The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1 | Page 7

Pandrosos was [Greek: suneches tô naô tes
Athenas], the temple of Athena must be identified with the Erechtheion,
not with the temple beside it, for the reason that the temple of
Pandrosos, situated west of the Erechtheion, cannot be [Greek:
suneches] ("adjoining" in the strict sense of the word) to the old temple,
which stood upon the higher level to the south. If Pausanias had wished
to pass from the Erechtheion to the temple of Athena standing(?) beside
it, the opening words of c. 26.6 ([Greek: Iera men tes Athenas estin e te
alle polis kte.]) would have formed the best possible transition; but
those words introduce the mention of the ancient [Greek: agalma]
which was in the Erechtheion. That Pausanias then, without any
warning, jumps into another temple of Athena, is something of which
even his detractors would hardly accuse him, and I hope I have shown
that he is innocent of that offence.
[Footnote 14: Frg. 146, JAHN-MICH., Paus. Discr. Arcis. Ath., c.
27.2.8.]
Pausanias, then, does not mention the temple under discussion.
Xenophon (Hell. I. 6) says that, in the year 406 B.C. [Greek: o palaios

naos tes Athenas enepresthe]. Until recently this page 7 statement was
supposed to apply to the Erechtheion, called "ancient temple" because
it took the place of the original temple of Athena, from which the great
temple (the Parthenon) was to be distinguished. Of course, the new
building of the Erechtheion was not properly entitled to the epithet
"ancient," but as a temple it could be called ancient, being regarded as
the original temple in renewed form. If, however, the newly discovered
temple was in existence alongside the Erechtheion in 406, the
expression [Greek: palaios naos] applied to the Erechtheion would be
confusing, for the other temple was a much older building than the
Erechtheion. If the temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it
would be natural to suppose that it was referred to by Xenophon as
[Greek: o palaios naos]. But this passage is not enough to prove that the
temple existed in 406 B.C.
Demosthenes (xxiv, 136) speaks of a fire in the opisthodomos. This is
taken by Dörpfeld (Mitth., xii, p. 44) as a reference to the opisthodomos
of the temple under discussion, and this fire is identified with the fire
mentioned by Xenophon. But hitherto the opisthodomos in question has
been supposed to be the rear part of the Parthenon, and there is no
direct proof that Demosthenes and Xenophon refer to the same fire. If
the temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it is highly probable
that the passages mentioned refer to it, but the passages do not prove
that it existed.
It remains for us to sift the evidence for the existence of the temple
from the Persian War to 406 B.C. This has been collected by
Dörpfeld[15] and Lolling,[16] who agree in thinking that the temple
continued in existence throughout the fifth and fourth centuries,
however much their views differ in other respects. But it seems to me
that even thus much is not proved. I believe that, after the departure of
the Persians, the Athenians partially restored the temple as soon as
possible, because I do not see how they could have got along without it,
inasmuch as it was used as the public treasury; but my belief, being
founded upon little or no positive evidence, does not claim the force of
proof.

[Footnote 15: Mitth., XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420, ff.]
[Footnote 16: [Gree: Ecatompedon] in the periodical [Greek: Athena]
1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published appears also in the
[Greek: Deltion Archaiologicon], 1890, p. 12, and its most important
part is copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.]
Page 8 Dörpfeld (XV, p. 424) says that the Persians left the walls of the
temple and the outer portico standing; that this is evident from the
present condition of the architraves, triglyphs and cornices, which are
built into the Acropolis wall. These architectural members were ...
taken from the building while it still stood, and built into the northern
wall of the citadel. But, if the Athenians had wished to restore the
temple as quickly as possible, they would have left these members
where they were. It seems, at least, rather extravagant to take them
carefully away and then restore the temple without a peristyle, for the
restored building would probably need at least cornices if not triglyphs
or architraves; then why not repair the old ones? It appears by no means
impossible that, as Lolling (p. 655) suggests, only a part of the temple
was restored.[17] Still more natural is the assumption, that the
Athenians carried off the whole temple while they were about it. I do
not, however, dare to proceed