DOI chapter:
Divison D: The Acropolis, from the Propylaea to the statue of Athene Lemnia
DOI chapter:Section XX
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61302#0676
502
MYTHOLOGY AND MONUMENTS
DIV. D
at Karh, a village at the foot of Mount Hymettus. The masonry
is rough in the lower courses, but fairly careful and regular in the
upper. The foundations of the cella are in the main of the hard,
blue, calcareous stone of the Acropolis itself, and the masonry is
irregular and very inferior to that of the peristyle ; this points to
the conclusion that the peristyle was a later addition. The peri-
style can be dated approximately ; its foundations agree in material
and technique with the foundations of the Athenian Zeus temple
and with one of the early Eleusinian temples. Both these build-
ings were the work of Peisistratos, and it seems reasonable to
suppose he was the builder of the present peristyle. With this
agree many details of the architectural features of the fragments
used in the restoration ; in particular, the echinus of the capital is
drawn straight out, not bulging as before, and the use of marble
both for metopes and roof is characteristic of the latter half of the
sixth century. A temple is wanted for Peisistratos ; he whom
Athene so greatly protected would surely build or restore some
sanctuary in her honour.
It has seemed best to describe the Parthenon and the Erech-
theion as they occurred in the narration of Pausanias before
entering on the question of their mutual relations. Until 1886,
the date of the recent Acropolis excavations, there was little dis-
pute as to this question. We had the two temples—the one we
call the Parthenon, and the Erechtheion ; it was usually assumed
that the ancient cult of Athene had from time immemorial centred
in the Erechtheion, which she shared with her foster-son Erech-
theus and with Poseidon. The Parthenon, it was held, was not
so much a cultus temple as a splendid treasure-house and museum,
where all the wealth and votive offerings to the goddess were
stored. The statue of Athene Parthenos was, in fact, regarded
as in itself a votive offering to the elder Polias xoanon. In all
inscriptions and literary passages where “ the temple ” was men-
tioned, with or without the addition of “ of Athene,” it was
assumed that the Parthenon was intended. On the other hand,
if the ancient or the older (ο αρχαίο? or ό τταλαιο? vaos) temple
was spoken of, the passage was interpreted as alluding to the
Erechtheion. Further, when “the Opisthodomos ” was named in
inscriptions, it was always supposed that the Opisthodomos, or
back chamber, of the Parthenon was meant. In 1886 this whole
question was thrown into sudden confusion—to be replaced, as it
seems to us, by a better order—by Dr. Dorpfeld’s great discovery
of a third temple.
MYTHOLOGY AND MONUMENTS
DIV. D
at Karh, a village at the foot of Mount Hymettus. The masonry
is rough in the lower courses, but fairly careful and regular in the
upper. The foundations of the cella are in the main of the hard,
blue, calcareous stone of the Acropolis itself, and the masonry is
irregular and very inferior to that of the peristyle ; this points to
the conclusion that the peristyle was a later addition. The peri-
style can be dated approximately ; its foundations agree in material
and technique with the foundations of the Athenian Zeus temple
and with one of the early Eleusinian temples. Both these build-
ings were the work of Peisistratos, and it seems reasonable to
suppose he was the builder of the present peristyle. With this
agree many details of the architectural features of the fragments
used in the restoration ; in particular, the echinus of the capital is
drawn straight out, not bulging as before, and the use of marble
both for metopes and roof is characteristic of the latter half of the
sixth century. A temple is wanted for Peisistratos ; he whom
Athene so greatly protected would surely build or restore some
sanctuary in her honour.
It has seemed best to describe the Parthenon and the Erech-
theion as they occurred in the narration of Pausanias before
entering on the question of their mutual relations. Until 1886,
the date of the recent Acropolis excavations, there was little dis-
pute as to this question. We had the two temples—the one we
call the Parthenon, and the Erechtheion ; it was usually assumed
that the ancient cult of Athene had from time immemorial centred
in the Erechtheion, which she shared with her foster-son Erech-
theus and with Poseidon. The Parthenon, it was held, was not
so much a cultus temple as a splendid treasure-house and museum,
where all the wealth and votive offerings to the goddess were
stored. The statue of Athene Parthenos was, in fact, regarded
as in itself a votive offering to the elder Polias xoanon. In all
inscriptions and literary passages where “ the temple ” was men-
tioned, with or without the addition of “ of Athene,” it was
assumed that the Parthenon was intended. On the other hand,
if the ancient or the older (ο αρχαίο? or ό τταλαιο? vaos) temple
was spoken of, the passage was interpreted as alluding to the
Erechtheion. Further, when “the Opisthodomos ” was named in
inscriptions, it was always supposed that the Opisthodomos, or
back chamber, of the Parthenon was meant. In 1886 this whole
question was thrown into sudden confusion—to be replaced, as it
seems to us, by a better order—by Dr. Dorpfeld’s great discovery
of a third temple.