consisting of grooves forming portions of circles, which have probably
received plates of metal. The centre from which these segments are
described, is, as has been already mentioned, clear of the thickness of
the walls. It is doubtful if there were originally any opening between
this chamber and the cell of the temple. If such existed, it was
probably a small side door, but a large central doorway doubtless
existed here while the building was occupied as a church. Stuart has
remarked a sinking round the larger space which formed the hypæthral
cell of the temple, at the distance of 15 feet from the walls; but he
has not noticed some peculiarities in the pavement, which are of
considerable importance in understanding the construction and
arrangement of the building. There is first a pavement of marble slabs,
8 inches thick, as in the opisthodomus, 10 feet 3 inches and a half wide
at the end, and not quite so much at the side: next to this is a course
4 feet wide, and 14 inches thick, doubtless intended to receive the
columns of the internal peristyle. At one angle of the parallelogram,
formed by this series of slabs, there are faint traces of the position
of a column about 3 feet 9 inches in diameter, and as these blocks are
regularly spaced, we may ascertain that the distance from centre to
centre of the columns was about 11 feet 6 inches, and consequently the
space between them was 7 feet 9 inches, while in the other intervals,
the space from centre to centre was 12 feet 11 inches, and the clear
intercolumniation about 9 feet 2 inches. The ancients always placed the
internal columns, and those of their courts, proportionally farther
apart than the external ones. At Pæstum, where the outer columns are
only one and a tenth diameter apart, the inner are nearly one and two
fifths; at Egina, those of the external peristyle are about one diameter
and two thirds asunder, those of the internal, two and one third. In the
Propylæa, the spaces between the external columns seem to be about one
diameter and a half, if we exclude the large middle entrance, the
internal about two and a half. In the latter case, the internal columns
were Ionic, and it is very possible that this was also the case in the
Parthenon, but we have not the slightest fragment remaining; a
circumstance which seems to me very remarkable. Was no use made of them
in the church? and if so, why were they rejected?
The lines of the small columns traced by Stuart, are sufficiently
evident, but they were probably parts of the church, not of the temple;
for besides that their diminutive size renders them unsuitable for the
internal structure of such a building, and that their remaining
fragments are of very indifferent workmanship, their situation does not
correspond with the division of the marble slabs, which in an edifice so
regularly and systematically constructed, is alone a sufficient reason
for rejecting them. It may seem remarkable that the original columns
should not have left on the pavement more distinct traces of their
existence; but while the Greeks united with wooden blocks, and sometimes
by other means, the different portions of the column, they placed the
lowest part, without preparation, on the smooth pavement. In some
instances, in the temple of Theseus, less than half the column remains,
and not the slightest indication is visible on the pavement to shew that
the other half ever existed. Within the sinking of the pavement already
mentioned, we find again the eight-inch marble paving, but in one part
slabs of limestone occupy its place. These are supposed to have
supported the statue of the goddess. Mr. B. very justly observed, that
where every thing is thus of white marble, a statue of that material
would have wanted its just consequence. It was necessary to employ a
more expensive substance to give it sufficient relief in the
imagination.
A considerable portion of the paving remains in its place, but some has
been removed, and in the opisthodomus a large slab of marble moulded on
the edge, appeared underneath the pavement, which must have been buried
at the time of the erection of the temple. Before leaving the inside, I
must conduct you up a staircase, which the Turks have made in a little
tower at the south-west angle of the building. We may by its means
observe many particulars, which are not so easily discernible from
below. The examination of the Athenian edifices leads to the conclusion,
that the white Pentelic marble was obtainable in slabs of considerable
length and breadth, but that the thickness was more limited. In the
walls of the cell of the Parthenon, the courses are of 1 foot 8 inches
and two thirds. In the Erectheum and the Propylæa, they are somewhat
less. When a greater width is required, either to form a plinth course,
or to cover the opening of a doorway, the slab is uniformly set on edge.
In the frusta of the columns, the stones are thicker; one in the
Parthenon being 3 feet 7.8 inches in thickness; but probably that part
of the quarry which would furnish blocks of such a thickness, did not
afford them of considerable length. The architrave of the Parthenon is 5
feet 9 inches wide, and is got out in three thicknesses, probably on
account of the difficulty of procuring pieces 14 feet long, and 2 feet
10 inches and a half thick, which would have been required, had it been
constructed, as is more usually the case, in two blocks. In the frieze,
there was not the same necessity that the work should be perfectly
solid, and accordingly only two beds were used, leaving a vacancy of
about 10 inches in the middle. Thus this peculiarity which Clarke
_discovered_ to be owing to the dishonesty of the workmen, and Wilkins
considers a proof of great science and foresight, may with greater
probability be attributed to the nature of the quarry.
