DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4327#0048
MB. PULLAN'S REPORT.
39
columns was 7 ft. 10 in. At the S.W. angle the voussoirs
of an arch were found, probably belonging to a gate in the
outer wall.
The same flinty foundation was found on all sides; upon
it there was probably a pavement ranging with the pro-
jection found beneath the steps on N. and S.W. sides.
This projection is shown on the plan and elevations,
Plates xxii.—xxiv.
On the 9th of July, the excavations being completed,
we returned to Smyrna by land.
Remarks on the Mode of Construction and data for the
Restoration.
It is evident from the plan that this Temple was not that
erected by Hermogcnes and described by Vitruvius as being
Eustyle.2
2 " Hujus exemplar (a^dis eustyli) Boma; nullum liabemus, sod in Asia
Teo hcxastylon Liberi Patris. Eas autem S3'mmetrias constituit Hermogenes,
qui etiani primus Hexastylum Pseudo-dipterive rationem invenit......
ijuare videtur acuta magnaque solertia effectus opcrum Hermogenes fecisse,
reliquisseque fontes, undo posteri pos-'sent hauiire disciplinarum rationes."—
Vitruvius iii. 3.
The inferior character of the sculptures on the frieze,
and the inscription on the architrave, prove that it was
rebuilt in Roman times. There is a certain degree of
inequality in the workmanship; for instance, the contours
of the mouldings of the bases on the N. side are superior
to those on the S., which seems to confirm the idea of a
reconstruction.
Some of the plinths—the steps on the N. and W. sides
and the pavement and foundation of cella, having been
found in position, the dimensions of the temple were
ascertained without difficulty.
All the members of the order were recovered as well as
various pediment stones,3 but the drums of columns were
so few in number that the exact height of the column must
be a matter of conjecture.
The Temple was built of grey marble, obtained at a
quarry about three miles to the N.W. In this quarry there
are still several blocks with Roman numerals inscribed
upon them.4
3 For the details of the order see PL xxv.
4 See Hamilton, Asia Minor, ii. pp. 17-19.
DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.
Plate XXII.
Plan of the Temple at Teos.
The temple at Teos is the smallest of the three described
in this volume, measuring only 112 feet by 58 feet from
the angle of the plinths of the outer column, and conse-
quently covering only 6,496 square feet as compared with
the 7,816 of the temple at Priene, and the 9,813 of the
Sminthium. The arrangements arc very similar to those
at Priene, but the more contracted dimension of the Teian
temple and the general meanness and poverty-stricken
look which characterize it contrast very unfavourably with
the plan of either of the other two temples.
The parts shaded darkly on the plan are those of which
the foundation remained sufficiently distinct for Mr. Pullan
to ascertain their position with certainty. The parts
shaded more lightly are interpolated, but enough remained
to enable this to be done without the risk of any appreciable
error of sufficient importance to be remarked.
Plates XXIII. and XXIV.
Pront and Plank Elevation.
The front and flank elevations of the temples at Teos
show the same poverty of appearance that characterises
the plan. The order has no especial beauty in itself, and
the pillars are too widely spaced for dignity or strength.
Owing to the slope of the ground a noble flight of twelve
steps leads up to the front portico, but the six steps on the
flank seem neither to possess the dignified repose of the
three steps at Priene, or of the ten which, if properly
broken up by perpendicular parts, must have added so
much to the imposing grandeur of the Sminthium.
Plate XXV.
The Order at Teos.
The appearance of the order goes far to justify the
suspicion that the temple must have been rebuilt in
Roman times, though the architect must have still
followed, no doubt, the traditions of a better age. The
base, however, is very much more like several that
occur in later times than the elegant even if some-
what unconstructive form which prevailed in the great
Grecian age, and the capital is characterised by the
hard horizontal line between the volutes of the Roman
capital, instead of the elegant downward curve which is
universally found in the Greek capitals. The upper
moulding of the architrave is more richly ornamented than
is usually the case, but in this instance seems dispro-
portioned to either the poverty of the capital below or to
that of the cornice above it; while the echinus, though
its form is copied from a good age, betrays an unskilful
hand in its execution.
The smaller order seems to belong to a slightly better
and earlier age, but the fragments of it are too slight to
admit of any satisfactory appreciation of its characteristics.
