Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

Page i

THE
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY
AND OF THE
HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS

VOLUME VIII

1893

_PRINCETON_: THE BUSINESS MANAGER
_LONDON_: TRÜBNER & CO. _PARIS_: E. LEROUX
_TURIN_, _FLORENCE_ and _ROME_: E. LOESCHER
_LEIPZIG_: KARL W. HIERSEMANN.

Page ii

EDITORS.

_Managing Editor_: Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J.

_Literary Editor_: Prof. H.N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, Ohio.

_Editorial Committee on behalf of the Archæological Institute_:
Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of
Yonkers, N.Y.

_Publication Committee for the Papers of the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens_: Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia
College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of Yonkers, N.Y.

_Business Manager_: Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J.

All literary contributions should be addressed to the Managing
Editor; all business communications to the Business Manager.

CONTRIBUTORS.

The following are among the contributors to past volumes:

M.E. BABELON, Conservateur an Cabinet des Médailles, National
Library, Paris
Prof. W.N. BATES, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
Mr. SAMUEL BESWICK, Hollidaysburg, Pa.
Mr. CARLETON L. BROWNSON, of Yale University, New Haven.
Prof. CARL D. BUCK, of University of Chicago, Ill.
Dr. A.A. CARUANA, Librarian and Director of Education, Malta
Mr. JOSEPH T. CLARKE, Harrow, England.
Dr. NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, Princeton University.
Mr. HERBERT F. DE COU.
Dr. WILHELM DÖRPFELD, Secretary German Archæological
Institute, Athens.
M. ÉMILE DUVAL, Director of the Musée Fol, Geneva.
Dr. M.L. EARLE, of Barnard College, New York.
Prof. ALFRED EMERSON, of Cornell University.
Mr. ANDREW FOSSUM, of St. Olaf College, Northfield, Mass.
Prof. HAROLD N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton University.
Dr. A. FURTWÄNGLER, Professor of Archæology in the University
of Berlin.
Page iii Mr. ERNEST A. GARDNER, Director of the British School of
Archæology, Athens.
Padre GERMANO DI S. STANISLAO, Passionista, Rome.
Mr. WM. H. GOODYEAR, Curator, Brooklyn Institute.
Prof. W. HELBIG, former Secretary of the German Archæological
Institute, Rome.
Prof. GUSTAV HIRSCHFELD, of Königsberg, Prussia.
Dr. GEO. B. HUSSEY, of University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. ALBERT L. LONG, of Robert College, Constantinople.
Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton University.
Comte de MARSY, Director of the Soc. Franc. d'Archéologie,
_Bulletin Monumental_, _etc._
Prof. ORAZIO MARUCCHI, member of Archæol. Commission of Rome,
_etc._
Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College.
Prof. G. MASPERO, former Director of Antiq., Egypt; Prof. at
Collège de France, Paris.
M. JOACHIM MENANT, of Rouen, France.
Mr. WILLIAM MERCER, of Gainsborough, England.
Prof. ADOLPH MICHAELIS, of the University of Strassburg.
Prof. WALTER MILLER, of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo
Alto, Cal.
Prof. THEODOR MOMMSEN, Berlin.
M. EUGÈNE MÜNTZ, Librarian and Conservateur of the École des
Beaux-Arts, Paris.
A.S. MURRAY, Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British
Museum.
Prof. CHARLES E. NORTON, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Director of the Babylonian Expedition,
New York City.
Mr. JOHN PICKARD, Professor in the University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo.
Mr. THEO. J. PINCHES, of the British Museum, London.
Prof. WM. C. POLAND, of Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Mr. W.M. RAMSAY, Professor in the University of Aberdeen.
Dr. FRANZ V. REBER, Professor in the University and
Polytechnic of Munich, _etc._
M. SALOMON REINACH, Conservateur of the Musée National de
St. Germain.
Prof. RUFUS B. RICHARDSON, of Dartmouth College, Hanover.
Prof. JOHN C. ROLFE, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. TH. SCHREIBER, Prof. of Archæol. in the Univ., and
Director of Museum, Leipzig.
Mr. ROBERT SEWELL, Madras Civil Service, F.R.G.S., M.R.A.S.
Mrs. CORNELIUS STEVENSON, Curator Museum University of Pa.,
Philadelphia.
Prof. FRANK B. TARBELL, of University of Chicago, Ill.
Mr. S.B.P. TROWBRIDGE, of New York.
Dr. CHARLES WALDSTEIN, of Cambridge University, England.
Dr. WM. HAYES WARD, President Am. Oriental Society, and Ed.
_Independent_, N.Y.
Mr. HENRY S. WASHINGTON.
Prof. J.R. WHEELER, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Dr. PAUL WOLTERS, Secretary of the German Archæological
Institute at Athens.
Hon. JOHN WORTHINGTON, U.S. Consul at Malta.
Prof. J.H. WRIGHT, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
The Director and Members of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens.

Page iv

PROGRAM.

The JOURNAL treats of the various branches of archæology and
art history--Oriental, Classic, Christian and Early
Renaissance. Its original articles are predominantly classic on
account of the fact that it has become the official organ of
the ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA and of the AMERICAN
SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, and the JOURNAL will aim
to further the interests for which the Institute and the School
were founded. In it are published the reports on all the
excavations undertaken in Greece and elsewhere by the Institute
and the School, and the studies carried on independently by the
Directors and members of the School. By decision of the Council
of the Archæological Institute the JOURNAL has been distributed
during 1893 to all members of the Institute, and the same
distribution will be made during 1894.

