Chapter VI (3)

It naturally occurs, on reading these two accounts of the same events, that Helenopolis, which name is not found in the Gesta Dei per Francos, was the same place which the authors of that collection mean by Civitot; but a little further examination will show this supposition to be inadmissible. In the first place, the passage of Procopius referred to in page 8 of this volume[506] is a convincing proof that Helenopolis was on the shore of the Gulf of Nicomedia. Procopius, in complaining of the injury which Justinian had done to the imperial establishment for the relay of horses on all the great post roads of the empire[507], remarks in particular, that the abolition of the post from Chalcedon to Dacibyza had obliged all persons who were going from Constantinople to Helenopolis to cross the sea in small boats, which often exposed them to great danger. It is evident, as well from this passage of Procopius as from several others in Anna Comnena, that Helenopolis was the usual place of debarkation for those going from the capital to Nicæa and the south eastward, as the Dil or Glossa is at present; and hence Constantine turned his attention to this important point soon after he had established the seat of empire at Byzantium, giving to the village of Drepanum[508], which before stood there, the name of Helenopolis in honour of his mother. From the same sense of its importance, Justinian augmented Helenopolis, and constructed there an aqueduct, a bath, and other buildings[509].

Secondly, it cannot be doubted that the barbarous name Civitot or Civito, which, like many other parts of the narrative, the authors of the Gesta Dei have copied from one another, is no other than the Κιβωτὸς (pronounced Kivotó in modern Greek) of Anna Comnena. In the following year we find that it was the place of debarkation and maritime supply for the crusaders, especially during their operations before Nicæa; and it clearly appears, upon a comparison of the Latin historians with Anna, to have been in the Gulf of Cius, and not far from that city: for the former state that, in order to complete the blockade of Nicæa, and to prevent the Turks in the city from receiving succours by the lake, boats were collected at Civitot and conveyed from thence overland into the lake; while from the Greek princess we learn[510] that this operation, which according to her was performed by placing the boats in chariots, took place on the side of the lake towards Cius. Here, in fact, the ground was more favourable to it than in any part of the borders of the lake, and here also the lake approaches nearest to the sea, the interval being, as Albert of Aix remarks, about seven miles.

As to the statement of Anna, that Alexius sent ships to the assistance of Peter, when invested by the Turks at Helenopolis, compared with that of the Latin historians, who represent Civitot to have been the last retreat of the crusaders, the only mode of reconciling this apparent contradiction is to suppose that the defeated and dispersed crusaders retreated through the woods to both those places, that both were invested by the victorious Turks, but that it was to Helenopolis that Alexius sent his admiral, whose interference with the Turks liberated the Franks at Cibotus, as well as those who were shut up in Helenopolis.

NOTE TO PAGE 18.

The Latin historians are at variance with one another, and with Anna Comnena, in many of the circumstances attending the march of the crusaders, after the capture of Nicæa, to the plain of Dorylæum, and relating to the great battle which took place there. Thus much however may be gathered from them: that the crusaders moved in a single line in two days from Nicæa to Leucæ; that at Leucæ they crossed the Gallus by a bridge, and halted for two days to refresh themselves and their cattle in that fertile valley. They then divided themselves into two bodies; that which was accompanied by Godfrey took the road to the right, (the road probably which now leads through Bozavik,) while Bohemond and the remainder of the forces pursued the direct route to Dorylæum. On the fourth day, the latter corps being then, as it appears, encamped on the banks of the Thymbres in the plain of Dorylæum not far to the westward of that town, was attacked by an immense army of Turks under Kilidj Arslan. They supported the unequal contest from the 2d to the 8th hour of the day, when Godfrey, who had received from the messengers of Bohemond intelligence of what was occurring, arrived, and, making an immediate attack on the flank and rear of the Sultan’s army, gained a complete victory over them.

NOTE TO PAGES 37, 58.

The crusaders now marched in a single body and suffered extreme distress from a want of water in the dry and barren country which they had to traverse, until they arrived at a river which appears to have been at no great distance from Antioch the Less, or Antiocheia of Pisidia. At this city several chieftains with their followers separated themselves from the main body and pursued different routes; the remainder moved forward to Iconium. It must be admitted, that if the evidence as to the position of Antiocheia of Pisidia contained in this part of the Gesta Dei is not sufficient to overthrow that of Strabo and the Peutinger Table,—both which authorities tend to show that it was not exactly on the modern route from Eski Shehr to Konia by Bulwudun and Ak Shehr,—it is at least a proof that Antiocheia lay not far from that line. The river which relieved the sufferings of the crusaders seems to have been that which flows through the plain of Karahissár to the lake of Bulwudún.

NOTE TO PAGE 65.

The princess Anna is silent as to all the proceedings of the crusaders between the battle of Dorylæum and their arrival before Antioch of Syria. But the Latins agree in stating that, after marching from Iconium, they arrived at a place which is variously spelt Erachia, Eraclia, Heraclea, Reclei; and that here they turned to the right through the mountains to Tarsus. Some of them add, that on the first day from Iconium they were obliged to take a provision of water in skins, because none was met with at the end of that day’s journey; that on the second day they arrived at a river, and on the third at Heraclea. This account of the country through which the crusaders marched after quitting Iconium, is in every respect so accurate a description of the route from Konia to Tarsus through Erkle, that no doubt can remain of Erkle having been the place at which they arrived at the end of the third day’s march from Iconium,—and hence the authority of their historians may perhaps have been considered a proof that Erkle is the position of one of the many Greek cities called Heracleia. I have already remarked, however, that there does not appear at any period of ancient history to have been a Heracleia in this quarter of Asia Minor; and I have stated my reasons for thinking that Erkle is a corruption not of Ἡράκλεια but of Ἄρχαλλα. It must be recollected that the Mussulmans had been in possession of that part of the country 400 years before the arrival of the crusaders, and that sufficient time therefore had elapsed for the Greek name to have assumed the form of corruption which it now bears: Albert of Aix, who writes it Reclei, which nearly represents the present sound, furnishes us with a strong presumption that it really had then assumed that form.

