Showing scroll and floral designs
Fig. 82.—Greek Doorway Showing Cornice.
Showing floral decoration and bead patterns
Fig. 83.—Greek Doorway. Front View. (From the Erechtheium.)
During the whole period when Greek art was being developed, the ancient and polished civilisation of Egyptconstituted a most powerful and most stable influence, always present,—always, comparatively speaking, within reach,—and always the same. Of all the forms of column and capital existing in Egypt, the Greeks, however, only selected that straight-sided fluted type of which the Beni-Hassan example is the best known, but by no means the only instance. We first meet with these fluted columns at Corinth, of very sturdy proportions, and having a wide, swelling, clumsy moulding under the abacus by way of a capital. By degrees the proportions of the shaft grew more slender, and the profile of the capital more elegant and less bold, till the perfected perfections of the Greek Doric column were attained. This column is the original to which all columns with moulded capitals that have been used in architecture, from the age of Pericles to our own, may be directly or indirectly referred; while the Egyptian types which the Greeks did not select—such, for example, as the lotus-columns at Karnak—have never been perpetuated.
A different temper or taste, and partly a different history, led to the selection of the West Asiatic types of column by a section of the Greek people; but great alterations in proportion, in the treatment of the capital, and in the management of the moulded base from which the columns sprang, were made, even in the orders which occur in the Ionic buildings of Asia Minor. This was carried further when the Ionic order was made use of in Athens herself, and as a result the Attic base and the perfected Ionic capital are to be found at their best in the Erechtheium example. The Ionic order and the Corinthian, which soon followed it, are the parents,—not, it is true, of all, but of the greater part of the columns with foliated capitals that have been used in all styles andperiods of architecture since. It will not be forgotten that rude types of both orders are found represented on Assyrian bas-reliefs, but still the Corinthian capital and order must be considered as the natural and, so to speak, inevitable development of the Ionic. From the Corinthian capital an unbroken series of foliated capitals can be traced down to our own day; almost the only new ornamented type ever devised since being that which takes its origin in the Romanesque block capital, known to us in England as the early Norman cushion capital: this was certainly the parent of a distinct series, though even these owe not a little to Greek originals.
We have alluded to the Ionic base. It was derived from a very tall one in use at Persepolis, and we meet with it first in the rich but clumsy forms of the bases in the Asia Minor examples. In them we find the height of the feature as used in Persia compressed, while great, and to our eyes eccentric, elaboration marked the mouldings: these the refinement of Attic taste afterwards simplified, till the profile of the well-known Attic base was produced—a base which has had as wide and lasting an influence as either of the original forms of capital.
The Corinthian order, as has been above remarked, is the natural sequel of the Ionic. Had Greek architecture continued till it fell into decadence, this order would have been the badge of it. As it was, the decadence of Greek art was Roman art, and the Corinthian order was the favourite order of the Romans; in fact all the important examples of it which remain are Roman work.
If we remember how invariably use was made of one or other of the two great types of the Greek order in all the buildings of the best Greek time, with the addition towards its close of the Corinthian order, and that theseorders, a little more subdivided and a good deal modified, have formed the substratum of Roman architecture and of that in use during the last three centuries; and if we also bear in mind that nearly all the columnar architecture of Early Christian, Byzantine, Saracenic, and Gothic times, owes its forms to the same great source, we may well admit that the invention and perfecting of the orders of Greek architecture has been—with one exception—the most important event in the architectural history of the world. That exception is, of course, the introduction of the Arch.
Greek Ornaments have exerted the same wide influence over the whole course of Western art as Greek columns; and in their origin they are equally interesting as specimens of Greek skill in adapting existing types, and of Greek invention where no existing types would serve.
Few of the mouldings of Greek architecture are to be traced to anterior styles. There is nothing like them in Egyptian work, and little or nothing in Assyrian; and though a suggestion of some of them may no doubt be found in Persian examples, we must take them as having been substantially originated by Greek genius, which felt that they were wanted, designed them, and brought them far towards absolute perfection. They were of the most refined form, and when enriched were carved with consummate skill. They were executed, it must be remembered, in white marble,—a material having the finest surface, and capable of responding to the most delicate variations in contour by corresponding changes in shade or light in a manner and to a degree which no other material can equal. In the Doric, mouldings were few,and almost always convex; they became much more numerous in the later styles, and then included many of concave profile. The chief are theOVOLO, which formed the curved part of the Doric capital, and the crowning moulding of the Doric cornice; theCYMA; theBIRD’S BEAK, employed in the capitals of the antæ; theFILLETSunder the Doric capital; the hollows andTORUSmouldings of the Ionic and Corinthian bases.
