[Greek: phrear]. The first produced the second, according to
Apollodorus, III, 14, 2. Pausanias did not see them [Greek: pro tês
esodou] but [Greek: endon]. 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 [Greek: pro tês esodou]
and [Greek: en tê prostasei tê pros tou thyrômatos] 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, [Greek: ho bômos tou thyêchou] and [Greek: Dios
bômos Hypatou]. Pausanias departs from the official terminology of
building inscriptions. The rotunda at Epidaurus was called in the
building inscription [Greek: thymelê] (cf. Cavvadias, [Greek: To Hieron
tou Asklêpiou en Epidaurô], p. 50). Pausanias called it [Greek: tholos].
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 [Greek: ho bômos
tou thyêchou]. 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 [Greek: plêgai triainês] thrust Erechtheus into a
[Greek: chasma chthonos] (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, [Greek: Del. Arch.], 1890, p. 144) which proves that an
[Greek: abaton Dios Kataibatou] 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 [Greek:
abaton]. 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 [Greek: abaton] 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
[Greek: abaton]. 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: [Greek: estin ho te
tou kataibatou Dios bômos on kai Morion kalousin tôn ekei moriôn para to
tês Athênas hieron hidrymenôn]. That Zeus Kataibates should have been
called [Greek: Morios (moria)] 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
([Greek: kataibatês]) to avenge sacrilege which one committed when he
violated a sacred olive ([Greek: moria]) 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 ([Greek:
moria]) 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 [Greek: kataibatês]? 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 [Greek: eselthousin] (I,
26, 5) and [Greek: synechês] (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 ([Greek: men]) of
which prepares the way for the more important second member ([Greek:
de]) which tells of the [Greek: hagiôtaton ... Athênas agalma]. 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 [Greek: diploun oikêma] and the [Greek: naos tês
Athênas]. 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 [Greek:
prostasis hê pros tou thyrômatos] 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 [Greek: synechês tô naô tês Athênas]. That
Pausanias on approaching the Erechtheum should call it [Greek:
Erechtheion] and then on leaving should call it [Greek: naos tês
Athênas] 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 [Greek: diploun oikêma]. 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 [Greek:
oikêma peripheres]. 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) [Greek: pro tês esodou], (2) [Greek: eselthousin], (3) [Greek: endon
(diploun gar estin to oikêma]), (4) [Greek: hagiôtaton agalma] (cf.
[Greek: ho neôs en hô to archaion agalma]), (5) [Greek: tô naô de tês
Athênas Pandrosou naos synechês].
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 [Greek: gongylos lithos athetos,
antimoros tais epikranitisin mekos dekapos hyphsos trion hemipodion]
(_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 [Greek: epikranitides] 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 [Greek: prostasis hê pros
tou thyrômatos], 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 [Greek: prostomiaion] and lies in front of [Greek: (pro)]
the * [Greek: stomiaion] in which was the important object of cult, the
[Greek: phrear (stomion)]. The following proportion may be set down:
[Greek: pronaos]: [Greek: naos]:: [Greek: prostomiaion]: * [Greek:
stomiaion]. [Greek: Prostomiaion] and * [Greek: stomiaion] are
conjectured to have been the official names in the fifth century for the
two chambers of the [Greek: diploun oikêma] 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
[Greek: thyrôma], the [Greek: prostomiaion], 12 tetrapodies were [Greek:
akatachsesta]. The phrase [Greek: en tô prostomiaiô] favors the theory
that more walls than one are meant. Then in the inner chamber 3
tetrapodies of the [Greek: parastas],[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 [Greek: pros togalmatos]. The order
in which the chambers were examined for unfinished walls was that of
Pausanias in describing their contents.