|
The Erechtheion at Athens
[Article originally published in 1885 in Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Volume I, 1882-1883, pp. 213-236.)
Introductory Note.
So
much has been written upon the Erechtheion that I have hesitated to
swell the list of writers upon the subject. I hope, however, that my
article may be of some slight service to those who wish to understand
the arrangement of this remarkable building. I take pleasure in
expressing my thanks for kind suggestions to Dr. Wilhelm Dorpfeld, of
the Imperial German Archaological Institute at Athens, and Mr. Francis
H. Bacon, of the American Expedition to Assos. There are some questions
relating to the Erechtheion which can be settled, if at all, only after
more complete and careful excavations than have yet been made. It is
greatly to be desired that this task should be undertaken soon by some
one of the Archeological Institutes in Athens.
The Erechtheion
was the most venerated temple of Athens, con-taining the sacred olive
of Athena (Paus., I. 27, 2), the well of Poseidon (Paus., I. 26, 5),
and the ancient statue of Athena, which was said to have fallen from
heaven (Paus., I. 26, 6; Corpus Inscript. Graec.,
No. 160). No fixed date can be given for either the beginning or the
completion of the present edifice. The older temple was burnt by the
Persians in 480 BC (Herod., VIII. 53 and 55 ; Paus., I. 27, 2). When
the Athenians returned to their ruined city, it is highly probable that
one of their first undertakings was to rebuild the sacred structure in
some way; but no definite record of the erection of any such building
remains. But Herodotus (VIII. 55) says of the Acropolis of Athens, ἔστι
ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλι ταύτῃ “Epeyfeos τοῦ γηγενέος λεγομένου εἶναι νηός, Which
seems to mean that when He-rodotus wrote, in the early part of the
Peloponnesian war, a building called the temple of Erechtheus stood on
the Acropolis. The inscription in C.I G., 160, and C.I. A., I. 323, bears the date of the archonship of Diocles (Olymp. 92, 4 ; 408 BC); and that in C.I.A., I. 324, dates from Olymp. 93, 1; 407 BC. At this time the temple was clearly approaching completion.
Xenophon (Hellen.,
I. 6, 1) (p.216) says that “the ancient temple of Athena” (6 παλαιὸς
τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεώς) in Athens was set on fire in the archonship of
Kallias, the year when Kallikratidas succeeded Lysander as Spartan
admiral, i.e., in 406-405 BC. It has been maintained that by the
expression 6 παλαιὸς νεώς the Erechtheion cannot be meant, as a temple
not yet com-pleted could not be called “ancient” ; but the word νεώς is
used to signify not only the building, but the sacred site together
with the building. The Erechtheion is constantly called ὁ ἀρχαῖος νεώς (Schol. in Arist. Zys:, 273; Strabo, IX. 396; C.I.A.,
II 464) james expression παλαιός is certainly justifiable, even if we
do not assume, what is not unlikely, that some part of the ancient
building may have been preserved. Whether the Erechtheion was very much
injured by the fire of 406 BC we have no means of determining ; nor
have we any records of subsequent repairs. The temple is mentioned by
several ancient writers, but none except Pausanias attempt to give a
description of it.
In early Christian times, as the remains
show, the building was used as a church, probably of the Saviour, τοῦ
Σωτῆρος (cf. Mommsen, Athenae Christianae, Ὁ. 40; Pittakis, Eph. Arch.,
No. 1102 sq., p. 640 sq., and No. 1204, p. 742), and divided into a
nave and two side aisles. Under the Turks it was used as a
dwelling-house (Wheeler, Journey into Greece,
p. 364), and also as a powder magazine. When Stuart and Revett saw the
building (1751-1753), it was already in a very ruinous condition.
During the war of Greek independence (1821-1828), the Erechtheion
suffered greatly. In 1838 the building was repaired under the direction
of Pittakis ; but a violent storm in 1852 threw down all but one of the
columns of the western wall, and they are now lying in the interior of
the building. The latest excavations, made in 1852, left the
Erechtheion in its present condition.
