Athens puts one in mind of Rome, from the number of fragments of architecture and sculpture everywhere scattered about. In the walls, in the court-yards, in the churches, we are continually meeting with something too trifling, or too much mutilated, to be of value in itself, but powerfully impressing the imagination with the idea of what has been.

The great treasure of Grecian architecture is in the Acropolis, where there are three buildings, of which the remains are considerable; the Propylæa, or entrance, the temple of Minerva, and another edifice, which has been supposed to contain three temples, viz. those of Erectheus, of Minerva Polias, and of the nymph Pandrosus. The two first-mentioned buildings are of the Doric order, and it is here you see all the perfection of Greek masonry; horizontal joints so close, that after the lapse of 2,000 years, you cannot introduce the finest edge, nor even follow them everywhere by the eye; and vertical ones, of which you only see occasional indications; and this on a plain surface of white marble, a substance in which above all others, the slightest mark is visible.

In order to understand the following description of the Propylæa, I recommend you to open the second volume of Stuart’s Athens, and lay the plan of the edifice before you.

After passing two paltry modern gateways, over the inner of which is an ancient architrave and frieze, you perceive some old substructions on the right, but to what edifice they belonged it is difficult to say; they are very far below the level of the temple of Victory without wings, marked D in Stuart’s plan. Of this temple there are now no vestiges whatever, except a few scattered fragments built up in the modern walls, which probably belonged to it. We have evidence that such a temple did exist thereabouts, but not of its exact position, for Stuart mentions it as entirely destroyed in his time, to make room for the grand battery; yet he has marked for it a space more than 30 feet long, and 20 wide, although Wheeler, in whose time it still existed, describes it as a small edifice of about 15 feet by 9, dimensions which hardly admit the supposition of columns between the antæ.

Stuart calls this building the temple of Aglauros, but he is undoubtedly wrong. Revett has corrected him in the fourth volume, and you will therefore permit me to call it the temple of Victory without wings, and to consider the room B, as that which was adorned with the paintings of Polygnotus. The use of the terms right and left applied to the object viewed, and not to the spectator, which is the origin of Stuart’s mistake, seems to be derived from heraldry.

Beyond these foundations, and after having passed under the great battery, you turn to the right, leaving on the left a tall pier supposed to have supported an equestrian statue. It is formed of courses, alternately thicker and thinner, and bears an inscription in honour of Marcus Agrippa; and though Pausanias seems to have considered it as ancient (at least he speaks of equestrian statues of doubtful purport in this part,) our modern connoisseurs pronounce it to be of Roman times. Similar masonry occurs in the remains supposed to be of the Gymnasium of Ptolemy, but is not found in any of the earlier buildings of the republic. The opposite and corresponding pier is entirely destroyed, or built up, but we may acknowledge that such a one probably existed. Of the flight of steps represented as extending from one to the other, not only there are no traces, but it is I believe demonstrable, that there never were such. The entrance into the Propylæa was formed by an inclined plane, intersecting the advancing courses in front of the building, which are not properly steps, but successive plinths, forming a basement to the edifice. The lowermost of these plinths is of black marble, in front of the two side buildings, but not so under the central part. Under this plinth of black marble, there is in the north wing, a course of white^[27] marble, shewing the intention of exposing the upright face; for the corresponding course in the central building, which was not intended to be seen, is of rough limestone. These steps are four in number, instead of three, as given by Revett, and under these, we see three courses, which in the centre buildings are all, as I have before said, of limestone; two of the upper ones are broken about the entrance, but not cut through like the marble plinths; the lowest is entire. Each plinth advances a little, and reduces the opening to 11 feet 10.9 inches. All this we leave on the left, as not only the entrance, but all the intercolumniations have been walled up by the Turks, in order to form another battery; and ascend along the line marked by Stuart, observing the want of correspondence between the two wings, and also that from the deficiency of space on the rock, the south wing could never have been the exact counterpart of that on the north. Revett, who made this plan, has marked a column, an anta, and a square pillar between them, as if they ranged in one line, and one is apt to suppose that they might have supported a common architrave, but this does not seem to have been the case; what we have remaining to mark the place of the column and pillar, are the sinkings prepared for them in the progress of the work, which I shall hereafter explain; and the anta and pillar appear to have ranged in one line, but the column did not range with them. There are marks of a gate between the column and pillar, and perhaps of a marble slab filling up the space between the anta and pillar, but I must confess myself unable to comprehend the arrangement.

