DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2984#0080
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ATHENIAN PROPYL/EA
67
difficulty in fitting them together, particularly a pair containing the antsecap, so as to give the
original dimension of the unbroken stone which formed an isolated pier 5.76 broad by about 3.04.
A portion of this pier agrees in its subdivisions, namely 3.38 x 3.04 x 1.67, with the dimensions of the
antas of the north wing, which are 3.33 x 3.03 x 1.65. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the pier
to which these stones belonged must be placed at the north-west corner of the south wing, where
also are some foundations which exactly suit these dimensions, viz. 5.76 north to south x 3.04 east
to west. If we follow this line to the southward, we find at first no foundation of pier or wall,
but a marble pavement anterior to Mnesicles's work and in connection with the Temple of Victory.
Here therefore must have been a wide opening without any wall or column, but a little farther
on, where the place of the pier or anta at the south-west angle of the unfinished wing should be,
the evidence has been destroyed—because the whole of the original foundation, whatever it was,
A
<---------3-380 -
- X-873 >;
508 >,
J
<--J-676-H- 2-435 --*- I 660—X
Scale 1*40
has been uprooted for the sake of forming a mediaeval cistern; and here in the plan I have supplied
a pier corresponding to that at the north-west angle,1 and this would leave an opening of the
extent of three metopes, which would be analogous to the central opening of the great portico. It
will be understood that this arrangement of the western face of the south wing is not proposed
as the architect's scheme for his finished design, but that to which he was driven when obliged
to terminate his work prematurely.
A foundation wall, which seems to be of the same date as the Propytea, runs from the existing
anta southwards in the direction of the fortification wall, but some squared stones which form
part of the latter, and are shown on the plan, Plate XXVII., though Hellenic, judging from their
material (gray marble), and workmanship, are probably later than the time of Pericles. It is reasonable
to suppose that the foundation wall referred to never received any superstructure, but that a side
passage was here left with steps leading to the upper levels of the Acropolis.
The stones obtained from the tower not only confirm the arguments given above, viz. that the
wings were covered with hipped roofs, but also explain the manner in which the curtailed design of
the south wing was actually finished These stones are represented in elevation section and isometrical
perspective in woodcut, Fig. 8, and in their places at the springing and summit of the half pediment
in Fig. 9.
1 In Herr Bonn's valuable and elaborate work Die Propylaen der ment which may be drawn against this arrangement from its extreme un-
Akropolis von Athm, fol. Berlin, 1882, he supposes the north-west pier sightliness, enough is known as to the form of the hipped roof of the wings
alone to have been built, and that the line of the building then fell back to make this proposed plan impossible. It is evident that the south-west
as far as the first column, thus leaving the colonnade of the wing a mere angle must have been completed either by such a pier as I have suggested
thin screen without any backing at the angle, but, in addition to the argu- or in some other suitable and solid manner.
67
difficulty in fitting them together, particularly a pair containing the antsecap, so as to give the
original dimension of the unbroken stone which formed an isolated pier 5.76 broad by about 3.04.
A portion of this pier agrees in its subdivisions, namely 3.38 x 3.04 x 1.67, with the dimensions of the
antas of the north wing, which are 3.33 x 3.03 x 1.65. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the pier
to which these stones belonged must be placed at the north-west corner of the south wing, where
also are some foundations which exactly suit these dimensions, viz. 5.76 north to south x 3.04 east
to west. If we follow this line to the southward, we find at first no foundation of pier or wall,
but a marble pavement anterior to Mnesicles's work and in connection with the Temple of Victory.
Here therefore must have been a wide opening without any wall or column, but a little farther
on, where the place of the pier or anta at the south-west angle of the unfinished wing should be,
the evidence has been destroyed—because the whole of the original foundation, whatever it was,
A
<---------3-380 -
- X-873 >;
508 >,
J
<--J-676-H- 2-435 --*- I 660—X
Scale 1*40
has been uprooted for the sake of forming a mediaeval cistern; and here in the plan I have supplied
a pier corresponding to that at the north-west angle,1 and this would leave an opening of the
extent of three metopes, which would be analogous to the central opening of the great portico. It
will be understood that this arrangement of the western face of the south wing is not proposed
as the architect's scheme for his finished design, but that to which he was driven when obliged
to terminate his work prematurely.
A foundation wall, which seems to be of the same date as the Propytea, runs from the existing
anta southwards in the direction of the fortification wall, but some squared stones which form
part of the latter, and are shown on the plan, Plate XXVII., though Hellenic, judging from their
material (gray marble), and workmanship, are probably later than the time of Pericles. It is reasonable
to suppose that the foundation wall referred to never received any superstructure, but that a side
passage was here left with steps leading to the upper levels of the Acropolis.
The stones obtained from the tower not only confirm the arguments given above, viz. that the
wings were covered with hipped roofs, but also explain the manner in which the curtailed design of
the south wing was actually finished These stones are represented in elevation section and isometrical
perspective in woodcut, Fig. 8, and in their places at the springing and summit of the half pediment
in Fig. 9.
1 In Herr Bonn's valuable and elaborate work Die Propylaen der ment which may be drawn against this arrangement from its extreme un-
Akropolis von Athm, fol. Berlin, 1882, he supposes the north-west pier sightliness, enough is known as to the form of the hipped roof of the wings
alone to have been built, and that the line of the building then fell back to make this proposed plan impossible. It is evident that the south-west
as far as the first column, thus leaving the colonnade of the wing a mere angle must have been completed either by such a pier as I have suggested
thin screen without any backing at the angle, but, in addition to the argu- or in some other suitable and solid manner.