Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:47:46.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metopes and architecture: the Hephaisteion and the Parthenon1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Marina Yeroulanou
Marina Yeroulanou
Affiliation:
Oxford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship of the metopes to the architecture of the peristasis of the Hephaisteion and the Parthenon is examined in order to ascertain the extent of planning which took place before the erection of a Classical Greek temple. All relevant published measurements are taken into consideration and critically compared. On the basis of the discrepancies of the corresponding architectural and sculptural members, it is argued that the working-out of the details of the plan was not the result of large-scale drawings, but was affected after the commencement of construction. While the Hephaisteion is built largely in accordance with the conventions of a Classical Doric temple, the Parthenon, due to its unique plan, provides indications of experimentation inferred from the extensive inconsistencies at its eastern end.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 93 , November 1998 , pp. 401 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Camp, J. and Dinsmoor, W. B. Jr., Ancient Athenian Building Methods (Athens, 1984), 3Google Scholar; W. B. Dinsmoor Jr., ‘Preliminary-planning of the Propylaia by Mnesicles’, in Dessin d'architecture, 135, 143–5; Korres, Parthenon, 95 n. 29; Korres, M., ‘The sculptural adornment of the Parthenon’, in Economakis, R. (ed.), Acropolis Restoration, The CCAM Interventions (London, 1994), 31Google Scholar.

3 Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 93–9; Dinsmoor, W. B., ‘The basis of Greek temple design: Asia Minor, Greece, Italy’, Atti del settimo Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia Classica (Rome, 1961), i. 364Google Scholar; Coulton, J. J., Ancient Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design (London and Ithaca, 1977), 53Google Scholar; id., ‘Incomplete preliminary planning in Greek architecture: Some new evidence’, Dessin d'architecture, 103–21. A colloquium on design methods took place in Strasburg in 1984: see Dessin d'architecture.

4 IG i3 35 i2 24; Meritt, B. D., ‘Notes on Attic decrees’, Hesp. 10 (1941), 307–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tod, M. N., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC (Oxford, 1946), 78–81Google Scholar. IG ii2 1668; Foucart, P., ‘L'arsenal de Philon’, BCH 6 (1882), 540–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 117–32; Jeppesen, K., Paradeigmata: Three Mid-Fourth Century Main Works of Hellenic Architecture Reconsidered (Aarhus, 1958), 69–101Google Scholar; Lorenzen, E., The Arsenal at Piraeus (Copenhagen, 1964Google Scholar); Eiteljorg, H. II, The Greek Architect of the Fourth Century BC, Master Craftsman or Master Planner? (PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania, 1973), 1–38Google Scholar. See also Hoepfher, W. and Schwandner, E.-L., Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, 2nd edn, (Munich, 1994), 44–9Google Scholar. IG ii2 1666; Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 100–116; Jeppesen (above), 108–39, 153; Eiteljorg (above), 39–68.

5 See Coulton 1977 (n. 3), 52–3, fig. 13, pl. 5. For evidence on the existence of drawings in the Hellenistic period see Vitruvius i.i.4, ii.i.2; Haselberger, L., ‘Werkzeichnungen am jüngeren Didymeion’, IstMitt 30 (1980), 191–215Google Scholar; Coulton 1985 (n. 3), 105–6.

6 See e.g. Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 144–5; Coulton, J. J., ‘The second Temple of Hera at Paestum and the pronaos problem’, JHS 95 (1975), 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Since Hephaistos has gained near general acceptance as the patron of the temple above the Agora, the name Hephaisteion will be used in this study. For the identification of the temple as the Hephaisteion see Thompson, H. A., ‘Buildings on the west side of the agora’, Hesp. 6 (1937), 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Olsen, E. C., ‘An interpretation of the Hephaisteion reliefs’, AJA 42 (1938), 276 and 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, H. A., ‘The metalworks of Athens and the Hephaisteion’, AJA 42 (1938), 123Google Scholar; Thompson, H. A. and Wycherley, R. E., The Agora of Athens: The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Centre (The Athenian Agora xiv; Princeton, 1972), 142Google Scholar; Delivorrias, A., ‘The sculpted decoration of the so-called Theseion: Old answers, new questions’, in Buitron-Oliver, D. (ed.), The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome (Studies in the History of Art 49; Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers 29; Washington DC 1997), 83Google Scholar n. 4–5. For recent alternative identifications, Koch, 9–15 (Theseum); Harrison, E. B., ‘Alkamenes' sculptures for the Hephaisteion’, AJA 81 (1977), 139 and 421–6Google Scholar; ead., ‘The architectural sculptures of the so-called Theseum’, Greece and Italy in the Classical World, Acta of the XI International Congress of Classical Archaeology, London 3–9 September 1978 (London, 1979), 220 (Artemis Eukleia)Google Scholar.

