Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:32:34.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pre-Persian Temple on the Acropolis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. G. Frazer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1886 the excavations conducted by the Greek Archaeological Society on the Acropolis at Athens laid bare the foundations of a large ancient temple immediately to the south of the Erechtheum. It was at once recognized that this temple must have been the one burnt by the Persians when they sacked Athens in 480 B.C. This conclusion has been generally accepted and there is no ground for questioning it. But Dr. Dörpfeld, who superintended the excavations and to whom we are indebted for a detailed plan and description of the existing remains, has propounded a theory that the temple was rebuilt by the Athenians shortly after the Persian war, and that it continued to exist as late certainly as the second century of our era and probably much later. If Dr. Dörpfeld had based this theory on the nature of the existing architectural remains, his judgment might well have been regarded as final, since no man living is better qualified than he to pronounce an opinion on all questions relating to Greek architecture. Certainly I for one would not have presumed to differ from him. But although Dr. Dörpfeld believes that the temple was twice burnt and twice rebuilt by the Athenians, he does not maintain that a single stone of the existing remains is of later date than the Persian sack. His theory of the restoration of the temple rests almost wholly on considerations of historical probability and on literary and epigraphical evidence. It is therefore one which every scholar is free to examine and estimate for himself.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 13 , November 1893 , pp. 153 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1893

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The remains of the temple are described, with a ground plan, by Dr.Dörpfeld, in the Athenian Mittheilungen of the German Archaeological Institute, vol. xi. (1886) pp. 337–351Google Scholar. His theory of the history of the temple is stated and defended by him ib. xii. (1887) pp. 25–61, 190–211, and xv. (1890) pp. 420–439. Objections are urged by Mr. Eugen Petersen, ib. xii. pp. 62–72, by Mr. K. Wernicke, ib. xii. pp. 184–189, and by Mr.Fowler, H. N. in The American Journal of Archaeology, viii. (1893) pp. 1–17Google Scholar. Dr. Dörpfeld's views as to the history of the temple are accepted partially by Dr. Lolling in Ἀθηνᾶ, ii. (1890) pp. 627–662, and wholly by MissHarrison, in her Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp. 414Google Scholarsqq., 496 sqq., though she differs from Dr. Dörpfeld as to the passage in which she believes Pausanias to have described the temple.

2 Mittheilungen, xv. (1890) p. 172.

3

Od. vii. 80 sq.

4 (scil. )

Il ii. 549 sqq.

5 Herodotus, viii. 53.

6 In 438/7 B.C. the Parthenon was so far ready that the gold and ivory statue of the goddess was set up in it (Philochorus, quoted by the scholiast on Aristophanes, Peace, 605). The roof must therefore have been on the temple in that year. But the decorative details seem not to have been finished for some years afterwards, for we learn from an inscription that in 433/2 B.C. the superintendents of the work were still in office. See Mr.Foucart, P. in Bulletin de Corr. Hellénique, xiii. (1889) p. 174Google Scholarsqq. The temple, as we now know from inscriptions, was begun in 447 B.C. See Prof.Köhler, U. in Mittheilungen, iv. (1879) p. 35Google Scholar; Mr. P. Foucart loc. cit.

7 That his chief reliance is on the opisthodomos argument is twice stated by Dr.Dörpfeld, (Mittheilungen, xii. pp. 33, 209)Google Scholar.

8 C. I. A. i. No. 32.

9 C. I. A. i. Nos. 32, 117–175, 273; C. I. A., ii. Nos. 642, 645, 652, 655, 667, 670, 675, 678, 701, 704, 708, 719, 720, 721, 727, 751, 758; C. I. A. iv. No. 225c (p. 169).

10 The main grounds on which the neos hekatompedos is identified with the cella of the Parthenon are that (1) the cella of the Parthenon is just 100 Attic feet long, so that it answers exactly to the name hekatompedos; and (2) the inscriptions show that the gold and ivory statue of Athena Parthenos stood in the neos hekatompedos. On the names of the various compartments of the Parthenon see Köhler, U. in Mittheilungen, v. (1880) p. 89sqq.Google Scholar; Dörpfeld, W. in Mittheilungen, vi. (1881) p. 296Google Scholarsqq.; id., Mittheilungen, xv. (1890) pp. 171 sq., 426 sqq. Dr. Lolling attempted to show that neos hekatompedos always meant the Pre-Persian temple (Ἀθeegr;ngr;ᾶ, ii. p. 627 sqq.), but he was refuted by Dr.Dörpfeld, (Mittheilungen, xv. p. 427sqq.)Google Scholar.

