Se
LL.
237
ז
THE OPISTHODOMUS ON
THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS.
BY
JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE, PH.D. (HARV.)
27 Mar-09 890
ERNST CURTIUS.
DF
171969
W
τρὶς γὰρ δή μίν φασιν ἀνάξασθαι γένε ἀνδρῶν,
ὥς τέ μοι ἀθάνατος ἰνδάλλεται εἰσοράασθαι.

W
S
N
E
-Parthenon -
Hecatompedon
Erechtheum
F
PANDROSEUM.
FO
❤MP
Į
210
5
HECATOMPEDON
(DESTROYED BY THE PERSIANS).
000
10
000
15
ERECHTHEUM.
PARTHENON OF PERICLES.
SCALE OF METERS
20
23
30
D
85
10
GROUND-PLAN
OF THE FOUR GREAT
TEMPLES ON THE
ACROPOLIS.
(From ANTIKE DENKMAELER, I.1.)
HECATOMPEDON
(DESTROYED BY THE PERSIANS).
FIRST PARTHENON.
15
PARTHENON OF PERICLES.
ERECHTHEUM.
PARTHENON).
FIRST PARTHENON
WHICH PERICLES BUILT THE
(OVER
:

THE OPISTHODOMUS ON THE ACROPOLIS AT
ATHENS.¹
BY JOHN WILLIAMS WHITE.
N inscriptions of the fifth century and fourth century B.C. and in
Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and Lucian, references occur to
a structure on the Acropolis at Athens which is called simply
ó ôπolódoμos, without further designation. The scholiasts, however,
on the passages in which the Opisthodomus is thus referred to and
the ancient lexicographers define its situation.
3
August Boeckh believed that the Opisthodomus in question was
the western chamber of the cella of the Parthenon, and maintained
this view with vigour.2 So Leake, K. F. Hermann,* Boetticher,5
Michaelis, and many others. This has been and remains the gen-
erally accepted view. It makes the "Parthenon" in the restricted
sense, the well-known treasure-chamber named in inscriptions,"
6
1 The following discussion was first made public in a lecture delivered at the
American School of Classical Studies at Athens on March 1, 1894. It was sub-
sequently privately printed in London, in a limited number of copies, under date
of May 5, 1894. Contemporaneously, Professor Arthur Milchhöfer of Münster pub-
lished in the Philologus (Heft 2, 1894) a searching discussion of the same theme,
in which he independently established the main contention of my paper, namely,
that the Opisthodomus on the Acropolis at Athens was a separate building. On
the secondary question of the situation of the Opisthodomus we held and hold
divergent views. My reasons for regarding Professor Milchhöfer's view on this
question untenable constitute a part of the present revision of my original argument.
2 Staatshaushaltung der Athener³, 1886, 1. p. 517 ff., especially p. 519, note c.
See also CIG. 1. p. 177 f.
3 Topography of Athens², 1841, I. p. 559.
4 Die Hypäthraltempel des Alterthums, 1844, p. 27 f.
5 Philologus, 1862, XVIII., plan; Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis, 1863,
p. 165 ff.
6 Der Parthenon, 1871, p. 26 f. See also p. 109.
7 See the important series, CIA. 1. 161 ff.
2
John Williams White.
-a part of the veùs EKαTóμπedos, and places within it the great
chryselephantine statue of Athena. Ussing believed that the western
chamber of the cella was the "Parthenon," that the western portico
was the Opisthodomus proper, and that the two together constituted
the Opisthodomus of the inscriptions. This is also Petersen's view.2
Köhler maintains that the statue stood in the Hecatompedos, not in
the "Parthenon," but refuses to identify the western chamber of the
cella, which he believes to have been the Opisthodomus, with the
"Parthenon." Lolling also believed this to be the Opisthodomus,
although he held new and revolutionary views in regard to the appli-
cation of the terms "Parthenon" and Hecatompedos. Dörpfeld,
on grounds independent of those on which Ussing had based his
argument, concluded that the western chamber of the cella was the
"Parthenon," and that, in official language, Opisthodomus always
meant the western portico of the temple. This view was adopted
by Fränkel, and is held by Frazer." On his discovery of the
Hecatompedon, Dörpfeld relinquished this view, and now main-
8
4
5
6
1 De Parthenone ejusque partibus disputatio, 1849. Also Griechische Reisen
und Studien, 1857, p. 145 ff.
2 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 70 f. Petersen was the first to endeavour
to establish the proposition that the same room might have in contemporary
documents two official names, namely, "Parthenon" and Opisthodomus. In the
first edition of his Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik (1893, p. 177) Furtwängler
supported the same proposition, and declared for a complete identification of
"Parthenon" and Opisthodomus. He has now relinquished this view, and believes
that the Opisthodomus was a separate building. See his Masterpieces of Greek
Sculpture, the English edition of his Meisterwerke, edited by Eugénie Sellers,
London, 1895, p. 425 f.
3 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1880, v. p. 89 ff., especially p. 100.
4 'A On vâ, 1890, 11. p. 627 ff.
5 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1881, VI. p. 283 ff.
6 In Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung³, 1886, 11. p. 106*, note 729.
Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1892-93, XIII. p. 153 ff.
8 The temple of Athena whose foundations lie close to the Erechtheum on the
south. For Dörpfeld's description of it as a structure, see Mitth. d. Inst. Athen,
1886, XI. p. 337 ff. See also Mitth. 1885, x. p. 275 ff. and Antike Denkmäler,
1886, plates I., II. Dörpfeld himself names it "alter Athena-Tempel," but this
name seems to be misleading to those who do not believe that it was the oldest
temple of Athena on the Acropolis. Petersen calls it "Peisistratischer Tempel "
(note 2 above), Frazer "Pre-Persian Temple" (note 7 above).
Dörpfeld main-
The Opisthodomus.
3
tains that the term Opisthodomus in the inscriptions and authors
designates the three rooms constituting the western half of this
temple, which, as is well known, he believes to have been still in
existence in the time of Pausanias.¹ Finally, Fowler has advanced
the original hypothesis that the Opisthodomus was the western
chamber of the cella of the "Parthenon," that this room was doubt-
less divided into three parts by two partitions of some sort, probably
of metal, running from the eastern and western walls to the nearest
columns and connecting the columns, and that the middle division
of the three between the partitions was the "Parthenon" proper.2
I am unable to accept any one of these views, and venture again
to present for consideration our sources of information about the
vexed structure called the Opisthodomus. I purpose to discuss as
the main thesis of this paper the following proposition :
The Opisthodomus on the Acropolis at Athens, referred to in
inscriptions and in authors simply as å ỏπolódoµos, was not a part
of any existing temple, but was a separate building, complete in itself.
The current view, if I may so name it, would seem to be expressly
contradicted by the testimony of the scholiasts and lexicographers.
An important part of this testimony, with the original passages in
the authors of which it is an explanation, is the following:
οἷον (ὅπως δὲ μὴ θορυβήσει μοι μηδείς, πρὶν ἂν ἅπαντα εἴπω) ἀνέῳξαν
δήπου πρώην τινὲς τὸν ὀπισθόδομον. [Dem.] XIII. 14.
Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ περὶ συντάξεως· ἀνέῳξαν δήπου πρώην τινὲς τὸν
ὀπισθόδομον. ὁ οἶκος ὁ ὄπισθεν τοῦ νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς οὕτω καλεῖται, ἐν
ᾧ ἀπετίθεντο τὰ χρήματα. Harpocration s.v. ὀπισθόδομος.
♣
tains that the name which he has assigned to it is correct (Mitth. 1892, XVII. p. 158,
note 1). Furtwängler also calls it the "Old Temple " (note 2 above). The official
name, which will be used in this paper, is rò 'EкатÓμтedov. See CIA. IV. p. 137 ff.;
Δελτίον ᾿Αρχ. 1890, p. 92 ff.; ᾿Αθηνᾶ, 1890, II. p. 627 ff.
1 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 25 ff., 190 ff., 1890, xv. p. 420 ff. Dörpfeld's
view, both that the Opisthodomus was in the Hecatompedon and that the latter
was still in existence in the time of Pausanias, is accepted by Miss Harrison,
Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, 1893, pp. 505 ff., and by Miller,
Amer. Jour. Arch. 1893, VIII. pp. 500 and 528.
2 Amer. Jour. Arch. 1893, VIII. p. 10 ff.
4
John Williams White.
οἶκος ὄπισθεν τοῦ νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς, ἐν ᾧ ἀπετίθεντο τὰ χρήματα. ἢ ἐν
τῇ ἀκροπόλει τόπος ἔνθα τὸ δημόσιον ἀργύριον ἀπέκειτο καὶ ὁ φόρος.
Schol. FY [Dem.] XIII. 14.1
μέρος τι τῆς ἀκροπόλεως τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων, ἔνθα ἦν τὸ ταμιεῖον, ὄπισθεν
τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ναοῦ, ἐν ᾧ ἀπετίθεντο τὰ χρήματα. Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ
περὶ συντάξεως· ἀνέῳξαν δήπου πρώην τινὲς τὸν ὀπισθόδομον. Suidas
s.v. ὀπισθόδομος.2
ἱδρυσόμεθ᾽ οὖν αὐτίκα μάλ᾽, ἀλλὰ περίμενε,
τὸν Πλοῦτον, οὗπερ πρότερον ἦν ἱδρύμενος
τὸν ὀπισθόδομον ἀεὶ φυλάττων τῆς θεοῦ.
Arist. Plut. 1191-1193.
ἐπειδὴ τὰ χρήματα ἐν τῷ ὀπισθοδόμῳ ἀπέκειτο. μέρος δέ ἐστι τῆς
ἀκροπόλεως, ἔνθα ἐστὶ ταμιεῖον, ὄπισθεν τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ναοῦ. Schol. R
Arist. Plut. 1193.
ἄλλως. ὀπίσω τοῦ νεὼ τῆς καλουμένης πολιάδος ᾿Αθηνᾶς διπλοῦς τοῖχος
(οἶκος ?) ἔχων θύραν, ὅπου ἦν θησαυροφυλάκιον. ἐπεὶ τὰ χρήματα ἐν τῷ
ὀπισθοδόμῳ ἀπέκειτο. μέρος δὲ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως. Schol. V Arist. Plut.
1193.3
ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἦν θησαυροφυλάκιον.
Schol. LB Arist. Plut. 1191.
ταμιεῖον τῆς πόλεως ἐν ἀκροπόλει· ὄπισθεν τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεώ.
Photius s.ν. ὀπισθόδομος.
καὶ οἱ ταμίαι ἐφ᾽ ὧν ὁ ὀπισθόδομος ἐνεπρήσθη, καὶ οἱ τῶν τῆς θεοῦ καὶ
οἱ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν, ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι τούτῳ ἦσαν ἕως ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῖς ἐγένετο.
Dem. XXIV. 136.
ἰστέον ὅτι χρήματα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἱερῶν τῶν θεῶν καὶ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς
ἔκειτο ἔν τινι οἰκήματι ὀπίσω τῆς ἀκροπόλεως, τῷ καλουμένῳ ὀπισθοδόμῳ,
1 The statement, ἐν τῇ . . . φόρος, is also in B.
2 ὀπισθόδομος μέρος τῆς ἀκροπόλεως...χρήματα. Schol. V Lucian Fug. 7. The
Scholiast did not observe that Lucian was talking about an opisthodomus at
Olympia.
3 See Dübner's note (Schol. Graeca in Arist. 1841, p. 613), who also gives the
variant in Par. 2821.— οἶκος is the conjecture of Michaelis (Paus. descrip. arc.
Athen. 1880, p. VI. add. ad c. 24, 47 u. 7 a fine), and must be right. He compares
Paus. I. 26. 5, διπλοῦν γάρ ἐστι τὸ οἴκημα.
The Opisthodomus.
5
καὶ ἦσάν τινες τεταγμένοι ταμίαι ἐπὶ τῇ φυλακῇ τούτων. Schol. ATCV
Dem. xxiv. 136.¹
ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει, οὗ τὸ δημόσιον ἀργύριον ἀπέκειτο [πρὸς τῷ ὀπισθοδόμῳ]
καὶ ὁ φόρος. Hesychius s.v. ὀπισθοδόμος (sic).2
The meaning of the interpreters here seems to be clear. Their
testimony is that the Opisthodomus was a house, or a place on the
Acropolis, or a part of the Acropolis, that lay behind the temple of Athena,
and that it was used as a treasury.
3
These old Greek interpreters have been variously dealt with by
modern writers who have discussed the Opisthodomus. By the
most of the scholars named above they have been silently ignored,
for whatever reason; by others they have been taken seriously; by
others still their testimony has been rejected as worthless.5 In some
instances it is impossible to tell by what interpretation of the Greek
scholiasts and lexicographers some of the moderns arrive at the
conclusion embodied in the current view."
If in the interpreters as quoted above the words veus and iepóv
mean temple, it is possible to obtain the definition of Opisthodomus
adopted in the current view only by attaching to oriolev the meaning
1 The Scholiast's meaning, probably, is treasure that belonged both to the sanc-
tuaries of the other gods and to Athena's. πlow tŷs åkpoπóλews is as it stands
nonsense, since it removes the Opisthodomus from the Acropolis altogether.
Compare the definition in Pollux (rx. 40), τὸ κατόπιν τῆς ἀκροπόλεως (sc. ἂν εἴποις)
ὀπισθόδομον.
2 Cf. the schol. [Dem.] XIII. 14 quoted above.
3 See, as to the credibility of this ancient testimony, p. 41 ff.
4
By Boeckh, for example (CIG. 1. p. 177 f.), whose interpretation is discussed
p. 43 f.
5 By Michaelis, whose treatment of the evidence is considered on p. 12.
6 Leake, for example, cites the scholiasts and lexicographers, but gives no
explanation how from their statements he reaches the conclusion that the Opistho-
domus was the western apartment of the cella of the Parthenon. Dörpfeld also,
who believes that the Opisthodomus was the rear part of the Hecatompedon,
twice in interpreting the scholiasts and lexicographers translates the phrase
Ŏжισdεν TоÛ Tŷs 'Aonvâs vew, 'hinter dem Tempel,' 'hinter dem Athena-Tempel.'
See Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. pp. 34, 39. This is, I think, the right inter-
pretation; but it is difficult to see how, if the Opisthodomus lay 'behind the
temple,' it was at the same time a part of it.
6
John Williams White.
in the back part of. οἶκος ὄπισθεν τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεώ would then
mean a room in the back part of the temple of Athena. But this
meaning of oo0ev with the genitive cannot be established. It is
recognized by none of the lexicographers. In order to express the
desired meaning oσev must be combined adjectively with the
article; the genitive that follows is then partitive. Pausanias, for
example, in telling where certain paintings are in the temple of
Messene, daughter of Triopas, says (Iv. 31. II), γραφαὶ δὲ κατὰ τοῦ
ναοῦ τὸ ὄπισθεν οἱ βασιλεύσαντές εἰσι Μεσσήνης, i.e. in postica templi
parte.
1
It may be well to establish the uses of omiσlev in this author, who
naturally had occasion to use the word often. In Pausanias ὄπισθεν
may be used, as above, adjectively. Sometimes it is used adver-
bially.2 In the great majority of the instances of its occurrence,
it is followed, as an adverb of place, by the genitive. In the most
of these it clearly means behind; in some cases the meaning is
indeterminable, because the statement is brief, and we have no
other means of arriving at the facts; in no instance can it be proved
that the word means in the back part of.
The statue had a
In the following cases oπɩσlev signifies, in my judgment, behind :
καὶ σφᾶς ὑπερεβάλοντο ᾿Αθηναῖοι τὸν κολοσσὸν ἀναθέντες ὄπισθε τοῦ ναοῦ.
1. 18. 6.
Pausanias has just said that the peribolus of the temple
(the Olympieum at Athens) is full of statues of Hadrian; but
the Athenian colossus overtopped all the rest.
commanding position, facing the Acropolis. Cf. VIII. 9. 6; 30. 7;
30. 8. ἔστι δὲ ὄπισθεν τοῦ Λυκείου Νίσου μνῆμα. 1. 19. 4. Cf. II. 31. 3;
III. 16. 6; VIII. 14. IO. μετὰ ταῦτα ἐς τὸ τοῦ Διὸς τέμενος ἐσελθοῦσι
ναός ἐστι θέας ἄξιος· τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα οὐκ ἐξειργάσθη τοῦ Διός . . . ὄπισθε δὲ
τοῦ ναοῦ κεῖται ξύλα ἡμίεργα . . . ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ τῷ ναῷ τριήρους ἀνάκειται
χαλκοῦν ἔμβολον. 1. 40. 4, 5. The phrase ev dè autê tê va❖ makes
it certain that the ξύλα ἡμίεργα were not in the temple. τὴν δὲ πηγήν,
ἥ ἐστιν ὄπισθεν τοῦ ναοῦ. II. 5. Ι. τούτου δὲ (i.e. τοῦ θεάτρου) ὄπισθεν
ᾠκοδόμηται σταδίου πλευρὰ μία, ἀνέχουσά τε αὐτὴ τὸ θέατρον καὶ ἀντὶ
ἐρείσματος ἀνάλογον ἐκείνῳ χρωμένη. II. 29. II. ἔστι δὲ τῆς στοᾶς
</
1 I. 24. 5; II. 20. 7; v. Io. 8; vi. 5. 6; VIII. 45. 7; X. 19. 4.
2 1. 3. 3; V. 20. 2; VI. 5. 6; X. 26. 5.
The Opisthodomus.
7
dè
ταύτης ὄπισθεν ἡρῷα. III. 15. 1. Cf. 1. 1. 3. ὄπισθεν δὲ τῆς Χαλκιοίκου
ναός ἐστιν ᾿Αφροδίτης. III. 17. 5.
III. 17. 5. καὶ ὄπισθεν γυνὴ αὐτοῦ. V. 17. 9.
Cf. v. 19. 6. ἕστηκε δὲ (i.e. Κλεοσθένους ἅρμα) ὄπισθεν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ
ἀνατεθέντος ὑπὸ Ἑλλήνων. VI. Io. 6. Cf. x. 9. 9. ὑπομένοντες τῆς
τάξεως ὄπισθεν οἱ οἰκέται τοσάδε σφίσιν ἐγίνοντο χρήσιμοι. Χ. 19. 10.
