Bernard Ashmole

Cyriac of Ancona and the Temple of Hadrian at CyzicusAuthor(s): Bernard AshmoleSource: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 19, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Dec., 1956),pp. 179-191Published by: The Warburg InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/750295 .

Accessed: 04/02/2014 16:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of theWarburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.227.173.182 on Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:05:56 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburg

http://www.jstor.org/stable/750295?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CYRIAC OF ANCONA AND THE TEMPLE OF HADRIAN AT CYZICUS

By Bernard Ashmole

When, fifteen years ago, Fritz Saxl published in this Journal a newly-

discovered manuscript by Bartholomeus Fontius containing extracts from the journals of Cyriac of Ancona,' he deliberately omitted the drawings of a great Roman temple which appeared on some of its pages, since we hoped to work on them together, and at that time I was not in England. I now give a brief account, unhappily without him, but still, happily, under the auspices of that Institute where his memory and his work still live.2

Of the general trustworthiness of Cyriac when he was describing and drawing a building or a work of art which he had seen with his own eyes there can be little doubt,3 but allowance must be made for his method of presentation, for his transmutation of style, and for the faults which commonly arise when notes and drawings made on the spot are elaborated afterwards away from it. Last, and worst, save for one small specimen we have his records only at second-hand, and sometimes obviously garbled. The quality of the drawings in the new manuscript can be appreciated by a comparison with those already known: their faithfulness to Cyriac himself must rest on a comparison with a section of the Codex Ambrosiano-Trotti, which Sabbadini judged to be from his own hand.4 In my opinion it is safe to accept from the new manuscript, unless there are special reasons for doubt, his statements, his measurements, his drawings-and his good faith.

The temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus is known from three main sources- ancient authors, ancient coins and the actual remains. To these must be added Cyriac's own descriptions, which the originals of the drawings here published were clearly intended to illustrate. What all these sources could yield before the new manuscript appeared has already been inferred,5 but since the

1 Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Insti- tutes, IV, 1940- I, pp. 19 ff.

2 The substance of this paper was delivered as a lecture at the Warburg Institute in November 1954.

3 The fact that he could copy with only a slight misspelling of a proper name the inscription of the monument of Thrasyllus, and give such a tolerable representation of the statue of Dionysus on the monument, despite its awkward position, is a strong argument in his favour (Htilsen, Libro di Sangallo, Foglio 29); moreover, since this is only a copy from Cyriac, his original may have been better, and cannot have been less good. There are also the faithful drawings in the new MS. (published by Lehmann in Hesperia, XII, 1943, PP. I 15 ff.) of monuments which still exist.

4 Miscellanea Ceriani, Milan, I9I0, p. 237. Other references in Saxl's article (loc. cit. note I). Of these I have used mainly De

Rossi (Insc. Christ., II, i, pp. 365 ff.), and the facsimile of the San Gallo MS. by Chr. Hiilsen with the material in the text accom- panying it (Il libro di Giuliano da Sangallo: Codice Vaticano Barberiniano Lat. 4424, 9' o). Ziebarth in Athen. Mitt., XXXI, I906, p. 411, fig. 3, reproduces a drawing after Cyriac in the Codex Ashburnensis of a bronze head of Medusa once in Samothrace; this can be conveniently compared with the drawing of the same head in the new MS. reproduced by Saxl, loc. cit. pl. 8. d. Which is the closer to Cyriac's own drawing is a delicate problem. Lehmann, Hesperia, XII, 1943, P. i 17, pls. III-V, makes an interesting comparison between the reproductions, in three manu- scripts, of the same monument. I have benefited much from discussions with Mr. Charles Mitchell, who has generously allowed me to draw on his first-hand knowledge of several of the MSS.

5 F. W. Hasluck's Cyzicus (19Io) collects all I79



180 BERNARD ASHMOLE

drawings must illuminate and may modify those inferences, it will be well to summarize what is already known.

Cyzicus lies on the neck of a peninsula on the southern shore of the Propontis, not far from the Island of Proconnesus with its immense marble quarries, from which so many ancient buildings, including this temple of Hadrian, were constructed.' The temple lay to the south-west of the city, adjoining a great piazza some 400 metres long by 100oo metres wide.2 What remains of the temple now is a vast mound measuring about 12o by I8o metres, covered with dense scrub, and pierced by a number of tunnels-seven according to early explorers. These were investigated by Guillaume and Perrot in the sixties, when they made other small but important discoveries on the site.3 The mound is the original substructure of the whole building, but these vaulted foundations, which are a familiar way of economizing materials, here seem to have served another purpose as well.4 The central vault, which is three and a half metres wide, has a staircase running out on one side, and balancing it on the other is a passage-way leading to a well or spring-chamber. Although these vaults, or some vaults, were a noted feature of the temple in antiquity, it is unprofitable at present to attempt to fit the building, as we know it from other sources, on to them5 because they are not fully planned or explored, owing partly to collapse, partly to a dense and immemorial population of bats, and all which that implies.

The history and general character of the temple are fairly well known from literary sources. In 123 A.D. there had been a devastating earthquake at Cyzicus. The next year the emperor Hadrian visited it, and was moved to make large donations to the city and to found the temple, or rather to re- found it, for there had been other unfinished structures on the site. It seems to have been completed in 139, because the era of the Olympian games connected with it, honouring Hadrian as the thirteenth Olympian deity, begins on that date. In the time of Antoninus, between 150 and I6o, it was seriously damaged by an earthquake, and the young Marcus Aurelius secured further subsidies for the city from the Senate. In 167 Aelius Aristides the orator, a local worthy, made a speech on the anniversary of its dedication, perhaps after a restoration of part of the building; and the text of that speech is preserved in full.6 the material known up to that date, and has a good bibliography. I owe much to this excellent book. Pp. Io ff. contain his main account of the temple.

1 See Hasluck, Cyzicus, pp. 30 ff. 2R. Pococke, A description of the East, II,

part i, ch. xxiii. 3 Exploration archdologique de la Galatie et de

la Bithynie, pp. 76 ff.; Rev. Arch., IX, 1864, PP- 350 ff.

4 The elaborate vault-system of the contemporary Traianeum at Pergamon was aided and even demanded by the steepness of the site (Pergamon, V, 2, pls. III-IX, XXXII).

5 The vaults planned by Guillaume and

Perrot (Rev. Arch., IX, I864, p. 351) must (except perhaps the long extension to the East) have lain within the area enclosed by the walls of the cella. Their comparative narrowness, notable in such a grandiose building, was due to the enormous weight of the structure above: no entrance to them from outside the peristyle could exceed in width the space between the two central columns of the facade. Conversely, if some of the vaults were outside the peristyle, the width of the entrance to them from inside the temple would be similarly limited.

6 Vol. I (ed. Dindorf), pp. 382 ff.; Pan- egyricus in Cyzico.



CYRIAC OF ANCONA AND THE TEMPLE OF HADRIAN 181

Cyriac of Ancona twice visited the site of Cyzicus, first in 1431 and again in 1444.-1 The city, close to the sea and a few hours' sail from Constantinople, invites spoliation, and on his first visit the temple was being plundered for the building of mosques in Mudania and Broussa;2 but although many of the columns had fallen, thirty-one-exactly half the original total-still remained, complete with architraves. When he visited it again after thirteen years, two of these columns had gone,3 and many of the architraves, together with most of the walls of the cella. Nevertheless he set about measuring what he could, and it is on his accounts that any attempted reconstruction must be based. The following is the most important passage from them:

Cum vero templi hujusce mirifici magnitudinem habilius considerassem, metique certius maluissem, comperimus parietes hinc inde pro templi latere CXL p. longitudinis, latitudinis vero p. LXX constare; totidem altitudine parietes constant. Columnae vero ab utroque latere XXX numero, ejusdem parietum altitudinis, XIIII p. invicem distantes, totidem pedum ab ipsis parietibus distant; et ingenti lapidum magnitudine, inter columnas ipsas et conspicuas parietes, nobile pavimentum hinc inde lata euntibus deambulatoria praebet; praeterea ante faciem templi, pronaonis decore, inter quae pro lateribus exstant columnae; quino ordine quaternae, viginti numero, exstitisse videntur, ornatissimis epistiliis, laquearibus protectae. Sed a posteriore parte delubri, praeter quas pro lateribus exstabant, quaternas trino ordine XII habuisse columnas cognovimus. Ex quo omnes ingentis delubri columnae LXII numero fuisse videntur, praeter X quae intus ornatissimae minores, quino ordine, hinc inde parietibus annexae permanent.