11 Harpocration, s.v. ; cp. Schol. on Demosthenes, xiii. 14, p. 170, 6. Photius, Lexicon, s.v. ; cp. Etymol. Magn. p. 627, s.v. Suidas, s.v. ; cp. Schol. on Lucian Fugitivi, 7; Schol. on Aristophanes, Plutus, 1193. Schol. on Aristophanes, Plutus, 1193. Schol. on Lucian, Timon, 53. Pollux, ix. 5. 40. Schol. on Demosthenes, xxiv. 136, p. 743, 1.

12 C. I. A. i. No. 32; Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Grace. No. 14.

13 The last inscription which mentions the opisthodomos (C. I. A. ii. No. 721) is considered by the editor, Prof. U. Köhler, to be not older than Ol. 115. 2 (319/8 B.C.).

14 , Xenophon, , Hellenica, i. 6. 1Google Scholar. Some editors and critics (including Müller, K. O., ‘Minervae Poliadis sacra et aedes,’ Kunstarchäologische Werke, i. p. 108sq.Google Scholar) have suspected this passage of being an interpolation. But the mention of the eclipse of the moon proves that the writer of the passage, if not Xenophon himself, was at least a contemporary and a well-informed person. For a total eclipse of the moon took place on April 15th, 406 B.C. at 8.30 p.m. (Greenwich time ?) according to ĽArt de vérifier les dates (Paris, 1820). Cp. Th. v. Oppolzer, Canon der Finsternisse (Denkschriften d. k. Akad. d. Wissen. Mathem. Naturwissen. Cl. Bd. lii. Wien, 1887), p. 337. Oppolzer puts the eclipse on April 26th. I presume the apparent discrepancy is due to the difference of reckoning between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. If the eclipse took place at 8.30 p.m. Greenwich time, it would be visible at Athens about 10 p.m. Athenian time. For the references to Oppolzer and Ľart de vérifier les dates I am indebted to the kindness of Prof. G. H. Darwin.

15 C. I. A. i. No. 322, Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part I. No. xxxv.

16 , Demosthenes, xxiv. 136, p. 743.

17 In this connexion the ‘old temple’ (ἀρχαιὸςνεὼς) is mentioned in C. I. A. ii. Nos. 74, 672, 733, 758, and the opisthodomos in C. I. A.. ii. Nos. 652, 720, 721, cp. 685.

18 C. I. A. ii. No. 163. The passage in question is mutilated, and has been variously restored on conjecture as (scil, ) and The former and more probable conjecture has been accepted by Dr. Dörpfeld.

19 C. I. A. ii. No. 464.

20 See above, p. 156, iv. 8.

21 This temple, the intended successor of the Pre-Persian temple and the predecessor of the Parthenon, is discussed by Dr.Dörpfeld, in Mittheilungen, xvii. (1892) pp. 158–189Google Scholar. That it was meant to replace the Pre-Persian temple is expressly said by him (p. 173). The exact time when this new temple was begun cannot, Dr. Dörpfeld tells us, be determined. But on architectural grounds he believes that ‘the temple was built or at least begun in the time after the Persian wars’ (p. 187). He is of opinion that either Themistocles or Cimon could have built it, but on historical grounds he decides in favour of Cimon (p. 188).

22 Mittheilungen, xii. pp. 30, 32.

23 Ibid., xv. (1890) p. 424.

24 An inscription (C. I. A. iv. p. 137 sqq.), found on the Acropolis and dating from before the Persian war, mentions the Pre-Persian temple under the appropriate title of the Hekatompedon, and contains a provision that the chambers (οἰκήματα) in the temple shall be opened by the treasurers (οἱ ταμίαι). These chambers are almost certainly the three western chambers of the Pre-Persian temple; and the provision that they shall be opened by the treasurers makes it at least highly probable that they contained treasures. A passage in this inscription was formerly interpreted by Dr. Dörpfeld to mean ‘treasure-chamber’; but the passage is mutilated and must almost certainly, as Professors A. Kirchhoff and W. Dittenberger have seen, be restored in a way which absolutely excludes all reference to a treasure-chamber. This would now, I believe, be admitted by Dr. Dörpfeld himself. See Kirchhoff's restoration of the passage in C. I. A. iv. p. 139, and Dittenberger's, in Hermes, xxvi. (1891) p. 472Google Scholarsq. For the inscription itself, see also Δελτίον ἀρχαιολογικόν (1890) p. 92 sqq.; Lolling, H. G. in Ἀθηνᾶ, ii. (1890) p. 627sqq.Google Scholar; Dörpfeld, W. in Mittheilungen, xv. (1890) p. 420Google Scholarsqq. That there were ‘treasurers of the sanctuary’ before the Persian war is attested by Herodotus (viii. 51). The treasurers are also mentioned on an inscription not later than the middle of the sixth century B.C., which seems to contain a dedication by them of certain bronze objects to Athena (C. I. A. iv. No. 373 (238) p. 199; , 1888, p. 55; , ii. p. 646). The analogy of the Parthenon is also in favour of the view that its predecessor the Pre-Persian temple had been used as a treasury.

