Abbreviations used in the notes: O.R. = Officers' Reports being the monthly and annual reports submitted by the Officers of the Museum to the Trustees: C. = Minutes of the Standing Committee of Trustees; O.P. = Original Papers accompanying the Minutes of the Trustees' meetings.

Versions of this paper were read as lectures at The American School of Classical Studies and at The Centre for Acropolis Studies in Athens. I wish to thank all those who contributed to the discussion on those occasions and all those friends and colleagues in London and in Athens who have provided especial assistance.

^{page 89 note 1} For Maudslay, see Graham, I. in Collectors and Collections, British Museum Yearbook 2 (London 1977) 137–55.Google Scholar For Hay and his casts see Tillett, S., Egypt Itself (London 1984).Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 2} For Elgin's casts of the Parthenon Sculptures see Appendix II, espec. note 2.

^{page 90 note 3} Berger, E., ‘La Reconstruction du decor sculpte du Parthénon’, in Le Moulage: Actes du Colloque International 10–12 Avril, 1987 (Paris 1988) 126–33, with bibliography.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 4} O.P. 13; cf. C.4066, 28 August 1835. This was to be the first of a series of letters from Bracebridge, which began as an offer of help to the British but became part of an appeal on behalf of the Greeks for the return of marbles from the Acropolis in the British Museum: cf. O.P. 13, 28 November 1835; C.4157, 9 January 1836; O.P. 30, 21 April 1844.

^{page 90 note 5} O.P. 13, 13 August 1835.

^{page 90 note 6} O.P. 14, 12 March 1836.

^{page 90 note 7} For Ross, see Stoneman, R., Land of Lost Gods (London 1987) 240–45.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 8} C.4280, 14 May 1836.

^{page 91 note 9} O.P. 20, 19 February 1839. This is N.F. XVII, see Description of the Collection of Ancient Marbles in the British Museum (London 1839) pl. XI, 95–6.

^{page 91 note 10} C.4995, 9 February 1839.

^{page 91 note 11} O.P. 21, 20 June 1839.

^{page 91 note 12} Ross resigned his post in 1836 and was succeeded by Kyriakos Pittakis, veteran of the Greek war of independence and one of the founder fathers of the Greek Archaeological Society, which held its first meeting in the Parthenon on 28 April 1837. For the foundation of the Society, see: Castorchis, E., Historical account of the Activities of the Athenian Archaeological Society 1837–1879 (in Greek, Athens 1879) 7 and 8Google Scholar; Cavvadias, P., History of the Archaeological Society 1837–1900 (in Greek, Athens 1900) 12–15.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 13} See letter from Ross to Griffith dated 4 November 1841, O.P. 27, 17 December 1842.

^{page 91 note 14} O.P. 30, 18 June 1844. See Bas, P. Le, Voyage archéologique en Grèce et en Asie mineure fait par ordre du governement français pendant les années 1843 et 1844 (Paris 1847–1848).Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 15} See Bracebridge's letter dated Athens, 30 April, 1844–C.6459, 8 June 1844.

^{page 91 note 16} O.P. 30, 9 June 1844. Edward Hawkins, Keeper of the Department of Antiquities at the British Museum, had arranged for his son, a trained architect, to accompany Charles Fellows' second expedition to Lycia. The season of activity at Xanthos lasted until March 1844, and R. Hawkins returned home by a landward route through mainland Greece and Italy. Recently, the Greek and Roman Department of the British Museum and the British Library have jointly acquired a number of drawings executed by R. Hawkins upon his homeward journey.

^{page 91 note 17} Theobald Piscatory was responsible for the founding of the French School in September 1846; George Finlay, historian and philhellene whose papers are now kept in the Library of the British School at Athens – Hussey, J.M., The Finlay Papers, A Catalogue (London 1973).Google Scholar A cast of the north-west angle of the Parthenon was subsequently acquired by the British Museum, and later incorporated into a cast of the entablature of the Parthenon displayed in the Elgin Room. The Giovanni here mentioned is probably G. Andreoli, for whom see notes 70 and 149, below.

