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

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(kù)格勒與他們這一代 （下）

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(jì)的一場(chǎng)關(guān)于建筑彩飾的論爭(zhēng)顛覆了我們對(duì)于古典建筑，特別是古希臘和古羅馬神廟建筑的認(rèn)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(guò)程中扮演了特殊的角色。本文詳細(xì)回顧了這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)的來(lái)龍去脈，各派學(xué)說(shuō)如何卷入其中，又如何在特定的社會(huì)機(jī)制下推動(dòng)著事實(shí)的逐步揭示，最終達(dá)到觀念的徹底改變。這一事件直接地影響到現(xiàn)代希臘復(fù)興建筑，甚至也波及到西方的中國(guó)建筑史編纂學(xué)。

19世紀(jì)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(kù)格勒，約翰·約阿希姆·溫克爾曼，詹姆斯·弗格森

（上篇請(qǐng)參見(jiàn)世界建筑，201709期，p104）

3.1.5 庫(kù)格勒，一次柔化色調(diào)的折中嘗試（在森佩爾/希托夫和勞爾–羅謝特之間）

次年（1835），一個(gè)來(lái)自德國(guó)的聲音回應(yīng)了森佩爾對(duì)于無(wú)條件接受古典建筑采用彩飾的要求，弗朗茲·特奧多爾·庫(kù)格勒（1808–1858）以一種溫和而折中的方式闡釋了彩飾理論：根據(jù)考特梅爾關(guān)于希臘彩飾的觀點(diǎn)，他提交了一個(gè)對(duì)于帕提農(nóng)神廟彩飾的復(fù)原設(shè)計(jì)（《關(guān)于希臘建筑和雕塑的彩飾及其局限性》，1835），這一成果在幾年后被森佩爾在《建筑四要素》中給予了回應(yīng)[1]5。

庫(kù)格勒是19世紀(jì)德意志在藝術(shù)史與詩(shī)歌領(lǐng)域的一位主要的權(quán)威人物，同時(shí)也是普魯士王國(guó)的文化部長(zhǎng)。他編纂了第一部關(guān)于繪畫(huà)史和藝術(shù)史的全球性調(diào)查報(bào)告（《繪畫(huà)史手冊(cè)，從康斯坦丁大帝到現(xiàn)在》，1837；《藝術(shù)史手冊(cè)》，1842），還有一本非常流行的書(shū)《腓特烈大帝的一生》（萊比錫，1840）21）。然而在史學(xué)編纂領(lǐng)域，他的光芒往往被他最出色的學(xué)生兼搭檔雅各布·布爾卡特（1818–1897）所掩蓋——后者是一位瑞士藝術(shù)史家，被譽(yù)為“文藝復(fù)興歷史的偉大探索者”。

庫(kù)格勒試圖在這場(chǎng)彩飾之辯中扮演調(diào)停人的角色。他的論文《關(guān)于希臘建筑和雕塑的彩飾及其局限性》嘗試在中立的態(tài)度下對(duì)論爭(zhēng)雙方的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行討論，從而在支持派與反對(duì)派之間尋求一種平衡[8]4。然而，值得注意的是，他將論文標(biāo)題中特意強(qiáng)調(diào)了希臘的建筑和雕塑的“局限性”，表明他認(rèn)為希臘建筑對(duì)于色彩的運(yùn)用實(shí)際上是局限于特定條件和特定地域的。

在這場(chǎng)論辯中，庫(kù)格勒并不是任何一方的熱情支持者。一方面，他承認(rèn)考特梅爾的成果以及彩繪在雕塑上的使用，但另一方面他對(duì)彩飾在歷史建筑上的普遍性持寬容而非完全接受的態(tài)度，認(rèn)為古典文獻(xiàn)上的相關(guān)證據(jù)缺乏重要性[8]114。庫(kù)格勒觀點(diǎn)的核心在于，古典建筑上的色彩運(yùn)用應(yīng)該與材料保持一致，而在潔白的大理石上施以彩飾，是既不必要也不恰當(dāng)?shù)?。因此，他拒絕接受希托夫與森佩爾提出的，建筑與建筑構(gòu)件上普遍存在彩飾這一觀點(diǎn)[8]819。他激烈地抨擊了希托夫太過(guò)艷麗的色彩組合，強(qiáng)調(diào)這種做法只適用于個(gè)別情況，而不能一概而論。庫(kù)格勒強(qiáng)調(diào)了彩飾法對(duì)于建筑所在地理環(huán)境的依賴性，并拒絕接受阿提卡——以雅典城為核心的阿提卡半島，古希臘的歷史中心——存在建筑彩飾的觀點(diǎn)[8]10。此外，他將彩飾的運(yùn)用限定于早期的建筑之中。概括起來(lái)，庫(kù)格勒提出了以下幾點(diǎn)：第一，色彩服從形式；第二，一旦某個(gè)時(shí)期的人們能夠徹底地駕馭“形式”，色彩就變得無(wú)關(guān)緊要；第三，只有當(dāng)形式（在美學(xué)層面）不夠有力的前提下，色彩才能作為補(bǔ)充。庫(kù)格勒沒(méi)有評(píng)價(jià)羅謝特富有爭(zhēng)議的木板彩繪觀點(diǎn)。

3.1.6 勒托，從文獻(xiàn)學(xué)角度對(duì)希托夫的支持

讓·安東尼·勒托（1787–1848）是一位法國(guó)文獻(xiàn)學(xué)家，同時(shí)也是法蘭西公學(xué)院的教授（1831年任歷史學(xué)講席教授，1838–1848年任考古學(xué)講席教授），1840年成為國(guó)家檔案的監(jiān)管人。勒托最重要的著作是《埃及的希臘與拉丁銘文集》（兩卷本，1842，1848）[3]116。

與此前在這場(chǎng)彩飾之辯中支持派與反對(duì)派動(dòng)輒冗長(zhǎng)繁縟的學(xué)術(shù)探討不同，作為希托夫最好的朋友之一，勒托在1835年以16封寫(xiě)給希托夫的優(yōu)美信件表達(dá)了他的支持。在《一個(gè)藝術(shù)品商人寫(xiě)給一個(gè)藝術(shù)家的信：關(guān)于古希臘和古羅馬的神廟及其他公共或私人建筑裝飾上使用墻面彩繪》（1835）中，勒托生動(dòng)地描繪了一幅詳實(shí)而包羅萬(wàn)象的古代藝術(shù)生活圖景。他引經(jīng)據(jù)典地反對(duì)了羅謝特的理論。勒托彬彬有禮卻極盡諷刺之能事，逐字逐句地討論了羅謝特的觀點(diǎn)，向世人展示這位素以學(xué)識(shí)淵博自居的考古學(xué)家卻在自己的領(lǐng)域犯了大量的錯(cuò)誤。對(duì)于古典文獻(xiàn)的細(xì)致研究表明，在希臘本土和意大利（殖民地）一樣，墻面彩繪和木板彩繪都是關(guān)鍵的設(shè)計(jì)元素。此外，勒托區(qū)分了不同的繪畫(huà)方法，并逐個(gè)詳細(xì)討論。他的討論使得希托夫的理論更加廣為人知，并表明了后者是經(jīng)得起科學(xué)和文獻(xiàn)學(xué)檢驗(yàn)的。

15 帕提農(nóng)神廟東立面，庫(kù)格勒的復(fù)原圖（庫(kù)格勒，《關(guān)于希臘建筑和雕塑的彩飾及其局限性》，圖版1）/East facade of the Parthenon, reconstructed by Kugler (Kugler,über die Polychromie der griechischen Architektur, plate 1)