We will pass from this into the inside of the building, leaving for a time its external appearance, towards the Acropolis. The upper part is now occupied by a battery, and there are no remains of the front columns rising above it, as there were in Stuart’s time, except one capital at the angle. Below is a vault, abounding in dust and dirt, where by digging and scraping, we may see the inclined plane already mentioned, as giving admission into the Acropolis, part of the old pavement, and the base of one of the Ionic columns. The inclined plane sinks below the rest of the pavement, towards the entrance, and rises above it towards the internal circuit of the Acropolis; it is transversely ribbed, to give secure footing to the horses in ascending it.

Revett found a piece of the upper part of the shaft of an Ionic column, 2 feet 10 inches in diameter, and conceiving them to occupy a height of 33 feet 7 inches, he concluded from what he conceived to be the proportions of this order among the Greeks, that they must have stood on pedestals; but the base above-mentioned proves that they did not; and as the height seems correctly deduced from the surrounding parts, and we may add between one fourth and one fifth to obtain the diameter of the lower part, it follows that these columns must have been about nine and a half diameters in height.

The doorways which gave entrance to the Acropolis, are five in number, and placed between piers, towards the back of the edifice. The inclined plane gave access to the central one, the others were approached by steps, they bear some marks of having been adorned with architraves of metal. There is a small sinking, apparently formed to receive it, 1 foot 9.8 inches in width, to the larger opening: and one of 13.7 inches in width to the two adjacent ones, yet there are no cramp-holes, except in the upper part; the smaller side doorways are filled up with earth. Over each opening a stone is placed edgewise, occupying in consequence the height of two common courses. This plan seems to have been uniformly adopted above the doorways of the Athenian buildings, and will guide us in several instances to determine what openings were originally intended, and what were not. On the eastern side of this wall, the traces of a metallic architrave are much more certain, since besides the change of colour in the marble, there is a regular series of cramp-holes; yet how it was managed is still a subject of some difficulty. Taking the central opening as my example, (and the two others are similarly designed) we find on the edge of the opening a band, not of a very uniform width, in which the surface of the marble has not been finished, and then one in which the surface made quite smooth, is of a whiter colour than elsewhere; apparently from having been sheltered from the air; both these must have been covered by the architrave, and their united width is 1 foot 10.4 inches. On the highest stone of the jamb there is a deep and double sinking, which seems to have been intended to receive a strong block, projecting from the face of the architrave; my notion is, that this block had a hole on the under side to receive the pivot of the door, which worked in a corresponding hole in another block of bronze at the base, and consequently lay when shut, against the wall, without being let into it. I should perhaps hardly have ventured to express this opinion, if it were not strengthened by the appearance of the grooves receiving the metal plate on which the doors opened, at the entrance of the opisthodomus of the Parthenon. The centre from which these grooves are drawn is not within the thickness of the wall.

The jambs of these doorways, viewed laterally, exhibit several sinkings about two inches deep, which doubtless were made with some object at present unknown. The height of the centre opening was equal to fifteen courses,^[28] each of nearly 1 foot 7.4 inches in thickness, making in all 24 feet 1.9 inch, on a width of 13 feet 4.75 inches. The secondary openings are of eleven courses, or 17 feet 8.5 inches, on a width of 9 feet 3.6 inches. The side doors are of six courses, 9 feet 7.8 inches, with a width of 4 feet 8 inches. All the piers rest on a continued course of black marble.

Many fragments of the coffers of the ceiling lie scattered about; they rested on marble joists, 15 inches and a half wide; the longest piece of these which we could find, is only 3 feet 11 inches in length, but this was a fragment. The depth being only 7 inches and a half, is not calculated for a beam of 20 feet, and they must therefore have rested on larger beams, but I cannot determine how the Propylæa were covered, or whether the central part was covered at all.

