|
CHAPTER III
The Sanctuaries that are Outside the Citadel.
καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ “μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ
Ὀλυμπίου
καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Δίμναις Διονύσου (ᾧ τὰ
ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ ᾿Ανθεστηριῶνι) ὥσπερ
καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων Ἴωνες «ἔτι καὶ νῦν νομίζουσιν, ἵδρυται δὲ καὶ ἄλλα
ἱερὰ ταύτῃ ἀρχαῖα.
Thucydides II. 16.
Let
us recapitulate. Thucydides has made a statement as to the city before
the days of Theseus.—“Before this, what is now the citadel was the
city, together with what is below it towards about South.” In support
of this statement he has adduced one argument, “The sanctuaries are in
the Citadel itself, those of other deities as well (as the Goddess).“
He now adduces a second, “And those that are outside are placed towards
this part of the city more (than elsewhere). Such are the sanctuary of
Zeus Olympios, and the Pythion, and the sanctuary of Ge, and that of
Dionysos-in-the-Marshes (to whom is celebrated the more ancient
Dionysiac Festival on the 12th day in the month Anthesterion, as is
also the custom down to the present day with the Ionian descendants of
the Athenians); and other ancient sanctuaries also are placed there.”
This
second argument we have now to examine :— By ‘this part of the city’ it
is quite clear that Thucydides means that portion of the city of his
own day which he has carefully marked out; 1.6. the citadel plus
something, plus ‘what is below it towards about South’; by this we have
seen is meant the upper citadel plus the Pelargikon. This second piece
of evidence is, like the first, adduced simply to prove the small
limits of the ancient city. But Thucydides has expressed himself
somewhat carelessly. Readers who did not know where the sanctuaries
adduced as instances were, might and have taken ‘towards this (p.67)
part of the city’ to mean ‘towards about South. The proximity of the
two phrases and the appearance of a relation between them, if in fact
there be no relation is, as Dr Verrall [1] observes, ‘a flaw in
composition which would not have been passed by a pupil of Isocrates.
The carelessness of Thucydides is, however, excusable enough. He
assumes that the position of the shrines he instances is known as it
was by every Athenian of his day. He also assumes that the main gist of
his argument is intelligently remembered, that his readers realize that
he is concerned with the character and dimensions not the direction of his ancient city.
All
that Thucydides tells us is that the sanctuaries outside the ancient
city are ‘towards’ it [2]: strictly speaking he gives us absolutely no
information as to whether they are North, South, East or West. But
‘towards’ implies approach, and, if we are told that sanctuaries are
‘towards’ a place, we naturally think of ourselves as going there and
as finding these sanctuaries on and about the approach to that place.
As
to the direction of the approach to the Acropolis there is happily no
manner of doubt. In Thucydides’ own days it was where it now is, due
West; in the days before the Persian War, the days when the old
sanctuaries grew up towards the approach, it was South-West. We know
then roughly where to look for our ‘outside’ sanctuaries; they will be
about the entrance West and South-West. We must however remember that
the whole ancient entrance with its fortifications, the Enneapylon,
covered a far wider area than is occupied by the Propylaea now; it took
in the whole West end of the hill and part of the North side, as well
as part of the South. The area included to the South was, as we have
already seen (p. 34), much larger than that to the North.
The
Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios and the Pythion. The two sanctuaries first
mentioned, those of Zeus Olympios and of Apollo Pythios, are linked
together more closely than by mere (p.68) topographical
juxtaposition. In the Kerameikos Apollo Patroos [3] had a temple close
to the Stoa of Zeus Eleutherios; down near the Ilissos, Zeus Olympios
had his great sanctuary (fig.49), and near it Apollo Pythios had a
temenos, and here, where Thucydides is speaking of the most ancient
foundation of the two gods, father and son, they are manifestly in
close conjunction, This is fortunate for our argument. For it happens
that, whereas we know the exact site of the earliest Pythion, of this
earliest Olympieion there are no certain remains. From the known site
of the Pythion and from the close conjunction of the two we can deduce
within narrow limits the unknown site of the Olympion.
Possibly
at this point, if the reader knows modern Athens, the words ‘the
unknown site’ of the Olympion will rouse an instinctive protest. Surely
the site of the Olympieion, with its familiar cluster of Corinthian
columns, is of all things most certain and familiar, It lies South-East
of the Acropolis not far from the Ilissos (see Fig. 49). A moment’s
consideration will however show that this Olympieion, though familiar,
is irrelevant, nay impossible. It is too remote to. be described as
towards the ancient city, it is too recent to be accounted an ancient
sanctuary. It was, as Thucydides quite well knew, begun by Peisistratos
[4].
We begin by fixing the site of the Pythion, happily certain.
Literature
alone enables us within narrow limits to do this. In the Ion of
Euripides [5] Ion, learning that Creousa comes from Athens, presses her
for particulars about that ‘glorious’ city. As a priestling he is
naturally interested in all canonical legends, but what he is really
eager about is the ancient sacred spot which linked Athens to Delphi,
The nursling of Delphi eagerly asks
And is there there a place called the Long Rocks ?
Cre. Why ask this? Oh the memory thou hast touched,
Ion. The Pythian honours it and the Pythian fires.
Cre. Honours it! he honours it! Curse the day I saw it.
Ion. What is it? You hate the haunts the god loves best.
Cre. Nothing. Those caves could tell a tale of shame.
But this is not what the pious Ion wants and he turns the subject. (p.69) The
place at Athens dearest to the Pythian, the place his lightnings honour
is on the Long Rocks, and there, we may safely assume, was the god’s
earliest sanctuary.
The prologue of the same play tells us where
the Long Rocks were, namely on the North of the Acropolis. Hermes, who
brought Ion to Delphi, speaks [6]:
‘A citadel there is in Hellas famed,
Called after Pallas of the golden spear,
And, where the northern rocks ’neath Pallas’ hill
Are called the Long Rocks, Phoebus there by force
Did wed Creousa.’
Nor
is it Ion only who knows that this place was honoured by the Pythian
fires, it is no mere ‘ poetical’ figure. Strabo [7], in speaking of a
place called Harma in Boeotia, says we must not confuse this Harma with
another Harma near Pyle, a deme in Attica bordering on Tanagra. In
connection with this Attic Harma, he adds, the proverb originated ‘When
it has lightened through Harma.’ Strabo further goes on to say that
this Harma, which is on Mt Parnes, to the North-West of Athens, was
watched by certain officials called Pythiasts for three days and nights
in each of three successive months; when a flash of lightning was
observed a sacrifice was despatched to Delphi. The place whence the
observation was taken was the altar of Zeus Astrapaios, Zeus of the
Lightning, and this altar was in (or on) the (Acropolis) wall between
the Pythion and the Olympion.
Euripides, it is clear, is
alluding to this definite ritual which of course would be familiar to
lon. That ritual he clearly conceived of as taking place near the Long
Rocks. Near the Long Rocks must therefore have stood the altar of Zeus
of the Lightning, on the wall between the Olympieion and the Pythion.
Not only the Pythion but the Olympicion must therefore have been close
to the Long Rocks. The word used by Strabo for wall (τεῖχος) is
strictly a fortification wall, and we should naturally understand it of
that portion of the Pelargikon which defends the North-West corner of
the citadel and abuts on the Long Rocks (fig.2). It is just here, close
to the Pelargikon that we should, from the account of (p.70) Pausanias
[8], expect to find Apollo’s ‘best loved’ sanctuary. Pausanias on
leaving the Acropolis notes the Pelargikon, or as he calls it
Pelasgikon, and immediately after says ‘on the descent not to the lower
parts of the city but just below the Propylaea, is a spring of water,
and close by a sanctuary of Apollo in a cave; they think that it was
here he met Creousa, the daughter of Erechtheus.’ .
Pausanias
says ‘a sanctuary of Apollo in a cave.’ It is the fact that the
sanctuary is in a cave that strikes and interests him. He does not call
it a Pythion. But by another writer the actual word Pythion is used.
Philostratos [9] describes the route taken by the Panathenaic ship
thus: starting from the outer Kerameikos it sailed to the Eleusinion,
and, having rounded it, it was carried along past the Pelasgikon and
came alongside of the Pythion, where it is now moored. The Panathenaic
way has been, as will later be seen (p. 131), laid bare; for the moment
all that concerns us is that the Pythion is mentioned immediately after
the Pelasgikon and was therefore presumably next to it. Philostratos
puts what he calls the Pythion in just the place where Pausanias [10]
saw his ‘sanctuary in a cave’; the two are identical. Further, any
doubts as to where the ship was moored are set at rest by Pausanias
himself. He saw the ship and noted its splendour. It stood ‘near the
Areopagus. The Pythion must have stood at the North-West corner of the
Acropolis (Fig. 46).
