TEMPLUM

is the same word as the Greek Temenos ( τέμενος , from τέμνω , to cut off); for templum was any place which was circumscribed and separated by the augurs from the rest of the land by a certain solemn formula. The technical terms for this act of the augurs are liber are and effari , and hence a templum itself is a locus liber at us et effatus . A place thus set apart and hallowed by the augurs was always intended to serve religious purposes, but chiefly for taking the auguries. The place in the heavens within which the observations were to be made was likewise called templum, as it was marked out and separated from the rest by the staff of the augur. When the augur had defined the templum within which he intended to make his observations, he fixed his tent in it ( tabernaculum capere ), and this tent was likewise called templum , or, more accurately, templum minus . The place chosen for a templum was generally an eminence, and in the city it was the arx , where the fixing of a tent does not appear to have been nece ary, because here a place called auguraculum was once for all consecrated for this purpose. Besides this meaning of the word templum in the language of the augurs, it also had that of a temple in the common acceptation. In this case, however, the sacred precinct within which a temple was built, was always a locus liber at us et effatus by the augurs, that is, a templum or a fanum ; the consecration was completed by the pontiffs, and not until inauguration and consecration had taken place, could sacra be performed or meetings of the senate be held in it. It was nece ary then for a temple to be sanctioned by the gods, whose will was ascertained by the augurs, and to be consecrated or dedicated by the will of man (pontiffs). Where the sanction of the gods had not been obtained, and where the mere act of man had consecrated a place to the gods, such a place was only a sacrum , sacrarium , or sacellum . The ceremony performed by the augurs was e ential to a temple, as the consecration by the pontiffs took place also in other sanctuaries which were not templa, but mere sacra or aedes sacrae . Thus the sanctuary of Vesta was not a templum, but an aedes sacra, and the various curiae (Hostilia, Pompeia, Julia) required to be made templa by the augurs before sen at us consulta could be made in them. It is impo ible to determine with certainty in what respects a templum differed from a delubrum .—Temples appear to have existed in Greece from the earliest times. They were separated from the profane land around them ( τόπος βέβηλος or τὰ βέβηλα ), because every one was allowed to walk in the latter. This separation was in early times indicated by very simple means, such as a string or a rope. Subsequently, however, they were surrounded by more efficient fences, or even by a wall ( ἕρκος, περίβολος ). The whole space enclosed in such a περίβολος was called τέμενος , or sometimes ἱερόν ; and contained, besides the temple itself, other sacred buildings, and sacred ground planted with groves, . Within the precincts of the sacred enclosure no dead were generally allowed to be buried, though there were some exceptions to this rule, and we have instances of persons being buried in or at least near certain temples. The religious laws of the island of Delos did not allow any corpses to be buried within the whole extent of the island, and when this law had been violated, a part of the island was first purified by Pis i stratus, and subsequently the whole island by the A then i an people. The temple itself was called ναός or νεώς , and at its entrance fonts ( περιῤῥαντήρια ) were generally placed, that those who entered the sanctuary to pray or to offer sacrifices might first purify themselves. The act of consecration, by which a temple was dedicated to a god, was called ἵδρυσις . The character of the early Greek temples was dark and mysterious, for they had no windows, and they received light only through the door, which was very large, or from lamps burning in them. Architecture in the construction of magnificent temples, however, made great progre even at an earlier time than either painting or statuary, and long before the Persian wars we hear of temples of extraordinary grandeur and beauty. All temples were built either in an oblong or round form, and were mostly adorned with columns. Those of an oblong form had columns either in the front alone, in the fore and back fronts, or on all the four sides. Respecting the original use of these porticoes see Porticus . The friezes and metopes were adorned with various sculptures, and no expense was spared in embellishing the abodes of the gods. The light, which was formerly let in at the door, was now frequently let in from above through an opening in the middle. Most of the great temples consisted of three parts: 1. the πρόναος or πρόδομος , the vestibule; 2. the cella ( ναός , σηκός ); and 3. the ὀπισθόδομος . The cella was the most important part, as it was, properly speaking, the temple or the habitation of the deity whose statue it contained. In one and the same cella there were sometimes the statues of two or more divinities, as in the Erechtheum at Athens, the statues of Poseidon, Hephaestus, and Butas. The statues always faced the entrance, which was in the centre of the pro stylus. The place where the statue stood was called ἕδος , and was surrounded by a balustrade or railings. Some temples also had more than one cella, in which case the one was generally behind the other, as in the temple of Athena Polias at Athens. In temples where oracles were given, or where the worship was connected with mysteries, the cella was called ἄδυτον , μέγαρον , or ἀνάκτορον , and to it only the priests and the initiated had acce . The ὀπισθόδομος was a building which was sometimes attached to the back front of a temple, and served as a place in which the treasures of the temple were kept, and thus supplied the place of θησαυροί , which were attached to some temples.