The following are indeterminable, but that in them onioßev means
behind can hardly be doubted in view of the preceding clear instances
of this meaning: II. 11. 1; II. 13. 7; V. 15. 7; VIII. 22.7. In Pausanias
ỏπíσw¹ is almost always an adverb accompanying a verb of motion ;
the following example shows its meaning when followed by the
genitive: ἔστι δὲ τῆς στοᾶς ὀπίσω ᾿Αφροδίτης ναός. VI. 25. 2. It
should finally be noted, as important in establishing the meaning of
Ŏπισbeν and ỏπíσw with the genitive of place, that the counter-idea is
generally expressed by pó with the genitive, where by no contrivance
can the preposition signify in the front part of.
II. I
In view of these facts, it is impossible to interpret oπiσ@ev Toû TŶS
'Alŋvâs vew to mean in the back part of the temple of Athena.
But, as is well known, veós may signify cella, as well as temple,
although, when the entire number of cases of the word's occurrence
is taken into account, this is very rare both in the literature and in
inscriptions. If this signification of the word could be established
for the phrase οἶκος ὄπισθεν τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεώ, we should arrive at
the meaning demanded by the current view as to the situation of the
Opisthodomus.
The question is limited to the use of veús in its actual application
to temples of Athena on the Acropolis at Athens.²
Fortunately
1 This form occurs in the schol. V Arist. Plut. 1193 and in the schol. Dem.
XXIV. 136 quoted above.
2 The consideration of the etymology of the word πpóvaos is pertinent, but
does not establish the meaning cella for vaós. That which πρóvaos names doubt-
less marked the first stage of development of the original vaós from a single room
to a more complicated structure; at this time πpóvaos meant (porch) before the
temple. vaos and aduтov were then identical. The original vaós kept its name
when, with the permanent addition of the porch in front and the porch behind,
that name received a larger application and designated (as it had exclusively at
first) the entire structure. Cf. δόμος and πρόδομος (ἐν προδόμῳ δόμου, Od. iv. 302),
and the theatre-terms σкŋvý and πρoσкývoν. The original etymological force of
πpóvaos is seen in its adjectival use, which is not uncommon. Сf. ßwµοùs прováovs,
8
John Williams White.
the successive labours of scholars have collected the existing literary
and epigraphical evidence not only for the word veós but also for
the other terms designating these temples and their parts,' and it is
now not difficult to reach trustworthy conclusions in regard to their
use and application. The law of use for veús and iɛpóv² requires
that, when they have the limited sense cella, this shall always be
clearly indicated either by an added epithet or by the context. Such
instances are surprisingly rare. I proceed to an examination of the
2
evidence.
3
4
We meet first cases in which the old temple of Athena is referred
to as ἀρχαῖος or παλαιὸς νεώς, where the epithet excludes the meaning
cella for veús. Xenophon records that the old temple was set on
fire; Strabo contrasts it with the Parthenon. It would be as forced
to suppose that veús means cella in any of these instances as in the
scholium on Arist. Pax 605, the source of which is Philochorus, kaì
τὸ ἄγαλμα τὸ χρυσοῦν τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐστάθη εἰς τὸν νεὼν τὸν μέγαν, in
which it is important to note the epithet. Here ô μéyas veós is the
μέγας νεώς
Parthenon, and yet we know that the statue was in the cella.
The meaning cella for veús is excluded also in the inscriptions
that relate to the building of the old temple of Athena and to its
restoration after the burning described by Xenophon; also in those
referring to the setting up of stelae Tapà ròv veÓ and to the approach
of the panathenaic ship.5
Aesch. Suppl. 494; τῆς Προναίης ᾿Αθηναίης, Hdt. VIII. 37; ᾿Αθηνᾶ καὶ Ἑρμῆς,
ὀνομαζόμενοι Πρόναοι, Paus. IX. Io. 2. Cf. Harp. s.v. προναία: διὰ τὸ πρὸ τοῦ ναοῦ
dià tò
ἱδρῦσθαι.
1 See Michaelis, Parthenon, 1871, pp. 285-317; Jahn-Michaelis, Paus. descrip.
arc. Athen. 1880; Milchhöfer in Curtius, Stadtgeschichte von Athen, 1891, pp.
XX.-XXII.
2 iepóv occurs above, in the schol. Arist. Plut. 1191. It occurs also in E. M.
s.v. ὀπισθόδομος.
3 In this paper "old temple of Athena"
"old temple of Athena" means the Erechtheum or its prede-
cessor on the same site.
4 CIA. IV. I C, 27 (p. 3 f.); 1. 93, 6; 11. 74 a, 14; 163, 9; 464, 6; 672, 43;
733 A, col. II. 6; Xen. Hell. 1. 6. 1; schol. Arist. Lys. 273; Strabo IX. p. 396.
CIA. II. 751 B, d, 19, and 758 A, col. II. 8, do not belong here. See Lehner,
Ueber die athenischen Schatzverzeichnisse, 1890, p. 79.
5 CIA. 1. 60, 3; 322, 1, 4, 8; IV. 321, col. III. 27 (p. 74 ff.); II. 332, 44; 829, 3;
Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1883, VIII. p. 59, 25; CIA. III. 776, 3.
The Opisthodomus.
9
There are other instances in which veús certainly means temple,
although it is not easy to categorize them. Some of these refer to
the Parthenon,¹ others to the old temple of Athena.2 In some of
them, although the object referred to was probably in a specific part
of the temple, it is still clear that the temple as a whole was in the
speaker's mind when he used the word veús. These are of the
same nature as the quotation from Philochorus above (schol. Arist.
Pax 605).*
3
4
5
There are three passages in dispute. If in these ỏ rŷs IIodιádos
vews means the cella of the Polias, it should be observed that this
results solely from the demands of the context, for in the majority of
¹ Aristot. hist. an. VI. 24, p. 577 B, 29 (cf. Aelian de nat. an. VI. 49); Philo-
chorus in schol. Arist. Pax 605; Plut. de soll. an. 13, p. 970 в; Paus. 1. 24. 5 and
8; Arist. I. p. 548, 14 Dind.; schol. Dem. XXII. 13; Hesych. s.v. 'Eкaтbνπedos ;
Lex. Pat. in Bull. Corr. Hell. 1877, 1. p. 149, 'Eкaтóµπedov; E. M. s.v. 'Ekatbµπedov
(cf. Bekk. Anec. 1. p. 283, 15); Suidas s.v. 'Ekaтbµñedos vews.
-
2 Hom. I. II. 549; CIG. 6280 a, 31 Kaibel Ep. Gr. 1046, 90; Plut. quaest.
con. IX. 6, p. 741 B; Paus. I. 27. 2 and 4; Himer. Ecl. v. 30; Clem. Alex. Protr.
III. p. 13 Sylb. (cf. Apollod. III. 14. 7); schol. Arist. Eq. 1169; Eust. Il. xxii.
451 (cf. Hesych. s.v. Aldoûs ßwuós); Eust. Od. 1. 357; schol. Arist. Lys. 759. The
last two relate to the sacred snake, which was in the old temple. Hesychius
(s.v. oikovpòv õpiv) alone names an exact spot, and places the snake where
we should expect to find it, ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ ᾿Ερεχθέως. This must interpret for us
the onkos of Plutarch (Them. 10). In Dion. Hal. Ant. XIV. 2 similarly we find
ἐν τοῦ γηγενοῦς Ερεχθέως τῷ σηκῷ, where he is speaking of the olive. See, for
the snake, the passages in Jahn-Michaelis, Paus. descr. arc. Athen. 1880, p. 27
(c. 27, 7*).
3 Plut. Cim. 5; Anth. Pal. VI. 2 (Simonides); Xen. Hell. 11. 3. 20.
I. 24. 3 is to be taken into account, it belongs in this general category.
>
4 To this category belongs also Hdt. vIII. 55, if one believes that there
'Epexéos vnós refers to the whole building, as in the prevailing modern use of the
word "Erechtheum." If one does not believe this, but that the οἴκημα Ερέχθειον
κаλоúμevov of Pausanias (1. 26. 5) is the double western half of the old temple,
then the expression in Herodotus is not to be taken into account, since the present
inquiry is limited to the investigation of the meaning of vews and lepov in their
application to temples of Athena.
5 Philochorus frg. 146 (Dion. Hal. de Din. 3); Paus. I. 27. 1 and 3.
p. 31 ff., with notes 25 and 27.
ὁ νεὼς τῆς Πολιάδος is made to
acceptance.
See Michaelis's discussion of the passages, Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1877, 11.
His negative argument by which in Paus. 1. 27. 3
refer to tie cella of the Polias has not met with
JorM
If Paus.
10
John Williams White.
the instances of the occurrence of the phrase it is generally agreed
that the reference is to the temple of Athena.¹ The argument from
the context, in fact, led to this interpretation of these three passages.
There are two cases in which veús means cella. In the first of
these² the inscription names the whole building, the Hecatompedon,
and then its parts, ὁ νεώς, τὸ προνήιον, and τὰ οἰκήματα τὰ ἐν τῷ ἑκα-
TоμTéd. Here the signification of veús is made clear by its colloca-
tion with πpovýtov. The second case is the well-known use of the
word in the treasury-documents,³ where it always has an epithet,
ὁ νεώς ὁ ἑκατόμπεδος.
The facts for the use of icpóv are altogether similar. In some
instances it signifies either sacred precinct or temple,* generally the
latter; in two it refers to the Parthenon.5 In none of these has it
a more limited meaning than temple.
6
In a single case it means cella." But here, as in the two cases of
veós mentioned above, its meaning is made clear by the context,
since it is interpreted by the preceding ἄδυτον.
Here, then, we have abundant instances, both literary and
epigraphical, of the uses of veús and iepóv, extending from the
earliest to the latest times, and among them all only three cases in
which they certainly signify cella. In each of these three cases,
moreover, the context or an added epithet makes clear that this is the
signification. In the passages from the scholiasts and lexicographers,
on the contrary, that are quoted above, no limitation whatever of
the meaning of vews and iepóv is indicated. And yet the especial
purpose of these interpreters was to give a definition; nor were they
1 Strabo IX. p. 396; CIA. II. 332, 44; Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1883, vII. p. 59,
25; Himer. Ecl. v. 30; Clem. Alex. Protr. III. 45, p. 13 Sylb.; schol. Arist. Eq.
1169; Eust. I. XXII. 451 and Od. I. 356.
2 CIA. IV. p. 137 ff.
3 CIA. 1. 146, 157, 158, 159; II. 652 A, 15.
4 Hdt. v. 90; VIII. 41, 51 (bis), 53, 54, 55 (bis); Thuc. 1. 126; Phot. s.v. rapiai
(quoting Aristot., frg. 402 Rose, Bekk. Anec. p. 306, 7, and note Aristot. Resp. Ath.
c. 47, 1); Dion. Hal. Ant. XIV. 2; Hesych. s.v. Aidoûs ßwuós; schol. Aesch. II. 147.
5 Ps. Dicaearchus frg. 1, 1; schol. Pat. Dem. XXII. 13 (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1877,
I. p. 13)..
6 See Hesych. s.v. oikovpòv õpɩv, and p. 9, note 2, above.
7:Hdt..V.
72:
·
The Opisthodomus.
II
ignorant of the fact, had veús and iepóv seemed to them to be liable
to misinterpretation, that the unmistakable advтov, an Homeric word,
and σŋkós were ready to their hand.¹
If, nevertheless, we seek to attach to vews and iepóv in these
passages the restricted sense of cella, we encounter an unexpected
difficulty. Schol. V Arist. Plut. 1193 says that the Opisthodomus
lay behind the veús of Athena Polias. Those, therefore, who hold the
current view in regard to the situation of the Opisthodomus must
either establish the worship of Athena Polias in the Parthenon or
Hecatompedon, or reject the evidence. If the evidence is trust-
worthy and if the term Polias designates, as is commonly believed,
Athena of the Erechtheum or of the temple that preceded it on the
same site, then we are forced, on the supposition that veús here has
the restricted sense, to the conclusion that the Opisthodomus lay in
the Erechtheum. But this is impossible. Boeckh saw these diffi-
culties, and felt himself forced to declare that the scholiast had
blundered, although he himself accepted and in part sought to
explain the remaining testimony of the scholiasts and lexicographers.
2
That in the phrase οἶκος or οἴκημα ὄπισθεν τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεώ the
words oikos and oйknμa may signify house will at once be granted.
This is the first and common meaning of oikos and is perfectly estab-
lished for olêŋµa, and if demanded by other considerations, namely,
the use of oɩolev and veús just discussed, it must be allowed. This
use of oikos to denote a separate structure that was a treasury receives
striking confirmation from the names officially recorded of four of
the treasuries and magazines at Delos, ᾿Ανδρίων οἶκος, Ναξίων οἶκος,
Δηλίων οἶκος, and Πώρινος οἶκος. In charge of the anathemata and
materials stored in these were the ieporoloí, whose functions corre-
sponded closely to those of the rauía Ts Ocoû at Athens.
3
The same word is used by Hesychius in defining Oŋoavpós, namely:
εἰς ἀγαλμάτων καὶ χρημάτων [ἢ] ἱερῶν ἀπόθεσιν οἶκος.
If the preceding discussion of the terms ὄπισθεν, νεώς, and οἶκος is
sound, we must either agree that the Opisthodomus was neither in
¹ Hesych., Suidas, E. M., svv.; Bekk. Anec. I. p. 345, 25.
2 Staatshaushaltung³, 1886, 1. p. 517 f.
3 Bull. Corr. Hell. 1882, vi. pp. 48, 87, 88, 91, 100, 135; 1884, VIII. p. 322;
1890, XIV. p. 509, note 3; 1891, xv. p. 141.
12
John Williams White.
the Parthenon nor in the Hecatompedon, but was a separate build-
ing, or else reject the testimony of the scholiasts and lexicographers
as to its situation. Michaelis does reject their testimony, declaring
their explanation of the name for the most part worthless.¹ He
makes an exception in favour of Harpocration, but the reasons for
this are not apparent. In Harpocration's definition, ô oikos å ömɩodev
τοῦ νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς οὕτω καλεῖται, one might be tempted to construe
å őtɩσDev oikos toû vew, and render the back chamber of the temple; but
this construction is excluded by the phraseology of the Epitome,
ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ οὕτως ὁ ὄπισθεν τοῦ νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς οἶκος, where the genitive
TOû ve cannot be partitive. Michaelis's rejection of the evidence
seems to justify the conclusion that he did not believe it possible to
interpret σev and veús in the manner demanded by the current
view.
The testimony of these later writers receives unexpected con-
firmation from an early and important inscription :
τ]ὁ δὲ ἱερῶ ἀργυρί[ο τὸ μὲν ἐκ
Tên [ γενόμ]εν[ον ταμιεύ
ε]σθαι [ἐν περιβ]όλο[ι τοι ὄπισ-
0]ev tô tês 'A0evaía[s åpɣaío v-
ε]ὸ ἐμ πόλει·
CIA. IV. I C, 25–29 (p. 3 ff.).
This inscription, to which we shall return, says at least so much,
if we accept the restorations,2 that in the first half of the fifth
century B.C. treasure of the Eleusinian goddesses was kept in an
enclosure behind the old temple of Athena on the Acropolis. This
statement is strikingly similar to that of the scholiasts and lexicog-
raphers quoted above, who say that the treasury was behind the
temple of Athena, one of them that it was behind the temple of
Athena Polias.
In 454 B.C. the chest of the Delian Confederation was transferred
to Athens, and from this date the funded treasure of the state, which
consisted of the surplus of its yearly income and was kept on the
1 Der Parthenon, 1871, p. 293.
2 Dittenberger, SIG. 384, and Dörpfeld, Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 39.
See p. 45, note 2.
The Opisthodomus.
13
Acropolis, was large. This was public money, δημόσια, in contrast
with sacred treasure, ἱερά. The two funds were kept separate, but
they were nevertheless both housed in the same place, in the keeping
of the ταμίαι τῆς θεοῦ.
Now the theory that the public and sacred treasure of Athens was
stored in the opisthodomus of the Parthenon fails to provide a place
for it before the completion of that temple in 438 B.C. This fact is
so formidable that once the advocates of the theory even resorted to
the supposition that the opisthodomus of the Parthenon must have
been completed and put to use as early as 454 B.C. when the Delian
fund was brought to Athens, but this view is now abandoned.
A place, therefore, must be provided for the storing of these funds
in the time before the Parthenon was built. This is conceded even
by those who believe that the Opisthodomus was in the Parthenon.2
We have, further, excellent testimony to the existence of a treasury
at Athens, which is mentioned in connexion with the Stoa Poecile
and temple of Castor and Pollux in such a manner as to make it
highly probable that it was a separate structure. The connexion in
which it is mentioned makes it certain that it was at Athens.
Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ περὶ τῆς ἱερείας· περὶ Πολυγνώτου τοῦ ζωγράφου,
Θασίου μὲν τὸ γένος, υἱοῦ δὲ καὶ μαθητοῦ ᾿Αγλαοφῶντος, τυχόντος δὲ τῆς
᾿Αθηναίων πολιτείας ἤτοι ἐπεὶ τὴν Ποικίλην στοὰν ἔγραψε προῖκα, ἤ, ὡς
ἕτεροι, τὰς ἐν τῷ Θησαυρῷ καὶ τῷ ᾿Ανακείῳ γραφάς, ἱστορήκασιν ἄλλοι τε
καὶ ᾿Αρτέμων ἐν τῷ περὶ ζωγράφων καὶ Ἰόβας ἐν τοῖς περὶ γραφικῆς.
Harpocration s.z. Πολύγνωτος.
In Photius and Suidas (s.v. Πολύγνωτος) and in Eudocia (340, ed.
Flach, 1880), this reads as follows :
οὗτος ζωγράφος μὲν ἦν τὴν τέχνην, Θάσιος δὲ τὸ γένος, υἱὸς δὲ καὶ
μαθητὴς ᾿Αγλαοφῶντος, τυχὼν δὲ τῆς ᾿Αθηναίων πολιτείας, ἢ ἐπεὶ τὴν
Ποικίλην στοὰν ἀνέγραψε προῖκα, ἤ, ὡς ἔνιοι, τὰς ἐν τῷ Θησαυρῷ καὶ τὰς
ἐν ᾿Ανακείῳ γραφάς.
1 There was a fund before this time, but it was relatively small. See Thumser,
Hermann's Griech. Staatsalt., 1892, 1. 2, pp. 629 and 662.
2 For example, by Frazer, who says (Jour. Hellen. Stud. 1892-93, XIII. p. 162)
that in this time the Athenians must certainly have had some strong place in
which to store the public and sacred treasure.
14
John Williams White.
