Skip to main content

Full text of "The acropolis of Athens"

See other formats

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2008 witii funding from 

.IVIicrosoft Corporation 














BY . A 




a4 . I . so 




All rights reserved 

Published October, IQ08. 



The excavations upon the summit and the slopes of the 
Acropolis of Athens were completed in 1889 by the Greek 
Archaeological Society under the direction of the General 
Superintendent of Antiquities, Mr. P. Cavvadias. 

The results of these excavations have been published in 
many different forms and have become the subject of much 
discussion. While some of the older problems connected with 
the history of the Acropolis have by the aid of these new 
discoveries been solved, others have been raised which await 
further light. A final history of the Acropolis and of its 
monuments which shall answer satisfactorily every question 
may possibly never be written. The present volume is an 
attempt to give a summary of the most important contributions 
to this history and to state the results of personal study of 
this site and of the ruins upon it. 

This book was originally intended to be one of a series of 
Handbooks of Classical Archaeology, but the author found it 
impossible to treat his theme in so brief a compass as the limits 
of such a book require. Even in the present volume it has 
been found difficult to give as full a statement of many points 
as seemed desirable, and it has been a perplexing problem to 
determine what to omit and what to include in a book designed 
both for general readers and for those who desire to make a 
more minute study of the Acropolis. For the benefit of the 
latter technical discussions have been added in Appendixes and 
referred to in Notes, and a select Bibliography has been given. 

It was not perfectly clear and simple to determine in what 
order this history should be told. The strictly chronological 
order required frequent repetition, particularly in giving the 
history of buildings, while a strictly topographical order was 



likely to obscure the sequence of events. Hence neither 
order has been exclusively followed, though the historical has 
generally been given the preference. 

Since there is no established usage among English-speaking 
scholars in the form of writing Greek proper names, I have 
followed my own preference, not always a consistent one, I 
fear, of writing the more commonly known names, as e.g. 
Erechtheum., in the Latinized form, and of transliterating more 
nearly the less common names, as e.g. Pelargicon. 

In order to get a connected general survey of the Acropolis 
as it appeared in ancient days, and to- enable the reader to 
refer readily to the statements therein contained, I have 
included in Appendix I. the description given by the old 
traveller Pausanias. The translation of his description is taken, 
by permission, from the monumental work of Professor J. G. 
Frazer, to whom I am deeply indebted not only for this 
courtesy, but also for the valuable material freely borrowed 
from the work to which reference has been made. 

1 am under great obligation also to Professor Ernest Gardner 
for permission to use illustrations taken from his Ancient Athens 
and from his Hayidbook of Greek Sculpture, and for the aid 
these books have rendered me. From the latter work I have 
drawn very freely in my account of the chief remains of 
sculpture found on the Acropolis. My thanks are due also to 
the Council of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic 
Studies and to the executors of the late Professor J. H. 
Middleton for permission to reproduce several of the plans 
drawn by him and published in a Supplementary Paper of the 
Journal of Hellenic Studies. I desire to acknowledge also the 
kindness of Miss Jane E. Harrison for allowing me to make 
use of one illustration in her Primitive Athens and of several 
taken from her Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens. 
To Professor Adolf Michaelis and his publishers I am indebted 
for the reproduction of several illustrations found in Jahn- 
Michaelis's Arx Athenarum. 

But my largest debt of gratitude is due to Professor Wilhelra 
Dorpfeld — a debt that is manifest on almost every page — not 
only for the results of his investigations, without which no true 
history of the Acropolis could be written, but also for his great 
kindness in reading the larger part of my book in manuscript 


and in giving me the benefit of his technical and minute 
acquaintance with every phase of this subject. While I have 
ventured to dissent from some of his interpretations, I have 
been saved by his critical revision from a number of errors of 
statement. Should, however, any such errors still be found, 
they are not to be laid to his charge. I desire to mention also 
the service rendered me by the late Dr. Theodore W. 
Heermance, who, while he was in charge of the American 
School at Athens, read most of my manuscript and gave me 
many useful suggestions. Indebtedness to many other fellow- 
workers in this field is implied or stated on many a page and 
in the Notes, but I must single out one or two more names for 
special mention. My book was practically written when 
Professor W. Judeich's Topographie von Athen appeared. At 
several points, however, I have been instructed, and in some 
views, held in opposition to other scholars, I have been 
confirmed by Judeich's work. To Professor John Williams 
White I owe my thanks for allowing me to publish in English 
form the substance of his discussion on the Pelargicon, which 
has appeared only in the Greek Ephenieris Archaeologice. 

Finally, to my colleagues, Professor Francis W. Kelsey, Dr. 
Charles B. Newcomer, and Dr. John G. Winter, I express my 
sincere thanks for aid in preparing this volume for publication, 
and more particularly for generous help in the reading of proof 
and in the verifying of references. 

If this book had not been "a labor of love" it would never 
have been brought to completion amid so many interruptions 
and in the face of so many difficulties as it has had to 
encounter. If it shall awaken a new interest in the old " Rock 
of Athena," and give a clearer understanding of its glorious 
history and a better appreciation of its noble monuments, I 
shall feel doubly rewarded for my labor. 


Ann Arbor, Mich., 
Sept., 1908. 




The Acropolis. Natural Features. Original Occupa- 
tion AS Sanctuary, Citadel and Residence . . i 


The Earliest Historic Period down to the Persian 
Destruction. The Pelargicon. The Beule Gate. 
The Roman Stairway. The Old Temple of Athena. 
Remains of Sculpture . . . . . . . 17 


From the Persian Destruction to the Age of Pericles. 
The Walls Rebuilt. The Propylon. The Older 
Parthenon. Foundations below the Periclean 
Parthenon. Curvature of the Lines of the 
Parthenon. Remains of Sculpture .... 64 

The Age of Pericles 

Section A. The Parthenon . . . . . .110 

Section B. The Propylaea and the Temple of Wingless 

Victory . . . . . • .172 

Section C. The Erechtheum • . . . . .195 


The Temples and Shrines on the Southern Slope of the 

Acropolis. The Theatre of Dionysus . . . 228 




The Acropolis in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. 

The Descriptive Tour of Pausanias on the Acropolis 275 


The Acropolis from the Close of the Roman Period to 
THE Present. Modern Investigations and Restora- 
tions .... 305 

NOTES . . . . . . . . . . .332 


Ancient Sources, the Description of Pausanias and 

Select Bibliography . . . . . . . 343 

The Pelargicon 361 

Problem of the Old Temple of Athena .... 369 

INDEX 398 



I. The Acropolis, from the West Frontispiece 

From a photograph 


II. The Beule Gate, the Propylaea, and the Temple of Athena- 
Victory 33 

From a photograph 

III. The Parthenon, from the East and South . . 109 

From a photograph 

IV. The Parthenon, from the West and North ... 113 

From a photograph 

V. Interior of Parthenon, looking West. Pavement and Walls 

of Cella. West Door 135 

From a photograph 

VI. Varvakeion Statuette of Athena Parthenos .... 146 
From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

VII. Theatre of Dionysus, from the East 231 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

VIII. The Acropolis, from the Southwest, Theatre of Herodes 

Atticus and Stoa of Eumenes in the foreground . . 249 

From a photograph 

IX. The Acropolis, restored 331 

From a photograph of a drawing, based upon the restoration of 
Thiersch in Von Falke's Greece and Rome 


1, The Propylaea and North Side of the Acropolis .... 7 
From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarujn 

2. The Primitive Acropolis with the Pelargicon .... 23 
From Jane F. Harrison's Primitive Athens 



3. Section through the Acropolis from North to South. Drawn" by 

J. H. Middleton 79 

From y.//.S. Supplement iii. 

4. Ground-plan of Parthenon, showing later changes . . .134 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

5. Plan of the Dionysiac Theatre 233 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

6. Plan of Asclepieum and Stoa of Eumenes. Drawn by J. H. 

Middleton 250 

Yrora J. H.S. Supplement iii. 

7. General Plan of the Acropolis. Drawn by J. H. ^VxdidltionEndofvol. 

YiomJ.H.S. Supplement iii. 



1. Cave of Apollo 4 

From a photograph 

2. Cave of Pan 5 

From a photograph 

3. Terra-cotta Statuettes found on the Acropolis . . . . 15 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenai-um 

4. Giant carrying rocks. Athena 22 

From Strena Helbigiana 

5. Pelasgic Wall on summit of Acropohs, south of Modem Museum 25 

From a photograph 

6. Southwest wing of the Propylaea and Pelasgic Wall ... 29 

From a photograph 

7. Pre-Periclean Ascent. Pelasgic Walls 31 

From Judeich, Topographic von A then 

8. Remains of Roman Stairway. Pedestal of Agrippa ... 36 

From a photograph 

9. The Bastion of the Temple of Athena Victory. Modern Steps 

built of ancient material 38 

From a photograph 

10. Foundations of the Old Temple of Athena. The Erechtheum. 

The Modern City 41 

From a photograph 

11. Foundations of the Old Temple of Athena, indicating Interior 

Plan 43 

From vol. xi. of the Mitteilungen d.k.d. Arch. Inslituts. 
Athen. Abt. (abbreviated to A.M.) 



12. Architectural Fragments of the Old Athena Temple, built into 

the North Wall of the Acropolis 45 

From a photograph 

13. Restored Peristyle of the Old Athena Temple .... 46 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

14. Heracles attacking the Hydra 54 

From Wiegand, Die archaiscke Poros-arckitekHir der 
Akropolis zu Athen 

15. Heracles and Triton 55 

From Wiegand 

16. Typhon 56 

From Wiegand 

17. Schrader's Composition of a Pediment Group • • • . 57 
Bruckner's Composition of the Triton and Typhon Groups . 57 

From Wiegand 

18. Ancient Pediment Group. Bulls and Lions 59 

From Wiegand 

19. Marble Group of Pediment of Old Athena Temple. Athena 

and Giant ........... 60 

From A.M. vol. xxii. 

20. Slab of the Frieze of Old Athena Temple 62 

From A.AI. vol. xxx. 

21. South Wall of Acropolis above Theatre 68 

From a photograph 

22. North Wall of Acropolis. Architectural Fragments built into 

Wall 69 

From Ernst Curtius, Die Stadtgesckichte von Athen 

23. Drums of Columns of the Older Parthenon, built into North 

Wall 71 

From a photograph 

24. Pre-Periclean Propylon of Acropolis. General Plan • • ■ 7Z 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

25. Corner of Propylon behind the Southwest Wing of the 

Propylaea 75 

From a photograph 

26. Facade of Propylon. Restoration 76 

From A. J. A. vol. viii. Second Series 

27. Cross-section of the Different Strata South of the Centre of the 

Parthenon ........... 80 

From A.M. vol. xxvii. 



28. Southeast Corner of Parthenon, showing Foundations. Coarse 

Retaining Wall in foreground 82 

From a photograph published by the German Archaeological 
Institute at Athens 

29. Foundation Walls of Parthenon on South Side .... 83 

From a photograph published by the German Archaeological 
Institute at Athens 

30. Open Pit south of Parthenon. Various Strata of Debris. 

Foundations of Workshop of Phidias 84 

From a photograph published by the German Archaeological 
Institute at Athens 

31. Ground Plan of Parthenon and of its Southern Terrace. Second 

Stadium 85 

From A. /If. vol. xxvii. 

32. Courses of the Foundation Walls of the Parthenon, South Side 86 

From a photograph published by the German Archaeological 
Institute at Athens 

33. Cross-section of the Podium and Steps of the Older and 

Younger Parthenon 87 

From A.M. vol. xxvii. 

34. Northwest Corner of Foundation of Parthenon .... 88 

From a photograph 

35. Ground Plan of the Earlier and the Later Parthenon, as drawn 

by Dorpfeld 89 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenariim 

36. Excavated Pit, in which the Archaic Statues of Women were 

found 96 

From a photograph published by the Gern)an Archaeological 
Institute at Athens 

37. Archaic Statue of a Woman (Acropolis Museum) ... 97 

From Ernest Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

38. Advanced Type of Archaic Statue of a Woman (Acropolis 

Museum) 99 

From Ernest Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

39. Archaic Statue of Athena, seated 101 

From a photograph 

40. Statue of Man carrying calf (Acropolis Museum) . . . loi 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

41. Head of Youthful Athlete 103 

From Collignon's Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque 

42. Archaic Relief. Hermes. Probably from Frieze of Old Temple 104 

From Collignon's Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque 




43. Bronze Statuette of Athena 105 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

44. Bronze Plaque. Relief of Athena in Profile .... 105 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

45. Bronze Head, perhaps Aeginetan 106 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

46. Head of Ephebus 107 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

47. Ground Plan of Parthenon. Foundation Walls . . . . 115 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarutn 

48. South Colonnade of Parthenon, showing inclination of axes of 

the columns 117 

From a photograph 

49. North Side of Parthenon, showing curvatures of horizontal lines 119 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

50. Drum of Column of Parthenon 120 

From a photograph 

51. Capitals of the South Colonnade of Parthenon . . .122 

From L. Magne, Le Parthhum 

52. Section of Parthenon showing Construction of Epistyle. Re- 

storation . . . . . . . . . . ,123 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

53. Northwest Corner of Epistyle of Parthenon. Restoration . 125 

From Fenger's Dorische Polychrontie 

54. Head of Lion on Cornice of Parthenon . . . .126 

From L. Magne, Le Parthenon 

55. Restored Construction of Tile Roof of Parthenon (Penrose) . 127 

From Michaelis, Der Parthenon 

56. Construction of Entablature of Parthenon (Penrose) . . .128 

From Michaelis, Der Parthenon 

57. Frieze, Ceiling of Peristyle of Parthenon. Restoration . . 129 

From Fenger's Dorische Polychromie 

yja. Maeander and Cymatia Decoration above Frieze of Cella (Penrose) 129 

58. Frieze of the West Peristyle of Parthenon, as seen to-day . 130 

From L. Magne, Le Parthenon 

59. Ceiling in different parts of Parthenon, showing the three styles 

of panels (lacunaria). Drawn by Penrose . . . . 131 
From Michaelis, Der Parthenon 

60. Restored Panel of Ceiling of South Peristyle of Parthenon 

(Penrose) 132 

From Michaelis, Der Parthenon 



6i. Interior of the Walls and of the Doorway of the Rear 

Chamber of Parthenon 137 

From L. Magne, Le Parthinon 

62. Lenormant Statuette of Athena Parthenos 142 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

63. The Strangford Shield 144 

From Michaelis, Der Parthenon 

64. Medallion with Relief of Head of Athena Parthenos (Hermitage) 145 

From Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of 
Ancient Athens 

65. Birth of Athena. On Well-head at Madrid .... 148 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

66. East Pediment of Parthenon. From Drawing attributed to 

Carrey 149 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

67. "Theseus" 150 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

68. "The Fates" 151 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

69. West Pediment of Parthenon. From Drawing attributed to 

Carrey 153 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

70. De Laborde Head 154 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

71. Vase Painting, representing Contest of Athena and Poseidon . 155 

From Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of 
Ancient Athens 

72. Southwest Corner of the Entablature of Parthenon, showing a 

Metope 158 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

73. Metope No. 310 159 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

74. Portion of the West Frieze in situ 161 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

75. Slab of West Frieze of Parthenon 163 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

76. Diagram of Frieze of Parthenon 164 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

77. Group of Divinities from East Frieze of Parthenon (Acropolis 

Museum, Athens) 165 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 



78. East Frieze of Parthenon. Priest, Priestess, the Peplos Scene, 

Divinities 166 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

79. Ground Plan of the Propylaea 172 

From Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Momiments of 
Ancient Athens 

80. The Propylaea. Present appearance from the Southwest . 174 

From a photograph 

81. The Propylaea. Central Passage and Doors .... 175 

From a photograph 

82. West Front of Propylaea. Cross-sections and Parts . . .177 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenanan 

83. The Propylaea and Temple of Wingless Victory. Cross-sections 179 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

84. South Wing of Propylaea 181 

From a photograph 

85. The Propylaea. East Front 182 

From a photograph 

86. Bastion of Temple of Wingless Victory. Steps and Platform . 188 

From a photograph 

87. Relief of " Sandal Binder," from Balustrade by Temple of 

Wingless Victory 191 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 

88. Temple of Wingless Victory, from the Northeast . . . 193 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

89. Exterior of South Wall of Erechtheum 198 

From a photograph 

90. The Erechtheum, from the West (partly restored), showing 

North Porch restored 199 

From a photograph 

91. East Front of Erechtheum. Porch of the Maidens . . . 200 

From a photograph 

92. Ground Plan of Erechtheum in its Present State . . . 202 

From A. Botticher, Die Akropolis von Athen 

93. Ground Plan of Erechtheum ....... 203 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

94. Exterior of West Wall of Erechtheum 204 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

95. Exterior of North Wall of Erechtheum 204 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 



96. Interior of North Wall of Erechtheum 205 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

97. Interior of South Wall of Erechtheum 205 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

98. Original Plan of the Erechtheum, as drawn by Dorpfeld . 213 

From A.M. vol. xxix. 

99. Vase Painting, representing Erichthonios in the Chest (British 

Museum) 217 

From Harrison and Verrall. Mythology and Monuments of 
Ancient Athens 

100. Column of North Porch of Erechtheum, showing Decorated 

Base 219 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

101. Column of North Porch of Erechtheum, showing Decorated 

Capital 220 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

102. Carved Cornice of Erechtheum 222 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

103. Doorway of North Porch of Erechtheum 224 

From a photograph 

104.^ Portico of the Maidens. West End of Erechtheum . . 225 

From a photograph 

105. Puchstein's Restoration. First Floor Level. Scena of Theatre 241 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

106. The Stage of Phaedrus. Sculptured Frieze .... 243 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

107. Eastern Part of Asclepieum. Boundary Wall of Theatre, above 

which Choregic Monument of Thrasyllus and two Columns 246 
From a photograph 

108. Choregic Monument of Thrasyllus, restored .... 248 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

109. Western Part of the Asclepieum. Remains of Portico . . 251 

From a photograph 

no. Entrance to the Spring of Asclepieum 252 

From a photograph 

111. Interior of the Cave in which is Spring of Asclepieum . . 253 

From Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of 
Ancient Athens 

112. Sculptured Relief, representing Asclepius, Demeter, Kore and 

Worshippers (Athens) . . 256 

From a photograph 



113. Relief representing a Sacrifice to Asclepius and Hygieia. . 257 

From Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuinents of 
Ancient Athens 

1 14. Choregic Monument of Nicias, restored 262 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Atheuariun 

115. South Walls of the Theatre of Herodes Atticus. At the east 

joined by the Walls of the Stoa of Eumenes . . . 267 
From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

116. The Theatre of Herodes Atticus. Auditorium and Orchestra. 268 

From a photograph 

117. Interior of Theatre of Herodes Atticus, showing Front Wall 

and Stage 269 

From Gardner's Ancient Athens 

118. Cross-section of Theatre of Herodes Atticus and Front View. 

Drawn by Tuckermann . . . . . . . .271 

From Baumeister, Denkmiiler des klassisclien Altertnms 

iig. Interior Plan of Theatre of Herodes Atticus. Drawn by 

Tuckermann .......... 272 

From Baumeister, Dcnkniciler des klassischen Altertums 

120. Facade of the Theatre of Herodes Atticus. Drawn by 

Tuckermann .......... 273 

From Baumeister, Denkiniiler des klassischen Altertums 

121. Inscribed Pedestal on Wall, flanking Stairway of Propylaea . 278 

From Curtius, Die Stadlgeschichte von Athen 

122. Archaic Relief of the Graces 280 

From a photograph 

123. Precinct of Athena Hygieia 282 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenaruni 

124. Plan showing Location of several Precincts and Buildings 

between Propylaea and Parthenon 286 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

125. Inscription of "Earth" (Ge) 292 

From Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monuments of 
Ancient Athens 

126. Bronze Coin. Athena and Poseidon 293 

From Jahn-Michaelis, Arx Athenarum 

127. Amazon and Giant, after Pergamene Group on Acropolis, 

related to Votive Offering of Attains 295 

From Gardner's Handbook of Greek Sculpture 



128. Interior of the Parthenon in the Byzantine Period . . . 309 

From Michaelis, Der Parthenon 

129. The Propylaea in the time of Justinian 312 

From De Laborde, Athdnes atix xv-xvii Siecles 

130. The Propylaea in the Prankish Period 314 

From Botticher, Die Akropolis von Athen 

131. The Acropolis as it appeared about 1674. The Parthenon a 

Mosque 320 

From H. Omont, Athhies au xvii^ Steele 

132. The Acropolis Bombarded (1687). Drawn by Fanelli . . 321 

From H. Omont, Athdnes au xvii" Steele 

133. The Parthenon in ruin. Turkish Hovels and Mosque . . 323 

From Botticher, Die Akropolis vcn Athen 

134. East Front of Erechtheum, restored 330 

A.J.A. \o\. X. Second series 


A.J.A. American Journal of Archaeology. 

A.M. Mitteilungen des k. d. Archaeol. Insiifiits. Athen. Abt. 

J.H.S. Jour7ial of Hellenic Studies. 

The other abbreviations used in the Notes and in the Text are either 
familiar or are given with such fulness as to require no explanation. 




" Let us ascend the Acropolis itself, that from our survey all the 
city and the objects within it may at once be in plain sight." 

LuciAN, Fisherman, 15. 

In the course of its long and varied history the Athenian 
Acropolis has been the Fortress, the Sanctuary, the Treasury, 
and the Repository of the Art of the Athenian people, as 
well as the Residence of its rulers. 

Aristides the rhetorician calls it the heart of Athens, as 
Athens was the heart of Greece. The beauty of its situation, 
the brilliancy and wealth of its temples and shrines, the 
abundance and richness of the votive offerings and treasures 
here deposited and dedicated, made it at once the most 
sacred and the most glorious spot in all the history of the 
ancient world. 

The Greeks called it one great votive offering (avdOtjima) 
to the gods. Aristophanes {Lysistr. 484) speaks of the 
sacred enclosure (lepov rejuevoi) of this rocky hill, and Pindar 
(Bergk. Fr. 45) sings of the much-trodden sacred centre of 
the city (jroXv^aTOv aa-reo? ojucpaXou Ouoeura). 

Its situation in the midst of the Attic plain is one of 
unrivalled beauty. All that goes to make a Grecian landscape 
so enchanting, the close proximity of sea and mountains, the 
wonderful tints and hues of the " wine-colored deep," the 
luminous and transparent atmosphere and purple hillsides, 
seems here to be harmonized and heightened by the added 

A.A. A ffi 


presence of the works of human genius which even in ruin 
reflect the wonderful harmonies and beauties of nature. 
There is no spot where art and nature are so harmoniously 
blended. When towards sunset the visitor's gaze turns 
from the majestic ruin of the Parthenon, colored as with 
golden tints in the fading light, and beholds the violet hues 
on the slopes of Mt. Hymettus and the purple tints on 
the Saronic Gulf, he gets a picture that can never fade 
from his memory, and he is easily reminded of Lord Byron's (1) * 
vivid description of a sunset on the Acropolis : 

" Slow sinks, more lovely ere his race be run 
Along Morea's hills the setting sun ; 
Not, as in northern climes, obscurely bright, 
But one unclouded blaze of living light ! 
O'er the hushed deep the yellow beam he throws, 
Gilds the green wave, that trembles as it glows. 
On old Aegina's rock and Idra's isle 
The God of gladness sheds his parting smile. 
Descending fast the mountain shadows kiss 
Thy glorious gulf, unconquered Salamis ! 
Their azure arches through the long expanse 
More deeply purpled meet his mellowing glance. 
And tenderest tints, along their summits driven, 
Mark his gay course, and own the hues of heaven ; 
Till, darkly shaded from the land and deep, 
Behind his Delphian cliff he sinks to sleep." 

The Acropolis is one of a number of hills that rise abruptly 
from the Attic plain and that doubtless have geological 
kinship with one another. As one stands on the summit of 
Munychium, which overlooks the harbor of Peiraeus, and looks 
across the plain towards Mt. Pentelicus at the northeast, 
he distinguishes three elevations, called respectively the hill 
of the Muses, the Acropolis, and Mt. Lycabettus (in modern 
speech the hill of St. George) lying in a line running nearly 
southwest and northeast and parallel to Mt. Hymettus. 
That these isolated hills were originally one range is indicated 
by the nature of the rock, a blue-grey hard limestone with 
streaks of red, and by the shape of the valleys and the 
location of the beds of ancient torrents. Layers of marl 
and schist seem to have been carried away by erosion, 

*This and similar references are to notes which follow Chapter VII. 


forming huge caverns and fissures in the sides of the hills. 
These erosions probably account for the existence of hills 
and valleys which may have originally formed one plateau. 
Plato (2) seems to have believed that these depressions and 
elevations were caused in part by an earthquake. But the 
more likely cause is the gradual undermining of the hills 
by the action of torrents and the subsidence of the places 
thus undermined, a process which may be seen in the 
neighboring hill of Areopagus. Of these hills the Acropolis 
was much the most suitable for planting a settlement, both 
by reason of its position and the extent of its area. The 
other famous citadels of Greece are either massive and 
somewhat high mountains, like Acro-Corinthus or Mount 
Ithome, in the case of which intercourse with the city at 
the foot is inconvenient, or they lack the requisite height 
for defense, as in the case of the Cadmeia of Thebes and 
the Acropolis of Sparta, The Athenian citadel had by 
nature the desired height and extent suitable for the 
foundation of a settlement. The Acropolis rock rises about 
70 metres (230 ft.) above the surrounding plain and 
about 156 metres (512 ft.) above the level of the sea. 
It is precipitous and inaccessible on the north, south, and 
east sides, where the native rock rises almost perpendicularly 
above lower ledges to a height of nearly 30 metres (98 ft). 
Only on the west side is there a slope towards the valley 
below, which separates the Acropolis from the lower hill 
of Ares (the Areopagus) lying adjacent to the northwest. 
It was accordingly from the west side that the top of 
the Acropolis was reached and it was on this side that 
its strongest defenses were built. 

In form the Acropolis is an irregular polygon of very 
uneven surface, rising somewhat toward the east and extending 
from west to east in its greatest length (exclusive of the 
ascent) about 270 metres (886 ft.). With the artificial exten- 
sion of the surface at the south side, which will be spoken of 
more fully in another connection, the greatest breadth of the 
Acropolis is about 156 metres (512 ft.). 

Originally the rock must have presented a very different 
appearance and a much more irregular form. Numerous 
projections and hollows, jags and fissures, especially towards 


and at the east end, where the original surface has been built 
out and is concealed by the line of later built walls, gave to 
the rock an appearance much more rugged and jagged than it 
now presents. The projection of the southeast corner is 
especially noticeable, as affording an admirable bulwark for 

Fig. I. — Cave of Apollo. 

In order to make the hill more suitable for occupation, it 
was necessary first to level the surface by hewing down rocky 
projections and by filling up cracks and building up the sides 
of the hill with earth and masonry ; and secondly, to supple- 
ment what nature had already done in the way of defense 
by building a wall about the summit and by fortifying the 
accessible slope at the west and southwest end. To this 
earliest work of fortification Cleidemus, writing in the fifth 
century B.C., refers when he says that they levelled the 
Acropolis and made the Pelargicon, which they built round 
it nine-gated. The general shape of the hill and its subsequent 
alteration are made clear by Dorpfeld's simple illustration. 


A vertical section of the natural rock presents the shape of 
a house with a gable roof The sides of the house represent 
the steep cliffs to the north, south and east. Imagine the 
sides of the house produced upwards to the height of the 
roof-ridge and the triangular spaces so formed filled in, and 
we get the state of the Acropolis when the walls of Cimon 

Fig. 2. — Cave of Pan. 

were completed. The filling in of these spaces resulted in the 
gradual levelling of the surface of the hill, which was the work 
of many generations. 

The original surface of the plateau suggested three or four 
platforms, each successive one a little higher than that before 
as one proceeds eastward, which were later more definitely 
shaped and cut and then became respectively known as the 
platform of the Nike Apteros temple, that of Artemis 
Brauronia, that of Athena Ergane, and that of the Parthenon. 

While the summit of the Acropolis is quite destitute of 
vegetation, the sides and lower levels of the hill are covered 
in the spring with mallows, which are edible, and with a nettle 


bearing a great quantity of berries. There grows also a plant, 
especially above the theatre of Dionysus, with yellow flowers 
and glutinous leaves. Is this the plant, asks Dodwell, called 
Parthenion, which is said to have been so successfully applied 
to the wounds of the workman (see p. 283) who fell from the 
scaffolding of the Propylaea ? Plutarch (3) asserts that during 
a scarcity of grain the Athenians ate the Parthenion which 
grew about the Acropolis. This plant, now called perdicimn^ 
or herba muralis, is rarely found. 

The grottoes in the sides of the Acropolis became at an 
early period associated with mythological legends and cults. 
This fact is borne witness to by Aeschylus when he sings 
{Eumen. 22) of the "caves, o'ervaulted, lov'd by birds, the 
haunts of gods." We shall briefly treat these grottoes and 
their history and uses, beginning with the one at the north- 
west corner and proceeding eastward. 

Below the north-west corner of the rock is the cave or grotto 
{A on Plan I.) above the famous spring called " Empedo," i.e. 
never failing, also and more commonly " Clepsydra," i.e. secretly 
flowing, since it has no visible inlet or outlet, or hiding the 
water, since it sometimes ran dry and its waters were supposed 
to flow underground to Phalerum. No cult or tradition seems 
to have attached itself to this cave, though it may have been 
connected with the next cave east, which, as we shall presently 
see, was dedicated to Apollo. An exploration of the site 
showed that traces exist of cuttings in the sides of the cave, 
and that a clearly defined path is cut into the rock to give 
communication with the Apollo cave. The inference is there- 
fore not unnatural that the Apollo cult extended also to this 
first cave. The spring is reached from the Acropolis by a 
narrow flight of sixty-nine steps of mediaeval origin which 
descends from near the back of the pedestal of the Agrippa 
monument and close to the north-west corner of the Propylaea 
(13 in Plan VII.).* Recent explorations have made it certain 
that the Clepsydra was enclosed within the ancient wall of 
fortification which defended the Acropolis on this side, and 
which will be discussed later under the name of Pelargicon. 
The water of the spring is said by some to be clear and 
sweet, but I found it brackish. 

* Plan VII. is at the end of the volume. 


A. Cave difficult of approach and apparently not consecrated to any cult. 
B F. Double cave of Apollo Hypacraeus. 
a. Steps leading to this cave. 
iS. Traces of an ancient altar. 
7. A small pit or hole in the rock which Cavvadias thinks may be the sepulchre 

of Erechtheus referred to by Euripides (/on 281). 
A. Cave of Pan, formerly also sacred to Apollo. 

E. Foot of flight of steps cut into the rock by which one ascends to Z. 
Z. A little gate in the Cimonian wall through which one passes to H, scalae 

11. A flight of steps leading up to the summit. 
0. A long cave with two openings (dfjLipidvpot) from which lead the steps marked I. 
I. Steps, partly preserved, built in a narrow opening or fissure in the rock, 
giving an approach to the summit of the Acropolis. 
a a a. Remains of Pelasgic Walls. 

i. Remains of a wall made of square blocks of poros enclosing a level area 
covered with a pavement, which Dorpfeld thinks occupied the place of 
the ancient Pelargicon. 
c. The wall commonly attributed to Valerian. 
dd. Traces and remains of a Propylon older than the Propylaea of Mnesicles. 
ee. Wings of the Propylaea as originally projected by Mnesicles but never 

//. Foundations or bases of votive offerings older than the Propylaea. 
g. An ancient road which formed an approach to the summit of the Acropolis. 
/i. Traces of a chapel joined to a cave, possibly the sanctuary of Aegeus, 
a. Towers more ancient than the Beul6 gate. Behind these was built later a 

vaulted portico. 
k. Ancient remains of a gate and of steps. 
/. A flight of modern steps built by Cyriacus Pittakis. 
m. Traces of a mediaeval road for horses cut into the rock. 
n. Traces of an ancient road cut into the rock. 
00. Stair-way of a late period and steps cut into the rock. These, Dorpfeld thinks, 
may have been roofed over in order to afford a safe approach to the 
p. A structure with two chambers and a portico in front. 
g. Remains of what appears to have been a portico. 
s. Foundations of a building with a large portico. 


The proper designation of the second cave {B), which was 
formerly called the cave of Pan, has been ascertained to be 
the cave of Apollo by the excavations of the Greek Archaeo- 
logical Society (4), completed in 1897. Its interior is covered 
with cuttings and niches which served as receptacles for votive 
offerings. Near the middle is a niche somewhat larger than 
the rest, which, to judge from its shape, may have served to 
receive a statuette with a base. It is evident that when the 
surface of the interior of this cave was completely covered with 
cuttings, the process was continued toward the east, until the 
surface of the adjoining rock which separates this from the 
next cave (F) was also covered. A clearing out and examina- 
tion of this third cave, which extends higher up on the face 
of the rock and which was formerly held by some to be the 
cave of Pan, yielded no results. The two caves {B, T) are 
practically united and form one double cave, as indicated in 
the plan. 

But in the Acropolis rock, a little way east of the cave F 
and on a lower level, was found what appeared to be an 
entrance to still another cavern hitherto unknown. This is 
then the fourth of these caves, and is marked A, and by 
means of a narrow passage (^) communicates with another 
cave, or more properly another part of the same cave. This 
cave was extended eastward to the place near E, which was 
afterward utilized by the Christians as a suitable locality for 
a church, of which the pavement and a piece of a wall are still 
to be seen. 

In order to determine to whom these caves were consecrated 
we must now turn to evidence from the ancient writers and 
from certain finds on this spot. In front of the second cave 
(B) there were found twenty-five marble tablets or fragments 
of tablets, carved with wreaths of myrtle or laurel and in- 
scribed with dedications to " Apollo under the Heights " (5). 
These inscriptions belong to the Roman period, but probably 
replaced more ancient ones. At least eleven of the tablets 
seem to have been dedicated by archons or their secretary to 
Apollo. From these and other inscriptions, we infer that 
the nine archons stood in some special relation to the Apollo 
who was worshipped in the cave. Mr. Cavvadias, the Ephor- 
General of Antiquities at Athens, may be right in supposing 


that the archons took the oath referred to by Aristotle 
{Constitution of Athens, 55) at an altar in front of this cave, 
for here, immediately in front of the cave, was found a quad- 
rangular sinking in the rock suitable for the base of an 
altar (/3). All this certainly favors the opinion that this was 
the cave of Apollo. This opinion is confirmed by an exami- 
nation of the passages in the ancient writers which deal with 
these caves. Pausanias (i. 28) locates the sanctuary of Apollo 
in a cave near the Clepsydra. Since the cave immediately 
above the spring has been shown to be not the Apollo cave, 
it is likely to be the next one, i.e. cave B. Then Pausanias 
goes on to say that here Creiisa, daughter of Erechtheus, met 
Apollo. But Euripides in his Ion tells how Apollo met 
Creiisa in a cave on the northern cliffs of the Acropolis and 
how Creiisa exposed Ion, the offspring of that union, in the 
same cave. And that this cave was sacred to Pan is to be 
inferred from vv. 936, 937, of this play. "Thou knowest a 
cave on the north side of the Cecropian cliffs which we call 
long ? " asks Creiisa ; whereupon the slave answers, " I know 
where is the shrine of Pan and altars near." In a beautiful 
ode (vv. 492-502), the chorus sings : 

" O Athens, what thy diff hath seen ! 
The northward scar. Pan's cavern seat, 
With rocks before and grassy floor 
Where dancing tread the Aglaurids' feet, 
Their triple measure on the green 
Neath Pallas' fane. 
Whene'er the god in his retreat 
Times on the reed a quavering strain " (6). 

From this passage it is clear that the cave in which the 
lovers meet was a shrine of Pan. The Ion then implies either 
the identity or the close proximity to each other of the Apollo 
and Pan sanctuaries. If the cave of Pan was not identical 
with that of Apollo {B\ it must have been either cave F or 
cave A-A. This point may be determined by reference to the 
Lysistrata of Aristophanes. In this comedy (911 ff.), Cinesias 
proposes a secret meeting with Myrrhina in a cave which he 
calls the sanctuary of Pan. It is plain that the dark recesses 
of the cave A-A are much more suitable for such a rendezvous 
than cave F or any of the other caves further to the west, all 


of which are too shallow and open to afford concealment. 
The apparent identity of the Pan and Apollo sanctuary is easily 
accounted for as follows : The scene of the legend of Apollo 
and Creiisa, from whom Ion is born, is to be placed in the 
secluded recesses of the fourth cave (A-A). From this tradi- 
tion sprang the cult of " Apollo under the Heights." But this 
worship extended itself so as to include also the adjacent 
caves. In these more open grottoes would then be placed the 
altars and votive offerings. This was the situation until after 
the Persian invasion, when, as is known, the worship of Pan 
was introduced into Athens from Arcadia. Herodotus (vi. 
105) says that the Athenians, in acknowledgement of the aid 
Pan had given them at the battle of Marathon, founded a 
sanctuary of Pan under the Acropolis. Now the connection 
between Pan and Apollo is well known. Pan would naturally 
have his altar by the side of his companion. These caves then 
beneath the MaKpal of the Acropolis, which were originally 
dedicated to Apollo, became the common sanctuary of the two. 
But in course of time the god of the woods and caves would 
naturally have his name more closely associated with the more 
secret and retired cave (A-A). This again would lead to the 
closer association of Apollo with the more exposed cave (B). 
In this way the references in the Ion and the Lysistrata, and 
the statements of Pausanias and of Lucian (7) are brought 
into harmony with the results of the excavations (8). 

Some three yards east of the cave of Apollo was found 
a round hole in the rock, of somewhat irregular shape (7) 
about 2 metres (6| ft.) wide and nearly as deep. This 
hole Cavvadias conjectures may be the cleft said to have 
been made by Poseidon's trident, down which Erechtheus 
vanished (Eur. Ion, vv. 281, 282). A little eastward from 
the cave of Pan the recent excavations have laid bare a 
stairway hewn in the rock {E, E) and ascending in an easterly 
direction to the wall of the Acropolis. Seventeen steps have 
been preserved. The stairway leads to a postern (now built 
up) in the wall of the Acropolis. Inside the postern a 
staircase of twenty-two steps {H) leads up to the plateau of 
the Acropolis some 50 metres to the west of the Erechtheum. 
This is an ancient entrance to the Acropolis, which was either 
kept secret or had fallen into disuse before the time of 


Pausanias, who seems not to have known anything about 
it. Probably the postern was " the hole at the cave of 
Pan " through which Lysistrata caught one of the women 
endeavoring to steal out of the Acropolis (Aristophanes, 
Lysistr. 720 ff.)« Some suppose that this is the entrance 
by which, according to Herodotus (viii, 53), the Persians 
secretly gained admission to the summits of the Acropolis. 
But the language of the historian as well as that of Pausanias 
(i. 18, 2) seems rather to favor the view according to which 
another stairway (42 in plan), connected with a narrow 
underground passage further east and leading to the cave of 
Aglauros, was the entrance made use of by the Persians. 

This underground passage-way was discovered about seventy 
yards to the east of the cave of Pan. It is about ■^■i^ metres 
(44 yards) long, and ends in a cavern which is about 4 metres 
( 1 3 ft.) high. A branch of this passage leads by means of 
a staircase (/) to a fissure in the rock, through which one can 
gain under the fortification wall the summit of the Acropolis. 
Entering by this fissure and ascending by a short stairway 
you land on the summit to the north-west of the Erechtheum, 
within the precincts of the Arrephoroi (see p. 2 1 8). The 
existing stairway is of late origin, the steps being constructed 
of marble slabs, bricks and mortar. Between the upper nine 
and lower five steps there is an empty gap of 6i metres 
(22 ft.) enclosed by the sheer rock, into which probably a 
hanging ladder was placed. This passage may have been 
the one by which the Arrephoroi descended on their secret 
mission. It seems highly probable that this cave is to be 
associated with Aglauros (9), the daughter of Cecrops, who 
had a sanctuary, according to Euripides among the Long 
Rocks and near the cave of Pan. Below this supposed 
Aglaurium there are traces of a plateau levelled off in ancient 
days, which may well be the spot referred to by the poet 
as " the green on which Aglauros and her sisters danced to 
the music of the pipes of Pan." In this cave undoubted 
traces of worship have been found, such as a niche cut into 
the rock for the reception of a votive offering, while in 
the rubbish that covered the floor was discovered a marble 
pedestal which, to judge from the hollow in its upper surface, 
may have supported a statue of half life-size. 


There are other historical associations connected with this 
spot. If we may believe the story told by Polyaenus (10), 
it was in this sanctuary of Aglauros that Pisistratus stored 
the arms which he had taken by stratagem from the citizens 
after he had requested them to come fully armed to the temple 
of the Dioscuri, which apparently was near by. In this 
sanctuary also the Athenian youth (ecpij^oi) took the oath 
of loyalty to the state. An inscription mentions a priestess 
of Aglauros, and from another inscription we may infer that 
Demeter, the nursing mother, had an altar within the precinct 
of Aglauros, which was served by a priest or priestess who 
had a seat of honor in the theatre of Dionysus (11). 

Proceeding eastward we turn the north-east corner of the 
Acropolis and see almost in the centre of the eastern face 
of the rock a huge cavern, partly hidden by heaps of debris 
thrown down from the summit. No mention is made of this 
cavern in any ancient writer, and it seems to have played 
no part in the history of the Acropolis. Leake and Curtius 
have supposed that the Eleusinium mentioned by Pausanias 
(i. 14, 3) is to be placed in or near this spot. But the view 
of Dorpfeld, who locates it near the western foot of the 
Acropolis, is much more probable (12). The next cave to 
which we come is the one situated immediately above the 
theatre of Dionysus and known as the site of the choregic 
monument of Thrasyllus, which will be described below in 
connection with the great theatre. For a subsequent chapter 
we also reserve an account of the next grotto, which lies on 
our path from the diazoma of the theatre to the precincts of 
the Asclepieum or temple of Asclepius, and which encloses 
the spring of water connected with this sanctuary. 

Having spoken of the natural features of the Acropolis and 
incidentally of their historic associations, let us now turn to a 
consideration of the oldest ascent and means of approach to 
the Acropolis. When one looks at the natural conformation 
of the hill, he is not in doubt that the oldest ascent to the 
Acropolis must have been from the west. The only doubt 
that can arise is whether this ascent was directly from the 
west, or from the northwest or southwest. Since the dip of 
the rock is rather in the last-named direction, it seems 
probable that the earliest entrance was immediately below the 


Nike bastion, where during the Prankish period the only 
entrance seems to have been provided. Dr. F. C. Penrose (13) 
thinks he has discovered cuttings in the rock near the south- 
west angle of the Acropolis for an approach to this entrance, 
which he believes was guarded by cross-walls joined to the 
main circuit wall of the citadel. The erection of the choregic 
monument of Nicias and of the Odeum of Herodes Atticus 
doubtless obliterated an old road and approach to the 
Acropolis from this side. The depressions and holes cut in 
the native rock higher on the slope (w) and immediately below 
the bastion may be the traces of the most ancient entrance to 
the Acropolis ; they may be due, however, to the later use of 
an entrance at this point during the Prankish period. At an 
early period, but how early cannot be definitely determined, 
the main entrance to the Acropolis seems to have been on the 
western slope, near to the so-called Beule gate (to be described 
later) which forms the present entrance, and to have been 
guarded by a strong bulwark forming a part of the so-called 
Pelargicon, of which we shall presently give an account. In the 
recent excavations, besides the narrow ascent which led up on 
the north side, under the so-called "Long Walls" (vtto MaKpah), 
from the sanctuaries of Apollo and Pan described above, 
p. 8, there was found a wider ascent, partly natural and 
partly cut into a declivity of the rock, apparently starting from 
a point near the north-east projection of the Acropolis. Its 
lower end is now lost in the later foundations of the outer wall 
of the Acropolis, but its upper end terminates east of the 
Erechtheum, and it seems to have been connected also with a 
series of foundations of polygonal masonry possibly belonging 
to a prehistoric building, the remains of which are still to be 
seen at the bottom of the pit that has been left open east of 
the Erechtheum. This ancient passage may have been con- 
nected with the earliest settlement which must now occupy our 

The Acropolis gained its historic distinction when the 
Cecropids established . themselves upon its summit as their 
fortress and made Zeus their patron divinity. The worship of 
Zeus was apparently already established among the people who 
had settled in the surrounding plain. Now the barren rock 
became the nucleus of a community which dwelt upon the 


summit and on the western slope, was called the ttoXi^, a 
name it retained for a long time afterward, and Zeus became 
the guardian of the city, TroXievs. The old inhabitants hither- 
to called KjOai/aoi now became the sons of Cecrops. Here 
Zeus was also honored as uttuto?, " dwelling on high," on 
whose altar, after the most ancient custom, nothing that had 
life in it but only sacrifices of cakes could be properly offered. 
Here too the earth-mother, Ge or Gaea, was doubtless wor- 
shipped as the giver of fruit and the nourisher of men. This 
is witnessed to by the late inscription cut into the rock north 
of the Parthenon (see p. 292), and by other inscriptions record- 
ing dedications and speaking of a sanctuary of Ge Kouro- 
trophos and her kindred Demeter Chloe, which Dorpfeld 
locates on the western slope of the hill. 

The worship of Athena on the Acropolis is also very 
ancient. Homer tells us {Odyss. vii. 80 f) that Athena came 
to Athens with its wide streets and entered the goodly house 
of Erechtheus. In the Iliad (ii. 546-549), Athena is said 
to receive Erechtheus in her own rich temple at Athens. On 
the rock Athena had planted her sacred olive and in her 
sanctuary was worshipped her oldest image, which had fallen 
from heaven in a time beyond historic record. 

Closely associated with Athena and Erechtheus in legend 
and worship were Hephaestus and Poseidon. The " tokens '* 
{a-rifxeia), i.e. the salt-spring and the trident-mark in the rock 
(an account of which is given in the chapter that treats of 
the Erechtheum) were as old in tradition as the rock itself. 

Another ancient divinity closely associated with the earliest 
settlement of the Acropolis, if not on its summit at least on 
its slope, was Aphrodite Pandemos (14). Originally a divinity 
of sexual love, she became a tribal goddess (Aphrodite 
Apatouros), at whose shrine on the south-western slope Theseus 
is said to have organized the people into a community. 
Apollo, the father of the lonians, whose son Ion was born 
of Creiisa in the cave (see above, p. 8) in or near which 
the Pythion is placed by Dorpfeld (15), received later recog- 
nition when the Ionian influence became paramount. But 
Hermes, the old Pelasgian guardian of the ways, whose rude 
image was kept as an heirloom in the Erechtheum, and Butes, 
Poseidon's son, had a place and shrine in the earliest cults 


on the Acropolis. The introduction of the worship of Artemis 
on the Acropolis seems to have come later from Brauron, a 
district in Attica. Ares, Hera and Heracles appear to have been 
almost the only divinities who were excluded from the sacred 
precinct on the summit of the ancient rock, unless indeed we 
suppose that the old pediment groups representing the story 
of Heracles and the Hydra and Triton point to the existence 
of an old temple of Heracles and a cult of that divinity which 
later disappeared. The probability is, however, that this group 
belongs to an ancient temple of Athena which antedates the 
Pisistratid period, large architectural remains of which have 
been identified by Wiegand (16). Among all these divinities, 
Athena became in due time the chief, though she nowhere 
crowded out her rivals. As Polias, Parthenos, Promachos, 
Nike, Hygieia, Ergane she was worshipped and honored at 
various shrines and under different forms, as we shall later see. 

With the worship of these high Olympians was associated 
the more poetic cult of nymphs and goddesses of the springs 
and dew and rain, such as Alcippe, daughter of Aglauros, 
who was overpowered by Halirrothios at the spring (Kpyjvri) 
on the south slope, and the daughters of the old earth-born 
Cecrops, the handmaids of Athena. 

During all this prehistoric period, the Acropolis grew more 
and more to be a place of sanctuaries (lepov), serving also at 
the same time as a place of royal residence and a citadel. 
The picture presented by Thucydides (ii. 15, 3) implies 
that the Acropolis has assumed the character of a capitol or 
seat of a ruler, and that it forms the centre of a settlement 
{(TvvoiKi(T/u6'i), which was supposed to be the creation of Theseus, 
the political hero. Just as at Mycenae, the only ancient Greek 
city whose original plan we know with some degree of definite- 
ness, the Acropolis formed the centre and capitol of the 
settlement which grew up around its base and in the valley 
below, so at Athens the Acropolis became the nucleus and 
crown of the city which was growing upon and around the 
slopes (17). 

Here on the hill-top, in the glorious light of the sun over- 
looking the sea and plain and in full view of the mountains, 
fanned by purest breezes blowing across the blue Aegean or 
from the rocky heights of Mt. Parnes, the gods had their 


bright abodes, and the kings and princes, Erechtheids and 
Cecropids, made their lovely dwelling. To this holy hill the 
people from the plain below went up to pray, and here in 
time of war or distress they found shelter and safety. 

Of that earliest settlement scanty but well-identified traces 
remain, particularly on the north part of the Acropolis, where 
ancient walls and foundations of prehistoric date have come 
to light. These walls and foundations, built of the native 

Fig. 3. — Terra-cotta Statuettes found on the Acropolis. 

limestone, belong in part to the ancient palace of the Athenian 
kings, and are doubtless remains of the well-built house of 
Erechtheus ('E|Oe^0>5o? iruKivog ^0/0109) referred to in the Odyssey. 
As at Tiryns and Mycenae, so at Athens Dorpfeld believes 
a temple was built on the ruins of the ancient palace, which 
he has identified and thinks is referred to in the I/md. In 
our next chapter these foundations will be more fully discussed. 
To this prehistoric period belong also the so-called Mycenaean 
sherds found buried in the lowest strata of the debris that 

A.A. B 


served for filling in the crevices of the rock and extending 
its area on the sides, particularly south of the Parthenon, and 
also numerous clay images of divinities, particularly of Athena, 
Brauronian Artemis and Aphrodite Pandemos (Fig. 3), which 
came to light in recent excavations and which are now 
exhibited in the Museum on the Acropolis (18). 

Remnants of the oldest Pelasgic wall of defence which 
guarded the western approach and entrance have survived. 
But it is difficult to tell how much of the walls whose remains 
are still to be seen belongs to this prehistoric and how much 
to the later period of Pisistratus. 

The royal palace on the hill was the centre of the life 
portrayed for us in the Homeric poems. Here the elders 
sat in council, and the king dispensed hospitality and issued 
commands. Here too was the hearth of the head of the 
tribe by the side of which stood the altar of Zeus Herceios 
('EpKeio'i), at which the king in his office as head of the 
household exercised his priestly function. Hence in the later 
period we find an altar to Zeus Herceios close by the sacred 
olive tree in the sanctuary of Erechtheus. 

In this earliest period then we find that the Acropolis was 
at once a sanctuary, a citadel and a residence. Sanctuary 
it remained during all later time, citadel (19) until the age 
of Pericles, but as residence it continued to serve only during 
the period of Pisistratus, to which now we turn. 



"And (Athena) came to Marathon and Athens with its spacious streets, 
And entered the well-built house of Erechtheus. " 

Odyss. vii. 80. 

Already at the time of the composition of the Homeric 
poems was Athens known as a city, and did Erechtheus, the 
national hero, possess a well-built palace. From recent 
excavations on the Acropolis, as was said in the preceding 
chapter, evidence has been found of what may be called a 
Mycenaean settlement (20) in the form of house-walls and 
sherds, which are probably contemporaneous with the great 
Pelasgic walls that fortified the citadel. Beneath the cella 
of the early temple of Athena, discovered by Dr. Dorpfeld 
and to be discussed later, were found two bases of limestone 
(see ^y Plan) which probably supported wooden columns in 
the hall of the primitive " Palace " of Erechtheus. Besides 
these, other fragments of walls which seem to have belonged 
to this building were found among the foundations of the 
Old Athena temple. All this verifies what has already been 
said, that in the prehistoric period the Acropolis was the 
citadel and capitol of a growing community. 

With Solon and Pisistratus we first tread upon historic 
ground. Not that all the accounts of the events in the time of 
these men are absolutely trustworthy, but yet enough is certain 
to enable us to get some idea of the history of the Acropolis 
in this period, especially when the statements of the historians 
are supplemented by discoveries of ancient remains which 


can with good reason be referred to the same epoch. One 
of the earHest historic events connected with the Acropohs 
antedates the time of Solon and affords some information 
of a topographical nature. The event referred to is the 
attempt of Cylon to make himself tyrant of Athens by 
seizing the Acropolis, which occurred in 632 B.C. (21). From 
the accounts of this event it is evident that the Acropolis 
was at this period the seat of power and authority, as well 
as a place of refuge. Polemon (22) speaks of a " Cylonium 
outside the Nine Gates," which was probably a shrine erected 
as an expiation on the spot where some of Cylon's fellow- 
conspirators were cut down. " The Nine Gates " was probably 
the out-fortification on the western face of the Acropolis, 
forming part of the Pelargicon to be described below. That 
the Pisistratids, after their seizure and occupancy of the 
Acropolis, strengthened and fortified the rocky hill as well 
as adorned it with temples is to be inferred from all the 
statements of the ancient writers that relate to this period. 
The patron divinity of the city, Athena, was believed to have 
conducted Pisistratus as lord of the citadel to her shrine on 
the summit of the hill (Hdt. i. 60). The Acropolis now 
became more than ever the seat of government and lordly 
rule. This fact Aristotle probably has in mind when in his 
Politics (1314 a) he says that the safety of a tyrannis lies in 
making it as kingly as possible. According to Hesychius (23) 
a scare-crow of bronze was fastened by Pisistratus to the outer 
wall of the Acropolis, to serve as a charm, which, according 
to popular superstition, should avert the envy of the gods, who 
might destroy the prosperity of the ruler. 

From the statement of Thucydides (vi. 54) it is clear that 
the Pisistratids spent a portion of the revenue from the taxes 
on the adornment of the city and the building of temples. 
Among the structures in the lower city erected by Pisistratus 
and his sons may be named the Enneacrunos or Fountain 
of nine conduits, believed by Dorpfeld (24) to be identical 
with the fountain called Calirrhoe, and to have been found 
by him in the excavations at the base of the Pnyx hill, the 
sanctuary of Apollo Pythios, and the great temple of Olym- 
pian Zeus which was not completed until the time of the 
Emperor Hadrian. 


Just what buildings on the Acropolis are to be attributed 
to the Pisistratids it is difficult to say. An ancient Propylon 
or gateway may be referred to this period, and also large 
walls built of polygonal masonry, which were added to the 
earlier built Pelasgic walls and formed with them what was 
called the Pelargicon, to be more fully described presently. 
Whether the great cisterns built into the rock east of the 
Propylaea and close to the north wall (see 3 1 Plan) are 
connected with the Pisistratids is not clear ; they are dated by 
Middleton as belonging to the fifth century, but Dorpfeld (25) 
is inclined to connect them with a period earlier than the 
fifth century. 

That at this time the rich and abundant building material of 
Attica first came to be widely used is most probable. The 
earliest building material of a durable nature employed was 
the limestone of which the Acropolis and the neighboring hills 
were constituted, and also a coarser and softer limestone, 
which was sometimes called Peiraic from the fact that it was 
found most abundantly in the promontory adjacent to Peiraeus 
and named Akte. This stone is also called by the Greek name 
o{ poros, a term frequently adopted by modern scholars. Later, 
a reddish, harder limestone found in the lower slopes of 
Hymettus, and now called Kara limestone from the name of a 
neighboring village, was employed. This seems to have been 
a favorite stone with the Pisistratids, especially for stylobates 
and for steps that were exposed to much wear. For statuary 
the marble earliest in use was imported from the islands of 
the Aegean, especially from Paros. But the earliest examples 
of statuary were made of the coarse limestone above 
mentioned. The rich quarries of Pentelic marble were not 
extensively worked before the fifth century. 

With an abundance of resources such as had never before 
been possessed by any previous ruler, Pisistratus and his 
sons made good use of this wealth of building material in 
beautifying the «ity and in honoring the gods with public 
edifices and shrines of worship. Athena especially, as the 
patron divinity of the royal house, which had made her 
olive tree a means of divination, was honored by adorning 
her temple on the Acropolis with a handsome peristyle. In 
her honor also Pisistratus is credited with having instituted 


the greater Panathenaic festival which occurred every four 
years, and which was celebrated with musical and equestrian 
contests, with a magnificent procession, represented on the 
frieze of the later built Parthenon, and with the sacrifice of 
a hecatomb. 

The history of the Acropolis was closely involved in the 
fortunes of the ruling house. Every student of Greek history 
remembers the conspiracy of Harmodius and Aristogiton, 
which had as a consequence the murder of Hipparchus and 
the expulsion of the Pisistratid dynasty. From the statement 
of Herodotus (v. 64) it is clear that when Cleomenes the 
Spartan attacked the Acropolis for the purpose of driving out 
the Pisistratids, the Pelasgic wall was a formidable means of 
defense, within which Hippias had entrenched himself But 
that the expulsion of the Pisistratids also brought about the 
breaking down of the ramparts and fortifications of the now 
hated citadel of despotic rule does not necessarily follow, 
and seems disproved by the fact that when in 508 B.C. 
Cleomenes entered Athens for the second time, for the purpose 
of setting up an oligarchy, he made the Acropolis his fortress 
and sustained a siege of three days behind its ramparts (26). 

Much more disastrous to the walls and buildings of the 
Acropolis than the expulsion of the tyrants were the invasions 
and ravages of the Persians which occurred in 480 B.C. and 
the year following. Herodotus (viii. 53) tells us that in the 
first capture of the city the Barbarians having despoiled the 
sanctuary, burnt the entire Acropolis (27). How complete this 
destruction was we do not know, but we infer from the 
statement of the same historian, in Book ix. Chap. 13, that 
the more complete ruin was wrought in the following year, 
when, in consequence of the perfidious policy of Sparta, Athens 
fell a second time into the hands of the Persians, and 
Mardonius threw down and reduced to a heap of ruins what 
before had been left standing of walls, dwellings and sanctuaries. 
From Thucydides (i. 89, 3) we learn that a few dwellings, 
which were occupied by officers of the invading host, had 
been spared, as well as small portions of the walls of 

Before passing on, reference should be made to the view 
recently set forth by Dorpfeld (28) according to which the 


foundations of the earlier Parthenon and the beginnings of its 
superstructure, which formerly were attributed to Cimon, are 
now assigned to the period of the restored democracy under 
Clisthenes and accordingly antedate the Persian invasion. 
The arguments for this view are best given in connection 
with the history of the Parthenon in the chapters that follow. 
Much probability may be claimed for the argument advanced 
by Dorpfeld that it would be strange if during this period 
marked by so much activity in Athens, when the Pnyx was 
built and the new market in the Ceramicus was provided, 
when the Athenians built their Treasury at Delphi and the 
Alcmaeonidae rebuilt the temple of Apollo, no edifice of any 
importance on the Acropolis should have been planned. But, 
as will be seen later, more cogent arguments for placing the 
earlier Parthenon before the Persian destruction are furnished 
by recent investigations of the ruins themselves. 

After this brief sketch of the history of the Acropolis in the 
period closing with the Persian invasion let us turn to a study 
of the remains of buildings and statuary that have come down 
to us from this early time. 

First in order of time we must discuss the so-called 
Pelargicon (29). Under this term we will treat the general 
question of the more ancient walls, although the word is 
more commonly applied to the line of ramparts that defended 
the western foot of the Acropolis and ran partly round the 
northern and southern slopes. This limitation of the term, 
however, seems to have arisen soon after the Persian invasion, 
before that time the term having been employed to designate 
the whole line of fortification that enclosed the Acropolis. 

That the Acropolis was enclosed and defended from the 
earliest times by walls surrounding its crest and protecting 
the entrance at the west, not only seems probable from the 
nature of the case but finds confirmation both in the legends 
connected with the building of the walls and in the remains 
of them that have survived to the present time. Of these 
legends one runs that Athena herself was carrying a huge 
rock to be placed as a defense of the Acropolis at its western 
end, but that unhappily she let it drop when she heard of 
the disobedience of the daughters of Cecrops, and that later 
this rock was called Mount Lycabettus. Another legend 


says that the walls of the Acropolis were built by Hyperbius 
and Argolas, names of ancient Pelasgians who were easily 
confounded with the giants. These Pelasgic walls are 
sometimes referred to by ancient writers as the work of the 
Tyrrhenians (30). 

The figure (No. 4) in the text, taken from a red-figured 
vase of the fifth century B.C., represents one of these giant 
builders of the Pelasgic wall named Gigas carrying a huge 
rock or rather pile of rocks, and Athena in front directing him 
with her outstretched hand where to lay them. 

Fig. 4. — Giant carrying rocks. Athena. 

That the Pisistratids made the Acropolis more of a strong- 
hold than ever before has already been said. To effect this 
two things had to be done. The walls surrounding the crest 
and said to have been built by the Pelasgians must be 
strengthened and built higher, and the western approach and 
ascent must be more strongly guarded. Undoubted remains 
of this most ancient circumvallating wall have been found in 
recent excavations and are clearly to be seen in the trenches 
left open, especially on the east and south sides of the 
Acropolis. These walls all have the same characteristics. 
They are built of huge unhewn blocks of the limestone that 
constitutes the Acropolis rock, placed in layers or tiers with 
small stones filling in the chinks. The thickness varies from 
four to six metres, the original height is uncertain ; it is 
preserved only to about four metres, but a bevelling of the 



wall of the east corner of the south wing of the Propylaea 
leads to the inference that the wall at this point may have 
reached to a height of ten metres (31). A good specimen of 
this wall is to be seen at the southeast corner of the Acropolis, 
which makes a sharp angle at this point, built of the hard lime- 
stone of the native rock and in huge blocks from three to four 
and a half feet in length. From what is left of this wall one 
would judge that at this point some bulwark for defense had 
been erected. Usually the remains of this oldest wall are found 
lying inside of the younger and better built wall dating from the 
time of Cimon and Pericles. On the north side the later wall 
follows the line of the old wall quite closely, and wherever the 
line of Cimon's wall or of the later wall coincides with that of 
the ancient one or lies within it the old wall was torn down 
and became obliterated. In passing it may be observed that 
contemporary with this Pelasgic fortification wall are probably 
the roughly built foundations of dwellings (see 64 Plan) found 
a few years ago east of the Erechtheum and resting on the rock 
at a depth of 45 feet below the surface. To the Pelasgic 
period also belong the crude walls to be seen close to the 
northeastern boundary wall of the Acropolis, directly east 
of the Erechtheum, which are probably the remains of an 
ancient gateway (61 Plan) to the primitive royal palace, 
approach to which was gained by a flight of rock-cut steps 
leading up from the base of the Acropolis (60 Plan). Other 
remains of this oldest wall are to be seen at various other 
points. (See Plan II.) 

The most conspicuous remnant of this Pelasgian wall, 
however, is that which bounds the precinct of the Artemis 
Brauronia terrace at the southeast corner of the southern wing 
of the Propylaea. Its length is nearly seventeen metres (about 
55 ft.) and it has a thickness of nearly six metres (20 ft.). 
It rises to a height of about three metres (10 ft.) above the level 
of the plateau on which the Nike temple stands. 

The original height of this wall and its relation to the old 
fortification is a matter of doubt, and opens up one of the 
many questions concerning the history of the Acropolis on 
which there is a wide divergence of opinion. This question 
is a twofold one : First, the extent of the stronghold about 
the western approach to the Acropolis and generally known 


as the Pelargicon or Pelasgicum, and, second, the date when 
the AcropoHs ceased to be a citadel and became simply a 
temenos or precinct of sanctuaries. In Appendix II. will 
be found some additional points bearing upon this question. 
Here it must suffice to indicate what topographical considera- 
tions and ancient remains and what evidence from ancient 
writers are involved in this discussion, and to state briefly 
the views held by some of those who have given the most 
serious study to this subject. 

First let us consider the topography and the existing re- 
mains that are supposed to give data for the location and 
extent of the Pelargicon. As one looks at the Acropolis 
from a point near the " Theseum " or from the base of the 
Areopagus, he will easily observe that a fortification that is 
to be adequate to protect the entire western slope of the 
Acropolis, and that is to include any territory immediately 
around the base of the hill, would naturally enclose the 
Clepsydra at the north-west corner and the adjacent caves 
of Apollo and Pan. How much further to the east on this 
side of the Acropolis the wall of the Pelargicon would go 
is not so clear. If it were to protect the small and partly 
secret ascents or gates to the Acropolis on the north side, it 
would have to extend beyond the Agraulium from which there 
was an ascent. But no walls have been found on this side 
that can be surely identified as belonging to the Pelargicon. 
No clear indications of the extent of the Pelargicon on 
the west slope of the hill have been gained from the recent 
excavations made on the site by the German Archaeological 
Institute (32). These excavations have, however, made more 
clear the location of the old roadway leading up to the 
Acropolis and the probable extent of the Pelargicon on 
that side. 

As in modern so in ancient days the approach to the 
AcropoHs was by means of a winding road leading from one 
terrace to another, which were probably defended by walls. 
As is suggested by Miss Harrison {^Primitive Athens, p. 33), 
the fortified Turkish Athens, which had a succession of 
redoubts on the west slope of the Acropolis, is in this respect 
more like the old Pelargicon fortress than the Acropolis as 
we see it to-day. When we turn to the south side we find 



evidence for the existence but not for the extent of the old 
fortification. A number of pieces of wall (39, t,6, 34, 31 in 
Plan VI.) have been assigned to the Pelargicon. But an 
examination of these walls shows that they do not belong 
to the same period. Of these pieces only that which is 
numbered 39 is probably a part of the Pelargicon, though 
not masonry of the very earliest period. The other pieces 
are good polygonal masonry and may belong to buildings of 
the time of Pisistratus and have supplanted earlier structures. 

KiG. 5. — Pelasgic Wall on summit of Acropolis south of Modern Museum. 

It is of course possible that they also belong to walls built 
by Pisistratus to strengthen the Pelargicon. The extent of 
the Pelargicon eastward is not known, but from hints found 
in the ancient writers, presently to be noticed, and from 
topographical indications, it has been bounded either by the 
theatre of Dionysus or by the precinct of Asclepius. That 
there was an approach to the Acropolis from the southwest 
has already been noticed. The old road which led to this 
approach, as is plainly seen when one visits the spot, must 
have started from somewhere near the theatre, and must have 
corresponded pretty nearly with the modern path that begins 
just east of the Stoa of Eumenes and runs below the 


Asclepieum. At its western end the old road was built over 
and obliterated by the theatre of Herodes, the erection of 
which must have destroyed the ramparts of the Pelargicon 
at this conspicuous angle. In trying to determine the extent 
of the Pelargicon towards the east, we need to consider what 
evidence if any is afforded by the statements of Greek writers 
who allude to the Pelargicon. The important statements 
contained in the ancient writers that bear upon the location 
and extent of the Pelargicon are the following : 

(i) The Pelargicon lay "under the Acropolis" says Thucy- 
dides (ii. 17). From this it is manifest that the term was 
now limited to the fortifications that lay below the Acropolis 
and did not include the walls that fortified the summit. 

(2) It enclosed a sufficient space, so that in consequence of 
the famous oracle, referred to by Thucydides in the same 
passage, " better the Pelargicon left waste " (33), a prohibition 
was laid against quarrying stone or removing earth from 
the Pelargicon, and tilling the ground within its enclosure. 
Only in the distress occasioned by the Peloponnesian war was 
this precinct temporarily occupied by the crowded populace. 

(3) Furthermore, in the enclosure of the Pelargicon were 
located a number of shrines. (4) The Pelargicon had con- 
nected with it nine gates, evveairvKov or evvea irvXai (34). 
(5) It lay, according to Lucian {Bis Accus. 9), close to the 
cave of Pan, which was " a little way above." In Lucian's 
Fisherman, 47, Parrhesiades after baiting his hook with figs 
and gold casts down his line to fish for the philosophers, 
and Philosophy seeing him looking over the edge asks if 
he is fishing for stones from the Pelargicon. In another 
passage of the same dialogue (42) the hungry philosophers 
are seen swarming up to the Acropolis on all sides, some by 
the Pelargicon, others at the Asclepieum, still more at the 
grave of Talos, and some at the sanctuary of the Dioscuri. 
The passages cited from Lucian may be interpreted to mean 
that the philosophers throng up the Acropolis from the north 
side close by the cave of Pan and from the south side as 
far as the grave of Talos, which is located just beyond the 
eastern boundary of the Asclepieum. (Cf W. Miller, A.J. A. viii. 
1893, p. 486.) According to this interpretation, which is held 
also by Dorpfeld {A.M. xiv. 65), the Pelargicon would include 


the springs of the Clepsydra and of the sanctuary of Asclepius. 
But this is one reason that leads Judeich {Topogr. p. iii) to 
reject this view, since, as he says, the lack of water which 
compelled the supporters of Cylon to surrender (cf Thuc. i. 
126, 9) cannot be explained if the Asclepius fountain was 
enclosed within the walls of the fortress. Until further 
evidence is found the extent of the Pelargicon on the south 
side of the Acropolis must remain an open question. But 
before dismissing this part of the subject in hand we need still 
to look at the meaning of the term kwea-KvKov, i.e. nine-gated. 
This term has been variously explained. One explanation is 
that it refers to nine crosswalls, each with a gateway, barring at 
intervals the passage between two parallel walls running from 
the valley between the Areopagus and the Acropolis. This 
would be something like the German Briickenkopf, French Tete- 
de-pont. Wachsmuth compares the " Duodecim Portae " in 
Rome and the " Pentapylon " in Syracuse. Miller, in the 
article cited above, believes that the nine gates were in nine 
successive redoubts or walls that defended the western approach 
on successive terraces, the first, or innermost, of which was 
situated directly opposite the Areopagus since it was this 
hill that the Amazons and later the Persians made the base 
of their attack upon the Acropolis. The last but one of 
this series of redoubts through which the last but one of the 
nine gates would give entrance to the Acropolis would then 
be on the site of the bastion of the later temple of Nike, 
where an older " Pyrgos " would flank the unprotected right 
side of an attacking foe. The highest and last of all these 
walls may be that piece of Pelasgic wall spoken of above, 
forming at once the boundary wall of the sanctuary of Artemis 
Brauronia and apparently a part of the surrounding wall on 
the summit of the citadel. Some idea of the arrangement 
of this redoubt or fortress with nine gates may be gained 
from a comparison with the citadels of other Mycenaean 
cities, such as Tiryns ; the gates were separate entrances, 
lying one behind and above the other but not necessarily 
on the same axis, through successive walls which defended 
each terrace or height. The remark of Herodotus (viii. 51) 
that those of the Athenians who remained behind to defend 
the Acropolis at the time of the Persian attack barricaded 


the entrance with doors and timbers (Ovpucri re kui ^vXokti) 
seems to indicate that these gateways, like those at Tiryns, 
were only in part provided with doors. An interesting but 
unconvincing view of the meaning of evuecnrvXov is given 
newly by Drerup iPhilol. 64, 66) who argues that this term 
refers to gates or entrances in the entire circuit of the walls 
surrounding the summit of the Acropolis. This view is based 
on the use of the word Trepi^aWeiv {to throw around, i.e. to 
surround) by Cleidemus (34) and by Myrsilus and Pausanias, 
all of whom are speaking of the building of the walls of 
the Acropolis. We have already seen that the term Pelar- 
gicon did originally include the circuit wall on the Acropolis 
as well as the walls defending the approach from below. 
But how to apply the term hveairvkov to the circuit wall is 
now the question. Drerup applies it by supposing that there 
were nine gates originally in this circuit wall, that is to say, 
the main entrance at the west and eight rear and side 
entrances, five of which can, he thinks, still be recognized, 
i.e.^ four on the north and north-west side and one on the 
south side of the citadel. The objections to this view are 
first that there is no reason to suppose that these side 
entrances were ever large and conspicuous enough to be 
counted as among "the nine gates," indeed some of them appear 
always to have been secret and seldom used ; and secondly, 
the statement of Polemon (see p. 18) that the sanctuary 
of Cylon lay outside of the nine gates makes it impossible 
to understand these nine gates as placed at intervals in the 
circuit of the walls surrounding the entire Acropolis. On 
the contrary, the expression " nine gates " as a designation 
of locality could only have arisen and been handed down 
in case it referred to a definite and limited part of the entire 
line of fortifications. 

The other question connected with the Pelargicon relates 
to the period during which these defenses were kept standing. 
On the one hand it is held that they were taken down, so 
far as they had not been levelled by the second Persian 
invasion, at the time of the building of the Propylaea, and 
that under Pericles the Acropolis ceased to be a citadel. 
On the other hand it is contended, especially by Dorpfeld, 
that not before the time of Herodes Atticus did these ancient 


walls and enormous bulwarks about the Acropolis disappear, 
and that during the most illustrious period of the history of 
the Acropolis, its beautiful temples and Propylaea were shut 
out from the view of the inhabitants of the city by these 
high walls of fortification. So far as is known, there is no 
topographical or architectural evidence adduced in favor of 
this extraordinary theory other than the remarkable fact that 
the southeast corner of the southwest wing of the Propylaea 

Fig. 6. — Southwest Wing of the Propylaea, and Pelasgic Wall. 

is bevelled outward from plinth to cornice so as to make a 
close junction with the piece of Pelasgic wall already described 
above running in a slanting direction from the corner of the 
Propylaea to the outer wall of the Acropolis. From this it 
is argued that this upper part of the Pelasgic wall was left 
standing to a height of more than thirty feet when the 
Propylaea was built as part of the Pelargicon, and was then 
still recognized as an essential part of the old fortification. 
Those who cannot accept this view believe either that this 
part of the old wall was built up to this height by the 
priesthood of Artemis Brauronia, or what is more likely, 

A.A. c 


that so much of it was allowed to remain standing in order 
to prevent encroachment on their domain. The evidence 
brought from the ancient writers and from inscriptions in 
favor of Dorpfeld's view is in dispute, and has been refuted 
by Professor John Williams White in a monograph published 
at Athens in the ^Ephemeris of 1894, the main points of which 
are given in Appendix II. So much at least seems certain 
from the historians, that the Pelargicon did good service 
during the Persian invasion, enabling a handful of soldiers 
successfully to hold the fort against the onset of the barbarians, 
who probably might have been kept at bay much longer had 
not the secret passageway leading up from the sanctuary of 
Aglauros (Hdt. viii. 53) been revealed to them. From the 
occupation of the Acropolis as a citadel by the Spartans in 
403 B.C. and from the fact that when Sulla seized Athens 
in 86 B.C., his lieutenant Scribonius found the Athenians so 
well entrenched on the Acropolis that he preferred to compel 
Aristion and his forces to surrender by cutting off their supply 
of water, it has been argued that the Pelargicon was standing 
during all this period. To this argument it may be replied 
that the position and natural advantages of the Acropolis as 
a place of refuge and a strategic point of defense would 
easily enable its occupants to turn it under stress of war 
into a temporary stronghold, without the additional security 
afforded by these ancient ramparts and walls. 

The conclusion to which we have arrived is briefly stated 
this : The old Pelargicon with probably a few additions and 
changes made by the Pisistratids remained unimpaired until 
the Persian invasion when it was destroyed, never to be 
restored. The old walls on the summit disappeared under 
the new walls built by Themistocles and Cimon, with the 
exception of that piece above described which bounded the 
precinct of Artemis Brauronia. Thereafter the name passed 
over to the fortifications below on the western slope and their 
ruins. The curse upon the Pelargicon, henceforth to remain 
unoccupied and untilled, dates back to at least the second 
half of the fifth century, and may be a renewal of a still 
earlier edict against the use and cultivation of this domain, 
which may possibly date from the fall of the tyranny of the 
Pisistratids who had entrenched themselves behind these walls. 



In later references, such as those of Polemon, Strabo, Lucian, 
and Pausanias, the name Pelargicon designated simply the 
ruins of the old fortification, a few pieces of whose walls may 
still be found lying on the south and southwest slopes of 
the Acropolis. 

A discussion of the defenses and approaches of the 
Acropolis naturally suggest a more detailed account of the 
main entrance and ascent of the hill from its western slope. 


Fig. 7. — Pre-Periclean Ascent. Pelasgic Walls. 

To gain a proper idea of this ascent we must bear in mind 
that the present road up the western slope lies upon a higher 
level than did the ancient one. In the earliest times, as 
we have seen (p. 1 2), one ascent was from the southwest 
below the bastion of the Nike temple. The direction of the 
road up the Acropolis from this point is indicated by cuttings 
in the rock and its further course, as it turns around the 
bastion, by the existence of the wall of polygonal masonry 
which lies almost in the axis of the Propylaea and was 
evidently built to support the terrain to the south. (See 


Figure . 7.) Probably a similar retaining wall ran north 
from the bastion. At the intersection of these two walls the 
ancient ascent must have made a sharp turn to the south. 
Its further course is indicated by the fact that the polygonal 
wall that supported the Nike bastion shows at its east end 
clear signs of having been worn away. Following these 
indications we get a winding course towards the south, after 
which the road apparently made another turn to the north 
and east and finally led to the ancient Propylon, to be 
described later. This ascent, measured from the foot of the 
bastion, amounts to between eight and nine metres in a 
distance of about fifty metres, giving a rise of about one to 
six. From the old Propylon, rebuilt and strengthened by 
Cimon (see p. 72), the old road ran in a northeast direction 
to the site of the ancient " tokens " in the precinct now 
occupied by the Erechtheum. 

Such was the ascent to the Acropolis until after the time 
of the Persian invasion, fortified of course by the walls and 
gates of the Pelargicon already described. A decided alteration 
of the course of the road up the Acropolis must have been 
made by the new gateway, the Propylaea erected by Mnesicles, 
who changed the axis of this entrance to the Acropolis from 
southwest to west, almost exactly in the centre of the natural 
declivity of the hill. Since the foundations of the Propylaea 
show no reference to a stairway, in fact exclude the possibility 
of any construction in relation with a stairway, it is to be 
inferred that Mnesicles planned simply a roadway. The 
general direction of this roadway appears to be indicated 
by the orientation of the Agrippa monument (see p. 173), 
which, as will be seen in the plan, is not exactly parallel to 
the axis of the Propylaea, a fact which is naturally explained 
by supposing that this monument was placed with reference 
to a road that passed in front. The main entrance at the 
time of the building of the Propylaea must have been a little 
northwest of the present entrance, the so-called Beul^ gate, 
but on a lower level. Inside of the Beul6 gate, about two 
and a half metres (eight feet) below the level of the marble 
Roman stairway, to be described below, recent excavations 
have brought to light an ancient altar of poros stone in situ^ 
to be seen a little to the left of the entrance in an open 



pit, which may have been one of the altars set up to Chthonian 
divinities in the Pelargicon (35), This seems to point to 
the fact that in early times the road near the Beule gate 
lay on a lower level than in the Roman period. The third 
transformation of the ascent to the Acropolis dates from the 
time of the Roman Emperor Caligula, when the great marble 
stairway was built exactly in the axis of the Propylaea. 
Scanty but undoubted remains in situ of the original ascent 
have been found by Bohn (die Propylden, p. 35), near the 
Beule gate and in front of the Propylaea. The general 
course can still be traced. This ascent remained practically 
unaltered throughout the Roman period except so far as the 
addition of the Beule gate required changes in order to 
adjust the stairway at its base to the entrance. That we 
may not need to return to the Beule gate and the Roman 
stairway we proceed to describe these structures more fully. 
The gate received its name from the French archaeologist 
E. Beule (36), who has the credit of having discovered, in 
1853, the remains of this gateway which up to that time 
had been concealed within the walls of a Turkish fortification. 
Standing in front of the gateway, we observe first of all 
the flanking towers, built of blocks of Peiraic limestone 
laid in regular courses. Originally both towers measured 
from seven to eight metres in circumference. That they 
were not designed as a means of fortification is shown by 
the lightness of their construction, the walls being only a little 
more than twenty-one inches thick. They were built as an 
architectural finish to the large marble stairway, at the foot 
of which they stood and to which they were connected by 
means of flanking walls. Whether originally there was any 
gate or barrier between the towers, possibly a railing or 
screen with a door, is not known. A complete architectural 
entrance was built later in the second century, probably by 
Herodes Atticus, when some of the material of the Nicias 
monument was utilized to build the walls and gateway that 
bear the name of Beule. Since the building of the towers 
cannot be disconnected from that of the great stairway, we 
are able to ascertain the date of their erection inasmuch as 
we know from the inscription (37), dated about 40 A.D., the 
time when the latter was built. With this date agrees also 


the form of the masons' letters, which clearly belong to the 
first century A.D. In the tower at the right hand as we 
enter the gate are found letters cut into blocks of successive 
courses, which are marks of the stone-masons, from which 
it is inferred that the towers were originally higher by five 
courses. The corresponding tower at the left hand, i.e. the 
northern, has been partly rebuilt in Roman or in Byzantine 
times and is covered over with a vaulted roof of brick. The 
careless and crude masonry at the bottom of the towers 
cannot have been exposed to view originally, and affords 
inferential evidence of a higher level when they were built. 
In a lecture given on the spot (Nov. 1899), Dorpfeld pointed 
out the fact that the masonry of the Beule gate does not 
fit exactly with that of the towers, and that apparently the 
gate was originally deeper. The masonry on the east or 
inner side of the gateway is not so careful as that on the 
outer side, for the reason that the inner side was covered 
by a vaulted corridor. 

When Beule found the gate that bears his name, he 
supposed it to be constructed of blocks of marble and various 
architectural fragments that originally belonged to different 
monuments, but had been arranged with a certain degree 
of regularity pointing to a more ancient model. Other 
architectural fragments of marble and limestone are lying 
within the gate, in the space between it and the Nike bastion, 
and still others are built into the Acropolis wall at the south- 
west corner of the bastion. Most of these architectural pieces 
and blocks of marble and limestone, as Dorpfeld (38) has 
shown, belong to one and the same building, from the 
materials of which the Beule gate was constructed. What 
is found built into the gateway is the following : Above 
the gate three courses of slabs of Pentelic marble, evidently 
constituting an architrave, enclosing a Doric frieze, whose 
triglyphs are of poros arid were originally colored, and 
whose metopes are thin slabs of marble fitted into the 
grooves of the triglyphs. The slabs of the architrave are 
placed edgewise, their inner surface being rough and evidently 
intended to be covered by another layer of slabs, but their outer 
surface carefully worked. The upper course has a moulding 
and many of the slabs still show the Doric regulae and 


guttae. A cornice divides the architrave above from the Doric 
frieze below. An inscription is seen on the face of a part of 
the architrave, which properly joined reads as follows (39) : 

NifKltTals Nt[K]o^r)/iou ttu[7r]eTata)v avkOi^Ke. vtKrjfras ^(aprjyiov 

K^KpoirtSt TratSwi' 
Ilalj/TaAewi' 2iKt;(iJVto[s] rjvXei, acrp.a 'KXir/jVOip 

Tifxodeov Ne[a()(]//[o]s ■^p)(£v. 

Translated this reads thus : " Nicias, son of Nicodemus, a 
Xypetaean, having gained a victory as choregus with the boys 
of the tribe of Cecropis, dedicated (this monument). Pantaleon 
of Sicyon played the flute : the piece was the E/penor of 
Timotheus. Neaichmos was the archon." This inscription 
tells us at once the origin of this building and its date. The 
monument was that of Nicias erected in memory of his choregic 
victory in 320-19 B.C., which is the year of the archonship of 
Neaichmos. The characteristic features of this monument will 
occupy our attention in a subsequent chapter. Here it is 
important to know that this structure probably stood near the 
southwestern slope of the Acropolis (41 in Plan V.), just 
above the Odeum of Herodes Atticus and that, as Dorpfeld 
has shown, it was torn down in order to make room for the 
alteration of the road which was occasioned by the erection of 
the Odeum, the date of which is known to be about 161 A.D., 
i.e. more than a century later than the date of the flanking 
towers and the Roman stairway (40). On each side of the 
gate, and filling the space between the two towers, is a wall 
built of marble blocks, which constitutes the central part of the 
entire gateway. The entire structure is about 23 metres 
(75 feet 5 inches) in breadth. The Doric doorway is 3.87 
metres (12 feet 6 inches) high, by 1.75 metres (5^ feet) wide. 
It lies exactly in the axis of the central opening of the great 
portal (Propylaea). The threshold of the gate, showing the 
holes in which the pivots turned, is still in situ^ but since it 
does not lie in a proper relation to the stairway, a later recon- 
struction is to be inferred. The channel for draining the water 
and the lead in the holes of the doorposts for securing the 
hinges have been found. 

To complete our account of the ascent of the Acropolis, let 
us describe the great Roman stairway of marble steps now 



largely in ruin. This stairway of Roman date (41) concealed a 
portion of the original ascent which, as we have seen, vyas 
a winding one. It has already been observed that important 
changes in the ascent had been made by the erection of the 
Propylaea before the building of the Roman stairway. Prior 
to 1834, when Ross and Hansen cleared away the debris piled 
upon the western slope and restored to the Acropolis one of 

Fig. 8. — Remains of Roman stairway. Pedestal of Agrippa. 

its chief ornaments, the Nike temple (cf p. 192 below), it was 
quite impossible to make out the trend and extent of the Roman 
stairway. According to the calculations of Beule it presented 
to view about a thousand square feet of surface. That this 
stairway cannot be work of the good Attic period a moment's 
glance will show, and has been fully set forth by Beule, who 
calls attention to the careless working of the marble steps, the 
rough pointing of the blocks and the poorly constructed 
bedding. The staircase is divided into two unequal halves, 
or rather into two different systems. The lower system. 


stopping with the broad landing in front of the Agrippa 
pedestal, consists of regular gradations and continuous steps 
extending clear across the entire width (74 feet) of the ascent. 
There were probably twenty-six of these long steps. Above 
this landing there were thirty-eight steps leading up to the 
lowest step of the Propylaea. But these higher steps did not 
run across the whole width of the ascent, but only from each 
side to a path about three metres (9! feet) wide, which was 
left open between the two flights of steps at each side and lay 
exactly in the axis of the middle portal of the Propylaea. 
This inclined path was covered with marble slabs, which were 
grooved for the purpose of steadying the steps of beasts of 
burden and of animals for sacrifice led up to the summit. 
Access to the plateau where this path began was probably 
by means of an entrance below and around the base of 
the Nike bastion. We are not to believe, what has been 
erroneously held by many writers, that chariots were driven 
up this ascent to the Acropolis. At any rate no ancient writer 
speaks of chariots ever going up the Acropolis. What has 
sometimes been taken for ruts of wheels in the surface of the 
rock are either grooves for conducting the rain-water or 
cuttings to support votive offerings. The representation of 
chariots in the frieze of the Parthenon can no more be cited as 
a proof that chariots ever went up the Acropolis than a por- 
trayal of the seated divinities in the same artistic composition 
as evidence to show that persons supposed to represent these 
divinities were present in the actual scene. 

That the level of the surface between the wings of the 
Propylaea must have been higher is shown by the lower 
courses of the crepidoma, or foundation, which are of limestone 
rudely worked and plainly not intended to appear. This is 
best seen in the foundation of the west portico of the 
Propylaea, which has three marble steps resting on a founda- 
tion that must have been covered up. The cuttings in the 
native rock just below these steps are believed to be founda- 
tions of bases of altars or statues, and to antedate the building 
of the Propylaea. Some of them may be traces of an older 
Propylon. That the entire ascent lay on a higher level is 
also shown by the character of the masonry of the bastion of 
the Nike temple, the lower courses of which are rough and 



irregular and intended to be covered up and out of sight. The 
level and trend of the older ascent may also be traced in the 
foundations of the north wing of the Propylaea, where we see 
the line of the successive steps indicated by the character of 
the masonry. This change of level is also shown by the 
existence of the podium (see Fig. 9), which supports the steps 
leading up to the platform of the Nike temple, and which 
was built in connection with the great marble stairway. 

Fig. 9.— The Bastion of the Temple of Athena Victory. Modern steps built of 
ancient material. 

The ascent up the Acropolis was guarded at the right, the 
unprotected side of an attacking foe, by the great bastion 
whose summit is crowned by the temple of Athena Victory. 
That from earliest times the approach to the Acropolis was 
guarded at this point is undoubted. The existence of an 
earlier tower {pyrgos) at this point, making a part of the 
old Pelargicon is attested by the blocks of polygonal masonry 
which are still to be seen behind the north face of the wall in 
a hole a little way up the ascent. It was doubtless Cimon 
who built the bastion of square blocks of limestone in connec- 


tion with the south wall of the Acropolis and the older 
Propylon on the summit. As we see it to-day, the bastion 
rises in trapeze-like shape. At its northwest corner it has 
a height of 8.6 metres (about 27 feet) measured from the bed 
rock on which it rests, in eighteen regular courses of blocks of 
hard limestone carefully wrought. In the three upper courses of 
" stretchers," at intervals of about three feet, occur vertical slits 
in pairs. Their purpose is not known ; that they served in 
some way to fasten a marble veneering is not probable. That 
this wall was ever covered with marble slabs as a veneering is 
not certain, although this would explain the lighter tint of the 
blocks of stone on this side as compared with the browner tint 
of the stones on the west side front, which in that case would 
have been exposed to the weather so much longer. On the 
other hand, the fact that for the sake of presenting an appear- 
ance of regularity false joints are indicated in the pointing 
or marking of the wall, seems to show us that it was the 
original intention of the builder that this wall should be seen 
and not covered over. On the west front the same arrange- 
ment of slits spoken of above is observed. On one side also 
are to be seen two niches separated by a pillar, each 2.70 
metres (8 feet 10 inches) high but differing in breadth and 
depth. These niches may have been intended for statues ; no 
reference to them is found in any ancient writer. Whether the 
bastion had its present shape at the time when the Propylaea 
was built is a much disputed question, closely related to the 
history of the building referred to and to that of the temple of 
Athena Victory. Reserving for the chapter which deals with 
these buildings a discussion of their relation to the present 
summit of the bastion, it is in place here to study the relation 
of the bastion to the foundation walls of the Propylaea and to 
the flight of marble steps that cuts into the face of the wall 
and leads up to the platform of the little temple. 

A careful study of the bastion recently made by Koster (42) 
has shed some new light upon this matter and the questions 
that are related to it. Koster finds that the position of certain 
stones in the north face of the wall indicates a change from 
the original line of the wall. Taking the direction indicated 
by these stones it appears that the bastion wall as built by 
Cimon was later cut on its north face, apparently in order 


to conform to the axis of the Propylaea. To this same 
conclusion Wachsmuth and Bohn (43) came on other grounds 
some time ago. If the Hne of direction indicated by these 
stones were prolonged to a northwest corner of the Pyrgos 
this corner would project 70/100 metres (2 feet 3 inches) 
farther to the north than at present. By this change of 
direction the north wall of the bastion would lie either 
parallel to or at right angles with the remains of older walls 
that antedate the Propylaea and that in some cases form the 
substructure of its foundations. It follows from this, first that 
the bastion in its present form is later than the Propylaea, 
and second, that the temple of Athena Victory built upon 
it is younger. But these conclusions must be weighed more 
carefully when we treat of these buildings. What we are 
concerned with now is the bearing of this result on the 
relative age of the flight of marble steps and of the wall 
that supports the south wing of the Propylaea. It must be 
observed that this wall ends at the west in an anta. Between 
this anta and the north wall of the bastion is the little marble 
stairway. Its steps butt up against the anta, but are built 
in proper relation to the walls of the bastion, two steps in 
each case corresponding to one course of masonry. Behind 
and under the steps the wall of the bastion continues to 
the east but does not quite reach the anta. Furthermore, 
in the continuation of this wall is found a block that shows 
a smooth face as if tooled for making a close joint. 

From these facts directly opposite inferences have been 
drawn as regards the relative age of the bastion and the 
Propylaea. Bohn and Julius, on the one side, argue that the 
bastion is clearly younger than the Propylaea, Wolters (44), 
on the other hand, maintains that it is older. The investi- 
gations of Koster go to show that when the wall that 
supports the south wing of the Propylaea was in process of 
building, the wall of the bastion had still its original face, 
trending somewhat to the northwest, and extended east beyond 
the later built anta that terminated the marble wall just 
beyond and above. Now in order to place the anta in 
position a piece of the bastion wall had to be broken away 
and removed, and this accounts for the irregular and ragged 
termination of this wall below the flight of steps. 



From this it follows that the change in the north front of 
the bastion wall was made after the foundation walls of the 
Propylaea had been built, probably to make the alignment 
parallel, and that then these steps were put in, since no 
reference to them was had when the anta was erected. 

Having completed the account of the entrance and the 
ascent to the Acropolis we are now ready to resume the 
historic sequence after the discussion of the Pelargicon, and 

Fig. 10. — Foundations of the Old Tetaple of Athena. 
Modern City. 

The Erechtheuin. The 

to consider the oldest remains of architecture and sculpture 
found on the Acropolis, some of which antedate the period of 
Pisistratus and Solon. In the earliest period may be placed 
fragments of poros sculpture brought to light in modern exca- 
vations of the Acropolis and now exhibited in the Acropolis 
Museum. These fragments point to the existence of very 
early temples, whose pediments they adorned. All sure traces 
of the foundations of these early temples have disappeared, 
with the exception of the foundations of the old temple lying 
between the Parthenon and the Erechtheum and generally 
known as the old temple of Athena discovered by Dorpfeld. 


Before 1886, when the excavations conducted by the Greek 
Archaeological Society on the Acropolis were begun, the 
foundations of a large building immediately to the south of 
the Erechtheum had been recognized by Professor Dorpfeld, 
as those of a large ancient temple, doubtless a temple of 
Athena, destroyed by the Persians when they sacked Athens 
in 480 B.C. The existence of an early temple of Athena 
might have been presupposed. Some of the foundation stones 
belonging to this building had already been observed by 
Ludwig Ross, who, however, connected them with some 
ancient structure pertaining to the Erechtheum. The keen 
and well-trained eye of Dorpfeld was able to restore the plan 
of a temple when once the rectangular space between the 
Parthenon and the Erechtheum had been cleared of debris 
and the stones of the foundation walls had been identified (45). 
The spot on the Acropolis on which the temple was erected 
had not a level surface but sloped from southeast to northwest. 
(See Plan II.) This area was prepared for the support of the 
foundations by taking the level of the rock at the southeast 
corner as the starting point and then filling in with dirt and 
stones up to that level. On the north and west sides there 
were retaining walls to support this terrace-like enclosure. The 
foundation walls were carried down to the bed-rock and are 
therefore of varying depth. At the southeast corner the stylo- 
bate rested directly on the rock, but at the northwest corner, 
where the downward slope of the rock is the greatest, the 
foundatfon has a height of about three metres (pf feet). The 
remains of the foundation walls are sufficient to enable us to 
gain a fair idea of the plan of the temple and of its dimensions. 
First is to be noticed a heavy wall surrounding the temple 
proper, having a thickness of more than two metres, which 
doubtless served as a support of the outer row of columns, i.e. 
the peristyle. As we shall see later, this colonnade was a 
later addition. The total length of the stylobate was at the 
sides 43.44 metres (142 feet 5 inches), at the ends 21.34 
metres (70 feet). Within this outer wall supporting the 
Colonnade we trace the foundations of the temple itself, built 
of the native limestone of the Acropolis. The foundation 
walls of the temple proper measure in length 34.70 metres, 
in width 13.45 metres, i.e. 105.8x41 Attic feet, and the 



temple floor has a length of exactly lOO Attic feet, hence 
the name Hecatompedon (" the hundred-foot ") by which 
this building was generally called. 

The interior is subdivided by several partition-walls into 
different chambers. Of these we recognize first the narrow 
apartments at the east and west ends {B and G in the plan) 
which correspond to the ante-chamber or pronaos and the 
rear-chamber or opisthodomos of the Greek temple. Adjoining 
the pronaos is a large, almost square apartment {C in the plan), 
which is divided by two walls into a nave and two aisles. 

Fig. II. — Foundations of the Old Temple of Athena indicating interior plan. 

Plainly this is the cella, the sanctuary proper, in which must 
have stood the cult image of the divinity. At the west end, 
opening from the rear-chamber, we see another square apart- 
ment {F in the plan) apparently without interior columns or 
partition walls. Between it and the east cella lie two smaller 
rooms {D, E), which may have been connected by means of 
doors with the west chamber (F). There are other founda- 
tion stones having a different orientation and of different 
construction, some of which belong to earlier and others to 
later walls, which need not detain us now. From these 
remains the plan and general character of the temple are 
sufficiently clear. It may be reconstructed in the manner 
indicated in the accompanying cut (Fig. ii). 

