Did Julian the Apostate Rebuild the Parthenon?

Author(s): Alison Frantz

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Oct., 1979, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp.
395-401
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/504138

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/504138?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Did Julian the Apostate Rebuild the Parthenon?
ALISON FRANTZ

Abstract became plain that the new colonnade could not

have beenin-
At some undetermined date in late antiquity the erected before "a very late period." Re-
tained,
terior colonnade of the Parthenon was destroyed however, was a Hellenistic date for the
and a new set of columns erected in its damage
place. to
Inthe statue, its base and some columns of
1973 John Travlos advanced the theory that the de-and opisthodomos.3 The implication
the pronaos
struction occurred during the Herulian attack on
was that the colonnade of the cella escaped at that
Athens in A.D. 267 and that the reconstruction was
time.inLater,
effected in 362/3 by Julian the Apostate. But 1970 G.P. Stevens suggested a date in "the
a large number of fragments, recognizedRoman
as comingperiod" for the destruction of the cult
from the original colonnade, were discovered
statue'inand
the
the 2nd century, perhaps the time of
Agora, built into a wall of the middle of the 5th
Marcus Aurelius, for at least some repairs.5
century after Christ. This raises the problem of
The
where the columns had been if the destruction problem took on a new aspect with the dis-
took
place two centuries earlier. covery in i97o and 1972 of thirty-five fragments of
the Parthenon,
The present article reopens the question. Earlier chiefly of ceiling coffers from the
studies are reviewed briefly and Travlos' flanks,
arguments
end pteromata and porches, and of column
are countered in detail. An alternative solution is
drums from the original interior colonnade, most
offered: that the colonnade was destroyed at the
of them in the rubble foundations of the stylobate
end of the 4th century and that the rebuilding took
of a stoa of about the middle of the 5th century
place during the first quarter of the 5th, the dam-
aged columns having been removed to the Agorabordering the north side of the Agora. On the
to be drawn on for material for new building oper-strength of this discovery W.B. Dinsmoor, Jr., pro-
ations. A tentative hypothesis is advanced that the
posed a date for the erection of the new colonnade
instigator of the undertaking was Herculius, Prae-
torian Prefect of Illyricum from 407 to 412, and ina the first half of the 5th century, "shortly after"
known pagan. the destruction of the old.6 The possibilities opened
The date of the destruction of the interior of theup by this discovery cannot be dismissed lightly
and are discussed below.
Parthenon and the replacement of the inner colon-
nade has been a vexed question for many years. InTravlos, in his article cited above, publishes in
view of a recent article a review of the evidence detail his view that the Parthenon was heavily
and opinions is now desirable.' damaged by fire in the Herulian attack on Athens
In 1934 W.B. Dinsmoor advanced the theory in A.D. 267 and that the inner colonnade was re-
placed
that the interior of the building, including the cult in 361-363 under Julian the Apostate.
statue and its base, was destroyed by fire in Hel- Some at least of the confusion allowing such
lenistic times, and the inner colonnade replaced by divergencies arises from the assumption that all the
a new set of columns taken from some Hellenistic damage done to the interior of the building was
building.2 This opinion was revised later when it the result of one great conflagration. But this need
1 It is with some trepidation that I put forward the opinions 6 Hesperia Suppl. 3 (1938) 77-78 (chiefly for the east door).
expressed here, so widely divergent from those published in 6 Preliminary notices appeared in Hesperia 40 (1971) 275,
1973 by my close friend and colleague, John Travlos. We have 277 (T.L. Shear, Jr.) and AAA 4 (1971) 264-68, by W.B.
discussed our views at length, with results profitable, but un- Dinsmoor, Jr., who later published a detailed study "New Frag-
persuasive, on both sides. Mr. Travlos has invited a detailed ments of the Parthenon in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 43
reply to his article, "E PyrpolEsis tou Parthen6nos hypo t5n (1974) 132-55 (hereafter Dinsmoor, Jr.). Thirty-two of the
Eroul6n kai E EpiskeuE tou kata tous Chronous tou Auto- pieces came from this foundation; two others from a wall of
kratoros Iulianou," ArchEph 1973, 218-36 (hereafter Travlos). the end of the first quarter of the 5th century or later (I am
If, in availing myself of this invitation, I have made observa- indebted to Alan Walker for reexamining the coins found in
tions which seem captious, they should in no way be interpreted its footing trench and narrowing the date first published). One
as any diminution of my sincerest respect and admiration. more was found built into a wall of a house of the I840s. Both
2 AJA 38 (1934) 93-1o6 (hereafter Dinsmoor, Sr.). of these last two proveniences are in the area between the
3 AJA 45 (I94I) 270-76. Greek and Roman Agoras (T.L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia 42 [19731
4 Hesperia 24 (I955) 425-27. 395).

