|
Chapter 1 (part 2) (p.19)
It may seem strange that Kleisthenes, or whoever
built the earlier Parthenon, did not at once utilize the Pelasgian wall
and boldly pile up his terrace against its support. But it must be
remembered that the space between the Parthenon and the Pelasgian wall
was very great; an immense amount of débris would be required for the
filling up of such a space, and it was probably more economical to
build the polygonal supporting-wall nearer to the Parthenon. Anyhow
it
is quite clear that the polygonal wall was no provisional structure.
Its facade shows it was meant to be seen, and that the terrace was
meant for permanent use is clear from the fact that it is connected by
a flight of steps with the lower terrace under the Pelasgian wall
(fig.8). It is clear that whoever planned these steps never thought
that the
lower terrace would be levelled up.
Doubtless whoever filled in the
terrace to the height of the raised Pelasgian wall believed in like
manner that his work was complete. But Kimon thought otherwise. We know
for certain . that it was he who built the great final wall, the
structure that re-mains to-day, though partly concealed by mediaeval
casing (fig.7).
Fig.8: Pelasgian wall with flight of steps.
The fragments of sculpture and architecture that bear traces
of fire are found in the strata marked IV, and there only, for it is
these strata only that were laid down after the Persian War [22].The last
courses of ‘Kimon’s wall’ (5) were laid by Perikles, and he it was who
finally filled in the terrace to its present level (V).
The relation of
the successive walls and terraces is shown by (p.21) the ground-plan in fig.9 [23].
The double shaded lines from A to E and D show the irregular course of
the old Pelasgic wall. The dotted lines
from B to F show the polygonal supporting wall of the first terrace. It
ran, as is seen, nearly parallel to the Parthenon. Its course is lost
to sight after it passes under the new museum, but originally it
certainly joined the Pelasgic wall at C. At B was the stairway joining
the two terraces.
Fig.9: Ground plan of Parthenon and old Pelasgic wall.
At GH there jutted out an independent angular outpost,
and again at EF the new wall is separate from the old; at FD it
coincided with the earlier polygonal terrace wall. Kimon’s wall is
indicated by the outside double lines, and in the space between these
lines and the wall HEK lay the débris of the Persian War. Above that
débris lay a still later stratum, deposited during the building
operations of Perikles.
The various terraces and walls have been
examined somewhat in detail, because their examination helps us to
realize as nothing else could how artificial a structure is the south
side of the Acropolis,
(p.22) and also—a point, to us, of paramount importance—how different was the
early condition of the hill from its later appearance.
Fig.10: Red-figured vase painting on skyphos showing Athena with giant workman carrying rocks (5th c. BC).
A red-figured vase painter of the fifth century BC.
gives us what would have seemed to a contemporary Athenian a safe and
satisfactory answer—‘There were giants in those days.’ The design in fig.10 is from a skyphos [24] in the Louvre Museum. Athena is about to
fortify her chosen hill. She wears no aegis, for her work is peaceful;
she has planted her spear in the ground perhaps as a measuring rod, and
she has chosen her workman, A great giant, his name Gigas, inscribed
over him, toils after her, bearing a huge ‘Cyclopean’ rock, She points
with her hand where he is to lay it.
Fig.11: Red-figured vase painting on reverse side of skyphos, showing Phlegyas and younger man with staphyle or measuring line (5th c. BC).
On the obverse of the same vase
(fig.11) we have a scene of similar significance. To either side of a
small tree, which marks the background as woodland, stands a man of
rather wild and (p.23) uncouth
appearance. The man to the left is bearded and his name is inscribed,
Phlegyas. The right-hand man is younger, and obviously resembles the
giant of the obverse. He is showing to Phlegyas an object, which they
both inspect with an intent, puzzled air. And well they may. It is a
builder’s staphyle [25], or measuring line, weighted with knobs of lead
like a cluster of grapes; hence its name. Phlegyas [26] and his giant
Thessalian folk were the typical lawless bandits of antiquity; they
plundered Delphi, they attacked Thebes after it had been fortified by
Amphion and Zethus. But Athena has them at her hest for
master-builders. All glory to Athena!