"When I had reflected on the size of this marvellous temple more closely, and had decided to measure it, we found that the walls, in each direction, in proportion to the side of the temple, were a hundred and forty feet long and seventy feet wide; the walls are of the same height [i.e. seventy feet]. The columns, on each side, are thirty in number, of the same height as the walls; and a noble pavement with stones of huge size, between the columns and the splendid walls, offers wide promenades for passengers. Moreover, before the front of the temple, as a decoration for the pronaos, columns seem to have stood between those that stand in front of the side-walls-four in five rows, twenty in number, with most ornate architraves, covered with coffers. But at the back of the shrine, we ascertained that it had twelve columns in three rows of four, in addition to those that stood in front of the side walls. Hence all the columns of the vast shrine

1 The first visit is described by Scalamonti, Vita Cyriaci, in Colucci, Antichit& Picene, XV, pp. 85 ff.; the second is in Cyriac's own words, transcribed by T. Reinach in BCH, XIV, p. 520, who collates the two copies in the Vatican and Naples respectively (Codd. Vatic. 5250; Neapolit. V.E.64).

2 A study of the mosques in these places might be rewarding. Codinus (De structura

Sanctae Sophiae, p. 65B) states that much of the material for Santa Sophia came from Cyzicus.

3 There is an inconsistency in Cyriac's accounts. On the visit in I43I he is said by Scalamonti to have seen thirty-three standing; but in 1444, writing about the previous visit, he states that he had seen thirty-one. The point is not important: in 1444 there were twenty-nine left; there are none to-day.



182 BERNARD ASHMOLE

are seen to have been sixty-two in number, excluding ten highly decorated smaller ones which still remain, inside the building, in rows of five, engaged on each side to the walls."

Attempts have been made, using the literary evidence mainly, to restore the plan of the building; notably by T. Reinach,' who had available to him the results of the investigations of Guillaume and Perrot. Reinach's plan has in my view one fatal flaw-it neglects the numismatic evidence and gives the building a facade of six columns only, which vitiates his whole reconstruction.

It is certainly possible to construct a feasible plan from the elements Cyriac enumerates, and we will now do so. The following diagrams are schematic, and cannot be pressed to details of measurements, since adjustments would have to be made for the thickness of the walls and variation in the spacing of the columns, for instance that of the central pair of the facade; but they will serve to show that Cyriac had formed a clear idea of what the plan was, and that his plan was based on observation on the spot, although he may have made it mathematically neater afterwards. For example, the dimensions of the whole temple as he records them are a double square-98 feet wide by 196 feet long; and the cella with antae a double cube (70 feet wide, 70 feet high and 140 feet long).

In P1. 34, Fig. I we have the first elements-thirty columns on the sides, i.e. fifteen a side, fourteen feet apart.2 Next, the

facades. Cyriac, for a reason which will soon appear, omitted to tell us the number of columns on the front and back, so for the moment we must rely on the coins. They all give an octastyle facade. 8 x 15 is a favourite ratio, and can be accepted with con- fidence (P1. 34, Fig. 2).

We must now insert the groups of columns described by Cyriac as being in the porticoes at the front and back. In front, he says, there were twenty, in five rows of four, between (inter) those which stood in front of the sides (pro lateribus, that is the ends of the side-walls, in other words the antae). At the back there were twelve in three rows of four, in addition to (praeter) those which stood in front of the side-walls (P1. 34, Fig. 3). It is now evident that although he did not explicitly state how many columns there were in the facade he implied the number quite clearly: he treated the corner columns as belonging to the side colonnades, but these also provide two on the facade: he mentioned those in front of the side-walls-which provide two more: he then dealt with the remainder, namely the twenty in five rows offour on the front, and the twelve in three rows of four at the back. He thus implies that the total number in each fagade is eight.

We have now inserted all the columns which Cyriac has mentioned (except the internal ones), and that has given us the position of the end walls of the cella (P1. 34, Fig. 4). We know that the cella was seventy feet wide, and thus we obtain a check on the relationship of the side-walls of the cella to the peripteros; they are fourteen feet from the columns of the peripteros, which is what Cyriac has already told us. We now have to decide what may be called the fore-and-aft position of the side-walls of the cella. We know that they were

1 BCH, XIV, 890, pp. 517 f. 2 Each square on the diagram represents fourteen feet.



34

x x

xxx

x x X IlkX x x X

A K XXtX .

•:: ............ : ..... •;. ...... ! ....................

:K

.................... • ............................................... -................................ .............

........... .. ............ .......... ............

.. . . . . .. . .. •' . . .. ..• .. ... ... .. .... • • . . : :• . .. ... • :.. ... . .. . .. . . • . . . . • . . . z. . .

...... .. ... • . ..... • .... • ..... • • . .. • .. . • .... ..) • . .. •.• *

Plan of the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus, 139 A.D., reconstructed after drawings and description by Cyriac of Ancona (pp. 182-3)



35

a-Plan of Temple ofJupiter, Aezani, c. 127 A.D.

(p. 183) b-Smaller Temple at Baalbec (p. 183)

c-Drawing of octastyle Corinthian temple in Destailleur copy of Cyriac (pp. 184-5)




140 feet long (P1. 34, Fig. 5), but we do not know, and there is no sure way of determining, where they started. Here we must fall back on analogy, and two obvious temples to choose are the smaller temple at Baalbec, which seems to have been begun in the first century A.D. and finished in the second; and secondly the temple at Aezani, which was almost contemporary with the temple of Cyzicus. It is easy to restore the fagade and entrance-portico at Cyzicus on the analogy of either of these temples. The difficulty arises at the back. A glance at the plan of the smaller temple at Baalbec (P1. 35b)1 shows that it had the same number of columns at front and sides as the temple of Cyzicus, and if its pronaos were to be filled with columns it would just accom- modate five rows of four; and, if this were done, it would bring the total number of columns to sixty-two, which is Cyriac's number for the Cyzicene temple. The antae at Baalbec, however, are set back from the fagade a depth of three columns, and this has the effect of eliminating any portico at the back by pushing the back wall of the cella close to the peripteral colonnade, whereas at Cyzicus we know that there was a portico at the back containing twelve columns in three rows of four, i.e. two more rows than there are at Baalbec. Thus the plan of the temple of Cyzicus cannot have been quite like this.

The temple at Aezani on the Rhyndacus, built twelve years before that of Cyzicus, and possibly by the same architect,2 is shown in plan in P1. 35a, and may suggest a possible reconstruction of the cella walls at Cyzicus. We already know that the cella at Cyzicus was seventy feet wide. This forbids a pseudo-dipteral plan like that at Aezani, for the cella walls at Cyzicus must have been relatively closer to the columns of the peripteros than they are there-indeed, we know that they were only fourteen feet from it. If we make this adjustment to the Aezani plan, i.e. move the side-walls of the cella out- wards so that they line up with the first column after the corner column instead of the second, and then fill in all the spaces where columns could go, we get something remarkably like what we have inferred for Cyzicus. P1. 34, Fig. 5, shows the conjectural plan of Cyzicus, completed on those lines, except that four columns have not been filled in.

The reconstruction looks plausible, but it has one serious flaw-the total number of columns (if those four be added) is now seventy-eight more than the figure given by Cyriac. But how is Cyriac's total made up? He seems to have added together the main figures in his notes-30, 20, I22-forgetting to include the columns "pro lateribus," of which there must have been two at each end of the building, possibly more. These would give a total of at least sixty- six. It does not, however, warrant a great deal of speculation, because the evidence for the true plan doubtless lies safely a few feet under the soil at Cyzicus itself, and will some day be uncovered.

