later authorities that the treasury in the temple was called Opisthodomus (Harpocrat., Suid., Etym. M., 8 v. 'Oriolódoμos; Schol. ad Aristoph. Plut. 1193; Böckh, Inscr. No. 76); and we may therefore conclude, that as the Parthenon was the name of the whole building, the western chamber ceased to be called by this name, and acquired that of the Opisthodomus, which was originally the entrance to it. It appears further from the words of one of the Scholiasts (ad Aristoph. I. c.), as well as from the existing remains of the temple, that the eastern and western chambers were separated by a wall, and that there was no direct communication between them. Hence we can the more easily understand the account of Plutarch, who relates that the Athenians, in order to pay the greatest honour to Demetrius Poliorcetes, lodged him in the Opisthodomus of the Parthenon as a guest of the goddess. (Plut. Demetr. 23.)

In the centre of the pavement of the Hecatompedon there is a place covered with Peiraic stone, and not with marble, like the rest of the pavement. It has been usually supposed that this was the foundation on which the statue of the goddess rested; but this has been denied by K. F. Hermann, who maintains that there was an altar upon this spot. There can however be little doubt that the common opinion is correct, since there is no other place in the building to which we can assign the position of the statue. It could not have stood in the western chamber, since this was separated by a wall from the eastern. It could not have stood at the western extremity of the eastern chamber, where Ussing places it, because this part of the chamber was occupied by the western return of the interior columns (see ground-plan). Lastly, supposing the spot covered with Peiraic stone to represent an altar, the statue could not have stood between this spot and the door of the temple. The only alternative left is placing the statue either upon the above-mentioned spot, or else between it and the western return of the interior columns, where there is scarcely sufficient space left for it.

There has been a great controversy among modern scholars as to whether any part of the roof of the eastern chamber of the Parthenon was hypaethral, or pierced with an opening to the sky. Most English writers, following Stuart, had arrived at a conclusion in the affirmative; but the discussion has been recently reopened in Germany, and it seems impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion upon the subject. (Comp. K. F. Hermann, Die Hypäthral Tempel des Alterthums, 1844; Ross, Keine Hypäthral Tempel mehr, in his Hellenika, 1846, to which Bötticher replied in Der Hypäthral Tempel auf Grund des Vitruvischen Zeugnisses, 1847.) We know that, as a general rule, the Grecian temples had no windows in the walls; and consequently the light was admitted either through some opening in the roof, or through the door alone. The latter appears to have been the case in smaller temples, which could obtain sufficient light from the open door; but larger temples must necessarily have been in comparative darkness, they received light from no other quarter. And although the temple was the abode of the deity, and not a place of meeting, yet it is impossible to believe that the Greeks left in comparative darkness the beautiful paintings and statues with which they decorated the interior of their temples. We have moreover express evidence that light was admitted into temples through

the roof. This appears to have been done in two ways, either by windows or openings in the tiles of the roof, or by leaving a large part of the latter open to the sky. The former was the case in the temple of Eleusis. (Plut. Per. 13, oraîov Eevokλns ¿kopúpwoe: comp. Pollux, ii. 54, oraîov of 'Attikol την κεραμίδα ἐκάλουν, ἢ τὴν ἐπὴν εἴχεν.) There can be little doubt that the naos or eastern chamber of the Parthenon must have obtained its light in one or other of these ways; but the testimony of Vitruvius (iii. 1) cannot be quoted in favour of the Parthenon being hypaethral, as there are strong reasons for believing the passage to be corrupt.* If the Parthenon was really hypaethral, we must place the opening to the sky between the statue and the eastern door, since we cannot suppose that such an exquisite work as the chryselephantine statue of Athens was not protected by a covered roof.