It is not only at Athens that
legends of giant, fabulous work-men cluster about ‘Mycenean’ remains.
Phlegyas and his giants toil for Athena, and at Tiryns too, according
to tradition, the Kyklopes work for King Proetus [27], and they too built
the walls and Lion-Gate of Mycenae [28], At Thebes the Kadmeia [29] is the work
of Amphion and Zethus, sons of the gods, and the fashion in which art
represents Zethus as toiling is just that of our giant on the vase. The
mantle that Jason wore was embroidered, Apollonius of Rhodes [30] tells us,
with the building of Thebes, (p.24)
" Of
river-born Antiope therein
The sons were woven; Zethus and his twin
Amphion, and all Thebes unlifted yet
Around them lay. They sought but
now to set
The stones of her first building. Like one sore
In labour,
Zethus on great shoulders bore
A stone-clad mountain’s crest; and there
hard by
Amphion went his way with minstrelsy
Clanging a golden lyre,
and twice as vast
The dumb rock rose and sought him as he passed. "
Sisyphos, ancient king of Corinth, built on the acropolis of Corinth
his great palace, the Sisypheion. He is the Corinthian double of
Erechtheus with his Erechtheion. Strabo [31] was in doubt whether to call
the Sisypheion palace or temple. Like the old Erechtheion, it was both
fortress and sanctuary. In Hades for eternal remembrance, not, as men
later thought, of his sin, but of his craft as master-builder,
Sisyphos [32], like Zethus, like our giant, still rolls a huge stone up
the slope. Everywhere it is the same tale. All definite record or
remembrance of the building of ‘Cyclopean’ walls is lost; some
hero-king built them, some god, some demi-god, some giant. Just so did
the devil in ancient days build his Bridges all over England.
Tradition
loves to embroider a story with names and definite details. The prudent
Attic vase-painter gives us only a nameless ‘Giant.’ Others knew more.
Pausanias [33] had heard the builders’ actual names and tried to fix their
race. He tells us—just as he leaves the Acropolis -"Save for the portion
built by Kimon, son of Miltiades, the whole circuit of the Acropolis
fortification was, they say, built by the Pelasgians, who once dwelt
below the Acropolis. It is said that Agrolas and Hyperbios...and on
asking who they were, I could only learn that in origin they were
Sikelians and that they migrated to Acarnania."
Spite of the lacuna, it
is clear that Agrolas and Hyperbios are the reputed builders. The
reference to Sicily dates probably from a time when the Kyklopes had
taken up their abode in the island. The two builder-brothers remind us
of Amphion and Zethus, and of their prototypes the Dioscuri [34]. Pliny [35]
tells of a similar pair, (p.25) though he gives to one of them another name. "The
brothers Euryalos and Hyperbios were the first to make brick-kilns and
houses at Athens; before this they used caves in the ground for
houses."
The names of the two ‘Pelasgian’ brothers are, as we know from
the evidence of vase-paintings [36], ‘giant’ names, and Hyperbios is
obviously appropriate. The names leave us in the region of myth, but
the tradition that the brothers were ‘Pelasgian’ deserves closer
attention.
In describing the old wall we have spoken of it as ‘
Pelasgian,’ and in this we follow classical tradition. Quoting from
Hecataeus (circ. 500 BC), Herodotus [37] speaks of land under Hymettus as
given to the Pelasgians "in payment for the fortification wall which
they had formerly built round the Acropolis." Again, Herodotus [38] tells
how when Kleomenes King of Sparta reached Athens, he, together with
those of the citizens who desired to be free, "besieged the despots who
were shut up in the Pelasgian fortification."
