DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4265#0080
OF THE TEMPLE OF JUPITER OLYMPIUS.
79
by Ecechiria. Within the temple are erected columns and lofty galleries, by which you are conducted
to the statue. There is also a winding staircase leading to the top of the roof. The god is seated
on a throne; he is made of gold and ivory, &c." By the description, this statue appears to have been
of amazing splendour and magnificence; but, as it is not to our present purpose, I shall omit the
account he gives of it; and, for the ease of my reader, I shall here collect in one point of view the
particulars in which the resemblance of the temples here under discussion consisted.
They were both Doric structures, and both appear to have been hypaethral temples; the
image of the god, which in both was of gold and ivory, and of a colossal size, was in each approached
under lofty galleries, erected within the cell of the temple ; they had equally an opisthodomus, and a
door into the posticum, as well as into the front; on their outsides the front and back pediments were
adorned with sculpture; they were both octastyles, that is, they had porticos of eight columns in
their fronts % and we must suppose that, according to the Grecian mode of constructing temples, the
columns on the flank of the Olympic temple likeb to the plans of these temples, though those of the
Parthenon were seventeen in number. Vitruvius, after defining what he esteems the complete and
perfect idea of the hypasthros, that it was a decastyle and a dipteros, does with great propriety pro-
duce these two similar instances of the octastyle hypgethros, which were splendid exceptions to the
definition he had before given.
Thus much it has appeared necessary to say, in explanation and vindication of our venerable
master; and for the rectifying a mistake so general amongst his translators and commentators, a mis-
take which more especially claims my notice in this place, because it has so egregiously misled the
general opinion concerning these Columns of Hadrian, and has been produced as an incontestible
argument to prove that they could not be, what I suppose them, the remains of the Olympium of
* See note •>, page 30, and note ' page 32, Vol. II.
^SSrtWs aUow:d' * n\of -*■$*
kmuM. 4.1.1 , U1ympic temple had the same ratio to its
found h gth End breadth °f the Parthenon were
the ' i°tUal measurcment> t0 have t0 each other; and, as
y were both Doric buildings, that the same analogy in some
measure subsisted between their respective heights. It is by
this obvious analogy I have attempted to examine the measures
assigned by Pausanias to the Olympic temple; and from the re-
sult I cannot but conclude that the numbers, as they stand in
the printed copies, are incorrect: we are there told its height
was 68 feet, its breadth 95 feet, and its length 230 : and we
have seen (Vol. II. page 35,) that the breadth of the Parthenon
is 100 Attic feet, and its length 225. If therefore the breadth
of the Olympic temple was no more than 95, its length, accord-
ing to the proposed analogy, would not have been 230 feet, it
would have been no more than 213 feet 9 inches: so that one if
not both these measures, as they stand in the printed copies,
must be erroneous; I say if not both, because the height Pau-
sanias assigns to this temple does not correspond better, either
with the length or breadth he gives it, than his length and
breadth do with each other; to which I may add, that the height
the height of the Parthenon, deduce from thence the probable
length and breadth of the Olympic temple.
The height of the Parthenon measures 59 Attic feet, 1 inch,
and as this height is to its breadth 100 feet, so is 68 feet, the
height of the Olympic, to 115 feet, 1 inch; disregarding the
odd inch, I shall propose to alter the text of the printed copies
from 95 broad to 115 feet broad. To obtain the length of the
Olympic temple we may say; as the breadth of the Parthenon
100 is to its length 225, so is 115, the breadth of the Olympic
temple, to its length 258 .9, or 260 feet wanting 15 inches; this
will make another alteration necessary in the printed copies.
Adventurous as my attempt to restore this passage may appear,
1 am tempted to produce, by way of illustration, a supposition
that the diameters of the columns of the Olympic temple mea-
sured at least 7 feet", and the intercolumnar spaces 9 feet; that
the columns on the angles had their diameters augmented 3 inches,
and the intercolumniations next to those columns diminished
2 feet 6 inches, nearly in the manner practised in the Par-
thenon. The following scheme will explain my meaning, and
shew how these particular dimensions will correspond with the
general measure I have proposed.
For the length of the Olympium.
