sanctuary of Pandrosus, the only one of the sisters who remained faithful to her trust. The more usual name of the entire structure was the Erechtheium, which consisted of the two temples of Athena Polias and Pandrosus. But the whole building was also frequently called the temple of Athena Polias, in consequence of the importance attached to this part of the edifice. In the ancient inscription mentioned below, it is simply called the temple which contained the ancient statue ((
Greek characters)).
The original Erechthieum was burnt by the Persians; but the new temple was built upon the ancient site. This could not have been otherwise, since it was impossible to remove either the salt well or the olive tree, the latter of which sacred objects had been miraculously spared. Though it had been burnt along with the temple, it was found on the second day to have put forth a new sprout of a cubit in length, or, according to the subsequent improvement of the story, of two cubits in length. (Herod. viii. 55; Paus. i. 27. § 2.) The new Erechthieum was a singularly beautiful building, and one of the great triumphs of Athenian architecture. It was of the Ionic order, and in its general appearance formed a striking contrast to the Parthenon of the Doric order by its side. The rebuilding of the Erechthieum appears to have been delayed by the determination of the people to erect a new temple exclusively devoted to their goddess, and of the greatest splendour and magnificence. This new temple, the Parthenon, which absorbed the public attention and means, was followed by the Propylaea; and it was probably not till the completion of the latter in the year before the Peloponnesian war, that the rebuilding of the Erechthieum was commenced, or at least continued, with energy. The Peloponnesian war would naturally cause the works to proceed slowly until they were quite suspended, as we learn from a very interesting inscription, bearing the date of the archonship of Diodes, that is, B.C. 409–8. This inscription, which was discovered by Chandler, and is now in the British Museum, is the report of a commission appointed by the Athenians to take an account of the unfinished parts of the building. The commission consisted of two inspectors {hntrrdrai)^ an architect {&PXiit4ictvp) named Philocles, and a scribe (ypofi- /iarcJs). The inscription is printed by Böckh (Inscr. No. 160), Wilkins, Leake and others. It appears from this inscription that the principal parts of the building were finished; and we may conclude that they had been completed some time before, since Herodotus (viii. 55), who probably wrote in the early years of the Peloponnesian war, describes the temple as containing the olive tree and the salt well, without making any allusion to its being in an incomplete state. The report of the commission was probably followed by an order for the completion of the work; but three years afterwards the temple sustained considerable damage from a fire. (Xen. Hell. i, 6. § 1.) The troubles of the Athenians at the close of the Peloponnesian war must again have withdrawn attention from the building; and we therefore cannot place its completion much before B.C. 393, when the Athenians, after the restoration of the Long Walls by Conon, had begun to turn their attention again to the embellishment of their city. The words of Xenophon in the passage quoted above,— &irakaubs r^s 'Miiyas f€ui>s,—have created difficulty, because it has been thought that it could not have been called the old temple of Athena, in-asmuch as it was so new as to be yet unfinished. But we know that the "old temple of Athena" was a name commonly given to the Erechtheium to distinguish it from the Parthenon. Thus Strabo (ix. p. 396) calls it, 6 i^atos rcibr 6 rrjs TloXtdios,
The Erechtheium was situated to the north of the Parthenon, and close to the northern wall of the Acropolis. The existing ruins leave no doubt as to the exact form and appearance of the exterior of the building; but the arrangement of the interior is a matter of great uncertainty. The interior of the temple was converted into a Byzantine church, which is now destroyed; and the inner part of the building presents nothing but a heap of ruins, belonging partly to the ancient temple, and partly to the Byzantine church. The difficulty of understanding the arrangement of the interior is also increased by the obscurity of the description of Pausanias. Hence it is not surprising that almost every writer upon the subject has differed from his predecessor in his distribution of some parts of the building; though there are two or three important points in which most modem scholars are now agreed. The building has been frequently examined and described by architects; but no one has devoted to it so much time and careful attention as M. Tetaz, a French architect, who has published the results of his personal investigations in the Revue Archéologique for 1851 (parts 1 and 2). We, therefore, follow M. Tetaz in his restoration of the interior, with one or two slight alterations, at the same time reminding our readers that this arrangement must after all be regarded as, to a great extent, conjectural. The walls of the ruins, according to the measurement of Tetaz, are 20·034 French metres in length from east to west, and 11·215 metres in breadth from north to south.
The form of the Erechtheium differs from every other known example of a Grecian temple. Usually a Grecian temple was an oblong figure, with two porticoes, one at its eastern, and the other at its western, end. The Erechtheium, on the contrary, though oblong in shape and having a portico at the eastern front, had no portico at its western end; but from either side of the latter a portico projected to the north and south, thus forming a kind of transept. Consequently the temple had three porticoes, called itpovrAffHs in the inscription above mentioned, and which may be distinguished as the eastern, the northern, and the southern protUui, or portico. The irregularity of the building is to be accounted for partly by the difference of the level of the ground, the eastern portico standing upon ground about 8 feet higher than the northern; but still more by the necessity of preserving the different sanctuaries and Religious objects belonging to the ancient temple. The skill and ingenuity of the Athenian architects triumphed over these difficulties, and even converted them into beauties.
The eastern portico stood before the principal entrance. This is proved by its facing the east, by its greater height, and also by the disposition of its columns. It consisted of six Ionic columns standing in a single line before the wall of the cella, the extremities of which are adorned with antae opposite to the extreme columns. Five of these columns are still standing.
The northern portico, called in the inscription (Greek characters) or the portico before the thyroma, stood before the other chief entrance. It also consisted of six Ionic columns, but
