ARCHITECTURE. 49 
The magnificent temple of Diana in Magnesia (pl. 12, jig. 7, elevation ; 
Jig. 8, ground plan), which, according to Strabo, was the largest of all tem- 
ples in Asia except the temple of Ephesus, was of the Ionic order, with 
8 columns in front and 15 at the sides. No trace of it is left, and 
our illustrations are derived from the descriptions of Strabo and Vitru- 
vius. 
Of the temple of Diana at Ephesus, renowned as the most exquisite build- 
ing in Asia, only a few ruins of the substructure are left. From ancient 
descriptions we have gleaned the details given in our illustrations (pl. 12, 
Jig. 1, elevation; jig. 2, plan). The temple was destroyed five different 
times and as often rebuilt. After the fifth destruction the Greeks resolved 
to erect the costly building of which we here give the outline. The plans 
were made by Ctesiphon of Gnossus on the island of Crete, who here first 
introduced the Ionic order, whose capital he had probably seen in the tem- 
ple of Chalembaram in India. The construction was commenced by Theo- 
dorus, towards the end of the seventh century 8B. c., who made a firm ground 
by piles, the natural ground being swampy and unsafe. After the death of 
Ctesiphon, the building was continued consecutively by Melagenes, Deme- 
trius, and Pzonius, who finally completed it 480 z.c., the whole work 
having occupied 220 years. According to Vitruvius the temple was a dip- 
teros with 8 columns in front; 425 feet long, by 220 feet wide, and hype- 
thral. It had 127 columns, donations of the Asiatic kings, the largest of 
which were 60 feet high, by 73 feet in diameter. On the day when Alex- 
ander was born Herostratus set fire to the temple, of which, however, only 
the cedar roof could be consumed; but the heat converted the marble 
columns in the cella into lime. Fourteen years later the restoration was 
commenced, about the manner of which there is a great diversity of opinion 
among archeologists. From the reports of Vitruvius it would appear that 
the old plan was followed, and as he names a group of 36 columns which 
are also mentioned by Pliny, some authors are of opinion that these must 
have been in the cella, forming two double rows of 9 pairs or 18 columns 
on either side. This would leave 91 for the outside. Now Vitruvius gives 
8 columns at the front and 17 at the sides, which makes 84, the temple 
being a dipteros; then there are mentioned 4 in the pronaos and 2 in the 
posticum, making the number of the columns outside the cella 90; and as 
the last single column can be assigned to no special place, archeologists sur- 
mise that there was a mistake in the ancient manuscripts, and that the number 
of columns in the building was written CX X VIL. by mistake for CX XVI. 
We cannot admit the probability of such a conclusion, as it is based upon 
the presumption that two authors have made the same error. The 
view of the distinguished archeologist, Luigi Canina, appears much more 
likely, and from his disposition of the columns our drawing has been made. 
According to him the new temple had 10 columns in front, 19 at the sides, 
4 both in the pronaos and posticum, 8 on either side of the cella, with 3 at 
the lower end behind the sanctuary between them, which brings in exactly 
127 columns, without violating any rule of architecture. 
The northern barbarians under Rapsa completely destroyed this mag- 
ICONOGRAPHIC ENCYCLOPZDIA.—VOL, IY. = AQ 