From this it is evident that in addition to the ordinary 


apartments of a Greek temple this structure had a number 
of apartments at the western end constituting a separate 
part by itself as though it were a double temple. It seems 
probable that the western front of this structure is referred 
to by Herodotus (v. "jj^ when he speaks of the fetters of 
the Chalcidian prisoners of war which the Athenians hung 
as a trophy upon the walls ov^r against the chamber turned 
towards the west, which had been scorched by the fire in the 
Persian destruction. Dorpfeld is disposed to hold that this 
western half of the building in distinction from the eastern 
cella was devoted to some secular purpose, and to believe 
that this part of the old temple is the opisthodomos which 
served as the treasury of Athena and of the Athenian state 
for many centuries. To this question we return later. From 
the dimensions of the foundation walls and from the length 
of the architraves Dorpfeld inferred that the temple in its 
later history had six columns at each end and twelve on 
each side, if we include the corner columns. With this view 
correspond the measurements of the architectural' fragments 
that belonged to this temple and were later built into the 
north wall of the Acropolis (see below, p. 69). These frag- 
ments are built into that part of the wall that lies west and 
east of the Erechtheum and dates probably from the time of 
Themistocles. Some of them are clearly indicated in the 
accompanying cut. They consist of two Doric capitals, several 
drums of columns, architraves, triglyphs, and cornices, some 
of Peiraic limestone {poros) others of the Kard limestone, 
and metopes of marble. The architraves are of different 
dimensions, which is due to the fact that some belong to 
the sides and others to the ends of the building. From the 
form of the cornices it is evident that the temple had the 
usual gable roof. In the rubbish on the Acropolis, not far 
from the spot where the other fragments were built into 
the wall, were found two large pieces of gable-cornice of a 
coarse-grained marble which must have belonged to a pre- 
Persian temple. But as there was no large building of 
marble on the Acropolis erected prior to the Persian time, 
we must assign this cornice to a building of poros. As it 
seems to fit the dimensions of this old temple, it has been 
assigned to this building. Pieces of moulding of the same 



material have also been found, probably belonging to the 
same building. That the gables were decorated with sculpture 
is to be inferred from the great width of the horizontal and 
raking cornices. The remains of this sculpture we shall 
presently discuss. Dorpfeld believes that the roof was con- 
structed of marble tiles. 

Formerly Dorpfeld held the opinion that the temple proper, 
i.e. the building stripped of its portico, had the form of a 
temple in antis, with two columns in the centre between 

Fig. 12. — Architectural Fragments of the Old Athena Temple built into ihe 
North Wall of the Acropolis. 

two pilasters, one at each side (45). More recently, however, 

he (46) has concluded from the evidence drawn from further 

study of architectural remains that the temple originally '. 

had four Ionic columns at each end and was accordingly what ^. /n«!*^7ut. 

is called an amphiprostyle building. The temple appears to 
have had externally only a single step — not three as is 
customary in Greek temples — being in that respect like to 
the temple of Hera at Olympia. This step served as the 
controlling course (evdvvrripta) of the foundation, and hence 
cannot be properly considered a step. The Doric columns 
of the peristyle had twenty flutes and a strongly projecting 






capital which shows an echinus with a vigorous angle. Passing 
by other architectural details, which are given in the article 
by Dorpfeld published in the Athenische Mittheilungen of 1886 
(vol. xi.), a few words must be said concerning the date of 
this temple both in its original and its later form. How far 
back to date the temple in its oldest form is a matter of 
dispute. Both the architectural and sculptural remains point 
to a time prior to Pisistratus. VViegand {Poros Architektur, 
p. 63, 106) and Michaelis {Jahrb. k. d. arch. Inst. xvii. 1902, 
p. 4) believe that the remains of the temple show a date 
not earlier than the beginning of the sixth century, while 
Judeich {Topogr. p. 238) thinks they may date back to the 

' ' ' ' ' ' ' 

Fig. 13. — Restored Peristyle of the Old Athena Temple. 

seventh. That there was a temple of Athena on the Acro- 
polis in the time of Cylon {circa 630 B.C.) can hardly be 
doubted from what is said by Herodotus (v. 7 1 ), but this 
temple may have been, according to Michaelis, an earlier 
Athena Polias temple which was the predecessor of the present 
Erechtheum. This question, however, can be discussed more 
properly in connection with the later fortunes of the old temple 
of Athena and must be passed by for the present. The date 
of the temple in its later form is more easily determined. 
From the style of the architecture, from the use of marble 
for metopes, mouldings and tiles, and from the use of Kara 
limestone for the foundation and steps of the peristyle, 
Professor Dorpfeld has shown conclusively that the peristyle 
is a later addition. This addition occasioned important alter- 


ations. According to Wiegand and Schrader (47) the old 
walls of the cella were carried up higher, the old pediment 
and the roof were taken down and replaced by new structures, 
and the columns at the ends were, of course, higher. The 
walls of the cella thus built up were adorned with a frieze. 
That all these changes were made before the Persian invasion 
is shown by the state of preservation of the ornamental 
remains of the temple, and especially by the fact that slabs of 
metopes of the older pediments were utilized to decorate the 
pre-Persian Propylon, and for recording the famous Hecatom- 
pedon inscription, which is most probably to be dated in 
484 B.C. 

The discovery of this ancient temple, to which we have 
thus far referred as the old temple of Athena, has thrown 
a fire-brand into the camp of the archaeologists, who up to 
this time had held that there were only two large temples 
on the Acropolis, the Erechtheum and the Parthenon. Any- 
thing like an adequate discussion of the relation this old 
temple holds to the Erechtheum and the Parthenon and to 
their respective predecessors would exceed the limits of this 
volume, and the reader must therefore be content with 
a statement of the view which is here adopted as on the 
whole the most in accord with the testimony of ancient 
writers and inscriptions and with the evidence furnished by 
the remains of architecture and sculpture. The widely different 
theory of Dorpfeld on this question, which in spite of many 
points to be argued in its favor we have been unable to 
adopt, has been a subject of so much discussion and if true 
is so important for the history of the buildings upon the 
Acropolis, that no account of the Acropolis and its buildings 
can properly omit a presentation of it. Accordingly, after 
stating our own view we shall give that of Dorpfeld, relegating 
to Appendix III. a discussion of its merits, and incidentally 
giving the reasons for the view adopted in these pages. 

The history of these temples we believe to be as follows : 
I. According to the Odyssey (vii. 80), Athena left the land 
of the Phaeacians and " came to Marathon and wide-wayed 
Athens and entered there the strong house of Erechtheus." 
The poet must have meant by this statement either that 
Athena entered a temple which was known as " the strong 


house of Erechtheus " or that in connection with the palace 
of the ruler there was a shrine sacred to the goddess. The 
close proximity of the foundations of the " old palace " to 
the present Erechtheum favors the latter supposition. In 
a passage of the Iliad (ii. 549), known to be of later origin 
than the Odyssey, we are told that Athena gave Erechtheus 
*' a resting place in her own rich sanctuary, and there the 
sons of the Athenians worship him with bulls and rams." 
These two Homeric passages so far from being contradictory 
supplement each other, and point not only to a close union 
of Erechtheus and Athena, a union frequently stated or 
implied in later references, but to their joint possession of 
a sanctuary, or what may be termed a double temple. The 
allusions in Herodotus (v. 72, 90; viii. 41, 51, 53, 54, 55) 
point to a temenos or enclosure of shrines all included in 
the one term sanctuary (lepou), and contain nothing contra- 
dictory to the view that Erechtheus later shared with Athena 
the possession of her temple. That this ancient double temple 
was erected in close proximity to the old " tokens " {crt]fxeia), 
i.e. the salt well of Erechtheus, the trident mark of Poseidon 
and the olive tree of Athena, is to be inferred from the 
statement of Herodotus (viii. 55). This double temple we 
hold to be the predecessor of the later Erechtheum and to 
have occupied practically the same site. To this temple 
the names " ancient temple " (6 ap-^aio? veco?), and " temple 
of Athena Polias " are most frequently applied. 

2. In addition to this temple a separate temple was later 
erected in honor of Athena as the patron divinity of the 
State. The new pomp given to the celebration of the 
Panathenaic festival in the sixth century B.C. seems to have 
been due to the same impulse, to give more honor to Athena, 
as that which led to the erection of a statelier temple for 
her worship. Doubtless this new temple received a new 
statue of the goddess, but the old wooden image (^oavov), 
which was supposed to have fallen from heaven, retained 
undiminished reverence at her ancient shrine. > 

This later temple is the one referred to by Herodotus as 
TO fxeyapov (viii. 53), into which the Athenians fled for refuge 
from the assault of the Persians. Whether it was this temple 
that the Spartan king Cleomenes was forbidden by the 


priestess (v. 72) to enter, or the double temple, which we 
may call the older Erechtheum, must be a matter of opinion. 
The sacred image (to ayaXiua) to which Cylon fled for 
protection (v. 71) was probably the old wooden cult statue 
of Athena which was housed in the oldest temple of Athena, 
that is, the older Erechtheum. This later temple of 
Athena is the building whose remains have been discovered 
by Dorpfeld and described above. It probably dates in its 
earlier form from the early part of the sixth century B.C., and 
was adorned, as has been said before, with a peristyle 
built by Pisistratus. Besides being a temple, this structure 
served also as a state treasury, the sacred treasures being 
deposited in the chambers which constitute the rear or 
western portion of the building and which was called the 
opisthodomos. This building was known as " the temple " 
(6 i/ew?), or officially as the Hecatompedon (47), i.e. the buildi7ig 
of a hundred feet, from the fact that the length of the temple, 
exclusive of the peristyle, was a hundred Attic-Aeginetan 

3. Not long afterward, probably in the time of Clisthenes, 
a third temple to Athena of greater magnificence was planned 
to supersede the Hecatompedon. This temple is the older 
Parthenon, the planning and beginning of which was formerly 
attributed to Cimon, upon whose foundations the present 
Parthenon is built. Recent investigations by Dorpfeld (see 
p. 79 below) have shown that this older Parthenon was still 
in process of building at the time of the Persian invasion, 
when it was burnt down. 

4. After the Persian invasion, in which " temple and tower 
went to the ground," the old double temple of Athena and 
Erechtheus and the old Hecatompedon were provisionally 
repaired, until they were superseded by the Parthenon and the 
Erechtheum. The magnificent Parthenon became the successor 
of the old Hecatompedon, to the general plan of which it 
conformed, its cella being dedicated to Athena and its western 
half devoted to the guardianship of the treasures of the State. 
The Erechtheum of course took the place of the older and 
smaller structure on the same site destroyed by the Persians. 

5. After the building of the Parthenon the old Athena 
temple or Hecatompedon became a superfluous structure, and 


by reason of its close proximity to the newly projected 
Erechtheum an obstruction which would have hidden from view 
the beautiful portico of the Maidens whose foundations indeed 
had to be laid upon those of the colonnade of the old temple, 
a's may be clearly seen even to-day. Accordingly, the old 
temple, whose peristyle had never been rebuilt since the 
Persian destruction, was torn down soon after the completion 
of the Parthenon and before the building of the Erechtheum. 
The names of " ancient temple " or " temple of Athena Polias " 
were naturally transferred from the " older Erechtheum " to 
the later structure that took its place. 

The reasons for holding this view will appear in connection 
with our discussion of the history of the Parthenon and the 
Erechtheum and in the Appendix on " the problem of the old 
Athena temple." Professor Dorpfeld's theory starts with 
maintaining that two separate temples or shrines, not a double 
temple, are referred to in Homer and Herodotus, to wit, a 
temple of Athena which he believes to be the building whose 
. remains he has identified, and a temenos or shrine enclosing 
the tokens (o-i/yuem) near by sacred to Erechtheus. Before the 
Persian invasion, probably under the leadership of Clisthenes 
(see p. 79 below), a grander temple to Athena, the Parthenon, 
had been begun. To distinguish the old temple, which with 
the exception of the peristyle was rebuilt after the Persian 
destruction, from this new temple of Athena, the old temple 
came to be designated as " the ancient temple " (6 ap-)^aio9 
ueu)^) or more completely as " the ancient temple of Athena 
Polias " (6 apj^aloi veoo^ t^9 'AOrjum t^9 ILoXiaSo^). Dorpfeld 
further holds that the rear part, consisting as we have 
already seen of three chambers, was called " the opistho- 
domos," which continued to serve as the treasury of the 
state and of Athena. The new Erechtheum, completed 
probably in 408 B.C., is " the double temple," which was built 
with the object of replacing the two old temples and shrines 
that were destroyed by the Persians but had been in part 
restored. When the new Erechtheum was completed, the old 
Athena temple was not torn down as was originally intended, 
but through the influence of the priesthood this greatly 
venerated sanctuary was left standing, serving both as a shrine 
of Athena Polias and as a depository of the treasures of the 


gods. It was still standing in the time of Pausanias, who 
refers to it (i. 27, i) as the temple of the Polias, and it 
probably remained in existence until the close of the Byzan- 
tine period. The grounds for this remarkable theory (48) are 
briefly these : (i) During the interval of more than forty years 
between the destruction wrought by the Persians and the 
dedication of the Parthenon, the Athenians cannot have been 
without a temple of Athena and a treasury. This may be 
readily granted on any theory. (2) In ofificial descriptions 
dealing with the sacred treasures and beginning with 435 B.C., 
the date when the Parthenon was finished, four separate 
localities are named in which treasures and sacred objects 
were kept. These are the pronaos, which is the eastern 
portico of the Parthenon, the hecatompedos (peing eKaTo/JLireSo^) 
which most scholars agree must refer to the cella of the 
Parthenon, the parthenon used in the more limited sense 
and referring to the western chamber of the building (see 
below p. 136) and the opistkodomos, which term is to be 
understood as referring to the compartment at the west end 
of the old Athena temple or Hecatompedon (49). The identifi- 
cation of the opisthodomos with these chambers in the old 
temple rests mainly upon the following considerations : The 
western chamber of the Parthenon was, as we have seen, called 
the parthenon in the restricted sense and cannot therefore 
have been the opisthodomos. Nor can this term well apply 
to the western portico of the Parthenon, which would be too 
small and too exposed to serve as a state treasury and a 
storehouse for the treasure of the temple. Nor can the 
opisthodomos be placed within the Erechtheum, for that 
building had no rear chamber nor western portico. This 
term then can only refer to the western chambers of the old 
Athena temple. This view is strengthened by the directions 
of a certain inscription (C.l.A. i, 32) dating from 435-4 B.C., 
which directs that the moneys of Athena shall be kept " in the 
right-hand chamber " of the opisthodomos and the moneys of 
the rest of the gods " in the left-hand chamber " of the same 
apartment, applying these designations to the two small cham- 
bers in the western part of the old temple. The latest 
inscription which mentions the opisthodomos is not older than 
319 B.C., but the term occurs in many writers of the Roman 


period and in scholiasts and lexicographers of still later date. 
During all this time then this part of the old temple was 
used as a treasury, and if this part remained standing, it is 
reasonable to suppose that the entire building remained in 
existence. This may be called the opisthodomos argument, 
and will be discussed in the Appendix (50). (3) Xenophon 
{Hellenica, i. 6, i) tells us that the year 406 B.C. was signalized 
by a lunar eclipse and the setting on fire of " the ancient 
temple of Athena " in Athens. Now an inscription dating 
from 409 B.C., only three years earlier, states that the new 
Erechtheum was not yet completed. It is unlikely therefore 
that three years later the Erechtheum should be called " the 
ancient temple of Athena." Still less likely is it that this 
epithet should be applied to the new and splendid Parthenon. 
Consequently " the ancient temple of Athena," which was 
injured by fire in 406 B.C., must have been the restored 
Athena temple. But inscriptions of the fourth century make 
repeated mention of " the ancient temple " and the opis- 
thodomos as treasuries, and one inscription {C.I.A. ii. 163) 
of the same period refers to a sacrifice offered in " the 
ancient temple," showing that the old temple continued in 
that century to be used both as a place of worship and 
as a treasury. This may be called " the old temple " argu- 
ment and will be reviewed in the Appendix. (4) If this 
temple survived so long, the presumption is reasonable 
that it stood much longer. But it may be said, if this 
building survived down to the Roman or Byzantine period, 
we shall expect to find some mention of it in the later 
writers. Now writers from Philochorus to Eustathius (51) refer 
to a " temple of Athena Polias " or " a temple of the Polias," 
and an inscription {C.I.A. ii. 464) of the second or first century 
B.C. mentions " the old temple of Athena Polias." These 
references Dorpfeld believes are to the old Athena temple. 
This is called "the Polias argument." (5) According to 
Dorpfeld (52) the order in which Pausanias describes his 
route on the Acropolis is as follows : He proceeds from the 
Propylaea to the Parthenon, passing by the old temple without 
entering it, but referring to it incidentally as " the temple " (eV 
Tw vew) in Book i. 24, 3, where there is a lacuna in the text, 
which probably contained a reference to the altars of At^ws 


and other divinities. After leaving the Parthenon, he 
comes to the Erechtheum (i. 26, 5), the altars in the east 
cella and the " tokens " in the west cella which he briefly 
mentions, and then with the words lepa jueu r^? 'A0t]ua9 
(i. 26, 6) he passes to the description of the objects within 
" the ancient temple of Athena," such as the ancient image 
of the goddess, the golden lamp of Callimachus, the wooden 
image of Hermes concealed beneath boughs of myrtle, and 
the spoils from the Medes dedicated as votive offerings, all 
of which, according to Dorpfeld, were kept in the old Athena 
temple. From this view of Dorpfeld it follows that the build- 
ing known as the Erechtheum was never called the temple of/^-^'^*^/^ 
Polias or of Athena. This argument may be called " the 
Pausanias argument." As already stated, these arguments 
cannot be fully discussed within the necessary limits of this 
work, but they will be briefly reviewed in connection with 
other views in Appendix III. 

The excavations on the Acropolis have brought to light 
many fragments of limestone and marble that belong to 
various structures destroyed by the Persians, and that 
subsequently were used as material for filling and levelling 
up the inequalities of surface of the Acropolis, for extending 
its area, especially to the south, and for repairing the walls 
that crowned its summit. Some of these fragments belong to 
the old Athena temple, others to buildings whose history and 
purpose can only be conjectured. Wiegand (Poros Architektur, 
149) has discussed these remains, consisting chiefly of pieces 
of architraves, cornices, metopes and triglyph blocks, and 
believes that, aside from those that belong to the old Athena 
temple, they may be assigned to five buildings of limestone, 
the location of which cannot be determined. Together with 
these fragments of architecture many pieces of sculpture have 
been found, some of them of crude workmanship and of coarse 
limestone, which are believed to have been for the most part 
of decorative character and to have belonged to one or more 
early temples whose pediments they filled. These fragments 
of sculpture are to be seen duly arranged in the Acropolis 
Museum. A brief account of them in this connection it seems 
proper to give. There are probably five of these groups 
of sculpture in poros that seem to have been designed for 


pediments of temples. Besides these there are groups of 
animals and several archaic figures, some of which are 
supposed to have been representations of priestesses and 
others of divinities. Let us first notice the groups that seem 
to have decorated the gables of temples. All of them show 
a remarkable similarity in their composition, their subjects, 
their style and technique, while at the same time they give 
evidence of a continuous progress from the earlier to the 
later archaic style. Traces of the original color or pigment 
which covered the surface of the stone still appear. With 
the help of these traces of color, it is possible to imagine 
what the appearance of these sculptures with their motley- 
colored tints must have been. The effect must have resembled 

Fu;. 14.— Heracles attacking the Hj'dra. 

more that of painted and glazed tiles or of enamelled brick or 
of colored terra cotta than that of sculpture in stone or marble. 
These pediment groups apparently portray chiefly the deeds of 
Heracles. Whether from this it is to be inferred that there 
was once a temple or shrine of Heracles on the Acropolis 
to which these early sculptures belonged, or whether we are 
to suppose that these fragments were brought up from the 
lower city, to be used as material for extending the area 
of the Acropolis, is a question that has not been definitely 
determined. Gardner {Greek Sculpt, p. 159) remarks that the 
completeness of most of the groups tells against the latter 
alternative ; on the other hand, we find no evidence elsewhere 
for the existence of a Heracles temple on the Acropolis. 

What is probably the earliest of these groups represents 
Heracles attacking with his club the Lernaean Hydra. 
This group has more the character of relief than of sculpture 


in the round. It consisted originally of six slabs, only four of 
which have been preserved. The hero stands at the right of 
the centre of the gable. His head and right arm are gone. 
He strides to the right extending his left hand towards the 
advancing Hydra. His coat of mail fits close to his body 
and reproduces in hard lines the contours of his chest. The 
sword-band hangs from the right shoulder across his breast. 
The body of the Hydra is three-fold, each part ending in 
three heads, but of the nine heads only six remain, and four 
of these show their forked tongues between their open jaws. 
The left half of the gable is occupied by lolaus, who is shown 
at the moment when he is mounting his chariot. He wears a 
short and close-fitting coat and turns his head in a significant 

Fig. 15. — Heracles and Triton. 

way towards the hero, thereby indicating the unity of idea 
that binds the composition of the group. Farther to the left 
is the huge crab which has been sent by Hera to aid the 
Hydra. Many traces of color used in the conventional way 
were found. Particularly noteworthy is the aim to represent 
by different colors the stripes and scales of the serpents. A 
second and very fragmentary group represents Heracles 
wrestling with Triton " the old man of the sea." The hero 
grapples the monster about the chest with his mighty arms. 
Triton stretches out his right hand as if for aid ; his body 
terminates in a tail covered with scales. Still another 
pediment group of the same style and material but of better 
technique represents a strange monster having three heads 
and busts which run together in coils and end in a huge 
serpent-like tail filling the corner of the gable. This monster 
is generally supposed to be Typhon. In the only hand of 


the monster that is preserved there is held an object which 
may be intended to represent a kind of thunderbolt, a naive 
alkision to the streams of fire which Typhon belches forth. 
The third bust, that nearest the angle of the pediment, is 
equipped with a wing spread out, which the sculptor has 
carefully chiselled so as to indicate the veins of the feathers. 
A corresponding wing is, doubtless, to be supplied at the left 
of the figure, the entire group forming in the conception of 
the artist only one monstrous body. Heads of serpents, 
apparently springing from the shoulder-blades, increase the 
confusion and heighten the impression of the grotesqueness 

Fig. i6. — T>-phon. 

of this group. Upon this monstrous body are placed three 
heads which, with all their resemblance to one another, ■ 
have each a marked individuality. Their large open e3'es, 
smiling mouths, serene expression and carefully worked locks 
of hair, present a curious contrast to the formidable and 
furious character with which the sculptor wished to invest 
the genius of the tempest. As already intimated, these 
sculptures were highly colored, the work of the painter 
supplementing that of the sculptor. Brilliant tints of red, 
blue, yellow and black, with an occasional dash of green ^ 
and brown were employed. The third head of the group 
when reproduced in its original colors has very naturally 
suggested the popular name of Blue-Beard. 

The Triton and Typhon groups are believed by Bruckner 
(53) to have belonged to one and the same building. This 
building may possibly have been the old Athena temple in its 
earliest stage, before it had been adorned with the colonnade 
added by Pisistratus. But the composition of these groups, 
as well as of those described below, is not free from doubt, 
and the question to what buildings they belonged is not yet 




fully solved. Among the fragments of poros sculpture were 
found pieces of huge serpents that have been skilfully put 
together and are now believed to belong to one of the other 
pediments of the old Hecatompedon. According to the 
interpretation of Schrader we have two serpents approaching 
each other from opposite sides of a pediment (see Fig. 17.) 
These serpents were probably the two on the Acropolis which 
according to Euripides {Ion, 23) were charged with the duty of 
guarding the newly-born Erechtheus. Fragments of two human 
figures have been found and have been put together. The first 
of these represents a male figure seated on a throne. The type 
of the head reminds us of that of the well-known Moschophoros 
or Calf-bearer found on the Acropolis. The other figure is 
the torso of a woman also enthroned. She is draped in a 
blue chiton decorated with the diagonal pattern of a meander 
border and in a red peplos, whose border is adorned with 
lotus-stars, crosses, and other patterns. Over each shoulder 
fall three braids, and a fourth is visible on each side of the 
neck. The style resembles that of the archaic female figures 
found on the Acropolis. Schrader believes that a third figure, 
of which no remains have been found, is required to make a 
rhythmical group, which he thinks would consist of a seated 
male figure on each side of the seated female. He composes 
the group in this wise : Three seated divinities in the centre, 
a serpent with coils and head raised approaching from each 
side. The central divinity is probably Athena, the divinity 
at the left may be Zeus or Poseidon, the one to be supplied 
at the right may be Poseidon or Erechtheus. It is worth 
while to remark that Wiegand connects several architectural 
and sculptural fragments with the oldest Erechtheum. 

The Typhon and Triton groups are archaic Attic work 
from the period just preceding the introduction of marble 
sculpture from Asia Minor. They close the series of ancient 
poros pediment groups and may be dated as in the first half of 
the sixth century B.C. Somewhat more advanced in style are 
the archaic groups of animals engaged in a fierce combat. 
From the account of these given by Carl Watzinger in 
Wiegand's work on the poros architecture of the Acropolis we 
give a brief summary. The existing fragments of these 
animals point to two original groups, representing each two 


lions attacking two bulls. The reconstruction of the groups is 
given in the work above named. According to this recon- 
struction in the first group two lions are grappling with two 
bulls, each pair facing the other. The one lion has dug his 
claws into the bull's back and the blood is flowing from the 
wound ; the wounded bull is at the point of a last convulsive 
struggle and bends his head to the ground. The other lion 
stands victorious over the fallen bull, whose blood he is 
drinking from a wound in his neck. The colossal size of this 
group is to be inferred from the fact that the bull, which is 
the only figure of the group that is nearly complete, measures 
12 feet 8 inches from his extended hoof to the broken stub 
of his horn. This group may have been a votive offering set 

Fig. iS. — Ancient Pediment Group. Bulls and Lions. 

up on the Acropolis in honor of Athena. This supposition 
is based upon a small relief found in Pergamon which shows 
an archaistic Athena standing between two bulls that are 
attacked by lions. Fragments of a third lion still larger than 
those of the group just described are too scanty to admit of a 
restoration. But a fairly satisfactory reconstruction is possible 
of a second group consisting of a lion which has attacked a bull 
in front and thrown him to the ground, All these remains of 
sculpture are to be seen in the Acropolis Museum. In a small 
building adjacent to the Museum on the Acropolis may be 
seen a restoration of one of these pediments on a model of an 
ancient temple. The Museum on the Acropolis contains what 
is preserved of the group of Parian marble sculpture represent- 
ing a gigantomach}', which is generally held to have been the 
group that filled one of the pediments of the peristyle of the 


old Athena temple. In spite of many mutilations, and not- 
withstanding that much of the original group is lacking, these 
sculptures make a powerful impression and give one a good 
idea of the advanced character of Athenian art prior to the 
outbreak of the Persian war. The best preserved part of this 
group represents Athena standing over the half-prostrate form 
of a giant, whose helmet she grasps with her left hand, while 
with her lance in her right hand she strides mightily against 

Fig. ig. — Marble Group of Pediment of Old Athena Temple. Athena and Giant. 

her foe to transfix his breast. Her aegis, which hangs over 
her left arm, is drawn in narrow folds across her breast and 
falls at the side down to the knee. Serpents are seen on the 
border of the aegis bent in the form of the letter S. The 
aegis has painted scales on the inner and outer sides so 
arranged that bands of red and blue alternate with those left 
colorless. A broad blue band runs along the wave-like border 
of the aegis, and indicates the back of the serpents, whose finely 
modelled heads are enlivened with red stripes and spots. Of 
the blue color of the helmet worn by the goddess, traces were 
still seen when the head was found. A diadem (a-recpdvtj) 


encircled the helmet, into which eighteen holes were bored 
which probably held gilded rosettes as ornaments. Colored 
and gilded decorations doubtless ornamented the helmet and 
its crest. Traces of ornaments, such as ear-pendants and a 
necklace, are not wanting. Thus brilliantly arrayed, the goddess 
strides forward, radiant with color and eager for battle. The 
giant doubtless supported himself with his shield. 

The other fragments that belong to the original group have 
been skilfully put together by Schrader, who reconstructs two 
prostrate forms of giants which occupied the corresponding 
corners of the pediments, and believes that the entire group 
consisted of eight figures, two more giants and two more 
gods, whose postures and movements are made to fit the 
gradation and height of the gable, after the same manner as 
the pediment groups of the Aeginetan temple ; that is, the 
upright figure of Athena in the middle with a prostrate form 
at her feet, surrounded by figures of gods and giants, some 
striding forward, others kneeling, or lying prostrate. Stud- 
nizcka's (54) conjecture that these figures adorned the pediment 
of the old Athena temple is amply verified by later studies, 
and especially by the measurements of the figures of the 
group and those of the pediment in which they are supposed 
to have been placed. The height of the pediment, e.g. 
is shown to be 2.45 m. (8 feet 4 inches) and the statue 
of Athena, together with the plinth, yakes 2.12 m. (not quite 
7 feet). 

The addition of the peristyle, as we have seen above, made 
the old Hecatompedon almost a new structure, which required 
additional ornament not only in its pediments but also on the 
walls of its cella. Dr. Hans Schrader has studied and com- 
bined certain fragments of marble relief sculpture in the 
Acropolis Museum, the best preserved of which is the slab repre- 
senting the figure of a person in the act of mounting a chariot 
(incorrectly called die wagenbesteigende Frau), (Fig. 20) and 
finds that these fragments, five in number, belonged to one 
and the same frieze, and that this frieze in the style of its art 
and in its dimensions belonged in all probability to the old 
Athena temple. After the destruction wrought by the Persians 
the peristyle was not rebuilt, and the frieze on the repaired cella 
walls now became a more conspicuous ornament. Incidentally 

A. A. E 



Schrader sees in the preservation of so much of the frieze 
and in such a uniform condition as regards disintegration an 
additional argument for the view of Dorpfeld, according to 
which the temple whose walls it adorned was rebuilt and 

Fig. 20. — Slab of Frieze of Old Athena Temple. 

remained standing for many centuries after the Persian war, 
was seen by Pausanias, and was called by him the temple of 
the Polias. 

It has been well said that this frieze has qualities of style 
in common with the archaic female figures found in the debris 
a little way west and north of the Erechtheum, and that 
accordingly all may be dated in the latter part of the sixth 
century. These archaic statues are of sufficient interest to 
merit more than a passing notice and will be described in the 
following chapter. Schrader leaves the question undetermined 
whether this brilliant sculptural decoration of the old Athena 
temple is to be regarded as a creation of Pisistratus or as the 


first great work of the young democracy that came into power 
after the overthrow of the Pisistratids. In either case there 
is no reason to doubt that the creation of this remarkable 
group of statuary was due to an impulse already in force in 
the latter part of the sixth century, as seen in the more 
splendid celebration of the Panathenaic festival and in the 
beginning of a magnificent marble temple to Athena, an 
impulse which enthroned in higher glory the virgin goddess, 
to whose fostering care the state owed more and more its 
prosperity and renown. 




"Then shout, felicitating ancient Athens, 
Appearing as of old — that wondrous city 
Chanted in many a hymn, inhabited 
By this illustrious people." 

Aristofh. Knights, 1326. 

With the rebuilding of the city and its defenses after the 
Persian invasion, we enter upon a new period in the history 
of the Acropolis and its buildings. From this time on we 
have not only an ever-increasing amount of sculpture and 
architectural remains to guide us in our study, but also an 
ever-growing body of literature and inscriptions, some of it 
contemporaneous with the buildings of the Acropolis and 
some of it in the form of later references, descriptions or 

After the withdrawal of the Persians, the Athenians returned 
from Salamis and other places of refuge to their city, which 
had suffered such dire disaster. They found the temples on 
the Acropolis burnt and partly if not wholly razed to the 
ground, and the numerous statues and votive offerings either 
carried away as booty or thrown down and mutilated. 
Among the statues carried away by Xerxes was the bronze 
group of the tyrant-slayers, Harmodius and Aristogiton, by 
Antenor, afterwards restored to Athens by Alexander the 
Great or one of his successors, a marble copy of which is 
seen in the museum of Naples. One of the first duties of 
the returning fugitives was to repair their ruined shrines 
and temples, whose destruction apparently gave the Persian 


ruler himself compunctions of conscience, if we may believe 
the story told by Herodotus (viii. 54), that Xerxes ordered 
the Athenians who were in his retinue the day after the 
conflagration, that having ascended the Acropolis, they should 
according to ancestral custom perform their sacrificial rites. 
That they also repaired and rebuilt their homes and the 
walls of the city is expressly told us by Thucydides (koi 
Trjv TToXiv ai^oiKOOO/ueii/ irapecTKevaCovTO koll to, Tei-^i], i. 89, 3). 
That the patron goddess of Athens had not forsaken her 
city was most strikingly shown by the miraculous growth 
of her sacred olive tree on the Acropolis, which, after it had 
been burnt down by the barbarians, was observed by those 
who after the second day went up to sacrifice to have sent 
forth a new shoot a cubit high. Such is the story told by 
Herodotus (viii. 55); but in the time of Pausanias the story 
had grown larger, for he tells us (i. 27, 2) that the sacred 
plant had grown a shoot two cubits high on the same day. 
There is little likelihood that the Athenians undertook to 
erect any new buildings immediately after their return (55), 
especially in view of the fact that they were threatened with 
a new assault from Mardonius, who in less than one year 
after the departure of Xerxes seized Athens anew and com- 
pleted the work of devastation. 

The men who are especially to be credited with the work 
of rebuilding the city and its Acropolis and of bringing it 
to a degree of splendor hitherto unknown and never again 
equaled, are Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles. To the 
genius of Themistocles more is probably due in the planning 
of this great work than was formerly supposed. But the 
opinion, until recently so widely held, that Themistocles or 
Cimon planned and began the building of the older Parthenon 
is now to be discarded in favor of the view convincingly 
stated by Dorpfeld, that the temple was begun before the 
Persian war (see p. 79), and may have been planned 
under the leadership of Clisthenes, the restorer of the 

We can readily believe that the work of rebuilding the 
walls and defenses of the city and citadel .had precedence 
over that of rebuilding the temples of the gods and the 
houses of the citizens. The architectural fragments of the 


temples and sculptural remains of the statues and shrines 
partly burnt and destroyed would naturally serve, in so far 
as they were not available for repairs and restoration, as 
material for new defenses and for foundations of new buildings. 
This is especially true in the case of the ruins of those 
buildings and statues that were made of poros or Peiraic 
limestone, and were to be replaced by those made of the 
beautiful marble of Pentelicus. The smaller pieces and chips 
would be serviceable for filling and for extending the terrace 
of the Acropolis in those places where the sides shelved off 
more abruptly. This process is seen most clearly on the 
south side of the hill (see p. 8 1 below) where it became 
necessary to build out the surface in order to widen the area 
for the foundation of the Parthenon. But before we discuss 
the history of this building let us take up the difficult subject 
of the history of the walls that surround the Acropolis from 
the time of their restoration after the Persian destruction. 
These walls as they appear to-day present a confused mixture 
of building material and work, dating all the way from the 
Pelasgic period down to modern days. Just how much of 
this work of rebuilding the walls on the summit of the 
Acropolis is to be ascribed to Themistocles and how much 
to Cimon and Pericles must, with the insufficient data at 
hand, remain a matter of conjecture. It is traditional to 
connect the name of Themistocles with the northern and that 
of Cimon with the southern circuit wall. So far as Themis- 
tocles is concerned there can be little doubt that if the new 
theory of Dorpfeld with regard to the pre-Persian origin of 
the earlier Parthenon stands, the north wall is his work. The 
character of the masonry, which is somewhat irregular and 
the nature of the filling behind it for levelling up the surface 
of the Acropolis, show that this wall is older than the southern 
which is attributed to Cimon. But more than that, the fact 
that it has built into it the unfinished drums of the earlier 
Parthenon and pieces of its limestone stylobate probably point 
to Themistocles as the builder of this wall. For the statement 
quoted above from Thucydides needs not to be limited in 
meaning to the walls of the lower city, although doubtless it 
includes them. When, however, the same historian (i. 93) 
says " that the boundary of the city was extended in every 


direction," we understand him to mean the circumvallating 
wall which was to enclose the entire city. 

We agree with the view of Professor Ernest Gardner 
{Ancient Athens, p. 45), who believes that the lower town was 
surrounded by a wall at the time of the Persian wars is 
sufficiently proved by its description in the Delphic response 
as Tpo-)(o€iSr]^, wheel-shaped, and that such a description could 
not have applied to the Acropolis nor have been suitable to an 
unwalled town. That Themistocles, however, intended to 
include the citadel in the line of new defenses with which he 
surrounded the city and its harbors cannot be doubted. The 
building of the south wall is distinctly known to be the work 
of Cimon. Plutarch in his life (chapt. 13) of that general says 
that this wall was erected with money received from the 
ransom of Persian prisoners of war after his glorious victory on 
the Eurymedon, and Pausanias (i, 28, 3) seems to have the 
same wall in mind when he says that the Pelasgi are said to 
have surrounded the Acropolis with a wall except so much of 
it as Cimon the son of Miltiades built. The south wall is 
therefore sometimes referred to as the " Cimonium." That 
Pericles made repairs in the walls, especially on the north side, 
seems probable, especially in that part of the wall (57 in the 
Plan) in which a breach was made for the purpose of trans- 
porting up the Acropolis huge blocks of marble for building 
the Parthenon. The height and thickness of the walls varied 
with the amount of filling required to make a level surface on 
the top of the Acropolis. The wall was highest and thickest 
on the southeast side, having in some places twenty-nine 
qpurses of masonry and a height of about fourteen metres 
(45 feet). On this side the foundation of the wall measures 
about six and a half metres (21 feet) in thickness, but in its 
upper courses the thickness averages two and a half metres 
(8 feet 3 inches). On the north side the wall is perceptibly 
lighter. The adjustment, so to say, of the walls to the enclosed 
rock has influenced their batter. They stand plumb and 
perpendicular only a part of the way from the bottom, above 
they batter towards the rock, the slope inward amounting to 
about two feet in the whole height. The walls throughout 
were built up so high above the surface of the Acropolis that 
one could not see over them. 



With these general statements before us, let us now proceed 
to describe more in detail the characteristic features of the 
various parts of the entire circuit. Beginning our survey 
with the east end, we notice first of all a number of buttresses 
which are of mediaeval or even later origin. The buttresses 

I :.,. ji. — ^outh W'aii ut' A>.ropjlis above 'J l- , 

on the south side are also of late origin. To the same 
period belongs a good deal of the surface masonry on the 
south side, which is of inferior workmanship and of loosely 
jointed blocks of stone. Here and there, where this covering 
has been broken through, the older and better construction 
comes to view. The best piece of wall construction is 
found at the southeast corner, where the regular and closely 
fitted blocks of limestone indicate the best period of masonry. 



Another piece of this old wall is to be seen (see Fig. 2 1 ) 
in the lowest courses just above the Dionysiac theatre and 
the Asclepieum. On the face of the south wall, just above 
the theatre, Antiochus Epiphanes had suspended a gilded 
aegis with the head of the Medusa upon it, probably intended 
to serve as a charm against the evil eye (56). In this 
part Dorpfeld (57) recognized thirteen drums of columns of 
the peristyle of the old Athena temple which have been 
worked over into square blocks. In that part of the north 
wall that lies between the Propylaea and the Erechtheum are 
seen several architectural pieces of limestone, such as beams 

Fig. 22. — North Wall of Acropolis. Architectural Fragments built into Wall. 

and blocks, triglyphs, a piece of cornice projecting on the 
outside of the wall, and several marble metopes, all placed in 
regular order. The regular position in which these fragments 
are built into this wall has suggested the idea that they were 
intentionally so placed in order to serve as a reminder of the 
havoc wrought by the Persians, and of the glorious deeds of 
the fathers who drove forth the barbarian. Even the modern 
tourist, who is often a good deal of a barbarian, cannot fail to 
be impressed by this ancient memorial of the ruin that befell 
the shrine of Athena so many centuries ago. That these 
architectural fragments belong to the old temple (identifiej^ 
by Dorpfeld) every one now believes. As already stated 
above (p. 44), the measurements fit the dimensions of the 
old temple. Two large cornices of coarse-grained marble 


lying near this part of the wall appear to have belonged to the 
peristyle of the temple. To this also belonged the blocks of 
limestone mentioned above. The fact that these blocks show, 
on the inside of the wall, so little injury is taken by Dorpfeld 
as evidence that when the old temple was burnt by the 
Persians the peristyle and temple were not entirely thrown 
down. The poros fragments came of course from the cella of 
the temple after its partial destruction. It seems probable 
that all these architectural fragments are the relics of the old 
temple, never wholly restored, which were built into the wall 
either by Themistocles (which apparently is Middleton's view in 
the supplement of the Hellenic Studies), or, by Cimon, whose 
agency we cannot wholly disconnect from this part of the restora- 
tion of the ancient walls. Gardner (58) is probably right in 
supposing that Cimon completed the wall on the north side 
begun by Themistocles, and at the same time raised the level of 
the ground on this side some two or three feet so as to make 
a broader and more level platform (59). A little farther to the 
east, close by the Erechtheum, we observe on the inside wall 
a fine piece of ashlar masonry with a neatly carved edge, 
testifying to the careful stonework of the best period. Still 
farther to the east, we come to a part of the wall which has 
built into it twenty-six large drums of Pentelic marble (two 
a little separated from the rest), roughly hewn and left un- 
finished. The lower drums may be distinguished by the fact 
that they show where the flutings were begun to be cut. 
These drums undoubtedly belong to the columns that were 
to adorn the older Parthenon, the predecessor of the present 
temple. Several similar drums are lying about on the south 
side of the Acropolis and belong to the same building, which 
will be discussed later. It is now held by Dorpfeld, as 
already indicated, that these architectural fragments of the 
older Parthenon (60) were built into the wall by Themistocles 
immediately after the withdrawal of the Persians. The fact 
that they show marks of fire is one of the strongest proofs 
for the belief that the earlier Parthenon was begun before 
the Persian invasion (see p. 79 below). Pits have been left 
open by the modern excavators for the purpose of enabling 
students of the history of the Acropolis to see for them.selves 
some of these remains of ancient buildings thus utilized. Still 



farther east (62 on Plan VII.) a pit has been left open to expose 
capitals and drums made of limestone from the old temple 
of Athena built into this part of the wall. It may be proper 
to call attention once more to the fact that the Cimonian 
and Themistoclean walls correspond pretty nearly in bearing 
and direction with the natural outlines of the rock itself, and 
that the Acropolis did not originally show such a precipitous 
declivity but had a more gradual slope, especialh' on the south 

' Fig. 23. — Drums of Columns of the Older Parthenon, built into North Wall. 

side, where the surface has been built out to serve as a support 
for the foundations of the Parthenon. Just how this was done 
will be stated when we come to discuss the history of the older 
and younger Parthenon. After the completion of these walls 
the old rock must have towered aloft with more grandeur 
than ever before, and must have awakened the pride of the 
Athenians. On these walls and bastions Athena sits en- 
throned in new splendor, as Aeschylus sings in his Supplices 
(145), "Daughter of Zeus, who here dost hold steadfast thy 
sacred shrine." 

The fortifying of the Acropolis at the west end, where a 
strong defense was especially important, must also have 


occupied the attention of Themistocles and Cimon. Though 
we have no statement of an ancient author to prove it, yet, 
as Wachsmuth (61) says, it is inconceivable that the south side 
of the Acropolis should have been defended by a wall and no 
defense should have been erected to protect the entrance at the 
west. That the Nike bastion became again a strong tower of 
defense and defiance need not be doubted, whatever doubts 
we may have as regards its form and outline at that time 
in distinction from its later appearance and its relation to 
the Propylaea of Mnesicles. As Furtwangler {^Masterpieces^ 
p. 422) says: "The Pyrgos (tower) at the western extremity 
of the wall only lost its significance as a fortification by the 
erection of the Periclean Propylaea and of the temple of Nike." 
Its position is such that, like fortifications of the ancients in 
general, it threatens the right and unprotected side of the 
enemy as he advances. From its summit we gain the best 
view of the Saronic gulf, the coast line of Attica, the islands 
of Salamis and Aegina, the mountains of the Peloponnesus, 
the Attic plain, and the ranges of Parnes, Cithaeron, and 
other mountains beyond. It was from this cliff King Aegeus 
watched for the return of his son Theseus from his conflict 
with the Minotaur, and seeing the ship returning with black 
sails he thought his son had been slain. So he flung himself 
down and was killed. {Patis. i. 22, 5.) 

From what has been said in the preceding chapter con- 
cerning the approach to the summit of the Acropolis, it is 
plain that at the level of the Nike bastion and in close relation . 
to it there must have been an ancient portal, possibly in the 
earliest time the uppermost of the nine gates of the Pelasgic 
fortification that guarded the entrance to the Acropolis. This 
gateway was probably rebuilt (Judeich, Topogr. 62), in part 
if not wholly of marble, by Pisistratus. Marks of fire on the 
marble ruins found by Ross point to its existence before 
the Persian destruction. Dorpfeld (62) points out that the 
marble metopes of the old Hecatompedon were used to con- 
ceal and face the old Pelasgic wall that ran in front of the 

Let us now note more particularly what remains of this 
ancient Propylon can be identified. Adjoining the Pelasgic 
wall which runs across the southwestern corner of the Aero- 



?olis and immediately behind the south wing of the later 
opylaea, we see the foundations of what appears to have 

,, ^ I I I I J, I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I H 


been a gate-like building facing southwest. Of this building 
there remains first a wall, 4.75 m. (15 ft. 7 in.) long and 
1.76 m. (5 ft. 9 in.) high, built of rectangular blocks, the 


exterior blocks being of marble, but the backing of inferior 
stone. A short wall of fine poros joins this at right angles 
and is terminated by a marble anta. The anta and wall 
rest upon a stylobate of three marble steps which run across 
the front of the building and are cut off by the foundation 
of the Propylaea. That part of the wall that was built of 
poros or limestone was originally covered with stucco, which 
was painted. A detached fragment of this stucco still shows 
signs of color. The longer of the two walls mentioned 
above approaches the southern wall of the central part of 
the Propylaea at an oblique angle. The northeastern con- 
tinuation of the Propylon may possibly be traced b\' cuttings 
in the native rock to be seen in the great central doorway of 
the Propylaea. These cuttings are supposed to be the beds 
in which were laid the blocks forming the lowest course of 
a wall, which if continued to the southeast would meet at 
right angles the line of the existing wall produced to the 
northeast. Outside of the old gateway, that is, in the tri- 
angular space enclosed by the southern wall of the Propylaea 
and the old Pelasgic wall, stands a base partly of marble with 
the marks of three fastenings upon it. This base was doubt- 
less the support of a tripod, which had a central pillar whose 
bottom diameter is indicated by the roughened surface between 
the sockets for the feet. When the tripod was wrenched 
from its support the marble was broken. Embedded in lead 
in the sockets on the base are seen pieces of the bronze rims 
that fastened the legs of the tripod. Recent excavations made 
by Dr. Charles H. Weller, a former member of the American 
School at Athens, have materially added to our knowledge of 
this ancient Propylon (63). These excavations have brought 
to light two marble steps under the one hitherto known and 
supporting the anta above referred to, several rock-hewn steps 
below the base just above mentioned, a slab of the Propylon 
floor or pavement, and the lead-lined socket for a Herm, 
possibly of Hermes Propylaea, or for an inscription. By 
adding these new data to what was known before, Weller 
determines the general plan and the dimensions of the 
Propylon. The rock-hewn steps ceased at some point under 
the wall of the Propylaea, but where they emerge south of 
this wall they are constructed of well-fitted blocks of poros, 


which continue in the same line for nearly three metres and 
then turn west in a right angle {C, Fig. 24). These steps belong 
to the southwest wing of the old Propylon and determine its 
southern limits. With these steps of the southwest wing, 
built close up against the Pelasgian wall, the shorter of the 
two poros walls makes an angle of about 122°. The relation 
of this wall to the longer poros wall and to the rock-hewn 

Fig. 25. — Corner ot Propylon behind the Southwest Wing of the Propylaea. 

steps determines the orientation of the gateway, which is 
southwest and northeast. In this direction point also the 
cuttings in the native rock referred to above, which Weller 
thinks he can trace in at least one or two distinct parallel 
lines. These cuttings give also an indication of the boundary 
of the structure to the east, and, together with certain marked 
changes of level and differences in the appearance of the 
surface of the rock, showing in some places a sm.oothed floor, 
enable Weller to locate the position of the north wall of the 



building. Accordingly, he finds that the Propylon had a width 
of II metres (36 ft.) and a length of about 13.5 metres 
(44 ft. 3 in.). These dimensions appear to be verified by 
calculating the area of the marble flooring, one slab of 
which is preserved. From the data that are obtainable, 
from the familiar proportions of Greek buildings, and from a 
comparison between this gateway and a similar one at Selinus, 
Weller reconstructs the elevation and the fagade. The cut 
showing this restoration presents a structure with a Doric 
facade of two columns (4.165 metres high) between two 
antae that finish two walls (antepagmenta), enclosed on each 
side by two Pelasgian walls, a portion of the southern wall. 

Fig. 26. — Fajade of Propylon. Restoration. 

with which the facade makes an angle of about 122°, being 
in situ. Can a similar wall on the other side, as is shown in 
the cut, be assumed ? To support this opinion Weller calls 
attention to the fact that precisely the same angle is made 
between the facade and the prolongation of that piece of wall 
that lies nearly in the axis of the Propylaea {E, Plate i , 
A.J. A. 1904) ; and in view of this identity of angular position 
with the Pelasgian wall on the south side of the Propylon, 
Weller ventures to connect it with the Propylon and to believe 
that its southern face met the corner of the Propylon as the 
Pelasgian wall meets the opposite corner. These two Pelasgian 
walls would then be an integral part of the old Pelargicon, 
the apex of the angle between these walls being occupied 
originally by a fortress gate. " Then," Weller goes on to 


say, " when the ornamental gateway was to be built that 
orientation would have been chosen which was in a way fixed 
by these walls, and the symmetrical appearance of the facade 
would have been determined." The piece of wall, however, 
which forms the basis of this view is polygonal and, according 
to Dorpfeld, was built in the time of Pisistratus to serve the 
purpose of a terrace wall. Dorpfeld believes from certain 
architectural indications that this structure was not completed 
when the Persians seized the Acropolis, and that the damage 
done by them to this gateway can still be traced by the 
marks of later repairs (such as the application of stucco, the 
use of new blocks of stone) which were made by Themistocles 
and Cimon in reconstructing the defenses of the citadel. The 
interior arrangement and construction of the old gateway is 
not indicated in Weller's restoration and plan. How far it 
conformed to the gateways of prehistoric palaces, like that 
of Tiryns for example, which had a front and a rear portico 
and two interior halls, with a large central passage-way, is 
a matter of conjecture. That this is the gateway referred to 
by Aristotle {Athen. Polit 15, 4) and by Polyaenus (i. 21, 2) 
in their account of the ruse by which Pisistratus disarmed the 
Athenians is undoubted. These are the only clear references 
to the Propylon found in the ancient writers. 

That the leaders of the Athenian people should not be 
content with simply repairing the walls and defenses of the 
Acropolis but desire to glorify their citadel with more splendid 
buildings than those that had been laid low seems in itself 
most probable, especially when we take into account that 
Athens had now entered upon her proud position of leadership 
among the Greek states. It was a happy coincidence — and 
it was more than a coincidence — that just at this time archi- 
tecture and sculpture were passing through a transitional stage 
from the limitations of the archaic type to the freedom of their 
earliest bloom. On the Acropolis art was now to be glorified 
and religion to be exalted. Right here where the foe had 
wreaked his bitter vengeance and raised his most sacrilegious 
hand new temples were to be reared to proclaim how Athens, 
by the gracious aid of her patron divinity, had conquered her 
enemies and gained new dignity and power. And not only 
by the building of new temples but also by the dedication of 

A.A. F 


votive offerings, such as the colossal bronze Athena Promachos, 
the grateful Athenians would signify their gratitude to the 
virgin goddess. 

This impulse, however, came to its full expression only in 
the time of Pericles. But that there was an ardent desire 
in the minds of such men as Themistocles, Aristides and 
Cimon to replace the ruined buildings of limestone by more 
stately edifices of marble need not be doubted. For this and 
for other reasons it is not strange that in the prevailing 
opinion of modern scholars the names of one or the other 
of these statesmen should have been connected with the build- 
ing of the great marble temple that occupied the sightliest 
spot on the Acropolis and that is known as the older Parthenon. 
Recent investigations, however, have shown that this opinion 
is not tenable, and that accordingly during the years inter- 
vening between 480 and 450 the resources of the state and 
the activities of her leaders had to be directed chiefly to the 
rebuilding of the lower city and the erection of new walls 
and fortifications to protect it and to strengthen its citadel. 
On what grounds the older Parthenon can no longer be 
connected with Themistocles and Cimon but must be dated 
before the Persian wars needs now to be set forth. The 
discovery of the existence of an earlier structure beneath 
the present Parthenon was made by Ludwig Ross in 1835 
when he laid bare its massive foundations. He mistook 
these, however, for the foundations of the old temple of Athena 
destroyed by the Persians. This identification was later 
found to be false, for the discovered structure exceeded the 
length of the Parthenon, whereas, according to Hesychius, 
the temple destroyed by the Persians was 50 feet shorter 
than the Parthenon. Besides, the architectural fragments of 
marble and limestone built into the north wall of the Acropolis 
did not come from the same but from different buildings, 
having no corresponding dimensions. These difficulties were 
cleared up in 1885 by the discovery of the old Athena temple, 
whose dimensions fit the statement of Hesychius and the 
architectural fragments of limestone built into the north 
wall. But the question of the date of the older structure 
beneath the present Parthenon had still to receive an answer. 
The belief that it antedated the Persian wars was still 


Section THf^ouen the Acropolis 

FnoM North to ^ooth 



Early Temple 
or Athene 


. StALt orfkcT 

I |- 


' ' I 

^, a^ f^, majL. exvJA ofK* f ^ Ct^vCXt-y . 
J» ro c!t<«/H« 'T'^ o^*''**' ^M'f^fcH^n . 
K, Cfiut CtUa. crpu ^auHtM^^ . 

I I I 0-1 


M, N, ?w 

N, JU)T/<i.J 

0,0,0, 0^ 

S, fa»^ 




a£ cdia. o^oMo a lAt £a>vL ire ;«/iA . 

hit. Ciourp^d^ C*ult 'Cy ycHcC^C-i. ulfA 
^9 WccJi^ ej JLot^-i "St^njt.. 

Facing p. /g. 


held by F. C. Penrose (/.U.S. xii. 275, xiii. 32), who 
for architectural and other reasons placed this structure 
at least a century earlier than 490. This opinion found 
no followers. Dorpfeld (A.M. xvii. 161 and 187) attributed 
the older Parthenon to Cimon, on the ground that between 
the foundation walls and the lower courses of the south wall 
of the Acropolis built by Cimon, there lay terraces largely 
composed of strata of material (" Perserschutt ") from buildings 
and various objects destroyed by the Persians. But when this 
conclusion was proved to be false on finding that an older 
terrace wall, running parallel to the Cimonian wall, lay nearer 
to the Parthenon, Furtwangler (64) attributed the structure 
to Themistocles and argued strongly for this view on political 
grounds also, claiming that the Parthenon is the building which 
belongs to the progressive party of Clisthenes, Themistocles 
and Pericles, and that it is most unlikely that Pericles should 
carry to completion a project begun by Cimon. The pre- 
vailing opinion, however, continued to attribute the older 
Parthenon to Cimon. 

A new study of the foundations of the older Parthenon 
and of the terraces and walls on the south side of the 
Acropolis convinced Dorpfeld (A.M. xxvii. 379) that Ross and 
Penrose were right in holding that this building was begun 
before the Persian invasion. The most convincing proof for 
this belief Dorpfeld finds first in the marks of fire (formerly 
observed also by Ross) on the marble drums and on the 
steps of the building, and, secondly, in the nature and position 
of the layers of debris and their relation to the terrace and 
the retaining walls. From the marks of fire it is evident 
that the building was surrounded with a scaffolding that 
was destroyed by fire. It must have been begun not long 
before the Persian wars and under the impulse of national 
life created by the new democracy established by Clisthenes. 
That this period of Athenian history was marked by great 
activity in building is attested also by the construction of 
the Pnyx and of the new Agora at Athens, and of the Stoa 
and the treasure house of the Athenians at Delphi. As the 
Alcmaeonidae rebuilt the Apollo temple at Delphi, so it was 
the Alcmaeonid Clisthenes who undertook the building of a 
great temple to Athena at Athens. 



To know the history of the older Parthenon it is essential 
to study carefully the terraces and layers of filling and the 
retaining walls on the south side. Formerly only two retaining 
walls were recognized, a polygonal wall running nearly parallel 
with the foundations of the temple at a distance of from ten to 
thirteen metres, and the Cimonian outer wall, which is much 
thicker and higher and is twice as far from the Parthenon as 
the polygonal wall. Recent excavations have made it certain 
that there is a third wall which lies between the two just 
named both in time and place. At the corners of the temple 
this wall is built of square blocks of limestone, but in the space 

i"i'i I I i I ' f ' I I I im 
Fig. 27. — Cross-section of the different Strata south of the Centre of the Parthenon. 

between the corners the old Pelargicon wall, built up higher, 
was made to serve as a terrace wall. An examination of the 
layers of dirt and rubbish used to build out the area of the 
Acropolis leads Dorpfeld to the following conclusions : There 
are four stages in the history of the foundations of the 
Parthenon, or if we count in the original situation we may 
enumerate five stages of development. These stages are 
indicated in the cut taken from the article of Dorpfeld 
referred to above. 

(i) The Pelasgian wall surrounding the Acropolis, the 
original layer of soil on the slope of the hill, and Pelasgian 
houses. (2) The erection of the polygonal retaining wall, 
which kept pace with the gradual building of the foundations 
of the temple. In the terrace of soil and rubbish between this 


wall and the Parthenon indicated by II no stones showing 
marks of fire and no pieces of marble were found, but only 
fragments of limestone. From this it is clear that at any rate 
when the lower part of the foundation was laid no use of 
rubbish from the Persian period (" Perserschutt ") was made, 
and the inference is natural that the building in its earliest 
period must antedate the Persian wars. (3) The building of a 
new terrace wall on the top of and in close relation to the 
Pelasgian. As the foundation grew higher it was found that 
the level area south of the temple was insufficient and the 
terrace wall inadequate to hold all the filling required to 
support the foundation. The layers of dirt and stones fell 
over and beyond the polygonal retaining wall and reached to 
the Pelasgian wall which it was necessary to build up (see 3). 
This wall was extended to the corners of the Parthenon ; a 
piece of it is still to be seen in an open pit at the southwest 
corner. The layers of dirt and stones, marked III, are a 
continuation of those marked II. Upon this terrace the 
foundations of the older Parthenon were completed, and the 
superstructure was in process of erection when the Persians 
laid waste what they found. The scaffolding that stood about 
the temple was burnt, leaving the marks of fire upon the 
stones that now furnish the most indubitable evidence of the 
pre-Persian origin of the older Parthenon. (4) The building 
of the great outer wall, still in large part extant, Ify Cimon, 
the so-called Cimonium (Paus. i, 28, 3; Plut. Cim. 13); the 
extension of the area by means of layers of dirt and debris, 
indicated by IV, and consisting largely of " Perserschutt," such 
as broken and more or less calcined marble drums, tiles, 
pieces of statues, and other shattered fragments of architecture 
and sculpture. (5) The Cimonian wall was raised higher and 
strengthened by Pericles in order to gain a still more extended 
area for the new Parthenon. On a lower level, which did not 
reach to the steps of the temple, Pericles built a workshop (see 
Fig- 30) whose foundations were laid bare in the recent excava- 
tions but are now covered up. The upper part of the terrace 
supported by this wall, marked V, has been left blank in the 
cut, since this layer had been removed by Ross when he cleared 
away the dirt and rubbish from the foundations of the 
Parthenon. But Ross states that in this layer he found chips 



of marble and limestone and pieces of stone broken from the 
native rock. These pieces of rock must have been hewn from the 
surface of the Acropolis at the time when the Periclean temple 
was built and the surface to the east and north had to be 
smoothed and levelled as a suitable plateau. From the follow- 
ing cuts, made from photographs taken at the time of the 

Fig. a8. — Southeast Corner of Parthenon, showing Foundations. Coarse Retaining 
Wall in foreground. 

excavations, these foundation walls and terraces and their 
relation to one another can best be seen. Fig. 28 shows the 
wall at the southeast corner. In the lower foreground is a piece 
of the polygonal retaining wall (108 in Plan VII.). Near the 
upper right-hand corner at the east end of the foundation lies 
a heap of marble chips from the Periclean temple. The next 
cut (Fig. 29) shows the relation of the terrace walls to the 



substructure of the Parthenon. In the centre is the polygonal 
retaining wall, near the middle of which we see a piece of cross- 
wall built as a kind of scaffolding for facilitating the work. In 
the retaining wall is built a stairway (iio in Plan VII.) by 
means of which one descends to the lower level of the Pelasgian 
wall that lies further south. At the upper end is seen a piece 
of well-built wall of limestone blocks, making an angle at the 
southwest corner. To the west of this is a pit, left open, 
(112 in Plan VII.) in which are seen blocks of Kara limestone 

Fig. 29. — Foundation Walls of I'arthenon on south side. 

from the peristyle of the old Athena temple and a few marble 
drums of the older Parthenon. In Fig. 30 is shown the 
foundation of the workshop referred to above. In its walls are 
built unfinished marble drums which doubtless belonged to 
the older Parthenon. The accompanying ground plan, drawn 
by Dorpfeld, enables us to see more clearly the relative position 
of these retaining walls. The Pelasgian wall is marked 
A, E, D. The polygonal wall is indicated by two dotted lines. 
At the east end it disappears under the modern museum. 
The ends of the third retaining wall (of which the Pelasgian 
wall formed a part), are marked E, D and G, H. The Cimonian 
wall is indicated by two parallel lines. The workshop for 



building the Periclean temple is drawn in outline and indicated 

The extension of the terrace of the Acropolis on the 
south side was both a practical and an aesthetic requirement. 
Without it the handling and putting in place the heavy masses 
of building material of the Parthenon would have been most 
difficult, if not impossible. And the appearance of so large 
an edifice so near to the edge of the sloping rock would 
doubtless have produced an unpleasant impression. An 

Fig. 30. — Open Pit south of Parthenon. Various Strata of Debris. Foundations 
of "Workshop of Phidias." 

examination of the position of the substructure shows that 
the site of the older Parthenon lies about one half of its 
breadth beyond the edge of the original slope of the rock» 
and that consequently about one half of the foundation is an 
artificial construction, rising in some parts as much as forty/ 
feet^ above the original rock on which it is based. 

The thesis that the older Parthenon was begun before the 
Persian wars seems clearly established by the following facts : 
(i) The presence of marks of fire upon its steps ; (2) the 
existence of marble drums (also showing marks of fire) built 
into that part of the northern wall of the Acropolis that was 



erected by Themistocles ; (3) the character of the rubbish 
found in the different layers that form the terraces built 
up to support the foundations of the temple. To confirm 
this thesis Dorpfeld adds two more considerations : ( i ) That 
it seems hardly credible that the Athenians would have used 
limestone (poros) for the stylobate of their great temple to 
Athena after 480 B.C. when in the period preceding the 
Persian invasion they had already erected several buildings 
of marble, such as the Propylon of the Acropolis, and the 
Stoa and treasury at Delphi (2) A comparison of the 

Fig. 31. — Ground-plan of Parthenon and of its Southern Terrace. Second Stadium. 

distance between the axes of the columns of this temple 
and that of older and younger structures puts the older 
Parthenon between the old Athena temple and the Periclean 
Parthenon. In the peristyle of the old Athena temple this 
distance is 4.04 metres, in that of the older Parthenon it is 
4.12 metres, in that of the younger temple it is 4.27 metres. 
That is to say, we find, as we should expect, a regular increase 
in this dimension in the course of the development of the 
Doric style. 

Finally, it may be added that while in building the 
foundations of the Propylaea and of the younger Parthenon 
architectural fragments of older structures are utilized in 
abundance, only a few such pieces are to be found in the 
substructure of the old Parthenon, showing of course that 



when this was built no such mass of this kind of building 
material was at hand as was manifestly available for the 
building erected after 480 B.C. 

After this discussion of the date and character of the 
substructure of the older Parthenon we are prepared to con- 
sider the foundation walls more carefully. 

Fig. 32. — Courses of the Foundation Walls of the Parthenon, south side. 

In doing so we must necessarily include in our treatment 
the foundation of the Periclean temple which was reared 
directly upon the stereobate of the earlier Parthenon. The 
limits and style of the substructure can still be traced on 
all the four sides, but with greatest clearness on the south 
side and at the northwest angle. On the north side and 
at the east end the larger part of the foundation consists of 



the natural rock. On the south side of the Parthenon we 
notice the stereobate of Peiraic Hmestone carefully worked 
and extending about 1.6 m. (3 ft. 10 in.) beyond the line 
of the later Parthenon, and to a depth at the southeast corner 
of twenty-two courses. In the accompanying cut (Fig. 32) we 
observe that all the courses below the sixteenth are left 
unworked and therefore were intended to be hidden from 
view. The sixteenth (marked x ) shows a smooth band or 
moulding cut on its upper edge. This indicates the original 

Fig. 33.— Cross-section of the Podium and Steps of the Older and Younger Parthenon. 

line by which the dimensions of the structure were to be 
controlled and the superimposed parts were to be regulated, 
the course which the Greeks called the evQvvrrjp'ia. The 
eighteenth course, which consists wholly of binders, is carefully 
finished and each block shows a border and panel. The 
nineteenth course was worked smooth and even and shows 
on its lower edge a border of about a hand's breadth. Of 
the twentieth course, set back as a step, not much is preserved 
intact. That these nineteenth and twentieth courses were 
visible steps of the earlier temple cannot be doubted. It was 
supposed formerly that the older Parthenon had a stylobate of 



only two steps, since immediately upon the twentieth course 
lie the three marble steps of the Periclean Parthenon. But 
subsequent investigations lead Dorpfeld to the conclusion that 
the older temple had the usual stylobate of three steps. The 
accompanying cut, taken from Dorpfeld's article on the date 
of the older Parthenon (A.M. xxvii. 383), shows in cross- 
section the relation of the stylobate of the earlier to that 
of the later Parthenon. The stones of the earlier temple 
still in situ are doubly hatched, the restored steps being 

Fig. 34. — Northwest Corner of Foundation of Parthenon. 

shown in single hatching, while the stones of the younger 
Parthenon have a still lighter hatching. The older steps are 
indicated by I, II, III, the younger by i, 2, 3. The course 
originally designed to be the foundation layer of the older 
temple, and which later became the controlling course, is 
marked III a. Course I, i.e. the highest step of the older temple, 
became course 3, i.e. the lowest step of the younger temple. 
From a cross-section of the foundation of the Parthenon drawn 
by Dorpfeld it appears that the substructure is supported by 
huge piers, especially towards the south, and does not in 
the main lie directly upon the surface of the Acropolis. 
Another remarkable feature of the foundation is the fact 



that at the east end the part which belonged to the 
earlier Parthenon projects beyond the steps of the later temple 
about 4.28 m. (14 ft. 6 in.), showing clearly that the later 
temple did not coincide in its plan and dimensions exactly 
with the earlier one. This fact is further confirmed by 
examining the foundation walls at the west end shown in 
the accompanying cut. The extension of the later built 
foundation towards the north, i.e. the left hand of the 
illustration, is shown in the peculiar joint of the masonry 
just below the position of the young Greek, where we see 
large blocks of Peiraic limestone fitted into step-like blocks 

Fig. 35. — Ground-plan of the Farlier and the Later Parthenon, as drawn by Dorpfeld. 

of marble. This cut, it may be observed in passing, gives 
one a good idea also of the construction of the stylobate, 
which rests upon large slabs of marble that lie upon the 
limestone blocks of the foundation walls. The relation of the 
earlier to the later structure may be seen at a glance from the 
accompanying illustration. In this cut (Fig. 35) the outline 
and plan of the earlier Parthenon are given in black in dis- 
tinction from the Periclean temple whose outlines are given 
in hatching. From this cut we learn at once the outlines and 
dimensions. The breadth of the older Parthenon, measured 
upon the top step of the stylobate, assuming the existence 
of three steps, is 29.60 m. (97 ft. i in.), its length 75.06 m. 
(246 ft. 3 in.), while the corresponding dimensions of the 
younger Parthenon are 30.86 m. (loi ft. 2 in.) and 69.51 m. 
(228 ft. I in.). Measured on the stylobate the younger 


temple is then 1.26 m. (4 ft. 2 in.) broader than the older, 
but 5.55 m. (18 ft. 2 in.) shorter. The reasons that caused 
Pericles to make his Parthenon so much shorter than the 
earlier temple will appear later. In his study of the remains 
of the older temple, Dorpfeld has shown that it was designed 
to be peripteral and octastyle and to have nineteen columns 
at the sides. That this older Parthenon was intended to be 
the successor of the old temple of Athena seems probable 
when we take a view of its interior plan (see cut) and 
compare it with that of the old temple. While the latter 
with its opisthodomos measured a hundred Attic feet in 
length, and hence was called the " Hecatompedon," the cella 
alone of the later built Parthenon measures a hundred feet in 
length, and came to have the same title. Now the purpose 
to build a magnificent temple whose cella alone should have 
this size must have been present to the mind of those who 
planned the older Parthenon, since otherwise the extraordinary 
length of this building as compared with its width seems 
inexplicable. From a comparison of the ground plan of 
the two buildings it will be seen further that there is 
practically no difference between the length of the cella of 
the older and of the younger Parthenon. It is also to be 
observed that the rear cella and opisthodomos of the older 
building, leaving out the inner or rear part which corresponds 
to the two middle chambers of the old pre-Persian temple, 
have about the same depth as the corresponding parts of 
the younger Parthenon. But the total length of the older 
exceeds that of the younger Parthenon by more than five 
and a half metres. But this is about equal to the depth 
of the two middle chambers (marked D and E) of the old 
Athena temple. From this comparison two inferences may 
plainly be drawn : first, that the architect of the older 
Parthenon planned his temple on the model of the old 
Athena temple, and second, that Pericles modified this 
earlier plan by cutting out the two inner chambers, for which 
apparently there was no need in the new Parthenon. 

While there is a general similarity in the interior plan 
of the older and of the later Parthenon, there is a wide 
difference in the breadth of the respective temples, or more 
properly of their cellas. For let it be observed that, while 


the difference in breadth between the two temples taken as 
a whole is very small, being only about four feet measured 
on the stylobate, the difference in the breadth of their 
respective cellas amounts to the difference between 19.18 m. 
and 14.05 m., i.e. 5.13 m. (16 ft. 10 in.), and the difference 
in the breadth of the nave of their respective cellas amounts 
to 3.77 m. (12 ft. 4 in.). This extraordinary breadth of the 
cella of the younger Parthenon was gained by making the 
width of the peristyle unusually small. In the old Athena 
temple, for example, the width of the peristyle is related 
to that of the cella as one to four and a half, whereas 
in the case of the younger Parthenon this ratio is one to 
seven and a half This extraordinary breadth of the cella 
of the Parthenon (19.18 m., 62 ft. 11 in.) can only be 
explained by supposing that it was intended to provide a 
spacious apartment for a large cult image of Athena, who 
was to have her shrine within. Since we have no evidence 
that when the older Parthenon was planned this purpose 
was in mind, we may suppose that the proportions of the 
cella of this temple were similar to those of the pre-Persian 
Athena temple. But a more convincing proof of the change 
in the proportions of the cella to the other parts of the 
new Parthenon is found in an answer to the natural enquiry, 
why this temple was not built directly and squarely upon 
the substructure of the older one, but as we have seen was 
shoved quite a bit toward the north (65). If the new temple 
was to have a broader cella and consequently to be a broader 
structure it would, of course, be necessary to make broader 
foundations. But to accomplish this, in view of the lower 
level of the surface of the rock especially on the south and 
west sides, would involve a good deal of change in the 
substructure, unless it were possible simply to remove the 
axis of the building to the north as much as was needed, 
and then to build a single additional foundation wall on the 
north side, where the rock was nearly on a level with the 
foundation. But this simple recourse was impossible inasmuch 
as the stereobate of the temple was not a single continuous 
floor of masonry, but in part a series of separate walls and 
piers upon which the walls of the cella and the columns 
were supported. An incidental evidence that this is the 


nature of the substructure may be found in the subsidence 
of a piece of the pavement of the later Parthenon, to be 
seen in the north aisle of the cella, some six inches below 
the proper level. The illustration in the text shows the 
manner in which the shifting of the foundations of the new 
Parthenon was effected most economically by taking every 
possible advantage of the earlier substructure. From a 
study of the above cut (Fig. 35), it becomes plain that the 
rearrangement of foundations and supports was as follows : 

(i) The foundation wall that was to support the north cella 
wall of the older temple served later as the foundation of 
the north row of columns in the cella of the new temple. 

(2) The foundation wall of the older south cella wall was 
used to support the corresponding cella wall of the new 

(3) For the south row of interior columns of the new 
temple the existing foundations for the same columns of 
the old temple were probably extended. 

(4) For the north cella wall of the new temple the founda- 
tions for the north peristyle of the older Parthenon would 

(5) An entirely new foundation was needed only for the 
north peristyle of the new Parthenon. 

(6) The south peristyle of the new temple was supported 
by the massive and broad foundations already built up for the 
older structure, which now may have been somewhat extended 
to the north. With this disposition of the foundation walls 
in mind, Dorpfeld infers the interior arrangement of the 
older Parthenon and its dimensions, as indicated in our 
illustration. Before we dismiss this structure from our view 
we should turn our attention to an architectural refinement 
which will occupy our attention also in our discussion of the 
younger Parthenon, but which pertains also to these older 
foundations. We refer to what is known as the curvature 
of horizontal lines. The earliest mention of this subject is 
made by Vitruvius in his chapter entitled De Substructionibus 
(iii. 4), which Mr. Wilkins translates thus: "The stylobate 
ought not to be constructed upon the horizontal level but 
should rise gradually from the ends towards the centre, so 
as to have there a small addition. The inconvenience which 


might arise from a stylobate thus constructed may be obviated 
by means of unequal scamilli. If the line of stylobate were 
perfectly horizontal it would appear like the bed of a channel." 
Although in this passage Vitruvius refers to the construction 
of an Ionic temple, his language applies equally well, so far 
as the matter before us is concerned, to a Doric building. 
In modern times the curvature of lines was first carefully 
studied by John Pennethorne (1837), an English architect. 
In the next year Hoffer and Schaubert, German architects, 
communicated to the Wiener Bauzeitung their observations. 
Later Pennethorne published his results in a work entitled 
The Geometry and Optics of the Ancients. But our chief 
authority on this matter is the English architect Dr. F. C. 
Penrose, who in 1846-47 made his exhaustive and careful 
measurements which are embodied in his work entitled 
The Principles of Athenian Architecture, a revised edition 
of which appeared in 1888. In this work are given the 
following results so far as the foundations of the Parthenon 
are concerned : The first point to be noted is the fact that 
the corners of the foundation are not exactly on a level. 
The southeast and southwest lie higher than the northwest 
and northeast corners. Penrose states that the difference of 
level between the eastern and western extremities of the 
south stylobate amounts to 158/1000 of a foot. This 
difference must have been intended when the foundations 
were laid, or produced subsequently by settlement, or caused 
by subsidence or upheaval, which may have affected the whole 
rock. " That any settlement can have taken place," says 
Penrose, " is disproved not only by the nature of the rock, 
but also by observing that while at the northeast the bottom 
step of the stylobate is founded directly upon the rock and 
while the southwest angle rests on at least twenty feet of 
artificial foundations, yet the latter is nevertheless the higher 
by nearly 16/100 of a foot." Hence Penrose concludes that 
the Parthenon was built out of level advisedly, whether for 
the sake of beauty, or for some economical reason, such as 
drainage, or simply for the convenience of making use of 
the old lines of the earlier temple. He then goes on to 
show that this difference of level, which amounts to 158/1000 
of a foot in 228 feet, or about 3^ feet in a mile, is so 

A.A. G 



slight as to be imperceptible even to an experienced eye and 
cannot be supposed to produce any impression of beauty nor 
of unsightliness. He further points out that this difference 
of level could not have been designed with a view to drainage, 
and next proceeds to demonstrate that the architects of the 
Parthenon followed the old lines of the earlier temple as 
much as possible and at the same time increased the curvature 
of the stylobate of the new Parthenon so as to be equivalent 
to 156/1000 of a foot in 100 feet. 

According to Penrose (66), the curvature of the horizontal 
lines of the sub-basement of the Parthenon is as follows : 

Actual length of the 
front and flank. 

Actual rise above a straight 
line joining the extremities. 

Proportional rise in a 
length of 100 feet. 

Front 104.2 ft. 
Flank 221 ft. 



This gives a ratio for the front or end of the stereobate of 
about 3 : 2000, and for the flank of about i : 1000. The 
curvature of these lines was observed by him at the east 
front in the cuttings of the natural rock which were adjusted 
to the lines of the stylobate, and in the upper courses of the 
substructure on the south side. 

The belief in the intentional curvature of the lines of the 
stereobate of the Parthenon has been attacked by K. Botticher 
(67) and more recently by Josef Durm, who hold that these 
deviations from straight horizontal lines are too irregular to 
be designed and are due to depressions in the foundations, 
the Peiraic limestone of which they are built being too soft 
to withstand during all these centuries the weight of the super- 
incumbent mass which they support. To these irregularities 
they think other causes, such as earthquakes and the frequent 
devastations to which the building has been exposed, may 
have contributed. Their views have been refuted by E. Ziller, 
A. Botticher, and others. The most convincing reasons urged 
to substantiate the theorj' of the curvature of these lines of 
the substructure of the Parthenon are these : 

(i) The lowest level of the entire structure is at the north- 
east corner where it rests directly upon the rock, while the 


three other corners which are supported by masonry h"e higher. 
From this it follows that no settling of the building has taken 
place, whether from a pressing down or weakening of the 
Peiraic limestone or from any other cause. 

(2) The chief pressure exerted by the whole mass falls 
naturally upon the centre of the ends or fronts of the building 
and not upon the corners. Hence if a subsidence or settling 
has taken place this should appear in the centre, not at the 

(3) On the supposition of a settling of the foundations it 
would be impossible, especially in view of the uneven surface 
of the rock which underlies the foundations, that curves so 
regular as those which the lines of the substructure show 
should have been formed. Dorpfeld holds that the curvature 
of lines was more rigidly observed in the foundations of the 
older Parthenon than in the construction of the Periclean 
temple. We shall recur to this subject again in our study 
of the later Parthenon. 

Before we enter upon the brilliant period which follows that 
of Cimon, we need to consider somewhat more particularly the 
finds of sculpture that belong to this earlier age, most of 
which have been unearthed by the recent excavations upon 
the Acropolis conducted by the Greek government. The 
richness of these finds and their importance to the history 
of art is apparent at a glance when one visits the Acropolis 
museum in which they are exhibited. In the space at 
our disposal we can discuss only those that are most 
noteworthy, and that briefly. The most remarkable of these 
discoveries is the series of marble statues of women found 
imbedded in a pit about fifteen paces northwest of the Erech- 
theum and close to the north circuit wall of the Acropolis (68). 
Marking different stages of progress in the art, they all have 
certain common characteristics which seem to point to a 
school or style of art which puts its impress upon them. 
This school or style has been supposed by some critics to 
be the Chian, for it is now held that the artists of Chios 
were the earliest to bring the technique of sculpture to 
some degree of perfection. These Chian sculptors may well 
have been among the foreign artists who were attracted to 
Athens by Pisistratus. Studniczka and Schrader point out 



marks of resemblance between the figures of this series and 
the Athena of the pediment group that probably adorned the 
old temple (see p. 60). In the head 01 the Athena as in 
the series of these female figures, which German critics have 
dubbed " Die Tanten," we see exhibited the same feeling for 
soft contour and delicate lines that is believed to be charac- 
teristic of the Chian school. The statues under discussion, 
numbering eighteen in all, are now displayed in the archaic 
room of the Acropolis Museum (60). There can be no doubt 
that these statues were thrown down when the Persians sacked 

Fig. 36. — Excavated Pit in which the Archaic Statues of Women were found. 

Athens and that they were buried amid the rubbish that was 
used to fill up the holes and depressions in the surface of the 
Acropolis. Their chief interest perhaps lies in their richly 
colored decorations. From these we have learned more about 
the style and effect of polychromy in sculpture than from any 
other source. Our knowledge of early Attic sculpture, now 
supplemented by some of the discoveries at Delphi, has been 
materially increased, we might say with Gardner revolutionized, 
by the discoveries of these statues. No inscriptions and no 
attributes were found with them to indicate what they are 
intended to represent. Some have supposed them to be 
priestesses of Athena, or maidens who performed some sacred 
ofifice. Others with more probability look upon them as 
worshippers who dedicated themselves symbolically to the 



goddess Athena, possibly a survival of an actual sacrifice in 
primitive ritual. Such conventional offerings seem to be 
referred to in an inscription from the Acropolis recording 
the offering of a " maiden " to Poseidon by a fisherman. All 
we know is that these statues were officially called Kopai or 
maidens. That they were dedicated by men as well as by 
women and that they could be offered to a god as well as 

Fig. 37. — Archaic Statue of a Woman. (Acropolis Museum.) 

to a goddess, Gardner thinks is shown by the inscription 
above mentioned (70). Without giving a minute description 
of these statues, which is outside the province of this book, 
let us notice their characteristic features more closely. One 
of the most marked of these is the elaborate arrangement 
and delicate treatment of the drapery (71). The larger 
number show the style of dress that may be called Ionian. 
Gardner calls attention to the fact that the change from the 
Doric chiton with its brooches to the Ionic without these 


may be explained by the story told by Herodotus (v. 87), 
how after a certain disastrous expedition to Aegina the 
Athenian women set upon the sole survivor and stabbed 
him to death with their brooches, and how in consequence 
they were forbidden thereafter to wear brooches at all but 
were compelled to adopt the linen Ionic chiton. Many of 
these statues show the following scheme of drapery : A tunic 
with sleeves from shoulder to elbow ornamented with em- 
broidered borders. Over this a robe (peplos), often folded 
so as to form a cape (diplois), which is carried under the 
left arm and fastened by buttons on the right shoulder. 
The arm from which the peplos hangs across the breast is 
elaborately decorated. The folds of the robes are arranged 
in conventional form. In the treatment of the face and 
hair we find a more marked progress in the series than is 
to be seen even in the drapery. In the earlier statues 
we find the same wide-open and staring eyes that we saw 
in the Typhon or the Athena of the early pediment groups, 
only less protruding. In the later statues the eyes have 
become almond-shaped and are overshadowed by the brow. 
So again in the treatment of the mouth these statues show 
decided variation, but in all is seen an effort to escape 
from the unnatural grimace, " the archaic smile," of the 
earlier types. In the treatment of the hair we see a gradual 
approach to naturalness and a departure from the painful 
exactness of symmetry of braid with braid, although the 
conventional tresses hang over the shoulders and on each 
side of the neck in every one of them. Some of the heads 
had a broad band of metal or of marble around the head, 
making a sudden turn over the ears and appearing as a 
kind of diadem over the forehead. The hair falls in a mass 
or in strands down the back. The treatment of the hair 
on the forehead shows more variety, the favorite scheme 
being either lightly turned (corkscrew) locks in regular rows 
or symmetrically shaped strands in wavy patterns. 

Particular interest belongs to these statues from the presence 
of color applied to them, which in some at least is still quite 
fresh and vivid. The use of color is, however, limited. In 
all these statues color is applied to the hair, and in most to 
the eyes and the lips, the pigment used for the hair, the 


lips and the outlines of the eyes and of the pupil being red ; 
but for the pupil itself a darker pigment was used. The 

Fig. 38. — Ad%-anced Type of Archaic Statue of a Woman. (Acropolis Museum.) 

peplos in some of the statues is decorated with gilded 
ornaments which resemble crosses, its border being set off 
with bands and a meander pattern, while down the middle 
of the tunic runs a richly adorned double meander border. 


No garment is completely covered with paint, but the main 
surfaces of the statue are left white showing the natural 
texture of the marble, the beautiful tint of which is set off 
by the effect of the coloring. In some cases the arms had 
bracelets of bronze, in others the bracelets were carved in 
marble, and the ears were ornamented with pendants or earrings. 
In a few of these statues the eyes were set in, the eye-balls 
being made of quartz or crystal. On the heads of several of 
these statues were found bronze spikes (in one instance well 
preserved), rising from the top. Cavvadias surmises with 
good reason that this was designed to carry a disk or flat 
hat as a shade or protection for these finely colored statues. 
This would be similar to the flat-shaped hat found on many 
of the Tanagra figures. Possibly it is this covering that is 
referred to as /xj^wV/co? by Aristophanes, who, in his Birds 
( I I 1 4) lets the chorus say : 

" But, if you reject us, then let each a Httle shed 
Forge, like lunes der statues^ as a shelter for his head, 
Lest, without it when you walk in clean and white attire, 
All the birds their vengeance take by covering you with mire." 

Translation by PROFESSOR KENNEDY. 

From this it would be inferred that these statues stood 
originally not in the interior of a temple but in some open 
precinct. Judging from the locality in which most of them 
were found and from their possible relation to the worship of 
the Athena Polias we venture to conjecture that they stood in 
a court west of the Erechtheum, possibly the same as that in 
which the Arrephoroi played ball (see p. 2 i 8 below and Paus. 

i- 27, 3)- 

Another interesting find of sculpture connected with the 
Acropolis is a statue of a seated Athena which was found at 
the base of the Acropolis on the north side just below the 
Erechtheum. Now Pausanias (i. 26, 4) speaks of seeing an 
image of Athena by Endoeus just before he makes mention of 
the Erechtheum, which was dedicated, according to the inscrip- 
tion upon its base, by Callias, one of the opponents of 
Pisistratus. This image referred to by Pausanias has con- 
jecturally been identified with the statue that has been found. 
It represents the goddess seated, clad in a long tunic, the 



folds of which are minutely represented. Long curls hang 
down on her breast which is covered with the aegis. The 
head and lower arms are wanting. The style of the statue is 
decidedly archaic, yet exhibits some degree of mastery of the 
sculptor's art. The marble of which the statue is made is not 
Attic but comes from the islands. The type of a seated 
Athena is not common in the remains of Greek art, though 
Strabo tells us (xiii. p. 60 1) that many ancient images of 

Fig. 39. — Archaic Statue of Athena 

Fig. 40 — Statue of Man carrying Calf. 
(Acropolis Museum.) 

Athena seated were to be seen, and is instructive as a 
reminder of the Trojan image of Athena referred to by Homer 
{Iliad, vi. 90). From two inscribed bases of statues by Endoeus 
that have been found, one of them written in Ionic Greek and 
the other showing the sculptor's name carved in what seems 
to be the Ionic alphabet, it is inferred that Endoeus was an 
Ionic Greek .and that he was at work in Athens in the latter 
part of the sixth century B.C. As we know also that Endoeus 
made a similar statue of Athena for Erythrae, the conclusion 
seems warranted that this archaic seated Athena is the very 
one mentioned by Pausanias (72). Though so few male 


figures have been found among the remains of sculpture 
exhumed on the Acropolis, the large number of fragments 
(now in the museum) make it certain that in the crowd of 
statues consecrated to Athena and standing about the temple 
figures of men were not uncommon. Pious donors, magistrates, 
religious functionaries, Panathenaic victors, all these and doubt- 
less many more classes were here represented by votive 
offerings. A few of the best preserved examples are the 
following : 

A unique figure belonging to an early period is that of 
the so-called " calf-bearer." Gardner considers it the earliest 
statue in marble on the Acropolis. His account of the statue 
we give in part : " It represents a man, nude but for a 
chlamys thrown over his shoulders on which he carries a 
calf, holding its fore and hind legs with his hands in front 
of him. The material is Hymettian marble, and the work 
is rough and coarse, with none of the refinement that seems 
to have been induced by a fine material like Parian. The 
artist evidently trusts a good deal to the addition of color, 
as in the rough limestone sculptures. The eyes, of which 
the iris and pupils are hollowed out for the insertion of other 
materials, are wide and staring, and the mouth a simple curve. 
The calf is rendered, on the whole, with more success than 
the man, but that the anatomy of its joints seems to have 
been misunderstood. The basis of this statue has recently 
been discovered and contains a dedication in very archaic 
letters, which shows it to belong to the first half of the sixth 
century." Gardner believes that the sculptor intended in this 
statue to represent a worshipper bringing his offering for 
sacrifice, either as an actual offering or as a symbolical sub- 
stitute for one. This statue is the best preserved male figure 
that has come down to us from the time antedating the 
Persian war, unless we except that of a youthful athlete 
(No. 698 Catalogue des Sculptures du Mus4e de I'Acropole), 
which CoUignon (73) unhesitatingly assigns to this period. It 
represents a young man of robust form, well modelled and 
in easy pliant attitude. The head shows a type analogous 
to that of the Harmodius of the Tyrannicides. It is encircled 
by a curious diadem of bronze, and the eye-sockets are 
hollowed out for the insertion of eye-balls. By the side of 



this head may be placed the head of a youth (Ephebus) 
found in the excavations of the year 1887. This face shows, 
according to art critics, a modification of the Attic type 
towards a certain severity and simph"city of outline. It is 
the most perfectly executed of any of these male heads of the 
pre-Persian period, and is regarded by Gardner as the counter- 
part of the best of the heads of the set of female statues 
discussed above, like which it is supposed to show Doric 
influence. The coiffure of this head deserves special notice. 
The hair is drawn from the back in two long braids which 

Fig. 41.— Head of a Youthful Athlete. 

encircle the head and are joined over the forehead, where 
they are covered by a kind of fringe of short hair that hangs 
down on the forehead. This kind of coiffure Collignon 
thinks is the so-called krobylos (/c^w/3uAo9), a style which 
came into common vogue at the beginning of the fifth century 
and was affected later by those who aimed to be followers of 
the good old fashion. The type of this rider on horseback 
is represented by several statues badly mutilated, to be found 
in the Acropolis Museum. 

A number of interesting reliefs which antedate the Persian 
destruction have been found on the Acropolis. We single out 
first the one representing a man clad in a long chiton mount- 
ing a chariot ; not, as some misled by the rich drapery have 



supposed, a woman or a goddess. (See Fig. 20.) This slab 
is particularly interesting because Schrader (47) has discovered 
evidence to show that it was a part of the Ionic frieze of 
the cella of the old Athena temple which was added when 
the temple was changed from a Doric to an Ionic structure 
at the time of the building of the peristyle by the Pisistratids. 
Another relief in the same style is held by Schrader to belong 
to the same frieze, which seems to have represented a pro- 
cession of divinities. It represents a divinity whom Collignon 

Fig. 42. — Archaic Relief. Hermes. Probably from Frieze of Old Temple 

believes, with some good degree of probability, to be 
Hermes. Clad in a tunic finely plaited and wearing a flat 
hat, the petasus, his head bound with a ribbon or band, the 
figure seems to advance rapidly, probably preceding and 
marshalling, like a herald, a company of gods and heroes. 
Not only pieces of sculpture in marble, but also numerous 
bronzes have been found in the excavations on the Acropolis. 
A few of the more important of these claim our attention. 
One of the most archaic in style figured here belongs to a 
series of bronze statuettes which are probably votive offerings. 
It represents a female figure, probably an Athena, thrusting 
with the right hand, the left hand extended as if holding a 



shield, and wearing a huge helmet and the aegis. To suppose 
this statuette, however, to be a prototype of the great bronze 
statue of Athena Promachos from the hand of Phidias is 

One of the most interesting of the bronzes is a kind of 
plaque, composed of two thin metal plates carefully nailed 
together, each plate separately cast and representing the 

Fig. 43. — Bronze Statuette of Athena. 

Fig. 44. — Bronze Plaque. Relief of 
Athena in Profile. 

goddess Athena, in profile. It was apparently intended as a 
votive offering to be fastened to a base. In spite of its 
archaic features this relief charms all who see it by the 
exquisite finish of its workmanship and the delicacy and 
grace of its outlines. Certain parts, such as the aegis and the 
countenance, show traces of gilding. Brunn (74) has repre- 
sented in comparison with this relief an archaic relief on 
a stone coping round the mouth of a well at Corinth, which 
shows Athena in the same attitude holding her helmet in 
her left hand, and this suggests a similar restoration here. 

Two heads of bronze are especially worthy of mention. 
The first, found near the north wall, midway between the 


Propylaea and the Erechtheum, represents a bearded man, 
perhaps a warrior since on his head are to be seen the 
marks of nails and holes for fastening a helmet. " The hair 
over the forehead is most delicately rendered in a fringe of 
minute tresses," says Gardner {^Sculpture, p. 208), " and the 
working of the hair and beard is beautifully finished, every 
hair over the whole surface being indicated by fine wavy lines, 

Fig. 45. — Bronze Head. Possibly Aeginetan. 

which, however, only diversify the surface, without in any way 
modifying the sharply cut putline of the different masses. 
The strongly projecting line of the eyebrows, and the indented 
projection of the eyelids, which seems to give the effect of 
eyelashes, are also most clearly shown." Critics think that 
the accuracy and conciseness of detail, coupled with the vigor 
and fulness of life seen in this head, show the influence of 
the Aeginetan school. The second bronze head is a more 
youthful one and of quite a different type from that which 


has just been described. Art critics see in it the marks of 
the influence of the Argive-Sicyonian school, and compare 
it with the head of the Apollo of the west pediment of the 
Zeus temple at Olympia. The severe lines of the profile, 
the full chin, the protruding lower lip, the proportions, all 
seem to indicate a conformity to what has sometimes been 
called the Olympian canon and a departure from the 
Athenian type. 

With this brief description of these the most important 
and the best preserved objects of art antedating the Persian 

Fig. 46. — Head of Ephebus. 

destruction we must be content, and refer the student to 
the catalogue of the collection in the Acropolis Museum. 
In this collection are to be seen numerous small objects of 
art, such as fragments of vases, statuettes of terra cotta, 
pieces of architecture, ornaments and utensils of bronze, 
discovered in the excavations made between the years 1885 
and 1889, during which interval the whole surface of the 
Acropolis was dug up clear down to the living rock. The 
soil was turned over, sifted and carefully examined, and 
not the minutest fragment allowed to escape notice. Many 
inscriptions of great interest have been found, most of which 


are deposited in the National Museum in the city below. 
It is not too much to say that these discoveries on the 
Acropolis have created a new chapter in the history of Greek 
art, a chapter which enables us to know and to appreciate 
as never before the Attic school of sculpture, which prior 
to these discoveries had been represented by a few isolated 
examples. We are now prepared to understand for the first 
time the true relation that exists between the art of Phidias 
and that which beautified the Acropolis before the devastating 
assault of the Persians. It is not difficult in view of these 
discoveries to bring before our minds the appearance of the 
Acropolis in this early time, and to see in our imagination 
the wealth of statuary and of votive offerings that filled 
its precinct and that adorned its shrines, and temples. Only 
as viewed in the light of the greater splendors of the art 
of the Periclean age do the achievements of the days of 
Pisistratus and the ambitious projects and great beginnings 
made by Clisthenes, Themistocles and Cimon seem com- 
paratively imperfect and crude. And yet, as we have seen, 
the step between the sculpture that adorned the old temple 
of Athena in the days of Pisistratus and the decorations 
designed by Phidias for the new Parthenon was an easy 
one to take, while the plans of Clisthenes for the older 
Parthenon were so magnificent that, had they been executed, 
this temple would have been lacking in no essential feature 
of beauty and grandeur. 




" Athens illustrious, brilliant and violet-crowned and renowned, stay 
of Hellas, heaven-blest city ! " 

Pindar, Fragm. 46. 

With the banishment of Cimon (461/60 B.C.), Pericles, the 
son of Xanthippus, became the leader of the Athenian people. 
Every student of Greek history knows that under the 
guidance of Pericles, the foremost statesman of Greece, 
Athens attained to the zenith of her power. The time 
was propitious for the triumph of the arts of peace, and 
for the highest development of those traits of character 
and qualities of mind that give the inhabitants of " the 
violet-wreathed city " a unique place in history, and made 
the Periclean age the synonym of all that is beautiful in art, 
brilliant in letters, and remarkable in political history. 

Soon after he had gained security and peace for Hellas 
under the aegis of Athenian supremacy, Pericles turned his 
attention to the great task of beautifying the Acropolis 
with those monuments of architecture and sculpture that 
in their pristine glory were the crown of the ancient citadel, 
and that even in their ruin are the admiration of the world. 

