Part 2

The ceremony in the course of which the Arrephoroi carried the chest may have had to do with a cult of the heroized dead. Tradition has it that Erechtheus who was closely associated with Athena was buried in the Erechtheum. The discs on the box and on the dress of the bearers suggest those which were found in such numbers in the Mycenaean shaft-graves.[6] But whatever the character of the ceremony, it had to do with the cult which was housed in the Erechtheum.

The amphora just referred to is a Boeotian fabric, but that fact does not nullify the importance of its bearing upon the problem in hand. The Boeotian potter may have appropriated the scene from an Athenian source. The comparative study of this amphora, the archaic pedimental sculpture and the Caryatid Porch seem to justify the following conclusions. The Caryatid Porch is a bold translation into marble of the Arrephoroi and the disc-covered chest they carried upon their heads to the joint temple of Athena and Erechtheus. The maidens are a particularly appropriate adornment of the porch which was reserved for their living prototypes. The corresponding entrance of the Pre-Persian joint temple was also used by the Arrephoroi and may have had Caryatids in place of columns. If so the later temple reproduced a feature of the earlier temple just as the equally unique sculptured drums of the earlier Artemisium at Ephesus were reproduced in its successor. In a word the Caryatid Porch is not an arbitrary creation but is related in thought to the cult of the temple.

III

THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT

The present plan of the interior of the Erechtheum offers a number of difficulties. Those of a general character may be considered first. Within the cellae of Greek temples, the interior cross-wall is regularly at right angles to the axis of the main entrance and not parallel to that axis as in the west cella of the Erechtheum. The accepted plan of the cella compels an orientation east and west instead of north and south for its two chambers. The want of harmony in the proportions of the western chamber and the porch which admits to it is hardly to be expected of an architect of the fifth century. He might perhaps be justified by the theory that he labored under restrictions imposed by a complication of cults were it not for the fact that the contemporary architect of the Propylaea planned without regard to sanctuaries (cf. Furtwängler, _Sitzb. Münch. Akad._, 1904, 375). The feeling which the north porch creates is that it was intended to be the entrance to an interior of larger dimensions than those of the present plan.

Difficulties of a specific nature are encountered when one endeavors to find in the plan certain details of the Chandler inscription (I. G., I, 322). A satisfactory parastas cannot be located. It was an interior wall of some sort. The word [Greek: prostomiaion] the official name of one of the chambers in the west cella has been derived from [Greek: prostomion] which is conjectured to have been the curb about the sacred well (Petersen, _Die Burgtempel der Athenaia_, p. 101). But one naturally asks why the room of the sacred well was not named from [Greek: stomion]. The [Greek: phrear] ([Greek: stomion]) was the important object of cult in the room. It is the [Greek: thalassa] which is mentioned by Herodotus, and the [Greek: phrear] by Pausanias, while nothing is heard about a well-curb. The natural interpretation of [Greek: prostomiaion] is the room in front of ([Greek: pro]) the * [Greek: stomiaion], i.e., the room of the [Greek: stomion]. Now the derivation of * [Greek: stomiaion] (which does not, to be sure, occur in extant records of the temple) from [Greek: stomion] is as simple as that of [Greek: Pandroseion] from [Greek: Pandrosos]. It is the entirely problematical [Greek: prostomion] which renders improbable the derivation from it of [Greek: prostomiaion].

There is another possible source of difficulty to be noticed. The inscription mentions four doors, 8-1/4 x 2-1/2 feet, for which there is no place in the outside walls. These then must have been placed in the interior walls. According to the present plan which shows a closed wall between the shrines of Athena and Erechtheus these two double-doors must have been in the western cross-wall where they could hardly have admitted to a single room (Fowler and Wheeler, _Greek Archaeology_, p. 148, fig. 115). This obliges us to suppose a division of the middle chamber into two parts and thereby presents a difficulty to those who believe that the word [Greek: diploun] in the description of Pausanias refers to the entire western part of the Erechtheum. For the western cella would then consist of three instead of two chambers.

Further difficulties of a serious nature are encountered when one attempts to fit the text of Pausanias to the present plan of the whole building (cf. Michaelis, _Jb. Arch. Inst._, 1902, p. 16 ff). This is what scholars have sought to do with very different and unsatisfactory results, so unsatisfactory that of late there is a tendency on the part of some to deny that any value is to be placed upon the sequence which Pausanias observes in his narrative. Those who believe that the description is something more than a loose statement of the contents of the temple are said to be making assumptions. But the description, taken by itself, seems to be a systematic account, and the burden of proof rests upon those who deny it. The denial is based upon the failure of the account to square with the accepted plan of the interior of the Erechtheum, but such basis is insecure because the interior of the temple has been so completely destroyed as not to permit an absolutely certain restoration by means of the evidence of the building alone. There is no sure warrant for saying in the case of this description that Pausanias has confused his notes.