Beside articles the JOURNAL contains CORRESPONDENCE, BOOK
NOTICES AND REVIEWS AND ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS. It is its aim to
give notices of all important publications recently issued,
sometimes written expressly for the JOURNAL, sometimes
summarized from authorized reviews in other publications.

The department in which the JOURNAL stands quite alone is the
RECORD OF DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. While all periods and
all countries are represented, special attention is given to
Egypt, Greece and Italy. Not merely are the results of actual
excavations chronicled, but everything in the way of novel
views and investigations as expressed in books and periodicals
is noted. In order to secure thoroughness, more than one
hundred periodicals are consulted and utilized. By these
various methods, all important work is concentrated and made
accessible in a convenient but scholarly form, equally suited
to the specialist and to the general reader.

It has been the aim of the editors that the JOURNAL, besides
giving a survey of the whole field of archæology, should be
international in character. Its success in this attempt is
shown by the many noted European writers whose contributions
have appeared in its pages during the past eight years. Such
are: MM. Babelon, de Marsy, Maspero, Menant, Müntz and Reinach
for France: MM. Dörpfeld, Furtwängler, Hirschfeld, Michaelis,
Mommsen, Schreiber and Wolters for Germany; MM. Gardner,
Murray, Pinches and Ramsay for England, _etc._

The JOURNAL is published quarterly and forms, each year, a
volume of between 500 and 600 pages royal 8vo, illustrated with
Page v colored, heliotype, phototype, half-tone and other plates and
numerous figures. The yearly subscription is $5.00 for America;
and for countries of the Postal Union, 27 francs, 21 shillings
or marks, post-paid.

Vol. I, containing 489 pages, 11 plates and 16 figures; Vol.
II, containing 521 pages; 14 plates and 46 figures; Vol. III,
containing 531 pages, 33 plates and 19 figures; Vol. IV,
containing 550 pages, 20 plates and 19 figures; Vol. V,
containing 534 pages, 13 plates and 55 figures; Vol. VI,
containing 612 pages, 23 plates and 23 figures; Vol. VII,
containing 578 pages; 26 plates and 8 figures; Vol. VIII,
containing 631 pages, 18 plates and 26 figures--will be sent
bound for $5.50, unbound for $5.00.

Vol. I has lately been out of print, but will be reprinted
shortly in view of the increasing demand for back volumes; all
who desire to complete their sets should send in their
application.

Page vi

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII, 1893.

No. 1. JANUARY--MARCH.
PAGE.
I.--_THE TEMPLE OF THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS_,
By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 1

II.--_NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE-SCULPTURES_,
By F.B. TARBELL and W.N. BATES, 18

III.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT RELIEFS FROM
THE ACROPOLIS TO VASE-PAINTING_,
By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 28
II.--_THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSIKRATES
AT ATHENS_,
By HERBERT F. DE COU, 42
III.--_DIONYSUS_ [Greek: en Limnais], By JOHN PICKARD, 56

CORRESPONDENCE.
_Hunting della Rabbia Monuments in Italy_, By ALLAN MARQUAND, 83

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
M. COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque_, By A.M. 87
HEINRICH BRUNN, _Griechische Götterideale_, By A.M. 89

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria and Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan,
Thibet, China, Central Asia, Arabia, Babylonia, Persia, Syria,
Armenia, Caucasus, Asia Minor), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 154

No. 2. APRIL--JUNE.

I.--_SOME UNPUBLISHED MONUMENTS BY LUCA DELLA ROBBIA_,
By ALLAN MARQUAND, 153

II.--_EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY_, By SAMUEL BESWICK, 171

III.--_A SERIES OF CYPRIOTE HEADS IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM_,
By A.C. MERRIAM, 184

IV.--_A TABLET REFERRING TO DUES PAID TO THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN
AT SIPPARA_, By THEO. G. PINCHES, 190

V.--_A SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTION FROM ATHENS_,
By WM. CAREY POLAND, 191

VI.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_SOME SCULPTURES FROM THE ARGIVE HERAEUM_ (reprinted),
By CH. WALDSTEIN, 199
II.--_EXCAVATIONS AT THE HERAEUM OF ARGOS_,
By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 206
Page vii

CORRESPONDENCE.
MONTEFALCO IN UMBRIA, By WM. MERCER, 226
LETTERS FROM GREECE, By F.B. TARBELL, 230

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
ORIENTAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 239
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 246

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Central Africa, Algeria); ASIA (China, Cambodia, Asia
Minor); EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Sicily, France, Spain),
By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 251

No. 3. JULY-SEPTEMBER.

I.--_NOTES OF EASTERN TRAVEL_, By JOHN P. PETERS, 325

II.--_THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SPARTA_, By NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, 335

III.--_THE NEATHERD IN THE ART OF THE MYCENÆAN PERIOD_, By GEORGE B. HUSSEY, 374

IV.--_FASTIGIUM IN PLINY_, N.H. XXXV, 152, By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 381

V.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEATRE AT SICYON IN 1891_,
By M.L. EARLE, 388
II.--_FURTHER EXCAVATIONS AT THE THEATRE OF SICYON IN 1891_,
By C.L. BROWNSON and C.H. YOUNG, 397

III.--_REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS AT SPARTA IN 1893_,
By CH. WALDSTEIN and Z.M. PATON, 429

VI.--_NOTES ON ROMAN ARTISTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES_. IV. _THE CLOISTER OF THE LATERAN BASILICA_, By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 437

VII.--_SOME INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ORIENT_, By A.C. MERRIAM, 448

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 456
CHRISTIAN ARCHÆOLOGY, 461
RENAISSANCE, 465

No. 4. OCTOBER-DECEMBER.