While it is true that the effect of the political life of the 
Athenian democracy upon the later history of the world 
has been temporary and unimportant, it is equally true that 
the monuments of the Golden Age of Athens, as well in 
letters as in art, have created models which have powerfully 
shaped and inspired all forms of artistic excellence among 
the cultivated peoples of later times. The conditions for 


the attainment of this supreme excellence in Athens were 
then most favorable. Not to mention the innate love of 
beauty characteristic especially of the Athenian Greek, we 
must bear in mind that the Athenian enjoyed every oppor- 
tunity of education and of freedom to express his personality. 
Just at this time too the nation was at the height of material 
prosperity, and the national enthusiasm in consequence of 
successful resistance against the Persian invasion and of 
triumphant achievement of leadership among the Greek States 
was in full tide. A rich and unbroken development in art 
had been in progress for more than a century. As it was 
said later of Augustus that he transformed Rome from a city 
of brick into one of marble, so one might say of Pericles 
that he transformed the Acropolis from a fortress built of 
lime-stone to a sanctuary of worship whose shrines and 
temples were constructed of white marble. 

His coadjutor in this work was Phidias, the Michael Angelo 
of Greek Art, who was then approaching the zenith of his 
fame. If Phidias, when he decorated the Parthenon, had not 
yet fashioned his great statue of Olympian Zeus for the 
temple in Elis, as some believe, he had already created 
the bronze Athena Promachos on the Acropolis. The chief 
architect was Ictinus, who had already distinguished himself 
by the building of the great temples of Demeter at Eleusis 
and of Apollo at Bassae, and whom Varro counts among the 
most famous architects of Greece. With him was associated 
Callicrates, the builder of the southern of the two long walls 
connecting Athens with the Peiraeus and Munychia. The 
traditional connection of Phidias with Pericles as a sort of 
minister of public works has recently been doubted (75). 
Ictinus, whose name is often mentioned alone in connection 
with the Parthenon, probably designed the temple, and Calli- 
crates may have been the tnaster builder. 


The erection of the Periclean Parthenon appears to have 
been inspired by three motives. The first was a desire 


to carry into complete execution the earlier purpose of 
Clisthenes and his associates and to rebuild the great temple 
in honor of the patron-goddess of the state that had been 
burnt by the barbarians. A second motive for building the 
new Parthenon is found in the desire to provide a suitable 
treasure-house for storing the treasures of the goddess, and 
also, in the opinion of some scholars, the moneys contributed 
by the allied states of the Delian confederacy at the head 
of which stood Athens. The transfer of the treasury of the 
confederacy from Delos to Athens made about 454 and the 
change in the administration of the finances which occurred 
in 454/3 may be related to the building of the Parthenon, 
a point to which we must return later. A third motive was 
furnished by the desire to glorify the celebration of the great 
Panathenaic festival which, as we shall see later, was portrayed 
on the frieze of the temple, and as reminders of which 
many sacred objects were guarded within. The year of the 
dedication of the Parthenon is generally held to be 438/7, 
at the time of the celebration of the Panathenaic festival. 
But the date of its beginning is still in dispute. If with 
Michaelis we place the beginning of the building in close 
connection with the newly organized administration of the 
funds of the Delian confederacy (453) we should allow about 
fifteen years for completing the structure. The condition of 
affairs at Athens, however, at that time was hardly favorable 
to such an undertaking, for this was the period marked by 
the defeat of the Athenians in Egypt, and the expedition of 
Pericles to the Corinthian gulf, and these are the years marked 
by the effort of Pericles to extend the sway of Athens 
against the opposition of Sparta and her allies. The funds 
of the Delian confederacy could not then be diverted to 
the building of new temples. But the armistice with the 
Peloponnesians in 450 and the so-called peace of Callias with 
the Persians in 448 changed this situation. With the year 
448 begins the period when a surplus in the treasury arises, 
and the tribute hitherto applied to military purposes becomes 
available for building. We hold therefore with most writers 
(76) that the beginning of the new Parthenon is more 
correctly dated in 447. This date Bruno Keil believed was 
confirmed by the papyrus fragment known as the Anonymus 


Argentinensis. From a study of this document Keil gained 
the information that new plans for rebuilding the structure 
on the Acropolis had been formed by Pericles as early as 457. 
But a critical study (77) of the papyrus fragment has recently 
shown that it is drawn from a commentary on one of the 
speeches of Demosthenes, and that the results of Keil's study 
so far as they pertain at least to the history of the Acropolis 
are of too doubtful value to be accepted as historic evidence. 
It is to be inferred, however, from Plutarch {Pericl. 17) that 
Pericles had formulated some general plan to rebuild the 
temples on the Acropolis, which he desired to lay before a 
Congress of Greek states that was to consider affairs of general 
interest. Just when this proposed Congress was to convene 
is not known. The probability is that the proposal was made 
soon after 457. As Plutarch tells us, it never did assemble. 
While the date of this proposed Congress is not definitely 
known, it does not seem probable that it could have been 
proposed earlier than about 457, but it may have been several 
years later. 

An interesting confirmation of the opinion that a general 
plan for rebuilding the structures on the Acropolis was in 
existence before the Periclean Parthenon was begun, is found 
in a recently discovered inscription (78) recording an official 
decree to erect an altar and temple to Athena Nike, which 
epigraphists say cannot be later than 450 and may be a few 
years earlier (see p. 189 below). 

That there was some opposition to the lavish expenditure 
of funds by Pericles on the building of these structures is 
clearly to be inferred from what Plutarch says in his life of 
Pericles (Chap. 12 and 14), from which it appears that this 
action of Pericles became a matter of political discussion, being 
regarded by his opponents as an unwarranted diversion of 
the funds of the Delian confederacy. But the prosperous 
state of the finances gave to Pericles and Phidias the desired 
means to consummate their design of transforming the whole 
Acropolis into a sacred precinct of Athena (79). That the 
projects of Pericles were sanctioned by the people may well 
be believed, and their enthusiasm may be the foundation of 
the anecdote told by Plutarch that when some one demurred 
to the large outlay for a particular piece of work, and 



Pericles proposed to defray the expense himself from his own 
resources, the people were unwilling that the glory of the 
offering should be appropriated by him, and so, in the words 
of Plutarch {Pericles, 13), "the works grew, all-surpassing in 
their magnitude, inimitable in their beauty and grace. . . . 
Those structures, any one of which alone would have required, 
one might suppose, the work of many successive generations, 
were all finished in the prime of one man's administration. . . . 
Ease and speed of execution seldom tend to give a work 
lasting importance or exquisite beauty ; while, on the other 
hand, the time expended in the creation of a work is more 
than repaid in the endurance of the work done. And so 
we have even greater reason to wonder that the structures 
reared by Pericles should have been built in so short a time 
and yet have been built for ages ; for though each of them 
when completed was already ancient in its beauty, yet now, 
though they are old, are they still fresh and new as in their 
pristine glory. Time has left no stain upon them, a kind 
of newness sheds its bloom around them, preserving them 
untarnished by the ages, as if they were possessed of a spirit 
that can never fade and a soul that never grows old." 

The new Parthenon arose, as we have seen, upon the 
massively built foundations of the earlier temple. Aside 
from the economic reasons for rearing the new temple upon 
these earlier foundations the architect must have recognized 
the singularly advantageous location for this structure from 
what may be called the aesthetic point of view. For this 
was the highest part of the entire plateau, and a building 
located here would give the beholder as he entered the sacred 
precinct from the Propylaea at a single glance the best possible 
view. This angular view of the Parthenon, to the right of 
one in passing through the great portal, revealing at once its 
entire mass and outline, betrays a remarkably well conceived 
plan. Dr. Penrose calls attention to the remarkable absence 
of parallelism in the location of the several buildings on the 
Acropolis, and observes that this lack of exact symmetry is 
productive of great beauty and exquisite variety of light 
and shade. 

Upon the substructure prepared as already described (of. 
pp. 80-92), was laid the marble stylobate. The entire 


structure from the steps of the stylobate to the cornice of the 
pediment was built of marble brought from the neighboring 
quarries of Mt. Pentelicus, with the exception of the wooden 
rafters and beams that probably entered into the structure 
of the roof and ceiling. These quarries lie about seven miles 
to the northeast of Athens, and are still yielding a large 
amount of beautiful building material. This marble has 
smaller crystals and finer grains than the Parian, and is 
slightly tinged with a faint cream colored tint, due to the 
presence of iron, which becomes deeper after long exposure 
to the air and may account for the yellow and brown tints 
that give a rich color to the patina of the marble as seen 
to-day. There are, however, some archaeologists who hold 
that this patina is due to a sizing or skin of calcareous 
matter which was applied to all the marble surfaces of the 
Parthenon. To this point we return later. 

The plan of the Parthenon is that of a peristyle 
amphiprostyle temple of the Doric order ; that is to say, 
it had a portico of six columns at each end, and in addition 
a colonnade which surrounded the whole building with eight 
columns at the front and back and seventeen at the sides, 
counting the corner columns twice. The three marble steps, 
ranging in height from 0.52 to 0.55 metres (the two lowest 
1.69, the highest 1.8 1 feet), served as the base of the 
superstructure. From the highest step, the stylobate proper, 
rise the columns of the peristyle. Entrance into the temple 
was gained by means of a series of smaller steps, probably 
half the height and width of the three steps that form the 
entire stylobate. Their existence is still indicated by the 
weather marks left on the face of the large steps. The 
length of the temple measured on the stylobate is 69.54 m. 
(228 ft. 2 in.) and the width 30.869 m. (loi ft. 4 in.), which 
is 225 Attic feet in length and 100 Attic feet in width. This 
makes, as has already been observed, a temple much wider 
and shorter in plan than was the Parthenon of the earlier 
design. The well-proportioned columns are 10.43 rnetres 
(34.22 ft.) high, and have a diameter at the base of 1.90 m. 
(6.23 ft). The four corner columns are a trifle heavier. The 
intercolumniation is about 2.4 metres (7.87 ft.) and is the 
same at the ends as at the sides, but is less at the corners. 



The colonnade (pteron) is at the ends 4.84 m. (15 ft) at the 
sides 4.26 m. (13 ft. 11 in.) in width, and supports a coffered 

ceiling. The columns have twenty flutings, hollowed out as 
much at the top as at the bottom in order to produce as much 
shadow as possible at the top, where the effect of strength is 
desirable in close juxta-position with the strongly assertive 


capital and the epistyle. This peculiarity of the column is 
said to be found nowhere else in Athenian temples. Attention 
may be called also to the remarkably vigorous and graceful 
curve of the echinus of the capital. The shaft of the columns 
has a diminution or tapering of about one twenty-fifth of its 
height, and the columns are so placed as to incline inward 
toward the cella. This inclination is especially noticeable 
at the flanks and amounts to about seven centimetres in 
the whole height of the column (or about 1/250 part of the 
height). The corner columns are more inclined than the rest. 
This peculiarity was first observed by Donaldson and is dis- 
cussed by him in Stuart's Antiquities (iv. p. 11). The reasons 
for this inclination can best be given in the words of Dr. 
Penrose, found in his great work on the Principles of Athenian 
Architecture (p. 105). After remarking that a pilaster built 
with parallel sides generally appears broader at the top than 
at the bottom, and that the diminution of a column if it be 
but slight is unnoticed except by a practised eye, he says : 
" We may derive from this last consideration the necessity of 
the second adjustment, viz. : the inclination of the axes of the 
columns. For since some portion at least of the effect of 
diminution is neutralized and rendered so to speak latent in 
overcoming the disposition to imagine an excess of breadth 
in the upper part of the shaft, the upper diameter of the 
column appears larger than it really is, whilst nothing [else] 
prevents the upper intercolumniations which are greater than 
those below from producing their full effect. If the axes 
of the columns are [were] perpendicular the distance from 
centre to centre between the columns will [would] seem to 
be greater on the architrave than in the stylobate, an effect 
which will [would] become cumulative toward the angles of 
the portico, and the columns will [would] have the appearance 
of a fan-like divergence from the base line, unless this upper 
distance be diminished. The simplest manner of effecting 
this is by contracting the distance between the capitals of 
the extreme columniations, which contraction induces the 
inclination inwards of the angle columns and of the entire 
colonnade, both of the fronts and the flanks." — To this view 
Durm, the German architect, does not subscribe. In his 
Baukunst der Griechen (2'^ Aufl. p. 95) he denies that the 



inclination of the axes of the columns is to be accounted 
for by optical or constructive reasons, believing that in this 
adjustment the Greeks followed an old Egyptian principle 
of construction, which in this reduced application of it seems 
to have very little meaning. 

Fig. 48. — South Colonnade of Parthenon, showing inclination of Axes of the Columns. 

Another refinement employed in the architecture of the 
Parthenon is the entasis of the column, that is, the well- 
known increment or swelling given to the outline of the 
column in the middle of the shaft for the purpose of cor- 
recting a disagreeable optical illusion which tends to give 
an attenuated appearance to columns formed with perfectly 
straight sides, and to cause their outlines to seem concave. 
The entasis, by means of which this is obviated, gives to 


the profile of the column a delicate convex curve extending 
from the base to the neck. According to the measurements 
of Penrose the maximum entasis in the shaft of the columns 
of the Parthenon is .057 and is seen at the height of about 
two-fifths of the column. By doubling this amount Penrose 
gets for the entasis on opposite sides of the column a maxi- 
mum departure from a straight-lined shaft of about 1/55 of 
the lower diameter. By this refinement not only was an 
appearance of contraction and weakness in the central parts 
of the shaft avoided, but also the monotony of perfectly 
straight lines. 

Attention has been called above (p. 92) to the curvature 
of the lines of the foundations of the earlier Parthenon. This 
refinement was not neglected by the builders of the younger 
temple, the rise of the line of the stylobate at the ends of the 
building being in the ratio of i : 1000, at the sides of 2 : 3000, 
or nearly 3 inches at the middle of the ends and a little 
more than four inches at the middle of each side. It cannot 
be doubted that this curvature of the horizontal lines was 
intended to correct an optical illusion, by which a long hori- 
zontal straight line, with a number of vertical lines resting 
upon it, appears to the eye to sink in the middle and to 
rise towards the ends. These curved lines are not entirely 
regular, but sufficiently so as to preclude the idea that they 
were accidental. It does not, however, follow that they were 
laid out with mathematical calculation. A trained eye and 
hand and a feeling for perfection of form would suffice to 
guide the architect. This departure from the hard mathe- 
matical lines of plumb and level shows itself also in the other 
parts of the building. The architects who have studied the 
details of the construction of the Parthenon call attention to 
the fact that there is not a straight line of any great length 
nor a single vertical surface exactly plumb in the entire 
building. The cella wall batters inward as do also the 
architrave and triglyph frieze, while the cornice and the 
antefix lean forward. A similar departure from a straight 
line is seen in the lines of the oblique cornices of the 
gables which are gently deflected towards the corners so as 
to be concave, thus producing an effect of rest and quiet. 
These delicate deviations from hard and fast mathematical 



lines, often hardly noticeable even to the trained eye, produce 
in their totality an impression of elasticity and rhythm which 
every beholder feels as he looks with admiration upon this 
structure so full of life and grace. The secret of nature which 
knows no rigid mathematical lines has been overheard by 
Phidias and Ictinus and applied in the gentle curves of the 
lines of the architecture. The columns of the Parthenon are 
placed on the joints of two slabs of the stylobate and consist 
in most instances of twelve frusta or drums of unequal height. 

Fig. 49. — North Side of Parthenon, showing Curvature of Horizonial Lines. 

Since the line of the stylobate described a gentle convex curve, 
as we have seen, the architect had to adjust the columns to 
this line. The exactness with which this curve had to be 
calculated and the allowances that had to be made for it can 
best be observed by an examination of the corner columns. 
These stood upon a bed that sloped both ways, and the lowest 
drums had to make the adjustment to the stylobate. The 
bottom of the columns, that is the under surface of the lowest 
drum, was not let down into the stylobate nor in any way 
united with it but stood free upon it. Now to make the 
correction or adjustment with the slope of the stylobate 



the lowest drum was not cut with its upper and lower sur- 
faces parallel, but with a variation of nearly two inches in 
thickness between the inner and outer side of the column. 
This gives an inward inclination to the column. The topmost 
drum was cut in the same way, except that its faces are made 
to incline outward and its upward level which joins to the 
capital lies plumb. The axis of the column rises in a line 
perpendicular to the upper face of the lowest drum, and 
this axis is maintained throughout in the adjustment of all 

Fig. 50. — Drum of Colunin of Parthenon. 

the drums which lie with their faces parallel to it. To this 
wonderful perfection of proportion and remarkable beauty of 
outline were added the greatest precision and delicacy 
of mechanical workmanship. From the unfinished drums of 
the older Parthenon that lie to the south of the temple, and 
from the fallen columns of the Periclean temple we can see 
the means by which this extraordinary perfection was attained. 
The process of fashioning these perfect columns appears to 
have been as follows : The drums were first cut in rude form 
in the quarry. Then the levels or faces were carefully cut 
and smoothed down. For more convenient handling four 


bosses, ears they were called by the Greeks, were left on 
opposite sides for the application of ropes and levers. The 
joint surfaces were carefully prepared before the drums were 
placed together to form the column. Each drum has at the 
centre of its face a square hole surrounded by a round and 
smoothly worked surface, which in turn is inclosed in a zone 
roughly hewn. All the rest of the face of the drum is 
smoothly worked and carefully dressed. The square holes 
were intended to receive wooden dowels or plugs. So per- 
fectly air-tight were the joints that in some cases the wooden 
plug that fitted into this hole has been preserved, as may 
be seen from examples preserved in the Acropolis Museum. 
This wooden plug had inserted in its middle a cylindrical 
peg which projected so as to fit into a corresponding hole 
in the adjoining drum. This peg probably served the purpose 
of exact adjustment when the drums were placed in position 
to erect the column. The solid construction of the shaft from 
separate drums was effected by revolving each drum upon the 
next below it around the peg set into the wooden plug. The 
roughly dressed and depressed zone around the square hole 
that held the plug would receive any superfluous marble 
dust that was rubbed off in the process of finally adjusting 
the drums to form the shaft. The weight of the column 
was borne on a broad zone all round the edges of the drum, 
the rest of the surface being slightly sunk. It was doubtless 
found to be easier to secure a perfectly fine bed-joint by this 
means than if the column had been constructed of drums 
whose surfaces bore on one another throughout. Thus a 
remarkable fineness of joints was secured, the line of the 
joint being so fine as to be scarcely perceptible to the 
eye. The channels or flutes of the column were cut only 
for a short distance upon the highest and lowest drums 
to give fixed points for guiding the curved line which formed 
the entasis of the column. Only when the column was built 
up completely was the fluting with entasis of the shaft finished. 
On the Acropolis, lying in front of the modern museum, may 
be seen several bottom drums, belonging to the columns of 
the older Parthenon, with the flutings worked on their lower 
portion only. The topmost part of each column includes 
not only the top of the shaft but also the echinus and abacus 



of the capital. The Doric capital attained its highest beauty 
in the colunins of the Parthenon. The vigorous and graceful 
line of the echinus merits especial attention. It is drawn out 
from the neck of the column with a bold almost straight 
upward stroke until it comes nearly under the edge of the 
abacus, when it turns in a sharp yet graceful curve under 
the edge of the rectangular member. A band of four delicate 

Fk;. 51. — Cafjitals of the South Colonnade of Parthenon. 

annulets decorates the base of the capital. In the erection 
of the column precaution against chipping was taken and 
effected by cutting the flutings only after the entire shaft 
was up. By this means the perfect joints were unharmed. 
The only exception was in the case of the top joint, which 
always appears distinctly as a dark line round the finished 
column. This results from the fact that the edge of the 
fluting of the top blocks, which had to be finished before 
it was put in place, is bevelled away and the real joint 



begins a little distance from the edge. In this way, again, 
the delicate edge of the fluting was preserved from chipping. 
Upon the outer columns lay the beams of the epistyle, 
slightly inclined inward. Since the quarries of Mt. Pentelicus 
did not then yield blocks of marble sufficiently large to fur- 
nish beams of the requisite dimensions to form the architrave, 

Fig. 52. —Section of Parthenon, showing Constnicliun of Epistyle. Restoration. 

this member was made up of three pieces placed edgeways 
side by side. But the effect, except when seen from below, 
was that of a simple block stretching from column to column. 
On its upper edge the architrave is crowned with a coping 
or band, which was decorated with a meander design, and 
from which the regulae depended, suggestive of the triglyphs 
immediately above. As in all Doric temples, the frieze of 
triglyphs and metopes forms the next architectural member. 


The blocks on which the triglyphs were carved were set above 
the architrave on the outside. Over the corresponding inner 
block of the architrave was a row of plain slabs decorated at 
the top with a curved moulding or cymatium, which still shows 
in many places the traces of a painted pattern of the meander 
type. On these inner slabs rested the marble beams that 
supported the panelled ceiling of the peristyle. The triglyphs, 
which were of exactly the same height as the architrave, 
fifteen on each front and thirty-three on each flank, enclose 
the metopes, the thin slabs of which were dropped from above 
into the grooves cut on either side of the blocks of the 
triglyphs. The metopes offered available space for sculptural 
adornment. The character of this sculpture will be discussed 
later. Here we note simply that it was in high relief, for 
which a suitable framework was furnished by the projecting 
mouldings above and below. Horizontal slabs lay immediately 
above the blocks of the triglyphon projecting externally to 
form the geison or cornice. This member, which is cut under 
to a depth of 1 1 centimetres, with its downward projecting 
surface technically called the soffit, served as a protection to 
the underlying parts, more particularly the sculpture of the 
metopes. The soffit is adorned with square and flat projec- 
tions, the so-called mutules, on each of which are eighteen 
guttae hanging down vertically. The mutules correspond with 
the alternating triglyphs and metopes. By this means the 
weight of the projecting part of the cornice is somewhat 
diminished, and the setting back of the rain-water prevented. 
The cornice was crowned at the upper edge by a small 
moulding. From this horizontal cornice, sometimes called the 
corona, rises the oblique cornice which encloses the triangular 
field of the pediment. This cornice consists of plain blocks 
bordered by a Lesbian cyma. In no other point is the delicate 
and refined taste of the architect so clearly displayed as in 
the use and combination of the various forms of mouldings 
with which he adorned the surfaces of the Parthenon. Says 
Penrose : " The perfection of these both in design and execu- 
tion, occupying as they do an intermediate place between the 
decorated sculptures of the frieze and the pediment and the 
simple lines of the architecture, produces on the mind a 
feeling of richness so admirably chastened as not to inter- 


fere with their reserved beauty and almost severe majesty." 
In most Attic-Doric buildings there is no gutter at the 
sides. In the Parthenon the sima or cornice turned at the 
corners of the gable and ended abruptly in lion heads, which 
served as ornamental water-spouts. The triangular space 
enclosed by the cornices was faced with marble slabs to 

Fig. 53. — Northwest Corner of Epistyle of Parthenon. Restoration. 

form a background to the pediment. The gable of the Par- 
thenon rises very nearly in the ratio of 6 to 25. The 
height of the gable including the cornice is given by Penrose 
as 12.64 feet above the level of the horizontal cornice. The 
dimensions of the tympanum, that is the field or background 
of the gable, are as follows: length 28.35 ^- (93 ft. i in.), 
height 3.46 m. (11 ft. 5 in.), depth 0.91 m. (2 ft. 11 in.). 
It leaned slightly forward. The field of the gable thus 
enclosed offered an ideal place for the display of groups of 

A.A. I 



sculpture. These we shall discuss later on. That it was 
the original intention of the builders to adorn the pediments 
with statuary is shown by the presence of pieces of iron 
bars and clamps fastened in the marble blocks of the gable 
and intended to support and hold in place the larger pieces 
of sculpture. Upon the apex of the gable stood on a marble 
basis a large carved ornament in the form of an anthemion, 
an akroterion as it is technically known, while the corners 

Fig. 54. — Head of Lion on Cornice of J'artlicnon. 

were embellished probably with golden or bronze jars or 
tripods. The roof construction of the Parthenon cannot be 
definitely determined in every detail, since few remains of 
ancient Greek temples show any sure indications of the original 
roof structure, and there is therefore every reason to believe 
that its material was largely of a perishable nature. There 
is every reason to believe that the roof was borne by 
wooden beams and rafters on which rested the marble tiles. 
The opinion held by some that these tiles were of Parian 
rather than Pentelic marble, because the superior trans- 



parency of the former would aid in the h'ghting of the 
interior, does not commend itself, when we reflect that the 
tiles must have been laid upon the wooden framework of 
the roof, and that the cella of the temple must have had 
some kind of a ceiling. Botticher accepts a wooden 
ceiling for the cella and the rear chamber (" parthenon "), 
but marble for the halls which opened upon the peristyle, 
while Michaelis holds that the rear chamber also had 
a marble ceiling, which was borne by the four Ionic columns 

Fig. 55. — Restored Construction of Tile Roof of Parthenon. (Penrose.) 

whose position can still be verified, an opinion which Dorp- 
feld regards as untenable. The marble tiles were of two 
kinds, viz. large flat tiles ridged at the edges (crwX/>e?), and 
small saddle-tiles (KaXu—rrjpeg) which were placed on the 
joints of the former (80). A coping covered the ridge of 
the roof The saddle tiles did not extend at the sides clear 
to the eaves, but stopped short, leaving room for a decorative 
ornament in the form of a row of antefixes, which produced 
the effect of finials to the rows of tiles. 

The real temple, the naos, is surrounded by the colonnade 
as by a crown. The naos rises 0.70 m. (2 ft. 3 in.) above 
the stylobate, rests upon two steps and has a portico at 
each end formed by six Doric columns of somewhat smaller 



dimensions than those of the peristyle. The dimensions of 
the temple proper are 21.76 m. (71 ft. 4 in.) in width and 
59.09 m. (193 ft. 9 in.) in length. The side walls, which have 
a thickness of 1.17 m. (3 ft. 10 in.), end in antae. The walls 
are built of blocks of marble in alternate courses of runners 
and binders. The lowest course consists of a double row 
of huge blocks twice the length and more than double the 

Fig. 56.— Construct!. .n of Entablature of Parihenon. (Penrose.) 

height of the regular blocks, placed edgewise and known as 
orthostatae. In building the wall no mortar or cement was 
used, but the blocks of marble were carefully fitted together 
and bound fast by means of iron clamps of this shape (-4 
leaded into the marble, while the blocks were held from 
slipping upon one another by means of small iron dowels 
fitted into mortices and secured by lead. A continuous 
architrave lies upon the four walls, which is marked off at 
the upper edge by a moulding from which regulae and guttae 



depend (like those which are found below the triglyphon) at 
the ends, but not, as Dorpfeld has pointed out, at the sides 

Fig. 57 — Frieze, Ceiling of Peristyle of Parthenon. Restoration. 



Fig. 57 a. — Meander and Cymatia Decoration above Frieze of Cella. (Penrose.) 

of the building. Instead of the Doric frieze of triglyph and 
metope the cella wall has an Ionic frieze of relief sculpture 



(^(jocf)6po9) girdling it about as with a band of beauty for 
nearly i6o metres (525 ft.)- Above the frieze, whose sculp- 
tural ornamentation will be discussed below, runs a Lesbian 
cyma and above this a tenia, ending in an ovolo moulding. 
In the accompanying cut (Fig. 57^) the design of the pattern 

Fig. 58. — Frieze of the West Peristyle of the Parthenon, as seen to-day 

cut upon the three divisions of the entire moulding is indicated, 
and according to Penrose is undoubted. When Dodwell saw 
the Parthenon the colors of the design had not entirely 
vanished away ; at any rate he saw traces enough to lead 
him to think that they were blue, red, and yellow. The 
six inner columns at the front and rear stood on a pavement 
two steps higher than the stylobate and supported an entabla- 
ture similar in construction to that over the external columns, 



except that in place of a frieze of metopes and triglyphs the 
Ionic frieze of the walls of the cella was carried over on 
the entablature. Large beams of marble, supported by the 
entablature of the outer row of columns and by the cella 
walls, carried the marble casket ceiling of the peristyle. This 
ceiling was made up of large slabs of marble into which 
was cut a double row of richly decorated panels (KoXv/uLfiara, 
lacutiarid). Externally these coffers have been cut so as to 
diminish the weight of the slab. To judge from the dimen- 
sions of the coffers probably twenty-four were cut into each 

Fig. 59. — Ceiling in different parts of the Parthenon, showing the three Styles 
of Panels (Lactenaria). (Drawn by Penrose.) 

slab. From the accompanying cuts we get some idea of the 
style and decoration of these panels. We recognize in Fig. 59 
three different styles of these slabs ; those showing the largest 
panels extend in unbroken series over the long sides of the 
peristyle. At the east and west ends, on the contrary, the 
ceiling is divided by seven beams (SokoI) into six fields with 
six panels in each. In a similar way seven smaller beams 
divide the ceiling of the pronaos and of the opisthodomos 
into eight fields with ten smaller panels. For Figure 60, 
which represents a panel taken from the ceiling of the southern 
peristyle, the decorations are partly inferred, especially the 
flowering star in the centre, which is drawn after a similar 
ornament in a preserved panel from the ceiling of the 



Propylaea, where this pattern is in gold upon a deep blue 
background enclosed in a frame of gold, red, and green bands. 

Fig. 6o. — Restored Panel of Ceiling of South Peristyle of Parthenon. (Penrose.) 

But to the subject of painted decorations we must return later, 
after we have concluded our account of the structure itself and 
its uses. 

Let us now turn to a study of the interior of the temple. 
Like Greek temples in general, the Parthenon was divided 
into three parts, pronaos or vestibule, opisthodomos or back 
chamber, and cella, or sanctuary proper. But the Parthenon 
had this peculiarity, that its cella was divided, as may be 
seen from the figure on p. 115, into two parts, the large 
eastern part in which the image of the divinity was placed 
and the smaller western part which was originally called 
Parthenon, the name by which later the whole building was 
designated. The east and west porticoes are exactly similar 
in their arrangement. An anta on each side projects from 
the cella wall (1.54 m., 5.03 ft). 

The antae end the walls of the cella ; these, however, do 
not extend to the line of the colonnade and so make a closed 
portico at the sides, but they stop short at a distance of almost 
an intercolumniation of the colonnade. The purpose of this 
arrangement was doubtless to make this part of the structure 
seem as light and airy as possible, especially in view of the 
fact that these porticoes were quite shallow. The inter- 
columniations were closed by means of iron or bronze trellises^ 


which rested upon low marble thresholds or plinths and went 
clear up to the capitals of the columns. The places in which 
they were fastened above are still to be seen. Let us enter 
the vestibule of the temple. We gain access to this apartment 
by means of a door, also of metal lattice work, in the centre 
intercolumniation. The space within is filled with votive 
offerings, sacred utensils, chiefly made of silver, to judge from 
the inventories preserved in the inscriptions. From these 
it is evident that in the last years of the Peloponnesian 
war many of the objects of v^alue in the Parthenon were 
borrowed by the State to defray the expenditures of the 
war, never to be returned to the goddess. This procedure 
can clearly be traced in the inscriptions pertaining to the 
pronaos, which end with 406/5 B.C. The number of valuable 
objects stored in the pronaos seems to have been greatest 
about 414 B.C. Among these the following may be singled 
out for special mention : a gold basin for sprinkling ; a 
golden wreath ; a silver bowl ; 1 64 flat saucer-like vessels 
of silver; 11 beakers; 3 drinking horns; 2 lamps; and 14 
other vessels of silver. From the pronaos we enter the 
cella through what was once a door of enormous dimen- 
sions. At the time when the Parthenon was converted 
into a church a half-round apse was built into it and this 
part of the original structure was wholly changed. But from 
the corresponding door of the rear chamber opening from the 
western portico it is judged to have been about 10 metres 
(32 ft. 9 in.) high; its width was 4.92 m. (16 ft. 2 in.). It 
had jambs, possibly of bronze, and a transom bar which served 
to support a metal screen or grille above the door. The flaps 
or wings of the door were ornamented with bosses and evil- 
averting symbols, such as the gorgon-head, and lion's or ram's 
heads. Behind this great double door was a second one of 
lattice work, probably of bronze, in two valves which were 
swung back on rollers, the channels of which in the pavement 
are still to be seen. The western portico had similar doors 
and trellises and jambs and transoms. It is to observed that 
the marble slabs in the jambs of the door leading from the 
western portico into the cella are not original, but were placed 
there probably in the Byzantine period. The great cella 
which we enter from the pronaos was 19.19 m. (62 ft. 


1 1 in.) wide and 29.89 m. (98 ft. 10 in.) long, inside measure- 
ments. This length is exactly 100 younger Attic feet, but 
the name " Hecatompedos naos," " Hundred-foot temple," is 
probably due not to the inside length of the cella but to the 
length that includes the two partition walls, which then becomes 
32.84 m. and is equivalent to 100 older Attic feet. This 
designation of the cella was applied sometimes to the entire 
structure. The name Parthenon as applied to the entire temple 
was of later origin, as we shall see further on. In passing 
it may be repeated that the title " Hecatompedon " was borne 
officially by the old Athena temple to which, as we believe, 
the Parthenon was the successor. The height of the cella 
cannot be exactly determined. A height of about 14 metres 
(about 46 ft.) from the floor to the ceiling would satisfy the 
other dimensions. The ceiling of the eastern cella was 
panelled and constructed of wood. The cella was divided 
longitudinally into a nave and two aisles by two rows of 
Doric columns, having a lower diameter of i.i i m. (3 ft. 7 in.) 
and 16 flutes. The nave is outlined by its pavement, which 
is a little lower than that of the aisles. Each colonnade 
started with an anta from the eastern wall and consisted of 
nine columns and probably an anta with two sides, while three 
columns with the other side of the double anta formed the 
enclosure of the nave at the western end. The traces of 
the position of these columns may still be seen outlined 
upon the pavement, but care should be taken not to confound 
them with similar traces of columns of a later period which 
stood nearly in the same places, and which were erected in 
the Byzantine period to support galleries when the Parthenon 
was converted into a Christian church. Professor Dorpfeld 
has clearly shown how the interior of the cella was arranged, 
drawing his inferences in part from the similarly constructed 
temple of Zeus at Olympia, and from certain architectural 
features of the building which are too technical to be discussed 
in this book. In passing through the great door that opens 
from the pronaos into the cella we enter the front part of 
the nave and see before us a railing which encloses the space 
in which stood the great gold and ivory statue of Athena. By 
passing through the side aisles one could see from every point 
of view the statue which was guarded on all sides by the 


railing. The base supporting the statue, which was itself 
about six times Hfe size, must have measured at least four 
by eight metres. The spot occupied by the base of the 
statue is still clearly marked by a quadrangular space paved 
with a dark colored lime-stone (see Fig. 47, p. 115). The hole 
in the pavement, about a foot deep, was intended to hold 
the core or prop which supported the statue of wood covered 
with ivory and gold. 

Whether there was a skylight or opening above the statue 
or anywhere else in the ceiling and roof of the temple, and 
whether there was any other way of lighting the interior 
of the Parthenon except through the open door at the east 
end is a mooted question. Michaelis (81), Botticher and 
Penrose hold that the Parthenon was hypaethral, that is to 
say, had an opening in the roof for letting in the light, but 
Dorpfeld and others are inclined to believe that the only 
means of lighting the interior was through the large open 
door, whose dimensions give an area of about fifty square 
metres, supplemented by the lamps that always burned before 
the shrine of the Greek temple. 

A modified form of the hypaethral is shown in some 
modern models of the reconstructed Parthenon, in which 
there is what is called a clerestory arrangement, by which 
light is introduced into the interior through lateral transoms 
in the roof (82). 

The eastern chamber of the cella was separated from the 
western by a solid wall which had no doors, as has been 
conclusively shown by Dorpfeld (83). The two doorways on 
the north and south sides of the cella, indicated in some of the 
older plans of the Parthenon, were introduced in the Byzantine 
period with the conversion of the temple into a church. 

The columns in the interior of the cella were too slender 
to reach clear to the ceiling. Hence it is generally held 
that there must have been a second row of columns on top 
of the lower row to support the ceiling. But that this second 
row was not intended to form a gallery or second story, 
as Michaelis and others have supposed and as is represented 
in many drawings of the interior, is shown by the fact that 
in such a case the lower columns must have had a complete 
entablature, for the existence of which no evidence can be 


found (84). It must be admitted, however, that no theory on 
this question can be maintained with any degree of certainty 
so long as there is so little evidence to support it. 

Passing now to the western front of the temple, we enter 
the portico which corresponds to the pronaos and is, according 
to common usage in designating the different parts of a 
Greek temple, called the opisthodomos (posticum), which 
means the rear chamber. Entrance from this portico into 
the adjoining chamber, which is the rear part of the cella, 
was by means of a large door corresponding to the large door 
from the pronaos into the eastern chamber of the cella. This 
western or rear chamber was called by way of distinction the 
Parthenon (o TrapQevwv). It had, of course, the width of the 
cella, and a depth of 13.37 rn. (43 ft. 10 in.). Its ceiling, 
which was doubtless panelled and which some archaeologists 
believe to have been of marble, was borne by four columns, 
probably of the Ionic order. Its walls were worked so as 
to present a smooth and highly polished surface. The traces 
of painting seen upon the walls date from the time when 
the temple was changed into a Christian church. To what 
use was this chamber dedicated ? To answer this question, 
we need to look first at the meaning of the term parthenon 
which was originally applied to this apartment alone. This 
term means the maidens chamber, and in the Greek house 
designates that part of the women's apartments which was 
most carefully shut off from the rest of the house, and in 
which it was customary to keep precious heirlooms and posses- 
sions. Thus the lance of Pelops is kept in the parthenon 
of Iphigenia (Eur. Iph. Taur. 826). Dorpfeld (85) suggests 
that the name came from the maidens (-TrapOevoi) charged 
with the duty of weaving the sacred peplos of Athena. But 
this is pure conjecture. Korte, with more reason, connects the 
name with the title given to Athena as the IlapOevos, the 
maiden goddess, although this title was not given to the cult 
image until a later period. " And," he goes on to say, 
" as in the Trapdei/wueg of dwellings precious heirlooms and 
other valuable objects were wont to be stored for safety, 
so the most secure and least accessible chamber of this 
temple, which contained the treasures of the goddess, was 
named the apartment of the maiden, i.e. parthenon." When 



the new temple in honor of the virgin goddess was built it 
seemed very proper to set apart this west or rear chamber, 
in distinction from the east cella in which the goddess herself 
dwelt, as the place where her sacred treasures should especially 
be guarded. In the official lists drawn up by the treasurers, 
which begin in 434 B.C., the name Parthenon seems to be 
applied to this chamber. The name seems to be transferred 

5# -\^A 


--^ '-± 



Fig. 61. — Interior of the Walls and of the J)u..iiway of the Rear Chamljur of Parthenon. 

to the entire building first in the time of Demosthenes 
(xxii. 13). Whatever be the true origin of the name, that 
this apartment was primarily intended as a store-room for 
sacred objects and votive offerings belonging to the goddess 
seems most probable. That it was, however, used as a place 
for guarding moneys, and as the office of the treasurers of 
Athena (86) or of the Delian confederacy, is denied by Dorpfeld 
and his followers. In Appendix III. this question is more 
fully discussed. Here let it suffice to state briefly our view 
on the use of the term opisthodomos : ( i ) From the fact that 


the term opisthodomos does not occur in the treasure lists 
until after the completion of the Parthenon it is naturally- 
inferred that wherever this term is found some part of this 
building must be intended. (2) The western portico, the 
opisthodomos in the original and restricted sense of the term, 
seems too limited and unprotected a locality to serve the 
purpose of a treasury (the view of Frazer, see App. III.) for 
the safe keeping and administration of the funds of the 
goddess and the surplus funds of the state deposited with 
the treasurers of Athena. Hence there is strong probability 
that in the treasure lists for a certain period opisthodomos 
and Parthenon meant identically the same locality. That 
these terms were used indiscriminately, or rather that the 
term parthenon included at one time the locality called the 
opisthodomos, is particularly shown in the treasury docu- 
ments of the fifth century, in which the rubric opisthodomos 
does not occur, all the objects and treasures, whether in the 
parthenon chamber or in the opisthodomos being listed under 
the one term parthenon. In the documents of the next 
century there arose a necessity for indicating in the inventory 
the particular locality in which treasures were stored, and 
when some of them were transferred to the hecatompedos, 
i.e. the cella of the Parthenon, the terms opisthodomos and 
parthenon were used officially to make more clear and definite 
the various localities in which these treasures were kept. In 
addition we have the testimony of an inscription {C.I.A. i. 
184) that moneys were kept in the parthenon chamber, for 
here the statement is made that a sum of money loaned in 
412 to the state by the treasurers of Athena was paid {eK 
TOO irapOevo)vo<i) from the parthenon, i.e. from the treasury 
in the parthenon. (3) It seems easy and natural to transfer 
the name opisthodomos to this west chamber, which was so 
closely connected with the western portico, to which this 
name more properly belonged, especially so after the name 
Parthenon came to be applied to the entire building. In 
the time of Plutarch the term opisthodomos must have 
included the western cella {i.e. the parthenon), since he tells 
us in his life of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Chap. 23) that Stratocles 
assigned to Demetrius the opisthodomos of the Parthenon as 
a dwelling. It seems improbable that the western portico 


alone would suffice for such a purpose. This rear chamber 
of the Parthenon we believe to be referred to in the Plutus 
( I 1 9 1 ) of Aristophanes, where reference is made to the return 
of the state funds to their old home. 

"Just wait a minute, for straightway we'll establish 
Plutus in his old place, the Opisthodomos, 
Forever safely guarding for the goddess." 

From the inventories antedating the time of Euclides 
(404 B.C.), and also from those of later date, it is apparent 
that this chamber, i.e. the parthenon in the limited sense, 
was the storehouse also of a variety of sacred objects, such 
as weapons, articles of furniture, and ornaments dedicated as 
votive offerings. Among those having special value may be 
mentioned one large golden crown and five smaller ones, 
and more than 170 golden and silver vessels, especially the 
(pidXai. In addition may be mentioned nearly 100 shields, 
16 coats of mail, and 20 swords, upwards of 50 chairs and 
stools, and several instruments of music. 

Whether the funds of the Delian confederacy administered 
by the Hellanotamiai were kept in the Parthenon, and 
a justification was found in this fact for having expended 
the funds of the league upon the building of this temple, is 
not certain. As we have already seen, one motive for the 
erection of the Periclean Parthenon was to provide a suitable 
treasury for the state, but this does not necessarily mean 
that the moneys contributed by the allied states of the Delian 
confederacy were to be guarded in the same building with 
those belonging to the patron goddess of the state. Several 
scholars hold that the treasure of the confederacy was adminis- 
tered by the Hellanotamiai in some locality in the lower city. 
The writers who mention the transference of the treasure from 
Delos only say that it was brought to Athens, not that it 
was stored in the Acropolis. 

Closely connected with the question of the use of the 
Parthenon as a state treasury is the other question, whether 
it was a cult temple and the name Polias was ever applied 
to it. On this question critics have been divided into three 
classes: (i) those who hold with Dorpfeld that the Parthenon 
was a cult temple and was sometimes called the temple of 


Athena PoHas ; (2) those who hold with C. Botticher (87) 
that the temple was neither a cult temple nor called by the 
name of Polias, but simply a treasury and a votive offering 
to Athena in connection with the Panathenaic festival ; (3) 
those who believe that it was a cult temple, but that the 
name Polias was never properly applied to it. Reserving a 
fuller discussion of this difficult question for Appendix III., 
we state here the conclusions at which we have arrived. 

As regards the first question, whether the Parthenon was 
a cult temple, and by consequence its statue a cult image, 
a renewed examination of the evidence points to an affirma- 
tive answer. The main points of this evidence are briefly 
these: (l) The frequent reference to the Parthenon as the 
temple of Athena (88), (in one instance it being named t'eoo? 
KUT e^o^j/i/, i.e. the temple par excellence, in another 'AOijvu^ 
lepov, i.e. the sanctuary of Athena) favors the view that the 
Parthenon was something more than a mere treasure house 
and memorial to the goddess. (2) The fact that the ancient 
writers nowhere state or even imply that the Parthenon had 
no rites of worship performed within it. It is stated by 
Zosimus (iv. 18) that in 375 A.D. Nestorius placed by the 
side of the Parthenos image a statue in honor of Achilles, 
and paid to the goddess the customary rites of worship, 
This rather late testimony may point to a well-established 
tradition. (3) The religious significance of the Panathenaic 
festival and the interpretation of the frieze which represents 
it point to rites of worship within the temple. No inter- 
pretation of the so-called Peplos scene on the slab of the 
frieze just above the eastern entrance (see below, p. 166) seems 
satisfactory unless it includes some reference to a religious 
ceremony, and this too whether we take this scene as 
symbolizing the offering of a robe to Athena Polias, or as 
the folding up or handing over of an official priestly robe. 

Michaelis, while apparently subscribing to the theory of 
Botticher mentioned above, hesitates to accept all its con- 
sequences. He says in substance that to regard the Parthenos 
statue as being without significance except in its relation to the 
Panathenaic festival is an unwarranted conclusion. But the 
only significance he would attach to it is that of represent- 
ing the Athena Polias, who is to be regarded as the judge 


who awards prizes, which is the closing act of a religious 
festival. (4) The mention of a golden bowl for sprinkling 
as one of the objects kept in the pronaos and a silver basin 
for lustral water in the cella, both left unweighed and therefore 
presumably belonging originally to the sanctuary, seems to 
indicate that sacred utensils for worship were kept in the 
Parthenon. This to be sure is only an inferential proof that 
rites of worship were practised there. (5) Another inference 
may be drawn from the fact that it was not an unusual 
thing for the Greeks to worship the same divinity under the 
form of separate images. By the side of the old temple a 
new and grander one might be erected and the crude image 
of early days might be supplemented — not superseded — by 
a new one of a new type, the old cult, however, remaining 
the same. Thus in the present case Polias and Parthenos, 
the venerable wooden image kept in the Erechtheum, or, 
according to Dorpfeld, in the old Athena temple, and the 
gold and ivory statue in the Parthenon, both were sacred to 
Athena and represented the divinity in complete form, the 
old type supplemented by the new, worshipped on the holy 
hill, the sanctuary of Athena (to rtj? 'AOrjvcxg lepov), which, 
as Strabo puts it, contained two temples, the ancient temple 
of the Polias (o re dp-^aiog vew? r^? lloXiaSo^), i.e., as we believe, 
the Erechtheum, and the Parthenon (koi 6 ILapdevwv). 

That the title Polias was not applied to the Parthenon 
until a late period and then erroneously, is the opinion held by 
Frazer in his discussion on the pre-Persian temple (Paus. ii. 
p. 570) and more recently by Dr. A. S. Cooley in an article 
entitled, " Athena Polias on the Acropolis of Athens," published 
in the American Journal of Archaeology (vol. iii. second series, 
p. 345). For further discussion of this question the reader 
is referred to Appendix III. The conclusion at which we 
arrive is, that the Parthenon was erected to succeed the old 
Hecatompedon — the old pre-Persian temple discovered by 
Dorpfeld — and like that was intended to serve both as a 
treasure-house and as a sanctuary of Athena. The literary 
evidence that the Parthenon was ever called the temple of 
Athena Polias is of so late a date as hardly to be trusted, 
but it may reflect a tradition. For this designation of the 
great temple is after all not an unlikely one in view of the 

A.A. K 


fact that Athena as the patron goddess of the state is always 
and everywhere the Polias, and so all her shrines and 
temples might occasionally bear this epithet. If this be 
true, then it becomes doubtful if any one temple ever bore 
this epithet by way of distinction from all the rest. 

To return to the east cella, which was the main part 

Fig. 62. — Lenormant Statuette of Athena Panhenos 

of the temple, we find that it contained, besides the great 
chryselephantine statue of Athena, a number of votive offerings 
and treasures which are mentioned in the inventories. Among 
these were a gold statuette of a young maiden ; a silver 
censer ; seventeen crowns of gold ; a golden bead ornament ; 
eight silver bowls ((piaXai) ; an incense altar in the form of 
a candelabrum and a silver bowl for lustral water ; a 
wreath of gold of which it is said, " that which Nike holds " 


(o ri 'NtKf] e)(ei). This must be the crown of the Victory 
which Athena Parthenos holds upon her hand. But the 
object of chief interest in the east cella was, of course, 
the famous gold and ivory statue of Athena, fashioned by 
the skill of Phidias. It belongs rather to a history of Greek 
art than to the purpose of this treatise to give a detailed 
description of this statue. For such a description we may 
refer the reader to Professor Ernest Gardner's Handbook 
of Greek Sculpture, pp. 254 ff., and his Ancient Athens, 
pp. 343 ff. Let us, however, try to get some general 
impression of its characteristic features. In this effort we 
gain some assistance from copies and representations and 
from accounts of Pausanias, Pliny and other writers (89). 
Of the copies the most important are an unfinished statuette 
which was found in Athens, generally known as the Lenormant 
statuette, and a larger and better preserved figure, called 
from the place of its discovery in Athens, the Varvakeion 
statuette. The former supplements the latter by showing 
the reliefs on the shield and the base. The reliefs on the 
shield represent a battle, possibly with the Amazons, but 
those on the base are too rough and unfinished to make it 
certain that they represent, as we should expect, the birth 
of Pandora. A marble shield found at Athens, called the 
Strangford shield and preserved in the British Museum, has 
carved on the outside in relief a battle between the Greeks 
and Amazons. A comparison with the reliefs on the Lenor- 
mant statuette proves that the Strangford shield is a more 
complete copy of the shield of the statue made by Phidias. 
In the centre is the head of the Gorgon. Immediately 
below the Gorgon's head are the two figures which Plutarch 
{^Pericles, 31) describes as portraits of Pericles and Phidias. 
Pericles is represented as fighting an Amazon, the hand which 
grasped the spear being so raised in front of his face as partly 
to conceal it, while Phidias is the old bald-headed man swinging 
with both hands a heavy double axe to smite his foe. But in 
the shield of the Lenormant statuette the figure of Phidias 
is shown raising aloft a stone, as described by Plutarch. 
It was for representing these portraits in the relief that 
Phidias, according to Plutarch's doubtful story, was charged 
with sacrilege. On the inside of the shield were wrought 



the battles of the Giants, but whether these were painted or 
chiselled is not certain. Within the shield coiled the snake 
Erichthonios. The best idea of the head and helmet of 
the goddess is to be gained from a gold medallion found 
in 1830 near Kertch and now in the Hermitage Museum 
of St Petersburg. This medallion represents in relief the 

Fig. 63. —The Strangford Shield. 

head of Athena Parthenos wearing a helmet with triple crest, 
supported by a sphinx in the middle and two winged horses 
at the sides. On the cheek-pieces, which are raised, griffins are 
represented in relief Above the brow of the goddess is a row 
of animal heads, apparently of griffins and of deer alternating, 
projecting over the rim of the helmet. A necklace and ear- 
rings form a part of this lavish ornament. The features, like 
those of the Varvakeion statuette, are massive, heavy and dull. 

So far as mere externals go, it is believed that this 
medallion presents us with a tolerably faithful copy of the 



head of the original statue. The complete figure of the 
statue is doubtless best given by the Varvakeion copy. The 
goddess is represented standing upright, resting on the right 
foot, the left foot being slightly drawn back. Her features 
are full and matronly, but somewhat heavy and lifeless. On 
her head she wears a helmet with three crests. The central 
and highest crest is supported by a sphinx ; each of the 
other crests rests upon a winged horse. The cheek-pieces 

Fig. 64. — Medallion with Relief of Head of Athena Parthenos. (Hermitage.) 

of the helmet are raised and are left plain. The goddess 
is clad in a long double tunic which partly conceals her 
feet. The tunic is sleeveless, the bare arms being encircled 
at the wrists by bracelets in the form of serpents. A scaly 
aegis covers the breast of the goddess ; on the front of it 
is the Gorgon's head. In her right hand the goddess supports 
an image of Victory with drooping wings and turned partly 
towards her. The hand which holds the Victory is supported 
on a pillar. Whether this pillar was in the original is a 
matter of dispute. Gardner is probably correct in saying 
that it is practically certain that the pillar did not exist in 


the original design of Phidias, but was added at a later time 
when some damage or defect in the complicated mechanism 
of the chryselephantine statue required an external support 
of the hand on which the Nike stands. As additional 
arguments against the view that this pillar was part of the 
original design Waldstein (90) calls attention to two points, 
first that it does not seem probable that in a statue which 
was decorated with reliefs or paintings wherever there was 
a bare space (even the soles of the sandals had on their v 
edges reliefs of a battle between Greeks and Centaurs), a 
pillar, which in the original must have been at least 1 2 or 
I 5 ft. high, should have been left wholly bare and unadorned ; 
and secondly, that the pillar in question is of a late Roman 
type and not Greek. To complete the description of the 
Varvakeion statuette, we must mention the shield which is set 
upright on its edge at her left side, with her left hand resting 
upon it, and has carved on its outer side the Gorgon's head 
in the middle of the shield. Between the shield and the 
goddess is coiled the serpent with head erect and protruding 
from the rim of the shield. The statue retains numerous 
traces of color, which doubtless points to the application of 
color in the original. The Varvakeion statuette is commonly 
regarded as a late Roman copy, and differs from the description 
of the ancient writers in lacking the spear, the griffins on 
the helmet, the reliefs on the shield and on the sandals, and 
also that on the pedestal which represented the birth of 
Pandora in the presence of the gods. The statue of the 
Parthenos is known to have been in existence as late as 
430 A.D. (see p. 306 below), but not long after this date, 
when the Parthenon was converted into a Christian church, 
the image was removed and disappeared. 

Now that the original is lost, no copy can give us an 
adequate idea of the beauty and splendor of the original. 
Its height, including the pedestal, was 26 cubits, the gold 
used in constructing the statue and its attributes could, 
we are told, all be removed, and weighed from 40 to 50 
talents according to various ancient authorities. The pupils 
of the eyes were probably of precious stones. "It was evidently 
the wish of the artist," says Professor Gardner, " in giving 
his great statue this richness of decoration, not merely to 

Pi.ATK \ 1. \'akvakkii).\ .-^ I a r l kite of Athena Pakthenos. Facing p. 146. 


produce an effect suitable to the size and material of his 
subject, but also to associate the goddess in this her most 
perfect representation with all the greatest events, human 
and divine, in which she had taken part, and especially 
to ascribe to her all the victories of Athens over barbarian 
foes, all her magnificent attainments in the arts of peace ; 
to summarize, in fact, in the accessories of the statue all on 
which Athens, in the fifth century, most prided herself, just 
as the statue itself embodied the patron goddess who was the 
life and inspiration of the city." The dedication of the 
Parthenon, as the abode of Athena, took place in 438, 
when this statue, one of the most magnificent offerings ever 
dedicated to a pagan divinity, was consecrated at the great 
Panathenaic festival. The structure, however, was not entirely 
completed. From the famous inscription {C.I. A. i. 32), dated 
435 B.C., which directs that the moneys of Athena should 
be stored on the right-hand side, and those of the other gods 
on the left-hand side of the opisthodomos, it appears that the 
Parthenon was not used for a treasury until about three years 
later. From an inscription (91) dated in 433/2 which records 
the fact that the superintendents of the work were still in 
office, it appears that all the decorative details were not finished 
until some five years after the dedication of the temple. 

The abundance of the sculptural decorations, some of which 
were apparently still unfinished in 438, is at once recognized 
when we are confronted with the fact that upon this temple 
there were no less than forty-four statues to ornament the 
gables, ninety-two sculptured metopes, and a frieze around 
the cella 523 feet (159.42 m.) in length, and more than 
three feet in width, covered with sculpture in relief 

Let us briefly describe in the order named above each 
of these three forms of sculptural decorations. First the 
pediment groups. From Pausanias (i. 24, 5) we know 
that the subject of the composition in the east pediment 
had relation to the birth of Athena, who, according to the 
legend, sprang forth from the brain of Zeus, fully armed. 
When Carrey drew the Parthenon sculptures in 1674 the 
central group of this pediment had already disappeared, 
having been destroyed probably in the changes required to 
convert the Parthenon into a church. We have therefore 



no direct information in regard to the treatment of this 
subject, But the probability is great that the restoration 
of this group is to be made in harmony with a rehef on 
a well-head, now at Madrid, which represents Zeus seated 
on a throne, grasping the thunderbolt in his right hand 
and looking towards Athena, who stands armed before him 
and is about to be crowned by a Victory holding a wreath 
in her hand. Behind the throne of Zeus is Hephaestus, 
who has cleft the skull of Zeus with his axe, and starts 
back in astonishment. On the right of the composition 
are the three Fates. While no direct connection with this 
relief can be inferred from the figures of the Parthenon 
pediment still extant, some such composition as this seems 
more in harmony with the dignity of Athena as goddess 

Fig. 65.— Birth of Athena. On Well-head at Madrid. 

of the temple than the scheme which occurs on vases and 
Etruscan mirrors, in which Athena is portrayed as a tiny 
figure or doll hovering over the head of Zeus. This conclusion 
is confirmed by the recent examination of the wall and 
floor of the gable by Bruno Sauer (92), who, from the appear- 
ance of the surface of the marble, from dowel-holes and 
sockets for receiving or supporting pieces of statuary, and 
from the remains of clamps and bars and various traces 
of supports, has shown that the centre of the eastern gable 
was occupied by two large figures of equal importance. 

Wide differences of opinion prevail with regard to the 
interpretation of the extant pedimental figures, to discuss 
which is beyond our province. The figures in the angles 
are the only ones which appear to be well ascertained. On 
the left the sun-god Helios rises from the ocean driving 
his car, and on the right the moon-goddess Selene guiding 



her steeds and car sets beneath the horizon. These two 
figures may. be interpreted as marking the boundaries, either 
of Olympus or of the universe. Some 
have suggested that they indicate the 
period of the day, and that Hehos 
indicates the hour at which the birth 
took place, which, according to Attic 
tradition, was sunrise. 

An insight into the spirit of this 
sculptural composition comes to us 
from a literary source in Pindar's 
Olympian Ode (vii. 37) that is as 
poetic as it is true. And in the 
Homeric hymn to Athena we have 
descriptions of the event here por- 
trayed in sculpture, which may help 
to interpret its meaning. " What time 
by Hephaestus' handicraft beneath the 
bronze-wrought axe from the crown 
of her father's head Athena leapt to 
light, and cried aloud with an exceed- 
ing cry ; and Heaven trembled at her 
coming, and Earth, the Mother "... 
"Her 'did Zeus the counsellor himself 
beget from his holy head, all armed 
for war in shining golden mail, while 
in awe did the other Gods behold it. 
Quickly did the goddess leap from 
the immortal head, and stood before 
Zeus, shaking her sharp spear, and 
high Olympus trembled in dread 
beneath the strength of the grey-eyed 
Maiden, while Earth rang terribly 
around, and the sea was boiling with 
dark waves, and suddenly brake forth 
the foam. Yea, and the glorious 
son of Hyperion checked for long 
his swift steeds, till the maiden took from her immortal 
shoulders her divine armor, even Pallas Athena ; and Zeus 
the counsellor rejoiced." 

1 ■ ■= . 

>- ■ 

»1 i 




In accord with this description we cannot err in supposing 
that the scene in the centre must be the bond of attraction 
and union that unites all the figures into one harmonious 
composition. The figures towards the ends of the pediment 
are agitated by the shout of the new-born goddess and the 
clang of her armor, and naturally turn towards the centre 
to behold the wonderful event. The commotion raised among 
the spectators of the scene would naturally diminish from 
the centre towards the ends of the composition. 

Fig. 67. — " Theseus." 

An attempt to identify each one of the extant figures of 
the pediment now preserved in the British Museum, and 
included in the collection known as the Elgin Marbles, 
would be futile. As Frazer observes, " The field of con- 
jecture is boundless, and archaeologists have accordingly 
expatiated in it." Michaelis {Der Parthenon, p. 165) gives 
a table of the various interpretations held, to which those of 
the latest critics are to be added. 

As regards the general principles of interpretation the 
various theories may be divided into two classes. We may 
either hold that the space bounded by Helios and Selene 


represents Olympus, and that all the figures contained within 
this space are definite mythological personages who were 
present at the birth, or, as appears to us more probable, we 
may assume that all the divinities present were comprised 
in the central part of the pediment, and that the figures 
towards the angles belong to the world outside of Olympus, 
to whom the news is brought These figures may be imper- 
sonations of nature. Thus, according to Brunn and Waldstein 
the magnificent reclining male figure (Z?), popularly known 
as " Theseus," who faces the rising sun, represents Mount 
Olympus, which is here to be thought of as the home of 
the gods. 

Fig. 68.— "The Fates. 

In harmony with the same theory the two seated figures 
which come next are interpreted as the Horae who sat 
at the gates of Olympus as " doorkeepers to open and to 
close the solid cloud." Whether we call the next figure, 
which is apparently hastening towards the Horae, Iris or 
Hebe or Eileithyia, the goddess who presides at birth, we see 
in it a representation of some one who is hastening from 
Olympus to the outside world with a message of the divine 
birth. In the corresponding space at the other angle the 
three beautiful figures are by some supposed to be the Fates 
(unless we assign to these a place on the left side of the 
pediment, closer to the centre of the composition as is the 
case in the Madrid relief) by others Hestia and the Sea 
(Thalassa) reclining in the bosom of the Earth (Gaia), or 


personifications of the Clouds, or the daughters of Cecrops, 
who were mythic impersonations of the Dew. It belongs 
to the domain of sculpture rather than to our subject to 
characterize the unrivalled beauty and excellence of these 
statues. After all these centuries of exposure to weather 
and to the destroying hand of man, they still bear witness, 
mutilated and scarred though they are, to the devotion and 
skill which produced this wonderful perfection of outline 
and inimitable grace in sculpture, though it was destined 
to be placed far away from the possibility of close scrutiny 
and minute inspection at the height of more than forty feet 
above the ground. As the devout painters of the renaissance 
portrayed with loving care and utmost fidelity the features 
of saints and prophets in the obscure corners of dimly lighted 
chapels, so did the sculptors of the Parthenon chisel with 
infinite pains and true devotion the statues of their heroes 
and divinities, whose matchless beauty and faultless finish 
were seen only by the sun-god who bathed them in the 
rosy and purple hues that streamed upon them every morn- 
ing over the summits of Hymettus and Pentelicus. 

The west pediment has for its subject the contest 
between Athena and Poseidon for possession of Attica, or 
the rival claims of the tokens {a-rmeia) of these divinities 
respectively for pre-eminence. This contest, according to 
tradition, took place on the Acropolis itself. Poseidon strik- 
ing the ground with his trident produced a salt spring, or, 
according to another version, a horse, while Athena mani- 
fested her power by causing an olive tree to spring forth 
from the soil. The victory was awarded to Athena, Cecrops 
acting as judge, in the presence of a tribunal of the gods or 
of local heroes. When Carrey (93) made his drawings (1674) 
the group of this pediment was fairly well preserved. Besides 
the sketch of Carrey there are Athenian coins and a vase 
found at Kertch, now in St. Petersburg, which treat this 
composition and which may aid us in the restoration of this 
pediment. Unfortunately, even in the time of Carrey most 
of the hands and the attributes they contained were broken 
off, and we are thus deprived of an important source of 
information touching the interpretation of the statues (94). 
In Carrey's drawing twenty-two figures are shown. The 



destruction of the middle of the pediment was the work of 
the Venetian Morosini (1688), who tried to lower the horses 
of the chariot of Athena and the 
statue of Poseidon, which he in- 
tended to take »with him on his 
return to Venice. But the tackle 
he used broke, and this matchless 
group fell and was shattered into 
pieces (see p. 322 below). The 
chariot of Athena is known from 
Carrey's drawing, but the horses of 
Poseidon had disappeared before that 
time. The heads, however, have 
been found on the Acropolis (95). 

Between the time of Morosini 
and the middle of the eighteenth 
century, when Dalton drew the 
west pediment, the work of de- 
struction had gone much further, so 
that less of the sculptures of the 
west pediment has been pre- 
served than of the eastern. Of the 
entire number of figures, originally 
not less than twenty, not counting 
the horses and chariots, only four 
have been preserved with any degree 
of completeness, three of which 
(Michaelis, PI. 7, 8, B, C and W) 
are still in situ, the first two in 
the left, the last in the right angle 
of the pediment. The remarkably 
beautiful figure marked A and 
usually regarded as a river-god, 
the Cephissus, which occupied the 
extreme left angle of the gable, 
is in the British Museum. 

Besides this statue there remain 
numerous fragments and broken torsos, the larger part of 
which are kept in the British Museum, the remainder in the 
Museum on the Acropolis. In this connection mention should 


be made of the fact that no heads have been preserved 
among the figures of either of the pediments with two 
exceptions. First, of course, is the magnificent " Olympus " 
or " Theseus " statue of the east pediment, and secondly, 
the so-called De Laborde head (cf Gardner's Ancient Athens, 

Fig. 70. — iJc Laborde Head. 

p. 320) which in its style is clearly related to the statues 
of the pediments. It shows the same simplicity and nobility 
of form that characterize the pediment sculptures, but to 
which figure of the western pediment it belonged it is 
impossible to say. To assign it to the Nike who drives 
the car of Athena has been suggested, but the expression 
of the face seems too sedate and matronly to belong to a 



It has been intimated above that there is some difference 
of opinion as regards the interpretation of the whole composi- 
tion of this pediment. The statement of Pausanias that this 
pediment represented the strife between Poseidon and Athena 
for the land seems clear and direct. But the question arises 
at what stage is this contest here presented ; is it completed 
or still in progress ? While it is generally admitted that 
the olive and the salt spring were the tokens by which the 
possession of the land was to be determined, and that these 
tokens were shown in the pediment, it is a matter of dispute 
whether what was represented in the pediment was the creat- 
ing of the tokens themselves, the actual contest, or the moment 

Fig. 71. — Vase Painting, representing Contest of Athena and Poseidon. 

succeeding the contest, the tokens having been produced and 
the contest decided. Our interpretation of the whole scene 
must necessarily be controlled by our choice of these two 
rival opinions (96). Without arguing the question, which 
would take us too far out of our way, the weight of proba- 
bility seems to be in favor of the view that the scene before 
us is one of conflict in progress. The situation is well stated 
by Furtwangler, who says {Masterpieces, p. 457): "On the 
rock of the Citadel the two gods have met together, both have 
taken possession, each by a token of power, — Athena by the 
Olive, Poseidon by the Salt Spring, which was indicated on 
the right, extending as far as his chariot, under which Carrey 
saw a dolphin as a symbol of the salt water. The arrival 
of the two deities on the same spot, their collision with each 


other, both making the same claims — this and nothing else 
was represented in the clearest and most striking wise. Like 
two balls that collide, the two recoil from each other, while 
the intersection of their legs makes it clear that they are 
laying claim to the same spot. The movement is essentially 
the same in the two, but Poseidon, according to his nature, is 
wilder, more violent in bearing, Athena more dignified." This 
interpretation is favored especially by an analogous representa- 
tion found on a vase from Kertch now in the Hermitage 
Museum of St. Petersburg. The analogy does not hold in 
all points, but is especially strong in the figure of the Athena 
and in the grouping of the two rival divinities on either side of 
the olive tree. As regards the designation of the subordinate 
figures on either side of the central group two general theories 
are held : they are either a series of minor divinities or heroes, 
or else a series of local personifications which serve to indicate 
the place where the event took place. But, as Gardner re- 
marks, " these two views are not mutually exclusive ; it is 
possible for a deity or a hero to represent his chosen haunt 
or place of worship." 

An enumeration of the statues that adorned the pediments 
of the Parthenon and an attempt at a reconstruction of these 
wonderful compositions in sculpture, would bear somewhat the 
same relation to the beauty and grace of the originals as do the 
words of the vocabulary to an Ode of Pindar or of Sophocles. 
What these compositions must have been in their original 
splendor and grace can still be inferred from the torsos and 
fragments found in the Museums of Athens and London, 
and from the scanty remains on the Parthenon The so-called 
" Theseus " or " Olj'mpus " and the three draped female figures 
from the east pediment, the so-called "Cephissus" from the end 
of the west pediment, and the head of the horse of the chariot 
of Selene show a technical mastery in the rendering of the 
surface, together with a nobility of conception and a grace 
of form that have never been equalled in the history of art. 
And this same artistic sense that is shown in the beauty 
of the individual statues shows itself also in the grace and 
harmony of the composition as a whole. 

The arrangement of the composition departs from the strict 
and somewhat hard symmetry of the earlier pediments, such 


as those of Aegina and Olympia. While there are manifest 
correspondences between the figures on either side of the 
pediment, these figures themselves break up into groups which 
vary the monotony, while the movement in each pediment 
16 towards the centre of the composition where lies the climax. 
This climacteric movement goes on in a succession of undula- 
tions, now rising, now falling, but ever growing higher and more 
intense. All the difficulties inherent in pedimental composi- 
tion are handled with extraordinary skill, as Gardner remarks. 
The alternation of kneeling and standing figures in the west 
pediment is so appropriate that its necessity is not observed, 
while the difference of size between the figures in the middle 
and those at the ends is so clearly dealt with that it partly 
adds to the effect, partly escapes notice. In the east pediment 
the well-known convention of Greek relief called isocephaly, 
by which the heads of seated figures are represented as about 
on a level with those of the standing figures next to them, 
was applied to make the change almost imperceptible from 
standing to seated figures and to give variety to the composi- 
tion. When we add to all this beauty of form and grace 
of outline and harmony of arrangement, the decoration of 
varied and harmonious coloring, we can in some measure, 
though not by any means adequately, bring before our 
imagination the splendid lustre of all those gods and heroes, 
bathed in the brilliant light of an Athenian sky. 

The next series of decorative sculpture to be discussed are 
the metopes. Set in between the triglyphs of the later Doric 
frieze, the metopes were originally ninety-two in number, thirty- 
two on each of the long sides and fourteen at each end. 
Many of these are now lost, having been utterly destroyed 
in the great explosion of 1687. Those on the south side 
were fortunately drawn by Carrey. Forty-one still remain 
on the temple, but are for the most part so much shattered 
and decayed that it is difficult to make them out. Fifteen 
of the original metopes are in the British Museum, and one 
is in the Louvre. These sixteen are all from the south side 
of the temple and portray the contest between the Centaurs 
and Lapiths at the marriage feast of Peirithoos. On the same 
side but in the middle there were other metopes which had 
different subjects, not surely interpreted. Similarly on the 

A. A. L 



north side a variety of scenes seems to have been represented, 
so far as one can judge from the fragments extant and from 
the drawings. These metopes at the ends are believed to 
refer to the sack of Troy, while those in the middle may have 
contained scenes from the centauromachy, if we can rely 
on drawings that show centaurs and that are supposed to 
pertain to the north side of the temple. There is more 
certainty as regards the metopes on the western and on the 

Fig. 72. — Southwest Corner of the Entablature of Parthenon, showing a Metope. 

eastern fronts, the former representing the battle of the Greeks 
and the Amazons, the latter the contest of the Gods and 
the Giants, Gardner calls attention to the fact that in the 
distribution of the subjects on the different sides of the temple 
there is evidence of artistic invention. The scenes of the 
centauromachy, which are full of vigor and show great origin- 
ality of composition and bold contrasts of the human-equine 
forms, are placed not on the fronts below the pediments, where 
they would have diverted the eye from the more important 
groups above them, but on the south side, which was the most 
conspicuous from below and was probably to be seen from 
a distance and as a whole by itself. This same artistic feelings 



Gardner thinks, led the architect to place these bold and 
vigorous designs at the ends of the south side, separated 
by a set of more sedate and restful compositions in the middle, 
by which means the centaur metopes gained their full effect 
in contrast with the massive architectural frame in which they 
were set ; and this contrast would be strongest at the ends, 
where the structural features of the building are most 

The sculpture of the metopes is in the highest relief 
attainable in marble, large portions of some of the figures 

Fig. 73. -Metope, No. 310. 

being cut in the round so as to stand out quite free from the 
background. All critics have remarked upon the remarkable 
inequality of style and execution in the sculptures of these 
metopes. This had led some to believe that they were not 
even in design the work of a single artist. No one believes 
that they were executed by one sculptor. The artists seem 
to have been given a free hand and to have belonged to a 
school which paid much attention to athletic subjects, as is 
shown by the care and delight taken in rendering the details 
of the male torso and by the want of skill shown in the 
treatment of the female figure, and in most instances of the 
drapery. As a specimen of the best of these sculptures we 


re-produce metope No. 3 1 o. The Lapith and the Centaur 
advance from opposite sides, the Lapith trying to seize his 
enemy by the throat, who rears up to meet him. The right 
arm of the Lapith is drawn back as if about to strike, while 
a mantle fastened on his right shoulder falls over the left 
arm and flies back behind. From the shoulders of the Centaur 
hangs a small cloak ; its flying folds show the violence of 
the action. The arrangement of the group, with its finely 
balanced action and the masterly modelling, makes this one 
of the finest of all the metopes. 

The Ionic frieze of the Parthenon next claims our attention. 
It is a continuous band of sculpture in low relief which 
extended round the outer wall of the cella, with its two 
smaller halls in front and back. As in the case of all 
peripteral temples, the temple proper, i.e. the naos or, cella, 
was surrounded by a colonnade which supported the roof 
and afforded shady walks varying in width from about nine to 
eleven feet. The plain wall of the cella which was decorated 
with the frieze was bounded above by a slightly projecting 
band or moulding, under which at the east and west ends 
were the small blocks called regulae, from which guttae 
depended, such as are usually found in connection with the 
triglyph frieze of the Doric order. But the fact that these 
are wanting on the north and south sides, a point to which, 
so far as we know, Dorpfeld first called attention, and 
in which the drawings of Michaelis need to be corrected, 
suggests the enquiry whether the architects changed their 
plan during the process of construction from a Doric to an 
Ionic frieze. The frieze is 11.9 m. (39 ft.) above the marble 
pavement of the colonnade and is itself surmounted by a 
rich moulding, consisting of a Doric cymatium adorned with 
hanging leaves of a complex pattern, and of a Lesbian 
cymatium decorated with heart-shaped leaves and darts (cf 
Fig. 17, PI. 2, Michaelis). The length of the frieze was 
159.42 m. (523 ft), of which 21.18 m. (69 ft. 6 in.) covered 
each of the walls of the front and back, while 58.53 m. 
(191 ft. II in.) decorated each longer side of the temple. 
The slabs of the frieze are about a metre (3 ft. 3^ in.) high. 
The height of the relief sculpture at the top is about 5^ 
centimetres {2\ in.), while at the bottom it is about \\ inches. 


The whole surface of the relief is thus slightly tilted over 
towards the spectator. The object of this will be discussed 
below. The frieze suffered greatly in the explosion of 1687, 
particularly about the middle of the two long sides. In the 
time of Carrey it was still nearly complete, but his drawings, 
unfortunately, do not include all that is lost. Stuart and 
Pars drew a considerable part of the frieze, but not much of 
what has since been entirely lost (97). About 410 feet of the 
frieze have survived, of which, however, only about 300 feet 

Fig. 74. — Portion of the West Frieze, in situ. 

are well enough preserved to admit of minute study. Of the 
1 6 original slabs of the west frieze, 1 3 are still in situ, the 
other two and a fragment of the third being in the British 
Museum. The Greek government has recently made it possible 
by the construction of a stairway and platform to view this 
part of the frieze close at hand. Much the largest part of 
the frieze (about 240 feet) is in the British Museum, where 
under a glass covering these precious relics of this masterful 
piece of sculpture are carefully guarded against further decay. 
The subject represented on this frieze is generally held 
to be the procession on the occasion of the great Panathenaic 


festival. It may aid us to understand the details of the 
frieze if we bring to mind the facts concerning this festival 
that have been handed down to us by ancient authors. The 
ancient festival of the Panathenaia takes its origin from 
Erichthonios, the foster-son of Athena to whom he dedicated 
the carved wooden image of Athena PoHas. The festival is 
said to have been renewed by Theseus when he united all 
the Attic demes into one community, and was at first cele- 
brated once a year in connection with the birthday of Athena, 
the 28th day of the Attic month Hecatombaion (about the 
1 2th of August). The festival was celebrated by a solemn 
sacrifice, equestrian and gymnastic contests, the Pyrrhic dance, 
and especially by the offering of a new robe, the peplos, to 
'the goddess. The peplos of Athena was a cloak, saffron and 
dark purple in color, with an embroidered border representing 
scenes from the battle of the gods and the giants. Pisistratus 
gave additional splendor and solemnity to this festival once 
every four years and created the distinction between the 
greater and the lesser Panathenaia. It is said that Hipparchus, 
the son of Pisistratus, instituted a literary contest at this 
festival in which rival rhapsodists recited the Homeric poems. 
The festival was made still more brilliant by Pericles, who 
introduced a musical contest. 

The climax of the festival was the great procession, which 
started at sunrise on the last day, the birthday of Athena, 
from the outer Ceramicus to convey the peplos to the temple 
of the goddess on the Acropolis. During its passage through 
the city the procession displayed the peplos on the mast 
and yard of a ship, which was drawn on rollers. At the 
steep ascent to the Propylaea, doubtless, the ship was left 
behind, and the peplos was taken from the ship and carried 
to the temple by chosen maidens. In this solemn ceremony 
the whole body of Athenian citizens was represented. 
Among those who are particularly mentioned in the inscrip- 
tions as taking part in the procession were the noble 
Athenian maidens, the so-called Kanephoroi, who bore baskets 
{kaned) with sacrificial implements and offerings ; the Diphoroi, 
bearers of stools {diphroi) ; the alien Skaphephoroi, whose 
function it was to carry trays (skaphae) containing cakes 
and other offerings ; the venerable Athenian citizens who 



from their carrying olive branches were called Thallophoroi. 
The maidens who prepared the peplos (the Ergastinai and 
the Arrephoroi) also took part in the procession (98). Mention 
is made also of envoys sent to represent Athenian colonies, 
who were in charge of the victims contributed to the sacrifice. 
Chariots and escort of Athenian cavalry and hoplites formed 
a brilliant part of the spectacle. Marshals and heralds 
ordered the procession, and priests conducted the sacrifices. 
In the composition of the frieze we find a general corre- 
spondence to the facts here enumerated. To be sure, no 

-Slab oi We^t Frieze of I'arti 

representation is found of all the features which are known 
to have formed part of the original ceremony ; as, for 
example, the ship on which the peplos was borne is not found 
on the frieze ; but, as others have observed, Phidias would 
naturally select for his composition such details from the actual 
procession as were most suitable for representation in sculpture 
in low relief, to be seen at a considerable height above 
the ground, and in the somewhat dim light ot the peristyle. 
Instead of representing a realistic reproduction of the pageant, 
his aim was to give his own artistic conception of it inspired 
by national pride and religious enthusiasm. The eye not only 
but the imagination also is appealed to. In this wonderful 


composition more than 350 human figures are modelled, 
and no two figures are alike, and of about 125 figures of 
horses every one is different from the other. In perhaps no 
other point is seen displayed the fine artistic sense of the 
designer of the sculptures of the Parthenon to so much 
advantage as in the arrangement of this composition. A 
sculptor of less artistic skill would, as Michaelis observes, 
have made the procession wind round the temple without 
beginning or end, like the bands of figures on the Greek 
vases of the old style. " But Phidias has with marvellous 
skill contrived to overcome the difficulties of perspective, and 
to give his procession a starting point and conclusion, and 
all the figures are carried along by the same movement." 

knights chariots . various . cows and sheep 






priest and priestess 




Icnights chariots • various . cows 

Vu.. 76. 

From the accompanying diagram (Fig. y6), the order of the 
procession can be seen at a glance. The procession starts 
at the southwest angle, one file marching to the right, the 
other to the left, until they meet in the middle of the east 
front, on either side of a group of divinities. The centre 
of the east gable was the central point at which the tie 
was to be placed that should fasten together the two con- 
verging bands. To avoid the impression of two distinct 
processions, Phidias had no corresponding starting point at 
the centre of the west side, but all the figures in the west frieze 
have a northerly direction as of one procession. Only once, 
near the south corner, one horse is portrayed as turned in 
the opposite direction, a hint at the movement in the south 
frieze which is towards the right. We notice also the skill 
shown in the placing of single upright figures at the corners. 


where they give an impression of repose and stability. The 
distribution of the scenes also shows remarkable sense of 
fitness and harmony. At the two ends of the temple we 
see groups separated by single figures and somewhat loosely 
joined, but on the long sides a repetition of groups would 
have wearied the eye, and accordingly we find here extended 
masses and long rows of figures like a flowing and uninter- 
rupted stream of life. 

Fig. 77. — Kast Frieze of Parthenon. Group of Divinities. 

Without going into a detailed description of the frieze, 
which more properly belongs to a history of Greek sculpture, 
a few words concerning the interpretation of the central scene 
on the east front may not be out of place. This scene has 
been the subject of much controversy, into whose details it 
would be impossible to enter. It is found portrayed on 
slabs numbered IV, V, VI, in Michaelis, dev Parthenon, PI. 14, 
of which the two former are to be found in the British 
Museum, the last in the museum on the Acropolis. The 
scene represents two groups of divinities, seven in each 
group (counting in Iris (No. 28) and Eros (No. 42) on 
each side), who, turned away from the central group that 
separates them, are evidently waiting and leisurely talking^ 


and looking to see what is approaching. The central group 
consists of five figures, who seem to be standing between 
the two groups of deities, but who, as A. S. Murray (99) has 
pointed out, are not to be regarded as being in one line with 
the gods but as in front of them. Their action is plainly of no 
interest to the divinities on either side. On the left two 
maidens have arrived, carrying on their heads cushioned stools, 
which a lady of commanding presence and in full drapery is 
about to receive from them. The next two figures represent a 
man in a long-sleeved tunic, who is occupied either in handing 
over a garment or robe to a boy who stands before him or in 
receiving it from him. That this action has to do with the 
peplos, the robe borne on the ship in the procession and 
woven for Athena, can hardly be doubted. But whether the 

Fig. 78. — East Frieze of Parthenon. Priest, Priestess, the Peplos Scene, Divinities. 

action is to be interpreted as indicating the folding up of the 
old cloak by the priest which is then given to the boy to carry 
off, or of receiving the new cloak which is handed over to the 
priest by the boy, cannot be determined with any certainty. 
In either case it represents some act of preparation, and should 
not be regarded as the culminating act of the festival. 

It remains to say a few words about the technique of this 
masterpiece of sculpture. We have already spoken of the 
remarkably low relief in which the frieze is executed. That 
this was chosen deliberately to take advantage of every 
variation of light and shade and to produce the best possible 
effect in the position it occupied is apparent to one who studies 
the situation. Upon this point Professor Ernest Gardner 
{Ancient Athens, p. 337) speaks with much insight. To quote 
his words : " The question of lighting is more complicated and 
evidently engaged the sculptor's careful attention. The light 
reflected from the white marble pavement below would be 


strong enough ; and the low relief was calculated to make the 
best of it. The relief is higher at the top than at the bottom — 
about two and one-fourth inches on an average, as compared 
with one and a half inches, and so the surface has a slight 
outward slope, and the lower outlines of the projecting masses 
are in every case deeper cut and steeper than the upper 
outlines, because they can depend on no shadows to assist 
their effect. One can easily realize the advantage of this 
process in many parts of the frieze where the upper outlines, 
now that they are lighted from above, are indistinct, while the 
lower ones are often too heavy." 

Gardner then goes on to say that by the skilful use of 
this low relief the sculptor represents without difficulty a 
four-horse chariot and knights riding in some places as 
many as seven abreast, and that this effect is not mainly 
produced by the drawing such as could be used on a flat 
surface, but by so arranging the series of figures that they are 
seen not from a position exactly perpendicular to the line of 
advance, but at a slight angle to the perpendicular, so that each 
figure slopes slightly in towards the background from front to 
back, and thus there is produced an illusion of depth beyond 
what is possible within the narrow limits of the relief. 

The exquisitely fine finish of this sculpture can only be 
appreciated in seeing the actual marbles. The minutest detail 
is not neglected. Flaxman points out how in the horses the 
hardness and decision of the bony parts can be distinguished 
from the elasticity of tendon and the softness of the flesh. 
As in the case of the pediments, the evidence of unity of 
conception and composition is patent to all. But in the 
execution there is more or less inequality in point of merit, 
though still a high general average of proficiency. We 
conclude our notice of the frieze with an extract from Dodwell, 
the English traveller, whose characterization of the frieze adds 
features not before mentioned. 

" Some of the figures are completely clothed from head 
to foot ; others have naked feet ; and others have boots of 
various kinds. Some have hats and helmets, and others are 
uncovered ; some are mounted on horseback and others are 
on foot. The whole procession appears as if it had been 
summoned to meet in the dead of the night, and every 


person had to put on those parts of his dress which happened 
to present themselves at the moment. But it is from this 
seeming confusion, this variety of attitudes, of dress and 
preparation, of precipitancy and care, of busy movement and 
more relaxed effort, that the composition derives so much 
of its effect. An animated reality is thus diffused throughout 
the subject, adding interest to every figure and epic grandeur 
to the whole." 

Gloriously beautiful as the Parthenon must have been 
with all this wealth of sculptural ornamentation, there was 
still one more means of decoration which added to its brilli- 
ancy and splendor, and that is polychromy (100). We have 
before this referred incidentally to the tinting and gilding 
of mouldings and various ornamental features of the Par- 
thenon, but this subject merits a little closer attention. 
Within the last two decades fresh evidence has come to us 
on this question from the excavations at Olympia and on 
the Acropolis at Athens, and from the discoveries at Delphi. 
This evidence points clearly to an extensive application of 
color to architecture and to sculpture. The museum on the 
Acropolis contains a large number of architectural fragments 
from buildings on the Acropolis that retain distinct traces 
of the original color, besides the series of female statues 
showing colored decoration, which have been described in 
the preceding chapter. Faint traces of color may still be 
seen on the inner side of the entablature of the west 
portico of the Parthenon. The most important point still 
in doubt is the application of color or tinting to the plain 
marble surfaces, such as those of the cornice, of the archi- 
trave, and of the columns. The question is whether the 
golden brownish tint now to be seen on these surfaces 
is the patina of the Pentelic marble, wholly due to the 
oxidation of the iron in the marble, or rather the discolora- 
tion of the original yellowish tint which was applied in a 
sizing upon the marble surface. Penrose and others believe 
that the plain marble surfaces were originally painted in flat 
color or tinted to tone down the glare of the new marble. 
This opinion is held by some American scholars who have 
recently experimented on the patina in various ways. By 
writing on it with a lead pencil, the surface is made tc> 


appear calendered ; by sponging the face of the marble the 
artificial origin of the stain became manifest ; and by attempt- 
ing a qualitative chemical analysis, the substance was shown 
to be probably a gypsum (101). To this view Dorpfeld (102) 
and Borrmann do not subscribe, holding that the custom of 
the ancient Greeks was to leave plain surfaces of marble 
buildings untinted in distinction from those built of poros, 
and also in contrast with other and more ornamental parts 
of the architecture which, even where their material was 
marble, were treated with color. All, however, are agreed 
that the architectural members that project from the plain 
surfaces, and those that are in profile, such as mouldings, 
cornices, triglyphs, mutules, soffits, and the capitals of antae, 
are as a rule colored, and so also those flat surfaces, like 
the tympana of the gables, that form the background of 

As regards the painted decorations of the Parthenon, we 
may particularize to some extent, though all the details are 
not certain, accepting in the main the results arrived at by 
Penrose and by Fenger. According to their view the taeniae 
and regulae were decorated with a painted fret and honey- 
suckle pattern. The color applied to these parts has 
disappeared (Fenger makes it red and blue with gilt orna- 
ment), but the marble surface under the ornament has been 
better preserved by the pigment than the adjacent parts 
not painted, and in some places the original outlines remain. 
The triglyphs were blue, the background of the metopes, 
filled with relief sculpture, may have been red (Fenger leaves 
them white), the relief sculpture itself being colored in part. 
Whether the moulding above the triglyphon was decorated 
is a matter of analogy and conjecture. The edges and 
soffits of the mutules were red. No trace of color was found 
on the guttae ; they were probably red. The soffit of the 
cornice between the mutules at the angles was adorned with 
figures of honeysuckles connected by scrolls. The hawks- 
beak moulding of the cornice was decorated with a pattern 
of very unusual occurrence in Greek Doric, bearing some 
resemblance to an Egyptian ornament. The soffit of the 
cornice was blue, but the scotia above it was red. The 
Doric cymatium had painted upon it a row of honeysuckles 


surrounded by an oval-shaped decoration. To these orna- 
ments correspond the rows of colored anthemia on the flanks 
which conceal the lower edges of the tiles. The mouldings 
along the cella wall immediately above the frieze show 
ornamental patterns, but the coloring is a matter of conjec- 
ture. According to Fenger the background of the tympanum 
and of the Ionic frieze was painted, in the case of the former 
a deep blue or possibly a red, in the case of the latter a 
blue. This part of the color scheme is, however, not based 
upon clear evidence. The annulets of the Doric capitals 
were colored red and blue. That the capital of the Doric 
antae required a painted decoration is generally believed, 
and Penrose speaks of considerable traces of color preserved 
on the capital of one of the antae. The separation or demar- 
cation of the colors was effected by means of white or gilded 
fillets. Especially rich also was the decoration of the panels 
or coffers of the ceiling of the peristyles. The scheme of 
this decoration is especially clear in some of the coffers 
that have been preserved of the ceiling of the Propylaea. 
The soffits of these are ornamented with stars and flowers 
in gold on a blue ground. A narrow band of bright green 
borders the soffits. In the panels of the Parthenon the 
pearl-bead moulding which conceals the joints was repeated, 
and enclosed a broader band which was adorned with a 
meander, and the ground of the panel was decorated with 
a rich palmetto ornament enclosing a star. Says M. Magne 
{Le Parthenon, p. 35): "Thus the architect knew how to 
make apparent the greatness of his work, by placing in 
contrast with the simple lines of column and architrave the 
delicacy and elegance of sculptured frieze enhanced \iY - 
painted decoration and by the richness of a ceiling, forming, 
as it were, a brilliant tapestry adorned with flowers and 
stars." As the Greeks did not divorce color from architec- 
ture, so also in the kindred art of sculpture the application 
of color was looked upon as an added element of beauty. 
In architectural friezes the whole relief was regarded as a 
band of color contrasting with the broader surfaces below 
and above. So the pediment sculptures stood out in their 
framework as an animated group of living persons. Just 
how far color was applied to the broad masses of the flesh 


and drapery is not wholly clear. Fenger, in his work on 
Doric Polychromy, may have gone too far in representing 
the figures in the frieze and in the metopes, if not also in 
the pediments, completely decked out with color. That, 
however, the borders and hems of the draperies, the 
accessories and details of the costumes and equipment, 
and certain features such as the eyes, the lips, and the 
hair, were picked out with color, is well attested by recent 

To this painted decoration of the architectural sculpture of 
the Parthenon should be added another element, which is 
partly decorative and partly interpretative and supplementary. 
We refer to the adjuncts and accessories, usually of bronze, 
which were fastened into the marble. These are most 
numerous in the frieze, though they are not wholly absent from 
the metopes and pediments. These accessories and attributes, 
now for the most part lost, were weapons, wreaths, reins and 
bridles of horses, sashes, sword-belts, trays, in the case of the 
statue of Athena in the western pediment serpents of metal, 
bowls, and other utensils. Holes bored into the marble 
indicate often where these objects were attached. 

In commenting on the general effect of the completed 
Parthenon M. Magne, in the work cited above, says : " The 
Parthenon is the mirror of Athenian civilization in the fifth 
century. At the time when Athens personified Greece, 
victorious and mistress of her own destiny, she adopts the 
simple forms of Dorian art, the art that was Greek par 
excellence, and refines it pursuant to her Ionian taste, but 
without modifying either the designs or the forms already 
created in Hellas. " To get an adequate impression of the 
glories of the Parthenon in its completeness we need to 
combine the delicate refinements of its architecture, the match- 
less grace of its sculptural ornaments, and the subdued 
brilliancy of its painted decorations into one harmonious whole, 
and then imagine this structure, so simple in its beauty and yet 
so splendid in its wealth of ornament, set upon the rock of 
Athena and in the luminous atmosphere of the Athenian 





That the Propylaea was a part of the original plan for 
beautifying the Acropolis and providing a suitable entrance 
to the sanctuary of Athena has already been observed. The 
building of this noble structure was begun in the year after 
the dedication of the Parthenon, i.e. in 437, and work upon 
it ceased in 432. Its final completion was interrupted by 
the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war, and the original 

Fig. 79. — Ground-plan of the Propylaea. The dotted portions were projected only. 

plans of Mnesicles the architect were never realized. What 
those plans were, and how far they failed of being executed, 
has been clearly shown by the investigations of Dorpfeld, 
whose drawing of the originally projected plans is here given. 
It was built of Pentelic marble and rivalled the Parthenon as 
one of the glories of Athens (103). 

It has already been stated (see p. 72) that an older gate- 
way (traces of which are indicated in the plan), oriented 
somewhat differently, and antedating the Persian war, 
and repaired by Themistocles and Cimon, preceded that 


of Mnesicles, who reared his new portal over it. The pro- 
blem that the architect had to solve was not an easy one. 
He had to erect a large structure upon a rapidly rising 
and rocky declivity, to fit it into its place symmetrically, 
and to make an impressive approach from below and suitable 
exit above, presenting at both sides a noble fagade. To 
these architectural difficulties others, which will be considered 
later, were added when the plans were already in process of 

This structure has been studied and characterized most 
carefully by R. Bohn (104), upon whose work all later 
investigations and descriptions must necessarily be based. 
The ground plan shows in the centre the ascent, about 
twenty metres wide, once covered by the great Roman 
stairway (see above, p. 37). To the south stands the bastion 
which supports the little Nike temple (see Fig. 86). Nearly 
opposite, to the north, stands the basis of the monument 
erected in 27 B.C. in honor of M. Vipsanius Agrippa. 
Ancient remains, hatched in the cut, show that, as was 
pointed out before, the general line of the older walls 
was nearly parallel with this basis, but not with the later 
Roman stairway. Near the summit the great portal that 
gives entrance to the sacred enclosure rises majestically 
before us. Spanning a width of 45 metres (148 ft.) and a 
length of 31 metres (102 ft), we see the ruins of this noble 
building. It consists of a central structure facing nearly 
west, with two wings flanking the approach on either side. 
The central structure, 25.04 m. (82 ft. 2 in.) long and 
18.12 m. (57 ft. 6 in.) wide, is the portal proper, which 
consists of a wall pierced by five openings and two porticos, 
one in front and the other at the rear. The chief gateway 
is in the middle and is 7.37 m. (24 ft. 2 in.) high and 
4. 1 8 m. ( I 3 ft. 8 in.) wide. The lintel forming this doorway 
is composed of two blocks of marble about 22 feet long. 
The size of these blocks is exceeded only by those that form 
the lintel over the doorway of the Parthenon. The two 
gateways on either side are somewhat smaller. These five 
gates were closed by massive doors of bronze, or at least 
plated with bronze (105). To the grating noise of these 
doors when opened Aristophanes refers in a famous passage 



{Knights, 1326), in which a sight of the beautiful buildings 
of the Acropolis calls forth from the chorus the exclama- 
tion, " O, brilliant, ivy-crowned and enviable Athens 1 " The 
remains of marble linings in the doorways are later, probably 

The original jambs are sunk and left quite rough with 
grooves for the reception of the wooden frame which carried 
the original bronze linings. Before and behind this wall with 

Fig. 80. — The I'ropylaea. Present Appearance from the Southwest. 

its five gates are the two porticos, one turned to the east, 
the other and larger to the west. Upon four marble steps, 
supported by a foundation of limestone blocks, stands the 
western portico, in a width of 18.12 m. (about 58 ft.) and 
a depth of 15.24 m. (about 49 ft.), supported in front by 
six massive Doric columns 8.81 m. (28 ft. 11 in.) high, and 
by two rows of Ionic columns within, three on each side, 
flanking the central passage way. The Doric columns in 
front have, of course, no base, but rise directly from the 
stylobate. But the tall Ionic columns (10.29 m., 33 ft. 9 in., 
high) have the Attic base, and are among the most beautiful 



specimens of that style. The capitals of these columns 
are of the simpler Ionic type. Their volutes are marked 
by wonderful precision of outline. The fluting of the 
columns continues right up to the projecting moulding 
that crowns the shaft, with no intervening band of ornament 
Upon these columns lay the architrave which supported 
the massive cross-beams (those in the side aisles measuring 
6.30 m. (20 ft. 8 in.) in length), which carried the panelled 
ceiling of marble so much admired by Pausanias (i. 22). 

Fig. 81. — The Propylaea. Central Passage and Doors. 

