account from one Panathenaic festival to another, like the treasurers of Athene. Any surplus remaining after repayment is to be spent upon walls and docks.
The second part of the inscription is a decree passed
somewhat later, which presupposes that the order has
been given for the payment of the debt to the other deities
mentioned above. Certain moneys belonging to Athene
may be used in adorning the Acropolis, and repairing (or
supplying) articles employed in processions. But not
more than 10,000 drachmae are to be spent on this
account ; and nothing at all for any other purpose without
a previous vote of indemnity. The Hellenotamiae are
regularly to deposit the proceeds of the (
Greek characters) with the
(Greek characters). (We cannot be quite sure whether
this refers to the whole of the (Greek characters), or only to the (Greek characters) paid to the Goddess; cp. pp. lxxvi, lxxvii.) When the
sum owing to the other deities is repaid, out of the two
hundred talents set apart for the purpose, it is to be
kept on the left of the (Greek characters), and the money of
Athene on the right : (Greek characters)[1]. Those portions of the sacred treasure which
have not been weighed or counted are now to be counted
in the presence of the officers of the four previous years
who gave in their account from one Panathenaic festival
to the next ; they are to weigh such of them as are gold
or silver, or silver plated with gold . . . Here the words
cease to be legible.
- ↑ [It is a disputed question whether the Opisthodomus, in which the money under the control of the (
Greek characters) of Athene was kept, was the portico of the Parthenon west of the 'Parthenon' properly so called,
or was part of a temple of Athene of which the foundation still exists
between the Parthenon and the Erechtheum, destroyed in the Persian
War, and, according to Dr. Dörpfeld's theory, partially rebuilt afterwards
and used as a treasury. See, for arguments on both sides, Harrison and
Verrall, Athens and Attica, pp. 465, 502 ff. ; P. Gardner, New Chapters
in Greek History, pp. 255, 256 ; and an elaborate criticism of Dr. Dörpfeld's
theory in Frazer's Pausanias, vol. ii. pp. 553-582.]
