¹ Perrot, G., Chipiez, C., Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquité 7 (1898) 382Google Scholar.

² Bundgaard 144–5. Bundgaard's interpretation is similar to that set out below. In addition to the standard abbreviations, the following are adopted here:

Bundgaard—Bundgaard, J. A., Mnesicles, a Greek Architect at Work (1957)Google Scholar.

Dinsmoor—Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece (1950)Google Scholar.

KP—Koldewey, R., Puchstein, O., Die griechische Tempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien (1899)Google Scholar.

Krauss—Krauss, F., Paestum, die griechische Tempel (1943)Google Scholar.

For parts of the Doric order, the following are used: A = architrave height

D = lower column diameter (on arrises)

d = upper column diameter (on arrises)

F = frieze height

H = column height

I = axial intercolumniation

T = triglyph width

The subscripts W, L or Pr indicate that the part in question belongs to the pteron front, pteron flank or pronaos order.

³ Some of the dimensions are given by Labrouste, H., Les temples de Paestum (1877)Google Scholar and repeated by KP 27.

⁴ I am most grateful to Prof. Napoli not only for permission to measure the entablature, but also for generously allowing me to use the Soprintendenza's long ladder to reach it. I wish also to thank Dr F. Zancani Montuoro for advice and encouragement, and Mr. Finaldi and his men at Paestum for their kindness and help.

⁵ KP 27, Krauss 54.

⁶ Krauss 50 gives for the pteron A = 1·488 m, F = 1·433 m.

⁷ The intercolumniation of the opisthodomos is 4·00 m (KP 27, Krauss 54, fig. 4), and the spacing of both regulae and triglyphs over the central span corresponds to this dimension. The pronaos inter columniation, however, was increased to 4·146 m.

⁸ Compare the treatment of the metopes near the angles of the Stoa at Brauron (Bouras, Ch., Ἀναστήλωσις τñς στοα˜ς τñς Βραυρῶνος (1967) 59–61)Google Scholar and of the metiopes of the Stoa of Antigonos at Delos (Courby, F., Exploration archéologique de Délos 5 (1912) 22–4)Google Scholar; cf. also Bundgaard 115.

⁹ Cf Plommer, W. H., Ancient and Classical Architecture (1956) 142Google Scholar.

¹⁰ So Dinsmoor 170, Bundgaard 146–51, Roux, G., L' Architecture de l' Argolide (1961), 31, 108, 171–2Google Scholar; but cf. Plommer, W. H., Ancient and Classical Architecture (1956), 155Google Scholar. The fourth century temple of Apollo at Delphi is a problem here. For the accounts see Fouilles de Delphes, Bourguet, E., Les Comptes du iv^e siècle (1932)Google Scholar, nos. 19–46 (cited below by inscription number only) and RevArch 1966, 249–96 (cited below as Roux). Roux 260–6 argues that the cella of the temple was built before the pteron, but the argument founders on the largely unknown state which the temple had reached in 356 B.C., when the Phokians occupied Delphi. Roux 264 shows good reason to believe that by then the colonnade was erected, but it seems likely that the entablature was also partly in place. Six architraves and the twelve frieze blocks to go with them were in the sanctuary in 359 B.C. (no. 19.28–30), and would hardly have been left unused for three years; nor were these the only ones on the site before the war, for six architraves, fourteen frieze blocks and seven cornice blocks had to be replaced as damaged in 344/3 B.C. (no. 23 II 57–62). Furthermore if 140 dr. was paid, whether as supplement or as total, for setting the corner triglyphs of the pronaos (no. 25 IIB; cf. Roux 287–96), the 1 talent 5 minas and 20 staters paid for in 343/2 B.C. (no. 19.97) would not cover the setting of the whole pteron entablature. We do know that the corner triglyphs of the pronaos and opisthodomos were quarried and set at about the same time as the corner cornice blocks of the pteron (no. 27 IA, III, no. 25 IIB), and since the ceiling level was probably established by the pteron architrave (cf. below, n.23), it is probable that construction of the pronaos was far enough behind that of the pteron for the purposes of this study.

¹¹ Cf. below p. 17.

¹² In simple cases the amount of contraction required equals , but it is doubtlul if that formula was in fact used (BSA 69 (1974), 73–4, 83), and it does not allow for the possible inward tilt of the columns; but however the matter was managed, once the columns were in place, there was little that the architect could do to control the treatment of the angle.

^12a Bundgaard 128–9, n.255.