Several of the marble coffers of this ceiling are preserved, 
showing clear traces of the original painted decoration. The 
central passageway rises gradually on an inclined slope, 
grooves being cut crosswise to make the ascent easier for the 
sacrificial victims that climbed the hill in the Panathenaic 
procession (106). A channel for conducting water cut into the 
rock to a width of 0.60 m. ran through the central passageway. 
At the eastern or inner side of the western portico, a flight 
of five steps leads up to the four side gates ; the first four 
steps are of Pentelic marble, but the uppermost is of black 


Eleusinian limestone. The slabs forming the orthostatae of 
the side walls are of the same material. The inner or eastern 
portico into which the five gateways open has the same width 
(59 ft.) as the western but is shallower, its depth, measured 
from the wall pierced by the five gates, being 7.35 m. (24 ft. 
2 in.). Like the western portico, it has a facade of six 
Doric columns, which rest on a marble stylobate one step 
higher than the sill of the doorways. The entablature of 
the east portico runs over the north and south side walls as 
far as the wall that with its five openings forms the entrance 
proper ; the entablature of the west portico runs as far as 
the antae of the north and south side walls (see cut 6, 
Fig. 82). On account of the difference in height of the two 
porticos an entablature running throughout the entire struc- 
ture on the same level would be impossible. The outer side 
of the architrave of the west portico has the ordinary 
regulae, which suggests the triglyphon rising above them (see 
cut). On the inner side there is only a flat band to crown 
the upper edge. The triglyph frieze rises above the archi- 
trave and is of equal height with it. A Doric cornice 
crowns it. Where the two wings join the central structure 
mutules are not found on the cornice. The cornice of the 
wings is carried over the flat wall surface of the central 
structure in the form of a deeply-undercut cornice which 
is adjusted to the perpendicular smooth wall by means of 
an ogee moulding. 

The pavement is of marble throughout. The pediment lot 
both porticos and also the metopes were left plain, the simjfi^^ 
severity of the Pr'opylaea setting ofl" by contrast the ri< sJ^ 
decorations of the Parthenon. The manner of the junction 
of the two porticos standing on different elevations is " more 
remarkable for its absence of artifice than for its beauty " 
(see cut 6). Of the entire structure the best preserved part 
is the north wing, which consists of a chamber nearly 
square, about lOy^jj by 9 metres (33 ft. 3 in. by 29 ft 5 in.), 
with a portico 10.75 metres (35 ft. 3 in.) wide and 5.05 
metres (16 ft. 7 in.) deep, facing south. The front of this 
portico consists of three Doric columns between two antae 
supporting an architrave and a frieze of triglyphs and 
metopes. The walls of the chamber are still preserved 



to their full height. It was lighted from the portico by 
a door and by two windows in the partition wall, which 
for some reason were not placed symmetrically in relation 
to the door (see Fig. 79). The door-sill is a large block of 
Eleusinian limestone. Both without and within the chamber 
a band of black Eleusinian limestone enlivened the surface 

Fig. 82. — West Front of Propylaea. Cross-sections and Parts. 

1. West Front of the Propylaea as originally planned. 

2. Plan of the South Wing as built, modified from Original Plan. 

3. South Wing as seen from the North. 

4. South Wing as seen from the West. 

5. South Wing as see.i from the South. 

6. Cross-section of the Northeast Wing (not built) with Side Elevation of the 

Central Part. 

7. Part of the East Front. The Wing was not built. 

of the wall. Around the walls of the portico, on a level 
with the sill of the windows, a bench was built to provide 
a resting place for visitors. This chamber is doubtless the 
room referred to by Pausanias (i. 22, 6), in which were to 
be seen the paintings described by him. Hence in modern 
times the name Pinakothek, picture gallery, has been given 


to this chamber. Pausanias gives a list of these paintings, 
and Polemon is said to have written a whole treatise upon 
them. The subjects seem to have been taken chiefly from 
heroic legend, and two pictures are named as the work 
of Polygnotus. Just what these paintings were is a matter 
of doubt. The walls show no trace of having been prepared 
to receive stucco nor of any contrivance for hanging pictures, 
hence the conjecture that the paintings were easel-pieces or 
tablets. Bursian (107), however, thinks, as the walls show 
rather careless finish, that the probability is in favor of some 
kind of wall painting, possibly a fresco decoration. Dorpfeld 
believes that the paintings were wall frescos, and that the 
band of Eleusinian stone favors the view that the entire wall 
above the dado was thus decorated. 

The original design of the architect was to build two 
wings to the central structure which should exactly corre- 
spond in dimensions, and which should span the entire 
breadth of the rock, which measures here about 5 5 metres 
(nearly 180 ft.). On the north side there was nothing to 
hinder the execution of this plan so far as dimensions were 
concerned, but on the south side a wing of the same dimen- 
sions, as we see from a glance at the plan of the Acropolis, 
would entrench upon the precinct of Athena Nike and of 
Artemis Brauronia. The plan of this wing, accordingly, had 
to be modified. Independently of this, however, the design 
of the two wings must have been dissimilar on the west 
front owing to the difference in the level of the Acropolis 
at each side. For on the north side the rock falls preci- 
pitously away and a high substructure was required to support 
this wing at the west side. Hence this west wall would 
naturally be solid. But on the south side the Nike bastion 
projected to the west, and here was located the shrine of 
Athena Nike. Access to this platform and its shrine might 
not be cut off ; accordingly a passageway running through 
the south wing of the Propylaea had to be provided. 
Furthermore, had the south wing been made as deep as the 
north wing, it would have encroached on the precinct of 
Artemis Brauronia which lay adjacent to the southeast. Now 
the south wing, as modified from its original plan and actu- 
ally built, consists simply of a rectangular hall facing north 



without any chamber in the rear. The east and south sides 
of this hall were continuous walls ; but the south-east corner 
where these walls join, that is on the outside, is bevelled at 
the bottom, so as to fit as closely as possible to the Pelasgic 
wall that formed the boundary of the Artemis Brauronia 

f„„f f n t f t ? f T T I I 1 1 T I 1 1 1 r~ 

Fig. 83. — The Propylaea and Temple of Wingless-Victory. Cross-sections. 

1. South Wing of the Propylaea (looking North) and North Front of the Bastion 

supporting the Temple of Victory. 

2. West Front of the Bastion. 

3. Section of the Propylaea through the Central Part showing the Ionic Colonnade 

and the Front of the North Wing. 

4. Cross-section showing the Five Doors. 

5. Front of the Partition Wall of the Pinakothek that separates the Chamber from 

the Portico. 

6. Steps of Marble leading up to the Platform of the Temple of Victory as they 

originally appeared. 

precinct. This portico on its north front corresponds to 
and matches the portico of the north wing, and consists 
of three Doric columns between antae (see cut) crowned 
by the usual architrave and triglyph frieze. In the changes 
that this portico has suffered, one of the three original 
columns has been destroyed, and a patched up pillar has 
been made to take its place. The correspondence between 


the porticos of the north and south wings facing each 
other was effected by an architectural device that requires 
explanation. The roof of the hall did not extend beyond 
the third column, that is to say, the hall itself was not as 
wide as its portico. At the west the roof was supported 
by a beam which rested on the third column (see cut 2, 
Fig. 82), and was carried over to the southern wall b)' 
the help of an intervening pillar. But to produce apparent 
symmetry in the front view of the Propylaea the western 
anta of the north facade of this portico was added. This 
anta was, architecturally, a mere sham, for it had no wall 
behind it and nothing to support. Such a strange device, 
unparalleled in Greek architecture, must have had better reasons 
to justify it than merely to produce a symmetrical appearance. 
Now, as we have seen, the original plan probably contemplated 
a wing in this position corresponding in dimensions with the 
north wing, but opening by a colonnade on the Nike bastion. 
But this plan apparently could not be carried out without 
encroaching on the precincts of Athena Nike and Artemis 
Brauronia. The simplest way to have modified this plan 
would have been to build only a vestibule to correspond 
exactly with the front portico of the north wing, omitting 
the square hall behind it. From a study of the stones of 
the anta of the south wall, which are preserved, Dorpfeld 
has ascertained that the south wall stood exactly opposite 
the second column of the projected western portico, assuming 
that the intercolumniation of this portico would have been 
the same as that of the northern face, an assumption proved 
to be correct from the measurements. The sham anta then 
would have been the northern anta of this western portico 
had it been built. 

A glance at the plan of the Propylaea shows that the 
southern wall of this wing corresponds to the partition wall 
which separates the rear chamber of the north wing from 
its portico. In other words, Mnesicles carried out his original 
plan as far as he was able, apparently introducing this modi- 
fication of the false anta not simply for the sake of conforming 
the north portico of the south wing to the south portico of the 
north wing, but also with the hope of ultimately executing 
the original design of the south wing. According to this 



design then the south wing would have corresponded in 
dimensions or appearance with the north wing, excepting 
on the west front, as pointed out above, and would have 
furnished an approach to the terrace of the Nike bastion. 
Now whether the little temple of Athena Nike had actually- 
been built or was simply projected at the time when Mnesicles 
was planning the Propylaea is not definitely known. It 
seems hardly probable, however, that the present Nike temple 

Fig. 84. — South Wing of Propylaea. 

could have been considered in the plans of Mnesicles, for had 
these plans been fully carried out at this point, the projected 
portico at the west would have encroached upon the precinct 
of Athena Nike, and besides would have seriously marred the 
effect of the temple. 

Before discussing further the relation of the Athena-Victory 
temple to the Propylaea, let us follow Dorpfeld in his brilliant 
reconstruction (given in the Athenische Mitteilungen, x. p. 38 fif., 
131 ff.) of the original plan of the Propylaea as designed by 
Mnesicles. Even a casual inspection of the walls of the 
Propylaea shows that this structure remained incomplete and 



unfinished. Even those portions which were apparently com- 
pleted were left without a smooth finish either in walls or 
pavement, a point to which reference will be made again 
more fully. On the outside of the walls of the building we 
see the bosses left for the masons to lift the blocks of marble 
into place without chipping them. These signs of incom- 
pleteness are probably due to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian 
war, which for a time put a stop to the plans of Pericles 

Fig. 85. — The Propylaea. East Front. 

for adorning the Acropolis. But it is clear from the appear- 
ance of such portions as were erected that the original plans 
of the architect contemplated a structure, the missing parts 
of which can alone explain the peculiar features of the parts 
that have been built. What these missing parts would have 
been, and how they stand related to the parts before us, 
has been skilfully shown by Dr. Dorpfeld in the article 
already referred to. The substance of this article, so far 
as it relates to the matter in hand, may be summarized as 
follows : Mnesicles intended to add at the east two large 
halls, one on each side of the portal and backing up against 
the two front wings. The northeast hall was to be enclosed 
on the south by the northern wall of the central building. 


and on the west by the eastern wall of the northwest wing 
extending clear to the outer wall of the Acropolis. The 
east front of this hall was to consist of a row of nine Doric 
columns. This reconstruction is inferred from the following 
features of the building as we see it : ( l ) A cornice, such 
as is usual, extends round the two walls which would have 
been the inner walls of the hall on the south and west ; but 
this cornice is meaningless at present, being on the outer walls 
of the central building and the northwest wing. (2) Holes 
are left in the walls for the reception of the roof-beams above 
the cornice (108). (3) An anta is seen at the southeast corner 
of the projected hall, facing north, and clearly intended to 
receive an architrave extended northward. This hall was 
probably planned to extend north to the fortification wall of 
the Acropolis. The architectural features above described 
indicate an unexpected interruption of the work of carrying 
out the magnificent design of Mnesicles, unhappily never 
again to be resumed. That the cause of this interruption was 
the outbreak of the unfortunate war between Sparta and 
Athens can hardly be doubted. 

That a similar hall was planned on the southeast side 
of the portal is inferred from the existence of a corresponding 
anta which would have formed its northeast corner. Had 
this hall been actually built it would have occupied a large 
part of the precincts sacred to Artemis Brauronia (see plan), 
and it may well be that the vigorous opposition of the priest- 
hood of this sanctuary successfully prevented the execution 
of this part of the plan of Mnesicles from the very start. 
However this may be, it is worthy of notice that in this part 
of the building we do not find any cornice or any other 
indication of preparatory steps for an additional structure, 
as in the case of the northeast hall, excepting one socket 
or hole for a roof-beam and the anta mentioned above. 
According to Dorpfeld's reconstruction, this hall also was 
designed to have a row of nine Doric columns at the front, 
and to be of equal size with the northeast hall. 

To complete our account of this building a few words 
should be said with reference to the difficult subject of the 
reconstruction of the roof On this matter we must be 
content with accepting the results of the investigations and 


conclusions of Penrose, Bohn and Dorpfeld. From our illus- 
tration (cuts I, 6, Fig. 82) it will be seen that the roof that 
covered the eastern half of the central part of the portal rose 
above the western half, showing toward the west a pediment 
that was partly lost in the abutting ridge of the roof of 
the lower western half From peculiarly shaped cornice 
pieces that were found built into the so-called Turkish 
tower erected in the south wing of the Propylaea (pulled 
down in 1875), Bohn reconstructed the roofs of the two 
wings as gables. But this reconstruction has been shown 
to involve so many difficulties that it is quite impossible. 
Penrose {Athen. Archit. Chap, x.) and Dorpfeld {A.M. x. 
Tafel v.) have found a better solution of the problem. 
According to their view the roof of the south wing had 
one low hip (cut 3) rising from the north and west and 
making a pent-roof, having but one slope or incline. The 
. roof of this hall, as was stated above, ended at the third 
column of the front facing north, regardless of the isolated 
corner pilaster. 

The roof construction of the north wing was similar except 
that in this case the roof covered the entire structure. 

The Propylaea as actually built, though a less complete 
and imposing structure than its original design, was the largest 
and most beautiful building of its kind ever erected by the 
Greeks. It stood erect, nearly intact, as Mnesicles left it, 
until about 1656, when the explosion of a magazine of powder, 
which the Turks had stored within, blew up the building 
and destroyed most of the roof. At the time of Spon and 
Wheler's visit in 1676 the west front of the portal together 
with its pediment seems to have been still entire, and the 
great Ionic columns in the interior of the portico still 
supported some of the marble beams of the roof The later 
fortunes of this noble building are given in our concluding 
chapter (see p. 318). 

Before we dismiss from our view the Propylaea as it 
appeared in its pristine beauty, let us take a glance at the 
architectural refinements and painted decorations of the 
building. The absence of the usual sculptural decoration 
from the pediments and metopes has already been noticed 
(109). The pitch of the pediments of the western and eastern 


porticos is, according to Penrose, almost identical with that 
of the pediments of the Parthenon, the rise being one in 
four and fourteen hundredths (i :4. 14). The stylobate both 
of the central structure and of the wings, unlike that 
of the Parthenon, shows no curvature, but the lines of the 
entablature of the porticos were curved. The columns of 
the western portico are taller by nearly a foot than those 
of the eastern. The proportions of the columns are nearly 
the same as of those of the Parthenon, but the architrave 
and triglyph frieze are relatively larger, while the cornice 
is considerably less in proportion. The effect of the whole 
gives an impression of grace and lightness, so that aero^ 
TrpoTTuXaio^ became proverbial for a slender and graceful 

The antae lean forward in the ratio of about i in 150, and 
the walls incline inward at an angle of about i in 70. A close 
inspection of the construction of the walls of the Propylaea 
reveals the existence of open joints between the blocks, while 
in some places tool-marks are plainly visible, especially in the 
cuttings of the borders on the blocks of marble and in the 
circular beddings of the columns. These peculiarities are 
believed by Dorpfeld to be due to the fact that the walls 
and pavement never received their complete finish. In build- 
ing a wall of marble the blocks were cut so that a slightly- 
bevelled edge joined a square edge, leaving the joint open to a 
slight depth. This was to be dressed off so as to secure 
a perfect joint after the blocks were built into the wall. By 
this means the edges of the blocks were saved from being 
chipped in the process of building. Now this final cutting 
down to secure close joints was never wholly completed. 
Again, the columns and antae, it will be observed, stand in 
a circular bedding. This, Dorpfeld thinks, is provisional. 
Later the surface of the pavement was to be worked down 
on an exact level with the bottom of the column. Again, 
wherever a wall is bounded by a plinth or a cornice, or abuts 
upon another wall or a pilaster, there we see a slightly-sunk 
border or edge worked intO' the face of the blocks of marble. 
Whether this also is to be regarded as a provisional gage to" 
guide the stone-cutter in trimming down his blocks to a 
common level, or whether this was an intentional device to 


represent a fillet or border may be a matter of doubt. Bohn 
believes that such a general finishing off (" tJberarbeitung ") of 
the Propylaea can hardly be assumed, and shows that this last 
feature at any rate is likely to have been intentional. 

A few words remain to be said concerning the painted 
decoration. In general the coloring was more subdued than 
that of the Parthenon. The edges of the volutes and of the 
echinus of the Ionic capitals are colored red and blue by 
Fenger. The same authority on polychromy puts an egg- 
and-dart ornament on the thin abacus of the Ionic capitals. 
The panels of the coffered ceiling show the palmetto ornament 
in gold upon a blue background. An egg-and-dart ornament 
is found upon the mouldings that border the coffers. The 
cymatium was decorated with an egg-and-dart pattern of a 
large size. The hawk's-beak moulding crowning both the 
oblique and the horizontal cornice had a pattern of Egyptian 
design, similar to that found on the cornice of the Parthenon, 
colored alternately red and blue. 

Even in its incomplete form the Propylaea was the pride of 
Athens. So much was it admired in ancient days that Epami- 
nondas is reported to have said to his fellow-citizens that if 
they desired to give to their city a place by the side of Athens 
they should carry the Propylaea to Thebes and erect it before 
the Cadmea. The comic poet Phoenicides, in chiding the 
people of Athens for their vanity, says : " They make so 
much ado about their myrtles and their honey, and their 
Propylaea and their dried figs." Demosthenes mentions this 
structure with the Parthenon as one of the proud memorials of 
Athenian greatness, and Aristophanes in his comedy glorifies 
Athens, brilliant and famous in song and story, ruled over by 
King Demos, who is seen seated on the sacred rock of the 
Acropolis when the great gates of the Propylaea swing open 
and disclose to view the temples within. In later times it 
has fitly been styled " the brilliant jewel on the front of the 
rocky coronet of the Athenian Acropolis." 

That the conspicuous little temple that crowns the bastion 
at the southwest corner of the Acropolis, and that was dedi- 
cated to Athena Nike, should be included in a general plan for 
beautifying the Acropolis and rebuilding its shrines, seems at 
first blush most probable. But when we come to observe that 


this temple and the Propylaea appear to encroach upon each 
other's domain, and to fail at certain points of perfect adjust- 
ment in plan, it is apparent that either these buildings were not 
projected at the same time and with reference to each other, 
or that for some reason the original plan suffered important 
modifications. This want of harmonious adjustment of these 
buildings to each other has raised the question of their relative 
precedence (110), a question which has been much debated 
(cf. Judeich, Topogr. p. 201). We have already seen that the 
bastion had been changed on its northern side from its original 
form, and that this was done in connection with the building of 
the Propylaea, with the axis of which it was put in alignment. 
That this final shaping of the bastion was done after the 
temple was already standing seems hardly probable. But not 
only in the way indicated was the form of the bastion changed, 
its level on the top also appears to have been changed, and 
this is more pertinent to the question before us. The evidence 
for this change is as follows : The platform on which the 
temple stands is reached by the small marble stairway leading 
up from the ascent to the Propylaea. These steps, five in 
number, are ancient : but the podium which supports them is 
of the same period as the Roman stairway. 

Professor Wolters(lll) was the first to notice that these 
steps and the present level of the pavement are out of joint 
with each other, since a final half-step is needed in order to 
reach the present level. That a final half-step should have 
been built to fit this stairway to its landing is wholly improb- 
able. Equally improbable is it that these steps should have had 
originally an unequal rise. These considerations lead Wolters 
to conclude that the original level of the pavement was different 
and higher, to which the stairway was fitted. In his opinion 
this lowering of the level was made when the temple was built, 
and was due to the effort to bring this level into some 
harmonious adjustment to the stylobate of the Propylaea which 
was already standing. Dorpfeld, however, rejects the view of 
Wolters, and shows that a mal-adjustment of the stairway and 
the platform of the Nike temple did not originally exist. He 
points out in proof of this that the controlling course {euthyn- 
teria) of the foundation of the temple was exactly on a level 
with the surface of the ground or platform that supported it, 


that accordingly the pavement was as much higher as the top 
of the controlling courses now lies above the present surface, 
and that by raising this surface to this level the steps and the 
pavement are in perfect adjustment. In other words, the 
present pavement is by so much lower than the original level 
as to suffice to make the last half-step a whole one, and so 
stairway and pavement would be in exact correspondence. 
From this it would follow, according to Dorpfeld, that the level 

Fig. 86.— Bastion of Temple of Wingless- Victory. Steps and Platform. 

or surface of the bastion was lowered after the temple had been 
built, and that this was done with reference to the Propylaea, 
which was a later structure. The latest contribution to this 
question is that of A. Koster(112), who accepts the view of 
Dorpfeld as regards the original level of the platform of the 
temple and its relation to the stairway, but dissents from his 
conclusion that the temple is older than the Propylaea. 
Koster, with Wolters, holds that the conclusion of Dorpfeld 
is disproved by the fact that the lowest step of the stylobate 
of the southwest wing of the Propylaea is of limestone, ' and 


not of marble, and that the builder must have intended that 
this course of masonry should be hidden, and not counted as a 
step of the stylobate. Accordingly, when the foundation wall 
of the Propylaea was laid, the level of the bastion was higher 
than at present, and the above-named limestone course was 
not in sight ; but when later the temple of Victory was built 
this level, for artistic and architectural reasons, was brought 
down to the line of the controlling course {euthynterid) of 
the foundation, that is to its upper edge, and by this process 
the limestone foundation of the Propylaea became exposed 
to view, and then was covered up by a gradual slope of the 
level of the pavement from the temple to the Propylaea. 
Whichever view we adopt as to the order of precedence of 
the temple and Propylaea, it is clear enough that if they 
were planned with reference to each other this plan was 
subsequently modified. As was intimated above (p. 178), 
had the original plan of the Propylaea been carried out 
the temple and the west portico of the south wing would 
have come so close together as to make the usual sacri- 
fice of a cow at the altar of Athena in front of the temple 
an impossibility. 

An inscription found in 1897 on the north slope of the 
Acropolis below the cave of Apollo bears on the question 
of the relative age of the temple and the Propylaea. This 
inscription (113) records a decree ordering Callicrates, the 
architect of the Parthenon, to build a stone temple and 
altar to Athena Victory. It is reasonably certain that the 
temple here referred to is the one we are discussing. From 
the form of the letters the decree cannot be older than 
460 B.C. nor later than 450 B.C. If this decree was immedi- 
ately put into execution the date of the temple would be 
settled. But competent critics like Puchstein (114) and 
Furtwangler cannot believe that the style of the architecture 
and sculpture dates so far back, but points rather to a time 
later than the Parthenon and Propylaea. In the light of this 
newly-found inscription and of the architectural style, and from 
the other considerations above advanced, the relation of the 
temple and the Propylaea may be stated as follows : The 
decree for building the temple was enacted about 450 B.C. 
(115). Probably political strife between the party of Pericles 


and his opponents led to a postponement in the execution of 
this decree, the conservative party championing the preroga- 
tives of this temple, the party of Pericles being eager to carry 
on the great plans for building the Parthenon and Propylaea. 

The project of building the temple to Athena Nike, which 
had been held in abeyance for several years, was revived under 
the leadership of the party that was hostile to Pericles, and 
Mnesicles was obliged to alter his plan of the southwest wing 
of the Propylaea, which was already in course of construction. 
As an additional proof of the priority of the substructure of 
the Propylaea, it should be remarked that recent investiga- 
tions show that the pavement around the temple lies on 
massive walls which are fitted to the foundations of the 

The marble platform on which the temple was built is still 
nearly entire on the north side, but on the east and south sides 
only a few pieces remain. On the west side the temple was 
built so close to the edge of the bastion that no room was left 
for a pavement. The coping of the bastion on the north side 
consisted of single blocks of marble which form the archi- 
tectural finish of this wall and also of the pilaster that 
stands east of the flight of steps, and make the finish of the 
foundation wall of the south wing of the Propylaea. Upon 
this wall stood one of the equestrian figures mentioned by 
Pausanias (see p. 277 below). 

Immediately opposite the middle of the east front of the 
temple are the traces of what is believed to have been the altar 
mentioned in an inscription {C.I.A. ii. 163 and 471), on 
which the usual offering of a cow was made. Round the 
precipitous sides of the bastion on which the temple stood 
was built a balustrade about 1.05 m. (3 ft. 5 in.) high, com- 
posed of marble slabs which were clamped together, and 
which supported a bronze railing. The sockets into which the 
marble slabs fitted can still be seen on the north and west 
sides of the temple. Some of the slabs and a number of 
the fragments of the balustrade have been found, and are 
preserved in the Acropolis Museum. The slabs were polished 
and left blank on the inner side, but the outer side of them 
was adorned with a series of figures in relief, which are justly 
regarded as among the most beautiful specimens of ancient 



sculpture extant (116). That this series of reliefs should have 
some reference to the temple and its cult was to be expected. 
The frieze represents a number of Victories, some of whom are 
leading victims to sacrifice, while others are engaged in 
erecting trophies or in bringing in the spoils of war to the 

Fit;. 87.— Relief of "Sandal-Binder" on Slab of Balustrade. 

Perhaps the most admired of all these graceful figures 
is that known as the " Sandal-Binder." Apparently hastening 
to reach a goal, this beautiful creature is stooping down 
to fasten the loose thong of her sandal, only to resume 
presently her impetuous movement for a moment hindered. 
The frieze is cut in rather high relief, so that certain parts 


are almost in the round and free from the surface of 
the slab. Holes are seen for insertion of metal stays and 
fastening of bronze accessories. Color was probably used to 
represent the feathers of the wings of the Victories and to pick 
out details of costume and ornament, possibly also to set off 
the frieze against a colored background in order that its 
effectiveness might be enhanced, especially as seen from below. 
"As a work of decorative relief," says Gardner, "rich in flowing 
line and varied waves of drapery and beauty of body and limb 
that glow ' through the veil that seeks to hide them,' the Nike 
balustrade holds an unrivalled place." 

Having discussed the age of the temple, its relation to the 
Propylaea, and its balustrade and bastion, we are now pre- 
pared to study the temple itself. This elegant little structure, 
which catches the eye of every visitor to the Acropolis the 
first moment he begins its ascent, remained almost intact 
until about 1687, when, owing to the threatened attack 
of Morosini, the Turks, in order to strengthen the defenses 
of the Acropolis, erected new bulwarks into which they 
built the material of this temple, which they pulled down 
for this purpose. When these bulwarks were demolished in 
1835, Ross, Schaubert and Hansen recovered the stones of 
the temple built into them, and skilfully rebuilt out of its 
original remains the temple as it now stands on its old 
foundations. The building is almost entire excepting a portion 
of the frieze, the cornice, the gables and the roof Viewed 
from a distance, the effect of the temple is striking and 
beautiful, but on a nearer view the impression produced is 
less satisfactory. This is not strange when we reflect that 
the old stones were more or less injured in the process of 
rebuilding, and that hence it was impossible to secure the 
precision and finish that distinguished the original architecture. 
The temple consists of a small oblong cella, facing east, with a 
portico of four Ionic columns at its front and back. The west 
wall of the cella was closed. The two side walls end in antae, 
between which stand two slender pilasters to support the 
coffered ceiling of the portico and to make the framework 
of the door into the cella. Metal railings enclosed the portico 
at the sides and connected the pilasters with the side walls. 
The cella contained a wooden image, according to Pausanias 



(v. 26, 6), of the goddess Athena, in the character and with 
the attributes of Victory. She held a pomegranate in her 
right hand and a helmet in her left. Since in Greek art 
the personification of Victory was represented as a winged 
figure, and the goddess Athena, who was always wingless, 
was represented here as without wings but yet in the character 
of Victory, the temple, which was properly of Athena Victory, 
came quite naturally to be known as the temple of the 
wingless Victory (N//07 "ATrrepof). The temple is built of 

Fjg. 83. — Temple of Wingless Victory. 

Pentelic marble, and rests upon a base having three steps, 
counting the stylobate the uppermost step. This measures 
8.27 m. (27 ft. 2 in.) on the long side and 5.64 m. (18 ft. 4 in.) 
at the end. The temple is set in the northwest corner of 
the bastion, leaving a triangular space between it and the 
north edge of the bastion, and a rectangular space on the 
south. The Ionic order as seen in this temple is quite 
similar to that of the Ionic columns of the Propylaea. The 
columns show rather strong diminution, have 24 flutings 
which continue up to the capital, and the simple form of 
the capital with a plain channel and single spiral in the 
volute. The architrave consists of three solid blocks of 


marble, showing three bands on the outside, and crowned with 
a moulding and a cymatium. An Ionic frieze, sculptured 
in high relief, extends around the temple. Four slabs of 
the frieze are in the British Museum, and have been replaced 
by casts of terra-cotta which detract decidedly from the 
general appearance of the building. The scene on the east 
front of the frieze has been interpreted as a council of the 
gods, some seated, others standing, pronouncing judgment on 
Europe and Asia (117). The figures are so much defaced 
that it is impossible to identify them, except possibly Athena 
and Zeus. Scenes of battle occupy the other three sides. 
On the west side the combat is between Greeks and Greeks. 
This scene has been interpreted as a reference to the battle 
of Plataea in which the Athenians were arrayed against the 
Thebans who were fighting on the side of the Persians. But 
in the scenes represented on the north and the south sides 
Greeks are seen fighting against Persians. There is great 
probability, therefore, that these three scenes are commemora- 
tive of the three great battles, Marathon, Plataea and Salamis, 
in which the Athenians conquered the Persians. If this 
interpretation is correct, each side of the temple, as Gardner 
(Anc. Ath. p. 376) remarks, appropriately faces the direction 
of the field where the victory it records was achieved. To 
the south and west one looks over the sea and upon Salamis ; 
to the west rises Mount Cithaeron just behind which, a little 
to the north, lies Plataea ; and to the northeast is the pass 
by which the Athenians returned from Marathon. 

A word remains to be said concerning the general style 
of the sculptures that adorned the temple and the balustrade, 
and the bearing this has upon the date of the temple. It 
is generally held that the frieze of the temple as well as that 
of the balustrade shows a later style than the frieze of the 
Parthenon. Furtwangler {Masterpieces, p. 450) points out 
the pictorial treatment of these reliefs in contrast with the 
more sedate style of the Parthenon relief, and conjectures 
that Callimachus was the sculptor of the frieze of the Nike 
temple. This view is taken by him to support the theory 
of the comparatively late date of the temple. That the frieze 
of this temple is later in style than that of the Parthenon 
can hardly be doubted. This, to be sure, is not a conclusive 


argument by itself for the later date of the temple, though 
it certainly favors that view. However that may be, it cannot 
be shown that the frieze of the balustrade is any proof of 
the age of the temple. Bohn has shown that for architectural 
reasons this balustrade seems not to have been included in 
the original plan of the temple, but to have been an after- 
thought. How much later it was added can only be inferred 
from the reliefs on the slabs. We are inclined to agree with 
Michaelis (118) who sees in this frieze a commemoration of 
the victories of Athens at Abydos and Cyzicos. If this 
opinion is correct, we may see in the figure of Athena sitting 
on the prow of a ship and of a rudder fastened to a trophy 
the emblems of the victory gained on the Hellespont by 
Athens in 408/07. Furtwangler, then, is not in error in 
supposing that this balustrade was added about the same 
time that the resolution was passed for the completion of the 
Erechtheum. This building, the last of the great structures 
erected on the Acropolis, now claims our attention. 


The destruction wrought by the Persians doubtless included 
the ancient temple of Erechtheus-Poseidon, which had stood 
from the earliest times on the spot hallowed by the ancient 
" tokens," the trident mark and the sea of Erechtheus, the 
location of which, as we shall show further on, has been clearly 
determined. If the view be correct that the predecessor of 
the Erechtheum was also a double teviple, in which was 
enshrined the most revered image of Athena, then all the 
more was it imperative that a magnificent structure worthy 
of Athena Polias and of Erechtheus should be included in the 
plans for beautifying the Acropolis. 

In giving an account of this building, we meet with many 
problems which may never be conclusively solved, problems 
involving the titles by which the building was known, the 
uses to which the various apartments were put, and the 
relation this temple bears to the old Athena temple and to 


the Parthenon. In our treatment of this unique and beautiful 
structure, let us first inquire into its history, next discuss 
its plans and uses, and thirdly examine its architectural 
qualities and sculptural decorations, relegating the discussion 
of the relation it bears to the other temples on the Acropolis 
to Appendix iii. As already intimated, we believe that the pre- 
sent temple is the successor of an older and doubtless smaller 
structure that stood on about the same spot. The unique 
plan of the building suggests of itself that some very special 
requirement or situation must have dictated its location and 
arrangement. This requirement is found in the existence of 
the so-called " tokens " (crrumeia), to wit, the salt well and the 
trident mark, and the olive tree, each having a sacred and 
symbolic meaning, pointing to the triple worship and trinity 
of divinities to whom the temple was dedicated, and whose 
altars were set up within its walls. Scanty remains of the 
foundation of an earlier structure, marked 5 in our plan, are 
believed by Penrose to have belonged to an earlier temple 
or shrine which occupied this spot. But these remains are too 
few to afford any idea of what this structure was. That they 
are earlier than the present Erechtheum is most probable, and 
that they belonged to the so-called Pandroseum (E), which 
lay partly beneath the Erechtheum, is possible. 

Just when the Erechtheum was begun is not known. 
Michaelis argues that no time since the death of Pericles 
was so favorable for the beginning of this building as the 
period of quiet and cessation of hostilities which set in with 
the conclusion of the peace of Nicias, that is about 421. 
But Dorpfeld is inclined to put the date a few years earlier 
and in closer relation with the time of the building of the 
Propylaea, possibly in 432. From an inscription (119) con- 
taining a report of the building commissioners on the state 
of progress of the new temple, it is known that the building 
was far advanced, but still incomplete, in 409 B.C. From 
other inscriptions (120) giving specifications of the work done 
by the masons and other workmen, together with the sums 
of money paid to each artisan for his work, it is inferred 
that in 407 the building was complete, though not finished 
in all its details (121). About a year later, 406, the temple 
was injured by fire, if we interpret the statement of Xenophon 


{Hellenica, i. 6, i ), " in the following year in which there 
wa3 an eclipse of the moon and the ancient temple of Athena 
in Athens was set on fire," as referring to this building and 
not to the old Hecatompedon, as Dorpfeld does (122). From 
another inscription {C.I.A. ii. 829) commonly dated 395/4 
(but dated by Dorpfeld in 406/5 from a different restoration 
of the name of the Archon (123)), we learn that repairs were 
made on the parts of the building that had been injured by 
the fire. When we come to treat of the details of its archi- 
tecture and sculpture we shall see that the last finishing 
touches to the building were never given. The subsequent 
history of the Erechtheum can only be understood in rela- 
tion with the plan of the building which must now occupy 
our attention. 

The Erechtheum is, in its main part, a rectangular struc- 
ture, 20.16 metres {66 ft. 2 in.) in length by 11. 17 metres 
(36 ft. 7 in.) in breadth. Seen from the east, it presents the 
appearance of an Ionic hexastyle temple. It is built of 
Pentelic marble, except that the frieze had a background 
of Eleusinian limestone. The original beauty of the exterior 
of the walls, though greatly marred, still excites admiration. 
They are built of marble blocks carefully fitted together and 
polished, crowned at the top by a richly-decorated moulding 
that is continued in the capitals of the antae at the corners. 
The lowest course of the wall consists of blocks set up 
edgewise and of double the height of the other courses, the 
so-called orthostas of a Greek building. This has at the 
bottom a projecting concave moulding that gives not only 
a finish to the lowest course of the wall, but makes a beautiful 
transition to a moulding immediately below it, consisting of 
scotia and torus, and crowning the course of marble that 
corresponds to the upper step of the stylobate of a peristyle. 
Two marble steps lie beneath this upper course, and the 
whole encircles the building and produces the effect of the 
usual stylobate of a Greek temple with three steps. The 
Erechtheum has three porticos. At the east front is a portico 
of six Ionic columns, 6.59 metres (21 ft. 7 in.) high, including 
the capital ; the other two porticos project from the building 
near its western front, opposite to each other. The spacious 
north porch had six Ionic columns, four in the front and 



one behind each corner column, which supported the ceiling 
and the roof. The smaller southern porch was enclosed by 
a parapet about six feet high, from the floor level of the 
interior, upon which stood six sculptured figures of " maidens " 
(Kopai), as they are styled in the inventory, though the later 
term caryatids is also applied to them. These figures carried 
the ceiling and the roof Four of them stand at the front 
of the porch and one behind each of the corner caryatids, 
an arrangement, it will be observed, corresponding to that 


w - »Y 

■w -^-^^^^lir^ ^^- 


Fig. 89. — Exterior of South Wall of Erechtheum. 

of the columns of the north portico. The original appear- 
ance of the west front of the temple suffered much change. 
The older drawings and engravings, such as those of Dalton 
and Stuart, show four half columns built into a wall bounded 
by two antae and pierced by three small windows, the 
southernmost intercolumniation being left free. These columns 
and this wall have recently been restored. But from the 
character of the masonry, there is reason to believe that 
these half-columns and windows date from the Roman period, 
and that the building had originally a west front of four 
Ionic columns standing on a low wall, and that the four 



northern intercolumniations were built up with a parapet below, 
and with a railing or screen of woodwork above, while the 
southernmost was left open (124). Almost the whole of the 
western wall was blown down by a storm in 1852. The 
main part of the Erechtheum was covered presumably with 
marble tiles, but the ceiling was of wood and was coffered, 
as we learn from an inscription (125), in which mention is 
made of carpenters in connection with parts of the roof. The 

Fig. 90.— West Front of Erechtheum (partly restored) ; showing North Porch restored. 

building had a gable at each end, that is to the east and 
west, and the north porch also had a gable, but there is no 
evidence for the existence of pediment groups of sculpture. 
The peculiar plan of the Erechtheum was in part due to two 
causes, or perhaps more properly to one, and that was the 
necessity of including within its enclosure the sacred tokens, as 
well as of providing a cella for the venerated image of Athena 
Polias. This necessity involved another, that of locating this 
structure upon a spot where the rock falls rapidly away from 
the southeast to the northwest. Hence the building had to 
be erected upon different levels. 



The east front of the building is about three metres 
higher than the west, and the south side is on the same 
level as the eastern, while the stereobate of the north side 
corresponds with that of the west front. The west half of 
the building accordingly lies about three metres (pf ft.) lower 
than the eastern. A flight of twelve steps descended along the 
north wall of the temple from the higher level at the east to 
the lower level on which the north porch stands. Traces of 

Fig. 91. — East Front of Erechlheuni, Porch ol "the JSlaidcns." 

the existence of these steps are plainly to be seen on the face 
of the north wall of the temple. From this porch a lofty and 
richly-adorned doorway led into the west chamber. Besides 
this door there was, of course, a door in the east portico (A) 
leading into the east chamber (B). Recent investigations 
(see p. 331) make it certain that there was a window on each 
side of this door. A small door (g) opened from the porch of 
*' the Maidens " into the lower or basement story of the build- 
ing, to which a stairway, of which only a few steps remain, 
led down. Access to this stairway in the porch was gained by 
means of an opening (not a regular door) through the parapet 


at the north end of the east side of the porch, which seems 
from the masonry to be original. There was also a small 
doorway (i) in the southwest corner of the north portico, 
where it overlapped the northwest corner of the temple, 
opening upon the enclosure {E) west of the temple, to which 
the name Pandroseum may be given (see p. 216 below). Lead- 
ing into the same enclosure was another door {m) built into 
the west wall. The curious position of this door directly 
under a column was probably determined by a wall {/) 
bounding to the north what may be called the Cecropium 
(see p. 216 below). We can still see the place where this 
cross-wall joined the west wall of the temple. The antiquity 
of this door (;;/) is attested by the great lintel above it, which 
is formed of one block equal in height to two courses of the 
stones of which the temple is built, and which extends the 
same distance on each side of the door. The rough work on 
the jambs probably dates from the time when this door was 
enlarged and used by the Christians as the main entrance to 
their church. 

Of the exterior of the temple we see to-day the following 
parts remaining : The west facade recently restored as far as 
possible; portions of the walls largely rebuilt in 1837-8 ; five 
columns of the eastern portico with their architrave ; a few 
blocks of the frieze (126); the northwestern porch with its 
columns,, entablature, ceiling, and roof rebuilt in 1903 ; and 
*' the Maidens " portico with its entablature, partly restored, 
and four of the original caryatids, i.e. (a), (d), (d), {e). The 
caryatid marked {c) was 
taken away by Lord Elgin 
and is now in the British 



Museum ; its place is sup- ,. 

plied by a terra-cotta copy. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

The figure marked (/) is chiefly a restoration in marble 
(127). Badly shattered as the exterior of the temple is, yet 
enough of it remains to enable us to get a fair idea of 
its peculiar form and beauty. But this is not the case 
when we consider the interior, for this has undergone so 
many changes that it can give us a very indefinite impres- 
sion of its original form and the appearance of its different 



The accompanying plan presents in outline the present 
appearance of the interior. We see the foundations of three 
walls. One was a cross-wall (r, r) from north to south just 
east of the great doorway opening upon the northern porch. 
The other two walls run at right angles to the first. Only 
the lower courses of the first of these walls was part of 
the original building, the other two walls being late addi- 
tions, built probably by the Christians to support the pillars 
by which the nave was separated from the side aisles. But 

Fig. 92. — Ground-plan of Erechtheum in its Present State. 

the western cross-wall {r, r) was probably not a real wall, but 
a screen, partitioning off the western chamber {D) from the 
adjacent apartment [C) to the east. The nature of this screen - 
wall is in doubt, there being no evidence for columns and 
entablature. Traces of the abutting of this screen-wall upon 
the interior of the north wall, though faint, are still visible. 
But the line of this wall (^, r) is to be distinguished from that 
of the later built wall erected by the Christians when they con- 
verted the Erechtheum into a church, and which was designed 
to bound a vestibule separated from the place of worship. 
This later wall, marked \ in Fig. 96, is clearly indicated 



by projections and cuttings in the side walls. The apart- 
ment {D) thus separated from the rest of the building 
is occupied by a cistern, which was once covered by a 

Fig. 93. — Ground-plan of Erectheura. 

A. Portico at the east. 

B. East cella, on upper level. 

C. Middle cella, on lower level. 

D. The Prostomiaion, or Sea of Erech- 

theus, later built over by the Turks 
into a cistern. 

E. The Pandroseum. 

F. The north porch. 

G. The Porch of the Maidens. 

H. Traces of an adjacent chapel, pro- 
bably the Cecropiiim. 

/. Foundations of the Hecatompedon. 

K. Ten steps (restored) leading from the 
upper level of the east front of the 
temple to the lower level of the north 

a. A low subterranean opening to give 

access to the mark {k) of the trident. 

b. A small channel to conduct the rain 

water {x) into the Pandroseum. 
c, d. Edge of the foundation of the stereo- 
bate of the Hecatompedon. 
e,f. A boimdary line indicating, according 
to Dorpfeld, the original extent of 
the foundation or stereobate of the 
g. Marble base of a votive offering. 
h. Marks of a well-head or post. 

7. ?• 
r, r. 

The door in the north porch {jo 

Mark of the trident in the rock. 
Small door by which one enters from 

the north porch into the Pandro- 
Door of the Prostomiaion D, later 

the chief entrance of the Christian 

Ancient threshold of the same door. 
Passage by which one ascends from D 

to the Porch of the Maidens (C). 
Exterior entrance into this porch G. 
A wall common to celks B and C. 
A wall common to cellas C and D ; 

whether this was a real wall is 

Remains of an older edifice, possibly 

of the Pandroseum. 
A recess or box-like panel in the south 

wall, cutout immediately above the 

door o, formerly encased at the sides 

and below by marble borders. 
A marble slab, unusually thick, by 

which the cistern D was formerly 

A large block of marble lying above 

the chapel //. 

later brick vault. But while the cistern in its present form is 
late, it is perfectly clear that it existed in some form in ancient 
days, since it is partly cut out of the solid rock and was 



covered over with massive blocks of marble, parts of which are 
still seen projecting over the edge of the cistern. In this rock- 
hewn cistern we have doubtless the salt well of Poseidon, called 

Fig. 94.— Exterior of Wesi Wall of Erechtheum. 

Fig. 95.— Exterior of North Wall of Erechtheum. 

also the sea of Erechtheus, mentioned by Pausanias (i. 26, 5) 
in the following words : " Within, for the building is double, 
there is sea-water in a well, . . . but what is remarkable about 
this well is that when the south wind has been blowing the 
well gives forth a sound of waves." That this apartment 
containing the well is referred to in the building inscription as 
irpoa-To/uiiaiov has been shown by Furtwangler (128). This 
term accordingly is to be understood as meaning the apart- 
ment which contains the irpoa-Toixiov, i.e. the enclosure of the 
mouth of a well ; this must be the well of salt water in 



the crypt. The architectural arrangement of this apartment 
{D) is not clear. Just where the well-head was cannot be 
determined. It is noticeable that the two doors of this apart- 

Fk;. g6. — Interior of North Wall of Erechtheum. 

Fig. 97. — Interior of South Wall of Erechtheum. 

[ExplanatioK 0/ Figs. 94-97.] 

X. An opening by which rain water flowing from the root of the north porch was 
conducted into the channel /'. 

y. Frieze of black Eleusinian stone. 

2. Three windows in the intercoliimniations of the west wall believed by Borrmann 
and Dorpfeld to date from the Roman time. • 

a, /3, Y> 5) f. Small windows dating from the Byzantian period, by which the build- 
ing when used as a church was lighted. 

f. Projecting stones and beds or grooves belonging to the wall which separated the 
vestibule or narthex D from the church proper C. This younger wall, traces of which 
are clearly visible, runs parallel with and close to the so-called ancient screen wall r r, 
from which it is to be carefully distinguished. 

y\. Holes or beds for receiving joists 

J^. Door-jambs and lintel of the great door in the north porch. 

ment are not exactly in the middle of their respective walls, 
their position being apparently determined chiefly by the 
architectural requirements of the exterior of the building (129). 

A.A. o 


Before leaving this apartment we need to notice the curious 
niche in the south wall and above the door leading into the 
portico of the maidens. This niche is 1.72 m. long, 0.36 m. 
deep, and about 3.40 m. high. The stones which form its 
back are not polished, but this is one of the numerous 
places on this building that were left unfinished. There 
has been much profitless speculation concerning the purpose 
of this niche. The view of Dorpfeld seems the most probable, 
that it was simply an architectural device to lessen the 
weight of this corner of the building, which is supported 
by a huge block of stone ( V) resting on a pillar of crude 
modern masonry. The peculiar construction of this corner is 
without doubt due to the proximity of the grave of the ancient 
king Cecrops, who is supposed to have been buried in this 
spot, and whose tomb would naturally be carefully conserved. 
But to this comer we shall return later, and so we leave it now 
and pass on to study the other apartments of the interior. 
About half-way between this partition wall or screen of the 
chamber D and the eastern wall of the temple was a second 
cross-wall dividing the interior into two chambers (C, B), of 
almost equal dimension. That this wall was solid and gave 
no means of communication between these two chambers is the 
opinion of most students of this building (130). The founda- 
tions of this cross-wall are gone, but the surfaces of both the 
north and south wall show clearly that at one time a cross-wall 
was built into them at the point marked (/ in our plan. The 
fact that at this point the courses of Peiraic stone of the lower 
part of the southern wall give place to marble in a stair-like 
fashion, has given rise to the belief that originally steps were 
placed against the south wall by which one passed through a 
doorway in the south end of the cross-wall q up to the higher 
level of the eastern chamber, thus connecting it with the rest of 
the building. This is the view of Frazer, but is not held by 
Dorpfeld and others who deny that there was any direct 
passage from the eastern to the middle or western chamber of 
the temple (131). That the central chamber, however, was 
entered from the west and formed part of the western portion 
or Erechtheum proper is clear from the fact that these two 
western chambers were nearly on the same level. The eastern 
cella had its entrance naturally from the east. There was no 


basement under the eastern cella, nor was this part of the 
building two-storied. 

The expression, " for the building is double " (SnrXoOv yaf) 
icTTi TO o'lKtjfia) with which Pausanias (i. 26, 5) introduces his 
account of the sacred " tokens " has been variously interpreted 
(132). Most commonly it has been understood to refer to the 
two adjacent apartments C and D. But that Pausanias is 
describing at this point not something that lies in an adjacent 
room on the same level, but something that lies below seems 
clear, since he uses the phrase in an explanatory sense in 
passing from the chamber C, on the walls of which were the 
paintings of the Butadae, to an account of the well with salt 
water. It is quite superfluous to emphasize the fact that a 
building is " double " as a reason for describing objects that are 
contained in adjacent apartments lying on the same level. 
Now we have already seen that under the west hall there is 
architectural evidence of the existence of an ancient reservoir. 
It is this that Pausanias speaks of, and the phrase under 
discussion explains its location at a lower level. This crypt, 
then, in which the salt well lay, taken together with the apart- 
ment above containing the three altars {i.e. D\ would explain 
the statement that here the building was " double," i.e. had two 
stories (133). Furthermore, this interpretation, as will be 
shown in another connection, fits best the route pursued by 
Pausanias in his description of the different parts of the 

The original floor of the eastern cella was raised one step 
above the threshold. When the building was altered to suit 
the needs of a Christian church, the floor of the eastern 
chamber was lowered to the level of the ancient floor of the 
western chamber, all its inner foundations were torn away, 
except a few stones in the corners, and part of the foundation 
of the eastern portico was removed in order to make room for 
the apse of the church. 

Before discussing the names and uses to be assigned to 
these different apartments of the Erechtheum, we must speak 
of the crypt under the northern porch entered from the small 
door {a) in the foundations of the north wall. In the north- 
west corner of the crypt is a small round cistern, probably 
of Turkish origin, dug out by Beule, which is now partly 


broken down and cleared out. In the rocky floor of the 
crypt are to be seen irregular holes or fissures {k) which are 
generally held to be the famous trident-mark of Poseidon {to 
a")(^jua T^? rpialvrj^) made when he smote the rock in his contest 
with Athena, As seen now these marks do not, to be sure, 
resemble the actual shape of a trident, and allowances must 
be made for the changes in the appearance of the surface 
of the rock wrought by time and other agencies. This want 
of resemblance to a trident-mark has led some (134) to reject 
this identification, but, as it seems to us, without sufficient 
reason. Attention is called by Borrmann (135) to the peculiar 
arrangement of the blocks of the pavement of the north 
portico immediately above the place where the trident-mark 
was shown or supposed to be. It will be noticed that two 
smaller slabs are inserted among the larger ones, and that 
the edges of one of these slabs appear to have been worked 
smooth so as to be visible, while the larger slab lying adjacent 
to the north wall of the building and over the entrance into 
the crypt shows on its northern edge no trace of any joint. 
From this arrangement it is inferred that originally an 
opening of about 1.3 1 metres square was provided exactly 
over these marks so as to make them easily seen by any 
one looking down. This aperture may have been protected 
by a well-head and a grating. The recent reconstruction 
of the north porch has revealed the fact that two coffer- 
blocks were omitted in the ceiling (the southernmost in the 
second row from the east), and that there was a sort of 
well or casing built up through the space between the 
stone ceiling and the roof, plainly implying that there was 
a hole or opening in the roof also. On either side of 
the opening in the ceiling there was a frame which narrowed 
somewhat the space made vacant by the omitted coffers. 
Dorpfeld interprets this device as a means for leaving open 
to the sky the trident-mark in the rock below the porch. 
It is worth while incidentally to observe that a similar 
arrangement is known to have been provided by the Romans 
for sacred objects that were to receive honor only under an 
open sky. Thus Varro {L.L. v. 66) says that the temple 
of Fidius had a perforatum tectum, and Ovid {Fasti, ii. 671) 
states that the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus had an exiguum 


foramen^ i.e. a small hole in the roof above a terminal 
stone. It is probable that the crypt below the porch also 
served as the abode of the Erichthonios serpent (oiKovpog 
6(pt<;). That this sacred serpent was intimately associated 
with the legendary history of the snake-king Erechtheus and 
had its dwelling place in or near the Erechtheum is a matter 
of literary tradition. Thus Philostratus {Imag. ii. 17) speaks 
of the serpent of Athena which dwells on the Acropolis, 
and Eustathius {Odyss. i. 357) refers to the guardian serpent 
(oiKoupo? ^jiOLKdov) as dwelling in the temple of the Polias. 
The lexicographer Hesychius says that the sacred serpent, 
which was identified with Erichthonios, dwelt in the sanctuary 
of Erechtheus. The probability is that in the oldest form 
of the legend Erichthonios or Erechtheus was the sacred 
serpent of Athena which lived in or near the Erechtheum, 
was considered the guardian of the Acropolis, and was fed 
with honey-cakes once a month. During the Persian invasion 
a report, circulated according to Plutarch by the wily 
Themistocles, that the honey-cake had been left untasted by 
the serpent, was one of the strongest motives which led the 
Athenians to abandon their city to the enemy, thinking that 
the serpent and with it the goddess Athena had forsaken 
Athens (136). 

Having discussed the general plan of the interior of the 
Erechtheum, we next take up the difficult question of the 
names and uses of the several apartments. At the risk of 
appearing to be dogmatic we present what on the whole 
seems to us to be the most reasonable view, relegating to 
Appendix iii. and to the chapter that deals with the route 
of Pausanias fuller discussion of the points in dispute. 
Pausanias (i. 26, 5) says that before the entrance to the 
Erechtheum there is an altar of Zeus Most High, upon which 
they sacrifice nothing that has life (137). Unhappily the 
position of this altar cannot be determined with certainty, 
and we are therefore left in doubt where Pausanias places 
the entrance. Some hold that the entrance referred to by 
Pausanias is the usual one of a Greek temple, that is, through 
the eastern portico, while others, locating the altar of Zeus 
in the north porch, think the entrance is through the richly 
decorated north door. On the latter theory this altar has 


been identified with that of the Ovrf^oo^, which seems to be 
the title of the priest who offered sacrifices. This latter altar, 
as we learn from inscriptions (138), stood in the north porch. 
But there is no evidence to prove this identification. Still 
others are disposed to place the altar of Zeus Most High 
east of the portico of the maidens, and to suppose that 
Pausanias entered the Erechtheum through the southern 
porch. But there seems to have been no public entrance 
here, for the opening at the corner is narrow and the step 
up to it is very high. Furthermore, Mr. A. S. Murray 
{J.H.S. i. p. 224), has shown that the delicate mould- 
ings around the base or plinth and continued under this 
opening would be worn by every one entering here, and 
that therefore an entrance from this side must have been a 
private one seldom used. This view, as being the least 
likely, can be dismissed. Pausanias must then have entered 
the temple either by the east or by the north portico. Before 
we decide in favor of either, it is well to notice once more 
the double character of this temple. It contained the shrine 
of Poseidon-Erechtheus and that of Athena. That to Ath_ena 
should have been dedicated the eastern cella, the largest and 
most important of the chambers of the building, will not 
easily be doubted. From this fact it would naturally be 
supposed that Pausanias would be likely to speak of the 
entrance through the Ionic portico at the eastern front as 
" the entrance," and that accordingly his description of the 
interior is to be understood as starting from this point. 
This would harmonize also with the course he would be 
likely to take, coming as he did from the east front of the 
Parthenon. But when we read his account of what he saw 
within we find him mentioning first of all three altars, one 
of Poseidon-Erechtheus, one of the hero Butes, and one of 
Hephaestus, next the salt well, and last the wooden image 
of Athena and the golden lamp made by Callimachus. 
Dorpfeld and his followers, in the interest of the theory that 
the Athena image and her temple are to be found not in 
the Erechtheum but in the old Athena temple, hold that 
the three altars are to be placed in the east and main cella 
which Pausanias, according to their view, must have entered 
first. According to the view we have adopted, on the 


contrary, the three altars are to be located in the western 
part of the building in close proximity to the ancient 
" tokens," which was more specifically called the Erechtheum, 
and which we believe Pausanias had distinctively in mind 
when he called the temple " a double dwelling." On this 
supposition the old traveller must have first gone down the 
broad steps on the north side of the building and have 
entered it by the north porch. If we accept this view the 
only question that remains is whether these altars stood in 
the western hall {D), which contained the sea of Erechtheus, 
or in the inner chamber {C). On this point we are disposed 
to accept the view of Furtwangler {Masterpieces, p. 435), who 
holds that the altars, as the principal centres of worship, 
would naturally be placed not in the antechamber but in the 
inner chamber adjoining it. That Pausanias should mention 
the altars within the inner chamber first before speaking of 
the sea of Erechtheus in the antechamber, is explained by 
Furtwangler as due to his fondness for antithesis, which led 
him to name the three principal altars within immediately 
after the altar that stood before the entrance. That this 
chamber was itself divided into two sections, a northern one 
containing the altar of Poseidon-Erechtheus, a southern one in 
which stood the shrines of Hephaestus and Butes, is a pure 
conjecture. On the walls of this central chamber were fastened- 
the votive tablets of the Butadae, which had been dedicated 
by Habron, the son of Lycurgus (139). On the partition 
wall that divides this cella from that of Athena Polias, there 
was probably the painting of Erechtheus driving a four-horse 
chariot mentioned by a scholiast on Aristides as being on 
the Acropolis behind the goddess (ottIctod t^? Oeov). From 
this part of the building Pausanias must have gone to the 
east cella either by means of an inner stairway (140), if there 
was such a stairway, or, retracing his steps to the north 
porch whence he entered the building, he must have returned 
to the east and entered the cella from that side. In discussing 
the order in which Pausanias names related objects, it is 
generally assumed that he describes those objects in strictly 
topographical order (141). It may be worth the while, how- 
ever, to say that all do not consent to this view. Beule, for 
example {L'Acropo/e, ii. p. 239), believes that the order in 


which Pausanias describes the objects in the Erechtheum is to 
be accounted for not so much by the relation of the parts of the 
building to on^ another as by the relation which the objects 
within have to the building and its cults. He supposes that 
Pausanias first arrives at the eastern front, and that the altars 
named by him stood in the eastern cella {B), usually assigned 
to Athena. He next speaks of the objects which more than 
anything else interest his credulous piety. These he viewed 
by going down the small staircase which led from the central 
chamber {C) to the crypt under the northern porch. After 
surveying the " tokens " he re-ascends by the same stairway. 

Before dismissing from our attention the interior plan of 
the Erechtheum, it is worth while to notice the new view of 
Professor Dorpfeld (142) on the original plan of this building. 
The irregularity of the plan of this temple, together with 
certain architectural defects, such as e.g. the lack of a corner 
pilaster at the northwest corner of the porch of " the 
Maidens," have led him to believe that the original plan of 
the Erechtheum was a symmetrical one which included a west 
half that was never built, to correspond with the east half. 
From the accompanying plan it will be seen that a north 
and south axis running through the centre of the north porch, 
and of the small door opposite, suggests at once a symmetrical 
extension of the building to the west. With this extension 
the temple has three divisions ; in the east and west respec- 
tively a cella, and in the middle a structure of three 
compartments having at the north a large decorative porch, 
and at the south a small one. The two end divisions lie on 
the terrace of the old Athena temple, but the central part 
on the lower level of the " tokens " (a-rjfxeia). That the east 
and west cellas with their porticos had each a roof and 
pediment cannot be doubted. But the entire middle part 
was uncovered with the exception of the central chamber {C). 

The east cella was designed to be the sanctuary of 
Athena, and to house the old wooden image of the Polias. 
The central chambers were intended to be the substitute for 
the old Erechtheus-Poseidon temple, which at the time 
of Herodotus (viii. 55), contained the "tokens," that is to 
say, the sea of Erechtheus and the trident-mark, and also 
to shelter the sacred olive tree, which must have stood under 



the open sky. The western chamber remains to be disposed 
of. This must have been intended for the treasury-house, 
the opisthodomos, for which provision must be made if we 
suppose that this building was designed to replace an older 
shrine of Erechtheus-Poseidon and the old Athena temple 
(Hecatompedon). Dorpfeld then goes on to give the relation 
of these parts to one another, and shows a remarkable corre- 
spondence in dimensions between the different parts. Thus 
it appears that the east cella with its portico measured to 

(J c) o n o o 

Fig. 98. — Original Plan of the Erechtheum. as drawn by Dorpfeld. 

the axis of the columns is 30 feet deep, that the adjoining 
east chamber of the central structure is 20 feet deep, and 
that the distance of the west interior wall from the north 
and south axis of the structure is 10 feet. Accordingly, we 
get a length of 30 + 20-1-10 = 60 feet from the axis of the 
columns of the east portico to the central axis of the whole 
building as originally planned. The entire building would 
then have a length of 120 feet, measured between the axis 
of the columns of the east and west porticos. 

But, as in the case of the Propylaea and the temple of 
Athena Nike, opposition to the plan arose, apparently before 


it was fairly begun, on the part of the priests of the old 
Athena temple, and the builders were compelled to modify 
and contract their design. And this they did in such a 
manner as to permit later, if circumstances were favorable, 
the renewal and execution of the original plan. But the 
breaking out of the disastrous war with Sparta not only 
made this impossible, but interrupted the completion of even 
the restricted plan. From this failure to complete the original 
design Dorpfeld draws, of course, an argument in favor of the 
continued existence of the Hecatompedon, inasmuch as the 
new Erechtheum did not provide for an opisthodomos, and 
the cella which was intended for the revered image of Athena 
never received its expected occupant. 

Let us now notice more carefully the objects these 
chambers contained, following the description of Pausanias. 
The fact that Pausanias makes no mention of images in 
connection with the three altars, already mentioned above, 
justifies the inference that these shrines were simply altars. 
The union of Poseidon and Erechtheus in one cult is possibly to 
be explained, with Mommsen {Fesfe d. Stadt Atken, p. 156), by 
the joint association with the horse which Poseidon created 
and Erechtheus first harnessed. The hero Butes is a dis- 
tinctively Attic personality. He was said to be the son of 
Pandion, and the brother of Erechtheus, and also a priest of 
Athena and Poseidon. The third altar was consecrated 
to Hephaestus, whose cult at Athens was apparently no less 
ancient than that of Athena with whom he was associated 
in the myth of the birth of Erichthonios. In the eastern 
cella stands the object which Pausanias mentioned as deemed 
the holiest of all the images on the Acropolis, the wooden 
image of Athena Polias, said to have fallen from heaven, 
which is only a picturesque way of emphasizing its venerable 
origin. Philostratus ( Vit. Apollon. iii. 1 4) speaks of it as one 
of the most ancient images in Greece. According to Plutarch 
{Themist. 10), the Athenians saved the image by taking it 
with them to Salamis when they fled from Athens at the 
approach of the Persians. The type of this image Frazer 
thinks may be found in an antique figure of the goddess 
depicted on the vases which were given as prizes at the 
Panathenaic festival (see Baumeister, Denkmdler, pp. 1 151-54). 


It represents the goddess in a stiff attitude, bearing a crested 
helmet, the left foot advanced, the right hand raised and 
grasping the spear, with which she is making a thrust, while in 
her left hand she is holding a round shield. In the Dresden 
statue of Athena, which goes back to a thoroughly archaic 
type, we may also see a copy of the Athena Polias. Its 
robe was embroidered with the verj-' scenes which are known 
to have been wrought in the robe that was periodically 
placed on the image of Athena. This embroidered peplos 
was woven by two of the four maidens called Arj^epkoroi, 
who were attachei^ to the service of the goddess in the 
Erechtheum, and dwelt not far from the temple. Aristophanes 
{Birds, 826 ff.) clearly implies that the robe which was pre- 
sented to Athena at the great Panathenaic festival was woven 
for Athena Polias (143). This garment was not only presented 
to the goddess, but it was customary to clothe her image in 
it. The officials whose duty it was to clothe the image were 
called Praxiergidai (Trpa^iepylSai). Frazer shows from analo- 
gous instances that the most ancient cult images are known 
to have worn real clothing. The cella which contained this 
sacred image was lighted by the golden lamp made by the 
celebrated worker in metal named Callimachus. From the 
notices of the ancient writers, particularly Strabo and 
Plutarch, we learn that the lamp burned perpetually ; that 
during the siege of Athens by Sulla it was allowed to go 
out for lack of oil ; and that it was tended by venerable 

Besides the objects already discussed, Pausanias speaks of 
votive offerings and souvenirs. That these were kept in the 
east or main cella, in close proximity to the image of the 
patron divinity, who had so signally proved herself to be the 
guardian of the state, and to whom the spoils taken from the 
Persians would most appropriately be dedicated, seems most 
probable. These spoils were reckoned among the available 
treasures of the state. The cuirass of Masistius was said by 
Herodotus (ix. 22) to be covered with scales and made of 
gold. The sword of Mardonius, mentioned also by Demos- 
thenes (xxiv. 129), and valued at 300 darics, was a dagger 
with a broad blade. The folding-chair, alleged to be a work 
of Daedalus, was probably a handsome piece of wood-carving 


cut in the archaic style, and must not be taken as identical 
with the silver-footed chair (not mentioned by Pausanias) 
referred to by Demosthenes, on which Xerxes sat watching 
the battle of Salamis. 

After enumerating the objects kept within the Erechtheum, 
Pausanias speaks of a temple of Pandrosos, who alone of the 
sisters was blameless in regard to the trust committed to them 
by their father, Cecrops. This sanctuary of Pandrosos, Pau- 
sanias says, was contiguous to the temple of Athena. Its 
location is made certain by the inscriptions relating to the 
Erechtheum. One of these (C./.A. i. 322) speaks of the 
columns on the wall which looks towards the Pandroseum. 
Now the only wall of the temple which had columns upon it 
was, as we have seen, the west wall on which, at a height of 
about 3.71 metres (12 J ft.), stood four Ionic columns. In 
another inscription (C./.A. iv. i, 321, col. ii.) the western gable of 
the Erechtheum is called " the gable towards the Pandroseum." 
When therefore Pausanias says that this sanctuary was contig- 
uous to the temple of Athena, we cannot be wrong in 
believing that he means the Erechtheum and in locating the 
sanctuary of Pandrosos in the enclosure immediately to the 
west of the temple. The exact spot in the enclosure on which 
the sanctuary stood cannot be determined any more than its 
size and form. Michaelis and Frazer place it at the southwest 
corner of the Erechtheum. But at this corner Dorpfeld puts 
the Cecropium, or sanctuary of Cecrops, in harmony with the 
statement of the inscription already referred to above, which 
speaks of the caryatid porch as " the porch beside the 
Cecropium," and which mentions an angle of the temple as 
" the angle towards the Cecropium." That Cecrops and 
Pandrosos should be coupled together with Erechtheus or 
Erichthonios is most natural, especially when we bear in mind 
the myth connected with the birth of Erichthonios (144) which 
is told by Pausanias (i. 18, 2). The story of the finding of 
Erichthonios in the chest is depicted on an amphora found at 
Camirus in Rhodes, and now in the British Museum. The 
chest stands on a pile of rocks which probably represent the 
Acropolis. On the rocks lies the lid, ornamented with an 
olive wreath, and from the open chest appears the boy Erich- 
thonios. The head and tail of the serpent appear above the 



chest. Athena on one side gazes with surprise at the child 
and serpent, while on the other side the two naughty sisters, 
Herse and Aglauros are fleeing in consternation. The inti- 
mate relation shown to exist between Erechtheus, Cecrops and 
Pandrosos, the obedient daughter, is reflected in the juxta- 
position of their respective sanctuaries in and about the temple 
under discussion. Late writers, such as Clement of Alex- 
andria, and Arnobius, affirm that Cecrops was buried in the 
Cecropium. From all the evidence before us we believe that 
the Cecropium is to be located at the southwest corner of the 
Erechtheum, and that the Pandroseum was the precinct im- 
mediately adjoining it to the north. An interesting piece of 

Fig. 99. — Vase Painting representing Erichthonios in the Chest. 

evidence in favor of the existence of a tomb or sanctuary 
of Cecrops in the place indicated is to be found in the 
character of the masonry at this point. At the south end 
of the west wall of the Erechtheum will be noticed a gap 
in the ancient masonry, now filled up by a crude pillar and 
a piece of rough wall. This gap extends some distance under 
the Caryatid porch and is spanned by a large lintel (see 
Fig- 90) about 1 5 feet long and 5 feet deep. Penrose calls 
attention to the fact that of the columns which entered into 
the structure of the west wall of the Erechtheum the base of 
the one nearest the south porch, together with the base of the 
adjacent anta, have been left unfinished. This seems to point 
to the existence of some structure which occupied the space 
where these mouldings were left unfinished. The same infer- 
ence may be drawn from the fact that the string course of the 
podium of the Caryatid porch on its west side is carved into 
the egg and tongue ornament only a third of the way, the rest 
of it being left plain. All this points to the existence of a 


tomb or sanctuary sacred to Cecrops, which marked the site of 
his grave and which stood adjacent to the portico of the 
Maidens. The supposed existence of some structure adjacent 
to the west wall of the Erechtheum has recently been proved 
by an observation made by Dorpfeld. This observation is 
that the west wall above a certain line, which would mark 
the height of this supposed structure, shows a final finish in its 
stone work that is lacking below this line. This line, not 
easily seen from the ground, but visible from the scaffolding 
which was erected to make repairs on the temple, gives the 
height of this adjacent structure, which can be no other than the 
Cecropium. With this observation added to what was previously 
known or inferred we can not only locate the Cecropium but 
determine all its boundaries except toward the west. 

As regards the Pandroseum, it is further to be noticed that 
within its precinct dwelt the Arrephoroi, the two maidens 
whose mysterious office is described by Pausanias (i. 27, 3), 
and that it guarded also the famous olive tree, of which 
Pausanias tells his remarkable story, and that the altar of 
Zeus of the Court stood near or under the olive tree. Frazer 
calls attention to a levelled area about eight feet square some 
40 feet west of the Erechtheum, which, he thinks, may mark 
the spot on which this altar of Zeus stood, and quotes from 
Penrose the statement that close to it is a natural fissure in 
the rock where the roots of the olive tree may have found 
their bed. But Dorpfeld infers from recent investigations 
that the olive tree stood within the area bounded by a 
line drawn from the door in the west wall intercepting a 
line drawn from the door in the southwest corner of the 
north porch. Pliny {N.H. xvi. 240) and Hyginus {Fab. 164), 
speak of the olive tree as still existing in their day, and 
Cicero {De Legibus, i. i, 2) refers to the eternal olive on 
the Acropolis at Athens. This tree was looked upon as the 
progenitor of the sacred olives of the grove of Academus, 
and was under the special protection of Athena. 

Having finished the discussion of the history and plan of 
the Erechtheum, let us now turn to consider its characteristic 
features as a work of art. The Erechtheum may justly be 
regarded as the most perfect example of the Ionic-Attic style 
of architecture that is known. 



The Ionic columns have the so-called Attic base, which 
consists of two semi-circular mouldings or tori separated by 
a hollow moulding. The shaft has twenty-four flutings and 
bulges out slightly at the top. In the columns of the north 
porch the upper torus is reeded or decorated with a rich plait 
pattern, varied in the different columns. The base of the 
columns of the east portico is not so richly decorated, the 
upper torus being simply fluted. The necking of the column 
is richly decorated with a carved band of palmettes. It is 
likely that these palmettes were gilded and had a tinted 

Fig. 100.— Column of North Porch of Erechtheum, showing Decorated Base. 

background. The palmettes of the columns of the east 
portico are bordered above and below with a carved astragal 
moulding, but the lower astragal moulding is lacking in the 
columns of the north porch. An egg-and-dart moulding and 
a plaited band support the cushion of the capital. The 
volutes are strongly marked, and have a double spiral canalis, 
possibly colored at the edges and turned about a gilded knob 
or other ornament at the centre, the so-called " eye " of the 
volute. A narrow abacus enriched with an egg-and-dart 
moulding form the transition to the architrave. The capitals 
of the columns at the corners had, according to the regular 
type of a corner Ionic capital, two outside faces with a volute 
in common at an angle of 45 degrees. 



The capitals of the antae were decorated differently. The 
volute ornament was not carried over to them, but the 
decoration consists of a necking adorned with a honeysuckle 
pattern, bead moulding, an Ionic egg-and-dart moulding, and 
at the top a cyma ornamented with the Lesbian pattern and 
finished off with an ogee moulding as abacus. This decora- 
tion is carried across the wall between the two antae. Durm, 
the architect, calls attention (145) to the care shown in the 
execution of the finest details in the ornamentation of the 
columns of the north portico, especially as seen in the decora- 
tive patterns on the mouldings of the corner columns. " Often 



^ \ 










Fig. ioi.— Column of North Porch of Erechtheum, showing Decorated Capital. 

hidden and applied to the structure at a considerable height, 
these details are executed with the same loving care as though 
they were to be brought directly before the gaze of the 
beholder. Nowhere is there a suggestion of careless hurry 
in the modelling. How finely conceived and nicely graded in 
relief are the individual parts of the leaves ; how very beautiful 
the softly drawn outlines of the egg-and-lancet-shaped leaves ; 
how carefully considered and nicely solved the difficult problem 
of the arrangement of the ornamental leaves on the corner of 
the abacus in the capital of the. corner column. And with all 
this painstaking execution and careful finish of the smallest 
details, a regard for the effect of the whole mass was never 
left out of view." The architrave is comparatively light, corre- 
sponding to the slender columns. It consists of a single 


block of marble, the height of which is the same as the upper 
diameter of the columns, and is divided into three bands, 
each slightly projecting beyond the other. The architrave is 
surmounted by a richly decorated moulding, consisting on its 
outside of a bead fillet, a Lesbian cymatium and a small cyma 
reversa. Above the epistyle lies the frieze, made of slabs of 
black Eleusinian stone, to which were fastened white marble 
figures in relief by means of iron dowels. Besides these 
dowels, bronze bolts were let perpendicularly into the archi- 
trave and were held in place with molten lead in order to 
secure the relief figures. Traces of these fastenings are still 
visible. In this connection may be cited an inscription which 
records item by item the expense of building the Erechtheum. 
From the fragments of this inscription (146) it appears, for 
example, that two talents of lead bought for fastening the 
small figures of the frieze cost ten drachmas, and a relief, 
which represented a young man driving two horses, cost 240 
drachmas (equal to about $45). Professor Gardner {Greek 
Sculpture, p. 300) remarks that the frieze is mainly interesting 
as a curious experiment in the technique of relief The figures 
are only two feet high, flat at the back and in high relief. 
The composition of the frieze was doubtless the work of one 
artist, but its execution, as we learn from the Rhangabe 
inscription referred to above, was entrusted to several sculptors. 
The fragments are not sufficient to enable us to determine 
definitely what the frieze was intended to represent. Among 
the sculptural fragments of the frieze (now to be seen in the 
Acropolis Museum) there is a horse almost entire. A horse is 
mentioned in connection with the frieze in the building inscrip- 
tion referred to above. Now since Poseidon created the horse 
and Erechtheus was the first to harness him, it is easy to 
believe that this frieze may have represented this among 
other scenes of Greek legend. The most interesting figure 
among these remains is that of a woman who holds in her 
lap a child which seems to clasp its right arm about her neck. 
Possibly this group is Athena -and the boy Erichthonios. The 
treatment of the drapery is fine and light, but with a tendency 
to an artificial arrangement of the folds. In style these 
sculptures belong to the transition from the earlier to the 
later bloom of Attic art. 



An ornamental cornice crowns the entablature, but what is 
noteworthy is the absence of the dentils which are often 
regarded as characteristic of an Ionic entablature. Of the 
corona and the cornice that enclosed the pediments too little is 
preserved to warrant any definite statement as regards details 
of ornamentation, except that at the sides there were water- 
spouts of lion heads with an antefix between each head. 

Stones from all three pediments have recently been found 
and also most of the cornice blocks, but these show no trace 
of sculptured ornament. The richest decoration was lavished 
upon the north porch, the beautiful remains of which still call 

Fk;. I02. — Car\ecl Cornice of Krechtheum. 

forth the admiration of all lovers of art. The six Ionic 
columns of this porch are even more beautiful than those of 
the eastern portico. They are about 7.64 m. (25 ft.) high, 
which is nearly a metre higher than the columns of the eastern 
portico. We have already seen that the columns of the north 
porch are also more richly decorated. The capital of these 
columns is especially rich in decoration. It has a deep and 
delicately cut groove, describing a curve intermediate between 
the nearly straight line of the abacus and the deep curve of 
the lower line that bounds the channel between the volutes. 
This groove runs around the two volutes which consist 
of three spirals wound together. All the columns of the 
Erechtheum have a round torus with a rich plait above 


the egg-and-dart moulding which crowns the shaft, but in the 
columns of the north porch this plait is pierced with holes in 
which probably a bright enamel was inserted. The flutings 
do not run clear up to the top of the shaft, but are terminated 
by a bead moulding which encloses a band of flat relief with 
a beautiful palmette and honeysuckle pattern, a favorite 
decoration that is found on various parts of the temple. The 
ceiling of the porch was coffered. It has recently been 
restored by the Greek Archaeological Society. In our last 
chapter will be found an account of this latest restoration. 
The same style of ornament, in relief and in color, which is 
found in the coffered ceiling of the Parthenon and the 
Propylaea, occurs also here, only more elaborate. But the 
most elaborate and the most beautiful piece of architecture of 
the north porch is the great doorway, which was distinguished 
even in ancient times from all the other doors of the temple 
by the especial name of to Ovpwjua. 

This Ionic doorway, even in its damaged and changed 
condition as we see it to-day, is the finest and most perfect 
architectural model known to us from classical times. The 
great lintel above the door is broken, deranging somewhat 
the harmony of the lines of the mouldings. Of the original 
lintel only the ends remain, showing that it had the depth of 
two of the courses of the masonry and rested on the wall on 
either side. The present lintel and its richly decorated cornice 
are of good Roman workmanship, though the palmettes on 
the cornice are not as perfect in style as those which decorate 
the capitals of the antae and the cornice of the gable. It is 
to be noticed also that the rosettes which decorate the lintel 
differ from those which are seen on the jambs, the former 
having closed, the latter open centres, bored out for the 
purpose of inserting a wooden plug on which was fixed a 
bronze knob. As already intimated, just when the original 
lintel and cornice and jambs were replaced by those now to 
be seen is not clear. Some of these changes may be due 
to the repairs made necessary by the fire which, according to 
some scholars, burnt a part of the Erechtheum in 406 B.C. 
(see above, p. 196). Or it may be that the present copy of 
the original lintel and cornice dates from a time contemporary 
with the columns and entablature of the temple of Olympian 



Zeus at Athens, the enriched bed-mould of which corresponds 
fairly well with that on this stone (147). The jambs and 
linings are of different periods, some of them dating from the 
time of the Roman occupation. The later Byzantian repairs 
consist of a support for the inner lintel and two jamb-linings 

Fig. 103. — Doorway of North Porch of F.rechtheum. 

to support this. This newer inner lintel, however, did not 
touch the outer older one or help to support it. The consoles, 
of which only one remains, are certainly later additions, added 
to give a sham support to the later lintel and of no con- 
structive value. The boss left standing below the second 
rosette on the east jamb makes a strange impression of 
incompleteness in the midst of so much exquisite finish. Yet 



in spite of these imperfections, the great doorway impresses 
every beholder as a unique example of what Greek decorative 
art could achieve. And this impression is heightened when 
one compares the decorations of this doorway with the imita- 
tions of them that may be seen in later Roman, Byzantian 
and modern architecture. 

The south portico, known as that of " the Maidens" (Kopai), 
has not called forth universal admiration as a specimen of fine 

Jig. iu4. -Purlieu of -'The M.'iklciis," West End. 

art. The idea of converting the statue of a human being into 
a pillar or support is distasteful at first glance. One critic 
goes so far as to say that one would as soon expect to find 
in the art of the middle ages a baldachin supported by statues 
of Christ and his apostles. But this application of the human 
figure is certainly less distasteful in a country where the sight 
of girls and women carrying some burden on the head or 
shoulders must have been common, and is portrayed on the 
frieze of the Parthenon (148). The objection seems to vanish 


entirely when we consider the skill with which these figures 
have been made to serve as supports and behold their 
unquestionable beauty. The building inscriptions name these 
figures simply maidens (Kopai). The later name " Caryatid " 
is fancifully explained by Vitruvius (i. i, 5) as coming from 
the town of Carya in Arcadia, whose inhabitants were punished 
for making common cause with the Persians, its men being 
put to death and its women carried into slavery. To com- 
memorate this event, their figures were carved as supports of 

These statues represent robust female forms in the bloom 
of young womanhood. Each rests her weight on the leg 
farthest from the centre of the fagade, and all produce the 
impression of ease and stability. The ample drapery, falling 
down to the feet and grasped by one hand, envelop the whole- 
some form in folds large and simple, increasing the effect of 
the apparent strength of the figures, and suggesting the round 
and symmetrical shape of a column. The straight and narrow 
folds in the lower part of the figures suggest the flutings of 
a column. In the conventional treatment of the hair these 
statues remind us of the late archaic period of art. The 
waving hair lies in two masses divided at the centre and yet 
bound together by a small braid, while at the back the hair 
is arranged in solid plaits beside the neck so as to increase 
the apparent strength of the figures as architectural supports. 
They carry with ease the weight of the entablature which has 
been left without a frieze so as to lighten its weight. The 
skill with which the transition is made from the perpendicular 
statue to the horizontal architrave is apparent. On the head 
lies the cushion-shaped echinus, around which run a pearl- 
bead moulding and an egg-and-dart quarter-round. On top 
of this rests the narrow plinth or abacus crowned with a 
cymatium, which joins the architrave. Behind the figures at 
each of the sides stands an anta. Its capital is decorated 
with a fillet, a palmette ornament and three cymatia, which 
are separated from one another by lists and beading, and are 
adorned with the egg-and-dart and the so-called Lesbian 
pattern, the whole crowned by a moulding. The face of the 
architrave shows three bands each slightly projecting above 
the one below it. The topmost band is decorated with small 


marble discs designed to be cut into rosettes, to compensate 
for the omitted frieze. Above this band are carved a pearl- 
bead fillet and a decorated moulding. Above this moulding 
is the cornice which consists of a heavy moulding of the dentil 
pattern, a plain band, a beading and decorated cymatium, and 
a projecting corona deeply undercut and crowned with an 
echinus-shaped moulding. This porch had no real roof, but 
instead four large marble slabs into which panels were cut. 
The slabs lay across the top and formed the outside cornice, 
and .were supported by the wall of the temple and by the 
architrave. Three of these slabs are still in situ and show 
the deep-set coffers of the ceiling, originally decorated with 
colored and gilded ornaments after the manner of the panelled 
ceiling of the Propylaea and the Parthenon. 

Our survey of this remarkable and beautiful temple may 
fittingly be closed with the words of Mr. Penrose : " Speaking 
of the temple generally, it is impossible not to notice the 
absence of rigid balance in the different parts both as respects 
the plan and the elevation ; nevertheless its exquisite beauty 
and harmony is indisputable. It should be observed, however, 
that in each particular part the symmetry is perfect ; for 
instance, not only are the columniations spaced with the 
greatest exactness, but the joints of the stones forming the 
■drums run exactly level. The peculiar combinations which 
we find are not haphazard, but are due to deliberate intention, 
part of which, however, may have had reference to some 
antecedent requirements which had their origin in a previous 
temple. Considering the numerous vicissitudes and the ill 
treatment to which this temple has been subjected, it is very 
fortunate that we still retain so many precious relics of its 
original architecture." 



"To hear the Tragic Song still Fancy seems 
From the void stage, and praises what it dreams." 

Horace, Ep. ii. 2. 

Having described the chief monuments of the Periclean age 
on the summit of the Acropolis, we must now, abandoning 
the chronological sequence of our account, occupy ourselves 
with the buildings that stood on the southern slope of the 
Acropolis and form an integral part of its complex history. 
For not only was the summit of the rock a sanctuary, but its 
sides and terraces were crowded with shrines and temples and 
statues intimately associated with the religious cults and 
heroic legends of the Athenian people. As a matter of 
convenience we shall follow in our description the route 
pursued by Pausanias and begin at the east end of the 
southern slope. 

■ Pausanias, after passing through the street called the street 
of Tripods, comes apparently to the precinct of Dionysus 
south of the Acropolis, and mentions the oldest sanctuary of 
that god as being " beside the theatre." Whether this 
sanctuary is the same as that referred to by Thucydides 
(ii. 15) under the name of Dionysus "in the Marshes" 
{hf iaxixvaii) and is identical with what is called the Lenaeum, 
is a much disputed question, into the discussion of which we 
cannot enter (149). In the excavations near the western foot 
of the Acropolis Professor D5rpfeld has found an enclosure 
surrounded by ancient polygonal walls within which were 


brought to light the remains of an ancient wine-press and, 
as he beHeves, of a sanctuary of Dionysus. Here it is 
that Dorpfeld locates the " most ancient sanctuary " of this 
god in Athens, and it is this which he thinks is called the 
sanctuary " in the Marshes " by Thucydides. This opinion 
is accepted by Judeich and by Miss Harrison, The Lenaeum, 
however, is located by Dorpfeld in the vicinity of the old 
orchestra near the market place. Now if the view of 
Dorpfeld is correct, Pausanias is mistaken in speaking of 
the sanctuary of Dionysus south of the Acropolis as " the 
most ancient." How this mistake may have arisen is shown 
by Judeich, who believes that the dramatic representations 
connected with the Lenaea were transferred to the precinct 
south of the Acropolis at least as early as the building of the 
stone theatre by Lycurgus, that later the cult of Dionysus 
" in the Marshes " was carried over from its original seat to 
the sanctuary of Dionysus Eleuthereus, and that Pausanias's 
statement, when he erroneously spoke of the sanctuary of 
Dionysus south of the Acropolis as being " the most ancient," 
was probably suggested by the statement of Thucydides and 
may thus be accounted for. 

Whatever may be the correct view in regard to " the most 
ancient sanctuary " of Dionysus, there can be no doubt that 
the two temples mentioned by Pausanias as " within the 
enclosure " of Dionysus are identified in the remains of two 
small buildings, lying immediately south of the great theatre. 
The older of the two is adjacent to the southwest corner of 
the Stoa of the theatre. Part of the foundation, part of the 
west wall, and the start of the wall between the naos and 
pronaos, are all that is preserved of this little temple, which 
seems to have consisted only of a cella for the shrine of the 
god and a vestibule. In front of the temple were found 
channeled drums of columns, pieces of triglyphs, and a piece 
of a pediment which seems to have belonged to it. From 
these architectural fragments Dorpfeld conjectures that the 
temple was about 1 3 metres (4 1 ft. 10 in.) long from east to 
west by 8 metres (26 ft. 3 in.) broad from north to south. He 
infers that the temple is not later than the sixth century B.C.,. 
from the fact that the material employed in the building 
is the hard limestone of the Acropolis, the lighter colored 


limestone quarried at Kard, and the Peiraic limestone, and 
that these three materials appear to have been used together 
at Athens only in buildings which antedate the Persian war. 
The style of the masonry and the form of the clamps (^) 
also confirm this date. The image that stood in this temple 
is probably the archaic wooden one called tke Eleutherian and 
brought, according to tradition, from Eleutherae to Athens. 
South of this building, with a slightly different orientation, 
lies the later temple. The foundations, which alone are left, 
are built of conglomerate stone. Its plan differed from that 
of the older temple already described, and in that it was, 
according to Dorpfeld's reconstruction, a prostyle temple with 
a portico deep enough to have two intercolumniations. In 
the cella are to be seen the foundations of a large base 
(3 in plan) which possibly supported the gold and ivory 
statue of Dionysus, mentioned by Pausanias as the workman- 
ship of Alcamenes. Since conglomerate is seldom found 
as a building material prior to the time of Pericles or in 
the buildings that were erected under his supervision, it seems 
probable that this temple was built after 420 B.C., and it 
may be as late as the beginning of the fourth century B.C. 

The precinct of Dionysus extended south as far as the 
modern boulevard and north to the base of the wall around 
the Acropolis, and it included the two temples already 
described, the great theatre, and a colonnade adjacent to 
the stage-building. Between the theatre and the boulevard 
is seen a circular altar of late date and not in situ, dedicated 
to Dionysus and adorned with garlands and masks of Silenus. 
About fifteen steps to the southwest stands a marble shaft 
on which was recorded a resolution of the Amphictyonic 
council in favor of the guild of actors, a body which enjoyed 
important privileges in the time of Demosthenes and numbered 
also dramatic writers and musicians among its members. 

The great theatre of Dionysus has been so fully discussed 
in books that are accessible to most readers, and is in itself so 
large a subject, that anything like an adequate treatment of 
it in a work of this scope would perhaps be superfluous, 
besides being impossible. Accordingly, we proceed to give 
an account of only the most important features of this 
structure (150). 



The remains of the theatre, after being buried for centuries 
under a deep accumulation of earth, were first discovered and 
partially excavated in 1862 by the German architect, Strack. 
Later excavations were made by the Greek Archaeological 
Society, and finally the last investigations were made in 1886 
by Professor Dorpfeld, whose conclusions in regard to the 
date of the building, and to the absence of a raised stage and 
a permanent stage building in the classic period of the Greek 
drama are adopted as being highly probable. 

In our description of the theatre let us begin with the part 
that is the oldest and that is the starting point of the whole 
development of the Greek tragedy, to wit, the orchestra, the 
place in which the chorus performed its dances. This was 
at the outset the level ground in front of the scena, which 
became later the stage-building. Later, wooden seats for 
the spectators surrounded it ; this was the beginning of 
the auditorium. The original orchestra was doubtless a 
circular space, which later came to be bounded by a sill, 
such as is to be seen in the theatre at Epidaurus. In the 
excavations conducted by Dorpfeld two pieces of ancient 
wall were found built on a curve, and marked 15 and 16 on 
the plan. This wall served probably also as a supporting 
wall to overcome the slope of the ground to the south. 
At the right parodos, where the later stage of Phaedrus once 
joined the semi-circle of seats, the native rock crops out, 
and is seen cut out on a curve. These points are found to 
lie in an arc of the same circle, which, when completed as 
drawn in the plan, gives us the original orchestra in which 
the plays of the great tragedians were performed. This 
original circular dancing place has been gradually transformed 
into its present shape. 

As seen to-day, the orchestra has the form of a semi-circle 
with the two sides prolonged in straight lines. Its width 
measured along the front of the Roman stage attributed to 
Phaedrus (24 in plan) is 24 metres (78 ft. 6 in.), and its depth 
from the middle of this stage front to the parapet in front of 
the chair of the priest of Dionysus, in the centre of the first 
row of spectators, is 17.96 metres (58 ft. 6 in.). Dorpfeld gives 
19.61 metres (64 ft. 4 in.) as the diameter of the orchestra in 
the time of Lycurgus, The orchestra is paved with slabs of 


Pentelic and Hymettian marble variegated with strips of reddish 
marble. Near its middle is a large rhombus or diamond-shaped 
figure, the outline of which is formed by lines of white and 
dark marble. In the centre of this figure is a block of Pentelic 
marble containing a round depression, which may have been 
intended to receive an altar or an image of Dionysus. The 
pavement is of good workmanship and probably dates from 
• the first century of our era. A parapet of upright slabs of 
marble, a little more than a metre high, divides the orchestra 
from the seats of the auditorium. Between the parapet and 
the seats there runs a gutter nearly three feet in width, built 
of limestone and bridged over with slabs opposite the vertical 
passages and steps which divide the tiers of seats in the 
auditorium. This gutter, which forms part of the original 
structure, was intended as a drain to carry off the water from 
the auditorium. The marble parapet, which Dorpfeld thinks 
was an addition made in the first century A.D., seems to have 
had a metal grating fixed upon it, and is supposed to have 
been erected to prevent the vanquished gladiators from being 
butchered on the laps of the dignitaries who sat in the front 
row, a scene which, according to Dio Chrysostom, sometimes 
occurred. Later the parapet was backed by a wall of small 
stones in lime mortar to hold back the water with which the 
orchestra was occasionally flooded so as to give opportunity 
for mimic sea-fights. From the first an altar in honor of 
Dionysus probably occupied a conspicuous place in or near 
the centre of the orchestra, about which the chorus performed 
its dances, not to be confounded, however, with the late altar 
mentioned above. Entrance to the orchestra was afforded by 
two side passages {parodoi) nine feet wide, which divided the 
wings of the auditorium from the stage-building. By these 
passages the chorus entered the orchestra at the beginning of 
each play, and the spectators could find their way (before the 
parapet was built) across the orchestra to the rows of seats. 
The next main part of the theatre is the auditorium. It 
faces nearly south, the seats rising in tiers above one another 
on the slope of the Acropolis. The easy slope of the hillside 
marks this spot as one admirably adapted for the purposes 
of a theatre. At the extremities of the two wings, however, 
it was found necessary to build artificial substructions and 





1. Foundations built of large blocks of conglomerate stone, supposed by some to be 

the foundation of the altar of Dionysus. 

2. Byzantine building with three apses; possibly a bath-house (more probably 


3. Foundations of the base of the gold and ivory statue of Dionysus by Alcamenes, 

in the cella of the later temple of Dionysus built in the second half of the 
5th century B.C. 

4. Foundations of the prostyle portico of the same temple. 

5. Tall marble stele with a long inscription of Roman date. 

6. Column with an inscription in honour of King Ariobarzanes. 

7. Large circular marble altar decorated with masks and festoons. 

8. Three circular marble bases for tripods with inscriptions to record choregic 


9. Cella of the early temple of Dionysus, built in the 6th century B.C. 

10. Prostyle portico of the same temple. 

11. North-west angle of the temple, where the south-west angle of the stoa of the 

theatre laps over its plinth course. 
12, 12. Foundation wall of the row of columns of the stoa. 

13. Columns of the stoa, restored. 
14, 14. Drain to carry off rain water from the south-east angle of the orchestra of 

the theatre. 

15. Existing fragment of the circular wall of polygonal masonry, which enclosed 

the oldest orchestra. 

16. Another fragment of the same circle. 

17, 17. Massive wall at the back of the stoa, built of conglomerate blocks, and faced 
on the south with a wall of poros stone. 

18. Marble podium on which columns rested. 

19. Fragment of a wall of polygonal masonry. 

20, 20. Massive wall, partly of conglomerate and partly of poros stone, which formed 

the front of the earliest Greek scena, erected, according to Dorpfeld, by 

21, 21. Line of columns on a marble podium, which belonged to the second modified 

scena of the theatre. 
22. Rebate cut in the conglomerate blocks of the earliest Greek scena, marking 
the position of a sloping approach. 

23, 23. The same line of columns as 21, forming a colonnade and making the pro- 

scenium of the Roman stage. 

24, 24. Latest Roman stage, advanced far into the original Greek orchestra, probably 

in the 3rd century a.d., and called the stage of Phaedrus. 

25. Massive structure built of blocks of marble. 

26. A choregic monument ; its inscribed frieze lies near it. 


27. Massive marble pedestal of some colossal statue. 

28, 28. Twelve flights of stairs which divide the cavea of the theatre into thirteen cunei. 

29. Massive foundation of the cavea, built of conglomerate blocks. 

30, 30. Foundation and retaining walls of the cavea on the west side, with a series 

of buttresses. 

31, 31. Facing-wall, built of neat poros blocks, which concealed the inner walls of 

conglomerate stone, 

32. Flight of steps. 

33. South-west angle of the cavea. 

34. Water-conduit, which drained the higher level of the Asclepieum. 

35. Sacred spring of Asclepius in a cave in the Acropolis cliff. 
36, 36. Mediaeval buttresses added to support the Acropolis wall, 

37. Cave in the Acropolis cliff which was faced by the choregic monument of 


38. Fragments' of the inscriptions on the monument of Thrasyllus, 
39, 39, Rock-cut foundations for the upper seats of the theatre. 

