1846.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



87 



depth, and it is not therefore surprising that a high general estimate of this 

 art should prevail, and yet Ihai it should be but little understood, or that 

 its inlluence should In' limited. It may be said — what are the 

 excellencies we are to seek and to use, to form as it were part of our 

 national]!)' ? 1 answer the general comprehensiveness of plan, ils fitness, its 

 grandeur, ils profound science, and general nobility of treatment, so unlike 

 the meanness of plan, rigidity and utter prostration of science, so often 

 discoTerable in works, produced oui of the paleof Gi'eek art. 



The whole chain of dependent facts was evolved and laid out to be 

 examined; the most delic-ile shades of truth scrupulously distin- 

 guished, and as no science can exist without demonstration, the whole ex- 

 isted as one. Architecture and Sciiliiliire, and Painting blended into con- 

 summate harmony : the Parthenon \Tas a magnificent poem, comprehended 

 at a glance, and in this poem of a thousand stanzas, every separate verse 

 was a poem in itself, but subdued and aiding to the general eii'ects by the 

 fitness of its application, and the harmony of its proportion. This accurate 

 systematic form which gives to Olreek art its utility as an example, indeed 

 is to be found no where else, and without it we cannot understand the 

 science of art in its truth. Now to speak of a general system as applied to 

 i\ledia;val art sounds rather curious. I speak here of the adornments 

 rather than construction ; they seem a collection of fragments — here a con- 

 sistency, there an absurdity, hint and hypothesis, doubt and dogmatism, 

 feeling and reason, cold mathematical iibstraction, and the most gorgeous 

 poetry, the drama and the lecture, the serious and the ridiculous, all thrown 

 together by a hand careless in its profusion of riches, both disjointed, and 

 constituted — these are the characteristics of the most perfect specimens of 

 i\ledia;Tal art, and in this art they often seem to have overlooked that great 

 advantage in Greek art, the exquisite beauty of their forms. Whether it was 

 climate or natural temperature, or education, or social circumstances that 

 gave the Greeks their delicate perceptions of universal beauty, no people 

 ever existed in whose happiness it was so necessary an ingredient, or to 

 whom it was so profusely ministered by the genius of their composers. Their 

 whole nature was so refined that truth stripped of grace and beauty, could 

 no more touch their minds than religion their hearts, unless veiled under 

 a gorgeous mythology . 



The Greeks succeeded in producing perfection in the art or science of 

 pourtraying thehumanformiu its most perfect beauty : this we also must use; 

 for wiihout it our art must retrograde. Hut we require something more than 

 the science of beautiful form: we must use the form, and superadd a 

 spirit of nationality. The sculpture of the ancients is the most faithful, the 

 most eloquent, the most enduring chronicle of their greatness. If, in his 

 solemn discourse over those slain in battle for their country, Periclescould 

 say that of illustrious men all earth iciis their tomb, and that their names were 

 not merely graven on the sepulchral marble among their own kindred, but 

 stored[up fur erer, in the unwritten registers of memory in other lands; 

 so may we say, at the close of this our essay on Phidias, that 

 though the glory of it, manifested to his countrymen in distinct and 

 familiar characters and in the fulness of its meaning, is to our distant age 

 only dimly and distantly revealed ; if we know it only by the few frag- 

 ments we have preserved, or by those scattered in foreign lands, or by 

 cold delineations and still colder descriptions, yet the image of the art 

 survives in the mind of man, to be reflected again and again in the thought 

 of remote posterity, an unwritten record and silent witness of the great- 

 ness of the Athenian people, and the genius of their sculptor. 

 " They so sepulchered in such pomp do lie, 

 That kings fur such a tomb might wish to die." 

 When Mr. Lucas had finished, Mr- Donaldson read the following remarks : 

 You will doubtless, gentlemen, have been struck with the energy and 

 fixedness of purpose with which Mr. Lucas has followed up his project of 

 working out a reputation for himself by a restoration of the Parthenon, the 

 fame of which, he hoped, would bring him favourably before the notice of 

 the public, and no less pleased by the frankness with which he has com- 

 municated to us his ideas on the subject. 



But there are other consideratiojis of very great importance, which offer 

 themselves in connection with so vast an undertaking. The boldness of 

 the attempt must be justified by the qualifications of the enterprising artist. 

 The taste and practical skill of the sculptor must be seconded by the learn- 

 ing of the antiquary, llie professional experience of the architect, and the 

 precision of the modeller. It seems beyond the range of human probabi- 

 lity, that any thing less than a visit to this noblest of ancient monuments, 

 and many weeks, nay months, devoted to the study of it on the spot, could 

 enable any one, however gifted, to solve satisfactorily the many doubtful 

 ques'ions which hang over its complete restoration. We know that Palla- 

 (lio thiice visited Rome ere he ventured to publish his monuments of Roman 

 architecture. Brunelleschi returned again and again to study the baths, 

 the temples, and the ruins of that ancient city ere he felt satisfied to under- 

 fake t!u> construction of the dome of Santa Maria dei Fiori, at Florence. 

 Mazois repeatedly went to Naples to measure and draw the remains of 

 Pompeii, in order to ensure a scrupulous and faithful record of the exca- 

 valid liuildings. 



If iMr. Lucas had published his model and descriptions of it, as a re- 

 storation of the sf«/p(Kr(?s of the Parthenon, if the laudatory paragraplis, 

 inserted by his admirers and friends in the public prints, had confined tlieir 

 eulogies to this, and had laid no higher claim than to the merit of having 

 restored the work of the immortal Phidias, I should have left to others 

 mure compt-tent than myself, and better acquainted with that sister art, to 

 have examined into the proprieties of the restoration in that department. 