1 Wiegand, Baalbek, II, pl. 4. 2 Le Bas, ed. S. Reinach, Voyage archdologique: Archit., pp. 142 ff., pls. 18-32. Robert- son, Gk. and Rom. Archit., 2nd ed., pp. 218-20, etc. On the date see Koerte in Festschrift Benndorf, pp. 209 ff. It has staircases which lead both up and down. Although the order is Ionic the columns of the portico are a kind

of Composite, the design of which has something in common with the Corinthian capital at Cyzicus (Plate 39a). This, like the analo- gies in plan, supports the general likelihood that the same architect was concerned with both temples. Cyzicene architects were famous (Strabo, XII, 8, 11).



184 BERNARD ASHMOLE

We must now examine more closely some of the literary evidence, this time from earlier sources-the commemorative speech of Aelius Aristides in A.D. 167, and the remarks of John Malalas, who seems to have written at the end of the sixth century A.D.

Aristides was an able man, but it would have taken a better orator than he to surmount the handicap of such an occasion, and his speech resembles painfully those delivered in similar circumstances to-day. It is also of great length. We can pass over the platitudes and the mythological allusions, and repeat only his remarks on the general lay-out of the temple.'

OWT1 y&p TGv QVXLG)V tpTPL&POQYpV XMI TGV TL"G)pV 7rM~LV eOpRV Ve6V t6v [eyLatov, t&v r L6v

O'CkkV 7r0 ,C7rXOaLOVO, CUT6v 91 TPL7Xou0V tn'j aeL . T& o t?V yCp oCUtOi XOtrdYkeL64 at& 00, rok

8e' Urp)o0q, [eal 8U " vevo[Uayvd . 8p6ooLL 9 U7rb y?v T •X•. xpeioxarol. &.'

Ocutroi .~L

xoVreS x60 ,q ), IL trp oUx 6v 7rpoaO"Xi-jq ?LC'Pe, &k?6' &tE GZYfrj Etvou gp6&oL 7e7rov[le'VOL.

"Instead of houses with three storeys, and ships with three banks of oars, it is now possible to see the greatest of temples-far more vast than the others-and it too is three-fold. Here we can admire the subterranean, there the aerial, and in the middle the customary shrine. Promenades below the ground, and aloft, extend through it in a circuit, not as if they were supplementary, but constructed expressly for the purpose."

From John Malalas we take a single important statement :2

44 'AgpLov6 .... atzaoCq &xut4r at"X-qv p[xp[LCvEv aoxj m 0PEou [Lyhkou 7ravu ixe! eIq r-i'V

6poCp9v 70oi vaoC."

"Hadrian, having set up for himself the marble stele of a great bust, right there in the roof of the temple."

The coins of Cyzicus sometimes show a temple which is probably intended for that of Hadrian, and the following points can be inferred from them with safety." The temple was an octastyle building of the Corinthian order, with a larger intercolumniation between the central pair of columns. In the pediment there was a large circle, which, on the analogy of other temples of great size, was probably a relieving opening, to diminish the weight over the main entrance. Normally these openings, which were essential owing to the great pressures involved, were rectangular, but there is nothing against a circular form. 4

Because the drawings in the new manuscript include no general view of the temple, the very rough drawing reproduced in P1. 35c, from the Destailleur

1 Panegyricus, 240 f. 2 Chronogr., p. 279, ed. Niebuhr. 3For example, i. BMC Mysia, p. 47,

no. 218, pl. XII, 14: of the time of Antoninus Pius, and therefore struck only a few years before the speech of Aristeides; ii. id. p. 52, no. 241, pl. XIII, io (similar design, but of

time of Commodus); iii. (L. Verus) I893, 4. 5.2 ; not in BMC; this coin is of a different style although it probably reproduces the same temple, but it does not show the larger space between the central pair of columns.

4 Cf. Robertson, Gk. and Rom. Archit., 2nd ed., p. 227.




copy of Cyriac,1 may be of importance. In the Destailleur manuscript it comes next to an exceedingly sketchy drawing of the Parthenon, all the other drawings being of buildings in Italy. It shows an octastyle Corinthian temple, which may possibly be the temple of Cyzicus, for the central feature of the pediment certainly does look like a bust standing on a stele, as described by Malalas, and it stands in a circular opening, that device which, we have seen from the coins, did exist in the Cyzicene temple.2

We come now to the new manuscript: P1. 36 shows the first of the drawings of Cyzicus which it contains, covering two pages.3 In the background are six Corinthian columns supporting an architrave: the lower parts of these columns are concealed by a portico, the back wall of which is of drafted masonry of alternately wide and narrow courses. The portico itself consists of five columns, the outer one on each side being engaged to the wall. They support four arches which spring direct from the tops of the capitals. The capitals themselves seem to consist of three rows of leaves set one above the other; no volutes are apparent: these look like Byzantine "wind-blown" capitals, but although they may have been modified in drawing by Cyriac or his copyist, there is no reason to think that they are sheer invention. They may well have been a type of Corinthian capital in which the volutes are diminished and which can appear from below to consist simply of three rows of leaves.4 The shafts of the columns are elaborately decorated with vine- leaves and bunches of grapes, as the description beneath tells us, although owing to the absence of a noun in the nominative case it is not so easy to translate as appears at first sight:

"Cyzici ante templi frontispicium hinc inde proporticum vel pronaon habentes quinas hinc inde parietibus annexas et eximia arte pampineis vitibus & uvis ornatissimas columnas."

"In front of the facade of the temple of Cyzicus, on each side a proporticus or pronaos having five columns connected on each side to the walls and highly ornamented in superb style with tendrilled vines and bunches of grapes."

A number of questions immediately spring to mind, of which perhaps these two are the most important: Where were these porticoes, if indeed there were two of them? and Were they of the same date as the main building? To

1 Hiilsen, Libro di Sangallo, Text, p. XL, fig. P.

2 No scale is given in the drawing, and it may be a very much smaller building. For the bust in the pediment compare the Great Propylaea at Eleusis with a bust of Marcus Aurelius (Deubner, Athen. Mitt., LXII, 1937, PP. 73 ff., pls. 39-41). A circular feature was a common centre-piece for pediments, to judge from the coins.

3 Saxl gives a description of the MS. page by page (loc. cit. (note I, p. 179 above,) PP. 42-45) and shows the position of these

drawings of the temple in relation to the other material. They are followed by other Cyzi- cene antiquities, but preceded by inscriptions from elsewhere.

4 For example, the capital drawn by Stuart and Revett in the interior of the portico of the Library of Hadrian at Athens (Antiq. of Athens, I, ch. v, pl. IX), which has since disappeared (M. A. Sisson in PBSR, XI, 1929, P. 56). Compare also the elaborate flute-and-acanthus capitals of the mausoleum at Mylasa (Antiq. of lonia, II, pl. XXIX).



