Glitch with Moultrie's triglyphsARCHITECTURE By Robert Behre (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Monday, July 28, 2008
 To many people, the stone base of the Maj. Gen. William Moultrie statue at White Point Garden looks fine, a handsome support for the bronze likeness of the Revolutionary War hero. But to the city's architecturally literate, it has a glyph glitch that should not stand, lest the city's reputation as a keeper of the classical flame get snuffed out. Essentially, the 14-foot stone base's triglyphs — a relatively common classical ornamentation involving three bars — is upside down. 
Robert Behre The triglyphs on the stone base of the Moultrie statue in White Point Garden are upside down, and some say it should be corrected. To John Liberatos of the Committee to Save the City, the mistake needs to be addressed. "It is rather embarrassing for the city, I would say. People who do study architecture would pick it up right away," he says. Liberatos, whose business is real estate, noticed something didn't look right when the base was installed last year, but he needed to consult his brother, Christopher Liberatos, to find out exactly what. Christopher, who then lived in New York, designed the pedestal. He now also works in downtown Charleston, having opened a branch here for the traditional architecture firm Fairfax & Sammons. "I immediately recognized the triglyphs were upside down," he says, adding that he wrote to the statue committee pointing out the flaw. Triglyphs can be found on many Charleston landmarks, including St. Michael's Episcopal Church, Market Hall and the South Carolina Society Hall. In most cases, they are shaped like an elongated "E" that has its three prongs pointed down, though some look like three parallel bars with the bar across the bottom as visible as the one across the top. It's not a random decorative element, though few people probably understand where it came from. Yale Art History professor George Hersey postulated that its origins — like those of many classical details — date back to altars or tables spread with animal sacrifices. In his book "The Lost Meaning of Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi," Hersey noted, "Homer habitually refers to sacrifices as the offering of thighs and so let us note that the three uprights in a triglyph are called by this name. The same is true in Latin: femores. Since 'glyph' means something carved or chopped off, a tri-glyph is or can be a thighbone chopped into three." Another feature known as guttae — which resemble small beads under the triglyphs — can be seen as "drops draining from the thighbones," Hersey wrote. Many architects even might not know of this story, but as Hersey noted, "the essential device of three upright bones wrapped top and bottom with strands of dripping fat is clearly readable." It's unclear exactly how much trouble it will be to correct Moultrie's base. Matt Compton of the city's Parks Department, which now owns the monument, says the city is aware of the flaw and is awaiting more information from the volunteer group that created the monument. Compton says he hopes there's a relatively easy way to remove the bronze statue of Moultrie, then remove a few of the pedestal's granite chunks and flip over the one with the triglyphs, the main decorative feature on the base. John Liberatos is one of a growing number who want to see it fixed. "One hundred and fifty years ago, it never would have been done incorrectly. It would have been common knowledge," he says. "It's a matter of pride. We should be doing things the correct way." Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or by fax at 937-5579. His e-mail address is rbehre@postandcourier.com, and his mailing address is 134 Columbus St., Charleston, SC 29403. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 25 comment(s)
Posted by 512c on July 28, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Would that we had real symbols of our own age to refer to heroes today.
Posted by MSC on July 28, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A couple hundred tourist with their gum could hide it.
Posted by Perspective on July 28, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"George Hersey postulated" as to its origins. That means no one really knows and he is guessing.
Is the base going to fail and the General go falling into the street? No.
It is only the base. The statute is made of bronze and is what is important. If his head was on backwards a change would be in order.
Posted by yeayea on July 28, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"we have just got to change these curtains!!!"
let it go no one knew until you decided to tell. anyway that makes the statue base unique. haha
Posted by Charles_Town on July 28, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If we paid for it, get it redone correctly, free of charge. How many people would accept a mistake on something they paid for?
Posted by kerwin1959 on July 28, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My question is, who installed the base of the statue? Hard to believe it didn't have a "this end up" sign on it! :) Oops, I forgot, illegals don't read or speak English! That's what happened!!
