荷雅麗，李路珂 /Alexandra Harrer, LI Luke

蔣雨彤 譯，李路珂 校 /Translated by JIANG Yutong, Revised by LI Luke

古跡重繪
——“德意志”視角下的彩飾之辯：希托夫、森佩爾、庫格勒與他們這一代 （上）

荷雅麗，李路珂 /Alexandra Harrer, LI Luke

蔣雨彤 譯，李路珂 校 /Translated by JIANG Yutong, Revised by LI Luke

19世紀的一場關(guān)于建筑彩飾的論爭顛覆了我們對于古典建筑，特別是古希臘和古羅馬神廟建筑的認知。作為建筑理論領(lǐng)域較為后起的一支力量，“德意志”在這一過程中扮演了特殊的角色。本文詳細回顧了這場論爭的來龍去脈，各派學說如何卷入其中，又如何在特定的社會機制下推動著事實的逐步揭示，最終達到觀念的徹底改變。這一事件直接地影響到現(xiàn)代希臘復興建筑，甚至也波及到西方的中國建筑史編纂學。

19世紀歐洲彩飾之辯，古代希臘建筑，建筑色彩，阿法雅神廟，帕提農(nóng)神廟，伊格納茨·希托夫，戈特弗里德·森佩爾，弗朗茲·庫格勒，約翰·約阿希姆·溫克爾曼，詹姆斯·弗格森

國家自然科學基金資助項目（批準號：51678325）

清華大學自主科研計劃（批準號：20151080466）

National Natural Science Foundation of China (project number 51678325)

Tsinghua University Individual Research Fund (project number 20151080466)

1 導言

色彩，素來是一種直擊情感、富有力量的表現(xiàn)手段。然而，西方古典時期的雕塑與建筑是否有可能采用色彩裝飾？或者，具體來說，古希臘神廟是否存在彩飾？如果答案是肯定的，它們的色彩是明艷的還是淡雅的？這些問題在西方的學術(shù)圈和普通大眾之中屢屢引起激烈的討論。從19世紀初期問題的提出直到現(xiàn)在，關(guān)于此話題的討論不斷涌現(xiàn)，在1830年代成為令人矚目的熱點——當時人們在希臘神廟建筑上發(fā)現(xiàn)了殘存的顏料痕跡，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)顛覆了歐洲人對古典建筑偏好“純凈”的色彩認知。[1]6

本文將詳細回顧這場關(guān)于彩飾的論爭，它的來龍去脈與論爭焦點，并探究論爭背后的社會機制，以及卷入其中的各派勢力。我們試圖回答以下問題：在何時發(fā)生了何事；通過這一事件我們能夠有何領(lǐng)悟；以及在跨文化的語境下，這場論爭對于過去和現(xiàn)在有著怎樣的重要性。換言之，我們將首先介紹幾位在辯論中扮演了重要角色、卻尚不為中國讀者熟知的關(guān)鍵人物，然后分析他們之間的關(guān)系，最后在宏觀的時代背景下討論這些人物，以理解他們對于世界建筑史的重要意義。

本研究主要基于德語及英語的文獻資料，在這場重新定義古典建筑色彩的運動中，本文聚焦于“德意志”的角色，也兼顧了在其中作出貢獻的普魯士，巴伐利亞及德裔法籍建筑師們。

2 序幕——阿法雅神廟的色彩復原

2.1 18世紀，單色眼鏡下的“古典”建筑——溫克爾曼的希臘建筑史觀

德國藝術(shù)史家、“考古學家”1）約翰·約阿希姆·溫克爾曼（1717–1768），是18世紀末期新古典主義運動的領(lǐng)導者。這場運動重新詮釋了古典建筑，以及文藝復興對古典的詮釋。將“高貴的單純”和“靜謐的偉大”作為完美藝術(shù)的唯一準繩，這是溫克爾曼的著名論斷，這一論斷最初成型于他的論文《關(guān)于繪畫和雕刻中模仿希臘藝術(shù)作品的思考》（1755），并在《古代藝術(shù)史》（1764）一書中發(fā)展完善。溫克爾曼的這一論斷將形式和構(gòu)成作為古典美的決定性因素，為后世樹立了一個標準（盡管溫克爾曼和他同時代的人對希臘藝術(shù)和建筑的認識僅僅來源于古羅馬人的復制品2））。溫克爾曼雖然已經(jīng)知道古典文獻中有彩繪雕塑的記載，卻不屑地宣稱這種“野蠻的習俗”屬于一個更原始的早期階段，例如就意大利藝術(shù)而言，這一做法就源自伊特魯里亞藝術(shù)。他推崇白色（白色大理石的色彩），因為白色充分地反射光線、最能凸顯造型的美感3）。此外，在這場古典主義者對白色的狂熱崇拜中，“形式”和“色彩”有如兩性的對峙，一邊是陽剛/理智（抽象的“純粹”形式），另一邊則是陰柔/情感（感性的色彩）[2]288。正是這一觀念導致歐洲人（不僅限于德語國家）對古典建筑的誤解持續(xù)了將近一個世紀，直到某些證據(jù)逐漸豐滿起來，它的權(quán)威才開始動搖。

2.2 考古實例與發(fā)現(xiàn)

自18世紀下半葉開始，關(guān)于古代著名遺跡與古遺址的著作日漸豐富，其中以英語和法語作品為多4）：

1762–1816年，蘇格蘭考古學家詹姆斯·斯圖爾特（1713–1788）與英格蘭業(yè)余建筑師尼古拉斯·雷維特（1721–1804）聯(lián)合出版了關(guān)于雅典古代建筑的詳細測繪成果（《雅典的古跡》，四卷本，分別出版于1762年、1787年、1784年、1816年）5）。

1764年，英國新古典主義建筑師羅伯特·亞當(1728–1792)出版著作《位于達爾馬提亞的斯普利特的戴克里先皇宮遺跡》。1743–1745年，意大利藝術(shù)家喬瓦尼·巴蒂斯塔·皮拉內(nèi)西(1720–1778)發(fā)表了一批關(guān)于羅馬及其古典建筑復原想象的版畫（《建筑與透視第一卷》, 1743；《古代與現(xiàn)代羅馬的景象集》，1745）6）。

1 拉奧孔與兒子們，著名古希臘雕塑，可代表溫克爾曼的藝術(shù)觀點“高貴的單純與靜謐的偉大”（梵蒂岡美術(shù)館藏；攝影：李路珂）/Laoco?n and his sons, famous ancient Greek sculptures that embody Winkelmann's doctrine of"noble simplicity and calm grandeur" (Vatican Museum; photo by LI Luke)

1 Introduction

Color has always been a powerful means of expression that has infamed emotions. In the West,the issue of the mere possibility of polychromy of antique sculptures and buildings – whether or not ancient Greek temples were painted and if so, whether the colors were bright or dull – has repeatedly caused a stir both in academic circles and among the general public. A perpetual issue from its emergence at the beginning of the 19th century to the present, it heated up in the 1830s, when the discovery of paint remains on Greek temples revolutionized the European perception of classical architecture as monochrome (white) walls.[1]6

In this paper, I discuss the path of the polychromy dispute and its intensity, and investigate the mechanisms of the debate as well as the conficting parties involved, with a view to answering the questions of what happened (chronology of events), what lessons we can learn from this/what insights we can gain (historical mindset; French-German aesthetics), and what signifcance it had and still has in a global context (Greek revival architecture;understanding of Western historiography on Chinese architecture). That is to say, I will frst introduce the key players of the debate because they are hardly known in China, and then explain their relations with each other, before placing them in the larger context of the time with the goal to understand their signifcance to global architectural history.

Research is based on data available only in German (and English) and focuses on the role of"Germany" and the Prussian, Bavarian, and Germanborn French architects engaged in repainting the picture of antiquity.

2 Setting the stage – The colorful recovery of the Aphaia Temple

2.1 Distorted view of antiquity in the 18th century – Winckelmann's misconstrued monochromy for ancient Greek architecture

The German art historian and "archaeologist"1)Johann Joachim Winckelmann (1717-68) shaped the neo-classical movement of the late 18th century that challenged antiquity and its interpretation in the Renaissance. His doctrine of "noble simplicity and calm grandeur" (edle Einfalt und stille Groesse) as the sole yardsticks of artistic perfection, frst formulated in Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst (1755) and elaborated in Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums(1764), set the benchmark for succeeding generations,identifying form and composition as decisive factors for classical beauty. (Even though Winckelmann and his contemporaries knew Greek art and architecture only from Roman copies. ) Although aware of painted sculptures mentioned in classical texts, Winckelmann derogatively explained away this "barbaric custom" as belonging to an early primitive stage or, in the case of Italian art, to Etruscan art – he glorifed the color white (as in white marble) that acted as a catalyst and refected light so as to best highlight the beauty of form. Moreover, in the classicist cult of the white,"form" and "color" were powers in the battle of the sexes, reflecting the oppositions of the masculinerational (abstract "pure" form) and the feminineemotional (sensual color), respectively.[2]288And it was this mind-set that led to a misconstrued perception of antiquity in Europe (not only in the Germanspeaking realm) for almost a century, until a growing body of factual evidence challenged its authority.

