DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9188#0087
A rchitecture
65
four sides,1 and stage number six retained the outer rows of
columns but omitted the inner row along the sides, leaving
a wide passage-way all round the main building.2 Vitruvius
gives a further classification by the spacing of columns which
will be found in all the handbooks of classic architecture.
With minor variations in detail, these types remained constant
for the temples of Greece and Rome. The principal altera-
tions occurred in the extension of the temple proper, at the
expense of the surrounding colonnade. In the Archaic temples,
such as the older temples of Selinus in Sicily (sixth century b. c),
the portico and colonnade occupy three-quarters of the site.
In the temple of Hephaestus (Theseion) at Athens (fifth
century b.c.) the cella occupies only a little more than half
the total area, and in the Parthenon, built some twenty years
later, the size of the cella is still further increased. Most of
these temples were covered in. Hypaethral temples, in which
the cella was open to the sky, are mentioned by Vitruvius, and
it is probable that some of the larger ones at any rate were
partly open to the sky. But how the openings were arranged
is almost entirely a matter of conjecture. The roof used was
of a very flat pitch, one of height to four of base, later it was
even flatter, and this dictated the slope -of the pediments.
This roof covered the whole of the building, that is, both the
cella and the colonnades on either side of it, and as the Greeks
were ignorant of the principle of the triangulated truss built
up of beams in compression and tension, they were at a loss to
know how to carry their roof without pushing out their walls.
Hence the great solidity of their buildings, and the rather
clumsy expedient of the colonnades in the interiors of temples
which appear to have been the only means they could think
of to carry the roof. One has to bear it in mind in thinking
of Greek architecture, that the Greeks were not constructors
in the sense that the Romans were; they built well, and the
1 Dipteral (double colonnade all round).
Pseudo-dipteral (inner row of columns omitted).
F 2
65
four sides,1 and stage number six retained the outer rows of
columns but omitted the inner row along the sides, leaving
a wide passage-way all round the main building.2 Vitruvius
gives a further classification by the spacing of columns which
will be found in all the handbooks of classic architecture.
With minor variations in detail, these types remained constant
for the temples of Greece and Rome. The principal altera-
tions occurred in the extension of the temple proper, at the
expense of the surrounding colonnade. In the Archaic temples,
such as the older temples of Selinus in Sicily (sixth century b. c),
the portico and colonnade occupy three-quarters of the site.
In the temple of Hephaestus (Theseion) at Athens (fifth
century b.c.) the cella occupies only a little more than half
the total area, and in the Parthenon, built some twenty years
later, the size of the cella is still further increased. Most of
these temples were covered in. Hypaethral temples, in which
the cella was open to the sky, are mentioned by Vitruvius, and
it is probable that some of the larger ones at any rate were
partly open to the sky. But how the openings were arranged
is almost entirely a matter of conjecture. The roof used was
of a very flat pitch, one of height to four of base, later it was
even flatter, and this dictated the slope -of the pediments.
This roof covered the whole of the building, that is, both the
cella and the colonnades on either side of it, and as the Greeks
were ignorant of the principle of the triangulated truss built
up of beams in compression and tension, they were at a loss to
know how to carry their roof without pushing out their walls.
Hence the great solidity of their buildings, and the rather
clumsy expedient of the colonnades in the interiors of temples
which appear to have been the only means they could think
of to carry the roof. One has to bear it in mind in thinking
of Greek architecture, that the Greeks were not constructors
in the sense that the Romans were; they built well, and the
1 Dipteral (double colonnade all round).
Pseudo-dipteral (inner row of columns omitted).
F 2