The Doric Temples Of Paestum
Symeonoglou, Sarantis. 1985. “The Doric Temples of Paestum.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 19(1):49-66
Symeonoglou’s article “The Doric Temples of Paestum” aimed to shed light on the significant architectural structures and differences of Doric temples. She purports that many may find that Doric temples all resemble one another at least to a certain degree. But, with a trained eye one would could point out the variations and differences among these beautiful Doric temples. According to Symeonoglou, variations among Doric temples could be found in the number of columns and passages, the unique details of execution to attest to the architect (Symeonoglou 2011: 50).
Symeonoglou examines three cases to support the overall thesis that there are distinct variations among Doric temples, but also more importantly, that the …show more content…
Doric temples of Paestum almost constituted a ‘new form’ of the Doric order. The three examples she examines are first the temple of Hera I, the temple of Athena, and lastly the temple of of Hera II (sometimes known as the temple of Neptune (Poseidon)) (Symeonoglou 2011: 50). What is interesting that Symeonoglou points out is, that these temples for the most part seem to place Hera above Zeus, though there are merely speculations about why that is (Symeonoglou 2011: 51).
Symeonoglou relies heavily on the detailed contributions of scholars like Koldeway, Aures, Puchstein, Winckelmann, and Goethe (Symeonoglou 2011: 50). Symeonoglou also heavily relies on the use of photographs of the temples themselves, these photos as she mentioned were first made available from aerial photography during World War II (Symeonoglou 2011: 51). Symeonoglou elucidates that there are several differences among these temples.
According to Symeonoglou, the temple of Hera I (also known as the “Basilica”), measures 24.52 by 54.30 meters, and at the upper part of three steps (the stylobate) make up the visual portion of the foundation platform (or the crepidoma) (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). The visual portion of the crepidoma according to Symeonoglou is a characteristic of a Greek temple (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). The colonnade (peristyle) stands to this day on the crepidoma (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). Symeonoglou articulates that the distributions of the columns in this temple are unconventional and that an untrained eye may be “confronted with a forest of orderly supports” (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). The temple of Hera I is considered unusual because it has nine columns at the front and eighteen at the flanks (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). As we learned in class, most temple of this era were either six or eight but also they were above all an even number because one would be able to identify the center column. Symeonoglou notes that though most Doric temples have six columns and some have eight but, that is a characteristic of the Ionic order (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). Symeonoglou argues that the spacing of the columns (measured in interaxials or center to center) in the temple of Hera I is facing scrutiny; most Doric buildings have even spaced columns but in this temple, the front interaxials are much narrower (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). In addition, this temple does not have a column placed in the center where the entrance should have been. This is important because it means this temple did not have a main entrance. One could enter from the pronaos (porch) through the spaces created by the columns in the antis (a grouping of three columns placed at the later walls of the cella) (Symeonoglou 2011: 54). Along the cella was a row of seven columns which provided support for the naves which is why the temple of Hera I is called the “Basilica” (Symeonoglou 2011: 54). Another important feat of the temple of Hera I according to Symeonoglou, is the entasis (or a convex curve) which “is displayed by the columns in addition to the expected diminution of their diameter toward the top” (Symeonoglou 2011: 55). The author states that the entasis is more pronounced than in any other one, each column has individual ornamentation (Symeonoglou 2011: 55).
The temple of Athena is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating temples of the ancient Greek world.
Symeonoglou states that there is evidence in this temple to show that there are elements that were later a part of the Doric order (Symeonoglou 2011: 56). This indeed a temple of elegant appearance for its proportions, even though it is considerable smaller than the temple of Hera I. The temple of Athena has measures of 14.54 by 32.88 meters which, corresponds to 44 by 100 ancient Doric feet, which makes this temple a hecatompedon (a 100-foot temple. It is important because the 100 feet even number represents religious architecture) (Symeonoglou 2011: 56). Symeonoglou points out that the ratio of these measurement is almost exactly 4:9 and represents the ‘perfect’ number of columns: 6 by 13 (Symeonoglou 2011: 56). All the interaxials in this temple are the same size, which measure 2.62 meters (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). The author articulates that this is the first instance in Doric architecture where all the measurements of the structure are based and has been recognized as the first temple built with rules of proportionality (Symeonoglou 2011:
57).
