href="@public@vhost@g@gutenberg@html@files@20153@[email protected]#footnotetag9" class="pginternal" tag="{http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml}a">(return) Myth. and Mon. of Athens, p. 608 ff.

Footnote 10:(return) CIA., I. 322, § 1 with the passage of Pausanias.

Footnote 11:(return) DÖRPFELD (Mitth., XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the ναός της πολιάδος is the eastern cella of the Erechtheion, the ναός της 'Αθήνας the newly discovered old temple, but is opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss Harrison.

Footnote 12:(return) Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen., c. 26.6.35.

Footnote 13:(return) For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.

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 ναος της πολιάδος, while the πολιάς 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 (δυσα εις το πανδρόσειον ... κατέκειτο), 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 ναος της πολιάδος, he means the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. But the ναος της Αθηνας is also the Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already observed (Mitth. XII, p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos was συνεχης τω ναω της Αθηνας, 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 συνεχής ("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 (Ίερα μεν της Αθηνς εστiν η τε αλλη πόλις κτέ.) would have formed the best possible transition; but those words introduce the mention of the ancient αγαλμα 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:(return) 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 Β.C. ό παλαιος ναος της Άθηνας ενεπρήσθη. Until recently this 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 παλαιὸς ναός 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 ὁ παλαιὸς ναός. 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:(return) Mitth., XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420, ff.

Footnote 16:(return) Έκατόμπεδον in the periodical Άθηνα 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published appears also in the Δελτίον Άρχαιολογικόν, 1890, p. 12,