186 BERNARD ASHMOLE

the first question there are several possible answers. One, that they formed part of a propylon in front of the temple and disconnected from it, as at Aezani, where there is a propylon about thirty feet in front." A second, that they were part of the piazza which adjoined the temple; and in this connex- ion one naturally thinks of the Traianeum at Pergamon with its adjoining courtyard,2 and the forum at Lepcis with its arcade.3 And a third-although this seems to disagree with the description beneath the drawing-that they were inside the peripteral colonnade, between the columns of the fagade and the entrance doorway. Yet another possibility is they may have been at a lower level, flanking the access to the vaults. As for the second question, whether they are of the same date as the main building, the best comparison is with the arcade in the Forum at Lepcis Magna, where the arches spring directly from flute-and-acanthus capitals. It is of Severan date, shortly after 200 A.D. At Cyzicus, as we shall see in a moment, not only the portico but much of the interior of the temple was decorated in this elaborate fashion, which would argue for its being contemporaneous with the original structure, i.e. Hadrianic. But even if the arcade at Cyzicus dates from the restoration under Antoninus, after the earthquake in the mid second century A.D., it is still the earliest example on a monumental scale of this type of arcading in which the arches spring direct from the capitals, without intervening entablature.4

One might hope that some of these columns, of which no measurements are given in the manuscyipt, had survived complete in the mosques of Con- stantinople or elsewhere. So far there is only one possible candidate (P1. 39b, c) outside the Museum at Constantinople. Its provenience is unknown, but it was for many years built into the so-called "house ofJustinian" there. There is no evidence that it comes from Cyzicus: it is of Proconnesian marble, but that proves nothing in this district, where its use is so common. The height is 4.78 metres, and it certainly would have been appropriate as the column of a portico, for, although the back is not decorated, it has a worked surface which was meant to be seen, and its depth from front to back would make it suitable for carrying a deep superstructure.5

The next page of the new manuscript bears a drawing of the main doorway of the temple (P1. 37a). At first sight we are struck by its enormous dimensions, twenty feet wide and forty feet high, figures which presumably apply to the opening, exclusive of the mouldings. But there is no reason to doubt these figures, or that they are Cyriac's own measurements taken on the spot in 1444, as he mentions in the account already quoted. They suffer some diminution if he was using for his standard measure the old Roman foot of

1 Le Bas, op. cit., Archit., pls. I8, i9. 2 Pergamon, V, 2, pl. III, XXXI. 3 B. M. Apollonj, II foro e la basilica

Severiana di Leptis Magna in Monumenti Italiani, VIII-IX, 1936. Mr. Denys Haynes, who knows these and other N. African monuments, has given me much useful information about them.

4 Robertson, Gk. and Rom. Archit., 2nd ed., p. 227. See also Ward Perkins in Proc. Brit.

Acad., XXXVII, 1951, p. 292, criticizing E. H. Swift, Roman Sources of Christian Art, pp. 75-6.

5 Mendel, Cat. des sculptures (Constanti- nople), III, no. 1179. The cuttings, which injure the decoration, are evidently of a later date. For the history of this kind of decoration see R. Vallois, L'architecture hell. & Dilos, 1944, PP. 290 if.



WOO. 5,iiii~i

............... 4,1iii•!i

Bartolomeus Fontius, after Cyriac of Ancona; drawings of Corinthian columns with architrave and portico, from temple at Cyzicus, Ashmole MS. ff. I32v-133r (p. 185)

Ca



*: :::: ::;:::-----~ ------ .. :::?i.: ::. . :::. :,::-: .... :::: ::~. .

::l:::al:;:::_:_ :: -::: ::: x

~liiiiii~*

:,:s-:ri:i:-~::iiiiiii::::ai-P?~____,,, ~_ r~ii

P?:~ : Li~ ~[i ~~Z I:1n~

k *' -i _:::: ::::-:::::::-:1: iiik:-::

~:::i ,,,,,,,,,,,-~8:,- a:~-1?:c: i- ::: :% - ?"r: ,i:i:i---i-i'ii;i-i:i_

ii-,-i-- iiii i-~ i--i.-_i:i;:iii--- : ::: : :-i

::-: ::- ir ,ii: FBiir- BOii-:: - :: : ::: . ijijiii i: : -: -i- Eir::I:ii:: -i -i?i::i ii.i

: --::- -::-i-:: -::: ::: -i-i--~::: i~:-:-- i::: :-:i: I: .:-- :.. .. ii : : ::, r ii:::i-i-i .---.-.- i i - :-: -~.q~ii::~i, iii;ii.~.iiii,-iiiSi~iii"i?iil-i- IiIiiii.i-iiii~IL~B~iiz_ ii

i::;i':iii -iii;;- .. ::::-:::: ":"-~-ll_~r--~"~~; ??:; ~?-: :;s ..... :::-:::::::::?-I:::::-: .. ':li:iiiiii:ii:i: -. I: .: : :: :-_ : : -:- ~iiii-:~--i:i-~:i:::~:i: i:--?:~i-i:-i :..- :-:: -:: :: -:--:::-:-,.:-::-:-:::-::::-:::::: i-:-i -:: -i: :_ II . --i:: . :_ I : i:l --: _1 ::.: ii:-:- ;:::-:: - .:'.i?;: is?~?-~??i;?:-- Pi : : i:- ..--- :: :::: - i-:~ :i-i-i- ..... .- i:i- .. i-i ::: ::-: : -:ie :I:: : : -:-:: -:: -: : .. :i :_- i .. . iii~ i : II:I:i_:i: I-j lii---ii--:--

i-i-i: -:i i:ii

---: -- ----- -il -'- --:- ::'- -'- - . - . i:_ll --III- : -ii iiiiiii-iiiiiiiii i i i i:- iiriii

_- iii i :i :i:

:: : ::: i-i---:'i i:i-i i-i i:i i:i -i'i-i i:i :If I:- I :: : `-:---(~iii ii iiiiii:-:::

~il-iii:i:ii:i-i*-ii- i-i:i- :::: i-_- ii iiii -ii .., 1? 11! I: - : ::: : ::

J"S :ij - Et ~~ i~Lilk ------ :--- :: ::: -':'-"-:-'--':' :':- :: : : ::::::::::::- ::: ::?-:-:-:--:-:- :'::: -: .:..--:-. :- ~:1"3?~a~~r :.: .:: :..:_ .': -iii -i-i -i-i- i-i- :. i:i

::: :_ ::::: : ::: - -:-_ ::~ -ii I-r lir : iii8Z :i- :iii iiili_ .::.. .. iiii i i iii i-ii -.: iii iii i:i i:ii: ii:_ ~i~,.j~~l~~l~~_~~~i~ii~~i_~.ii~.iiiii:ii _iiii:i-ii_:il :li lili- i-i;i i:iil-i:iiili:i" . ..:-: ii--::i ii:-:- ::...:'.:_ iiiiiiiiiii-iiii:i :.. :.. ii: . :i:--i:iiili iiiili:ii-i-i:iii:iiiiii'i'i::'--:-- --:::- -:-- i:: i~iiii- i::i?iiii;iii- .:: :.: ::::: :::::.:.: :: :- ... ....::--::- ::--::-- -i:i-i :::::::_ :::: il_ ~E' i F?-:i?'i:l::.ie_-i:-i-i-i:i -i:i-i-iiilii-i:: iii -:ii : iiii -- i i: -:: ----

.ii~i-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ii -- i:i::-:: -:: .. :i:i-i-i:i-i:imiii'?li-i'i:iii:j:i:- :i- i:i:::i---- ---:: i::. ii:iii:iii:iciiii:iiiiiiiiiii:iiiii-iiii :::--::- ----:- --i-9-:-- .. ---I: :i: ''i:~i-i:i:ii-i-iHi-i-i_-i-i:ii-i:: :::-: ::::: :::: :::::::1:~i::::: i: : -:- II: i- i: - : :__ iii . riiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ::.: ..: ii: ::::- -:-:- --- -:-'_ iii::ili i i-ii .- i-i- . ii:iii:ilii'iii i'i':-iii: ..: i~ii iFi:i

ii-~;~'i:-:ii::--:li:::i-_:ii-----i iiiii'iiiii - .:.._: ---:--ii- I - i -:-::::: :i:::::--:::-: ::::-:-:I::I- .::. ::::: iiiii : .:..:::.. _-,- iiili-i-i:i-ii:iiiii--i-i-iiiili;:;:l :-::-:i:i::-i:i-- i:i:i-i:-::--::_ :::.: _ii:-i: :ii . i:i :i- ii.- iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliili I-"-'-'-' -'-':'-"--- J::: : liii: ~ ?i i'i

-ii:i-lj:~i~.,_,,,-,_::::.:?:::,-:: .::::::_ :- -:: iii -..

