Project Gutenberg's Problems in Periclean Buildings, by G. W. Elderkin This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Problems in Periclean Buildings Author: G. W. Elderkin Release Date: August 24, 2011 [EBook #37197] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROBLEMS IN PERICLEAN BUILDINGS *** Produced by Chuck Greif, Broward County Library, Stephen Rowland and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net PROBLEMS IN PERICLEAN BUILDINGS PRINCETON MONOGRAPHS IN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY II PROBLEMS IN PERICLEAN BUILDINGS BY G. W. ELDERKIN, Ph.D. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PRECEPTOR IN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON LONDON: HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1912 Copyright, 1912, by Princeton University Press for the United States of America. —— Printed by Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., U. S. A. CONTENTS I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IRREGULARITY OF THE PROPYLAEA 1 II. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CARYATID PORCH 13 III. THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT 19 IV. THE ERECHTHEUM AS PLANNED 49 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. EAST WINDOW OF THE PINAKOTHEKE. 2. THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM THE BASE OF THE BASTION OF THE TEMPLE OF WINGLESS VICTORY. 3. THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM A POINT NEAR THE AXIS OF THE CENTRAL PORTAL. 4. PLAN OF PROPYLAEA WITH ZIGZAG ROAD OF ASCENT. 5. SCENE ON AN ARCHAIC AMPHORA. 6. NORTH END OF WESTERN INTERIOR FOUNDATION OF THE ERECHTHEUM. VIEW FROM THE EAST. 7. THE GROUND PLAN OF THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT. 8. THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DOOR IN THE WEST WALL. 9. NORTH WALL AT PLACE OF CONTACT WITH THE EASTERN CROSS-WALL. 10. THE CUTTING IN THE MARBLE BLOCK AT THE N. E. CORNER OF THE EASTERN CELLA BELOW THE SUPPOSED FLOOR-LEVEL. 11. THE INTERIOR N. W. CORNER OF THE TEMPLE. 12. THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE ERECHTHEUM. I THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IRREGULARITY OF THE PROPYLAEA The irregular position of the door and the windows of the north-west wing of the Propylaea has long been remarked, though no explanations of the phenomenon have been offered. Bohn, Die Propylaeen der Akropolis zu Athen, p. 23, says of the south wall of this wing: "Die Wand welche die Halle von dem eigentlichen Gemach trennt, ist von einer Tür und zwei Fenstern durchbrochen. Erstere liegt jedoch nicht in der Mitte, die letzteren wiederum unsymmetrisch zu ihr. Irgend einen Grund, irgend eine axiale Beziehung zu den Säulen vermochte ich in dieser abweichenden Anordnung nicht zu finden." The east wall of the Erechtheum, on the other hand (A. J. A., 1906, Pl. 8), was pierced by a central door and two windows equidistant from it. That such symmetrical arrangement should obtain in the Erechtheum and not in the closely contemporary Propylaea very justly occasions surprise. It is the purpose of this study to attempt to explain the irregularity in the latter. The first fact to be observed with regard to the façade of the Pinakotheke is concisely stated by Bohn (op. cit., p. 23): "Die Stellung der Säulen bestimmt sich dadurch dass die Tangente an die Westseite der östlichsten genau in die entsprechende Flucht der Hexastylstützen fällt." The position of the anta at the eastern end of the lesser colonnade is also fixed by the requirement that it stand directly beneath a triglyph. This anta in turn determined the position of the eastern window, for the west face of the anta and the window are equidistant from the east wall of the Pinakotheke (Fig. 1). The coincidence can hardly be accidental. If the position of the eastern window was thus determined by considerations of appearance from a well-defined exterior point of view, it is probable that the position of the other two openings in the wall was similarly determined by a point or points somewhere in the line of approach to the building rather than by any consideration for objects within the Pinakotheke. Such a point is readily found at the base of the Nike bastion, from which both windows and door are simultaneously visible between the columns (Fig. 2). The western window appears at the extreme left of the intercolumniation; the eastern, at the extreme right. If the observer advance from this point toward the Pinakotheke, the windows remain constantly in sight but appear to move more and more toward the middle of the intercolumniations (Fig. 3). Along no other line outside the portico can the three openings be viewed thus simultaneously. Along the line noted, they may be viewed not only simultaneously but in such mutual relation as to give a necessarily varying yet satisfying appearance of symmetry. The facts point to two almost unavoidable inferences: first, that the line of these points determines for us the position of the last stretch of the zigzag road which led up to the Acropolis; second, that the asymmetrical placing of door and windows was due to the architect's desire that the façade should produce a complete and unified impression upon the approaching observer. This wish of the architect, further, explains the unusual depth of the portico of the Pinakotheke. As has already been stated, the position of the east window was fixed by the anta before it. Such being the case, the depth of the portico was necessarily conditioned by the visibility of the window from the bastion of the Nike temple. Had the wall been moved forward, the window would in greater or less degree have been concealed by a column, and the architect's purpose in so far defeated. In view of the unusual depth of the portico the effect of moving the wall still further back scarcely requires consideration. Figure 1 View of the east window of the Pinakotheke showing its relation to the east anta of the portico If the last stretch of the zigzag road has been correctly determined, the next stretch below must have reached from the Nike bastion to a point below the pedestal of the monument to Agrippa. This pedestal, in turn, affords important evidence confirming the theory that such was