IS44.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



241 



tended column : thus leaving an insulated mass of stonp in the centre, 

 the exact shape and size of the required shaft. (See iig. 1, a, b, c, d, 

 e, and view fig. 2, a, b.) I should here add, that the stone columns of 

 every temple occupy almost invariably the same relative position in 

 the building which they occupied in the quarry. This circular mass 

 of stone has now, like the square blocks, only to be lifted from its lower 

 bed, and the method employed, which, from the examination of the 

 quarries at Selinus, can be no longer doubted, bears me out in a con- 

 jecture I had previously made on the square blocks. A hole or deep 

 incision, wedge-shaped (see shaft figs. 3 and 4, and fig. 1), was made in 

 the lowest part of the insulated cylinder, in the direction of its centre, 

 but considerably to one side, for reasons which will be obvious to you. 

 Into this hole, I presume, a wooden wedge was inserted, which was 

 saturated with water, and which being suffered to expand whilst in 

 that position would, at no great distance of time, heave up the mass, 

 on the same principle applied to the splitting of slate and millstones 

 in France, and so separate it in the direction of its bed. Nothing, I 

 think, appears more likely, from the consideration of the facts ob- 

 served at Selinus, than that such was the method employed : and 

 since I see from my memoranda, that I observed the branch of a shrub, 

 not one inch in diameter, which by its growth in a crevice of the rock 

 had split a mass of stone weighing about fifty tons, — I can readily 

 conceive that the small orifice, as shown in the drawing, with its 

 wooden wedge would have been sufficient to loosen the required mass. 

 The mode by which these cylindrical masses or courses were trans- 

 ported to their places of destination is fully described by Vitruvius 

 (Lib. x. cap. G), where you will find it attributed to Ctesiphon, archi- 

 tect of the Temple of Ephesus, and his son Metagenes. In a flat coun- 

 try it might have succeeded well; but it is difficult to conceive how 

 such masses could have been transported by those means only, over a 

 rugged and mountainous district wholly destitute of roads. 



We must regret that we have no farther elucidation of the subject, 

 than that given us by Vitruvius, which is very limited, since — anterior 

 to the building of the famous Ephesian Temple in the seventh cen- 

 tury before Christ — monoliths were transported from place to place 

 of proportions as large as those used in that temple. There are some 

 cylindrical blocks of stone for columns near the quarries of Selinus in 

 a field lyingin a position which makes it highly probable that the method 

 described by Vitruvius was adopted in regard to them. They have, 

 moreover, the square hole already worked on the ends, which, inde- 

 pendently of its use for other purposes, served as a means of fasten- 

 ing the wooden wheels. 



It is interesting to remark, from the signs still remaining on the 

 stone, the shape of the tool employed in working the material. The 

 consecutive cuts which are seen in the steps of the Segesta Temple, 

 show that the instrument used for rough work was 3h inches in width, 

 being slightly curved or hollowed like a gouge. The use of a saw to 

 cut the stones is instanced in the 7th chap, of Kings, verse 7. "All 

 these were of costly stones sawed with saws." Now those tools, I 

 presume, were of iron, since iron was found in Crete by the Dactyli 

 priests of Cybele, as far back as HUG B.C., about which time Dadalus 

 is said by Pliny (Nat. History VIII.) to have invented the axe, the 

 saw, the wimble, the level, and many other mechanical instruments or 

 tools. It is certain, however, that these tools were of iron 40U years 

 after; for, in the description of Solomon's Temple, it is stated, that 

 " the house when it was building was built of stone made ready before 

 it was brought thither, so that there was neither hammer, nor a.re, nor 

 any tool of ikon, heard in the House of God while it was in building." 

 (1 Kings vi, 7.) Now the examples of temples from which my no- 

 tices were taken, were erected many years subsequent to the above 

 date. 



The next process of the Greek builder, after procuring the stones 

 and columns, was the construction of the stylobate, or the sub-struc- 

 ture with its three steps, my remarks upon which are taken chiefly 

 from the Propylaea at Athens, and the temple at Segesta in Sicily, both 

 of which structures were never totally completed. Although the 

 former structure is of marble and the latter of stone, and erected at a 

 different period, still my remarks are applicable to both. 



The stone steps around the temple are in large blocks, generally 

 from five to seven feet long, placed, as usual, with the greatest regard 

 to symmetrical arrangement, every joint coming over the centre of the 

 bottom and top stone. The stones, therefore, are all precisely similar 

 in size. Each block is, previously to its being set in its place, worked 

 on four sides to a smooth face, the top surface being only worked on 

 that part which has to receive the bed of the stone above. The re- 

 maining side, or front of the step is, like the top left rough, a small 

 fillet or band only being worked all along the edges, to indicate the 

 true surface to which the stone has afterwards to be finished. It is 

 on this side that the small rough block used for heaving the stone is 

 frequently found in the centre (see fig. 5). Every joint must neces- 



sarily be composed of two substances in contact; and it is the degree 

 of contact which constitutes the amount of perfection in any joint. 

