DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4945#0016
Literary Evidence. 5
very early in the Ionian period. It must have been of massive proportions ;
for, otherwise, the devices used for conveying and raising its parts would
not have been remembered as in any way extraordinary.
4. Chersiphron's temple was succeeded by a larger one, not built by
Metagenes, for we are not told that the latter did more than continue his
predecessor's building from the epistylia upwards. Who then was the
architect of this larger temple? The names given by Yitruvius (vii., p. 161)
naturally suggest themselves—Demetrius and Paeonius of Ephcsus. These
men are said to have completed the work of Chersiphron and Metagenes.
This may well mean that they brought the Artemision to its final form and
general dimensions.
Which, however, of the Artemisia, that we know, was built by Demetrius
and Paeonius ? If Strabo's accuracy be insisted upon, then it was not the
Hellenistic Temple, for that was the work of Deinocrates,1 but an earlier one,
either that of the 6th century or some other. If the former, then we must
explain Yitruvius' statement that this Paeonius built also the " Apollo temple
at Miletus " : for that cannot have been, as usually supposed, the great Didymi
temple whose remains are still extant, since it was not founded before the
time of Alexander. There need, however, be no difficulty, since (1) there was
an earlier Apollo temple at Didymi : (2) Vitruvius does not say Didymi at
all, but Miletus, where Wiegand has found an early Apollo temple.
There is, however, a possibility that between the 6th century temple
and the Hellenistic intervened a distinct restoration. So far as literary
evidence goes, this possibility rests on a chronological datum of Eusebius,
compared with a passage in Macrobius.2 Eusebius {Chron. i. 134) under date
Ol. 96, 2 = 395 B.C. (cf. Jerome's version, and Syncellus, Chron., p. 25S c.) places
a second conflagration of the Artemision (6 h> 'E^eVw mo? avQis eveirprja-dri),
the first burning having been the work of the Cimmerians in the ' Amazon '
period. Macrobius (Sat. v. 22, 5) cites Alexander Aetolus, a poet of the 3rd
century B.C., as authority for a great poetical contest, held at Ephesus dedicato
tcmplo Dianac. in which Timotheus, son of Thersander, won the day and a
reward of 1000 pieces of gold. Timotheus reached manhood about 430 B.C.
and died shortly before the birth of Alexander. Therefore this dedication
cannot have been that of the Hellenistic Temple. If, however, the reference
concerns the Artemision at all (which cannot be regarded as certain, for there
were other temples of Artemis in the Ephesian district), can it not be referred
1 I see no reason whatever for ruling out Deinocrates, as do MM. Pontremoli and Haussoullier [Didymcs,
\>. IOI).
'-' See Jakrahtfle, viiL, lU-iblutt, p. 23, for the latest discussion of this point l>y R, ('. Kukula.
very early in the Ionian period. It must have been of massive proportions ;
for, otherwise, the devices used for conveying and raising its parts would
not have been remembered as in any way extraordinary.
4. Chersiphron's temple was succeeded by a larger one, not built by
Metagenes, for we are not told that the latter did more than continue his
predecessor's building from the epistylia upwards. Who then was the
architect of this larger temple? The names given by Yitruvius (vii., p. 161)
naturally suggest themselves—Demetrius and Paeonius of Ephcsus. These
men are said to have completed the work of Chersiphron and Metagenes.
This may well mean that they brought the Artemision to its final form and
general dimensions.
Which, however, of the Artemisia, that we know, was built by Demetrius
and Paeonius ? If Strabo's accuracy be insisted upon, then it was not the
Hellenistic Temple, for that was the work of Deinocrates,1 but an earlier one,
either that of the 6th century or some other. If the former, then we must
explain Yitruvius' statement that this Paeonius built also the " Apollo temple
at Miletus " : for that cannot have been, as usually supposed, the great Didymi
temple whose remains are still extant, since it was not founded before the
time of Alexander. There need, however, be no difficulty, since (1) there was
an earlier Apollo temple at Didymi : (2) Vitruvius does not say Didymi at
all, but Miletus, where Wiegand has found an early Apollo temple.
There is, however, a possibility that between the 6th century temple
and the Hellenistic intervened a distinct restoration. So far as literary
evidence goes, this possibility rests on a chronological datum of Eusebius,
compared with a passage in Macrobius.2 Eusebius {Chron. i. 134) under date
Ol. 96, 2 = 395 B.C. (cf. Jerome's version, and Syncellus, Chron., p. 25S c.) places
a second conflagration of the Artemision (6 h> 'E^eVw mo? avQis eveirprja-dri),
the first burning having been the work of the Cimmerians in the ' Amazon '
period. Macrobius (Sat. v. 22, 5) cites Alexander Aetolus, a poet of the 3rd
century B.C., as authority for a great poetical contest, held at Ephesus dedicato
tcmplo Dianac. in which Timotheus, son of Thersander, won the day and a
reward of 1000 pieces of gold. Timotheus reached manhood about 430 B.C.
and died shortly before the birth of Alexander. Therefore this dedication
cannot have been that of the Hellenistic Temple. If, however, the reference
concerns the Artemision at all (which cannot be regarded as certain, for there
were other temples of Artemis in the Ephesian district), can it not be referred
1 I see no reason whatever for ruling out Deinocrates, as do MM. Pontremoli and Haussoullier [Didymcs,
\>. IOI).
'-' See Jakrahtfle, viiL, lU-iblutt, p. 23, for the latest discussion of this point l>y R, ('. Kukula.