GREEK ARCHITECTURE

THE GREAT AGES OF WORLD ARCHITECTURE

GREEK Robert L. Scranton
ROMAN Frank Brown
E.

EARLY CHRISTIAN AND BYZANTINE William L. MacDonaM

MEDIEVAL Howard Saalman
GOTHIC Robert Branner
RENAISSANCE Lowry
Bates
BAROQUE AND ROCOCO Henry A. Millon
MODERN Vincent Scully, jr.
WESTERN ISLAMIC ]ohn D. Hoag
PRE-COLUMBIAN Donald Robertson
CHINESE AND INDIAN Nelson I. Wu
JAPANESE William Alex
 GREEK
ARCHITECTURE
by Robert L. Scranton

GEORGE BRAZILLER • NEW YORK

All Rights Reserved
For information address the publisher,
George Braziller, Inc.

Number One Park Avenue,

New York i6, New York

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 62-7531

:

Third Printing, 1967

lUustTatious printed in the Netherlands

Text printed in the United States ot America
 CONTENTS
Text
1. "classic" greek style 9
2. THE FORMS OF NATURE: Stone Age to Homer:
4000-700 B.C. 14

3. THE FORM OF SUBSTANCE: Homer to Phto:

700-400 B.C. 23
4. THE FORM OF KOSMOS: Phto to Augustus: 400-31 B.C. 36
5. EPILOGUE: Augustus to Constantinople:

31 B.C-A.D. 330. ~ 47

Plates 49

Notes 113

Glossary 116

Bibliography 119

Index 122

Sources of Illustrations 127

 "CLASSIC" GREEK STYLE

The clearest formulation of the characteristic Greek ethos was

developed around the middle of the fifth century B.C. ; and the
monument of this period that best embodies tHe iormulation in
architectural terms today is the Hephaisteion in Athens — not the
finest of ancient buildings, but standing more nearly in its^riginal
for m than any other Greek temple (Plates 2 :tt.'>V

As a temple its primary function wag_ro house the go d, or at

least, in more worldly, sophisticated terms, t o shelter the statue
and the po sspssmns nf the rulr. It is essentially a chanxbexS.
"naos" or "^Y>^H^i"f fl^e"-a "cella. " T he nao s has a por ch in
front and at the rear. The whole is enclose^ wi^'hi^i g rolonnade
sjjpporting a roof, protecting the naos or, perhaps more likely, the
visitors seeking escape from rain or sun .

Thf^ fpmplp rpgfg nn a 1r>^y fnnndafinn, approached from all

sides by three steps. The design of the columns combines a sup-
^
 _porti n£,^a& with a conical echinus making a transition to the
squar e abacus that actually bears the architrave above. On the
architrave rests, a frieze whose grooved triglyphs and plain
metopes suggest, however inaccurately, the beam construction
of the ceiling, while the overhanging cornice above, through the
rectangular mutules on its under surface, conveys an idea of the
roof structure. Along the edge of the cornice of the building
when complete, ran the sima— the gutter— with antefixes at the
ends of the rows of cover-tiles on the roof, and outflow spouts
between. Along the ridge were ridge-cover-tiles, with special
ones bearing palmettes to seal the joints of the regular kind.
Standing at the corners and peak of the gable were akroteria-"
sculptured ornaments.
The chief material of construction was stone; except for the
timbering in the ceiling and roof, and the_terra-cotta_tiles, every-
thing was marble cut in large blocks and fastened by means of
clamps and "dowels. Paint was used to pick out certain moldings
and strengthen the contrasting elements of the frieze.
The volume is formed by th e peripterorrx:olon nade
over-all
^andxeiling. Within this, in front of the pronaos, is a rectangular
volume extending the entire width of the structure, defined by
the peripteron columns on three sides and the porch of the
pronaos, with the extension of its frieze to the back of the colon-
nade, on the other side. Along the sides of the naos run the long,
narrow, high volumes of the peripteron colonnade, joining with-
that between the fagade of the rear porch and the surrounding
columns. The volumes of the naos include the pronaos itself,

defined by walls on three sides and the two colui^nS* lri"an tis,"
in front, constituting a recess from the peripteron volume an3 a
passage to the interior. The interior of the naos reverses the
exterior of the temple: the inmost space is a colonnade-lined
room, surrounded by narrow shallow volumes between the inner
^^ colonnade and the walls.

Among the sensory stimuli, that of the sense of movement is

partly implied in the approach presented by the steps, and in the

awareness of forms lying behind, within the colonnade. It is also

in the "rise" of the columns and the sloping roof. More perva-
sively it is in the multitude of lines: the physical substance of the
steps, the shafts, the architrave, and the other elements; the
optical lines defining these shapes-the edges of the steps and so
on; the lines of the fluting of the columns and of the details of
the entablature above; the lines of the shadows they cast. Still
more it is in the rhythms the succession of columns along the
:

flank and side, alternating with the dark of the intercolumnia-

tion, and modulated by the expanding and contracting rhythm

of accents of lines of the fluting as they emerge from behind the
column on one side and recede on the other; the rhythms of
detail in architrave, frieze, and cornice. Not least is it in the play
of light, which not only serves to duplicate every line by a shad-
ow, but, as the sun pursues its course, constantly changes the
shadows, and keeps them literally in motion.
Light functions, too, in its own right, creating forms of
various shapes and intensities of luminosity among the details of
the moldings, the flutes of the columns, and the spaces behind
the columns. It assume§j indeed, much of the role of color. As
black and white, with intermediate values, light constitutes all

the color on the lower part of the buildings in the frieze and
;

above, it plays with the bold flat blues and reds which were
characteristic of Greek buildings in bringing out selected ele-
ments at this level.
Finally texture: the smoothness of the marble in most parts is

modified by the effects of light and line, as in the rippled fluting

of the columns, the chunky triglyphs, the floral patterns of the
sima.
All these elements are manipulated in the manner of "classic"
Hellenism. For example, the forms are "ideal" or "typical"— not
particularized or "realistic"— nor, at the other extreme, radically
abstracted. All the forms of the Hephaisteion are essentially like
the forms of all other Doric buildings. Greek architects did not
strive either for marked individuality, or for extreme reduction to
theoretical essence. An ancient builder could erect a temple by
standard proportions from a relatively brief verbal description
minor novelties the designer might
specifying only the relatively
have occasion to include.^ Even within the single building, the
complete uniformity of repeated elements— such as columns or ^^

triglyphs— is abundantly evident.

Another characteristic is the confident objectivity of the
rendering. Nothing is offered by illusion, nothing need be pro-
jected into the design by the mood or imagination of the observer.
Everything is actually present in stone, creating its own direct

stimulus to the perceptive faculties of the observer. Nor is the

building, orany part of it, symbolic or otherwise meaningful of
anything other than what it literally is-a temple, a "naos" for a
god, and a protected colonnade for the visitor.
 The conspicuous and execution hardly
clarity of the design
requires elaboration. The carving is sharp and precise, the dis-
tinction of elements is uncomplicated and unimpeded. So, too, is
the emphasis on mass, on form in three dimensions, on the com-
position in figures of solid geometry The forms of mass and
.

volume are simple — rectan gular _Bxi§nis, cylinders, cones— and

every^ devi.ceLJ S employed^^e^-sttengthen tne~awareness ofTKe
whole shape. Thus the columns are not only essentially cytTn-
drical, but the Qoncavity of the flutin^s calls^att^ntiori to the
body of the stone from which they are cut,and the arrises, or
"edges between, are literally tangible. The arrises on the receding
surfaces of the columns, as they catch increasing concentration
of shadow in curving away from the sun, strengthen the visual
awareness of the fashioned solid. The shadow of the cornice on

the frieze emphasizes the projection and recession of elgments of

the triglyph s. The proportions of the whole as well of the parts
individually are compact, in low ratios avoiding dominance of
one dimension over the others.
The actual dynamic developed is one of poise the building is, :

as we have seen, live with movement, but always contained

within the whole. The predominant verticals and horizontals on
the side, and the exact symmetry of the front, might have been
completely static, but for the movement; the result is a subtly
breathing aliveness at essential rest. Even in the Hephaisteion,
though more so in finer buildings, the effect is increased by the
more subtle deviations from the vertical and horizontal, chiefly
in the inclination of the columns, and the slight curvatures in the
columns, steps, and entablature.
The composition is further marked by an even, regular dis-
position of elements, with a sufficient degree of subordination
and dominance to provide a major point of focus on the center
of the facade in front and in back, and on a few chosen points
^^ within. There are, first, the base, the body, and the crowning
elements. The base in tur n has three steps; the body has column,
intercolumniation, capital the entablature has architrave,
; frieze,

cornice. The columns in their turn have three elements— shaft,

echinus, and abacus; the architrave has the beam itself, the
taenia along the top, the regulae beneath this; the frieze has its

triglyphs, metopes, and crowning band; the cornice in front

forms a triangular pediment, and in itself has its bed molding,
i^AJtules, and face Meanwhile the elements are subdividing also
.

according to a system of twos developed from the columns a :

 i .

J^ng^T^ t'^^column^ and 2££

p-Tr h
j^BL£'^^i}J£]££I^^^^"^^2Mfr^^^
'"mutule.xua-t^ie-CQrnic e for each tri^Iy|3 h and|oneDe"t\v£gn.JTtiesp
progr essions g o even further, and constitute a logical develop-
mmt t rom |^e soliQ ground to the mmutelY articulated roof. The
-, c ohesive principle is purely architectonic— the elucida tion of th e
structural jiature of each part and its relation to all the others
'Finally, there is_complete integrationjvyiiiJ^Fenyironrnent.
From the low horizontal steps, clinging to the ground and re-
peating the horizontal ot the earth, only slightly compressed tor
>>
the building, the structure rises to the triangular pedime nt'j'
whobc lincb broken by akrotcria and anteiix fit- the rectangmaj:,
building between the flat earth and the domed sky^Moreover the
building is equally accessible from every side— the sides and rear
as weTTas the tront— and the colonnades, while defining the shape
of the building, provide free vision behind them to the naos, free
circulation of air and space between the interior and the world
around.
In the idealism, objectivity, and literalism; in the clarity,
massiveness, and poise; in the regularity, concentration, and
architectonic composition; and in the complete integration of
the building to its world— n all these elements we may see the
characteristics ol the "classic" style of Greek_art. It now awaits
to consider the two millennia ot ancient Greek architecture, to
observe the various aspects it has taken, and how they relate to
the "classic" form.

13
 THE FORMS OF NATURE:
Stone Age to Homer: 4000-700 B.C.

Sometime around 2000 B.C. there began to appear in the

Greek peninsula elements of a branch of the Indo-European folk
of the regions tQ-^heMOorth and north-east. These people spoke a
language that linguistically is a phase in the direct development
of the Greek of classical and modern times; their religion and
^"^
basic institutions were in their essential character those of
classical Greece. The classical Greeks and their culture were the
result of a long development, with many infusions of other cul-
riirpg and— ^'^Ofj. that began as the invading
Indo-Europeans
gncQuptered the previous inhaBitants of theAegean world.
The latter were already complex. Long before 3000lV.C various
peoples in a neolithic state of civilization had settled throughout
the region from Thrace to Crete. It is impossible to speak with
certainty_about the disnn^.tiQias_cunpn^j:he^ tKeir architecture
in particulaxj^s Tcnown only sporadically and presents, liI
 pottery, a variety of types, though les s ameriabie_.ta conhdent
'

da^ificaTionTFor our purposes it is enough to observe that all

the buildings known were probably houses, built of mud,mud-
brirk, small stones set in mud, reeds or brush with or without
mud daubmg and plastermg. Circular, oval, apsidal, and rectan-
gular buildings are known. Of the latter, some were essentially
square (Plate 11), some oblong with the entrance at a short end,
ner haps with a porch between projection s of th e side walls su ch :

^'
buildings occasionallyhad a similar " back porch" without an en-
trance.Normally these neolithic houses had only a single ruom,
but sometimes there were more— rarely, however, more than two.
The date and slightness of the neolithic^uitdl'ngs'make tlT^
connection with Greek architecture as such remote and difficult
to assess. Fr^mthe neolithic population in Crete, however, there
developed during approximately .the next thousand years a
culture ot much greater significance. Inhabiting a large and fer-

tile island, well able to support a sizable popuTaTiorTm^coiTiTortT"

from the rest of the world and accessible only by the sea
isolated
which they_xaul.d_£asily controj^the Mi noan people develope d a
brilliant and sophisticated culture uniquel y their own.
Minoan architecture was almost exclusivel y residential— there
were no temples or public buildings properly speaking, and only
a fe w monumental tombs. There are many private houses known
from ne olithic tim es up until La|:^ Minoan III (around the
thirteenth century), but the most conspicuo us, and characteris-
tic structures were the palaces of Middle Minoan III— Late

Minoan 11 (1860-1400 B.C.), chiefly at Hagia 1 riadaT Phaisjtgs,

Mallia, a nd, above all, Knossos (Plates 6-8, 10). The private
houses were, typically, composed of a considerable number or
rooms and were often more than one story high (Plate 9). To
most of the rooms specific functions cannot be assigned, but it is
of great significance that ther e were few if any int erior courts or
peristyle roo ms, whereas light-w ells were^nprmal, openi ng prt t^ 15
cerr ^ m interior rooms across their full width through an open
^rrppr) pf npp o r two columosL-Qxpos t Stairways were prominen t
s.^^

features. The palaces seem to differfrom this account notablv in

t he great central rnnrrs ^ ^ound which the various apartments
werg biii1r,_h nr it is significant that the oldest palace, Knossos,
began its existence as a town, with buildings in block s around a
^uarej the town beca me a palac e by a more or less gradu al
process of consolidating all the buildi ngs under one roof, excep t
tor the'courL and covering even the streets t o make them c
 ridors. Among the functional units in the palace may be recog-
nized the various districts of the original town: the longjiarrow_
storage^ch_ambers on^he we_st,,_the shrines and ceremonial rooms
facing along the west side of the court ; the more luxurious
livmg quarters off the south end of the east side of the court;
sejvice rooms and even small industries in the quarter north of
Of these, the residential rooms are especially interesting,
jthis.

composed in adjoining volumes separated by slight piers that

could be closed with screens or curtains, or by colonnades.^
The structural forms apart fr^m" solid wa lls were columns or
piersAThe columns were almost always smooth, and frequently
smaller at the bottom than at the top-inverted tree trunks in
inception, perhaps— bearing a wide flat echinus and broad
abacus. The base, if any, was slightjThe "piers" were in reality
more of the order of doorframes. They were relatively narrow,
seen from in front, supporting sections of walling rather than an
architrave. Free porticoes of columns or true square piers may
have lined a side of a courtyard.
The material of construction was relatively slight. Mud, mud-
brick, small stones were common wood was used occasionally in
;

half-timber skeletons, and usually in columns. Ashlar blocks

were used for foundation supports, wall-endSj_or balus trades,
gStdoin lor walling in general save toward the e nd. The stone
used was usually soft ;
gypsum was commOTr"
Aesthetically,one outstanding peculiarity of the Minoan style
was its preference for linear form— form in one dimension, so to
speak. This is most obvious in the maze of narrow corridors
which run all through the building, notably conspicuous, per-
haps, to our eyes, in the major entrances at the southwest and
northwest. It would have been conspicuous, too, in the long,
low, and irregular profile of the building seen from the outside.
Faience plaques depicting house fronts exist, suggesting that a
^ ^ three- or four-story fagade was treated on the exterior in rectan-
gular patterns developed from a wooden beam skeleton but ;

there is no indication of organization in three dimensions, and

the major impression would have been created by the irregular
skyline -andLgroundline, and the swarm of lines produce(j_by^the
variety- o£units in the facade and tlie various kinds of prnamen-
tation. Even in large rooms lines of columns or piers or botTi, the
openness of one or more walls, the several eccentric, conflicting
lines of movement, would have diverted attention from the
shape of the volume as such.
 "