Symeonoglou articulates that the most striking component of this temple is the incorporation of Ionic factors (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). These factors are: “that the Doric columns show a leaf pattern carved at the junction with the echinus. The triglyph frieze is bordered by Ionic moldings instead of the tradition Doric guttae” (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). Symeonoglou articulates that there is an absence of a horizontal cornice in which it could postulated that the Temple of Athena has Etruscan influence (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). However, though this temple has striking features from the Ionic order, the most striking has not been preserved; the usual pronaos (porch) is not preserved (Symeonoglou 2011: 58). Symeonoglou argued that the architect wished to “soften the austerity of the early Doric style” by incorporating Ionic and potentials Etruscan elements (Symeonoglou 2011: 59-60).
The last case mentioned is the Temple of Hera II. Symeonoglou articulates that this temple is the best persevered out of all three of them (Symeonoglou 2011: 60). The author stipulates that one would expect a Doric temple build in Paestum to appear to be “provincial” but that this is not the case (Symeonoglou 2011: 60-1). This temple juxtaposed the first two, did not incorporate any introduction of Ionic features (Symeonoglou 2011: 61). From this, Symeonoglou stipulates that the architect must have been aware of the preference for traditional Doric style temples (Symeonoglou 2011: 61). This temple can actually be seen as similar to the temple of Zeus, as it stands at 24.48 by 59.99 metes (Symeonoglou 2011: 61). But in fact it differs in many ways, the temple of Zeus uses a traditional 6 by 13 column peristyle where this structure is a 6 by 14 (Symeonoglou 2011: 61-2). The ratio here is changed fro 4:9 to 4:10 (as the temple of Athena has a peristyle of 6 by 13 and a ratio of 4:9) (Symeonoglou 2011: 62). Symeonoglou states that the interaxials conformed to the basic measurements and the other parts of the temple were conventionally proportioned (Symeonoglou 20111: 62). Symeonoglou articulates that the architect in this case may be “working out of the Italian milieu but was familiar with the architecture of Paestum itself (Symeonoglou 2011: 62). The author notes that there are two striking components of this temple, firstly “the cella has two rows of seven columns arranged in double tiers” and “the fluting of the columns” (Symeonoglou 2011: 64). Symeonoglou postulates that in the first unusual instance, the architect may have used the columns to support the ceiling and in the second case that that the large size of the exterior columns would be compensated by the poor quality of local sources, and the architect provided twenty-four flutes instead of the traditional twenty (Symeonoglou 2011: 64).
This topic proved to be important because it demonstrated that there are differences and variations among temples homed by the Doric order. It relied heavily on incorporating visual diagrams to elucidate and reinforce this thesis. It demonstrates that the architect intentions may have been to conform to traditional Doric style but based on resources (as in the case of the Temple of Hera II) had to improvise to create a better temple. It showed some underlying motivations of the architect in each case, such as in the temple of Athena, where the architect incorporated Ionic features and perhaps even had Etruscan influence. Or in the temple of Hera II where the architect may have been motivated to intentionally create a Doric style temple because the temple would be placed in Paestum. I would personally recommend that this author incorporated a couple more examples than just these three. Though I find this argument to be very valid or plausible, I would suggest looking at other temples as well such as the temple of Artemis at Corfu, or the temple of Zeus at Olympia, and the temple of Apollo at Delphi. These are very historically prominent temples that we have learned about in this class. I would highly recommend that the author examine these temples or others to find whether or not there are any overwhelming similarities or differences among these temples. The author does not provide much further research but concludes that these three temples are among the most important in Greek antiquity (Symeonoglou 2011: 65). She argues that from the visual appearance there is a new way to look at or examine the Doric structures, and that each temple represents a stage of development in what Symeonoglou calls “the most creative period of Greek architecture” (Symeonoglou 2011: 65).