(See World Architecture 201709, p104 for part one)

3.1.5 Kugler, an attempt at mediation, to soften the tone (between Semper/Hittorff and Raoul-Rochette)

A response to Semper's unconditional demand for the acknowledgment of painted decoration in antiquity came from Germany the following year (1835), when Franz Theodor Kugler (1808 –1858) put forward his moderate, conciliatory interpretation of the polychromy theory: following Quatremère de Quincy's ideas of Greek polychromy,he presented a reconstruction of the polychrome decoration of the Parthenon (über die Polychromie der griechischen Architektur und Skulptur und ihre Grenzen; 1835), which was answered several years later by Semper's Vier Elemente der Baukunst.[1]5

Kugler was one of the leading 19th-century German authorities in art history and poetry and the cultural administrator for the Prussian state.He also compiled the first global survey text of the history of painting (Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei von Constantin dem Grossen bis auf die neuere Zeit, 1837) and the history of art (Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, 1842), as well as his immensely popular Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen (Leipzig,1840).21)And yet, in modern historiography,his achievements are often eclipsed by his most prominent student and collaborator – the Swiss art historian and "great discoverer of the age of the Renaissance" – Jacob Burckhardt (1818 – 1997).

Kugler wanted to play the role of mediator in the polychromy debate: über die Polychromie was intended to strike a balance between supporters and opponents by providing an impartial discussion of the arguments of both sides.[8]4However, it is significant that he gave his work the title "…Greek architecture and sculpture and its limitations"(…Architektur und Skulptur und ihre Grenzen),indicating that the use of colors in Greek architecture was restricted (by conditions) and confined (to a given area).

Kugler did not feel passionately about the subject either way. He acknowledged the work of Quatremère de Quincy and the use of colors on sculpture, but he condoned rather than wholeheartedly accepted the universality of polychromy in historical architecture, attaching little significance to the testimonies of classical texts.[8]114The core of Kugler's argument was that colors were used in antiquity in accordance with the materials used, and the coloring of white marble was unnecessary and inappropriate. As a consequence,he rejected the idea of a universality of polychrome buildings and building parts in the sense intended by Hittorff and Semper.[8]8-9He harshly criticized Hittorff for his too-colorful color scheme, arguing that it could not be applied generally, but only to specific cases. Kugler stressed the dependency between polychromy and the geographic location of buildings, rejecting the idea of the use of polychromy for Attica, the historical heartland of ancient Greece located on the Attic peninsula and centered on the city of Athens.[8]10Moreover, he restricted polychromy to the architecture of older periods. In essence, Kugler argued that: first, color follows form;second, as soon as a period has mastered "form","color" becomes unnecessary; and third, color is used as a supplement to form only if form proves insufficient (in aesthetic expression). He did not comment on Raoul-Rochette's controversial views on wooden panel painting.

3.1.6 Letronne, support for Hittorff from a philologist

Jean Antoine Letronne (1787 – 1848) was a French philologist and professor at the Collège de France (chair of history, 1831; chair of archaeology,1838-1848) and in 1840 he became keeper of the national archives. Letronne's most important work is his Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l'égypte (2 vols, 1842 and 1848).[3]116

Letronne, one of Hittorff's closest friends,demonstrated his support in 1835 in the pleasing form of sixteen letters addressed to Hittorf,avoiding the lengthy and cumbersome scholarly discussion of previous supporters and opponents in the polychromy debate. His Lettres d'un antiquaire à un artiste sur l'emploi de la peinture historique murale dans la décoration des temples et des autres édifices publics et particuliers chez les Grecs et les Romains (1835) gave an extensive and informative picture of the artistic life of the ancients. He disproved Raoul-Rochette's theory with the aid of classical quotations. Politely, but using irony to the full, he went through Raoul-Rochette's arguments point by point, and showed that the pretentious archeological scholar had made substantive errors in his own discipline. Detailed study of classical texts revealed that in Greece as well as in Italy,both wall painting and wood panel painting had been key design elements. In addition, Letronne distinguished between different painting methods and discussed them in detail. His argument publicly acknowledged Hittorff's theory and showed that it stood up to scientific and philological examination.

3.2 Further development and end of debate

Raoul-Rochette was not out of the debate, but his scholarly vanity had been deeply wounded –simply by the fact that someone had contradicted him.[3]119For example, in 1836-1837, he struck back,criticizing Semper for his ideas of "elaboration of form with color" and "not staying truthful to the(building) material", by obscuring the beauty of the material by covering it with a colored coating.22)In this final stage of discussion, the debate was fueled by increasingly rapid statements by its key players,who exchanged opinions on the subject in a harsh,often personally insulting manner (Raoul-Rochette against Letronne and Hittorff; Letronne against Raoul-Rochette and Kugler).23)The polychromy debate gradually degenerated into a conf l ict between philology (Letronne) and archaeology (Rochette),and both sides called upon judges to arbitrate the dispute to resolve the disagreement. As a consequence, the Académie had to make a stand and voice a carefully-formulated explanation – not least because by then, young French architects were allowed to study polychrome architecture in Italy or Greece (as pensionnaires at the French Academy in Rome or the French School in Athens): for example,in 1845 Alexis Paccard (1813 – 1867) reconstructed the Parthenon, and in 1846 Philippe Auguste Titeux(1812 – 1846) the Propylaea. Their observations in Greece proper largely confirmed the findings of Hittorff in the Greek colonies in Italy, although their visual recoveries were sometimes rather more fiction than fact.[3]122-123

3.2 進(jìn)一步的發(fā)展與論戰(zhàn)的終結(jié)

羅謝特并沒(méi)有退出這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)辯，但是他作為一個(gè)學(xué)者的自尊心被深深地傷害了——僅僅因?yàn)橛腥苏驹诹怂膶?duì)立面[3]119。比方說(shuō)，在1836–1837年，他回?fù)袅松鍫?，指?zé)他“用色彩表達(dá)形式”的觀點(diǎn)“未能堅(jiān)持（建筑）材料的真實(shí)性原則”，因?yàn)樯释繉油耆谏w了材料的美感22）。這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)辯到了最后一幕，已經(jīng)愈演愈烈，變?yōu)橹鹘侵g日趨緊鑼密鼓的聲明、回應(yīng)，甚至人身攻擊（羅謝特對(duì)陣?yán)胀信c希托夫；勒托對(duì)陣羅謝特與庫(kù)格勒）23）。論爭(zhēng)后來(lái)逐漸縮小為文獻(xiàn)學(xué)（勒托）與考古學(xué)（羅謝特）的對(duì)峙，雙方均提出請(qǐng)求仲裁方來(lái)解決這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)議。接下來(lái)，學(xué)院不得不表明立場(chǎng)，并發(fā)表了一份措辭謹(jǐn)慎的聲明——尤其是因?yàn)槟莻€(gè)時(shí)候，年輕的法國(guó)建筑師們已經(jīng)被允許在意大利和希臘研究建筑彩飾(作為羅馬大獎(jiǎng)的獲得者，在羅馬法蘭西學(xué)院或者雅典法蘭西考古學(xué)院學(xué)習(xí))。例如，1845年亞歷克西斯·皮卡德（1813–1867）復(fù)原了帕提農(nóng)神廟；1846年菲利普·奧古斯特·蒂特（1812–1846）復(fù)原了衛(wèi)城山門(mén)。盡管他們的復(fù)原設(shè)計(jì)大多是虛構(gòu)大于實(shí)際，但他們的在希臘的觀察極大地證實(shí)了希托夫在意大利希臘殖民區(qū)的發(fā)現(xiàn)[3]122-123。

