Читать книгу The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 - Various - Страница 10

Table of Contents

The excavations conducted by the Greek Archæological Society at Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886, Kabbadias and Dörpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century B.C. were decided once for all. ¹ On these points little or nothing can be added to what has been done, and Dörpfeld's results must be accepted as final and certain.

Footote 1:(return) DÖRPFELD, Preliminary Report, Mitth. Ath., X, p. 275; Plans and restorations, Antike Denkmäler, I, pls. 1, 2; Description and discussion, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 337.

The history of the temple presents, however, several questions, some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built? Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first question has received one and the same answer from all. The material and the technical execution of the peripteros, entablature, etc., of the temple show conclusively that this part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos. ² We may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the peripteros. These differences lead Dörpfeld to assume that the naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle) existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not deny the possibility that builders of one date may have employed different materials and methods, as convenience or economy dictated. ³ Positive proof is not to be hoped for in the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is in favor of Dörpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than the peristyle, etc. ⁴ It is further certain, that this temple was called in the sixth century Β.C. το 'Εκατόμπεδον (see below p. 9). So far, we have the most positive possible evidence--that of the remains of the temple itself and the inscription giving its name. The evidence regarding the subsequent history of the temple is not so simple.

Footnote 2:(return) DÖRPFELD, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 349.

Footnote 3:(return) Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 345.

Footnote 4:(return) On the other hand, see PETERSEN, Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 66.

Dörpfeld (Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the departure of the Persians; (2) it 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:--Λέλκται δέ μοι καί πρότρον (17.1), ώς Άθηναίοις περισσότερόν τι ή τοις άλλοις ές τα θειά εστι σπουδης· πρώτοι μεν γαρ Άθηνάν έπωνόμασαν Έργάνην, πρωτοι δ' άκώλους Έρμάς … όμού δέ σφισιν εν τω ναώ Σπουδαίων δαίμων εστίν. Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between Έρμάς and όμού, 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 όμου δέ σφισιν εν τω ναω Σπουδαίων δαίμων eστίν 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 Σπουδαίων (or σπουδαιων?) δαίμων, is standing, or imagines that he stands, beside the old temple rests upon very slight foundations.

Footnote 5:(return) 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:(return) The most than can be deduced from the use of πέραν (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 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:(return) 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:(return) HARRISON and VERRALL, Mythology and Monuments of Athens, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not fallen out after Έρμαs, though the assumption of a gap is not strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.

Whether we read Σπουδαίων δαίμων or σπουδαίων Δαίμων is, for our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall is right in calling attention to the connection between ες τα θεΐα σπουδή and the δαίμων Σπουδαίων (σπουδαίων), 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 αγάλμα and the lamp of Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion, ¹⁰ and continues: κειται δε εν τω ναω της πολιάδος Έρμης ξύλου, κτέ., 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, τω ναω δε της 'Αθηνάς Πανδρόσου ναός συνεχής εστι. Miss Harrison thinks that, since Athena is Polias, the ναός της πολιάδος and the ναός της 'Αθήνας 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 άγαλμα bore the special appellation πολιάς, and we know that the old άγαλμα was in the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part ναός της πολιάδος (or της 'Αθήνας), but it awakens suspicion to read of an ancient άγαλμα which we know was called Polias, and which was perhaps the Polias κατ' εξοχήν, and immediately after, with no introduction or explanation, to read of a temple of Polias in which that άγαλμα is not. Nothing is known of a statue in the newly discovered old temple. ¹³

Footnote 9:(return) Myth. and Mon. of Athens, p. 608 ff.

Footnote 10:(return) CIA., I. 322, § 1 with the passage of Pausanias.

Footnote 11:(return) DÖRPFELD (Mitth., XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the ναός της πολιάδος is the eastern cella of the Erechtheion, the ναός της 'Αθήνας the newly discovered old temple, but is opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss Harrison.

Footnote 12:(return) Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen., c. 26.6.35.

Footnote 13:(return) For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.

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 ναος της πολιάδος, while the πολιάς 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 (δυσα εις το πανδρόσειον … κατέκειτο), 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 ναος της πολιάδος, he means the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. But the ναος της Αθηνας is also the Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already observed (Mitth. XII, p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos was συνεχης τω ναω της Αθηνας, 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 συνεχής ("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 (Ίερα μεν της Αθηνς εστiν η τε αλλη πόλις κτέ.) would have formed the best possible transition; but those words introduce the mention of the ancient αγαλμα 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:(return) 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 Β.C. ό παλαιος ναος της Άθηνας ενεπρήσθη. Until recently this 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 παλαιὸς ναός 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 ὁ παλαιὸς ναός. 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:(return) Mitth., XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420, ff.

Footnote 16:(return) Έκατόμπεδον in the periodical Άθηνα 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published appears also in the Δελτίον Άρχαιολογικόν, 1890, p. 12, and its most important part is copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.

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:(return) 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.

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 ταμίαι 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 ταμίαι 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 το Έκατόμπεδον; parts of it are the προνήϊον, the νεώς, the οίκημα ταμιείον and τα οίκήματα. 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. το Έκατόμπεδον. The word οπισθόδομος 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 το Έκατόμπεδον is the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος often mentioned in the inscriptions of the ταμίαι and elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος. 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 νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name Έκατόμπεδον or νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος, Lolling thinks the pre-Persian temple was also called αρχαιος (παλαιος) νεώς. ¹⁸ Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, the western part of the "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος, leaving the question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called το Έκατόμπεδον in the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference in the expressions το Έκατόμπεδον and ό νεως ό Έκατόμπεδος. ¹⁹ Both Lolling and Dörpfeld agree that the πρόνεως of the inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon. ²⁰

Footnote 18:(return) LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the αρχαιος νεώς of the inscriptions of the ταμίαι CIA, II, 753, 758 (cf. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same inscriptions the ἐπιστάται of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that αρχαιος νεώς means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.

Footnote 19:(return) Mitth., xv, p. 427 ff.

Footnote 20:(return) LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression εν τω νεω τω Έκατόμπεδον could not be used of a part of a building of which πρόνεως and Παρθενών were parts, i.e., that a part of a temple could not be called νεώς. Yet in the inscription published by Lolling the προνέιον and the νεώς are mentioned in apparent contradistinction to απαν το Έκατόμπεδον. It seems, as Dörpfeld says, only natural that the νεώς should belong to the same building as the πρόνεως.

Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed over by one board of ταμίαι to the next (Ueberyab-Urkunden or "transmission-lists") are parts of a statue of Athena with a base and a Νίκη and a, shield εν τω Έκατόμπεδω. 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 Έκατόμπεδος (ον) 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:(return) 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 το αγαλμα and το χρυσουν αγαλμα cannot be maintained. cf. U. Köhler, Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad., 1889, p. 223.