It is natural that the historians of the crusade, having a sufficient degree of learning to write in Latin, but no profound knowledge of ancient geography, should have had just so much familiarity with the name of Heraclea as would lead them to suppose Erkle to be a corruption of Heraclea, and would induce them to translate it in Latin by that word. It has been seen, however, that they did not all so convert it. Tudebode, Archbishop Baldric, and the Abbot Guibert, all write it Erachia. Upon the whole, therefore, I find nothing in the Gesta Dei which invalidates the conjecture of Erkle being the site of Archalla.

NOTE TO PAGE 60.

In addition to the other proofs which I have given in the note to this page of the little dependence that can be placed on Xenophon’s description of the route of Cyrus through Asia Minor, the following may also be mentioned: Xenophon states that there were three stations or thirty parasangs between Colossæ and Celænæ: the distance by the road is not more than 30 miles.

NOTE TO PAGE 117.

The following is the description of Cilicia by Ammianus: “Superatis Tauri montis verticibus, qui ad solis ortum sublimius attolluntur, Cilicia spatiis porrigitur late distentis, dives bonis omnibus terra ejusque lateri dextro adnexa Isauria; pari sorte uberi palmite viret, et frugibus multis; quam mediam navigabile flumen Calycadnus interscindit. Et hanc quidem, præter oppida multa, duæ civitates exornant; Seleucia opus Seleuci regis, et Claudiopolis quam deduxit coloniam Claudius Cæsar. Isaura ... ægre vestigia claritudinis pristinæ monstrat admodum pauca.” Ammian. l. 14. c. 25. The situation of Mout between the two great parallel ridges of Taurus corresponds exactly with that of Claudiopolis as described by Theophanes: Κλαυδιοπόλεως ... τῆς μεταξὺ τῶν δύο Ταύρων ἐν πεδίῳ κειμένης. In the 3rd year of the Emperor Anastasius, Claudiopolis, which had been recently recovered by Diogenes from the Isaurians, was again suddenly invested by them and reduced to the greatest extremity, when it was opportunely relieved by John Cyrtus and Conon bishop of Apameia, who suddenly crossing the passes of Taurus (those between Mout and Láranda), were assisted by a sortie of Diogenes, and thus completely defeated the Isaurians. The bishop died of a wound which he received in the action. Theoph. Chronog. p. 119.

Strabo (p. 672) describes a very ancient Greek colony of the name of Olbe, founded by Ajax, son of Teucer, and which had a temple of Jupiter that preserved its sanctity and importance through many revolutions. He places Olbe in the mountains behind Soli and Cyinda, which, although not a very accurate description of the situation of the valley of Mout, seems sufficient to identify the Olbe of Strabo with the Olbasa which Ptolemy places in the Citis or valley of the Calycadnus. Nothing indeed is more probable than that this spacious, fertile, and easily defensible valley should have attracted a colony of Greeks at an early period. Hierocles mentions both Olbe and Claudiopolis in the province of Isauria, of which in his time Seleucia was the chief town. It appears also from the Notitiæ, that they were separate Greek bishoprics.

NOTE TO PAGE 182.

The theatre of Telmissus is smaller than that of Patara. According to Foucherot, (see Choiseul Voyage Pittoresque de la Grèce, tome 1. pl. 72) the diameter of the theatre of Telmissus was 238 French feet, equal to 254 English. That of Patara is 265 (not 295 as stated in page 182). At Telmissus the cavea contained 28 seats divided by a diazoma at the fifteenth seat from the bottom. The theatre of Patara had about 30 rows of seats. At Patara are the ruins of a bath, an inscription upon which shows that it was erected by the Emperor Vespasian. The theatre was built in the reign of Antoninus Pius.

THEATRE OF MYRA.]

NOTE TO PAGE 183.

By the kindness of Mr. Cockerell, I am enabled to submit to the reader a plan on a small scale of the theatre of Patara, together with a sketch of the form and dimensions of the theatre of Myra. Their construction resembles that of the other theatres of Asia Minor, as exemplified at Side[511], Telmissus, Miletus, Hierapolis, Laodiceia, and in several other smaller theatres. It differs from that of the theatres of European Greece in the form of the extremities of the cavea, as far as we can judge from such of the European Greek theatres as are sufficiently preserved to show the construction of that part of the building. In the Asiatic theatres the ends of the cavea diverged from the orchestra, so as to form an oblique angle to the direction of the scene. We find, on the contrary, that in the theatres of Segeste, Tauromenium, Syracuse, Sparta, Epidaurus, Sicyon, in the theatre of Herodes at Athens, and in that near Ioannina in Epirus, the extremities of the cavea were parallel to the scene. In both, the cavea exceeded a semicircle; but in the Asiatic theatres the excess was formed by producing the same curve at either extremity of the semicircle, until the cavea occupied from 200 to 225 degrees of a circle[512]; whereas at Tauromenium, Sicyon, Epidaurus, and in the theatre near Ioannina, the excess above a semicircle is formed by two right lines drawn from the extremities of the semicircle perpendicular to its diameter and to the direction of the scene, as in the annexed figure[513].

At Syracuse, the cavea was a semicircle and no more. In the theatre of Herodes at Athens, the excess above a semicircle was a curve, and it is therefore an exception to the European rule. The other theatres of European Greece are too much ruined to admit of any certainty on this point.

Vitruvius has not noticed this remarkable difference between the Greek theatres of Europe and Asia; but he gives the following precise distinction between the Greek and the Roman theatre: “To construct the Roman theatre,—having described a circle of the size intended for the lowest part of the theatre, inscribe in it four equilateral triangles, the angles of which will divide the circumference into 12 equal parts. Assume the side of one of the triangles for the position of the scene. A line drawn parallel to it through the diameter of the circle, will mark the separation of the pulpitum of the proscenium from the orchestra. The seven angles of the triangles in the semicircle of the orchestra determine the position of the scalæ or steps leading from the orchestra between the cunei into the first præcinctio. The scalæ leading from these to the second præcinctio are in the middle of the intervals between the scalæ of the lower cunei. The five remaining angles of the triangles determine the divisions of the scene, the length of which ought to be double the diameter of the orchestra. The construction of the Greek theatre differs in some respects from that of the Roman. In the Greek three squares are inscribed in the circle of the lowest part of the theatre, dividing the circumference into 12 equal parts as before. Having assumed a side of one of the squares for the position of the λογεῖον or pulpitum of the proscenium, a line parallel to it, touching the circumference of the circle in the point most distant from the cavea, will determine the line of the scene. Draw a diameter of the circle parallel to the scene, and from each extremity of the diameter as a centre describe a curve from the opposite extremity until it intersects the line of the proscenium. These two curves, the semicircle and the proscenium, inclose the orchestra.”