2.2 Archaeological facts and fndings

Writings about famous ancient monuments and sites have been the order of the day since the 2nd half of the 18th century, with the English and French at the forefront.4)

The Scottish archaeologist James Stuart (1713-1788) and the English amateur architect Nicholas Revett (1721–1804) together published exact measurements of the buildings of Athens (Antiquities of Athens, 4 vols, 1762, 1787, 1784, 1816).5)

The British neo-classical architect Robert Adam(1728-1792) published his Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalatro in Dalmatia (1764).The Italian artist Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720-78) published his etchings of Rome and fictitious interpretations of classical architecture (Prima parte di architettura e prospettive, 1743; Varie vedute di Roma antica e moderna, 1745).

Jacques-Germain Soufot (1713-1780), who later built the Panthéon in Paris (after 1755), measured the Greek ruins at Paestum (his survey results were published some years later in: Gabriel-Pierre-Martin Dumont, Les Ruines de Paestum, 1764).6)The French artist and draftsman Charles-Louis Clérisseau (1721-1820) published a work about the Roman monument in N?mes (Antiquités de la France, prèmiere partie:monumens de Nismes, 1778). The German historian Karl Hammer (1969-), biographer of the Cologne-born French architect Jakob Ignaz Hittorf (1792-1867), a key fgure in the polychromy debate, sarcastically asked whether it was really possible that nobody in this vast group of professional and amateur archaeologists had noticed any traces of color on ancient sculptures or buildings.[3]101

As a matter of fact, early archaeologists discovered and documented traces of paint on structural and decorative architectural components in Egypt, Greece, and southern Italy from the 1820s onwards, but "little had made of them" as the American architectural historian David van Zanten argued.[4]268And yet, some of them were aware of the relevance and far-reaching significance of their findings, as is evident in the letters about Greece written by the German architect Karl Haller von Hallerstein (1774-1817).[2]79However, the question of whether or not buildings had been painted, in antiquity, was too complex and had to be gradually resolved by generating awareness among the general public.[1]6Crucial pieces still had to be found before the polychromy puzzle was able to be pieced together into a comprehensive theory (Hittorf; Semper).

The Aphaia Temple, situated on the small island of Aegina in the Saronic Gulf, twice played a crucial role in the process of the rediscovery of antique polychrome architecture: in the early 19th century and in the 20th century. The late Archaic temple dedicated to the local Greek goddess Aphaia(500 BCE) was formerly associated with Jupiter Panhellenius, because it was mistaken for an earlier temple built around 570 BCE on the same site but destroyed in 510 BCE.[1]6Known to the English public through being mentioned in Ionian Antiquities (Richard Chandler, Nicholas Revett,William Pars; 1769-1797), the Doric temple was studied and excavated in May 1811 by Haller – a protégé of the art patron and Bavarian crown prince Ludwig (who would soon become King Ludwig I,and reign from from 1825-1848) – and his traveling companion, the English architect Charles Robert Cockerell (1788-1863).

不久后，雅克·赫爾馬因·蘇夫洛（1 7 1 3–1 7 8 0），即1 7 5 5年后設(shè)計建造巴黎萬神廟的建筑師，對帕埃斯圖姆的古希臘遺址進行了測繪（其調(diào)查成果數(shù)年后發(fā)表于加布里埃爾·皮埃爾·馬丁·迪蒙的《帕埃斯圖姆的古遺址》，1 7 6 4）。1 7 7 8年，法國藝術(shù)家、繪圖師查爾斯·路易·克萊里索（1 7 2 1–1 8 2 0）發(fā)表了一幅關(guān)于尼姆羅馬古跡的作品。（《法蘭西古跡之一：尼姆的遺跡》，1778年）面對這些為數(shù)眾多的專業(yè)或業(yè)余的考古學者，德國歷史學家卡爾·哈默（1969–）曾不無諷刺地質(zhì)問：他們難道真的沒有一個人注意到，在古代的雕塑或建筑上有著色彩的蹤跡？[3]101（哈默是這場彩飾之辯的關(guān)鍵人物、生于科隆的法國建筑師雅各布·伊格納茨·希托夫的傳記作者。）

事實上，自1820年代開始，早期考古學者們就已發(fā)現(xiàn)并記錄了出現(xiàn)在埃及、希臘及意大利南部的建筑結(jié)構(gòu)及裝飾部件上殘存的彩飾痕跡，但正如美國建筑史學家戴維·范·贊特恩所言：“他們視而不見”[4]268。然而，在他們之中還是有人意識到了這些發(fā)現(xiàn)的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系，及其背后的深遠意義，這在德國建筑師卡爾·哈勒爾·馮·哈勒施泰因（1774–1817）[2]79關(guān)于希臘的信件中有著明確的表述?？墒?，古典建筑究竟是否存在彩飾，這個問題及其相關(guān)的觀念已經(jīng)過于盤根錯節(jié)、深入人心，乃至于只能采取曲折的方式，通過喚醒普通大眾的關(guān)注和認知來漸次解決[1]6。在有關(guān)彩飾法的種種線索被拼湊在一起并形成一個可以理解的理論體系（如希托夫、森佩爾）之前，還需要找到一把解開迷團的關(guān)鍵鑰匙。

位于愛琴海的薩羅尼克灣，距雅典約40km的埃伊納島上的阿法雅神廟，曾于19世紀早期和20世紀先后兩次在重新發(fā)現(xiàn)古代彩飾建筑的歷程中扮演了關(guān)鍵性的角色。這座古典時代晚期的神廟用于祭祀希臘地方女神阿法雅（約公元前500年），阿法雅神廟曾與其基址上原有的一座大約公元前570年建成、公元前510年毀去的宙斯神廟混淆，因此阿法雅神廟曾經(jīng)被誤認為與希臘主神朱庇特有關(guān)[1]6。這座多立克式神廟由于被理查德·錢德勒等人1769–1797年出版的《愛奧尼亞的古代遺跡》一書所述及而進入英語讀者的視野。1811年5月，它迎來了兩位發(fā)掘者——一位是哈勒爾，巴伐利亞皇儲、藝術(shù)資助人路德維希（后來成為路德維希一世大帝，1825–1848年在位）的門客，另一位是哈勒爾的旅伴，英國建筑師查爾斯·羅伯特·科爾雷爾（1788–1863）。

他們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些從山花上脫落的雕飾殘片（現(xiàn)藏于慕尼黑古代雕塑博物館），這些殘片上有著明顯被涂繪過的痕跡。這座神廟殘片的發(fā)現(xiàn)之所以特別重要，是因為神廟的大部分被掩埋在土里，這使得它的明艷色彩被意外地完好保存下來（盡管這些色彩一旦暴露于空氣中便迅速地褪去）[4]266。

巴伐利亞王儲從哈勒爾1811年12月的來信中得知了埃伊納島的這座神廟的大理石碎片，并于1812年11月1日在一場拍賣會上將其買下[2]11。盡管哈勒爾從未正式發(fā)表過他的發(fā)現(xiàn)（他于1817年死于希臘），但那些殘片的實物與他的住所中找到的速寫上的記錄彼此一致。

這個小小的發(fā)現(xiàn)有著極其深遠的影響。它不僅為帶有彩飾的古典建筑在物質(zhì)實體層面進行的視覺復原（完全模仿原物制造的復制品）鋪平了道路，更為其后19世紀建筑設(shè)計（新希臘式建筑或希臘復興建筑）中彩飾法的運用奠定了基礎(chǔ)[5]278。

2.3 視覺上的復原——模仿性重建與想象

萊奧·馮·克倫策 (1784-1864)，巴伐利亞王儲路德維希的宮廷建筑師，盡管在1816年已有了一個意向性的計劃7），但直到10余年后才實現(xiàn)他的勃勃雄心——復原重建慕尼黑古代雕塑博物館收藏的阿法雅神廟西山墻，借此提升帶有彩飾的古典建筑的視覺效果與社會認知（1816–1830年，置于埃伊納展廳，1828年完成）?？藗惒咴谀侥岷谠O(shè)計的這座“彩飾博物館”，主要功能是放置路德維希關(guān)于希臘和羅馬雕塑的皇家收藏，同時也是路德維希把慕尼黑城變成“德意志的雅典”的理想圖景的一個部分。

這項復原工作持續(xù)了數(shù)年。其初稿的誕生（1822）基于哈勒爾和科爾雷爾繪制的速寫，1828年，又根據(jù)哈勒爾的另一位旅伴奧托·馮·斯坦科爾伯格（1786–1837）到慕尼黑旅行時提供的信息進一步完善[2]80?？藗惒叩膹驮晒?，那飽和而強烈的色彩引來了同時代人的批評，甚至科爾雷爾本人在1840年到訪慕尼黑時都曾表達了自己的顧慮[2]81。但我們不應(yīng)忘記，在那時，這場即將發(fā)生的彩飾之辯中的兩位關(guān)鍵人物，即希托夫和森佩爾，都還沒有開始他們的偉大旅行，科爾雷爾也尚未發(fā)表他的第一手報告（報告發(fā)表于1860年，在他的實地勘察近半世紀以后 ）。

