"I found," he says, "a few inches of the front of the step which was here substituted for the plinth. The step under the base was also in two pieces.'

I here add a few points derived from the volume of 1877. The marble pavement of the Old Temple was about 7 feet 6 inches below the level of the peristyle, which itself was about 9 feet 6 inches above the court. The plinths of the first temple were 7 feet 8 inches square, those of the New Temple were 8 feet 8 inches.† "The masonry which supported the steps, with the piers which united the masonry with the foundation piers of the columns, was of courses of limestone about 8 inches thick, which was about the height of each step” (p. 191). The square sculptured blocks were found at the west front. (Fig. 3.) Fragments of marble roof-tiles were discovered, which showed that they must have been of large size, as the rounded covering pieces were about 10 inches wide. A fragment of an acroterion was also found at one end. The temple rose in the middle of a paved court, surrounded by a stoa or colonnade. In one place a portion of the pavement remained against the outer step. In November 1873, a plinth of the stoa was found on the south side nearly 31 feet beyond the lowest step; it was 25 feet wide. Seventy feet away from the steps on the south side lay a Doric building parallel to the stoa, parts of four of its columns were found and of the wall beyond. The columns were 2 feet 6 inches in diameter, and 20 feet 6 inches apart, opposite the alternate piers of the stoa, which were marble and square. Still beyond was a high and strong parabolus wall enclosing the whole precinct.

Some time before 1895, when the late Dr Murray read a paper on the subject before the Institute of Architects, an essay at piecing the fragments together had been made by him at the British Museum. His main points were the following:

1. He finally demonstrated that the sculptured blocks certainly made pedestals, each composed of four stones.

* Like the plinth of the outer columns he evidently means. doubt as to this step instead of plinths.

I feel a

+ This dimension is, I think, slightly excessive. I should say 8 feet 7 inches bare.

2. Pointing out that a circular line on their upper surfaces would just take one of the sculptured drums with its roll moulding at bottom, he endeavoured to prove that this

Fig. 4. Plinth of Column.

arrangement, which had been suggested by Fergusson and adopted at the Museum, was the only possible one. "So far as I can see, there is no escape, much as it may be desired, from bringing the sculptured drums directly down on the sculptured pedestals as we have done in the Museum."

3. He maintained that a low square block made up of two stones found beneath one of the ordinary columns was cut so as to show that it "joggled "

into other stones, and must have been part of a stylobate, instead of, as Wood had said, a plinth block under the base. "The [circular] base itself" (Dr Murray says), “directly above the joggles, has been in a careful manner cut into as if to receive a metal railing." According to Wood, he adds, this

was one of the

inner bases, but as a railing here would serve no purpose, Dr Murray thought that the base must have belonged to the outer row. Figs. (4, 12, 13.)

4. Dr Murray took over Wood's general plan,

Fig. 5.-Dr Murray's Restoration of Steps in
Portico, after Choisy.

which gave a hundred columns, eighteen at each end, making up the thirty-six sculptured columns of Pliny. He proposed, however, a great modification of the steps and platform, in

order to find a place for the sculptured pedestals at a lower level, beneath the sculptured drums. For this purpose he pushed the steps into the porticoes behind the pedestals at the two ends, and, doing away with steps altogether on the

flanks, he here substituted a continuous stylobate. (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 11.)

5. One of the drums is in bolder relief, and is, he says, 3 inches more in diameter than the rest. He placed it at the angle, and said that the increase of diameter "implies a proportionate increase of height." That is in the drum itself, I suppose.

FURTHER EXCAVATIONS.

In the spring of 1905, Mr D. G. Hogarth made a further examination of the site, which is the property of the British Museum, and gave some account of the results obtained in the Times for 8th August of that year. He agrees that the Croesus temple was exactly like its successor in size and arrangement. Below its level were found remains of a still earlier temple, small, in three divisions, and without any peristyle; in the centre was the basis of the cult statue. The site and the fragments found were carefully measured by Mr Henderson. It is most desirable that the publication of these should not be delayed.*

In 1906 was published a most careful Austrian survey of the site by the Vienna Institute. This confirms Wood's plans as to the position of the fixed points laid down on them, but revises them by sweeping away the cross walls between the antæ and the door, and in carrying the columns right back in the deep pronaos as at Miletus. This plan shows the retaining wall with cross walls to carry the platform, and, as described by Wood, the foundations of two more columns at the south-west angle; also indications of the foundation of one of the columns in antis. (Fig. 7.) It confirms Wood as to the position of the base now in the British Museum. The great foundation, about 20 feet square, for the statue is shown exactly in the middle of the cella. A restoration is given of the west door, the jambs of which were about 3 feet 6 inches wide, and inclined inwards. An excavation was made directly to the west of the English site on the axis of the temple, and several inscriptions and tombs were found.

* Since writing this I find that a large work on the Old Temple is in the press, and may appear before this short account, which has the New Temple for its subject.