Part 9

"How majestic, and how perfect in its preservation," says Dr. Clarke, "rises the Choragic monument of Thrasyllus; and how sublime the whole group of objects with which it is associated. At the time of our visit, and before the work of dilapidation had commenced, the ancient sun-dial, the statue of the god, the pillars for the tripods, the majestic citadel;--the last of these has, indeed, defied the desolating ravages of barbaric power; but who shall again behold the other objects in this affecting scene as they then appeared? or in what distant country and obscure retreat may we look for their mutilated fragments?"

The monument of PHILOPAPPUS[80] stands upon the hill of Musæus, where that celebrated poet is said to have been buried. It is within the walls of the ancient city, though at some distance from those of the modern one; and the view from it of the citadel of Athens and the neighbouring territories is very striking; for, looking towards the sea, the eye commands the ports of the Piræus, Munychia, and Phalerus; the isles of Salamis and Ægina, and the mountains of Peloponnesus, as far as the gulf of Argos. It originally consisted of three compartments between four Corinthian pilasters; that is to say, of an arched recess, containing a central sitting figure, having a square niche on each side of it. Below these appeared three superb sculptures in relief. That in the centre, beneath the sitting statue, exhibits Trajan in a car, drawn by four horses, as he is represented on many monuments of that emperor. On either side, in square compartments, were seen the attendants, preceding and following the triumphal car.

Philopappus' monument, says Mr. Dodwell, has its faults and deficiencies; but it is an elegant and imposing object. In the interior of the basement are some blocks of the grey Hymettian marble, and the soft stone from the Piræus. The superstructure is of Pentelic marble.

It is a structure of white marble, says another writer, built a proportionable height, something circular. In the middle was a large niche, with a figure of marble sitting in it, and under his feet, in large letters,--"Philopappus, son of Epiphanes of Besa." Wheler found a still longer inscription, in Latin, which he thus translates:--

_Caius, Julius, Philopappus, son of Caius, of the tribe of Fabia, Consul, Frater Arvalis, chosen among the Prætors by the most good and august Emperor Cæsar, Nerva, Trajanus, who conquered the Germans and Dacians._

Among the inscriptions in this city may be noted one on a large marble stone, standing on end, in the wall of a private house, relating to the sale of oil; and as it teaches many things we shall cite it, as translated by Wheler:--

_The law edict of the God-like Hadrian._

"'Let those that cultivate the oyl bring the third part to the office, or those that possess the ground of the Proconsul, which the ... has sold, their eighth part, for they only have that right. But let them bring it at the same time. * * * (Thence eight lines are imperfect, and then it followeth:--) 'Let it be taken upon oath, how much hath been gathered in all, as well by his slaves as by his freemen; but if he selleth the fruit, the landlord or the tenant, or the buyer of the crop, shall be written with them; and he that has sold it for transportation shall give an account how much he has sold it for, and to whom and whither bound. And let the merchant write what he hath embarked, and of whom, and whither he is bound. * * * But he that shall be found to give false accounts, either of the receipt of transportation, or concerning the country, their freight shall be confiscated; still those possessing the lands of the proconsul excepted if they bring their ... part.'" (Here half a dozen lines are defaced, and, then he proceeds again:--) "'Let him retain the half. But if he doth not receive half, let the public take half. * * * And let the merchant write what he hath transported, and how much of every body. But if he shall be apprehended not to have given his account, let him be stopped; or if he sail away, let his merchandise be forfeited. But if he shall avoid it by hoisting sails, let them write to his country, or to me, under the testimony of the commons; if any of the ship shall allege it necessary, the prætor shall convocate the senate the next day; but if the matter shall exceed fifty amphoræ, let it be brought to the congregation, and half given to the discoverer. But if any one shall yet appeal to me or my proconsuls, let the commons choose syndics, that all things which are done against evil doers may be executed without reproof.'" Some lines more yet remain, which are less preserved.

The majority of the Athenian churches[81] are built upon the ruins of ancient temples, and are composed of blocks of stone and marble, with a great number of inscriptions, altars, pedestals, and architectural ornaments. "As we passed through the town," says Dr. Clarke, "there was hardly a house, that had not some little marble fragments of ancient sculpture stuck in its front, over its door."

At Athens four ancient buildings[82] have been entirely destroyed within these few years; a small Ionic temple in the Acropolis; another temple, supposed to be of Ceres, near the Ilissus, or bridge over that stream, and the aqueduct of Antoninus Pius. Part also of the propylæan columns have been thrown down, with a mass of the architrave on the western front of the Erectheion, and one of the columns of the Olympeion. In fact, more than forty of the temples and public buildings[83], which are mentioned by Pausanias, have so totally disappeared, as not to leave a trace, by which it is possible to identify their situation: and this leads us to the Parthenon, which we have purposely left to the last, because the wrong done to it of late years, by a nobleman of Scotland, has been the means of introducing to our own country a taste for the elegant and beautiful, which it never enjoyed before.