8 On the basis of its building accounts, the Parthenon's construction has been firmly dated between 447 and 438 BC, though the pediments were not completed until 431 BC: Dinsmoor, W. B., ‘Attic building accounts I: The Parthenon’, AJA 17 (1913), 53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Attic building accounts V: Supplementary notes’, AJA 25 (1921), 233–45. Since the date of the Hephaisteion is only based on archaeological evidence, the reconstruction of its building activities and its relation to the building of the Parthenon has yet to receive universal agreement: Dinsmoor, W. B., Observations on the Hephaisteion (Hesp. supp. v; Baltimore, 1941), 127–56Google Scholar; Koch, 145 and 147; Morgan, C. H., ‘The sculptures of the Hephaisteion’, Hesp., 32 (1963), 94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson and Wycherley (n. 7), 142; Ridgway, B. S., Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeton, 1981), 28–30Google Scholar; Coulton, J. J., ‘The Parthenon and PeriJdean Doric’, in Berger, E. (ed.), Parthenon-Kongress, Basel 1982 (Mainz, 1984), 40–4Google Scholar; Delivorrias (n. 7), 83 n. 6. See also Wyatt, W. F. and Edmonson, C. N., ‘The ceiling of the Hephaisteion’, AJA 88 (1984), 159 and 167CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orlandos, A., ‘Note sur le sanctuaire de Némésis à Rhamnonte’, BCH 43 (1924), 318Google Scholar; Dorig, J., La Frise est de l'Héphaisteion (Mainz, 1985), 74–9Google Scholar.

9 Orlandos, ii. 121 n. 1–2.

10 Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 224–5 n. 254; Coulton, J. J., ‘Towards understanding Doric design: The stylobate and intercolumniations’, BSA 69 (1974), table 1Google Scholar.

11 Coulton (n. 10), 73; id. 1977 (n. 3), 62 and fig. 18; Robertson, D. S., Greek and Roman Architecture. 2nd edn.; (Cambridge, 1988), 108Google Scholar; Korres, Parthenon, 83.

12 Orlandos, ii. 216; Korres and Bouras, 128; Korres, Parthenon, 96 n. 73.

13 Orlandos, ii. 241–2; Korres and Bouras, 22.

14 Plommer, Temples, 71; Koch, 52. Dinsmoor, W. B., ‘The Temple of Ares at Athens’, Hesp. 9 (1940), 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 24, 27–28; id. (n. 8), 33 argues for more precise calculations: 2.583 (fronts) and 2.581 (flanks).

15 Dinsmoor 1940 (n. 14), 14 n. 28; Plommer, Temples, 71; Koch, 52 (2.42).

16 Plommer, Temples, 68–70; Bundgaard, Parthenon, 169; Dinsmoor 1941 (n. 8), 33, 37; Thompson and Wycherley (n. 7), 142; Robertson (n. 11), 118. The blocks under the corner intercolumniation do not follow this uniformity: the corner blocks measure c. 1.23 square.

17 Koch, pls. 44 and 53. Although the fact that all architraves in these drawings seem to have the same size could be due to a general reconstruction rather to exact individual measurements, Bundgaard, Parthenon, 169 also notes that the normal triglyphs of the fronts stand exactly above the axes of the columns.

18 Dinsmoor 1940 (n. 14), 20 n. 43; Plommer, Temples, 72; Koch, pls. 40, 47, and 53.

19 Plommer, Temples, 72; Koch, 54.

20 Penrose, F. C., An Investigation of the Principles of Athenian Architecture, 2nd edn.; (London, 1888), 73Google Scholar and pl. 36; Koch 1955; 53, 66 and figs. 31 and 40.

21 Dinsmoor 1940 (n. 14), 14 n. 25 (0.04); Koch, 52–3; Bundgaard, Parthenon, 167 (0.05).

22 For the metopes of the Hephaisteion, see Koch, figs. 114–29 and pls. 16–28; Morgan, C. H., ‘The sculptures of the Hephaisteion I: The metopes’, Hesp. 31 (1962), pls. 71–6Google Scholar; Thompson, H. A., ‘The sculptural adornment of the Hephaisteion’, AJA 66 (1962), pl. 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Knell, H., Mythos und Palis: Bildprogramme griechischer Bauskulptur (Darmstadt, 1990Google Scholar), figs. 198–206; LIMC v, 1, 9 and v, 2, no. 1706, 12–3, vii, 2, no. 55, 635–6.

