This volume, based on a 2022 conference, is devoted to Hermogenes, one of the most famous Hellenistic architects, and the temples he designed or inspired. The architect is prominently mentioned by the Augustan author Vitruvius in his De Architectura 3.3–9. According to Vitruvius, Hermogenes was the inventor of the pseudodipteral temple design as well as the principle of eustylos in temple architecture. Pseudodipteral temples are buildings in which the surrounding colonnade was constructed at a distance of two intercolumnia. The concept of the eustylos describes what Vitruvius considered the most harmonious spacing between columns, which, according to him, should be 2 and 1/4 times the lower diameter of the column.
In the first chapter, Lothar Haselberger builds on his research into Hermogenes’ role as an inventor.[1] With regard to the concept of the eustylos, he notes that, of the temples associated with it, only the Temple of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia on the Meander features an extended central intercolumniation. Furthermore, Haselberger notes that Hermogenes was not the inventor of pseudodipteral temple architecture, but rather the first to discuss the significance of this architectural style. Last but not least, Haselberger points out the popularity of pseudodipteral architecture during the Imperial period in the eastern part of the Roman Empire and its connection to the Second Sophistic. It is only in these buildings that we find the ideal proportions of Hermogenes’s eustylos, as described by Vitruvius.
Almost 100 years before the period in question, the first pseudipteral temple in Greece was built on the island of Lesbos at the sanctuary of Messon. Yannis Kourtzellis presents the latest research findings on this structure in the second chapter. Based on historical considerations, he dates its construction to the period following the island’s liberation by Alexander the Great in 332 BCE up to his death in 323 BCE. He also discusses the building materials used: primarily locally sourced rock types such as rhyolite and andesite. Although marble is found on the island and the deposits were known, it was not used. Kourtzellis attributes this to the light-absorbing properties of the rock types used (p. 64). Based on stylistic comparisons of the architectural decoration with the Temple of Athena at Priene, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, and the Temple of Zeus at Labraunda, the author associates the temple at Messon with the architect Pytheos or his school (p. 76). As intriguing as the connection to Pytheos is for the temple in Messon, I wonder how this explains the use of local stone types instead of marble.
In the third chapter, Bonna D. Wescoat and Samuel Holzman explore the extent to which the temples of Hermogenes were influenced by Samothrace. In doing so, they emphasize the pan-Hellenic character of the architecture at the Sanctuary of the Great Gods during the early Hellenistic period. One example is the use of the Attic base for buildings in the Ionic order.[2] Prior to Hermogenes’ time, the Attic base was found in Asia Minor only in combination with the Corinthian order. Another example is the garland frieze featuring bucrania and phialae. One of the earliest examples is the propylon of Ptolemy II on Samothrace. The frieze was then gradually adopted in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, primarily by the Attalids. In both cases, Samothrace may have played an important role as an intermediary between the mainland (particularly Athens, but also Macedonia) and Asia Minor.
The publication of the new findings on the Temple of Dionysus in Teos by Musa Kadıoğlu et al. is most welcome. This is all the more so given that Vitruvius reports that Hermogenes was the architect of the temple. The excavations confirm that the structure dates to the last quarter of the 3rd century BCE. During this period, however, only the foundation and the naos—including the pronaos and opisthodomos—were completed. The peristasis, on the other hand, was not erected until the Hadrianic period. An examination of the building’s proportions revealed that they are not consistent with those cited by Vitruvius for the principle of eustylos, but rather follow those of the Temple of Athena in Priene.
In the fifth chapter, Orhan Bingöl discusses the dating of the Temple of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia on the Meander.[3] He begins by examining the various approaches proposed by scholars—an early or late dating, or a construction process that spanned a longer period. To clarify these questions, both epigraphic sources (IvM 100a and the so-called sponsor inscription)[4] and architectural details are examined. Regarding the latter, the lewis sockets in the column drums are of particular interest. Three distinct systems are identified here. One system was used for the naos, one for the pronaos and opisthodomos, and one for the peristasis. This finding, which points to different construction phases, is consistent with the epigraphic evidence, suggesting that the inner core structure was erected first. This was followed by the construction of the peristyle hall, a process that extended into the 1st century CE.
Görkem Kökdemir discusses the Temple of Apollo at Alabanda. Based on Vitruvius De Architectura 3.2.6, scholars have reconstructed this structure as a pseudodipteral temple by Hermogenes. However, it is unclear from this passage whether the mention of Alabanda is to be associated with the Temple of Apollo, or whether Alabanda was Hermogenes’ birthplace. Kökdemir thoroughly examines the arguments in favor of a pseudodipteral reconstruction of the foundation and the architectural elements attributed to it. Based on the size of the foundation and the dimensions of the columns, he concludes that a pseudodipteral structure cannot be reconstructed on the foundation and instead proposes a peripteral temple for the site at Alabanda.
Chapters 7 through 9 deal with the Temple of Artemis at Sardis.[5] This temple was constructed during the Roman period as a pseudodipteral structure. In the context of other pseudodipteral temples in western Asia Minor, the question arises here as well as to what extent ideas and influences from Hermogenes were incorporated into this design. Nicholas Cahill first discusses various aspects of the sanctuary area prior to the temple’s construction in the 3rd century BCE. The architectural design of the pre-Hellenistic temple included an almost square foundation (approx. 6 x 6 m), the so-called central base, which dates to the late 6th or early 5th century BCE and was later integrated into the temple structure. Furthermore, the so-called Lydian Altar (LA-1) from the 5th or early 4th century BCE belongs to the pre-Hellenistic phase. It is interesting to note that pre-Hellenistic monuments, such as the Nanna Monument, were deliberately presented as antiquities in the later sanctuary well into the Imperial period.
