B 649891
$$$ tº
~~~ \\ *
→ * > *
~! º, S w W
\\\\ \\\\ * & NN
University of Michigan

i
§
º
§§§ º
*...* * * : Y: ;
* * *
, 4
GENERAL LIBRARY
University of Michigan
Presented by
~
wº ~ ºn tº

\
y”
/ 2
Ža 4, 2. f % 7
*
( *
*
i.
\
PauSalliaS and His Guide BOOk
WALTER MILLER
ºne. inc °nsistenoies in spelling hail from Princet on.
U. 2 : s - t s
PAUSANIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK.
Dr. Harold N. Fowler, in an essay in THE AMERICAN Journal
of ARCHAEOLOGY for Jan.-March, 1893, takes occasion to disparage
the credibility and authority of Pausanias, while he gives due
weight to the vigorous onslaughts upon that unhappy author by
Wilamowitz-Möllendorf and Kalkmann; but at the same time he
fails to recognize the value and the success of the masterly efforts
of such men as Gurlitt and Bencker, and this suggested the
thought that a presentation of the present status of the Pausanias
question might not be altogether unwelcome to English readers.
By way of introduction, let us ask “Who is Pausanias’ ” He
himself calls Lydia his home. He did not, however, spend his
entire life in Asia Minor, although some of his earlier critics
seem to imply that he never strayed beyond the bounds of his
native town, where they supposed he sat quietly at his desk and
compiled his book, but all now agree that he traveled widely.
Even Kalkmann finds himself compelled to accept this as a fact.
We find our Pausanias not only in Greece, as well as in his
native Lydia, but also in the cities of Ionia and upon the Ionian
islands, in Mysia, Phrygia and Karia: his personal presence in
Coelo-Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine also is not to be questioned.
He visited Egypt, too, and we find him in Puteoli, Capua, Rome
and its environs."
We have to deal, therefore, neither with a recluse “buried in
the dust of his library,” crammed with book-learning only, one
who has seen the world exclusively from the windows of his
* GURLITT, Ueber Pausanias, pp. 36–37.

2 WALTER MILL ER.
study, nor yet with an ordinary tourist, who is led abroad by
curiosity and the craving for new sights and scenés; but we
are concerned with a gentleman of education and culture, whose
work centres in the Grecian half of the Roman Empire, and in
the most highly civilized portions of it at that. From this quar-
ter he is drawn only to an excursion to the capital, taking in a
part of Italy on the way. Surely there is nothing incredible nor
even extraordinary in this. Thousands of people in his day, for
example, Dion Chrysostomos, Aristides, Lucian, gained from per-
Sonal observation as wide an acquaintance with the provinces of
the Roman Empire as did our periegete, and many indeed traveled
more widely, saw vastly more.”
He flourished during the reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus
Aurelius—about the middle of the second century A. D. His
work, consisting of ten books, bears the title of IIeptºſymats ‘EX-
Ad80s; the author had promised to write still more (concerning
Lokris, for example,) but he never fulfilled his promise, and his
narrative breaks off abruptly in the description of Naupaktos.
Not only is a conclusion wanting, but an introduction also seems
never to have been written.
We have to do, therefore, with only a torso of a periegesis, and
the manuscripts of that are as corrupt as manuscripts can well be
made. They are full of interpolations, lacunae, transpositions,
corruptions of every sort, especially in the Orthography of proper
names.”
In the last few years there has been a great deal of discussion
about Pausanias and his sources. It is not so much my expecta-
tion to add new material to that already at hand, as in an un-
prejudiced, unbiased spirit to bring before the readers of the
Journal, the present situation of Pausanias criticism with particu-
lar regard to his trustworthiness as an author and his usefulness
as a basis for topographical and archaeological work.
The question whether Pausanias in the specifically periegetic
part of his work is simply drawing upon the work of his prede-
cessors was first raised by an anonymous writer in the Kunstblatt
for 1830. No one is there named as Pausanias’ Source. The
first suspicion that it might be Polemon was suggested by Preller
* GURLITT, pp. 36–37. * Ibid, p. 2.
PAUSANIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 3
in his edition of the fragments of Polemon's works; still he makes
no effort to establish any definite connection between the two
writers. The Polemon theory, as such, owes its real origin to
Wilamowitz-Mollendorf. This radical scholar in an essay on
“die Thukydideslegende,” in Hermes XII, pp. 326–367, finds (p. 345)
that Pausanias has a false restoration of an inscription which we
happen to have in CIA. 1, 376, and that Polemon before him had
restored that inscription in precisely the same incorrect way. In
the same passage Pausanias confuses the Hermolykos mentioned
in the inscription on the basis of the statue with an entirely dif-
ferent Hermolykos mentioned by Herodotos. These two offences
drive Wilamowitz to desperation, and calling the whole of Book I
a “Rattenkönig von Widersprüchen und Verkehrtheiten,” he jumps
to the conclusion that Pausanias, without reflection, copied his
whole description of Greece from his predecessors, and especially
from Polemon. With that essay begins the endless talk of Pole-
mon as the exclusive source from which Pausanias slavishly
copied, word for word, at least his descriptions of Athens and
Olympia. *
Since that time the discussion has been ceaseless. On the one
hand Scholars accepted the theory of piracy and amplified it
variously; in this camp we find, among others, Hirschfeld,” who
endeavors to prove a multiplicity of sources. Other critics,
with sincerity and less force, have opposed these attacks, and have
maintained the originality of Pausanias. A discussion of the
earlier literature upon this topic would lead us too far, and is not
necessary to a comprehension of the question as it now stands;
for on the one side Kalkmann's Pausanias, der Perieget—Unter-
suchungen wiber Seine Schriftstellerei und Seine Quellen (Berlin, 1886)
contains everything that has ever been brought up against the
trustworthiness of our author, and, we might almost say, every-
thing that ever could be urged against him. Of the many re-
views of this book and against it, that of Seeliger in the Philo-
logischer Anzeiger, 1887, pp. 146 ft., is, so far as I know, the most ex-
tensive and the most searching. But even the best of reviews may
now be left out of consideration since the publication of Wilhelm
Gurlitt's most excellent and exhaustive work, Ueber Pausanias
* Archaeologische Zeitung, 1882, p. 96, ff.
4 WALTER MILLER.
(Gratz, 1890). Until the appearance of this book, the theory that
Pausanias’ work was one great plagiarism had gained recognition
so universal that no scholar who set even a humble value upon
his reputation ever forgot, even when dealing with a purely perie-
getic citation, to add to the words “at the time of Pausanias” the
saving clause “ or of his source.”
At this crisis comes Gurlitt with his keenly critical, intensely
learned, new discussion of the whole Pausanias question; he re-
jects in toto the idea that Pausanias drew unduly from Polemon,
or from any one else—in a word, he saves Pausanias, if Pausanias
ever really needed saving. - -
We might perhaps regard as an appendix to Gurlitt's valuable
treatise the dissertation of Max Bencker, Der Antheil der Perie-
gese an der Schriftstellerei der Alien (Munich, 1890). Through
these three books, Kalkmann, Gurlitt, Bencker, all previous ones
on the same subject are completely antiquated. I draw from all
of them, but especially from Gurlitt, of whose book this article
may be considered a sort of review.
The questions which demand an answer are substantially these:
(1) Is the narrative of Pausanias incongruous in itself or self.
contradictory?
(2) Is the picture of Greece which Pausanias aims to draw for
us inconsistent with the times in which he lived? In other words,
does Pausanias depict not the condition of Greece as it was in his
day, but as it had been long before and no longer was?
(3) If so, can we determine the period down to which the cita-
tion and description of monuments bear one character and after
which they bear an entirely different character? and
(4) Do we find errors in his descriptions, which could not pos-
sibly occur, if Pausanias really followed that method in his work
which he would have us believe he followed 2 That is to say,
does he relate that which he himself saw or heard, or only that
which he read? -
... At the very outset there are two points to be carefully marked:
(1) The purpose which Pausanias had in view in composing his
work. He himself says nothing about it; but there is nothing
surprising about that omission, for, as has been already remarked,
5 GURLITT, p. 154.
PA USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE BOOK. 5
preface and conclusion, where we should expect to find informa-
tion on such a point, were apparently never written;" still in every
chapter the author's aim is evident. And (2) Pausanias repeatedly
and emphatically declares that his intention is to select for discus-
sion only the most important objects and such as are most worthy
of notice—Tā Yvoptpºtata év Te Adyots cał 6eopffuaat . . . . pl.) Tà
Trdvta, Tâ 8é podżuota ääua pump.ms &ToMešćuevos cai Tà &évox.oy&Tata;
ic. T. A. Furthermore, he himself calls his description of Greece
an ééſºmats (or an āqāymats), his guides are always éémyntaſ, never
Treptm'ymtat. We have, therefore, in Pausanias an exegetical" work,
that is, a work which presupposes, for the “sights” (6eopſiuata)
described, the personal presence and observation of the reader, and
which supplies the Adyot for each object before him. We call such
a book a “guide-book,” or simply a “guide”; we demand from
such a book an immediate introduction to the objects before us;
clearness of arrangement, a brief account of the sights to be seen,
and we must have, either in the introduction or along with the
description of the monuments themselves, the necessary notices,
historical, geographical and otherwise.” -
The difference between Baedeker’s Italy and Burckhardt's
Cicerome—though both are guide-books—is perfectly tangible to
every one of us. They are alike in a way, and yet we expect
entirely different things of them: our Baedeker we want with us
when we are traveling, to consult while we stand before the objects
of interest that we see; we read our Burckhardt in our study at
home; the one is a valuable aid to studies in the history of art,
the other is for such a purpose almost worthless. There is like-
wise a vast difference between an ordinary list of the objects of
art contained in a museum, with the familiar asterisk or double
asterisk to mark the more important things, and a scientific cata-
logue, which omits nothing, however insignificant, but describes
everything with the fullest details. In the former class Pausanias
is to be reckoned; he also does not fail to employ the star in con-
nection with things of especial note; we meet it very often in the
added 66as āśvov and the double star in his 66as āśudºratov.
*GURLITT, p 3.
* GURLITT, p. 4. PAUs. I, 39, 3; III, 11, 1.
* GURLItt, p. 8.
6 WALTER MILLER.
|Baedeker's guide-books, read at home, are anything but satisfy-
ing. So also with Pausanias, and for the same reasons. The
objects of which he speaks are merely suggested; his account
must be read with the objects before one’s eyes. His book is a
guide-book, nothing more.
All this goes to prove that Pausanias’ work is no “Reiseroman”
and himself no “Fomancier,” as Kalkmann is pleased to call him.
If one wished to write a romance, one would hardly choose for it
the driest and most tedious conceivable form and stick to it with
the most wearisome monotony.” A writer of romance would
never weary his reader and himself with so painfully exact de-
scriptions of localities, with his everlasting TAmatov, où Trôppo,
étépoff, with his év Šeštá, év &pta Tepá, éirdvo, &votépo, etc., etc., in
nèver ending monotony. Such a romance would find find but few
readers. Only compare such a book as Mark Twain’s “Inno-
cents Abroad” or “Tramp Abroad” with any volume of Baedeker
or Meyer, and the difference between a “book of travels.”
(Reiseroman) and a “guide-book” will speedily appear. With
his exact topographical data Pausanias is anything but entertain-
ing. But in his day his book would have been an extremely useful
one to have along on one's travels and helpful in the presence of
the monuments he mentions. We conclude, therefore, that Pausa-
nias wrote his book for travelers in Greece, for visitors in the cities
he describes; and such a purpose alone would be served by the
strictly topographical arrangement of the whole work. And when
—as, for example, in the enumeration of the 70 altars in the Altis
at Olympia—he does break away from his fixed plan, he does not
fail to call the reader’s attention to the fact, making express men-
tion of his departure from his usual method, both at the beginning
of such an excursus and at the end, in order to bridge Over com-
pletely the interruption of local sequence. It is, moreover,
utterly unjust of Kalkmann to condemn Pausanias and refuse to
recognize him as a guide because he finds no allusions of a per-
sonal nature to the author, no remarks about methods of transpor-
tation, no anecdotes of adventures on the journey, etc., by which
“travels,” as such, are characterized. Nothing was further from
Pausanias’ intention than to write simply an account of his own
* GURLITT, pp. 119 and 126.
P4 USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 7
travels. He never lets his own personality intrude itself upon his
narrative, any more than one finds “personal reminiscences” in
Baedeker's Germany or Italy. And yet Kalkmann is so unfair as
to say that “Pausanias in this respect does not give himself the
trouble even to attempt to practice fraud, which goes to show how
little pretense he makes to cover up his mask.” Very naturally,
for Kalkmann himself claps the mask upon the poor Pausanias,
and then abuses him because he seems to wear it.
Not a little confusion has been caused in Pausanias criticism by
overlooking the second point that needs emphasizing—that his
work contains two well defined elements: (1) the part which is
purely periegetic, which deals with the topography, the buildings,
monuments and works of art—with that alone which he saw and
knew; (2) the antiquarian, mythological, historical side of his
work—the part which deals with that which was already past.
These two constituent parts of Pausanias’ narrative cannot be too
carefully discriminated. The former is, of course, the more im-
portant, and contains all that is to us really essential in the
IIeptijºymats ‘EXAd80s. The rest we may call “accessories,” which
might very well be cut out entirely without changing in the least
the essential features of the book. \
We can dispose of the second, the antiquarian portion of it, in
a very few words; for no one has ever been so extreme in his ad-
miration of Pausanias as to cherish the thought that he ever got
together all that mass of learned antiquarian and historical notes
independently of all literary sources, or that it was in his power
to have done so. Some of the sources from which he drew infor-
mation of this character are known to us, but not all, for they
are numerous; to trace them all out is beyond the power of
any or of all of his critics in this day of the world. And to
assume that Pausanias had a mythological lexicon or a universal
encyclopædia to which he had recourse in each and every instance,
however conceivable it may be—for most of the authorities from
whom Pausanias could have borrowed such material are lost—
such an assumption is lawless and arbitrary. For Pausanias was,
If not a gentleman of high education, at least a well-read man;
and we have no reason to suppose that such a man would have
no knowledge outside of that gleaned from an encyclopædia, and
8 WALTER MILL ER,
no other books to draw from at first hand. Summa Summarum
there can be no dispute in regard to the historical element i
Pausanias’ periegesis; he gained his information from books, bu
from what books—that we do not know, and probably never sha
lºnow.
With the other part, however, matters stand quite differentl .
In connection with this question Ernst Curtius (Peloponnes) has
characterized Pausanias as “a writer who, inspired with a lively
interest in the ancient habitations and monuments of the Hellenes,
traveled with indefatigable zeal through the deserted provinces of
Greece, studied under the direction of the best.guides to be had
the antiquities and curiosities of every city, keeping a record of
everything in order in his note-book. Older books of travel he
never mentions, nor did he make use of them; he preferred to
gain his knowledge of topography and of monuments at first hand
by his own investigations or by oral instruction from his guides.”
That is the one extreme; the other we have in Kalkmann in the
oft-quoted book. He says, p. 271: “However the results may
appear in individual cases, there can no longer be any doubt that
everything essential in Pausanias, the best he offers us, is drawn
from other authorities.” And again: “We see that he often
tries, but in a very clumsy fashion, to pull the wool over his
readers’ eyes; here he fails utterly, however, if only his intended
victim will test him with a criticism that is directed solely toward
the discovery of the real truth; and yet,” Kalkmann adds, “in
the whole connected work the deception is not so readily dis-
covered. Pausanias is admirably suited to the rôle of deception
that he has assumed, and he sustains his part, however simple he
may be in other respects, not without ease and dexterity. Every
one, from the moment he takes up the periegesis, is under its spell
[a consolation, as Seeliger says," for Ernst Curtius, Schubart and,
let us add, last but not least, for the best and most brilliant of all
our topographers, Wilhelm Doerpfeld, many of whose most re-
markable discoveries are due to his having followed Pausanias
with the most implicit confidence] and only Pausanias’ skilful
management of his mask is responsible for the fact that there is a
Pausanias question to-day at all. Pausanias uses his false dress
10 SEELIGIER, Philol. Anzeiger, 1887, p. 146.
PA USA WIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 9
and his fictions with the conscious purpose of misleading, that
is, in a word, according to our code of morals, he is a fraud; and
vigorous criticism cannot call such trifling by any more gracious
name.””
It is a serious charge that Kalkmann brings against our guide.
But how will he substantiate it? Imprimis, in the course of his
first few pages, “on his way to Pausanias,” he quotes a vast number
of examples of “frauds” from all periods of Greek literature,
from Ctesias, Euhemeros, Dictys and Dares down to the author
of the 6eos Xuptm. From Pausanias’ own times also he quotes a
few, but only a few. Then after the analogy of those two or
three examples Kalkmann declares Pausanias to be a “child of
his times,” a man of a thousand without originality, and draws
the conclusion: Gellius and Aelian lied; therefore Pausanias
also must be a liar. His logic is convincing. *
Had then Pausanias no other contemporaries 7 Over against
Gellius and Appian, Gurlitt quotes Aristides and Dion Chryso-
stomos; and with them Pausanias, according to Gurlitt's analysis,
seems really to have had some close connection and relationship.
Following Kalkmann’s method of reasoning, then, Pausanias’ case
is not so irretrievably hopeless. And finally, suppose Lucian in
his Vera Historia is indeed “lashing that peculiar excrescence
upon the literature of Greece’—stories of travel—still that by no
means proves that the blows strike Pausanias or even that they
are aimed at him.” .
R. Weil, Kalkmann's reviewer in the Berl. Philologische Wochen-
Schrift, (1887, p. 839–843), commends especially the first chapter
of the book as “one of the most convincing portions of the attack
upon the trustworthiness of Pausanias. In that chapter Kalkmann
has proved beyond a doubt,” he says, “that Pausanias pretends to
have seen and heard manythings, of which he had only read; the
'Apyelot Aéyovatv and the Puyaxeſs and Aace&alpóvot, the Tpégévs
and Yépov, even the éémyntaſ, from whom Pausanias occasionally
obtains some information, are often metamorphosed, before crit-
ical eyes, from forms of flesh and blood into dust-covered parch-
ments.” Nevertheless the possibility that what he says he heard
Pausanias may have heard directly from the lips of those whom
*SEELIGER, loc. cit., p. 146. * GURLITT, p. 125.
10 WALTER MILLER.
he quotes cannot reasonably be questioned. It certainly is any-
thing but logical to infer from a few paradoxes that the source of
every quotation in a book is falsely given; falsity must be proved
in each individual case, or at least in a large majority of cases,
or, until that is done, the statement must be accepted as true.
Furthermore, it should be carefully noted that the fictions which
cause all the trouble are given not in connection with the perie-
gesis, but in connection with the non-essential part of the work
and especially with the sections dealing with paradoxes; that for
such parts of his work our author drew from previous literature
it has never occurred to any one to deny. This mannerism is
simply one of the traces of the influence of Herodotos upon Pau-
Sanias. He knew his Herodotos thoroughly and imitated him.
Now Herodotos was extremely fond of such phrases as those
quoted above, and from him Pausanias in his awkward way
adopted them—oftentimes most unhappily, where they are alto-
gether out of place. If this makes Pausanias a “fraud,” then
Herodotos also is a fraud and so is many another whom we are
wont most highly to respect.
But if the argument may be made thus to turn upon a question
of honor, we must remember that in reference to such plagiarisms
a very different code from our own prevailed in antiquity, and
that the most conscientious authors could not escape the charge.
And as to the paradoxes, upon which Kalkmann lays so much
stress, they are neither so incredible nor yet so ridiculous as they
have been made to appear; for most of them a rational explana-
tion can be found. Some, also, the critics have perverted into
personal experiences of Pausanias: for example, the singing fishes
in the Arcadian Aroanios. Pausanias says only that he listened
for their music, not that he heard them sing. Again we must
take pains carefully to distinguish between what a man says he
has seen and the inferences he draws from his observations. For
us, in Pausanias’ case, that is not so easy as it might seem, for
every age has its own peculiar kind of sense-illusion.” Kalkmann
speaks of Pausanias’ superstitions, of his pleasure in the marvel-
ous and his reverence for oracles and mysteries; in that also he
was the child of his times. But at the same moment Kalkmann
is GURLITT, p. 124.
PA USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 11
forgets that in a superstitious age the recital of what one has seen
or heard may be traced not so much to a desire to deceive as to
credulity or naïveté or simple ignorance, which are not at all in-
compatible with a natural love for truth. What seems to us im-
possible or incredible was not necessarily so to a man like Pausa-
nias. He was only a child of his times, and it is possible that he
himself was sometimes deceived. How he came by his impos-
sible stories we do not know, and do not care. What we are in-
terested in is how far we can depend upon what he saw, or, if
you please, on what he pretended to have seen.
And now we pass on to the second question we raised at the
beginning: Does Pausanias describe not the conditions of his
own day, but those of a time long past? It is not possible here
to enter into a full discussion of this question; let me refer only
to IKalkmann, pp. 54 ft., and Gurlitt, pp. 193 ff., and select from
the abundance of examples adduced the most flagrant case of all—
the Peiraieus. This sea-port town, they say, Pausanias describes,
not as it appeared in his day, but as it must have been no less than
two hundred years before he was born. “We enter the Peiraieus,”
says Kalkmann,” “and expect to find the once flourishing Athens-
by-the-sea in ruins. “Dextra Piraeus Sinistra Corinthus; quae oppida
quodam tempore florentissimi fuerunt, nunc prostrata et diruta ante
oculos idcent.’” So Sulpicius writes in a letter to Cicero.” The
reign of terror under Sulla had transformed the beautiful Peiraieus
into a mass of dead ruins, from which new life could never (sic!)
spring. Instead of those mouldering ruins Pausanias pictures to
us a considerable seaport city.” That, to express it moderately,
is gross exaggeration on Kalkmann's part. Pausanias says noth-
ing to warrant it. The two or three sanctuaries, the half dozen
statues, the market-place, the Pakpā atod and the docks—more
than these Pausanias does not mention—these do not constitute
an “ansehnliche Hafenstadt.”” There was nothing at all surpris-
ing in the fact that the town, which was still the seaport of
Athens, however small, should have had a market-place, per-
haps on the same site once graced by the splendid market-halls
built by Hippodamos. “The very first moment we enter the
14 p. 54. 19 ad Fam. IV, 5, 4.
* SEELIGER, 1. c., pp. 149–150.
12 WALTER MILLER.
Peiraieus,” Kalkmann continues, “Pausanias calls our attention to
the docks, kal veðs kai és éuè gav olcot. Strange that Sulla
should have left untouched those great arsenals!” [N. B.:
Pausanias speaks only of docks, veda oilcot : he says nothing
whatever about an arsenal, which he would have expressed with
&TA06; cm.] It is true that Sulla, after taking Athens, destroyed
the Peiraieus even more completely than he had the city. For
Appian says expressly: Ó Sé XVAXas Töv IIeupatà toi, "AaTeos
A&AXov čvoxx joavrá of caretſurpm, betőduevos owre tºs &tx06 cms
ovre Töv vetoo offcov oirre Tuvés àAAov Tów &otöſuov.” And Strabo,”
in mentioning the past glories of the Peiraieus, gives especial prom-
inence to the Aupuévas mºmpets veoptov, Šv oſs cał ż, ÖTA officm.
We have, therefore, three unimpeachable witnesses to the fact
that Sulla razed the Peiraieus to the ground. But we should not
forget to ask “When did these men submit their testimony ?”
Servius Sulpicius wrote his letter to Cicero in 45. In the same
lotter he mentions IKorinth also, which had been as completely de-
stroyed as the Peiraieus; it had even been forbidden to build again
upon its old site. But within one year after that letter to Cicero
was penned (that is, in 44), New Korinth arose like the Phoenix
from the ashes of the old and flourished, favored by its position
as seat of the Roman governor of Achaia, as Colonia Julia Corin-
thus.” If then Korinth could spring up into a new city in a single
year, it needs no proof that words written in 45 about the con-
dition of a town might not apply to that town two hundred years
later.”
The same will apply to Strabo's words. Strabo lived from 66
B. C. to 24 A. D. His geography is confessedly compiled out of
older books, and the source from which he drew his statement in
reference to the Peiraieus may be as old as Sulpicius’ letter. Later
than 24 it cannot be. Even so, there is from that last possible
date down to Pausanias’ time a space of fully one hundred and
fifty years of peace. And in a century and a half of peace, with
the favor and munificent help of Hadrian and others, how might
not the situation be changed? When we read in a book published
in 1826 that the Peiraieus consists of only half a dozen wretched
17 Bell. Mithr., 41. * Ix, p. 395. &
19 GURLITT, p. 199. 10 Ibid, p. 201.
PA USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 13
fishermen's huts, and that not a vestige of its ancient glory is to
be seen, and that Athens itself is not much better off; and when
again we read in Baedeker’s Greece that Athens is a fine city of
100,000 inhabitants, and its seaport, Peiraieus, a flourishing com-
mercial town of 25,000; when we read of a large number of pre-
Persian statues that stand upon the Akropolis, shall we say that
Lolling has been cribbing from Polemon, or rather from. Some
contemporary of Peisistratos? Such a comparison is not greatly
overdrawn, for from the Greek Revolution to the present repre-
sents but one-sixth of the time that intervened between Polemon
and Pausanias. Now what had actually taken place in that inter-
val? Above all things Hadrian had come to Greece; and his
vast building projects and other enterprises in behalf of the city
and its seaport scarcely need be mentioned. The importation of
foreign materials for his works and of the grain that he regularly
distributed to the people, enlivened again the neglected harbor,
and its streets again became animated with new commercial life.
Under his reign not only ai 'Affival, but also 6 IIepalet's juðmore,
But the best proof of the resurrection of the Peiraieus Gurlitt” pre-
sents to us is the testimony of a contemporary inscription. Andjust
in passing, let me say that in Gurlitt's hands the inscriptions be-
come a mighty weapon in Pausanias’ defence. This particular
inscription” contains a decree of the people, in accordance with
which a thorough reparation of the catastrophe that had befallen
the Peiraieus, at least so far as concerned the temples and public
lands, was ordered. The ground that had been diverted from its
sacred purposes or from public use was to be restored to its proper
function. And then follows a list of the existing sanctuaries, in-
cluding all those which Pausanias mentions and more besides.
After these follow also the veðpta, not only in the great harbor,
but also in Zea, several atoat (Pausanias mentions but one or per-
haps two). Verily it might seem as if the Peiraieus of the second
century B. C. was in the Second century A. D. restored in even
greater magnificence. We need, therefore, no longer be sur-
prised that Pausanias finds so much there to mention, but rather
that he mentions so little. But here, as everywhere, in accordance
with his plan, he gives us but a selection of what was to him the
* GURLITT, p. 209. *"Eq. 'Apx. 1884, p. 166, pl. 11.
14 WALTER MILLER,
most interesting, and every detail of his description is in perfect
harmony with the inscription. To be sure he says nothing about
the awful havoc created there by Sulla; but it is incredible that
the same man who has so much to say about that general’s work
of destruction in the city should not be acquainted with the fate
of the harbor-town.
Let us consider also the further question, whether Pausanias
ever describes as still existent monuments in regard to which we
have sufficient evidence that they had long since disappeared,
while, except for a few allusions, he passes over in silence the
whole of the first and second centuries of our era; for this charge
also is entered against him. To meet it we have, in the first
place, his expressed purpose of treating only those monuments
which he considered most important and most interesting. In
the second place, we will, for the sake of argument, grant that
the later works are comparatively ignored. It would seem a
matter of course that they should be. For not only Pausanias,
but all men of every age have turned with most interest to the
great creations of Athens’ prime. In respect to architecture,
the period between Perikles and Lykourgos is the epoch of interest;
in respect to sculpture, the works produced from the beginning
down to Praxiteles and his sons are those that attract the closest
study.” These were the things that the tourist, the visitor to
Athens, would most desire to see. And then again, with the
reigns of Alexander’s immediate successors, the really productive,
creative epoch of Greek art was past. It is, therefore, no wonder
that Pausanias seems to give preference to the older works rather
than to those of later days. We do precisely the same to-day and
for precisely the same reasons.