1846年，科爾雷爾的朋友希托夫為阿法雅神廟提出了一個合理的復原設(shè)計。盡管希托夫從未真正到訪過希臘本土，他在實地考察意大利南部的希臘殖民地20年之后提出的這一視覺化的復原似乎是可信的：他將正面山花下沿的卷須飾移至門廊的內(nèi)部（內(nèi)殿），從而修正了克倫策的主要錯誤之一。

1860年，也就是15年后，科爾雷爾發(fā)表了一個色調(diào)更加淡雅的復原設(shè)計，這一作品用粉彩繪制，保持了一種優(yōu)雅而內(nèi)斂的氣質(zhì)。事實上，或許由于時代審美觀的變化，以及19世紀下半葉對于飽和色調(diào)所持的愈演愈烈的批判態(tài)度，這一版復原設(shè)計與他和哈勒爾1811年的原始手稿有著微妙的差別[2]84。

紙上的復原作品一時間百花齊放，這要歸功于巴黎美術(shù)學院8）豐厚的旅行獎學金。一些贏取了著名的羅馬大獎的獲獎?wù)咴诹_馬的法蘭西學院學習古典藝術(shù)與建筑學，在這一時期受到希托夫的啟發(fā)，創(chuàng)作了上色的測繪圖，以及帶有彩飾的古代建筑復原設(shè)計圖。這些工作更多地屬于建筑幻想的范疇，而非科學的復原設(shè)計[4]260。

其中特別值得一提的例子是法國青年建筑師夏爾·加尼耶（1825–1898），他是1848年羅馬大獎的獲得者。在他的作品中，盡管地磚的紅色或多或少是受其原始色彩的啟發(fā)，但控制著整個立面的厚重飽滿的色彩使得加尼耶的阿法雅神廟復原設(shè)計飽受爭議。他的復原設(shè)計于1853年在羅馬法蘭西學院展出（1854年出版了一部分，1884年全部出版），與哈勒爾和科爾雷爾的版本形成了鮮明的對比。

加尼耶的復原設(shè)計值得特別的關(guān)注，這是因為他在1852年親自到訪過埃伊納島——自1845年起，獎學金獲得者們得以游歷結(jié)束了戰(zhàn)事的希臘和土耳其9）。不出所料，當時已成為巴黎美術(shù)學院院士的希托夫?qū)@一復原提出了批評，而他的老對頭，法國考古學家、巴黎美術(shù)學院常務(wù)部長勞爾-羅謝特（1790–1854）卻給予了贊揚。具體的批評主要集中在額枋上方的多立克式檐壁上用以填充三隴板間隙的長方形隴間壁：復原設(shè)計中的這些飾以濃烈色彩的構(gòu)件（純粹）是想象的產(chǎn)物。此外，那些曾經(jīng)被希托夫成功地移走的卷須飾，又重新出現(xiàn)在了建筑的正面——這種直白的挑釁或許正是招致希托夫批判的原因。

1901年，阿法雅神廟在首次被發(fā)現(xiàn)的百年之后，又一次成為學術(shù)界關(guān)注的焦點。這一次，雅典德國考古學院的主任阿道夫·富特文勒（1853–1907）對神廟實施了一次系統(tǒng)的田野發(fā)掘，他的團隊成員恩斯特·菲克特（1875–1948）制定了至今仍被認為合理的色彩復原準則[6]。

2 18世紀末期的考古實例與發(fā)現(xiàn)：帕提農(nóng)神廟西立面（斯圖爾特與雷維特，《雅典古代建筑》，卷2，圖版6）/Archaeological facts and fndings in the late 18th century,Parthenon west facade (Stuart and Revett, The Antiquities of Athens, vol. 2, plate 6)

3 位于希臘薩羅尼克灣的埃伊納島上的阿法雅神廟遺址現(xiàn)狀（圖片來源：維基公共資源）/Aphaia Temple on the island of Aegina in the Saronic Gulf, Greece, current condition of the site (Source: Public domain work, www.commons.wikipedia.org)

4 阿法雅神廟遺址出土的帶有色彩痕跡的構(gòu)件殘片 （引自《色彩里的神》，圖版116）/Fragment of the Aphaia Temple with traces of color (Brinkmann,Bunte G?tter, fgure 116)

They discovered fragments of fallen pediment sculptures (now stored in the Munich Glyptothek)that had clearly originally been painted. The discovery of the fragments of this temple was so important because the temple had been largely buried, so that its bright colors were exceptionally well preserved(although they vanished rapidly upon exposure to the air).[4]266The Bavarian crown prince, who learned about the Aegina Temple marbles through Haller's letter from December 1811, bought them at an auction on November 1, 1812.[2]11Although Haller never published his findings (he died in Greece in 1817), the physical fragments are in accordance with sketches from his estate.

This small discovery had far-reaching consequences and paved the way towards the visual recovery of painted buildings from antiquity in physical form (imitative reproductions made to look"exactly" like the original) and subsequently the use of color in contemporary 19th-century architectural design (neo-Grec or Greek revival architecture).[5]278

2.3 Visual recovery – Imitative reconstructions and fantasies

Although a tentative plan already existed in 1816,7)it was only a decade later that Leo von Klenze (1784-1864), court architect of the Bavarian crown prince Ludwig, realized his ambition to enhance visibility and recognition of the polychrome architecture of antiquity through the restoration of the western pediment of the Aphaia Temple housed in the Glyptothek (1816-30; installed in the Aegina Hall, completed 1828; with the original pediment sculptures against the background of the temple fa?ade newly reconstructed in plaster), the"Polychromy Museum" he designed in Munich to house Ludwig's royal collection of Greek and Roman sculptures and as part of Ludwig's vision, which was to transform the city into a "German Athens".

The project grew steadily over the years,developing out of a first draft (1822) based on Haller's and Cockerell's hand sketches and further elaborated in 1828 by information provided by Otto von Stackelberg (1786-1837), one of Haller's traveling companions, when he came to Munich on his travels.[2]80Klenze's contemporaries criticized the fnal result for its saturated, intense colors; and even Cockerel voiced his concern during his 1840 Munich visit.[2]81However, we should not forget that neither Hittorf nor Semper, both key fgures in the polychromy debate to come, had gone on their great tours yet, nor had Cockerel yet publicized his frsthand report (this was subsequently published in 1860, half a century after his on-site research).

In 1846, Hittorff, a friend of Cockerel's, put forward a rational reconstruction of the Aphaia Temple. Despite the fact that he had never actually visited Greece, his visual recovery – two decades after his field trip to the Italian Greek colonies in southern Italy – was plausible, correcting one of Klenze's major mistakes by repositioning the spiraling tendril away from the lower edge of the front pediment to the interior of the portico (i.e.cella front).

Fifteen years later, in 1860, Cockerel's published reconstruction appeared comparatively light, in pastel colors, and remained elegantly reserved. In fact, it differed slightly from his and Haller's original 1811 sketches, probably because of the changed taste of the time and the more critical attitude towards bright colors in the 2nd half of the 19th century.[2]84

Paper reconstruction assumed truly extreme dimensions thanks to the generous travel stipends provided by the Académie des Beaux-Arts:8)having won the prestigious Prix de Rome (Rome Prize), the pensionnaires at the Académie de France à Rome(French Academy in Rome) studied classical art and architecture and, inspired by Hittorf, produced colored documentary (survey) drawings and recovery plans of ancient polychrome monuments that more often than not belonged to the category of architectural fantasy and not scientifc restoration.[4]260

One particularly telling example is that of the young French architect Jean-Louis Charles Garnier(1825-98), winner of the 1848 stipend. Although the red of the foor tiles was loosely inspired by their original color, the dark, heavy colors that control the elevation of Garnier's highly controversial Aphaia Temple, displayed at the Académie in 1853(published in a partial version in 1854 and fully only in 1884), was in sharp contrast to Haller and Cockerel's version.

This is even more remarkable because Garnier visited Aegina in 1852 – since the pensionnaires had been allowed to travel around now-peaceful Greece and Turkey since 1845.9)Not surprisingly,Hittorff, by then a member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, voiced criticism, whereas Hittorff's old adversary Desiré-Raoul Rochette (1790-1854),French archaeologist and Perpetual Secretary(Secrétaire Perpétuel) of the Académie, praised the work. Specifc criticisms focused on the rectangular metops that fll the space between triglyphs in the Doric front frieze above the architrave: decorated and painted in heavy colors, they were (quite simply)products of the imagination. Additionally, the spiraling tendril appeared again at the front of the building, whence Hittorf had successfully removed it – a direct afront and probably the reason for his criticism.

Almost a hundred years after its frst discovery,the Aphaia Temple was again the focus of academic attention. In 1901, the director of the German School in Athens, Adolf Furtw?ngler (1853-1907),carried out a systematic site excavation, and Ernst Fiechter (1875-1948), a member of Furtw?ngler's team, formulated the principles for color reconstruction that are still considered valid today.[6]

The main difference with regard to previous recovery attempts is the color of the vertical elements of the Doric order, namely mutules,triglyphs, and regulae: as new fragments showed,they were black – not blue, as hitherto assumed by all, including Haller. (And thus, according to Fiechter's premise, the previously-discovered blue regula stored in the Glyptothek must belong to the[interior] cella fa?ade (and not the [exterior] temple front fa?ade) – a fact subsequently confrmed by the 2nd German excavation [1966-1979] under Diert Ohly.)