The only authenticated reading is Θησαυρῷ. Editors without
due warrant have changed this by conjecture to Θησείῳ or Θησέως
iep.¹ In this they have disregarded the testimony of Pausanias,
who ascribes the paintings in the Theseum to Micon.2
The sup-
position, expressed above, that this @noavpós at Athens which was
adorned with paintings by Polygnotus was a separate building, is
strengthened by the well-known fact that the treasure-houses at
Olympia and Delphi were called Onσavpoí and were separate struc-
tures. Here then we have additional reference to a place for the
storing of money at Athens which was probably an independent
structure. This treasury mentioned by Harpocration cannot have
been an insignificant or unimportant building.
3
If the theory that the Opisthodomus on the Acropolis which was
used as a treasury was a separate building is contradicted by any
inscriptional or literary evidence, it must be abandoned. Is it thus
contradicted? This Opisthodomus is mentioned four times in Greek
literature. Three of the passages are quoted above. The fourth
is the following:
4
ΔΗΜ. ἀλλὰ καὶ πλουτεῖς τὸν ὀπισθόδομον διορύξας. ΤIM. οὐ διώρυκται
οὐδὲ οὗτος, ὥστε ἀπίθανά σου καὶ ταῦτα. Lucian, Timon 53.
There is no intimation in any one of these four passages that the
Opisthodomus mentioned was the western chamber or chambers of
the cella either of the Parthenon or of the Hecatompedon. On the
contrary, so far as they contain any implication at all, it is easier to
suppose that the burning recorded by Demosthenes and the spolia-
tion imagined by Lucian relate to a building that stood apart and
was at least of a semi-secular character than to a part of a great
temple. It is fairly incredible that the Parthenon should have been
set on fire in the early years of the fourth century B.C., and no dis-
tinct mention of so notable an event have come down to us; and one
1 See Overbeck, Antike Schriftquellen, 1868, no. 1042; Michaelis, Der Par-
thenon, 1871, p. 27, note 84; Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung³, 1886, 1. p. 518, note c.
2 I. 17. 2-4. See Overbeck, Schriftquellen, no. 1086.
³ Paus. VI. 19; X. II. 1, 2, and 5. Cf. the definition of Oncavpós by Hesych.,
quoted p. 11 above.
4 [Dem.] XIII. 14 (p. 3); Arist. Plut. 1191–1193 (p. 4); Dem. XXIV. 136 (p. 4).
The Opisthodomus.
15
may well wonder how Lucian imagined Timon to have set to work
to dig through its massive walls. That would have been impossible,
and yet in his answer Timon, although he denies the charge, recog-
nizes the possibility of doing the thing of which he is accused.
There are two other references to an opisthodomus on the
Acropolis:
τὸν γὰρ ὀπισθόδομον τοῦ Παρθενῶνος ἀπέδειξαν αὐτῷ (the Athenians
to Demetrius) kaтáλvσiv, kåkeî díairav eixe. Plut. Demet. 23.
κατάλυσιν, κἀκεῖ δίαιταν
ἔχοντι δὲ οὕτω μοι γίγνεται ὄψις ὀνειράτων τοιάδε· ἐδόκουν εἶναι μὲν
᾿Αθήνησιν ἄρτι κατηρκώς, οἰκεῖν δὲ ἐξόπισθε τῆς ἀκροπόλεως ἐν οἰκίᾳ
Θεοδότου τοῦ ἰατροῦ, εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτὴν πρώτην πρὸς ἥλιον ἀνίσχοντα· τοῦ δὲ
νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ὁρᾶσθαι τὸν ὀπισθόδομον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς, καὶ εἶναι πολὺ κατω-
Tépw tŷs åkpotóλews Tǹv oikíav. Aristides, I. p. 548, 14, Dindorf.
The disgraceful housing of Demetrius and his mistresses in the
Parthenon is a well-known event. Plutarch's record of it contains an
implication of importance to the present discussion. When, namely,
the Opisthodomus is referred to by Demosthenes, Aristophanes, and
Lucian, no specification of its situation is necessary. It is sufficient
to say ỏ ỏiσlódoμos. But Plutarch in designating the place in which
Demetrius was lodged felt it necessary to name it тòv ỏжɩolódoμov
τοῦ Παρθενῶνος. Aristides, likewise, who as the context shows
undoubtedly refers to the Parthenon,¹ says roû veù tŷs ’A0ývâs tòv
ὀπισθόδομον, not simply τὸν ὀπισθόδομον. . The inference is that
these two opisthodomi were not the same, and therefore that the
Opisthodomus was not the western chamber of the cella of the
Parthenon.2
¹ ¿¿ÓπɩσDE TĤS Åȧкрожóλews means south of the Acropolis. Cf. Hdt. VIII. 53,
ἔμπροσθε πρὸ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως. — I am indebted for the reference to Aristides to
Professor Edward Capps of the University of Chicago. Search might reveal other
references to an opisthodomus on the Acropolis in other late writers. There is
no such reference, other than those cited in this paper, in Homer, the Dramatists,
Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, the Orators, Aristotle, Diodorus
Siculus, Lucian, or Pausanias.
2 Any objection to this conclusion based on the fact that Plutarch and Aristides
were not, like Demosthenes and Aristophanes, Athenians, and that they wrote
in a later age and needed, therefore, to be explicit in designating the opisthodomus
that they mention, would hold equally against Lucian. Lucian had greater need
16
John Williams White.
The theory that the Opisthodomus on the Acropolis which was
used as a treasury was a separate building is not contradicted by any
references to it in the literature. The references to it in inscriptions
are the following:
οὗτοι δὲ ταμιευόντων ἐμπόλει ἐν τῷ ὀπισθ[οδό]μῳ τὰ τῶν θεῶν χρήματα,
ὅσα δυνατὸν καὶ ὄσιον, καὶ συνανοιγόντων καὶ συγκλῃόντων τὰς θύρας τοῦ
ὀπισθοδόμου καὶ συσσημαινόσθων τοῖς τῶν τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας ταμίαις. CIA.
1. 32 Α, 15-18.
[ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἐκ τῶ]ν διακοσίων τα[λάντω]ν, ἃ ἐς ἀπόδοσιν ἐ[ψήφισται
ὁ δῆμος τοῖς] ἄλλοις θεοῖς, ἀ[ποδοθ]ῇ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα, τα[μιευέσθω τὰ
μὲν τῆς ᾿Αθη]ναίας χρήματα [ἐν τῷ] ἐπὶ δεξιὰ τοῦ ὀπισ[θοδόμου, τὰ δὲ
τῶν ἄλλων θ]εῶν ἐν τῷ ἐπ᾿ ἀρ[ιστερ]ά. CIA. I. 32 Β, 20-24.
τάδε παρέδοσαν οἱ τα[μίαι Φωκιάδης ἐξ Οἴ]ου καὶ ξυνάρχοντες, ἐπὶ
Σ[τρα]τοκλέους ἄρχοντος κ[αὶ] ἐπὶ τῆς βουλῆς ᾗ Πλ[ειστίας πρῶτος
ἐγραμ]μάτευε, στρατηγοῖς περ[ὶ Πε]λοπόννησον Δημοσθένει ᾿Αλκισθένους
᾿Αφιδ[ναίῳ ἐπὶ τῆς . . . ηίδος] πρυτανείας τετάρτης [πρυτα]νευούσης, τρίτῃ
ἠμ[έ]ρᾳ τῆς πρυτανείας ἐ[σεληλυθύας, ἐκ τοῦ ὀπισθ]οδόμου· 4 Α Α
CIA. 1. 273, ab, 16–20.
καταθεῖναι ἐν [πόλει... θ]εν τοῦ ὀπισθοδόμου ἐπ[ὶ τῆς Ἱππωθ]ωντίδος
πρυτανεία[s]. CIA. I. 1o9.1
ταμίαι[ς τοῖς τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν τοῖς] ἐπὶ Εὐκ[τήμονος ἄρχοντος, οἷς]
Δωρόθεο[ς . . . ἐγραμμάτευε], κατὰ ψή[φισμα τοῦ δήμου παρέδομεν]
ὑποθέμ[ενοι τὰ χρήματα τὰ ἐν τῷ] ὀπισθοδ[όμῳ ...]. CIA. IV. 225 C
(p. 168), A, col. II. 31-36.
[ὀπισ]θοδόμου. CIA. 1. 191, 3.
to be explicit than Plutarch. If Lucian, in the passage just quoted from his
Timon, where he is undoubtedly referring to the Athenian treasury, had said tò
ὀπισθόδομον τοῦ Παρθενῶνος, as does Plutarch, the determination of the question
now at issue would probably not be regarded doubtful. The fact that he does
not do this, but uses simply the expression τὸν ὀπισθόδομον, is in itself a strong
argument that he is referring to some other opisthodomus than that named by
Plutarch.
1 << Derartige genauere Lokalbestimmungen sind uns ja in grosser Zahl erhalten,
aber ich kenne kein Beispiel, in dem lediglich der Theil eines Tempels zum Aus-
gangspunkt einer solchen Orientirung gemacht worden wäre. Auch hier empfängt
man (wie CIA. I. 32 bei ἐμπόλει ἐν τῷ ὀπισθοδόμῳ) unmittelbar den Eindruck, dass
unter 'Opisthodomos' ein selbständiger Bau zu verstehen sei." Milchhöfer,
Philol. 1894, LIII. p. 358.
The Opisthodomus.
17
Sitz. Ber. d. Berl. Akad. 1887, p. 1201,
ἐκ τοῦ ὀπισθοδό[μου].
no. 45, II.
τάδε ἐν τῷ ὀπισθοδόμῳ ἐκ τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῆς Βραυρων[όθε]ν· ἱππικὸς
κεκρύφαλος, ἐχήνια, Ξενότιμος Καρκίνου ἀνέθηκε. CIA. II. 652 B, 23, 24.
Repeated in CIA. 11. 660, 61, 62.
[ὀπισθοδό]μου. CIA. II. 685, 2.
[ὀπισθ]οδόμου. CIA. II. 72ο A, col. II. 6.
ὀπισθόδομος. Id. B,
col. I. 32.
[τ]ῶν θυρῶν τοῦ ὀπ[ισθοδόμου]. CIA. ii. 72I B, col. II. 19.
[τάδε προσπαρέδοσαν] ταμίαι οἱ ἐπ[ὶ Λυκίσκου ἄρχοντο]ς ταμ[ίαις
τ]οῖς ἐπὶ Πυθοδότ[ου χαλκοθήκης ἐν τῷ ὀπ]ισθο(δ)ό(μ)ω[ι]· σκ[εύη
Kр]εμаσтά. CIA. 11. 721 B, col. II. 21-23.
The striking fact here, as before, is that the great treasure-house
of Athens is referred to simply as ô ỏiσłódoμos. Whatever other
information about it we may be able to gather from these important
records, there certainly is no implication in any one of them that the
Opisthodomus mentioned was the western chamber or chambers of
the cella either of the Parthenon or of the Hecatompedon.
The case, therefore, now stands as follows: The assumption that
the Opisthodomus was not a separate building involves the rejection
of the testimony quoted above of the scholiasts and lexicographers,
who were drawing on good sources and whose special purpose was a
definition. The authors and inscriptions, on the contrary, say nothing
about the situation of the Opisthodomus because they unconsciously
assume that this is known. On the other hand, the assumption that
the Opisthodomus was a separate building, a fact clearly declared
by the scholiasts and lexicographers, finds no contradiction in pas-
sages in the authors or in inscriptions that refer to the Opisthodomus,
provides a place for the public and sacred treasure before the build-
ing of the Parthenon, and is further supported by independent
considerations of weight. In other words this theory reconciles the
evidence.
The direct discussion of the main thesis of this paper, that the
Opisthodomus was a separate building, is now finished. The question
of its situation still remains. If it was not the rear chamber or
chambers of an existing temple, either the Parthenon or the Heca-
to
18
John Williams White.
tompedon, but a separate building, where on the Acropolis was it
situated? This is in itself an interesting question, but there is a
stronger reason for its consideration. The proposition that the
Opisthodomus was a separate building will be corroborated, if it can
be shown with reasonable probability where it stood, and if that
conclusion is seen to conflict in no way with the ancient testimony
that has come down to us in regard to it.
▼
In the consideration of this question, as before, and for the same
reason, we expect no help from the authors and inscriptions; the
scholiasts and lexicographers, however, do give us information.
They say that the Opisthodomus lay behind the temple of Athena, and
specifically behind the temple of Athena Polias. If, further, the gen-
erally accepted¹ restoration of apxaíov in CIA. IV. 1. 28 be allowed,
we have evidence that money was kept, although the Opisthodomus
is not here named, behind the old temple of Athena, ömɩσ0]ev тoÛ TŶS
᾿Αθηναία[ς ἀρχαίου νε]ὼ ἐμ πόλει, at least as early as 46ο Β.C.2
EV
0
What was the temple of Athena Polias? Until very recently there
was but one answer to this question. The term Ioλiás, when used
Πολιάς,
of the protecting goddess of Athens, was the epithet of Athena in
her oldest temple on the Acropolis, and this oldest temple, å åpɣaîos
veos, was the Erechtheum or the temple that preceded it on the same
site. The eastern chamber of the cella of this temple had been
from early times the shrine of the ancient wooden image of the
goddess. Here, and nowhere else on the Citadel, she was worshipped
under the title of ᾿Αθηνᾶ Πολιάς.
On the discovery of the Hecatompedon, Dörpfeld took issue with
the prevailing view. The oldest temple on the Acropolis, he said,
was the Hecatompedon, not the Erechtheum, which was only a
shrine of Erechtheus; the Hecatompedon was the original temple of
Athena Polias, but not the only one; the temple of Athena Polias
par excellence was the Parthenon.³
1 It is accepted among others by Kirchhoff, Dittenberger, Dörpfeld, Curtius,
Frazer, and Furtwängler.
ὄπισθ]εν
2 Quoted in part on p. 12. See also below, p. 45. Whether we read orɩ0]ev
or vóтoй]ev does not, as we shall see, affect the result.
3 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 190 ff.
The Opisthodomus.
19
4
Dörpfeld's attempt to wrest the names, old temple, temple of Athena
Polias, from the Erechtheum has not met with acceptance. It has
been considered and successively rejected by Petersen,¹ Curtius,2
Frazer, and Michaelis, all of whom maintain the traditional view
that the oldest temple of Athena on the Acropolis was the temple of
Athena Polias, and that this was the Erechtheum.5 The discovery
of the Hecatompedon modifies the traditional view only to the extent
of making the designation of the Erechtheum as "the old temple"
necessary at an earlier period than the building of the Parthenon, i.e.
it was "the old temple" as compared with the Hecatompedon, not
with the Parthenon.
3
6
The question at issue is large, and its discussion has been able
and searching. Strong arguments have been advanced in support of
the traditional view. Since they were made, a new element has been
introduced into the discussion by Furtwängler, who in the remarkable
book already mentioned' has published a new and startling
hypothesis in regard to the Hecatompedon. Neither his view nor
Dörpfeld's seems to me tenable, and I now purpose to state as briefly
as possible the reasons why I am not able to accept either of them.
It will be possible to consider the question here only in its most
important aspects.
It is an essential part of Dörpfeld's theory that, in the time prior
to the building of the present Erechtheum, the worship of Erechtheus
was maintained in a separate temple. He believes that the Heca-
tompedon was "the old temple" and belonged exclusively to Athena,
and that beside it, but separate from it, was the shrine of Erechtheus.8
1 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 62 ff.
2 Stadtgeschichte von Athen, 1891, pp. 124, 151.
3 Jour. Hellen. Stud. 1892-93, XIII. p. 153 ff.
4 Altattische Kunst, 1893, p. 16. See also Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1889, XIV.
P. 349 (note the title).
5 Lolling also denies that the Parthenon could have been called the temple of
Athena Polias ('A0ŋvâ, 1890, II. p. 661, note 4), but shares Dörpfeld's opinion
that after the Parthenon began to be built the Hecatompedon could be called
ἀρχαῖος or παλαιὸς νεώς (p. 643).
6 See in particular Frazer's able discussion, Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII.
pp. 167–185.
7 See p. 2, note 2.
8 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 199.
20
John Williams White.
This view cannot be reconciled with the evidence of Homer in the
following passage :
>
οἳ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ᾿Αθήνας εἶχον, ἐυκτίμενον πτολίεθρον,
δῆμον Ερεχθῆος μεγαλήτορος, ὅν ποτ ᾿Αθήνη
θρέψε, Διὸς θυγάτηρ, τέκε δὲ ζείδωρος ἄρουρα,
κὰδ δ᾽ ἐν ᾿Αθήνῃς εἶσεν, ἐῷ ἐν πίονι νηῷ·
ἔνθα δέ μιν ταύροισι καὶ ἀρνειοῖς ἱλάονται
κοῦροι ᾿Αθηναίων περιτελλομένων ἐνιαυτῶν·
τῶν αὖθ᾽ ἡγεμόνευ᾽ υἱὸς Πετεῶο Μενεσθεύς. Il. II. 546–552.
The passage establishes the following facts. According to the
poet's conception, at a time antecedent to the Trojan War, Athena
possessed a rich temple at Athens, and in this temple, her own
temple, she established Erechtheus. Here, in the poet's time, the
Athenian youth offered Erechtheus sacrifice. In the passage it is
important to note that πoré refers to a time prior to the time of the
main verb exov; that eîσev denotes permanent establishment; that
vno indisputably means temple; that this temple was Athena's; and
that μív refers to Erechtheus.¹ All scholars are agreed that the
temple referred to was the oldest temple of Athena on the Acropolis.
The oldest temple on the Acropolis was, therefore, a temple of the
joint worship of Athena and Erechtheus. The tradition of this joint
worship was maintained to the latest times.2
A celebrated passage in Strabo (1x. 16, p. 396) is, as I think, deci-
sive against the view that the Hecatompedon was "the old temple.
Dörpfeld now maintains that Strabo's statement in this passage is
13.
4
1 Dörpfeld says (ibid. p. 27, note): "Unter ulv kann man auch den Erechtheus
verstehen; doch bezieht man es gewöhnlich wegen des unmittelbar vorher-
gehenden é❖ év mlov vn❖ auf Athena." What editor of Homer refers μlv to
Athena? The tradition that it refers to Erechtheus is an ancient tradition.
And for the best of reasons. Bulls were not offered to Athena, but heifers.
Cf. Il. VI. 93, 274, 308, XI. 729, Od. III. 382 ff., 418 ff., IV. 764. For a recent
expression of opinion on this question, see Rohde, Psyche, 1894, I. p. 127, note 1.