But Gurlitt does not stop with such generalities. Of the
monuments and buildings, passed over in silence by Pausanias,
Gurlitt has arranged classified groups belonging to the earlier as
well as to the later period. And from these he proves that the
monuments of the later centuries which Pausanias omits to men-
tion all belong to those groups which he consistently ignores in all
periods, even when his “source ’’ would have led him to mention
them. Such are the éq j6aov lemºtopata, the statues decreed in
* GURLITT, p. 272,
PA USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 15
honor of Roman emperors or members of the imperial house,
honors paid to Roman provincial governors, Roman procurators,
patrons, etc. *
Not content with cataloguing the supposed omissions of Pau-
sanias, Gurlitt goes on and classifies the artists and works of art
that Pausanias does mention; the substance of his result is this:
For the pre-Persian times and the fifth century we find that men-
tion is made of practically every thing of importance. But in the
very next century (the fourth) the number of artists and statues
mentioned is very much smaller, whereas we know from inscrip-
tions and other sources that there was in the fourth century a very
considerable increase in art-productions of every sort as compared
with those of the fifth. He mentions still fewer from the third
century; and in accord with that, the number of artists known to us
from the third century is much smaller than that of the fourth.”
Throughout, however, the ratio of those he mentions to those he
omits to mention is practically the same. The same proportion
continues through the following centuries. And Gurlitt, covering
page after page, compiles from the pages of Pausanias lists
of works of art, of artists and other people of those very years
which Pausanias is so rashly accused of having passed over in
complete silence. And the list is so extensive, that at the end we
are really amazed that Pausanias should have left out so many
works of the fourth century and given relatively so much space to
the less interesting productions of imperial Greece.
Furthermore, the destruction of Athens by Sulla was not
unknown to Pausanias; he was not unacquainted with the art-
robberies of Nero and he never overlooks them. He is never
caught mentioning, as still in Greece, statues that had long since
been carried off to Rome. From all points of view, therefore,
nothing stands in the way of our seeing in Pausanias’ work the
Greece of his own times.
Those who try to identify the main source from which they
would say Pausanias drew are most prone to speak of Polemon,
and so my conclusion shall be devoted to the Polemon theory. In
his treatment of Athens, Olympia and Delphi, Pausanias, it is al-
leged, copied down slavishly the description of those places by
* GURLITT, p. 256.
16 WALTER MILLER.
Polemon. Just think for a moment what that really means. Be-
tween Polemon, the most eminent of the Alexandrine Treptm'ymtal,
and Pausanias there had elapsed a period of over three, hundred
years. Let us transfer the situation to our own times and sup-
pose that a book were to appear to-day purporting to be a guide
to modern Rome, but in reality reproducing only the description
of Rome from a book of the year 1550, with here and there, like
Pausanias with reference to Hadrian, a few notes in regard to the
changes that have taken place since Victor Emanuel's advent in
Rome. Such a book is simply inconceivable. And yet Pausanias,
amid the enlightenment of the second century, had the hardihood,
they say, to publish just such trash, in part about Athens, the
university city, visited by the educated and cultured of all the
world, and only recently restored by Emperor Hadrian with new
splendor! He had the effrontery to describe, for instance, a col-
lection of paintings as still in the Pinakotheke in the Propylaea,
although, as every one knew, these pictures had disappeared cen-
turies before! Is it possible that even such an inaccurate, thought-
less fellow as Pausanias should coolly borrow such material from
a book three hundred years old without sifting it—and that, too,
when he was so well informed about the Mithridatic War, the
Achaian League, and the art-robberies of Mummius, Nero and
others? Why, he even takes pains in the midst of his descrip-
tion of Patrai to supply the explanation that he failed to mention
the Odeiom of Herodes Attikos in Athens only because it was not
yet built when he was there; and so, also, with many other things
demonstrably of later date than Polemon, which were discussed
a few pages back. He has due consideration for the destruction
of cities which followed long after Polemon was dead, and for
later developments along all lines. Thoughtless plagiarism of an
old work, therefore, seems entirely out of the question. But if he .
had thus compiled his work from an older book or older books
without verifying by personal observation in every instance the
statements he there found, he would have fallen into countless
errors; he would describe monuments in a place from which they
had long since disappeared, or in a condition in which they no
longer were. And such blunders have not yet been established”;
* GURLITT, p. 146.
PAUSANIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK 17
on the contrary, the clear results of excavations, wherever made,
confirm the correctness of his statements so fully that the most
successful investigator along these lines to-day follows Pausanias.
with most implicit confidence and declares that when he follows
him intelligently he is never led astray. I mean, of course,
Doerpfeld. -
And then, once more, there is to this question another side
upon which Bencker was the first to turn the light. We have
talked much of Polemon; but what means have we at hand for
making ourselves really acquainted with him? The first thought
has always been to reconstruct him from Pausanias. But that is
no correct critical method. Reconstruct Polemon out of Pausa-
nias and then it is easy enough to prove that Pausanias borrowed
from Polemon. When we proceed to restore a literary work, we
should by all means begin with the undoubted fragments of that
work. Now we have from Polemon no less than one hundred
and four genuine fragments, of which several are comparatively
long. His work is supposed to be the source of Pausanias’ whole
first book, Tā ‘ATTucd. And yet it is not even certain that Pole-
mon wrote a description of Attica. We know only of a work
IIepi Tàs 'A6%umotu 'AkpotöAsaos, and another IIepi Tàs iepās ‘O800,
etc. But, so far as we know, he wrote no general guide-book
like that of Pausanias. Unlike Pausanias, there prevails in all
Polemon's fragments the antiquarian, mythological, grammatical
tendency. Topography, as far as we can see from the fragments,
is always subordinate to the rest. His arrangement seems to
be a grouping according to subject matter, not according to local-
ity. His work (with the exception of his IIeplºymais IXſov, his
birth-place) seem not to have been guide-books at all, but schol-
arly dissertations, in which the works of art served rather as sub-
iects for antiquarian or mythological discussion.
That Pausanias and Polemon should occasionally coincide and
agree is almost a matter of course; they describe the same things
in the same cities and it could not well be otherwise. But the
passages in which Pausanias runs parallel with the existing frag-
ments of Polemon are not so numerous as we might expect; and
even So it is only the mention of the same proper names that leads
us back to Polemon. Of the one hundred and four longer and
T.S. WALTER MILLER.
shorter fragments of Polemon, to only seventeen can we find pas-
Sages in Pausanias in any wise related. Of these seventeen, seven
contain direct contradictions to that which Pausanias has to say
on the same subjects, while in the others the agreement is confined
to the mere mention of universally well-known facts or of such as
in the nature of the case must be common to both. In only three
fragments [4, 23, and 24 (Preller)] could one possibly see anything
more than a mere accidental coincidence. But the first one treats
of things (the tomb of Thucydides, with the inscription contain-
ing his father's name, "OXopos) the knowledge of which Pausanias
could have had from a hundred other sources just as well as from
Polemon, and the others are not closely enough related for us
safely to conclude that any improper use had been made of
Polemon. -
So we have no direct proof of the dependence of Pausanias
upon Polemon; and where proof is wanting, independence is to
be taken for granted. On the other hand, we have much internal
evidence against any improper use of Polemon by Pausanias. The
“slavish transcription,” of which some have talked, is all out of
the question. If such had been his literary method, our Pau-
sanias would fill much more than the present two volumes. Com-
pare, for instance, the two or three lines he devotes to the Athena
Parthenos with the elaborate description of the Olympian Zeus;
and both could be taken from Polemon | We know also that
Polemon wrote a chapter on the Demes and Tribes of Attica.
There is not a word about them in Pausanias. Again, of all the
Athenian Jrmºpiapata, inventories of the stewards of the temples,
etc., such as Polemon had in abundance, Pausanias quotes but one
and that is the inscription in which the favors showered upon the
city by Hadrian were catalogued; and this, like the before-men
tioned art-robberies of the preceding emperors, could hardly have
been taken from Polemon; and yet Polemon offered much other
rich plunder of the same sort. . .
One of the principal arguments for his borrowing from Polemon
has been based on the mistakes of Pausanias in transcribing in-
scriptions. Where such errors have been found, critics discovered
an immediate proof that Pausanias copied Polemon, not the
inscription. This sort of argument, I must confess, is to me
PA USA WIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 10
incomprehensible. For, in the first place, except in the one
instance, we are unable to discover that the same errors occurred
in Polemon; on the contrary, from what we know of Polemon
he was extraordinarily exact and trustworthy in all his statements;
Plutarch, for instance, speaks highly of his accurate scholarship.
And in the second place, even in antiquity injured inscriptions
were sometimes restored, and, not infrequently, incorrectly re-
stored (we have some of that sort), and it is entirely possible
that Pausanias copied them, errors and all, just as they were, or,
finding a broken inscription, he may have done his own restoring
and not being a scholar have made his own mistakes. Finally,
why could not Pausanias have misread an inscription as easily as
, Polemon 7 Those who would ascribe such slovenliness to Pau-
sanias should not load all his vices upon the shoulders of the
much lauded Polemon. Whenever Pausanias blunders, shall we
make poor Polemon responsible for it? It is, as Gurlitt aptly
remarks, “rein als ob Seit Polemon’s Tagen niemand Augen im Kopf
gehabt habe wrm Selbst zu Sehem.”
The assumption that for Athens, Olympia and Delphi Polemon
was Pausanias’ source of information is anything but established.
For the various sources proposed by Kalkmann for Pausanias’ de-
scription of the other provinces, not even thesemblance of plauss
ibility has been produced. Kalkmann tries to find, especially for
the periegetic portions of Pausanias’ narrative, as old authorities
as possible (and yet Pausanias succeeds in giving a description
that fits his own times, and only his own times), and for the
mythological and antiquarian parts, as late authorities as possible.
Why? Because the older the authority the better it should be;
and in the main Pausanias’ descriptions are correct and trust-
worthy, while for the rest we cannot say so much.
All arguments fail to satisfy the theory of a single source. Even
Kalkmann, with all his affection for Polemon, has felt compelled
to assume several. The fountain-head is still Polemon, he thinks;
to help him out he calls in the aid of Caecilius for Athens and
Attica, of Sosibios for Sparta, of Deinias or Agias for Argolis; be-
sides he supplies Pausanias with a hand-book of mythology, a
hand-book of geography, a universal encyclopædia, etc., etc., until
Pausanias is fairly buried under books. Then, it mºst l ( on-
20 WALTER MILLER.
(*
fessed where his books did not suffice, “he brought in personal
reminiscences of his travels l’” With that concession the bars are
all down, and arbitrariness may wander whithersoever it will. As
Soon as reminiscences of personal autopsy are allowed, the whole
foundation is knocked out from under the theory of even partial
piracy. The influence of personal autopsy in the one division of
his work is just as undeniable as in the other. But I should like
to emphasize more the influence of personal observation upon his
work. When Pausanias pictures the condition of a city or a
building as he found it on the occasion of his visit, the walls often
in ruins, the temples without roof or statue; when he speaks of
faded frescoes, illegible inscriptions; when he explains that he
failed to see certain statues, because they were no longer in their
original place; when he gives his account of Mummius’ work, of
Neo-Corinthus, of dedications made by Augustus, Nero, Trajan,
Hadrian, by Nicomedes and Herodes Attikos; when his use of
the definite article with things mentioned for the first time (and
not afterward) can be explained only by his presupposing a
reader, who, like himself when he first made the note has just
stepped up to the object described; when the description itself
(and this is the rule with him) is so brief that it is really in-
telligible only to one who, like the author at the time of writing
it, has the object before his eyes; when, finally, Pausanias takes
such infinite pains to give the exact location of everything with
his TAmatov, Tpd, &votépo, etc.; with all these evidences it is hard
to think otherwise than that Pausanias either made his descrip-
tions directly from personal autopsy or that he corrected them
diligently by personal autopsy.
Iſe who will prove that Pausanias used no literary helps, will at-
tempt the impossible. If Pausanias did not copy his work from Pole-
mon—and that is not and cannot be proved—there is, of course, the
possibility that he made unfair use of some other guide-book or
guide-books, of which we know absolutely nothing. That is possible,
just as it is possible that Xenophon or Lucian or any other author
got his ideas from some one else. But before we make probability
of such possibility, we must have proofs. Pausanias probably had
access to newer guide-books than Polemon's (if his were such at
all); indeed, we know he did, for he names two, Kallippos an
PA USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 21
Lykeas, which were at that time undoubtedly quite recent publi-
cations. And it is these two names of periegetes (of whom no
one would ever have dreamed, were it not for Pausanias’ mention
of them) that should make us suspicious of any tracing of Pausa-
- mias to a single source, and especially a very ancient one. We
dare not proceed in such cases with too positive proofs, for we
cannot hit upon a positive solution. Both Kalkmann and Gurlitt
are too radical; both in their ardor go to extremes. To my mind
there is no doubt that Pausanias worked out his “guide” from
his own travels and his own personal observations; that he em-
ployed what literary helps he could when he came to publish it
no one would deny. He made additions and filled in as he saw
fit, supplying the historical and mythological portions, whether
from memory of what he had learned in school, or from what he
had learned on his travels, or, if you will, from his hand-books
upon those subjects.
Antiquity produced many authors of guide-books; Bencker has
with at least probability discovered no less than sixteen belonging
to the Alexandrine period. Others there were, whose names at
least have come down to us, flourishing in the first century B. C.,
while only two are known to us from the first century of our era.
Then, with an interval of rest in that sort of literary prodüctivity,
came Pausanias’ immediate predecessors. Now it seems to me
that any one at that time wishing to bring out a new “guide-
book” (and exactly that was Pausanias’ purpose) would do just’
what any one of us would do under similar circumstances: he
would make his notes as he traveled, and then, before he pub-
lished his work, he would get together all the books he could
find bearing upon this subject, from Polemon to Kallippos, and
correct and supplement ad libitum the material he had gathered.
We may suppose (but no more than suppose) that Pausanias did
just that. He may have obtained much from a single book; he
may have compiled his work from many books, but he should not
be accused of a wholesale steal until we have some definite proofs
with which to substantiate the charge. Such sources have been
named indiscriminately, without the shadow of a possibility
of making them sure. But even granting for the moment
that Pausanias never set foot in the cities and countries
22 WALTER MILLER,
he describes; that he compiled his book exclusively from other
books, the purpose of the work—to be a travelers’ guide-book—
would still imperatively demand immediate reference to the pres-
ent. And if his periegesis is only a compilation from other
books, those books must have afforded him the positive assurance
that from them he could with sufficient accuracy draw a picture
of the conditions of his own times. Either that, or, whatever
sources he may have drawn from, he must have tested in proprio
loco whatever he borrowed from them. Moreover, whatever he did
borrow, he assimilated thoroughly; the whole book is consistent
in point of style—his own peculiar, joggling, monotonous style—
the same in both portions of the work. His method of descrip-
tion is the same from beginning to end; he has his system of pre-
sentation, and to the bitter end he follows it out consistently,
alike in archaic Mykenai, in new-born Korinth and in Hadrianic
Athens. Pausanias is everywhere Pausanias. -
For our work, topography and art, therefore, he will be found
a reliable guide, whom we should not, without good reason, dis-
trust. Of course, the hesitation to take any author at his mere
word is always justifiable, but we should not condemn his state-
ments utterly until they are proved false. My first real impres-
sions of Pausanias came from contact with Dr. Doerpfeld. He
carries his Pausanias around with him just as ordinary tourists
carry their Baedekers. He believes in Pausanias with absolute
trust, because he has always followed him and never found him
false. He has had a part in more important excavations than any
other living man, and Pausanias receives from him due meed of
praise for many of the most brilliant results of his works. Pau-
sanias’ statements, rightly interpreted, are everywhere in harmony
with the excavations. Not a single error, which can be positively
ascribed to want of autopsy, has yet been discovered, and new
discoveries year by year establish more solidly the correctness and
trustworthiness of his descriptions.
In conclusion—however useful and trustworthy an authority
Pausanias may be—as an author he will always occupy a very
humble place. His rigid, awkward, heavy, misbegotten sentences
(failing to be clear and graphic, because, forsooth, he takes for
granted that his reader will have the reality before him) have made
P4 USA NIAS AND HIS GUIDE-BOOK. 23
the use of his book a weariness to the flesh and the spirit and .
drawn upon their author most bitter imprecations. No one has a
good word to say for his book as literature; and when we come
to the corrupt text, in its present state, it is an almost hopeless
task to attempt to put a correcting hand upon a writer to whom
in his bungling style and awkward method anything is possible,
be it Greek or be it barbarian. WALTER MILLER.
sº-4 ~,
*~ *, *z, * 2. CO2, C,
Ž224, 2, 77 -
HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS
BY
WALTER MILLER
PROFESSOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY
IN LELAND STANFORD UNIVERSITY.
[Reprinted from THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCH AEOLOGY, October–December, 1893.]
-,
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS.*
The basis of this “History of the Akropolis of Athens’’ was a
paper read before the Royal Archæological Seminary of the Uni- *
versity of Leipzig, in March, 1891. The kind words of the
Director, Professor Overbeck, encouraged me to have it pub-
lished. At the end of a year, during which it has lain untouched,
Ihave taken it up again, worked the old material over and added
some that is new.
I have dwelt at proportionally greater length upon the condi-
tion and development of the Akropolis before the Persian invasion
and its history after the Peloponnesian War than upon the Akro-
polis in the times of Perikles. The earlier period seemed to me
more important, because the facts concerning it are new ; the
later claimed more attention, because the facts are unfamiliar to
the general reader. But regarding the age of Perikles, the ap-
pearance presented by the Akropolis in his day is, as Dorpfeld
has said, so fully and definitely known from the buildings pre-
served and from extant literature, that differences of opinion con-
cerning it are impossible except on minor points. New discov-
eries and more exact investigations of existing monuments can
* REPRINTED FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, vol. VIII, 4.
* Mittheilungen Athen, XII, p. 162.
473
474 JVAL TER MILLER.
make no essential changes in the picture familiar to every one
that turns these pages.
Eut acquaintance with the condition of the Akropolis as it was
before its desolation at the hands of the Persians and its renova-
tion by Perikles is by no means so definite or so universal. It is
true, we had known from literature that the Akropolis was adorned
with temples, altars, votive gifts, etc., before the Persians came,
but we have not been in a position to form any adequate concep-
tion of that earlier glory before the days of Kimon and Perikles.
And even the little that we once thought to be incontrovertible
fact—for example, that there once stood upon the site of the
present Parthenon an older Parthenon built by Peisistratos—even
that has proved to be an error. Accordingly I have gone back
to those older times and endeavored to present in full outlines the
picture upon which so much new light has been thrown by the
recent excavations.
Throughout the essay it has been my main object to follow
historically the architectural development of the Akropolis. And
in dealing with the Akropolis I have confined myself as nearly as
possible to the upper Akropolis; and the buildings that lie upon
its slopes have been drawn into the narrative only when they
stood in some immediate relation to the enclosure of the Akropo-
lis proper, and even then they have received only a passing men-
tion. The Dionysiac Theatre, the Odeion of Regilla, the Choragic
Monument of Thrasyllos, the Odeion of Perikles, the real Theseion,
the Eleusinion—all these are locally connected with the Akrop-
olis, but are nevertheless foreign to my subject, which deals only
with what is enclosed by the walls about the citadel (1).
(1) I wish, above all things, to express my indebtedness to Dr. Dörpfeld, Direc-
tor of the German Archaeological Institute in Athens, for his kindness in permitting
me to use both his private letters to me and his published articles in the Mittheilum-
gen des Instituts. Next to Dr. Dörpfeld I have received most help from Michaelis' .
exhaustive work on the Parthenon, and from Wachsmuth's Die Stadt Athen in
Alterthum. Two books, Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and Monwments of Am-
cient Athens, and Hertzberg, Athen, I wish to say in advance, were unknown to me,
except by name, until after my essay was entirely completed. If, therefore, simi-
larities should be found between parts of my narrative and their's, it will be due, ex-
cept where they are expressly quoted, to our having drawn from common sources,
in the former instance, Dr. Dörpfeld; in the latter, Michaelis and Wachsmuth.
A HISTORY OF THE AJKROPOLIS OF A THENS. . . 475
|.—THE FORM OF THE AKROPOLIS,
In the Southern part of the precincts of ancient Athens there .
Once rose up from the plain a rugged, chasm-torn rock—the last
spur but one of the chain of hills that runs from Pentelikon to
the Southern coast of Attika. Its highest point was but 156.2 me-
tres above the level of the sea, and less than 100 metres higher
than the plain on which it stood. On the west side only did it
offer a comparatively easy ascent. Everywhere else it fell precip-
itously to the plain with declivities more or less inaccessible. Of
all the many hills that lay in and around Athens this was the only
one with much of a surface on its summit, presenting as it did an
area of 270 by 135 metres. Thus in its entire formation this.rock
seemed by nature designed for a fastness, and this destiny it ful-
filled in becoming the most glorious fortress the world has ever
seen—the Akropolis of Athens.
But the top of this hill was not always the smooth plateau that
we now find it, but, as the excavations lately completed prove,
everywhere a jagged, uneven, rocky surface, rough and rent with
many fissures.
II.--THE FIRST SETTLEMENT.
Partly by hewing away the jags of rock and partly by filling up
the chasms with stones and earth, the earliest inhabitants of Attika
created on this uneven hilltop a number of smaller plateaus for their
dwellings and sanctuaries. In a condition of society where uni-
versal warfare continually prevails, as we find it, according to
Thukydides (I,2) at the dawn of Greek history, the first settlements
are necessarily made with a view to every possible advantage
afforded by natural protection. They sought, not the highest hill,
but the one that offered the broadest surface on its summit and
had the steepest sides. Accordingly we should look to the Akrop-
olis for the earliest inhabitants of the land. And here, in truth,
they were; and the first settlement on the sacred rock of Athens
dates back, as relics of the Stone Age found upon the Akropolis
unquestionably prove, to an inconceivably remote period.” We
* ULRICH KöH.I.ER, in Hermes, VI, p. 105.
476 tw. WALTER MILLER.
learn further from Thukydides” and the common use of the word
TöAts (city) elsewhere—especially in Attic inscriptions" that the
citadel originally was “the city,” since by this word in its limited
sense the Akropolis itself is officially designated. And before
there was a “lower city,” there was no occasion for the word
'Akpóto\ts to distinguish an “upper ‘’ from a “lower town.”
III–IIvkºvés Sános 'Epex950s. THE GOODLY House OF ERECHTHEUS.
But we need not confine ourselves to the evidence furnished by
literature, for the Spade has not long since settled the question be-
yond a peradventure. On the north side of the Akropolis about
the Erechtheion (see plan of the Akropolis, PLATE III) are now
plainly to be seen the heavy foundation walls of a great royal pal-
ace. A number of apartments stretching one after the other from
east to west may be distinguished, but just how far toward the
south and west this palace extended cannot be determined, as the
foundation walls in those directions were even in antiquity too far
demolished. But as far as the outlines can be made out, the build-
ing that stood here corresponded exactly in material, in construc-
tion and in general arrangement with the similar royal residences
in Tiryns, Mykenai and Ilion; and by analogy with these we may
very justly infer that in Athens also a large part of the citadel
was taken up by the palace of the ruling Prince. g
Behind the palace, that is at its northeast corner, (AB, on PL.
III) a narrow stairway leads from the royal house down through
a cleft in the rock artificially widened to receive it, under the pres-
ent wall of the Akropolis and almost straight toward the quarter
* II, 15, 3–6: rö 6é irpo Toºrov (i. e. the time of Theseus) h ’AkpótroXts à vºv oºga
TrôNts fiv . . . . Tekprijptov 6é t& Y&p tepē év airfi Tà 'AkpotröNet kal &\\ov bedºv čart [kal
Tà Tâs 'A6mväs] . . . . kaxeſrat 6é Ötö. Töv Taxatáv Taºrm katotkmotu ka? #.'AkpótroXts uéxpl
rojöe &rt Örö rôv 'A6mvalov tróNus. “But before the time of Theseus, what is now
called the Akropolis was the city ; and a proof of it is that we find on the Akropolis
itself the sanctuaries not only of Athena, but of other gods as well . . . And unto
this day on account of its being anciently inhabited the Athenians still call the
Akropolis Polis” (“the City.”) - {
* Cf. PAUS. T., 26, 6: év tá vöv 'AkpotóNet, Tóre 3& 6popaſ opévm TóNet.
° E. g. CIA. I 32 B, 4 and 10. 58, 11; II 11, 26; 20, 2; 42, 7; 45, 5; 85, 13;
etc. After the middle of the first century B. C. this use of tróNts in inscriptions
CQ:ASCS.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 477
called kātrol—“the gardens; ”—this little rear gateway may also,
like the similar ones in Mykenai and Tiryns, have served for fetch-
ing water in time of need. It was, of course, entirely covered up
in the fifth century by the building of the north wall of the Akro-
polis—the so-called wall of Themistokles. This little stairway,
hewn in part out of the live rock, is scarcely at all different in
its general plan and style of construction from that in Tiryns.
The ancient palace on the Athenian Akropolis had, like the royal
palaces at Tiryns and Mykenai, besides the main entrance in
the west, a second approach from the side directly opposite.
This second approach was, in each and every case, a narrow flight
of steps, built in a half-hidden, secluded corner and in a steep
place, accessible to foot-passengers only. .
Furthermore, in the great court, which we find west of the
Erechtheion (the place marked Pandroseion, on PL. III), near the
spot where that primeval, crooked, gnarly, old olive tree of Athena
stood, was the altar of Zeus Herkeios"—the hearth and center of
the state—at which the king, as the head of his tribe and father.
of the whole people, was wont to sacrifice. In the houses, the foun-
dations of which we observe west of the Erechtheion (the walls
colored green in our plan), we may perhaps recognize the habita
tions of the king's retainers, who must have dwelt in the closest
proximity to their prince’s palace. The altar of Zeus Polieus, too,
erected by the first king, Kekrops, must have stood close by.
Athena also had a sanctuary within the palace; and the theory
has more than once been urged that it was the “old temple of
Athena,” discovered by Dörpfeld in 1885 (see PL. III), with which
we shall have to deal later on, that stood within the gates of this
ancient palace." This hypothesis is based on two passages from
Homer: the one where Athena, after accompanying Odysseus to
the house of Alkimočs, left him at the doors and “came to Mara-
thon and to wide-wayed Athens and entered the goodly house of
Erechtheus.” The Trvictvös 8duos (“goodly house”) is, as the
words signify, not the Hekatompedon (the old temple between
* PHILOCH., ap. DION. HAL., & 13 (frag. 146).
" LOLLING, Tô ‘Ekatów reóov ('A6mvå, 1890, reprint p. 17, note 1); DöRPFELD,
Mitth. Athen, XII. p. 26. -
* Od. VII, 80–81 : *kero 5’ &s Mapabóva kai sùpváyvtav 'Affivnu, 6üve 6' 'Epex970s
Trvkivöv Óðuov K. T. A. *
47.8 WALTER MILLER.
the Erechtheion and the Parthenon), nor yet necessarily the com-
mon temple of Athema and Erechtheus, but the Erechtheid palace,
and by implication that part of the Erechtheid palace occupied by
the shrine of Athena. For, in the first place, 86p10s in Homer
never means “temple" unless accompanied by the adjective ispás
(sacred); and in the second place, Tvictvös 86aos (goodly house) is
Homer's standing epithet for royal palaces.” But it is obvious
that Athena came to Athens and entered the “goodly house of
Erechtheus” for no other reason than that she had a sanctuary
located within its gates and forming a part of it. But it is
going too far to conclude from the passage quoted that her sanc-
tuary occupied the same spot as either the Hekatompedom or the
shrine of Athena in the Erechtheion. From this passage of the
Odyssey, them, we learn only that Athena had a sanctuary within
the royal palace on the Akropolis. The other passage from
Homer, however, gives us more definite knowledge: “And they
dwelt at Athens, a well-built town, the realm of the noble Erech-
theus, whom once Athena, daughter of Zeus, reared up ... and
gave a place in her own rich temple at Athens.” Now, although
the poet in the first-quoted passage is evidently acquainted with
the royal palace of the Erechtheids on the Akropolis, as even
Aischylos " also is, in this second passage no “temple * can pos-
sibly be meant other than the complex sanctuary of Poseidon,
Athena, and her foster son, Erechtheus, which was later called the
Erechtheion, by way of distinguishing it from the other temple
or temples of Athena Polias. She gives him a place in her own
rich temple, that is, both are worshipped under one common
roof; the conclusion is inevitable.
Near this most ancient Sanctuary of Athena, the protecting god-
dess of the city, was the grave and heroön of Kekrops, the earth-
born father of the Athenian people, and, in the popular tradition,
* Cf. also Od. VI, 134; Il. x, 267; XIx, 335; etc.
* EIM., Il. II, 546–549; of 6' 3p' 'Affivas eixov, Šukrtuevov irro)\leffpov, Q
ôňuov 'Epex970s pſeya)\jropos, 8v Tror’ 'A6ivil
6pépe, Atós 6vyármp . . . . .
káč 6' év 'A6%ums elo'ev čá, évi ºrlovº vntº.