Before quitting the Parthenon, there is one interesting point connected with its construction, which must not be passed over without notice. It has been discovered within the last few years, that in the Parthenon, and in some others of the purer specimens of Grecian architecture, there is a systematic deviation from ordinary rectilinear construction. Instead of the straight lines in ordinary architecture, we find various delicate curves in the Parthenon. It is observed that "the most important curves in point of extent, are those which form the horizontal lines of the building where they occur; such as the edges of the steps, and the lines of the entablature, which are usually considered to be straight level lines, but in the steps of the Parthenon, and some other of the best examples of Greek Doric are convex curves, lying in vertical plains; the lines of the entablature being also curves nearly parallel to the steps and in vertical plains." The existence of curves in Greek buildings is mentioned by Vitruvius (iii. 3), but it was not until the year 1837, when much of the rubbish which encumbered the stylobate of the Parthenon had been removed by the operations carried on by the Greek government, that the curvature was discovered by Mr. George Pennethorne, an English architect then at Athens. Subsequently the curves

The words of Vitruvius in the usual editions are:- "Hypaethros vero decastylos est in pronao et postico: reliqua omnia habet quae dipteros, sed interiore parte columnas in altitudine duplices, remotas a parietibus ad circuitionem ut porticus peristyliorum. Medium autem sub divo est sine tecto, aditusque valvarum ex utrinque parte in pronao et postico. Hujus autem exemplar Romae non est, sed Athenis octastylos et in templo Olympio." Now, as the Parthenon was the only octastyle at Athens, it is supposed that Vitruvius referred to this temple as an example of the Hypaethros, more especially as it had one of the distinguishing characteristics of his hypaethros, namely, an upper row of interior columns, between which and the walls there was an ambulation like that of a peristyle. (Leake, p. 562.) But it seems absurd to say "Hypaethros decastylos est," and then to give an octastyle at Athens as an example. It has been conjectured with great probability that the "octastylos" is an interpolation, and that the latter part of the passage ought to be read: "Hujus autem exemplar Romae non est, sed Athenis in templo Olympio." Vitruvius would thus refer to the great temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens, which we know was a complete example of the hypaethros of Vitruvius.

were noticed by Messrs. Hofer and Schaubert, German architects, and communicated by them to the "Wiener Bauzeitung." More recently a full and elaborate account of these curves has been given by Mr. Penrose, who went to Athens under the patronage of the Society of Dilettanti for the purpose of investigating this subject, and who published the results of his researches in the magnificent work, to which we have already so often referred. Mr. Penrose remarks that it is not surprising that the curves were not sooner discovered from an inspection of the building, since the amount of curvature is so exquisitely managed that it is not perceptible to a stranger standing opposite to the front; and that before the excavations the steps were so much encumbered as to have prevented any one looking along their whole length. The curvature may now be easily remarked by a person who places his eye in such a position as to look along the lines of the step or entablature from end to end, which in architectural language is called boning.

For all architectural details we refer to Mr. Penrose's work, who has done far more to explain the construction of the Parthenon than any previous writer. There are two excellent models of the Parthenon by Mr. Lucas, in the Elgin Room at the British Museum, one a restoration of the temple, and the other its ruined aspect. (Comp. Laborde and Paccard, Le Parthenon, Documents pour servir à une Restoration, Paris, 1848; Ussing, De Parthenone ejusque partibus Disputatio, Hauniae, 1849.)

It has been already stated that the Parthenon was converted into a Christian church, dedicated to the Virgin-Mother, probably in the sixth century. Upon the conquest of Athens by the Turks, it was changed into a mosque, and down to the year 1687 the building remained almost entire with the exception of the roof. Of its condition before this year we have more than one account. In 1674 drawings of its sculptures were made by Carrey, an artist employed for this purpose by the Marquis de Nointel, the French ambassador at Constantinople. These drawings are still extant and have been of great service in the restoration of the sculptures, especially in the pediments. In 1676 Athens was visited by Spon and Wheler, each of whom published an account of the Parthenon. (Spon, Voyage du Levant, 1678; Wheler, Journey into Greece, 1682.) In 1687, when Athens was besieged by the Venetians under Morosini, a shell, falling into the Parthenon, inflamed the gunpowder, which had been placed by the Turks in the eastern chamber, and reduced the centre of the Parthenon to a heap of ruins. The walls of the eastern chamber were thrown down together with all the interior columns, and the adjoining columns of the peristyle. Of the northern side of the peristyle eight columns were wholly or partially thrown down; and of the southern, six columns; while of the pronaos only one column was left standing. The two fronts escaped, together with a portion of the western chamber. Morosini, after the capture of the city, attempted to carry off some of the statues in the western pediment; but, owing to the unskilfulness of the Venetians, they were thrown down as they were being lowered, and were dashed in pieces. At the beginning of the present century, many of the finest sculptures of the Parthenon were removed to England, as has been mentioned above. In 1827 the Parthenon received fresh injury, from the bombardment of the city in that year; but even in its present state of desolation, the magnificence of its

ruins still strikes the spectator with astonishment and admiration.