A B C D E F A Cavea.
F D Pulpitum of the Proscenium.
G H Scene.
I Proscenium.
K K Cunei separated by Scalæ.
F E D F Orchestra.
L Postscenium.]

A C Pulpitum of the Proscenium.
A B C A Orchestra.
D D Cunei of the Cavea.
E Proscenium.
F G Scene.
H I K The three centres, from which the curve of the Orchestra
is described.]

The effect of these two modes of construction was, to give a more spacious cavea and a more spacious orchestra to the Greek theatre than to the Roman; a scene further removed from the middle of the cavea, and a narrower pulpitum to the proscenium. The intention of their difference is to be found in the different destinations of the two theatres. Among the Greeks the tragic and comic actors only performed on the scene: all other exhibitions took place in the orchestra; and hence their theatrical artists were divided into Scenici and Thymelici—the latter term being derived from the thymele or altar of Bacchus; which in process of time was often used as synonymous with the whole orchestra. The Roman theatres, on the other hand, being chiefly intended for dramatic representations, it was desirable to bring the scene as near as possible to the centre of the cavea; the orchestra was used only for the moveable seats of privileged spectators, and the cavea seldom exceeded a semicircle. In Roman theatres the height of the pulpitum above the orchestra was only five feet, that the spectators in that part of the theatre might command a good view of the stage—as in our pit; in the Greek theatres, there being no spectators in the orchestra, it was ten or twelve feet high[514].

As no science can less bear to be fettered by rules than architecture, it will not be surprising to find, as we increase our collection of ancient examples, that the speculations of Vitruvius seldom agree with the ancient monuments. His rules, in fact, are rather to be regarded as his own system, than that which was followed by the architects of Greece; whose genius is in nothing more remarkable than in the variety which pervaded their designs, according to the circumstances of each particular work; and in the singular felicity with which they harmonized the several parts of those designs.

The theatre of Patara may exemplify the rules given by Vitruvius for the position of the scene in Greek theatres, and for that of the scalæ, which determine the dimensions of the cunei: but, like all the other theatres in Asia Minor, it is an exception to his rule for constructing the curve of the orchestra or cavea; this curve being in all those theatres a segment of one and the same circle, instead of being formed from three centres.

And even in regard to the position of the scene, the theatre of Patara is subject to the remark, that between the lower seat of the cavea and the orchestra there is a præcinctio or διάζωμα[515], twelve feet wide, and four feet (not ten or twelve, as he prescribes in Greek theatres) in height above the level of the orchestra; which diazoma must be included within the circle of the orchestra, in order to make the scene a tangent to that circle, as the rule of Vitruvius requires. The scene of the theatre of Myra is still more distant from the cavea.

It is impossible to determine, without further excavation, whether in any existing theatre the curve of the _orchestra_ at the two ends next the proscenium was formed from three centres as Vitruvius has described; but in no instance that has yet been remarked are the extremities of the _cavea_ constructed in this manner; they are either right lines or continuations of the same circle which forms the middle of the cavea.

The great theatre of Laodiceia[516] is also an exception to the rules of Vitruvius, or rather it exemplifies a mixture of his Greek and Roman theatre; for with a cavea, spacious like that of the Greek theatre, it has a Roman scene; as not only appears from the position of the scene _within_ the curve of the orchestra, but likewise from the great niche in the centre of the scene, which is found also at Hierapolis, and is remarked at Nicopolis of Epirus, and in some other theatres of Roman construction[517].

The advantage of the Asiatic over the European construction in Greek theatres, consisted only in the increase of capacity derived from the obliquity of the two ends of the cavea. As the spectators in the upper seats of the two extremities must have had a very imperfect view of the scene, the Asiatic construction may perhaps have been adopted to provide accommodation for the classes who cared less for the drama than for the dancing and dumb-show of the orchestra: and these classes may perhaps have been more numerous in the Asiatic than in the European cities of Greece.

In Asia Minor the lower part of the cavea was generally excavated in a hill, and the upper part was built of masonry raised upon arches; so that there was a direct access from the level of the ground at the back of the theatre into the middle diazoma, either at the two ends of the diazoma, or by arched vomitories in the intermediate parts of the curve, under the upper division of the cavea. The same mode of construction occurred also in some of the theatres of European Greece; though in the more ancient theatres of that country it seems to have been the common practice to excavate all the middle part of the cavea and even the seats out of the rock. It seldom happened that theatres were constructed in plains, as it added so much to the labour and expense of them: instances, however, exist at Mantineia and Megalopolis.

As the scene and every part of the theatre relating to the spectacle stood on level ground at the lowest part of the building, it has invariably happened, in all the remaining theatres of Greece and Asia, that the parts belonging to the scene have been more or less buried in their own ruins, and in those of the cavea, which rises above them like a crumbling mountain. It is only by excavating, therefore, that we can arrive at an exact knowledge of the construction of that which is the most important part of the Greek theatre: but when circumstances admit of a complete examination of the theatres of Hierapolis, Patara, Laodiceia, Side, of some in Syria, which are in a remarkable state of preservation, and of two or three in European Greece, great light may be thrown on many interesting inquiries relating to the ancient drama.