最重要的是，在這個(gè)階段，考古學(xué)證據(jù)日益豐富，甚至引起了倫敦大英博物館館藏埃爾金石雕的化學(xué)分析24）。在這些證據(jù)面前，爭(zhēng)論內(nèi)容的實(shí)質(zhì)發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)換。就如庫(kù)格勒的折中方案所顯示的那樣，爭(zhēng)論的重點(diǎn)變?yōu)榱颂接懡ㄖ曙椀耐庋雍蛢?nèi)涵，而非古典建筑的彩飾本身是否存在，因?yàn)槟菚r(shí)這已經(jīng)成為一個(gè)不爭(zhēng)的事實(shí)。

1851年，希托夫終于出版了自1830年起就受到期待的，配有大量插圖的賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟的完整復(fù)原設(shè)計(jì)，盡管這次依然有反對(duì)的聲音（庫(kù)格勒）。然而，這場(chǎng)紛爭(zhēng)中的關(guān)鍵人物都相繼與世長(zhǎng)辭，而反對(duì)派的人數(shù)也在逐年減少——勒托、羅謝特、庫(kù)格勒、希托夫和森佩爾分別在1848年、1854年、1858年、1867年和1879年辭世。這場(chǎng)彩飾之辯前后持續(xù)了30多年，直到此時(shí)才逐漸歸于尾聲，留給我們一個(gè)令人震驚又無(wú)可辯駁的事實(shí)——古希臘神廟終于亮出它富有色彩的一面。

4 結(jié)論

與古典建筑有關(guān)的彩飾問(wèn)題，使德籍或德裔建筑學(xué)者們（希托夫、森佩爾和庫(kù)格勒）在國(guó)際舞臺(tái)上收獲了更大的存在感，但也在很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間內(nèi)禁錮了法、德兩國(guó)的專(zhuān)業(yè)學(xué)者在藝術(shù)與建筑史、考古學(xué)以及文獻(xiàn)學(xué)范疇的學(xué)術(shù)交流。同時(shí)，盡管雅典衛(wèi)城和古典希臘建筑一直都是現(xiàn)代學(xué)者所關(guān)注的中心，但由于一些歷史原因，“研究彩飾法的這一代先驅(qū)者們沒(méi)有關(guān)注帕提農(nóng)神廟（森佩爾和庫(kù)格勒除外），而是截取了一些零星證據(jù)，用以支持自己的理論。”[4]270——位于埃伊納小島上的阿法雅神廟就是這樣的一個(gè)證據(jù)，因此具有了某種重要性。

無(wú)論如何，對(duì)這座無(wú)名古建筑的發(fā)現(xiàn)和視覺(jué)復(fù)原，拉開(kāi)了這場(chǎng)廣泛的跨文化交流的序幕，而這場(chǎng)發(fā)生于19世紀(jì)的彩飾之辯，徹底改變了今日我們看待古典建筑的方式。

作為總結(jié)，我們現(xiàn)在可以回答文章開(kāi)頭所提的3個(gè)問(wèn)題——即事件的歷史梗概、取得的新知，以及彩飾之辯的世界性意義：

4.1 “彩飾之辯”的歷史梗概

這場(chǎng)學(xué)術(shù)論爭(zhēng)起源于人們不得不直面一個(gè)出人意料且從觀念上難以接受的現(xiàn)象，而后在不斷被揭示的事實(shí)依據(jù)面前，開(kāi)始逐漸接受并習(xí)以為常。從彩飾法之辯開(kāi)始（19世紀(jì)的第二個(gè)10年），直到1830年代中期，古典希臘藝術(shù)及建筑存在彩飾的可能性，在學(xué)者與普通大眾之中引發(fā)了激烈的爭(zhēng)論，而這更加凸顯了辯題的重要性。而后，鑒于有大量確鑿證據(jù)證明希臘神廟上存在著使用顏色的痕跡，這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)論的重點(diǎn)逐步轉(zhuǎn)移到探討彩飾的外延（時(shí)代與地域范圍）、內(nèi)涵和色彩特性（飽和度、基色、與采光的關(guān)系等）。

4.2 “彩飾之辯”的背后

在這里我們可以看到200年前學(xué)會(huì)的運(yùn)作機(jī)制——實(shí)際上現(xiàn)在還是這樣運(yùn)作的：通過(guò)書(shū)信、考古發(fā)掘報(bào)告、普及性小冊(cè)子以及帶有大量插圖的專(zhuān)著，進(jìn)行著學(xué)術(shù)觀點(diǎn)的精彩交鋒以及激烈的口水戰(zhàn)。

此外，這場(chǎng)紛爭(zhēng)一部分是在巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院這個(gè)國(guó)家（政治）平臺(tái)上進(jìn)行的。巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院是19世紀(jì)前期法國(guó)建筑學(xué)理論的誕生地，而在學(xué)校核心人物和學(xué)生的參與下，這些理論也極大地影響了國(guó)際化的現(xiàn)代設(shè)計(jì)學(xué)。彩飾之辯也體現(xiàn)了十九世紀(jì)初期巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院的內(nèi)部斗爭(zhēng)和學(xué)生反叛——對(duì)于這個(gè)“在某種程度上偶然而隨意的”建筑彩飾問(wèn)題的流行，德國(guó)建筑理論家漢諾-沃爾特·克魯夫特進(jìn)行了如下解讀：年輕的浪漫主義者們將這個(gè)原本屬于考古學(xué)和古物研究的話題當(dāng)成了“武器”，用以對(duì)抗考特梅爾領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的巴黎美術(shù)學(xué)院所固守的溫克爾曼式古典主義教條25）。

通過(guò)這場(chǎng)西方彩飾之辯，我們還可以深刻地領(lǐng)會(huì)到19世紀(jì)歐洲的思想狀況（思考問(wèn)題的方式），以及法蘭西與德意志學(xué)者的思維模式(態(tài)度及看法)。在彩飾這個(gè)概念最初進(jìn)入人們視野的時(shí)候，它是不被接受的，因?yàn)槠涓拍顒?dòng)搖了西方建筑理論的根基，而這個(gè)根基是建立在文藝復(fù)興時(shí)期(“單色調(diào)的高貴”、鑲嵌著古典元素的平坦表面所體現(xiàn)的灰白而平面化的古典主義、伯魯乃列斯基、阿爾伯蒂)和新古典主義時(shí)期（形式統(tǒng)領(lǐng)色彩、形式作為圖解溫克爾曼美學(xué)概念“高貴的單純與靜謐的偉大”的工具）對(duì)古典建筑的隨意解讀之上的26）。

也就是說(shuō)，直到19世紀(jì)，隨著現(xiàn)代考古學(xué)正式成為一門(mén)學(xué)科，新的發(fā)掘和勘察不斷動(dòng)搖著羅馬建筑至高無(wú)上的地位，并強(qiáng)調(diào)希臘建筑的重要性（“希臘-羅馬之爭(zhēng)”），對(duì)于古典建筑的想象被放到了特定信仰、判斷和環(huán)境的背景之下。在不可能證實(shí)這些構(gòu)想的情況下（由于無(wú)法到達(dá)真正的遺址現(xiàn)場(chǎng)，以及實(shí)物證據(jù)的缺乏），人們得出的往往是與事實(shí)相去甚遠(yuǎn)的曲解，這是需要克服的一大挑戰(zhàn)。因此，歷經(jīng)多年，（古典建筑中的）彩飾才得到廣泛的接受。