2 An interesting inscription in this connexion is CIG. 6280, 30, 31 (= Kaibel,
Ep. Gr. 1046, 89, 90): καὶ γὰρ ᾿Αθηναίη (ποτ') Εριχθόνιον βασιλῆα | νηῷ ἐγκατεθῆκε
συνέστιον ἔμμεναι ἱρῶν.
3 Quoted on p. 29.
4 For his earlier views, see Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. pp. 48, 199.
The Opisthodomus.
21
4
entirely correct, but gives it a startling interpretation. By ò ȧpxaîos
vews Strabo means the Hecatompedon; in this, not in the Erech-
theum, was the lamp made by Callimachus¹ as well as the old
ayaλua of the goddess. It was the original intention of the builders.
ἄγαλμα
of the present Erechtheum that the old statue should be housed in
its eastern chamber, but it never was placed there but remained in
the Hecatompedon.2 Pausanias in his tour of the Acropolis, Dörp-
feld now believes, entered the Hecatompedon from the Erechtheum
at the point indicated in his book by the words, iepà µèv tîs ’A0ŋvâs
KTλ.;¹ he makes no mention at all of the eastern chamber of the
Erechtheum, and indeed he had no occasion, for it contained nothing
worthy of description. Only by this unparalleled break with tradi-
tion in regard to the place of the lamp and ancient statue can
Dörpfeld maintain his view that the Hecatompedon was "the old
temple." Scholars who are inclined to accept it must go further,
and suppose that Strabo, who is evidently giving a categorical
account of the temples of Athena on the Acropolis, fails altogether
to mention the Erechtheum, which was certainly in existence in his
day, for it still remains.
The difficulties that Dörpfeld encounters in these two passages,
not to discuss at this time the remaining literary evidence, are very
great. They disappear, if we assume that an Erechtheum, built on
the site of the present Erechtheum, was "the old temple." It will,
perhaps, make the following argument more easily apprehensible, if
I here state what I conceive the facts to have been. Homer's plain
language demands a temple of joint worship of Athena and Erech-
theus. Such was the Erechtheum. This was the oldest temple on
the Acropolis. In time, when the worship of the goddess had grown
8
1
1 On Callimachus, see Furtwängler, Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 437.
2 In CIA. I. 322, I, ἐπιστάται τοῦ νεὼ τοῦ ἐν πόλει, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἄγαλμα,
Dörpfeld understands ἔσται. This is against the usage of Attic speech, and
would be hard to parallel. The present or is to be supplied, according to a
well-known idiom, and the words prove clearly enough that at the date of the
inscription (archonship of Diocles, 409-8 B.C.) the old image was already in the
new Erechtheum, which was completed in the summer of 408 B.C.
* For his earlier view, see Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 52 ff., 210 f.
4 Paus. I. 26. 6.
22
John Williams White.
and her treasure had increased, the Athenians built her a great,
new temple.¹ We are informed in a document whose trustworthiness
is not disputed that its official title was τὸ Ἑκατόμπεδον.2 In con-
trast with this newer temple, the Erechtheum was now "the old
temple," and it kept this designation to the latest times.3 The Heca-
tompedon, after its destruction by the Persians, was not rebuilt as a
temple.¹ Its intended successor was the earlier Parthenon; its
actual successor the Parthenon of Pericles. The Athenians, imme-
4
1 This then became the temple of Athena, although it was not the sole seat of
her worship on the Acropolis, and from this time to the Persian wars any mention
simply of the temple of Athena refers to it, unless the context makes clear that
the Erechtheum is meant. This doubtless is the temple meant by Herodotus in
v. 72, 90, in describing events which occurred at the end of the sixth century.
When, on the other hand, at this time the Erechtheum is meant, it is called
ó ỏ ȧpxaîos vews. Cf. Schol. Arist. Lys. 273. Such also are the references to the
temple in the time just before and during the destruction of Athens by Xerxes.
Cf. Plut. Cim. 5; Herod. VIII. 51, 53, 54. In passages, on the other hand, such
as those that refer to the sacred snake, which by express testimony dwelt év Tậ
iepų TOû 'Eрexéws, simply "the temple" is a sufficient designation for the
ἱερῷ τοῦ
Erechtheum, as in Herod. VIII. 41. See p. 9, note 2.
2 See p. 2, note 8 end.
3 For the passages in which the phrase ὁ ἀρχαῖος (παλαιὸς) νεώς occurs, see
p. 8, note 4. This exact designation is, of course, not necessary where the con-
text makes clear that the Erechtheum is meant. See note I above, and cf. the
building inscriptions cited on p. 8, note 5.
4 It may here be noted that Dörpfeld repeatedly asserts that Herod. v. 77
proves that the Hecatompedon was so rebuilt after the Persian wars (Mitth. d.
Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. pp. 31, 36, 200). One is at a loss to understand what he
means when he says (ibid. p. 27) "an den Parthenon zu denken, wie es bisher
geschah, ist nicht möglich." Who has believed that Herodotus refers to the
Parthenon? Since Dörpfeld holds that the western chambers of the Hecatom-
pedon were a treasury, and not the seat of a cult, in asserting that Herodotus
refers to them in v. 77 in the words τοῦ μεγάρου τοῦ πρὸς ἑσπέρην τετραμμένου, he
ignores the author's use of the word μéyapov. By μéyapov Herodotus refers to
μέγαρον
the cella of a temple where is established the worship of a god. So of the temple
at Delphi, I. 47, 65, VII. 140; of the temple of Hephaestus in Egypt, II. 141;
of Zeus Ammon, II. 143; of Demeter in Paros, VI. 134; and finally of Athena on
the Acropolis, VIII. 53. It is extremely improbable, therefore, that in v. 77 he
applies the word to rooms used for semi-secular purposes. The Erechtheum,
on the contrary, which at this time had been again rebuilt (see the next note),
exactly meets the demands, for here, in the western half, was established the
worship of Erechtheus.
The Opisthodomus.
23
diately after their return on the final withdrawal of the Persians,
rebuilt the ancient temple of the joint worship of Athena and Erech-
theus,' and this subserved alone the purpose of the worship of the
goddess until the completion of the present Parthenon, for the
earlier Parthenon was never completed. Toward the end of the
fifth century the Erechtheum, which had been hastily reconstructed
after the Persian wars, was replaced by the present structure,² but
it kept the name by which it had been known of "the old temple."
The traditions connected with its site were among the holiest posses-
sions of the Attic race.
The most recent contribution to the discussion of the temples of
Athena on the Acropolis has been made, as has been said, by Furt-
wängler. He believes with Dörpfeld that the Hecatompedon was
the first great temple on the Acropolis, but maintains that this was
an Erechtheum, the original Erechtheum, where first was established
the joint worship of Athena and Erechtheus. When the present
Erechtheum was built, the Hecatompedon was entirely removed. Its
traditions and epithets were transferred bodily to the new temple on
the new site, which now, therefore, became "the old temple" of Athena.
Previously the Hecatompedon had been "the old temple." This view
avoids many of the difficulties which beset Dörpfeld's theory.
Cf. Herod. VIII. 55, quoted on p. 25. Writing sometime before 420 B.C.,
i.e. before the present Erechtheum was begun, the historian says, "There is on
the Acropolis a temple of Erechtheus,” and proceeds to speak of the olive and
salt-spring as then actually existing in the temple. The present ěστi proves that
an Erechtheum was in existence at the time of writing. Frazer, who fails to take
this passage into account, says (Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII. p. 169) that
"after its destruction in 480 B.C., the Erechtheum was not, so far as we know,
rebuilt till towards the close of the fifth century B.C.," but he meets a real diffi-
culty in explaining two inscriptions (CIA. IV. p. 3; 1. 93) which make mention of
"the old temple" in such a way as to lead one to believe that the temple was at
the time in existence. Further, there are two other passages in Herodotus (v. 77,
VIII. 41) which are equally strong proof that the Erechtheum was rebuilt after the
Persian wars, if one believes, as Frazer believes, that the Hecatompedon was not
then in existence. In both these passages the historian speaks of the temple as
existent, in the first at the time when he visited Athens, in the second at the time
of writing.
2 It was begun in 420 B.C. and finished in 408 B.C. See Michaelis, Die Zeit
des Neubaus des Poliastempels in Athen, Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1889, xiv. p. 349 ff.
24
John Williams White.
Furtwängler follows Dörpfeld in appealing to existing remains in
order to prove the great age of the Hecatompedon. Its peristyle, he
says, is not earlier than the time of Hippias, but the naos itself is
considerably more ancient; moreover, there lie below it the remains
of a yet earlier building. The philologist recognizes that such
matters as this, the determination of the age of an ancient temple
from its ruins, lie within the province of the expert archaeologist ;
but when expert archaeologists fail to agree among themselves, he
turns for decision to other evidence. Now, three archaeologists of
distinction, not at this time to name others, have declared that the
Hecatompedon dates from the time of Pisistratus.2 Furtwängler's
further claim, which had previously been made by Dörpfeld, that
no trace (with unimportant exceptions) exists of an older building
on the site of the present Erechtheum, is a purely negative argument.
This fact does not prove, of course, that such an older Erechtheum
never existed. Such traces may in part have entirely disappeared,
as he indeed acknowledges; they may in part be concealed by the
existing building. The lack of them signifies merely that the exist
ence of an older building cannot be proved by its remains. The
question whether there was such a building remains open.
We must appeal to the literature for a decision of the question
raised by Furtwängler, whether the Hecatompedon was the original
Erechtheum on the Acropolis, and thus "the old temple." Here
again we may be disappointed. The total number of references in
Greek authors to temples of Athena on the Acropolis to the end of
1
1 Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 416. Furtwängler here adduces no proof that
this building, attested by slight remains, was a temple. It has already been
pointed out (p. 20) that the much-cited passage from the Iliad certifies to a temple
of great antiquity, and this must be granted even if we suppose that the passage
itself is not older than the sixth century B.C. It is difficult to follow Furtwängler
when he says (l.c.) that the passage “has in view the stately Hecatompedon with
its double cella." The tense of iλáovrai shows indeed that the poet speaks of
sacrifices made to Erechtheus in his own day, but they are offered in the ancient
temple, and this he clearly conceives to have been in existence long before the
Trojan War, a venerable structure about which centered the earliest religious
traditions of the race.
G
2 Petersen, Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 62 ff.; Curtius, Stadtgeschichte
von Athen, 1891, p. 71 ff.; Michaelis, Altattische Kunst, 1893, p. 16.
The Opisthodomus.
25
the fifth century B.C. is small. Further, in the nature of the case,
the majority of these chance references will give us no information on
the question at issue. In view of these facts, if any single reference
is found to contain positive evidence, especially if this evidence is
confirmed by other probable considerations, it must be allowed
especial weight. Furtwängler's view, for example, will be discredited,
if at the time when he claims, as an essential fact, that the Heca-
tompedon was the sole temple of Erechtheus on the Acropolis, it
can be shown that a trustworthy Greek author testifies that there
was another temple there devoted to his worship.
The
We have such evidence, I think, in Herod. vIII. 51-55.
historian here describes the capture of the Acropolis, the sack of the
Hecatompedon, and the destruction of everything on the Citadel by
fire. The Hecatompedon, which was at this time the temple of
Athena on the Acropolis, he calls rò ipóv (chap. 51 bis, 53, 54), and
specifically mentions its cella, rò μéyapov,¹ as a place of refuge
(chap. 53). He then continues (chap. 55), łor ẻ Tôi akoTo Tan
Ερεχθέος τοῦ γηγενέος λεγομένου εἶναι νηός, ἐν τῷ ἐλαίη τε καὶ θάλασσα
ἔνι. With these words he plainly introduces a new temple to the
attention of his hearers. The 'Epex@éos vnós, here first named, is not
the same temple that he has just mentioned repeatedly.2 Herodotus,
therefore, writing sometime before 420 B.C., i.e. before the present
Erechtheum was begun, testifies to two temples on the Acropolis, a
temple of Athena and an Erechtheum.
3
1 For the use of μéyapov in Herodotus, see page 22, note 4.
2 It may be urged that rò ipóv in chap. 51-54 does not mean temple, but
sanctuary, i.e. TÉμevos. The ambiguity of the word is well known. But even if
we grant that ipóv has that meaning in these chapters, the force of the phrasing
at the beginning of chap. 55 remains the same, for the Hecatompedon has been
brought clearly before the mind of the hearer by the direct mention of its μéyapov
in chap. 53. Nor can vŋós in chap. 55 be given the meaning cella or chamber, and
the word be made to refer to a part of the Hecatompedon, for in that case
Herodotus would not have written ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλι ταύτῃ, but would have said
ἔστι ἐν τῷ ἱρῷ τούτῳ (i.e. τῷ Ἑκατομπέδῳ) Ερεχθέος . . . νηός, or something of the
év Tậ ipŵ
One could not speak of "a chamber on the Acropolis" without immediate
mention of the structure of which it was a part.
sort.
3 Kirchhoff, Entstehungszeit des herodotischen Geschichtswerkes², 1878, con-
cludes that Herodotus died in 428 B.C. The absence of later allusions in his
history shows that his death occurred at least before 420.
26
John Williams White.
This interpretation of the reference in 'Epex@éos vnós is made cer-
tain by a statement in the passage itself. This statement proves
that the temple called 'Epexéos vnós cannot be the Hecatompedon.
Herodotus says that the sacred tokens, the olive and the salt-spring,
were "in the temple." His words are èv τ (i.e. ẻv tậ vnų) ẻλaíŋ ktλ.¹
The tokens we know were on the low ground to the north of the
higher plateau on which stood the Hecatompedon. They were cer-
tainly not in that temple. The difficulty caused by the language of
the historian is so great that Furtwängler proposes to emend the
passage and read σŋkós for vnós, but he offers no critical reason for
the change, and none exists. It is made to meet an exigency in
argument and cannot be allowed. If allowed, it would bring a new
element of confusion into the discussion in establishing a σnkós of
Erechtheus distinct and apart from his vŋás.
2
3
The conclusion, adverse to Furtwängler's theory, to which we have
been brought is confirmed by other considerations which discredit
the assumption that the Hecatompedon was the original Erechtheum.
On this assumption the traditions connected with the early worship
of Athena and with the worship of Erechtheus, and the epithets of
the temple of their joint worship, must be transferred bodily at
the end of the fifth century B.C. to a new temple. Not only is it
inherently more probable that they had always belonged to the site
to which a later age undoubtedly attached them, but positive con-
siderations also make it extremely unlikely that they had previously
belonged to the Hecatompedon. For example, å åpɣaîos veus was an
8
official title of the Erechtheum in the fourth century. This same
term is applied to a temple on the Acropolis in reference to an event
4
1 On the place of the olive, see p. 39, note 6.
2 In speaking of the present Erechtheum (Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 433),
Furtwängler makes an important admission: "The choice of site was determined
by the consideration of keeping near the sacred ‘tokens'; in fact, the temple was
to be even more closely attached to these than its predecessor had been; the
cleft in the rock was included within the building." This is precisely what
the passage quoted from Herodotus proves for the Erechtheum that preceded the
present Erechtheum.
3 Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 416, note 9.
4 CIA. II. 74 a, 14; 163, 9; 464, 6; 672, 43; 733 A, col. II. 6. The temple
was not, then, called so simply "in common parlance" (Furtwängler, ibid. p. 433).
The Opisthodomus.
27
that occurred before 500 B.C.' The title in the latter instance is
meaningless on the assumption that the Hecatompedon was the only
temple here at this time. Again, two inscriptions which date from
the first half of the fifth century B.C. mention "the old temple "
officially. This was the Hecatompedon, it is asserted, and it was
called "old" in contrast to the earlier Parthenon. But this Parthenon
never got beyond its foundations, and further, we have unimpeach-
able evidence that the official name of the Hecatompedon was rò
Ἑκατόμπεδον. These three references to an ἀρχαῖος νεώς are, on the
other hand, perfectly applicable to an older Erechtheum on the
site of the present Erechtheum, designated as "the old temple" in
contrast with the Hecatompedon.
The assumption further that the Hecatompedon was the original
Erechtheum involves a complete change of site for that building at
the end of the fifth century. The sole reason alleged for this is that
the Athenians desired to bring the temple into closer connexion with
the 'tokens.' But this alleged fact would lead us rather to conclude
that the tokens mark the original site of the temple. Moreover,
it is a commonplace that Greek religious feeling demanded that a
temple when rebuilt should occupy its old site. The exceptions,
especially when at the same time the old temple was removed (the
fact claimed in this instance), are few indeed, and there are always
adequate reasons. Such reasons do not exist in this case. The
alleged change of site, on the contrary, necessitated a vital change
in the principle of construction, for the present Erechtheum stands.
on different levels; gave the temple a cramped situation hard upon
the north wall of the Acropolis; and reduced its size. And yet this is
the temple, it is claimed, that was built by the opponents of the policy
of Pericles to replace the stately Hecatompedon. Furtwängler further
argues that the Erechtheum in its interior arrangement repeats the
Hecatompedon; but if this statement is to be used as an argument
4
2
3
1 Schol. Arist. Lys. 273.
2 CIA. IV. I. C, 27 (p. 3 f.); 1. 93, 6.
It was in fact simply in order to attain this object that the position of the
temple had been changed at all." Furtwängler, Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 436.
See also p. 433.
4 Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, pp. 433 ff.
28
John Williams White.
to prove that the former was the successor of the latter, comparison
must be instituted between the two temples entire. The Hecatom-
pedon was a Doric temple,¹ built on one level; it was a peristyle,
with porticos and entrances at the east and west. The Erechtheum
is an Ionic temple, built on different levels; it is not a peristyle; it
has a portico on the east, but none on the west, and quite irregularly,
has porticos with entrances also on the north and south. The sole
point of resemblance is the division of the cella into three compart-
ments by cross-walls, and even this resemblance is disturbed by the
difference of level in the Erechtheum between the two western
chambers and the eastern chamber.2 The two temples are not simi-
lar, but strikingly dissimilar. The closer the comparison we make
of them, the more we are impressed with the structural peculiarities
of the Erechtheum. It is here important to note that to Dörpfeld
the groundplan of the Hecatompedon seems to be strikingly similar
to that of the Parthenon. This accords excellently with the view
that the Hecatompedon, an exclusive temple of Athena, was the fore-
runner, not of the Erechtheum, but of the Parthenon.
In view of these considerations the assumption that the Hecatom-
pedon was the original Erechtheum seems to me improbable, if not
impossible. It is more natural to suppose that from the earliest
times there had stood on the site of the present Erechtheum a
temple that had been built over the sacred tokens and had accom-
modated itself to the original level; and that finally the present
Erechtheum was built in imitation, not of the Hecatompedon, but of
its own predecessors. This view is not contradicted by existing
remains, is supported by positive evidence, does not force us to shift
traditions and epithets, involves no change of site for the Erechtheum,
and adequately explains its structural peculiarities.
