Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:35:06.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The temple of Apollo at Didyma: the building and its function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

H. W. Parke
H. W. Parke*
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Hellenistic temple of Apollo at Didyma presents several unique features in its plan. In its exterior it resembles the typical large Ionic temple of Asia Minor with a double colonnade surrounding it, no opisthodomus, and a pronaos containing three rows of four columns each. But at this point the plan of the temple was modified in the strangest manner. For the pronaos does not lead by a great central doorway into the cella, but where the doorway should come, the worshipper entering the building found himself faced with a blank wall 1·495 rn high with above it a colossal opening 5·63 m wide (PLATE VIIa). Consequently the worshipper in the pronaos could not even look directly into the sanctuary. Instead, just above his eye-level beyond the embrasure of this ‘window’ stretched the floor of a large room, 14·04 m by 6·73 m with its roof supported on two columns. Through this room's central door (which was opposite the window) the spectator on ground level outside could catch a glimpse of the upper part of the naiskos in the inner court (the adyton).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 106 , November 1986 , pp. 121 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am much indebted to Dr Dorothy J. Thompson, Girton College, Cambridge, for help about Ptolemaic Egypt. Also Dr J. D. Thomas, University of Durham, has supplied some useful references. Neither are responsible for the use which I have made of their kind assistance.

1 For the description of the building and its dimensions, see Knackfuss, H., Didyma i, die Baubeschreibung (1939)Google Scholar.

2 Iamb. De mysteriis 3, 11. I have not discussed here the possible function of the twin staircases leading up from the room of the two columns. They were designated the Labyrinth in the building accounts. Montego, John C., ‘Note on the Labyrinth in Didyma’, AJA, lxxx (1976), 104–6Google Scholar, has proposed a use by the Prophetis, which involves a misinterpretation of Iamblichus. On the subject see Parke, , The oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor (London 1985), 52 and 216–17Google Scholar.

3 Gruben, F., JDAI lxxviii (1963)Google Scholar, das archäische Didymeion, 95 ff.; Hahland, W., JDAI lxxix (1964), 144 Google Scholar ff.; H. Drerup and R. Naumann, A.A. (1964) col. 333–4.

4 B. Fehr, Marburger Winckelmannsprogramm. (1971/2), 14–59.

5 Hdt. vi 19.3 ff. The German excavators found fragmentary remains of architecture attributable to the fifth century and have been tempted to conjecture a revival of the oracle before the time of Alexander. Hahland, , JDAI lxxix (1964) 146 Google Scholar for altars restored: Knackfuss, , Didyma i 127 and 142 Google Scholar ff for a roofed building conjectured from some of the material which Hahland assigns to altars. The latest reconstruction is by Voigtländer, W., 1st. Forsch. xxii (1972) 93 Google Scholar ff. He reproduces from the remains a design of a well-house and also a ‘cult-room’. He argues with much special pleading for the possibility of a fifth-century revival of the oracle. But I regard this as disproved by our literary evidence. For the interruption, note how Herodotus, who always refers to the sanctuary as Branchidae, except when quoting the Delphic oracle about it, refers to the oracle in the past tense in his explanatory mention (i 157.3.) Callisthenes (FGrH 124 F 14) positively states the interruption. The annual procession in the fifth century, Ditt. Syll.3 57. The oracle as pre-Ionian, Paus. vii 2.6. For Callimachus' inconsistent references, cf. Parke (note 2) 226 notes 7 and 8.

6 Arr. An. i.18.3. Alexander Stephanephoros, Milet, i. 3.132. Callisthenes, l.c. For a detailed discussion of the relations of Alexander with Didyma and the Branchidae, see Parke, , JHS cv (1985) 59–68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 The prophetis, Rehm, Didyma ii p. 323 b, and no. 273 (second century AD) and no. 235B (an obscure graffito of sarcastic intent) and a new important reference, Günther, W., 1st. Mitt, xxx (1980) 170–5Google Scholar, on which see Parke (note 2) 231, note 72. For Delphic influences on the revival it may be significant that after 346 BC there had been an attempt by the Delphians to restore their traditions and foreign relations. Cf. Ditt. Syll.3 292–5, the reinscribed promanteiai and the Register of the Pythian victors by Aristotle and Callisthenes ( Robertson, N., CQ xxviii [1978] 54)Google Scholar.