Revett has given a section which includes the northern flank of the middle building, exhibiting the very curious manner in which the stones are arranged, as if they were cut away to make room for the roof of a side building, now destroyed. There are two cornices on this flank, one of which is continued from that of the outer portico; the lower is an internal one, that is, it is composed of such members as we find in Greek architecture to be appropriated to internal decoration.

There are several other particulars relating to these side buildings, both remaining and destroyed, and to their union with the centre, but it would swell my letter to an essay, were I to enumerate them all, and besides, I have not the means of elucidating them satisfactorily. I will however, observe to you, that the flank wall on each side of the central building was carried up above the cornice of the wings, and these wings were not crowned with a pediment, but probably had a flat roof.

The Propylæa are said to have cost 460,000l. a sum so enormous in proportion to the modern extent of the edifice, that some writers have supposed it must be meant to include the whole of the constructions of Pericles’s administration in the Acropolis. Buildings in marble will cost more than those of brick, even though the marble should be found in the vicinity; and if the distance to the Pentelic quarries was not great, yet the roads were bad; none of the modern expedients for facilitating transport were in use, and the expense must have been more than double what it would have been with us, with our taxes and turnpikes. Workmanship put together like the nicest operations in ivory, must also have cost very much more than the clumsy masonry of modern times; but after all these considerations, the sum still seems very great, even if we take into consideration that a great extent of subordinate edifices has disappeared.

There are two particulars relating to the Propylæa, and to the works about them, which I have not yet mentioned. We see in various places remains of piers and walls of a very ancient masonry, of limestone, and not of marble; apparently earlier than the time of Pericles; there is such a fragment under the north-west angle of the northern wing of the Propylæa, whose lines not exactly corresponding with those of the work above, prove that they did not form part of that design. The base of the pier which contains the inscription to Agrippa, is of a grayish slaty marble, not used in the upper parts, and this perhaps may also be more ancient than the pier it supports.

The other circumstance is, that the work has not been completely finished, and that we are thereby enabled to trace the mode of execution. It appears that the Athenians worked the marble to an even, but not a very smooth face, with a toothed chisel, before they placed the blocks in the work, and that they afterwards went over the whole exposed surface, and finished it to the greatest smoothness and nicety, but without polish, taking off in this operation about one fifth of an inch; and this has been the practice on the horizontal, as well as on the upright surfaces, for the columns of the Propylæa are sunk in to about that depth below the general level. The place intended for their reception was sunk before the lower cylinders were placed, and lest any inconvenience should arise from the wet remaining there, before the building was completed, a small channel has been cut from the recess to carry off the water. In the steps, the adjoining faces are carefully finished at the internal angles, but both are left rough at the external angles, by which means the accidents and wear which take place during the execution of the work, would rarely be of any consequence.

Many of the circumstances which make the temple of Theseus so beautiful, concur also to the perfection of the Parthenon, and it has some advantages. It is larger and more magnificent, has been adorned with a greater quantity of sculpture, and occupies a more commanding situation. Both buildings look larger than they really are, and the Parthenon the most so. This effect is, I am persuaded, partly produced by the simplicity of the design, and the justness of the proportion; and partly by the situation, especially that of the latter, which occupies the top of a rock of small extent. This position then would require me to make some exception to my general rule, that each building is best placed on an advancing point of ground, and to explain, if I can, what are the circumstances which form the exception; but in fact, when I come to examine more minutely into the subject, I find that so far from having made up my mind as to the choice of situation, there is nothing more difficult than to lay down any general law upon the subject. I think however, that a good deal depends upon the intention of the building, and on the ideas associated with it; and that a public building, and especially one for the purposes of religion, may occupy, and will even look better for occupying, an exposed and insulated situation, and one domineering over all the neighbouring objects, which would be displeasing in a private dwelling; and this does not depend upon any notion of convenience, (in the English sense of the word) for such situations are generally inconvenient for any purpose, but to a certain perception of character; however, I shall leave this knotty point to another opportunity, and return to the Parthenon, and again request you, in reading my remarks, to lay Stuart’s plan before you.

