The most ordinary form given to temples was that of a long square ; though sometimes they were of a circular form. Those which were of the former shape were generally twice as long as broad, and their cella had generally, on the exte rior, porticos, which adorned sometimes only the front facade, sometimes both the front and back facade, and, at others, were carried all round the four sides. The enclosed part of the temple was called the naas down selias, or cella. The front portico was termedfrons, pronaos, prodomos,anticum: the back part, when it hail an entrance and portico, was termed posticum and opisthodomus. Above the entablature of the two columns of the two facades was the tympanum, or actor.
The facades of temples had always an even number of columns, either four, six, eight, or ten ; and from these num bers they received the names of tetrastylr, hexastyle, octo style, or dccastyle. On the two sides the columns were gene rally an odd number. The Grecian and Roman architects, however, were not agreed as to the disposition of the colunms on the sides. When the facade had six or eight columns, the Greeks placed on each side thirteen or seventeen. Examples of this are seen in the small temple at Paestum, in the tem ples of Juno Lueinia, and of Concord, at Agrigentum, in that of Jupiter Nemmus between Argos and Corinth, in that of Theseus, and the Parthenon at Athens, and in several others. The Romans, on the contrary, reckoned by the intercolumniations, and, according to Vitruvius, they gave to each side twice the number of intercolumniations of the facade, so that a temple, hich had six or eight columns in front, would have on each side eleven or fifteen. Thus the temple near Myla,sa had six columns on the facade, and eleven on each side ; that of Fortuna Virilis, at Rome, had four in front, and seven on each side. Sometimes, however, the columns at the side are an even number, and either dou ble, or not double, of those at the front. Thus the temple of Jupiter I'anhellenius, in the island of Egina, had six in front and twelve on each side. The temple of iEgesta in Sicily, as well as the grand temple at Ptestum, have six columns in front, and fourteen on each side. Some temples at Sclinus have six columns in front, and on the sides of one of them twelve, one fourteen, and another sixteen. The greatest temple in this city had eight in front, and sixteen on each side.
Temples are classified by Vitruvius into seven different kinds, determined according to the disposition of the columns : viz., the temple in an tis,irrostylos, amphiprostylos, peripteros, dipteros, pseudo-dipteros, and hypathros.
The temple in antis is the most simple in form, consisting only of the cella, with a portico formed by the projection of the side-walls beyond the end-walls of the cella, the ends of the projections being enriched with capital and base simi lar to a pilaster ; between the anti; were two columns, one on either side of the entrance. These temples were devoid '
of columns on the flanks, and are termed astylar, or devoid of columns. The prostyle temple had columns only on its front or fore side. The had columns both before and behind, and was also tetrastyle. The peripteral or peri stylar temple was surrounded on all sides by a colonnade, and, according to Vitruvius, had six columns in the front, and eleven in the flanks, including those at the angles ; the space between the peristyle and walls of he cella was of the width of one intercolumuiation. The number of columns in the flanks of Grecian hexastyle peripteral temples does not appear to have been regulated by the number in the fronts ; it has been believed it always exceeded double that of those in the front ; but in the temples of tEgina, Pxstum, Argos, Syra cuse, iEgesta, and Minus, it generally exceeds the double by two or more. Peristylar temples are of two kinds, those with a single row of columns on each side, and those which have two rows, and which arc distinguished as diptcral. These were octostyle in the fronts, with fifteen columns in the flanks, the walls of the cella ranging with the columns at the ends which were third in order from the angles. The differed from the dipteral only in omitting the innermost of the two ranges of columns which surrounded the cella. The peripteral, dipteral, and pseudo-dipteral tem ples all presented the same general appearance, but in the second some advantage was obtained over the first in the extended width of the fronts, but more especially in the variety of effect in shadow and perspective, and in the extension of sheltered space which was gained for ambula tories. In the third kind, the second advantage was lost, but the last was considerably increased by the clear space gained by the omission of the inner row of columns ; in fact, this arrangement was similar to the first, with the exception that the space between the cella and the colonnade was twice as The hypcethral temple was open at top, and exposed to the air. Of this latter description, some were decastyle, others pycnostyle ; but they all had rows of columns within, forming a kind of peristyle, which was essential to this sort of temple. The last kind was the monopteral temple, which was round, and without walls, having its dome supported by columns. Sometimes, ,however, we find circular astylar temples.