1 files changed, 2052 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/37197-0.txt b/37197-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8888dab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/37197-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2052 @@
+Project Gutenberg's Problems in Periclean Buildings, by G. W. Elderkin
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Problems in Periclean Buildings
+
+Author: G. W. Elderkin
+
+Release Date: August 24, 2011 [EBook #37197]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROBLEMS IN PERICLEAN BUILDINGS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Broward County Library, Stephen Rowland and the
+Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+PROBLEMS IN PERICLEAN BUILDINGS
+
+PRINCETON MONOGRAPHS IN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY II
+
+PROBLEMS IN
+PERICLEAN BUILDINGS
+
+BY
+
+G. W. ELDERKIN, PH.D.
+
+ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PRECEPTOR IN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY,
+PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
+
+PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
+PRINCETON
+LONDON: HENRY FROWDE
+OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
+1912
+
+Copyright, 1912, by Princeton University Press
+for the United States of America.
+
+Printed by Princeton University Press,
+Princeton, N. J., U. S. A.
+
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+I. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IRREGULARITY OF THE PROPYLAEA      1
+
+II. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CARYATID PORCH                  13
+
+III. THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT                                 19
+
+IV. THE ERECHTHEUM AS PLANNED                                49
+
+
+
+
+LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
+
+
+1. EAST WINDOW OF THE PINAKOTHEKE.
+
+2. THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM THE BASE OF THE BASTION OF THE TEMPLE OF
+WINGLESS VICTORY.
+
+3. THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM A POINT NEAR THE AXIS OF THE CENTRAL
+PORTAL.
+
+4. PLAN OF PROPYLAEA WITH ZIGZAG ROAD OF ASCENT.
+
+5. SCENE ON AN ARCHAIC AMPHORA.
+
+6. NORTH END OF WESTERN INTERIOR FOUNDATION OF THE ERECHTHEUM. VIEW FROM
+THE EAST.
+
+7. THE GROUND PLAN OF THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT.
+
+8. THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DOOR IN THE WEST WALL.
+
+9. NORTH WALL AT PLACE OF CONTACT WITH THE EASTERN CROSS-WALL.
+
+10. THE CUTTING IN THE MARBLE BLOCK AT THE N. E. CORNER OF THE EASTERN
+CELLA BELOW THE SUPPOSED FLOOR-LEVEL.
+
+11. THE INTERIOR N. W. CORNER OF THE TEMPLE.
+
+12. THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE ERECHTHEUM.
+
+
+
+
+I
+
+THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IRREGULARITY OF THE PROPYLAEA
+
+
+The irregular position of the door and the windows of the north-west
+wing of the Propylaea has long been remarked, though no explanations of
+the phenomenon have been offered. Bohn, _Die Propylaeen der Akropolis zu
+Athen_, p. 23, says of the south wall of this wing: "Die Wand welche die
+Halle von dem eigentlichen Gemach trennt, ist von einer Tür und zwei
+Fenstern durchbrochen. Erstere liegt jedoch nicht in der Mitte, die
+letzteren wiederum unsymmetrisch zu ihr. Irgend einen Grund, irgend eine
+axiale Beziehung zu den Säulen vermochte ich in dieser abweichenden
+Anordnung nicht zu finden." The east wall of the Erechtheum, on the
+other hand (_A. J. A._, 1906, Pl. 8), was pierced by a central door and
+two windows equidistant from it. That such symmetrical arrangement
+should obtain in the Erechtheum and not in the closely contemporary
+Propylaea very justly occasions surprise. It is the purpose of this
+study to attempt to explain the irregularity in the latter.
+
+The first fact to be observed with regard to the façade of the
+Pinakotheke is concisely stated by Bohn (_op. cit._, p. 23): "Die
+Stellung der Säulen bestimmt sich dadurch dass die Tangente an die
+Westseite der östlichsten genau in die entsprechende Flucht der
+Hexastylstützen fällt." The position of the anta at the eastern end of
+the lesser colonnade is also fixed by the requirement that it stand
+directly beneath a triglyph. This anta in turn determined the position
+of the eastern window, for the west face of the anta and the window are
+equidistant from the east wall of the Pinakotheke (Fig. 1). The
+coincidence can hardly be accidental. If the position of the eastern
+window was thus determined by considerations of appearance from a
+well-defined exterior point of view, it is probable that the position
+of the other two openings in the wall was similarly determined by a
+point or points somewhere in the line of approach to the building rather
+than by any consideration for objects within the Pinakotheke. Such a
+point is readily found at the base of the Nike bastion, from which both
+windows and door are simultaneously visible between the columns (Fig.
+2). The western window appears at the extreme left of the
+intercolumniation; the eastern, at the extreme right. If the observer
+advance from this point toward the Pinakotheke, the windows remain
+constantly in sight but appear to move more and more toward the middle
+of the intercolumniations (Fig. 3).
+
+Along no other line outside the portico can the three openings be viewed
+thus simultaneously. Along the line noted, they may be viewed not only
+simultaneously but in such mutual relation as to give a necessarily
+varying yet satisfying appearance of symmetry. The facts point to two
+almost unavoidable inferences: first, that the line of these points
+determines for us the position of the last stretch of the zigzag road
+which led up to the Acropolis; second, that the asymmetrical placing of
+door and windows was due to the architect's desire that the façade
+should produce a complete and unified impression upon the approaching
+observer. This wish of the architect, further, explains the unusual
+depth of the portico of the Pinakotheke. As has already been stated, the
+position of the east window was fixed by the anta before it. Such being
+the case, the depth of the portico was necessarily conditioned by the
+visibility of the window from the bastion of the Nike temple. Had the
+wall been moved forward, the window would in greater or less degree have
+been concealed by a column, and the architect's purpose in so far
+defeated. In view of the unusual depth of the portico the effect of
+moving the wall still further back scarcely requires consideration.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 1
+
+VIEW OF THE EAST WINDOW OF THE PINAKOTHEKE SHOWING ITS RELATION TO THE
+EAST ANTA OF THE PORTICO]
+
+If the last stretch of the zigzag road has been correctly determined,
+the next stretch below must have reached from the Nike bastion to a
+point below the pedestal of the monument to Agrippa. This pedestal, in
+turn, affords important evidence confirming the theory that such was the
+course of the road. The monument to Agrippa was erected in 27 B.C., that
+is, before the Greek way was replaced by the Roman steps in the first
+century A.D. (Judeich, _Topographie von Athen_, p. 199, note). Its
+peculiar orientation has never been explained, but now, in view of the
+preceding analysis, is easily explicable. From the bend in the road at
+the base of the bastion, the equestrian statue, which surmounted the
+high pedestal, was seen in exact profile. This is proved by a glance at
+the plan (Fig. 4) in which the axis of the road and the N-S axis of the
+pedestal converge at the base of the bastion. From the turn in the road
+just below the pedestal, the inscription on its west face could be
+easily read. But from the conjectured road which is drawn in Judeich,
+_op. cit._, Plan II, it was impossible for a person to read easily the
+inscription or see the equestrian group in exact profile. Thus it seems
+beyond question that the pedestal of the monument was oriented with
+reference to the ancient Greek roadway, the first clue to which is given
+by the peculiar arrangement of the door and windows of the Pinakotheke.
+The road thus determined possesses the signal advantage over the other
+that it permitted an impressive view through the great portal and an
+impressive approach to it from directly in front.
+
+The simultaneous visibility of door and windows from the normal line of
+approach is a hitherto unobserved feature of Periclean building which is
+again happily illustrated in the closely contemporary Erechtheum. The
+certain restoration by Stevens (_A. J. A._, 1906, Pl. 9) of the east
+wall of this temple, shows that the door and windows were so placed as
+to be simultaneously visible from points in the axis of the door (Fig.
+7). At a distance of about 10 m. from the stylobate, the windows
+appeared in the middle of the intercolumniations.[1] The level ground in
+front of the façade made possible an approach from straight in front. In
+order that the windows might be simultaneously visible, they were
+crowded close to the door--a fact which probably compelled the architect
+to use a bronze-plated door frame instead of a stone one such as he used
+in the north door. The former permitted longer wall blocks between the
+door and window than the latter would have allowed.
+
+In the case of the Propylaea, the approach was by a zigzag road up a
+steep grade. The last stretch of this road was oblique to the N-S axis
+of the Pinakotheke. If the façade was to be viewed from that last
+stretch of the zigzag road, an asymmetric arrangement of door and
+windows was absolutely necessary. The windows and door had to be moved
+to the right of their normal position. The east façade of the Erechtheum
+and the Pinakotheke both illustrate the same law that door and windows
+behind a colonnade shall be simultaneously visible from before the
+colonnade. In the east façade of the Erechtheum, however, this law is
+observed in a perfectly normal arrangement; in the Pinakotheke,
+observance of the general law necessitated an abnormal arrangement of
+the openings.
+
+Yet an insurmountable difficulty in the way of complete observance of
+the law lay in the necessity for considering the demands of two widely
+separated points of view, one in the line of approach to the Propylaea,
+the other within the portico. A glance at the plan of the Propylaea
+(Fig. 4) shows that lines drawn from the axis of the straight roadway at
+its lower end to the door jambs of the Pinakotheke cut two columns
+unequally. The line to the left side of the door is tangent to one
+column, the line to the right side cuts deeply into the other. If the
+door had been placed with reference solely to the view from the last
+stretch of the zigzag road, it ought to stand farther to the west. That
+it does not so stand must be due to the fact that the architect sought
+likewise to provide for the view of the observer who approached the
+Pinakotheke from behind the hexastyle. It is necessary to emphasize the
+fact that the passage back of the hexastyle was the normal means of
+access to the Pinakotheke. The position of the east window in the middle
+of its wall space would be quickly, if unconsciously felt by the
+observer, with the result that the asymmetry of the wall as a whole
+would not be noticed. Had the normal access to the wing been from
+directly in front, between the first and second columns (counting from
+the east), the fact that the windows were not equidistant from the door
+would have been readily recognized, but, as it is, the observer who
+entered the portico in the regular way at the east end saw directly in
+front of him a wall space pierced by a centrally placed window. If the
+door had been placed farther west, this advantage would have been lost.