The traveler has been made to enter the Erechtheum through three different doors. His account, however, is simple and ought not to occasion difficulty. It suggests orderly progression. Before the entrance he found the altar of Zeus; on entering, three altars and the paintings of the Butadae; then in an inner ([Greek: endon]) room the well and trident-mark; thereafter follows the account of the objects in the cella of Athena. Then he passed to the Pandroseum. The order in this description is simple and natural, and the moment the theory is advanced of a postponement of certain objects for mention later in other connections, that moment the description ceases to be of value so far as the interior arrangement of the Erechtheum is concerned and the way is opened up to the disposition of the contents of the temple in accord with individual choice. The simplicity and naturalness of the description is the best guarantee of an orderly progression by Pausanias, and the only guide where the evidence of the building is insufficient.

In his simple, straightforward account, Pausanias gives not the slightest indication that he left the Erechtheum until he entered the Pandroseum. The present plan of the temple in which east and west cella are separated by a closed wall, compels that assumption. Further, if Pausanias coming from the east entered the Erechtheum by the east door, one is compelled to place in the cella of Athena the altar of Poseidon-Erechtheus and the paintings of the Butadae, which did not demand a cella with an orientation east, and then to place the contents of the [Greek: naos tês Athênas] including the xoanon in the western cella where they certainly did not belong; or else with Dörpfeld move the museum into the shadowy old Hekatompedon, thus depriving the goddess of all share in the Erechtheum except that the temple was named after her oldest image in the official inscription of the fifth century.

But neglecting for the moment the objection that Pausanias gives no indication of having left the Erechtheum until he passed to the [Greek: naos Pandrosou], and granting besides that the old Hekatompedon was still standing, one quickly asks why Pausanias, who took things in order, passed by that temple when he approached from the east. Why did he not visit the cellae which lay at the higher level and then proceed to that at a lower level in the west part of the Erechtheum? The fact that the old temple stood a few paces farther west than the Erechtheum does not help one out of the difficulty. The simple and convenient order would have been: Hekatompedon, Erechtheum, temple or temenos of Pandrosus. But instead one has the unintelligible order illustrated in _A. J. A._, III (1899), p. 368.

If, however, the majority of scholars are right in their belief that Pausanias entered first the west cella of the Erechtheum, then according to the present plan neither the well nor the trident-mark were [Greek: endon] because the former is placed in the room which is entered directly from the north and south porches (Michaelis, _Jb. Arch. Inst._, 1902, p. 16). Furtwängler (_Masterpieces_, p. 435) takes refuge in the theory that Pausanias, immediately after mentioning the altar of Zeus Hypatus before the entrance, adds the three others within the cella in order to get one of his favorite antitheses. The result is hopeless confusion. The three altars which Pausanias mentions as being in the first chamber, Furtwängler distributes in two chambers, neither of which is entered directly from either north or south porch, while in the first chamber Cecrops is established whom Pausanias does not mention. An attempt, which must be characterized as violent, has been made to fit the description of the traveller to the plan of the cella by the assumption (Frazer, _Paus._, II, 336) that both well and trident-mark were apparently reached from the inner chamber, a sight of the well being afforded to the curious through an opening at the foot of the staircase which led down from the inner chamber into the crypt (cf. Furtwängler, _Sitzb. Mün. Akad._, 1904, p. 372). But why make Pausanias descend a stairway, for which there is no evidence, to look at indentations in the rock which could be seen from the Porch? Frazer's reason that the passage through the foundation and beneath the floor was for those who wished to examine the indentations closely is exceedingly poor. One can examine the marks from the porch without crawling through the passage, the height of which (1.22 m.) shows that it was not intended to be an ordinary approach, as Michaelis (_op. cit._, p. 19) rightly observes. Petersen's explanation (_op. cit._, p. 102) that Pausanias postponed the mention of the trident-mark until he saw the [Greek: phrear] inside the temple is simply another arbitrary violation of a clear statement by the traveler which gives every indication of orderly natural progression.

Notice must be taken at this point of the hole through the floor of the porch close to the wall and at the left of the door. This hole opens into the passage. Nilson (_J.H.S._, 1901, p. 328) accepts the assertion made in the [Greek: Praktika tês epi tou Erechtheiou Epitropês] (1853) § 25 that the hole is modern, but since there is not the slightest trace of a scar made by a chisel on the surface of the adjacent block, it is certain that the hole was cut before the slab was set in place, i.e. it is part of the underground system at this place, but no attempt has been made to explain it.

