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

Seite: 197
Lizenz: Creative Commons - Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Nutzung / Bestellung
1 cm


The third question, as to the degree of advancement to which the
building was brought under the Tyrants, does not admit of so definite
an answer. How much of the period that I have marked out (535—
510 B.C.) was employed in active building we cannot tell; and it
must always be borne in mind that the means at the disposal of the
most powerful Greek tyrant of that time were far less than those at
the command of such an absolute Eastern despot as the Syrian king
Antiochos Epiphanes, to say nothing of a Roman emperor. But it is
safe to conclude from the amply-proved energy of Peisistratos and
Hippias that they pushed the building of this characteristic monu-
ment with all possible speed; and there can be little doubt that it
was soon advanced far enough at least to be used for purposes of
worship. That it actually was advanced considerably is evident from
Vitruvius and Aristotle,* but more from their general tone than their
definite words, although one or two particular indications must not
be neglected. All that we can prove to have existed at any time
between 510 and 175 B.C. is probably to be referred to the earliest
period, for we have no information of any additions during the sub-
sequent three and a half centuries. It is true, Hesychios, speaking
of this temple, says : tovto areAe? k/xeivev 'AOrjvr)<riv oiKoSo/jLov/xevov,
7roAA.a/as ap^as Aa/3jy -n/s KaTao-Kevrjs, f but 7ro/\Aa/as need not be

taken too strictly. The passage of Pliny \ discussed at length above
(p. 195) is of importance here, because it makes it highly probable
that some of the columns at least had been set up in the time of the
Peisistratidae. In Plato's time the temple must have been a conspicu-
ous object, for he speaks of the house of Morychos as " near the Olym-
pieion" (Phaedr. 227 B). Whether it was partially demolished by the
Persians during their occupation of the city, it is impossible to say. If
so, it must have been repaired sufficiently to allow of its continued use.§

* See Vitruvius, quoted p. 19S; and Aristotle, quoted p. 193. For Strabo, IX.
p. 396, see below, p. 200.

f These words are taken from some of the lexicographer's sources, perhaps
from Pamphilos.

% Leake cites Plin. XXXV. 8, to prove that the cella must have been far
enough advanced to admit of ornamentation, reading cum Phidiam ipsum initio
pictorem fuisse tradatur Olympiumque Athenis ab eo pictum. But the better
Mss. read elipiumque and clipettmque, and the reading now accepted is clipeum-
que. This, however, does not seem to me certain; and Olympiumque may pos-
sibly be right, or Pliny may have written something different from either.

§ Besides the work on the temple itself, Semper {JDer Styl), on purely stylistic
loading ...