Finally, the digital model by the archeologist Valentina Hinz and the architect Stefan Franz, who run a building history and visualization company in Munich, generated a century later, almost two-hundred years after Haller's field survey,summarizes the state-of-the-art of the polychromy of archaic Doric temples.[2]87Columns coated with thin limestone-marble stucco in white stand atop a (fine-pored limestone) tiered base/podium; the vertical frieze elements of mutules, triglyphs, and regulae were black, and separated from one another by an ocher red horizontal fillet molding (taenia)to highlight the structural logic of the entablature;and although the original metopes have been lost(presumably stolen by Roman thieves), based on those of the older temple, they were probably white marble reliefs with black headbands.

Everything below the horizontal cornice(geison) was white, black, or red; only the rear wall of the pediment above was painted in Egyptian blue. Although the colors of the roof are unclear, the German archeologist Vinzenz Brickmann (1958-),whose research results were shown in a worldwide touring exhibition (Bunte G?tter–Die Farbigkeit antiker Skulptur [Gods in color–the polychromy of ancient sculpture], 2003-15), suggested that they were azure (blue), vermillion (red), and malachite green.[2]88Entering the temple from the east and looking up, one noticed that the colors were noticeably brighter than on the outside, to make up for the shadowed vestibule.

與此前的嘗試相比，此次復原的主要特色是根據(jù)發(fā)現(xiàn)的新殘片，確定了多立克式的豎向構(gòu)件，即檐托、三隴板，以及滴珠飾板，實際上是黑色而非藍色——這與此前包括哈勒爾在內(nèi)的所有人的觀點都不同。[如果菲克特的這個前提成立，那么此前發(fā)現(xiàn)并藏于慕尼黑古代雕塑博物館的藍色滴珠飾板無疑是屬于（位于門廊室內(nèi)的）內(nèi)殿立面的一部分，而非建筑的外立面——其后戴爾特·奧利主持的第二次德國人的挖掘（1966–1979）證實了這一點。]

最近，在慕尼黑經(jīng)營一家建筑歷史和數(shù)字影像公司的考古學者瓦倫蒂娜·希恩茲與建筑師斯蒂芬·弗朗茲在一個世紀后，即哈勒爾田野調(diào)查的將近200年后，為古典時期多立克神廟的彩飾法制作了一個概括最新藝術(shù)研究進展的數(shù)字化模型[2]87。在這個模型中，柱子上覆蓋了一層薄薄的由石灰石和大理石混合而成的白色灰泥涂層，立于細孔狀石灰?guī)r的多層臺基之上；豎向的檐壁構(gòu)件，檐口托飾、三隴板和滴珠飾板是黑色的，且被赭紅色水平飾帶（束帶飾）隔開，以強調(diào)檐部的結(jié)構(gòu)邏輯；而盡管原來的隴間壁已經(jīng)丟失了（可能是被古羅馬扒手盜走的），根據(jù)更古老的神廟的隴間壁推測，它們可能是頂部帶有黑色飾帶的白色大理石浮雕。

所有位于水平檐口下方的構(gòu)件都是白色、黑色或紅色的，只有山墻內(nèi)壁被涂成埃及藍。屋頂?shù)念伾胁淮_定，德國考古學家溫岑茨·布里克曼（1958–）提出它可能是由石青、朱砂紅以及孔雀綠所飾[2]88。他的研究成果曾展示于一個全球巡回的展覽中（《色彩里的神——古典雕塑的彩飾》，2003–2015）。當人們從東面步入神廟并仰望時，會發(fā)現(xiàn)前廊內(nèi)部的色彩比室外要明艷許多，這或許可以彌補前廊光線的不足。

5 阿法雅神廟西山墻，希托夫復原設(shè)計（圖紙左側(cè)的名稱標注為本文作者所加）（希托夫，《賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟復原》，圖版8左側(cè)）/Western pediment of the Aphaia Temple, reconstructed by Hittorf (with a legend identifying the various parts of the pediment on the left) (Hittorf,Restitution du temple d'Empédocle à Sélinonte, plate 8, left)

6 阿法雅神廟東山墻，科爾雷爾復原設(shè)計（科爾雷爾，《埃伊納的宙斯廟》，圖版6）/Eastern pediment of the Aphaia Temple, reconstructed by Cockerell (Cockerell, The Temples of Jupiter Panhellenius at Aegina, plate 6)

7 阿法雅神廟平面圖（左）、東山墻立面圖（右），加尼耶復原設(shè)計（加尼耶《埃伊納的宙斯神廟》 圖版9、10）/Plan (left) and Eastern pediment（right） of the Aphaia Temple, reconstructed by Garnier (Garnier, Temple de Jupiter Panhellénien à Egine, plates 9 and 10)

3 慢慢接受驚人的事實——關(guān)于彩飾的激辯

3.1 開端——學派之爭

德籍或德裔的考古學家、建筑師、藝術(shù)資助人以及歷史學家們在阿法雅神廟的發(fā)掘和（視覺）復原上起到了主導作用，不管是在實體空間還是在數(shù)字化的虛擬空間均是如此。然而，盡管他們的確憑借自己的努力做出了具有開創(chuàng)性的重要貢獻，但對于在實質(zhì)上修正西方史學編纂中的古希臘建筑彩繪這樣一個更宏觀也更復雜的挑戰(zhàn)來說，這依然是一個很小的組成部分。而后者經(jīng)歷了長達10年的、法德兩地主要學者之間的激烈辯論。

3.1.1 考特梅爾·德·坎西，彩飾法的初步展開

1815年，法國雕塑家、空想考古學家及政治家德·坎西（一位天主教?；庶h人，在法國大革命中曾因此被判處死刑，但不久便被無罪釋放），撰寫了一本具有論辯性質(zhì)的小冊子（《奧林匹亞的朱庇特》），在論及著色的古代雕塑時，附了一些手繪上色的插圖。這本書引發(fā)了關(guān)于古希臘藝術(shù)中彩飾的辯論，并很快成為此后一系列研究的重要參考10）。

考特梅爾在1816–1839年曾是巴黎美術(shù)學院位高權(quán)重的常務(wù)部長，在位期間還掌管了羅馬大獎的評定工作，該獎的一些獲得者后來成為彩飾之辯中的重要人物。1818年，考特梅爾成為了法國國家圖書館的考古學教授。他最有名的著作是兩卷本的《建筑學辭典》（1789年，1832年）?？继孛窢枌⒔ㄖW理論與實踐的源頭上溯至古希臘，“隨后由古羅馬人發(fā)揚光大，并成為整個文明世界的財富”。但他卻將豐富的古希臘建筑限定于一種非黑即白（理想主義）的類型學11）：

希臘神廟是希臘人哲學智慧的具象化表達，也是一個絕對固定的語言學結(jié)構(gòu)，僅通過不同的柱式（詞匯）被歸類于3個樣式體系（多立克式、愛奧尼式與科林斯式）。在希臘神廟的內(nèi)部，彩飾最好的表現(xiàn)方式是在雕塑上手工單色平涂（而非繪畫），因為有些許瑕疵和固有色的大理石被看作是“真實的”，而沒有繪畫的那種模仿的意圖及虛幻的效果[1]16。這微妙的區(qū)分反過來體現(xiàn)了考特梅爾根深蒂固的保守觀念，以及全方位理解“彩飾”概念時的無能。作為那個時代巴黎美術(shù)學院學院派古典主義理想主義者的主要代表，考特梅爾認為在堅守嚴格的古典規(guī)范方面，他有著義不容辭的責任（德式溫克爾曼傳統(tǒng)）[5]104。

3.1.2 希托夫，關(guān)于古希臘彩飾法的系統(tǒng)理論

出生于科隆的巴黎建筑師雅各布·伊格納茨·希托夫（1792–1867）,曾經(jīng)（實至名歸地）宣稱自己是“在各個時期的希臘建筑中，在各種壯麗的神話故事的豐富細節(jié)中發(fā)現(xiàn)了使用色彩作為裝飾”的第一人[3]104。希托夫?qū)嶋H上是古典建筑從單色到彩色的觀念轉(zhuǎn)變背后的先驅(qū)者。他建立了關(guān)于古典時代彩飾建筑的第一個全面的理論，其中還提出了關(guān)于色彩裝飾的規(guī)則[5]49-50。盡管希托夫自己也是一個古典主義者，但他不像考特梅爾那樣囿于循規(guī)蹈矩的古典主義觀念，而將彩飾的運用解釋為“對于被裝飾的柱式的固定語言所進行的系統(tǒng)化的微調(diào)和豐富化”[4]272。

