DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0020
12 INTRODUCTION.
hardly, however, worth while to speculate on these points in this place; what we learn from the passage is, that
in the middle of the seventh century B.C. the distinction between the Doric and Ionic orders was so perfectly well
understood that no special definition was considered necessary to render the fact intelligible to others.
There is nothing, indeed, at all improbable that the distinction between the two orders was well known
at least as early as this, inasmuch as we learn from Herodotus that the great Temple of Juno at Samos was
erected by an architect named Rhoecus, whom we may assume to have lived about, but not earlier than 600 B.C.
This temple Herodotus compares with the labyrinth of Egypt and the temple at Ephesus for extent and
magnificence,1 and states that it was the largest he had seen.3 The remains now existing on the spot go far to
confirm this last assertion, though they are so scattered that it is not now easy to ascertain what its dimensions
actually were. The details given by Mr. Bedford would apparently make it 167'6 feet wide by 362 feet in
length.3 But it was recently examined by Mr. Paul Girard,' who makes the front only about 165 feet and does
not attempt to ascertain its other dimensions, but according to his figures they seem to have been something less
than those just quoted. The truth, however, cannot be ascertained without excavation, but there seems no place
where it would be more easy to undertake this, or where the results would be more interesting. It is more
than probable that the pillar now standing, but without its capital, belongs to the temple Herodotus saw and
described. In diameter it surpasses any pillar now found in Asia Minor, being 6 feet 5*4 inches, which would be
quite suitable to a temple of the largest size, and the form of the bases throughout is singularly archaic, and
by no means beautiful.5 They consist of a circular drum with six or seven parallel horizontal flirtings without any
subordination among themselves. These are surmounted by a fluted torus moulding, which is almost certainly
borrowed from Persia, as a similar one is found at Passargadaj attached to the tomb of Cyrus,6 and probably,
therefore, of the time of Cambyses, as no such base is found in Greece in that, or, indeed, in any early age.
Be this as it may, the point that most interests us here is, that the Asiatic Greeks, probably as early as the
year 600 B.C., were capable of undertaking the erection of a stone temple of the Ionic order, on a scale which
they never surpassed, perhaps never equalled, in so far as its peristyle was concerned. If this were so, not
only the order, but the whole templar ordinance must have been long familiar with them, and must have
gradually grown to completion during several preceding centuries.
TEMPLE AT EPHESUS.
Although Herodotus is probably correct when he asserted that the temple at Samos was the largest Greek
temple that he had seen,7 it is not clear that he would not have modified this opinion had he lived after the.
time of Alexander and seen the last form which the temple at Ephesus took. The temple he saw there was that
afterwards burnt by Herostratus on the night Alexander was born (356 B.C.), and it was probably unfinished at his
time. It is true Mr. Wood's researches would lead us to suppose that the last three temples there, were on the
same spot, and probably of the same dimensions, or nearly so, but it was not in its peristyle only that the great
glory of the Ephesian temple resided, though it was only in that respect that it admitted of comparison with that
at Samos.8 If we know the exact dimensions of the Samian temple, which is doubtful, the latter was four feet
wider (167 against 163), and about twenty feet longer (362 against 342); but that at Ephesus stood on a
stylobate ten feet in height, and measuring, according to Pliny, 220 Greek feet by 425 ; ' and it most probably
was from the mode in which this podium, "universum templum," was ornamented with sculptured bassi rilievi,
and adorned with statues either singly or in groups, that the temple owes its greatest fame, and from which it
came to be considered one of the seven wonders of the world.
The one peculiarity that seems to distinguish this temple from all others we are acquainted with, is that
thirty-six of its pillars were sculptured—one of these by Scopas.0 What this meant was long a puzzle to
1 Herodotus, iii. 60. * Herodotus, lib. ii. 148.
3 Antiquities of Ionia, vol. i. p. 64. They are there stated as 344 by 166 feet, but he seems to have omitted to take into account the dimensions
of the angle column.
4 Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique, pp. 381-94. Athens, June, 1880.
5 Antiquities of Ionia, vol. i. ch. v. pis. iii. iv. and v. 6 Flandin and Costc, vol. iv. pi. 197. Texicr, vol. ii. pi. lxxxiii.
7 Lib. ii. ch. 60.
* These particulars, and indeed all we really know about this long-lost temple, arc derived from the work, Discoveries at Ephesus,
published by Longmans in 1877, in which Mr. Wood describes the researches he carried on during eleven long years with such indomitable
perseverance on the site of this temple. It is very much to be regretted that ho has not since found an opportunity of publishing the detailed plan
which he possesses of his discoveries or a specification of where the various objects were found. The plan in his work above alluded to is on too
small a scale and too deficient in detail to be of any use for scientific purposes; and till a larger plan is published or a copy of it at least deposited in
the British Museum many important facts connected with his researches must remain unknown to the public. By the aid of an incomplete copy
of his plan, which he kindly lent me, I was enabled to work out several of the problems involved in his discoveries, but in a much less satisfactory
manner than could have been done had all the necessary information been then available. Such results as I obtained were published in the Sessional
Papers of the Institute of Brit. Arch, for 1877.