¹³ E.g. Robertson, D. S., Greek and Roman Architecture (2nd ed., 1943) 106–11Google Scholar; BSA 69 (1974) 61–86.

¹⁴ KP 209; Bundgaard 142–6.

¹⁵ KP pl. 7, MonAnt 41 (1951) 834 5.

¹⁶ KP pl. 13.

¹⁷ Curtius, E., Adler, F., Olympia 2 (1892) 32, pl. 18Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Bacon, J., Clark, F., Koldewey, R., Investigations at Assos 1881–3 (1902–1921), 141, 157, fig. 3Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Furtwängler, A., Aegina, das Heiligtum von Aphaia (1906) 32–3, pl. 38Google Scholar; Curtius, E., Adler, F., Olympia 2 (1892) 9–10, pl. 10, 15Google Scholar.

²⁰ BSA 45 (1950) 66–112. In the Hephaisteion and at Rhamnous the rise from pteron to pronaos is kept small, but at Sounion it is 0·335 m, all of which is absorbed in the pronaos columns.

²¹ Penrose, F. C., Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture (2nd ed., 1888) pl. 7–8, 14, 16Google Scholar.

²² In the pteron in the pronaos Cf. also Bundgaard 142–6.

²³ A ceiling at this level is first found in the east porch of the Propylaia at Athens (the west porch had a ceiling as high as those of the Hephaisteion Architect); the reason for the low east ceiling was perhaps a desire to leave a relieving opening above the central doorway (Plommer, W. H., Ancient and Classical Architecture (1956), 140Google Scholar; but cf. also Bundgaard 159–60). In the fourth century however, this became the normal level, and is found in the Tholos at Delphi, the temple of Asklepios and the Tholos at Epidauros, the temples at Tegea and Nemea, the Philippeion a Olympia, etc.

^23a Martin's alternative explanation (Martin, R., Recherches sur l'agora grècque (1951), 452–3)Google Scholar is based on the assumption that the horizontal and sloping beams of early Greeks roofs were jointed together so as to resist a lateral thrust; there seems no good evidence for this assumption.

²⁴ Hodge, A. T., The Woodwork of Greek Roofs (1960), 106–15Google Scholar; on wooden ceilings see ibid. 35, 101–5.

^24a Ashmole, B., Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece (1972), 141–2Google Scholar.

²⁵ No special explanation is required for the ceiling height at Tegea, since it was normal for the period whether there were sculptured pronaos metopes or not. The deep coffer slabs of the front and rear ceilings are self-supporting over the long span, overlapping only the mouldings of the ceiling beams which seem to carry them.

²⁶ Ceiling beams at this level are certain in Temple ER at Selinous, the temple of ‘Concord’ at Akragas and the temple at Segesta. They were certainly no higher than this in Temples D, FS and GT at Selinous.

²⁷ KP fig. 112 shows a block with a hawksbeak moulding at the back and front; its height is 0·67 m, but its bed width of 1·23 m shows that it was not the epikranitis above the pronaos frieze (cf. KP 129 and fig. 111), the height of which is therefore not directly known. The figure of 0·55 m is based on the following calculation:

In the temple of ‘Concord’ at Akragas the course carrying the wall crown moulding is also taller than the epikranitis proper above the pronaos frieze.

²⁸ The arrangement was probably similar in the temple of ‘Concord’ at Akragas, but full and accurate figures are not available. The pteron column height is 6·70 m (Dinsmoor 339), the architrave and frieze 1·09 m and 1·295 m (KP fig. 152), so that the ceiling beams would have been 9·085 m above the pteron stylobate. There is a rise of 0·34 m from pteron to pronaos (KP pl. 25); the pronaos column height corresponds to the orthostates (1·11 m high) and 10 wall courses, while the pronaos entablature (including epikranitis) corresponds to four wall courses. The height of the lower wall courses is c. 0·517 m (KP 175), but the upper five or so courses appear to be higher, c. 0·54–5 m. The total height of the pronaos order should therefore be 0·34 + c. 6·32 + c. 2·20 = 8·86 m, that is about 0·20 m short of the required ceiling height. It would appear from photographs that the pronaos frieze was equal in height to its architrave, not higher, as in the pteron, so that there was no reduction of the pteron order by a constant factor.

²⁹ KP 20, fig. 17, pl. 3; Krauss 39.

