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.