DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0022
14 INTRODUCTION.
on each flank certainly were additions. Whether they balanced in effect the wide and graduated spacing of
the Ephesian front is a question more difficult to determine. The spacing of all the pillars on the front and
flanks of the Didymean temple was the same. At Ephesus the two central columns were 28 feet 8 inches
apart from centre to centre, and bore, consequently, one of the largest architraves ever known to have been
used. The next two were 23 feet 6 inches, the next 20 feet 4, and the outer 19 feet 4, while the spacing on
the flanks was 17 feet 2, or a fraction less than that of the Didymean temple throughout.
One of the results of some excavations made at Branchida; in 1873 by MM. Rayet and Thomas,1 was the
discovery that the bases of eight columns of the principal front were richly ornamented with sculptures of
conventional designs, not of course to compare with that of the " colunmse cselataa" of the Ephesian temple,
nor even with the sculptured bases of Persepolis or Susa, but more as a reminiscence of these latter. In
designing them the architect has sought to retain the general outline of the Grecian Ionic base, instead of boldly
adopting the eastern form, which certainly, in this instance, would have been an improvement.
It is still a matter of uncertainty what the form of the entablature of the order of this temple may have
been. There are still two columns standing, and they bear between them a fragment which has generally been
assumed to represent the architrave, but it is so narrow that, if the other parts were in proportion, the entabla-
ture would only have been a little more than 10 feet in height, and consequently only one-sixth of that of the
pillars, according to the plates published in the first volume of the Ionian antiquities,2 and Texier arrives at the
same conclusion.3 The fact, however, is that restorers have hitherto failed to observe that this so-called architrave
is a part of the internal, not of the external, order of the temple, and its height depends on the arrangement
of the lacunaria of the internal roofs, and has no reference to the external form of the building. If MM. Rayet
and Thomas found anything bearing on this point they have not yet communicated it to the public.4 In the
meanwhile, however, so far as any evidence yet published is concerned, it may safely be assumed that the
entablature of this temple was not less in proportion to the order than elsewhere, or about one-fourth that of
the pillars, or from 15 to 16 feet without any cymatium. The pillars themselves are nine and three-quarter
diameters in height.
Practically the width of the Didymean temple is identical with that of the temple at Ephesus, though the
former is somewhat longer, from the introduction of an extra pillar in the flanks, probably to accommodate some
internal arrangement, the significance of which, from its ruined state, we cannot at present perceive.5
1 Gazette des Beaux Arts, Avril, Juillet, ct Septembre, 1876.
" Ant. of Ionia, vol. i. cli. iii. pis. iv. and vi.
3 Texier, UAsie Mineure, vol. ii. pi. 137, bis. Pullan, Principal Ruins of Asia Minor, pi. iv.
4 If MM. Rayet and Thomas had not shown such haste to anticipate the publication by the Dilettanti Society of the results of the excava-
tions made at their expense at Priene, they might long ago have given to the world the results of their own interesting explorations of this temple.
As it is, the papers published by them in the Gazette des Beaux Arts are only sufficient to whet the appetite, but on no point sufficient to satisfy
the craving for information on this most interesting subject.
3 One of the most striking peculiarities of these Ionian temples was the frequency of their being destroyed by tiro. Of course it is not to be
wondered at that a temple sucli as that at Branchida} should have been so destroyed by the Persians. When a hostile army invades a country,
hating the people and despising their gods, the destruction of their temples follows as a matter of course; the simplest mode of effecting this is,
obviously, to accumulate faggots and other combustible materials in their interior and to set fire to them. By this means not only is the woodwork
of the roof consumed, but the walls, if of marble, so calcined as to render their restoration almost impossible otherwise than by complete rebuilding.
