Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more
especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a
_pronaos_ or _proneion_ formed part of each; one temple was
called [Greek: to Ecatomedon], and the main cella of the other
was called [Greek: o Ecatompedos][26], and this name was
extended to the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of
Page 13 each building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the
new one, like the old, was called simply [Greek: o
opisthodomos]. As soon as the great Periclean temple was
completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was quietly removed
as had been intended from the first, the treasure was deposited
in the great new opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might
still cling to the temple of the sixth century were transferred,
along with the old names, to the splendid new building; the
greatest temple on the Acropolis was now as before the house of
the patron goddess of the land, and contained her treasure and
that of her faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not
exist side by side. There was, then, no reason for
differentiating between the two temples, as, for instance, by
calling the one that had been removed [Greek: o archaios neôs],
because the one that had been removed was no longer in
existence. That the designation [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs]
is applicable to the Erechtheion has been accepted for many
years and has been explained anew by Petersen.[27] If the temple
burnt by the Persians had continued to exist alongside of the
Parthenon, one might doubt whether it or the Erechtheion was
meant by the expression [Greek: o archaios neôs], but if one of
the two temples was no longer in existence, the name must belong
to the other. It is just possible that in Hesychios, [Greek:
Ecatompedos neôs en te acropolis te Parthenè cataskeuastheis upo
Athenaiôn, meixôn tou empresthentos upa tôn Persôn posi
penteconta], the expression [Greek: tou empresthentos upo tôn
Persôn posi penteconta (neô or possibly Ecatompedon neô)] was
originally chosen because the expression [Greek: archaiou neô]
(which would otherwise be very appropriate here) was regularly
used to designate the Erechtheion.[28]
[Footnote 26: Or [Greek: to Ecatompedon]. Even after Dörpfeld's
arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the
use of the two expressions can be found.]
[Footnote 27: _Mitth_., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern
with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes
furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a
church called the _Old South_ church. This became too small and
too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was
built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to
destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new
and in a different part of the city) would have been called the
Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and
the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church,
though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of
the continued existence of the old building. So the new
building of the Erechtheion retained the name [Greek: archaios
neôs] which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]
[Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements
of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight
inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however,
(p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they
had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any
inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older
temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first
made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally
meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis,
_Stadtgeschichte,_ p. 72, seems to think, as a proud
designation of a grand new building.]
Page 14 At the end of his last article on this subject, Dörpfeld calls
attention to the fact that "not only the lower step
(_Unterstufe_) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate
are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones
are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole
stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the
Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do
not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that
we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in
classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all
the objects--votive offerings and the like--set up in various
places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple
may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary
or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may
have been left as a reminder to future generations of the
devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones
is called by Dörpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently
considered" (_eine bisher nicht genügend bechtete Thatsache_).
I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long
"insufficiently considered" by Dörpfeld and others if it were
really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple
continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am
right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last
centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist
when the Parthenon was completed. Dörpfeld is certainly
justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued
Page 15 existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has
no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (_darf
den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen_).
[Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the
stylobate still _in situ_ favors this conjecture, is for those
on the spot to decide. It looks in Dörpfeld's plans (_Ant.
Denkm.,_ i, I, and _Mitth.,_ XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in
it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]
[Footnote 30: _Mitth.,_ xv, 438. This is directed against the
closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We
cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple)
happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the
times of Plutarch," _etc._]
In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some
points because I wished to confine myself to what was
necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages
containing the expression [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs],
as they have been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too,
I have omitted all mention of the [Greek: megaron ta pros
esperan tetrammenon],[31] the [Greek: parastades],[32] the
passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34] and some other
writers, because these references and allusions, being more
or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have been)
explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as
evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple
burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret
the passages in question accordingly.
To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that
Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and
(2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of
the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe
that the temple continued to exist in some form until the
completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so
much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that
the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house
during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of
the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy
of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as
the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians
was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire,
therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the
Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at
some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far
from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the
opisthodomos of the Parthenon.
[Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]
[Footnote 32: _CIA_, II, 733, 735, 708.]
[Footnote 33: _Od._, VII. 80 f.; _Il._, II. 546 ff. _Mitth._,
XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]
[Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. _cf. Mitth._, XII., pp. 69, 206.]
It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have
_proved_ the non-existence of the earlier temple after the
completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence
Page 16 is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is
not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable
likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the
time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its
disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the
Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I
any further evidence either for or against its continued
existence.