For Inscriptions, see Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, No. 160; Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum,
1. Nos. 321, 322, 324; ᾿Αθήναιον, VII. p.+ 482; ᾿Εἰφημερὶς
᾿Αρχαιολογική, November, 1837 (Rangabé) ; Avzstblatt, 1836, No. 39 ff.
(Ross) ; Antiguités Helléniques, 1842, No. 56 ff. (Ran-gabé) ; C. T. Newton’s Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, London, 1874; and Otto Jahn’s Pausaniae Descriptio Arcis Athenarum,
ed. 2, revised by Michaelis. Bonn, 1880. On the excavations of 1832 and
the following years, see ’"E@npepis “Apxato- λογική; Awnstblatt, 1835,
No. 78; Allgemeine Zeitung, July, 1835.
The four plans of the
Erechtheion given with this paper are taken from the ἸΤρακτικά of the
Archeological Society of Athens, 1853.
Fig.1a: Location of the Erechtheion on the Acropolis in Athens (after Dorpfeld).
The Erechtheion.
The
Erechtheion (fig.1a) is a rectangular edifice 20.30 m. in length and
11.21 m. in breadth. Seen from the east, it has the appearance of an
Ionic hexastyle temple. The southern wall stands half a metre from a
terrace about 3 m. high, which is continued for some distance both east
and west of the building. The space between this terrace and the wall
of the Erechtheion is filled with earth, On account of this
arrangement, the building appears about 3 m. lower from the south than
from the north, where there is no terrace. The eastern front of the
building is on the same level as the southern side, while the
stereobate of the north and west sides is about 3 m. lower than that of
the east and south sides. At the north-west corner is a portico with
six Ionic columns, four on the front, and one behind each corner
column.
At the south-west corner is a small porch, the roof of
which is supported by six Κόραι (maidens) or Karyatids standing on the
high wall which encloses the porch. Each of these two porches
communicates by a doorway with the interior of the building. Besides
these two doors and the main entrance at the east, there is another
door under the base of the second (counting from the south) of the
engaged columns of the western wall. The antiquity of this last door
has been doubted on account of the roughness of its sides and the fact
that the threshold is not made, as we should expect, of one
stone. The lintel, however, is formed of one block, equal in
height to two courses of the stones of which the temple is built, and
it extends the same distance on each side of the door. As this stone
could have been inserted for no other purpose than as a lintel, the
antiquity of the door admits of no reasonable doubt. (See Plate II, a.)
The rough work on the sides may date from the time when the Christians
used this as the main entrance to their church.
In the
interior of the building are the foundations of three walls. One was a
cross-wall from north to south, just east of the great (p.220) doorway
R, which opens upon the northern porch F. The other two ran at right
angles to the first, extending from it to the east end of the building
[1]. The first of these walls was part of the original building. The
two others were late additions, built probably by the Christians to
support the pillars by which the nave, of the church was separated from
the side aisles, and their late date is evident from the workmanship.
The space from the ancient cross-wall to the western wall of the
building is occupied by a cistern, which was once covered by a brick
vault [2].
This vault, a small part of which is preserved,
rises above the threshold of the great northern door, and was, of
course, not a part of the original building. This fact has led many to
affirm positively that the cistern itself was a late addition. This,
however, is not the case. The two upper steps of the western
stereobate, instead of being formed by two layers of stones, consist of
one course of blocks about 0.45 m. thick. These blocks are not cut off
so as to form part of the surface of the wall within the building; but
they project over the edge of the cistern. They are now roughly broken
off, so that none of them project more than 0.20 m.; but this is enough
to show that these heavy blocks were not employed without a purpose.
