DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4266#0109
SUBTERRANEOUS CHAMBER AT MYCEN/E.
29
in the same way, generally painted black upon a yellow ground. The author just quoted recognizes
a similarity of style between these rude essays of art, and the ruins of Persepolis, as given by Le Brun ;
while another intelligent traveller3 considers these fragments as approaching the Egyptian style of ar-
chitecture ; and in fact a small chamberb in the vertical face of a cliff overhanging the Nile, under the
ruined fortress of Ibrim in Nubia, has the scroll painted on the walls of precisely the same sweep
and continuous line. That this example must have been prior to the period of the earliest specimen
that we have of chaste Greek architecture seems most probable, as we cannot imagine that, when once
the principles of taste had become more pure, such an incongruous medley, like the arms of Tydeus
'fig oLxXoftgoos, y.t£,ofiug@a,gogc, could have been suffered; unless it had been adopted from some con-
temporary people, commemorative of an event that may have occurred in a foreign land.
Such are the facts connected with this extraordinary monument, which has excited more than
usual interest on account of the circular form of the plan and section; which circumstances seemed
to corroborate the opinion of thosed, who attributed to an early period the introduction of the arch
into Greek architecture. To ascertain the precise era of the adoption or invention of the arch by the
Greeks, has ever been a subject of controversy; and great as has been the research, intense the
labor, and profound the classical erudition, bestowed on a point so interesting to the history of art
and science, no writer appears hitherto to have affixed, with any degree of certainty, the origin of the
arch to any age; nor to have satisfactorily traced its progressive improvement from its first discovery,
up to its most perfect specimen.
Till within a very few years, the ruins of Greece were unexplored, and even when scientifically
illustrated by the genius of Stuart and Revett, the examples of the arch given by them could not be
attributed to a period prior to the time of the Romans. In vain have ancient authors been consulted
to afford some clue to unravel this interesting question ; but from them we acquire no assistance, for
the architectural terms6 are so obscure, and the meaning so dubious, as to leave us in as great igno-
rance as before. As soon, however, as this subterraneous chamber was discovered, it seemed to de-
cide the question; but although the form was similar to the shape of the arch, the true principle and
peculiar property of the concentric construction of the vertical arch, deficient in this example, was
thought to render the subterraneous chamber inadmissible as a proof of its very early introduction in
the construction of the Greeks; nor does it appear probable, that the arch in its perfect principle of
application was adopted in Greece before the time of Alexander or his successors, and thence com-
municated to the Romansf.
The aim in this enquiry has not been by an useless display of vain research to bring forward
hypotheses and speculations already controverted by former writers ; but rather to adduce the results
of the experience of others, and the fruits of personal observation. The ground has been gone over
so often before, that it only remained for the writer of the present article to collect those unquestion-
able facts, which might lead the intelligent reader to a satisfactory conclusion.
a Dodwell, Vol. ii. p. 234.
b This information has been communicated by Mr. Henry
Parke, architect, who made sketches of the various details.
c Eurip. Phoenissee, 1. 138.
" How different are his arms,
And of barbaric mixture ! " Potter.
Dutens. Recherches sur le terns le plus recule de l'usage des
Voutes chez les Anciens, 8vo. London.
c Mons. Dutens, in his Treatise, advances the words afyt,
4-aAK, v-a-iM^a,, §£\o; as corresponding with the Latin expressions
" apsis, fornix, concameratio, tholus ", and with the English terms,
* vault, arch, arcade, dome":— but the intelligent and anonymous
author of the article in the Edinburgh Review, of the year 1806,
upon Mons. Dutens' work, satisfactorily proves the very doubt-
ful application of these words.
f King, in his " Munimenta Antiqua", Vol.ii. p. 268, examines,
in review, the pretension of each passage quoted from various
authors, and every example in architecture brought forward to
establish the opinion that the arch was known very early in
Greece, even before the time of Homer; and states his opinion,
after refuting them all, that " Sicily was the country, where
this noble kind of ornament in architecture first appeared, and
that indeed Archimedes was the first inventor of it."
vol. Iv.