Yet another difficulty is found in the words [Greek: diploun gar estin to oikêma]. After mentioning the altars and paintings in the first room, Pausanias passes to the second with the observation that the [Greek: oikêma] is double, to find there ([Greek: endon]) a well and the marks ([Greek: sêma] or [Greek: schêma]) of the trident. In other passages in which Pausanias describes double buildings the natural interpretation is that the first chamber is in front, the front determined by the entrance of the second, because cross-walls in cellae are normally at right angles to the major axis. The north porch at once determines that axis in the west cella of the Erechtheum. In Paus. VI, 20. 3, the first chamber is noted with the words [Greek: en tô emprosthen], the second with [Greek: en tô entos]. According to the present plan the chambers of the [Greek: oikêma Erechtheiou] are one in front of the other for a person only, who enters by the small door in the west wall. For one entering by either of the other doors, the chambers are side by side.

A common objection to all theories about the Erechtheum is that they attribute an unintelligible order to the course taken by Pausanias. Those who think he entered the building by the north porch or the porch of the maidens are compelled to believe that he passed by an eastern entrance only to retrace his steps upstairs and enter later the cella of Athena, and that he then descended again to visit the Pandroseum. Those who believe that Pausanias saw the xoanon of Athena in the Hekatompedon are also compelled to make Pausanias double on his course and furthermore to strain the meaning of [Greek: synechês]. The Pandroseum, in which the [Greek: naos Pandrosou] must have stood is in close connection with the Erechtheum, and not with the terrace of the Hekatompedon which lay higher and was separated still more by a wall which ran west from the porch of the maidens on the foundation for the peristyle of the old temple. Those who believe that a staircase connected the eastern with the lower western cella of the Erechtheum are at a loss to say why Pausanias did not enter the eastern shrine first, and after describing its contents descend to the western and lower cella, and then proceed to the Pandroseum. In short, the present plan of the Erechtheum will agree with the description of Pausanias _cum mula peperit_.

The difficulties of the present plan both in the light of the Chandler inscription and the description by Pausanias induce one to believe that the interior of the Erechtheum has been wrongly restored and must therefore be reëxamined.

A Roman foundation has obscured the truth in the temple, namely the foundation which is said to have supported the western of the two interior walls. This foundation, however, lies exactly below the heavy blocks which were inserted by the Romans as the epistyle of a row of piers or columns to support the roof and which served as the successor of the [Greek: kampylê selis] of Greek times (_A. J. A._, 1910, p. 291). The weathering on the north wall helps to establish the relation of the foundation to the inserted blocks. This foundation was later used for the wall of the narthex of the church into which the Erechtheum was converted, perhaps as early as the fifth century. The traces of the Greek walls, just east of the north and south doors, show however that, if they belong to a Greek wall which stood on the present foundation, that wall rested not squarely on the foundation but on the eastern side of it. The certain conclusion from these facts is that the foundation was not laid for the Greek wall, whatever the character of the latter may have been. The size of the inserted blocks proves that the Roman work was heavy and demanded a heavy foundation such as exists reaching down to the rock. The traces of the Greek wall however show that it reached up five courses above the orthostates while the presence of the [Greek: kampylê selis] above proves that this low wall was only a screen-wall and supported nothing. That the foundation is Roman is confirmed on examination of its character which presents a remarkable contrast with the Greek foundation of the west wall of the building. The bed for the Roman foundation was not carefully prepared; just south of the centre the unevenness of the underlying rock is distinctly noticeable. Quite different is the character of the Greek foundation. The rock was carefully cut to receive it. The courses are evenly laid, the interstices between the blocks small. Neither remark applies to the Roman foundation which is the poorest in the building. Finally, this foundation does not key into those for the north and south walls (Fig. 6). The south foundation appears to key into that for the interior wall, but on examination it will be seen that the poros block in question has been cut back by those who enlarged the cistern. This block originally projected in as far as the poros blocks in the same course but east of the interior wall. If the interior foundation had keyed into the foundations of the outside walls its Greek character would have been beyond question.

