Engineer and Architect's Journal considered this adjective inappropriate. It asserted that "[a]n 'hypoethral' temple does not mean one without any roof at all... but only that peculiar kind of temple in which the cella was left partly uncovered"—the monument has no cella. The Athenaeum called it "not only hypaethral, but hypaethral in issimo—and after the most extraordinary fashion", and remarked, "Possibly it was at first intended that there should be a roof, but in order to save expense, it was afterwards thought that such covering might be dispensed with". According to the council, the monument was indeed originally intended to have a roof and interior walls but these were never built due to a lack of funding. However, The Chronicle has reported that this is a myth and a roof was never planned. Reception and impact 19th century Before its completion, the Carlisle Journal said Penshaw Monument would be "one of England's proudest architectural wonders, and a fitting memorial of one of its wisest statesmen". However, its design initially met with a hostile response in architectural circles: in 1844 The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal called it "as arrant a piece of 'nonsense architecture' as can well be imagined" and derisively compared it to a cattle pound. The Art Union was similarly scathing: it was critical of the idea of a Greek temple, which it said "does not bespeak much of either invention or judgement". It concluded: "To us it appears to be one of the most absurd, ill-imagined, and ill-contrived things ever devised, utterly devoid of significancy, purpose, or meaning." The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal termed the presence of pediments despite the absence of a roof a "gross and palpable violation of meaning and common sense". The Athenaeum was similarly critical of the roofless pediments—"the building will look as if there had originally been a roof to it, which had fallen in!"—and expressed disapproval of the lack of cella and inner walls, writing that the architects had "cut the Gordian knot" by omitting them. The decision to make the walls and columns hollow was condemned by The Athenaeum, which called the structure "nearly as much a sham, as if it were composed of cast iron coloured in imitation of stone" and said it "may be intended as characteristic... of an age which estimates plausible appearances above solid worth". The Art Union agreed: the hollowness of the columns, it