DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45047#0125
9i
ΑΤΤΙΚΑ. — FINANCE.
χαμαί, or άθέτων, such as would be enumerated in the
part of the survey, from § 9 onwards, but ‘ columns
in position.’ We shall see infra, § 6 d, that the shafts
of these columns were already fluted. The part
still uncut was 1-^ foot of the anthemion, ‘ measured
from the inner side.’ The anthemion, as Bockh
shows, is the floral ornament round the top of the
shaft immediately below the echinus, Pl. iii. Fig. 1 ι.β.
This ornament is in fact a part of the capital, though
sculptured on the uppermost drum of the column in
Ionic architecture, as may be seen by examining the
column from the eastern portico of the Erechtheion
now in the British Museum. The fact that this
ornament is so sculptured on the column explains
the gloss in Hesychios, s. v. γραμμή th έλικοειδής ην
έν τοΐς κίοσι. The same floral ornament, άνθέμιον, was
constantly applied to the face of joint tiles in Greek
architecture; hence such a tile is called καλνπτηρ av-
θέμωτος in an Attic inscription, Bockh, Staatsh., iii.
p. 408 (see Botticher, Tektonik., 2nd ed., p. 199).
Bockh explains the expression <=* τον έντδς άνθεμίον
by separating έκ τον έντός from άνθεμίον, and supposes
that the columns being half shafts engaged in the
wall, the parts of the anthemion nearest the wall
would be finished before the columns were in posi-
tion, for afterwards the workmen would have been
unable to work so freely from the proximity of the
wall. The construction would therefore be τρία ήμι-
πόδια άνθεμίον άτμητα, έκ τοΰ έντός. The middle part
of the anthemion, τδ έκτος, for foot, was left
άτμητον, ‘ uncut,’ till they were set up. To this in-
terpretation Thiersch (Ueber d. Erechtheum, pt. i.
p. 114) objects, that, according to the construction,
έκ τον έντός ought to be taken as governing άνθεμίον.
He therefore supposes that the entire band of or-
nament at the neck of the column, including the
echinus, was called άνθέμιον, and that the τδ έντδς άν-
θέμιον was the floral ornament as distinguished from
the mouldings above and below. Neither his inter-
pretation, nor that of Bockh, are satisfactory.
May not the meaning be—1^ foot measured from
the inner άνθέμιον, i. e. the άνθέμιον nearest the
wall ?
6 5. έπιστνλίον όκτώποδος έπι τον τοίχον τον πρδς νότον
κνμάτιον ety τδ εσω έδει έπιθεΐναι. ' The Cymatium of
the eight-foot length of architrave on the inside of
the southern wall had to be added.’ In the in-
scription (Rangabe, 56) we have, line 43, τδ κνμάτιον
έγκέα[ν]τι τδ έπι τω έπιστνλίω [τ]ω έντός, and the same
entry, ibid., No. 57 B, line 13. Bockh marks the
position of this imperfect stone at η in Fig. 6. Pl. ii,
because he supposes that the deficiency was noted
at the back of that one of the architrave stones in
position (§ 2, Z) which stood next to those not placed.
Wilkins remarks, Prolusiones, p. 61, ‘ It is a singular
coincidence that the last of the epistylia on the
south wall (i. e. at the south-east angle; see Inwood,
p. 118) had lost its original cymatium, which was
supplied by a separate piece fastened to it by a
number of small cramps.’ The cymatium, as has
already been stated, is the moulding to which, ac-
cording to Bockh, the γογγύλος λίθος owes its name.
On the inside the stones of the architrave here re-
ferred to were wrought in three fasciae, surmounted
by a plain cymatium, i. e. (according to Miiller and
Bockh) a cymatium without the astragalus moulding
which, on the external face of the architrave, ap-
pears associated with it (see Fig. 9, aa, in Pl. iii).
The piece of cymatium which Bockh here mentions
as having been seen by Muller in the possession of
Linwood (Inwood) is evidently the fragment en-
graved, Inwood, Pl. xx (Quast, Pl. xv. fig. 1), which,
p. 125, he states to have belonged to the inner
architrave of the portico of Korae. It is now in
the British Museum.
§ 6. Τάδε άκατάξεστα και άράβδωτα.
α. τδν τοΐχον τδν πρδς νότον άνεμον άκατάξεστον, πλην
τον εν τη προστάσει τη πρδς τω Κεκροπίω.
b. τούς όρθοστάτας άκαταξέστονς εκ τον έξωθεν «γκυκλ[ω])
πλην των έν τη προστάσει τη πρδς τω Κεκροπίω.