the course of the road. The monument to Agrippa was erected in 27 B.C., that is, before the Greek way was replaced by the Roman steps in the first century A.D. (Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 199, note). Its peculiar orientation has never been explained, but now, in view of the preceding analysis, is easily explicable. From the bend in the road at the base of the bastion, the equestrian statue, which surmounted the high pedestal, was seen in exact profile. This is proved by a glance at the plan (Fig. 4) in which the axis of the road and the N-S axis of the pedestal converge at the base of the bastion. From the turn in the road just below the pedestal, the inscription on its west face could be easily read. But from the conjectured road which is drawn in Judeich, op. cit., Plan II, it was impossible for a person to read easily the inscription or see the equestrian group in exact profile. Thus it seems beyond question that the pedestal of the monument was oriented with reference to the ancient Greek roadway, the first clue to which is given by the peculiar arrangement of the door and windows of the Pinakotheke. The road thus determined possesses the signal advantage over the other that it permitted an impressive view through the great portal and an impressive approach to it from directly in front. The simultaneous visibility of door and windows from the normal line of approach is a hitherto unobserved feature of Periclean building which is again happily illustrated in the closely contemporary Erechtheum. The certain restoration by Stevens (A. J. A., 1906, Pl. 9) of the east wall of this temple, shows that the door and windows were so placed as to be simultaneously visible from points in the axis of the door (Fig. 7). At a distance of about 10 m. from the stylobate, the windows appeared in the middle of the intercolumniations.[1] The level ground in front of the façade made possible an approach from straight in front. In order that the windows might be simultaneously visible, they were crowded close to the door—a fact which probably compelled the architect to use a bronze-plated door frame instead of a stone one such as he used in the north door. The former permitted longer wall blocks between the door and window than the latter would have allowed. In the case of the Propylaea, the approach was by a zigzag road up a steep grade. The last stretch of this road was oblique to the N-S axis of the Pinakotheke. If the façade was to be viewed from that last stretch of the zigzag road, an asymmetric arrangement of door and windows was absolutely necessary. The windows and door had to be moved to the right of their normal position. The east façade of the Erechtheum and the Pinakotheke both illustrate the same law that door and windows behind a colonnade shall be simultaneously visible from before the colonnade. In the east façade of the Erechtheum, however, this law is observed in a perfectly normal arrangement; in the Pinakotheke, observance of the general law necessitated an abnormal arrangement of the openings. Yet an insurmountable difficulty in the way of complete observance of the law lay in the necessity for considering the demands of two widely separated points of view, one in the line of approach to the Propylaea, the other within the portico. A glance at the plan of the Propylaea (Fig. 4) shows that lines drawn from the axis of the straight roadway at its lower end to the door jambs of the Pinakotheke cut two columns unequally. The line to the left side of the door is tangent to one column, the line to the right side cuts deeply into the other. If the door had been placed with reference solely to the view from the last stretch of the zigzag road, it ought to stand farther to the west. That it does not so stand must be due to the fact that the architect sought likewise to provide for the view of the observer who approached the Pinakotheke from behind the hexastyle. It is necessary to emphasize the fact that the passage back of the hexastyle was the normal means of access to the Pinakotheke. The position of the east window in the middle of its wall space would be quickly, if unconsciously felt by the observer, with the result that the asymmetry of the wall as a whole would not be noticed. Had the normal access to the wing been from directly in front, between the first and second columns (counting from the east), the fact that the windows were not equidistant from the door would have been readily recognized, but, as it is, the observer who entered the portico in the regular way at the east end saw directly in front of him a wall space pierced by a centrally placed window. If the door had been placed farther west, this advantage would have been lost. If the zigzag approach we have indicated be correct, it follows that the Pinakotheke was designed also for an observer who stood at the beginning of the straight road through the portal, where it would have produced a unified effect with the general structure. Figure 2 Figure 3 The Pinakotheke as seen from the base of the Nike bastion. At left, the pedestal of the monument to Agrippa The Pinakotheke as seen from a point near the axis of the roadway through the Propylaea It will be readily seen that if the S.W. wing, which was never completed, had been built as an exact counterpart of the N.W. wing, the three parts would have been designed to be seen from a common point at the beginning of the straight road through the portal, and the structure though tripartite would have been a symmetrical unit. Professor Dörpfeld (Ath. Mitt., 1885, p. 45 ff.) has shown that the architect planned at one time a south-west wing with a colonnade instead of a closed west wall, and that the present curtailed wing could have been incorporated in the wing as planned, if permission had ever been given to encroach upon adjacent sanctuaries. There is, of course, no gainsaying that a colonnade was at one time projected for the west side of the wing, but does this fact in any wise exclude the possibility of a still earlier plan? The only reason given by Prof. Dörpfeld for the colonnade is that access might be had to the Nike temple. But a closed wall in place of the colonnade would not have made the temple inaccessible so long as there remained at