4. The Erechtheium.

The Erechtheium (Epexeîov) was the most revered of all the sanctuaries of Athens, and was closely connected with the earliest legends of Attica. Erechtheus or Erichthonius, for the same person is signified under the two names, occupies a most important position in the Athenian religion. His story is related variously; but it is only necessary on the present occasion to refer to those portions of it which serve to illustrate the following account of the building which bears his name. Homer represents Erechtheus as born of the Earth, and brought up by the goddess Athena, who adopts him as her ward, and instals him in her temple at Athens, where the Athenians offer to him annual sacrifices. (Hom. Il. ii. 546, Od. vii. 81.) Later writers call Erechtheus or Erichthonius the son of Hephaestus and the Earth, but they also relate that he was brought up by Athena, who made him her companion in her temple. According to one form of the legend he was placed by Athena in a chest, which was entrusted to the charge of Aglaurus, Pandrosus, and Herse, the daughters of Cecrops, with strict orders not to open it; but that Aglaurus and Herse, unable to control their curiosity, disobeyed the command; and upon seeing the child in the form of a serpent entwined with a serpent, they were seized with madness, and threw themselves down from the steepest part of the Acropolis. (Apollod. iii. 14. § 6; Hygin. Fab. 166; Paus. i. 18. § 2.) Another set of traditions represented Erechtheus as the god Poseidon. In the Erechtheium he was worshipped under the name of Poseidon Erechtheus; and one of the family of the Butadae, which traced their descent from him, was his hereditary priest. (Apollod. iii. 15. § 1; Plut. Vit. X. Orat. p. 843; Xen. Sympos. 8. § 40.) Hence we may infer with Mr. Grote (Hist. of Greece, vol. i. p. 264) that "the first and oldest conception of Athens and the sacred Acropolis places it under the special protection, and represents it as the settlement and favourite abode of Athena, jointly with Poseidon; the latter being the inferior, though the chosen companion of the former, and therefore exchanging his divine appellation for the cognomen of Erechtheus."

The foundation of the Erechtheium is thus connected with the origin of the Athenian religion. We have seen that according to Homer a temple of Athena existed on the Acropolis before the birth of Erechtheus; but Erechtheus was usually regarded as the founder of the temple, since he was the chief means of establishing the religion of Athena in Attica. This temple was also the place of his interment, and was named after him. It contained several objects of the greatest interest to every Athenian. Here was the most ancient statue of Athena Polias, that is, Athena, the guardian of the city. This statue was made of olive-wood, and was said to have fallen down from heaven. Here was the sacred olive tree, which Athena called forth from the earth in her contest with Poseidon for the possession of Attica; here also was the well of salt water which Poseidon produced by the stroke of his trident, the impression of which was seen upon the rock; and here, lastly, was the tomb of Cecrops as well as that of Erechtheus. The building also contained a separate sanctuary of Athena Polias, in which the statue of the goddess was placed, and a separate

sanctuary of Pandrosus, the only one of the sisters who remained faithful to her trust. The more usual name of the entire structure was the Erechtheium, which consisted of the two temples of Athena Polias and Pandrosus. But the whole building was also frequently called the temple of Athena Polias, in consequence of the importance attached to this part of the edifice. In the ancient inscription mentioned below, it is simply called the temple which contained the ancient statue (d rews Ev & тò àρxaîov ἄγαλμα).