23 The uniformity of the blocks of the second step of the krepis under the normal intercolumniations is clearly evident on the east side of the temple: Plommer, Temples, 70; Koch, 40; Bundgaard, Mnesicles, fig. 102.

24 It is worth noting that the compositions of the Hephaisteion metopes were placed well towards the centre of the slab and ignored the surrounding architectural members. See Ridgway (n. 8), 29.

25 Penrose (n. 20); Magne, L., Le Parthénon (Paris, 1895Google Scholar), sections of which are also published in Fougères, G., L'Acropole: Le Parthénon (Paris, 1910)Google Scholar; Balanos, N., Les Monuments de l'Acropole. Relèvement et conservation (Paris, 1938Google Scholar); Orlandos, i–iii; Korres and Bouras; Korres, Plan; id., Parthenon.

26 Orlandos, ii. 11 7 and 120; Korres, Parthenon, 59; id., Plan, 70. The joints of the second step are not related to the blocks above and below them, and measure up to 3.605.

27 Korres and Bouras, 18. Colhgnon, M., Le Parthénon, l'histoire, l'architecture et la sculpture (Pans, 1914Google Scholar) (30.86 × 69.51); Orlandos, ii. 100 (30.88 × 69.503). See also Penrose (n. 20), 11.

28 Dinsmoor, W. B., The Architecture of Ancient Greece, An Account of its Historic Development, 3rd edn. (London, 1950), 160Google Scholar; Coulton (n. 8), 42. Contra Winter, F. E., ‘Tradition and innovation in Doric design III: The work of Iktinos’, AJA 84 (1980), 407–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wesenberg, B., ‘Wer erbaute den Parthenon?’, AM 97 (1982), 114–16Google Scholar.

29 Korres, Parthenon, 89–90.

30 Orlandos, ii. 147, 197 n. 2 and 230; Korres and Bouras, 19. Korres, Parthenon, 84 and 96 n. 77, suggests that in the flanks there is double overcontraction, which seems to be true towards their eastern ends.

31 Dinsmoor (n. 3), 363–4; Gruben, G., Die Tempel der Griechen (Munich, 1966), 167Google Scholar; Coulton (n. 10), 66. Contra Winter (n. 28), 409–10; Bundgaard, Parthenon, 64.

32 Collignon (n. 27), 95 and 97; Orlandos, ii. 199 and 233; Korres, Parthenon, 59, 61, 79 and 95 n. 29.

33 Bundgaard, Mnesicles, 40–1; Korres and Bouras, 76–8; M. Korres, ‘The geological factor in ancient Greek architecture’, in Marinos, P. G. and Koukis, G. C. (eds), The Engineering Geology of Ancient Works: Alonuments and Historical Sites (Proceedings of an International Symposium Organized by the Greek National Group of IAEG; Rotterdam, 1988), iii. 1786–8Google Scholar; Korres, Parthenon, 79 and 95 n. 29; id., Adornment (n. 2), 31.

34 Orlandos, ii. 231–2 and 235–7; Korres, Parthenon, 61.

35 Orlandos, ii. 245; Korres, Parthenon, 61 and 79.

36 For the west metopes, see Praschniker, C., ‘Neue Parthenonstudien’, ÖJh 41 (1954), 5–54Google Scholar; Brommer, Metopen, pls. 1–37; Boardman, J. and Finn, D., The Parthenon and its Sculptures (London, 1985), 233Google Scholar; Berger, E., Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zu den Metopen (Mainz, 1986), pls. 113–39Google Scholar.

37 W. Malmberg, ‘Μετόπαι του̑ Παρθενω̑νος’, Arch. Eph 1894, 223; Ebersole, W. S., ‘The metopes of the west end of the Parthenon’, AJA 3 (1899), 410CrossRefGoogle Scholar; J. Dörig, ‘Το πρόγραμμα της γλυπτής διαλοσμήσεως του Παρθενώνα: Σκέψεις πάνω στην ιστορική συνείδηση των Αθηναίων της Κλασσικής εποχής’, Arch. Eph. 1982, 193–4; B- Wesenberg, ‘Perser oder Amazonen? Zu den Westmetopen des Parthenon’, AA 1983, 203–8; Delivorrias, A., ‘The sculptures of the Parthenon: Form and content’, in Tournikiotis, P. (ed.), The Parthenon and its Impact in Modern Times (Athens, 1994), 117 and 124Google Scholar. For a fuller list of bibliography and arguments, see Brommer, Metopen, 191–4. See also Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon (Leipzig, 1871), 148Google Scholar; Orlandos, ii. 234; Brommer, F., Die Parthenon-Skulpturen (Mainz, 1979), 12–13Google Scholar.

