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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: FIGURE 2

THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM THE BASE OF THE NIKE BASTION. AT LEFT, THE
PEDESTAL OF THE MONUMENT TO AGRIPPA]

[Illustration: FIGURE 3

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.

[Illustration: 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]

[Illustration: 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, 8-1/4 x 2-1/2 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.

[Illustration: FIGURE 6

VIEW OF N. END OF W. INTERIOR FOUNDATION SHOWING THAT IT DOES NOT KEY
INTO THE FOUNDATION OF THE N. WALL]

[Illustration: 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 8-1/4 feet above the bottom of the
orthostates of the west wall. The height of the doors mentioned in the
Chandler inscription is 8-1/4 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.

[Illustration: 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.

[Illustration: 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 no dowel or clamp-holes preserved and it is
impossible to recover the dimensions of the original block. The face
which bears the inscription of the late fourth century seems to have
been redressed, since chisel marks are evident. The inscription may then
have been recut. It is tentatively suggested that this fragment was part
of the curb about the opening in the floor of the north porch.

Zeus hurled a thunderbolt which destroyed the chamber of Semele at
Thebes and the place was an ἄβατον in the time of Pausanias (IX, 12, 4).
When Zeus struck Erechtheus with a thunderbolt, the spot on the
Acropolis where the lightning struck may likewise have become an ἄβατον.
It is interesting to note that at Olympia, Pausanias (V, 14, 7) saw the
foundations of the house of Oenomaus and two altars, one to Zeus
Herkeios which Oenomaus seems to have built, the other to Zeus Keraunos
erected later, after the thunderbolt had destroyed the house. The
persons and palaces of mythical kings appear to have been a favorite
mark for the thunderbolt of Zeus. The tradition preserved in Hyginus is
an illustration, and tempts one to seek in the vicinity of the
Erechtheum for some record of the thunderbolt.

And so too does the notice of the scholiast (after Apollodorus) on
Sophocles, _Oed. Col._, 705, who says that near the Academy there was an
altar to Zeus Kataibates who was also called Morios: ἐστὶν ὅ τε τοῦ
καταιβάτου Διὸς βωμὸς ὃν καὶ Μόριον καλοῦσιν τῶν ἐκεῖ μοριῶν παρὰ τὸ τῆς
Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερὸν ἱδρυμένων. That Zeus Kataibates should have been called
Μόριος (μορία) points to some relation with Athena and the olive
which may have had its origin on the Acropolis. Does this double name
simply mean that Zeus "of sleepless eye" used lightning (καταιβάτης) to
avenge sacrilege which one committed when he violated a sacred olive
(μορία) as Miss Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_,
p. 599, suggests, or is the key to the explanation furnished by a
passage in Pausanias (IX, 12, 4)? Pausanias records the tradition that
at the time Zeus hurled the thunderbolt which destroyed Semele and her
bridal chamber a log fell from heaven which Polydorus adorned with
bronze and called Dionysus Cadmus. Perhaps the ancient image of Athena,
the xoanon of olive wood, which fell from heaven, fell at the time Zeus
smote Erechtheus, just as the wooden image of Dionysus Cadmus fell when
Zeus destroyed Semele. If so, then Zeus Kataibates, by bringing to earth
a piece of sacred olive (μορία) very naturally acquired the name Zeus
Morios.

What known altar to Zeus in the vicinity of the Erechtheum could have
been erected to him in his capacity as καταιβάτης? There was an altar of
Zeus Herkeios under the olive in the Pandroseum. This, however, cannot
have served as an altar of Zeus Kataibates because these were two
distinct phases of the Zeus cult. Pausanias found near the ruins of the
palace of Oenomaus at Olympia an altar to Zeus Herkeios and another to
Zeus Keraunos (Kataibates). Before the entrance to the Erechtheum
Pausanias found an altar to Zeus Hypatus beside the sacred indentations
in the rock which lay beneath an opening in the roof, and this is none
other than the altar to Zeus Kataibates.

The passage which led from these indentations through the foundation
into the temple was not intended for the worshipper but for the priest
on occasion. Herein lies a possible explanation of the hole which opens
into the passage close to the wall east of the main door. It was perhaps
a sort of speaking tube for subterranean utterances. Perhaps beneath the
floor of the temple the chthonic Erechtheus was invoked and priestly
response heard from above through the opening.

The trident-mark and the well, both destroyed when the mediaeval cistern
was cut, were situated in the southwest part of the Erechtheum. Thus
evidences produced by Poseidon in the dispute over the land were close
to the olive tree of Athena which stood in the Pandroseum. The door in
the west wall gave ready access from one to the other.