25 C. I. A. i. No. 1, supplemented in C. I. A. iv. p. 3 sq. The passage in question is this: The inscription is considered by Prof. Kirchhoff to be clearly far older than Ol. 81 (456 B.C.). Dr. Dörpfeld conjecturally supplied one of the lacunas thus , and adduced the inscription as evidence that ‘the old temple’ was used as a treasury at the time when the inscription was cut (Mittheilungen, xii. p. 39). But however we may supply the lacuna in question, the mention of the seems to prove decisively that the money was not kept in the temple.

26 C. I. A. i. No. 32; W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Graec. No. 14; E. L. Hicks, Greek Historical Inscriptions, No. 37. The date here assigned to the decrees has been questioned. But we may safely acquiesce in the unanimous and decided opinion of three such experts as Prof. A. Kirchhoff, Prof. W. Dittenberger, and Mr. E. L. Hicks. The question is discussed at length by Prof. A. Kirchhoff in the Philolog. und histor. Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy for 1876. Dr. Dörpfeld apparently accepts this date; at least he puts the decrees later than the completion of the Parthenon, (Mittheilungen, xii. p. 38)Google Scholar.

27 C. I. A. i. Nos. 117, 141, 161.

28 Mittheilungen, vi. (1881) p. 300—302.

29 Ib. p. 300 sq.

30 , Photius, Lexicon, s. v. ; Etymol. Magnum, p. 627, s.v. Cf. Hesychius, s.v. ; Schol, on Aristophanes, Plutus, 1193.

31 Bellum Civile, i. 20. Appian here mentions a report that Scipio, who was found dead in his house, had been strangled by men introduced into the house by night through the opisthodomos.

32 De lingua Latina, v. 160, ed. Müller, , ‘Domus Graecum, et ideo in aedibus sacris ante cellam, ubi sedes dei sunt, Graeci dicunt πρόδομον, quod post ὀπισθόδομον.’Google Scholar

33 Pollux (i. 1. 6) under the heading (scil. ) says: Cp. Antholog. Palat. xii. 223, 3 sq.:

34 See Bötticher, K., Die Tektonik der Hellenen 2 §51, p. 472Google Scholarsqq. Philostratus calls the eastern portico of the Parthenon prodomos (, Vit. Apollon, ii. 10), though its official name was pronaos.

35 xiv. 41.

36 Pausanias, v. 10. 9; id. v. 13. 1; id. v. 15.3; Lucian, , Herodotus, 1Google Scholar; id. Fugitivi, 7; id. De morte Peregrini, 32. Some of the reliefs representing the labours of Hercules which have been found at Olympia and are known to have been fixed over the western portico of the temple of Zeus, are described by Pausanias (v. 10. 9) as being ‘over the door of the opisthodomos.’

37 Pausanias, v. 16. 1.

38 Mittheihingen, xi. (1886) p. 297 sqq.

39 Plutarch., Demetrius, 23Google Scholar, cp. 26, and Compar. Demetr. et Anton. 4.

40 I am unable to admit Dr. Dörpfeld's argument that the expressions and scil. (C. I. A. i. No. 32) refer to the two small inner chambers in the western half of the Pre-Persian temple. For the natural interpretation of these words is ‘in the right-hand side of the opisthodomos’ and ‘in the left-hand side of the opisthodomos.’ This was formerly Dr. Dörpfeld's own interpretation of the passage (Mittheilungen, vi. p. 300), and I feel sure that it will commend itself to all unprejudiced scholars.

41 C. I. A. iv. p. 137 sqq. See above p. 162, note 24.

42 In the foregoing discussion of the opisthodomos argument I have assumed that Dr. Dörpfeld, in bestowing the name opisthodomos on the western chambers of the Pre-Persian temple, refuses it to the western portico of the Parthenon. But suppose he admits that the western portico of the Parthenon was also called opisthodomos. It will follow, on his theory, that there were two, or rather three, opisthodomoi on the Acropolis simultaneously, namely the western portico of the Parthenon, the western portico of the Pre-Persian temple, and the western chambers of the latter temple. Yet all our authorities, literary and epigraphical, speak as if there were only one opisthodomos on the Acropolis. Thus whether Dr. Dörpfeld admits or whether he denies (and he must do one or the other) that the western portico of the Parthenon was called opisthodomos, his theory of the co-existence of the Pre-Persian temple and the Parthenon seems equally to involve him in inextricable difficulties.

43 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 62.