HAROLD N. FOWLER.
_Exeter, New Hampshire_, March, 1892.
[Footnote 35: The fact that Pausanias does not mention this
temple is not a certain proof that he might not have seen it,
for he fails to mention other things that certainly existed in
his day. This temple, however, if it then existed, must have
been in marked contrast to almost every other building in the
Acropolis, and would have had special attractions for a person
of Pausanias' archæological tastes.]
POSTSCRIPT.--This article had already left my hands when I
received the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (XII. 2), containing
an article by Mr. Penrose, _On the Ancient Hecatompedon which
occupied the site of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens_.
Mr. Penrose contends that the old Hekatompedon was a temple of
unusual length in proportion to its width, that it stood on the
site of the Parthenon, and was built 100 years or more before
the Persian invasion. He thinks, too, that the Doric
architectural members built into the Acropolis-wall, which are
referred by Dörpfeld to the archaic temple beside the
Erechtheion, belonged to the building on the site of the
Parthenon. He is led to these assumptions chiefly by masons'
marks on some of the stones of the sub-structure of the
Parthenon. He holds it "as incontrovertible that the marks have
reference to the building on which they are found." The
distances between these marks offer certain numerical relations
which must, Mr. Penrose thinks, correspond to some of the
dimensions of the building to which the marks refer. "If they
had reference to the Parthenon, they would have shown a number
of exact coincidences with the important sub-divisions of the
temple." Of these coincidences Mr. Penrose has found but three,
which he considers fortuitous. As accessory arguments he
adduces the condition of the filling in to the south of the
Page 17 Parthenon, and the absence of old architectural material in the
sub-structure of the Parthenon, _etc_. He seems, however, to
rest his case chiefly upon the masons' marks.
I cannot even attempt to discuss this new theory in detail, but
would mention one or two things which seem to tell against Mr.
Penrose's view. The inscription published by Lolling mentions
an [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: oikemata] as parts of the
Hekatompedon, and such apartments evidently existed in the
temple beside the Erechtheion. Mr. Penrose assumes that the
temple beside the Erechtheion antedates his Hekatompedon,
without regard to the fact that the use of the stone employed
in the outer foundations of the archaic temple points to a much
later period. The archaic temple was (at least approximately)
100 feet long, which makes it seem almost impossible that a new
temple should be built on the Acropolis and called the
Hundred-foot-temple (Hekatompedon). I cannot avoid attaching
more importance to these considerations than to the arguments
advanced by Mr. Penrose. It may be, however, that answers to
these and other objections will be found.
If Mr. Penrose's theory is correct, it is evident that the old
Hekatompedon must have ceased to exist before the building of
the Parthenon. Whether the archaic temple excavated in 1886
continued to exist or not is, then, another matter. My main
contention (that there is no good reason for assuming the
continued existence through the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
of the archaic temple) is not affected by Mr. Penrose's theory,
and I leave my arguments, such as they are, for the
consideration alike of those who do and who do not agree with
Mr. Penrose. Much of my article will appear irrelevant to the
former class, but, as Mr. Penrose's views may not be at once
generally accepted, it is as well to leave the discussion of
previous theories as it was before the appearance of Mr.
Penrose's article.
H. N. F.
NOTE.--For a discussion of Mr. Penrose's theories and
conclusions, see now (Nov. 1892), Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitth.,_
XVII, pp. 158, ff.
Page 18
NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE
SCULPTURES.
The following compilation is intended to present in compact
form the evidence at present available on this question: How
far did the Greeks choose, for the sculptured decorations of a
temple, subjects connected with the principal divinity or
divinities worshiped in that temple? We have omitted some
examples of sculpture in very exceptional situations, _e.g._,
the sculptured drums of the sixth century and fourth century
temples of Artemis at Ephesos. Acroteria have also been
omitted. But we have attempted to include every Greek temple
known to have had pediment-figures or sculptured metopes or
frieze, and have thus, for the sake of completeness, registered
some examples which are valueless for the main question. The
groups from Delos, attributed on their first discovery to the
pediments of the Apollon-temple, have been proved by
Furtwängler to have been acroteria (_Arch, Zeitung_, 1882, p.
