DOI Kapitel:
Division A: The Agora and adjacent buildings lying to the west and north of the Acropolis, from the city gate to the Prytaneion
DOI Kapitel:Section VI
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61302#0287
SEC. VI
OF ANCIENT ATHENS
115
feet, breadth 44. It is built on a basis of Peiraeus limestone, the
temple itself being of Pentelic marble. At a little distance it still
looks almost intact, but on a closer examination it may be seen
that much damage has been done both by earthquakes and
spoliation. In 1660 the Turks began to pull the building down
in order to build a mosque ; they were stopped, but not before
they had hacked away part of the south-west corner both of the
peristyle and cella. The whole of the east end of the cella was
pulled down to make way for an apse when the temple was turned
into a Christian church. At the same time a large door was made
in the west end, but was walled in, as the Turks had the habit of
riding in on horseback when the door was left open. When the
large door was walled up, two small doors were opened through
the south and north walls. The Christians also covered in the
cella with a semicircular vault. Though the wall of the pronaos
was removed to make the church more roomy, the marks on the
side walls show clearly where it stood. On the inside walls of the
temple may also clearly be seen the marks of preparation for
plastering. Those who hold the “ Theseion ” theory attach much
importance to these marks, as being signs of the former existence
of mural painting, such as Pausanias describes in his account of
the actual Theseion. As a matter of fact, even had the paintings
existed—of which there is no evidence—this proves nothing, for
mural decoration was quite a usual thing.
Another point in the existing temple has been turned to false
account. It is stated by Stuart, and frequently repeated (e.g., by
Murray's Guide, p. 259), that the foundation of the temple has
only two steps. Stuart goes on to explain that this was the
custom with a temple that was only a heroon, not a temple of the
gods. As a matter of fact, the temple in question is built on three
steps, though the lowest one is of poros stone, the two upper of
Pentelic marble. Probably the lowest one, the foundation of some
older structure, has been utilised.
Fortunately to such negative arguments one that is positive can
be added, which, by fixing the date of the temple, puts an end for
ever to the name “ Theseion.” The date and name of the temple
have been discussed far too much on Eesthetic grounds connected
with the style and attribution of the decorative sculptures. How
precarious these grounds are will be shown later. Dr. Dorpfeld
dates the temple mainly by a consideration of more tangible
evidence—i.e., the architectural character of the Ionic frieze of the
cella, and a comparison of it with the similar friezes of the
OF ANCIENT ATHENS
115
feet, breadth 44. It is built on a basis of Peiraeus limestone, the
temple itself being of Pentelic marble. At a little distance it still
looks almost intact, but on a closer examination it may be seen
that much damage has been done both by earthquakes and
spoliation. In 1660 the Turks began to pull the building down
in order to build a mosque ; they were stopped, but not before
they had hacked away part of the south-west corner both of the
peristyle and cella. The whole of the east end of the cella was
pulled down to make way for an apse when the temple was turned
into a Christian church. At the same time a large door was made
in the west end, but was walled in, as the Turks had the habit of
riding in on horseback when the door was left open. When the
large door was walled up, two small doors were opened through
the south and north walls. The Christians also covered in the
cella with a semicircular vault. Though the wall of the pronaos
was removed to make the church more roomy, the marks on the
side walls show clearly where it stood. On the inside walls of the
temple may also clearly be seen the marks of preparation for
plastering. Those who hold the “ Theseion ” theory attach much
importance to these marks, as being signs of the former existence
of mural painting, such as Pausanias describes in his account of
the actual Theseion. As a matter of fact, even had the paintings
existed—of which there is no evidence—this proves nothing, for
mural decoration was quite a usual thing.
Another point in the existing temple has been turned to false
account. It is stated by Stuart, and frequently repeated (e.g., by
Murray's Guide, p. 259), that the foundation of the temple has
only two steps. Stuart goes on to explain that this was the
custom with a temple that was only a heroon, not a temple of the
gods. As a matter of fact, the temple in question is built on three
steps, though the lowest one is of poros stone, the two upper of
Pentelic marble. Probably the lowest one, the foundation of some
older structure, has been utilised.
Fortunately to such negative arguments one that is positive can
be added, which, by fixing the date of the temple, puts an end for
ever to the name “ Theseion.” The date and name of the temple
have been discussed far too much on Eesthetic grounds connected
with the style and attribution of the decorative sculptures. How
precarious these grounds are will be shown later. Dr. Dorpfeld
dates the temple mainly by a consideration of more tangible
evidence—i.e., the architectural character of the Ionic frieze of the
cella, and a comparison of it with the similar friezes of the