The profiles of these mouldings were very rarely segments of circles, but lines of varying curvature, capable of producing the most delicate changes of light and shade, and contours of the most subtle grace. Many of them correspond to conic sections, but it seems probable that the outlines were drawn by hand, and not obtained by any mechanical or mathematical method.
The mouldings were some of them enriched, to use the technical word, by having such ornaments cut into them or carved on them as, though simple in form, lent themselves well to repetition.[18]Where more room for ornament existed, and especially in the capitals of the Ionic and Corinthian orders, ornaments were freely and most gracefully carved, and very symmetrically arranged. Though these were very various, yet most of them can be classed under three heads. (1.)Frets(Figs.116to120). These were patterns made up of squares orL-shaped lines interlaced and made to seem intricate, though originally simple. Frequently these patterns are called Doric frets, from their having been most used in buildings of the Doric order. (2.)Honeysuckle(Figs.94and111to114). This ornament, admirably conventionalised, had been used freely by the Assyrians, and the Greeks only adoptedwhat they found ready to their hand when they began to use it; but they refined it, at the same time losing no whit of its vigour or effectiveness, and the honeysuckle has come to be known as a typical Greek decorativemotif. (3.)Acanthus(Figs.84and85). This is a broad-leaved plant, the foliage and stems of which, treated in a conventional manner, though with but little departure from nature, were found admirably adapted for floral decorative work, and accordingly were made use of in the foliage of the Corinthian capital, and in such ornaments as, for example, the great finial which forms the summit of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates.
Fig. 84.—The Acanthus Leaf and Stalk.
The beauty of the carving was, however, eclipsed by that highest of all ornaments—sculpture. In the Doric temples, as, for example, in the Parthenon, the architect contented himself with providing suitable spaces for the sculptor to occupy; and thus the great pediments, the metopes (Fig.86) or square panels, and the frieze of the Parthenon were occupied by sculpture, in which there was no necessity for more conventionalism than the amount of artificial arrangement needed in order fitlyto occupy spaces that were respectively triangular, square, or continuous. In the later and more voluptuous style of the Ionic temples we find sculpture made into an architectural feature, as in the famous statues, known as the Caryatides, which support the smallest portico of the Erechtheium, and in the enriched columns of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. Sculpture had already been so employed in Egypt, and was often so used in later times; but the best opportunity for the display of the finest qualities of the sculptor’s art is such an one as the pediments, &c., of the great Doric temples afforded.
Fig. 85.—The Acanthus Leaf.
There is little room for doubting that all the Greek temples were richly decorated in colours, but traces and indications are all that remain: these, however, are sufficient to prove that a very large amount of colour was employed, and that probably ornaments (Figs.105to120) were painted upon many of those surfaces which were left plain by the mason, especially on the cornices, and that mosaics (Fig.87) and coloured marbles, and even gilding, were freely used. There is also ground for believing that as the use of carved enrichments increased with the increasing adoption of the Ionic and Corinthian styles, less use was made of painted decorations.
Observations which have been made during the course of this and the previous chapters will have gone far to point out the characteristics of Greek art. An archaic and almost forbidding severity, with heavy proportions and more strength than grace, marks the earliest Greek buildings of which we have any fragments remaining. Dignity, sobriety, refinement, and beauty are the qualities of the works of the best period. The latest buildings were more rich, more ornate, and more slender in their proportions and to a certain extent less severe.
Fig. 86.—Metope from the Parthenon. Conflict between a Centaur and one of the Lapithæ.
Showing central figures with floral design, the whole surrounded by a repeating key pattern
Fig. 87.—Mosaic from the Temple of Zeus, Olympia.
Most carefully studied proportions prevailed, and were wrought out to a pitch of completeness and refinement which is truly astounding. Symmetry was the all but invariable law of composition. Yet in certain respects—as, for example, the spacing and position of the columns—a degree of freedom was enjoyed which Romanarchitecture did not possess. Repetition ruled to the almost entire suppression of variety. Disclosure of the arrangement and construction of the building was almost complete, and hardly a trace of concealment can be detected. Simplicity reigns in the earliest examples; the elaboration of even the most ornamental is very chaste and graceful; and the whole effect of Greek architecture is one of harmony, unity, and refined power.