* AISCII., Eum. 855: kai gö (the Eumenides) ruptay
#6pay exovo a trpès 66pots 'Epex0éws.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 479
their first king, after whom the city—that is, the Akropolis—was
called “Rekropia.” As in the case of all cultus heroes, the
worship of Kekrops centered at his tomb; his worship, further-
more, was intimately connected with that of Zeus Herkeios and
that of Athena Tolias.” As father of the race of the Kekropidai
and king of Kekropia, he represents a definite epoch in Athenian
story, an epoch older than that of the “Ionic * Erechtheus, with
whose rise, furthered as it was by the Tonic epos, his former im-
portance is lost. Erechtheus dwells as pixios (indweller) or as
&bts oikovpds (the serpent keeping watch over her house) in the
holy of holies of Athena's temple.” But Kekrops, who had been
to Attika all that Erechtheus was and more, is set aside with a
little space at the corner of that same temple and outside of it.
Some interpreters, grossly perverting the words of Clemens Alex-
andrinus,” have forced Kekrops also into her temple. Clemens
does says indeed that in the temple of Athena at Larisa there was
the tomb of Akrisios, but of Kekrops he asserts no more than
that Antiochos says that “upon the Akropolis of Athens is the
tomb of Kekrops,” while he does emphatically affirm of Erich-
thonios that he was buried in the temple of the Polias." Theo-
doretos,” borrowing from the same source, adds that the tomb is
Tapā tīv Toxtoixov airáv [beside (the temple of) the Polias her-
self]; while Arnobius,” copying from Clemens and carelessly
confusing the two statements of the latter, makes him say that
Athenis in Minervio Cecropem esse mandatum terræ (that Kekrops
was buried in the temple of Athena at Athens). The blunder is
* PLIN., N. H. VII, 56, 194: oppidum Cecrops a se appellavit Cecropiam, quae
nunc est ara, Athenis; and Etym. Magn., p. 352, 54, S. v. čirakpla xàpa. Moreover
the name Kekropia is occasionally applied to the whole Attic land as well, which
Thefore had been called Akte; cf. APOLLOD. III, 14, 1; Mar. Par. 1, 3.
* PAUs. VIII, 2, 3; EUSEB., Praep. ev. X., 9, 22; id., Chron. IE, 24, 27.
* Cf. IMMISCEI, in RoscHER's Mythol. Lea. II, p. 1023.
* Protrept. III, 45: év tº vetº rās 'A6mvās év Aaptorm év rà &KpotröNet Tábos éoºrly
*Akpurlov, 'A6%umot 6é év rà 'AkpotröAet Kékporos, djs (bmariv 'Avrtoxos K. T. N.
10 l. c. : ré 6é 'Epºx66vios; oºx. €v rq vetº ris IIoMáðos kukööevrat ; Cf. APOLLOD.
III, 14, 7, 1: 'Epix60.ylov. .... rapévros év tº repuévei Tàs 'A6mvås.
17 Graec. affect. cwº. VIII, 30, p. 115: Kat yöp 'A6%umoruv dis 'Avrtoxos . . . . diva, Ye
&v rà 'AkpotröNet Kékpotrös éart Tápos trapá ràv troXtoūxov attàv. -
18 Adv. mat. VI, 6.
480 WALTER MILLER.
obvious. Besides, we have the best of testimony elsewhere to
support the uncorrupted statement of Clemens: the inventories of
the commission appointed to look into and report upon the condi-
tion of the new Erechtheion speak repeatedly of the “porch of the
Rorai’ as being “next to the Kekropion.” And there, at the
southwest corner of the temple, in the remains of walls adjoining
the hall of the Korai, the Kekropion is since the excavations clearly
to be recognized.
With that same sanctuary of Athena Polias were closely con-
nected the altar of Poseidon and those wonderful “signs”
(paptépta)—the salt spring and the sacred olive tree—witnesses of .
his strife with the goddess for the possession of the land. Here
also Hephaistos was worshiped and here honors were paid to the
serpent Erichthonios and to Pandrosos, his faithful nurse.
We must notice, however, that when we go back to Theseus and
his father, Aigeus, tradition forbids us to think of them as occu-
pying the royal residence that we have seen upon the Akropolis.
One story, told by Kleidemos, makes Theseus dwell on the upper
Tlissos; according to another, Aigeus has his abode not far from
the Delphinion, and even in Plutarch’s time the home of Aigeus
was pointed out in that quarter.” There seems, then, to be no
doubt that the residence of Aigeus and his son, who are foreign
immigrants, and have, as Plutarch distinctly states,” no connec-
tion whatever with the Erechtheids, was outside the city and that
until after the “synoikismos” of Theseus they remained in some
way entirely apart from the community that occupied the citadel.
Dut from this time on we again find the Akropolis the sole seat of
royalty. Here dwelt the ruler of the land surrounded by his re-
tainers, his assistants in the government and the priesthood; here
the chiefs of the people met at court, like the Trojans at the gate
of Priam, to take counsel with the king; and here we find the
germs of the race that prided itself on being descended from
mother earth herself.” -
19 CIA. I, 322, col. I, 9, 56.62. 83.
20 PLUT., Thes. 12.
21 Ibºd. 13.
* THUK. 1, 2; SoPH., Aj. 102.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A THENS. 481
It was by no mere chance, as we have already seen, that this hill
was chosen as the original site for this favorite city of the ancient
world. Not only as a fortress but as a dwelling place as well it
was abundantly blessed by nature: in the hottest summer days it
is fanned by a cool breeze from the sea, while the city and fields
below are parched with heat and choked with clouds of dust. The
seat of government, however, and the residence of the community
were afterward removed from the Akropolis to other quarters, and
the gods remained henceforth in sole possession of the “sacred
rock.”
IV.—THE FIRST FORTIFICATIONS.
Thus, in early times the Akropolis was not only the site of the
oldest national sanctuaries but also the scene of public life and the
seat and centre of the governing power. It was the “mighty
tower” of Athens, but to have been such, it must have been de-
fensible; and so it was. Indeed, it can no longer be seriously
questioned that down to the time of Themistokles the city pos-
sessed no other fortifications whatever besides those about the
Akropolis. When these fortifications were built we cannot tell,
but they date far back into prehistoric times. Their construction,
as well as that partial leveling of the surface of the Akropolis al-
ready mentioned, has been ascribed to the Pelasgians”—a people
shrouded in mystery—who, as foreign wage-workers, are said to
have built the fortifications for the natives of the land. It is often
said that a Pelasgian colony settled upon the Akropolis, but this is
a confusion of story; for, according to every tradition, the Pelas-
gians are foreigners who have their home for the time on Mount
Hymettos (or at the foot of the Akropolis) and are always quarrel-
ing with the inhabitants of the sacred hill. Still there is coupled
with the name Pelasgians no definite notion of any particular
tribe; they are, as Wilamowitz-Möllendorf” pertinently remarks,
imported only to be expelled by the Ionians.
* HDT. WI, 137; MYRSILos, ap. DION. HAL. Antiq. I, 28; PHoT., S. v. IIeMapyuków ;
RLEIDEMOS, frag. 22 (BEKKER, Anecdota, p. 419, 27); SUID. s. v. direča and
#Téötſov.
* Aus Kydathem, p. 144.
482 JVALTER MILLER.
The name of this ancient stronghold is written in the one offi-
cial inscription” that we possess IIeMapyukov—and it is there three
times repeated with that spelling. Thukydides (II, 17) uses the
word twice and the best manuscript (Laur. C) has IIexapyucdu both
times; the same form is found also in Aristophanes,” Kleidemos,”
Dionysios of Halikarnassos,” Photios,” and elsewhere.” Correctly
speaking, therefore, Pelargikon and not Pelasgikon is the name
that was given to that earliest settlement; but why it was called
IIéAapyucdu (Stork-nest (?) or Stork-town (?)) is a matter for spec-
ulation. At all events, the word TTeXapyukov has no connection
whatever with IIeXao'yoff but, as there always were Pelasgi in At-
tika,” the similarity between the words led easily to their confu-
sion and to the slight change of name that resulted; and then,
with stories” invented to fit the case, people began to trace the
work of fortification back to the Pelasgians, while the walls were
styled “Pelasgic.” Pausanias (I, 28, 3.) and Pliny (VII, 194) even
go so far as to name the architects—Agrolas (the rough stone) and
Hyperbios (the man of giant strength.) They were said to have
come from Sicily, the land of the Homeric Kyklopes whom Euri-
pides (Kykl. 239) calls the “movers of rocks” and “builders of
gates.”
Upon hardly any other subject in the whole range of Athenian
topography has so much been written, or so little that will stand
the test of even the most superficial criticism, as upon the Pelar-
gikon. It is not my purpose here to confute any or all the old
views in regard to the Pelargikon or to propose any new mere
theory of my own, but from the actual remains, with the help of
our ancient authors, to reconstruct as far as possible the original
fortifications of the Akropolis. Accordingly, we will begin not
with a theory, as others have done, but with the remains that are
still preserved; and here we may distinguish two parts of the Pe-
largikon, an upper and a lower.
* CIA. iv, 2, 27b. -
* Lys. 1153, and Schol. R., 1. c.; Av. 832 and Schol. RV 832 and 836.
* Frag. 22 (BEKKER, Anecdota, p. 419, 27.)
* Antiq. 1, 28. 29 S. v.
* Cf. JARIN-MICHAELIS, Paws. Descr. Arcis Athendo. 1, 28, 3.
* WACHSMUTH, University lectures, 1890.
* Cf., e.g., HDT., MYRSILos, PHOT., 1. c.
A HISTORY OF TEIE AIKROPOLIS OF A THENS. 483
(1) The upper part.—In the recent excavations traces, at least,
of a wall surrounding the Akropolis were found on the east end
and along almost the whole length of the south side (see PL. III.)
On the north side, however, but few remains of the “Cyclopean *
wall are found. Nevertheless it need not in the least be supposed
that the Akropolis was walled up only in places, for the remains
of walls are found in the most inaccessible parts of the south and
east sides, as well as in the parts by nature left the most defense-
less. We must rather conclude that in its whole periphery the
Akropolis was surrounded with a wall.” Remains of this old wall
have been preserved there only where the new wall lies outside of
the old. On the north the new wall follows exactly the line of the
old one, and in every quarter wherever the line of Kimon's wall
coincides with that of the old wall or lies within it, the old one
had to give way and was entirely obliterated. The fragments of
the wall that yet remain follow closely the natural lines of the for-
mation of the rock and are everywhere built at the outermost edge
of its upper surface. -
Now, in order to obtain the complete picture suggested by the
scanty remains along the north side, let us summon to our aid
the Greek authors. Hekataios” says: Tó Teixos to Tepi Tàu
”Akpótoxiv 'exmxapévov (the wall, built around the Akropolis).
Myrsilos” remarks: kal (oi IIexagyo) to Teixos to Tepi Tàu 'Akpó-
Toxtu Tô IIexapyucöv Tepué8axov (and they, i. e., the Pelasgians)
constructed the Pelargikon round about the Akropolis); and Klei-
demos" also uses the word TepládàXelv (to surround) and Tept.
AoAos (circumference) in speaking of the building of the wall
around the Akropolis. Such expressions as these can be applied
only to something encircling the entire citadel, as even Wachs-
muth,” since the excavations, is willing to grant. Furthermore,
the fact that the Persians clambered up on the north side and got
* After the above was written it was very gratifying to have Dr. Dörpfeld write
that he fully agreed with me in this conclusion.
* Ap. HDT, v1, 137.
* Ap. DrôN. HAL. Antiq. I, 28.
* Frag. 22 (BEKKER, Anecd. p. 419, 27.)
* University lectures, Leipzig, 1890. For his earnest defense of the other view
..see his Stadt Athen, 1, p. 292.
484 WALTER MILLER.
possession of the fortress proves nothing, for as Herodotos (VIII,
53) tells the story they climbed up catā. To ipêv Tijs Kékpotos
6vyatpos 'AyAaúpov (by the sanctuary of Aglauros, the daughter
of Kekrops) which was 37tto 6ev Tów TVAéov behind, that is, (beyond,
outside the gates, for Herodotos is speaking from the point of
view of the Persians), and of course the Athenians always had
free communication between the Akropolis and the Aglaurion
through this same cleft in the rock. But certainly this passage
way was not open to the general public—hence the surprise of
the Athenians that the Persians should come up that Way
and it should be remembered in passing that the stone staircase
in this cleft as at present existing (PL. III, CD) was not built until
after the Persian wars. Again, from the words of Pausanias,
(I, 22, 4) when he says és 8é Töv'AkpóToxºv šatty effo'o60s aſa, Tépav
8è oik Šxetal, Tåga &TGTopos ojoſa (there is one entrance to the
Akropolis and it has no other, for it is precipitous on every side),
it cannot by any means be inferred that no wall was needed in
prehistoric times and that therefore none existed; for in his day
there certainly was one, and the ātróTopos (precipitous) has refer-
ence of course to the condition of the Akropolis as he saw it, with
JKimon’s wall encircling it entirely round about.
Still, this great Pelasgic wall was not the only means of strength-
ening the citadel of Athens. The same art that availed to cut
down in such a manner the rock of the Pnyx, on either side of
the so-called Bema, (PL. II, 1) was doubtless broughtinto requisition
here to make the naturally precipitous rock of the hill even
steeper.” This is, for example, obviously the case on the south
side above the Asklepieion.
2) The lower part.—Besides the wall encircling the Akropolis
above, there was also the lower or main part of the “Pelasgic *
fortifications—the tremendous outworks at the west end, which
are usually called the Pelargikon par eaccellence. Just what ap-
pearance these outworks presented we can never know ; but so.
much is certain: they were a gigantic system of fortifications,
with nine gates,” which led by several" terraces supported by
* Cf. WELCKER, Felsaltar des hôchsten Zeus, p. 313.
* KLEIDEMos: reptéflax\ov čvved rv\ov IIexapyuków (frag. 22). Polºmon, Frag.
49 : ékrös róv évvéa tru)\óv.
* Just how many we cannot say.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 485
the mighty walls, one above the other, gradually up to the
citadel. g
How much of this, now, is still preserved 2 The lowest wall
of the Pelargikon was that whose position was afterwards occu-
pied by the southernmost wall of the Asklepieion (see fig. 1, p.
489) and by this means in part preserved. This wall, along with
the prehistoric road that lies immediately below it and conducts
through the theatre of Dionysos and then leads, outside the
wall as a matter of course, up to the citadel—this wall, with the
road, is continued along from the Asklepieion at the same eleva-,
tion until interrupted by the Odeion of Herodes Attikos. After
the latter was built, the road was altered so as to run not only up
behind it but down the slope again on the opposite—that is, on
the west side of the cavea. This can still be traced. Before the
erection of the Odeion then, we may conclude, both wall and road
passed directly through the site now occupied by Herodes' theatre,
and continued together (fig. 1) up to the Areiopagos; while the
wall itself, without the road, extended on a little beyond Pan's
Grotto and there rejoins the natural rock of the Akropolis, just as
at the other end. The gate of this wall must have been situated
directly opposite the Areiopagos (fig. 1), for first the Amazons, as
the story goes, and then the Persians made this hill the base of
their operations against the Akropolis.” And in addition to the
inference that is so easily drawn from the operations of the Ama-
zons and Persians, Polemon” seems to state distinctly that such
was the case, when he says that “the heroën of Hesychos is situ-
ated close to the Kyloneion (that is, by the grotto of the Eumen-
ides on the northeast corner of the Areiopagos, facing the Akro-
polis) just outside the nine gates.” The first or outermost gate,
therefore, must have been directly opposite the Areiopagos (fig. 1).
Now let us return again to the south side. Between the Odeion
and the Asklepieion we find preserved (fig. 1) a small part of the
second terrace wall, which first projects at almost a right angle
from the rock of the Akropolis, then bends around, and extends
on, nearly parallel to the first wall. This is the second circuit wall
* HDT. VIII, 52; PAUs. 1, 18, 2.
* Frag. 49 (Schol, to SoPH, Oid, Kol. 489).
486 > WALTER MIII, I, E.R.
of the Pelargikon. But, be it noted, while the first was “Cyclo-
pean,” this, like the next to be mentioned, is “polygonal,” and,
therefore, either repaired later or altogether of later construction.
Somewhat higher, but still outside Beulé's gate, there were cer-
tainly other such terraces, as every one that has ever climbed the
hill, or even studied von der Launitz's model of the Akropolis,
will not have failed to observe. Excavations will soon decide
whether or not the remains of Pelasgic walls are hidden there.
The other polygonal wall, above referred to, the one lying in the
axis of the Propylaia (fig. 1, fourth terrace, see PLATE III, between
Beulé's gate and the Propylaia), although it has often been called
“Pelasgie,” is not so old, but probably belongs to the v1 century
B.C., and is perhaps a part of the new plan of fortification executed
by Peisistratos, in order to make the old Pelasgic fortress quite
impregnable. Whether it actually took the place of one of the
old Pelasgic terrace-walls we can no longer say with positive cer–
tainty. e.
But now again we come to another portion of the genuine
évveditvNov IIéAapyucdu (the nine-gated Pelargikon), the Pelasgie
wall that is now for the most part hidden by the Nike bastion
(PL. III and fig. 1). Here would come the last great struggle on
the part of the defenders to protect their stronghold, and on the
site of the Nike bastion we have still the remains of a mighty fort,
an older “pyrgos,” flanking for a considerable distance at close
range the unprotected right side of the attacking foe. That taken,
but one more wall was left to storm—the highest and last, and the
best preserved portion of this great fortress. This was at once
the boundary wall of the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia and also
a part of the surrounding wall of the upper citadel. It is an ex-
ceedingly massive wall, six metres thick, and as Akropolis wall it
meeded to be stronger at this point than elsewhere, for everywhere
else on account of the steepness of the cliffs the wall was only with
the greatest difficulty approachable by the enemy.
Thus we have found as lower Pelargikon a system of nine great
redoubts rising one behind the other. -
And now we are met by the further question; how far did the
Pelargikon extend ? That it was by no means small we know
from the passage in Thukydides (II, 17), in which is narrated how
A EIISTORY OF TEIE A KROPOLIS OF A THENS. 487.
upon the invasion of Attika the people, in their extremity, crowded
into the city, and filling up every available spot took up their
abode even in the Pelargikon, in spite of the fact that the place
was laden with a curse.” The same incontrovertible evidence is
afforded by the Eleusinian inscription already mentioned, for the
decree therein preserved forbids the quarrying of stone within the
Pelargikon and also the carting away of earth from the same.*
IBut from three passages of Lucian we have more exact in-
formation : (1) Pisc. 42, where the philosophers throng up to the
citadel. The description of the localities is exact and systematic;
the wise men completely fill the āvočos (that is, the western slopes
of the Akropolis); and then this specification follows: in the
middle, the Pelargikon; to the right of it, the Asklepieion, and
to the left the Areiopagos; again, to the right of the Asklepieion
the grave of Talos, and again to the left of the Areiopagos the
Anakeion. Thus: -
5) Anakeion
3) Areiopagos
1) Pelargikon Akropolis
2) Asklepieion
4) Grave of Talos
From this it is clear that the Pelargikon reached at least from
the Asklepieion to the Areiopagos. In complete accordance with
this conclusion might be adduced as still further evidence, if more
were needed, the entire absence of all ancient buildings on the
terrace between the Asklepieion and the Odeion of Herodes; for
it was forbidden to build anywhere within the walls of the Pelar-
gikon, the oracle declaring to IIexapyukov &pyöv àpielvov (that it
was better, safer, that the Pelargikon should be bare).”
But did it extend no further on the north beyond the Areiopa-
gos ? From the second passage in Lucian (Pisc. 47), where the
philosopher-fisher seating himself €Ti Tô &cpov toff tetxſov (that is,
“upon the corner of the wall,” of the Akropolis of course, next to
* THUR., II, 17: Tó re IIé\apyuköv 8 kai étréparów re fiv pil olkeſv.
44. This prohibition is recorded by Poll. UX (VIII, 101) also, who adds that in case
of violation the fine was three drachmae and “costs.”
45 Cf. THUK., II, 17.
488 WALTER MILLER.
the Pinakotheke), and dropping down his hook, baited with figs
and gold, is asked whether he is going to fish up stones out of the
Pelargikon—from this passage we discover that the Pelargikon
extended at least as far as the north side of the Pinakotheke.
Finally, according to the third passage (Bis acc. 9), Pan's dwelling-
place is aucpov inrēp toſſ IIexagyucoſ (a little above the Pelargikon).
And thus we have its extent pretty accurately defined—from the
Asklepieion on the south to Pan's Grotto on the north; for the
Aglaurion, according to Herodotos (VIII, 52) was not included,
but lay behind—that is, outside—the walls. These limits further-
more would be in complete accord with the defensive purpose of
the walls; for in this way the two best springs of the neighbor-
hood, the Klepsydra, accessible from the summit by its Cyclopean
stair-way of fifty-two steps which is still preserved, and the spring
at the Asklepieion (see fig. 1) lay within the fortifications—no
small advantage in time of siege. The lower Pelargikon was,
therefore, identical with that part of the pre-Thesean city which was
Tô into Tiju 'Akpd"Toxtu Tàu viv oſſo av Tpös vôTov pºdºtoſta TeTpappuévov
(the part below what is now the Akropolis and facing the south)."
In the time before the Persian wars, then, the Pelargikon con-
sisted of two parts, and the name Pelargikon was applied to the
whole Akropolis—that is, to the whole upper citadel and the forti-
fications on the west and south. This, moreover, follows con-
clusively from the statements of Herodotos," Aristotle” and the
Marmor Parium,” all three of which authorities testify that Kleo-
menes compelled the tyrants (meaning Hippias) to vacate to TTeXaa-
yukov Teixos (the Pelasgic wall) within which, that is, within the
walls of the Akropolis, he had been besieging them. But from
the v century on, after Kimon's wall had supplaced the corres-
ponding part of the “Pelasgic ’’ walls, only the lower portion in
its mighty ruins was understood by the name Pelargikon. For
then the Akropolis, still in all official documents called “the city”
(# TóAls), consisted of these two parts: 1) the upper Akropolis,
* THUR., II, 15. - e
* V, 64 : K\eopévºys 6é . . . . ŠtroXtópkee Toys Tupévvous direpºyſºčvous év tº IIeMao'yukº
Telye. -
. Frag. 357 (Schol. R. A.R. Lys. 1153): K\eopéums . . . . Tèv ‘ITTſav avvék\etaev els
to IIexapyuköv retxos, Éws of traßes Tów Tupévvav čávres éáNørav.
* CIG. 2374 (ep. 45) : [of] 'Aónvaſot ['e;avéo-rjma'av roys IIeta wrpattöas ék [toº
IIe]Naa Iyuk]oſ retzovs.
A EIISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A TEIENS. 489
the sacred enclosure (iepôv réuevos) of Athena Polias, and 2) the
lower Pelargikon—also called Kranaa. Otherwise the following
passages from Aristophanes, rendered so clear in the light of this
explanation, must remain unintelligible: 1) Lys. 480: “Why
have the women taken possession of the citadel and why of the
Pelargikon” ...And likewise 2) Birds 826 (832): “Who will be
the Toxtotixos º-that is, who will have possession of the Akrop-
olis—“ and who will hold the Pelargikon of the Akropolis 7 ° And
finally, Strabo (Ix, p. 401), also quoting Ephoros, is familiar with
this twofold division of the Akropolis: Toys IIexao'yods, & p’ 65u
&cAff0m pepos Tu Tàs TróAeos [&m N.'AkpotóNeos]IIexagyucóv (the Pelas-
gians, from whom a certain part of the city—that is, of the Akrop-
olis—was called Pelargikon), and in harmony with this stands the
passage in Thukydides (II, 17): Tô IIeXapyucöv Tô inrö Tiju 'Akpd-
Toxiv (the Pelargikon, the part that lies below the Akropolis).
The nine-gated Pelargikon can be conceived of, in the most
general outline only, something as in the accompanying diagram.
~ -
- tlvířopages, \
Fig. 1.-The Pelargikon Restored.
The road must have wound in some such way, from gate to
gate; and not only were the attacking forces in constant danger
from the defenders on each succeeding terrace above them, but
their advance was nine times blocked by gates, in which feature
indeed lay the main strength of the fortress, and each time a new
redoubt must be stormed, in order to push on step by step to the
Summit. - -





490 , WAJLTER MILLER."
Of the later history of these colossal fortifications so much can
be said. They certainly did not fall with the overthrow of Hip-
pias, as Wilamowitz-Möllendorf” supposes they did, for when three
decades later the Mede invaded the land they still did remarkably
good service. The few” Athenians who lacked the courage to go
with Themistokles to Salamis built a stockade" in front of the outer-
most gate; for thus they thought to fulfill the conditions of the
oracle which declared that their “wooden walls should be impreg-
nable.” The Persians at once set these wooden walls on fire,
but for all that were still no nearer capturing the citadel than be-
fore, although they outnumbered the Athenians a thousand to one.
These old “Pelasgic” walls still defied them, and they were ob-
liged to make their way to the citadel by climbing up a steep
place behind these impregnable fortifications through the Aglau-
rion, where no one had dreamed they would come.”
The next information is given by the Eleusinian inscription
(CIA. IV, 2, 27b), from which we gather that the Persians had par-
tially demolished the walls and that in Perikles' time, to which the
inscription belongs, builders had found in those overturned blocks
of gigantic proportions an excellent stone-quarry, which they util-
ized until what was left was protected by the very statute that
gives us this information.
Let those who are still inclined to follow Wilamowitz-Möllen-
dorf and to believe with him that the Pelargikon was completely
destroyed with the fall of the tyrants, or by the Persians, or by
the transformations of the west end of the Akropolis incident to
the building of the Propylaia of Mnesikles, consider this one fact:
the upper wall of the Pelargikon was standing to a height of over
thirty feet after the erection of the Mnesiklean Propylaia. So much
is incontrovertibly certain; for we notice that the southeast corner
* Aus Kydathem, p. 107. The only foundation for his supposition seems to be the
subjective feeling that if he had been the “victorious demos '' such would have been
the fate of the tyrants' stronghold.
* HDT. VIII, 51 : kal Tuvas 6\lyovs eipto Kovoſt Tõv 'A6mvalov, Šv tº ipê.éóvras, tapitas re
toū ſpot kal TrévnTas āvöpaſtrous, of ppašápevot Thu 'AkpótroXuv 68pmot Te Kal &\ovoſt hutºvovro
Toos étruávras . . . . Öokéovres ééevpmkévau rô uavrátov Tó # IIvölm a qu èxpmare, Tô $WAuvov
Teixos évá\wrov čarea 6al. atrö 6% toàro elva, to Kpmoſqºyerov karū to pavriftov kal of Tâs
véas. -
* HDT., VIII, 51-52.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A THENS, 49].
of the southwest wing of the Propylaia is beveled vertically from
base-stone to cornice so as to fit up squarely against this wall, and
this fact proves beyond a peradventure that this upper wall of the
Belargikon was still standing when the Propylaia were built, and
was still higher than the roof of the southwest hall (30 feet).”
Otherwise such a bevel corner would have been worse than sense-
less. And it further proves that even Mnesikles and his associates
still recognized the necessity of preserving the old fortifications for
their original purpose; otherwise enough of that old wall would
have been removed to make way for the new gateway, and the
corner of the southwest wing would have been unmarred. And
the condition of this upper wall at that time shows how well pre-
served the remains must have been, not only of the upper wall,
but of the lower walls as well, for the upper wall, which in the
last quarter of the fifth century they took so much pains to con-
serve, would have been practically useless without the lower walls;
besides, as we shall presently see, these lower walls were seen by
the traveler Polemon, two hundred years later. Moreover with-
out the existence at the close of the fifth century B. C. of another
such defensory wall below, and in it an actual fortress-gate, neither
the situation suggested by Aristophanes in the Birds (826 (832))
and Lysistrata (480) nor the occupation of the Akropolis by the
Spartan garrison in 403 B. C. can be understood. It would be a
necessary assumption, even if we had no proofs. .
Now comes, more than two centuries later, the Alexandrian
periegete Polemon, who speaks” of the évvea TóAal (nine gates) in
a description so vivid that there can be no question but that, in
spite of all the changes in and about the Propylaia, he neverthe-
less saw the entire lower Pelargikon with all its nine gates in a
state of tolerably good preservation. For by the nine gates (which
certainly can be nothing else than the évved-rvXov IIexapyuków-
nine-gated Pelargikon) and the Kyloneion together he locates the
position of the tomb of the hero Hesychos. And one does not
define the location of a sanctuary, or anything else, by means of
something that has long since disappeared or become unrecogniz-
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mötth. Athen, X, p. 139-140.
