Euripides' "Erechtheus" and the Erechtheion Clairmont, Christoph W Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1971; 12, 4; ProQuest pg. 485

Euripides' Erechtheus and the 
Erechtheion 

Christoph W. Clairmont 

I N AN ARTICLE recently published in this journal, W. M. Calder III 

argues convincingly that Euripides' Erechtheus was first produced 
in the City Dionysia in the year 422 B.C.1 Only T. B. L. Webster, 

as far as I can see, also suggested this date, but he does not give his 
reasons.2 Calder adduces besides the main argument (a reference in 
Plutarch, Nicias 9.5) several termini ante, namely Aristophanic come­
dies dating from 411, and at least one terminus post, the golden Gorgo 
on the shield of Athena Parthenos, dedicated in 438/7 B.C. 

With regard to the dating of the play to 422 B.C., Calder thought 
that Hsome contemporary historical event ... suggested the subject 
matter of the tragedy to Euripides." In this connection he discussed 
the date of construction of that building on the Athenian Acropolis 
which is commonly known to us as the Erechtheion.3 We should like 
to examine in the first part of this essay the question whether Calder's 
and Austin's belief concerning the source of inspiration for Erechtheus 
is likely. In the second part we should like to consider again from a 
new point of view the representation of an early South-Italiote pelike 
(PLATES 4 and 5) which has come to light recently in Heraclea. The 
connection between the story depicted on the vase and Euripides' 
Erechtheus has been recognized by archaeologists, but we believe that 

1 "The date of Euripides' Erectheus," GRBS 10 (1969) 147-56 [hereafter cited CALDER]. 
Following a Latin literary convention the author spells throughout <Erectheus', but adheres 
to the spelling <Erechtheion' for the building on the Acropolis. For the new frr. of Erech· 
theus see C. Austin in Recherches de Papyrologie 4 (1967) 1l-{)9 [hereafter cited AUSTIN, Re­
cherches]; idem, Nova fragmenta EUripidea (Kleine Texte 187, Berlin 1968) 22-40. See also J. C. 
Kamerbeek, "Remarques sur les fragments de l'Erechthee d'Euripide," Mnemosyne 23 
(1970) 113-26. 

1\ T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London 1967) 127. 
3 Calder 154. Austin, Recherches 17, intimated the following: "N'est-i! pas legitime de 

penser que cette magnifique entreprise" -the building of the Erechtheion-"peut avoir 
inspire au poete !'idee de mettre sur la scene une legende a laquelle aucun autre poete 
n'avait auparavant consacre de drame?" 

48S 



486 EURIPIDES' ERECHTHEUS AND THE ERECHTHEION 

the interpretation hitherto proposed for the reverse side of the pelike 
can be improved. 

I 
For the end of the fifth century B.C. proof is lacking that a building 

on the Acropolis of Athens was named the Erechtheion. Calder him­
self, realizing the difficulty which arises from this fact for his conten­
tion, refers to Paton, who said that the designation is first «established 
for the third century B.C." and occurs only once more in Pausanias.' 

There existed on the Acropolis, before the Persian Wars, a temple 
built by the Peisistratids.5 First it was only a templum in antis; later on, 
it was surrounded by a peripteros. Some of the foundations of this 
temple can still be seen to the south of the building which is presently 
called the Erechtheion. Herodotus refers to the Peisistratid temple 
both as tpOv (5.72, 8.55) and p.Eyapov (5.77, 8.53). Whereas Dorpfeld 
never ceased to believe that this temple was identical with the so­
called Hekatompedon, other scholars of Greek architecture prefer to 
connect the latter name with another temple erected on the site of the 
Parthenon but preceding it by at least three generations. The prob­
lems and discussions regarding both these temples-if there were 
ever two-are highly complex and involved. As diverse as opinions 
may be, however, scholars are in agreement that the temple of the 
Peisistratids was that of Athena Polias. Her image, which had fallen 
miraculously from the sky, was the cult image in this temple. It 
stood in its eastern half, in an almost square chamber, which may 
have suggested to Herodotus the term p.Eyapov. The remaining two': 
thirds of the temple comprised an opisthodomos which gave access from 