the north-west corner of the wing the steps which afforded a far more convenient approach to the temple for those coming up to the Acropolis. Indeed, it seems quite possible that the architect, Mnesicles, originally planned a south-west wing (Stuart & Revett, The Antiquities of Athens, II, V, Pl. III) exactly like the north-west wing, but that he was compelled to give it up, that his compromise of a colonnade was also rejected, and that he had to content himself with the curtailed form in which the wing now exists, but that he so placed the back wall of the chamber that it might ultimately be incorporated in a wing with a colonnade on the west side. There is, moreover, some reason to suspect that the architect was hostile to the idea of having a temple on the bastion. The Propylaea and the temple are obviously not features of a harmonious structural plan. The Propylaea as the crowning gateway of the acropolis demanded an unobstructed outlook toward the west. The presence of the little temple obstructs that outlook. When one learns that the senate voted the construction of the temple in, or shortly before, 446 B.C., (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ., 1897, p. 179), that is, at a time when we fairly assume that the Periclean building plans for the acropolis were about ready, he is justified in suspecting that a conservative religious party sought permanently to thwart the builders in their disregard of sanctuaries by placing a temple to Athena Nike on the bastion. That the opposition of the priesthood[2] checked completely the intention of Pericles and his architects is shown by the fact that foundations were never laid for the walls which would have stood either in the precinct of Artemis Brauronia, or in that of Athena Nike. The most suggestive chapter in the struggle between priest and architect is the last. When the architect was forced to abandon the idea of building a colonnade, he hoped that he could extend the south wall of the wing 30 cm. west of its present position so as to align it with the third column of the north colonnade. The evidence for this is the poros blocks under the floor of the wing which project just far enough west to have supported a pavement of marble slabs terminating at the western side of the column (see the photograph in Jb. Arch. Inst., 1906, p. 139). These blocks were never intended to serve as a step, for in that case marble would have been used. Had the pavement and anta reached 30 cm. farther, a pier of necessary diameter could have been erected between the anta and the third column of the north façade, and the architrave above the pier could then have been of the same width as that of the north colonnade. But even this slight concession was denied; the western line of the wing was forced back; a unique pier had to be built and a narrow architrave placed upon it (Bohn, op. cit., Taf. XVI). Even the poros blocks where they encroached on the precinct appear to have been hacked away. In the Propylaea itself, there survives some suggestion of the real attitude of the architect toward the Nike temple and its bastion. The crepidoma of the south-west wing terminates in an anta which was intended to stand free (Arch. Zeit., 1880, p. 86; Jb. Arch. Inst., 1906, p. 136, fig. 3): "Dass dieser Pfeiler in Form einer Anta gebildet ist, d.h. nach Nord und Süd um ein wenig vorspringt, beweist dass hier ursprünglich ein selbständiger Abschluss geplant war, genau wie an der Nordhalle." The objection of Wolters (Bonner Studien, p. 95) does not invalidate Bohn's conclusion. The former assumes that the blocks for the two corresponding antae were ordered by the architect without his specifying for which anta the several blocks were intended. Since the blocks are of different height, it seems safe to infer that the stone-cutter knew exactly the place of each. Another important fact is that the anta in question inclines 3 cm. to the west. Dörpfeld who publishes this valuable observation in Ath. Mitt., 1911, p. 55, says: "Für das Ende einer Mauer ist ein Überneigen des oberen Teiles nach aussen ganz unerhört. Wir dürfen also mit Sicherheit behaupten dass die beiden Seitenwände des Vorplatzes der Propyläen nicht beendet sind, sondern nach dem Plane des Mnesikles weiter nach Westen als Marmorwände mit mindestens je einer zweiten Ante fortgeführt werden sollten. Im Süden sollten die beiden Parastaden augenscheinlich die Treppe zum Nike-Tempel einfassen, im Norden sollten sie vermutlich eine Tür bilden, die zu dem westlich von der Pinakothek befindlichen tief liegenden Raume führte." The inference from Professor Dörpfeld's important observation is that the anta was intended to carry a lintel or an architrave reaching west. The question is just how much of the bastion was to be removed to make room for this extension. The readiness of the architect to encroach upon the precinct of the temple warrants the answer that the whole bastion was to be removed. The anta, as Bohn says, was built to stand free like its counterpart at the N.W. wing. The character of the extension remains a matter of conjecture. Perhaps a colonnade was contemplated. But if this is true, the question arises how does it happen that the bastion of the temple, which certainly antedates the Propylaea, has a north wall aligned with that of the S.W. wing of the Propylaea. The coincidence must be the result of deliberate plan and is best explained by the supposition that when the bastion was built, the ground plan of the Propylaea and its position were already known. The north wall of the bastion could therefore be built in line with that of the wing. The continuation of the north wall of the bastion was broken away when work on the Propylaea was begun. Neither Pericles nor Mnesicles gave consent to the erection of the Temple of Wingless Victory. In the leaning anta which was built to stand free one reads their buried hope that the Propylaea might enjoy a finely impressive command of the whole region west of the acropolis, a command unannoyed by the hostile lines of the structurally insignificant temple of Victory. Figure 4 Plan of the Propylaea showing the zigzag road, the conjectured road (in dotted lines), and the original form of the S.W. wing II THE CARYATID PORCH OF THE ERECHTHEUM Not the