:ii.-ii- -:- :I : i-i _ iilisi--:i :i _i iii i: ii-i

: : i::::j::::- :::: : , _ir- :i : iii :I

8iiii-iii:i:iii-i -i-i:ii:i:iii- -- -ill:- :i:i :--: ;:;__ -:_:::::-:::::::::- ii ii~i:i ii i- :::-_ ::::__---:-_:_--- -----_ --:--:_:_ -:- ?:::::::::::::: ::::::::,::::: i i~i: -::i -i-i ..... :.. : __I _ il_ iii .::.:: -:-::::: : ;:: : :

"i'i'i'l':i:':: ::-.:.: iii~iii :-i : : ::::-:- ::-:-::-: -i-i:ib-ii:- : :i:i: -i -::: :Z :~iBiIi~Bii.E-_: :-:-~-::i i~ "ssss~-i:ia.iiii ':t..

-i-~i-i:i:i i: ii I

-:::::__ -. --- .: _- _:i:i- :,, rf ii iii:~pl~ 1~91~F?-- C ~S~a~l:l-~iQ ~"?i~F~~~i;:;l~ii i:: .::.... --ii_ I:- -- -i- i: -: .;.:... -ii- ..:

Il--ii :-_i-_::-i;:-:ill-::,x_:_:_:::::-:_:~,i: --: i-iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii"~Y~~iiiiiiiiiiijiiiiSi:iii$ ia 'i'i'i'i' 'i'i'i -:'::' -:':' iil:~sl~i::: ::: ::. -:- ii::i~iiiiii iiiiiia'??:l''''??'i~?:?' .::: ::: i~i-i-i ii , :;-iili:i:i:iii iiiiii :.::::_ i-i 'i' :-'i' -----:'::

i'i~:ilii:i:iiiiii(::-:i?:-:;i: _~iiiiiiiiii .. .: ':::.:_ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.iiiii-i:ilii.-i-i-i-:iii:i:i:i- - ..::-.: _:_::::-:::-:-i:::i . -:.:: 'gi i-i- ~ii.~l.i- E~iiii: iiaii- : i-iii i:i _-i:6 -.:

; I"~i -:i:i-ii?i:--- ii: iii

:"--::''''~'-':' '--:"'- ''''':'-'-'-ii- ~iii iiiii: i-i:- i:i:i-i- :,i-ii:i-i:i-i:i:i-*ii:i:i : :-------: -:ii_ -iiiiitii~iii'i: -::.. iiiiiiii ::iiiiiiii -t -:i:iii-~ ?- :---

ii:- :---::::: -:i:::--:-:::::- -:- :: : ~?ei:i?ii~-; ~iiiii-i:-:-:i - iii~ ~iiiii: - iiiiiiiiii:ii:iiil _i??

iiiiiiilii:i:i ::i:::i:i-iiiii :. -:- -:- ..::.. '::-------"~:'- "': i::'--- - ' :-i- -:: --.- ...- '-- -'-i--i-P:i-i- .. .:.:. . iii~-:ii:B_ :: ;: ;;; ?, 5. -.:' ?; ~;'' ~i:-?iw:????;? iii -i :.: .. .. :::: :::. : :... -'-i:iiiiiiii _i-i i- -i:i:;i:_-,-::, :- :i -i-i-i:i:r '-'- ':: - --: -_- _ -:-i -:::_:,::::::?::?: ::: i: : ::::- -:-:- :..:.:_ :.:: :: -i'i :: --i-i i:i--

i?iii:iiii:ii'lis-i:i:sii:iai'i: __iii-i:::_-~:: --i iiiiiiiiij:i.?? --::i?i.i--ii- -- -i -ii iiiii -i--i i:: : -:: - ..;..: :i i--.i-i -:'-. _:::-:j- - :: :i-:-i -: :: : iiiiiiiiiii-iii:i-i-iiiiiii;.-iij .:. i-iiiiiiiiii_ . ::i i'-_ -i-.ii:i:i-i'i-iii:-i i-ii i:i-i :::: .:::: ill-?: -I-/:-.-::i---;ii i:i'ii:i - ai :~?'i~:?iX`:''iiiiiii i:ii~:--~-i:il:-- :.: ii i-_i:::;:::::::: i -i:i:i-ii'i -:i-i-i:i iii::iiiiiii::::::: ::::a:::::::::::::l ::::::::::::::::: :::::::: -ii~b~a"i~:i:X :t- -:i- _i-i :-i -ilii.: _--l:~?&i?j--j.i-i'i- j:----i:"i: :_ . .-.:::: i-i:i- i:i-'-:::ii- :i-i-_iij:_-:ii.j~j: ...: -:I ::: ::: ?i-_: -i i:::ii-i:i ~-~.??; i-i iii :::::::::::-:::::-: :::::::::: -:::::::::_::_ -:i:::-:ir-i:::--:i:ai:::i:i:_:-i: i--i iii--i:?iii-5i:-ii_ . -i-i -:--i:-- il- i-i:i:i--:i ..-. -:::-: -iii _iii- :i;ia:ii::i:,:,:a:::: ::::-::::: :::::::::::: .: ~~:iii:-ii---iii iiii i iiiiiiiiiiiii : iiiii~iiii:iiii i:iii~~i.iiii:-ii ~:~i .. :: . . --:-:::;-:---:::: -::::::i-iii:i -i-i i_-iii-i :::: ::::::::::::?:::: -::::::::::::::::::: ::.. . _

iiiiiiii-:::::-:-:::: . :::: :::::::::::::::t:^:-:?:i:i:-:i:i:-::::: : ::: i::i I?'i':: :::.::- --:-:::::--:-: :::il~:i?:::- -:""i-:ii:i iiii:iii --- --:--::

--: -i-i:i i:i:iiiiii:i:i:i-ii;iii?i iiiiiiis:i -:-:- ::- -i-,-i_ ii :_ _:::_ ::_ ::: :i--i:i:iii~iii~ i-:?:ii.:ii:i:: ::-- ::---:-- ::-- : ::1 -i-i: i:: :i- i-i-i- -''''''''''' :-:-::-:_ :ii:iiiiiii-i-i-iiii:iiiii i- : ---- :: : ___i _-- iiiiii-iiiiiiii:iii : I:i :i~?_ii:::::i- -.. : :i ii-i .-: :::::::-:'''':--:':'~':::'":-: ::::---::: " : ::::

::: :::-:-:-:-:- :::_::-i::::- --:: ::: ::

i-i-i-i- i:i--ii'i-i'ili-iii'i ii:i:i -i-i- '-- i:i- :: : --: :: i-: iiii i:iiiiii ----:---_:_---i:i iiii"iii~iii:i .:..:::_ i- :- :':'-''':'--'-':' : ::':-:-: :::-_ i~' -:::::-:i:i-:-:::- :ii:i:i:::il:i-:::::i : -:: -:i:: : 1 11 ... :1- _: _'ij- -:-:: :::- -::-:- -i-i-:i:i-i:iiii:i iii:i-i~:i-i:i:i-i- ii-i :~:i:i~.::.-* ::-:--:i:iw::- :::__ _:-::::-:: :::iii-ii:i:iii?_---i-si8i:iiiii-ii~' -i::::::?:::-::i:::- :::ii:iiiiiiiiiiil:i:i-i-iii-i i:i- :: :: :::::: ::-i - -ii:-i-iiii:i ...:: :::::-i::?i;?: : ::::::::::: :::::::::::: iii :-i .: :i:i-i-i:~.i:i:i:i:i-i i-i-:iiiiii:iiiliiii-iiiiiiiliiiiiaiiii;iiiiiiii:i - ... iii: :i- a-iiil:iiii-iiiii?-i~ :--i i-ii iii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii~-i-i i-'ii-iiiiR'"iii;iiiiij;:i6:i:i:i'i'i-