336 ff.) It does not appear that Lebas had any good grounds for
attributing to a temple the relief found by him at Rhamnus
(_Voyage archéologique Monuments figurés_, No. 19,) and now in
Munich. The frieze from Priene representing a gigantomachy was
not a part of the temple there (Wolters, _Jahrbuch des
deutschen arch. Instituts_, I, pp. 56, ff.) The Poseidon and
Amphitrite frieze in Munich (Brunn, _Beschreibung der
Glyptothek_, No. 115) has been, by some, taken for a piece of
temple decoration, but is too doubtful an example to be
catalogued. The statement of Pausanias (II. 11. 8) about the
pediment-sculptures ([Greek: ta en tois aetois]) of the
Asklepieion at Titane is hopelessly inadequate and perhaps
inaccurate.
The order of arrangement in the following table is roughly
chronological, absolute precision being impossible. Ionic
Page 19 temples are designated by a prefixed asterisk, the one
Corinthian by a dagger. The others are Doric, and, in the ease
of these, "Sculptures of the Exterior Frieze" refers, of
course, to sculptured metopes.
It has not been our purpose to discuss at length the
conclusions to be drawn from this evidence. Briefly, the
results may be summarized as follows:
The principal sculpture (_i.e._, sculpture of the principal
pediment, or, in the absence of pediment-sculpture, the frieze
in the most important situation) included the figure of the
temple divinity, generally in central position, in the
following numbers: [A] 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26. If 12,
14 and 32 had no pediment-sculptures, they should be added;
probably also 33 and 34. In 30 the subject of the
pediment-sculpture, if correctly divined by Conze, was, at any
rate, closely related to the temple-divinities.
[Footnote A: In counting the Aigina temple we commit
deliberately a _circulus in probando_.]
The principal sculpture apparently did not include or
especially refer to the temple-divinity in the following: 20,
24, 25. Practice would seem to have become somewhat relaxed
after about 425 B.C. The very singular temple of Assos, (No.
5), though earlier, should perhaps be added.
The temple-divinity was represented in the western pediments of
7, 13 and perhaps of 20, but not of that in 9, 11, 24 (?) or
25.
The subjects of sculptured metopes and friezes were largely or
wholly without obvious relation to the temple-divinity in the
following: 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 1.9, 23, 29, 32.
P.B. TARBELL.
W.N. BATES.
Page 20
PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
B.C.
1 Selinous Apollon (?) _ca._ 625
(Temple C)
2 Selinous _ca._ 625
3 Athens _ca._ 600 E.: (?) Zeus fighting Typhon;
(Acropolis) Herakles fighting
serpent.
W. (?): Herakles fighting
Triton; Kerkopes(?)
4 Athens _ca._ 600 E. (?): Herakles fighting
(Acropolis) Hydra.
W. (?): Herakles fighting
Triton.
5 Assos VI cent. (?)
6 Metapontum Apollon VI cent. (?) Subject unknown
7 Aigina Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. & W.: Combats of
Greeks and Trojans;
Athena in centre.
8 Athens Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. (?): Gigantomachy,
(Acropolis) including Athena (in
centre?)
9 Delphi Apollon VI cent. after E.: Apollon, Artemis,
548 Leto, Muses.
W.: Dionysos, Thyiads,
Setting Sun, _etc._
10 Selinous VI cent.
(Temple F)
11 Olympia Zeus _ca._ 460 E.: Preparations for
chariot-race of Pelops
and Oinomaos;
Zeus as arbiter in
centre.
W.: Centauromachy;
Apollon (?) in centre.
Page 21
OTHER
SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
1 E.: in centre, two quadrigae
with unidentified figs., also
Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles
carrying Kerkopes, _etc._
W.: Subjects unknown.
2 Europa on bull, winged sphinx,
_etc._
3
4
5 E. (and W. ?): Pair of sphinxes, Exterior architrave: pairs
Centaur, wild hog, man pursuing of sphinxes in centre of E. &
woman, two men in combat, W. fronts (?), Herakles and
_etc._ Triton, Herakles and Centaurs,
symposium, combats
of animals.
6
7 None.
8
9 Herakles killing Hydra, Bellerophon
killing Chimaera,
combats of gods and giants,
_etc._
10 E.: Scenes from Gigantomachy.
11 12 metopes over columns and
antæ of pronaos and opisthodomos:
labors of Herakles.