Fig.21: View of three caves below Propylea in the Acropolis.
From the lower tower
at the North-West corner there have always been clearly visible to any
one looking up from below three caves (Fig. 21), a very shallow one
immediately over the (p.71) Klepsydra,
and two others nearer together and somewhat deeper separated from the
first by a shoulder of rock. On the plan in Fig. 22 these are marked
A,B and I. The question has long been raised which of the three
belonged to Apollo and which to Pan, As Pausanias [11] first mentions
the sanctuary of Apollo in a cave and then passes on to tell the story
of Pheidippides, manifestly a propos of Pan’s cave, it has been usual
to connect A with Apollo and B and G one or both, with Pan.
But
the identification has never been felt to be quite satisfactory. The
cave A is really no cave at all; it is a very shallow niche. It is
impossible to imagine it the scene of the story of Creousa. Moreover it
bears no traces of any votive offerings having been attached to its
wall, nor have any remains of such been found there.
Fig.22: Plan showing cliff with caves located below the Propylea in the Acropolis.
Between
cave A and cave B there is a connecting stair-way a, a’, a’’, but it
should be carefully noted that A has no direct (p.72) communication with the upper part of the Acropolis
nor with the Propylaea. The steep staircase that leads down now-a-days
from near the monument of Agrippa to the little Church now built over
the Klepsydra looks very rocky and primitive, but really only dates
from mediaeval or at earliest late Roman times. It was made at the time
that the socalled ‘Valerian’ wall was built, which starts from the
Klepsydra and reaches to the Stoa of Attalos (Fig. 46, dotted lines).
We
pass to cave B, which formerly was believed to belong to Pan. Recent
excavations [12] leave no doubt that it was (p.73) sacred
to Apollo. The back wall and sides of this cave are thickly studded
with niches for the most part of oblong shape, but a few are round,
About in the middle of the cave is an extra large niche, which looks as
if it had contained the image of a god. Many of the niches still show
the holes which once held nails for the fixing of votive tablets. As
the cave became unduly crowded with offerings they overflowed on to the
rock at the left hand,
So far we are sure that cave B was a
sanctuary, but of whom ? If A did not belong to Apollo we should expect
that B, as next in order, was Apollo’s cave. The ground in front of B
has been cleared down to the living rock and the results of this
clearance [13] were conclusive. Exactly in front of B there came to
light eleven tablets or pinakes all of similar type, and all bearing
inscribed dedications to Apollo, either with the title ‘below the
Heights,’ or ‘below the Long Rocks.’ Cave B is clearly a sanctuary of
Apollo.
sometimes
by an olive wreath and sometimes by a myrtle wreath with characteristic
berries, Occasionally the wreath is tied by two snakes, Two
inscriptions may serve as a sample of the rest. On No. 1 [14]
(Fig.23-1, below) is inscribed ‘Good Fortune G(aios) Ioulios Metrodorus a
Marathonian having borne the office of Thesmothetes dedicated (this) to
Apollo Below-the-Long (Rocks),’ In the second [15] instance (Fig.23-2, above)
the dedicator states that he is ‘ King’ (Archon), and the dedication is
to Apollo ‘below the Heights.’ Clearly the two titles of the god were
interchangeable.
Fig.23: Late Roman votive tablets found in cave-sanctuary of Apollo.
These dedications are of capital importance. It
is little likely that unless the custom had been of immemorial
antiquity the (p.75) archons
would have sought out an obscure cave-sanctuary in which to place their
commemorative tablets. Was there not the temple of Apollo Patroos
in the Market Place and the splendid Pythion down near the Ilissos ?
They
chose the cave-sanctuary of Apollo in which to place, at the close of
their term of office, their votive tablet because it was in this
ancient sanctuary that they had taken their oath of fidelity on their
election. At the official scrutiny [16] of candidates for the
archonship enquiry was made as to the ancestry of the candidate on both
father’s and mother’s side. But it was not enough that he should be a
full citizen, he was also solemnly asked whether he had an Apollo
Patroés and a Zeus Herkeios and where their sanctuaries were. The
Athenians, in so far as they were Ionians, claimed descent through Ion
from Apollo and of course through Apollo from Zeus. The sanctuary in
the cave was therefore to them of supreme importance. This
scrutiny over, the candidates went to a sacred stone near the Stoa
Basileios, and there, standing over the cut pieces of the sacrificed
victim, they took the oath to rule justly and to take no bribes, and
they swore that if any took a bribe he would dedicate at Delphi [17] a
gold statue commensurate in value.
The archons had to prove
their relation to Apollo Patroos and to dedicate a gold statue if they
offended the Pythian god under whose immediate control they stood.
Moreover it was not enough that they should swear at the Stoa
Basileios. The oath was doubtless older than any Stoa Basileios in the
later Market Place. After they had sworn there they had to ‘go up to
the Acropolis and there swear the same oath again [18]. Then and not
till then could they enter office. And whither on the Acropolis should
they go? Whither but to the cave where a little later they will
dedicate their votive tablets, and where still the foundations of an
altar stand, the cave of their ancestor Apollo Patroos and Pythios?
Whether the second oath, on the Acropolis, was taken actually (p.76) in
the cave-sanctuary cannot be certainly decided; the votive tablets make
it probable and they make quite certain that the cave-sanctuary was
officially used by the archons. This fact it is necessary to emphasize.
Until these inscriptions were brought to light Apollo’s cave was
thought to be of but little importance, curious and primitive but
practically negligible. Now that it is clear that the archons selected
it as their memorial chapel, such a view is no longer possible,
It was a sanctuary not merely of Apollo Below-the-Heights but of the
ancestral god, the Apollo Patroos of the archons. Moreover—a fact all
important—this Apollo ‘Below-the-Heights’ being Apollo Patrods was also
Apollo Pythios. Demosthenes in the de Corona [19], calling to witness
his country’s gods, says ‘I call on all the gods and goddesses who hold
the land of Attica and on Apollo the Pythian, who is ancestral
(πατρῷος) to the state.’ The sanctuary in the cave was a Pythion, Apollo coming
as he did to Athens from Pytho was always Pythian whatever additional
title he might take, and every sanctuary of his was a Pythion; his most
venerable sanctuary was not a temple but a hollowed rock.
The
Pythion lies before us securely fixed, primitive, convincing. With the
‘sanctuary of Zeus Olympios’ it is alas! far otherwise. Given that the
Pythion is fixed at the North-West corner of the Acropolis, and given
that, according to Strabo (see p. 69), it was so near the Olympieion
that the place of an altar could be described as ‘ between’ them, then
it follows that somewhere near to that North-West corner the sanctuary
of Zeus Olympios must have lain. We may further say that as Thucydides,
it will be seen, notes the various sanctuaries and the city-well in the
order from East to West, and begins with the sanctuary of Zeus
Olympios, it lay presumably somewhat to the East of the Pythion. To the
East of the Pythion, near to the supposed site of the temenos of
Aglauros, was found an inscription [20] with a dedication to Zeus, but,
as inscriptions are easily moveable, no great importance can be
attached to this isolated fact. Of definite monumental evidence for the
existence of a sanctuary of Zeus where we seek it, (p.77) we must
frankly own at the outset there is nothing certain [21]. It must stand
or fall with the Pythion.
Before
examining such literary evidence as exists it is necessary to note
clearly that Thucydides mentions not a temple but a sanctuary. The
great temple near the Ilissos, begun by Peisistratos [22], and not
completed till centuries later by Antiochus Epiphanes and Hadrian, is
usually spoken of as a temple (ναός), but we have no grounds whatever
for supposing that on or near the Long Rocks there was a temple, but
only a sanctuary [23], which may very likely have been merely a
precinct with an altar. Such a precinct and altar might easily
disappear and leave no trace. This is of importance for the
understanding of what follows.
When we come to literary evidence one point is clear. Before Peisistratos began the building of his great temple
there existed another and earlier place for the worship of Zeus, and
this is spoken of as not a temple but a sanctuary. Pausanias [24], when
he visited the great temple, wrote, ‘They say that Deucalion built the
old sanctuary of Zeus Olympios, and, as a proof of the sojourn of
Deucalion at Athens, point to his tomb, which is not far distant from
the present temple.’
It has usually been assumed that this
earlier sanctuary was on or near the site of the later temple, but, as
Prof. Dorpfeld [25] has pointed out, this is no-wise stated by
Pausanias. He only says that there was a tomb of Deucalion, not far
from the present temple, and that the existence of this tomb made
people attribute to Deucalion the building of the early sanctuary.
