DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2984#0051
3S
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ATHENIAN ARCHITECTURE
however, the numeral is probably corrupt, records the principle of giving the inclination to the
faces of the entablature, etc., which has already been noticed in the Parthenon.
" Membra omnia, quae super capitula columnarum sunt futura, id est epistylia, zophori, coronae,
tympana, fastigia, acroteria, inclinanda sunt in frontis sua: cujusque altitudinis parte duodecima."1
" All the members above the capitals of the columns, that is to say, epistylia, zophorus, coronae,
tympanum, fastigium, and acroteria, ought to have an inclination towards the front equal to a twelfth
part of the height of each."—(Wilkins's translation.)
According to Vitruvius, all these members should incline forwards. In the Athenian buildings
the more considerable faces incline backwards, and the subordinate only, forwards.
There is also a passage in Cicero which shows that the inclination of the columns was a recognised
principle among the ancients.'3
Thus far the monuments and the written page on the whole confirm one another. In the following
peculiarities the Parthenon and the Propylaea (see Plate XVI. and XXX.) are our only authorities,
at least at Athens, for I could not discover them in the Theseum. In the Parthenon the transverse wall
of the cella which contains the door of the Posticum is perpendicular, but the side walls which have
nearly the same thickness above as below, incline in the same direction as the columns. The result
of the plumbs after correction for horizontal shifts shows that this inclination probably amounted to
i in 80. But, what is still more remarkable, the western faces of the antse lean forwards at
the same angle, so that the capitals of the antae overhang their bases considerably. There can
be no doubt that this obtained in the original structure of the temple, and has not arisen subsequently
from settlement or other disturbance; for the joints of the cella wall are placed perpendicularly over
one another, but the upper stones of the extremities of the walls, and which form the anta:, are made
just so much longer than those in the lower courses as to produce this result.3
I shall reserve any observations on the reasons which probably led to the above-mentioned modifica-
tion of the ordinary forms of construction until Chap. XV., which treats of the optical corrections
in general; adverting only to the delicate effects of light and shade which these varieties in the position
of the different planes produce, especially when light falls very obliquely upon the fronts or flanks
of the temple.
1 Is it possible that the proper reading may be XI,ma instead of XIImn p
An inclination of 1 in 40, although greater than is found in the Parthenon
generally, would not under certain circumstances be excessive.
2 Cicero in Verrem (Act II. lib. i 51,) speaking of a visit paid by
Verres to a temple at Syracuse. " Venit ipse in redem Castoris : considerat
templum : videt undique tectum pulcherrime laqueatum : pra?terea camera
nova, atque integra: versat se: qurerit, quid agat. Dicit ei quidam. . . .
Tu Verres! hie quod moliare, nihil habes, nisi forte vis ad perpendiculum
columnas exigere. Homo omnium rerum imperitus, qurerit, quid sit, ad
perpendiculum. Dicunt ei, fere nullam esse columnam, qure ad per-
pendiculum esse possit. Nam Mehercule, inquit, sic agamus : columns ad
perpendiculum exigantur"
s The length of one of the lower stones of the cella wall which is con-
nected with the autre of the Posticum at a height of 5.6 above the base, is
4-535 1 at 29.63 above the base the length of the stone becomes 4.82S,
giving a difference of .293 in 24.03, equal to 1 in 82, There is more
difficulty in getting satisfactory measurements from the southern anta, but
the differences are analogous. In a height of 10.3 feet I found a difference
of .107, which amounts to 1 in 96.
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ATHENIAN ARCHITECTURE
however, the numeral is probably corrupt, records the principle of giving the inclination to the
faces of the entablature, etc., which has already been noticed in the Parthenon.
" Membra omnia, quae super capitula columnarum sunt futura, id est epistylia, zophori, coronae,
tympana, fastigia, acroteria, inclinanda sunt in frontis sua: cujusque altitudinis parte duodecima."1
" All the members above the capitals of the columns, that is to say, epistylia, zophorus, coronae,
tympanum, fastigium, and acroteria, ought to have an inclination towards the front equal to a twelfth
part of the height of each."—(Wilkins's translation.)
According to Vitruvius, all these members should incline forwards. In the Athenian buildings
the more considerable faces incline backwards, and the subordinate only, forwards.
There is also a passage in Cicero which shows that the inclination of the columns was a recognised
principle among the ancients.'3
Thus far the monuments and the written page on the whole confirm one another. In the following
peculiarities the Parthenon and the Propylaea (see Plate XVI. and XXX.) are our only authorities,
at least at Athens, for I could not discover them in the Theseum. In the Parthenon the transverse wall
of the cella which contains the door of the Posticum is perpendicular, but the side walls which have
nearly the same thickness above as below, incline in the same direction as the columns. The result
of the plumbs after correction for horizontal shifts shows that this inclination probably amounted to
i in 80. But, what is still more remarkable, the western faces of the antse lean forwards at
the same angle, so that the capitals of the antae overhang their bases considerably. There can
be no doubt that this obtained in the original structure of the temple, and has not arisen subsequently
from settlement or other disturbance; for the joints of the cella wall are placed perpendicularly over
one another, but the upper stones of the extremities of the walls, and which form the anta:, are made
just so much longer than those in the lower courses as to produce this result.3
I shall reserve any observations on the reasons which probably led to the above-mentioned modifica-
tion of the ordinary forms of construction until Chap. XV., which treats of the optical corrections
in general; adverting only to the delicate effects of light and shade which these varieties in the position
of the different planes produce, especially when light falls very obliquely upon the fronts or flanks
of the temple.
1 Is it possible that the proper reading may be XI,ma instead of XIImn p
An inclination of 1 in 40, although greater than is found in the Parthenon
generally, would not under certain circumstances be excessive.
2 Cicero in Verrem (Act II. lib. i 51,) speaking of a visit paid by
Verres to a temple at Syracuse. " Venit ipse in redem Castoris : considerat
templum : videt undique tectum pulcherrime laqueatum : pra?terea camera
nova, atque integra: versat se: qurerit, quid agat. Dicit ei quidam. . . .
Tu Verres! hie quod moliare, nihil habes, nisi forte vis ad perpendiculum
columnas exigere. Homo omnium rerum imperitus, qurerit, quid sit, ad
perpendiculum. Dicunt ei, fere nullam esse columnam, qure ad per-
pendiculum esse possit. Nam Mehercule, inquit, sic agamus : columns ad
perpendiculum exigantur"
s The length of one of the lower stones of the cella wall which is con-
nected with the autre of the Posticum at a height of 5.6 above the base, is
4-535 1 at 29.63 above the base the length of the stone becomes 4.82S,
giving a difference of .293 in 24.03, equal to 1 in 82, There is more
difficulty in getting satisfactory measurements from the southern anta, but
the differences are analogous. In a height of 10.3 feet I found a difference
of .107, which amounts to 1 in 96.