I::ap*:*b.?i~- '--:i ???i?-.si;?j. i--: :_ .. ::::: ::::: . ::::::::::::::-:::::: ::::::::::: -i :-i:--i-i:i.i-i-i-i:i;:iii-i-i-i _:::--:::::i;:i:-,:i:I::::i:_:_:::__:-:- _:_: :ii iii i::-,_liiiiiLi.liiiii-i~?~~ii: --::-L:::11-::(~ :---? ... ..._ --:- -i-i-ili-i:iii ii-'--:i.-i~::.Bi :._ : :' '-'-' iiiii :::::-': iiii-iiiiiii' iii' i:iiiii-iiiiiijiiiii'iiiii ii'i :::.. -:i :::

-?~- jii:. ? ?,i. i :s?*i:~.i. - i - ii :i-ii ?:?---~:i iiii iiiiiiii~iii; 'iBi-iiiii-i-- i : -:i: i:i -:-: ' ::-:-::':--::::: -:-: -::-:-:::-:-: :::-:- ::: ':':iiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiii'--i -? --: --- :-- -i-:----:i'i:-:-::--iiiiii iii ::: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iii:i-i .:. iii :iii"ii-iii:iii :ii-- iii':iiii:i-i:: '''"'' ?- :-:- '- ::- i-i. -i:i :i:i- i-i-i- ... :. i-i -i-i- -:: :::, i i:iiii:iii:i:i:i- ?B ::: i: -:- -i-i:ii:i-i'i:i:i:i i- aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii :- . ~ .. :: :::::_ i:i ii _ii :::: i:iFi;i iii.iiijjj ij~iijjijjiiiijiii:i 1_: i: .- i-i-i :.:: i:i:iii-iiiiii?i:iiiiiiiiii ii-i ::::;. i-i i-i-:-_-iii ii-i-ii--i -i-i:i-i:i .- -:- --::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::

.I__-i

: : -:::--::::::-:--:: : :: ::;:: . : : ---- : --iiT:igiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiTiiiiii;iii;Riiiiil~?iil~iii7iiiiiiii :. :::'::: -:: -i -:_ ::: ::::::: : : -: -:: -ii -i-i- i:i- .. iiii iiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ::: iiiiiiiiiiii-ii':':' -:-::::-:- :-:: -:- --:-- :- :: -i-i-:i-i-i:i-i i-i- :. ::::_ - i:i:i-i--i:_ :::::::;i iiii :.:.:::_ iiii-:-:i:i-i-i-ii-i-i --i-i .. . iii :_ i:i-iii-i -i i: i :- -:_- .- .. i: :.. :. iiiiiiiii i:i-i i-i: i:i:i -i -:- :i- i-i iii i:: II i -i *r :: iii: .... ..._ .- I--i iiiiii:- ii:: ... iiiii

'~i:i:i-i-iF:_:i" i~-i~iiiii -:iiii:::: ::: :::: ----- -:: i . _: ii ii . ii i: ii~ii-i.- iii ---:::: -i:-i:--i:i- -i:: .. ii: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:i-i:i i:.iiiiiiii?~ :--II :- --- --- :: -:----' --i:: -i . :i ii .. iii::: -... :-:- -:-:-:::--:-::: --- -::: - -----:--i'i':i-'i'_:i:::::::i::-i:i:::i: :::::::::::::13 :::: ::: -:--::-::--- :- _:- . .:::: -----:-:-:i-iii:i:i:i:iai:i-iii:i:i:i-ii i-iiilli'i'" iiiiiiiiiiisiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiii:iiiil : I . .:.... :"~ii~:--iiliiiili: :iii-iiiia

- 1 : -: -?iii i:iii I

lij~ i~.~~?a: ::~::~: -b~-:::: : :

-s~-i -y:-f::~~:~:::~::I:'-:;'-l:E:al:l.~l~i x~ ~sia " 9`

j: s?~e~ ii, I:: '"6 g it:: ~- ii"

_~::: a: ii '?' ~Iii ll.~i-?::::: ? e~-~---~~?

i

i

:r ii ? *i._ ::: -?, T B r :ii: a:

I-~ii i.q, g:8 iii

Y1 L. 'i. 8" sa ill:i:

: ::: i d i:

? i

::i

i-i-

I?~:~l:a ii~i i-ii

~? d`,s *-I~ ": :,: : :: - -- ..:

iii:: if I-sil

::: :i :: -8" ::

s -- iiiii

8- : ii: ''

i - :1 _ _1 __ .. .. --1--I~-11::-11:-_ ... _: i-_-l -1:-11-.: I-i-i 1: I:- _i_ 1:__1_:_ I:_S-): :I1I -I:_~::-j ~iiti:

iiiiii ~~~f~ :::-:i i

I _ t ~ 1- I- i-

? .. . .._. i : :._._ i I-i i ii: I- _'

1 :: i-i-~k~iiiii:i_ ::: ::: :.. i iii ii i: i iii- -i- iii . ::..: :ili::i:ii:i-iiiiii:i:i iii

iiii iii iiii iiii iiiii iiii

i- -- -- :- i- _ :: i:i ..- iiii-i i::i-i :__ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-iij~iit~'ii :.:::::::_ :i

.. Ii-iii iii .-. i .. iii: ... ._.:_'_ ii:i:iis;iiii:ii~~'i::~?~i:iiiiiiiii iiiiiiii::ii~ii-ili --

-- ?~;?i: :: : :--

a-Main doorway of Temple at Cyzicus; Ashmole MS. f. I33v (pp. 186-7)

b-Vine-wreathed column with frieze and entablature, and Gorgoneion; Ashmole MS. f. 134r (p. I88)

C~3




I 1.66 inches.1 The width would then be 5.89 metres, and the height 11.78- still sufficiently impressive. An interesting feature is what looks like a flight of steps seen through the door.2

There is one obvious comparison for this doorway, the only one of such a size still standing, in the smaller temple at Baalbec. The measurements are remarkably close, since its opening is 6.5 metres wide and 12.8 metres high.

The second striking feature is the inscription. If we are to believe that it was really set there and is roughly to scale, the letters would have been about three-quarters of a metre high-exceedingly large for Greek lettering, not impossible on a huge building, at a period which had a strong taste for the colossal. There are only two slight misspellings, the double lambda in 6XA% and the omicron for epsilon in Aristenetos.3

This inscription was already known in unillustrated copies from Cyriac's commentaries, and in this same obviously mutilated form. Scalamonti, in his Life of Cyriac (and evidently quoting Cyriac) says that Cyriac copied it from the building,4 but despite this statement it has often been assumed that in reality he found it in some Byzantine anthology. It would be a curious piece for an anthology, since it is manifestly incomplete: yet one thing does suggest a literary epigram rather than an inscription, and that is the application of such a grandiose adjective as asos by an architect to himself. However, in the second century A.D., and in Asia Minor, surprising things were possible. Three attempts have been made to restore the defective line, of which the third is evidently to be preferred-indeed can be regarded as tolerably certain.

EKAAHIEAOT' MQP0f2 ENOAAHEAZIAE A(DONIH XEIPMN AIO "APIETENOTOZ

(MS. copied from Cyriac, P1. 37)

'Ex K 68ou u j?'6poaev 6Xvq *Aalocq i[Lyoc Oci5xcw

'A90ovd Xnalpov Atoc 'ApLat~ev&ou. (Preger, Epigr. Gr. 47.)

'E x 8ocnsou L'6•p0%oav 6Xgv 'Aotacg •6xrXv•pc 'Aqp0ovd XyELPV 8>o g 'ApLarat0verog.

(Anthologie Didot [189o].)

'Ex x8our8o uL'64pOaoev 6X- 'Arctoc 8ocivflnaLv 'Acp0ovin XepCyov M8oS 'ApLartverog.

(T. Reinach, BCH XIV.) 1 It is difficult to discover what scale of

measurement Cyriac was using, but this seems the most likely. Dr. L. D. Ettlinger suggests that for measuring columns such as those at Cyzicus and the Olympieion at Athens, the tops of which were inaccessible, Cyriac probably used an astrolabe.