least remarkable feature of the Erechtheum is the Caryatid Porch, which is generally regarded as a creation of the artist's fancy and of no further significance. In the present study an attempt will be made to prove that the maidens serve not only a structural and artistic purpose, but that they also bear a relation in thought to the cult of the temple, notwithstanding the fact that the female figure had been employed by earlier architects merely as a support. If the subject of the frieze of the Erechtheum, like that of the approximately contemporary Parthenon, was appropriately drawn from the life and worship of the gods of the temple, it is possible that the sculptured maidens of the unique Caryatid Porch also bear a logical relation to the cult of the temple. In the first place it may be observed that the entrance to the Erechtheum at the Caryatid Porch corresponds in position closely to the south entrance of the Pre-Persian Erechtheum. The archaic pedimental sculpture of poros which is now in the Acropolis Museum (Wiegand, Porosarchitektur der Akropolis zu Athen, Taf. 14; Petersen, Die Burgtempel der Athenaia, p. 22, abb. 2) gives us a view of the early temple as seen from the south. Close to the west side of the temple, the sacred olive of Athena appears above a low wall, just as in a later period, it stood close to the west façade of the Erechtheum and appeared above the south wall of the Pandroseum. A precinct wall ran west from the south-west corner of both the earlier and later Erechtheum. Along this wall in the pedimental sculpture figures are passing toward the temple. They have come from the direction of the Propylaea. A procession moving from the Propylaea to the Caryatid Porch had exactly the background of the sculptured figures. The correspondence is complete when one notes that these figures are moving toward an entrance which answers to the later Caryatid Porch. A further point of value is that the female figures in the procession carried something on their heads, as is shown by their raised but broken left arms. The position of the larger one which was intended to be seen in front view is not certain because it was not attached to the wall like the smaller female figure. It stood probably in the portico and may have served as a Caryatid. Petersen (op. cit., p. 27) thinks these figures represent Arrephoroi rather than Canephoroi and his opinion is very reasonable. The Arrephoroi annually carried some mysterious object on their heads to the temple of Athena and Erechtheus. The procession including Arrephoroi moving toward an entrance which was the predecessor of the Caryatid Porch suggests an explanation of the fact that the latter porch was not for common use. A restricted use of the Caryatid Porch is a certain inference from the following facts. The opening at the north-east corner of the porch is narrow and the step up to it is twenty inches. If this means of access to the temple had been used by the public, the step would have been lower and convenient. Again, the delicate base mouldings of the building which run under this opening would have been worn if the opening had been frequently used (Frazer, Pausanias, II, p. 337). Frazer's conclusion is that the entrance was reserved for priests. This entrance like its predecessor was perhaps used by the Arrephoroi. If it was the entrance especially reserved for them, then the Caryatids may very appropriately be regarded as statues of Arrephoroi. They adorn their own porch. To such an identification the objection may be made that the Caryatids are fully developed forms whereas the Arrephoroi were girls between the ages of seven and eleven (Bekker, Anecdota Graeca, I. p. 202, s. v. ἀρρηφορεῖν) but a structural necessity for heavier, fuller forms justified the license of the architect. The Caryatids are called κόραι in the building inscriptions.[3] Figure 5 Procession of Arrephoroi. A scene on an archaic amphora Figure 5 Procession of Arrephoroi. A scene on an archaic amphora The interpretation of the Caryatids as Arrephoroi is confirmed by a scene (Fig. 5)[4] on an archaic amphora which also makes possible a better understanding of the Porch as a whole. The amphora which is now in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston is published by De Ridder in B. C. H., 1898, p. 467 and pl. VI, and by Caskey in Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin, Vol. VII (1909), No. 38. In the scene on the neck of this amphora appears a priestess followed by four maidens who bear upon their heads a long chest. De Ridder compares the four maidens with the Athenian Canephoroi. Certain suggestive points may be noted. The maidens are four in number. Ancient writers with the exception of Pausanias tell us that there were four Arrephoroi at Athens.[5] The front of the Caryatid Porch consists of four. Nor do comparisons stop here. The architrave which the Caryatids (Arrephoroi) carry may be compared with the long chest which the maidens bear on their heads, and the discs on the architrave with the discs which ornament the chest. The discs on the architrave are usually explained as a substitute for a frieze, but the logic of such substitution is quite unclear. They are simply the ornaments which decorated the mysterious burden of the Arrephoroi. The ceremony in the course of which the Arrephoroi carried the chest may have had to do with a cult of the heroized dead. Tradition has it that Erechtheus who was closely associated with Athena was buried in the Erechtheum. The discs on the box and on the dress of the bearers suggest those which were found in such numbers in the Mycenaean shaft-graves.