DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.796#0441
APPENDIX III 393
should the painting of Erechtheus be separated from the rest of the
family of Butes and be hung in a different room ? Supposing, now,
the route of Pausanias to be fairly clear up to this point, let us follow
his course further. We next find him describing the old wooden
image of Athena, the golden lamp and the heirlooms mentioned at the
beginning of chapter xxvii. He is evidently in the Athena Polias
cella B. How did he get there ? The simplest route would be by
an interior stairway connecting apartments C and B. But there is
no evidence of any interior connection between these apartments,
and a comparison with the interior of the " old temple" and of the
Parthenon makes a presumption against it. He must have gone
outside and entered the temple by the east portico, either by
retracing his steps through the north porch and up the steps to the
higher level of the east portico, or else by means of the stairway
through the porch of the Maidens and around by the south side.
The next object Pausanias mentions is the olive tree, the location of
which immediately west of the Erechtheum is undisputed. To reach
this point, supposing of course all the while that these various objects
are named in the exact order in which he saw them, he must have
returned to the west end of the building either along its north or
south side. I am inclined to agree with Michaelis that he returned
along the north side and entered the precinct of the Pandroseum
and the olive tree through the small door leading out from the
north porch. If this route is objected to as too much of a zigzag
it may be said in reply no route following the description given in
the text of Pausanias can be laid out that does not compel
Pausanias to retrace his steps (cf. the route proposed by Dr. Cooley,
A.J.A. iii. p. 368, in the interest of the Dorpfeld theory), unless
we accept some means of communication in the interior between the
cellas B and C.
It remains to notice briefly the two divergent views of Michaelis
and Dorpfeld on the route of Pausanias.
Michaelis {A.M. ii. p. 15, Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. 1902, p. 16)
places the entrance by which Pausanias goes into the Erech-
theum at the small door on the east side of the Maiden-porch,
and the altar of Zeus Hypatos he puts immediately east of this
porch, denying that it is identical with the /3o>/tos rov dvrjxov in the
north porch. In a later essay, " Die Bestimmung der Raume des
Erechtheion" {Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. 1902, p. 84), Michaelis acknow-
ledges the difficulty of placing the Zeus altar in the corner between
the Erechtheum and the Hecatompedon, if the eroSos before which
A. A. 2C
should the painting of Erechtheus be separated from the rest of the
family of Butes and be hung in a different room ? Supposing, now,
the route of Pausanias to be fairly clear up to this point, let us follow
his course further. We next find him describing the old wooden
image of Athena, the golden lamp and the heirlooms mentioned at the
beginning of chapter xxvii. He is evidently in the Athena Polias
cella B. How did he get there ? The simplest route would be by
an interior stairway connecting apartments C and B. But there is
no evidence of any interior connection between these apartments,
and a comparison with the interior of the " old temple" and of the
Parthenon makes a presumption against it. He must have gone
outside and entered the temple by the east portico, either by
retracing his steps through the north porch and up the steps to the
higher level of the east portico, or else by means of the stairway
through the porch of the Maidens and around by the south side.
The next object Pausanias mentions is the olive tree, the location of
which immediately west of the Erechtheum is undisputed. To reach
this point, supposing of course all the while that these various objects
are named in the exact order in which he saw them, he must have
returned to the west end of the building either along its north or
south side. I am inclined to agree with Michaelis that he returned
along the north side and entered the precinct of the Pandroseum
and the olive tree through the small door leading out from the
north porch. If this route is objected to as too much of a zigzag
it may be said in reply no route following the description given in
the text of Pausanias can be laid out that does not compel
Pausanias to retrace his steps (cf. the route proposed by Dr. Cooley,
A.J.A. iii. p. 368, in the interest of the Dorpfeld theory), unless
we accept some means of communication in the interior between the
cellas B and C.
It remains to notice briefly the two divergent views of Michaelis
and Dorpfeld on the route of Pausanias.
Michaelis {A.M. ii. p. 15, Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. 1902, p. 16)
places the entrance by which Pausanias goes into the Erech-
theum at the small door on the east side of the Maiden-porch,
and the altar of Zeus Hypatos he puts immediately east of this
porch, denying that it is identical with the /3o>/tos rov dvrjxov in the
north porch. In a later essay, " Die Bestimmung der Raume des
Erechtheion" {Jahrb. d. k. d. arch. Inst. 1902, p. 84), Michaelis acknow-
ledges the difficulty of placing the Zeus altar in the corner between
the Erechtheum and the Hecatompedon, if the eroSos before which
A. A. 2C