DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4328#0093
APPENDIX
LATER HELLENISTIC ARCHITECTURE AND ROME
In a review of the publications of the Society of Dilettanti on Ionian Antiquities it will not be out of place to consider what may
be called the classical transition, and the relation between the architecture of Greece and Rome. A later phase of the same
question has been raised by Strzygowski in his Orient oder Rom. In the result it will appear that the transition was almost
entirely accomplished in the Hellenistic East, and that, indeed—except in a limited and local sense—there was no Roman
architecture. Let us examine one or two of the most typical characteristics of what has been called the Roman style.
The " Composite Order," of which the theatre at Myra has furnished us with a fine example, is one of these. The capitals
at Myra are almost identical with others in Rome, at the Arches of Titus and Septimius Severus, and in the Baths of Caracalla
and Diocletian.1 So close is the likeness, indeed, that there must have been some direct relation between the Lycian and
Roman examples.
In Asia Minor varieties of this type of capital were common, and there is every reason to think that this was its native
land. Examples are found at Hadrian's Gateway at Adalia, at the Theatre at Termessos,2 and at the Theatre of Ephesus. At
the Temple of Jupiter at Aizani the capitals were similar, but simpler, in having one row of acanthus leaves instead of two. An
almost exactly similar type of proto-composite capitals existed at Mylasa. They are illustrated by Pococke, who described the
temple to which they belonged as " built to Augustus and Rome; in the front is a portico of the Composite Order, and on the
other three sides an Ionic colonnade." Both the examples at Aizani and Mylasa were probably of the first century b.c.
The Composite was but one of many varieties of the Ionic and Corinthian Orders which were being experimented with, and
the " Roman form of Corinthian " was also really formed by the'Greeks.
The early steps of the development of the Corinthian capital at Bassae, Epidauros, and the Philippeion at Olympia are now
well known. Recently small fragments of the capitals designed by Scopas at Tegea have been found. Then in Asia Minor we
have the capital discovered at Didyma by the first Ionian Mission and illustrated in Vol. II. Revett's original sketch of this is
at the British Museum. It belonged to an attached semi-column of the interior and it was 4 ft. 8 in. high. The curves of the
abacus were continued to make sharp angles as was the case at Epidauros; it could hardly have been later than the second
century. It appears plainly from Vitruvius that the Roman type of Ionic was founded on the works of Hermogenes at Teos
and Magnesia, and it may seem natural that the " Ionic Order" should have been taken over from Ionian examples. But
this dependence on Asia Minor seems to be only one instance of a general rule, which doubtless arose from the fact that the
flourishing cities of Asia Minor had, when Rome made its first contact with them, so many proud buildings of newest fashion.
In the sentence following that in which he says that Hermogenes wrote on the Ionic Temples of Teos and Magnesia
Vitruvius adds : " Argelius wrote on the proportions of buildings of the Corinthian Order, and on the Temple of Aesculapius at
Tralles which he is said to have built." The names of several other Greek writers on architecture follow, and then Vitruvius
adds : " I have put together what I thought useful in these commentaries." It thus appears that the canon of Corinthian style
followed in Rome was founded on the writings of an architect who worked at Tralles. Certainly various examples of the
Corinthian Order which have been found in Asia Minor show how superior they were to the fixed and formal Roman type.
The ruin of a Corinthian temple of large scale was found at Ephesus by the first Mission. The Order is illustrated in Vol. II.,
but additional facts are given in Revett's original sketches at the British Museum. The details were elegant and showed that
play of open minds that characterises all Hellenistic work, and proves that architecture was regarded as an experimental art, not
as a closed record.3 Revett's notes describe it as: "A Corinthian temple at some distance westward from the theatre at
Ephesus. It is thrown down, but it appears from the remains that it was in antis and had four columns between the antae.
The frieze is ornamented with a rich foliage, but so much broken that it is unintelligible. Soffit of the architrave is ornamented
[in a panel] with foliage much ruined. Height of capitals 4' 10-2", too much ruined to give the particular measures." Height
of base is given as 2' 7*4", of shaft 39' 2", and of the whole Order 57' 4". The diameter of the shaft was 4' 6£". A rich many-
membered cornice which is engraved on Plate XLIV. Vol. II. was that over the great doorway. Chandler says that this temple was
about 130 ft. by 80 ft., the portico of marble, the shafts monolithic, and the rich bold frieze had boys with the foliage. "This,
perhaps, was the temple erected by permission of Augustus to the god Julius, or that dedicated to Claudius on his apotheosis."4
The Temple of Euromos (Jakley), also illustrated in Vol. II., was a peripteral structure of the Corinthian Order with capitals
3 ft. high. A Corinthian Order at Aphrodisias illustrated in Vol. III. had spirally fluted columns. Probably the most beautiful
Corinthian temple which has been recorded is one at Cnidus illustrated and restored in Vol. III. Wilkins says of it: " This
precious shrine was worthy of the statue which immortalised the name of Praxiteles." The flanks of this temple showed only
semi-columns, but with fine judgment the other halves of the columns were square and " immured "; the wall formed a screen
between the columns which showed as pilasters to the interior. Wilkins apparently thought that this was the temple of
Aphrodite, but Newton gives reasons for doubting it, and suggests that it should be dated in the time of the Antonines, but this
seems almost too late for so beautiful a work.
1 Of examples out of Rome those of the arch at Beneventum arc the most important.
2 Lanckoronski.
3 The life and invention in late Hellenistic art is perhaps best brought out in the fine volumes on Ephesus published by the Austrian Archaeological
Institute.
4 Falkener supposes the latter. He plotted it on his plan. According to Wood it seems that large portions of this temple remained in the early
part of last century.