+
+If the zigzag approach we have indicated be correct, it follows that the
+Pinakotheke was designed also for an observer who stood at the beginning
+of the straight road through the portal, where it would have produced a
+unified effect with the general structure.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 2
+
+THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM THE BASE OF THE NIKE BASTION. AT LEFT, THE
+PEDESTAL OF THE MONUMENT TO AGRIPPA]
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 3
+
+THE PINAKOTHEKE AS SEEN FROM A POINT NEAR THE AXIS OF THE ROADWAY
+THROUGH THE PROPYLAEA]
+
+It will be readily seen that if the S.W. wing, which was never
+completed, had been built as an exact counterpart of the N.W. wing, the
+three parts would have been designed to be seen from a common point at
+the beginning of the straight road through the portal, and the structure
+though tripartite would have been a symmetrical unit. Professor Dörpfeld
+(_Ath. Mitt._, 1885, p. 45 ff.) has shown that the architect planned at
+one time a south-west wing with a colonnade instead of a closed west
+wall, and that the present curtailed wing could have been incorporated
+in the wing as planned, if permission had ever been given to encroach
+upon adjacent sanctuaries. There is, of course, no gainsaying that a
+colonnade was at one time projected for the west side of the wing, but
+does this fact in any wise exclude the possibility of a still earlier
+plan? The only reason given by Prof. Dörpfeld for the colonnade is that
+access might be had to the Nike temple. But a closed wall in place of
+the colonnade would not have made the temple inaccessible so long as
+there remained at the north-west corner of the wing the steps which
+afforded a far more convenient approach to the temple for those coming
+up to the Acropolis. Indeed, it seems quite possible that the architect,
+Mnesicles, originally planned a south-west wing (Stuart & Revett, _The
+Antiquities of Athens_, II, V, Pl. III) exactly like the north-west
+wing, but that he was compelled to give it up, that his compromise of a
+colonnade was also rejected, and that he had to content himself with the
+curtailed form in which the wing now exists, but that he so placed the
+back wall of the chamber that it might ultimately be incorporated in a
+wing with a colonnade on the west side.
+
+There is, moreover, some reason to suspect that the architect was
+hostile to the idea of having a temple on the bastion. The Propylaea and
+the temple are obviously not features of a harmonious structural plan.
+The Propylaea as the crowning gateway of the acropolis demanded an
+unobstructed outlook toward the west. The presence of the little temple
+obstructs that outlook. When one learns that the senate voted the
+construction of the temple in, or shortly before, 446 B.C., (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ.,
+1897, p. 179), that is, at a time when we fairly assume that the
+Periclean building plans for the acropolis were about ready, he is
+justified in suspecting that a conservative religious party sought
+permanently to thwart the builders in their disregard of sanctuaries by
+placing a temple to Athena Nike on the bastion. That the opposition of
+the priesthood[2] checked completely the intention of Pericles and his
+architects is shown by the fact that foundations were never laid for the
+walls which would have stood either in the precinct of Artemis
+Brauronia, or in that of Athena Nike.
+
+The most suggestive chapter in the struggle between priest and architect
+is the last. When the architect was forced to abandon the idea of
+building a colonnade, he hoped that he could extend the south wall of
+the wing 30 cm. west of its present position so as to align it with the
+third column of the north colonnade. The evidence for this is the poros
+blocks under the floor of the wing which project just far enough west to
+have supported a pavement of marble slabs terminating at the western
+side of the column (see the photograph in _Jb. Arch. Inst._, 1906, p.
+139). These blocks were never intended to serve as a step, for in that
+case marble would have been used. Had the pavement and anta reached 30
+cm. farther, a pier of necessary diameter could have been erected
+between the anta and the third column of the north façade, and the
+architrave above the pier could then have been of the same width as that
+of the north colonnade. But even this slight concession was denied; the
+western line of the wing was forced back; a unique pier had to be built
+and a narrow architrave placed upon it (Bohn, _op. cit._, Taf. XVI).
+Even the poros blocks where they encroached on the precinct appear to
+have been hacked away.
+
+In the Propylaea itself, there survives some suggestion of the real
+attitude of the architect toward the Nike temple and its bastion. The
+crepidoma of the south-west wing terminates in an anta which was
+intended to stand free (_Arch. Zeit._, 1880, p. 86; _Jb. Arch. Inst._,
+1906, p. 136, fig. 3): "Dass dieser Pfeiler in Form einer Anta gebildet
+ist, d.h. nach Nord und Süd um ein wenig vorspringt, beweist dass hier
+ursprünglich ein selbständiger Abschluss geplant war, genau wie an der
+Nordhalle." The objection of Wolters (_Bonner Studien_, p. 95) does not
+invalidate Bohn's conclusion. The former assumes that the blocks for the
+two corresponding antae were ordered by the architect without his
+specifying for which anta the several blocks were intended. Since the
+blocks are of different height, it seems safe to infer that the
+stone-cutter knew exactly the place of each. Another important fact is
+that the anta in question inclines 3 cm. to the west. Dörpfeld who
+publishes this valuable observation in _Ath. Mitt._, 1911, p. 55, says:
+"Für das Ende einer Mauer ist ein Überneigen des oberen Teiles nach
+aussen ganz unerhört. Wir dürfen also mit Sicherheit behaupten dass die
+beiden Seitenwände des Vorplatzes der Propyläen nicht beendet sind,
+sondern nach dem Plane des Mnesikles weiter nach Westen als Marmorwände
+mit mindestens je einer zweiten Ante fortgeführt werden sollten. Im
+Süden sollten die beiden Parastaden augenscheinlich die Treppe zum
+Nike-Tempel einfassen, im Norden sollten sie vermutlich eine Tür
+bilden, die zu dem westlich von der Pinakothek befindlichen tief
+liegenden Raume führte."
+
+The inference from Professor Dörpfeld's important observation is that
+the anta was intended to carry a lintel or an architrave reaching west.
+The question is just how much of the bastion was to be removed to make
+room for this extension. The readiness of the architect to encroach upon
+the precinct of the temple warrants the answer that the whole bastion
+was to be removed. The anta, as Bohn says, was built to stand free like
+its counterpart at the N.W. wing. The character of the extension remains
+a matter of conjecture. Perhaps a colonnade was contemplated.
+
+But if this is true, the question arises how does it happen that the
+bastion of the temple, which certainly antedates the Propylaea, has a
+north wall aligned with that of the S.W. wing of the Propylaea. The
+coincidence must be the result of deliberate plan and is best explained
+by the supposition that when the bastion was built, the ground plan of
+the Propylaea and its position were already known. The north wall of the
+bastion could therefore be built in line with that of the wing. The
+continuation of the north wall of the bastion was broken away when work
+on the Propylaea was begun.
+
+Neither Pericles nor Mnesicles gave consent to the erection of the
+Temple of Wingless Victory. In the leaning anta which was built to stand
+free one reads their buried hope that the Propylaea might enjoy a finely
+impressive command of the whole region west of the acropolis, a command
+unannoyed by the hostile lines of the structurally insignificant temple
+of Victory.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 4
+
+PLAN OF THE PROPYLAEA SHOWING THE ZIGZAG ROAD, THE CONJECTURED ROAD (IN
+DOTTED LINES), AND THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE S.W. WING]
+
+
+
+
+II
+
+THE CARYATID PORCH OF THE ERECHTHEUM
+
+
+Not the least remarkable feature of the Erechtheum is the Caryatid
+Porch, which is generally regarded as a creation of the artist's fancy
+and of no further significance. In the present study an attempt will be
+made to prove that the maidens serve not only a structural and artistic
+purpose, but that they also bear a relation in thought to the cult of
+the temple, notwithstanding the fact that the female figure had been
+employed by earlier architects merely as a support. If the subject of
+the frieze of the Erechtheum, like that of the approximately
+contemporary Parthenon, was appropriately drawn from the life and
+worship of the gods of the temple, it is possible that the sculptured
+maidens of the unique Caryatid Porch also bear a logical relation to the
+cult of the temple.
+
+In the first place it may be observed that the entrance to the
+Erechtheum at the Caryatid Porch corresponds in position closely to the
+south entrance of the Pre-Persian Erechtheum. The archaic pedimental
+sculpture of poros which is now in the Acropolis Museum (Wiegand,
+_Porosarchitektur der Akropolis zu Athen_, Taf. 14; Petersen, _Die
+Burgtempel der Athenaia_, p. 22, abb. 2) gives us a view of the early
+temple as seen from the south. Close to the west side of the temple, the
+sacred olive of Athena appears above a low wall, just as in a later
+period, it stood close to the west façade of the Erechtheum and appeared
+above the south wall of the Pandroseum. A precinct wall ran west from
+the south-west corner of both the earlier and later Erechtheum. Along
+this wall in the pedimental sculpture figures are passing toward the
+temple. They have come from the direction of the Propylaea. A procession
+moving from the Propylaea to the Caryatid Porch had exactly the
+background of the sculptured figures. The correspondence is complete
+when one notes that these figures are moving toward an entrance which
+answers to the later Caryatid Porch.
+
+A further point of value is that the female figures in the procession
+carried something on their heads, as is shown by their raised but broken
+left arms. The position of the larger one which was intended to be seen
+in front view is not certain because it was not attached to the wall
+like the smaller female figure. It stood probably in the portico and may
+have served as a Caryatid. Petersen (_op. cit._, p. 27) thinks these
+figures represent Arrephoroi rather than Canephoroi and his opinion is
+very reasonable. The Arrephoroi annually carried some mysterious object
+on their heads to the temple of Athena and Erechtheus.
+
+The procession including Arrephoroi moving toward an entrance which was
+the predecessor of the Caryatid Porch suggests an explanation of the
+fact that the latter porch was not for common use. A restricted use of
+the Caryatid Porch is a certain inference from the following facts. The
+opening at the north-east corner of the porch is narrow and the step up
+to it is twenty inches. If this means of access to the temple had been
+used by the public, the step would have been lower and convenient.
+Again, the delicate base mouldings of the building which run under this
+opening would have been worn if the opening had been frequently used
+(Frazer, _Pausanias_, II, p. 337). Frazer's conclusion is that the
+entrance was reserved for priests.
+
+This entrance like its predecessor was perhaps used by the Arrephoroi.
+If it was the entrance especially reserved for them, then the Caryatids
+may very appropriately be regarded as statues of Arrephoroi. They adorn
+their own porch. To such an identification the objection may be made
+that the Caryatids are fully developed forms whereas the Arrephoroi were
+girls between the ages of seven and eleven (Bekker, _Anecdota Graeca_,
+I. p. 202, s. v. ἀρρηφορεῖν) but a structural necessity for heavier,
+fuller forms justified the license of the architect. The Caryatids are
+called κόραι in the building inscriptions.[3]
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 5
+
+PROCESSION OF ARREPHOROI. A SCENE ON AN ARCHAIC AMPHORA]
+
+The interpretation of the Caryatids as Arrephoroi is confirmed by a
+scene (Fig. 5)[4] on an archaic amphora which also makes possible a
+better understanding of the Porch as a whole. The amphora which is now
+in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston is published by De Ridder in _B.
+C. H._, 1898, p. 467 and pl. VI, and by Caskey in _Museum of Fine Arts
+Bulletin_, Vol. VII (1909), No. 38. In the scene on the neck of this
+amphora appears a priestess followed by four maidens who bear upon their
+heads a long chest. De Ridder compares the four maidens with the
+Athenian Canephoroi. Certain suggestive points may be noted. The maidens
+are four in number. Ancient writers with the exception of Pausanias tell
+us that there were four Arrephoroi at Athens.[5] The front of the
+Caryatid Porch consists of four. Nor do comparisons stop here. The
+architrave which the Caryatids (Arrephoroi) carry may be compared with
+the long chest which the maidens bear on their heads, and the discs on
+the architrave with the discs which ornament the chest. The discs on the
+architrave are usually explained as a substitute for a frieze, but the
+logic of such substitution is quite unclear. They are simply the
+ornaments which decorated the mysterious burden of the Arrephoroi.
+
+The ceremony in the course of which the Arrephoroi carried the chest may
+have had to do with a cult of the heroized dead. Tradition has it that
+Erechtheus who was closely associated with Athena was buried in the
+Erechtheum. The discs on the box and on the dress of the bearers suggest
+those which were found in such numbers in the Mycenaean shaft-graves.[6]
+But whatever the character of the ceremony, it had to do with the cult
+which was housed in the Erechtheum.
+
+The amphora just referred to is a Boeotian fabric, but that fact does
+not nullify the importance of its bearing upon the problem in hand. The
+Boeotian potter may have appropriated the scene from an Athenian source.
+The comparative study of this amphora, the archaic pedimental sculpture
+and the Caryatid Porch seem to justify the following conclusions. The
+Caryatid Porch is a bold translation into marble of the Arrephoroi and
+the disc-covered chest they carried upon their heads to the joint temple
+of Athena and Erechtheus. The maidens are a particularly appropriate
+adornment of the porch which was reserved for their living prototypes.
+The corresponding entrance of the Pre-Persian joint temple was also used
+by the Arrephoroi and may have had Caryatids in place of columns. If so
+the later temple reproduced a feature of the earlier temple just as the
+equally unique sculptured drums of the earlier Artemisium at Ephesus
+were reproduced in its successor. In a word the Caryatid Porch is not an
+arbitrary creation but is related in thought to the cult of the temple.
+
+
+
+
+III
+
+THE ERECHTHEUM AS BUILT
+
+
+The present plan of the interior of the Erechtheum offers a number of
+difficulties. Those of a general character may be considered first.
+Within the cellae of Greek temples, the interior cross-wall is regularly
+at right angles to the axis of the main entrance and not parallel to
+that axis as in the west cella of the Erechtheum. The accepted plan of
+the cella compels an orientation east and west instead of north and
+south for its two chambers. The want of harmony in the proportions of
+the western chamber and the porch which admits to it is hardly to be
+expected of an architect of the fifth century. He might perhaps be
+justified by the theory that he labored under restrictions imposed by a
+complication of cults were it not for the fact that the contemporary
+architect of the Propylaea planned without regard to sanctuaries (cf.
+Furtwängler, _Sitzb. Münch. Akad._, 1904, 375). The feeling which the
+north porch creates is that it was intended to be the entrance to an
+interior of larger dimensions than those of the present plan.
+
+Difficulties of a specific nature are encountered when one endeavors to
+find in the plan certain details of the Chandler inscription (I. G., I,
+322). A satisfactory parastas cannot be located. It was an interior wall
+of some sort. The word προστομιαῖον the official name of one of the
+chambers in the west cella has been derived from προστόμιον 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 στόμιον. The φρέαρ (στόμιον) was
+the important object of cult in the room. It is the θάλασσα which is
+mentioned by Herodotus, and the φρέαρ by Pausanias, while nothing is
+heard about a well-curb. The natural interpretation of προστομιαῖον is
+the room in front of (πρό) the * στομιαῖον, i.e., the room of the
+στόμιον. Now the derivation of * στομιαῖον (which does not, to be sure,
+occur in extant records of the temple) from στόμιον is as simple as that
+of Πανδροσεῖον from Πάνδροσος. It is the entirely problematical
+προστόμιον which renders improbable the derivation from it of
+προστομιαῖον.
+
+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 διπλοῦν 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 (ἔνδον) 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 ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς 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 ναὸς
+Πανδρόσου, 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 ἔνδον
+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 φρέαρ 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 Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἐρεχθείου Ἐπιτροπῆς (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 διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστιν τὸ
+οἴκημα. After mentioning the altars and paintings in the first room,
+Pausanias passes to the second with the observation that the οἴκημα is
+double, to find there (ἔνδον) a well and the marks (σῆμα or σχῆμα) 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 ἐν τῷ ἔμπροσθεν, the second with ἐν τῷ ἐντός. According to the
+present plan the chambers of the οἴκημα Ἐρεχθείου 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 συνεχής. The Pandroseum, in which
+the ναὸς Πανδρόσου 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 καμπύλη σελίς 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
+καμπύλη σελίς above proves that this low wall was only a screen-wall and
+supported nothing. That the foundation is Roman is confirmed on
+examination of its character which presents a remarkable contrast with
+the Greek foundation of the west wall of the building. The bed for the
+Roman foundation was not carefully prepared; just south of the centre
+the unevenness of the underlying rock is distinctly noticeable. Quite
+different is the character of the Greek foundation. The rock was
+carefully cut to receive it. The courses are evenly laid, the
+interstices between the blocks small. Neither remark applies to the
+Roman foundation which is the poorest in the building. Finally, this
+foundation does not key into those for the north and south walls (Fig.
+6). The south foundation appears to key into that for the interior wall,
+but on examination it will be seen that the poros block in question has
+been cut back by those who enlarged the cistern. This block originally
+projected in as far as the poros blocks in the same course but east of
+the interior wall. If the interior foundation had keyed into the
+foundations of the outside walls its Greek character would have been
+beyond question.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 6
+
+VIEW OF N. END OF W. INTERIOR FOUNDATION SHOWING THAT IT DOES NOT KEY
+INTO THE FOUNDATION OF THE N. WALL]
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 7
+
+PLAN OF ERECHTHEUM SHOWING NEW INTERIOR ARRANGEMENT. DOTTED LINES FROM A
+SHOW SIMULTANEOUS VISIBILITY OF WINDOWS FROM THE AXIS OF THE DOOR]
+
+The western cella of the Erechtheum was in all probability divided into
+two chambers by a wall running east and west (Fig. 7). The chief
+evidence in the building for this is that the west door of the
+Erechtheum does not stand in the middle of the wall, a peculiarity often
+remarked (Penrose, _The Principles of Athenian Architecture_, p. 88).
+The unusual position of a door under a column is structurally
+objectionable (Michaelis, _Jb. Arch. Inst._, 1902, p. 18). Had the door
+been placed in the middle, it would have stood directly under the
+central intercolumination of the west colonnade. The latest theory
+(D'Ooge, _The Acropolis of Athens_, p. 201) is that the position of the
+door was determined by the structure which abutted against the west wall
+just south of the door. The presence of an adjoining structure is then
+to be credited with some magic power of attraction which drew the door
+from its normal position into one structurally objectionable. The
+unsymmetrical position of the door was doubtless determined by the
+interior cross-wall which stood just north of the door and divided the
+west cella into a north and south chamber of approximately the same
+size. The door connecting the two very probably lay in the axis of the
+north and south doors of the temple (Fig. 7), thus very near to the west
+wall. The distance of the top course which could not have reached above
+the lintel of the west door was 8-1/4 feet above the bottom of the
+orthostates of the west wall. The height of the doors mentioned in the
+Chandler inscription is 8-1/4 feet. Of this cross-wall there are no
+traces of contact with the west wall. It must be noted, however, that
+the surface of the west wall is at that place badly broken away (Fig.