I may here take the opportunity of observing, that there are no remains of Greek architecture more illustrative of the ancient state of society in Greece than the theatres. Comparing them with modern works of the same kind, we are astonished at the opulence required to collect the materials of those immense edifices, and afterwards to construct them; as well as at the effect of those customs and institutions, which, in filling the theatre, could inspire such a multitude of citizens with a single sentiment of curiosity, amusement, or political feeling. It may be said that the theatres of Greece are an existing proof of the populousness of the states of that country, much more convincing than the arguments of those who have endeavoured to confute the received opinion on this subject. No Grecian community was complete without a theatre. In the principal cities they were from 350 to 500 feet in diameter, and capable of containing from eight or ten to twenty thousand spectators. I have already, in another work[518], shown some reasons for believing that the Greeks were indebted for the invention of these buildings to the same city, to which they owed so large a share of their civilization. The Dionysiac theatre at Athens, in the form in which it was constructed at the time that Æschylus brought the drama to perfection, seems to have been the original model which, with some slight variations, was adopted throughout the Grecian states both of Europe and Asia.

I subjoin the diameters of the principal theatres in existence. They were all measured by Mr. Cockerell, except those marked D.; which are from the Missions of the Society of Dilettanti. All those of Greece Proper I have myself measured; but the reader will undoubtedly be better satisfied in possessing the measurements of Mr. Cockerell.

Exterior Interior
Diameter. Diam.

THEATRES OF ASIA MINOR.

Ephesus 660 240
Tralles[519] 540 150
Miletus (D) 472 224
Stratoniceia (D) 390 106
Side 390 120
Sardes[519] 396 162
Laodiceia (D) 364 136
Myra 360 120
Hierapolis 346 100
Patara 265 96
Teos[519] (Roman construction) 285 70
Pompeiopolis[519] (Ditto) 219 138
Limyra 195 —
Anemurium (Roman construction) 197 —
Selinus in Cilicia 114 —
Cnidus (D) about 400 —

THEATRES IN EUROPEAN GREECE.

Sparta[520] 453 217
Near Joannina in Epirus 445 121
Argos[520] 435 217
Syracusa 342 114
Sicyon[520] 313 100
Mantineia[520] 227 —
Delus[520] 175 —
Epidaurus[520] — 91
Nicopolis in Epirus (Roman constr.) 360 120

ODEIA[521].

Nicopolis 139 93
Messene (of a singular form, being 112 feet long) 93

NOTE TO PAGE 229.

The reader will perhaps be curious to learn something more of the Latin inscription of Stratoniceia mentioned in the note to page 229; which, although it has been more than a century in England, and the greater part of that time in the British Museum, has never yet been published. It consists of a decree, very long and wordy, and written in a style strongly indicating a declining Latinity, followed by a list of articles of provision in most common use among the Romans, with prices annexed to each of them.

The decree makes some allusion to the damages sustained by recent incursions of the Barbarians into the Roman empire, and to its actual pacific state. It contains repeated reflections on the avarice of forestallers, who frustrate the bounty of nature; refers to the plenty which generally reigns in Asia; directs that those engaged in the traffic of provisions shall never exceed the subjoined prices in time of scarcity; and denounces capital punishment against such as shall infringe the decree which is promulgated to the whole world—called _our_ world: the decree being as usual in the first person. There is no mention however made of the Emperor’s name, but there are some expressions which seem to indicate that his reign had already been of some length. For the following reasons I am inclined to think it was a decree of the Emperor Theodosius. It appears by the tailor’s work at the end of the catalogue, that silken garments were in very common use. Now it is known that, as late as the reign of Aurelian, they were still very rare and expensive; and that their use was confined almost entirely to women[522]. The only successors of Aurelian, whose length of reign and stability of power were suited to the language of the Inscription, are Diocletian, Constantine, and Theodosius. As Diocletian arrived at the empire only ten years after the death of Aurelian, it cannot be supposed that the use of silk had in his time become so common as the Inscription indicates. Constantine chiefly triumphed over his Roman rivals; but the victories of Theodosius over the Goths, who under Valens had overrun all Thrace, were the peculiar pride and characteristic of the reign of Theodosius. Ammianus, who wrote his History in that reign, observes that the use of silken garments, formerly confined to the nobility, had then become common among the lower classes[523]; a state of customs which appears to be in exact conformity with the prices of the tailors’ work in silk in the Inscription, as well as with the classification of those articles of dress among the other garments used by the common people of that age—namely, the rough coat, or birrhus; the caracallis, or hooded cloke, which soon afterwards became the dress of the monks; the Gallic breeches, and the socks. The late date of the Inscription is shown by its barbarous style, and the use of several words not found in earlier Latin; but that which declares its age more strongly, perhaps, than any other peculiarity, is the very reduced value of the drachma or denarius, in its exchange for the necessaries of life. It is true that the prices in the decree are given as a maximum; but the value of the denarius must have very greatly diminished from that which it bore in the two first centuries of the Roman Empire, when butchers’ meat was about 2 denarii the pound, and middling wheat from 3 to 6 denarii the modius[524],—before, under any circumstances contemplated by the Roman government, it could have been equivalent to an oyster, or the hundredth part of a lean goose. It appears from the coins of the early Byzantine Emperors, that great liberties were at that period taken with the weight of the denarius, and that it varied greatly between the time of Constantine and that of the final division of the Empire; but its diminution of value seems from this inscription to have been much greater than has hitherto been supposed[525].

The Inscription cannot well be referred to a later time than that of Theodosius, as under his sons the Empire was again oppressed by the Barbarians; and after the final separation of the Empire, which took place in their reign, the use of the Latin language was gradually laid aside in the acts of government of the Eastern Empire.

It would be difficult to deduce any inference as to the date of the Inscription from the form of the letters; more especially as the Harleian MS. of Sherard, in which it is preserved, is only the copy of a copy. The characters seem to have been executed by a Greek engraver, and to have been left unfinished, so that the S resembles a Greek gamma, and the A a lambda. The following is a specimen of the characters, as nearly as they can be represented by printed types.

ETΓEMPERPRɅECEPTORMETUΓIUΓTIΓΓI
MUΓOFFICIORUMΙNUENITUREΓΓEMODE
RATORPLɅCEΤΓIQUIΓCONTRɅFORMAM
ΓTATUTIΗUIUΓCONUIXUΓFUERITɅUDE
NTIɅCɅPITɅLIPERICULOΓUBICIETUR

Et semper præceptor metus justissimus invenitur esse moderator. Placet si quis contra formam statuti hujus convictus fuerit audentia capitali periculo subjicietur.