^{page 92 note 18} O.P. 30, 21 June 1844; see also his letter from Venice dated 21 June, O.P. 30, 14 July 1844; C.6483, 27 July 1844.

^{page 92 note 19} Perhaps the man who married Bryon's Maid of Athens – see Stoneman op. cit. (note 7) 241.

^{page 92 note 20} C.6587 and O.P. 21, 25 January 1845.

^{page 92 note 21} C.6623, 8 March 1845.

^{page 92 note 22} O.P. 33, 10 April 1845.

^{page 92 note 23} Stoneman, p. 252 discusses in brief the complex of Greek, British, French and Russian political interrelations during the reign of King Otto. ‘It was the war of ministers for Otto's ear that determined events. Though Otto increasingly leaned to the Russian party with its irredentist promises of Orthodox unity, and cast his eyes on the throne of Constantinople, it was the French who knew how to manipulate him’. See also Tsigakou, F.-M., The Rediscovery of Greece (London 1984) 74.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 24} O.P. 33, 7 November 1845.

^{page 92 note 25} George Knowles (c.1776–1856) surveyed the Parthenon with F.C. Penrose – see Penrose, , The Principles of Athenian Architecture (2nd edition, London 1888) pl. III.Google Scholar The etchings show South Frieze XVI and XVII.

^{page 92 note 26} O.R. 36. Particular mention is made of a cast of the Laborde head then thought to be from a ‘Victory from the Pediment of the Parthenon’.

^{page 92 note 27} O.P. 31, 20 May 1846.

^{page 93 note 28} O.R. 36, 13 June 1846.

^{page 93 note 29} C.7030–1, 10 October 1846.

^{page 93 note 30} O.P. 45, 12 May 1851.

^{page 93 note 31} See now Cook, B.F. in Kanon, Festschrift Ernst Berger, ed. Schmidt, M. (Basel 1988) 4–8.Google Scholar Lloyd published his discovery of the placement of the snake fragment in The Classical Museum 5 (1848) 428–9; cf. F. Welcker's attempt to refute it in ibid. 6 (1849) 290–3.

^{page 93 note 32} Cf. O.R. 11 June 1851.

^{page 93 note 33} O.P. 47, April 1852. A transcription in the library of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum is dated 8 April. A shorter version was later published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature 5 (1856) 59–84. Newton had been appointed Vice-Consul at Mytilene and was passing through Athens on the way to Lesbos.

^{page 93 note 34} Newton, C.T., Travels and Discoveries in the Levant (London 1865) vol. I, 18.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 35} Cf. L. von Klenze cited by Stoneman, op.cit. (n.7) 249–50, for a sympathetic view of Pittakis's guardianship of the sculptures against would-be pillagers. See also Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon (Leipzig 1871) 90–1.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 36} For a similar use of this metaphor compare Korres, M. in Study for the Restoration of the Parthenon (Athens 1989) vol. 2a, 73.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 37} Laborde, L. de, Le Parthénon, documents pour servir a une restauration, reunis et publiés (Paris 1848) vol. I, plates 24–7.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 38} Cf. Newton, op. cit. (note 34) 19.

^{page 94 note 39} O.R. 48, 15 May 1852.

^{page 94 note 40} Lyons had been replaced by this distinguished antiquary in June 1849 – see Auchmuty, J. J., Sir Thomas Wyse (London 1939) 235–57.Google Scholar

^{page 94 note 41} O.P. 48, 14 November 1852.

^{page 94 note 42} Twelve slabs of the Mausoleum frieze were removed from the Crusader castle at Bodrum and brought to the Museum in 1846 by Sir Stratford Canning while he was British ambassador in Constantinople. The pledge was not fulfilled and O. Palagia informs me that a set of casts of the Mausoleum sculptures was purchased much later for the University of Athens.

^{page 95 note 43} O.P. 48, 27 November 1852.

^{page 95 note 44} O.P. 54, 17 December 1852, C.8506, 8 January 1853; O.P. 54, 19 August 1856.

