No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The stoa investigated by the Americans in the N.W. corner of the agora of Athens has won with good reason a notable place among ancient monuments, both as a subject of topographical controversy and as an interesting architectural type. I should like to turn to it again for a short time and in particular to examine at greater length than was possible in a brief review C. Anti's theory of its genesis, given in Chap. IX of his Teatri Greci Arcaici. As the non-committal name given to it in my heading shows, I should like for the present to steer clear as far as possible of the difficult problem of its identification. Anti confidently assumes that the building was the Stoa Basileios; indeed his theory of the origin of the type depends partly on the correctness of this assumption. But the identification has been the subject of a good deal of dispute; even H. A. Thompson, while putting forward with sober confidence his view that the stoa is both the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios and the Basileios, admits in the end that ‘an element of uncertainty must persist’. I accept Thompson's view, but certainly not with sufficient confidence to use it as a corner-stone in building up any theory. It is very distracting when one finds that whereas Anti links up his Royal Stoa with oriental palaces, A. Rumpf looks the other way in space and time and regards his Royal Stoa (a building of very different type—the spacious hypostyle hall west of the North-West Stoa and north of the temple of Hephaestus) as the Stammutter of the Roman basilica. ‘They ran away in opposite directions, and vanished to the east and to the west.’ Both of course use the name Basileios to support their identifications. One may perhaps be excused for giving up the riddle for a while and concentrating on the architectural form of the North-West stoa as we undoubtedly have it.
1 JHS, LXVII, 137 fGoogle Scholar.
2 Hesperia, VI, 226Google Scholar.
3 Jahrbuch, LIII, 117 ffGoogle Scholar.
4 Op. cit., 53.
5 Hesperia, V, p. 459 ffGoogle Scholar.
6 BCH, LXVI–LXVII, 274–298Google Scholar.
7 After submitting the above note I saw H. A. Thompson's criticisms of Anti, appended to M. Bieber's review in A.J.P., LXIX, 4, Oct. 1948, p. 451Google Scholar. These are mainly concerned with the problems of topography and identification which I avoid, and hardly overlap with my observations; but Thompson gives an additional reason for refusing to believe that the wings of the North-West Stoa were closed in front by walls. The space in front of the central part of the stoa, he says, was in time completely filled with monuments, which rendered access very difficult. ‘The space in front of the wings, on the other hand, was kept scrupulously clear of monuments, a fact which can be explained best on the assumption that the fronts of these wings were open colonnades.’