Still there is no variety whatever as to external form, no individual character as to outline or even the general proportions, nothing of combination or of design, as the last term is usually understood ; but the difference of effect depended altogether upon the actual dimen sions of the structures, upon material and execution, upon circum stances of detail and finish, and on the degree and particular kind of decoration in regard to sculpture and polychrornic embellishment. The only instance of combination and grouping is that afforded by the Erechtheion, or triple temple on the Acropolis at Athens, which has two distinct porticos, namely, an Ionic hexastyle monoprostyle at its east end, and a tetrastyle diproatyle of the same order on its north side, and upon a lower level ; besides which there is a smaller attached or projecting structure at the south-west angle, forming a tetrastyle diprostyle arrangement of caryatic figures, raised upon a screen-wall or podium. In this combination no regard has been paid to symmetry ; for which reason however it is the more striking, as forming a decided contrast to the unvaried and even monotonous uniformity pervading the temple-architecture of the Greeks. It is almost the only Grecian structure that can be said to be as much distinguished by picturesque ness as by elegance of architectural detail. This edifice moreover affords almost the only instance in the Grecian style of distinct porticos or prostyles projecting from a building [PonTroo], other porticos being either in antis, so as to be recessed within the main walls forming the sides of the edifice ; or are only the end or ends of the colonnades continued throughout the whole exterior : consequently in neither case does such portico show itself as an actual prostyle. The only other known examples of Greek prostyles are the two small Ionic temples at Athens, that on the banks of the Ilissus, called the temple of Panops ; and that.dedicated to Nike Aptcros, or Wingless Victory. Both these were amphiprostyle, and not in antis, consequently had a projecting portico at each end ; and in both the porticos were tetra style. Of the former nothing now remains, but it is well known from Stuart's delineations, and the order itaelf—of plain and bold but elegant character—haa been adopted as the type of most of our modern Grecian Ionic. Though amphiprostyle, the porticos were not exactly similar in plan ; fur while the one was a mere monoprostyle, that forming the entranoe end was also deeply recessed within the main walls, after the manner of a portico in antis without columns. The other temple, that of Nike Apteroa, was a very small structure, a mere votive chapel, close by the west front of the Propyhea of the Acropolis, with its hinder portico facing the south wing of that edifice, but turned obliquely from it. For although they carried regularity almost to excess, the Greeks seem to have paid no regard to it what ever in disposing buildings relatively to each other, for there is n similar and apparently intentional want of parallelism between the Parthenon and Erechtheion ou the Acropolis itself ; nor are either of them in a line with the Propyhva, or equidistant from such line or axis.
This inattention to uniformity of arrangement, where different build ings are brought together on one general plan, shows a striking difference of taste in that respect between the Egyptians and the Greeks. The temples of the Egyptians consist of various architec tural parts subordinate to the principal structure, but combining with that and with each other to form a whole ; which scheme was some times further extended by an architectural avenue of sphinxes in front of the buildings. The Greeks, on the contrary, certainly did not attempt to imitate or rival the Egyptians in the extent and complex arrangement of their temples, though there can be little doubt that they were originally indebted to them for much of their architectural knowledge, Their temples were almost invariably single structures, not only detached from but altogether unconnected with adjacent outs, instead of forming with them a symmetrically arranged assem blage or group. It seems however to have been in some degree the
practice with the Greeks as well as with the Romans to erect several temples in the immediate neighbourhood of each other, and in a par ticular district of a city, as was the case in the Forum and Capitol at Rome, where temple succeeded to temple almost uninterruptedly ; and the ruins of Predrill; Agrigcntum, Solinus, and other places show a somewhat similar concentration of sacred edifices about tho same spot. Temples were frequently surrounded by a sacred grove or plantation of trees, ferneries, or else placed within an enclosure, per ibelus, formed either by mere walls or by colonnades, but there are scarcely any examples of the kind now remaining ; and they are chiefly Roman works, namely, the temples at Ilaalbee and Palmyra. Similarly enclosed and standing in the centre of a peribolos or piazza (therefore very different in plan from an Egyptian temple preceded by a fore-court), were the temples of Jupiter and Juno, Venus and Roma, at Rome [ROMAN ARCMTECITttr, col.115); that of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, a work completed in the time of Hadrian ; and also, among GriecoAniatio examples, the temples Athena Pollan at Pricne, and Apollo Ditlyneetis at Miletus.
Similar as it is upon the whole to that of the Greeks, the temple architecture of the Romans differs from it in many other circumstances besides those of style ; which latter was, with very few exceptions, Corinthian—the national style of the Romans, as the Doric was of Greece and its Italian colonies. One leading distinction in regard to general arrangement is, that Roman plans were hardly ever in anti; and not often peripteral, but generally prostyle, with the portico pro jecting out from the cella, or body of the structure, three or more tntercolunms, so as to be triprostyle, fie [Ponrieo.) Such façade was generally further distinguished by having a flight of steps enclosed within !pedestals at its ends, which were continued as a podium or moulded basement along the sides of the edifice ; whereas tho Greeks raised the temples only three steps or so above the ground, and carried those grulini quite round the structure, wherefore each elevation or side of their peripteral temples was uniform in design, having no other variety than that produced by greater extent and number of columns in one direction, and by the pediments at the extremities. The Romans certainly evinced greater teat, for both contrast and picturesque combination than the Greeks, although decidedly inferior to them in beauty of detail and finish of execution. In order to give greater dignity to the whole temple or to the principal structure in an architectural group, they elevated it upon not a mere basement or substructure with an ascent in front or at both ends, but upon a spreading-out platform, constituting a terrace on every side. They appear to have occasionally formed a succession of terraces of flights of steps, leading up to if not continued on every side of the building. The celebrated Temple of Fortune at Prieneste, usually supposed to have been originally founded by Sulla, was a very remarkable example of the kind. Very little now remains of it, except the terraces them selves; neither have we any account of the architecture, but besides the principal edifice or temple there were several Bubordinato ones, on the different platforms.