The following is the list of provisions with their prices. It is very possible that Mr. W. Bankes may have procured a more complete copy of the Inscription, and a longer list.

It should be observed that the denomination of coin, here expressed by an asterisk, is in the original denoted by the usual sign of the denarius, namely X with a transverse line, or an asterisk with six points. The sign of quantity here expressed by _ƒ_, which nearly resembles the note in the original, is probably _S_ for sextarius, with a transverse line; but it may be worthy of remark, that this note is not commonly found in ancient manuscripts like the asterisk for drachma or denarius.

Conditi ital _ƒ_ unum * viginti quatuor[526]
Apsinthi ital _ƒ_ unum * viginti
Rhosati[527] ital _ƒ_ unum * viginti
Item olei
Olei floris[528] ital _ƒ_ unum * viginti quatuor
Olei sequentis ital _ƒ_ unum * viginti qua....
Olei cibari[529] ital _ƒ_ unum * duodecim
Olei raphanini[530] ital _ƒ_ unum * octo
Aceti ital _ƒ_ unum * sex
Liquaminis[531] primi ital _ƒ_ unum * se......
Liquaminis secundi ital _ƒ_ unum * decem
Salis F M̊[532] unum * centum
Salis conditi[533] italicum _ƒ_ unum * o......

Mellis optimi ital _ƒ_ unum * cu.......
Mellis secundi ital _ƒ_ unum * vig....
Mellis fœnicini[534] ital _ƒ_ unum * octo

Item carnis
Carnis porcinæ ital po[535] unum * duodecim
Carnis bubulæ ital po unum * octo
Carnis caprinæ sive vervecinæ ital po unum * ......
Vulvæ[536] ital po unum * viginti quattuor
Suminis[537] ital po unum * viginti
Ficati[538] optimi ital po unum * sedecim
Laridi optimi ital po unum * sedecim
Pernæ optimæ petasonis sive Menapicæ vel Ceritanæ[539] ital po
unum * viginti
Marsicæ[540] ital po unum * viginti
Adipis recentis ital po unum * duodecim
Axungiæ ital po unum * duodecim
Ungellæ—quattuor et Aqualiculum[541] pretio quo distrahitur
Isicium[542] porcinum unciæ unius * duod....
Isicia bubula ital po unum * decem
Lucanicarum[543] ital po unum * sedecem
Lucanicarum bubularum ital po uno * dec..
Fasionus pastus * ducentis quinquaginta
Fasionus agrestis * centum viginti quinque
Fasia pasta po ... * ducentis
Fasiana non pasta * centum
Anser pastus * ducentis
Anser non pastus * centum

Pullo .... * sexaginta
Perdix .... * triginta
Turtur .. * duodecim
Turtur .. * duodecim
Turdorum .. * sexaginta
Palumb .... * viginti
Columb .... * viginti quattuor
Attagen * viginti
Anas * cuadraginta
Lepus * centum quinquaginta
Cunic(ulus) * quadraginta
.. pe .. viginti
........ quadraginta
........ sedecim
Femina..........
Coturnices n * numero ducentis
Sturni decem * viginti
Aprunæ ital po * sedicim
Cervinæ ital po * duodecim
Dorcis sive capræ vel dammæ ital po duodecim
Porcinæ lactantis * sedicim
Agnus M po .... * duodecim
Hædus[544] M po l * duodecim
Sevi ital po l * sex
Butyri ital po l * sedecim

Item pisces
Piscis aspratilis[545] marini ital po l * viginti quattuor
Piscis secundi ital po l * sedecim
Piscis fluvialis opt. po l * duodecim
Piscis secundi fluvialis ital po l * octo
Piscisalsi ital po l * sex
Ostriæ no centum * centum
Echini no centum * quinquaginta
Echini recentis purgati ital _ƒ_ unum * quadraginta
Echini salsi ital _ƒ_ unum * centum
Sphondili[546] marini no centum * quinquaginta
Sagenici[547] ital po l * duodecim
Sardæ sive Sardinæ po l * sedecim

Item Cardus majores no quinque * decem
Sequentes no decem..............
Intibus optima no decem............
Sequentis no decem..............
Malvæ maximæ no VI............
Malvæ sequentis decem..........
Lactucæ optimæ no V............
Sequentes no decem * quattuor
Coliculi optimi no V * quattuor
Sequentes no X * quattuor
Cumæ[548] optimæ fascem l * quinque
Porri maximi no X * octo
Sequentes no viginti......
Betæ maximæ no V........
Sequentes no X......
Radices maximæ......
Sequentes............
Rapæ maximæ no X......
Sequentes no X..........
Ceparum siccarum........
Cepæ verdes[549]............
Sequentes..............
Capparis..............
Sisinariorum[550] ital........
Cucurbitæ............
Sequentes..............
Melopepones............
Sequentes..............
Pepones..............
Fasiolorum............
Asparagi Hortulani......
Asparagi Agrestes......
Rusci[551]..............
Ciceris................
Fabæ virdes............
Fascioli virdes..........

.... etiam
licitum sit..........
Frumenti K M̊..........
Hordei K M̊ unum *........
Centenum sive sicale[552] K M̊ unum........
Milipisti K M̊ unum * centum
Militegri[553] K M̊ * quinquaginta
Panicii[554] K M̊ * quinquaginta
Speltæ .... K M̊ * centum
Scandulæ[555] sive speltæ K M̊ * triginta
Fabæ fressæ ..... * centum
Fabæ non fressæ[556] * sexanta ....
Lenticlæ ..... * centum
Herviliæ .... * octocenta
Pisæ fractæ ..... * centum
Pisæ non fractæ .... * sexacinta
Ciceris .... * centum
Hervi .... * centum
Avenæ .... * triginta
Fœnigræci .... * centum

.......... scripturæ versuum no centum........
Tabellanioni in scriptura livelli bel tabulæ versibus no
centum..................
Bracario pro excisura et urnatura
Pro birro qualitatis primæ * se............
Pro birro qualitatis secundæ * quadra......
Pro Caracalli majori * viginti
Pro Caracalli minori * viginti
Pro Vracibus * viginti
Pro Udonibus * quattuor
Sarcinatori in beste soubtili replicatoriæ * sex......
Eidem aperturæ cum subsutura sit olosericæ * quinquaginta
Eidem aperturæ cum subsutura subsericæ[557] * triginta
Subsuturæ in beste grossiori * quattuor

NOTE TO PAGE 230.

