|
PREFACE.
My Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens
has been for some time out of print. I have decided to issue no second
edition. A word of explanation is therefore needed as to the purport of
the present pages. Since my book on Athens was published Dr Frazer’s
great commentary on Pausanias has appeared, and for scholars has made a
second edition, so far as my book was a commentary on Pausanias,
superfluous. The need for a popular handbook has been met by Professor
Ernest Gardner’s Ancient Athens.
It happens however that, on a question
cardinal for the understanding of the early history of Athens, I hold
views diametrically opposed to both these writers. These views I have
felt bound to state. This cardinal question is the interpretation of an
account given by Thucydides of the character and limits of ancient
Athens. Both Dr Frazer and Professor Ernest Gardner hold by an
interpretation which though almost universally prevalent down to recent
times has been, in my opinion, disproved by the recent excavations of
the German Archaeological Institute at Athens and the explanation of
their results by Professor Dorpfeld. An adequate examination of the new
theory could perhaps hardly be expected in such a book as Professor
Gardner's, and it will not be found there. Dr Frazer, it is needless to
say, stated Professor Dorpfeld’s view with fulness and fairness, so far
as was then possible or consistent with his main purpose. But the
passage of Thucydides deserves and requires a more full consideration
than it could receive incidentally in an edition of (p. viii)
Pausanias.
Moreover at the time when Dr Frazer visited Athens the
excavations were only in process, and the results had not been fully
developed when his book was published. It was therefore impossible for
Dr Frazer to give in one place such a connected account of the new
evidence and theory as in a question of this magnitude seems desirable.
The view I set forth is not my own but that of Professor Dorpfeld. In
the light of his examination of the passage of Thucydides what had been
a mere ‘Enneakrounos Episode’ interesting only to specialists, became
at once a vital question affecting the whole history of primitive
Athens.
Professor Dorpfeld’s views convinced me even before they were
confirmed by excavation. I expressed my adhesion in my Mythology and
Monuments of Ancient Athens, but I did not then see their full
significance. For English readers these views have been so far stated
as heresies to be combated, or as rash speculations needing
danger-signals. The danger seems to me the other way. To my mind this
is a case where adherence to traditional views can only leave us in
straits made desperate by the advancing tide of knowledge. I have
therefore set forth Prof. Dérpfeld’s views, not apologetically, but in
full confidence, as illuminating truths essentially conciliatory and
constructive.
Save in the Conclusion, on the question of the
metastasis, I have added to the topographical argument nothing of my
own. If here and there I have been unable to resist the temptation of
wandering into bye-paths of religion and mythology, I trust the reader
will pardon one who is by nature no topographer. For topography all
that I have done is to set forth as clearly and fully as I could a
somewhat intricate argument. This task—not very easy because alien to
my own present work—has been lightened by the help of many friends.
Professor Doérpfeld has found time while excavating at Pergamos to go
over my proofs and to assure me that his views are correctly (p.ix)
represented. The German Archaeological Institute has generously placed
at my disposal the whole of their official publications, from which my
illustrations are mainly drawn. The like facilities in the matter of
the Acropolis excavations have been kindly accorded me by Dr Kabbadias.
Other sources are noted in their place.
In the matter of re-drawing, in
restorations and the modification of plans I have again to thank Mrs
Hugh Stewart for much difficult and delicate work, work which could
only be done by one who is archaeologist as well as artist. My debt, by
now habitual, to Dr Verrall wall appear through-out the book. Mr
Gilbert Murray has written for me the Critical Note and has made many
fruitful suggestions. Mr F. M. Cornford has helped me throughout, and
has revised the whole of my proofs. And last, for any degree of
accuracy that may have been attained in the printing, I am indebted to
the skill and care of the University Press.
Jane Ellen Harrison. Newnham College, Cambridge. 18 January, 1906.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS.
Introductory. pp. 1—4.
Chapter 1, pp. 5—36.