Where the early sanctuary was he does not say. It should be noted that
he is careful to use the word sanctuary, not temple, in speaking of the
foundation of Deucalion. (p.78)
From
this it follows, I think, that when we hear of a sanctuary of Zeus
Olympios, not a temple, there is a slight presumption in favour of its
being the earlier foundation. In the opening scene of the
Phaedrus [26] an ‘Olympion,’ ie. a sanctuary of Zeus, is mentioned.
Socrates and Phaedrus meet somewhere, presumably within the city walls,
for Socrates is later taxed with never going for a country walk.
Socrates says, ‘So it seems Lysias was up in town. Phaedrus answers, ‘
Yes, he is staying with Epikrates in yonder house, near the Olympion,
the one that used to belong to Morychus.” The favourite haunt of
Socrates was the agora ; a stroll by the Ilissos was to him a serious
and unusual country walk. Our Olympion at the North-West corner of the
Acropolis would fit the scene somewhat better than the great temple
near the Ilissos ; but that is all, the passage proves nothing.
A
question more important perhaps than any topographical issue remains.
Do we know anything of the nature of the god worshipped in the ancient
sanctuary, or of the character of his ritual ? The question may seem to
some superfluous. Zeus is surely Zeus everywhere and for all time, his
cloud-compelling nature and his splendid sacrificial feasts familiar
from Homer downwards. But then what of Deucalion? Deucalion is a figure
manifestly Oriental, a feeble copy of the archetypal Noah. Why does he
institute the worship of our immemorial Indo-European Zeus? Are there
two Zeuses ?
There were, at least at Athens, two festivals of
Zeus. Thucydides [27] himself is witness. He tells us of the trap laid
for Kylon in characteristic fashion by the Delphic oracle. Kylon was to
seize the Acropolis ‘on the greatest festival of Zeus.’ But this
‘greatest festival’ was alas for him! not of the Zeus he, as an
Olympian victor, remembered, bu t of ‘Zeus Meilichios,
and—significant fact for us—it, the familiar Diasia, was celebrated ‘
outside the city. This ‘outside the city’ cannot fail, used as the
words are by Thucydides himself, to remind us of our sanctuary, also
‘outside.’
(p.79)
What may be dimly discerned, though certainly no-wise demonstrated, is
this. The name Zeus is one of the few divine titles as to which
philologists agree that it is Indo-European. But the name Zeus was
attached to persons and conceptions many and diverse, and here in
Athens it was attached to a divinity of Oriental nature and origin.
Meilichios [28] is but the Graecized form of Melek, the ‘King’ best
known to us as Moloch, a deity who like the Greek Meilichios loved
holocausts, a deity harsh and stern, who could only by a helpless and
hopelessly mistaken etymology be called Meilichios the Gentle One. His
worship prevailed in the Peiraeus, brought thither probably by
Phoenician sailors, from his sanctuary there came the familiar reliefs
with the great snake as the impersonation of the god. It was this
Semitic Melek whom Deucalion brought in his ark. When this Semitic
immigration took place it is hard to say. Tradition, as evidenced by
the Parian Chronicle [29], placed it in the reign of the shadowy Attic
king Kranaos, about 1528 BC.
The sanctuaries of both Zeus and
Apollo are alike outside the ancient city. Zeus had altars on the
Acropolis itself; Apollo, great though he was, never forced an entrance
there. The fact is surely significant. Herodotus [30], it will be
remembered, marks the successive stages of the development of Athens:
under Kekrops they were Kekropidai, under Erechtheus they were
Athenians, and last, ‘when Ion, son of Xuthos, became their leader,
from him they were called Ionians.’ Ion was the first Athenian
polemarch [31].
One thing is clear, Ion marks the incoming of a
new race, a race with Zeus and Apollo for their gods. From the blend of
this new stock with the old autochthonous inhabitants arose the (p.80) Ionians.
Zeus and Apollo were called ‘ancestral’ at Athens because they were
ancestral; the new element traced its descent from them, and presumably
the affiliation was arranged by Delphi; but Apollo, though his
sanctuary was on the hill, never got inside.
Ion had for divine
father Apollo, but his real human father was Xuthos. This Xuthos, as
immigrant conqueror, marries the king’s daughter Creousa. Xuthos was
really a local hero of the deme Potamoi [32], near Prasiae. He came of
Achaean stock, and therefore had Zeus for ancestor. Hermes, in the
prologue to the Ion [33], is quite clear, There was war between Athens
and Euboea :
And Xuthos strove and helped them with the sword
And had Creousa, guerdon of his aid,
No home-born hero he, but son of Zeus
And Aiolos, Achaean. -
And again [34], when Ion questions his unknown mother as to her husband :
Ion. And what Athenian took thee for his wife ?
Cre. No citizen: an alien from another land.
Ion. Who? For a well-born man he needs had been.
Cre. Xuthos, of Zeus and Aiolos the offspring he.
The
tomb of Ion, significant fact, was not at Athens but at Potamoi, and
Pausanias [35] saw it there. Well may the sanctuaries of Zeus and
Apollo stand together.
To return to the question of topography.
That the cave marked B on the plan is sacred to Apollo admits, in the.
face of the inscribed votive tablets, of no doubt. But a difficulty yet
remains. It was noted in speaking of the cave above the Klepsydra that
it was too shallow and too exposed to be a natural scene of the story
of Creousa. The same objections, though in a somewhat less degree,
apply to the cave marked B. The difficulty, however, admits of an easy
solution.
The excavators proceeded to clear out cave Gamma, and
here they found nothing, no votive tablets, no altar, no inscriptions.
But in carrying on their work further East they came on a fourth cave,
of a character quite different from that of A, B, or Gamma. The fourth
(p.81) cave,
Delta, has a very narrow entrance; it communicates by a narrow passage
with Delta’ and also with Delta”, but Delta” has been turned into a
small Christian church, of which the pavement and a portion of a brick
wall yet remain. Here at Delta we have a cave in the full sense of the
word, and here we have in all probability the cave or caves, the
‘seats’ [36] (θακήματα) of Pan.
But, be it remembered, Pan was a
late comer; his worship was introduced after his services at Marathon.
In heroic days, the time of the story of Creousa, the Long Rocks were
shared by the Pythian god and the daughters of Aglauros. The hollow
triple cave marked D’, D”, D”’ was once the property of Apollo, and it
saw the birth of Ion; later it was handed over to Pan, and is again, as
in the Lysistrata [37], the natural sequestered haunt of lovers.
Kinesias, on the Acropolis, points out to Myrrhine that near at hand is
the sanctuary of Pan for seclusion, and close by the Klepsydra for
purification. |
In the countless votive tablets [38] to Pan and
the nymphs, the type varies little. We have a cave, an altar: round the
altar three nymphs are dancing, usually led by Hermes, and, perched on
the side of the cave or looking through a hole, Pan is piping to them.
The three nymphs, three daughters of Kekrops, were then dancing on the
Long Rocks long before Pan came to pipe to them. Concerned as we are
for the present with Apollo and his Pythion, it is only necessary to
note that their shrine, the sanctuary of Aglauros, must have been near
the cave of Pan, somewhere to the East. Euripides [39] speaks of them
as practically one:
O seats of Pan and rock hard by
To where the hollow Long Rocks lie
Where, before Pallas’ temple-bound
Aglauros’ daughters three go round
Upon their grassy dancing-ground
To nimble reedy staves.
Where thou O Pan art piping found
Within thy shepherd caves.
Exactly
where that sanctuary of Aglauros was excavations have not established.
At the point where the cavern is closed by the little modern church,
begins a stairway, consisting of seventeen steps (θ-κ-λ- μ-), cut in
the rock. These steps manifestly lead up to the (p.82) steps
already known, which lead down, twenty-two in number, from the
Erechtheion. This is probably the ‘opening’ (ὄπη) down which the
deserting women in the Lysistrata [40] were caught escaping. Still
further East is a long narrow subterranean passage, a natural cleft in
the rock π---π΄, and at the end of this, just above the modern Church
of the Seraphim, is supposed to be the sanctuary of Aglauros. Here were
found a niche in the rock, the basis of a statue, and some fragments of
black-figured vases. Here again there is communication with the
Acropolis, but only by a ladder ascending the cliff for about twenty
feet at a precipitous point. Moreover the upper part of the stone
stairway is of mediaeval date so that it is not likely that the ascent was an ancient one.
The Sanctuary of Ge.—The site of this sanctuary can, within very narrow limits be determined.
Pausanias,
in describing the South side of the Acropolis. after passing the
Asklepieion, notes the temple of Themis and the monument of Hippolytus.