Closely related to linear form in the buildings was. the volatile

dynamic, the tree movement This resulted in part from the effect
.

oi the linear form itself and in turn helped to create linear form.
Mobility was created also by the eccentricity of the arrangement
-the lack ot balance and roncenrrared c\nm\n^rtrf- Entrances
we re norm ally off-center ; lines of g^oygtnent through a volume
were seldom on dxis and usually icLyjQb(Led.-a change in direction;

frequ entlytwo or more sucliiines ot movement intersected. The

L-shap e form characteristic of the colonnaded corridor at the
end of the residential apartment was a frequent motif. If the
Piano Nobile has been correctly restored, the "central Tri-
Columnar Hall" (Plate 7) was a notable example of a restless
complex of movements of lines of passage, lines of supports,
opposition ot different kinds of support, geometrical axes.
Common was the arrangement of a column or pier on the axis
of some opening— dividing, diverting movement to one side or
another. The axial symmetry balance of the South Propylaea and
Stair Hall was one of several exceptions, and, like most of them,
late. The inverted tree-trunk column, stumpy as it sometimes was,

nevertheless was less stable than one thickest at the base— its
form is expansive rather than solid.
The mobility was supported by the general lack of regularity
in the composition, and indeed by the kind of cohesion devel-
oped. Although at first glance it appears to be simply chaotic or
accidental, the compositioxuwiisjn fact the natural result ot the
organic development ot a town in its functional character. The
unity was largely in the profusion, and in the simple, matter-of-
tact accumulation of one thing with another as need arose. There
was no superimposed formal organization, no structural logic,
but there was the logic of use and direct response to the develop-
ing needs of living. In this sense the unity is Ipr^anic, " natural/]^

and expresses the remarkable character of Minoan culture in its

extraordinarily intimate relation to nature. ^ ^

jMeanwhile, on the mainland of Greece, an invading people

hadoverrun good part of the peninsula around 3000 B.C.,
a
overpowering and perhaps disrupting the neolithic civiPization
they encountered. The identity of these folk is not clear, and their
"
culture is recognized by the arbitrary designation Early Hell a-
dic." Their architecture is represented chiefly by relatively small
'houses constructed in the familiar mud and mud-brick, smal l
stonesTperhaps also reeds or brush -in form sometimes circular-
 sonictimes rectangular. I Two really substantial buildings are
known: a rectangular structure at Lerna below Argos (Plate 12),

and a circular building at nearby Tiryns (Plate 13). The building

at Tiryns was about ninety-one feet in diameter: its foundations
consist of a series of concentric circular rings with a row of
tongue -l ike around the outside, "biit wB'at form its super-
piers
structure took has never been reasonably conjectured. The plan
of the buildmg at Lerna" was, externally, a simple rectangle;
within were two large rooms— that toward the front about
twenty-two by twenty-seven feet— and several long narrow
rooms or corridors. These buildings provide too little evidence
for any elaborate account of the aesthetic character of the archi-
tectural style of the period, but they possess a great deal of
interest tor certam technical details. B urntJbri ck^jKaSjempIoyed
irTsome manner in the building at Tiryns the interior surfaces of
;

the walls of the building at Lerna were adorned with mud-plaster

luxuriously textured with a comblike instrurnent, and it had a
roof, probably with at least a slight pitch, of flat tiles, some of
which were slate.

fWhen the Hellenic peoples began to move into the Greek

peninsula, then, they encountered and overpowered the Early
Helladic folk on the mainland. During the Middle Helladic
from about 2000 to about 1500, they appear to have
period,
remainedfairly close to home. About 1600 their cultural devel-

opment was dramatically accelerated, possibly because of in-

creased contact— perhaps piratical— with Crete, or the shock of
another wave of Hellenic invaders, or both. This development is

signalizedby the wealth of the Shaft Graves discovered by

Heinrich Schliemann at Mycenae in 1876, and the related grave
circle discovered there recently. The Late Helladic period,
divided into several subdivisions on archaeological grounds,
18 probably witnessed the arrival of still other contingents of
Hellenes, the expansion of the consolidating Hellenic folk,

beyontl the seas into Crete and even Cyprus, and the develop-
ment of an increasingly rich and sophisticated civilization cen-
tering in palaces at many of the great mythological sites of
Greece, culminating most brilliantly at Mycenae around the
thirteenth century?]^
The architecture of this people presents significant peculiari-
ties. The functional forms include chi efly dwellings, but also

tombs; again, almost ngthin g that could be called a te mple,^r_a_

"public building," has been identified with certainty. The dvvell-

ings rangecTtrom private houses to the great palaces ot the late

days (Plates 21, 14, 17), but essential and characteristic was the
megaron— a rectangular structure with the entrance at the middle
ota short end, and a porch between the projecting side walls,
facing on a court. These features were essential; in larger build-
ings there may have been a vestibule between the -porch and the
main room, and columns lu-twcen the antae of the porch and
ot rlu- hall. The megarons of Middle Hella-
Supporting the root
dic levels otten had apsidal ends (Plate 21), and perhaps a room
behind the hall, withm the apse. In the palaces, the court may
have had colonnades along one side or more, and a gate com-
posed as an H-shaped structure with the door in the center of the
crossbar and perhaps columns between the open ends. In the
palaces especially, and even in smaller houses in the later phases,
other rooms were accumulated around the megaron and its

court. ^ The palaces in particular, taken as a wnoTe, "began to

exhibit the general appearance of a Cretan palace, with lon^
winding corridors and contused swarms ot small rooms, but the
courtyard always remained the particular appurtenance of the
megaron, never the general tocus ot various apartments. In the
later days, too, the palaces were fortihed. Fortifications, to be
sure, had been used for towns in Neolithic and Early Helladic
times, but although the Mycenaean palaces often became so
expansive as to resemble a town superficially, and even to include
a protected retreat for elderly and ailing persons, the fortification
remained part of a building— not of a community.
Hellenic burial places in the Middle Pielladic period were
simple ^gja^s sometimes ot considerable size but having no
visible form. But toward the end of the period, at least, they were
arranged in plots marked above ground by circles of stones.^
That this form ever achieved any formal monumentality may be
doubted, but meanwhile other types of burial places were being ^^

developed: chamber tombs, rectangular in shape, cut out ot the

side ot a hilland approached by a dromos— a narrow sloping
trench; and tholos tombs— chambers circular in plan, domed in
corbel vaulting like a "beehive" or egg, and also approached by
a dromos. Although ultimately these tombs were splendidly built
ot tine masonry, with monumental door facades (Plate 16), it is
fairly certain that they were never entered except tor a funeral,
and the dromos, perhaps even of the most monumental, was
filled up between funerals.
ordinarily
 The materials employed for the smaller buildings and even
extensively in the palaces were the familiar mud and stone and
woo^ of the surrounding cultures, but especially in later days
there developed a taste for dry-stpjcie maisQjiry on a large scale.
Sometimes the blocks were but slightly dressed, sometimes they
were well-squared ashlar.
In terms of aesthetics these Hellenic buildings had definite
characteristics so far not observed in the Aegean world, unless m
certain neolithic buildings. The symmetry of the
rigorous axial
rne^aron and propylon, with the related balanced dynamic, was
important and in vivid contrast to the stubbornly eccentric focus
and mobile dynamic of Minoan design. The Minoan influence,
no doubt, may be seen in the subsidiary rooms of the palace, and
in particular forms such as columns, and in the occasional
arrangement of a column on axis as at Pylos (Plate 17) instead of
two columns flanking the axis as in the normal megaron.^ A
certain idealism, in our technical sense, is evidenced by the great
consistency in the form of the megaton wherever it appears,
contrasting with the greater freedom in adapting shapes per-
ceived elsewhere in the Aegean. One may sense also a tendency
toward the aesthetic value of mass in the growing interest in
heavy masonry (Plates 14, 15), and even in the compact shapes
of the volumes of the megaton and other rooms. The composi-
tion of a palace as a whole is hardly conspicuous for regularity,
nor is that of the megaron-courtyard-propylon complex; but the
megaron and propylon themselves were composed in evenly
distributed units. There was a preference for the principle of
concentration in the dominance of the megaron over the other
buildings around the court, in the minor accent of the propylon
opposite, and in the formal development of entrances, as for
example in the Lion Gate at Mycenae (Plate 15). A degree of
architectonic cohesion in the disposition of units articulating
^0 movement from the entrance to the interior of the megaron at
Tiryns may too be observed:_aga^e^_a court, a gate, a court, the
porch of the megaron, the vestibule, the hall— the whole more
clearly constructed than anything at Knossos.
In short it seems abundantly clear that in the architecture of
the Middle and Late Helladic period we find from the beginning
some of the characteristics of classical design— simple at first, to
be sure, but developing toward the later formulation, with non-
Greek cultures offering and even pressing quite different prin-
ciples upon it. Even from this relatively limited evidence, and
 -

more abundant material found among

certainly in the light of
ceramics, metalwork, frescoes, and the like (Plates 18, 19), one
can form a general impression of more vigor and forthright
directness among the Helladic than among the classic Hellenes;
and one also sees a source of the warmer, more mobile vitality
that in part distinguishes classic from Helladicr~~^ "~—^

The Aegean civilizations came to almost utter extinction

around the eleventh century, following little-understood events
reflected in the legends of the Trojan War and the Return of the
Herakleidai— the "Coming of the Dorians." The succeeding cen-
turies, until the eighth, are obscure to history; they saw, appar-
ently, a shifting of the developing Hellenic peoples throughout
the Aegean— into the eastern coast of Asia Minor— even to
southern Italy and Sicily. Politically and economically the times
were depressed, and life was surely and
agricultural, or pastoral,
not urban. Little is left in tradition or archaeology to clarify the
picture. Pottery insome quantity reveals a continuity and slow
development from Mycenaean to "Geometric" style (Plate 20)
and to the age of Homer, but there are few architectural remains
and these are too slight to be very illuminating.
One development is of real significance: buildin g? rhiiir m?iy hp
regarded as temples made their^appearance. Indeed, save for
these there remiains almost noth ing else — even of private houses.
These temples were sirnple structures of mud-brick or small
stones and mud; both the rectanguTar and apsidaP forms are ^^<^
known. Those on the mainland seem normally tonave had the TP v.Im/1
entran ce on a short e nd ;hose in Cret e. on a side Some main-
; , . v
]u^e froral^cia-cottai models from Pcrachora
land buildings, to
and the Argive Hcracum (Plate 22), had porches with prostyle
cTrkTmns, but otherwise were open; these models also show a
fashi(Mi for high peak roots, perhaps normally of thatch. RcU-ely
indeed was there more than one room in_^ these structures. ^^

Among these buildings are two of special importance.

"Megaton B" at Thermon (Plate 21), dating from the ninth or
eighth century, with a slightly curved rear wall and a slighter
(unintentional.^) curve on the side, had a small rear room or
adyton, and, between the continuing side walls, a large front
hall or first Heraeum at Samos,
porch open across the front. The
dating from about 775 (Plate 23), was also open across the front
end; it had a single row of columns or posts down the middle,
and three across the front between the antae. These buildings are
 impc^rtant tor their hitherto unknown monumentality, for their
extraordinarily long, narrow proportion, and for the fact that in
each case, at a period after their original construction, they were
provided with surrounding colonnades. At Thermon posts were
erected in a continuous hairpin plan along the sides and around
the back of the building, while a straight row of posts stretched
across the front. This suggests that in its original conception the
"peripteron" was not integrally part of the temple, but an addi-
tion—an attachment for the protection of an area in some sense
separate from the essential building.
As a naos— a living space— would not be provided for a "god"
until such a being, integrated, localized, self-embodied, rather'
than a perva'>ivc numinous power, was conceived by men, we
would mter that the first appearance of the simple naos as a
rf' "temple" was the direct response to a new conception of deity
beginning to take form after thje collapse of Mycenaean culture.
The a dc[ition ot a protected volume external to the naos of the
god would then in its turn derive from needs exTefnaTto^the gCrd
— those, of-tiie people attending on his worsliip.* Thus, the^t^
oence, slight though it is, is important to show the continuity
through the period, and the Erst simple responses, in "natural"
ways, to the stirring of new needs.
r

3 THE FORM OF SUBSTANCE:

Homer to Phito: 700-400 B.C.

By the end ot the eighth century powerful economic, soci.il,

and intellectual torces had begun to engender tar-reaching results
in molding the character of Greek culture. Among the most
significant are the burst of trade throughout the Mediterranean,
especially with Egypt and Asia; the growth of the characteristic
Greek political institution, the city-state; and a social revolution -^

from landed aristocracy through commercial and proletarian

oligarchy and tyranny to the more refined forms of Athenian
democracy. In another area w^e see the development of literary
style from the powerful surging flow of Homeric epic, through
the briefer pieces of Hesiod and the lyric poets treating expan-
and more personally some aspect of life, to the studies of
sively
human experience in depth in the complex, compact drama and
history of Sophocles and Thucydides in the fifth century. In
still another, we see intellectual interest ranging from the de-
 scriptive summarizing catalogues of data in Hesiod, through the
study of the very nature of being and physical substance among
the pre-Socratic philosophers, to the rigorous effort of Plato to
comprehend form itself as ultimate reality. These centuries were
animated with confidence-with the conviction that man could
comprehend and achieve his proper ends, and need fear only
stepping beyond his proper sphere. For this effort there was
energy and resource abundantly available, and it was fully
employed.
The climax came in the mainland of Greece in the fifth century
fof~'particuTar reasons. The Persian wars, which involved Asia
Minor and Greece itselt through the first quarter of the century,
left the states of Asia Minor in a condition of uncertainty, as the
Persian Empire still lay at the frontier and its presence was
constantly felt. In Greece, on the other hand, there had been
decisive victory, resulting in the disappearance of actual danger
together with the surge of an exultant sense of irrepressible
power in having thrown back a superior foe. The sudden self-

confidence led the Athenians to embark on a tremendous war

with their rivals, the Spartans, and maintain the effort in spite of
heavy loss. The stimulus' of these circumstances came at a mo-
ment of maximum resources and when the goals of the interest
of previous generations were in sight. It was a natural culmination.
"In architecture many types of buildings fulfilling the new
requirements appeared through these three centuries, beginning
with the seventh— sporadically, initially, but in increasing num-
bers later on. X^rnples were abundajit from the seventh century,
at first largely in t lu- torni of the simple cclhi, soon predominantly
in thepe ri pteral fofjr ^^ ^^^^ Hcphaisteion.^The simpler forms
continued also as dedications and "treasuries"— storehouses for
dedications at large sanctuaries. Stoas may have been more
abundant than remains suggest, never losing their essential
24 form of a golonnade in front of a wall, with the mteryening
volume covered. There were soiti'e assembly halls for religious or
*
political needs. Sanctuaries were elaborated with such buildings,
though the bare essential was simply an altar— and a processional
****^''"
way. A few houses are known.
Materials for temples in the seventh century, for other buildings
through the sixth, and houses through the fifth, were the
for

familiar mujiJidck^ mu(l and stone, and wood, but for temples
from the end of the seventh (cntury aritl fOf otherDUildrngS":
increasingly limestone or marble in ashlar masonry appeared
 and beca me standard. A notab le new material waS;t;erra cotta.j
,
haket^ tile. fQr..rQofing and the ornamental antefixes and the Tilce