^{page 95 note 45} C.8550, 7 May 1853, cf. O.P. 49, 15 April 1853, where the figure is quoted as £113. 9s. 8d.

^{page 95 note 46} O.P. 49, 8 July 1853.

^{page 95 note 47} O.P. 50, 27 December 1853; c.8642, 14 January 1854.

^{page 95 note 48} O.P. 53, 14 November 1855; O.R. 55, 7 December 1855; c.8907, 8 December 1855.

^{page 95 note 49} O.P. 51, 24 May 1854.

^{page 95 note 50} The Trustees were to meet Newton's request – C.9095, 1 November 1856.

^{page 95 note 51} O.R. 55, 7 December 1855.

^{page 95 note 52} O.P. 54, 19 August 1856.

^{page 96 note 53} O.R. 57, 9 October 1856; C.9079, 11 October 1856.

^{page 96 note 54} O.R. 4 March 1857; O.P. 56, 6 March 1857; C.9166, 14 March 1857; O.R. 58, 7 April 1857.

^{page 96 note 55} C.9079, 11 October 1856; C.9095, 1 November 1856.

^{page 96 note 56} O.P. 67, 6 April 1860.

^{page 96 note 57} O.R. 22 October 1869.

^{page 96 note 58} O.R. 11 November 1870; Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon (Leipzig 1871).Google Scholar To this day the British Museum's Greek and Roman Departmental Library possesses a double of Michaelis's plates. Cf. Greek and Roman Department Letters, Michaelis to Newton, 27 October 1870.

^{page 96 note 59} Michaelis, Parthenon, pl. 10, nos XIV, XVI, XVII, XVIII.

^{page 96 note 60} Michaelis, Parthenon, pl. 10, nos ii and iv.

^{page 96 note 61} For which see Michaelis, A., Nuove Memorie dell' Istituto di Corrispondenza Archaeologica (1865) 183–208.Google Scholar C.12010, 12 November 1870.

^{page 97 note 62} C.12212, 8 July 1871.

^{page 97 note 63} O.R. 3 February.

^{page 97 note 64} C.11595, 13 February 1869. The formatore was now Domenicho Brucciani. His role and that of the other Museum formatori is discussed in Part 2 of this article.

^{page 97 note 65} C.12010, 12 November 1870; C.12212, 8 July 1871; 0.12329, 13 January 1872.

^{page 97 note 66} C.12495, 13 July 1872.

^{page 97 note 67} O.R. 5 February 1873; C.12611, 8 February 1873. The mould-maker was Napoleone Martinelli. The Museum paid him £33.0.0 – Greek and Roman Department Letters, Merlin to Newton, 28 April 1871; 29 January 1872. Martinelli went on to establish a cast manufacturing business supplying a wide range of subjects to European cast collections – see below, Appendix II, n.1.

^{page 97 note 68} O.R. of that date.

^{page 97 note 69} O.R. 10 July 1872.

^{page 98 note 70} Afterwards British Museum GR 1880. 1–7. 1. This and the fragment then in the Villa Cataio were brought to Newton's attention by Michaelis, who appears not to have known until later of another fragment in Steinhauser's collection at Karlsruhe – now British Museum GR 1880. 1–17. 2. Michaelis himself presented a cast of GR 1880.1–17. 1. – Greek and Roman Department Letters, Michaelis to Newton, 29 April 1871. When Michaelis later learned of a second piece at Karlsruhe, British Museum GR 1880. 1–17. 2, he attributed it to slab III of the East Frieze, figures 16–18 – Letters, 3 December 1879. It is now given to East Frieze 2–3 – see Jenkins, I., AJA, 89.1 (1985) 124 and pl. 26.Google Scholar According to Michaelis (Letters, 26 January 1880) Steinhauser acquired these fragments from G. Andreoli, the sculptor who earlier in the century had restored the Caryatid on the Acropolis, see 149, below.

^{page 98 note 71} Now Vienna I 1091, Brommer N.F. XXX.

