DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0025
ERECHTHEUM. 17
described by Stuart in his first volume on the Antiquities of that city. It was tetrastyle and amphiprostyle, and
notwithstanding this it measured only 40 feet 8 inches in length by 18 feet 7 inches across. The little temple
of the Wingless Victory, in front of the Propyleea, was also amphiprostyle, but was even smaller, measuring only
16 by 24 feet, but was a gem of beauty, and with its sculptured frieze, when perfect, must have been worthy
of the situation where it was placed. It was erected apparently in 469 b.c. The third, that of Empedocles
at Sclinus, is of about the same dimensions (16 by 23 feet), but it has only four pillars in front, with a
slightly recessed porch. If correctly ascribed to Empedocles it must be even more modern, as he died only in
444 b.c. Its most remarkable peculiarity is that the Ionic pillars of its facade are surmounted by a Doric
entablature, with triglyphs and all the usual features of that order. So far as is known at present it is unique
in that respect, but the arrangement may, in ancient times, have been more common. The whole efforts of the
Ionian architects, in early ages, were directed to an attempt to elaborate out of the Assyrian style an order which
would assimilate, without discord, with their own original Doric, and during the process it would be strange
if they did not sometimes lean a little too much to one side or the other and mix up features which afterwards
became quite incompatible.
ERECHTHEUM.
By far the most important, as well as interesting, example of the Ionic order in Europe is the double
temple in the Acropolis at Athens, known as the house of Erechtheus.1 Yet even it is not large (75 by 38 feet)
without the northern and southern porches ; but it is unsurpassed for elegance of detail and for appropriateness
of design. Though the purposes to which the various parts were applied were numerous and diverse, every
part is made to tell its own tale with a distinctness hardly to be found in any edifice of its class in any part of
the world ; still the whole are so blended together as to form a beautiful and harmonious group, without any
incongruity in any part.
It seems impossible now to ascertain how much of the irregularity of its design arose from its having been
erected on the lines of the original house of Erechtheus, which was burnt by the Persians. Nor do any remains exist
which would enable us to say whether the original house was in the Doric or Ionic style; most probably the latter ;
and it may also have been partially in wood, as its being so would account for certain peculiarities in its design
which are not otherwise easily explained. Be this as it may, what really interests the student of architecture
most in this temple is, that it contains two, probably three, examples of the Ionic order, differing in detail and
in proportions, but not to such an extent as to be incongruous, while it is difficult to say which is the
most beautiful. None of them have ever been surpassed.
The pillars of the northern portico are nine diameters in height, and have bases more elaborately enriched
than any others known, unless we may now except the six central ones of the principal front at Didyme; but
some of these last, especially those with twelve sides, though very rich, are of very questionable taste. Like all the
pillars of this temple, those of the northern portico have the beautiful honeysuckle band or necking below the volutes
which is peculiar to this temple, not being found elsewhere; and the volutes themselves are more elaborate and
more beautiful than any other known examples. The pillars of the eastern portico are nine and a half diameters
in height, and are simpler in all their details. Those of the west front were apparently of the same proportions
as those of the eastern portico, but varied in detail, though what the difference was it is difficult now to say,
as they have perished entirely, and were not drawn with sufficient care while still in situ. This little temple
is in consequence a most instructive example of the freedom, it may almost be said playfulness, with which
the Greeks could treat the designs of their temples when using the Ionic order, and not aiming at simple
grandeur, which seems to have been the ruling idea aimed at in the erection of the neighbouring Parthenon.
The truth of the matter seems to be that the Greeks in Europe never considered the Ionic order sufficiently
severe and monumental to be used as an external ornament for their temples, but as an internal order they used
it extensively and with the best effect. Nothing can be happier than the mode on which it is introduced in the
Propylsea, at Athens and Eleusis, where it is seen combined with the Doric forms of the exterior, and where each
is employed exactly in the manner to which it was best suited. The same too was probably the effect in the
Temple of Minerva at Tegea. In the Temple of Apollo at Bassa? it is so employed with the happiest effect,
and may have been so in other places now too completely destroyed for its presence to be detected.
