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:[ (return) ] Mitth., XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420, ff.
Footnote 16:[ (return) ]Έκατόμπεδον in the periodical Άθηνα 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published appears also in the Δελτίον Άρχαιολογικόν, 1890, p. 12, and its most important part is copied, with some corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.
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 to this assumption, because I do not know where the Athenians would have kept their public monies if the entire building had been removed. Perhaps part of the peristyle was so badly injured by the Persians that it could not be repaired. At any rate, the Athenians intended (as Dörpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to remove the whole building so soon as the great new temple should be completed. I think they carried out their intention.
Footnote 17:[ (return) ] LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship connected with the building, he would seem to imply that at least part (and in that case, doubtless, the whole) of the cella was restored, and he also maintains the continued existence of the opisthodomos and the two small chambers. E. CURTIUS, Stadtgeschichte von Athen, p. 132, believes that only the western half of the temple was restored. DÖRPFELD, p. 425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained until the erection of the Erechtheion.
This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully discussed by Dörpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts without further discussion all points which seem to me to have been definitively settled by them.
Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of the greater part (republished by Dörpfeld) is clear at least in a general way. The ταμίαι are to make a list of certain objects on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The servants of the temple, priests, etc., are to follow certain rules or be punished by fines. The ταμίαι are to open in person the doors of the chambers in the temple. These rules would not concern us except for the fact that the various parts of the building are mentioned. The whole building is called το Έκατόμπεδον; parts of it are the προνήϊον, the νεώς, the οίκημα ταμιείον and τα οίκήματα. There can be no doubt that these are respectively the eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and the two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most important of all is the fact that the whole building was called in the sixth century B.C. το Έκατόμπεδον. The word οπισθόδομος does not occur in the inscription, and we cannot tell whether the western half of the building was called opisthodomos in the sixth century or not. Very likely it was.