The temple, to speak technically of it, is peripteral, octastyle, and hypæthral. The proportions every body acknowledges to be highly beautiful. This is easily stated in words, but the feeling arising from the perception of that beauty is incommunicable. In the front, the proportion of every part seems exactly what it ought to be, but I believe in the flank, that I prefer the proportions of the temple of Theseus. Why a continued colonnade, crowned by a straight entablature, should require more slender proportions than one supporting a pediment, I cannot tell; but such seems to be the fact. Yet, as in the Parthenon, the height of the column is five diameters and fourteen twenty-fourths, very nearly, and in the Theseum the height is only five diameters, and fifteen twenty-fourths; the difference seems too small to produce any sensible effect; but the intercolumniations in the Parthenon are only equal to about one diameter, and two sevenths of the columns, while in the Theseum they are one and two thirds, and to this greater space is doubtless owing the lighter appearance of the latter. The whole is, as you know, of Pentelic marble; the part exposed to the action of the south wind, which probably carries with it saline particles, is white, and somewhat corroded; the other parts are stained exactly of the hue of burnt terra Siena, but some places take a dingier tint, perhaps from the effect of the explosion, while the north side is partially varied with the sulphur yellow of the Lichen candelarius. The western end, which, though the part opposite to the entrance of the Acropolis, is in fact the back of the temple, represented the contest of Neptune and Minerva; and the relative position of the deities, and of the benefits they offered to the Athenians, is well explained by Wilkins by reference to a medal. Behind the statues the tympanum is faced by upright slabs of marble, some of which are hollowed out at the back, I do not know why, and you might, perhaps, creep behind the two figures which remain, which are those said to be of Hadrian and Sabina; but though all these statues were finished all round, as you know, by having seen them in London, there was certainly no provision made for a close inspection after they were up in their places.

These two remaining statues have lost their heads, and consequently all that entitled them to their appellation, and the remaining fragment of cornice has fallen from its first position, and rests upon the figures. The metopes of this front are almost obliterated, but the sculpture of the inner frieze is exquisite, perhaps the finest piece of the whole circuit. Sometimes when this is lighted by the declining sun, the effect is inconceivably beautiful; but this effect never could have had place in the perfect state of the building, because it is only owing to the want of ceiling and roof in the peristyle, that it is ever illuminated by the direct light of the sky.

You would imagine from the way in which Wilkins endeavours to correct an error which Wheeler never made, that the columns of this temple were in five pieces, but this is not true; the number of drums or frusta is eleven or twelve, but the junction in those which have suffered no violence is so beautifully fine, that it is frequently impossible to trace it, even on the smooth surface of white marble.

The inner range of columns is more shattered than the outer, and here we begin to be sensible of the immediate effects of the explosion occasioned by the bombs of the Venetians in 1687. The space between the internal columns, forming the pronaos, appears to have been filled up with a metal grating resting on a sill of marble. The holes for fastening it still remain, and the situation of the plinth, on which this grating rested, is indicated by the parts cut away to receive it at the foot of the columns. The doorway is 16 feet 8 inches wide in the original work, but it has been contracted by blocks of marble, at some more recent period; probably when the edifice was converted into a Greek church, and this has misled Stuart. Besides the evidence of this being a posterior contraction, arising from the inferior nature of the work, and its total want of connexion with the wall of the cell, we may observe also that some of the stones used are covered with inscriptions. No ornamental architrave remains to the door, but there are vestiges whence we may conclude that this part was of metal, as in the Propylæa.

When you have once entered the building you see the manner in which it has suffered. The powder must have been near the middle; and on each side, both the wall of the cell, and the columns of the peristyle have been thrown down. At the eastern end, the walls and the inner range of columns are destroyed. Perhaps towards the west, the walls still existed between the ancient temple and the opisthodomus, and protected in some degree the western end; but that wall is now entirely destroyed, and the surface of the wall of the cell everywhere shattered, exposing a raw white fracture.

