Temples, Hellenistic

1 Temples, Hellenistic IOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS The sixth and the early fifth centuries BCE represent a period in which wealthy individual members of the elite – in most cases, tyrants – were responsible for the initiation and part of the funding of huge temple projects, such as those in Samos, Naxos, and Athens. In the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, on the other hand, it was the city as a collective that took care of all its temples. Projects such as the temples for Artemis Aristoboule in Athens, funded by Themistokles, or for Artemis Ephesia in Skillous, funded by Xenophon, were exceptions that merely proved the rule. The attitude to new temple construction took a negative turn after the mid-fourth century BCE. Alexander the Great, for one, demonstrated a marked indifference to temple architecture, since he dedicated only one – the temple to Zeus Olympios in SARDIS (ca. 334 BCE) – in addition to contributing funds for the completion of the temple of Athena Polias in PRIENE, a project that had started shortly after 350. Alexander’s successors seem to have followed in his footsteps. The ATTALIDS dedicated the Meter temple in Mamurt-Kaleh and the Demeter temple in PERGAMON. Both the Macedonian and the Ptolemaic dynastic houses exhibited interest in the sanctuary of the Great Gods in SAMOTHRACE; LYSIMACHOS probably dedicated a temple in Alexandreia Troas shortly after 301, PTOLEMY II PHILADELPHOS dedicated a temple to Herakles in HERAKLEIA PONTICA in 280/79, and ANTIOCHOS IV EPIPHANES rather unsuccessfully continued work on the Athenian Olympieion. All the same, for about three hundred years the number of dynastic temples built is surprisingly low, despite the fact that Hellenistic rulers were funding and dedicating innumerable huge porticoes in both sanctuaries (e.g., Delphi and Delos) and cities (e.g., Athens and Priene). In addition, the newly created cults of the Hellenistic rulers had no significant impact on temple architecture, since only occasionally Figure 1 Floor plan and façade of the temple of Artemis in Magnesia on the Maeander. After Humann, Magnesia am Mäander (1904, 43, fig. 30). were temples erected specifically for the cult of the sovereign. Instead, either Hellenistic rulers were worshipped together with Olympian gods in already existing temples as their synnaoi theoi (gods sharing the same sacred edifice) or the ruler cult would require only the existence of an altar and a priest for the sacrifices The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 6593–6595. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09232 2 (see RULER CULT, GREEK AND HELLENISTIC). The Hellenistic rulers’ baffling lack of interest in new temples is reflected in the predominant forms and sizes of the Hellenistic temples. Large peripteral ones, especially of the Doric order, became rare, and those, such as the temple of Asklepios in Messene or of Poseidon on TENOS, add nothing new to the form and adhere to Classical ideas in an unimaginative manner. Doric temples of the second half of the fourth century have emphasized fronts, created by deepening the pronaos and eliminating the opisthodomos (e.g., the temple of Zeus in NEMEA). In precisely the same period, architects of Ionic temples in Asia Minor appropriated the idea of a deep pronaos, but began to add an opisthodomos to a temple form that had rarely had one before. Pytheos was apparently the architect who brought the Ionic order to perfection; his temple of Athena Polias in Priene is the one sacred building that incorporates a sense of pristine reason in its absolute symmetry. Applying a deep pronaos, Pytheos maintained the accentuated façade that characterized Ionic temples of the previous centuries and ensured the symmetry and aesthetic standards of the entire temple by adding an opisthodomos characteristic of Doric temples. Although Pytheos died before the building was completed, his concept of the Ionic temple came to define the rules of temple architecture in Asia Minor during the Hellenistic period. Most certainly, he was the role model of the most influential Hellenistic architect, HERMOGENES. The temple that Hermogenes created for Artemis Leukophryene in MAGNESIA ON THE MAEANDER stands as the perfect example of Hellenistic temple architecture. Although the building cannot be compared to the mammoth Ionic temples of the Archaic period (such as the Heraion in SAMOS and the Artemision in EPHESOS), it does create an impression of a spacious edifice, since it is conceived as a pseudodipteros. The elimination of the inner colonnade of its pteron generates an ample space between the outer colonnade and the wall of the cella that makes the building appear larger. The pronaos is quite deep and demands two supporting interior columns; nonetheless, the addition of the opisthodomos establishes a sense of symmetry, further enhanced by the fact that not only the central intercolumniation of the façade but also the one at the rear is widened. The Classical ideal of a temple as a sculpture to be experienced from all four sides, which applies mostly to Doric temples, became an important feature in at least some Hellenistic peripteral temples (such as ALABANDA, LESBOS, Magnesia on the Maeander, TEOS, Troas, and Sardis). The Hellenistic period was characterized by experimentation and variation, and its temple architecture certainly reflects this Zeitgeist. From a purely statistical standpoint, the most prominent Hellenistic temple form is the small edifice commonly known as the naiskos with either two columns in antis (the Isis temple on DELOS) or four to six prostyle columns (the Zeus temple in Magnesia on the Maeander). Gargantuan Hellenistic temple projects, such as those in DIDYMA or in Ephesos, do not exemplify the attitude to sacred architecture of the period. In fact, neither project represents a truly original plan, but is rather an architectural commemoration of its Archaic predecessors. Sacred precincts such as the temples of Zeus in DODONA or MEGALOPOLIS that combine a portico with a simple naiskos in a single complex (peristyle sanctuaries) demonstrate the high level of experimentation in the Hellenistic period. Although not the most striking, possibly the most imaginative Hellenistic sacred building is the small temple L in Epidauros, an Ionic prostyle with four columns at the front and one column on each side of its deep pronaos. The twelve three-quarter columns placed along the three walls of the cella are the striking innovation in this otherwise inconspicuous building. By way of architectural illusionism – through a blind colonnade – Hellenistic temple architecture in Epidauros created without much ado the earliest pseudoperipteros, a temple form that later became common among Romans (e.g., the Maison Carré in NEMAUSUS (NÎMES)). This, however, was not the only Hellenistic architectural 3 form appropriated by the Romans, who, though extremely critical of the Hellenistic mode of life and the period’s visual arts, especially sculpture, were deeply influenced by its architecture. The sanctuary of Fortuna Primigenia in PRAENESTE and ultimately the Forum Iulium and the FORUM AUGUSTUM in Rome represent far more extravagant and luxurious versions of Hellenistic peristyle sanctuaries. SEE ALSO: Architecture, Greek; Miletos; Temples, Greek. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Hannestad, L. and Potts, D. (1990) “Temple architecture in the Seleucid kingdom.” In P. Bilde, ed., Religion and religious practice in the Seleucid kingdom: 91–124. Aarhus. Hoepfner, W. (1990) “Bauten und Bedeutung des Hermogenes.” In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur: 1–34. Mainz. Hoepfner, W. (1997) “Hermogenes und Epigonos. Pergamon zur Zeit Attalos I.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 112: 109–48. Knell, H. (1983) “Dorische Ringhallentempel in spät- und nachklassicher Zeit.” Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 98: 203–33. Lauter, H. (1986) Die Architektur des Hellenismus. Darmstadt. Schlikker, F. W. (1940) Hellenistische Vorstellungen von der Schönheit des Bauwerks nach Vitruv. Berlin. Schwandner, W. (1990) “Beobachtungen zur hellenistischen Tempelarchitektur von Pergamon.” In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur: 85–102. Mainz. Winter, F. E. (2006) Studies in Hellenistic architecture. Toronto.