DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42497#0380
74
Historical Construction of Walls.
[chap.
Rome are those of temples, we naturally have most to say about
them, therefore a short description of their classification may be
useful.
Temples were—•
1. In antis. Of three sorts, either those with pilasters but no
columns, or with two columns between the pilasters, or with two
additional columns in the pronaos, atrium, or vestibule.
2. Prostyle. Those which had columns on the front.
3. Amphiprostyle. When they had columns on each front.
4. Peripteral. Those which had six columns on the fronts and
eleven on the sides, the distance between the cella wall and the
columns being equal to the intercolumniation. The real signification
of the word however is, ‘ surrounded by columns.’
5. Pseudo-dipteral. With eight columns on the fronts, or the front
and back portions and posticus, and fifteen on the sides, and a space
between the cella and walls equal to two intercolumniations.
6. Dipteral. With eight columns on each front and two rows at
the sides.
7. Hypcethral. With ten columns on the fronts and two rows at
the sides. Temples of this class had no roof to the cella.
8. Pseudo-peripteral. With six columns on the fronts and engaged
columns at the sides.
9. Monopteral. Circular, with columns supporting a dome, but
no cella.
to. Circular peripteral. When the columns surrounded a cella.
Temples were called according to the width of the inter-
columniations :—
1. Pycnostyle. When the columns were one diameter and a-half
apart.
2. Sy style. When two diameters apart.
3. Diastyle. When three diameters apart.
4. Arceostyle. When the columns were far apart, but at no fixed
distance.
5. Eustyle. When the side intercolumniations were two diameters
and a-quarter, and the central interval was three diameters.
Owing to the passion of the Romans for rebuilding, there are un-
fortunately but few remains of the Kingly or of the early Republican
periods. The structures of the former time were apparently of ma-
sonry with little or no ornament. Huge quadrilateral blocks were
employed, laid alternately longitudinally and transversely without
mortar, but fastened by metal cramps. If there were mould-
ings, they probably were of the character of those to be seen
Historical Construction of Walls.
[chap.
Rome are those of temples, we naturally have most to say about
them, therefore a short description of their classification may be
useful.
Temples were—•
1. In antis. Of three sorts, either those with pilasters but no
columns, or with two columns between the pilasters, or with two
additional columns in the pronaos, atrium, or vestibule.
2. Prostyle. Those which had columns on the front.
3. Amphiprostyle. When they had columns on each front.
4. Peripteral. Those which had six columns on the fronts and
eleven on the sides, the distance between the cella wall and the
columns being equal to the intercolumniation. The real signification
of the word however is, ‘ surrounded by columns.’
5. Pseudo-dipteral. With eight columns on the fronts, or the front
and back portions and posticus, and fifteen on the sides, and a space
between the cella and walls equal to two intercolumniations.
6. Dipteral. With eight columns on each front and two rows at
the sides.
7. Hypcethral. With ten columns on the fronts and two rows at
the sides. Temples of this class had no roof to the cella.
8. Pseudo-peripteral. With six columns on the fronts and engaged
columns at the sides.
9. Monopteral. Circular, with columns supporting a dome, but
no cella.
to. Circular peripteral. When the columns surrounded a cella.
Temples were called according to the width of the inter-
columniations :—
1. Pycnostyle. When the columns were one diameter and a-half
apart.
2. Sy style. When two diameters apart.
3. Diastyle. When three diameters apart.
4. Arceostyle. When the columns were far apart, but at no fixed
distance.
5. Eustyle. When the side intercolumniations were two diameters
and a-quarter, and the central interval was three diameters.
Owing to the passion of the Romans for rebuilding, there are un-
fortunately but few remains of the Kingly or of the early Republican
periods. The structures of the former time were apparently of ma-
sonry with little or no ornament. Huge quadrilateral blocks were
employed, laid alternately longitudinally and transversely without
mortar, but fastened by metal cramps. If there were mould-
ings, they probably were of the character of those to be seen