,,problems ,,in ,,periclean ,,buildings 
,,princeton ,,monographs ,,in ,,art     
,,and ,,archaeology ,,ii  ,,problems    
,,in ,,periclean ,,buildings  ,,by  ,g4 
,w4 ,,elderkin1 ,,ph4,d4  ,,assistant   
,,professor1 ,,preceptor ,,in ,,art     
,,and ,,archaeology1 ,,princeton        
,,university  ,,princeton ,,university  
,,press ,,princeton ,,london3 ,,henry   
,,frowde ,,oxford ,,university ,,press  
#aiab  ,copyright1 #aiab1 by ,princeton 
,university ,press for the ,united      
,states of ,america4  ,printed by       
,princeton ,university ,press1          
,princeton1 ,n4 ,j41 ,u4 ,s4 ,a4        
,,contents   ,i4 ,,the ,,significance   
,,of ,,the ,,irregularity ,,of ,,the    
,,propylaea      #a  ,,ii4 ,,an         
,,interpretation ,,of ,,the ,,caryatid  
,,porch                  #ac  ,,iii4    
,,the ,,erechtheum ,,as ,,built         
#ai  ,,iv4 ,,the ,,erechtheum ,,as      
,,planned                               
#di     ,,list ,,of ,,illustrations     
#a4 ,,east ,,window ,,of ,,the          

,,pinakotheke4  #b4 ,,the ,,pinakotheke 
,,as ,,seen ,,from ,,the ,,base ,,of    
,,the ,,bastion ,,of ,,the ,,temple ,,of
 ,,wingless ,,victory4  #c4 ,,the       
,,pinakotheke ,,as ,,seen ,,from ,a     
,,point ,,near ,,the ,,axis ,,of ,,the  
,,central ,,portal4  #d4 ,,plan ,,of    
,,propylaea ,,with ,,zigzag ,,road ,,of 
,,ascent4  #e4 ,,scene ,,on ,,an        
,,archaic ,,amphora4  #f4 ,,north ,,end 
,,of ,,western ,,interior ,,foundation  
,,of ,,the ,,erechtheum4 ,,view ,,from  
,,the ,,east4  #g4 ,,the ,,ground ,,plan
 ,,of ,,the ,,erechtheum ,,as ,,built4  
#h4 ,,the ,,north ,,side ,,of ,,the     
,,door ,,in ,,the ,,west ,,wall4  #i4   
,,north ,,wall ,,at ,,place ,,of        
,,contact ,,with ,,the ,,eastern        
,,cross-,,wall4  #aj4 ,,the ,,cutting   
,,in ,,the ,,marble ,,block ,,at ,,the  
,n4 ,e4 ,,corner ,,of ,,the ,,eastern   
,,cella ,,below ,,the ,,supposed        
,,floor-,,level4  #aa4 ,,the ,,interior 
,n4 ,w4 ,,corner ,,of ,,the ,,temple4   
#ab4 ,,the ,,original ,,plan ,,of ,,the 

,,erechtheu ,m4     ,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 remarked1 though no       
explanations of the phenomenon have been
 offered4 ,bohn1 ,die ,propylaeen der   
,akropolis zu ,athen1 p4 #bc1 says of   
the south wall of this wing3 ,die ,wand 
welche die ,halle von dem eigentlichen  
,gemach trennt1 ist von einer ,tr und   
zwei ,fenstern durchbrochen4 ,erstere   
liegt jedoch nicht in der ,mitte1 die   
letzteren wiederum unsymmetrisch zu ihr4
 ,irgend einen ,grund1 irgend eine      
axiale ,beziehung zu den ,sulen         
vermochte ich in dieser abweichenden    
,anordnung nicht zu finden4 ,the east   
wall of the ,erechtheum1 on the other   
hand 7,a4 ,j4 ,a41 #aijf1 ,pl4 #h71 was 
pierced by a central door and two       
windows equidistant from it4 ,that such 
symmetrical arrangement should obtain in
 the ,erechtheum and not in the closely 

contemporary ,propylaea very justly     
occasions surprise4 ,it is the purpose  
of this study to attempt to explain the 
irregularity in the latter4  ,the first 
fact to be observed with regard to the  
faade of the ,pinakotheke is concisely  
stated by ,bohn 7op4 cit41 p4 #bc73 ,die
 ,stellung der ,sulen bestimmt sich     
dadurch dass die ,tangente an die       
,westseite der stlichsten genau in die  
entsprechende ,flucht der               
,hexastylsttzen fllt4 ,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 triglyph4 ,this anta in turn  
determined the position of the eastern  
window1 for the west face of the anta   
and the window are equidistant from the 
east wall of the ,pinakotheke 7,fig4    
#a74 ,the coincidence can hardly be     
accidental4 ,if the position of the     
eastern window was thus determined by   
considerations of appearance from a     
well-defined exterior point of view1 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    
,pinakotheke4 ,such a point is readily  
found at the base of the ,nike bastion1 
from which both windows and door are    
simultaneously visible between the      
columns 7,fig4 #b74 ,the western window 
appears at the extreme left of the      
intercolumniation2 the eastern1 at the  
extreme right4 ,if the observer advance 
from this point toward the ,pinakotheke1
 the windows remain constantly in sight 
but appear to move more and more toward 
the middle of the intercolumniations    
7,fig4 #c74  ,along no other line       
outside the portico can the three       
openings be viewed thus simultaneously4 
,along the line noted1 they may be      
viewed not only simultaneously but in   
such mutual relation as to give a       
necessarily varying yet satisfying      

appearance of symmetry4 ,the facts point
 to two almost unavoidable inferences3  
first1 that the line of these points    
determines for us the position of the   
last stretch of the zigzag road which   
led up to the ,acropolis2 second1 that  
the asymmetrical placing of door and    
windows was due to the architect's      
desire that the faade should produce a  
complete and unified impression upon the
 approaching observer4 ,this wish of the
 architect1 further1 explains the       
unusual depth of the portico of the     
,pinakotheke4 ,as has already been      
stated1 the position of the east window 
was fixed by the anta before it4 ,such  
being the case1 the depth of the portico
 was necessarily conditioned by the     
visibility of the window from the       
bastion of the ,nike temple4 ,had the   
wall been moved forward1 the window     
would in greater or less degree have    
been concealed by a column1 and the     
architect's purpose in so far defeated4 
,in view of the unusual depth of the    

portico the effect of moving the wall   
still further back scarcely requires    
consideration4  ,illustration3 ,,figure 
#a  ,,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 determined1 the next stretch  
below must have reached from the ,nike  
bastion to a point below the pedestal of
 the monument to ,agrippa4 ,this        
pedestal1 in turn1 affords important    
evidence confirming the theory that such
 was the course of the road4 ,the       
monument to ,agrippa was erected in #bg 
,b4,c41 that is1 before the ,greek way  
was replaced by the ,roman steps in the 
first century ,a4,d4 7,judeich1         
,topographie von ,athen1 p4 #aii1 note74
 ,its peculiar orientation has never    
been explained1 but now1 in view of the 
preceding analysis1 is easily           
explicable4 ,from the bend in the road  
at the base of the bastion1 the         

equestrian statue1 which surmounted the 
high pedestal1 was seen in exact        
profile4 ,this is proved by a glance at 
the plan 7,fig4 #d7 in which the axis of
 the road and the ,n-,s axis of the     
pedestal converge at the base of the    
bastion4 ,from the turn in the road just
 below the pedestal1 the inscription on 
its west face could be easily read4 ,but
 from the conjectured road which is     
drawn in ,judeich1 op4 cit41 ,plan ,,ii1
 it was impossible for a person to read 
easily the inscription or see the       
equestrian group in exact profile4 ,thus
 it seems beyond question that the      
pedestal of the monument was oriented   
with reference to the ancient ,greek    
roadway1 the first clue to which is     
given by the peculiar arrangement of the
 door and windows of the ,pinakotheke4  
,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 front4  ,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 ,erechtheum4 ,the certain  
restoration by ,stevens 7,a4 ,j4 ,a41   
#aijf1 ,pl4 #i7 of the east wall of this
 temple1 shows that the door and windows
 were so placed as to be simultaneously 
visible from points in the axis of the  
door 7,fig4 #g74 ,at a distance of about
 #aj m4 from the stylobate1 the windows 
appeared in the middle of the           
intercolumniations4#a ,the level ground 
in front of the faade made possible an  
approach from straight in front4 ,in    
order that the windows might be         
simultaneously visible1 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  
door4 ,the former permitted longer wall 
blocks between the door and window than 

the latter would have allowed4  ,in the 
case of the ,propylaea1 the approach was
 by a zigzag road up a steep grade4 ,the
 last stretch of this road was oblique  
to the ,n-,s axis of the ,pinakotheke4  
,if the faade was to be viewed from that
 last stretch of the zigzag road1 an    
asymmetric arrangement of door and      
windows was absolutely necessary4 ,the  
windows and door had to be moved to the 
right of their normal position4 ,the    
east faade 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 colonnade4 ,in  
the east faade of the ,erechtheum1      
however1 this law is observed in a      
perfectly normal arrangement2 in the    
,pinakotheke1 observance of the general 
law necessitated an abnormal arrangement
 of the openings4  ,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 view1 one in the line of approach to 
the ,propylaea1 the other within the    
portico4 ,a glance at the plan of the   
,propylaea 7,fig4 #d7 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 unequally4 ,the line to the left
 side of the door is tangent to one     
column1 the line to the right side cuts 
deeply into the other4 ,if the door had 
been placed with reference solely to the
 view from the last stretch of the      
zigzag road1 it ought to stand farther  
to the west4 ,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       
hexastyle4 ,it is necessary to emphasize
 the fact that the passage back of the  
hexastyle was the normal means of access
 to the ,pinakotheke4 ,the position of  
the east window in the middle of its    

wall space would be quickly1 if         
unconsciously felt by the observer1 with
 the result that the asymmetry of the   
wall as a whole would not be noticed4   
,had the normal access to the wing been 
from directly in front1 between the     
first and second columns 7counting from 
the east71 the fact that the windows    
were not equidistant from the door would
 have been readily recognized1 but1 as  
it is1 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     
window4 ,if the door had been placed    
farther west1 this advantage would have 
been lost4  ,if the zigzag approach we  
have indicated be correct1 it follows   
that the ,pinakotheke was designed also 
for an observer who stood at the        
beginning of the straight road through  
the portal1 where it would have produced
 a unified effect with the general      
structure4  ,illustration3 ,,figure #b  
,,the ,,pinakotheke ,,as ,,seen ,,from  