* Frag. 49 (Schol. SoPH. Kol. 489).
492 WALTER MILLER.
able. Accordingly, in the days of Polemon, also, the Pelargikon
with its nine successive redoubts still stood.
Again, even in Sulla's time (86 B.C.) the fortifications of the
Akropolis were still so strong that Sulla's lieutenant, Scribonius,
thought it wiser not to attempt to storm the citadel, but by cut-
ting off the Klepsydra to compel Aristion and his forces to capit-
ulate for want of water. -
The above-cited passages from Lucian and Pausanias’ remark
that “all the walls of the Akropolis in his day, except those built
by Kimon, were erected by the Pelasgians,” are very significant.
What Pausanias in effect says is that the Akropolis walls consisted
in his day of two parts: 1) the wall of Kimon, to whom he assigns
with probable correctness the whole upper encircling wall of the
Akropolis, including the so-called wall of Themistokles, who al-
most certainly had nothing whatever to do with it, and 2) the wall
or walls built by the “Pelasgians”—that is, all the fortifications on
the west; for he certainly saw the upper wall, which we still see
to-day at the south-east corner of the Propylaia (see PL. xv) and, as
it seems to me, others besides. Accordingly, both Lucian and his
contemporary Pausanias, seem to testify that the Pelargikon con-
tinued in fairly good preservation even into the time of the Roman
Impire. At length by the building of the Odeion of Regilla, the
outer ring or rings of the fortifications were for the first time
broken through and so weakened that they were once more con-
verted into a stone-quarry, and in this way the old Pelargikon fell
into absolute ruin and disappeared. I am convinced that down to
the times of Herodes Atticus the outer circle of the Pelargikon
still stood from Klepsydra to Asklepieion as a wall of defense, with
a real, defensory gateway. Otherwise I fail to understand the
above-quoted passages from Aristophanes, or the occupation of the
Akropolis by the Spartans in 403 B. C., or the procedure of Seri-
bonius in 86 B. C., or the building of additional strong towers in
the first century A. D.
In immediate connection with the Pelargikon we ought to con-
sider for a moment the history of the approach to the citadel. No
other part of the Akropolis, as the centuries have rolled by, has
suffered transformation so complete as has its main entrance. In
the earliest times the first or Outermost gate lay opposite the Areio-
º
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 493
pagos and the road wound from terrace to terrace and from gate to
gate up to the citadel (PL. I.) Inside the Propylaia the general arrange-
ment was always essentially the same: just inside the entrance to
the Akropolis proper the road divided into two branches forming
the two principal streets of the Akropolis. Both led ultimately to
the central point of the sacred enclosure—the great altar of Athena
Polias, still to be seen a little to the north-east of the Parthenon
(PL. xv). The one to the right led between the old Athena
temple and the Parthenon directly to this spot; the other, bend-
ing to the left, passed along the wall on the north side of the
Erechtheion and so around to the altar.
There were several altars belonging to the Athena cultus upon
the Akropolis of Athens, but one altar cat' ééoxiju, and it was ac-
cordingly officially called simply § 8oſids (the altar), or 6 p.6, as
£opºds (the great altar) without any further designation; and that
is the altar of which I have been speaking, northeast of the Par-
thenon and southeast of the older temple and belonging to both.
Like the great altar in Olympia, it also stands not squarely in front
of the great temple but a little northeast of it, a huge, rectangular
block of rock rising slightly above the level of the plateau on
which it stands.” - tº
Dut it is outside the Propylaia and in the Propylaia itself
that we are to look for the greatest changes. It is not a matter
of mere alteration in the general plan of ascent, nor yet, as We
shall see later, of building a new structure right on top of the old,
but of eradicating the old entirely and laying the new road deeper.
Near Beulé's gate the road in ancient times lay much deeper
than that of the Roman period. For just inside this gate, north
of the polygonal wall described above (PL. Xv), and about two
and a half metres below the level of the Roman staircase, the ex-
cavations have brought to light an altar in situ. This was one of
those altars, probably all to chthonic divinities, which we know
had of old been set up in the Pelargikon” and to the number of
which it was in the time of Perikles forbidden to add.”
The polygonal wall just mentioned fixes the position of the
terrace next above the one on which this altar stands, and is
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XII, p. 51.
* CIA. Iv, 2, 27b.
494 WALTER MILLER.
a further evidence that the road must have followed a wind-
ing course. And furthermore that this continued to be the
manner of ascent to the citadel until Roman times is conclu-
sively demonstrated by the fact that at the elevation of the
Nike pyrgos and the Agrippa monument the older road was
higher than the level of the stairway. For the lowest courses
of stone both in the Nike pyrgos and in the pedestal of the
Agrippa monument visible above the steps were left uncut—
a sure evidence that at the time they were built so much of the
foundations lay beneath the surface of the road and was not in-
tended to be seen. Accordingly, even at the time when the
Agrippa monument was erected (about 27 B. C. and certainly be-
fore the building of the stairs, for the monument in question faces
not the stairs but the old road) the upper part of the road lay on
a higher, and the lower part on a lower plane, than does the cor-
responding part of the Roman stairway now existing; and the
communication between these greatly differing levels must almost
certainly have been effected by the winding terraces—or by a
ladder. -
We shall see later how, when the staircase was built, the very
traces of the old approach almost wholly disappeared.
V.—THE AKROPOLIS UNDER PEISISTRATOS AND THE PEISISTRAT|DAl.
| Such, then, was the Akropolis, surrounded with its “Pelasgic”
fortifications, the huge bulwarks at the main entrance in front
themselves overhung by the mighty bastion on whose summit
from remotest antiquity had stood the sanctuary of Athena-Nike.
The citadel continued till into the time of the Peisistratidai to be
the seat of sovereignty, for even after the assassination of Hippar-
chos, Hippias, in order to insure his supremacy, made it his
stronghold. But from that time until the Middle Ages people
dwelt in the lower city only. To Peisistratos and his sons the
city owed the wonderful progress it made in those times; and it
was indebted to them personally for more than one costly
Structure.”
* E. g., the famous Altar to the Twelve Gods and the Enneakrounds in the Agora,
the Olympieion (begun but not completed), the Pythion, a sanctuary of Apollo, the
addition to the Gymnasion in the Lykeion, with its decorations and equipment, also
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A TEIENS. 495
Some of the buildings that must have existed at the time of
Peisistratos have already been mentioned. Let us now try as far
as possible to picture to ourselves the Akropolis as it then looked.
First we have to imagine two “temples which must have been
there long before the time of Peisistratos and were doubtless
still there in his day, but whose exact location cannot now be
determined. That they did exist is abundantly proved by the
invaluable remains of these very temples—the pediment reliefs of
poros stone. All four of them are more or less well preserved.
The first, which has been known since 1882, represents Herakles
in combat with the Lernaean Hydra(PL.IV, 1.) This monster enemy
fills the whole right wing of the pediment; the leftis occupied by
Herakles, with breastplate, bow and quiver, and his friend Iolaos
with the chariot drawn by two horses headed toward the corner.
This was the conventional arrangement of the figures of this
familiar group and the artist did not feel at liberty to break away
from the traditional form, however great difficulty it occasioned
him. His horses could not be driven with heads erect into that
sharp angle. But for the lowered heads, made necessary by the
shape of the gable, some motive must be found. And the motive
our artist has furnished with the touch of a master’s hand. In
the extreme corner of his pediment he has introduced the giant
crab that came to the assistance of the Hydra, and the horses,
catching sight of the monster as it creeps toward them, bend
down their heads to sniff at it, as if even to them it were an
uncanny sight.” &
the construction of water-works on a magnificent scale, and of beautiful, broad,
streets. We observe, therefore, that it was the city proper and the suburbs even
more than the Akropolis that were the objects of their especial attention and care.
* A third—the temple of Aphrodite ép’ ‘ITtroXúrg —is known to us only through
the obscure reference of a scholium to EUR. Hipp. 30: év tº 'AkpotóNet iópwararo
(# 35atöpa) 'Aqipoëtrms tepēv éiri kaköv ‘ITtroXùrov.
'Aq poètrms vaēv löpúa'aa:6at thv patópav paatu, 'Eká\eore. §§ 'Aqipoèttmu èq''ItriroNörg,
Živkal IttroXvttav KaNoüauv. -
* A highly interesting feature of these four, the earliest of all the pediment-reliefs
known to us, is the polychromy; but however inviting a digression upon this much,
vexed theme might be, it does not properly belong to a “History of the Akropolis.”
Still so much may with propriety be said, in order that the reliefs, may be presented,
more vividly to the reader's mind: the background is not painted at all; the figures,
however, raised in relief upon it, are colored in a manner true to nature. The naked:
496 WALTER MILLER.
An excellent companion piece to this we find in a second pedi-
ment relief of the same size and workmanship, discovered like the
other in the southeast corner of the Akropolis, and representing an
adventure of Herakles that has at least an external resemblance to
the former one. In this relief we see the hero struggling with the
ãAuos yépov, Triton, the Old Man of the Sea (PL.IV, 2.) Herakles has
thrown himself upon Triton with the whole weight of his power-
ful body and grasping his opponent about the neck with his left
arm he draws on that with his right and threatens to crush his
throat and chest as in a wise. Triton, finding himself in so dan-
gerous a case, tries but feebly to defend himself with his left hand
while he stretches out his right as if imploring aid from the per-
son or persons on the left side of the gable. For in that quarter
we must necessarily restore in our imagination a spectator or Spec-
tators of the contest, as in the third relief of our series.
How suitable a companion piece for the Snaky coils of the Hydra
are those of the fish-monster, Triton and in view of all the re-
markable coincidences of subject, place of discovery, workmanship,
and dimensions, we are compelled to assume that both pediments
belonged to one and the same amphiprostylos. And to whom then
alone of the gods can this temple have been sacred? Only to Hera-
kles. To be sure, neither history nor tradition tells us anything of
a Herakleion upon the Akropolis; but what further proof of its ex-
istence do we need than these same two pediments, especially since
we know that the Attic people anciently worshiped him as a god,
and since both tradition and monuments of every sort reveal the
intimate relation in which he stood to the guardian goddess of the
city ? But in regard to this little temple it is easy to understand
why tradition should be silent; for the Persians doubtless destroyed
it, and after the war the Athenians had something better to do
than to rebuild the temple of a divinity that had now become spe-
cifically Dorian. So the very site of the Herakleion was obliter-
ated and forgotten—perhaps even taken by some other building.
Thus we have made the acquaintance of a temple of whose ex-
parts of Herakles and Iolaos, for example, are flesh-colored, while eyes, hair and
beard of Iolaos (Herakles' head is lost) are black. The Hydra's heads are a bright
green, while its opened mouths are red. A peculiar feature in the Typhon pediment
is the blue-bearded giant. Both the reliefs are produced in the colors of the original
in the “Denkmäler des Instituts,” I, 30.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A THENS. 497
istence on the Akropolis no more is known. But it is not the only
one unknown to literature among the temples belonging to that
period. For besides these poros pediment reliefs two others have
been found. The first represents (P.L. v), like the relief above
described, the struggle of Herakles with the Old Man of the Sea,
but it is larger than the other, and the combatants in this, the larger
relief, occupy the left wing of the pediment, while the correspond-
ing figures of the smaller one are intended for the right. This
time we find the spectator of the contest still preserved—a creat-
ure, man above and snake below, holding in his right hand an
eagle, the symbol of royalty. This regal personage is in all prob-
ability Kekrops himself, who is here present as umpire,"just as we
find him in the west pediment of the Parthenon.
And again the corresponding pediment is not wanting; it repre-
sents the battle of Zeus with the “Tptodºuatos Tvdºs ""—the
Fig. 2. —The Serpent (Echidna) in the pediment.
triple-bodied Typhon. Typhon is represented as a monster with
three human bodies furnished with three pairs of wings and ter-
minating below the breast in three great snaky coils that ulti-
mately unite inextricably in one; growing from its bodies smaller
serpents writhe and hiss. Filling the other angle of the pediment
is a giant serpent, in which, participating as it does in this mighty
conflict, we are perhaps to recognize Echidna, Typhon's spouse
(fig. 2). From the middle of the pediment we see Zeus and Her-
akles hastening from the heights of Olympos against their mon-
strous foes—the father of light and his son, in human form and
in the service of mankind, rushing on to overthrow the unre-
* Cf. Marm. Par. 1; Apollop. III, 14, 1 sq.; Paus. 1, 2, 6; Hygin, Fab. 48;
Euseb., Chron, 6, 22, etc.
* EUR., H. F. 1258.

498 WALTER MILLER.
strained Vulcanic forces that threatened to confound the order of
the universe. e
Here again are two pediment reliefs of the same material, of pre-
cisely the same dimensions, and of the same style; the represen-
tations also are not without connection. These two also unques-
tionably belonged to one and the same building. We can only
guess that this building may have been a temple to Zeus, perhaps
to Zeus Polieus, who, as we know, had a cult on the Akropolis,
and whose altar and statues—the primitive one and beside it the
new statue by Leochares—were seen by Pausanias (I, 24, 4). At
any rate, it seems certain that the worship of Zeus upon the
Akropolis of Athens is as old as that of Athena herself. He is
the greatest of the gods everywhere. To him Athena vows the
sacrifice of a bull if she shall vanquish Poseidon in the contest,
and to him she pays her vow. His importance may once have
been greater than that of his daughter, but certain it is that at
Athens, however great it once was, the worship of Zeus gradually
paled into comparative insignificance before that of the vanquisher
of the god of the sea. * ,
In the first paragraph concerning these ancient reliefs, it was
stated that they were at least older than Peisistratos. To give an
exact date for their creation is, of course, impossible. The con-
ception, especially of the Hydra relief, is worthy of a great master;
for it is a matter of no small significance that every position, even
down to the finest details, has an excellent motive. Still, we are
fully justified by other considerations, such as that of execution,
in assigning to these reliefs a somewhat earlier date than the first
half of the sixth century.” Earlier than that time, to be sure,
even the temples of the gods were usually built of wood and other
perishable material; but temples adorned by pediment reliefs of
stone were never built of wood and sun-dried bricks but of stone.
A temple of stone, however, earlier than the sixth century B. G.,
is not an altogether inconceivable thing. Furthermore, these
reliefs have no figure directly under the angle in the middle of the
pediment, as have the pediments of the temple of Aigina, of the
treasure house of the Megarians at Olympia, and probably also of
the old Polias temple on the Akropolis. The poros pediments, how-
* This is the date assigned by MEIER, Mitth. Athen, X, 323.
A History of THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 499
ever, were wrought at an earlier time, before it had become the
established rule to put into the middle of the pediment the
principal figure of the group adorning it. This feature, together
with the composition, the coloring and the style as compared with
the pediment group made for the Polias temple under Peisistratos
adequately warrant us in dating our reliefs far back into the
seventh century before our era. -
With regard to the third temple earlier than Peisistratos’ day—
the old temple of Athena—with regard to this we can reach
results more definite and certain. The credit of having discov-
ered the remains of this temple belongs to Wilhelm Dörpfeld.
Only the foundations with a part of the stylobate are still preserved
in situ between the Erechtheion and the Parthenon (see PL. III);
but there are elsewhere scattered architectural pieces of the build-
ing in number sufficient to enable us, with Dörpfeld's help, to
picture, at least with a certain degree of accuracy, how the tem-
ple must have looked. - -
In the north wall of the Akropolis, a little to the west of the
Erechtheion, are to be seen quite a large number of architectural
fragments of the temple; still others are found in the south
wall, all of which have contributed not a little to its reconstruc-
tion. These fragments consist of drums and capitals of columns,
architrave-blocks, triglyphs and cornices—all of poros stone—and
metopes of marble. From the dimensions of these fragments
and of the foundations Dörpfeld has proved not only that they
belonged to one and the same building, but also that that building
was a hexastyle peripteral, with six columns at each end and
twelve on each side—the corner columns being, of course, counted
twice. As the remaining pieces of stylobate show, the columns
stood, like those of the Heraion at Olympia, upon a platform
only one step high, instead of three, as the rule is. Such was its
appearance in general.
The ground-plan (PL. III) reveals unmistakably 1) in the east-
ern end, besides the pronaos, a cella, which is divided by two rows
of columns into three parts—nave and aisles, like a Christian
church. In this respect this older temple is precisely like the later
Parthenon. Completely separated by a solid wall from the east-
ern half is found 2) the opisthodomos, forming the western half of
500 - WALTER MILLER.
the temple. . In this respect again it is precisely like the Parthenon.
In one point only does the inner arrangement of the older temple
differ from that of the Parthenon: the latter has as opisthodomos a
single large room preceded by a pronaos, while the western end of
the former contains, besides the pronaos and cella proper, two
Smaller chambers * adjoining but not connected with the cella on
the east. The eastern cella was, of course, the sacred shrine of
the goddess; but what purpose did the back rooms serve 7
This question is answered fully and unequivocally by official
documents, inscriptions of earlier as well as of later date than
the Persian wars. The whole opisthodomos was the treasury of
Athens. In the large room to the west (E) the state-funds were
kept; this was certainly the case after the Persian wars and proba-
bly also from the very beginning. In the smaller chamber to the
right, that is, the room on the south side (G), were preserved the
moneys of Athena and in the left room (F) those of the other gods.”
Furthermore, if we examine the foundation walls more closely,
we are struck by another fact of peculiar interest, namely, that the
temple originally possessed no peristyle at all. For, in the first
place, the foundations that supported the stylobate are of different
material from those of the inner temple: the latter are built of
the blue limestone taken from the Akropolis itself; the former are
constructed of the hard Peiraieus stone. This difference of itself
at once suggests with strong probability the inference that the vads
proper is older than the peristyle and this a later addition. But
there is a further point of difference that is of still greater signifi-
cance: the substructure of the cella, the inner Sanctuary, shows
faint indications of a striving toward horizontal courses in the
masonry, though in reality the effort has succeeded only with the
uppermost stones and at the corners.” The foundation walls of
the colonnade, however, are at the bottom polygonal and Scarcely
hewn, but above they are carefully cut with both horizontal and
vertical surfaces and neatly fitted.
All the circumstances connected with the discovery of the vari-
ous parts of this temple, and especially of those parts built into
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XI, p. 340.
* CIA. I, 32; DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XII, p. 38.
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XI, pp. 345–346.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 501
the Akropolis walls, show that it belongs to a time previous to the
Persian wars. When the vads was built we can never discover,
but with reference to the peristyle we have more exact chronolog-
ical criteria: the substructure is with respect to material and
technique precisely like the foundations of the Olympieion at
Athens, which, as is well known, were laid by Peisistratos, as well
as those of other buildings of the same date.” We shall be en-
tirely safe, therefore, in concluding that it was in the age of Peisi-
stratos that the peristyle was added to the old temple, and the
style of the architectural fragments of the upper parts also of the
colonnade is strongly corroborative of this conclusion.
The pediment of this new peristyle was ornamented with a plastic
group—Athena in the battle of the gods against the giants.” The
Athena herself is partly preserved (PL. VI), and her position
shows that the battle is already decided in her favor. Her enemy—
£nkelados ()—is also not entirely lost.” And in addition to these
we may with Studniczka" recognize in the giant warrior striding
toward the (spectator's) left some other deity participating in the
fight. -
There prevails in all the fragments a degree of vigor and anima-
tion far surpassing that found in the AEginetan marbles. Above
all is this true of the Athena. The large, rounded, somewhat
protruding eyes of the Peisistratic Athena seem hardly in keeping
“with the delicate softness of her cheeks and the exquisitely
fashioned lips; ”" but that incongruity disappears when we con-
sider that the artist, in fashioning those eyes as he did, was count-
ing upon the effect of height and distance and has presented to
us, accordingly, in corporeal reality the epithets y\avicóTts and
yopya Tts 'A6muff." Still, the animation and vigor of the Peisi-
stratic pediment, over against the cold formality and lifelessness of
the AEginetan pediments, are not sufficient cause for assigning, as
has been done," an earlier date to the AEginetans than to these
fragments from the Akropolis. Another consideration of far more
* E. g., the older temple at Eleusis.
* The fragments are published by STUDNICZKA, Mitth. Athen, x1, p. 187.
* STUDNICZKA, frag. 9a–12.
* L. c., p. 180.
” STUDNICZKA, l.c., pp. 196–197.
502 WALTER MILLER.
importance than vigor of conception and of execution has been
overlooked, namely the acquaintance of the Æginetan artists with
human anatomy and the skill with which the details of all the
forms are worked out. This it is that marks the more advanced
stage of artistic development and in this the AEginetan sculptures
are vastly superior to the fragments of Peisistratos’ pediment.
So the AEginetans will keep the place they have so long occupied,
about 470 B. C., and the fragments of the Akropolis pediment will
take their place in the latter part of the VI century. Earlier than
Peisistratos (560–527) they cannot be, for the foundations of that
part of the building on which they stood will not admit of an
earlier date. Of the later date their style will not admit.
Since, then, everything points with unmistakable evidence to
the time of Peisistratos, can we not make him himself responsible
for the extension and improvement of the temple with its colon-
nade and plastic decoration ? He stood, as we well know, in a
close relation to Athena; he moved his royal residence into her
sacred enclosure; he was the first to stamp the coin of Attika with
Athena's head; it was he who so enriched her cultus by the intro-
duction of the Great Panathenaia with their magnificent proces-
sion and the presentation of the peplos. Who else in his age than
the great Peisistratos, the lover of art, who did so much beside for
the improvement and adornment of the city of Athena, who else
than he should have added to Athena's temple the colonnade and
the sculptures that in his day were erected 7
Dy the last excavations upon the Akropolis Our acquaintance
with the art of this period has been wonderfully enriched, for
through them inestimable treasures of pre-Persian sculpture have
been brought to light. The “Tanten,” as the Germans call that
row of archaic female statues, about forty in number, are so well
known that they need no more than a passing mention. But it is
worth while to notice that even in this earlier period, before the
beginning of the Persian wars, Athens was an art centre, and that
there were then busy in Athens a great number of sculptors, both
native and foreign, whose works, some with signatures and some
without, have been recovered in comparative abundance from the
débris of the Akropolis. Let me mention, for the sake of example,
only a few such well known names as Endoios of Athens (?), Kle-
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 503
oitas, Aristokles, Aristion of Paros, Kallon and Onatas (Mikon's
son) of Aigina, Theodoros” of Samos (?), Archermos of Chios,”
and Antenor. But through these excavations we have also made
the acquaintance of sculptors who were before entirely unknown
to us; for example, Evenor,” Eleutheros,” Philon,” and many
others. -
Besides these sculptures in marble and stone, a great many
pieces of bronze have been found—some in the round, some in
repoussé;—and we must not forget to mention the terracottas and
the invaluable fragments of vases that have settled forever the fu-
rious strife over the chronology of vase-paintings and vase-
painters.
People are accustomed to picture the Akropolis of this period
to themselves as comparatively empty. But that seems not to
have been the case; we have seen there a stately temple of Athena,
a complex temple of Erechtheus and Athena together, a temple
of Zeus Polieus (?), a Herakleion, and the royal palace of the ruling
prince. But that is not all; even in this archaic period there had
begn gathered together about these sanctuaries in the course of
time a great host of statues and altars and votive offerings of every
sort. The pre-Persian votive inscriptions that have been brought
to light form, we may safely say, the very smallest part of the
whole number that were there before the Persian invasion, and
yet over three hundred of them have been recovered from the ruins
left behind by the barbarians. These votive offerings were the
gifts not only of private individuals, but also of the state. Among
the latter class, though marking the very end of the period under
discussion, the monument.to the heroism of Aristogeiton’s mistress
Leaina, the tongueless lioness in bronze, which survived even the
devastating rage of the Mede and was still seen in the Propylaia
even by Pausanias (I, 23, 2), should not be passed without
mention. -- -
Of no less interest, to, say the least, is the famous bronze quad-
riga, seen by Herodotos (V, 77), and more than half a millennium
later by Pausanias (I, 28, 2). It was erected from the tithes of
Tl CIA. Iv, 2, No. 37890 Tº Ibid., No. 37395
is Ibid., No. 37888-88 14 Ibid., No. 37310. 15 Ibid., No. 37310.
504 WALTER MILLER.
the ransom, two minae per man, paid by the Boeotians and Chal-
cidians for their soldiers taken captive by the Athenians in the
great double victory of 507 B. C. Concerning this monument
many questions have arisen to which the future, we trust, may
find some universally satisfactory answer; for as yet, in the case
of some of the problems, no attempt even has ever been made to
solve them, while others have been answered in every conceivable
way, but are still unsettled. Pausanias" mentions the chariot,
and from the context it is clear that he found it near the so-called
Athena Promachos, between this and the Propylaia. But Hero-
dotos gives us what at first sight seems to be an almost exact
location of this celebrated work of art: Tö 86 (the chariot with its
four horses) &pta Tepºs Xelpös éatmice Tpótov čovávtt és Tà IIporáNata
Tà év Tà 'Akpotſd?vel, which is usually translated: “It stands on
the left just as you enter the Akropolis through the Propylaia.”
But this the Greek by no means says. What the text of Hero-
dotos does say is that “the first thing you see on the left as you
enter the Propylaia is the bronze chariot.” The trouble is that
interpreters have thought of the Propylaia as a gate in a modern
fence, and not as it is, a great building with a deep hall in front
and another in the rear with doors connecting; in other words,
the Propylaia might fairly be called the “vestibule" of the
Akropolis. As Our text stands, then, it cannot be otherwise
translated than substantially in the way I have suggested. If,
then, the reading éaudvti és is correct, Herodotos must mean that
the chariot stood in the Propylaia; for the first thing you see
when you enter a vestibule is not something several rooms
beyond. - -
Now begins the trouble. Weizsäcker” locates the monument
in the east portico of the Propylaia and others have followed him;
Michaelis” mathematically proves this hypothesis to be untenable.
Bursian” with greater probability puts it in the west portico; but
* That he calls it ſpua and not ré0putriros does not, in a writer like Pausanias,
necessarily imply, as has been supposed, that the horses were gone and only the car
Teft, though of course they may have been carried away long before his day.
* Arch. Zeit. xxxiii (1875), p. 46.
* Mitth. Athen, II, pp. 95 sg.
* Litt. Centralblatt, 1875, col. 1080.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 505
no unprejudiced reader of Pausanias’ description of the Akropolis
can grant even the possibility of that. For Pausanias came that
way in order to reach the Pinakotheke, and it is not in accordance
with his strictly topographical method to have passed by so impor-
tant and interesting a monument or one so ancient, and then to
mention it, as it were, in an appendix, after he has made a com-
plete tour of the whole inner Akropolis with its sanctuaries and
its monuments, and is on the point of leaving.
Ernst Curtius” rejects both sites and, emphasizing the future
meaning of eiut, which is often especially strong in the participle,
translates: “as you are on the point of stepping into the Propylaia,
you find on your left the chariot, etc.” In accordance with this in-
terpretation he puts the quadriga immediately in front of the west
portico of the Propylaia. This is just as completely out of har-
mony with Pausanias as the interpretation that brings the quadriga
into the Propylaia; and, furthermore, as Wachsmuth in Fleckei-
sen’s Jahrbücher 1879, pp. 18-23, has proved at length, it is out of
all harmony with Herodotos’ usage of the expression éauduru
(éa toûot éévôutt, Čštoãot, etc.) For when Herodotos says that an
object is éaudutt &ri 8eśud or àptoſtepd without any more exact local
designation,” he always means something on the inside of the en-
closed space of which he is speaking. Moreover the participle of
elut is not only not always strongly future, but is often relatively
present or even past in meaning. Therefore, finding all these at-
tempts to reconcile topographical necessity with the words of He-
rodotos to be futile, Wachsmuth declares the text corrupt and
writes for “ oridvti és Tà IIpotiſvata ?” “ éétdvti Tà IIporáXata " and
places” the monument, as other topographers” do, in exact con-
formity to the description of Pausanias, on the left side of the road
from the Erechtheion to the Propylaia, and not far from the latter.
Dut are not all these scholars taking some things for granted
that are by no means so very certain 7 Is it certain, as all these
Imen assume, that Herodotos is talking about the Mnesiklean
* Arch. Zeit. XXXIII, pp. 54 sg.
81 Cf. also HDT. 1, 51.
* See also WACHSMUTH, Stadt Athen, I, p. 150.