38 Ebersole (n. 37), 411 and 418; Brommer, Metopen, 191.

39 Praschniker (n. 36), 25–31, fig. 14. Contra, Ebersole (n. 37), 411 and 419; Brommer, Metopen, 12–13 and 191; see also Palagia, O., Ο Γλυπτός Διάκοσμος του Παρθενώνα (Athens, 1983), 44Google Scholar.

40 Ebersole (n. 37), 414 and n. 1; Brommer, Metopen, 5 and 191. Ebersole bases his argument on holes and grooves on the metope, where the figure would be attached. Attached parts or figures on other metopes of the temples under study are—possibly—S5 on the Parthenon (Lapith) and the Sinis metope on the Hephaisteion (part of the tree trunk—H. Thompson, A., ‘Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1954’, Hesp., 24 (1955), 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Contra, Smith, A. H., The Sculptures of the Parthenon (London, 1910), 44Google Scholar.

41 Orlandos, iii. pl. 28. Korres and Bouras, 25, give a measurement of 1.16 for Wi.

42 See above, ‘Conventions of Classical Doric Temples’ and note 12. The measurements are those of Orlandos, ii. 199 and 231.

43 According to Orlandos's measurements, the sum of the frieze members above the two corner architraves are 0.028 and 0.048 smaller than their corresponding architrave blocks; that is, the joints of the corner architrave blocks and the centres of the triglyphs above them are not aligned. If the joints of the corner architrave blocks had marked the centre of the triglyphs, the two pairs of corner metopes would have been wider by 0.014 and 0.024 on the north and south end respectively. However, given that the average width of the four corner metopes is 0.12 narrower than the average width of the normal metopes, the small misalignment does not significantly affect the character of the relation between the two sets of metopes.

44 For the east metopes, see Praschniker, C., Parthenonsludien (Vienna, 1928), figs. 88–132Google Scholar; Brommer, Metopen, pls. 39–82; Boardman and Finn (n. 36), 235; Berger (n. 36). pls. 37–70.

45 Robert, C., ‘Die Ostmetopen des Parthenon’, AZ 42 (1884), 47Google Scholar; Malmberg (n. 37), 222; Delivorrias (n. 37), 116; See also LIMC, s.v. Gigantes.

46 Orlandos, ii. 232 and n. 3.

47 See Palagia (n. 39), 36–9.

48 0–0.007 and 0.002–0.019 respectively—see FIG. 2. See also Korres, Plan, 115.

49 The seemingly large discrepancy between the architrave blocks and the normal intercolumniations on FIG. 2 is due to the smaller architrave blocks second from the corners which are the result of using larger blocks over the corner intercolumniations. These measurements are based on Penrose (n. 20); Orlandos (ii. 233 n. 1 and iii. pl. 27) gives slightly different ones. Except for the difference in the lengths of the two architrave blocks, the difference between the two misalignments is due to the different corner intercolumniations (South end 3.696; North end 3.668) and to the different inclinations of the two corner columns.

50 Penrose (n. 20), pl. 6; Brommer, Metopen, pls. 71–3; Bundgaard, Parthenon, 64; Brommer 1979 (n. 37), pl. 7. See also FIG. 2.

51 For the north metopes of the Parthenon, see Praschniker (n. 44), figs. 2–26 and 73–86; Brommer, Metopen, pls. 85–144; Boardman and Finn (n. 36), 234; Berger (n. 36), pls. 1–36. See also Ras, S., ‘Dans quel sens faut-il regarder les métopes Nord du Parthenon?’, REG 57 (1944), 87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Korres and Bouras, 477 and 479.

53 2.5 × 0.845 (average triglyph width) + 1.298 + 1.260 (metope widths) = 4.6705.