44 Od. vii. 78–81.

45 Il. ii. 549–551.

46 This statement is clearly fatal to Dr. Dörpfeld's opinion that the new Erechtheum, built towards the close of the fifth century B.C., was the first joint temple of Athena and Erechtheus on the Acropolis. Dr. Dörpfeld attempts to evade this difficulty by supposing Homer to mean that Erechtheus was worshipped within the sacred precinct () of Athena, though not within her temple; he thinks that there were two temples, one of Athena and another of Erechtheus, standing within an enclosure sacred to Athena, (Mittheilungen, xii. pp. 199, 207)Google Scholar. But this view is quite irreconcilable with the language of Homer, who says plainly that Athena settled Erechtheus in her own temple (); for always means either a temple or a part of a temple (namely the cella), never a sacred precinct or sanctuary (, ).

47 Herodotus, viii. 55; Pausanias, i. 26. 5; id. i. 27. 2; Apollodorus, iii. 14. 1.

48 Erechtheus was identified with Poseidon. See the evidence in Jahn-Michaelis, , Pausaniae descriptio arcis Athenarum, p. 23Google Scholar.

49 C. I. A. i. No. 322; Pausanias, i. 26. 6; cp. Apollodorus, iii. 14. 6.

50 Pausanias, i. 26. 6 sq. The lamp itself was comparatively modern, but the custom probably went back to the earliest days of Athens.

51 C. I. A. i. No. 1, supplemented in C. I. A. iv. p. 3 sq. See above p. 162, note 25.

52 C. I. A. i No. 93, line 5 sq. The inscription, according to Prof. Kirchhoff, contains a decree ‘quod quamquam vetustum videtur non nimis antiquo tamen tempore lapidi incisum est.’ From this I infer that in Prof. Kirchhoff's opinion the decree, if not the inscription, dates from not later than the middle of the fifth century B.C. This is enough for the argument in the text; the date when the inscription was cut does not concern us.

53 See above p. 156, note

54 See above p. 162, note 24.

55 C. I. A. i. No. 1, supplemented in C. I. A. iv. p. 3 sq.

56 C. I. A. i. No. 93.

57 C. I. A. i. No. 322; Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part I. No. XXXV.

58 Mittheilungen, xiv. (1889)p. 349 sqq. For the inscriptions see C. I. A. iv. p. 148 sqq.; Δελτίον ἀρχαιολογικόν, 1888, p. 87 sqq.; Mittheilungen, xiii. (1888) p. 229 sqq.

59 Hellenica, i. 6. l.

60 American Journal of Archaeology, viii. (1893) p. 13 note.

61 , C. I. A. i. No. 322.

62 Demosthenes, xxiv. 136, p. 743.

63 Dr. Dörpfeld attempts to meet this objection by drawing a distinction between the first and the second part of Demosthenes' list of state offenders (Mittheilungen, xii. p. 44). But I cannot see that the distinction exists. If the union of the two boards of treasurers (the treasurers of Athena and the treasurers of the other gods) took place in 406 B.C., as some suppose (Lolling, in , ii. p. 649; cp. Gilbert, G., Handbuch der griech. Staatsalterthümer 2, i. p. 270)Google Scholar, this would be another proof that the fire in the opisthodomos could not have happened in that year, since the words of Demosthenes show that at the time of the fire the two boards of treasurers existed separately. But the earliest mention of the united board of treasurers is on an inscription of 403/2 B.C. (, 1885, p. 129). By 385/4 B.C. the separate boards again existed (C. I. A. ii. No. 667).

64 C. I. A. ii. No. 829. The expression referred to in the text is , ‘on the side of the Pandrosium.’ The Pandrosium adjoined the Erechtheum on the west (Pausanias, i. 27. 2). A similar expression () occurs repeatedly on inscriptions which admittedly refer to the building of the Erechtheum (C. I. A. i. No. 322; C. I. A. iv. p. 151).

65 C. I. A. ii. No. 672.

66 C. I. A. ii. Nos. 74, 163, 733, 758.

67 C. I. A. ii. No. 464.

68 Strabo, ix. p. 396. See below p. 173.

69 Dr. Dörpfeld holds that ‘the old temple of Athena’ mentioned in an inscription dating from before 456 B.C. (C. I. A. i. No. 1; C. I. A. iv. p. 3 sq.) is the Pre-Persian temple. He must therefore suppose that the name ‘the old temple’ was given to the restored Pre-Persian temple before the existing Parthenon was begun, presumably at the time when Cimon began building the older Parthenon. We have seen that this inscription affords no evidence of the use of ‘the old temple’ as a treasury at the time when the inscription was engraved (see above p. 169).

70 This is proved by C.I.A. ii. No. 829, in dependently of the disputed evidence of Xenophon, (Hellenica, i. 6. l)Google Scholar.