值得特別注意的是，不論是支持派還是反對(duì)派，積極參與這場(chǎng)彩飾之辯的學(xué)者們都是各自領(lǐng)域的專(zhuān)家，在各自的職位上取得了卓越而富有開(kāi)創(chuàng)性的成就。比如庫(kù)格勒創(chuàng)造了“加洛林風(fēng)格”（他是第一個(gè)用此術(shù)語(yǔ)的人），這在藝術(shù)史領(lǐng)域已獲公認(rèn)。盡管希托夫、羅謝特、森佩爾、庫(kù)格勒以及勒托等學(xué)者的重要性在西方世界早已被公認(rèn)，在中文文獻(xiàn)中關(guān)于他們的敘述卻很貧乏，僅是粗略地掃過(guò)各個(gè)領(lǐng)域，并只關(guān)注他們學(xué)術(shù)生涯中某一特定階段的研究。

此外，這場(chǎng)論爭(zhēng)還體現(xiàn)出某些人性的特點(diǎn)——“人非圣賢，孰能無(wú)過(guò)”，而且人生并不是非黑即白，而是有很多灰色地帶的。也就是說(shuō)，雖然以今天的我們所掌握的知識(shí)來(lái)判斷，當(dāng)時(shí)某些學(xué)者——例如羅謝特和庫(kù)格勒——選擇了“錯(cuò)誤的”立場(chǎng)，但這并不能削弱他們?cè)诋?dāng)時(shí)的聲望和地位，也不會(huì)影響他們的職業(yè)發(fā)展。庫(kù)格勒在年僅28歲時(shí)就毫不費(fèi)力地寫(xiě)出了《關(guān)于希臘建筑和雕塑的彩飾及其局限性》（1835），試圖對(duì)彩飾法這一熱點(diǎn)議題起到調(diào)停作用。但這篇文章實(shí)際上暴露了他的某種“本色”，表現(xiàn)了他對(duì)于這個(gè)問(wèn)題的消極和懷疑。大約10年后（1840），庫(kù)格勒就被吸收進(jìn)入學(xué)術(shù)評(píng)議會(huì)，并被委派到文化部任職，負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)管普魯士的各類(lèi)藝術(shù)。此外，他的作品還為他獲得了國(guó)際上的知名度：他的繪畫(huà)史研究報(bào)告被翻譯成了英文（1842），且多次修訂出版，和詹姆斯·弗格森（1808–1886）的代表作《各國(guó)建筑通史：從遠(yuǎn)古到現(xiàn)代》（1860–1870）一同，樹(shù)立了世界藝術(shù)史研究的樣板，并在英語(yǔ)地區(qū)非常流行。弗格森的引入，對(duì)于本文開(kāi)端所提出的第三個(gè)問(wèn)題而言尤為有趣。

Most importantly, at this stage, faced with growing archaeological evidence that even led to a chemical testing of the Elgin marbles in the British Museum in London, there was a shift in the content of the debate. Instead of asking whether or not polychromy existed in antiquity, since this had already become an established fact that no one could afford to refute – the shift was towards asking about the extent and nature of the polychromy in architecture, as exemplified by Kugler's proposed compromise solution.

In 1851, Hittorff finally published the complete,lavishly-illustrated edition of the reconstructed Empedocles Temple in Selinunte, which had been awaiting completion since 1830, albeit again not without opposition (Kugler). However, the key players in the conflict were gradually dying off, and the number of opponents shrank from year to year –Letronne passed away in 1848, Raoul-Rochette in 1854, Kugler in 1858, Hittorff in 1867, and Semper in 1879. The polychromy debate had been carried on for more than three decades, and only then did it slowly come to an end, leaving us with the astonishing and undeniable fact that ancient Greek temples had finally shown their colors.

16 法–德彩飾之辯中的關(guān)鍵人物（繪制：荷雅麗）/Key players in the German-French polychrome debate (Drawing:Alexandra Harrer)

4 Conclusions

The subject of polychromy in connection with the historical architecture of antiquity established a greater presence of German/German-born architectural scholars on the international stage(Hittorff, Semper, and Kugler), but for a long time"poisoned" academic relations between the French and the German authorities on art and architectural history, archaeology, and philology. And although the acropolis in Athens and the classical architecture of Greece itself have long been the centre of modern scholarly attention, for historical reasons,"the generation of the pioneers of the polychromy question did not focus on the Parthenon (with the exception of Semper [and Kugler]) but used much more scattered evidence to more personal ends"[4]270– the Aphaia Temple on the small island of Aegina was one of them and herein lies some of its importance.

In any case, the discovery and visual recovery of this historically rather insignificant building set the scene for a broad cross-cultural dialogue that revolutionized the way we see antiquity today –the 19th century polychromy issue. To draw a final conclusion, we may now answer the questions posed at the beginning regarding the historical course of events, knowledge gained, and the global significance of the polychromy debate.

4.1 Changes in the course of the polychromy debate

What happened back then was at first a confrontation with the unexpected and virtually unbelievable phenomenon, followed by its gradual habituation (acceptance upon repeated exposure to factual evidence). At the beginning of the polychromy debate (1810s) until the mid-1830s,the mere possibility of colorful classical Greek art and architecture provoked a serious debate among scholars and the general public, which highlights the importance of the question. Then, given the mass of overwhelmingly convincing evidence of traces of color on Hellenistic temples, the debate shifted its focus increasingly in the direction of the extent of the polychromy (time period; geographic region)and the nature and quality of the colors that had been applied (bright or dull; basic color; dependency on light exposure).

4.2 Behind the scene of the polychromy debate

What we can see here is the mechanism of how academia worked two hundred years ago – and in fact still works today: an exciting back and forth of scholarly opinions and a battle of words, expressed in letters, excavation reports, pamphlets, and lavishly-illustrated print publications.

And what is more, the debate was partly fought on the national (political) stage of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, the birthplace of early 19th-century French theory that had considerable inf l uence on modern international design, with its dignitaries and its students became involved. The dispute embodied an internal conflict and student revolt at the Académie des Beaux-Arts in the early 19th century: the German architectural theorist Hanno-Walter Kruft explains the popularity of the "somewhat incidental and arbitrary issue"of architectural polychromy, originally an archaeological and antiquarian issue, which the young Romantics used as "a weapon" to attack the rigid classical norms of the Winckelmann tradition still upheld at the Académie by Quatremère.25)

4.3 “彩飾之辯”與全球建筑史：19世紀(jì)的德意志——希臘古典復(fù)興與中國(guó)建筑史的書(shū)寫(xiě)

關(guān)于第三個(gè)問(wèn)題，“德意志”視角下的彩飾之辯對(duì)于我們今天理解全球建筑史至關(guān)重要。通過(guò)這場(chǎng)爭(zhēng)辯，我們能夠窺探德國(guó)–希臘之間的緊密聯(lián)系，以及其現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。不光德籍或德裔學(xué)者及建筑師在這場(chǎng)理論爭(zhēng)辯中起到帶頭作用，會(huì)說(shuō)德語(yǔ)的，以及有德意志教育背景的建筑師們還積極地促成了彩飾在當(dāng)代建筑上的視覺(jué)重現(xiàn)27）。