8 Iamb. De mysteriis 3.11; cf Porphyry, ad Aneb. p. 3. For a detailed discussion, see Parke, (note 2) 212–13.

9 Rehm, Did. ii, no. 159.

10 See my discussion in Hermathena cxxx–cxxxi (1981/1982) 99–112 Google Scholar.

11 The earliest reference to Branchus appears to occur in Call. fr. 229 (Pfeiffer), P. Oxy. 2172, 1–22, though the name itself cannot be restored in the fragment. There is, however, an allusion to him as descended on his father's side from the family of Daitas and on his mother's from the Lapiths. Strabo (ix 3.9) when describing the tomb of Neoptolemus at Delphi, mentions that ‘Branchus who was in charge of the sanctuary at Didyma’ was a descendant (ἀπόγονος) of Machaereus, who slew him. For Machaereus as a son of Daitas, Asclepiades of Tragilus, FGrH 12 F 15.

12 Vitr. vii preface 16. On the architects of the Artemisium, Str. xvi 1.22. In the latest discussion of the Didymeion from the point of view of its decoration, Voigtländer, W. (Der jungste Apollontempel Didyma, von. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft xiv [1975] 14 Google Scholar ff.) accepts Paeonis as architect, but would date the production of the design unnecessarily before 334 BC.

13 Rehm, Did. ii, no. 434–7. See Günther, W., Das Orakel von Didyma in hellenistischer Zeit, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, Beiheft iv (1971) 37 Google Scholar, n. 70; these inscriptions were dated by Rehm to c. 250 BC. But Robert, L., Gnomon xxxi (1959) 669 Google Scholar and REG 74 (1961) 232 Google Scholar, no. 637 has shown that they should be dated in the period 311–306 BC.

14 The return of the statue by Seleucus (undated), Paus. i. 16.3 and viii 46.3. Cf. a statue base at Miletus in honour of Seleucus. OGI744, the decree for Antiochus, OGI 213, Rehm, Did. ii, no. 479, Günther, op. cit. 29; for Apame, Did. ii, no. 480, Günther, 21. Günther's datings and reading should be corrected in view of J. Seibert's criticisms (GGA 1974, 199–200).

15 The embassy of the Milesians to Alexander at Memphis in 331 (early spring), Callisthenes, FGrH 124 F 14. The Hypomnemata, D.S. xviii 4.5. Voigtländer (n. 12) 23 takes the phrase κοσμῆσαι τὸ ἱερόν on the Antiochus decree in too restricted a sense. It was a deliberately vague expression meant to allow the use of the funds for any purpose in the sanctuary even after the temple was completed.

16 The naiskos, Kraus, , 1st. Mitt. 11 (1961) 126 Google Scholar and Hahland, W., JDAI xix (1964) 234 Google Scholar. Voigtländer, Jüngste Apollontempel, 34–43, dates the naiskos' design to c. 300 and believes it was finished before 270 BC.

17 Voigtländer (n. 12) 33 and Taf. 1.3 (the cymation on the side wall is encroached on by the staircase). He estimates that the staircase was to stop at the nineteenth step–five short of the present height–approximating to the extra elevation of the wall under the great window. It is therefore reasonable to regard it as an alteration introduced into the original plan after the side walls had been erected so far.

18 See Parke, , Hermathena cxxx–cxxxi (1981–1982), 101 Google Scholar for the Delphic procedure. The chresmographion in the building-account, Did. ii, no. 31.5 ff. (183/2 BC), translated by Voigtländer (n. 12) 91 and 155.

19 Knackfuss's reconstruction, Did. i 150 ff. The Prophet's House inscriptions, Rehm Did. ii 150 ff. The restoration of Miletus' constitution, Did. ii 218, 4–6 and Milet 1.3.126.23. In Did. ii, no. 302.9, there is a reference to τὴν στοὰν τῆς προφητικῆς οὀκίας which might imply the existence of a prophet's house as well as a chresmographion. But this is probably an unnecessary duplication.

20 E.g. Günther (n. 13) 122.

21 Anius' daughter and Lavinium, DH i 59.3. Aeneas at Delos, Verg. Aen. iii 84–99. The latest to discuss the oracle of Apollo on Delos are Adel, Raymond Den, Classical World lxxvi (1985) 288–90Google Scholar and Timothy E. Gregory, ib. 290–1. They confine their discussion to literary sources. For epigraphic evidence for the Hellenistic period, see de Santerre, H. Gallet, Delos, primitive et archaique, (Paris 1958) 249 Google Scholar.

