46 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[Fkbruart, 



been high enough to reach the roof. This certainly is a more formidable 

 argument than the last; it shows that if columns corresponding to these 

 indications actually existed, there must hare been another order of columns 

 or some other architectural members between them and the roof. This 

 conclusion seemed perfectly unavoidable when Professor Cockerell wrote ; 

 hut we seem now relieved from all necessity of a supposition of the kind 

 by the subsequent discovery of traces of larger colums which icuuld have 

 reached the roof. There seems no reason whatever for supposing that these 

 columns rather than the small ones were vestigies of the old Hecatorape- 

 don. It may be conceded that such traces would remain of the foundations 

 of the first building as would exhibit the position of its columns ; and 

 there is no great improbability in snpposing that these traces would no' 

 be wholly effaced by the erection of the new Parthenon. — We ourselves 

 have repeated experience of the same stale of things in our own mediajval 

 edifices. But there seems no reason for preferring the small columns to 

 the large ones as having been those actually constructed in the new Par. 

 thenon. If either set of remains are to be assigned to the previous build- 

 ing, we have a perfect right to choose which we please— so that there is 

 no absolute necessity for supposing that the small columns rather than the 

 large were those of the Parthenon. 



But there are several general considerations of a very weighty nature 

 which lead us irresistibly to choose the larger columns reaching from the 

 pavement to the roof as the set actually belonging to the Parthenon. In 

 the sixth volume of the work on the Museum collection of marbles, already 

 referred to, Mr. Cockerell gives a representation of the interior of the 

 temple restored ; his drawing resembling the illustration of the present 

 article, excepting in the orders of the columns. Now it will be observed 

 that iu Mr. Cockerell's drawing, and also in the woodcut here given, the 

 ower order of columns of the cella are between two and three times the 

 height of the npper order. It seems to us perfectly impossible that such 

 an arrangement could have actually existed. The upper range of columns 

 would be considerably lejs than half the size of the lower range, and con- 

 sequently one of these two thinsrs must have occurred — either the upper 

 columns must have been constructed in total defiance of all due proportion 

 of their height to their diameter (a deformity which such an architect as 

 Ictinus could never have permitted), or else the columns of the upper tiers 

 must have been of less diameter as well as less height than those of the 

 lower tier — an arrangement as awkward and ungraceful as can possibly 

 be imagined ; for Ihe intercolumniation ought to be proportionate to the 

 diameter of the columns, and here we should have the large columns of the 

 lower tier and the small upper columns arranged at the same distances 

 from each other. 



This objection appears perfectly fatal to the existence of the upper 

 range. It >Jiay be added that, viewed quite independently, the second 

 tier of columns is but a poor make-shift contrivance for getting addi- 

 tional height, and one which we should never altribute to the archi- 

 tects of the Parthenon. The whole building — that is, where the archi- 

 tecture is clearly determined — exhibits a perfect simplicity and one- 

 ness of design, totally at variance with this supposition, for which we 

 have shewn that there is no absolute necessity, and against which there 

 are so many powerful a priori arguments. In the exterior of Ihe temple 

 the columns were all of one order, and all supported the roof from the 

 ground : if, in examining Mr. Lucas's beautiful model, the observer will 

 imagine that the same arrangement was observed in the interior of the 

 ouilding, he will, we think, be disposed to agree with us, that the 

 beautiful symmetry and unity of the whole is greatly enhanced on this 

 supposition. 



If we suppose the great chamber of the temple supported by a mag- 

 nificent range of lofty columns rising to the roof, the mind instantly 



pictures a noble interior, harmonising in its severe and simple beauty 

 with what the eye has been taught to expect by surveying the exterior 

 of the building. If, on the contrary, we suppose in the interior a 

 range of diminutive columns supporting others still smaller than them- 

 selves, our preconceived notions of the dignity and simplicity of the 

 Parthenon are entirely overturned, and we are forced to allow that the 

 Greeks themselves gave a precedent for the later parodies and barba- 

 rous adaptations of their beautiful architecture. 



