Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (1.1882-1883)

196

THE OLYMPIEION AT ATHENS.

Gesch. d. Baukunst, I. p. 225 • Miiller, in Ersch & Gruber's Encycl.
I. vi. p. 233 ; Hertzberg, Griechenland unter d. Romern, I. p. 384 ;
Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, p. 666), even by Leake {Top. of Athens),
though he supposed the columns to have been Ionic and not Doric.
On the other hand, Penrose (p. 71), Stark (Augsb. Allgem. Zeit.,
1872, p. 5398), and Dyer (p. 165) think that the columns removed
by Sulla were the work of Antiochos Epiphanes. This, however,
is a pure assumption, and our only evidence, the passage of Pliny,
tells directly against it; nor does any one of these authorities attempt
to support his opinion by any arguments. Assuming then that Sulla,
after the capture of Athens in 86 B.C., carried away some of the col-
umns which were used by Peisistratos and laid aside when the work
was again taken up in a different style and on a different scale, a
further argument bearing on the main point may be drawn from this
clause of Pliny. These columns were taken to ornament the Capi-
toline temple at Rome ; and this temple, as we know, belonged origi-
nally to the Tuscan order, which was nothing more than the Grecian
Doric after its adoption and modification by the Etruscans. (Guhl
und Koner, Leben d. Gr. z/. Rom., II. pp. 8, 9.) It was burned down
in the time of Sulla, who rebuilt it, reproducing the old temple with all
its main peculiarities. The order that he employed was probably the
Doric, and therefore the columns of which he plundered Athens for
its adornment were also of this order. To my mind, this passage of
Pliny renders it practically certain that the Olympieion was begun by
Peisistratos in the Doric order, and further, that the columns carried
away by Sulla were his work. Possibly, as has been suggested, they
were remarkable as long monolith shafts, or for the rare quality of the
marble. It is to be doubted whether a large column of many drums
could be taken down, transported, and set up again, without clipping
the edges and marring irreparably the niceness of the joints (cf. Pen-
rose loc. cit.). On the other hand, Leake, followed by Penrose,
thinks that the original order was Ionic. Leake considers this prob-
able because the Ionic was the national order; and because, if the
temple were begun in the Ionic, its continuation and completion
in the nearly related Corinthian style would be more easily ex-
plained. These arguments have very little weight. The first needs
no answer; and the final choice of the Corinthian order is amply
explained by the taste of the time.