(Plates 33a, b). It was also often used tor elaborate akroteria for
th"e corners and peaks of gables. In the earliest phases it was'
""Occ asionally used even fo r metopes or triglyphs.
"^
^he functional forms of structure included not^nly the
Doric or der, described typically in the Hephaisteion, ]^;„, rlje
Ionic, which was developed early in A sia_ Minor (Plates 45, 46).
The Ionic column usually had a base, deeper and more boldly
separated flutes, a characteristic capital consisting of a scroll-like
element lying across an ornamented echinus on top of the shaft,
an architrave with three fasciae, and either a frieze or a row of
square blocks called dentils bclcnv the cornice. During the seventh
century anothertype 6T column was known whose capital, the
Aeolic," was conceived rather branching of the
as a flowering or
of the shaft, with leaves rolling out from around the top;
and still another capital of volute-like form.s developed trom a
^bifurcation of the top of the shaft, spreading and coiling under t

'

^/thTarchitrave'(Plate 28). '

\aj ^0^'^
By the seventh century there were at least a few buildings ^ >h\\/.W1V1 %
which reflected the surge of a new and imaginative style. The ^
Temple of Apollo at Thermon (Plate 21) had a peripteron of
wooden c oljimT^g r,T -1:^^15^— ^'^^'^ on the front and fifteen on the
side. This is in a notably long, narrow proportion, and the single \ .
^ v^
row of columns down the middle of the naos further accentuates \ \V\ C^CX -^
the linear concept. The Heraeum at Olympia (Plate 35), also had ^ f"^
woockn columns on the exterior, six on the iront, sixteen on the ^ 1

side; inside there were projectmg buttresses or attached columns

along each wall. Nothing can be known about these columns and
hence about the vertical proportions in the building, but some
stone columns from the late seventh century in the Marmaria at
Delphi were unusually long and thin, with thin, wide-spreading
echini (Plate 29). Earlier than any of these the second Heraeum ^^

at Samos (Plate 24) was also long-6 x 18-with attached columns

on the wall inside the naos, but the second row of columns or
posts across the front created a volume transverse to the main
axis, as well as a second facade in the progression toward the
interior, restraining momentarily the flow of volume longitudi-
nally and emphasizing the lateral dimension. Thp ^e mple of
Artemis at Garitsa in Corfu (Kerkyra. Corcyra). (Plate 30^ was^
perhaps the oldest known temple completel\' nt stoiv It v.-.i^ _^

remarkable in being octastyle-eight columns on the tronr-and

 pscucjotlijncral (rhere being spare c(|iiivaltnt to that needed tor a
row (4 ct)lumns between tlie outer colonnade and the naos)'.
Moreo\tr its pediment was adorned with stulptiires whose ex*.^^
uberance, expressed in richly textured and patterned surfaces,
gives some ground for a sense ot the aesthetic quaHties that were
probably desired in the building as a whole (Plate 31, ^nd~~~~
-...^ .»^^-'-
compare 32).
Aegean islands and Asia Minor a number of important
In the
buildings from the seventh century were not peripteral. At
Naeandria (Plate 25) a broadly proportioned structure on an
even broader platform retained the longitudinal emphasis of a
central row of columns in the interior in spite of its entrance at
the middle of an end. At Prinias in Crete a similarly broadly
proportioned building even had a support on axis between the
antae of the porch (Plates 26, 27). The flat forms of the "Aeolic"
capitals from Naeandria and related buildings, like Larisa and
Kolumdado (Plate 28), and of the sculptured lintel and square
supporting members at Prinias, again reveal the affection for
luxurious surface with evident lingering of the taste for free
linear movement itself.

un the sixth century stone temples appear in great abundance

throughout the Greek world. It was an age of experiment in all
aspects of design, and there is great variety from time to time and
place to place— as well as within particular localitie^
The variety of adjustments and proportions in the arrange-
ment of volumes becomes apparent from a comparison of the
plans of buildings of the period throughout the Greek world
(Plates 34, 35, 36, and note 9), although imperfect information
about vertical dimensions leaves our conception incomplete. In
some, the naos and its proper subsidiary volumes remained dis-

tinct from the enclosing volume of the peripteron: the effect,

however, was the reverse of the primitive one assumed tor the
-•^
peripteron added around the naos of Megaton B at Thermon
(Plate 21)— rather it was the effect of a building within the en-
closure of outer columns and roof. In others, the columns of the
pronaos were contrived to integrate the interior forms with the
outer, by interlocking and mutually related forms and structures.
In all of these the integrity of each volume in itself, as one in a
chain or progression of several, or as a channel of movement in
itself,would be maintained. But in the designs of the great
dipteral buildings of Asia Minor (cf. Plate 36 and note 9), the
ranks and files of columns, receding in every direction, would
 ;

have created a generalized expanse in which the sohds and vol-

umes of the naos were homogeneous elements in the continuum
and even the long narrow volume between each pair of rows of
columns, blending with its neighbors in the rippled texture of
the total volume, would have lost
some of its longitudinal force. **

The major longitudinal movement of volumes was empha-

sized in western buildings by an extra room in the rear, usually
calledan adyton, and in some buildings was further elaborated
by elevating one or more of the successive stages above the one
in front, so that the worshiper ascended, as he approached the
image, from volume to volume. The distinction in level was
seldom great, of course, but when at all present would have con-
stituted a real factor. The low— two-step— platform ot the third
Heraeum at Samos, with the colonnade drawn back some ten
feetfrom the edge, and the high platform of the fourth Heraeum,
would have created special effects of this sort.
The solid elements of the buildings of the sixth century, too.
had considerable variety. The columns (Plates 30, 37-39, 42), in
general, from the beginning of the century were notably short in
proportion to their thickness, and in the Doric order, at least, had
a pronounced diminution many_ of them had pronounced
;

entasis— curvature of the vertical profile— also, but lacked the

more subtle refinements. The bases of the Ionic order were large
with sweeping profil eSj ^nd el aborately textured with grooving
or other ornament (Plate 45). Doric capitals showed a general
chronological progression from broadly flaring, sweeping curves
to a more compact conical form (Plates 29, 30, 37-39, 41, 42).
Ionic capitals also spread broadly (Plate 46), with bold shallow
bulging forms rather than the crisp concave hollows of the later
classical manner. Especially in Magna Graecia moldings of Ionic
character were applied to the Doric column and anta capitals-for
example, leaf-moldings under the capital, subduing the transition
from shaft to echinus (though not obscuring it) and contributing ^^
another texture to the design (Plate 41).
'
Ttie columns, trsuallyjow and close-set by classical standards,

developed a strong horizontal movement m the facade and

especially on~tEe~fIanks. This motion was smooth and^ flowing,
but there was variety in the spacing of the columns in D oric ^
buildings, particularly in response to a problem crea ted by the
relation of the column to the triglyphs in the frieze.
"rhe trigTypFTat a corner, being narrower than the thickness
of a^coTumn," \vi)ulcl lie some distance within the corner of the
 frieze, if its center fell on the column. Thus the abso-
axis of the
lute regularity ol spacing of columns and of triglyphs could not
be maintained simultaneously, if it were desired to have the
triglyph full on the corner. It is possible, of course, to harmonize
the discrepancy by compromising a little on the absolute regu-
larity of all components throughout their entire expanse,
without apparent violence to any, but the solutions of the sixth
century did work perceptible violence on one or another of the
components, thus introducing a note of irregularity or strain in
one or another of the rhythms.
But the most conspicuous peculiarity of temple design in the
sixth century was in the entablature, m the broadest sense— the
parts above the columns (Plates 30, 39, 40, 43). In this period this
part of the tagadc occupied generally a much larger proportion of
TFie composition than in later periods, with the result that the
colonnade was less open, while the flat expanse of masonry ""

above was prominent as enclosing wall and far less distinct as an

aspect of the ceiling and roofing elements. Thus the facade
became a continuous plane, variously textured but essentially
one unit while the existence of the over-all three-dimensional
;

t^ form of the building, that would be emphasized by the sharp dis-

tinction of a capping element, was minimized. This effect was at
its maximum in a few buildings such as the temple of Athena

(Ceres) at Paestum (Plate 39), which had no horizontal cornice in

front, so that the triangle of the pediment merged almost unim-
peded with frieze and architrave and the sweep of columns below.
This great expanse of solid masonry above the columns was
treated with considerable variety. In most Doric temples the
basic pattern of architrave and frieze was employed, but with
much variety in the minor details. The number of guttae on
regulae and mutules was sometimes less than six; the mutules
between the triglyphs were sometimes narrower than those over
28 the triglyphs (Plates 30, 40); sometimes, as in the Temple of
Athena (Ceres) at Paestum (Plate 39), other kinds of moldings
than the normal Doric appeared above architrave and frieze.

The variations were among buildings, of course, and the system

was consistent in any one building, but the significance is, first,

that in this as in other points of design there was a moderate

degree of particularism; and even more, in any one building
employing a variation on the ideal, the rhythms and patterns
would be variegated and intricate as the meters of contemporary
lyric poetry were.
 Xhe colors oi the elements of the entablature (Plate 40),
moreover, bolder than later, accentuated the beats of the
rhythms and the range of texture. The sculpture, too, in pedi-
fnents anH metopes was brilliantly painted according to its own
cafioJfTsTthe lights and shadows among the figures, the increasing-
^
ly intricate patterns ot movement in the sculptured figures added
greatly to the richness of the surface ot the facade. Finally the
great terra-cotta acroteria and other ornamental tiles brought
along the top of the building bold surfaces with lavish, almost
extravagant colors and textures (Plates 33a, b).

In all this it may appear that the originality and curiosity of

the sixth century was mostly in Asia Minor and even more in
Magna Graecia, for the buildings ot mainland Greece— the
Temple of "Apollo" at Corinth (Plates 35, 38), the Old Athena
Temple at Athens, the Doric and Ionic treasuries at Delphi
(Plates 43, 44)— are all, within a moderate range ot variation,
closer to the "conservative" main stream of design and propor-
tions, as we are likely to think of it, which runs through the
fifth century. Actually, the individuality of the mainland style
within the sixth century is nonetheless real for the fact that it

was followed into the fitth. The "mutation" of the sixth century
that was "successful," so to speak, was that of the mainland. Its
success was due in part to the fact that in it the formulation of
volumes and solids was best adapted to three-dimensional form
-that is, to the form in which geometrical mass is most clearly
perceptible— and in it could be developed the clearest architec-
tonic organization permeated with the most effective currents
of regular rhythmic movement. In part its success was also due
to the stimulus of the destruction of the Persian Wars, dramati-
cally commemorated by the arrangement, in the new fortifica-
tions of the Acropolis in Athens, of the column drums and other
members of archaic buildings on the Acropolis destroyed by the
Persians. ^^
In this tradition the Hephaisteion, which we have already
described at some length, was typical (Plates 2-5). Essentially
similar, with differences important only in a detailed analysis of
Greek would be the Temples of Aphaia at Aegina
architecture,
(Plate 51), Zeus at Olympia, Poseidon at Sunion, Nemesis at
Rhamnous (these last two were erected by the same architect as
the Hephaisteion's and differed only in the most subtle ways)
-even temples in Magna Graecia such as those of Poseidon at
Paestum (Plate 52), Concord at Akragas, "A" at Selinus.
 More revealing than the differences anicnig such temples are
those between the Hephaisteion and the buildings on the
Athenian Acropolis.Tlie^Parthenon (Plates 53^56, 64) shows the
limit and nature of possible modification of the ideal type if all
external controls were removed: it was conceived as the supreme
architectural adornment of a city that at the time was supreme in
d
\>:^^
the Greek world, at the height of all its resources. '° Whatever the
architect— and the people— might have desired in a building
might have been provided, or at least attempted. In fact, nothing
more than a moderately and subtly enriched version of the type
represented by the fiephaisteion was considered— though com-
pletely and perfectly realized. The over-all proportions are essen-
tially the same so that, although the Parthenon is more than

twice as large, it is no more dominating, and the difference in

size is most effectively revealed in the 8 x 17 colonnade of the
Parthenon compared with the 6 x 13 of the Hephaisteion. In
the Parthenon the columns are a little more compact, the
entablature a little heavier. The building is richer in having all
metopes sculptured rather than only those on the front and at
the ends of the sides, with a frieze running all around the top of
the cella wall inside rather than merely across the pronaos; and,
of course, it is infinitely richer through the effect of light and
shadow, movement and texture of the sculptures themselves. But
all this, in a sense, is simply a function of the greater scale and is

no more obtrusive in proportion. There are, however, important

differences in the adaptation of naos to peripteron : the prostyle
fagade of six columns across the very shallow pronaos creates a
recession of shallow volumes in the organization of movement
from the exterior to the interior, instead of offering the more
spacious volumes with greater penetration encountered in
entering the Hephaisteion. But the most significant differences
are scarcely perceptible the curvatures of steps and stylobate,
:

30 architrave and frieze; the intricate system of inclinations of the

columns on front, sides and corners, in addition to the finer
quality of the more common refinements of entasis and the extra-
ordinary precision of carving, even in such minute details as the
Pscarcely noticeable arrises between the flutes. The^ great snperi-
7 orit y of the Parthenon, then, lies in the sheer quality and sen-

sitivity in the multitude of details, any of which belong in any

building, but all of which are embodied in this building, to

animate it within its logically structured regularity more per-
vasively and more completely than any other building. The result
stiniulaic'S most fully and exactly the sensory realization of the
Hellenic concept ot the good. VvVT^^^^
Revealing in another way is the Erechtheum (Plates 53, 57-59, \ ^"^
64), which shows the extent to which the ideal forms could yield
to drastic external controls— not economic, to be sure, but topo-
graphical and cultic.
Several cults were accommodated in the building: in the
eastern part was the most holy shrine ot Athena Polias; in the
western part were shrines of vague figures from early mythic
tradition— Erechtheus and Butes, and the obscurely related
Poseidon and Hephaistos. Within the western part was the "sea"
of Poseidon; just outside, but within the north porch, were
marks of Poseidon's trident on the rock outside
; to the west were
the sanctuary of Pandrosos and the numinous olive tree of
Athena under the southwest corner was the tomb of Cecrops.
;

The building, accommodated to these sacra and distributed over

an irregular terrain, had to have an east entrance at one level, a
secondary entrance at the west end of the south side at the same
level, a major entrance at the west end of the north side at a

distinctly lower level, a secondary entrance on the west at the

same low level. For the two major entrances— on east and north
—normal Ionic fagades were designed. That for the east was of
the usual shallow prostyle kind; that on the north was a semi-
independent open porch on a scale consonant with the double
height of the building as erected from the lower level. The en-
trance from the west was a simple, almost unadorned door con-
ceived as leading to a basement, with the main floor level above
designated by a colonnade resting on the basement wall. The
entrance from the south was built with a small porch enclosed
by a balustrade supporting caryatids carrying the roof-a more
original design than any of the other porches, but with prece-
dents-so far as the caryatids are concerned, at least-in the
-^^
richer small buildings of the archaic period. In short, the solution
to theproblem was not so much to force all the particulars into
one scheme, nor yet to yield to each in its eccentricities, but to
admit the particular freely in its natural place, recognizing it in

its ideal form.

