DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4264#0007
INTRODUCTION,
The following Work having been, by the sudden death of the author, left unfinished; and his friends
judging that it should be published without alterations or additions, excepting such only as were re-
quisite to complete his intention, and for which the materials he left afforded authority; it becomes
necessary to account to the reader for some deficiencies he may observe, and apprise him of what has
been done since Mr. Stuart's decease, that the known accuracy, taste and classical knowledge of the
able author may not undeservedly be impeached.
Mr. Stuart, having been very infirm for some years preceding his death, left his papers in great
confusion and disorder; many were incomplete, and several were missing. The first business there-
fore was to discover the arrangement, and, when that was obtained, recourse was had to the original
sketch-books, and such authentic documents as could be found, in order to complete the examples
that were unfinished, and supply those that were wanting. Where these authentic materials have
failed, the deficiency has been left remaining, except that, instead of some of the views which could
not be found, others relative to the subject described have been substituted. The Work is very
highly indebted to the liberality of the Society of Dilettanti, who have been at the expense of en-
graving a great number of the plates, from original drawings in their possession. Several of the
members of the Society have interested themselves in promoting the publication of this Volume, and
have contributed to that end much of their time and knowledge. To them, therefore, it is in a great
measure owing, that upon the author's death the Work was not entirely relinquished, and the honour
and utility of so valuable a performance lost to the British nation.
The following are some particulars of which it may be proper the reader should be apprised.
In the explanation of the Acropolis it has been omitted to note, that the asterisk (*) in the
plan marks the place of the little Ionic temple mistaken by Wheler and Spon for the Temple of Vic-
tory Apteros. Mr. Stuart says, it was probably the Temple of Aglauros, and is now entirely demo-
lished1. (See Chap. V.)
In the description of Plate VI. Chap. I. of this Volume, it is said some triangular holes are
marked on the architrave. The author probably intended so to do, but they are omitted. A repre-
sentation of some holes may be seen on the architrave in Plate IV. Fig. l.b; they are however made
quadrangular, whether by mistake or not is uncertain.
Further on in the text, it is said, that Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5. Plate XII. are taken from the northern
side of the Parthenon ; but it must be observed, that the first and last only are from that side, and the
other two reliefs, Figs. 3. and 4-., are from the southern side.
a The site of this temple is indicated in our new plan of the
Acropolis, Plate II. Visconti also, with Stuart, supposes the
temple here alluded to, to have been the Temple of Aglauros, but
it is still, with very great appearance of reason, considered as the
Temple of Victory-Apteras, 'without wings', according to the ori-
o-inal hypothesis of Wheler and Spon. In Chapter V. of this vo-
lume it is further spoken of. [>D.]
b Plate VI. is a restored elevation from dimensions and re-
marks made on the western front of the Parthenon by Stuart and
Revett; the view in Plate IV. here mentioned is engraved after an
original view of the principal or eastern front of that temple made
by Pars, which is now in the British Museum. The holes de-
scribed as quadrangular, are so on the eastern front, and appear
subsequently to have been filled up. They arc supposed to have
been cut for the suspension of the gilded shields originally
placed on the architrave. CED0
The following Work having been, by the sudden death of the author, left unfinished; and his friends
judging that it should be published without alterations or additions, excepting such only as were re-
quisite to complete his intention, and for which the materials he left afforded authority; it becomes
necessary to account to the reader for some deficiencies he may observe, and apprise him of what has
been done since Mr. Stuart's decease, that the known accuracy, taste and classical knowledge of the
able author may not undeservedly be impeached.
Mr. Stuart, having been very infirm for some years preceding his death, left his papers in great
confusion and disorder; many were incomplete, and several were missing. The first business there-
fore was to discover the arrangement, and, when that was obtained, recourse was had to the original
sketch-books, and such authentic documents as could be found, in order to complete the examples
that were unfinished, and supply those that were wanting. Where these authentic materials have
failed, the deficiency has been left remaining, except that, instead of some of the views which could
not be found, others relative to the subject described have been substituted. The Work is very
highly indebted to the liberality of the Society of Dilettanti, who have been at the expense of en-
graving a great number of the plates, from original drawings in their possession. Several of the
members of the Society have interested themselves in promoting the publication of this Volume, and
have contributed to that end much of their time and knowledge. To them, therefore, it is in a great
measure owing, that upon the author's death the Work was not entirely relinquished, and the honour
and utility of so valuable a performance lost to the British nation.
The following are some particulars of which it may be proper the reader should be apprised.
In the explanation of the Acropolis it has been omitted to note, that the asterisk (*) in the
plan marks the place of the little Ionic temple mistaken by Wheler and Spon for the Temple of Vic-
tory Apteros. Mr. Stuart says, it was probably the Temple of Aglauros, and is now entirely demo-
lished1. (See Chap. V.)
In the description of Plate VI. Chap. I. of this Volume, it is said some triangular holes are
marked on the architrave. The author probably intended so to do, but they are omitted. A repre-
sentation of some holes may be seen on the architrave in Plate IV. Fig. l.b; they are however made
quadrangular, whether by mistake or not is uncertain.
Further on in the text, it is said, that Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5. Plate XII. are taken from the northern
side of the Parthenon ; but it must be observed, that the first and last only are from that side, and the
other two reliefs, Figs. 3. and 4-., are from the southern side.
a The site of this temple is indicated in our new plan of the
Acropolis, Plate II. Visconti also, with Stuart, supposes the
temple here alluded to, to have been the Temple of Aglauros, but
it is still, with very great appearance of reason, considered as the
Temple of Victory-Apteras, 'without wings', according to the ori-
o-inal hypothesis of Wheler and Spon. In Chapter V. of this vo-
lume it is further spoken of. [>D.]
b Plate VI. is a restored elevation from dimensions and re-
marks made on the western front of the Parthenon by Stuart and
Revett; the view in Plate IV. here mentioned is engraved after an
original view of the principal or eastern front of that temple made
by Pars, which is now in the British Museum. The holes de-
scribed as quadrangular, are so on the eastern front, and appear
subsequently to have been filled up. They arc supposed to have
been cut for the suspension of the gilded shields originally
placed on the architrave. CED0