It has already been remarked that in the description of the Erechtheum,
Pausanias gives no indication between the words ἐσελθοῦσιν (I, 26, 5)
and συνεχής (I, 27, 2) that he left the building to enter a temple of
Athena. The reference to the well and the trident-mark is followed by a
compound sentence, the first member (μέν) of which prepares the way for
the more important second member (δέ) which tells of the ἁγιώτατον ...
Ἀθηνᾶς ἄγαλμα. There is no break here in the continuity of the account
and no disturbance of an orderly advance if Pausanias found a means of
communication between the inner chamber of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα and the
ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. Now the traditional intimacy of Athena and Erechtheus
would lead one to expect such communication and thus the cella of Athena
which gave the official name to the temple would have a share in the
magnificent north portal, the main entrance to the building. The
attempts to raise the eastern portico to the dignity of the πρόστασις ἡ
πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος are unsatisfactory. Thus Penrose (_op. cit._, p. 95):
"It may seem a difficulty to explain why the most magnificent portico
should lead to a subordinate shrine, but the eastern portico with its
six columns, although of smaller diameter, was scarcely if at all of
less importance, and the doorway could not have been much inferior in
width and height.... The difference of level also obviously gives
preëminence to the eastern site." These considerations neither qualify
the difficulty nor do they lessen the preëminent magnificence of the
north porch. Apart from the demands of the text of Pausanias, there is
another point to be observed. From the north porch there was a doorway
opening into the Pandroseum. Thus the north porch gave admission to a
temenos, but not according to present theory to the eastern cella of
Athena.

In the inner chamber where Pausanias saw the well, he must have found a
door, the second of the two mentioned in the Chandler inscription, which
opened into the eastern cella (Fig. 7). When he had seen the objects
there, he retraced his steps past the well and the mark of the trident,
and entered by the small door in the west wall, the Pandroseum, where
stood a temple which was συνεχὴς τῷ ναῷ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. That Pausanias on
approaching the Erechtheum should call it Ἐρέχθειον and then on leaving
should call it ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς is not only quite in keeping with that
stylistic tendency which Robert has termed _oratio variata_ (_Pausanias
als Schriftsteller_ s.v.) but has a simple and natural explanation. The
first name for the temple was that of the western part which he entered
first and found to be double; the last name was that of the eastern part
which he visited last. The name for the whole was determined by that
part which was most prominently in his thought at the time. He gives not
the slightest hint that Athena had any share in the temple until he has
described the contents of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα. Properly speaking the
western part of the building was the Erechtheum, and the eastern, the
temple of Athena; but the name of either half spread to the whole, a
natural tendency which gave the Parthenon its name, and readily
intelligible in the case of the Erechtheum in view of the traditional
intimacy of the two divinities recorded in Homer. When Pausanias speaks
of the tholos at Epidaurus a second time, he does not call it by that
name, but οἴκημα περιφερές. As for the dog of Philochorus, one may
believe simply that the creature passed through the Erechtheum proper
into the Pandroseum (Petersen, _op. cit._, p. 143).

The theory was at one time put forward that a staircase afforded
communication between the western cella and the higher eastern cella,
but several considerations establish the fact that they had a common
level. The conclusive argument is that there are no cuttings in the rock
for the cross-wall between the two cellae, although that rock lay only
1-1.50 m. below the base of the wall. In its rough and sloping surfaces
(Fig. 9) there is not a single trace of a bed for a foundation which the
supposed heavy cross-wall would demand. The rock betrays no evidences
whatever of preparation to receive a foundation. The contention that
points of rock were broken off is absurd. The foundations for the
outside walls go down to and rest in such beds, that of the west wall
being an illustration. Those who believe that the heavy cross-wall
supported roof beams besides serving as a terrace wall for the western
cella 3 m. lower than the eastern, seem not to have thought that such a
wall would need a well cut bed in the rock. Now the east wall, the
thinnest in the building, has a foundation which, though it consists of
eight courses of heavy poros blocks, rests in deep cuttings in the rock.
Under one block of the lowest course, lies a smaller block of poros
which also rests in deep cuttings in the rock. Why did not the eastern
interior cross-wall likewise have a bed for it cut in the rock,
especially since its foundation was so shallow, only two or three
courses of poros, and not eight as in the case of the eastern wall? The
only bit of outside wall which does not rest in cuttings in the rock is
that at the southwest corner, but there the few courses below the lintel
of the door rested on an object of cult of some sort which made
impossible the normal foundation, while the weight above the lintel
rested on the heavy block in the west wall and the firmly founded wall
just east of the door.

The champions of the accepted plan of the Erechtheum must explain a
striking inconsistency in construction presented by the two interior
cross-walls. The western, a screen-wall (D'Ooge, _The Acropolis of
Athens_, p. 202) which reached only five courses above the orthostates
and supported no other weight whatever, had a foundation which rests
partly in cuttings in the rock, while the eastern interior wall which
reached quite to the ceiling, supported the weight of it, besides being
of the nature of a terrace wall, had a foundation which rested only on
the rough and sloping rock. How is this inconsistency to be explained?

The inconsistency cannot be avoided. The logical inference from the
facts is one which makes Pausanias intelligible. The eastern cross-wall
could not have reached to the ceiling except at the ends where the
blocks keyed into the side-walls and shared their foundations. The
inference that this wall for its entire length must have been as high as
the traces on the side walls is altogether unnecessary. Except at the
ends this wall was as high as the other partition-wall, and like it
supported no weight. The pilasters lessened a span of thirty feet by
perhaps two feet and with the outside walls served to support a heavy
cross-beam. Wall-pilasters are not unknown in Greek architecture as the
temples of Apollo at Bassae and the Heraeum at Olympia prove (Frazer,
_op. cit._, III, p. 589).