Page 22
===================================================================
| PLACE. | DIVINITY. | DATE. |PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------------
| | | B.C. |
| Selinous | Hera (?) |ca. 450 (?)|
12| (Temple E)| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
13| Athens | Athena |ca. 445-438|E.: Birth of Athena.
|(Acropolis)| | |W.: Contest of Athena
| | | | and Poseidon for Attika.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
14| Sunjon | Athena |ca. 435 (?)|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
15| Athens | |ca. 435 (?)|E. & W.: Lost; subjects
| | | |unknown.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
*16| Athens | Athena | ca. 432 |None
|(Acropolis)| Nike | |
| | | |
17| Kroton | Hera | V cent., |Undescribed.
| | | 2d half |
18| Agrigentum| Zeus | V cent., |
| | | before 405|
19| Bassae | Apollon |ca. 425 (?)|None.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Page 23
===================================================================
|SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
| |
12| None. |Metopes over pronaos: Herakles
| | and Amazon, Zeus and
| | Hera, Artemis and Aktaion,
| | etc.
| |Metopes over opisthodomos:
| | Athena and Enkelados, _etc._
13|E.: Gigantomachy; Athena |Ionic frieze around cella,
| over central | pronaos and opisthodomos:
| intercolumniation. | Panathenaic procession.
|W.: Amazonomachy. |
|S.: Centauromachy and seven |
| scenes from Iliupersis. |
|N.: Iliupersis and nine |
| scenes from Centauromachy. |
14| |Ionic frieze on four inner sides
| | of E. vestibule, between
| | pronaos and outer columns:
| | Gigantomachy, including
| | Athena over entrance to
| | pronaos (?), Centauromachy,
| | exploits of Theseus.
15|E.: Labors of Herakles. |Ionic frieze over pronaos
|N. & S., at E. end (four | and across pteroma: battle
| metopes on each side): | scene.
| exploits of Theseus. |Ionic frieze over opisthodomos,
| | Centauromachy.
*16|E.: assemblage of gods, |
| Athena in centre. |
|N. W. S.: battle-scenes. |
17| |
| |
18|E.: Gigantomachy. |
|W.: Iliupersis. |
19|None. |Metopes over pronaos: Apolline
| | and Dionysiac scenes.
| | Interior cella-frieze:
| | Amazonomachy, Centauromachy
| | (Apollon and Artemis
| | represented.)
Page 24
===================================================================
| PLACE. | DIVINITY. | DATE. |PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------------
| | | B.C. |
20| near Argos| Hera | ca. 420. |E.: Birth of Zeus (?)
| | | |W.: Battle of Greeks
| | | | and Trojans. (?)
*21| Athens |Erechtheus | 420-408 |None.
|(Acropolis)| | |
*22| Locri | | V cent., |E.: Lost.
|Epizephyrii| |latter part|W.: Subject unknown,
| | | | including Dioscuri (?)
*23|Samothrace | Cabiri | ca. 400 |
24| Tegea | Athena | IV cent., |E.: Calydonian boar-hunt
| | Alea |first half | (no divinity
| | | | represented.)
| | | |W.: Contest of Telephos
| | | | and Achilles.
25| Epidauros | Asklepios |ca. 375 (?)|E.: Centauromachy.
| | | |W.: Amazonomachy.
26| Thebes | Herakles |ca. 370 (?)|Labors of Herakles.
*27| Ephesos | Artemis | ca. 330 |
*28| Troad | Apollon | III cent. |
| | Smintheus | |
*29| Magnesia | Artemis | III cent. |
30|Samothrace | Cabiri | III cent. |N.: Demeter seeking
| | | III cent. | Persephone (?)
*31| Lagina | Hekate | |
32| Ilium | Athena (?)|II cent.(?)|
| Novum | | |
| | | |
*33| Teos | Dionysos |Roman times|
*34| Knidos |Dionysos(?)|Roman times|
Page 25
===================================================================
|SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
| |
20|E.: Gigantomachy (?) |
|W.: Iliupersis (?) |
| |
*21|Uninterpreted. |
| |
*22| |
| |
| |
*23|Dancing women. |
24| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
25| |
| |
26| |
*27|Mythological scenes. |
*28|Scenes of combat. |
| |
*29|Amazonomachy. |
30| |
| |
*31|Subjects unknown. |
32|Helios in chariot, Athena and|
| Enkelados, other scenes of |
| combat. |
*33|Dionysiac procession. |
*34|Dionysiac scenes, etc. |
Page 26
[Note 1: BENNDORF, _Metopen von Selinunt_, pp. 38-50;
SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di Sicilia_, II, p. 16.]
[Note 2: _Monumenti Antichi_, I, p. 950 ff.]
[Note 3: BRÜCKNER, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1889, pp. 67
ff.; 1890, pp. 84 ff.]
[Note 4: MEIER, _Ath. Mitth._, 1885, pp. 237 ff., 322 ff.]