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 396 ALISON FRANTZ [AJA 83
not be so, as W.B.nally routed the Heruli operated
Dinsmoor, from the
Sr. woods
pointe
revised opinion.'outside the city,la giving the impression that the
The damage to the
statue need have no relation
barbarians to
were in full possession the
inside.'4 But wasdes
the inner colonnade.
this the "only"And
resistance? the fire
The word does not ap- w
some capitals in pear
the pronaos
in Dexippus. and
Might there not have been a op
small garrison
followed by repairs tooonexpertly
the Acropolis which could
done at
least have of
acter with the work hindered large-scale
late vandalism?
antiquity,
essarily responsibleTravlos
for rightly remarks destruction
the that the rebuilding of
monuments destroyed
nade and the ceilings outside or damaged the
by the Heruli
cell
result from eitherwouldaccident
have been very difficult
or immediately
war, afterlea
cation of which.' That the Parthenon suffered their departure." But that condition need not have
lasted beyond the end of the 3rd century. The
severely from fire is indisputable; for the time at
which the damage was serious enough to destroyabundant evidence from the Agora, the area of the
most concentrated destruction and where rebuild-
the colonnade there is no evidence. Nor, in fact,
is it certain that it was fire and not earthquake that
ing began only a century after the attack, does not
was the cause of its collapse, along with at least apply to the city as a whole. With the completion
parts of the ceilings of the peristyle and porches.of the Post-Herulian Wall as an inner defense soon
Both possibilities remain open."' after the reign of Probus (276-282) the Athenians
Travlos' arguments for both the destruction and could begin to resume normal life. To the south
rebuilding of the Parthenon deserve careful analy- and east of the Acropolis, for example, two large
sis. His assumption that only at a time of general and elaborate baths of the Hadrianic period were
holocaust would such an event as the burning in ofcontinuous use through late antiquity without
the Parthenon have gone unnoticed by historians"1 any appreciable interruption, even though there
cannot be held valid because references of any sortwere Herulian ruins in the area.'6 This impression
is borne out by the literary evidence, e.g. Julian's
to Athens in late antiquity are rare, and to its phys-
ical aspect, almost non-existent, whether in war remarks
or about Constantine's practical interest in
in peace. The assertion that "the capture of the Athens'7 and Himerius' praise of the proconsul
Acropolis by the Heruli must be considered certain Cervonius for his benefactions to the city."8
because its walls and the Beul6 Gate, built in the The possibility that the Heruli inflicted some mi-
time of Valerian, did not provide effective defensenor damage to the buildings on the Acropolis can-
against such a vigorous onslaught"12 cannot be not be excluded entirely. On the basis of probabil-
substantiated. A more positive indication is Dexip-ity, however, it is hard to believe that the Parthenon
pus' statement that his band of followers whowas fi- allowed to lie in ruins for a period of a cen-

