An Apology for the Colouring of the Greek Court in the Crystal Palace

by Owen Jones

I would ask those critics who stand on the ground of traditional opinion, not too rashly by hard words to attempt to stop the inquiry which this experiment may suggest. The facts are too strong to be put aside by any opinion. If all who are anxious for the truth will only seek it, there is little doubt that we may approach, if we do not reach it.

I have done all in my power to aid the cause. I have stood in the breach, and shall be content should others walk over me to a more complete victory. I am only anxious, in the meanwhile, that the Greeks should not be condemned on my account.

I have no authority whatever for the colouring of the monument of Lysicrates in the Great Transept. One fact deserves to be recorded, the beautiful bas-reliefs of the frieze were absolutely invisible from below, when in white, and this made me certain that it was a monument designed to receive colour, and I therefore determined to attempt its restoration.

OWEN JONES.

Crystal Palace, June, 1854.

NOTE BY MR. PENROSE.

I have seen no reason to alter my opinion (quoted p. [6]) that the surface of the marble played a considerable part in the general effect, and that it was not concealed with paint, but tinged or stained in some manner to the proper tone. An extensive and careful examination of the Pentelic quarries by the orders of King Otho has shown that large blocks such as were used at Athens are very rare indeed. The distance also from the city is considerable: whereas there are quarries on Mount Hymettus at little more than one-third of the distance (and most convenient for carriage), which furnish immense masses of dove-coloured marble (much prized, it would seem, by the Romans, Hor. ii. 18), and inferior in no respect but that of colour to the Pentelic. It could therefore only have been the intrinsic beauty of the latter material that led to its employment by so practical a people as the Athenians. With respect to the use of the outline traced with a sharp point (p. [16]), had this been a provision for repaintings, its absence from the Doric echinus is at least conclusive that there was no ornament painted on that member; for on no part of the architecture would the difficulty of reproducing the pattern have been greater. But since these outlines are found indifferently both on small and large mouldings, it seems to be a sound conclusion which limits the painted ornaments to the parts so outlined.

REPLY.

I do not think that, with our present ideas of economy, we are able to appreciate the motives of the Athenians in choosing their marble from the Pentelic quarries in preference to those of Mount Hymettus. We must remember that the Greeks built for their gods; and the Pentelic marble, by presenting greater difficulties in its acquisition may have been a more precious offering. I can more easily understand this than the use of granite by the Egyptians, which was sought for from quarries much more distant, and presented difficulties of workmanship many times greater.

Mr. Penrose has examined most minutely the capitals of the columns of the Parthenon, and is convinced that no outline of any kind exists upon them; but I am not so convinced that there never was one there, because, although outlines are found on fragments of some of the mouldings, they do not exist everywhere on the same moulding: it is only under favourable circumstances that the outline has been preserved. A Doric echinus may yet be found with outlines upon it.