3
1 This is the opinion of its discoverer. See Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1886, x1.
pp. 347 ff.
2 Furtwängler assumes also that the central chamber of the Erechtheum was
divided by an east and west wall into two compartments. This would be another
point of similarity, but he himself acknowledges that no traces of such a cross-
wall exist. Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 433, note 5.
3" Jedem wird sofort die grosse Aehnlichkeit zwischen diesem Grundriss und
demjenigen des Parthenon auffallen.” Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, XI. 1886, p. 340.
The Opisthodomus.
29
Another preliminary inquiry, important for the determination of
the situation of the Opisthodomus, remains to be briefly considered.
When ancient Greek writers, referring to a building on the Acropolis,
speak of "the temple of Athena Polias," which of the temples of
Athena do they mean? As has been pointed out,¹ Dörpfeld main-
tains that the chief temple of Athena Polias was the Parthenon.
This title, he says, was given also to the Hecatompedon, both before
and after the building of the Parthenon, but the temple of Athena
Polias was the Parthenon. He claims further that the official name
of the Parthenon in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. was either
2
ὁ νεώς Οι ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος.
If these claims are valid, we shall reasonably expect to find them
confirmed by the references to the temple of Athena Polias in Greek
authors and inscriptions. The following are all the passages, so far
as I know, in which the expression “temple of Athena Polias” occurs,
with the exception of the passage whose proper interpretation we
are now trying to reach.³
I. κύων εἰς τὸν τῆς Πολιάδος νεὼν εἰσελθοῦσα, καὶ δῦσα εἰς τὸ Παν-
δρόσιον, ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἀναβάσα τοῦ ῾Ερκείου Διός, τὸν ὑπὸ τῇ ἐλαίᾳ, κατέ-
Philochorus frg. 146 in Müller, Frag. Hist. Graec. I. p. 408
(Dion. Hal. de Din. 3).
κειτο.
2. τὸ δ᾽ ἄστυ αὐτὸ πέτρα ἐστὶν ἐν πεδίῳ περιοικουμένη κύκλῳ· ἐπὶ δὲ
τῇ πέτρᾳ τὸ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱερόν, ὅ τε ἀρχαῖος νεὼς τῆς Πολιάδος, ἐν ᾧ ὁ
ἄσβεστος λύχνος, καὶ ὁ Παρθενὼν ὃν ἐποίησεν Ικτῖνος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ τοῦ Φειδίου
ἔργον ἐλεφάντινον ἡ ᾿Αθηνᾶ. Strabo ix. 16, p. 396.
3. ἄγε δή, πάρεσμεν γὰρ ἔνθα χρῆν· ἐνταῦθά που ἐν τῷ προνάῳ τῆς
Πολιάδος δικάσωμεν. ἡ ἱέρεια διάθες τὰ βάθρα, ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐν τοσούτῳ προσ-
κυνήσωμεν τῇ θεῷ. Luc. Pisc. 21.
4. κεῖται δὲ ἐν τῷ ναῷ τῆς Πολιάδος Ἑρμῆς ξύλου, Κέκροπος εἶναι λεγό-
μενον ἀνάθημα. Paus. I. 27. I.
1 See p. 18.
2" Wenn wir also von dem Tempel schlechthin oder von dem Tempel der
Athena Polias lesen, so müssen wir annehmen, dass der Parthenon gemeint ist.
Dieser war mithin der Haupttempel der Athena Polias." Mitth. d. Inst. Athen,
1887, XII. p. 193. See also ibid. p. 196.
8 Schol. V Arist. Plut. 1193, quoted on p. 4.
30
John Williams White.
5. παρθένοι δύο τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Πολιάδος οἰκοῦσιν οὐ πόρρω, καλοῦσι δὲ
᾿Αθηναῖοι σφᾶς ἀρρηφόρους. Paus. I. 27. 3.
6. τί δαὶ Ἐριχθόνιος; οὐχὶ ἐν τῷ νεῷ τῆς Πολιάδος κεκήδευται; Clem.
Alex. Protr. III. p. 13 Sylb.
7. οἷος δ᾽ ὁ τῆς Πολιάδος νεὼς καὶ τὸ πλησίον τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος τέμενος·
συνήψαμεν γὰρ διὰ τῶν ἀνακτόρων τοὺς θεοὺς ἀλλήλοις μετὰ τὴν ἄμιλλαν.
Himerius, Ecl. v. 30.
8. δύο εἰσὶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως ᾿Αθηνᾶς ναοί, ὁ τῆς Πολιάδος καὶ ἡ
χρυσελεφαντίνη, ἣν ἀπὸ τῶν Μηδικῶν σκύλων κατεσκεύασαν Φειδίου πλά-
σαντος. Schol. Arist. Eq. 1169.
9. Βούτης ἀπ᾿ Ερεχθέως τὸ γένος ἔχει, καὶ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ καλεῖταί τι ᾿Αθή-
νησι γένος Ετεοβουτάδαι, οἱ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ Βούτου. οὗτοι προίστανται
τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς ἐν ἀκροπόλει ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος. Schol. Aesch. II. 147.
το. διὸ κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς ᾿Αθήνησιν Αἰδοῦς καὶ ᾿Αφελείας ἦν βωμὸς
περὶ τὸν τῆς Πολιάδος ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεών, καθὰ καὶ Παυσανίας ἱστορεῖ, ἃς οἱ
μὲν παιδαγωγούς, οἱ δὲ τροφοὺς τῆς θεᾶς γενέσθαι φασίν. Eustath. Il.
XXII. 451, p. 1279, 40.
II. οἱ φασιν, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν, καὶ οἰκουρὸς δράκων, φύλαξ τῆς Πολιάδος,
ἤγουν ἐν τῷ νεῷ τῆς Πολιάδος διαιτώμενος. Eustath. Od. I. 357, p. 1423, 8.
12. καὶ ἀναγράψα[ι αὐτὴν τὸν γρ]αμματέα τὸν κατὰ πρυτανείαν ἐν
στήλῃ χαλκ[ῇ καὶ στῆσαι ἐ]ν ἀκροπόλει παρὰ τὸν νεὼ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς
Πο[λιάδος]. CIA. II. 332, 1. 42 ff.
13. [στῆσαι δὲ] αὐτοῦ καὶ [εἰ]κόν[α] χαλκῆν ἐ[φ᾽ ἵππου τὸν δήμον
παρὰ τὸν νεὼ τ]ὸν ἀρχαῖον τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τ[ῆς Πολιάδος]. CIA. II. 464,
1. 4 ff.
14. [ἀναγράψαι δὲ τὸν γραμματέα τ]ὸν κατὰ πρυτανείαν εἰς (σ)τήλην
λιθ[ίνην τὸ ψήφισμα καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν παρθένων καὶ ἀναθε]ῖναι ἐν ἀκρο-
πόλει παρὰ τὸν ναὸν τῆς ᾿Αθη[νᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος, ἵνα τούτων συντελουμένων
ᾖ].υθητος ἡ [γεγ]ον[εῖα] ὑπ᾽ [αὐτῶ]ν περὶ ταῦτα σ[πουδὴ καὶ φιλοπονία].
Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1883, VIII. p. 59, 23 ff.
ע
"The temple of Athena Polias" named in the first of the passages
here quoted cannot be the Parthenon, because of the immediate
proximity of the Pandroseum. In the second the language of the
writer excludes that supposition. The same fact is true also in the
eighth, however much the form of statement may have suffered in
its transmission to us. In the fourth and fifth passages Pausanias
The Opisthodomus.
31
2
has already described the Parthenon and is now on the north side of
the Acropolis. The temple named in the sixth passage also cannot
be the Parthenon; Erichthonius was identical with Erechtheus,¹ and
the seat of the worship of Erechtheus was the Erechtheum. Simi-
larly in the seventh, Himerius is speaking of the place of the joint
worship of Athena and Posidon-Erechtheus. The priestly family
of the Eteobutads mentioned in the ninth cannot be dissevered from
the Erechtheum.3 So in the third the pronaos of the Erechtheum
is meant, since Aeschines tells us that the priestess of Athena
Polias was chosen from the family of the Eteobutads. It will be
claimed by nobody that the sacred snake spoken of in the eleventh
passage had its dwelling-place in the Parthenon; and until we get
proof to the contrary we have the right to conclude that Eustathius
does not mean in the tenth passage by "the temple of Polias" any
other temple than the one so named in the eleventh passage.5
4
If these conclusions are sound, no Greek author has called the
Parthenon "the temple of Athena Polias."
It is here instructive to note what the great temple is called during
the period of the writers quoted above. It had a perfectly estab-
lished name. This was Пap@evóv. It is thus called by Demos-
thenes, Heraclides (Dicaearchus), Strabo, Plutarch, Pausanias,
Aelian, Philostratus, Zosimus, Marinus, a Scholiast on Demosthenes,
Harpocration, Hesychius, the Etymologicum Magnum, and Suidas."
It is incredible that the Parthenon should, as it is claimed, have been
the temple of Athena Polias, and should be mentioned so often in
Greek authors, and yet that its so-called distinctive title should
nowhere occur.
Dörpfeld claims that ô veús was an official title of the Parthenon
in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. He fails to quote a single
1 See Rohde, Psyche, 1894, I. p. 128.
2 On Posidon-Erechtheus, see the passages in Jahn-Michaelis, Paus. descrip.
arc. Athen. 1880, p. 23 (c. 26, 27).
8 I.
Cf. Paus. 1. 26. 5; [Plut.] Vit. X. Or. 843 b.
4 Aesch. II. 147.
5 Dörpfeld also (Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 206, note) thinks that the
Parthenon is not meant in the tenth passage.
6 See the passages in Jahn-Michaelis, Fuus. descrip. arc. Athen. 1880, p. 13 ff.
#
32
John Williams White.
inscription in which the Parthenon is called å veós. Even in Greek
authors it is thus designated only twice,¹ and both these authors, so
ambiguous is the expression as they have used it, have here been
charged with looseness of style. Again, the only inscriptions in
which the phrase ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος occurs are the two
from which the twelfth and fourteenth passages given above are
quoted. In the second of these two inscriptions, it will be observed,
Hoλádos is due to restoration. And yet on the basis solely of these
Πολιάδος
two inscriptions, by combination with the inscription from which the
thirteenth passage is quoted, where also IIoλádos is due to restora-
tion, Dörpfeld establishes ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος as the other
official name of the Parthenon. He adds, without proof, that this
was probably its name also in current speech during the first century
of its existence.2 He seeks to establish this official title as follows.
The designation & apxaîos veús in official documents proves the exist-
ence of a new temple. This was the Parthenon, å veús. In another
official document (thirteen above) mention is made of an apxaîos
νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος. This name proves in like manner the
existence of a new temple of Athena Polias, and in fact, he says,
mention of a νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος (the phrase is not, it
will be observed, ὁ καινὸς νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος) occurs
twice in official documents (twelve and fourteen above). Since now
the ἀρχαῖος νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος is identical with the ἀρχαῖος
νεώς, it follows that the νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος is identical
with the temple concisely called & veús. The latter is the Parthenon.
The official title, therefore, ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος, belongs
to the Parthenon.
This conclusion is unsound because it rests on unestablished
premises. In the first place, the assumption is made that ô apxaîos
veós means the Hecatompedon. But other scholars believe (and
prove to their own satisfaction!) that "the old temple" is the Erech-
theum. In that case "the new temple" is the Hecatompedon. Again,
it does not follow that the antithesis to "the old temple of Athena
Polias" is "the new temple of Athena Polias." This assumption begs
1 Xen. Hellen. II. 3. 20; Aristot. hist. an. VI. 24, p. 577 B, 29.
2 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 197 f.
The Opisthodomus.
33
1
the question. The expression ὁ νεὼς ὁ ἀρχαῖος τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιά-
dos may have arisen in some other way than the one assumed. The
latter puts a relative emphasis on the word apxaîos for which the war-
rant is not forthcoming. Let us assume that the Erechtheum was called
sometimes ὁ νεὼς ὁ ἀρχαῖος, sometimes ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος.
The combination of the two titles would give, as Petersen long ago
pointed out, ὁ νεὼς ὁ ἀρχαῖος τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος, “the old
temple belonging to Athena Polias." This interpretation is, at least,
as good a working assumption as the other.2 Finally, it does not
follow that the temple named ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος is iden-
tical with the temple called simply & veús (if there was, indeed, such
a temple). This claim rests on an assumption which also begs the
question, namely that the phrases ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος and
ὁ νεώς are equivalent to ὁ νεὼς ὁ καινὸς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος and
ô vews ỏ kaιvós, which occur nowhere. If they did occur, everybody
would agree that there were at least two temples of Athena Polias
on the Acropolis, and the reader would be spared the present dis-
cussion. But even if the conclusion did follow, we could not infer
on that account that ὁ νεὼς τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς Πολιάδος was a name of
the Parthenon until it was established that ô veus was an official
designation of the Parthenon. No proof of that, as I have said
0
καινός,
above, has been offered.
The only safe conclusions that can be drawn about the expression
"the temple of Athena Polias" in the three inscriptions quoted above
are that in the first the application of the phrase is indeterminable;
that in the second it cannot mean the Parthenon, since the temple
is there called apxaîos; and that in the third whatever indications
we have point to the Erechtheum, since the girls there honoured were
those who prepared the wool for Athena's robe, and the peplus, as
we know, belonged to the old statue in the old temple. But the
inference is, of course, not certain that the stele in their honour was on
that account set up beside that temple, although the fact is probable.
3
1 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 65.
2 It is with reasonable certainty the true interpretation. Cf. Strabo IX. 16
(quoted on p. 29), where the contrasted titles of the temples are ỏ ȧpxaîos veŵs tÊS
Πολιάδος and ὁ Παρθενών.
3 See on the last point Furtwängler, Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 427.
34
John Williams White.
It seems reasonable to conclude that the phrase "the temple of
the Polias" does not mean, in any of the fourteen passages quoted
above, the Parthenon. The question is now narrowed to the two
remaining temples. It is here proper to call attention to the fact
that we are certain of the existence of only one of these, the Erech-
theum, at the time covered by the passages; we have to assume the
existence of the Hecatompedon during the fourth century B.C. and
the following centuries in order to bring it within consideration at
all. Dörpfeld believes that the Hecatompedon was in existence at
this time, and that it was, as it always had been, an exclusive temple
of Athena; the worship of Erechtheus was confined to the Erech-
theum, the present structure, which had replaced the earlier shrine.
The three inscriptions may be dismissed at once. They are
indecisive, except so far as the considerations already presented in
the case of the third make for the Erechtheum.¹
It
The passages from the authors demand brief consideration.
should be noted that they all speak of "the temple of the Polias" as
if there were only one such temple. They all indicate, I think,
that this temple was the Erechtheum.
In the first the bitch enters the temple and goes down in order to
get into the Pandroseum. The description exactly fits the plan of
the Erechtheum. Its eastern chamber is on a higher level than its
western chambers, and from the latter there was direct communica-
tion on the same level with the Pandroseum. If the Hecatompedon
is meant, we must conceive, since only one temple is mentioned,
that the creature took a flying leap of over ten feet from the support-
ing wall of the stereobate of the Hecatompedon at the north-west
down into the Pandroseum. This is, at the least, an improbable
meaning for δῦσα εἰς τὸ Πανδρόσιον. The second passage has already
been discussed.2 In the third the Hecatompedon cannot be meant,
because (besides the consideration urged above) the action of the
dialogue would be impossible if the pronaos of that temple were its
¹ If one believes, from independent considerations, that ¿ ¿pxaîos vews always
means the Erechtheum, then the second inscription becomes evidence; but it will
be well, perhaps, to avoid the possible charge of the 'vicious circle.'
2 See p. 20 f.
i
The Opisthodomus.
35
3
4
scene. The Erechtheum would stand directly in the way.¹ To
identify the temple named in the fourth passage with the Hecatom-
pedon is, if we follow Dörpfeld's present lead,2 to assume that the
έóavov and the lamp of Callimachus were not in the Erechtheum at
all; and if on the other hand we suppose that Pausanias entered the
Hecatompedon not after 1. 26. 5 but at 1. 27. 1³ and thus place the
έóavov and lamp in the Erechtheum, we must assume that Pausanias
makes double application of the word Polias, once to the goddess of
the old image in the Erechtheum, for it is clear that he refers to her
as Polias in 1. 26. 6, a second time to the Hecatompedon. If we
are convinced by these serious difficulties that by "the temple of the
Polias" in the fourth passage Pausanias means the Erechtheum, we
establish its application also for the fifth, unless we are ready to
believe that he speaks of two distinct temples, both as "the temple.
of the Polias," within the short space of a dozen lines. The mention
of Erichthonius (Erechtheus) and Posidon (Erechtheus) in the
sixth and seventh passages shows that here the Erechtheum is meant,
not the Hecatompedon, a temple of the exclusive worship of Athena.
In the eighth the very confusion of statement shows that the Scholiast
closely associates in his mind the temple of the Polias and her
ancient image, and therefore, if we suppose that by "the temple of
the Polias" he means the Hecatompedon, we must remove the image
from the Erechtheum. The iepóv mentioned in the ninth must be
5
6
→
1 Dörpfeld claims that this passage refers to the Parthenon. For his three
reasons, see Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 198 f. To these it may be briefly
answered that Lucian in the second century A.D. is not likely to have had intimate
knowledge of the official phraseology of Attic inscriptions of the fifth century B.C.,
and further that the inscriptions do not add τῆς Πολιάδος to the official form ἐν τῷ
ПIpovniw; that any portico is large enough to accommodate an imaginary assembly
(see Frazer, Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII. p. 182 f.); and that to argue from
the reference in the dialogue to the Pelargicon that Lucian must mean the
Parthenon is to assume that the situation and extent of the vexed ancient forti-
fication called the Pelargicon are satisfactorily known.
2 See p. 21.
3 So Miss Harrison, Myth. and Mon. of Anc. Athens, 1890, pp. 508 f.
4 See Frazer, Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII. p. 182.
5 See p. 31, notes 1 and 2.
6 Cf. schol. Dem. XXII. 13; schol. Arist. Pan. 187, 20 (Dind. 111. p. 319).
36
John Williams White.
the Erechtheum, for reasons already given.¹ The tenth and eleventh
passages hang together, as has already been pointed out, and in
interpreting the eleventh we have the express testimony of Hesychius
that the snake was housed ẻv r❖ iepŵ Toû 'Epexéos,² i.e. in the
Erechtheum, not in the Hecatompedon.