The case however was different with the Ephesian temple. The destruction of the penultimate temple there was the act of an unaided incendiary in
356, and we have nothing but a somewhat apocryphal story in Eusebius, who tells us that the previous temple was accidentally burnt in 399 B.C.*
It, as stated above, was probably erected about the year 600 B.C.; but before that time, if we may trust the expression of Pliny, "septies restitute
templa,t" there were four earlier temples to Diana at Ephesus, all of which apparently shared the same fate. The first, about the year 1300 B.C.,
was burnt by the Amazons, according to Falkencr, about 11504 The burning of the second temple is mentioned incidentally by Clemens AIox-
andrinus with that of the third. " The fire that burnt the temple at Argos with Chryses the priest, also burnt the Temple of Diana, which is in
Ephesus the second time after that of the Amazons.§ The fourth temple was burnt by Lygdamis in the reign of Ardys II. King of Lydia
(680-631 B.C.) The fifth and sixth, as mentioned above, shared the same fate. The seventh, following the words of Pliny, was " restituta,"
but, fortunately for us, never suffered from fire.
Notwithstanding the frequency of these burnings, we should hardly bo justified in assuming that even the earliest of these temples were erected
wholly of wood; but, coupled with the total disappearance of all the earlier temples in Asia Minor, it docs seem probable that wood was employed
to a greater extent, especially in the interiors, than was the case in Doric buildings. Wo hardly read anywhere of Doric temples accidcntallv
destroyed by fire; indeed it is not very easy to see how either an incendiary or an accident could set fire to such a temple as the Parthenon, or to
any of the great Sicilian temples ; though a barbarian army could, of course, effect their destruction by that means without difficulty.
It is probable that in the last Ephesian temple, the architect, warned by experience, reproduced in incombustible materials the forms which in
earlier examples may have been in wood; but from the present state of our knowledge it seems fair to assume that the Ionic order was not only
copied from a wooden original, but was used with wooden adjuncts to a greater extent than was the case with the Doric or any other style of
Grecian architecture.
* Eusebius Pamph. Chronicorum Canonum, i. 134. f Hist. Nat. xvi. 40.
% Eusebius, loc. cit ii. p. 95. I am indebted to Falkencr's Temple of Diana, p. 221 et seq. for these references; he seems thoroughly to have
exhausted the subject.
§ Works, Oxford edition of 1715, vol. i. p. 47.
on each flank certainly were additions. Whether they balanced in effect the wide and graduated spacing of
the Ephesian front is a question more difficult to determine. The spacing of all the pillars on the front and
flanks of the Didymean temple was the same. At Ephesus the two central columns were 28 feet 8 inches
apart from centre to centre, and bore, consequently, one of the largest architraves ever known to have been
used. The next two were 23 feet 6 inches, the next 20 feet 4, and the outer 19 feet 4, while the spacing on
the flanks was 17 feet 2, or a fraction less than that of the Didymean temple throughout.
One of the results of some excavations made at Branchida; in 1873 by MM. Rayet and Thomas,1 was the
discovery that the bases of eight columns of the principal front were richly ornamented with sculptures of
conventional designs, not of course to compare with that of the " colunmse cselataa" of the Ephesian temple,
nor even with the sculptured bases of Persepolis or Susa, but more as a reminiscence of these latter. In
designing them the architect has sought to retain the general outline of the Grecian Ionic base, instead of boldly
adopting the eastern form, which certainly, in this instance, would have been an improvement.
It is still a matter of uncertainty what the form of the entablature of the order of this temple may have
been. There are still two columns standing, and they bear between them a fragment which has generally been
assumed to represent the architrave, but it is so narrow that, if the other parts were in proportion, the entabla-
ture would only have been a little more than 10 feet in height, and consequently only one-sixth of that of the
pillars, according to the plates published in the first volume of the Ionian antiquities,2 and Texier arrives at the
same conclusion.3 The fact, however, is that restorers have hitherto failed to observe that this so-called architrave
is a part of the internal, not of the external, order of the temple, and its height depends on the arrangement
of the lacunaria of the internal roofs, and has no reference to the external form of the building. If MM. Rayet
and Thomas found anything bearing on this point they have not yet communicated it to the public.4 In the
meanwhile, however, so far as any evidence yet published is concerned, it may safely be assumed that the
entablature of this temple was not less in proportion to the order than elsewhere, or about one-fourth that of
the pillars, or from 15 to 16 feet without any cymatium. The pillars themselves are nine and three-quarter
diameters in height.
