Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/296

He further states that the temple of Pandrosus was attached to that of Athena Polias (t# rof rqi 'AfrgrSi Itortfifoinr rail irvn;)^), i. 27. § 2). Now since Herodotus and other authors mention a temple of Erechtheus, it was inferred by Stuart and others that the building contained three temples—one of Erechtheus, a second of Athena Polias, and a third of Pandrosus. But, as we have remarked aboce, the Erechtheium was the name of the whole building, and it does not appear that Erechtheus had any shrine peculiar to himself. Thus the olive tree, which is placed by Herodotus (viii. 55) in the temple of Erechtheus, is said by other writers to have stood in Che temple of Pandrosus. (Apollod. iii. 14. § 1; Philochorus, ap. Dionys. de Deinarch. 3.) We may therefore safely conclude that the two temples, of which the Erechtheium consisted, were these of Athena Polias and of Pandrosus, to which there was access by the eastern and the northern porticoes respectively. That the eastern chamber was the temple of Athena Polias follows from the eastern portico being the more important of the two, as we have a1ready shown.

The difference of level between the floors of the two temples would seem to show that there was no direct communication between them. That there was, however, some means of communication between them appears from an occurrence recorded by Philochorus (ap. Dionys. l. c.), who relates that a dog entered the temple of Polias, and having penetrated (Siira) from thenxe into that of Pandrosus, there lay down at the altar of Zeus Herceius, which was under the olive tree. Tetaz supposes that the temple of Polias was separated from the two lateral walls of the building by two walls parallel to the latter, by means of which a passage was fomred on either side, one (H) on the level of the floor of the temple of Polias, and the other (G) on the level of the floor of the Pandroseium; the former communicating between the two temples by a flight of steps (I), and the latter leading to the souterrains of the building.

A portion of the building was called the Cecropium. Antoichus, who wrote about B.C. 423 [see Dict. of Biogr. vol. i. p. 195], related that Cecrops was buried in some pare of the temple of Athena Polias (including under that name die whole edifice). (Xlofi rqv n^ioajfoy aitrljr, Antioch. ap. Theodoret Therapeut. 8, iv. p. 908, Schutze; Clem. Alex. Cohort. ad Gent. p. 13, Sylburg; "in Minervio," Arnob. adv. Gent. vi. p. 66, Rome, 1542; quoted by Leake, p. 580.) In the inscription also the Cecropium is mentioned. Pausanias makes no mention of any sepulchral monuments either of Cecrops or of Erechtheus. Hence it may be inferred that none such existed; and that, as in the case of Theseus in the Theseium, the tradition of their interment was preserved by the names of Erechtheium and Cecropium, the former being applied to the whole building, and the latter to a portion of it. The position of the Cecropium is determined by the inscription, which speaks of the southern prostasis, or portico of Caryatides, as i) w^Tota i Tifit rf RiKpawlf. The northern portico is described as rphs tai SupufuiTot. From the wpit governing a different case in these two instances, it bu been justly infered by Wordsworth (p. 132), that in the former, the dative case signifies that the Caryatid portico was a part of, and attached to, the Cecropium; while, in the latter, the genitive indicates that the northern portico was only

in the direction of or towards the portal. In addition to this there is no other part of the Pandroseium to which the Cecropium can be assigned. It cannot have been, as some writers have supposed, the western compartment,—a passage between the northern and southern porticoes,—since this was a part of the temple of Pandrosus, as we learn from the inscription, which describes the western wall as the wall before the Pandroseium (« To7xof 6 wpi'i Ttv naripurtlnu'); Still less could it have been the central apartment, which was undoubtedly the cella of the Pandroseium. We may, therefore, conclude that the Caryatid portico, with the crypt below, was the Cecropium, or sepulchre of Cecrops. It is evident that this building, which had no access to it from the exterior, is not so much a portico as