DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8#0085
i 84 >
absolute, that, all considerations notwithstanding, either
the Ephesian octastyle diptere was also hypethre, or
Pliny must have erred most egregiously in reporting 127
columns; and Mr. Windham's correction by restraining
them to 100, is nugatory, unless he could hare disposed
that number in an octastyle diptere not hypethre; which
no architect, conformably to the admitted documents of
Vitruvius, can possibly perform, with only 15 columns
on the side.
Influenced, therefore, as I am by the nice coinci-
dence of the recovered diameters, by his recorded length
of the Temple containing 15 columns, and his front
line 8 ; I feel not disposed so far to question his
attention and accuracy, as to imagine he could blunder
so grosly ia numbering the columns, as to record 127,
where, unless the Temple were hypethre, not 100
could be found!
No other conclusion, then, can be reasonably made,
than, that this magnificent Temple was in reality an
hypethre. And the only objection that can be started
against this conclusion is, that in an octastyle dip-
tere, wherein the ends of the walls, right and left,
embrace only 4 columns, all the extent between wall
and wall, can only be equal to the diameters of 2 columna
and 3 intercolumns, and this is deemed an insufficient
width to admit of a peristyle cell.
This objection undoubtedly obtains, when directed
against an octastyle diptere on a small scale, but archi-
tectural records inform us, that hypethres were always on
very large scales, as the Olympian and Parthenon at
Athens, and the Olympian at Elis. Aud the Ephesian
Temple has been already proved to exceed the magnifi-
cence of the new Parthenon ; and, in the diameter of
it's
absolute, that, all considerations notwithstanding, either
the Ephesian octastyle diptere was also hypethre, or
Pliny must have erred most egregiously in reporting 127
columns; and Mr. Windham's correction by restraining
them to 100, is nugatory, unless he could hare disposed
that number in an octastyle diptere not hypethre; which
no architect, conformably to the admitted documents of
Vitruvius, can possibly perform, with only 15 columns
on the side.
Influenced, therefore, as I am by the nice coinci-
dence of the recovered diameters, by his recorded length
of the Temple containing 15 columns, and his front
line 8 ; I feel not disposed so far to question his
attention and accuracy, as to imagine he could blunder
so grosly ia numbering the columns, as to record 127,
where, unless the Temple were hypethre, not 100
could be found!
No other conclusion, then, can be reasonably made,
than, that this magnificent Temple was in reality an
hypethre. And the only objection that can be started
against this conclusion is, that in an octastyle dip-
tere, wherein the ends of the walls, right and left,
embrace only 4 columns, all the extent between wall
and wall, can only be equal to the diameters of 2 columna
and 3 intercolumns, and this is deemed an insufficient
width to admit of a peristyle cell.
This objection undoubtedly obtains, when directed
against an octastyle diptere on a small scale, but archi-
tectural records inform us, that hypethres were always on
very large scales, as the Olympian and Parthenon at
Athens, and the Olympian at Elis. Aud the Ephesian
Temple has been already proved to exceed the magnifi-
cence of the new Parthenon ; and, in the diameter of
it's