7 AJA 45 (1941) 425-26, esp. n. 89. architectural members of buildings known to have been heavily
8 H.A. Thompson in conversation. I am indebted to Prof.
burned show no trace of it, e.g. the Stoa of Attalos in the
Thompson for this opinion and for general counsel on allAgora,
the but it is perhaps significant that not a single piece,
archaeological questions raised in this article. whether of coffers or columns, bears the marks of fire.
9 Travlos himself acknowledges two separate fires in the 11 Travlos 219.
Erechtheion (p. 223, n. 7). Referring to G.P. Stevens' dating
12 Travlos 220. A date for the construction of the Beul1
of the damage and repair "in the first century A.D." (actually
Gate in the reign of Valerian cannot be regarded as firmly es-
B.C.) in J.M. Paton et al., The Erechtheum (Cambridge, Mass.
tablished. Many problems about its history will not be solved
1927) 223-24, he attributes to the Heruli a second damage to an exhaustive investigation of the monument is made.
until
the north door along with the inner face of the west wall, which
la F. Jacoby, FGrHist. Ioo.28 (Pt. 2 A 472).
had been reconstructed in Roman times. The discovery of14aTravlos 222.
fragment of the Erechtheion building accounts in a closed
15 Travlos 224.
context of the first two decades of the Ist century B.C. shows16 Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New
beyond a doubt that it was the siege of Sulla in 86 B.C. that
York 1971) 18o-81; Baths C and I on fig. 221; also, for the
caused the damage necessitating some at least of the extensive
vicinity of Bath C, see Travlos, Deltion I9 (1964) Chronika
repairs "soon after 27 B.C." in many parts of the Erechtheion.
47-49.
For details, cf. H.A. Thompson in a note to D.M. Lewis, Hes- 17 Julian, Orat. 1.6.
peria 44 (1975) 384. 18 Himerius, Orat. IV (XXXVIII). Groag, in Die Reichsbeam-
10There was no evidence of fire on the newly discoveredten von Achaea in spdtrdmischer Zeit (Budapest 1946) 27-28,
fragments. This cannot be taken as a conclusive argument puts
for Cervonius' proconsulship toward the end of Constantine's
eliminating fire as the cause of the destruction because some
reign.

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
19791 DID JULIAN THE APOSTATE REBUILD THE PARTHENON? 397
themofsafely down the hill and across the whole
tury, from the Herulian invasion to the reign
Julian, while all around, except in the centerAgora
of themight have been better expended in re-
Agora, reconstruction was being carried out erecting
from them in their original position. But if, as
the time of Constantine. If the Parthenon did is suf-
likely, they were too badly damaged for this, the
whole operation might be regarded as a great
fer enough damage in 267 to necessitate rebuilding
clean-up operation not long after the destruction,
the whole interior, and that was not accomplished
to clear the ground for the rebuilding of the inte-
until the reign of Julian, where had the original
columns been from 267 until they were built rior. The debris would have been removed and
into
a 5th century foundation? The surfaces of distributed
the where building material was required.
fragments are fresher than would be expected Once inthe damaged remains were out of the way on
material that had been lying around exposed the Acropolis the next phase, being incidental to
to the
weather for a century, but even more importantthe main
is program, would have had no particular
urgency and could have continued for some time
the fact that so many pieces were found together.
Travlos assumes an intermediate use for the col- the work on the Parthenon was completed.
after
umns."9 The practice of taking columns, Some either of the material was perhaps intercepted for
use in the building where two of the pieces were
singly or in whole series, for use in new or restored
buildings, was common in late antiquity, butfound,
these just east of the Panathenaic Way at the foot
pieces must have been used not far from their offind-
the hill; the rest (of those so far discovered)
ing place because there are too many to have went on to the vicinity of their finding place where
ar-
rived together in one place by chance. Thethey Agorawere gradually drawn on for the general re-
construction
proper was one of the last areas to recover from the of the area. The fragments in the
Herulian invasion, remaining in a devastated foundation
state could be thought of as working chips
from
for a century, so that the only times favorable forhewing the larger pieces into usable blocks,
such an undertaking would have been either since
thethey would hardly have been worth trans-
2nd or 3rd century (before 267) or the early porting
5th, in their present state. The site is a likely
when the whole Agora was finally clearedone because, in addition to the building program
of the
Herulian debris and a great building program was
of the first quarter of the 5th century in the Agora,
set in motion. it appears from the limited evidence so far avail-
Another argument against the theory ofable that substantial construction was now going
inter-
mediate use of the columns is the presenceonofimmediately
so to the north as well. It is worth
many ceiling coffers along with the column noting
drums. that no fragments of the Parthenon have so
far
Ceiling coffers, even unbroken, would not readily been discovered in the Post-Herulian Wall.
lend themselves to reuse as such, and after a fall
Theofpossibility that Alaric might have been re-
sponsible
some 45 feet to the marble floor they would have for the damage was considered by Dins-
moor,
been of no use at all except as building material to Jr., but rejected because of the prevailing
be concealed in foundations or rubble walls, as in
belief that Alaric did not invade the city.21 Since
fact they were found.20 The columns of the then
upperit has become increasingly evident that Alaric
colonnade, from which two of the fragments entered
came, Athens in 396 and inflicted heavy damage
would have suffered in the same way. There on is
the
no lower city; the possibility cannot be ex-
way of knowing the state of the lower columnsthat he reached the Acropolis as well. The
cluded
literary evidence is conflicting. Zosimus' pictur-
after the disaster, but they too must have suffered
esque narrative according to which Alaric "left
severely to warrant their replacement by columns
from another old building. If they were in aAthens
usable and all of Attica unharmed,"22 is at var-
iance with contemporary accounts, e.g. St. Je-
condition the immense effort involved in dragging