But we are not yet fairly within the temple; we must first consider the Opisthodomus. It is paved with slabs of white marble 8 inches thick, 5 feet 8 inches long, and 3 feet 11 inches wide, all bedded in rough masonry, or on the native rock. There are four square blocks of a larger size, being 5 feet 10 inches square, and 14 inches thick; placed in corresponding situations, so as to divide the area of the room into nine equal parts, and appearing to have received the columns which supported the roof. Stuart has imagined six such columns, but without sufficient reason.

We may distinguish on the pavement marks of the openings of the doors, consisting of grooves forming portions of circles, which have probably received plates of metal. The centre from which these segments are described, is, as has been already mentioned, clear of the thickness of the walls. It is doubtful if there were originally any opening between this chamber and the cell of the temple. If such existed, it was probably a small side door, but a large central doorway doubtless existed here while the building was occupied as a church. Stuart has remarked a sinking round the larger space which formed the hypæthral cell of the temple, at the distance of 15 feet from the walls; but he has not noticed some peculiarities in the pavement, which are of considerable importance in understanding the construction and arrangement of the building. There is first a pavement of marble slabs, 8 inches thick, as in the opisthodomus, 10 feet 3 inches and a half wide at the end, and not quite so much at the side: next to this is a course 4 feet wide, and 14 inches thick, doubtless intended to receive the columns of the internal peristyle. At one angle of the parallelogram, formed by this series of slabs, there are faint traces of the position of a column about 3 feet 9 inches in diameter, and as these blocks are regularly spaced, we may ascertain that the distance from centre to centre of the columns was about 11 feet 6 inches, and consequently the space between them was 7 feet 9 inches, while in the other intervals, the space from centre to centre was 12 feet 11 inches, and the clear intercolumniation about 9 feet 2 inches. The ancients always placed the internal columns, and those of their courts, proportionally farther apart than the external ones. At Pæstum, where the outer columns are only one and a tenth diameter apart, the inner are nearly one and two fifths; at Egina, those of the external peristyle are about one diameter and two thirds asunder, those of the internal, two and one third. In the Propylæa, the spaces between the external columns seem to be about one diameter and a half, if we exclude the large middle entrance, the internal about two and a half. In the latter case, the internal columns were Ionic, and it is very possible that this was also the case in the Parthenon, but we have not the slightest fragment remaining; a circumstance which seems to me very remarkable. Was no use made of them in the church? and if so, why were they rejected?

The lines of the small columns traced by Stuart, are sufficiently evident, but they were probably parts of the church, not of the temple; for besides that their diminutive size renders them unsuitable for the internal structure of such a building, and that their remaining fragments are of very indifferent workmanship, their situation does not correspond with the division of the marble slabs, which in an edifice so regularly and systematically constructed, is alone a sufficient reason for rejecting them. It may seem remarkable that the original columns should not have left on the pavement more distinct traces of their existence; but while the Greeks united with wooden blocks, and sometimes by other means, the different portions of the column, they placed the lowest part, without preparation, on the smooth pavement. In some instances, in the temple of Theseus, less than half the column remains, and not the slightest indication is visible on the pavement to shew that the other half ever existed. Within the sinking of the pavement already mentioned, we find again the eight-inch marble paving, but in one part slabs of limestone occupy its place. These are supposed to have supported the statue of the goddess. Mr. B. very justly observed, that where every thing is thus of white marble, a statue of that material would have wanted its just consequence. It was necessary to employ a more expensive substance to give it sufficient relief in the imagination.

A considerable portion of the paving remains in its place, but some has been removed, and in the opisthodomus a large slab of marble moulded on the edge, appeared underneath the pavement, which must have been buried at the time of the erection of the temple. Before leaving the inside, I must conduct you up a staircase, which the Turks have made in a little tower at the south-west angle of the building. We may by its means observe many particulars, which are not so easily discernible from below. The examination of the Athenian edifices leads to the conclusion, that the white Pentelic marble was obtainable in slabs of considerable length and breadth, but that the thickness was more limited. In the walls of the cell of the Parthenon, the courses are of 1 foot 8 inches and two thirds. In the Erectheum and the Propylæa, they are somewhat less. When a greater width is required, either to form a plinth course, or to cover the opening of a doorway, the slab is uniformly set on edge.

