« السابقةمتابعة »
which was very conspicuous by its magnitude and position, having been inclosed within frames which formed an essential part of the designs of either front, had no more obtrusive effect than an ornamented capital to an unadorned column." (Leake, p. 334.) The whole building was adorned within and without with the moat exquisite pieces of sculpture, executed under the direction of Pheidias by different artists. The various architectural members of the upper part of the building were enriched with positive colours, of which traces are still found. The statues and the reliefs, as well as the members of architecture, were enriched with various colours; and the weapons, the reins of horses, and other accessories, were of metal, and the eyes of some of the figures were inlaid.
Of the sculptures of the Parthenon the grandest and most celebrated was the colossal statue of the Virgin Goddess, executed by the hand of Pheidias himself. It stood in the eastern or principal apartment of the cella; and as to its exact position some remarks are made below. It belonged to that kind of work which the Greeks called chryselephantine; ivory being employed for those parts of the statue which were unclothed, while the dress and other ornaments were of solid gold. This statue represented the goddess standing, clothed with a tunic reaching to the ankles, with her spear in her left hand, and an image of victory, four cubits high, in her right. She was girded with the aegis, and had a helmet on her head, and her shield rested on the ground by her side. The height of the statue was twenty-six cubits, or nearly forty feet. The weight of the gold upon the statue, which was so affixed as to be removable at pleasure, is said by Thucydides (ii. 13) to have been 40 talents, by Philochorus 44, and by other writers 50: probably the statement of Philochorus is correct, the others being round numbers. (Wesseling, ad Diod. xii. 40.) It was finally robbed of its gold by Lachares, who made himself tyrant of Athens, when Demetrius was besieging the city. (Pans. i. 25. § 5.) A fuller account of this masterpiece of art is given in the Dictionary of Biography. [Vol. iii. p. 250.]
The sculptures on the outside of the Parthenon have been described so frequently that it is unnecessary to speak of them at any length on the present occasion. These various pieces of sculpture were all closely connected in subject, and were intended to commemorate the history and the honours of the goddess of the temple, as the tutelary deity of Athens.
1. The Tympana of the Pediments (i. e. the inner flat portion of the triangular gable-ends of the roof above the two porticoes) were tilled with two compositions in sculpture, each nearly 80 feet in length, and consisting of about 24 colossal statues. The eastern or principal front represented the birth of Athena from the head of Zeus, and the western the contest between Athena and Poseidon for the land of Attica. The mode in which the legend is represented, and the identification of the figures, have been variously explained by archaeologists, to whose works upon the subject a reference is given below.
2. The Metopes, between the Triglyphs in the frieze of the entablature (t. e. the upper of the two portions into which the surface between the columns and the roof is divided), were filled with sculptures in highrelief. Each tablet was 4 feet 3 inches square. There were 92 in all, 14 on each front, and 32 on each side. They represented a variety of subjects relating to the exploits of the goddess herself, or to
those of the indigenous heroes of Attica. Those on the south side related to the battle of the Athenians with the Centaurs: of these the British Museum possesses sixteen. 3. The Frieze, which ran along outside the wall of the cella, and within the external columns which surround the building, was sculptured with a representation of the Panathenaic festival in very low relief. Being under the ceiling of the peristyle, the frieze could not receive any direct light from the rays of the sun, and was entirely lighted from below by the reflected light from the pavement; consequently it was necessary for it to be in low relief, for any bold projection of form would have interfered with the other parts. The frieze was 3 feet 4 inches in height, and 520 feet in length. A large number of the slabs of this frieze was brought to England by Lord Elgin, with the sixteen metopes just mentioned, and several of the statues of the pediments: the whole collection was purchased by the nation in 1816, and deposited in the British Museum. (On the sculptures of the Parthenon, see Visconti, Mem. sur les Ouvrages de Sculpture du Parthenon, Lond. 1816, Wilkins, On the Sculptures of the Parthenon, in Walpole's Travels in the East, p. 409, seq.; K. 0. Miiller, Com~ mentatio de Parthenonis Fastigio, in Comm. Soc. Reg. Gott. rec. vi. CI. Hist. p. 191, foil., and Ueber die erhobenen Hildwerke in den Metopen und am Fritse des Parthenon, in Kleine Schriftcn, vol. ii. p. 547, seq.; Leake, Topography of Atliens, p. 536, seq.; Welcker, On the Sculptured Groups in the Pediments of the Parthenon, in the Classical Museum, vol. ii. p. 367, &c, also in German, Alte Henkmaler, erklart von Welcker, vol. i. p. 67, seq.; Watkiss Lloyd, Explanation of the Groups in the Western Pediment of the Parthenon, in Clameed Museum, vol. v. p. 396, seq., in opposition to the previous essay of Welcker, who defended his views in another essay in the Classical Museum, vol. vi. p. 279, seq.; Bronsted, Voyages et Bccherches en Grece, Paris, 1830.