Finally the Propylaea" (Plates 53, 60-64), too, shows the
adaptation of an ideal form-in this case the form of a gate-to a
two ways. First, in the original design the
particular situation, in
essential form of the gate was preserved, richer, again, in its
complication of volumes and its quality of workmanship than
 "

most gates, remaining typical. Second, even in its

but still

existing, and unfinished state, the parts actually

curtailed,
executed constitute completed forms, fulfilled in themselves
according to the ideal types.
Thus in the temples ot the seventh through the fifth centuries
the gradual achievement of an agreement, after exploration of
various values, on the kind of form most fully illustrated today in
the Hephaisteion seems to be seen. It is not necessary to repeat
the introductory analysis of that building at this point, but it

may be valuable to look briefly at the elements of the Ionic order,

not exemplified in the Hephaisteion: the bases, shafts, capitals,
and moldings of the Erechtheum, (Plate 59), the Propylaea
(Plate 62, 63), the temple of Athena Nike (Plate 63). These, too,
in comparison with their counterparts of the archaic period
(Plates 44-46), show the same ideal, objective, and literal concep-
tion of a reality that is not only clear, substantial, alive, but also
evenly and logically structured (compare Plate 50).
^Buildings other than temples may have existed through these
centuries in greater numbers than are now known, lost because
they were constructed of slighter materials. Certainly in the
Heraeum at Samos a large stoa was built in the seventh century
(Plate 24), elaborated to the extent of having a double row of
columns and being divided into three sections or
(really posts),

"rooms. " '^ and aesthetic purposes

In this the essential functional
of the stoa are already fully achieved: to create an interior volume
freely related to an exterior volume which is to a degree created,
in two dimensions, by the breadth of the stoa itself and, subjec-
tively, in the third, by the implications of movement toward and

away from the facade and the interior of the building. More
famous is the smaller, simpler marble Ionic stoa of the Athenians
at Delphi of the early fifth century. By the end of the fifth century
monumental stoas in stone devoted to purposes reflecting the full
•^^ range of potential function existed. On the Acropolis the archi-
tecture of the Sanctuary of Artem.is of Brauron (Plates 53, 64)
consisted exclusively of a simple stoa with long narrow wings
projecting from each end to enclose the space on three sides : the
walls of these wings were treated with half-columns.'^ In the
agora (Plates 65, 66), the Stoa of Zeus was much finer in concep-
tion and execution, with a double colonnade and temple-like
facades projecting from each end— providing the building itself
with significant dominants in its own dynamic balance. On the

south side of the agora was a stoa less rich in material and refined__
in execution, having not onlj{ ajdouble colonnade but a series of
rooms beKin^ these devoted, remarkably enough, to dirung
rooins, presumably for civic officials and guests of the city."*
Stoas were used even ior gatherings of considerable groups of
people- the Stoa of Zeus at Athens may have served as the
courtroom for King Archon— but other types of Kuildings were"
required for larger groups and other specific purposes. It is char"^
acteristic that many of these were unfoofed, open-air enclosures.
The conspicuous example of this is the theater which, however,
did not begin to have formal shape until the end of the fifth

century. The earliest arrangements for dramatic or quasi-

dramatic purposes required simply a slope of ground— if that-
facing on the place of the performance. This was, originally,
before the development of drama as an mdependent art, some
religious rite, and the "theatron"— seeing place— might be simply
the slope of the hill beside a temple. Even after the drama began
to develop independently in the cult of Dionysos, aroimd the end
of the sixth century, the same accommodation sufficed; any
construction w^as limited to temporary affairs of light materials
for the housing of costumes and properties before this lay the
;

orchestra— the "dancing place"— and beyond was the hillside

with seating accommodation, whether natural or contrived. Not
until around the middle of the century was the scene building
Constructed of even semi-permanent material, though its func-
tion remained the same— storage, and a fagade before which the
action in the orchetra or on a low stage between could take place.
Aesthetically these buildings depended more on the natural
setting and the dramatic production than on architectura design.
For smaller groups, or those requiring seclusion, an assembly
hallwas occasionally provided. Thus a simple apsidal structure I

housed the council at Olympia in the early sixth century shortly ;

1\^^ S W^ \
y
before the middle of the century the council at Athens was '\>\i(
provided with a crude rectangular room facing on a large open ^^
enclosure, at the other end of which was a building consisting of
a number of rooms facing on a court, lined on two sides with
wooden posts, stoa-fashion; this latter building served to house
the prytany-the "executive committee" of the council during
its continuous service of a month (Plate 48).
" What came to be the typical form of assembly hall was devel-
oped early at Elgys^ for the secret rites ot Deineter (Plate 47).
Originally the rites were performed in the cpeii air around the
shrine; ultimately a building was erected to include the shrine
 and seclude the participants. It was Rect angular— longer than
wide, with a porch across one end, but iri the fiifth century the
first of a series or much was projected and
larger square buildings
ultimately built. There were seats running along the walls, and
the roof was supported on parallel rows of columns, creating a
hypostyle hall. In this the interior volume was essentially cubical,
organized only in the rhythm of ranks and file of columns. In
Athens the Council House of the late sixth century was of this
type, and so, too, its later fifth-century replacement (Plate 65),
though this was modified by the semicircular arrangement of
seats within, achieving for the first time an architectural design
comprising the fusion of square and circle in one form. The
Odeion of Pericles, south of the Acropolis, was square— the
arrangement of seats and columns probably rectangular— and
was famous in antiquity for its roof, which may have been
pyramidal. A peculiar form of assembly hall is the fifth-century
Tholos at Athens (Plate 65), a cylindrical structure with solid
walls and six columns within, arranged not in a ring concentric
with the walls but in two facing arcs creating a sort of aisle along
the diameter. Parallels for this may well have existed but are not
known for the "tholoi" of the archaic period at Delphi were not
assembly halls and were designed with peripteral colonnades.
It is, then, noteworthy that there were so few enclosed build-
ings, although this may have social and functional explanations.
As to those that existed, it is significant that they were restricted
to the most simple geometric forms, and indicate no effort to
elaborate the form. The bare essential form for the purpose at
hand was created, in and of itself.
Finally domestic architecture should be noted. From Larisa in
Asia Minor (Plate 49) sixth-century houses are known which
follow^ the forms of the Mycenaean megaton. A "megaron**
type almost surely existed in Greece itself during the eighth
^^ century, since this scheme was followed in the naos of the temple,
and the terra-cotta models from Perachora and the Argive
Heraeum may as well be houses as temples. In these the aesthetic
principles were essentially the same as in the Mycenaean
megaron. But on the mainland an entirely different type seems
to have been favored in the fifth century, characterized by an
irregular agglomeration of quadrangular rooms around an open
courtyard (Plate 67). Aesthetically it is marked by the irregularity,
and the fact that the rooms have no relation to each other— all are
entered from the courtyard, eacli exists as a unit of its own.
\Moreover, the rooms, and the courtyard too, were relatively
small and compact./
Concluding this view of the classical phase of Greek archi-
tecture with a reference to the manner of planning groups of
buildings, one is immediately struck by a lack of logical order in
the arrangement of sanctuary or public marIcet(Piater53r64"
iSB^fDSjThat seems fundamentally incompatible with the thor-
ough ordering and simple geometry of the buildings themselves.
It is true that the so-called Hippodameian systeni of town
planning, in rectangular blocks of streets, was being developed
during the fifth century, and even in the archaic periods in the
new foundations of colonies in the west, such as in Selinus, even
temples were lined up in parallel rows. Still, the typical composi-
tion of groups through the fifth century with its lack of formal
order does demand an accounting. In facjt. this irregularity
accomplishes two whether from. Gonscious intent or not.
results,

First, it makes each building an independent reality existing in

its own right, and second, it relieves the careful definition in the

buildings tTiemseTves.On the one hand the order in the building

is more evident by contrast on the other, the casual move-
the ;

ment of the exterior space, the variety of natural and monumen-

tal elements around, create a freedom and vividness of their own

which strengthen the elements of vitality within the building.

The totality, then, creates and embodies an awareness of objec-
tive reality, structurally ordered but alive; a part of the world, to
be sure, but free and self-sufficient within it (compare Plate 50).

35
 THE FORM OF KOSMOS:
Plato to Augustus: 400-31 B.C.

In the fifth century man's potentialities were defined by the

tangible limits of the city-state in the Hellenistic period, within
;

the vastly expanded horizon of the world of affairs, the bound-

aries of his sphere lay far beyond his objective experience. In the
fifth century philosophers were still concerned with essential
^^ substance; later, beginning with Plato and Aristotle, they
struggled with problems of intangibles— metaphysical, ethical,
and physical relationships. Before, religion was a meeting of
man with god and divine law after, it was increasingly a matter
;

of making them one. In literature and art the perspective shifts

from a concentration on man in his direct experience, to man in

his experience of psychic and environmental forces. The external

phenomena which accompany this change in ethos-whether as

cause or effect— include the failures of the city-state during the

Peloponnesian Wars and their aftermath, the conquest ot the
east by Alexander, and the subsequent establishment of the
Hellenistic kingdoms. The shift began within the Hellenic world,
but soon merged in a confluence of cultures throughout the
eastern Mediterranean, and ultimately also with the Roman
tradition, which spread finally to the limits of the Mediterranean
world under Augustus Caesar.
In architecture, too, this period saw chariges. To be sure there
were no important new structural devices. Arches, known per-
haps even and even vaulting were employed, but not to
earlier,

*any extent or with any aesthetic importance. Nor were any

essentially new functional forms developed, although forms
known before but rarely or in incipient form become common
aiid more varied. Particularly noteworthy is the gyrnnasium, and
tRe^smaller palaestra, essentially rectangular open areas for
exercise enclosed by colonnades, behind which on some sides

might be enclosed rooms including baths, dressing rooms, lec-

ture halls. Increasingly important was a type of religious building,

completely enclosed, designed for private worship by initiates in

some "mystery" cult. Normally it would resemble a house, with

a large colonnaded courtyard off which opened the cult chambers,
mcluding one or more rooms for the image of the god or gods, a
banqueting hall, and special rooms for the particular rites of the

cult. Such buildings existed in earlier periods, but the societies

using them were relatively small and their establishments poor
and vaguely defined, in contrast to the much greater prominence
of this kind of cult in Hellenistic times.''
The number of large temples in the traditional forms dating
from the fourth century are fewer in proportion to those of the
fifth and sixth, and fewer still during the Hellenistic period. This
is in some part due to the great number then surviving from
earlier years and also to the spread of the new religions, but also
may be due in some part at least to the limitation of the power of
the traditional forms to embody the new values. There is, how- -37

ever, a shift in emphasis in the design of such temples as were

erected, especially in those which were actually new designs and
not simply reconstructions of older buildings.
For one thing, a greater emphasis was put on the vertical
dimension. This was achieved in part by a fairly consisten t
sho rtening of the proportions of the ground ^an (Plate 69).
During the fiftTTcentury this would have been in a ratio with the
length slightly more than twice the width; later the length
would be slightly less than twice the width. Concurrently there
 was a tendency to make columns taller in proportion to their
thickness than hitherto, emphasizing the veftTcar movement as
well as adding actual height. Also, the proportion of entablature
tb'the total expanse of the facade was reduced, lessening the force
of the entablature in terminating the upward movement; the
consequence of this in a Doric frieze extended to the introduc-
tion of an extra triglyph in each intercolumniation, complicating
the rhythms and textures and lightening the weight of the
entablature in general. The tendency, then, is to diminish the
mass of the building (Plates 70-72).
The effect was felt too in the volumes. Even in regular perip-
teraTTtlliples the proportion of the thickness of the column to
the intercolumniation was diminished, giving greater promin-
ence to the empty space and the potential of movement through
it. Moreover, many major on the pseudo-
buildings were built
peripteral scheme— that is, with the space between naos wall and
outer colonnade double the normal width found in regular
temples. This was the form of some archaic buildings, but in them
the height was less, and the volume relatively low and flat in
contrast to the greater height that was characteristic of the great
temple at Sardis begun in the fourth century, the third-century
temples at Messa and Sminthe, and the second-century Arteme-
sium at Magnesia (Plates 68, 69, 71). The effect in these was to
emphasize the seclusion of the naos within the open space en-
closed by the peripteron, and to maximize the openness— the
width and height, as well as length, of the colonnade corridors
themselves. The peculiar compositions of interior volumes in the
temples at Sardis, and Miletus, and the development of the naos
and pronaos of the Artemesium at Magnesia, are further indica-
tion of a growing interest in problems of relationship of volumes.
Finally it is worth noting the number of temples on elevated
platforms, approached by considerable numbers of steps. This
•^^
too may well have been adapted from archdic buildings like the
Fourth Heraeum at Samos, but in any case the temples at Sardis,
Ephesus, Miletus, and Magnesia did stand high on all sides and,
whether by accident or choice, some small temples like that of
Hera Basileia at Pergamum also stood in elevated position ap-
proached only from the front. All this relates to a growing
interest in intangibles, like volume, space-time relationships, and
freer, fuller movement.

The new interest is evident, also, in the Corinthian capital,

which appeared first in the latter part of the fifth century at
Bassae as a tightly compact form. In the Tholos in the Marmaria
at Delphi around 400 B.C. (Plate 73) the volutes were indepen-
dent reverse spirals applied to the bell supporting the abacus at
the corners. At Tegea (Plate 74), the interior half columns about
mid-century had low compact capitals but the leaves began to
flare and the volutes to grow up from their midst. In the capitals
of the Choregic Monument of Lysikrates a few years later
(Plate 76) the leaves and had an almost de-
especially volutes
tached form, similar to applied metal work. In the Tholos at
Epidaurus, the leaves were looser, the volutes more slender and
volatile (Plate 75), and it was this form which prevailed; the
developed form of the capitals of the Olympieion at Athens in
the second century were conceived of leaves and volutes, each of
diminished intrinsic importance, growing and spreading one
from behind the other, and reaching into the space around in
luxuriant profusion (Plate 77).
Ionic bases and and the traditional moldings ol
capitals, too,

egg-and-dart, bead-and-reel, and various kinds of leaves-broad

and flat in the sixth century, solid and compact in the fifth-were
now set in ample space bringing light and shadow more fully
into play and emphasizing the space itself as an element in the
relationship (Bases: Plates 45, 63, 80; Capitals Plates 46, 60, 81;
:

Moldings: Plates 44, 59, 78-79).