Fig. 88.—Section of the Portico of the Erechtheium.
Fig. 89.—Plan of the Portico—Looking up.
EXAMPLES OF GREEK ORNAMENTIn the Northern Portico of the Erechtheium—showing the Ornamentation of the Ceiling.
A general principle seldom pointed out which governs the application of enrichments to mouldings in Greek architecture may be cited as a good instance of the subtle yet admirable concord which existed between the different features: it is as follows.The outline of each enrichment in relief was ordinarily described by the same line as the profile of the moulding to which it was applied.The egg enrichment (Fig.91) on the ovolo, the water-leaf on the cyma reversa (Figs.92and97), the honeysuckle on the cyma recta (Fig.94), and the guilloche (Fig.100) on the torus, are examples of the application of this rule,—one which obviously tends to produce harmony.
Showing floral designs and bead patterns
Fig. 90.—Capital of Antæ from the Erechtheium.
EXAMPLES OF GREEK ORNAMENT IN RELIEF.
Fig. 91.—Egg and Dart.
Fig. 92.—Leaf and Dart.
Showing section and front view
Fig. 93.—Honeysuckle.
Showing section and front view
Fig. 94.—Honeysuckle.
Coiled stem and foliage pattern
Fig. 95.—Acanthus.
Coiled stem and foliage pattern
Fig. 96.—Acanthus.
Fig. 97.—Leaf and Tongue.
Fig. 98.—Leaf and Tongue.
A scale pattern, similar to snake skin
Fig. 99.—Garland.
A woven pattern, similar to simple knotwork
Fig. 100.—Guilloche.
Oval beads alternating with pairs of discs set on edge
Fig. 101.—Bead and Fillet.
Round beads alternating with pairs of discs set on edge
Fig. 102.—Bead and Fillet.
Showing combined sculpted layers and their relation to a curved form
Fig. 103.—Torus Moulding.
Showing fluted effect
Fig. 104.—Torus Moulding.
EXAMPLES OF GREEK ORNAMENT IN COLOUR.
Showing section and front view
Fig. 105.—Honeysuckle.
Figs. 106, 108.—Facias with Bands of Foliage.
Paired flowers coming off a central straight stemFig. 106.
Fig. 106.
Leaves coming off a central curving stemFig. 108.
Fig. 108.
A rotated patternFig. 107.—Honeysuckle.
Fig. 107.—Honeysuckle.
Showing section and front view
Fig. 109.—Leaf and Dart.
Showing section and front view
Fig. 110.—Egg and Dart.
Figs. 111 to 113.—Examples of the Honeysuckle.
A repeating design, alternately reversed
Fig. 111.
A mirrored repeating design
Fig. 112.
A repeating design
Fig. 113.
Fig. 114.—Combination of the Fret, the Egg and Dart, the Bead and Fillet, and the Honeysuckle.
Decoration at the top of column and capital
Fig. 114.
Central pattern similar to stacked fan shapes, with interwoven curved pattern on each side
Fig. 115.—Guilloche.
Figs. 116 to 120.—Examples of the Fret.
Showing proportions of a simple fret pattern
Fig. 116.
Simple fret pattern
Fig. 117.
Showing proportions of a more complex fret pattern
Fig. 118.
A simple fret pattern with key and circle designs
Fig. 119.
Showing proportions of a complex fret pattern
Fig. 120.
FOOTNOTES:[16]See Chap.IX.[17]Chap.I.[18]For a statement of the general rule governing such enrichments, see page133.
[16]See Chap.IX.
[16]See Chap.IX.
[17]Chap.I.
[17]Chap.I.
[18]For a statement of the general rule governing such enrichments, see page133.
[18]For a statement of the general rule governing such enrichments, see page133.
Showing doors, columns and carved figures
Fig. 121.—Elevation of an Etruscan Temple (restored from descriptions only).
THE few grains of truth that we are able to sift from the mass of legend which has accumulated round the early history of Rome seem to indicate that at a very early period—which the generally received date of 753B.C.may be taken to fix as nearly as is now possible—a small band of outcasts and marauders settled themselves on the Palatine Hill and commenced to carry on depredations against the various cities of the tribes whose territories were in the immediate neighbourhood, such as the Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, Latins, and Etruscans. A walled city was built, which from its admirable situation succeeded in attracting inhabitants in considerablenumbers, and speedily began to exercise supremacy over its neighbours. The most important of the neighbouring nations were the Etruscans, who called themselves Rasena, and who must have settled on the west coast of Italy, between the rivers Arno and Tiber, at a very early period. Their origin is, however, very obscure, some authorities believing, upon apparently good grounds, that they came from Asia Minor, while others assert that they descended from the north over the Rhætian Alps. But whatever that origin may have been, they had at the time of the founding of Rome as a city attained a high degree of civilisation, and showed a considerable amount of architectural skill; and their arts exercised a very great influence upon Roman art.