Sherard copied the following curious inscription in two places at Mylasa:—

ΜΑΥΣΣΩΛΟΣΕΚΑΤΟΜΝΩΤΟΜΒΩΜΟΝΑΝΕΘΗΚΕΝ

Mausolus, who here erects an altar to Hecatomnus, was his eldest son, and his successor in the kingdom of Caria. Mausolus married his eldest sister Artemisia, who on his death built the celebrated sepulchre at Halicarnassus called Mausoleum. According to Pliny, Mausolus died in the second year of the 106th Olympiad, or before Christ 355.[558] He was succeeded in the regal authority by Artemisia, according to a custom which Arrian observes to have been not uncommon in Asia[559]. Artemisia died before the monument of Mausolus was finished, and was succeeded by Hydrieus the second son of Hecatomnus, and he by his widow and sister Ada. Ada was expelled from Halicarnassus by her brother Pixodarus, the third son of Hecatomnus; who submitted to the Persians, and was succeeded by the Persian satrap Orontobates, who had married his daughter. It was from this Persian that Alexander took Halicarnassus, after an obstinate defence, in the year B.C. 334, when he restored the kingdom of Caria to Ada; who, on being expelled from the sovereignty by her brother, had remained in possession of Alinda[560].

The reduplication of the sigma in Μαύσσωλος is found also in other proper names of this period of time. The conversion of N before B into M, was in conformity with a pronunciation which has continued to the present day. Other conversions of a similar kind are often found in inscriptions: see some examples in the Inscriptiones Antiquæ of Chishull and of Chandler.

NOTE TO PAGE 248.

The following are the two inscriptions mentioned in the text as containing the name of Tralles, and as having been copied by Sherard at Ghiuzél Hissár.

I.

... ΣΤΗΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΓΕΡΟΥ-
-ΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΦΙΛΟΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΙ
ΝΕΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΕΝ ΤΡΑΛΛΕΣΙ
ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙ ΕΤΕΙΜΗΣΑΝ ΤΙΒ
ΚΛ ΠΑΝΥΧΟΝ ΕΥΤΥΧΟΝ
ΚΟΙΒΙΛΟΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΗΣΑΝ-
-ΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΝΥΚΤΕΡΙΝΗΝ ΣΤΡΑ-
-ΤΗΓΙΑΝ ΔΕΚΑΠΡΩΤΕΥΣΑΝ-
-ΤΑ ΑΡΓΥΡΟΤΑΜΙΕΥΣΑΝΤΑ
ΕΚΔΑΝΕΙΣΑΝΤΑ ΚΟΥΡΑΤΟ-
-ΡΕΙΣΑΝΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ
ΣΕΙΤΩΝΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΑΠΟ ΑΙΓΥ-
-ΠΤΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΕΡΓΟΝ ΠΟΙΗΣΑΝ-
-ΤΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΣΕΙΤΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΝΤΑ
ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΝ ΧΒΦΚΖ ΝΕ-
-ΟΠΟΙΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΗΣΑΝ-
-ΤΑ ΑΓΟΡΑΝΟΜΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΦΙΛΟ-
ΤΕΙΜΩΣ ΑΝΑΘΕΝΤΑ ΔΕ ΕΚ ΤΩΝ
ΙΔΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΟΨΑΡΙΟ-
-ΠΩΛΕΙ ΜΑΡΜΑΡΙΝΑΣ ΤΡΑΠΕ-
-ΖΑ. ΙΒ Σ.. ΤΑΙΣ ΒΑΣΕΣΙΝ Β
Π. ΤΙΤΙΟΣ ΜΗΟΥΒΙΑΝΟΣ Κ.
-ΛΩΝ ΤΟΝ ΕΑΥΤΟΝ ΦΙΛΟΝ

II.

ΜΑΡΚΟΝ ΝΩΝΙΟΝ ΕΥΤΥΧΗ
ΤΟΝ ΑΞΙΟΛΟΓΩΤΑΤΟΝ
ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΑ
ΒΟΥΛΗΣ ΔΗΜΟΥ
ΣΕΙΤΩΝΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΕΙΡΗΝΑΡΧΗ-
-ΣΑΝΤΑ ΣΤΡΑΤΗΓΗΣΑΝΤΑ
ΔΕΚΑΠΡΩΤΕΥΣΑΝΤΑ ΚΑΙ
ΔΙ ΟΛΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΕΤΟΥΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ΜΟΝΟΝ ΦΙΛΟΤΕΙΜΩΣ
ΑΓΟΡΑΝΟΜΗΣΑΝΤΑ
ΚΑΙ ΘΕΝΤΑ ΕΛΑΙΟΥ
ΗΜΕΡΑΣ ΠΕΝΤΕ
Η ΛΑΜΠΡΟΤΑΤΗ ΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩΝ
ΤΡΑΛΛΙΑΝΩΝ ΠΟΛΙΣ
ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΙΔΙΩΝ ΠΡΟΣΟΔΩΝ
ΠΡΟΝΟΗΣΑΜΕΝΩΝ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΣΤΑ-
-ΣΕΩΣ ΤΗΣ ΤΙΜΗΣ Μ ΑΥΡ ΛΗΤΟΙΔΟΥ
ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΟΥ ΧΡΥΣΟΦΟΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ
Μ ΑΥΡ ΤΡΟΦΙΜΟΥ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΩΣ.

NOTE TO PAGE 253.

