Little more than the ground-plan of this temple is now remaining, and most of the columns are buried beneath the soil; we were able, however, to ascertain that the portico was hexastyle, and the columns about four feet and a half in diameter: those on the south side are so completely buried that no traces of them whatever are visible; but from those which are still in their places on the opposite side we were led to suppose that the number of columns was no more than ten, instead of eleven, which is the usual proportion in peripteral temples according to the rules laid down by Vitruvius[3]. As the number of lateral intercolumniations would not, with this disposition, be double the number of those in the front, the whole length of the temple in question could not be equal to twice its breadth, which we accordingly find to be the case: and it is probable, therefore, that the ædes, or body of the temple, was built before the other parts of it, and that the columns and porticoes were added at a subsequent period, and the number of pillars regulated by the dimensions of what was already constructed. At the same time the width of the intercolumniations does not appear to have been greater than seven feet, which is scarcely more (as compared with the size of the shaft) than the shortest space allowed between columns in Greek and Roman architecture[4]. There are no columns, at either end, between the antæ in this temple; and the walls of the ædes must have been continued from the angle till they reached the jambs of the doorways. If the statue of the deity looked towards the west (as recommended by Vitruvius, chap. v.)[5] it must have been placed in the pronaos, and not in the cella, to have been seen through the doorway from without; for the wall which divides the cella from the pronaos continued too far across the interior to have allowed of any door in the centre of it, opening from one of these to the other, (as will appear by the plan;) and it would be absurd to look for a communication between them in any other part of the wall. Under this disposition, had the statue been in the cella, and its face turned towards the west, it must have looked against the wall in question; and could not have been seen at all from the western front of the temple[6]. From the portions of Doric entablature which we perceived among the ruins of this temple, we may conjecture that it was of that order; but we could no where discover any parts of the capitals belonging to the columns, and the bases, if ever there were any, are buried under the soil which has accumulated about the building. It will be seen by the plate (page 430) that there is a building attached to this temple on the northward which has no connection with its original plan; and there are other remains of building beyond these, and to the westward of them, which will require excavation to determine their plans. We have already mentioned the fragment from which we have ventured to