71 C. I. A. ii. No. 829.

72 C.I.A. ii. No. 652.

73 Only a single letter (I) of the archon's name survives on the inscription.

74 See above p. 171, note 64.

75 The speech of Demosthenes (Against Timocrates), in which the fire in the opisthodomos is mentioned, was composed in the archonship of Eudemus (353/2 B.C.).

76 Strabo, ix. p. 396.

77 Pausanias, i. 26. 6 sq.

78 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 48.

78a ib. p. 199.

79 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 196. Since Dr.Dörpfeld, wrote this passage, the discovery of an inscription (C. I. A. iv. p. 137sqq.Google Scholar, see above p. 162, note 24) has proved that before its destruction the Pre-Persian temple was officially called, not ‘the temple of Athena Polias,’ but the Hekatompedon. But I waive this objection, and readily grant that if the Parthenon was called the temple of Athena Polias, its predecessor the Pre-Persian temple was probably called so too, although it happens not to be so named on the only existing inscription which indisputably refers to the temple.

80 C. I. A. ii. No. 332. The inscription contains a provision that a treaty of alliance shall be engraved on a bronze plate and set up ‘on the Acropolis beside the temple of Athena Polias.’ Dr. Dörpfeld assumes that the reference is to the Parthenon, but there is nothing in the inscription to justify the assumption. The expression ‘temple of Athena Polias’ is conjecturally restored by Prof. U. Köhler in another inscription, apparently of the first century B.C., which directs that a decree in honour of the girls who prepared the wool lor Athena's robe shall be engraved on a tablet of stone and set up See Mittheilungen, viii. (1883) p. 59. If the restoration could he proved to be correct, it would go to show that the temple referred to was not the Parthenon but the Erechtheum. See below p. 1 78 sqq.

81 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 192.

82 Ib. p. 193.

83 Mittheilungen, p. 193.

84 Ib. p. 192.

85

;

;

Aristophanes, , Birds, 826Google Scholarsqq.

86

Id. Thesmophor. 1136 sqq.

87 C. I. A. ii. No. 464. The inscription contains a decree for the erection of a statue of Ptolemy VIII. (117—81 B.C.)

88 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 194.

89 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 194.

90 C. I. A. ii. No. 649.

91 C. I. A. ii. No. 678.

92 C. I. A. ii. No. 699.

93 C. I. A. ii. No. 724.

94 C. I. A. ii. No. 724.

95 C. I. A. ii. No. 735.

96 C. I. A. ii. No. 737 (where the epithet Πολιάδι is in both cases a conjectural supplement of the editor's, the inscription being mutilated).

97 C. I. A. ii. No. 733.

98 Polieus, Zeus, C. I. A. i. Nos. 149, 151, 153–159Google Scholar; C. I. A. ii. Nos. 649, 652, 660. Brauronian Artemis, C. I. A. ii. Nos. 646, 652, 654, 660, 661. Hercules, C. I. A. i. Nos. 165, 166, 167.

99 Mittheilungen, xii. p. 198.

100 Mitheilungen, xii. pp. 198, 203. Dr.Dörpfeld, Google Scholar no doubt holds that the expression ναὸς τῆς Πολιάδος, as applied to the Erechtheum, designates only the eastern cella (ναὸς) of the temple, whereas the same expression applied to the Parthenon and the Pre-Persian temple designates the whole temple. But this does not alter the ambiguity of the expression, which is the same in all three applications.

101 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Dr. Dörpfeld should have said Philochorus), Clement of Alexandria, and Himerius. The passages of these writers will be examined presently.

101b Other cities besides Athens had sanctuaries of Athena Polias. See Pausanias, ii. 30. 6; id. vii. 5. 9; id. viii. 31. 9; Revue Archéologique, N.S. xiii. (1866) p. 354; id. N.S. xv. (1867) p. 219; Bull. de Corr. Hellén., v. (1881) p. 337; Dittenberger, W., ‘De sacris Rhodiorm commentatio altera,’ in Index Scholarum (Halle, 1887) p. iiiGoogle Scholar. sqq.; id. Sylloge Ins. Graec. Nos. 117, 193; Hick's Gr. Hist. Ins. No. 124; Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen zu Pergamon, Bericht, Vorläufiger (Berlin, 1880), p. 76Google Scholarsq.

102 Most of the passages of classical writers are collected in Jahn-Michaelis, Pausaniae descriptio arcis Athenarum. A few more have been furnished by Michaelis' Der Parthenon and Pape's Wörterbuch der griech. Eigennamen.