希托夫作為一個專業(yè)建筑師的成功，就算不全是，也很大程度上依賴于他對裝飾與裝飾設(shè)計的敏感性，而這種敏感性正是他在彩飾法之辯的過程中通過搜尋大量的古典建筑彩飾實物而獲得的。起初他在弗朗索瓦-約瑟夫·貝朗格(1744–1818)的手下?lián)卫L圖員，并于1818年接任他成為法蘭西政府建筑師。此后他開始從事皇家慶典和紀念活動的策劃（直到1830年的法國七月革命），并一度成為巴黎上流社會最青睞的建筑師12）。1833年，他正式成為曾經(jīng)就讀的巴黎美術(shù)學院的院士之一。

8 阿法雅神廟三隴板局部（左）、東山墻（右），富特文勒復原設(shè)計 （富特文勒，《埃伊納：阿法雅圣地》，圖版61上部，104、105底部）/ Triglyphs (left) and eastern pediment (right) of the Aphaia Temple, reconstructed by Furtw?ngler (Furtw?ngler, Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia,plate 61 [top], plates 104 and 105 [bottom])

9 瓦倫蒂娜·希恩茲與斯蒂芬·弗朗茲所作的阿法雅神廟數(shù)字化復原模型/ Digital reconstrucion of the Aphaia Temple, 3D model by Valentina Hinz and Stefan Franz (Source: Ofcial website of the Büro für Bauforschung und Visualisierung,http://www.hinzundfranz.de/dt/dtbei/dtbaph.htm)

10 位于希臘雅典的奧林匹亞宙斯神廟內(nèi)的彩飾雕塑，公元前6世紀至公元前2世紀（考特梅爾·德·坎西，《奧林匹亞宙斯》卷首頁）/Colored statue from the Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens, Greece, 6th century BC-2nd century (Quatremère de Quincy, Le Jupiter olympien, frontispiece)

3 Acknowledging the astonishing truth – The polychromy debate

3.1 The beginnings – Conflicting schools of thought

German(-born) archeologists, architects, art patrons and historians played a leading role in the discovery and (visual) recovery of the Aphaia Temple, in both physical and digital form. However,their contributions, although groundbreaking and important in their own right, were in fact only a small component of a much larger, more complex challenge –the factual rectifcation of Western historiography on polychromy in ancient Greek architecture, which took the form of a decades-long debate among the leading French and German scholars of the time.

3.1.1 Quatremère de Quincy, the tentative beginning of polychromy

In 1815, Antoine-Chrys?stome Quatremère de Quincy (1755-1849), a French sculptor, armchair archaeologist, and politician (a Catholic royalist condemned to death in the French Revolution,but acquitted in time), wrote a polemic pamphlet,illustrated with hand-colored plates, on the subject of antique colored statues (Le Jupiter olympien, 1815), which triggered the discussion on polychromy in classical Greek art and soon became the reference point for succeeding studies.10)

Quatremère held the prestigious position of Permanent Secretary (Secrétaire Perpétuel) of the Académie des Beaux-Arts from 1816-39 and during that time was in charge of awarding the Prix de Rome, the winners of which played a significant role in the polychromy debate. In 1818, he became a professor of archaeology at the National Library of France. He is best known for his Dictionary historique de l'architecture (2 vols, 1789 and 1832).Quatremère traced the origins of theory and practice of architecture to the Greeks, which "then spread by the Romans and became the property of the civilized world as a whole", but confned Greek (i.e. regular)architecture to small categories (idealist typologies):

The temple of the Greeks was as a materialization of their philosophy and an absolutely fxed linguistic construct distinguished only by the division of its order (vocabulary) into three sub-systems (Doric,Ionic, and Corinthian orders). Inside the Greek temple, polychromy in its best form revealed itself in the form of hand-dyed (not painted) sculptures,because chromatic (stained and tinted) marble was regarded as being "truthful" without pretending to imitate the illusory efect of painting.[1]16This subtle distinction reveals Quatremère's deeply-rooted conservative views and inner inability to grasp the concept of polychromy in all its dimensions. As the principal representative of idealist academic classicism in the Académie des Beaux Arts at that time, Quatremère felt obliged to uphold the rigid classicist norms (in the German Winckelmann tradition).[5]104

3.1.2 Hittorff, a systematic theory of Greek polychromy

Jakob Ignaz Hittorff (1792-1867), a Cologneborn Parisian architect, once claimed – justifiably – to be the frst person who had "discovered in Hellenistic architecture from all times the use of colors as adornment in various nuances of splendor and mythical allusions".[3]104Hittorf was in fact the pioneer behind the perception shift from monochromy to polychromy. He formulated the first comprehensive theory of polychrome architecture in antiquity that postulated the regularity of painted decoration.[5]49-50And although Hittorf was a classicist, he pushed the boundaries of Quatremère's normative classicist view by explaining the use of polychromy as "a systematic nuancing and enrichment of the fixed vocabulary of the orders it ornamented".[4]272

Hittorff's success as a professional architect depended largely if not fully on the ability in and sensitivity to decoration and ornamental design that he gained through the polychromy debate during his search for the polychrome architecture of antiquity.After working (as a draughtsman) for Fran?ois-Joseph Bélanger (1744-1818) whom he succeeded as French government architect in 1818, he made a career as a designer of royal fêtes and ceremonials (until the July or Second French Revolution of 1830) and was the favorite architect of the Parisian upper class.12)In 1833, he became a member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts where he had been a student.

Driven by an interest and curiosity in archaeology, Hittorff traveled to Italy and the Greek colonies (never actually visiting Greece itself – a common way of doing things at the time),departing Paris in September 1823 and Sicily in January 1824. In Sicily, he gained first-hand experiences of Hellenistic architecture (Magna Graecia), particularly the westernmost Greek colony of Selinunte near Agrigento on the southwestern coast of Sicily.13) At the local acropolis, he excavated a small and hitherto-unknown temple situated between three known large temples; and this he associated with the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles (Heroon or shrine of Empedocles, 5th century BCE, but today thought to date to the 4th or early 3rd century BCE and more likely to have been dedicated to Asclepius, Greek god of medicine).

在對于考古學的熱忱與好奇的驅(qū)使下，希托夫1 8 2 3年9月從巴黎出發(fā)，又于1 8 2 4年1月離開西西里，周游了意大利和希臘殖民地（他并未真正到訪過希臘本土，這在那個時代是種常見的方式）。在西西里島，尤其是在島上的西南沿海城市阿格里真托附近，最西端的希臘殖民地賽林努特，希托夫獲得了關(guān)于希臘（大希臘殖民地）建筑的一手經(jīng)驗13）。在當?shù)氐男l(wèi)城，他在3個已知的大型神廟之間發(fā)掘了一座當時還不為人知的小型神廟。他將這座神廟與前蘇格拉底時期的哲學家恩培多克勒聯(lián)系起來（恩培多克勒墓祠，公元前5世紀；最近的研究傾向于將其斷代為公元前4世紀或3世紀早期，且更有可能用來祭祀古希臘醫(yī)神阿斯克勒庇俄斯）。

就在1824年，希托夫已經(jīng)預感到他的理論——當時已經(jīng)在法國專業(yè)學者的小圈子里通過書信傳播開來——將會引發(fā)公眾的興趣和爭議，并將他旅行的成果匯報給了巴黎美術(shù)學院（在巴黎美術(shù)學院匯報我的西西里之行的回憶，及1824年7月24日會議的摘要）[1]47。1820年代末期，希托夫開始自費發(fā)表他的學術(shù)成果。他的《現(xiàn)代建筑》一書在1826–1835年分18期連載出版，頗受好評；然而他的《古代建筑》原計劃出版30期，卻在第8期時突然中斷14）。其中的原因，除了高昂的印刷成本因素外，更多是因為希托夫本人開始質(zhì)疑這個計劃的現(xiàn)實性以及法國讀者們對古典建筑普遍施以彩繪這一觀點的接受程度[3]170。

為了提升自己的履歷、獲得更多的社會認可，1830年，希托夫在巴黎美術(shù)學院和法蘭西題刻與文學藝術(shù)學院展示了他在賽林努特發(fā)現(xiàn)的那座小神廟的復原設(shè)計圖紙（整體設(shè)計成多立克式，卻用了愛奧尼式的柱頭）5）。

他提出了幾條論點。其一，在古希臘各個時期的宗教建筑中，色彩一直是一個至關(guān)重要的因素。其二，在地中海區(qū)域豐郁的自然環(huán)境與得天獨厚的光照條件下，只有色彩能夠創(chuàng)造建筑與環(huán)境之間的和諧統(tǒng)一；其三，色彩運用源于實用因素（保護結(jié)構(gòu)）。在早期希臘神廟中，色彩涂層原本被用來保護其木結(jié)構(gòu)(不受自然環(huán)境侵蝕)，后來木構(gòu)件被代之以普通石材(由彩色灰泥涂層保護)和大理石（由透明蠟保護）；其四，彩飾是一項早已熟練和普及的技藝，因此在古典時期并不需要在文字中加以特別說明。這也解釋了為何在那些古老的文獻中缺少對于彩飾法的說明；其五，用強烈的色彩組合（例如柱子用明黃為主色而三隴板用藍色）來勾勒并強化建筑造型的方法，這并不是恩培多克勒神廟獨有的現(xiàn)象，而是在整個古希臘世界普遍存在的現(xiàn)象。最終詳盡成果的出版，直到1851年才得以實現(xiàn)16）。反響是劇烈的。