But it is rather the stoas which represent the new age, both
functionally and aesthetically. One of the finest was the South
Stoa at Corinth,'* from the latter part of the fourth century
(Plates 82, 83). Though built of poros-a relatively soft limestone-
the workmanship was in every way of the highest quality, and
the exposed surfaces were covered, as poros buildings usually
were, with a white, thin, hard, and smooth stucco or plaster
which could take and hold the most refined detail. It was some
one hundred sixty-five meters in length, stretching almost the
39
entire length of the agora. Along the front ran a narrow terrace;
then there was a facade of the Doric order, and a row of Ionic
columns down the middle of the covered space behind; the rear
half was devoted to a series of two-room shop spaces on the
ground level and another above, presenting a two-story fac^ade
within the building facing on the open colonnade-space, about
twelve meters wide. The open floor space, almost 40 feet wide
-about 22,000 square feet-and some 23 feet high, was extremely
spacious and allowed the free circulation of large numbers of
people.
 The variety of stoas in their adaptation to particular use—
wifKout altering fundamentally the aesthetic form— was almost
infinite. Some were simple— a row of columns before a wall;
others consisted of a double row of columns before a wall others
;

had single or double rows of rooms behind the colonnades.

Many were but a single story in height some were more than
;

one, in various combinations. The Stoa of Attalos at Athens

(Plates 84-87), from the mid-second century, had the colonnade
as well as the shops in two stories.^'' At Assos (Plate 88) was a

four-story stoa— though its principle facade, on the Agora, was

only one story in height, the other three being below this and
facing (not with colonnades) on the hill slope below.
Other kinds of adaptation existed. The Middle Stoa along the
south side of the main area of the Agora in Athens (Plate 110),
from around the middle of the second century, had no walls at
all there were columns on all four sides, and a row running down
:

the middle, between which screens could be arranged to develop

spatial arrangements suitable to changing needs. Southward
from the east end of this, enclosing the smaller "Commercial
Agora" on the east, was a short double-facing stoa fronting
both on the road to the east and on the Commercial Agora
behind: in the middle of its central wall was a more or less
monumental doorway, so that the whole building became a kind
of propylon or formal entrance. At the other extreme there were
stoas— if they may be so called— that were completely enclosed,
with no exterior columns.
These stoas were independent buildings, self-defined, one unit
with the terrace which normally lies in front of them. They were
related to the space in front as one integral thing to another;
though they helped to define that space, they were distinct from
it. A somewhat different relationship existed in the U-shaped

stoas of the cities of Asia Minor, for example Priene and Miletus
"^^
(Plates 89-91). Here the stoa, itself relatively simple, was drawn
along three sides of the open area so as to confine the area almost
entirely— not quite completely, for the fourth side was open to
the street and the more dominant stoa beyond. L-shaped stoas,
too, were known, with a still different relationship between
building and space, but with the U-shape stoa the semienclosed
space became a fixed and integral element in an architectural
unit.
Yet another scheme of relationships was created in a building
such as the Roman Market in Athens'^ (Plate 92) or the Stoa of
the Italians at Delos (Plate 93, upper where the colonnades
left),

ran around all and the space was completely isolated

four sides
Such an enclosiire"was"in effect a building in which the enclosed
volume was a peristyle courtyard-a whole and separate unit
among other units, whereas in the composition of a U-shaped
stoa the space, though articulated with the buildmg, retained
contact with the space beyond, and remained part of it.

The stoa, then, became a device for creating an interior

volume that was integrated m various degrees with an external
volume— as the peripteral temple integrated a solid form to the
world about it. The forms of volume predominated in the stoa,
""

though they remained the simple rectangular prisms that char-

acterized the earlier solids and volumes. The forms of solids
themselves are little changed, save that they are lighter individu-
ally. In over-all composition, the chief difference from the earlier
style is in the more even, general distribution, and the lack of
boldly focused dominants.
The concept of creating an open volume as the essential part
Roman Market in Athens, as
of a bu ilding, characteristic of the
distinctfrom out-of-door space drawn into ari architectural
composition, was characteristic also of the gymnasium and
palaestra (Plate 94). The fully enclosed rooms were independent
entities, connected only with the colonnaded corridor, and
definitely subsidiary to the open area. The seclusion of the en-
closed space, its self-containment, and yet its complete open-
ness to the sky above, together with the simplicity of the expanse
of the colonnades, the lightness of their structure and proportion
constitute its peculiar aesthetic quality.
Completely enclosed halls appeared in greater numbers and
v^[i1i?ty''1mdTTTtfeased in sophistication. In the mid-fourth ccn- ~^

tury'' v^T~erected ' the "Thersilion at Megalopolis, remarkable

chiefly in colonnaded porch served as the scene, or
that its
"^^
perhaps rather proskenion, of the theater beyond, a rare example
of the fusion of two distinct buildings into one aesthetic and
functional composition. It was rectangular, a little wider than
deep, and the mternal supports were arranged in lines parallel to
the back and side walls but so that they all fell on lines radiating

from a point near the middle. There were, however, so many

supports that it is likely that this system was not easily percep-
tible. A large enclosed building-sometimes called a "stoa" or a
"basilica" or less controversially a "hypostyle hall" -is known
from the harbor region in Delos from around 210 B.C. (Plate 93,
 lower left). The structure, a large rectangle with one long side
open for most of its length through a colonnade, may in fact
have been a warehouse or auction building, and in a sense had
little architectural pretension, but it did have many peculiarities

in details inside and outside. The roof was supported on columns,

arranged so that there were four Ionic columns on axis (a space in
the middle of the row, where a fifth might have stood, was
vacant); around this was a rectangle of Ionic columns; around
that a rectangle of Doric columns. Thus the volumes were con-
centric rectangular prisms. Much finer buildings from the point
of view of material and workmanship were the Ekklesiasterion at
Priene (Plates 95, 96) and the Bouleuterion at Miletus (Plate 91,
center), representative of two developed types of a small assem-
bly hall. The former had seats arranged parallel to three walls,
the speakers' platform on the fourth; the latter had seats in
concentric semicircles, as in a theater.
The design of theaters changed notably during this period. In
the fourth century, the theater at Epidaurus (Plate 97) was devel-
oped from a fully circular orchestra; the seats rose in concentric
I^f \M
i^'^
^'
'
semicircles from the orchestra and were divided by radiating
narrow-stepped aisles of ascent and descent. The scene building
was presumably a simply designed structure of rectangular forms,
probably two stories in height with a one-story proskenion
stretched across the front ojF it, and slightly projecting wings at
eacfi end. The roof of the proskenion could be reached by ramps
from each side, or from within the scene building, but it was
probably not used much for acting the acting still normally took
;

place at orchestra level in front of the proskenion fagade of Ionic

columns (in common).
other similar theaters, Doric was more
In the theater at Athens, about this time, a more monumental
fagade was built for the scene building, with columned wings or
paraskenia projecting from its ends; later a proskenion was
"^^
stretched between the paraskenia.
Ultimately the form known best from the later phase of the
became common, with the roof of the^
theater at Priene (Plate 98)
proskenion— the regular place for acting— thus opening up large
sections of the wall of the scene building behind to arrange scenic
effects. Later, too, the proskenion might encroach on the
orcTiestra,and the orchestra lose its clear, distinct, circular form,
as at Delos, Pergamum, and Delphi (Plate 99). This had the
effect of integrating the scene and proskenion more closely to

the theatron. When the orchestra was a distinct full circle the
scene building was a mere external tangent to the circle, while
the theatron was a natural development of the circle itself. Later,
when the line of the proskenion— an element of the scene com-
plex—cut across the perimeter of the circle of the orchestra, both
scene buildings and theatron were natural developments of parts
of the same circle. This closer unity, then, gave clearer integra-
tion to the several solid elements and clearer definition to the
enclosed volume than in the older form, when the seats of the
theatron and the structure of the scene building simply con-
fronted each other across the circle of the orchestra.
A building of an entirely different kind that sums up in a way
the aesthetic of monumental architecture in the Hellenistic
period is the Great Altar at Pergamum (Plates 100, 101). The
altar itself, a massive rectangular platform of a type well known
was located on a broad platform approached
since archaic times,
by steps all along one side. The top of the platform was sur-
rounded by rectangular piers with attached Ionic columns in
front and back. Behind these, on three sides, was a wall which
ran out on the projecting podia flanking the stairs. Around the
outside of the wall ran Ionic columns; at the top of the stairs
these columns matched the piers of the inner rectangle. Sculp-
tures representing the titanic battle of gods and giants, on a

grand scale, ran around the basement of the platform, and there
were others on a slighter scale on the wall behind the piers. The
effect was impressive: approaching, one would have seen the

great mass of the structure looming up; one would ascend the
tremendous flight of stairs between the projecting colonnaded
podia, proceed through the outer columns, through the inner
piers, to the inner rectangle surrounding the altar itself, which,
in turn, rose conspicuously above the floor of the platform in the
middle. The detail cannot be assessed completely, since much of

it seems to have been left unfinished; but the exterior sculpture

is used so lavishly— especially its powerful, surging movements— '^-^

dramatic-even sensational-that it infuses the architectural com-

position with a vigor and restlessness that is new. With all its
individuality, the structure is typical of the new age in greater

emphasis on volume, in the relationship of separate entities of

mass and volume, and in greater emphasis on movement.
Domestic architecture becomes much clearer after the fifth

century. TThe houses discovered at Olynthos, dating from

many
the early part of the fourth century or a little before, reveal a type
of dwelling hitherto unknown, though it may have developed,
 somehow, from the type observed in Athens in the fifth century.
In essence the house was substantially square, with an approx-
imately square interior courtyard, along one side of which ran a
wide corridor for the whole width of the house— called the pastas.
Some of the rooms opened off the pastas, some off the courtyard.
The entrance, too, led into the courtyard. There were second- I

story rooms in some parts of some houses, at least. Only one of \

the rooms would normally have been at all elaborate— a more or i

less rectangular dining room, often identified by a characteristic f

mosaic floor with a band, sometimes slightly raised, around three ]

of the four sides. If there were courtyard columns supporting a

^
roof or balcony, they were slender and often carefully made.
This type of house is known also at Delos (Plate 102, lower
right) in the third and second century, but other houses at
Delos (Plate 102) lacked the characteristic pastas, and seem more
in the tradition of the old Athenian house. But in almost all houses
of any size the court had a peristyle, and this is the significant
development: the creation of an interior room open to the sky,
as distinct from a yard on which the rooms of the house faced.
But it is still true that the several rooms, including the peristyle,
retained their rectangular simplicity and their distinctness, and
were not composed as spaces developing one from the other.
The "megaron" type of house, known at Larissa in the fifth
century and before, was used also in the fourth century and later
at Priene (Plates 103, left, and 104). In this type the courtyard,
while an integral part of the house, remained a yard on which the
main buildmg faced, but such houses were often remodeled to
the peristyle form (Plate 103, right).
Finally the Hellenistic phase of Greek architecture is marked
by new attitudes in the planning of groups of buildings. In a
comparison, for example, of sanctuaries whose plan was defined
by the end of the fifth century, such as Delphi (Plate 108), and the
^"^
Acropolis at Athens (Plate 53) with later sanctuaries like that of
Zeus at Priene (Plate 89) or of Asklepios at Kos (Plate 105), it is
evident that in the earlier period the conscious emphasis at least
was on the individual buildings oriented only to a processional
way, whereas in the later there is a conscious intent to impose
greater clarity on the exterior volumes and on the relationships
among these and the buildings themselves. It is worth noting,
however, that even in the later planned groups asymmetry and
other irregularities are freely permitted— even in such nearly
symmetrical designs as the agoras at Priene (Plate 89) and
Miletus (Plates 90, 91). The open areas were permitted to accu-
mulate many various monuments organized only individually
with reference to lines of and the defining stoas were
traffic,

seldom, if ever, so commanding dwarf the swarms of people

as to
going about their business, who therefore became themselves an
element in the design. Moreover, in public spaces where the
design comprehended an actual group of several buildings the
space was rarely defined absolutely. Thus for all the organization
that was imposed on the external space, and the closer integra-
tion of this with the building, there were provided elements of
relief; a freedom within the order, as in the previous era, but an
order which now consciously as well as tacitly linked the reality
of substance to the reality of non-substance, and which recog-
nized the form in both.
Once again the character of the style may be measured in part
by the kind and extent of efforts to overcome or compromise
with externally imposed limitations, as in the city of Pergamum
(Plate 109). The might well have discouraged
precipitous terrain
any but the most determined— or romantic— designer, but by
means of an imposing system of terraces the city was lavishly
equipped with colonnaded agoras, sanctuaries, gymnasia— all in
rectilinear forms though often with disproportionately narrow
volumes. But it is deeply significant that, in spite of opportunities
to form novel spatial configurations linked through various
levels, all the forms remain within the types developed on less

dramatic terrain. Each building remains independent— its own

composition of mass and volume— directly related to the space
around but not formally related to other building complexes.
Another measure of stylistic change is to be found in such
efforts as were made to "modernize" older compositions— in the
kind of changes that were felt necessary to adapt the old sanctu-
ariesand cities to the new taste. The Agora at Athens (Plates 65,
"^^
110) was transformed in the second century so as to consist of
two fully and clearly defined spaces; the Metroon-Bouleuterion
complex was unified by a single continuous porch. But the de-
lining structures remained independent buildings, and a sense
of geometrically formed exterior volume was achieved without
the geometrical scheme's absorbing the individuality of the
several buildings. The two major volumes were related
exterior
and integrated-not as a single multidimensional spatial com-
position, butby the free and open movement between them
provided through the specially adapted Middle Stoa. Finally, at
 the extreme, in many ancient designs no fundamental changes
were made. Even at Olympia (Plates 106, 107), where conditions
were fully pliant, the design achieved more or less unconsciously
by the htth century, with the Echo Colonnade and the treasuries
on the terrace to the north establishing the essential geometric
dimensions, gave a form to the exterior space sufficient even for
the new age.
In general, the novelty of Hellenistic architecture was to devel-
op the form of interior— and, even more, of exterior— space, thus
asserting the reality and unity of^orporealand incorporeal being.
The general qualities of this broader reality were still those of
"classic" Hellenism. It was, as before/ ideal, clear, poised,
tangible, regularly and logically structui^d. But now, more than
before, it was felt to pervade the entiy cosmic universe.

46
 EPILOGUE:
Augustus to Constantinople: 31 B.C.-A.D. 330

The Greek tradition did not cease to be with the

"cleissic"

final domination of the Mediterranean world by Rome, but re-

mained alive until the Christian Greek tradition of Byzantium

emerged, and has indeed revived since. But to trace the classic
Greek style through the Graeco-Roman world would require a
close definition of what is "Roman" and what is "Graeco- ^^
Roman"— a task beyond the scope of this study. It becomes an
element in the fully synthesized compound oT Graeco-Roman
culture and, though usually perceptible, it is not really separable.
A "purely" Greek building, as the Roman completion o{ the
Olympieion Athens might be termed, is one that was designed
at
Greek times; an "archaizing" building, like
in its essentials in
the great Propylaea at Eleusis, is merely imitative. In many an
"original" building of the period, as at Palmyra and Baalbek, or
in a multitude of smaller buildings in the towns of Greece and
 the Mediterranean world in general, there are found innumerable
formal elements of traditional Greek architecture and many of
the principles of Greek design; but there are always fundamental
modifications of the Greek principles and a fusion with Roman
principles to create a new aesthetic system consonant with the
ideals and values of the new, vastly larger, much more strictly

disciplined world.

