what necessary connection had a battle between Achilleus and Têlephos with the temple of Athênâ Alea at Tegea? Yet this was the subject which decorated its western pediment. Or again, to come down to friezes, what relation had a battle between men and Amazons, or between Centaurs and Lapithai, with the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bâssai? Yet these were the subjects which decorated its famous frieze. It would be easy to adduce many other examples tending to the same result. When, therefore, Overbeck triumphantly asked Petersen: "Does my opponent favour the thesis of L. Ross, that there is no intimate connection between the significance of a temple and the subjects of its plastic decoration ?” the latter might have calmly replied in the affirmative, and pointed to the above examples and many others besides. It follows that the major premise of the above syllogism is groundless, and, therefore, so is also the conclusion.

Lest, however, there should be any cavilling about the meaning of the words necessary and intimate, let us show that the minor premise is likewise groundless. As we have seen, both Stark and Overbeck unreservedly assert that "the Panathenaia was the only festival that stood in necessary relation to the Parthenon," while Christian Petersen contents himself with saying that the festival in question "had relation specially, if not entirely (!) to this temple." These are strong assertions by great authorities, well calculated to influence the opinion of other scholars. From

their boldness, we might readily imagine that they rested upon irrefragable grounds. But Michaelis, after the most careful collecting and sifting of testimony, can find no proof that there was any connection whatever between the Panathenaia and the Parthenon. The assumption, which he nevertheless makes, that such connection existed, is based upon a series of the wildest guesses that ever were made. Let us show this.

Pliny, speaking of the habit of conferring crowns, says, "Civica iligna primo fuit, postea magis placuit ex æsculo Jovi sacra. ... Additæ leges artæ et ideo superbæ quasque conferre libeat cum illa Græcorum summa quæ sub ipso Jove datur cuique muros patria gaudens rumpit."* It is hardly necessary to remark that this passage is obscure and corrupt. If we

translate the second sentence literally, it gives the following meaning:-"Laws (were) introduced, strict and, therefore, overbearing, and such as we might choose to compare to that supreme (law) of the Greeks, which is given under Jupiter himself, and for which (his) native city joyously makes a breach in its walls." In order to derive the desired meaning from this passage, five assumptions are made. First, it is assumed that after superbe we must supply corona civica sunt, after summa, corona, and after patria, victoris. We then obtain the following:Strict regulations (have been) introduced, and, therefore, civic crowns are objects of pride, which one • Nat. Hist., xvi. 11 sq.

likes to compare to that supreme crown which is given under Jupiter himself (or, under the open sky itself), and for which the victor's native city joyously makes a breach in its walls." Second, it is assumed that sub ipso Jove means before Jupiter himself, although sub, in this sense, is, to say the least, extremely rare, and sub Jove is a standing phrase for under the open sky.* Indeed sub ipso Jove is exactly equivalent to our before very heaven, or before heaven itself. Third, it is assumed that before Jupiter himself means, before a statue of Jupiter, although there is not the slightest reason why Pliny, if this had been his meaning, should not have said sub ipso Jovis simulacro. Fourth, it is assumed that the statue meant was the Pheidian colossus, which stood in the great temple at Olympia, although there were plenty of other statues of Jupiter at Olympia as well as elsewhere, many of them standing in the open air. Fifth, it is assumed that the "supreme crown" referred to was the crown conferred upon the victors at the Olympic games, although the term would apply very much better to the so-called apιortia or ápiøretov conferred upon the chief hero in a great battle.f Granted all these five assumptions, for not * E.g. Horace, Odes, i. 1, 25.

† Indeed, I am inclined to think that Pliny's summa is only an attempted translation of the Greek åpwreîa, which he may have taken for a singular. That the winner of the purcia was crowned, there is ample testimony to prove. See Soph., Aias, 463-465; Diodor. Sik, iv. 32; Philostratos, Vit. Soph., p. 508 (215). Whether such crowning took place sub ipso Jove, I am unable to discover.

one of which there is any good ground, we are driven. to the conclusion that the victors at the Olympic games were crowned in the temple of Jupiter. But that this ill-grounded conclusion is false, is distinctly proved by many passages from ancient authors. It is entirely certain that the victors were crowned on the scene of contest, as soon as the umpires had in each case declared their decision. Pausanias tells us that Kapros the Eleian received two crowns in the same day, one for the pankration and one for wrestling. That the crowns were conferred in the presence of the assembled multitude of spectators, is unquestionable; and to suppose that this multitude crowded off to the temple of Zeus at the end of each contest, to see the victor receive his crown, is to suppose an absurdity. The evidence that the Olympic victors were crowned in the open air and at the end of the respective contests is so strong that, in order to obtain a crowning in the temple, before the Pheidian Zeus, it has been found necessary to assume that the victors were twice crowned. And all this without the shadow of proof or necessity-merely because Pliny says, “Illa Græcorum summa quæ sub ipso Jove datur"! Furthermore, not content with setting up, on this most slender basis, a theory at variance with all evidence respecting the Olympic

vi. 15, 10.

.

† See a long list of proofs that the crowns were not conferred in the temple in Petersen, Die Kunst des Pheidias pp. 43 sqq.

Schoemann, Griech. Alt., ii. 61.

victors, Bötticher* and, after him, Michaelis,† go on to draw the deduction that, since these were crowned before the chryselephantine Zeus, the victors in the Panathenaia must have been crowned in the Parthenon, before the Parthenos, because "the victorybearing Parthenos was an entirely analogous figure." So says Michaelis. It would be doing this deduction too much honour to discuss it seriously. Why, in all the world, should the Athenian public be deprived of the pleasure of seeing the victors crowned, as they must, for the most part, have been, if the ceremony took place in the Parthenon, which, even if it had galleries (and this is more than doubtful), and if it had been cleared of all its treasures for the occasion, could not have admitted one-tenth of the people that found a place in the stadion? That a crowning in the Parthenon at the end of each contest could not have taken place, is perfectly evident. The Parthenon is a good half-hour's walk distant from the stadion, and situated on the top of a hill three hundred feet above it. It is thus clear that it is only by a series of groundless assumptions, and in defiance of clear evidence, that the corrupt and obscure passage of Pliny can be made to prove that the Panathenaic victors were crowned in the Parthenon, or in any way to connect that temple with the Panathenaia.

Another argument adduced by Bötticher and Michaelis, to show that the Panathenaic victors were

* Tektonik, iv. 409, and elsewhere.

↑ Der Parthenon, p. 29.