Considerable remains of the city walls of several Etruscan towns still exist. These show that the masonry was of what has been termed a Cyclopean character,—that is to say, the separate stones were of an enormous size; in the majority of examples these stones were of a polygonal shape, though in a few instances they were rectangular, while in all cases they were fitted together with the most consummate accuracy of workmanship, which, together with their great massiveness, has enabled much of this masonry to endure to the present day. Cortona, Volterra, Fiesole, and other towns exhibit instances of this walling. The temples, palaces, or dwelling-houses which went to make up the cities so fortified have all disappeared, and the only existing structural remains of Etruscan buildings are tombs. These are found in large numbers, and consist—as in the earlier instances which have already been described—both of rock-cut and detached erections. Of the former, the best known group is at Castel d’Asso, where we find not only chambers cut into the rock, eachresembling an ordinary room with an entrance in the face of the rock, but also monuments cut completely out and standing clear all round; and we cannot fail to detect in the forms into which the rock has been cut, especially those of the roof, imitations of wooden buildings, heavy square piers being left at intervals supporting longitudinal beams which hold up the roof. Fig.122is an illustration of the interior of a chamber in the rock. Occasionally there were a cornice and pediment over the entrance.
Showing wooden ceiling and decorated walls
Fig. 122.—Sepulchre at Corneto.
The other class of tombs are circular tumuli, similar to the Pelasgic tombs of Asia Minor; of these large numbers exist, but not sufficiently uninjured to enable us to restore them completely. They generally consisted of a substructure of stone, upon which was raised a conical elevation. In the case of the Regulini Galeassi tomb there were an inner and an outer tumulus, the latter of which covered several small tombs, while the inner enclosed one only, which had fortunately never been opened till it was lately discovered. This tomb was vaulted on the horizontal system—that is to say, its vault was not a true arch, but was formed of courses of masonry, each overhanging the one below, as in the Treasury of Atreus, and it had a curious recess in the roof, in which were found numerous interesting examples of Etruscan pottery. It is, however, clear from the city gates, sewers, aqueducts, &c., that the Etruscans were acquainted with and extensively used the true radiating arch composed of wedge-shaped stones (voussoirs), and that they constructed it with great care and scientific skill. The gate at Perugia, and the Cloacæ or Sewers at Rome, constructed during the reign of the Tarquins,[19]at the beginning of the sixth centuryB.C., are examples of the true arch, and this makes it certain that it was from the Etruscans that the Romans learned the arched construction which, when combined with the trabeated or lintel mode of construction which they copied from the Greeks, formed the chief characteristic of Roman architecture. The Cloaca Maxima (Fig.123), which is roofed over with three concentric semicircular rings of largestones, still exists in many places with not a stone displaced, as a proof of the skill of these early builders. There are remains of an aqueduct at Tusculum which are interesting from the fact of the horizontal being combined with the true arch in its construction.
Showing the mouth of one of the tunnels
Fig. 123.—Cloaca Maxima.
No Etruscan temples remain now, but we know from Vitruvius that they consisted of three cells with one or more rows of columns in front, the intercolumniation or interval between the columns being excessive. The largest Etruscan temple of which any record remains was that of Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome, which, under the Empire, became one of the most splendid temples of antiquity. It was commenced by Tarquinius Superbus, and is said to have derived its name from the fact of the builders, when excavating the foundations, coming upon a freshly bleeding head (caput), indicating that the place would eventually become the chief city of the world. Another form of Etruscan temple is described by Vitruvius,consisting of one circular cell only, with a porch. This form was probably the origin of the series of circular Roman buildings which includes such forms of temples as that at Tivoli, and many of the famous mausolea,e.g.that of Hadrian, and the culmination of which style is seen in the Pantheon. It is interesting to notice that the Romans never entirely gave up the circular form, one instance of its use in Britain at a late period of the Roman occupation having been discovered in the ruins of Silchester near Basingstoke; and we shall find that it was perpetuated in Christian baptisteries, tombs, and occasionally churches.