Symeonoglou’s article “The Doric Temples of Paestum” aimed to shed light on the significant architectural structures and differences of Doric temples. She purports that many may find that Doric temples all resemble one another at least to a certain degree. But, with a trained eye one would could point out the variations and differences among these beautiful Doric temples. According to Symeonoglou, variations among Doric temples could be found in the number of columns and passages, the unique details of execution to attest to the architect (Symeonoglou 2011: 50).
Symeonoglou examines three cases to support the overall thesis that there are distinct variations among Doric temples, but also more importantly, that the …show more content…
Doric temples of Paestum almost constituted a ‘new form’ of the Doric order. The three examples she examines are first the temple of Hera I, the temple of Athena, and lastly the temple of of Hera II (sometimes known as the temple of Neptune (Poseidon)) (Symeonoglou 2011: 50). What is interesting that Symeonoglou points out is, that these temples for the most part seem to place Hera above Zeus, though there are merely speculations about why that is (Symeonoglou 2011: 51).
Symeonoglou relies heavily on the detailed contributions of scholars like Koldeway, Aures, Puchstein, Winckelmann, and Goethe (Symeonoglou 2011: 50). Symeonoglou also heavily relies on the use of photographs of the temples themselves, these photos as she mentioned were first made available from aerial photography during World War II (Symeonoglou 2011: 51). Symeonoglou elucidates that there are several differences among these temples.
According to Symeonoglou, the temple of Hera I (also known as the “Basilica”), measures 24.52 by 54.30 meters, and at the upper part of three steps (the stylobate) make up the visual portion of the foundation platform (or the crepidoma) (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). The visual portion of the crepidoma according to Symeonoglou is a characteristic of a Greek temple (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). The colonnade (peristyle) stands to this day on the crepidoma (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). Symeonoglou articulates that the distributions of the columns in this temple are unconventional and that an untrained eye may be “confronted with a forest of orderly supports” (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). The temple of Hera I is considered unusual because it has nine columns at the front and eighteen at the flanks (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). As we learned in class, most temple of this era were either six or eight but also they were above all an even number because one would be able to identify the center column. Symeonoglou notes that though most Doric temples have six columns and some have eight but, that is a characteristic of the Ionic order (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). Symeonoglou argues that the spacing of the columns (measured in interaxials or center to center) in the temple of Hera I is facing scrutiny; most Doric buildings have even spaced columns but in this temple, the front interaxials are much narrower (Symeonoglou 2011: 52). In addition, this temple does not have a column placed in the center where the entrance should have been. This is important because it means this temple did not have a main entrance. One could enter from the pronaos (porch) through the spaces created by the columns in the antis (a grouping of three columns placed at the later walls of the cella) (Symeonoglou 2011: 54). Along the cella was a row of seven columns which provided support for the naves which is why the temple of Hera I is called the “Basilica” (Symeonoglou 2011: 54). Another important feat of the temple of Hera I according to Symeonoglou, is the entasis (or a convex curve) which “is displayed by the columns in addition to the expected diminution of their diameter toward the top” (Symeonoglou 2011: 55). The author states that the entasis is more pronounced than in any other one, each column has individual ornamentation (Symeonoglou 2011: 55).
The temple of Athena is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating temples of the ancient Greek world.
Symeonoglou states that there is evidence in this temple to show that there are elements that were later a part of the Doric order (Symeonoglou 2011: 56). This indeed a temple of elegant appearance for its proportions, even though it is considerable smaller than the temple of Hera I. The temple of Athena has measures of 14.54 by 32.88 meters which, corresponds to 44 by 100 ancient Doric feet, which makes this temple a hecatompedon (a 100-foot temple. It is important because the 100 feet even number represents religious architecture) (Symeonoglou 2011: 56). Symeonoglou points out that the ratio of these measurement is almost exactly 4:9 and represents the ‘perfect’ number of columns: 6 by 13 (Symeonoglou 2011: 56). All the interaxials in this temple are the same size, which measure 2.62 meters (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). The author articulates that this is the first instance in Doric architecture where all the measurements of the structure are based and has been recognized as the first temple built with rules of proportionality (Symeonoglou 2011:
57).