 Ijut the title-page of Mr. Lucas's own pamphlet, copies of which we owe 



to his friendly courtesy, slates that one of the models exhibits the temple as 

 it appeared in its dilapidated state in the seventeenth cent ur if, and executed 

 from the existing remains, or from authentic drawings. The" other being (in 

 attempt to restore it to the fulness of its original beauty and splendour. It 

 is upon the fallacy of these statements, as regards its architecture, that I 

 feel obliged at once to protest against the models— the one as not being a 

 faithful representation of it in its dilapidated state, not executed from ex- 

 isting remains nor from authentic drawings— the other being inaccurate 

 generally in its architectural details, and being deficient, instead of ex- 

 hibiting the/i/^ncss of its original beauty and splendour. 



I feel called upon to examine the subject thus specially, for the archi- 

 tectural errors are so contrary to the canons of the art. that the character 

 of the profession is implicated, when we see that the Trustees of the British 

 Museum give the stamp of approbation to these mistakes by purchasing 

 the models, and exhibiting them in juxta-posiiion with the very marbles of 

 the Parthenon itself. We must give them full credit for wishing to do full 

 justice to the high reputation of Phidias; it is only to be regretted that, 

 from parsimony or ignorance in themselves or those around them, they 

 should have forgotteu the claim of Ictinus to the character of the first archi- 

 tect of his own or any age, and as having produced in the Parthenon a 

 work free from every defect, pure in every detail, graceful in every pro- 

 portion. 



In the model of the Parthenon in its dilapidated state, Mr. Lucas has 

 erroneously represented on the architrave over the columns of the Posti- 

 cuin, the fillet caps over the guttse. He has not placed them at the angles, 

 and has continued them along the flanks. They now exist at the angles, 

 and at equal spaces along the front, as shown by Stuart, and there were 

 none as usual along the Uank. 



Blr. Lucas has continued the antae cap mouldings along the wall of the 

 Posticum, and along the_Uank wall of the cella, in both which positions they 

 never existed. Mr. Lucas has represented cornices on the inner face of 

 the cella wall where they do not exist, nor according to the most probable 

 mode of restoration, ever could exist. 



These introductions are totally at variance with the drawings of Stuart 

 and cannot possibly be extant in any other authentic drawings as staled in 

 the title-page of the pamphlet. 



I must now venture to allude to the restored model. In the first place, 

 it is less accurate as regards the steps, than that of the mined temple. In 

 the latter there are only three, in the former four. Upon referring to my 

 own studies made on the spot, I find three steps of marble, and below the 

 Knvermost a slab of the same height and about the same projection of stone, 

 and thus specifically staled in my sketch. There is then a much wider 

 slab of stone, and a drop beyond of 3 ft. 4 in. It appeared conclusive to 

 my mind, that the stone slab was a portion of the pavement of the area 

 around the temple, which was laid with slabs of stone, the upper surface 

 being level with the upper face of the stone slab under the third marble 

 step. In fact, it would have looked incongruous to have had one step of 

 sione and then three of marble. Besides which we have the testimony of 

 Vitruvius, who says, Book III. c. 3. ''The number of steps iu front 

 should always be odd, since in that case the right foot, which begins the 

 ascent will be that which first alights on the lauding of the temple." We 

 know that our great master borrowed all his canons from the Greeks, and 

 that the superstitions of the ancients had a common origin and a common 

 acceptation. 



The restored model shows no traces of the plinth which existed between 

 the lower parts of the columns of the Posticum, and of which there are in- 

 disputable signs in the Parthenon. This plinth, which was 9 feet I inch 

 high, and half as wide again as the centre fluting, received the standards 

 of the metal grating which inclosed the intercolumniations up to the sum- 

 mit of the capit.ils, as is ascertained by the mortice holes still existing in 

 the antie. This metal work was for the purpose of giving security to the 

 Posticum, as within it were exjiosed to public view many of the votive 

 ollfiings of beauty and value, the riches of the temple, and being placed 

 within the metal railing, they were prevented being injured by accident or 

 purloined by the evil disposed. This grating was probably of bronze gilt, 

 and many Roman bas-reliefs offer authority for a restoration. 



The next inaccuracy to which I wish to call attention, is the doorway. 

 The old aperture had been uarrowed long since, either by the Venetians or 

 Turks, by the introductiim of slabs in irregular courses ; beyond these 

 slabs the wall is perfectly plain. Reasoning from the magnificence and 

 importance of the Parthenon, which would be evidently deficient in ell'ect 

 if the doorway were a mere square aperture ; reasoning from the analogy 

 of the Ereciheum, which has a magiiificf-nt doorway, although an edifice 

 of less importance than the Temple of Minerva, and reasoning from the 

 evidence to be found on the apertures of the Propylea, which had evidently 

 bronze dressings, I have littie hesilatiou in stating my opinion, that the 

 dressings of the Partiienon were of bronze, and that the model is singularly 

 unfortunate in having consoles or trusses, which support nothing, are ac- 

 companied by no corresponding embellishment, and are contrary to all rea- 

 son, propriety, and example. I have already alluded to the continuation 

 of tlie mouldings of the aut^e caps, retained in the restoration, and quite 

 contrary to fact. We now come to the interior of the cella, and consider- 

 ing the complexity of the opinions ofl'ered by Messrs. Pittakis, Fiulay, and 

 others, who were consulted by our author, it is not surprising ihat tie 

 should have found himself involved iu a maze of difficulty. It appears 

 that Mr. Cockerell, iu tlie seventh volume of the Museum Publications, 

 has restored the interior with two orders of columns ; the lower are Co- 

 rinthian, the upper arc Doric. All the rules of the art, all analogy, and all 