— Quadrangular Temples were described by the following terms, according to the number and arrangement of the columns on the fronts and sides. 1. Ἄστυλος , astyle , without any columns. 2. Ἐν παραστάσι , in antis , with two columns in front between the antae. 3. Πρόστυλος , prostyle , with four columns in front. 4. Ἀμφιπρόστυλος , amphiprostyle , with four columns at each end. 5. Περίπτερος or ἀμφικίων , peripteral , with columns at each end and along each side. 6. Δίπτερος , dipteral , with two ranges of columns ( πτερά ) all round, the one within the other. 7. Ψευδοδίπτερος , pseudo dipteral , with one range only, but at the same distance from the walls of the cella as the outer range of a δίπτερος . To these must be added a sort of sham invented by the Roman architects, namely: 8. Ψευδοπερίπτερος , pseudo peripteral , where the sides had only half-columns (at the angles three-quarter columns), attached to the walls of the cella , the object being to have the cella large without enlarging the whole building, and yet to keep up something of the splendour of a peripteral temple. Names were also applied to the temples, as well as to the porticoes themselves, according to the number of columns in the portico at either end of the temple: namely, τετράστυλος , tetrastyle , when there were four columns in front, ἑξάστυλος , hexastyle , when there were six , ὀκτάστυλος , octastyle , when there were eight , δεκάστυλος , decastyle , when there were ten . There were never more than ten columns in the end portico of a temple; and when there were only two, they were always arranged in that peculiar form called in antis ( ἐν παραστάσι ). The number of columns in the end porticoes was never uneven, but the number along the sides of a temple was generally uneven. The number of the side columns varied: where the end portico was tetrastyle, there were never any columns at the sides, except false ones, attached to the walls: where it was hexastyle or octastyle, there were generally 13 or 17 columns at the sides, counting in the corner columns: sometimes a hexastyle temple had only eleven columns on the sides. The last arrangement resulted from the rule adopted by the Roman architects, who counted by intercolumniations (the spaces between the columns), and whose rule was to have twice as many intercolumniations along the sides of the building as in front . The Greek architects on the contrary, counted by columns, and their rule was to have twice as many columns along the sides as in front, and one more , counting the corner columns in each case. Another set of terms, applied to temples and other buildings having porticoes, as well as to the porticoes themselves, was derived from the distances between the columns as compared with the lower diameters of the columns. They were the following:—1. Πυκνόστυλος , pycnostyle , the distance between the columns a diameter of a column and half a diameter. 2. Σύστυλος , systyle , the distance between the columns two diameters of a column. 3. Εὔστυλος , eustyle , the distance between the columns two diameters and a quarter, except in the centre of the front and back of the building, where each intercolumniation ( intercolumnium ) was three diameters; called eustyle, because it was best adapted both for beauty and convenience. 4. Διάστυλος , diastyle , the intercolumniation, or distance between the columns, three diameters. 5. Ἀραιόστυλος , araeostyle , the distances exce ive, so that it was nece ary to make the epistyle ( ἐπιστύλιον ), or architrave, not of stone, but of timber. These five kinds of intercolumniation are illustrated by the following diagram. | ⬤ | 1½ | ⬤ | | ⬤ | 2 | ⬤ | | ⬤ | 2¼ | ⬤ | | ⬤ | 3 | ⬤ | | ⬤ | { 4 } {or more} | ⬤ | Independently of the immense treasures contained in many of the Greek temples, which were either utensils or ornaments, and of the tithes of spoils, ., the property of temples, from which they derived a regular income, consisted of lands ( τεμένη ), either fields, pastures, or forests. These lands were generally let out to farm, unle they were, by some curse which lay on them, prevented from being taken into cultivation. Respecting the persons entrusted with the superintendence, keeping, cleaning, ., see Aeditui . In the earliest times there appear to have been very few temples at Rome, and on many spots the worship of a certain divinity had been established from time immemorial, while we hear of the building of a temple for the same divinity at a comparatively late period. Thus the foundation of a temple to the old Italian divinity Saturn us, on the Capitoline, did not take place till B.C. 498. In the same manner, Quirinus and Mars had temples built to them at a late period. Jupiter also had no temple till the time of Ancus Martius, and the one then built was certainly very insignificant. We may therefore suppose that the places of worship among the earliest Romans were in most cases simple altars or sacella. The Roman temples of later times were constructed in the Greek style. As regards the property of temples, it is stated that in early times lands were a igned to each temple, but these lands were probably intended for the maintenance of the priests alone. [ Sacerdos . ] The supreme superintendence of the temples of Rome, and of all things connected with them, belonged to the college of pontiffs. Those persons who had the immediate care of the temples were the Aeditui .