C. τάς σπείρας άπάσας άρραβδωτονς τά άνωθεν.
d. τούς κίονας άραβδωτονς άπαντας, πλην των έπι τον
τοίχον.
e. την κρηπίδα εγκνκλω άπάσαν άκατάξεστον.
f. τον τοίχον τον έντδς άκατάξεστα γογγνλον λίθον
τετραποδίας ΠΙΙΙ.
g. τον έν τω προστομιαί[ω] τετραποδίας ΔΙΙ.
Λ. της παραστάδος [τί/ί] . . . τετραποδίας I ; .
I. τον πρδς τώγαλμάτος τετραποδίας ΔΙ.
‘ The following are unpolished and unfluted :—
a. The wall facing the south is unpolished, ex-
cept the part within the portico adjacent to the
Kekropion.
b. The orthostatae (pilasters) are unpolished from
without all round the building, except those in the
portico at the Kekropion.
c. The mouldings of the bases are all unfluted on
the upper parts.
d. The columns are all unfluted, except those on
the wall.
e. The entire base all round the building is un-
polished.
f. Of the internal wall the unpolished parts are—
of the γογγύλος λίθος, 32 feet;
g. Of the wall in the prostomiaion, 48 feet;
h. Of the parastas, — lengths of four feet ;
i. Of the wall near the statue, — lengths of four
feet.’
The above entries belong to various parts of the
temple. On the distinction between κατάξεσις, the
final polishing, and έπεργάσασθαι, see ante, § 2, k.
ράβδωσις is the fluting of the columns. Through the
carelessness of the scribe sometimes άρράβδωτος,
sometimes άράβδωτος is written. So άπορραντήριον
and άποραντηριον, No. xxviii.
a. The wall here called the southern wall is that
to which is attached the portico with Korae, of
which the architrave stones have been mentioned,
§ 2> f> k. The part of the wall mentioned here as
unpolished is the plain surface of the masonry
marked by the letter Θ in Fig. 6. Pl. ii, the polished
part being marked by the letter 1. The facing-
stones of the epikraniticles, and the mouldings of
the bases, are separately mentioned, post, f and c.
Here, and in b post, the southern portico is spoken
of as being πρδς τω Κεκροπίω, adjacent to the Kekro-
ΑΤΤΙΚΑ. — FINANCE.
χαμαί, or άθέτων, such as would be enumerated in the
part of the survey, from § 9 onwards, but ‘ columns
in position.’ We shall see infra, § 6 d, that the shafts
of these columns were already fluted. The part
still uncut was 1-^ foot of the anthemion, ‘ measured
from the inner side.’ The anthemion, as Bockh
shows, is the floral ornament round the top of the
shaft immediately below the echinus, Pl. iii. Fig. 1 ι.β.
This ornament is in fact a part of the capital, though
sculptured on the uppermost drum of the column in
Ionic architecture, as may be seen by examining the
column from the eastern portico of the Erechtheion
now in the British Museum. The fact that this
ornament is so sculptured on the column explains
the gloss in Hesychios, s. v. γραμμή th έλικοειδής ην
έν τοΐς κίοσι. The same floral ornament, άνθέμιον, was
constantly applied to the face of joint tiles in Greek
architecture; hence such a tile is called καλνπτηρ av-
θέμωτος in an Attic inscription, Bockh, Staatsh., iii.
p. 408 (see Botticher, Tektonik., 2nd ed., p. 199).
Bockh explains the expression <=* τον έντδς άνθεμίον
by separating έκ τον έντός from άνθεμίον, and supposes
that the columns being half shafts engaged in the
wall, the parts of the anthemion nearest the wall
would be finished before the columns were in posi-
tion, for afterwards the workmen would have been
unable to work so freely from the proximity of the
wall. The construction would therefore be τρία ήμι-
πόδια άνθεμίον άτμητα, έκ τοΰ έντός. The middle part
of the anthemion, τδ έκτος, for foot, was left
άτμητον, ‘ uncut,’ till they were set up. To this in-
terpretation Thiersch (Ueber d. Erechtheum, pt. i.
p. 114) objects, that, according to the construction,
έκ τον έντός ought to be taken as governing άνθεμίον.
He therefore supposes that the entire band of or-
nament at the neck of the column, including the
echinus, was called άνθέμιον, and that the τδ έντδς άν-
θέμιον was the floral ornament as distinguished from
the mouldings above and below. Neither his inter-
pretation, nor that of Bockh, are satisfactory.
