DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4377#0088
418 TEMENOS OF DEMETEB, PEESEPHONE,
endowed would not have had the same chance of
being renewed and repaired as often as it fell into
decay as the public temples of Cnidus, inasmuch
as its maintenance must have depended on the
piety or fortunes of those to whom it was committed
as a trust.
Secondly.—The date of the dedication of the
temenos was probably about B.C. 350. I infer
this from the form of the letters in the dedication
by Chrysina, and also from the general character
of the dedicatory inscription, of which facsimiles
are given Plate LXXXIX., nearly all of which,
so far as I can judge, belong to the half-century
between B.C. 350 to 300.
Thirdly.—If we can thus determine, by palaeogra-
phy, the date of the dedicatory inscriptions, it is to
be presumed that the statues, on the bases of which
these dedications were inscribed, were of the same
date,—a conclusion which is corroborated by the
style of the sculptures of the temenos. The artists
by whom these works were produced would thus be
either contemporaries of Praxiteles, or belong to
the generation immediately succeeding him. Con-
sidering the great beauty of the head of Demeter
(Plate LV.), and of some of the fragments found in
the temenos, it does not seem an unwarrantable
conjecture to suppose that the statues there dedi-
cated may have been executed under the influence
of the great artist whose Venus was for many cen-
turies the chief glory of Cnidus.
The fragments from the temenos, when compared
with the sculptures from the Mausoleum, exhibit
endowed would not have had the same chance of
being renewed and repaired as often as it fell into
decay as the public temples of Cnidus, inasmuch
as its maintenance must have depended on the
piety or fortunes of those to whom it was committed
as a trust.
Secondly.—The date of the dedication of the
temenos was probably about B.C. 350. I infer
this from the form of the letters in the dedication
by Chrysina, and also from the general character
of the dedicatory inscription, of which facsimiles
are given Plate LXXXIX., nearly all of which,
so far as I can judge, belong to the half-century
between B.C. 350 to 300.
Thirdly.—If we can thus determine, by palaeogra-
phy, the date of the dedicatory inscriptions, it is to
be presumed that the statues, on the bases of which
these dedications were inscribed, were of the same
date,—a conclusion which is corroborated by the
style of the sculptures of the temenos. The artists
by whom these works were produced would thus be
either contemporaries of Praxiteles, or belong to
the generation immediately succeeding him. Con-
sidering the great beauty of the head of Demeter
(Plate LV.), and of some of the fragments found in
the temenos, it does not seem an unwarrantable
conjecture to suppose that the statues there dedi-
cated may have been executed under the influence
of the great artist whose Venus was for many cen-
turies the chief glory of Cnidus.
The fragments from the temenos, when compared
with the sculptures from the Mausoleum, exhibit