The following two essays by Fikret Yegül focus on the Temple of Artemis at Sardis. The Hellenistic temple was constructed in the first half of the 3rd century BCE and was likely sponsored in large part by Stratonike I, who was residing in Sardis at that time. Yegül inotes that such support for the polis’s main temple would have been less controversial had a male Hellenistic ruler been in power (p. 279). During the Hellenistic period, the core structure—consisting of the naos, pronaos, and opisthodomos—was erected. Construction of the pseudipteral colonnade did not begin until the reign of Hadrian, but it was never completed. During the Hadrianic-Antonine period, the naos was also divided, with the eastern section dedicated to the cult of the Roman imperial family. Most of the completed columns were erected in front of the eastern pronaos, which was designated for the imperial cult.
In the final chapter, Mantha Zarmakoupi examines the influence of Hellenistic architecture—and in particular the innovations associated with Hermogenes, the pseudodipteros and eustylos —in late Republican Rome. During this period, grand colonnades and gardens, among other things, transformed the appearance of Rome and raised new questions about the physical use and perception of space. Vitruvius found points of reference for these concepts in Hermogenes’ work and drew upon them for the contemporary discourse.
Nearly 35 years after the Berlin Colloquium (which focused on the influence of Hermogenes’ concepts on temple architecture in Hellenistic western Asia Minor) this volume offers a welcome assessment of Hermogenes’ significance based on the current state of research.[6] With regard to Hellenistic architecture, it becomes apparent that the principles transmitted by Vitruvius and associated with Hermogenes can only be understood to a limited extent. The book goes beyond the Berlin Hermogenes Colloquium, focusing in particular on the reception of Hermogenes during the Imperial period. In this context, the book offers an important contribution to the scholarly debate on Hermogenes. It becomes clear that, in some of the examples discussed, the pseudodipteral appearance was conceived or realized only during the Roman Imperial period. In this respect, the volume impressively demonstrates that the concepts associated with Hermogenes—as conveyed, in part, by Vitruvius—were received primarily during this era.
Authors and titles
Introduction (Mantha Zarmakoupi)
- Hermogenes, the “First Inventor“: What is at Issue? (Lothar Haselberger)
- The Late Classical Pseudodipteros Temple of the Pan-Lesbian Sanctuary at Messon (Yannis Kourtzellis)
- Hermogenes´Samothracian Prequel (Bonna D. Wescoat, Samuel Holzman
- The Sanctuary of Dionysos at Teos and Hermogenes (Musa Kadıoğlu, Marco Galli, Tommaso Ismaelli, Sara Bozza, Özlem Vapur, Mustafa Adak)
- The Dating of the Temple of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia on the Meander (Orhan Bingöl)
- Pseudodipteral Temples of Apollo in Light of Vitruvius’ De architectura (3.2.6) (Görken Kökdemir)
- The Sanctuary of Artemis at Sardis Before the Temple (Nicholas Cahill)
- The Templeof Artemis at Sardis: An Exceptional Pseudodipteros Between Hermogenes and Hadrian (Fikret Yegül)
- Stratonike and the Temple of Artemis: Queenly Gifts to Golden Sardis (Fikret Yegül)
- Hermogenes, Hellenistic Architecture, and Rome (Mantha Zarmakoupi)
Notes
[1] Lothar Haselberger, Der Pergamonaltar und der Architekt Hermogenes. Schatten, Raum und Wahrnehmung (Berlin: Reimer, 2020).
[2] For more on the development and spread of the Attic basis, see also Uta Dirschedl, Die griechischen Säulenbasen. Archäologische Forschungen 28 (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2012) Pp. 285–394.
[3] See also Orhan Bingöl, Boris Dreyer, Neues zu Magnesia, archäologisch und epigraphisch, in: Heide Frielinghaus, Thomas G. Schattner (eds.), ad summum templum architecture. Forschungen zur antiken Architektur im Spannungsfeld der Fragestellungen und Methoden (Möhnesee: Bibliopolis, 2018) Pp. 61–72.
[4] On IvM 100a see Otto Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander (Berlin: W. Speman, 1900) Pp. 85–87. About the so-called sponsor inscription see Orhan Bingöl, Boris Dreyer, Neues zu Magnesia, archäologisch und epigraphisch, in: Heide Frielinghaus, Thomas G. Schattner (eds.), ad summum templum architecture. Forschungen zur antiken Architektur im Spannungsfeld der Fragestellungen und Methoden (Möhnesee: Bibliopolis, 2018) Pp. 73–84.
[5] Regarding this, now Fikret Yegül, Diane Favro, The Temple of Artemis at Sardis. Hellenistic Temple Traditions in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025).
[6] Wolfram Hoepfner, Ernst-Ludwig Schwandner (eds.), Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur. Internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 28. Bis 29. Juli 1988 im Rahmen des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie veranstaltet vom Architekturreferat des DAI in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Seminar für Klassische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin (Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990); see also the related contributions in Thekla Schulz (ed.), Dipteros und Pseudodipteros. Internationale Tagung 13.11.–15.11.2009 an der Hochschule Regensburg. Byzas12 (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2012).