^{page 98 note 72} O.R. 9 December 1820; O.P. 1602, 9 December 1820; C.2769, 13 January 1821. On the history of E.F. slab VII see now Marcadé, J. and Pinatel, C. in Berger, E. (ed.) Parthenon-Kongress Basel (Mainz 1984) 338–42Google Scholar; see also Michon, E., Revue Archéologique, series III, vol. 24 (1894) 76–94.Google Scholar The figure to which the foot belonged was the marshal no. 49 – see Newton, C.Gazette des Beaux Arts 8 (1873) 550–53Google Scholar for this and other joins made at this time.

^{page 98 note 73} O.R. 10 July 1872; C.12496, 13 July 1872.

^{page 98 note 74} O.R. 5 February 1873; C.12619, 8 February 1873.

^{page 98 note 75} C.1254, 27 July 1872; cf.12611, 8 February 1873.

^{page 98 note 76} O.R. 27 December 1873; C.12891, 10 January 1874.

^{page 98 note 77} C.13209, 13 March 1875.

^{page 98 note 78} Archäologische Zeitung, 8.pt.3 (1875) 97–103.

^{page 98 note 79} O.R. 5 January 1876.

^{page 98 note 80} Note 70, above. Michaelis had tried and failed to acquire a cast of this for the British Museum – Greek and Roman Department Letters, 11 July 1871.

^{page 98 note 81} O.R. 3 February 1877.

^{page 98 note 82} O.R. 4 October 1879.

^{page 99 note 83} C.14824, 11 October 1879.

^{page 99 note 84} O.R. 26 October.

^{page 99 note 85} Pinker had actually joined the Museum staff on 18 November 1872, and was to retire nearly sixty years later on 5 April 1932 at the age of 85 years. He did not qualify for a pension, having entered service before such things existed for artisans in the Museum. The Keeper J. Forsdyke, however, appealed to the Trustees for a special gratuity: O.R. 7 April 1932; cf. O.R. 2 June 1921. Brommer, Metopes, p.100 is misled by Smith into giving the date of acquisition of the Duke of Devonshire's head as 1859.

^{page 99 note 86} O.R. 8 December 1879; ibid. 23 June 1880. Newton's new Guide to the Elgin Room was published in 1880. Confusingly, it introduced a new system of numbering the figures in the frieze. This was abandoned in 1906 and the system based on Michaelis was reintroduced. Newton gives the dates for the discovery of a number of the frieze slabs in Athens.

^{page 99 note 87} O.R. 3 October 1903.

^{page 99 note 88} O.R. 17 August 1903; 3 December 1903.

^{page 99 note 89} Kenyon, F., ‘Arthur Hamilton Smith 1860–1941’, Proceedings of the British Academy 27, 7.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 90} O.R. 24 February 1905.

^{page 99 note 91} O.R. 7 March 1905.

^{page 100 note 92} O.R. 23 June 1905.

^{page 100 note 93} O.R. 29 December 1905.

^{page 100 note 94} O.R. 21 February 1906; 5 February 1907.

^{page 100 note 95} O.R. 28 February 1906; C.219110, 1906.

^{page 100 note 96} O.R. 2 October 1907; C.2395, 12 October 1907.

^{page 100 note 97} C.3158, 8 November 1913; O.R. 31 December 1913.

^{page 100 note 98} O.R. 1 November 1917; thought perhaps, to belong to E.F. VII, 52 but see now Brommer, F., Der Parthenonfries (Mainz 1977) 139, no. 72.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 99} O.R. 3 January 1920; C.3701, 10 January 1920.

^{page 100 note 100} O.R. 4 October 1920.

^{page 100 note 101} O.R. 10 February 1920.

^{page 101 note 102} O.R. 2 June 1921.

^{page 101 note 103} N.F. IX, 102: Eichler, F., A.A., 1921 272Google Scholar; Brommer, op. cit. (n. 98) 32.

^{page 101 note 104} O.R. 4 April 1922; 4 September 1922; note 71, above.

^{page 101 note 105} Their report was submitted to the Royal Commission on National Museums and Art Galleries and dated September 1929. Smith's reply, privately printed, was dated 24 October 1930.