I conclude, therefore, that when in Greek writers we read of "the
temple of Athena Polias " we must understand by it the Erechtheum,
and that this conclusion is contradicted by no evidence offered by
inscriptions.
This inquiry has been carried further by Frazer, in the article
already often cited. He has investigated the word IIoλɩás in all its
applications, and in my opinion has given a final answer to the
doubts raised by Dörpfeld. He has conclusively demonstrated that
the word had a local connotation to the mind of a Greek when used
with reference to the Acropolis at Athens, and has shown what this
connotation is. In order to settle the question of the proper applica-
tion of the term "Athena Polias" or "the Polias" he collected the
passages of classical writers bearing on the Athena Polias of Athens.
and all places in the Corpus of Attic Inscriptions in which the title
occurs, and gave them careful examination. In some of these
passages, as was to be expected, the application of the term Пoλɩás
is indeterminable; these passages furnish no indication whether the
Athena referred to was the goddess of the Erechtheum, of the Heca-
tompedon, or of the Parthenon. In the remainder the term is used
with reference to the temple, to Athena in close association with
Erechtheus, to her ancient image, to the peplus, to the priestess of
Athena Polias, to the Errephori, to the sacred serpent, and the like.
All the passages whose application is determinable support the view
that Athena Polias was the goddess of the Erechtheum, with the
3
1 See p. 31, note 3, and Frazer, Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII. p. 181.
2 See p. 9, note 2.
³ I had already begun, with the same purpose, an independent collection of the
passages before Frazer's article appeared, and am able to contribute from Greek
writers the following slight additions to his extensive list: Aelian, Var. Hist. 11. 9;
Lucian, Sym. 32; Id. Dial. Meret. VII. I; Schol. ad loc.; Clem. Alex. Protr. IV.
52, p. 15 Sylb.; Apoll. Vit. Aesch. (quoting Aesch. II. 147); Schol. V Arist. Eq.
1169; Schol. Hom. Od. XIV. 533; E. M. s.v. 'Eteoẞovтádal. In completing my col-
lections I have had the helpful assistance of Arthur S. Cooley of this University.
The Opisthodomus.
37
exception of two.¹ One of these countenances the view that she
was the goddess of the Parthenon,² the other may be so interpreted; ³
but the author of the first is a Christian writer living in Egypt in the
second century A.D., the author of the second a twelfth century com-
mentator on Homer, and each lays himself open to the charge of
contradicting himself.¹
4
The result of Frazer's investigation is instructive. The fact that
the word Polias, when applied to Athena at Athens, had in the
times for which we have literary evidence a distinct local sense con-
fined to one place, shows what our conclusions must be for the
earlier times to which our evidence does not extend. "Polias" was
probably the oldest title of Athena on the Acropolis, and dates from
a remote age. The goddess had then a single temple on the Citadel,
the temple of the Polias. The image within the temple was the
image of the Polias. Thus the word became closely associated with
a place. We have no reason for believing that when the Hecatom-
pedon was built the worship of the Polias was transferred to that
temple. We do know that in the earliest times and in the later
times it was attached to "the old temple." This conception, that the
worship of the Polias remained in "the old temple," in no way con-
flicts with the supposition that the Hecatompedon also was a temple
of the worship of Athena, containing its own image. It was the
temple of Athena, but not the temple of the Polias. The Parthenon
in the next century is an exact parallel in all particulars. The
growth of the worship of Athena in the Hecatompedon would tend
still more to localize the worship of Athena Polias in the old temple.
After the destruction of the Hecatompedon in the Persian wars, the
old temple gained in importance. It was doubtless the purpose of
Pericles to transfer the worship of Athena Polias to the Parthenon.
(That may have been the purpose also of the builders of the Heca-
tompedon in an earlier age.) But conservative religious feeling and
1 Frazer (Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892-93, XIII. p. 184), who believes that the
Opisthodomus was the western portico of the Parthenon (see p. 2), adds Schol.
V Arist. Plut. 1193 (quoted on p. 4).
2 Clem. Alex. Protrep. IV. 47, p. 13 Sylb.
3 Eustath. Od. xi. 634, p. 1704, 30.
* See the discussion, on p. 31, of the sixth and eleventh passages quoted above.
38
John Williams White.
party strife combined to thwart him. The Parthenon was built, but
his intention was frustrated. If it had been carried out, the new
temple would have become "the temple of the Polias" and the Erech-
theum would have been devoted to the exclusive worship of Erech-
theus. We know in fact, on unequivocal authority, that the old
image was not removed from the old temple.¹ This temple remained,
therefore, an important seat of worship of Athena on the Citadel;
and we are not surprised to learn by the consentient testimony of
writers in the following centuries that it kept the name which first
attached to it and continued to be called the temple of the Polias.
After this long, but necessary, consideration of the application of
the expressions "old temple" and "temple of Athena Polias," I
revert to the question which occasioned it.²
2
What does Schol. V on Arist. Plut. 1193 mean when he says that
the Opisthodomus lay behind the temple of Athena Polias?
If the front of the old temple of Athena, i.e. of the Erechtheum,
was at the east of the temple, as was generally true of Greek temples,
the Opisthodomus must have lain to the west of it, behind the Pan-
droseum, and must be sought for there. On this supposition there
must have once existed at this place a substantial and independent
structure, of the foundations of which, however, no trace has been
brought to light by the recent thorough excavation of the Acropolis.
This brings us face to face with a question of great apparent
difficulty. Namely, how is it possible that the treasury of Athens, a
separate building as has been proved, was called an opisthodomus?
Pollux (1.6) after defining the uses of the word σŋkós continues:
τὸ δὲ πρὸ αὐτοῦ πρόδομος, καὶ τὸ κάτοπιν ὀπισθόδομος. Varro (de lingua
Lat. v. § 160, ed. Spengel) gives the same definition: domus graecum
et ideo in aedibus sacris ante cellam, ubi sedes dei sunt, Graeci dicunt
πρόδομον, quod post, ὀπισθόδομον. This use of ὀπισθόδομος, to designate
the back portico of a temple, is confirmed by its actual employment
in the literature. It is thus applied to the western porticos of the
temples of Zeus and of Hera at Olympia.³
1 See p. 21, n. 2.
2 See p. 18.
8 Paus. V. 10. 9; 13. 1; 15. 3; 16.1; Lucian Hdt. 1; Fug.7; de morte Pereg. 32.
The Opisthodomus.
39
This established application of the word seems to contradict hope-
lessly the view that the Opisthodomus on the Acropolis was a
separate building; but in fact it itself indicates the solution of the
difficulty.
Whether in early times the northern or eastern portico of the
Erechtheum was regarded the front of the temple cannot be surely
determined; but it seems probable that, at least in the time of the
sources from which the scholiasts and Harpocration and the other
lexicographers drew their information, the front of the temple was
thought to be at the north. Here lay the broad portico through
which Pausanias entered the temple.¹ If the front of the temple
was at the north, the Opisthodomus, which was situated onσlev Toû
vcó, must have lain to the south of the Erechtheum.
3
Here in fact we find it, the Opisthodomus of the old Hecatom-
pedon, rebuilt, after the destruction of that temple in the Persian
wars, to serve as it had served before the coming of Xerxes² as
treasury of the gods and of the state. The peristyle of the temple.
disappeared; its eastern chamber was not restored; the Opisthodo-
mus, consisting of the three western rooms and western portico, was
alone rebuilt.* This was the Opisthodomus to which reference is
made, in the times following the Persian wars, simply as ó ómiσló-
Soμos; the noavpós, probably, that was adorned with paintings by
Polygnotus; the rapetov of the scholiasts and lexicographers that
lay "behind the temple of Athena." Not only its official but also
5
"16
1 Paus. I. 26. 6 ff.
2 The mention of the Tauía in the Hecatompedon inscription (CIA. IV. p. 137 ff.)
makes this practically certain. See Lolling, 'Aŋvâ, 1890, 11. p. 647 ff.; Dörpfeld,
Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1890, XV. p. 420 ff.; Frazer, Jour. Hellen. Stud. 1892–93,
XIII. p. 162, note 24. For the pre-Persian Taµlaɩ Tîs beoû, see also Hdt. VIII. 51.
Furtwängler (Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 418) denies that the treasury was ever
in the Hecatompedon.
3 So also Dörpfeld, Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 200.
4 See the plan, Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1886, xI. p. 337.
5 For the date of Polygnotus, see Brunn, Geschichte d. griech. Künstler, II.
14 ff.
The language of Herod. vIII. 55 shows that a Greek felt the Pandroseum to
be a part of the Erechtheum, for within it was the sacred olive. It had no roof,
but was doubtless enclosed by a wall on the north and west, just as it was shut
JorM
1
;
40
John Williams White.
its current name was ó ómolódoμos.¹ Aristophanes, Demosthenes,
ὀπισθόδομος.1
and Lucian could so speak of it, without danger of confusion. There
was another opisthodomus on the Acropolis, but when this was
meant the speaker said ὁ ὀπισθόδομος τοῦ Παρθενῶνος or used an
equivalent expression.2
This solution, which we owe to the insight of Ernst Curtius,³
in by walls on the east and south. There was direct communication between the
north portico of the Erechtheum and the Pandroseum by a separate doorway, and
the north portico was centered to the larger structure whose groundplan included
the Pandroseum. The Opisthodomus was, quite exactly, 'behind' the temple,
conceived in the sense seen in Herodotus.
1 Frazer (Jour. Hellen. Stud. 1892–93, XIII. p. 162 f.) thinks it remarkable, if
the Opisthodomus was in use as a treasury after 480 B.C., that the first mention of
it occurs in two decrees of 435 B.C., and draws the inference ex silentio that there
was no Opisthodomus before the completion of the Parthenon. This apparently
remarkable fact is accounted for by our lack of documents for the time between
480 and 435 B.C. The name Opisthodomus for the Athenian treasury does not
indeed occur in any public document during that time, nor does any other. In
fact we have only a single reference in all of these years to any place on the
Acropolis where money was kept (CIA. IV. I, quoted on p. 12 and discussed on
p. 45), and yet we know that the sacred and public money-treasure housed on the
Acropolis was greater between 454 and 435 B.C. than ever afterwards. Frazer
himself says (p. 162) that in this time the Athenians must certainly have had some
strong place in which to store the public and sacred treasures, but comes simply
to the conclusion that we do not know where this was. In like manner, the fact
that the first literary mention of the Opisthodomus occurs in Aristophanes is not
proof that it was not in existence during the whole of the fifth century. No author
before Aristophanes whose works have come down to us had occasion to mention
the exact place where the sacred and public money was kept. It would be as
logical to conclude from the silence of these authors that there was no treasury
at all as that it was not called ó óæσódoµos. Knowing that there was a treasury
we are entirely justified, in the absence of all counter-proof, in concluding that
the name by which it was designated in the last third of the fifth century and in
the fourth century attached to it also in the previous time. I cannot agree with
Frazer, further, in thinking that in the two decrees of 435 B.C. (CIA. I. 32, A, B,
quoted in part on p. 16) the Opisthodomus is mentioned as if it were now for
the first time to be used as a treasury. The references to it there (it is called
simply ò ¿πolódoμos) seem to me, on the contrary, to imply that it was a well-
known place whose use was already established. See p. 46 ff.
ὁ
2 Plut. Demet. 23, Aristides, 1. p. 548, 14, Dind., quoted on p. 15.
8 Curtius, in the November session of the Archaeological Society of Berlin,
1890 (see Archaeologischer Anzeiger, 1890, p. 163): "Der alte Tempel nach der
Maou
The Opisthodomus.
4I
**
explains at once the name Opisthodomus in its application to the
Athenian treasury and some apparently but not really contradictory
testimony of the scholiasts. The tradition that this treasury was
once in fact the rear chambers in the cella of an actual temple seems
certainly to have been preserved during the centuries that followed
the invasion of Xerxes. The name ỏιolódoμos would serve to keep
ὀπισθόδομος
the tradition alive. Aristophanes and Demosthenes undoubtedly
knew what the Opisthodomus was and were acquainted with its
history; and the interpreters who first explained their references to
it must, with the great resources at their command, have had knowl-
edge of the truth on so important a matter. Schol. V Arist. Plut.
1193¹ tells us that the Opisthodomus lay behind the temple of
Athena Polias. The sources of the existing scholia on Aristophanes
are acknowledged to be excellent. We cannot reasonably refuse to
believe, however much we may regret the mutilated form in which
the rest of the scholium has been transmitted to us, that the original
author of the statement just quoted (Aristophanes of Byzantium or
one of his pupils?) knew what he was writing about. He knew
that in the time of the poet Aristophanes the Opisthodomus was a
separate building, situated, as is here recorded, behind the temple of
Athena, and he knew also why it was called oπiσłódoµos, not because
it lay behind her temple, but because it had once been the com-
ponent part of a temple. But had the scholiasts and lexicographers
whose comments and definitions have come down to us any knowl-
edge of the true tradition? It is impossible to say. Two facts are
here most important to note. First, it is certain that they knew
what the normal opisthodomus was, namely the rear part of a build-
ing. Temples with opisthodomi were extant for a long time. We
have mention of the opisthodomus of a temple in so late an author
Zerstörung durch die Perser wurde nur in seinem Hinterhause wieder aufgebaut,
um als Schatzkammer zu dienen. Es sind zahlreiche Zeugnisse vorhanden nach
denen der Opisthodom ein selbständiges Gebäude der Akropolis gewesen sein
muss."
See also Stadtgeschichte, 1891, pp. 132, 152. I came independently to the
conclusion that the Opisthodomus must have been a separate building, convinced
by the testimony of the scholiasts and lexicographers, but erred at first in sup-
posing that it lay on the lower ground due west of the Erechtheum. Curtius's
suggestion has been received with favour.
1 Quoted on p. 4.
42
John Williams White.
2
as Achilles Tatius.' What we should expect to find, therefore, in
the scholiasts and lexicographers is the definition of the normal
opisthodomus. Secondly, what we do find in them in the main is
something very different. I call attention again to the passages
quoted on pp. 3, 4 of this article. Milchhöfer points out that it is
remarkable that these scholiasts and lexicographers do not give us
the definition that we should expect. They define the oσódoμos
as a building that lay oπolev Toû veά, they do not define it as tò
ὄπισθεν μέρος τοῦ νεώ. It is common to discredit these late writers,
and to say that they 'etymologized,' but etymologizing here would
have given the second definition, and that definition would have
exactly described the sort of opisthodomus they knew about. Their
persistent statement, therefore, that the Opisthodomus lay behind
the temple of Athena, must be the record of a fact. This fact they
had inherited from a trustworthy source. It is no paradox to say
that it becomes even more credible as a fact, so contrary is it to what
we should expect them to say, on the assumption that they did not
fully understand it.
us.
This statement that the Opisthodomus lay "behind the temple of
Athena" appears persistently in slightly varying form in nearly all
the ancient explanations of the omio@ódoμos that have come down to
Sometimes there is added a brief definition of the normal opis-
thodomus.3 This should occasion no surprise. And sometimes
there is evident confusion, which either results from the ignorance
or carelessness of the writer or is due to too brief statement or to
defective transmission of the text. This also should occasion no
4
1 Achil. Tat. III. 6.
2 Philol. 1894, LIII. p. 359.
3 To the scholium on Arist. Plut. 1193 just cited is added after the main
explanation the statement, τὸν ὀπισθόδομον· τὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ οἴκου, ἤγουν τοῦ ναοῦ.
Cf. the other brief scholia cn Arist. Plut. 1193: тà öπilev тoû dóµov. Dv. тÒV
ὄπισθεν τοῦ ναοῦ. Par. 2827. And on Arist. Plut. 1191: TÒν ŐTισBEV OÎKOV TĤS
fεoû. LB. So Photius s.v. ὀπισθόδομος says first τὸ ὄπισθεν παντὸς οἰκήματος, and
then adds the alternative statement that the Opisthodomus was a state treasury
on the Acropolis that lay ὄπισθεν τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς νεώ. The brief definition τὸ
ὄπισθεν παντὸς οἰκήματος is found also in E. Μ. s.v. ὀπισθόδομος and Bekk. Anec. I.
p. 286, 26.
4 Cf. p. 4, note 2; p. 5, note 1. We find, as I think, an instance of confusion
{
The Opisthodomus.
43
surprise, although we must regret it, for it opens a field for doubt
and discussion. Still, making due allowance for all difficulties of
this sort, it seems certain that these late writers do contain a record
of the true tradition about the Opisthodomus.
There remains, finally, a scholium which merits special considera-
tion, because of the use that has been made of it and because, as it
seems to me, it stands quite apart from the rest in its meaning.
Schol. V Luc. Tim. 53' reads: ws iepóovλov diaẞáλλwv таûтá now· ö
γὰρ ὀπισθόδομος ἱερόν· τὸ ὄπισθεν δὲ τοῦ ἀδύτου οὕτως ἐλέγετο.? The
point of view of the scholiast should here be noted. His mind is
dwelling solely on the act of sacrilege. He adds the statement rò
ὄπισθεν δὲ τοῦ ἀδύτου οὕτως ἐλέγετο in explanation of the previous
predication iepóv. He is thinking of the regular opisthodomus of a
temple. Such an opisthodomus was a sacred place, because it stood
behind the sanctuary of the god.
Boeckh³ bases his belief that the Opisthodomus was the western
chamber of the cella of the Parthenon on the scholium on Luc. Tim.
53. In two other passages to which he refers he thinks that vaós is
equivocal and must be interpreted by the single scholium on Lucian.
This ignores, as we have seen, the established use of the word vaós
in its application to temples of Athena on the Acropolis. The
existence of the Hecatompedon, brought to our knowledge by Dörp-
feld's brilliant discovery, was not known to Boeckh. If it had been,
he would not have maintained with such vigour against Osann and
4
5
of facts in E. M. s.v. óπɩolódoµos and Bekk. Anec. I. p. 286, 26. Here two defini-
tions are confused, that of the Opisthodomus (the Athenian treasury) and that of
the normal opisthodomus (of any temple). The form of statement here should
be compared with that in Photius. Schol. RY Dem. XXIV. 136, which, under the
lemma ταμίαι, reads, ἦν δὲ ὁ ὀπισθόδομος τὸ ὄπισθεν τῆς θεοῦ, leaves us in doubt what
the scholiast means. τὸ ὄπισθεν τῆς θεοῦ may signify the place behind the goddess
in the sense of behind her temple quite as naturally as that of behind her statue.