In the annexed plate are plans, on a small scale, of the theatre and palæstra of Hierapolis, from the drawings of Mr. Cockerell. I know of only two other palæstræ, or gymnasia[561], in a state of preservation sufficient to give any useful information on the subject of these buildings, whose spacious chambers and massy walls show the importance which was attached to them by the ancients.

THE PALÆSTRA OF HIERAPOLIS.]

Near the mineral sources which rise in the centre of the site of Hierapolis, Mr. Cockerell observed the Plutonium or mephitic cavern, which eluded the search of Pococke and of Chandler. Dio accurately remarks that it was situated below the theatre, Strabo says that it was fatal to oxen placed within its influence, and both he and Dio assert that they exposed birds to it, which fell dead immediately. Mr. C. found several small birds lying dead near the grotto; and though he tried its effects on a fowl for a whole day without any result, he was assured by the inhabitants that it was sometimes fatal to their sheep and oxen, but that it was not always equally dangerous. The ancient authors who have mentioned this Plutonium are Strabo (p. 629.), Pliny (l. 2. c. 95.), Dion Cassius (l. 68. c. 27.), Apuleius (de Mundo), Ammianus (l. 23. c. 6.), and Damascius (ap. Photii Bibl. p. 1054.)

NOTE TO PAGE 259.

Pliny (l. 36. c. 21.) says, the temple of Ephesus was built “in solo palustri ne terræ motus sentiret aut hiatus timeret.”

NOTE TO PAGE 265.

Mr. Cockerell has been so kind as to furnish me with the following note on the antiquities of Sardes:—

“Sardes was magnificently situated on one of the roots of Mount
Tmolus, which commands an extensive view to the northward over
the valley of the Hermus, and the country beyond it. To the south
of the city, in a small plain watered by the Pactolus, stood the
temple, built of coarse whitish marble. The western front was on
the bank of the river; the eastern under the impending heights of
the Acropolis.

“Two columns of the exterior order of the east front, and one
column of the portico of the pronaus, are still standing, with
their capitals: the two former still support the stone of the
architrave, which stretched from the centre of one column to
the centre of the other. The columns are buried nearly to half
their height in the soil, which has accumulated in the valley
since their erection; chiefly, it is probable, by the destruction
of the hill of the Acropolis, which is continually crumbling,
and which presents a most rugged and fantastic outline. On the
edges of its summit the remains of the ancient walls are still
observable in many places. I was told that, four years ago, three
other columns of the temple were still standing, and that they
were thrown down by the Turks, for the sake of the gold which
they expected to find in the joints[562].

“Besides the three standing columns which I have mentioned,
there are truncated portions of four others belonging to the
eastern front, and of one belonging to the portico of the
pronaus; together with a part of the wall of the cella. When it
is considered that these remains are 25 feet above the pavement,
it cannot be doubted that an excavation would expose the greater
part of the building: even now, however, there is sufficient
above the soil to give an idea of the dimensions of the temple,
and to show that it was one of the most magnificent in Greece;
for though in extent it was inferior to the temples of Juno at
Samus, and of Apollo at Branchidæ, the proportions of the order
are at least equal to those of the former, and exceed those of
the latter. The following plan and elevation will illustrate what
I have just stated: the shading expresses those parts which still
remain in their places above the soil.

“The dimensions are as follow:—

Diameter of the exterior columns, at about 35 feet F. In.
below the capital 6 4½
Diameter of the exterior columns under the capital 5 6¼
Diameter of interior columns under the capital 6 0¾
Diameter of the same under the caps 5 3

“The height of the entire column has been assumed from the
proportions of those at Branchidæ, Miletus, &c. The stone A must
have weighed 25 tons, and that above the centre intercolumnium
was still larger.

“The capital, appeared to me to surpass any specimen of the Ionic
I had seen in perfection of design and execution. I suppose the
temple to have been an octastyle dipterus, with seventeen columns
in the flanks; though in regard to the number in the flanks, I
am more guided by the proportion of the other dipteral temples
of the Ionic order than by any proof that can be derived from
the ruins in their present state. The gradual diminution of the
intercolumnia from the centre of the front to the angles, is
remarkable, and, I believe, without any other example. The larger
intercolumnium in the centre is indeed found in the temple of
Diana at Magnesia; and is recommended by Vitruvius lib. iii.
c. 11: the contraction of the intercolumnia, in the flanks,
is exemplified in the temple of Samus. The smaller diameter
of the interior columns is not uncommon in Greek temples: the
capitals resembled those of the exterior order. The flutings are
not continued in any of the columns below the capital; which I
conceive to be a proof that this temple, like that of Apollo
Didymeus, was never finished.

“The great height of the architrave, the peculiar style of the
design and workmanship, and the difference of intercolumnia in
the faces and in the flanks of the peristyle, I cannot but regard
as tokens of high antiquity; and perhaps we may consider as no
less so the vast size of the stones employed in the architrave;
and the circumstance of their being single stones, whereas in
the temple of Didyma and in the Parthenon there were two blocks
in the same situation[563]. In subsequent times the durability
ensured by this massive mode of construction was sacrificed for
appearances, and for a more easy result.

“The merit of the very ancient architects in overcoming such
a difficulty, and the great expense incurred by it, may be
illustrated by the practical observation, that the price of the
cubic foot of stone is doubled and trebled, according to size,
as well in the quarrying as in the carriage and setting. Modern
architecture has indeed succeeded in producing buildings of
immense bulk, but they cannot be kept together without continued
repair; and the triumph is little more than that of balancing a
skeleton on its legs. In some late works only, such as the recent
artificial docks and basins, have we imitated the solidity of the
ancients.

“On the north side of the Acropolis of Sardes, overlooking the
valley of the Hermus, is a theatre, attached to a stadium: in
the manner of which we find several examples in Asia Minor. The
stadium is near 1000 feet in length, the theatre near 400 in
diameter.”

The subjoined plate is intended to show the relative proportions of the principal temples of Asia Minor, as well with each other as with the four most celebrated temples of European Greece. All these plans, except the first, are formed from observations made by skilful architects, on the existing ruins of the buildings.

