselus, say
650 B.C. Notwithstanding this, it is impossible to suppose that such a temple, for instance, as that of Neptune at
Pactum, which if not quite, is probably nearly as old, was the first attempt to carry out such a design. Its external
order is so complete that, except in greater refinement, no essential alteration was made even in that of the
Parthenon, and its internal arrangements are as matured as in any other temple we know of. There is nothing
tentative about it. The same ordinance is found in the Temple of Jupiter at vEgina,1 at least a century after-
wards, and there is every reason to suppose it was repeated even in the Parthenon. Yet we ask in vain where are
the earlier examples ? Probably more than three or four centuries elapsed between the building of the Treasury of
Atreus at Mycenaa and the erection of the monolithic columns at Corinth ; and during the greater part at least of
that long period the Greeks were very nearly what they afterwards showed themselves to have been, and must
have had temples of considerable magnificence—the order at Corinth is far too complete to be a first attempt —
but of these no remains have been found from which the progress of the invention can be traced.
It may have been, as hinted above, that the proto-Doric of the Egyptians was carried forward to a much greater
similarity with the Grecian order, in the Delta, to the north of Memphis, and to a greater degree of perfection than
is displayed in the examples at Beni Hassan and in Nubia. It may consequently be, that when the Greeks first
adopted it they may have used brick, or rubble-stone work, for the core of their pillars, as these northern Egyptians
most probably did, and the earlier examples may consequently have perished by a natural process of decay. But
from whatever cause it may have arisen, the loss is certain, and it appears is now irremediable, and if this is so,
it is as much to be regretted as any other hiatus in the whole history of architectural art.
The application of the Doric order to the templar exigencies of the Greeks is a much simpler problem than
the invention of the order itself, and hardly requires the mechanical evidence of examples to render its progress
clear. Although there may have been, in some well-wooded parts of the country, wooden cells, in which the
images of the gods were enshrined, as there were wooden parish churches in this country, they must have been
rare. The country abounded in stone suitable for building purposes, and, from the time of the building of the
Treasury at Mycena3, long before any Image-temples existed, the Greeks had shown themselves perfectly capable
of cutting stone with precision, and using it scientifically for architectural purposes.
The first form the earliest Image-temples took, was naturally and appropriately, a cell, square in plan, and
probably a cube in dimensions internally. In these the light was admitted by the door and through that only.
The first improvement in this simple cell was to protect this essential opening from the weather. This was
effected by producing the side-walls, and terminating them in antaj or square piers,
and placing between them two round pillars of the Doric order, thus producing a
crypto-porticus of great beauty and appropriateness. The next step appears to have
been to free the antaa and to convert them into pillars, as was done in the temple of
Empcclocles, at Agrigentum,2 making it tetrastyle ; and another Avas to repeat these
four free standing columns behind the cell, as was done in the temple of Nike Apteros
at Athens,3 making it amphiprostyle. These two last-named temples are in the Ionic
style, and it is doubtful whether, in very early times, these porticoes were introduced
into any temples of the Doric order ; what was adopted in that style was to repeat
the crypto-porticus in the rear, so as to form an opisthodomos, as is found in the small
temple at Eleusis. The free standing pillars in these small Doric temples were
evidently introduced principally for ornament sake. They were not required so much
by the constructive necessities of their position, as that they were indispensable for
architectural effect. Without them the facades would have looked weak and poor to an inconceivable extent, while
they hardly impeded the admission of light to the cella through the doorway, Avhich it was their primary object to
protect. It was, probably, to ensure this that these simple temples always remained so small : that at Ilhamnus
was only twenty feet by thirty-two, and that at Eleusis twenty feet by forty over all.-1
With these simple elements the Greeks produced one of the most perfect temple forms that had ever been
invented.5 Its principal defects were, that from the paucity of the elements of which it was composed it hardly
TEMPLE OF THEMIS AT ItHAMNUS.
TEMPLE OF DIANA PROPYL^EA AT
ELEUSIS.
1 Ooekercll's sEgina and JBassa, pis. iii. to vi. 2 Hittorff, Architecture Antique de la Sicile, pis. xvii. and xix.
3 Principles of Athenian Architecture, Penrose, pi. xxvii. A Antiquities of Attica, chapter vii. pi. i.; and chap. v. pi. i.
5 Some fifty years ago a little Grecian Doric cell distyle in antis was erected at Calcutta, to contain a marble statue of Warren Hastings, and
nothing more beautiful of its class has in modern times been erected, or anything more appropriate to its purpose ; but even in that climate it was
found expedient to omit the screen wall with its doorway, so that sufficient light should reach the statue, in order that it might be perfectly seen.