Among the many other ornaments of the temple we may mention the gilded shields, which were placed upon the architraves of the two fronts beneath the metopes. Between the shields there were inscribed the names of t he dedicators. The impressions left by these covered shields are still visible upon the architraves; the shields themselves were carried off by Lachares, together with the gold of the statue of the goddess. (Paus. i. 25. § 5.) The inner walls of the cella were decorated with paintings; those of the Pronaos, or Prodoms, were partly painted by Protogencs of Caunns (Plin. xxxv. 10.s. 36. § 20); and in the Hecatompedon there were paintings representing Themistocles and Heliodorus. (Paus. i. 1. § 2,37. § 1.)
We have already seen that the temple was sometimes called Partlienon, and sometimes Hecatompedon; but we know that these were also names of separate divisions of the temple. There have been found among the ruins in the Acropolis many official records of the treasurers of the Parthenon inscribed upon marble, containing an account of the gold and silver vessels, the coin, bullion, and other valuables preserved in the temple. (Bockh, Corp. laser. No. 137—142, 150—154.) From these inscriptions we learn that there were four distinct divisions of the temple, called respectively the Pronao* (Ityo*. vaos, Upovbtov),\h<sHecatompedon ('EKaToVixeoW), the Parthenon (TlapOtv&v'), and the Opisthodonua COtrta&dSouos').
Respecting the position of the Pronaos there can
A. Periftylium. D. Hecatompedon.
C. Opisthodomut or Pot- B. Parthenon, afterwards tlcutn. Opisthodomus.
good reason for believing that the Greeks used the word Opisthodomus to signify a corresponding hall in the back-front of a temple; and that as Pronaos, or Prodomus, answered to the Latin anticum, so Opisthodomus was equivalent to the Latin posticum. (Ti wpb \_rov aijKOV J irpo&OfjLOS, Kfd TO KaroTTtf fart<r86&ouos7 Pollux, i. 6; comp. iv rois vpovdois leal rots onia'Jormu.ns, Died, xiv. 41.) Lucian (Herod. 1) describes Herodotus as reading his history to the assembled Greeks at Olympia from the Opisthodomus of the temple of Zeus. If we suppose Herodotus to have stood in the hall or ambulatory leading oat of the back portico, the description is intelligible, as the great crowd of auditors might then hare been assembled in the portico and on the steps below; and we can hardly imagine that Lucian could have conceived the Opisthodomus to be an inner room, as some modern writers maintain. Other passages might be adduced to prove that the Opisthodomus in the Greek temples ordinarily bore the sense we have given to it (comp. Pans. v. 13. § 1, 16. § 1); and we believe tliat the Opisthodomua of the Parthenon originally indicated the same part,
though at a later time, as we shall see presently, H was used in a different signification.