103 The passages are C. I. A. i. Nos. 188, 190, 273; C. I. A. ii. Nos. 57b (p. 403), 163, 332, 465 b (p. 419), 649, 678, 699, 724, 737, 1171, 1420, 1430, 1439; C. I. A. iii. Nos. 133, 174, 826, 931, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1062, 3853, 3907; C. I. A. iv. No. 279 a (p. 36); , 1884, p. 167 sq.; Sophocles, Philoctetes, 134; Dinarchus, i. 64; Plutarch, , Praecept. gerend, reipub. 5Google Scholar; Eustathius on Homer, , Il. xxii. 451Google Scholar, p. 1384.

104 v. 82.

105 Schol, on Demosthenes, xxii. 13, p. 597; Athenagoras, , Supplicatio pro Christianis, 17Google Scholar.

106 Birds, 826 sqq. See above p. 175, note 85.

107 The passages of ancient writers are collected by Prof.Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon, p. 328Google Scholarsq. Some authorities (Diodorus xx. 46; Schol, on Aristophanes, , Knights, 566Google Scholar) say that a robe was presented annually. But the better authorities are in favour of the view that it was presented only every fourth year. To the passages cited by Prof. Michaelis add Aristotle, Ἀθ. πολ. 49 and 60.

108 Zenobius. i. 56; Diogenianus, ii. 7.

109 Harpocration, s.v. ; Etymol. Magnum, p. 149, s.v.

110 Pausanias, i. 27. 3. Pausanias seems to have been mistaken as to the number of the arrephoroi, for he speaks of only two. Perhaps he confined the name to the two who did not weave the robe.

111 C. I. A. i. No. 93 The inscription is fragmentary, but the reference seems to be to the putting of the robe on the image of Athena. Moreover there were officials called praxiergidai whose business it was to clothe the ancient image of Athena (Hesychius, s.v. )

112 Il. vi. 87 sqq., 302 sqq.

113 Pausanias, iii. 16. 2, iii. 19. 2.

114 Ib. v. 16.

114a The limestone head of a goddess, found in or near the Heraeum at Olympia, has been conjecturally identified as that of the cult-statue of Hera which stood in the temple (Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsabgüsse, No. 307; Baumeister's, Denkmäler, Fig. 1295, p. 1087)Google Scholar. If this conjecture is right, the image of Hera must have been ancient, since the style of the head is very archaic.

115 See Dr.Dörpfeld, in Historische und philologische Aufsätze Ernst Curtius gewidmet, p. 139Google Scholarsqq.

116 Pausanias, vi. 25. 5 sq. Pausanias' language ( points to a custom of renewing the clothes. A Greek inscription containing a dedication to the Satrap God has been found in Phoenicia. See Mr.Clermont-Ganneau, , ‘Le dieu Satrap,’ Journal Asiatique, 7me Série, X. (1877) pp. 157–236Google Scholar. Prof. C. Robert appears to have overlooked this bronze statue of the Satrap at Elis, as well as the bronze statue of Apollo at Amyclae, when he assumed that the Greeks would not have put real clothes on a bronze image. His hypothesis of a gold and ivory statue of Brauronian Artemis by the elder Praxiteles is based on this mistaken assumption. See Robert, C., Archäologische Märchen, p. 141Google Scholarsqq. The elder Praxiteles is himself a figment of modern archaeologists; the ancients knew no such sculptor. See Prof.Brunn, H. in the Sitzungsberichte of the Bavarian Academy, Philos. philolog. Cl. 1880, p. 435Google Scholarsqq.; Prof.Köhler, U. in Mittheilungen, ix. (1884) p. 78Google Scholarsqq.

117 Pausanias, vii. 4. 4. See Overbeck, , Griech. Kunstmythologie, iii. p. 12Google Scholarsqq.

118 The list of her wardrobe is preserved in inscriptions. See Curtius, C., Inschriften und Studien zur Geschichte von Samos, pp. 10Google Scholarsq., 17 sqq.

118a Hyperides, iii. col. 35–37, p. 43 sq. ed. Blass.

119 C. I. A. ii. Nos. 751, 754–758; Pausanias, i. 23. 7: Jahn-Michaelis, , ľausaniae descriptio arcis Athenarum, p. 8Google Scholar.

120 Acosta, History of the Indies, book v. ch. 29 (vol. ii. p. 378 Hakluyt Society); Wood, J. G., Natural History of Man, ii. p. 410Google Scholar; Turner, G., Samoa p. 268Google Scholar.