正是在希臘獨(dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之后的雅典，德國(guó)建筑師馮·加特納 （1791–1847）為希臘的奧托一世大帝（約1832–1862）設(shè)計(jì)了舊皇宮（1836–1843，現(xiàn)為希臘議會(huì)大廈）——奧托大帝是巴伐利亞路德維希一世大帝（1786–1868）的兒子，而路德維希一世大帝就是10年前哈勒爾的贊助人，也是正是他下令在慕尼黑古代雕塑博物館對(duì)阿法雅神廟進(jìn)行復(fù)原。在雅典，還有丹麥裔奧地利建筑師特奧費(fèi)爾·翰森（1813–1891）設(shè)計(jì)了雅典大學(xué)（1859–1885）、扎皮翁宮（1874–1888）以及希臘國(guó)家圖書(shū)館（1887–1902），在翰森離開(kāi)希臘之后，這些建筑都是在他的代理人，德裔希臘建筑師恩斯特·齊勒爾（1837–1923）的監(jiān)理下建成的。這些位于雅典的德意志–希臘復(fù)興建筑的柱頭和線腳使用了“具有生動(dòng)異域風(fēng)情的金棕櫚葉裝飾，并在重點(diǎn)部位點(diǎn)綴了紅色、綠色和藍(lán)色”。[4]260光潔的白色柱子立在深紅色墻面的前方，展現(xiàn)出一種穩(wěn)健而雅致的古希臘彩飾風(fēng)味。

17 雅典的后希臘式（希臘復(fù)興式）建筑：雅典大學(xué)正立面細(xì)部（左，攝影：李路珂）與扎皮翁宮的內(nèi)庭院（右），均由特奧費(fèi)爾·翰森設(shè)計(jì)（圖片來(lái)源：www.commons.wikipedia.org）/Neo-Grec architecture in Athens, Academy of Athens (left, photo by LI Luke) and the courtyard of the Zappeion (right, public domain work, www.commons.wikipedia.org), both designed by Theophil Hansen.

此外，出人意料的是，發(fā)生于歐洲中部的彩飾之辯對(duì)于萬(wàn)里之外的中國(guó)，竟十分有助于理解本國(guó)建筑的史學(xué)觀念，以及建筑史的書(shū)寫(xiě)。1876年，弗格森出版了名為《印度及東方建筑史》的四卷本著作，在這本書(shū)里他以貶抑的語(yǔ)調(diào)評(píng)論中國(guó)的建筑傳統(tǒng)：

“……中國(guó)建筑并不值得太多關(guān)注。然而有一點(diǎn)，中國(guó)是現(xiàn)今唯一還將彩飾作為建筑的重要組成部分的民族，所以中國(guó)建筑還是有一定啟發(fā)性的：實(shí)際上對(duì)于他們而言，色彩比形式重要得多；且目前的效果是比較令人愉悅而滿意的。這是因?yàn)?，在藝術(shù)的較低階段，情況無(wú)疑總是這樣的。但是，對(duì)于較高階段的藝術(shù)而言，毋庸置疑，盡管色彩是最有價(jià)值的附加之物，它并不像形式那樣具有直指人心的崇高表現(xiàn)力?！?/p>

弗格森認(rèn)為在中國(guó)建筑中，色彩是凌駕于形式之上的，是建筑美的決定性因素，這一挑釁式的論斷源于他自己對(duì)中國(guó)建筑的誤解——他拒絕承認(rèn)中國(guó)建筑結(jié)構(gòu)中比例的作用，以及根據(jù)社會(huì)等級(jí)和禮制意義而調(diào)整的顏色等級(jí)體系。

雖然弗格森不得不承認(rèn)古希臘神廟中建筑彩飾的運(yùn)用（“希臘人在他們的神廟內(nèi)外施以彩繪”），但在他看來(lái)，中國(guó)建筑中刻板而千篇一律的色彩組合（既不表達(dá)建筑結(jié)構(gòu)，也不適合特定地域條件）必須被視為一種缺乏教養(yǎng)、尚不成熟的表征。更有甚者，弗格森針對(duì)西方建筑提出了一套彩飾依賴于特定氣候和地理?xiàng)l件的理論，所以只有在地中海的強(qiáng)烈陽(yáng)光下，建筑彩飾才是可以允許的（“除了希臘與埃及這樣的國(guó)家，僅僅通過(guò)在建筑外表面涂繪的方式來(lái)運(yùn)用色彩，這一做法必然是錯(cuò)誤的”）。然而，若已了解弗格森的語(yǔ)境背后這場(chǎng)剛剛平息不久的西方彩飾之辯，他的這種認(rèn)知就如同這場(chǎng)辯論本身一樣，是可以被理解和解釋的?！?/p>

注釋

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

21）他的《繪畫(huà)史手冊(cè)，從康斯坦丁大帝到現(xiàn)在》與《腓特烈大帝的一生》都有英譯版（《繪畫(huà)史手冊(cè)》，倫敦，1842年，1911年以前出版了多個(gè)英文修訂版；《腓特烈大帝的一生》，倫敦，1844，及其后的數(shù)個(gè)修訂版）。庫(kù)格勒唯一沒(méi)有被翻譯的書(shū)是《藝術(shù)史手冊(cè)》，但此書(shū)的附圖合集在1880年代于紐約出版了英文版本。

22）羅謝特的數(shù)篇論文發(fā)表在1836–1837年間的學(xué)者報(bào)上。

23）勞爾–羅謝特，《學(xué)者報(bào)》1836–1837年之間的一些文章；《未出版的古典繪畫(huà)》，1836；《考古學(xué)信件》，1840。勒托，《一個(gè)古董商人寫(xiě)給一個(gè)藝術(shù)家的信之附錄》，1837。關(guān)于人身攻擊，參見(jiàn)范·贊特恩，《建筑彩飾法》，論文部分，p35。

24）埃爾金石雕指的是曾位于帕提農(nóng)神廟、雅典衛(wèi)城山門(mén)和伊瑞克提翁廟的古希臘雕塑。這些雕塑被埃爾金伯爵七世托馬斯·布魯斯（1766–1841）在1801–1802年間從神廟中移走，并帶回大英帝國(guó)。

25）克魯夫特，《建筑理論史》，第312頁(yè)。范·贊特恩，建筑彩飾法，p11。范·贊特恩進(jìn)一步解釋道，對(duì)于很多年輕的法國(guó)建筑師（雅典法蘭西學(xué)院羅馬大獎(jiǎng)獲得者）來(lái)說(shuō)，建筑彩飾法不是“循規(guī)蹈矩且一成不變的，而僅僅是（直接而多變的）涂鴉藝術(shù)的延續(xù)和實(shí)物的附屬品?！保ā杜撂徂r(nóng)神廟的彩飾》，p271）

26）森佩爾曾辛辣地指出所謂“單色調(diào)的高貴”純粹是由伯魯乃列斯基和米開(kāi)朗基羅開(kāi)創(chuàng)的，這種做法導(dǎo)致了“現(xiàn)代燕尾服和古董的雜糅”（《初評(píng)》，p16）。他主張“認(rèn)為古典建筑是單色調(diào)是野蠻的”（同上，p20），以此抨擊同時(shí)代的古典主義觀點(diǎn)。

27）比如希臘建筑師帕納伊斯·克羅斯（1818–1875）就被奧托大帝授予了獎(jiǎng)學(xué)金并留學(xué)慕尼黑。

What we can also gain from the Western polychromy debate is a deep insight into the mentality (a particular way of thinking) of 19thcentury Europe and the mind-set of German and French scholars (their attitude or set of opinions).On its first appearance, the concept of polychromy was deemed to be unacceptable, a concept that undermined the very foundations of Western architectural theory rooted in the free interpretation of antiquity during the Renaissance ("novelty of monochromy"; grey-and-white planar classicism through flat surfaces veneered in classical elements;Brunelleschi, Alberti) and the neo-classicist period(superiority of form over color/form as shaping tool expressed in the aesthetic ideal of "noble simplicity and quiet grandeur"; Winckelmann).26)

That is to say, until the 19th century, which saw the establishment of modern archaeology as an academic discipline, when new discoveries and excavations challenged the primary role of Roman architecture and highlighted the importance of Greece ("Greco-Roman Controversy"), the architecture of antiquity was conceived in the light of individual beliefs, judgments, and circumstances.Without the possibility of verification (due to the inaccessibility of actual ruins and paucity of factual evidence), this had led to a distorted picture of the actual situation that posed quite a challenge to overcome. Consequently, it took many years for polychromy to gain widespread acceptance.