A Pelasgian
fortification, a constant tradition that Athens was inhabited by
Pelasgians—we seem to be on solid ground. Yet on a closer examination
the evidence for connecting the name of the fortification with the name
‘Pelasgian’ crumbles. In the one official [39] inscription that we possess
the word is written, not Pelasgikon, but Pelargikon. In like manner, in
Thucydides [40], where the word occurs twice, it is written with an "r".
Pelargikon is "stork-fort," not Pelasgian fort. The confusion probably
began with Herodotus, who was specially interested in the Pelasgians.
Why the old citadel was called "stork-fort" we cannot say— there are no
storks there now—but we have one delightful piece of evidence that, to
the Athenian of the sixth century BC, "stork-fort" was a reality.
Immediately to the south of the present Erechtheion lie the foundations
of the ancient Doric temple [41], currently known by a (p.26) pardonable
Germanism as the "old Athena-temple." For its date we have a certain
terminus ante quem. The colonnade was of the time of Peisistratos; it
was a later addition; the cella of the temple existed before—how much
before we do not know. The zeal and skill of Prof. Dorpfeld for
architecture, of Drs. Wiegand and Schrader for sculpture, have restored
to us a picture of that ancient Doric temple all aglow with life and
colour and in essentials complete [42].
Fig.12: Drawing of sculptures of west pediment of the Old Athena temple.
It is
tempting to turn aside and discuss in detail the whole pediment
composition to which he belongs. It will, however, shortly be seen (p.
37) that our argument (p.27) forbids
all detailed discussion of the sanctuaries of Athena, and the pediments
of her earliest temple have therefore, for us at the moment, an
interest merely incidental.
Thus much, however, for clearness sake may
and must be said. The design of the western pediment fell into two
parts. In one angle, that to the left of the spectator, Herakles is
wrestling with Triton; the right-hand portion, not figured here, is
occupied by the triple figure of "Blue-beard", whose correct
mythological name is probably Typhon [43]. He is no protagonist, only a
splendid smiling spectator. The centre of the pediment, where, in the
art of Pheidias, we should expect the interest to culminate, was
occupied by accessories, the stem of a tree on which hung, as in
vase-paintings, the bow and arrows and superfluous raiment of Herakles.
It is a point of no small mythological interest that in this and two
other primitive pediments the protagonist is not, as we should expect,
the indigenous hero Theseus, but the semi-Oriental Herakles; but this
question also we must set aside; our immediate interest is not in the
sculptured figures of the pediment, but in the richly painted
decoration on the pediment roof above their heads.
The recent
excavations on the Acropolis yielded a large number of painted
architectural fragments, the place and significance of which was at
first far from clear. Of these fragments forty were adorned with two
forms of lotus-flower; twenty had upon them figures of birds of two
sorts. Fragmentary though the birds mostly are, the two kinds (storks
and sea-eagles) are, by realism as to feathers, beak, legs, and claws,
carefully distinguished. The stork (πελαργός) in the Pelargikon is a
surprise and a delight. Was Aristophanes [44] thinking of this Pelargikon
when to the building of his Nephelokokkygia he brought "For brickmakers
a myriad flight of storks."(p.28) One
of the storks is given in fig.13. The birds in the original fragments
are brilliantly and delicately coloured. Their vivid red legs take us to Delphi. We remember Ion [45] with his
laurel crown, his bow and arrows, his warning song to swan and eagle.
"There see! the birds are up: they fly
Their nests upon Parnassus high
And hither tend. I warn you all
To golden house and marble wall
Approach not. Once again my bow
Zeus’ herald-bird, will lay thee low;
Of all that fly the mightiest thou
In talon! Lo another now
Sails
hitherward—a swan!
Away Away, thou red-foot!"
Fig.13: Stork on painted architectural fragments found on Acropolis.
(p.29) In
days when on open-air altars sacrifice smoked, and there was abundance
of sacred cakes, birds were real and very frequent presences. To the
heads of numbers of statues found on the Acropolis is fixed a sharp
spike to prevent the birds perching [46]. They were sacred yet profane.