The ceiling of the pronaos and posticum was formed by marble joists
supporting slabs of the same material, which contained the lacunariæ;
but in the lateral peristyle, these slabs were laid from the wall to the
external epistylium, without the intervention of joists.
You may see here in several places marks of ancient ornamental painting,
and in some instances of painting of two different styles and dates, one
of which has been over the other. In parts sheltered from the weather,
there are even indications of painting on the outside cornice. There are
some very curious contrivances in the construction of the cornice, at
the south-west angle, with which I will not at present trouble you, as I
do not think them very good.
I have already explained to you the system of covering in these temples;
the ornamental tiles are disposed in the Theseum, one over each
triglyph; in the Parthenon there was also one over each metope; in the
first building therefore, they were a little more than 4 feet apart, in
the latter about 3 feet 6 inches. For some unknown reason, the tiles
themselves do not correspond with this disposition of the ornaments; the
latter are therefore entirely detached from the former; and the real
stops of the convex tiles are small triangular projections, placed back,
so as not to be seen from below; three of them occupying the dimensions
of two antefixæ and the intervening space. Vast heaps of ruins lie
around, as you may suppose, but on the south side, part of a continued
basement of coarse limestone may be seen under the three steps. Three
courses of this limestone are exposed, and part of the fourth; each
about 1 foot 9 inches in height. The uppermost projects 4 feet from the
step, and the upper surface is sunk about 5 inches, probably to receive
a covering of marble: the next course projects 18 inches, the two lowest
each about half an inch. I cannot tell how far this basement extends, or
what its whole height may be; but in front there is an appearance of
vaults, which puzzle me much more, as they seem to imply a very
considerable elevation of the front of the temple above the ground on
which it stood. I only perceived them by some holes broken in at the
summit, and they are too much filled up with rubbish to enable us to
trace their extent; perhaps they were only partial hollows, filled up in
ancient times as well as in modern.
On the north side, the heaps are perhaps still greater than on the
south, and Fauvel told us that the earth had not been opened, and
consequently, as none of the friezes on this side remained on the
building, it was probable that a great quantity of sculpture would be
found. On speaking subsequently to Lusieri about this circumstance, he
assured me that he had begun to dig in that part, but the Turks informed
him that limekilns had been erected there, in which all the sculpture
that could be found had been burnt by preference. He continued however
his excavations, till finding the limekilns, without the occurrence of
any bas-reliefs, he at length gave up the search. It is amusing to hear
how uniformly Fauvel and Lusieri disagree in their statements: the
latter strenuously denies that he has done any thing to injure any
building, except in the one instance of removing the Cariatic columns;
while the former accuses him of having occasioned a great deal of ruin
in his operations to remove the sculpture, and even of wantonly
destroying objects where no advantage was to be derived. The last charge
is improbable, and in some degree invalidates the former. Indeed it is
said on the other hand, that Fauvel endeavoured to obtain these spoils
for his own government, and that he now exaggerates the evil from
disappointment; but I am afraid considerable mischief has been done.
With regard to the sculptures taken away, it must be observed that they
were most of them very much exposed, that the young Turks are eager
enough to break off whatever they can reach, in hopes of disposing of
them to the Franks, and that the petty officers and sailors, who either
in merchant ships, or vessels of war, visit these shores, have a great
propensity to break off fragments as memorials. Thousands of broken
pieces, evidently from the building, and which they might almost fit on
to it, lie about, but nothing will satisfy them, unless they perform
their share of mutilation; and repeatedly, on my visits to the
Acropolis, I have beheld with sorrow new fractures on the drapery of the
Caryatides, the only objects now within their reach.
Less remains of the eastern end, or front of the temple, than of the
west. We see there holes which are said to have afforded the means of
support to certain shields which were suspended on the architrave, whose
history is not very clear; and there is occasionally a slight green
circular stain, produced by the edges of the shields themselves. They
were about 3 feet 6 inches in diameter. There was one under each metope,
and under the drops of each triglyph are the holes by which the bronze
letters of an inscription were fixed. I made a copy of these, but I am
afraid it will be impossible to restore the letters.
Having despatched the Propylæa and the Parthenon, I have now to give you
some account of the triple temple of Erectheus, Minerva Polias, and the
nymph Pandrosus. And first of the hexastyle temple, which is that of
Erectheus, and which is sometimes also called the temple of Neptune,
because it contained an altar to that deity, and because here was said
to be the well of salt water which sprung up at the contest between
Neptune and Minerva; but Pausanias, who calls the whole edifice a double
building, διπλοῦν ὄικημα, does not specify in which part of it this well
was found.