Pausanias walked into the cella of Athena from that of Erechtheus
without ascending a step. Since all the interior chambers of the
Erechtheum had the same level as the north portal it is unnecessary to
maintain that he should have entered the Athena cella first on coming
from the east. In perfect keeping with the new plan of the interior is
the simple sequence of the topographical indications in his description:
(1) πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου, (2) ἐσελθοῦσιν, (3) ἔνδον (διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστιν τὸ
οἴκημα), (4) ἁγιώτατον ἄγαλμα (cf. ὁ νεὼς ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἄγαλμα), (5) τῷ
ναῷ δὲ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς Πανδρόσου ναὸς συνεχής.

But what of the protruding poros foundations of the east and south walls
and of the unfinished surface of the north wall which have always
readily confirmed the theory of a higher level for the cella of Athena?
Certainly these were not visible. They must have been concealed behind
marble shelves on north and south and marble shelves and steps on the
east (Fig. 7). The builders of the Erechtheum were economical, using the
foundations of the peristyle of the Hekatompedon as far as possible and
then adding blocks of poros to complete a foundation for the south wall
of their temple. There was no more need for a wall of marble behind the
south shelf than there was for a marble floor beneath the pedestal of
the statue in the Parthenon. These shelves were convenient for the
exhibition of the many objects deposited in the cella which was a
religious museum. The surface of the marble walls is not preserved to a
sufficient height to show whether there was any trace of contact with
the top of the shelf, just as they can give no positive evidence of a
floor at the higher level.

A peculiar cutting in the orthostate at the south-east corner of the
temple should be noted in this connection. The cutting is in the
interior angle and is so made that the orthostate could be set at this
place on a horizontal surface which ran inward. Was this horizontal
surface the floor level? Was the floor of the eastern cella raised one
step above the threshold as D'Ooge says (_op. cit._, p. 207)? This is
unlikely because the floor level would then have been above the base of
the orthostates. The horizontal surface was the top of the shelf, for
its vertical plane would have courses of the same height as ordinary
wall-blocks. There is a Roman block 10 feet long and 1-1/2 feet high
which the Christians reused as the base stone of the iconostasis when
they converted the Erechtheum into a church. It had a base moulding of
some sort which the Christians chiselled off. This long block probably
formed part of the lowest course of the facing of the shelf. The fact
that its dimensions are those of the γογγύλος λίθος ἄθετος, ἀντίμορος
ταῖς ἐπικρανίτισιν με͂κος δεκάπος ὕφσος τριο͂ν ἑμιποδίον (_I. G._, I,
322, col. 1) causes a suspicion that the Roman block simply replaced a
Greek one, which in its position at the base of the wall "corresponded
to" the ἐπικρανίτιδες at the top of it.

An examination of the foundation for the east wall reveals an
interesting condition which is unintelligible if the cella of Athena had
a higher floor-level than the western cella. In the north-east corner, a
marble block of the north wall is cut back to the line of the west face
of the poros foundation (Fig. 10). If the marble block lay buried
beneath the floor, why was it so carefully trimmed? The explanation may
be offered that the cutting was done when the temple was made over into
a church. But the chiseling is more careful than the chiseling done at
that time in the Erechtheum. When the eastern partition-wall was
removed, rough traces of it were left on the side-walls. The treatment
of the block in question is Greek in its carefulness and the cutting was
probably made to receive a slab of the marble facing which concealed the
foundation-blocks of the east wall.

[Illustration: FIGURE 10

THE N.E. CORNER OF THE CELLA OF ATHENA]

There is another serious difficulty in the way of those who believe
that the eastern cella had a higher level than the western. The south
wall of the temple had orthostates on the outside but none on the inside
where wall-blocks of the usual height took their place. These
wall-blocks were easily torn out and have since completely disappeared.
In the western chamber orthostates would have been illogical because
they would have been high above the level of the floor, but in the
eastern cella, if it had the level of the eastern porch orthostates
would have been used. Since there were wall-blocks behind the
orthostates of the south wall in the western cella, one would reasonably
expect orthostates behind wall-blocks in the north wall of the eastern
cella, provided that cella was at the level of the eastern porch. But it
is absolutely certain that such was not the case. The notched form of
the orthostate at the north-east corner of the temple shows that it was
in contact with two courses of wall-blocks of regular height in the
north wall. Thus the eastern cella, if it lay at the level of its porch
strangely lacked interior orthostates in its north and south walls. But
if this cella lay at the level of the western cella, the lack becomes at
once intelligible. The absence of orthostates at the supposed higher
floor-level of the eastern cella combines with the absence of any
cutting for a foundation for the wall between the cellae to prove the
theory which is in perfect harmony with the simple sequence in the
description by Pausanias.

The theory of one level within the Erechtheum seems to contradict and to
be contradicted by the evidence which Stevens has found of a door in the
east wall (_A. J. A._, 1906, p. 58 ff.). The contradiction is not
necessary, for a flight of steps at the east end of the cella of Athena
is perfectly possible. The construction of an apse for the church at the
east end of the temple necessitated the removal of a number of
foundation-blocks which might have given evidence of steps. However it
is quite possible that the foundations for the steps which had no need
to rest in rock cuttings were simply laid against, not keyed into the
foundations of the east wall. The stairs are drawn in the plan (Fig. 7).
The idea of a stair-case at the east end of a cella is illustrated by
the temple at Didyma. The eastern door of the Erechtheum was not the
normal, not the intended entrance to the cella of Athena, but served as
the traditional eastern entrance toward which the xoanon faced.
Pausanias like other visitors entered by the πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ
θυρώματος, the main entrance to the temple.