1 Quoted on p. 14.
2 The variant on this reads: ὅτι ὁ ὀπισθόδομος ἱερόν, τὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἀδύτου οὕτως
ἔλεγον, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ δημόσια ἀπέκειτο χρήματα. (This should probably be: ὅτι ὁ
ὀπισθόδομος ἱερόν· τὸ ὄπισθεν (δὲ> κτλ.)
3 CIG. 1. p. 177 f.
4 See p. 7 ff.
5 Sylloge Inscr. Ant. Graec. et Lat., 1834, p. 62, note 13.
44
John Williams White.
"Britanni nonnulli "1 the thesis that there was no other opisthodomus
on the Acropolis than that in the Parthenon.2
If the conclusion that the Opisthodomus was a separate building
and that it consisted of the three western chambers and western
portico that before the Persian wars constituted the western half of
the cella of the Hecatompedon is correct, it should be confirmed by
a consideration of the uses to which the Opisthodomus was put. If
it fails, as thus constituted, to account adequately for any established
facts, the conclusion is in so far invalidated.
The scholiasts and lexicographers, in the first place, call it a
ταμιεῖον or θησαυροφυλάκιον. In it, by their testimony, were housed
τὰ χρήματα, both the sacred treasure, τὰ ἱερὰ χρήματα, τὰ χρήματα τῶν
θεῶν, and the public treasure, τὰ δημόσια χρήματα, τὸ δημόσιον ἀργύριον
καὶ ὁ φόρος.
Our earliest documentary proof of the existence of the Hecatom-
pedon is the celebrated inscription already referred to. This
inscription names the Tauía frequently, and, although much muti-
lated, evidently contained important prescriptions of their duties.
Among these is specified τὰ οἰκήματα [τὰ ἐν τῷ ἑκατ]ομπέδῳ ἀνοίγειν
[ToÙS] Taµías (II. 17, 18). It is generally agreed that the chambers
here referred to are those in the western half of the cella and that
they were treasure-chambers. These are the rooms which, accord-
ing to the conclusions to which we have come, constituted the
treasury referred to as o omolódoμos in later times.
ταμίας
5
4
1 Dodwell, Classical Tour in Greece, 1819, 1. p. 345; Wilkins, Atheniensia, or
Remarks on the Topog. and Buildings of Athens, 1816, p. 98, note. See also
Stuart and Revett, Antiquities of Athens, 1825, 11. p. 26, note d; p. 29, note h.
Michaelis has a remark about the Englishmen : "Die früher vielfach beliebte
Unterscheidung des Opisthodoms im Parthenon und eines zweiten Opisthodoms
als selbständigen Staatsschatzhauses hat jetzt nur noch historisches Interesse"!
(Der Parthenon, p. 27, note 85.) I must confess, with shame, that I knew nothing
about the views of the Englishmen until my own views on the question were
already formed and expressed in writing.
2 “Sed nullus alius fuit usquam : opisthodomus est solius Parthenonis.” CIG.
I. p. 177 f.
3 See p. 2, note 8, end.
4 1. b (?), r (?), II. 3, 8, 13, 16, 18, 25.
5 See p. 39, note 2.
The Opisthodomus.
45
The inscription quoted in part on p. 12, which in date falls
between 480 and 460 B.C.,¹ records the fact that treasure was kept
in a precinct behind the old temple of Athena. The Tepißolos here
περίβολος
mentioned, if the lacuna has been properly supplied, was that of the
Hecatompedon, in which at the time of the decree stood the restored
treasury, and in this treasury the money in question must have been
kept. That it was safely housed is certain, however general the
phrase [ev Tepiß]óλo[i] may be; the treasure was not kept in the
open.2
After the Persian wars to the time of the completion of the
Parthenon the treasures in kind of Athena must have been stored
partly in "the old temple," partly in the treasury. In the latter was
also the sacred money of Athena, and, as we have seen,* likewise that
1 See Dittenberger, SIG. 384.
2 It is by no means certain that [epiß]óλo[] is right. The phrase [èv
Teρiẞ]óλo[] gives a suspiciously vague designation of the place where the money
was kept. Curtius (Stadtgeschichte, p. 132, note) conjectures [èv Têɩ 0]óλo[i], but
this falls short by a letter. [orio0]ev is Dörpfeld's conjecture (Mitth. d. Inst. Athen,
1887, XII. p. 39), but he there fails to take account of the preceding oλo. Kirch-
hoff (CIA. IV. 1) and Dittenberger (SIG. 384) read [vóτo@]ev, but this does not
affect the conclusion which we have reached. See p. 39. The original of the
remnant olo perhaps yet remains to be found. If the supposition expressed
above, that the money referred to was housed in the restored treasury, is true,
and if it is also true that the inscription read epißóλw, the reason why the place
where the money was kept is mentioned in this general way, and not specifically
by name, must be a matter of conjecture. It then becomes important to note
that the inscription belongs to a time of confusion at Athens, just after the
Persian wars, when it is quite possible that the name Opisthodomus, by which
presumably the treasury was known before the destruction of the temple and
which later became its fixed designation, had not yet been officially attached to
this remnant of the temple. It must have seemed odd to the Athenians at first
to designate as an opisthodomus a building which was now in fact a single struc-
ture, although originally it had been, as part of an actual temple, a real opistho-
domus. This seems a simpler and more natural conjecture than that in epißółw
we have reference, as Frazer conjectures (Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII. p. 162),
to a building temporarily erected to house the treasures till the permanent treasury
was ready.
3 Some of the Persian spoils were still there in the time of Pausanias (1. 27. 1).
For the proof that the old temple (Erechtheum) was rebuilt after the Persian
wars, see p. 23, note I.
4 CIA. IV. I (p. 12) is a decree relating to the Eleusinian goddesses.
46
John Williams White.
of some of the other gods. On the completion of the Parthenon the
treasures in kind were transferred, as is well known, to the Pronaos,
Neos Hecatompedos, and "Parthenon" of the new temple.¹ In
435-4 were passed the two celebrated decrees (CIA. 1. 32 A, B)
which brought all of the finances of the state into order. In them
we clearly perceive the influence of Pericles, under whose careful
financial policy Athens was preparing herself for the great struggle
with Sparta that was to follow. The provisions of these two decrees.
are met with singular fitness on the supposition that the public and
sacred money was housed in the restored Opisthodomus of the
Hecatompedon.
The money now stored in the treasury had become a great sum
(A 2 ff.). This fact is confirmed by the testimony of Thucydides.2
The amount of coined silver on the Acropolis at the time when the
decree was passed was 9700 talents. This included both the state-
3
1 But not the money. Frazer's argument (Jour. Hellen. Stud., 1892–93, XIII.
p. 163 f.) for making the western portico of the Parthenon the Opisthodomus
(in brief, that the treasury documents name four compartments where treasure was
stored, and that if three of these were in the Parthenon the natural inference is
that the fourth, namely the Opisthodomus, was also there) overlooks the important
fact that the objects stored in these three compartments were essentially different
from the contents of the fourth. We have no evidence that anything except money
was stored in the Opisthodomus from the completion of the Parthenon to the end
of the Peloponnesian War. It was a treasury, and a treasury in which was kept a
great sum of money. Against this view, moreover, is the testimony of Plutarch
(quoted on p. 15), who tells us distinctly what the opisthodomus of the Parthenon
was. Nobody supposes that Demetrius was lodged in the western portico.
2 Thuc. II. I3.
3 Kirchhoff, Geschichte des Athenischen Staatsschatzes, 1876, p. 22; Dittenberger,
SIG. 14, note I. The fact of the existence of this great treasure seems to me to
be fatal to the view that the Opisthodomus was the western portico of the Par-
thenon. (See Dörpfeld, who formerly held this view, and Frazer, as cited on p. 4.)
This portico was altogether inadequate for the purpose. It is pertinent, further,
here to add that it was open to view on three sides, where bronze gratings between
the columns were all that barred a thieving public. Can we believe, moreover,
that this great treasure was cramped into this small space, and yet that the large
room beyond it, the "Parthenon" in the limited sense, was left practically empty,
containing, as the treasure documents show (CIA. 1. 161-175), only a relatively
small number of articles employed at festival-time ("einige Dutzend Klinen und
Stühle," Petersen, Mitth. 1887, x11. p. 69)?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The Opisthodomus.
47
reserve and the treasure of the goddess. The existence of so great
a treasure in 435 B.C., which must have been the accumulation of
years, necessarily implies the existence of a place for storing the
money before the completion of the Parthenon.
It is noteworthy that the decrees assume certain facts. The
fact of the existence of a treasury is taken for granted, just as that
of the boards of the hellenotamiae, logistae, and taµíai tŵv iepŵv tŵv
Tŷs 'AOŋvaías. The treasury is named three times (A 15, 17, B 23),
simply as ỏ ỏπɩłódoµos, in such a way as to imply that it was a
well-known place in established use. The specification, further, of
the duty of the hellenotamiae in B 18 ff., ἐκ τῶν φόρων κατατιθέναι κατὰ
τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν τὰ ἑκάστοτε γενόμενα παρὰ τοῖς ταμίασι τῶν τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας,
simply recognizes and emphasizes, as Kirchhoff has shown,¹ a
previous practice. The one important new provision is the estab-
lishment of the board of the ταμίαι τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν (Α 13 ff.). This
necessitated certain rearrangements in the use of the Opisthodomus.
From this time the tamiae of Athena are to store her money-treasure
ἐν τῷ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ τοῦ ὀπισθοδόμου, the tamiae of the other gods ἐν τῷ ἐπ᾿
apioтepά. This must mean, as Dörpfeld has already pointed out,2
ἀριστερά.
the room to the right and the room to the left in the back part of
the Opisthodomus. But since we know that there was a third
treasure, and that it was large, which although in the care of the
treasurers of Athena was still kept separate, we cannot but con-
clude that it was stored in the larger chamber that lay in front of
the two smaller chambers. It had probably been here from the first
establishment of a state-fund. This use of the larger chamber
explains the provision in A 15 ff. (quoted on p. 16). This provision,
in which the words ooa duvaròv κai őσιov imply a limitation, means,
as I think, that the raμía Tŵv äλλwv Øeŵv are not to have access to
the chamber in which the treasure of which they are in charge is
stored except in company with the ταμίαι τῶν τῆς ᾿Αθηναίας, not that
they are always to be present when the other rooms are opened.
To reach their own chamber they were obliged to pass through that
set aside for the reserve fund of the state, which was in charge,
under the authority of the state, of the more ancient and much more
1 Athen. Staatssch. p. 33.
2 Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1887, XII. p. 38.
✔
48
John Williams White.
"
important board. It must not be forgotten that the state exercised
absolute control over all of these treasures, although it employed
the form of a fictitious loan when it drew upon the resources of
Athena and of the other gods. The outward symbol of this author-
ity was the key of the treasury held by the ἐπιστάτης τῶν πρυτάνεων,
of whom Aristotle says, τηρεῖ δ᾽ οὗτος τὰς κλεῖς τὰς τῶν ἱερῶν ἐν
οἷς τὰ χρήματά ἐστιν καὶ 〈τὰ) γράμματα τῇ πόλει. The custody of the
key did not imply responsibility for the actual management of the
funds.
1
2
The view here advanced, that the Opisthodomus of the authors
and of inscriptions was the Opisthodomus of the old Hecatompedon,
rebuilt without peristyle and eastern chamber after the destruction
of that temple in the Persian wars, is not accepted by Milchhöfer.
In his able and searching discussion of the Opisthodomus,³ he
first combats the identification of "Parthenon" and Opisthodomus,
a view that at the time of the publication of his article had just
been reasserted by Furtwängler; he then advances positive argu-
ments to sustain the proposition that the Opisthodomus was a
separate building; and finally he states what he believes its prob-
able situation to have been. He would place it at the eastern end
of the Acropolis, where are remains which were once supposed to
be those of the chalcothece. His view as to the situation of the
Opisthodomus has been accepted by Furtwängler. To me it seems
to be untenable, for the following reasons.
5
4
1 Aristot. Resp. Athen. 44.
2 The first of the two iepá here meant is the Opisthodomus. (The other was
the Metroum, down in the town.) Cf. Poll. VIII. 96: ěxeɩ dè oûtos tŵv iepŵv tàs
κλεῖς ἐν οἷς τὰ χρήματα καὶ τὰ γράμματα. Eust. Od. XVII. 455: τάς τε κλεῖς ἐτῶν
ἱερῶν Rose) ἐν οἷς τὰ χρήματά εἰσι φυλάττει καὶ τὰ γράμματα τῆς πόλεως. Cf. also
Suidas and E. M. s.v. éπiotárηs. Less exactly the argument to Dem. XXII. p. 590.
See Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen, 1890, II. 1, p. 338.
3 See p. 1, note 1.
4 Where now stands the workshop of the Acropolis Museum. See the plan in
the Δελτίον ᾿Αρχαιολογικόν, 1889, nos. 16-19. "Diese Oertlichkeit," Milch-
höfer says,
"würde allen Voraussetzungen entsprechen, die wir für das Schatzhaus
ermittelt haben." Philol. 1894, LIII. p. 361.
5 Mast. Greek Sculp., 1895, p. 425 f.
The Opisthodomus.
49
It is contradicted, in the first place, by such indications of the
situation of the Opisthodomus as we find in our authorities. They
tell us that it lay behind a temple of Athena. No building at the
eastern end of the Acropolis would be behind either the Parthenon,
or the Hecatompedon, or the Erechtheum. In placing the Opistho-
domus at the eastern end of the Acropolis, Milchhöfer thus rejects
the testimony of the scholiasts and lexicographers. He thinks that
these late writers are of doubtful authority in this question, but
nevertheless, in arguing for the Opisthodomus as a separate building,
calls attention to the remarkable fact that no one of them gives what
we should think to be the most natural interpretation of the word
ỏτισlódoμοs. They define it not as the rear part of a temple, but as
ὀπίσω (ὄπισθεν) τοῦ νεώ, τοῦ ἱεροῦ, also ὄπισθεν τῆς θεοῦ; we find no
such expression as τὸ ὄπισθεν μέρος τοῦ ναοῦ or ὄπισθεν ἐν τῷ ναῷ.1
It should here be noted that in the very phrase to which Milchhöfer
calls especial attention they say unequivocally that the Opisthodomus
was behind the temple. It was doubtless his feeling for the force of
their testimony that led him at first to seek to place the Opistho-
domus actually behind a temple of Athena, namely to the west of the
Parthenon. He shows the same feeling for the force of iodev in
dealing with the early fifth century inscription already quoted.³
He indicates his preference for the reading [omi]ev, and adds that
the peribolus with its treasury constituted "dann schon eine Art
'Opisthodomos' des alten Tempels." This is full recognition of
the fact that this earlier sort of opisthodomus' at least lay behind
the temple. But the other opisthodomus that followed, the Opistho-
domus, he puts behind no temple.5
2
4
(
1 Philol. 1894, LIII. p. 359.
2 Ibid. p. 360.
3 See p. 12.
4 Ibid. p. 357, note 8.
5 Milchhöfer arbitrarily makes the inscription cited a terminus ante quem. Yet
money had to be housed on the Acropolis both before and immediately after the
Persian wars, and he himself believes that "the treasurers of Athena had been
installed in the Opisthodomus long before the Parthenon was built." (Ibid. p. 357-)
How long before? To me it seems likely that the inscription refers to the real
Opisthodomus, not to ‘a sort of Opisthodomus.' See p. 45, with note 2.
For its interpretation, see p. 45.
A
50
John Williams White.
Milchhöfer, as I have said, sought first to place the Opisthodomus
behind the Parthenon, but here he encountered a substantial
obstacle, the real chalcothece,¹ and relinquished his first suggestion.
He adopts his final view with more confidence, although he says
that certainty in the matter is not to be expected. Two considera-
tions weigh with him. First, if we should put the Opisthodomus at
the eastern end of the Acropolis, it would be an opisthodomus (rear-
building) in the sense in which the Propylaea are the fore-court
(Vorhof) of the Acropolis. But this is the gratuitous intrusion of a
new point of view. In no ancient reference to the situation of the
Opisthodomus is there anywhere mention of the Propylaea; our
authorities orient the Opisthodomus not from the Propylaea but
from a temple of Athena. It is pure conjecture, therefore, to assume
that the Opisthodomus got its name because it was at the 'rear' of
the Acropolis as the Propylaea were at the front.²
In this case,
further, the name oπolódoμos would stand without parallel. No-
where in the literature, so far as I know, is the eastern end of the
Acropolis called its 'back part,' nor is there intimation anywhere
that a Greek ever thought of it as that. Secondly, it seems to
Milchhöfer in itself probable that such a structure as the Opistho-
1 See Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, 1889, XIV. p. 304 ff.
2 It should be noted that the word Пporúλaca does not mean "front-gateway,"
in the sense of gates in front of a space behind, but rather "that which is in front
of the gates," in this case the wings and portico in front of the five doorways as
one comes up from the west. The use of the adjective πporúλacos establishes this
fact. Neither the word Пporúλaia nor the structure itself, which lies low and led
to the rear of the temples, could have suggested to a Greek any such strong
antithesis between the Propylaea and the high ground at the east fronting the
temples, where stood the great altar, as lies at the basis of Milchhöfer's assump-
tion. The natural means of orienting objects on the Acropolis is, as we have
seen, not the Propylaea, but the temples. The probability, further, of such an
antithesis as Milchhöfer assumes is weakened by the actual situation which he
assigns to his 'back-building.' It does not lie on high ground on the eastern
continuation of the axis of the Propylaea, but in the extreme south-eastern part
of the Acropolis on ground that was lower than that to the north and to the west
of it (see Jahn-Michaelis, Paus. descrip. arc. Athen. 1880, Tabula 11.), and with
the peribolus of the Parthenon directly between it and the Propylaea. It is
doubtful whether it could have been seen, even before the building of the present
Parthenon, from the Propylaea.
The Opisthodomus.
51
domus was erected at the eastern end of the Acropolis on the site
of a pre-Persian building used as a magazine and for purposes of
administration.¹ He would therefore identify the present remains
as those of the Opisthodomus. This again is simply conjecture.2
There is a second strong objection to Milchhöfer's view. It
contravenes the established application of the word omolódoμos,
which as defined by Pollux and Varro, and in fourteen instances of
its use in authors, in each of which its meaning is certain, designates
an integral rear part of a building. It has no other application.
Nothing, therefore, but convincing evidence should induce us to
believe that the word could have been applied to a building on the
Acropolis at Athens which always had been a separate structure.
