DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8#0020
( 19 J]
year 1676, that the rebuilt temple was altogether of white
marble. This much be,ing sufficiently proved ; before
I draw the inference in contemplation, I have next to
prove, the original temple was amphiprostyle, and hex-
astyle. Here I have to combat an apparent opposition»
from the definitions of Vitruv¡us, who, in book in. Chap.
i, defines a prostyle, a temple that had four columns
in front and no other external columns ; and the amphi-
prostyle, a temple with four in front and four in postico^
and the cell in the middle, with a pronaos at each end of
the temple*
That this is the import Of the definitions, is not to
be denied : yet it is not hence to be inferred, that only
tetrastyles could be called prostyle and amphiprostyle j
since Vitruvius himself records an instance of a temple
dedicated to Ceres and Proserpine at Eleusis, of the
greatest celebrity, excessive magnitude, built entirely of
marble, and classed for it's magnificence and splendor
with the Ephesian Diana, and the Olympian at Athens ;
and yet had no external columns at all, but it's excel-
lence and splendor were confined to the peristyle cell^
which was hypethre : this temple, says Vitruvius, "in after
times was decorated with front columns by Phyíon, and
made a prostyle :" and jn proof that Phyíon erected
before it more than four columns, the front line of it was
above an hundred English feet in extent, as may be ga-
thered from the verbal description of it by Vitruvius,
who in his preface to 7th book, speaking of the Olympian
at Athens, proclaims it's cell to be large, [cellae magnitu-
dinem); but just after calls the cell of this Ceres and
Proserpine immensely large, {celiami immani magnitudine),
of coursé much larger than that of the Olympian
which in Mr. Stuart's plate has98 feet 9 inches English;
C and
year 1676, that the rebuilt temple was altogether of white
marble. This much be,ing sufficiently proved ; before
I draw the inference in contemplation, I have next to
prove, the original temple was amphiprostyle, and hex-
astyle. Here I have to combat an apparent opposition»
from the definitions of Vitruv¡us, who, in book in. Chap.
i, defines a prostyle, a temple that had four columns
in front and no other external columns ; and the amphi-
prostyle, a temple with four in front and four in postico^
and the cell in the middle, with a pronaos at each end of
the temple*
That this is the import Of the definitions, is not to
be denied : yet it is not hence to be inferred, that only
tetrastyles could be called prostyle and amphiprostyle j
since Vitruvius himself records an instance of a temple
dedicated to Ceres and Proserpine at Eleusis, of the
greatest celebrity, excessive magnitude, built entirely of
marble, and classed for it's magnificence and splendor
with the Ephesian Diana, and the Olympian at Athens ;
and yet had no external columns at all, but it's excel-
lence and splendor were confined to the peristyle cell^
which was hypethre : this temple, says Vitruvius, "in after
times was decorated with front columns by Phyíon, and
made a prostyle :" and jn proof that Phyíon erected
before it more than four columns, the front line of it was
above an hundred English feet in extent, as may be ga-
thered from the verbal description of it by Vitruvius,
who in his preface to 7th book, speaking of the Olympian
at Athens, proclaims it's cell to be large, [cellae magnitu-
dinem); but just after calls the cell of this Ceres and
Proserpine immensely large, {celiami immani magnitudine),
of coursé much larger than that of the Olympian
which in Mr. Stuart's plate has98 feet 9 inches English;
C and