(PLATE 15)
E XACTLY half a kilometre northwest of the datum point of the Corinthian excavations (the southwest corner of the well-known archaic temple of Apollo), the road which witnessed the daily passage of American excavators during the seasons of 1915 and 1916 (B. H. Hill and the writer) and 1928 to 1931 (the late T. Leslie Shear and his staff), from the city plateau to the lower plain of the great North Cemetery, dips suddenly through a depression in the high bluffs.1 At this point, just to the left of the road, stands a line of blocks (Plate 15) forming part of the remains of a large fortified redoubt, laid out after the Venetian seizure of the town in 1687, to secure the head of a military road leading up from the Corinthian Gulf.2 And just to the right of the road are three nondescript circular column bases on square plinths in situ, likewise in an east-to-west line, enframed at north and south by parallel wall foundations possibly belonging to the " old gymnasium " mentioned by Pausanias (II, 4, 5).3 The northern of these walls had been incorporated in the same Venetian fortification, and thus determined the line of the westward prolongation containing the blocks with which we are concerned.4
Most of the early travelers who visited Corinth after the Venetian occupation, such as Stuart and Revett, LeRoy, and Chandler, and even most of those of later times such as Dodwell, Gell, Blouet, and Beule, did not allude to these remains. The first to note them was Clarke who arrived in 1801 (Travels in Various Countries, 1814, VI, pp. 547, 552). Next came Leake, here in 1806, reporting the facts as follows:
On the brow of the cliffs . . . I remarked the foundations of a large building, and some fragments of Doric columns, sufficient, I think, to prove that in this spot anciently stood another of the principal edifices of Grecian Corinth. It was apparently a temple of the usual plan, and of larger dimensions than that to which the extant columns [of the temple of Apollo] belonged, for some fragments of shafts, probably not from the lowest part of the shaft, are six feet three inches [1.905 m.] in diameter, and the chord of the fluting is twelve inches [0.305 m.]. It seems therefore to have been a hexastyle about seventy-five feet [22.86 m.] in breadth.
1 See the sketch plan of the Corinth excavations in 1896 (A.J.A., I, 1897, pl. 14; repeated in Corinth: I, Introduction, Topography, Architecture, 1932, p. 7, fig. 3). Also the general plan by Mazarakis, in Skias, IIpaKTtKa, 1906, pl. E' (reproduced in simplified form in Corinth, I, p. 79, fig. 46).
2 The original plans of these forts exist in the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice, and photographs of them were secured by the late James M. Paton for the Corinth archives. See also Carpenter and Bon, Corinth, III, 2, The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town, 1936, pp. 153-154, 268-269, figs. 96-97, 219.
8 Carpenter, Guide to the Excavations of Ancient Corinth, 2nd ed., 1933, p. 87.
4 Drpfeld, excavating in 1886 (see below), assumed that the western prolongation actually formed part of the north wall enclosing the column bases; he regarded the remains as belonging to a Roman building or a Byzantine church.
5 Leake, Travels in the Morea, 1830, III, pp. 247-248. In Peloponnesiaca, 1846, pp. 393-395, he attempted to justify his attribution of these remains to the temple of Apollo at greater length.
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
LARGEST TEMPLE IN PELOPONNESOS
Having assigned the standing temple to Athena Chalinitis, Leake identified these remains in turn as belonging to the temple of Apollo, assuming that it stood at the left of the road leading out toward Sikyon. Pouqueville and Vischer made similar observations; and Curtius followed Leake without question: 6
Die Saulentriimmer bezeugen ein ansehnliches Tempelgebaude und der Apollotempel war seit alter Zeit der heilige Mittelpunkt der stadtischen Gemeinde.
The remains attracted the attention of Dorpfeld during his excavation of the temple of Apollo in 1886, and to him we owe the most important published account of the items which form the subject of this paper:7
Durch die Ausgrabung wurde aber weiter constatirt, dass die dorische Saiulentrommel, welche schon Leake erwahnt, in die n6rdlichste Mauer dieses Bauwerks eingebaut ist, und dass in derselben Mauer noch ein Stuck eines grossen dorischen Architravs steckt.