2 One naturally imagines that these led to the gallery. There is a resemblance between this drawing and the view through the main doorway of the smaller temple at Baalbec (Wiegand, Baalbek, II, pl. 25), but there the

steps lead up to the adyton, and the steps leading to the upper part of the building are invisible from the pronaos, being housed in two shafts, one on each side of the door (id. pp. 23 ff.). At Aezani the steps to the base- ment lead from the opisthodomos (Le Bas, op. cit., Archit., p. 144, pl. 21). 3 For the form 'Aprariveros Reinach (op. cit., 532, n. 3) cites CIG 2693e, line 2: from Mylasa, of uncertain, probably Roman date.

4Scalamonti, quoted in Reinach, BCH, XIV, I89o, p. 542-



188 BERNARD ASHMOLE

"From the level earth, with the wealth of the whole of Asia, and with countless hands, the godlike Aristainetos erected me." The inscription, as restored thus, not only gives the name of Aristainetos, who must have been an eminent architect, even if we do not take him quite at his own valuation, but it also shows that the temple was built from funds drawn from the whole of the province of Asia.

Still taking the drawings in the order in which they appear in the new manuscript, we come to P1. 37b. Here we have vine-wreathed columns again, of rather more slender proportions than those of the arcade, and with a different capital. I think this difference is not due to the whim of Cyriac or his copyist, but does indicate the use of a type of capital popular in the time of Hadrian. 1

These columns frame a large gorgoneion, how large one cannot tell without knowing how large the columns are, but a colossal gorgoneion is not impossible-we may remember one on the south slope of the Acropolis at Athens mentioned by Pausanias.2 What we may doubt is the actual setting. Cer- tainly there was a gorgoneion somewhere, but it may perhaps not have been set in the wall at that particular point. Although the entablature with its crowning member of dentils, egg and dart, and brackets is quite credible,3 there is some doubt about the sculptured frieze: the figures are summary, and some of them are evidently simplified versions of those in the next two drawings. It may well be that Cyriac here is just indicating the existence of sculpture- perhaps much mutilated or too high to be seen well-by using the outlines of figures from elsewhere.

Plate 38a shows the next two pages of the new manuscript together, since the drawing is almost certainly meant to be continuous. The first type of capital again here, so that it seems that these columns are in some way related to the arcade in P1. 36. As for the sculpture, this is evidently drawn with greater care than the last, and, one would think, reproduces a frieze which Cyriac actually saw. If not, one must suppose that he invented the composi- tion, making it up from sculptures he had seen and drawn elsewhere, perhaps also from coins. Some resemble well-known types; for instance, the three figures on the right look like the Three Graces except that they are male, and the next Europa; while the woman on the lion recalls Cybele. It is, in short,

1 Where four (in a pilaster two) volutes, each masked by a frond of acanthus, spring almost from the base of the capital. It is used, for example, in that part of the baths of Trajan at Rome which is of Hadrianic date (Reisch, Forschungen in Ephesos, III, pp. 208 f., fig. 21 o; Gusman, L'art decoratif, III, pl. I37b; cf. id. pl. I48b); on the arch of Hadrian at Athens (Stuart and Revett, Antiq. of Athens, III, ch. Ii, pls. VII and VIII); and in the theatre and the temple at Aezani (Le Bas, Voyage arche'ologique: Archit., pls. 10, 14, 31). Cf. also the Mausoleum of Hadrian (Strong, PBSR, XXI, 1953, fig. 6). 2 Paus. I 21, 3. Of the numberless gor- goneia of medium size the most nearly

relevant are perhaps those at Lepcis (Squar- ciapino, Scuola di Afrodisia, pl. N; Ward Perkins, JRS, XXXVIII, 1948, pl. IX, 3, 4) of the thermae of Aphrodisias (Mendel, Cat. des Sculptures, II, no. 497; A. Aziz, Guide du Musde de Smyrne, p. 32, no. 68), and of the frieze of the outer structure at Didyma, which seems to be of Roman Imperial date (Wie- gand, Didyma, I, p. 99, pls. 175-9).

3 It resembles fairly closely the fragment of entablature said to have been found on the site of the temple (Mendel, Cat. des Sculptures (Constantinople), III, no. 1192) except that the top member is undecorated in the drawing.




not impossible that they are fictitious, but more likely that they are sculptures which he saw in this temple, and which he mentions, though only in a general way.' Architectural fragments litter the ground, but below on the right is a block with five vertical slots which may be part of the wall rather than a loose column-drum: if so it is possibly a ventilating-panel.

Of the vine-wreathed columns one fragment has survived; it is now in the courtyard of the museum at Erdek (P1. 39d, e), and it comes from the site of the temple at Cyzicus, having been found there by Professor Ertuiziin.2 It was an engaged column, and the position in which Ertuizuin found it suggested to him that it might be an anta; but it cannot have been one of the main antae of the temple, for they, as we shall see in a moment, were much larger. The diameter of this drum is 1.45 metres, which suggests a height of ten or eleven metres for the complete column.3 These may belong to the range of ten internal columns mentioned by Cyriac, and it is possible that these internal columns supported a balcony forming the.upper floor mentioned by Aristides. In confirmation of this, the character of the mouldings shown in the manuscript does suggest that they have a parapet or some light superstructure above them rather than a normal entablature. The dry character of the carving on the Erdek fragment, without fancy drill-work, suggests a date at latest not much after the middle of the second century A.D. and quite possibly before the middle-in other words, of the time of Hadrian.

Plate 38b shows two more columns with their sculptural frieze, and here we can be certain that the two pages go together, for the draughtsman has indicated very faintly, at the left of the right-hand slab, the forepart of the animal of which the hindquarters appear on the right of the left-hand slab. Allowing for certain touches of fantasy, we seem able to identify some of these figures: the third figure from the left must be Heracles, next Artemis, and next Cybele.4 Lying on the ground are two gigantic fragments: one is a block twenty-two feet long, six feet high, and six feet wide, and the other a

1 On his first visit "Stant et ornatissima in fronte diversa Deorum simulacra": on the second "Sed enim insigni ejus et mirabili in frontispicio eximia deum et praeclarissima illa de marmore simulacra, Jove ipso protec- tore suaeque eximiae celsitudinis patrocinio inlaesae tutantur et intactae suo fere prisco splendore manent." For the remains of colossal sculpture found at the temple by Carabella, see Perrot in Rev. Arch., XXXII, 1876, p. 264, where the measurement of one piece is evidently erroneous. I do not know where these fragments now are.

2 I thank Mr. Michael Ballance for drawing my attention to this fragment, and for lending me his own copy of R. M. Ertiiz"in's publication of it and the temple, Kapidaki Yarmadasi ve Cevresindeki Adalar, I953, pp. I113 ff., a book at that time unknown in England: this Mr. Ballance had summarized and annotated with his own observations made at Cyzicus: Mr. R. D. Barnett kindly

translated part of the Turkish text. In I954 Mr. J. B. Ward Perkins was good enough to visit Cyzicus and the museum at Erdek at my suggestion, and to take the photographs of the column-fragment reproduced on P1. 39d, e. His remarks on its carving, coming from one who knows the remains at Lepcis and Aphrodisias so well, are important: "There is no use of the drill: it is surprisingly dry classicistic work by comparison with, for example, the Hadrianic baths at Aphro- disias."

3 Is it possible that the heights of these three series of columns (arcade by pronaos: internal columns: external columns) were in the ratio I, 2, 3?

4 Cf. Priene (BM. Cat. Sculpt., II, 1170) and Pergamon (Pergamon, III, 2, pl. II). For this type of Artemis on coins of Cyzicus see BMC Mysia, p. 49, no. 226, pl. XIII, 4 (Faustina II).