19 Travlos 219, n. I. W.B. Dinsmoor, Sr., "The Temple of Ares at Athens," Hes-
20 More than 80 fragments of coffers from the Temple peria 9of(1940) 39-40; M.H. McAllister, "The Temple of Ares
Ares in the Agora were used in this way in the fillingatbetween
Athens," Hesperia 25 (I959) 41.
21 Dinsmoor, Jr., 177 n. 5.
the outer faces of the Post-Herulian Wall, while more adaptable
22were
pieces, ceiling beams, a triglyph and part of an epistyle, Zosimus 5.6.
built into one of the faces or were attributable to the wall;

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 398 ALISON FRANTZ [AJA 83

rome's, referringgionstoin Europe were shaken ("aliquantae

Athens as Euro-under
nation.23 Jerome pae quassatae
wrote sunt");28 3) Another
this in 396,inwith no396
Alaric's attack, location,
Zosimus reported by Marcellinus,
a century
Prosper and
chaeological evidence is lasting
Glykas:29 "an earthquake clear for
several days, and
Alaric's passagethecan
sky seemed be traced
to be on fire." from
One of these might
through the Agoraconceivably
by have shaken
coins the Parthenon
and enoughbur
to
radic traces havemake it vulnerablefound
been to some later disaster. But
elsewhe
On the Acropolis, of course,
among earthquake, almo
fire, accidental or otherwise,
from or other warlike
late antiquity activity, there
was can be no certainty
removed i
tury.25 whatever.
Although Athens is one of the least earthquake- Whatever the cause of the destruction, the end
prone cities in Greece the possibility of earthquake of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th
as the cause of the destruction of the Parthenon would fit well with the condition of the surviving
should not be excluded entirely. Mild to moderate
pieces and their vicissitudes. For corroboration we
shocks are not unknown, one of which did severemay turn to some of the historical aspects. In as-
damage to the Hephaisteion.26 Of known earth- sessing the activity in Athens resulting from Ju-
lian's order to restore pagan worship much de-
quakes in the area in the second half of the 4th
pends on the extent to which the edicts of previous
century and the first quarter of the 5th the follow-
ing may be noted: I) one in 375, recorded by reigns had been observed. In these far greater
emphasis was placed on the prohibition against
Zosimus,27 which struck "Crete, the Peloponnese,
with the rest of Greece, causing many cities to col-
sacrifices (four decrees before Julian)30 than on the
lapse, except Athens and the towns of Attica."closing of the temples (one), where some flexibility
Some skepticism may be retained about Athens' was allowed.31 It can be safely assumed that Julian
immunity which, according to Zosimus, was pro- would have included Athens among the cities re-
vided by Athena and Achilles (the same partner- ceiving aid for general purposes,32 but the case for
ship which saved "Athens and all of Attica" from the rebuilding of the Parthenon as part of his pro-
Alaric twenty years later. Even the credulous Zosi-gram to restore paganism rests only on its appar-
mus prefaces this statement by "they say"); 2) In ent suitability: "It must be considered certain that
394 a series of shocks from September to Novem- Julian would have aided with particular care in
ber, during which a considerable number of re- the rebuilding of the ruined temples and, surely,