The Ancient City, its Character and Limits. Account of Thucydides. Its incidental character
and its object. The scattered burghs. The Synotkismos. The definition
of the ancient city. The fourfold evidence of its small size. The
ancient city was the Acropolis of the times of Thucydides with an
addendum ‘towards about South.’ Excavation of the plateau of the
Acropolis confirms the statement of Thucydides. Natural features of the
Acropolis. The ‘Pelasgic’ circuit wall. Analogy with other ‘Mycenaean’
burghs or fortified hills. Evidence of excavations North of the
Erechtheion and South of the Parthenon. Mythical master-builders.
Giants and Kyklopes. Pelasgoi and Pelargoi. The storks of the poros
pediment. Pelasgikon and Pelargikon. The addendum to the South. The
Enneapylai and the approach to the citadel.
Chapter II, pp. 37-—65
The Sanctuaries in the Citadel. The sanctuaries of the ‘other deities.’ The
later Erechtheion built to enclose a complex of cults. Prof. Dérpfeld’s
elucidation of its plan. The hero-tomb of Kekrops. Kekrops and the
Kekropidae. The hero-snake. The snakes of the poros pediment of the
Hekatompedon. The Pandroseion. _ Pandrosos. The ‘Maidens.’ The semeia.
The sacred olive. The ‘sea.’ _ The trident-mark. Its primitive
significance and connection with Poseidon. - Poseidon and Erechtheus.
Athena. Herakles. .
Chapter III, pp. 66—110
The Sanctuaries outside the Citadel. Meaning of the words ‘towards this part.’ The four sanctuaries
(1) the - Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios, (2) the Pythion. Their position
interdependent. The site of the Pythion certain. Evidence from the Ion
of Euripides. [p.xii] The Long Rocks. Evidence of
Pausanias. Evidence of recent excavations. The cave of Apollo. Votive
tablets dedicated by Thesmothetae. Apollo Patroos and Pythios. The two
sanctuaries of Zeus Olympios. Deukalion and Zeus Meilichios. Zeus and
Apollo. Ion and the Ionians. The cave of Pan. The Sanctuary of
Aglauros. (3) The Sanctuary of Ge. (4) The Sanc-tuary of
Dionysos-in-the-Marshes to be distinguished from the Sanctuary of
Dionysos Eleuthereus. The two festivals of Dionysos at Athens. The two
theatres and precincts. The orchestra in the agora. Evidence of
excavations. The Iobakcheion and the earlier Dionysion. The earlier
Dionysion a triangular precinct—containing wine-press, altar, temple.
The Lenaion and the Lenaia. The Chytroi. The ‘other sanctuaries. The
Amyneion. Amynos and Asklepios. Dexion. The sanctuary of the Semnae
Theai. The sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos. Evidence of inscriptions.
Oriental origin of the worship.
Chapter IV, pp. 111—136
The Spring Kallirrhoe-Ennearkrounos "near: the Citadel. The spring Kallirrhoé. The
water-supply of Athens. Geological structure of the Limnae. Site of
Kallirrhoé fixed in Pnyx rock. Efforts to reinforce water-supply before
time of tyrants. Water-works of the tyrants. Polycrates at Samos. The
conduit of Peisistratos from the upper Ilissos to the Pnyx. Comparison
with conduit of Polycrates. The great reservoir. The Fountain- House.
Water-works of Theagenes at Megara. Analogy between his Fountain- House
and Enneakrounos. Evidence of vase-paintings. The central square in
front of Enneakrounos. The Panathenaic way. The agora and its
de-velopment. Argument resumed..
Conclusion. pp. 137—158.
Critical Note p.159
Bibliography,
pp. 160—163
Indexes:
1. General pp. 164—167
2. For
Classical Authors
Plates:
Statue of "Maiden" from the Acropolis:
Map (Fig. 46) : between pp. 136 and 137
[Continue to Chapter 1]
|
|