'Calder 155. He cites the monumental work by J. M. Paton and G. P. Stevens, The Erech­
theum (Cambridge [Mass.] 1927), as his only authority on the Erechtheion; the quote is from 
p.542 n.6. A reference to W. B. Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece3 (London/New 
York 1950) 187ff, would have been in order. Dinsmoor, like Paton, takes 421 as the year 
when the construction began. For the "interior arrangement of the Erechtheion" in the 
late fifth century see most recently J. Travlos, AAA 4 (1971) 77-81, and also the same 
author's magnificent Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London/New York 1971) 213-27, 
and esp. fig.281 for the restored plan of the Erechtheion with all the cult places. 

5 The following discussion is largely based on Dinsmoor, op.dt. (supra n.4) passim, and 
H. Berve, G. Gruben, M. Hirmer, Griechische Tempel und HeiligtUmer (Munich 1961) 63ff, 
168ff. The bibliography on the Acropolis in general and the Erechtheion in particular is 
immense. Besides Dinsmoor and Gruben, I have profited especially from Dorpfeld,jdI 34 
(1919) Iff, and from G. P. Stevens, Hesperia 16 (1946) 93ff. See also Dorpfeld's rev. of The 
Erechtheum in PhilWoch 48 (1928) 1062ff. 



CHRISTOPH W. CLAIRMONT 487 

the west to two oblong rectangular chambers. Though Athena Polias 
was the primary goddess worshipped in the temple, she was not the 
only one; other deities, primordial kings of Athens, and heroes of old 
were assigned cults in its western half. They were Poseidon, Hephais­
tos, (Poseidon)-Erechtheus-(Erichthonios), and possibly Boutes, Erech­
theus' brother. To the north lay the tomb of Kekrops, whose daugh­

ters are said to have nursed Erichthonios, son of Hephaistos and Ge 
(or, in another version, Athena). Kekrops' grave was later incorpor­
ated within the temenos ofPandrosos, one of his daughters.6 IfHerodo­
tus' reference to an 'Ep€XfNoc In}ac (8.55), mentioned side by side with 
'paY, does not refer to the cult chamber within the Peisistratid temple 
of Athena Polias (which is certainly one possibility), we must look for 
it, as a second possibility, in a region to the northeast of Kekrops' 
grave. This 'paY may never have been a covered building, however, 
but perhaps only a simple precinct with an altar dedicated to the 
worship of Erechtheus, who was here freed from union with Poseidon 
and Erichthonios.7 

The Peisistratid temple did not survive the Persian devastation of 
the Acropolis. While the opisthodomos and the adjacent chambers seem 
to have been restored to serve as treasury, the eastern half of the ;'p6v 
lay in ruins. The building which was eventually going "to replace the 
Peisistratid temple of Athena" is specifically referred to in the famous 
building accounts of 409/8 and the following years.8 It is spoken of as 
Td V€dC Td Jf' 7TaA€' Jv hOt Td apxatov ayaAf'a.9 In other words, the ar­
chaic image of Athena Polias (or a substitute for it) was to be placed 
in this newly constructed temple, in which, as in the earlier Peisistra­
tid 'p6v, Athena Polias was to be the patron goddess. What is remark­
able is that in these unique building accounts which have as subject 
matter the <Erechtheion', the name Erechtheus never occurs. This is 
the more astonishing since the inscriptions do refer in more than one 
instance to the IIpocT0f',atov, K€KpamOV, IIav8pac€tov, the 7TpacTanc 
7j 7TpdC TO' K€KP07TtO' and 7j 7TpdC hlo, and the {30f'dC [TO] eV€Xo.l° 

8 For the complex problems of the origin and cult of the minor deities see Roscher, Lexi­
con, and RE s.w. KEKROPS, ERECHTHEUS, EruCHTHONIOS, PANDROSOS, etc. 