23 "Quid putas nunc animi habere Corinthos, Athenienses, Studien zum Theseustempel in Athen [Berlin 19551 33, 41).
Lacedaemonios, Arcadas cunctamque Graeciam, quibus imperant 27 4.18.
barbari? et certas paucas urbes nominavi, in quibus olim fuere28 Count Marcellinus, Chronicon, Patrologia Latina 51 920
regna non modica." (Epist. LX.i6). Also, Philostorgius: (hereafter PL).
29 Marcellinus, PL 51 920; Prosper, PL 51 588; Glykas 478
"'AXdpxo~ o.. . r.47XOev 7r, 'EXXc8t, KaL 7r& 'AO7'vas eXtev,
Kat MacKE56,V KaL 70'r rpOcEXet AaXXCLaS X7'i70aro." (12. 2, (Bonn). J.J. Arce has drawn my attention to a reference by
Philostorgius Kirchengeschichte, ed. J. Bidez, 2nd ed. rev. by Libanius to an earthquake in 365 which left "every city in
F. Winkelmann [Berlin 1972] 140-41.) Greece except one" in ruins (Orat. 18 292). Included in this
24 For the date, cf. J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome (New York 1975) same passage were "the greatest cities in Sicily," Nicaea and
215. "the most beautiful of them all" (presumably Antioch); also
25 For a brief account of Alaric's activity, cf. Frantz, "SomePalestine and Libya. Ammianus, who devotes considerable space
Invaders of Athens in Late Antiquity," A Colloquium in Mem- to this earthquake (26.io.i5-20), gives no indication of the
ory of George Carpenter Miles (The American Numismatic geographical range, nor do any of the other writers who re-
Society, New York 1976) 12-13. The subject will be exploredported it (cf. G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria
more fully, with the archaeological evidence, in a forthcoming[Princeton 1961] 400, n. 21). The exceptionally broad limits
volume in the series The Athenian Agora. raise some doubt about the author's accuracy, but Antioch, at
26 The building was shaken to the foundations, causing the least, almost certainly suffered heavily.
opening up of joints, cracks in the walls and entablature and 30Codex Theodosianus 16.10.2; 16.10o.4; 16.io.5; 16.io.6,
displacement of column drums. The date is not known except ranging in date from 341 to 356 (hereafter CTh).
that it was before the construction of the vault in the Middle 31 Cf. CTh 16.10.3 (343) for the exemption of some temples
Byzantine period. Repeated earthquakes in the I8th and I9th in Rome because "from them is provided the regular perform-
centuries caused minor damage to the Hephaisteion, the Doric ance of longstanding amusements for the Roman people" (tr.
gateway to the Market of Caesar and Augustus, the "Odysseus by Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code [Princeton 1952]).
Bastion" on the Acropolis slopes, and threw down some blocks 32Mentioned in Mamertinus' panegyric (Grat. act. 9. XII
from the west pediment of the Parthenon itself (H. Koch, Panegyrici Latini, ed. R. Mynors [Oxford 1964] esp. p. 127).