I.--_A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS AT ATHENS_, By WALTER MlLLER, 473

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan, Thibet, China,
Central Asia, Western Asia, Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Phoeornicia,
Palestine); EUROPE (Italy), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 557

Page viii

ALPHABETICAL TABLE.

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, PAPERS OF:
I. The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs from the Akropolis
to vase painting, 28
II. The frieze of the choragic monument of Lysikrates at Athens, 42
III. Dionysus [Greek: en Lemnais]. 56
IV. A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191
V. Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum, 199
VI. Excavations at the Heræum of Argos, 205
VII. Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388
VIII. Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397
IX. Report on Excavations at Sparta in 1893, 410
X. Report on Excavations between Schenochori and Koutzopodi,
Argolis, in 1893, 429

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS:
Abyssinia, 586
Africa (Central), 254, 586
Algeria, 113, 255, 588
Arabia, 131, 602
Armenia, 146
Asia (Central), 128
Asia (Western), 604
Asia Minor, 147, 256
Assyria, 609
Babylonia, 181, 606
Cambodia, 256
Caucasus, 146
China, 127, 256, 600
Crete, 270
Egypt, 91, 253, 557
Ethiopia, 111
France, 309
Greece, 257
Hindustan, 118, 589
Italy, 272, 620
Mongolia, 601
Palestine, 614
Persia, 134
Sicily, 293
Syria, 140, 610
Thibet, 127, 598
Tunisia, 114, 588

Page ix

BATES (W.N., and F.B. Tarbell). Notes on the subjects of Greek
Temple Sculptures, 18

BESWICK (Samuel). Egyptian Chronology, 171

BROWNSON (Carleton L.). The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs
from the Akropolis to vase-painting, 28
Excavations at the Heræum of Argos, 205
(and C.H. Young). Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon
in 1891, 397

CROSBY (Nicholas E.). The Topography of Sparta, 335

DE COU (Herbert F.). The frieze of the Choragic monument of
Lysikrates at Athens, 42

EARLE (M.L.). Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388

FOWLER (Harold N.). The temple of the Akropolis burnt by the Persians,
1
Fastigium in Pliny, N.H. XXXV, 152. 381
Reviews and Notices of Books:
History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia, by Perrot and
Chipiez; and History of Art in Persia, by the same, 239
Excursions in Greece to recently explored sites, etc., by
Charles Diehl, 249

FROTHINGHAM (A.L., Jr.). Notes on the Roman Artists of the Middle
Ages, IV. The Cloister of the Lateran Basilica, 437
Archæological News, 91, 251, 559

MARQUAND (Allan). Some unpublished monuments by Luca della Robbia, 153
Correspondence:
Hunting Della Robbia monuments in Italy, 83
Reviews and Notices of Books;
Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, by Max Collignon, 87
Griechische Götterideale, by Heinrich Brunn, 89

MEADER (C.L. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations at Sparta
in 1893, 410

MERCER (William). Correspondence: Montefalco in Umbria, 226

MERRIAM (A.C.). A series of Cypriote heads in the Metropolitan
Museum, 184
Some inscriptions from the Orient, 448

MILLER (Walter). A History of the Akropolis of Athens, 473

PATON, (J.M. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations between
Schenochori and Koutzopodi, Argolis, in 1893, 429

PETERS (John P.). Notes of Eastern Travel, 325

PICKARD (John). Dionysus [Greek: en Limnais], 56

POLAND (Wm. Carey). A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191

TARBELL (Frank B. and W.N. Bates). Notes on the subjects of
Greek Temple Sculptures, 18
Correspondence:
Letters from Greece, 230

WALDSTEIN (Charles). Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum
(reprinted), 199

YOUNG (C.H. and C.L. Brownson). Further Excavations at the
Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397

Page x

PLATES.

I.--The Typhon Pediment of the Akropolis, 28-41

II-III.--The frieze of the Choragic Monument of Lysikrates, 42-55

IV.--Terracotta Medallions of Or San Michele, by Luca della
Robbia, |
|
V.-- " " " " " " " |
|
VI.--Altar of the Holy Cross, Impruneta, |- 153-170
|
VII.--Altar of the Madonna, " |
|
VIII.--Crucifixion Relief, " |

IX.--Head of Hera, from the Argive Heræum, | | X.--Metope, " " " | |- 199-225 XI.--Heads and Sima, " " " | | XII.--Map of the Excavations at the Argive Heneum,|

XIII.--Hyponomos and Stage of the Theatre, Sicyon, 388-409

XIV.--Cloister of S. John Lateran, Rome, 437-447

XV.--Plan of the Akropolis at Athens, | | XVI.--Sections of the Akropolis Excavations,| |- 473-556 XVII.--Herakles and the Old Man of the Sea, | | XVIII.--Figure of Athena from a pediment, |

Page xi

FIGURES.

