Online Encyclopedia


Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V26, Page 613 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: it!
XXVL. 20respects a replica of its two predecessors. But there were differences in details. Thus the porch was increased in width and height until its front elevation measured, according to our authorities, Josephus and the Mishnah, roo cubits by too. This, however, probably includes the platform, as the principles of proportion in relation to the other dimensions suggest 96 cubits by 96 (over 140 ft.) as the actual measurements. In shape the porch may be supposed to have retained its original likeness to an Egyptian pylon, as suggested in the accompanying diagram (fig. 4). The holy place (F) retained its former area (40X20 cubits), but was raised in height to 40 cubits. A magnificent double curtain, embroidered in colours, screened off the most holy place, which remained a perfect cube of 20 cubits each way. By introducing a passage-way giving access to the side-chambers and requiring an extra outer wall, Herod increased the width of the temple building to at least 6o cubits (70 according to the Mishnah). The problem of the. height of the naos remains almost as perplexing as before. Josephus, it is true, agrees with the Mishnah (Middoth, iv. 6) in giving it a height of too cubits. It may be that Herod, " if he was forbidden to extend the House, would at least make it soar!" (G. A. Smith). But the details given by the Jewish doctors do not inspire confidence, for as Fergusson long ago perceived, " one storey is merely an ill-unterstood duplication of the other." A more modest height of 6o cubits (88 ft.), equal to the extreme width, gives at least an element of proportion to the edifice which is altogether wanting in the traditional figures (compare the accompanying cross section, fig. 4). The open entrance to the porch now measured 40 cubits by 20, equal to the section of the holy place. The " great door of the house," 20 cubits high and 10 wide, was covered with gold; in front was suspended a richly embroidered Babylonian veil, while above the lintel was fixed a huge golden vine. (e) The Temple Furniture.—This remained as before. In the holy place in front of the holy of holies, still a dark and empty shrine, stood the altar of incense, against the south wall the seven-branched golden lampstand, and opposite to it the table of shewbread. The two latter, as every one knows, were carried to Rome by Titus, and representations of them may still be seen among the sculptures adorning the arch which bears his name. When one considers the extraordinary height and strength of the outer walls of the temple area, parts of which excite the wonder of every visitor to the holy city, the wealth of art lavished upon the wide-extended cloisters, the imposing character of the temple facade, and the impression produced by the marble-paved terraces and courts rising in succession, each above and within the other, one is not surprised that the temple of Herod was reckoned among the architectural wonders of the ancient world. There is for once no exaggeration in the words of Josephus when he records that from a distance the whole resembled a snow-covered mountain, and that the light reflected from the gilded porch dazzled the spectator like " the sun's own rays " (Bell. Jud. V. v. 6). (A. R. S. K. II Egyptian Temples. In the architectural sense the earliest temples in Egypt probably consisted only of a small cella, or sanctuary, with a portico, such as are represented in the models of soul-houses found in 1907 by Flinders Petrie at Rifeh; in front of these various additions were made, so that eventually the temple assumed far greater importance than was at first contemplated. This custom is at variance with that which takes place in the development of other architectural styles, where the older buildings are constantly taken down and rebuilt in accordance with the in-creased knowledge acquired in construction and design. It follows from this that although the Egyptian temples vary in their dimensions and extent, as a rule they present the same disposition of plan. The principal exceptions to this rule are the sepulchral temples, such as those of Deir el Bahri, and the more ancient example adjoining it, discovered in 1906, in which there are no enclosed halls of columns or sanctuary, and the Mammeisi temples (fig. 5), which in plan resemble the Greek peristylar temples and might have been suggested by them, had not the example at Elephantine (destroyed in 1822) been of much earlier date, having been built by Amenophis III. (1414-1379). The earliest example of which remains have been found is the temple built by Cephren in front of his pyramid at Memphis, and this consisted only of a sanctuary of small size without any architectural pretensions. The next in date would be the sepulchral temple built by Mentuhotep (2832–2796) adjoining Deir el Bahri at Thebes; then follows the sanctuary of Karnak, built by Senwosri (Usertesen) I. (2958-2714), which formed the nucleus of that immense temple, which covered an area of 400,000 sq. ft. This temple may be taken as an extreme type of the accumulation which is found in nearly all the Egyptian temples, owing to the additions made to the original structure by successive monarchs, instead of rebuilding, as was the general custom in all other styles. To a certain extent the same conservative principle seems to have governed the design of all other temples, and even the temple at Edfu, which was set out on a plan conceived from the first, has the appearance of having been added to at various periods, the fronts of the inner halls showing inside those built in front. It is not only in the plan that the close resemblance of one building to another is shown; the architectural design is repeated in the earliest and latest temples; the raking sides of the pylons and walls with the torus-moulding of the quoins and the cavetto cornice are identical, so that it is only by the inscriptions that one is able to ascribe the buildings to the kings of the 18th or following dynasties and distinguish them from those erected by the Ptolemies, or even under Roman rule. The only differences are those exhibited in the great halls of columns, which, in the earlier temples, were built in between the pylons and side walls, receiving their light through clerestory windows, as at Karnak (fig. 6), the other temples in its vicinity and the Ramesseum; whereas in the later temples FIG= 6.