3.1.3 勞爾-羅謝特，希托夫最堅定的反對者

德西雷-勞爾·羅謝特 (1790–1854)生于法國謝爾河地區(qū)的圣阿芒蒙龍，是一位兼具智慧和雄心且非常成功的考古學家，年僅20多歲就取得了巴黎路易大帝學校（1813）和巴黎大學索邦神學院（1817）的歷史教授職位[3]11。

早在1816年，羅謝特就成為了法蘭西題刻與文學藝術(shù)學院的院士；三年之后的1819年，他又成為了法國國家圖書館的古物主管人，他擔任這一職務(wù)直到1848年。1829年，他成為了法國國家圖書館的考古學教授——這是一個專為他設(shè)置的職位，他在這里作為演說家獲得了輝煌的聲譽。1839年羅謝特接任考特梅爾擔任巴黎美術(shù)學院的常務(wù)部長，直到1854年辭世。他的學術(shù)成果得到了廣大藝術(shù)愛好者的高度贊譽,卻沒有在同行學者那里獲得同樣高的評價。后者質(zhì)疑他對當代德意志文學與科學的知識廣泛而流于表面。

羅謝特比希托夫年長幾歲，卻是他最強勁的反對者17）。

他犀利地反駁了希托夫的觀點，并對整個古典建筑彩飾理論表示了懷疑。這一立場最初形成于他的《地下墓葬中的基督教壁畫》一書中，并于1830年在法蘭西題刻與文學藝術(shù)學院展示，作為對希托夫的賽林努特神廟復原設(shè)計的直接回應(yīng)。其后，他又在《學者報》的多篇文章，以及另外兩本書（《未出版的古典繪畫》，1836年；《關(guān)于希臘繪畫的考古學信件》，1840年）中發(fā)表了進一步的闡述（盡管并沒有多少新觀點）。他針鋒相對地提出：其一，公共建筑一直以來都用木板而非壁畫來裝飾；其二，壁畫僅僅用于不太重要的建筑中；其三，它們僅在較晚和較為衰落的時期才被使用。他解釋說那些墻面上的顏料痕跡都是較晚時期的添加，即中世紀繪畫的殘留。

3.1.4 森佩爾，站在希托夫的肩膀上，邁向彩飾建筑的相對主義美學

1834年，這場彩飾之辯突破了法蘭西的國界，被一位名叫戈特弗里德·森佩爾(1803–1879)的年輕人進一步發(fā)揚光大18）[7]。森佩爾因開創(chuàng)性的面飾理論和為薩克森王室設(shè)計建造的歌劇院（1838–1841）而聞名。他曾在慕尼黑和巴黎（1826）求學，并曾在巴黎受到老師弗朗茨-克里斯蒂安·高烏(1790–1854)的鼓舞，因此對希托夫那富有爭議的作品和古典建筑彩飾的發(fā)現(xiàn)探索心馳神往。

1830年法國七月革命之后，森佩爾離開了巴黎，啟程前往意大利西西里和希臘。與其說森佩爾在這些地方證明了希托夫曾經(jīng)證明過的內(nèi)容，即建筑彩飾的存在，不如說他開始形成了一套個人的理論(作為他“面飾理論”基礎(chǔ)的建筑美學)。1834年重返德國后，森佩爾在高烏的推薦下?lián)蔚吕鬯诡D美術(shù)學院的建筑學教授，并以職業(yè)建筑師的身份在薩克森公國工作，直到1849年，他由于參與了德累斯頓的五月起義運動而被迫逃亡到巴黎和倫敦。

森佩爾在《古代創(chuàng)作的建筑與造型之初評》（1834）一書中，描繪了他的彩飾理論的初步框架（試圖為彩飾法尋求一種并非局限于古典時代的普遍而抽象的原則）。他憑借這本凝練實用的小冊子一舉成名，隨后又在《建筑與雕塑中的色彩運用》（1834-1836）和《建筑四要素》（1851）兩部著作中進一步完善了這一理論。

11 意大利賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟中出土的三隴板殘片（意大利巴勒莫考古博物館；轉(zhuǎn)引自《色彩里的神》圖版26）/Triglyph from the "Empedocles" (Asclepius) Temple in Selinunte, Italy (Palermo Archaeological Museum, Italy;reprint in Brinkmann, Bunte G?tter, fgure 26)

12 意大利賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟（希托夫，《賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟復原》，圖版2）/Empedocles Temple in Selinunte, Italy (Hittorf, Restitution du temple d'Empédocle à Sélinonte, plate 2)

13 帕提農(nóng)神廟西立面，希托夫的復原設(shè)計（希托夫，《賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟復原》，圖版8右側(cè)）/West facade of the Parthenon, reconstructed by Hittorf (Hittorf,Restitution du temple d'Empédocle à Sélinonte, plate 8, right)

In the same year (1824), Hittorf, aware that his theory – already known to a small circle of French experts through his letters – would arouse public interest and controversy, reported to the Académie des Beaux-Arts (Mémoires sur mon voyage en Sicile,lu à l'Académie des Beaux-Arts de l'Institut avec l'extrait du procès-verbal de la séance du 24 juillet 1824).[1]4In the late 1820s, Hittorf began to publish his findings from his own pocket. His Architecture moderne was well received and published in 18 installments from 1826 to 1835; whereas his Architecture antique came to a sudden halt after the eighth of the 30 installments planned.14)Reasons for publication being halted included not only the high costs of printing but even more so, Hittorff's own doubts about the feasibility of such a project and the readiness of the French reader to accept the very idea of the universal polychromy of ancient buildings.[3]107

In order to raise his profle and achieve greater public recognition, in 1830, Hittorff presented at the Académie des Beaux-Arts and the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres a paper reconstruction(in the Doric order with Ionic column capitals) of the small and rather insignificant temple he had discovered in Selinunte.15)

He put forward several arguments: first, that color had been crucial to Greek religious architecture at all times; second, only colors created a setting that allowed the building to be in a harmony with its lush surrounding landscape and unique lighting in the Mediterranean region; third, the use of colors stems from practical (conservation) reasons, originally protecting the wooden components of the frst Greek temples from the elements, the components only later being made of common stone (protected by colored plaster) and marble (protected by transparent wax);fourth, polychromy was an established and common practice, which is why it had been unnecessary to specifcally address the issue in classical texts, which explains the absence of descriptions of polychromy in those texts; ffth, the color scheme in strong tones(for example, bright yellow as the basic color applied to columns; blue applied to triglyphs) which outlined and defined the contours of the building was not a phenomenon unique to the Empedocles temple, but rather a phenomenon universal to the whole of the ancient Greek world. The fnal lavish publication was delayed until 1851.16)Reactions were swift.

3.1.3 Raoul-Rochette, Hittorff's most determined opponent

Desiré-Raoul Rochette (1790-1854), born at Saint-Amand-Montrond in the department of Cher in France, was a brilliant, ambitious, and highly successful French archaeologist, obtaining in his mid-twenties a professorship in history at the College of Louis-le-Grand in Paris in 1813 and at the Sorbonne in 1817.[3]11

As early as 1816, he became a member of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, and three years later, in 1819, he became superintendent of antiquities at the National Library of France(Bibliothèque Nationale), a position which he occupied until to 1848. In 1829, he was made professor of archaeology at the National Library, a position created specifically for him, and on which he built a brilliant reputation as a speaker. From 1839 (succeeding Quatremère de Quincy) until his death in 1854, he was Perpetual Secretary of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. His scholarly works were highly esteemed by art enthusiasts, albeit rather less so by professionals, who questioned the depth of his widespread but superficial knowledge of contemporary German literature and science.

Raoul-Rochette, only a few years older than Hittorf, was his most ferce adversary.17)

He sharply rejected Hittorff's ideas and called into question the whole idea of polychromy of antique architecture. This was frst formulated in his Mémoire sur les peintures chrétiennes des catacombes and presented at the Académie des Inscriptions et Belleslettres in 1830 as an immediate response to Hittorf's Selinunte temple reconstruction, and subsequently elaborated (albeit without raising many new points),in a number of articles, published in the Journal des Savants and two books (Peintures antiques inédites,1836; Lettres archéologiques sur la peinture des Grecs,1840). He argued that frst, public buildings had been embellished with wooden panels but not with wall paintings; second, wall paintings were used only in less important architecture; and third, they were used only in a late stage and period of decline. He explained the color traces of wall plaster as later additions, i.e.remains of painting from the medieval period.

3.1.4 Semper, via/expanding on Hittorf toward a relative aesthetics of painted architecture

In 1834, the polychromy debate went beyond the borders of France and was further infamed and amplified by the young Gottfried Semper (1803-1879).18)[17]Semper, best known for his pioneering theory of wall cladding and his design for the Dresden Hoftheater (1838-1841) commissioned by the Saxon court, studied in Munich and Paris (1826),where he, encouraged by his teacher Franz Christian Gau (1790-1854), became fascinated by Hittorf's controversial work and his findings related to the polychromy of ancient buildings.

