Page:Greek Buildings Represented by Fragments in the British Museum (1908).djvu/172

156 for the insertion of the cone employed to generate the curve of the volute." I shall show below that the use of such cones is most unlikely, and Inwood's suggestion that these holes were for metal fastenings to which festoons might be suspended is much more probable. Compare what is said as to the Erechtheum on p. 169. The well-known relief of Icarus and Dionysos at the Museum shows such festoons. Notice that the egg and tongue moulding is only indicated under the volute; it is so at the Propylæa also. Inwood's drawing of this capital (plate 23) is not correct, for in modifying it into an ordinary (not angular) cap he has got into trouble with the eggs and tongues, showing 22 instead of 24. Coming now to the anta capital (fragment, No. 436), the profiles of the mouldings and their height at the two temples were so exactly alike that it would be impossible from these alone to decide to which of the two the stone belonged, and it has in fact been

assigned to the wrong one by the Museum authorities. (Fig. 152.) Stuart, however, figures the width of the Ilissus antæ as 20.5, and as the lowest part of the capital projected beyond the pilaster making a "facia" this was nearly 21 inches wide. Ross gives the similar dimension at the Nike temple as .495 m. Now the width of the cap at the Museum, which is 19½, agrees with the latter, and the stone consequently comes from the Nike temple. It agrees with this that the order of the Ilissus temple was about 1.6 higher than that of the other. I think I can show further that our stone was obtained with the other fragments of the Nike temple brought away by Lord Elgin. We are told that when the temple was broken up, its materials were used for building a bastion, and later, "the friezes which had been built into a wall by the Propylaea were removed by Lord Elgin." Now amongst the Stuart papers in the MSS. Room there is a careful drawing of