Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The origins of the monumental axis of neoclassical Athens and its relationship with the
antiquities
Denis Roubien
To cite this article: Denis Roubien (2013): The origins of the monumental axis of neo-classical Athens and
its relationship with the antiquities, The Journal of Architecture, 18:2, 225-253
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2013.791337
225
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
Denis Roubien
This essay attempts to illuminate some aspects of the creation of the monumental axis of
Athens: a line containing most of the citys monumental buildings and touching the
eastern side of the urban triangle which, according to the original master plans, constituted
the citys core. Although that triangle concentrated the essential part of the citys activities, it
never became its representative centre. For, contrary to the master plans predicting a dispersion of the monumental buildings within the triangle, these are to be found along an
axis seeming to ignore it. This article seeks an explanation of that fact in the existence of
a special need in the process of creating the re-born city of Athens after Independence
(1830) and during the whole nineteenth century. Apart from creating a modern European
capital, like all the others, an additional requirement emerged: according to the citys neoclassicist creators, its monumental buildings ought to be closely related in space to the antiquities which were also their stylistic prototypes and even the reason Athens became the
capital. That idealistic demand led necessarily to choices different from those resulting
from a rational town planning process. This essay presents the conditions set by that idealistic requirement and explores its impact on the Greek capitals monumental architecture.
Introduction
The recently launched European competition Rethink Athens,1 the most ambitious of a series of projects for the rehabilitation of the centre of the Greek
capital beginning several decades ago, demonstrates once more an impressive fact: the monumental neo-classical buildings of Athens, although
representing innitesimal volumes in todays enormous metropolis, contrary to their complete domination in the time of their construction, have not
lost their symbolic power as major elements of the
Greek capitals urban landscape. What all the
above projects have in common is that the axes of
intervention they propose result from the location
of these buildings and their relationship to the
# 2013 The Journal of Architecture
urban fabric, making them the projects major references. However, if we compare the initial master
plans of Athens with those axes of intervention,
we identify an interesting observation: while the
initial plans predicted a very balanced distribution
of the capitals monumental buildings within the
urban fabric, according to all rational principles of
their time, todays situation shows a very clear displacement of those buildings along the axis of the
recent competition, which unites in one long line
the more fragmentary previous projects (Fig. 1).
That axis is formed from the North to the South by
the avenues Patision, University (Panepistimiou) and
Amalias, including most of the monumental buildings of the Greek capital: the Archaeological
1360-2365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2013.791337
226
Figure 1. Athens
towards the end of the
nineteenth century,
with its monumental
buildings: the line
indicates the
monumental axis of
today (drawn by the
Author).
227
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
Greece would not become the large country envisaged at the time of Independence. And, unfortunately, many projects of both reigns often had to
be abandoned because of the impossibility of acquiring the necessary land. Nevertheless, as the facts
indicate, buildings of supreme cultural importance
seemed less affected by this problem.
The purpose of this article is to highlight the effort
made to connect the modern monuments of Athens
to the ancient ones and to investigate its role in
issues which inuenced the contemporary aspect
of the Greek capital. This exploration is carried out
through an investigation of sources from those
days with the aim of enriching the material offered
by the existing literature through adding to it unpublished sources, mostly public records kept in the
Greek General State Archives. In addition, other
documents of that time are identied, most of
them not republished since their rst appearance,
such as decrees that appeared in the Government
Gazette, articles in newspapers, etc., as well as documents written by the original protagonists. There are
also necessary references to certain publications of
recent decades or even contemporary ones which
have already become classics in this domain, focusing on the most comprehensive ones, especially
those of Alexander Papageorgiou-Venetas, Eleni
Bastea and Irene Fatsea.2 The purpose is to demonstrate that the new information emerging indicates
that the subject as a whole is far from exhausted.
