Chapter 3 of 17 · 3926 words · ~20 min read

Part 3

Let us now compare the nomenclature of the pre-Persian and Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a _pronaos_ or _proneion_ formed part of each; one temple was called [Greek: to Ecatomedon], and the main cella of the other was called [Greek: o Ecatompedos][26], and this name was extended to the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of Page 13 each building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the new one, like the old, was called simply [Greek: o opisthodomos]. As soon as the great Periclean temple was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was quietly removed as had been intended from the first, the treasure was deposited in the great new opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might still cling to the temple of the sixth century were transferred, along with the old names, to the splendid new building; the greatest temple on the Acropolis was now as before the house of the patron goddess of the land, and contained her treasure and that of her faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not exist side by side. There was, then, no reason for differentiating between the two temples, as, for instance, by calling the one that had been removed [Greek: o archaios neôs], because the one that had been removed was no longer in existence. That the designation [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs] is applicable to the Erechtheion has been accepted for many years and has been explained anew by Petersen.[27] If the temple burnt by the Persians had continued to exist alongside of the Parthenon, one might doubt whether it or the Erechtheion was meant by the expression [Greek: o archaios neôs], but if one of the two temples was no longer in existence, the name must belong to the other. It is just possible that in Hesychios, [Greek: Ecatompedos neôs en te acropolis te Parthenè cataskeuastheis upo Athenaiôn, meixôn tou empresthentos upa tôn Persôn posi penteconta], the expression [Greek: tou empresthentos upo tôn Persôn posi penteconta (neô or possibly Ecatompedon neô)] was originally chosen because the expression [Greek: archaiou neô] (which would otherwise be very appropriate here) was regularly used to designate the Erechtheion.[28]

[Footnote 26: Or [Greek: to Ecatompedon]. Even after Dörpfeld's arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the use of the two expressions can be found.]

[Footnote 27: _Mitth_., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a church called the _Old South_ church. This became too small and too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new and in a different part of the city) would have been called the Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church, though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of the continued existence of the old building. So the new building of the Erechtheion retained the name [Greek: archaios neôs] which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]

[Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however, (p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis, _Stadtgeschichte,_ p. 72, seems to think, as a proud designation of a grand new building.]

Page 14 At the end of his last article on this subject, Dörpfeld calls attention to the fact that "not only the lower step (_Unterstufe_) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all the objects--votive offerings and the like--set up in various places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may have been left as a reminder to future generations of the devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones is called by Dörpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently considered" (_eine bisher nicht genügend bechtete Thatsache_). I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long "insufficiently considered" by Dörpfeld and others if it were really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist when the Parthenon was completed. Dörpfeld is certainly justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued Page 15 existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (_darf den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen_).

[Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the stylobate still _in situ_ favors this conjecture, is for those on the spot to decide. It looks in Dörpfeld's plans (_Ant. Denkm.,_ i, I, and _Mitth.,_ XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]

[Footnote 30: _Mitth.,_ xv, 438. This is directed against the closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple) happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the times of Plutarch," _etc._]

In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some points because I wished to confine myself to what was necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages containing the expression [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs], as they have been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too, I have omitted all mention of the [Greek: megaron ta pros esperan tetrammenon],[31] the [Greek: parastades],[32] the passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34] and some other writers, because these references and allusions, being more or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have been) explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret the passages in question accordingly.

To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and (2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe that the temple continued to exist in some form until the completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire, therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the opisthodomos of the Parthenon.

[Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]

[Footnote 32: _CIA_, II, 733, 735, 708.]

[Footnote 33: _Od._, VII. 80 f.; _Il._, II. 546 ff. _Mitth._, XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]

[Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. _cf. Mitth._, XII., pp. 69, 206.]

It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have _proved_ the non-existence of the earlier temple after the completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence Page 16 is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I any further evidence either for or against its continued existence.

HAROLD N. FOWLER. _Exeter, New Hampshire_, March, 1892.

[Footnote 35: The fact that Pausanias does not mention this temple is not a certain proof that he might not have seen it, for he fails to mention other things that certainly existed in his day. This temple, however, if it then existed, must have been in marked contrast to almost every other building in the Acropolis, and would have had special attractions for a person of Pausanias' archæological tastes.]