^{page 102 note 106} C.2631, 11 May 1816; G.M. 1151, 8 July 1816. These were C.R. Cockerell, J. Linkh, J. Foster, T. Legh, H. von Hallerstein, G. Gropius.

^{page 102 note 107} C.2644, 14 December 1816; O.P. IV, 27 February 1817.

^{page 102 note 108} O.P. 4, 19 August 1816.

^{page 102 note 109} O.P. 4, 14 November 1816.

^{page 102 note 110} O.P. 4, 19 November 1816; G.M. 115, 14 December 1816.

^{page 102 note 111} O.P. 4, 15 February 1817. Report from the Select Committee on the Condition, Management and Affairs of the British Museum (1835), Appendix 30, 444–5.

^{page 102 note 112} G.M. 1158, 22 February 1817.

^{page 102 note 113} O.P. 18, 2 November 1837.

^{page 103 note 114} O.R. 8 January 1825. Select Committee 1835, op. cit. (note 111) p.258. 3612:

‘Question. Where did you study art?

Answer. I was about France, and then I was under Mazzoni for about five years, moulding continually down at the Museum here’.

^{page 103 note 115} O.R. 17, O.P. 13, 20 October 1835. Hawkins's suggestion came in the wake of the ‘grilling’ he had received from the Select Committee (note 111) of 1835 investigating the reasons for the Museum's not having a cast service such as that attached to the Louvre. It is clear that the Committee considered the proliferation of casts as a means of promoting national good taste and there seems to have been concern that Westmacott was operating something of a monopoly in respect of the present provision of casts and that these were unduly expensive – Select Committee 1835, op. cit. (note 111) 249–59, 274–59, 274–76.

^{page 103 note 116} C.2731, 10 July. This early request would not succeed but it seems Westmacott was not above a little private business for ‘by 1818, full-scale plaster casts of many of the most famous statues were available for study in Paris, at the private gallery of the wealthy sculptor and collector Jean-Baptiste Giraud….’ – Shedd, M., ‘Emeric-David's ‘Anatomical vision’ – A French response to the Elgin Marbles’, Gazette des Beaux Arts 102 (1983) 158–164.Google Scholar I owe this reference to Antony Griffiths.

^{page 103 note 117} C.4082, 24 October 1835.

^{page 103 note 118} He estimated the expense of making moulds from the Parthenon sculptures to be £1,014 and the cost of a set of casts from the moulds at £206 (cf. O.P. 13, 23 October 1835).

^{page 103 note 119} C.4105, 21 November 1835.

^{page 104 note 120} C.4128, 12 December 1835.

^{page 104 note 121} I. Jenkins, ‘British Reception of the Durand Vases sold in Paris in 1836’, conference entitled Anticomanie, La collection d'antiqutés en France aux xviiième et xixème siècles, 9–12 June 1988, Montpellier, papers forthcoming.

^{page 104 note 122} C.4298, 14 June 1836.

^{page 104 note 123} O.R. 18, June and July 1836.

^{page 104 note 124} O.P. 15, July 1836; the eventual contract is preserved in O.P. 15, 20 September 1836.

^{page 104 note 125} Sub-Committee on Antiquities, 8 July 1857.

^{page 104 note 126} O.P. 16, 1 April 1837; 16, 8 April 1837.

^{page 104 note 127} O.R. 19, 14 January 1837. For Skene see Tsigakou, F.-M., James Skene, Monuments and Views of Greece 1838–1845 (Athens 1985).Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 128} Cf. C.4437, 21 January 1837.

^{page 104 note 129} O.P. 16, 15 June 1837.

^{page 104 note 130} C.4524, 24 June 1837; C.4531, 15 July 1837.

^{page 104 note 131} O.P. 17, 25 October 1837; C. 4611, 11 November 1837; O.P. 17, 14 November 1837. The negotiations over the free set for Scotland prompted some discussion as to who, in the past, had been similarly honoured. R. Westmacott was asked to draw up a list from memory, which he duly did: O.P. 17, 2 November 1837, reproduced above.