Bull on a Babylonian contract tablet, 190

Fac-simile of Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 192

General Sketch-plan of Sparta, 338

Sketch-plan of the Agora, Sparta, 341

" " Street called Apheta, Sparta, 345

" " Skias Street, Sparta, 349

" " Western part of Sparta, 354

" " Road from Booneta to Limnaion, Sparta, 365

" " Akropolis, Sparta, 368

Bull in a fresco at Tiryns, 374

Bull from tomb at Gizeh, Egypt, 376

Bull from Presse d'Avennes, 376

Egyptian vintage scene, Gizeh, 377

Bull on Vaphio Cup, 378

Hyponomos in the theatre at Sicyon, plans and sections, 389

End of conduit, etc., in theatre, Sicyon, 394

Two stone blocks, theatre, Sicyon, 406

Section of wall AA, Sicyon, 308

Plan of circular building, Sparta, 411

Section through wall, Sparta, 415

Enlarged plan of poros blocks, Sparta, 418

Some poros blocks in detail, Sparta, 420

View of walls, Sparta, 426

Plan of Excavations between Schenochori and Kontzopodi, 430

The Pelargikon restored, 489

The serpent (Echidna) in the poros pediment, Akropolis, Athens, 497

Page xii

COPYRIGHT, 1893, BY A.L. FROTHINGHAM, JR., AND ALLAN MARQUAND.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Page 1

AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.

Vol. VIII. JANUARY-MARCH, 1893. No. I.

THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.

The excavations conducted by the Greek Archæological Society at
Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of
the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early
history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed
unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other
hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886,
Kabbadias and Dörpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great
temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all
questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the
elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century
B.C. were decided once for all.[1] On these points little or
nothing can be added to what has been done, and Dörpfeld's
results must be accepted as final and certain.

[Footnote 1: DÖRPFELD, Preliminary Report, _Mitth. Ath._, X, p.
275; Plans and restorations, _Antike Denkmäler_, I, pls. 1, 2;
Description and discussion, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 337.]

The history of the temple presents, however, several questions,
some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built?
Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its
destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the
erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of
Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the
Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions
Page 2 have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first
question has received one and the same answer from all. The
material and the technical execution of the peripteros,
entablature, _etc._, of the temple show conclusively that this
part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos.[2] We
may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the
walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the
foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of
the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of
reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of
the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the
peripteros. These differences lead Dörpfeld to assume that the
naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle)
existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not
deny the possibility that builders of one date may have
employed different materials and methods, as convenience or
economy dictated.[3] Positive proof is not to be hoped for in
the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is
in favor of Dörpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than
the peristyle, _etc._[4] It is further certain, that this
temple was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to
Ecatômpedon]( see below p. 9). So far, we have the most
positive possible evidence--that of the remains of the temple
itself and the inscription giving its name. The evidence
regarding the subsequent history of the temple is not so
simple.

[Footnote 2: DÖRPFELD, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 349.]

[Footnote 3: _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 345.]

[Footnote 4: On the other hand, see PETERSEN, _Mitth. Ath._,
XII, p. 66.]

Dörpfeld (_Mitth. Ath._, XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the
following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the
departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406;
(3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and
described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take
up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias
reads in our texts:--[Greek: Lelectai de moi kai proteron
(17.1), ôs Athenaiois perissoteron ti e tois allois es ta theia
esti spoudes, prôtoi men gar Athenan eponomasan Erganen prôtoi
d'acôlous Ermas... omou de sphisin en tô naô Spoudaiôn daimôn
estin.] Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between [Greek: Ermas] and
Page 3 [Greek; omou], as do those editors who do not supply a
recommendation. Dörpfeld, however, thinks the gap is far greater
than has been supposed, including certainly the mention and
probably the full description of the temple under discussion.
His reasons are in substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias has
reached a point in his periegesis where he would naturally
mention this temple, because he is standing beside it,[5] and
(2) the phrase [Greek: omou de sphisin en tô naô Spoudaiôn
estin] implies that a temple has just been mentioned. These
are, at least, the main arguments, those deduced from the
passage following the description of the Erechtheion being
merely accessory.

Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for
him by Dörpfeld (_i.e._, if he described the two rows of
statues between the Propylaia and the eastern front of the
Parthenon, taking first the southern and then the northern
row), he would come to stand where Dörpfeld suggests. If,
however, he followed some other order (_e.g._, that suggested
by Wernicke, _Mitth._, XII, p. 187), he would not be where
Dörpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he
mentions are set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the
Acropolis was so thickly peopled with statues that each side of
the path was bordered with a double or triple row, or that the
statues were not arranged in rows at all, and that Pausanias
merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon) a few
noticeable figures with only general reference to their
relative positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that
Pausanias, when he mentions the [Greek Spoudaiôn] (or [Greek:
spoudaiôn]) [Greek: daimôn] is standing, or imagines that he
stands, beside the old temple rests upon very slight
foundations.

[Footnote 5: DÖRPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence
of the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias
mentioned it must of course fall to the ground, will be
discussed below. It seemed to me advisable to discuss the
Pausanias question first, because, if he mentioned the temple,
it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to that of
Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]

[Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of
[Greek: peran] (c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both
sides of the path.]

Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless
Hermæ, _etc._, is, as Wernicke (_Mitth._, XII, p. 185) would
have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is
of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to
Page 4 themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking
questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only
occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or
look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann,
Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large
part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of
previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by
a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is
convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and
saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does
not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps
possible that he describes things he never can have seen.
Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his
description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works,
or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except
when it is important to know the exact topographical order of
objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail
is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his
description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice
hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of
lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for
Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may
be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly.
The passage about Ergane, _etc._, must not be simply cast aside
as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by
inserting the description of a temple together with the
state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing
violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately
been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: _'What Pausanias
actually says is this--:_ "The Athenians are specially
distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first
given by them, and the name Hermæ; and in the temple along with
them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"_--words which are quite
as apt for the meaning above explained_ (_i.e._, a note on the
piety of the Athenians) _as those of the author often are in
such cases.'_

[Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is
attributed: _Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit
goldenem Vliesse._]

[Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, _Mythology and Monuments of
Athens_, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not
fallen out after [Greek: Ermas], though the assumption of a gap
is not strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.]