There is good reason to hope that before long this matter will be settled 

 beyond all dispute. Mr. Lucas is far too energetic a lover of the arts to 

 leave his task half done. He purposes to show shortly the very scenes uf 

 which he has furnished so admirable representations, for the purpose of 

 examining, in the minutest manner, all that remains of the Parthenon, 

 and of clearing up, as far as possible, all controversies respecting it. All 

 disciples of true architecture will await the true result of his mission with 

 interest, as tending to elucidate points of the very highest architectural 

 importance. It may not be inopportune to call to remembrance that the 

 distinguishing characteristic of Grecian architecture is unity aoii simpli- 

 city, and that therefore, in all cases of doubt, we should lean lo Ihe opi- 

 nion which favours the simplest form. In nothing is the simplex mundi- 

 His so admirably developed as in pure classic art, as distinguished from 

 the subsequent imitations of it ; and therefore it is by folluwing up those 

 traces which are in<licative of the greatest simplicity, that dilficulties 

 are most likely to be unravelled. With this hint we quit the subject, 

 thanking Mr. Lucas for the valuable information which he has personally 

 communicated, and congratulating him cordially, not only on the acces- 

 sion of fame which his models will win for him, but on having completed 

 a work which will have the most powerful effect in elevating the public 

 taste for true classic architecture. 



ON SACRISTIES. 



Very little has ever been said on the subject of Sacristies, or, as they 

 are more usually called now. Vestries, in the Ecclesiologist. Yet it niav 

 be doubted whether such an appendage is not absolutely necessary to a 

 church ; from the impossibility of dispensing with its use, if the Divine 

 offices are to be performed with any ceremonial, not to say decency. For 

 not only is a receptacle required for the ornaments of Ihe altar, the church, 

 and the clergy, but it can scarcely comport with seemly reverence for any 

 change of vestmentto take place in the presence of an assembled congrf- 

 gatioQ : the high pews in the chancel, which used often to hide this pi-o- 

 cess in mean country churches, having by this time pretty generally dis- 

 appeared ; and the device of screening off a part of the area of the church 

 being now fitly regarded as an expedient scarcely justifiable under any 

 emergency. 



It is not difficult to derive a general rule for the right position, and for 

 several important details of the arrauKement of Sacristies from obser- 

 vation of our old churches. For although existing ancient examples are 

 far from numerous, yet in a large proportion of uuiouched chancels, we 

 may observe unmistakeable traces of Sacristies which have been destroNed. 

 From these we deduce that the proper situation of a Sacrisiy is on the 

 north side of the chancel, towards its eastern part. The reasons for this 

 position are obvious : it is near the altar (to the service of which the Sa- 

 cristy, like the rigidly prescribed Diaionicum in a Greek church, more 

 especially belongs); the door into it falls conveniently between the end of 

 the northern stalls and the steps of the sacrarium, the south side being 

 pre-occupied by piscina, sedilia, and the priest's entrance; aud perhaps 

 its presence, always rather intrusive, is less so on Ihe north iluiu it 

 would be if it marred the southern prospect of the church, which in our 

 climate is, as a general rule, in an inoffensive sense, the show side. 



Ancient Sacristies remain in the above situation at S. Nicolas, South- 

 fleet, Kent; S. Swilhin, Leadeoham, Liucolnshiie ; S. Mary, Reigate, 

 Surrey, where there is a north chancel-aisle ; S.Andrew, Backwell, So- 

 merset. Sacristies in the same position once existed in SS. Mary and 

 Michael, Triimpingtnn; All Saints, Teversham ; S. Mary, Fen Ditton, 

 Cambridgeshire; S. IMary, Stone, Kent; and S. John, Shoilesbrook, 

 Berks. These examples are taken at random. External corbels on the 

 north chancel-wall ; the absence of windows in that part; the preseuc-e uf 

 H north chancel door, generally blocked, (in addition to llie priest's door), 

 the outer mouldings of which will often be found to be not of an external 

 character; aud foundations discovered in digging graves; reveal the 

 former existence of a Sacristy, and are peculiarities not explaim d by any 

 other supposition. In some few cases these may be traces of a chantry 

 chapel ; much more generally, however, of a Sacristy, allowed to fall to 

 ruiu, or destroyed, by the holder of the great tithes. Again, chantries, 

 more especially detached ones, belonged generally to manors, and con- 

 tained monuments, for the sake of which they ha\e been preserved. 

 Chantries also opened to the church by arches, not by a small door ; su 

 that we may conclude the marks mentioned above to be true signs of a 

 Sacristy, not of a chantry chapel. 



