DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4265#0115
114 OF SOME ANTIQUITIES WHICH ARE MORE INCONSIDERABLE.
PLATE XLI.
The whole is contained in one plate.
Fig. 1. The Plan.
Fig. 2. Elevation of the part remaining 'above ground', which shews that there were not
fewer than three arches.
Fig. 3. Capitals of the pilasters, with the profile of the archivolt; the spandrel, on which is
a rose, projects equal to the upper fascia of the archivolt, as shewn upon the right hand side, where
the profile of the archivolt is given; but the projection of the central fillet is shewn on the left from
the flat surface of the spandrel.
Fig. 4. is the profile of the impost mouldings.
Fig. 5. Section through the entablature, which is probably incomplete.
Fig. 6. Spandrel with the rose.
Fig. 7« Profile in the centre between the two capitals of the pilasters, shewing the manner in
which the mouldings finish -against the back ground.
" Fig. 8." a
Proceeding towards the Arch of Hadrian, and not far from it, there remains, in a yard belong-
ing to the habitation of an Albanese, part of a basement, near seven feet high, and about nineteen
feet in length ; in the same place, and in all appearance part of the same building, lie many marble
fragments; amongst them is a large piece of cornice, which appears to have been part of an Ionic
entablature: from all which I concluded, that a building of no mean extent and elegance formerly
adorned this placeb.
Two solitary columns also remain in the deserted parts of the city, and at a great distance from
each other, one being north c of the Acropolis, near the traces of the ancient city walls, and the other
south d of it, both in their original situations; they are no doubt the remains of some stately build-
ings, of which at present no other remains appear.
lias since qither been removed or obliterated, for, on a very care- a On the original drawing of Stuart and Revett, marked at
ful inspection, we did not observe any which could have be- fig. 8. in our plate, is apparently part of a plan of a pier with
longed to the original edifice. two pilasters, which seems to have no reference to this antiquity ;
A remarkable singularity in this ruin is, that the arches, two neither Stuart nor Reveley mention to what it related, [jso.]
of which remain with an impending part of a third, are each b Of the above ruin ' Mr. Stuart has left no drawings,
scooped out of a single block of solid marble about !) feet wide, [u.]
4 feet 9 inches high, and 2 feet thick, evincing on the part of c This is called the Column of St. John. It is wrought from
the designer an admiration of the form, but a contempt of the Euboean or Carystcan marble, now termed Cipollino, and may
principle of the arch, as it cannot be supposed that the architect be supposed to have been a detached column bearing a statue,
of a building, of the presumed date of the Tower of the Winds The Greeks regard it with veneration, and the more pious some-
should be ignorant of the scientific combination of arched stones. times place a burning lamp in a hole cut in it. |~ed.]
Several similar examples of arches on a smaller scale wrought d This column, as marked on Stuart's plan of Athens, still
from one block are also immured at Athens, one of which is remains in its original place. M. Fauvel excavated at this site,
near the Catholicon; they are described in the very recent pub- and found two or three other columns in a line with it; he was
lication of Mr. H. W. Inwood. of opinion that they were part of a portico or stoa. [ed.]
V. Wilkins' Atheniensia, p. 175. The Erechtheion, PI.
XXXVII. fol. 1827- [bd.]
1 Tins ruin is probably that marked on Stuart's plan of Athens, Plate I. of this volume, at the church of Pauflghia Vlastiki, and is supposed to have belonged to
the Temple of Serapis mentioned by Pau&aniasJ [KI)-]
PLATE XLI.
The whole is contained in one plate.
Fig. 1. The Plan.
Fig. 2. Elevation of the part remaining 'above ground', which shews that there were not
fewer than three arches.
Fig. 3. Capitals of the pilasters, with the profile of the archivolt; the spandrel, on which is
a rose, projects equal to the upper fascia of the archivolt, as shewn upon the right hand side, where
the profile of the archivolt is given; but the projection of the central fillet is shewn on the left from
the flat surface of the spandrel.
Fig. 4. is the profile of the impost mouldings.
Fig. 5. Section through the entablature, which is probably incomplete.
Fig. 6. Spandrel with the rose.
Fig. 7« Profile in the centre between the two capitals of the pilasters, shewing the manner in
which the mouldings finish -against the back ground.
" Fig. 8." a
Proceeding towards the Arch of Hadrian, and not far from it, there remains, in a yard belong-
ing to the habitation of an Albanese, part of a basement, near seven feet high, and about nineteen
feet in length ; in the same place, and in all appearance part of the same building, lie many marble
fragments; amongst them is a large piece of cornice, which appears to have been part of an Ionic
entablature: from all which I concluded, that a building of no mean extent and elegance formerly
adorned this placeb.
Two solitary columns also remain in the deserted parts of the city, and at a great distance from
each other, one being north c of the Acropolis, near the traces of the ancient city walls, and the other
south d of it, both in their original situations; they are no doubt the remains of some stately build-
ings, of which at present no other remains appear.
lias since qither been removed or obliterated, for, on a very care- a On the original drawing of Stuart and Revett, marked at
ful inspection, we did not observe any which could have be- fig. 8. in our plate, is apparently part of a plan of a pier with
longed to the original edifice. two pilasters, which seems to have no reference to this antiquity ;
A remarkable singularity in this ruin is, that the arches, two neither Stuart nor Reveley mention to what it related, [jso.]
of which remain with an impending part of a third, are each b Of the above ruin ' Mr. Stuart has left no drawings,
scooped out of a single block of solid marble about !) feet wide, [u.]
4 feet 9 inches high, and 2 feet thick, evincing on the part of c This is called the Column of St. John. It is wrought from
the designer an admiration of the form, but a contempt of the Euboean or Carystcan marble, now termed Cipollino, and may
principle of the arch, as it cannot be supposed that the architect be supposed to have been a detached column bearing a statue,
of a building, of the presumed date of the Tower of the Winds The Greeks regard it with veneration, and the more pious some-
should be ignorant of the scientific combination of arched stones. times place a burning lamp in a hole cut in it. |~ed.]
Several similar examples of arches on a smaller scale wrought d This column, as marked on Stuart's plan of Athens, still
from one block are also immured at Athens, one of which is remains in its original place. M. Fauvel excavated at this site,
near the Catholicon; they are described in the very recent pub- and found two or three other columns in a line with it; he was
lication of Mr. H. W. Inwood. of opinion that they were part of a portico or stoa. [ed.]
V. Wilkins' Atheniensia, p. 175. The Erechtheion, PI.
XXXVII. fol. 1827- [bd.]
1 Tins ruin is probably that marked on Stuart's plan of Athens, Plate I. of this volume, at the church of Pauflghia Vlastiki, and is supposed to have belonged to
the Temple of Serapis mentioned by Pau&aniasJ [KI)-]