Parthenon and Erechtheion: A Comparison - Term Paper Example

Parthenon and Erechtheion: A Comparison Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, there is a great dealof truth in the statement, “architecture is the unavoidable art” (Roth, 1993: 3) as we continue to exist and grow within a constructed space. Not surprisingly, then, the process of architectural theory is a continuous process. As Roth explains, “architecture is the chambered nautilus shell of the human species; it is the environment we build for ourselves, and which, as we grow in experience and knowledge, we change and adapt to our expanded condition. If we wish to understand ourselves, we must take care not to eliminate the ‘shell’ of our past, for it is the physical record of our aspirations and achievements” (Roth, 1993: 3). This is a particularly apt analogy as the oldest segment of the nautilus shell can be found in its central core. Thus, Roth suggests architectural knowledge of any type necessarily builds on the work of the past which remains forever embedded within the framework of the present. Thus, the remaining architectural works of the ancient past, such as the Parthenon or the Erechtheion, are important structures to consider when attempting to understand the important elements of architecture. An understanding of the difficulty of attempting to trace the architectural theories of the ancients might be better understood by looking more at the contemporary example. Today, there are a number of theories regarding what is architecture and they continue to change with time, material, usage of the structure and so forth. As a result, architectural theory is difficult to pin down. “The majority of programs that purport to be theories of architecture seek to combine aesthetic, social and practical considerations in an integrated whole; the emphasis being either theoretical or practical, according to whether the author is an architect himself, and on whom he is writing for” (Kruft, 1994: 14). This suggests that there are as many theories today as there are architects and that this rule of thumb is as applicable to the past as it is to today. If they were fewer in number in antiquity, this is perhaps more attributable to the more limited number of architects and materials than any other factor. With increasing regularity dating even as far back as the ancient Romans, architects began recording their theory for future generations of builders, continuing to contribute to developing thought long after physical death. These discussions necessarily reveal their own influences. Most of these turn, as do many architects today, to the wisdom of the ancients, particularly one Roman architect who went by the name of Vitruvius, who revealed some of the important theories that might have been shared by the Greeks. Vitruvius was an artillery engineer working during the reign of the first Roman emperor Augustus. However, his importance to history was as an architect and an author. “His ten books on architecture, De Architectura (trans. 1914), are the oldest surviving work on the subject. They consist of dissertations on a wide variety of subjects relating to architecture, engineering, sanitation, practical hydraulics, acoustic vases, and the like. Much of the material appears to have been taken from earlier extinct treatises by Greek architects” (Calter, 1998). In these volumes, Vitruvius provides us with three basic elements of design that must be considered when attempting to understand architecture. These same basic elements have been used since the Renaissance as a means of understanding architecture, but seem to have been unknown during the Middle Ages. These elements include utility, firmness and beauty. “By utility, Vitruvius means the functional arrangement of rooms and spaces so that there is no hindrance to use and so that a building is perfectly adjusted to its site. Firmness referred to foundations that were solid and to building materials being used wisely to do their required work. Beauty meant that ‘the appearance of the work is pleasing and in good taste, and [that] its members are in due proportion according to correct principles of symmetry” (Roth, 1993: 11). These definitions have within them tremendous flexibility and shifting emphasis. What comprises the ‘functional arrangement of rooms and spaces’ changes as a result of structural purposes, uses, social customs in engaging in these types of activities and a host of other variables. Building materials have also changed over the years with advances in technology and the creation of processes that accommodate new ideas. Beauty is defined as something ‘pleasing and in good taste’ yet these concepts also shift from one population to another and from one individual to another. Images of the Parthenon and the Erechtheion immediately present modern day and likely ancient viewers with similar impressions of grand scale, carefully measured proportions and awe-inspiring statuary. With each having been built to celebrate the prosperity and power of their rulers, the history behind the construction of each building is quite similar. While the Parthenon was built during the height of Athens’ prosperity, celebrating the recent signing of a peace treaty and therefore the beginning of an era of peace, the Erechtheion was built to provide a temple of worship to replace the old temple that had existed between the Parthenon and where the Erechthion stands today and during the last years of Athens’ prosperity. Unlike the Parthenon, the Erechthion was constructed in a location that required a great deal of adjustment to the design so that it would not disturb sacred ancient shrines and could be constructed on uneven ground. To achieve their inspiring affects, each building makes heavy use of stairs to gain entry and tall columns representing the measurements of the Golden Rule to express both their impressive size and their perfection of form. Despite the fact that the Erechthion was built relatively close to the Parthenon, builders