Roman Temple versus Greek Temple - Essay Example

Library and museum studies   09 April Roman Temple VS Greek Temple Introduction: Temples are divine places where people go to worship god. Even though god is omnipresent and always in the hearts of human beings, people consider special places of worship as sanctimonious, which enhance their hope as well as increase their closeness to god. Their faith expands and they feel reassured when they visit god in his place. Different cultures have different ways of building their temples. It is very interesting to appreciate the intricate details of the structure of these different temples. Building of such structures began 3000 years ago and the first temple being built by King Solomon. Later, other temples were built, and, as influence is contagious, even temples were influenced by other cultures. The temples that are subjects of analysis in this paper belong to the Greek and Roman cultures. The first ones to come up with the temples were the Greeks, and the Romans built their place of worship only after seeing the Greek temples. Though the Roman and Greek temples share many similarities, they also have some major differences that distinguish one category from the other. The Greeks started building temples way back in 9th century BC, whereas the Romans embarked on such constructions only around the 7th century. The Greek culture started out with mud-brick structures, which later developed into double-sided portico concepts. The Roman temples, on the other hand, were influenced by Etruscan temples, which were based on the Greek temple architecture. The Greeks were very keen on building their temples with the entrance facing east so that the cult statue would face the sun. The Romans also mostly built their temples to face east but they did not consider it mandatory. Thus, they constructed temples facing to the other directions also. A typical Greek temple contained six parts, such as: the stereobate or substructure, stylobate, colonnade, porch or pronaos, cella or naos and the rear porch or opisthodomus. Similarly, a typical Roman temple was also made up of six parts, namely: the podium or base, engaged column, freestanding column, entrance steps, porch and the cella. The stereobate in the Greek temples referred to the bottom two steps or blocks, whereas the Roman temples had the podium, which was a frontal staircase that rose to a high platform. It would also be relevant that the latter were built in a more elevated style than the former. The stylobate was a flat pavement or a foundation on which the colonnade was built. The Roman temples consisted of both engaged, that is attached columns, and freestanding columns whereas the Greek temples had colonnade or peristyle columns on all four sides. They believed that the colonnade “formed a ‘curtain’ around the temple, thus screening the sanctuary and the cult statue from the outside world” (Georgopoulos & Telioni 2) The former was monopteral, that is, it had only a single colonnade, while the latter could be either monopteral or dipteral, that is, it could have a double colonnade. It can also be seen that the Romans used pilasters or half columns in their temples, unlike the Greeks. Both the Greek and Roman temples are also known for their columns, that is the vertical structure of the temple, which holds the temple’s roof. This column was made up of three primary parts, such as: the shaft, the capital and base. “The Greeks knew three orders: Doric, Ionic and Corinthian” (Temples par. 3). These were the three main styles in which the Greeks built their temples. Each style had the same basic elements but with a little variation. The Romans, however, built the temples in the ionic order at first, but then mostly followed the Corinthian order until they revolutionized and innovated another style, that was the composite column which contained both ionic and corinthian features. The two most relevant examples of the Doric order are “the temple of Apollo at Corinth, built in the second quarter of the sixth century B.C., and the temple of Aphaia at Aegina, built around 500–480 B.C.” (Architecture in Ancient Greece par. 1). This order included a shaft, which was fluted and had no base at the bottom. Its capital consisted of two elements, an echinus which was a cushion like structure and above it, and an abacus that was a flat slab. On the abacus was built an entablature comprising of an architrave, which was the main stone to which the pegs remained attached. Frieze was decorated in a pattern of triglyphs and metopes, and cornices the slanting, horizontal part which supported the pediment and, thus, completed the column. Between the cornice and the pediment was the “tympanum, filled with sculpture” (Temple Architecture par. 6). The ionic order differed from the Doric due to its base and capital. The shaft was built on top of the base and the capital was called a volute, which was a curly single piece structure. The Corinthian order contained an acanthus capital, which was made in the shape of an acanthus leaf. Thus, the Roman composite order consisted of unfluted shaft, a base at the bottom and an acanthus capital. The Roman temples had entrance steps in the front and this made it very easy to identify the front side of the temple. On the other hand, it was impossible to tell the front of a Greek temple without a proper scrutiny. While the former had only one porch or pronaos, the latter had two porches, the front and the rear porch. The cella was the innermost room in the temple or the sanctum-sanctimonium, where the cult statue or the any form of representation of the deity is placed. The cella in the Greek temples was directly in the middle, was small and had a proportional margin from all four sides if the porches were included. The cella in the Roman temples, in contrast, was pushed towards one direction, was comparatively larger and had proportional margin in all three sides except the front. Some Roman temples had rooms behind the cella, which the temple attendants used for storage purposes. Temples during that point of time were used for various rituals and practices like they are now. But the rituals were greatly different and more inclined towards sacrifices than mere prayers. Both Romans and Greeks had their own rituals and ways of performing those. The Romans approached gods with “requests and prayers, which were presented to gods as a trade: if the god did what was requested (the nuncupatio), then the worshipper promised to do a particular thing in return (the solutio)” (Worship par. 3). For this they made a lot of sacrifices as well as offerings that would please their god and grant them favors. There were also festivals celebrated in the temple in which the god was also to feast with everyone else with his own place at the table along with his own meals. The Greeks also believed in sacrifices and would publicly sacrifice animals and even human scapegoats on certain occasions. Thus, it can be perceived seen that both the cultures respected their gods and built temples to honor and worship them. These magnificent temples with their optical illusions, arising from the colonnades, are truly works of art. One has no choice but to appreciate and remain amazed by these types of architectural accomplishments. Unfortunately, such great masterpieces remain in ruins now, which make it impossible to experience their whole beauty. These ancient ruins show how skilful both the Greeks and Romans have been. Though the Roman temples are influenced by the Greek temples, there are a lot of differences in the structure as well as the decorations. Greeks built their temples in Doric, ionic as well as Corinthian orders, whereas the Romans temples are built mostly in the composite order which is a mix of the ionic and Corinthian order. The temples of both cultures have parts and structures that differ from each other. One cannot also say one temple is better than the other. Both are equally significant and hold great importance and value for their respective cultures. Temples ultimately serve the purpose of worship and, thus, do not need to be judged to understand or estimate which one is the better. So it can be concluded that the competition of ‘Greek temple v/s Roman temple’ ends in a draw as both are splendid in their own way, from structure to art engraved in those structures to the portrayal of their cult deities. Works Cited Architecture in Ancient Greece. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. 2000. Web. 09 April 2012. Georgopoulos, George & Telioni, Elisavet. Estimation of the Vertical Deformations of the Stylobate of Ancient Temples – The Case of Theseion. Rural & Surveying Engineering School. Department of Topography. 2008. Web. 09 April 2012. Temple Architecture. n.d. Web. 09 April 2012. Temples. Intranet. n.d. Web. 09 April 2012. Worship. The Roman Empire in the First Century. 2006. Web. 09 April 2012. Read More