S3 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[MAKCrt, 



pro'iability havp run counter to iliis daring arrangement. In the l-^mples 

 of Pa;itii'n we Bud a double tier of columns, one over the oihir, to sup- 

 port the rouf of tlie hypcihrnm, bo'h Doric; but the casual staemcpt of 

 Mr. Inwood, (hat a portion of i: t'oiinlhian capitnl was brought by him 

 from Ihe Parthenon, and a similar fragment discovered in the Temple of 

 Apollo Eiiicurius, at IJassa;, near Phigalia, seein to have been considered 

 Butlicieuily grave auihority for the introduction of the Corinthian, as one of 

 the inner orders of tlie Panhenon. .Vssuming at once that Mr. Inwood 

 g.)t it from Ihe Parthenon— How did it get there? Was it there originally .' 

 Had any other traveller — the precise Spon and Wheller, or liie lahorious 

 Stuart and Rcvctt ever seen it ! Among the strange metdmorphoses by 

 Venetian, Turk, and Greek, may it not have been converted to the pnrpo^e 

 of construction frcji some stray fragment beyond the verge of the Parthe- 

 non, as being lighter and more easily applicable for their purpose than the 

 ponderous blocks of the construction of Ictinus? May it not have been 

 purposely placed there by some wily Greek to give it additional value in 

 the eyes of one, who was eager for any fragment of .\ttic art. and pro- 

 fusely liberal to every one who contributed to his collection? The intro- 

 duction of the Corinthian orderintothe Parthenon involves so many serious 

 questions in the art, that ils adoption must rest upon some more au'hentic 

 proof than that which accompanied this questionable fragment. Outlet 

 us assume that it cam_- from the I'arlhenon, and was always there; is it 

 too much to require the restorer to pause and consider whether this may 

 not have b ei a fragment from some object quite distinct from the archi- 

 tectjnre > for we know, from Pa'i:;anius, that all the Greek temples of auy 

 iize aud reputation were filled with statues, groups, pedestals, candelabra, 

 cars, tazza?, tripods, vases, seals, and other articles of wood, metal, an.l 

 bronze; the votive olferings of the conqueror, the supplicant, and the 

 superstitious. Mr. Lucas has introduced the Ionic as his lower order, 

 aud the Corinlhian above ; a restoration more consistent with our precon- 

 ci ived notions, yet siill open to serious objection. However, he has given 

 a regular entablature to his lower order, whereas, judging from the P.-estan 

 Temple, and the reason of the tiling, a mere arciiiiiave or beam were more 

 fitting. IJot a mure serious objection presents itself in the arrangement of 

 the ceiling, which is made to overhang the upper range of columns for the 

 purpose of contracting the aperture of the hypelhriini. This presents so 

 much difiiculty of C(m>truction, and seems so much in advance of the 

 science of tiie Greeks at that period, that I cannot but consider it as apo- 

 cryphal, as alsj the pedimental form of some of the compartments of the 

 ceiling, and the sloping roof over the aisles of the cella. 



I have not wished to lengthen my remarks by allusions in detail to some 

 questionable portions of the sculpture. I may, perhaps, be venturing on 

 ground for which I am as little qualified to judge, as Mr. Lucas is to form 

 an opinion of the architv-tlure: but I must own, that I could have wished 

 that the sculpture had been modelled with a refiuement and liuisli more 

 corresponding with tlie exquisite execution of the matchless original. I 

 could have wished that one's ideas of the dignity, the splendour, and pro- 

 portion of the Chryselephantine statue, and the grave majesly and beauty 

 of Minerva herself had been more realized than it is in tliis conception; 

 and it appears to me that the want of pure drawing, the total absence of 

 Attic elegance aud correct proportion in Ihe rude illustralions of his pam- 

 phlet, do little justice to the intelligence of the author in the letter-press. 