 The two neighbour stones, whose surfaces together form the joint in 

 Greek masonry, are worked differently from each other. One of the 

 surfaces is tooled down to a very slight depth, (rarely visible to the 

 eye, if the material be marble, though generally sensible to the touch,) 

 until there is left only a third (I have seen it as little as a sixth,) por- 

 tion of the surface of the stone for actual contact. The sole points of 

 contact are a band along the two sides (see fig. 5, a,) in the direction 

 of the stone's length, with, sometimes, another band in the centre. 

 The surface of the other stone remains perfectly flat; as it would 

 seem to be superfluous to work any off, although, as regards the case 

 of columns, this extreme precaution has been deemed necessary. On 

 that stone whose surface remains plain, the edges are sometimes 

 chamfered off, as is the case at Segesta (see b, fig. 5). But this does 

 not occur in every building. 



J am unable to explain its use, unless it was a kind of distinguishing 

 mark for the foreman, after the stone was placed, to detect inaccuracy 

 of position ; or for the slave who performed the laborious and heavy 

 work of laying the stones. As their skill was of a subordinate kind, 

 the position of the several square stones, columns, and other work 

 were invariably marked out for them, by means of some sharp tool, 

 with a thin line, as I have noticed in more than one instance which l 

 could mention. 



With respect to the columns, each course, of which the entire shaft 

 is to be composed, being brought to the building, has then to be worked 

 at the top and bottom in the following most elaborate manner, as an 

 inspection of the drawing (see fig. 6) (taken from the Parthenon 

 columns,) will fully show. After the two surfaces had been smoothed 

 to a most exquisitely true plane, radiating lines marking out the divi- 

 sion of the flutes were next indented by means of some sharp tool. 

 Such lines may be especially noticed on the Propytea columns. Next 

 three concentric circles were drawn out, also with some sharp instru- 

 ment, the common centre of them being the axis of the column. Now 

 be pleased to refer to the drawing (fig. G,) and its letters and figures to 

 understand more readily my description. The area comprised be- 

 tween the external surface of the shaft. A, and the circle, B, is the 

 smooth bed left untouched, and is to form the only surface of contact 

 when the column is raised. That between B and C is made a degree 

 lower than the surface of actual contact, by being very slightly tooled 

 or scratched over. In the like manner, the surface of the ring, C D, is 

 made lower than that of B C, by being tooled over very roughly. As 

 to the remaining portion round the centre it is retained smooth, but is 

 made as low as the surface B C. You will perceive from this what 

 systematic fellows the Greek masons were, and what precautions they 

 observed to ensure the accomplishment of their object. 



Every one of the 11 courses which compose the shafts of the 5S 

 exterior columns that belonged to the Parthenon, had the top and bot- 

 tom surfaces worked in this manner, and with the same care and at- 

 tention, which are so remarkable throughout the whole structure, 

 whether the parts were to be covered or to remain visible. Each 

 course had now to be lifted into its destined place; an operation which 

 was accomplished, it is supposed, by means of a machine called the 

 trochlea — an assemblage of puUies, fastened to a pair of sheers, or 

 other scaffolding, and which, according to the number of such pullies, 

 was denominated rpunrcKXTos, TtefTosiraaTos, -woKvuamos, &c. At the end 

 of the rope which passed through the pullies, were fastened the 

 ifaAiSfs, or Forfices firreo, described by Vitruvius (Lib. X.), an instru- 

 ment somewhat like a pair of large scissors, in use even at the present 

 day. These forfices (for I believe there were more than one pair 

 employed if the stone was very large,) were made to lay hold of the 

 two or four rough masses' projecting from the block and left for the 

 express purpose of raising the stone. When the circular stone or 

 first course was lifted [it was set into that place which had been 

 marked out for it, by a circle nearly the size of the column itself, on 

 the stylobate. It was then, according to the evidence which innu- 

 merable concentric circles display on the stylobate of the Temple of 

 Hercules at Agrigentuni, turned round and round (on a pivot of wood 

 as some suppose) and giound down to a fine surface. 



I must doubt, however, if this operation of grinding was performed 

 with each successive course, as I could find no other traces whatever 



1 The rejected marble drums found in the Acropolis, and identified as those which 

 were to have sen'ed for the Parthenon columns have four projecting masses round the 

 stone. The shafts which still remain in the quarries at Selui'is have, on the contrary, no 

 masses whatever, and must therefore, have been lifted at the building in a difterent man- 

 ner. I have before observed that the square hole left in the centre of the shaft, at top 

 and bottom, was worked at the quany ; in some cases this square hole has two sinkings, 

 as may be noticed in the Tetnplc of Hercules at Agrigentuni, and in no instance have I 

 found that these cavities are in the slightest degree dovetailed, but rather the reverse. 

 This circumstance rendersiit a matters of doubt, if not altogether, at least in the present 

 case, whether the use of the Lewis was at all known to the Greeks. 



