DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.796#0382
334
THE ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS
raised by adding at the top an Ionic frieze.
After the Persians had destroyed the
temple the peristyle was not rebuilt by the
Athenians, and on the stylobate, which
had not been destroyed, Herms were
placed. - The architectural form of the old
temple thus partially restored furnishes the
explanation (I) for the fact that the Par.
thenon, a Doric building, has an Ionic
frieze on its cella, and (2) for the new
Erechtheum's being an Ionic building. Cf.
Wiegand, Die Archaische Poros-Architektur
der Akropolis, p. 109.
48. Dorpfeld's theory is fully discussed
by him in A.M. xii. 25-61, 190-2H ; xv.
420-439; xxii. 159-178.
49. This title is given in an inscription
dating from 485-4 B.C., first published by
Lolling in AeXriov (1890). Cf. C.I.A. iv.
I, 18, .19; Jahn-Michael. Arx Athen.
p. 99; A.M. xv. 420.
50. The view that the opisthodomos was
either a separate building or that it was the
rear part of the Old Temple which alone
remained standing is discussed in Ap-
pendix III.
51. Eustathius on //. ,x. 451 : 'A6t}vt}<tiv
Aidovs Kal 'A0e\et'as rjv Baj^aos irepl top
rijs floXtaSos 'Adijvas vethv.
52. Cf. A.M. xxii. p. 174. Miss Har-
rison {Myth, and Mon. p. 492) agrees
with Dorpfeld that Pausanias passed from
the Erechtheum into "the Old Temple,"
but thinks that the description of the
Erechtheum and its contents continues
through chapter 26, and that the account
of the Old Temple begins with chapter 27.
Dorpfeld, however, puts the golden lamp
of Callimachus mentioned in chapter 26
in "the Old Temple." This point is
discussed in Appendix III.
53. For a more complete account of
these poros sculptures see Gardner, Greek
Sculpture, p. 158; Studniczka in A.M.
xi, 61; Bruckner, ib. xiv. 67; xv. 84;
Sauer, .ib. xvi. 59. The latest and most
complete account is found in the work of
Theodor Wiegand and his coadjutors,
entitled Die Archaische Poros-Architektur
der Akropolis zti Athen, 1904. The cut in
Jahn-Mich. Fig. Hi. Tafel IV. showing on
the left side of the pediment Heracles and
the Echidna is, according to Wiegand,
erroneous; in this space the Heracles-
Triton should be placed. Cf. Abb. no
in Wiegand's work.
54. For a discussion of this marble pedi-
ment group see Studniczka, A.M. xi.
p. 185, and Schrader, ib. xxii. p. 59.
55. Cf. Dorpfeld, A.M. xi. 162; xxvii.
379. Furtwangler, Appendix to Master-
pieces of Greek Sculpture, has an interesting
discussion of the relation of Themistocles
and Cimon to the history of the older
Parthenon and of the walls of the
Acropolis.
56. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. ii. 229.
57. Cf. A.M. xi. 165.
58. Gardner (Ancient Athens, p. 52)
agrees with Dorpfeld in believing that the
north wall must have been built, at least
in the main, in the time of Themistocles.
Its construction is quite unlike that of the
walls on the east and south, following
the outlines of the rock in a series of short
stretches at different angles. This belief
rests also on the fact that there are built
into this wall so many architectural frag-
ments which belong to buildings destroyed
by the Persians.
59. Cf. Michaelis, Rhein. Mas. N.F.
xvi, 214.
.60. Dorpfeld, A.M. xvii. 189, observes
that Pericles would doubtless have utilized
the uninjured drums of the old Parthenon
had they not already been built into the
north wall. Furtwangler (Masterpieces,
p. 432, note 4) quotes Dorpfeld for the
opinion that the part of the north wall
that contains the entablature of poros from
"the Old Temple" is designed for a level
of the surface of the Acropolis (i.e. on the
inner side of the wall) that was lower than
the later level in the time of Pericles, and
that in the rebuilding of the north wall at
this point the archaic marble statues found
buried in this locality were used to build
up the level. All this points to the time
THE ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS
raised by adding at the top an Ionic frieze.