Stuart in his view represents six columns as erect in their places, with
the continued architrave and frieze; there are now only five. The
architrave over these remains, but the frieze is gone, except two pieces
of the black marble, one of which is misplaced; the other column was
taken away by lord Elgin, and is now in the British Museum. These
columns are very much damaged in the lower part, so that it is difficult
to determine their exact diameter. The base is not well given in Stuart.
They have had a very extended apophysis, like that of Jupiter Stator at
Rome, and I am persuaded that Stuart has not made them too small. They
are therefore very nearly, or perhaps quite ten diameters in height, and
they do not appear too slender; but you will recollect that they have a
very large and ornamental capital, which certainly takes off from the
appearance of height, and communicates a character, which like that of
the Corinthian order, is in harmony with more delicate proportions. The
contrast between the plainness of the frieze, and the richness of
decoration obtained in the flank, by the continuation of the ornaments
of the capitals, must have struck you as an inconsistency, but in the
original, the frieze is of black marble, and the cramp holes on the
surface shew it to have been enriched, probably with figures of gilt
bronze; so that the whole together possessed in the highest degree that
air of gaiety and splendour, which seems so congenial both to the
character and taste of the Athenians. This black marble,[29] having lost
its polish, and being stained by the weather, and perhaps by lichens,
has changed its hue into a dull gray, and has been passed over, without
notice of the material. I believe Mr. Bedford was the first to remark
it; but in mentioning the name of the discoverer in this instance, I do
not mean to claim merit in other circumstances, when I do not name the
source of my information. The fact is, that I rarely know to whom the
honour ought to be attributed: some things have been pointed out to me
by Fauvel, others by Lusieri, or by other persons, and I have combined
them unconsciously with Sharp’s observations and my own; but I believe
the man who has done most towards the complete elucidation of these
antiquities is Baron Haller, a German, who unfortunately for me, and for
all lovers of the fine arts, died last year.
Passing to the inside of the Erectheum, we find all the pavement of the
cell removed. The walls for the most part are formed of single blocks,
occupying its whole thickness; cramped together, both horizontally and
vertically, but the sort of dado-course which you may observe above the
base, in the flank elevation given by Stuart, is, or was, in two
thicknesses set on edge. The inner slabs have been taken away, so that
it is wonderful the wall stands. The parts intended to be exposed both
inside and outside, are of Pentelic marble, but those which were
entirely hid are of Magnesian limestone, and this peculiarity enables us
to determine that the pavement of the cell was lower than that of the
portico, for not only the course, which rising above the pavement as
high as the top of the base moulding, might be expected to be so, is of
marble; but there is another course of marble below it, and again, as
you approach the cross wall, marked (a) on Stuart’s plan, there is a
third course of marble under the dado. This cross wall does not rise to
the height of the outside pavement, and there are no traces of its
junction with the side walls above, while on the contrary, though the
cross wall (b) is entirely destroyed, and the lower parts of the side
walls where this would have joined, are smooth and even up to the height
of four courses above what I have called the dado-course, yet above
that, the interrupted surface shows the insertion of the bond-stones,
and attests the existence of such a wall. It is probable that the lower
part was open, and perhaps there were pilasters of metal, and six
columns, either of metal or marble in the opening. This back part is so
filled up with rubbish, that I could only determine one course lower
than those in the first cell, to be of marble. In the north wall there
is a row of small holes, very neatly bored; there are several such
ranges both here, and in the Propylæa, but I do not know their use.