48

dates
In the following plates, unless otherwise indicated,
all

refer to the period Before Christ.

U<l>U,fUI<l>'

/. Map of the Hellenic World.

2. The Hephaisteion, Athens, ca. 449-444. View from southwest.
3. The Hephaisteion. Southwest corner.
i
5. The Hephaisteion. View in peripteron, space at rear.

Palace, Knossos, ca. RFteenth century.

Plan of principal levels.
The Great

7. The Great Palace, Knossos.

" Piano Nohile." Plan.
8. The Great Palace, Knossos. Residential apartment.

K-^'^-Sbf^-i^HM

9. The Little Palace, Knossos, ca. fifteenth century. Plan.

10. The Great Palace, Knossos. The Throne Room.

 ,jpy ^

'%,

\ vi*^
4^1

CL_

y\
.2

E,«fc_

^'^past^tv,
 11. Neolithic building, Tsangli in Thessaly,
before 3000. Plan.

12. The House of Tiles, Lerna, early third

millennium. Plan.

FOUNDATIONS OF
SUN-DRIED
.BRICKS

BURNT
BRICKS

WALLS Of
SUN-DRIED
BRICKS
CORRIDORS

JOFEET
I I I I

13. Round Building, Tiryns, late third

millennium. Plan.

14. Mycenaean Palace, Tiryns, ca. thirteenth century. Plan. ^-^ —

^.j b=^
15. The Lion Gate to the Palace, Mycenae, ca. thirteenth century.
16. The Treasury of Atreus, Mycenae, ca. thirteenth century.
 ACROPOLIS or PXLOS
AND
PALACeor NESTOR

17. Mycenaean Palace, Pylos, ca. thirteenth century. Plan.

18. Octopus Vase, Minoan, 1600-1500 B.C. 19. Floor decoration in Palace, Pylos.

>»/

.7/
-^y/
20. Geometric vase, Athens, eighth century.

l^sglF

21. Middle Helhdic building, Megdron

B, cind Temple of Apollo, Thermon,
second millennium, ninth century,
seventh century. Plan.
22. Terra-cotta models of houses or temples, 23. The Heraeum, Samos, eighth century. Plan.
Perachora and Argive Heraeum, eiohth
century.

24. The Heraeum, Samos, early seventh century. Plan.

25. Temple, Naeandria, ca. 600. Plan.

^immiiiiiiiliiUII I

IrTI"
26. Temple, Prinias, Crete, seventh century. Plan.

27. Temple, Prinias. Restored view.

 r
r:^f
/^

28. "Aeolic Capital," Nape (Kolumdado), Mytilene, ca. 600.

29. Early Doric capitals, Delphi, Aegina, Corfu, ca. 600.

r^-T^
nwaaaj
—
aaw aas^

rr'i'T I II

^'

Qgrer '
 30. Temple of Artemis, Corfu, cd. 600.

31. Pediment sculpture from Temple of Artemis.

32. Archaic Athenian vase, mid-sixth century. 33a. Antehx from Acropolis, Athens, sixth century.

33b. Treasury of Gela, Olympia. Cornice revetment, sixth century.

34. Archaic Temples in Magna Graecia. Plans (scale approximately 1 :1000).

6 • • • 6 •
35. Archaic temples in Greece. Plans (scale approximately 1 :1000).

. . • • •
•!

• • • •

• • • «

• • • •

• • • •

li • • il
 38. Temple ot Apollo, Corinth, ca. 540.

37. The Heraeum, Olympia, sixth century. Replacement capitals.

39. The Temple of Athena (Ceres), Paestum, ca. 510. Reconstructk
 40. The Early Temple, Aegina, ca. 560. Restored entablature.

41. The Temple of Athena (Ceres), Paestum. Capital with necking molding.
42. Ihc " b^.^ih^.i,
I'^c^iuiJi, i,d. 3^
 W^^/!rr^f/^- :'^ ^\^^^

43. The Treasury of the Siphnians (as restored in the Museum), Delphi, ca. 530.

rai 44. The Treasury of the

iT.:^'-^
Siphnians, Delphi.
^''' Moldings.

t^^;''-
W|f
i*-^'"^
wf
^

Am ^- «> t
 P*SE OF SCULPTURED COLUMN.
ARCHAIC TIMPLE M DIANA.. EPMCCOC
••ctMtHfD. fMOKAlM^M ., W LVtt<A
CltO<W>«. ItMlC

45. The Temple of Artemis, Ephesus, second hdlt of the sixth century. Base ot column.

46. The Temple of Artemis, Ephesus. Capital of column.

-1
 50. Red-figured vase, mid-Mth century.

51. Temple uf Aphaia, Aegina, ca. 490. Reconstruction.

52. Temples in the fifth century. Plans (scale approximately 1 :1000).

» • * ~i]

« • •
I

R
m
li • > >. J
a. Aphaia,
Aegina, c. Apollo, Bassae,
ca. 490. 450-425.

d. Poseidon, Paestum,
ca. 460.

b. Zeus, Olympia,
ca. 468-460.

53. The Acropolis, Athens. Plan.

V3»-
54. The Parthenon, Athens, 447-432. General view trom east.
55. The Parthenon, Athens. View along side, from northwest, showing curvature and entasis.

56. The Parthenon, Athens. Detail of corner, with entablature.

57. The Erechtheum, Athens, ca. 421-405. View from southeast.
58. The Erechtheum, Athens. View from northwest.
59. The Erechtheum, Athens. Detail of moldings.
 \

J*^
 62. The Propyhea, Athens. Capital on interior
ropylaea, Athens/Interior, looking
column.
eastward.

as in fifth century.
63. The Propylaea. and Temple oFNike, Athens,
64. The Acropolis, Athens. Model.
65. The Agora, Athens, end of fifth century. Plan.

66, Stoa of Zeus, Athens, ca. 420. Plaster model.

67. Houses, Athens, fifth century. Plans.

OlKiAD^—^n OIKIA C /^
 a. Artemis, Ephesus,
ca. 356-236.

b. Cybele, Sardis,
ca. 350-300.

c. Apollo, Didyma (Miletus),

ca. 313 B.C.-41 A.D.

J. Zeus Olympios, Athens,

ca. 174 B.C.-140 A.D.

ana
_ ^ ^
SQQEBEBfl
_
3
_,
n P S B3 El
"00
BB-lfni

a o D
I

Q S Q
1

a n D
a a ffi oaioiioaoooDDii^a^^
haananononnonnranaaf^
8. Colossal Hellenistic Temples. Plans (scale approximately 1:1000).
69. Smaller Hellenistic Temples. Plans (scale approximately 1:1000).

»*#!
 71. Temple of Artemis Leukophryne, Magnesia, ca. 175. Restoration.

72. Propylon of Sanctuary of Athena Polias, Pergamum, third century. Reconstruction.

73. Corinthian capital from Tholos,
Delphi, ca. 400.

14. Corinthian capital of Temple ot

Athena, Tegea, ca. 350.

75. Corinthian capital of Tholos, Epidaurus,

ca. 350. Elevation of restoration.
'Vs; A3
 Je
^"'.{^.y. ^^
^ l^s.
jt.4.

' V,!
•
p ic; x,f x;f
;.; i'.« itt
»a ^ :».» il> ;«
ifWrTTlXiV
::j !•:;': i;i •. I '.
^

I I I

,; lii HI .. ,11 ii: .M ill m ill M^. 1 lU ll» ill ! .' ^M V) '
18. Moldings from Temple of Athena, Tegea, ca. 350.

79. Moldings front Tholos, Fpidanrus, ca. 350.

80. Base of Column from Temple of Apollo, Didyma (Miletus), ffellenistic period.

81. Capital from Temple of Apollo, Didyma.

 82. The South Stoa, Corinth, ca. 325. Plan and elevation.

n±ttmt
^ .0.0.,.,
. CO
84. The Stoa of Attalos, Athens, ca. 150. Sectional model.

85. The Stoa of Attalos, Athens. View from exterior, as rebuilt.

86. The Stoa of Attalos, Athens. Interior, into first floor, as rebuilt.

^
 I!

81. The Stoci of Attalos, Athens. Interior, Erst floor, as rebuilt.

 '^^
^:^r^^
88. The Agora, Assos, ca. third century. Reconstruction.
 89. The Agora and environs, Priene, tourth century. Plan.

90. The Area, of the Agoras, Miletus, fourth century. Plan.

TrrrrrrM Tirnifii miiimmi i

11111
ffi
- '

illllllll

•
92. The Roman Market, Athens, hrst century. Plan.

93. Sanctuary and Agoras, Delos, ca. second century. Plan.

94. The Palaestra, Epidaurus, third century. Plan.

 95. The Ekklesmstenon, Friene, ca. 200. Plan.

96. The Ekklesiasterion, Priene. View of interior. Restored.

91. The Theater, Epidaurus, Fourth century.

^'.
98. The Theater, Priene, third century. Restoration.

99. The Theater, Delphi, second century.

100. The Great Altar of Zeus, Perganium, second century. Plan.

101. The Great Altar of Zeus, Pergamum, as rebuilt.

102. Houses, Delos, ca. third century. Plans.

ELn
n r

103. House, Priene, fourth centurv. Plan. 104. House, Priene. Restored view.
105. Sanctuary of Asklepios, Kos. ca. second century. Restoration.
 106. Sanctuary ot Zeus, Olympia. Plan.

107. Sanctuary of Zeus, Olympia. Restored view.

 CAMACAU.*
rtM^t

109. The Upper City, Pergamum. Plan.

108. Sanctuary of Apollo. Delphi. Plan.
ITITITTITITrrTTTTrrT
)

second century. Plan.

no. The Agora, Athens, hue
111. The Portland Vase, Hrst century.
 .

NOTES

Information on most of the buildings mentioned in the text,

and on other related buildings, and on other kinds of monu-

ments, may be found readily in and through the works ot
Dinsmoor, Lawrence, and Robertson cited in the bibliography
In the following notes are references to some significant
113
material published since Lawrence s book.
1. Strictly speaking the building has only three steps, but the
top of the foundation, although ot limestone rather than
marble, is clearly visible and presents essentially the appear-

ance and serves the function of a step. It should be noted also

that in the plan (Plate 4) the interior colonnade is shown as

having three columns across the back; although there is a

tendency to think that there should be four, this plan is used

here because ot its completeness and clarity.
 2. The relatively great importance of the builder as compared
with the designer is perhaps overemphasized l)y Bundgaard
[Mnesicles, esp. pp. 93-99), but the principle is probably sound.
3. On the functional aspect of Minoan palaces, see also recent
articles by }. Walter Graham in American four mil of Archae-
ology, LX (1956), pp. 151-57; LXI (1957), pp. 255-62; LXIII
(1959), pp. 47-52; LXIV (1960), pp 329-33 and 335-41 ; LXV
(1961), pp. 165-72; and idem, The Palaces of Crete (Prince-
ton, 1962).
4. On the House of the Tiles and other buildings at Lerna, see

J.
L. Caskey, Hesperia, XXIII (1954), pp. 3-30, esp. 23-27;
XXIV (1955), pp. 25-49, esp. 37-41 ; XXV (1956), pp. 146-73,
esp. 162-69; XXVI (1957), pp. 142-62; XXVII (1958), pp.
125-44, esp. 127-29; XXVIII (1959), pp. 202-7.
5. For a Mycenaean private house see Nicholas Verdelis,
Archaeology, XIV (1961), pp. 12-17.
6. See George Mylonas, Mycenae, pp. 103-76.
7. For the Palace at Pylos see C. W. Blegen, American Journal
of Archaeology, LX (1956), pp. 95-101 ; LXI (1957), pp.
129-35; LXIII (1959), pp. 121-27; LXIV (1960), pp. 153-60;
LXV (1961), pp. 153-58.
8. Compare Dinsmoor, Architecture of Ancient Greece, pp.
40-41. On the origin of the peripteral colonnade there is an
intriguing possibility exactly contrary to the relatively con-
ventional suggestion in the text. At Olympia in Roman
times there was a structure ot four columns supporting a
roof protecting an ancient wooden pillar said to have
belonged to the house ot Oenomaos, and other columns
supporting a roof over the tomb ol Oxylus [Pausanias, V,
20, 6; VI, 24, 9), (Dinsmoor, p. 53; Robertson, p. 66). Other
114
"monopteral" buildings — colonnades without walls — are
known (cf. Dinsmoor, p. 116, n.3), and especially one at

Samos (Hans Schleil, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archa-

ologischen Instituts, Athenischc Abtcilung, LVIII (1933),
pp. 211 ff., esp. pp. 212-17) built apparently to protect the
image during a reconstruction ot the great temple in the
sixth century. Is it possible that the peripteral form evolved
actually from a kind of monopteral structure— a "baldac-
chino"— of the period around the tenth century.'*
9. Plate 36 shows the sanctuary ot Hera at Samos as projected

in the early part ot the sixth century under the architect

Rlioikos. The great temple was barely begun when a hre

compelled a new start around the middle ot the century the ;

new version, ot the tyrant Polykrates, had three rows of

columns front and back, stood on a high plattorm, and had
other peculiarities. It is conveniently illustrated by Lawrence
(p. 136, Fig. 77). One might note in our plan the South
Building, notable tor the single row of columns on axis char-

acteristic of early temples, combined with the broader

proportion and almost pseudodipteral colonnade. For the
early buildings at Samos see Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archaologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung, LV
(1930), pp. 1-99; LVlll (1933), pp. 146-247; LXXII (1957),

pp. 52-151.— the later articles presenting some corrections of

details of restoration in the earlier.

10. We have ignored the intricate and problematic history of the

predecessors of the Periclean Parthenon, and the related
problems of the history of the Old Athena Temple. The
most recent "general theory" is Dinsmoor's incorporated in

his Architecture of Ancient Greece; some differences in

interpretation are argued by W. H. Plommer in the Journal

of Hellenic Studies, LXXX (1960), pp. 127-59.

11. See Dinsmoor, pp. 199-205; also Bundgaard, J.
A., Mnesicles.

12. For a smaller sixth-century replacement of this seventh-

century stoa, built in the sixth century, see Plate 36.
13. G. The Periclean Entrance Court of the Acro-
P. Stevens,

polis of Athens (New York, 1936) pp. 17-28.

14. H. A. Thompson, fiesperia, XXIII (1954), pp. 39-45.
15. For examples of this type of building see Dinsmoor (pp.
}}5
322, 329) and Lawrence (pp. 219-21, Fig. 123; p. 249).
16. Oscar Broneer, "The South Stoa and its Roman Successors,"
Corinth, Results ofExcavations conducted by the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 1, Pt. 4 (Prince-

ton, 1954), esp. pp. 18-99.

17. H. A. Thompson, "The Stoa of Attalos II in Athens,"
Picture Book No. 2, American School of Classical Studies at
Athens (Princeton, 1959).