+8). The surface of the orthostate is in part well preserved but
+orthostates at the place of contact with interior walls have nowhere
+left any indication of such contact--no anathyrosis. This is especially
+peculiar in the case of the eastern cross-wall where the supposed higher
+level on the east side would lead one to expect a careful joining with
+anathyrosis (Fig. 9). Had the north wall been destroyed beyond recovery
+down to this orthostate, there would have been no evidence now to show
+that a cross-wall ever was in contact with it. The orthostate next the
+door in the west wall cannot be cited as evidence against the existence
+of an interior cross-wall running east and west. The blocks above this
+orthostate are badly broken away except one just below the lintel which
+has some original surface preserved. The lintel like the orthostate is a
+block two courses high and may have the same exemption from any signs of
+contact, as far as the surface is concerned, with the interior of the
+wall. It is possible that not a single course of the cross-wall keyed
+into the west wall because the former was merely a low partition-wall.
+The top of the lintel in the line of the wall is broken away so that
+there, as in the case of the blocks below, no evidence of clamps can be
+expected. Neglecting for a moment the remarkable position of the door,
+it may be said that the interior surface of the west wall just north of
+the door is in no condition to give definite evidence pro or con of the
+existence of this interior cross-wall. The conclusive answer must be
+found in the simple description of Pausanias to whose text one may now
+turn (I, 26, 5). The new plan fits perfectly.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 8
+
+VIEW OF THE N. SIDE OF THE DOOR IN THE W. WALL]
+
+In the first room (ἐσελθοῦσι) 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 προστομιαῖον of the other plan had five doors,
+and therefore offered less desirable space. With the words διπλοῦν γάρ
+ἐστιν τὸ οἴκημα, Pausanias passes to the next room (ἔνδον) where he
+found the well of sea-water. Now the name with which Pausanias
+introduces his description is significant: ἔστι δὲ καὶ οἴκημα Ἐρέχθειον
+καλούμενον. He named the temple from the part which he entered first and
+then he says a moment later that this οἴκημα is double, i.e. the part
+which he has just entered. Up to this point there is no suggestion of
+Athena. The διπλοῦν οἴκημα of Erechtheus consisted of two chambers one
+behind the other with reference to the porch.
+
+The φρέαρ in the new plan is in the inner (ἔνδον) room of the οἴκημα
+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 φρέαρ. 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.
+
+In the inner room Pausanias saw the trident-mark, naturally near the
+φρέαρ. The first produced the second, according to Apollodorus, III, 14,
+2. Pausanias did not see them πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου but ἔνδον. There is no
+authority whatever for identifying the marks in the rock beneath the
+north porch with those made by the trident of Poseidon, except common
+consent in recent times. If the trident-mark lay within the Erechtheum
+what deity made that outside, and beneath the porch, a mark which was
+beyond question an object of cult? "Die Stelle welche Zeus mit seinem
+Blitze getroffen hatte, wurde mit einem Puteal umgeben und blieb unter
+freiem Himmel" (Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, 1903, p. 467). An altar of Zeus
+Hypatus stood before the entrance. The coincidence of place πρὸ τῆς
+ἐσόδου and ἐν τῇ προστάσει τῇ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος where, according to the
+official inscription the altar of the Thyechous stood, outweighs any
+objection to the identification of the two altars based on difference of
+name in the two records, ὁ βωμὸς τοῦ θυηχοῦ and Διὸς βωμὸς Ὑπάτου.
+Pausanias departs from the official terminology of building
+inscriptions. The rotunda at Epidaurus was called in the building
+inscription θυμέλη (cf. Cavvadias, Τὸ Ἱερὸν τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ ἐν Ἐπιδαύρῳ,
+p. 50). Pausanias called it θόλος. The official name for the Erechtheum
+does not occur in literature nor in inscriptions except in the report of
+the commissioners. It is not surprising then if Pausanias failed to call
+the altar ὁ βωμὸς τοῦ θυηχοῦ. This name gives not the slightest clue to
+the god to whom it was erected. The suggestion of Michaelis (_Jb. Arch.
+Inst._, 1902, p. 17) that the altar may have been one to Poseidon
+proceeds from the logical idea to make it that of the god who is thought
+to have made the marks in the rock beneath the porch.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 9
+
+LOOKING NORTH IN THE LINE OF THE EASTERN INTERIOR CROSS-WALL. A VIEW
+SHOWING THE ORTHOSTATE WHICH WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE INTERIOR WALL AND
+THE ROUGH SURFACE (X) OF THE NATIVE ROCK IN THE LINE OF THE LATTER]
+
+The altar in the north porch was one to Zeus and its presence there
+suggests the reasonable theory that the marks in the rock below it and
+the square hole in the roof above are a memorial of the thunderbolt
+which he hurled at Erechtheus according to Hyginus (_Fab._, 46). _Cf._
+Petersen, _op. cit._, p. 72. One cannot say which is the earlier
+tradition, that preserved in Hyginus or that in Euripides (_Ion_, 281)
+according to which πληγαὶ τριαίνης thrust Erechtheus into a χάσμα χθονός
+(Furtwängler, _Masterpieces_, p. 436, note 3). There was a tradition
+that Zeus, at the request of Poseidon, killed Erechtheus with a
+thunderbolt, a tradition which becomes the more interesting in the light
+of an inscription found on the Acropolis (Lolling, Δελ. Ἀρχ., 1890, p.
+144) which proves that an ἄβατον Διὸς Καταιβάτου existed there. The
+stone bearing the inscription was found in a mediaeval wall north of the
+northeast corner of the Parthenon. Three surfaces of the fragment are
+preserved showing that it came from a corner perhaps of a low wall
+enclosing the ἄβατον. One side of the block which is Pentelic marble is
+finely polished. There are no dowel or clamp-holes preserved and it is
+impossible to recover the dimensions of the original block. The face
+which bears the inscription of the late fourth century seems to have
+been redressed, since chisel marks are evident. The inscription may then
+have been recut. It is tentatively suggested that this fragment was part
+of the curb about the opening in the floor of the north porch.
+
+Zeus hurled a thunderbolt which destroyed the chamber of Semele at
+Thebes and the place was an ἄβατον in the time of Pausanias (IX, 12, 4).
+When Zeus struck Erechtheus with a thunderbolt, the spot on the
+Acropolis where the lightning struck may likewise have become an ἄβατον.
+It is interesting to note that at Olympia, Pausanias (V, 14, 7) saw the
+foundations of the house of Oenomaus and two altars, one to Zeus
+Herkeios which Oenomaus seems to have built, the other to Zeus Keraunos
+erected later, after the thunderbolt had destroyed the house. The
+persons and palaces of mythical kings appear to have been a favorite
+mark for the thunderbolt of Zeus. The tradition preserved in Hyginus is
+an illustration, and tempts one to seek in the vicinity of the
+Erechtheum for some record of the thunderbolt.
+
+And so too does the notice of the scholiast (after Apollodorus) on
+Sophocles, _Oed. Col._, 705, who says that near the Academy there was an
+altar to Zeus Kataibates who was also called Morios: ἐστὶν ὅ τε τοῦ
+καταιβάτου Διὸς βωμὸς ὃν καὶ Μόριον καλοῦσιν τῶν ἐκεῖ μοριῶν παρὰ τὸ τῆς
+Ἀθηνᾶς ἱερὸν ἱδρυμένων. That Zeus Kataibates should have been called
+Μόριος (μορία) points to some relation with Athena and the olive
+which may have had its origin on the Acropolis. Does this double name
+simply mean that Zeus "of sleepless eye" used lightning (καταιβάτης) to
+avenge sacrilege which one committed when he violated a sacred olive
+(μορία) as Miss Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_,
+p. 599, suggests, or is the key to the explanation furnished by a
+passage in Pausanias (IX, 12, 4)? Pausanias records the tradition that
+at the time Zeus hurled the thunderbolt which destroyed Semele and her
+bridal chamber a log fell from heaven which Polydorus adorned with
+bronze and called Dionysus Cadmus. Perhaps the ancient image of Athena,
+the xoanon of olive wood, which fell from heaven, fell at the time Zeus
+smote Erechtheus, just as the wooden image of Dionysus Cadmus fell when
+Zeus destroyed Semele. If so, then Zeus Kataibates, by bringing to earth
+a piece of sacred olive (μορία) very naturally acquired the name Zeus
+Morios.
+
+What known altar to Zeus in the vicinity of the Erechtheum could have
+been erected to him in his capacity as καταιβάτης? There was an altar of
+Zeus Herkeios under the olive in the Pandroseum. This, however, cannot
+have served as an altar of Zeus Kataibates because these were two
+distinct phases of the Zeus cult. Pausanias found near the ruins of the
+palace of Oenomaus at Olympia an altar to Zeus Herkeios and another to
+Zeus Keraunos (Kataibates). Before the entrance to the Erechtheum
+Pausanias found an altar to Zeus Hypatus beside the sacred indentations
+in the rock which lay beneath an opening in the roof, and this is none
+other than the altar to Zeus Kataibates.
+
+The passage which led from these indentations through the foundation
+into the temple was not intended for the worshipper but for the priest
+on occasion. Herein lies a possible explanation of the hole which opens
+into the passage close to the wall east of the main door. It was perhaps
+a sort of speaking tube for subterranean utterances. Perhaps beneath the
+floor of the temple the chthonic Erechtheus was invoked and priestly
+response heard from above through the opening.
+
+The trident-mark and the well, both destroyed when the mediaeval cistern
+was cut, were situated in the southwest part of the Erechtheum. Thus
+evidences produced by Poseidon in the dispute over the land were close
+to the olive tree of Athena which stood in the Pandroseum. The door in
+the west wall gave ready access from one to the other.
+
+It has already been remarked that in the description of the Erechtheum,
+Pausanias gives no indication between the words ἐσελθοῦσιν (I, 26, 5)
+and συνεχής (I, 27, 2) that he left the building to enter a temple of
+Athena. The reference to the well and the trident-mark is followed by a
+compound sentence, the first member (μέν) of which prepares the way for
+the more important second member (δέ) which tells of the ἁγιώτατον ...