The greatest peculiarities of this building exist in the wall at the
western end. I will say nothing about the windows and pilasters, of
which we have no other Greek examples, nor of a recess in the upper part
at the south-west angle, taken out of the thickness of the walls, which
is quite unaccountable, but direct your attention to the basement. In
this we find a doorway under one of the internal pilasters, and
consequently also under one of the external semicolumns. M. Fauvel
contends, that this opening is not coeval with the building, but has
been broken through for some purpose of later convenience; and Stuart,
by altogether omitting it, seems to have been of the same opinion. It is
however of the original construction, for the face of the work within
the opening corresponds with that of the face of the building, without
any marks of the stones having been cut, or in any way altered, and
there are no marks of cramps, which since the walls are cramped, as
above-mentioned, in both directions, must inevitably have been visible
had there originally been no opening. These seem to me pretty strong
proofs, but there is another perhaps still more convincing. I have
already mentioned the method adopted in these edifices to obtain
strength over the openings, by setting the blocks on edge, and making
the course double the height of the adjoining courses; this is the case
here; a large block, equal to two courses, occurs above the opening. A
door in such a situation appears remarkable, but an opening under the
angle of the building at the very point of its junction with the
Pandroseum, is still more extraordinary: this requires greater strength,
and accordingly is covered by a great stone occupying three courses; 14
feet 6 inches and three quarters long, 4 feet 9 inches and three
quarters high, and 2 feet 2 inches and three quarters thick. The top of
the door marked by Stuart, as giving an entrance to the Pandroseum, is
immediately under the surbase moulding of the gallery, 2 feet 3 inches
and a quarter above the pavement of the portico of the Erectheum; that
of the door under the gallery is two courses lower, or 3 feet 2 inches
and a half, while the door under the angle is yet one course lower: all
this contrivance may perhaps have had some reference to the access to
the spring of salt water; but without considerable excavations the
problem cannot be solved.
I have put together what I had to say of this cell, whether, in fact,
belonging to one, two, or three temples; and I will now conduct you to
the tetrastyle portico, supposed to be that of Minerva Polias, which, to
say the truth, is rather awkwardly joined to the first; at least the
junction at the posterior angle seems to be ill managed. This is
unfortunately a powder magazine, and the intercolumniations are
consequently filled up with walls of rubble, so that the proportions of
the columns cannot be observed, but for some reason every body at once
prefers this to the hexastyle portico; and the capitals of the columns,
though almost buried in the coarse masonry, are universally admired. As
the difference between these, and those of the Erectheum, is so small as
to be passed over as a trifle of no consequence in an examination of the
prints, it would be desirable to find out from what the difference of
effect arises, but I have not been able to determine the question. The
bases and lower parts of the columns are buried, but one of them is
accessible by digging, and it appears to have been ornamented with
inserted pieces of coloured glass. I apprehend that the plain fillet
under the necking of the capital in this temple, and the flat eye of the
capital in both, have been finished either with ornaments of gilt
bronze, or of coloured glass, or stones. The angular volute, in this
example, is made so thin, as to be very sensibly translucent; we did not
gain admittance to the inside, for in order to avoid the danger of
explosions, the Turks have walled up the opening, and are obliged to
make a hole in the wall when they want any powder. I have very little to
say about the Pandroseum; the opening I have noticed at the angle of its
junction with the gallery, indicates a considerable depth to the
internal pavement. Lusieri says, that he has dug, and that there are
certainly no traces of a wall or spring; but it is not at all clear that
it is to be sought for in this part, nor am I satisfied that he dug deep
enough. Externally, a wall comes against the pedestal of the caryatides,
and the parts behind it are less finished than those in front, but no
conclusion can be drawn from this, since the building was not entirely
completed; some of the pilaster capitals are only partially carved, and
in the back front of the gallery the last finish of the walls is not
carried down to the ground. The little pateræ in the architrave of the
Pandroseum were probably intended to be carved, if they were not rather
enriched with flowers of gilt metal.
All the three fine buildings of the Acropolis have been used in
succession as powder magazines, and have suffered from explosions.
LETTER XLVIII.
OTHER ANTIQUITIES OF ATHENS.
_Athens, March, 1818._
IT is fortunate for us that we have more remains of the two cities where
architecture was carried to the greatest perfection, than of any other.
The immensity of Rome, and the vast multitude of public buildings which
adorned it, might lead one to expect that we should meet there with more
remains than elsewhere, but Athens never was a very large city, nor do
the public buildings in it appear to have been constructed on a larger
scale than in many others. In each of these cities we probably see the
remains of some of the finest examples. Judging from the fragments found
at Rome, we may pronounce that there were many other buildings of great
beauty, but none which we could wish to exchange for the temple of Mars
Ultor, of Jupiter Stator, of Jupiter Tonans, of Antoninus and Faustina,
or for the portico of the Pantheon. The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus
was indeed larger than any of these, but we may doubt if its
architecture were better, or even so good. Here there are fewer objects
to distract the attention, and we may be assured that the Parthenon, the
Erectheum, the Propylæa, and the temple of Theseus, were the principal
objects of beauty in the time of Athenian splendour, and if there were
others which rivalled, there were none which pretended to surpass them.
That we have remains of the best edifices of Hadrian and Herodes
Atticus, is not quite so certain, but we know from several examples that
architecture had fallen, at that period, from the dignity and purity
which it possessed in the time of Pericles.