Semper left Paris in 1830 (after the July Revolution) for Italy (Sicily) and Greece, which was the starting point for his own theory (relative aesthetics of architecture as the foundation of his"cladding theory" [Bekleidungstheorie]) rather than to prove the existence of painted decoration as Hittorf had a decade earlier. After his return to Germany (1834), Semper worked as a professor of architecture at the Academy of Fine Arts in Dresden(on Gau's recommendation), and as a professional architect in the Kingdom of Saxony until 1849,when he had to fee to Paris and London because of his participation in the May Uprising.

Semper produced a preliminary outline of his theory on polychromy (searching for a general abstract principle of polychromy) in Vorl?ufige Bemerkungen über bemalte Architectur und Plastik bei den Alten(1834), a small booklet that provides practical and useful information and through which he made a name for himself, and elaborated it in Die Anwendung der Farben in der Architektur und Plastik (1834-36;unpublished) and Vier Elemente der Baukunst (1851).

Semper stretched the temporal boundaries of architectural polychromy, arguing that the aesthetic importance of colors in architecture was the norm for most historic buildings from antiquity to the Renaissance, when it was finally forgotten, and he gave numerous colorful examples to illustrate this.19)He praised Hittorf for his accomplishments at Selinunte, but demonstrated that darker shades of color were applied than Hittoff had originally supposed, leaving no white marble visible. He explained that the use of heavy colors was to do with the bright energy-absorbing Mediterranean sunlight(starke zehrende Licht des Südens).

To Semper, painted decoration was the later stage of a development that started with real objects hung over building parts, then painted on wall surfaces, and only then "carved into the building's mass to achieve permanence. These carvings were also painted to make them resemble the original objects they had come to replace."[4]266Semper thus synthesized Hittorf's classicist ideas of polychromy(regularity of decorative vocabulary) with "the Labroustians' belief in its origins in actual objects hung about shrines".20)[4]Semper was one of the few pioneers in the polychromy debate who suggested a visual recovery of the Parthenon in colors and his famboyant reconstruction stands in sharp contrast to Kugler's moderate approach in soft tones.[1]23,28□( To be continued )

森佩爾拓寬了建筑彩飾的界限。他提出，從古典時期到文藝復興時期，建筑彩飾的美學價值一直在大多數(shù)歷史建筑中受到強調(diào)，此后卻被逐漸淡忘。他列舉了大量色彩豐富的建筑實例插圖來支持這一論點19）。他贊揚了希托夫在賽林努特神廟的研究中取得的成就，但他卻論證了這座神廟實際上采用了比希托夫原設(shè)想更深的顏色，大理石原有的白色幾乎完全被覆蓋了。他解釋說，深色調(diào)的運用是為了對付過于強烈的地中海陽光。

森佩爾認為，彩繪裝飾是一個歷史發(fā)展序列的晚期階段：起初是由在建筑構(gòu)件上懸掛物件來起到裝飾的效果，接下來發(fā)展為建筑墻面彩繪，然后才是“融入建筑實體的雕刻，以達到永生不滅；而這些雕刻同樣被施以彩繪，使之與他們所取代的裝飾物件效果相似”[4]266。從而，森佩爾將希托夫的古典主義彩飾理論（裝飾語言的規(guī)則）與拉布魯斯特的追隨者所相信的關(guān)于彩飾法起源于在圣所懸掛相關(guān)的實體物件的設(shè)想結(jié)合起來20）[4]。在彩飾之辯中，森佩爾是提出對帕提農(nóng)神廟進行色彩復原的少數(shù)先鋒派人物之一，而他那艷麗華美的復原成果與庫格勒采用柔和色調(diào)的雅致版本形成鮮明對比[1]23,28?！酰ㄎ赐甏m(xù)）

14 帕提農(nóng)神廟東立面，森佩爾的復原圖（瑞士蘇黎世理工大學藏，轉(zhuǎn)引自策拉姆《神祇、陵墓與學者：考古學傳奇》圖版2）/East facade of the Parthenon, reconstructed by Semper (Semper Archives at the Eidgen?ssische Technische Hochschule in Zürich, Switzerland; reprint in C.W.Ceram,G?tter, Gr?ber und Gelehrte: Roman der Arch?ologie, plate 2)

注釋

1）18世紀的“考古學”，實際上是并非現(xiàn)代意義上的考古學，而是泛指一種對于古代藝術(shù)品的記錄和分析。當時還未建立地質(zhì)學意義上的“地層”理論，人們還相信人類起源于《圣經(jīng)》所述的幾千年前，現(xiàn)代田野考古學的基本理念與方法尚未建立。

2）溫克爾曼在羅馬長達11年（1755 – 1766）的逗留之中，曾到訪過位于意大利南部的古希臘遺址（帕埃斯圖姆）和位于坎帕尼亞的羅馬龐貝古城。

3）關(guān)于溫克爾曼對于彩飾雕塑和大理石白色的看法，分別參見《古代藝術(shù)史》第二版（1776）和《古代建筑研究》（1762）。（“白色能夠反射出各種各樣的光芒，使建筑有如白色本身一樣純凈臻美。” 《古代藝術(shù)史》p147－148）。

4）在古希臘和古羅馬建筑領(lǐng)域的地位僅次于溫克爾曼的，是18世紀德國考古學家阿洛伊斯·希爾特。在1782 – 1796年間，阿洛伊斯曾久居羅馬。在1798年他成為普魯士國王古董收藏的負責人，并于1810年擔任柏林大學的藝術(shù)理論史教授。（《以弗所神廟》，柏林，1809年；《古代建筑理論》，柏林，1809年）

5）年輕的法國建筑師朱利安-戴維·勒·羅伊，同時也是羅馬法蘭西學院的寄宿生，在1758年發(fā)表了他的雅典古建筑測繪報告。這次測繪歷時不到3個月，在時間上要早于斯圖爾特和雷維特。

6）帕埃斯圖姆的古遺址是早期考古學的重要實例。截至1774年已有9個不同版本的圖冊在市面上發(fā)行。

7）這個意向性的計劃在德意志藝術(shù)家、藝術(shù)收藏家和路德維希在羅馬的藝術(shù)顧問馬丁·馮·瓦格納（1777–1858）于1816年12月12日寫給這位巴伐利亞皇儲的信中有明確的表述。

8）巴黎美術(shù)學院在1648年創(chuàng)立之初名為法蘭西皇家雕塑繪畫學院，致力于培養(yǎng)建筑學和裝飾藝術(shù)方面的青年才俊。1793年，巴黎美術(shù)學院與讓·巴蒂斯特·柯爾貝爾在1671年創(chuàng)建的皇家建筑學院合并,并在1863年脫離了政府的管控，更名為巴黎美術(shù)學校。自1968年起，學校不再教授建筑學，并且再次更名為巴黎國立高等美術(shù)學校。

9）在雅典民眾的支持下，希臘國王奧托（1832–1862）在1843年奪取了政權(quán)，并于次年頒布了希臘的第一部憲法（1844憲法）。雅典法蘭西學校創(chuàng)建于1846年，并且自1847年開始招收來自法國的建筑師。10）考特梅爾將術(shù)語“彩飾”定義為“多色的”，這在1878年被巴黎美術(shù)學院正式接受(范·贊特恩，建筑彩飾法，p83)。關(guān)于考特梅爾·德·坎西，參見歷久彌新的《考特梅爾·德·坎西與他的藝術(shù)成就》一書。

11）來自其他“次等”文化的建筑被視為“不合規(guī)范的”。

12）希托夫的主要作品有，協(xié)和廣場的（重新）設(shè)計、香榭麗舍大街沿途的眾多咖啡館和餐廳、巴黎凱旋門四周圍成環(huán)狀的建筑物以及布格涅森林中的許多裝飾性建筑物。

13）萊奧·馮·克倫策曾在賽林努特拜訪過希托夫。他在《阿格里真托的宙斯神廟》（1827）一書的第二修訂版中采納了希托夫的彩飾法觀點。（克魯夫特，《建筑理論史》，p304）

14）每一篇連載都由6幅插圖以及一段簡要的說明性文字組成。文字部分謹慎地指出了多座古建筑上存在的顏色痕跡，卻并沒有大肆推廣他的系統(tǒng)而豐富的建筑彩飾理論。

15）《希臘建筑彩飾記錄》，巴黎，1830年。同年發(fā)表于學院年報（《希臘的建筑彩飾—賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟的完整復原》）。

16）那時，一種名為彩色平板印刷術(shù)的新技術(shù)開始流行，并取代了成本較高且費時費力的傳統(tǒng)手工印刷方法。這種新技術(shù)能夠滿足大批量且高質(zhì)量的彩色印刷需求。

17）羅謝特的觀點在希托夫1851年的《賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟復原》中得以總結(jié)。

18）關(guān)于森佩爾的美學理論，參考海因茨·奎特茲克《戈特弗里德·森佩爾的美學觀點》。

19）森佩爾在羅馬最負盛名的圖拉真柱（建造于113年）上發(fā)現(xiàn)了尚未被注意到的顏色痕跡。這促使他將自己的彩飾理論拓寬到古希臘文化之外的領(lǐng)域。（森佩爾，《論文集》，p107）

20）克魯夫特指出森佩爾抨擊了克倫策對歷史風格的模仿（《建筑理論史》，p311）

[1] 范·贊特恩. 1830年代的建筑彩飾法. 紐約：加蘭出版社，1977.