[6] But whatever the character of the ceremony, it had to do with the cult which was housed in the Erechtheum. The amphora just referred to is a Boeotian fabric, but that fact does not nullify the importance of its bearing upon the problem in hand. The Boeotian potter may have appropriated the scene from an Athenian source. The comparative study of this amphora, the archaic pedimental sculpture and the Caryatid Porch seem to justify the following conclusions. The Caryatid Porch is a bold translation into marble of the Arrephoroi and the disc-covered chest they carried upon their heads to the joint temple of Athena and Erechtheus. The maidens are a particularly appropriate adornment of the porch which was reserved for their living prototypes. The corresponding entrance of the Pre-Persian joint temple was also used by the Arrephoroi and may have had Caryatids in place of columns. If so the later temple reproduced a feature of the earlier temple just as the equally unique sculptured drums of the earlier Artemisium at Ephesus were reproduced in its successor. In a word the Caryatid Porch is not an arbitrary creation but is related in thought to the cult of the temple. III THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT The present plan of the interior of the Erechtheum offers a number of difficulties. Those of a general character may be considered first. Within the cellae of Greek temples, the interior cross-wall is regularly at right angles to the axis of the main entrance and not parallel to that axis as in the west cella of the Erechtheum. The accepted plan of the cella compels an orientation east and west instead of north and south for its two chambers. The want of harmony in the proportions of the western chamber and the porch which admits to it is hardly to be expected of an architect of the fifth century. He might perhaps be justified by the theory that he labored under restrictions imposed by a complication of cults were it not for the fact that the contemporary architect of the Propylaea planned without regard to sanctuaries (cf. Furtwängler, Sitzb. Münch. Akad., 1904, 375). The feeling which the north porch creates is that it was intended to be the entrance to an interior of larger dimensions than those of the present plan. Difficulties of a specific nature are encountered when one endeavors to find in the plan certain details of the Chandler inscription (I. G., I, 322). A satisfactory parastas cannot be located. It was an interior wall of some sort. The word προστομιαῖον the official name of one of the chambers in the west cella has been derived from προστόμιον which is conjectured to have been the curb about the sacred well (Petersen, Die Burgtempel der Athenaia, p. 101). But one naturally asks why the room of the sacred well was not named from στόμιον. The φρέαρ (στόμιον) was the important object of cult in the room. It is the θάλασσα which is mentioned by Herodotus, and the φρέαρ by Pausanias, while nothing is heard about a well-curb. The natural interpretation of προστομιαῖον is the room in front of (πρό) the * στομιαῖον, i.e., the room of the στόμιον. Now the derivation of * στομιαῖον (which does not, to be sure, occur in extant records of the temple) from στόμιον is as simple as that of Πανδροσεῖον from Πάνδροσος. It is the entirely problematical προστόμιον which renders improbable the derivation from it of προστομιαῖον. There is another possible source of difficulty to be noticed. The inscription mentions four doors, 8¼ x 2½ feet, for which there is no place in the outside walls. These then must have been placed in the interior walls. According to the present plan which shows a closed wall between the shrines of Athena and Erechtheus these two double-doors must have been in the western cross-wall where they could hardly have admitted to a single room (Fowler and Wheeler, Greek Archaeology, p. 148, fig. 115). This obliges us to suppose a division of the middle chamber into two parts and thereby presents a difficulty to those who believe that the word διπλοῦν in the description of Pausanias refers to the entire western part of the Erechtheum. For the western cella would then consist of three instead of two chambers. Further difficulties of a serious nature are encountered when one attempts to fit the text of Pausanias to the present plan of the whole building (cf. Michaelis, Jb. Arch. Inst., 1902, p. 16 ff). This is what scholars have sought to do with very different and unsatisfactory results, so unsatisfactory that of late there is a tendency on the part of some to deny that any value is to be placed upon the sequence which Pausanias observes in his narrative. Those who believe that the description is something more than a loose statement of the contents of the temple are said to be making assumptions. But the description, taken by itself, seems to be a systematic account, and the burden of proof rests upon those who deny it. The denial is based upon the failure of the account to square with the accepted plan of the interior of the Erechtheum, but such basis is insecure because the interior of the temple has been so completely destroyed as not to permit an absolutely certain restoration by means of the evidence of the building alone. There is no sure warrant for saying in the case of this description that Pausanias has confused his notes. The traveler has been made to enter the Erechtheum through three different doors. His account, however, is simple and ought not to occasion difficulty. It suggests orderly progression. Before the entrance he found the altar of Zeus; on entering, three altars and the paintings of the Butadae; then in an inner (ἔνδον) room the well and trident-mark; thereafter follows the account of the objects in the cella of Athena. Then he passed to the Pandroseum. The order in this description is simple and natural, and the moment the theory is advanced of a postponement of certain objects for mention later in other connections, that moment the description ceases to be of value so far as the interior arrangement of the Erechtheum is concerned and the way is opened up to the disposition of the contents of the temple in accord with individual choice. The simplicity and naturalness of the description is the best guarantee of an orderly progression by Pausanias, and the only guide where the evidence of the building is insufficient. In his simple, straightforward account, Pausanias gives not the slightest indication that he left the Erechtheum until he entered the Pandroseum. The present plan of the temple in which east and west cella are separated by a closed wall, compels that assumption. Further, if Pausanias coming from the east entered the Erechtheum by the east door, one is compelled to place in the cella of Athena the altar of Poseidon- Erechtheus and the paintings of the Butadae, which did not demand a cella with an orientation east, and then to place the contents