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1979] DID JULIAN THE APOSTATE REBUILD THE PARTHENON? 399
the Parthenon.""33 However this statement
when is based
he says that Macedonia and Thrace
over to (as
on the unproven hypothesis that the Parthenon Julian's side and that "the temp
well as the other temples) was in ruins at the time.
Athena and those of the other gods were re-op
The closing sentences of Julian's Letter to the
by the emperor's own hand . . . making sacr
Athenians (which was devoted to justification
in personof and bidding others to do likewis
his behavior toward Constantius): "May Butthe
if,gods
as sometimes supposed, Athens is im
- grant to Athens all possible favors at my is completely out of context. No
the episode
hands! May she always have such emperors
tion ofas any
will such event appears in the more
honor her and love her above all cities""34 are surelyof Ammianus and Zosimus, who
narratives
only a rhetorical peroration and can be hardly be on to have included it with enthusi
counted
construed as evidence of active participation in any
There was no time during that hasty march
building program.
digression to Athens nor, for that matter, was
The only temples specifically mentioned in the
any other opportunity during his short reig
surviving historical accounts as having been re-
Julian to give his personal attention to the Par
opened or repaired by Julian are in the east, where
non.38 Libanius reverts to the subject of th
Christianity had taken hold much earlier than else-
opening of the temples later in the same oratio
where.35 The repair and reopening of the Parthe-
now in its proper context, and without specifi
non by Julian would have been an event to be
calities, after the death of Constantius and Ju
seized on by his admirers, Ammianus and Liba-
arrival in Constantinople. The earlier suggestio
nius; also Mamertinus, although his panegyric, if
"the temple of Athena" seems to be a gratu
actually delivered on the day of his inauguration
insert. The absence of mention of the Parth
to the consulship (January I, 362), might have
predated the event. Julian himself mightby anyhave
writer is comprehensible only if it had
been
mentioned it. Instead, silence on all sides, closed."4 Two statements of Julian him
although
his general order for the reopening of thelend color to this view. In one he recounts
temples
when he
was widely reported by pagan and Christian was summoned to Milan, away fro
writ-
studies
ers alike.36 And the silence is all the more in Athens, he wept bitterly and stre
signifi-
cant in the case of Julian, whose actionsout his hands
during his to the Akropolis, imploring A
whole public life were more fully and continuously
to save him from the journey,41 which seems t
documented than those of any other public ply official
that the Parthenon was open and functi
of his time. Libanius appears to hint at
assomething
a temple at the time (355). It must be rem
of the sort in the middle of his accountbered,
of Julian's
too, that the author of the Expositio to
advance toward Thrace to confront Constantius,
mundi, writing in 359 or 360, referred to the A

33 Travlos 225. The conclusions reached by Arce and the opinions exp
34 Loeb ed. p. 291, quoted by Travlos 225. above are closely parallel, but Arce explores the histor
35 For the collected passages cf. J. Bidez and F. Cumont,
pects with fuller documentation than was possible here,
Flavii Claudii luliani Epistulae, Leges, Poemata (Paris
special 1922) on the epigraphical evidence.
emphasis
47-49. The following examples may be noted: "dh& 36Travlos (p. 225) attributes the Christian silence on
7r7iv "Ew
robs 'EXX7LKOb% Vaos chipe... " (Sozomen 5.3.1); anto a sort of damnatio memoriae, and that
Parthenon
inscription recording the rebuilding under Julian of a to
pagans temple
fear, but the references on both sides to the g
near Bostra in Syria (Bidez and Cumont 49); order
the closing of this theory.
invalidate
the church at Antioch (Daphne) in revenge for the supposed
37 Orat. XVIII.I14.
responsibility of the Christians for the destruction of
38 the Temple
Cf. the abandonment of his project to reconstruct the
of Apollo (Amm. Marc. xxii.I3.I) and the setting up of the
ish Temple at Jerusalem after his departure from An
columns of the temple (robiS Klovas 7ro0 Aafvalovs oo0 Irpb
(G.W. Bowersock, Julian the Apostate [Cambridge, Mass.
Tr~V aXXww) (Julian, Epist. 29); the restoration Appendix
of the columns I, "The Chronology of the Attempt to Rebu
of Asklepios at Aegae, near Tarsus, at the expense
Jewish of the
Temple," pp. I20-22).
Christians, who had carried them away (Zonaras 13.12). Cf.
39 XIII.126.
also the Chronicon Paschale I 546-548 (Bonn) for the emphasis
40 For the case for the uninterrupted continuance of worship
on the east in general for anti-Christian activityin(Egypt, Syria,
the temples of Athens through the 5th century, cf. Frantz,
"From Paganism
Palestine, etc. by "oi Ka7T& ritV 'AvaroXLK2%V "EXXi'ves"). to Christianity in the Temples of Athens,"
J.J.
Arce's "Reconstruccione de templos en epoca del Emperador
DOPapers 19 (1965) I87-202 (hereafter Frantz DOP).
Juliano (361-63)," Rivista dell'Antichitai 5 (i975) 201-15,
41 Letter to the Athenians 275 A.
came to my attention as this article was about to go to press.