Page 5 Whether we read [Greek: Spoudaiôn daimôn] or [Greek: spoudaiôn
Daimôn] is, for our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall
is right in calling attention to the connection between [Greek:
es ta theia spoude] and the [Greek: daimôn Spoudaiôn
(spoudaiôn)], a connection which is now very striking, but which
is utterly lost by inserting the description of a temple. At
this point, then, the temple is not mentioned by Pausanias.

But, if not at this point, perhaps elsewhere, for this also has
been tried. Miss Harrison[9] thinks the temple in question is
mentioned by Pausanias, c. 27.1. He has been describing the
Erechtheion, has just mentioned the old [Greek: agalma] and the
lamp of Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion,
[10] and continues: [Greek: kei tai de en tô naô poliados
Ermes xulou, kte.], giving a list of anathemata, followed by the
story of the miraculous growth of the sacred olive after its
destruction by the Persians, and passing to the description of
the Pandroseion with the words, [Greek: tô naô de tes Athenas
Pandrosou naos suneches esti]. Miss Harrison thinks that, since
Athena is Polias, the [Greek: naos tes poliados] and the [Greek
naos tes Athenas] are one and the same, an opinion in which I
heartily concur.[11] It remains to be decided whether this
temple is the newly discovered old temple or the eastern cella
of the Erechtheion. The passages cited by Jahn-Michaelis[12]
show that the old [Greek: agalma] bore the special appellation
[Greek: polias], and we know that the old [Greek: agalma] was in
the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the
Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part [Greek: naos
tes poliados (or tes Athena)], but it awakens suspicion to read
of an ancient [Greek: agalma] which we know was called Polias,
and which was perhaps the Polias [Greek: kat exochen], and
immediately after, with no introduction or explanation, to read
of a temple of Polias in which that [Greek: agalma] is not.
Nothing is known of a statue in the newly discovered old
temple.[13]

[Footnote 9: _Myth. and Mon. of Athens_, p. 608 ff.]

[Footnote 10: _CIA._, I. 322, § 1 with the passage of
Pausanias.]

[Footnote 11: DÖRPFELD (_Mitth._, XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the
[Greek: naos tes poliados] is the eastern cella of the
Erechtheion, the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] the newly discovered
old temple, but is opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss
Harrison.]

[Footnote 12: _Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen._, c. 26.6.35.]

[Footnote 13: For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.]

Page 6 In the Erechtheion there was, then, a very ancient statue
called Polias; in the temple beside the Erechtheion was no
statue about which anything is known, and yet, according to
Miss Harrison, the new found "old temple" is the [Greek: naos
tes poliados] while the [Greek: polias] in bodily form dwells
next door. That seems to me an untenable position. Again, the
dog mentioned by Philochoros[14] which went into the temple of
Polias, and, passing into the Pandroseion, lay down ([Greek:
dusa eis to pandroseion ... catekeito]), can hardly have gone
into the temple alongside of the Erechtheion, because there was
no means of passing from the cella of that temple into the
opisthodomos, and in order to reach the Pandroseion the dog
would have had to come out from the temple by the door by which
he entered it. The fact that the dog went into this temple could
have nothing to do with his progress into the Pandroseion,
whereas from the eastern cella of the Erechtheion he could very
well pass down through the lower apartments and reach the
Pandroseion. It seems after all that when Pausanias says [Greek:
naos tes poliados], he means the eastern cella of the
Erechtheion. But the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] is also the
Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already observed (_Mitth._ XII,
p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos was [Greek: suneches tô
naô tes Athenas], the temple of Athena must be identified with
the Erechtheion, not with the temple beside it, for the reason
that the temple of Pandrosos, situated west of the Erechtheion,
cannot be [Greek: suneches] ("adjoining" in the strict sense of
the word) to the old temple, which stood upon the higher level
to the south. If Pausanias had wished to pass from the
Erechtheion to the temple of Athena standing(?) beside it, the
opening words of c. 26.6 ([Greek: Iera men tes Athenas estin e
te alle polis kte.]) would have formed the best possible
transition; but those words introduce the mention of the
ancient [Greek: agalma] which was in the Erechtheion. That
Pausanias then, without any warning, jumps into another temple
of Athena, is something of which even his detractors would
hardly accuse him, and I hope I have shown that he is innocent
of that offence.

[Footnote 14: Frg. 146, JAHN-MICH., _Paus. Discr. Arcis. Ath._,
c. 27.2.8.]

Pausanias, then, does not mention the temple under discussion.

Xenophon (_Hell._ I. 6) says that, in the year 406 B.C. [Greek:
o palaios naos tes Athenas enepresthe]. Until recently this
page 7 statement was supposed to apply to the Erechtheion, called
"ancient temple" because it took the place of the original
temple of Athena, from which the great temple (the Parthenon)
was to be distinguished. Of course, the new _building_ of the
Erechtheion was not properly entitled to the epithet "ancient,"
but as a _temple_ it could be called ancient, being regarded as
the original temple in renewed form. If, however, the newly
discovered temple was in existence alongside the Erechtheion in
406, the expression [Greek: palaios naos] applied to the
Erechtheion would be confusing, for the other temple was a much
older _building_ than the Erechtheion. If the temple discovered
in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it would be natural to suppose that
it was referred to by Xenophon as [Greek: o palaios naos]. But
this passage is not enough to prove that the temple existed in
406 B.C.