7 For the 'EPfiXO'OC VTJ6c see Dorpfeld, JdI 34 (1919) 5f, 35. Scholars seem not to have been 
greatly concerned with this building. 

S The quote is from Dinsmoor, op.cit. (supra n.4) 187. For the building accounts see 
Paton-Stevens, op.cit. (supra n.4) 277ft". 

9 That we should add in our minds ~C'TCtL after czYaA/LCt has been emphaSized in Dorpfeld's 
review (supra n.5) 1067, and has remained unchallenged as far as I can see. 

10 See the accounts, passim. 



488 EURIPIDES' ERECHTHEUS AND THE ERECHTHEION 

Most scholars who have dealt with the architecture of the 'Erech­
theion' agree that, on analogy with the Peisistratid ipov, the 'Erech­
theion' served for the purpose of multiple cults: for Athena Polias 
foremost; for those divinities and heroes who are closely connected 
with Athens' and Attica's very existence and oldest history, namely 
Poseidon and Hephaistos on the one hand, Kekrops, Erechtheus and 
their relatives on the other. The classical temple thus merely replaced 
an earlier, now destroyed building. Speaking of a late fifth-century 
Erechtheion suggests a major worship of Erechtheus in this specific 
building. For this, however, there is no evidence. It is also the chief 
reason why the building of the 'Erechtheion' must be excluded as 
some "contemporary historical event" which could have "suggested 
the subject matter of the tragedy to Euripides." 

What are the reasons that prompted Euripides to choose the myth 
of Erechtheus' warfare against Eumolpos as a subject matter for a 
play? As long as Erechtheus is preserved only in fragments, the reasons 
for writing it can never really and fully be known. We can only guess. 
Webster writes: "It is difficult to assess this play. The political philos­
ophy clearly comes from the same spirit as the Supplices, and the 
sacrifice of the daughter is in the tradition of the Heraclidae and the 
Hecuba."ll Austin intimated that "Ie drame semble avoir ete domine 
par Ie conflit entre deux puissances divines."12 As much as the con­
flict between Athena and Poseidon dominated the western pediment 
of the Parthenon, we have in Erechtheus, towards the end of the play, 
the appearance of Poseidon and Athena, which is like an aftermath to 
their earlier, big struggle. True, the earthquake which shakes and 
literally makes the soil of Athens dance is overwhelming and greatly 
impressive :13 

It is Poseidon's wrath at his son Eumolpos' death which is the cause of 
this earthquake. With Athena's arrival on stage, it is stopped imme­
diately. Poseidon's effort at damage, his deploying of physical 

11 Webster, op.cit. (supra n.2) 130. 
12 Austin, Recherches 19. 
13 Fr.65 (PSorb. 2328) 48-51, quoting here and later from Austin, Nova fragmenta Euripidea, 

with Nauck's fragment numbers or other information in parenthesis. 



CHRISTOPH W. CLAIRMONT 489 

strength and the rumbling which accompanies the earthquake appear 
almost ridiculous in comparison with the calm but none-the-Iess firm 
and contemptuous words of Athena with which she counters the 
physical destruction of Poseidon (fr.65.55-62): 

.\.' ~ I ~ \.'. , ',/., (J I avow TpLatVaV TTJCO q.7J9r;Tp,~iEW X OVOC. 

7TOVTLE llOCEt80v. fLTJ8€ r~!' avacTaT9~!, 
1\ ')" \'", 

7TOI\W T EpEt7TEW TTJV EfLTJV E7TTJP,~T9!,' 
'>'" ~ \.' ftTJO EVTVXTJ COL OOt • • • • • • • •• •• OL' 

, l' "'>' '" \ • \ (J \ OVX EtC aOTJv C E7T I\TJCEV; OV KaTa X OIlOC 

Kpv!foac 'EpEx(Jla Tfic eftfic if!fow CPPElIbC; 

Ka7TE ]~Ta ftlAAELC TaVTa 9~ T • • EC • • pa 

]~pTEpOL[ '] • • CEll (JEa. 