228
assume that role. Moreover, among several alternative solutions for the exact siting of the new city, the
nal choice was specically that which located it
spatially closest to its ancient predecessor, against
all practical considerations. (This process and its
ideological context have already been presented in
detail in several publications and especially in those
of Papageorgiou- Venetas, Bastea and Fatsea).5
The newly appointed King of Greece, who transferred his court to Athens, was Otto, the young6
son of King Ludwig I of Bavaria. Ottos father was
perhaps the greatest antiquity lover among all European monarchs of his time, as is suggested by his
extensive neo-classical building programme in
Munich and his rich collections of ancient Greek
art. The choice of his son for the Greek throne by
the Great Powers had as a natural consequence,
therefore, the particularly intense inuence of
German classicists in Greece which reinforced the
decisive role of antiquities in the capitals creation.
General plans
As many studies have already analysed in detail,7 the
rst decades of the independent Greek State were
characterised by an intense idealism in every
project, which had no connection with the material
reality of the country, but envisaged a short-term
expansion into all territories inhabited by Greeks
and a consequent spectacular change of circumstances. That idealism is also reected in the rst
propositions made for the new capitals city plan.
The rst ofcial city plan made in 1833 (Fig. 3) was
commissioned by the Greek Government from the
Greek architect Stamatios Kleanthes and his German
colleague Eduard Schaubert. (For a detailed descrip-
229
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
230
Figure 3. Plan of
Stamatios Kleanthes
and Eduard Schaubert
for the new city of
Athens (re-drawn by the
Author, with the
addition of location
names): 1. Royal Palace.
2. Cathedral. 3. Central
Market. 4. Ministries. 5.
Garrison. 6. Mint. 7.
Market. 8. Academy. 9.
Library. 10. Stock
Exchange. 11.
Parliament. 12. Church.
13. Post Ofce. 14.
Headquarters. 15. Oil
Press. 16. Botanical
Garden. 17. Exhibition
Hall. 18. Observatory.
231
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
232
Figure 4. Modication
of the Kleanthes and
Schaubert plan by Leo
von Klenze (re-drawn by
the Author, with the
addition of location
names): 1. Royal Palace.
2. Cathedral. 3. Central
Market. 4. Academy. 5.
Library. 6. University. 7.
Exhibition Hall. 8.
Ministries. 9. Senate.
10. Parliament. 11.
Camp. 12. Church. 13.
Post Ofce. 14. Prison
and Police. 15. Theatre.
16. Markets. 17.
Bishops Palace. 18.
Schools.
his plan was purely indicative. In effect, he was interested only in the siting of the Royal Palace and
placed other buildings simply to ll out the plan:
he himself wrote that it would be easy to nd
room for the missing public buildings in such a
large area.17 Unfortunately, in that he was very
much mistaken, as will be explained later.
Partial plans
Nevertheless, even von Klenzes simpler plan was too
costly, for the same reasons as its predecessor. In con-
233
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
osition for the Museum, which he called Pantechneion, siting it in 1835 where he had previously
placed the Royal Palace, at the Ceramic, on the hill
of Saint Athanasius, next to the Temple of Hephaestus (Theseion).19 The choice of the same spot for a
building with a use totally different from the one he
himself had initially proposed is eloquent.
The preference for that particular site is impressively insistent. Much later, in 1857, the same area
234
Figure 6. Athens
towards the end of King
Ottos reign (1833
1862). The public
buildings are numbered
in chronological order
(drawn by the Author);
it is evident that most of
them are oriented
towards the historic
sites of Athens:
1. Military Hospital.2.
Mint. 3. Royal Printing
House. 4. Criminal
Court. 5. Civil
Hospital. 6. Royal
Palace. 7. 1st primary
school for boys. 8.
University. 9.
Observatory. 10.
Arsakeion School for
Girls. 11. Eye Hospital.
12. Queen Amalia
Orphanage. 13.
Hatzikonsta
Orphanage. 14.
Papadopoulos Lyceum.
