The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 7

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 D?rpfeld (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 D?rpfeld[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 D?rpfeld, XV, p. 421.]
Page 8 D?rpfeld (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 D?rpfeld, 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