Rather than being a main theme like their earlier struggle, the after­
math shows that the drama was not "dominated by divine powers." 

We venture to say that Erechtheus was the dominating character 
in the play which bears his name. Furthermore, from the story as we 
know it, there is little doubt that Eumolpos on the one hand and 
Erechtheus' daughter on the other, who was sacrificed for the salva­
tion of Athens, appeared as principals alongside the central figure of 
the King of Athens. Moreover one should like to think that Erech­
theus' wife Praxithea, as well as the remaining two daughters of the 
~EiJyOC Tpt7Tap(JElIov,14 who remained faithful to the oath which they 
had given their sister and killed themselves, rounded off the set of 
main characters in the play. 

The battle itself, namely the heroic defence of Attica's soil, which 
reached a climax when Eumolpos was struck down by Erechtheus 
and when the latter was literally "hidden within the earth" by Posei­
don, all of this was very suitable subject matter to be commented 
upon by the chorus of elder men and to be narrated by the messen­
ger, who also informed Praxithea of her husband's fate. 

It seems to me that, in the period from 431 onwards, when peace 
was constantly endangered and enemy troops had on several occa­
sions invaded Attic territory, threatened and conquered Athenian 
possessions (Amphipolis !), the subject matter of the myth of Erech­
theus, who killed a Thracian King, could easily assume a political 
tinge. As becomes clear from the surviving fragments, Erechtheus 
stressed the theme of war and emphasized the longing for peace.15 

14 Austin 47 (357). 
15 Austin 60 (369). 



490 EURIPIDES' ERECHTHEUS AND THE ERECHTHEION 

On the human-mythological level, there is the fight and victory of 
Erechtheus over Eumolpos, which meant the rescue of Attica from 
invasion and foreign dominion. The price for this glorious deed was 
high: the sacrifice of one of Erechtheus' daughters, the death of 
Athens' king, and the self-chosen death of the other two sisters. 

After the death of Erechtheus, the quarrel continues on a divine 
level. The beginning takes the form of a vast quake which causes 
terror and a forecast of even greater disaster and annihilation 
than the war. But the beginning finds no continuation, because 
Athena comes to the quick rescue of her land. No weapons, not even 
physical strength are needed to establish peace. Poseidon is kept with­
in bounds with words only. Thus, there was eventually twofold 
victory and twofold glory. And there was more than just peace among 
mortals. There was also peace once more among the original contend­
ers for the land of Attica. 

If the play is interpreted in political terms it should, at the end, 
have become quite clear to. the audience that whoever-men or gods 
-dare to attack this sacred land shall face the consequences, as did 
first Eumolpos and secondly Poseidon. 

It is in conclusion to the play that Athena proclaims the worship of 
Erechtheus' daughters as Hyakinthidae; that Erechtheus' wife Prax­
ithea becomes the priestess of the goddess; and that finally Athena 
reveals to Praxithea: "And for your husband I order a shrine to be 
constructed in the middle of the city with enclosing walls of stone."16 

Obviously the talk about the building of the <Erechtheion' was very 
much in the air when Euripides wrote the play. Athena's speech 
quoted above makes good sense since it is spoken in anticipation of the 
actual building of the <Erechtheion', plans for the construction of 
which were a major topic of discussion in 422 when Euripides wrote 
Erechtheus. The playwright must have been fully aware of the fact 
that the building which was to be erected was also to comprise a 
chamber (C7]Kt)c!) for the cult of Erechtheus, otherwise Athena's reve­
lation to Praxithea just would not make any sense. It is worth noting 
that the word C7JKOC is in entire agreement with the subordinate role 

16 Translation Calder 156. Austin, Recherch£s 59, writes: "Euripide, id, fait allusion sans 
doute a la reconstruction du temple qui venait de commencer quand il ecrivait sa piece." 
Against Austin, however, it must be said that the passage under consideration would make 
little sense if construction had already begun. The building was definitely a thing of the 
future. If it was begun in 421, Athena's proclamation, uttered on stage in 422, lies as close 
as can be. 