The Hecatompedon must have been the eastern or principal chamber of the cella. This follows from its name; for as the whole temple was called Hecatompedon, from its being 100 feet broad, so the eastern chamber was called by the same name from its being 100 feet long (its exact length is 98 feet 7 inches). This was the naos, or proper shrine of the temple; and here accordingly was placed the colossal statue by Pheidias. In the records of the treasures of the temple the Hecatompedon contained a golden crown placed upon the head of the statue of Nike, or Victory, which stood upon the hand of the great statue of Athena, thereby plainly showing that the latter must have been placed in this division of the temple. There has been considerable dispute respecting the disposition of the columns in the interior of this chamber; but the removal of the Turkish Mosque and other incumbrances from the pavement has now pnt an end to all doubt upon the subject. It has already been stated that there were lOcolumns on each side, and 3 on the western return; and that upon them there was an upper row of the same number. These columns were thrown down by the explosion in 1687, but they were still standing when Spon and Wheler visited Athens. Wheler says, "on both sides, and towards the door, is a kind of gallery made with two ranks of pillars, 22 below and 23 above. The odd pillar is over the arch of the entrance which was left for the passage." The central column of the lower row had evidently been removed in order to effect an entrance from the west, and the " arch of the entrance " had been substituted for it Wheler says a " kind of gallery," because it was probably an architrave supporting the rank of columns, and not a gallery. (Penrose, p. 6.) Recent observations have proved that these columns were Doric, and not Corinthian, as some writers had supposed, in consequence of the discovery of the fragment of a capital of that order in this chamber. But it has been conjectured, that although all the other columns were Doric, the central column of the western return, which would have been hidden from the Pronaos by the statue, might have been Corinthian, since the central column of the return of the temple at Bassae seems to have been Corinthian. (Penrose, p. 5.)
If the preceding distribution of the other parts of the temple is correct, the Parthenon must have been the western or smaller chamber of the cella. Judging from the name alone, we should have naturally concluded that the Parthenon was the chamber containing the statue of the virgin goddess; but there appear to have been two reasons why this name was not given to the eastern chamber. First, the length of the latter naturally suggested the appropriation to it of the name of Hecatompedon; and secondly, the eastern chamber occupied the ordinary position of the adytum, containing the statue of the deity, and may therefore have been called from this circumstance the Virgin's-Chamber, though in reality it was not the abode of the goddess. It appears, from the inscriptions already referred to, that the Parthenon was used in the Pclopounesian war as the public treasury; for while we find iu the Hecatompedon such treasures as would serve for the purpose of ornament, the Parthenon contained bullion, and a great many miscellaneous articles which we cannot suppose to have been placed in the shrine alongside of the statue of the goddess. But we know from
later authorities that the treasury in the temple was called Opisthodomus (Harpocrat., Suid., Etym. M., $ v. 'OTriadoSofAos; Schol. ad Aristoph. Plut. 1193; Bbckh, Inter. No. 76); and we may therefore conclude, that as the Parthenon was the name of the whole building, the western chamber ceased to be called by tliis name, and acquired that of the Opisthodomus, which was originally the entrance to it. It appears further from the words of one of the Scholiasts (ad Aristoph, I c), as well as from the existing remains of the temple, that the eastern and western chambers were separated by a wall, and that there was no direct communication between them. Hence we can the more easily understand the account of Plutarch, who relates that the Athenians, in order to pay the greatest honour to Demetrius Poliorcetes, lodged him in the Opisthodomus of the Parthenon as a guest of the goddess. (Plut. Demetr. 23.)