* Cf. MICHAELIS, Mitth. Athen, II, p. 96; LEAKE, Topogr. of Athens, I, p. 351;
BAEHR, Ad Halt. V, 77.
506 - WALTER MILLER.
Propylaia, built 437–432? Granting that Herodotos returned to
Athens after the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, is it not
possible, or even probable, that the fifth book was finished before
his return ?” And if so, how can we know that he altered this
one sentence so as to apply to the change in the entrance to the
Akropolis : If, then, Herodotos had in mind the older Propylaia,
all these great Germans are quarreling over a difficulty that does
not exist. These questions can perhaps never receive a final
answer. But so much may be said, that while Herodotos may
possibly have been acquainted with the Propylaia of Mnesikles,
he certainly was well acquainted with the older Propylaia; and if
he had that in mind when writing the passage in question, then
there is no difficulty either of fact or of interpretation.
If our text of Herodotos is correct—and the burden of proof
rests upon those who deny it—then the chariot must have stood
in the old Propylaia, or just in front of it. In it there was an
abundance of room even for this colossal monument; and when
84 KIRCHHoFF (in his exceedingly able and keenly critical essay Ueber die Abfass-
wngszeit des Herodotischen Geschichtswerks, 2d edition, Berlin, 1878, pp. 12–18),
proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the first two and a half books of Herodotos’
history were written in Athens, before his departure for Thurioi in 443–2, and he
makes it equally clear that from III, 119 to about V, 77 (the passage in which men-
tion is made of the Propylaia), was written at Thurioi before his return to Athens,
432–1. But, with the exception of this one unfortunate passage (W, 77), there is:
nothing whatever in his history to indicate that Herodotos ever saw Athens again
until we come to VI, 98. For my part, I do not think that we have any sufficient.
grounds for supposing that he ever came back to Athens at all. Kirchhoff, further-
more, overlooks entirely the fact that there was an older Propylaia, and thus fails to.
see the possibility that Herodotos may be speaking of that, just as, in his first edition,
he had proved that Herodotos was in Athens in 431–30 by the historian's mention.
(VII, 162) of a funeral oration by Perikles; this funeral oration he at once identifies.
as the famous oration over the dead of 431–30, overlooking the fact that Perikles had
delivered another funeral oration some nine years earlier over those who had fallen
in the campaign against Samos; and this, according to Kirchhoff himself, in his
second edition (p. 19, note), is the one referred to by Herodotos. Upon the hypothesis.
that Herodotos is speaking of that older Propylaia, our passage is 'easily explained
and understood without the supposition that when he wrote it he had already
returned from Italy. To me, therefore, it seems more than possible that our passage.
was written before Herodotos saw the new building at the entrance to the Akropolis.
(if he ever really did return from Thurioi), and that he afterward failed to note the
change. Such an oversight would not be in the least surprising; even Thukydides.
neglected to correct his statement that there had never been but one earthquake felt.
on the island of Delos (THUK. II, 8; cf. HDT. WI, 98), although he certainly must.
have discovered his mistake before his work was done. -
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 507
Perikles and Mnesikles began with their new plan and removed
almost all traces of the older gateway, the chariot, whether it stood
actually inside or immediately in front of it, had to be moved and
it was moved to a new site not far away. It was set up upon a
In eVW basis—perhaps the substructure 23–3 metres long, still to be
recognized near that of the so-called Athena Promachos (see PL.
III)—and the inscription was renewed upon it. I say renewed, for
a part of the new inscription is still preserved and the letters bear
the character of the latter part of the Periklean age.” In addi-
tion to this remnant of the renewed inscription we have also the
recently discovered fragment of the older inscription in charac-
ters that antedate by not a few years the age of Perikles.
Still there is another question that must be considered here—
the date of the quadriga's erection. Was it set up immediately
after the victory, that is, in 507–506 If so, how did so valuable
a piece of metal escape the devastations and the greed of the
Persians? 'Tis true the Leaina was neither destroyed nor carried
away; but in the case of the chariot we have no evidence. The
inscriptions we possess are certainly considerably later than 507;
was the monument also, as well as the inscriptions, first made at
a later date 7 Or was the original inscription alone twice in turn,
perhaps, replaced with the newer ones which we have And if
the monument was erected in 507, perhaps it was destroyed or
carried away by the barbarians, and what both Herodotos and
Pausanias saw was a copy of the older statue, like the group of
Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Perhaps, however, the Persians
only overturned and damaged the old monument of 507, which
was thereupon repaired by the Athenians and provided with a
new inscription—the older one of the two that have come down
* The epigram, given entire by Herodotos (v, 77), is as follows:
"Eðvea Bowróv kal XaXktöéov Šapdoravres
IIaºes 'A6HNAION "EPTMAaw év troXéuov
Aergº èv ćx\včevrt otömpé4 afterau téptu
Tây YIIIIOTX AEKAT) v IIa)\\d.öv ráo 6’ 36eoray.
The Periklean inscription (CIA. I, 384; in fac-simile, KIRCHHoFF, Monatsbe-
richte der Berl. Akad. der Wiss. 1869, pp. 409 sq.) was complete in two long lines,
each containing one hexameter and one pentameter, and the letters preserved are
these : . . . . . . . mvalwv čpypa . . . . . .
* @ e º e º 'º trirós 6eká . . . . . . .
508 WALTER MILLER.
to us. And perhaps again, like the “Promaghos,” it was never
erected at all until long after the event it was intended to com-
memorate. This last again is Kirchhoff’s hypothesis,” and he
finds no more fitting occasion for its creation than Perikles’ victory
over the sons of those same Boeotians and Euboeans in 446 B. c.87
It is, however, apart from the fact that we have the inscription in
letters much older than 446, extremely improbable that through
all these subsequent wars with their neighbors, the life and death
struggle with the powers of Asia, and the accomplishment of their
stupendous building projects which followed—that through all
these sixty years of vicissitude and unexampled outlay, such a
fund could have been sacredly kept apart for its original purpose.
Thus we have established several things beyond fear of suc-
cessful contradiction: 1) Herodotos is undoubtedly speaking of
the pre-Periklean Propylaia. 2) The chariot and horses he
describes stood in his day in the old Propylaia or, if we take the
participle éaudutt in its future meaning, just in front of the old
Propylaia. 3) The monument in question changed sites at least
once and possibly twice: a) Before the Persian wars it may have
stood not far from the west front of the old Athena temple, where,
as we know, were hung the fetters in which the captive Boeotians
and Chalcidians had been kept bound, which fetters formed a part
of the same votive offering as the quadriga (Hdt. V. 77), b) The
Persians may have destroyed the original monument or carried
it away with them, in which case a new one as nearly as possible
like the old was made to take its place and set up in or in front
of the old Propylaia; or they may only have broken and injured
the old monument, in which case it was repaired, provided with
a new inscription—the older of the two we have—and set up in
the place where Herodotos saw it—in or in front of the old Pro-
pylaia; or else it may possibly not have been erected at all until
after the Persian wars, in which case it would have occupied the
place indicated by Herodotos, and to it would have belonged our
older inscription. c) When the new Propylaia was built, the
* L. c., p. 414.
* Dr. Dörpfeld has kindly called my attention to the fact that, since the discovery
of the older inscription, Kirchhoff, in a short article in the Abh. d. Berl. Akad.
(1889), has withdrawn unreservedly from his former position.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 509
monument was moved into the Akropolis proper and again pro-
vided with a new inscription—the later one of the two we have;
and here it was that Pausanias saw it.
VI.--THE PERSIANS IN ATHENS.
The year 510 B. C., witnessed the overthrow of the last of the
sons of Peisistratos. With the fall of Hippias the magnificent
architectural enterprises of his father's house camé to a stand-still.
The political revolutions that followed the expulsion of the tyrants
left the Athenians no time for improving and beautifying their
city, and soon the foreign foe demanded for another decade or
two their exclusive attention.
It was in the year 500 B. C. that Dareios decreed the utter de-
struction of Athens. Athos and Marathon were his only reward.
It is familiar to every school-boy how, when in 480 B. G. the Per-
sians again approached, only a few aged and helpless Athenians
along with the priests and their attendants sought safety in the
Akropolis. This handful of people, for the most part unfit for
war, took refuge behind the old “Pelasgic * fortifications of their
citadel, barricaded the old approach, and then for a long time,
weak as they were, held out against the countless hordes of the
barbarians. The hosts of Asia directed their attack from the
Areiopagos, as centuries before the Amazons had done; they
burned the palisade—the “wooden walls,” in which the defenders
had persuaded themselves to put their trust—and still, with all
their numbers, the citadel could not be taken. Only by scaling
the wall in an undefended spot, the point above the Aglaurion on
the north side, where because of the steepness of the cliffs nô one
had thought that they could climb up,” the Persians finally ob-
tained possession of the fortress. And then the sacred enclosure
with all its sanctuaries and the fortifications which still stood was
burned and, as far as possible, destroyed; * the hundreds of stat-
ues and other votive offerings that had been gathered about the
temples were either carried away by the rapacious barbarian Or,
in case their material could be turned to no account, thrown down
* HDT. VIII, 52; see p. 484.
* Ibid. 53 : to ipêv avXīgavres évérongay Trāorav Tiju 'AkpótroXtv K. T. N.
510 WALTER MILLER.
and mutilated; even the pedestals did not escape the devastating
rage of the Persian. The ruin was complete. -
Accordingly, a few days later, after the retreat of the invaders
which followed their overwhelming defeat at Salamis, the return-
ing Athenians beheld amongst the ruins of their sacred rock only
a few dismantled, smoke-blackened walls; perhaps the most of the
great columns of the largest temple there, the Temple of Athena,
were still standing; for the Persians in all probability could not
destroy the whole edifice to its very foundations. They burned
what could be burned, and broke in pieces what they could ; but
the temple walls and the columns were for the greater part left
standing. That is obvious, even to the most casual observer, from
the present condition of the architrave, triglyphs, metopes and cor-
nice pieces built into the north wall of the Akropolis. These archi-
tectural members of the ancient temple, built into the wall in
the manner in which we now find them, were not taken from the
ruins of a collapsed building, but as the state of their preservation
shows, they were carefully taken down from a building yet stand-
ing and placed with evident design in the position that they now
occupy. Indeed, with the means at their command, the Persian
soldiers would not have been able to destroy utterly a temple of
the magnitude of the Hekatompedon; they could only set it on
fire and deface it. As long as gunpowder was unknown, the de-
struction of buildings in time of war could be complete only when
they were of wood or other light material. To realize this fully,
let us think, for example, of the temple at Corinth, of which, albeit
the city was so many times completely destroyed, so much is still
standing.”
Immediately after their return from Salamis, the Athenians
proceeded to restore temporarily their temples and their altars.
New buildings were, for the present, entirely out of the question;
for in the very next year (September, 479 B. C.), owing to the
treacherous policy of Sparta, the Akropolis fell a second time into
the hands of Mardonios, who at first spared Attika purposely, still
cherishing the hope of winning the Athenians over to his side;
but when he failed in this, he then destroyed everything that had
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, xy, p. 424.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 511
chanced to escape in the preceding year.” Again returning from
their temporary exile, the Athenians had not much more than a
great heap of debris where once the glories of the age of Peisis-
tratos had shone. How complete the destruction was we have most
eloquent witnesses in the statues and architectural pieces, which,
during the last few years, have again come forth from the ruin then
Created. - - * * * •
But when the enemy was gone and Hellas again breathed freely,
the brave “sons of the Athenians” resolved that their old Kekro-
pia should rise from its ashes in a new and brighter glory than
their fathers had ever dreamed of Themistokles, indeed, the
great man who had safely piloted his country through the storms
of 480–478, and who for centuries left the stamp of his genius so
indelibly impressed upon the history and policy of Athens, tried
to induce his countrymen to abandon their ruined homes and
found a new empire about the Peiraieus Bay. But it proved even
more difficult to persuade the Athenians to leave their Akropolis
with its shrines and sacred memories than it was to win the
Romans a century later from the ruins of their Palatine and
Capitol to a new and fairer home at Veii; and there, like the
Romans, they staid, determined to see the magnificence of their
new plans realized. - -
VII.—THE REBUILDING.—THEMISTOKLES-K|MON.
The Akropolis lay in ashes. It was a spot as worthy of a
glorious resurrection as the need was great. On the very spot
where the enemy had vented their wildest fury and in barbarian
insolence had outraged the goddess herself, there the new splendor
was most loudly to proclaim how Athens, with the help of the
gods, whose sanctuaries had been burned, had fought and won
against countless odds and laid the foundations of undreamed-of
glory.” . . . .
The leaders knew, however, that before all these plans should
be accomplished a number of years must pass. In the first place,
* HDT. IX, 13 : Jirešex&pse éuirpìa as rās 'Affivas kai et koč ri épôv fiv Tów reixáow
rów olkmudrov rôv ipów, Távra karaffaxºv kal avyx&gas—except, as we learn from
Thukydides I, 89, 3, the few houses occupied by the Persian officers.
* Cf. WACHSMUTH, Stadt Athen, I, p. 589. -
512 WALTER MILLER.
the whole lower city was to be surrounded with a wall, in order
that in future the inhabitants might not be compelled, at the
approach of a dangerous enemy, to flee from their country and
leave their homes and the temples of their gods to be mercilessly
plundered and burned.” And in the next place, they were to
adorn anew the sacred hill of Athena. Accordingly, they found
it necessary to restore their temples and altars again only tempo-
rarily in a manner snfficing merely for the barest necessity. This
includes, of course, the ancient temple of Athena as well as that
of Erechtheus; for it were absurd to suppose that from the time
of the Persian wars until the completion of the Parthenon—forty
years—the protecting goddess of the city should have remained
in total want of any sort of temple, or that the Athenians, espe-
cially during this period, when the amount of their public moneys
and the number of their votive offerings increased so vastly,
should have remained so long without a treasury in which to
preserve them. Will any one interpose that the old Erechtheion
may have been used for that purpose ? No; for, in the first
place, it was too small; in the second place, it served other pur-
poses; and besides, on what possible grounds should we suppose
that that sanctuary should be restored sooner than the temple of
Athena The conclusion is irresistible: the Hekatompedon must
have been restored at once. Still no attempt was made to restore
the ancient splendor of the old building, for the very reason that
they had already begun to build on the more splendid new temple
of the Polias. Therefore, paying no attention whatever to the
colonnade or other outward ornament, they simply put the cella
and the opisthodomos in order and made the necessary repairs.
That the colonnade was entirely disregarded we can plainly see
from the fact that when they came to rebuild the Erechtheion,
nothing stood in the way of their placing the porch of the Korai
immediately upon the pillarless stylobate of the old Hekatompedon.
In just what the repairs consisted we can only surmise: a new
roof, of course, was necessary as well as new doors; the holes in the
walls were filled up and perhaps the whole building repainted.
And then once more the treasure of Athena and the vessels and
other utensils used in the Sacred processions found secure keeping
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, x1, p. 168.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 513
in the old opisthodomos, and here were deposited in 454 B. c. the
funds of the Confederacy, which were in that year transferred from
Delos to Athens.”
Bven these repairs, however, as I have said, were only tempo-
rary; for Themistokles had, perhaps, already planned the recon-
struction both of all the sanctuaries of the Akropolis and of its
circumscribing wall, and had begun to adorn in a manner worthy
of such a capital the city that had now become the head of Hellas.
A more favorable opportunity could never be offered than that
which now came to Themistokles and his three great successors.
Architecture, sculpture and painting were just on the eve of their
first full perfection and glory; the people were elated by the fame
of their glorious city; their navies ruled the seas; their harbor was
the market place of the Grecian world; the tribute of a hundred
cities and islands was poured into the coffers of Athens; the finest
marble for the new works was to be had within a few miles of the
city in almost inexhaustible quantities; and Athens was not want-
ing in the minds to conceive the plans nor the artists to execute
them.9% -
JBut only after the entire completion of the strong defensory wall
about the city could Themistokles proceed to the work of adorn-
ing the citadel. Whether he himself began this work and really
built the north Wall which bears his name is not certain. At
any rate, Kimon, if, indeed, he did not conceive the plan, carried
forward the work, and the recent excavations have made it evident
that he should be accredited with completing a greater portion of
the great plan than has been heretofore attributed to him. To be
sure, the most of the glory justly belongs to Perikles and his great
artists; theirs it was to give to the Akropolis of Athens that ra-
diance which made it for all time the centre of art for the world.
Dut even the project that Kimon began to realize calls for our
admiration and our wonder, not only on account of its magnitude,
but on account of its political significance as well. It is an elo-
quent witness of the great national “boom,” as we should call it,
that followed upon the Persian wars.
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, xII, p. 200.
* Cf. CURTIUS, Die Akropolis von Athen, pp. 7–8.
514 x- WALTER MILLER.
They must, above all things, erect to the honor of their guardian.
goddess, Athena Polias, a magnificent temple exceeding in grand-
eur anything that Hellas had ever known. And to the adequate
fulfilment of this purpose the first necessity was to surround the
whole Akropolis on the outermost edge of the rock with a mighty,
massive wall, which should serve not merely as a wall of defense,
but even more as a supporting wall for the mass of stone and earth
that was to raise and level the whole citadel to a single great
plateau sloping from the middle gradually down to the splendid
portal at the lower, western end.” In the execution of this plan
the ruins of the older buildings destroyed by the Persians were
turned to most excellent service. To utilize them for the new
buildings was of course out of the question, for these were all to
be of marble, while without exception all the pre-Persian buildings
were of poros, having, at most, a few single architectural designs
of marble. But for his great Akropolis wall Kimon made unlim-
ited use of all sorts of fragments from the old dismantled temples
—ashlar blocks, pieces of entablature, drums of columns, in short
all sorts of old building material. It is also for the most part
easily recognizable that in the employment of such material they
endeavored not to have the old building material appear as such,
but, by working off their former outlines, to make them look as
much like the new squared building stone of the wall as possible.”
Such is the case, for example, with the thirteen poros drums from
the colonnade of the Hekatompedon that are built into the South
Wall above the theatre and the Asklepieion; for their new purpose
they were worked over into cubic blocks in such a way that only
single flutings on the corners betray the end they originally served.
On the other hand, however, when we find those architectural
members of that same old Athena temple built, without the stroke
of a chisel, into the north wall and in the most conspicuous spot
about the whole Akropolis, we may be sure that some definite ob-
ject, higher than the mere utilization of old material was aimed
at by the builders. These portions of epistyle with the corre-
sponding triglyphs, metopes, cornice, drums and capitals, were, as
before remarked, carefully taken down and built into this wall in
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, x1, p. 165.
97 Ibid. * -
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 515
precisely the same order and relative position that they had
occupied on the old temple of the Polias; and since this is
true, their present arrangement, or even their presence in the
wall in their original form, is not due, as most people since Leake
have thought, to the haste in which the wall was thrown together
by Themistokles, but they were deliberately planned and carefully
set up in the most conspicuous part of the wall on the north side
of the Akropolis toward the city proper, to serve not only as an
Ornament to the wall, but also as an “eternal reminder to the
people of the national hatred toward the Barbarians.” -
The manner and method on which they proceeded in the con-
struction of this great retaining wall—for such the whole Kimo-
nian wall is—and the filling which it was intended to support are
clearly shown by the subjoined photographs (PL. VII). The
builders did not first construct the wall to its full height and then
fill in the triangular space behind it with earth and débris, but on
technical grounds, to make the wall the stronger and save scaf.
folding besides, as soon as they had put up two or three courses
of ashlar the space behind was filled up with stones of the great-
est variety: many an old building stone which, on account of its
irregular form, or because it had been too badly injured in the
late catastrophe, could not be used in any of the new works, found
a place here as filling. Converted to the same purpose we find
mutilated statues, fractured pedestals, broken slabs containing in-
scriptions, and all sorts of other ruins that lay at hand upon the
Akropolis. What else could they have done with such rubbish?
A statue minus head or arms or legs was at that time as worth-
less as, for instance, a broken piece of cornice or a cracked drum
from a column. Behind the Akropolis wall, accordingly, with the
rest of the debris left by the Persians, that invaluable array of
archaic statues has lain buried all these centuries, preserved against
the destroying hand of time and of vandal, and awaiting resur-
rection in these latter days. -
| Such were the component parts of the first stratum of the fill-
ing material behind the new wall. Over this stratum of stones
and fragments of every description they spread a layer of earth,
* BEULí, L'Acropole d'Athènes I, p. 97.
516 WALTER MILLER.
in order that the workmen in laying up the next course of the
wall might have a better platform on which to stand, while at the
same time the earth served to make both wall and filling more
solid. And while the workmen hewed and trimmed the blocks.
of stone in the next course, this layer of earth itself in turn be-
came covered with a thin stratum of splinters chipped from the
poros blocks of which the wall is built.
The mass of filling piled inside and against the Kimonian wall
consists, therefore, as may be clearly seen in the photographs (PL.
VII), of a repeated succession of three distinct, approximately hori-
Zontal strata, composed by turns of 1) comparatively large pieces
of stone, 2) earth, and 3) chips of poros.” In many places also the
old “ Pelasgian * wall, lying inside Kimon’s new wall, was covered
up in the process of building and so itself also served as filling.
To make clear the relative position of the mass of débris used in
grading up the Akropolis to the magnificent plateau as we know it,
let me make use of Dr. Dörpfeld’s illustration: “Let us compare
the vertical section of the natural rock of the Akropolis with the
vertical section of an ordinary gable-roofed house. The sides of
the house correspond to the steep sides of the Akrop-
olis, and the oblique lines of the roof to the upper / N
surface of the hill, gently sloping, as it originally -
did, from the middle toward the two sides [–thus:
Now let us suppose the vertical walls of the
house raised to the height of the ridge-pole [–thus: Dº - - - - - - - - - -:
and we have what corresponds to Kimon’s wall; fill \;
in the two triangular spaces thus made, and we have *
the Akropolis as it was when the wall was finished.”
The wall itself, which was probably not fully com-
pleted until Perikles' time, is in accordance with its designation
as a revetment for the embankment behind it, very different in
different places. Along the temenos of the Brauronian Artemis, for
example, and adjoining it on the east, the live rock of the Akrop-
olis extends on a level plane almost to the south wall, and this is
true to a large extent on the north side as well; so that in these
places there was no need of a retaining wall, for there was nothing
* DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XI, pp. 166–7.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF A THENS. 517
to fill up except a few fissures and crevices, and we find there,
about the upper edge of the rock, an ornamental wall rather than
a revetment. On the other hand, in front of the Parthenon, in
the southeast corner of the Akropolis, the rock inclines rather
steeply to the South and here a deposit of earth on a gigantic scale
was found necessary. And as a matter of fact, the piles of earth
and stone in this quarter were from ten to fourteen metres high.
Commensurate with such a mass the wall, which, as far as it can
be seen, is based immediately upon the rock, is not less than 15 to
16 metres high and 6.60 to 7.20 metres thick—capable of resist-
ing an enormous pressure from the earth piled up within.
In this way the upper surface of the Akropolis was increased by
about one-fifth its former size and assumed an essentially different
appearances from that which it had presented before. In the
course of this essay we have seen that ancient, rugged, chasm-
rent rock filled up so as to present a series of little plateaus; we
Thave seen it occupied by dwellings and smaller sanctuaries; we
have discovered there a splendid royal palace and a gigantic,
nine-gated fortress; in the age of the despots there arose a stately
temple and probably other buildings; but with all this, the gen-
eral form of the hill had been but little affected — a ridge
above, sloping down to precipitous sides. But with the addition
of Kimon’s wall the whole appearance of the Akropolis is changed;
it is now one great plateau, sloping only from the middle to the
portal in the west.
What now, we next ask, did Kimon build upon the plateau
thus obtained 7 First of all, as a memorial of the glorious strug-
gle just past, this unwearying old Persian-fighter had Pheidias
construct from the booty that fell into the hands of the Athenians
at Marathon " the far-famed, colossal statue of Athena in bronze
–the so-called Athena Promachos. The epithet Promachos,
like Parthenos, is of comparatively late origin; earlier she is
1<nown as “the (large) bronze Athena” or, “the Athena of
"Or with the Persian gold that the arch-traitor, Arthmios, brought with him to
Hellas with which to Medise his fellow-countrymen. Cf. DEM. xix, 271; DIN-
ARCH, II, 24.
*ARISTIDES L, p. 408, 15. I; PAUs. Ix, 4, 1; DEM. XIx, 271; Ov. Eac Pon-
zło, IV, 1, 31.
518 * - WALTER MILLER.
Marathon.” * Unfortunately we can gain from ancient literature
and, art no exact knowledge with reference either to the location
or to the pose of this famous statue. Regarding the first ques-
tion, topographers have usually, and with probable correctness,
identified as the basis of the Promachos the large, rectangular
pedestal, in part still preserved, about halfway between the Propy-
laia and the old temple of Athena (PL. III). The Second question
presents still greater difficulty; on this point the ancient authors
are silent and the evidence of the few bronze coins in existence
with representations of the Akropolis are utterly untrustworthy,
for they present now a warrior-goddess with wildly brandished
spear and uplifted shield, and again a peaceful goddess of the Par-
thenos type with spear and shield resting at her side and with a
Nike on her hand. We are, therefore, left to our own devices
to restore the monument. We know that the statue was colos-
sal; this our sources tell us;* but how high it was can never be
told; we know only that without the pedestal its height was less
than sixty feet. And it seems to me, in accordance with the data
we have, most probable that the goddess stood armed, looking
directly toward Salamis, where she had given her people the last
assistance within their own territory against the barbarian hosts.
In her right hand she held her lance, not brandished aloft, as many
have supposed, but planted upright upon the ground beside her
with the point projecting slightly above her helmet's crest.” Her
shield also, which Mys, the famous engraver, about a generation
later adorned with a Kentauromachia and other scenes” after
drawings by Parrhasios, she supported with her left hand, while
the lower rim rested upon the ground; held otherwise, the effect
of this new ornamentation by Mys, which was certainly intended
to be seen, would have been entirely lost.
The old fortifications on the west were, as we have already
seen, as far as it was possible in the case of so massive a structure
and with the means at their command, dismantled by the Per-
19% ARISTIDES XLVI, p. 218, 8 I. -
* PAUs. 1, 28, 2; Ix, 4, 1; PLIN. xxxiv, 54; DEM. XIX, 271.
*This seems to me to be stated by PAUs. I, 28, 2, beyond the possibility of a
misunderstanding.
105 PAUs., loc. cit.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 519
sians. It must, therefore, have been one of Kimon's first tasks
to make the citadel as impregnable again as it had been before.
And that the old gateway was not essentially changed, but only
repaired and perhaps improved in outward appearance—of that
we have sufficient proof in the remains. In the angle formed by
the southwest wing with the middle hall of the Mnesiklean Pro-
pylaia is to be seen the main portion of what is left of the older
gate-way (abc, on PL. III). It was planned to be an integral
part of the old “Pelasgic ’’ fortifications; the corner (b) is built
into the end of the upper wall of the Pelargikon; the south-
east side of this older Propylaia (iab) was a solid wall of
poros blocks faced with thin marble slabs, while the adjoining
wall on the southwest ends in an anta of marble (c). Next to
the anta, on the northwest, we see the beginning of a marble
threshold, on the continuation of which presumably columns
once stood. We should notice also that, conformably to its de-
sign as an organic part of the Pelargikon, the old Propylaia faces
southwest, whereas the orientation of the Mnesiklean Propylaia
is directly west. Corresponding to the façade in the Southwest
and on a line parallel with it, we find in the central doorway of
the present building the natural rock cut in the form of steps (f)
to receive the foundation stones of some building older than the
Periklean Propylaia; this marks the line of a colonnade (ei) on
the east front, like the one opposite on the west.
This older portal has often been called Kimon’s Propylaia. It
is, however, probably much older than Kimon and was merely
repaired under his direction, like many another building left in
ruins by the Persians. That it was in existence before his time is
rendered probable, though not absolutely certain, by the manner
of its destruction; for evident traces of fire here and there on
ruins” that have remained buried since the days of Perikles
point almost beyond a question to the great conflagrations of 480
and 479 B. C. We may, therefore, safely conclude that the Ak-
ropolis from the beginning had a great gate at this spot, that the
gateway which we have been considering had the same general
outline, at least, as the one built by the “Pelasgians,” that the
marble decorations may have been added, perhaps, by Peisistratos
1% Gj. Ross, Arch. Aufs. I, pp. 78 and 79.
.520 WALTER MILLER.
or his sons, who did so much to beautify their city, that it shared
in the general havoc wrought by the barbarians and in the gen-
eral repairing done by Themistokles and Kimon.
