Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/292

 later authorities that the treasury in the temple was called Opisthodomus (Harpocrat., Stud., Etym. M., s. v., 'Owiffmifios; Schol. ad Aristoph. Plut. 1193; Böckh, Inscr. No. 76); and we may therefore conclude, that as the Parthenon was the name of the whole building, the western chamber ceased to be called by this name, and acquired that of the Opisthodomos, which was originally the entrance to it. It appears further from the words of one of the Scholiasts (ad Aristoph, l. c.), as well as from the existing remains of the temple, that the eastern and western chambers were separated by a wall, and that there was no direct communication between them. Hence we can the more easily understand the account of Plutarch, who relates that the Athenians, in order to pay the greatest honour to Demetrius Poliorcetes, lodged him in the Opisthodomus of the Parthenon as a guest of the goddess. (Plut. Demetr. 23.)

In the centre of the pavement of the Hecatompedon there is a place covered with Peiraic stone, and not with marble, like the rest of the pavement. It has been usually supposed that this was the foundation on which the statue of the goddess rested; but this has been denied by E. F. Hermann, who maintains that there was an altar upon this spot. There can however be little doubt that the common opinion is correct, since there is no other place in the building to which we can assign the position of the statue. It could not have stood in the western chamber, since this was separated by a wall from the eastern. It could not have stood at the western extremity of the eastern chamber, where Ussing places it, because this part of the chamber was occupied by the western return of the interior columns (see ground-plan). Lastly, supposing the spot covered with Peiraic stone to represent an altar, the statue could not have stood between this spot and the door of the temple. The only alternative left is placing the statue either upon the above-mentioned spot, or else between it and the western return of the interior columns, where there is scarcely sufficient space left for it.

There has been a great controversy among modern scholars as to whether any part of the roof of the eastern chamber of the Parthenon was hypaethral, or pierced with an opening to the sky. Most English writers, following Stuart, had arrived at a conclusion in the affirmative; but the discussion has been recently reopened in Germany, and it seems impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion upon the subject. (Comp. K. F. Hermann, Die Hypäthral Tempel des Alterthums, 1844; Ross, Keine Hypäthral Tempel mehr, in his Hellenika, 1846, to which Bötticher replied in Der Hypäthral Tempel auf Grund des Vitruvischen Zeugnisses, 1847.) We know that, as a general rule, the Grecian temples had no windows in the walls; and consequently the light was admitted either through some opening in the roof, or through the door alone. The latter appears to have been the case in smaller temples, which could obtain sufficient light from the open door; but larger temples must necessarily have been in comparative darkness, if they received light from no other quarter. And although the temple was the abode of the deity, and not a place of meeting, yet it is impossible to believe that the Greeks left in comparative darkness the beautiful paintings and statues with which they decorated the interior of their temples. We have moreover express evidence that light was admitted into temples through ATHENAE. the roof. This appears to have been done in two ways, either by windows or openings in the tiles of the roof, or by leaving a large part of the latter open to the sky. The former was the case in the temple of Eleusis. (Plut. Per. 13, Waiav ScyoicA^r Iko- (nitpwff*: comp. Pollux, ii. 54, bweSov ol 'Arrorol tV KtpafMa iKoXow^ 9i t^ Miw efx*!'.) There can be little doubt that the naos or eastern chamber of the Parthenon must have obtained its light in one or other of these ways; but the testimony of Vitruvius (iii. 1) cannot be quoted in favour of the Parthenon being hypaethral, as there are strong reasons for believing the passage to be corrupt. If the Parthenon was really hypaethral, we must place the opening to the sky between the statue and the eastern door, since we cannot suppose that such an exquisite work as the chryselephantine statue of Athens was not protected by a covered roof.

Before quitting the Parthenon, there is one interesting point connected with its construction, which must not be passed over without notice. It has been discovered within the last few years, that in the Parthenon, and in some others of the purer specimens of Grecian architecture, there is a systematic deviation from ordinary rectilinear construction. Instead of the straight lines in ordinary architecture, we find various delicate curves in the Parthenon. It is observed that "the most important curves in point of extent, are those which form the horizontal lines of the building where they occur; such as the edges of the steps, and the lines of the entablature, which are usually considered to be straight level lines, but in the steps of the Parthenon, and some other of the best examples of Greek Doric are convex curves, lying in vertical plains; the lines of the entablature being also curves nearly parallel to the steps and in vertical plains." The existence of curves in Greek buildings is mentioned by Vitruvius (iii. 3), but it was not until the year 1837, when much of the rubbish which encumbered the stylobate of the Parthenon had been removed by the operations carried on by the Greek government, that the curvature was discovered by Mr. George Pennethorne, an English architect then at Athens. Subsequently the curves