The
lotus-flowers carry us back to Egypt. The rich blending of motives from
the animal and vegetable kingdom is altogether ‘Mycenaean. Man in art,
as in life, is still at home with his brothers the fish, the bird, and
the flower. After this ancient fulness and warmth of life a pediment by
Pheidias strikes a chill. Its sheer humanity is cold and lonely. Man
has forgotten that "Earth is a covering to hide thee, the garment of
thee."
There are two sorts of birds, two sorts of lotus-flowers, and
there are two pediments. It is natural to suppose, with Dr Wiegand,
that the eagles belonged to the east, the principal pediment. There, it
will later be seen (p. 47), were seated the divinities of the place.
Our pediment decorated the west end, the humbler seat of heroes rather
than gods. There Herakles wrestled with the Triton; there old
Blue-beard—surely a monster of the earlier slime—kept his watch; and
over that ancient struggle of hero and monster brooded the stork.
The
storks themselves are there to remind us that the old name of the
citadel was Pelargikon, and that Pelargikon meant "stork fort"; by an
easy shift it became Pelasgikon [47], and had henceforth an etymologically
false association with the Pelasgoi. Etymologically false, but perhaps
in fact true, for happily the analogy between the Pelargic walls and
those of Mycenae is beyond dispute, and if the ‘Mycenaeans’ were
Pelasgian, the walls are, after all, Pelasgic.
We have seen that both
Thucydides and the official inscription write Pelargikon; their
statements will repay examination. Thucydides, after his account of the
narrow limits of the city before Theseus, returns to the main burden of
his narrative, the crowding of the inhabitants of Attica within the
city walls.
(p.30) "Some few," [48] he says, "indeed
had dwelling places, and took refuge with some of their friends or
relations, but the most part of them took up their abode on the waste
places of the city and in the sanctuaries and hero-shrines, with the
exception of the Acropolis and the Eleusinion, and any other that might
be definitely closed. And what is called the Pelargikon beneath the
Acropolis, to dwell in which was accursed, and was forbidden in the fag
end of an actual Pythian oracle on this wise, 'The Pelargikon better
unused,' was, notwithstanding, in consequence of the immediate pressure
thickly populated."
The passage comes for a moment as something of a
shock. We have been thinking of the Pelargikon as the Acropolis, we
have traced its circuit of walls on the Acropolis, and now suddenly we
find the two sharply distinguished. The Acropolis, though closed, is
surely not cursed. The Acropolis is one of the definitely closed
places, to which the refugees cannot get access; the Pelargikon,
though accursed, is open to them, and they take possession of it; the
two manifestly cannot be coincident. But happily the words "below the
Acropolis" bring recollection, and with it illumination. What is called
the Pelargikon below the Acropolis is surely that appanage of the
citadel which Thucydides in his second clause mentions so vaguely. The
ancient polis comprised not only "what is now the citadel," but also
together with it, "what is below it towards about south"? Thucydides
would have saved a world of trouble if he had stated that "what is
below towards the south" [49] was the Pelargikon; but he does not, probably
because he is concerned with dimensions, not with nomenclature.
The
Pelasgikon meant originally the whole citadel, the ancient city as
defined by Thucydides. This was its meaning in the days of Herodotus.
In the Pelasgikon the tyrants were besieged (p. 25). But by the time of
Thucydides the Acropolis proper, i.e. much the (p.31) larger and more important part of the
old city, had ceased to be "Pelasgic"; the old fortifications were
concealed by the new retaining walls of Themistocles and Kimon. It was
only at the west and south-west that the Pelasgic fortifications were
still visible, hence this portion below the Acropolis took to itself
the name that had belonged to the whole; but this limited use of the
word was at first tentative. Thucydides says, "which is called the
Pelargikon."