CHRISTOPH W. CLAIRMONT 491 

assigned to Erechtheus in the new temple of Athena Polias. What we 
have here, then, is an open allusion or citation of a contemporary 
event. Euripides, through the speech of Athena, acclaims the decision 
of the Athenian EKKI.:TJda to erect a shrine for Erechtheus. The event 
in itself, however, was not the inspiration for Euripides to write 
Erechtheus, even though the dates for the decision and the writing of 
the play virtually coincide. 

II 
The recently discovered pelike from Heraclea is one among several 

highly interesting vases illustrating Greek myths and plays of the late 
fifth century. The pots represent specimens of the so-called Lucanian 
fabric which, broadly speaking, belongs to early South-Italiote vase­
painting.!' 

Our vase depicts Eumolpos and Poseidon on the obverse (A), riding 
side by side on horseback (PLATE 4); the son has his left hand on the 
shoulder of his father, who is holding the trident.ls The reverse (B) is 
a little more problematical (PLATE 5). Not, of course, the figure of 
Athena fully armed, which is as clear as one could wish. But what 
about the youthful female figure who stands in the chariot together 
with Athena? Miss Weidauer discards the interpretation that she is 
Nike or Iris, since one would expect wings for either goddess.l9 

Whether or not our painting is an excerpt from a many-figured scene 

17 For a full discussion of the vases see B. Neutsch, Archiiologische Forschungen in Lukanien 
n, Herakleiastudien (RomMitt Erganzungsheft 11, 1967) 193-231, contributed by W. Degrassi. 
See also A. D. Trendall, The Red-figured Vases ofLucania, Campania, and Sicily (Oxford 1967) 
50ft", 692ft". See also A. Greifenhagen, Friihlukanischer Kolonettenkrater mit Darstellung der 
Herakliden (Winckelmannsprog. 123, Berlin 1969); for the obverse of the pelike see p.13 
fig.5. Greifenhagen's dating ofthe vase, namely 43G-420 B.C., is too early. Degrassi and more 
recently L. Weidauer (see following note) attributed our pelike to the Policoro painter as 
against Trendall, who gives it to the Karneia painter. F. Brommer's remark in AthMitt 84 
(1969) 125 that "zu den wenigen Darstellungen des Westgiebelthemas in der Vasenmalerei 
ist inzwischen die Pelike aus Policoro hinzugekommen" is not to the point. For the photo­
graphs of the pelike, now in the Museo Nazionale, Taranto, I am grateful to Dr H. Sichter­
mann. It is illustrated also in E. Simon, Die Gotter der Griechen (Miinchen 1969) 80-81, figs. 
77-78. 

18 The interpretation of the youthful figure as that of Eumolpos is by L. Weidauer, 
"Poseidon und Eumolpos auf einer Pelike aus Policoro," AntK 12 (1969) 91-93. I believe the 
interpretation to be fully acceptable. 

19 Greifenhagen, op.cit. (supra n.17) 11 n.3, who could not have known Weidauer's paper 
when he wrote, describes the reverse as: " ... Athena auf dem von einer Gottin (Iris oder 
Nike) gelenkten Viergespann." This description does respect the general iconographic 



492 EURIPIDES' ERECHTHEUS AND THE ERECHTHEION 

with several contestants, it would seem to me that the female figure 
accompanying Athena is given enhanced significance. 