40. A marble concave sun-dial, on the top of the scarped rock which formed the 
back of the cavea. 






retaining walls in order to give a proper height for the seats at 
these points. The rock of the Acropolis at the top is scarped 
in an irregular curve, and at the bottom of the scarp are some 
beds cut in the solid rock on which the seats were placed. 
The retaining walls on the western side are sufficiently pre- 
served to show their construction. There are two of them, 
an inner and an outer wall, united by short cross-walls. The 
inner wall is of conglomerate, the outer wall is cased with 
blocks of Peiraic limestone, while its core is composed of 
blocks of conglomerate. The outer boundary of the audi- 
torium seems to have formed about three-quarters of a circle, 
the two ends being prolonged in straight lines. The centre 
of the ancient orchestra lies a little way southeast of that of 
the later orchestra. It will be seen that the object of this 
divergence was to enable the builders to take advantage of 
the natural position of the rock and to reduce the extent and 
height of retaining walls and foundations for seats at the sides. 
It is also noticeable that the centre of the later orchestra is 
slightly shifted to the north of the centre of the auditorium. 
By this means the passage or aisle around the orchestra, 
between the lowest row of seats and the coping of the 
orchestra, is made wider as it approaches the parodoi. The 
breadth from the outer corner of one wing to the outer corner 
of the other wing was 87.53 m. (288 ft). The distance 
between the inside corners, measured across the orchestra, was 
21.94 n^- (72 ft). The distance from the most remote seat 
under the cliff of the Acropolis to the centre of the proscenium 
of the Lycurgus stage (20) is, roughly measured, about JJ 
metres (253 ft). The seats, except those cut out of the 
native rock referred to above and the front row which con- 
sisted of marble chairs, were made of Peiraic limestone. 
From twenty to thirty of the bottom rows remain. The 
seats are cut out of a single block of stone in such a 
manner as to show a surface divided into three parts ; that 
is to say, the front, slightly raised to form the seat itself 
and slightly cut under to make more room for the feet, the 
middle, sunk to afford space for the feet of the spectator in the 
next seat above, and the back part, serving as a support for 
the next seat behind. The seats have transverse cuts in their 
front surface which Gardner takes as a means of indicating 


the space allowed for each visitor. This space is only 
thirteen inches for each person, which, as Gardner acknow- 
ledges, seems absurdly small (151). Dorpfeld thinks that these 
cuts indicate measurements, the distance between each cut 
(0.33 m.) being exactly the length of a Greek foot (152), and 
he assigns a space of about half a metre (19.5 in.) to each 
person. On this basis about 14,000 persons could be seated. 
This number, Dorpfeld admits, may be increased to 17,000 
if we take certain other vertical cuts or marks on the front of 
the seats as intended to limit the space allowed for each 
person, the latter cuts indicating a space of 0.41 m. (16 in.). 
The whole auditorium was divided by flights of steps which 
radiate like the spokes of a wheel from the orchestra, giving 
access to the seats and dividing the rows into wedge-shaped 
blocks, called by the Greeks wedges (KepKiSeii), by the Latins 
cunei. There were thirteen of these cunei. In addition to 
these transverse passages there were two horizontal aisles, called 
belts (Sia^w/mara) dividing the auditorium into three parts. 
Only the upper one is still to be seen ; its preservation may 
be due to the fact that this passageway was in ancient days a 
public thoroughfare which served as a road to the Acropolis 
for those who lived in the eastern part of the city. The lower 
one of the aisles must have divided the remaining and larger 
mass of seats into two nearly equal parts, but its location 
cannot now be determined. The front row of seats was made 
up of sixty-seven chairs of Pentelic marble, which were doubt- 
less intended for the dignitaries, such as priests, magistrates, 
the archons, who were entitled to the privilege of the proedria 
or front seat. The handsomely carved arm-chair in the middle 
of the row, the largest and finest of them all, was reserved 
for the priest of Eleutherian Dionysus. This seat was also 
distinguished above the others in having a baldachin or 
awning over it, holes in the pavement for the support of 
which are still to be seen. The date to which these marble 
thrones are to be assigned is a matter of dispute. Dorpfeld 
holds that they belong to the same period as the construction 
of the stone theatre itself, that is to the fourth century. The 
inscriptions, however, which are carved on the seats of the 
arm-chairs are of later origin, probably of the Hellenistic and 
Roman period, and in many cases have superseded older 


inscriptions which have been cut out. A number of pedestals 
of Roman date occupy various places in the auditorium, and 
some of the marble chairs are no longer in situ. The date 
of the stone auditorium is assigned by Dorpfeld, as already 
intimated, to the second half of the fourth century B.C., when 
the theatre was built or rebuilt by the statesman and orator 
Lycurgus. If this opinion is correct it follows that there was 
no permanent stone theatre at Athens before that time. The 
acoustic properties must have been remarkably good ; any one 
may test them for himself if he will stand under the cliffs of 
the Acropolis and listen to loud speaking or declamation from 
the orchestra or the extant remains of the stage. 

The remains of the earliest stage-building are almost wholly 
foundation walls. Above the foundation walls of conglomerate 
lies a course of Peiraic limestone partially preserved, and 
above this appears a narrow stylobate of Hymettian marble. 
These remains can best be seen at the west corner of the 
building, but it is to be observed that the piece of the stylo- 
bate that now supports pieces of columns belongs to a later 
period, and that the original foundation of the stage building 
at this corner has in part been removed, a few stones only 
remaining in position. Now it is to be observed that 
the simultaneous use of conglomerate, Peiraic limestone, and 
Hymettian marble is characteristic of Athenian buildings 
which date from the fourth to the second century B.C. From 
this fact as well as from the excellence of the masonry, 
Dorpfeld infers that these architectural remains belonged to 
the new stone theatre which Lycurgus built or completed in 
the fourth century B.C. No trace of any older stage-building 
has been found. From these remains Dorpfeld has recon- 
structed the stage-building {(TKf]v^) of Lycurgus, which he thinks 
consisted of a large rectangular hall (20), in front of which 
the action was represented. This hall had two projecting 
wings, each about seven metres (23 ft.) wide by five metres 
(16 ft. 5 in.) deep. In the space between the wings, about 
twenty metres (66 ft.) in length, the scenery was placed ; 
this was of wood and canvas and was removed when the 
performance was over. 

The front both of the central part of the stage-building and 
of its two projecting wings was adorned with a row of Doric 

A. A. Q 


columns. Remains of columns and of an architrave which 
seem to have originally decorated the front of one of the 
wings were discovered when the theatre was excavated in 
1885. The height of the row of columns, with their archi- 
trave, triglyph, frieze and cornice is calculated by Dorpfeld 
to have been about four metres (13 ft.). This is to be taken, 
then, as approximately the height of the stage-building erected 
by Lycurgus. In front of this wall of the stage-building was 
erected the wooden, later the stone proscenium before which 
the action was represented. The two wings furnished the side- 
scenes (irapaaKijvia). But of a stage proper no trace appears. 
The space between the seats of the auditorium and the 
proscenium or front of the stage-building was adequate to 
allow a complete circle for the orchestra. The rectangular 
hall itself doubtless served as a dressing-room for the actors 
and a store-room for the scenery. Immediately behind this 
rectangular stage-building lie the foundations and a few stones 
which formed part of the walls of a portico opening to the 
south and about 32 metres (105 ft.) long from east to west. 
From the building material employed and from the character 
of the masonry Dorpfeld concludes that this portico was 
built at the same time as the theatre of Lycurgus. The fact 
that its stylobate abutted against a corner of the northern 
steps of the earlier temple of Dionysus has led to the inference 
that the latter must then already have been in ruins. But 
Dorpfeld denies the correctness of this inference, and believes 
that this temple was still standing in the time of Pausanias, 
who in fact describes it. The purpose of this portico is 
believed to have been not only to serve as a shelter against 
rain and heat, but also to afford an architectural ornament 
for the bare walls of the stage-building seen from the rear. 
Those who believe in the existence of a stage for this earlier 
period place in the space between the two projecting wings the 
raised stage, and think that the narrow stylobate of Hymettian 
marble with traces of a row of columns upon it and with the 
shafts of some columns still standing (23 in plan), formed the 
permanent proscenium of this stage (153). The Lycurgus plan 
as indicated by the foundation walls above mentioned was 
later changed in some features, but its general outline was 
preserved. Many walls indicate later structures and changes 


consisting chiefly in the erection of a permanent proscenium, 
in the addition of a stage proper (/3^^a), and in the recon- 
struction of the wings or parascenia. Some of these changes 
belong to the second period in the history of the stage- 
building. But before we leave the earlier stage-building we 
must say a word about a basis built of conglomerate blocks, 
standing against the rear wall of the hall and near the centre. 
That this basis belongs to the building erected by Lycurgus 
is undoubted, but its object is a matter of conjecture. It 
may have served as the support of a construction in the 
second story or of a stairway leading up to it. 

The theatre of Lycurgus underwent its first modification 
in the second or more probably the first century before our 
era. This change, however, was not a radical one. It con- 
sisted in substituting for the wooden and changeable pro- 
scenium of the earlier stage-building a permanent proscenium 
built of a marble colonnade, with probably wooden or stone 
panels {pinakes) inserted between the marble columns as in 
the theatre at Oropus. This reconstruction of the scene 
is indicated in our plan by a row of columns marked 23 
and 21. It will be seen that the wings {parascenia) of 
the older building were clipped in front, to the amount of 
1.70 metres (3 ft. 7 in.), and that thereby the width of the 
side passages {parodoi) was increased to 4.30 metres (14 ft. 
I in.). The columns were probably about 1 2 ft. high and 
were presumably the same which formerly stood immediately 
in front of the older scena of Lycurgus as indicated in 
Dorpfeld's restoration. The stylobate which supported this line 
of columns still exists ; it is parallel to the line of the stage- 
building of Lycurgus and at a distance of about 1.25 metres 
(4 ft. I in.) in front of it. The foundations are built of rubble 
and squared blocks. Slabs of bluish marble laid on the top 
of the foundations formed the stylobate proper ; circular marks 
on the marble show where the columns stood. This line of 
columns must have formed the front of the stage, if we accept 
the traditional view that there was a raised stage at this 
time. From the character of the masonry Dorpfeld concludes 
that this proscenium was built in its present restored position 
between 330 B.C. and 60 A.D. The fact that in the second 
and first centuries B.C. the theatres of Oropus, Eretria, Sicyon, 


and many other Greek cities were adorned with the permanent 
proscenium of marble or stone, justifies the inference that this 
marble proscenium of the theatre of Dionysus in Athens was 
erected in the same period. Professor Dorpfeld thinks that 
this marble proscenium may have been built soon after the 
capture of Athens by Sulla in 86 B.C., when, as appears from 
Pausanias (i. 20, 4), the adjoining Music Hall, the Odeum of 
Pericles, was destroyed (see p. 246), and the theatre may also 
have suffered injury. But even when this permanent pro- 
scenium was erected there was still, according to the view of 
Dorpfeld, no raised stage, but actors continued to occupy the 
orchestra on the same level as the chorus, and the action 
went on before the proscenium as a background. This 
proscenium then was a colonnade nearly 4 metres ( 1 3 ft.) 
high running from one paraskenion or wing to the other. 
Between the columns panels {pinakes) of stone or of wood 
and painted to represent different scenes were inserted, as 
already stated above. The middle intercolumniation of the 
proscenium is larger than the rest, and seems to have been 
closed by means of a double folding door ; the holes for the 
bolts and sockets of the door are still to be seen in the 
threshold. Besides this central door the existence of a smaller 
side door to the left is indicated by the masonry. There is 
no trace of a corresponding door to the right. No cornice 
exists to indicate the nature of the construction of the colon- 
nade at the top. From the existence of holes in the 
triglyph blocks and from the construction of the better 
preserved theatres at Epidaurus and Oropus we may conclude 
that a solid roof, probably of wood, covered the space between 
the Hellenistic proscenium and the front wall of the stage- 
building. This space as measured by the extant foundations 
was about 1.25 metres in breadth. That there was no second 
story to this colonnade, that is, another row of columns on 
top of the first or lower row, is quite certain. But that there 
was a second story to the stone stage-building at Athens is 
made probable by a similar construction in the other Hellen- 
istic theatres, such as those at Oropus and Eretria. From 
the fact that the threshold of the proscenium has the same 
level as the orchestra Dorpfeld infers that the orchestra must 
have extended to the proscenium also in this period, as it 


did before, and that the present orchestra with pavement of 
marble slabs and describing a little more than half a circle is 
only a part of the earlier orchestra which formed a complete 
circle. Such a circular orchestra bounded by a stone sill is 
still to be seen in the theatre of Epidaurus which dates, 
according to Dorpfeld, from the latter part of the fourth 

The Dorpfeld theory of the non-existence of a raised stage 
until the Roman period is based in part on the interpretation 
of passages in the Greek dramatists and of references to the 
stage in Greek and Roman writers, as well as on the inter- 
pretation of the evidence offered by the extant remains of 
other ancient theatres, such as those at Pergamon and Delos, 
It is perhaps worth the while to state briefly the view of those 
scholars who put a different interpretation upon the archi- 
tectural evidence, and who hold that there is no difficulty in 
restoring the earliest extant stage-building at Athens in such 
a way as to prove the existence of a raised stage for the 
actors at least as early as the time of Lycurgus (the fourth 
century), and who believe that the analogy of the later Greek 
theatre would lead one to expect a stage or platform in the 
Greek theatre of earlier times also. 

The chief point at issue between these two conflicting views 
turns upon the question whether what Dorpfeld restores as the 
proscenium was simply the background for the actors standing 
in the orchestra, or whether this proscenium supported and 
enclosed a platform or stage about twelve feet high and ten 
feet wide for the actors to stand on. According to the latter 
view, the space between the projecting wings of the foundation 
was occupied at first by a temporary wooden platform which 
was later superseded by a stone proscenium used as a stage. 
A probable form for such a stage is suggested in the restora- 
tion proposed by Puchstein {^Die Griechische Biihne, p. 135) 
and shown in the accompanying plan. 

The extant remains of the Dionysiac theatre do not furnish 
conclusive evidence in favor of either restoration. The narrow 
stylobate of Hymettian marble, to which reference was made 
above, has traces of columns differently spaced at different 
times. According to Dorpfeld the intercolumniation points to 
an original arrangement of the columns immediately in front of 


the wall of the stage-building (a-KTjvri) built by Lycurgus, both 
together resting on the broad conglomerate foundation facing 
the orchestra, while in the parascenia the rows of columns 
extend at both sides beyond the projecting wings of this founda- 
tion and stand out free. To this restoration Puchstein objects 
that it is unlikely that the foundation would have been made 
so broad on the wings if it had been originally intended to 
carry only this narrow stylobate, and that the effect of a row 
of columns standing close to a wall fronting the orchestra and 
standing free on the wings would be inharmonious. According 
to Puchstein the proscenium with marble columns is of later 
origin than the conglomerate foundations of the earliest stage- 
building, may have been the work of Lycurgus, was shifted 
into its present position at a later period, occupied originally 
more nearly the position of its wooden predecessor, and was 
from the first a raised platform, on which the actors performed 
their parts. That the earliest permanent stage-building at 
Athens must antedate the time of Lycurgus Puchstein argues 
from the existence of the stone stage-building at Eretria, 
which is a theatre of the same type as that at Athens, and 
whose stage dates,' he thinks, from the fourth or possibly the 
fifth century B.C. 

The third period in the history of the Dionysiac theatre 
is marked by the remodelling both of the stage and 
the orchestra in the reign of Nero. Existing walls, marble 
pavement, remains of architecture and sculpture attest this 
reconstruction, the date of which is fixed by an inscription 
(C./.A. iii. 158), carved on an architrave which records a 
dedication to Eleutherian Dionysus and Nero. The chief 
changes made in this period were the construction of a low 
broad Roman stage projecting into the orchestra, the laying 
down of a marble pavement in the orchestra, and the separa- 
tion of the auditorium from the orchestra by a marble parapet. 
The front line of this new stage is believed by Dorpfeld to have 
coincided with the still later stage of Phaedrus (see below), 
except that it was not prolonged on either side as far as the 
seats of the spectators. The communication between the 
parodoi and the auditorium was not yet cut off. Besides 
the architrave which carries the inscription above mentioned, 
the shaft of one column and several fragments of columns, 







Fig. 103. 


bases, and capitals belonging to the new proscenium have 
been found. Several figures of satyrs also were found in 
the ruins, which seem to have served as supports to the 
entablature (154). Whereas the columns that supported the 
proscenium stood in the earlier Greek theatre on the level of 
the orchestra, in this Romanised theatre these columns stand 
on the level of the stage proper or bema which projects in 
front of the proscenium and into the orchestra. This, of 
course, is the radical change which, according to Dorpfeld, the 
theatre now suffered. Such a stage, about 1.50 m. high, 
(4 ft. 1 1 in.), we must assume for this later structure. This 
height corresponds to the statement of Vitruvius (v. 6, 2) 
concerning the height of the Roman stage. Its existence is 
made certain by extant courses of masonry, and by the 
remains of the front wall of a Roman stage (24 in plan). 
This front wall, to be sure, with its reliefs was built, according 
to an inscription cut into the steps in front of it, by the 
Archon Phaedrus two or three centuries later, but the masonry 
of this square-wall points to a reconstruction, and contains 
material of an earlier similar wall which supported the Roman 
bema. This wall as we now see it is built of different kinds 
of stones bedded in mortar, and is faced with a marble 
veneering which is made up of a base of a frieze or course of 
slabs carrying a relief, and of a top moulding. Four slabs of 
this frieze are preserved. They portray the birth and worship 
of Dionysus and are described in the first volume of the 
Papers of the American School at Athens (p. 137) and in 
Harrison and Verrall's Mythology and Monuments of Ancient 
Athens (p. 282). It should be added that the present arrange- 
ment of this frieze cannot have been the original one. The 
plates or slabs must have been arranged so as to form one 
continuous frieze, and the niches, in one of which a Silenus is 
crouching, are due to a later displacement and to the loss of 
many of the original slabs. The probability is that the old 
wall of the stage had been damaged, and that in its place a 
new wall was erected of greater thickness, so as to hold the 
water with which the orchestra was filled for the exhibition of 
mimic sea-fights. For it should be observed that the building 
of the Roman stage involved an important change in the 
orchestra. Instead of a circular orchestra, whose surface was 



the ground, we find a space whose periphery is about two- 
thirds of a circle, and whose floor is a pavement of slabs of 
marble enclosing a rhombus-shaped figure. 

In order to facilitate communications between persons on 
the raised stage and in the orchestra we must assume steps. 
These steps, now seen, placed in front of the stage wall belong 
to the stage of Phaedrus. Further changes were made in 
the time of Hadrian, but these were confined mainly to the 
auditorium. Probably in his reign an imperial seat or box 

Fig. 106. — The Stage of Phaedrus. 

was built between two of the cunei of seats lying next east of 
the throne of the priest of Dionysus, to which a flight of 
marble steps leading up from the orchestra gave access. The 
emperor's vanity was doubtless gratified by having his statue 
erected in each of the thirteen sections of the seats. Some of 
the pedestals of these statues are extant. Numerous other 
pedestals, wholly or in part preserved, belong to statues erected 
in honor of Herodes Atticus and other benefactors of Athens 
and of distinguished poets and other authors (155). 

We have only literary evidence for the presence of bronze 
statues of the three great tragic poets in the theatre, and of 
bronze statues of Miltiades and Themistocles, each with a 


Persian captive, which it is said stood in the left and right 
passageways leading into the orchestra. In the precincts and 
approaches of the theatre stood many votive offerings, especi- 
ally in the upper approaches under the walls of the Acropolis. 
We find there the ruins of one of the so-called choregic 
monuments that were put up in honor of a victory gained in 
a dramatic contest by a chorus. This monument will be 
presently described. We must now return to the theatre. 
The number of seats of honor in the theatre was increased, 
those in the front row no longer sufficing to meet the demand 
for this distinction. Holes drilled into the rock in front of 
the seats of honor and behind the row of marble thrones may 
have had inserted in them wooden posts to hold up cloth 
screens in order to protect the favored occupants of these 
seats from the glare and heat of the sun. 

The wings of the stage-building were probably ornamented 
with handsome porches, of which, however, only small and 
uncertain fragments have been found. The last reconstruction 
of the stage-building falls in the third or possibly the fourth 
century A.D., and is attested by an inscription cut into the 
topmost step of the marble flight that leads up to the logeion. 
The inscription (156) runs thus : 

"To thee [Dionysus], who delightest in the orgy, Phaedrus, 
son of Zoilos, governor of life-giving Attica, furnished this 
beautiful bema of the theatre." 

This construction has been already referred to above. It 
was limited to the stage and to the orchestra. It consisted 
in re-building and strengthening the proscenium wall of the 
stage, and in erecting a supporting wall behind the marble 
parapet around the orchestra. This reconstruction, as we 
have already seen, was made largely from the material of 
the earlier bema built by Nero, and involved a displace- 
ment of the slabs of the frieze that originally decorated the 
front of the decorated wall that supported the bema from 
which the actors spoke. 

The theatre was too convenient a place of assembly to 
be left unused except at the time of the festivals in honor 
of Dionysus. Already in the time of Lycurgus the theatre 
began to supersede the Pnyx as a place for the meetings 
of the assembly of citizens {ecclesid) and h Aiovv<rov or eu 


TO) Qearpw is found appended to the preamble of decrees of 
the fourth century. Just when the theatre fell wholly into 
disuse is unknown. The worship of Dionysus declined through 
the influence of Christianity at an early period. In the 
Roman period the theatre was the scene of mimic sea-fights, 
and, according to Dio Chrysostom and Philostratus, it 
served also as an arena for gladiatorial combats. In the 
Middle Ages even the site of the theatre was lost to view, 
and the first explorers mistook the ruins of the better pre- 
served Odeum of Herodes Atticus for the Dionysiac theatre. 
Leake first recognized the true site, and not until 1886 was 
the earliest dancing place of the chorus discovered by the 
scientific researches of Dorpfeld. 

In connection with the theatre Pausanias speaks of the 
Music Hall (Odeum) of Pericles, built for the musical contests 
held at the Panathenaic festival, and as a place for the 
rehearsal of the tragedies which were to be exhibited at the 
great Dionysiac festival. This hall was the scene of the 
betrayal of the citizens capable of bearing arms by Critias, one 
of the Thirty Tyrants (Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 4, 9), and appears 
to have been one of the favorite lounging places of the later 
philosophers. A passage in Plutarch's life of Pericles (xiii. 160) 
says that this building had many seats and pillars within, 
the roof was made slanting and converging to one point, 
and " they say it was made after the model and as an imita- 
tion of the tent of the king of Persia." The comic poet 
Cratinus compared the high conical head of Pericles to this 
Music Hall. It is this structure to which Aristophanes refers 
in the Wasps, when the chorus says : 

" Then we manage all our business in a waspish sort of way, 
Swarming in the courts of justice, gathering in from day to day 
Many where the Eleven write, as many where the Archon calls. 
Many too in the Odeum, many to the city walls." 

From this it appears that the dicasts occasionally met in 
this building. The site of this structure can be approxi- 
mately determinated from a statement in Vitruvius (v. 9, i.), 
who says that the Odeum was before one when he departed 
from the theatre on the left-hand side, that is towards the 
east, which is at the left of the spectator in the theatre. 
From this, and from a passage in the speech of Andocides 



On the Mysteries, which refers to the Music Hall as on a 
higher level than the theatre, it follows that this structure 
is to be located just east of the theatre. This building was 
burnt down, according to Appian (157), by Aristion in order 
to prevent Sulla from utilizing it in his attempt to scale and 
seize the citadel. From Vitruvius (v. 9, i) we learn that it 
was restored (about 50 B.C.) by the munificence of Ariobar- 
zanes, king of Cappadocia. Its subsequent history is unknown 

Fig. 107. — Eastern part ol Asclepieum. Boundary Wall of Theatre, above which 
Choregic Monument of Thrasyllus and two Columns. 

and no remains of it have been found. On leaving the 
theatre Pausanias notices a gilded head of the Gorgon 
Medusa fastened on the wall of the Acropolis above, which 
he says elsewhere (v. xii. 4) was set up by Antiochus. 
This Medusa head was doubtless intended as a charm against 
the evil eye. Next Pausanias mentions a cave in the rocks 
at the foot of the Acropolis. Above this cave is a tripod. 
This cave is still to be seen immediately above the theatre. 
It is abouli seven metres (23 ft.) wide and fifteen metres (50 ft.) 
deep. The floor of the cave is at two different levels, the 
back part being higher than the front. The cavern has long 


served as a chapel dedicated to the Madonna of the Cave 
{Panagia Spiliotissd). On the walls of the cave are some 
badly-faded Byzantine paintings. In front of the mouth of 
the cave was built a portico forming the choregic monu- 
ment of Thrasyllus. According to recent restorations, this 
little portico consisted of two corner and one middle pilaster 
resting on two steps and supporting an epistyle, which was in 
turn surmounted by a frieze adorned with eleven marble 
wreaths carved in relief. Above this ran a cornice. So 
much of the building was of Pentelic marble and seems 
complete. The tripod of Thrasyllus may have been placed 
on the centre apex of an acroterion which crowned a pedi- 
ment. But this part of the structure was later changed. 
The inscription recording the choregic victory of Thrasyllus 
in the archonship of Neaichmos (319 B.C.) was cut on the 
centre of the architrave, where Stuart saw it (158). This part 
of the building dates back to Thrasyllus. About fifty years 
later Thrasycles, his son, won a victory as president of the 
games (agonothetes) with a chorus of men and of boys. He 
too was expected to set up prize tripods. The conspicuous 
location of his father's monument and the opportunity of 
saving expense seem to have induced him to utilize this 
structure for his own glorification. He changed the upper 
part of it, and added a superstructure, what is technically 
called an " Attika," consisting of a basis at either end of the 
architrave, presumably for each of the tripods and a central 
base with three steps on which was placed a seated statue. 
The statue, which had lost its head as early as 1676, is 
draped in a long robe, and has a panther's skin thrown over 
the shoulders. It is supposed to represent Dionysus. The 
statue was taken by Lord Elgin to England and is now in 
the British Museum. On the bases of the " Attika," at either 
end of the architrave, are cut two inscriptions commemorating 
two victories won by choruses, one by boys, and the other 
by men, furnished by the state in the archonship of Pytharatus 
(27 1-70 B.C.) when Thrasycles of Decelea, the son of Thrasyllus, 
was president of the games {agonothetes). That this upper 
portion of the building was built subsequently to the original 
monument erected by Thrasyllus is shown by Reisch as 
follows: (i) The Doric facade was of Pentelic marble, but 



the " Attika," of Hymettian marble ; (2) the middle line 
of the " Attika " is not coincident with that of the facade ; 
(3) the light weight of the pilasters of the facade shows 
that they were not intended originally to support so heavy 
a superstructure. 

Pausanias after mentioning the tripod says : " in it are 
figures of Apollo and Artemis slaying the children of Niobe," 
leaving us in doubt whether he meant that this group was 
represented in relief on the tripod (for which the more natural 



Fig. 108.— Choregic Monument ot Thrasyllus. Restored. 

expression would be eir' avru) rather than ev airro)), or was 
a group of statuary that stood in the portico of the cave or 
in the cave itself. That the statue of Dionysus, as Frazer 
supposes, was enclosed by the legs of the tripod is shown by 
Reisch to be quite impossible, owing to the dimensions of the 
statue which must have been originally 2 J metres (7 ft. 5 in.) 
high. The monument, after having been seen and described 
by Cyriacus of Ancona (1436) and by the later English 
travellers, Wheler, Stuart, Chandler, and Dodwell, was destroyed 
by the Turks in 1826-27. But the two last-mentioned inscrip- 
tions on the bases of Hymettian marble and a piece on the 




white marble architrave carrying the Thrasyllus inscription 
may still be seen lying on the ground near the cave. Higher 
up the slope of the Acropolis above the cave are seen two 
tall columns of Roman date, with triangular Corinthian capitals. 
These columns originally supported tripods ; the holes in 
which the feet of the tripods were fastened can be perceived 
on the top of the capitals by looking down at them from 
the summit of the Acropolis. The columns stand on bases 
of five steps ; on the upper step of the column to the east 
several Roman inscriptions recording the names of dedicators 
may still be read. A number of similar inscriptions much 
weathered are carved on the rock to the east of the columns. 
On the right-hand side, as one faces the Thrasyllus monu- 
ment, we see against the Acropolis rock a portion of an 
ancient marble sun-dial, which is doubtless the same that is 
mentioned by the writer of the Vienna Anonymous guide- 
book (159), which was written between 1456 and 1460 A.D, 

The next object of interest named by Pausanias, who is 
on his way from the theatre to the sanctuary of Asclepius, 
is the tomb of Calos, or Talos according to some of the 
ancients. The story runs that Talos by his superior ingenuity 
aroused the envy of his uncle and master Daedalus to such 
a degree that he was thrown by him over the battlements 
of the Acropolis. He was buried secretly by Daedalus in 
the spot where he fell. His mother, Perdix, hung herself 
from grief and had a sanctuary beside his tomb. The tomb 
of Talos is mentioned by Lucian {^Piscatory 42), where he 
describes the eagerness with which the hungry philosophers 
swarmed up the Acropolis to receive a dole. Being too 
impatient to make their way by the regular entrance, they 
placed ladders against the walls and clambered up where 
they could, some by the sanctuary of Asclepius and others 
by the grave of Talos. This, together with the statement of 
Pausanias, makes it quite certain that this ancient tomb lay 
between the monument of Thrasyllus and the temple of 
Asclepius, close to the foot of the Acropolis (160). 

From the theatre Pausanias proceeds westward along the 
southern foot of the Acropolis and comes next to the sanctuary 
of Asclepius. The slope of the rock from the western boun- 
dary of the theatre to the Odeum of Herodes Atticus is divided 


longitudinally into an upper and a lower terrace. This upper 
terrace, some 173 metres (189 yds.) long, is bounded on the 
south by the arched wall, popularly named the Serpentse, 
and in some drawings designated as " the Prankish wall," 
which formed the supporting wall at the rear of the Portico 
of Eumenes. This upper terrace is itself divided into three 
plateaus which rise one above the other in the direction 
from east to west. This entire slope of the Acropolis had 
been covered for many years with layers of earth and of 
debris thrown down from the Acropolis by the excavations 
conducted by Ross in 1834 and by others in the years 
following. In 1876 the Greek Archaeological Society began 
the work of clearing away the piles of dirt and rubbish 
that covered up the ruins of the buildings that stood on the 

Among these was the sanctuary of Asclepius, which occu- 
pied the easternmost and lowest of the three plateaus. Its 
boundaries are clearly defined by the Acropolis and by 
retaining walls on the east and south, but its extent to 
the west is not certain. The probability is that its western 
boundary is marked by the polygonal wall marked 31 in 
the plan, the accompanying explanation of which, given by 
Middleton in J.H.S. 1900, Suppl. iii., renders superfluous 
a minute account of all the ruins. A description, how- 
ever, of the more important buildings, which is based on the 
account of Frazer {Pausan. ii. p. 235), seems desirable. The 
Sanctuary was reached from the theatre by means of a ramp 
or descending road which led down from the middle of the 
auditorium. The walls which supported this ramp, indicated 
in the plan, are partly preserved. The most conspicuous of 
the ruins are those of the stoa or portico. This structure is 
49.50 metres (162 ft. 5 in.) in length and about 10 metres 
(33 ft.) deep. The outer line of the stylobate, with portions 
of the back and side walls are preserved. The columns stood 
on two marble steps supported by a foundation of con- 
glomerate. Marks left by the columns on the stylobate 
indicate a rebuilding of the portico with slenderer columns 
placed at wider intervals. The original portico was of the 
Doric order, and had seventeen columns, but the shafts of 
Doric columns left unfluted to a height of about 1 1 feet no\y 


FoondatiomS of oo. 
////////>/ Byzantine woF^.^^ 


^ ^ ■ Xt W >t h <}» w . W T ? f . 

J HM. I. V t I t I i ■ I ^=^=^ 

''$ Section of thl Stoa J^ iz-,-vi /-n, 




Facing p. 250. 



1. Cave containing the sacred spring, paved with pebble mosaic. 

2. Wall built of fine poros blocks with dado and coping of Hymettian marble. 

3. Rudely built Byzantine wall added in front of the original wall. 

4. Original cross-wall, now destroyed, near the end of the stoa of Asclepius. 

5. Foundation blocks of the inner row of columns of the stoa. 
6, 6. Rudely built wall and arcade, added in Byzantine times. 

7. Original end wall of stoa, built of very neat draughted poros blocks. 
8, 8. Existing marble steps and bases of the front row of columns. 
9. Marble slab, formerly a low screen at the S.E. angle of the stoa. 

10. Marble-lined bath added in Byzantine times. 

11. Foundations of the altar of Asclepius. 

12. Polygonal wall at the east end of the Asclepieum. 

I3> 13- Wall on the south, apparently of same period as 17 and 18. 

14. Upper part of choregic monument which now lies on the south polygonal wall. 

15. Ancient wall. 

16. Walls supporting the cavea of the great theatre. 

17, 17. Wall of the passage and stairs to the theatre, built of conglomerate stone. 

18, 18. Similar wall on the south of the passage. 

19. Water channel, built of large conglomerate blocks ; this channel was cut into 

and made useless when the passage to the theatre was built. 

20. Foundations of the Temple of Asclepius. 

21. Polygonal wall running north and south. 

22. Remains of marble steps and columns in continuation of the front of the stoa of 

Asclepius, but at a rather higher level. 

23. Steps up to the platform at the west end of the stoa. 

24. Platform in which is a circular sacrificial pit, with four columns, which once 

supported a marble canopy or aedicula. 
25, 25. Four chambers for priests or patients ; the floors are formed of pebble mosaic ; 
in front is a stoa or colonnade. 

26. Marble steps, anta and bases of columns at the S.W. angle of the stoa. 

27. Water-tank built of very neat polygonal masonry. 

28. Large brick vaulted cistern of Byzantine date. 

29. Foundations of a small shrine, built of Kara limestone and poros. 

30. Another small shrine iti antis, of which marble steps and bases still exist, of late, 

possibly Byzantine date. 

31. Polygonal wall on the west of the two small shrines. 

32. Large vaulted brick cistern of Byzantine date. 

33. Block of marble inscribed Horos Krenes, inserted in the polygonal wall on the 

south side of the Asclepieum. 

34. Continuation of the polygonal wall. 

35. Polygonal wall running N. and .S. This part is now missing, 
A A. R 

EXPLANATION OF PLAN \l\.— Continued 

36. Well -preserved piece of the same wall. 

37. Inscribed blocks of a choregic monument, which in late times have been used as 

the top of a well. 

38. Fragments of polygonal wall, possibly of an ancient material built over. 

39. Well-preserved piece of polygonal wall with an anta at the end. 

40. Two steps cut out of one block of poros stone. 

41. Massive walls of conglomerate blocks, which, according to Dr. Dorpfeld, 

belonged to the substructure of the choregic monument of Nicias. 

42. Roman water conduit lined with pottery. 

43. Door to the Theatre of Herodes Atticus cut through the end wall of the stoa 

of Eumenes. 

44. Part of the original end of the stoa, built of very great blocks of poros. 

45, 45. Large pedestals for statues added in late Roman times ; the dotted squares 
show the positions of other similar pedestals which no longer exist. 

46. Drinking-fountain inserted in the back wall of the stoa. 

47. The only fragment of the original facing of the back wall of the stoa which still 

exists, all the rest having been rebuilt in late Roman or Byzantine times. 

48, 48. Foundation blocks of the inner row of columns. 

49, 49. Continuous foundations for the steps and front columns. 

50. Foundations of a building of large blocks of Acropolis rock and conglomerate 


51. Water conduit of travertine and conglomerate stone. 

52. Block of poros stone with an inscription set upside down, built into the S.W. 

angle of the cavea of the great theatre. 

53. Facing- wall of neat blocks of poros round the curve of the cavea of the Dionysiac 


54. Inner wall and buttress of conglomerate stone. 



seen in situ belong to a later reconstruction of the portico. 
An inner row of columns, probably Ionic, the bases of some of 
which are seen, supported the roof The foot of the rear wall 
is faced with a dado and coping of Hymettian marble. The 
fact that the row of blue marble slabs stops short a little 
way from the eastern end of the stoa, and that at this point 
there existed a cross-wall (4) leads Dorpfeld to believe that 
here may have been a stairway that led up to a balcony or 

Fig. 109. — Western Part of the Asclepieum. Remains of Portico. 

Upper story. Traces of a stairway at the western end, and 
the scarping of the rock contiguous to the rear wall go to 
show that the portico had an upper story. This upper floor 
lay probably on a level with the platform built around the 
sacrificial pit (24). The portico, as was intimated above, has 
undergone reconstruction. Traces of two rows of columns 
in the front with different intercolumniations and diameters 
are found ; the younger row, parts of which are still preserved 
in situ, are of Roman date. The portico was open at the 
front for about a quarter of its length ; in the remaining 
part there was a wall of later date between the columns, the 



closed part beginning at the twelfth column reckoning from 
the east to the west end. In the Middle Ages a vaulted 
passage was constructed in the northern half of the western 
portion of the colonnade, the ruins of which are, designated 
in the plan by 6. In front of the portico there are walls 
and foundations that belong to Byzantine chapels and other 
buildings, probably dwellings, of a late period. Through an 
arched (34) doorway in the back wall of the portico we 
enter a small round chamber with a dome-shaped roof hewn 

Fig. 1 10. Entrance to the Spring of Asclepieum. 

in the rock of the Acropolis. Within it is the well or foun- 
tain of which Pausanias speaks. Its water is pure but 
somewhat brackish. The channel for conducting the water 
formed by slabs set upright is ancient, but the arched entrance 
dates from Byzantine times, when the grotto was made into 
a chapel. Its walls were at the same time coated with 
stucco to be painted with sacred pictures. A picture of the 
Virgin stands in a niche above the spring, and the modern 
Greek still burns candles and prays in this spot. Xenophon 
{Memor. iii. 13, 3) speaks of the water as warm. If the water 
ever possessed any medicinal properties these can no longer 



be recognized. Judging from the use of Hymettian marble 
in its construction and from the character of its masonry, 
we may put the colonnade in the fourth century B.C. The 
platform (24) at the west end of the colonnade, about ten feet 
high, has in its middle a circular shaft about seven feet deep. 
The sides of the shaft are constructed of polygonal masonry. 

Fig. III. — Interior of the Cave in which is Spring of Asclcpieum. 

Some scholars suppose that this was originally a well, but 
we incline with others to the opinion that it was a sacri- 
ficial pit (161). The colonnade was doubtless intended for 
the use of the patients who slept here in expectation of 
receiving revelations in dreams. The Plutus (659 fif.) of 
Aristophanes gives an instructive description of an invalid's 
visit to the shrine of the god, and how the healing was 


The plan shows the location of the foundations (i i) of an 
altar. Dorpfeld points out the step on which the celebrant 
stood facing towards the east. On this site apparently a 
Christian church was built in the Byzantine period. Some 
eighteen yards to the west are seen the foundations of a small 
temple (20) which is commonly held to be the shrine of 
Asclepius (162). These foundations are built partly of poros 
and partly of conglomerate, and showed a structure 10.50 
metres (34I ft) long and six (20 ft.) broad. A vestibule or 
pronaos seems to have been added later. 

On the middle terrace, which is somewhat smaller and 
lies about two and a half feet higher than the eastern, are 
seen the foundations of a building 28 metres (91 ft. 
10 in.) long from east to west and 14 metres (46 ft.) wide 
from north to south. The northern half of this building 
adjacent to the Acropolis rock contained a row of four square 
chambers of equal size paved with small round pebbles, some 
of which are still in situ. The southern half of the building 
was a colonnade open to the south but closed at the ends. 
The foundation of poros and two steps of Hymettian marble 
at the southwest corner, and the base of the westernmost 
column are preserved. The columns were of the Ionic order, 
to judge from this base. This building was probably the 
dwelling of the officials of the temple. It is inferior in style 
to the colonnade on the eastern terrace and appears to have 
been built not earlier than the second century B.C. A few 
steps west of the building just described and to the south of 
a cistern (28) are the foundations of what appears to have 
been a temple in antis (29) built of Kari limestone and of 
poros. It fronts southeast and appears to belong to a 
good period of Athenian architecture. Ulrich Kohler (22), 
Milchhofer, and others hold that this was the temple of 
Themis mentioned by Pausanias (i. 22, i) as situated on the 
way from the sanctuary of Asclepius to the Acropolis. 
Dorpfeld puts the Themis temple as well as the monument of 
Hippolytus and the shrine of Aphrodite farther west on the 
next terrace. Adjacent to the west are the ruins of another 
small building (30) made up of several kinds of stone and 
roughly put together ; we notice particularly the steps of poros 
and of Hymettian marble with two Ionic bases for marble 


antae at the corners and marks of two columns on the 
upper step. The character of the masonry indicates the late, 
possibly Roman, origin of this building. Kohler {A.M. ii. 
p. 256) conjectures that these remains belong to a temple of 
Isis. Beyond these foundations to the west lie the remains 
of a boundary wall of polygonal masonry (31) which many 
scholars hold to be the western boundary of the entire precinct 
or temenos of Asclepius. The southern boundary is formed 
by a polygonal wall partly preserved (34), in the outer side 
of which is a block of stone (33), to all appearance in its 
original position, bearing the inscription H0P02 KPENE2, 
" boundary of the fountain." The inscription, to judge from 
the style of the letters, belongs to the second half of the fifth 
century B.C. The fountain referred to is probably the spring 
already described, and this boundary stone apparently marked 
the southwest corner of the precinct of the Asclepieum. 

The Asclepieum above described was known as " the 
sanctuary of Asclepius in the city " to distinguish it from a 
similar sanctuary in the Peiraeus. Concerning the fortunes of 
this temple and the history of the cult of this god at Athens 
we present the chief facts, largely based on the account given 
by Frazer (Pausan. ii, p. 237) and by U. Kohler {A.M. ii. 
p. 258). From the inscriptions that have been found on 
the spot we learn that the sanctuary was already in existence 
in the fifth century B.C. There is every reason to believe that 
the Asclepius cult was introduced into Athens from Epidaurus 
in the latter part of the fifth century B.C. (163), and that it 
supplanted the earlier cult of Amynos(164), an ancient hero of 
the healing art, and of Alcippe a water nymph. Closely 
connected with this divinity was the cult of Hygieia {Health) 
and of other children of Asclepius. It may be of interest to 
turn aside and to speak briefly of the sanctuary of the more 
ancient god of healing Amynos, to whom reference has already 
been made. This sanctuary is located by Dorpfeld in the 
hollow between the Pnyx, the Areopagus and the Acropolis, 
a little to the south of the spot in which Dorpfeld places 
the sanctuary of Dionysus in the Marshes. The precinct 
is of quadrangular form, and is enclosed by walls of blue 
calcareous stone from the Acropolis and neighboring hills. 
Within the precinct were found a well, foundations of a 



small chapel, a part of a sacrificial table decorated with 
two snakes, and fragments of votive offerings made evidently 
to Asclepius. An inscription from the early part of the 
fourth century B.C. shows that Asclepius was here worshipped 
under the title of Amynos, i.e. Protector, but a later inscrip- 
tion proves that Amynos is the cult title of a hero separate 
from Asclepius. It seems probable that the cult of the 
new god of healing Asclepius, who was called in from 

Fig. 112. — Sculptured Relief, representing Asclepius, Demeler, Kore and Worshippers. 

the Peloponnesus shortly after the great plague, was grafted 
upon the older ritual of the hero Amynos, who in course of 
time declined as Asclepius grew in popular favor, until at 
length Amynos was reduced to an adjective and Asclepius 
outgrew the little precinct on the western slope and had built 
for him a new and grander sanctuary on the south slope of 
the Acropolis. Several inscriptions refer to repairs and 
improvements connected with the Asclepieum and its precinct. 
But these need not detain us. Of more interest are the 
inscriptions that record lists of votive offerings dedicated 
by patients who had been or who hoped to be cured of 



ailments of the body. One of these inscriptions dates from 
about 320 B.C. Among the votive offerings enumerated are 
representations of the human body and of various parts of it, 
such as eyes, mouths, ears, breasts, hands, feet, made sometimes 
of gold or of silver as well as of cheaper material. Small 
silver and golden serpents are also mentioned, dedicated 
doubtless to the sacred serpents which had their abode in 
the sanctuary and were believed to possess healing powers. 
Another form of votive offering are the sculptured reliefs, 
which have been found in the precinct (165). Two of these 
reliefs are represented here by way of illustration. The first 

Fig. 113. — Relief representing a Sacrifice to Asclepius and Hygieia. 

was found in the Asclepieum and shows the god standing. 
Behind him sits Demeter accompanied by her daughter Kore 
who stands behind her and holds torches in her hands. The 
three gods are approached by six worshippers, the names of 
five of whom are inscribed below within crowns. The names 
are doubtless those of the dedicators of the slab. 

Another relief shows Asclepius in company with the god- 
dess Hygieia receiving the prayers and offerings of two 
suppliants. The sacred serpent is coiled about the trunk of 
a tree. A votive offering of a different sort is a series of 
three hymns inscribed on a slab of gray marble. The first 
two hymns consist of prayers addressed to Asclepius by a 
certain Diophantes, a custodian of the temple who had suffered 


agonies from gout and passionately implores the god to restore 
to him the use of his feet, that he may return on them to the 
god's golden house, and that " I may behold thee, my god, 
who art brighter than the earth in spring." The third hymn 
is a song of thanksgiving to the god for having answered 
the prayer of his servant who can now walk erect instead 
of crawling crab-fashion or limping as on thorns. From 
another inscription it appears that the public physicians of 
Athens were accustomed to offer a sacrifice twice a year 
to Asclepius and Hygieia on behalf of their patients and 

The sanctuary of Asclepius at Athens appears to have 
retained its influence and prestige for a considerable time 
after the general destruction of the ancient cults and shrines. 
Especially in philosophic circles and through the related dream- 
oracle this cult received a new lease of life in the late Roman 
period. The latest notice of this sanctuary is found in the 
life of Proclus, written by Marinus, who says that Proclus, who 
died 485 A.D., took advantage of the proximity of his dwelling 
to the temple secretly to indulge in the pagan rites of this 
cult in order not to arouse the persecution of those who 
were determined to put down all pagan worship. From this 
statement we may infer that this temple and its appurtenances 
were destroyed by the fanatical zeal of the Christians about 
the close of the fifth century A.D., and that they built in 
place of it a church whose foundations may possibly be 
identified on the eastern terrace between the altar and the 
stoa. The sunny and protected situation of this southern 
terrace of the Acropolis, together with the existence of a 
spring of water and plenty of building materials from the ruins 
of ancient structures, doubtless invited private individuals to 
build their dwellings on this site. This at any rate would 
account for the abundance of fragments of architecture and 
of pieces ot walls and foundations of late date found in this 
terrace, and for the existence of the numerous water courses 
and cisterns within this enclosure. 

The oldest views of the Acropolis dating from the seven- 
teenth century show this southern slope uninhabited and waste. 
The Christian church or churches which were built on the 
ruins of the old sanctuary of Asclepius must have been 


destroyed at some time before this. Kohler conjectures that 
this entire quarter of the city on the southern slope of the 
AcropoHs was laid waste by the wild hordes of Catalans (166) 
who sacked Athens in i 3 i i A.D. 

Having described the buildings on the eastern and the 
middle terraces of the upper slope of the Acropolis, let us 
now pass on to the westernmost of the three terraces. This 
terrace was originally included, according to Dorpfeld, in the 
line of old fortifications known as the Pelargicon (see above, 
p. 26). From the fact that no important remains of ancient 
buildings have been found on this terrace, and from inscrip- 
tional evidence which refers to planting of trees (Kohler, I.e. 
p. 241, A. 2), it is supposed that here was to be found a 
sacred grove such as existed also in connection with the 
sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus. The ancient character 
of this terrace has been greatly changed by the later 
construction of the theatre of Herodes Atticus, which cut 
its lower or southern and western parts, and changed the 
course of the ancient boundary wall. The eastern boundary 
of this line of fortification, the ancient Pelargicon, as has been 
stated before (see p. 27), is not wholly certain. It may 
have been the wall marked 35 in our plan, or it may have 
included the area between this wall and that marked 3 1 in 
the plan. The old path which ran from the Dionysiac theatre 
to the southwest corner of the Acropolis, directly below 
the bastion of the Nike temple, has only in part kept its 
ancient course. The modern path coincides with the ancient 
at its eastern end, but towards the west the ancient path 
has been cut off by the building of the theatre of Herodes 

Where shall we place the shrines which Pausanias (xxii. 1-3) 
names after leaving the sanctuary of Asclepius ? According 
to the older views the group first named by him, that is 
the temple of Themis, the monument to Hippolytus, the 
shrines of Aphrodite Pandemos {of the people^ and of Peitho 
lay on the terrace of Asclepius. The objection of Dorpfeld 
to this view is that no traces of buildings that answer to 
the age or style of these sanctuaries have been found on this 
terrace. In favor of this view, however, attention should be 
called to the fact that the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus 


had connected with it a temple to Hippolytus, and shrines 
to Aphrodite and to Themis, and that there can be little 
doubt that all these cults came to Athens from Epidaurus 
together with the Troezenian myth of Theseus (167). An 
additional argument for locating this group of monuments 
close to the Asclepieum is drawn from a passage in the 
Hippolytus (30 ff.) of Euripides, which states that a sanctuary 
of Aphrodite called *' in honor of Hippolytus " was erected 
by Phaedra and describes it as being " beside the Acropolis 
and in view of Troezen." Now Troezen cannot be seen from 
a point further west than the middle terrace, the precinct of 
Asclepius, and since Pausanias says that the mound of Hip- 
polytus is "in front of" the temple of Themis, the conclusion 
is not an unnatural one that the temple of Themis, the monu- 
ment to Hippolytus and a shrine of Aphrodite stood in the 
middle terrace (168), The only point in which this conclusion 
differs from the old view is that it assumes that the shrine 
of Aphrodite to which Euripides refers is not that of Aphrodite 
Pandemos with which Pausanias couples a shrine of Persuasion. 
The separate character of these two cults of Aphrodite has 
been pretty clearly established by the discovery of inscrip- 
tions (169) in which the titles "Pandemos" and "in honor of 
Hippolytus " were official designations. It is hardly possible, 
as Frazer remarks {Pausan. ii. p. 246), that the goddess 
should have borne two distinct official titles at the same 
shrine. The shrine of Aphrodite to which Euripides refers 
must then be placed close to the barrow of Hippolytus and 
the temple of Themis, and must be distinguished from the 
older temple or shrine of Aphrodite Pandemos which .is to 
be located elsewhere. The evidence for the location of the 
latter is quite clear. The inscriptions, to which reference has 
been made above, dealing with the worship of Aphrodite 
Pandemos were found at the western foot of the Acropolis, 
between the bastion of the temple of Victory and the 
southern bastion of Beul6's gate to the Acropolis. On this 
same site was found a large number of statuettes of Aphro- 
dite pointing, as do the inscriptions, to the proximity of 
a temple near the southwest corner of the Acropolis. One 
of the inscriptions, which is dated from the fourth century 
B.C., is cut on an architrave adorned with a frieze of doves 


carrying a fillet. A part of the inscription forms an elegiac 
couplet : 

" This for thee, O great and revered Pandemos Aphrodite, 
We adorn with our statues as gifts." 

The " statues " are those of the dedicators whose names are 
given in the remaining part of the inscription. This archi- 
trave lies at present on the right-hand side of the steps 
leading up from the Beule gate, and is believed by Lolling 
to have belonged to a house for the officials of the temple, 
but by Dr. Kawerau to a chapel or shrine somewhat of the 
form of the Thrasyllus monument described above. Probably 
a little higher up the slope on the way leading up to the 
gate of the Acropolis are to be located the next group of 
monuments mentioned by Pausanias, the sanctuaries of Demeter 
Chloe and of Ge Kourotrophos. That the shrine of the 
former divinity was near the entrance to the Acropolis appears 
from a passage in the Lysistrata (831 ff.) of Aristophanes, 
where one of the women who have taken possession of the 
Acropolis sees a man hurrying up the ascent beside " the 
sanctuary of the Green Goddess." The scholiast on the Oedipus 
at Colonus (1600) says: "There is a sanctuary of Demeter 
Euchloos near the Acropolis " and quotes a passage of Eupolis: 
" 1 am going straight to the Acropolis, for I must sacrifice 
a ram to Green Demeter." Adjacent to the shrine of Green 
Demeter must have stood that of the kindred divinity Ge, 
the Nursing Mother Earth. The worship of this goddess was 
of ancient origin, and, as we shall see later, was also celebrated 
on the summit of the Acropolis. 

From what has been said above it appears first that the 
westernmost of the three terraces on the southern slope of 
the Acropolis was not built upon in ancient days. No traces 
of ancient buildings, excepting what appear to have been 
fortification walls, and foundations of later houses have been 
found, and it seems probable that in the earliest period, at any 
rate, this space was a part of the old Pelargicon within which 
it was not lawful to build. It appears also that most of the 
monuments named by Pausanias after leaving the Asclepieum 
must be located on the southwestern slope of the Acropolis 
and not far from its entrance. Not far away and a little 



closer to the Acropolis rock Lolling locates the shrine of the 
hero Aegeus (19 in plan) who threw himself, according to the 
story in Pausanias (i. xxii. 5), down from the height above 
and must have fallen on this spot. All that marks the spot 
now is an artificial niche and a step cut in the Acropolis 
rock (170). 

Before passing to a discussion of the theatre of Herodes 
Atticus and the great portico which connects it with the theatre 
of Dionysus known as the Stoa of Eumenes, let us stop for 

Fig. 114. — Choregic Monument of Nicias. (Restored.) 

a moment to notice another structure which once stood on 
the southwestern slope of the Acropolis, but which was taken 
down when the theatre was built, and the materials of which 
were used in part in the construction of the lower gateway of 
the Acropolis now known as the Beule gate (see p. 34). 
The structure referred to is the choregic monument of Nicias, 
which, according to Dorpfeld, stood on a foundation that has 
been cut away by the building of the theatre of Herodes 
Atticus. From what remains of the heavy foundation (41 in 
plan) Dorpfeld is able to determine the shape of the building, 
as being somewhat analogous to the monument of Thrasyllus. 


Dorpfeld (171) shows that this heavy foundation must have 
been built as a support to columns approached by steps, and 
that the material, conglomerate, is the kind used after the 
fourth century B.C. This fits the time of the monument 
erected by Nicias, which, from an inscription built into the 
Beule gate, we know to have been 319 B.C. In a previous 
chapter (p. 35) this gate has been discussed and the inscrip- 
tion above referred to is given. From the fragments built into 
the masonry of the Beule gate and from others lying about 
the gate and in close proximity to the bastion of the temple of 
Victory, Dorpfeld is able to reconstruct the original monument 
as follows : At the front stood a row of six Doric columns, 
the dedicatory inscription extending over the three middle 
intercolumniations. On the sides stood the corner column, 
a second column, and a closed wall with an anta. Whether 
there was a rear wall, or whether, like the Thrasyllus monu- 
ment, the structure had the rock of the Acropolis for its 
background Dorpfeld leaves undecided, but he leans toward the 
latter alternative since no corner blocks for the rear wall have 
been found. The location, however, of the building seems too 
far away from the Acropolis to lead us to suppose that the 
building had no rear wall. Dorpfeld points out an interesting 
architectural correspondence between the fagade of the Nicias 
monument and the west front of the Propylaea, and between 
the fai^ade of the Thrasyllus monument and the west front of 
the southwest wing of the Propylaea. The front of each 
building in the latter case consists of two broad corner pillars 
with a slender column between, of an architrave having an 
unbroken row of guttae, and of a frieze without triglyphs. 
It is an interesting fact that on the same day on which Nicias 
gained his victory as choregus Thrasyllus was victorious with 
his chorus. Thus each choregus erected and dedicated, as if 
in friendly rivalry, a monument to honor the god of the 
festival and to commemorate his own triumph. The pulling 
down of this monument was necessitated by the erection of 
the theatre of Herodes Atticus about 161 A.D. Evidence for 
this date is incidentally furnished by the mason's marks, as 
was stated above (p. 34). From Plutarch {Nicias, iii.) we 
learn that Nicias, the general of the Peloponnesian war, dedi- 
cated a monument supporting choregic tripods in the precinct 


of Dionysus. Since it is well known that Nicias furnished 
many choruses, we need not suspect any confusion on the 
part of Plutarch between that monument of the more famous 
Nicias and this one of the younger period. A few words 
remain to be said of the painted decoration of this building. 
When first discovered, the poros blocks of the Doric frieze 
and the marble cornice showed traces of brilliant blue and 
red coloring. Since the triglyphs were entirely covered with 
paint, a dark blue, the cheaper poros was used instead of 
marble. The metopes were of marble, thin slabs being 
inserted between the triglyphs in separate grooves. 

Perhaps the most conspicuous ruins on the south slope of 
the Acropolis are those of the Stoa of Eumenes and of the 
Theatre of Herodes Atticus. In his book on Attica Pausanias 
makes no mention of these structures. This raises at once the 
question whether they were in existence when the old traveller 
wrote his account. Now as regards the date of the theatre 
we are not left in doubt, for Pausanias (vii. 20, 6) expressly 
says that when he wrote his description of Athens this theatre 
was not yet built. But as regards the date of the colonnade 
the question is not so simple for Pausanias makes no reference 
to it. U. Kohler (172) with whom Milchhofer agrees, holds, 
that the colonnade is of the same date with the Herodes 
Atticus theatre for the following reasons : The back of the 
colonnade is exactly in a line with the stage of the Herodes 
theatre, which favors the theory that the two buildings were 
planned together. The two buildings communicated by doors 
in the western end wall of the colonnade, and here the masonry 
seems to be of the same character. On the theory that both 
structures belong to the same period the silence of Pausanias 
in regard to the colonnade is more easily explained. But 
Dorpfeld has shown good grounds for dissenting from this 
view and for assigning an earlier date to the colonnade. These 
grounds are briefly the following : The walls of the theatre 
where they exceed a certain thickness are regularly constructed 
of a core of small stones and mortar {opus incertuni), with an 
outer facing of Peiraic limestone. This style of masonry is not 
found in the colonnade, which is constructed of conglomerate 
limestone and Hymettian marble, materials which were em- 
ployed at Athens in the pre-Roman or Hellenistic period. 


Furthermore, the junction, of the colonnade with the theatre 
shows that these buildings could not have been built by the 
same architect. This is especially clear when we look at the 
double wall between the two buildings : the eastern part, which 
is apparently of the same period as the portico, is built of poros 
and marble, while the western part consists of poros blocks with 
a core of rubble. We should not fail to notice also how this 
cross-wall cuts off a part of an arch, — a serious architectural 
blunder if the two structures were planned at the same time. 
The two doors in this wall were probably cut through after the 
theatre had been built ; at any rate, their present lining belongs 
to the Roman period. The belief that this stoa was built by 
Eumenes rests in part upon the statement of Vitruvius (v. 9, i), 
who says that the colonnade of Eumenes was situated near the 
theatre of Dionysus, and was used as a shelter by the spectators 
whenever a sudden shower of rain drove them from the open 
theatre. The Eumenes at whose expense this stoa was built 
was probably Eumenes II., king of Pergamon, 197-159 B.C., 
who erected a similar structure in Pergamon. Without further 
discussion of the date, let us consider the character of this 
structure. It consists of a double colonnade 163 metres (534 
ft.) long and a little more than 16 metres (52 ft. 6 in.) deep. 
As already intimated, it had two rows of columns, one along the 
outer side and forming the facade, the other down the middle. 
The outer row was Doric, the inner may have been Ionic. 
Near the east end there are traces of what appears to have 
been an ornamental portico or gateway. The details of the 
superstructure cannot be determined. That the building had a 
second story is certain. Access to the colonnade was at the front 
by means of three steps. The foundations of the outer side, the 
.square foundations of the inner row of columns, and the side 
and back walls up to a certain height are preserved. At its 
eastern end the colonnade (and v/ith it the retaining wall of the 
terrace) stops about 10 metres (33 ft.) short of the theatre of 
Dionysus ; at this point it was terminated by a side wall. The 
rear of the colonnade was built up as follows : Three walls 
lying one behind the other bound the entire length of the stoa : 
(i) the hindmost wall, built up against the terrace and 
constructed of conglomerate ; (2) the second wall, also of 
conglomerate, and carrying more than forty arches ; (3) an 

A.A. s 


ornamental wall built of Peiraic limestone, probably covered 
with stucco and tinted, with a dado five feet three inches high 
of Hymettian marble, and a projecting marble moulding which 
produces the effect of a cornice. Above the arches lie a 
number of blocks behind which the retaining wall must have 
risen several courses higher. The arches are of unequal height 
and rise towarfl the centre, thus describing a curve conformable 
to the surface line of the terrace. These arches were used only 
constructively to bind together the buttresses that held up the 
retaining wall, and were concealed by the casing built as an 
ornamental front. 

During the middle ages these walls suffered serious injury. 
The upper portion fell down and was rebuilt, probably in the 
twelfth century, when seven heavy buttresses were erected to 
support the rebuilt masonry. Parts of two of these buttresses 
are still left, near the theatre of Herodes, the others having 
been torn down with a view to securing inscribed stones that 
were supposed to have been built into them. In its original 
state this colonnade cannot fail to have produced an impression 
of dignity and grandeur, and to have afforded a suitable setting 
to the array of temples and shrines that stood above it on 
the higher terraces. 

The Theatre of Herodes Atticus, or Odeum of Regilla as it 
is often called, was built by Herodes Atticus in memory of his 
wife Appia Annia Regilla, who died about 1 60 A.D. Pausanias 
(vii. 20, 6) tells us that in size and magnificence it surpassed 
the Odeum at Patrae, which was otherwise unrivalled in Greece. 
Another writer, Philostratus ( F//. Soph. ii. i, 5), says that it 
had a roof of cedar wood, and was far superior to the Odeum 
which Herodes built at Corinth. 

The Odeum, as we shall call it, was the last edifice of any size 
and importance, so far as is known, that was erected in ancient 
Athens. In the Byzantine and Prankish periods it was often mis- 
taken for the theatre of Dionysus (173). The English traveller 
Chandler was the first to give the building its true name. The 
interior, buried for a long time under a heavy accumulation of 
soil, was thoroughly excavated by the Greek Archaeological 
Society in 1857-58. From the large quantity of ashes found 
in the course of these excavations it is evident that the Odeum 
must have been partially destroyed by fire. After this fire the 



building appears to have suffered but little change. In the 
Prankish period its massive walls were included in the circuit 
of the fortifications at the base of the Acropolis. Stuart and 
Revett saw what remained of the builtiing incorporated in 
the line of Prankish fortifications and were allowed to make a 
hasty sketch of what they supposed was the Dionysiac theatre. 

Fig. 115. — South Walls of the Theatre of Herodes Atticus. At the east joined 
by the walls of the Stoa of Eumenes. 

The Odeum (174) is a characteristic monument of the last 
period in the history of Athenian buildings. Roman though it is 
in plan and construction, it conforms to Greek ideas in its general 
outline, combining the two Greek architectural forms of the 
covered music hall and of the theatre built into the side of a hill. 

Above the semi-circular orchestra rise, tier above tier, on the 
rocky slope the seats of the auditorium. This measures about 
80 metres (262 ft.) across, and was enclosed by a massive 
wall of limestone rising high above it, which, strengthened by 
buttresses on its eastern side, supported the weight of the 
cedar roof which rested upon it. Within this space there ran 
two broad aisles {diazomata)^ the upper one (//) along the 



enclosing wall, the lower one dividing the body of seats into 
two zones, a lower zone having 20 rows and an upper zone 
having 13, the whole capable of seating about 5000 spectators 
(175). Flights of steps cut into the rock and running 
transversely up from the orchestra divide the seats into wedge- 
shaped sections {cunet), the lower zone into five, the upper zone 

Fig. 116. — The Theatre of Herodes Atticus. Auditorium and Orchestra. 

into ten sections. The rows of seats were faced at their ends 
or in profile with slabs of marble, and the seats were covered 
with Pentelic marble blocks, many of which are still seen in situ. 
Each row of benches shows a finely worked front with a 
depression behind it, by which the occupants of the row above 
could pass to their seats without disturbing those who sat in 
the next row below or treading on their garments as they 
passed by. The front row, in which the dignitaries sat, 
was provided with backs and at the end with arms which 
were finished off at the bottom to resemble lion's claws. The 
orchestra, measuring about 18.80 metres (62 ft.) in breadth is 
a trifle larger than a semi-circle, and is paved with square 



pieces of dark marble, varied with pieces of yellow marble. 
From each side of the orchestra a passage, similarly paved and 
veneered with thin marble slabs, led past the end of the stage, 

and by means of eight steps to a doorway which opened 
into a vestibule from which one passed into the open air. The 
stage, which was about 3 5 metres (116 ft.) in breadth, 8 metres 
(26 ft.) deep, and 1.50 metres (5 ft.) high, was connected with 


the orchestra by means of two stairways five steps high ; but 
only three steps of the eastern stairway remain. The massive 
wall at the back of the stage is preserved to a height of two 
stories throughout, and in some places a third story remains. 
The two upper stories show rows of arched windows. This 
wall was pierced at the level of the stage with three stage 
doors and contains eight niches for statues. There was also an 
entrance to the stage through each of the side scenes. At 
each end of the stage, between pilasters which separate the side 
entrance to the stage from that which leads into the orchestra, 
there is a niche in the wall for a statue. A heavy foundation 
wall lying in front of and parallel with the back wall of the 
stage appears to have supported a row of pillars which 
extended across the stage and about six feet in front of the 
rear wall, and formed, as in the case of all Roman theatres, the 
proscenium. We still see a row of holes cut into the back 
wall, at a height of about i6 feet above the stage, into which 
the stone architraves of the proscenium were fitted. Probably 
upon this first or lower proscenium stood another row of 
columns, open towards the auditorium, in front of the seven 
arched windows of the second story, the central one of which, 
however, is closed. In this closed window there is a small 
chamber the purpose of which is not known. This second or 
upper story of the stage was in all probability a survival of the 
Greek theologeion, that is, the place where the gods and 
other beings of the sky and air made their appearance. 

In line with the stage, and in close connection with it, 
are the two wings — parascenia — of the stage-building, each 
of which had two vestibules — an upper and a lower one — 
through which access was gained by means of stairways to 
the cavea and the upper floors of the building. From the 
upper western vestibule a door gave access to the terrace 
above the theatre, and so to the path that led to the 
entrance to the Acropolis. In this way a kind of substitute 
was provided for the old path to the Acropolis from the 
east, which had been obliterated by the building of the 
Odeum. The construction of the roof, the material of which 
was cedar, is almost entirely a matter of pure conjecture. 
Tuckermann's ingenious reconstruction is indicated in part 
in the cut taken from his work. It rose about 26 metres 





(85!^ ft.) above the pavement, and was supported by eight 
trusses which converged towards the stage. In the centre of 
the roof was probably an opening (oiraiov) or skyh'ght 
directly above the orchestra. 

In order to give the reader a better idea of this building 
we reproduce the following cut taken from Tuckermann, 

Fig. 119. — Interior Plan of Theatre of Herodes Attictis, drawn by Tuckermann. 

showing the original plan of the Odeum in two halves. The 
right hand or eastern half presents the plan of the building 
on the ground floor — the left hand, or western half, that on 
the first story. In the latter a projection of the ceiling is 
shown in the cavea and on the stage. The doubly-hatched 




portions indicate those parts that are still preserved or are 
attested by authentic drawings, as, e.g.^ by those of Stuart. 
The letters in the plan either refer to the axes of the 
sections drawn in the plan or indicate the various parts of 
the building as follows: — ^4, ^ = vestibules to which A^, B^ 
on the next story correspond; C=\hQ. stairway to the first 
zone of seats ; C^ = the corresponding stairway to the second 
zone ; D = the portico to the south ; E = the hall on the 
ground floor of the stage-building; /^=the hall on the floor 
above ; finally, G = the open part of the parodoi, while G^ = 
the part covered with a vaulted ceiling. 

The restoration of the fa9ade, taken from Tuckermann and 
shown in the accompanying cut, is conjectural. The connection 
of the two wings with the central building and the construc- 
tion of their roof cannot be determined. The only point 
that seems pretty certain is that the wings were higher than 
the central structure, as is shown in the cut, and as appears from 
what remains of the building. The main part of the structure 
appears to have had three entrances at the front, which served 
as approaches to a portico and to ante-chambers, which 
extended across the entire width of the main building. Each 
wing appears to have had two front entrances and a side 
entrance, the door next to the main structure giving access to 
the corridors of the parodoi (passageways into the orchestra), 
while the other four doors led to the upper row of seats. 
The present entrance is by the westernmost of the three door- 
ways, which opens into a vestibule. In this entrance is a niche, 
which contains the statue of a Roman magistrate. 

The walls that enclose the parodoi contain niches in which 
may have been placed statues of Herodes and Regilla. 

From what has been preserved of this once beautiful struc- 
ture, as well as from the admiration with which Pausanias 
refers to it, we are warranted in believing that it must have 
been in its day one of the most brilliant and impressive 
buildings of the ancient city. In spite of the destruction that 
has been wrought, we can still picture to ourselves its beautiful 
interior, with its roof of cedar, its marble seats, its walls 
veneered with marble slabs, its richly decorated stage, and its 
corridors and vestibules adorned with statues and mosaics and 
painted decorations. 



" Then there came forth, appearing hke a statue, 
Pallas; a spear she shook with crested helm." 

Eur. Here. Fur. 1002. 

The period extending from the time of the rule of Alexander 
the Great down to the fall of the Roman Empire, stormy and 
destructive of the monuments of ancient days as it was, saw 
less havoc wrought to the temples and shrines upon the 
Acropolis than one would be led to fear. A certain reverence 
for the patron divinity of Athens and her shrines on the sacred 
rock seems to have checked the violent hand of even such a 
ruthless conqueror as Sulla, and the city of Athens, after having 
escaped serious injury at the hands of the successors of 
Alexander, became an object of favor to the kings of Perga- 
mon, to the Ptolemies of Egypt, and to some of the Roman 
Emperors. To be sure, the monuments on the Acropolis did 
not escape wholly uninjured. Pausanias (i. xxv, 7) tells us 
that Lachares carried off golden shields from the Acropolis, and 
stript the image of the goddess of all its golden ornaments. 
And Demetrius Poliorcetes, so Plutarch informs us, celebrated 
his disgraceful orgies in the apartments of the maiden goddess. 
Of the Roman emperors Nero alone despoiled Athens, though 
even he seems to have spared the most sacred shrines, since 
Pausanias subsequently found them still occupying their ancient 
places. With the death of Marcus Aurelius the building period 
in the history of Athens is practically closed, we include 


in it the measures taken by Septimius Severus to make the 
Acropolis a fortification, and extend the period to embrace also 
the erection of the bulwarks erected by one Flavius Septimius 
Marcellinus in the third century A.D. 

To the later Hellenistic and the Roman periods belong some 
of the buildings located on the southern slope of the Acropolis, 
which have been described in the foregoing chapter. To these 
periods belong also many of the monuments found on the 
Acropolis itself, to which now we must turn our attention. As 
a matter of convenience we shall here again follow the order 
pursued by Pausanias and include in our account all the 
monuments of whatever period to which he refers, so far as 
they have not already occupied our attention in the preceding 

After mentioning the entrance to the Acropolis Pausanias 
speaks of the Propylaea, already described in our fourth 
chapter, without making any reference to the statue of Agrippa 
which must have been a conspicuous object at his left as he 
ascended the slope. 

The quadrangular base which supported the statue still 
rem.ains immediately to the west of the north-west wing of the 
Propylaea and opposite the temple of Wingless Victory. It 
stands on a square foundation of limestone, measuring 3.3 1 
metres (10 ft. 10 in.) on the front, 3.80 metres (i2| ft.) on 
the side, and 4.5 metres (14 ft. 9. in.) high. Two steps make 
the transition from this lower base to the pedestal proper, 
which is faced with Hymettian marble and rises slightly 
tapering 8.9 metres (29 ft. 2 in.) above the bases. A simple 
cornice of white marble crowns the whole. The inscription 
on the west side of the pedestal reads thus : " The people 
[set up] Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, thrice consul, their 
own benefactor" {C.I. A. iii. 575). Since Agrippa was consul 
for the third time in 27 B.C. the statue must have been 
erected between that year and 1 2 B.C., the date of Agrippa's 
death. The marks on the top of the pedestal indicate that 
Agrippa was represented in a chariot drawn by four horses. 
When this monument, which was doubtless of bronze, was 
destroyed or pillaged is unknown. It is to be observed (see 
plan) that the orientation of the base is not quite the same 
as that of the great Roman stairway. 


That Pausanias should have omitted to mention this con- 
spicuous monument is all the more remarkable when we 
consider the full and detailed account of his route among the 
monuments that lined his path on the Acropolis. But a 
similar important omission occurs in the case of the temple of 
Roma and Augustus built on the Acropolis about the same 
time as the Agrippa monument. At the time of the building 
of these monuments the Acropolis appears to have been the 
object of a revival of interest on the part of the Roman 
emperors, particularly of Augustus, who, together with his 
son-in-law Agrippa, seems to have been instrumental in 
merging the Panathenaic festivals and the festivals in honor 
of the Roman emperors together (176). It is probable that 
also about this time the great Roman stairway was built, and 
that Agrippa had taken some part in this reconstruction. From 
this period also date new regulations for a more careful guard of 
the entrance to the Acropolis, indicated by the so-called " Akro- 
phylakes " and " Pyloroi," who, according to an inscription 
(CI. A. iii. 159) erected an altar to Apollo Agyieus close to the 
base of the Agrippa monument. Higher up the slope and on 
the projecting foundation walls of the wings of the Propylaea, 
on each side of the stairway, Pausanias saw facing each other the 
statues of two horsemen of which he says that he was not sure 
whether they represented the sons of Xenophon or were merely 
decorative. From the portions of the inscribed bases and the 
pedestals of these statues that have been found, we now know 
that Pausanias was mistaken in connecting these statues with 
the sons of Xenophon the historian. The inscribed base and 
pedestal of the statue which stood on the south side of the 
ascent have been placed in their original relation to the walls 
of the Propylaea. The pedestal consists of a number of blocks 
of Pentelic marble, surmounted by a slab of Hymettian marble. 
On its upper and lower surfaces this slab of marble bears 
marks which show that each of these supported a statue at 
different -times, but the marks on the two surfaces are so 
different that they cannot be those of the same statue. On 
each of the two longer of the narrow sides of the slab the 
following inscription is carved : " The cavalry [dedicated this 
out of the spoils which they took] from the enemy when 
Lacedaemonius, Xenophon, and Pronapes were cavalry colonels. 



Lycius of Eleutherae, son of Myron, made [this statue]." But 
this inscription reads a different way up on the two sides of 
the slab (Fig. 121). From these facts it appears that the 
statue which stood on this slab was at some time taken down, 
the slab reversed, a different statue later placed on it, and the 

Fig. 121. — Inscribed Pedestal on Wall flanking Stairway of Propj'laea. 

same inscription was carved, the other way up, on the side 
opposite to that which bore the original inscription. The 
original statues cannot have been set up on this site later than 
437 B.C., about the time when the Propylaea was begun, since 
the two pedestals which supported them form integral parts of 
the coping of the walls. But that this is not the original site 
of these statues has been shown by Lolling (177), who believes 
that they stood first on the slope of the Acropolis and were 


later removed to the position in which Pausanias saw them. 
In the opinion of Lolling they were set up to commemorate the 
conquest of Euboea in 446 B.C. and the Xenophon referred to 
in the inscription is the cavalry officer mentioned by Thucydides 
(ii. 70) in connection with the siege of Potidaea. From the 
form of the letters and the use of Hymettian marble Lolling 
inferred that the inscription now extant is a later copy of the 
original. This copy, however, cannot be dated by these 
criteria ; it may have been made at the same time that these 
statues were removed from their original place to the 

The southern one of the two statues was, as we have 
seen, a later copy of the original, and was, of course, the one 
that Pausanias describes. But in the pedestal which supported 
this statue there is a block of Pentelic marble below the slab 
of Hymettian marble that bears a later inscription, which reads 
as follows: — "The people [dedicated this statue of] Germanicus 
Caesar, descendant of the divine Augustus." From this it 
appears that the statue of the horseman on the pedestal was 
converted (a practice only too common in Roman times) into 
a statue of Germanicus, probably in 1 8 A.D., when he visited 
Athens and was received with great honors. Pausanias either 
overlooked or purposely disregarded this later inscription. 

As Pausanias proceeds on his way he comes to the portico 
itself of the Propylaea, and speaks of seeing there figures of 
Hermes and the Graces, which " are said to have been made 
by Socrates [the philosopher], the son of Sophroniscus." This 
statement has given rise to a good deal of discussion, especially 
in connection with other statements of Pausanias (ix. 35, 3, 7) to 
the effect that these figures were draped, and that a secret rite 
was performed beside the three figures of the Graces before the 
entrance to the Acropolis. With this discussion there is intimately 
connected the other question of the origin and interpretation of 
several ancient reliefs, one of which is in the Museo Chiara- 
monti, and represents three women hand in hand moving to 
the spectator's left, clothed in garments reaching to the feet. 
This relief is probably a copy of some celebrated original 
which stood on the Acropolis, and which may have been the 
group of Graces assigned by tradition to Socrates. The other 
relief is one lately found on the Acropolis not far from the 


Propylaea, representing the three Graces clothed in tight-fitting 
tunics and twilled petticoats, also striding hand in hand to the 
spectator's left. At the head of the group walks a man in a 
loose robe, with his left arm raised. He seems to be repre- 
sented as playing a flute, but the relief is too imperfectly 
preserved to be sure of that. The style of the relief is 
archaic enough to be dated in the sixth century B.C. From 
the style of both reliefs it is quite clear that neither could 
have been the work of Socrates, the well-known philosopher. 

Fjg. 122. — Aichaic Relief of the Graces. 

It may be that the sculptor of the original relief bore the 
name of Socrates, and was confused by the people with the 
son of Sophroniscus, who in youth was a statuary, or that 
the philosopher did really execute a copy of such a relief to 
be set up as a votive offering, and that this is the source of 
the tradition handed down by Pausanias. That the Graces 
had an ancient cult and shrine on the Acropolis is evident 
from the statement of Pausanias, but where to place it is not 
so clear. Pausanias, it will be observed, couples the Hermes 
of the Portal with the Graces as being "just at the entrance." 
But elsewhere (ix. 35, 7) he says that the Graces were "in 
front of the entrance to the Acropolis," and that the Athenians 
performed a secret rite beside them. This seems to point to a 


separate sanctuary in which these mystic rites were observed. 
Now, from an inscription in the theatre of Dionysus (C.I.A. iii. 
268), it appears that there was an image of a " fire-bearing 
priest " of the Graces, and of an " Artemis on the Tower " 
(e-TrnrvpyiSia), and this Artemis is probably identical with the 
*' Hecate on the Tower," whose image, according to Pausanias, 
stood beside the Temple of Victory (Paus. ii. 30, 2). Since 
then the position of the Artemis-Hecate image upon the Tower 
is distinctly indicated, Frazer concludes that the sanctuary of 
the Graces must have stood in the corner immediately to the 
east of the Temple of Victory and to the south of the south- 
western wing of the Propylaea (178). That the " Hermes of 
the Portal " was a separate image seems most probable. Its 
position is conjectured by Frazer to have been at the north- 
west corner of the central building of the Propylaea, in the 
niche formed by the anta of the central building on the one 
side and the projecting wall and anta of the north-west wing 
on the other side. But, according to this view, this image 
would be too far away from the statues of the Graces ; and it 
seems more likely that Miss Harrison (179) is correct in 
locating the image of this Hermes in a niche between the 
central building of the Propylaea and the eastern anta of the 
south west wing, i.e. in close proximity to the shrine of the 
Graces. This position explains an epithet applied to a 
Hermes on the Acropolis who bore the name of " the 
Uninitiated One ' (a/mvrjros) (180). For this Her-mes, though 
he stood so near the sanctuary of the Graces in which mystic 
rites were celebrated, was excluded frorh these mysteries. It 
is of interest in this connection to know that at Pergamon 
an inscribed herm attributed to Alcamenes has recently been 
found, which Conze (181) believes to be a copy of the Athenian 
Hermes Propylaeus. Its style, however, is earlier than the 
time of the Mnesiclean Propylaea. ' i 

To the right and left of the main passage, and chiefly 
within the eastern portico, probably stood the other statues 
named by Pausanias. The position of the statues of Pericles 
and of the Lemnian Athena and of the bronze chariot group 
to commemorate the victory of the Athenians over the 
Boeotians and Chalcidians we shall discuss later. 

The casual remark of Pausanias that " near the statue of 



Diitrephes (for I do not wish to mentioh the obsclire statues), 
are images of gods," suggests at once that within the precinct of 
the Acropolis numerous statues and shrines bore witness to the 
piety and patriotism of the Athenians. Of many of these 
shrines and statues only the pedestals and foundations remain, 
and of many others not even a trace has been preserved. One 
of the most interesting of these pedestals that once supported 
statues is that which is often connected with the bronze 
statue of Diitrephes, whose body was pierced with arrows. 
This basis, originally found in the wall of a large cistern 

^ ' ' "^ ^ ARC A -'D lArlAE- . BR A.VRON I A E ^ 

Fig. 123. — Precinct of Athena Hygieia. 

in front of the west end of the Parthenon, now lies a few 
yards to the east of the terrace immediately in front of the 
rock-cut steps leading up to the plateau of the Parthenon. It 
is a square block of Pentelic marble, on the top of which are 
two square holes for fastening a statue, and on its front face is 
the following inscription : " Hermolycus, son of Diitrephes 
[dedicated this as] a first fruit. Cresilas made it "(182). 
Pliny tells us (N.If. xxxiv. 74) that Cresilas made a statue 
representing a wounded man swooning away. That this 
statue described by Pliny is the one mentioned by Pausanias in 
the text and that it stood on the pedestal which bears this 
inscription is to be doubted, since the epigraphy is too early for 
the date of Diitrephes, who, Pausanias says, was the Athenian 


general that captured Mycalessus, an event that occurred in 
414/13 B.C., and that is mentioned also by Thucydides (vii. 
29). Another interesting pedestal is that which stands just 
outside of the eastern portico of the Propylaea opposite to and 
almost abutting on the southern column of the portico. From 
the cut (Fig. 123) its location may be seen at a glance and 
its relation to other remains of votive offerings and altars in 
honor of Athena Hygieia. 

To explain the cut before we discuss these remains : 
A = the stylobate of the Propylaea. 
B = the southern column. 

D = tlie pedestal of the statue of Athena Hygieia. 
E =a. marble sill. 

F =3. marble base of a sacrificial table. 
G =dL small base of poros for a votive offering. 
H=a. large marble base for a statue. 
K = foundation of the altar L of Athena Hygieia. 
MNO = bases of votive offerings. 

On the front of the pedestal is cut the following inscrip- 
tion : " The Athenians dedicated [this image] to Health 
Athena. Pyrrhus, an Athenian, made [the image] " (183). 
From the style of the letters the inscription dates from about 
429 B.C. The story of the dedication of the image Plutarch 
(^Pericles, 13) tells as follows: While the great portal of the 
Acropolis was building " the most active and zealous of the 
workmen fell from a height and was badly hurt, the doctors 
despairing of his life. Pericles was cast down at the mishap, 
but the goddess appeared to him in a dream and ordered him 
to adopt a certain treatment by following which he soon and 
easily cured the man. For this he set up the bronze image of 
Health Athena on the Acropolis beside the altar, which, they 
say, had existed previously." The inscription shows, however, 
that the Athenians and not Pericles dedicated this statue, and 
from the account given by Pliny {N.H. xxii. 44) it appears that 
this accident occurred in connection with the building of the 
Parthenon, and that an image was erected not to Health 
Athena, but to the unlucky workman, and that his statue was 
known as the Splanchnoptes " roaster of entrails." These 
inconsistencies in the versions of the story lead Professor 
Wolters to the conclusion that tradition as represented by 


Plutarch's story wrongly transferred this incident from the 
Parthenon to the Propylaea, and made it the occasion of 
dedicating the statue of Health Athena, which he believes was 
set up about 429 B.C., to commemorate the cessation of the 
great plague. On the top of the pedestal are two marks 
showing where the feet of the statue stood ; from these marks 
it appears that the statue faced northeast and rested on the 
right foot, with the left thrown a good deal back. With regard 
to the other bases and blocks of marble closely connected with 
this pedestal the following statement, condensed from Frazer, 
must suffice : The large block of marble abutting on the 
pedestal of Health Athena and designated on the plan as F 
has four holes on the top which show that it supported a table 
or altar. As this block rests on an accumulation of soil at a 
higher level than the base or step which supports the pedestal 
of Health Athena it is probable that the altar was erected later 
than the statue. The inscription shows that the statue was set 
up originally as a votive offering, and Wolters (184) is doubtless 
right in supposing that at a later period this conception became 
changed in the popular mind and the statue came to be looked 
upon as a cult image, which was then honored with sacrifices 
for which this sacrificial table was set up. The other block 
(marked E in the cut) is probably, as Bohn has suggested, 
the remnant of a row of similar blocks intended to keep the 
rain-water from flowing into the corner between the Propylaea 
and the precinct of the Brauronian Artemis. This dam formed 
by the row of marble blocks diverted the water from this 
corner and caused it to flow along the front of the eastern 
portico of the Propylaea to the ancient channel that runs 
through the central gateway. Ancient authorities and inscrip- 
tions refer to a worship of Athena Hygieia on the Acropolis, 
and the antiquity of this worship is attested by the fragment of 
a red-figured vase found on the Acropolis and inscribed with a 
dedication to " Health Athena " which dates from the sixth 
century B.C. Since the statue that stood on the pedestal of 
Health Athena made by Pyrrhus was originally, as we have 
seen, a votive offering, we must look for a cult statue of this 
goddess elsewhere on the Acropolis. That such a cult statue 
and altar existed cannot be doubted. Aristides says (Dindorf, 
Or. II. vol. i. p. 22) that the most ancient of the Athenians 


founded an altar of " Health Athena." The marble foundation 
of this altar has been recognized with great probability in a 
quadrangular platform {K) 2.60 metres (8 ft 6 in.) square, 
that lies about twelve feet east of the pedestal of Health 
Athena. From the position of the altar, nearer the eastern 
than the western side of the platform, it appears that the 
priest stood on the western side of it facing east. This shows 
that the cult statue of the goddess must have stood to the 
east of the altar and therefore cannot have been the statue 
made by Pyrrhus, for otherwise the priest in sacrificing would 
have stood with his back to the goddess. Possibly certain 
cuttings in the surface of the rock to the east of this altar 
may indicate the location of the original cult statue of Athena 

After mentioning the image of Health Athena Pausanias 
leaves the Propylaea and sets out on his tour around the 

It will be remembered that the older road on the Acropolis 
ran northeast, in the same line as the axis of the old pre- 
Persian Propylon, along the north side of the old Athena 
Temple, and close to the sacred tokens enclosed by the ancient 
Erechtheum. Only when the new Propylaea and the Parthenon 
were built was the road laid farther south on a somewhat 
higher level, and then was the rock cut as we see it at our 
right on going through the Propylaea. The grooves or ruts 
cut in the rock served partly to conduct the water from the 
higher level to the drain or channel that ran diagonally in 
front of the portico of the Propylaea, and also to make the 
ascent more easy. In many places also are to be seen 
cuttings in the rock to receive the bases of votive offerings. 
At the right hand, as we proceed, we observe traces of an 
ancient path leading, by means of eight small steps cut into 
the native rock, up to a terrace. The northern boundary of 
this upper terrace was made by the hewing away of the rock 
so as to present a perpendicular face from below. This stair- 
way is flanked on both sides by cuttings in the rock for 
receiving statues and other votive offerings. Among these 
was probably the bronze statue of the boy with the sprinkler 
or basin containing holy water mentioned by Pausanias. As 
it was customary for the worshipper to sprinkle himself before 



entering a sanctuary, it is likely that this statue served this 
practical purpose at or near the entrance to the sacred precinct, 
which lay at the top of the scarped rock. The terrace now 
before us is the lowest and westernmost of the three terraces 
which made up the south-western portion of the Acropolis 
lying between the Propylaea and the Parthenon. It is now 
generally held that on this terrace lay the sanctuary of Artemis 
Brauronia. As no mention is made in the ancient writers 
and inscriptions of a temple of Brauronian Artemis on the 
Acropolis, and no foundations of a temple have been found 

^outk Wall of tne MoropolU 


Fig. 124. —Plan showing location of several precincts and buildings between 
Prophylaea and Parthenon. 

within the precinct, it seems likely that this sanctuary was 
merely a sacred enclosure with an altar. This enclosure is 
bounded at the west by the old Pelasgic wall already frequently 
mentioned, on the south by the outer wall of the Acropolis, 
on the north by the line of the scarped rock (originally, perhaps, 
built up higher by a coping) mentioned before, and on the 
east by another line of rock cutting which bounds the higher 
but smaller terrace lying to the east. The terrace thus 
bounded has the shape of an irregular quadrangle, and is 
about 48 metres (157 ft.) long from east to west. On the 
east and south this precinct was enclosed and adorned by 
means of colonnades, the foundations of which are clearly to 
be traced (185). The east hall is about 29 metres (95 ft. 
2 in.) long and 6 metres (19 ft. 8 in.) deep, while the south 
hall is about 37 metres (121 ft. 5 in.) long and 8 metres 
(26 ft. 3 in.) deep. Both had rows of columns in front facing 


the precinct, but were enclosed wholly, or in part, at the ends. 
These halls served as repositories of votive offerings, and 
possibly the cult image of Artemis stood in one of them. The 
traces of votive statues standing in the open air are to be seen 
at the northwest corner. In front of the Pelasgic wall at the 
west lie the ruins of what appears to have been a very ancient 

The cult of Artemis Brauronia (186) was introduced from 
Brauron, in Attica, whither the old image, according to the 
story told by Euripides in his Iphigenia in Tauris, had been 
carried from the Crimea. From inscriptions containing lists 
of the treasures in the sanctuary of Brauronian Artemis it 
appears that in 346 B.C. there were two images of the goddess 
in the sanctuary — one an old one, probably of stone, and a 
new one, whether of bronze or of gold and ivory is not known. 
This Artemis was especially worshipped by girls before 
marriage and by women after child-birth. Many and costly 
garments were dedicated to this divinity, and actually worn 
by the image. Strange rites were observed in this worship, 
among which was dancing by little girls dressed in bear-skins. 
The " bear service " connected with Artemis Brauronia is 
referred to by Aristophanes {Lysistrata, 64 1 -44), in which the 
chorus of women rehearse the benefits they have received from 
the State, and tell how they were reared at its expense : 
" When I was seven years old I became an arrephoros ; then, 
when I was ten I was grinder to the Sovereign Lady; then, 
wearing the saffron robe, I was a bear (apKTos) in the Brauronian 
festival." An interesting find on the Acropolis is a marble 
statuette of a bear seated on its haunches. That it was 
dedicated to Artemis Brauronia seems highly probable. The 
statue is now to be seen in the entrance hall of the Acropolis 
Museum. In the middle of the terrace lie two fragments of a 
large basis, which appears to have been originally composed of 
six blocks, and to have measured 3.52 metres (11 ft. 5 in.) 
in length. There is no doubt that this pedestal supported 
the bronze statue of the famous Wooden Horse. The in- 
scription on the two blocks of Pentelic marble reads thus : 
*' Chaeredemos of Coele, son of Evangelos, dedicated [it] ; 
Strongylion made [it]." Frazer concludes from the form of 
the letters of the inscription (187) on the pedestal that it is 


later than 447 B.C., and from a reference in the Birds of 
Aristophanes, where the comic poet speaks of horses as big as 
the Wooden Horse, that it was erected shortly before 414 B.C., 
the date of the comedy. The statue may have stood on the 
next higher terrace, between the terrace of the Parthenon and 
that of the precinct of Brauronian Artemis, if we may draw 
an inference from the order of the description of Pausanias, and 
from the fact that two of the blocks of the pedestal were found 
in this locality. In this same locality, or near it, must have 
also stood the statues mentioned by Pausanias (i. 23, 9, 10; 
24, I, 2) as seen next by him. Of these nothing remains except 
fragments of bases, one of which belongs to the statue of 
Epicharinus, the runner in the heavy armor, found in the 
excavations of 1888 between the Propylaea and the 

On the middle terrace, that is the terrace lying between 
that of Brauronian Artemis and that on which the Parthenon 
stands, it is believed by many scholars that the sanctuary of 
Athena Ergane, i.e. the Worker, is to be located. 

Whether this sanctuary was simply an image or an altar,, 
or whether there once stood a temple to this Athena is 
a disputed question. The fact that no foundations and no 
cuttings in the rock for bedding of foundations have been 
discovered on either of the supposed sites, creates a strong 
presumption that this sanctuary was simply an enclosure 
containing an altar. 

That Pausanias must have seen some monument of the 
worship of Athena Ergane seems certain. That Athena was 
worshipped under this title on the Acropolis is proved by 
the discovery of five inscriptions (188) containing dedications to 
Athena the Worker. Since two of these inscriptions were 
found on the middle terrace described above, it seems probable 
that the sanctuary of this divinity stood on this terrace. This 
position, as Frazer says, would fit in very well with the route 
of Pausanias, for he has described the precinct of Brauronian 
-Artemis and is now proceeding eastward towards the Parthe- 
non. In the passage of Pausanias (i. 24, 3) which speaks of 
Athena the Worker, mention is made of a temple, but whether 
this temple Is that of Athena Ergane or some other temple 
is not clear, inasmuch as there occurs a lacuna in the text 


of Pausanias immediately before the words "and in the temple." 
Dorpfeld (189) holds that the temple here referred to is the 
old temple of Athena who might also as the patroness of 
handicraft be called " the Worker." He denies that there was 
a separate temple of Athena Ergane (i) because no ancient 
writer speaks of such a temple (unless we suppose Pausanias 
does so in the lacuna-passage already referred to), nor is it 
mentioned in any inscription ; (2) from dedicatory inscriptions 
it can be shown that dedications could be made to Ergane 
under the name of Pallas or Athena, and hence Athena was 
at once Polias and Ergane (190). (3) While on the one hand 
the westernmost terrace was separated from the middle one 
by a wall and, as the latest excavations have shown, by a 
portico (see plan), we find on the other hand no wall of 
separation between the central and the easternmost terrace, 
but a flight of steps cut into the rock which apparently gave 
free communication to the Parthenon terrace and made this 
middle terrace an open court. Another possible site for the 
altar or temple of Athena Ergane is to the north of the 
Parthenon. In favor of this site is the fact that Pausanias 
mentions the image of Earth praying for rain very soon after 
speaking of Athena the Worker. Now the exact location of 
this image of Earth is known from an inscription (see below) 
to have been north of the Parthenon. As has frequently 
been pointed out by others, if this view is correct it would 
follow that the monuments described by Pausanias (i. 23, 8-10 ; 
i. 24, 1-4) were situated on opposite sides of the main road 
which ran eastward from the Propylaea to the eastern front 
of the Parthenon. This is the opinion also held by Dorpfeld^ 
according to which Pausanias names first the object on the 
right hand of the way going east, then {tovtodv -jrepav) those 
on the other side, z'.e. the northern, in connection with which 
he mentions Ergane. Hence, he argues, the shrine of Ergane 
is identical with the temple of the Polias referred to in the 
passage containing the famous lacuna (i. 24, 3, ev rw vau)\ 
which is, as he believes, the Hecatompedon. 

Upon this middle terrace lies a large base of the monument 
of Pandaites and Pasicles, consisting originally of five or six 
statues made by Sthennis and Leochares (191). And not far 
away must have stood the statue of the man wearing a helmet 


adorned with silver nails by Cleoitas the sculptor, who was 
famous for having invented a contrivance for starting horses 
at the Olympian Games, an invention of which he was so 
proud that, according to Pausanias (vi. 20, 14) he had it 
recorded in an inscription carved on a statue at Athens. 
The excavations of 1888-89 west of the Parthenon did not 
bring to light the remains of a temple to Athena Ergane 
but they did reveal the foundations of a large building on the 
southern half of the middle terrace. This building consisted 
apparently of a large hall (see plan) about i 5 metres (49 ft. 
2 in.) broad and 41 metres (134 ft. 6 in.) long, in front of 
which ran a portico about 3.5 metres (11 J ft.) deep. Only 
pieces of the foundation walls are preserved, built partly of 
blocks of Peiraic limestone, partly of fragments of pre-Persian 
buildings, and partly of blocks of the hard limestone of the 
Acropolis rock. Nothing is left of the columns that adorned 
this portico, nor of the hall itself The building must have 
suffered many changes when it was fitted up for a Byzantine 
church, a few scattered remains of which were found in the 
course of the excavations. 