J. F.
39
columns was 7 ft. 10 in. At the S.W. angle the voussoirs
of an arch were found, probably belonging to a gate in the
outer wall.
The same flinty foundation was found on all sides; upon
it there was probably a pavement ranging with the pro-
jection found beneath the steps on N. and S.W. sides.
This projection is shown on the plan and elevations,
Plates xxii.—xxiv.
On the 9th of July, the excavations being completed,
we returned to Smyrna by land.
Remarks on the Mode of Construction and data for the
Restoration.
It is evident from the plan that this Temple was not that
erected by Hermogcnes and described by Vitruvius as being
Eustyle.2
2 " Hujus exemplar (a^dis eustyli) Boma; nullum liabemus, sod in Asia
Teo hcxastylon Liberi Patris. Eas autem S3'mmetrias constituit Hermogenes,
qui etiani primus Hexastylum Pseudo-dipterive rationem invenit......
ijuare videtur acuta magnaque solertia effectus opcrum Hermogenes fecisse,
reliquisseque fontes, undo posteri pos-'sent hauiire disciplinarum rationes."—
Vitruvius iii. 3.
The inferior character of the sculptures on the frieze,
and the inscription on the architrave, prove that it was
rebuilt in Roman times. There is a certain degree of
inequality in the workmanship; for instance, the contours
of the mouldings of the bases on the N. side are superior
to those on the S., which seems to confirm the idea of a
reconstruction.
Some of the plinths—the steps on the N. and W. sides
and the pavement and foundation of cella, having been
found in position, the dimensions of the temple were
ascertained without difficulty.
All the members of the order were recovered as well as
various pediment stones,3 but the drums of columns were
so few in number that the exact height of the column must
be a matter of conjecture.
The Temple was built of grey marble, obtained at a
quarry about three miles to the N.W. In this quarry there
are still several blocks with Roman numerals inscribed
upon them.4
3 For the details of the order see PL xxv.
4 See Hamilton, Asia Minor, ii. pp. 17-19.
DESCRIPTION OF PLATES.
Plate XXII.
Plan of the Temple at Teos.
The temple at Teos is the smallest of the three described
in this volume, measuring only 112 feet by 58 feet from
the angle of the plinths of the outer column, and conse-
quently covering only 6,496 square feet as compared with
the 7,816 of the temple at Priene, and the 9,813 of the
Sminthium. The arrangements arc very similar to those
at Priene, but the more contracted dimension of the Teian
temple and the general meanness and poverty-stricken
look which characterize it contrast very unfavourably with
the plan of either of the other two temples.
The parts shaded darkly on the plan are those of which
the foundation remained sufficiently distinct for Mr. Pullan
to ascertain their position with certainty. The parts
shaded more lightly are interpolated, but enough remained
to enable this to be done without the risk of any appreciable
error of sufficient importance to be remarked.
Plates XXIII. and XXIV.
Pront and Plank Elevation.
The front and flank elevations of the temples at Teos
show the same poverty of appearance that characterises
the plan. The order has no especial beauty in itself, and
the pillars are too widely spaced for dignity or strength.
Owing to the slope of the ground a noble flight of twelve
steps leads up to the front portico, but the six steps on the
flank seem neither to possess the dignified repose of the
three steps at Priene, or of the ten which, if properly
broken up by perpendicular parts, must have added so
much to the imposing grandeur of the Sminthium.
Plate XXV.
The Order at Teos.
The appearance of the order goes far to justify the
suspicion that the temple must have been rebuilt in
Roman times, though the architect must have still
followed, no doubt, the traditions of a better age. The
base, however, is very much more like several that
occur in later times than the elegant even if some-
what unconstructive form which prevailed in the great
Grecian age, and the capital is characterised by the
hard horizontal line between the volutes of the Roman
capital, instead of the elegant downward curve which is
universally found in the Greek capitals. The upper
moulding of the architrave is more richly ornamented than
is usually the case, but in this instance seems dispro-
portioned to either the poverty of the capital below or to
that of the cornice above it; while the echinus, though
its form is copied from a good age, betrays an unskilful
hand in its execution.
The smaller order seems to belong to a slightly better
and earlier age, but the fragments of it are too slight to
admit of any satisfactory appreciation of its characteristics.
J. F.