In the frusta of the columns, the stones are thicker; one in the Parthenon being 3 feet 7.8 inches in thickness; but probably that part of the quarry which would furnish blocks of such a thickness, did not afford them of considerable length. The architrave of the Parthenon is 5 feet 9 inches wide, and is got out in three thicknesses, probably on account of the difficulty of procuring pieces 14 feet long, and 2 feet 10 inches and a half thick, which would have been required, had it been constructed, as is more usually the case, in two blocks. In the frieze, there was not the same necessity that the work should be perfectly solid, and accordingly only two beds were used, leaving a vacancy of about 10 inches in the middle. Thus this peculiarity which Clarke discovered to be owing to the dishonesty of the workmen, and Wilkins considers a proof of great science and foresight, may with greater probability be attributed to the nature of the quarry.

The ceiling of the pronaos and posticum was formed by marble joists supporting slabs of the same material, which contained the lacunariæ; but in the lateral peristyle, these slabs were laid from the wall to the external epistylium, without the intervention of joists.

You may see here in several places marks of ancient ornamental painting, and in some instances of painting of two different styles and dates, one of which has been over the other. In parts sheltered from the weather, there are even indications of painting on the outside cornice. There are some very curious contrivances in the construction of the cornice, at the south-west angle, with which I will not at present trouble you, as I do not think them very good.

I have already explained to you the system of covering in these temples; the ornamental tiles are disposed in the Theseum, one over each triglyph; in the Parthenon there was also one over each metope; in the first building therefore, they were a little more than 4 feet apart, in the latter about 3 feet 6 inches. For some unknown reason, the tiles themselves do not correspond with this disposition of the ornaments; the latter are therefore entirely detached from the former; and the real stops of the convex tiles are small triangular projections, placed back, so as not to be seen from below; three of them occupying the dimensions of two antefixæ and the intervening space. Vast heaps of ruins lie around, as you may suppose, but on the south side, part of a continued basement of coarse limestone may be seen under the three steps. Three courses of this limestone are exposed, and part of the fourth; each about 1 foot 9 inches in height. The uppermost projects 4 feet from the step, and the upper surface is sunk about 5 inches, probably to receive a covering of marble: the next course projects 18 inches, the two lowest each about half an inch. I cannot tell how far this basement extends, or what its whole height may be; but in front there is an appearance of vaults, which puzzle me much more, as they seem to imply a very considerable elevation of the front of the temple above the ground on which it stood. I only perceived them by some holes broken in at the summit, and they are too much filled up with rubbish to enable us to trace their extent; perhaps they were only partial hollows, filled up in ancient times as well as in modern.

On the north side, the heaps are perhaps still greater than on the south, and Fauvel told us that the earth had not been opened, and consequently, as none of the friezes on this side remained on the building, it was probable that a great quantity of sculpture would be found. On speaking subsequently to Lusieri about this circumstance, he assured me that he had begun to dig in that part, but the Turks informed him that limekilns had been erected there, in which all the sculpture that could be found had been burnt by preference. He continued however his excavations, till finding the limekilns, without the occurrence of any bas-reliefs, he at length gave up the search. It is amusing to hear how uniformly Fauvel and Lusieri disagree in their statements: the latter strenuously denies that he has done any thing to injure any building, except in the one instance of removing the Cariatic columns; while the former accuses him of having occasioned a great deal of ruin in his operations to remove the sculpture, and even of wantonly destroying objects where no advantage was to be derived. The last charge is improbable, and in some degree invalidates the former. Indeed it is said on the other hand, that Fauvel endeavoured to obtain these spoils for his own government, and that he now exaggerates the evil from disappointment; but I am afraid considerable mischief has been done. With regard to the sculptures taken away, it must be observed that they were most of them very much exposed, that the young Turks are eager enough to break off whatever they can reach, in hopes of disposing of them to the Franks, and that the petty officers and sailors, who either in merchant ships, or vessels of war, visit these shores, have a great propensity to break off fragments as memorials. Thousands of broken pieces, evidently from the building, and which they might almost fit on to it, lie about, but nothing will satisfy them, unless they perform their share of mutilation; and repeatedly, on my visits to the Acropolis, I have beheld with sorrow new fractures on the drapery of the Caryatides, the only objects now within their reach.