opted to use Ionic columns that were considered more modern than the Doric style used in the earlier building. In addition to the actual construction, both structures use life-sized or taller statues to celebrate the greatness of the civilization that constructed it although the Parthenon seems to have put greater emphasis on telling the story of the gods as a means of honoring the power and wisdom of the ruler of the day. The Parthenon’s friezes depicted scenes of battles between the gods and mythological races such as the giants and the centaurs, as well as the defeat of the Amazons and what is believed to be the citizens of Troy. However, the Erechtheion puts its statuary to different use. The porch at the southwest corner, for example, is the site of the famous Caryatids. These are six statues of women who support the roof of the porch on their heads, but not much else is known about their symbolism. While the structure of the Parthenon is its most recognized feature to most modern viewers, the Caryatids are the most recognized feature of the Erechthion. The buildings might have been used in vastly different ways as well. While the use of the Parthenon is in some debate, definitely used as a treasury and possibly also as a temple, the Erechthion was built specifically to be a place of worship. A closer investigation of these two buildings brings these similarities and contrasts into sharper relief. In terms of utility, the Parthenon seems to have served a variety of purposes to its original builders with the primary use being a means of honoring the gods. The malleability of their building materials enabled the Greeks to achieve a high level of expression within their constructions through the inclusion of sculpture within the monuments themselves. Friezes located on the building show scenes of battles between the gods and the giants and the centaurs, as well as the Greeks’ defeat of the Amazons and what is believed to be the citizens of Troy. The enclosed area of the building was also surrounded by a frieze presenting the Procession of the Panathenaea. This procession has been identified as one of the most formal religious celebrations observed by the citizens of ancient Athens (Crystal, 2005). The detail of this frieze illustrates the figures of gods, beasts and at least 360 people. The obvious care with which it was created as well as its placement upon the inner walls of the building and therefore its most sacred space, further indicates its importance to the people. Pediments of the temple feature more mythically-themed friezes, this time illustrating the battle held between Athena and Poseidon for the honor of having a city named after them with Athena obviously triumphing (Crystal, 2005). While the building was an obvious monument to the glory of Athena, it was also the stronghold of the empire in that it became the treasury-house for the city. “Tax money from the Delian League was used to pay for the building, and therefore a portion of the building was used for holding the tax money that the Delian League collected” (Mitts, 1998). In consideration of these uses, it was essential that the firmness of the building and the materials with which it was constructed be strong. The Parthenon is balanced in its location based on careful mathematical principles that take into account the weight of the roof as well as the aesthetics and uses of the final structure. The placement of the columns has been proven to have been founded on what the Greeks referred to as the Golden Measure, indicating a high degree of thought and science. Everything in the structure seems targeted toward a structural purpose first and decoration second. While it is believed that the earliest buildings in Greece were constructed of dried mud, sticks and stones, by the Hellenistic age, the Greeks had become experts at building with limestone, which was plentiful throughout their lands. The limestone offered several advantages, not the least of which was the ability to carve it into the specific shapes and forms desired for various uses. Buildings were typically constructed in rectangular or square shapes as it was easiest to cut the limestone into roughly equal sized blocks with an efficient expenditure of energy (Crystal, 2005). Occasionally, especially for religious uses, the Greeks would use marble as a building material; however, this material was not as plentiful and therefore introduced several economic restrictions on its use. The columns used to support the structure, built in the Doric style, demonstrate the solid, high-minded ideals of its builders as well as contribute to the firmness of the design. The final architectural consideration of the building, beauty, was achieved through a relatively simple and geometrically balanced design again based on the Golden Measure which was considered the perfect measurement of nature. Walls were of secondary importance as the bulk of the buildings rested upon the use of the columns and the view between the columns was able to contribute to the majesty of the structure. However, walls, when present, were built of a solid, stable material such as the limestone of the columns. The innermost areas of the buildings, the cella, were reserved for the most important and sacred uses of the building, the home of the statues of the gods and goddesses, the place of most devout worship and the place of the treasury (Crystal, 2005). The various friezes present on the building discussed above contributed both to the structure’s beauty and its function. Unlike the multiple uses of the Parthenon, the Erechtheion was intended to serve strictly as a place of worship. Conceived during a brief time of peace and constructed during the final battles of Athens before the city finally fell to the Spartans, this temple was certainly completely devoted to worship of the gods. The design of the building takes into account pre-existing holy sites in the immediate vicinity such as the saltwater spring of Poseidon where the god struck the earth with