Deckmbek 7, 1883.] 



SCIENCE. 



141 



four years ago by Mr. Fergusson, in his "Triie 

 principles of beauty in art.' In a preface to 

 tlie present volume, the author states his con- 

 viction that it is certain to prove otl'ensive to 

 specialists ' from the novelty of the views ad- 

 vanced ; ' but as these views are almost exactly 

 those adopted in his earlier publication, and as 

 this application of a clere-storv to ancient tem- 

 ples can hardly be called orijiiual. — it having 

 been suggested by Hoetticher in 1847, two years 

 before its first mention by Mr. Fergusson, — 

 it would seem more natural to seek for some 

 other explanation for the discontent of the 

 critics. 



It is certainly true, that more has been writ- 

 ten, and more angry controversies have arisen, 

 regarding the hypaethron, than with reference 

 to any other feature, either constructive or ar- 

 tistic, in the temples of the Greeks; and after 

 careful study the conviction forces itself upon 

 the reluctant mind, that this last contribution, 

 surpassing in extent and elaboration all others, 

 does little toward the confirmation of that 

 hypothesis in any of its varieties. 



Mr. Fergusson adopts for the Parthenon, the 

 temple of Zeus and that of Hera at Olympia, 

 the temples of Aegina. Paestum, Selinous, — 

 in short, for all regular (Jreek peristyles, — a 

 clere-story sunk by two long openings in the 

 roof at eitlier side of the ridge, which remains 

 unbroken over the central aisle of the naos. 

 The height between the entablature of the up- 

 per order of interior columns and the inclined 

 lines of the roof is that of his vertical windows. 

 The drainage from this imperfect covering is 

 effected by jjcrforating the lateral walls of the 

 cella with gutters, leading the rain-water into 

 the pteroma, in which ceiled and protected col- 

 onnade such dripping must have been particu- 

 larly undesirable. Contrary to the fundamental 

 separation of roof and ceiling universally car- 

 ried out in Greek architecture, he leaves the 

 central aisle open to the inclined roof-surface, 

 like the Bavarian Walhalla, and defends this 

 feature with the surprising statement that flat 

 ceilings, in either wood or plaster, were un- 

 known in classical times. The argument ad- 

 duced to prove this inclination of the ceiling, 

 visible from within, is found by "Mr. F'ergusson 

 in the well-known complaint of .Strabo (viii. 

 3, 30, p. 35;!), — that the statue of Zeus at 

 Olympia was so large, that, if the seated deit}' 

 should arise, the roof of the building would be 

 carried awaj'. This passage is certainly not 

 " the only hint in any ancient author as to how 

 the roofs of Greek temples were constructed," 

 and, what is worse, its application to the point 

 in question is dependent upon a mistranslation. 



The words of Strabo, ' almost touching the 

 ceiling with the top of its head.' are wrongly 

 rendered by Mr. Fergusson, 'nearly touched 

 the summit of the roof.' Tliis misleading ver- 

 sion is twice given in the present volume (pp. 

 2 and 111), and from it the non-horizontal form 

 of the ceiling is directly deduced. It seems 

 high time that this blunder, repeated by so 

 many writers since its first commission by 

 (^uatremiirc de (juincy, should at last be elimi- 

 nated from discussions of the subject. 



As it would naturally have been impossible 

 to surmount with a clere-story those smaller 

 peripteral temples which were without columns 

 in the naos, ^Ir. Fergusson is obliged to assume, 

 against all evidence, that interior pillars or pi- 

 lasters did originally exist, and that, while the 

 Christian reconstruction of the Theseion ob- 

 literated the traces of those in that building, a 

 figured mosaic pavement in the remarkably 

 similar temple of Assos should be taken to 

 indicate the position of such sui)ports. The 

 last example is certainly not favorable to the 

 theory ; for the bedding of the pavement in 

 question is distinctly shown, by plan and text 

 of the first report on the investigations at 

 Assos.' to have extended to the very edge of 

 the lateral walls, thus precluding tiie possibilitj' 

 of any columns or piers within the narrow hall. 



The omission of galleries from interioi's, 

 which were provided with a double range of 

 coluums standing at some distance from the 

 wall, is even less excusable. The assertion 

 (pp. 8 and 73) that there were no galleries in 

 the temple of Aegina is unwarranted. The 

 only reason advanced for this, that the space 

 between the shafts and the wall was only about 

 one metre in width, is of no weight. To sup- 

 pose that one order of columns was l)alanced 

 upon another, with an intermediate entablature 

 not tied to the wall by a floor, is unworthy our 

 conception of the constructive wisdom displaj-ed 

 in Greek architecture. These galleries, known 

 from literary sources to have existed in many 

 temples, were actually found and measured at 

 Paestum ; and yet Mr. Fergusson omits them 

 entirely from his section of that monument, 

 without a word of justification (fig. 41). The 

 notched architrave from the same site, in which 

 he sees • the most direct proof of the theory,' 

 'final in its correctness,' has leally no bearing 

 upon the question, being simply an example of 

 the commonest method of construction, when 

 adjoining horizontal ceilings were employed on 

 different levels. This appears constantly in 

 every kind of Greek buildings. 



In one instance, however, the author must 



> Uep. arch. Inst. Amcr, 



