DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.796#0442
394 THE ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS
it stood is supposed to be the Maiden-porch. The other objection
to the view of Michaelis is that it seems most improbable that
Pausanias should speak of this narrow entrance, which could only
have been a private one for the functionaries, as the entrance without
qualification, a term much more naturally understood of either the
door of the east cella or the great door of theN north porch. Once
within the building, Pausanias, according to Michaelis, makes his
tour in the order outlined above. That he should first describe the
inner cella C before the outer, D, which he reaches first, Michaelis
explains by saying that Pausanias does here just what he does in
his description of the Zeus temple at Olympia (v. 10 ff.), where
after giving an account of the exterior, he first describes the cella
and its contents, and then in connection with the votive offerings
he turns back to tell what was to be seen in the pronaos (v. 12, 5).
Michaelis holds that Pausanias returns from the east cella to the
north porch and enters the Pandroseum through the small door west
of the great entrance, when the olive tree and the altar of Zeus
Herceios first meet his view. Immediately contiguous (o-wex^s) is
the temple of Pandrosos. The only important point of difference
then between the view of Michaelis and mine is the location
of the entrance. AVith the majority of scholars he believes that
the description of the building begins with its characteristic feature
and that this lies in the tokens of Poseidon and Erechtheus,
to which the altars mentioned first of all by Pausanias in his
description are so closely related. And herein lies a strong objection
to the view held by Dorpfeld and his followers, who, believing that
the old traveller enters from the east, are obliged to put these
altars in the east cella which is separated by a wall without any
doorway from " the sea of Erechtheus " and from the trident mark
of Poseidon. A further objection is that the middle apartment, the
cella C, is left wholly vacant, a fate which formerly (when these
altars were put in the middle cella) befell the eastern cella. On this
point Dorpfeld (A.M. xxii. p. 177) says: "in welcher Weise die
ostliche Cella, die gewiss fur diesen Cult [i.e. of Athena Polias]
bestimmt war, verwendet worden ist, entzieht sich unserer Kcnnt-
niss." From Dorpfeld's latest utterance, however, on the relation of
the Erechtheum to the old Athena temple (A.M. xxviii. p. 468)
it appears that he would place the sea of Erechtheus in the
middle cella, C, and that he regards the next apartment, D, as
simply a Vorhalle. After discussing the most recent results gained
from the repairs and measurements made on the Ereqhtheum,
it stood is supposed to be the Maiden-porch. The other objection
to the view of Michaelis is that it seems most improbable that
Pausanias should speak of this narrow entrance, which could only
have been a private one for the functionaries, as the entrance without
qualification, a term much more naturally understood of either the
door of the east cella or the great door of theN north porch. Once
within the building, Pausanias, according to Michaelis, makes his
tour in the order outlined above. That he should first describe the
inner cella C before the outer, D, which he reaches first, Michaelis
explains by saying that Pausanias does here just what he does in
his description of the Zeus temple at Olympia (v. 10 ff.), where
after giving an account of the exterior, he first describes the cella
and its contents, and then in connection with the votive offerings
he turns back to tell what was to be seen in the pronaos (v. 12, 5).
Michaelis holds that Pausanias returns from the east cella to the
north porch and enters the Pandroseum through the small door west
of the great entrance, when the olive tree and the altar of Zeus
Herceios first meet his view. Immediately contiguous (o-wex^s) is
the temple of Pandrosos. The only important point of difference
then between the view of Michaelis and mine is the location
of the entrance. AVith the majority of scholars he believes that
the description of the building begins with its characteristic feature
and that this lies in the tokens of Poseidon and Erechtheus,
to which the altars mentioned first of all by Pausanias in his
description are so closely related. And herein lies a strong objection
to the view held by Dorpfeld and his followers, who, believing that
the old traveller enters from the east, are obliged to put these
altars in the east cella which is separated by a wall without any
doorway from " the sea of Erechtheus " and from the trident mark
of Poseidon. A further objection is that the middle apartment, the
cella C, is left wholly vacant, a fate which formerly (when these
altars were put in the middle cella) befell the eastern cella. On this
point Dorpfeld (A.M. xxii. p. 177) says: "in welcher Weise die
ostliche Cella, die gewiss fur diesen Cult [i.e. of Athena Polias]
bestimmt war, verwendet worden ist, entzieht sich unserer Kcnnt-
niss." From Dorpfeld's latest utterance, however, on the relation of
the Erechtheum to the old Athena temple (A.M. xxviii. p. 468)
it appears that he would place the sea of Erechtheus in the
middle cella, C, and that he regards the next apartment, D, as
simply a Vorhalle. After discussing the most recent results gained
from the repairs and measurements made on the Ereqhtheum,