DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.796#0167
THE AGE OF PERICLES 135
failing. The base supporting the statue, which was itself
about six times life size, must have measured at least four
by eight metres. The spot occupied by the base of the
statue is still clearly marked by a quadrangular space paved
with a dark colored lime-stone (see Fig. 47, p. 115). The hole
in the pavement, about a foot deep, was intended to hold
the core or prop which supported the statue of wood covered
with ivory and gold.
Whether there was a skylight or opening above the statue
or anywhere else in the ceiling and roof of the temple, and
whether there was any other way of lighting the interior
of the Parthenon except through the open door at the east
end is a mooted question. Michaelis (81), Botticher and
Penrose hold that the Parthenon was hypaethral, that is to
say, had an opening in the roof for letting in the light, but
Dorpfeld and others are inclined to believe that the only
means of lighting the interior was through the large open
door, whose dimensions give an area of about fifty square
metres, supplemented by the lamps that always burned before
the shrine of the Greek temple.
A modified form of the hypaethral is shown in some
modern models of the reconstructed Parthenon, in which
there is what is called a clerestory arrangement, by which
light is introduced into the interior through lateral transoms
in the roof (82).
The eastern chamber of the cella was separated from the
western by a solid wall which had no doors, as has been
conclusively shown by Dorpfeld (83). The two doorways on
the north and south sides of the cella, indicated in some of the
older plans of the Parthenon, were introduced in the Byzantine
period with the conversion of the temple into a church.
The columns in the interior of the cella were too slender
to reach clear to the ceiling. Hence it is generally held
that there must have been a second row of columns on top
of the lower row to support the ceiling. But that this second
row was not intended to form a gallery or second story,
as Michaelis and others have supposed and as is represented
in many drawings of the interior, is shown by the fact that
in such a case the lower columns must have had a complete
entablature, for the existence of which no evidence can be
failing. The base supporting the statue, which was itself
about six times life size, must have measured at least four
by eight metres. The spot occupied by the base of the
statue is still clearly marked by a quadrangular space paved
with a dark colored lime-stone (see Fig. 47, p. 115). The hole
in the pavement, about a foot deep, was intended to hold
the core or prop which supported the statue of wood covered
with ivory and gold.
Whether there was a skylight or opening above the statue
or anywhere else in the ceiling and roof of the temple, and
whether there was any other way of lighting the interior
of the Parthenon except through the open door at the east
end is a mooted question. Michaelis (81), Botticher and
Penrose hold that the Parthenon was hypaethral, that is to
say, had an opening in the roof for letting in the light, but
Dorpfeld and others are inclined to believe that the only
means of lighting the interior was through the large open
door, whose dimensions give an area of about fifty square
metres, supplemented by the lamps that always burned before
the shrine of the Greek temple.
A modified form of the hypaethral is shown in some
modern models of the reconstructed Parthenon, in which
there is what is called a clerestory arrangement, by which
light is introduced into the interior through lateral transoms
in the roof (82).
The eastern chamber of the cella was separated from the
western by a solid wall which had no doors, as has been
conclusively shown by Dorpfeld (83). The two doorways on
the north and south sides of the cella, indicated in some of the
older plans of the Parthenon, were introduced in the Byzantine
period with the conversion of the temple into a church.
The columns in the interior of the cella were too slender
to reach clear to the ceiling. Hence it is generally held
that there must have been a second row of columns on top
of the lower row to support the ceiling. But that this second
row was not intended to form a gallery or second story,
as Michaelis and others have supposed and as is represented
in many drawings of the interior, is shown by the fact that
in such a case the lower columns must have had a complete
entablature, for the existence of which no evidence can be