Now
the only possible purpose of such blocks can have been to bridge over a
hollow space. The space occupied by the cistern was therefore always
hollow. The cistern itself is partly cut out of the solid rock, and it
was evidently very carefully made. Everything speaks for its antiquity;
and the only argument to the contrary, the height of the brick vault
which at one time covered it, falls to the ground as soon as it is
shown that the original covering was not the brick vault, but the
horizontal pavement of heavy marble blocks, portions of which are still
to be seen projecting over the edge of the cistern. It seems therefore
hardly possible to deny that the cistern is as old as the blocks ; that
is, as old as the building. This cistern was probably the θάλασσα (sea)
of Poseidon.[3]
The wall d, on the eastern side of the cistern,
built of the so-called Piraic stone and founded upon the solid rock,
supported the cross-wall A. Directly above this, in the eleventh and
fourteenth courses (p.221) of the northern wall,[4] are projecting
stones, 0.65 m. in width, to which corresponds a hole, also 0.65 m.
wide, in the southern wall.[5] The present wall east of the cistern was
then the foundation of a wall of some sort, probably of the same age as
the temple, which divided the building from top to bottom.
There
was a second cross-wall about half way between the last-mentioned wall
and the eastern front of the temple.[6] At this point the stones of
both the north and south wall show clearly that a cross-wall existed,
for their surfaces were evidently prepared to receive such a wall;[7]
but no foundations remain.
The Erechtheion was thus divided into
three parts, the two eastern rooms being nearly equal in size, while
the western division was much. narrower than the others. The eastern
apartment had its entrance from the east, while the other two must
generally have been entered through the great door opening on the
northern portico. There was the same difference of level between the
floors of the rooms to which these entrances gave admission which has
been noticed between the entrances themselves. There was no basement
under the eastern cella, nor was the building in any part two-storied.
The floor of the eastern cella was raised one step above the threshold,
and joined the side walls where they are patched with modern brick
work. (Pl. III.) If it had been lower than this, it must have left
visible traces ; and it is hardly conceivable that it should have been
higher.
The space under this floor was filled with a
foundation of Piraic stone like that now remaining in the corners. When
the Erechtheion was altered to suit the demands of the Christian
worship, the floor of the whole edifice was placed at the level of the
ancient floor of the two western divisions. All the inner foundations
of the eastern cella were torn away, except a few stones in the corners
; and part of the foundation of the eastern porch was removed to make
room for the apse of the church (Pl. I, vy). The Piraic stones which
remain show by their position, as well as by their dressed edges, that
they did not originally form the face of a wall, but were embedded in a
solid foundation, which probably filled all, or at least a great part,
of the space under the floor of the eastern cella (cf. Borrmann in Ath.Mitt.1881,
p.383). Moreover, (p.222) whereas the northern and southern walls of
the building west of the eastern cross-wall are both of marble down to
the level of the floor of this part, east of the eastern cross-wall
they are built of marble only where they can be seen from the out-side,
since they were not intended to be seen from the inside below the level
of the eastern entrance. (See Plates III and IV)
There is no
good reason for supposing that the building had two stories west of the
eastern cross-wall, where the floor was lower. Carl Botticher, the
chief supporter of the theory of two stories, says that the faces of
some of the stones of the southern wall show that there was a division
into two stories (Bericht, p.
199 ff.). I can only say that I have been unable to find any traces of
such a construction, nor has any one since Botticher been able to
discover any.
In the north and south walls are five small
slits or windows, which Botticher calls cellar windows, and which he
uses as a chief argument for his theory. He says : “ Wo
Souterrain-Fenster sind, muss auch ein Souterrain dahinter vorhanden
sein ;” but, as has been justly remarked, before we prove the existence
of a cellar from cellar windows, we must first be sure that we have the
cellar windows. I am strongly of the opinion that these openings are
neither cellar windows nor ancient windows at all. They were not made
by the builders of the temple, for they are not found at the joints
between the blocks, but in the middle of the blocks. It would be no
more difficult to cut them here than at the joints, after the stones
were in place ; but the original builders would surely have left such
openings between the stones when they put them in place, as was done in
the case of the similar openings in the stoa of Attalus, in the Arsenal
of Philon, and elsewhere.
Besides, the inferior work-manship
of these openings makes it highly improbable that they belonged to the
original building. It is not unlikely that they were made by the
Christians to light the side aisles of their church, a purpose for
which similar openings are still in use. While then there is no valid
argument for the theory that the Erechtheion was a two-storied building
in any part, the rough Piraic stones below the eastern cella show
plainly that there at least such a division into stories did not exist.
