Problems in Periclean Buildings — A Reader’s Guide

Irregularity as Evidence

Elderkin argues that the Propylaea’s asymmetry is not accidental. He points out that the anta at the eastern end of the lesser colonnade is fixed by the requirement that it stand directly beneath a triglyph, and that this anta determined the position of the eastern window. The west face of the anta and the window are equidistant, a detail he uses to reconstruct the logic of the layout.

He contrasts this with the Erechtheum’s symmetrical east wall, which had a central door and two equidistant windows. The juxtaposition raises the question: why would two contemporary buildings differ so markedly? Elderkin’s answer lies in the specific constraints of each site, not in a general principle.

Foundations and Rock Cuttings

A key piece of evidence is the absence of rock cuttings for the eastern interior cross-wall of the Erechtheum. Elderkin notes that the rock lay only 1–1.50 m. below the base of the wall, yet there is no trace of a bed for a foundation. He calls the idea that points of rock were broken off “absurd.”

By contrast, the east wall—the thinnest in the building—rests on eight courses of poros blocks in deep rock cuttings. The western interior wall, a mere screen-wall, has a foundation partly in cuttings. Elderkin uses this inconsistency to argue that the accepted plan of the Erechtheum is wrong: the eastern cross-wall could not have reached the ceiling as usually reconstructed.

Pausanias and the Naming of the Temple

Elderkin turns to the ancient traveler Pausanias, who first calls the building the Erechtheum and later the temple of Athena. He explains this as oratio variata: the name used depends on which part the visitor entered first. The western part was the Erechtheum proper, the eastern the temple of Athena.

He rejects the idea of a staircase between the two cellae, citing the lack of rock cuttings for a heavy cross-wall. The dog of Philochorus, he suggests, simply passed through the Erechtheum into the Pandroseum. These details show how literary and archaeological evidence must be reconciled.

Elderkin’s study is best read with a plan of the Acropolis at hand. He assumes familiarity with Bohn and D’Ooge, and his arguments hinge on precise measurements and rock conditions. Readers should note that the excerpts cover only the first chapter and part of the third; the full book includes four chapters and illustrations that are essential to following the reasoning.

Sometimes I think about how Elderkin noticed the crooked joints in the Propylaea, the way perfection hides its small compromises. That patient squinting at stone feels like the same quiet attention I once gave to The great painters' gospel — Reading Companion, where a brushstroke’s pause matters more than the finished canvas. We read for those tender faults, don’t we?