src="@public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@20153@20153-h@images@header2.png" tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}img"/>

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.

Footote 1:(return) 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 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 Β.C. το 'Εκατόμπεδον (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:(return) DÖRPFELD, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 349.

Footnote 3:(return) Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 345.

Footnote 4:(return) 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:--Λέλκται δέ μοι καί πρότρον (17.1), ώς Άθηναίοις περισσότερόν τι ή τοις άλλοις ές τα θειά εστι σπουδης· πρώτοι μεν γαρ Άθηνάν έπωνόμασαν Έργάνην, πρωτοι δ' άκώλους Έρμάς ... όμού δέ σφισιν εν τω ναώ Σπουδαίων δαίμων εστίν. Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between Έρμάς and όμού, 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 όμου δέ σφισιν εν τω ναω Σπουδαίων δαίμων eστίν 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 Σπουδαίων (or σπουδαιων?) δαίμων, is standing, or