Many circumstances have conspired to render the topography of Athens difficult. In the first place, we have no description of the city like that furnished by the Regionarii in regard to Rome; in the second place, the historians mention, indeed, particular buildings at Athens, but without stating their relative position to one another; the buildings, with few exceptions, were situated on a plain surface, the several eminences in the ἄστυ having for the most part no buildings. Hence the descriptions cannot be as exact as at Rome, where the hills afforded an easy means of stating the site of buildings and the direction of streets. The many buildings, moreover, some of which existed even in the middle ages, and most of which can even now be recognised in their ruins, are a great assistance in determining the topography of Rome; the study of these combined with that of the ancient topographical documents enables us to ascertain a great many points, and thus to trace the history of the city with great accuracy. If a person makes himself acquainted with modern Rome, tracing it back to its origin, and if, in addition to this, he endeavours to understand the ritual and the roads taken by certain processions, along which the ancient buildings are mentioned, he has already gained a considerable step in advance. The Itineraries of the seventh century are likewise a source of information on topography. In this way a person first comes to the Rome of the middle ages, and thence to ancient Rome. But the city of Athens has completely disappeared; some isolated ancient buildings do indeed exist, to which certain names are given, which are in some cases correct, but in others doubtful. From the middle ages, too, scarcely any thing but walls remain; Athens was several times destroyed and completely deserted; even the churches were demolished, and where anything of them remains, it does not lead us back to ancient buildings. Pausanias, who is our only authority, is an extremely confused writer, and the most different hypotheses may be based upon his statements. He proceeds from Piraeeus to the Ceramicus, thence to the Agora, and further on to the Acropolis; but what road he took it is impossible to make out. The accounts of the moderns of the sites of the ancient buildings are likewise extremely contradictory, and can scarcely be otherwise, considering their short stay on the spot. Stuart was there longest, but his whole object was to make architectural drawings. Fauvel’s and Stuart’s statements, for example, respecting the Areopagus, are in direct contradiction with each other. As matters now stand, a person may find his way on the Acropolis, and perhaps also determine the hill of the Museum; but otherwise nothing can be identified, neither the Areopagus nor the Pnyx. The city of Hadrian can be recognised by its gate. That emperor was a strange, wrong-headed man: though a Spaniard by birth, he was enamoured with everything Greek, but