 I could have desired that the modelling and putting together of the archi- 

 tectural details had been less characterised by coarseuess aud want of 

 delicacy. Aud I must own, that the prominence given to the sculptures of 

 the pediments, the projections of the heads and limbs of so many of the 

 figures, seem to me so much to interfere with the liues of the architecture, 

 aud themselves to be so much cut up by the intersection of the corona, as 

 to produce a most uusatisfaclory iniricacy, and disagreeable contrast. 

 Neither the drawings of Carry (perspective views taken iVoin a low point), 

 nor the casual signs of a water drip, which may ha\e arisen from a mis- 

 placed slab above, nor the solitary instance of a questionable indentation of 

 a fragment head— more than probably a rebate to receive the bronze helmet, 

 nor the projecti.m of the horse's jaw at a part where no shadow broke the 

 continuous line of li;;ht, seems to me to justify the solitary instance of so 

 marked a principle, which would have itself established a rule in all future 

 cases, but which has never, that I am aware, been followed in any suc- 

 ceeding instances in ancient or modern times, that have pietensions to be 

 considered as classic works of art. 1 shall cmiclude with one more 

 reference, aud that is to the polj chromatic embellishments timidly indicated 

 over certain parts. Mr. Lucas states, thai he is not called upou to run any 

 risk of making a ^'■auJ of this restoration of the Parthenon, or to depart 

 from the severe simplicity, which is the characteristic of all the art of 

 Phidias. The testimony of trailition as recorded in the Transactions of 

 this Institute, the evidence on the monument itself, the fragments recently 

 dug up, all prove that polychromy had its full development in the Parthenon. 

 The fragments di>tovered in the foundations, attested the antiquity of the 

 practice" Will Mr. Lucas venture to say, that ihe Parthenon, when so 

 embellished, was a gaud f Mill he assume the question, and say tliat the 

 simplicity characteristic of all the art of Phidias was colourless? \t hat 

 is the lestiiiiouj borne by the monuments of ancient Egyptian architecture? 

 What by the producliuus of mcdiiieial art? 



If, in regard to the exteut of polychromatic embellishment, Mr. Lucas 

 nesit'ated among conflicting opinions to go to the full extent of some of the 

 advocates for nnqualilied adoption of colour, I could understand his pru- 

 dence ; but it seems equally rash to reject all colour as to adopt it through- 

 out : iind reasouing do-.-s cot seem to justify the iutroducliun of colour iu 



one or two parts only, which by their rery Bolitariaess contrast most harshly 

 with the rest of the modi I. 



In subini ting to jour notice these observations upon these models, I 

 have felt called upon to do so, in order to vindnate the professional 

 character of the English architect, which is perrilled by the conspicuous 

 position given to a work of art, professing to be a restoration of ;he noblest 

 monument of antiquity, a 1 uniting the knowledge, science, and learning 

 of this country. The acc.iracy of the English architect has been acquired 

 by many personal sacrifijes, laborious iuvestigalions, and pains-taking 

 accuracy. The work of Stuart and the productions of the Dilettanti 

 Society, had established tiie fame of the English, as the revivers and best 

 illustrators of Greek art. But what will be the opinion of foreigner.* upou 

 English architects, if this defective and erroneous restoration be assumed, 

 as the proof by which to estimate the res earch, and knowledge, and skill 

 of the English architect in 1840. In this I do not so much allude to Mr. 

 Lucas, as to the Trustees of the British Museum. Mr. Lucas has been 

 imprudent in calling this a restoration of the Parthenon in all ihe/u(n«» of 

 its original heauly unJ siilendjur, Hehas looked at it merely as a sculptor; 

 and the architecture he has considered as subordinate to that his first 

 object. The Trustees should have called in the advice of some one or 

 more of the many architects who have measured the Parthenon stone by 

 stone. They should have provided Mr. Lucas with Ihe most perfect model 

 of the building that modern research could have produced; and our 

 sculptor rould hive worked on his restoration of Ihe sculpture, nnem- 

 barassed by considerations of the details of the architecture, for which he 

 WHS neither prepared nor fitted by previous study, as he has himself 

 modestly avowed. 