,,the ,,base ,,of ,,the ,,nike          
,,bastion4 ,,at ,,left1 ,,the ,,pedestal
 ,,of ,,the ,,monument ,,to ,,agrippa   
,illustration3 ,,figure #c  ,,the       
,,pinakotheke ,,as ,,seen ,,from ,a     
,,point ,,near ,,the ,,axis ,,of ,,the  
,,roadway ,,through ,,the ,,propylaea   
,it will be readily seen that if the    
,s4,w4 wing1 which was never completed1 
had been built as an exact counterpart  
of the ,n4,w4 wing1 the three parts     
would have been designed to be seen from
 a common point at the beginning of the 
straight road through the portal1 and   
the structure though tripartite would   
have been a symmetrical unit4 ,professor
 ,drpfeld 7,ath4 ,mitt41 #ahhe1 p4 #de  
ff47 has shown that the architect       
planned at one time a south-west wing   
with a colonnade instead of a closed    
west wall1 and that the present         
curtailed wing could have been          
incorporated in the wing as planned1 if 
permission had ever been given to       
encroach upon adjacent sanctuaries4     

,there is1 of course1 no gainsaying that
 a colonnade was at one time projected  
for the west side of the wing1 but does 
this fact in any wise exclude the       
possibility of a still earlier plan8    
,the only reason given by ,prof4        
,drpfeld for the colonnade is that      
access might be had to the ,nike temple4
 ,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 ,acropolis4      
,indeed1 it seems quite possible that   
the architect1 ,mnesicles1 originally   
planned a south-west wing 7,stuart      
,revett1 ,the ,antiquities of ,athens1  
,,ii1 ,v1 ,pl4 ,,iii7 exactly like the  
north-west wing1 but that he was        
compelled to give it up1 that his       
compromise of a colonnade was also      
rejected1 and that he had to content    
himself with the curtailed form in which

 the wing now exists1 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     
side4  ,there is1 moreover1 some reason 
to suspect that the architect was       
hostile to the idea of having a temple  
on the bastion4 ,the ,propylaea and the 
temple are obviously not features of a  
harmonious structural plan4 ,the        
,propylaea as the crowning gateway of   
the acropolis demanded an unobstructed  
outlook toward the west4 ,the presence  
of the little temple obstructs that     
outlook4 ,when one learns that the      
senate voted the construction of the    
temple in1 or shortly before1 #ddf      
,b4,c41 7,greek3 ,eph4 ,arch41 #ahig1 p4
 #agi71 that is1 at a time when we      
fairly assume that the ,periclean       
building plans for the acropolis were   
about ready1 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 bastion4 ,that the 
opposition of the priesthood#b 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 ,brauronia1 or 
in that of ,athena ,nike4  ,the most    
suggestive chapter in the struggle      
between priest and architect is the     
last4 ,when the architect was forced to 
abandon the idea of building a          
colonnade1 he hoped that he could extend
 the south wall of the wing #cj cm4 west
 of its present position so as to align 
it with the third column of the north   
colonnade4 ,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 7see the photograph in ,jb4 
,arch4 ,inst41 #aijf1 p4 #aci74 ,these  
blocks were never intended to serve as a

 step1 for in that case marble would    
have been used4 ,had the pavement and   
anta reached #cj cm4 farther1 a pier of 
necessary diameter could have been      
erected between the anta and the third  
column of the north faade1 and the      
architrave above the pier could then    
have been of the same width as that of  
the north colonnade4 ,but even this     
slight concession was denied2 the       
western line of the wing was forced     
back2 a unique pier had to be built and 
a narrow architrave placed upon it      
7,bohn1 op4 cit41 ,taf4 ,,xvi74 ,even   
the poros blocks where they encroached  
on the precinct appear to have been     
hacked away4  ,in the ,propylaea itself1
 there survives some suggestion of the  
real attitude of the architect toward   
the ,nike temple and its bastion4 ,the  
crepidoma of the south-west wing        
terminates in an anta which was intended
 to stand free 7,arch4 ,zeit41 #ahhj1 p4
 #hf2 ,jb4 ,arch4 ,inst41 #aijf1 p4     
#acf1 fig4 #c73 ,dass dieser ,pfeiler in

 ,form einer ,anta gebildet ist1 d4h4   
nach ,nord und ,sd um ein wenig         
vorspringt1 beweist dass hier           
ursprnglich ein selbstndiger ,abschluss 
geplant war1 genau wie an der           
,nordhalle4 ,the objection of ,wolters  
7,bonner ,studien1 p4 #ie7 does not     
invalidate ,bohn's conclusion4 ,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     
intended4 ,since the blocks are of      
different height1 it seems safe to infer
 that the stone-cutter knew exactly the 
place of each4 ,another important fact  
is that the anta in question inclines #c
 cm4 to the west4 ,drpfeld who publishes
 this valuable observation in ,ath4     
,mitt41 #aiaa1 p4 #ee1 says3 ,fr das    
,ende einer ,mauer ist ein berneigen des
 oberen ,teiles nach aussen ganz        
unerhrt4 ,wir drfen also mit ,sicherheit
 behaupten dass die beiden ,seitenwnde  
des ,vorplatzes der ,propylen nicht     

beendet sind1 sondern nach dem ,plane   
des ,mnesikles weiter nach ,westen als  
,marmorwnde mit mindestens je einer     
zweiten ,ante fortgefhrt werden sollten4
 ,im ,sden sollten die beiden           
,parastaden augenscheinlich die ,treppe 
zum ,nike-,tempel einfassen1 im ,norden 
sollten sie vermutlich eine ,tr bilden1 
die zu dem westlich von der ,pinakothek 
befindlichen tief liegenden ,raume      
fhrte4  ,the inference from ,professor  
,drpfeld's important observation is that
 the anta was intended to carry a lintel
 or an architrave reaching west4 ,the   
question is just how much of the bastion
 was to be removed to make room for this
 extension4 ,the readiness of the       
architect to encroach upon the precinct 
of the temple warrants the answer that  
the whole bastion was to be removed4    
,the anta1 as ,bohn says1 was built to  
stand free like its counterpart at the  
,n4,w4 wing4 ,the character of the      
extension remains a matter of           
conjecture4 ,perhaps a colonnade was    

contemplated4  ,but if this is true1 the
 question arises how does it happen that
 the bastion of the temple1 which       
certainly antedates the ,propylaea1 has 
a north wall aligned with that of the   
,s4,w4 wing of the ,propylaea4 ,the     
coincidence must be the result of       
deliberate plan and is best explained by
 the supposition that when the bastion  
was built1 the ground plan of the       
,propylaea and its position were already
 known4 ,the north wall of the bastion  
could therefore be built in line with   
that of the wing4 ,the continuation of  
the north wall of the bastion was broken
 away when work on the ,propylaea was   
begun4  ,neither ,pericles nor          
,mnesicles gave consent to the erection 
of the ,temple of ,wingless ,victory4   
,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 acropolis1 a command        
unannoyed by the hostile lines of the   

structurally insignificant temple of    
,victory4  ,illustration3 ,,figure #d   
,,plan ,,of ,,the ,,propylaea ,,showing 
,,the ,,zigzag ,,road1 ,,the            
,,conjectured ,,road 7,,in ,,dotted     
,,lines71 ,,and ,,the ,,original ,,form 
,,of ,,the ,s4,w4 ,,wing     ,,ii  ,,the
 ,,caryatid ,,porch ,,of ,,the          
,,erechtheum   ,not the least remarkable
 feature of the ,erechtheum is the      
,caryatid ,porch1 which is generally    
regarded as a creation of the artist's  
fancy and of no further significance4   
,in the present study an attempt will be
 made to prove that the maidens serve   
not only a structural and artistic      
purpose1 but that they also bear a      
relation in thought to the cult of the  
temple1 notwithstanding the fact that   
the female figure had been employed by  
earlier architects merely as a support4 
,if the subject of the frieze of the    
,erechtheum1 like that of the           
approximately contemporary ,parthenon1  
was appropriately drawn from the life   

and worship of the gods of the temple1  
it is possible that the sculptured      
maidens of the unique ,caryatid ,porch  
also bear a logical relation to the cult
 of the temple4  ,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     
,erechtheum4 ,the archaic pedimental    
sculpture of poros which is now in the  
,acropolis ,museum 7,wiegand1           
,porosarchitektur der ,akropolis zu     
,athen1 ,taf4 #ad2 ,petersen1 ,die      
,burgtempel der ,athenaia1 p4 #bb1 abb4 
#b7 gives us a view of the early temple 
as seen from the south4 ,close to the   
west side of the temple1 the sacred     
olive of ,athena appears above a low    
wall1 just as in a later period1 it     
stood close to the west faade of the    
,erechtheum and appeared above the south
 wall of the ,pandroseum4 ,a precinct   
wall ran west from the south-west corner
 of both the earlier and later          

,erechtheum4 ,along this wall in the    
pedimental sculpture figures are passing
 toward the temple4 ,they have come from
 the direction of the ,propylaea4 ,a    
procession moving from the ,propylaea to
 the ,caryatid ,porch had exactly the   
background of the sculptured figures4   
,the correspondence is complete when one
 notes that these figures are moving    
toward an entrance which answers to the 
later ,caryatid ,porch4  ,a further     
point of value is that the female       
figures in the procession carried       
something on their heads1 as is shown by
 their raised but broken left arms4 ,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 figure4
 ,it stood probably in the portico and  
may have served as a ,caryatid4         
,petersen 7op4 cit41 p4 #bg7 thinks     
these figures represent ,arrephoroi     
rather than ,canephoroi and his opinion 
is very reasonable4 ,the ,arrephoroi    

annually carried some mysterious object 
on their heads to the temple of ,athena 
and ,erechtheus4  ,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 use4 ,a        
restricted use of the ,caryatid ,porch  
is a certain inference from the         
following facts4 ,the opening at the    
north-east corner of the porch is narrow
 and the step up to it is twenty inches4
 ,if this means of access to the temple 
had been used by the public1 the step   
would have been lower and convenient4   
,again1 the delicate base mouldings of  
the building which run under this       
opening would have been worn if the     
opening had been frequently used        
7,frazer1 ,pausanias1 ,,ii1 p4 #ccg74   
,frazer's conclusion is that the        
entrance was reserved for priests4      
,this entrance like its predecessor was 
perhaps used by the ,arrephoroi4 ,if it 

was the entrance especially reserved for
 them1 then the ,caryatids may very     
appropriately be regarded as statues of 
,arrephoroi4 ,they adorn their own      
porch4 ,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    
7,bekker1 ,anecdota ,graeca1 ,i4 p4     
#bjb1 s4 v4 ,greek3 arrphorein7 but a   
structural necessity for heavier1 fuller
 forms justified the license of the     
architect4 ,the ,caryatids are called   
,greek3 korai in the building           
inscriptions4#c  ,illustration3 ,,figure
 #e  ,,procession ,,of ,,arrephoroi4 ,a 
,,scene ,,on ,,an ,,archaic ,,amphora   
,the interpretation of the ,caryatids as
 ,arrephoroi is confirmed by a scene    
7,fig4 #e7d on an archaic amphora which 
also makes possible a better            
understanding of the ,porch as a whole4 
,the amphora which is now in the ,museum
 of ,fine ,arts at ,boston is published 