POSTSCRIPT.--This article had already left my hands when I received the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (XII. 2), containing an article by Mr. Penrose, _On the Ancient Hecatompedon which occupied the site of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens_. Mr. Penrose contends that the old Hekatompedon was a temple of unusual length in proportion to its width, that it stood on the site of the Parthenon, and was built 100 years or more before the Persian invasion. He thinks, too, that the Doric architectural members built into the Acropolis-wall, which are referred by Dörpfeld to the archaic temple beside the Erechtheion, belonged to the building on the site of the Parthenon. He is led to these assumptions chiefly by masons' marks on some of the stones of the sub-structure of the Parthenon. He holds it "as incontrovertible that the marks have reference to the building on which they are found." The distances between these marks offer certain numerical relations which must, Mr. Penrose thinks, correspond to some of the dimensions of the building to which the marks refer. "If they had reference to the Parthenon, they would have shown a number of exact coincidences with the important sub-divisions of the temple." Of these coincidences Mr. Penrose has found but three, which he considers fortuitous. As accessory arguments he adduces the condition of the filling in to the south of the Page 17 Parthenon, and the absence of old architectural material in the sub-structure of the Parthenon, _etc_. He seems, however, to rest his case chiefly upon the masons' marks.

I cannot even attempt to discuss this new theory in detail, but would mention one or two things which seem to tell against Mr. Penrose's view. The inscription published by Lolling mentions an [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: oikemata] as parts of the Hekatompedon, and such apartments evidently existed in the temple beside the Erechtheion. Mr. Penrose assumes that the temple beside the Erechtheion antedates his Hekatompedon, without regard to the fact that the use of the stone employed in the outer foundations of the archaic temple points to a much later period. The archaic temple was (at least approximately) 100 feet long, which makes it seem almost impossible that a new temple should be built on the Acropolis and called the Hundred-foot-temple (Hekatompedon). I cannot avoid attaching more importance to these considerations than to the arguments advanced by Mr. Penrose. It may be, however, that answers to these and other objections will be found.

If Mr. Penrose's theory is correct, it is evident that the old Hekatompedon must have ceased to exist before the building of the Parthenon. Whether the archaic temple excavated in 1886 continued to exist or not is, then, another matter. My main contention (that there is no good reason for assuming the continued existence through the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. of the archaic temple) is not affected by Mr. Penrose's theory, and I leave my arguments, such as they are, for the consideration alike of those who do and who do not agree with Mr. Penrose. Much of my article will appear irrelevant to the former class, but, as Mr. Penrose's views may not be at once generally accepted, it is as well to leave the discussion of previous theories as it was before the appearance of Mr. Penrose's article.

H. N. F.

NOTE.--For a discussion of Mr. Penrose's theories and conclusions, see now (Nov. 1892), Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitth.,_ XVII, pp. 158, ff.

Page 18

NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE SCULPTURES.

The following compilation is intended to present in compact form the evidence at present available on this question: How far did the Greeks choose, for the sculptured decorations of a temple, subjects connected with the principal divinity or divinities worshiped in that temple? We have omitted some examples of sculpture in very exceptional situations, _e.g._, the sculptured drums of the sixth century and fourth century temples of Artemis at Ephesos. Acroteria have also been omitted. But we have attempted to include every Greek temple known to have had pediment-figures or sculptured metopes or frieze, and have thus, for the sake of completeness, registered some examples which are valueless for the main question. The groups from Delos, attributed on their first discovery to the pediments of the Apollon-temple, have been proved by Furtwängler to have been acroteria (_Arch, Zeitung_, 1882, p. 336 ff.) It does not appear that Lebas had any good grounds for attributing to a temple the relief found by him at Rhamnus (_Voyage archéologique Monuments figurés_, No. 19,) and now in Munich. The frieze from Priene representing a gigantomachy was not a part of the temple there (Wolters, _Jahrbuch des deutschen arch. Instituts_, I, pp. 56, ff.) The Poseidon and Amphitrite frieze in Munich (Brunn, _Beschreibung der Glyptothek_, No. 115) has been, by some, taken for a piece of temple decoration, but is too doubtful an example to be catalogued. The statement of Pausanias (II. 11. 8) about the pediment-sculptures ([Greek: ta en tois aetois]) of the Asklepieion at Titane is hopelessly inadequate and perhaps inaccurate.

The order of arrangement in the following table is roughly chronological, absolute precision being impossible. Ionic Page 19 temples are designated by a prefixed asterisk, the one Corinthian by a dagger. The others are Doric, and, in the ease of these, "Sculptures of the Exterior Frieze" refers, of course, to sculptured metopes.

It has not been our purpose to discuss at length the conclusions to be drawn from this evidence. Briefly, the results may be summarized as follows:

The principal sculpture (_i.e._, sculpture of the principal pediment, or, in the absence of pediment-sculpture, the frieze in the most important situation) included the figure of the temple divinity, generally in central position, in the following numbers: [A] 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26. If 12, 14 and 32 had no pediment-sculptures, they should be added; probably also 33 and 34. In 30 the subject of the pediment-sculpture, if correctly divined by Conze, was, at any rate, closely related to the temple-divinities.