I now conclude these remarks, put together in the brief interval of 

 numerous and important professional avoca'ions, not to detract from the 

 merit of Mr. Lucas's courageous attempt, but, as 1 have said before, lo 

 vindicate my profession from the imputation ot those unfortunate blemishes, 

 which, although ihey may not afl'ect the reputation of Ihe author as a 

 sculptor, seriously peril the fame of the English architect, scholar, and 

 antiquary, in the esliiuation of the accomplished and learned foreign artiiit* 

 01 Europe. 



Mr. Lrc\s in reply, observed that he felt much indebted to Mr. Donald- 

 son for his valuable suggestions, and for the obliging manner in which 

 they were conveyed. He was not prepared to accede to the propriety of 

 all the alterations proposed by that gentleman, but he readily allowed that 

 in several points his own opinions were modified by what he had just heard. 

 Much applause was expressed by the meeting at the frank manner in 

 which Mr. Lucas made this avowal. He said that with respect to the io- 

 troduclion of tour steps instead of three at the base of the temple, he had 

 been guided by the authority of Colonel Leake. In the small model which 

 was made as a preliminary lo the execution of the larger work now in ihe 

 British Museum, there were but three steps: but the alteration had 

 been made in consequence of the statement in Colonel Leake's book, that 

 the number was four, and his determination had been confirmed by a letter 

 which he had received from Mr. Walter Grenville, stating that there was 

 a fourth step now obscured by rubbish. He felt however the full force of 

 Mr. Donaldson's argument, and in fact he had, from an anticipation ihat 

 an objection might be made on this point, so arranged his model that the 

 requisite alteration could be immediately efl'ecled if he should hereafter 

 feel himself sulliciently authorised in making it. 



With respect to the continuation of the mouldings of the antae all round 

 the temple, he had beiu guided by the drawings of Stuart. .\s the fascia 

 and string course certainly went all round, and as in the plates published 

 by Stuart, the lines benealh those members were alsodrawu us continued, 

 he considered that he had accurately interpreted the intention of the draw- 

 ings by the arrangement observed in the model. It was also necessary t;> 

 observe that his original uiodels had been submitted to the inspection of 

 many highly competent persons, but thoui;h he was inilebted to them fur 

 several valuable suggestious, no objections had been expressed as to tha 

 particular architectural features in question. 



With respi'ct to the strictures on the inclination of the doorway and the 

 form of thf- consoles, he had no defence to offer. He was convinced of the 

 propriety of Mr. Itonaldsun's remarks, aud intended to adopt his sugges- 

 tions. With respect however to the introduction of railings at the en- 

 trance he could not express the same concurrence. It appeared to bim 

 that these features were purely matters of detail, and it was obvious that 

 there were many mere details of the interior which it would be not only 

 impossible, but improper also, to represent in a model. In cases of this 

 kind, especially where the artist had no guide from the remains of ancient 

 fragments, some liberty must be given to him of using his own discretion. 

 It certainly appeared lo him Ihat the railings iu question might be with 

 propriety omitted. 



The first part of his work which he had finished was the Chrys-elephan- 

 tine statue of the goddess. In tiie course of this work the idea had oc- 

 curred to him of making a niudei of the temple, but he had originally en- 

 tertained no higher aim than that of making the model a sort of cover for 

 his statue. He observed that he agreed with Mr. Donaldson in not liking 

 the present statue, and had pledged himself, without solicitation, to the 

 trustees to replace it by another containing the result of his latter expe- 

 rience. The objection that he had made, that some parts of the sculpture in 

 the pediment iuleisectid and protruded beyond ihe corona, aud had thereby 

 broken the continuity of the CJiuicc, was the objection of an architect rather 

 than of a eculpior. His answer was this— on eiiaminiug the ihuulder 