It was employed in the Parthenon, as there seems no doubt that the roof of the opisthodomos was supported
by four columns of the Ionic order, probably of the same tall proportions as those of the Propykea, or ten
diameters in height.2 This being the ease, wc cannot but wonder why they were not also introduced into the
1 OUrifia'tipexdetov KaXov/Mevov. Pausanias, lib. i. cli. 2(J. ~ Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture, pi. 32,
described by Stuart in his first volume on the Antiquities of that city. It was tetrastyle and amphiprostyle, and
notwithstanding this it measured only 40 feet 8 inches in length by 18 feet 7 inches across. The little temple
of the Wingless Victory, in front of the Propyleea, was also amphiprostyle, but was even smaller, measuring only
16 by 24 feet, but was a gem of beauty, and with its sculptured frieze, when perfect, must have been worthy
of the situation where it was placed. It was erected apparently in 469 b.c. The third, that of Empedocles
at Sclinus, is of about the same dimensions (16 by 23 feet), but it has only four pillars in front, with a
slightly recessed porch. If correctly ascribed to Empedocles it must be even more modern, as he died only in
444 b.c. Its most remarkable peculiarity is that the Ionic pillars of its facade are surmounted by a Doric
entablature, with triglyphs and all the usual features of that order. So far as is known at present it is unique
in that respect, but the arrangement may, in ancient times, have been more common. The whole efforts of the
Ionian architects, in early ages, were directed to an attempt to elaborate out of the Assyrian style an order which
would assimilate, without discord, with their own original Doric, and during the process it would be strange
if they did not sometimes lean a little too much to one side or the other and mix up features which afterwards
became quite incompatible.
ERECHTHEUM.
By far the most important, as well as interesting, example of the Ionic order in Europe is the double
temple in the Acropolis at Athens, known as the house of Erechtheus.1 Yet even it is not large (75 by 38 feet)
without the northern and southern porches ; but it is unsurpassed for elegance of detail and for appropriateness
of design. Though the purposes to which the various parts were applied were numerous and diverse, every
part is made to tell its own tale with a distinctness hardly to be found in any edifice of its class in any part of
the world ; still the whole are so blended together as to form a beautiful and harmonious group, without any
incongruity in any part.
It seems impossible now to ascertain how much of the irregularity of its design arose from its having been
erected on the lines of the original house of Erechtheus, which was burnt by the Persians. Nor do any remains exist
which would enable us to say whether the original house was in the Doric or Ionic style; most probably the latter ;
and it may also have been partially in wood, as its being so would account for certain peculiarities in its design
which are not otherwise easily explained. Be this as it may, what really interests the student of architecture
most in this temple is, that it contains two, probably three, examples of the Ionic order, differing in detail and
in proportions, but not to such an extent as to be incongruous, while it is difficult to say which is the
most beautiful. None of them have ever been surpassed.
The pillars of the northern portico are nine diameters in height, and have bases more elaborately enriched
than any others known, unless we may now except the six central ones of the principal front at Didyme; but
some of these last, especially those with twelve sides, though very rich, are of very questionable taste. Like all the
pillars of this temple, those of the northern portico have the beautiful honeysuckle band or necking below the volutes
which is peculiar to this temple, not being found elsewhere; and the volutes themselves are more elaborate and
more beautiful than any other known examples. The pillars of the eastern portico are nine and a half diameters
in height, and are simpler in all their details. Those of the west front were apparently of the same proportions
as those of the eastern portico, but varied in detail, though what the difference was it is difficult now to say,
as they have perished entirely, and were not drawn with sufficient care while still in situ. This little temple
is in consequence a most instructive example of the freedom, it may almost be said playfulness, with which
the Greeks could treat the designs of their temples when using the Ionic order, and not aiming at simple
grandeur, which seems to have been the ruling idea aimed at in the erection of the neighbouring Parthenon.
The truth of the matter seems to be that the Greeks in Europe never considered the Ionic order sufficiently
severe and monumental to be used as an external ornament for their temples, but as an internal order they used
it extensively and with the best effect. Nothing can be happier than the mode on which it is introduced in the
Propylsea, at Athens and Eleusis, where it is seen combined with the Doric forms of the exterior, and where each
is employed exactly in the manner to which it was best suited. The same too was probably the effect in the
Temple of Minerva at Tegea. In the Temple of Apollo at Bassa? it is so employed with the happiest effect,
and may have been so in other places now too completely destroyed for its presence to be detected.
It was employed in the Parthenon, as there seems no doubt that the roof of the opisthodomos was supported
by four columns of the Ionic order, probably of the same tall proportions as those of the Propykea, or ten
diameters in height.2 This being the ease, wc cannot but wonder why they were not also introduced into the
1 OUrifia'tipexdetov KaXov/Mevov. Pausanias, lib. i. cli. 2(J. ~ Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture, pi. 32,