in front of this. None of these plans admitted of a peristyle, or pillars on the flanks. To obtain this it was necessary to increase the number of pillars of the portico to 6, or, as it is termed, to make it hexastyle, the 2 outer pillars being the first of a range of 13 or 15 columns, extended along each side of the temple. The cell in this arrangement was a complete temple in itself-distyle in antis, most frequently made so at both ends, and the whole enclosed in its envelope of columns, as in woodcut No. 215. Sometimes the cell was tetrastyle or with 4 pillars in front.

Scale for Plan.

20 30

40
+

10

Scale for Elevation.

10 15 20

30

In this form the Greek temple may be said to be complete, very few exceptions occurring to the rule, though the Parthenon itself is one of these few. It has a hexastyle portico at each

214. Small Temple at Rhamnus. end of the cell; beyond this is an octastyle portico at each end, and 17 columns on each flank.

The great temple at Selinus is also octastyle, but it is neither so simple nor so beautiful in its arrangement; and, from the decline

of style in the art when it was built, is altogether a very inferior example.

Another great exception is the great temple at Agrigentum (woodcut No. 219), where the architect attempted an order on so gigantic a scale as to be unable to construct the pillars with their architraves standing free. The interstices of the columns are therefore built up with walls pierced with windows, and altogether the architecture is so bad, that even its colossal dimensions must have failed to render it at any time a pleasing or satisfactory work of art.

A fourth exception is the temple at Pæstum before referred to, with 9 pillars in front, a clumsy expedient, but which arose from its having a range of columns down the centre to support the ridge of the roof by a simpler mode than the triangular truss usually employed for carrying the ridge between two ranges of columns.

With the exception of the temple at Agrigentum, all these were peristylar, or had ranges of columns all round them, enclosing the cell as it were in a case, an arrangement so apparently devoid of purpose, that it is necessary to say a few words to account for its universality. It will not suffice to say that it was adopted merely because it was beautiful. The forms of Egyptian temples, which had no pillars externally, were as perfect, and in the hands of the Greeks would have become as beautiful, as the one they adopted. Besides, it is natural to suppose they would rather have copied the larger than the smaller temples, if no motive existed for their preference of the latter. The peristyle, too, was ill suited for an ambulatory, or place for processions to circulate round the temple; it was too narrow for this, and too high to protect the procession from the rain. Indeed, I know of no suggestion except that it was adapted to protect the paintings on the walls of the cells from the inclemency of the weather. I think it hardly admits of a doubt that the walls were painted, and that without protection of some sort this would very soon have been obliterated. It seems also very evident that the peristyle was not only practically, but artistically, most admirably adapted for this purpose. The paintings of the Greeks were, like those of the Egyptians, composed of numerous detached groups, connected only by the story, and it almost required the intervention of pillars, or some means of dividing into compartments the surface to be so painted, to separate these groups from one another, and to prevent the whole sequence from being seen at once; while, on the other hand, nothing can have been more beautiful than the white marble columns relieved against a richly coloured plane surface. The one seems so necessary to the other, that it can, I think, hardly be doubted but that this was the cause, and that the effect must have been most surpassingly beautiful.

MODE OF LIGHTING TEMPLES.

The arrangement of the interior of Grecian temples necessarily depended on the mode in which they were lighted. No one will, I believe, now contend, as was once done, that it was by lamplight alone that the beauty of their interiors could be seen; and as light certainly

was not introduced through the side walls, nor could be in sufficient quantities through the doorways, it is only from the roof that it could be admitted. At the same time it could not have been by a large horizontal opening in the roof, as has been suggested, as that would have admitted the rain and snow as well as the light; and the only alternative seems to be one I suggested some years ago of a clerestory,' similar internally to that found in all the great Egyptian temples, but externally requiring such a change of arrangement as was necessary to adapt it to a sloping instead of a flat roof. This seems to have been effected by countersinking it into the roof, so as to make it in fact 3 ridges in those parts where the light was admitted, though the regular slope of the roof was retained between these openings, so that neither the ridge nor the continuity of the lines of the roof was interfered

TASAT

with. This would effect all that was required, and in the most beautiful manner, besides that it agrees with all the remains of Greek temples that now exist, as well as with all the descriptions that have been handed down to us from antiquity.

This arrangement will be understood from

the section of the Parthenon (woodcut No. 218), restored in accordance with the above explanation, which agrees perfectly with all

219.

Part Section, part Elevation, of Great Temple at Agrigentum. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.

6

For full details of this see True Principles of Beauty in Art,' p. 385 et seq. 2 See Woodcuts Nos. 168, 170, 172.

that remains on the spot, as well as with all the accounts we have of that celebrated temple. The same system applies even more easily to the great hexastyle at Pæstum, and to the beautiful little temple of Apollo at Bassæ, in Phigalia (woodcut No. 215), and indeed to all regular Greek temples; and what is a more important point in the examination of this theory, it applies equally to the exceptional ones. The side aisles, for instance, of the great temple at Agrigentum were, as before mentioned, lighted by side windows; the central one could only be lighted from the roof, and it is easy to see how this could be effected by introducing it between the telamones, as shown in the woodcut No. 219.

Another exceptional temple is that at Eleusis, which we know to have had windows and shutters above, used in admitting or excluding the light during the celebration of the mysteries. The arrangements of this temple lend themselves admirably to this mode of introducing light, as shown in the plan and section annexed (Nos. 220 and 221).

C

The great temple of Jupiter Olympius (woodcut No. 222) was apparently lighted according to another system, owing probably to its immense height, and other peculiarities of construction. The light seems to have been introduced into what may be considered a court, or hypethrum, in front of the cell, which was lighted through its inner wall. This seems to have been the temple mentioned by Vitruvius,' whose description has given rise to such confusion on this subject. It is the only one to which his words apply, or to which it is possible to adapt such a mode of lighting as he describes.

220. Plan of Temple of Ceres at Eleusis.
Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.

The Ionic temples of Asia are all too much ruined to enable us to say exactly in what manner, and to what extent, this mode of lighting

222.

was applied to them, though I have

no doubt that the mode was very similar in all its main features.

The little temple of Nikè Apteros, and the temple on the Ilissus, were both too small to require any complicated arrangement of the sort, and the Erechtheium was lighted by windows which still remain at the west end, so that we can hardly feel sure that the same expedient was not adopted to at least some extent in the Asiatic examples. The latter, however, is almost the only instance of windows in any European Greek temple, the only other example being in the very exceptional temple at Agrigentum. It is valuable, besides, as showing how little the Greeks were bound by rules, or by any fancied laws of symmetry.

As is shown in the plan, elevation, and view (woodcuts Nos. 223, 224, 225), the Erechtheium consisted, properly speaking, of 3 temples grouped together; and it is astonishing what pains the architect took to prevent their being mistaken for one. The porticos of 2 of them are on different levels, and the third or caryatide porch is of a different height and different style. Every one of these features is perfectly symmetrical in itself, and the group is beautifully balanced and arranged; and yet no Gothic architect in his wildest moments could have conceived

anything more picturesquely irregular than the whole becomes. Indeed there can be no greater mistake than to suppose that Greek architecture was fettered by any fixed laws of formal symmetry: each detail, every feature, every object, such as a hall or temple, which could be considered as one complete and separate whole, was perfectly