Regardless, it does need to be corrected. Since the "City" Parks Department owns it, and the Committee to Save the "City" is advising, we wouldn't want this "glitch" to reflect poorly on the King of the "City" of Charleston(Mayor Riley), would we?
Posted by Roger1978 on July 28, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If it is a mistake on the part of the manufacturer then they should fix it for free. Otherwise, how long did it take these "architecturally literate" people to notice the mistake??
Posted by Neponset on July 28, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not sure what is wrong, is it the little horizontal strip at the bottom, lets call it the plinth, should it be at the top, lets call it the capital? Looking at the photo looks like this section is over hanging the lower section on the left - perhaps it is not centered up or is too large for the lower section..
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 28, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The provided photo is not of sufficient detail to see the problem. It might be that Mr. Liberatos, as the designer, recognizes the upside-down stone, but it is not a glaring error - if there even is one. A triglyph has no orientation, because it has symmetry. That means that it should look the same no matter if the top is on the bottom or right-side up. The guttae, as Mr. Behre points out, should be below the triglyph, and indeed they are. A tempest in a teapot, in my opinion.
As for the origin, Professor Hersey's postulation is interesting. I was taught that it was a holdover in design, from the original Greek temples that were built out of wood. The triglyphs represented the exposed ends of wooden beams that supported the roof, thereby representing the strength and stability (carved in stone) of the older, more trusted methods of construction. The guttae underneath would be the wooden pegs that hold the timbers in place. The Roman architect-writer Vitruvius initiated this interpretation as (what we now call) the petrification doctrine - wooden designs being imitated in stone.
John Ruskin would have likely agreed with this interpretation, as the internal structure of the building is revealed to the viewer via architectural design; the would be his "Lamp of Truth" that great architecture exhibits. I'm not disagreeing with the sacrifice interpretation - the three-legged ritual tripods is simply a newer idea, and I hadn't heard it before.
Posted by Neponset on July 28, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let..
I disagree, this section does not have vertical symmetry. At the bottom there is a common plinth for each set of three columns, but at the top there is not a common capital for each set of three columns
If you turned this block up side down it would look different.
Posted by Neponset on July 28, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is ironic that today we replicate in wood what earlier builders built in stone to replicate what even earler builders built in wood.
Posted by jewing on July 28, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Letstakeawalk is onto it, regardless of what Hersey says (it seems he might have taken his predecessor Vincent Scully's anthropomorphic attributes a bit too seriously). At any rate, if the triglyphs are supposedly upside down, we may wish to consider it examine it as an interesting quirk, similar to the rump of Gen. Washington's horse in the famous Trumbull paintings.
As we know, classical forms epitomize the European sense of order, and the pedestal is their bulwark. We also are aware that Gen. Moultrie's victory at Sullivan's Island was one of the first major defeats that eventually led to Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown. Upon surrender, the redcoats played "The World Turned Upside Down." Even in the smaller scale of Sullivan's Island alone, our ragtag band of patriots in their improvised palmetto fort sent the Royal Navy, the strongest force of European power and order, reeling. They did not need a fort modeled on the great neo-classical defenses of the Italian Renaissance to do the job.
Perhaps as a reflection of these many inversions of European order, the reversed triglyph is actually quite appropriate. General Moultrie and all his revolutionary compatriots most certainly inverted classical order at Sullivan's Island, and we are all to benefit.
Once again, we are left with the self-appointed messiahs of the urban fabric (aka CTSTC) taking themselves a bit too seriously. Perhaps they should lighten up while gaining a broader sense of historical and architectural perspective before pronouncing their supposedly esteemed opinions.
Posted by OneOpinion on July 28, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The thingamaboob is upside down??? Oh my!
(Cough) Who cares (cough).
Posted by draftdot on July 28, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem as constructed is obvious; The architrave (the smooth stone @ the bottom of the photo) visually bleeds into the metope (the smooth stone areas between the triglyphs).