18. John Travlos, Poleodomike Exelexis ton Athenon, pp. 100-2.

 GLOSSARY

abacus the plaque constituting the topmost element of a

capital, on which the architrave rests

adyton a secluded room, often one behind the cella of a temple

akroterion an ornamental device at the peak or corners of a

gable
116
antefix the ornamental end of a cover-tile in a roofing system

architrave the beam lying across the columns

arris the edge between two planes, especially between the flutes
of a Doric column

cella the main enclosed room of a temple, or a temple or

temple-like building without surrounding columns

dromos a "road," usually the partially sunken passage leading

into an underground tomb
echinus the curved, cushion-like element in a Doric or some-
times Ionic capital making the transition from the shalt oi the
column to the ahacus

entablature the parts of a fat^^ade above the columns, or some-

times only the architrave, irieze, and cornice but not the
gables

entasis the curve in the vertical profile of a column

fascia a narrow band, or broad fillet, usually one ot three such

surfaces running horizontally on an Ionic architrave

gutta a "drop," suggesting the head of a peg or nail, under the

regula or mutule in a Doric entablature

hypostyle characterized by columns distributed fairly evenly

throughout a space to support the ceiling

metope a rectangular surface, sometimes smooth, sometimes

sculptured, in the frieze of a Doric entablature

mutule a rectangular plaque on the under surface of a Doric

cornice, ornamented with rows of guttae

naos a temple, or often the part of a temple enclosed by walls;

roughly, the Greek equivalent of "cella"

odeion a music hall

palmette an ornament suggesting a hand displayed flat and

erect, or perhaps the fronds of a palm tree

paraskenion the projecting structure at each end of a proske-

nion in a Greek theater

pediment a gable, or triangular element rimmed by cornices at

the top of a fagade

117
peripteral characterized by being surrounded on the exterior
by columns

peripteron the colonnade surrounding a peripteral building;

usually refers to the columns themselves but sometimes also

to the space between columns and wall

peristyle a colonnade surrounding an open space, usually

within a room or a court within a building, (but sometimes
used also as synonym of "peripteron" or "peripteral")
 podium a platform of distinct elevation supporting a building

pronaos the porch in front of a naos formed by the forward

projection of the side walls

propylaea a complex propylon

propylon a gate building

proskenion a one-story fagade with a narrow root running

along the front of the skene (see below) in a Greek theater

prytaneion the headquarters of the prytanies, or presiding

officers of an administration

regula a narrow, rectangular batten-like element at the top ot a

Doric architrave below the taenia and triglyph

scene building the structure behind the orchestra in a Greek

theater

sima the raised barrier at the lower edge of a roof diverting rain
water to specified outlets

skene the principal, original part of the scene building, for

storage, dressing rooms, and as "back-drop" for the action

stylobate the course of stone on which columns rest

taenia the top of an architrave, above both the beam and the
regula, but below the triglyph.

tholos a circular building

triglyph a slightly projecting rectangular element in a Doric

frieze characterized by two vertical beveled cuttings and

correspondingly beveled corners

volute a scroll- or ribbon-like motit terminating in a spiral

118
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Three books provide all that could be expected as an introduc-

tion to the facts of the history of Greek architecture, and
through their bibhographies direct the student easily to sources
and larger treatments of all problems:
119

DINSMOOR, w. Architecture of Ancient Greece. 3rd ed. ot

B.,

Anderson, Spiers, Dinsmoor, London and New York, Bats-

ford, 1950, with 40 pages of closely analyzed bibliography.
LAWRENCE, A. w., Greek Architecture. London, Penguin, 1957,

with biliographies for each chapter-mostly according to

periods. This is especially important for the Minoan-Myce-
naean material.
ROBERTSON, D.Greek and Roman Architecture. 2nd ed., New
s.,

York, Cambridge University Press, 1945. With chronological

 lists ot buildings and thirty pages oi bibliography, mostly
topographical.

Recent works on Greek architecture as such, and others with

special pertinence:

BUNDGAARD, J.
A., Mnesicles. Copenhagen, Gyldendal, 1957.
CALi, FRANCOIS, L'Ordre Grec, photographies de Serge Moulinier.
Paris, Arthaud, 1958.
DURM, J.,
Die Baukunst der Griechen. Handbuch der Architek-
tur, II, 1. 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1910.

FYFE, T., Hellenistic Architecture. New York, Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 1936.
HODGE, A. T., The Woodwork of Greek Roofs. New York, Cam-
bridge University Press, 1960.
KRAUSS, P., Paestum. Berlin, Mann, 1943.
Die Tempel von Paestum. Erster Teil, Der Athenatempel
,

und die sogenannte Basilika. 1. Lieferung, Der Athenatempel.

Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Denkmaler Antiker Ar-
chitektur, Band 9/1. Berlin, deGruyter, 1959.
"Ancient Greek Town Building," Acta Congressus
KRiESis, A.,

Madvigiani, 1954, Vol. IV. Copenhagen, 1958, pp. 27-86.

LEHMANN, P., "The Setting of Hellenistic Temples," Journal of
the Society of Architectural Historians, XIII, 1954, pp. 15-20.
MARTIN, R., Recherches sur f Agora Grecque. Paris, Boccard,
1951.
REUTHER, o., Der Heratempel von Samos.—Der Bau seit der
Zeit des Polykrates. Berlin, Mann, 1957.
SCRANTON, R., "Interior Design ol Greek Temples," American
Journal of Archaeology, L, 1946, pp. 39-51.
"Group Design in Greek
, Architecture," Art Bulletin,
XXXI, 1949, pp. 247-68.
STEVENS, G. P., "Architecture," in Fowler, H. N., and Wheeler,
^-0
J.
Handbook of Greek Archaeology. New York, American
R.,
Book Company, 1909.
STILLWELL, R., "The Siting of Classical Greek Temples," Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians, XIII, 1954, pp. 3-8.
THOMPSON, H. A., "The Agora at Athens and the Greek Market
Place," Journal of the SAH, XIII, 1954, pp. 9-14.
TRAVLOS, Poleodomike Exelexis ton Athenon. Athens, Kon-
}.,

stantinides and Michales, 1960.

WYCHERLEY, R. E., How the Greeks Built Cities. New York,
Macmillan, 1949.
Soiiit' recent dnd otiier pertinent works on rehited nhitters:

The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age. New York,

BIEBER, M.,
Columbia University Press, 1955.
BONNARD, ANDRE, Greek CiviUzdtion. New York, Macmillan,
1959.
BOTSFORD-ROBINSON, Hellenic History. 4th ed., New York, Mac-
millan, 1956.
BOWRA, c. M., Greek Experience. London, Weidenheld and
Nicolson, 1957.
COOK, Greek Painted Pottery. Chicago, 111., Quadrangle;
R. M.,

London, Methuen, 1960.

CARPENTER, R., Esthetic Basis of Greek Art. 2nd ed.. Blooming-
ton, Ind., Indiana University Press, 1959.
, Greek Sculpture. Chicago, 111., Chicago University Press,

1960.
Ancient Gity of Athens. London, Methuen, 1953.
HILL, L T.,

MARINATOS, s., and HIRMER, M., Crete and Mycenae. New York,
Abrams, 1960.
MATZ, F., Geschichte der Griechischen Kunst. I. Die Geome-

trische und die Frilharchaische Form. Frankfurt a.M., Klos-

termann, 1950.
MYLONAS, G., Ancient Mycenae. Princeton, N.J., Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1957.
RiCHTER, G. M. A., A Handbook of Greek Art. London, Phaidon,
1959.
, Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks. 2nd ed., New
Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1950.
RODENWALDT, G., Die Kunst der Antike (Hellas und Rom).
Propylaen Kunstgeschichte, III. Berlin, 1927.
ROSTOVTZEFF, M., A History of the Ancient World. New York,
Oxford University Press, 1926.
121
SCHODER, R., v.. Masterpieces of Greek Art. Greenwich, Conn.,
New York Graphic, 1960.
STARR, c. G., The Origins of Greek Civilization. New York,
Knopf, 1961.
TARN, w. w., Hellenistic Civilization. London, Arnold, 1952.
WAGE, A. B., Mycenae. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University
J.

Press, 1949.
 A

INDEX

Numbers in regular roinan type refer tu text pages; italic rigurcs refer to tlie plates.

Acropolis, the (Athens) 30, 32, 34, 44, 53, 64; antehx from, JJa; fortifications of, 29
Aegean Islands architecture of, 21, 26
Aegina, 29; early Doric capitals, 29; Early Temple, 29, 40; Temple of Aphaia, 29, 31, 52
"Aeolic" style, 25, 26, 28
Agora, 35, 44-5, Assos, 40, 88; Athens, 32-33, 40, 45, 65, 110; Corinth, 39, 82, 83; Delos,
J 22
41-42, 93; Miletus, 44-45, 90, 91 ; Priene, 44-45, 89
Akragas, Temple of Concord, 30; Temple of Zeus, 34b
Altar of Zeus, Great, Pergamum, 43, 100, 101

Archaic buildings, 24-5, 26, 28; see also Archaic Temples

Archaic Athenian vase, 32
Archaic Temples in Magna Graecia, 26-29, 30, 34a-h
Argive Heraeum, 21, 34, 22
Artemesium, Magnesia, 38, 69c, 71

Asia Minor, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 40; see aiso Larisa, Miletus, Priene
Assembly hall, 42, Eleusis, 33-34, 47; see also Ekklcsiasterion and Bouleuterion
Assos, 40, 88
Atreus, Treasury of, Mycenae, 16
Athens, Acropolis, 29, 3U, 32, 34, 44, Ud, 5J, 64; Agora, 32-33, 40. 43, 65, 110; archaic
vase, 32; Choregic Monument of Lysikrates, 39, 76; Council House and Prytaneioii,
33, 34, 4S, 65; Erechtheum, 31, 32, 57, 58, 59; geometric vase, 20; Hephaisteioii, 9,

11, 12, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 2, 3, 4, 5; houses in, 67; Odeion of Pericles, 34; Olympieion,
39, 47, 77; Parthenon, 30-31, 53, 54, 55, 56, 64; Propylaea, 31-32, 53, 60, 61, 62, 63;

Roman Market, 40, 41, 92; Sanctuary of Artemis of Brauron, 32, 53, 64; Stoaof Attalos,
40, 84, 85, 86, 87; Stoa of Zeus, 32-33, 66; Temple of Athena Nike, 32, 63; Temple
of Zeus Olympios, 68d; Theater, 42

Bases of columns, 39, 45, 63, 80

"Basilica," Delos, 41-42, 93

"Basilica," Paestum, 34d, 42

Bassae, 39; Temple of Apollo, 52c

Bouleuterion, Miletus, 42, 91
Building materials; in "classic" period, 10; in Early Helladic period, 17-18; about eighth
century, 21; in fifth century, 32-33; in fourth century, 39; of Minoan architecture,

16; in Middle Helladic period, 20; in Neolithic period, 15; in seventh century, 24-25,
33a, b; in sixth century, 26; in Temple of Artemis, Garitsa, 25-26, JO

Byzantium, 47

Capitals, 38-39; Aeolic, 25, 26, 28; Choregic Monument of Lysikrates, 39, 76; Doric,
27, 29, 37, 41; Heraeum, Olympia, 37; Ionic, 25, 27, 39, 46; Olympieion, Athens,
39, 77; Propylea, Athens, 32, 62; Temple of Apollo, Didyma, 81; Temple of Athena,
Tegea, 74; Temple of Athena (Ceres), Paestum, 41; Temple of Artemis, Ephesus,
46; Tholos, Delphi, 39, 73; Tholos, Epidaurus, 75
Cecrops, Tomb of, 31
Cella, 9, 24; see also Naos, Temples
Ceramics, 21
Chamber tombs, 19; see a/so Tombs
Choregic Monument of Lysikrates, 39, 76
Civic buildings, 33-34, 48
"Cb^sic" design, 9-13, 20-21, 23-35, 47
Corfu (Kerkyra, Corcyra), 25; Early Doric capitals, 29; Temple of Artemis, 25-26, 30, 31

Corinth, 29, 39; South Stoa, 39, 82, 83; Temple of Apollo, 29, J5b, 38
Corinthian capital, 38-39; Monument of Lysikrates, Athens, 76; Temple of Athena,
Tegea, 74; Tholos, Delphi, 73; Tholos, Epidaurus, 75
Corinthian columns of Olympieion, Athens, 39, 47, 77

Council House, Olympia, 33

Council House, Athens, 33, 34, 48, 65

Crete, 14-15, 18, 19, 21, 26; Temple, Prinias, 26, 26, 27, see also Knossos, Minoan

Delos, 41-42, 44; houses at, 102; Sanctuary and Agoras, 93; Theater at, 42, 99 ,
^ ,

Delphi, 25, 29, 32, 34, 39, 42, 44; Corinthian capital from Tholos, 73; early Doric capitals,
29; Marmaria, 25, 39; Sanctuary of Apollo, 44, 108; Theater at, 42, 99; Treasury of

the Siphnians, 29, 43, 44

Domestic architecture, 15-19, 24, 34, 43-44, 67; at Delos, 44, 102; Early Helladic, 17-18;

in Great Palace, Knossos, 8; on the Acropolis, Larisa, 49; of Argive Heraeum, 22;
at Perachora, 22; at Olynthos, 43; House of Tiles at Lerna, 18, 12; Late Helladic,

18-19; "megaron" type at Larisa, 44; Minoan, 15-17

Doric order, 11, 21, 25, 27, 28-29, 38, 39, 42, 29, 30, 39, 40

Echo Colonnade, Olympia, 46

Ekklesiasterion, Priene, 42, 95, 96
Eleusis, 34, 47; Propylea, 47; Shrine of Demeter (Telesterion), 33-34, 47
 Fphesus, 38; Temple of Artemis, 45, 46, 68ct, 10
Epidaurus, 39, 42; Palaestra, 41. 94; Theater, 42, 97; Tholos, 39, 75, 79
Erechtheum, Athens, 31, 32, 53, 57, 58, 59, 64

Floor decoration, 19
Fortifications, 19, 29

Frieze, 25, 28, 38; Hephaistcion, 10, 11; Parthenon, 30

Garitsa, Temple of Artemis, 25-26, JO, 31

Gela, Treasury of, Olympia, 25, 33b

Geometric style, 21, 20
Great Altar of Zeus, Pergamum, 43, 100, 101

Great Palace, the, Knossos, see Knossos

Gymnasium, 37, 41, 45, 94; see also Palaestra

Hagia Triada, 15

Helladic architecture: Early period, 17-18, 19; Middle period, 18, 19, 20; Late period, 18-20
Hellenic World, map of, 1

Hellenistic Temples, colossal, 68a-d; smaller, 69a-c

Hephaisteion, Athens, 9, 11, 12, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 2, 3, 5; plan of, 4
Hera Basileia, Pergamum, 38
Heraeum, Olympia, 25, 35a, 37
Heraeum, Samos; first, 21, 32, 23; second, 25, 32, 24; third, 27, 36; fourth, 27, 38
Hesiod, 23, 24
Hippodameian system of town planning, 35
Homer, 23
House of Tiles, Lerna, 18, 12
"Hypostyle Hall," Delos, 41-42, 93

Ionic order, 25, 27, 29,' 31, 32, 39, 42, 43, 41, 45, 46

Knossos, 15-17, 20; Great Palace of, 15, 16, 17, 6, 7, 8, 10; Little Palace of, 9
Kolumdado (Nape), Mytilene, 25, 26, 28
Kos, Sanctuary of Asklepios, 44, 105