It is noteworthy that the scholars actively engaged in the polychromy debate were all experts in their relevant fields and proved their outstanding and pioneering achievements whatever position they took. Kugler, for example, had coined the concept of "Carolingian style" (being the first to use the term"Carolingian" ), which is taken for granted in the field of art history. Although the significance of scholars such as Hittorff, Raoul-Rochette, Semper,Kugler, and Letronne has long been recognized in the West, Chinese literature on the subject is sparse,spread out across disciplines and focused on studies of particular phases of their career.

Furthermore, there is a human side to this –to err is human, and moreover, life is not just black and white, but many shades in between. That is to say, taking the "wrong" side of the debate in the light of today's knowledge neither diminished the standing of scholars such as Raoul-Rochette and Kugler, who both enjoyed great popularity among their contemporaries, nor did it impair their career development. Kugler, who was 28 when he wrote his half-hearted attempt to mediate in the heated question of polychromy (über die Polychromie,1835), which in fact rather showed his "true colors"(his reluctance and doubts on this matter), was called to the academic senate and appointed to the Ministry of Culture overseeing all the arts of Prussia just a decade later (1840s). Moreover, his work gained him international recognition: his survey text of painting history was translated into English (1842) and published in many revised editions, together with James Fergusson's (1808 –1886) standard work A History of Architecture in all Countries from the Earliest Times to the Present Day (1860 – 1870s) establishing as a genre the global art history survey text popular in the Englishreading world. The relation to Fergusson is especially interesting with regard to the last question posed at the beginning.

4.3 Global significance of the polychromy debate: 19th-century "German" Greek revival architecture and Chinese architectural historiography

The polychromy discussion seen through"German" eyes is significant for our modern understanding of global architectural history.Through the debate, we can unfold the close German-Greek relationship and its practical implications.Not only did German and German – born scholararchitects play a leading role in the course of the theoretical debate, but German – speaking and German – trained architects were also actively engaged in the visual recovery of polychromy in contemporary architecture.27)

It was in Athens, after the Greek War of Independence, that the German architect Friedrich von G?rtner (1791 – 1847) designed the Old Royal Palace(1836 – 1843; now the Hellenic Parliament) for King Otto of Greece (r. 1832 – 1862) – King Otto was the son of King Ludwig I of Bavaria (1786-1868), who was a patron of Haller's and who had commissioned the reconstruction of the Aphaia Temple in the Glyptothek in Munich a decade earlier – and the Danish-born Austrian architect Theophil Hansen (1813 – 1891)designed the Academy of Athens (1859 – 1885), the Zappeion (1874 – 1888), and the National Library of Greece (1887 – 1902), all of which were supervised by the German-born Greek architect Ernst Ziller(1837 – 1923), Hansen's representative when he was away. The German Greek revival architecture in Athens displays capitals and moldings "exotically enlivened with gold palmettes and touches of red,blue and green" and plain white columns standing in front of deep red walls, and presents a conservative and tasteful interpretation of ancient Greek polychromy.[4]260

Furthermore, it might come as a surprise to learn the central-European polychromy discussion is particularly useful for understanding the architectural history and historiography of a country far away from the center of the debate – China. In 1876, Fergusson published a 4th volume entitled The History of Indian and Eastern Architecture,in which he remarked disparagingly on Chinese building traditions:

"… it may be that Chinese architecture is not worthy of much attention. In one respect, however,it is instructive, since the Chinese are the only people who now employ polychromy as an essential part of their architecture: indeed, with them, color is far more essential than form; and certainly the result is so far pleasing and satisfactory, that for the lower grades of art it is hardly doubtful that it should always be so. For the higher grades, however,it is hardly less certain that color, though most valuable as an accessory, is incapable of that lofty power of expression which form conveys to the human mind."[9]688

Fergusson's provocative statement about the Chinese emphasizing color over form as a defining factor for architectural beauty was born of a misconception on his part, denying Chinese construction the effects of proportion and flexible color grading according to social rank and ritual significance.

[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，1792–1867. 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(duì)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(guó)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(xué)觀點(diǎn). 柏林：學(xué)術(shù)出版社，1962.

[8] 弗朗茲·庫(kù)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（1808–1886），各國(guó)建筑通史：從遠(yuǎn)古到現(xiàn)代. 倫敦. 1865-1867. 赫爾施修訂第3版第1卷. 倫敦. 1893.

參考書(shū)目

1. 羅伯特·亞當(dāng)（1728–1792）, 達(dá)爾馬提亞斯帕拉托的戴克里先大帝皇宮遺址. 倫敦. 1764.

2. 查爾斯–路易斯·克萊里索（1721–1820），法蘭西古跡之一：尼姆的遺跡. 巴黎. 1778.

3. 查爾斯·羅伯特·科爾雷爾（1788–1863），科爾雷爾，《埃伊納的主神朱庇特廟與位于阿卡迪亞地區(qū)的費(fèi)加里亞附近的巴塞的阿波羅·伊壁鳩魯神廟》.倫敦. 1860.

4. 加布里埃爾·皮埃爾·馬丁·迪蒙（1720–1791）, 帕埃斯圖姆，即普林尼所提及的帕埃斯圖姆市1750年現(xiàn)存的3座古代神廟的平面圖、剖面圖、輪廓線圖、立面幾何分析及透視圖。由J·G·蘇夫洛測(cè)繪并繪制……于1750年. 巴黎. 1764.

5. 雅各布·伊格納茨·希托夫（1792–1867），賽林努特的恩培多克勒神廟復(fù)原及希臘古建筑彩飾. 巴黎.1851.

6. 希臘的彩飾建筑——賽林努特衛(wèi)城的恩培多克勒神廟的完整復(fù)原. 考古研究所年度通訊第2卷，1830：p263-284. 重刊. 美術(shù)學(xué)會(huì)刊第1卷，1830–31：p188-55.

7. 西西里的現(xiàn)代建筑——西西里主要城市中最優(yōu)美的宗教建筑和最出眾的公共或私人建筑集錦. 18期連載. 巴黎. 1826-1835.

8. 西西里的古代建筑——西西里主要城市和遺址中最值得探究的古跡集錦. 8期連載. 巴黎. 1827–1830.

9. 萊奧·馮·克倫策，阿格里真托的奧林匹亞宙斯神廟. 斯圖加特. 1821. 1827修訂版.