Flip the 'triglyph/metope block'(also known as the frieze) and you've got the visual transition-the shadow line, you need (that also cleans up the problem, as is, of the extra bulk at the bottom of the cornice.
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 28, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@ Jewing
"Perhaps as a reflection of these many inversions of European order, the reversed triglyph is actually quite appropriate. General Moultrie and all his revolutionary compatriots most certainly inverted classical order at Sullivan's Island, and we are all to benefit."
An excellent observation; I couldn't agree more.
Thanks Neponset and draftdot for pointing out what I couldn't see. The image on my monitor is of poor quality, and I didn't have time to go down to White Point and look closely for myself.
Posted by Neponset on July 28, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not understand all that has been said above, but will give my layman's summary:
The contractor did a poor job in that the blocks were not properly aligned and one block is upside down. Rework is appropriate and if the blocks are damaged during dissassembly, should be replaced - all at no cost to the customer
Posted by rollo on July 28, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This job was probably supervised by the City. 6 men parked on the sidewalk in an air conditioned "Crew-Cab" reading old Playboy mags.
Typical, and it'll cost taxpayers a pile of money to get it right.
Posted by rollo on July 28, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When you see it right side up, you'll understand.
Posted by rollo on July 28, 2008 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like a 'slow news' day. ;-)
Posted by rsammons on July 29, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
On Triglyphs:
Professer Hersey's explaination of the origin of the triglyph is at odds with the Vitruvian text (and was, I'm sure, to be provocative). The triglyph is nothing more than three chamfered boards protecting the end grain of a cross beam. Three board because one that wide would cup. Chamfering is not just decorative but keeps the corners from spliting and raising. The gutte are the ends of pegs or treenails which locate the beam and tie it to the tenea, or bearing plate. These details reflect the original wood construction of the roof structure, usually set upon walls of mud brick or rubble masonry, and later reflected in stone construction. The Greeks viewed architecture as the sculptural repesentation of a building.
Posted by Neponset on July 29, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Triglyph is an architectural term for the vertically channeled tablets of the Doric frieze, so called because of the angular channels in them, two perfect and one divided, the two chamfered angles or hemiglyphs being reckoned as one. The square recessed spaces between the triglyphs on a Doric frieze are called metopes.
The triglyph is largely thought to be a tectonic representation in stone of the wooden beam ends of the typical primitive hut, as described by Vitruvius and other Classical and Renaissance writers. The wooden beams were notched in three separate places in order to cast their rough-cut ends mostly in shadow. Greek architecture (and later Roman architecture) preserved this feature, as well as many other features common in original wooden buildings, as a tribute to the origins of architecture and its role in the history and development of man.
In terms of structure, a triglyph may be carved from a single block with a metope, or the triglyph block may have slots cut into it to allow a separately cut metope (in stone or wood) to be slid into place, as at the Temple of Aphaea. There may be some variation in design within a single structure to allow for corner contraction, an adjustment of the column spacing and arrangement of the Doric frieze in a temple to make the design appear more harmonious.
Posted by Neponset on July 29, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry that I didn't provide credits for my last post - it came from Wikipdia and I suspect some of the above posts came from similar internet sources.
Posted by letstakeawalk on July 29, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some of us simply studied these things in school, and can talk about them without having to resort to quoting sources. What may be arcane to some is inevitibly common knowledge to others...
I would certainly suggest Ruskin's "Seven Lamps of Architecture" as recommended reading for those who want to discuss what should or shouldn't be done regarding Charleston's architectural fabric.
I also like Kunstler's "The Geography of Nowhere" for those contemplating the region's growth and development.
;p
Posted by Neponset on July 29, 2008 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
let
We like to shoot from the hip - don't have time for research.
Posted by Neponset on July 29, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
let
I was just being a little flippant in my last post. I find classic architecture interesting and will try to find these books - thanks.