The eastern cross-wall was probably a solid wall, with a door
near the southern end. At this point the Piraic stones of the southern
wall give place to marble; not, however, all at once on the same
ver-tical line, but each course of Piraic stone is continued further
than (p.223) the one above it, giving it the appearance of a flight of
steps. (See Plate III) This arrangement makes it probable that the
steps connecting the eastern cella with the rest of the edifice were at
this point ; though, as there are no actual traces of them, we may
suppose them to have been built of wood. There must have been some mode
of communication between the eastern cella and the rest of the building
; and this seems the most probable place for the stairs.
Fig.1: Northern wall of the Erechtheion at the juncture with cross-wall (after Borrmann 1881).
The
western cross-wall was not a solid wall, like the eastern one. Fig.1,
copied from Borrmann, gives a view of the northern wall where it was
joined by this cross-wall. In the eleventh and fourteenth courses of
stone are still seen the rough ends of the stones of the cross-wall (ε,
ε) projecting from the main wall. Below these the wall is
roughened, as if a wall had been built against it here; but this rough surface
is
only half as wide as the projecting stones above. Up to these stones,
then, the wall had only half the thickness which it had above. It is by
no means improbable that, as Julius suggests, this division consisted
of little or nothing more than a
row of columns with an architrave,
in which case there would mereiy have been an anta set up against the
wall where the roughness is. This appears all the more probable from
the nature of the roughening of the stones. They do not seem to have
projected so as to form part of a cross-wall, except those of the
eleventh and fourteenth courses, but are merely roughened on the
surface.
The western wall of the Erechtheion was not solid in
its upper portion, but had four openings in it, — one between each pair
of engaged columns, and one between the southern column and the anta
which adjoined the southern portico. This last opening is shown to have
(p.224) ‘existed by the finish of the anta. The first three
courses of stone above the line of the bases of the engaged columns
have dressed joints, showing that a wall 0.29 m. thick was built
against them ; but above this point there is no trace of any wall. This
agrees with the inscription ( Αθήναιον, VII. p. 482), διαφάρξαντι τὰ
μετακιόνια τέτταρα ὄντα τὰ πρὸς τοῦ ΠΠανδροσείου. In the drawings of
Stuart and Inwood this space is left open, and it seems never to have
been built up. The purpose of this opening may have been to admit light
to the singular niche in the southern wall close to the corner anta.
This niche is 1.72 m. long and 0.36 m. deep, and reaches from the line
of the top of the western wall to the top of the building ; 2.6.,ὄ it
is about 3.40 m. high. (See Fig. 2.)
Fig.2: Southwest anta and niche (after Borrmann 1881).
The
stones which form its back are not smoothed, but are finished as if for
the reception of a coating of stucco. The large stone just below the
niche is roughly hewn off, and seems to have projected to form a
platform, upon which a statue may have stood. There is no reason to
suppose that there was any room or flooring in front of this niche
beyond the projecting shelf just mentioned. As Borrmann suggests (Ath.Mitt.
1881, p.387), the opening between the southern column of the western
wall and the corner anta is in painful disagreement with the windows
between the columns, which are represented by Stuart and others, and
leads us to doubt whether these windows, as seen by Stuart, were part
of the original plan of the building. This doubt is strengthened by the
fact that the window casings were almost too large for the space.
between the columns, inasmuch as they seem to have projected so
far as to hide part of the fluting. Moreover, where the window cases
were fitted in, the columns are hewn away more roughly than elsewhere.
It is, on the whole, probable that all four openings in the western
wall were originally alike, and that the windows were inserted at some
subsequent period.
(p.225) In the western wall, in the corner
where the temple meets the terrace wall which runs under the porch of
the Κόραι, is a large break in the wall, now filled with rough
modern masonry. A break at this point was part of the original design,
as is shown by the fact that the whole length of the modern masonry is
spanned by one gigantic stone (Plate II., 2), which extends the same
distance north and south of the break. This great stone was intended to
hold up the superincumbent weight of the anta; but this would not have
been necessary if the place now filled with the rubble masonry had been
originally part of the solid wall.
