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#0681
SEC. XX
OF ANCIENT A THENS
5°7
olive tree of Athene ; within it were stored also, as Pausanias
notes, the old xoanon (probably the seated type)—in fact, it has
something of the air of a sacred lumber-room. The architect
seems indeed to have been put to sore straits, and to have been
hard pressed for room ; he builds his Caryatid porch right over
the wall of the Peisistratos colonnade (now of course no longer
standing), and it is almost within an arm’s length of the Athene
temple. The Caryatid porch, so much admired nowadays, must
then have shown to poor advantage. This close proximity of
the Caryatid porch to the cella wall is indeed the strongest
argument brought against Dr. Dorpfeld’s theory that the Athene
temple was still standing when the new Erechtheion was built.
It is quite possible, however, that the architect expected the old
temple would come down, and, as has been noted before, his hope
was frustrated by the conservative piety of the priesthood.
We must follow further the fortunes of the older Athene temple.
In 406 B.C., it appears, it a second time suffered from fire. Xeno-
phon 135 states that in the year 406 B.c. “ the old temple of Athene
was burnt; ” until the discovery of the old Athene temple this
was always taken as referring to the Erechtheion. The new
Erechtheion was incomplete, as we have seen before, in 409-408
B.C., and to refer to this restored building as “the old temple”
would certainly have been a strained use of language. Further,
as has been noted, the Erechtheion, in the inscription cited, is
referred to as “ the temple in which was the ancient statue,” not
as the “ old temple ” at all. Dr. Dorpfeld, moreover, holds that
the burning of the Opisthodomos referred to by Demosthenes 136
is this same fire of 406 B.C. It is curious at least that from this
year the separate inventory of the Parthenon chamber ceases, and
this looks as if there had been a temporary arrangement by which
the contents of the burnt Opisthodomos had been transferred
to the “ Parthenon.” Also, side by side with the Hekatompedos
inventory is another of objects stated to be εκ του τταρ^ενώνο?
(out of the Parthenon chamber), which looks as if there had had
to be a clearance of this chamber.
The change, however, was only temporary; the old temple was
rebuilt, and its Opisthodomos again became the State bank. Prob-
ably the damage done had been by no means so great as that at
the Persian invasion. Anyhow, as the votive treasure increased
year by year, the Parthenon, if it had had to hold the State money
permanently, would have been inconveniently crowded. It is cer-
tainly tempting to see with Dr. Dorpfeld, in a passage in the Plutus
OF ANCIENT A THENS
5°7
olive tree of Athene ; within it were stored also, as Pausanias
notes, the old xoanon (probably the seated type)—in fact, it has
something of the air of a sacred lumber-room. The architect
seems indeed to have been put to sore straits, and to have been
hard pressed for room ; he builds his Caryatid porch right over
the wall of the Peisistratos colonnade (now of course no longer
standing), and it is almost within an arm’s length of the Athene
temple. The Caryatid porch, so much admired nowadays, must
then have shown to poor advantage. This close proximity of
the Caryatid porch to the cella wall is indeed the strongest
argument brought against Dr. Dorpfeld’s theory that the Athene
temple was still standing when the new Erechtheion was built.
It is quite possible, however, that the architect expected the old
temple would come down, and, as has been noted before, his hope
was frustrated by the conservative piety of the priesthood.
We must follow further the fortunes of the older Athene temple.
In 406 B.C., it appears, it a second time suffered from fire. Xeno-
phon 135 states that in the year 406 B.c. “ the old temple of Athene
was burnt; ” until the discovery of the old Athene temple this
was always taken as referring to the Erechtheion. The new
Erechtheion was incomplete, as we have seen before, in 409-408
B.C., and to refer to this restored building as “the old temple”
would certainly have been a strained use of language. Further,
as has been noted, the Erechtheion, in the inscription cited, is
referred to as “ the temple in which was the ancient statue,” not
as the “ old temple ” at all. Dr. Dorpfeld, moreover, holds that
the burning of the Opisthodomos referred to by Demosthenes 136
is this same fire of 406 B.C. It is curious at least that from this
year the separate inventory of the Parthenon chamber ceases, and
this looks as if there had been a temporary arrangement by which
the contents of the burnt Opisthodomos had been transferred
to the “ Parthenon.” Also, side by side with the Hekatompedos
inventory is another of objects stated to be εκ του τταρ^ενώνο?
(out of the Parthenon chamber), which looks as if there had had
to be a clearance of this chamber.
The change, however, was only temporary; the old temple was
rebuilt, and its Opisthodomos again became the State bank. Prob-
ably the damage done had been by no means so great as that at
the Persian invasion. Anyhow, as the votive treasure increased
year by year, the Parthenon, if it had had to hold the State money
permanently, would have been inconveniently crowded. It is cer-
tainly tempting to see with Dr. Dorpfeld, in a passage in the Plutus