Demosthenes (xxiv, 136) speaks of a fire in the opisthodomos.
This is taken by Dörpfeld (_Mitth_., xii, p. 44) as a reference
to the opisthodomos of the temple under discussion, and this
fire is identified with the fire mentioned by Xenophon. But
hitherto the opisthodomos in question has been supposed to be
the rear part of the Parthenon, and there is no direct proof
that Demosthenes and Xenophon refer to the same fire. If the
temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it is highly
probable that the passages mentioned refer to it, but the
passages do not prove that it existed.

It remains for us to sift the evidence for the existence of the
temple from the Persian War to 406 B.C. This has been collected
by Dörpfeld[15] and Lolling,[16] who agree in thinking that the
temple continued in existence throughout the fifth and fourth
centuries, however much their views differ in other respects.
But it seems to me that even thus much is not proved. I believe
that, after the departure of the Persians, the Athenians
partially restored the temple as soon as possible, because I do
not see how they could have got along without it, inasmuch as
it was used as the public treasury; but my belief, being
founded upon little or no positive evidence, does not claim the
force of proof.

[Footnote 15: _Mitth._, XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420,
ff.]

[Footnote 16: [Gree: Ecatompedon] in the periodical [Greek:
Athena] 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published
appears also in the [Greek: Deltion Archaiologicon], 1890, p.
12, and its most important part is copied, with some
corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.]

Page 8 Dörpfeld (XV, p. 424) says that the Persians left the walls of
the temple and the outer portico standing; that this is evident
from the present condition of the architraves, triglyphs and
cornices, which are built into the Acropolis wall. These
architectural members were ... taken from the building while it
still stood, and built into the northern wall of the
citadel. But, if the Athenians had wished to restore the temple
as quickly as possible, they would have left these members
where they were. It seems, at least, rather extravagant to take
them carefully away and then restore the temple without a
peristyle, for the restored building would probably need at
least cornices if not triglyphs or architraves; then why not
repair the old ones? It appears by no means impossible that, as
Lolling (p. 655) suggests, only a part of the temple was
restored.[17] Still more natural is the assumption, that the
Athenians carried off the whole temple while they were about
it. I do not, however, dare to proceed to this assumption,
because I do not know where the Athenians would have kept their
public monies if the entire building had been removed. Perhaps
part of the peristyle was so badly injured by the Persians that
it could not be repaired. At any rate, the Athenians intended
(as Dörpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to remove the whole
building so soon as the great new temple should be completed. I
think they carried out their intention.

[Footnote 17: LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was
restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship
connected with the building, he would seem to imply that at
least part (and in that case, doubtless, the whole) of the
cella was restored, and he also maintains the continued
existence of the opisthodomos and the two small chambers. E.
CURTIUS, _Stadtgeschichte von Athen_, p. 132, believes that
only the western half of the temple was restored. DÖRPFELD, p.
425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even
the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained
until the erection of the Erechtheion.]

This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the
various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the
Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the
older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in
inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully
discussed by Dörpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts
without further discussion all points which seem to me to have
been definitively settled by them.

Page 9 Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an
inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It
belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and
relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is
too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of
the greater part (republished by Dörpfeld) is clear at least in
a general way. The [Greek: tamiai] are to make a list of
certain objects on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The
servants of the temple, priests, _etc_., are to follow certain
rules or be punished by fines. The [Greek: tamiai] are to open
in person the doors of the chambers in the temple. These rules
would not concern us except for the fact that the various parts
of the building are mentioned. The whole building is called
[Greek: to Ecatompedon]; parts of it are the [Greek: proneion],
the [Greek: neôs], the [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: ta
oikemata]. There can be no doubt that these are respectively
the eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and
the two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most
important of all is the fact that the whole building was called
in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to Ekatompedon.]. The word
[Greek: opisthodomos] does not occur in the inscription, and we
cannot tell whether the western half of the building was called
opisthodomos in the sixth century or not. Very likely it was.

Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that [Greek:
to Ecatompedon] is the [Greek: neô o Ecatompedos] often
mentioned in the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] and
elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the
Parthenon cannot be the [Greek: veôs o Ecatompedos]. Lolling
maintains that the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the
_Parthenon_ proper, that the western room of the Parthenon was
the opisthodomos, and that the [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos],
was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name [Greek:
Ecatompedon] or [Greek: neô o Ekatompedos], Lolling thinks the
pre-Persian temple was also called [Greek: archaios (palaios)
neôs].[18] Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the
Parthenon was the _Parthenon_ proper, the western part of the
Page 10 "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the
Parthenon was the [Greek: neôs o Ekatompedos], leaving the
question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called
[Greek: to Ecatompedon] in the fifth century, but laying great
stress upon the difference in the expressions [Greek: to
Ecatompedon] and [Greek: o neôs o Ecatompedos].[19] Both Lolling
and Dörpfeld agree that the [Greek: proneôs] of the inscriptions
of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon.[20]

[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the [Greek: archaios neôs]
of the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] CIA, II, 753, 758
(_cf_. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis,
because in the same inscriptions the [Greek: epistatai] of
Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient
reason for assuming that [Greek: archaios neôs] means sometimes
one temple and sometimes another.]