+Ἀθηνᾶς ἄγαλμα. There is no break here in the continuity of the account
+and no disturbance of an orderly advance if Pausanias found a means of
+communication between the inner chamber of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα and the
+ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. Now the traditional intimacy of Athena and Erechtheus
+would lead one to expect such communication and thus the cella of Athena
+which gave the official name to the temple would have a share in the
+magnificent north portal, the main entrance to the building. The
+attempts to raise the eastern portico to the dignity of the πρόστασις ἡ
+πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος are unsatisfactory. Thus Penrose (_op. cit._, p. 95):
+"It may seem a difficulty to explain why the most magnificent portico
+should lead to a subordinate shrine, but the eastern portico with its
+six columns, although of smaller diameter, was scarcely if at all of
+less importance, and the doorway could not have been much inferior in
+width and height.... The difference of level also obviously gives
+preëminence to the eastern site." These considerations neither qualify
+the difficulty nor do they lessen the preëminent magnificence of the
+north porch. Apart from the demands of the text of Pausanias, there is
+another point to be observed. From the north porch there was a doorway
+opening into the Pandroseum. Thus the north porch gave admission to a
+temenos, but not according to present theory to the eastern cella of
+Athena.
+
+In the inner chamber where Pausanias saw the well, he must have found a
+door, the second of the two mentioned in the Chandler inscription, which
+opened into the eastern cella (Fig. 7). When he had seen the objects
+there, he retraced his steps past the well and the mark of the trident,
+and entered by the small door in the west wall, the Pandroseum, where
+stood a temple which was συνεχὴς τῷ ναῷ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. That Pausanias on
+approaching the Erechtheum should call it Ἐρέχθειον and then on leaving
+should call it ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς is not only quite in keeping with that
+stylistic tendency which Robert has termed _oratio variata_ (_Pausanias
+als Schriftsteller_ s.v.) but has a simple and natural explanation. The
+first name for the temple was that of the western part which he entered
+first and found to be double; the last name was that of the eastern part
+which he visited last. The name for the whole was determined by that
+part which was most prominently in his thought at the time. He gives not
+the slightest hint that Athena had any share in the temple until he has
+described the contents of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα. Properly speaking the
+western part of the building was the Erechtheum, and the eastern, the
+temple of Athena; but the name of either half spread to the whole, a
+natural tendency which gave the Parthenon its name, and readily
+intelligible in the case of the Erechtheum in view of the traditional
+intimacy of the two divinities recorded in Homer. When Pausanias speaks
+of the tholos at Epidaurus a second time, he does not call it by that
+name, but οἴκημα περιφερές. As for the dog of Philochorus, one may
+believe simply that the creature passed through the Erechtheum proper
+into the Pandroseum (Petersen, _op. cit._, p. 143).
+
+The theory was at one time put forward that a staircase afforded
+communication between the western cella and the higher eastern cella,
+but several considerations establish the fact that they had a common
+level. The conclusive argument is that there are no cuttings in the rock
+for the cross-wall between the two cellae, although that rock lay only
+1-1.50 m. below the base of the wall. In its rough and sloping surfaces
+(Fig. 9) there is not a single trace of a bed for a foundation which the
+supposed heavy cross-wall would demand. The rock betrays no evidences
+whatever of preparation to receive a foundation. The contention that
+points of rock were broken off is absurd. The foundations for the
+outside walls go down to and rest in such beds, that of the west wall
+being an illustration. Those who believe that the heavy cross-wall
+supported roof beams besides serving as a terrace wall for the western
+cella 3 m. lower than the eastern, seem not to have thought that such a
+wall would need a well cut bed in the rock. Now the east wall, the
+thinnest in the building, has a foundation which, though it consists of
+eight courses of heavy poros blocks, rests in deep cuttings in the rock.
+Under one block of the lowest course, lies a smaller block of poros
+which also rests in deep cuttings in the rock. Why did not the eastern
+interior cross-wall likewise have a bed for it cut in the rock,
+especially since its foundation was so shallow, only two or three
+courses of poros, and not eight as in the case of the eastern wall? The
+only bit of outside wall which does not rest in cuttings in the rock is
+that at the southwest corner, but there the few courses below the lintel
+of the door rested on an object of cult of some sort which made
+impossible the normal foundation, while the weight above the lintel
+rested on the heavy block in the west wall and the firmly founded wall
+just east of the door.
+
+The champions of the accepted plan of the Erechtheum must explain a
+striking inconsistency in construction presented by the two interior
+cross-walls. The western, a screen-wall (D'Ooge, _The Acropolis of
+Athens_, p. 202) which reached only five courses above the orthostates
+and supported no other weight whatever, had a foundation which rests
+partly in cuttings in the rock, while the eastern interior wall which
+reached quite to the ceiling, supported the weight of it, besides being
+of the nature of a terrace wall, had a foundation which rested only on
+the rough and sloping rock. How is this inconsistency to be explained?
+
+The inconsistency cannot be avoided. The logical inference from the
+facts is one which makes Pausanias intelligible. The eastern cross-wall
+could not have reached to the ceiling except at the ends where the
+blocks keyed into the side-walls and shared their foundations. The
+inference that this wall for its entire length must have been as high as
+the traces on the side walls is altogether unnecessary. Except at the
+ends this wall was as high as the other partition-wall, and like it
+supported no weight. The pilasters lessened a span of thirty feet by
+perhaps two feet and with the outside walls served to support a heavy
+cross-beam. Wall-pilasters are not unknown in Greek architecture as the
+temples of Apollo at Bassae and the Heraeum at Olympia prove (Frazer,
+_op. cit._, III, p. 589).
+
+Pausanias walked into the cella of Athena from that of Erechtheus
+without ascending a step. Since all the interior chambers of the
+Erechtheum had the same level as the north portal it is unnecessary to
+maintain that he should have entered the Athena cella first on coming
+from the east. In perfect keeping with the new plan of the interior is
+the simple sequence of the topographical indications in his description:
+(1) πρὸ τῆς ἐσόδου, (2) ἐσελθοῦσιν, (3) ἔνδον (διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστιν τὸ
+οἴκημα), (4) ἁγιώτατον ἄγαλμα (cf. ὁ νεὼς ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἄγαλμα), (5) τῷ
+ναῷ δὲ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς Πανδρόσου ναὸς συνεχής.
+
+But what of the protruding poros foundations of the east and south walls
+and of the unfinished surface of the north wall which have always
+readily confirmed the theory of a higher level for the cella of Athena?
+Certainly these were not visible. They must have been concealed behind
+marble shelves on north and south and marble shelves and steps on the
+east (Fig. 7). The builders of the Erechtheum were economical, using the
+foundations of the peristyle of the Hekatompedon as far as possible and
+then adding blocks of poros to complete a foundation for the south wall
+of their temple. There was no more need for a wall of marble behind the
+south shelf than there was for a marble floor beneath the pedestal of
+the statue in the Parthenon. These shelves were convenient for the
+exhibition of the many objects deposited in the cella which was a
+religious museum. The surface of the marble walls is not preserved to a
+sufficient height to show whether there was any trace of contact with
+the top of the shelf, just as they can give no positive evidence of a
+floor at the higher level.
+
+A peculiar cutting in the orthostate at the south-east corner of the
+temple should be noted in this connection. The cutting is in the
+interior angle and is so made that the orthostate could be set at this
+place on a horizontal surface which ran inward. Was this horizontal
+surface the floor level? Was the floor of the eastern cella raised one
+step above the threshold as D'Ooge says (_op. cit._, p. 207)? This is
+unlikely because the floor level would then have been above the base of
+the orthostates. The horizontal surface was the top of the shelf, for
+its vertical plane would have courses of the same height as ordinary
+wall-blocks. There is a Roman block 10 feet long and 1-1/2 feet high
+which the Christians reused as the base stone of the iconostasis when
+they converted the Erechtheum into a church. It had a base moulding of
+some sort which the Christians chiselled off. This long block probably
+formed part of the lowest course of the facing of the shelf. The fact
+that its dimensions are those of the γογγύλος λίθος ἄθετος, ἀντίμορος
+ταῖς ἐπικρανίτισιν με͂κος δεκάπος ὕφσος τριο͂ν ἑμιποδίον (_I. G._, I,
+322, col. 1) causes a suspicion that the Roman block simply replaced a
+Greek one, which in its position at the base of the wall "corresponded
+to" the ἐπικρανίτιδες at the top of it.
+
+An examination of the foundation for the east wall reveals an
+interesting condition which is unintelligible if the cella of Athena had
+a higher floor-level than the western cella. In the north-east corner, a
+marble block of the north wall is cut back to the line of the west face
+of the poros foundation (Fig. 10). If the marble block lay buried
+beneath the floor, why was it so carefully trimmed? The explanation may
+be offered that the cutting was done when the temple was made over into
+a church. But the chiseling is more careful than the chiseling done at
+that time in the Erechtheum. When the eastern partition-wall was
+removed, rough traces of it were left on the side-walls. The treatment
+of the block in question is Greek in its carefulness and the cutting was
+probably made to receive a slab of the marble facing which concealed the
+foundation-blocks of the east wall.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 10
+
+THE N.E. CORNER OF THE CELLA OF ATHENA]
+
+There is another serious difficulty in the way of those who believe
+that the eastern cella had a higher level than the western. The south
+wall of the temple had orthostates on the outside but none on the inside
+where wall-blocks of the usual height took their place. These
+wall-blocks were easily torn out and have since completely disappeared.