35
LATER HELLENISTIC ARCHITECTURE AND ROME
In a review of the publications of the Society of Dilettanti on Ionian Antiquities it will not be out of place to consider what may
be called the classical transition, and the relation between the architecture of Greece and Rome. A later phase of the same
question has been raised by Strzygowski in his Orient oder Rom. In the result it will appear that the transition was almost
entirely accomplished in the Hellenistic East, and that, indeed—except in a limited and local sense—there was no Roman
architecture. Let us examine one or two of the most typical characteristics of what has been called the Roman style.
The " Composite Order," of which the theatre at Myra has furnished us with a fine example, is one of these. The capitals
at Myra are almost identical with others in Rome, at the Arches of Titus and Septimius Severus, and in the Baths of Caracalla
and Diocletian.1 So close is the likeness, indeed, that there must have been some direct relation between the Lycian and
Roman examples.
In Asia Minor varieties of this type of capital were common, and there is every reason to think that this was its native
land. Examples are found at Hadrian's Gateway at Adalia, at the Theatre at Termessos,2 and at the Theatre of Ephesus. At
the Temple of Jupiter at Aizani the capitals were similar, but simpler, in having one row of acanthus leaves instead of two. An
almost exactly similar type of proto-composite capitals existed at Mylasa. They are illustrated by Pococke, who described the
temple to which they belonged as " built to Augustus and Rome; in the front is a portico of the Composite Order, and on the
other three sides an Ionic colonnade." Both the examples at Aizani and Mylasa were probably of the first century b.c.
The Composite was but one of many varieties of the Ionic and Corinthian Orders which were being experimented with, and
the " Roman form of Corinthian " was also really formed by the'Greeks.
The early steps of the development of the Corinthian capital at Bassae, Epidauros, and the Philippeion at Olympia are now
well known. Recently small fragments of the capitals designed by Scopas at Tegea have been found. Then in Asia Minor we
have the capital discovered at Didyma by the first Ionian Mission and illustrated in Vol. II. Revett's original sketch of this is
at the British Museum. It belonged to an attached semi-column of the interior and it was 4 ft. 8 in. high. The curves of the
abacus were continued to make sharp angles as was the case at Epidauros; it could hardly have been later than the second
century. It appears plainly from Vitruvius that the Roman type of Ionic was founded on the works of Hermogenes at Teos
and Magnesia, and it may seem natural that the " Ionic Order" should have been taken over from Ionian examples. But
this dependence on Asia Minor seems to be only one instance of a general rule, which doubtless arose from the fact that the
flourishing cities of Asia Minor had, when Rome made its first contact with them, so many proud buildings of newest fashion.
In the sentence following that in which he says that Hermogenes wrote on the Ionic Temples of Teos and Magnesia
Vitruvius adds : " Argelius wrote on the proportions of buildings of the Corinthian Order, and on the Temple of Aesculapius at
Tralles which he is said to have built." The names of several other Greek writers on architecture follow, and then Vitruvius
adds : " I have put together what I thought useful in these commentaries." It thus appears that the canon of Corinthian style
followed in Rome was founded on the writings of an architect who worked at Tralles. Certainly various examples of the
Corinthian Order which have been found in Asia Minor show how superior they were to the fixed and formal Roman type.
The ruin of a Corinthian temple of large scale was found at Ephesus by the first Mission. The Order is illustrated in Vol. II.,
but additional facts are given in Revett's original sketches at the British Museum. The details were elegant and showed that
play of open minds that characterises all Hellenistic work, and proves that architecture was regarded as an experimental art, not
as a closed record.3 Revett's notes describe it as: "A Corinthian temple at some distance westward from the theatre at
Ephesus. It is thrown down, but it appears from the remains that it was in antis and had four columns between the antae.
The frieze is ornamented with a rich foliage, but so much broken that it is unintelligible. Soffit of the architrave is ornamented
[in a panel] with foliage much ruined. Height of capitals 4' 10-2", too much ruined to give the particular measures." Height
of base is given as 2' 7*4", of shaft 39' 2", and of the whole Order 57' 4". The diameter of the shaft was 4' 6£". A rich many-
membered cornice which is engraved on Plate XLIV. Vol. II. was that over the great doorway. Chandler says that this temple was
about 130 ft. by 80 ft., the portico of marble, the shafts monolithic, and the rich bold frieze had boys with the foliage. "This,
perhaps, was the temple erected by permission of Augustus to the god Julius, or that dedicated to Claudius on his apotheosis."4
The Temple of Euromos (Jakley), also illustrated in Vol. II., was a peripteral structure of the Corinthian Order with capitals
3 ft. high. A Corinthian Order at Aphrodisias illustrated in Vol. III. had spirally fluted columns. Probably the most beautiful
Corinthian temple which has been recorded is one at Cnidus illustrated and restored in Vol. III. Wilkins says of it: " This
precious shrine was worthy of the statue which immortalised the name of Praxiteles." The flanks of this temple showed only
semi-columns, but with fine judgment the other halves of the columns were square and " immured "; the wall formed a screen
between the columns which showed as pilasters to the interior. Wilkins apparently thought that this was the temple of
Aphrodite, but Newton gives reasons for doubting it, and suggests that it should be dated in the time of the Antonines, but this
seems almost too late for so beautiful a work.
1 Of examples out of Rome those of the arch at Beneventum arc the most important.
2 Lanckoronski.
3 The life and invention in late Hellenistic art is perhaps best brought out in the fine volumes on Ephesus published by the Austrian Archaeological
Institute.
4 Falkener supposes the latter. He plotted it on his plan. According to Wood it seems that large portions of this temple remained in the early
part of last century.
35