Saule und Architrav geh6ren nach ihren Dimensionen und ihrem Material einem alten dorischen Tempel an, und zwar einem Bau, der noch betriichtlich gr6sser war als der bisher allein bekannte Tempel und dem gr6ssten Tempel im Peloponnes, dem Zeustempel in Olympia, an Gr6sse gleich kam. Der gefundene Architrav aus Poros, an welchem noch ein Theil der Tropfenleiste erhalten ist, hat eine H6he von 1.75 m., ist also genau so hoch wie der Architrav des olympischen Tempels. Wo dieser grosse dorische Tempel gestanden hat, ist nicht zu bestimmen, da keine alten Fundamente gefunden sind. Wahrscheinlich stand er nicht weit von dem spateren Bau, in welchen einige seine Steine vermauert sind.
Ist diese Annahme richtig, so kann der grosse alte Tempel nach des Pausanias Beschreibung kaum etwas anderes als der Apollotempel sein, der an der Strasse, welche von der Agora nach dem sikyonischen Thore fuhrte, zur Rechten lag. Als Erbauungszeit des Tempels diirfen wir auf Grund der vorhandenen Bauglieder dieselbe Epoche annehmen, in welcher auch der noch aufrecht stehende Tempel erbaut ist.
Frazer, combining the observations of Leake and Dorpfeld, concluded as follows: 8 In the most northerly of the three walls is the drum of a Doric column and also a fragment of a large Doric architrave. These must have formed part of a large Doric temple, larger probably than the one of which the seven columns are standing. For the diameter of the drum (which Leake thought not to be from the lowest part of the shaft) measures 6 ft. 3 in.
[1.905 m.], and the architrave is exactly the height of the architrave of the great temple of Zeus at Olympia. Dr. D6rpfeld thinks that the temple in question must have stood not far from the later building in which the fragments are found; and he, like Leake, con- jectures that the temple was no other than the temple of Apollo described by Pausanias.
While Frazer was writing, during the first of the American campaigns at Corinth in 1896 trial trenches (I and II) were sunk just to the west of the " several column drums " which had attracted Dorpfeld. The first of these uncovered thirty-five pieces of Corinthian marble fluted column shafts laid on their sides to form part of the Venetian redoubt, while the second, still farther northwest, uncovered fourteen early rock-cut graves with skeletons and unpainted pottery.9 The " column drums " them-
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
W. B. DINSMOOR
A brief examination of the " column drums," which involved some amount of clearing, was made by the writer in 1911 (June 30), though no publication resulted.10 Thus Fowler, in his description of Corinth and the Corinthia, discusses our " drums"
only briefly: 1
One of these is part of a fluted Doric column more than 1.50 m. in diameter, the other a great block, possibly from an architrave. The comers of this are rounded, which indicates that it was rolled to the spot from a considerable distance; its present position is, therefore, no indication of the position of the building to which it originally belonged.
The more recognizable of these pieces is a great column " drum," lying on its side (Plate 15, at right), the maximum preserved height (between beds) being 1.15 m.
As a matter of fact, neither of the two beds, bottom or top, is original; for the upper end is a natural break, while the lower end of the drum (forming part of the exposed north face of the Venetian wall) presents a wavy surface which is the result of Venetian sawing, done in order to make the block more portable when it was brought to its present position.12 In order to bed the block more firmly in the wall, moreover, one side was split off after it arrived on the present site; thus of the twenty original flutes only thirteen now remain. The side of an inscribed square (the chord of five flutes) being 1.285 m. at the present sawn bottom (less at the broken top), we may estimate the full diameter at this level as 1.817 m. From the fact that the upper end is broken, the lower end sawn, neither showing an original bed surface though the remaining height is 1.15 m., it is obvious either that the " drum " was part of a mono- lithic shaft like those of the temple of Apollo at Corinth, or that it came from a column shaft built up with comparatively few tall drums like those of the colossal temple of Apollo (" GT ") at Selinus in Sicily. The dimensions, furthermore, show that it came from a structure considerably larger in scale than the temple of Apollo, of which the maximum column diameter (on the fronts) is 1.744 m., diminishing to 1.295 m. at the top, while on the flanks the diameters are only 1.645 m. at the bottom and 1.232 m.
