On the Classical Authorities for Ancient Art. 369 portu: Hermogenes de aede Dianae Ionica, quae est Magnesias pseudodipteros, et Liberi Patris Teo monopteros: item *Argelius de symmetriis Corinthiis, et Ionico Trallibus ^Esculapio, quod etiam ipse sua manu dicitur fecisse : de Mausoleo * Satyrus et Phyteus, quibus vera felicitas summum maximumque contulit munus." A digression here follows on the subject of the afore- said mausoleum, and then Vitruvius continues as follows : " Prae- terea minus nobiles multi praecepta symmetriarum conscripserunt, ut *Nexaris, * Theocydes, *Demophilos, *Pollis, *Leonides, *Sila- nion, *Melampus, *Sarnacus, *Euphranor. Non minus de machinationibus uti Diades, Archytas, Archimedes, Ctesibios, Nymphodorus, Philo Byzantius, Diphilos, Democles, Charidas, Polyidos, Pyrrhos, Agesistratos. Quorum ex commentariis quae utilia esse his rebus animadverti, collecta in unum coegi corpus, et ideo maxime quod animadverti in ea re ab Graecis volumina plura edita, ab nostris oppido quam pauca." We must see what we can elicit from these two passages. Those names of architects, or of writers on architecture concern- ing whom nothing is known from any other quarter, have an asterisk prefixed. I shall pass them over in silence. The remain- der will give some valuable additions to our list of artist authors. I must not venture to enter upon a discussion concerning Theodorus, as the difficulties involved might exhaust the patience of my readers. I can only state as the result at which I have arrived, that of Theodori I believe there was only one, dissenting herein from Mueller, and agreeing with Mr Grote : with this important difference however, that I believe him to be the son of Telecles, not of Rhoecus. Waiving this question, however, I I would observe that I find it difficult to reconcile the expression " quae est . . . Dorica" with the Ionic remains of the temple. Mueller and others get rid of the difficulty by supposing a new temple to have been erected in the place of the Doric edifice, here assigned to Theodorus : a bold hypothesis, if we consider that it was on essentially Ionic ground the temple stood, a point of importance when we remember its date, and that no assign- able reason can be given for changing the order of architecture when the re-erection took place. I see nothing for it but to pronounce the text corrupt, unless indeed it could be defended on general considerations, connected with the rise of the two orders. On these, however, I cannot now enter.
