^{page 325 note 1} Boetticher, C., Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis, p. 196Google Scholar.

^{page 325 note 2} Cooley, A. S., Amer. Journal of Archaeology, iii. (1899), p. 392Google Scholar.

^{page 325 note 3} Fergusson, J., Transact, of the R. Inst. of Brit. Architects, 1875–1876Google Scholar.

^{page 325 note 4} Frazer, J. G., Pausanias, vol. ii. p. 336Google Scholar.

^{page 325 note 5} Athen. Mittheil, vi. p. 381.

^{page 325 note 6} Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿Ερεχθείου ἐπιτροπῆς Athens, 1853. German translation in Thiersch's Epikrisis, (Abhandl. d. bayer. Akad, d. Wiss. i. Cl. viii. Bd. ii. Abth., München, 1857).

^{page 326 note 1} The details have therefore been slightly strengthened in the reproduction.—Edd.

^{page 327 note 1} Boetticher, (Untersuchungen, p. 194 ff.Google Scholar) maintained that the rock foundation in the central space had been purposely hewn away. This is however not the ease. To avoid arguing solely from appearances, I may refer to Borrmann, , Athen. Mitth. vi. p. 382 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 327 note 2} Athen. Mitth. x. p. 3.

^{page 328 note 1} This is the height of the left side. The right side goes deeper (1 m. 66), but of course the left side is the one to reckon by, as in the Praktika.

^{page 328 note 2} See the illustration in the Praktika, Pl. 3, 2. Jahn-Michaëlis, Pausaniae descr. arcis, Pl. VI. C.

^{page 328 note 3} Julius, L., Das Erechtheion, p. 25Google Scholar.

^{page 329 note 1} Papers of the Amer. School at Athens, i. p. 228.

^{page 329 note 2} E.g. Boetticher, , Untersuch., p. 193Google Scholar. Dörpfeld, , Athen. Mitth. xii. p. 58Google Scholar. MissHarrison, , Myth, and Mon. of Athens, p. 493Google Scholar, and others.

^{page 330 note 1} In my opinion it is not necessary to assume a priori that Pausanias is describing the shortest available circuit. It is possible that here and there he may have retraced his steps or planned the description from another point of view.

^{page 330 note 2} On the whole question compare the important paper of Furtwängler, Sitzungsber. d. Ak. d. Wiss. zu München, phil.-hist. Cl. 1898, i. pp. 349 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 330 note 3} Petersen, , Ath. Mitth. x. p. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 330 note 4} Ibid. ii. p. 19.

^{page 330 note 5} Ath. Mitth. x. p. 7.

^{page 330 note 6} Amer. Journ. of Archaeology, iii. p. 390 ff. Dörpfeld's corroboration, ibid. p. 393, 1.

^{page 330 note 7} Rangabé, (Ath. Mitth. vii. p. 332 ff.)Google Scholar, and Fergusson (loc. cit.) localised the altars in the East Cella. Fergusson assigned the East Cella to Erechtheus and the West Cella to Athena. This theory is on grounds of cultus inconceivable, and indeed has never found favour.

^{page 330 note 8} The theory that the ξόανον was not removed has already been developed by Dörpfeld, (Ath. Mitth. xxii. p. 171 f.)Google Scholar, with a view to shewing that Strabo's words (ix. p. 396) ὄ τε ἀρχαῖος νεὼς τῆς Πολιάδος ἐν ᾦ ὁ ἄσβεστος λύχνος ought to be applied to the “old” temple.

^{page 331 note 1} For the evidence v. Töpffer, , Attische Genealogie, p. 116Google Scholar, 1, and others.

^{page 331 note 2} Meisterwerke, p. 192 ff. (Masterpieces, p. 432).

^{page 331 note 3} The passages on the Plynteria confirm Miss Harrison's suggestion that the old ξόανον was a seated image (Myth. and Mon. p. 495). For Xenophon, (Hellen. i. 4, 12)Google Scholar and others call it ἔδος Suidas s.v. οἰ νομοφύλακες τίνες uses the word ξόανον in referring to the same ritual.

^{page 331 note 4} Rohde, E., Psyche ², i. p. 135, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 332 note 1} Kaibel, Epigr. gr. 1046, line 89 f.

καὶ γὰρ ᾿Αθηναιη(ποτ) ᾿Εριχθόνιον βασιλῆα νηῶι ἐνκατέθηκε συνέστιον ἔμμεναι ἰρῶν

Erechtheus is here confused with Erichthonios as frequently (e.g. Apollod, iii. 14). Still more explicitly speaks Plutarch (Quœst. conv. ix, 6).

^{page 332 note 2} Rohde, , Psyche ², p. 135 fGoogle Scholar. Furtwängler, , Meisterwerke, p. 199Google Scholar. (Masterpieces, p. 436). Toeppfer, , Att. Geneal. p. 115, 2Google Scholar.

^{page 332 note 3} Ath. Mitth. xii. p. 63.

^{page 332 note 4} As to the interpretation of Herodotos' account of the temple on the Acropolis, it is to be noted that the snake lives in the Erechtheion; in the same passage the expression ἐν τῷ ἰρῷ which occurs also elsewhere, is employed.

^{page 332 note 5} Meisterwerke, p. 194 (Masterpieces, p. 436).

^{page 332 note 6} Ath. Mitth. xxii. p. 164.

^{page 332 note 7} Ibid. ii. p. 20 ff.

^{page 332 note 8} Ibid. vi. p. 381 ff.

^{page 333 note 1} For the succeeding part of the periegesis it follows that Pausanias (in 26, 7 and 27, 1) is describing the East Cella of the Erechtheion to which the ξόανον was transferred, whether he reached it by way of the open air, or through the interior of the two temples. The proof of this is that in 27, 2 he comes to the sacred olive-tree. For, as Herodotus (viii. 55) states, the olive-tree stood in the Erechtheion, where the θάλασσα was, or more correctly, as it must have been in the open air (Borrmann, , Ath. Mitth. vi. 374 f.Google Scholar) belonged to the sanctuary of Erechtheus. That Pausanias should refer to the olive-tree immediately after describing the building of which the Erechtheion was a part is more natural and fitting than that he should first describe the Erechtheion, afterwards insert an account of the “old” temple, and finally return to the olive-tree which belonged to the Erechtheion.