1. _Temple of Diana at Ephesus._—Vitruvius mentions this building as an example of the class of temples which he calls dipterus; and one of the characters of which, according to him, is, that of having eight columns in front. His words, however, are ambiguous, and I am disposed to think that he alludes, not to the temple which existed in his time, but to the original work of Chersiphron of Cnossus, and his son Metagenes, who were cotemporaries of Theodorus and Rhœcus, the architects of the Heræum of Samus; and whose building, after having been enlarged by another architect, was destroyed by fire in the year B.C. 356: for it was not until then that the edifice was begun, which, after 220 years employed in its construction, was in perfection in the time of the Roman empire; when it was noticed by Strabo, Pliny, and Vitruvius[564]. In any case, as the expression of Vitruvius forms part of his absurd classification of temples[565], it deserves not much weight in contradiction to the description of the building by Pliny, whose principal data will be found (on the supposition that the temple was decastyle) to agree in a remarkable manner with each other, as well as with some other great examples of the Ionic order. Pliny relates that the temple was 220 feet in front, and 425 long, and that the diameter of the columns was one eighth of the height, which was 60 feet. The columns, therefore, were 7½ feet in diameter; and the intercolumnia of the front, supposing them to have been all equal, were 16 feet, or only 9 inches less than the eustyle proportion of Vitruvius; which is 2¼ times the diameter of the column.

It has been thought that the side of this temple, having been less than double the front, the number of columns on the sides must also have been less than double the number in the fronts. But this is by no means a necessary consequence; on the contrary, we find that in the temples of Samus and Branchidæ, both of which had one column more in the flank than in the front, the side is less than double the front; and that the breadth exceeds half the length, even in a greater proportion than it did, according to the numbers of Pliny, in the temple of Ephesus. There is no reason, therefore, why the Ephesian temple, like the temples of the same order, which most nearly approached it in magnitude, namely those of Samus and Branchidæ, should not have had 21 columns in the sides. In regard to its total number of columns, which in our copies of Pliny is 127, there is evidently some error, as the number could not have been uneven. It is very possible that the early copiers of Pliny made the common oversight of omitting an unit, writing cxxvii. instead of cxxviii.; for such would have been the number if we suppose that there was a triple row of columns before the vestibule of the cell in front, as in the temples of Samus and Sardes, and also at the opposite end, as in the Olympium of Athens; together with four columns between the Antæ at either end of the cella, as the general construction of Greek temples renders highly probable.

As it cannot be certain whether Pliny refers to the Greek or Roman foot in this example, I have drawn the little plan in the plate by the same scale of English feet used for the other figures. The English foot being somewhat greater than the Roman, and smaller than the Greek, the error must be very trifling, whether Pliny used the Greek or Roman.

2. _Temple of Juno at Samus._—Herodotus has prepared us for the magnificence of this building. He names it, together with the temple of Ephesus, as the most admirable of all the works of the Grecians; and in another place he calls it the largest temple of which he has any knowledge[566]. Hence it appears that the Heræum of Samus was larger than the Artemisium of Ephesus as the latter existed in the time of Herodotus.

Although only one column of the Heræum deprived of its capital is now standing, its plan was ascertained by Mr. Bedford, one of the architects who accompanied Sir William Gell in the second Asiatic Mission of the Dilettanti. The length was 346 feet, the breadth 189. It was a decastylus dipterus, had 10 columns in front, 21 on the sides, a triple row in the pronaus, and a double row of four columns between the antæ at the entrance of the cella in front. The columns were about 7 feet in diameter at the bottom of the shaft, and about 60 feet high. The intercolumniation in the two fronts was 14 feet, in the flank only 10½ feet, and in the flank of the pronaus something still less. There was no appearance of fluting in the columns. The material was the white and blueish-gray marble of the island.

3. _Temple of Apollo Didymeus at Branchidæ in the Milesia._—Of this building there remain two columns with the architrave, still standing: the remainder is an immense mass of ruin. The proportions of the order are more slender than those of Samus and Sardes, their height being 63 feet, with a diameter of 6½ feet, at the base of the shaft. The architrave is lower, and the building much less ancient than those two temples. It was a decastylus dipterus, with 21 columns in the flanks, and 4 between the antæ of the pronaus: in all 112. The fluting of the columns is finished only in the exterior order; in the interior it exists only under the capital[567]. The material of the temple is white marble—in some parts blueish.

4. _Temple of Cybebe at Sardes._—Of this the foregoing note of Mr. Cockerell, the only person who has measured it with care, has furnished the reader with all that is known. The plan is constructed on the supposition, not yet sufficiently proved, that it had 17 columns on the sides, and not more than a double row at the back of the cella. Of the other particulars Mr. C.’s measurements leave no doubt.

5. _The Temple of Artemis Leucophryene_—which is now a mere heap of ruins, among other remains of the city of Magnesia on the Mæander. Its material is white marble, not of the purest kind. The length is 198 feet, the breadth 106; measured, as usual, on the upper step of the stylobate. There were 8 columns in the fronts and 15 in the sides, measuring 4 feet 8 inches in diameter at the bottom of the shaft. The number of columns was only 56; this temple being the example which Vitruvius has given of the pseudodipterus, a mode of construction by which 38 columns were saved, and a larger space was left for the reception of the people in the peristyle. The central intercolumnium of the temple of Magnesia is found to be three-fourths of a diameter greater than the other intercolumnia; and we are informed by Vitruvius that such was exactly the proportion of the central intercolumnium to the others in the eustylus, a disposition so called as being the most harmonious mode of proportioning the diameters to the intercolumnia. The other intercolumnia, however, of the temple of Magnesia do not bear so large a proportion to the diameter of the column, as the eustylus required.—Vitruvius informs us that Hermogenes of Alabanda, the architect of the temple of Magnesia, was the inventor both of the Pseudodipterus and Eustylus; but in regard to the former at least, his merit seems not to have been very great, as we now find from the observations of two architects, Messrs. Harris and Angell, who have lately resided six months at Selinus in Sicily for the purpose of examining the magnificent ruins at that place, which are much more ancient than the time of Hermogenes, that the great temple of Jupiter as well as one of the hexastyles was constructed on the principles of the pseudodipterus.