It is interesting to note some evidence which shows that in the period
before the Erechtheum was converted into a Christian church there was no
difference of level within the building, namely, the masses of rubble
masonry which were placed close to the north wall at approximately equal
distances from the eastern cross-wall. They are firmly founded on the
rock and reach up nearly to the base of the orthostates. They have no
counterparts along the south wall. The screen-wall of the north aisle of
the church stood directly over one of the masses. The threshold of it is
still in place. These heavy foundations and the interior longitudinal
walls of the church cannot be contemporary. The latter were sufficient
to carry the weight of the roof of the church; and the screen-wall in
the aisle, since it rests partly on a filling of earth, shows that the
heavy foundation of rubble masonry underneath had ceased to serve any
purpose after the church was built. It was there before that time and
therefore must have been laid in a Roman period when the level within
the temple was the same.

Any discussion of the workmanship of this mass of stones and mortar has
no bearing on the question of its date and that of the threshold above.
The point is, the masonry is earlier than the Christian church, and
quite embarrasses the advocates of a higher level for the eastern cella
in the period before the conversion of the temple into a Christian
church. This foundation then is perfectly intelligible in the light of
the theory that in Greek times there was but one level within the
temple. What the purpose of this rubble masonry was is uncertain. The
substantial and solid character of the masses leads one to believe that
they were foundations for piers or pillars which reached to the top of
the adjacent wall and together with it supported heavy cross-beams which
spanned the cella from north to south. The idea may have come to the
Romans from the Greek pilaster which as noted above lay approximately
midway between the masses of rubble masonry. This was, then, apparently
a device for reducing the span from the north to the south wall. The
fact that this masonry was laid before the period of the church is of
far greater importance than its purpose.

The new plan of the Erechtheum is interesting in the light of the
Chandler inscription. If one feels that the magnificent north porch
determines the front of the building, then the first room is a
satisfactory προστομιαῖον and lies in front of (πρό) the * στομιαῖον in
which was the important object of cult, the φρέαρ (στόμιον). The
following proportion may be set down: πρόναος: ναός:: προστομιαῖον: *
στομιαῖον. Προστομιαῖον and * στομιαῖον are conjectured to have been the
official names in the fifth century for the two chambers of the διπλοῦν
οἴκημα of Pausanias.

The order followed by the commissioners in their report upon unfinished
interior walls was as follows: In the first room entered from the
θύρωμα, the προστομιαῖον, 12 tetrapodies were ἀκατάχσεστα. The phrase
ἐν τῷ προστομιαίῳ favors the theory that more walls than one are meant.
Then in the inner chamber 3 tetrapodies of the παραστάς,[7] i.e., that
part of the partition-wall east of the door in the west cella. Then in
the third room 6 (?) tetrapodies of the wall πρὸς τὀγάλματος. The order in
which the chambers were examined for unfinished walls was that of
Pausanias in describing their contents.

Again the new plan fits the treasure list of 306/5 B.C. (I.G., II,^2
733). The remarkable feature of the inscription is that it mentions
three παραστάδες, first an isolated one, and then a pair of them, one on
either side of a door. The single παραστάς, the first to be mentioned is
again that part of the partition-wall east of the door in the west
cella. This door was near the west end of the wall, so that the space
between it and the west wall of the temple was negligible. Thus for one
entering by that door there was a παραστάς on the left, but none on the
right. When however he passed into the ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς through a door
which stood a little south of the middle of the wall (and opposite the
door in the west wall of the temple) he had a παραστάς upon his left and
also upon his right. The παραστάδες are interior walls on either side of
a door which in the Erechtheum reached up only five courses above the
orthostates. The paintings which Pausanias found in the first room favor
the opinion that the treasures which hung on the parastas were on the
south side of that wall--i.e., in the second room of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα.
Whether or not there is any order in the enumeration of the treasures is
a question. If there is, then it naturally begins with treasures first
seen after entering from the πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος, just as the
record of the commissioners in the case of interior walls begins with
walls in the first room, just as the description of Pausanias begins
with the contents of the first room. This coincidence is remarkable, and
is true of no other theory about the temple.

It is a necessary consequence of this interpretation that some treasures
were in the west part of the Erechtheum. Perhaps then something may be
said for the scholiast on Aristophanes, _Plutus_, 1183 (reading οἶκος
for τοῖχος and keeping in mind the διπλοῦν οἴκημα of Pausanias's
description): ὀπίσω τοῦ νεὼ τῆς καλουμένης Πολιάδος Ἀθηνᾶς διπλοῦς οἶκος
(τοῖχος) ἔχων θύραν, ὅπου ἦν θησαυροφυλάκιον. The words ἔχων θύραν
suggest that the scholiast wished to distinguish between a διπλοῦς οἶκος
the two parts of which were connected by a door and another type the two
parts of which were not so connected but separately entered from
without. Pausanias seems to give an instance of the latter in II, 25, 1.
White (_Harvard Studies_, Vol. VI, p. 39) refers the scholium to the
restored west part of the Hekatompedon but does not discuss the meaning
of ἔχων θύραν, which Michaelis was unable to explain. In White's
so-called opisthodomus, to which door of three possible ones does the
scholiast refer? The three chambers of his opisthodomus do not satisfy
the requirements of a διπλοῦς οἶκος, the reading which he accepts (_op.
cit._, p. 4, note 3). More reasonable is the interpretation that the
scholiast had in mind the west cella of the Erechtheum in which some
treasures seemed to have been placed, and that he used the words νεὼς
καλουμένης Πολιάδος Ἀθηνᾶς in the stricter sense, just as Pausanias
called the east cella ναὸς τῆς Πολιάδος (I. 27. 1), and regarded the
διπλοῦς οἶκος as lying behind it. The νεὼς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς was oriented east,
and what was immediately west was behind it. But it is not to be
supposed that the west cella of the Erechtheum was ever called an
opisthodomus. The scholiast seems however to have the oldest Athena
temple in mind.