by ,de ,ridder in ,b4 ,c4 ,h41 #ahih1 p4
 #dfg and pl4 ,,vi1 and by ,caskey in   
,museum of ,fine ,arts ,bulletin1 ,vol4 
,,vii 7#aiji71 ,no4 #ch4 ,in the scene  
on the neck of this amphora appears a   
priestess followed by four maidens who  
bear upon their heads a long chest4 ,de 
,ridder compares the four maidens with  
the ,athenian ,canephoroi4 ,certain     
suggestive points may be noted4 ,the    
maidens are four in number4 ,ancient    
writers with the exception of ,pausanias
 tell us that there were four           
,arrephoroi at ,athens4#e ,the front of 
the ,caryatid ,porch consists of four4  
,nor do comparisons stop here4 ,the     
architrave which the ,caryatids         
7,arrephoroi7 carry may be compared with
 the long chest which the maidens bear  
on their heads1 and the discs on the    
architrave with the discs which ornament
 the chest4 ,the discs on the architrave
 are usually explained as a substitute  
for a frieze1 but the logic of such     
substitution is quite unclear4 ,they are

 simply the ornaments which decorated   
the mysterious burden of the            
,arrephoroi4  ,the ceremony in the      
course of which the ,arrephoroi carried 
the chest may have had to do with a cult
 of the heroized dead4 ,tradition has it
 that ,erechtheus who was closely       
associated with ,athena was buried in   
the ,erechtheum4 ,the discs on the box  
and on the dress of the bearers suggest 
those which were found in such numbers  
in the ,mycenaean shaft-graves4#f ,but  
whatever the character of the ceremony1 
it had to do with the cult which was    
housed in the ,erechtheum4  ,the amphora
 just referred to is a ,boeotian fabric1
 but that fact does not nullify the     
importance of its bearing upon the      
problem in hand4 ,the ,boeotian potter  
may have appropriated the scene from an 
,athenian source4 ,the comparative study
 of this amphora1 the archaic pedimental
 sculpture and the ,caryatid ,porch seem
 to justify the following conclusions4  
,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 ,erechtheus4
 ,the maidens are a particularly        
appropriate adornment of the porch which
 was reserved for their living          
prototypes4 ,the corresponding entrance 
of the ,pre-,persian joint temple was   
also used by the ,arrephoroi and may    
have had ,caryatids in place of columns4
 ,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 successor4 ,in a word
 the ,caryatid ,porch is not an         
arbitrary creation but is related in    
thought to the cult of the temple4      
,,iii  ,,the ,,erechtheum ,,as ,,built  
,the present plan of the interior of the
 ,erechtheum offers a number of         
difficulties4 ,those of a general       
character may be considered first4      
,within the cellae of ,greek temples1   

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 ,erechtheum4
 ,the accepted plan of the cella compels
 an orientation east and west instead of
 north and south for its two chambers4  
,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   
century4 ,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 7cf4 ,furtwngler1 ,sitzb4   
,mnch4 ,akad41 #aijd1 #cge74 ,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 plan4         
,difficulties of a specific nature are  
encountered when one endeavors to find  

in the plan certain details of the      
,chandler inscription 7,i4 ,g41 ,i1     
#cbb74 ,a satisfactory parastas cannot  
be located4 ,it was an interior wall of 
some sort4 ,the word ,greek3            
prostomiaion the official name of one of
 the chambers in the west cella has been
 derived from ,greek3 prostomion which  
is conjectured to have been the curb    
about the sacred well 7,petersen1 ,die  
,burgtempel der ,athenaia1 p4 #aja74    
,but one naturally asks why the room of 
the sacred well was not named from      
,greek3 stomion4 ,the ,greek3 phrear    
7,greek3 stomion7 was the important     
object of cult in the room4 ,it is the  
,greek3 thalassa which is mentioned by  
,herodotus1 and the ,greek3 phrear by   
,pausanias1 while nothing is heard about
 a well-curb4 ,the natural              
interpretation of ,greek3 prostomiaion  
is the room in front of 7,greek3 pro7   
the 99 ,greek3 stomiaion1 i4e41 the room
 of the ,greek3 stomion4 ,now the       
derivation of 99 ,greek3 stomiaion      

7which does not1 to be sure1 occur in   
extant records of the temple7 from      
,greek3 stomion is as simple as that of 
,greek3 ,pandroseion from ,greek3       
,pandrosos4 ,it is the entirely         
problematical ,greek3 prostomion which  
renders improbable the derivation from  
it of ,greek3 prostomiaion4  ,there is  
another possible source of difficulty to
 be noticed4 ,the inscription mentions  
four doors1 #h-a_/d x #b-a_/b feet1 for 
which there is no place in the outside  
walls4 ,these then must have been placed
 in the interior walls4 ,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 7,fowler and ,wheeler1   
,greek ,archaeology1 p4 #adh1 fig4      
#aae74 ,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      

,greek3 diploun in the description of   
,pausanias refers to the entire western 
part of the ,erechtheum4 ,for the       
western cella would then consist of     
three instead of two chambers4  ,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 7cf4 ,michaelis1  
,jb4 ,arch4 ,inst41 #aijb1 p4 #af ff74  
,this is what scholars have sought to do
 with very different and unsatisfactory 
results1 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 narrative4 ,those who   
believe that the description is         
something more than a loose statement of
 the contents of the temple are said to 
be making assumptions4 ,but the         
description1 taken by itself1 seems to  
be a systematic account1 and the burden 
of proof rests upon those who deny it4  
,the denial is based upon the failure of

 the account to square with the accepted
 plan of the interior of the            
,erechtheum1 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 alone4 ,there is no sure       
warrant for saying in the case of this  
description that ,pausanias has confused
 his notes4  ,the traveler has been made
 to enter the ,erechtheum through three 
different doors4 ,his account1 however1 
is simple and ought not to occasion     
difficulty4 ,it suggests orderly        
progression4 ,before the entrance he    
found the altar of ,zeus2 on entering1  
three altars and the paintings of the   
,butadae2 then in an inner 7,greek3     
endon7 room the well and trident-mark2  
thereafter follows the account of the   
objects in the cella of ,athena4 ,then  
he passed to the ,pandroseum4 ,the order
 in this description is simple and      
natural1 and the moment the theory is   

advanced of a postponement of certain   
objects for mention later in other      
connections1 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 choice4
 ,the simplicity and naturalness of the 
description is the best guarantee of an 
orderly progression by ,pausanias1 and  
the only guide where the evidence of the
 building is insufficient4  ,in his     
simple1 straightforward account1        
,pausanias gives not the slightest      
indication that he left the ,erechtheum 
until he entered the ,pandroseum4 ,the  
present plan of the temple in which east
 and west cella are separated by a      
closed wall1 compels that assumption4   
,further1 if ,pausanias coming from the 
east entered the ,erechtheum by the east
 door1 one is compelled to place in the 
cella of ,athena the altar of           
,poseidon-,erechtheus and the paintings 

of the ,butadae1 which did not demand a 
cella with an orientation east1 and then
 to place the contents of the ,greek3   
naos ts ,athnas including the xoanon in 
the western cella where they certainly  
did not belong2 or else with ,drpfeld   
move the museum into the shadowy old    
,hekatompedon1 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 century4  ,but 
neglecting for the moment the objection 
that ,pausanias gives no indication of  
having left the ,erechtheum until he    
passed to the ,greek3 naos ,pandrosou1  
and granting besides that the old       
,hekatompedon was still standing1 one   
quickly asks why ,pausanias1 who took   
things in order1 passed by that temple  
when he approached from the east4 ,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 ,erechtheum8 ,the fact that the  

old temple stood a few paces farther    
west than the ,erechtheum does not help 
one out of the difficulty4 ,the simple  
and convenient order would have been3   
,hekatompedon1 ,erechtheum1 temple or   
temenos of ,pandrosus4 ,but instead one 
has the unintelligible order illustrated
 in ,a4 ,j4 ,a41 ,,iii 7#ahii71 p4 #cfh4
  ,if1 however1 the majority of scholars
 are right in their belief that         
,pausanias entered first the west cella 
of the ,erechtheum1 then according to   
the present plan neither the well nor   
the trident-mark were ,greek3 endon     
because the former is placed in the room
 which is entered directly from the     
north and south porches 7,michaelis1    
,jb4 ,arch4 ,inst41 #aijb1 p4 #af74     
,furtwngler 7,masterpieces1 p4 #dce7    
takes refuge in the theory that         
,pausanias1 immediately after mentioning
 the altar of ,zeus ,hypatus before the 
entrance1 adds the three others within  
the cella in order to get one of his    
favorite antitheses4 ,the result is     

hopeless confusion4 ,the three altars   
which ,pausanias mentions as being in   
the first chamber1 ,furtwngler          
distributes in two chambers1 neither of 
which is entered directly from either   
north or south porch1 while in the first
 chamber ,cecrops is established whom   
,pausanias does not mention4 ,an        
attempt1 which must be characterized as 
violent1 has been made to fit the       
description of the traveller to the plan
 of the cella by the assumption         
7,frazer1 ,paus41 ,,ii1 #ccf7 that both 
well and trident-mark were apparently   
reached from the inner chamber1 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 7cf4      
,furtwngler1 ,sitzb4 ,mn4 ,akad41 #aijd1
 p4 #cgb74 ,but why make ,pausanias     
descend a stairway1 for which there is  
no evidence1 to look at indentations in 
the rock which could be seen from the   
,porch8 ,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 poor4 ,one can   
examine the marks from the porch without
 crawling through the passage1 the      
height of which 7#a4bb m47 shows that it
 was not intended to be an ordinary     
approach1 as ,michaelis 7op4 cit41 p4   
#ai7 rightly observes4 ,petersen's      
explanation 7op4 cit41 p4 #ajb7 that    
,pausanias postponed the mention of the 
trident-mark until he saw the ,greek3   
phrear inside the temple is simply      
another arbitrary violation of a clear  
statement by the traveler which gives   
every indication of orderly natural     
progression4  ,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 door4 ,this hole opens  
into the passage4 ,nilson 7,j4,h4,s41   
#aija1 p4 #cbh7 accepts the assertion   
made in the ,greek3 ,praktika ts epi tou
 ,erechtheiou ,epitrops 7#ahec7  #be    

that the hole is modern1 but since there
 is not the slightest trace of a scar   
made by a chisel on the surface of the  
adjacent block1 it is certain that the  
hole was cut before the slab was set in 
place1 i4e4 it is part of the           
underground system at this place1 but no
 attempt has been made to explain it4   
,yet another difficulty is found in the 
words ,greek3 diploun gar estin to      
oikma4 ,after mentioning the altars and 
paintings in the first room1 ,pausanias 
passes to the second with the           
observation that the ,greek3 oikma is   
double1 to find there 7,greek3 endon7 a 
well and the marks 7,greek3 sma or      
,greek3 schma7 of the trident4 ,in other
 passages in which ,pausanias describes 
double buildings the natural            
interpretation is that the first chamber
 is in front1 the front determined by   
the entrance of the second1 because     
cross-walls in cellae are normally at   
right angles to the major axis4 ,the    
north porch at once determines that axis