Less remains of the eastern end, or front of the temple, than of the west. We see there holes which are said to have afforded the means of support to certain shields which were suspended on the architrave, whose history is not very clear; and there is occasionally a slight green circular stain, produced by the edges of the shields themselves. They were about 3 feet 6 inches in diameter. There was one under each metope, and under the drops of each triglyph are the holes by which the bronze letters of an inscription were fixed. I made a copy of these, but I am afraid it will be impossible to restore the letters.

Having despatched the Propylæa and the Parthenon, I have now to give you some account of the triple temple of Erectheus, Minerva Polias, and the nymph Pandrosus. And first of the hexastyle temple, which is that of Erectheus, and which is sometimes also called the temple of Neptune, because it contained an altar to that deity, and because here was said to be the well of salt water which sprung up at the contest between Neptune and Minerva; but Pausanias, who calls the whole edifice a double building, διπλοῦν ὄικημα, does not specify in which part of it this well was found.

Stuart in his view represents six columns as erect in their places, with the continued architrave and frieze; there are now only five. The architrave over these remains, but the frieze is gone, except two pieces of the black marble, one of which is misplaced; the other column was taken away by lord Elgin, and is now in the British Museum. These columns are very much damaged in the lower part, so that it is difficult to determine their exact diameter. The base is not well given in Stuart. They have had a very extended apophysis, like that of Jupiter Stator at Rome, and I am persuaded that Stuart has not made them too small. They are therefore very nearly, or perhaps quite ten diameters in height, and they do not appear too slender; but you will recollect that they have a very large and ornamental capital, which certainly takes off from the appearance of height, and communicates a character, which like that of the Corinthian order, is in harmony with more delicate proportions. The contrast between the plainness of the frieze, and the richness of decoration obtained in the flank, by the continuation of the ornaments of the capitals, must have struck you as an inconsistency, but in the original, the frieze is of black marble, and the cramp holes on the surface shew it to have been enriched, probably with figures of gilt bronze; so that the whole together possessed in the highest degree that air of gaiety and splendour, which seems so congenial both to the character and taste of the Athenians. This black marble,^[29] having lost its polish, and being stained by the weather, and perhaps by lichens, has changed its hue into a dull gray, and has been passed over, without notice of the material. I believe Mr. Bedford was the first to remark it; but in mentioning the name of the discoverer in this instance, I do not mean to claim merit in other circumstances, when I do not name the source of my information. The fact is, that I rarely know to whom the honour ought to be attributed: some things have been pointed out to me by Fauvel, others by Lusieri, or by other persons, and I have combined them unconsciously with Sharp’s observations and my own; but I believe the man who has done most towards the complete elucidation of these antiquities is Baron Haller, a German, who unfortunately for me, and for all lovers of the fine arts, died last year.

Passing to the inside of the Erectheum, we find all the pavement of the cell removed. The walls for the most part are formed of single blocks, occupying its whole thickness; cramped together, both horizontally and vertically, but the sort of dado-course which you may observe above the base, in the flank elevation given by Stuart, is, or was, in two thicknesses set on edge. The inner slabs have been taken away, so that it is wonderful the wall stands. The parts intended to be exposed both inside and outside, are of Pentelic marble, but those which were entirely hid are of Magnesian limestone, and this peculiarity enables us to determine that the pavement of the cell was lower than that of the portico, for not only the course, which rising above the pavement as high as the top of the base moulding, might be expected to be so, is of marble; but there is another course of marble below it, and again, as you approach the cross wall, marked (a) on Stuart’s plan, there is a third course of marble under the dado. This cross wall does not rise to the height of the outside pavement, and there are no traces of its junction with the side walls above, while on the contrary, though the cross wall (b) is entirely destroyed, and the lower parts of the side walls where this would have joined, are smooth and even up to the height of four courses above what I have called the dado-course, yet above that, the interrupted surface shows the insertion of the bond-stones, and attests the existence of such a wall. It is probable that the lower part was open, and perhaps there were pilasters of metal, and six columns, either of metal or marble in the opening. This back part is so filled up with rubbish, that I could only determine one course lower than those in the first cell, to be of marble. In the north wall there is a row of small holes, very neatly bored; there are several such ranges both here, and in the Propylæa, but I do not know their use.