It was beyond the power of the Greeks of old to conceive of
one only God, omnipotent, eternal, alone creating and governing
the universe, and yet there was implanted in their souls such a
longing for one god, that individually, in families and in tribes,
they directed their worship not to the multitude of national di-
vinities,” but to some one deity to whom cat' ééoxºv they paid
their homage and their vows and on whom they relied for help
and support in success and defeat. And so each state had some
one deity whom that state honored above all other gods and who
stood nearer to it than to any other and nearer than any other
god. As Hera was to Argos or Poseidon to Corinth, so Athena
was to Athens. She had now once more saved her city and her
people and given them new glories; and the first as well as the
greatest and grandest of all Kimon’s undertakings was the erec-
tion in her honor of a temple that should far surpass in size and
in splendor the one that had been burned. Indeed, it was to
be even larger as planned by Kimon than it proved to be as com-
pleted by Iktinos and Kallikrates. Kimon’s workmen had begun,
almost at the very beginning of his administration, even before *
107 Cf. ERNST CURTIUS, Die Akropolis von Athen, p. 6.
*The priority is certain on technical grounds; at a slight distance from the sub-
.structure of the Parthenon and nearly parallel to it, we find a wall of inferior con-
struction (HJ, on PL. III). The small interval between this wall and the temple
was found by the excavators filled with alternating layers of the debris left by the
JPersians, and of poros chips made by the masons at work on the basis of the temple.
Thus the purpose of this wall and the chronological relations existing between the
-different constructions in that quarter are made clear; the substructure of the Par-
thenon was built before the south wall of the Akropolis, with the ten to fourteen
metres of grading behind it, was begun. The purpose of the wall HJ was to save
the expense and the trouble of so much scaffolding as would have been required for
the building of the base of the Parthenon on that side. And so they proceeded,
just as in the construction of the wall about the citadel, first laying up one or two
..courses on the Parthenon, then bringing up their platform—the wall HJ with the
filling between it and the temple—and then proceeding as before. When later the
plan to raise the Akropolis to one great plateau was put into complete execution
and the south wall was built, then this platform, wall and all, was covered up, along
with the old “Pelasgic '' wall and everything else that had outlived its usefulness.
From this two conclusions of much importance for the history of the Akropolis
follow : (1) The foundations beneath the Parthenon were built after the Persian
A HISTORY OF THE A.KROPOLIS OF A THENS. 521.
the erection of the wall on the south side of the Akropolis, to
construct the great platform on which was to stand the most
magnificent temple that the world has ever seen. The founda-
tions were all done; the great drums for the columns lay already
half-finished on the grounds; but Kimon was fated never to fin-
ish the stately temple that he had brought thus far toward com-
pletion, for in the year 460 B. C., his ungrateful country at the
instigation of Perikles sent him into exile from the native land
which he had loved so well and for which he had done so much.
V|||—THE AGE OF PERIKLES.
With this event, upon which Perikles became the recognized
leader of the Athenian state, we enter upon the climax of a pe-
riod unequalled in all antiquity and never outshone in the whole
history of the world. We may say that during the forty-eight
years from the calm that began in the autumn of 479 until the
first great breakers of the Peloponnesian war dashed over proud
Athens, the vastness and magnificence of the building projects exe-
cuted under the leadership and direction of Themistokles, Kimon
and Perikles have never since been equalled and scarcely ap-
proached. - y
By the side of the third and greatest of the three great states-
men stood his friend and co-equal, Pheidias, who superintended
during his life at Athens the artistic execution of all the build-
ings of Perikles. The financial prosperity and the generous am-
bition of the state placed at his command most abundant means
with which to consummate his magnificent plan for transforming
the whole Akropolis into one sacred precinct for Athena.” “And
so,” in Plutarch's" enthusiastic words, “the works grew, all-
surpassing in their magnitude, inimitable in their beauty and
grace, as every workman vied with his fellow in substituting for
invasion and not by Peisistratos as, previous to the excavations, had always been
supposed; and (2) The wall on the south.side of the Akropolis was built after, but
not long after the substructure of the Parthenon, for otherwise the wall HJ would
not have been built at all. Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, x, p. 275.
* Both HDT. (e. g. VIII, 51–55) and THUK. (e. g. I, 126) call the whole Akrop-
olis rô iſe)pów, and so does A.R. (LYS. 482–483).
110 JPer. 18,
522 WALTER MILLER.
mere handiwork elegance of artistic execution; and still the most
wonderful feature of all was the speed with which the work was
completed. Those edifices, any one of which alone, one might
think, would have required the work of many successive genera-
tions, were all (sic!) finished in the prime of one man’s administra-
tion. Ease and speed of execution seldom tend to give a work last-
ing importance or exquisite beauty; while on the other hand, the
time expended in the creation of a work is more than repaid in
the endurance of the work done. And so we have even greater.
reason to wonder that the structures reared by Perikles should
have been built in so short a time and yet have been built for
ages; for as each of them, as soon as completed, was already an-
cient in its beauty, so, now they are old [almost five centuries.
have elapsed since their erection], they are fresh and new as in
their pristine glory. Time has left no stain upon them; a kind.
of newness sheds its bloom around them, preserving them un-
tarnished by the ages, as if they were possessed of a spirit that
can never fade and a soul that never grows old.”
Under Kimon's administration every thing done seems to have
borne some relation to the recent struggle for Hellenic liberty;
under the direction of Perikles, on the other hand, the public
works erected had an entirely different character: it was no
longer the Athens that had borne the brunt of war and repulsed
forever the Asiatic from the shores of Greece, but the Athens
that stood blooming in the plenitude of peace and prosperity at
the head of a mighty maritime confederation. w e
Perikles’ first care was to complete the temple of the Polias,
that had been begun by his old opponent Kimon ; for the Par-
thenon also must henceforth be considered one of the temples of
Athena Polias, and a seat of the cultus of the goddess as Polias.
The truth of this statement is placed beyond all question by the
following considerations: -
(1) The decorations of the frieze cannot lack all ideal connec-
tion with the temple that it adorns. Now, the frieze of the Par-
thenon represents in its whole length a sacred procession given in
honor of Athena Polias alone—the Panathenaia, the greatest fes-
tival of the Polias; in the very middle of the frieze, directly over
the door of the temple, stands the priestess of Athena Polias her-
A HISTORY OF THE AIKROPOLIS OF A THENS. 523
self." And in the cella of this temple the victors in those great
games in honor of the Polias were crowned. All this points
directly to none other than Athena Polias as the indweller of
the Periklean Parthenon. And who else should be 7 For the
Parthenon was certainly a temple with a cultus (the idea of “fes-
tal temples,” primarily intended to be used in connection with
the games and without a cultus, is a myth invented by a German
conjecture); and as “Parthenos” was perhaps never, certainly
not in early times, a cultus-name, to whom should we a priori
more fittingly ascribe the largest and most beautiful temple of
Athens than to the guardian goddess of the city herself? Still
these four arguments, one a priori, two from the frieze—the
priestess of the Polias in the most prominent position in it, and
the representation of the games in honor of the Polias—and, as
fourth argument, the fact that the victors in these games were
crowned in the temple of the Polias, all this renders the case
only probable. -
(2) Fortunately, however, we have more than the logic of
probabilities; we can gather from the Official names of the tem-
ples of Athena a direct and conclusive proof that the Parthenon
was called “the temple of Athena Polias” (6 veðs Tās 'A6mvås Tās
IIoAudôos). In official inscriptions the Hekatompedon is gener-
ally termed 6 &pxaíos veós (the old temple); such a designation
necessarily presupposes the existence of a newer temple, which
might be called either 6 calvös (the new) or 6 p.6%as veós (the great
temple), or briefly 6 veós (the temple). That this newer temple
must be the Parthenon is doubted by no one. Furthermore, in one
inscription (CIA. TI. 464), also an official document, we find
6 &pxa70s veós Tās ‘A6mvās Tās IIoxuděos (the old temple of Athena
Polias). “The old temple of Athena Polias” demands likewise,
as a necessary presupposition, the existence of a “newer temple
of Athena Polias,” which again might be called 6 calvös (the
new), or 6 Aéyas (the great), or simply 6 veós Tās 'A6mvås Tās
IIoxidéos (the temple of Athena Polias). Should we find one of
these three names, with no closer designation of the temple re-
ferred to, we could be certain of one of two things: either the
Parthenon would be meant, or else possibly the eastern cella of the
111 MICHAELIS, Parth., p. 255.
524 WALTER MILLER.
Trechtheion. As a matter of fact, the name does occur, and more
than once, in the inventories of the stewards of Athena (cf. CIA.
II, 332; Mitth. Athen, VIII, p. 59); here again we have official
documents, which we know for a certainty refer to treasures pre-
served in the opisthodomos of the Parthenon, and we have as its
official name 6 veðs Tās 'A6mväs IIoxuděos (the temple of Athena
Polias).” -
(3) Again, it is on all sides granted that the Parthenon was
built to supplace the Hekatompedon, which had been burned by
the Persians. Now, the Hekatompedon was a temple of Athena
Polias; its official name, as we have just seen, is 6 &pxatos veós
Tās 'A6mvās Tās IIoxidè0s (the old temple of Athena Polias); and
it needs no proof that the Erechtheion, which had only just been
built, or was not yet even finished, could never be called 6 &pxalos
veós (the old temple). What sort of a temple, then, could take
the old one’s place other than a new temple of Athena Polias 7
(4) As a last argument, if further argument were needed, let
me add that nearly all the votive offerings, the sacrificial vessels
and all the sacred utensils used in the processions belonged to
Athena Polias; Athena Parthenos, as far as we can see from the
public records, did not possess a single votive offering nor a sin-
gle obol in cash. How, then, could she lay claim to the largest
and most splendid temple of the citadel ? And, finally, even the
so-called Parthenos of Pheidias is named, in the one inscription”
that mentions the chryselephantine statue of the Akropolis, Athena
Polias, and the name Parthenos, as applied to the statue, is of late
Origin. . . . - -
Accordingly to sum up the results of this quadruple proof, we
find that the Parthenon is not merely a temple of Athena Polias
but the temple of Athena Polias (6 veðs Tàs 'A6mvās Tās IIoMá80s).
The foregoing explanation makes clear the relation existing
between the Hekatompedon and the Parthenon, both temples
of Athena Polias. But still it remains for some keen-sighted
scholar to discover the relation borne by these two temples to a
third, the eastern cella of the Erechtheion—also without a doubt
* DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XII, p. 194.
* Cf. Mitth. Athen, v. pp. 89 sq., and Xv, pp. 430 sq., where the inscription
is twice quoted. *
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 525
a veðs Tās 'A6mvās Tās IIoMá80s (a temple of Athena Polias).
Dörpfeld suggests the following as a solution of the problem:
“When the stately marble temple [the Parthenon] was com-
pleted, the two old poros buildings [the Hekatompedon and the
old Erechtheion] looked rather shabby beside the new splendor,
and so it was resolved to replace both with a double sanctuary
beneath one common roof–the new Erechtheion.”
The fallacy in this hypothesis is evident: in the first place, one
of these porós.buildings had already been replaced by the Par-
thenon; why should it be replaced again and then still left stand-
ing 7 And in the second place, as was shown p. 478, Erechtheus
and Athena had had a common temple under one roof from the
beginning. And so we are no nearer the solution of the diffi-
culty than we were before.
Only one other effort to throw light upon this question is
known to me: Miss Janel Harrison* cuts the Gordian knot with the
astounding statement that “The belief that the eastern half of
the Erechtheion was called the cella of Athena rests, so far as I
am aware, wholly upon the testimony of Pausanias. The image
was simply one of many curiosities kept in the Erechtheion, and
though it lived in the east cella, did not give that cella any par-
ticular name. The Erechtheion is, as Pausanias viewed it, a
shrine of cults of more or less obsolete significance—a museum
for the symbols of these cults. Viewed thus as a museum, etc.”
Lven if Miss Harrison's surmise as to the source of the designa-
tion of the eastern cella of the Erechtheion as a shrine of the
Polias were correct, still her conclusion would not follow. It was
in the Erechtheion, as she grants, that Pausanias saw the old
xoanon and the ever-burning lamp of Kallimachos; these two
objects are repeatedly and distinctly mentioned by other ancient
writers” besides Pausanias as being in the sanctuary of Athena.
Moreover the existence of a temple common to Erechtheus and
Athena is, beyond a possibility of a misinterpretation of their
words, familiar to the ancient writers from Homer,” down through
*HARRISON and WERRALL, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens, pp.
508–9. -
* PLUT. Sulla, 13; STRAB. IX, p. 396; and others.
116 Iliad, II, 546.
526 WALTER MILLER.
AEschines,” Aristeides,” Plutarch,” Pausanias” and Strabo,” to
Harpokration,” Hesychios,” Himerios,” Philochoros” and Eus-
tathios.” And finally Miss Harrison upsets her own theory by
taking out of her “Museum ” nearly all the curiosities that
“Pausanias viewed there” and putting them into the opisthodomos
of the Hekatompedon, and concludes her whole discussion by
implying, if not declaring outright, that the Erechtheion was at
one time the temple of Athena Polias: “The Erechtheion,” she
says, “is a museum; it no longer strives to keep its head above
the water as the original Athene temple, but sinks with a sense
of relief into dignified, because natural subordination.” Did
important cultus-temples in antiquity naturally sink into mere
museums ? I leave the unbiased reader to judge.
The question I have raised remains, therefore, unanswered.
The relationship existing between the Erechtheion and the Heka-
tompedon and Parthenon has not yet been discovered and per-
haps never will be. Perhaps there was none. It may be that
the Polias was worshipped in two or even three shrines indepen-
dent of one another. -
The Parthenon, however, to resume our narrative, is only a
part, though the most important part, of the magnificent plan of
Perikles and his “table round” for making of the Akropolis one
great votive offering for Athena. But scarcely had the Parthe-
non been dedicated (438 B. C.)—and it was even then not yet
entirely completed—when Pheidias was compelled to leave
Athens. Nevertheless, the building enterprises of the city went
on without interruption; for Perikles' great plan was as yet far
from being realized. In the very next year after his departure,
Mnesikles began, under the direction of Perikles, to build the
imposing portal, which was to prove one of the principal won-
ders of the Akropolis. And still the citadel was no less a mighty
fortress than before. - -
Five years was the Propylaia in building; in that time the
ili II, 147. *XIII, p. 107, 6. (III, p. 62, ed. Dind).
* Sympos. Quaest. IX, 6, p. 741; Sulla, 13. 120 1, 26, 6–7; 1, 27, 1.
1” IX, p. 396. -
*S. v. Boºrms. *S. v. olkovpov 84tv. * Ecl. 5, 30. 1% ad Od. I, 356.
* Frag. 146 ap DIONYs HAL. de Div. 13.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 527
original plans of the architect had to suffer many changes,” and
even so, before the structure had received the finishing touches,
the Peloponnesian war broke out and the work was suspended
never again to be resumed.
And now came the turn of the old poros Erechtheion to be
rebuilt; and so some time after the dedication of the Parthenon,
work was begun upon the most elegant and unique building of
antiquity. After many interruptions this last architectural mon-
ument of the glory of Periklean Athens was finally completed
in the later years of the Peloponnesian War. In the years of
storm and stress, 413–411, all work was necessarily abandoned;
but as soon as relief came, as it did through the victories of Al-
kibiades at Kyzikos in 410, work was at once resumed upon the
neglected building; a new commission was appointed, whose
first business was to take a complete inventory of the condition
of the building. In a similar inventory of the following year we
find the work on the frieze progressing rapidly, and in the next
year (408–407) the temple was probably finished.
Of the older Erechtheion nothing, of course, is left; the old
paptºpta—the salt spring and the marks of the trident—could
not be moved into a new temple, and therefore the old building
to the last stone must yield and give place to the new one.
A glance at the plan reveals a curious phenomenon with respect
to the Erechtheion; the porch of the Korai is built directly upon the
stylobate of the old Hekatompedon; the columns of the temple had
long ago been built into the Akropolis wall or otherwise disposed
of Those six exquisite Attic maidens who support the roof
are thus made to face squarely against a limestone wall at least
twice as high as their heads and almost within arm’s length.
Such a crying outrage could have been committed by the builders
only with the intention and in the sure expectation that the old
temple would soon disappear. But did it? In the year 409–408
the Erechtheion was still uncompleted, but it must have been
finished soon after that. “In 406–405,” says Xenophon (Hel. I,
6, 1), “ 6 Taxatós Tās 'A6mvās veðs év 'A6;|vals évetpija'0m (the old
* We owe the reconstruction of the Propylaia after the original plans of Mnesi-
kles to the brilliant genius of Dörpfeld. The high-water mark of research in the
realm of ancient architecture is reached in his two essays in the Mittheilungen Athen,
IX. pp. 38 sq. and 131 sq. -
528 w WALTER MILLER.
temple of Athena at Athens was burned); * and in spite of the
troubles that followed with the loss of all her power, Athens.
again, in 395–394, repaired the beloved old temple.” Xeno-
phon’s words used always to be interpreted as referring to the
Erechtheion; but that Xenophon should have called a temple less.
than two years old, and perhaps not even dedicated as yet, a.
Taxatos veðs (an old temple), is quite incredible.
And still for many years after the fire the old temple continued
in use. We find again in an official record (CIA. II, 758): Táče
éic Toi) āpyatov veó Tapéðoiceu ºff iepeia Toís ÉTuotatats toſs étri.
©ovöſjuov ćpxovtos eis Töv IIapóevóva—a list of articles transferred
from the ancient temple to the Parthenon in the archonship of
Thoudemos 358 (or 354) B. c. With this all official mention of
the Hekatompedon ceases. s -
But how long it still stood can never be precisely known. The
Akropolis suffered no violence for centuries afterward, and the
present condition of the ruins betokens a late and a gradual dis-
appearance of the building. Pausanias and Plutarch both saw it,
and it is altogether possible, if not probable, that it was pulled
down like many another building in Byzantine times for building
over the Parthenon, Erechtheion, etc., into Christian churches.”
But there is no occasion for tarrying over the temples of the
age of Perikles. And with such books as Lloyd’s Age of Pericles,
Adolf Schmidt's Das Perikleische Zeitalier, Michaelis’ Der Parthenon,
Hertzberg's Athen, Penrose's Principles of Athenian Architecture,
and Ernst Curtius’ brief but admirably written and delightfully
entertaining dissertation Die Akropolis von Athen — with such.
books as these at every reader's command, a brief and inadequate
account of the creations of the days of Athens’ glory, such as I
might give, would be worse than superfluous. As has been
observed in the preface, the picture presented by the Athenian
Akropolis in the days that immediately followed Perikles is so.
128 It may very well have been set on fire by the priests belonging to the new temple,
who were, of course, as anxious to get it out of the way as those of the old temple
were to save it. Anyway, the former seem to have been tried on the charge of
arson; cf. Dem. XXIV, 136: kal of rapital ép' Gw & 6trio 6660p.os éverpja:0m kal oi Tàs 6600.
kai ol rôv &MNov 9eów év tá olkjuart točrg hoav čws kplots abro's éyévero.
* Inscription published by Ulrich Köhler in Hermes II. p. 21.
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XII, pp. 60–61.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 529
fully and definitely known, from the buildings preserved and from
literature, that differences of opinion concerning it are possible on
minor points only. New discoveries and more penetrating inves-
tigations of the monuments we have can make no essential chan-
ges in that picture. It is for these reasons that I pass the age of
Perikles by, picking up only such fibres as are needed to spin the
thread of history. - -
When Kimon’s wall was finished, the Promachos unveiled, the
Parthenon dedicated, the Propylaia with the temple of Athena
Nike erected, and the Erechtheion rebuilt, then the Akropolis
was essentially complete; and notwithstanding all that the later
Greeks and Romans built upon and about it, the Akropolis had
years before received everything that gave to it its historical char-
acter and its influence upon the world to come. It stood there
then, rising grandly above the busy city of commerce and trade
in the midst of which it stood, the colossal pedestal of the tem-
ples, with all its parts working harmoniously together to one
sublime work of art, at last one great and worthy sanctuary to
the daughter of Zeus. -
In these days also came to the Akropolis a vast number of
votive offerings and dedications of every description, brought to
the precinct of the goddess on any and every occasion, by indi-
viduals and by the State. Of votive offerings on the part of the
State, Pausanias mentions several: the Athena Lemnia of Phei-
dias himself, as well as his (?) Apollo Parnopios, the Hekate
Epipyrgidia of his pupil Alkamenes, the SoSandra of Kalamis, the
Athena Hygieia of Pyrrhos, Myron's cow, etc.
We have but a very meagre account indeed of these great pub-
lic donations; and since such is the case with them, how wholly
unable must we be to form any correct conception of the overflow-
ing abundance of the offerings that came from private sources to
fill the sacred precinct.
IX. —THE PELO PONNESIAN WAR.
The breaking out of the calamitous war with Sparta, draining
Athens of her money as well as of the flower of her manhood,
was still not enough to put an end to the architectural and plastic
adornment of her citadel. In the various shorter or longer inter-
530 WALTER MILLER.
vals of peace the work went on, though it was greatly limited in
extent. So, for example, the rebuilding of the Erechtheion espe-
cially was continued and completed before the war was entirely
over. Besides this, the Akropolis received even during the war
many an additional ornament, in the way of offerings of statuary,
not only from private individuals, but from the State also. For
example, in honor of the victory at Sphakteria a bronze Victory
was dedicated and set up upon the citadel,” and Nikias, as a
token of gratitude for his victories, consecrated to the goddess a
gilded Palladion.” The decoration by Mys of the shield of the
so-called Promachos, already described, was also made at about
this time—a further recognition of the goddess's protecting care.
It was, furthermore, not long before 414” that, by the gener-
Osity of Chaeredemos, the Trojan Horse of Strongylion was set up
in his place, and that Alkibiades hung up his two Nemean pict-
ures in the Pinakotheke.”
But important above all the portraits placed upon the Akropo-
lis in that day is the one of Perikles by Kresilas, familiar to every
student through the copies that have come down to us.”
And, finally, let us not neglect at least to mention that even in
those troublous times Athens did not forget the gods, but at no
little sacrifice consecrated new cultus statues, a Zeus Polieus, for
example, and an Artemis Brauronia of gold and ivory (?)—the
former a creation of Leochares,” the latter of Praxiteles” (proba-
bly the elder). Both these new statues, be it noted, were placed
beside the old ones, which were, indeed, inartistic enough, but at
* PAUs. Iv, 36, 6.
*In Plutarch's day the plating had become worn off. Cf. PLUT. Nic. 8:
'Eat #ket Öe kal rôv čvaðmuárov abroſ ka9’ huàs ré Te IIa)\\áôtov čv AkpotóNet, tº v
X p & q' w a t w d To Be 8X m k 6 s.
* For Aristophanes in the Birds (brought out in 414), vs. 1128, alludes to it.
Cf. also PAUs. 1, 23, 8; Löwy, Inschriften Griechischer Bildhauer, No. 52; CIA. I,
406. - -
* PAUs. I, 22, 7; PLUT., Alc. 16; SATYROs ap. ATHEN. XII, p. 534, D.
* OvIERBECK, SQ. 873.
186 PAUs. I, 24, 4. -
* PAUs. I, 23, 7; cf. also FRIEDRICHs, Praaiteles und die Niobegruppe ; STUD-
NICZKA, Vermuthungen zur Kunstgesch., p. 18, and Zeitschr. f. Oestr. Gymn. 1886,
p. 686; SCHREIBER, Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1885, No. 19; ROBERT, Archaeol.
Mäh?'chen.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 531
•
the same time so hallowed with age that no new ones could ever
take their place. In short, the Akropolis continued to be the
centre of interest for art and architecture even during that long
exhausting war, and to receive in ever increasing numbers these
peculiar gifts of the Athenian people. -
We are standing now upon the border of Athenian independ-
ence. With the humiliating reverses of the years 405–403 and
the rule of the Thirty Tyrants, had departed, as far as might then
be, the old glory of Athens. But before we cross that border,
let us consider two buildings, of which the one can be dated only
approximately, the other not at all. -
(1) Upon the first terrace to the right, as one passes through
the Propylaia, Pausanias saw the sanctuary of the Brauronian
Artemis (see PL. xv.), and within it the chryselephantine (?) statue
made by Praxiteles; there stood also within this shrine a work
of Myron's—a xaxcois Taºs (a bronze boy), holding the basin
containing the holy water.” We have not the faintest sugges-
tion from antiquity as to when this temple was erected. We can
form no notion in regard to its appearance; for not only are the
ancient authors silent on this point, but, furthermore, not a single
trace of such a temple could be found in the last excavations.
Foundations, indeed, were found—two porticoes (see PL. xv.), the
One along the southern, the other along the eastern boundary of
the Brauronian terrace, the two meeting at right angles at the
southeast corner. The temple itself—if there ever really was one,
and there must necessarily have been one if Praxiteles’ temple-
statue was indeed of gold and ivory—must have been completely
obliterated by the Venetians when they shifted the road leading
to the Akropolis, so that it passed around the south side of the
Propylaia.”
(2) Many scholars have long clung with unyielding tenacity to
the idea that there was a temple of Athena Ergane upon the next
terrace to the east, between the Brauronian terrace and the Par-
thenon (see PL. xv.); but in the light of the last excavations this idea
must be given up without reserve; for in the course of the last
few years it has grown clearer and clearer that there never was
138 PAUs. I, 23, 7.
* Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XII, p. 117.
532 WALTER MILLER.
upon the Akropolis of Athens a specific temple of Athena as
Ergane. Not only was not the faintest trace of such a temple
discovered there, but we find instead another building which
covers considerably more than half of the whole terrace, and
is obviously the long-sought Chalkotheke (see PL. xv.); for its
shape and arrangement forbid that it should have been a temple
or anything but a great magazine. It is one of the largest edi-
fices on the Akropolis—41 metres long, and including the porch,
which is about 3.50 metres deep, 18.50 metres wide. It consists,
furthermore, of only a single great hall, the south wall of which
is the Akropolis wall itself. It is of somewhat later date than the
Parthenon; for the rock-cut steps (KL) between the two build-
ings were made contemporaneously with the Parthenon, and are
manifestly older than the Chalkotheke, inasmuch as they extend
clear to the Akropolis wall. Much hard work for nothing would
certainly have been spared, had not the stairs been constructed
earlier than the magazine; for the triangle between the Chalko-
theke and the end of the stairs was useless, and had to be filled
up, thus covering that part of the stairs completely. The Par-
thenon is, therefore, older than the Chalkotheke, but not much
older. The proof of this is found in the building-material in the
foundations: the buildings of the V century B. C. are uniformly
supported by substructions of Peiraieus stone, those of the IV and
III centuries by substructions of breccia. Inasmuch, therefore, as
Peiraieus stone was still employed for the Chalkotheke, its erec-
tion will fall at the end of the V or the beginning of the IV cen-
tury B. C.; this, furthermore, is in complete harmony with the
official records, where the first mention of the Chalkotheke is
made in the year 358 (or 354)."
The next question is, what was kept in this immense maga-
zine? The inventories of the stewards (tapital) reveal the fact
that its contents consisted of chairs, couches, cups, crowns, shields,
greaves, etc., etc. One inscription” mentions 1500 Lakonian
shields; another” bears record of 43,300 objects of one kind—
the name is lost—and of a considerable number of various engines
* DöRPRELD, Mitth. Athen, XIV, p. 311.
141 CIA. II, 678. 142 CIA. II, 783.
A EIISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 533
of war besides; so there must have been a great array of weapons
of every sort stowed away in the building. All this wealth
belonged to the ispá xpijuata täs 'A6mvās" (the sacred treasures
of Athena), and was under the supervision of the same stew-
ards as the possessions of the goddess in the opisthodomos of the
Parthenon. The inventories of both localities were sometimes
even inscribed upon the same slab.” It therefore proves to be,
as Michaelis long ago conjectured,” a “dependency” of the
Parthenon, to receive things that could not find lodgment in the
temple; and now we find that both magazines—opisthodomos and
Chalkotheke—so closely connected in purpose, are also outwardly
immediately united by means of the wide flight of stairs between
them. e
X.—THE AKROPOLIS IN HELLENISTIC TIMES.
Brom the close of the Peloponnesian War down to Herodes
Attikos, there were but two men whose names have been ren-
dered immortal by their connection with great building projects
in and about Athens—Lykourgos and Philon; and their activity,
though epoch-making in Athenian history, was confined exclu-
sively to the lower city and to the suburbs, Peiraieus and Eleusis.