"The Parthenon," says Mr. Dodwell, "at first sight rather disappointed my expectations, and appeared less than its fame. The eye, however, soon becomes filled with the magnitude of its dimensions, the beauty of its materials, the exquisite perfection of its symmetry, and the harmonious analogy of its proportions. It is the most unrivalled triumph of sculpture and architecture that the world ever saw. The delight which it inspires on a superficial view is heightened in proportion as it is attentively surveyed. If we admire the whole of the glorious fabric, that admiration will be augmented by a minute investigation of all the ramified details. Every part has been finished with such exquisite purity, that not the smallest instance of negligence can be discovered in the execution of those particulars, which are the least exposed to observation: the most concealed minutiæ of the structure having been perfected, with a sort of pious scrupulosity."

"I pass delicious hours," says M. La Martine, "recumbent beneath the shade of the Propylæa: my eyes fixed on the falling pediment of the Parthenon, I feel all antiquity in what it has produced of divine; the rest is not worth the language that has described it. The aspect of the Parthenon displays, better than history, the colossal grandeur of a people. Pericles ought not to die. What superhuman civilization was that which supplied a great man to command, an architect to conceive, a sculptor to decorate, statuaries to execute, workmen to cut, a people to pay, and eyes to comprehend and admire such an edifice! Where shall we find such a people, or such a period? No where!"

"Let us, in idea, rebuild the Parthenon," continues the same writer; "it is easily done; it has only lost its frieze, and its internal compartments. The external walls, chiselled by Phidias, the columns, and fragments of columns, remain. The Parthenon was entirely built of Pentelic marble, so called from the neighbouring mountain of that name, whence it was taken. It consists of a parallelogram, surrounded by a peristyle of forty-six Doric columns; one column is six feet in diameter at the base, and thirty-four feet high. The columns are placed on the pavement of the temple itself, and have no bases. At each extremity of the temple exists, or did exist, a portico of six columns. The total length of the edifice is two hundred and twenty-eight feet; its width, two hundred feet; its height, sixty-six feet. It only presents to the eye the majestic simplicity of its architectural lines. It was, in fact, one single idea expressed in stone, and intelligible at a glance, like the thoughts of the ancients."

This recalls to our recollection what Plutarch says in respect to Pericles. "The Parthenon was constructed with such admirable judgment, such solidity of workmanship, and such a profound knowledge of the architectural art, that it would have indefinitely defied the ravages of time, if they had not been assisted by the operations of external violence. It is an edifice that seems to have been constructed for eternity. The structures which Pericles raised are the more admirable, as, being completed in so short a time, they yet had such a lasting beauty; for, as they had, when new, the venerable aspect of antiquity, so, now they are old, they have the freshness of a modern work. They seem to be preserved from the injuries of time by a kind of vital principle, which produces a vigour that cannot be impaired, and a bloom that will never fade."

These words of Plutarch were applicable to the Parthenon little more than a century ago, and would still have been so, if it had not found enemies in the successive bigotry of contending religions, in the destruction of war, and the plundering mania of artists and amateurs. The high preservation of those parts, which are still suffered to remain, is truly astonishing! The columns are so little broken, that were it not for the venerable reality of age, they would almost appear of recent construction.