8 Pliny, Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvi. 14.
hardly, however, worth while to speculate on these points in this place; what we learn from the passage is, that
in the middle of the seventh century B.C. the distinction between the Doric and Ionic orders was so perfectly well
understood that no special definition was considered necessary to render the fact intelligible to others.
There is nothing, indeed, at all improbable that the distinction between the two orders was well known
at least as early as this, inasmuch as we learn from Herodotus that the great Temple of Juno at Samos was
erected by an architect named Rhoecus, whom we may assume to have lived about, but not earlier than 600 B.C.
This temple Herodotus compares with the labyrinth of Egypt and the temple at Ephesus for extent and
magnificence,1 and states that it was the largest he had seen.3 The remains now existing on the spot go far to
confirm this last assertion, though they are so scattered that it is not now easy to ascertain what its dimensions
actually were. The details given by Mr. Bedford would apparently make it 167'6 feet wide by 362 feet in
length.3 But it was recently examined by Mr. Paul Girard,' who makes the front only about 165 feet and does
not attempt to ascertain its other dimensions, but according to his figures they seem to have been something less
than those just quoted. The truth, however, cannot be ascertained without excavation, but there seems no place
where it would be more easy to undertake this, or where the results would be more interesting. It is more
than probable that the pillar now standing, but without its capital, belongs to the temple Herodotus saw and
described. In diameter it surpasses any pillar now found in Asia Minor, being 6 feet 5*4 inches, which would be
quite suitable to a temple of the largest size, and the form of the bases throughout is singularly archaic, and
by no means beautiful.5 They consist of a circular drum with six or seven parallel horizontal flirtings without any
subordination among themselves. These are surmounted by a fluted torus moulding, which is almost certainly
borrowed from Persia, as a similar one is found at Passargadaj attached to the tomb of Cyrus,6 and probably,
therefore, of the time of Cambyses, as no such base is found in Greece in that, or, indeed, in any early age.
Be this as it may, the point that most interests us here is, that the Asiatic Greeks, probably as early as the
year 600 B.C., were capable of undertaking the erection of a stone temple of the Ionic order, on a scale which
they never surpassed, perhaps never equalled, in so far as its peristyle was concerned. If this were so, not
only the order, but the whole templar ordinance must have been long familiar with them, and must have
gradually grown to completion during several preceding centuries.
TEMPLE AT EPHESUS.
Although Herodotus is probably correct when he asserted that the temple at Samos was the largest Greek
temple that he had seen,7 it is not clear that he would not have modified this opinion had he lived after the.
time of Alexander and seen the last form which the temple at Ephesus took. The temple he saw there was that
afterwards burnt by Herostratus on the night Alexander was born (356 B.C.), and it was probably unfinished at his
time. It is true Mr. Wood's researches would lead us to suppose that the last three temples there, were on the
same spot, and probably of the same dimensions, or nearly so, but it was not in its peristyle only that the great
glory of the Ephesian temple resided, though it was only in that respect that it admitted of comparison with that
at Samos.8 If we know the exact dimensions of the Samian temple, which is doubtful, the latter was four feet
wider (167 against 163), and about twenty feet longer (362 against 342); but that at Ephesus stood on a
stylobate ten feet in height, and measuring, according to Pliny, 220 Greek feet by 425 ; ' and it most probably
was from the mode in which this podium, "universum templum," was ornamented with sculptured bassi rilievi,
and adorned with statues either singly or in groups, that the temple owes its greatest fame, and from which it
came to be considered one of the seven wonders of the world.
The one peculiarity that seems to distinguish this temple from all others we are acquainted with, is that
thirty-six of its pillars were sculptured—one of these by Scopas.0 What this meant was long a puzzle to
1 Herodotus, iii. 60. * Herodotus, lib. ii. 148.
3 Antiquities of Ionia, vol. i. p. 64. They are there stated as 344 by 166 feet, but he seems to have omitted to take into account the dimensions
of the angle column.
4 Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique, pp. 381-94. Athens, June, 1880.
5 Antiquities of Ionia, vol. i. ch. v. pis. iii. iv. and v. 6 Flandin and Costc, vol. iv. pi. 197. Texicr, vol. ii. pi. lxxxiii.
7 Lib. ii. ch. 60.
* These particulars, and indeed all we really know about this long-lost temple, arc derived from the work, Discoveries at Ephesus,
published by Longmans in 1877, in which Mr. Wood describes the researches he carried on during eleven long years with such indomitable
perseverance on the site of this temple. It is very much to be regretted that ho has not since found an opportunity of publishing the detailed plan
which he possesses of his discoveries or a specification of where the various objects were found. The plan in his work above alluded to is on too
small a scale and too deficient in detail to be of any use for scientific purposes; and till a larger plan is published or a copy of it at least deposited in
the British Museum many important facts connected with his researches must remain unknown to the public. By the aid of an incomplete copy
of his plan, which he kindly lent me, I was enabled to work out several of the problems involved in his discoveries, but in a much less satisfactory
manner than could have been done had all the necessary information been then available. Such results as I obtained were published in the Sessional
Papers of the Institute of Brit. Arch, for 1877.
8 Pliny, Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvi. 14.