There is a point perhaps of slight moment which deserves a word. One of
the paintings, that of Erechtheus driving a chariot, was painted,
according to the scholiast on Aristides, I, 107, 5, behind the goddess.
A possible interpretation is that the painting was in the cella of
Athena on the wall behind the xoanon, but the paintings of the Butadae
were in the first room which Pausanias entered. Unless the painting of
Erechtheus was separate from those of the Butadae, then the new
arrangement of the interior permits a satisfactory solution of the
difficulty. For the east wall of the room in which were the paintings
of the Butadae was behind the goddess. According to the old plan,
Pausanias found the paintings in the western chamber of the διπλοῦν
οἴκημα, that is, between them and the wall against which stood the
xoanon, was a chamber. The passage may mean that in a painting
Erechtheus appeared behind Athena driving a chariot (Petersen, _Jb.
Arch. Inst._, 1902, p. 64; _Burgtempel_, p. 110). In the sequence of
words in the sentence, ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει ὀπίσω τῆς θεοῦ, the second phrase
seems to be a closer definition of the place than is given in the first.
Furthermore, position was determined by reference to the xoanon. An
interior wall was located with reference to it, τὸ πρὸς τὀγάλματος. The
scholiast on Aristophanes, _Equites_, 1169, is interesting in this
connection because he shows what part a statue might play in the
designation of a temple: δύο εἰσὶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως Ἀθηνᾶς ναοί, ὁ τῆς
Πολιάδος καὶ ἡ χρυσελεφαντίνη.

In the light of the new arrangement within the Erechtheum, the reference
of Vitruvius (IV, 8, 4) to the temple becomes clearer. Speaking of it
and other temples he says: "cellae enim longitudinibus duplices sunt ad
latitudines uti reliquae, sed is omnia quae solent esse in frontibus ad
latera sunt translata" (Petersen, _Burgtempel_, p. 144). If the cella of
Athena was completely separate from that of Erechtheus and at a higher
level, he could not have said reasonably of the cella of the temple that
it was twice as long as wide like other temples. For the cellae of
Athena and Erechtheus ought then to have been considered separately. In
the new plan such a statement applies with greater force because the low
partitions might be readily disregarded. The second statement shows that
Vitruvius regarded the east façade of a temple as the front, and normal
place of entrance, but that this and the more elaborate porch were
transferred in the case of the Erechtheum to what would be the side of
other temples. As Petersen, (_op. cit._, p. 143) says, the words
"columnis adjectis dextra ac sinistra ad umeros pronai" are a clear
reference to the north porch. This too seems to be the πρόναος which
Lucian refers to in Piscator, 21: ἐνταῦθά που ἐν τῷ προνάῳ τῆς πολιάδος
δικάσωμεν. Ἡ ἱέρεια διάθες ἡμῖν τὰ βάθρα, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐν τοσούτῳ
προσκυνήσωμεν τῇ θεῷ. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with
the fundamental contention that the πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος
determines the front of the building.

The theory set forth in the above pages is in perfect accord with the
description in Pausanias. It is confirmed by the evidence of the
inscriptions and of the building itself so far as that evidence goes.
The serious criticism of the accepted plan of the Erechtheum is that all
theories based upon it disagree with the written evidences, not with one
written record of a later period like the simple account of Pausanias,
but with another record centuries earlier, namely the contemporary
official inscription. Investigators attempt the solution of the problem
after accepting the restored interior as certain. The keynote of the
present theory is that the interior of the temple has been too far
destroyed to make any one restoration absolutely certain on the basis of
the evidence of the building alone, and that all available evidence must
be used simultaneously to determine the correct restoration.




IV

THE ERECHTHEUM AS PLANNED


The question as to the original plan of the Erechtheum follows naturally
the interpretation of the building as built. That the west wall was
planned for its present place seems improbable for a number of reasons.
The north porch is out of proportion to the room into which it opens,
and by reaching beyond the west wall of the temple becomes in part porch
to an open precinct. The west front has columns and Caryatids at
different levels (Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, 1904, p. 101). The displeasing
effect of this difference could not have been concealed by the walls of
the Pandroseum, the south one of which reached as high as the parapet of
the porch of the maidens. The latter porch illustrates the skill of the
architect in concealing differences of level. The unique closed wall on
which the maidens stand was his device for concealing from view from
without, a door which was below the level of the porch and which
belonged to the interior whereas the porch belonged to the exterior. The
architect, by placing the entrance to the porch at the north east corner
close to the wall, completely concealed the presence of the low door.
With this care to conceal a difference of level, the west side of the
temple is in marked contrast.