 in the west cella of the ,erechtheum4  
,in ,paus4 ,,vi1 #bj4 #c1 the first     
chamber is noted with the words ,greek3 
en t emprosthen1 the second with ,greek3
 en t entos4 ,according to the present  
plan the chambers of the ,greek3 oikma  
,erechtheiou are one in front of the    
other for a person only1 who enters by  
the small door in the west wall4 ,for   
one entering by either of the other     
doors1 the chambers are side by side4   
,a common objection to all theories     
about the ,erechtheum is that they      
attribute an unintelligible order to the
 course taken by ,pausanias4 ,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 ,athena1 and that he then      
descended again to visit the            
,pandroseum4 ,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   
,greek3 synechs4 ,the ,pandroseum1 in   
which the ,greek3 naos ,pandrosou must  
have stood is in close connection with  
the ,erechtheum1 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 temple4 ,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 first1 and after describing its  
contents descend to the western and     
lower cella1 and then proceed to the    
,pandroseum4 ,in short1 the present plan
 of the ,erechtheum will agree with the 
description of ,pausanias cum mula      
peperit4  ,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 rexamined4  ,a    
,roman foundation has obscured the truth
 in the temple1 namely the foundation   
which is said to have supported the     
western of the two interior walls4 ,this
 foundation1 however1 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
 ,greek3 kampyl selis of ,greek times   
7,a4 ,j4 ,a41 #aiaj1 p4 #bia74 ,the     
weathering on the north wall helps to   
establish the relation of the foundation
 to the inserted blocks4 ,this          
foundation was later used for the wall  
of the narthex of the church into which 
the ,erechtheum was converted1 perhaps  
as early as the fifth century4 ,the     
traces of the ,greek walls1 just east of
 the north and south doors1 show however
 that1 if they belong to a ,greek wall  
which stood on the present foundation1  

that wall rested not squarely on the    
foundation but on the eastern side of   
it4 ,the certain conclusion from these  
facts is that the foundation was not    
laid for the ,greek wall1 whatever the  
character of the latter may have been4  
,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 rock4 ,the  
traces of the ,greek wall however show  
that it reached up five courses above   
the orthostates while the presence of   
the ,greek3 kampyl selis above proves   
that this low wall was only a           
screen-wall and supported nothing4 ,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 building4 ,the bed for the ,roman   
foundation was not carefully prepared2  
just south of the centre the unevenness 
of the underlying rock is distinctly    
noticeable4 ,quite different is the     

character of the ,greek foundation4 ,the
 rock was carefully cut to receive it4  
,the courses are evenly laid1 the       
interstices between the blocks small4   
,neither remark applies to the ,roman   
foundation which is the poorest in the  
building4 ,finally1 this foundation does
 not key into those for the north and   
south walls 7,fig4 #f74 ,the south      
foundation appears to key into that for 
the interior wall1 but on examination it
 will be seen that the poros block in   
question has been cut back by those who 
enlarged the cistern4 ,this block       
originally projected in as far as the   
poros blocks in the same course but east
 of the interior wall4 ,if the interior 
foundation had keyed into the           
foundations of the outside walls its    
,greek character would have been beyond 
question4  ,illustration3 ,,figure #f   
,,view ,,of ,n4 ,,end ,,of ,w4          
,,interior ,,foundation ,,showing ,,that
 ,,it ,,does ,,not ,,key ,,into ,,the   
,,foundation ,,of ,,the ,n4 ,,wall      

,illustration3 ,,figure #g  ,,plan ,,of 
,,erechtheum ,,showing ,,new ,,interior 
,,arrangement4 ,,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 7,fig4 #g74 ,the  
chief evidence in the building for this 
is that the west door of the ,erechtheum
 does not stand in the middle of the    
wall1 a peculiarity often remarked      
7,penrose1 ,the ,principles of ,athenian
 ,architecture1 p4 #hh74 ,the unusual   
position of a door under a column is    
structurally objectionable 7,michaelis1 
,jb4 ,arch4 ,inst41 #aijb1 p4 #ah74 ,had
 the door been placed in the middle1 it 
would have stood directly under the     
central intercolumination of the west   
colonnade4 ,the latest theory 7,d',ooge1
 ,the ,acropolis of ,athens1 p4 #bja7 is
 that the position of the door was      
determined by the structure which       

abutted against the west wall just south
 of the door4 ,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   
objectionable4 ,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 
size4 ,the door connecting the two very 
probably lay in the axis of the north   
and south doors of the temple 7,fig4    
#g71 thus very near to the west wall4   
,the distance of the top course which   
could not have reached above the lintel 
of the west door was #h-a_/d feet above 
the bottom of the orthostates of the    
west wall4 ,the height of the doors     
mentioned in the ,chandler inscription  
is #h-a_/d feet4 ,of this cross-wall    
there are no traces of contact with the 
west wall4 ,it must be noted1 however1  

that the surface of the west wall is at 
that place badly broken away 7,fig4 #h74
 ,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 anathyrosis4 ,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 7,fig4 #i74 ,had the north  
wall been destroyed beyond recovery down
 to this orthostate1 there would have   
been no evidence now to show that a     
cross-wall ever was in contact with it4 
,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 west4 ,the  
blocks above this orthostate are badly  
broken away except one just below the   
lintel which has some original surface  
preserved4 ,the lintel like the         
orthostate is a block two courses high  

and may have the same exemption from any
 signs of contact1 as far as the surface
 is concerned1 with the interior of the 
wall4 ,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-wall4 ,the top of the   
lintel in the line of the wall is broken
 away so that there1 as in the case of  
the blocks below1 no evidence of clamps 
can be expected4 ,neglecting for a      
moment the remarkable position of the   
door1 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-wall4  
,the conclusive answer must be found in 
the simple description of ,pausanias to 
whose text one may now turn 7,i1 #bf1   
#e74 ,the new plan fits perfectly4      
,illustration3 ,,figure #h  ,,view ,,of 
,,the ,n4 ,,side ,,of ,,the ,,door ,,in 
,,the ,w4 ,,wall  ,in the first room    
7,greek3 eselthousi7 ,pausanias found   

the altars of ,hephaestus1              
,poseidon-,erechtheus and ,butes1 and   
the paintings of the ,butadae4 ,the wall
 space lighted directly from the west   
windows was finely adapted for the      
paintings4 ,there were only two doors   
and those at the west ends of the long  
walls4 ,there could have been an        
uninterrupted series of paintings1      
whereas the ,greek3 prostomiaion of the 
other plan had five doors1 and therefore
 offered less desirable space4 ,with the
 words ,greek3 diploun gar estin to     
oikma1 ,pausanias passes to the next    
room 7,greek3 endon7 where he found the 
well of sea-water4 ,now the name with   
which ,pausanias introduces his         
description is significant3 ,greek3 esti
 de kai oikma ,erechtheion kaloumenon4  
,he named the temple from the part which
 he entered first and then he says a    
moment later that this ,greek3 oikma is 
double1 i4e4 the part which he has just 
entered4 ,up to this point there is no  
suggestion of ,athena4 ,the ,greek3     

diploun oikma of ,erechtheus consisted  
of two chambers one behind the other    
with reference to the porch4  ,the      
,greek3 phrear in the new plan is in the
 inner 7,greek3 endon7 room of the      
,greek3 oikma near the west wall of the 
temple1 where water was accumulated in  
later times and probably therefore in   
,greek and ,roman times1 while there is 
no indication whatever of a well of any 
sort in the inner chamber according to  
the old plan4 ,at present the cistern in
 the western part of the temple reaches 
from north door to south door1 but there
 is evidence to show that originally in 
,greek times it did not extend so far   
north4 ,just inside the north door1 the 
pavement consisted of thin slabs1 #j4ac 
m4 thick1 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 foundation4 
,the thinness of the pavement is        
inconsistent with the theory of a hollow
 vault of any sort beneath the floor4   

,there must have been a filling of earth
 for the pavement to rest on4 ,this     
confirms the theory that the originally 
smaller place for the accumulation of   
water within the building was the       
south-west corner4 ,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  
,greek3 phrear4 ,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-mark4 ,the architect1 unable to 
secure consent to their removal1 was    
compelled to build upon them and to     
raise the door4 ,he placed the threshold
 above the bottom of the orthostates1   
and the position of this threshold may  
have determined the high position of the
 orthostates of the western wall4 ,both 

are placed at the same level4  ,in the  
inner room ,pausanias saw the           
trident-mark1 naturally near the ,greek3
 phrear4 ,the first produced the second1
 according to ,apollodorus1 ,,iii1 #ad1 
#b4 ,pausanias did not see them ,greek3 
pro ts esodou but ,greek3 endon4 ,there 
is no authority whatever for identifying
 the marks in the rock beneath the north
 porch with those made by the trident of
 ,poseidon1 except common consent in    
recent times4 ,if the trident-mark lay  
within the ,erechtheum what deity made  
that outside1 and beneath the porch1 a  
mark which was beyond question an object
 of cult8 ,die ,stelle welche ,zeus mit 
seinem ,blitze getroffen hatte1 wurde   
mit einem ,puteal umgeben und blieb     
unter freiem ,himmel 7,drpfeld1 ,ath4   
,mitt41 #aijc1 p4 #dfg74 ,an altar of   
,zeus ,hypatus stood before the         
entrance4 ,the coincidence of place     
,greek3 pro ts esodou and ,greek3 en t  
prostasei t pros tou thyrmatos where1   
according to the official inscription   

the altar of the ,thyechous stood1      
outweighs any objection to the          
identification of the two altars based  
on difference of name in the two        
records1 ,greek3 ho bmos tou thychou and
 ,greek3 ,dios bmos ,hypatou4 ,pausanias
 departs from the official terminology  
of building inscriptions4 ,the rotunda  
at ,epidaurus was called in the building
 inscription ,greek3 thymel 7cf4        
,cavvadias1 ,greek3 ,to ,hieron tou     
,asklpiou en ,epidaur1 p4 #ej74         
,pausanias called it ,greek3 tholos4    
,the official name for the ,erechtheum  
does not occur in literature nor in     
inscriptions except in the report of the
 commissioners4 ,it is not surprising   
then if ,pausanias failed to call the   
altar ,greek3 ho bmos tou thychou4 ,this
 name gives not the slightest clue to   
the god to whom it was erected4 ,the    
suggestion of ,michaelis 7,jb4 ,arch4   
,inst41 #aijb1 p4 #ag7 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 porch4   
,illustration3 ,,figure #i  ,,looking   
,,north ,,in ,,the ,,line ,,of ,,the    
,,eastern ,,interior ,,cross-,,wall4 ,a 
,,view ,,showing ,,the ,,orthostate     
,,which ,,was ,,in ,,contact ,,with     
,,the ,,interior ,,wall ,,and ,,the     
,,rough ,,surface 7,x7 ,,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 7,fab41 #df74 ,cf4 ,petersen1  
op4 cit41 p4 #gb4 ,one cannot say which 
is the earlier tradition1 that preserved
 in ,hyginus or that in ,euripides      
7,ion1 #bha7 according to which ,greek3 
plgai triains thrust ,erechtheus into a 
,greek3 chasma chthonos 7,furtwngler1   
,masterpieces1 p4 #dcf1 note #c74 ,there