+In the western chamber orthostates would have been illogical because
+they would have been high above the level of the floor, but in the
+eastern cella, if it had the level of the eastern porch orthostates
+would have been used. Since there were wall-blocks behind the
+orthostates of the south wall in the western cella, one would reasonably
+expect orthostates behind wall-blocks in the north wall of the eastern
+cella, provided that cella was at the level of the eastern porch. But it
+is absolutely certain that such was not the case. The notched form of
+the orthostate at the north-east corner of the temple shows that it was
+in contact with two courses of wall-blocks of regular height in the
+north wall. Thus the eastern cella, if it lay at the level of its porch
+strangely lacked interior orthostates in its north and south walls. But
+if this cella lay at the level of the western cella, the lack becomes at
+once intelligible. The absence of orthostates at the supposed higher
+floor-level of the eastern cella combines with the absence of any
+cutting for a foundation for the wall between the cellae to prove the
+theory which is in perfect harmony with the simple sequence in the
+description by Pausanias.
+
+The theory of one level within the Erechtheum seems to contradict and to
+be contradicted by the evidence which Stevens has found of a door in the
+east wall (_A. J. A._, 1906, p. 58 ff.). The contradiction is not
+necessary, for a flight of steps at the east end of the cella of Athena
+is perfectly possible. The construction of an apse for the church at the
+east end of the temple necessitated the removal of a number of
+foundation-blocks which might have given evidence of steps. However it
+is quite possible that the foundations for the steps which had no need
+to rest in rock cuttings were simply laid against, not keyed into the
+foundations of the east wall. The stairs are drawn in the plan (Fig. 7).
+The idea of a stair-case at the east end of a cella is illustrated by
+the temple at Didyma. The eastern door of the Erechtheum was not the
+normal, not the intended entrance to the cella of Athena, but served as
+the traditional eastern entrance toward which the xoanon faced.
+Pausanias like other visitors entered by the πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ
+θυρώματος, the main entrance to the temple.
+
+It is interesting to note some evidence which shows that in the period
+before the Erechtheum was converted into a Christian church there was no
+difference of level within the building, namely, the masses of rubble
+masonry which were placed close to the north wall at approximately equal
+distances from the eastern cross-wall. They are firmly founded on the
+rock and reach up nearly to the base of the orthostates. They have no
+counterparts along the south wall. The screen-wall of the north aisle of
+the church stood directly over one of the masses. The threshold of it is
+still in place. These heavy foundations and the interior longitudinal
+walls of the church cannot be contemporary. The latter were sufficient
+to carry the weight of the roof of the church; and the screen-wall in
+the aisle, since it rests partly on a filling of earth, shows that the
+heavy foundation of rubble masonry underneath had ceased to serve any
+purpose after the church was built. It was there before that time and
+therefore must have been laid in a Roman period when the level within
+the temple was the same.
+
+Any discussion of the workmanship of this mass of stones and mortar has
+no bearing on the question of its date and that of the threshold above.
+The point is, the masonry is earlier than the Christian church, and
+quite embarrasses the advocates of a higher level for the eastern cella
+in the period before the conversion of the temple into a Christian
+church. This foundation then is perfectly intelligible in the light of
+the theory that in Greek times there was but one level within the
+temple. What the purpose of this rubble masonry was is uncertain. The
+substantial and solid character of the masses leads one to believe that
+they were foundations for piers or pillars which reached to the top of
+the adjacent wall and together with it supported heavy cross-beams which
+spanned the cella from north to south. The idea may have come to the
+Romans from the Greek pilaster which as noted above lay approximately
+midway between the masses of rubble masonry. This was, then, apparently
+a device for reducing the span from the north to the south wall. The
+fact that this masonry was laid before the period of the church is of
+far greater importance than its purpose.
+
+The new plan of the Erechtheum is interesting in the light of the
+Chandler inscription. If one feels that the magnificent north porch
+determines the front of the building, then the first room is a
+satisfactory προστομιαῖον and lies in front of (πρό) the * στομιαῖον in
+which was the important object of cult, the φρέαρ (στόμιον). The
+following proportion may be set down: πρόναος: ναός:: προστομιαῖον: *
+στομιαῖον. Προστομιαῖον and * στομιαῖον are conjectured to have been the
+official names in the fifth century for the two chambers of the διπλοῦν
+οἴκημα of Pausanias.
+
+The order followed by the commissioners in their report upon unfinished
+interior walls was as follows: In the first room entered from the
+θύρωμα, the προστομιαῖον, 12 tetrapodies were ἀκατάχσεστα. The phrase
+ἐν τῷ προστομιαίῳ favors the theory that more walls than one are meant.
+Then in the inner chamber 3 tetrapodies of the παραστάς,[7] i.e., that
+part of the partition-wall east of the door in the west cella. Then in
+the third room 6 (?) tetrapodies of the wall πρὸς τὀγάλματος. The order in
+which the chambers were examined for unfinished walls was that of
+Pausanias in describing their contents.
+
+Again the new plan fits the treasure list of 306/5 B.C. (I.G., II,^2
+733). The remarkable feature of the inscription is that it mentions
+three παραστάδες, first an isolated one, and then a pair of them, one on
+either side of a door. The single παραστάς, the first to be mentioned is
+again that part of the partition-wall east of the door in the west
+cella. This door was near the west end of the wall, so that the space
+between it and the west wall of the temple was negligible. Thus for one
+entering by that door there was a παραστάς on the left, but none on the
+right. When however he passed into the ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς through a door
+which stood a little south of the middle of the wall (and opposite the
+door in the west wall of the temple) he had a παραστάς upon his left and
+also upon his right. The παραστάδες are interior walls on either side of
+a door which in the Erechtheum reached up only five courses above the
+orthostates. The paintings which Pausanias found in the first room favor
+the opinion that the treasures which hung on the parastas were on the
+south side of that wall--i.e., in the second room of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα.
+Whether or not there is any order in the enumeration of the treasures is
+a question. If there is, then it naturally begins with treasures first
+seen after entering from the πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος, just as the
+record of the commissioners in the case of interior walls begins with
+walls in the first room, just as the description of Pausanias begins
+with the contents of the first room. This coincidence is remarkable, and
+is true of no other theory about the temple.
+
+It is a necessary consequence of this interpretation that some treasures
+were in the west part of the Erechtheum. Perhaps then something may be
+said for the scholiast on Aristophanes, _Plutus_, 1183 (reading οἶκος
+for τοῖχος and keeping in mind the διπλοῦν οἴκημα of Pausanias's
+description): ὀπίσω τοῦ νεὼ τῆς καλουμένης Πολιάδος Ἀθηνᾶς διπλοῦς οἶκος
+(τοῖχος) ἔχων θύραν, ὅπου ἦν θησαυροφυλάκιον. The words ἔχων θύραν
+suggest that the scholiast wished to distinguish between a διπλοῦς οἶκος
+the two parts of which were connected by a door and another type the two
+parts of which were not so connected but separately entered from
+without. Pausanias seems to give an instance of the latter in II, 25, 1.
+White (_Harvard Studies_, Vol. VI, p. 39) refers the scholium to the
+restored west part of the Hekatompedon but does not discuss the meaning
+of ἔχων θύραν, which Michaelis was unable to explain. In White's
+so-called opisthodomus, to which door of three possible ones does the
+scholiast refer? The three chambers of his opisthodomus do not satisfy
+the requirements of a διπλοῦς οἶκος, the reading which he accepts (_op.
+cit._, p. 4, note 3). More reasonable is the interpretation that the
+scholiast had in mind the west cella of the Erechtheum in which some
+treasures seemed to have been placed, and that he used the words νεὼς
+καλουμένης Πολιάδος Ἀθηνᾶς in the stricter sense, just as Pausanias
+called the east cella ναὸς τῆς Πολιάδος (I. 27. 1), and regarded the
+διπλοῦς οἶκος as lying behind it. The νεὼς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς was oriented east,
+and what was immediately west was behind it. But it is not to be
+supposed that the west cella of the Erechtheum was ever called an
+opisthodomus. The scholiast seems however to have the oldest Athena
+temple in mind.
+
+There is a point perhaps of slight moment which deserves a word. One of
+the paintings, that of Erechtheus driving a chariot, was painted,
+according to the scholiast on Aristides, I, 107, 5, behind the goddess.
+A possible interpretation is that the painting was in the cella of
+Athena on the wall behind the xoanon, but the paintings of the Butadae
+were in the first room which Pausanias entered. Unless the painting of
+Erechtheus was separate from those of the Butadae, then the new
+arrangement of the interior permits a satisfactory solution of the
+difficulty. For the east wall of the room in which were the paintings
+of the Butadae was behind the goddess. According to the old plan,
+Pausanias found the paintings in the western chamber of the διπλοῦν
+οἴκημα, that is, between them and the wall against which stood the
+xoanon, was a chamber. The passage may mean that in a painting
+Erechtheus appeared behind Athena driving a chariot (Petersen, _Jb.
+Arch. Inst._, 1902, p. 64; _Burgtempel_, p. 110). In the sequence of
+words in the sentence, ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει ὀπίσω τῆς θεοῦ, the second phrase
+seems to be a closer definition of the place than is given in the first.
+Furthermore, position was determined by reference to the xoanon. An
+interior wall was located with reference to it, τὸ πρὸς τὀγάλματος. The
+scholiast on Aristophanes, _Equites_, 1169, is interesting in this
+connection because he shows what part a statue might play in the
+designation of a temple: δύο εἰσὶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως Ἀθηνᾶς ναοί, ὁ τῆς
+Πολιάδος καὶ ἡ χρυσελεφαντίνη.
