Primitive Athens as described by Thucydides
CHAPTER IV.
THE SPRING KALLIRRHOË-ENNEAKROUNOS ‘NEAR’ THE CITADEL.
καὶ τῇ κρήνῃ τῇ νῦν μὲν τῶν τυράννων οὕτω σκευασάντων Ἐννεακρούνῳ καλουμένῃ, τὸ δὲ πάλαι φανερῶν τῶν πηγῶν οὐσῶν Καλλιῤῥόῃ ὠνομασμένῃ—ἐκείνῃ τε ἐγγὺς οὔσῃ τὰ πλείστου ἄξια ἐχρῶντο, καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχαίου πρό τε γαμικῶν καὶ ἐς ἄλλα τῶν ἱερῶν νομίζεται τῷ ὕδατι χρῆσθαι.
The argument now stands as follows. As evidence that the old city was _the present citadel with the addition of what is below it towards about South_ Thucydides has adduced two facts: 1st, that _the sanctuaries are in the citadel, those of other deities as well (as the Goddess)_; 2nd, that _those that are outside are placed towards this part of the city more (than elsewhere)_. Instances of such outside shrines are _the sanctuary of Zeus Olympios and the Pythion, and the sanctuary of Ge, and that of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes_. This last is defined, to prevent confusion with the later sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus, as the scene of the earlier Dionysia. Finally, _other ancient sanctuaries also_ (not named) are placed here.
We next come to the third fact adduced as evidence, namely, a statement as to the position of the ancient city spring, as follows: ‘_And the spring which is now called “Nine-Spouts,” from the form given it by the despots, but which formerly, when the sources were open, was named Fair-Fount—this spring_ (I say) _being near, they used for the most important purposes, and even now it is still the custom in consequence of the ancient_ (habit) _to use the water before weddings and for other sacred purposes_.’ Was ever argument stated in fashion more odd, involved, and utterly Thucydidean?
A spring which was once called Kallirrhoë and now Enneakrounos is ‘near,’ _i.e._ is near the ancient city as above defined, and is now used for weddings and the like. Why does Thucydides, who is ‘least of all mortals a gossip,’ tell us about the water and the weddings? Why refer to the history of the fountain at all? Because, as in the case of the Anthesteria, the reference to things ancient is part of his argument. The train of thought is this. The water of Nine-Spouts is now used for weddings. Why? On the face of it there seems no particular reason. The fountain ‘Nine-Spouts’ has water enough and to spare. But the fountain ‘Nine-Spouts’ was not always there, it replaced ‘Fair-Fount,’ and this spring the ancient Athenians used only for ‘most important’ purposes. Again, why? Well, clearly because there was not enough of it for general use. It was ‘near,’ and yet they reserved it for special purposes. We may gather, then, from the account of Thucydides, though he does not expressly state it, the despots not only changed the name but increased the ‘water supply[259].’
As to where the spring was, save that it is ‘near,’ Thucydides says absolutely nothing. It might be North, East, South, or West. We who have followed him step by step down the western slope, from the Olympieion and Pythion to the sanctuary of Ge and to the sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes, expect to find ‘Nine-Spouts’ somewhere near these sites, somewhere in the depression enclosed by Acropolis, Pnyx, and Areopagos. But we must bear in mind that this expectation is based on _our_ identification of the previous sanctuaries, not on any words of Thucydides about the spring.
But when we ask, as we inevitably must, where did _Pausanias_ see the famous fountain, we are in better case. Pausanias[260] saw ‘Nine-Spouts’ near to the Odeion, and the Odeion he saw immediately after the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, on the slope of the Areopagos. Immediately after the Enneakrounos, ‘beyond the fountain,’ as he says, Pausanias[261] saw the temples of Demeter and Kore, which can scarcely be separated from the Thesmophorion on the Pnyx. Somewhere adjacent to both Pnyx and Areopagos we should, from Pausanias, expect to find ‘Nine-Spouts,’ and there find it we shall.