of the ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς including the xoanon in the western cella where they certainly did not belong; or else with Dörpfeld move the museum into the shadowy old Hekatompedon, thus depriving the goddess of all share in the Erechtheum except that the temple was named after her oldest image in the official inscription of the fifth century. But neglecting for the moment the objection that Pausanias gives no indication of having left the Erechtheum until he passed to the ναὸς Πανδρόσου, and granting besides that the old Hekatompedon was still standing, one quickly asks why Pausanias, who took things in order, passed by that temple when he approached from the east. Why did he not visit the cellae which lay at the higher level and then proceed to that at a lower level in the west part of the Erechtheum? The fact that the old temple stood a few paces farther west than the Erechtheum does not help one out of the difficulty. The simple and convenient order would have been: Hekatompedon, Erechtheum, temple or temenos of Pandrosus. But instead one has the unintelligible order illustrated in A. J. A., III (1899), p. 368. If, however, the majority of scholars are right in their belief that Pausanias entered first the west cella of the Erechtheum, then according to the present plan neither the well nor the trident-mark were ἔνδον because the former is placed in the room which is entered directly from the north and south porches (Michaelis, Jb. Arch. Inst., 1902, p. 16). Furtwängler (Masterpieces, p. 435) takes refuge in the theory that Pausanias, immediately after mentioning the altar of Zeus Hypatus before the entrance, adds the three others within the cella in order to get one of his favorite antitheses. The result is hopeless confusion. The three altars which Pausanias mentions as being in the first chamber, Furtwängler distributes in two chambers, neither of which is entered directly from either north or south porch, while in the first chamber Cecrops is established whom Pausanias does not mention. An attempt, which must be characterized as violent, has been made to fit the description of the traveller to the plan of the cella by the assumption (Frazer, Paus., II, 336) that both well and trident-mark were apparently reached from the inner chamber, a sight of the well being afforded to the curious through an opening at the foot of the staircase which led down from the inner chamber into the crypt (cf. Furtwängler, Sitzb. Mün. Akad., 1904, p. 372). But why make Pausanias descend a stairway, for which there is no evidence, to look at indentations in the rock which could be seen from the Porch? Frazer's reason that the passage through the foundation and beneath the floor was for those who wished to examine the indentations closely is exceedingly poor. One can examine the marks from the porch without crawling through the passage, the height of which (1.22 m.) shows that it was not intended to be an ordinary approach, as Michaelis (op. cit., p. 19) rightly observes. Petersen's explanation (op. cit., p. 102) that Pausanias postponed the mention of the trident-mark until he saw the φρέαρ inside the temple is simply another arbitrary violation of a clear statement by the traveler which gives every indication of orderly natural progression. Notice must be taken at this point of the hole through the floor of the porch close to the wall and at the left of the door. This hole opens into the passage. Nilson (J.H.S., 1901, p. 328) accepts the assertion made in the Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἐρεχθείου Ἐπιτροπῆς (1853) § 25 that the hole is modern, but since there is not the slightest trace of a scar made by a chisel on the surface of the adjacent block, it is certain that the hole was cut before the slab was set in place, i.e. it is part of the underground system at this place, but no attempt has been made to explain it. Yet another difficulty is found in the words διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστιν τὸ οἴκημα. After mentioning the altars and paintings in the first room, Pausanias passes to the second with the observation that the οἴκημα is double, to find there (ἔνδον) a well and the marks (σῆμα or σχῆμα) of the trident. In other passages in which Pausanias describes double buildings the natural interpretation is that the first chamber is in front, the front determined by the entrance of the second, because cross-walls in cellae are normally at right angles to the major axis. The north porch at once determines that axis in the west cella of the Erechtheum. In Paus. VI, 20. 3, the first chamber is noted with the words ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν, the second with ἐν τῷ ἐντός. According to the present plan the chambers of the οἴκημα Ἐρεχθείου are one in front of the other for a person only, who enters by the small door in the west wall. For one entering by either of the other doors, the chambers are side by side. A common objection to all theories about the Erechtheum is that they attribute an unintelligible order to the course taken by Pausanias. Those who think he entered the building by the north porch or the porch of the maidens are compelled to believe that he passed by an eastern entrance only to retrace his steps upstairs and enter later the cella of Athena, and that he then descended again to visit the Pandroseum. Those who believe that Pausanias saw the xoanon of Athena in the Hekatompedon are also compelled to make Pausanias double on his course and furthermore to strain the meaning of συνεχής. The Pandroseum, in which the ναὸς Πανδρόσου must have stood is in close connection with the Erechtheum, and not with the terrace of the Hekatompedon which lay higher and was separated still more by a wall which ran west from the porch of the maidens on the foundation for the peristyle of the old temple. Those who believe that a staircase connected the eastern with the lower western cella of the Erechtheum are at a loss to say why Pausanias did not enter the eastern shrine first, and after describing its contents descend to the western and lower cella, and then proceed to the Pandroseum. In short, the present plan of the Erechtheum will agree with the description of Pausanias cum mula peperit. The