temple of Nikè Apteros is brilliantly ornamented in the same style as those of the Doric order. It also happened that those details and ornaments which were only painted in the Doric, are carved in the Ionic order, and remain therefore visible to the present day, which gives to this order a completeness in our eyes which the other cannot boast of. Add to this a certain degree of Asiatic elegance and grace. All this when put together makes up a singularly pleasing architectural object. But notwithstanding these advantages the Doric order will probably always be admitted to

be superior, as belonging to a higher class of art, and because all its forms and details are better and more adapted to their purpose than these are.

The principal characteristic of the Ionic order is the Pelasgic or Asiatic spiral, here called a volute, which, notwithstanding its elegance, forms at best but an awkward capital. The Assyrian honeysuckle below this, carved as it is with the exquisite feeling and taste which a Greek only knew how to impart to such an object, forms as elegant an architectural detail as is anywhere to be found; and whether used as the necking of a column, or on the crowning member of a cornice, or on other parts connected with the order, is everywhere the most beautiful ornament connected with it. Comparing this order with that at Persepolis (wood- 208. cut No. 140), the only

truly Asiatic prototype we have of it, we see how much the Doric feeling of the Greeks had done to sober it down, by abbreviating the capital and omitting the greater part of the base. This process was carried much farther when the order was used in conjunction with the Doric, as in the Propylæa, than when used by itself, as in the Erechtheium; still in every case all the parts found in the Asiatic style are

found in the Greek. The same form and feelings pervade both; and, except in beauty of execution and detail, it is not quite clear how far even the Greek order is an improvement on the Eastern one. The Persepolitan base is certainly the more beautiful of the two; so are many parts of the capital. The perfection of the whole, however,

amount of carving which the Ionic order displays, there can be little doubt but that it was also ornamented with colour to a considerable extent, but probably in a different manner from the Doric. My own impression is, that the carved parts were gilt, or picked out with gold, relieved by coloured grounds, varied according to the situation in which they were found. The existing remains prove that colours were used in juxtaposition to relieve and heighten the architectural effect of the carved ornaments of this order.

In the Ionic temples at Athens the same exquisite masonry was used as in the Doric; the same mathematical precision and care is bestowed on the entasis of the columns, the drawing of the volutes, and the execution of even the minutest details; and much of its beauty and effect are no doubt owing

to this circumstance, which we miss so painfully in nearly all modern

examples.

CORINTHIAN.

As before mentioned, the Corinthian order was only introduced into Greece in the decline of art, and never rose during the purely Grecian age to the dignity of a temple order. It most probably, however, was used in the more ornate specimens of domestic architecture, and in smaller works of art, long before any of those examples of it were executed which we now find in Greece.

The most typical specimen we now know is that of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates (woodcut No. 209), which, notwithstanding all its elegance of detail and execution, can hardly be pronounced to be perfect, the Egyptian and Asiatic features being only very indifferently united to one another. The foliaged part is rich and full, but is not carried up into the upper or Ionic portion, which is in comparison lean and poor; and though separately the two parts are irreproachable, it was left to the Romans so to blend the two together as to make a perfectly satisfactory whole out of them.

In this example, as now existing, the junction of the column with the capital is left a plain sinking, and so it is generally copied in modern times; but there can be little doubt that this was originally filled by a bronze wreath, which was probably gilt. Accordingly this is so represented in the woodcut as being essential to the completion of the order. The base and shaft have, like the upper part of the capital, more Ionic feeling in them than the order was afterwards allowed to retain; and altogether it is, as here practised, far more elegant, though less complete, than the Roman form which superseded it.

୩୦୦୦୦୦୦୩

The other Athenian example, that of the Tower of the Winds (woodcut No. 210), is remarkable as being almost purely Egyptian in its types, with no Ionic admixture. The columns have no bases, the capitals no volutes, and the water-leaf clings as closely to the bell as it does in the Egyptian examples. The result

210.

Order of the Tower of the Winds, Athens.

T

altogether wants richness, and, though appropriate on so small a scale, would hardly be pleasing on a larger.

The great example of the temple of Jupiter Olympius differs in no essential part from the Roman order, except that the corners of the abacus are not cut off; and that, being executed in Athens, there is a degree of taste and art displayed in its execution which we do not find in any Roman examples. It strictly speaking, however, belongs to that school, and should be enumerated with them, and not as a Grecian example.

CARYATIDES.

It has been already explained that the Egyptians never used caryatide figures, properly so called, to support the entablatures of their architecture, their figures being

always attached to the front of the columns or piers, which were the real bearing mass. At Persepolis, and elsewhere in the East, we find figures everywhere employed supporting the throne or the platform of the palaces of the kings;

211.

Caryatide Figure

not, indeed, on
their heads, as
the Greeks used
them, but rather
in their uplifted
hands.

The name,
however, as well
as their being
only used in con-
junction with
the Ionic order
and with Io-
nic details, all
point to an Asia-
tic origin for
this very ques-
tionable form of
art. As used in
the little por-

tico attached to

the Erechthei

um, these figures

from the Erechtheium. are used with 212. Caryatide Figure in the British Museum.

so much taste,

and all the ornaments are so elegant, that it is difficult to criticise or find fault; but it is nevertheless certain that it was a mistake which even the art of the Greeks could hardly conceal. To use

An

human figures to support a cornice is unpardonable, unless it is done as a mere secondary adjunct to a building. In the Erechtheium it is a little too prominent for this, though used with as much discretion as was perhaps possible under the circumstances. other example of the sort is shown in woodcut No. 212, which, by employing a taller cap, avoids some of the objections to the other; but the figure itself, on the other hand, is less architectural, and so errs on the other side.

Another form of this class of support is that of the giants or Telamones, instances of which are found supporting the roof of the great temple at Agrigentum, and in the baths of the semi-Greek city of Pompeii. As they do not actually bear the entablature, but only seem to relieve the masonry behind them, their employment is less objectionable than that of the female figure above described; but even they hardly fulfil the conditions of true art, and their place might be better filled by some more strictly architectural feature.

FORMS OF TEMPLES.

The arrangements of Grecian Doric temples show almost less variety than the forms of the pillars, and no materials exist for tracing their gradual development in an historical point of view. The temples at Corinth, and the oldest at Selinus, are both perfect examples of the hexastyle arrangement to which the Greeks adhered in all ages; and though there can be little doubt that the peripteral arrangement, as well as the order itself, was borrowed from Egypt, it still was so much modified before it appeared in Greece, that it would be interesting, if it could be done, to trace the steps of the change.

In an architectural point of view this is by no means difficult. The simplest Greek temples were mere cells, or small square apartments, suited to contain an image-the front being what is technically called distyle in antis, or with 2 pillars between anta, or square pilaster-like piers terminating the side walls. Hence the interior enclosure of Grecian temples-the temple itself as opposed to the peristyle or system of external columns-is called the cell, however large and splendid it may be.

The next change was to separate the interior into a cell and porch by a wall with a large doorway in it, as in the small temple at Rhamnus (woodcut No. 214), where the opening however can scarcely be called a doorway, as it extends to the roof. A third change was to put a porch of 4 pillars in front of the last arrangement, or, as appears to have been more usual, to bring forward the screen to the position of the pillars as in the last example, and to place the 4 pillars