1go BERNARD ASHMOLE

fragment of an arch thirteen feet long: the breadth of it had been given at first as nine feet, but this has afterwards been altered to six. The rectangular block has, written on it, epistilia ab inferiori parte elaborata, and the ornamenta- tion makes it clear that Cyriac was right in identifying it as an architrave. Unless he used "epistilia" as a singular, he presumably meant that all the architraves were decorated underneath. These dimensions are very close to those of the architrave over the central pair of columns of the fagade of the larger temple at Baalbec, which must have been about six and a half metres, that is, twenty-two of Cyriac's presumed Roman feet. This block might even be the central architrave of the main fagade of the Cyzicene temple, which we know from the evidence of the coins was longer than the others. Cyriac gives the normal intercolumniation as fourteen feet, that is twice the diameter of the columns, a diameter which we can establish from other evidence. In other words, the temple was systyle, to use Vitruvius' word, and for a temple that is systyle he lays down that the central pair of columns in the facade shall be diastyle, i.e. with intercolumniation three times the diameter. That would be twenty-one feet: this architrave is shown as twenty-two. Of the archway we can hardly guess the diameter, but it was obviously of great size, since its mouldings are six feet across: and it may well have been a central feature.

The large and beautifully finished drawing of a Corinthian capital (P1. 39a) occupies a complete page of the manuscript. It is the last of the drawings of the temple, and although there is no statement that it belongs to Cyzicus, the measurements and its position in the manuscript prove that it does. Since the Corinthian capitals in the drawing on P1. 36 are not so elaborate-though it is true that they are only in the background, and shown summarily and conventionally-it may be that this was in some especially prominent position, perhaps in the portico, or if it be from a pilaster, one of the anta capitals.1 On balance, however, it is likely to be from a column rather than a pilaster, and from one of the main columns, because of the remark above it that the columns are fourteen feet distant from each other ("Distant invicem columnae p. XIIII").

The unusual feature is the head of Medusa. The gorgon's head is appropriate anywhere as being the most effective averter of evil, but it is particu- larly appropriate on a temple ofJupiter, and there is little doubt that Hadrian was here assimilated to Jupiter. One may recall also the range of gorgon's heads on the frieze of the Traianeum at Pergamon, which is Hadrianic.2 Nor is it unusual to carve some special object in this position on a Corinthian capital.3 In short, the design is convincing.

As for the dimensions, these are stated against it. The height was nine feet, i.e. about eight feet eight inches English. The length of the abacus was no less than twelve feet. How do these harmonize with the architectural

1 One may recall the more elaborate capitals in the pronaos and opisthodomos at Aezani (Le Bas, op. cit., Archit., pl. 30 bis., Robertson, Gk. and Rom. Archit., 2nd ed., fig. 94). In the pronaos of the smaller temple at Baalbec the columns are fluted, those of the peripteros being plain.

2 Pergamon, V, 2, pls. X, XII. S For sculptural elements embodied in

capitals, see Picard, Man. d'arch. grecque: La sculpture, I, I935, PP. 406-8; and, more generally, Toynbee and Ward Perkins, PBSR, XVIII, 1950, pp. I ff



38

:-!,.i~ i iiii!i iiii ii -i - ii-l -::I? ...... i, .......- i ?-- li :

............... .... . • ,,,•,• ,••• , , ,, ii i h-: i!•i-: - - i- . . ..ii--i- r-i --i ..i ...: ii : - : - . . iii: ... -:-i:i :i ::ii: i: : .. : - --

iiii - ii-:------ :_i-ii-i -i

ii-:i:iiii ii:::-;:i::-

i:-: -

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i• ,s-,ii iaiiiii

-.---'''iI; li-:iii~i: :: ~iii;i:iii::--::: -_---___ii; ,•i~~iD:,ii

::-:::-:.----:--i-: ::-:: :-:::-:-::

:iiiii:iii :::_:-i-:-'--:i- i,'' !!•iiii i i~iiiiiiiiiii:ii:

:.,i.:. : ii -'i:iii i :! if-

i;!iiii!iiiii~i~iiii!i~ii~i~~i~iiiiii!•ii'• ~iiii~~iiii- iiiI-

i i:I:--?1-ii!iiii!:i-- iiiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiil

:!ii•:iiii-:i: i ili~ i i i- - i~ i~ i

i~i;• iiiif~iiiiiiiii

i-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

i~e-iii

ii~ i i iii" ;ii i i

iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii ii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'ii iiiii:iiiiii iiiigiiiii

: i

Ii'

:: :

• !•ii•i•i

_-i--::

ii~iiiii: iiimiii-i ii: "-";i

•i~iii~ii-iiii~ii iliiiii~i~i iiiiii iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliii i•~ii ................

--iii-i-- iiiiiii~ii ii:i-i~iiii iiiiii .ii

-''8-~: iiiiiiiiiciiiii .: i-

~~!;i'iiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiii:

a-Columns and sculptured frieze; Ashmole MS. ff. 134V-' 35r (pp. 188-9)

" iiii~--r''''iii-- i~i--;i~-iiai-~~iii~~i~iiiiziSii~iiiiiiiii ~ ~ :~~iii-ii ~ii:~ii_-iii-ii-. ~:~:' :f 107i-~i-ii-i: l~i~- L ?l .:::::::::::ii-:i -:iii:a-cl-i:~i:-l~ - iiiiii~i-:i:i' :1::::-::_--:-::_:::--i ::-_-:j-:::::_::I :;_,:?:?:i::-:::::---::-:: -:::I-:;:__:--::_:::::-_:::::-- ::-::- :; :_i i-i~:~~-i ~ -iii-i~i :~4?i oe:-;::,::_i~iiiii-iiii--------::-:----~i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii--~ ~-''- ?l--i;i~: -~~-i~D-~-i:~~::~--- :~-ii--iii-~--:

_,~-ii: i i001 X , ii : ii

-ii

b-Columns and sculptured frieze; .-\shmole MS. ff. i35v"-36r (pp. 189-90)



39

a--Corinthian capital, Ashmole MS. f. 136v (p. 190)

b c b, c-Decorated marble column, possibly from Cyzicus; Museum, Constantinople (p. 186)

9Pwnmwa98 ? . ...... 7 :- ~ N

d-Fragment of vine-wreathed column from Cyzicus; Museum, Erdek (p. 189)

e - Fragment of vine- wreathed column (detail); Museum, Erdek (p. 189)




fragments from the site? Perrot and Guillaume fortunately found at Cyzicus a small fragment of the lower part of a Corinthian capital.1 It just allowed a vital measurement to be taken, for it included the central rib of one of the large acanthus leaves, and that of the next small one. The distance between these two is normally a sixteenth part of the lower circumference of the capital. In this fragment it measured 26 centimetres, giving 5 metres 76 for the circumference. This in turn gives i metre 83 for the lower diameter of the capital, and, allowing for the normal upward diminution of the column, 2 metres 135 for the lower diameter of the column, which is almost exactly seven English feet. This agrees well enough with the intercolumniation of fourteen feet inscribed above the drawing; it was a systyle colonnade, the intercolumniation being twice the diameter of the column.

From the diameter we can guess the height of the column, but it is only a guess, for we do not know the proportions. If the columns were of Vitruvian proportions, they would be nine and a half diameters high, which would give a height of sixty-seven feet six inches English. Cyriac's figure was seventy: but even at sixty-seven it is not easy to believe the statement that the shafts were monolithic.2

To gain an idea of the grandeur of the lost temple from the existing remains of other buildings, we may think perhaps of the majestic columns of the Olympieion at Athens, which are just over fifty-five feet; but the best comparison in a general way-in setting, scale and date-is with the larger temple at Baalbec, still one of the most imposing ruins in the world, although only six of its original sixty-two columns are standing. Yet even here the height of the columns is only sixty feet, more than seven feet less than the lowest estimate for the height of the Cyzicene.

It appears, then, that if there was to be an Eighth Wonder of the World,3 the claim of Hadrian's temple, anyhow on grounds of size, stood high: whilst Cyriac's drawings-when the complete series existed-and his written description, must together have formed a remarkably skilful, accurate and consistent presentation of it.

1 BCH, IX, 1864, p. 355. 2 So Xiphilinus: but see Reinach in BCH,

XIV, I890, p. 520. 3 See ref. in Reinach, loc. cit., p. 518, n. I.



Documents

Bernard Ashmole