and its most important part is copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.

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:(return) 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.

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 ταμίαι 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 ταμίαι 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 το Έκατόμπεδον; parts of it are the προνήϊον, the νεώς, the οίκημα ταμιείον and τα οίκήματα. 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. το Έκατόμπεδον. The word οπισθόδομος 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 το Έκατόμπεδον is the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος often mentioned in the inscriptions of the ταμίαι and elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος. 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 νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name Έκατόμπεδον or νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος, Lolling thinks the pre-Persian temple was also called αρχαιος (παλαιος) νεώς. ¹⁸ Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, the western part of the "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος, leaving the question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called το Έκατόμπεδον in the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference in the expressions το Έκατόμπεδον and ό νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος. ¹⁹ Both Lolling and Dörpfeld agree that the πρόνεως of the inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon. ²⁰

Footnote 18:(return) LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the αρχαιος νεώς of the inscriptions of the ταμίαι CIA, II, 753, 758 (cf. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same inscriptions the ἐπιστάται of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that αρχαιος νεώς means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.

Footnote 19:(return) Mitth., xv, p. 427 ff.

Footnote 20:(return) LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression εν τω νεω τω Έκατόμπεδον could not be used of a part of a building of which πρόνεως and Παρθενών were parts, i.e., that a part of a