For the breadth of the Olympium.
to be deduced from either of them, by the same analogy, would
not have admitted the statue of Jupiter to be placed in" it under
cover, since that, as Hyginus informs us, fab. 223d, was 60 feet
in height. I shall therefore reject both these measures. But
the height to the pediment, which Pausanias makes 68 feet,
seems to be a genuine measure; for, the statue of Jupiter being
placed in such a temple must^ have had exactly the appearance,
which Strabo has remarked, in the description he has given of
it, Lib. VIII. page 353; he there observes that the statue of the
God made by Phidias was of such a magnitude, that although
represented sitting, and although the temple was of the greatest
dimension, it almost touched the roof; I shall therefore assume
68 feet as the true measure of its height, and, comparing it with
1 The columns at the temple of Jupiter at Olympia, lately discovered, somewhat
exceeded seven feet in diameter; and Sir W. Gell found the width of the cella to be
44 feet, which, if compared with the breadth of the temple given by Pausanias, will
consequently prove it, as before stated, to have been hexastyle. The above rea-
soning, therefore, of Stuart on the Olympian temple is now of little interest. See
Ant. of Mag. Grsec. App. p. 73, and Vol. II. p. 32, note f, [ED.]
7x15=105
9xH=126
7.3X 2= I*-6
6.9 X 2= 13-6
1
general diameter of the columns . . . 7x6—42
general intercolumniation......9x5=45
columns on the angles.....7.3x2=14.6
intercolumniations next those columns . . 0.9x2=13.6
115.0
260.0 Entire length. ---------
The greatness of these dimensions cannot be reasonably urged
against their probability: there remain at present, in Sicily,
ruined temples, the columns of which are much larger; those,
for instance, of the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Girgenti, the
ancient Agrigentum1, are Doric columns of more than 12 feet
diameter; and the diameter of those remaining at Selinus mea-
sures, I am told, exactly 10 feet.
2 The plan and details of the Colossal temple of Jupiter at Agrigentum will be
found in the fourth or supplementary volume of this work, there first published
by Mr. C. R. Cockerell, from his original researches at that celebrated city.
[ED.]
79
by Ecechiria. Within the temple are erected columns and lofty galleries, by which you are conducted
to the statue. There is also a winding staircase leading to the top of the roof. The god is seated
on a throne; he is made of gold and ivory, &c." By the description, this statue appears to have been
of amazing splendour and magnificence; but, as it is not to our present purpose, I shall omit the
account he gives of it; and, for the ease of my reader, I shall here collect in one point of view the
particulars in which the resemblance of the temples here under discussion consisted.
They were both Doric structures, and both appear to have been hypaethral temples; the
image of the god, which in both was of gold and ivory, and of a colossal size, was in each approached
under lofty galleries, erected within the cell of the temple ; they had equally an opisthodomus, and a
door into the posticum, as well as into the front; on their outsides the front and back pediments were
adorned with sculpture; they were both octastyles, that is, they had porticos of eight columns in
their fronts % and we must suppose that, according to the Grecian mode of constructing temples, the
columns on the flank of the Olympic temple likeb to the plans of these temples, though those of the
Parthenon were seventeen in number. Vitruvius, after defining what he esteems the complete and
perfect idea of the hypasthros, that it was a decastyle and a dipteros, does with great propriety pro-
duce these two similar instances of the octastyle hypgethros, which were splendid exceptions to the
definition he had before given.
Thus much it has appeared necessary to say, in explanation and vindication of our venerable
master; and for the rectifying a mistake so general amongst his translators and commentators, a mis-
take which more especially claims my notice in this place, because it has so egregiously misled the
general opinion concerning these Columns of Hadrian, and has been produced as an incontestible
argument to prove that they could not be, what I suppose them, the remains of the Olympium of
* See note •>, page 30, and note ' page 32, Vol. II.
