• On the Hypethron of Greek Temples: a Paper read
before the Archteologital Society of Berlin. Together with some Observations in Reply to the Re viewels of beautiful in art. But, unfortunately, this model has never been known to our age but as a ruin, and one with far less remaining of its original perfection than is to be seen in the monuments of Egyptian architecture, the work of an age long anterior to the Greeks, and of men who were their teachers. At Karnac, at Philte, and at Denderah, for example, there are portions of Egyptian temples perfect, even to the bright colours of the painted can relievi. There are the carved and painted ceilings and the doorways, about which there can be no dispute ; so lenient has been the hand of time and so fortunate the accidents of civilization, that these magnificent works of the first ar- chitects and sculptors remain as they were created a thousand years before Phidias was born. But the first Parthenon of the Athenians was burnt by the Persians, and its successor, which was to mark the pro- tecting favour of the guardian goddess Athene, and commemorate the brilliant age of Pericles by a triumph of art in the hands of Ictinus and Phidias, was doomed to a stranger fate. First, it became a basilica for the worship of the Greek Christians, and on the very spot where the statue of the goddess in ivory and gold stood, the rites of a new religion were performed before the altar with its apse intruding upon the antique peristyle, adorned with mosaics, and a painted eastern window, the light for which was no doubt obtained by cutting away the central group of sculpture from the pediment. Such, in this iconoclastic age, was the reckless destruction of works of art which were worth their weight in gold. Next, in 1455, came the Turks, who, in their turn, convert the ancient Temple of Minerva into a mosque, to be finally battered and shattered into dust and fragments by the bombshells of the Venetians in 1687. The state of the splendid temple after this may be imagined. To restore it, at least to the mind's eye, by the most accurate mea- surements of the columns and other fragmentary parts which remain, aided by the drawings of Nointel and Carrey, taken in 1674, has long occupied the most devoted attention of architects and archteologists. The problem, after half a century since Lord Elgin secured the sculpture for our museum, is not yet half worked out. We know that what was once considered to be the entrance was the posticus, but whether the temple was 'hypeethral, open to the sky, or closely roofed in, or whether the interior was lighted by a clerestory—some- what in the manner adopted in the Gothic churches—or indeed what was the precise construction of the roof, are all points upon which a great deal may be said without coming to any very definite conclusion. The original roof had fallen iii long before the drawings referred to were made, and they only represent the condition of the statues in the pediments in 1671. That some of the ancient Greek temples were like those of Egypt, which are entirely shut in from daylight, seems to be admitted ; but, on the other hand, it was a common thing to construct temples in which the roof extended only over the side aisles of the interior cella, being supported upon a row of columns, and leaving thus a consider- able space open to the sky, but capable of being covered if necessary with a velannm. Mr. Falkener alludes to this plan as common in the Pompeian houses, and he mentions having seen the corona of a cornice in a temple at Philte, round the edge of this kind of roofing, which was perforated for holding the cords of the velarium. He does not, as we understand, say that the Parthenon was roofed in this manner, but that a portion of the roof immediately in front, and above the colossal statue of Minerva, was left open, and this he con- siders to have been the hypethron in this temple.
In support of this view he brings forward the example of such an opening in the temples of Egina and Phigalia, the coping-stones of which remain, and have been shown by Mr. Cockerell to have formed the hyptethron. He also appeals to the fragment of a tile from the temple at Basste, which appears to have been part of the roof at this spot. But though Mr. Falkener quotes Varro and Vitruvins as re- ferring to such an opening, in the expression "sub divo," this does not refer to the hyptethron with sufficient precision—it might merely indicate an open court. In reference to the cpaion mentioned by Plutarch in the roof of the Temple of Ceres at Eleusis, through which the goddess descended from heaven, and the quotation from Justinius describing Apollo leaping down into the temple of Delos, per aperta fastigia culminis, are far more favourable to the hyptethron which Mr. Falkener argues for; indeed, we hardly see how these ex- pressions can be taken to mean any lateral opening. But it is re- markable that no representation of this hyptethron has ever been found; Professor Botticher, as Mr. Falkener tells us, thinks he can discover the representation of an hyptethron in a tomb at Comet°, and he himself has seen in the Berlin Museum an Etruscan sarco- phagus in the form of a temple with such an opening ; but he is evi- dently not disposed to rely much upon these instances, as they may he explained without any reference to the hypiethron. They may merely show the place where some ornament was attached.