Apropos of this he mentions and probably saw a sanctuary of Aphrodite
Pandemos (p. 105); he then says ‘there is also a sanctuary of Ge
Kourotrophos and Demeter Chloe’; immediately afterwards he passes
through the Propylaea. The sanctuary of Ge must therefore have been at
the South-West corner or due West of the Acropolis, and presumably
somewhere along the winding road followed by Pausanias (see Plan, p.
38). From the account of Pausanias [41] we should gather that Ge
Kourotrophos, Earth the Nursing-Mother, and Demeter Chloe, Green
Demeter had a sanctuary together; perhaps they had by the time of
Pausanias, but the considerable number of separate dedications [42] to
Demeter Chloe makes it probable that at least in earlier days these
precincts, though near, were distinct.
The union of Ge
Kourotrophos and Demeter Chloe is not the union of Mother and Maid, it
is the union of two Mother-goddesses. Of the two Demeter belongs
locally not to Athens but to Eleusis. Ge Kourotrophos is obviously the
earlier and strictly local figure. But Demeter of Eleusis, from various
[p.83] causes,
political and agricultural, developed to dimensions almost Olympian,
and her figure tended everywhere to efface that of the local
Earth-Mother, hence we need not be surprised that the number of
dedications to Demeter is larger than that of those to ᾿ Kourotrophos.
Kourotrophos appears among the early divinities enumerated by the woman
herald in the Thesmophoriazusae [43], and the scholiast, in his comment
on the passage, recognizes her antiquity: ‘either Earth or Hestia; it
comes to the same thing; they sacrifice to her before Zeus.’ Suidas
[44] states that Erichthonios was the first to sacrifice to her on the
Acropolis, and instituted the custom that ‘those who were sacrificing
to any god should first sacrifice to her.’
The Sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes.
The
name Dionysos at once carries us in imagination to the famous theatre
on the South side of the Acropolis (Fig. 16), and we remember perhaps
with some relief that this theatre is, quite as much as the Pythion,
‘towards’ the ancient city; it lies right up against the Acropolis
rock. We remember also that Pausanias [45], in his account of the South
slope, says ‘the oldest sanctuary of Dionysos is beside the theatre. He
sees within the precinct there two temples, the foundations of which
remain to-day; one of them was named Eleutherian, the other we think
may surely have belonged to Dionysos-in-the-Marshes. It is true that
the ground about the theatre is anything but marshy now, nor could it
ever have been very damp, as it slopes sharply down to the South-East.
Still, from an ancient name it is never safe to argue [46];
in-the-marshes may have been a mere popular etymology from a word the
meaning of which was wholly lost.
But a moment’s reflection
shows that the identification, though tempting, will not do. Thucydides
himself (p. 66) seems to warn us; (p.84) he seems to say, ‘not that precinct which you
all know so well and think so much of, not that theatre where year by
year you all go, but an earlier and more venerable place, and, that
there be no mistake, the place where you go on the 12th day of
Anthesterion, and where your ancestors went before they migrated to
colonize Asia Minor.’
It is most fortunate that Thucydides has
been thus precise, because about this festival on the 12th day of
Anthesterion we know from other sources [47] certain important details
which may help to the identification of the sanctuary.
The
festival celebrated on the 12th of Anthesterion was the Festival of the
Choes or Pitchers [48], On this day, we learn from Athenaeus [49] and
others, the people drank new wine, each one by himself, offered some to
the god, and brought to the priestess in the sanctuary in the Marshes
the wreaths they had worn. On this day took place also a ceremony of
great sanctity, the marriage of the god to the wife of the chief
archon—the ‘king’ as he was called. The actual marriage took place in a
building called the Boukoleion, the exact site of which is not known;
but certain preliminary ceremonies were gone through by the Bride in
the sanctuary in-the-Marshes. The author of the Oration ‘ against
Neaera [50] tells us that there was a law by which the Bride had to be
a full citizen and a virgin when she married the king, she was bound
over to perform the ceremonies required of her ‘according to ancestral
custom,’ to leave nothing undone, and to introduce no innovations. This
law, the orator tells us, was engraved on a stele and set up alongside
of the altar in the sanctuary of Dionysos in-the-Marshes, and remained
to his day, though the letters were somewhat dim.
But this,
though much, is not all. The orator goes on to tell us why the law was
written up in this particular sanctuary. ‘And (p.85) the reason why they set it up in the most
ancient sanctuary of Dionysos and the most holy, in the Marshes, is
that not many people may read what is written. For it is opened once
only in each year, on the 12th of the month Anthesterion [51]. Finally,
having sufficiently raised our curiosity, he bids the clerk read the
actual oath administered by this pure Bride to her attendants,
administered before they touch the sacred things, and taken on the
baskets at the altar. The clerk is to read it that all present may
realize how venerable and holy and ancient the accustomed rite was. The
oath of the attendants was as follows:
‘I fast and am clean
and abstinent from.all things that make unclean and from intercourse
with man, and I will celebrate the Theoinia and the Iobakcheia to
Dionysos im accordance with ancestral usage and at the appointed times.’
We
shall meet again the precinct, the altar, the stele, the oath ; for the
present it is all-important to note that the precinct In-the-Marshes
was open but once a year, and that on the 12th of Anthesterion. It is
impossible, therefore, that this precinct could be identical with the
precinct near the theatre on the South slope [52], as this must have
been open for the Greater Dionysia, celebrated in the month
Elaphebolion (March—April).
The precinct In-the-Marshes has been
sought and found; but before we tell the story of its finding, in order
that we may realize what clue was in the hands of the excavators, it is
necessary to say a word as to the time and place of the festivals of
Dionysos at Athens.
Thucydides himself tells us that the
Dionysiac festivals were two, an earlier and a later. His use of the
comparative— Dionysos-in-the-Marshes,’ he says, ‘to whom is celebrated
the more ancient Dionysiac Festival,—makes it clear that, to his mind,
there were two and only two. The later festival, the Greater Dionysia,
was celebrated in the precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus; the time, we
noted before, was the month Elaphebolion.
(p.86)
The ‘more ancient Dionysiac Festival’ is of course a purely informal
descriptive title. But it happens that we know the official title of
the two Athenian festivals, the earlier and the later [53].
1.
The later festival, that in the present theatre, was called in laws and
official inscriptions ‘ the (Dionysia) in the town (τὰ ἐν ἄστει), or
‘the town Dionysia’ (ἀστικὰ Διονύσια).
2. The more ancient
festival was called either ‘the Dionysia at the Lenaion’ (ra ἐπὶ Anvaiw
Διονύσια), or ‘the (dramatic) contest at the Lenaion’ (ὁ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ
ἀγών), or, more simply, ‘the Lenaia’ (τὰ Λήναια).
We have got
two festivals, an earlier and a later, the earlier called officially
‘Lenaia,’ or ‘the dramatic contest at the Lenaion’; but were there two
theatres also, an earlier and a later? Yes. Pollux [54] tells us there
was a Dionysiac theatre and a ‘Lenaic’ one— just the very word we
wanted. And to clinch the whole argument we find that the ‘ Lenaic’ one
was the earlier. Hesychius [55], explaining the phrase, ‘the dramatic
contest at the Lenaion,’ says, ‘there is in the city the Lenaion with a
large enclosure, and in it a sanctuary of Dionysos Lenaios. In this
(i.e. presumably the enclosure) the dramatic contests of the Athenians took place, before the theatre was built.’
This ‘theatre, where the plays were performed before the theatre of Eleuthereus was built, was no very grand affair; its seats,
it would seem, were called ‘scaffoldings’ (ipsa). Photius [56], in
explaining the word ikria says, ‘the (structure) in the agora from
which they watched the Dionysiac contests before the theatre in the
precinct of Dionysos was built.’
Photius, while explaining the
‘scaffolding,' gives us incidentally a priceless piece of information.
This early theatre was in the agora. (p.87) But then, to raise a time-honoured
question, to which we shall later (p. 132) return, where is the agora?
This question for the present we must not pursue. But the ancient
theatre consisted of more than ‘scaffolding’ for seats. It had what was
the central, initial, cardinal feature of every Greek theatre, its
dancing place, its orchestra; and we know approximately where this
orchestra was. A lexicographer [57], explaining the word orchestra,
says, ‘a conspicuous place for a public festival, where are the statues
of Harmodios and Aristogeiton.’
