DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0015
THE ORIGIN OF THE DORIC ORDER.
6.
TEMPLE OF NEMESIS, E1IAMNUS.
admitted of any progressive development, or of any additional magnificence, except by its increase in size, and
that the Greeks seem always to have shrunk from, and artistically they were no doubt right. A magnified temple
of Themis at Rhamnus would not have been more beautiful, and could hardly have escaped being vulgar.
The next step in the invention was a giant's stride; it consisted in placing six free-standing pillars in front
of the crypto-porticus of the old form, and as many behind, and joining these two by a screen of pillars, twelve or
thirteen, extending along the flanks, and so enclosing the whole of
the old temple with its pronaos and posticum in a screen of
columns, which thus became practically, in an architectural sense,
the temple itself, as is shown in the annexed plan of the temple of
Nemesis at Rhamnus. This, though neither one of the oldest or
finest, is one of the most complete, and contains all the elements
of the hexastyle Doric temple, which remained stereotyped during
the whole of the great age of Greek architecture.
Strange though it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that we
have no knowledge of the time when this capital improvement
Avas introduced into the form of the Greek temples, nor any hint anywhere of even the traditional person to
whom the invention was ascribed. Neither Pausanias nor Vitruvius nor Pliny refer to it as an invention at all;
they seem to consider that Greek temples of certain dimensions were always peripteral, and, being unable to
conceive any other state of things as ever existing, they did not care to inquire when the form was first
introduced, but seemed to consider its origin as lost in the depth of primordial antiquity.
As the Greeks themselves have not cared to enlighten us on the subject, we naturally turn to Egypt to see
whether the forms of any of the temples found there afford us any aid in our attempts to solve these problems.
As it happens, we do there find a class of temples called Mammeisi, which have peristyles surrounding small cells,
and in plan, at least, nearly identical with those afterwards erected in Greece. If Sir Gardner Wilkinson
is to be depended upon, the use of these peripteral temples became rare after the middle of the eighteenth dynasty
—for reasons which he gives j but he sees no reason for doubting their existence from a very early age, down to
about 1500 years b.c.1 It is true they are now rare, but they were small and frail, and the materials of which
they were composed singularly well suited, from their form, for appropriation to modern purposes. Sir Gardner
quotes only three, but they may have been much more numerous, and the existence of only one, if its date were
perfectly ascertained, would suffice for the argument.
If this were so,—though it must be admitted that the facts are hardly ascertained with sufficient precision
to build much upon them,—the only logical inference would be that the Greeks saw this form in Egypt, and
perceiving its adaptability for their own purposes borrowed it from that country, but applied it in their own, with
a degree of originality and of appropriateness of detail which may well make us forget that it was not invented
by the country where it grew to such an unrivalled degree of perfection.
There still remains one important question to which a satisfactory answer has yet to be suggested. Why
did the Greeks adopt the peripteral arrangement ? It was not wanted for any constructive purpose, nor even when
perfected did it answer any mechanical conditions. It was not a verandah adapted to the protection of the servants
of the temple, or loiterers from the weather. The space between the pillars and the wall was, in the best and
earliest examples, too narrow to be suitable for processions, nor does it seem to have been arranged for that purpose.
May it not have been that, struck with its beauty as employed in Egypt, the Greeks felt impelled to use it at home?
Visitors to Egypt could hardly fail to be struck by the sublimity of the long colonnades, not only the hypostyle
halls, but in the courts of the temples there, and may have sought to reproduce like effects in their own country.
Another suggestion that seems to meet the exigencies of the case is that the peristyle was adopted to
protect the paintings on the external walls of the cella, and to heighten their effect by contrast with the plain
whiteness of their own monochromatic fluted shafts. No one, probably, now doubts that the temples of the Greeks
were richly coloured externally. The traces of it, that have been found in Sicily,2 and even in the Parthenon
itself,3 have quite set that question at rest. It is true the colour that has hitherto been found has only been on
the architectural mouldings where they were protected from the weather, but it is impossible to conceive that
the Greeks would have heightened one part of the temple so brilliantly and left other parts, where it was more
required and more appropriate, as plain surfaces. In the whole temple there was no part so suited for a display
of colour as the external walls of the cella. It was the only part, indeed, where anything like historical or figure
painting could be introduced with effect, and it would be strange indeed if the Greeks did not avail themselves
1 Sir G. Wilkinson, Arch, of Ancient Egypt, p. 79, pi. i. fig. 29, 30, 3lA.
2 Hitfcorff and Zanth, Architecture Antique de la Sicile, folio, Paris, 1870. Le Temple d'Empedocks a Selinunle, Hittorff, 1851.