These observations naturally carry us back to the period in which the Parthenon was built. That which was the chief delight of the Athenians, and the wonder of strangers, was the magnificence of their edifices; yet no part of the conduct of Pericles moved the spleen of his adversaries more than this. They insisted that he had brought the greatest disgrace upon the Athenians, by removing the treasures of Greece from Delos, and taking them into his own custody; that he had not left himself even the specious apology of having caused the money to be brought to Athens for its greater security, and to keep it from being seized by the Barbarians; that Greece would consider such an attempt as a manifest tyranny; that the sums they had received from them, upon pretence of their being employed in the war, were laid out by the Athenians in gilding and embellishing their city, in making magnificent statues, and raising temples that cost millions. Nor did they amplify in the matter; for the Parthenon alone cost £145,000. Pericles,[84] on the contrary, remonstrated to the Athenians, that they were not obliged to give the allies an account of the money they had received; that it was enough they defended them from the Barbarians, whilst the allies furnished neither soldiers, horses, nor ships. He added, that as the Athenians were sufficiently provided with all things necessary for war, it was but just that they should employ the rest of their riches in edifices and other works, which, when finished, would give immortal glory to their city, and the whole time they were carrying on give bread to an infinite number of citizens: that they themselves had all kinds of materials, as timber, stone, brass, ivory, gold, ebony, and cypress wood; and all sorts of artificers capable of working them, as carpenters, masons, smiths, stone-cutters, dyers, goldsmiths; artificers in ebony, painters, embroiderers, and turners; men fit to conduct their naval affairs, as merchants, sailors, and experienced pilots; others for land carriage, as cartwrights, waggoners, carters, rope-makers, paviors, &c. &c.: that it was for the advantage of the state to employ these different artificers and workmen, who, as so many separate bodies, formed, when united, a kind of peaceable and domestic army, whose different functions and employments diffused gain and increase throughout all ages and sexes: lastly, that, whilst men of robust bodies, and of an age fit to bear arms, whether soldiers or mariners, and those who were in the different garrisons, were supported with the public moneys, it was but just that the rest of the people who lived in the city should also be maintained in their way: and that as all were members of the same republic, they should all reap the same advantages, by doing it services, which, though of a different kind, did, however, all contribute to its security or ornament. One day as the debaters were growing warm, Pericles offered to defray the expense of all these things, provided it should be declared in the public inscriptions, that he only had been at the charge of them. At these words, the people, either admiring his magnanimity, or fired with emulation, and determined not to let him engross that glory, cried, with one voice, that he might take out of the public treasury all the sums that were necessary for his purpose.

Historians expatiate greatly on the magnificent edifices and other works; but it is not easy to say whether the complaints and murmurs raised against him were ill-founded or not. According to Cicero, such edifices and other works only are worthy of admiration as are of use to the public, as aqueducts, city walls, citadels, arsenals, sea-ports; and to these must be added the work, made by Pericles, to join Athens to the port of Piræus.

Mons. de La Martine speaks of the only two figures that now adorn the Parthenon thus:--"At the Parthenon there remain only the two figures of Mars and Venus, half crushed by two enormous fragments of cornice, which have glided over their heads; but these two figures are to me worth more than all I have seen in sculpture in my life. They live as no other canvas or marble has ever lived. One feels that the chisel of Phidias trembled, burned in his hand, when these sublime figures started into being under his fingers."

The following observations in regard to colour are by Mr. Williams:--"The Parthenon, in its present corroded state, impresses the mind with the idea of its thousands of years. The purity of marble has disappeared; but still the eye is charmed with the varied livery of time. The western front is rich in golden hues, and seems as if it had absorbed the evening beams[85]; little white appears, except the tympanum and part of the entablature. But the brightest orange colour, and grey and sulphury hues, combine in sweetest harmony. The noble shafts of the huge columns are uniformly toned with yellow, of a brownish cast, admitting here and there a little grey. Casting the eye to the inner cell, we see dark hues of olive mixed with various tints, adorning the existing frieze and pillars; and these, opposed to brilliant white, afford a point and power of expression, which never fails to please."

Sir J. C. Hobhouse says, Lord Elgin's injuries were these; the taking off the metopes, the statue over the theatre of Bacchus, and the statues of the west pediment of the Parthenon; and the carrying away one of the Caryatides, and the finest of the columns of the Erectheum. "No other," continues Sir John, "comes, I believe, within the limits of censure--no other marbles were detached."

The monuments, now called the Elgin marbles, were chiefly obtained from the Erectheum, the Propylæa, and the Parthenon, more especially the last. We must here give room to the observations, vindicative of this proceeding:--"Perhaps one of the most judicious measures of government, with reference to the advancement of the arts in this country, was the purchase of these remains. We may go farther, and add, that the removal of them from Athens, where their destruction was daily going forward, to place them where their merits would be appreciated, and their decay suspended, was not only a justifiable act, but one which deserves the gratitude of England and of the civilised world. The decay of the Athenian monuments may be attributed to various causes. 'Fire and the barbarian' have both done their work. Athens has seen many masters. The Romans were too refined to destroy the monuments of art: but the Goths had a long period of spoliation; and then came the Turks, at once proud and ignorant, despising what they could not understand. The Acropolis became a garrison in their hands, and thus, in 1687, it was bombarded by the Venetians, whose heavy guns were directed against the porticoes and colonnades of the ancient temples. But the Turks still continued to hold their conquests; and the business of demolition went steadily on for another century and a half. Many travellers who visited Athens about a hundred years ago, and even much later, describe monuments of sculpture which now have no existence. The Turks pounded the marble into dust to make lime; one traveller after another continued to remove a fragment. The museums of Egypt were successively adorned with these relics; at last, when, as column after column fell, the remains of Athens were becoming less and less worthy of notice, covered in the dust, or carted away to be broken up for building, Lord Elgin, who had been ambassador at Constantinople in 1799, obtained, in 1801, an authority from the Turkish government, called a firmaun, which eventually enabled the British nation to possess the most valuable of the sculptures of which any portion was left. The authority thus granted empowered Lord Elgin to fix scaffolding around the ancient temple of the Idols 'to mould the ornamental and visible figures thereon in plaster and gypsum;' and, subsequently, 'to take away any pieces of stone with old inscriptions or figures thereon.' For several years the intentions of Lord Elgin were carried into effect at his private risk, and at a cost which is stated to have amounted to 74,000_l_, including the interest of money. In 1816, the entire collection was purchased of Lord Elgin by act of parliament for 35,000_l._ It is unnecessary for us to go into the controversy, whether it was just to remove these relics from their original seats. Had the Greeks been able to preserve them, there can be no doubt of the injustice of such an act. The probability is, that if foreign governments had not done what Lord Elgin did as an individual, there would not have been a fragment left at this day to exhibit the grandeur of the Grecian art as practised by Phidias. The British nation, by the purchase of these monuments, has secured a possession of inestimable value[86]."