[Footnote A: In counting the Aigina temple we commit deliberately a _circulus in probando_.]

The principal sculpture apparently did not include or especially refer to the temple-divinity in the following: 20, 24, 25. Practice would seem to have become somewhat relaxed after about 425 B.C. The very singular temple of Assos, (No. 5), though earlier, should perhaps be added.

The temple-divinity was represented in the western pediments of 7, 13 and perhaps of 20, but not of that in 9, 11, 24 (?) or 25.

The subjects of sculptured metopes and friezes were largely or wholly without obvious relation to the temple-divinity in the following: 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 1.9, 23, 29, 32.

P.B. TARBELL. W.N. BATES.

Page 20

PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.

B.C. 1 Selinous Apollon (?) _ca._ 625 (Temple C)

2 Selinous _ca._ 625

3 Athens _ca._ 600 E.: (?) Zeus fighting Typhon; (Acropolis) Herakles fighting serpent. W. (?): Herakles fighting Triton; Kerkopes(?)

4 Athens _ca._ 600 E. (?): Herakles fighting (Acropolis) Hydra. W. (?): Herakles fighting Triton.

5 Assos VI cent. (?)

6 Metapontum Apollon VI cent. (?) Subject unknown

7 Aigina Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. & W.: Combats of Greeks and Trojans; Athena in centre.

8 Athens Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. (?): Gigantomachy, (Acropolis) including Athena (in centre?)

9 Delphi Apollon VI cent. after E.: Apollon, Artemis, 548 Leto, Muses. W.: Dionysos, Thyiads, Setting Sun, _etc._

10 Selinous VI cent. (Temple F)

11 Olympia Zeus _ca._ 460 E.: Preparations for chariot-race of Pelops and Oinomaos; Zeus as arbiter in centre. W.: Centauromachy; Apollon (?) in centre. Page 21 OTHER SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.

1 E.: in centre, two quadrigae with unidentified figs., also Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles carrying Kerkopes, _etc._ W.: Subjects unknown.

2 Europa on bull, winged sphinx, _etc._

5 E. (and W. ?): Pair of sphinxes, Exterior architrave: pairs Centaur, wild hog, man pursuing of sphinxes in centre of E. & woman, two men in combat, W. fronts (?), Herakles and _etc._ Triton, Herakles and Centaurs, symposium, combats of animals.

7 None.

9 Herakles killing Hydra, Bellerophon killing Chimaera, combats of gods and giants, _etc._

10 E.: Scenes from Gigantomachy.

11 12 metopes over columns and antæ of pronaos and opisthodomos: labors of Herakles. Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

=================================================================== |SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS. ---+-----------------------------+--------------------------------- | | 20|E.: Gigantomachy (?) | |W.: Iliupersis (?) | | | *21|Uninterpreted. | | | *22| | | | | | *23|Dancing women. | 24| | | | | | | | | | 25| | | | 26| | *27|Mythological scenes. | *28|Scenes of combat. | | | *29|Amazonomachy. | 30| | | | *31|Subjects unknown. | 32|Helios in chariot, Athena and| | Enkelados, other scenes of | | combat. | *33|Dionysiac procession. | *34|Dionysiac scenes, etc. |

Page 26

[Note 1: BENNDORF, _Metopen von Selinunt_, pp. 38-50; SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di Sicilia_, II, p. 16.]

[Note 2: _Monumenti Antichi_, I, p. 950 ff.]

[Note 3: BRÜCKNER, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1889, pp. 67 ff.; 1890, pp. 84 ff.]

[Note 4: MEIER, _Ath. Mitth._, 1885, pp. 237 ff., 322 ff.]

[Note 5: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1149 ff.; CLARKE, _Report on Investigations at Assos_, pp. 105-121. This temple has been usually assigned to the sixth century. Mr. Clarke brings it down to about the middle of the fifth. His arguments have not yet been published in full.]

[Note 6: LACAVA, _Topografia e Storia di Metaponto_, p. 81.]

[Note 7: Since the inscription which was at one time supposed to fix the divinity of this temple has been disposed of by LOLLING, in _Arch. Zeitung_, XXXI (1874, p. 58), the designation given above rests solely on the prominence given to Athena in the pediment-sculptures. As for the date, the building is assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth cent. (_Olympia_, _Textband_ II, p. 20). The pediment-sculptures might be later, but are now confidently carried by STUDNICZKA (_Ath. Mitth._, 1886, pp. 197-8) some decades back in the sixth century.]

[Note 8: STUDNICZKA, _Ath. Mitth._, 1886. pp. 185, ff.; MAYER, _Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 290-91. According to DÖRPFELD, the metopes of this temple, or some of them, may have been sculptured.]