DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.800#0159
RESTORATION OF THE ERECI1THEIUM.
141
and has, therefore, only incidentally a meaning of antiquity. A thing
may be old, and yet not the original; whilst the original, though com-
monly, but not necessarily, very old, must at all events be the first of
its kind. Wherefore, when Strabo speaks of the Erechtheium as
upxalo<;, he means the original foundation consecrated to Athena, with-
out regard to the actual building, and as contrasted with the newer one
of the Parthenon. But where Xenophon applies the term TraXaibs to
it he can mean nothing but the building itself; the old temple, which
had been succeeded in his time by a new one.
The difficulty would in a great degree vanish, if it could be shown
that the archonship of Diodes was later than that of Callias, for which
the scholiast on the 'Plutus' of Aristophanes affords some colour, by
affirming that Diocles was archon fourteen years after Chabrias j1 since,
as the latter was archon in B.C. 415, the year of Diocles would then fall
in b.c. 401; which would suit very well with the rebuilding of a temple
burnt in b.c. 406. But the archonship of Diocles is too well established
to be shaken by this passage of the scholiast. Thus the anonymous
defendant in Lysias' oration entitled 'AiroXoyla SatpoSoKia?,2 enume-
rates his liturgies under successive archons in the following chronolo-
gical order: Theopompus (b.c. 411), Glaucippus (b.c. 410), Diocles (b.c!
409), Alexias (b.c. 405), and Eucleides (b.c. 403). Again : Euripides
exhibited his ' Orestes' either in the archonship of Diocles, or in that of
Theopompus, two years earlier;3 and as he died in the archonship of
Callias (b.c. 406), Diocles cannot be placed later than that archon.
Besides, the inscription is written in characters that were in official use
before the date of Eucleides; who, as we have seen, was six years later
than Diocles, and two years before the date assigned by the scholiast.
"We cannot agree with Leake that the injury which the temple
Roiske); where Taylor would have substi-
tuted to wdrptov for to n-aXaioV, but where
Reiske shows the difference between the
two words. Cf. Demosth. adv. Androt.
p. 597, Reiske : dXX' i<t'iva fiev apxaia <cnl
7rnXam. We must confess, however, that
Boeckh also takes apxaios and TraXnios to
be equivalent. C. Ins. Gr. i. p. 264.
1 Iva df] 67Ti Xafipiov tis raiira y(v<tr8ai
8(5 ... cart 8e ea>s AioKktovs cttj iS\—V. 179.
2 p. 698 sqq. Reiske.
3 Schol. ad Eur. Orest. v. 365.
141
and has, therefore, only incidentally a meaning of antiquity. A thing
may be old, and yet not the original; whilst the original, though com-
monly, but not necessarily, very old, must at all events be the first of
its kind. Wherefore, when Strabo speaks of the Erechtheium as
upxalo<;, he means the original foundation consecrated to Athena, with-
out regard to the actual building, and as contrasted with the newer one
of the Parthenon. But where Xenophon applies the term TraXaibs to
it he can mean nothing but the building itself; the old temple, which
had been succeeded in his time by a new one.
The difficulty would in a great degree vanish, if it could be shown
that the archonship of Diodes was later than that of Callias, for which
the scholiast on the 'Plutus' of Aristophanes affords some colour, by
affirming that Diocles was archon fourteen years after Chabrias j1 since,
as the latter was archon in B.C. 415, the year of Diocles would then fall
in b.c. 401; which would suit very well with the rebuilding of a temple
burnt in b.c. 406. But the archonship of Diocles is too well established
to be shaken by this passage of the scholiast. Thus the anonymous
defendant in Lysias' oration entitled 'AiroXoyla SatpoSoKia?,2 enume-
rates his liturgies under successive archons in the following chronolo-
gical order: Theopompus (b.c. 411), Glaucippus (b.c. 410), Diocles (b.c!
409), Alexias (b.c. 405), and Eucleides (b.c. 403). Again : Euripides
exhibited his ' Orestes' either in the archonship of Diocles, or in that of
Theopompus, two years earlier;3 and as he died in the archonship of
Callias (b.c. 406), Diocles cannot be placed later than that archon.
Besides, the inscription is written in characters that were in official use
before the date of Eucleides; who, as we have seen, was six years later
than Diocles, and two years before the date assigned by the scholiast.
"We cannot agree with Leake that the injury which the temple
Roiske); where Taylor would have substi-
tuted to wdrptov for to n-aXaioV, but where
Reiske shows the difference between the
two words. Cf. Demosth. adv. Androt.
p. 597, Reiske : dXX' i<t'iva fiev apxaia <cnl
7rnXam. We must confess, however, that
Boeckh also takes apxaios and TraXnios to
be equivalent. C. Ins. Gr. i. p. 264.
1 Iva df] 67Ti Xafipiov tis raiira y(v<tr8ai
8(5 ... cart 8e ea>s AioKktovs cttj iS\—V. 179.
2 p. 698 sqq. Reiske.
3 Schol. ad Eur. Orest. v. 365.