121 Inscriptions of about 100 B.C. show that at that time there were 100 to 120 maidens who ‘wrought the wool for Athena's robe.’ See Prof.Köhler, U. in Mittheilungen, viii. (1883) pp. 57–66Google Scholar; Bulletin de corr. Hellénique, xiii. (1889) p. 170. This points to the weaving of a large robe suitable for a colossal image. Hence Dr. Dörpfeld believes that the robe was dedicated to Athena of the Parthenon, (Mittheilungen, xii. p. 200)Google Scholar. It is possible thnt this may have been the case in later times. But we know nothing as to the size of the ancient wooden image in the Erechtheum, and it is extremely improbable that the custom of periodically presenting this most venerable image with a new robe should ever have been discontinued.

121a See Jahn, O., De antiquissimis Minervae simulacris Atticis, p. 12Google Scholar; Müller-Wieseler, , Denkmäler, i. Pl. X. No. 36Google Scholar; Roscher's, Lexikon d. griech. u. röm. Mythologie, i. p. 694Google Scholar; Overbeck, , Gesch. d. griech. Plastik 4, i. p. 255Google Scholarsq.

121b The scenes represented the wars of the gods and giants; Athena's triumph over Enceladus is mentioned in particular. See the passages collected by Prof.Michaelis, A., Der Parthenon, p. 328Google Scholar.

122 Aeschines, ii. 147, with the scholiast on the passage (p. 308 ed. Schultz); cp. Harpocration and Photius, Lexicon, s.v. Ἐτεοβουτάδαι. On the family of the Eteohutads (originally Butads simply) see Töpffer, J., Attische Genealogie, p. 113Google Scholarsqq.

123 [Plutarch, ] Vit. X. Orat. pp. 841Google Scholar b, 843 b c e (where the case is mentioned of a brother and sister who held the priesthood of Erechtheus and the priesthood of Athena respectively). Erechtheus was identified with Poseidon (Jahn-Michaelis, op. cit. p. 23); hence his priesthood was called sometimes the priesthood of Poseidon-Erechtheus, sometimes the priesthood of Poseidon simply.

124 Pausanius, i. 26. 5. A fragment of a marble seat bearing the inscription ‘of the priest of Butes’ (ἱερέως Βούτου) has been found in the Erechtheum (C. I. A. iii. No. 302).

125 Apollodorus, iii. 14. 8.

126 Eustathius on Homer, , Il. i. 1. p. 13Google Scholar; Etymolog. Magnum, p. 209 sq., s.vv. Βουτάδαι and Βουτίδης.

127 Pausanias, i. 26. 5.

128 [Plutarch, ] Vit. X. Orat, p. 843Google Scholar e.

129 [Plutarch] I.c.

130 C. I. A. ii. Nos. 374, 1377, 1392b (p. 350); C. I. A. iii. Nos. 29, 63, 174 a (p. 491), 836, 872.

131 Aeschines, ii. 147, with the scholiast; Strabo, ix. p. 394 sq.; Plutarch, , De vitioso pudore, 14Google Scholar; Lucian, , Piscator, 21Google Scholar, cp. 47; Biogr. Gr. ed. Westermann, , p. 267Google Scholar; Harpocration and Photius, Lexicon, s.v.

132 Cp. Frag. Hist. Graec ed. Müller, i. p. lxxxiv.

133 De Dinarcho judicium, 3

134 Pausanias, i. 27. 2.

135-136 Apollodorus, iii. 14. 1. Herodotus speaks (viii. 55) as if the olive were in the Erechtheum itself; but this may be only a loose mode of expression. The evidence of Pausanias (i. 27. 2) is indecisive.

137 This is thought probable by Dr.Dörpfeld, (Mittheilungen, xii. p. 58)Google Scholar.

138 ix. p. 396.

139 Plutarch, , De daedalis Plataeensibus, in Dübner's, ed. of Plutarch, vol. iii. p. 20Google Scholar.

140 xxii. 13, p. 597.

141 Pausanias, i. 26. 6.

142 i. 27. 1.

143 Lucian, , Piscator, 21Google Scholar. Dr. Dörpfeld thinks that Lucian must have meant the eastern portico of the Parthenon, because ‘it was the only portico on the Acropolis adapted by its size to be the meeting-place of such an assembly’ (Mittheilungen, xii. p. 199). He seems to forget that any portico is large enough to accommodate an imaginary assembly.

144 Protrept. iii. 45, p. 39 ed. Potter.

145 Schol, on Homer, , Il. ii. 547Google Scholar ed. Bekker, ; Etymol. Magnum, p. 371Google Scholar, s.v.

146 Adversus Nationes, vi. 6. Apollodorus says (iii. 14. 7) that Erichthonius was buried ‘in the precinct (τέμενος) of Athena.’