* * * * *
It is fortunate for us that Thucydides was so explicit about the fountain. He gives us not merely a fountain called Fair-Fount but a fountain called Fair-Fount that was turned into Nine-Spouts. This is fortunate, because the word translated ‘Fair-Fount,’ _Kallirrhoë_, is a term so general that it might be applied to almost any spring. If in travelling through Greece to-day you stop to drink from a spring and ask your guide its name, he will, three times out of four, tell you it is _Mavromati_, _Black-Eye_, because that is a term so general as to be safely applicable. So at Athens there was, certainly in later days and possibly even in the time of Thucydides, another Kallirrhoë far away on the Ilissus. As Socrates, in the _Axiochos_[262], was going out towards Kynosarges and had reached the Ilissos he heard some one shouting to him, and turning round he saw Kleinias running towards Kallirrhoë. Clearly this was another Kallirrhoë, not the one near the Pnyx. How this duplication of Kallirrhoës at Athens arose will later (p. 143) be considered. The Kallirrhoë we are in search of is the Fair-Fount _which became the Nine-Spouts_, that and no other.
It is worth noticing how quickly the spring lost its old name. People were, no doubt, very proud of the new _Nine-Spouts_. Herodotus[263] naively assumes that in the days of the Pelasgians _Fair-Fount_ was called _Nine-Spouts_. The Athenians said that their expulsion of the Pelasgians from Attica was justified, for ‘the Pelasgians who were settled under Hymettus used to make excursions thence and do lawless deeds. Their daughters used constantly to go to the Enneakrounos for water, for at that time the Greeks had no household servants, and whenever they came the Pelasgians used to offer them violence out of insolence and contempt.’ There must have been people alive in the days of Thucydides whose fathers remembered the change made by the despots, yet the name _Fair-Fount_ was, when Thucydides wrote, evidently a matter of antiquarian knowledge.
* * * * *
The question now before us is, Have we evidence that a spring, naturally small but reinforced and rearranged at the time of the despots, existed in the district enclosed by the Pnyx, Areopagos, and Acropolis? A glance at the plan in Fig. 35 will show that such evidence does indeed exist. In the Pnyx rock at the point marked Y is the spring Kallirrhoë, Fair-Fount. It has been reinforced by water from the district of the Ilissus, brought in the conduit of Peisistratos. In front of the ancient Kallirrhoë once stood a Fountain-House, also of the date of the despots, the Fountain-House called Nine-Spouts, Enneakrounos.
The evidence for this threefold statement must be examined in detail. But first a word must be said as to the geological conditions of the site so far as they bear on the water-supply of Athens.
* * * * *
For her water-supply, and especially for her drinking water, Athens depends, has always depended, not on her rivers but her wells. In describing the Enneakrounos Pausanias[264] says, ‘There are wells throughout all the city, but this is the only spring.’ His statement as regards the spring is not strictly correct. Besides Kallirrhoë the ancient city possessed two natural springs, and these both on the Acropolis itself, the Klepsydra at the North-West corner and the spring in the precinct of Asklepios on the South slope. About the wells he is right. The plain on which Athens stood was, owing to its geological structure, amply supplied with wells. Its uppermost stratum is of calcareous stone, the material of which the hills of Lykabettos, of the Mouseion, and the Acropolis are all formed. Through this stratum rain can freely filter. But beneath this calcareous layer is a second stratum of slate and marl; this is practically impermeable, and here water collects into wells.
Wells, then, occur sporadically all over Athens and the Athenian plain, but nowhere in such abundance as in the district under discussion[265]. The Pnyx and the Mouseion on the one side, the Areopagos and Acropolis on the other form, as will readily be seen by reference to Fig. 46, a sort of trough, in which both rain and subterranean water are caught and must necessarily accumulate. As the ground slopes towards the North and the West the water accumulated cannot make its way towards the Ilissos. Its only outlet is the narrow and inadequate passage between the Pnyx and the Areopagos to the Eridanos. It is not surprising that, though the district lies high above the bed of the Eridanos, it was somewhat marshy. That its watery character was early turned to account and led to a dense population is shown by the fact that no less than 100 wells have been sunk within its narrow limits. These wells will be seen dotted about all over the plan in Fig. 35. These wells for subterranean water are frequently reinforced by cisterns for collecting rain-water. The cisterns are easily distinguished from the wells by the fact that they are lined with cement. Sometimes an old well which has presumably run dry has been turned by a coat of cement into a cistern. It is very remarkable that, long before the days of Peisistratos, elaborate systems existed for collecting water, in wells, cisterns, and conduits; one canal extended as far as the Odeion of Herodes Atticus, and followed a course almost coincident with that of Peisistratos, which it long preceded. Its complex of wells is clearly seen at T in Fig. 35, a little to the North of the ‘Branch Conduit to Koile.’