15. Varvakeion Lyceum.
16. Military Pharmacy.
17. Parliament. 18.
Academy.
same location was proposed in 1865 for the construction of the Archaeological Museum. King
Ottos Queen, Amalia, also initially intended the
Royal Garden, created under her supervision, to
extend as far as the Temple of Hephaestus in the
same area; she withdrew her proposal because of
the reactions generated by the presence of antiquities, which would be put in danger.23
Similar controversy arose with the construction of
the Observatory on the Nymphs hill (gs 6, 7[no. 9],
8) despite the intense objections of the Academy of
235
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
Figure 7. Athens
towards the end of the
nineteenth century: the
public buildings are
numbered in
chronological order
(drawn by the Author):
1. Military Hospital. 2.
Mint. 3. Royal Printing
House. 4. Criminal
Court. 5. Civil
Hospital. 6. Royal
Palace. 7. 1st primary
school for boys. 8.
University. 9.
Observatory. 10.
Arsakeion School for
Girls. 11. Eye Hospital.
12. Queen Amalia
Orphanage. 13.
Hatzikonsta
Orphanage. 14.
Papadopoulos Lyceum.
15. Varvakeion Lyceum.
16. Military Pharmacy.
17. Parliament. 18.
Academy. 19.
Polytechnic. 20.
Archaeological
Museum. 21. City Hall.
22. Municipal Foundling
Hospital. 23. Municipal
Theatre. 24. Zappeion
Exhibition Hall. 25. 2nd
primary school for boys.
26. Schools of the
Ladies club for
womens education.
27. Municipal Market.
28. Annunciation
Hospital. 29. Court
236
Figure 8. The
Observatory
(photograph by the
Author).
difculties for the materialisation of the projects concerning the siting of public buildings, at least those
whose function could associate them with famous
ancient buildings and therefore bestow upon them
an intense ideological weight. The most debated
case is that of the so-called Athenian Trilogy (see
gs 4 [nos 4-6], 7[nos 8, 18, 31]), not by coincidence,
since that complex (University, Academy, Museum
initially and then the National Library; gs 9, 10, 11)
237
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
238
239
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
240
241
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
242
243
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
regime. The view through the columns of the Parthenon was one of the reasons why von Quast
approved of Schinkels bold project. He said that
the King would see the new Athens through the
golden marble columns of the Parthenon.39
The German architect Friedrich Stauffert40 and the
German archaeologist Ludwig Ross41 made similar
remarks about the view from the royal residence of
Kleanthes and Schauberts project. From the hill
where their palace was located, there would be a
view towards the Acropolis, the Areopagus, the hill
of the Nymphs, the Pnyx, the new town, Piraeus,
the islands of Aegina and Salamis, the Olive Forest
where Platos Academy had been and the mountains of Parnes, Lycabettus and Hymettus.
In a similar way, von Klenze writes, about his
chosen location for his project, that no other European capital presented such advantages for siting a
royal palace, giving a full description of all the interesting views.42 On the contrary, for the location proposed by Kleanthes and Schaubert he thinks that the
view is very disadvantageous.43 Moreover, we know
that the view played an important role in the selection
of the site where the Royal Palace was nally built.44
As has been observed before, the selected location
has the best possible view to all the historic sites of
the Attica basin, from the Acropolis to Salamis and
Aegina.45 The location the German architect Joseph
Lange had proposed for the Royal Palace is not
known exactly, but from the plans it seems that he
sited it at the foot of the hill of Lycabettus.46 That
means that it would have had approximately the
same view as the realised building.47
Naturally, the royal couple gave priority to securing such an advantageous view which no other
monarch in the world had the privilege of contemplating. This is evident in a document addressed to
the Queen:
the height of the ministerial building above the
ground on which it will be constructed is 18
metres 40/100. The height of the And.Koromilas
house above the same ground is 17 metres 50/
100. The height of the Anarghyros house above
the same ground is 18 metres 70/100. The
height of the oor of the big balcony of the
Royal Palace above the same ground is 23
metres 90/100, so that the oor of the aforementioned balcony will be 5 metres 50/100 above the