 was a tradition that ,zeus1 at the     
request of ,poseidon1 killed ,erechtheus
 with a thunderbolt1 a tradition which  
becomes the more interesting in the     
light of an inscription found on the    
,acropolis 7,lolling1 ,greek3 ,del4     
,arch41 #ahij1 p4 #add7 which proves    
that an ,greek3 abaton ,dios ,kataibatou
 existed there4 ,the stone bearing the  
inscription was found in a mediaeval    
wall north of the northeast corner of   
the ,parthenon4 ,three surfaces of the  
fragment are preserved showing that it  
came from a corner perhaps of a low wall
 enclosing the ,greek3 abaton4 ,one side
 of the block which is ,pentelic marble 
is finely polished4 ,there are no dowel 
or clamp-holes preserved and it is      
impossible to recover the dimensions of 
the original block4 ,the face which     
bears the inscription of the late fourth
 century seems to have been redressed1  
since chisel marks are evident4 ,the    
inscription may then have been recut4   
,it is tentatively suggested that this  

fragment was part of the curb about the 
opening in the floor of the north porch4
  ,zeus hurled a thunderbolt which      
destroyed the chamber of ,semele at     
,thebes and the place was an ,greek3    
abaton in the time of ,pausanias 7,,ix1 
#ab1 #d74 ,when ,zeus struck ,erechtheus
 with a thunderbolt1 the spot on the    
,acropolis where the lightning struck   
may likewise have become an ,greek3     
abaton4 ,it is interesting to note that 
at ,olympia1 ,pausanias 7,v1 #ad1 #g7   
saw the foundations of the house of     
,oenomaus and two altars1 one to ,zeus  
,herkeios which ,oenomaus seems to have 
built1 the other to ,zeus ,keraunos     
erected later1 after the thunderbolt had
 destroyed the house4 ,the persons and  
palaces of mythical kings appear to have
 been a favorite mark for the           
thunderbolt of ,zeus4 ,the tradition    
preserved in ,hyginus is an             
illustration1 and tempts one to seek in 
the vicinity of the ,erechtheum for some
 record of the thunderbolt4  ,and so too

 does the notice of the scholiast 7after
 ,apollodorus7 on ,sophocles1 ,oed4     
,col41 #gje1 who says that near the     
,academy there was an altar to ,zeus    
,kataibates who was also called ,morios3
 ,greek3 estin ho te tou kataibatou     
,dios bmos on kai ,morion kalousin tn   
ekei morin para to ts ,athnas hieron    
hidrymenn4 ,that ,zeus ,kataibates      
should have been called ,greek3 ,morios 
7moria7 points to some relation with    
,athena and the olive which may have had
 its origin on the ,acropolis4 ,does    
this double name simply mean that ,zeus 
of sleepless eye used lightning 7,greek3
 kataibats7 to avenge sacrilege which   
one committed when he violated a sacred 
olive 7,greek3 moria7 as ,miss          
,harrison1 ,mythology and ,monuments of 
,ancient ,athens1 p4 #eii1 suggests1 or 
is the key to the explanation furnished 
by a passage in ,pausanias 7,,ix1 #ab1  
#d78 ,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 ,cadmus4    
,perhaps the ancient image of ,athena1  
the xoanon of olive wood1 which fell    
from heaven1 fell at the time ,zeus     
smote ,erechtheus1 just as the wooden   
image of ,dionysus ,cadmus fell when    
,zeus destroyed ,semele4 ,if so1 then   
,zeus ,kataibates1 by bringing to earth 
a piece of sacred olive 7,greek3 moria7 
very naturally acquired the name ,zeus  
,morios4  ,what known altar to ,zeus in 
the vicinity of the ,erechtheum could   
have been erected to him in his capacity
 as ,greek3 kataibats8 ,there was an    
altar of ,zeus ,herkeios under the olive
 in the ,pandroseum4 ,this1 however1    
cannot have served as an altar of ,zeus 
,kataibates because these were two      
distinct phases of the ,zeus cult4      
,pausanias found near the ruins of the  
palace of ,oenomaus at ,olympia an altar
 to ,zeus ,herkeios and another to ,zeus
 ,keraunos 7,kataibates74 ,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     
roof1 and this is none other than the   
altar to ,zeus ,kataibates4  ,the       
passage which led from these            
indentations through the foundation into
 the temple was not intended for the    
worshipper but for the priest on        
occasion4 ,herein lies a possible       
explanation of the hole which opens into
 the passage close to the wall east of  
the main door4 ,it was perhaps a sort of
 speaking tube for subterranean         
utterances4 ,perhaps beneath the floor  
of the temple the chthonic ,erechtheus  
was invoked and priestly response heard 
from above through the opening4  ,the   
trident-mark and the well1 both         
destroyed when the mediaeval cistern was
 cut1 were situated in the southwest    
part of the ,erechtheum4 ,thus evidences
 produced by ,poseidon in the dispute   
over the land were close to the olive   

tree of ,athena which stood in the      
,pandroseum4 ,the door in the west wall 
gave ready access from one to the other4
  ,it has already been remarked that in 
the description of the ,erechtheum1     
,pausanias gives no indication between  
the words ,greek3 eselthousin 7,i1 #bf1 
#e7 and ,greek3 synechs 7,i1 #bg1 #b7   
that he left the building to enter a    
temple of ,athena4 ,the reference to the
 well and the trident-mark is followed  
by a compound sentence1 the first member
 7,greek3 men7 of which prepares the way
 for the more important second member   
7,greek3 de7 which tells of the ,greek3 
hagitaton 444 ,athnas agalma4 ,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 ,greek3 diploun oikma and the    
,greek3 naos ts ,athnas4 ,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 portal1 the main      
entrance to the building4 ,the attempts 
to raise the eastern portico to the     
dignity of the ,greek3 prostasis h pros 
tou thyrmatos are unsatisfactory4 ,thus 
,penrose 7op4 cit41 p4 #ie73 ,it may    
seem a difficulty to explain why the    
most magnificent portico should lead to 
a subordinate shrine1 but the eastern   
portico with its six columns1 although  
of smaller diameter1 was scarcely if at 
all of less importance1 and the doorway 
could not have been much inferior in    
width and height4444 ,the difference of 
level also obviously gives preminence to
 the eastern site4 ,these considerations
 neither qualify the difficulty nor do  
they lessen the preminent magnificence  
of the north porch4 ,apart from the     
demands of the text of ,pausanias1 there
 is another point to be observed4 ,from 
the north porch there was a doorway     
opening into the ,pandroseum4 ,thus the 

north porch gave admission to a temenos1
 but not according to present theory to 
the eastern cella of ,athena4  ,in the  
inner chamber where ,pausanias saw the  
well1 he must have found a door1 the    
second of the two mentioned in the      
,chandler inscription1 which opened into
 the eastern cella 7,fig4 #g74 ,when he 
had seen the objects there1 he retraced 
his steps past the well and the mark of 
the trident1 and entered by the small   
door in the west wall1 the ,pandroseum1 
where stood a temple which was ,greek3  
synechs t na ts ,athnas4 ,that          
,pausanias on approaching the           
,erechtheum should call it ,greek3      
,erechtheion and then on leaving should 
call it ,greek3 naos ts ,athnas is not  
only quite in keeping with that         
stylistic tendency which ,robert has    
termed oratio variata 7,pausanias als   
,schriftsteller s4v47 but has a simple  
and natural explanation4 ,the first name
 for the temple was that of the western 
part which he entered first and found to

 be double2 the last name was that of   
the eastern part which he visited last4 
,the name for the whole was determined  
by that part which was most prominently 
in his thought at the time4 ,he gives   
not the slightest hint that ,athena had 
any share in the temple until he has    
described the contents of the ,greek3   
diploun oikma4 ,properly speaking the   
western part of the building was the    
,erechtheum1 and the eastern1 the temple
 of ,athena2 but the name of either half
 spread to the whole1 a natural tendency
 which gave the ,parthenon its name1 and
 readily intelligible in the case of the
 ,erechtheum in view of the traditional 
intimacy of the two divinities recorded 
in ,homer4 ,when ,pausanias speaks of   
the tholos at ,epidaurus a second time1 
he does not call it by that name1 but   
,greek3 oikma peripheres4 ,as for the   
dog of ,philochorus1 one may believe    
simply that the creature passed through 
the ,erechtheum proper into the         
,pandroseum 7,petersen1 op4 cit41 p4    

#adc74  ,the theory was at one time put 
forward that a staircase afforded       
communication between the western cella 
and the higher eastern cella1 but       
several considerations establish the    
fact that they had a common level4 ,the 
conclusive argument is that there are no
 cuttings in the rock for the cross-wall
 between the two cellae1 although that  
rock lay only #a-a4ej m4 below the base 
of the wall4 ,in its rough and sloping  
surfaces 7,fig4 #i7 there is not a      
single trace of a bed for a foundation  
which the supposed heavy cross-wall     
would demand4 ,the rock betrays no      
evidences whatever of preparation to    
receive a foundation4 ,the contention   
that points of rock were broken off is  
absurd4 ,the foundations for the outside
 walls go down to and rest in such beds1
 that of the west wall being an         
illustration4 ,those who believe that   
the heavy cross-wall supported roof     
beams besides serving as a terrace wall 
for the western cella #c m4 lower than  

the eastern1 seem not to have thought   
that such a wall would need a well cut  
bed in the rock4 ,now the east wall1 the
 thinnest in the building1 has a        
foundation which1 though it consists of 
eight courses of heavy poros blocks1    
rests in deep cuttings in the rock4     
,under one block of the lowest course1  
lies a smaller block of poros which also
 rests in deep cuttings in the rock4    
,why did not the eastern interior       
cross-wall likewise have a bed for it   
cut in the rock1 especially since its   
foundation was so shallow1 only two or  
three courses of poros1 and not eight as
 in the case of the eastern wall8 ,the  
only bit of outside wall which does not 
rest in cuttings in the rock is that at 
the southwest corner1 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       
foundation1 while the weight above the  
lintel rested on the heavy block in the 
west wall and the firmly founded wall   

just east of the door4  ,the champions  
of the accepted plan of the ,erechtheum 
must explain a striking inconsistency in
 construction presented by the two      
interior cross-walls4 ,the western1 a   
screen-wall 7,d',ooge1 ,the ,acropolis  
of ,athens1 p4 #bjb7 which reached only 
five courses above the orthostates and  
supported no other weight whatever1 had 
a foundation which rests partly in      
cuttings in the rock1 while the eastern 
interior wall which reached quite to the
 ceiling1 supported the weight of it1   
besides being of the nature of a terrace
 wall1 had a foundation which rested    
only on the rough and sloping rock4 ,how
 is this inconsistency to be explained8 
,the inconsistency cannot be avoided4   
,the logical inference from the facts is
 one which makes ,pausanias             
intelligible4 ,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 foundations4 ,the inference that  

this wall for its entire length must    
have been as high as the traces on the  
side walls is altogether unnecessary4   
,except at the ends this wall was as    
high as the other partition-wall1 and   
like it supported no weight4 ,the       
pilasters lessened a span of thirty feet
 by perhaps two feet and with the       
outside walls served to support a heavy 
cross-beam4 ,wall-pilasters are not     
unknown in ,greek architecture as the   
temples of ,apollo at ,bassae and the   
,heraeum at ,olympia prove 7,frazer1 op4
 cit41 ,,iii1 p4 #ehi74  ,pausanias     
walked into the cella of ,athena from   
that of ,erechtheus without ascending a 
step4 ,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 
east4 ,in perfect keeping with the new  
plan of the interior is the simple      
sequence of the topographical           
indications in his description3 7#a7    

