Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/307

 ATHENAE. The three interior walls of the Theseium were decorated with paintings by Micon. (Paus. l. c.) The stucco upon which they were painted is still apparent, and shows that each painting covered the entire wall from the roof to two feet nine inches short of the pavement. (Leake, p. 512.)

The identification of the church at St. G«arge with the temple of Theseus has always been considered one of the most certain points in Athenian topography; but it has been attacked by Ross, in a pamphlet written in modern Greek (rh Sqsfiiu' ml i iv^T Tai 'UptMS, Athen. 1838), in which it is maintained that the building usually called the Theseium is in reality the temple at Ares, mentioned by Pausanias (i. 8. § 4). Ross argues, 1. That the temple of Theseus is described by Plutarch as situated in the centre of the city (Ir /tir^ if w6. Thes. 36), whereas the existing temple is near the western extremity of the ancient city. 2. That it appears, from the testimony of Cyriacus of Ancona, who travelled in Greece in 1436, that at that time the edifice bore the name of the temple of Ares. 3. That there have been discovered immediately ATHENAE. SSS below the builiding a row of marble statues or Caryatids, representing human figures, with serpents' tails for their lower extremities, which Ross consideres to be the eponymous heroes of the Attic tribes mentioned by Pausanias as in the immediate neighbourhood of the temple of Ares. 4. The fact of the sculptures at the temple representing the exploits of Theseus and Hercules Roes does not consider sufficient to prove that it was the Theseium; since the exploits of these two heroes are exactly the subjects which the Athenians would be likely to select as the most appropriate decoration! of the temple of the god of war.

An abstract of Ross's arguments is given by Mure (vol. ii. p. 3l6) and Westermann (in Jahn's Jahrbücher, vol. ii. p. 342); but as his hypothesis has been generally rejected by scholars, it is unnecessary to enter into any refutation of it. (Comp. Pittakis, in Athen. Archäol. Zeitung, 1838, Febr. and March; Gerhard, Hall. Lit. Zeit. 1839, No. 159; Ulrichs, in Annal. d. Inst. Archäol. 1843, p. 74, foll.; Curtius, Archäol. Zeitschrift, 1843, No. 6.)

THE THESEIUM.

The site of the Olympieium ('0u>iiriiut), or Temple of Zeus Olympius, is indicated by sixteen gigantic Corinthian columns of white marble, to the south-east of the Acropolis, and near the right bank of the Ilissus. This temple not only exceeded in magnitude all other temples in Athens, but was the greatest ever dedicated tn the supreme deity of the Greeks, and one of the four most renowned examples of architecture in marble, the other three being the temples of Ephesus, Branchidae, and Eleusis. (Vitruv. vii. Praef.) It was commenced by Peisistratus, and finished by Hadrian, after many suspensions and interruptions, the work occupying a period of nearly 700 years. Hence it is called by Philostraus "a great struggle with time" {xp^"" ***)" *>■'- rwM, Vit. Soph. i. 25. § 3). The original founder of the temple ta laid to have been Deucalion. (Paus. i. 18. § 8.) The erection of the temple was entrusted by Peisistratus to four architects, whose

names are recorded by Vitruvius (k. c.), and oy whom it appears to have been planned in all its extent and magnitude. The work was continued by the sons of Peisistratus; but after their expulsion from Athens it remained untouched for nearly 400 years. It is not impossible, as Mure has remarked, that prejudice against the Pesistratidae may have operated against the prosecution of their unfinished monuments, although no allusion occurs in any writer to such a motive for the suspension of the work.

The Peisistratidae most have made considerable progress in the work, since ancient writers speak of it in its unfinished state in terms of the highest admiration. It also appears from these accounts to have suffered little from the Persian invasion, probably from its only consisting at that time of solid masses of masonry, which the Persians would hardly have taken the trouble of demolishing. Dicaearchus, who visited Athens prior to any renewal of the work, describes it, "though half finished, as ex-