§ 4. The temples of the gods were originally small in size and mean in appearance. The most ancient were nothing but hollow trees, in which the images of the gods were placed, since the temple in early times was simply the habitation of the deity, and not a place for the worshippers. As the nation grew in knowledge and in civilisation, the desire naturally arose of improving and embellishing the habitations of their deities. The tree was first exchanged for a wooden house. The form of the temple was undoubtedly borrowed from the common dwellings of men. Among the Greeks of Asia Minor, we still find an exact conformity of style and arrangement between the wooden huts now occupied by the peasantry, and the splendid temples of antiquity.

Wooden Hut in Asia Minor.

The wooden habitation of the god gave way in turn to a temple of stone. In the erection of these sacred edifices, architecture made great and rapid progress; and even as early as the sixth century there were many magnificent temples erected in various parts of Hellas. Most of the larger temples received their light from an opening in the centre of the building, and were for this reason called hypothral,* or under the sky. They usually consisted of three parts, the pronaos,† or vestibule; the naos, or cella, which contained the statue of the deity, and the opisthodomus,§ or back-building, in which the treasures of the temple were frequently kept. The form of the temples was very simple, being either oblong or round; and their grandeur was owing to the beautiful combination of columns which adorned the interior as well as the outside. These columns either surrounded the building entirely, or were arranged in porticoes on one or more of its fronts; and according to their number and distribution temples have been classified both by ancient and modern writers on architecture. Columns were originally used simply to support the roof of the building; and, amidst all the elaborations of * ὕπαιθρος. † πρόναος. † ναός, also called σηκός. § ὀπισθόδομος.

a later age, this object was always kept in view. Hence we find the column supporting a horizontal mass, technically called the

Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian Columns.

entablature. Both the column and the entablature are again divided into three distinct parts. The former consists of the base, the shaft, and the capital; the latter of the architrave, the frieze, and the cornice. The architrave is the chief beam,* resting on the summit of the row of columns; the frieze rises above the architrave, and is frequently adorned by figures in relief, whence its Greek name ;† and above the frieze projects the cornice, forming a handsome finish to the entablature. According to certain differences in the proportions and embellishments of the columns and entablature Grecian architecture was divided into three orders, called respectively the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian.

§ 5. The Doric order is the most ancient, and is marked by the characteristics of the people from whom it derives its name. It is simple, massive, and majestic. The column is characterised by the absence of a base, by the thickness and rapid diminution of the shaft, and by the simplicity and massiveness of the capital. In the entablature, the architrave is in one surface and quite plain. The frieze is ornamented by triglyphs, so called from the three flat bands into which they are divided by the intervening channels; while the metopes, or the vacant spaces between the triglyphs, are also adorned with sculptures in high * Called by the Greeks 'Erú20v, epistylium. † Zapopos, zophorus.

Kogwvls, coronis.

relief. The cornice projects far, and on its under side are cut several sets of drops, called mutules.

The Ionic order is distinguished by simple gracefulness, and by a much richer style of ornament than the Doric. The shaft of the column is much more slender, and rests upon a base; while the capital is adorned by spiral volutes. The architrave is in three faces, the one slightly projecting beyond the other; there is a small cornice between the architrave and the frieze, and all three members of the entablature are more or less ornamented with mouldings.

Doric Architecture.
From Temple at Phigalia.

Ionic Architecture.

From the Erechtheum.

The Corinthian order is only a later form of the Ionic, and belongs to a period subsequent to the one treated in the present book. It is especially characterized by its beautiful capital, which is said to have been suggested to the mind of the celebrated sculptor Callimachus by the sight of a basket, covered by a tile, and overgrown by the leaves of an acanthus, on which it had accidentally been placed. The earliest known example of its use throughGR.

H

out a building is in the monument of Lysicrates, commonly called the Lantern of Demosthenes, which was built in B. C. 335.

Corinthian Architecture. From Monument of Lysicrates.

§ 6. Passing over the earlier Greek temples, we find at the beginning of the sixth century B. C. several magnificent buildings of this kind mentioned by the ancient writers. Of these two of the most celebrated were the temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus, and the temple of Hera (Juno) at Samos. The former was erected on a gigantic scale, and from its size and magnificence was regarded as one of the wonders of the world. It was commenced about B.C. 600, under the superintendence of the architects Chersiphron and his son Metagenes, of Cnossus in Crete, but it occupied many years in building. The material employed was white marble, and the order of architecture adopted was the Ionic. Its length was 425 feet, its breadth

220 feet; the columns were 60 feet in height, and 127 in number; and the blocks of marble composing the architrave were 30 feet in length. This wonder of the world was burnt down by Herostratus, in order to immortalise himself, on the same night that Alexander the Great was born (B. C. 356); but it was afterwards rebuilt with still greater magnificence by the contributions of all the states of Asia Minor.

The temple of Hera (Juno) at Samos was begun about the same time as the one at Ephesus; but it appears to have been finished much earlier, since it was the largest temple with which Herodotus was acquainted. It was 346 feet in length, and 189 in breadth, and was originally built in the Doric style, but the existing remains belong to the Ionic order. The architects were Rhocus, and his son Theodorus, both natives of Samos.

In the latter half of the same century the temple of Delphi was rebuilt after its destruction by fire in B. C. 548. The sum required for the erection of this temple was 300 talents, or about 115,000l., which had to be collected from the various cities in the Hellenic world. The contract for the building was taken by the Alcmæonidæ, and the magnificent manner in which they executed the work has been already mentioned. It was in the Doric style, and the front was cased with Parian marble.

About the same time Pisistratus and his sons commenced the temple of the Olympian Jove at Athens. It was a colossal fabric in the Doric style, 359 feet in length by 173 in breadth, and was only completed by the emperor Hadrian, 650 years after its foundation.

The temples mentioned above have entirely disappeared, with the exception of a few columns; but others erected in the sixth and fifth centuries B. C. have withstood more successfully the ravages of time. Of these the most perfect and the most striking are the two temples at Posidonia, or Pæstum, the colony of Sybaris in southern Italy, the remains of which still fill the beholder with admiration and astonishment The larger of the two, which is the more ancient, is characterised by the massive simplicity of the ancient Doric style. It is 195 feet long by 75 feet wide. There are likewise considerable remains of three ancient temples at Selinus in Sicily, built in the Doric style. The temple of Jove Panhellenius, in the island of Ægina, of which many columns are still standing, was probably erected in the sixth century B. C., and not after the Persian wars, as is stated by many modern writers. It stands in a sequestered and lonely spot in the north-east corner of the island, overlooking the sea and commanding a view of the opposite coast of Attica. It is in the Doric style; and the front elevation, as restored, is exhibited in the engraving at the head of this chapter.