Lykolirgos, indeed, by his exceptional management as minister of
finance, was able to find the means for dedicating new temple-
furniture to Athena—golden Victories, new appliances of gold
and silver for the processions, and so forth. So during the whole
course of the IV century the Akropolis seems to have been the
recipient of countless offerings bestowed in gratitude for honors
received. Among these gifts the votive reliefs that were then
becoming so popular were especially numerous; the offerings
were for the most part Small, for now the means of the people
were small. But in addition to the reliefs, portraits in marble
began to multiply. Beside the Perikles of Kresilas, soon stood
those of the brave Iphikrates (371 B. C.), and other Athenians who
had rendered their country especially great services. Konon, the
hero of the sea, was the first Athenian since Harmodios and Aris-
* CIA. ii. 61.
*DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, xiv. p. 311.
1* Parth., p. 306.
534 - WALTER MILLER.
togeiton to whom during life the honor of having his portrait-
statue erected upon the citadel was accorded by the State; and
on the same pedestal with his stood also the statue of his heroic
son, Timotheos.” And still the different kinds of decoration
at this time placed upon the Akropolis have not been exhausted.
After his victory at the Granikos (834), Alexander sent from the
booty, as a gift to the goddess who had once suffered so severely
at the hands of the Persians, 300 full suits of Persian mail, from
which twenty-six shields were selected and arranged upon the
architrave of the Parthenon.”
It was not until this period that the Akropolis was again dese-
crated, this time by the wild excesses of Demetrios Phalereus,
who went so far as to take up his abode in the Parthenon (304).
And this disgrace was scarcely past when the inhuman Lachares
seized the Akropolis and appropriated to himself everything of
value that he could use. But he was soon expelled, and happily,
in his precipitous flight from Athens, he found it necessary, so
the story goes, to leave the most of his plunder behind; among
this was even the golden garment of the Parthenos (sic /), which
he is said to have stolen. -
In this period we must think of the Akropolis, however much
it may offend our aesthetic taste, as an almost incredible forest of
statues. In a single year no less than 360 statues of Demetrios
were erected, of which a goodly number were probably upon the
citadel.” Nearly all that was added to Athens in these years and
those to follow, the city owed to the favor of foreign benefactors.
We head the list with such names as Ptolemy Philadelphos and
Ring Attalos I: from the latter came as a votive offering the series
of plastic groups in the southeast corner of the Akropolis, continu-
ing the thought embodied in the metopes of the Parthenon; the
Gigantomachia, the victory of the Athenians over the Amazons,
the rout of the Persians by the Athenians at Marathon, and, as
* PAUs. I, 24, 3; the inscription is still preserved CIA. II : Kövov Tupo6(é)ov,
Tºpóðeos Kövo(vos); cf. MICHAELIS, Mitth. Athen I, p. 298.
* The inscription that explained the dedication ran : 'AAéavôpos fixtirirov kal ol
"EX\mves trºhu Aakeóauovlov &trö Töv Bapéâpov Tóv Tiju Aatav Karoukočvrov. Cf. ARR.
Am. I, 16, 7; PLUT. Alea’. 16; MICHAELIS, Parth., pp. 42–3.
*Later they all disappeared with the exception of a single one, and that one
remained upon the Akropolis. Cf. DIOG. LAERT, V, 76–77.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A TEIENS. 535
the last link in the chain of Hellenic glory, Attalos' own victory
over the Gauls in 229. Then came Eumenes II, Attalos II,
Antiochos IV (Epiphanes) and Antigonos, whose names scarcely
need to be mentioned as lovers and benefactors of Athens.
When all this is considered, it ceases to be a matter for any
wonder that Pausanias mentions so few of all those portrait-
statues, votive offerings, etc., or that Polemon, even in that early
day, already found material for four and Heliodoros for fifteen
books concerning the Akropolis with its votive offerings. And
soon the open space about the temples no longer sufficed for the
gifts that were brought, and the very steps of the temples were
occupied by statues and reliefs; and there, beside representations
of a religious or mythological character, stood even portrait-
statues as well, where they have left their traces unto this day.
XI.--THE AKROPOLIS IN ROMAN TIMES.
From Sulla to Hadrian there was little done in the way of
public building or improvement in Athens, but there was also,
happily, little injury done to what was there before. While the
treasures of art in Corinth were taken without mercy and carried
off to Rome, and the buildings of the city ruthlessly destroyed,
the conquering Roman showed, generally speaking, great respect
for the intellectual greatness and artistic significance of Athens
and spared the public monuments. Even Sulla, when in the
First Mithradatic War he had stormed the city, flooded her streets
with blood and threatened her with utter annihilation, even Sulla
allowed himself to be dissuaded by Roman Senators and friends
of Rome from carrying out his dreadful threat. And though
his lieutenant, Gaius Scribonius Curio, blockaded the Athenian
tyrant, Aristion, within the ancient fortress—for a fortress it still
was, and a powerful one,—and finally by starving the garrison
out got possession of the citadel, still the buildings upon the
sacred rock and in the city proper remained untouched, at least
by Roman hands. Not so, however, the Peiraieus. But the
worst that Sulla did after the surrender of Aristion was to appro-
priate to his own use some fifty pounds of gold and 600 pounds
of silver that he found in the opisthodomos of the Parthenon.
536 WALTER MILLER.
Nothing definite can be said in regard to the changes that
took place upon the Akropolis in the stormy times from Sulla to
the founding of the empire. Mad Antonius came and succeeded
in wedding Athena (with a wedding present of 1,000,000
drachmae from the still madder Athenians), and in having him-
self installed and worshipped as a new Dionysos, with Cleopatra
as a new goddess of the citadel. Still such folly did no harm,
and the Akropolis continued down to the vast and systematic
art-robberies of Nero exempt from any serious losses.
Not only did the Romans spare the treasures of that holy hill,
but they also now began to vie with other philhellenic foreigners
in the effort to augment that splendid inheritance of the past by
further offerings of their own. And then not only Akropolis,
but city proper as well, became fairly crowded with honorary
statues to Roman governors, prætors, and other Romans of qual-
ity who had in any wise shewn favor to the city. Among such
monuments the equestrian statue of Octavian's great engineer,
Agrippa, might especially be mentioned. It was erected about
27 B. C., and stood upon a pedestal 16.75 metres high, which still
exists almost intact at the entrance of the Propylaia, and directly
in front of the anta of the Pinakotheke” (see PL. xv).
In the first decades of the empire the demand for honorary
statues became so great that the means at the city's disposal were
far from sufficient to meet it. What was to be done 2 The
Athenian people, to satisfy their Roman patrons, had recourse to
the contemptible expedient of taking the statues of their fathers
and of their gods and making them serve a new end.” A new
inscription upon the old bases usually sufficed to transform a god
or hero into an imperial Roman. But when this new christen-
ing failed to satisfy, then the heads of those perfect creations of a
century long past must come off and make way for the portraits
of the scions of proud Rome.
The most remarkable innovation upon the Akropolis, in impe-
rial times, was the erection of a temple to Roma-Augustus. A
149 The distance between pedestal and anta is not more than 1.50 metres.
150 Cf. SIEBELIS, ad. PAUs. 1, 2, 4.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 537
Roma cult” had existed in Athens for a century before the build-
ing of the temple, which probably took place about 15 B. c. It
stood, as the excavations of 1887 disclosed, Square in the axis of
the Parthenon, and at a distance from it of only twenty-three
metres to the east (see plan). Structural pieces of the building
(among them the part of the architrave that bears the dedicatory
inscription)” lie close by and have long been known. These
portions of the upper part, together with the recently discovered
foundations, are sufficient to give us a pretty fair idea how the
temple must have looked: it was, we observe, a circular building
of white marble, surrounded by a colonnade of nine Ionic col-
umns,” and similar to the Philippeion at Olympia, but much
smaller; the diameter of the stylobate of the Roma temple meas-
ures only seven metres, while that of the Philippeion measures a
very little more than twice as much; the number of columns
also is exactly twice the number encircling the temple of Roma-
Augustus.
Thus we find the Roman Empire and the Roman Emperor
received into the sacred circle of the deities of the Akropolis;
and as their temple stood exactly in the angle between the great
temple and the great altar of Athena” (see PL. III), the sacrifices
offered to the Polias must at the same time also have been shared
by Rome and the founder of the empire. The Panathenaica also
belonged no longer exclusively to Athena, but was combined with
the festival of the emperor; and so in everything, from that day
on, Roma-Augustus appear upon the Akropolis as recognized
rival of Athena Polias. -
151 As a reward for her assistance in the Third Macedonian War, the Roman
Senate had restored to Athens Haliartos, Delos and Lemnos. Delos especially was
a valuable possession to the Athenians, and in recognition of their obligation to
Rome, the Roma cult was instituted. The first unquestionable mention of an lepeds
"Paſums occurs about 100 B. C. The temple to Roma might have been erected then,
but Athens was in those years too poor, so that the entire fulfilment of their obliga-
tions was postponed until the latter part of the first century before our era. Cf.
WACHSMUTH, Stadt Athen. I, p. 641, note 1.
15% The inscription (CIG. I, 478) reads: ‘O 3%uos Beć ‘Péum kal Xeflágrº. Kato apt
arparmyojvros éirl rows 6t)\tras IIappévows toū Zīvovos Mapabovlov, lepéos 6eås Pajams
kal Xegårrow Xarâpos étrº 'AkpotröNet, T. lepetas 'A6mväs IIoMáčos Meylotms tis 'Aak\m-
ºrdãov ‘AXaléos Ovyarpás, girl dpxovros 'Apiſov toº [A]optovos IIatavičas.
153 Cf. DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XIV, p. 264.
164 See p. 493.
)
538 |WALTER MILLER.
Peculiar in its kind, at least in Greece, as well as in its splendor,
as was the great marble staircase leading from the so called gate of
Beulé” up to the Propylaia, still there is not a single trustwor-
thy allusion in ancient literature from which wé can infer, even
approximately, the date of its construction. It is a matter for no
surprise, therefore, that every possible variety of dates has been
assigned to it, from Perikles down to Augustus,” and even to
Nerio,” Duke of Athens, in the XV century. The spade, I think,
has solved this much disputed question also. At any rate, it
might have been clear before to the careful observer that the
stairs were not built until after the erection of the monument of
Agrippa, for the latter does not face the stairway, as it certainly
would have done had it been set up subsequently to the building
thereof. But in clearing up the space about Beulé's gate, it
appeared that the towers that flanked the gate must have been
built contemporaneously with the staircase; for both the courses
of the buttress-walls that inclose the flight of stairs, and also those
of the substructure beneath the steps themselves, are carried over
into the horizontal courses of the towers.” For the towers, more-
over, we already had from inscriptions” an approximate date—
the first half of the first century of our era. Towers and stair-
way, however, are evidently older than Beulé's gate, and the older
* Beulé, who conducted the excavations made by the French government, dis-
covered the gate in 1852, and from him it received its name.
* WACHSMUTH, Stadt Athen, I, p. 674: “It was perhaps under Augustus, and
at his expense, that the colossal staircase was built. And yet,” he cautiously adds,
“it may owe its origin to one of the later Athens-loving emperors.” BOHN, Propy-
läen, thinks “the destruction of the Mnesiklean approach must have begun with
Sulla, so that thus 100 years later a new flight of stairs became necessary.” Accord-
ingly he assigns the year 38 A. D. as a probable date for its construction.
* BURNOUF, La Ville et l'Acropole d'Athènes, p. 87: “La porte découverte parce
savant (Beulé) n'existait pas aw temps de Nério " (XV century), and the reason he
ascribes for this view is that the staircase lacks the character of ancient workman-
ship: the joinings are not exact, and there is a marked difference between this and
the real Hellenic works upon the citadel.
* DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XIV, p. 120. -
159 (1) The dedicatory inscription (LEAKE, Topogr. of Ath. I, p. 306, note 1): 3X.
2em'rluſos MapkéNNeºvos pXap.[i]v] kal diró d'ywyofferów, Čk Töv lötwv, toys rv\óvas Tū
tróNet (i.e. 'AkpotóNet). But Leake is in error in assigning the inscription to the
beginning of the II century; it is, like the next, a product of the first. (2) The
“gate-keepers’” inscription with reference to the building of the stairway (Ross,
Demen von Attika, p. 36): ép Gw kal rô pyov tºs évagárews éyévero.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 539
threshold between the towers lay more than three feet higher
than Beulé's. We know that this must be so for three reasons:
(1) For a distance of three feet above the present threshold
(Beulé's) the ashlar of the towers is left rough and unfinished;
it was not intended to be seen. (2) Inside the gate the towers
extended further inward, as the still existing foundations abund-
antly attest; and (3) the last four or five steps at the bottom of
the flight are steeper than the rest and of different construction.
These last four or five steps, then, were changed to suit the new
gate, which, for some reason or other, was made to swing upon a
threshold set a little deeper than the older one had been. Beulé's
gate is, therefore, a later and probably stronger substitute for a
gate that had been there before.
The next question is: when was the innovation of the Porte
JBeulé made 7 This also can now be established with comparative
precision; for, as has long been known, the gate is built, in part
at least, out of the choragic monument of Nikias. Now, if this
latter originally stood at the northeast arc of the Odeion of Regilla
(fig. 1), as Dörpfeld has all but proved, it was demonstrably
pulled down when the Odeion was building. The foundations
of the monument as undoubtedly found their way into the sub-
structure of the Odeion, as the architrave with the inscription, the
triglyphs and metopes found their way into the upper part of the
gate, where they have remained unto this day. The theatre
built by Herodes in honor of his wife, Regilla, was erected, as we
know, between 160" and 177 A. D.," and the guidemarks of the
architect of the gateway upon the cornice-pieces, to indicate the
order of their succession in building," as well as the architectural
style of the whole gateway and the inscriptions built into it—all
of them earlier than Herodes Attikos—point to the same date.”
With the foregoing demonstration we have won for the history
of the Akropolis two facts of no little importance: (1) That the
staircase from the hexastyle of the Propylaia down to Beulé's
gate was formed, as it were, in one mould with the towers
beside the gate, in the first half of the I century A. D.; and (2)
that even the builders of the great flight of stairs did not as yet
180 The year of Regilla's death. * The year of Herodes' death.
10% DöRPFELD, Mitth. Athen, XIV, pp. 63, sq. 168 Ibid.
540 WALTER MILLER.
dare to leave the citadel unfortified, but felt themselves forced to
surround their splendid stairway with wall and towers. The
erection of Beulé's gate later on was simply to strengthen the old
gateway in the defensory wall already there. The conclusion is
unavoidable: even down into the times of the Roman Empire
(until the last half of the II century A.D.), the Akropolis remained
a great fortress, with a strong defensory wall.”
With the building of the stairway the appearance of the court
in front of the Propylaia was completely changed. The old wind-
ing road had disappeared, and the method of approach was now
two-fold: that which was exclusively for foot-passengers led
through Beulé's gate, and thence up the stairs. The stairway
itself is divided into two sections by a landing that extends clear
across the middle of the flight. Below the landing the flyers
extended uninterruptedly across the whole breadth of the Akropo-
lis;" above they were broken into two parallel flights by the
second method of approach, the road for horses and sacrificial
animals, which came in directly from the south, through the
entrance used until a few years ago, past the Nike bastion, pass-
ing then between the parallel flights of steps, and so through the
central door of the Propylaia to the Akropolis itself.
In the course of this period Nero had come and carried away
many of the priceless treasures of the Akropolis of Athens for the
adornment of the Rome that was then rising from the ashes of his
great bonfire. He had reduced art-robbery to a science and prac-
tised it extensively; and it was under his rule that Athens first
suffered severe loss in works of art. But though Myron's cow
and many other gems of the classical period wandered off to
Rome to please the emperor, Athens still retained the most of her
art treaSureS. - -
But Hadrian soon followed Nero, and with him came a revivi-
fication of art in Athens. “His coming,” says Michaelis, “was a
last bright ray of sunshine before the closing in of a dark and
cheerless night.” What Perikles had been to the Akropolis,
Hadrian was to the city proper. But his monumental buildings
and splendid works were confined to the lower city, and so we
may pass him by.
164 Ibid. * BoHN, Propyläen, p. 35.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 541
Hadrian’s example inspired a younger contemporary, Herodes
Attikos, a great scholar and the possessor of almost unlimited
means, to turn his favor to the university city. But, like his pre-
decessor, he spent millions upon millions upon the lower city,
while the Akropolis fortunately received nothing but a few
statues in his honor. -
In the later imperial times the increase in the number of archi-
tectural ornaments in Athens was very insignificant. But with
statues of bronze and marble, Athens was filled as never before.
With the last of the Antonines architectural activity in Athens
ceases entirely. From now on the whole glory of Athens was
her past. We have now to trace the destruction and disappear-
ance of the beauty and splendor lent to the Akropolis by the pre-
ceding centuries. -
At the close of the IV century," the Goths under Alaric pushed
into Greece and overran the country; but, in spite of all the dis-
asters that overtook Attika at their hands, the glories of the
Akropolis—the Parthenon and the Parthenos, the Promachos, the
|Brechtheion, and the Propylaia—still shone in all their pristine
splendor. But with the changed attitude of the emperors toward
heathendom, Athens was doomed to decline and decay.
X||.—THE AKROPOLIS IN BYZANTINE TIMES.
The Emperor Constantine the Great (314–353) was the first to
spread Christian influence over all the Hellenic world with impe-
rial power, and yet neither he nor his two great successors, Con-
stantios II (353–361) and Julian (361-381), laid a destroying hand
upon the art or architecture of Athens. On the contrary, all
three were ardent friends of the city, and some of Constantine's
officers, especially Cerbonius, spent large sums of money to repair
damage that had been done either by the Goths or by the earth-
quake of 348. -
But when Theodosios II (408–450) came to the throne, the
Athenian horizon grew suddenly darker. The ancient paintings
in the Stoa Poikile, executed by Polygnotos, and representing the
glorious deeds of ancestral days, were the first objects to attract
the envy and cupidity of the young emperor. About 430 the
* Alaric passed Thermopylae in 395.
542 WALTER MILLER.
Parthenos is mentioned for the last time;" and she probably dis-
appeared soon after that date from the sacred shrine that for nine
centuries she had guarded. In the V Century the Christian
Church at Athens, which had hitherto been very weak, seemed
suddenly to rise in power and influence; and this probably made
it easier for Theodosios II to carry out his wishes. Throughout
his reign Athens was continually plundered to enrich Constanti-
nople. Up to this time it had been exceptional for an ancient
temple to be transformed into a church, and so it remains almost
a matter of certainty that in the V century Christianity had not
yet made its way into the temples of the Akropolis. But in the
year 435 the order came from Emperor Theodosios II: Cuneta
fana templa, delubra. . . . . destrui com/ocationeque venerandae Chris-
tianæ religionis signi expiari.” Although we have no definite record
in regard to the matter until 630, still it is safe to presume that it
was not long after the promulgation of the edict that the Parthe-
non, Erechtheion, Chalkotheke, etc., were converted into Chris-
tian churches. In accordance with the then prevailing custom
of dedicating the temple of a heathen god to that saint who was
most nearly the counterpart of the pagan deity, the Parthenon,
the shrine of the virgin goddess of wisdom, was turned over first
to St. Sophia, and not long afterward to the Panagia—the Virgin
Mary. In like manner the temple of the knightly Theseus became
the church of St. George. - &
In the conversion of Greek temples into churches, the first care
of the Christians was for the orientation of their place of worship,
that the altar might stand at the east end. In the case of the
Parthenon, in order to accomplish the desired end, it was neces-
sary to cut a door through the western cella-wall, for there had
been none there before, and in that way the west end became the
front, and the opisthodomos the narthex of the new church. The
old entrance would, of course, be entirely closed up by the build-
ing of the apse. -
"The fanatical Neoplatonist, Proklos, tells how a beautiful woman appeared to
him in a dream and bade him prepare his house, for the Queen of Athens wished to
come and dwell with him. This was the token that she must soon leave her own
house. And, as a matter of fact, the Christians soon afterward removed the statue
from the Parthenon. .
* Cod. Theod. xv.1, 10, xxv.
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 543
The thought of the barbarous treatment suffered by ancient
temples at the hands of the early Christians rouses the indigna-
tion of all lovers of Hellenic antiquities; and yet our pain at the
defacement that we behold may be moderated by the considera-
tion that, if these peerless temples had not been converted into
churches, they might have been ruthlessly destroyed as monu-
ments of idolatry, sharing the fate of many another building—
like the Asklepieion—of which the Church could make no use.
The pediments also did not remain untouched. Even in the
earlier Byzantine times the Athena at least had disappeared from
both pediments of the Parthenon, and in her place were substituted
niches, presumably with representations of Saints. The columns
were used as a sort of church record; there are still to be found
scratched upon the columns of the Parthenon notices recording
the days on which the dignitaries of the church had died. The
last date is 1190. Other inscriptions contain short ejaculatory
prayers, texts, etc.—such as are to be found on the walls of the
catacombs of Rome.”
A period of almost total darkness, unbroken by the light of a
single important notice concerning the Akropolis, begins with
Justinian (527–565) and continues down to the latter part of the
middle ages; even from that time on it is possible to trace out
the history of but few buildings. Justinian, out of jealousy for
the new academy at Constantinople, dealt the University of
Athens its death-blow; Athens, as the educational centre of the
world, consequently became a thing of the past. But as an art
centre it still remained his lawful prey. The splendid church of
St. Sophia at the Golden Horn was building, and to give it grace
and beauty, Athens was plundered without limit. We are told
that not only sculptures, but columns and building-material of all
sorts were transported to the capital for that purpose, and that
the classic buildings of Athens furnished a convenient quarry for
Justinian's architects.”
The veil of the dark ages then closes in about the city of monu-
ments. The light of letters and science is extinguished; the
workshop of the arts and of industry, the home of the Muses and
of wisdom is now heard of only as a story and no longer sought
* MICHAELIs, Der Parth., p. 52. "Cf. HERTZBERG, Athen, p. 217.
544 - WALTER MILLER.
by admiring strangers from all parts of the world: it has now
become simply a Byzantine fort in a weak, declining land."
XIII.--THE FRANKS IN ATHENS.
In 1204, while the crusaders under Enrico Dandolo, the great
Doge of Venice, and the famous Margrave Bonifacio II of Mont-
ferrat were engaged about the Bosporos, Sgouros of Nauplia arose
and overran Middle Greece, captured Athens and burned it to the
ground, but failed to get possession of the Akropolis. In the
next year (1205) Bonifacio, now made King of Thessalonika,
appeared in Athens with his victorious Burgundians and Lom-
bards, and after no great struggle obtained possession of the
Akropolis, plundered the churches, and then transformed them
from Orthodox into Roman Catholic churches. +
Thus Attika and Boeotia came under the sway of the Burgun-
dian Otto de la Roche-sur-Ougnon, who; as “Grand-Seignior of
Athens’ took up his residence upon the Akropolis. But of the
changes made by the French dukes (1205–1311) or by the Cata-
lans, who succeeded them (1311–1385), we know absolutely moth-
ing. We are better informed, however, with regard to the
operations of the Florentine dukes, to whom the Catálans in
turn were forced to yield (1385). Under their dynasty Athens
once more flourished. The first two Acciaiuoli took considerable
pride in beautifying their city. They built upon the south wing
of the Propylaia the mighty tower, which overlooked the whole
Attic plain and the sea from Megara to Hydra and Cape Zoster.”
* The only possible items of interest recorded up to the time of its occupation,
by the Franks are: (1) the visit of Basileios II, who, in token of his gratitude to
the Holy Virgin for his victories over the Bulgarians, held a magnificent triumph,
upon the Akropolis and dedicated to Saint Mary and her cathedral (the Parthenon)
a large number of precious offerings, among them a silver dove (the symbol of the
Holy Ghost) that ever fluttered above the altar. And (2) we have a report concern-
ing the great church upon the Akropolis coming to us by way of distant Iceland.
A pilgrim, Saewulf, had journeyed thence to Athens, and ne makes mention of an
ever-burning lamp that hung in the church of the Madonna. Q
* BoEIN, Prop., p. 7, ascribes the building of the tower not to the Franks but to
the Turks; how a Turkish tower or a Turkish wall differs from a Frankish tower
or a Frankish wall, unless it should happen to contain a contemporary inscription,
I am unable to say, and so leave the question unanswered. HERTZBERG, Athen, pp.
102 and 226, ascribes it to the Burgundian dukes. This also is conceivable, but
less probable ; it is the Italian dukes of whom such constructions are so charac-
teristic.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 545
The tower filled the whole south wing; the middle hall and the
Pinakotheke were turned to other uses; the intercolumniations
were built up with walls containing two rows of windows, a floor
was put in making two stories for executive offices; above the
entablature was a third story for the dwelling, and in this wise
the Propylaia was converted into a palazzo è l'Italienne in which
the Acciaiuoli lived. They furthermore united the Nikepyrgos
with the pedestal of the Agrippa monument by an immense
defensory wall 7-8 metres thick, which at the same time served to
support a fine terrace in front of the palace of the Duke and a
battery on top. To make the defense complete another wall of the
same sort was built between the monument of Agrippa and the
corner of the Pinakotheke.
These fortifications again necessitated a change in the approach.
In the days of Perikles, and before, the road wound up over dif-
ferent terraces to the Propylaia; in the times of the Roman Em-
pire and for centuries after, people had climbed to the Akropolis.
by the splendid marble stairs; now again the ascent was arranged
in winding curves; it led through a gate beside the pedestal of
Agrippa, then turned sharply about to the south, passed around
south of the great tower, through the last gate and over the for-
gotten sanctuary of the Graces” and the great Pelasgic wall,
now for the first time demolished, into the Akropolis proper.
The whole Akropolis now reverted once more to its original
purpose—that of a citadel. But it must be made to correspond
with the new methods of warfare, and was accordingly fitted out
with barracks, chemins de ronde, terre-pleins and underground gal-
leries, with reservoirs and magazines, with walls provided with
battlements and embrasures, and with batteries at every point.
Rimon’s wall, however, had not been built with modern engines
of attack in view, nor was it calculated ever to defy gunpowder
and iron balls. Now, it was in these very times that artillery
began to play a considerable rôle as a means of attacking strong-
holds, and the old walls, neglected as they had been for centuries,
were at many points in no condition long to resist a heavy can-
nonade of shot and shell. To meet this new need and make the
wall bomb-proof, they doubled and even tripled its thickness.
its PAUs. 1. 2.
546 WALTER MILLER.
These, after frequent repair, are the walls that strike the attention
of the traveler to-day, especially on the south side of the Akrop-
olis and in places on the north; they are built of small pieces of
stone irregularly piled together with a vast amount of mortar and
braced up with numerous buttresses. Here and there a piece of
the modern wall has broken away revealing the massive, mortar-
less, ashlar wall of Kimon almost unscratched. s
The Florentines built extensively upon and about the Akrop-
olis, but they made sparing use of ancient materials. For the
most part the material employed was taken from buildings of the
Byzantine period. g - * -
Such was the condition of the Akropolis with the principal
temples still practically uninjured, when in 1456 it passed into
the hands of the Turks.
XIV.--THE AKROPOLIS UNDER THE TURKS.
The lawless condition of affairs that obtained at the court of
the last of the Acciaiuoli in Athens made it a comparatively easy
matter for Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, to
annex Athens to his kingdom. In 1456 his general, Omar, took
possession of the lower city and in June, 1458, Franco II surren-
dered the Akropolis also. The Sultan himself soon afterward
visited his new possessions and was so charmed with the beauty
and splendor of the remains of the ancient days, that he treated
the city, considering that he was a Turk, with great kindness.
Disdar-Aga, to be sure, took up his residence upon the Akrop-
olis; the Propylaia became his headquarters, the Erechtheion
his harem, while, strange to say, the Parthenon was left to the
Christians as their chief place of worship in the city. His sub-
ordinates covered the Akropolis with their miserable dwelling-
houses; they extended the casemates for their cannon; they built
the great wall on the southwest, through the gate in which until
recently—it is now removed entirely—all visitors to the Akrop-
olis had to pass, and strengthened the circuit wall of the citadel
still further. º --
After the Sultan’s first visit to Athens, the Parthenon was still
retained as a Christian church. But when, two years later (1460),
Mohammed returned from subjugating the Peloponnesos and
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A THENS. 547
found the Athenians plotting against his rule, he not only re-
moved the leaders of the conspiracy but also, to punish the rebels
still further, converted the church into a mosque (1460). Fortu-
mately, however, this was accomplished without causing much in-
jury to the building. The first thing for the pious Mussulman
to do was to cover up the detested pictures of saints upon the
walls with a good heavy coat of whitewash; and then on the
South side of the old opisthodomos they reared up—a most won-
derful appendage to the massive proportions of the Doric temple !