The agora, conducted by
successive theorists, has made the complete tour of the Acropolis, but
the statues of the Tyrant-Slayers cannot break loose from the
Areopagus,—beneath which ‘not far’ from the temple of Ares, Pausanias
[58] saw them. The statues, according to Timaeus, were at the site of
the ancient orchestra [59], from the scaffolding of which ‘in the
agora’ the more ancient festival (the Lenaia) was witnessed. Here then,
somewhere near the Areopagus, we must seek the sanctuary of
Dionysos-in-the-Marshes.
The Lenaia, though more ancient than
the ‘city Dionysia,’ was no obscure festival. Plato [60], in the
Protagoras, mentions a comedy which Pherecrates had brought out at the
Lenaia, and it can never be forgotten that for the Lenaia, in 405 BC.,
Aristophanes wrote the Frogs [61]. The chorus of Frogs [62] assuredly
reremember that their home is in the Limnae. There they were (p.88) wont
to croak and chant at the Anthesteria, on the third day of which
festival, the Chytroi or Pots, came the ‘Pot Contests,’ probably the
earliest dramatic performances that Athens saw.
“Ὁ brood of the mere, the spring,
Gather together and sing
From the depths of your throat
By the side of the boat
Co-ix, as we move in a ring;
As in Limnae we sang the divine
Nyseian Giver of Wine,
When the people in lots
With their sanctified Pots
Came reeling around my shrine.’
The
excavations which have brought to light the ancient sanctuary of the
Limnae were not undertaken solely, or even chiefly, with that object.
Rather the intention was to settle, if possible, other and wider
topographical questions: where lay the ancient road to the Acropolis,
where the ancient agora, and where the city well, Kallirrhoé. Yet, to
some, who awaited with an almost breathless impatience the result of
these excavations, their great hope was that the precinct of the Limnae
might be found; that they might know where in imagination to picture
the ancient rites of the Anthesteria and the marriage of the Queen and
those earliest dramatic contests from which sprang tragedy and comedy.
The wider results of the excavations will be noted in connection with
the Enneakrounos; for the moment it is the narrower, intenser issue of
the Limnae that alone concerns us.
So far our only topographical
clues have been two. (1) Thucydides has told us that the sanctuary in
the Marshes with the other sanctuaries he mentions was ‘towards’ the
ancient city; we have fixed the Pythion at the North-West corner of the
Acropolis, and as his account seems to be moving westwards, we expect
the Dionysiac sanctuary to be West of that point. (2) We know also
(p.87) that the ancient orchestra was near the Areopagus. We look for a
site for the Dionysia which shall combine these two directions. If that
site is also a possible Marsh, so much the better; and here indeed, in
the hollow between the Pnyx, Areopagus, and Acropolis, water is caught
and confined; but for artificial drainage, here marsh-land must be.
This, by practical experience, the excavators soon had reason to know.
(p.89)
Fig.24: Map of area of the sanctuary of Dionysos (from Dorpfeld Ath. Mitt. XX, 1895, Plate 4)
A portion of the results of the excavations
begun by the German Archaeological Institute in 1887 [63] and lasting
for upwards of ten years is to be seen on the plans in Figs. 24 and 35.
The enlarged plan of a portion of the excavations (Fig. 24) for (p.90) the
moment alone concerns us. The first substantial discovery that rewarded
the excavators was the finding of the ancient road. It followed, as
Professor Dorpfeld had always predicted it would, the lie of the modern
road. Roads being strictly conditioned by the law of least resistance
do not lightly alter their course. The present carriage road to the
Acropolis is a little less devious in its windings than the ancient
one, that is all (Fig. 35).
Just below where the ancient road
passes down from the West shoulder of the Acropolis, and at a level
much higher than that of the road itself, the excavators came on a
building of Roman date and indifferent masonry, whic h proved to be a
large hall, with two rows of columns dividing it into a central nave
and two aisles. To the East the hall was furnished with a quadrangular
apse. Within this apse was found an altar [64] decorated with scenes
from the worship a of Dionysos, a goat being dragged to the altar,
a Satyr, a Maenad, and the like. This altar would in itself rouse
thhe suspicion that we are in a sanctuary dedicated to Dionysos, but
fortunately we are not left to evidence so precarious.
Fig.25: Column with inscription from apse of the Bakcheion building.
The inscription contains the
statutes of. a thiasos, or club of persons calling themselves
Iobakchoi, who met in a place—the hall where the inscription was set
up—called the Bakcheion. This is our quadrangular building marked
Bakcheion on the plan (fig.24). The rules, which are given in great
detail, are very interesting, but for the present one thing only
concerns us—the name of the thiasos, the Iobakchoi. Iobakchos was a
title of Dionysos, a title probably derived from a cry uttered in his
worship, and, we remember (p. 85) with sudden delight, the
Gerarae, the attendants of the Queen, promised in their oath to
celebrate, in accordance with ancestral usage, the Iobakcheia.
But
the building, and even the traces of an earlier structure that preceded
it [67], are of late date; we are on the spot, and yet so far the
sanctuary in the Marshes eludes us. But not for long. Digging deeper
down, to the level of the ancient road, the excavators came on another
and an earlier structure, the triangular precinct marked on the plan,
and here at last evidence was found that settled for ever the site of
the sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the- Marshes.
The sanctuary, for
such we shall immediately see it was, is of triangular shape, and lies
substantially lower than the roads by which it is bounded. The sides of
the triangle face approximately, North, East and South-West. The
precinct is surrounded by an ancient polygonal wall, a portion of which
from the south (p.92) end
of the South-West side is shown in fig.26. The material is throughout
blue calcareous stone, but the masonry is by no means of uniform
excellence or of the same date. At various periods the wall must have
undergone repairs. The space enclosed is about 560 square metres. Owing
to the fact that the precinct lay deeper than the surrounding roads,
sometimes to the extent of two metres, the wall is supported in places
by buttresses, only one of which is of good Greek masonry; the rest
seem to have been added shortly before the ancient precinct fell into
disuse.
Fig.26: Section of southwest precinct wall (from Dorpfeld Ath. Mitt. XX, 1895)
A notable point about this precinct
wall is that there is no trace of any large entrance-gate. We expect a
gate at the South-West side, where the precinct is skirted by the main
road. Here the wall is well-preserved, but there is no trace of any
possible gate. The only feasible place is at the South end of the East
wall, where there seems to have been a break, and towards this point,
as we shall see, the small temple is orientated. Here, then, and in all
probability here only, was there access to the precinct.
At the
North-West corner the excavators came on a structure so far unique in
the history of discoveries. They found a walled-in floor 4.70 m. by
2.80. This floor is carefully paved with a mixture of pebbles, stone,
and cement, and is inclined to one corner at an angle of 0°25 m. At
this lowest point there is a hole through the wall enclosing the floor,
and outside, let into the pavement, is a large vessel, 0°50 m. in
diameter, quadrangular above, round below. They had found, beyond all
possible
Fig.27: View of wine press in corner of the precinct of Dionysius.
The
wine-press, which is shown in section in fig.28, had, like the
precinct, had a long history. It had been rebuilt more than once. The
paved floors of two successive structures are clearly visible. The
upper one is smaller than the lower, and, of course, of later date. It
is, however, below the level of the Bakcheion, and must have been
underground when the Bakcheion was built. The lower wine-press is at
the same level as the Lesche, on the opposite side of the road, which
is known to be of the 4th century BC. Under this 4th century wine-press
is a pavement (p.94) which must
have belonged to a third, yet earlier structure. It may be noted that
these wine-presses are in every respect exactly similar to those in use
among the Greeks to-day. The wine-press within the precinct is not the
only one that came to light; scattered about near at hand were several
others. Two can be seen on the plan in Fig. 35. It was indeed a _ place
of winepresses, a Lenaion.
Fig.28 (top): Section drawing of wine press (from Dorpfeld Ath. Mitt. XX, 1895)
Fig.29 (bottom): Ground plan of altar (from Dorpfeld Ath. Mitt. XX, 1895)
Yet
another important point remains. On the West step of the altar
foundation a long groove is sunk in the stone.. Its purpose is obvious.
Both on the Acropolis and elsewhere in sacred precincts such grooves
are found, and they served to contain the bases of stelae, on which
decrees, dedications, and the like were inscribed. Is it not at least
possible that we have here not only the altar on which the Queen took
her oath, but the groove in which was set up the very stele on which it
was inscribed, the stele which stood ‘alongside of the altar’ (παρὰ τὸν
βωμόν) ?
We have, then, a precinct secluded from the main road;
within it, open to the air, a great altar. But inside this precinct not
a single inscription nor any sort of votive offering has come to light.
In a precinct so important this at first sight seems strange. The
explanation lies to hand. Votive offerings are meant to be seen, meant
to show forth the piety of the worshipper as well as the glory of the
god. Was it worth while to dedicate an offering in a precinct that was
open but for one day in the whole year? Apparently not. This was
essentially a ‘mystery’ sanctuary, with no touch of the museum.
