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.]