We know from the traces of such buildings which exist, that the Etruscans must have constructed theatres and amphitheatres, and it is recorded that the first Tarquin laid out the Circus Maximus and instituted the great games held there. At Sutri there are ruins of an amphitheatre which is nearly a perfect circle, measuring 265 ft. in its greatest breadth and 295 ft. in length.
There are no remains of other buildings which would enable us to form an opinion as to the civic architecture of the Etruscans: they must, however, have attained to a considerable skill in sculpture, as in some of the tombs figures are represented in high relief which show no small power of expression. They, too, like the Egyptians, embellished their tombs with mural paintings. These are generally in outline, and represent human figures and animals in scenes of every-day life, with conventionalised foliage, or mythological scenes such as the passage of the soul after death to the judgment-seat where its actions in life are to be adjudicated upon. In the plastic arts the Etruscans made great progress, many of their vases showing a delicacy and grace which havenever been surpassed, and exhibiting in their decorations traces of both Greek and Egyptian influence.
We now reach the last of the classical styles of antiquity, the Roman,—a style which, however, is rather an adaptation or amalgamation of other styles than an original and independent creation or development. The contrast is very great between the “lively Grecian,” imaginative and idealistic in the highest degree—who seemed to have an innate genius for art and beauty, and who was always eager to perpetuate in marble his ideal conception of the “hero from whose loins he sprung,” or to immortalise with some splendid work of art the name of his mother-city—and the stern, practical Roman, realistic in his every pore, eager for conquest, and whose one dominant idea was to bring under his sway all the nations who were brought into contact with him, and to make his city—as had been foretold—the capital of the whole world. With this idea always before him, it is no wonder that such a typical Roman as M. Porcius Cato should look with disdain upon the fine arts in all their forms, and should regard a love for the beautiful, whether in literature or art, as synonymous with effeminacy. Mummius, also, who destroyed Corinth, is said to have been so little aware of the value of the artistic treasures which he carried away, as to stipulate with the carriers who undertook to transport them to Rome, that if any of the works of art were lost they should be replaced by others of equal value.
When the most prominent statesmen displayed such indifference, it is not surprising that for nearly 500 years no single trace of any architectural building of any merit at all in Rome can now be discovered, and that history is silent as to the existence of any monuments worthy ofbeing mentioned. Works of public utility of a very extensive nature were indeed carried out during this period; such, for example, as the Appian Way from Rome to Capua, which was the first paved road in Rome, and was constructed by the Censor Appius Claudius inB.C.309. This was 14 ft. wide and 3 ft. thick, in three layers: 1st, of rough stones grouted together; 2nd, of gravel; and 3rd, of squared stones of various dimensions. The same Censor also brought water from Præneste to Rome by a subterranean channel 11 miles long. Several bridges were also erected, and Cato the Censor is said to have built a basilica.
Until about 150B.C.all the buildings of Rome were constructed either of brick or the local stone; and though we hear nothing of architecture as a fine art, we cannot hesitate to admit that during this period the Romans carried the art of construction, and especially that of employing materials of small dimensions and readily obtainable, in buildings of great size, to a remarkable pitch of perfection. It was not till after the fall of Carthage and the destruction of Corinth, when Greece became a Roman province under the name of Achaia—both which events occurred in the year 146B.C.—that Rome became desirous of emulating, to a certain extent, the older civilisation which she had destroyed; and about this time she became so enormously wealthy that vast sums of money were expended, both publicly and privately, in the erection of monuments, many of which remain to the present day, more or less altered. The first marble temple in Rome was built by the Consul Q. Metellus Macedonicus, who diedB.C.115. Roman architecture from this period began to show a wonderful diversity in the objects to which it was directed,—a circumstance perhapsas interesting as its great scientific and structural advance upon all preceding styles. In the earlier styles temples, tombs, and palaces were the only buildings deemed worthy of architectural treatment; but under the Romans baths, theatres, amphitheatres, basilicas, aqueducts, triumphal arches, &c., were carried out just as elaborately as the temples of the gods.
It was under the Emperors that the full magnificence of Roman architectural display was reached. The famous boast of Augustus, that he found Rome of brick and left her of marble, gives expression in a few words to what was the great feature of his reign. Succeeding emperors lavished vast sums on buildings and public works of all kinds; and thus it comes to pass that though the most destructive of all agencies, hostile invasions, conflagrations, and long periods of neglect, have each in turn done their utmost to destroy the vestiges of Imperial Rome, there still remain fragments, and in one or two instances whole monuments, enough to make Rome, after Athens, the richest store of classic architectural antiquities in the world.