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 400 ALISON FRANTZ [AJA 83

polis and learning Contrary to the

as the chief ass
assets
In another passagelian's
Julianreign could that
observes the
there
in general, more than allwas another
nations, love
would have
among them the Athenians been
most of par
all
obedience to the does
laws no
was violence
far from
to
and one would notThat is the
expect theprefect
Greeks
vanguard of Prefect to
subservience of laws
Illyricum
which
a pagan.48
than most, disliked Herculius
or even opposed.
scale
Travlos argues that theenterprises of
only time whe
thenon could haveclosely identified
been restored wit
as a p
was under a pagan emperor-Julian.
brary of Hadrian byB
the
ignore the prevalent wall of the
disregard ent
of the l
statue
ens and the powerful of him
influence ofdedic
the
Academy; also, himself
probably, a sophist.49
certain am
way allowed by the
scription
imperialisgovernme
carved de
cal authorities.45
and from its comm
Here the archaeological evidence
trance the m
conclusio
was responsible
capitulated. A terminus ante quem for
of
fixed for the end the large
of an quatrefoi
elaborate, time
process, beginning with
which is the destruc
dated by its
lowed soon after by the removal
century. Anotherof con
th
lar
ceiling coffers and character,
columns theth
to clear m
the new building operations.
plex Next,
in the Agora, m
columns had to beto Herculius,50
found, brought and
up h
t
olis and re-erectednot confined
in the to At
Parthenon.46
building had to be reroofed.4
habitants In the
expressed
the damaged aqueduct,
columns perhaps
and coffers were
quarry for the new
Alaric.51 building operat
If the Parthenon
lower city, the final step was in a ruinous
being condition at the
the time,
spicuous places of theit is inconceivable
fragments that Herculius wouldlef
working the larger
have ignoredpieces into
it in favor of the lower city. It issuita
not
blocks. to be supposed that all of this vast program was
42 Chap. 52. For the accepted emendation of arcem for geneion, whose walls had crumbled and were rebuilt in 107/6
arcum, cf. J. Rouge, Expositio totius mundi et gentium, Intro-
B.C. "Karareo6VTOS 8 TOr 70 rept,6Xov ro 70v AtOYEiveOU 'rpOEVO-
duction, texte critique, traduction, notes et commentaire (Paris
10[7] r7^ s LOKEUV7 Sa6ro. . ... (IG II2 IOII, line 41). Ruined
1962) 292. For the date of the work, ibid, pp. 20-21. or semi-ruinous buildings were not an uncommon sight even in
43Misopogon 348 C. Pausanias' time; for a list, cf. J.G. Frazer, Pausanias' Descrip-
44 E.g. the prohibition against sacrifices and various measures
tion of Greece (New York 1898) I xiv note 6.
concerning the temples were still being reiterated under Arca-47 It was probably at this time that the cella was reroofed
dius and Honorius (CTh I6. i0, passim), and Theodosius and II the water channel cut around its inner edge.
shows his exasperation with the prevalent disregard of these48 Frantz, "Herculius in Athens: Pagan or Christian?," Akten
in the Novellae 3.8 (A.D. 438). des VII Internationalen Kongresses fuiir Christliche Archdiologie,
45 Frantz, DOP 2oo. Even as late as the Edict of Theodosius Trier 5-II September 1965. (Vatican City 1965) 527-30.
II in 435, requiring the destruction of "all sanctuaries, temples
9 IG II2 4224: TPj OeaCAPv Trapl'v 'EpKo6XLOS &yvov 5P rapXov
and shrines," the order was to be carried out by the local mag- IIXo6rapXos LuO wv raLqs &'qcrne ro/ar7Trs.
istrates ("praecepto magistratuum") who, in Athens, might be Cf. Travlos, Praktika 1950, 42; Frantz, supra n. 48 and DOP
expected to turn a blind eye, and obviously did. 190-93.
46 Travlos (pp. 228-31) has traced the columns to a Hellenis- 50 Coins and pottery give a date ca. 410-425 for its construc-
tic stoa which must have stood just north of the Acropolis, tion. Brief descriptions of the building have been published by
inside the Post-Herulian Wall. From their fresh condition it
H.A. Thompson in Hesperia 19 (1950) 131-4I; JRS 49 (1959)
seems that the building must have escaped destruction by the 67-68, and The Agora of Athens (The Athenian Agora XIV,
Heruli; its position inside the wall may have protectedPrincetonit i972), 211; also Frantz, DOP 191. A full publication
against Alaric. Perhaps it had simply fallen into decay, for the
will appear in a later volume of The Athenian Agora.
columns to be available while still whole. For an .earlier exam- 51 IG VII 93.
ple of a building suffering from natural decay, cf. the Dio-

