The doorways which gave entrance to the Acropolis, are five in number, and placed between piers, towards the back of the edifice. The inclined plane gave access to the central one, the others were approached by steps, they bear some marks of having been adorned with architraves of metal. There is a small sinking, apparently formed to receive it, 1 foot 9.8 inches in width, to the larger opening: and one of 13.7 inches in width to the two adjacent ones, yet there are no cramp-holes, except in the upper part; the smaller side doorways are filled up with earth. Over each opening a stone is placed edgewise, occupying in consequence the height of two common courses. This plan seems to have been uniformly adopted above the doorways of the Athenian buildings, and will guide us in several instances to determine what openings were originally intended, and what were not. On the eastern side of this wall, the traces of a metallic architrave are much more certain, since besides the change of colour in the marble, there is a regular series of cramp-holes; yet how it was managed is still a subject of some difficulty. Taking the central opening as my example, (and the two others are similarly designed) we find on the edge of the opening a band, not of a very uniform width, in which the surface of the marble has not been finished, and then one in which the surface made quite smooth, is of a whiter colour than elsewhere; apparently from having been sheltered from the air; both these must have been covered by the architrave, and their united width is 1 foot 10.4 inches. On the highest stone of the jamb there is a deep and double sinking, which seems to have been intended to receive a strong block, projecting from the face of the architrave; my notion is, that this block had a hole on the under side to receive the pivot of the door, which worked in a corresponding hole in another block of bronze at the base, and consequently lay when shut, against the wall, without being let into it. I should perhaps hardly have ventured to express this opinion, if it were not strengthened by the appearance of the grooves receiving the metal plate on which the doors opened, at the entrance of the opisthodomus of the Parthenon. The centre from which these grooves are drawn is not within the thickness of the wall.
The jambs of these doorways, viewed laterally, exhibit several sinkings about two inches deep, which doubtless were made with some object at present unknown. The height of the centre opening was equal to fifteen courses,[[28]] each of nearly 1 foot 7.4 inches in thickness, making in all 24 feet 1.9 inch, on a width of 13 feet 4.75 inches. The secondary openings are of eleven courses, or 17 feet 8.5 inches, on a width of 9 feet 3.6 inches. The side doors are of six courses, 9 feet 7.8 inches, with a width of 4 feet 8 inches. All the piers rest on a continued course of black marble.
Many fragments of the coffers of the ceiling lie scattered about; they rested on marble joists, 15 inches and a half wide; the longest piece of these which we could find, is only 3 feet 11 inches in length, but this was a fragment. The depth being only 7 inches and a half, is not calculated for a beam of 20 feet, and they must therefore have rested on larger beams, but I cannot determine how the Propylæa were covered, or whether the central part was covered at all.
Revett has given a section which includes the northern flank of the middle building, exhibiting the very curious manner in which the stones are arranged, as if they were cut away to make room for the roof of a side building, now destroyed. There are two cornices on this flank, one of which is continued from that of the outer portico; the lower is an internal one, that is, it is composed of such members as we find in Greek architecture to be appropriated to internal decoration.
There are several other particulars relating to these side buildings, both remaining and destroyed, and to their union with the centre, but it would swell my letter to an essay, were I to enumerate them all, and besides, I have not the means of elucidating them satisfactorily. I will however, observe to you, that the flank wall on each side of the central building was carried up above the cornice of the wings, and these wings were not crowned with a pediment, but probably had a flat roof.
The Propylæa are said to have cost 460,000l. a sum so enormous in proportion to the modern extent of the edifice, that some writers have supposed it must be meant to include the whole of the constructions of Pericles’s administration in the Acropolis. Buildings in marble will cost more than those of brick, even though the marble should be found in the vicinity; and if the distance to the Pentelic quarries was not great, yet the roads were bad; none of the modern expedients for facilitating transport were in use, and the expense must have been more than double what it would have been with us, with our taxes and turnpikes. Workmanship put together like the nicest operations in ivory, must also have cost very much more than the clumsy masonry of modern times; but after all these considerations, the sum still seems very great, even if we take into consideration that a great extent of subordinate edifices has disappeared.