his trident and the olive tree that Athena brought to life to win the honor of the city. According to Siegel (2005), the east cella was dedicated to worship of the goddess Athena Polias. “The Panathenaic Procession terminated here, where the olive wood cult statue of Athena was draped in the peplos offered by the Arrephoroi, elite young Athenian girls hand-picked for this sacred duty” (Siegel, 2005). The southwest side of the building is said to lie directly over the Grave of Cecrops which is accessible by a secret passageway and may provide explanation for the Caryatid. The west cella held shrines to a number of Greek gods including Poseidon, Butes, Hephaestus and even a place for the chthonic gods. The north porch of the structure is the grave of Erechtheus who is said to have been a great king of Athens. “He is identified with Erichthonius, who is said to be the son of Gaia and Hephaestus (and reared by Athena), and is later associated with Poseidon as well as to Hephaestus … and Butes” (Siegel, 2005). Finally, just outside the north entrance was an altar dedicated to the worship of Zeus Thyechoos. The firmness of the structure of the Erechtheion is amazing as it accommodates its site and the important landmarks around it. It is an intricate temple that has long made it difficult for scholars to interpret had it not been for the presence of identifying art and legend. Created using the same strong and relatively customizable limestone material that was used to build the Parthenon, the Erechtheion also featured a thematic frieze, but the theme of this frieze remains unknown. Where the Parthenon utilized strictly measured Doric columns as roof support, the Erechtheion was highly Ionic. “The elegance and delicate forms of the Erechtheion contrast sharply with the neighboring Parthenon that counter-balances the architectural complex with its majestic, Doric presence” (Sakoulas, 2003). The complex interior of the structure coupled with the complex elevation of the structure and the more flowing, free lines of the Ionic styles provide the building with a great deal of firmness in its structure while also conveying a greater sense of individuality and ideas of the emerging self. The beauty of the building exists in every line of the structure. Covered in art like the Parthenon, the building itself once told a story about the gods that were honored there while a great sensitivity for the selected site was exercised. While both structures included art as an important element of the structure in the form of friezes, the Erechtheion takes this idea one step further by merging art and function in the form of the Caryatids, a practice that had been used elsewhere in Greece for some time. Both of the porches were given special artistic touches other than the Caryatids, though. According to Siegel (2005), the Ionic columns on the north porch were decorated with a guillache pattern accented by inset colored glass. The porch is home to another sacred spot where Poseidon is said to have rested his trident, so there is a hole in the pavement to allow this site to be viewed and a hole in the roof to give Poseidon access to the place again should he ever find it necessary. There are also suggestions that the portico porch ceilings were once “paneled and painted dark blue with gold stars … and some say that they were inset with panels of variously colored glass” (Siegel, 2005). Interior objects discovered in the last century also contribute to the knowledge that this temple was the site of a great deal of meaningful beauty to the people who constructed it. Thus, both the Parthenon and the Erechtheion are revealed to be structures that amply meet the three basic elements of architecture in ways that communicated important aspects of the society that built them. Each constructed to meet a specific purpose with a very stable and relatively malleable substance, these structures provided their communities with a great deal of beauty and elegance that represented their greatest ideals. However, each structure does this in a different way. Constructed in a time of peace and optimism, the Parthenon was designed to honor the city’s patron goddess Athena, to serve as a place of honor to her and to act as the city’s treasury. With such solemn goals in mind, the structure reflects a rigid, straight-forward approach in its use of the Golden Measure and Doric column decoration. By contrast, the Erechtheion was constructed with the sole purpose to serve as a place of worship for a variety of gods and was constructed during a period of strife and decline. It demonstrates a more adjustable approach in the way the structure works with and around existing sacred sites as well as in its use of the more decorative elements of Ionic columns and the Caryatid sculptures. Thus, these two structures have provided almost opposite examples for future generations of architects as to how a building might communicate the ideals of a society while still adhering to the most basic elements of design. Bibliography Calter, Paul. (1998). “Ad Quadratum, the Sacred Cut and Roman Architecture.” Dartmouth College. Available October 6, 2009 from Crystal, Ellie. (December 2005). “Greek Architecture.” Available October 6, 2009 from Kruft, Hanno-Walter. (1994). “What is Architectural Theory?” A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present. London: Zwemmer: 13-19. Mitts, Kylene. (February 2, 1998). “The Parthenon is Built.” Mediterranean Basin Chronology. (February 2, 1998). Available October 6, 2009 from Roth, Leland M. (1993). Understanding Architecture. CT: Westview Press. Rymer, Eric. (2004). “Middle Ages Painting.” History Link. Available October 6, 2009 from Sakoulas, Thomas. (2003). “Erechtheion.” Ancient Greece. Available October 6, 2009 from Siegel, Janice. (2005). “Dr. J’s Illustrated Erechtheum Lecture.” Dr. J’s Illustrated Guide to the Classical World. Available October 6, 2009 from Vasari, Georgio. (1568, reprinted 1998). The Lives of the Artists. New York: Penguin Classics. Read More