In the centre of the pavement of the Hecatompedon there is a place covered with Peiraic stone, and not with marble, like the rest of the pavement- It has been usually supposed that this was the foundation on which the statue of the goddess rested; but this has been denied by K. F. Hermann, who maintains that there was an altar upon this spot. There can however be little doubt tliat the common opinion is correct, since there is no other place in the building to which we can assign the position of the statue. It could not have stood in the western chamber, since this was separated by a wall from the eastern. It could not have stood at the western extremity of the eastern chamber, where Ussing places it, because this part of the chamber was occupied by the western return of the interior columns (see ground-plan). Lastly, supposing the spot covered with Peiraic stone to represent an altar, the statue could not have 6tood between this spot and the door of the temple. The only alternative left is placing the statue either upon the above-mentioned spot, or else between it and the western return of the interior columns, where there is scarcely sufficient space left for it
There has been a great controversy among modern scholars as to whether any part of the roof of the eastern chamber of the Parthenon was hypaethral, or pierced with an opening to the sky. Most English writers, following Stuart, had arrival at a conclusion in the affirmative; but the discussion has been recently reopened in Germany, and it seems impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion upon the subject. (Comp. K. F. Hermann, Die Hypdthral Tempel des Alterthums, 1844; Ross, Keine Hypdthral Tempel mehr, in his Hellenika, 1846, to which Botticher replied in Der Hypdthral Tempel auf Grund des Vitruvischen Zeugnisses, 1847.) We know that, as a general rule, the Grecian temples had no windows in the walls; and consequently the light was admitted either through some opening in the roof, or through the door alone. The latter appears to have been the case in smaller temples, which could obtain sufficient light from the open door; bnt larger temples must necessarily have been in comparative darkness, if they received light from no other quarter. And although the temple was the abode of the deity, and not a place of meeting, yet it is impossible to believe that the Greeks left in comparative darkness the beautiful paintings and statues with which they decorated the interior of their temples. We have moreover express evidence that light was admitted into temples through
the roof. This appears to have been done in two ways, either by windows or openings in the tiles of the roof, or by leaving a large part of the latter open to the sky. The former was the case in the temple of Eleusis. (Plut. Per. 13, orator UtvoKKris inopv<pu>oc: comp. Pollux, ii. 54, inctuov oi 'attucoi rty KfpafiiSa ittdkovr, 5) r^v bitty «lX*F0 There can be little doubt that the naos or eastern chamber of the Parthenon must have obtained its light in one or other of these ways; but the testimony of Vitruvius (iii. 1) cannot be quoted in favour of the Parthenon being hypaethral, as there are strong reasons for believing the passage to be corrupt.* If the Parthenon was really hypaethral, we must place the opening to the sky between the statue and the eastern door, since we cannot suppose that such an exquisite work as the chryselephantine statue of Athena was not protected by a covered roof.
Before quitting the Parthenon, there is one interesting point connected with its construction, which must not be passed over without notice. It has been discovered within the last few years, that in the Parthenon, and in some others of the purer specimens of Grecian architecture, there is a systematic deviation from ordinary rectilinear construction. Instead of the straight lines in ordinary architecture, we find various delicate curves in the Parthenon. It is observed that "the most important curves in point of extent, are those which form the horizontal lines of the building where they occur ; such as the edges of the steps, and the lines of the entablature, which are usually considered to be straight level lines, but in the steps of the Parthenon, and some other of the best examples of Greek Doric are convex curves, lying in vertical plains; the lines of the entablature being also curves nearly parallel to the steps and in verticil plains." The existence of curves in Greek buildings is mentioned by Vitruvius (iii. 3), but it was not until the year 1837, when much of the rubbish which encumbered the stylobate of the Parthenon had been removed by the operations carried on by the Greek government, that the curvature was discovered by Mr. George Pennethorne, an English architect then at Athens. Subsequently the curves
* The words of Vitruvius in the usual editions are: —l( Hypaethros vero decastylos est in pronao et postico: reliqua omnia habet quae dipteros, sed interiore parte columnas in altitudine duplices, remotas a parietibus ad circuitionem ut porticus peristyljorum. Medium autern sub divo est sine tecto, adit usque valvarum ex utrinque parte in pronao et postico. Hujus autera exemplar Bomae non est, sed At hen is octastylos et in templo Olympio." Now, as the Parthenon was the only octastyle at Athens, it is supposed that Vitruvius referred to this temple as an example of the Hypaethros, more especially as it had one of the distinguishing characteristics of his hypaethros, namely, an upper row of interior columns, between which and the walls there was an ambulation like that of a peristyle. (Leake, p. 562.) But it seems absurd to say " Hypaethros decastylos est," and then to give an octastyle at Athens as an example. It has been conjectured with great probability that the " octastylos " is an interpolation, and that the latter part of the passage ought to be read. "Hujus autem exemplar Romae non est, sed Athenis in templo Olympio." Vitruvius would thus refer to the great temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens, which we know was a complete example of the hypaethros of Vitruvius.