The north-west corner of the western cella is peculiar in two ways. The
western jamb of the door cuts 3-1/2 cm. into the west wall of the
temple. This suggests crowding and is satisfactorily explained by the
condition of the foundations below. The foundation of the west wall does
not key into that of the north wall (Fig. 11), a fact seeming to prove
that when the latter foundation was laid, it was not the intention of
the architect to place a foundation in the line of the present west
wall, and to crowd the door jamb into that wall.

Of the symmetrical exterior proposed by Prof. Dörpfeld there lies a
suggestion in the fact that the north and south doors have the same
axis, although the Caryatid porch has not. The porch seems to have been
moved a little to the east of its intended place that it might not
project beyond the west wall, but not far enough to prevent the cornice
of the porch from so projecting.

The west wall itself offers evidence of a curtailment of the original
plan. By way of introduction let us compare the east façade, which is
Greek with the west façade, the part of which above the closed wall is
Roman (_Arx Athenarum_, Pl. XXV, D, and _A. J. A._, 1906, Pl. VIII). The
windows in the east wall which Stevens has determined with accuracy were
placed at the height of four ordinary courses above the base moulding
and two courses from the top of the wall, just as were the Roman windows
in the west wall. The second course above the eastern windows was a
moulding, the corresponding course above the western windows is plain
probably because of the adjacent capitals. Below both sets of windows
were three courses of blocks. In the east wall orthostates were
justifiable, in the west wall they would have been illogical because on
neither side was there a floor, but three courses equal in height to
four ordinary courses were placed there. Stevens has shown that the
eastern windows were seven courses high including the lintel. The
western windows are five courses high. The explanation of the difference
of height is simple. The eastern wall was thirteen courses high, the
western eleven. The western windows were two courses shorter in order
that they and their counterparts, the eastern windows, might be
equidistant from the base of the wall, namely four ordinary courses, and
from the top of the wall, namely two courses. The fact that the sills of
the Greek windows were one meter lower than the Roman windows is of no
consequence whatsoever. The fact of great importance is that the east
and west windows occupied the same relative position in the façade. The
stylobate of the western façade could not be placed so low as the
eastern because of the door and the necessity of a heavy block three
courses high at the south end of the wall. This block could not be
placed lower because of the Cecropium (= temple of Pandrosus?) which
crossed the line of the wall, to judge from the cuttings in it beneath
the heavy block. Had the architect wished equality of height for the
eastern and western colonnades he would have been compelled to place the
stylobate of the western two courses lower. This would have made it
impossible to place a door in that wall which was necessary probably for
a reason of cult.

[Illustration: FIGURE 11

THE INTERIOR N.W. CORNER OF THE ERECHTHEUM. MODERN MASONRY UNDER N. END
OF W. WALL]

In Roman times therefore the western windows were placed with careful
reference to the eastern. Between the columns in each case appeared
windows, two in the eastern wall with door between, three in the western
where a door was impossible. Both façades were surmounted by epistyle,
frieze and pediment. The wall below the western colonnade was a
substitute for the higher ground level of the east side. The Romans who
repaired the wall repaired it with reference to the east front. For them
the west façade was simply a combination of wall with windows, and
colonnade. Unless the Greeks had a western façade of columns and wall
with windows essentially like the Roman restoration, we are forced to
make a strange assumption. The Greek architect conceived the idea of
combining wall with colonnade in one plane and then instead of carrying
his idea to its conclusion put in a wooden grille in the
intercoluminations above a low wall of three courses, a grille which
answers to nothing in the east façade, and then left it to the Romans to
exploit his idea by placing there three windows.

The only obstacle to the perfectly natural assumption that the Romans
restored the essential features of the west wall as it was in Greek
times is the testimony of a contemporary inscription (I. G., I, Suppl.,
321. col. III, 18) that one Comon a carpenter was paid a sum of 40 dr.
for "fencing" (διαφάρχσαντι) four intercolumniations on the wall toward
the Pandroseum: διαφάρχσαντι τὰ μετακιόνια τέτταρα ὄντα τὰ πρὸς το͂
Πανδροσείο. The accepted interpretation of the passage is that a wooden
grille was the final form of the west wall and remained so until Roman
times. The objection to this interpretation is that we must then believe
that the Greek architect planned a wooden grille for a marble building
in a wall exposed to the elements where repair would be necessary from
time to time and that only in the Roman period did the change to more
enduring marble take place. It is probable that the wooden grille was
only temporary and was soon replaced by a wall with windows. Whatever
the interpretation of the inscription, the fact remains that the present
form of the west wall is a restoration made with deliberate reference to
the east façade. It is a studied restoration which far from being an
arbitrary creation of the 4th century A.D., as Penrose (_op. cit._, p.
93) regarded it, is too original for a Roman period. The imitation is
Roman, the idea is Greek. The very same idea is expressed in the Sidon
sarcophagus of the mourning women, an Attic work of about 350 B.C. The
illusion produced by the sarcophagus is that of female figures standing
between the columns of the peristyle of a temple (Hamdy Bey-Reinach,
_Une Nécropole Royale à Sidon_, p. 241). The west façade in Greek times
as in Roman was simply a compression together in one plane of colonnade
and wall--a combination to which the architect was forced by the
curtailment of his plan.