In these foundations Dorpfeld (192) believes he has found 
the site of the ancient Chalkotheke, the storehouse for votive 
offerings and implements of bronze. The site of this building 
had long been sought on the Acropolis. Some supposed that 
the foundations under the new museum near the southeast 
corner belonged to the Chalkotheke. This is the opinion of 
Milchhofer in his monograph on Athens published in Baumeis- 
ter's Denkmdler d. klass. Altertums. Others, like Penrose and 
Lolling, believed that this building stood a little northeast of 
the Propylaea on foundation walls that have otherwise no 
suitable attribution, and on a site which, on being excavated, 
yielded many bronzes. Dorpfeld argues from the location in 
which most of the inscriptions pertaining to the Chalkotheke 
were found that the building must have stood somewhere on 
the western part of the Acropolis. The fact that the inventories 
of the Chalkotheke and of the Opisthodomos of the Parthenon 
are sometimes inscribed on the same slab and that both were 
under the supervision of the treasurers of the goddess argues 
for the proximity of these two localities. Dorpfeld points out 
also that the foundations found northeast of the Propylaea are 


too small for the Chalkotheke if we take into account the 
inventories that are believed to enumerate the objects placed in 
this storehouse. From these inventories (193) it appears that, 
besides couches, greaves, baskets, scales, braziers, wreaths, this 
magazine contained at one time, according to one inscription 
{C.I. A. ii. 678), 1500 Laconian shields; according to another 
{C.I. A. ii. 733), it stored 43,300 objects of some kind, the exact 
nature of which is not known on account of the fragmentary 
condition of the inscriptions. And if we suppose this building 
to be identical with the Armory (^KevoQr'jKrf) referred to by 
Lycurgus, in which the {a-Kevt} Kpefxaa-Ta eu aKpo-KoXei) armament 
for a hundred war galleys was kept, it might be doubted if even 
the foundations claimed to be those of the Chalkotheke would 
suffice to support a structure of the required dimensions. 
Since, however, these foundations testify to the existence of a 
large building, which in its outline was apparently intended 
for a storehouse with a portico, Dorpfeld has warrant for 
holding that this is the site of the long-sought Chalkotheke. 
He adds, as another argument in support of his view, the fact 
that this building is younger than the Parthenon, as is seen 
from the flight of steps cut into the rock, which, being of the 
same date as the Parthenon, ran originally clear to the south 
wall of the Acropolis. This would not have been the case if 
steps and Chalkotheke were built at the same time, or if the 
Chalkotheke were already standing, since the triangle between 
steps, Chalkotheke, and the southern wall of the Acropolis 
would be useless unless it were filled in and its surface raised 
to the level of the terrace of the Parthenon. Accordingly, the 
Chalkotheke must be later than the steps and the Parthenon. 
From the nature of the material of the foundations Dorpfeld 
concludes that it was built about the beginning of the fourth 
century. This date fits well with the fact that the Chalkotheke 
is first mentioned in 358 or 354 B.C. (194). Judeich thinks 
that the scanty remains of the foundations of this building 
point to an older structure than the Chalkotheke, and that on 
this site must be placed the much-disputed opisthodomos of 
the inscriptions, which he believes to have been a separate 
building. The flight of eight steps, already referred to (114 
in plan), running parallel to the west front of the Parthenon, 
is cut out of the native rock, except the smaller southern 


half, which is built up of pieces of ancient building material, 
some of which came from the peristyle of the pre-Persian 
Hecatompedon. These steps, which Dorpfeld attributes to 
Pericles in connection with the building of the Parthenon, 
served directly as an ascent to the higher terrace of the 
Parthenon, and also lent to the temple the architectural effect 
of a massive stereobate or foundation. Later these steps 
became a favorite site for erecting votive offerings and for 
inscriptions, the location for which can still be seen from the 
numerous cuttings and beddings in the surface of the rock. 

Fig. 125. — Facsimile of Inscription of Earth, rjjs Kap7ro</>dpov Kara yjuirtCav. 

Returning now to our guide, who does not mention the 
Chalkotheke, we are conducted eastward on the north side 
of the Parthenon, and next find ourselves by the image of 
Earth praying Zeus to rain on her. The position of this 
image is definitely known by an inscription cut in the rock 
about 30 feet north of the seventh column of the Parthenon, 
counting from the west. The inscription {C.I.A. iii. 166) reads 
thus : " Of fruit-bearing Earth, according to the oracle." It 
dates, to judge from the style of the letters, from the end 
of the first century A.D., but it may be a restoration of an 
earlier inscription. The inscription is now enclosed by an iron 
railing to protect it against injury from the feet of barbarians. 
Heydemann (195) conjectures that the image may have repre- 


sented Earth as a woman rising from the ground, the lower 
part of her body hidden beneath the surface, — an attitude in 
which she is often depicted on vase-paintings. If the statue 
was thus planted immediately upon the rock, without a 
pedestal, the inscription would necessarily have to be cut in 
the rock. 

Close by lie two blocks of Pentelic marble which belonged 
to the pedestal of the statues of Timotheus and Conon, as 
is shown by an inscription cut into the blocks. Farther 
east Pausanias sees a group of statuary representing Procne 
and Itys, which Michaelis (196) identifies with a mutilated 
group formerly walled into the west bastion in front of the 
Propylaea and now standing in the open court before the 
entrance into the Acropolis Museum. It represents a stately 
matron clad in tunic and mantle, and a naked boy who 
seems to be struggling to hide himself in the folds of his 
mother's robe. The style of the group points to the end of 
the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century B.C., but the 
work is not worthy of the name of the famous sculptor 
Alcamenes, and the probability is that the Alcamenes in the 
inscription upon the base is the name of the man who 
dedicated (not made) - it. Of the group which represented 
Athena and Poseidon exhibiting their respective symbols, the 
olive plant and the wave, we have no remains ; but we may 
get some idea of their appearance from coins of Athens on 
which this legend is portrayed. Frazer calls attention to the 
fact that this group had an intimate mythological connection 
with the image and altar of Zeus Polieus, near which it 
appears to have been set up. " For it was said that when 
Athena and Poseidon were contending, 
Athena begged Zeus to give his vote for 
her, and promised that if he did so a 
victim should be sacrificed on the altar to 
him under the title of Zeus Polieus. Hence 
the spot where the contest between Athena 
and Poseidon was decided went by the 

/-/.•I , r '7 >/A'' (--i,N>» Fig. 126. — Bronze Coin, 

name Ot the vote of Zeus (Aw? -y/J^O?). Athena and Poseidon. 

So also from Athenian coins we may get 

some idea of the type of the statues of Zeus next 

mentioned by Pausanias, sc. the one made by Leochares 


and that surnamed Polieus. The image and altar of Zeus 
Polieus probably stood a little to the north of the eastern 
end of the Parthenon. It was at this altar that 
the strange sacrifices and ceremonies described by Pausanias 
(i. 24, 4) were observed. Pausanias now enters the Parthenon, 
but since this temple has been fully described in a preceding 
chapter we pass it by. On leaving the Parthenon Pausanias 
must have seen the temple of Roma and Augustus of 
which he makes no mention. In the midst of the rocky 
plateau 23 metres (76 ft.) east of the Parthenon, the found- 
ations of this temple were brought to light a few years ago. 
These foundations are not to be connected with an altar of 
Athena which probably stood on the unhewn rough surface 
nearer to the Parthenon. The temple was a small circular 
building of white marble, 7.48 metres (24 ft. 6 in.) in 
diameter, surrounded by a colonnade of nine Ionic columns. 
Two blocks of the architrave bear an inscription (197) stating 
that the temple was dedicated to the goddess Roma and 
Augustus Caesar in the archonship of Areus. Since the 
Emperor is here called by the title of Augustus the inscription 
cannot be earlier than 27 B.C. Whether the peristyle enclosed 
a round cella or the building is to be reconstructed without 
a cella cannot be determined from the scanty existing 
remains. The style of the building and its ornamentation 
are an imitation of the Erechtheum, but the workmanship 
shows much less careful finish. 

Passing eastward we come to the modern Museum building 
and its annex to the southeast. Below both buildings, but 
especially the latter, are to be seen foundation walls built of 
square blocks of limestone. These foundations (95 in plan) 
Michaelis believes to have been those of the Chalkotheke. 
Dr. Georg Kawerau (198) has drawn a plan of this building 
based on what remains of the foundation walls. From 
the mass of marble chips lying about the foundations of 
this building Kawerau inferred that it may have been a 
workshop, and Judeich goes a step farther and conjectures that 
it may have been the workshop for the building of the older 
Parthenon. The southeast corner of the Acropolis appears 
to have been considerably higher in ancient days, possibly 
as high as the roof of the modern Museum, forming a large 



plateau. On this plateau, close to the south wall of the 
Acropolis, stood the dedicatory offering of Attalus I., king of 
Pergamon, in commemoration of his victories over the Gauls. 
Plutarch tells us {Antony, 60) that the figure of Dionysus in 
the group at Athens representing the battle of the Giants 
was blown down by a hurricane in 32 B.C. from its place 
into the theatre immediately below, and that in the same storm 
the colossal statues of Eumenes and Attalus on the Acropolis 

Fig. 127. — Amazon and Giant, alter Pergamene Group in Acropolis, related to 
votive offering of Attalus. 

were overturned. This group is believed to be one of the four 
sets of figures dedicated by Attalus and described by Pausanias 
(i. 25, 2). From Plutarch's statement it is clear that the figures 
were in the round and of bronze and not in relief as some 
have supposed. Above the theatre close to the base of the 
wall of the Acropolis lie blocks of poros of more than 
five metres in width, which K. Botticher believes were once 
a part of the base that supported this votive monument. 
Professor Brunn expresses the opinion that the statues of 
Gauls found in several of the Museums of Europe, numbering 
ten in all, are copies of these groups dedicated by Attalus, 


and that the originals set up at Pergamon were of larger 
size and of bronze. Michaelis has made it quite clear that 
the marble statues now extant that are supposed to be related 
to this votive offering of Attains are copies reduced in marble 
of bronze originals which were reduced from the Pergamenian 
originals (199). The grounds for this belief are: (i) that the 
size of the marble statues, which is about half that of life 
size, agrees with the statement of Pausanias that the figures 
were two cubits high ; (2) that the subjects of the statues, 
fighting, wounded or dead Gauls and Persians, a dead Amazon, 
a dead Giant, answer to the description of the four groups 
given by Pausanias ; (3) that the marble and the character 
of the work and style are Asiatic. In point of style these 
■ statues closely resemble the famous so-called "Dying Gladiator" 
in the Capitoline Museum at Rome, and the Gaul and his 
wife, formerly in the Villa Ludovisi but now in the national 
Museo delle Terme Diocleziane at Rome. The arrangement 
of these groups is a matter of pure conjecture. The total 
number of figures that made up the four groups must have 
been as many as sixty, on the supposition that each group 
formed a coordinate and complete unit in an ideal and great 
conception worthily executed (200). 

On the way from the votive monument of Attalus to the 
Erechtheum Pausanias mentions a number of statues, the 
exact location of which it is not possible to determine. His 
sudden reminder that he must hasten, " for I have to describe 
the whole of Greece " (i. xxvi. 4), implies that he omits 
to name several more statues that stood on this part of the 
Acropolis. Among those he mentions is a seated image of 
Athena by Endoeus which is of especial interest. It has 
been conjecturally identified with a marble statue of Athena 
which was found at the northern foot of the Acropolis, and 
is now in the Acropolis Museum. 

The recent excavations on the Acropolis have brought to 
view remains of very ancient walls to the east of the Erech- 
theum, some of which may belong to the foundations of a 
pre-historic structure similar to and contemporary with the 
ancient palaces of Tiryns and Mycenae (see p. 15 above). 
Southeast of the Erechtheum probably stood the great altar 
of Athena Polias, upon which a hecatomb was annually 


sacrificed. Di3rpfeld (201) believes he has found the site of 
this altar in a large square basis of the native rock which 
lies northeast of the Parthenon and southeast of the Erech- 
theum. The surface of the Acropolis to the northwest of 
the Erechtheum was doubtless as high as the lowest step of 
that temple. The highest course of masonry in the founda- 
tions of the building farther to the west would be on the 
same level. The upper courses of masonry in these founda- 
tions are carefully worked blocks of limestone. Lower down 
are the foundations of still older buildings. These may have 
belonged to the house of the Arrephoroi, or, according to 
others, to the temple of Pandrosos, though the latter is 
more commonly, and we believe more correctly, placed 
contiguous to the Erechtheum on its western side (see above, 
p. 216). 

Northwest of the Erechtheum and lying close to the 
northern wall of the Acropolis are seen the foundations of 
several buildings of different dates. The use and character 
of these buildings cannot be determined. Their relative 
location is indicated on the general plan. Attention may be 
called once more to the steps (42 in plan) leading down 
through a rift in the rock to the city below. It is by 
these steps that the Arrephoroi descended on their secret 
mission. In addition to what Pausanias tells us, we learn 
from other writers that the Arrephoroi were four girls of 
noble birth, between the ages of seven and eleven, who 
were chosen for their sacred task by the Basileus. They 
wore white robes, had a special kind of cakes baked for them, 
and enjoyed the seclusion of a court in which they played 
ball. Besides performing the curious ceremony described by 
Pausanias (i. 27, 3), these maidens appear to have had some 
connection with the weaving of the sacred robe, which was 
periodically presented to Athena. It seems to have been a 
common practice to set up on the Acropolis statues of the 
Arrephoroi ; the inscribed bases of a number of these statues 
have come down to us (202). The " well-wrought figure of 
an old woman purporting to be the handmaid Lysimache," 
which Pausanias says " is near the temple of Athena," was 
probably one of a series of statues of priestesses, of which 
inscribed bases have been found (203). The location of these 

A.A. u 


statues is conjectured to have been in or near the Pandroseum. 
With these statues of priestesses some scholars have connected 
the series of archaic female figures which were found in 1886 
in a pit west of the Erechtheum, and which have been 
described in a previous chapter on the Acropolis. 

Not far westward from the statue of the handmaid 
Lysimache (204) mentioned above, Pausanias saw a large 
bronze group of combatants, among whom are Erechtheus 
and Eumolpus. In this Erechtheus Michaelis recognizes the 
famous statue of that hero by Myron, referred to by Pausanias 
(ix. 30, i). As will be seen from the text of Pausanias, a 
series of votive offerings follows, the location and style of 
which cannot be determined from any surviving remains. 
They are in all probability to be located along the road cut 
into the rock of the Acropolis and leading to a point between 
the first and second column, reckoning from the north, of the 
eastern portico of the Propylaea. To the north of this road, 
or on the right hand as we go towards the Propylaea, the 
foundations of several ancient structures have been exhumed. 
The largest of these had apparently a hall facing south, and 
a cross-wall dividing the main part of the building into two 
chambers (31 in plan). These foundations Lolling, as was 
stated above (see p. 290), believed to be those of the Chalko- 
theke ; but we have seen that they are not large enough to 
be of this building. Still earlier foundations of good masonry 
lie beneath these. Possibly these belong to a large cistern, 
since here was the natural reservoir for the drainage of the 
Acropolis. Adjoining these foundations lie others of a Roman 
cistern, built on the site of the projected northeast wing of 
the Propylaea. 

As Pausanias proceeds on his way to the Propylaea he 
mentions a bronze statue of Cylon, which was probably set 
up as an expiatory offering for slaying " the suppliants of 
Athena" (Paus. vii. 25, 3), when, in the attempt to usurp 
(in 632 B.C.) the government at Athens, Cylon and his fellow- 
conspirators were put to death in violation of a promise that 
their lives would be spared in case they would leave their 
refuge on the Acropolis. The reason for erecting a statue 
to Cylon assigned by Pausanias, " because he was a very 
handsome man," is thoroughly Greek, but is doubtless occa- 


sioned by the beauty of the statue, which idealized its subject. 
Mention is next made of a bronze image of Athena, famiHarly 
known as Promachos, or Champion Athena. This title, how- 
ever, seems to have been given to it at a later time to 
distinguish this statue from the image of Athena Parthenos 
in the Parthenon and that of Athena Polias in the Erechtheum. 
Demosthenes (xix. 272) calls it the great bronze Athena, and 
says it was set up in the city as a trophy of Athenian valor in 
the Persian war out of money contributed by the rest of the 
Greeks. The connection of this statue with the battle 
of Marathon, according to the statement of Pausanias and 
Aristides, is probably due to a patriotic pride which refers 
all trophies that were the fruit of the Persian war to this 
famous battle. From the order of the description of 
Pausanias and from Athenian coins it is clear that the great 
bronze Athena of Phidias stood somewhere between the 
Erechtheum and tjie Propylaea. A square platform (36 in plan) 
cut in the rock about 30 yards east of the Propylaea, and 
lying in its axis, has commonly been identified as the site of 
this statue. This level space appears to have been prepared 
for a pedestal, whose base was about five and a half metres 
(18 feet) square, and was constructed of blocks of Peiraic 
limestone, some of which are in situ. Others who think 
this basis too small for the statue would place it on the 
larger levelled surface (35 in plan) adjacent to this on the 
south. The interpretation put upon the statement of Pausanias, 
according to which the point of the spear and the crest of 
the helmet of the Athena statue could be seen from Cape 
Sunium, cannot be correct, since Mt. Hymettus cuts off the 
view of Athens from Cape Sunium. All that Pausanias really 
says is that the point of the spear and the crest of the 
helmet were visible at sea. This is entirely possible to one 
coasting along the shore of Attica after passing Cape Zoster. 
A clue to the real size of the statue is given by Pausanias 
in another place (ix. 4, 1), where he says that the image of 
warlike Athena at Plataea was not much smaller than the 
bronze Athena on the Acropolis. From this statement 
Michaelis has drawn the conclusion that the bronze Athena 
was about 7.62 metres (25 ft.) high and stood on a pedestal 
about 1.77 metres (5 ft.) in height. The style of the statue 


is best inferred from the coins that give a view of the 
Acropolis with the statue of Athena in the foreground. It 
is to be borne in mind, however, that the relatively large 
size of the image in the coins is due to the artistic desire 
to make this figure show distinctly. The goddess stands in 
an attitude of repose, with the spear held in her right hand 
and resting upon the ground. What the position of the 
shield was is uncertain ; it may have rested on the ground 
at the left side, or it may have been lightly supported by 
the left hand which held the folds of the robe, or it may 
have been held out from the body on the left arm. It is 
probable that this statue was later removed to the Forum of 
Constantine at Constantinople. In that case it may be 
identical with the large statue described by the Byzantian 
historian Nicetas, who tells us that a superstitious mob in 
1203 A.D. destroyed a bronze image of Athena, and then 
goes on to describe it in substance as follows : The goddess 
stands upright, clad in a tunic which reached to her feet and 
was drawn in by a girdle at the waist. On her breast was 
the aegis with the Gorgon's head. On her head she wore a 
helmet with a nodding plume of horsehair. Her tresses were 
plaited and fastened at the back of her head, but some locks 
strayed over her brow. The left hand clasped the folds of 
her robe ; her right hand was stretched out in front, and her 
face turned in the same direction as if she were beckoning 
to some one. There was a sweet look as of love and 
longing in the eyes, and the lips seemed as if about to part in 
honeyed speech. The mob destroyed the statue because after 
the first capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders they 
fancied that the outstretched hand hard summoned the host of 
the invaders from out of the West. It is to be inferred from 
this description that when the statue was moved the spear 
and shield must have been left behind. The Promachos is 
probably referred to in a passage of the late historian Zosimus, 
who tells us that the Goths, when they were about to invade 
the Acropolis, recoiled in terror from the apparition of the 
goddess who stood armed to bar their way. In a passage 
of the Knights of Ari.stophanes (vv. 1172 f) this statue is 
probably referred to under the name of Pylaimachos [i.e. 
fighter at the gates), with possibly an intentional play on 


Pylos, since it is Cleon, the hero of Pylos, who speaks in 
this passage of the comic poet. 

The bronze chariot made out of a tithe of the spoils taken 
from the Boeotians and the Chalcidians of Euboea is next 
mentioned by Pausanias. This is doubtless the trophy erected 
by the Athenians to commemorate their victory about 507 B.C. 
and mentioned by Herodotus (v. yy^, who speaks of "the 
bronze chariot drawn by four horses which stands on the 
left hand immediately as one enters the gateway of the citadel." 
An inscription in two elegiac distichs sets forth the occasion 
of this dedication and alludes to the chains with which the 
prisoners had been bound and which, according to Herodotus, 
were hung up on walls blackened and scorched by the fires of 
the Persian destruction. Just what walls Herodotus refers to 
is not clear, but either the western wall of the older Erechtheum 
is meant, or, if we adopt the view of Dorpfeld, the building in 
question is the " old Athena temple." The inscription (vid. 
Anthol. Palat vi, 343) reads as follows in the translation : 

" When Chalcis and Boeotia dared her might 
Athens subdued their pride in valorous fight, 
Gave bonds for insults ; and the ransom paid. 
From the full tenth these steeds for Pallas made." 

From fragments of inscriptions belonging to different periods, 
it is clear that the chariot which Herodotus and Pausanias 
saw, was not the original one but a new one set up probably 
soon after the conquest of Euboea in 445 B.C., or at the time 
of the battle of Oenophyta (456 B.C.), and designed to replace 
the old one which had been destroyed or carried away by the 
Persians. The location of this splendid offering has been a 
matter of much discussion. According to Herodotus it stood 
on the left hand as one enters the Propylaea on the Acropolis. 
But in his tour of the Acropolis, Pausanias in returning toward 
the Propylaea mentions the bronze chariot directly after he 
has spoken of the bronze Athena. According to Pausanias 
then the chariot is to be located east of the Propylaea, in 
contrast with the statement of Herodotus, which seems to 
locate it west of or within the Propylaea. The apparent 
contradiction is cleared up when we understand, first, that 
Herodotus spoke of the old Propylon, recently more fully 


made known by the investigations of Mr. Weller of the 
American School at Athens (205) ; and secondly, that the 
chariot was changed from its older site in front of the older 
Propylon, where Herodotus saw it, to its later site, which was 
probably in the northern half of the eastern portico of the 
Propylaea, where Pausanias saw it. M. Hauvette (206) sums 
up the matter as follows : Herodotus is not speaking of the 
Propylaea of Mnesicles ; the state of affairs which he describes 
during his stay at Thurii is the condition of the Acropolis 
before the great achievement of Pericles, before the building of 
the Parthenon and the Propylaea. The name TrpoTrvXaia 
which he employs designates a site situated before the gate 
of the Acropolis. Later, when Mnesicles erected his gateways 
and porticos, it became necessary to displace the quadriga 
and he removed it to the interior of the Propylaea, where 
Pausanias saw it. Herodotus, who was then living in Italy, 
did not hear of this removal of the chariot, or neglected to 
correct what he had already written. Mr. Weller is inclined 
to connect a series of rock cuttings that are seen beside the 
modern steps and immediately in front of the Propylaea 
(No. I 5 in plan), with the probable location of the quadriga 
" on the left hand as one enters the Propylon." But for this 
opinion there seems to be hardly sufficient warrant. 

The latest view on the site of this monument is that of 
Judeich {Topogr. p. 216) who concludes from his examination 
of the question that we are to suppose a triple dedication and 
setting up of the quadriga : ( i ) The original one at the close 
of the sixth century on a site close to the fetters of . the 
Chalcidians that hung from the blackened walls of the 
Acropolis over against the " megaron " that faced west, by 
which he understands the west cella of the Hecatompedon. 
(2) A second one of a new quadriga — the old one having 
been captured or destroyed by the Persians — by Pericles 
about 445-446 in front of the old Propylon. (3) The 
removal of this younger votive offering when the Mnesiclean 
Propylaea was built, and the setting up of it in its original 
place (35 in plan) where it would then stand in close 
proximity to the colossal Athena Promachos. It was there, 
of course, that Pausanias saw it. Judeich asks but cannot 
answer the obvious question, why the old site was not chosen 


the second time by Pericles. If the close proximity of the 
statue of Athena Promachos was felt to be an objection to 
the old site at the first, how could this objection become 
less keenly felt at a later time ? 

In the neighborhood of the statue of Athena Promachos — 
probably between it and the old temple of Athena — stood the 
bronze stele upon which were inscribed the names of the 
traitors of the Athenian people. Near by must have stood 
the stele mentioned by Thucydides (vi. 55) commemorating 
the " tyranny " of the Pisistratids. The decrees of condem- 
nation against Arthmius of Zelea. Phrynichus, Androtion and 
against other public traitors, stood, according to literary 
eviderce, " near the old temple " or " to the right of the 
Athera Promachos." 

Paasanias closes his descriptive tour of the Acropolis with 
the mention of a statue of Pericles and an image of Athena 
surnamed the Lemnian. The statue of Pericles was referred 
to incidentally by Pausanias before (i. 25, i). Its location can 
only be inferred from the order in which it is now mentioned, 
li appears to have stood within the eastern portico of the 
Propylaea, probably not far from the bronze chariot. It is 
supposed that this statue of Pericles is the one made by 
Cresilas, which Pliny {N.H. xxxiv. 74) mentions. Of this 
sculptor it was said that this was the marvellous thing in his 
art, how he made noble men still more noble. What appears 
to be part of the pedestal of this statue was found in recent 
excavations. The fragment is of Pentelic marble and bears a 
mutilated inscription which, as restored, reads : " Of Pericles. 
Cresilas made it." 

The last statue on the Acropolis which Pausanias mentions 
is the Lemnian Athena of Phidias. In one of the dialogues of 
Lucian {Imagines) one of the characters asks : " Which of the 
works of Phidias did you praise most ? " And the answer is, 
" What but the Lemnian [Athena] on which Phidias deigned 
to carve his name." In the same dialogue it is proposed to 
select and combine the most perfect features from all the most 
famous statues in order to fashion a perfect image of beauty. 
The Lemnian Athena is to furnish " the outline of the whole 
face, and the softness of the cheeks, and the shapely nose." 
Himerius says {Or. xxi. 5) that Phidias did not always portray 


Athena as armed, " but he adorned the maiden by shedding on 
her cheek a rosy tinge by which, instead of a helmet, he meant 
to veil the beauty of the goddess," If Himerius here refers to 
the Lemnian Athena that statue must have represented the 
goddess without a helmet. Now it is well known to students 
of Greek art that Furtwangler (207) claims that he has 
identified copies of this statue in two statues of Athena at 
Dresden and in a beautiful head of the goddess at Bologna. 
The Dresden statues, one of which is a torso, and the Eologna 
head according to Furtwangler are in the style of Phidias 
and are copies of a bronze original. The original statue was 
probably dedicated by the Athenian colonists in Lemnos before 
they set out from Athens ; and since this colony was planted 
between 45 1 and 447 B.C., Furtwangler infers tha: the 
Lemnian Athena was modelled by Phidias just before he set 
his hand to fashioning the Athena Parthenos statue for the 
Parthenon. This famous statue of Athena forms a fitting 
close to the description of the ancient traveller, and suggests 
anew the wealth and beauty of the monuments that once 
adorned and sanctified the sacred rock of Athena. 

When we bid rise before us in imagination the glorious 
temples and shrines on the Acropolis, resplendent in the 
luminous atmosphere of the Athenian sky, and picture to 
ourselves the wealth of art here once so harmoniously 
displayed, we can well understand the pride of the Athenian in 
his city and her citadel. " What must thy perfectness have 
been, when such thy ruins are ! " As we pass through the 
majestic remains of the great portal, we turn back in fancy and 
imagine the bronze valves of the gateway thrown open, 
disclosing to our view the pristine splendors of the Acropolis, 
and again we hear the exclamations of wonder in the play of 
the great Comedian : 

" Shout, shout aloud ! at the view which appears 
of the old time-honored Athena, 
Wondrous in sight and famous in song, 
where the noble Demus abideth." 



"0 Ferryman, cities die as well as men." 

LuciAN, Charon. 

The later history of the AcropoHs may be treated con- 
veniently in four periods, as follows : 

I. The Byzantine, extending from the time of Constantine 

the Great, who gloried in the title of General of 
Athens, to the year 1205, when Athens fell under 
the rule of the Prankish lords. 

II. The Prankish- Florentine, extending to 1455, when 

Athens fell into the hands of the Turks. 

III. The Turkish, extending to 1834, when Athens 

became the capital of the new kingdom of the 

IV. The Modern Greek Period, characterized by many 

discoveries and archaeological investigations. 


It is as remarkable as it is fortunate that during the 
centuries that witnessed the inroads of the northern barbarians 
into Southern Europe, Athens should have so largely escaped 
their destructive hand. Alaric the Goth seems to have turned 
aside from Athens in order to secure the richer booty that 
awaited him in the Peloponnesus. What else it was that 
influenced Alaric to spare Athens and her treasures is not 
known, unless we give credence to a story told by Zosimus, a 


historian of the following century, who relates that as the 
chieftain of the Goths advanced to the Acropolis at the head of 
his horde of barbarians, he beheld the goddess Athena in full 
panoply of war, standing upon the walls of the citadel as if to 
guard the city of her choice, and by her side the figure of 
Achilles apparently filled with rage. The savage chieftain, awe- 
struck by the vision, retired and sent heralds to the rulers of 
the city with proposals of peace. But with Theodosius II. 
(408-450) the systematic spoliation of the city, which was 
begun under Nero but had ceased with the accession of 
Hadrian, was renewed to enrich the new capital of Constantine. 
About this time probably the bronze Athena Promachos, which 
had inspired Alaric with such awe, was carried off to adorn 
the circus of Cons-tantinople. After 430 A.D. the Athena 
Parthenos statue is no longer mentioned. Proclus, the Neo- 
platonist, who lived in a house near the sanctuary of Asclepius, 
dreamed a dream in which he saw a beautiful woman who 
bade him prepare his house to receive the Queen of Athens to 
dwell with him. The dream seems to have been prophetic, for 
a few years later, 435, came the imperial decree that all pagan 
shrines and temples should be closed or changed over into 
places of Christian worship. It must have been at this time 
that the great temples on the Acropolis were converted into 
churches. In the case of the Parthenon this transformation 
was a very natural one. Athena, the goddess of wisdom, was 
baptized and became Saint Sophia (208). During the reign 
of the Emperor Justinian (527-565) other changes came over 
the Acropolis. That monarch built numerous bulwarks and 
magazines to provide means for sustaining a siege and to 
defend his empire against the incursions of the barbarians. 
Some of these, doubtless, were built on the Acropolis. For 
several centuries following the history of the Acropolis is 
shrouded in darkness. The most important event connected 
with the Acropolis in this period is the celebration of the 
triumph of Basil II. over the Bulgarians in 1019 A.D. The 
victorious conqueror gave thanks to the Panagia or Blessed 
Virgin to whom the Parthenon was now consecrated, and 
presented costly gifts to her shrine, among which was a much 
admired silver dove, symbol of the Holy Spirit, which fluttered 
over the high altar. To the Byzantians Athens had both an 


ecclesiastical and a military importance, and the Acropolis 
concentrated and guarded the interests of both church and 
state. Since the time of Diocletian Athens had been the seat 
of a bishopric, and from about the middle of the ninth century 
was dignified as the ecclesiastical centre of the orthodox church 
of the Greek people, whose chief magnate was entitled 
Metropolitan. Thus the Parthenon became the cathedral of 
the Christian faith on Greek soil, and the Acropolis continued 
to be the sanctuary of the Athenians. In 1203 the soldiers of 
the fourth crusade, under Dandolo the Great, Doge of Venice, 
captured Constantinople, and the following year Leon Sgouros 
of Nauplia, inspired by a desire to create an independent 
kingdom, took the lower city, but failed to get possession of 
the Acropolis owing to the heroic resistance of the Archbishop 
Michael Akominatos. But this heroic defense was of short 
duration. In 1205 the Burgundians and Lombards under the 
victorious Boniface compelled the Archbishop to surrender, and 
the beautiful church of the Panagia fell a prey to the ruthless 
Frankish soldiery and became transformed into a Roman 
Catholic Church dedicated to St. Mary. What architectural 
changes the buildings on the Acropolis experienced during this 
entire period we must now consider. 

While several remains of old Byzantian art have been found 
on the Acropolis, there is no clear evidence that any Byzantian 
building was ever erected on the summit. The architectural 
activity of the Byzantians was confined to remodelling the 
ancient temples. Among these the Parthenon seems to have 
experienced the most important changes, particularly in the 
interior. The altar of a church must stand at the east end of 
the edifice ; hence it became necessary to cut a door through 
the western cella wall for the entrance and to close up the 
ancient entrance at the east end. Thus the west end became 
the front and the old portico called the opisthodomos or rear 
chamber became the narthex of the new church. The east 
door was enlarged and spanned by an arch which was sup- 
ported by two small pillars. Behind this arched opening a 
shallow semi-circular apse was built, and was so placed that 
the two middle columns of the old pronaos or fore-temple were 
half-built into the wall. The interior was fitted out in the 
usual style of an orthodox Greek church. At the east end 


rose the sacred bema or platform, behind which was the screen 
before " the holy of holies," which was pierced with three doors 
and decorated with sacred pictures. Behind the screen stood 
the altar under a canopy supported by four pillars of porphyry. 
In the semi-circular apse were the marble seats for the clergy. 
Its vaulted ceiling was decorated with a representation of the 
Virgin in mosaic, tinted and gilded cubes of which were found 
when the apse was removed. In the nave stood on one side 
the reading desk (ajUL^Mu), and nearly opposite to it the bishop's 
throne. This throne, which was an ancient marble chair, 
presumably taken from the Dionysiac theatre, came to light in 
the debris of the apse cleared away by Ross in 1835. 

Externally the Parthenon suffered but little change. The 
building of the apse caused the removal of the central slab of 
the east frieze and may have been the occasion of the removal 
of the central group of the east pediment (209). The removal 
of the statue of Athena both from this pediment and from 
the western may have been due to religious scruples which 
would not tolerate the figure of a pagan divinity in a Christian 
church. That the Athena had been removed long before the 
drawings of Carrey and the Vienna Anonymous (1674) were 
made is undoubted. Its place may have been taken by 
images of saints for which the small niches shown in the 
drawings of Carrey were built. But these changes did not 
materially alter the structure of the Parthenon, as compared 
with the alterations of later years which were much more 
radical. These were chiefly the following : To make the 
account more intelligible the accompanying plan, taken from 
Michaelis, is added. 

E = the apse. 

F=the high altar. 
Dy D = the sacred bema. 

G = the beautiful door. 

H=Xhe ambon or reading desk. 

y=the bishop's throne. 

A = the nave. 
By B, C=the position of the galleries. 

K=\h& narthex or vestibule. 
Ly L = side entrances. 

.^= sprinkling basin. 


iV= entrance door. 
O = chapel. 
P, P = rude steps cut into the stylobate. 
Q^ Q=: the porticoes. 
R, R = rude channels for carrying off water. 

~P — p- 

Fig. 128.— Interior of the Parthenon in the Byzantine Period. 

The original marble roof and its supports were removed. 
For the columns in the cella twenty-two new columns were 
so placed that ten stood on each side separating the naves 
from the aisles, while two stood on either side of the west 
entrance. The position of these columns can still be traced 
on the pavement of the Parthenon. Galleries for the women 
were built on the two sides and over the entrance, and in 
these galleries stood columns, twenty-three in number (the 
extra one standing above the wider intercolumniation at the 
west entrance), which supported the ceiling. Whether this 
ceiling was a vaulted one, as Michaelis {Parthenon, p. 48) 
supposes, or a flat one as Botticher {Aa^opolis, p. 16) believes, 
cannot be determined (210). The aisles of the peristyle 
were probably left uncovered. This would account for the 
existence of the roughly hewn gutter R, R, R, which runs 
along the north, south and west porticoes, and which was 
doubtless intended to carry off the rain-water that ran down 
from the roof of the main part of the structure. The bronze 
trellises between the columns of the opisthodomos were taken 
away and in their place walls were built up, with an entrance 


left open in the central and in the southernmost intercolumnia- 
tion, where the bearings for the pivots of the doors and the 
furrows worn in the pavement by the swinging doors are 
still visible. The southern door seems to have led to an 
enclosed apartment located in the southwest corner of the 
vestibule. This may have been a baptismal chapel {O) over 
which later a minaret was built by the Turks, remains of 
which are still extant. The large western door {N) was made 
narrower by the insertion of a poorly constructed frame of 
ancient slabs of marble. This framework has recently been 
removed. At a later period a heavy wall was built along 
the entire peristyle from column to column, which was still 
standing in the eighteenth century. The thickness of this 
wall and of the successive columns that served to divide 
it into sections produced the impression of a continuous row 
of little chapels surrounding the great church. Openings 
pierced this wall at eight points, to which rude steps (P, P) 
cut into the ancient stylobate led up. The interior surfaces 
of the walls of the vestibule were covered with pictures of 
saints painted directly on the marble. Traces of these paint- 
ings are preserved. One can also read brief inscriptions cut 
into the columns of the western portico, which refer to the 
Parthenon as " the great church of Athens," dedicated to " the 
Mother of God " {OeoTOKoi). These inscriptions constitute a 
kind of church record, in which the dates of the death of 
the chief dignitaries oPthe Athenian church are given. The 
last of these dates is 1190. Just in what order the changes 
enumerated above were made we have no means of knowing, 
since no notice of the Parthenon has come down to us from 
the time of its first transformation into a Christian church 
down to the beginning of the thirteenth century, with the 
exception of the triumphal jubilee of Basil II. in 1019 A.D., 
already mentioned, and the brief records contained in the 
above-mentioned inscriptions. 

The Erechtheum also was transformed into a Christian 
church, we know not when. Here also the orientation was 
turned about, as in the Parthenon, and an was built at 
the east front. When the Erechtheum was altered to suit 
the purposes of a place of Christian worship, the floor of the 
whole edifice was placed at the level of the ancient pavement 


of the two western divisions. All the inner foundations of 
the eastern cella were torn away, except a few stones in the 
corners, and part of the foundations of the eastern porch was 
removed to make room for the apse. The ancient pavement 
of white marble slabs was torn up, and in its place a new 
one of slabs of streaked marble was laid at the much lower 
level of the new entrance from the west. The original surface 
of the rock was hewn away to such an extent that no trace 
remains of the ancient foundation, not even a single bedding 
of the stones of Peiraic limestone that formerly constituted 
the stereobate. The two isolated foundation walls still stand- 
ing are rude and later constructions of ancient material. The 
interior of the building was divided into a nave and two 
aisles ; the two late walls, referred to above, probably sup- 
ported the pillars that flanked the nave of the church. A 
coarse cross-wall supported the sacred screen on which were 
displayed the pictures of saints, and which served to enclose 
" the holy of holies." A cross-wall was built a little westward 
of the ancient colonnade that separated the western from the 
eastern chamber, in order to provide a vestibule to the church. 
This wall had three doors ; the panels of the central door 
were seen by Imwood, in 1837, still standing. How much 
change was wrought on the exterior of the building by these 
internal changes is a matter of inference and not of evidence. 
Whether the little temple of Wingless Victory served any 
religious purpose during the Byzantine period is not known. 
As regards the Propylaea, we know that this building 
served as a castle and a palace before the time of the 
Franks. A " Castle de Cetines " on the Acropolis is 
mentioned as existing under the Catalans (211), which had 
been built prior to their time. This was doubtless built 
within the Propylaea. During the reign of Justinian (527- 
565) other changes came over the Acropolis. That monarch 
made use of the natural advantages of the rock to defend his 
possession against the incursion of barbarians. We are told 
that he built numerous forts and magazines and reservoirs to 
provide means for sustaining a siege. Just where these means 
of defense were built is not known. But that some of the 
reservoirs found on the Acropolis, as, for example, the large 
one immediately back of the north wing of the Propylaea, and 



some of the walls shown in plans and drawings of mediaeval 
times may be referred to this period, is most probable. Here 

I nutnt t/tA*ite»a of Euitifft. K jliKift Ul—rt ^/*frmiy/»Me C»mj 

Z. nuint ej/fia Theafr* o/ /f*ro^*t. f^n (4/>affo), »»• Ptt/tsM »/<^'!/f. 

Q: tfij an tia tS,uH>. it. u/*// e/ li/trian. 

Fig. lag. — The Propylaea in the time of Justinian. 

we may place a wall of fortification built in part on the ruins 
of the old Pelargicon and joining on one side to the ancient 
bastion (//) and on the other side to the bastion of the Beule 
gate. There seems to have been a transverse wall of defense 


(marked /) running* from the Nike bastion across to the 
Pinakotheke or north wing of the Propylaea, just above the 
pedestal of the Agrippa monument. The date of this wall 
is not certain, but it is possible to put it in this same period, 
when the Acropolis was to be made more secure against 
hostile attacks. But it is equally possible to place these walls 
in the period of the Catalans or of the Florentine dukes 
who followed them. The old gateway, i.e. the Beiile gate, 
may have been closed as early as this time. Thereafter the 
only entrance to the Acropolis was at the southwest angle 
of the rock at the foot of the bastion that supports the 
Nike temple. This remained the only entrance during all 
the Turkish occupation and down to recent times, when, by 
the tearing down and removal of the walls that formed the 
bulwarks in defense of the western slope, the old gateway 
was laid free and again became the entrance. 


As already stated, Athens passed into the hands of the 
Franks in 1205. The Burgundian knight Otto de la Roche 
was the first Duke. The Acropolis now became the seat of 
Prankish lords. The churches of the Acropolis passed over 
from the Greek to the Roman cult without suffering material 
architectural changes, and a Roman Catholic Archbishop took 
in 1 206 the place of the orthodox Metropolitan. Since, 
however, Athens was only occasionally the residence of the 
Dukes, and the Archbishop generally resided at Thebes, which 
was then headquarters of the ducal court, Athens and its 
Acropolis passed for a time into comparative obscurity. This 
period of quiet and silence was broken in 131 1, when the 
Catalan adventurers from Sicily conquered the Franks and 
occupied the citadel. No account has come down to us how 
these new chieftains and robbers conducted themselves during 
their occupancy of more than seventy years. In 1387 the 
Florentine dukes began their sway over Athens. Nerio I. 
took the Acropolis from the grip of Peter de Pau after an 
obstinate siege of two years, and occupied the Propylaea, 
which, as we have seen, had already become a fortress during 
the occupation of the Catalans. How much was done by 

A.A. X 



Nerio and his successor Antonio to make the Propylaea a 
still greater stronghold cannot be determined. In the main 
the structure remained unimpaired. To judge from early 
drawings, the more important changes in the building were 
the following : The six great Doric columns of the western 
fagade were built into a heavy wall, through which was left 
one passage in the central intercolumniation, the four side 
passages of the central structure also being walled up and 

Fig. 130. — The Propylaea in the Frankish Period. 

closed. In this way a large vestibule was created, having a 
single passage-way, and a large hall beyond it to the east. 
Windows were provided in the north, west and south walls 
of this enclosure, and doors were cut through the east wall ; 
these doors led to a structure which doubtless was used as 
a dwelling. Above the entablature of the north wing was 
built an upper story which probably formed part of this 
dwelling. The mortices for the joists cut into this wall are 
still to be seen. The north wing was divided into a north 
and south chamber, and provided with a floor and second 
story. These apartments probably served as the headquarters 
of the ducal government. It was probably during the rule 
of the Florentine dukes that the great tower — sometimes called 


the Prankish tower — was built upon the ruins of the south 
wing of the Propylaea (212). This tower was happily taken 
down in 1875 by the Greek Archaeological Society, aided 
by Dr. Henry Schliemann. It is a conspicuous object in 
all the views of the Acropolis taken after 1650. The 
Acciajoli dukes also fortified, if they did not build, a heavy 
wall uniting the Nike bastion with the pedestal of the 
Agrippa monument, already referred to above, and they built 
or strengthened a similar wall joining the above-named pedestal 
with the corner of the northern wing of the Propylaea(213). All 
these fortifications would necessitate a change in the approach. 
In the days of Pericles the road up the slope led by winding 
turns over the different terraces to the top. In the Roman 
period and for centuries later the great marble stairway 
afforded the means of ascent. But later again the path was 
arranged in winding turns, passing from an entrance below the 
bastion of the Nike temple through another gate beside the 
pedestal of the Agrippa monument, and then turning sharply 
south until it finally arrived at the foot of the great Prankish 
tower. It was during this period that artillery began to be 
used in attacking strongholds ; hence arose the necessity of 
rebuilding and strengthening fortifications to withstand the new 
mode of warfare. Battlements and embrasures, galleries and 
keeps were probably constructed by the Florentine rulers. 
The thickness of the south side especially shows the patchwork 
of this period. The numerous buttresses that support the 
walls of the Acropolis were built in this period. 

Under the rule of Nerio I. the Greek population was quite 
content. He reinstated the Greek clergy and he exercised 
care in preserving the ancient temples from further injury. 
In his last will (1394) he ordered his body to be buried 
in the church of St. Mary, and he entrusted the entire city 
to the guardianship of this sanctuary and its priests. He 
requested that the doors of the church should be adorned 
anew with silver decorations at the expense of the public 
treasury, and that all jewels and vestments, besides two hundred 
and fifty ducats taken from the church in financial straits, 
should be restored. The execution of this will and the pro- 
perty of the cathedral church were entrusted to the care of 
the friendly republic of Venice. It is worthy of notice, as 


Michaelis remarks, that the Roman CathoHc Saint, the successor 
of Athena Poh"as, should in this wise become the patron and 
guardian of the city. 

Near the close of 1394 Athens, now threatened by the 
Turks, was captured by the Venetians, and the banner of 
the lion of St. Mark floated for the first time from the 
battlements of the Acropolis. But this supremacy was of 
short duration. In 1403 Antonio, the natural son of Nerio 
Acciajoli, entered victorious into the possession of the castle 
of the Propylaea. As vassals of Venice, and later of the 
Ottoman power. Antonio and his successors held sway until 
1456, when Athens fell into the hands of the Turks. Two 
years later (1458) the Acropolis was surrendered and became 
the seat of the Moslem rulers of Greece (214). 


In describing the changes that the Acropolis underwent 
during the Turkish period we must take account of the 
sources of information from which our knowledge of the history 
of the Acropolis during the next succeeding centuries is 
derived (215). One of the earliest of these sources is 
a journal kept by one Niccolo da Martoni on his pilgrimage 
to the Holy Land in 1395, a copy of which, made in 
I397> is among the manuscripts of the National Library 
in Paris. His account of the condition of the buildings on 
the Acropolis is most worthy of our notice. What he calls 
the Sala Magna, with its thirteen columns, is doubtless the 
Propylaea. The number thirteen is probably to be ex- 
plained by counting the six columns of the central passage- 
way, four of the west portico, and the three of the north 
wing, since the columns of the east portico had probably been 
built into a wall ; but, according to the view expressed above, 
the columns also of the west portico had been built into a 
wall by this time to serve as a defense. The south wing of 
the Propylaea was occupied by the great Prankish tower 
mentioned above. Of the peristyle of the Parthenon Niccolo 
counts sixty columns. He speaks of two naves of the church, 
one lying behind the other, of the altar of St. Dionysius in 
the first nave, and of four pillars of jasper (more likely 


porphyry, as stated by Spon and VVheler) standing about the 
chief altar, of a cistern near the altar, of a picture of the 
Virgin Mary and other sacred properties of the church, and 
of the small windows in the apse, the panes of which are 
made of translucent marble. 

A few years before the overthrow of the Florentine rule 
Cyriacus of Ancona, an enthusiastic lover of ancient art and 
letters, visited Duke Nerio II., and noted down his observations 
of several buildings and monuments in Athens, particularly 
of the Propylaea and the Parthenon of which he made 
drawings (216). But what has survived of these in a copy 
made by the architect San Gallo is so untrustworthy as to 
be of little value. 

In 1458 the Turkish ruler occupied the Propylaea as a 
residence, and turned the Erechtheum into a harem, restoring, 
however, the Parthenon to the Greeks as a place of worship. 
In the interval between 1458 and 1460 Athens was visited 
by another occidental traveller, who has left his impressions of 
the Acropolis on record in a treatise on " The Theatres and 
Schools in Greece." This is the so-called Vienna Anonymous, 
found by K. O. Miiller in the Vienna library and published 
by Ross in 1840. In this account the temple of Wingless 
Victory is called a school for musicians, erected by Pythagoras 
of Samos. The pediments and coffered ceiling of the Propylaea 
were still in place. The description closes with an account 
of the Parthenon, which the writer designates as the temple 
of the Mother of God, built by Apollo and Eulogius of 
Apostolic times. The conversion of the Parthenon into a 
mosque is first mentioned by another unknown writer, the 
Paris Anonymous, whose manuscript dating from the latter 
half of the fifteenth century was discovered in the library of 
Paris in 1862. The change from a Christian church into a 
Mohammedan mosque was accompanied with little injury to 
the Parthenon. The Moslems contented themselves with 
taking away the screen covered with images of saints which 
separated the holy of holies from the place of assembly, with 
removing the altars and other appurtenances of worship, and 
with covering the walls with a heavy coat of whitewash so as 
to cover the painted figures and symbols of Christian devotion. 
Furthermore they provided a special niche for prayer in the 


southwest corner, and erected a tall and slender minaret in 
the south side of the old^ opisthodomos, access to which was 
by means of a door rudely cut in the west wall of the cella. 
Gregorovius, in his history of Athens, remarks that neither 
in the basilica of St. Peter's at Rome, nor in the Mosque of 
Saint Sophia at Constantinople, nor in any other sanctuary 
on the face of the earth have men so diverse in language, 
customs, race and religion through so many centuries offered 
their devotions to the eternally one and the same Divine 
Being, worshipped under many different names, as in this 
ancient cella of Pallas Athena. With the exception of brief 
mention in correspondence between Professor Kraus of 
Tubingen and certain Greek priests in Constantinople 
(1575-78), and in accounts of travel by a French nobleman 
(1630), we hear nothing concerning the Acropolis and its 
buildings until about 1656 (217), when an explosion of a 
powder magazine in the eastern portico of the Propylaea 
shattered that majestic and beautiful building. This explosion 
was caused by a thunderbolt — a manifestly divine punishment, 
said the Greeks, visited upon the Turkish Aga Isouf, who 
had planned on the following day to batter down a small 
Greek church as a grace to a Turkish festival, and who, 
together with all his family, save one daughter, was killed in 
the disaster. A statement found in the account of the French 
traveller, Tavernier, who visited Athens prior to 1663, refers 
to the Propylaea as likely soon to tumble down in ruin. 

The first actual description of the Acropolis since the time 
of Pausanias appeared in 1672 in a letter of the Jesuit father 
Jacques Babin(218). He gives a fairly intelligent account 
of the Parthenon and of the Propylaea. Interest in Athens 
was growing. In 1675 a French writer, Guillet de St. 
Georges, wrote an account of the city, entitled " Athenes 
Ancienne et nouvelle et I'etat present de I'empire des Turcs." 
Guillet assumed the name of his brother, who had been 
captured in Athens by the Turks, in order to give the 
impression that his book, which was really based on the 
statements of the Capucin monks and of the ancient writers 
on Athens, collected by Meursius, was written from personal 
observation by an eye-witness. This treatise, together with 
the letter of Babin, fell into the hands of a French antiquary 


and physician of Lyons, named Jacques Spon, and induced 
him to make a tour to Greece. Oi% this tour he was accom- 
panied by George Wheler, an EngHsh botanist and clergyman. 
Spon and Wheler arrived in Athens in 1676, and tarried a 
little more than two weeks. 

Spon's account of his travels appeared in 1678, Wheler's 
in 1682. While the account of Wheler gives some details 
more correctly than that of Spon, it is to the latter that we 
are indebted for information concerning the Parthenon, the 
Nike temple, and the Propylaea as then existing. Some 
remarkable errors, however, are found in this account. For 
example, Spon supposed that the interior arrangement of the 
Parthenon as he saw it was the original one, and so he 
placed the ancient entrance at the west front, and was led 
by this mistake to make the further one of seeing in the 
west pediment group a representation of the birth of Athena, 
a mistake perpetuated until well on in the last century. Of 
the east pediment group he says that only a horse's head 
was still remaining, although several of the statues must at 
this time still have been in place. The views of the Parthenon 
drawn by him and his companion (see Michaelis, Tafel VII. 
4, 5) are extremely inadequate. Much more valuable for our 
information are the drawings formerly ascribed to Jacques 
Carrey, a painter, who was said to have accompanied the 
Marquis de Nointel, the ambassador of Louis XIV. at the 
Sublime Porte, on a journey to Greece in 1674. It is now 
believed that these drawings were made by an unknown 
Flemish painter who accompanied de Nointel on his expedi- 
tion (219). This painter appears to have spent only eighteen 
days on the Acropolis and to have succeeded in that short 
time in making twenty-one drawings. To this apparent haste, 
and to certain unfavorable conditions {e.g. he was not 
permitted to erect any scaffolding), are to be charged some 
minor faults and omissions. These drawings give both 
pediments of the Parthenon (the western almost complete), 
the thirty-two metopes of the south side, the entire western 
and the eastern frieze except the central slab, fifteen slabs of 
the east half of the northern, and seventeen slabs of the 
middle part of the southern frieze. Of about the same time 
as the so-called Carrey drawings is a sketch of the west 


pediment of the Parthenon commonly known as Nointel's 
Anonymous and figured in Michaelis Atlas Plate, VII. 3, and 
discussed in his work on the Parthenon, p. 97, 188. In 
some points this sketch is more correct than that of Carrey, 
but it is stiff and lacks artistic touch. It was a great piece 
of good fortune that these sketches were made at this time 
as if in anticipation of the irretrievable disaster that was soon 
to overtake these masterpieces of Greek sculpture. The ruin 
wrought by the explosion of gunpowder in the Propylaea 
about 1646 was the precursor of the greater ruin now 

aicidi CJ.Hi/fiiii'l ydUicitrcl 






Fig. 131. — The Acropolis as it appeared about 1674. The Parthenon a Mosque. 

impending. The victorious General Francesco Morosini, 
afterward Doge of Venice, had been driving the Turks from 
their stronghold in Peloponnesus, and began to threaten 
Athens and its citadel. The Turks, feeling the need of 
strengthening their citadel on the Acropolis, razed the temple 
of Wingless Victory and built its blocks of marble into new 
breastworks in front of the Propylaea. In this period may 
be placed many walls and bastions that are seen in the 
drawings of the Acropolis made in the eighteenth century. 
In these drawings the western approach and the entire area 
lying between the portico of Eumenes, the theatre of Herodes 
and the Acropolis, are enclosed by heavy walls. The only 
entrance to the Acropolis was through a small gate just below 
the Nike bastion which led into an outer court in which the 
guards were quartered. But in spite of all precautions and 


efiforts the Acropolis was doomed. On September 21, 1687, 
the Venetian army sailed into the harbor. The next morning 
the batteries were placed on the neighboring hills of the 
Muses and the Areopagus. Impatient at the slow progress 
of the work of destruction by shot and shell, it was proposed 
to undermine the citadel and to blow up the Acropolis with 
all its treasures and occupants. But this undertaking proved 

Fig. 132. — The Acropolis Bombarded (1687). Drawn by Fanelli. 

too formidable. Thereupon a deserter from the Turks brought 
word that the entire supply of powder had been stored in 
the Parthenon with the hope that the Christian besiegers 
would spare the former church of the Madonna. This report, 
false in so far that only a day's supply of powder had been 
brought into the cella of the Parthenon, so far from causing 
the invaders to cease from directing their fire against this 
building only served to stimulate them to greater effort to 
make sure their aim. For some time, however, the firing was 
without effect, as though, says Ernst Curtius, their guns refused 
to do their duty against such a mark. But on the evening 
of Friday, September 26, a bomb too well aimed by a German 


lieutenant crashed through the roof, ignited the powder, and 
shattered the glorious temple of Ictinus (220) which externally 
had almost wholly remained intact for more than twenty 
centuries. The courage of the Turks held out for two 
days longer, during which the work of destruction on the 
Acropolis was continued. On September 28 the white 
flag was hoisted and the citadel surrendered. After about 
six months of possession Morosini concluded to abandon 
Athens. Emulating the example of another Morosini who 
in plundering Constantinople (1204) had brought home to 
Venice as a trophy the four bronze horses that adorn the 
fagade of St. Mark's church, he determined to carry with 
him the horses of Athena's chariot and the statue of Poseidon 
from the west pediment of the Parthenon. The tackling 
used in lowering these figures broke, and the clumsy hands 
of the sailors allowed these precious relics of art to fall 
upon the rock and " they went up into dust." The damage 
wrought by the explosion is shown by the present condition 
of the ruin. The partition wall dividing the parthenon chamber 
from the main cella was thrown down, carrying with it the 
roof and the four supporting columns. The other walls of 
this part of the cella remained erect but not uninjured. At 
the eastern end the force of the explosion was spent partly 
upon the apse. But the east wall of the cella and the columns 
of the pronaos, with the exception of the southwest corner 
column, were thrown down (221). The greatest damage was 
wrought in the centre of the building ; the chipped and 
bruised walls at the sides still show the force of the explosion. 
On each side of the cella at the western end eleven slabs 
of the frieze remained in place. The frieze at the west end 
is still in situ. In all about thirty-six metres of the frieze 
still remain in place. 

Fortunately the two ends of the peristyle remained standing, 
the west end being least injured. In conducting the siege 
of Athens the Venetians had made plans and drawings of 
the city and its citadel. From this period date drawings of 
the Acropolis made by Verneda, a Venetian military engineer. 
As soon as the Venetians were gone the Turks returned to 
occupy the Acropolis. They rebuilt their mosque on a more 
modest scale in the centre of the ruined Parthenon. The 


minaret had been miraculously preserved and from its 
summit again floated the standard of the crescent. The 
mosque remained until 1843. Wretched hovels built of 
broken fragments of the ruined temples now occupied the 
more open spaces of the Acropolis. Many precious fragments 
of sculpture and architecture were covered up by these hovels 
and saved for the spade of the later excavator. The period 
of destruction and plunder was, however, not yet at an end. 

Fig. 133. — The Parthenon in Ruin. Turkish Hovels and Mosque. 

No one can tell what and how many spoliations are to be 
charged either to the wanton destruction of Turks, or to the 
covetousness of more civilized barbarians eager to possess some 
relic of buildings or statues that had been the pride of ancient 
Athens, in the interval between 1687 '^I'^cl 1800 when Lord 
Elgin perpetrated his brilliant and beneficent " theft." Our 
knowledge of the Acropolis during this time is derived chiefly 
from the description of the English traveller, Richard Pococke 
(1745) from the drawings of Dalton, the English painter 
(1749), and from the drawings and studies of Stuart and 
Revett, members of the Society of the Dilettanti, whose 
Antiquities of Athens (the first volume appeared in 1762) 


constitute the first scientific treatise of modern times on the 
Acropolis. This work was followed by that of Richard 
Worsley, also a member of the Dilettanti, who embodied his 
sketches and studies in a book called " Museum " which 
appeared in 1794. The Museum Worsleyanum as well as the 
Antiquities of Stuart and Revett contain many drawings of a 
talented young painter named Pars. Chandler who headed 
the expedition undertaken by the Society of the Dilettanti 
in 1765 writes in his Travels concerning Pars who accom- 
panied this expedition that he devoted a much longer time 
than Carrey did to the work of delineating the frieze of the 
Parthenon, " which he executed with diligence, fidelity, and 
courage. His post was generally on the architrave of the 
colonnade many feet from the ground, where he was exposed 
to gusts of wind, and to accidents in passing to and fro. 
Several of the Turks murmured and some threatened because 
he overlooked their houses, obliging them to confine or remove 
their women, to prevent their being seen from that exalted 
station." The drawings of Pars, some of which he etched, are 
to be seen in the Print Room of the British Museum. They 
are regarded by Michaelis as decidedly superior in fineness 
and accuracy to those attributed to Carrey. Mention should 
also be made of the descriptions of Athens written by the 
English travellers Edward Clarke and Edward Dodwell in the 
early part of the last century. 

With an increasing interest in these objects of ancient art 
grew naturally the desire to carry them away as choice posses- 
sions. As early as 1744 the Dilettanti had in their keeping 
a beautiful fragment of the Parthenon frieze. Chandler 
collected a good many fine bits, and numerous choice pieces 
found their way somehow into private collections in England 
and France, saved to be sure from the hands of Turks and 
other Vandals, but lost in some cases to the admiration of 
lovers of art generally. Among these collectors of Greek art 
treasures are to be named first the French Envoy Choiseul- 
Gouffier, and the artist Fauvel who was for several years 
French vice-consul at Athens. In 1799 the youthful Lord 
Elgin came as ambassador of Great Britain to Constantinople. 
His attention had already been called to the danger that 
threatened works of art in Athens from the ignorance and 


cupidity of the Turks and the vandah'sm of tourists. He 
speedily obtained a firman from the Turkish government 
allowing him to make drawings, which was subsequently 
renewed and enlarged in scope so as to include permission 
to make casts, to excavate, and to carry away " blocks 
of stone with figures upon them." For carrying out this 
undertaking he secured the services of two architects, a painter, 
a sculptor, and two moulders. The work began in i 800 and 
w^as continued with some interruption until 1803-04. But 
not until 18 12 could the bulk of the art treasures thus 
obtained be transported to England on account of the lack 
of adequate means of transportation and the outbreak of a 
war between England and Turkey in 1807. Not until 18 16 
and after much debate were these marbles bought by the 
British government at the low price of 35,000 pounds sterling, 
vv^hich is about one-half of the expense incurred in this 
enterprise. Scrupulously guarded in the halls of the British 
Museum, the Elgin marbles are at once the best memorial 
remaining of the glory of Athenian sculpture in its palmiest 
days, and of the foresight of the Englishmen who saved to 
the world this precious heritage of the past. For there is 
every reason to believe that these sculptures, had they 
remained in situ, would have suffered irreparable injury from 
the vandalism of later tourists and from the bombshells and 
bullets that were fired at the Acropolis during the war for 
Greek independence (222). In some respects Lord Elgin 
exceeded the terms of his firman, and unhappily the Erech- 
theum and the Parthenon suffered some injury in the attempt 
to remove pieces of sculpture securely fastened. Thus, for 
example, portions of the cornice of the Parthenon were torn 
away in order to remove some of the metopes, and the south 
corner of the east gable was badly injured by taking down 
the figures of the horses of Helios (223). One of the Caryatids 
was torn away from the porch of the Erechtheum with such 
carelessness that both the architrave and the ceiling of the 
portico were ruined The architrave has been replaced, not 
restored, in order to keep the porch from tumbling down, and 
in place of the original a plaster cast of a Caryatid has been 
substituted. The eastern portico of the Erechtheum was 
inexcusably robbed of one of its exquisite columns by the 


English lovers of ancient art. The undertaking of Lord Elgin 
stimulated fresh interest in the antiquities of Greece. There 
came to Greece in 1810 the international company of archi- 
tects and explorers who were the discoverers of the pediment 
groups of the Aegina temple and of the frieze of the Apollo 
temple at Phigalia. Of this company the English architect 
Cockerell and the Danish archaeologist Bronstedt devoted 
themselves especially to the study of the Parthenon. Cockerell, 
while taking measurements of the Parthenon, discovered the 
delicate entasis of the columns, and Bronstedt projected a 
work on the Parthenon which was never completed. 

The outbreak of the Greek war for independence in 182 i 
put an end for a time to all archaeological studies and 
threatened still further ruin. In 1822 the Turks, who had 
been besieged on the Acropolis for several months, reduced 
by famine and the lack of water, were obliged to capitulate. 
In June, 1822, the victorious Greeks occupied once more the 
Acropolis. Profiting by the experience of their foe the Greeks 
now enclosed the ancient spring called Clepsydra, below the 
northwest angle of the Acropolis, within their line of fortifica- 
tion, and built a bastion to defend it, which, after its brave 
defender, was named the bastion of Odysseus (224). The 
steps which led down from the summit, close by the base of 
the Agrippa monument, to the spring are still clearly seen ; 
they are often erroneously taken to be of ancient date. The 
bastion of Odysseus has recently been torn down ; a marble 
tablet bearing an inscription records its former existence. The 
chamber which enclosed the fountain was utilized in the 
Byzantine period as a chapel consecrated to the Apostles. 

But the Greek occupation of the Acropolis was short-lived. 
In August, 1826, Reschid Pasha began a new siege of 
Athens. The Turkish bombs were aimed at the temples on 
the Acropolis with no less directness than the Venetian had 
been before. The columns of the west colonnade of the 
Parthenon show the effective aim of the guns of Reschid. 
Especially to be deplored was the injury wrought by this 
cannonading to the Erechtheum, which served at that time as 
the dwelling of the Greek commander Gouras, who was shot 
down while making a tour of inspection around the walls. 
The two northwestern columns of the north portico were 


battered down, and a part of the beautiful ceiling fell at the 
same time. The Greeks were obliged to surrender in June, 
1827, to the Turks, who entered once more, and for the last 
time, into possession of the ancient citadel. For six more 
years the Turks retained possession of the city and its defenses, 
during which time the new Greek government was becoming 
established, with its capital at Nauplia. On March 31, 1833, 
the Turks evacuated the city of Athens never more to return. 
The headquarters of the new Greek government soon after 
were transferred from Nauplia to Athens, and the ancient city 
now reduced to a miserable hamlet of scarcely a hundred 
habitable houses, with a heap of ruins of ancient temples and 
of bulwarks and houses on her Acropolis, now enters upon a 
new era, an era of rest from destruction and spoliation, of 
reconstruction, and of discovery and preservation of the 
remains of the great past. 


On the I 8th of September, 1834, Athens became the capital 
of the kingdom of the Hellenes, and the Acropolis the Mecca 
of students and explorers of ancient art and Greek history. 
The first excavation on the Acropolis began the year before. 
This enterprise was undertaken by private subscription, and 
resulted in clearing away some of the debris about the 
Parthenon and in finding several slabs of the frieze (225). 
In August, 1834, systematic excavations at the instigation of 
King Otho were begun under the leadership of the Munich 
architect Klenze, to whom thanks are chiefly due for what he 
failed to accomplish. Klenze cherished the purpose to rebuild 
the Parthenon out of the architectural fragments that lay 
strewn about, and to piece these together with mortar and 
other modern building material. Whoever has seen the two 
columns of the colonnade on the north side thus pieced 
together will be thankful that this plan was abandoned. The 
great work to be done was to clear the surface of the Acropolis, 
to uncover the foundations of the ancient buildings here buried 
beneath rubbish and there built upon by mediaeval walls and 
modern structures, and to identify and replace, so far as 
possible, the remains of ancient architecture and sculpture that 


came to light This work was now entrusted to Ludwig Ross, 
who was appointed chief conservator of antiquities. With him 
were associated the architects Schaubert and Hansen, who, 
besides finding a considerable number of architectural fragments 
of sculpture, had the glory of discovering the original stones of 
which the temple of Wingless Victory was built, and of recon- 
structing this beautiful little building with the original marble. 
In removing the breastwork before the west front of the 
Parthenon and the debris piled up on all sides of the temple, 
the explorers came upon the foundations of the older Parthenon 
and fragments of the pediment sculptures. During this time 
(1835) a new danger to the Parthenon was safely passed ; the 
proposal of the architect Schinkel to build on the Acropolis a 
magnificent modern castle, of which the ancient temple restored 
should be the chief ornament, fortunately found no favor. 
Ross was succeeded in his office by the Greek archaeologist 
Pittakis. Under his zealous but not always intelligent direction 
the Propylaea was set free from its surrounding rubbish and 
encompassing walls (1837), and the area of the Erechtheum 
was cleared out. In 1842 the mosque in the Parthenon, which 
had been repaired in 1688 after the explosion, was entirely 
taken away, except the lower part of the minaret which was 
taken down in 1889. The work of excavation lapsed under 
the Bavarian administration, to be resumed by the French 
government in 1852, when, under the supervision of M. Beul^, 
at that time a member of the French School at Athens, the 
great Roman stairway and the gate at the bottom, that is 
generally called after his name, were laid free from the 
immense Frankish and Turkish bastions built upon and around 
them (226). Meanwhile the newly-discovered remains of archi- 
tecture and sculpture became an object of enthusiastic study 
on the part of students of ancient art. Perhaps the most 
noteworthy result of the studies of this period is the discovery 
of the curvature of the lines of the Parthenon, first observed by 
Pennethorne (see above, p. 93), and afterward (1846-47) worked 
out with the greatest care by the English architect F. C. 
Penrose, whose noteworthy contributions to the knowledge of 
the refinements of Athenian architecture have made students 
of ancient art for all time his debtors. The French architect 
Paccard and the English architect Knowles also drew new 


plans and restorations of the Parthenon, which form the basis 
of all subsequent investigations. The archaeological study of 
the ruins on. the Acropolis was resumed in 1862 by a Prussian 
expedition, whose members were K, Botticher, Ernst Curtius, 
and H. Strack. This company of scholars succeeded in laying 
bare the foundations of the Erechtheum and in excavating the 
great theatre of Dionysus. 

Under the auspices of the Greek government the temple of 
Asclepius and the portico of Eumenes were excavated in 
1876-77. Since the organization of the Archaeological 
Society of Greece the Greeks themselves have taken the 
leadership in the excavations on and about the Acropolis. 
Foremost among the Greek archaeologists and scholars who 
have been engaged in this work is to be named P. Cavvadias, 
the National Superintendent of Antiquities. Under his direc- 
tion began, in 1885, the excavations on the summit of the 
Acropolis, which were conducted with such thoroughness and 
care that every square foot of the surface not actually 
occupied by buildings and foundations was dug up clear down 
to the bed-rock. This thorough search brought to light the 
hitherto unknown foundation^ of the old Hecatompedon so 
often referred to and first recognized by Dorpfeld as belonging 
to a temple of Athena, numerous fragments of architecture 
and sculpture, inscriptions, bronzes, and other relics of ancient 
art. All the movable objects of art have been stored and 
placed on exhibition in a suitable museum erected in 1866, 
and to this structure more recently was added an annex which 
contains chiefly the inscriptions found on the Acropolis. The 
latest of the misfortunes that have befallen the hill of Athena 
was the earthquake that occurred in 1894 and that threatened 
to complete the ruin of the Parthenon. The dangerous condi- 
tion of this building was first made known by M. Magne, a 
French architect, who during a tour of inspection saw a piece 
from the capital of one of the columns of the west portico fall 
to the ground. At once an international commission of archi- 
tects was appointed to adopt measures to preserve the building 
from further decay. Under their direction large blocks of 
marble have replaced shattered and disintegrated pieces of the 
architrave, and several columns have been repaired. Whether 
further steps will be taken to restore the Parthenon, such as, for 

A.A. Y 



example, the restitution of the columns of the peristyle on the 
north side, is not yet decided. 

An interesting discovery was made in 1896 in connection 
with the Parthenon by Mr. E, P. Andrews, who was then a 
member of the American School at Athens. He succeeded in 
deciphering by aid of the nail prints the bronze inscription 
which was once affixed to the eastern architrave of the Parthe- 
non. This difficult feat was accomplished by means of obtain- 
ing paper-prints or squeezes of the prints of the nail-holes 
which appeared in twelve groups between the spaces once 

Fig. 134.— East Front of Erechtheum Restored. 

apparently occupied by shields hung against the face of the 
archijtrave. The inscription (227) dates from 61 A.D., and 
refers to some honor paid to Nero by the Areopagus, the 
Senate and the People of Athens. Possibly it accompanied 
the erection of a statue of Nero in front of the Parthenon. 

The most recent repairs on the buildings on the Acropolis 
are those made on the Erechtheum. These repairs have been 
skilfully made by the Greek architect, M. Balanos, who has 
been guided in this undertaking by the recent investigations of 
Dr. T. W. Heermance, the late Director of the American 
School at Athens, and by Mr. G. P. Stevens (228) former 
Fellow in Architecture of the School. The most important of 
these repairs and restorations have been partly described in our 
account of this building. From these recent studies it appears 


that the ancient repairs were not confined to the west wall and 
the door of the north porch, but that they included also the 
roof and architrave of this porch and date from an early 
Roman period. 

The recent restoration lends a new beauty and interest to 
this temple. The magnificent north porch is completely 
restored, including the coffered ceiling. The columns and 
part of the architrave of the west wall (see p. 198) have 
been rebuilt so far as the ancient building material was at 
hand to give guidance. The porch of " the Maidens " has been 
repaired and saved from threatening ruin. The partial restora- 
tion of the east front and its portico has been made possible. 
By comparing and fitting together the blocks of marble belong- 
ing to this wall Mr. Stevens has demonstrated the existence of 
two windows, one on each side of the door, as is shown in the 
cut of his proposed restoration. 

Dismissing from view the Acropolis in ruin and its temples 
undergoing repair, let us turn our glance backward for a 
moment and behold in fancy the monuments and shrines on 
the Acropolis restored in all their beauty. The brilliant light 
of an Athenian sky illumines the temples on the sacred rock of 
Athena, shining in harmonious colors of white, blue, red and 
gold. We pass through an avenue lined on either hand with 
statues of marble and bronze, the choicest products of the art 
of the greatest masters. Shrines ornamented with votive offer- 
ings and altars garlanded for sacrifice awaken a sense of 
worship. The gods of Olympus and the heroes of Athens are 
enthroned in visible form in the pediments of the Parthenon. 
But fancy may be invoked but for a moment. The reality claims 
our attention more palpably, and yet as we gaze upon the 
reality before us we exclaim : " What must thy perfectness have 
been when such thy ruins are ! " To know the history of the 
Acropolis is to know not only the background of the history 
of Athens ; it is also to know the beauty-loving spirit and 
brilliant genius of the people who dwelt in the city nobly 
built on the Aegean shore. 


1. Corsair, canto iii. 

2. Critias, 112 A. 

3. Life of Sulla, ch'O.^. 13. 

4. A complete account of these exca- 
vations is given in the '^(prj/iepU 'Apxo-i-o- 
\oyi.K7], 1897, p. I. 

5. 'ATriXXwj/ 'TvaKpalos. Cf. Kohler, 
A.M. iii. 144. 'TiroaKpa'ios, C.I. A. iii. 
91, 92. Sometimes written virb Ma/cpais, or 
iiir' 'AKpais. 

6. Verrall's translation. 

7. Lucian, Bis Accus. 9. 

8. Professor Dorpfeld holds that this 
sanctuary of Apollo was the Pythion men- 
tioned by Thucydides (ii. 15), and that 
this is the spot where the ship was moored 
after completing the tour in the Pana- 
thenaic procession. Since the Pythion 
affTpawai (Eur. Ion, 285) could not have 
been observed from the Pythion on the 
Ilissus, inasmuch as Harma lies to the 
N.W. of the Acropolis, Strabo (ix. p. 404) 
also must refer to this oldest Pythion. But 
Strabo says that the i^x^po- roC 'Aarpairalov 
Ai6i was iv tQ relxei fiera^i/ rov IlvOiov Kal 
Tov 'OXvfiirlov. This Olympion lay then to 
the easl of the Pythion. The wall referred 
to by Strabo is that of the Pelargicon and 
ran to the east of the Pythion. For the 
reasons urged against this cf. Frazer, 
Pausan. v. 519 ; Pickard, Diotiysus iv 
Mfivats, A.J. A. 1893, P- 56 fi. 

9. Aglauros is the only form in the 
inscriptions. But Agraulos is the common 
form in the MSS. Cf. Preller-Robert, 
Myth, p. 200, Anm. 2. 

10. Polyaenus, Strateg. i. 21. 

11. On the Aglaurion see Leake, 
Athens, i. 262 ; Wachsmuth, Stadt Atheu, 
i. 219 ; Harrison, Myth, and Mon. 163 ; 
Frazer, Pausan. ii. 167. C. H. Weller, 
A.J. A. xii. (1908) p. 68, holds that the 
Aglaurium is to be located close to the 
Clepsydra, and not near to the centre of 
the north side of the Acropolis. 

12. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. ii. 119; Harri- 
son, Myth, and Mon. p. 93. 

13. Cf. J.H.S. XV. p. 248. Dorpfeld 
also believes that there was an ancient 
approach to the Acropolis from the south- 
west, just below the Nike bastion. Middle- 
ton (J.H.S. Suppl. Paper No. 3) thinks 
that here lay the original approach and 

14. See Pausan. i, 22, 3. 

1 5. Dorpfeld identifies the Pythion men- 
tioned by Philostratus, Vit. Soph. ii. i, 5, 
with this locality. Others locate the 
Pythion southwest of the Olympieum. Cf. 
Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, i. 230. 

16. a. J.H.S. xvi. 338. 

17. Cf. C. Wachsmuth, Neue BeitrSge 
zur Topogr. von Athen. Abhatui d. Sachs, " 
Gesells. 1897. Ernst Maas, Jahrb. d. k. 
.Arch. Inst., xxii. 143, " Der Alte Name 
der Akropolis," tries to show that the oldest 
name of the Acropolis was V\a.vKii)VMv= 
owl- hill. 

18. Cf. Archaeol. Anzeig. 1893, P- 140- 

19. The Acropolis again became a citadel 
in the later period of its history. See 
chapter vii. 



20. Cf. A.M. xi. 168, xiii. 106. 

21. Cf. Hdt. V. 71 ; Thucyd. i. 126; 
Pausan. i. 28, i. ; Frazer, Pausan. ii. 365. 

22. Schol. Soph. O.C. 489. 

23. Cf. Curtius, Die Stadtgesch. Atken, 

24. Cf. A.M. xix. 504. 

25. Cf. A.M. xiv. 325. 

26. Arist. Athen. Const. 20. 

27. Cf. Diod. Sic. xi. 14. 

28. Cf. A.M. xxvii. 379. 

29. From C.I. A. iv. 2, 27b, 55, it 
appears that the original form is JleKapyLKbv 
rather than ne\a<r7tK6j'. The Greek authors 
vary between the two. 

30. The references to these ancient walls 
are given in Jahn-Mich. Arx Athett, p. 79. 

31. A wall of poros blocks about 2 m. 
thick running at right angles to the Acro- 
polis and beginning at a point about 20 m. 
north of the cave of Apollo is taken by 
Dorpfeld as part of the old fortification. 
But Judeich (Topogr. p. no) points out 
that this piece of wall is unlike the Pelasgic 
walls both in its masonry and material. It 
appears to be a wall of later construction 
built for the protection of the Clepsydra. 

32. Cf. A.M. xix. 496, and Plate XIV. ; 
Antike Denkmdler, ii. Tafel XXXVII. ; 
Harrison, Pri7nitive Athens, p. 29, for 
account of recent excavations on the 
western slope of the Acropolis. 

33. An inscription from Eleusis (Ditten- 
berger, Sylloge 20) reads : fx.-r]hk rovs \i6ovi 
ri^veiv iK roD TleXapyiKoO fi7]d^ yriv i^dyeiv 
/jLi^S^ \i9ovf. Cf. Pollux, viii. loi, /j,t^ tis 
ivrbs ToD HeXaffyiKov Keipei. ^ Kara irXiov 

34. Bekker, Anecd. i. p. 419, Trepi^jSaXKov 
Si evvedirvXov rb IleXapyiKov. Schol. Oed. 
Cot. 489, t6 iep6v (sc. of Hesychos) fVrt 
irapa rb KvKiIipeiov eKzbi tQv evvia irvX&v. 

35. Cf. W. Miller, A. /.A. viii. 1893, 

36. Ci. Beule, VAcropole d^Ath^nes, i. 

37. C.I.A. iii. 1284, 1285. Cf. Neu- 
bauer, Hermes, x. 145. 

38. Dorpfeld, A.M. x. 219 ; xiv. 63. 

39. C.I.A. ii. 1246; U. Kohler, A.M. 
X. 231. 

40. Bursian {Khein. Mus. N.F. x. 485) 
puts the date of the Beule gate in the time 
of Theodosius. Wachsmuth (Die Stadt 
Athen, i. p. 721) puts it after the time of the 
destruction of the Asclepieum (485 a.d. ), 
and supposed it was erected to put a stop 
to the heathen processions up the Acro- 
polis. Milchhofer thinks that this gate is 
a work of the Frankish period. According 

[ to inscriptions of the third century A. D. the 
I gateway seems to have been rebuilt or 
repaired by one Flavius Marcellinus, and 
I mention is made also of adorning the 
j citadel at the expense of a private indi- 
vidual, but in what these restorations 
consisted is not clearly known. Cf. C.I.A. 
iii- 397, 398, 826. 

41. Burnouf, La Ville et VAcropole 
d'' Athknes, p. 87, holds that this stairway 
was built by the Florentine dukes. But 
coins of the Antonine period show the 
stairway. Cf. Blumer-Gardner, Numis- 
matic Commentary on Pausanias, p. 1 28. 

42. Koster, Jahrb. d. k. deutsch. arch. 
Inst. xxi. 129. 

43. Cf. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, 
i. 540, Anm. 3. 

44. Cf. Bonner Studien, 1890, p. 92. 
Also Julius, Baumeister's Denkmdler, 
p. 1023, and A.M. i. 226. 

45. For a more complete account of 
"the Old Temple " see A.M. xi. 337. 
Besides the remains of this temple there 
is evidence in the way of architectural and 
sculptural fragments to warrant the belief 
in the existence of five smaller pre- Persian 
buildings of poros. See Wiegand, Die 
Archaische Poros- Architektur der Akropolis. 

46. Cf. A.M. (1904), xxix. Tafel VI. 

47. Schrader has recently shown (A.M. 
XXX. 305), from a study of the architectural 
and sculptural fragments found on the 
Acropolis, that when the peristyle was 
added the temple was changed from a 
Doric to an Ionic structure. The columns 
of the pronaos and of the opisthodomos 
were lengthened, and the cella wall was 



raised by adding at the top an Ionic frieze. 
After the Persians had destroyed the 
temple the peristyle was not rebuilt by the 
Athenians, and on the stylobate, which 
had not been destroyed, Herms were 
placed. The architectural form of the old 
temple thus partially restored furnishes the 
explanation (i) for the fact that the Par- 
thenon, a Doric building, has an Ionic 
frieze on its cella, and (2) for the new 
Erechtheum's being an Ionic building. Cf. 
Wiegand, Die Archaische Poros-Architektur 
der Akropolis, p. 109. 

48. Dorpfeld's theory is fully discussed 
by him in A.M. xii. 25-61, 190-21 1 ; xv. 
420-439; xxii. 159-178. 

49. This title is given in an inscription 
dating from 485-4 B.C., first published by 
Lolling in AeXT/oc {1890). Cf. C.I. A. iv. 
I, 18, 19; Jahn-Michael. Arx Athen. 
p. 99 ; A.M. XV. 420. 

50. The view that the opisthodomos was 
either a separate building or that it was the 
rear part of the Old Temple which alone 
remained standing is discussed in Ap- 
pendix III. 

51. Eustathius on //. x. 451 : 'kdi)vr)(Ti.v 
Aldods Kal 'A<f>e\€las rjv Bw/t6s irepl rbv 
r^s IloXtdSos 'Adrjva.% vethv. 

52. Cf. A.AI. xxii. p. 174. Miss Har- 
rison (Myth, and Mon. p. 492) agrees 
with Dorpfeld that Pausanias passed from 
the Erechtheum into " the Old Temple," 
but thinks that the description of the 
Erechtheum and its contents continues 
through chapter 26, and that the account 
of the Old Temple begins with chapter 27. 
Dorpfeld, however, puts the golden lamp 
of Callimachus mentioned in chapter 26 
in "the Old Temple." This point is 
discussed in Appendix III. 

53. For a more complete account of 
these poros sculptures see Gardner, Greek 
Sculpture, p. 158; Studniczka in A.M. 
xi. 61 ; Bruckner, ib. xiv. 67 ; xv. 84 ; 
Sauer, ib. xvi. 59. The latest and most 
complete account is found in the work of 
Theodor Wiegand and his coadjutors, 
entitled Die Archaische Poros-Architektur 

der Akropolis zu Athen, 1904. The cut in 
Jahn-Mich. Fig. iii. Tafel IV. showing on 
the left side of the pediment Heracles and 
the Echidna is, according to Wiegand, 
erroneous ; in this space the Heracles- 
Triton should be placed. Cf. Abb. no 
in Wiegand's work. 

54. For a discussion of this marble pedi- 
ment group see Studniczka, A.M. xi. 
p. 185, and Schrader, ib. xxii. p. 59. 

55. Cf. Dorpfeld, A.M. xi. 162 ; xxvii. 
379. Furtwangler, Appendix to Master- 
pieces of Greek Sculpture, has an interesting 
discussion of the relation of Themistocles 
and Cimon to the history of the older 
Parthenon and of the walls of the 

56. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. ii. 229. 

57. Cf. A.M. xi. 165. 

58. Gardner {Ancient Athens, p. 52) 
^;rees with Dorpfeld in believing that the 
north wall must have been built, at least 
in the main, in the time of Themistocles. 
Its construction is quite unlike that of the 
walls on the east and south, following 
the outlines of the rock in a series of short 
stretches at different angles. This belief 
rests also on the fact that there are built 
into this wall so many architectural frag- 
ments which belong to buildings destroyed 
by the Persians. 

59. Cf. Michaelis, Rhein. Mus. N.F. 
xvi, 214. 

60. Dorpfeld, A.M. xvii. 189, observes 
that Pericles would doubtless have utilized 
the uninjured drums of the old Parthenon 
had they not already been built into the 
north wall. Furtwangler (Masterpieces, 
p. 432, note 4) quotes Dorpfeld for the 
opinion that the part of the north wall 
that contains the entablature of poros from 
•' the Old Temple " is designed for a level 
of the surface of the Acropolis {i.e. on the 
inner side of the wall) that was lower than 
the later level in the time of Pericles, and 
that in the rebuilding of the north wall at 
this point the archaic marble statues found 
buried in this locality were used to build 
ap the level. All this points to the time 



of Themistocles as the most probable. 
Middleton also {J.H.S. Suppl. iii. plan vi. 
and footnote 43) apparently holds this 
opinion in regard to the date of this wall. 

61. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt A then, i. 
p. 540, doubts if the bastion in its present 
form is to be regarded as part of the 
Cimonian plan of fortification, but thinks 
that Cimon only repaired it, and that the 
bastion in its present form plainly was 
made to conform to the whole scheme of 
the Propylaea of Mnesicles. 

62. A.M. xxvii. 406. 

63. For a full account of Weller's inves- 
tigations see A.J. A. (Second Series), 
viii. 35. 

64. For an account of the remains of 
the older Parthenon see F. C. Penrose, 
Principles of Athenian Architecture., p. 98 ; 
E. Ziller, Zeitsch. f. Bauwesen, 1865, 
p. 39; Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 419; 
Dorpfeld, A.M. xvii. 158; Botticher, 
Akropolis, p. 97 ; Michaelis, Parthenon, 
p. 119. 

65. According to Penrose the centre of 
the west front of the new temple is set 
8.6 feet farther north than that of the sub- 
structure of the older Parthenon. 

66. Those who wish to study more 
minutely the curvature of the lines of the 
foundations of the Parthenon are referred 
to the work of Penrose cited above, and 
also to Michaelis, Der Parthenon, pp. 5 
and 18 ; Botticher, Akropolis, p. 99 ; 
Dorpfeld, A.M. xvii. 187. 

67. K. Botticher, Untersuchungen auf 
der Akropolis von Athen, 1863 ; Durm, 
Die Baukunst der Griechen, p. 168. 

68. For an account of their discovery 
of. Walter Miller, A. J. A. ii. 1886, 61. 

69. For a more extended description of 
these statues see Gardner, Greek Sculpture, 
p. 164, and the same writer's account in 

J.H.S. viii. 159. 

70. The offering need not to have been 
made to Poseidon, but may have been to 
Athena. Cf. C./.A.iv. l. 373,9; E. Hoff- 
mann, Sylloge Epigf. Graec. No. 256; 
Kastriotes, A.M. xix. p. 493 ; Lolling, 

'ETTtYpa^oi eK t^s 'AKpoir6\ews, part i. 
p. 120. 

71. A gradation of these archaic statues 
with reference to their style and finish is 
made by Edmund von Mach, A. J. A. 
second series, vi. 51. 

72. This identification is rejected by 
Lechat, Revu£ des Etudes Grecqties, v, 385 ; 
vi. 22, who argues that the statue which 
Pausanias saw must have been made after 
the Persian invasion, since if it had been 
set up earlier it must have been destroyed 
in the sack of Athens. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. 

V. 513- 

73. In A.M. V. p. 20, this statue is dis- 
cussed by Furtwangler, but is published 
with a head that does not belong to it. 
The original head was found in the ex- 
cavations of 1888. Cf. Collignon, Hist. 
Sculpt. Grec. i. p. 373. 

74. Cf. Collignon, Hist. Sculpt. Grec. i. 
p. 381, note I ; Studniczka, A.M. xii. 372. 

75. H. N. Fowler, Harvard Studies, xii. 
211, has shown that this tradition rests 
solely on the statement of Plutarch {Pericl. 
13), who drew upon sources of doubtful 
authority. Cf. also von Wilamowitz-Moel- 
lendorff, Aristotle uitd Athen, ii. loo. 

76. Loeschke, Historische Untersuchun- 
gen, p. 39, puts the beginning of the Par- 
thenon in 447-6 and its completion in 435-4. 
This is also the view of Dummler, Athena, 
in Pauly-Wissowa, ii. 1954. 

77. Cf. U. Wilcken, Hermes, xlii. p. 374. 

78. Cavvadias, 'E^. dpx- 1897, 174. 
Dorpfeld, A.M. xxii. 227. 

79. Herodotus, viii. 51-55; Thucydides, 
i. 126. 

80. The subject of the tiling of Greek 
temples is fully treated in Wilkin's Pro- 
lusiones Architectonicae. Cf. also Michaelis, 
Parthenon, p. 117. 

81. Cf. Michaelis, Parthenon, p. 24, 112; 
Botticher, Akropolis, p. 123. 

82. Such a clerestory arrangement is 
seen in the model of the Parthenon in 
the Metropolitan Museum of New York. 

83. Dorpfeld, " Untersuchungen am Par- 
thenon," A.M. vi. 283. 




84. L. Magne, Le Parthenon, p. 49, 
finds it difficult to believe that a second 
row of columns, superimposed upon a 
lower row, should have been planned by 
the architects of the Parthenon except as a 
support for galleries or for a second story. 

85. Cf. A.M. xxii. 170; Rhein. Mus. liii. 
p. 258. 

86. Cf. Furtwangler, Masterpieces of 
Greek Sculpture, p. 325, for the relation 
of the Hellenotamiai to the treasurers of 

87. Cf. C. Botticher, Tektonik, iv. 409 ; 
Philologus, xvii. 408, 603, xviii. 385 ; 
Archaeol. Zeit. xv. 65 ; E. Petersen, Kunst 
des Pheidias, pp. 1-94, 300 ; Michaelis, 
Parthenon, p. 28. 

88. The names of the Parthenon in the 
inscriptions and ancient writers, besides 
the one under discussion, are these ; 6 t^s 
'AdTjvdi vedbi ; vews iv tt} aKpoirdXei IlapOivuv 
KaruffKevaadeli ; eKardfiwedos ; 'Adrjvas iepdv ; 
6 /jAyas va,6% ; 6 /caXoiz/uei'os ^apOivuv. 

89. For more details see Fraser, Pau- 
Santas, ii. 312. 

90. Cf. Waldstein, Art of Pheidias, p. 

91. Cf. Bull. d. la Corr. Hellin. xiii. 


92. Cf. Bruno Sauer, " Untersuchungen 
liber die Giebelgruppen des Parthenon," 
A.M. xvi, 58. 

93. The drawings attributed to Carrey 
and kept in the Bibliotheque Nationale give 
views of this pediment. Facsimiles of these 
views are found in the British Museum and 
in Laborde, Le Parthenon ; Omont, Dessins 
des Sculptures du Parthhton. For proposed 
restorations see Waldstein's Art of Pheidias, 
p. 139; Michaelis, Der Parthenon, p. 164; 
E. Petersen, Die Kunst des Pheidias, p. 
105 ; A. S. Murray, Hist, of Grk. Sculpt. 
ii. p. 15; Sculptures of the Parthenon, 
chapt. iii. ; Furtwangler, Masterpieces of 
Greek Sculpture, App. p. 451. 

94. For the different interpretations of the 
composition of the western pediment -group 
see C. T. Newton, Guide to the Sculptures of 
the Parthenon ; Michaelis, Parthenon, p. 

180; Waldstein, Art of Pheidias, p. 107; 
Gardner, Handbook of Greek Sculpture, p. 
274 and Ancient Athens, p. 295 ; A. S. 
Murray, Sculptures of the Parthenon^ 
chapt. iii. iv. ; A. H. Smith, Catalogue 
of the Sculptures of the Parthenon ; Furt- 
wangler, Masterpieces, p. 451. 

95. Michaelis has erroneously assigned 
these heads to the horses of the chariot 
of Athena. Cf. Murray, Sculptures of the 
Parthenon, p. 17, 

96. For a discussion of this question see 
Lloyd, Classical Museum, v. 407 ; Robert, 
Hermes, xvi. p. 60 ; Petersen, Arch. Zeit. 
1875, p. 115; Hermes, xvii. p. 130; Mur- 
ray, Hist, of Grk. Sculpt, ii. 85. 

97. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts 
contains the casts of all the extant slabs of 
the frieze admirably placed for inspection 
and study. 

98. Cf. A.M. viii. 57; Bull, de la Corr. 
HelUn. xiii. 169. 

99. Cf. A. S. Murray, Revue Archeol. 
xxxviii. 1879, 139- 

100. On the polychromy of the Parthenon 
see Penrose, The Principles of Athenian 
Architecture, chap. xiii. ; Fenger, Dor- 
ische Polychromie ; Borrmann, Baumeister's 
Denkmaler, Art. " Polychromie " ; Durm, 
Handbuch der Architektur, 2 Theil, Band 
I, p. 180; Theod. Alt, Die Grenzen der 

lOi. The results of his experiments on 
the patina of the marble of the Parthenon 
were kindly communicated to me by Pro- 
fessor Alfred Emerson, who is led to believe 
that the Parthenon and marble buildings 
generally were sized, sculptures and all, 
with a skin of calcareous matter, and that 
this artificial tinting is meant when Vitru- 
vius says that the ochre quarries of Attica 
were exhausted by the old time practice of 
painting the buildings with ochre. 

102. Cf. Ddrpfeld, A.M. x. 219, 228. 

103. Cf. Demosth. vs. Androtion, 13 ; 
Plutarch, de Gloria Athen. 7. 

104. Cf. R. Bohn, Die Propylaeen der 
Akropolis zu Athen ; Milchhofer, Athen, 
p. 200 and Propyleua, p. 1414 in Bau- 



meister's Denkmaler ; Gardner, Ancient 
Athens, p. 224. 

105. That these doors were of wood may 
be inferred from the chorus in Aristoph. 
Lys. 311 : inirifiTrpdvai XPV ''"'is 6vpas. 

106. There is no evidence that chariots 
ever went up the Acropolis, ahhough they 
are pictorially represented as participating 
in the procession on the Parthenon frieze. 
The supposed ruts worn in the rocks are 
channels cut into the surface to carry off 
the water. 

107. Cf. Bursian, Rhein. Mus. x. 506. 

108. Care should be taken not to mistake 
a row of holes below the cornice in the east 
wall of the northwest wing as the holes 
intended to receive the roof beams of the 
projected hall. These together with the 
windows below them were cut into the wall 
later, when the halls of the Propylaea were 
built over to serve as a residence for the 
Prankish lords. 

109. Furtwangler, Masterpieces of Greek 
Sculpture, p. 443, thinks that the pediments 
were not designed to remain empty. 

no. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. v. 507. Cf. 
A.M. xxii. 227. 

111. Cf. P. Wolters, Bonner Studien, 
1890, p. 92, Zu»i Alter des Niketempels. 

112. Cf. Kdster, Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. 
Inst. xxi. (1906) p. 129. 

113. Cf. Furtwangler, Sitzb. d. k. Bayr. 
Akad. 1898, i. p. 385. 

114. Puchstein, lonisches Kapitd, 1887, 
p. 14. 

115. That there was some delay in the 
execution of the decree to build the temple 
of Victory seems to be the opinion also of 
Gardner ^Ancient Athens, p. 373), though 
on another page (217) of his book he seems 
inclined to hold the view that the building 
of this temple was at least begun earlier in 
this period than that of any other on the 

116. Cf. R. Kekule, Die Reliefs an der 
Balustrade der Athena. 

117. B. Sauer, " Das Gottergericht uber 
Asia und Hellas," Aus der Anomia, 
p. 96. 

118. Cf. Michaelis, Die Zeit des Neubaus 
des Poliastempels in A then, A.M. xiv. 

119. C.I. A. i. 322: Michaelis, A.M. 
xiv. 349. 

120. CIA. i. 321, 323, 324; iv. I, 3, 
p. 148. 

121. The latest researches in regard 
to the building history of the Erechtheum 
are given in A. J. A. second series, x. 1-16. 
From these the following results are drawn : 
In 409, late summer, the bare walls are up 
as far as the epistyle. In the spring of 408 
the east cella is complete and probably 
occupied. In the spring of 407 the sculp- 
tural ornamentation of the building is com- 
pleted and the western apartments are 
roofed over. In the summer of the same 
year the building is practically finished. 

122. Cf. A. S. Cooley, A. J. A. second 
series, iii. 352. 

123. It is possible to read with Dorpfeld, 
in line I of the inscription C.I. A. ii. 829 
[eVji [KaXX/o(u)] fi^xoCvroj], and to date it 
in 406-5. 

124. Cf. Borrmann, A.M. vi. 386. The 
space between the fourth column and the 
southern anta adjoining the portico of 
"the Maidens" seems never to have been 
built up, as is shown by the finish of 
the anta. This agrees with the building 
inscriptions: {C.I. A. iv. I, 321) ra /xera- 
Kidvia rirrapa 6vTa to. Trpbs rov Uavdpoaeiov, 
and tQu Ktbvwv tov eirl tov toIxov rod irpbt 
Tov WoLvSpoaeiov. 

125. C.LA. i. 324 a, col. i, lines 35-37. 

126. The column that originally stood at 
the north corner was carried away by Lord 
Elgin and is now in the British Museum. 
About 56 pieces of the frieze are preserved 
in the Acropolis Museum. 

