DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0023
TEMPLES AT SAUDIS AND MAGNESIA.
15
Indeed, there are few things regarding these greater temples of the Greeks more remarkable than the
close approach to identity of their dimensions, though differing so remarkably both in age and design, as well
as in the locality where they are found. Practically they arc double squares in plan, with one side measuring
165 to 170 Greek feet or thereabouts, though what there should be in these numbers to govern their design it is
difficult to divine.1
TEMPLES AT SARDIS AND MAGNESIA.
The Temple of Cybele, at Sardis, ranks next in importance among Ionic temples after the three just
mentioned as existing at Samos, Ephesus, and Didyme. It has unfortunately not been explored to any extent.
Three of its columns are still standing, and two of them have an architrave, while the frusta of several others
protrude through the soil which covers the floor of the temple to a depth of about twenty feet. From these,
Professor Cockerell, in 1819, ascertained the extent of the front to be 143 feet 4 inches, and found it to possess
the same wide intercolumniation in the centre, and the same graduated distances towards the flanks that
characterised the temple at Ephesus. The central columns are 25 feet 4 inches apart from centre to centre;
the next pair 21 feet 7 inches ; the next 17 feet 8 inches; and the outer 16 feet 3 inches, which is that of the
flanks. He could not ascertain from any indication on the spot what the length of the temple was, but assuming-
it to have twenty pillars on the flanks, like that at Ephesus, it must have been 320 feet from angle to angle of
the plinths of the outer columns. The pillars, as near as could be ascertained, were 60 feet in height, bearing an
entablature of about 15 feet, and their capitals Mr. Cockerell remarks as "the most beautiful he had seen."2
Besides its own intrinsic beauty, this capital is especially interesting here, as from the multiplied divisions of the
lateral convolutions of the volutes it resembles the Persepolitan example more than any other example at present
known. If the bases of the columns should happen to show an equal
tendency to follow the principles of Persian design, it will be a step in
advance in our history of the order which would be a great gain. It is
not, however, so much in this great temple as among the minor ruins at
Sardis that we can hope to trace back its history; but it is in this city,
if anywhere, that we may expect to find the materials for this purpose.
This, as well as the probable good preservation of the lower part of the
great temple, makes us regret that it has not been excavated to a greater
extent than has been done. It seems certainly to have been completed
before the Persian wars, and may be as ancient as that at Samos. It
certainly is older than either those of Ephesus or Didyme, as they now
exist, and though erected after the style had attained its complete form, might still afford some hints of the
progress towards perfection.
Next to this in rank must be classed the temple of Diana Leucophryne at Magnesia, which is interesting,
from the details regarding it which Vitruvius quoted, apparently from a work written by its architect
Hermogenes, of Alabanda.3 At present, however, we are worse off for details of the construction than we are
with reference to any of the other temples just named. It is completely ruined, apparently thrown down by an
earthquake. It was partially examined in 1820 by a French architect, M. Huyot, in company with our
countryman, Mr. Donaldson, and described by M. Raoul Pochette in a paper in the Journal ties Savans in 1845.
CAPITAL OF THE TEMPLE OP CYBELE, AT SARDIS, FROM
A SKETCH BY PROFESSOR C. R. COCKERELL.
1 Temple of Jupiter at Agrigentum (Doric) .........
Great Temple, Selinus (Doric) ..........
Temple of Juno, Samos (Ionic) ..........
Temple of Apollo, Didyme (Ionic) ..........
Temple of Diana, Ephesus (Ionic) ..........
Jupiter Olympius, Athens (Corinthian) .........
If all these measurements were exact, some even of those slight discrepancies might disappear. They are all measured on the plan from
the external angles of the plinths of the angle columns.
2 All the particulars here detailed are derived from a paper by Professor Cockerell, contributed to Leake's Researches in Asia Minor,
published by Murray in 1824, page 342 et se<j.; it is, so far as I know, the only trustworthy source of information.
3 Vitruvius, lib. iii. chap. 2.
170
X
357*
167
X
3591
167
X
362$
163
X
366 §
163
X
342 ||
171
X
354 IT
* Cockerell in Stuart's Ant. of Athens, suppl. volume, pi. i.
t Ant. of Ionia, vol. i. p. lxiv. P. Girard, Bull. Jc Corresp. Ilellenique, p. 381 et scq.
§ Ant. of Ionia, pi. iii. eh. 3. Rayet et Thomas, Gazette des Beaux Arts, Juillct, 1876.
|| Wood's Discoveries at Epliesns, p. 264.
^1 Stuart, Ant, of Athens, vol. iii. pi. ii. eh. 2. Penrose, True Principles, pi. xxxviii.
t Hittorff, Arch. Ant. de la Sicile, pi. lxiii.