3 Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture, pis. xxiii. to xxvi.
6.
TEMPLE OF NEMESIS, E1IAMNUS.
admitted of any progressive development, or of any additional magnificence, except by its increase in size, and
that the Greeks seem always to have shrunk from, and artistically they were no doubt right. A magnified temple
of Themis at Rhamnus would not have been more beautiful, and could hardly have escaped being vulgar.
The next step in the invention was a giant's stride; it consisted in placing six free-standing pillars in front
of the crypto-porticus of the old form, and as many behind, and joining these two by a screen of pillars, twelve or
thirteen, extending along the flanks, and so enclosing the whole of
the old temple with its pronaos and posticum in a screen of
columns, which thus became practically, in an architectural sense,
the temple itself, as is shown in the annexed plan of the temple of
Nemesis at Rhamnus. This, though neither one of the oldest or
finest, is one of the most complete, and contains all the elements
of the hexastyle Doric temple, which remained stereotyped during
the whole of the great age of Greek architecture.
Strange though it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that we
have no knowledge of the time when this capital improvement
Avas introduced into the form of the Greek temples, nor any hint anywhere of even the traditional person to
whom the invention was ascribed. Neither Pausanias nor Vitruvius nor Pliny refer to it as an invention at all;
they seem to consider that Greek temples of certain dimensions were always peripteral, and, being unable to
conceive any other state of things as ever existing, they did not care to inquire when the form was first
introduced, but seemed to consider its origin as lost in the depth of primordial antiquity.
As the Greeks themselves have not cared to enlighten us on the subject, we naturally turn to Egypt to see
whether the forms of any of the temples found there afford us any aid in our attempts to solve these problems.
As it happens, we do there find a class of temples called Mammeisi, which have peristyles surrounding small cells,
and in plan, at least, nearly identical with those afterwards erected in Greece. If Sir Gardner Wilkinson
is to be depended upon, the use of these peripteral temples became rare after the middle of the eighteenth dynasty
—for reasons which he gives j but he sees no reason for doubting their existence from a very early age, down to
about 1500 years b.c.1 It is true they are now rare, but they were small and frail, and the materials of which
they were composed singularly well suited, from their form, for appropriation to modern purposes. Sir Gardner
quotes only three, but they may have been much more numerous, and the existence of only one, if its date were
perfectly ascertained, would suffice for the argument.
If this were so,—though it must be admitted that the facts are hardly ascertained with sufficient precision
to build much upon them,—the only logical inference would be that the Greeks saw this form in Egypt, and
perceiving its adaptability for their own purposes borrowed it from that country, but applied it in their own, with
a degree of originality and of appropriateness of detail which may well make us forget that it was not invented
by the country where it grew to such an unrivalled degree of perfection.
There still remains one important question to which a satisfactory answer has yet to be suggested. Why
did the Greeks adopt the peripteral arrangement ? It was not wanted for any constructive purpose, nor even when
perfected did it answer any mechanical conditions. It was not a verandah adapted to the protection of the servants
of the temple, or loiterers from the weather. The space between the pillars and the wall was, in the best and
earliest examples, too narrow to be suitable for processions, nor does it seem to have been arranged for that purpose.
May it not have been that, struck with its beauty as employed in Egypt, the Greeks felt impelled to use it at home?
Visitors to Egypt could hardly fail to be struck by the sublimity of the long colonnades, not only the hypostyle
halls, but in the courts of the temples there, and may have sought to reproduce like effects in their own country.
Another suggestion that seems to meet the exigencies of the case is that the peristyle was adopted to
protect the paintings on the external walls of the cella, and to heighten their effect by contrast with the plain
whiteness of their own monochromatic fluted shafts. No one, probably, now doubts that the temples of the Greeks
were richly coloured externally. The traces of it, that have been found in Sicily,2 and even in the Parthenon
itself,3 have quite set that question at rest. It is true the colour that has hitherto been found has only been on
the architectural mouldings where they were protected from the weather, but it is impossible to conceive that
the Greeks would have heightened one part of the temple so brilliantly and left other parts, where it was more
required and more appropriate, as plain surfaces. In the whole temple there was no part so suited for a display
of colour as the external walls of the cella. It was the only part, indeed, where anything like historical or figure
painting could be introduced with effect, and it would be strange indeed if the Greeks did not avail themselves
1 Sir G. Wilkinson, Arch, of Ancient Egypt, p. 79, pi. i. fig. 29, 30, 3lA.
2 Hitfcorff and Zanth, Architecture Antique de la Sicile, folio, Paris, 1870. Le Temple d'Empedocks a Selinunle, Hittorff, 1851.
3 Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture, pis. xxiii. to xxvi.