Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
XXVL
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: WIL-YAK
del.icio.us it!
|
XXVL . 20respects a replica of its two predecessors. But there were See also:differences in details. Thus the See also:porch was increased in width and height until its front See also:elevation measured, according to our authorities, See also:Josephus and the Mishnah, roo cubits by too. This, however, probably includes the See also: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 See also:original likeness to an See also:Egyptian pylon, as suggested in the accompanying See also:diagram (fig. 4). The See also:holy See also:place (F) retained its former See also:area (40X20 cubits), but was raised in height to 40 cubits. A magnificent See also:double See also:curtain, embroidered in See also:colours, screened off the most holy place, which remained a perfect See also:cube of 20 cubits each way. By introducing a passage-way giving See also:access to the See also:side-See also:chambers and requiring an extra See also:outer See also:wall, See also:Herod increased the width of the See also:temple See also: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 See also:House, would at least make it soar!" (G. A. See also: There is for once no exaggeration in the words of Josephus when he records that from a distance the whole resembled a See also:snow-covered See also:mountain, and that the See also:light reflected from the gilded porch dazzled the spectator like " the See also:sun's own rays " (See also:Bell. See also:Jud. V. v. 6). (A. R. S. K. II Egyptian Temples. In the architectural sense the earliest temples in See also:Egypt probably consisted only of a small See also:cella, or See also:sanctuary, with a See also:portico, such as are represented in the See also:models of soul-houses found in 1907 by See also:Flinders See also: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 See also: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 See also:design. It follows from this that although the Egyptian temples vary in their dimensions and extent, as a See also:rule they See also:present the same disposition of See also:plan. The See also:principal exceptions to this rule are the sepulchral temples, such as those of See also: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 See also: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 See also:pyramid at See also:Memphis, and this consisted only of a sanctuary of small See also:size without any architectural pretensions. The next in date would be the sepulchral temple built by Mentuhotep (2832–2796) adjoining Deir el Bahri at See also:Thebes; then follows the sanctuary of See also:Karnak, built by Senwosri (Usertesen) I. (2958-2714), which formed the See also: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 See also: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 See also: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 See also:Edfu, which was set out on a plan conceived from the first, has the See also: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 See also: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 See also:torus-moulding of the See also:quoins and the See also:cavetto See also:cornice are identical, so that it is only by the See also:inscriptions that one is able to ascribe the buildings to the See also:kings of the 18th or following dynasties and distinguish them from those erected by the See also:Ptolemies, or even under See also: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 See also:clerestory windows, as at Karnak (fig. 6), the other temples in its vicinity and the Ramesseum; whereas in the later temples
FIG= 6.–See also: The second See also: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 See also:river plant, in addition to the See also:papyrus and See also:lotus See also: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 See also:axis, with walls at right angles to one another, there are some See also:special exceptions; thus the axial See also:line of the great entrance See also:court of the temple at See also:Luxor is at an See also:angle of about 15° with that of the temple in its See also:rear, and in the See also:island of See also: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. See also:Assyrian.—The temple in See also:Chaldaea or See also:Assyria (known as a ziggurat) was of an entirely different class, and took the See also: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 See also:terrace See also: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 See also:flight in centre of same, or again as at See also:Khorsabad by a ramp winding round the See also:tower; the architectural design consisted of sunk panels on the various storeys with See also:battlement parapets, and, like the Birs Nimrud, the several storeys were dedicated to the seven See also:planets, the walls being enriched with the colours sacred to each. Greek and Roman.—In See also:Greece the earliest example of a temple is that of the Heraeum at See also:Olympia, ascribed by Dr Dorpfeld to the zoth See also:century B.C. The Heraeum (fig. 7) consisted of See also:Scale of Feet 10 1 op ° 0.°m From See also:Curtius and See also: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 See also:peristyle, thus presenting the characteristics of the fully See also: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 See also:definitions given by See also: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 ^ ,See also: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 See also:Ito n~~^~ . IrJII Fro. 5.-Plan of Mammeisi Temple, Philae. 'o $. 