It is beside our purpose to examine in detail the artificial water-supply[266] of the district before the time of Peisistratos. That such a system existed is worth noting, because it shows that the district is a good site for the _Limnae_, and also that it was from early days thickly populated.
* * * * *
Our immediate concern, however, is to fix, if possible, the site of Kallirrhoë. Nor is this difficult. As the traveller goes by the modern carriage road from the ‘Theseion’ to the Acropolis, and as he nears the Pnyx he will see on his right a number of rock-chambers and channels cut in the rock, originally buried out of sight but laid bare by the making of the modern road. These are shown in Fig. 35 to the right and left of the spot marked Kallirrhoë, and appear more plainly on the enlarged plan in Fig. 38, where they are marked r¹-r¹⁰. They are a succession of rock-hewn wells and cisterns and channels, dating from early Greek to Roman times. Their number is additional evidence that the rock of the Pnyx had a regular system for collecting water, but of the series two only concern us, those marked r⁶ and r⁷.
An enlarged plan of the wells r⁶ and r⁷, with their connecting passages and chambers, is given in Fig. 36. A detailed description of it is important, because these chambers, recognized as forming the ancient Kallirrhoë, are now closed to the public by a locked gate, behind which few visitors to Athens penetrate.
A narrow stairway, a-b, leads into a chamber (Y) hewn in the heart of the rock. This chamber is about 4 metres square, and has an arched roof. Immediately opposite the entrance to Y, in the Western wall, a niche 1·80 m. deep has been cut (C). In this niche the shaft of a well (r⁷) has been sunk 2 metres deep. This is clearly shown in section in Fig. 43. In front of the well was a barrier, so that water could be drawn without fear of falling in. Over the well, about 0·80 metre above the pavement, was a small niche, which may have held an image. From the entrance of the chamber Y, about 1·30 metres high from the ground, there is a channel, n-p, worked in the rock. It has a slight inclination towards the niche C, and was obviously meant to collect the water that oozed from the vaulted roof and the walls. Later it was used as a conduit for the new water-supply brought by Peisistratos. Remains of a lead pipe and a terra-cotta conduit were found at m.
For,—doubt is impossible,—we have here in the niche at C the ancient Kallirrhoë. The large rock chamber Y marks it out from the other wells. Its importance down to Roman times is shown by the fact that the chamber Y is paved with a rich mosaic, the patterns of which are like those made elsewhere in Athens in the time of Hadrian. The ancient well must have kept its sanctity, otherwise it would not have been so adorned. After the well had run dry, and when the water-supply was purely artificial, the walls and ceiling were carefully cemented and the cement was later renewed. Such a coating would of course have been impossible when the roof and walls were dripping with natural water.
At the right hand of the entrance to Y was a passage, e-f, leading down by steps into a large elliptical chamber, r⁶. This chamber, presumably a cistern, was paved in Roman days with marble slabs, but below the marble pavement is a stucco pavement of Greek date. From this cistern leads a channel, i, which may have led to the well-house of Peisistratos, or, as suggested in the restoration (Fig. 43), to a smaller subordinate fountain.
The supply of water at Kallirrhoë was slender. We have seen that efforts were made to reinforce it by well-sinking, by conduits, by cisterns. But, though the Athenians found the water of Kallirrhoë adequate for their ritual baths, they had other needs, and, as the city grew and grew, the effort to cope locally with the increasing demand proved futile. There was a crying need for water from a distance, a great popular need such as the despots loved to supply. Water was needed, and water was brought in a supply practically inexhaustible, from the district of the upper Ilissos.
* * * * *
By a happy chance in the history of excavations, long before the search for the aqueduct of the despots began, another aqueduct, the work of another despot, had been brought to light—the aqueduct that Polycrates made for the Samians. At the close of his account of Polycrates, Herodotus[267] tells us he had lingered long over the affairs of the Samians ‘because they possessed three of the most wonderful works ever accomplished by the Greeks.’ The first and the only one of these wonders that concerns us was a great aqueduct bored through a mountain 150 fathoms high. The length of the tunnel, he goes on to say, was seven stadia, the height and the breadth eight feet each way. Through this tunnel there went a second passage, 20 cubits deep by three feet wide, through which the water is carried along in tiled pipes from a great spring to the city of Samos. The architect of this tunnel was a Megarean, Eupalinos, son of Naustrophos.