We have to turn to our unfortunately very fragmentary play in 
search for the identity of this figure. As pointed out earlier, Euripides' 
Erechtheus reveals nicely in dramatic terms a second clash between 
Poseidon and Athena, which is like some aftermath to their big 
struggle. In the Lucanian vase-painting the gods' role is conceived by 
way of prolepsiS. Eumolpos is not dead yet, Poseidon's shaking the 
earth with his trident and Athena's coming to the rescue of Attica lie 
in the future. If we consider an earlier stage of the drama, we would 
expect beside Eumolpos the representation of Erechtheus as his direct 
foe. We have the former but not the latter. The concept of antithesis 
expressed in the juxtaposition of Poseidon and Athena on the obverse 
and the reverse respectively urges us to look for a suitable candidate 
and counterpart for Eumolpos. 

The only figure that is a match for Eumolpos (since we lack Erech­
theus) is Erechtheus' daughter, who had to be sacrificed. Only through 
her sacrifice was Erechtheus granted success and victory against the 
invaders. I should like, therefore, to see in the youthful female figure 
in the chariot Erechtheus' daughter as she herself bridles the team of 
horses and as she rides into the field to die her sacrificial death before 
the actual battle begins. It is Athena's chariot upon which Erechtheus' 
daughter stands, thus emphasizing the closeness of fate which unites 
the patron goddess of Athens with the family of Erechtheus. Athena 
herself holds shield and lance; the weapons and her stance suggest 
that she is ready for battle. Poseidon and Eumolpos ride determinedly 
into battle, the god more so than his son, who, fearfully bows his head 
slightly but derives strength by holding his left hand on his father's 
shoulder. One can hardly imagine a more poignant antithesis when 
comparing both sides of the vase. Depicted with the freedom which 
is that of the creative artist, we can nevertheless feel intensely the 
conflict which Euripides has brought onto stage in his Erechtheus. 

The vase from Policoro was painted some ten to twenty years after 
the first performance of Euripides' Erechtheus at the City Dionysia in 
422 B.C. Productions of the same play in Magna Graecia date probably 

setting but disregards the lack of wings in the figure accompanying Athena which, for 
Weidauer, was the very reason for excluding the possibility that Iris or Nike was repre­
sented here. 



CHRISTOPH W. CLAIRMONT 493 

from the second but last decade of the fifth century. If the interpreta­
tion of the vase-painting, and especially the reverse of the pelike, 
holds ground, the vase could be mentioned as another terminus ante 
for the writing of the play of Euripides. But this is not so important, 
considering that other termini lie much closer to the year 422. Our 
vase-paintings, however, are of first-rate importance with regard to 
the problem of contemporary illustration in the visual arts of a liter­
ary subject matter, which is one of the most fascinating topics in the 
study of Greek civilisation. 

RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY 

August, 1971 

Postscript 
This essay had already been sent to press when Max Treu's article, 

"Der Euripideische Erechtheus als Zeugnis seiner Zeit," Chiron 1 (1971) 
115-31, became available to me. According to Treu (pp.130£), Erech­
theus contains "zwei historische Zeugnisse von unbestreitbarem 
Quellenwert." (1) From fr.53.29ff, in which he sees a reference to 
Kleon, Treu concludes that mention of this statesman would probably 
be made before rather than after his death, which occurred in 422 B.C., 

thus dating the first performance of the play to 423. (2) Treu argues 
from the passage in which Athena orders the building of a shrine 
for Erechtheus (passage quoted supra p.490) that the play here 
gives us "die Anspielung auf den Beginn der Bautatigkeit am Erech­
theion-vor 421 wohlgemerkt ... " The present writer has interpreted 
the passage differently and feels, after reading Treu, that the imminent 
inception of the building of the Erechtheion remains in point and is 
emphatically supported by Athena's speech. Treu was not acquainted 
with Calder's article nor with the vase-painting from Policoro. 