It is almost certain that the original plan of the architect was for a
building with an east and west portico equidistant from the north porch
as Prof. Dörpfeld has maintained. The east and west façades were to be
exactly alike, but, prevented by religious conservatism from building
upon the sites of the Cecropium and Pandroseum, and thus compelled to
abandon the western half of the original building, the architect sought
still to save the similarity of the east and west façades. Since he was
unable to build his projected west portico at the line to which he was
forced back, he evolved as a substitute the idea of placing all the
essential features of his west portico in one plane--column bases and
base moulding of wall, columns and wall with windows, frieze and
pediment. The low wall in the southernmost intercolumniation which for
some reason was not completely closed was three courses high. The
northern intercolumniation was completely closed as in Roman times and
in the central ones, the windows rested on three courses equal in height
to four normal Greek courses.

It must have been the desire for close similarity between the two
façades which prevented both Greek and Roman architect from placing four
normal courses beneath the western windows. The change from blocks of
standard height led to a complication because there were eleven ordinary
courses in the western wall instead of twelve which would have given
exactly nine courses of the higher blocks. The eastern windows were
simultaneously visible between the columns from points in the axis of
the door (Fig. 7). It is natural to assume that those of the original
west façade were to have been so. The curtailment of the plan which
compelled the architect to place a compressed west façade on a high
socle, eliminated the door. A natural substitution was a third window.

This theory as to the composition of the west wall suggests an
interpretation of the unusual construction at the upper south-west
corner of the temple (_A. J. A._, 1908, p. 191, fig. 2, and p. 194,
fig. 6; 1910, p. 297, fig. 3). There the south wall was reduced to one
half of its regular thickness, and this thinner wall flanked on the east
by the metopon which rested in part upon a square horizontal slab. The
purpose of this metopon has remained obscure.

As hitherto remarked, it was the architect's intention to close the
southern as well as the northern intercolumniation of the west wall but
he was prevented, apparently for some religious reason. Now it seems
very probable that the unusual construction at the corner is the result
of an attempt to build a substitute wall for that which could not be
placed in the southern intercolumniation. Two considerations favor this
explanation. In the first place the horizontal slab inclines toward the
opening. The certain purpose of this inclination was to shed rain-water.
Secondly, traces on the south wall show that the metopon was coextensive
in height with the opening and projected along the eastern edge of the
horizontal slab. The epistyle of the metopon, which appears in the
restoration (_A. J. A._, 1908, fig. 6, p. 196) is purely a conjecture
and may be eliminated. But how far did this metopon project into the
building? Was it coextensive in width as well as in height with the
opening? The distance which the metopon projected into the building is
not certainly known. In the restoration it is given as one foot but this
is a calculation based on a combination of probabilities. The obvious
provision to keep out rain-water, if it was to be successful, demands
the extension of the metopon to the inner corner of the horizontal slab.
But this slab unsupported could not have carried a marble metopon. This
is a difficulty which seems to compel the assumption that the metopon
was in part of lighter material.

Apart from serving the purpose of keeping out rain, the conjectured
metopon would also be a counterpart to the northern intercolumniation
when the façade was viewed from the west. The increase in weight due to
the metopon and the horizontal slab necessitated a counterbalancing
reduction in the weight of the south wall because of its insecure
foundations. The idea, in short, is simply this. Just as when the
architect was not allowed to place the west façade where he wished and
retreated to a line at which he was allowed to build it in a necessarily
modified form, so when he could not build a wall in the southern
intercolumniation of that façade, he withdrew still farther back and
built a substitute at the line allowed. The extra weight thus produced
was partly responsible for the thinning of the insecurely founded south
wall.

It is Prof. Dörpfeld's theory that the Cecropium compelled the architect
to place the present west wall 1 m. east of the line at which it was
intended in the original plan to stand (_Ath. Mitt._, 1904, p. 105). He
therefore regards that wall as an interior one of the original
symmetrical temple. The theory here advanced is that the west wall is
the original west façade compressed into one plane and placed at the
line up to which the architect was permitted to build. The west wall of
the Pre-Persian Erechtheum seems to have stood at about the same line to
judge from the representation of it and the olive close by in the
archaic pedimental sculpture to which reference has already been made
(Petersen, _Burgtempel_, p. 22, abb. 2). Just as the architect of the
Propylaea planned to cut through the Pelasgic wall and to build upon the
precinct of Brauronian Artemis, but when he came to lay foundations was
stopped at the wall, so the contemporary architect of the Erechtheum
planned a symmetrical temple the west part of which was to occupy the
site of the precinct of Pandrosus and Cecrops, but when he came to
actual construction was stopped by the same religious conservatism. The
form of the present west wall is as much like the originally planned
west façade as the architect could make it. East and west façades were
to be equidistant from the north porch and from the Caryatid Porch which
would have served to break the monotony of the long rear wall.