This
is quite different from the definite "the Pelasgian
citadel" used by Herodotus. The neuter adjectival form is, so far as I
know, never used of the whole complex of the Acropolis plus what is
below. From Thucydides we learn only that what was called the
Pelargikon was below the Acropolis. "Below" means immediately,
vertically below, for when, in Lucian’s Fisherman [50], Parrhesiades,
after
baiting his hook with figs and gold, casts down his line to fish for
the false philosophers, Philosophy, seeing him hanging over, asks,
"What are you fishing for, Parrhesiades? Stones from the Pelasgikon?"
An
inscription [51]of the latter end of the fifth century confirms the curse
mentioned by Thucydides, and shows us that the Pelargikon was a
well-defined area, as it was the subject of special legislation. "The
king (ie. the magistrate of that name) is to fix the boundaries of the
sanctuaries in the Pelargikon, and henceforth altars are not to be set
up in the Pelargikon without the consent of the Council and the people,
nor may stones be quarried from the Pelargikon, nor earth or stones had
out of it. And if any man break these enactments he shall pay 500
drachmas and the king shall report him to the Council." Pollux [52] further
tells us that there was a penalty of 3 drachmas and costs for even
mowing grass within the Pelargikon, and three officers called paredroi
guarded against the offence. Evidently the fortifications of the
Pelargikon, partially dismantled by the Persians, had become a popular
stone quarry; as evidently the state had no intention that these
fortifications should fall into complete disuse. The question naturally
arises, what was the purport of this surviving Pelargikon, why did it
not perish with the rest of the Pelasgic fortifications ?
The answer is
simple: the Pelargikon remained because it was (p.32) the
great fortification of the citadel gates. According to Kleidemos, it
will be remembered (p. 11), the work of the early settlers was
threefold; they levelled the surface of the citadel, they built a wall
round it, and they furnished the fortifications with gates. Where will
those gates be?
A glance at the section in fig.1 shows that they must
be where they are, ie. at the only point where the rock has an
approachable slope, the west or south-west. We ‘say advisedly
south-west. The great gate of Mnesicles, the Propylaea which remain
to-day, face due west; but within that great gate still remain the
foundations [53] of a smaller, older gate (fig.2, G), built in direct
connection with the great Pelasgic fortification wall, and that older
gate, there before the Persian War [54], faces south-west.
This gate facing
south-west stands on the summit of the hill, and is but one. Kleidemos
(p.11) tells us that the Pelargikon had nine gates. That there should
be nine gates round the Acropolis is unthinkable, such an arrangement
would weaken the fortification, not strengthen it. The successive gates
must somehow have been arranged one inside the other, and the
fortifications would probably be in terrace form. The west slope of
the Acropolis lends itself to such an arrangement, and in Turkish days
this slope was occupied by a succession of redoubts (fig.14).
Fig.14: Sketch of 17th century Athens showing fortifications on Acropolis.
(p.33) Fortified
Turkish Athens is in some ways nearer to the old Pelasgian fortress
than the Acropolis as we see it to-day. We shall probably
not be far wrong if we think of the approach to the
ancient citadel as a winding way (Fig. 15), leading gradually up by
successive terraces, passing through successive fortified gates [55], and
reaching at last the topmost propylon which faced south-west. These
terraces, gates, fortifications, covering a large space, the limits of
which will presently be defined, formed a whole known from the time of
Thucydides to that of Lucian as the Pelargikon or Pelasgikon.
Lucian indeed not only affords our best evidence that, down to Roman
days, a place called the Pelasgikon existed below the Acropolis, but
is also our chief literary source for defining its limits. We expect
those limits to be wide, otherwise the refugees would not have crowded
in.