The greatest peculiarities of this building exist in the wall at the western end. I will say nothing about the windows and pilasters, of which we have no other Greek examples, nor of a recess in the upper part at the south-west angle, taken out of the thickness of the walls, which is quite unaccountable, but direct your attention to the basement. In this we find a doorway under one of the internal pilasters, and consequently also under one of the external semicolumns. M. Fauvel contends, that this opening is not coeval with the building, but has been broken through for some purpose of later convenience; and Stuart, by altogether omitting it, seems to have been of the same opinion. It is however of the original construction, for the face of the work within the opening corresponds with that of the face of the building, without any marks of the stones having been cut, or in any way altered, and there are no marks of cramps, which since the walls are cramped, as above-mentioned, in both directions, must inevitably have been visible had there originally been no opening. These seem to me pretty strong proofs, but there is another perhaps still more convincing. I have already mentioned the method adopted in these edifices to obtain strength over the openings, by setting the blocks on edge, and making the course double the height of the adjoining courses; this is the case here; a large block, equal to two courses, occurs above the opening. A door in such a situation appears remarkable, but an opening under the angle of the building at the very point of its junction with the Pandroseum, is still more extraordinary: this requires greater strength, and accordingly is covered by a great stone occupying three courses; 14 feet 6 inches and three quarters long, 4 feet 9 inches and three quarters high, and 2 feet 2 inches and three quarters thick. The top of the door marked by Stuart, as giving an entrance to the Pandroseum, is immediately under the surbase moulding of the gallery, 2 feet 3 inches and a quarter above the pavement of the portico of the Erectheum; that of the door under the gallery is two courses lower, or 3 feet 2 inches and a half, while the door under the angle is yet one course lower: all this contrivance may perhaps have had some reference to the access to the spring of salt water; but without considerable excavations the problem cannot be solved.

I have put together what I had to say of this cell, whether, in fact, belonging to one, two, or three temples; and I will now conduct you to the tetrastyle portico, supposed to be that of Minerva Polias, which, to say the truth, is rather awkwardly joined to the first; at least the junction at the posterior angle seems to be ill managed. This is unfortunately a powder magazine, and the intercolumniations are consequently filled up with walls of rubble, so that the proportions of the columns cannot be observed, but for some reason every body at once prefers this to the hexastyle portico; and the capitals of the columns, though almost buried in the coarse masonry, are universally admired. As the difference between these, and those of the Erectheum, is so small as to be passed over as a trifle of no consequence in an examination of the prints, it would be desirable to find out from what the difference of effect arises, but I have not been able to determine the question. The bases and lower parts of the columns are buried, but one of them is accessible by digging, and it appears to have been ornamented with inserted pieces of coloured glass. I apprehend that the plain fillet under the necking of the capital in this temple, and the flat eye of the capital in both, have been finished either with ornaments of gilt bronze, or of coloured glass, or stones. The angular volute, in this example, is made so thin, as to be very sensibly translucent; we did not gain admittance to the inside, for in order to avoid the danger of explosions, the Turks have walled up the opening, and are obliged to make a hole in the wall when they want any powder. I have very little to say about the Pandroseum; the opening I have noticed at the angle of its junction with the gallery, indicates a considerable depth to the internal pavement. Lusieri says, that he has dug, and that there are certainly no traces of a wall or spring; but it is not at all clear that it is to be sought for in this part, nor am I satisfied that he dug deep enough. Externally, a wall comes against the pedestal of the caryatides, and the parts behind it are less finished than those in front, but no conclusion can be drawn from this, since the building was not entirely completed; some of the pilaster capitals are only partially carved, and in the back front of the gallery the last finish of the walls is not carried down to the ground. The little pateræ in the architrave of the Pandroseum were probably intended to be carved, if they were not rather enriched with flowers of gilt metal.

All the three fine buildings of the Acropolis have been used in succession as powder magazines, and have suffered from explosions.