From these observations, it would appear that the spoliation of the Parthenon may be vindicated on the ground, that neither the Turks nor the citizens cared any thing about them, and that if they had not been taken away, they would, in a short time, have been destroyed. Respectable testimony, however, is opposed to this: most travellers have inveighed against the spoliation; and two, highly qualified, have given a very different account from what the above statement implies. These are Dr. Clarke and Mr. Dodwell. We shall select the testimony of the latter in preference to that of Dr. Clarke, only because he was at Athens at the very time in which the spoliation was going on. "During my first tour to Greece," says he, "I had the inexpressible mortification of being present when the Parthenon was despoiled of its finest sculpture, and when some of its architectural members were thrown to the ground." * * * "It is, indeed, impossible to suppress the feelings of regret which must arise in the breast of every traveller, who has seen these temples before and since their late dilapidation! Nor have I any hesitation in declaring, that the Athenians in general, nay, even the Turks themselves, did lament the ruin that was committed; and loudly and openly blamed their sovereign for the permission he had granted! I was on the spot at the time, and had an opportunity of observing, and, indeed, of participating, in the sentiment of indignation, which such conduct universally inspired. The whole proceeding was so unpopular in Athens, that it was necessary to pay the labourers more than their usual profits, before any one could be prevailed upon to assist in this work of profanation."

"Such rapacity is a crime against all ages and all generations," says Mr. Eustace; "it deprives the past of the trophies of their genius and the title-deeds of their fame; the present of the strongest inducements to exertion, the noblest exhibitions that curiosity can contemplate; and the future of the master-pieces of art, the models of imitation. To guard against the repetition of such depredations is the wish of every man of genius, the duty of every man in power, and the common interest of every civilised nation."

"That the Elgin marbles will contribute to the improvement of art in England," says Mr. Williams, "cannot be doubted. They must, certainly, open the eyes of the British artists, and prove that the true and only road to simplicity and beauty is the study of nature. But had we a right to diminish the interest of Athens for selfish motives, and prevent successive generations of other nations from seeing those admirable structures? The temple of Minerva was spared as a beacon to the world, to direct it to the knowledge of purity and of taste. What can we say to the disappointed traveller, who is now deprived of the rich satisfaction that would have compensated his travel and his toil? It will be little consolation to him to say, he may find the sculpture of the Parthenon in England[87]."

NO. XVII.--BABYLON.

Babylon and Nineveh appear to have resembled each other, not only in form but in extent and population. Quintus Curtius asserts, that Babylon owed its origin to Semiramis. In the Bible, however, it having been stated, that one of the chief cities of Nimrod was Babel; many authors have given into the idea, that Babylon was built by Nimrod. If we attend strictly to the words of Moses, however, we shall find that to have been an impossible circumstance.

Moses states, that Nimrod had four large cities[88]. Those were Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneth. Nimrod was a descendant of Ham; but the temple of Babel, on the establishment of which depends the origin of Babylon, was built by the descendants of Shem:--at least, we have the right to believe so; for Moses mentions the descendants of Shem last, and then goes on to say:--"The whole earth was of one language and of one speech: and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the East, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there."

When they had dwelt there some time, they said to one another, "Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar." This was the first of the subsequent town. They had not yet aspired to any particular distinction. At length they said to themselves, "Let us build a city and a tower; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." They were interrupted in their design, and "they left off building the city." There is, however, no account of its having been destroyed; nor any in regard to the destruction of the temple. The people, however, were scattered[89].