After the Persians had destroyed the
temple the peristyle was not rebuilt by the
Athenians, and on the stylobate, which
had not been destroyed, Herms were
placed. - The architectural form of the old
temple thus partially restored furnishes the
explanation (I) for the fact that the Par.
thenon, a Doric building, has an Ionic
frieze on its cella, and (2) for the new
Erechtheum's being an Ionic building. Cf.
Wiegand, Die Archaische Poros-Architektur
der Akropolis, p. 109.
48. Dorpfeld's theory is fully discussed
by him in A.M. xii. 25-61, 190-2H ; xv.
420-439; xxii. 159-178.
49. This title is given in an inscription
dating from 485-4 B.C., first published by
Lolling in AeXriov (1890). Cf. C.I.A. iv.
I, 18, .19; Jahn-Michael. Arx Athen.
p. 99; A.M. xv. 420.
50. The view that the opisthodomos was
either a separate building or that it was the
rear part of the Old Temple which alone
remained standing is discussed in Ap-
pendix III.
51. Eustathius on //. ,x. 451 : 'A6t}vt}<tiv
Aidovs Kal 'A0e\et'as rjv Baj^aos irepl top
rijs floXtaSos 'Adijvas vethv.
52. Cf. A.M. xxii. p. 174. Miss Har-
rison {Myth, and Mon. p. 492) agrees
with Dorpfeld that Pausanias passed from
the Erechtheum into "the Old Temple,"
but thinks that the description of the
Erechtheum and its contents continues
through chapter 26, and that the account
of the Old Temple begins with chapter 27.
Dorpfeld, however, puts the golden lamp
of Callimachus mentioned in chapter 26
in "the Old Temple." This point is
discussed in Appendix III.
53. For a more complete account of
these poros sculptures see Gardner, Greek
Sculpture, p. 158; Studniczka in A.M.
xi, 61; Bruckner, ib. xiv. 67; xv. 84;
Sauer, .ib. xvi. 59. The latest and most
complete account is found in the work of
Theodor Wiegand and his coadjutors,
entitled Die Archaische Poros-Architektur
der Akropolis zti Athen, 1904. The cut in
Jahn-Mich. Fig. Hi. Tafel IV. showing on
the left side of the pediment Heracles and
the Echidna is, according to Wiegand,
erroneous; in this space the Heracles-
Triton should be placed. Cf. Abb. no
in Wiegand's work.
54. For a discussion of this marble pedi-
ment group see Studniczka, A.M. xi.
p. 185, and Schrader, ib. xxii. p. 59.
55. Cf. Dorpfeld, A.M. xi. 162; xxvii.
379. Furtwangler, Appendix to Master-
pieces of Greek Sculpture, has an interesting
discussion of the relation of Themistocles
and Cimon to the history of the older
Parthenon and of the walls of the
Acropolis.
56. Cf. Frazer, Pausan. ii. 229.
57. Cf. A.M. xi. 165.
58. Gardner (Ancient Athens, p. 52)
agrees with Dorpfeld in believing that the
north wall must have been built, at least
in the main, in the time of Themistocles.
Its construction is quite unlike that of the
walls on the east and south, following
the outlines of the rock in a series of short
stretches at different angles. This belief
rests also on the fact that there are built
into this wall so many architectural frag-
ments which belong to buildings destroyed
by the Persians.
59. Cf. Michaelis, Rhein. Mas. N.F.
xvi, 214.
.60. Dorpfeld, A.M. xvii. 189, observes
that Pericles would doubtless have utilized
the uninjured drums of the old Parthenon
had they not already been built into the
north wall. Furtwangler (Masterpieces,
p. 432, note 4) quotes Dorpfeld for the
opinion that the part of the north wall
that contains the entablature of poros from
"the Old Temple" is designed for a level
of the surface of the Acropolis (i.e. on the
inner side of the wall) that was lower than
the later level in the time of Pericles, and
that in the rebuilding of the north wall at
this point the archaic marble statues found
buried in this locality were used to build
up the level. All this points to the time