+
+In the light of the new arrangement within the Erechtheum, the reference
+of Vitruvius (IV, 8, 4) to the temple becomes clearer. Speaking of it
+and other temples he says: "cellae enim longitudinibus duplices sunt ad
+latitudines uti reliquae, sed is omnia quae solent esse in frontibus ad
+latera sunt translata" (Petersen, _Burgtempel_, p. 144). If the cella of
+Athena was completely separate from that of Erechtheus and at a higher
+level, he could not have said reasonably of the cella of the temple that
+it was twice as long as wide like other temples. For the cellae of
+Athena and Erechtheus ought then to have been considered separately. In
+the new plan such a statement applies with greater force because the low
+partitions might be readily disregarded. The second statement shows that
+Vitruvius regarded the east façade of a temple as the front, and normal
+place of entrance, but that this and the more elaborate porch were
+transferred in the case of the Erechtheum to what would be the side of
+other temples. As Petersen, (_op. cit._, p. 143) says, the words
+"columnis adjectis dextra ac sinistra ad umeros pronai" are a clear
+reference to the north porch. This too seems to be the πρόναος which
+Lucian refers to in Piscator, 21: ἐνταῦθά που ἐν τῷ προνάῳ τῆς πολιάδος
+δικάσωμεν. Ἡ ἱέρεια διάθες ἡμῖν τὰ βάθρα, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐν τοσούτῳ
+προσκυνήσωμεν τῇ θεῷ. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with
+the fundamental contention that the πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος
+determines the front of the building.
+
+The theory set forth in the above pages is in perfect accord with the
+description in Pausanias. It is confirmed by the evidence of the
+inscriptions and of the building itself so far as that evidence goes.
+The serious criticism of the accepted plan of the Erechtheum is that all
+theories based upon it disagree with the written evidences, not with one
+written record of a later period like the simple account of Pausanias,
+but with another record centuries earlier, namely the contemporary
+official inscription. Investigators attempt the solution of the problem
+after accepting the restored interior as certain. The keynote of the
+present theory is that the interior of the temple has been too far
+destroyed to make any one restoration absolutely certain on the basis of
+the evidence of the building alone, and that all available evidence must
+be used simultaneously to determine the correct restoration.
+
+
+
+
+IV
+
+THE ERECHTHEUM AS PLANNED
+
+
+The question as to the original plan of the Erechtheum follows naturally
+the interpretation of the building as built. That the west wall was
+planned for its present place seems improbable for a number of reasons.
+The north porch is out of proportion to the room into which it opens,
+and by reaching beyond the west wall of the temple becomes in part porch
+to an open precinct. The west front has columns and Caryatids at
+different levels (Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, 1904, p. 101). The displeasing
+effect of this difference could not have been concealed by the walls of
+the Pandroseum, the south one of which reached as high as the parapet of
+the porch of the maidens. The latter porch illustrates the skill of the
+architect in concealing differences of level. The unique closed wall on
+which the maidens stand was his device for concealing from view from
+without, a door which was below the level of the porch and which
+belonged to the interior whereas the porch belonged to the exterior. The
+architect, by placing the entrance to the porch at the north east corner
+close to the wall, completely concealed the presence of the low door.
+With this care to conceal a difference of level, the west side of the
+temple is in marked contrast.
+
+The north-west corner of the western cella is peculiar in two ways. The
+western jamb of the door cuts 3-1/2 cm. into the west wall of the
+temple. This suggests crowding and is satisfactorily explained by the
+condition of the foundations below. The foundation of the west wall does
+not key into that of the north wall (Fig. 11), a fact seeming to prove
+that when the latter foundation was laid, it was not the intention of
+the architect to place a foundation in the line of the present west
+wall, and to crowd the door jamb into that wall.
+
+Of the symmetrical exterior proposed by Prof. Dörpfeld there lies a
+suggestion in the fact that the north and south doors have the same
+axis, although the Caryatid porch has not. The porch seems to have been
+moved a little to the east of its intended place that it might not
+project beyond the west wall, but not far enough to prevent the cornice
+of the porch from so projecting.
+
+The west wall itself offers evidence of a curtailment of the original
+plan. By way of introduction let us compare the east façade, which is
+Greek with the west façade, the part of which above the closed wall is
+Roman (_Arx Athenarum_, Pl. XXV, D, and _A. J. A._, 1906, Pl. VIII). The
+windows in the east wall which Stevens has determined with accuracy were
+placed at the height of four ordinary courses above the base moulding
+and two courses from the top of the wall, just as were the Roman windows
+in the west wall. The second course above the eastern windows was a
+moulding, the corresponding course above the western windows is plain
+probably because of the adjacent capitals. Below both sets of windows
+were three courses of blocks. In the east wall orthostates were
+justifiable, in the west wall they would have been illogical because on
+neither side was there a floor, but three courses equal in height to
+four ordinary courses were placed there. Stevens has shown that the
+eastern windows were seven courses high including the lintel. The
+western windows are five courses high. The explanation of the difference
+of height is simple. The eastern wall was thirteen courses high, the
+western eleven. The western windows were two courses shorter in order
+that they and their counterparts, the eastern windows, might be
+equidistant from the base of the wall, namely four ordinary courses, and
+from the top of the wall, namely two courses. The fact that the sills of
+the Greek windows were one meter lower than the Roman windows is of no
+consequence whatsoever. The fact of great importance is that the east
+and west windows occupied the same relative position in the façade. The
+stylobate of the western façade could not be placed so low as the
+eastern because of the door and the necessity of a heavy block three
+courses high at the south end of the wall. This block could not be
+placed lower because of the Cecropium (= temple of Pandrosus?) which
+crossed the line of the wall, to judge from the cuttings in it beneath
+the heavy block. Had the architect wished equality of height for the
+eastern and western colonnades he would have been compelled to place the
+stylobate of the western two courses lower. This would have made it
+impossible to place a door in that wall which was necessary probably for
+a reason of cult.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 11
+
+THE INTERIOR N.W. CORNER OF THE ERECHTHEUM. MODERN MASONRY UNDER N. END
+OF W. WALL]
+
+In Roman times therefore the western windows were placed with careful
+reference to the eastern. Between the columns in each case appeared
+windows, two in the eastern wall with door between, three in the western
+where a door was impossible. Both façades were surmounted by epistyle,
+frieze and pediment. The wall below the western colonnade was a
+substitute for the higher ground level of the east side. The Romans who
+repaired the wall repaired it with reference to the east front. For them
+the west façade was simply a combination of wall with windows, and
+colonnade. Unless the Greeks had a western façade of columns and wall
+with windows essentially like the Roman restoration, we are forced to
+make a strange assumption. The Greek architect conceived the idea of
+combining wall with colonnade in one plane and then instead of carrying
+his idea to its conclusion put in a wooden grille in the
+intercoluminations above a low wall of three courses, a grille which
+answers to nothing in the east façade, and then left it to the Romans to
+exploit his idea by placing there three windows.
+
+The only obstacle to the perfectly natural assumption that the Romans
+restored the essential features of the west wall as it was in Greek
+times is the testimony of a contemporary inscription (I. G., I, Suppl.,
+321. col. III, 18) that one Comon a carpenter was paid a sum of 40 dr.
+for "fencing" (διαφάρχσαντι) four intercolumniations on the wall toward
+the Pandroseum: διαφάρχσαντι τὰ μετακιόνια τέτταρα ὄντα τὰ πρὸς το͂
+Πανδροσείο. The accepted interpretation of the passage is that a wooden
+grille was the final form of the west wall and remained so until Roman
+times. The objection to this interpretation is that we must then believe
+that the Greek architect planned a wooden grille for a marble building
+in a wall exposed to the elements where repair would be necessary from
+time to time and that only in the Roman period did the change to more
+enduring marble take place. It is probable that the wooden grille was
+only temporary and was soon replaced by a wall with windows. Whatever
+the interpretation of the inscription, the fact remains that the present
+form of the west wall is a restoration made with deliberate reference to
+the east façade. It is a studied restoration which far from being an
+arbitrary creation of the 4th century A.D., as Penrose (_op. cit._, p.
+93) regarded it, is too original for a Roman period. The imitation is
+Roman, the idea is Greek. The very same idea is expressed in the Sidon
+sarcophagus of the mourning women, an Attic work of about 350 B.C. The
+illusion produced by the sarcophagus is that of female figures standing
+between the columns of the peristyle of a temple (Hamdy Bey-Reinach,
+_Une Nécropole Royale à Sidon_, p. 241). The west façade in Greek times
+as in Roman was simply a compression together in one plane of colonnade
+and wall--a combination to which the architect was forced by the
+curtailment of his plan.
+
+It is almost certain that the original plan of the architect was for a
+building with an east and west portico equidistant from the north porch
+as Prof. Dörpfeld has maintained. The east and west façades were to be
+exactly alike, but, prevented by religious conservatism from building
+upon the sites of the Cecropium and Pandroseum, and thus compelled to
+abandon the western half of the original building, the architect sought
+still to save the similarity of the east and west façades. Since he was
+unable to build his projected west portico at the line to which he was
+forced back, he evolved as a substitute the idea of placing all the
+essential features of his west portico in one plane--column bases and
+base moulding of wall, columns and wall with windows, frieze and
+pediment. The low wall in the southernmost intercolumniation which for
+some reason was not completely closed was three courses high. The
+northern intercolumniation was completely closed as in Roman times and
+in the central ones, the windows rested on three courses equal in height
+to four normal Greek courses.
+
+It must have been the desire for close similarity between the two
+façades which prevented both Greek and Roman architect from placing four
+normal courses beneath the western windows. The change from blocks of
+standard height led to a complication because there were eleven ordinary
+courses in the western wall instead of twelve which would have given
+exactly nine courses of the higher blocks. The eastern windows were
+simultaneously visible between the columns from points in the axis of
+the door (Fig. 7). It is natural to assume that those of the original
+west façade were to have been so. The curtailment of the plan which
+compelled the architect to place a compressed west façade on a high
+socle, eliminated the door. A natural substitution was a third window.