127. In 1846 the portico of the Maidens 
was in danger of falling and was partly 
restored at the expense of the French em- 
bassador then residing at Athens. Recent 
restorations of the Erechtheum include also 
this portico. 

128. Cf. Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 
434. Michaelis and Petersen cannot be 



right in explaining the word irpocTOfuaiov 
as the space in front of the spring. 

129. Cf. yiicha.e\is, J^aArd. d. k. deutsch. 
arch. Insi. xvii. 18. 

130. The coarse foundation cross- wall 
further east, making a small rectangle with 
the two parallel cross- walls, is of later, pro- 
bably Byzantian origin. 

131. E. Petersen, A.M. x. 7, believes 
that there was no need of any stairway 
to communicate between the eastern and 
western chambers, for the reason that the 
north and south porches and their stairways 
sufficed to give access to the western half 
of the building. 

132. Carl Bdtticher, the chief supporter 
of the theory that the Erechtheum had two 
stories west of the eastern cross-wall, erro- 
neously takes five slits in the north and 
south walls to be basement windows to 
light a basement story. H. N. Fowler, 
Papers of the Amer. School, i. p. 222, has 
shown that these were probably made when 
the Christians used this building as a church 
to give light to the side aisles. 

133. The word StTrXoui' clearly refers to 
an upper and lower story in Lysias, i. 9. 
Cf. Judeich, Topogr. p. 250, 9. Cf. 
Schubart, Philol. xv. 397 for a different 

134. M. F. Nilsson (J.H.S. xxi. 325) 
believes that he has found the mark of 
the trident in the crypt beneath the central 
chamber "in the corner between the west 
transverse wall and the (more recent) north 
longwall, just in front of the so-called 
(postern) in the north wall." This opinion 
has found no favor, partly because the 
marks referred to by Nilsson are too in- 
distinct, and also in view of the recent 
discovery of the opening in the ceiling of 
the north portico which was intended to 
give light to the crypt below it, in which 
the trident mark is usually located. Cf. 
Gardner, Ancient Athens, p. 358. 

135. Cf. R. Borrmann, A.M. vi. 381. 

136. Cf. Herodotus, viii, 41 ; Plutarch, 
Themist. 10. 

137. The remains of an altar found in 

the excavations eastward of the north porch 
(cf. Lolling, Topogr. I wan von Muller's 
Handbuch, p. 351) may belong to that of 
Zeus Polieus, in whose honor the ox was 
slain at the Bouphonia. 

138. C.I. A. i. 322, col. I, 79; col. ii. 

95 ; »i- 244- 

139. Cf. Pseudo-Plut. Vitae X Orai. 
843. Since the discovery that there were 
windows in the east wall Dorpfeld is in- 
clined to believe that the pictures of the 
Butadae were kept in the east cella. 

140. The question whether there was any 
direct means of communication between the 
east and the west chambers of the Erech- 
theum is discussed in Appendix III. 

141. On this point see what Gurlitt 
{Pausan. pp. 75 and 350) has to say. 

142. Dorpfeld, A.M. xxix. loi. 

143. Dorpfeld believes that the peplos 
was dedicated to the Athena of the Par- 
thenon and that this is implied in the scene 
represented on the central slab of the east 

144. Euripides, Ion, 20 ff. and 267-274 
gives a different version of the story from 
that found in Pausanias. Cf. Harrison, 
Myth, and Mon. xxvi. 

145. Cf. Durm, Baukunst der Griechen, 
2'e Aufl. 257. 

146. C.I. A. i. 324. 

147. The view expressed in the text is 
based on the discussion of R. W. Schultz, 
J.H.S. xii. I, and on the later observations 
of the architect, G. P. Stevens. 

148. The Caryatids of the south porch 
are not the only nor the earliest examples 
of figures of this sort. At Delphi the 
French have found four similar figures 
which appear to date from the close of 
the sixth century. 

149. On this question see Dorpfeld, A. M. 
xix. 147, XX. 161, 368 ; Judeich, Topogr, 
p. 263 and note 10 ; Harrison, Prim. Ath. 
p. 83 ; Frazer, Pausan. ii. 212, v. 495 ; 
Capps, Class. Philol. ii. 25 ; Carroll, Class. 
Rev. xix. 325. 

150. For a full account of the Dionysiac 
theatre at Athens see Dorpfeld und Reisch, 



Das Griechische Theater. Cf. also J. R. 
Wheeler, "The Theatre of Dionysus," 
Papers of the Amer. School at Athens, i. ; 
Kawerau, "Theatergebaude," Baumeister's 
Denkmaler, p. 1734 ; Haigh, Ike Attic 
Theatre, chapt. iii, ; Harrison, Myth, and 
Mon., p. 271 ; Gardner, Ancient Athens, 
p. 433 ; Fraser, Pausan. ii. p. 222, v. 
p. 501. 

151. Cf. Gardner, Ancient Athens, 

P- 439. 

152. Cf. Ddrpfeld und Reisch, I.e. p. 50. 

153. Cf. Gardner, I.e. p. 443. Puch- 
stein. Die Griech. Biihne, p. 131. 

154. For these Satyrs see Von Sybel, 
Katalog der Skulpturen zu Athen, No. 

155. Cf. Von Prott, A.M. xxvii. 294. 

156. C.I. A. iii. 239. 

157. Cf. Appian, Bell. Mithr. p. 38. 
For a further account of the Odeum of 
Pericles see E. Hiller, "Die Athenischen 
Odeen und der irpoayiliv ," Hermes, vii. 393 ; 
Dorpfeld, "Die verschiedenen Odeien 
in Athen," A.M. xvii. 252. 

158. For the Thrasyllus monument see 
Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, 
ii. 24. The inscriptions on the monument 
are found in C.I. A. ii. 3, 1247, 1292, 
1293. A good account of this monument 
is given by Reisch in A.M. xiii. 383. 
Frazer {Pausan. ii. 231) holds that the 
upper part of the present structure is part 
of the original building, and that, since 
Pausanias mentions only one tripod, Thra- 
sycles may not have set up tripods at all 
but may have contented himself simply 
with engraving two commemorative in- 
scriptions on his father's monument. 

159. Quoted by Wachsmuth, Stadt 
jithen, i. p. 734 • ^<'"''' ^^ ''■"■^ upoXdyiov rfji 

7)fl4pai /JMp/iapLTlKOV. 

160. The lack of space for a tomb and 
for the sanctuary of Perdix in this locality 
leads some to believe that the tomb of 
Calos lay lower down the slope and that 
its remains may be some foundations near 
the southeast corner of the portico of 

161. Another conjecture is that this pit 
was the abode of the sacred serpent con- 
nected with the cult of Asclepius. 

162. P.Girard,"L'Asclepieiond'Athenes" 
p. 6, believes that there were two temples 
of Asclepius, an older and a younger, and 
identifies the foundations marked 29 in our 
plan as those of the younger temple. His 
belief is based partly on an inscription of 
the Roman period which speaks of repairs of 
an "old temple" (C.I. A. ii. i. Add. 489b). 
Kohler and Milchhofer regard the founda- 
tions marked 29 as belonging to the temple 
of Themis, and believe that the younger 
temple of Asclepius stood on or near the 
foundations of the building marked in our 
plan as an altar. 

163. The introduction of the cult of 
Asclepius in Athens is shown by von 
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff to have occurred 
in the time of the Peloponnesian war. 
Cf. Korte, Bezirk eines Heilgottes, A.M. 
xviii. 246 ; A.M. xxi. 315. 

164. Cf. Harrison, Prim. Athens, p. 100. 

165. Cf. Von Duhn, " Votivreliefs an 
Asklepios und Hygieia," A.M. ii. 214 ; 
Archaeol. Zeit. xxxv. 139. 

166. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt 
Athen, ii. p. 53, expresses some doubt 
whether this destruction of the buildings 
on the south side of the Acropolis is to be 
charged to the Catalans. There is no 
evidence to show that this quarter of the 
city was still occupied as late as the be- 
ginning of the fourteenth century. 

167. Cf. Harrison, Myth, and Mon. 
p. cliii. ; Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, i. 
p. 24S, suggests that the Hippolyteum 
would naturally be placed close to the 
Asclepieum since it was Asclepius who 
had resuscitated Hippolytus to life. Cf. 
Pausan. ii. 27, 4. 

168. Leake, Topogr. of Athens, i. p. 302, 
puts all these buildings near to the western 
entrance of the Acropolis, and disposes of 
the difficulty that Troezen was not visible 
from this point by supposing that the poet 
simply meant that Troezen could be seen 
from the southern slope of the Acropolis. 



169. Cf. Foucart, Bull, de la Corr. 
HelUn. xiii. 1 56 ; Harrison, Myth, and 
Mon. p. 331 ; Weilbach-Kawerau, A.M. 
XXX. 298. 

170. Cf. Lolling, A.M. xi. 322 ; Dorp- 
feld, ibid. xiv. 63. 

171. Cf. Dorpfeld, A.M. x. 219, xiv. 6y, 
Kohler, ibid. x. p. 231. 

172. Cf. Kohler, " Hallenanlage am Sud- 
fusse der Akropolis zu Athen," A.M. iii. 
147; Dorpfeld, "Die Stoa des Eumenes 
zViAilnen" A.M. xiii. 100; Fvazex, Fattsan. 
ii. 240. 

173. Fr. Babin and the Vienna Anony- 
mous call the Odeum the Areopagus. A 
drawing of the Acropolis called Castello di 
Athene, made in 1670 (cf. A.Af. ii. 39), 
calls it the School of the Peripatetifs. 

174. The most complete account of the 
Odeum of Herod es Atticus has been written 
by W. P. Tuckermann. Cf. also Bau- 
meister's Denkmakr d. klass. Alter, p. 
1748 ; A. Botticher, Die Akropolis von 
Athen, p. 291. 

175. Tuckermann's exact figure arrived 
at by careful calculation is 4772. 

176. Cf. Curtius, Stadtgeschichte von 
Athen, p. 258. 

177. C.I. A. iv. I, 3, p. 183, No. 4i8h.; 
Lolling, AeXrW, 1889, p, 179; J. U.S. xi. 
211 ; Judeich, Topogr. p. 210, note 3. 

178. Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, i. p. 140, 
concludes that the Graces must have stood 
either in the portico of the southern wing 
of the Propylaea, or in this southern wing 
itself. He decides in favor of the latter 
and thinks that the chamber in the rear of 
the wing may have been the sanctuary 
of the Graces. 

179. Cf. Harrison, Myth, and Mon. 

P- 374- 

1 80. Hesychius : 'Ep^u^j 'Afiitiros : 'Adrjvr]- 
<riv iv Tj dKpoir6\ei, 

181. Cf. CoDze,A.M. xxix. 179; Winter, 
ibidem, 208. 

182. C.I. A. i. 402 ; Loewy, Inschrift. 
Griech. Bildhauer, No. 46. 

183. C.I. A. i. 335 ; Hicks, Greek Hist. 
Inscript. No. 36. 

184. For further discussion on the loca- 
tion of this altar see Michaelis, A.M. i. 
293 ; Frazer, Pausan. ii. 281. On the 
monument of " Health Athena " see Bohn, 
A.M. V. 331 ; Harrison, Myth, and Mon. 
p. 391 ; Wolters, A.M. xvi. 153. 

185. Cf. Beule, L'Acropole, i. p. 291 ; 
Dorpfeld, "Chalkothek und Ergane Tem- 
pel," A.M. xiv. 304. 

186. For the cult of Brauronian Artemis 
see Bekker's Anecdota Graeca, i. p. 206, 4 ; 
ibid. p. 444, 30 ; Frazer, Pausan. iv. 
p. 224. 

187. C.I. A. i. 406. Pausanias (ix. 30, i) 
remarks that Strongylion was extremely 
skilful in modelling oxen and horses. 

188. C.I. A. ii. 1428, 1429, 1434, 1438; 
iv. I, 3, 373, p. 205. Cf. Jahn-Mich. Arx 
Athen, p. 125. 

189. Dorpfeld, A.M. xii. 52, 210 ; xiv. 

190. Hutton, "Votive Reliefs in the 
Acropolis Museum," J.H.S. xvii. 308, 
makes the point that Athena Ergane had 
not been clearly differentiated from Athena 
Polias at the time to which the reliefs dis- 
cussed by him belong, i.e. the close of the 
sixth and the beginning of the fifth century, 
and that "in this indistinctness of thought 
we should seek the solution of the problem 
as to whether Athena Ergane had a special 
temple on the Acropolis or not." He is 
of the opinion that offerings might well be 
placed in the Polias temple and the latter 
goddess be called epyovdvos, referring to 
the work of weaving the peplos which was 
begun at the feast of Athena Ergane under 
the supervision of her priestess and of the 

191. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. iv. 53. 

192. Cf. Dorpfeld, "Chalkothek und 
Ergane-Tempel," A.M. xiv. 304. 

193. See the inventories of 329-324 B.C. 
in C.I. A. ii. 807a. 

194. Cf. Kohler in C.I.A. ii. 61. 

195. Cf. Hermes, iv. 381. Furtwangler, 
Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture, p. 468, 
discusses an Attic seal and two bronze 
coins of Krannon relative to the question 



of determining the type of this image of 
Earth praying for rain. 

196. Cf. Michaelis, A.M. i. 304; Winter, 
Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. ix. (Arch. Anzeig.), 

P- 43- 

197. C.I. A. iii. 63. 

198. Deutsche Bauzeitung, 1884. 

199. Cf. Michaelis, A.M. ii. S ; Jahrb. 
d. k. d. Arch. Inst. viii. {1893), p. 119. 

200. Cf. Murray, Greek Sculpture., i. 
p. 181 ; Collignon, Hist, de la Sculpt. 
Grec. i. p. 337. 

201. Cf. Dorpfeld, A.M. xii. 51. 

202. C.r.A. ii. 1378-1385. 1390-1393; 
iii. 887, 916-918. 

203. C.I. A. ii. 1377, 1386, 1392b. 

204. Benndorf, A.M. i. 48, believes that 
a round base of Pentelic marble which now 
stands west of the Parthenon, may have 
supported the statue of Lysimache. This 
base is about a foot high and two feet wide, 
and shows on its upper surface the print of 
aleft foot. Amutilated inscription (C./.^. 
ii. 1376) warrants the belief that the statue 
represented a priestess of Athena. 

205. Cf. C. H. Weller, "The Pre- 
Periclean Propylon," .<4.y.y4. second series, 
viii. 35. See also Hitzig-BlUmner, Pausan. 
i. p. 304; Michaelis, A.M. ii. 95; Walter 
Miller, A.J. A. viii. 1893, 503- 

206. Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 9, 
places the statues of Pericles and of the 
Lemnian Athena outside of the Propylaea, 
a little to the north of the principal avenue 
which ran from the Propylaea eastward. 
But see Weizsacker, Neue Jahrb. f. Philol. 
133 (1886), p. i. ; Hauvette, H^rod. p. 47; 
Judeich, Topogr. p. 216. 

207. Cf. Furtwangler, Masterpieces, p. 
10. Weighty reasons for rejecting the 
view of Furtwangler are given by P. Jamot, 
a summary of which is found in Frazer, 
Pausan. v. p. 514. 

208. The Capucins in their plan of 
Athens, 1669, speak of the Parthenon as 
dedicated to St. Sophia, while the Jesuit 
Babin in 1672 refers to it as the temple 
of la Sagesse Eternelle. This shows that a 
tradition had grown up connecting Athena's 

temple with St. Sophia. Cf. Strygowski, 
A.M. xiv. 270. 

209. C. Botticher, Untersuchungen aiif 
der Akropolis von Athen, p. 159, speaks 
of finding a cornice block of the east pedi- 
ment built into the apse. From this it 
appears that the roof was broken by the 
construction of the apse. 

210. Cf. F. von Duhn, A.M. ii. 38. 

211. Cf. Gregorovius, Geschichte der 
Stadt Athen, ii. p. 311. 

212. R. Bohn, Die Propylaeen, p. 7, 
attributes the building of this tower to the 
Turks. Herzberg, Athen, pp. 102 and 
226, ascribes it to the Burgundian dukes. 

213. Burnouf, La Ville et I'Acropole 
d'Athknes, p. 85, places these walls in 
the Turkish period. 

214. For this period and the next the 
work of de Laborde, Athknes aux 15, 16 
et Y"] Sihles, is invaluable. 

215. Cf Judeich, A.M. xxii. 423 ; 
Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, i. Anhang, 
for early accounts of the ruins and relics 
of ancient Athens. 

216. Cf. Michaelis, Parthenon Atlas, 
Plates IV., VII., XIII. , XIV. for repro- 
duction of these drawings. 

217. J. R. Wheeler, Class. Review, xv. 
430, makes out a good case in favor of 
this occurrence having taken place some 
ten years earlier. 

218. This letter is published in Wachs- 
muth, Die Stadt Athen, i, p. 745. The 
collection of references in the ancient 
writers to the Parthenon made by Meur- 
sius (Cecropia) is of great value. Cf. 
Wachsmuth, I.e. i. p. 64. 

219. For the errors and omissions in 
Carrey's drawings see Michaelis, der Par- 
thenon, p. 102. These drawings are kept 
in the Cabinet des Estampes of the National 
Library in Paris. In L' Academic des ht- 
criptions, 1900, p. 262, M. Babelon calls 
attention to the fact that Albert Vaudal 
in his L'Odyssie d'un Ambassadeur (1670- 
1680) expresses the opinion that the draw- 
ings made for the Marquis de Nointel are 
the work of an unknown Flemish artist 



and not of Carrey who met de Nointel for 
the first time in 1695, nearly two years 
after the drawings were made. This opinion 
is held also by H. Omont in his work 
entitled A thanes au XVlfi Sikle. 

220. Cf. W. Miller, " A History of the 
Acropolis," A. J. A. viii. 1893, 548. 

221. It is probable that two of the 
columns of the pronaos were taken down 
by the Byzantians when they remodelled 
the Parthenon and built the apse of their 

222. Many interesting particulars con- 
nected with the purchase and removal of 
the Elgin Marbles are given by Michaelis 
in his Parthenon, pp. 74, 348. A catalogue 
of the Elgin collection prepared from the 
MS. of Visconti is found on p. 356. One 
of the most interesting facts in the history 
of this collection is the foundering of one 
of the vessels laden with sculpture on the 
voyage, off the island of Cerigo. The 

cargo, after three fruitless attempts had 
been made to raise the ship bodily, was 
finally recovered by divers, without suffer- 
ing serious damage. 

223. Cf. Dodwell, Tour through Greece, 
i. p. 322. 

224. The Clepsydra had doubtless been 
included within the line of fortifications 
built by the Florentine dukes. Cf. Gre- 
gorovius. Die Stadt Athen, ii. p. 309. 

225. Cf. Ludwig Ross, Erinnerungen 
und Mittheilungen aus GriechenUmd, p. 


226. In memory of Beule's discovery a 
marble slab has been erected just inside 
of the gate, bearing this inscription : ^ 
TaXXfa 7~^»' re TrvKyju t-^s 'A/cpoa'6\ews t& 
relxVt TOiJs trOpyovs, Kal rijv ivd^affiv 
Kex(^C(i^va, i^eKd-Xvyj/ev. BevX^ edpev. 

227. Cf. A./. A. xi. 1896, 230. 

228. Cf. Dorpfeld, A.M. xxviii. 465 ; 
G. P. Stevens, A.J. A. second series, x. 47. 





The original sources for the history of the Acropolis may be 
classified as Monumental, Inscriptional, Numismatic and Literary, or, 
more particularly, the descriptions of ancient travellers (TrepirjyrjTai). 

Of these the most valuable are naturally the buildings and 
monuments, even though we have only their ruins. The style of 
their construction, the nature of their material, and the purposes 
which they served can still be learned from their extant remains, 
which furnish the most reliable and sometimes the only information 
we have concerning their history. 

Next in importance are the inscriptions, cut sometimes on slabs of 
stone which serve as records of public decrees and acts, sometimes 
on pedestals of statues and other monuments to indicate their origin 
and dedication, sometimes on boundary stones to mark off sacred 

Some of these inscriptions are of the greatest value in the study 
of the topography of the Acropolis and history of its buildings. As 
examples may be cited the inscription which identifies the temple 
of Roma and Augustus (not mentioned by Pausanias), the rock-cut 
inscription to Trj, the Earth, the opos KpijvT^s inscription on the 
southern slope of the Acropolis, and the famous Hecatompedon 
inscription so often referred to in these pages. A carefully made 
collection of the inscriptions pertaining to the history of the Acropolis 
is contained in the Appendix Epigraphica to Jahn-Michaelis's Arx 
Athenarum (third edition, 1901). 

The inscriptions pertaining to the Parthenon are to be found in 
Anhang I. to Michaelis's work on tha^: temple. A serviceable 


collection, made by A. Milchhofer, of inscriptions and of references 
in ancient writers, classified according to subject matter, is contained 
in Curtius's Stadtgeschichte von Athen. 

Among the sources of information on the history of the Acropolis 
a place should be given to the coins on which various localities 
and buildings and monuments are represented (see cut 126 taken from 
Jahn-Mich.). A numismatic commentary on Pausanias, prepared by 
Imhoof-Blumer and Percy Gardner, is particularly to be mentioned. 
That portion of it which pertains to the Acropolis is found in the 
eighth volume (pp. 21-38) of the Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

Aside from the writers of descriptions of Athens (Trepi-qyrjTai), of 
whom more presently, valuable though often scanty information 
about the Acropolis can be gained from the ancient authors. Those 
in whose writings most frequent reference to the Acropolis is made 
are Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Plato, Plutarch, and Lucian. 

The idea of writing an account of Athens and its monuments in 
any systematic form could have arisen only after the city had passed 
the zenith of its glory and political power, and men began to talk 
of a greatness that was past. So Athens, still beautiful in her 
decline, became more and more a desired goal for the sightseer and 
the traveller. Fondness for travel was rather characteristic of the 
ancient Greek, and we may be sure that the violet-wreathed city 
attracted many a tourist from different parts of the Hellenic world 
long before Pausanias made his visit. Centuries before his time 
the comic poet Lysippus expressed his appreciation of Athens as 
follows : 

' ' If you have not seen Athens, you're a stock ; 
If you have seen it, and are not taken with it, you're an ass ; 
If you are glad to leave it, you're a pack-ass." 

It is natural that the increase of travellers to the ancient city 
should give rise to the existence of a class of men who correspond 
to the modern guide, and should stimulate the writing of guide-books 
like our Baedeker and Murray. The earliest of books describing 
Athens and its monuments was written by one Diodorus, who 
appears to have been a genuine periegete or literary tourist and 
to have lived in the second half of the fourth century B.C. The 
extant fragments of his work are contained in C. Miiller's Fragm. 
Hist. Graec. ii. 353. Next to Diodorus in time is Heracleides of 
Clazomenae, who wrote in the third century b.c. a description of 
the cities of Greece (inpi twv kv 'EXAaSt TrdAewi/), fragments of which 
have come down under the name of Dicaearchus (cf Miiller, Fragm. 


Hist. Graec. ii. 254). Of more importance was the lost work of 
Polemon who flourished in the early part of the second century B.C. 
and seems to have devoted his great erudition to a general 
description of the Hellenic world. Best known were his monograph 
in four books on the Acropolis of Athens and his account of the 
sacred way to Eleusis. Little is left of these writings {Fragm. Hist. 
Graec. iii. 108). The most learned of these literary guides that 
preiceded Pausanias was Heliodorus of Athens, who lived not much 
later than Polemon and is a probable source for Books 34, 35 of 
Pliny's history. (On this point see Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, i. 
36). Heliodorus wrote, according to Athenaeus (vi. 229 e), 
fifteen books "On the Acropolis at Athens." From citations in 
later writers it is inferred that only portions of the first book or of 
the first three books dealt with the Acropolis. Of this doubtless 
valuable work but little is preserved (cf Keil. Hermes^ xxx. 199). 

In the first century b.c. and of our own era no descriptive accounts 
of Athens are known to have been written. The geographers Strabo, 
Pomponius Mela, and the historian Pliny furnish scanty material 
for a study of the Acropolis. 

It is in the second century a.d., in the reign of the Antonines, 
that we meet with the periegete Pausanias, the only one of his 
class whose writings have been preserved. His work is a description 
of Greece in ten books, the first of which treats of Attica and 
Megaris. This first book was written not earlier than 143 a.d., the 
date when the Panathenaic Stadium was rebuilt of white marble by 
Herodes Atticus (Paus. i. 19, 6), and probably not later than 
161 A.D., the year of the death of Regilla, in whose honor Herodes 
Atticus built his magnificent Music Hall, which is not mentioned 
in this book but, as a subsequent addition, in the seventh book 
{vii. 20, 6). 

The description of Athens with its numerous monuments and 
its wealth of traditions was the most difficult part of the old 
traveller's task. That Pausanias began his undertaking with this, 
the most complicated part, is perhaps unfortunate. At any rate, 
had his hand become more adjusted to its work it may reasonably 
be supposed that the first book would have shown more of the 
skill and order in the handling of his material that appears in 
the later books, and that accordingly there would have been fewer 
excursions and episodes to mar the even course of the narration, 
and perhaps an occasional addition or explanation to give his 
account more completeness. 

A.A. z 


The task which Pausanias set himself was to write a handbook 
(e^v)yr/crts) for intelligent travellers. In carrying out this purpose 
he felt that it was necessary to introduce into his description 
many matters pertaining to art criticism, mythology, geography 
and religion. 

The description of " the sights " (deiDpijfxara) of the city is doubtless 
based upon "autopsy." But this again is doubtless interwoven with 
what Pausanias borrowed from the older literature of this kind, 
impossible though it be to determine what is original and what 
is borrowed. 

The question of the trustworthiness and originality of Pausanias 
has been much discussed, and extreme views have been held by 
both his defenders and detractors (cf. Judeich, Topogr. von 
Athen, p. 12). 

A satisfactory treatment of this question is given by Frazer in 
the introduction to his translation of Pausanias. The conclusions 
at which Frazer arrives are briefly these : That Pausanias made a 
conscientious, even at times a critical use of the poets and the 
historians from whom he had to draw his legendary and traditional 
material; that he was generally careful and correct in the reading 
of inscriptions and did not accept their testimony blindfold ; that 
he was in the main a trustworthy observer and eye-witness ; that 
he was often overwhelmed with a sense of religious awe ; and 
that he pictured for us Greece as it was in his own day and as 
he saw it. This does not mean, however, that he was free from 
error and prejudice. But he was not "hide-bound in the trammels 
of tradition," and often criticized myths and legends "according to 
his lights." In his description of monuments of architecture and 
sculpture we detect a partiality for whatever was antique, extraordinary 
and mysterious, and also a sound though somewhat austere artistic 

The literary style of Pausanias is characterized by Frazer as 
"loose, clumsy, ill-jointed, ill-compacted, rickety, ramshackle, without 
ease or grace or elegance of any sort." 

In the excerpt from Frazer's skilful translation given below we 
can hardly realise this "rickety" and "ramshackle" quality of the 
style of Pausanias. 

After Pausanias we have no connected account of the city of 

I Athens until the close of the fourteenth century. During this 

I long interval only brief notices and incidental references constitute 

the sources of the history of the Acropolis. Most of these are 


found in the Scholia to Aristophanes, the lexicons of Harpocratium, 
Pollux, Hesychius, Photius, Suidas, the Etymologicum Magnum, 
and the so-called Lexica Segueriana in Bekker's Anecdota Graeca. 
Important and helpful as many of these notices are, they cannot 
lay claim, on account of the lateness of their origin, to the same 
weight of authority that belongs to the classic writers themselves, 
and to the inscriptions. 

With the close of the fourteenth century begins the series of 
modern descriptive writings and of plans and drawings devoted to 
an account of the Acropolis and its monuments. Inasmuch as 
these deal with the later fortunes of the Acropolis they are included 
in our last chapter ; to name them here would be a useless repetition. 


(Book I. Chapters xx. 2 — xxviii. 4, with omission of digressions.) 


2. But the oldest sanctuary of Dionysus is beside the theatre. 
Within the enclosure there are two temples and two images of 
Dionysus, one surnamed Eleutherian, and the other made by 
Alcamenes of ivory and gold. 

3. Near the sanctuary of Dionysus and the theatre is a structure 
said to have been made in imitation of the tent of Xerxes. It 
was rebuilt, for the old edifice was burned by the Roman general 
Sulla, when he captured Athens. 


I. In the theatre at Athens there are statues of tragic and comic 

poets, but most of the statues are of poets of little mark. For none 

of the renowned comic poets was there except Menander. Among 

the famous tragic poets there are statues of Euripides and Sophocles. 

4. On what is called the south wall of the .Acropolis, which faces 
towards the theatre, there is a gilded head of the Gorgon Medusa, 
and round about the head is wrought an aegis. 5. At the top of 
the theatre is a cave in the rocks under the Acropolis ; and over 
this cave is a tripod. In it are figures of Apollo and Artemis slaying 
the children of Niobe. 

6. On the way from the theatre to the Acropolis at Athens, 


Calos is buried. This Calos was sister's son to Daedalus, and studied 
art under him : Daedalus murdered him and fled to Crete, but 
afterwards took refuge with Cocalus in Sicily. 7. The sanctuary 
of Aesculapius is worth seeing for its images of the god and his 
children, and also for its paintings. In it is a fountain beside which, 
they say, Halirrothius, son of Poseidon, violated Alcippe, daughter 
of Ares, and was therefore slain by Ares. 

I. After the sanctuary of Aesculapius, proceeding by this road 
towards the Acropolis, we come to a temple of Themis. In fronc 
of it is a barrow erected in memory of Hippolytus. 

3. The worship of Vulgar Aphrodite [Aphrodite Pandemos] and 
of Persuasion was instituted by Theseus when he gathered the 
Athenians from the townships into a single city. In my time the 
ancient images were gone, but the existing images were by no 
obscure artists. There is also a sanctuary of Earth, the Nursing- 
Mother, and of Green Demeter [Chloe] ; the meaning of these 
surnames may be learnt by inquiring of the priests. 

4. There is but one entrance to the Acropolis : it admits of no 
other, being everywhere precipitous and fortified with a strong wall. 

! The portal (Propylaea) has a roof of white marble, and for the 
beauty and size of the blocks it has never yet been matched. Whether 
the statues of the horsemen represent the sons of Xenophon, or are 
merely decorative, I cannot say for certain. On the right of the 
portal is a temple of Wingless Victory. 5. From this point the 
sea is visible, and it was here, they say, that Aegeus cast himself 
down and perished. For the ship that bore the children to Crete 
used to put to sea with black sails ; but when Theseus sailed to 
beard the bull called the son of Minos {i.e. the Minotaur), he told 
his father that he would use white sails if he came back victorious 
over the bull. However, after the loss of Ariadne he forgot to do 
so. Then Aegeus, when he saw the ship returning with black sails, 
thought that his son was dead ; so he flung himself down and was 
killed. There is a shrine to him at Athens called the shrine of the 
hero Aegeus. 

6. On the left of the portal is a chamber containing pictures. 
Among the pictures which time had not effaced were Diomede and 
Ulysses, the one at Lemnos carrying off" the bow of Philoctetes, the 
other carrying off" the image of Athena from Ilium. Among the 
paintings here is also Orestes slaying Aegisthus, and Pylades slaying 


Nauplius' sons, who came to the rescue of Aegisthus, and Polyxena 
about to be slaughtered near the grave of Achilles. 

Among other paintings there is a picture of Alcibiades containing 
emblems of the victory won by his team at Nemea. Perseus is 
also depicted on his way back to Seriphos, carrying the head of 
Medusa to Polydectes. But I do not care to tell the story of Medusa 
in treating of Attica. 7. Passing over the picture of the boy carrying 
the water-pots, and the picture of the wrestler by Timaenetus, there 
is a portrait of Musaeus. 

8. Just at the entrance to the Acropolis are figures of Hermes 
and the Graces, which are said to have been made by Socrates, 
the son of Sophroniscus. The Hermes is named Hermes of the 


I. Amongst the objects on which Hippias vented his fury was a 
womati named Leaena ("lioness"). 2. The story has never before 
been put on record, but is commonly believed at Athens. He tortured 
Leaena to death, knowing that she was Aristogiton's mistress, and 
supposing that she could not possibly be ignorant of the plot. As 
a recompense, when the tyranny of the Pisistratids was put down, 
the Athenians set up a bronze lioness in memory of the woman. 
Beside it is an image of Aphrodite, which they say was an offering 
of Callias and a work of Calamis. Near it is a bronze statue of 
Diitrephes pierced with arrows. 5. Near the statue of Diitrephes 
(for I do not wish to mention the obscurer statues) are images of 
gods — one of Health, who is said to be a daughter of Aesculapius, 
and one of Athena, who is also surnamed Health [Hygieia]. 

8. Among other things that I saw on the Acropolis at Athens were 
the bronze boy holding the sprinkler, and Perseus after he has done 
the deed on Medusa. The boy is a work of Lycius, son of Myron ; 
the Perseus is a work of Myron. 9. There is also a sanctuary of 
Brauronian Artemis : the image is a work of Praxiteles. The goddess 
gets her surname from the township of Brauron ; and at Brauron is 
the old wooden image which is, they say, the Tauric Artemis. 10. 
There is also set up a bronze figure of the so-called Wooden Horse. 
Every one who does not suppose that the Phrygians were the veriest 
ninnies, is aware that what Epeus made was an engine for breaking 
down the wall. But the story goes that the Wooden Horse had 
within it the bravest of the Greeks, and the bronze horse has been 
shaped accordingly. Menestheus and Teucer are peeping out of it, 


and so are the sons of Theseus, ii. Among the statues that stand 
after the horse, the one of Epicharinus, who practised running in 
armour, is by Critias. Oenobius was a man who did a good deed 
to Thucydides, son of Olorus ; for he carried a decree recalling 
Thucydides from banishment. But on his way home Thucydides 
was murdered, and his tomb is not far from the Melitian gate. 12. 
The histories of Hermolycus, the pancratiast, and of Phormio, the 
son of Asopichus, have been told by other writers, so I pass them by. 


1. Here Athena is represented striking Marsyas the Silenus, because 
he picked up the flutes when the goddess had meant that they should 
be thrown away. 2. Over against the works I have mentioned is 
the legendary fight of Theseus with the bull, which was called the 
bull of Minos, whether this bull was a man or, as the prevalent 
tradition has it, a beast ; for even in our own time women have 
given birth to much more marvellous monsters than this. Here, 
too, is Phrixus, son of Athamas, represented as he appeared after 
being carried away by the ram to the land of the Colchians : he 
has sacrificed the ram to some god, apparently to him whom the 
Orchomenians call Laphystian ; and having cut off the thighs according 
to the Greek custom, he is looking at them burning. Among the 
statues which stand next in order is one of Hercules strangling the 
serpents according to the story; and one of Athena rising from 
the head of Zeus. There is also a bull set up by the Council of 
the Areopagus for some reason or other : one might make many 
guesses on the subject if one chose to do so. 3. I observed before 
( that the zeal of the Athenians in matters of religion exceeds that 
\ of all other peoples. Thus they were the first to give Athena the 
( surname of the Worker [Ergane], and [to make] images of Hermes 
' without limbs ; . . • and in the temple with them is a Spirit of the 
Zealous pTronSatwv]. He who prefers the products of art to mere 
antiquities should observe the following : — There is a man wearing 
a helmet, a work of Cleoetas, who has inwrought the man's nails 
of silver. There is also an image of Earth praying Zeus to rain 
on her, either because the Athenians themselves needed rain, or 
because there was a drought all over Greece. Here also is a statue 
of Timotheus, son of Conon, and a statue of Conon himself. A 
group representing Procne and Itys, at the time when Procne has 
taken her resolution against the boy, was dedicated by Alcamenes ; 
and Athena is represented exhibiting the olive plant, and Poseidon 


exhibiting the wave. 4. There is also an image of Zeus made by 
Leochares, and another of Zeus surnamed PoUeus (" urban "). 

5. All the figures in the gable over the entrance to the temple 
called the Parthenon relate to the birth of Athena. The back gable 
contains the strife of Poseidon with Athena for the possession of 
the land. The image itself is made of ivory and gold. Its helmet 
is surmounted in the middle by a figure of a sphinx (I will tell 
the story of the sphinx when I come to treat of Boeotia), and on 
either side of the helmet are grififins wrought in relief. 

7. The image of Athena stands upright, clad in a garment that 
reaches to her feet : on her breast is the head of Medusa wrought 
in ivory. She holds a Victory about four cubits high, and in the 
other hand a spear. At her feet lies a shield, and near the spear is 
a serpent, which may be Erichthonios. On the pedestal of the image 
is wrought in relief the birth of Pandora. Hesiod and other poets 
have told how this Pandora was the first woman, and how before 
the birth of Pandora womankind as yet was not. The only statue 
I saw there was that of the Emperor Hadrian ; and at the entrance 
there is a statue of Iphicrates, who did many marvellous deeds. 

8. Over against the temple is a bronze Apollo : they say the 
image was made by Phidias. They call it Locust Apollo, because, 
when locusts blasted the land, the god said • he would drive them 
out of the country. 


I. On the Acropolis at Athens is a statue of Pericles, the son 
of Xanthippus himself, who fought the seafight at Mycale against 
the Medes. The statue of Pericles stands in a different part of 
the Acropolis ; but near the statue of Xanthippus is one of Anacreon 
the Teian, the first poet, after Sappho the Lesbian, to write mostly 
love poems. The attitude of the statue is like that of a man singing 
in his cups. The figures of women near it were made by Dinomenes : 
they represent lo, daughter of Inachus, and Callisto, daughter of 
Lycaon. 2. At the south wall are figures about two cubits high, 
dedicated by .Attalus. They represent the legendary war of the giants 
who once dwelt about Thrace and the isthmus of Pallene, the fight 
of the Athenians with the Amazons, the battle with the Medes at 
Marathon, and the destruction of the Gauls in Mysia. There is 
a statue also of Olympiodorus, who earned fame both by the greatness 
and the opportuneness of his exploits, for he infused courage into 
men whom a series of disasters had plunged in despa'r. 



4. Near the statue of Olympiodorus stands a bronze image of 
Artemis surnamed Leucophryenian. It was dedicated by the sons 
of Themistocles ; for the Magnesians, whom the King gave to Themis- 
tocles to govern, hold Leucophryenian Artemis in honour. 5. But 
I must proceed, for I have to describe the whole of Greece. Endoeus 
was an Athenian by birth and a pupil of Daedalus. When Daedalus 
fled on account of the murder of Calos, Endoeus followed him to 
Crete. There is a seated image of Athena by Endoeus : the 
inscription states that it was dedicated by Callias and made by 

6. There is also a building called the Erechtheum. Before the 
entrance is an altar of Supreme Zeus, where they sacrifice no living 
thing ; but they lay cakes on it, and having done so they are forbidden 
by custom to make use of wine. Inside of the building are altars : 
one of Poseidon, on which they sacrifice also to Erechtheus in 
obedience to an oracle ; one of the hero Butes ; and one of 
Hephaestus. On the walls are paintings of the family of the Butads. 
Within, for the building is double, there is sea-water in a well. This 
is not very surprising, for the same thing may be seen in inland 
places, as at Aphrodisias in Caria. But what is remarkable about 
this well is that, when the south wind has been blowing, the 
well gives forth a sound of waves ; and there is a shape of a 
trident in the rock. These things are said to have been the 
evidence produced by Poseidon in support of his claim to the 

7. The rest of the city and tlie whole land are equally sacred 
to Athena; for although the worship of other gods is established 
in the townships, the inhabitants none the less hold Athena in honour. 
But the object which was universally deemed the holy of holies 
many years before the union of the townships, is an image of Athena 
in what is now called the Acropolis, but what was then called the 
city. The legend is that the image fell from heaven, but whether 
this is so or not I will not inquire. Callimachus made a golden 
lamp for the goddess. They fill the lamp with oil, and wait till 
the same day next year, and the oil sufifices for the lamp during 
all the intervening time, though it is burning day and night. The 
wick is made of Carpasian flax, which is the only kind of flax that 
does not take fire. A bronze palm-tree placed over the lamp and 
reaching to the roof draws off the smoke. 



I. In the temple of the Polias is a wooden Hermes, said to be 
an offering of Cecrops, but hidden under myrtle boughs. Amongst 
the ancient offerings which are worthy of mention is a folding-chair, 
made by Daedalus, and spoils taken from the Medes, including the 
corslet of Masistius, who commanded the cavalry at Plataea, and 
a sword said to be that of Mardonius. 2. About the olive they 
have nothing to say except that it was produced by the goddess 
as evidence in the dispute about the country. They say, too, that 
the olive was burned down when the Medes fired Athens, but that 
after being burned down it sprouted the same day to a height of 
two cubits. 3. Contiguous to the temple of Athena is a temple 
of Pandrosos, who alone of the sisters was blameless in regard to 
the trust committed to them. 4. What surprised me very much, 
but is not generally known, I will describe as it takes place. Two 
maidens dwell not far from the temple of the Polias : the Athenians 
call them Arrephoroi. These are lodged for a time with the goddess; 
but when the festival comes around they perform the following 
ceremony by night. They put on their heads the things which 
the priestess of Athena gives them to carry, but what it is she 
gives is known neither to her who gives nor to them who carry. 
Now there is in the city an enclosure not far from the sanctuary 
of Aphrodite called Aphrodite in the Gardens, and there is a natural 
underground descent through it. Down this way the maidens go. 
Below they leave their burdens, and getting something else, which 
is wrapt up, they bring it back. These maidens are then discharged, 
and others are brought to the Acropolis in their stead. 

5. Near the temple of Athena is a well-wrought figure of an old 
woman, just about a cubit high, purporting to be the handmaid 
Lysimache. There are also large bronze figures of men confronting 
each other for a fight : they call one of them Erechtheus and the 
other Eumolpus. 6. On the pedestal there is a statue of . . . who 
was a soothsayer to Tolmides, and a statue of Tolmides himself. 
7. There are ancient images of Athena. No part of them has been 
melted off, though they are somewhat blackened and brittle ; for the 
flames reached them at the time when the Athenians embarked 
on their ships, and the city, abandoned by its fighting men, was 
captured by the king. There is also the hunting of a boar, but 
whether it is the Calydonian boar I do not know for certain. There 
is also Cycnus fighting with Hercules. 



I. Why they set up a bronze statue of Cylon, though he compassed 
the tyranny, I cannot say for certain. I surmise that it was because 
he was an extremely handsome man, and gained some reputation 
by winning a victory in the double race at Olympia. . Moreover he 
had the honor to marry a daughter of Theagenes, tyrant of Megara. 
2. Besides the things I have enumerated, there are two tithe- 
offerings from spoils taken by the Athenians in war. One is a 
bronze image of Athena made from the spoils of the Medes who 
landed at Marathon. It is a work of Phidias. The battle of the 
Lapiths with the Centaurs on her shield, and all the other figures 
in relief, are said to have been wrought by Mys, but designed, 
like all the other works of Mys, by Parrhasius, son of Evenor. 
The head of the spear and the crest of the helmet of this Athena 
are visible to mariners sailing from Sunium to Athens. There is 
also a bronze chariot made out of a tithe of spoils taken from the 
Boeotians and the Chalcidians of Euboea. There are two other 
offerings, a statue of Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, and an image 
of Athena, surnamed Lemnian, after the people of Lemnos who 
dedicated it. This image of A.thena is the best worth seeing of 
the works of Phidias. 

3. The whole of the wall which runs round the Acropolis, except 
the part built by Cimon, son of Miltiades. is said to have been 
erected by the Pelasgians who once dwelt at the foot of the Acropolis. 
4. Descending not as far . as the lower city, but below the portal, 
you come to a spring of water, and near it a sanctuary of Apollo 
in a cave. They think it was here that Apollo had intercourse 
with Creusa, daughter of Erechtheus. . . . Philippides was sent to 
Lacedaemon to tell that the Medes had landed, but came back 
reporting that the Lacedaemonians had deferred their march, for 
it was their custom not to march out to war before the moon 
was full. But Philippides said that Pan met him about Mount 
Parthenius, and told him that he wished the Athenians well and 
would come to Marathon to fight for them. So. the god Pan has 
been honored for this message. 




BURNOUF, E. La Ville et VAcropole d'Atkcnes aux diverses Epoques. 

Paris, 1877. 
Butler, Howard Crosby. The Story of Athens. New York, 1902. 
CURTIUS, Ernst. Die Stadtgeschichte von Aihen. Berlin, 1891. 

This book contains a survey of the literary and inscriptional 

sources for the topography of Athens, by A. Mii.chhofer. 
Frazer, J. G. Pausanias's Description of Greece. Translated., with a 

Commentary. 6 vols. London, 1898. 
Gardner, E. A. Ancient Athens. London — New York, 1902. 
Gregorovius, F. Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter. 2 vols. 

2te Aufl. Stuttgart, 1889. 
Harrison and Verrall. Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athcjis. 

London, 1890. 
Harrison, Jane E. Primitive Athens. Cambridge, 1906. 
Hertzberg, G. F. Athen, historisch-topographisch da?gestellt. Halle, 

Hitzig-Blumner. Des Pausanias Beschreibung von Griechenland, mit 

kritischem Apparat und erkldrenden Anmerkungen. 2 vols. Berlin, 

Judeich, W. "Topographic von Athen" {Handbuch der klassischen 

Altertums-Wissenschaft, Band iii., 2ter Teil, herausg. von I wan von 

Miiller). Miinchen, 1905. 
DE Laborde, Cte. Athenes aux XV. et XVI. et XVII. .Sihles. Paris, 

Leake, W. M. The Topography of Athens, with some remarks on its 

Antiquities. 2nd edit. 2 vols. London, 1841. 
Milchhofer, a. " Athen," in Baumeister's Detikmdler des klassischen 

Altertums, p. 200. 
WaCHSMUTH, C. Die Stadt Athen iin Alterthutn. 2 vols. Leipzig, 

1874-1890. "Athenae" in Pauly-Wissowa's RealEncyclopcidie. 

Suppl. Bd. Heft I. Stuttgart, 1903. 


Benndorf, O. "Zur Periegese der Akropolis," A.M. vii. 45. 
Beul#., E. L'Acropole d'Athenes. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Paris, 1863. 
BOTTICHER, A. Die Akropolis von Athen. Berlin, 1888. 
VON Duhn, F. "Eine Ansicht der Akropolis aus dem Jahre 1670," 
A.M. ii. 38. 


Jahn-Michaelis. Arx Athenarum a Pausania Descripta. Edit, tertia. 
Bonn, 1901. 

This indispensable work is furnished with a collection of notices 
concerning the Acropolis collated from Greek authors {Burgckronik), 
with an Appendix containing a selection of the most important 
inscriptions pertaining to the Acropolis, with a list of the writings 
on the Acropolis from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries 
inclusive, and with a number of useful plans and cuts of the 
buildings, walls, monuments and slopes of the Acropolis. 

LUCKENBACH, H. Die Akropolis von Athen. Mlinchen, 1896. 

MiCHAELiS, A. "Zur Periegese der Akropolis von Athen," A.M. i. 275; 
ii. I, 85. 

Miller, W. "History of the Acropolis," A.J.A. viii. (1893) 473. 

Strygowski, J, "Die Akropolis in Altbyzantinischer Zeit," A.M. xiv. 


{a) South Slope 
DORPFELD, W. " Heiligtum der Aphrodite Pandemos," A.M. xx. Jii. 

"Das choregische Monument des Nikias," A.M. x. 219; xiv. 63. 

" Die Stoa des Eumenes," A.M. xiii. 100. 
DORPFELD UND Reisch. Das GriecMsche Theater. Athen, 1896. 
GiRARD, P. DAsclepieion (VAthines. Paris, 1881. 
Kawerau, G. " Theatergebaude," Baumeister's Denkmdler, p. 1734. "Die 

Pandemos- Weihung auf der Akropolis," A.M. xxx. 298. 
Kern, O. "Demeter Chloe," A.M. xviii. 192. 
Kohler, U. "Der Sudabhang der Akropolis zu Athen," A.M. ii. 171. 

"Die Choregische Inschrift des Nikias," A.M. x. 231. "Hallenanlage 

am Siidfusse der Akropolis zu Athen," A.M. iii. 147. 
Lolling, H. G. "Das Heroon des Aigeus," A.M. xi. 322. 
Martha, J. " Restes d'un Portique au Sud de I'Askl^pieion," Bull. Corr. 

HelUn. ii. 584. 
Penrose, Y. C. " Some Traces connected with the original Entrance of 

the Acropolis," J.H.S. xv. 248. 
Puchstein, O. Die GriecMsche BUhne. Berlin, 1901. 
Reisch, E. "Zum Thrasyllos Monument," A.M. xiii. 383. 
Tuckermann, W. p. Das Odeion des Herodes Atticus und der Regilla 

in Athen. Bonn, 1868. 

{b) West Slope 
Carroll, M. "Thucydides, Pausanias, and the Dionysium in Limnis," 

Class. Rev. xix. 325. 
DORPFELD, W. "Das alte Athen vor Theseus," Rhein. Mus. Ii. 127. 

" Das Lenaion oder Dionysion in den Limnai," A.M. xix. 496 ; xx. 

161, 368. " Pelasgikon," A.M. xiv. 67. 


Drerup, E. " Beitrage z. Topographic von Alt-Athen," Philol. (1905) 

Ixiv. 66. 
PiCKARD, J. "Dionysus ev Ai/jivais, AJ.A. (1893) viii. 56. 
VON Prott, H. " Enneakrounos, Lenaion u. ^lovikxi-ov iv Alfivais, A.M. 

xxiii. 205. 
Robert, C. " Der Aufgang zur Akropolis," Aus Kydathen^ 172. 
Wachsmuth, C. " Neue Beitrage zur Topographic von Athen," Abh. d. 

Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. xli. 1899. 
White, J. W. neXa/ryiK6»', 'E0r;joi. 'Apxa^o^• 1 894, 25, See Appendix II. 

{c) North Slope 
BOTTICHER, C. " Grottenheiligthum des Apollon und Klepsydra," Philol. 

xxii. 69. 
GoTTLiNG, K. M. "Die ApoUogrotte der Akropolis von Athen," Rhein. 

Mus. N.F. vii. i. 
Cavvadias, p. Excavations on the North Slope of the Acropolis. 'E07;ya. 

'Apxa'o^- 1897, I. Plates I., II., III. 

BOHN, R, Die Propylaeen der Akropolis zu Athen. Berlin, 1882. " Bericht 

iiber die Ausgrabungen auf der Akropolis im Friihjahr 1880," A.M. 

v. 259, 309. "Zur Basis der Athena Hygieia," A.M. v. 331. 
DORPFELD, W. " Das Urspriingliche Project des Mnesikles," A.M. x. 38. 

"Uber die Gestalt des Siidwestfliigels," A.M. x. 131. 
Furtwangler, a. "Zu den Tempeln der Akropolis," Sitzb. a. Bayr. 

Akad. d. Wiss. 1904, p. 375. 
JULIU-S, L. " Uber den Siidfliigel der Propylaeen und den Tempel der 

Athena Nike zu Athen," A.M. i. 216. 
Kekule, R. Die Reliefs an der Balustrade der Athena Nike. Stuttgart, 

KOSTER, A. "Das Alter des Athena-Niketempels," Jahrb. d. k. Arch. 

Inst. (1906) xxi. 129. 
LOESCHKE, G. "Zur Datierung des Hermes des Alkamenes," /uz^r^. d. 

Arch. Inst. xix. p. 22. 
MiCHAELis, A. " Die Balustrade am Tempel der Athena Nike," Archaeol. 

Zeit. XX. 249. 
Weller, Chas. H. "The Pre-Periclean Propylon of the Acropolis at 

Athens," A.J.A., second series, viii. 35. 
WOLTERS, P. "Zum Alter des Niketempels," Bonner Studien (Berlin, 

1890), p. 92. "Zur Athena Hygieia des Pyrrhos," A.M. xvi. 153. 


Brunn, H. "Die Bildwerke des Parthenon," Sitzb. d. Bayr. Akad. d. 
Wiss. 1874, Bd. 2, p. 3. 

Blumner, H. Uber die Brunn'sche Deutung der Giebelfelder des Par- 
thenon," Rhein. Mus. N.F. xxxii. 118. 


DORPFELD, W. " Untersuchungen am Parthenon," A.M. vi. 283. "Der 

altere Parthenon," A.M. xvii. 158. "Die Zeit des alteren Par- 
thenon," A.M. xxvii. 379. 
Ebersole, W. S. "The Metopes of the West End of the Parthenon," 

A.J. A. second series, iii. 409. 
Fergusson, J. The Parthenon. (An essay on the mode by which Hght 

was introduced into Greek and Roman temples.) London, 1883. 
FURTWANGLER, A. Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. Appendix : " The 

Temples of Athena on the Acropolis." 
Gardner, E. A. "Athene in the West Pediment of the Parthenon." 

J.H.S. iii. 244. 
Hill, G. F. "The East Frieze of the Parthenon," Class. Rev. viii. 225. 
VON Mach, E. Greek Sculpture, its Spirit and Principles. Boston, 1903. 
Magne, L. Le Paithenon. Paris, 1895. 
MiCHAELIS, A. Der Parthenon. Leipzig, 1871. 
Murray, A. S. Sculptures of the Parthenon. London, 1903. 
Penrose, F. C. Principles of Athenian Architecture. 2nd edition. 

London, 1888. 
Perry, Anna Louise. "The Dimensions of the Athena Parthenos," 

A.J. A. xi. 335. Note on the same subject, ibid. 346, by Alfred 

Petersen, E. Die Kunst des Pheidias. Berlin, 1873. "Die neueste 

Erklarung der Westgiebelgruppe des Parthenon," Archaeol. Zeit. 

xxxiii. 115. "Der Streit der Gotter um Athen," Hermes, xvii. 124. 

" Peplos-Ubergabe," Archaeol. Zeit. xxxv. 108. 
PUCHSTEIN, O. " Die Parthenon-Sculpturen," Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. Inst. 

V. 79. 
Robert, C. " Der Streit der Gotter um Athen," Hermes, xvi. 60. 
Sauer, B. " Untersuchungen iiber die Giebelgruppen des Parthenon," 

A.M. xvi. 59. 

Barnsley, S. H. "North Doorway of the Erechtheum," /.//.^. xii. 381. 
Borrmann, R. " Neue Untersuchungen am Erechtheion zu Athen," A.M. 

vi. 372. 
BOTTICHER, C. Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis von Athen. Berlin, 

1863, p. 189. 
DoRPFELD, W, " Zum Erechtheion," A.M. xxviii. 465. " Der Urspriing- 

hche Plan des Erechtheion," A.M. xxix. loi. 
Fergusson, J. "Stairs to the Pandroseum," /.yy:5. ii. 83. 
Fowler, H. N. " The Erechtheion at Athens," Papers of the American 

School at Athens, i. 215. 
Julius, L. "Erechtheion," Baumeister's Denkmdler, p. 484. "Uber das 

Erechtheion," Miinchen, 1878. 
KOLBE, W. "Die Bauurkunde des Erechtheion vom Jahre 408-7," A.M. 

xxvi. 223. 


MiCHAELlS, A. " Pausanias Wanderung dutch den Tempel der Athena 

Polias," A.M. ii. '15. "Die Zeit des Neubaus des PoHastempels," 

A.M. xiv. 349. " Die Bestimmung der Raume des Erechtheion," 

Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. Inst. xvii. (1902) 81. 
Murray, A. S. "The Erechtheum," /.^.5. i. 224. 
Petersen und Botticher. "Zur Kenntniss des Erechtheion," Arch. 

Zeit. xiii. 65. 
Petersen, E. "Zum Erechtheion," A.M. x. i. "Die Erechtheion- 

Periegese des Pausanias," Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. Instit. xvii. 59. 
Rangab^, a. R. "Das Erechtheion," A.M. vii. 258-273; 321-334. 
Robert, C. "Zum Fries des Erechtheion," Hermes., xxv. 431. 
Stevens, G. P. "The East Wall of the Erechtheum," A.J.A. second 

series, x. 47. 
Thiersch, F. "tJber das Erechtheum," Abhand. Bayr. Akad. a. Wiss. 

viii. (1858), 335-425- 


Belger, Chr. " Die neuesten Ausgrabungen und Forschungen zu Athen," 

Berl. Philol. Woch. 17 Jahrg. (1897), pp. 1371, 1406, 1437, 1628. 
Bruckner, A. "Poros Sculpturen auf der Akropolis von Athen," A.M. 

xiv. 67 ; XV. 84. 
CooLEY, A. S. "Athena Polias on the Acropolis of Athens," A.J.A. 

second series, iii. 345. 
DORPFELD, W. "Der alte Athenatempel auf der Akropolis zu Athen," 

A.M. X. 275 ; xi. 337 ; xii. 25, 190, 276 ; xv. 420 ; xxii. 159 ; Antike 

Denkmdler, i. i, 2. 
DUMMLER, F. "Athena," Real-Encycl. Pauly-Wissowa, 11-14, P- 1951 ff- 
Fowler, H. N. "The Temple of the Acropolis burnt by the Persians," 

A.J.A. viii. I. 
P'urtwangler, a. "The Athenian Temples on the Acropolis." 

Appendix to Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture. "Zu den Tempeln 

der Akropolis," Sitzb. d. Bayr. Akad. d. Wiss. 1904, p. 370. 
KORTE, G. " Der alte Tempel und das Hekatompedon auf der Akropolis," 

Rhein. Mus. N.F. liii. 239. 
MiCHAELis, A. "Die alten Athenatempel der AkropoHs von Athen," 

Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. Inst. (1902), xvii. i.. 
MiLCHHOFER, A. Uber die alten Burgheiligtiimer in Athen. Kiel, 

Progr. 1899. 
Petersen, E. "Zusatz zu Ddrpfeld's Aufsatz iiber den alten Athena- 
tempel," A.M. xii. 62. Die Burgtempel der Athenaia. Berlin, 

Schrader, H. " Die Gigantomachie aus dem Giebel des alten Athena- 

tempels auf der Akropolis," A.M. xxii. 59. "Der Cella Fries des 

alten Athenatempels," A.M. xxx. 305. 
Studniczka, F. "Attische Porosgiebel," A.M. xi. 61. 


Wernicke, P. " Pausanias und der alte Athenatempel auf der Akro- 

polis," A.M. xii. 184. 
WiEGAND, Th. Die archaische Poros-architektur der Akropolis zu Athen. 

Leipzig, 1904. 


BOHN, R. "Zur Basis der Athena Hygieia," A.M. v. 331. 

DORPFELD, W. "Chalkothek und Ergane-Tempel," A.M. xiv. 304. 

" Tempel der Roma und des Augustus," A.M. xii. 264 ; Antike 

Denkmiiler, \. Taf. 25, 26. 
Weizsacker, p. "Pausanias und die Bildwerke in den Propylaeen," 

Fleck. Jahrb. f. Philol. xxxii. (1886), i. 
WOLTERS, P. "Zum attalischen Weihgeschenk," Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. 

Inst. i. (1886), 85. 


In addition to the plans and illustrative cuts and plates accompanying 
the works and monographs already mentioned in this Bibliography, the 
following are especially valuable : 

CURTIUS, E. und Kaupert, J. A. Atlas von Athen. Berlin, 1878. 
Kawerau, G. " Gesammt plan der Akropolis," AeXrlov 'Apxat-oXoyiKdv, 

1889. This plan has been reproduced by the German Archaeological 

Institute (Akropolis, No. 146), and is found in Curtius' Stadtgeschichte^ 

Plate V. 

Dr. Kawerau has recently made a new plan which has not yet 

been published. 
MiCHAELis, A. Arx Athenarum, Atlas. Bonn, 1901. 
Middleton, J. H. " Plans and Drawings of Athenian Buildings," J.H.S. 

Supplement, iii. 1900. 
Omont, H. Athenes au XVII. Steele. Vues et Plans d^Athenes et de 

VAcropole. Paris, 1898. 
Stuart, J. and Revett, N. The Antiquities of Athens., Vols, i.-iii. 

London, 1762-94. Supplementary volumes by Cockerell and others, 

London, 1830. 


[The substance of the Article by Professor John Williams White published in the 
Ephemeris Archaeologice, Athens, 1894] 

The traditional view that the Acropolis at Athens ceased to be a 
fortress as early as the time when Themistocles built the wall around 
the city, or at least when Pericles came into control has been denied 
by Professor Dorpfeld, who maintains that the great walls of the 
Pelargicon continued to stand as late as the time of Herodes Atticus 
(cf A.M. xiv. 1889, p. 65 f.). But that the Pelargicon was 
destroyed after the expulsion of Hippias may be inferred from the 
account of the siege of the Pisistratids on the Acropolis and of the 
second siege by Xerxes in 480 B.C. (cf. Hdt. v. 72, viii. 51-53; Arist. 
'A^ryv. IIoA. 20). The complete destruction of the city and its 
defenses after the second capture is attested by Herodotus (ix. 13), 
Thucydides (i. 89), and by Andocides (Ilc/ai rdv Mvo-t. 108). That 
the Pelargicon shared in this destruction is the opinion of Wachsmuth 
(Neue Beitrage, Berichte d. K. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1887, p. 399), 
Lolling {Top. von Athen, von Miiller's Handbuch, iii. 1889, p. 339), 
V. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff {Aus Kydathen, p. 196), Judeich {Top. 
von Athen, von Miiller's Handbuch, iii. 2, p. 113), and others. The 
fact that in the account which Greek writers give of the rebuilding 
of the fortifications of Athens after 480 b.c. no mention is made of 
the Pelargicon creates a strong presumption that this was no longer 
a part of the system of defense. Especially noteworthy is the fact 
that Thucydides (i. 89-93, >i- 13) makes no mention of the Acropolis 
as a fortress in the account which he gives of the defenses of the city 
at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, all the more so since" the 
historian (i. 126) plainly indicates that the Acropolis was a citadel 
at the time of the conspiracy of Cylon, which occurred between 636 

A.A. 2 A 


and 624 B.C. From the statements of Thucydides in his second book 
it is clear that in his own day the Acropolis was not a fortress but 
a sanctuary and a treasury, which no one was permitted to inhabit 
even in the stress of the Peloponnesian war, when the rural popula- 
tion of Attica sought refuge within the walls of the city (ii. 17, i). 
To the testimony of Thucydides may be added that of inscriptions 
from the fifth century (see, e.g. C.I. A. i. 32, 1 17-140, 141-160, 161- 
175), which refer to the Acropolis solely as the place of temples 
and shrines, the repository of votive offerings and of the treasury 
of the state. , 

Strong presumptive e«dence that the Pelargicon was no longer a 
bulwark of defense in the age of Pericles is furnished by two inscrip- 
tions and a passage in Thucydides. The first of these inscriptions 
{C.I. A. iv. 26 a, p. 140) is a decree, passed about 440 b.c, providing 
that a guard-house be erected at the entrance to the Acropolis, in 
which three guards are to be stationed who are to prevent suspicious 
persons (SpaireTai Kal \wTro8vTat) from entering the Acropolis. Now 
if the Pelargicon as conceived by Dorpfeld was still in existence, it 
is difficult to see what meaning this decree could have. There 
would have been no occasion to build a watch-house at the entrance 
to the Acropolis, for the guards would have been posted at the 
gate which gave admission through the great outer wall of the 
Pelargicon as originally built (cf. Foucart, Bull. Corr. Hill. 1890, 
xiv. p. 177; Wernicke, Die Polizeiwache auf der Burg v. Athen, 
Hermes, 1891, xxvi. p. 51). The decree indicates that the Pelargicon 
was not at this time an enclosed place. 

The second inscription {C.I. A. iv. 27 b, 54 fif.) is a decree regulating 
the offerings to be made to the Eleusinian goddesses, and was passed 
sometime between 446 B.C. and the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war. That part of the decree that concerns this discussion was a 
"rider" and enacted that the Archon Basileus should define the 
sanctuaries in the Pelargicon, that henceforth no altar should be 
set up in it without the authority of the senate and people, that no 
stone nor earth should be taken from it for building-material, and 
that a heavy fine should be imposed upon all who transgressed this 
law. The natural inference is that the Pelargicon was not at this 
time a place that could be securely closed. The severe penalty 
named in the decree is difficult to explain if the Pelargicon could 
at this time be securely closed, since trespassers would simply have 
been stopped at the one gate that gave entrance to this defense if 
it still existed, or rather trespass would then have been impossible. 


To this may be added a reference in Julius Pollux (viii. 101) defining 
the duties of those who had the place in charge, which was to 
prevent any one from reaping within the Pelargicon or from digging 
it up. A passage in Thucydides (ii. 17) confirms the view that the 
wall of the Pelargicon at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war 
was not intact. From that passage it appears that the people who 
came into the city from the country were excluded from every Up6v 
and r)pMov that was /?e/3atws kA^o-toi/. Now the Acropolis and the 
Eleusinium were lepd that were securely closed, but the Pelargicon, 
although it was lepou and rested (according to the oracle quoted — to 
UikapyiKov dpyov djx^Lvov) under a special prohijaition against occupa- 
tion, was occupied. The only inference that can be drawn from 
this contrast between the former sanctuaries and the latter is that 
the latter was not /3c/?aiws kX-qcttov. 

It remains to enquire whether the wall that enclosed the summit of 
the Acropolis and that constituted originally a part of the Pelargicon 
continued to exist as a defense in the time of Pericles. The complete 
excavation of the Acropolis has given final answer to this question. 
The present wall, built after the Persian wars, is mainly a retaining 
wall, intended to serve as a means of enlarging the surfaces of the 
Acropolis. In particular, a great space was filled in between its 
southern part and the native rock of the Acropolis. With the single 
exception noted below, the early Pelasgic walls on and around the 
Acropolis were entirely covered by the new wall and the filling of 
earth and debris, or were removed. The line of this old Pelasgic 
wall has partly been laid bare, lying within that of the younger wall, 
especially in the south and southeast sides of the Acropolis. The fifth 
century wall, of course, closed the Acropolis, which was filled with 
treasures, from intrusion. The Spartan garrison that was posted there 
in the time of the Thirty occupied it for the purpose of over-awing 
the town (Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 3, 13, 14; Lysias 12, 94; Arist. 
'A6r)v. HoX. 37), not to protect themselves from attack. It is 
significant that these 700 soldiers occupied the Acropolis as quarters, 
and it is difficult to explain why they were not stationed in the 
Pelargicon if it had been in existence at this time. The only piece 
of the early Pelasgic wall that remains standing on the summit of 
the Acropolis is the well-known wall that joins the southeast corner 
of the south wing of the Propylaea and that is described above, 
p. 23. Dorpfeld claims that Mnesicles cut the corner of the 
Propylaea, a cut which extends apparently through all the stones 
that are now in situ to a height of more than 10 metres, in order 


to join this corner closely with this Pelasgic wall which stands at 
an angle of about 45 degrees to the east and south walls of the wing 
(cf. A.M. 1885, X. p. 139). The argument of Dorpfeld is that 
when the Propylaea was built this Pelasgian wall was still standing 
as a part of the old Pelargicon. But granting that Mnesicles made 
this cut because he found this wall in his way, it does not follow 
that the Pelargicon was still in existence. It may well have been 
a part of the old Pelasgic wall utilized and rebuilt by the priesthood 
of Artemis Brauronia to prevent encroachment upon their sanctuary 
(cf. A.M. X. p. 54). From the fact that this corner was built over 
in the Middle Ages and from the irregular character of the masonry, 
a legitimate doubt has been expressed whether the cut was after 
all made by Mnesicles. The cut has an irregular surface above the 
present remains of the Pelasgian wall, and in two instances the 
courses of stone in the wing advance beyond the courses below 
them, so that the cut measured on the surface of the wall, is 0.4 
metre deeper at the bottom than at the top (see A.M. x. Plate V. 
Fig. 3)- 

The proofs drawn from inscriptions and literary sources that 
have been presented in favor of the existence of the Pelargicon as 
a fortress in the time of Pericles and thereafter are now to be 
examined. First are two passages from Aristophanes, sc. Lysistrata., 
480-483, and Aves, 826 836. In the former passage it is argued that 
7/ Kpavad and oLKpoTToXis are contrasted, and that 17 Kpavad means 
the Pelargicon in opposition to the traditional interpretation which 
takes it to mean the Acropolis. But this term is never applied in 
the literature to artificial structures such as the walls, terraces and , 


gates of the Pelargicon, but only to natural objects that are rugged, 
precipitous and rocky, like the Acropolis. Aristophanes applies the 
term to Athens (Aves, 123) and once to the Acropolis itself {Acharn. 
75). In the passage under consideration Kpavad is probably used 
as an adjective and is to be taken as an attribute of aK/ooTroAts as 
it is in the Acharnians, 75, w Kpavad ttoAis. In the passage from 
the Birds (826-836) it is said that to Athena is assigned the Acropolis 
and to the Cock the Pelargicon, both together constituting the ttoXis. 
But first, whatever meaning ttoAis may have elsewhere, in the 
present passage it certainly means the city of the birds as a whole, 
which was a big place, and secondly the proposal to make Athena 
the TToAiovxos of the new city is rejected in vv. 829-831, and the 
question that follows n's Sal Kade^ei rrjs TToAcws TO TleXapyiKov is 
the same question that has already been asked and might have 


been phrased rts Sai KaOe^ei rrjv ttoXlv? The reason why Aristo- 
phanes phrases his question in the manner he has is apparent : the 
term UeXapyiKoi' still survived in popular speech as designating the 
ancient fortifications (cf. Curtius, Z>ie Probleme der Athenischen 
Stadlgeschichte, Gesammte Abhand. 1894, i. p. 417), and Aristo- 
phanes seizes the opportunity to make a play on words, to 
IleAapyiKdv being taken in the sense of to tcSv IleAa/jytKojv oxvp(^fJ-a- 
This play on words is confirmed by verse 868, & Sovnepa/ce x"'P' 
ava^ ireXapyiKe. 

The following passage from Lucian (Ha/ieus, 41, 42 609) is also 
adduced to prove the existence of the Pelargicon as a fortress as 
late as the time of Herodes Atticus : ov8ev toSc x"-^^^^^- o-kovc, 
a-iya' ocrot <^tA6c7o<^ot eivaL Aeyou(rt Kal otroi Trpoa-qKHV avTois orovTai 
tov ovG/xaTos rJKH,v es OLKpoTToktv eirl t^v Siavofxijv . . . ySa^ai, ws 
irkrjprjs fJ-^v -q avoSos (j^t^o/xevwv, eirel tols 8vo /Avas rJKOva-av fiovov, 
trapa 8e to IleAao-yiKov aAAo6 koI Kara. t6 'Ao-KAr^TTieioi/ erepot koI 
irapa tov "Apuov Ilayov CTt TrAetovs, eviot Se /cat Kara tov tou TaAw 
Td<]iov, ol 8e Kal tt/oos to 'AvaKelov Trpotrde/xevoi KXifxaKas dvepirovai 
Ponl3r]8uv vrj Ata Kal jSoTpvSuv ecrfMov 8iKr]v, iva Kal KaO' "OpLi]pov 
etTTU), aAAot KOLKiWev c5 fidXa ttoAAoi Kavrevdev fxvpioi, oVcra Te <f)v\Xa 
Kal al^ea ytverat &pr). 

The interpretation of this passage by Dorpfeld is as follows : the 
ascent (dvo8o<s) is so crowded with philosophers that no more can 
enter the Acropolis by it. Of the rest of the claimants for the two 
minas some climb up the Acropolis to the right of the avoSos by 
the Pelargicon, i.e. from within it, others to the right of these by 
the Asclepieum, still others by the Areopagus, to the left of the 
ai/oSos, some others at the extreme right by the grave of Talos, 
beyond the Asclepieum, and finally others to the extreme left by 
the Anaceum. It is argued that there is a symmetrical arrangement 
of the pairs of localities to the right and left of those who first 
climb over the Acropolis wall, and that this implies the existence 
of the outer wall of the Pelargicon which guarded the entrance. 
But this implication is not inevitable even if the interpretation is 
granted. The supposed situation would be satisfied by the remains 
of the walls of the Pelargicon lying on the southwest slope of the 
Acropolis. This interpretation, however, ignores Lucian's choice of 
prepositions. Furthermore, if Lucian meant what is attributed to 
him we should find written : cVtos or ck tov XIcAapyt/cov. In the 
third place, Trapa tov "Apeiov Trdyov dvepTTovcrt creates a difficult 
situation. The Areopagus is 120 metres distant from the nearest 


point of the wall of the Acropolis measured on an air line. The 
true situation appears to be this : The avoSo? is full, but the crowd 
is in motion. Behind these, others are pressing on. They come 
from various quarters : from the southern part of the city Trapoi 
(along by) the Pelargicon, i.e. the place to which this name 
remained attached after it was abandoned as a fortress ; from the 
northern part irapo. the Areopagus. Others still come from the east 
Kara to 'Ao-/cA.7;7rt£ioi', and behind these others from a point still 
farther east /cara rbv tov TaAw Td(f>ov. These are all making their 
way to the avo8os. But some others whose impatience suggests a 
quicker way get ladders and climb up by the Anaceum (cf. Judeich, 
Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 1890, p. 750). 

The only statement cited by those who are asked for proof that 
the Pelargicon was restored as a fortress after its destruction by 
the Persians is from the account in Thucydides (i. 89), in which the 
historian says 'Adr]vaio)v 8e to koivov . . . r))i' iroXiv dvoiKoSofielv 
TrapecTKevd^ovTO /cat rot r(i)(^r). 

It is claimed that in these words Thucydides refers to the walls 
of the Pelargicon and not to a pre-Themistoclean city wall. But 
the historian after describing in the following chapters the wall 
actually built and known later as the Themistoclean wall, adds 
ixei^wv yap 6 irepi/3o\o<i TravTa^y ^ivX^V t^? TrdAew?. This cannot 
refer to the Pelargicon, and taken in connection with the former 
account must be understood to mean the peribolos of the city wall. 
The statement of Thucydides, therefore, that the Athenians made 
ready to rebuild their walls, furnishes no proof of the restoration 
of the Pelargicon, but contains an implication to the contrary when 
viewed in the light of his subsequent account of the work. 

The supposed use of the word ^oAts as including both Acropolis 
and Pelargicon furnishes Dorpfeld another argument for the con- 
tinued existence of the old fortification. A passage is cited from 
Thucydides (ii. 15) in support of this view. Dorpfeld interprets the 
expression tt/oos toGto to fxepos t^s ttoAcws as meaning, not that part 
of the old city that lay below the southern slope of the Acropolis, 
but that part of the city of his own time which included the Acropolis 
and a piece of the old city lying on its southwestern slope ; i.e. tovto 
TO jLiepos was, he thinks, the Pelargicon with the Asclepieum. Now if 
this opinion is correct, it seems strange that so careful a writer as 
Thucydides, instead of writing vaguely t^ vrr' av-njv irpos votov fj-dXia-ra 
rerpafxixivov, did not say simply to IleXapytKov. If the old Pelargicon 
is really meant by the historian it seems incredible that he did not 


make this point more definite, since then his statement KaAetrat 8e 
Sia TTjV TraAaiav ravTy KaToiKr]a-LV rj UKpoTTokLS Koi to vtt' avrr^v Trpos votov 
T€Tpayu,yu,evov Kol fJLexpt- rovSe eVi vtt' 'AOrjvaiwv ttoAis would have gained 
additional force. The phraseology in the passage under discussion 
(Kat /i.exP' TovSe eVt) shows that Thucydides thought it remarkable 
that TToAis was still used in his day for aK/aoTroAts. 

Those who would make ttoAis to include also the Pelargicon cite 
an inscription of a later time {C.I. A. iii 5) in which the Eleusinium 
is referred to as being vttu rfj TrdAet, interpreting this expression as 
meaning the hollow at the southwest foot of the Acropolis in which 
they place this sanctuary. Even granting that this is the true site 
of the Eleusinium — an opinion which some scholars do not hold — 
it does not follow that ttoAis in this inscription must have the 
meaning attributed to it by Dorpfeld and his followers rather than 
simply that of aKpoTroAis. The restricted use of ttoAis = aKpoTroAts 
is verified by many inscriptions in which this term is officially used 
in connection with temples which are known to have been on the 
Acropolis. In the first volume of the C.I. A. alone twenty inscrip- 
tions occur in which, according to Kirchhoff, the word ttoAis has 
this restricted meaning. 

But the chief argument presented in support of the view that the 
Pelargicon was a strong defense at the close of the fifth century b.c, 
is drawn from the Lysistrata of Aristoph;mes. It is claimed that 
the scene of this play is the great gate in the outer wall of the 
Pelargicon. The women have seized this stronghold, closed the 
outer gate, and cannot be dislodged except by fire. The Pelargicon 
must therefore have been in existence in 411 B.C. But this argument 
is invalidated if it can be shown that the scene of the play is the 
central door of the Propylaea. This fact is established by the 
following considerations : 

(i) It appears from the play that the place seized by the women 
is the Acropolis (vv. 176, 179, 241, 245, 263, 482, etc.). 

(2) The poet himself positively states that the scene of the play 
is the Propylaea in verses 258-265. The meaning of the term 
TtpoTivkaia. in the passage cited is well established. 

(3) That the outer gate of the Pelargicon could not have been 
the scene of the play appears from Lys. 307-311, and 12 16. In 
these verses the use of the term Bvpa. precludes the possibility of 
any reference to the Pelargicon ; Bvpa is used only of the door of a 
house or similar structure, never of a gate in a wall of fortification. 

(4) The supposition that the outer gate of the Pelargicon is the 


scene of the play creates an impossible situation (cf. Lysistrata, 


Mv/o. TTOV yap av tls koi rdXav 

Spdcreie tov6' ; Kiv. ottov ; to tou Ilavos Kakov. 
M.vp. Kal TTcos iO' dyi''>) Srjr av eXdoifi Is 7rdA.6i' • 
Kiv. KaAAicTTa SrJTrov XovcrafjLevrj ry KXeifruSpa. 

In the case supposed Cinesias and Myrrhena are outside the 
Pelargicon. But the cave of Pan is within this fortification and 
therefore not accessible to them. The Clepsydra also must have been 
within the fortification, and therefore within the ttoAis as Dorpfeld has 
defined it, and so inaccessible to Myrrhena for performing the rites of 
purification. The situation then in the Lysistrata requires that the 
scene be laid where the action has more freedom than would be 
possible in the outer gate of the Pelargicon which would have 
served as an obstruction. 

To this discussion some general considerations may be added. 
First, there was no need of making the Acropolis a fortress in the 
fifth century. The great wall built about the city by Themistocles 
became its proper defense (see Wachsmuth, Neiie Beiirdge zur 
Topog. von Athen, Berichte d. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1887, p. 399). 
Secondly, the Acropolis would have been wholly inadequate to 
furnish protection, with an enemy within the Themistoclean wall, to 
the population of Athens which is estimated to have been 200,000 
at this time. Again, the complete rehabilitation of the Acropolis 
as a citadel after the expulsion of the Pisistratids would have been 
repugnant to the democracy established by the constitution of 
Clisthenes. That after the Macedonian conquest, when Athens again 
fell under the rule of tyrants, the Acropolis should have been trans- 
formed into a citadel, is not surprising when one sees the natural 
advantages of the Acropolis as a stronghold. But Aristion's occupa- 
tion of the Acropolis in the time of Sulla is no more proof of the 
existence of the Pelargicon in the age of Pericles than are the 
defenses erected in the Middle Ages. 

Finally, that the huge and uncouth walls of the Pelargicon should 
have been kept standing throughout the Periclean age, barring from 
view the glorious and beautiful temples and gateway reared on the 
summit of the Acropolis, appears incredible. 



The views on the history of the old temple discovered by Professor 
Dorpfeld and its relations to the other temples on the Acropolis 
are widely divergent. The view of Professor Dorpfeld has been stated 
above (pp. 51-53). 

Of the other views the most noteworthy are the following : 

1. J. G. Frazer, "The Pre-Persian Temple on the Acropolis," 
Appendix, vol. ii. Pausanias^s Description of Greece. 

Frazer holds that the oldest temple on the Acropolis was the 
original Erechtheum, that this was a joint temple of Erechtheus 
and Athena, that the temple discovered by Dorpfeld was never called 
the old temple of Athena or of Athena Polias, that it was not restored 
after the Persian destruction, that the Parthenon was designed to 
be the successor of the Hecatompedon, and that the term opis- 
thodomos of the inscriptions and writers refers to the western portico 
of the Parthenon and later may have included the western chamber of 
this temple. 

2, A. Furtwangler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture, Appendix, "The 
Temples of Athena on the Akropolis." 

Furtwangler believes that the temple discovered by Dorpfeld was 
the double shrine of Erechtheus and Athena, and that its interior 
arrangement is well fitted to the double worship of goddess and 
hero. He holds further that the Parthenon was at first intended 
to replace the Hecatompedon and that the worship of Erechtheus 
as well as that of Athena was to be transferred to it, but that this 
plan was subsequently modified by the building of the Erechtheum. 
The Parthenon became "the place of festivals in which the goddess 
herself was manifested in her image." The Parthenon is a lasting 
memorial of what Pericles desired but did not accomplish, which 


was to make it the centre of the worship of Athena. This function 
was fulfilled by the Erechtheum. It was this temple, the work of 
the conservative party desirous of restoring the old temple, that became 
the shrine of the venerated image of Athena Polias. And when 
this image had been removed to it this new temple received the 
name of " the old temple of Athena Polias " as an inheritance from 
the old Hecatompedon which was then torn down. Furtwangler, 
in an article published in the Sitzungsberichte d. Kgl. Bayr. Akad. 
der Wiss. 1904, comments upon Dorpfeld's recent theory of the 
original plan of the Erechtheum {A.M. 1904, p. loi) according to 
which the Erechtheum was designed to be a symmetrical building 
(see p. 212), and holds that if this theory be accepted this structure 
nmst be regarded as a double temple, having a cella at the west 
end corresponding to the east cella. "^rhis double temple can be 
no other than that dedicated to the common worship of Athena 
and of Poseidon- Erechtheus. This view of the original plan of the 
Erechtheum, in the opinion of Furtwangler, goes to confirm the view 
of Michaelis {/ahrb. d. k. d. Arch. Inst. 1902, p. i) that the old temple 
discovered by Dorpfeld, the Hekatompedon, is a structure of the sixth 
century and is to be distinguished from the a.pyalo% vews, which he 
holds to be the ancient predecessor of the Erechtheum as a double 
sanctuary of Athena and Poseidon-Erechtheus. 

3. F. C. Penrose, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1891, p. 275, and 
1892, p. 32, regards Dorpfeld's old temple as the sanctuary of Cecrops, 
the Cecropium, and makes it an Ionic Octastyle temple with sixteen 
columns on the flanks. To this conclusion he is led by the existence 
of certain architectural fragments of the Ionic style. The archi- 
tectural fragments found in the north wall of the Acropolis Penrose 
thinks belonged to a temple which preceded the Parthenon on the 
same site, and not to the archaic temple discovered by Dorpfeld. 
For a discussion of Dr. Penrose's view, see Dorpfeld, A.M. xvii. 
p. 158; cf. also Fowler, A.J.A. viii. (1893) p. 16. 

4. H. G. Lolling, Topogr. Miiller's Handb. iii. p. 347. 

Lolling believes that the old temple was the house of Erechtheus 
and the temple of Athena, that it was provisionally restored after 
the Persian war, but that it was succeeded by the Erechtheum, in 
the east cella of which was the shrine of Athena Polias. In the 
AcAtioj', 1890, p. 92, Lolling published a newly found inscription 
belonging to the first quarter of the fifth century b.c. which is of 
prime importance for the history of the old temple. This inscription 
{C.I. A. iv. I, p. 138, 18, 10) is discussed by Dorpfeld, A.M. xv. p. 420, 


and by Michaelis, Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. Inst. 1902 ; cf. also G. Korte, 
Rhein. Mus. liii. p. 247. The various parts of the temple are herein 
designated by the terms Trpov/jLOy, i/ews, oiK-qixa raixidov, ra OLKyj/xaTa, 
while the whole is called to eKaToixireSov. All these terms undoubtedly 
fit the structure discovered by Dorpfeld and are regarded by him 
as a strong support for his theory. LoUing's interpretation, however, 
departs from that of Dorpfeld in holding that the term fKarofx-n-idos 
v€ws (as well as cKarofxTreSov) always refers to the old temple and never 
to the cella of the Parthenon which he calls "parthenon," applying 
to the western chamber the term oTna-BoSofios. In passing it may 
be remarked that Dorpfeld has conclusively shown (A.M. xv. p. 427) 
that €KaTo/A7reSos vews designates the cella of the Parthenon (cf. 
Fowler's discussion of LoUing's view, A J. A. viii. p. i). Lolling does 
not subscribe to the view of Dorpfeld in regard to the continuance 
of the old temple, but thinks it had disappeared in the time of 
Plutarch or possibly even earlier. 

5. A. Milchhofer, Jjber die alten Burgheiligthumer in Aihen, 
Program. Kiel, 1899, holds that there was an older Erechtheum on 
the site of the later, and this was called 6 a.pyalo<i (6 TraAatbs) 
vcws T7/S 'Adi]vas and that this appellation was never applied to 
Dorpfeld's old temple. Furthermore, that the opisthodomos was a 
separate building situated at or near the east end of the Acropolis, 
a Orjo-avpos, such as existed at Epidaurus, Delphi, Olympia, etc. In 
denying that this term designates a part of the Parthenon, he agrees 
with Professor John Williams White ("The Opisthodomos on the 
Acropolis at Athens," Harvard Studies., vi.), who differs from him, 
however, in contending that the name designates the original we.stern 
half of the Hecatompedon which was left standing as a treasury 
after the rest of the building had been torn down. 

6. G. Korte, Rhein. Museum, liii. (1898), p. 239, has proposed 
an entirely new solution. He agrees with Furtwangler in believing 
that the old temple was a double shrine in whose east cella Athena 
was worshipped and in whose western half Erechtheus was honored, 
together with Poseidon, Hephaestus, Butes and Cecrops. The 
successor of this temple was the Erechtheum. The name ancient 
temple of Athena, or Polias, was transferred from the old temple 
to its successor. But the term Hekatompedon was not used of 
the old temple, but of an enclosure or peribolos that lay south of the 
old temple, was sacred to Athena and contained oiKTJfxaTa (CI. A. iv. 
I, p. 137, Ta oiK-qiw.Ta ra kv tw 'Efcaro/iTreSy), i.e. chambers or buildings, 
in which treasures were lodged. That there was really at one time 


such a peribolos in which treasures were stored he believes is proved 
by an inscription that dates from near the close of the Persian war 
{C.I. A. iv. I, c, p. 3, 27-29). A portion of the moneys of the Eleusinian 
divinities is to be administered Iv Trcpt^Jo'Ao [l rol voro^Jev to 
TTj? 'A^£vat'a[s dp)(aio v[£]b e/xTroXei. Dorpfeld prefers to read o^n-iadev 
instead of voroOev. (See also White, "The Opisthodomos.") The "old 
temple" according to this view had no opisthodomos, and this term 
is not found in the inscriptions until after the completion of the 
Parthenon. This term therefore can only refer to the western chamber 
of the Parthenon and its portico. Wholly new is the application 
of the term Hecatompedon to an enclosure, and also the inference 
that this term came to be transferred to the hundred-foot cella of the 
new Parthenon from the sacred enclosure within which it was built. 

7. Under the title apxa-los vews A. Michaelis {Jahrb. d. k. d. Arch. 
Inst. 1902, p. i) discusses the relation of the Parthenon and the 
Erechtheum with the old Athena temple found by Dorpfeld. 

From the evidence afforded by the poros pediment sculptures. 
Michaelis believes that the old Athena temple may be dated about 
560. But before this time there must have been a temple to Athena 
on the Acropolis. This temple is the double sanctuary of Athena 
and Erechtheus (referred to by Hdt. viii 55. and in Hom. //. ii. 
549). This temple is called 6 vews in the Hekatompedon inscription 
{C.I. A. iv. I, p. 137, above referred to as published first by Lolling) 
in distinction from the eKaro/tTrcSov, and is definitely located by the 
sacred tokens ;* it contained the idol of olive wood, and into its 
cella Cleomenes, the Spartan king, desired to enter (Hdt. v. 72). 
On the other hand, the reference in Herodotus v. 77 to the fetters 
of the Chalcidians and to the fxeyapuv irpb's k(nrkpi]v TtTpaufxevov points 
to the old Athena temple, i.e. the Hecatompedon 

Since in most points I agree with the views of Michaelis I shall, 
under the various arguments given below, have occasion frequently 
to set forth at more length the opinions and facts presented by him 
in the publication referred to above. 

8. The view of E, Petersen (A.M. xii. (1887), p. 62) is quite 
similar to that of Michaelis. Petersen, however, emphasizes the 
manifest relation between the Hecatompedon and the Parthenon, and 
believes that the opisthodomos of the Parthenon, i.e. the western 
chamber and its portico, is the later successor of the rear chambers of 
the Hecatompedon which was taken down at the time of the building 
of the Erechtheum. 

9. Judeich, Topographie von Athen, Sec. 19, p. 237, rejects the 


view that there was an older Erechtheum on the site of the present 
temple, holds that Dorpfeld's temple, the Hecatompedon, is the only 
temple recognized in the inscriptions and literature prior to the older 
Parthenon, that it was a double temple, that it bore the name d/o;^atos 
vews but not of Athena Polias, that the former name was transferred 
(about 400 B.C.) to the Erechtheum, that the Parthenon was designed 
to be the successor of the Hecatompedon, but that in reality its 
function was completely filled by the Erechtheum, which inherited 
the name dpxa-'^o'i v€<i)<i, and that the fire of 406 put an end to its 
existence. The opisthodomos Judeich believes to have been a 
separate building. Herein he agrees with Milchhofer {Philol. liii. 
1894, p. 352, and Progr. Kiel, 1899, p. 255), but differs from him 
in locating this building immediately west of the Parthenon, on the 
spot assigned by Dorpfeld as the probable site of the Chalkotheke. 

Among these divergent views it is difficult to choose, and the 
question is one of probability or of preponderating evidence. It is 
not possible to discuss each of the above opinions in full without 
exceeding the limits of this Appendix. My aim in presenting them 
has been to indicate the difficulty involved in the acceptance of any 
view and to suggest to the reader the wisdom of being open-minded 
in the study of this question, and of seeking for more light if any 
is to be had. 

The view I have adopted has been indicated in the foregoing 
pages of this book. It is to be justified, so far as it can be, by the 
considerations that follow in the course of this discussion, in which, 
as a matter of convenience, I follow the order adopted by Frazer in 
the Appendix to vol. II. of his Pausanias, in which he presents his 
arguments against the view of Dorpfeld. 


That the old temple (as we shall call it for the sake of convenience) 
should have been left standing after the completion of the Erechtheum 
(about 407 B.C.) seems most improbable, since in that case a space 
of less than two metres wide would remain between the cella of the 
old temple and the beautiful Caryatid portico, which would have 
been hidden behind the "clumsy old ark." The argument for the 
continued existence of the old temple after the building of the 
new Erechtheum ihat is drawn from the co existence of the two 
temples at Rhamnus (cf Cooley, Amer. Journ. Arch. iii. 1899, p. 394) 
and the preservation of the temple of Dionysus Eleutherius, whose 
foundations cut into a corner of the stoa behind the stage-building. 


amounts only to this : because in the case of these old structures 
religious conservatism and the influence of the priesthood were strong 
enough to prevent their being torn down, therefore the same influence 
preserved the old temple of Athena, although it stood in such close 
proximity to the new Erechtheum as to hide its southern portico, and 
in spite of the fact that, as Dorpfeld himself admits, its removal must 
have been confidently expected when the builders of the Erechtheum 
began to erect this temple. 

Again, the building inscription of the Erechtheum apparently makes 
no reference to the existence of the old temple. It refers to the 
various parts of the Erechtheum as contiguous to or turned towards 
certain objects; e.^. C.I. A. i. 322, hii tov roi\ov toC tt/^os tou Ilav- 
Spoa-eiov. The portico of the Kopai is spoken of as 17 Trpoo-rao-is "^ tt/oos 
Toi KeKpoTTLOi {C.I. A. i. 322), and the south wall as o toixos 6 TTplt% votov. 
It is certainly strange that if the old temple had been standing, no 
designation of any part of the Erechtheum in relation to it should be 
found. In this same building inscription occurs Trapao-ras (col. i, 
1. 73), which apparently had a length of 12 feet. The meaning of 
this term here is not certain. Dorpfeld thinks {A.M. xii. p. 197) 
it may signify the lower part of the marble partition wall of C and 
D, which may have been a row of pillars (Pfeilerstellung). But in 
the inventory of the dpxo-los veios (CIA. ii. 733 and 735) several 
objects are mentioned as suspended from or fastened to Trapao-TaSes 
and a right and left Trapao-ras is named in C.I. A. ii. 708. Here the 
word must mean door-post. From this statement of the inventory 
Dorpfeld argues that the two parastades must have been of wood, 
since objects were attached to them, and further, that since wooden 
door-posts are found in Doric buildings, but not in Ionic, the apxaios 
vews of the inscription can only mean the old Doric temple and not 
the Ionic Erechtheum. To this point answer is made by Michaelis 
(/.c. p. 23) by showing that in inscriptions pertaining to the temple 
of Brauronian Artemis {Arx. Athen. (23) 42) several objects are 
spoken of as fastened tt/jos ri^ Toi\(^ and Trpbs rfi Trapaa-rdSi, from 
which Michaelis infers that objects might be attached to marble 
walls and posts. 

Again, the fact that Pausanias makes no mention of the old temple 
when (x. 35, 2) he recounts the sanctuaries which showed marks of 
destruction or injury at the hands of the barbarians, is against the 
probability of its existence in his time. This argument Dorpfeld tries 
to turn by saying that the old temple had been so well restored as 
not to show any marks of injury. Another argument against the 


restoration and continued existence of the old temple is drawn by 
Dr. W. N. Bates {Harvard Studies, xii. p. 319), from certain literary 
evidence. Lycurgus, vs. Leocraies, sec 81, quotes an oath taken by 
the Greeks before Plataea, the important part of which runs thus : Ka\ 
tQ)V updv Twv €H7rprj(r6evru}v /cat KaTa/3Xi]6€VTO}v vtto tQv PapfSdpuiv 
ovSev avo6/coiSo/x,7jo-a> Trai'TciTrao-iv, aAA' vTrofivrifjia toi? eViyiyvo/xevots 
eacro) KaTciXeLTrecrOaL Trj<s twv fSapfBapiov dcre/S^tas. If the Athenians 
kept this oath the old temple could not have been rebuilt. Another 
reference to this oath is found in Diodorus xi. 29, 1-4, where the 
statement is made that before the Greeks marched to Plataea they 
collected at the Isthmus where they decided to take an oath to 
preserve their unity of purpose, after which follows the oath as 
given in Lycurgus. Dr. Bates shows that the story of this oath 
goes back at least to the fourth century B.C. The same tradition is 
found in the Panegyric of Isocrates (156), where the lonians are 
particularly commended for allowing their burnt sanctuaries to remain 
in ruin as a memorial of the impiety of the barbarians ; not, as the 
orator expressly says, from any lack of means to rebuild them. If 
the old Athena temple were still standing at that time, is it not 
strange that I socrates should not have included the Athenians in this 
commendation? Another piece of literary evidence is found in Plutarch's 
Life of Pericles, ch. 17. Plutarch says that Pericles proposed a decree 
that all the Greek cities should be invited to send delegates to 
Athens to deliberate about the Greek temples which the barbarians 
had burnt. Cobet and von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff beheve that 
Plutarch's source for this statement is the decree of Pericles itself, 
which he found in the collection of Craterus. Bates argues, rightly 
as it seems to me, that the object of this meeting was to induce the 
Greek states to revoke the oath which they had sworn not to rebuild 
the temples. The Acropolis with its burnt ruins had come to be an 
offence to the Athenians, and Pericles desired to clear the ground 
and build a new temple. The meeting planned was never held, but 
the attempt to hold it seems not to have been barren of results. 
Bates then goes on to show from archaeological evidence that at 
about this time (450 b.c) many burnt temples, as eg. at Eleusis and 
Sunium began to be restored or rebuilt. From this it appears that 
the Greeks did not begin to rebuild any of the temples destroyed 
by the Persians before the time of Pericles (or at the earliest, of 
Cimon). If the old temple was not rebuilt before this, it was not 
rebuilt at all. This argument does not, however, mean to deny the 
temporary restoration of the old Athena temple to serve as a shrine 


for the patron goddess of the state until the completion of the 
Parthenon and Erechtheum. 