[Footnote 19: _Mitth._, xv, p. 427 ff.]

[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression [Greek: en
tô neô tô Ecatompedô] could not be used of a part of a building
of which [Greek: proneôs] and [Greek: Parthenôn] were parts,
_i.e._, that a part of a temple could not be called [Greek:
neôs]. Yet in the inscription published by Lolling the [Greek:
proneion] and the [Greek: neôs] are mentioned in apparent
contradistinction to [Greek: apan to Ecatompedon]. It seems, as
Dörpfeld says, only natural that the [Greek: neôs] should belong
to the same building as the [Greek: proneôs].]

Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed
over by one board of [Greek: tamiai] to the next
(_Ueberyab-Urkunden_ or "transmission-lists") are parts of a
statue of Athena with a base and a [Greek Nike] and a shield
[Greek: en tô Ekatompedô]. The material of this statue is gold
and ivory. The only gold and ivory statue of Athena on the
Acropolis was, so far as is known, the so-called _Parthenos_ of
Pheidias. Those inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos
stood in the Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that is, that the
eastern cella of the Parthenon was called [Greek: Ecatompedos
(ov)] in the fifth century.[21] Certainly, if there had been a
second chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, we
should know of its existence.

[Footnote 21: This was shown by U. KÖHLER. _Mitth_., v, p. 89
ff., and again by DÖRPFELD, xv, 480 ff, who quote the
inscriptions. LOLLING'S distinction between [Greek: to agalma]
and [Greek: to chrusoun agalma] cannot be maintained. _cf. U.
Köhler, Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad._, 1889, p. 223.]

When the Athenians built the great western room of the
Parthenon, they certainly did not intend it to serve merely as
a store-room for the objects described in the
transmission-lists as [Greek: en tô Parthenôn] or [ek tou
Parthenônos], these being mostly of little value or broken.[22]
Now the treasury of Athens was the opisthodomos, and the western
room of the Parthenon was, from the moment of the completion of
the building, the greatest opisthodomos in Athens. It is
Page 11 natural to regard this (with Lolling) as the opisthodomos where
the treasure was kept. This room was doubtless divided into
three parts by two partitions of some sort, probably of
metal,[23] running from the eastern and western wall to the
nearest columns and connecting the columns. This arrangement
agrees with the provision (_CIA_, I, 32) that the monies of
Athena be cared for [Greek: en tô dexi tou opisthodomou], those
of the other gods [Greek: en tô ep dexeia tou opisthodomou].
Until the completion of the Parthenon, the opisthodomos of the
pre-Persian temple might properly be _the_ opisthodomos [Greek:
cat exochen], but so soon as the Parthenon was finished, the new
treasure-house would naturally usurp the name as well as the
functions of its predecessor.

[Footnote 22: A general view of these transmission-lists may be
found at the back of MICHAELIS' _der Parthenon_: See also H.
LEHNER, _Ueber die attischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten
Jahrhunderts_ (which Lolling cites. I have not seen it.)]

[Footnote 23: See plans of the Parthenon, for instance, the one
in the plan of the Acropolis accompanying Dörpfeld's article,
_Mitth._, XII, _Taf. 1_.]

But, if the western room of the Periclean temple was the
opisthodomos, where was the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper? It cannot
be identical with the [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos] nor with the
opisthodomos, for the three appellations occur at the same date
evidently designating three different places. It would be
easier to tell where the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper was, if we
knew why it was called [Greek: Parthenôn]. The name was in all
probability not derived from the Parthenos, but rather the
statue was named from the _Parthenon_ after the latter
appellation had been extended to the whole building, for there
is no evidence that the great statue was called Parthenos from
the first. Its official title was, so far as is known, never
Parthenos.[24] The Parthenon was not so named because it
contained the Parthenos, but why it was so named we do not know.
The [Greek: proneôs] is certainly the front porch, the [Greek:
Ecatompedos neôs] is certainly the cella, 100 feet long, the
[Greek: opisthodomos] is the rear apartment of some building,
(even if I have not made it seem probable that it is the rear
apartment of the Parthenon). These names carry their explanation
with them. But the name [Greek: Parthenôn] gives us no
information. It was a part of the great Periclean temple, for
the name was in later times applied to the whole building, and
the only part of the building not named is the western porch. It
Page 12 is, however, incredible that the Athenians should use this
porch, so prominently exposed to the eyes of every sight-seer,
as a storehouse for festival apparatus, _etc_. It is more
probable that the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper was within the walls
of the building but separated from the other parts in some way.
The middle division of the western room, separated by columns
and metal partitions from the treasury of Athena on the right
and that of the other gods on the left, was large enough and,
being directly in front of the western door, prominent enough,
to deserve a name of its own. If this room was the [Greek:
Parthenôn] proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos
would cause the [Greek: Parthenôn] to be emptied of its
contents, which would then naturally be inventoried as [Greek:
ek tou Parthenônos], while another list could properly be headed
[Greek: ek tou opisthodomon] referring to the
treasure-chambers.[25] The name Parthenon might then be extended
first to the entire western part of the building and then to the
whole edifice. This is not a _proof_ that the [Greek: Parthenôn]
was the central part of the western room of the great temple. A
complete proof is impossible. All I claim is that this
hypothesis fulfils all the necessary conditions.

[Footnote 24: DÖRPFELD, XV, p. 480.]