The original Erechtheium was burnt by the Persians; but the new temple was built upon the ancient site. This could not have been otherwise, since it was impossible to remove either the salt well or the olive tree, the latter of which sacred objects had been miraculously spared. Though it had been burnt along with the temple, it was found on the second day to have put forth a new sprout of a cubit in length, or, according to the subsequent improvement of the story, of two cubits in length. (Herod. viii. 55; Paus. i. 27. § 2.) The new Erechtheium was a singularly beautiful building, and one of the great triumphs of Athenian architecture. It was of the Ionic order, and in its general appearance formed a striking contrast to the Parthenon of the Doric order by its side. The rebuilding of the Erechtheium appears to have been delayed by the determination of the people to erect a new temple exclusively devoted to their goddess, and of the greatest splendour and magnificence. This new temple, the Parthenon, which absorbed the public attention and means, was followed by the Propylaea; and it was probably not till the completion of the latter in the year before the Peloponnesian war, that the rebuilding of the Erechtheium was commenced, or at least continued, with energy. The Peloponnesian war would naturally cause the works to proceed slowly until they were quite suspended, as we learn from a very interesting inscription, bearing the date of the archonship of Diocles, that is, B. c. 409-8. This inscription, which was discovered by Chandler, and is now in the British Museum, is the report of a commission appointed by the Athenians to take an account of the unfinished parts of the building. The commission consisted of two inspectors (notárai), an architect (apXITEKTWV) named Philocles, and a scribe (ypauματεύς). The inscription is printed by Böckh (Inscr. No. 160), Wilkins, Leake and others. It appears from this inscription that the principal parts of the building were finished; and we may conclude that they had been completed some time before, since Herodotus (viii. 55), who probably wrote in the early years of the Peloponnesian war, describes the temple as containing the olive tree and the salt well, without making any allusion to its being in an incomplete state. The report of the commission was probably followed by an order for the completion of the work; but three years afterwards the temple sustained considerable damage from a fire. (Xen. Hell. i. 6. § 1.) The troubles of the Athenians at the close of the Peloponnesian war must again have withdrawn attention from the building; and we therefore cannot place its completion much before B. C. 393, when the Athenians, after the restoration of the Long Walls by Conon, had begun to turn their attention again to the embellishment of their city. The words of Xenophon in the passage quoted above, - δ παλαιὸς τῆς ̓Αθηνᾶς νεώς,-have created (difficulty, because it has been thought that it could not have been called the old temple of Athena, in

asmuch as it was so new as to be yet unfinished: But we know that the "old temple of Athena" was a name commonly given to the Erechtheium to distinguish it from the Parthenon. Thus Strabo (ix. p. 396) calls it, 8¿ àpxaîos vews d rŷs Moλiádus.

The Erechtheium was situated to the north of the Parthenon, and close to the northern wall of the Acropolis. The existing ruins leave no doubt as to the exact form and appearance of the exterior of the building; but the arrangement of the interior is a matter of great uncertainty. The interior of the temple was converted into a Byzantine church, which is now destroyed; and the inner part of the building presents nothing but a heap of ruins, belonging partly to the ancient temple, and partly to the Byzantine church. The difficulty of understanding the arrangement of the interior is also increased by the obscurity of the description of Pausanias. Hence it is not surprising that almost every writer upon the subject has differed from his predecessor in his distribution of some parts of the building; though there are two or three important points in which most modern scholars are now agreed. The building has been frequently examined and described by architects; but no one has devoted to it so much time and careful attention as M. Tetaz, a French architect, who has published the results of his personal investigations in the Revue Archéologique for 1851 (parts 1 and 2). We, therefore, follow M. Tetaz in his restoration of the interior, with one or two slight alterations, at the same time reminding our readers that this arrangement must after all be regarded as, to a great extent, conjectural. The walls of the ruins, according to the measurement of Tetaz, are 20-034 French metres in length from east to west, and 11-215 metres in breadth from north to south.

The form of the Erechtheium differs from every other known example of a Grecian temple. Usually a Grecian temple was an oblong figure, with two porticoes, one at its eastern, and the other at its western, end. The Erechtheium, on the contrary, though oblong in shape and having a portico at the eastern front, had no portico at its western end; but from either side of the latter a portico projected to the north and south, thus forming a kind of transept. Consequently the temple had three porticoes, called роσтáσes in the inscription above mentioned, and which may be distinguished as the eastern, the northern, and the southern prostasis, or portico. The irregularity of the building is to be accounted for partly by the difference of the level of the ground, the eastern portico standing upon ground about 8 feet higher than the northern; but still more by the necessity of preserving the different sanctuaries and religious objects belonging to the ancient temple. The skill and ingenuity of the Athenian architects triumphed over these difficulties, and even converted them into beauties.

The eastern portico stood before the principal entrance. This is proved by its facing the east, by its greater height, and also by the disposition of its columns. It consisted of six Ionic columns standing in a single line before the wall of the cella, the extremities of which are adorned with antae opposite to the extreme columns. Five of these columns are still standing.

The northern portico, called in the inscription ἡ πρόστασις ἡ πρὸς τοῦ θυρώματος, or the portica before the thyroma, stood before the other chief entrance. It also consisted of six Ionic columns, but