[Note 5: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1149 ff.;
CLARKE, _Report on Investigations at Assos_, pp. 105-121. This
temple has been usually assigned to the sixth century. Mr.
Clarke brings it down to about the middle of the fifth. His
arguments have not yet been published in full.]
[Note 6: LACAVA, _Topografia e Storia di Metaponto_, p. 81.]
[Note 7: Since the inscription which was at one time supposed
to fix the divinity of this temple has been disposed of by
LOLLING, in _Arch. Zeitung_, XXXI (1874, p. 58), the designation
given above rests solely on the prominence given to Athena in
the pediment-sculptures. As for the date, the building is
assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth cent. (_Olympia_, _Textband_
II, p. 20). The pediment-sculptures might be later, but are now
confidently carried by STUDNICZKA (_Ath. Mitth._, 1886, pp.
197-8) some decades back in the sixth century.]
[Note 8: STUDNICZKA, _Ath. Mitth._, 1886. pp. 185, ff.; MAYER,
_Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 290-91. According to DÖRPFELD, the
metopes of this temple, or some of them, may have been
sculptured.]
[Note 9: PAUS., X, 19. 4. EURIP., _Ion_, 184 ff. The temple
seems to have been long in building. If AISCH, _contra Cles._,
§ 116, is to be believed, the dedication did not take place
till after 479. According to Pausanias, the pediment-sculptures
were the work of Praxias and Androsthenes. These sculptures
have been generally supposed to have been executed about 424,
but may have been considerably earlier, so far as Pausanias
goes to show. The excavations now in progress will, it is to be
hoped, clear up the whole subject.]
[Note 10: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 50-52.]
[Note 11: PAUS., V., 10. 6-9. For the date, see DÖRPFELD,
_Olympia_, _Textband_ II, pp. 19 ff. FLASCH, in Baumeister's
_Denkmäler_, pp. 1098-1100.]
[Note 12: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 53-60. The attribution of
the temple to Hera rests on the dubious ground of a single
votive inscription to Hera found within the cella; _op. cit._,
p. 34.]
[Note 13: PAUS., I. 24. 5; MICHAELIS, _Der Parthenon_, pp.
107-265; ROBERT, _Arch. Zeit_, 1884, pp. 47-58; MAYER,
_Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 366-370.]
[Note 14: FABRICIUS, _Ath. Mitth._, 1884, 338 ff.; for the
date, DÖRPFELD, _ibid._ p. 336.]
[Note 15: The so-called Theseion.]
[Note 16: ROSS, _Temple der Nike Apteros_, pls. 11-12;
FRIEDERICHS, _Bausteine_, (ed. Wolters) Nos. 747-760. On the
date, see WOLTERS, _Bonger Studien Reinhard Kekulé gewidmet_,
pp. 92-101.]
[Note 17: _Eighth Annual Report of the Archæological Institute
of America_, pp. 42 ff.]
[Note 18: DIOD. SIC., XIII. 82. It is disputed whether Diodoros
speaks of pediment-sculptures or metopes; see PETERSEN, _Kunst
des Pheidias_, p. 208, Note 4. Nothing can be made of the
existing fragments; published by SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di
Sicilia_, III, pl. 25.]
[Note 19: COCKERELL. _Temples of Aegina and Bassae_, pp. 49-50,
52.]
[Note 20: PAUS, II. 17. 3. The distribution of subjects given
above is that proposed by Dr. Waldstein, in the light of the
Page 27 discoveries made on the site of the Heraion under his direction
in the spring of 1892. See Thirteenth _Annual Report of the
Archæological Institute of America_, p. 64.]
[Note 21: FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine (ed. Wolters) Nos. 812-820. On
the date see MICHAELIS, Ath. Mitth., 1889, pp. 349 ff.]
[Note 22: _Notiziz degli Scavi_, 1890, pp. 255-57; PETERSEN,
_Bull, dell' Istituto_, 1890, pp. 201-27.]
[Note 23: CONZE, _etc., Arch. Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_,
II, pp. 13-14, 23-25.]
[Note 24: PAUS., VIII. 45. 4-7; TREU, Ath. Mitth., 1881, pp.
393-423; WEIL, in Baumeister's Denkmäler, 1666-69.]
[Note 25: [Greek: Ephemeris Archaiologike], 1884, pp. 49-60;
1885, pp. 41-44. For the date see FOUCART, _Bull, de corr.
hellén._, 1890, pp. 589-92.]