difficulties of the present plan both in the light of the Chandler inscription and the description by Pausanias induce one to believe that the interior of the Erechtheum has been wrongly restored and must therefore be reëxamined. A Roman foundation has obscured the truth in the temple, namely the foundation which is said to have supported the western of the two interior walls. This foundation, however, lies exactly below the heavy blocks which were inserted by the Romans as the epistyle of a row of piers or columns to support the roof and which served as the successor of the καμπύλη σελίς of Greek times (A. J. A., 1910, p. 291). The weathering on the north wall helps to establish the relation of the foundation to the inserted blocks. This foundation was later used for the wall of the narthex of the church into which the Erechtheum was converted, perhaps as early as the fifth century. The traces of the Greek walls, just east of the north and south doors, show however that, if they belong to a Greek wall which stood on the present foundation, that wall rested not squarely on the foundation but on the eastern side of it. The certain conclusion from these facts is that the foundation was not laid for the Greek wall, whatever the character of the latter may have been. The size of the inserted blocks proves that the Roman work was heavy and demanded a heavy foundation such as exists reaching down to the rock. The traces of the Greek wall however show that it reached up five courses above the orthostates while the presence of the καμπύλη σελίς above proves that this low wall was only a screen-wall and supported nothing. That the foundation is Roman is confirmed on examination of its character which presents a remarkable contrast with the Greek foundation of the west wall of the building. The bed for the Roman foundation was not carefully prepared; just south of the centre the unevenness of the underlying rock is distinctly noticeable. Quite different is the character of the Greek foundation. The rock was carefully cut to receive it. The courses are evenly laid, the interstices between the blocks small. Neither remark applies to the Roman foundation which is the poorest in the building. Finally, this foundation does not key into those for the north and south walls (Fig. 6). The south foundation appears to key into that for the interior wall, but on examination it will be seen that the poros block in question has been cut back by those who enlarged the cistern. This block originally projected in as far as the poros blocks in the same course but east of the interior wall. If the interior foundation had keyed into the foundations of the outside walls its Greek character would have been beyond question. Figure 6 View of N. end of W. interior foundation showing that it does not key into the foundation of the N. wall Figure 7 Plan of Erechtheum showing new interior arrangement. Dotted lines from A show simultaneous visibility of windows from the axis of the door The western cella of the Erechtheum was in all probability divided into two chambers by a wall running east and west (Fig. 7). The chief evidence in the building for this is that the west door of the Erechtheum does not stand in the middle of the wall, a peculiarity often remarked (Penrose, The Principles of Athenian Architecture, p. 88). The unusual position of a door under a column is structurally objectionable (Michaelis, Jb. Arch. Inst., 1902, p. 18). Had the door been placed in the middle, it would have stood directly under the central intercolumination of the west colonnade. The latest theory (D'Ooge, The Acropolis of Athens, p. 201) is that the position of the door was determined by the structure which abutted against the west wall just south of the door. The presence of an adjoining structure is then to be credited with some magic power of attraction which drew the door from its normal position into one structurally objectionable. The unsymmetrical position of the door was doubtless determined by the interior cross-wall which stood just north of the door and divided the west cella into a north and south chamber of approximately the same size. The door connecting the two very probably lay in the axis of the north and south doors of the temple (Fig. 7), thus very near to the west wall. The distance of the top course which could not have reached above the lintel of the west door was 8¼ feet above the bottom of the orthostates of the west wall. The height of the doors mentioned in the Chandler inscription is 8¼ feet. Of this cross-wall there are no traces of contact with the west wall. It must be noted, however, that the surface of the west wall is at that place badly broken away (Fig. 8). The surface of the orthostate is in part well preserved but orthostates at the place of contact with interior walls have nowhere left any indication of such contact—no anathyrosis. This is especially peculiar in the case of the eastern cross-wall where the supposed higher level on the east side would lead one to expect a careful joining with anathyrosis (Fig. 9). Had the north wall been destroyed beyond recovery down to this orthostate, there would have been no evidence now to show that a cross-wall ever was in contact with it. The orthostate next the door in the west wall cannot be cited as evidence against the existence of an interior cross-wall running east and west. The blocks above this orthostate are badly broken away except one just below the lintel which has some original surface preserved. The lintel like the orthostate is a block two courses high and may have the same exemption from any signs of contact, as far as the surface is concerned, with the interior of the wall. It is possible that not a single course of the cross-wall keyed into the west wall because the former was merely a low partition-wall. The top of the lintel in the line of the wall is broken away so that there, as in the case of the blocks below, no evidence of clamps can be expected. Neglecting for a moment the remarkable position of the door, it may be said that the interior surface of the west wall just north of the door is in no condition to give definite evidence pro or con of the existence of this interior cross-wall. The conclusive answer must be found in the simple