at the top. We may conclude, therefore, that the height of the columns greatly exceeded that of 7.24 m. in the temple of Apollo.13
The shaft had twenty flutes, separated apparently by sharp arrises (now badly worn) as in the temple of Apollo. The width of each flute, at the present bottom of the " drum," is 0.284 m. measured on the chord or 0.2855 m. as calculated on the arc 10 The photographs and notebook sketches made at this time were deposited in the archive of the Corinthian excavations and have proved to be inaccessible for the purposes of this article.
Plate 15 has been reproduced, therefore, from a new photograph supplied through the kindness of Professor David M. Robinson. Unfortunately, during the thirty-five years since the excavation, the lower portions of the blocks have now (1946) been concealed by the accumulation of earth.
' Corinth, I, 1932, pp. 92-93.
12 This was pointed out to me by B. H. Hill during my initiation at Corinth.
13 I employ the dimensions obtained in my survey of 1914, differing slightly from those of Stillwell (Corinth, I, pl. IX), who gives 1.72 m. and 1.63 m. at the bottom and 1.295 m. and 1.23 m.
at the top; we concur as to height.
106
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
LARGEST TEMPLE IN PELOPONNESOS
of the circumference, and the depth of the flute is 0.058 m. measured from the full circumference, the diameter within the flutes being 1.701 m. at this point. Each flute is a circular arc, evidently struck with a radius of 0.2025 m. at this particular level, and so subtended an angle of 89? 1', slightly less than a right angle; presumably it was intended to be 88? 51', so that the chord and radius maintained a fixed ratio of 7: 5 from bottom to top.14 No traces of the original stucco are perceptible; the few patches now remaining are evidently cement of the epoch of the Venetian fortifications.
An interesting constructive detail is the ancient repair of a broken arris, just at the point where the back of the drum was split off by the Venetians: the defective arris had been cut out by the original builders for a height of 0.195 m. and to a depth of 0.0335 m., so that the width of the cutting, and thus of the missing inserted piece, was 0.092 m.
The second prominent block, farther to the west (Plate 15, at left), while shaped superficially like a column drum, is really a portion of an epistyle lying on its left end joint, with its original face inward toward the south and its top to the west, so that the well-finished rear joint surface is now flush with the north face of the fortification wall. Its deceptive appearance is due to the fact that the Venetians, in order to roll it conveniently to its present position, incised on the original back (the present north face) a circle about 1.85 m. in diameter, by means of a groove 0.02 m. wide and 0.01 m.
deep. In accordance with this circle they roughly rounded off the corners; but since the corners at the left joint retained something of their original squareness this joint was utilized for bedding the " drum" more firmly in the wall. The original height of the epistyle is preserved, 1.751 m. (as compared with 1.327 m. in the temple of Apollo); and the width of the soffit is 0.965 m. (the thickness at some distance above the soffit in the hollowed joint being 0.955 m.), so that if doubled we obtain an original soffit width of 1.930 m. (as compared with 1.62 m. and 1.55 m. on front and flank in the temple of Apollo). The maximum length is now 1.71 m., giving no idea of the original span. On the present south face (the original exposed face) are still visible the hacked outlines of the taenia and half regula nearest the joint; the height of the taenia is 0.122 m. and that of the regula 0.120 m., the two being practically equal (as compared with 0.117m. and 0.108m., respectively, in the temple of Apollo). 15 The projections are unknown as a result of the later recutting; and no traces of the guttae remain. Most significant is the length of the half regula, 0.587 m.; it is thus certain that the width of the triglyph was 1.174m. (as compared with 0.835 m. and 0.747 m. on front and flank in the temple of Apollo). All these dimensions prove that
14 I. e., with the chord of 0.284 m. at this level the radius of the flute should actually measure 0.20285 m. But of course at the time of erection such radii would have been calculated only at the bottom and top of the shaft.