We can readily perceive that the ancient priesthood had every motive for surrounding their worship with as much mystery and im- posing solemnity of effect as possible. The appearance of the colossal deity all glorious with burnished gold, with jewels and coloured ornaments, and the terrible 2Egis on her breast, must, even under the rays of strong daylight that fell upon the statue at the moment 'when the veil was drawn aside, have been surpassingly majestic and noble. The gloom of the rest of the temple added im- mensely to this effect also. But then it was equally desirable in per- forming the greater mysteries to have a dark chamber where every illusion could be practised, and every effect of torchlight and fire be brought to influence the crowd of worshippers. That none of these contrivances were overlooked is well known by the constant reference to
t4 ,to Yto lamps, and torchlight ceremonies by the writers of anuit• - But if we are thus disposed to accept this hyptethron, of which Mr. Falkener is.by no means entitled to claim the discovery, it is quite another thing to admit his theory of an arched ceiling to the Parthenon. We entered somewhat fully into his arguments upon this pouit when noticing the " Dtedalus," and we are rather puzzled to find anything in the defence before us which strengthens his argument or requires any fresh dissection from us. We said then, that to prove the antiquity of the arch is altogether beside the question. Ictinus may have used timber in the construction of his roof, though it is well known that marble and stone were employed generally for beams. There is no sort of description extant of arch work of any kind applied to the Parthenon, and we are unable to See any reason for assuming the necessity for such a contrivance. Neither can we perceive with Mr. Falkener that an arched ceiling would give any more room for the colossal figure of the goddess than the inclined roof. There is no difficulty to solve, in fact, in the placing of a statue thirty-seven feet high on a pedestal under a roof fifty-five feet from the ground. Mr. Falkener, it is true, gives the height of the statue and pedestal at fifty feet, for which he offers no authority, however; but even then there would be no incongruity, for it was evidently the object of the sculptor and architect to make the figure appear supernatural and grand in character. Next, as in the case of the Jupiter Olym- pins, Strabo tells us that if the seated god had risen, he would have carried away the roof of the temple, so near was the head of the figure to the ceiling. We might have our sense of proportion shocked by beholding a statue of this size in a building which, to us, would appear so unusually small as the Parthenon, but the Greeks doubt- less viewed the matter without any critical feeling. The impression upon them was imposing and supernatural, and this was the aim of the artists.
We should, perhaps, be more impressed by Mr. Falkener's views if we could divest ourselves of the idea that he is riding his hobby and is rather nettled at being reminded that the animal can't go. Our sympathies are really touched by his complaint "that there is some- thing iniquitous in anonymous writers thus launching unmerited in- sinuations, and often direct accusations, against an author who has been labouring to perform his duty, sheltering themselves all the while under the tegis of some venerated name." To this most groundless and rather silly charge, however, he is at the pains to add a well-known Pompeian caricature, representing, as we are to imagine in this case, a critic, under the guise of a pigmy, with a huge shield and a very small spear. In another place, the advocates of the oppo- site view to the hyptethron are ridiculed by a cut showing Jupiter Towns scrambling through the window of a clerestory. We are far from being offended at these jokes ; we are not insensible to the merits of Mr. Falkener's contribution to the subject of art, but we must be permitted to say that this is not exactly the spirit in which to deal with matters of art critically. It is this feeling that detracts much from the soundness of Mr. Falkener's views upon sculptural art in general, and especially so when lie descants upon the faults and fail- ings of modern sculpture.
Previous page