But it was not in Rome only that great buildings were erected. The whole known civilised world was under Roman dominion, and wherever a centre of government or even a flourishing town existed there sprang up the residences of the dominant race, and their places of business, public worship, and public amusement. Consequently, we find in our own country, and in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, North Africa, and Egypt—in short, in all the countries where Roman rule was established—examples of temples, amphitheatres, theatres, triumphal arches, and dwelling-houses, some of them of great interest and occasionally in admirable preservation.
FOOTNOTE:[19]The story of the Tarquins probably points to a period when the chief supremacy at Rome was in the hands of an Etruscan family, and is interesting for this reason.
[19]The story of the Tarquins probably points to a period when the chief supremacy at Rome was in the hands of an Etruscan family, and is interesting for this reason.
[19]The story of the Tarquins probably points to a period when the chief supremacy at Rome was in the hands of an Etruscan family, and is interesting for this reason.
Showing section and front view
Fig. 124.—“Incantada” in Salonica.
THE temples in Rome were not, as in Greece and Egypt, the structures upon which the architect lavished all the resources of his art and his science. The general form of them was copied from that made use of by the Greeks, but the spirit in which the original idea was carried out was entirely different. In a word, the temples of Rome were by no means worthy of her size and position as the metropolis of the world, and very few remains of them exist.
Fig. 125.—Ionic Order from the Temple of Fortuna Virilis, Rome.
Ten columns are still standing of the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (now the church of San Lorenzo in Miranda): it occupied the site of a previous temple and was dedicated by Antoninus Pius to his wife Faustina. The Temple (supposed) of Fortuna Virilis, in the Ionic style (Fig.125), still exists as the church of Santa Maria Egiziaca: this was tetrastyle, with half-columns all round it, and this was of the kind called by Vitruvius “pseudo-peripteral.” A few fragmentary remains ofother temples exist in Rome, but in some of the Roman provinces far finer specimens of temples remain, of which perhaps the best is the Maison Carrée at Nîmes (Fig.126). Here we find the Roman plan of a single cell and a deep portico in front, while the sides and rear have the columns attached. The intercolumniations and the details of the capitals and entablature are, however, almost pure Greek. The date of this temple is uncertain, but it is most probable that it was erected during the reign of Hadrian. The same emperor is said to have completed the magnificent Temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, which was 354 ft. long by 171 ft. wide. It consisted of a cell flanked on each side by a double row of detached columns; in front was one row of columns in antis, and three other rows in front of these, while there were also three rows in the rear: as the columns were of the Corinthian order, and nearly 60 ft. in height, it may be imagined that it was a splendid edifice.
Fig. 126.—Roman-Corinthian Temple at Nîmes (Maison-Carrée). Probably of the Time of Hadrian.
The ruins of another magnificent provincial Roman temple exist at Baalbek—the ancient Heliopolis—in Syria, not far from Damascus. This building was erected during the time of the Antonines, probably by Antoninus Pius himself, and originally it must have been of very extensive dimensions, the portico alone being 180 ft. long and about 37 ft. deep. This gives access to a small hexagonal court, on the western side of which a triple gateway opens into the Great Court, which is a vast quadrangle about 450 ft. long by 400 ft. broad, with ranges of small chambers or niches on three sides, some of which evidently had at one time beautifully groined roofs. At the western end of this court, on an artificial elevation, stand the remains of what is called the Great Temple. This was originally 290 ft. long by 160 ft.wide, and had 54 columns supporting its roof, six only of which now remain erect. The height of these columns, including base and capital, is 75 ft., and their diameter is 7 ft. at base and about 6 ft. 6 in. at top; they are of the Corinthian order, and above them rises an elaborately moulded entablature, 14 ft. in height. Each of the columns is composed of three stones only, secured by strong iron cramps; and indeed one of the most striking features of this group of buildings is the colossal size of the stones used in their construction. The quarries from which these stones were hewn are close at hand, and in them is one stone surpassing all the others in magnitude, its dimensions being 68 ft. by 14 ft. 2 in. by 13 ft. 11 in. It is difficult to imagine what means can have existed for transporting so huge a mass, the weight of which has been calculated at 1100 tons.