^SSrtWs aUow:d' * n\of -*■$*
kmuM. 4.1.1 , U1ympic temple had the same ratio to its
found h gth End breadth °f the Parthenon were
the ' i°tUal measurcment> t0 have t0 each other; and, as
y were both Doric buildings, that the same analogy in some
measure subsisted between their respective heights. It is by
this obvious analogy I have attempted to examine the measures
assigned by Pausanias to the Olympic temple; and from the re-
sult I cannot but conclude that the numbers, as they stand in
the printed copies, are incorrect: we are there told its height
was 68 feet, its breadth 95 feet, and its length 230 : and we
have seen (Vol. II. page 35,) that the breadth of the Parthenon
is 100 Attic feet, and its length 225. If therefore the breadth
of the Olympic temple was no more than 95, its length, accord-
ing to the proposed analogy, would not have been 230 feet, it
would have been no more than 213 feet 9 inches: so that one if
not both these measures, as they stand in the printed copies,
must be erroneous; I say if not both, because the height Pau-
sanias assigns to this temple does not correspond better, either
with the length or breadth he gives it, than his length and
breadth do with each other; to which I may add, that the height
the height of the Parthenon, deduce from thence the probable
length and breadth of the Olympic temple.
The height of the Parthenon measures 59 Attic feet, 1 inch,
and as this height is to its breadth 100 feet, so is 68 feet, the
height of the Olympic, to 115 feet, 1 inch; disregarding the
odd inch, I shall propose to alter the text of the printed copies
from 95 broad to 115 feet broad. To obtain the length of the
Olympic temple we may say; as the breadth of the Parthenon
100 is to its length 225, so is 115, the breadth of the Olympic
temple, to its length 258 .9, or 260 feet wanting 15 inches; this
will make another alteration necessary in the printed copies.
Adventurous as my attempt to restore this passage may appear,
1 am tempted to produce, by way of illustration, a supposition
that the diameters of the columns of the Olympic temple mea-
sured at least 7 feet", and the intercolumnar spaces 9 feet; that
the columns on the angles had their diameters augmented 3 inches,
and the intercolumniations next to those columns diminished
2 feet 6 inches, nearly in the manner practised in the Par-
thenon. The following scheme will explain my meaning, and
shew how these particular dimensions will correspond with the
general measure I have proposed.
For the length of the Olympium.
For the breadth of the Olympium.
to be deduced from either of them, by the same analogy, would
not have admitted the statue of Jupiter to be placed in" it under
cover, since that, as Hyginus informs us, fab. 223d, was 60 feet
in height. I shall therefore reject both these measures. But
the height to the pediment, which Pausanias makes 68 feet,
seems to be a genuine measure; for, the statue of Jupiter being
placed in such a temple must^ have had exactly the appearance,
which Strabo has remarked, in the description he has given of
it, Lib. VIII. page 353; he there observes that the statue of the
God made by Phidias was of such a magnitude, that although
represented sitting, and although the temple was of the greatest
dimension, it almost touched the roof; I shall therefore assume
68 feet as the true measure of its height, and, comparing it with
1 The columns at the temple of Jupiter at Olympia, lately discovered, somewhat
exceeded seven feet in diameter; and Sir W. Gell found the width of the cella to be
44 feet, which, if compared with the breadth of the temple given by Pausanias, will
consequently prove it, as before stated, to have been hexastyle. The above rea-
soning, therefore, of Stuart on the Olympian temple is now of little interest. See
Ant. of Mag. Grsec. App. p. 73, and Vol. II. p. 32, note f, [ED.]
7x15=105
9xH=126
7.3X 2= I*-6
6.9 X 2= 13-6
1
general diameter of the columns . . . 7x6—42
general intercolumniation......9x5=45
columns on the angles.....7.3x2=14.6
intercolumniations next those columns . . 0.9x2=13.6
115.0
260.0 Entire length. ---------
The greatness of these dimensions cannot be reasonably urged
against their probability: there remain at present, in Sicily,
ruined temples, the columns of which are much larger; those,
for instance, of the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Girgenti, the
ancient Agrigentum1, are Doric columns of more than 12 feet
diameter; and the diameter of those remaining at Selinus mea-
sures, I am told, exactly 10 feet.
2 The plan and details of the Colossal temple of Jupiter at Agrigentum will be
found in the fourth or supplementary volume of this work, there first published
by Mr. C. R. Cockerell, from his original researches at that celebrated city.
[ED.]