147 Vit. Apollon, iii. 14.

148 Himerius, , Ecl. v. 30Google Scholar.

149 Hesychius and Photius, Lexicon, s.v. ; Eustathius on Homer, , Od. i. 357, p. 1423Google Scholar. Hesychius says that the serpent lived ‘in the sanctuary of Erechtheus’; Eustathius that it lived ‘in the temple of the Polias.’ These were merely different names of the same place. That Erichthonius (Erechtheus) was a serpent pure and simple was often recognized by the ancients (Pausanias, i. 24. 7; Hyginus, , Astron. ii. 13Google Scholar; Tertullian, , De Spectaculis, 9Google Scholar; cp. Philostratus, , Vit. Apollon. vii. 24Google Scholar, where Athena is said to have been the serpent's mother). As Demosthenes, in his farewell to Athens, coupled Athena Polias with her serpent and owl (Plutarch, , Demosthenes, 26)Google Scholar, he was probably thinking of the Athena of the Erechtheum.

150 C. I. A. ii. Nos. 1390, 1391; C. I. A. iii. Nos. 887, 916, 917, 918.

151 C. I. A. iii. No. 887; cp. C. I. A. ii. No. 1390.

152 Pausanias, i. 18. 2, &c.

153 Ib. i. 27. 2.

154 C. I. A. ii. No. 481.

155 For the sake of completeness I will here notice two more inscriptions which might perhaps be quoted to prove the identity of Athena Polias with Athena of the Erechtheum, though I attach little weight to their evidence. (1) Two silver cups preserved in ‘the old temple’ bore the inscription ‘sacred to Athena Polias’ (C. I. A. ii. No. 735 compared with No. 733). ‘The old temple,’ as we saw, was probably the Erechtheum; hence, it might be inferred, the Athena Polias to whom these cups were dedicated was the goddess of the Erechtheum. But this inference would be very precarious, since we have seen in the case of the Parthenon that the votive offerings stored in a temple did not always belong to the deity of the temple. (2) A mutilated inscription, as partially restored by Prof.Kirchhoff, (C. I. A. ii. No. 464, see above p. 175, note 87)Google Scholar, makes mention of ‘the old temple of Athena Polias.’ If Prof. Kirchhoff's restoration is right, and if ‘the old temple’ was, as I have shown grounds for believing, the Erechtheum, this inscription furnishes another proof that Athena Polias was the goddess of the Erechtheum. But as this proof depends on these two conditions, little stress can be laid on it.

156 Protrept. iv. 47, p. 41 ed. Potter.

157 Plutus, 1193.

158 On Homer, Od. xi. 634, p. 1704Google Scholar. Eustathius is here referring to the story that a thief had once stolen the Gorgon's head from an image of Athena on the Acropolis (Isocrates, xviii. 57; Suidas and Photius, Lexicon, s.v. Φιλοῦργος; see Jahn, O. in Berichte d. k. sächs. Gesell, d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, Philolog. hist. Cl. x. (1858) pp. 107–109)Google Scholar. But we do not know from which of her images the object was supposed to have been stolen.

159 Pausanias i. 24. 7.

160 Pausanias i. 24. 3. As printed in Schubart's edition the passage stands thus:

161 Ib. For the inscription see C. I. A. iii. No. 166. It is cut in the rock about thirty feet north of the seventh column on the north side of the Parthenon (reckoning from the west).

162 The counter arguments of my friend Dr. Verrall have not convinced me of the soundness of the text (see MissHarrison, and Mrs.Verrall's, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, p. 610sq.)Google Scholar. That a verb such as has dropped out after is certain, for as the text stands there is nothing to govern this accusative. And that a fuller mention of the temple referred to in the words has dropped out is nearly certain, for it would be contrary to Pausanias' manner to speak thus of ‘the temple’ without having specified the temple to which he was referring.

163 Reisen und Forschungen, ii. pp. 148–155.

164 C. I. A. ii. Nos. 1428, 1429, 1434, 1438; C. I. A. iv. No. 373 (271), p. 205; , 1888, p. 138.

165 C. I. A. ii. 1429 (see Ulrichs, H. N., Reisen. u. Forschungen, 2. p. 154)Google Scholar; C. I. A. iv. No. 373 (271), p. 205.

166 C. I. A. ii. No. 61.

167 See Dr.Dörpfeld, , ‘Chalkothek und Ergane-Tempel, Mittheilungen, xiv. (1889) pp. 304–313Google Scholar.

168 Pausanias i. 27. 2.

169 Pausanias i. 20. 1 , where we should probably read for with Prof.Robert, C. (Hermes, xiv. p. 313sqq.)Google Scholar.

170 Dr.Dörpfeld, in Mittheilungen, xiv. (1889) p. 313Google Scholar.

171 See Pausanias i. 24, 1 In Pausanias nearly always means ‘opposite to,’ not ‘beyond.’ See Prof.Michaelis, A. in Mittheilungen, ii. p. 1Google Scholarsqq.