,greek3 pro ts esodou1 7#b7 ,greek3     
eselthousin1 7#c7 ,greek3 endon 7diploun
 gar estin to oikma71 7#d7 ,greek3      
hagitaton agalma 7cf4 ,greek3 ho nes en 
h to archaion agalma71 7#e7 ,greek3 t na
 de ts ,athnas ,pandrosou naos synechs4 
,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 ,athena8 ,certainly    
these were not visible4 ,they must have 
been concealed behind marble shelves on 
north and south and marble shelves and  
steps on the east 7,fig4 #g74 ,the      
builders of the ,erechtheum were        
economical1 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 temple4 ,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 ,parthenon4 ,these       
shelves were convenient for the         
exhibition of the many objects deposited
 in the cella which was a religious     
museum4 ,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 shelf1 just 
as they can give no positive evidence of
 a floor at the higher level4  ,a       
peculiar cutting in the orthostate at   
the south-east corner of the temple     
should be noted in this connection4 ,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 inward4 ,was this     
horizontal surface the floor level8 ,was
 the floor of the eastern cella raised  
one step above the threshold as ,d',ooge
 says 7op4 cit41 p4 #bjg78 ,this is     
unlikely because the floor level would  
then have been above the base of the    
orthostates4 ,the horizontal surface was
 the top of the shelf1 for its vertical 

plane would have courses of the same    
height as ordinary wall-blocks4 ,there  
is a ,roman block #aj feet long and     
#a-a_/b feet high which the ,christians 
reused as the base stone of the         
iconostasis when they converted the     
,erechtheum into a church4 ,it had a    
base moulding of some sort which the    
,christians chiselled off4 ,this long   
block probably formed part of the lowest
 course of the facing of the shelf4 ,the
 fact that its dimensions are those of  
the ,greek3 gongylos lithos athetos1    
antimoros tais epikranitisin mekos      
dekapos hyphsos trion hemipodion 7,i4   
,g41 ,i1 #cbb1 col4 #a7 causes a        
suspicion that the ,roman block simply  
replaced a ,greek one1 which in its     
position at the base of the wall        
corresponded to the ,greek3             
epikranitides at the top of it4  ,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 cella4 ,in 
the north-east corner1 a marble block of
 the north wall is cut back to the line 
of the west face of the poros foundation
 7,fig4 #aj74 ,if the marble block lay  
buried beneath the floor1 why was it so 
carefully trimmed8 ,the explanation may 
be offered that the cutting was done    
when the temple was made over into a    
church4 ,but the chiseling is more      
careful than the chiseling done at that 
time in the ,erechtheum4 ,when the      
eastern partition-wall was removed1     
rough traces of it were left on the     
side-walls4 ,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 wall4  ,illustration3 ,,figure
 #aj  ,,the ,n4,e4 ,,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 western4 ,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 place4 ,these wall-blocks    
were easily torn out and have since     
completely disappeared4 ,in the western 
chamber orthostates would have been     
illogical because they would have been  
high above the level of the floor1 but  
in the eastern cella1 if it had the     
level of the eastern porch orthostates  
would have been used4 ,since there were 
wall-blocks behind the orthostates of   
the south wall in the western cella1 one
 would reasonably expect orthostates    
behind wall-blocks in the north wall of 
the eastern cella1 provided that cella  
was at the level of the eastern porch4  
,but it is absolutely certain that such 
was not the case4 ,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 wall4    
,thus the eastern cella1 if it lay at   

the level of its porch strangely lacked 
interior orthostates in its north and   
south walls4 ,but if this cella lay at  
the level of the western cella1 the lack
 becomes at once intelligible4 ,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          
,pausanias4  ,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 7,a4 ,j4 ,a41     
#aijf1 p4 #eh ff474 ,the contradiction  
is not necessary1 for a flight of steps 
at the east end of the cella of ,athena 
is perfectly possible4 ,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     

steps4 ,however it is quite possible    
that the foundations for the steps which
 had no need to rest in rock cuttings   
were simply laid against1 not keyed into
 the foundations of the east wall4 ,the 
stairs are drawn in the plan 7,fig4 #g74
 ,the idea of a stair-case at the east  
end of a cella is illustrated by the    
temple at ,didyma4 ,the eastern door of 
the ,erechtheum was not the normal1 not 
the intended entrance to the cella of   
,athena1 but served as the traditional  
eastern entrance toward which the xoanon
 faced4 ,pausanias like other visitors  
entered by the ,greek3 prostasis h pros 
tou thyrmatos1 the main entrance to the 
temple4  ,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 building1
 namely1 the masses of rubble masonry   
which were placed close to the north    
wall at approximately equal distances   
from the eastern cross-wall4 ,they are  

firmly founded on the rock and reach up 
nearly to the base of the orthostates4  
,they have no counterparts along the    
south wall4 ,the screen-wall of the     
north aisle of the church stood directly
 over one of the masses4 ,the threshold 
of it is still in place4 ,these heavy   
foundations and the interior            
longitudinal walls of the church cannot 
be contemporary4 ,the latter were       
sufficient to carry the weight of the   
roof of the church2 and the screen-wall 
in the aisle1 since it rests partly on a
 filling of earth1 shows that the heavy 
foundation of rubble masonry underneath 
had ceased to serve any purpose after   
the church was built4 ,it was there     
before that time and therefore must have
 been laid in a ,roman period when the  
level within the temple was the same4   
,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 above4 ,the point 
is1 the masonry is earlier than the     

,christian church1 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 church4 ,this foundation then
 is perfectly intelligible in the light 
of the theory that in ,greek times there
 was but one level within the temple4   
,what the purpose of this rubble masonry
 was is uncertain4 ,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 south4 ,the idea may have come
 to the ,romans from the ,greek pilaster
 which as noted above lay approximately 
midway between the masses of rubble     
masonry4 ,this was1 then1 apparently a  
device for reducing the span from the   
north to the south wall4 ,the fact that 
this masonry was laid before the period 
of the church is of far greater         

importance than its purpose4  ,the new  
plan of the ,erechtheum is interesting  
in the light of the ,chandler           
inscription4 ,if one feels that the     
magnificent north porch determines the  
front of the building1 then the first   
room is a satisfactory ,greek3          
prostomiaion and lies in front of       
,greek3 7pro7 the 99 ,greek3 stomiaion  
in which was the important object of    
cult1 the ,greek3 phrear 7stomion74 ,the
 following proportion may be set down3  
,greek3 pronaos3 ,greek3 naos33 ,greek3 
prostomiaion3 99 ,greek3 stomiaion4     
,greek3 ,prostomiaion and 99 ,greek3    
stomiaion are conjectured to have been  
the official names in the fifth century 
for the two chambers of the ,greek3     
diploun oikma of ,pausanias4  ,the order
 followed by the commissioners in their 
report upon unfinished interior walls   
was as follows3 ,in the first room      
entered from the ,greek3 thyrma1 the    
,greek3 prostomiaion1 #ab tetrapodies   
were ,greek3 akatachsesta4 ,the phrase  

,greek3 en t prostomiai favors the      
theory that more walls than one are     
meant4 ,then in the inner chamber #c    
tetrapodies of the ,greek3 parastas1#g  
i4e41 that part of the partition-wall   
east of the door in the west cella4     
,then in the third room #f 787          
tetrapodies of the wall ,greek3 pros    
togalmatos4 ,the order in which the     
chambers were examined for unfinished   
walls was that of ,pausanias in         
describing their contents4  ,again the  
new plan fits the treasure list of      
#cjf_/e ,b4,c4 7,i4,g41 ,,ii1#b #gcc74  
,the remarkable feature of the          
inscription is that it mentions three   
,greek3 parastades1 first an isolated   
one1 and then a pair of them1 one on    
either side of a door4 ,the single      
,greek3 parastas1 the first to be       
mentioned is again that part of the     
partition-wall east of the door in the  
west cella4 ,this door was near the west
 end of the wall1 so that the space     
between it and the west wall of the     

temple was negligible4 ,thus for one    
entering by that door there was a       
,greek3 parastas on the left1 but none  
on the right4 ,when however he passed   
into the ,greek3 naos ts ,athnas through
 a door which stood a little south of   
the middle of the wall 7and opposite the
 door in the west wall of the temple7 he
 had a ,greek3 parastas upon his left   
and also upon his right4 ,the ,greek3   
parastades are interior walls on either 
side of a door which in the ,erechtheum 
reached up only five courses above the  
orthostates4 ,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--i4e41 in the second  
room of the ,greek3 diploun oikma4      
,whether or not there is any order in   
the enumeration of the treasures is a   
question4 ,if there is1 then it         
naturally begins with treasures first   
seen after entering from the ,greek3    
prostasis h pros tou thyrmatos1 just as 

the record of the commissioners in the  
case of interior walls begins with walls
 in the first room1 just as the         
description of ,pausanias begins with   
the contents of the first room4 ,this   
coincidence is remarkable1 and is true  
of no other theory about the temple4    
,it is a necessary consequence of this  
interpretation that some treasures were 
in the west part of the ,erechtheum4    
,perhaps then something may be said for 
the scholiast on ,aristophanes1 ,plutus1
 #aahc 7reading ,greek3 oikos for       
,greek3 toichos and keeping in mind the 
,greek3 diploun oikma of ,pausanias's   
description73 ,greek3 opis tou ne ts    
kaloumens ,poliados ,athnas diplous     
oikos 7toichos7 echn thyran1 hopou n    
thsaurophylakion4 ,the words ,greek3    
echn thyran suggest that the scholiast  
wished to distinguish between a ,greek3 
diplous oikos 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   

without4 ,pausanias seems to give an    
instance of the latter in ,,ii1 #be1 #a4
 ,white 7,harvard ,studies1 ,vol4 ,,vi1 
p4 #ci7 refers the scholium to the      
restored west part of the ,hekatompedon 
but does not discuss the meaning of     
,greek3 echn thyran1 which ,michaelis   
was unable to explain4 ,in ,white's     
so-called opisthodomus1 to which door of
 three possible ones does the scholiast 
refer8 ,the three chambers of his       
opisthodomus do not satisfy the         
requirements of a ,greek3 diplous oikos1
 the reading which he accepts 7op4 cit41
 p4 #d1 note #c74 ,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 placed1 and that he 
used the words ,greek3 nes kaloumens    
,poliados ,athnas in the stricter sense1
 just as ,pausanias called the east     
cella ,greek3 naos ts ,poliados 7,i4    
#bg4 #a71 and regarded the ,greek3      
diplous oikos as lying behind it4 ,the  

