Universitätsbibliothek HeidelbergUniversitätsbibliothek Heidelberg
Metadaten

Falkener, Edward
Ephesus and the temple of Diana — London, 1862

DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5179#0137

DWork-Logo
Overview
Facsimile
0.5
1 cm
facsimile
Scroll
OCR fulltext
108 ANCIENT EPHESUS.

we are already acquainted, as being that connected
with the foundation of the city, and mentioned
by Athenaeus and Strabo. Halitaea is reckoned
by Pausanias1 among the natural advantages of
Ephesus ; and Calipia, Ave are told by Pliny,2 was
within the city; but from the vague manner in
which he expresses himself, it is doubtful -whether
he does not mean belonging to the city. Hamilton3
holds all these fountains to be identical, which is
extremely probable; for, with the exception of
Pliny's expression, " Fons in urbe Calipia," there
is nothing in the accounts to contradict such an
opinion; and as for the different names, Ephesus
itself and Mount Pion had a greater variety.
Besides, all these authors speak merely of one
fountain, which fountain each describes as being
Avorthy of notice. Noav, if all these were separate
fountains, is it likely that Pliny, in describing
Calipia, Avould neglect to notice Halitaea, which
Pausanias classed among the remarkable objects of
Ionia ? or that both these writers Avould abstain
from mentioning Hypelaeus, connected as it is with
the sacred origin of the city ? Choiseul Gouffier,4
however, attempts to fix situations for two of these
springs. He places one (Calipia) on the summit of
Mount Pion; and if such a spring exists, it has
been unnoticed by all other travellers; and the

1 Descript. Grcec. vii. 5. 2 Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 31.

3 "VV. J. Hamilton, Asia Minor, ii. 25.

4 Chandler also, Travels, i. 143.
 
Annotationen