Читать книгу The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 - Various - Страница 11

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 εν τω Παρθενωνι or εκ του Παρθενωνος, 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 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 έv τω έπι δεξια του όπισθοδόμου, those of the other gods έv τω eπ' άριοτερά. Until the completion of the Parthenon, the opisthodomos of the pre-Persian temple might properly be the opisthodomos κατ' εξοχήν, 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:(return) 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:(return) 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 Παρθενών proper? It cannot be identical with the νεώς ό Έκατόμπεδος 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 Παρθενών proper was, if we knew why it was called Παρθενών. 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 πρόνεως is certainly the front porch, the Έκατόμπεδος νεώς is certainly the cella, 100 feet long, the οπισθόδομος 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 Παρθενών 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 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 Παρθενών 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 Παρθενών proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos would cause the Παρθενών to be emptied of its contents, which would then naturally be inventoried as εκ του Παρθενώνος, while another list could properly be headed εκ του οπισθοδομον 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 Παρθενών 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:(return) DÖRPFELD, XV, p. 480.

Footnote 25:(return) 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 Παρθενών 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 Παρθενών 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 Παρθενών might just as well be the western porch. Since the discovery of the pre-Persian temple, however, Dörpfeld maintains that the opisthodomos κατ εξοχήν 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.

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 το Έκατόμεδον, and the main cella of the other was called ό Έκατομπεδοs νεως ²⁶, and this name was extended to the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of each building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the new one, like the old, was called simply ο οπισθόδομος. 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 ό αρχαίος veas, because the one that had been removed was no longer in existence. That the designation αρχαίος (παλαιός) νεώς 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 ό αρχαίος νεώς, 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, 'Εκατό μπεδος· νεώς ev τη άκροπόλεί τη Παρθενω κατασκευασθείς υπό Αθηναίων, μείζων του εμπρησθεντος υπό των Περσών ποσΐ πεντήκοντα, the expression του έμπρησθεντος υπό των Περσών (yea or possibly 'Εκατόμπέδου νεώ) was originally chosen because the expression αρχαίου νεώ (which would otherwise be very appropriate here) was regularly used to designate the Erechtheion. ²⁸

Footnote 26:(return) Or το Έκατόμπεδον. Even after Dörpfeld's arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the use of the two expressions can be found.

Footnote 27:(return) 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 άρχαιος νεως which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.

Footnote 28:(return) 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.

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 bishеr nicht genügend beаchtete 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 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:(return) 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., ı, 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:(return) 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 άρχαίος (παλαίòς) νεώς, as they have been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too, I have omitted all mention of the μέγαρον τò πρòς έσπέραν τετραμμένον, ³¹ the παραστάδες, 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.

Footnote 31:(return) HEROD, v, 77.

Footnote 32:(return) CIA, II, 733, 735, 708.

Footnote 33:(return) Od., VII. 80 f.; Il., II. 546 ff. Mitth., XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.

Footnote 34:(return) PLUT., 1191 ff. cf. Mitth., XII., pp. 69, 206.

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.

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 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:(return) 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 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 οίκημα ταμιείον and οίκήματα 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.

Η. Ν. F.

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