^{page 104 note 132} C.4512, 13 May 1837.

^{page 104 note 133} Smith, A.H., A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum (London 1904), 1648 (ex Chigi).Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 134} C.4883, 10 November 1838.

^{page 105 note 135} O.P. 16, 23 May 1837.

^{page 105 note 136} O.P. 18, 15 and 24 March 1838.

^{page 105 note 137} O.P. 18.

^{page 105 note 138} O.P. 18; O.P. 19, 1 August 1838.

^{page 105 note 139} C.4537, 15 July 1837.

^{page 105 note 140} C.4593, 11 November 1837.

^{page 105 note 141} C.4630, 2 December 1837.

^{page 105 note 142} C.4839, 10 August 1838; C.4845, 8 September 1838; C.4858, 17 September 1838.

^{page 105 note 143} C.5123, 29 June 1839; C.5132, 6 July 1839; O.P. 21, 21 September 1839; an agreement was drawn up with Pink dated 18 October 1839, Sub-Committee on Antiquities, 8 July 1857.

^{page 105 note 144} O.P. 23, 8 July 1840.

^{page 105 note 145} O.P. 20, 20 April 1839.

^{page 106 note 146} O.P. 13, 28 November 1835; C.4157, 9 January 1836.

^{page 106 note 147} O.P. 30, 21 April 1844.

^{page 106 note 148} This letter is preserved (cf. C.6070, 22 June 1844). Written in French, it reiterates in rather more impassioned tones the ground covered by Bracebridge.

^{page 106 note 149} Paton, J.M. (ed.), The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass. 1927) 567.Google Scholar This was a partial restoration by G. Andreoli of the Caryatid discovered in fragments nine years previously. For a good view of Andreoli's restoration see Balanos, N., PAE (1908) plate 6, A and B.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 150} A copy in artificial stone had been sent previously by Lord Guildford but was never fitted to the building – Clair, W. St, Lord Elgin and the Marbles (2 ed.Oxford 1983) 269Google Scholar; Rothenberg, J., Descensus ad Terram, The Acquisition and Reception of the Elgin Marbles (Ph.D. Diss. New York and London 1977) 174–5Google Scholar n.57 is in error on this point. Guildford's cast seems to have survived on the Acropolis until around 1840. A watercolour drawing by C. Hansen shows the Elgin Caryatid standing in two parts to the south-west of the Erechtheum. It appears to have a round base and the line of division between the upper and lower part comes above the girdle. In the later cement cast the join was made below the groin. I. Haugsted is wrong to suggest that the cast shown in Hansen's drawing is to be identified with the caryatid restored in 1837: I. Haugsted, ‘The Architect Christian Hansen, drawings, letters and articles referring to the excavations on the Acropolis 1835–7’ Analecta Romana Institute Danici, 10, 78; the same drawing is (engraved?) in Paton op. cit. (n. 149) fig. 228.

^{page 106 note 151} Other sources describe the cast of the Caryatid as ‘clay’ – Castorchis, op. cit. (n. 12) 29, Cavvadias, op. cit. (n. 12) 27 – or ‘terracotta’ – Paton op. cit. (n. 149) 579. This seems to be a confusion arising from the fact that Lord Guildford's cast (n. 150 above and 164 below) was made from Coade stone – a form of terracotta: Freestone, I.C., Bimson, M., and Tite, M.S., ‘The Constitution of Coade Stone’, Ceramics and Civilisation vol. I: Ancient Technology to Modern Science, Kingery, W.D. ed. (American Ceramic Society, Columbus Ohio, 1985)Google Scholar; see also Kelly, A.Apollo (April 1989) 247–53.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 152} C.5088, 8 June 1839; 5133, 6 July 1839.

^{page 107 note 153} C.6517, 9 November 1844. They were valued at £26. 10s.