15I again employ my measurements; Stillwell gives 0.115 m. for each in the case of the temple of Apollo.
107
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
108 W. B. DINSMOOR
the epistyle, like the piece of column shaft, belonged to a much larger building than the standing archaic temple.
Among the technical details of the epistyle the most remarkable are the two great lewis holes in the top, placed lengthwise parallel to the face of the epistyle, each 0.26/0.28 m. in length, 0.11 m. in width, and 0.59m. in depth. The centers of these holes are 0.61 m. and 1.36 m. from the left end joint; that toward the left joint widens at the bottom toward the left, the other in the opposite direction. It is apparent that the epistyle block must have been hoisted by four lewises working simultaneously, two at each end of the block, probably with each pair suspended from a single rope.
Also on the top of the epistyle are pry holes, about 0.05 X 0.02 m. in plan and 0.04 m.
deep, placed with their lengths at right angles to the face of the epistyle; there are two of these holes, one near the front and one near the back, centered at or barely to the left of the end of the half regula, and so evidently used for prying the rebated triglyph block into place from the right. No traces of clamps remain, because of the rounded corner cut by the Venetians (Fig. 1).
7 , 9
111fW .**!.' **.'**^/^W\
... * '_'' '' . ,
l 17 .* '
174 ,8\
I . .i. - , . 1
1 ,1i4 . . . :
.: , ,
: '. .,... %'.':. */.
'.'.'. , * .':* '
.'- -* '
Fig. 1. Great Epistyle Block at Corinth
So much for the description of the two pieces; we now turn to their interpretation.
In the first place, it is hardly possible to assume that they came from different buildings; their likeness in material, exceptional size, and uniformity of treatment
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
LARGEST TEMPLE IN PELOPONNESOS
by the Venetians, all suggest a common source, a single colossal building which can hardly have been anything but a temple.
For the purpose of ascertaining the main dimensions, the proportions, and the probable date of the temple to which these remains belonged, we may tabulate some comparable dimensions of a few other temples of various periods, confining our attention to those of large size in order to avoid minor complications of scale, as follows: 1
TABLE OF Axial column spacing Column diameter Triglyph width Epistyle
DIMENSIONS Front Flank Front Flank Front Flank height
a b c d e f g
Corinth, Apollo 4.028 m. 3.744 m. 1.744 m. 1.645 m. 0.835 m. 0.747 m. 1.327 m.
Athens, Peisistratid 4.04 m. 3.84 m. 1.63 m. 1.55 m. 0.822 m. 0.753 m. 1.275 m.
Delphi, Old Apollo 4.106 m. 4.002 m. 1.80 m. 1.72 m. 0.8465 m. 0.8185 m. 1.415 m.
" Alcmaeonid 4.124 m. " 1.72 m. " 0.8905 m.
Olympia, Zeus 5.2265 m. 5.221 m. 2.25 m. 2.21 m. 1.060 m. 1.060 m. 1.767 m.
Athens, Parthenon 4.2965 m. 4.2915 m. 1.905 m. 1.905 m. 0.844 m. 0.844 m. 1.351 m.
Nemea, Zeus 3.750 m. 3.746 m. 1.63 m. 1.63 m. 0.733 m. 0.733 m. 1.025 m.