Undoubtedly the argument that the western chambers of the 
Hecatompedon are the opisthodomos named in the inscriptions and 
in the ancient authors constitutes the strongest support of Dorpfeld's 
theory. The chief objections to this argument seem to me to be 
the following : 

(i) The fact that the term opisthodomos does not occur before 
435 B.C., just at the time when the Parthenon became available as a 
treasure-house. It is certainly strange that the western part of the 
old temple with its chambers should not be unmistakably designated 
by this term when reference is made to it. The famous Heca- 
tompedon inscription {C.I. A. iv. p. 137) contains a provision that 
the chambers (oiKr^/xara) in this temple shall be opened by the 
treasurers. That these chambers are the western apartments of the 
old temple can hardly be doubted, and the provision that they shall 
be opened by the treasurers makes it practically certain that they 
contained treasures. It is open to doubt what otKry/xara includes, 
whether the chambers marked D, E only, or also, as Dorpfeld 
believes, the large chamber F. Dorpfeld {A.M. xxii. 164) accepts 
Dittenberger's {Hermes, xxvi. 472) view that oiKruxa rafiLeiov in the 
Hecatompedon inscription must mean a store-house, but maintains 
that this interpretation does not affect the validity of his view that 
the oiKrjiiaTa are treasure rooms. But the fact that the title ottio-- 
doSofio^ should not be used in designating this part of the temple is 
hard to explain if this name was already then its official title, and 
especially if, as is claimed, the bare name without further qualification 
was always understood to refer to this particular part of this one 
temple. From Dorpfeld's theory it also follows that there were no 
less than three opisthodomoi on the Acropolis at one and the same 
time; (i) the one under discussion, (2) the western portico of the 
Parthenon, (3) the western portico of the old temple in distinction 
from the adjoining chambers. 

(2) The treasury documents {C.I.A. i. 32, 117-175; ii. 645, 655, 
656) give official lists of the treasures kept in apartments designated 
as the pronaos, the hecatompedos, the parthenon, and the opis- 
thodomos. The terms pronaos, hecatompedos, and parthenon are 
generally recognized as indicating apartments of the Parthenon, sc. 
the eastern portico, the cella, and the western chamber (parthenon 


in the special sense). Now if with Dorpfeld we locate the opis- 
thodomos in the old temple we are confronted with the difficulty 
that the western portico of the Parthenon, to which Dorpfeld himself 
would not deny the name of opisthodomos as the generic term for 
the rear portico of a Greek temple (see below), is nowhere mentioned 
in these official documents. Before the discovery of the old temple 
Dorpfeld himself {A.M. vi. (1881), p. 300) pointed out that the 
western portico was well suited to serve as a treasure chamber "since 
we know that it as well as the east portico was carefully closed with 
strong railings and a door reaching up to the architrave." I agree 
with Dorpfeld in believing that this space was too small and too 
public to serve as at once the treasury vault and the place of business 
of the treasurers of the temple (an opinion held by Frazer), but this 
of itself is no reason for putting the opisthodomos of the inscriptions 
in the old temple if there can be shown any evidence for the belief 
that this term may have included the western chamber {i.e. the 
Parthenon proper) of the Periclean temple. To this point I return 

(3) Dorpfeld's interpretation of the expression TafiLevea-dio to. /xev 
T>ys 'Kd'qva<; )(prjfiaTa iv tw €7ri Se^ia to? OTricrdoSofiov ra 8e twv aAAwv 
Siwv ev Tw err' apumpa. {C.I. A. i. 32), as distinctly pointing to the two 
inner chambers in the western half of the old temple, plausible as it 
seems, cannot be right. The proper expression for this meaning 
would be Iv T(p eVt Se^iol oiK>)^aTt, and the natural meaning of the 
phrase in question is "in the right hand side of the opisthodomos 
and in the left hand side of it " (cf, Michaelis, Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. 
Inst. xvii. p. 25). 

The view that by the ottio-^oSo/xos is meant the western portico 
plus the western chamber, known also as the parthenon, is, in my 
opinion, confirmed by the statement of Plutarch {Demetr. 23), that 
when Demetrius Poliorcetes came to Athens the Athenians lodged 
him "in the opisthodomos of the Parthenon." No one believes that 
this refers to the open western portico alone. Dorpfeld and his 
followers argue, however, that the qualifying term of the Parthenon 
implies the existence of another opisthodomos. But from the context 
it is clear why Plutarch made this addition ; he wishes to comment 
on the fact that this roisterous war-lord was entertained in the sacred 
apartment of the virgin goddess ; tt^s 'A6r]va<; Xeyofxhrjs vTro8e-)(€(rdai • 
KUL ^evi^eiv avTov, ov ttolvv Kocrfuov ^evov oi'Se oj> TlapOeuo) tt/scicos €7ri- 
(TTaOfievovTa. The extension of the term opisthodomos to include 
*' the parthenon " is easily explained by the fact that long before the 

A.A. 2 B 


time of Plutarch the name " Parthenon," which originally designated 
this western chamber, had been employed to designate the entire 

In so far, then, as the argument for the continued existence of 
the old Hecatompedon depends on showing that the 6irLa068ofjLO's 
of the inscriptions and of the literature refers to the rear chambers of 
the old temple, the case is not made out. In this connection we 
must notice briefly the theory of Curtius {Stadtgeschichte von At/ien, 
pp. 135, 152) and of Professor John Williams White (already referred 
to above, p. 371) according to which the opisthodomos was a 
separate building, sc. the restored western part of the old temple 
which continued to serve its original purpose as a treasury (like the 
treasuries, e.g., at Delphi and Delos). The opinion that the opistho- 
domos was a separate building is held also by Milchhofer (see p. 371 
above) and by Judeich (see p. 373 above). These views rest, as it 
seems to me, on an erroneous interpretation of the word o-n-La-BoSofxo'i 
which normally can no more mean a detached rear building than 
TTpoSofios a front building. White's view is certainly sound when he 
argues that the use of the term is justifiable only for a building 
which originally formed the rear part of another and not for one 
which from the start was a separate structure and called so from its 
location with reference to another building. 

A serious difificulty in the theory advanced by White is how to 
interpret the statement (Schol. Aristoph. Plutus 11 93) that the opis- 
thodomos lay behind the temple of Athena Polias, rightly supposing ' 
this temple to be the Erechtheum. He meets the difficulty by 
supposing that, at least in the time of the sources from which the 
scholiasts and the lexicographers drew their information, the front of 
the temple was thought to be at the north, and hence the opistho- 
domos must have lain south of the Erechtheum. This explanation 
not only does violence to established usage according to which the 
east portico is the front of a Greek temple, but also forces the 
expression, since the eastern wall of the supposed opisthodomos is 
nearly parallel with the western wall of the Erechtheum, and to a 
person looking at it from the north this building would hardly appear 
to be behind the other. The evidence of late scholarship and lexico- 
graphers for the existence of a separate opisthodomos is hardly to be 
trusted, as is manifest when we see that one calls it /xc/oos rr}? 
aK/aoTToXews, and another tottos €v tj} o-KpoiroXu. Judeich {Topogr. p. 
230) finds the following evidence in support of his view: (i) A 
fragment of a decree {C.I. A. i. 109) in which the opisthodomos is 


taken as the point from which a direction or locality is indicated, 
which he thinks would naturally be a building rather than a part of 
it. (2) A reference to the burning of the opisthodomos in Demosthenes 
24, 136. Incidentally it is to be remarked that this fire was not identical 
with that mentioned by Xenophon {Hellen. i. 6, i), as is clear from the 
statement of the orator ; for Demosthenes gives a list of the men of 
high position who had been imprisoned for offences against the state 
since the archonship of Euclides (403/2), and among them he mentions 
the two boards of treasurers who had been imprisoned on account 
of the fire in the opisthodomos. It follows that this fire was later 
than 403/2 and cannot have been identical with the fire in the ancient 
temple of Athena in 406 mentioned by Xenophon. (3) A passage 
in Lucian's Timon 53, in which Timon is accused of enriching himself 
by digging through the walls of the opisthodomos. Now it may be 
granted that these allusions are more suitable to a separate building 
than to the opisthodomos of the Parthenon, but it can hardly be 
claimed that they are of sufficient weight to warrant the belief in the 
opisthodomos as a separate building, which Judeich himself says, "uns 
zunachst fremd anmutet." 

An argument used both for and against the view that the opistho- 
domos may mean the west chamber and the west portico of the 
Parthenon has been drawn from the localities designated in the official 
inventories of the treasures (cf. Lehner, Uber die Athenischen Schatz- 
verzeichnisse des Vierten Jahrhunderts, Strassburg, 1890). On the one 
hand it is argued (cf. Milchhofer, Philol. liii. p. 353) that since in 
one and the same inventory {C.I. A. ii. 645) of the same year (399/8) 
objects are listed officially as €k tov Ilap^ci/wvos and others as ex 
Tov oTTio-^oSd/xov it cannot be that these terms refer to the same 
apartment. On the other hand, Petersen {A.M. xii. p. 69), Furtwangler 
{Meisienverke, p. 171) and Michaelis {Parthenon, p. 26, and Jahrb. d. k. 
d. Arch. Inst. xvii. 1902, p. 24), in defense of their theory that both the 
west chamber and the west portico may be referred to by the term 
opisthodomos, make the following points : 

Aside from the lepa xpriiKxra., the administration of which (ra/xtd'etv) 
is provided for by the decree so often referred to {i.e. C.I. A. i. 32) in 
the west portico of the Parthenon, sc. the opisthodomos proper, 
mention is also made of moneys that were paid out. Now, in the 
accounts of the logistae given in C.I. A. i. 273, the following entry 
occurs in the year 425 : raSe TrapeSoo-av 01 ra/xiai . . . rot? o-TpaTrjyoU 
. . . [eK rov 'O7ri]cr^o8d/xoi' AAA. 

Since all the payments mentioned in this document are presumably 


made from the bureau in the opisthodomos, the fact that here special 
mention is made of this locality seems to indicate that it was some- 
thing exceptional that so large a sum as thirty talents was kept at 
one time in this locality, and the implication is that treasury money 
'was usually kept, not in the west portico, i.e. the opisthodomos 
proper, but in the adjoining chamber, i.e. the parthenon. 

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the decree of 435/4 provides that the 
surplus arising from the tribute should be deposited irapa. rols rafxiaa-i 
Tu)v TTJs 'A6r)vaias {C.I. A. I. 32, B 49), as if there were some other 
locality than the opisthodomos proper for the safe keeping of funds. 
That the treasurers had a "safe" for guarding the funds of the state 
goes without saying, and for such a "safe" what better room could 
be provided than the adjoining " parthenon." That the comparatively 
few lepa xp'jAiaTa which we find designated in the fifth century as 
found in the "parthenon" {C.I.A. i. 73-77) should alone occupy this 
large chamber of nearly 300 square metres area seems hardly possible. 
That moneys were kept in the parthenon chamber, it seems to me, 
cannot be denied, in view of C.I.A. i. 184, according to which the 
treasurers paid e/c tov Tlapdevwvo'i ap\yvp^Lov . . . \pva-t,ov . . . T. XXXX. 
This inscription, which dates from 412/11, Dorpfeld {A.M. xii. 
p. 35) thinks refers to moneys which came into the treasury from 
objects formerly kept in the Parthenon which were sold to supply 
funds for the conduct of the war. " Man hatte so aus dem Par- 
thenon Geld gewonnen." In this view I cannot concur. 

That the use of the two names, oTria-doSofios and UapOevdv, in the 
same official document points to a distinction cannot be denied. It 
appears that in the inventories of the fourth century the title opistho- 
domos is used only during the period of the united boards of the 
treasurers of Athena and of the other divinities, that is to the year 
385. Then came the restoration of the separate boards, which con- 
tinued until 341, when the boards were again merged into one. 

From a comparison of the inventories, Lehner believes that after 
385/4 objects formerly inventoried as being in the opisthodomos and 
in the " parthenon " are henceforth stored in the Hecatompedos cella, 
that is, in the cella of the Parthenon. Indeed, this very inscription 
(C.I.A. ii. 645) which discriminates between opisthodomos and 
"parthenon," proves that this process had begun as early as 399/8. 
But it proves also that this distinction was a purely official one used 
to designate in state documents these different objects that had once 
been stored for a short time in these respective localities. And as 
the term parthenon began more and more to be applied to the 


entire temple, an appellation which was in vogue as early as Demos- 
thenes, it is easy to believe that the term opisthodomos in popular 
usage came to mean the parthenon chamber as well as the west 
portico which was so closely associated with it in the administration 
and guardianship of the treasuries of Athena and of the other gods. 
The complete identification of parthenon in the restricted sense, and 
of the west portico with the name opisthodomos in later times is 
shown in the statement concerning Demetrius by Plutarch already 
referred to above, in which tuv oTTLcrOoSofiou tov Jlapd€V(i)vo<s can only 
mean the chamber and its portico. 

Furthermore, the fact that according to the inventories (CI. A. ii. 
67 3? 675, 676) objects from "parthenon" and opisthodomos are 
carried into the Hecatompedos cella and there mixed together with 
objects kept from the start in the last named locality, gives color 
to the belief that these three localities were contiguous and under 
one roof. This inference seems warranted also by the fact that after 
385 the treasures h> tw iKaTo/jLirkSo) e/c tov UapdevCjvos and c/c tov 
6irL(T6o86fj.ov, which formerly were separately inventoried, are now 
listed in one document (Lehner, Ic. p. 68). 

The view here presented of the opisthodomos controversy is not 
free from doubt and difficulty. It is influenced especially by the 
consideration that the Periclean Parthenon, and still more the older 
structure on the foundations of which it was built, was designed 
to supersede the old Hecatompedon, the plan of which it so nearly 
follows, as the temple and treasure house of the patron goddess 
Athena, and that just as the western half of the old poros temple 
was planned to be a treasury, so the western half of the new marble 
Parthenon had the same purpose. I cannot therefore subscribe to 
the newest view of Dorpfeld (A.M. xxix. (1904) p. 10 1), who seems 
now to hold that the projected but never built west half of the 
Erechtheum was intended to take the place of the opisthodomos of 
the old Athena temple, and finds therein an additional reason 
for maintaining his original thesis for the continued existence of 
the old Hecatompedon. If it be granted that the Erechtheum was 
originally planned to be a symmetrical structure, the half of which 
was only erected, then much more acceptable is the view of Furt- 
wangler {Sitzungsb. d. Bayr. Akad. 1904), who believes that such 
a structure was designed to be a double temple having a cella at 
the west similar to that at the east end. 


(3) THE "OLD temple" ARGUMENT. 

Professor Dorpfeld argues that 6 d/axaios vews, or 6 TraAatos vews 
in the inscriptions and ancient writers refers to the Hecatompedon. 
Dr. Arthur S. Cooley, A.J.A. second series, iii. p. 349, cites and 
discusses all the passages in which this title is used (cf. also Jahn- 
Mich. Arx Athen. 26, 25) and believes that it refers either to 
the Parthenon or to the Hecatompedon. Cooley concludes his 
discussion of the testimony of the inscriptions and literature thus : 
" Much of this, as we have seen, gives us no certain data for deciding 
to which of the two temples in question we are to apply the epithet 
of the old temple of Athena. It is rather hard to believe that this 
term could ever have designated the Hecatompedon and later the 
Erechtheum. . . ." "The assumption that the Erechtheum retained 
the name from a predecessor on the same site must be admitted 
simply as a possibility, but is far from probable." Accordingly he 
concludes that the ancient temple which was burnt in 406 B.t. and 
the old temple mentioned in inscriptions of the fourth century must 
have been the restored Hecatompedon. Frazer, Michaelis and many 
others hold that the original Erechtheum was the oldest temple on 
the Acropolis. For this belief they find warrant in the undoubted 
facts that the Erechtheum was associated with the oldest legends 
of Athens and that the ancient wooden image of Athena, the most 
venerable of all her images, was preserved in the east cella of the 
Erechtheum, holding that it is natural to suppose that the oldest 
image would be associated with the oldest temple and its successor. 
But Dorpfeld, it will be remembered, holds that this image never 
left the old Athena temple, though it was intended to be placed 
in the east cella of the Erechtheum. 

It is also to be observed that the peculiar location and plan of 
the Erechtheum favors strongly a remote antiquity, determined as 
it was by the existence of the "sacred tokens." 

The question, however, immediately before us is this : does the 
expression 6 a.pyalo'i vews mean the Erechtheum, first the older and 
then the newer temple? In passing it may be observed that the 
title 6 TraXaios vews need not detain us long; it occurs but once, 
so far as I know, and that is in the statement of Xenophon {Hellen. 
i. 6, i) about the fire. Herein I agree with Furtwangler, who believes, 
in opposition to the view of Michaelis who holds that o iraXaibs vcws 
refers to the old Hecatompedon, that this fire occurred in the Erech- 
theum and that TraAaios is used here somewhat carelessly for ap)(alo<i. 


Furtwangler doubts, rightly it seems to me, if the chance of an 
accident was awaited to put an end to this building. Furthermore, 
as Michaelis points out, kv(.Trpi](T6-q does not mean burn down, and, 
as he himself must admit, the fire appears to have extended to the 
adjoining Erechtheum, a fact which seems to be attested by the 
fragments of an inscription dated 395/4 {C.I. A. ii. 829, to. K€KavfjL€va), 
which (if correctly restored) points to this building. That this fire 
in the ancient temple of Athena is not identical with the fire in 
the opisthodomos mentioned by Demosthenes, has already been shown 
above (p. 379). That this older E>echtheum is referred to in the 
decree passed by the Athenians in 506 against Cleomenes and his 
companions, recorded on a bronze slab placed ev iroXet, irapa. toi/ 
apxaiov i/ewv (Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 273), is probable if this scholium 
was an excerpt from the collection of decrees made by Craterus, 
in which the official title would be carefully preserved. It should 
be remarked in addition that 6 apx^'os vcws is an unusual term in 
ancient authors, occurring but once more in literature, sc. in Strabo, 
where it is more closely defined by the addition of 17 XIoAta's and 
its reference to the Erechtheum cannot, I think, be doubted. 

For the inscriptions in which the title 6 dpxaios occurs, I must 
refer the reader to the article of Dr. Cooley cited above and to 
Jahn-Michaelis, A-rx Atheji. p. 65. There is one piece of evidence, 
however, discussed by Michaelis that deserves more particular con- 
sideration, and that is the famous Hecatompedon inscription dated 
485/4 {C.I. A. iv. p. 137-39) found by Lolling, and discussed also 
by Dorpfeld, A.M. xv. p. 420; Korte, Rhein. Mus. liii. p. 247; 
Dittenberger, Hermes, xxvi. p. 473; Furtwangler, Meisterwerke, p. 166. 
No one will dispute that this inscription makes it clear that the 
title of the old Athena temple discovered by Dorpfeld was officially 
known as the Hecatompedon, and few will question that it strengthens 
his theory that the rear part of it was used as treasure chambers. Now 
Michaelis attempts to deduce from this inscription the following points : 
(i) that vfws, which according to Dorpfeld refers to the cella of the 
Hecatompedon, must refer to an entire temple, and to a different 
temple from the Hecatompedon, sc. to the old Athena-Erechtheum 
sanctuary. The simple designation 6 vew? he believes is used here 
in the same way as o /Swyuos of the great altar (cf. Jahn-Mich. Arx 
Athen. 26, 20) in distinction from other altars, and as to ayaX/xa 
of the old wooden image. This is a possible inference, but more 
than that cannot be said for it. 

(2) From this inscription we gain the interesting piece of informa- 


tion that the treasurers were obliged to open to, oiK^/xaTa[Ta ev t^ 
eKaT]o/>i7reS(j) at least three times a month for visitors who desired 
to look at the sacred treasures kept within. These chambers cannot 
of course be the cella, nor does the above expression fit the phrase 
fxeyapov tt/dos ka-Trkprjv TeTpafx/xivov, but it would suitably designate the 
two dark chambers behind the west megaron. 

(3) The view of Korte (I.e.) who takes to eKaTOfj-ireSov as a refxevo'; 
south of the peribolos of the old temple appears improbable, since 
in addition we have to reckon with the hundred-foot temple anyway. 
The word aTrai/ in. the inscription is superfluous on this theory, since 
this word shows that we have to do with a collective designation 
(cf. Keil, Auon. Argent, p. 91) which includes everything connected 
with the temple. 

The objection to the view that 6 apxn.lo<; vews cannot properly be 
used of a new structure like the Erechtheiim has been frequently 
urged by those who hold to the view of Dorpfeld. Just when this 
term first came to be applied to the older Athena-Erechtheus temple 
is not known. But its use may imply the existence, not simply of ofie 
younger temple, but of any and all. 'kp^a-lo^ means the original 
temple ; the antithesis to veos would be TraAatos. Hence apyalos vew? 
does not necessarily designate the old Hecatompedon unless it can 
be shown that this was the oldest temple of Athena. The argument 
that since a/oxatos vews occurs for the first time in an inscription 
dating from the time of Cimon {C.I. A. iv. i, p. 3, not later than 
452 B c), therefore it must refer to the Hecatompedon as it cannot 
mean the Parthenon nor the Erechtheum (cf Dorpfeld A.M. xxii. 
p. 168) is fallacious, because this distinguishing title would not 
be given to the Hecatompedon when the Parthenon was not yet 
begun, which was in 447, unless, as was said before, this title belonged 
to it as the original or oldest temple of Athena. 

This title, then, I believe designated the predecessor of the 
Erechtheum as the oldest temple of Athena on the Acropolis. Could 
it properly pass over from the old to the new temple? It seems 
likely that the building of the Erechtheum, which had been inter- 
rupted by the expenditures of the Peloponnesian war, was resumed 
in .409 An inscription {C./.A. i. 322) of this same year contains 
the report of the commissioners on the progress of the new Erech- 
theum in which the temple is not called " the old temple of .Athena " 
but "the temple in which is the old image." Dorpfeld cites this 
inscription as an argument against the use of o dpx"«o? "«<"? as a 
fixed title for the Erechtheum. Frazer answers this objection by 


saying that the commissioners could hardly designate as "old" a 
building which was in process of construction, and that accordingly 
they chose a title which at the time better accorded with the facts. 

This cumbrous title was probably a temporary one ; at any rate 
it does not occur in a single inscription after the temple was 

That the new Erechtheum should inherit together with the tradi- 
tions and functions of the older temple, also its name, seems not 
only natural but almost inevitable. As an example of transference 
of the same name from an older to a younger building erected for 
the same purpose, Professor Fowler {A./. A. viii. (1893) p. 13) cites 
the Oid South Church of Boston, Mass. The old building, which had 
become too small, was superseded by a new one, which is known as 
the New Old South Church, but is popularly called the 0/d South 
in spite of the continued existence of the old building in a different 
part of the city. The same thing may be illustrated in the use of 
the name of the city of Orvieto in Italy, which is a corruption of 
Urbs vetus. The city stands on the site of the ancient Volsinii which 
was destroyed in 264 b.c, and the new city which succeeded it was 
called from the start urbs vetus. 


Professor Dorpfeld argues that the old temple continued to exist 
down to the Roman period at least, since it is mentioned by the 
later writers of antiquity under the title of "the temple of Athena 
Polias," or "the temple of the Polias." To prove his theory he must 
show that the current view which restricts the name " temple of 
Athena Polias " to the Erechtheum is incorrect, and that the Heca- 
tompedon was the temple of Athena Polias. Let us look at the 
second part of this question first. The belief that this old temple 
of Athena was ever called that of the Polias rests, first, on a deduc- 
tion drawn from the view that the Parthenon was a temple of 
Athena Polias, and that this new temple was designed to be the 
successor of the old one. In other words, the Parthenon and the 
Hecatompedon, according to Dorpfeld, existed side by side for many 
centuries, and were both called temple of Athena Polias. How were 
they then differentiated in name ? The answer of Dorpfeld, of course, 
is by adding the term 6 ap-^^a.lo'i. Here the argument is interlocked 
with that based on the use of these terms discussed above. Now, 
the discovery of the Hecatompedon inscription (cf. p. 383 above) has 
proved that the old Athena temple was called officially the Heca- 


tompedOn, and it certainly seems strange that if these two temples 
were both dedicated to Athena Polias, and coexisted for so many 
centuries, the title 6 dpxalos vem ttjs 'AdrjvSis Trjs IIoAiaSos to dis- 
tinguish the old temple from the Parthenon should so seldom occur. 
But this objection becomes stronger if the title Athena Polias 
belonged also to the Erechtheum, as we believe it did, since in this 
case there were three temples of Athena existing at the same time 
on the Acropolis, only one of which was occasionally distinguished 
from the rest by the title 6 apx"'"?- Dorpfeld's escape from the 
difficulty is to deny that the Erechtheum was ever called by this 
name. Frazer's way out is to deny that the Parthenon ever bore 
this name, and to limit its use to the Erechtheum and its predecessor 
which occupied the same site. This argument has been so fully 
stated by him {Paus. ii. App. p. 572) that it is unnecessary to do 
more than refer to his discussion. Cooley, in the article above 
referred to {A. J. A. second series, iii. p. 389) gives an exhaustive list 
of the inscriptions and passages in which the name y\ IIoAias occurs, 
and concludes from his examination that Dorpfeld is correct in 
holding that the Hecatompedon is the old. Athena Polias temple, 
while he dissents from that scholar's view which claims the title of 
Polias also for the Parthenon. 

Michaelis {Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. xvii. 1902, p. i) and Hitzig- 
Bliimner {Paus. i. p 286) believe that the title of Athena Polias belongs 
exclusively to the Erechtheum and its predecessor. Judeich {Topogr. 
p. 244) holds that the name Athena Polias refers to the Erechtheum 
topographically, inasmuch as this title was given to this building, 
because Athena occupied its main cella, but that the meaning of this 
title was a wider one and might include other shrines of Athena. 
To this opinion he is led apparently by W. Wyse {Classical Review, 
xii. 145), who has shown from the inventories of treasures of the 
fourth and fifth centuries B.C. that the Athena Polias mentioned 
therein is the Athena of the Parthenon. Wyse concludes from his 
examination of these inscriptions that whereas the Parthenon is 
designated as the temple of Athena Polias, the title ancient temple 
of Athena Polias can refer only to the Erechtheum. 

In studying this phase of the problem I am led to the conclusion 
that the title Polias or Athena Polias cannot be denied to any 
temple of Athena. She was the guardian of the State, the Polias, 
and as such she might receive homage at any one of her shrines. 
Most naturally, however, this epithet would most frequently be 
coupled with that temple that contained the most venerated image 


of the goddess, which was, as I believe, the Erechtheum, which con- 
tained the old wooden image that had fallen down from heaven. 

But it is a mistake to claim this title exclusively for either the 
Hecatompedon, as Cooley does, or for the Erechtheum as many 
others do, and Dorpfeld's theory for the continued existence of the 
Hecatompedon cannot, in my opinion, find any support from the 
supposed reference to this term in inscriptions or in ancient writers 
to any one temple exclusively. 

To deny, with Dorpfeld, the application of the title " Polias " to 
the Erechtheum involves one in what seem to me insuperable diffi- 
cultie's. The chief of these are : first, the fact that in this case the 
Erechtheum is nowhere mentioned or referred to in inscriptions and 
in writers of the classical period, but only in later authors, and there 
very rarely (cf. Jahn-Mich. Arx Athen. 26, 25). The name Erech- 
theum occurs only twice, sc. in Pausanias and in Pseud. Plut. Lives 
of the Orators, p. 843. 

A second objection is that Strabo (p 396) in his notice of the 
Acropolis must have omitted any mention of this unique and beautiful 
building. Strabo's statement, 6 ap\ato<i vews 6 t>}s IIoAtaSos kv & o 
acrfSea-TO'S A^x^os, Dorpfeld is compelled by his theory to interpret as 
referring to the old Athena temple, against the traditional view that the 
golden lamp of Callimachus was placed in the Erechtheum ; and, 
since Pausanias (i. 26, 6) couples the lamp and the venerable image of 
Athena together, Dorpfeld is obliged to keep the old wooden image 
in the Hecatompedon (cf. A.Af. xxii. 175). This opinion is directly 
contrary to the abundant evidence of the close union of Athena 
and Erechtheus in a joint worship — a point to which further reference 
will be made presently. 

The entire separation of Athena from the Erechtheum in the theory 
of Dorpfeld leads one of its strongest defenders to observe that he 
has never seen any explanation for the separation of the worship of 
Erechtheus from that of Athena, and, being reluctant apparently to 
sever all connection of Athena with the east cella of the Erechtheum, 
to suggest that, in spite of placing the altars of Poseidon-Erechtheus, 
Hephaestus and Butes in the vacant east cella, the building may still 
have been called sometimes the temple of Athena. But why this 
forced concession? In order to explain those passages in which 
Erechtheus and Athena are manifestly united in a common 

It is worth the while to cite a few of the most significant of these 
passages, for it is after all these that form the main support of the 


view that the building called the Erechtheum was preeminently the 
temple of Athena Polias, and was the successor of an older structure 
dedicated on the same site to the joint worship of Athena and Erech- 

Plutarch, Quaes t. Conviv. ix 6, p. 741 b, in discussing the defeats 
of Poseidon in his contests with other divinities, says : " Here (at 
Athens), indeed, he even shares a temple with Athena." Cooley {I.e.) 
admits that this temple can hardly be any other than the Erechtheum, 
and must have been regarded in Plutarch's time as a temple of 
Athena. The fact that Plutarch does not use here the epithet Polias 
is of no significance if there are other passages in which it is clear 
either that the title Polias must be referred to the divinity worshipped 
in the east cella of the Erechtheum, or that the name Athena without 
Polias refers to the same locality. Both classes of passages, it seems 
to me, are found. For example, the priestess of Athena Polias is 
said by Aeschines (ii. 147, cf. also Lycurg., fr. 38) to belong to the 
family of the Eteobutadae; but this family furnished also the priest- 
hood who ministered to Poseidon- Erechtheus. Notice also the following 
statements. Pausanias says, "When you have gone in {i.e. into the 
Erechtheum) there are altars (one) of Poseidon on which they sacrifice 
also to Erechtheus, and (a second) of the hero Butes, and a third of 
Hephaestus. And there are paintings on the walls of the Butadae." 
In the life of Aeschines (Westermann, Biograph. Graeci, p. 267, vi. 
"Aeschines," 2), we read as follows : avrhs 8' 6 Ala-xt^vrj^ . . . <f>r](rlv 
u)S o irarrjp avTov 'ArpofxrjTOs (fiarptas fJiiv -qv Kal yevovi twv 'Etco- 
^ovrdSoiv 66ev 7} ttJs 'A6r}va<s rrjs IXoAtaSos ((ttIv rj lepeia. 

The two maidens called ^Ae Arrephoroi are said by Pausanias 
(i. 27, 3) to dwell not far from the temple of the Polias, and a little 
later Pausanias calls the priestess who lays certain duties upon them 
y] ttJs ^Kdr]va<i Upua, the reference being to the priestess who officiates 
in the temple just referred to as that of the Polias. Furthermore, 
that these maidens had their playground and temporary abode adjoining 
to the Erechtheum on the west, and were connected in legend with 
Cecrops, whose grave and sanctuary were associated with this building, 
is generally held. All this goes to show that the terms Athena and 
Athena Polias may often be synonymous, and that the title Athena 
Polias must have applied to the Erechtheum. A striking union of 
the two names Athena Polias and Erechtheus is found in the statement 
of Herodotus (v. 82) that the Epidaurians in return for a gift of 
olive wood had to make an annual sacrifice to Athena Polias and to 
Erechtheus. . . 


Other noteworthy examples of the coupling together of Erechtheus 
and Athena can be cited. Take for example the passage from the 
Iliad (ii. 546-552) in which the joint worship of these two divinities 
is most clearly indicated. Athenagoras, Leg. i., affords so striking a 
testimony that it is worth while to emphasize it. He says : 6 Sc 
'Adrjvalos 'Ep€)(^9€l Hoa-eiSwvi dvet. koX 'AypavX(^, 'Adr]V(^, Kal HavSpocro). 
No one can fail to observe how this Neo-Platonist of the second 
century of our era combines in this statement the names of the 
divinities that are always associated with the Erechtheum and that 
Athena is one of them. 

The testimony of Eustathius, Odyss. i. 356, who calls the oiKovpos 
SpdK(ov (f>vXa^ TTJs IIoAiaSos, which Hesychius says had his home in 
the sanctuary of Erechtheus, that of the Scholiast on Aristoph. 
Lysisir. 758, tov upbv SpaKOvra Trj<s 'AOrjvas tuv (f>vXaKa tov vaoi!, and 
that of ApoUodorus (iii. 14, 6), who speaks of the grave of Erich thonios 
as being in the temenos of Athena, late though it be, probably 
preserves a well established tradition, and points to but one con- 
clusion, and that is, the closest union of Athena and Erechtheus in 
worship and in a common sanctuary. Those who believe in the 
theory of Dorpfeld, while compelled to admit this close connection 
between Athena and Erechtheus, contend that nothing more is proved 
thereby than that the sanctuaries of these divinities were adjoining, 
though not under the same roof, and that the name Athena may 
sometimes have been applied to the Erechtheus temple, because it 
was originally intended to be a joint temple of Athena and Erechtheus, 
an intention that was never carried out. 


Professor Dorpfeld formerly believed that the lacuna in the text 
of Pausanias, i. 24, 3, contained a description of the Hecatompedon 
which the traveller saw before him. 

Frazer agrees with Dorpfeld in thinking that there is a lacuna in 
the text of Pausanias at this point, and that this would not be an 
inappropriate place in which to describe this temple if it still existed. 
It is perhaps superfluous to point out objections to this view, inas- 
much as Dorpfeld has himself now abandoned it Miss Harrison 
{Myth, and Mon. p. 492) believes that with the words "in the temple 
of Athena Polias " (c. xxvii.), Pausanias passes from the Erechtheum, 
which with its contents is described in chapter xxvi., into the old 
temple. This view cannot of course be made to harmonize with 
the belief of Dorpfeld that the old Athena image and the lamp of 


Callimachus are, not in the Erechtheum where Miss Harrison puts 
them, but in his "old temple." Accordingly, Dorpfeld has Pausanias 
make his jump from the Erechtheum to the old temple not at the 
beginning of chapter xxvii., but at section six of the preceding 
chapter, with the words lepa fiev rrjs 'A^r^vas (cf. A.M. xxii. p. 175). 
Incidentally it may be remarked that Miss Harrison, by supposing 
that Pausanias speaks of the old Athena image and the lamp of 
Callimachus as being in the east cella of the Erechtheum, is obliged, 
in order to maintain the Dorpfeld theory of the old temple, to hold 
that the ancient image of Athena was nothing more than a venerable 
curiosity, and that the east cella was nothing else than one room of 
several in a museum for guarding the symbols of cults of more or 
less obsolete significance. This remarkable view has found little 
favor. If, however, on independent grounds it could be shown that 
this old wooden statue of Athena was nothing more than a sacred 
heirloom, and that therefore the east cella of the Erechtheum had 
no function to fulfil in the cult of Athena, the peculiar construction 
of this cella with a window on each side of the door, lately made 
certain by the studies of Mr. Stevens of the American School (see 
p. 331 above), would lend support to the theory of Miss Harrison. 
But the supposed passing from the description of one building to 
that of another is, in my opinion, indicated in neither one of these 

Pausanias seems here to deal with the parts and contents of the 
building known as the Erechtheum and with the objects immediately 
connected with or adjacent to it. This description begins at eWt Se 
KOI oLKYjfxa 'Epex^^i-ov (i. 26, 5) and closes with the statement about 
the statue of an old woman servant of Lysimache (possibly two 
statues are referred to here according to Michaelis, Jahrb. d, k. 
d. arch. Inst. xvii. p. 85), which is said to be tt/dos r<^ vaw t^? 
'Kdr^va<i. This description includes, as I understand it, the following: 
the building or chamber (oiKrjfio) called the Erechtheum with the 
three altars in one room, the well of sea-water in another, the 
figure of the trident in the rock, the most sacred statue of Athena 
(which of course must have had a cella), the golden lamp made by 
Callimachus, the sacred and precious heirlooms mentioned at the 
beginning of chapter xxvii., the sacred olive tree, the Pandroseum, 
the abode of the Arrephoroi, and last, the old handmaid of Lysimache. 
Before the discovery of the old temple was there ever a doubt 
entertained that this description plainly fitted the Erechtheum and its 
surroundings ? The only doubt that could arise was in regard to 


the order in which Pausanias saw these objects and how he dis- 
tributed them in relation to the different parts of the Erechtheum. 
In other words, what is the route of Pausanias in and about this 
building ? This difficult question we must now seek to answer. 
Upon this question there is a great variety of opinions. If we could 
determine where the ea-oSos was by which Pausanias entered, before 
which stood the altar of Zeus Hypatos, and how to interpret the 
expression SnrXovv ydp Icrrt to otKr;/x,a the situation would be clear. 
As is known to all who have studied this question, the entrance 
referred to by Pausanias is understood by Petersen {/a//rl>. d. k. d. 
arch. Inst. xvii. 1902, p. 59), Furtwangler, Judeich, and others, 
rightly, as it seems to me, to be the great door in the north portico. 
According to this view the altar of Zeus Hypatos is identical with 
the /Jw/ios Tov dvrj\ov which, according to the evidence of inscriptions 
{C.l.A. i. 322, col. i. 1. 79; col. ii. 1. 95) stood in the north portico. 
This position, however, for a Zeus altar, which one would expect to 
find under the open sky {vTrai6pio<5) is doubtful, and more probable 
appears to be the view of Lolling {Topogr. 351), who identifies this 
altar with the remains of one found a little east of the north portico 
of the Erechtheum. In the latter case the expression of Pausanias 
is to be taken as somewhat general. Suppose then that Pausanias 
enters at this door, he would find himself first in the west hall (/?), 
and here accordingly, if we were to follow literally the order in his 
description, we should place the objects first mentioned, sc. the three 
altars and the paintings of the Butadae. This is what Petersen does. 
Then, says Petersen, with the words ZnrXovv ydp Io-tl to o'iKi]fxa 
Pausanias indicates the change of room, and with the words vSwp 
((ttIv €v8ov daXdcrmov he indicates the next apartment, i.e. C. Simple 
and natural as this order seems, it is hard to justify it in the face of 
certain architectural and literary evidence. Leaving out of account 
for the moment the disputed meaning of SnrXovv oiKr^fia, the evidence 
that underneath the west hall {D) there was originally a vault or 
reservoir, and that nowhere else can any trace of a well in the 
Erechtheum be found, is almost conclusive against the view of 
Petersen. Now the fact that Pausanias mentions first the three altars 
may be explained with Furtwangler as due to his partiality for anti- 
thesis, contrasting thereby these altars inside with that of Zeus 
Hypatos outside of the temple. Again, that he should speak of the 
(Ty)p.a rpiaiviq'i, which he must have observed through the opening in 
the pavement of the north porch, only after naming the three altars 
within is not strange ', this " token " of Poseidon would be coupled 


together naturally with the sea of Erechtheus. Accordingly, my own 
opinion inclines to the more commonly accepted view that Pausanias 
begins his description with the west cella C, to which he adds later 
the account of the " cult tokens " in the ante-rooms, i.e. the west hall 
Z> and the north porch. Judeich cites as a somewhat similar pro- 
cedure that Pausanias, xxiv. 7, mentions the statue of Iphicrates which 
stood in the pronaos only after he has already described the statue 
of Athena within the Parthenon. The interpretation of BnrXovv oiKrjfia 
is a veritable crux. That oiK-qfia may mean the west half of the 
Erechtheum as well as the whole building admits, I think, of no 
doubt, though, as Schubart {Fhilol. xv. 3S5) has shown, in Pausanias 
the word means commonly a whole building. In the former case 
SiTrAowi/ may mean that the west half itself is double in the sense 
that it has two adjoining apartments, i.e. C and Z>, or, taking 
the interpretation of K. Botticher, Michaelis {A.M. ii. p. 24), 
Diimmler ( Pauly-Wissowa, ii. 1955) and I\.orte {Rhein. Mus. liii. 262), 
that this term refers to the fact that in this part of the building 
there were two stories, meaning thereby that there was a crypt below 
the floor level. That this meaning of the word oiKrjfjia is possible is 
shown, e.g. by Lysias, vs. Eratos. 9, oIkI^iov io-rt, /lot SnrXovv, icra e^ov 
TO. civw Toi? Kara). But if we take ot/cr/jua to mean the whole building, 
it is possible to take SnrXovv as referring to the double nature of the 
temple, the east half of which was devoted to the worship of Athena 
Polias and the west half to that of Poseidon-Erechtheus. On the 
whole the interpretation of SlttXovv oLKti/xa as referring to the two 
apparent stories of the west half of the building commends itself as 
the more natural one, and is supported by the belief made almost a 
certainty by architectural evidence, that the salt well was in the west 
hall, JD. It is probable that it is this hall that is called to irpoa-To- 
fxtalov in the inscription (C./.A. i. 322, col. i. 1. 71), i.e. the room with 
the well-mouth. That Pausanias puts the three altars and the paintings 
of the Butadae in the inner chamber, C, Michaelis and Judeich think 
is shown by a scholium on Aristides. i. 107, 5, which, in order to 
explain the epithet irdpeSpos as applied to Erechtheus in his relation 
to Athena, speaks of the painting of Erechtheus as o7rto-a> rrjs 6(.ov, 
which he thinks can only mean on the wall that was at the rear of the 
Athena Polias statue, i.e. the partition wall common to the chambers B 
and C. The effort of Petersen {Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. xvii. 1902, 
p. 63) to explain this away or to make it mean that the painting of 
Erechtheus was on the wall of the Polias cella, and thus immediately 
behind the goddess, does not commend itself Why, one might ask, 


should the painting of Erechtheus be separated from the rest of the 
family of Butes and be hung in a different room ? Supposing, now, 
the route of Pausanias to be fairly clear up to this point, let us follow 
his course further. We next find him describing the old wooden 
image of Athena, the golden lamp and the heirlooms mentioned at the 
beginning of chapter xxvii. He is evidently in the Athena Polias 
cella B. How did he get there? The simplest route would be by 
an interior stairway connecting apartments C and B. But there is 
no evidence of any interior connection between these apartments, 
and a comparison with the interior of the "old temple" and of the 
Parthenon makes a presumption against it. He must have gone 
outside and entered the temple by the east portico, either by 
retracing his steps through the north porch and up the steps to the 
higher level of the east portico, or else by means of the stairway 
through the porch of the Maidens and around by the south side. 
The next object Pausanias mentions is the olive tree, the location of 
which immediately west of the Erechtheum is undisputed. To reach 
this point, supposing of course all the while that these various objects 
are named in the exact order in which he saw them, he must have 
returned to the west end of the building either along its north or 
south side. I am inclined to agree with MichaeHs that he returned 
along the north side and entered the precinct of the Pandroseum 
and the olive tree through the small door leading out from the 
north porch. If this route is objected to as too much of a zigzag 
it may be said in reply no route following the description given in 
the text of Pausanias can be laid out that does not compel 
Pausanias to retrace his steps (cf. the route proposed by Dr. Cooley, 
A.J. A. iii. p. 368, in the interest of the Dorpfeld theory), unless 
we accept some means of communication in the interior between the 
cellas B and C 

It remains to notice briefly the two divergent views of Michaelis 
and Dorpfeld on the route of Pausanias. 

Michaelis {A.M. ii. p. 15, Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. 1902, p. 16) 
places the entrance by which Pausanias goes into the Erech- 
theum at the small door on the east side of the Maiden-porch, 
and the altar of Zeus Hypatos he puts immediately east of this 
porch, denying that it is identical with the /Jw/xos tov dvrjxov in the 
north porch. In a later essay, " Die Bestimmung der Raume des 
Erechtheion' {Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. 1902, p. 84), Michaelis acknow- 
ledges the difficulty of placing the Zeus altar in the corner between 
the Erechtheum and the Hecatompedon, if the eo-oSos before which 

A. A. 2C 


it stood is supposed to be the Maiden-porch. The other objection 
to the view of Michaelis is that it seems most improbable that 
Pausanias should speak of this narrow entrance, which could only 
have been a private one for the functionaries, as the entrance without 
qualification, a term much more naturally understood of either the 
door of the east cella or the great door of the north porch. Once 
within the building, Pausanias, according to Michaelis, makes his 
tour in the order outlined above. That he should first describe the 
inner cella C before the outer, D, which he reaches first, Michaelis 
explains by saying that Pausanias does here just what he does in 
his description of the Zeus temple at Olympia (v. lo ff.), where 
after giving an account of the exterior, ha first describes the cella 
and its contents, and then in connection with the votive offerings 
he turns back to tell what was to be seen in the pronaos (v. 12, 5). 
Michaelis holds that Pausanias returns from the east cella to the 
north porch and enters the Pandroseum through the small door west 
of the great entrance, when the olive tree and the altar of Zeus 
Herceios first meet his view. Immediately contiguous (o-wex^s) is 
the temple of Pandrosos. The only important point of difference 
then between the view of Michaelis and mine is the location 
of the entrance. With the majority of scholars he believes that 
the description of the building begins with its characteristic feature 
and that this lies in the tokens of Poseidon and Erechtheus, 
to which the altars mentioned first of all by Pausanias in his 
description are so closely related. And herein lies a strong objection 
to the view held by Dorpfeld and his followers, who, believing that 
the old traveller enters from the east, are obliged to put these 
altars in the east cella which is separated by a wall without any 
doorway from " the sea of Erechtheus " and from the trident mark 
of Poseidon. A further objection is that the middle apartment, the 
cella C, is left wholly vacant, a fate which formerly (when these 
altars were put in the middle cella) befell the eastern cella. On this 
point Dorpfeld {A.M. xxii. p. 177) says: "in welcher Weise die 
ostliche Cella, die gewiss fiir diesen Cult \i.e. of Athena Polias] 
bestimmt war, verwendet worden ist. entzieht sich unserer Kennt- 
niss." From Dorpfeld's latest utterance, however, on the relation of 
the Erechtheum to the old Athena temple {A.M. xxviii. p. 468) 
it appears that he would place the sea of Erechtheus in the 
middle cella, C, and that he regards the next apartment, Z>, as 
simply a Vorhalle. After discussing the most recent results gained 
from the repairs and measurements made on the Erechtheum, 


Dorpfeld, in the article referred to above, expresses himself as con- 
firmed in his view that the Erechtheum was originally planned to be 
a common temple of Athena and Poseidon, to be named after the 
most precious object which it was to receive (o vews €u (^ to dpxalov- 
ayaXfji.a). But when after its completion the old image was not 
carried over into the newly-built cella, but remained for obvious 
reasons ("begreiflicher Weise") on the place where it had stood 
since the earliest times, the newly-built double temple (but how was 
it "double" except in its original plan?) became a Siirkovv oiKr][xa 
of Erechtheus, in whose west cella Poseidon and in whose east cella, 
besides Hephaestus, also Erechtheus, the other companion (TrdpeSpos:) 
of the goddess, was honored. From Pausanias, however, it is plain 
that Poseidon and Erechtheus had a common altar, and it is there- 
fore not clear what is meant in the above statement which seems to 
put Poseidon in one cella and Erechtheus in another. 

But how all this bears upon the main thesis, which is the supposed 
preservation of the old Athena temple, needs to be pointed out 
more fully. 

If it be granted that the old temple whose foundations have been 
identified by Dorpfeld was, as he claims, the temple of Athena Polias, 
and that it continued to stand until the latter part of the Roman 
period, then the route of Pausanias becomes more simple and natural. 
It is as follows : Pausanias in passing from the Propylaea to the 
Parthenon, follows the well-defined avenue lined on either side with 
statues and shrines and (i. 24, 3) finally reaches the image of Earth 
praying for rain, whose position is made certain by a hole cut in 
the rock and an inscription (P^s Kapiro^opov Kara fiavTeiav) north 
of the seventh column of the Parthenon counting from the west. 
Now in this same section in which this shrine is mentioned there 
is a lacuna in the text immediately after which we have reference 
to a temple, manifestly one named in the passage which is lost. 
Formerly it was supposed that the temple here referred to was that 
of Athena Ergane, but this interpretation is not tenable, since we 
have no evidence of the existence of such a temple, and also because 
Pausanias appears to be describing what he saw on the north side 
of the route. Hence it is believed by Dorpfeld (not, as formerly, 
that Pausanias gives in the lacuna a description of the old temple, 
cf. A.M. xii. 56) that at this point the sight of the altars of 
Aidos and Apheleia, which Eustathius says, on the authority of 
Pausanias, stood near (Trept) the temple of Athena Polias, recalled 
to Pausanias his former remark (i. 17, i) on the proofs of the piety 


of the Athenians, and that here, besides mentioning the cult of 
Athena Ergane and the invention of limbless Herms, he adduces 
as further proofs of the extraordinary piety of the people the altars 
referred to by Eustathius. Accordingly, to these reference is made 
in the expression that follows the lacuna : ofiov Se a-(f)Lcra> ev tw va^ 
27rovSatwv 8aifj.(ov ia-TLv. The vaos then here referred to Dorpfeld sup- 
poses was named in the lacuna and was the temple of Athena Polias, 
I.e. the Hecatompedon. This is the temple, Dorpfeld thinks, which 
Pausanias saw as he passed by and remarked upon the statues of these 
abstract divinities, which, together with that of the 27rov8ata>i/ Sui/jnav, 
were standing " in or near the old temple," possibly in the open porch 
of the opisthodomos (Cooley, AJ.A. second series, iii. p. 367). 
Accordingly, Pausanias locates the temple of Athena Polias by 
mentioning it in the lacuna; then, as Cooley remarks, the mere 
mention of the name in i. 27, i, would sufifice to indicate that 
he had now left the Erechtheum and entered another building. 
But there is a difficulty here that is hard to explain ; it is that 
according to this theory Pausanias has already passed out of the 
Erechtheum at the beginning of chap. xxvi. 6, without indicating that 
he passes from one building to another. Or can it be fairly claimed 
that the opening sentence of this section (6), le/aa [iXv rrjs 'A6r]va<i 
ea-Tiv rj re aXXr) ttoAis koX -q iraa-a ofjboiws yrj, gives any hint even 
that he has now left the Erechtheum and entered another temple? 
After Pausanias has described what he saw within the Erechtheum, 
he passed, according to Dorpfeld, to the old temple. Whether 
Pausanias went from the Erechtheum to this temple up the steps on the 
north side to the higher level, and so in front of the east end of 
the Erechtheum, or passed through the west hall and so up 
the stairway in the Maiden-porch, cannot be determined. After 
describing what he saw in the old temple, Pausanias next mentions 
the olive tree and the shrine of Pandrosos. To reach the site of 
these objects the old traveller would either have to return through 
the Erechtheum and pass through the smaller portal west of the 
great door in the north porch, or, what is more likely, he would 
have to descend from the upper level of the old temple down to 
the Pandroseum. For this a flight of steps would be required, 
which Dorpfeld supposes. In favor of this view Dorpfeld quotes 
the story told by Philochorus {J^rag. 146) of the dog that entered 
into the temple of Athena Polias and having slipped into the 
Pandroseum mounted upon the altar of Herceian Zeus and there 
lay down. On Dorpfeld's theory the dog entered the east cella 


of the old temple, ran out again, and then went down the 
supposed steps into the lower precinct, the Pandroseum. If, on 
the other hand, by the temple of Athena Polias is meant the Erech- 
theum (not necessarily the east cella) it is easy enough to suppose 
that the beast entered by the great door of the north porch, and 
then into the enclosure of the olive tree and the Pandroseum by 
the small portal west of the great door. Cooley remarks (p. 364, I.e.) : 
"either explanation of the tale seems possible, and no decision is 

With this remark I may perhaps best close this discussion. For 
I would not be understood as claiming that I have disproved 
Dorpfeld s theory of the continued existence of the old Athena temple. 
My chief aim in this discussion has been to set forth the grounds 
of the view I have preferred to take, realizing all the while that 
this view is by no means free from difficulties which I have not 
been able to remove wholly to my own satisfaction, but which seem 
to me still to be less numerous and formidable than those involved 
in the theory of the brilliant discoverer of the structure that has 
been the cause of all this controversy. Finally, I venture to express 
the hope that the quest for the truth in this matter may be worth 
the while for its own sake, even if the result is not free from doubt. 


Acropolis, the, 

appearance of, in the period before 

Pericles, io8. 
ancient approach to, 24. 
oldest architecture on, 41. 
oldest ascent of, 1 1 f. 
ascent of, from western slope, 31. 
later ascent to, when the Propylaea was 

built, 32. 
third transformation of the ascent to, 33. 
changes in the ascent to, 315. 
worship of Athena on, 13. 
the Beule Gate, described, 34. 
buttresses built to strengthen walls of, 

Byzantine period of, 305 flF. 
occupied by the Catalans, 313. 
caves of, 6 ff. 
ceased to be a citadel, 28. 
attacked by Cleomenes, 20. 
attempt of Cylon to seize, 18. 
description of, 2 ff. 
main entrance to, 12. 
entrance to, in Byzantine period, 313. 
excavations on, 327 f. 
early fortification of, 4. 
the Frankish-Florentine period of, 313 ff. 
Modern Greek period of, 327 ff. 
bombarded by Morosini, 321. 
seized by Pisistratids, 18. 
seized by Persians, 20. 
the different plateaus or platforms of, 5. 
ancient postern on, 10. 
reservoirs and magazines on, 311. 
ancient road on, 285. 
early settlement of, 3, 15, 17. 
centre and capitol of settlement on, 14, 

sources for the history of, 343. 
Roman stairway up, 36, 
history of temples on, 47 fif. 
temples on the southern slope of, 228 ff. 
Turkish period of, 316 ff. 
vegetation on the sides of, 5. 
seized by the Venetians, 316. 

Acropolis, the, 

legends concerning building walls of, 21. 

Pelasgic walls of, 22. 

the walls of, described, 66 ff. 
Actors, guild of, 230. 
Aegeus, watching for Theseus, 72. 

shrine of, 262. 
Aeschylus, cited on — the caves of the 
Acropolis, 6. 

Athena, 71. 
Aglauros, cave of, 10. 
Agraulium, 24, 30. 

Agrippa, monument of, and roadway of 
Mnesicles, 32. 

base of statue of, 173, 276. 
Akominatos, saves the Acropolis, 307. 
Akrophylakes, 277. 
Alaric, the Goth, 305. 
Alcamenes, statue of Dionysus by, 230. 
Alcippe, cult of, 14, 255. 
Amynos, cult of, 255 f. 
Andrews, E. P., inscription on east archi- 
trave of Parthenon, 330. 
Anonymous Argentinensis, ill. 
Antiochus Epiphanes, gilded aegis on south 

wall by, 69. 
Aphrodite Pandemos, clay images of, 16. 

shrine of, 259. 
Aphrodite, statuettes of, 260. 
Apollo Agyieus, 277. 
Apollo, cave of, 6. 
Apollo and Crelisa, 8, 354. 
"Apollo under the Heights," dedication 

to, 7. 
Apollo Pythios, sanctuary of, 18. 
Archaeological Society of Greece, excava- 
tions on the Acropolis by, 329. 
Aristides, i, 284. 

Aristophanes, cited on — "bear service" 
of Artemis Brauronia, 287. 

cure at Asclepius's shrine, 253. 

Demeter Chloe, 261. 

gates of the Propylaea, 186. 

Wooden Horse, 288. 

Odeum of Pericles, 245. 



Aristophanes, cited on — 

opisthodomos, 139. 

sanctuary of Pan, 8. 

Pelargicon, 364, 367. 

Pylaimachos, 300. 
Aristotle, reference to ancient gateway, 

Arrephoroi, lo, 100, 163, 215, 218, 297. 
Artemis Brauronia, introduction of worship 

of, 14, 286 ff. 
Artemis, clay images of, 16. 

"on the Tower," 281. 
Asclepius, cult of, 255 ff. 
sanctuary of, 250 ft'. 
later history of sanctuary of, 258. 
temple of, 254. 
Athena and Erechtheus, double sanctuary 

of, 48. 
Athena Ergane, sanctuary of, 288 f. 
Athena and Giant, pediment group of, 60. 
Athena Hygieia, precinct of, 283 ff. 
Alhena Nike, altar to, decreed, 112. 
bastion of, described, 39 ff. 
statue of, 193. 
temple of, 186 ff. 
relation of temple of, to Propylaea, 78 ff. , 

temple of, destroyed, 192. 
temple of, rebuilt, 328. 
Athena Parthenos, head of, on medallion 

in St. Petersburg, 144. 
Athena Polias, altar of, 296. 

title of, applied to the Erechtheum, 388. 

wooden image of, 214. 

title of, wrongly applied to Parthenon, 

according to Frazer and Cooley, 141. 
priestess of, 388. 
robe woven for, 215. 
Dresden statue of, 215. 
temple of, 52, I39f 
to what temples applied, 385. 
Athena and Poseidon, contest of, 156, 293. 
Athena Promachos, 299. 
Athena, oldest image of, 13. 
clay images of, 16. 
Lemnian, image of, 303. 
serpent of, 209. 
becomes Saint Sophia, 306. 
archaic statue of, seated, 100. 
archaic statuettes in bronze, 104 1. 
gold and ivory statue of, 134, 143. 
Lenormant statuette of, 14;. 
Varvakeion statuette of, 146 f 
temple of, referred to by Herodotus as 

t6 fjL^yapov, 48. 
Old Temple of, 42 ff. 

fragments of, built into walls, 69. 
problem of, 369 ff. 

argument for continued existence of, 
based on probability, 373-375. 
.on the term Opisthodomos, 376-381. 
on the title, 6 dpxaios veus, 382-385. 

Athena, Old Temple of, argument — 

on tlie title, "Temple of Athena 

Polias," 385-389. 
on the route of Pausanias, 389-397. 
olive tree of, 218. 
Athena, titles of, 14. 

Athens, description of, by Clark and Dod- 
well, 324. 
sack by the Persians, 20, 42. 
evacuated by the Turks, 327. 
Attalus, dedicatory offering of, 295. 

Babin, description of Acropolis by, 318. 
Balanos, repairs on Erechtheum by, 330. 
Basil, triumph over Bulgarians, 306, 310. 
Bates, W. N., on the old temple of Athena, 

Beule Gate, description of, 33 ft. 
Beule, excavations by, 328. 

on order of Pausanias's description, 212. 
Botticher, C, on curvature of lines ot" the 
Parthenon, 94. 
on Parthenon as cult temple, 140. 
Bohn, R. , the original ascent of Acropolis, 

relation of bastion to Propylaea, 40. 
the Propylaea, 173. 
Boniface, capture of Acropolis by, 307. 
British Museum, frieze of the Parthenon 

in, 161. 
BrUckner, on Triton and Typhon groups, 

Brunn, on statues of Gauls, 295. 
Building material in Attica, 19. 
Butadae, tablets of the, 21 1. 
Butes, 13, 210, 214. 
Byron, descriptitm of sunset by, 2. 

Calirrhoe, fountain of, 18. 
Callicrates, the master builder, no. 

ordered to build a stone temple to Athena 
Victory, 189. 
Callimachus, golden lamp of, 53, 210, 215. 
Carrey, J., drawings of sculptures of Par- 
thenon attributed to, 147, 152. 319. 
Caryatids, 198, 201, 226. 
Catalans, Athens sacked by the, 259. 

occupy the Acropolis, 313. 
Cave of Apollo, 8. 
Cave of Pan, 7, 10, 26. 
Cave of Panagia Spiliotissa, 247. 
Cavvadias, P., cited on — the oath of the 
archons, 7 f. 
— the cleft of Poseidon's trident, 9. 
— the bronze spikes on heads of archaic 

statues, 100. 
excavations on the Acropolis by, 329. 
Cecropids, settlement on the Acropolis by, 

Cecropium, 216 ff. 
Cecrops, grave of, 206. 
Cetines, castle of, 311. 



Chalcidians, fetters of, 44. 

Chalkotheke, 290 ff. 

Chariot of bronze, trophy erected by the 

Athenians, 301. 
Chian school of sculpture, 95. 
Choiseul, Gouffier, 324. 
Chthonian divinities, altar to, 33. 
Cimon, not the builder of the older Par- 
thenon, 21, 65. 
old Propylon rebuilt by, 32, 39. 
restorer of the south circuit wall, 67. 
north wall of Acropolis completed by, 70. 
Cisterns, on Acropolis, 19. 
Cleoitas, 290. 
Cleomenes, besieged on the Acropolis, 20. 

forbidden to enter the old temple, 48. 
Clepsydra, the spring, 6. 
included in Pelargicon, 27. 
enclosed in fortifications, 326. 
Clisthenes, the older Parthenon planned 

by, 21, 65. 
Cockerell, on the entasis of columns of the 

Parthenon, 326. 
Coins, sources for the history of the Acro- 
polis, 344. 
Collignon, on archaic statue of a youthful 

athlete, 102. 
Color, on Parthenon frieze, 168 ff. 
on Propylaea, 186. 
on archaic statues, 56 ff., 98 ff. 
Columns, Corinthian, above cave of the 
Madonna, 249. 
of Parthenon, 1 16 ff. 
Conon, statue of, 293. 
Cooley, A. S., on Polias equivalent to 
Parthenon, 141. 
discussion of the title, 6 dpx«'os vedis, 

382, 383. 
the temple Athena Polias as the Heca- 
tompedon, 386. 
Cresilas, 282, 303. 
Critias, betrayal of citizens in the Odeum 

of Pericles by, 245. 
Curtius, E., on the Opisthodomos, 378. 
Curvature of horizontal lines, 92 ff., 118, 

Cylon, attempt to seize the Acropolis by, 18. 
sanctuary of, 28. 
statue of^ 298. 
Cyriacus, of Ancona, drawings of, 317. 

Daedalus, folding chair of, 215. 
Delian Confederacy, funds of, ill, 1 39. 
Demeter Chloe, sanctuary of, 13, 261. 
Demetrius Poliorcetes, 138, 275. 
Demosthenes, estimate of the Propylaea, 

Diitrephes, statue of, 282. 
Dilettanti, Society of the, 324. 
Diodorus, literary tourist, 344. 
Dionysus, the Eleutherian, 230. 

"in the Marshes," sanctuary of, 228 f. 

Dionysus — 

gold and ivory statue by Alcamenes, 230. 

statue of, 247 f. 

temples of, 229 ff. 

theatre of, 230-245. 

theatre of, excavated by Prussian expedi- 
tion, 329. 
Dioscuri, temple of, 11, 26. 
Dodwell, cited on— the plant Parthenion, 

the frieze of Parthenon, 167 f. 
Dorpfeld, W., cited on— location of the 
sanctuary of Amynos, 255. 

old Athena temple, 42 ff. 

relation of the old Athena temple to 
other temples, 50 ff. 

temple of Athena Ergane, 289. 

Chalkotheke, 290 ff. 

ancient sanctuary of Dionysus, 229. 

Erechtheum, 196. 

niche in south wall of Erechtheum, 206. 

opening of ceiling in the roof of the 
north porch of Erechtheum, 208. 

location of the three altars in the Erech- 
theum, 210. 

original plan of the Erechtheum, 212. 

projected west half of the Erechtheum, 

excavations near the western foot of 
Acropolis, 229. 

choregic monument of Nicias, 262 f. 

date of the older Parthenon, 21, 79, 85. 

five stages in the history of the founda- 
tions of the Parthenon, 80 ff. 

Parthenon as cult temple, 139 f. 

route of Pausanias, 394 f. 

lacuna in Pausanias, 396. 

Pelargicon, 26, 28, 259, 361. 

paintings in the Pinakothek, 178. 

application of the title "Polias," 386 f. 

original plan of the Propylaea, 180 ff. 

relative age of the Propylaea and of the 
temple of Athena Victory, 187. 

non-existence of a stage, 239. 

date of the Stoa of Eumenes, 264. 

location of the sacred olive tree and 
Cecropium, 218. 
Drerup, the meaning of nine-gated, 28. 
Durm, J., cited on — columns of Erech- 
theum, 220. 

curvature of lines, 94. 

inclination of the columns of the Parthe- 
non, 116. 

Earth, praying for rain, 292. 

Eleusinium, location of, 11. 

Elgin marbles, 324 f. 

Empedo, the spring, 6. 

Endoeus, statue of Athena by, 100 f, 296. 

Enneacrunos, location of, 18. 

'Ef vedTTuXov, meaning of, 26 f. 

Epicharinus, base of statue of, 28S. 



Erechtheum, the, names and uses of apart- 
ments in, 209 ff. 

artistic features of, 218. 

contents of chambers in, 214 ft. 

transformed into a church, 310 f. 

the crypt of, 207. 

a "double" building, 207. 

entrance through north porch of, 391. 

foundations revealed by Prussian expedi- 
tion, 329. 

description of exterior of, 197 ft. 

frieze of, 221. 

a harem, 317. 

building inscription of, 221, 374. 

the older, 49. 

plan of the interior of, 202 ft. 

original plan of, according to Dorpfeld, 

north porch of, 222 ff". 

porch of the Maidens of, 225 ff". 

recent repairs on, 330 f. 

the oldest temple of Athena, 382. 

inherits the title of the Older Temple, 


the tokens (aTjfiela), 196. 
Erechtheus, associated with Athena, 13, 388. 

" palace" of, 17. 

sea of, 204. 
Ergastinai, 163. 
Erichthonios, the sacred serpent, 144. 209. 

birth of, 216. 

grave of, 389. 
Eumenes, stoa of, 264 ft". 

excavation of stoa of, 329. 
Euripides, cited on — sanctuary of Aglauros, 

sanctuary of Aphrodite, 260. 

Apollo and Creusa, 8. 

Pallas, 275. 

the cleft of Poseidon's trident, 9. 
Eustathius, on serpent of Athena, 209. 
'EiidvvTTjpia, 45, 87. 

Fenger, on scheme of color applied to 
sculptures of Parthenon, 169 ff. 

Fowler, H. N., on transference of the old 
title to the new temple, 385. 

Frankish- Florentine period of Acropolis, 

Frankish tower, 315. 

Frazer, | . G. , cited on — old Athena temple, 
relation of the east chamber to the rest 

of the Erechtheum, 206. 
precinct of Health Athena, 284. 
wooden image of Athena, 214. 
name Polias applied to the Parthenon, 

141-. . 
credibility of Pausanias, 346. 
Furtwiingler, A., cited on — date ot the 
temple of Athena Nike, 194. 
old Athena temple, 369. 

Furtwangler, A., cited on — 

chambers of the Erechtheum, 211. 
projected west half of the Erechtheum, 

. 381, 

identification of the Lemnian Athena, 304. 

older Parthenon attributed to Themis- 

tocles, 79. 
west pediment of the Parthenon, 155 f. 
Pyrgos, 72. 

Gardner, E. A., cited on — statue of Athena 
Parthenos, 147. 
frieze of the Erechtheum, 221. 
technique of Parthenon frieze, 166 f. 
pre- Persian sculpture, 54. 
archaic female statues found on the 

Acropolis, 97. 
statue called " the calf- bearer," 102. 
Ge Kourotrophos, 13, 261. 
Germanicus, mentioned in an inscription, 

Graces, cult of the, 279 f. 
Gregorovius, the Parthenon as a place of 
worship, 318. 

Hansen, on restoration of Nike temple, 

36, 328. 
Harmodius and Aristogiton, bronze group 

of, 64. 
Harrison, jane E. , cited on — east cella of 
the Erechtheum, 390. 

position of the Hermes statue, 281. 

Pelargicon fortress, 24. 
Hauvette, on location of the bronze chariot, 

Hecalompedon, 43, 46, 49, 329. 

inscription, 376, 383. 

naos, 134. 

problem of the, 369-397. 
Heermance, T. W., on repairs on the 

Erechtheum, 330. 
Heliodorus, guide-book of, 345. 
Hellanotamiai, 139. 
Hephaestus, worship of, 13, 214. 
Heracleides, guide-book of, 344. 
Heracles, deeds of, 54ff. 

old temple of, 14. 
Hermes, of Alcamenes at Pergamon, 281. 

early cult of, 13. 

wooden image of, 53- 

of the Portal, 281. 

an archaic relief of, 1 04. 

" uninitiated," 281. 
Herodes Atticus, the architectural entrance 
to the Beule Gate by, 33. 

theatre of, 264 ft. 
Herodotus, cited on — old Athena temple, 

destruction of Athens, 20. 

bronze chariot, 301. 

fetters of the Chalcidians, 44. 

defense of Acropolis against Persians, 27^ 



Herodotus, cited on — 

entrance of Persians to Acropolis, lo. 

sacrificial rites of Persians on the Acro- 
polis, 65. 

growth of the olive shoot, 65. 
Hesychius, cited on — bronze scare-crow, 18. 

sacred serpent, 209. 

temple destroyed by the Persians, 78. 
Hippolytus, monument of, 259. 
Hygie'a, cult of, 255. 
Homeric hymn, to Athena, 149. 

Ictinus, architect of the Parthenon, 1 10. 
Inclination of columns, 1 16 f. 
Inscription, decree to build temple to 
Athena Nike, 112, 189. 
on monument of Nicias, 35. 
Inscriptions, concerning the Pelargicon, 
sources for the history of the Acropolis, 

Ion, son of Apollo and Creiisa, 9, 13. 
Isis, temple of, 255. 
Isocephaly, 157. 

Judeich, W., cited — on old Athena temple, 

46, 373- 
site of the bronze chariot, 302. 
Lenaea, 229. 
opisthodomos, 291, 378. 
extent of Pelargicon, 27, 361. 
Justinian, changes on the Acropolis in time 

of, 306, 311 fif. 

Kanephoroi, 162. 

Kara limestone, 19, 46. 

Kawerau, G., on plan of workshop on the 

Acropolis, 294. 
Keil, Bruno, deductions from the Anonymus 

Argentinensis by, 1 1 1 f. 
Klenze, purpose to rebuild the Parthenon, 

Kohler, U., on the Stoa of Eumenes, 264. 
Korte, G., on the old Athena temple, 371. 
Koster, on the temple of Athena-Victory, 

39, 188 f. 
K/)W(3i^\oj, 103. 

La chares, shields from Acropolis taken by 

Lehner, on objects stored in the opistho- 
domos, 380. 
Lenaeum, 228 f. 

Lenormant, statuette of Athena, 143. 
Lolling, H. G., cited on — 
old Athena temple, 371. 
equestrian statues of Xenophon's sons, 
278 f. 
Lucian, cited on — 

Pelargicon, 26, 31, 365. 
Lemnian Athena, 303. 
grave of Talos, 249. 

Lycurgus, stone theatre built by, 235. 
Lysimache, statue of the handmaid of, 

Lysippus, appreciation of Athens by, 344. 

Magne, L., 170, 171, 329. 

Marcellinus, Flavius Septimius, 276. 

Mardonius, sword of, 215. 

Marloni, Niccolo da, Journal of, 316. 

Masistius, cuirass of, 215. 

Medusa, head of, on wall of Acropolis, 

69, 246. 
MijytV/cos, 1 00. 
Meursius, on Athens, 318. 
Middleton, J. PL, on the Asclepieum, 250. 
Michaelis, A., cited on — 

old Athena temple, 372. 

offering of Attains, 296. 

foundations of the Chalkotheke, 294. 

frieze of Athena- Victory, 195. 

the Hecatompedon inscription, 383. 

arrangement of frieze of the Parthenon, 

the route of Pausanias, 393 f. 
Milchhofer, A., cited on — 

old Athena temple, 371. 

Chalkotheke, 290. 
Miller, W., on the Pelargicon, 26 f. 
Miltiades and Themistocles, statues of, 

243 f- 
Mnesicles, original plan of Propylaea by, 


besieges the Acropolis, 320 f. 

destruction of west pediment of Parth- 
enon by, 153. 
Murray, A. S., on entrance to Erechtheum, 

Museum, on the Acropolis, 41, 107, 329. 
Mycenaean settlement on the Acropolis, 

15, 17- 
Myron, group of Erechtheus and Eumolpus, 

Nerio L, 313, 315. 

changes in the Dionysiac theatre, in 
time of, 240 f. 

inscription in honor of, 330. 
Necby 6 dpxtt'OJ) 

discussed by A. S. Cooley, 382 r. 

applied to the predecessor of the Erech- 
theum, 384. 
Nicias, choregic monument of, 33, 35, 262ft. 
N£(C7j dTTTf/aos, 193. 
Nointel, Marquis de, 3191. 


of Pericles, 245. 

of Regilla, 266 ff. 
Odysseus, bastion of, 326. 
Olive tree of Athena, 16, 65, 218. 




in old temple of Athena, 44, 50 f, 213. 
identical with the Parthenon chamber, 

138 f. 
meaning and application of the term, 
376 ff. 
Ovid, the temple of Jupiter Capitolmus, 

Pacard and Knowles, drawings of Parthe- 
non by, 328. 
Palace, prehistoric, 296. 
Pan, worship of, 9 f. 

Panathenaic procession on frieze of Parthe- 
non, 140, 161 ff. 
Pandaites and Pasicles, monument of, 

Pandroseum, 216, 297. 
Tlapaards, meaning of, 374. 
Udpe5pos, applied to Erechtheus in his 

relation to Athena, 392. 
Paris Anonymous, 317. 
Pars, drawings by, 324. 
Parthenion, 6. 
Parthenon, the, 

called temple of Athena Polias, 140. 

changes of, in Byzantine period, 307 ff. 

contents of east cella of, 142 ff. 

church of St. Mary, 307. 

church of St. Sophia, 306. 

a cult temple, 139. 

frieze of, 160 ff. 

inscription in regard to use as treasury, 

interior of, 132 ff. 

lightin<j of, 135. 

metopes of, 157 ff. 

moneys kept in the west chamber of, 

damaged by Morosini, 322. 

a mosque, 317 f. 

name of, explained, 136, 381. 

older, 49, 65, 70, 78 ff, 84, 86 ff, 90 ff. 

opisthodomos of, a storehouse, 137, 139. 

east pediment of, 147 ft. 

west pediment of, 152 ff. 

Periclean, iioff. 

plan and architecture of, 1 14 ft. 

plan to rebuild, 327. 

repairs on, 329. 

roof of, 126 f. 

steps in front of, 291. 
Pausanias — 

description of the Acropolis and its 
monuments by, 347-354. 

on " the entrance " into the Erechtheum, 
210 f. 

on the cult of the Graces, 280. 

guide-book of, 345 ff. 

lacuna in text of, 288, 389. 

on the well of Poseidon, 204. 

route of, on the Acropolis, 52 f. 

Pausanias — 

route of, on the south slope of the Acro- 
polis, 228 ff. 
route of, in and about the Erechtheum, 

389 ff. 
reference to — shrines on the south slope 

of the Acropolis, 259. 
— theatre of Herodes Atticus, 264, 266. 
— the monument of Thrasyllus, 248. 
— the equestrian statues of the sons of 

Xenophon, 277. 
Pediment groups, of old Athena temple, 

. 58ff. . 
Peilho, shrine of, 259. 
Pelargicon, the, 

description of, 21 ff. 

Dorpfeld's theory on, 368. 

later history of, 30 1. 

mentioned in inscriptions and writers, 


in age of Pericles, 361 ff. 

topography and remains of, 24 ff. 
Pelasgians, builders of ancient walls of 

Acropolis, 22. 
Pelasgic Wall — 

part of Pelargicon, 364. 

remains of, 16. 
Pennethorne, the curvature of lines, 93, 

Penrose, F. C, cited on — 

old Athena temple, 370. 

curvature of lines, 93 f, 328. 

traces of earliest entrance to Acropolis, 

beauty of the Erechtheum, 227. 

remains of an earlier Erechtheum, 196. 

absence of parallelism, 113. 

older Parthenon, 79. 
Pentelic marble, 19, 114. 
Peplos, Scene on the East frieze of Parthe- 
non, 166. 
Pericles — 

age of, 109 ff. 

the Panathenaic festival in time of, 162. 

statue of, 303. 

walls repaired by, 67. 
Petersen, E. , on the old Athena temple, 372. 
Phaedrus, stage of, 240 ff. 

gold and ivory statue of Athena by, 143. 

statue of Lemnian Athena by, 303 f. 

the coadjutor of Pericles, no. 
Philochorus, 396. 

Philostratus, on the serpent of Athena, 209. 
Phoenicides, on the Propylaea, 186. 
Pinakothek, in the Propylaea, 1771. 
Pindar, on the birth of Athena, 149. 
Pisistratids, occupation of the Acropolis 

by, 18, 19, 22. 

peristyle to old temple of Athena built 
by, 49- 




greater Panathenaia instituted by, 162. 

building of ancient portal by, 72. 
Plutarch, cited on — 

statues dedicated by Attalus, 295. 

Parthenion plant, 6. 

structures erected by Pericles, 113. 

Poseidon in the temple of Athena, 388. 

injury to the workman on the Propylaea, 

general plan to rebuild temples, 112. 

on the Cylonium, 18. 

guide-book of, 345. 

used of earliest settlement on Acropolis, 

interpretation of the term, 366 f. 
Polyaenus, on the ancient gateway, 77. 
Poros, Peiraic limestone, 19. 
Poros, pediment groups of, 54 ft. 
Poseidon-Erechtheus, altar of, 210. 

contest with Athena, 152, 155 f. 

trident-cleft of, 9. 

trident-mark of, 208. 

worship of, 13. 
Praxiergidai, 215. 
Proclus, dream of, 306. 
Procne and Itys, statues of, 293. 
Propylaea, the, 

relation of foundation walls of, to bastion 
of Athena-Victory temple, 39 ff, 

in Byzantine period, 311. 

painted decoration of, 186. 

description of, 172 ff". 

excavations of, under Pittakis, 328. 

in Frankish-Florentine period, 313 ff^. 

later history of, 184. 

injured V)y explosion, 318. 

as residence, 317. 

the ancient, 72 ft. 

built by Pisistratus, 19. 
Prostomiaion, 203, 392. 
Prussian expedition, 329. 
Puchstein, on the question of a raised 

stage, 2391, 
Pyloroi, 277. 

Pyrrhus, statue of Athena Hygieia by, 283. 
Pythion, location of 13. 

Reisch, the "Attika" of the Thrasyllus 
monument, 247 f. 

Reschid Pasha, siege of Athens by, 326. 

Roma and Augustus, temple of, 294. 

Roman stairway, 35 ff", 277. 

Ross, discovery of earlier structure beneath 
the Parthenon, 78, 81. 

Ross, Schaubert, and Hansen, discovery 
and reconstruction of temple of Wing- 
less Victory by, 36, 328. 

St. George, Guillet de, account of Athens 

by, 318. 
Saur, B., examination of the wall and floor 

of the east pediment of Parthenon by, 

Schinkel, plan to rebuild castle on the 

Acropolis by, 328. 
Schliemann, H., Prankish tower taken 

down by, 315. 
Schrader, H., cited on — 

changes in the architecture of the old 

Athena temple, 47. 
composition of the pediment group of 

the old Athena temple, 58, 61. 
relief of the old Athena temple, 104. 
Serpentze, 250. 

Sgouros, captures Athens, 307. 
Skaphephoroi, 162. 
Socrates, sculptor of Hermes and the 

Graces, 279. 
Solon, the period of, 17. 
Spon, J., travels of, 319. 
Statues, archaic, of women, 95 ff". 
Stevens, G. P. , investigations of, 330, 390. 
Stoa of Eumenes, 264 ff. 
Strabo, two temples on the Acropolis, 141. 
Strack, excavation of theatre of Dionysus 

by, 231. 
Strangford shield, 143. 
Stuart and Revett, drawings and studies 

of, 323- 
Studnizcka, on pediment group of old 

temple of Athena, 61. 
Sulla, seizure of Athens by, 30. 

Talos, tomb of, 26, 249. 

Old Athena, 42 ff. 

double temple of Athena and Erechtheus, 
Temple of Athena, 

theory of Dorpfeld on the, 50. 

fragments of, built into north wall, 69 f. 
Temple of Athena Nike, restored, 192. 
Thallophoroi, 163. 
Theatre of Dionysus, 

the auditorium, 232-235. 

the orchestra, 231, 232. 

the stage building, 235-240. 

the Roman stage, 240 ff. 

used as the Pnyx, 244. 
Theatre of Herodes Atticus, 266 ff. 
Themis, temple of, 254, 259. 
Themistocles, rebuilding of Athens by, 

65 ff. 
Theodosius, spoil of Athens by, 306. 
Thrasycles, son of Thrasyllus, 247. 
Thrasyllus, choregic monument of, II, 

247 f. 
Thucydides, cited on — 

surrender of Cylon, 27. 

Dionysus "in the Marshes," 228 f. 



Thucydides, cited on — 

Pelargicon, 26, 361 f. 

ruin wrought by the Persians, 20. 

rebuilding of the city, 65. 
GuTjxooy, 210. 
Timotheus, statue of, 293. 
Tokens (a7]/j,e2c.), of Poseidon and Erech- 

theus, 13, 48, 212. 
Treasures, inventories of, 379 f. 
Treasury, in old temple of Athena, 51 f. 
Tuckermann, reconstruction of roof of 

Odeum by, 270 fif. 
Turkish period on Acropolis, 316 ff. 

Varro, on the temple of Fidius, 208. 
Varvakeion statuette, 145. 
Venetians, capture of Athens by, 316. 
Verneda, drawings of, 322. 
Victory, Wingless, temple of, 186 fif. 
Vienna Anonymous, 249, 317. 
Vitruvius, cited on — 

Caryatids, 226. 

curvature of horizontal lines, 92 f. 

Odeum, 245. 

Roman stage, 242. 

Stoa of Eumenes, 265. 

Wachsmuth, C, cited on — 
evvedTvXov, 27. 
Pelargicon, 361. 

wall of defense at the entrance to 
Acropolis, 72. 
Waldstein, C, on the Varvakeion statuette, 

Weller, C. H., on ancient Propylon, 74 ff. 

Wheler, tour in Greece by, 319. 
White, J. W., 

theory of, in regard to the opistho- 
domos, 378. 

on the Pelargicon in age of Pericles, 

. 361 fir. 

Wiegand, Th., cited on — 

date of the old Athena teniple, 46. 

alterations in the Athena temple, 47. 

remains of pre-Persian structures, 53. 
Wingless Victory, explanation of the name, 

Wolters, P., cited on — 

statue of ilealth Athena, 283. 
relation of Propylaea and bastion, 40, 
Worsley, Museum, 324. 
Wyse, on the title Athena Polias, how 
applied, 386. 


on eclipse and burning of ancient temple 

of Athena, 52, 197. 
statues of the sons of, 277 f. 

Zeus, altar of, before the Erechtheum, 209. 
Zeus, Herceios, altar of, 16. 
Zeus Poleius, 293 f. 

supreme {iiiraTos), 13, 391. 

worshipped on the Acropolis, 12. 
Zosimus, cited on — 

Athena Promachos, 300. 

Athens spared by Alaric, 305 f. 

rites of worship in the Parthenon, 140. 



I. References to the Numbers on the Plan of the Acropolis (Plan vii.). 

1. " Beule's Gate"; the Roman entrance, built out of marble blocks from the 

choregic monument of Nicias. 

2. Southern gate-chamber, built of poros blocks. 

3. Northern gate-chamber, roofed with a Byzantine brick vault. 

4. Altar of the sixth century B.C., which seems to be in situ. 

5, 5. Fine wall of poros blocks set on raking bed. 

6, 6. Rock-cut sloping bed to receive a similar wall to that on the north side. 

7. Original approach to the Acropolis. The holes cut in the rock to give foot- 

hold, at the base of the bastion, are of uncertain date. They appear to 
indicate the direction of the original path up the hill. 

8. Piece of polygonal wall made of the native limestone, faced only on its north 

side, and serving as a retaining wall to path leading from the entrance up 
the slope. 
9, 9, Modern stairs, mainly formed of the marble steps which formed the approach 
in Roman times. 

10. Base of a statue inscribed with the names of the sculptors Kritios and Nesiotes. 

[Now found a little S.W. of the Agrippa pedestal.] 

11. Pedestal of the statue of .A.grippa, erected about 27 B.C. 

12, 12. Stairs of Byzantine date, leading down to the well called Clepsydra ; the lower 
part is cut in the rock. 

13. Late Roman domed chamber over the Clepsydra well. 

14. Remains of the poros wall of a structure earlier than the existing Propylaea, 

and set at a different angle. 

15. Rock-cut foundations for bases of statues or altars of an earlier date than the 

Propylaea of Pericles. 

16. Polygonal wall of a primitive bastion, built to defend the approach to the 

Acropolis. This early wall is buried in the podium, on which the temple of 
Nike Apteros stands, but it can be seen at two places where blocks of the 
podium have been removed. 

17. Inscribed pedestal of one of the two equestrian statues of Athenian knights, 

which are mentioned by Pausanias. 
The other statue occupied a similar position on the north side, near the 
pedestal of Agrippa's statue. 

18. Remains of the marble paving of the precinct of Nike. 

19. Square surface of levelled rock, probably the site of the Heroon or shrine of 

Aegeus, who, according to Pausanias, threw himself down from the summit 
above this locality. 
ao. .Modem hotise of the guardian of the Acropolis. 
21, 21. Massive polygonal wall, which may have formed the southwest angle of the 
primitive fortress on the Acropolis. 












. 34. 



22. Remains of foundations antedating the Persian war and possibly connected with 

the defenses of the Propylon. 

23. Well-preserved anta of the old Propylon, and marble base of a marble tripod. 

24. South wing of the Propylaea of Pericles, finished on a reduced scale. 

25. Marble base of a statue by Pyrrhus placed in front of the statue of Athena 

Hygieia, and base of what was probably a sacrificial table. 
Marble base inscribed with a list of the agonistic victories of Kallias, not in situ. 
Rock-cut foundations for part of pre-Persian Propylon. 
The north wing of Pinakotheke of the Propylaea. 
Water channel or culvert (it is deep down and covered in), of the fifth century 

B.C., built of massive blocks of poros stone. 
Rain-water channels and cisterns of the sixth century B.C. 
Foundations of poros stone of a large building of the fifth century B.C. 
Rain-water channel cut in the rock, once covered with a stone lid. 
Later branch channel to lead water to the Roman tank. 
Early road, partly rock-cut. 
Rock levelled to receive some large base of a statue. 

36. Another rock foundation, with blocks of poros stone, which were probably part 

of a great pedestal. 

Either this or the foundation at 35 belonged to the colossal bronze statue 
of Athena Promachos by Phidias. 

37. Remains of a square tower of polygonal masonry, belonging to the earliest 

structures on the Acropolis. 

38. Flight of steps leading down to the base of the Acropolis wall, and so out 

towards the west. These stairs are probably the work of Cimon. 

39. Modern masonry, built to block up the exit at the foot of Cimon's stairs. 

40. Wall of neat poros blocks of a building resembling a stoa, 

41. Place where walls of three buildings, of three different dates, and set on three 

axes meet together. 

42. Stairs leading down to an ancient exit from the Acropolis through a sub- 

terranean rock-cut passage. This is possibly the place where the Persians 
entered the Acropolis in 480 B.C. 

43. Best preserved piece of the wall built by Themistocles. At this place part of 

the entablature of the temple of Athens, which was burnt by the Persians, 
is built into the wall. 

44. Remains of polygonal buildings, probably walls of Pelasgic houses. 

45. Wall of the fifth century B.C., built of poros stone. 

46. Byzantine chamber with brick vault. 

47. Wall of partly polygonal masonry of the fifth century B.C. 

48. Point where the wall of Themistocles joins the wall of Pericles. 

49. Blocks of conglomerate stone. 

50. Rock levelled to receive some structure. Middleton thinks that this structure 

may have been the altar of Zeus Hypsistos (Hypatos he means). But this 
is more likely to be placed either in the north porch, or under the open 
sky to the north of the Erechtheum (cf. Lolling Topogr. 351 and see p. 391, 
of the text). 

51. North porch of the Erechtheum. 

52. Brick cistern of Roman date, sunk through the marble paving on the north 

side of the Erechtheum. 

53. Area excavated to a lower level to expose part of the wall of Pericles, built of 

very long blocks of poros stone. 

54. Piece of Acropolis wall rebuilt in modern times. 

55. Piece of Pericles' wall, partly built with unfinished marble drums of columns. 

Some original slit windows exist here. 

EXPLANATION OF PLAN WU. — Continued iii 

56. This shows the original flight of 12 marble steps, which led down from the 

higher level at the east of the Erechtheum. The present steps are modern 
and are not exact restorations of the old stairs, either in number or position. 

57. Pit excavated to expose the marble drums of columns and steps which are 

built into the wall of Pericles. 

58. Fragment of a very large Ionic capital made of poros stone. 

59. Fragments of marble tables for offerings, votive stelae and other objects. 

60. Ancient approach by a rock-cut flight of steps to the primitive royal Palace 

on the Acropolis. 

61. F'robable position of the ancient gateway at the toji of the rock-cut stairs. 

62. Pit excavated to expose capitals and drums of columns made of poros stone, 

from the Temple of Aihena, which was destroyed by the Persians. These 

remains are built into the wall of Pericles; but the earlier portion of this 
wall probably dates from Themistocles. 

63. Similar capitals of poros stone which are now lying on the surface of the 

64, 64. Remains of primitive polygonal wall. 

65. Rock carefully levelled and cut to receive the S.E. angle of the peristyle of the 

early temple of Athena. 

66. Well-preserved fragment of the peristyle wall of the early temple of Athena. 

67. Two poros bases of wooden columns in the hall of the primitive " Palace of 

Erechtheus," below the floor of the cella of the early Temple of Athena. 

68. Eastern chamber of the Erechtheum, which was probably the shrine of Athena 

Pol i as. 

69. Middle chamber of the Erechtheum. 

70. Western chamber of the Erechtheum, in which lay the "Sea of Erechtheus," 

and probably designated by the name prostoiniaion. 

71. Caryatid porch of the Erechtheum resting on the peristyle wall of the early 

Temple of Athena. 

72. Single block still tn situ of the top course of the peristyle of the early Temple 

of Athena. 
73' 73- North wall of the same peristyle, which still exists to nearly its full height of 
from 12 to 15 feet. 

74. Fragment of one of the walls of the "palace of Erechtheus." 

75. Rock-cut inscription which marks the site of the statue of "Earth praying for 

rain," mentioned by Pausanias. 

76. Inscribed fragments of the base of the statues of Conon and Timotheus mentioned 

by Pausanias. 
77, 77- Rock-cut cistern? for storing rain-water. 

78. Principal chamber or Hecatompedon of the Parthenon. 

79. Western chamber, called " the parthenon." 

80. Opisthodomos of the Parthenon. 

81, 8r. Parts where the marble paving is missing, so that the foundation blocks of 
poros stone are visible. 
82. Modern staircase to the top of the Parthenon. 
83, 83. Podium of neatly cut poros blocks belonging to the foundations of the earlier 

84. S.E. angle of the podium of the Parthenon, which at this point is about 40 feet 

high above the rock. 

85. Junction of the built podium with the levelled rock at the east end of the 


86. Circular temple of Roma and Augustus, on a square podium of poros, 

87. Fragments of the inscribed frieze of the Temple of Roma. 
A.A. 3 D 


88. One of the capitals of the upper tier of Doric columns in the main cella of the 


89. Highest point of the Acropolis rock, where the great altar of Athena probably 

90, 90. Remains of the walls on rock-cut fotmdations, which supported the platform 
on which the altar of Athena stood. 

91. Holes for votive stelae. 

92. Rock-cut foundations for some structure near the great altar. 

93. Rock levelled to receive some other building or altar. 

94. Modern octagonal belvedere. 

95. Rock levelled, with perpendicular scarped faces on two sides, to receive some 

building of unknown use. 

96. Well preserved piece of the primitive polygonal wall of defense. 

97. fireach in the Acropolis wall repaired in modern times. 

98, 98. Remains of some buildings of unknown use, constructed of neatly cut poros blocks. 

99. Choregic monument of Thrasyilus. 
100, 100. Two columns with triangular abaci to receive votive bronze tripods. 
loi, loi. Rock scarped to a curved surface, forming the back of the cavea of the 
Dionysiac Tlieatre. 

102. Doric capitals of poros stone from the early temple of Athena. 

103. Unfinished marble drums prepared for the earlier Parthenon. 

104. Open area in fiont of the larger Museum. 

105. Architrave of poros stone with an interesting inscription of the sixth century B.C. 

106. Wall of poros stone running diagonally, not visible above the present ground level. 

107. Building of poros stone now covered up. This was probably a workshop used at 

the time of the building of the Parthenon. 
108, 108. Retaining wall for temporary use during the building of the Parthenon, not 

visible now, except at one point (100). 
109. Modern pit e.xcavated to show the angle of the massive stone platform which 

skiits the Acropolis wall at the S. E. angle, 
no. Pit e.xcavated to show the stairs in the fifth century retaining wall and, below 

it, the primitive polygonal wall. 

111. Pit excavated to show the angle of a massive retaining wall of poros blocks. 

112. Open pit surrounded with blocks of Kar^ limestone from the peristyle of the 

early temple of Athena and with drums from the earlier Parthenon. 

113. Marble base of a colossal statue, with an inscription in beautiful letter of the 

fifth century B.C. [This base lies at a different angle from that given in the 

114, 114. Rock-cut flight of nine steps leading up to the platform at the west end of 

the Parthenon. 

115, 115. Steps of poros stone inserted where the rock is wanting. 

116. Marble base of a statue inscribed with the name of C. Aelius Gallus. [Not found.] 

117. Rock-cut foundation for the colonnade in front of a long stoa, which was probably 

the Chalkotheke. 
118, 118. Front wall of the Chalkotheke. 

119. Doric capitals of poros stone from the early Temple of Athena. These capitals 

bear marks of the Persian fire which destroyed the chief buildings on the 

120. Unfinished marble drum from the earlier Parthenon. 

121. Rock-cut area and foundations of a long building, probably a stoa, on the east 

side of the precinct of Rrauronian Artemis. 

122. Marble blocks which belong to the base of the statue of the Trojan horse by 

Strongylion, see Paus. I. xxiii. 8. 


123. Rock-cut steps leading up into the precinct of Brauronian Artemis, with holes 

for stelae along the side of the stairs. 

124. Holes cut in the rock to hold 12 votive stelae. 

15, 125. Neatly scarped rock with stepped foundations cut to receive the precinct wall of 
Brauronian Artcnis on the north. 

126. Quadrant-shaped foundation cut in the rock, probably for the pedestal of some 

group of sculpture. 

127. A quadrangular basis that supported a statue and an altar. This statue and 

altar were probably connected with the worship of Athena Hygieia. 

128. Block of marble, one of several, intended to keep the rain-water from flooding 

the corner between the Propylaea and the precinct of Artemis. 

129. E.visting portion of the pores wall of the precinct of Brauronian Artemis. 



nk ol 

The Macmillan Company's Publications 


Archaeology, Antiquities, Etc. 

Life in the Homeric \ge 


Late Hillhouse Professor of Greek in Yale University 

Decorated doth, gilt top, T 2^ pages, maps 

and illustrations, indexes, %vo, ^4.00 net 

Although the point of view has been philological rather than archaeological, its 
wealth of bibliography for the study ot Homeric antiquity, and the minute and 
ripe scholarship represented, make this book an exceptionally important work for 
reference. As the New York Tribune says: " Absolutely free from speculation 
and controversy, the volume will surely prove valuable to every student of Greek 
life and literature. It has the further advantage of being the only work of its kind 
on the English book market to-day." 


Ancient Athens 


New edition, cloth, %vo, illustrated, 83.50 7tet j by mail, $3.75 

An authoritative and most instructive account of the city from antiquity to Roman 
times. The state of the city before and following the Persian wars is very fully 
described, with maps, diagrams of the temples, and numerous photographs of 
local scenes, monumental remains, pieces of sculpture, etc., to illustrate the story; 
and again, the period of its revival in Hellenistic and Roman times is largely 
treated. As the whole history is made in the light of the most modern discovery 
and criticism, the book is altogether the most trustworthy and informing, as well 
as the most modern and richly illustrated in its class. 

Schools of Hellas: An Essay on the Practice and 
Theory of Ancient Greek Education from 600 to 300 B.C. 

Cloth, T,i7 pages, illustrated, index, Svo, ^1. go net 

The title gives the scope of this highly novel and interesting work, which is 
profusely illustrated by reproductions of pictures from vase-paintings and the like, 
showing youths at various exercises in study and manual training during the 
classic period of Greek history. 

A list of the Macmillan publications on Greece, editions of Greek texts, and 
works on Greek Literature and History sent to any address on request by 




Handbooks of 
Archaeology and Antiquities 

Edited by Professor PERCY GARDNER, LlTT.D. 
of the University of Oxford, and 


of the University of Michigan 

In extra crown Svo, illustrated volumes 

Grammar of Greek Art 


Greek Sculpture 

Complete in one volume^ $2.50 ; Appendix to tlie aboi'e {paper), $0.35 

A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History 

By A. H. J. GREENIDGE. $1.25 

Greek and Roman Coins 

By G. F. HILL 
of the Coins Department of the British Museum ^2.25 

The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic 


Roman Public Life 

By A. H. J. GREENIDGE $2.50 

The Destruction of Ancient Rome 

A Sketch of the History of the Monurrents 

By Professor RODOLFO LANCIANI $1.50 

Christian Art and Archaeology 

By W. LOWRIE $1.25 


Pompeii : its Life and Art 

Fully illustrated §2.50 





•NDJKG DEPT. JUN 4 1958 

University of Toronto 








Acme Library Card Pocket