It is now generally considered as an established fact among archaeologists that the date of the earliest group
of Greek Doric temples may be carried back to within the limits of the seventh century B.C., but no one has
ventured to propose that even the archaic remains at Corinth can be dated earlier than the time of Cypselus, say
650 B.C. Notwithstanding this, it is impossible to suppose that such a temple, for instance, as that of Neptune at
Pactum, which if not quite, is probably nearly as old, was the first attempt to carry out such a design. Its external
order is so complete that, except in greater refinement, no essential alteration was made even in that of the
Parthenon, and its internal arrangements are as matured as in any other temple we know of. There is nothing
tentative about it. The same ordinance is found in the Temple of Jupiter at vEgina,1 at least a century after-
wards, and there is every reason to suppose it was repeated even in the Parthenon. Yet we ask in vain where are
the earlier examples ? Probably more than three or four centuries elapsed between the building of the Treasury of
Atreus at Mycenaa and the erection of the monolithic columns at Corinth ; and during the greater part at least of
that long period the Greeks were very nearly what they afterwards showed themselves to have been, and must
have had temples of considerable magnificence—the order at Corinth is far too complete to be a first attempt —
but of these no remains have been found from which the progress of the invention can be traced.
It may have been, as hinted above, that the proto-Doric of the Egyptians was carried forward to a much greater
similarity with the Grecian order, in the Delta, to the north of Memphis, and to a greater degree of perfection than
is displayed in the examples at Beni Hassan and in Nubia. It may consequently be, that when the Greeks first
adopted it they may have used brick, or rubble-stone work, for the core of their pillars, as these northern Egyptians
most probably did, and the earlier examples may consequently have perished by a natural process of decay. But
from whatever cause it may have arisen, the loss is certain, and it appears is now irremediable, and if this is so,
it is as much to be regretted as any other hiatus in the whole history of architectural art.
The application of the Doric order to the templar exigencies of the Greeks is a much simpler problem than
the invention of the order itself, and hardly requires the mechanical evidence of examples to render its progress
clear. Although there may have been, in some well-wooded parts of the country, wooden cells, in which the
images of the gods were enshrined, as there were wooden parish churches in this country, they must have been
rare. The country abounded in stone suitable for building purposes, and, from the time of the building of the
Treasury at Mycena3, long before any Image-temples existed, the Greeks had shown themselves perfectly capable
of cutting stone with precision, and using it scientifically for architectural purposes.
The first form the earliest Image-temples took, was naturally and appropriately, a cell, square in plan, and
probably a cube in dimensions internally. In these the light was admitted by the door and through that only.
The first improvement in this simple cell was to protect this essential opening from the weather. This was
effected by producing the side-walls, and terminating them in antaj or square piers,
and placing between them two round pillars of the Doric order, thus producing a
crypto-porticus of great beauty and appropriateness. The next step appears to have
been to free the antaa and to convert them into pillars, as was done in the temple of
Empcclocles, at Agrigentum,2 making it tetrastyle ; and another Avas to repeat these
four free standing columns behind the cell, as was done in the temple of Nike Apteros
at Athens,3 making it amphiprostyle. These two last-named temples are in the Ionic
style, and it is doubtful whether, in very early times, these porticoes were introduced
into any temples of the Doric order ; what was adopted in that style was to repeat
the crypto-porticus in the rear, so as to form an opisthodomos, as is found in the small
temple at Eleusis. The free standing pillars in these small Doric temples were
evidently introduced principally for ornament sake. They were not required so much
by the constructive necessities of their position, as that they were indispensable for
architectural effect. Without them the facades would have looked weak and poor to an inconceivable extent, while
they hardly impeded the admission of light to the cella through the doorway, Avhich it was their primary object to
protect. It was, probably, to ensure this that these simple temples always remained so small : that at Ilhamnus
was only twenty feet by thirty-two, and that at Eleusis twenty feet by forty over all.-1
With these simple elements the Greeks produced one of the most perfect temple forms that had ever been
invented.5 Its principal defects were, that from the paucity of the elements of which it was composed it hardly
TEMPLE OF THEMIS AT ItHAMNUS.
TEMPLE OF DIANA PROPYL^EA AT
ELEUSIS.
1 Ooekercll's sEgina and JBassa, pis. iii. to vi. 2 Hittorff, Architecture Antique de la Sicile, pis. xvii. and xix.
3 Principles of Athenian Architecture, Penrose, pi. xxvii. A Antiquities of Attica, chapter vii. pi. i.; and chap. v. pi. i.
5 Some fifty years ago a little Grecian Doric cell distyle in antis was erected at Calcutta, to contain a marble statue of Warren Hastings, and
nothing more beautiful of its class has in modern times been erected, or anything more appropriate to its purpose ; but even in that climate it was
found expedient to omit the screen wall with its doorway, so that sufficient light should reach the statue, in order that it might be perfectly seen.