–Hall of Columns, Karnak. on one side of the walls a screen was built between the columns, over which the interior was lighted. The second change was that made in the capitals of the columns, which are of wonderful diversity of design, even in the same hall, including every variety of river plant, in addition to the papyrus and lotus flowers; in the later temples also the columns are more slender in their proportions and not set so closely one to the other. Although generally the temples are built symmetrically on acentral axis, with walls at right angles to one another, there are some special exceptions; thus the axial line of the great entrance court of the temple at Luxor is at an angle of about 15° with that of the temple in its rear, and in the island of Philae no two buildings are on the same axis or are parallel to or at right angles to one another, thus conforming to the irregular site on which they were built. Assyrian.—The temple in Chaldaea or Assyria (known as a ziggurat) was of an entirely different class, and took the form of a many-storeyed structure, of which the typical example is the Birs Nimrud. This originally consisted of six storeys, each one set behind the other, so as to admit of a terrace round each, the upper storey being crowned by a shrine. Access to the several storeys was obtained by flights of steps, either lying parallel with the front or in one continuous flight in centre of same, or again as at Khorsabad by a ramp winding round the tower; the architectural design consisted of sunk panels on the various storeys with battlement parapets, and, like the Birs Nimrud, the several storeys were dedicated to the seven planets, the walls being enriched with the colours sacred to each. Greek and Roman.—In Greece the earliest example of a temple is that of the Heraeum at Olympia, ascribed by Dr Dorpfeld to the zoth century B.C. The Heraeum (fig. 7) consisted of Scale of Feet 10 1 op ° 0.°m From Curtius and Adler's Olympia, by permission of Behrend & Co. a central naos or sanctuary with pronaos in front and opisthodomus in the rear, the whole enclosed by a peristyle, thus presenting the characteristics of the fully developed temple of the 5th century. As, however, the description of the several types would be rendered clearer if they were taken from the simplest plan to the more elaborate, adopting to a certain extent the definitions given by Vitruvius, they are as follows:— II ii 11 III 011OO i ~E ~UI a i ii ~~s~' D 'iiams^ nFtu~ ~~o t ~,:1 1 y 4 .~rl r II ~.1 ifs ww ^ ,pal If'r ^ ~ x~~ e1 : ^ ,j ^ m9^^ sI^^^s^ r BuNrI1 1 1 i.w.pE -1 ti ' s^ilU 1,1, ssmulm f •1 1 nMFA ^iar; ~~~ ~11 Ito n~~^~ . IrJII Fro. 5.-Plan of Mammeisi Temple, Philae. 'o $. 9 W Distyle-in-antis, a cella or naos preceded by a portico of two columns placed between the prolongation of the cella wall. Fig. 8. The Temple of Themis Rhamnus. • • • • Am/hidistyle-in-antis, similar to the foregoing but with a second portico in the rear. Fig. 9. The Temple of Diana Propyloea, Eleusis. Tetrastyle prostyle, with a portico of four columns in front. Fig. so. The Temple B. Selinus, Sicily. Tetrastyle amphiprostyle, with an additional portico of four columns in the rear. Fig. i i. The Temple of Nike Apteros, Athens. Hexastyle peripteral, six columns in front and rear and a peristyle round the cella forming a covered passage round. Fig. 12. The Temple of Theseus, • • • • • • Athens. • • • _ • • • • • • • • • • Heptastyle pseudo-peripteral, seven columns in front and rear with walls built in between the outer range of columns, so that they were only semi-detached, as in the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Girgenti. Enneastyle peripteral, nine columns in front and rear and a peristyle round as in the so-called Basilica at Paestum. Of circular temples there were two varieties: Monopteral, a series of columns built in a circle, but without any cella in the centre; and Peripteral, with a circular cella in the centre. Fig. 17. The Philippeion, Olympia. The above definitions apply to Greek temples, whether of the Doric, Ionic or Corinthian orders. The Romans in some of their temples adopted the same disposition, but with this important difference, that, instead of the temple resting on a Fortuna Virilis at Rome is an example; and if six columns, hexastyle pseudo-peripteral, as in the Maison Cart-6e at Nimes. In front of the naos or cella of the Greek temple there was always a pronaos, viz. a vestibule with two or more columns in antis, and in the rear a similar feature known as the opisthodomus or treasury; in a few cases, as in the Parthenon, this formed a separate chamber, which was entered through a similar vestibule to that in front of the naos; this same vestibule in the absence of the separate chamber was sometimes enclosed with bronze grilles and used as the opisthodomus; the Latin term posticum is frequently given to this rear vestibule, for which the Germans and Americans have adopted the term epinaos when speaking of Greek temples. In Roman temples the posticum is rarely found; the portico, on the other hand, was increased in • importance, being frequently the depth of three bays or columniations. In most of the early Greek temples the cellas were comparatively narrow, owing to the difficulty of roofing them • over, as the Greeks do not seem to have been-acquainted with the principle of the trussed beam. When therefore more than the usual width was required it became necessary to