DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.800#0161
INSCRIPTIONS RESPECTING THE ERECI1THEIUM.
143
more memorable and the fitter to mark a date. We can indeed produce
no authority for this view, but neither can any be adduced for the
burning of the temple at all except Xenophon's; and as he is the only
historian who relates the events of that period in any detail, this
circumstance is no serious objection to our hypothesis.
We will now examine whether the inscription published by Bangabe
helps to throw any light upon the subject.
Chandler's inscription is a report of the state of the works at the
Erechtheium ; Eangabe's, discovered in 1836, is a statement of disburse-
ments on account of some works there. That it relates to the Ere-
chtheium is evident, although no building is named; for it mentions the
altar of the dwjxpos, or ' sacrificer,' which is also found in Chandler's
inscription; and alludes also, like that, to the Cecropium.1 It is not
plain to what date it belongs; but it is evidently of a different one from
Chandler's, since the architect mentioned in it is not the same; that
specified in Chandler's being Philocles of Acharnse, whilst Eangabe's
inscription has Archilochus of Agrylse. This renders somewhat impro-
bable, but does not altogether exclude, Eangabe's supposition,2 that his
inscription relates to the finishing of the temple two years later than
that of Chandler, or in B.C. 407. A stronger objection to this view is
that some of the works mentioned in it were evidently completed at a
later date than those noted as finished in the archonship of Diodes.
Thus, for instance, Chandler's inscription adverts to the figures in the
frieze of Eleusiniac stone as having been completed and fixed under the
inspection of the Epistatse it records ;3 whilst Eangabe's, supposed to
be two years later, specifies payments for making these figures4—
a long while for artists to be kept out of their money. What is
1 ra /3<u/za> tg> roil $vq^ov \i$ot tt(vt€~
XeiKoi iirjKos T€r/jU7ro5fs, K.T.X.—Ci.andler,
1. 188 sq.; 7rap(a) tg> (Ov^tj^o /3g>/a<5. —
Rangabe, No. 57 A, 1. 62 ; h rrj Trpoordtrei
rjj npos to) KfKpoTria).—Chand. 1. 58 sq.;
(K)eKpo7rio, Bang. No. 56 B. 1. 24. The
form 6vt)x6os, with a x, is not recognised
by Liddell and Scott, but it is found in the
inscriptions and in the codex of Photius'
Lexicon. See Porson's Addenda, p. 689.
« vol. i. p. 61.
3 7rpos a ra £<pa Kal eTtdrj eVi rav tViora-
rmv tovtm.—line 42 sq.
4 See the beginning of the fragment
No. 57 A, lines 1 to 22.
143
more memorable and the fitter to mark a date. We can indeed produce
no authority for this view, but neither can any be adduced for the
burning of the temple at all except Xenophon's; and as he is the only
historian who relates the events of that period in any detail, this
circumstance is no serious objection to our hypothesis.
We will now examine whether the inscription published by Bangabe
helps to throw any light upon the subject.
Chandler's inscription is a report of the state of the works at the
Erechtheium ; Eangabe's, discovered in 1836, is a statement of disburse-
ments on account of some works there. That it relates to the Ere-
chtheium is evident, although no building is named; for it mentions the
altar of the dwjxpos, or ' sacrificer,' which is also found in Chandler's
inscription; and alludes also, like that, to the Cecropium.1 It is not
plain to what date it belongs; but it is evidently of a different one from
Chandler's, since the architect mentioned in it is not the same; that
specified in Chandler's being Philocles of Acharnse, whilst Eangabe's
inscription has Archilochus of Agrylse. This renders somewhat impro-
bable, but does not altogether exclude, Eangabe's supposition,2 that his
inscription relates to the finishing of the temple two years later than
that of Chandler, or in B.C. 407. A stronger objection to this view is
that some of the works mentioned in it were evidently completed at a
later date than those noted as finished in the archonship of Diodes.
Thus, for instance, Chandler's inscription adverts to the figures in the
frieze of Eleusiniac stone as having been completed and fixed under the
inspection of the Epistatse it records ;3 whilst Eangabe's, supposed to
be two years later, specifies payments for making these figures4—
a long while for artists to be kept out of their money. What is
1 ra /3<u/za> tg> roil $vq^ov \i$ot tt(vt€~
XeiKoi iirjKos T€r/jU7ro5fs, K.T.X.—Ci.andler,
1. 188 sq.; 7rap(a) tg> (Ov^tj^o /3g>/a<5. —
Rangabe, No. 57 A, 1. 62 ; h rrj Trpoordtrei
rjj npos to) KfKpoTria).—Chand. 1. 58 sq.;
(K)eKpo7rio, Bang. No. 56 B. 1. 24. The
form 6vt)x6os, with a x, is not recognised
by Liddell and Scott, but it is found in the
inscriptions and in the codex of Photius'
Lexicon. See Porson's Addenda, p. 689.
« vol. i. p. 61.
3 7rpos a ra £<pa Kal eTtdrj eVi rav tViora-
rmv tovtm.—line 42 sq.
4 See the beginning of the fragment
No. 57 A, lines 1 to 22.