—a tall and slender minaret, and to afford access to it they cut in
exceedingly rough and barbarous Turkish fashion a door in the
west wall of the cella. A view of the Akropolis drawn in 1670,
gives us a fairly complete view of the condition of the buildings
at that time. º - - -
And then again for two more centuries Athens disappears
almost totally from history. The Moslems kept exclusive posses-
sion of the Akropolis during all that time, and, with their dislike
for any object of art, of how many priceless works of sculpture
must their religious fanaticism have robbed us during those two
centuries. And yet down to 1656 the Akropolis had still suffered
no great catastrophe. We know that the Turks either from reli-
gious conviction or from downright depravity had long been active
in defacing the sculptured monuments that lay near at hand; we
know further that educated vandals from enlightened Europe in
their very zeal for antiquities continued the work begun by the
Mussulmans, for they carried away the smaller pieces of sculpture
and scattered them all over the world and defaced those that they
could not carry away, by breaking off small pieces—as a head
from a metope or frieze—wherewith to enrich their collections at
home. And yet, notwithstanding all these depredations of Chris-
tian and of Turk, the great buildings of the Akropolis still stood
almost intact until 1656. On one unfortunate night in that year.”
lightning struck a heap of powder which Isouf-Aga, then in com-
mand of the fort, had piled up in the east portico of the Propylaia
preparatory to bombarding on the morrow a little Greek chapel
*The date is given by SPON and WHELER, Voyage en Grèce, etc., II, p. 107;
the explosion occurred twenty years before their account was written (1676), and
thirty years before the explosion of the Parthenon (1687).
548 WALTER MILLER,
on the hillside opposite his palace. A frightful explosion fol-
lowed, blowing Isouf. Aga into the air, but with him, less happily,
a large part of the Propylaia. The whole architrave was shat-
tered and with it the richly wrought ceiling also fell; two of the
Ionic columns were entirely thrown down and the tops of all the
rest. Even to-day as we gaze upon those broken and distorted
columns we may read what fearful havoc that stroke of lightning
worked.” The west portico, however, suffered less.
But now the mischief was only well begun. The really disas-
trous year was 1687. All the Peloponnesos had been swept by
the flames of war; the victorious mercenaries under Francesco
Morosini, afterward Doge of Venice, had wrested from the Turks.
one position after the other and were pressing on toward Athens.
The Turks began to feel insecure even upon the Akropolis, and
in order to intrench themselves more strongly in their citadel,
they razed the little temple of Athena-Nike clear to the stylobate.
and built it block for block into new breastworks before the
Propylaia, surmounted by six pièces of ordnance.
On the evening of the 21st of September of that year Moro-
sini’s fleet sailed into the Peiraieus; on the morning of the 22d
the batteries on the Museion and Nymphaion and the mortars on
the Areiopagos and to the east were all ready, and their dreadful
work of destruction was begun. But impatient that their pro-
gress in bombarding a fastness so mighty was necessarily so slow,
they resolved upon a measure that should wipe the Akropolis for
ever from the face of the earth—they would undermine it and
blow the whole hill, with all its temples, into the air. But the
work proved too formidable and was soon abandoned." Not
long afterward a deserter came over from the Turkish side and
with the hope of deterring the enemy from their bombardment
told them that they were in danger of blowing the splendid
Parthenon to pieces, for in that, he said, the Turks had their
powder magazine. The falsehood (for it was only a day’s supply
of powder that the Turks had heaped up in the cella of the Par-
thenon) was fatal; instead of ceasing their fire, the mortars were
all turned upon one point—the Parthenon itself—but for a long
175 BoBN, Prop., p. 8. 176 MICHAELIS, Der Parthenon, pp. 66, sq.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 549
time, as if the guns refused to do their duty against such a mark,
the firing was without effect.” Finally, however, at seven o’clock
in the evening of the 26th of September, a German lieutenant in
Morosini’s army tried his hand at one of the eastern mortars and
the unblessed bomb fell through the roof of the Parthenon, di-
rectly into the heap of powder, and the masterpiece of Iktinos
and Kallikrates, almost whole until that moment, was torn asun-
der. And this was not all, but the explosion caused a conflagra-
tion that for two days and nights raged among the houses of the
Turks, bringing destruction and injury to the other temples
there.” Such a price did Venice pay for six months’ possession
of the Akropolis of Athens.” How fortunate that less than
three years previous Jean Jacques Carrey had come that way and
made his invaluable drawings of the Parthenon sculptures |
After the capitulation of the garrison, the captors proceeded to
select choice pieces of the marble sculptures to carry home as
mementos of their glorious achievement. Morosini, recalling
the fine bronze horses brought home by some predecessor to
adorn St. Mark’s, was seized with a desire to possess himself of
those wonderful horses of Athena and Poseidon in the west ped-
iment of the Parthenon and to take them as a trophy home to
Venice. But through the deplorable carelessness of the work-
men (they were sailors), the figures fell sixty feet down upon the
rock and not merely brokein pieces, but “they went up in dust.””
Losing these, the conquerer took instead the three huge lions
that now stand guarding the entrance to the arsenal of the Queen
of the Adriatic.
As soon as the Venetians were gone, the Turks at once re-
sumed possession of the Akropolis. The Italians had set them
an example of destruction on a gigantic scale, and if they had
showed any mercy before, they now showed none; the colossal
heap of ruins made by the explosion of the Parthenon, together
with every other piece of white marble not too large to be easily
moved, and if the fragment chanced to contain a relief or an in-
177 CURTIUs, Die Akropolis v. Athen, p. 31. * BoHN, Prop., p. 8.
11° CURTIUs, Die Akropolis v. Athen, p. 31. -
* “La poca accortezza di alcuni glife cadere, e si ruppero non solo ma si disfecero
in polvere ;” from a letter written by a Venetian officer, who arrived in the Peiraieus
on the 18th of December, 1687.
550 WALTER MILLER.
scription, so much the better—all this found its way into their
limekilns in order to furnish mortar for repairing their miserable
huts and the walls of their fort. And yet these same huts, again
filling up the whole Akropolis, covered and saved many a pre-
cious fragment or important foundation that might otherwise have
perished. - -
The minaret in the Parthenon still stood; the mosque was re-
built and the work of destruction went steadily on. The havoc
wrought by ignorance, wantonness and religious fanaticism on
the part of the Turks among the relics of antiquity was again in-
creased by the covetousness of the educated foreigners who now
began once more in greater numbers to visit Athens. Their de-
sire for choice bits of sculpture inspired the Turks with a new
motive to more extensive devastations—a chance to make money.
for more than a century the plundering and destruction continued,
and it is a wonder that anything was saved. Only the bound-
less wealth of the Akropolis in treasures of marble can possibly
account for the fact that all did not perish. As early as 1749,
when Dalton made his drawings of the Akropolis, not half of
the figures belonging to the pediments of the Parthenon were in
their place; some he found in fragments, others thrown down
but well preserved, while many had already disappeared entirely.
Under these circumstances it was scarcely an act of plunder or
destruction that Lord Elgin committed, when in the first years
of our century he removed the greater part of the Parthenon
sculptures from Athens and in that way saved them for us from
the destructive mania of the Turk, the vandalism of later travel-
ers and the dangers of war. It was also far from being a theft,
as it is often called even now. For after having worked in 1800
and 1801 against the greatest conceivable difficulties in making
casts and drawings of the remains of sculpture and architecture
upon the Akropolis, he then received from the Sublime Porte a
firman, in accordance with which he was granted permission “to
go in and out of the Akropolis at will, to excavate, to build scaf.
folding, mould and measure as he pleased; and if he wished to
take away a few blocks of stone with inscriptions or figures upon
them, nothing should stand in the way of his doing so.” With
this grant he collected figures from the pediments, metopes, blocks
A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS OF ATHENS. 551
of frieze, and sculptures of every sort, sent them off to England
and so preserved them from the certain destruction with which
they were threatened. For that he has our thanks. But in one
respect he, or rather his workmen (for he himself was seldom
present in Athens while the work was going on), will always de-
serve severest condemnation, in that the buildings were often
barbarously and inexcusably mutilated in taking down the desired
pieces of sculpture. Portions of the roof and cornice of the Par-
thenon were torn off, let fall and broken to atoms in order to
remove the metopes; One of the Caryatids was torn out from the
porch of the Erechtheion with such brutal violence, that both
the architrave and the lacunaria of the ceiling fell with a crash
and were ruined.” *g
The rescue was accomplished none too soon; for in the year
1821 the War for Grecian Independence broke out, and Attika
was the scene of many a bitter struggle. In the second year of
the war the great Odysseus built above the Klepsydra a mighty
bastion—now removed—the last military construction built upon
the Akropolis. Still, for several years more Athens was spared.
At length, bringing destruction with it, came that last long siege
of the citadel of Athens, from July, 1826, to June, 1827. The
Turkish cannon proved no less destructive than the Venetian.
Bombs and shot of every description shattered the sculptures that
were still in place and shivered the standing pillars. Especially
unfortunate were the bombs that struck the two northwest col-
umns of the Erechtheion and precipitated a part of the elaborate
ceiling of the porch.
From the 5th of June, 1827, until the spring of 1833, while
the seat of the new national government was at Nauplia, the
Turks remained stolidly in possession of the Akropolis. But
when the seat of government was transferred from Nauplia to
Athens in 1833, they had to make way for the Bavarian garrison
that accompanied King Otho from Munich. This event marked
the end of the destruction of antiquities in Athens, and with it
the Akropolis for ever ceases to be a citadel.
18. For the details see MICHAELIS, Der Parthenon, pp. 74–87.
552 % WALTER MILLER.
xv.–FROM THE GREEK REVOLUTION TO THE PRESENT."
We have now seen how the Akropolis grew, from a jagged
rock to an inexpugnable fortress, and from a fortress to a shrine
of surpassing splendor; then we have seen how it fell into ruin
and decay. Now comes the time when the monuments of antiq-
uity are rescued from the débris, from their covering of Byzan-
time, Frankish and Turkish buildings and walls, and when an-
cient Athens is more clearly restored to our admiring eyes.
While excavations on a small scale were occasionally instituted
even in the earlier years of this century, especially by that zeal-
ous collector of antiquities, the French Vice-Consul, Fauvel, still
the epoch of important systematic excavations dates from the
time when Athens was made the capital of the new-made king-
dom and Peiraeus again fitted out as its port.”
The first real work of excavating began at once in May, 1833;
with a modest sum raised by private subscription the first small
clearing was made beside the Parthenon. In the next year the
work was resumed, this time at the public expense, under the di-
rection of the architect Klenze, of Munich, but without any par-
ticular results.” We owe Klenze our thanks principally for what
he failed to do; his most fondly cherished plan was to erect upon
the Akropolis the royal palace of King Otho, and to the king
himself belongs the credit of defeating the scheme.
It was not until January, 1835, that the government itself took
up the work on a large Scale and according to a systematic plan,
and prosecuted it with wonderful success after Ludwig Ross, as
Conservator-in-chief of Antiquities in Athens, in conjunction
with the architects Schaubert and Hansen, was put in charge of
the work of exploration and restoration. They began with the
removal of the works of fortification and other modern buildings,
continuing also the excavations about the Parthenon, which was
then buried up to the second step in the débris of centuries.”
JBesides a large number of bases of votive offerings, inscrip-
tions, and other smaller monuments, they discovered in that year
(1835–6) considerable remains of the Parthenon sculptures—from
pediments, frieze and metopes; the west front of the Propylaia was
* MICHAELIS, Der Parthexon, pp. 88 sq.; WACHSMUTH, Stadt Athen, I, pp.
23 sq.
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF A THENS, 558
cleared up, and above all nearly every piece of the Nike temple
was found and the temple reconstructed part for part, except the
roof, upon its old foundations.
Scarcely had this valuable service been rendered when Ross
was superseded by the untrustworthy Pittakis. Under his direc-
tion the work about the Propylaia was finished (1837), and the
foundations of the Erechtheion laid bare (1838–40). In 1842
the old mosque in the Parthenon, restored in 1688 after the ex-
plosion, collapsed and was all removed except the lower part of
the minaret, which was taken down in 1889.
The Bavarian administration thereupon gave up further prose.
cution of the task. But the world could not suffer it to rest in a
state so far from completion. The credit of having continued the
excavations belongs to the French government. In 1852 under
the supervision of M. Beulé, at that time a member of the French
School at Athens, the Roman stairway and the gate that bears
his name were freed from the immense Turkish and Venetian
bastions built upon them.
. After the French had ceased operations there came a Prussian
expedition led by Adolf Bötticher; they directed their energies
to pulling down the Byzantine apse in the pronaos of the Parthe-
non and to removing the rubbish that Pittakis had left in and
about the Erechtheion. The results of his investigations are
given in detail by Bötticher himself in his “ Akropolis von Athen.”
Only two more agencies have since contributed to the comple-
tion of the work upon the Akropolis. The next after the French
and Prussians was the ETaupta 'Apxaloxoyukij, the “Archaeologi-
cal Society of Greece;” this society, at first generously supplied
with funds by Dr. Schliemann, carried on the excavations until
we could get a fairly complete notion of the post-Periklean
Akropolis. In 1876 even the old tower upon the south wing of
the Propylaia was taken down in the hope of new discoveries.
It was then thought that every corner, every pile of earth
and rubbish had been examined and that the Akropolis contained
but little that was hidden from sight. And yet the explorations
of the Greek government and the Archæological Society, carried
on from 1885 to 1889, have been richer in results than almost
any other excavations that might be named, and they are at the
554 IVALTER MILLER.
same time more complete, for we know now to a certainty that
the spade can reveal nothing new within the walls of the Akrop-
olis. Excepting where the ancient buildings stand, the whole
surface of the Akropolis down to the natural rock has been
moved and minutely examined. These new excavations have
not only brought to light a vast number of statues, inscriptions,
bronzes, terracottas, remains of great buildings, etc., and have
given us much new information concerning the age of Perikles,
but they have also thrown upon the condition of the pre-Persian
Akropolis, with its palace and shrines, and even upon its natural
form, such a flood of light as we had never hoped to see.
We have looked upon a picture of perfect beauty and then upon
another of that beauty's destruction and decay; and at the end,
as at the beginning, Athens is and always will be the Mecca
toward which every friend of ancient art will turn. And if in the
dazzling light of that southern sun it brings a feeling of pain and
sadness to look upon the desolation wrought by the hand of man
upon those divine creations of man’s hand, and if it is impossible
to imagine from the few, shattered fragments before us what the
whole must have been, let us wait till nightfall. Who that has
ever stepped out from the Propylaia upon the inner Akropolis
with the full moon hanging in the sky can forget the impression
made upon his soul! The vast proportions then are realized;
the world of ruins round about is animated with life; the awak-
ened fancy fills up all gaps and covers over every defacement; the
sanctuary of Athena and Erechtheus small and serene in the
moonlight shows all its ancient elegance; and above it rises ma-
jestically the imposing Parthenon with its forest of pillars. The
gods return from the Hyperboreans and take their places again in
the pediments. We forget the Christians and the Turks, the
Venetians and Lord Elgin, and with beating hearts we bow in
silent admiration before the consummate art which created that
harmonious whole.” ' ' . . . . . .
WALTER MILLER.
Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo Alto, Cal.
* Cf. Michaelis, Der Parthenon, p. 91.
: • A , r ( ? * . t 3 f z'ſ , , * $
A HISTORY OF THE ARROPOLIS OF ATHENS.
555
.
4
5
12
13.
14.
. BEULÉ,
BoEIN,
. BORRMANN,
, BöTTICHER,
. BRücKNER,
{ %
... BURNour',
. CURTIUs,
DöRPFELD,
{ {
BIBLIOGRAPHY,
L'Acropole d'Athènes. 2 vols.
Die Propylaeen der Akropolis von Athen.
Stelen f. Weihgeschenke auf der Akropolis zu Athen. Jahrbuch
des Arch. Inst. III, pp. 269 sq.' " '
Untersuchwººgen auf der Akropolis von Athen.
Porossculptwren auf der Akropolis von Athen.
Mittheilungen Athen, XIV, pp. 67 sq.; xv, pp. 84 sq.
La Ville et l'Acropole d'Athènes.
Geschichte Griechenlands, vol. I.
Sieben Karten von Athen.
Attische Studien, vol. I.
Eleusinion wºod Pelargikon.
Berichte d. Berl. Akad. 1884, pp. 499 sq.
Die Akropolis von Athen. Ein Vortrag gehalten an 10 Feb.,
1844. i & & A # * £ sº
Die Propylaeen von Athen.
Das choragische Mohwment des Nikias.
Mitth. Athen, x, pp. 219 fg. ; xiv, pp. 68 sq.
Der &lte Athenatempel auf der'Burg.
Mitth. Athen, x, pp. 275 sq.; XI, pp. 337 sq.; XII, pp. 25 sq.,
and 190 sq.; xv, pp. *
Ueber die Awsgrabungen auf der Akropolis. Mitth. Athen,
XI, pp. 162 sq. " & * i
Berichte. Mitth. Athen, XI, pp. 451 sq.; XII, pp. 140 sq., 263
sq., and 385 sq.; XIII, pp. 105 sq., 223 sq., and 429 sq.; XIV,
pp. 117 sq., 324 sq., and 413 sq.
Chálkothek wºnd Erganetempel. Mitth. XII, pp. 304 sq.
Eine Ansicht der Akropolis aus d. Jahr 1670. $
Mitth. Athen, II, pp. 38 sq. i
Las Pelargikon in Athen. Ges. Abh, I, pp. 68 sq.
VERRALL, Mythology and Monwments of Ancient Athens.
Athen. ... '" * . . "
Ueber die Abfasswmgszeit des herodotischen Geschichtswerks.
Abh, d. Berl. Akad. 1868 and 1871; reprinted 1878.
Die Inschrift des ehernen Viergespanns. • . . . '"
Monaisber, d. Berl. Akad. 1869, pp. 409 sq.; 1889.
Die choragische Inschrift des Nikias. Mitth. Athen, x, pp.
231 sq.
The Topography of Athens. 2 vols.
Die Topographie von Athen. Iwan Müller's Handbuch der
classischen. Alterthwm Swissenschaft, III, pp. 290 sq.
Tô Ekatów rešov. 'A6mvã, 1890, pp. 92 sq.
Ueber die archaischen Giebelreliefs von der Akropolis.
Athen, X, pp. 257 sq. and 322 sq.
Cecropia.
Die Pelasger in Attika. Philologus, XLVIII, pp. 466 sq.
Der Parthenon. *
Mitth. X, pp. 38 sq., and 131 sq.
*
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27,
29.
30.
. MICHAELIS,
{ {
v. DUHN,
GöTTLING,
HARRISON and
HERTzBERG,
RIRCHHoFF,
( :
|KöHLER,
LEAKE,
LOLLING,
{ %
MEURSIUS,
MEYER,
Miłłh.
556
WALTER MILLER.
32
33.
34.
35.
, 36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
54.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58
. MICHAELIS,
{ {
MüLLER,
{ {
PETERSEN,
OvKRBECK,
RoBERT,
ROSS,
{ {
STRzYGows KI,
STUDNICZKA,
{ {
|UNGER,
WACEISMUTH,
{ {
... WELCKER,
{ {
WERNICKE,
WILAMoWITz,
WILKINs,
WolTERs,
WoRDsworth,
.#CURTIUs,
Zºr Periegese d. Akropolis v. Athen. Mitth. I, pp. 275, sq.
Bemerkwmgen zur Periegese d. Akrop. v. Athen. Mitth. Athen,
II, pp. 1 sq. and 85 sq.
Die Zeit des Neubaws des Poliastempels. Mitth. Athen, XIV, pp.
349 sq.
De munimentis Athenarum quaest, hist. Werke III, pp. 89 sq.
in Ersch wind Gruber's Encyclopädie, s. v. Attika.
Der alle Athenatempel. Mitth. Athen, XII, pp. 62 sq.
Gesch d. griech. Plastik I*.
Der Aufgang zur Akropolis. Philologische Untersuchungen von
Riessling und Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, I, pp. 173 sq.
Archaeologische Awfsätze I, pp. 72 sq.; II, pp. 113 sq., and
250 sq.
Pnya, und Pelasgikon.
SPON et WHELER, Voyage d’Italve, de Grèce, etc., fail awa, années 1675–76.
Die Akropolis in alt-byzantinischer Zeit.
Mitth. Athen, XIV, pp. 271 sq.
STUART and REVETT, Antiquities of Athens. 4 vols.
Attische Porosgiebel. Mitth. Athen, XI, pp. 61 sq.
Athenakopf &m Akropolismuseum. Mitth. Athen, XI, pp. 185 sq.
Enneakrwmos wºnd Pelasgikon.
Sitzungsber. d. Münchener Akademie 1874, pp. 263 sq.
Die Stadt Athen im Alterthwm, vol. I.
Neue Beiträge zur Topogr. v. Athen. Berichte d. Sächs. Gesell-
schaft der Wissenschaft, 1887, pp. 263 sq.
Ueber den Standort des ehermen Viergespanns auf d. Akrop.
FLECKEISEN's Jahrbuch. 1879, pp. 18, sq.
Pnya, oder Pelasgikon. Rhein. Mus. x, pp. 30 sq.
Der Felsaltar des hôchsten Zeus . . . Abhandlungen der Berl.
Akad. 1852, pp. 267 sq.
Pausanias und der alte Athenatempel. Mitth. Athen, XII, pp.
184 sq.
Aus Kydathem, pp. 97 sq.
Athenienaia.
Nike-pyrgos. Bonner Studien zu Ehren Kekule's.
Athens and Attica.
Stadtgeschichte von Athen, 1891.
* Appeared since the foregoing article was completed.
-
PLATE I
……….….… …
----
--~~~~----
----
|…，∞}
„， ，
ºoaeg | N I Nº. xvj. s NG HJL w ŁO SITIOº Oº Oº º H.L.
！！！！！！！ ！！ ！!
-|-|-|-- -
--------|-------|-----|×|-|-------- ----- - - - -
：，ſae|-' ’ .
|-
|.…………………！！！
·ſºſſºſ|-ſae
， ！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
|-|----- ----·ſae
=（）±（√≠√≠√∞
----
ſſſ
----！
|-
--HO /MAG-IIA V



PLATE II.
4. ROCK CUT WALL BESIDE THE BEMA ON THE PNYX.
2. THE AKROPOLIS FROM THE SOUTHWEST.


"SNGI HJLV （SITIO， O （1x） w GH HIL HO N wriae
oºr |- ·…•
WZZ%
----ģ
(/），
\，
��：§|
%
%),º，eyºazaeo， º
|-
Ø
(%)ºººº« ºgºvaſſo
vº“，！”?•
№ſſº, ſººſ
----*…！！！！!
-：^*®£
（ 111 Galw "Iei|







.
- ºr
- º
º'-- - - º
º
POROS RELIEF HERA K LES COMBAT WITH THE HYDRA.
PLATE IV.
2. POROS RELIEF. TYPHON








vºn S G H L ， O NIV w.ci-ſoº HQL HOELIAN SOEHTI XIV （GIH + O → （1000 （I.LS
| 11A x （Ici （III^ ， ^IO^ -*A. OOTIOG， HOXH ， ） O ~1 º N H O Oſº

PLATE VI.
ATHENA FROM THE PEISISTRATIC GABLE.

PLATE VII.
a
AKROPOLIS. ExcAvATIONS NEAR THE NORTH WALL-

|T|T
3 9015 02246 3023
ãº
º
º
&
> *-*- .# * : * .#
*** *.*.*.*.* 14
<s §
tº cººk - i.
35.
- : - f - -
- - - - - * * * ~ * - - . - - * > . . . . .
.. - - { * * - . - ~. - * w -
- - . . • * ~ 4. - - - “.. • - - • * +}
* - - , -- " *. - - - - - - - * - - , - q : * - - ! . - - ** - - * -
- - - - * J. 8 * - - - * * - • { - * .
- r --" - *- : - .* - r ' . , - -
- - - i * •. +. * - ... . - - - i - - - -- -- i --
- - - | - - --- . . ." w - - r - - ~- ~, • -
- - - ‘. - - - -- -
- • * - - - i ; : -
- * - - - - R. - *- -- * * - * d
- N. • * . x - * * . . - - - * - - - * e
... . - - . s - p - | - * * * -. § - - - H , * - :
* ... , - • - * ** -- - - - - *-* - : - -- t | & ... " -
& - ~ - - • × - - - -- - - - - - * - -
- - - - * -- - * * * - ---, - - -- .." - ** - - - ~- - • . .” -
.. • F- *- . . ... . . - . • - - - - - - T - - º
- *. - * , * - . . . .” - ' ' , - - * ~ * - * - -. -
4. * . º . * - • * - .- : . * > - - - * - - r
& * - , 4. * - - : h - . . * : * * y-- - - • * : - - - . . . " “. -
- - ... -- i * , - • - r - -- * … **
* ~ * - - " ; ; - ? . - - - - - - - - - i * . * - -
*, * - • - v * x - - * * ~. -- - * { *
- . > - - * - - -
... } ... < - - $ • - + * - - Y • - w * - * + - -
*. - - - - < *. - - ,- - - - - -
". . . - , - * - - - - - - - • *-* -
r • , - r • . --- - - - º -- ; : ". - - - - - . . . * * . . - - - - --> *
§ & - - | - - --- - # *
- *. - - x, -- -
º” - - * . . - - ... • - - -
- . * sº . } - - - - * * x e- - * : - : -
~ * - - +. - * ... • - ~. - - *, - . . . - -
. . . -- - -- - - - - ~ * * * * * x. • - - . . . . . - -
- - - ... -- - w- * -, - * . r g # - _* - - * ... *- -> **, - ** * -
* - : . . . . . , . . " $ - - - • X. . * - - - - * * .
- . . . . - - . - “. - * - ,” “s -- 1, - - - - - *.
^ - - - - - * . • * - t * * * . - - - *. - --- - - - -- -
- - - : . . : - - ". - * - - - ! :
- - * . . * * ~ * . , • * , - . * * - --- • ‘ * - . . . . . - * . - -
^- - - ~ - ! - - .* * * , , - - * ~ **
- - . .” * - i ka - C -. * - -
r - * * * . • . . -- * - - - - .* - - ,-, * * * , -
- - - - * * * . h - . - - - - . 4.
* , - * - * * t - * - - +
- - - - - * * ** , - * > * --- - - * - ... • - - * =
- - " ... - - - - s" - • , *. -- - ‘. . -> “. . - . - - * * - ~ - *.* - - * * - - -
- _ " - - - * * - - ‘.. - * * . . . . . - +. - - - - - - '- . . ." - . * .. - . . . *
• I * .* *:- - * * . . . - - - - - * ..., - - > - " . . .” *,
- - - 4 x - . w º e - * -, * = - * - - - - * J
... • *- - - - * * 3 * * . • * w --- - * • . - - - --. * *
- - • . -, \ • , - * * * Y. - - - - * * . : - * r t ,
, - . . . . - J. . .3 - --- • * * * - - , * * , , - - * - - --
- * -, - ‘. . * •. - - s' - - . . . . * - * --
- - - - - g - - . y *
- - . . .” - - — ? -- - • * x. - - t - } - - - -
* x - ''“ - ‘. . . - -- * - - t - - - - - - - .* g
- •' * - . . . - -- - -- 3. ~. - - --. - •º, - -
- - * r * - • * > . - - t - *- - - w - ... • . . > * * . . . d
- * . - *- -- - - * -, *. x ** - - - - - - - -
- - * - - w ’s - ... •, $ - - - * , --- - ~ * * > . -
... . . . " - - -- 8 . , - * - - - 's • ‘ , ) - - . . " * . . . . - ^, 1 *
- " * > * - , - - - - - w ...” - % & -- - - , - - - 1 : - - , -
3. - . . . .". * * * * * *. . . . . . . . . - - * * * * * * * . . . . A. * . . - * * ,- . -
- - ' -- * , - +. x : . -: * * -- * * * • . . . . , - - - - t - * . . . . . . - - , , ,
- - - • * > . . . - - - - *. - - - ‘. . . -
- * * * \ * &- - - * , * . . . . • 3 - #
- - - * . * ** • *- : * * - - - - * -
- . . - - - *- - + x4 - -







































































ºffffffff;#################
§#################
e º ，， ，，，*******
º.
~ºstae:ſae:aes ） ：:
¿º ， º， ， ， ，