Possibly, _pace_ Herodotus, even if the Samians had had no aqueduct he would anyhow have told us the story of the ring; be that as it may, his account of the first wonder, the aqueduct, is invaluable, and has been fully substantiated. Never was a town by nature worse off for its water-supply than Samos, and rarely has one been supplied by a more astonishing piece of engineering. The ‘great spring’ Hagniades has been found[268], the tunnel with its double channel, even the very earthenware pipes laid down by Eupalinos. We know perfectly well what to expect in an aqueduct made by the despots.
The excavators naturally sought for the conduit of Peisistratos in the immediate neighbourhood of Kallirrhoë, and there, close up to the Pnyx rock, they found it, at a distance of about 40 metres from the rock chamber Y. From that point up to the South of the Odeion of Herodes Atticus its course has been completely excavated. It is best seen in Professor Dörpfeld’s official plan (Fig. 46). Just South of the Odeion the conduit could not be cleared out, because of its damaged condition and the mass of _débris_ that had fallen over it. Between the Odeion and the Dionysiac theatre it runs beneath an ancient road, and passes within the precinct of Dionysos, between the earlier and later temples. Beyond that point its course has not been excavated in detail, but beneath the modern Russian church a conduit passes which must be its continuation, and this leads on to the water-course[269] discovered long ago, now utilized for watering the Royal Gardens. This water is known to come from the upper valley of the Ilissus (Fig. 49).
The main conduit ran, then, from the upper valley of the Ilissus to the great reservoir basin marked on the plan in Fig. 35, but from this main conduit several branches can be traced; the most important are the branch tunnel that leads to the district of Koile and a smaller branch that goes off to water the Amyneion. Other ramifications can be traced, the object of which is not always clear; they probably occur at points where in piercing the tunnel veins of water were reached, and some served to bring to the main conduit subsidiary supplies from the Hill of the Muses and from the Acropolis.
Only those, as Professor Dörpfeld[270] himself remarks, who have taken the trouble to get right down into the tunnellings and cross tunnellings and explore them thoroughly so far as they can be explored, can form any idea of the magnitude of the work. Sometimes it is possible to stand upright in the conduit, some portions can only be reached on the hands and knees. The fact is borne in upon any one and every one who has made even a brief exploration, he feels himself unquestionably exploring what must have been the main artificial water-supply of ancient Athens, and here, if such a supply were needed, must have been the centre of the ancient city life.
The aqueduct is dated securely by comparison with the work of Eupalinos at Samos as of the time of the despots. Two striking analogies are observable between the aqueduct of Peisistratos at Athens and that of Polycrates at Samos. These are the character of the pipes, and the system of shafts. The separate pieces of the pipes at Athens are from 0·60 m. to 0·61 in length, not counting the junction points. They are made of fine yellowish clay; inside they are protected by a red glaze, outside they are left rough, except that at each end they are glazed and have a double stripe of glaze round the middle and round each end. In length and diameter they correspond with the Samos pipes, which Professor Dörpfeld carefully inspected for comparison[271]. The Samos pipes also are actually decorated with stripes, only the stripes at Samos are incised, those at Athens painted.
The same correspondence is notable in the way the pipes are joined together: both at Athens and Samos the pipes are soldered together with lead, and provision is made at both places for cleaning them. An elliptical shaped hole large enough to admit the hand is left, and is provided with a cover. A specimen of the Athenian pipes is shown in Fig. 37, and side by side with it a section of the conduit with the pipe in position.
The pipes bear abundant traces of long use and frequent repair. In quite early days they seem to have got crusted with lime deposit from the water, and in some cases quite choked up, the water then flowed over the pipes and flooded the main channel to two-thirds of its height. In some places, where the rock was soft, it seems to have got worn away and fallen in, and portions of the tunnel became useless. New borings were made for about 30 metres and new pipes put in; these were quadrangular instead of round, but in the disused portion of the tunnel the old round pipes still lie about.