+
+This theory as to the composition of the west wall suggests an
+interpretation of the unusual construction at the upper south-west
+corner of the temple (_A. J. A._, 1908, p. 191, fig. 2, and p. 194,
+fig. 6; 1910, p. 297, fig. 3). There the south wall was reduced to one
+half of its regular thickness, and this thinner wall flanked on the east
+by the metopon which rested in part upon a square horizontal slab. The
+purpose of this metopon has remained obscure.
+
+As hitherto remarked, it was the architect's intention to close the
+southern as well as the northern intercolumniation of the west wall but
+he was prevented, apparently for some religious reason. Now it seems
+very probable that the unusual construction at the corner is the result
+of an attempt to build a substitute wall for that which could not be
+placed in the southern intercolumniation. Two considerations favor this
+explanation. In the first place the horizontal slab inclines toward the
+opening. The certain purpose of this inclination was to shed rain-water.
+Secondly, traces on the south wall show that the metopon was coextensive
+in height with the opening and projected along the eastern edge of the
+horizontal slab. The epistyle of the metopon, which appears in the
+restoration (_A. J. A._, 1908, fig. 6, p. 196) is purely a conjecture
+and may be eliminated. But how far did this metopon project into the
+building? Was it coextensive in width as well as in height with the
+opening? The distance which the metopon projected into the building is
+not certainly known. In the restoration it is given as one foot but this
+is a calculation based on a combination of probabilities. The obvious
+provision to keep out rain-water, if it was to be successful, demands
+the extension of the metopon to the inner corner of the horizontal slab.
+But this slab unsupported could not have carried a marble metopon. This
+is a difficulty which seems to compel the assumption that the metopon
+was in part of lighter material.
+
+Apart from serving the purpose of keeping out rain, the conjectured
+metopon would also be a counterpart to the northern intercolumniation
+when the façade was viewed from the west. The increase in weight due to
+the metopon and the horizontal slab necessitated a counterbalancing
+reduction in the weight of the south wall because of its insecure
+foundations. The idea, in short, is simply this. Just as when the
+architect was not allowed to place the west façade where he wished and
+retreated to a line at which he was allowed to build it in a necessarily
+modified form, so when he could not build a wall in the southern
+intercolumniation of that façade, he withdrew still farther back and
+built a substitute at the line allowed. The extra weight thus produced
+was partly responsible for the thinning of the insecurely founded south
+wall.
+
+It is Prof. Dörpfeld's theory that the Cecropium compelled the architect
+to place the present west wall 1 m. east of the line at which it was
+intended in the original plan to stand (_Ath. Mitt._, 1904, p. 105). He
+therefore regards that wall as an interior one of the original
+symmetrical temple. The theory here advanced is that the west wall is
+the original west façade compressed into one plane and placed at the
+line up to which the architect was permitted to build. The west wall of
+the Pre-Persian Erechtheum seems to have stood at about the same line to
+judge from the representation of it and the olive close by in the
+archaic pedimental sculpture to which reference has already been made
+(Petersen, _Burgtempel_, p. 22, abb. 2). Just as the architect of the
+Propylaea planned to cut through the Pelasgic wall and to build upon the
+precinct of Brauronian Artemis, but when he came to lay foundations was
+stopped at the wall, so the contemporary architect of the Erechtheum
+planned a symmetrical temple the west part of which was to occupy the
+site of the precinct of Pandrosus and Cecrops, but when he came to
+actual construction was stopped by the same religious conservatism. The
+form of the present west wall is as much like the originally planned
+west façade as the architect could make it. East and west façades were
+to be equidistant from the north porch and from the Caryatid Porch which
+would have served to break the monotony of the long rear wall.
+
+Having discovered in the west wall the compressed façade of an
+originally symmetrically planned Erechtheum, it is desirable to inquire
+whether the curtailment of that plan caused a crowding of cults within
+the temple as finally built. It has already been remarked that the
+feeling which the north porch creates is that it should be, and was
+intended to be the porch to an interior of larger dimensions than those
+of the present plan. Now the _thalassa_ and the mark of the trident were
+fixed, but the paintings of the Butadae and the three altars were
+movable. It is altogether probable that the congestion in the west half
+of the present Erechtheum was due to the crowding in of a chamber with
+the three altars of Poseidon-Erechtheus, Hephaestus and Butes, and the
+paintings of the Butadae--a chamber which in the original plan was to be
+placed at the west end of the symmetrical temple (Fig. 12).
+
+Within the original Erechtheum at the east end marked off by a
+partition-wall was to be the shrine of Athena Polias. The western
+chamber of Poseidon-Erechtheus, the exact counterpart of the eastern,
+was to receive the altars and paintings. The intervening central chamber
+of proportions in harmony with those of the north porch was to contain
+the _thalassa_ and the sacred olive, which would require that the temple
+be in part hypaethral. Furtwängler (_Sitzb. Mün. Akad._, 1904, p. 371)
+rightly indeed objects to Dörpfeld's theory that the western cella in
+the original temple was to be an opisthodomus, on the ground that if the
+eastern cella contained a divinity, the western ought also. Furthermore,
+for those who believe that the magnificent north porch determines the
+front of the Erechtheum, the western cella would have been situated on
+the side, not at the rear of the temple. The interior wall-pilasters on
+either side of the doors were intended in the original to carry heavy
+cross-beams. In the temple as built, the eastern pair were carried up
+only five courses above the orthostates, i.e. as high as the
+partition-walls. Their completion was rendered unnecessary when the
+builders decided to put in the καμπύλη σελίς.
+
+[Illustration: FIGURE 12
+
+THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF THE ERECHTHEUM.]
+
+When this original plan had to be abandoned, not only was the large
+central chamber reduced in breadth, but was divided into a front and
+rear cella. In the first of these, which one entered immediately from
+the north porch (ἐσελθοῦσι) were placed the three altars and on the
+walls, the paintings of the Butadae. In the inner cella (ἔνδον) were
+the trident-mark and the _thalassa_. It is perfectly clear why Pausanias
+found no door leading from the first chamber of the διπλοῦν οἴκημα into
+the ναὸς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς. In the original plan, the cella of Athena and the
+large central chamber of the tokens were connected by a door in the
+middle of their partition-wall, while the cellae of Athena and
+Poseidon-Erechtheus were not to be in immediate connection. These
+relations were preserved in the curtailed plan. The meaning of the door
+in the west wall is also simple. In the original plan the sacred olive
+tree and the _thalassa_ were to stand in the large central chamber, but
+in the curtailed plan the sacred olive was left outside the temple and
+in the Pandroseum. A closed wall between the two tokens would have
+separated them completely. They belonged together, and a door was a poor
+substitute for a common chamber but it was the only means of connection
+possible.
+
+The north porch in the original plan was to admit to both _thalassa_ and
+sacred olive, but in the curtailed temple which left the olive outside,
+it could admit directly to the latter only by the addition of the little
+door in the southwest corner. The extreme simplicity of this door which
+is without such simple ornamentation as that of the south door suggests
+that in the original plan it was not intended to stand beside the
+elaborate north door. The little door as well as the one in the west
+wall were not features of the original Erechtheum, and their presence
+was therefore not made more noticeable by the addition of mouldings of
+any kind.
+
+This interpretation, if correct, warrants the statement of the general
+principle that the Greek architect sought, in case of curtailment of his
+plan, to preserve as far as possible the essential features, and the
+relations of the parts to one another, of the original. The builder of
+the Erechtheum saved his west façade in modified form and found a place
+for the west cella in the reduced central chamber.
+
+The Erechtheum as originally planned was an altogether symmetrical
+structure. The splendid north portal was to lead immediately into the
+cella of the tokens, on either side of which were the shrines of the
+divinities that had contended for the land of Attica. The balance of
+structure would have reflected a balance of cults. The original
+Erechtheum, in short, was an architectural sentence finely illustrating
+the μέν and δέ of Greek feeling. With the Parthenon and the Propylaea,
+it was to form a group of symmetrical monuments to crown the Athenian
+acropolis in a manner worthy of the Periclean Age.
+
+
+FOOTNOTES:
+
+[1] A drawing of the façade as seen from this point is much needed.
+
+[2] See Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, 1911, p. 59, for latest discussion of
+the struggle.
+
+[3] The few known facts about the Arrephoroi are conveniently gathered
+together by Frazer, _op. cit._, II, p. 344.
+
+[4] I am indebted to Dr. L. D. Caskey of the Museum of Fine Arts at
+Boston for the photograph. He has also very kindly given me the benefit
+of his intimate knowledge of the Erechtheum in various suggestive
+criticisms. I take this occasion to express my sense of obligation.
+
+[5] Pausanias seems to have been mistaken in speaking of two. So Frazer,
+_op. cit._, II, p. 574, note 6.
+
+[6] Cf. the disc with octopus ornament on the dress of one of the
+maidens with that published by Schliemann, _Mykenae_, p. 194, no. 240.
+
+[7] The origin and the meaning of the term παραστάς is clear. A παραστάς
+is that which stands παρά a door or opening, i.e. a jamb. A passage in
+the inscription which gives specifications for Philon's Arsenal (_I. G._
+II, 2 1054) is important in this connection. After prescribing the
+dimensions of the door of the arsenal, the material of the lintel, the
+inscription adds παραστάδας στήσας λίθου πεντεληικοῦ κ. τ. λ. The
+παραστάδες are clearly the door jambs which stand παρά the door. By an
+easy and simple extension the word came to designate not only the jamb
+but the wall of which the jamb was a part.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of Project Gutenberg's Problems in Periclean Buildings, by G. W. Elderkin
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROBLEMS IN PERICLEAN BUILDINGS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 37197-0.txt or 37197-0.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/7/1/9/37197/
+
+Produced by Chuck Greif, Broward County Library and the
+Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.