9 W See also: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 See also:Themis Rhamnus. • • • • Am/hidistyle-in-antis, similar to the foregoing but with a second portico in the rear. Fig. 9. The Temple of See also:Diana Propyloea, See also:Eleusis. See also:Tetrastyle See also:prostyle, with a portico of four columns in front. Fig. so. The Temple B. See also:Selinus, See also:Sicily. Tetrastyle See also:amphiprostyle, with an additional portico of four columns in the rear. Fig. i i. The Temple of See also:Nike Apteros, See also:Athens. See also:Hexastyle See also:peripteral, six columns in front and rear and a peristyle round the cella forming a covered passage round. Fig. 12. The Temple of See also: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 See also:Jupiter Olympius at See also:Girgenti. Enneastyle peripteral, nine columns in front and rear and a peristyle round as in the so-called See also:Basilica at See also:Paestum. Of circular temples there were two varieties: Monopteral, a See also: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 See also:Romans in some of their temples adopted the same disposition, but with this important difference, that, instead of the temple resting on a See also:Fortuna Virilis at Rome is an example; and if six columns, hexastyle pseudo-peripteral, as in the Maison See also:Cart-6e at See also:Nimes. In front of the naos or cella of the Greek temple there was always a pronaos, viz. a See also:vestibule with two or more columns in antis, and in the rear a similar feature known as the opisthodomus or See also:treasury; in a few cases, as in the See also:Parthenon, this formed a See also:separate chamber, which was entered through a similar vestibule to that in front of the naos; this same vestibule in the See also:absence of the separate chamber was sometimes enclosed with See also:bronze grilles and used as the opisthodomus; the Latin See also:term posticum is frequently given to this rear vestibule, for which the Germans and Americans have adopted the term See also:epinaos when speaking of Greek temples. In Roman temples the posticum is rarely found; the portico, on the other See also:hand, was increased in • importance, being frequently the See also:depth of three bays or columniations. In most of the See also: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 See also: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 See also:ceiling and roof, the earliest example of which existed in the Heraeum at Olympia. There are two other temples in which some of these See also:internal columns still exist, as in the temples at See also:Aegina and Paestum. At Aegina there were five columns on each side, carrying an See also:architrave with five smaller columns superposed; in the temple of See also:Neptune at Paestum there were seven on each side; and in the Parthenon nine columns and a square See also:pier at the end with three columns in the rear, thus constituting an See also:aisle on three sides, round which privileged visitors, like See also:Pausanias, were allowed to pass, there being bronze rails between the columns. In the temple of See also:Zeus at Olympia traces of the barriers have been found, as also of an upper See also:gallery, access to which was given by a wooden See also:staircase. The question of the See also:lighting of these temples has never been definitely settled; it is probable that as a rule the only See also:direct light received was that through the open See also:doorway (see See also:HYPAETHROS). In the earliest temples, those of the Heraeum at Olympia, of See also:Apollo at Thermon, and the archaic temple at See also:Argos, the columns of the peristyle were in See also:wood and carried a wooden architrave; in the Heraeum the wooden columns were replaced by columns in See also: 15. The Temple of Apollo (Smintheus), See also:Troad. See also: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 See also:store their See also: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. See also:stylobate of three steps, it was raised on a See also: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 See also:marbles to that end, but used See also:granite and See also:porphyry.
The favourite type of Greek temple was that known as hexastyle peripteral, of which the temple of Aphaea at Aegina, of the
Doric See also:order, is one of the best-preserved examples; on See also: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 See also:west front, the columns of which See also:rest on a stylobate of three steps, and carry the See also:entablature and See also: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 See also:ridge.
Fig. 21 gives the section through the stylobate, peristyle and pronaos, and See also:half of the naos, showing the superposed columns, ceiling and roof, all based on the conjectural restoration by See also:Cockerell. The temple of Aegina is supposed to have been erected about 50o s.c., the magnificent See also:sculpture with which it is enriched being added c. 48o s.c. The temple was built of a See also:fine calcareous stone from quarries close by, which was coated over with a thin layer of See also:stucco of See also:lime and marble dust; this enabled the masons to give finer profiles to the See also:mouldings, and afforded a See also: The Greek Temples were always enclosed in a See also:temenos, in whichwere other shrines, altars and treasuries; in Athens the temenos was the See also:Acropolis, on which the temples were built; at See also:Delphi it was in a valley on inclined ground; and in Girgenti the temples were raised on the ridge of a See also: Additional information and CommentsThere 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." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] XXVIII |
[next] XXVTII |