Part 2

Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless Hermæ, _etc._, is, as Wernicke (_Mitth._, XII, p. 185) would have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to Page 4 themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann, Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps possible that he describes things he never can have seen. Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works, or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except when it is important to know the exact topographical order of objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly. The passage about Ergane, _etc._, must not be simply cast aside as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by inserting the description of a temple together with the state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: _'What Pausanias actually says is this--:_ "The Athenians are specially distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first given by them, and the name Hermæ; and in the temple along with them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"_--words which are quite as apt for the meaning above explained_ (_i.e._, a note on the piety of the Athenians) _as those of the author often are in such cases.'_

[Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is attributed: _Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit goldenem Vliesse._]

[Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not fallen out after [Greek: Ermas], though the assumption of a gap is not strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.]

Page 5 Whether we read [Greek: Spoudaiôn daimôn] or [Greek: spoudaiôn Daimôn] is, for our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall is right in calling attention to the connection between [Greek: es ta theia spoude] and the [Greek: daimôn Spoudaiôn (spoudaiôn)], a connection which is now very striking, but which is utterly lost by inserting the description of a temple. At this point, then, the temple is not mentioned by Pausanias.

But, if not at this point, perhaps elsewhere, for this also has been tried. Miss Harrison[9] thinks the temple in question is mentioned by Pausanias, c. 27.1. He has been describing the Erechtheion, has just mentioned the old [Greek: agalma] and the lamp of Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion, [10] and continues: [Greek: kei tai de en tô naô poliados Ermes xulou, kte.], giving a list of anathemata, followed by the story of the miraculous growth of the sacred olive after its destruction by the Persians, and passing to the description of the Pandroseion with the words, [Greek: tô naô de tes Athenas Pandrosou naos suneches esti]. Miss Harrison thinks that, since Athena is Polias, the [Greek: naos tes poliados] and the [Greek naos tes Athenas] are one and the same, an opinion in which I heartily concur.[11] It remains to be decided whether this temple is the newly discovered old temple or the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. The passages cited by Jahn-Michaelis[12] show that the old [Greek: agalma] bore the special appellation [Greek: polias], and we know that the old [Greek: agalma] was in the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part [Greek: naos tes poliados (or tes Athena)], but it awakens suspicion to read of an ancient [Greek: agalma] which we know was called Polias, and which was perhaps the Polias [Greek: kat exochen], and immediately after, with no introduction or explanation, to read of a temple of Polias in which that [Greek: agalma] is not. Nothing is known of a statue in the newly discovered old temple.[13]

[Footnote 9: _Myth. and Mon. of Athens_, p. 608 ff.]

[Footnote 10: _CIA._, I. 322, § 1 with the passage of Pausanias.]

[Footnote 11: DÖRPFELD (_Mitth._, XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the [Greek: naos tes poliados] is the eastern cella of the Erechtheion, the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] the newly discovered old temple, but is opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss Harrison.]

[Footnote 12: _Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen._, c. 26.6.35.]

[Footnote 13: For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.]

Page 6 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 [Greek: naos tes poliados] while the [Greek: polias] 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 ([Greek: dusa eis to pandroseion ... catekeito]), 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 [Greek: naos tes poliados], he means the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. But the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] is also the Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already observed (_Mitth._ XII, p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos was [Greek: suneches tô naô tes Athenas], 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 [Greek: suneches] ("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 ([Greek: Iera men tes Athenas estin e te alle polis kte.]) would have formed the best possible transition; but those words introduce the mention of the ancient [Greek: agalma] 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: 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 B.C. [Greek: o palaios naos tes Athenas enepresthe]. Until recently this page 7 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 [Greek: palaios naos] 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 [Greek: o palaios naos]. 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: _Mitth._, XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420, ff.]

[Footnote 16: [Gree: Ecatompedon] in the periodical [Greek: Athena] 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published appears also in the [Greek: Deltion Archaiologicon], 1890, p. 12, and its most important part is copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.]

Page 8 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: 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.

Page 9 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 [Greek: tamiai] 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 [Greek: tamiai] 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 [Greek: to Ecatompedon]; parts of it are the [Greek: proneion], the [Greek: neôs], the [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: ta oikemata]. 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. [Greek: to Ekatompedon.]. The word [Greek: opisthodomos] 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 [Greek: to Ecatompedon] is the [Greek: neô o Ecatompedos] often mentioned in the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] and elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the [Greek: veôs o Ecatompedos]. 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 [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos], was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name [Greek: Ecatompedon] or [Greek: neô o Ekatompedos], Lolling thinks the pre-Persian temple was also called [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs].[18] Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was the _Parthenon_ proper, the western part of the Page 10 "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the [Greek: neôs o Ekatompedos], leaving the question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called [Greek: to Ecatompedon] in the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference in the expressions [Greek: to Ecatompedon] and [Greek: o neôs o Ecatompedos].[19] Both Lolling and Dörpfeld agree that the [Greek: proneôs] of the inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon.[20]

[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the [Greek: archaios neôs] of the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] CIA, II, 753, 758 (_cf_. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same inscriptions the [Greek: epistatai] of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that [Greek: archaios neôs] means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.]

[Footnote 19: _Mitth._, xv, p. 427 ff.]

[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression [Greek: en tô neô tô Ecatompedô] could not be used of a part of a building of which [Greek: proneôs] and [Greek: Parthenôn] were parts, _i.e._, that a part of a temple could not be called [Greek: neôs]. Yet in the inscription published by Lolling the [Greek: proneion] and the [Greek: neôs] are mentioned in apparent contradistinction to [Greek: apan to Ecatompedon]. It seems, as Dörpfeld says, only natural that the [Greek: neôs] should belong to the same building as the [Greek: proneôs].]

Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed over by one board of [Greek: tamiai] to the next (_Ueberyab-Urkunden_ or "transmission-lists") are parts of a statue of Athena with a base and a [Greek Nike] and a shield [Greek: en tô Ekatompedô]. The material of this statue is gold and ivory. The only gold and ivory statue of Athena on the Acropolis was, so far as is known, the so-called _Parthenos_ of Pheidias. Those inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos stood in the Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that is, that the eastern cella of the Parthenon was called [Greek: Ecatompedos (ov)] in the fifth century.[21] Certainly, if there had been a second chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, we should know of its existence.

[Footnote 21: This was shown by U. KÖHLER. _Mitth_., v, p. 89 ff., and again by DÖRPFELD, xv, 480 ff, who quote the inscriptions. LOLLING'S distinction between [Greek: to agalma] and [Greek: to chrusoun agalma] cannot be maintained. _cf. U. Köhler, Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad._, 1889, p. 223.]

When the Athenians built the great western room of the Parthenon, they certainly did not intend it to serve merely as a store-room for the objects described in the transmission-lists as [Greek: en tô Parthenôn] or [ek tou Parthenônos], these being mostly of little value or broken.[22] Now the treasury of Athens was the opisthodomos, and the western room of the Parthenon was, from the moment of the completion of the building, the greatest opisthodomos in Athens. It is Page 11 natural to regard this (with Lolling) as the opisthodomos where the treasure was kept. This room was doubtless divided into three parts by two partitions of some sort, probably of metal,[23] running from the eastern and western wall to the nearest columns and connecting the columns. This arrangement agrees with the provision (_CIA_, I, 32) that the monies of Athena be cared for [Greek: en tô dexi tou opisthodomou], those of the other gods [Greek: en tô ep dexeia tou opisthodomou]. Until the completion of the Parthenon, the opisthodomos of the pre-Persian temple might properly be _the_ opisthodomos [Greek: cat exochen], but so soon as the Parthenon was finished, the new treasure-house would naturally usurp the name as well as the functions of its predecessor.

[Footnote 22: A general view of these transmission-lists may be found at the back of MICHAELIS' _der Parthenon_: See also H. LEHNER, _Ueber die attischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten Jahrhunderts_ (which Lolling cites. I have not seen it.)]

[Footnote 23: See plans of the Parthenon, for instance, the one in the plan of the Acropolis accompanying Dörpfeld's article, _Mitth._, XII, _Taf. 1_.]

But, if the western room of the Periclean temple was the opisthodomos, where was the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper? It cannot be identical with the [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos] nor with the opisthodomos, for the three appellations occur at the same date evidently designating three different places. It would be easier to tell where the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper was, if we knew why it was called [Greek: Parthenôn]. The name was in all probability not derived from the Parthenos, but rather the statue was named from the _Parthenon_ after the latter appellation had been extended to the whole building, for there is no evidence that the great statue was called Parthenos from the first. Its official title was, so far as is known, never Parthenos.[24] The Parthenon was not so named because it contained the Parthenos, but why it was so named we do not know. The [Greek: proneôs] is certainly the front porch, the [Greek: Ecatompedos neôs] is certainly the cella, 100 feet long, the [Greek: opisthodomos] is the rear apartment of some building, (even if I have not made it seem probable that it is the rear apartment of the Parthenon). These names carry their explanation with them. But the name [Greek: Parthenôn] gives us no information. It was a part of the great Periclean temple, for the name was in later times applied to the whole building, and the only part of the building not named is the western porch. It Page 12 is, however, incredible that the Athenians should use this porch, so prominently exposed to the eyes of every sight-seer, as a storehouse for festival apparatus, _etc_. It is more probable that the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper was within the walls of the building but separated from the other parts in some way. The middle division of the western room, separated by columns and metal partitions from the treasury of Athena on the right and that of the other gods on the left, was large enough and, being directly in front of the western door, prominent enough, to deserve a name of its own. If this room was the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos would cause the [Greek: Parthenôn] to be emptied of its contents, which would then naturally be inventoried as [Greek: ek tou Parthenônos], while another list could properly be headed [Greek: ek tou opisthodomon] referring to the treasure-chambers.[25] The name Parthenon might then be extended first to the entire western part of the building and then to the whole edifice. This is not a _proof_ that the [Greek: Parthenôn] was the central part of the western room of the great temple. A complete proof is impossible. All I claim is that this hypothesis fulfils all the necessary conditions.

[Footnote 24: DÖRPFELD, XV, p. 480.]

[Footnote 25: DÖRPFELD, XII, p. 203 f., argues that these headings show that the treasure was moved after the fire of 406 from the opisthodomos of the old temple into the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper, which was emptied of its contents to make room. But the explanation given above seems equally possible. Dörpfeld, (Mitth., vi, p. 283, ff.) proved conclusively that the [Greek: Parthenôn] was not the eastern cella of the Parthenon. His proof that it was the great western room is based primarily upon the assumption (p. 300) that _Der Name Opisthodom bezeichnet hei alien Tempeln die dem Pronaos entsprechende Hinterhalle_. But for that assumption the [Greek: Parthenôn] might just as well be the western porch. Since the discovery of the pre-Persian temple, however, Dörpfeld maintains that the opisthodomos [Greek: kat exochen] was the entire western portion of that temple, consisting of three rooms besides the porch (though he does not expressly include the porch). There is, then, no reason in the nature of things why the whole western part of the Parthenon should not be called opisthodomos.]