,greek3 nes ts ,athnas was oriented     
east1 and what was immediately west was 
behind it4 ,but it is not to be supposed
 that the west cella of the ,erechtheum 
was ever called an opisthodomus4 ,the   
scholiast seems however to have the     
oldest ,athena temple in mind4  ,there  
is a point perhaps of slight moment     
which deserves a word4 ,one of the      
paintings1 that of ,erechtheus driving a
 chariot1 was painted1 according to the 
scholiast on ,aristides1 ,i1 #ajg1 #e1  
behind the goddess4 ,a possible         
interpretation is that the painting was 
in the cella of ,athena on the wall     
behind the xoanon1 but the paintings of 
the ,butadae were in the first room     
which ,pausanias entered4 ,unless the   
painting of ,erechtheus was separate    
from those of the ,butadae1 then the new
 arrangement of the interior permits a  
satisfactory solution of the difficulty4
 ,for the east wall of the room in which
 were the paintings of the ,butadae was 
behind the goddess4 ,according to the   

old plan1 ,pausanias found the paintings
 in the western chamber of the ,greek3  
diploun oikma1 that is1 between them and
 the wall against which stood the       
xoanon1 was a chamber4 ,the passage may 
mean that in a painting ,erechtheus     
appeared behind ,athena driving a       
chariot 7,petersen1 ,jb4 ,arch4 ,inst41 
#aijb1 p4 #fd2 ,burgtempel1 p4 #aaj74   
,in the sequence of words in the        
sentence1 ,greek3 en t akropolei opis ts
 theou1 the second phrase seems to be a 
closer definition of the place than is  
given in the first4 ,furthermore1       
position was determined by reference to 
the xoanon4 ,an interior wall was       
located with reference to it1 ,greek3 to
 pros togalmatos4 ,the scholiast on     
,aristophanes1 ,equites1 #aafi1 is      
interesting in this connection because  
he shows what part a statue might play  
in the designation of a temple3 ,greek3 
duo eisin epi ts akropoles ,athnas naoi1
 ho ts ,poliados kai h chryselephantin4 
,in the light of the new arrangement    

within the ,erechtheum1 the reference of
 ,vitruvius 7,,iv1 #h1 #d7 to the temple
 becomes clearer4 ,speaking of it and   
other temples he says3 cellae enim      
longitudinibus duplices sunt ad         
latitudines uti reliquae1 sed is omnia  
quae solent esse in frontibus ad latera 
sunt translata 7,petersen1 ,burgtempel1 
p4 #add74 ,if the cella of ,athena was  
completely separate from that of        
,erechtheus and at a higher level1 he   
could not have said reasonably of the   
cella of the temple that it was twice as
 long as wide like other temples4 ,for  
the cellae of ,athena and ,erechtheus   
ought then to have been considered      
separately4 ,in the new plan such a     
statement applies with greater force    
because the low partitions might be     
readily disregarded4 ,the second        
statement shows that ,vitruvius regarded
 the east faade of a temple as the      
front1 and normal place of entrance1 but
 that this and the more elaborate porch 
were transferred in the case of the     

,erechtheum to what would be the side of
 other temples4 ,as ,petersen1 7op4     
cit41 p4 #adc7 says1 the words columnis 
adjectis dextra ac sinistra ad umeros   
pronai are a clear reference to the     
north porch4 ,this too seems to be the  
,greek3 pronaos which ,lucian refers to 
in ,piscator1 #ba3 ,greek3 entautha pou 
en t prona ts poliados dikasmen4 ,h     
hiereia diathes hmin ta bathra1 hmeis de
 en tosout proskynsmen t the4 ,this     
interpretation is perfectly consistent  
with the fundamental contention that the
 ,greek3 prostasis h pros tou thyrmatos 
determines the front of the building4   
,the theory set forth in the above pages
 is in perfect accord with the          
description in ,pausanias4 ,it is       
confirmed by the evidence of the        
inscriptions and of the building itself 
so far as that evidence goes4 ,the      
serious criticism of the accepted plan  
of the ,erechtheum is that all theories 
based upon it disagree with the written 
evidences1 not with one written record  

of a later period like the simple       
account of ,pausanias1 but with another 
record centuries earlier1 namely the    
contemporary official inscription4      
,investigators attempt the solution of  
the problem after accepting the restored
 interior as certain4 ,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 alone1 and that all        
available evidence must be used         
simultaneously to determine the correct 
restoration4     ,,iv  ,,the            
,,erechtheum ,,as ,,planned   ,the      
question as to the original plan of the 
,erechtheum follows naturally the       
interpretation of the building as built4
 ,that the west wall was planned for its
 present place seems improbable for a   
number of reasons4 ,the north porch is  
out of proportion to the room into which
 it opens1 and by reaching beyond the   
west wall of the temple becomes in part 

porch to an open precinct4 ,the west    
front has columns and ,caryatids at     
different levels 7,drpfeld1 ,ath4       
,mitt41 #aijd1 p4 #aja74 ,the           
displeasing effect of this difference   
could not have been concealed by the    
walls of the ,pandroseum1 the south one 
of which reached as high as the parapet 
of the porch of the maidens4 ,the latter
 porch illustrates the skill of the     
architect in concealing differences of  
level4 ,the unique closed wall on which 
the maidens stand was his device for    
concealing from view from without1 a    
door which was below the level of the   
porch and which belonged to the interior
 whereas the porch belonged to the      
exterior4 ,the architect1 by placing the
 entrance to the porch at the north east
 corner close to the wall1 completely   
concealed the presence of the low door4 
,with this care to conceal a difference 
of level1 the west side of the temple is
 in marked contrast4  ,the north-west   
corner of the western cella is peculiar 

in two ways4 ,the western jamb of the   
door cuts #c-a_/b cm4 into the west wall
 of the temple4 ,this suggests crowding 
and is satisfactorily explained by the  
condition of the foundations below4 ,the
 foundation of the west wall does not   
key into that of the north wall 7,fig4  
#aa71 a fact seeming to prove that when 
the latter foundation was laid1 it was  
not the intention of the architect to   
place a foundation in the line of the   
present west wall1 and to crowd the door
 jamb into that wall4  ,of the          
symmetrical exterior proposed by ,prof4 
,drpfeld there lies a suggestion in the 
fact that the north and south doors have
 the same axis1 although the ,caryatid  
porch has not4 ,the porch seems to have 
been moved a little to the east of its  
intended place that it might not project
 beyond the west wall1 but not far      
enough to prevent the cornice of the    
porch from so projecting4  ,the west    
wall itself offers evidence of a        
curtailment of the original plan4 ,by   

way of introduction let us compare the  
east faade1 which is ,greek with the    
west faade1 the part of which above the 
closed wall is ,roman 7,arx ,athenarum1 
,pl4 ,,xxv1 ,d1 and ,a4 ,j4 ,a41 #aijf1 
,pl4 ,,viii74 ,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 wall1 just as were the ,roman      
windows in the west wall4 ,the second   
course above the eastern windows was a  
moulding1 the corresponding course above
 the western windows is plain probably  
because of the adjacent capitals4 ,below
 both sets of windows were three courses
 of blocks4 ,in the east wall           
orthostates were justifiable1 in the    
west wall they would have been illogical
 because on neither side was there a    
floor1 but three courses equal in height
 to four ordinary courses were placed   
there4 ,stevens has shown that the      
eastern windows were seven courses high 

including the lintel4 ,the western      
windows are five courses high4 ,the     
explanation of the difference of height 
is simple4 ,the eastern wall was        
thirteen courses high1 the western      
eleven4 ,the western windows were two   
courses shorter in order that they and  
their counterparts1 the eastern windows1
 might be equidistant from the base of  
the wall1 namely four ordinary courses1 
and from the top of the wall1 namely two
 courses4 ,the fact that the sills of   
the ,greek windows were one meter lower 
than the ,roman windows is of no        
consequence whatsoever4 ,the fact of    
great importance is that the east and   
west windows occupied the same relative 
position in the faade4 ,the stylobate of
 the western faade 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 wall4 ,this block could not be      
placed lower because of the ,cecropium 7
 temple of ,pandrosus87 which crossed   

the line of the wall1 to judge from the 
cuttings in it beneath the heavy block4 
,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 lower4 ,this would have made
 it impossible to place a door in that  
wall which was necessary probably for a 
reason of cult4  ,illustration3 ,,figure
 #aa  ,,the ,,interior ,n4,w4 ,,corner  
,,of ,,the ,,erechtheum4 ,,modern       
,,masonry ,,under ,n4 ,,end ,,of ,w4    
,,wall  ,in ,roman times therefore the  
western windows were placed with careful
 reference to the eastern4 ,between the 
columns in each case appeared windows1  
two in the eastern wall with door       
between1 three in the western where a   
door was impossible4 ,both faades were  
surmounted by epistyle1 frieze and      
pediment4 ,the wall below the western   
colonnade was a substitute for the      
higher ground level of the east side4   
,the ,romans who repaired the wall      

repaired it with reference to the east  
front4 ,for them the west faade was     
simply a combination of wall with       
windows1 and colonnade4 ,unless the     
,greeks had a western faade of columns  
and wall with windows essentially like  
the ,roman restoration1 we are forced to
 make a strange assumption4 ,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 courses1 a grille    
which answers to nothing in the east    
faade1 and then left it to the ,romans  
to exploit his idea by placing there    
three windows4  ,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 7,i4 ,g41 ,i1  
,suppl41 #cba4 col4 ,,iii1 #ah7 that one
 ,comon a carpenter was paid a sum of   