Larisa, 26, 34, 44; houses on Acropolis, 49

Lerna, House of Tiles, 18, 12

Linear form, 16-17, 25

Lion Gate, at Palace, Mycenae, 20, 15

Little Palace, Knossos, 9

Lysikrates, Monument of, 39, 76

124
Magna Graecia, 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 34, 39, 41, 42, 52
Magnesia, 38; Temple of Artemis, 69c; Temple of Artemis Leukophryne, 71
Mallia, 15
Map of Hellenic World, 1

Marmaria, Delphi, 25, 39, 29

Megalopolis, Thersilion, 41
Megarons, 19-20, 34, 44; Megaron R, Thermon, 21-22, 26, 21

Messa, Temple at, 38

Metroon-Bouleuterion complex, Athens, 45
Miletus, 38, 40, 42, 45; area of the Agoras, 44-45, 90, 91; Bouleuterion, 42, 91; Temple
of Apollo, 38, 68c, 80, 81
Minoan architecture, 15-17, 20; Octopus vase, 18, see also Knossos
 1

Moldmgs, 10, 11, 27, 39, 41; Ercchthcuin, Athens, 32, 59; Temple of Athena, Tegea,
28, 7S; Tholos, Epidaurus, 79; Treasury of the Siphnians, Delphi, 44
Monument of Lysikrates, Athens, 39, 76
Mycenae, 19, 20, 21, 22, 34; Lion Gate, 20, 15; Palace at Pylos, 17, 19; Palace at liryns
20, 14; Shaft Graves at, 18; Treasury of Atreus, 19, 16
Mytilene, "Aeolic" cajMtal, Nape (Kolunidado), 25, 26, 28

Naendria, 26; Temple plan, 25

Naos, 9, 10, 11, 13, 22, 25, 26, 27, 30, 34, 38; see a/so Cella, Temples
Nape (Kolumdado), Mytilene, 25, 26, 28
Neolithic buildings, 14-15, 20, ;/

Odeion of Pericles, Athens, 34

Olympia, 25, 29, 33, 46; Heraeum, 37; Sanctuary of Zeus, 46, 52, 106, 107; Temple of
Hera, 35a; Treasury of Gela, 25, 33b
Olympieion, Athens, 39, 47, 77

Olynthos, architecture of, 43-44

Paestum, 28, 30; "Basilica," 34d, 42; Temple of Athena (Ceres), J4c, 39, 41; Temple of
Poseidon, 5 2d
Palaces, 15-20, 6, 7, S, 9, 10, 14, 17, 19
Palaestra, 37; at Epidaurus, 41, 94
Parthenon, Athens, 30-31, 5.3, 54, 55, 56, 64

Pediment sculpture. Temple of Artemis, Corfu, 26, 31

Perachora, 21, 34; houses or temples at, 22

Pergamum, 38, 42, 43, 45, 109; Great Altar of Zeus, 43, 100, 101; Sanctuary of Athena
Polias, 38, 72; Theater at, 42, 99
Pericles, Odeion of, Athens, 34
Persian wars, 24, 29
Phaistos, 15
Plato, 23, 24
Portland Vase, 1 1

Priene, 40, 42, 44, 45; Agora and environs, 45, 89; Ekklesiasterion, 42, 95, 96; houses at,
103, 104; Sanctuary of Zeus, 44, 89; Temple of Athena Polias, 69a; Theater at, 42, 98

Prinias, Crete, 26; Temple plan of, 26, 27

Propylaea, Athens, 31-32, 53, 60, 61, 62, 63; Eleusis, 47
Propylon of Sanctuary of Athena Polias, Pergamum, 38, 72

Prytaneion, Athens, 33, 48

Public markets, see Agora
Pylos, 20, 19; Palace at, 17

Red-figured vase, 50 i yc
Religious building, 37; see a7so Sanctuaries, Temples
Rhamnous, Temple of Nemesis, 29
Roman Market, Athens, 40, 41, 92
Roman architecture, influenced by Greek, 47-48
Round Building, Tiryns, 18, 13

Samos, 21, 25, 27, 32; first Heraeum, 21, 23; second Heraeum, 25, 32, 24; third Heraeum,
27, 36; fourth Heraeum, 27, 38
Sanctuaries, 24, 35, 44-45
Sanctuary of Pandrosos, Athens, 31 ; of Artemis of Brauron, Athens, 32, 53, 64; Delos,
93; of Apollo, Delphi, 44, 108; of Asklepios, Kos, 44, 105; of Zeus, Olympia, 46, 106

107; of Athena Polias, Pergamum, 72; of Zeus, Priene, 44, 89

 Sardis, 38, Temple of Cybele, 6Sb
Sculpture, use ot, 26, 30, 31, 43, 31 ; see also Frieze
Selinus, 30, 34e-b, 35

Shrine of Demeter, Eleusis, 34, 47

Sminthe, Temple of Apollo, 38, 69b
Sophocles, 23
Stair Hall, Knossos, 17
Stoa, 24, 32-33, 39-41, 45; at Assos, 40, 88; of Attalos, Athens, 40, 84, 85, 86, S7; Middle
Stoa, Athens, 40, 45, 65, 110; "Commercial Agora," Athens, 40; of Zeus, Athens,
32-33, 66; South Stoa, Corinth, 39, 82, 83; of the Italians, Delos, 40-41, 93; at Miletus,
40, 90, 91 ; at Priene, 40, 89

Sunion, Temple of Poseidon, 29

Syracuse, Temple of Zeus, 32, 34a

Tegea, 39; Temple of Athena, 74, 78

Telesterion, Eleusis, 33-34, 47

Temples, 9, 11, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25-35, 37; see also Cella; Naos; Sanctuaries; Treasuries;

Erechtheum
Temples, individual: of Aphaia, Aegina, 29, 51, 52a; Early, at Aegina, 29, 40; Concord,
Akragas, 30; of Zeus, Akragas, 34b; of Athene (Parthenon), Athens, 30-31, 53-56, 64;
of Athena (Old), Athens, 29; of Athena Nike, Athens, 32, 63; of Athena Polias,
Athens, 31, J5c; of Botes, Athens, 31; of Hephaistos, Athens, 9, 11, 31, 2-5; of
Poseidon, Athens, 31; of Zeus Olympics, Athens, 68d; of Apollo, Bassae, 52c; of
"Apollo," Corinth, 29, 35b, 38; of Artemis, at Garitsa, Corfu, 25-26, 30, 31; of
Artemis, Ephesus, 25, 45, 46, 68a, 10; of Artemis, Magnesia, 69c; of Artemis Leuko-
phryne, Magnesia, 11; at Messa, 38; of Apollo, Didyma (Miletus), 38, 68c, 80, 81;

Naeandria, 26, 25; of Hera, Olympia, J5a; of Zeus, Olympia, 29, 52b; "Basilica,"
Paestum, 34d, 42; of Athena (Ceres), Paestum, 28, 34c, 39, 41; of Poseidon, Paestum,
30, 52d; of Athena Polias, Pergamum, 38, 72; of Athena Polias, Priene, 59a; at Prinias,
26, 27; of Nemesis, Rhamnous, 29; of Hera, Samos, 21, 23, 24, 36, 37; of Cybele, Sardis,
38, 68b; Selinus; "A," "C," 34e; "D," 34[; "FS." 34g; "GT," J4h; of Apollo, Sminthe,
38, 69b; of Poseidon, Sunion, 29; of Zeus, Syracuse, 34a; of Athena, Tegea, 39, 74, 18;

of Apollo, Thermon, 25, 21

Theaters, 33, 41, 42-43

Theaters, individual: Athens, 42; Delos, 42, 99; Delphi, 42, 99; Epidaurus, 42, 91; Mega-
lopolis, 41; Pergamum, 42, 99; Priene, 42, 98

Thermon, 21-22, 25, 26; Megaron B, 21, 21; Temple of Apollo, 25, 21

Thersilion, Megalopolis, 41
Thessaly, neolithic building at, //

Tholos, Athens, 34, 65; Delphi, 39, 13; Epidaurus, 39, 15, 19
Thrace, 14

126 Thucydides, 23
Tiryns, 18, 20, 13; Mycenaean Palace, 14; Round Building, 18, /J
Tombs, 15, 18, 19, 16; of Cecrops, 31 ; see alsoChamber tombs
Treasury, of the Siphnians, Delphi, 29, 43, 44; of Atreus, Mycenae, 19, 16; of Gela, Olym-
pia, 33b
Tri-(]olumnar Hall, Knossos, 17, 7

Trojan War, 21
Tsangli, Thessaly, 11

Vase, 21 ; archaic Athenian, 32; Geometric, 20; Octopus, 18; Portland, 111; Red-figured, 50
Vaulting, 37

Wars, Athens against Sparta (Peloponnesian) 24, 36; Persian, 24; Trojan, 21
SOURCKS OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Ainericdii School of Classical Studies, Athens: 2, 4, 12, 17, 48, 66, 82, 83, 84, 87, 1 in
Antikensammlungen, Munich: 50, 51

Annuario della RegiaScuoIa Archeologica di Atene, I (Instituto Italiano d'Arte Grafiche,

1914): 26, 27
C^ourtesy of the Archaeological Expedition of the University of Cincinnati; watercolor
by Piet de Jong: 19

Athenische Mitteiliingen LV (Deutsches Archaologisches Institut): 36; LVIII: 23, 24

Ragenal, Hope, The Rationale of the Classic: 22
Edgar Bissantz, Carmel, Calif. : 3, 85, 86
Courtesy of the British Museum 46 :

Courtesy of the Brooklyn Museum (Department of Ancient Art): 18

Buschor, E., Die Tondacber der Akropolis II (Berlin, 1933): 33A
Clarke, )., Bacon, F. & Koldewey, R., Investigations at Assos (Cambridge, Mass., 1902-
21): 88
Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Athens: 20, 72, 75, 77
Dinsmoor, W. B., i4rc/)]tecture of Ancient Greece (London: B. T. Batsford, 1953): 7,
34, 35, 52, 68, 69, 70, 94, 102

Durm, }., Handbuch der Arcbitektur (Leipzig, 1910): 105

Ecole Frangaise d' Athens: 74
Evans, Sir A. J.,
The Palace of Minos at Knossos II (London, 1928): 6, 9
Fouilles de Delpbes II, 4 (1925): 73
Alison Frantz, Athens: 5, 8, 10, 15, 41, 54, 56, 58, 59
Furtwangler, A., Aegina... {Municb, 1906): 40
Hege, Walter. Karlsruhe; 60, 61, 63
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Arcbaologiscben Instituts XLIX (1934): 100
Journal of Hellenic Studies LXII (1942): 91, 109
Kjellberg, L. and Boelhau, J.,
Larisa am Hermos, (Stockholm and Berlin, 1940): 49
Knackfus, H., Daubescbreibung (Berlin, 1941): 81
Krauss, F., Die Tempel von Paestum I (Berlin, 1959): 39
Greek Sculpture (New York, 1957): 31
Lullies, R.,

Foto Marburg, Marburg/Lahn 16, 37, 43, 62, 79, 97 :

Matz, F., Gescbicbte der Griecbiscben Kunst I (Frankfurt, 1950): 29, 30

Georges de Mire, Paris: 44

Courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fletcher Fund: 32

Miiller, Kurt, Tiryns III (Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, 1921-38): 13, 14
Nomlas-Fotos, Athens: 55
Pausanias, Description of Greece, tr. by W. H. S. Jones (New York, 1918-35): 106, 108
Pboenix, XIV (1960): 53, 64
Richter, G. M. A., Arcbaic Greek Art (Oxford, 1949): 1
Robertson, D. S., Greek and Roman Architecture (Cambridge, England, 1945): 21, 25, r
pj
35C, 71, 95, 104
Courtesy of the Royal Institute of British Architects: 70
Courtesy of the Royal Ontario Museum (University of Toronto); 53, 64
Shazmann, Kos I (Berlin, 1932): 107
Po,
Schede, M., Ruinen von Priene (Berlin, 1934): 98
Schleif, H., Olympiscbe Forscbungen I (Berlin, 1945); 33b

Robert L. Scranton, Chicago: 28, 93

Courtesy of Staatliche Museen zu Berlin: 101
Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens (London, 1762): 76
Travlos, J.
E., Athens: 4, 17, 48; Epbemeris Arcbaiologike (Hellenike Archaiologike
Hetairia, Athens, 1950-51): 47; Poleodomike Exelexis ton Atbenon (Athens, 1960):
65, 67, 92
 1

University Prints, C'ambridge, Mass.: 45

Hirmcr Vcrlag, Munich: 42, 78, 1 1

Vcrlag (>cbr. Mann, Berlin: 80

Wace, A. [. B. and Thompson, M. S., Prehistoric Thesii<ily (Cambridge, England, 1912): 11

Wagner, H., Heidelberg: 57, 99

Weinberg, Saul, University of Missouri: 38

Wiegand, Theodor, Priene... (Berlin, 1904): 89, 103

Wycherley, R. E., How the Greeks Built Cities (London, 1949): 90, 96

128
 mfi s:reat ages of #id'carcliitecture ', 1^

fBEm AmmmMM
^ ;

bv Robert L. Scranton

From the earliest Helladic structures, through such restless Minoan complexes as the
amazing palace of Knossos, to the formal, rigorously symmetrical forms of late Helladic
building, it is here possible to follow the development of Greek architecture. Almost
paralleling the forms of literary expression from the energetic Homeric epic to the com-
pact drama of Sophocles, Greek architecture can be viewed as^one major aspect of an
Mncreasingly well-integrated whole.
The great variety and architectural experimentation of the sixth century B.C. was a
vital step which culminated in the structural order, idealism, and complete harmony of the
Classical fifth century. Within the well-ordered system of the city-state, philosophers and
architects alike were able to channel their creo^tive energies into the refinement and inte-
gration of knowledge. Thus, the Parthenon "could emerge not as an architectural
innovation but as the exquisite statement of an ethos.

When the city-state dissolved, as it did in the Kellenistic period, the Greeks had to go
beyond their objective experience to struggle with intangibles. Architecture met these new
challenges in a variety of ways: by bringing each individual structure into a more formal
relationship with surrounding buildings and with its environment; by concentrating on
new types of buildings; and by emphasizing the vertical, thus diminishing the mass and
\self-sufficiency of each building. |;

1 '-ROBERT L. SCRANTON, Professor of Classical Archaeolo^ at the University of Chi-

cago, is a distinguished scholar of Classical culture.
^y

THE GREAT ^AGES OF; WORLD ARCHITECTURE ^ERIES

GREEK BAROQUE AND ROCOCO
by Robert L. Scranton by Henry A. Millon
ROMAN MODERN
by Frank E. Brown by Vincent Scully, Jr.

EARLY CHRISTIAN AND BYZANTINE WESTERN ISLAMIC

by Wrlliam MacDonald by John D. Hoag
MEDIEVAL PRE-COLUMBIAN J\
by Howard Saalman f by Donald Robertson
GOTHIC CHINESE AND INDIAN
by Robert Branner by Nelson I.Wu
RENAISSANCE JAPANESE
by Bates Lowry by William Alex

GEORGE BRAZILLER ONE PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10016