The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 5

was injured by fire B.C. 406; (3) it was repaired and
continued in use; (4) it was seen and described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a
lost passage. Let us take up these points in inverse order. The passage
of Pausanias reads in our texts:--[Greek: Lelectai de moi kai proteron
(17.1), ôs Athenaiois perissoteron ti e tois allois es ta theia esti spoudes,
prôtoi men gar Athenan eponomasan Erganen prôtoi d'acôlous Ermas...
omou de sphisin en tô naô Spoudaiôn daimôn estin.] Dörpfeld marks a
lacuna between [Greek: Ermas] and Page 3 [Greek; omou], as do those
editors who do not supply a recommendation. Dörpfeld, however,
thinks the gap is far greater than has been supposed, including certainly
the mention and probably the full description of the temple under
discussion. His reasons are in substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias
has reached a point in his periegesis where he would naturally mention
this temple, because he is standing beside it,[5] and (2) the phrase
[Greek: omou de sphisin en tô naô Spoudaiôn estin] implies that a
temple has just been mentioned. These are, at least, the main arguments,
those deduced from the passage following the description of the
Erechtheion being merely accessory.
Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for him by
Dörpfeld (i.e., if he described the two rows of statues between the
Propylaia and the eastern front of the Parthenon, taking first the
southern and then the northern row), he would come to stand where
Dörpfeld suggests. If, however, he followed some other order (e.g., that
suggested by Wernicke, Mitth., XII, p. 187), he would not be where
Dörpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he mentions are
set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the Acropolis was so thickly

peopled with statues that each side of the path was bordered with a
double or triple row, or that the statues were not arranged in rows at all,
and that Pausanias merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon)
a few noticeable figures with only general reference to their relative
positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that Pausanias, when he
mentions the [Greek Spoudaiôn] (or [Greek: spoudaiôn]) [Greek:
daimôn] is standing, or imagines that he stands, beside the old temple
rests upon very slight foundations.
[Footnote 5: DÖRPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence of
the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias mentioned it must
of course fall to the ground, will be discussed below. It seemed to me
advisable to discuss the Pausanias question first, because, if he
mentioned the temple, it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to
that of Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]
[Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of [Greek:
peran] (c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both sides of the path.]
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.