#dj dr4 for fencing 7,greek3            
diapharchsanti7 four intercolumniations 
on the wall toward the ,pandroseum3     
,greek3 diapharchsanti ta metakionia    
tettara onta ta pros to ,pandroseio4    
,the accepted interpretation of the     
passage is that a wooden grille was the 
final form of the west wall and remained
 so until ,roman times4 ,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 place4 ,it is      
probable that the wooden grille was only
 temporary and was soon replaced by a   
wall with windows4 ,whatever the        
interpretation of the inscription1 the  
fact remains that the present form of   
the west wall is a restoration made with
 deliberate reference to the east faade4
 ,it is a studied restoration which far 

from being an arbitrary creation of the 
#dth century ,a4,d41 as ,penrose 7op4   
cit41 p4 #ic7 regarded it1 is too       
original for a ,roman period4 ,the      
imitation is ,roman1 the idea is ,greek4
 ,the very same idea is expressed in the
 ,sidon sarcophagus of the mourning     
women1 an ,attic work of about #cej     
,b4,c4 ,the illusion produced by the    
sarcophagus is that of female figures   
standing between the columns of the     
peristyle of a temple 7,hamdy           
,bey-,reinach1 ,une ,ncropole ,royale   
,sidon1 p4 #bda74 ,the west faade 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 plan4  ,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 ,prof4 ,drpfeld has  
maintained4 ,the east and west faades   
were to be exactly alike1 but1 prevented

 by religious conservatism from building
 upon the sites of the ,cecropium and   
,pandroseum1 and thus compelled to      
abandon the western half of the original
 building1 the architect sought still to
 save the similarity of the east and    
west faades4 ,since he was unable to    
build his projected west portico at the 
line to which he was forced back1 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 wall1 columns
 and wall with windows1 frieze and      
pediment4 ,the low wall in the          
southernmost intercolumniation which for
 some reason was not completely closed  
was three courses high4 ,the northern   
intercolumniation was completely closed 
as in ,roman times and in the central   
ones1 the windows rested on three       
courses equal in height to four normal  
,greek courses4  ,it must have been the 
desire for close similarity between the 
two faades which prevented both ,greek  

and ,roman architect from placing four  
normal courses beneath the western      
windows4 ,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 blocks4 ,the 
eastern windows were simultaneously     
visible between the columns from points 
in the axis of the door 7,fig4 #g74 ,it 
is natural to assume that those of the  
original west faade were to have been   
so4 ,the curtailment of the plan which  
compelled the architect to place a      
compressed west faade on a high socle1  
eliminated the door4 ,a natural         
substitution was a third window4  ,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 7,a4 ,j4
 ,a41 #aijh1 p4 #aia1 fig4 #b1 and p4   
#aid1 fig4 #f2 #aiaj1 p4 #big1 fig4 #c74
 ,there the south wall was reduced to   

one half of its regular thickness1 and  
this thinner wall flanked on the east by
 the metopon which rested in part upon a
 square horizontal slab4 ,the purpose of
 this metopon has remained obscure4  ,as
 hitherto remarked1 it was the          
architect's intention to close the      
southern as well as the northern        
intercolumniation of the west wall but  
he was prevented1 apparently for some   
religious reason4 ,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 intercolumniation4 ,two        
considerations favor this explanation4  
,in the first place the horizontal slab 
inclines toward the opening4 ,the       
certain purpose of this inclination was 
to shed rain-water4 ,secondly1 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 slab4 ,the       

epistyle of the metopon1 which appears  
in the restoration 7,a4 ,j4 ,a41 #aijh1 
fig4 #f1 p4 #aif7 is purely a conjecture
 and may be eliminated4 ,but how far did
 this metopon project into the building8
 ,was it coextensive in width as well as
 in height with the opening8 ,the       
distance which the metopon projected    
into the building is not certainly      
known4 ,in the restoration it is given  
as one foot but this is a calculation   
based on a combination of probabilities4
 ,the obvious provision to keep out     
rain-water1 if it was to be successful1 
demands the extension of the metopon to 
the inner corner of the horizontal slab4
 ,but this slab unsupported could not   
have carried a marble metopon4 ,this is 
a difficulty which seems to compel the  
assumption that the metopon was in part 
of lighter material4  ,apart from       
serving the purpose of keeping out rain1
 the conjectured metopon would also be a
 counterpart to the northern            
intercolumniation when the faade was    

viewed from the west4 ,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 foundations4 ,the idea1 in     
short1 is simply this4 ,just as when the
 architect was not allowed to place the 
west faade where he wished and retreated
 to a line at which he was allowed to   
build it in a necessarily modified form1
 so when he could not build a wall in   
the southern intercolumniation of that  
faade1 he withdrew still farther back   
and built a substitute at the line      
allowed4 ,the extra weight thus produced
 was partly responsible for the thinning
 of the insecurely founded south wall4  
,it is ,prof4 ,drpfeld's theory that the
 ,cecropium compelled the architect to  
place the present west wall #a m4 east  
of the line at which it was intended in 
the original plan to stand 7,ath4       
,mitt41 #aijd1 p4 #aje74 ,he therefore  
regards that wall as an interior one of 

the original symmetrical temple4 ,the   
theory here advanced is that the west   
wall is the original west faade         
compressed into one plane and placed at 
the line up to which the architect was  
permitted to build4 ,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 7,petersen1       
,burgtempel1 p4 #bb1 abb4 #b74 ,just as 
the architect of the ,propylaea planned 
to cut through the ,pelasgic wall and to
 build upon the precinct of ,brauronian 
,artemis1 but when he came to lay       
foundations was stopped at the wall1 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 ,cecrops1 but when he came to actual
 construction was stopped by the same   
religious conservatism4 ,the form of the

 present west wall is as much like the  
originally planned west faade as the    
architect could make it4 ,east and west 
faades 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 wall4     
,having discovered in the west wall the 
compressed faade of an originally       
symmetrically planned ,erechtheum1 it is
 desirable to inquire whether the       
curtailment of that plan caused a       
crowding of cults within the temple as  
finally built4 ,it has already been     
remarked that the feeling which the     
north porch creates is that it should   
be1 and was intended to be the porch to 
an interior of larger dimensions than   
those of the present plan4 ,now the     
thalassa and the mark of the trident    
were fixed1 but the paintings of the    
,butadae and the three altars were      
movable4 ,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-,erechtheus1        
,hephaestus and ,butes1 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 7,fig4 #ab74  ,within
 the original ,erechtheum at the east   
end marked off by a partition-wall was  
to be the shrine of ,athena ,polias4    
,the western chamber of                 
,poseidon-,erechtheus1 the exact        
counterpart of the eastern1 was to      
receive the altars and paintings4 ,the  
intervening central chamber of          
proportions in harmony with those of the
 north porch was to contain the thalassa
 and the sacred olive1 which would      
require that the temple be in part      
hypaethral4 ,furtwngler 7,sitzb4 ,mn4   
,akad41 #aijd1 p4 #cga7 rightly indeed  
objects to ,drpfeld's theory that the   
western cella in the original temple was
 to be an opisthodomus1 on the ground   
that if the eastern cella contained a   

divinity1 the western ought also4       
,furthermore1 for those who believe that
 the magnificent north porch determines 
the front of the ,erechtheum1 the       
western cella would have been situated  
on the side1 not at the rear of the     
temple4 ,the interior wall-pilasters on 
either side of the doors were intended  
in the original to carry heavy          
cross-beams4 ,in the temple as built1   
the eastern pair were carried up only   
five courses above the orthostates1 i4e4
 as high as the partition-walls4 ,their 
completion was rendered unnecessary when
 the builders decided to put in the     
,greek3 kampyl selis4  ,illustration3   
,,figure #ab  ,,the ,,original ,,plan   
,,of ,,the ,,erechtheum4  ,when this    
original plan had to be abandoned1 not  
only was the large central chamber      
reduced in breadth1 but was divided into
 a front and rear cella4 ,in the first  
of these1 which one entered immediately 
from the north porch 7,greek3           
eselthousi7 were placed the three altars

 and on the walls1 the paintings of the 
,butadae4 ,in the inner cella 7,greek3  
endon7 were the trident-mark and the    
thalassa4 ,it is perfectly clear why    
,pausanias found no door leading from   
the first chamber of the ,greek3 diploun
 oikma into the ,greek3 naos ts ,athnas4
 ,in the original plan1 the cella of    
,athena and the large central chamber of
 the tokens were connected by a door in 
the middle of their partition-wall1     
while the cellae of ,athena and         
,poseidon-,erechtheus were not to be in 
immediate connection4 ,these relations  
were preserved in the curtailed plan4   
,the meaning of the door in the west    
wall is also simple4 ,in the original   
plan the sacred olive tree and the      
thalassa were to stand in the large     
central chamber1 but in the curtailed   
plan the sacred olive was left outside  
the temple and in the ,pandroseum4 ,a   
closed wall between the two tokens would
 have separated them completely4 ,they  
belonged together1 and a door was a poor

 substitute for a common chamber but it 
was the only means of connection        
possible4  ,the north porch in the      
original plan was to admit to both      
thalassa and sacred olive1 but in the   
curtailed temple which left the olive   
outside1 it could admit directly to the 
latter only by the addition of the      
little door in the southwest corner4    
,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 door4 ,the little door  
as well as the one in the west wall were
 not features of the original           
,erechtheum1 and their presence was     
therefore not made more noticeable by   
the addition of mouldings of any kind4  
,this interpretation1 if correct1       
warrants the statement of the general   
principle that the ,greek architect     
sought1 in case of curtailment of his   
plan1 to preserve as far as possible the

 essential features1 and the relations  
of the parts to one another1 of the     
original4 ,the builder of the           
,erechtheum saved his west faade in     
modified form and found a place for the 
west cella in the reduced central       
chamber4  ,the ,erechtheum as originally
 planned was an altogether symmetrical  
structure4 ,the splendid north portal   
was to lead immediately into the cella  
of the tokens1 on either side of which  
were the shrines of the divinities that 
had contended for the land of ,attica4  
,the balance of structure would have    
reflected a balance of cults4 ,the      
original ,erechtheum1 in short1 was an  
architectural sentence finely           
illustrating the ,greek3 men and ,greek3
 de of ,greek feeling4 ,with the        
,parthenon and the ,propylaea1 it was to
 form a group of symmetrical monuments  
to crown the ,athenian acropolis in a   
manner worthy of the ,periclean ,age4   
,,footnotes3  #a ,a drawing of the faade
 as seen from this point is much needed4

  #b ,see ,drpfeld1 ,ath4 ,mitt41 #aiaa1
 p4 #ei1 for latest discussion of the   
struggle4  #c ,the few known facts about
 the ,arrephoroi are conveniently       
gathered together by ,frazer1 op4 cit41 
,,ii1 p4 #cdd4  #d ,i am indebted to    
,dr4 ,l4 ,d4 ,caskey of the ,museum of  
,fine ,arts at ,boston for the          
photograph4 ,he has also very kindly    
given me the benefit of his intimate    
knowledge of the ,erechtheum in various 
suggestive criticisms4 ,i take this     
occasion to express my sense of         
obligation4  #e ,pausanias seems to have
 been mistaken in speaking of two4 ,so  
,frazer1 op4 cit41 ,,ii1 p4 #egd1 note  
#f4  #f ,cf4 the disc with octopus      
ornament on the dress of one of the     
maidens with that published by          
,schliemann1 ,mykenae1 p4 #aid1 no4     
#bdj4  #g ,the origin and the meaning of
 the term ,greek3 parastas is clear4 ,a 
,greek3 parastas is that which stands   
,greek3 para a door or opening1 i4e4 a  
jamb4 ,a passage in the inscription     

which gives specifications for ,philon's
 ,arsenal 7,i4 ,g4 ,,ii1#b #ajed7 is    
important in this connection4 ,after    
prescribing the dimensions of the door  
of the arsenal1 the material of the     
lintel1 the inscription adds ,greek3    
parastadas stsas lithou pentelikou k4 t4
 l4 ,the ,greek3 parastades are clearly 
the door jambs which stand ,greek3 para 
the door4 ,by an easy and simple        
extension the word came to designate not
 only the jamb but the wall of which the
 jamb was a part4