May not the meaning be—1^ foot measured from
the inner άνθέμιον, i. e. the άνθέμιον nearest the
wall ?
6 5. έπιστνλίον όκτώποδος έπι τον τοίχον τον πρδς νότον
κνμάτιον ety τδ εσω έδει έπιθεΐναι. ' The Cymatium of
the eight-foot length of architrave on the inside of
the southern wall had to be added.’ In the in-
scription (Rangabe, 56) we have, line 43, τδ κνμάτιον
έγκέα[ν]τι τδ έπι τω έπιστνλίω [τ]ω έντός, and the same
entry, ibid., No. 57 B, line 13. Bockh marks the
position of this imperfect stone at η in Fig. 6. Pl. ii,
because he supposes that the deficiency was noted
at the back of that one of the architrave stones in
position (§ 2, Z) which stood next to those not placed.
Wilkins remarks, Prolusiones, p. 61, ‘ It is a singular
coincidence that the last of the epistylia on the
south wall (i. e. at the south-east angle; see Inwood,
p. 118) had lost its original cymatium, which was
supplied by a separate piece fastened to it by a
number of small cramps.’ The cymatium, as has
already been stated, is the moulding to which, ac-
cording to Bockh, the γογγύλος λίθος owes its name.
On the inside the stones of the architrave here re-
ferred to were wrought in three fasciae, surmounted
by a plain cymatium, i. e. (according to Miiller and
Bockh) a cymatium without the astragalus moulding
which, on the external face of the architrave, ap-
pears associated with it (see Fig. 9, aa, in Pl. iii).
The piece of cymatium which Bockh here mentions
as having been seen by Muller in the possession of
Linwood (Inwood) is evidently the fragment en-
graved, Inwood, Pl. xx (Quast, Pl. xv. fig. 1), which,
p. 125, he states to have belonged to the inner
architrave of the portico of Korae. It is now in
the British Museum.
§ 6. Τάδε άκατάξεστα και άράβδωτα.
α. τδν τοΐχον τδν πρδς νότον άνεμον άκατάξεστον, πλην
τον εν τη προστάσει τη πρδς τω Κεκροπίω.
b. τούς όρθοστάτας άκαταξέστονς εκ τον έξωθεν «γκυκλ[ω])
πλην των έν τη προστάσει τη πρδς τω Κεκροπίω.
C. τάς σπείρας άπάσας άρραβδωτονς τά άνωθεν.
d. τούς κίονας άραβδωτονς άπαντας, πλην των έπι τον
τοίχον.
e. την κρηπίδα εγκνκλω άπάσαν άκατάξεστον.
f. τον τοίχον τον έντδς άκατάξεστα γογγνλον λίθον
τετραποδίας ΠΙΙΙ.
g. τον έν τω προστομιαί[ω] τετραποδίας ΔΙΙ.
Λ. της παραστάδος [τί/ί] . . . τετραποδίας I ; .
I. τον πρδς τώγαλμάτος τετραποδίας ΔΙ.
‘ The following are unpolished and unfluted :—
a. The wall facing the south is unpolished, ex-
cept the part within the portico adjacent to the
Kekropion.
b. The orthostatae (pilasters) are unpolished from
without all round the building, except those in the
portico at the Kekropion.
c. The mouldings of the bases are all unfluted on
the upper parts.
d. The columns are all unfluted, except those on
the wall.
e. The entire base all round the building is un-
polished.
f. Of the internal wall the unpolished parts are—
of the γογγύλος λίθος, 32 feet;
g. Of the wall in the prostomiaion, 48 feet;
h. Of the parastas, — lengths of four feet ;
i. Of the wall near the statue, — lengths of four
feet.’
The above entries belong to various parts of the
temple. On the distinction between κατάξεσις, the
final polishing, and έπεργάσασθαι, see ante, § 2, k.
ράβδωσις is the fluting of the columns. Through the
carelessness of the scribe sometimes άρράβδωτος,
sometimes άράβδωτος is written. So άπορραντήριον
and άποραντηριον, No. xxviii.
a. The wall here called the southern wall is that
to which is attached the portico with Korae, of
which the architrave stones have been mentioned,
§ 2> f> k. The part of the wall mentioned here as
unpolished is the plain surface of the masonry
marked by the letter Θ in Fig. 6. Pl. ii, the polished
part being marked by the letter 1. The facing-
stones of the epikraniticles, and the mouldings of
the bases, are separately mentioned, post, f and c.
Here, and in b post, the southern portico is spoken
of as being πρδς τω Κεκροπίω, adjacent to the Kekro-