Symeonoglou articulates that the most striking component of this temple is the incorporation of Ionic factors (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). These factors are: “that the Doric columns show a leaf pattern carved at the junction with the echinus. The triglyph frieze is bordered by Ionic moldings instead of the tradition Doric guttae” (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). Symeonoglou articulates that there is an absence of a horizontal cornice in which it could postulated that the Temple of Athena has Etruscan influence (Symeonoglou 2011: 57). However, though this temple has striking features from the Ionic order, the most striking has not been preserved; the usual pronaos (porch) is not preserved (Symeonoglou 2011: 58). Symeonoglou argued that the architect wished to “soften the austerity of the early Doric style” by incorporating Ionic and potentials Etruscan elements (Symeonoglou 2011: 59-60).
The last case mentioned is the Temple of Hera II. Symeonoglou articulates that this temple is the best persevered out of all three of them (Symeonoglou 2011: 60). The author stipulates that one would expect a Doric temple build in Paestum to appear to be “provincial” but that this is not the case (Symeonoglou 2011: 60-1). This temple juxtaposed the first two, did not incorporate any introduction of Ionic features (Symeonoglou 2011: 61). From this, Symeonoglou stipulates that the architect must have been aware of the preference for traditional Doric style temples (Symeonoglou 2011: 61). This temple can actually be seen as similar to the temple of Zeus, as it stands at 24.48 by 59.99 metes (Symeonoglou 2011: 61). But in fact it differs in many ways, the temple of Zeus uses a traditional 6 by 13 column peristyle where this structure is a 6 by 14 (Symeonoglou 2011: 61-2). The ratio here is changed fro 4:9 to 4:10 (as the temple of Athena has a peristyle of 6 by 13 and a ratio of 4:9) (Symeonoglou 2011: 62). Symeonoglou states that the interaxials conformed to the basic measurements and the other parts of the temple were conventionally proportioned (Symeonoglou 20111: 62). Symeonoglou articulates that the architect in this case may be “working out of the Italian milieu but was familiar with the architecture of Paestum itself (Symeonoglou 2011: 62). The author notes that there are two striking components of this temple, firstly “the cella has two rows of seven columns arranged in double tiers” and “the fluting of the columns” (Symeonoglou 2011: 64). Symeonoglou postulates that in the first unusual instance, the architect may have used the columns to support the ceiling and in the second case that that the large size of the exterior columns would be compensated by the poor quality of local sources, and the architect provided twenty-four flutes instead of the traditional twenty (Symeonoglou 2011: 64).
This topic proved to be important because it demonstrated that there are differences and variations among temples homed by the Doric order. It relied heavily on incorporating visual diagrams to elucidate and reinforce this thesis. It demonstrates that the architect intentions may have been to conform to traditional Doric style but based on resources (as in the case of the Temple of Hera II) had to improvise to create a better temple. It showed some underlying motivations of the architect in each case, such as in the temple of Athena, where the architect incorporated Ionic features and perhaps even had Etruscan influence. Or in the temple of Hera II where the architect may have been motivated to intentionally create a Doric style temple because the temple would be placed in Paestum. I would personally recommend that this author incorporated a couple more examples than just these three. Though I find this argument to be very valid or plausible, I would suggest looking at other temples as well such as the temple of Artemis at Corfu, or the temple of Zeus at Olympia, and the temple of Apollo at Delphi. These are very historically prominent temples that we have learned about in this class. I would highly recommend that the author examine these temples or others to find whether or not there are any overwhelming similarities or differences among these temples. The author does not provide much further research but concludes that these three temples are among the most important in Greek antiquity (Symeonoglou 2011: 65). She argues that from the visual appearance there is a new way to look at or examine the Doric structures, and that each temple represents a stage of development in what Symeonoglou calls “the most creative period of Greek architecture” (Symeonoglou 2011: 65).