There are two particulars relating to the Propylæa, and to the works about them, which I have not yet mentioned. We see in various places remains of piers and walls of a very ancient masonry, of limestone, and not of marble; apparently earlier than the time of Pericles; there is such a fragment under the north-west angle of the northern wing of the Propylæa, whose lines not exactly corresponding with those of the work above, prove that they did not form part of that design. The base of the pier which contains the inscription to Agrippa, is of a grayish slaty marble, not used in the upper parts, and this perhaps may also be more ancient than the pier it supports.
The other circumstance is, that the work has not been completely finished, and that we are thereby enabled to trace the mode of execution. It appears that the Athenians worked the marble to an even, but not a very smooth face, with a toothed chisel, before they placed the blocks in the work, and that they afterwards went over the whole exposed surface, and finished it to the greatest smoothness and nicety, but without polish, taking off in this operation about one fifth of an inch; and this has been the practice on the horizontal, as well as on the upright surfaces, for the columns of the Propylæa are sunk in to about that depth below the general level. The place intended for their reception was sunk before the lower cylinders were placed, and lest any inconvenience should arise from the wet remaining there, before the building was completed, a small channel has been cut from the recess to carry off the water. In the steps, the adjoining faces are carefully finished at the internal angles, but both are left rough at the external angles, by which means the accidents and wear which take place during the execution of the work, would rarely be of any consequence.
Many of the circumstances which make the temple of Theseus so beautiful, concur also to the perfection of the Parthenon, and it has some advantages. It is larger and more magnificent, has been adorned with a greater quantity of sculpture, and occupies a more commanding situation. Both buildings look larger than they really are, and the Parthenon the most so. This effect is, I am persuaded, partly produced by the simplicity of the design, and the justness of the proportion; and partly by the situation, especially that of the latter, which occupies the top of a rock of small extent. This position then would require me to make some exception to my general rule, that each building is best placed on an advancing point of ground, and to explain, if I can, what are the circumstances which form the exception; but in fact, when I come to examine more minutely into the subject, I find that so far from having made up my mind as to the choice of situation, there is nothing more difficult than to lay down any general law upon the subject. I think however, that a good deal depends upon the intention of the building, and on the ideas associated with it; and that a public building, and especially one for the purposes of religion, may occupy, and will even look better for occupying, an exposed and insulated situation, and one domineering over all the neighbouring objects, which would be displeasing in a private dwelling; and this does not depend upon any notion of convenience, (in the English sense of the word) for such situations are generally inconvenient for any purpose, but to a certain perception of character; however, I shall leave this knotty point to another opportunity, and return to the Parthenon, and again request you, in reading my remarks, to lay Stuart’s plan before you.
The temple, to speak technically of it, is peripteral, octastyle, and hypæthral. The proportions every body acknowledges to be highly beautiful. This is easily stated in words, but the feeling arising from the perception of that beauty is incommunicable. In the front, the proportion of every part seems exactly what it ought to be, but I believe in the flank, that I prefer the proportions of the temple of Theseus. Why a continued colonnade, crowned by a straight entablature, should require more slender proportions than one supporting a pediment, I cannot tell; but such seems to be the fact. Yet, as in the Parthenon, the height of the column is five diameters and fourteen twenty-fourths, very nearly, and in the Theseum the height is only five diameters, and fifteen twenty-fourths; the difference seems too small to produce any sensible effect; but the intercolumniations in the Parthenon are only equal to about one diameter, and two sevenths of the columns, while in the Theseum they are one and two thirds, and to this greater space is doubtless owing the lighter appearance of the latter. The whole is, as you know, of Pentelic marble; the part exposed to the action of the south wind, which probably carries with it saline particles, is white, and somewhat corroded; the other parts are stained exactly of the hue of burnt terra Siena, but some places take a dingier tint, perhaps from the effect of the explosion, while the north side is partially varied with the sulphur yellow of the Lichen candelarius. The western end, which, though the part opposite to the entrance of the Acropolis, is in fact the back of the temple, represented the contest of Neptune and Minerva; and the relative position of the deities, and of the benefits they offered to the Athenians, is well explained by Wilkins by reference to a medal. Behind the statues the tympanum is faced by upright slabs of marble, some of which are hollowed out at the back, I do not know why, and you might, perhaps, creep behind the two figures which remain, which are those said to be of Hadrian and Sabina; but though all these statues were finished all round, as you know, by having seen them in London, there was certainly no provision made for a close inspection after they were up in their places.