imagines that he stands, beside the old temple rests upon very slight foundations.

Footnote 5:(return) 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:(return) The most than can be deduced from the use of πέραν (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 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:(return) 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:(return) HARRISON and VERRALL, Mythology and Monuments of Athens, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not fallen out after Έρμαs, though the assumption of a gap is not strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.

Whether we read Σπουδαίων δαίμων or σπουδαίων Δαίμων is, for our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall is right in calling attention to the connection between ες τα θεΐα σπουδή and the δαίμων Σπουδαίων (σπουδαίων), 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 αγάλμα and the lamp of Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion, ¹⁰ and continues: κειται δε εν τω ναω της πολιάδος Έρμης ξύλου, κτέ., 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, τω ναω δε της 'Αθηνάς Πανδρόσου ναός συνεχής εστι. Miss Harrison thinks that, since Athena is Polias, the ναός της πολιάδος and the ναός της 'Αθήνας 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 άγαλμα bore the special appellation πολιάς, and we know that the old άγαλμα was in the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part ναός της πολιάδος (or της 'Αθήνας), but it awakens suspicion to read of an ancient άγαλμα which we know was called Polias, and which was perhaps the Polias κατ' εξοχήν, and immediately after, with no introduction or explanation, to read of a temple of Polias in which that άγαλμα is not. Nothing is known of a statue in the newly discovered old temple. ¹³

Footnote 9: