DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8#0084
( 83 )
From this description of an hypethre. (which may he
relied on as the sense of Vitruvius, as far as it goes,) it
is very apparent the reason of assigning so great a width
to the inside is, to gain a proper space between the
peristyle columns and the walls encompassing the cell,
and not to contract the open area, wherein the statue
was placed. And the reason of 10 columns in front and
postico, instead of 8, as in the diptere, was merely for
magnificence: because with only 8, there could not be
double rows, without either enlarging the intercolumns,
at least, to systyle, i. e. 2 diameters between the columns;
or narrowing the inside area too much for the purposes
mentioned. For, in temples of great magnificence, such
as the Olympian at Athens, cited by Vitruvius, as an
instance of an hypethre, though they had 10 columns in
front, yet on account of their excessive diameters, the
spaces between were deemed sufficient for two persons
to pass arm in arm, even in intercolumns considerably
less than pycnostyle, or 1| diameter: in fact, the inter-
columns of the Olympian is something above 1 foot (our
measure) less than pycnostyle; and the Parthenon (though
octastyle) is cited by Vitruvius as an hypethre, and it's
intercolumn is ft.1, in.3f less than pycnostyle: but it is
proper here to remind the reader, that the Parthenon is
periptere, that is has only 1 row of columns along the side.
This much premised, I do maintain that it is im-
possible to dispose, consistently with the received canon
of symmetries, even 100 columns in an octastyle diptere,
with only 15 columns in the length of the side, and with
a covered cell disposed, at the postern end, as ordained
by the canons of Vitruvius; much lees to introduce 127
columns as recorded by Pliny, in and about suck a Tem-
ple. The inference, therefore, is plain, and the alternative
L absolute,
From this description of an hypethre. (which may he
relied on as the sense of Vitruvius, as far as it goes,) it
is very apparent the reason of assigning so great a width
to the inside is, to gain a proper space between the
peristyle columns and the walls encompassing the cell,
and not to contract the open area, wherein the statue
was placed. And the reason of 10 columns in front and
postico, instead of 8, as in the diptere, was merely for
magnificence: because with only 8, there could not be
double rows, without either enlarging the intercolumns,
at least, to systyle, i. e. 2 diameters between the columns;
or narrowing the inside area too much for the purposes
mentioned. For, in temples of great magnificence, such
as the Olympian at Athens, cited by Vitruvius, as an
instance of an hypethre, though they had 10 columns in
front, yet on account of their excessive diameters, the
spaces between were deemed sufficient for two persons
to pass arm in arm, even in intercolumns considerably
less than pycnostyle, or 1| diameter: in fact, the inter-
columns of the Olympian is something above 1 foot (our
measure) less than pycnostyle; and the Parthenon (though
octastyle) is cited by Vitruvius as an hypethre, and it's
intercolumn is ft.1, in.3f less than pycnostyle: but it is
proper here to remind the reader, that the Parthenon is
periptere, that is has only 1 row of columns along the side.
This much premised, I do maintain that it is im-
possible to dispose, consistently with the received canon
of symmetries, even 100 columns in an octastyle diptere,
with only 15 columns in the length of the side, and with
a covered cell disposed, at the postern end, as ordained
by the canons of Vitruvius; much lees to introduce 127
columns as recorded by Pliny, in and about suck a Tem-
ple. The inference, therefore, is plain, and the alternative
L absolute,