The passages about the Pelasgikon in Lucian are two. First in the Double Indictment [56], Dike, standing on the Acropolis, sees Pan
approaching, and asks who the god is with the horns and the pipe and
the hairy legs. Hermes answers that Pan, who used to dwell on Mt
Parthenion, had for his services been honoured with a cave below the
Acropolis "a little beyond the Pelasgikon." There he lives and pays his
taxes as a resident. alien. The site of Pan’s cave is certainly known;
close below it was the Pelasgikon. This marks the extreme limit of the
Pelasgikon to the north, for the sanctuary of Aglauros (p.81) by which
the Persians climbed up was unquestionably outside the fortifications.
Fig.15: Plan of gates on western slope of Acropolis.
A
second passage [58] in Lucian gives us a further clue.
Parrhesiades and Philosophy, from their station on the Acropolis, are
watching the philosophers as they crowd up. Parrhesiades says,
"Goodness, why, at the mere sound of the words, 'a ten-pound note,' the
whole way up is a mass of them shouldering each other; some are coming
along the Pelasgikon, others and more of them by the Areopagos, some
are at the tomb of Talos, and others have got ladders and put them
against the Anakeion ; and, by Jove, there’s a whole hive of them
swarming up like bees."
A description like this cannot be regarded as
definite proof; but, taking the shrines in their natural order, it
certainly looks as though in Lucian’s days the Pelasgikon extended from
the Areo-pagos to the Asklepieion. The philosophers crowd up by the
regular approach (ἄνοδος) to the Propylaea; there is not room for them
all, so they spread to right and left, on the right to the Asklepieion,
on the left to the Areopagos; some are crowded out still further on the
right to the tomb of Talos [59], near the theatre of Dionysos; on the left
to the Anakeion [60] on the north side of the Acropolis.
Yet
one more
topographical hint is left us. In a fragment of Polemon [61] (circ. 180
BC), preserved to us by the scholiast on the Oedipus Coloneus of
Sophocles, we hear that Hesychos, the eponymous hero of the Hesychidae,
hereditary priests of the Semnae, had a sanctuary. Its position is thus
described: "it is alongside of the Kyloneion outside the Nine-Gates".
It is clear that in the days of Polemon either the Nine-Gates were
still standing, or their position was exactly known. It is also clear
that, whatever was called the Nine-Gates was near the precinct of the
Semnae. The eponymous hero of their priests must have had his shrine in
(p.35) or
close to the sanctuary of the goddesses. Moreover the Kyloneion or hero
shrine ties us to the same spot. When the fellow-conspirators of Kylon
were driven from the Acropolis, where Megacles dared not kill them,
they fastened themselves by a thread to the image of the goddess to
keep themselves in touch; when they reached the altars of the Semnae
the thread broke and they were all murdered [62]. The Kyloneion must have
been erected as an expiatory shrine on the spot.
When we turn to
examine actual remains of the Pelasgikon on the south slope of the
Acropolis (fig.2), we are met by disappointment. Of all the various
terraces and supporting walls, only one fragment (P) can definitely be
pronounced Pelasgian. The remaining walls seen in fig.16 date between
the seventh and the fifth centuries. The walls marked G in the plan in
Fig. 16, but purposely omitted in Fig. 2, are of good polygonal
masonry, and must have been supporting walls to the successive terraces
of the Pelasgikon; they are probably of the time of Peisistratos [63]. but
may even be earlier. It is important to note that though not ‘
Pelasgic’ themselves they doubtless supplanted previous ‘ Pelasgic’
structures. The line followed by the ancient road must have skirted the
outermost wall of the Pelargikon; later it was diverted in order to
allow of the building of the Odeion of Herodes Atticus. The Pelasgikon
of Lucian’s day only extended as far as the Asklepieion; the earlier
fortification must have included what was later the Asklepieion [64], as it
would need to protect the important well within that precinct.
Thucydides has stated the limits of the ancient city, "what is now the
citadel was the city together with what is below it towards about
south." We nowadays should not question his statement. (p.36) The
remains of the Pelasgian fortifications disclosed by excavation amply
support his main contention, namely, that what is now the citadel was
the city, the conformation of the hill and literary evidence justify
his careful together with what is below it towards about
south.