December, 1971 

Professor Calder's Reply 
Professor Clairmont in his first sentence accepts my dating (after 

Geisler) to the Dionysia of 422 B.C. He objects to my connexion of the 
play with the decision to erect the building that men would call the 
<Erechtheion'. His reasons are two. 

1. "For the end of the fifth century B.C. proof is lacking that a build­
ing on the Acropolis of Athens was named the Erechtheion" (p.486). 



494 EURIPIDES' ERECHTHEUS AND THE ERECHTHEION 

The two ancient testimonia are [Plu.] XOrat 843E and Paus. 1.26.5. 
Pausanias certainly and Pseudo-Plutarch possibly belong to the second 
century after Christ. Clairmont discards Pausanias but implies that 
Pseudo-Plutarch establishes the designation for the third century B.C. 

Pseudo-Plutarch merely refers to a pinax OC &vaK€~'Ta;~ EV 'Ep€X(}€Up. He 
does not in fact state that at the time of Lycurgus the building was 
called Erechtheion. In short both testimonia for the designation of the 
building are from some 500 years after its construction. On the other 
hand such buildings usually do not change their names, and we 
should argue from what is known rather than postulate improbable 
error. 

2. "Speaking of a late fifth-century Erechtheion suggests a major 
worship of Erechtheus in this specific building. For this, however, 
there is no evidence" (pA88). In the new papyrus Athene (fr.65.90ff 
Austin) informs the widowed Praxithea: "And for your husband I 
order a shrine to be constructed in the middle of the acropolis with 
enclosing walls of stone; and he shall be called because of the one that 
slew him 'Holy Poseidon' and be given by the townsmen the epithet 
'Erectheus' when they sacrifice bulls to him." She continues to name 
Praxithea the first priestess of Athene Polias. Precisely what Clair­
mont means by "a major worship" I do not know. Contemporary 
evidence tells us that Erectheus will be worshipped with bull-sacri­
fices (not piglets nor sheep) in a shrine to be erected on the middle 
of the Acropolis. Thus Clairmont's "chief reason" (pA88) for excluding 
the building of the Erechtheion as the reason for Euripides' com­
posing a play about Erectheus is shown to be no reason. Patricia N. 
Boulter's recent interpretation of the fragment of the frieze of the 
North Porch (Antike Plastik X [Berlin 1970] 1.18 with n.50) in the Agora 
Museum (no.AS 158) as the priest who is to sacrifice Erectheus' 
daughter confirms my view. She concludes (loc.at., n.50): "It is quite 
likely that the speech actually alludes to the plans then in progress to 
build a new temple for Athene and Poseidon-Erechtheus, the present 
Erechtheion." See further the careful discussion of M. Treu at Chiron 1 
(1971) 124ff, who also connects fr.65.90ff (Austin) with the construc­
tion of the Erechtheion. 

Clairmont's subsequent speculation (pA90) that Euripides wrote 
the play to inform his audience "that whoever-men or gods­
dare to attack this sacred land shall face the consequences as did first 
Eumolpos and secondly Poseidon" may safely be discarded, along with 



CHRISTOPH W. CLAIRMONT 495 

his casual reconstruction of the action. The claim (pASS) that "only 
T. B. L. Webster" also suggested 422 B.C. is untrue: see GRBS 10 (1969) 
149 n.12. There is no need (pAS8) for Poseidon to appear in the exodos: 
see H. van Looy, Collection Latomus 114 (1970) 115-22, and K. Matthies­
sen, GGA forthcoming. Clairmont omits two characters from his list 
(p.489) who probably shared in the action, the Herald and Erectheus' 

son, Xuthos (?). 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 

November, 1971 



CUJRl\iONT PLATE-+ 

PFUKE BY THl' POLlccmo P-\I:\Tl'R. OBVERSE: EC;\l()LPOS A;<';D POSE[J)(J\; 

(l'h"[l'STaph /Jv el'llftcsv or the J)t'lItSt'llt'S A.-dldo[",'!:isd!".' lmtilllt. 1«lJ1lf)