3
1 "Es ist auch an sich wahrscheinlich, dass hier ein solcher Bau an Stelle
vorpersischer Magazin- und Verwaltungsräume aufgerichtet worden ist." Ibid.
p. 361. This statement leaves it doubtful where Milchhöfer thinks the treasure
was stored before the Persian wars.
2 This theory is not supported by schol. Dem. XXIV. 136 and Pollux IX. 40,
noticed on p. 5, note I above. Even if we accept Milchhöfer's suggestion that
these may possibly rest on better ultimate authority than the rest of the notices
(ibid. p. 359), they do not tend to establish his view. The phrase of the schol.,
olknμa ỏπiow Tŷs åkpoπóλews, “a house behind the Acropolis," removes the Opistho-
domus from the Acropolis altogether. Pollux doubtless means to say the same
thing, “the (part) behind the Acropolis." He here uses кaтbжɩv adverbially, as in
the same phrase in his definition of σŋkós, quoted on p. 38.
8 For the definitions of Pollux and Varro, see p. 38. The word biolódoμos
occurs in the following places in reference to the rear part of a temple: Diod. Sic.
XIV. 41; Plut. Demet. 23 (see p. 15); Aristides, I. p. 548, 14 Dind. (see p. 15);
Paus. V. 10. 9, 13. 1, 15. 3, 16. 1; Lucian Hdt. 1, Fug. 7, de morte Pereg. 32;
Anth. Pal. XII. 223, 4 (Strato); Achil. Tat. III. 6; in reference to the back part of
a house: Appian, de bell. civ. I. 20; in reference to the rear part of a buleuterium :
Themistius, xv. p. 234 Dind. All the occurrences of the word known to me have
been cited in this paper. In the course of his argument Milchhöfer unconsciously
makes an important admission. He says (ibid. p. 356), "Von vorn herein wird
Jedermann zugeben, dass lediglich der offiziell überlieferte Name ‘Opisthodomos
darauf geführt hat, das Schatzhaus für einen Theil des Tempels zu halten; auf
Grund unserer sonstigen Ueberlieferung hätte man in dem raμicîov nur einen
selbständigen Bau vermuthen können." The fact remains that the treasury was
called Opisthodomus. Of this apparently anomalous fact we find adequate
explanation in the view advanced in this paper that the treasury was once an
integral part of the Hecatompedon.
A
52
John Williams White.
"C
""
Milchhöfer's sole support of his proposition is the declaration that
the usage of Greek speech allows this employment of the compound
word, analogously to the use of the word Hinterhaus in German,¹
which may mean a house in the rear as well as "the rear part of a
house." He adduces no proof. It is hazardous, of course, to say in
etymologizing what Greek usage would not allow; but, in cases of
doubt, one fact is worth many theories. Here the fact is certain
that, as has been shown, the word according to its established
application did mean the back part of a building, not a back building.
Nor is it difficult to see precisely how the word ỏτσlódoµos came to
have its established meaning. It has good Greek parallels, and in
such a discussion as this Greek analogy carries much more weight
than modern. Precise parallels are πρόναος, πρόδομος, and προσκή-
viov, the etymology of which has already been discussed in its bearing
on another question." Etymologically, oπo@ódoμos signifies "the part
behind the δόμος” (τὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ δόμου μέρος), where δόμος signifies
the main structure to which the ὀπισθόδομος is added. So πρόδομος,
“the part before the δόμος,” and πρόναος, “the part before the ναός,
at the time when vaós and advтov were identical and signified all that
there was in the way of a 'temple.' Then the idea conveyed by the
second part of the compound was enlarged, so that dóµos and vaós
came to include the πρόδομος, πρόναος, and ὀπισθόδομος. Thus Homer
can speak of the рódoμos of a Sóuos, and Pausanias and Strabo of
the πρόναος of a ναός. So ὀπισθόδομος came to mean “the back part
of the dóuos," where dóuos signifies the whole structure. This is
precisely the general definition of ỏπσódoμos given by the early
lexicographers, namely τὸ ὄπισθεν παντὸς οἰκήματος. The ὀπισθό-
δομος, πρόδομος, and πρόναος were, then, integral parts of a whole,
but what this 'whole' is, is defined with absolute certainty by the
second part of the compound. A Greek could speak of the ỏπɩσ¤ó-
δομος, πρόδομος, and πρόναος of a house or of a temple ; but his sense, it
may be an unconscious sense, of the etymological force of the words
would have made it impossible for him to speak of the ỏiσlódoµos.
3
""
""
1 Ibid. p. 356.
2 See p. 7, note 2.
³ Hom. Od. IV. 302; Paus. IX. 4. 2; Strabo XVII. 28, p. 805.
4 Photius, E. M., s.v. ¿πɩ @bdoµos; Bekk. Anec. I. p. 286, 26. See p. 42, note 3.
The Opisthodomus.
53
of an acropolis or of any 'whole' not indicated by the word itself.
It would be as forced to suppose that the word omiσlódoμos was so
applied, meaning a rear-building of the Acropolis, as that pódоμs
might mean a front building of the Acropolis or πpóvaos a front
temple of the Acropolis. There is no shadow of authority for saying
that the last two words were ever so used.
The case, then, may be summed up as follows against Milchhöfer's
theory. First, it contravenes the ancient evidence, and assumes a
Greek point of view for the orientation of buildings on the Acropolis
which cannot be established. Secondly, on trustworthy testimony,
the Opisthodomus (¿ åσ¤ódoμos) in which the Athenians stored
their treasure was a separate building, as Milchhöfer himself believes;
but Greek usage of speech allowed the word oσ0ódoμos to be
applied only to a structure that was, or at some time had been, the
integral rear part of a building. The Opisthodomus,' therefore,
must at some time have been an integral rear part of some building.
The theory advanced in the second part of this paper is that this
building was the Hecatompedon.
GENERAL INDEX.
åpxaîos (waλaiòs) vews, 8, 18, 21, 26 f.
Athena Polias, temple of, 11, 18, 29 f.
temple of not the Parthenon, 30–33.
nor the Hecatompedon, 34-36.
Boeckh, on Opisthodomus, I, 5 N., II,
43 f.
Curtius, on 'old temple' and temple of
Athena Polias, 19.
on age of Hecatompedon, 24 n.
on Opisthodomus, 40 and n.
Dörpfeld, on Opisthodomus, 2 f., 5 n.
on 'old temple,' 18, 19; objections
to view of, 20 f.
on Hecatompedon, 18, 24, 29, 34.
on temple of Athena Polias, 18, 29;
objections to view of, 29–36.
'Epex¤éos vnós in Hdt. viii. 55, 25 f.
Erechtheum, the 'old temple,' 8 n., 18–
23, 26.
the temple of Athena Polias, II,
18 f., 34-36.
rebuilt, 23 n.
"
Fowler, on Opisthodomus, 3.
Fränkel, on Opisthodomus, 2.
Frazer, on Opisthodomus, 2, 40 n., 46 n.
on 'old temple' and temple of
Athena Polias, 19.
on the word Ioλiás, 36 f.
Furtwängler, on Opisthodomus, 2 n., 48.
on Hecatompedon, 19, 23; objec-
tions to view of, 24-28.
Hecatompedon, names applied to, 2 n.,
22, 27.
inscription referring to, 3 n., 10, 44.
not rebuilt after Persian Wars, 22 n.
age of, 24.
iepóv, meanings of, 5, 8, 10 f., 25 n.
μéyapov, meaning of in Hdt., 22 n., 25.
Michaelis, on Opisthodomus, 1, 5 n., 12.
on old temple' and temple of
Athena Polias, 19.
on age of Hecatompedon, 24 n.
Milchhöfer, on Opisthodomus, I n., 16 n.,
48; objections to view of, 49–53.
vews, meanings of, 5, 7-11.
oikos (oľkŋµa), meaning of, 11.
Old temple, i.e. Erechtheum, 8 n., 18–23.
passages referring to, 8 n., 9 n., 26 f.
ὄπισθεν (ὀπίσω), meanings of, 5-7.
Opisthodomus, views on, 1-3.
a separate building, 3-17.
passages relating to, 3-5, 12, 13, 14,
16 f., 45, 46–48.
situation of, 17 f., 38-40, 48-53.
the restored Opisthodomus of the
Hecatompedon, 39 f., 44-48.
meaning and application of the
word, 38, 41 f., 51-53.
trustworthiness of tradition about,
41-43.
other opisthodomi, 15, 40, 51 n.
Parthenon, passages referring to, 9 n.,
IO N.
not the temple of Athena Polias,
30-33.
earlier Parthenon, 22 f., 27.
Petersen, on Opisthodomus, 2.
on 'old temple' and temple of
Athena Polias, 19.
on age of Hecatompedon, 24 n.
Пoλás, application of, 36-38. (See also
Athena Polias.)
f
1
2
INDEX OF CITATIONS.
Achilles Tatius (iii. 6), 42 n., 51 n.
Aelian, Nat. An. (vi. 49), 9 n.; Var. Hist.
(ii. 9), 36 n.
Aeschines (ii. 147), 31 n., 36 n.; (schol.
ii. 147), 10 n., 30, 35.
Aeschylus, Suppl. (494), 8 n.
Anthol. Pal. (vi. 2), 9 n.; (xii. 223), 51 n.
Apollodorus (iii. 14), 9 n.
Apollonius, Vit. Aesch. 36 n.
Appian, Bell. Civ. (i. 20), 51 n.
Aristides (i. p. 548, 14 Dind.), 9 n., 15,
40 n., 51 n.; schol. iii. p. 319
Dind.), 35 n.
Aristophanes, Eq. (schol. 1169), 9 n.,
10 n., 30, 35, 36 n.
Lys. (schol. 273), 8 n., 22 n., 27 n.;
(schol. 759), 9 n.
Pax (schol. 605), 8, 9 n.
Plut. (1191-93), 4, 14 n.; (schol.
1191, 4, 8 n., 42 n.; (schol. 1193),
4, 7 n., 11, 29 n., 37 n., 38, 41, 42 n.
Aristotle, Hist. An. (vi. 24), 9 n., 32 n.;
Resp. Athen. (44), 48 n.; (47),
10n.; frag. (402 Rose), 10 n.
Bekker, Anec. (i. p. 283, 15), 9 n.; (p. 286,
26), 42 n., 43 n., 52 n.; (p. 306, 7),
10 n.; (p. 345, 25), II N.
Clemens Alex., Protr. (iii. 45, p. 13
Sylb.), 9 n., 10 n., 30, 31, 35, 37 n.;
(iv. 47, p. 13 Sylb.), 37 n.; (52,
p. 15 Sylb.), 36 n.
Demosthenes (xiii. 14), 3, 14 n.; (schol.
xiii. 14), 4, 5 n.; (xxii. p. 590),
48 n.; (schol. xxii. 13), 9 n., 10 N.,
35 n.; (xxiv. 136), 4, 14 n.; (schol.
xxiv. 136), 5, 7 n., 43 n., 51 n.
Ps. Dicaearchus, frag. (1), 10 n.
Diodorus Siculus (xiv. 41), 51 n.
Dionysius Halic., Ant. (xiv. 2), 9 n., 10n.
Dinarch. (3), 9 1., 29.
ιο
Etymol. Mag. s.v. ádurov, II n.; 'Ekα-
τόμπεδον, 9 κ.; ἐπιστάτης, 48 n.;
᾿Ετεοβουτάδαι, 36 κ.; ὀπισθόδομος,
8 n., 42 n., 43 n., 52 n.; σŋKós, II N.
Eudocia (340 Flach), 13.
Eustathius, Il. (xxii. 451), 9 n., 10 N.,
30, 31, 36; Od. (i. 356), 10 N.;
(i. 357), 9 n., 30, 31, 36, 37 n.;
(xi. 634), 37 n.; (xvii. 455), 48 n.
Harpocration, s.v. ¿πolódoμos, 3, 12;
Πολύγνωτος, 13, 14; προναία, 8 κ.
Herodotus (i. 47), 22 n.; (65), 22 n.; (ii.
141), 22 N.; (143), 22 n.; (v. 72),
10 n., 22 n.; (77), 22 n., 23 n.;
(90), 10 n., 22 N.; (vi. 134), 22 n.;
(vii. 140), 22 n.; (viii. 37), 8 n.;
(41), 10 n., 22 n., 23n.; (51), 10N.,
22 n., 25, 39 n.; (51-55), 25 and
n.; (53), 10n., 15 n., 22 n., 25 and
n.; (54), 10 n., 22 n., 25; (55), 9N.,
10 n., 23 n., 25 and 1., 26, 39 n.,
45 n.
Hesychius, s.v. ἄδυτον, II κ.; Αἰδοῦς
βωμός, 9 n., 1ο κ.; Ἑκατόνπεδος,
9n.; Θησαυρός, II, 14 κ.; οἰκουρὸν
ὄφιν, 9 n., 10 n.; ὀπισθόδομος, 5 ;
σηκός, II κ.
Himerius, Ecl. (v. 30), 9 n., 10 N., 30,
31, 35.
;
Homer, I. (ii. 546-52), 20 and n., 21,
24 n.; (549), 9 n.; (vi. 93), 20 n.;
(274), 20 n.; (308), 2o n.; (xi.729),
20 n.
Od. (iii. 382), 20 n.; (418), 20 n.;
(iv. 3O2), 7 n., 52 n.; (764), 20 ng
(schol. xiv. 533), 36 n.
Inscriptions, 'AOŋvâ ii. (p. 627), 3 n.;
44 n.
Bull. Corr. Hell. vi., viii., xiv., xv.,
II N.
I
i
Inscriptions continued.
Index of Citations.
CIA. i. (32), 16 and n., 40 n., 46,
47; (60), 8 n.; (93), 8 n., 23 n.,
27 n.; (109), 16; (146), 10 n.;
(157), 10 n.; (158), 10 n.; (159),
10 n.; (161–175), 1 n., 46 n.;
(191), 16; (273), 16; (322), 8 n.,
21 n., 38 n.; ii. (74), 8 n., 26 n.;
(163), 8 n., 26 n.; (332), 8 n.,
10 n., 30, 32, 33; (464), 8 n.,
26 n.,
30, 32, 33; (652), 10 n., 17; (660),
17; (672), 8 n., 26 n.; (685), 17;
(720), 17; (721), 17; (733), 8 n.,
26 n.; (751), 8 n.; (758), 8 n.;
(829), 8 n.; iii. (776), 8 n.; iv. (1,
p. 3 f.), 8 n., 12, 18, 23 n., 27 n.,
40 n., 45 and n., 49 and n.; (p.
74 ff.), 8 n.; (p. 137 ff.), 3 n., 10n.,
22 n., 39 n., 44 and n.; (p. 168 ff.),
16.
CIG. (6280), 9 n., 20 n.
Δελτίον Ἀρχ. 1890 (p. 92 ff.), 3 κ.
Dittenberger, SIG. (384), 12 n., 45n.
Kaibel, Ep. Gr. (1046), 9 n., 20 n.
Mitth. d. Inst. Athen, viii. (p. 59),
8 n., 10 N., 30, 32, 33; xii. (p. 39),
12 N., 45 n.
Sitz.-Ber. d. Berl. Akad. 1887 (p.
1201, 45), 17.
Lexicon Patmium, s.v. 'Ekarbµπedov, 9n.
Lucian, Dial. Meret. (vii. 1, and schol.),
36 n.
Fug. (7), 38 n.; (schol. 7), 4 12., 42 n.,
51 n
Hdt. (1), 38 n., 51 N.
Mort. Pereg. (32), 38 n., 51 n.
Pisc. (21), 29, 31, 34, 35 n.
Sym. (32), 36 n.
Timon (53), 14, 16 n.; (schol. 53),
43 and n.
Pausanias (i. 1. 3), 7; (3. 3), 6 n.; (17.
2−4), 14 n.; (18. 6), 6; (19. 4), 6;
(24. 3), 9 n.; (24. 5), 6 n.; (24. 5,
8), 9 n.; (26. 5), 4 N., 9 N., 31 N.,
57
35; (26.6), 21 n., 35, 39 n.; (27.1),
29, 35, 45 n.; (27. 1, 3), 9 n.; (27.
2, 4), 9 n.; (27. 3), 9 n., 30, 35;
(40. 4, 5), 6; (ii. 5. 1), 6; (11. I),
7; (13.7),7; (20. 7), 6 n.; (29. 11),
6; (31. 3), 6; (iii. 15. 1), 7; (16.6),
6; (17. 5), 7; (iv. 31. 11), 6; (v.
10. 8), 6 n.; (10. 9), 38 n., 51 n.;
(13. 1), 38 n., 51 n.; (15. 3), 38 n.,
51n.; (15.7), 7; (16. 1), 38n., 51 N.;
(17. 9), 7; (19. 6), 7; (20. 2), 6 n.;
(vi. 5. 6), 6 n.; (10. 6), 7; (19),
14 n.; (25. 2), 7; (viii. 9. 6), 6;
(14. 10.) 6; (22. 7), 7; (30. 7), 6;
(30. 8), 6; (45. 7), 6 n.; (ix. 4. 2),
52 n.; (10. 2), 8 n.; (x. 9. 9), 7;
(II. 1, 2, 5). 14 n.; (19. 4), 6 n.;
(19. 10), 7; (26. 5), 6 n.
Philochorus, frag. (146), 9 n., 29, 30, 34.
(See also 8, 9 and n.)
Photius (s.v. ỏπiolódoµos, 4, 42 n., 52 n.;
Πολύγνωτος, 13; ταμίαι, 10 n.
Plutarch, Cim. (5), 9 n., 22 n.
Demet. (23), 15 and n., 40 n., 46 n.,
51 n.
Quaest. Con. (ix. 6, p. 741), 9 n.
Soll. An. (13, p. 970), 9 n.
Them. (10), 9 n.
Vit.-X. Or. (843), 31 n.
Pollux (i. 6), 38, 51 n.; (viii. 96), 48 n.;
(ix. 40), 5., 51 n.
Strabo (ix. 16, p. 396), 8 n., 10 N., 20, 21,
29, 33 n., 34; (xvii. 28, p. 805), 52 n.
Suidas, s.v. ἄδυτον, II κ.; Εκατόμπεδος
νεώς, 9 n.; ἐπιστάτης, 48 η.; όπι-
σθόδομος, 4; Πολύγνωτος, Ι3; σηκός,
II 72.
Themistius (xv. p. 234 Dind.), 51 n.
Thucydides (i. 126), 10 n.; (ii. 13), 46 n.
Varro, Ling. Lat. (v. § 160 Spengel), 38,
51 n.
Xenophon, Hellen. (i. 6. 1), 8 n.; (ii. 3.
20), 9 n., 32 n.
BR
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
23-520-002