But, as noted before, the readers of Thueydides were not in our
position, they knew less about the boundaries of the ancient city, and
though they probably knew fairly well the limits of the Pelasgikon,
even that was becoming rather a matter of antiquarian interest. Above
all, they were citizens of the larger city of Themistocles, the Dipylon
was more to them than the Enneapylon. Thucydides therefore feels that
the truth about the ancient city needs driving home. He proceeds to
give evidence for what was, he felt, scarcely self-evident. If we feel
that the evidence is somewhat superfluous, we yet welcome it because
incidentally he thereby gives us much and interesting information as to
the sanctuaries of ancient Athens.
The evidence is, as above stated (p.8), fourfold.
Footnotes:
21. Plut. Vit. Cim, 13,
22.
Unfortunately at the actual time of the excavations the chronology of
the various retaining walls was not clearly evident and the precise
place where many of the fragments excavated were found was not noted
with adequate precision.
23. A, Mitt. xxvu. 1902, p. 398, Fig. 5.
24. F. Hauser, Strena Helbigiana, p. 115.
The reverse was first correctly explained thro’ the identification of
the σταφύλη by Dr O. Rossbach, ‘ Verschollene Sagen und Kulten,’ Neue
Jahrbiicher f, Kl. Altertumswissenschaft, 1901
25. Tl. τι. 7θὅ., ἵπποι σταφύλῃ ἐπὶ
νῶτον ica.
26. See Roscher, Lex. 8.0.
27. Paus, II . 25. 7,
28. Paus. II. 16.
5.
29. Paus. IX. 5. 6.
30. Apoll. Rhod. I. 736.
31. Strabo, σι. 21 ὃ 379. See my
Prolegomena, p. 609.
32. Od. x1. 594. Mr Salomon Reinach in his ‘‘Sisyphe
aux enfers et quelques autres damnés,’ Rev. Arch. 1903, has established
beyond doubt the true interpre-tation of the stone of Sisyphos. 3
33. Paus,
1. 28. 3.
34. Dr Rendel Harris, The Dioscuri, p. 8.
35. Plin. Nat. Hist. VII 57.
36.
For Euryalos see Eph. Arch. 1885, Taf. v. 2and 3. For Hyperbios, Mon.
ἃ. Inst. v1. and vit.
37. Herod. νι. 137 μισθὸν τοῦ τείχεος τοῦ περὶ τὴν
ἀκρόπολίν ποτε ἐληλαμένου.
38. Herod. v. 64 ἐπολιόρκεε τοὺς τυράννους
ἀπεργμένους ἐν τῷ Πελασγικῷ τείχει. All the mss. except Z have
Πελασγικῷ: Z has been corrected to Πελαργικῷ.
39. CI. 4. tv. 2. 27.
6...é€v τῷ Πελαργικῷ...ἐκ τοῦ Πελαργικοῦ.
40. In the best ms. (Laur. C).
-
41. For details of this temple, see: my Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p.
496. For its ground-plan, see below p. 40, Fig, 18.
42. Wiegand-Schrader-Dorpfeld,
Poros-Architektur der Akropolis. For any realization of pre-Periclean
architecture a study of the coloured plates of this work is essential.
43. Typhon and Tritons appear
together on the throne of Apollo at Amyclae. The artistic motives of
this Ionian work are largely Oriental. The conjunction of Typhon and
the Tritons is not, I think, a mere decorative chance, Attention has
not, I think, been called, in connection with this pediment, to the
fact that in Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris (xxxu.) Typhon is the sea into
which the Nile flows (Τυφῶνα δὲ τὴν θάλασσαν, els ἣν ὁ Νεῖλος ἐμπίπτων
ἀφανίζεται. The Egyptian inspiration of the Isis and Osiris no one will
deny, and on this Egyptianized pediment with its lotus-flowers the
Egyptian sea-god Typhon is well in place. His name is doubtless, as
Muss Arnolt Semitic Words in Greek and Latin, p. 59 points out,
connected with Heb. }}D¥ hidden, dark, northern. The sea was north of
Egypt.