29
in the same way, generally painted black upon a yellow ground. The author just quoted recognizes
a similarity of style between these rude essays of art, and the ruins of Persepolis, as given by Le Brun ;
while another intelligent traveller3 considers these fragments as approaching the Egyptian style of ar-
chitecture ; and in fact a small chamberb in the vertical face of a cliff overhanging the Nile, under the
ruined fortress of Ibrim in Nubia, has the scroll painted on the walls of precisely the same sweep
and continuous line. That this example must have been prior to the period of the earliest specimen
that we have of chaste Greek architecture seems most probable, as we cannot imagine that, when once
the principles of taste had become more pure, such an incongruous medley, like the arms of Tydeus
'fig oLxXoftgoos, y.t£,ofiug@a,gogc, could have been suffered; unless it had been adopted from some con-
temporary people, commemorative of an event that may have occurred in a foreign land.
Such are the facts connected with this extraordinary monument, which has excited more than
usual interest on account of the circular form of the plan and section; which circumstances seemed
to corroborate the opinion of thosed, who attributed to an early period the introduction of the arch
into Greek architecture. To ascertain the precise era of the adoption or invention of the arch by the
Greeks, has ever been a subject of controversy; and great as has been the research, intense the
labor, and profound the classical erudition, bestowed on a point so interesting to the history of art
and science, no writer appears hitherto to have affixed, with any degree of certainty, the origin of the
arch to any age; nor to have satisfactorily traced its progressive improvement from its first discovery,
up to its most perfect specimen.
Till within a very few years, the ruins of Greece were unexplored, and even when scientifically
illustrated by the genius of Stuart and Revett, the examples of the arch given by them could not be
attributed to a period prior to the time of the Romans. In vain have ancient authors been consulted
to afford some clue to unravel this interesting question ; but from them we acquire no assistance, for
the architectural terms6 are so obscure, and the meaning so dubious, as to leave us in as great igno-
rance as before. As soon, however, as this subterraneous chamber was discovered, it seemed to de-
cide the question; but although the form was similar to the shape of the arch, the true principle and
peculiar property of the concentric construction of the vertical arch, deficient in this example, was
thought to render the subterraneous chamber inadmissible as a proof of its very early introduction in
the construction of the Greeks; nor does it appear probable, that the arch in its perfect principle of
application was adopted in Greece before the time of Alexander or his successors, and thence com-
municated to the Romansf.
The aim in this enquiry has not been by an useless display of vain research to bring forward
hypotheses and speculations already controverted by former writers ; but rather to adduce the results
of the experience of others, and the fruits of personal observation. The ground has been gone over
so often before, that it only remained for the writer of the present article to collect those unquestion-
able facts, which might lead the intelligent reader to a satisfactory conclusion.
a Dodwell, Vol. ii. p. 234.
b This information has been communicated by Mr. Henry
Parke, architect, who made sketches of the various details.
c Eurip. Phoenissee, 1. 138.
" How different are his arms,
And of barbaric mixture ! " Potter.
Dutens. Recherches sur le terns le plus recule de l'usage des
Voutes chez les Anciens, 8vo. London.
c Mons. Dutens, in his Treatise, advances the words afyt,
4-aAK, v-a-iM^a,, §£\o; as corresponding with the Latin expressions
" apsis, fornix, concameratio, tholus ", and with the English terms,
* vault, arch, arcade, dome":— but the intelligent and anonymous
author of the article in the Edinburgh Review, of the year 1806,
upon Mons. Dutens' work, satisfactorily proves the very doubt-
ful application of these words.
f King, in his " Munimenta Antiqua", Vol.ii. p. 268, examines,
in review, the pretension of each passage quoted from various
authors, and every example in architecture brought forward to
establish the opinion that the arch was known very early in
Greece, even before the time of Homer; and states his opinion,
after refuting them all, that " Sicily was the country, where
this noble kind of ornament in architecture first appeared, and
that indeed Archimedes was the first inventor of it."
vol. Iv.