The western cella of the Erechtheum was in all probability divided into two chambers by a wall running east and west (Fig. 7). The chief evidence in the building for this is that the west door of the Erechtheum does not stand in the middle of the wall, a peculiarity often remarked (Penrose, _The Principles of Athenian Architecture_, p. 88). The unusual position of a door under a column is structurally objectionable (Michaelis, _Jb. Arch. Inst._, 1902, p. 18). Had the door been placed in the middle, it would have stood directly under the central intercolumination of the west colonnade. The latest theory (D'Ooge, _The Acropolis of Athens_, p. 201) is that the position of the door was determined by the structure which abutted against the west wall just south of the door. The presence of an adjoining structure is then to be credited with some magic power of attraction which drew the door from its normal position into one structurally objectionable. The unsymmetrical position of the door was doubtless determined by the interior cross-wall which stood just north of the door and divided the west cella into a north and south chamber of approximately the same size. The door connecting the two very probably lay in the axis of the north and south doors of the temple (Fig. 7), thus very near to the west wall. The distance of the top course which could not have reached above the lintel of the west door was 8-1/4 feet above the bottom of the orthostates of the west wall. The height of the doors mentioned in the Chandler inscription is 8-1/4 feet. Of this cross-wall there are no traces of contact with the west wall. It must be noted, however, that the surface of the west wall is at that place badly broken away (Fig. 8). The surface of the orthostate is in part well preserved but orthostates at the place of contact with interior walls have nowhere left any indication of such contact--no anathyrosis. This is especially peculiar in the case of the eastern cross-wall where the supposed higher level on the east side would lead one to expect a careful joining with anathyrosis (Fig. 9). Had the north wall been destroyed beyond recovery down to this orthostate, there would have been no evidence now to show that a cross-wall ever was in contact with it. The orthostate next the door in the west wall cannot be cited as evidence against the existence of an interior cross-wall running east and west. The blocks above this orthostate are badly broken away except one just below the lintel which has some original surface preserved. The lintel like the orthostate is a block two courses high and may have the same exemption from any signs of contact, as far as the surface is concerned, with the interior of the wall. It is possible that not a single course of the cross-wall keyed into the west wall because the former was merely a low partition-wall. The top of the lintel in the line of the wall is broken away so that there, as in the case of the blocks below, no evidence of clamps can be expected. Neglecting for a moment the remarkable position of the door, it may be said that the interior surface of the west wall just north of the door is in no condition to give definite evidence pro or con of the existence of this interior cross-wall. The conclusive answer must be found in the simple description of Pausanias to whose text one may now turn (I, 26, 5). The new plan fits perfectly.

In the first room ([Greek: eselthousi]) Pausanias found the altars of Hephaestus, Poseidon-Erechtheus and Butes, and the paintings of the Butadae. The wall space lighted directly from the west windows was finely adapted for the paintings. There were only two doors and those at the west ends of the long walls. There could have been an uninterrupted series of paintings, whereas the [Greek: prostomiaion] of the other plan had five doors, and therefore offered less desirable space. With the words [Greek: diploun gar estin to oikêma], Pausanias passes to the next room ([Greek: endon]) where he found the well of sea-water. Now the name with which Pausanias introduces his description is significant: [Greek: esti de kai oikêma Erechtheion kaloumenon]. He named the temple from the part which he entered first and then he says a moment later that this [Greek: oikêma] is double, i.e. the part which he has just entered. Up to this point there is no suggestion of Athena. The [Greek: diploun oikêma] of Erechtheus consisted of two chambers one behind the other with reference to the porch.

The [Greek: phrear] in the new plan is in the inner ([Greek: endon]) room of the [Greek: oikêma] near the west wall of the temple, where water was accumulated in later times and probably therefore in Greek and Roman times, while there is no indication whatever of a well of any sort in the inner chamber according to the old plan. At present the cistern in the western part of the temple reaches from north door to south door, but there is evidence to show that originally in Greek times it did not extend so far north. Just inside the north door, the pavement consisted of thin slabs, 0.13 m. thick, which ran in under the heavy blocks below the orthostates of the west wall and fitted into a cutting in the topmost course of the poros foundation. The thinness of the pavement is inconsistent with the theory of a hollow vault of any sort beneath the floor. There must have been a filling of earth for the pavement to rest on. This confirms the theory that the originally smaller place for the accumulation of water within the building was the south-west corner. The drain at the south-west corner of the North Porch which brought water from the direction of the Caryatid Porch both before and after the present Erechtheum was built may have carried excess water from the [Greek: phrear]. It is possible that the absence of a proper foundation beneath the threshold of the door in the Caryatid Porch was due to the presence there of a course or courses of stone which surrounded the well and trident-mark. The architect, unable to secure consent to their removal, was compelled to build upon them and to raise the door. He placed the threshold above the bottom of the orthostates, and the position of this threshold may have determined the high position of the orthostates of the western wall. Both are placed at the same level.