10. 繪畫(huà)史手冊(cè) ：從康斯坦丁大帝到現(xiàn)在. 柏林.1837；英譯本. 倫敦. 1842

11. 藝術(shù)史手冊(cè). 斯圖加特. 1842.

12. 腓特烈大帝的一生. 萊比錫，1840. 英譯本. 倫敦.1844.

13. 讓·安東尼·勒托（1787–1848），埃及的希臘與拉丁銘文集：基于亞歷山大大帝到阿拉伯時(shí)期的國(guó)家政治史、行政管理和民事宗教機(jī)構(gòu)的關(guān)聯(lián)性研究.兩卷本. 巴黎. 1842. 1848.

14. 一個(gè)藝術(shù)品商人寫(xiě)給一個(gè)藝術(shù)家的信：關(guān)于古希臘和古羅馬的神廟及其他公共或私人建筑裝飾上使用墻面彩繪. 巴黎. 1835.

15. 一個(gè)藝術(shù)品商人寫(xiě)給一個(gè)藝術(shù)家的信之附錄：關(guān)于在神廟及其他公共或私人建筑裝飾上使用墻面彩繪. 巴黎. 1837.

16. 喬瓦尼·巴蒂斯塔·皮拉內(nèi)西（1720–1778）. 建筑與透視圖集第一卷，威尼斯建筑師皮拉內(nèi)西繪制并雕版. 羅馬. 1743.

17. 古代與現(xiàn)代羅馬的景象集. 羅馬. 1745.

18. 安東尼–克里索斯托姆·考特梅爾·德·坎西（1755–1849）. 奧林匹亞的朱庇特：重新審視古代雕塑藝術(shù). 巴黎. 1815.

19. 建筑學(xué)詞典. 兩卷本. 巴黎. 1789. 1832.

20. 勞爾–羅謝特（1790–1854）, 古代壁畫(huà). 學(xué)者報(bào).1833年6月. p361–371 .

21. 未出版的古希臘、伊特魯里亞和古羅馬的人物雕塑：1826-1827年間在意大利和西西里收集. 兩卷本.巴黎. 1828. 1833.

22. 未出版的古代繪畫(huà)，基于對(duì)希臘人和羅馬人在圣殿或宗教建筑的裝飾上運(yùn)用彩繪的研究，及未出版的古代建筑. 巴黎. 1836.

23. 關(guān)于希臘繪畫(huà)的考古學(xué)信件.巴黎. 1840.

24. 戈特弗里德·森佩爾（1803–1879）， 關(guān)于古代彩飾建筑與雕塑的初評(píng). 阿爾托納. 1834.

25. 建筑與雕塑中色彩的運(yùn)用. 柏林. 1834–1836.

26. 建筑四元素. 不倫瑞克. 1851.

27. 論文集. 柏林和斯圖加特. 1884.

28. 詹姆斯·斯圖爾特（1713–1788）和尼古拉斯·雷維特 (1721–1804)，雅典的古跡. 四卷本. 倫敦.1762，1787，1784，1816.

29. 約翰·約阿希姆·溫克爾曼（1717–1768）, 關(guān)于在繪畫(huà)與雕塑中模仿希臘藝術(shù)作品的思考. 德累斯頓/萊比錫. 1755.

30. 古代藝術(shù)史. 德累斯頓. 1764. 第二版. 1776.

31. 邁克·埃斯帕涅，本尼迪克特·薩伏伊和席琳·特勞特曼-沃勒，弗朗茲·西奧多·庫(kù)格勒：一位德國(guó)藝術(shù)史學(xué)家和柏林詩(shī)人. 柏林：學(xué)術(shù)出版社. 2010.

32. 基利安·?？?，藝術(shù)對(duì)于人生的重要性：弗朗茲·庫(kù)格勒與第一個(gè)藝術(shù)史教育機(jī)構(gòu). 馬爾堡美學(xué)年鑒第32期. 2005：p7-15.

33. 亨里克·卡格，19世紀(jì)德國(guó)藝術(shù)史學(xué)的前瞻性：弗朗茲·庫(kù)格勒，卡爾·施納澤和戈特弗里德·森佩爾.藝術(shù)史學(xué)刊第9期. 2013：p1-26.

34. 唐納德·戴維·施耐德, 雅各布·伊格納茨·希托夫（1792–1867）的作品和理論. 兩卷本. 紐約：加蘭出版社，1977.

35. 雷內(nèi)·施耐德，考特梅爾·德·坎西與他的藝術(shù)成就（1780–1830）. 巴黎. 1910.

36. 渥瑞夫·銳查斯美術(shù)館, 雅各布·伊格納茨·希托夫，一位來(lái)自科隆的19世紀(jì)巴黎建筑師. 科?。郝迩袪柍霭嫔?，1987.

To Fergusson, who by then had no choice but to acknowledge the polychromy of ancient Greek temples ("the Greeks painted their temples both internally and externally")[10], the rigid undifferentiated color scheme of Chinese buildings(neither necessarily serving to explain or give expression to the construction, nor being adaptive to specific local circumstances) must have seemed a sign of a lack of sophistication, lack of refinement.This is not least the case because for Western architecture, Fergusson established a dependency of colors from the specific climatic and geographic conditions of a place, allowing polychromy only for Mediterranean regions with bright light ("except in such countries as Egypt and Greece, it must always be a mistake to apply color by merely painting the surface of the building externally").[10]And yet, if seen in context, as a backdrop to the only recentlyresolved polychrome debate in the West, it is at least explainable and understandable as that debate was. □

Notes

21) His Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei was translated into English (Handbook of the History of Painting, London 1842, and many revised English editions to 1911), and also his Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen (Life of Frederick the Great,London, 1844 and subsequent English editions). The accompanying atlas of illustrations to his Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, the only work not translated, was published in English in New York in the 1880s.

22) Several papers published in Journal des Savants,1836 – 37.

23) Raoul-Rochette, several articles in Journal des Savants 1836-37; Peintures antiques inédites, 1836;Lettres archéologiques, 1840. Letronne, Appendice aux lettres d'un antiquaire à un artiste, 1837. For the personal attacks see Van Zanten, The Architectural Polychromy, thesis, 35.

24) The Elgin marbles refers to the classical Greek sculptures removed from the Parthenon, the Propylaea,and the Erechtheum at the Athens Acropolis by Thomas Bruce (1766 – 1841), the 7th Earl of Elgin,between 1801 and 1812 and brought back to Great Britain.

25) Kruft, A History of Architectural Theory, 278. Van Zanten, The Architectural Polychromy, 11. Van Zanten further explains that for many young French architects(pensionnaires at the école fran?aise d'Athènes [French School at Athens]) polychromy was not "rule-bound and fixed, but merely the extension of graffiti [i.e.immediate and changing] and the attachment of actual objects." ("The painted decoration of the Parthenon,"271.)

26) Semper once poignantly pointed to the "novelty of monochromy" that only began with Brunelleschi and Michelangelo, leading to "hybrid creations born of modern tail-coats and Antiquity." (Vorl?ufige Bemerkungen, 16). Attacking contemporary Classicism, he perceived it as "barbaric that the monuments should have become monochrome."("Die Monumente sind durch Barbarei monochrom geworden" [Ibid., 20]).

27) The Greek architect Panagis Kalkos (1818-75) for example, received a scholarship by King Otto to study in Munich.

[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 – 1886). A History of Architecture in all Countries from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: 1865 – 1867. Here, rev. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. London: 1893.