roof of the ministerial building.48
As well as the Royal Palace, a similar interest in orientation towards those sites is also observed in the case
of other public buildings. The University (see gures
6, 7 [no. 8]) is clearly oriented to the Acropolis, as
Stauffert observes.49 According to the text accompanying publication of the plans for the University
in 1851, the happiest among us are the students
of Athens because of the historic sites they contemplate from the Universitys Propylaea.50 Also, the
lithography of the Eye Hospital (see gures 6, 7
[no. 11]), by the Danish architect Christian Hansen,
reveals the same interest in the relationship of the
building to the landscape of Attica. The same goes
for the perspective view of the Observatory (see
gures 6, 7 [no. 9]) by his more famous brother,
Theophil Hansen, where it seems that the view to
the Acropolis has been taken into account.51
As is obvious, the southwestern orientation was
considered to be the most advantageous, offering
the richest view, as much to the Attica basin as
to the Saronic gulf, intensied by the grounds
244
245
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
246
247
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
248
249
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
Conclusions
From the foregoing arguments, it is apparent that a
very special factor underlay the process of creating
the new city of Athens in the nineteenth century
emanating from the enthusiastic discovery of
Greek antiquity some decades earlier. Antiquity
lovers saw the creation of the newly installed
Greek kingdoms capital as presenting a unique
opportunity to revive the source of their visions.
Unfortunately, that aspiration arising from the intention to create a glorious capital had to be subordinated to most prosaic possible reality. The new
kingdoms desperate nancial condition, together
with its lack of organisation, made impossible the
250
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
nade around the archaeological sites to a new promenade through the monumental centre of the modern
city and including its most prestigious buildings and
public spaces.
Alexander
Papageorgiou-Venetas,
Hauptstadt
Athen: ein Stadtgedanke des Klassizismus (Munich,
Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1994); Eleni Bastea, The Creation of Modern Athens: Planning the Myth (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000); Irene
Fatsea, Monumentality and its shadows: a quest for
modern Greek architectural discourse in nineteenthcentury Athens (18341862) (PhD diss., MIT, 2000).
James Stuart, Nicholas Revett, The Antiquities of
Athens and Other Monuments of Greece (London,
1762).
This period was not so many years after the rst public
display in London in 1807 of the recently arrived
marbles from the Parthenon. Fatsea believes that
that event and the work of Stuart and Revett are the
pivotal points for the reconsideration of ancient
Greece by enlightened Europe: I. Fatsea, Monumentality and its shadows, op. cit., pp. 1001.
A. Papageorgiou-Venetas, HauptstadtAthen, op.
cit.; E. Bastea, The Creation of Modern Athens, op.
cit., pp. 611; I. Fatsea, Monumentality and its
shadows, op. cit.
Since Otto was a minor when he became King of
Greece a three-member Regency Council operated
until he came of age in 1835, composed of Bavarian
court ofcials, and during this period the capital was
transferred to Athens.
To use Fatseas terms, the reign of Otto was characterised by an idolatrous attachment to the forms of classical antiquity, while that of George I represented a
critical stage, a stage of self-knowing, in which a
friendly, unprejudiced, and therefore no longer idolatrous, connection with the countrys historical past
emerged. See I. Fatsea, Monumentality and its
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
251
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
252
253
The Journal
of Architecture
Volume 18
Number 2
(Athens, 1880), p. 8.
67. General State Archives, City Plan, le 15, 10 December
1869.
68. General State Archives, City Plan, le 14, 2 October
1864.
69. Aristoteles Stavropoulos,
in, Yannis Tsiomis, ed.,
, (Athens, Ministry of
Culture, 1985), p. 130; decrees in the Government
Gazette 62, A, 30 March 1899; 75, A, 26 April
1899; 242, A, 10 November 1899; 220, A, 19
November 1902; 260, A, 7 November 1903; 29, A,
10 February 1904; 121, A, 9 July 1905; 96, B, 24
August 1896.