^{page 107 note 154} C.6518, 9 November 1844. Stoneman's account of the presentation of casts, op. cit. (note 7) 250, is painfully wrong. The Greeks were not required to buy them, nor did the Archaeological Society sell its shares in the National Bank of Greece for that purpose. Indeed, the very opposite is the case; Cavvadias, op. cit. (note 12), 26 clearly states that it bought shares at this time to secure the financial future of the Hetaireia.

^{page 107 note 154} O.P. 14, 12 March 1836.

^{page 107 note 156} O.P. 31, 10 January 1845; C.6574, 18 January 1845; O.P. 32, 16 April 1845; 16 April 1845. This building was said to be situated near the ‘École des Arts’. Cavvadias, op.cit. (note 12) 27, confirms the use of a bath building, which he situates near the Tower of the Winds. This must be the Baths of Ula Bey at the S.E. corner of the Roman agora, demolished 1875–98 – cf. the photograph by P. Moraitis c.1870 in the Archives of the Benaki Museum. Other accounts, however, speak of a disused mosque, ‘near the gates of the agora, formerly used as a barracks’ – O.P. 36, 10 November 1846 and see Michaelis, op. cit. (n. 35) 91. The actual building is probably that now used as an apotheke, standing within the grounds of the Roman agora.

^{page 107 note 157} O.P. 32, 24 April 1845; cf. C.6725, 28 June 1845. Castorchis, op. cit. (note 12) 29; Cavvadias, op. cit. (note 12) 27.

^{page 107 note 158} C.6673, 10 May 1845; O.P. 34, 11 February 1846; C.6855, 14 February 1846.

^{page 107 note 159} C.6988, 5 September 1846; O.P. 35, 4 September 1846.

^{page 107 note 160} O.P. 36, 10 November 1846.

^{page 107 note 161} C.7312, 28 August 1847.

^{page 107 note 162} O.P. 39, 27 December 1847 and 27 April 1848; c.7513, 6 May 1848.

^{page 107 note 163} C.7513, 6 May 1848.

^{page 108 note 164} O.R. 4 March which is in error. Lord Guildford's cast was never fitted to the building; C.2920, 9 March 1912; Paton, op. cit. (note 149) 579. I was recently shown fragments in the Acropolis storerooms of a facsimile of the Caryatid lately discovered on the Acropolis. The question as to whether these represent the remains of Guildford's replica or of the later 1846 version was resolved by analysis conducted in the British Museum Research Laboratory. The result confirms that these fragments are of plaster or cement and belong, therefore, to the 1846 Caryatid.

^{page 108 note 165} C.3097, 24 March 1913; GR. 1913. 5–26. 1.ff.

^{page 108 note 166} C.4784, 9 May 1931.

^{page 108 note 167} C.4928, 10 December 1932; C.4936, 14 January 1933.

^{page 108 note 168} O.R. 59, 6 July 1857; Sub-Committee on Antiquities, 8 July 1857; O.P. 58, 18 July 1857.

^{page 108 note 169} O.P. 58, 10 October 1857; C.9273, 10 October 1857; O.R. 60, 18 January 1858.

^{page 108 note 170} O.R. 66, January 1861; O.P. 69, 30 March 1861.

^{page 108 note 171} C.15061, 10 April 1880.

^{page 108 note 172} O.R. 1 March 1881. He was taken on at 42 shillings a week (rising to 50 shillings), these being the wages paid to the masons employed by the Museum: O.R. 8 October 1880; C.15297, 9 October 1880; C.15309, 10 November 1880.

^{page 108 note 173} O.R. 8 June 1909.

^{page 109 note 174} O.R. 28 January 1901.

^{page 109 note 175} Smith must have in mind here the original Elgin moulds of the west frieze. Their probable renewal by Brucciani in the 1850s has been discussed earlier in this article.

^{page 109 note 176} O.R. 24 September 1905.

^{page 109 note 177} O.R. 9 November 1905.

^{page 109 note 178} O.R. 25 January 1912.

^{page 109 note 179} O.R. 8 June 1909. Smith went on to suggest a revision of the royalty system, whereby in the retail price of a cast the customer would pay a percentage towards the upkeep of the mould, so that the service might be run with less cost to the Museum – cf. O.R. 31 May 1910.