³⁰ The height of the pteron columns was 6·454 m that of the pronaos columns 6·323 m (Krauss, F. in Festschrift fur Carl Weickert (1955), 104)Google Scholar. The difference of 0·121 m means that the architrave soffit of the pronaos would be at almost exactly the same level as that of the pteron. The cella floor of the same temple is set 0·375 m higher than that of the pronaos, and it is an interesting reflection on this architect's design methods that, instead of designing slightly smaller columns to reach the same ceiling level, he made the cella columns exactly like those of the pronaos, but since less height was required, he set them on a course below the floor, at the same level as the pronaos, and built up the floor round them.

³¹ The capitals of the two temples are also unusual and similar to each other; and without the crown moulding the frieze of the first temple of Hera would be remarkably low in relation to its architrave.

^31a The epikranitis bed is 0·12 m below the pteron frieze top in the temple of Zeus at Olympia; the epikranitis top is 0·058 m above the pteron frieze top in the Parthenon; the epikranitis bed is 0·021 m below the pteron architrave top in the Tholos at Delphi.

³² The figures are from Dugas, C., Berchmans, J., Clemmensen, M., Le Sanctuaire d'Aléa Athéna à Tégée (1924)Google Scholar and Hill, B. H., Williams, C. K., The Temple of Zeus at Nemea (1966)Google Scholar. The lower diameter of the pronaos columns at Tegea is unknown, so that the comparison there is made in terms of the upper diameter.

^32a Both temples had sculptured pronaos metopes, which obviously made it more important to work out accurately the spacing of the pronaos frieze (cf. the regular pronaos frieze of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, which also had sculptured metopes); but any small differences between design and execution could still be taken up by the system of slotting the metope slabs into grooves in the triglyphs. For the design scheme of the friezes at Tegea and Nemea see below, n.33.

³³ The three front intercolumniations sometimes correspond to the cella width over the toichobate, sometimes to the width over the antae, sometimes to the width over the walls. The cella width over the walls should be barely more than the ‘proper’ pronaos frieze length of 3⅕ pronaos intercolumniations (if T = I/5, as is usual), so that if this dimension is equal to three front intercolumniations, the pronaos intercolumniation would be a little less than that of the pteron. On the other hand the width over the toichobate, the pronaos stylobate, might be 3⅓ pronaos intercolumniations (cf. the stylobate width of many temples, BSA 69 (1974) 73–8, 83–4), so that if that dimension is equal to three front intercolumniations, the pronaos intercolumniation would be that of the pteron.

At Nemea, it is the width over the walls that is equal to three front intercolumniations (I_w × 3 = 11·235 m, cella width over walls = 11·229 m), but instead of making the pronaos intercolumniation 1/3⅕ of that width, the architect made it 1/3⅓ of the cella width over the toichobate, which is only 0·19 m greater (I_Pr × 3;⅓ = 11·44 m, cella width over toichobate — c. 11·42 m). The central intercolumniation is therefore too small to allow uniform frieze elements. At Tegea, the procedure is much the same (I_w × 3 = 10·839 m, cella width over walls = 10·80 m; I_Pr × 3⅓ = 11·16 m, cella width over toichobate = 11·16 m), but because the toichobate projects further beyond the cella walls, the width over the walls is only a little more than 3⅕ I_Pr, and so the effect is more satisfactory.

³⁴ This would give the following dimensions and proportions for the pronaos (cf. Table 2): Rise = 0·106 m, I = 3·432 m, H = 9·29 m, D = 1·49 m, A = 0·929 m, F = 1·035 m, T = 0·669 m; H/D = 6·24, H/I = 2·70, A/F = 0·898, F/T = 1·55, I/T = 5·13. The low pronaos frieze may be partly due to a desire to equate it with two more or less normal wall courses (so also perhaps in the Parthenon (Bundgaard 146), but the scheme at Tegea shows that such a difficulty was not insuperable.

³⁵ Vitruvius (De Arch. 4.4.2) says that pronaos columns should be more slender than those of the pteron. In many Doric temples the pronaos columns are indeed more slender (in the temple of Aphaia at Aigina, Temple ER at Selinous, the temple of Zeus at Olympia, the Parthenon, the temple of Apollo at Bassai, the Great Temple of Apollo at Delos, the temple of Zeus at Nemea and probably the temple of ‘Concord’ at Akragas (but cf. note 26 above)), but this was apparently not true of the temple of Athena at Tegea. Reduction of the lower diameter to produce a more slender column need not affect the other proportions of the order.

³⁶ Bundgaard 143–4.

³⁷ I disagree, therefore, with Bundgaard's conclusion (Bundgaard 184–5). Temple building can never have been a sufficiently commonplace activity to be indulged in without conscious thought, and rules of proportion do not change themselves automatically.

³⁸ Vitr. 4.3.1.