44. Ar, Av. 1139 ἕτεροι δ᾽ ἐπλινθοποίουν πελαργοὶ μύριοι.
45. Kur. Jon 154, trans.b y Dr Verrall.
46. See Lechat, Au Musée de l Acropole d’Athénes, p.
215.
47. Any learned blunderer might write Πελασγικόν for Πελαργικόν, but
if Πελασ- γικόν were the original form it would be little likely to be
changed to Πελαργικόν.
48. Thucyd.
τι. 17 τό τε Πελαργικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, ὃ Kal ἐπάρατόν
τε ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν καί τι καὶ Πυθικοῦ μαντείου ἀκροτελεύτιον τοιόνδε
διεκώλυε, λέγον ὡς τὸ Πελαργικὸν ἀργὸν ἄμεινον, ὅμως ὑπὸ τῆς παραχρῆμα
ἀνάγκης ἐξῳκήθη. Thucydides calls ‘7d Πελαργικὸν ἀργὸν ἀμείνον ᾽ a
final hemistich. Mr A. Β. Cook kindly points out to me that it is in
fact a complete line of the ancient metrical form preceding the
hexameter and known as paroimiac.
49. καὶ τὸ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν μάλιστα πρὸς νότον
τετραμμένον.
50. Lucian, Piscator, 46. 2 0.1.4.
51. C.I.A. IV: 2. 27: 6.
52. Poll. On. vu. 101.
53. Dorpfeld, ‘Die Propyliien 1 und 2,’ A. Mitt. x. x. 1885, pp. 38 and 131
and see my Mon. and Myth. Ancient Athens, p. 353.
54. Dorpfeld, A. Mitt. xxvm. 1902, p. 405.
55. The number of these gates is of course
purely conjectural. The sketch in Fig. 15 which I owe to the kindness
of Prof. Dérpfeld gives five only on the western slope. The line of the
walls HJK is suggested by remains of the 6th century B.C. which
probably occupy the site of still earlier Pelasgic fortifications (see
p. 35 note 2). Of the remaining gates one would probably be near where
the Asklepieion was later built and one or more on the north slope.
56. Lucian, Bis Accus. 9 μικρὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ.
57. Herod. vit. 52. H. 3
58. Lucian, Piscator 42.
59. See Mon. and Myth. Ancient Athens, p.
299.
60. Op. cit. p. 152.
61. Polem. ap. Schol. Oed. Col. 489 καθάπερ
Πολέμων ἐν τοῖς πρὸς ᾿Ερατοσθένην φησίν, οὕτω.. κριὸν “Hotxw ἱερὸν
ἥρω...ο ὗ τὸ ἱερόν ἐστι παρὰ τὸ Κυλώνειον, ἐκτὸς τῶν ae ΒΡ: The ms. has
Κυδώνιον, the emendation, which seems certain, is due to . O. Mueller.
62. Plut. Vit.
Solon. x1. and Thucyd. 1. 126.
63. For these details about the date of
the various walls I am indebted to Professor Dorpfeld. Dr F. Noack
holds that the nine-gated Pelargikon was not of Mycenaean date but was
built by Peisistratos, the earlier Pelargikon being a much simpler
structure. Prof. Dorpfeld also holds that there was no nine-gated
Pelargikon in Mycenaean days, but he believes that the Peisistratids
only strengthened an already existing fortification, building perhaps
some additional gates. The Enneapylon would then have its contemporary
analogy in the Enneakrounos. See F. Noack, Arne, A. Mitt. 1898, p. 418.
64. A protest was raised against the building of the Asklepieion after it
was begun ; possibly this was because of its encroachment on the
Pelargikon. See A. Koerte, A. Mitt. 1896, pp. 318—831. 3—2
[Continue to Chapter 2]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|