^{page 110 note 180} O.R. 8 December 1919; C.3693, 13 December 1919.

^{page 110 note 181} O.R. 22 April 1933; O.R. 1 January 1934; 1 September 1934; 6 January 1935.

^{page 111 note 1} O.R. 5 February 1873; C.12611, 8 February 1873. Collignon, M., Le Parthénon, L'Histoire, L'Architecture et Le Sculpture (Paris 1912) plate 77Google Scholar shows the 1872 restorations, and also the restoration carried out between 1898 and 1902 by the French, replacing the missing frieze blocks (WI and II) removed by Elgin, and renewing the supporting architrave block spanning the first and second columns. Magne, L., Le Parthénon, études faites au cours de deux missions en Grèce 1894–1895 (Paris 1895) plate 12Google Scholar shows the west frieze before restoration but incorporating the minor repairs of 1872. For a summary of the French activities see Balanos, N., The Anastylosis of the Acropolis Monuments (in Greek, Athens 1940) 98ff., and fig. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 2} For Elgin's casts see Smith, A.H., JHS 36 (1916) 236.Google Scholar See also Rothenberg, J., Descensus ad Terram, The Acquisition and Reception of the Elgin Marbles (Ph.D. Diss. New York 1977) 182.Google Scholar The names of Elgin's formatori are Bernardino Ledus and Vincenzo Rosati – Rothennberg, p. 147.

^{page 111 note 3} O.R. 3 February 1869; C.12010, 12 November 1870; C.12212, 8 July 1871; C.12329, 13 January 1872. Newton had visited Athens in the winter of 1871.

^{page 111 note 4} C.11595, 13 February 1869. Domenicho Brucciani was then formatore for the Museum's casting service. The disposal of the Elgin moulds is not actually recorded but in a letter (Greek and Roman Dept. Letters) from Newton to Merlin, dated 5 July, 1869, Newton euphemistically referred to the moulds as ‘lost’.

^{page 111 note 5} Newton, Charles, Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities: The Sculptures of the Parthenon. Elgin Room (London 1880) 51.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 6} Greek and Roman Dept. Letters, Merlin to Newton, 28 April 1871, 29 January 1872.

^{page 111 note 7} Bibliography at note 1 above.

^{page 111 note 8} Figure 5 of slab III bears a graffito dated 1883 providing a terminus post quem.

^{page 112 note 9} Kaloudes's name also appears in a graffito above the staircase at the s.w. corner of the Parthenon. Another photograph of the same slab in the Greek and Roman Department Library was evidently taken some time after that belonging to the series and is inscribed with the name of another person.

^{page 112 note 10} See The Illustrated London News (18 May 1929) 839–41.

^{page 112 note 11} Charbonnier, A., ‘La Frise du Parthénon, est-elle menacée’, Revue de l'Art Ancien et Moderne 57 (Jan–May 1930) 261–6.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 12} Op. cit. note 1.

^{page 112 note 13} O.R. 1 February 1939; 4 July 1939; 8 November 1939; 6 December 1939.

^{page 112 note 14} The Museum's collection of casts and moulds has recently been removed from a warehouse in the east end of London to another in west London.

^{page 113 note 15} W.A. Mansell, Catalogue of Photographs from the Collections of the British Museum, part IV, The Parthenon Sculptures (not dated, this copy stamped 1905); Collignon, op. cit. (note 1) plate 76.

^{page 113 note 16} Catalogue of Selected Photographs from the Collection of Egyptian and Grecian Antiquities etc. in the British Museum, photographed and published by the London Stereoscopic and Photographic Co. Ltd. (not dated).

^{page 113 note 17} Smith, A.H., The Sculptures of the Parthenon (London 1910) Plates 62–71Google Scholar; Brommer, F., Der Parthenonfries (Mainz 1977) plates 12 through to 46.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 18} Description of the Collection of Ancient Marbles in the British Museum, part 8 (London 1839) plate 26.

^{page 113 note 19} O.P. 23, Nov. 1840.