The ideal proportion for the triglyph width was two-thirds of the metope and consequently one-fifth of the axial spacing of the columns. Applying this rule to the triglyph width of 1.174 m., we should obtain a column spacing of 5.870 m. Actually, however, we find over the years considerable variation from the ratio 1: 5. Our table yields the following (e: a and f: b) : 1: 4.824 and 1:5.012 on front and flank in the temple of Apollo at Corinth; 1: 4.915 and 1: 5.100 on front and flank in the Peisistratid temple at Athens; 1: 4.851 on the west front, 1: 4.632 on the east front, and 1: 4.889 on the flank at Delphi; 1: 4.931 and 1: 4.925 on front and flank at Olympia; 1: 5.091 and 1: 5.085 on front and flank in the Parthenon; and 1: 5.116 and 1: 5.111 on front and flank at Nemea. It is apparent that, on these analogies, the axial spacing in our Corinthian temple might have ranged anywhere between 5.438 m. (given by east front ratio 1: 4.632 at Delphi) and 6.006 m. (given by front ratio 1: 5.116 at Nemea).
The width of the triglyph also bore a fairly recognizable relation to the lower column diameter, one being approximately half of the other; but here again we find considerable variation. Our table yields the following ratios (e: c and f: d) : 1: 2.310 and 1: 2.276 on front and flank in the temple of Apollo at Corinth; 1: 1.986 and 1: 2.061 on front and flank in the Peisistratid temple at Athens; 1: 2.126 on the west front, 1: 1.931 on the east front, and 1: 2.101 on the flank at Delphi; 1: 2.123 and
16 The dimensions at Corinth, Delphi, and Nemea and those of the Parthenon are my own measurements and calculations; those of the Peisistratid temple of Athena at Athens and of the temple of Zeus at Olympia are taken from Dorpfeld, with modifications of the column diameters in the former and of the column spacings in the latter.
109
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.211 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:44:16 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
© American School of Classical Studies at Athens For personal use only. License: CC-BY-NC-ND.
W. B. DINSMOOR
1: 2.085 on front and flank at Olympia; 1: 2.257 in the Parthenon; and 1: 2.224 at Nemea. It is apparent that, on these analogies, the lower column diameter in our Corinthian temple might have been anywhere between 2.267 m. (given by east front ratio 1: 1.931 at Delphi) and 2.650 m. (given by Parthenon ratio 1: 2.257).
Comparison of the lower diameters and axial spacings of the columns in other temples yields the following ratios (c: a and d: b): 1: 2.310 and 1: 2.276 on front and flank in the temple of Apollo at Corinth; 1: 2.479 and 1: 2.477 on front and flank in the Peisistratid temple at Athens; 1: 2.281 on the west front, 1: 2.398 on the east front, and 1: 2.327 on the flank at Delphi; 1: 2.323 and 1: 2.362 on front and flank at Olympia; 1: 2.255 and 1: 2.253 on front and flank in the Parthenon; and 1: 2.301 and 1: 2.298 on front and flank at Nemea. If we compare these ratios with the extremes in axial spacing permitted by the triglyph width, applying the largest ratio (1:2.479) to the minimum axial spacing and the smallest ratio (1:2.253) to the maximum axial spacing, the resulting extreme allowances for the lower diameter would be as follows:
minimum 5.438- 2.479- 2.194 m.
maximum 6.006 2.253 = 2.666 m.
And, conversely, if we compare the same ratios with the extremes in diameter per- mitted by the triglyph width, applying the smallest ratio (1: 2.253) to the minimum diameter and the largest ratio (1:2.479) to the maximum diameter, the resulting extreme allowances for the axial spacing would be as follows:
minimum 2.267 X 2.253 - 5.108 m.
maximum 2.650 X 2.479 - 6.569 m.
In other words, the extreme limits for the lower diameter are still 2.267 m. and 2.650 m., and those for the axial spacing 5.438 m. and 6.006 m., as obtained in the foregoing paragraphs.
We now return to the extant column " drum," on which we have measured an actual diameter of 1.817 m., though neither at the bottom nor at the top of the shaft.
If this diameter could be considered as the mean diameter of the entire column, we
If this diameter could be considered as the mean diameter of the entire column, we