[2] 溫岑茨·布里克曼和安德烈亞斯·舒爾 編. 色彩里的神——古典雕塑的彩飾. 慕尼黑. 希爾默出版社，2010.

[3] 卡爾·哈默. 雅各布·伊格納茨·希托夫. 斯圖加特：安東·希爾澤曼出版社，1968.

[4] 戴維·范·贊特恩. 帕提農(nóng)神廟的彩飾// 帕提農(nóng)神廟及其對現(xiàn)代的影響. 帕納約蒂斯·圖尼基沃蒂斯編. 雅典：梅麗莎出版社，1994.

[5] 漢諾-沃爾特·克魯夫特. 建筑理論史：從維特魯威到現(xiàn)在. 羅納德·泰勒英譯. 紐約:普林斯頓建筑出版社.1996. 王貴祥譯. 北京：中國建筑工業(yè)出版社，2005.[6] 富特文勒. 埃伊納：阿法雅圣地.

[7] 海因茨·奎特茲克. 戈特弗里德·森佩爾的美學觀點. 柏林：學術(shù)出版社，1962.

[8] 弗朗茲·庫格勒. 關(guān)于希臘建筑和雕塑的彩飾及其局限性. 柏林. 1835.

[9] 詹姆斯·弗格森. 印度及東方建筑史. 建筑歷史第1版第4卷. 倫敦. 1876. 赫爾施修訂第3版第3卷. 倫敦. 1899.

[10] 詹姆斯·弗格森. 各國建筑通史：從遠古到現(xiàn)代.倫敦. 1865-67. 赫爾施修訂第3版第1卷. 倫敦. 1893.

Notes

1) The "archaeology" of the 18th century was still not archaeology in the strict sense. Rather, it was antiquarianism, treasure collecting, and a documentation and analysis of ancient artworks. Neither were the principles of uniformitarian stratigraphy discovered nor the basic concepts of modern field archaeology. People time still upheld the biblical view of the origin of humans.

2) Winckelmann visited southern Italian ruins of the ancient Greek (Paestum) and Roman (Pompeji)empires in Campania region during his decade-long stay in Rome (1755-66).

3) On Winckelmann's ideas on polychrome statues and on white color see his Anmerkungen über die Baukunst der Alten, 1762, and his second edition of Geschichte der Kunst der Altertums, 1776. ("Da nun die wei?e Farbe diejenige ist, welche die mehresten Lichtstrahlen zurückschicket,…so wird auch ein sch?ner K?rper desto sch?ner sein, je wei?er er ist." [Geschichte der Kunst der Altertums, 147-48])

4) Another 18th-century German archaeologist for ancient Greek and Roman architecture next to Winckelmann was Aloys Hirt (1759-1837), who after his 1782-96 stay in Rome became responsible for the King of Prussia's antiquities collection (from 1798) and professor of art history and theory at the University of Berlin (from 1810).(Der Tempel der Diana zu Ephesus. Berlin: 1809. Die Baukunst nach den Grunds?tzen der Alten. Berlin: 1809.)

5) Julien-David Le Roy (1724-1803), a young French architect and pensionnaire at the French Academy in Rome (Académie de France à Rome) published his survey of the Athens monuments, measured in less than three months, even before Stuart and Revett (Les Ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Grèce, 1758).

6) The ruins of Paestum were key for early archaeology,with nine diferent illustrated print publications by 1774.

7) As evident in a letter to the Bavarian crown prince Ludwig from December 12, 1816 written by Martin von Wagner (1777-1858), a German artist, art collector and Ludwig's art agent in Rome.

8) Founded as the Académie Royale de Peinture et de Sculpture in 1648 to educate talented students in building and decoration, the Académie des Beaux-Arts merged in 1793 with the Académie Royale d'Architecture (founded by Jean-Baptiste Colbert in 1671). In 1863, the school became independent form the government, changing its name to école des Beaux-Arts. Since 1968, architecture is no longer taught there, and the school was renamed as école Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts.

9) After the military garrison of Athens, with the help of citizens, rebelled in 1843, King Otto of Greece (r. 1832-62)released the first constitution of the Kingdom of Greece(1844 Constitution). The école fran?aise d'Athènes (French School at Athens) was established in 1846, and since 1847,it was open to French architects.

10) Quatremère de Quincy coined the term polychromie (polychromy) meaning "many-colored"that was officially accepted by the Academie des Beaux-Arts in 1878 (Van Zanten, The Architectural Polychromy, 83). For Quatremère de Quincy see the old but still up to date work by Schneider, Quatremère de Quincy et son intervention dans les arts.

11) The architecture of other "weaker" cultures was regarded as "irregular".

12) Hittorff (re)designed the Place de la Concorde(1833-46) in Paris, many cafés and restaurants of the Champs Elysées, the houses forming the circle round the Arc de Triomphe de l'étoile, and many embellishments of the Bois de Boulogne.

13) Leo von Klenze who visited Hittorf at Selinunte adopted Hittorf's view on polychromy in the second revised edition of his Der Tempel des Olympsischen Jupiter von Agrigent (1827). Kruft, A History of Architectural Theory, 304.

14) Each installment consisted of six plates and a short explanatory text that pointed out color traces at various buildings in a cautious form, not yet/without propagating his all-encompassing system of architectural polychromy that should have been included in the text volume presented at the end/last part.

15) "Mémoire sur l'architecture polychrome chez les Grecs, Paris 1830" and published in the Académie's annals in the same year ("De l'architecture polychr?me chez les Grecs, ou restitution complète du temple d'Empédocle dans l'acropole de Sélinonte").

16) By then, a new and more advanced method of printing illustrations in multiple colors at high numbers and good quality known as chromolithography had become popular and replaced the traditional cost- and time-intensive hand-coloring.

17) Raoul-Rochette's arguments are summarized in Hittorff's Restitution du temple d'Empédocle à Sélinonte (1851).

18) For Semper's aesthetic theories see for example,Quitzsch, Die ?sthetischen Anschauungen Gottfried Sempers.

19) Semper discovered hitherto unnoticed traces of color at one of the most prestigious monuments in Rome, the Trajan's column (built 113), which led him to expand his theory of polychromy beyond the boundaries of ancient Greek culture. Semper, Kleine Schriften, 107.20) Kruft points out that Semper attacked Klenze's imitation of historical styles (A History of ArchitecturalTheory, 311.).

[1] van Zanten, David. The Architectural Polychromy of the 1830's. New York: Garland, 1977.

[2] Brinkmann, Vinzenz and Andreas Scholl (Eds).Bunte G?tter. Die Farbigkeit antiker Skulptur. Munich:Hirmer, 2010.

[3] Hammer, Karl. Jakob Ignaz Hittorff. Ein Pariser Baumeister, 1792–1867. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann,1968.

[4] van Zanten, David. "The painted decoration of the Parthenon". In The Parthenon and its Impact in Modern Times, edited by Panayotis Tournikiotis. Athens: Melissa Press, 1994.

[5] Kruft, Hanno-Walter. A History of Architectural Theory: From Vitruvius to the Present. Translated by Ronald Taylor. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996. Translated by Wang Guixiang. Beijing:Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2005.

[6] Furtw?ngler, Adolf (1853-1907) et al. Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia. Academy of Sciences: Munich, 1906.

[7] Quitzsch, Heinz. Die ?sthetischen Anschauungen Gottfried Sempers. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1962.

[8] Kugler, Franz. über die Polychromie der griechischen Architektur und Skulptur und ihre Grenzen. Berlin: 1835.

[9] Fergusson James. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. 1st ed. Vol. 4 of A History of Architecture.London: 1876. Here, rev. 3rd ed. Vol. 3. London: 1899.

[10] Fergusson, James (1808-86). A History of Architecture in all Countries from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: 1865–67. Here, rev. 3rd ed.Vol. 1. London: 1893.

Repainting Antiquity: The 19th-Century Architectural Polychromy Debate SeenThrough "German" Eyes: Hittorf, Semper, Kugler and Their Generation (1)

The paper investigates the 19th-century dispute over polychromy that revolutionized contemporary understandings of antiquity, especially ancient Greek and Roman temple structures. The Prussian, Bavarian, and German-born French architects discussed in this paper played a key role in this process, despite “Germany” as a nation only becoming a driving force in the formulation of architectural theory at a relatively later stage. The paper places the debate within the larger context of the time,subsequently analyzing conflicting theories regarding the highly disputed but undeniable fact of polychromatic classical architecture. This re-visioning of the debate surrounding polychromy of antiquity will serve to improve our understanding of modern Greek revival architecture and even more so, our understanding of Western historiography on Chinese architecture.

19th-century European polychromy dispute,ancient Greek architecture, colors, Aphaia Temple,Parthenon, Ignaz Hittorf, Gottfried Semper, Franz Kugler,Johann Joachim Winckelmann, James Fergusson

清華大學建筑學院

2017-08-18