The simple cell had, I believe, no peculiar appellation, and yet from the great multitude of temples existing in ancient Greece, many of which seem to have been very small, it is probable they were not uncommon. Temples of the second sort were said to be in _antis_, because in them the flank walls were prolonged beyond the front, so as to form the sides of the porch, and these prolongations were terminated in pilasters having three faces: which pilasters were called _antæ_. The third arrangement was called _prostyle_; the fourth _amphiprostyle_; the fifth _peripteral_: besides these were also the _dipteral_ temples, having two rows of columns round the cell, (such was the temple of Jupiter Olympus in this place) and _pseudodipteral_, which differed from the dipteral by the want of the inner range of columns, and from the peripteral by having a much larger space between the cell and the surrounding colonnade. In all these, the same general form was preserved, a simple oblong; and you see that in all of them, I can account for the admiration bestowed upon them by a recurrence to my favourite maxim of simplicity of form, and richness of detail. This richness of detail has its limits, and the work may be overloaded, even when the ornaments do not (as they frequently do in Italian architecture,) interrupt, or obscure the simplicity of the design: but the liberty allowed is very wide. The simple cell must always have been deficient in that respect, for though the walls and cornices might be richly ornamented, yet these details could not have produced sufficient effect on the whole composition; for that purpose it is necessary that the building should be divided into principal masses, whose position with respect to each other must produce some degree of variety and intricacy. The temple in antis must also in some degree be deficient in richness, and I know no temple of this sort which has been much admired; but the prostyle, and still more the amphiprostyle, if well proportioned, will always be admitted into the rank of beautiful buildings. From almost every point of view you see at least one column gracefully detaching itself from the mass of the building, and the nakedness of the side walls contrasts with the bright lights and shadows of the ends, and claims our admiration even when compared with the higher finish of the peripteral temple. The eye however will not be satisfied with some intricacy in the disposition of the general masses; it will require a similar gratification when it comes to examine the details; and we find this accomplished by fluting the columns, moulding the capitals, dividing the frieze at least by triglyphs, and frequently placing sculpture in the intervals between them; adorning the pediments with sculpture, and placing antefixæ, or ornamental convex tiles along the eaves.