In
the sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes we expect not only precinct
and altar but an actual temple, the existence of which we know, not
from Thucydides, but from the scholiast [70] on the Frogs
of Aristophanes. Commenting on the word ‘marsh’ he says, ‘a sacred
place of Dionysos, in which there is a dwelling and a temple of the
god. Callimachus in the Hekale says,
‘To him, Limnaios, do they keep the feast
With choral dances.’
The
‘dwelling’ may be some building that contained the winepress; the
temple happily has been found, and its position in relation to the
precinct is strange and significant.
The
foundations of the temple came to light in the South corner of the
precinct. It is of small size (3:96 by 3°40 m.), and consists
of a quadrangular cella and a narrow pronaos. From its small size it
seems unlikely that the pronaos had any columns. The masonry is very
ancient. The walls are polygonal, and the blocks of calcareous stone of
which they are made are on the South-West side unusually large. In the
foundations of the side-walls a few poros blocks occur. There are no
steps serving as foundation to either cella or pronaos. From this
Professor Dorpfeld concludes that in all probability this temple is
earlier than the temple of Dionysos Eleuthereus, close to the skené of
the theatre. The temple of Eleuthereus belonged to the time of
Peisistratos; it is more carefully built than the one newly discovered,
and it has one step. Early though the newly discovered building
undoubtedly is, it was preceded by a yet earlier structure, the walls
of which, marked on the plan, lie beneath its foundations.
Quite
exceptional is the relation of the temple to the precinct. It does not
lie in the middle, and is, moreover, separated from the inner part of
the precinct by a wall and a door that could be closed. This separating
wall is however apparently later than the temple, which possibly at one
time stood free within the precinct. The separating wall is only
explicable on ritual grounds. It made it possible for the temple to be
accessible all the year round, whereas the precinct, save for one day
in the year, was closed.
Are we to give to the ancient sanctuary
the name Lenaion ? To the sanctuary itself probably not. The meaning of
Lenaion, it would seem, is not ‘sanctuary of the god Lenaios,’ but
rather ‘place of the wine-press.’ It is noticeable that writers who
could themselves have seen the sanctuary never call it Lenaion.
Thucydides [71], the writer of the oration against Neaera [72], be he
Demosthenes or Apollodorus, and again Phanodemus 73], as quoted by
Athenaeus, all speak of it as the sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes.
(p.97)
Isaeus [74] calls it the Dionysion-in-the-Marshes. On the other hand, when contemporary authors speak of the dramatic contest
which was held not in honour of Dionysos Eleuthereus but at the older
Dionysia, they speak of the contest as at or on the Lenaion, never as
in-the-Marshes, The natural conclusion is that the name Lenaion is
applicable to the place where the contests actually took place, namely
to the ancient Orchestra and perhaps its immediate neighbourhood. The
district of the wine-presses naturally had its dancing place, and that
dancing place was called the Lenaion. Τo this day the peasants of
Greece use for their festival-dances the village threshing-floor.
In
the theatre of Eleuthereus Dr Dorpfeld [75] has given back to us the
old orchestra. He has shown us deep down below the successive
Graeco-Roman and, Roman stages the old circular orchestra built of
polygonal masonry (fig.16). On this old orchestra, with only wooden
seats for the spectators, were acted, we now know, the dramas of
Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, nay tradition [76] even says, and we
have no. cause to doubt its veracity, that Thespis was the first (in
586 BC) to exhibit a play in the ‘ city’ contest (ἐν ἄστει).
But
ancient though it was, before it, as we have seen, came the orchestra
in the Limnae. Dr Dorpfeld had hoped that his excavations
would give back this orchestra too ; this hope has not been fulfilled.
Traces have been found of a circular structure on the South slope of
the Areopagus and are marked on the plan (fig. 46), but they are of
uncertain date, and, if they mark the site of any ancient building, it
is probably that of the Odeion of Agrippa. The old orchestra lay at the
North-West corner of the Areopagos.
Tradition records the
beginning of the contests ‘in the city,’ i.e. in the theatre of
Eleuthereus, but the beginnings of the other festivals, the Lenaia and
the Chytroi, held in the Limnae, are lost in the mists before. The two
are in all probability but (p.98) different names for the same
festival, or rather the Chytroi is the whole ceremony of the third day
of the Anthesteria and Lenaia
the name given to the dramatic part of the ceremonies. But though we do
not know the beginning, and though, as will presently be seen, the ‘
Pot-Contests’ went back in all probability to a time before the coming
of Dionysos, we have hints as to how the end came, how the splendour
and convenience of the great theatre of Eleuthereus gradually obscured
and absorbed the primitive contests of the orchestra in the Limnae.
It was, we know, the great statesman Lycurgus who, in the 4th century BC, built the first permanent stone stage in the theatre
and made the seats for the spectators as we see them now. So pleased
was he, it would seem, with his theatre that he thought it useless and
senseless to have plays acted elsewhere. Accordingly in the Lives of
the Ten Orators [77] we learn that Lycurgus introduced laws, and among
them one about comic writers ‘to hold a performance at the Chytroi, a
competitive one, in the theatre, and ‘to record the victor as a victor
in the city, which had formerly not been allowed. He thus revived
the performance which had fallen into disuse.
Lycurgus meant
well we may be sure, but he was a Butad [78], he ought to have known
better than to pluck up an old festival by the roots like that and
think to foster it by transplantation. The end was certain; the old
precinct, deserted by its festivals, was bit by bit forgotten,
overgrown, and at last in part built over by the new Iobakchoi.
The
precinct had lost prestige by the time of Pausanias [79]. Had the
temple of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes been above ground he would assuredly
not have passed it by. Near to where the precinct once was he saw a
building, a circular or semi-circular one, which may have been a last
Roman reminiscence of the orchestra, and still of note though it did
not occupy the same site; he notes ‘a theatre which they call the
Odeion.’ It is probable that this was the theatre built by Agrippa and
mentioned by (p.99) Philostratos [80] as ‘the theatre in the Kerameikos, which goes by the name of the Agrippeion.’
Before
leaving the sanctuary in-the-Marshes, a word must be said as to the
Anthesteria or, as Thucydides calls it, ‘the more ancient Dionysiac
Festival. I have tried elsewhere [81] to show in detail that the
Dionysiac element in the Anthesteria was only a thin upper layer
beneath which lay a ritual of immemorial antiquity, which had for its
object the promotion of fertility by means of the placation of ghosts
or heroes. On the first day, if Iam right, the Pithoigia was an Opening
not only of wine-jars but of grave-jars; the second, the Choes, was a
feast not only of Cups but of Libations (Xoai); the third, the Chytroi,
not only a Pot-feast, but a feast of Holes in the ground and of the
solemn dismissal of Keres back to the lower world. That the collective
name of the whole feast Anthesteria did not primarily mean the festival
of those who ‘did the flowers,’ but rather of those who ‘revoked the
ghosts [82].’
But
in trying to distinguish the two strata, the under stratum of ghosts,
the upper of Dionysos, I never doubted that the Pot Contest
on the day of the Chytroi belonged to Dionysos. Dionysos and the
‘origin of the drama’ are canonically connected. It has remained,
therefore, something of a mystery how Dionysos, late comer as he was,
contrived to possess himself of the ancient ghost-festival and impose
his dramatic contests on a ritual substratum apparently so uncongenial.
Religions are accommodating enough, but some sort of analogy or
possible bridge from one to the other is necessary for affiliation.
The
difficulty disappears at once if we accept Professor Ridgeway’s [83]
recent theory as to the origin of tragedy. The drama according to him
is not ‘Dorian,' and, save for the one element of the Satyric play, not
Dionysiac, It took its rise in mimetic dances at the tombs of local
heroes. When Dionysos came to Athens with his Satyr attendants he would
find the Pot-Contests as part (p.100) of the funeral ritual
of the Anthesteria, He added to the festival wine and the Satyrs. Small
wonder that comedy, as in the Frogs, was at home in the Underworld, and
could in all piety parody a funeral [84] on the stage.
Thucydides
has given us four examples of sanctuaries outside the polis which are
‘towards that part’ of it, but again, as in the first clause, he seems
to feel that if he has spoken the truth it is not the whole truth, so
he saves himself from misunderstanding by an additional clause, ‘and
other ancient sanctuaries are placed here.