introduce columns on each side within the cella to carry the ceiling and roof, the earliest example of which existed in the Heraeum at Olympia. There are two other temples in which some of these internal columns still exist, as in the temples at Aegina and Paestum. At Aegina there were five columns on each side, carrying an architrave with five smaller columns superposed; in the temple of Neptune at Paestum there were seven on each side; and in the Parthenon nine columns and a square pier at the end with three columns in the rear, thus constituting an aisle on three sides, round which privileged visitors, like Pausanias, were allowed to pass, there being bronze rails between the columns. In the temple of Zeus at Olympia traces of the barriers have been found, as also of an upper gallery, access to which was given by a wooden staircase. The question of the lighting of these temples has never been definitely settled; it is probable that as a rule the only direct light received was that through the open doorway (see HYPAETHROS). In the earliest temples, those of the Heraeum at Olympia, of Apollo at Thermon, and the archaic temple at Argos, the columns of the peristyle were in wood and carried a wooden architrave; in the Heraeum the wooden columns were replaced by columns in stone when they showed signs of deterioration; the earliest stone columns which were introduced date from the 6th century, and Pausanias in the 2nd century saw one wood column still in situ in the opisthodomus. From about the middle of the 7th century • i FIG. 8. Oclostyle peripteral, eight col- umns in front and rear and a peristyle round. • Sri FIG. 13. The Parthenon, Athens Octostyle dipteral, eight columns in front and rear and a double row in the peristyle. Fig. 14. The Temple of Jupiter Olympius, Athens. Octostyle pseudo-diptesal, similar to the last, except that the inner row of columns is omitted, thus giving a passage round of twice the ordinary width. Fig. 15. The Temple of Apollo (Smintheus), Troad. Decastyle dipteral, ten columns in front and rear and a double row in the peristyle. Fig. 16. The Temple of Apollo Didymaeus, at Branchidae, near Mil- etas. ' To these there are a few exceptions: •• ...... . ...... cella wherein to store their works of art, it occupied in the rear the full width of the portico in front; they retained, however, the semblance of the peristyle, the columns of which became semi-attached to the cella wall. If the portico had four columns, the temple was known as tetrastyle pseudo- peripteral, of which the so-called temple of FIG. 17. stylobate of three steps, it was raised on a podium with a flight of steps in front. In some of their temples, requiring a larger the columns were always in stone, and were generally built in several courses with drums or frusta, there being very few instances of monolith columns in Greek temples; the Romans, on the other hand, in their principal columns considered the monolith to be more monumental, and not only employed the finest Greek marbles to that end, but used granite and porphyry. The favourite type of Greek temple was that known as hexastyle peripteral, of which the temple of Aphaea at Aegina, of the Doric order, is one of the best-preserved examples; on account of the width of its naos it was necessary to provide columns inside it to carry the ceiling and the roof, so that it represents the fully developed type of a Greek temple. The plan of the temple is shown in fig. 18; the elevation is given in fig. 19, representing the west front, the columns of which rest on a stylobate of three steps, and carry the entablature and pediment. Fig. 20 shows the three first columns of the flank elevation, the entablature carried by them, and the tiled roof with antefixa and crested ridge. Fig. 21 gives the section through the stylobate, peristyle and pronaos, and half of the naos, showing the superposed columns, ceiling and roof, all based on the conjectural restoration by Cockerell. The temple of Aegina is supposed to have been erected about 50o s.c., the magnificent sculpture with which it is enriched being added c. 48o s.c. The temple was built of a fine calcareous stone from quarries close by, which was coated over with a thin layer of stucco of lime and marble dust; this enabled the masons to give finer profiles to the mouldings, and afforded a field for colour, of which the restoration is shown in Cockerell's Temple of Aegina, from which the illustrations are taken; the cymatium and the tiles covering the roof were in Parian marble. The Greek Temples were always enclosed in a temenos, in whichwere other shrines, altars and treasuries; in Athens the temenos was the Acropolis, on which the temples were built; at Delphi it was in a valley on inclined ground; and in Girgenti the temples were raised on the ridge of a hill; in all these cases the Greeks accepted the inequalities of the site, and, adding art to nature, united their work with that of the Creator, so that it seemed to form part of the same design. Some of the sites of the temples, such as those at Olympia, Epidaurus and Delos, were practically level, but even in those the temples and other structures were arranged in groups, thus producing a much more picturesque effect than in those of the Romans, which, when enclosed, were always dd yy~~ ilE KJ Eel FIG. 23. planned on axial lines and raised on artificial platforms or terraces, as at Baalbek, Palmyra and Aizani, with peristyles round the raised court. The best-preserved Roman temple is that known as the Maison Cart-6e at Nimes in the south of France, a hexastyle pseudo-peripteral temple, of which the elevation is given in fig. 22 and. the plan in fig. 23. It was of the Corinthian order, and instead of a stylobate of three steps was raised on a podium II ft. high with a flight of steps in front. For further descriptions of both the Greek and Roman temples see ARCHITECTURE. (R. P. S.) 2- Q
End of Article: XXVL

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.