Practically the width of the Didymean temple is identical with that of the temple at Ephesus, though the
former is somewhat longer, from the introduction of an extra pillar in the flanks, probably to accommodate some
internal arrangement, the significance of which, from its ruined state, we cannot at present perceive.5
1 Gazette des Beaux Arts, Avril, Juillet, ct Septembre, 1876.
" Ant. of Ionia, vol. i. cli. iii. pis. iv. and vi.
3 Texier, UAsie Mineure, vol. ii. pi. 137, bis. Pullan, Principal Ruins of Asia Minor, pi. iv.
4 If MM. Rayet and Thomas had not shown such haste to anticipate the publication by the Dilettanti Society of the results of the excava-
tions made at their expense at Priene, they might long ago have given to the world the results of their own interesting explorations of this temple.
As it is, the papers published by them in the Gazette des Beaux Arts are only sufficient to whet the appetite, but on no point sufficient to satisfy
the craving for information on this most interesting subject.
3 One of the most striking peculiarities of these Ionian temples was the frequency of their being destroyed by tiro. Of course it is not to be
wondered at that a temple sucli as that at Branchida} should have been so destroyed by the Persians. When a hostile army invades a country,
hating the people and despising their gods, the destruction of their temples follows as a matter of course; the simplest mode of effecting this is,
obviously, to accumulate faggots and other combustible materials in their interior and to set fire to them. By this means not only is the woodwork
of the roof consumed, but the walls, if of marble, so calcined as to render their restoration almost impossible otherwise than by complete rebuilding.
The case however was different with the Ephesian temple. The destruction of the penultimate temple there was the act of an unaided incendiary in
356, and we have nothing but a somewhat apocryphal story in Eusebius, who tells us that the previous temple was accidentally burnt in 399 B.C.*
It, as stated above, was probably erected about the year 600 B.C.; but before that time, if we may trust the expression of Pliny, "septies restitute
templa,t" there were four earlier temples to Diana at Ephesus, all of which apparently shared the same fate. The first, about the year 1300 B.C.,
was burnt by the Amazons, according to Falkencr, about 11504 The burning of the second temple is mentioned incidentally by Clemens AIox-
andrinus with that of the third. " The fire that burnt the temple at Argos with Chryses the priest, also burnt the Temple of Diana, which is in
Ephesus the second time after that of the Amazons.§ The fourth temple was burnt by Lygdamis in the reign of Ardys II. King of Lydia
(680-631 B.C.) The fifth and sixth, as mentioned above, shared the same fate. The seventh, following the words of Pliny, was " restituta,"
but, fortunately for us, never suffered from fire.
Notwithstanding the frequency of these burnings, we should hardly bo justified in assuming that even the earliest of these temples were erected
wholly of wood; but, coupled with the total disappearance of all the earlier temples in Asia Minor, it docs seem probable that wood was employed
to a greater extent, especially in the interiors, than was the case in Doric buildings. Wo hardly read anywhere of Doric temples accidcntallv
destroyed by fire; indeed it is not very easy to see how either an incendiary or an accident could set fire to such a temple as the Parthenon, or to
any of the great Sicilian temples ; though a barbarian army could, of course, effect their destruction by that means without difficulty.
It is probable that in the last Ephesian temple, the architect, warned by experience, reproduced in incombustible materials the forms which in
earlier examples may have been in wood; but from the present state of our knowledge it seems fair to assume that the Ionic order was not only
copied from a wooden original, but was used with wooden adjuncts to a greater extent than was the case with the Doric or any other style of
Grecian architecture.
* Eusebius Pamph. Chronicorum Canonum, i. 134. f Hist. Nat. xvi. 40.
% Eusebius, loc. cit ii. p. 95. I am indebted to Falkencr's Temple of Diana, p. 221 et seq. for these references; he seems thoroughly to have
exhausted the subject.
§ Works, Oxford edition of 1715, vol. i. p. 47.