Bibliography

1. Adam, Robert (1728 – 1792). Ruins of the Palace of the Emperor Diocletian at Spalatro in Dalmatia.London: 1764.

2. Clérisseau, Charles-Louis (1721 – 1820). Antiquités de la France, prèmiere partie: monumens de Nismes.Paris: 1778.

3. Cockerell, Charles Robert (1788 – 1863). The Temples of Jupiter Panhellenius at Aegina and of Apollo Epicurus Bassae near Phigalaia in Arcadia.London: 1860.

4. Dumont, Gabriel-Pierre-Martin (1720 – 1791).Suite de plans, coupes, profils, élévations géométrales et perspectives de trois temples antiques, tels qu'ils existaient en 1750 dans la bourgade de Poesto, qui est la ville Poestum de Pline [...] ils ont été mesurés et dessinés par J.-G. Soufflot [...] en 1750. Paris: 1764.

5. Hittorff, Jakob Ignaz (1792 – 1867). Restitution du temple d'Empédocle à Sélinonte, ou l'architecture polychr?me chez les Grecs. Paris: 1851.

6. Hittorff, Jakob Ignaz (1792 – 1867). De l' architecture polychr?me chez les Grecs. "Annali dell' instituto di correspondenza archeologica 2 (1830): 263-84.Republished ("De l'architecture polychr?me chez les Grecs et restitution complète du temple d'Empédocle dans l'acropole de Sélinonte") in Journal de la Société Libre des Beaux-Arts 1 (1830 – 1831): 188-55.

7. Hittorff, Jakob Ignaz (1792 – 1867). Architecture moderne de la Sicile, ou recueil des plus beaux monuments religieux et des édifices publics et particuliers les plus remarquables des principales villes de la Sicile. 18 instalments. Paris: 1826 – 1835.

8. Hittorff, Jakob Ignaz (1792 – 1867). Architecture antique de la Sicile, ou recueil des plus intéressants monu- ments d'architecture des villes et des lieux les plus remarquables de la Sicile. 8 instalments. Paris:1827 – 1830.

9. von Klenze, Leo. Der Tempel des Olympsischen Jupiter von Agrigent. Stuttgart: 1821, revised 1827.

10. Kugler, Franz (1808 – 1858). Handbuch der Geschichte der Malerei von Constantin dem Grossen bis auf die neuere Zeit. Berlin: 1837. Translated into English,Handbook of the History of Painting. London: 1842.

11. Kugler, Franz (1808 – 1858). Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte. Stuttgart: 1842.

12. Kugler, Franz (1808 – 1858). Geschichte Friedrichs des Grossen. Leipzig, 1840. Translated into English,Life of Frederick the Great. London: 1844.

13. Letronne, Jean Antoine (1787 – 1848). Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de l'égypte,étudiées dans leur rapport avec l'histoire politique,l'administration intérieure, les institutions civiles et réligieuses de ce pays depuis la conquête d'Alexandre jusqu'à celle des Arabes. 2 vols. Paris: 1842 and 1848.

14. Letronne, Jean Antoine (1787 – 1848). Lettres d'un antiquaire à un artiste sur l'emploi de la peinture historique murale dans la décoration des temples et des autres édifices publics et particuliers chez les Grecs et les Romains. Paris: 1835.

15. Letronne, Jean Antoine (1787 – 1848). Appendice aux lettres d'un antiquaire à un artiste sur l'emploi de la peinture historique murale dans la décoration des temples et des autres édifices publics ou particuliers.Paris: 1837.

16. Piranesi, Giovanni Battista (1720 – 1778). Prima parte di architetture e prospettive inventate ed incise da Giovanni Batta Piranesi architetto veneziano. Rome:1743.

17. Piranesi, Giovanni Battista (1720 – 1778). Varie vedute di Roma antica e moderna. Rome: 1745.

18. Quatremère de Quincy, Antoine – Chrys?stome(1755 – 1849). Le Jupiter olympien: l'art de la sculpture antique considéré sous un nouveau point de vue. Paris: 1815.

19. Quatremère de Quincy, Antoine – Chrys?stome(1755 – 1849). Dictionnaire historique de l'architecture. 2 vols. Paris: 1789 and 1832.

20. Rochette, Desiré-Raoul (1790 – 1854). "De la peinture sur mur chez les anciens." Journal des Savants(June 1833): 361 – 71.

21. Rochette, Desiré-Raoul (1790 – 1854). Monuments inédits d'antiquité figurée grecque, étrusque et romaine, recueillis pendant un voyage en Italie et en Sicile, dans les années 1826 et 1827. 2 vol. Paris: 1828,1833.

22. Rochette, Desiré-Raoul (1790 – 1854). Peintures antiques inédites précédées de recherches sur l'emploi de la peintures dans la décoration des édifices sacrés et publics chez les Grecs et les Romains, faisant suite aux monuments inédits. Paris: 1836.

23. Rochette, Desiré-Raoul (1790 – 1854). Lettres archéologiques sur la peinture des Grecs. Paris: 1840.

24. Semper, Gottfried (1803 – 1879). Vorl?ufige Bemerkungen über bemalte Architektur und Plastik bei den Alten. Altona: 1834.

25. Semper, Gottfried (1803 – 1879). Die Anwendung der Farben in der Architektur und Plastik. Berlin: 1834 –1836.

26. Semper, Gottfried (1803 – 1879). Vier Element der Baukunst. Braunschweig: 1851.

27. Semper, Gottfried (1803 – 1879). Kleine Schriften.Berlin und Stuttgart: 1884.

28. Stuart, James (1713 – 1788) and Nicholas Revett(1721 – 1804). Antiquities of Athens. 4 vols. London:1762, 1787, 1784, 1816.

29. Winckelmann, Johann Joachim (1717 – 1768).Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst. Dresden/Leipzig: 1755.

30. Winckelmann, Johann Joachim (1717 – 1768).Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums. Dresden: 1764.2nd edition 1776.

31. Espagne, Michel, Bénédicte Savoy, and Céline Trautmann-Waller. Franz Theodor Kugler: Deutscher Kunsthistoriker und Berliner Dichter. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2010.

32. Heck, Kilian. "Die Bezüglichkeit der Kunst zum Leben: Franz Kugler und das erste akademische Lehrprogramm der Kunstgeschichte." Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft 32 (2005): 7 – 15.

33. Karge, Henrik. "Projecting the future in German art historiography of the nineteenth century: Franz Kugler, Karl Schnaase, and Gottfried Semper." Journal of Art Historiography 9 (2013): 1 – 26.

34. Schneider, Donald David. The Works and Doctrine of Jacques Ignace Hittorff 1792 – 1867. 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1977.

35. Schneider, Réné. Quatremère de Quincy et son intervention dans les arts (1780 – 1830). Paris: 1910.36. Wallraf-Richartz Museum. Jakob Ignaz Hittorff.Ein Architekt aus K?ln im Paris des 19. Jahrhunderts.Cologne: Locher, 1987.

Repainting Antiquity: The 19th-century Architectural Polychromy Debate Seen through "German" Eyes: Hittorff, Semper, Kugler and Their Generation (2)

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 conf l icting 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 Hittorff, Gottfried Semper, Franz Kugler,Johann Joachim Winckelmann, James Fergusson

國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金資助項(xiàng)目（批準(zhǔn)號(hào)：51678325）

清華大學(xué)自主科研計(jì)劃（批準(zhǔn)號(hào)：20151080466）

清華大學(xué)建筑學(xué)院

2017-08-18