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 ERECHTHEU
M.
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., ([Greek:
Eph. Arch.], 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. [Greek: arrêphorein]) but a structural necessity for
heavier, fuller forms justified the license of the architect. The
Caryatids are called [Greek: korai] 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 [Greek: prostomiaion] the official name of one of
the chambers in the west cella has been derived from [Greek: prostomion]
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 [Greek:
stomion]. The [Greek: phrear] ([Greek: stomion]) was the important
object of cult in the room. It is the [Greek: thalassa] which is
mentioned by Herodotus, and the [Greek: phrear] by Pausanias, while
nothing is heard about a well-curb. The natural interpretation of
[Greek: prostomiaion] is the room in front of ([Greek: pro]) the *
[Greek: stomiaion], i.e., the room of the [Greek: stomion]. Now the
derivation of * [Greek: stomiaion] (which does not, to be sure, occur in
extant records of the temple) from [Greek: stomion] is as simple as that
of [Greek: Pandroseion] from [Greek: Pandrosos]. It is the entirely
problematical [Greek: prostomion] which renders improbable the
derivation from it of [Greek: prostomiaion].
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 [Greek: diploun] 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 ([Greek: endon]) 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 [Greek: naos tês Athênas] 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 [Greek:
naos Pandrosou], 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 [Greek:
endon] 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
[Greek: phrear] 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 [Greek: Praktika tês epi tou Erechtheiou Epitropês] (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 [Greek: diploun gar estin
to oikêma]. After mentioning the altars and paintings in the first room,
Pausanias passes to the second with the observation that the [Greek:
oikêma] is double, to find there ([Greek: endon]) a well and the marks
([Greek: sêma] or [Greek: schêma]) 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 [Greek: en tô emprosthen], the second
with [Greek: en tô entos]. According to the present plan the chambers of
the [Greek: oikêma Erechtheiou] 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 [Greek: synechês]. The Pandroseum,
in which the [Greek: naos Pandrosou] 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 [Greek: kampylê selis] 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
[Greek: kampylê selis] 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 ([Greek: eselthousi]) 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 [Greek: prostomiaion] of
the other plan had five doors, and therefore offered less desirable
space. With the words [Greek: diploun gar estin to oikêma], Pausanias
passes to the next room ([Greek: endon]) where he found the well of
sea-water. Now the name with which Pausanias introduces his description
is significant: [Greek: esti de kai oikêma Erechtheion kaloumenon]. He
named the temple from the part which he entered first and then he says a
moment later that this [Greek: oikêma] is double, i.e. the part which he
has just entered. Up to this point there is no suggestion of Athena. The
[Greek: diploun oikêma] of Erechtheus consisted of two chambers one
behind the other with reference to the porch.
The [Greek: phrear] in the new plan is in the inner ([Greek: endon])
room of the [Greek: oikêma] 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
[Greek: phrear]. 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.