description of Pausanias to whose text one may now turn (I, 26, 5). The new plan fits perfectly. Figure 8 View of the N. side of the door in the W. wall In the first room (ἐσελθοῦσι) Pausanias found the altars of Hephaestus, Poseidon-Erechtheus and Butes, and the paintings of the Butadae. The wall space lighted directly from the west windows was finely adapted for the paintings. There were only two doors and those at the west ends of the long walls. There could have been an uninterrupted series of paintings, whereas the προστομιαῖον of the other plan had five doors, and therefore offered less desirable space. With the words διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστιν τὸ οἴκημα, Pausanias passes to the next room (ἔνδον) where he found the well of sea-water. Now the name with which Pausanias introduces his description is significant: ἔστι δὲ καὶ οἴκημα Ἐρέχθειον καλούμενον. He named the temple from the part which he entered first and then he says a moment later that this οἴκημα is double, i.e. the part which he has just entered. Up to this point there is no suggestion of Athena. The διπλοῦν οἴκημα of Erechtheus consisted of two chambers one behind the other with reference to the porch. The φρέαρ in the new plan is in the inner (ἔνδον) room of the οἴκημα near the west wall of the temple, where water was accumulated in later times and probably therefore in Greek and Roman times, while there is no indication whatever of a well of any sort in the inner chamber according to the old plan. At present the cistern in the western part of the temple reaches from north door to south door, but there is evidence to show that originally in Greek times it did not extend so far north. Just inside the north door, the pavement consisted of thin slabs, 0.13 m. thick, which ran in under the heavy blocks below the orthostates of the west wall and fitted into a cutting in the topmost course of the poros foundation. The thinness of the pavement is inconsistent with the theory of a hollow vault of any sort beneath the floor. There must have been a filling of earth for the pavement to rest on. This confirms the theory that the originally smaller place for the accumulation of water within the building was the south-west corner. The drain at the south-west corner of the North Porch which brought water from the direction of the Caryatid Porch both before and after the present Erechtheum was built may have carried excess water from the φρέαρ. It is possible that the absence of a proper foundation beneath the threshold of the door in the Caryatid Porch was due to the presence there of a course or courses of stone which surrounded the well and trident-mark. The architect, unable to secure consent to their removal, was compelled to build upon them and to raise the door. He placed the threshold above the bottom of the orthostates, and the position of this threshold may have determined the high position of the orthostates of the western wall. Both are placed at the same level. In the inner room Pausanias saw the trident-mark, naturally near the φρέαρ. The first produced the second, according to Apollodorus, III, 14, 2. Pausanias did not see them πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου but ἔνδον. There is no authority whatever for identifying the marks in the rock beneath the north porch with those made by the trident of Poseidon, except common consent in recent times. If the trident-mark lay within the Erechtheum what deity made that outside, and beneath the porch, a mark which was beyond question an object of cult? "Die Stelle welche Zeus mit seinem Blitze getroffen hatte, wurde mit einem Puteal umgeben und blieb unter freiem Himmel" (Dörpfeld, Ath. Mitt., 1903, p. 467). An altar of Zeus Hypatus stood before the entrance. The coincidence of place πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου and ἐν τῇ προστάσει τῇ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος where, according to the official inscription the altar of the Thyechous stood, outweighs any objection to the identification of the two altars based on difference of name in the two records, ὁ βωμὸς τοῦ θυηχοῦ and Διὸς βωμὸς Ὑπάτου. Pausanias departs from the official terminology of building inscriptions. The rotunda at Epidaurus was called in the building inscription θυμέλη (cf. Cavvadias, Τὸ Ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ, p. 50). Pausanias called it θόλος. The official name for the Erechtheum does not occur in literature nor in inscriptions except in the report of the commissioners. It is not surprising then if Pausanias failed to call the altar ὁ βωμὸς τοῦ θυηχοῦ. This name gives not the slightest clue to the god to whom it was erected. The suggestion of Michaelis (Jb. Arch. Inst., 1902, p. 17) that the altar may have been one to Poseidon proceeds from the logical idea to make it that of the god who is thought to have made the marks in the rock beneath the porch. Figure 9 Looking north in the line of the eastern interior cross-wall. A view showing the orthostate which was in contact with the interior wall and the rough surface (X) of the native rock in the line of the latter The altar in the north porch was one to Zeus and its presence there suggests the reasonable theory that the marks in the rock below it and the square hole in the roof above are a memorial of the thunderbolt which he hurled at Erechtheus according to Hyginus (Fab., 46). Cf. Petersen, op. cit., p. 72. One cannot say which is the earlier tradition, that preserved in Hyginus or that in Euripides (Ion, 281) according to which πληγαὶ τριαίνης thrust Erechtheus into a χάσμα χθονός (Furtwängler, Masterpieces, p. 436, note 3). There was a tradition that Zeus, at the request of Poseidon, killed Erechtheus with a thunderbolt, a tradition which becomes the more interesting in the light of an inscription found on the Acropolis (Lolling, Δελ. Ἀρχ., 1890, p. 144) which proves that an ἄβατον Διὸς Καταιβάτου existed there. The stone bearing the inscription was found in a mediaeval wall north of the northeast corner of the Parthenon. Three surfaces of the fragment are preserved showing that it came from a corner perhaps of a low wall enclosing the ἄβατον. One side of the block which is Pentelic marble is finely polished. There are n...