[Footnote 25: DÖRPFELD, XII, p. 203 f., argues that these
headings show that the treasure was moved after the fire of 406
from the opisthodomos of the old temple into the [Greek:
Parthenôn] proper, which was emptied of its contents to make
room. But the explanation given above seems equally possible.
Dörpfeld, (Mitth., vi, p. 283, ff.) proved conclusively that the
[Greek: Parthenôn] was not the eastern cella of the Parthenon.
His proof that it was the great western room is based primarily
upon the assumption (p. 300) that _Der Name Opisthodom
bezeichnet hei alien Tempeln die dem Pronaos entsprechende
Hinterhalle_. But for that assumption the [Greek: Parthenôn]
might just as well be the western porch. Since the discovery of
the pre-Persian temple, however, Dörpfeld maintains that the
opisthodomos [Greek: kat exochen] was the entire western portion
of that temple, consisting of three rooms besides the porch
(though he does not expressly include the porch). There is,
then, no reason in the nature of things why the whole western
part of the Parthenon should not be called opisthodomos.]

Let us now compare the nomenclature of the pre-Persian and
Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more
especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a
_pronaos_ or _proneion_ formed part of each; one temple was
called [Greek: to Ecatomedon], and the main cella of the other
was called [Greek: o Ecatompedos][26], and this name was
extended to the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of
Page 13 each building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the
new one, like the old, was called simply [Greek: o
opisthodomos]. As soon as the great Periclean temple was
completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was quietly removed
as had been intended from the first, the treasure was deposited
in the great new opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might
still cling to the temple of the sixth century were transferred,
along with the old names, to the splendid new building; the
greatest temple on the Acropolis was now as before the house of
the patron goddess of the land, and contained her treasure and
that of her faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not
exist side by side. There was, then, no reason for
differentiating between the two temples, as, for instance, by
calling the one that had been removed [Greek: o archaios neôs],
because the one that had been removed was no longer in
existence. That the designation [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs]
is applicable to the Erechtheion has been accepted for many
years and has been explained anew by Petersen.[27] If the temple
burnt by the Persians had continued to exist alongside of the
Parthenon, one might doubt whether it or the Erechtheion was
meant by the expression [Greek: o archaios neôs], but if one of
the two temples was no longer in existence, the name must belong
to the other. It is just possible that in Hesychios, [Greek:
Ecatompedos neôs en te acropolis te Parthenè cataskeuastheis upo
Athenaiôn, meixôn tou empresthentos upa tôn Persôn posi
penteconta], the expression [Greek: tou empresthentos upo tôn
Persôn posi penteconta (neô or possibly Ecatompedon neô)] was
originally chosen because the expression [Greek: archaiou neô]
(which would otherwise be very appropriate here) was regularly
used to designate the Erechtheion.[28]

[Footnote 26: Or [Greek: to Ecatompedon]. Even after Dörpfeld's
arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the
use of the two expressions can be found.]

[Footnote 27: _Mitth_., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern
with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes
furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a
church called the _Old South_ church. This became too small and
too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was
built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to
destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new
and in a different part of the city) would have been called the
Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and
the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church,
though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of
the continued existence of the old building. So the new
building of the Erechtheion retained the name [Greek: archaios
neôs] which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]

[Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements
of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight
inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however,
(p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they
had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any
inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older
temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first
made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally
meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis,
_Stadtgeschichte,_ p. 72, seems to think, as a proud
designation of a grand new building.]

Page 14 At the end of his last article on this subject, Dörpfeld calls
attention to the fact that "not only the lower step
(_Unterstufe_) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate
are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones
are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole
stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the
Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do
not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that
we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in
classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all
the objects--votive offerings and the like--set up in various
places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple
may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary
or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may
have been left as a reminder to future generations of the
devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones
is called by Dörpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently
considered" (_eine bisher nicht genügend bechtete Thatsache_).
I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long
"insufficiently considered" by Dörpfeld and others if it were
really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple
continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am
right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last
centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist
when the Parthenon was completed. Dörpfeld is certainly
justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued
Page 15 existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has
no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (_darf
den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen_).

[Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the
stylobate still _in situ_ favors this conjecture, is for those
on the spot to decide. It looks in Dörpfeld's plans (_Ant.
Denkm.,_ i, I, and _Mitth.,_ XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in
it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]

[Footnote 30: _Mitth.,_ xv, 438. This is directed against the
closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We
cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple)
happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the
times of Plutarch," _etc._]

In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some
points because I wished to confine myself to what was
necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages
containing the expression [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs],
as they have been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too,
I have omitted all mention of the [Greek: megaron ta pros
esperan tetrammenon],[31] the [Greek: parastades],[32] the
passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34] and some other
writers, because these references and allusions, being more
or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have been)
explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as
evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple
burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret
the passages in question accordingly.

To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that
Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and
(2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of
the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe
that the temple continued to exist in some form until the
completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so
much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that
the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house
during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of
the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy
of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as
the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians
was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire,
therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the
Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at
some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far
from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the
opisthodomos of the Parthenon.

[Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]

[Footnote 32: _CIA_, II, 733, 735, 708.]

[Footnote 33: _Od._, VII. 80 f.; _Il._, II. 546 ff. _Mitth._,
XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]

[Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. _cf. Mitth._, XII., pp. 69, 206.]

It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have
_proved_ the non-existence of the earlier temple after the
completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence
Page 16 is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is
not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable
likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the
time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its
disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the
Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I
any further evidence either for or against its continued
existence.

HAROLD N. FOWLER.
_Exeter, New Hampshire_, March, 1892.