It would be idle to
try and give a complete list of all the sanctuaries that were situated
in this particular region, still more idle to decide of what particular
sanctuaries Thucydides was thinking. The precinct of Aglauros and the
Anakeion on the North side, the sanctuary of the Semnae and the
Amyneion on the West, the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos and that of
Themis on the West and South-West are all ‘towards’ the approach. Three
out of these, the Amyneion, the sanctuary of the Semnae, and the
sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos, are of such interest in themselves and
so essential to the forming of a picture of the sanctities of ancient
Athens that a word must be said of each.
1. Class. Rev. 1900, xiv. p. 279.
2. Prof. Dorpfeld draws attention (Rhein. Mus. τα. p. 134) to the analogous case
of
Torone, which Thucydides (rv. 110) describes thus: οὔσης τῆς πόλεως
πρὸς λόφον--- ‘was nach dem Zusammenhang nicht nach dem Hugel hin
sondern nur an dem Hugel hinauf bedeutet. But it must carefully be
noted that as Dr Verrall (Class,
Rev. 1900, p. 278) observes, the
notion of ascent is given not by πρός but by λόφον. The analogy is one
of fact, not of the verbal description of that fact.
3. Paus. I. 3. 4.
4. For details of this Olympieion, see my Myth. and. Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 189.
5. Eur. Ion, 283.
6. Eur. Ion, 7 ff.
7.
Strabo. IX. 2 § 404 ἐτήρουν ὅ᾽ ἐπὶ τρεῖς μῆνας, καθ᾽ ἀξωνϊρᾶς μῆνα ἐπὶ
τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ νύκτας ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσχάρας τοῦ ᾿Αστραπαίου Διός" ἔστι δ᾽
αὕτη ἐν a ΡΝ μεταξὺ τοῦ Πυθίου καὶ τοῦ Ολυμπίου.
8. Paus. I. 28. 4.
9.
Philostr. Vit. Soph. τι. 5, p. 550 ἐκ Κεραμεικοῦ δὲ dpacay χιλίᾳ κώπῃ
ἀφεῖναι ἐπὶ τὸ ᾿Ελευσίνιον καὶ περιβαλοῦσαν ᾿αὐτὸ poner: τὸ Πελασγικὸν,
κομιζομένην Te παρὰ To Πύθιον ἐλθεῖν of νῦν ὥρμισται.
10. Paus, I. 29, 1.
11.
loc. cit.supra. Between the words νομίζουσι and ws πεμφθείη we must
mentally supply ἐνταῦθα καὶ τοῦ Ilavds ἱερόν, φασὶ δὲ, or words to that
effect.
12. The ‘Valerian’ wall was probably the work of Antonio Acciajoli. See Dr Judeich, Topographie von Athen, p. 103, note 6.
13. For a full account of Dr
Kabbadias’s excavations from which the above particulars are taken see
Ephemeris Archiiologike, 1897, 1—32 and 87—92, pl. I.—IV. and for
résumé in French Bull. de Corr, Hell, xx, 382 ff., also American
Journal of Arch. 1897, p. 348 and 1898, p. 311.
14. Ἔφ. ’Apx.
1897, p. 8, pl. 4’Ayabh τύχη, Γί(άϊος) ᾿Ιούλιος Μητρόδωρος Μαραθ(ώνιοΞ)
θεσμοθετήσας Ἀπόλλωνι ὑπὸ Maxpais ἀνέθηκεν.
15. "Bd. ᾿Αρχ. 1897, p. 9, pl. 4 Τιβ(έριος) ᾿Αντίστιος Κίνεας ἐκ Κοίλης ᾿Απόλλωνι ὑπ᾽ Ἄκραις βασιλεύς.
16. Ar. ’Aθ. Πολ, ty. 15 and Harpocrat, s.v. ᾿Απόλλων Πατρῷος.
17. Ar, ’Aθ. Πολ. vit. 4, There is no mention of Delphi, and the word icouérpyrov
does not occur, but in Plato’s reference (Phaedr. 285 Ὁ) it is distinctly stated both
occur, καί σοι ἐγὼ ὥσπερ οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες, ὑπισχνοῦμαι χρυσὴν εἰκόνα ἰσομέτρητον εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀναθήσειν.
18. Ar. ᾽Αθ. Ilo. tv. 5 ἐντεῦθεν δ᾽ ὀμόσαντες εἰς ἀκρόπολιν ie Kal πάλιν ἐκεῖ
ταῦτα ὀμνύουσι.
19. Dem. de Cor. 275 xadd...kal τὸν ᾿Απόλλω τὸν Πύθιον bs πατρῷός ἐστι τῇ πόλει.
20. C.I.A. III. 198,
21. Prof. Dorpfeld kindly tells
me that he thinks it quite possible that the poros structure below and
north of the Klepsydra may be remains of the Olympion. The situation
would of course admirably suit the words of Thucydides. The remains are
marked in solid black in Fig. 46.
22. For full particulars of this temple see my Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 190.
23.
I see to my great regret that Prof. Ernest Gardner in translating
Thucydides II. 15 renders ἱερόν throughout by ‘temple,’ ‘the
temple of Olympian Zeus, the Pythium, the temple of Earth.’ Though templum in Latin is used to denote any sanctified space of earth or air, surely such a use of temple is misleading in English.
24.
Paus. I 18, 9 τοῦ δὲ Ολυμπίου Διὸς Δευκαλίωνα οἰκοδομῆσαι λέγουσι τὸ
ἀρχαῖον ἱερὸν σημεῖον ἀποφαίνοντες ὡς Δευκαλίων ᾿Αθήνῃσιν ῴκησε τάφον
τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ νῦν οὐ. πολὺ ἀφεστηκότα.
25. A. Mitt.
1895, p. 56. The word οἰκοδομέω does not necessarily imply house or
temple building. It is used of building a wall, a labyrinth.
26. Plat. Phaedr.
227 Zw. ἀτὰρ Λυσίας ἣν ὡς ἔοικεν ἐν ἄστει; Par. Nal παρ᾽ Ἐπικράτει ἐν
τῇδε τῇ πλησίον τοῦ ᾿Ολυμπίου οἰκίᾳ τῇ Μορυχίᾳ. Nothing can be inferred
from ἐν ἄστει. It means simply ‘in town’ as opposed to the Peiraeus or
the country.
27. Thucyd. I. 126 ἔστι yap καὶ ᾿Αθηναίοις Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου μεγίστη, ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.
28. For a discussion of the worship of Meilichios see my Prolegomena,
pp. 12-29. What I there say as to the chthonic character of Meilichios
still I hope holds good, but I offer my apologies to M. Foucart for my
attempted refutation of his theory as to the Semitic origin of the god.
I now see that he was right. Meilichios is none other than xxxx
misunderstood. See also Lagrange, Etudes sur les Religions Sémitiques, 1905, pp. 99—109.
29. Par. Chron.
(Jacobi) 6 Βασιλεύοντος ᾿Αθηνῶν Κρ[ανα]οῦ ἀφ᾽ οὗ κατακλυσμὸς ἐπὶ
Δευκαλίωνος ἐγένετο καὶ Δευκαλίων τοὺς ὄμβρους ἔφυγεν ἔγ Λυκωρείας εἰς
᾿Αθήνας πρὸς Κρανα]ὸν καὶ τοῦ Διὸς το]ῦ ᾿Ο[λυ]μ[πέ]ου τὸ iLe]pdv
ἱδ[ρύσατἼ]ο [καὶ] τὰ σωτήρια ἔθυσεν. I would suggest that behind
Kranaos hides another Semitic figure, Kronos.
30. Herod, VIII. 44.
31.
Schol. ad Ar. Av. 1527 πατρῷον δὲ τιμῶσιν ᾿Απόλλωνα ᾿Αθηναῖοι, ἐπεὶ Ἴων
ὁ πολέμαρχος ᾿Αθηναίων ἐξ ᾿Απόλλωνος καὶ Κρεούσης τῆς Ξούθου ἐγένετο.
32. Paus. I. 57—64.
33. Eur. Ion, 57—64.
34. Eur. Ion, 289—295.
35. Paus. VII..1. 2, and see Myth. and Mon, Anc. Athens, p. lxxxi.
36. Eur. Ion, 492.
37. Ar. Lys. 911.
38. See Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens, p. 546.
39. Eur. Ion, 492, trans. Mr D. S. MacColl.
40. Ar. Lys. 720 τὴν μὲν δὲ πρώτην διαλέγουσαν τὴν ὄπιν.
41. Paus. I. 22. 3.
42. For a full list of these see Dr Frazer on p. 1, 22. 3.
43. Ar. Thesm. 300 καὶ τῇ Κουροτρόφῳ τῇ Τῇ, schol. εἴτε τῇ γῇ εἴτε τῇ ἑστίᾳ, ὁμοίως πρὸ τοῦ Διὸς θύουσιν αὐτῇ.
44. Suidas, s.v. Κουροτρόφος Γῆ... καταστῆσαι δὲ νόμιμον τοὺς θύοντάς τινι θεῷ ταύτῃ προθύειν.
45. Paus. I. 20.3. See Mr Mitchell Carroll in the Classical Review
(July 1905, p. 325), ‘Thucydides, Pausanias and the Dionysium in
Limnis,’ but Mr Carroll makes the to my mind fatal mistake of examining
the Limnae question apart from
the other sanctuaries.