22 Cf. n. 31, below.

23 For the Egyptian evidence, see Wilcken, A., Urkunden der Ptolemaërzeit, 1 (1927) no. 15·7; 16·20; 53·5 Google Scholar. These documents date from 162 BC, and are addressed to Ptolemy and Cleopatra Philometeres. For the controversy over the θυρίς and the κάτοχοι see Wilken's commentary, pp. 63–5 and 174. Delekat, L., Katoche Heirodulie und Adoptionsfreilassung (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antike Rechtsgeschichte xlvii [1964]) 20–21 Google Scholar argues in favour of the older interpretation, but his criticism does not appear to refute Wilcken's interpretation of 53.5. Hieroglyphic and demotic inscriptions from the Sarapeum Memphis, recording the titles of the local family of princes and priests, show the survival into the third and second centuries BC of the Pharaonic tradition there of a ‘window of appearance’ ( Reymond, E. A. E., From the records of a priestly family from Memphis, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen [Wiesbaden 1981] 77 Google Scholar, no. 4, 9 etc.) An earlier use of thyris occurs in Heraclides of Cyme. FGrH 689 F 4 (Ath. xii 13.517B), though in a somewhat fanciful context, where he describes the method of consulting the king of the incense-bearing country, in S. Arabia. If he wrote in the mid-fourth century, as is usually supposed, an Egyptian custom may have been, correctly or not, attributed to other southern peoples. Josephus (B.J. vi 253), using the same noun, refers obviously from personal knowledge, to an architectural feature in the Temple complex at Jerusalem, which recalls the Great opening at Didyma—θυρίδι χρυσῇ, καθʼ ηὓ εἰς τοὺς πὲρι τὸν ναὸν οἴκους εἰσίτον ἦν. It was above ground level for Josephus tells how a Roman soldier was lifted up by a comrade (ἀνακουφισθεὶς δʼ ὑπὸ συστρατιώτου), so as to thrust some burning timber through it. Like the Didymaean opening it was highly decorated, and must have fulfilled some purpose of communication, judging by josephus' phrase. I have left out of discussions the late use of θυρίς for a wall-cupboard, especially in monastic cells, well illustrated by Husson, G., Actes du XIVe Congres International de Papyrologie (Oxford 1974) 177–82:Google Scholar see also Kassel, R., ZPE xl (1980) 87–8Google Scholar.

24 For the inscribing of both question and answer in the Hellenistic period, e.g. Milet 1.3 no. 33 and 36. For the numerous later examples from Didyma itself, Rehm, Did. ii, no. 495 ff.

25 Call. fr. 229 (Pfeiffer). I have collected these references from P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria i, ch. 11.

26 Call, . Iambi, iv fr. 194 Google Scholar, 28 ff.

27 Call, . Aetia. iii fr. 80 Google Scholar, 3, the legend in Aristaenetus i 15 (Herscher).

28 Call, . Iambi, i fr. 191 Google Scholar. Leandrius FGrH 492 F 18 (D.H. i.27); the iambic version of the dedication is from Callimachus: the prose version probably from Leandrius.

29 279/8 BC Milet 1.3.123.38 ff. Günther (n. 13) 51. Ptolemaeus as governor of Ephesus, Will, E.. Histoire politique du monde hellenistique i (Nancy 1979) 208 Google Scholar.

30 Pliny, , HN vi 159 Google Scholar. P.M. Fraser (n. 25) i 177 and ii n. 352. Sokolowski, LSAM 48 (Miletus, 276 BC) and Fraser, id. ii 115. n. 146.

31 Hoepfner, Wolfram, Ptolemäerbanten, Zwei, A.M. Beiheft i (1971) 7 Google Scholar, but Voigtländer, Jüngste Did. 187–8, would date the Didymaean capitals later. Haselberger, Lother, Werkzeichnungen an jüngeren Didymeion, 1st. Mitt, xxx (1980) 191–215 Google Scholar and xxxiii (1983) 90–123. I owe these citations and comments to one of the JHS referees. Günther Hölbe, Ägyptischer Einfluss in der griechischen Architectur, Oe.Jh lv (1984) 15–16 Google Scholar, seems to me to press his arguments too far.

32 Rehm, . Did. ii, no. 394 Google Scholar (Ptolemy xii, 54/3 BC) and 218 (Ptolemy xiii 51–48 BC). Günther (n. 13) 93, n. 170. Voigtländer (n. 12) 9 and 91, n. 250, maintains that the opening was too large for any doors to be hung, and suggests that the ivory was for the triple doorway above the stairway. The term used (μέγα θύρωμα) would only be appropriate to the main oracular window. Admittedly θύρωμα would apply to a door-frame, but I follow Rehm in supposing that each of the two benefactions covered the cost of decorating one leaf of a giant double door with its appropriate frame, not merely the empty frame of a window. On the meaning of θύρωμα in Egyptian building, see Bernard, E., ZPE lx (1985) 81 Google Scholar, citing Hasson, Genevieve, Oikia, le vocabulaire de la maison privée en Egypte (Paris 1983) 107–9Google Scholar.