Bk IV. Ch. III. TEMPLES. 315 than any of the Roman peripteral temples, being 117 ft. by 227 ft. or rather exceeding the dimensions of the Parthenon at Attiens, and its ]>ortico is both wider and higher than that of the Pantheon at Rome. Had this portico been applied to that building, the slope of its pediment would have coincided exactly with that of the upper sloping cornice, and would have been the greatest possible improve- ment to that edifice. As it is, it certainly is the best proportioned and the most graceful Roman portico of the first class that remains to us in a state of sufticient completeness to allow us to judge of its effect. The interior of the cella was richly ornamented with niches and pilasters, and covered with a ribbed and coffered vault, remarkable, like every part of this edifice, rather for the profusion than for the good taste of its ornaments. One of the principal peculiarities of this group of buildings is the immense size of some of the stones used in the substructure of the great temple : three of these average about 63 ft. in length, 10 ft 5 in. in breadth, and 13 feet in height. A fourth, of similar dimensions, is lying in the quarry, which it is calculated must Aveigh alone more than 1100 tons in its rough state, or nearly as much as one of the tubes of the Britannia Bridge. It is not easy to see why such masses were employed. If they had been used as foundation stones their use Avould have been apparent, but they are placed over several courses of smaller stones, about half-way up the terrace wall, as mere binding stones, apparently for show. It is true that in many places in the Bible and in Josephus nothing is so much insisted upon as the im- mense size of the stones used in the building of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem, the bulk of the materials used appearing to have been thought a matter of far more importance than the architecture. It ])robably was some such feeling as this which led to their employ- ment here, though, had these huge stones been set upright, as the Egyptians would have placed them, we might more easily have under- stood Avhy so great an expense should have been incurred on their account. As it is, there seems no reason for doubting their being of the same age as the temples they support, though their use is certainly exceptional in Roman temples of this class.