Having discovered in the west wall the compressed façade of an
originally symmetrically planned Erechtheum, it is desirable to inquire
whether the curtailment of that plan caused a crowding of cults within
the temple as finally built. It has already been remarked that the
feeling which the north porch creates is that it should be, and was
intended to be the porch to an interior of larger dimensions than those
of the present plan. Now the _thalassa_ and the mark of the trident were
fixed, but the paintings of the Butadae and the three altars were
movable. It is altogether probable that the congestion in the west half
of the present Erechtheum was due to the crowding in of a chamber with
the three altars of Poseidon-Erechtheus, Hephaestus and Butes, and the
paintings of the Butadae--a chamber which in the original plan was to be
placed at the west end of the symmetrical temple (Fig. 12).

Within the original Erechtheum at the east end marked off by a
partition-wall was to be the shrine of Athena Polias. The western
chamber of Poseidon-Erechtheus, the exact counterpart of the eastern,
was to receive the altars and paintings. The intervening central chamber
of proportions in harmony with those of the north porch was to contain
the _thalassa_ and the sacred olive, which would require that the temple
be in part hypaethral. Furtwängler (_Sitzb. Mün. Akad._, 1904, p. 371)
rightly indeed objects to Dörpfeld's theory that the western cella in
the original temple was to be an opisthodomus, on the ground that if the
eastern cella contained a divinity, the western ought also. Furthermore,
for those who believe that the magnificent north porch determines the
front of the Erechtheum, the western cella would have been situated on
the side, not at the rear of the temple. The interior wall-pilasters on
either side of the doors were intended in the original to carry heavy
cross-beams. In the temple as built, the eastern pair were carried up
only five courses above the orthostates, i.e. as high as the
partition-walls. Their completion was rendered unnecessary when the
builders decided to put in the καμπύλη σελίς.

[Illustration: FIGURE 12

THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE ERECHTHEUM.]

When this original plan had to be abandoned, not only was the large
central chamber reduced in breadth, but was divided into a front and
rear cella. In the first of these, which one entered immediately from
the north porch (ἐσελθοῦσι) were placed the three altars and on the
walls, the paintings of the Butadae. In the inner cella (ἔνδον) were
the trident-mark and the _thalassa_. It is perfectly clear why Pausanias
found no door leading from the first chamber of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα into
the ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. In the original plan, the cella of Athena and the
large central chamber of the tokens were connected by a door in the
middle of their partition-wall, while the cellae of Athena and
Poseidon-Erechtheus were not to be in immediate connection. These
relations were preserved in the curtailed plan. The meaning of the door
in the west wall is also simple. In the original plan the sacred olive
tree and the _thalassa_ were to stand in the large central chamber, but
in the curtailed plan the sacred olive was left outside the temple and
in the Pandroseum. A closed wall between the two tokens would have
separated them completely. They belonged together, and a door was a poor
substitute for a common chamber but it was the only means of connection
possible.

The north porch in the original plan was to admit to both _thalassa_ and
sacred olive, but in the curtailed temple which left the olive outside,
it could admit directly to the latter only by the addition of the little
door in the southwest corner. The extreme simplicity of this door which
is without such simple ornamentation as that of the south door suggests
that in the original plan it was not intended to stand beside the
elaborate north door. The little door as well as the one in the west
wall were not features of the original Erechtheum, and their presence
was therefore not made more noticeable by the addition of mouldings of
any kind.

This interpretation, if correct, warrants the statement of the general
principle that the Greek architect sought, in case of curtailment of his
plan, to preserve as far as possible the essential features, and the
relations of the parts to one another, of the original. The builder of
the Erechtheum saved his west façade in modified form and found a place
for the west cella in the reduced central chamber.

The Erechtheum as originally planned was an altogether symmetrical
structure. The splendid north portal was to lead immediately into the
cella of the tokens, on either side of which were the shrines of the
divinities that had contended for the land of Attica. The balance of
structure would have reflected a balance of cults. The original
Erechtheum, in short, was an architectural sentence finely illustrating
the μέν and δέ of Greek feeling. With the Parthenon and the Propylaea,
it was to form a group of symmetrical monuments to crown the Athenian
acropolis in a manner worthy of the Periclean Age.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] A drawing of the façade as seen from this point is much needed.

[2] See Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, 1911, p. 59, for latest discussion of
the struggle.

[3] The few known facts about the Arrephoroi are conveniently gathered
together by Frazer, _op. cit._, II, p. 344.

[4] I am indebted to Dr. L. D. Caskey of the Museum of Fine Arts at
Boston for the photograph. He has also very kindly given me the benefit
of his intimate knowledge of the Erechtheum in various suggestive
criticisms. I take this occasion to express my sense of obligation.

[5] Pausanias seems to have been mistaken in speaking of two. So Frazer,
_op. cit._, II, p. 574, note 6.

[6] Cf. the disc with octopus ornament on the dress of one of the
maidens with that published by Schliemann, _Mykenae_, p. 194, no. 240.

[7] The origin and the meaning of the term παραστάς is clear. A παραστάς
is that which stands παρά a door or opening, i.e. a jamb. A passage in
the inscription which gives specifications for Philon's Arsenal (_I. G._
II, 2 1054) is important in this connection. After prescribing the
dimensions of the door of the arsenal, the material of the lintel, the
inscription adds παραστάδας στήσας λίθου πεντεληικοῦ κ. τ. λ. The
παραστάδες are clearly the door jambs which stand παρά the door. By an
easy and simple extension the word came to designate not only the jamb
but the wall of which the jamb was a part.






End of Project Gutenberg's Problems in Periclean Buildings, by G. W. Elderkin