If, as has been maintained by Murray (Journal of Hellenic Studies,
1. 224), Borrmann, and others, the present rubble work marks the place
where a broad flight of steps joined the building, the large
lintel-like stone was quite unnecessary, for the stairs, with their
foundations, would be built into the wall as solidly as any other
stones, and would serve like other stones to support the weight of the
anta. Nor is there anything in the disposition of the stones of the
terrace or those of the portico to show that a flight of steps existed
here ; though it does seem very probable that the terrace was continued
at least one course of stone further to the north than it now is. On
the other hand, if some building joined the Erechtheion at this point,
it would be necessary to keep off the weight of the anta from the
smaller building, and the great stone (Plate II, 2) would then be of
use.
What the shape of this building may have been, whether it
was a long stoa, as suggested by Fergusson, or merely a small edifice
which occupied the corner, it is impossible to tell, as no foundations
have been found. It is very desirable that this corner be thoroughly
and carefully excavated. On the western end of the porch of the Kopa,
the egg and dart moulding of the railing stops about half way between
the two figures, and there is at this point the mark of a railing which
met that of the porch from the west. The fine lines which adorn the
bases of the engaged columns of the western wall and the course of
stone immediately beneath them are not continued south of the north
side of the southern column.
The presumption is, therefore,
that the comparatively unornamented space between these two points was
not ordinarily visible. (See Plate II.) This is another argument for
the existence of a building in this corner. The wall between these two
points cannot well have been an interior wall, for it has all the main
lines of the (p.226) other parts of the external wall. Any building
which stood in the corner would probably have been low, with a railing
around its roof which hid the western wall of the Erechtheion at least
to the height of the railing of the porch of the Kopa. The platform
formed by this roof with its railing would naturally be accessible from
the interior of the small building. The south-west corner of the
Erechtheion is called in, the inscription: (C.I.G. 160, C.I.A.
I, 322, § 2) ἡ apc πρὸς τοῦ Κεκροπίου, the corner by the Kekropion. We
may then safely affirm that the low building in the corner was the
Kekropion.
From the great pier which terminates the northern
wall of the Erechtheion at the south-west corner of the north porch
(Pl.I, E), a wall ran toward the west or south-west, which probably
turned toward the south, and met the southern terrace at some distance
west of the Erechtheion. The enclosure thus formed was entered from the
north through the small door S, which leads from the porch through the
northern wall just outside of the western wall. The lower part of the
pier which terminates the northern wall is not finished in a line
parallel to the length of the building, but slants toward the terrace,
and it is clearly to be seen that a double wall met the building here
(Pl.II, h and h'). Fergusson thinks that this enclosed a covered
passage,
being led to this opinion by the flat stone which covers the small door
by the pier. But as nothing positive is known of any buildings in this
direction, and as a covered passage can be accounted for only by
supposing it to lead to some building, the assumption involves us in
too many complicated hypotheses. We can confidently assert only the
existence of a wall at this place ; and the small door leading from
this great porch justifies us in assuming that this wall belonged to an
enclosure or τέμενος, to which the door formed the entrance.
In
the second step of the stereobate, under the great pier just mentioned,
and in a stone now lying near it, are the remains of an ancient drain
discovered by Botticher in 1862, the purpose of which has always been
more or less enigmatical. The direction of the drain is from the corner
by the porch of the Kopa. This corner was, as we have seen, probably
occupied by a building, the water from the roof of which must have run
off into the enclosed court-yard west of the Erechtheion. The drain was
probably intended merely to carry off this rain-water.
Footnotes:
1. See Plate I. (2), A and b, b.
2. Plate III and IVm g; Plate I, m,m,m
3. Apoll., III. 14, 1, 2: ἀνέφηνε θάλασσαν, ἣν viv Ἐρεχθηίδα καλοῦσι. See Paus I, 26, 5
4. See Pl. IV., ε,ε; and Fig. 1, p. 223. The two rectangular
holes in the first and third courses are, as their workmanship show, of
late origin.
5.Pl.III, v
6. Pl. I, B
7. Pl. III, p,o; Pl. IV, m,n.
[Return to table of contents]
|
|