0K IV. 
Bur if the nature of the placè prevents that position, then the temple is to be turned to the 
view of the greater part of the city walls, and temples of the Gods; or should sacred fanes 
be built near a river, like those near the Nile in Egypt, they should look toward the banks 
of the river; so likewise, if near a public way, they should be so situated, that the passengers 
may behold it, and pay their salutations. 
HE rules relating to the portals of temples, and their antepagments (E), are these: first, 
it is to be determined of what kind they are to be made; for there are these kinds, Doric, 
lonic, and Attic. 
IN those of the Doric kind, these rules are to be observed: The top of the 
Fig. XXI. 
and XXX. corona (A), which is placed above the upper antepagment, is made level with 
the top (o) of the capitals of the columns which are in the pronaos. The aperture or 
hypothyron is thus determined: The heighth from the pavement (B) of the temple to the 
lacunars (C), is divided into three parts and a half, of which two parts make the heighth of 
the aperture of the door. This (heighth) is divided into twelve parts, of which five and a 
(1*) The Latin word ostia, which signifies the aperture 
of the door, I have rendered portal, in order to preserve 
the distinction between that and the framing of wood 
work, &c. made to close or shut the said aperture; and which 
is properly called the door. 
(2*) The antepagments are the jambs of the door case, 
or perpendicular pieces of the architrave. 
(3’) The lacunars have been before explained to be the 
cofers, or pannels. Those in the cieling of the pronaos, 
which are those here implied, were usually on a level with 
those in the soffite of the corona, as they are in the temple or 
Theseus, at Athens; in that of the Sybil, at Tivoli; Velta, 
at Rome, and divers others. They were placed sometimes 
indeed at different levels, as at the top of the architrave, &c. 
CHAPTER VI. 
Of the Proportions of the Portals of Temples. 
But, as they were originally and most usually at the 
level of the corona, and Vitruvius has spoken of no other 
than those in the corona, we must suppose that he considers 
these which he here mentions to be on the same level. 
4*) This passage has, by all the transators heretofore, 
ben explained in a manner that no antique example has 
been found to authorise, and that has no reason of propriety 
or beauty to recommend it: they suppose that the corona, 
of the cornice is intended by Vitruvius to be much more in 
heighth than all the rest of the cornice, architrave and frile 
together, as A, Fig. XXIX. 
Vitruvius says that the top of the corona of the portal is 
to be made level with the top of the capitals of the columns 
in the pronanos; and at the same time directs the aperture 
of the door to be made of such a heighth as caules the ar-