15
Indeed, there are few things regarding these greater temples of the Greeks more remarkable than the
close approach to identity of their dimensions, though differing so remarkably both in age and design, as well
as in the locality where they are found. Practically they arc double squares in plan, with one side measuring
165 to 170 Greek feet or thereabouts, though what there should be in these numbers to govern their design it is
difficult to divine.1
TEMPLES AT SARDIS AND MAGNESIA.
The Temple of Cybele, at Sardis, ranks next in importance among Ionic temples after the three just
mentioned as existing at Samos, Ephesus, and Didyme. It has unfortunately not been explored to any extent.
Three of its columns are still standing, and two of them have an architrave, while the frusta of several others
protrude through the soil which covers the floor of the temple to a depth of about twenty feet. From these,
Professor Cockerell, in 1819, ascertained the extent of the front to be 143 feet 4 inches, and found it to possess
the same wide intercolumniation in the centre, and the same graduated distances towards the flanks that
characterised the temple at Ephesus. The central columns are 25 feet 4 inches apart from centre to centre;
the next pair 21 feet 7 inches ; the next 17 feet 8 inches; and the outer 16 feet 3 inches, which is that of the
flanks. He could not ascertain from any indication on the spot what the length of the temple was, but assuming-
it to have twenty pillars on the flanks, like that at Ephesus, it must have been 320 feet from angle to angle of
the plinths of the outer columns. The pillars, as near as could be ascertained, were 60 feet in height, bearing an
entablature of about 15 feet, and their capitals Mr. Cockerell remarks as "the most beautiful he had seen."2
Besides its own intrinsic beauty, this capital is especially interesting here, as from the multiplied divisions of the
lateral convolutions of the volutes it resembles the Persepolitan example more than any other example at present
known. If the bases of the columns should happen to show an equal
tendency to follow the principles of Persian design, it will be a step in
advance in our history of the order which would be a great gain. It is
not, however, so much in this great temple as among the minor ruins at
Sardis that we can hope to trace back its history; but it is in this city,
if anywhere, that we may expect to find the materials for this purpose.
This, as well as the probable good preservation of the lower part of the
great temple, makes us regret that it has not been excavated to a greater
extent than has been done. It seems certainly to have been completed
before the Persian wars, and may be as ancient as that at Samos. It
certainly is older than either those of Ephesus or Didyme, as they now
exist, and though erected after the style had attained its complete form, might still afford some hints of the
progress towards perfection.
Next to this in rank must be classed the temple of Diana Leucophryne at Magnesia, which is interesting,
from the details regarding it which Vitruvius quoted, apparently from a work written by its architect
Hermogenes, of Alabanda.3 At present, however, we are worse off for details of the construction than we are
with reference to any of the other temples just named. It is completely ruined, apparently thrown down by an
earthquake. It was partially examined in 1820 by a French architect, M. Huyot, in company with our
countryman, Mr. Donaldson, and described by M. Raoul Pochette in a paper in the Journal ties Savans in 1845.
CAPITAL OF THE TEMPLE OP CYBELE, AT SARDIS, FROM
A SKETCH BY PROFESSOR C. R. COCKERELL.
1 Temple of Jupiter at Agrigentum (Doric) .........
Great Temple, Selinus (Doric) ..........
Temple of Juno, Samos (Ionic) ..........
Temple of Apollo, Didyme (Ionic) ..........
Temple of Diana, Ephesus (Ionic) ..........
Jupiter Olympius, Athens (Corinthian) .........
If all these measurements were exact, some even of those slight discrepancies might disappear. They are all measured on the plan from
the external angles of the plinths of the angle columns.
2 All the particulars here detailed are derived from a paper by Professor Cockerell, contributed to Leake's Researches in Asia Minor,
published by Murray in 1824, page 342 et se<j.; it is, so far as I know, the only trustworthy source of information.
3 Vitruvius, lib. iii. chap. 2.
170
X
357*
167
X
3591
167
X
362$
163
X
366 §
163
X
342 ||
171
X
354 IT
* Cockerell in Stuart's Ant. of Athens, suppl. volume, pi. i.
t Ant. of Ionia, vol. i. p. lxiv. P. Girard, Bull. Jc Corresp. Ilellenique, p. 381 et scq.
§ Ant. of Ionia, pi. iii. eh. 3. Rayet et Thomas, Gazette des Beaux Arts, Juillct, 1876.
|| Wood's Discoveries at Epliesns, p. 264.
^1 Stuart, Ant, of Athens, vol. iii. pi. ii. eh. 2. Penrose, True Principles, pi. xxxviii.
t Hittorff, Arch. Ant. de la Sicile, pi. lxiii.