Stuart, James; Revett, Nicholas: The antiquities of Athens (Band 2) (London, 1825)

106

OF THE PROPYLiEA.

I I



D. The vestiges of the little temple of Aglauros, mistaken by Wheler and Spon for the temple
of Victory without Wings.

a pier however at the end of it, but from the modern walls
built in the vicinity, it could not be ascertained whether a
corresponding pier was attached to the pedestal; at all events
there could not have been room for two piers and two openings.
The passage between the pedestal may have afforded a nearer
communication with the Acropolis from the northern side of the
city, than that of the carriage-road which advanced from the
south. This northern approach must have been connected with
an ascent of steps near the Grotto of Pan, but the existing steps
cut in the rock, in that vicinity so much spoken of by a recent to-
pographer, appear to be of comparatively modern formation.

C. To this wing it is difficult to assign the purpose for which it
served, unless as a position for those who had charge of the gates
of the Acropolis; the excessive dilapidation it has undergone,
even renders doubtful its previous formation. It is evident how-
ever that it had three columns in front, most probably in antis,
as at the opposite wing; two of these are immured in the wall of
the tower, and the mark of the third is seen on the upper step cor-
responding with the position of that at the opposite side, beyond
which, by the appearance of the cramping, the steps extended pro-
bably to an anta as at the opposite side, but neither of this anta
or of the western wall of this wing does a trace exist, and the
road to the Acropolis passes immediately over the site of them.
At the side of an existing anta, at the south-west angle of this
wing, indications have been pointed out leading to the supposition
that there was a passage anciently through this wing, parted off
by a metallic rail-work. The ancient state of this wing also
behind the existing southern wall of it, is very problematical, but
from the handle blocks remaining, it appears that this part of the
Propylaea was never completed. The surface of the rock of the
Acropolis at this site, is considerably above the level of the chamber,
now a prison, on the other side of the wall, which induced Revett
to introduce the steps indicated on his plan. It is ascertained that
the central building was not in the middle of the opening of this end
of the Acropolis, which is 1G8 feet wide, for the length of the
western fronts of the wings could not have corresponded. These
wings it is conjectured were terminated with pediments facing
inwards, fragments of which are supposed to be seen in the lofty
tower of the south wing, and also lying in front of the western
portico, of dimensions corresponding with the lesser order; and
it is certain that the cymatium on the remains of the existing
cornice at the inner angles resembles that of Attic buildings
of a similar date which were crowned with pediments. The
tower which has been raised over this wing does not appear to
have been erected by the Turks, for they never constructed
watch-towers of such a description, as their minarets in fact an-
swered that purpose; the more probable authors therefore of
this structure were the Frank princes, and it is attributed to
Antonio, duke of Athens, who had the reputation of having
adorned Athens with public edifices about the commencement
of the fifteenth century ! There is now an ascent by a rope ladder
(the interior staircase having been broken down) leadinn- to the
summit of this tower, from which the panorama of Athens and
Attica is unrivalled.

D. Near this site Wheler and Spon described the Ionic temple,
fragments of which still remain at the spot; it is probable that
it was a temple in antis. The wall beneath this locality shown
by Revett with the two doors in it, the supposed entrances to
the sanctuary of Tellus and Ceres, is terminated at its northern
extremity with a large ogee moulding, above which are the indi-
cations of two steps which doubtless formed the basement of the
temple of Victory Apteros, which Wheler describes ' with one
end near the wall', and by admeasurement it will appear
that this substruction occupied a position in front of the
supposed southern pedestal. The marbles belonging to this
temple already described at Plate XLI. which are in the British
Museum, formed two subjects, each in two slabs, and it may be
observed by their ends that neither of these slabs was placed in
an angular position. They therefore must have constituted the
decoration of the front and back of the temple. If we may assume
for granted Whelcr's dimensions of this temple at fifteen feet
long by eight or nine hroad, and compare them with the length
of the reliefs and the dimensions of the fragments of the

temple, it will be clear that these sculptures were attached to
the longer sides of the structure; and Spon described the reliefs
as being placed no otherwise than before and behind the temple.
As the proportions of the order appear to have resembled those
of the Ionic temple on the Ilissus, described in Chap. II. Vol.
I., to which in dimensions it also approximated, it is clear that
the columns also must have been placed on the longer side. As
to the precise part of the platform whereon this temple was
placed, or how the building fronted, has not been positively as-
serted by any traveller; but as Wheler states it to have had one
end near the wall, we cannot be wrong in giving it such a position,
particularly where the above-mentioned wall over the double
door-way has the indication of a step above it, with a sinking
at the lower part of the riser as at other ancient temples. If
therefore we place the end of the Temple of Victory Apteros
according to this probability as to its real position, over the west-
ern substruction already described, the front and back of the
temple must have had aspects to the north and south, and it will
be found that its plan would interfere with the supposed place
of the pedestal of Augustus, for the remains of which, the ruins
of this structure may have been mistaken.

E. This pedestal inscribed to Agrippa, according to the in-
scription at page 101 is, as seen.on the plan, somewhat turned to-
wards the north. The cause of this it is difficult to point out;
but as the north wing of the Propylaea is constructed on a more
ancient substruction, which bevelled or had an inclination from
the front of the building, this pedestal may also have been built on
earlier foundations. It has however been pointed out as a refine-
ment of taste in the ancient architect, that he placed such
pedestals in divergence from a parallelism with the building, in
order to display to greater advantage the statues they sustained;
but if it be proved that two corresponding pedestals never exist-
ed, such an inference falls to the ground. Before the time of
Le Roy, these pedestals were not mentioned ; that inscribed to
Agrippa having even escaped the notice of Wheler and Spon. Le
Roy however, in the true spirit of Frencli architectural resto-
ration, immediately on observing it, in a scenic design, represented
a corresponding pedestal; influenced no doubt by which, as he
equally must have been in the introduction of the pedestals to
the interior Ionic columns, Revett also marked on his plan an
uniform southern pedestal; and Dr. Chandler exercised his
learned ingenuity by actually inventing an inscription for it.

The design of the two wings not being uniform, and the form-
ation of the rock being so greatly irregular, the uniformity
sought in the supposed position of a correspondently placed pe-
destal would have been little effective, for by the interposition of
the Temple of Victory, even if it were incorrect to assign to it
part of the positive site of the pedestal, would have interfered
so much with the display of the statue of Augustus that the
intended symmetry would have been defeated.

Between the pedestal of Agrippa and the supposed corre-
sponding one to it, Revett on his plan has introduced ten steps;
this imaginary flight is however only borne out by three ir-
regular steps seen between the end of the middle battery, across
the gateway near the pedestal; the lowest of which is cut in the
rock, the next is wrought of freestone, and the upper one, form-
ing the sill of the gate, is of marble, and has been probably re-
moved from the upper works. Mr. Wilkins, who takes for grant-
ed these steps of Revett, conjectures that the carriage-road may
have proceeded along the front of them, and have turned to the
right under the walls of the right wing, and have formed a junc-
tion with the terrace, between the angle of the building and the
great pedestal flanking the steps at that end; but the inspection
of the place itself is sufficient to show that no such junction
could ever have existed. In the plan of the Propylaea by
the architects of the Earl of Elgin, the flight of steps is re-
presented according to the design of Le Roy, abutting against
the marble wall already spoken of between the pedestal and the
southern anta of the north wing. The real ancient mode of
ascent to the Propyljca will however remain a subject of un-
certainty, until perhaps some British Architect shall have an
opportunity to excavate and take levels at points where the
Turks were little inclined to permit such operations.

H»