Note (return) — FIGURES.

Dörpfeld (Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406; (3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias reads in our texts:--Λέλκται δέ μοι καί πρότρον (17.1), ώς Άθηναίοις περισσότερόν τι ή τοις άλλοις ές τα θειά εστι σπουδης· πρώτοι μεν γαρ Άθηνάν έπωνόμασαν Έργάνην, πρωτοι δ' άκώλους Έρμάς ... όμού δέ σφισιν εν τω ναώ Σπουδαίων δαίμων εστίν. Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between Έρμάς and όμού, as do those editors who do not supply a recommendation. Dörpfeld, however, thinks the gap is far greater than has been supposed, including certainly the mention and probably the full description of the temple under discussion. His reasons are in substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias has reached a point in his periegesis where he would naturally mention this temple, because he is standing beside it, 5 and (2) the phrase όμου δέ σφισιν εν τω ναω Σπουδαίων δαίμων eστίν implies that a temple has just been mentioned. These are, at least, the main arguments, those deduced from the passage following the description of the Erechtheion being merely accessory.