46. See Dr Verrall (Class, Rev.
χτν. 1900, p. 278), who cites Burnham Beeches which has nothing to do
with any beech and Sandiacre which has nothing to do with sand, and, as
Mr Carroll observes, ‘Rhode Island’ is not an island nor is Washington
a Washing-Town.
47.
Such sources as are necessary for my argument will be given as
required, but the whole material for the study of the Attic festivals
of Dionysos has been collected by Dr Martin P. N. Nilsson in his Studia de Dionysiis Atticis, Lund, 1900.
48. For the ceremonies see my Prolegomena, p. 40.
49.
Athen, x1, p. 464 7. Φανόδημος δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ φησὶ τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις
Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ
κιρνάναι : and x. 437 Β.. ἀποφέρειν τοὺς στεφάνους πρὸς τὸ ἐν Λίμναις
τέμενος.
50. ‘[Dem. lc. Neaer. ὃ 73 καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον
γράψαντες ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ τὸν
βωμὸν ἐν Λίμναις.
51. c., Neaer. §76 καὶ
διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἀρχαιοτάτῳ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἐν Λίμναις
ἔστησαν ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσι τὰ γεγραμμένα" ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ
ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῇ δωδεκάτῃ Tod Ανθεστηριῶνος μηνός.
52. This and
the separate character of the festivals belonging to the Limnae from
those of the precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus were first pointed out I
believe by Professor W. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Die Buhne von
Aischylos,’ Hermes xxi p. 617.
53.
The sources are (1) the law of Euegoros (Dem. ς. Meid. 10) Εὐήγορος
εἶπεν" ὅταν ἡ πομπὴ ἢ τῷ Διονύσῳ ἐν Πειραιεῖ καὶ of κωμῳδοὶ καὶ ol
τραγῳδοί, καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοί, καὶ
τοῖς ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίοις ἡ πομπή... ; (2) an official inscription,
C.I.A. II.741, in which the same two festivals are three times
mentioned. .
54. Poll. On. IV. 121 καὶ Διονυσιακὸν θέατρον καὶ Ληναϊκόν.
55.
Hesych. s.v. ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών" ἔστιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει Λήναιον περίβολον ἔχον
μέγαν, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ Ληναίου Διονύσου ἱερόν, ἐν ᾧ ἐπετελοῦντο οἱ ἀγῶνες
᾿Αθηναίων πρὶν τὸ θέατρον οἰκοδομηθῆναι. The same account is given by
Photius s.v. Λήναιον, by the Etym. Magnum ἐπὶ Anvaty and Bekker’s
Anecdota I. p. 278.
56. Phot. s.v. ἴκρια: τὰ ἐν TH ἀγορᾷ, ἀφ᾽
ὧν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς ἀγῶνας πρὶν ῆ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν
Διονύσου θέατρον, and see also Eustath. 1472, 7, and Hesych. 8.v. παρ᾽
αἰγείρον θέα. Hesychius quotes Eratosthenes from whom very probably all
the other accounts came.
57. Tim. Lex. Plat. ᾿Ορχήστρα τόπος ἐπιφάνης εἰς πανήγυριν ἔνθα ᾿Αρμοδίου καὶ ᾿Αριστογείτονος εἰκόνες.
58. Paus. I. 8. 4.
59. To any one using my Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens
I must at this point offer my apologies. The rough sketch map of the
agora (facing p. 5) was made before Prof. Dorpfeld’s excavations. The
Limnae is wrongly marked on the district near the Dipylon. I was at
that time convinced only that the Limnae did not lie South of the
Acropolis and wrongly identified it with the sanctuary seen by
Pausanias on his entrance into the city. The orchestra also on my plan
must be moved further to the South-East. The conjectural site of the
Odeion seen by Pausanias is shown on Prof. Dorpfeld’s plan (Fig. 46).
At this point a curved foundation of Roman masonry has come to light.
60. Plat. Prot. 327.
61. Ar. Ran. Hyp. ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου τοῦ μετὰ ᾿Αντιγένη διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς Λήναια.
62. Ar. Ran. 218:
ἣν ἀμφὶ Νυσήιον/ Διὸς Διόνυσον ἐν/ Λήμναις ἰαχήσαμεν/ ἡνίχ᾽ ὁ κραιπαλόκωμος/ τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισι/
χωρεῖ
κατ᾽ ἐμὸν τέμενος λαῶν ὄχλος. Trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray. For the
χύτρινοι ἀγῶνες, see 5680]. ad ἴοο.,. ἤγοντο ἀγῶνες αὐτόθι ol χύτρινοι
καλούμενοι Kab’ & φησιν Φιλόχορος ἐν τῇ ἑκτῇ τῶν ᾿Ατθίδων.
63.
For the literature of the excavations see Bibliography. A résumé of the
portion relating to the Limnae will be found in Dr Frazer’s Pausanias, vol. v. p. 495, Addenda, Athens.
64. H. Schrader, ‘Funde im Bezirk des Dionysion,’ A. Mitt. 1896, XXI. p. 265, pl. IX.
65. Published and fully discussed by Dr S. Wide, ‘Inschrift der lobakchen,’ A. Mitt. 1894, p. 248, and see E. Maass, Orpheus, p. 16 ff.
66. C.I.A. III. 1159, 1186, 1193, 1197, 1202. See Dr Wide, op. cit. p. 1.
67. See Dr Dorpfeld, A. Mitt. XX. 1395, p. 34. The intricacies of this earlier Bakcheion do not concern the present argument.
68. I owe this view to the
kindness of Mr Percy Droop of Trinity College. It is taken from a point
close to the N.W. end of the Lesche (Fig. 24).
69. A. Mitt. V. 116.
70. Schol. ad Ar. Ran. 216 Λίμνη τόπος ἱερὸς Διονύσου ἐν @ καὶ οἶκος καὶ νεὼς τοῦ θεοῦ Καλλίμαχος ἐν Ἑκάλῃ/ Λιμναίῳ δὲ χοροστἄδας ἦγον ἑορτάς.
71. Thucyd. I. 15 τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου.
72. c. Neaer. 76 τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Διονύσου ἐν Λίμναις.
73. Phanodemus ap. Athen. XI. 4606. τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου.
74. Is. Or, VIII. 35 τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον. For these references see Dr Dorpfeld, ‘Lenaion,’ A. Mitt. 1895, xx. p. 368.
75. For the fullest account of this orchestra see Prof. Dorpfeld, Das Griechische Theater, p. 27.
76.
In the Parian Chronicle, ἀφ᾽ οὗ Θέσπις ὁ ποιητὴς [brexplvalro πρῶτος,
ὃς ἐδίδαξε [dp]a[ua ἐν ἄ]στίει. The restoration ἐν ἄστει seems certain.
77. Ps. Plut. Vit. X. Orat. 6 εἰσήνεγκε δὲ καὶ νόμους τὸν
περὶ τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἀγῶνα τοῖς Χύτροις ἐπιτελεῖν ἐφάμιλλον ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ,
καὶ τὸν νικήσαντα εἰς ἄστυ eile γώ" πρότερον οὐκ ἐξὸν, ἀναλαμβάνων τὸν
ἀγῶνα ἐκλελοιπότα.
78. Ps. Plut. Vit. X. Orat.
79. Paus. I. 8. 6 τὸ θέατρον ὃ καλοῦσιν φὠδεῖον.
80. Philostr. Vit. Soph. τι. 5. 4 τὸ ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ θέατρον
ὃ δὴ ἐπωνόμασται ᾿Αγριππεῖον. For the whole question of the Odeion
which, save for its possible identity in site with the old orchestra,
does not concern us, see Dr Dorpfeld, ‘Die verschiedenen Odeien in
Athen,’ A. Mitt. xvi. 1892, p. 352.
81. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Chapter 11., The Anthesteria.
82. Dr Verrall, J. H. S. XX. 115.
83. Journal of Hellenic Studies XXIV. p. xxxix. 1904.
[Continue to Chapter 3, part 2]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|