54 Korres and Bouras, 19.

55 Korres, Plan, 71; id., Parthenon, 95 n. 29; id.Adornment (n. 2), 33. See also Korres and Bouras, 126.

56 Though the identification of the artist as Carrey has been questioned, the drawings are generally referred to as ‘Carrey's drawings’. For more information on the drawings and the artist, see Bowie, T. and Thimme, D., The Carrey Drawings of the Parthenon Sculptures (Bloomington, 1971), 5–16Google Scholar; Omont, H., Athènes au XVIIe siècle: Dessins des sculptures du Parthénon attribués a J.Carrey et conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1898), pls. 4–7Google Scholar. For the south metopes, see Brommer, Metopen, pls. 149–239; Boardman and Finn (n. 36), 236–7; Berger (n. 36), pls. 73–111.

57 Lechat, H., ‘Notes archéologiques: Métopes du Parthénon’, REA 15 (1913), 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brommer, Metopen, 225–6; Dörig, J., ‘Traces de thraces sur le Parthénon’, Mus.Helv. 35 (1978), 221Google Scholar; id. (n. 37), 199. Therefore the numbers given for the metopes follow Carrey's sequence.

58 Orlandos, iii. pl. 26. There appear to be misprints in the figures for the bottom step and stylobate blocks, as the total sum of bottom step blocks (72.707) is substantially larger than the given bottom step length (stylobate length: 69.609 + sum of widths of the steps 2.826 = 72.435). The difference of 18 cm between the trio of bottom step blocks and the intercolumniation between columns 11 and 12 can only be due to a misprint since no other difference of such magnitude is visible on the krepis of the Parthenon. Between columns 14 and 15, the figure of 1.135 given for die stylobate block is also a misprint, since Orlandos states that all stylobate and bottom step blocks fall between 1.306 and 1.65 (see note 26).

59 Carpenter, R., The Architects of the Parthenon (Baltimore, 1970), 54–8 and 66–7Google Scholar; Bundgaard, Parthenon, 63–4 and 70. See also Orlandos, iii. 640–1. Contra Shear, I. Mylonas, ‘Review of R. Carpenter, The Architects of the Parthenon’, Phoenix, 26 (1972), 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winter (n. 28), 403–4. The Older Parthenon was generally dated before the Persian invasion of 480: Hill, B. H., ‘The Older Parthenon’, AJA 16 (1912), 536CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dinsmoor, W B., ‘The date of the Old Parthenon’, AJA 38 (1934), 408–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; T. Seki, ‘The relationship between the “Older” and the “Periclean” Parthenon’, in Berger (n. 8), 75, 77, and 373 n. 1; M. Korres, ‘The history of the Acropolis monuments’, in Economakis (n. 2), 41–2. However, Dörpfeld, W., ‘Der alte Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis zu Athen’, AM 10 (1885), 275–7Google Scholar first suggested a date after 480. While he later revoked his theory (‘Die Zeit des älteren Parthenon’, AM 27 (1902), 379–416Google Scholar), other scholars have argued for a date between 480 and 450 since then: Plommer, W. H., ‘The Archaic Acropolis: Some problems’, JHS 80 (1960), 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carpenter (above), 54 and 66–7; Bundgaard, Parthenon, 63 and 70. For Dörpfeld's work on the Parthenon, see Korres, M., ‘Wilhelm Dörpfelds Forschungen zum Vorparthenon und Parthenon’, AM 108 (1993), 59–78Google Scholar.

60 Korres, Parthenon, 56, and 66 n. 1.

61 Wesenberg, B., ‘Parthenongebalk und Südmetopen-problem’, Jdl 98 (1983), 57–86Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of the architrave and frieze of the cella building, see Orlandos, iii. 449.

62 Korres, Plan, 115.

63 Murray, A. S., The Sculptures of the Parthenon (London 1903), 74–5Google Scholar, Ashmole, B., Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece (London, 1972), 95Google Scholar; Mylonas Shear (n. 59), 193; Cook, B. E, The Elgin Marbles (London, 1984), 23–4Google Scholar; Harrison, E. B., ‘Style phases in Greek sculpture from 450 to 370 BC’, Πρακτικά του XII Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασσικής Αρχαιολογίας, Αθή να 4–10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1983 iii. (Athens, 1988), 102Google Scholar; Delivorrias (n. 37), 119–20.

64 Korres and Bouras, 19.

65 Ibid., 487–9.

66 Ibid., 126.

67 Korres, Adornment (n. 2) 33; id., Plan, 115. Contra Wesenberg (n. 61).

68 Korres and Bouras, 78 and 489. I should like to thank Dr Manolis Korres for pointing this out to me.

69 For the different qualities and quarry techniques of the blocks which form the architrave of the Parthenon, see Orlandos, ii. 205; Korres and Bouras, 49; Korres, Geological (n. 33), 1788 and figs. 20 and 23.