DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4945#0014
Literary Evidence. 3
foundation must refer to such a temple or temples. These are the statements
of Pliny {iV.H. v. 31 and xxxvi. 14), that the site for the Artemision was
chosen in marshy ground between two streams (or two arms of one stream, the
Selinus) to lessen the peril of earthquake, and that the first foundations were
laid on an absorbent bedding of layers of charcoal1 and fleeces at the instance of
Theodorus of Samos. This last statement may be interpreted to mean that
Theodorus was the first architect of a regular temple on the site, but not
necessarily of the earliest tree-shrine.
Next in order must be considered certain statements, about whose refer-
ence there is much question. The difficulty arises from two doubts about
the authors—all of late period and contemporary with the latest Artemision—
who make them : (a) whether they were aware that any building preceded
that of the 6th century, and that certain facts, which they recorded, might
and did refer to such a building ; (t>) whether they regarded the successive
temples as distinct at all (as modern archaeologists with their ideas of strati-
fication regard them) or not rather as one continuous whole, which experienced
restorations. This involves the further doubt, whether they meant to describe
.pre-existent features, or features of their own time. In the case of Pliny and
Vitruvius for example, there is much reason to suspect that both give us at
one moment archaeological, at another contemporary facts, not necessarily from
confusion, but from lack of understanding why these should be distinguished.
1. Strabo, in a passage already cited, mentions CJiersipJiron of Knossos
as the first architect, and says his temple was made larger by another unnamed.
Immediately afterwards he states" that Deinocrates, Alexander's architect, built
the latest or Hellenistic temple. He seems, therefore, clearly to refer to
three Artemisia.
2. Pliny (xxxvi. 14") begins with the words " Graecae magnificentiae vera
admiratio exstat templum Ephesiae Dianae," which, with the explorers of
Didymi, MM. Pontremoli and Haussoullier,3 I take as a clear indication that
in the descriptive passage which follows he is thinking of the Artemision of his
own day, i.e., the latest temple. After making the statements about the earliest
foundation quoted above, Pliny goes on to describe the temple, giving dimen-
sions of platform and columns, which we know to be appropriate to the
Hellenistic. At the end he names Clicrsiphron as the architect, saying nothing
of Deinocrates or any other. This probably means that he regarded the
Artemisia, which we regard as distinct and successive, as one indivisible
1 See also for the &v8pa.ites Diog. Laert. ii. 8, 19 and Hesych. Mil. fr. 34.
•' SiiLl^esting, however, a doubt—Sv (p-qaii' ilvai AfLvoKparovs tpyuy.
' Didymcs, p. 100.
1! 2
foundation must refer to such a temple or temples. These are the statements
of Pliny {iV.H. v. 31 and xxxvi. 14), that the site for the Artemision was
chosen in marshy ground between two streams (or two arms of one stream, the
Selinus) to lessen the peril of earthquake, and that the first foundations were
laid on an absorbent bedding of layers of charcoal1 and fleeces at the instance of
Theodorus of Samos. This last statement may be interpreted to mean that
Theodorus was the first architect of a regular temple on the site, but not
necessarily of the earliest tree-shrine.
Next in order must be considered certain statements, about whose refer-
ence there is much question. The difficulty arises from two doubts about
the authors—all of late period and contemporary with the latest Artemision—
who make them : (a) whether they were aware that any building preceded
that of the 6th century, and that certain facts, which they recorded, might
and did refer to such a building ; (t>) whether they regarded the successive
temples as distinct at all (as modern archaeologists with their ideas of strati-
fication regard them) or not rather as one continuous whole, which experienced
restorations. This involves the further doubt, whether they meant to describe
.pre-existent features, or features of their own time. In the case of Pliny and
Vitruvius for example, there is much reason to suspect that both give us at
one moment archaeological, at another contemporary facts, not necessarily from
confusion, but from lack of understanding why these should be distinguished.
1. Strabo, in a passage already cited, mentions CJiersipJiron of Knossos
as the first architect, and says his temple was made larger by another unnamed.
Immediately afterwards he states" that Deinocrates, Alexander's architect, built
the latest or Hellenistic temple. He seems, therefore, clearly to refer to
three Artemisia.
2. Pliny (xxxvi. 14") begins with the words " Graecae magnificentiae vera
admiratio exstat templum Ephesiae Dianae," which, with the explorers of
Didymi, MM. Pontremoli and Haussoullier,3 I take as a clear indication that
in the descriptive passage which follows he is thinking of the Artemision of his
own day, i.e., the latest temple. After making the statements about the earliest
foundation quoted above, Pliny goes on to describe the temple, giving dimen-
sions of platform and columns, which we know to be appropriate to the
Hellenistic. At the end he names Clicrsiphron as the architect, saying nothing
of Deinocrates or any other. This probably means that he regarded the
Artemisia, which we regard as distinct and successive, as one indivisible
1 See also for the &v8pa.ites Diog. Laert. ii. 8, 19 and Hesych. Mil. fr. 34.
•' SiiLl^esting, however, a doubt—Sv (p-qaii' ilvai AfLvoKparovs tpyuy.
' Didymcs, p. 100.
1! 2