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1979] DID JULIAN THE APOSTATE REBUILD THE PARTHENON? 401

epigram
completed within the five years of his tenure. links
The Herculius as closely as possib
actual work probably took a number of years
Athena, both in function and in place. He
longer, but he would have left the broad outlines of the laws is set up beside
the promachos
and the funds to carry it out.52 the Promachos of the city. That is, Herculiu
inof
Although the attribution to Herculius as the
dominating
re- a position in relation to t
thenonitas
building of the Parthenon lacks final proof, he occupied in the Library of H
gains
below.54
some authority from an inscription comparable to
that in the Library of Hadrian and in a compar-
able position: the dedication of another statue
27 HASLET of
AVENUE
Herculius by another sophist, Apronianus.53 The
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
52 Cf., for example, the possibility that Herculius was respon- non in 375 (Zosimus 4.18.3), and either the same or another
sible not only for the structural rehabilitation of the Library of was there until some time before the death of Proclus, the Head
Hadrian but for the replenishment of the books as well (Frantz, of the Neoplatonic Academy, in 485, when "that statue of hers
"Honors to a Librarian," Hesperia 35 [1966] 377-80). which had stood for so long in the Parthenon was taken away
53 IG 112 4225: by those people (i.e. the Christians) who move things which
r]bY 7rp6pyaXov 8Oeovyv 'E[pK]oVXov [10o]-v ] raitv should not be moved." (Marinus, Vita Procli cap. 30.)
i6?ieiVoV OtdKWV i[] V6Oei a[i]rKUvTiTwV The now largely discredited belief that the statue was taken
8]ewibs 'AO7l'cwi 'Airpwmavo6s oe Co -]er]ris to Constantinople apparently rests on Dindorf's incomplete quo-
tation of Aristeides' reference to Pheidias' three statues of
v]T T77e 7rapa IIpopdxwL IIaXXCifL KEKpo7rL[4s].
54 The fate of the Athena Parthenos herself lies beyond the Athena: "the ivory, the bronze and the Lemnian" (Aristeides,
scope of the present article, but a few words about the known Orat. 50.408 line 15). Arethas comments at the end of the de-
facts should perhaps be included. That she was stripped of her scription that "this, I believe, is the one in the Forum of Constan-
gold by Lachares is common knowledge (a date of ca. 295 B.C. tine," which might refer to any one of the three, but Dindorf
was kindly provided by Prof. Christian Habicht). Probably the (Bonn, II 71o) prefaces the comment with the words "'A01la^vy
gold was never replaced in toto but gold leaf may have taken r77v XEACE7aPiYiv"' (an abridgement of Arethas.) Arethas of
its place. Little can have been left of the original statue after course was referring to the bronze Athena which stood in front
the destruction of the base in the middle of the 2nd century of the Senate House in Constantinople and was pulled down in
B.C. and an entirely new statue may have been made at that 1203 by a drunken mob. (Cf. S.B. Kougeas, "Hai en tois
time (W.B. Dinsmoor, Sr., 93-96). scholious tou Aretha laographikai eid~seis," Laographia 4
How often the statue was replaced in later times, if at all, [1912] 240, and R.J.H. Jenkins, "The Bronze Athena at Byzan-
can probably never be known. A cult statue was in the Parthe- tium," JHS 67 [19471 31-33.)

This content downloaded from

90.164.61.166 on Thu, 27 Oct 2022 12:02:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms