Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
In 1930 Judeich gave his opinion strongly in favour of the identification of the ‘Theseion’ as the temple of Hephaistos, and the identification has been widely accepted. The excavators of the agora have adopted it and regard the archaeological discoveries as settling the matter. Dinsmoor wrote in 1941, ‘Now that the American excavations have brought to light the foundries, casting-pits and slag-furnaces of the metal-workers' quarter … there can no longer be any doubt as to this attribution’. Apparently there still is some doubt. H. Koch in his recent book on the building has continued to deny the identification strongly and renewed former attempts to reinstate Theseus in some way. He had already objected to the ‘Garden of Hephaistos’ discovered in the precincts of the temple and maintained that all this planting of trees and shrubs was more appropriate to Theseus, with whom were associated Phytalos and the Phytalidai (in fact the garden is appropriate to the site, an attractive setting for the temple, whoever is the occupant). Reviewers have treated his ideas with considerable respect and even favour. H. Plommer in Gnomon xxix (1957) 33 shares the doubts about Hephaistos, but sees difficulties in Theseus too, and leaves the matter open. J. F. Healy in JHS lxxvi (1956) 135 seems inclined to agree with Koch. The name ‘Theseion’ is tending to shed its well-deserved inverted commas. The impression may be given that the whole subject is in the melting-pot again; this note is an attempt to pull it out, in particular by considering the vital evidence of Pausanias.
1 Topographie von Athen 2, 365 ff.
2 Hesp., Supplement v 1.
3 Studien zum Theseustempel in Athen (1955) 9 ff.; cf. Studies presented to D. M. Robinson i (1951) 356 ff.
4 It first occurs in the fifteenth century; see Koch, Studien 9; cf. Wachsniuth, , Die Stadt Athen i 743.Google Scholar
5 Le Fronton Sculpté en Grèce (1947) 346.
6 AJA xlii (1938) 276–87.
7 Ibid. 284.
8 Hesp. xviii (1949) 252–3.
9 Cf. Karouzou, S. in AM lxix–lxx (1954–1955) 68–94.Google Scholar
10 Hesp. Supplement v 105 ff.
11 Ibid. 109 ff.
12 De Mysteriis 40; cf. The Athenian Agora iii, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (1957) 98.
13 In fact I believe in the identity of the two stoas, while admitting that only excavation further north can finally settle the problem; for a recent discussion see Martin, R., Recherches sur l'agora Grecque (1951) 320 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Agora iii (Testimonia) 30.
14 Ancient Athens (1907) 424.
15 RA (1951) 108–10.
16 Die Stadt Athen i 357 ff.; cf. Judeich, , Topographie 2365 n. 2Google Scholar; AJA lxiii (1959) 67.
17 This was probably to the south of the extant temple; see Agora iii (Testimonia) 90 ff.; Pausanias mentions it later, when at Salamis (i 35.3).
18 Plutarch, , Theseus 36.2Google Scholar; cf. Pausanias i 17. 2–3; Aristotle, , Ath. Pol. 15.4.Google Scholar
19 Theseus 35.2; Jacoby, , FGH iiiB, no. 328, 18.Google Scholar
20 Andokides, , de Mysteriis 45Google Scholar (Long Walls); Pausanias i 30.4 (Kolonos Hippios); IG ii2 2498 (Peiraeus).
21 vi 61.2. Schol. on Aischines iii 13 does speak of 
but the note is corrupt and confused and can hardly count against Thucydides and the literary evidence generally, which speaks simply of ‘the Theseion’; see Agora iii (Testimonia) 113 ff.