Secondly, as at Samos, at intervals of from 30 to 40 metres, both tunnels alike are provided with shafts, which served when the tunnels were first made for the clearing away of the rock fragments, and which were made use of for the like purpose when the conduit was excavated. These shafts are sunk perpendicularly; one of them reached down to a depth of 12 metres, so low does the conduit in places lie.
* * * * *
Of cardinal importance to us is the point at which the conduit debouches, because near to that point we may hope to find the fountain-house ‘Nine-Spouts.’ The conduit ends in an arrangement which is somewhat surprising, and which will be best understood by reference to Fig. 38. To the extreme left, at a point near letter B, the conduit emerges. It here consists of a massive channel built of blocks of _poros_ stone, indicated by the thick black lines on the plan. At point a⁴ it ends in the Pnyx rock. But, and this is the odd thing, at a³, about eight metres before the channel ends, a pipe issues from the stone channel and running parallel to the Pnyx rock conducts the water to the main reservoir (Haupt-Bassin). A similar arrangement has been observed in the aqueduct at Samos. There, too, the conduit pipe leaves the rock channel before it ends. It is conjectured[272] that this was a plan intended to mislead an enemy who might desire to cut off the water-supply.
The conduit actually debouches at a⁵ into the great reservoir from which the new fountain-house Nine-Spouts must have been fed. Here, at the reservoir, we find indications of three successive structures. First a structure of very early date, possibly of the time of Solon. Second that of Peisistratos. Third a late Roman structure. Of the two earlier structures no masonry remains, but the position and dimensions can roughly be made out by markings on the Pnyx rock, out of which the West side of the basin was hewn. The exact size of the original basin, which was smaller than the later one, cannot now be determined. In the time of Peisistratos it was enlarged and deepened; the floor of the basin was sunk nearly 1·50 metres deeper. The great basin of Peisistratos was lined with masonry, the blocks of which have now disappeared. In Roman days the place of the great basin of Peisistratos was taken by a quite small structure. This change must have taken place before the building of the late Roman villa which occupied the place where once the ‘Nine-Founts’ stood. When the villa was built the great reservoir had for some time been disused, and the water from the aqueduct, not being needed on the spot in any large quantity, was carried by pipes to the lower city to the North for the supply of the new Roman market-place. These alterations as to water-supply, it should be noted, are of the first importance in questions of topography, and change in the direction or the extension of an aqueduct is naturally the index of a shifting of population.
The restoration by Professor Dörpfeld (Fig. 38) is, it must clearly be understood, to a large extent conjectural. It must be consulted strictly in conjunction with the plan in Fig. 35, where the actual remains of Greek date are clearly marked in solid black lines. So used it can be of great service in helping us mentally to reconstruct scattered fragments of masonry that would otherwise be unintelligible.
* * * * *
Some of the details of the restoration have been suggested by the water-works discovered at Megara, which are in some respects better preserved than those at Athens. At Megara are extant not only a great conduit to bring water from a distance but an elaborate arrangement for utilizing it consisting of a reservoir and a pillared draw-well besides a fountain house. It is very probable that the works of Theagenes served as a model to Peisistratos, and therefore before the draw-well and fountain house of Peisistratos are discussed a word must be said of the excavations at Megara.
Pausanias[273] begins his account of the city of Megara somewhat abruptly thus. ‘In the city there is a fountain. And Theagenes built it for them. About him I have already mentioned that he gave his daughter in marriage to Kylon the Athenian. This Theagenes, having possessed himself of the tyranny, built the fountain, and from its size, its decorations, and the number of its columns, it is worth looking at. Water flows into it called the water of the Sithnidian nymphs.’ After the excavations at Athens, the fountain or, as perhaps it is best called, the well-house of Theagenes at Megara was sought and found[274] at the bottom of the Eastern Acropolis of Megara, called Karia. The aqueduct leading to the reservoir was excavated for a considerable distance, and proved to be a structure closely resembling those found at Athens and Samos. Eupalinos it will be remembered was a native of Megara. The draw-well, the supporting walls of which are well preserved, was about 15 by 20 metres in size and built of Kara limestone, a material much used in the 6th century B.C. for the foundations and stylobates of buildings. All round the side whence water was drawn was a low parapet wall. This wall shows signs in many places of being worn away by the friction of ropes and dripping of water. The block shown in Fig. 39 is closely paralleled by the block found in Athens and placed beneath it for comparison.
Not only, then, at Athens did a despot build a well-house and artificially increase a supply of holy water. The original spring at Megara was sacred to the Sithnidian nymphs; we do not know what nymphs guarded Kallirrhoë at Athens; there were plenty about, for to this day close at hand is the Hill of the Nymphs. Dionysos who dwelt so near was called Limnaios, He-of-the-Marshes, Phanodemos[275] says, because he invented the blending of must with water; hence, he adds, ‘the springs are called Nymphs and nurses of Dionysos, because water mixed with wine increases it.’
* * * * *
We return to the water-worn stone, the details of which are shown in Fig. 40. This stone is of great architectural importance. From it can be deduced not only the date of the building to which it belonged, but also something of its dimensions and general appearance. The date is fixed by the clamp mark at C. The clamp itself has disappeared, but its shape is proved by the mark of its insertion. Clamps of the [Illustration] shape only appear at Athens in buildings of about the date of Peisistratos, e.g. on the earlier temple of Dionysos Eleuthereus. Our stone belonged to a building of the date of Peisistratos. As regards the character of the building, it is clear from the curve at e which is a segment of a circle, that the stone was at this point cut away to receive a pillar. The unworn condition of the stucco at b leads Professor Dörpfeld to conclude that the stone was a corner stone, the angle protecting the stucco from friction. The distance between these two points, e and b, gives the measurement of the intercolumniations. From this one stone it is _certain_ that a draw-well of the date of Peisistratos existed and that it was surmounted by a colonnade. Its appearance must have been somewhat that of the draw-well (Schoepf-brunnen) restored in Fig. 38. We pass to the consideration of the fountain house Nine-Spouts.
* * * * *
The great open square marked ‘place of the Enneakrounos’ (Fig. 38) is really the site of Nine-Spouts. This is clear from many considerations. 1. Nine-Spouts must have stood over or in front of Fair-Fount which it superseded. Over it would be an impossible situation, because of the Pnyx rock, so we may securely place it in front. 2. Nine-Founts must have stood about two metres below the level of the basin, from which it was fed, in order that the water might flow easily in. 3. At K 2 and K 3 are the beginnings of two ancient subterranean canals which must have been intended to carry off the superfluous water from Nine-Spouts. 4. Straight down to this open place comes the footway from the Acropolis and thither also all the rest of the roads ultimately converge. 5. The place must have been in Greek times an open place, as no foundations of Greek buildings have been found, only the remains of a great Roman house, and under it countless wells.
This Roman house consisted of a large atrium with a peristyle of twelve columns and several small chambers surrounding it. The walls are a patchwork of materials of all kinds, and even the bases of the columns are made up of fragments from other buildings. One of these fragments belonging to the draw-well we have already discussed, another, we shall immediately see, belongs to Nine-Spouts itself.
* * * * *
Can we form any mental picture of Nine-Spouts? Fortunately vase-paintings come to our aid. It is not a little remarkable that in the decoration of black-figured water-vases (hydriae) of the 6th century B.C., there appears a sudden fashion in fountain-houses. Of hydriae so decorated the British Museum contains no less than ten. One of these[276] is reproduced in Fig. 41. The Fountain-House depicted is of the usual shape, a tetrastyle Doric portico. The architectural details are very clear, the triglyphs and guttae standing out in white. In actual architecture they would both be painted blue. Four maidens are water-drawing. Two of them are hanging up wreaths. Over three of them their names are inscribed Iope, Rhodopis, Kleo. But what at once arrests our attention is the arrangement of the water-spouts. Facing us are three, a lion’s head and two horsemen, to either side of these is a lion’s head spout; that makes not a Nine-Spouts but a Five-Spouts. But, drawn in perspective as they must be, do not the side spouts each represent three? It is at least probable that we have an arrangement like that restored in Fig. 38, three spouts facing, and three at each side. Lion-spouts are of course frequent in Fountain-Houses. The horsemen of our vase are unique; they give the Fountain-House a dashing despotic air.
We know then just what sort of architectural fragments, we might expect to find; we can imagine a fragment that would be conclusive. A ‘Doric’ portico might belong to more than one kind of building, a lion’s head spout could belong only to a Fountain-House. No lion’s head has been found, but instead, what is as good for our purpose, _a stone hollowed out for the reception of a lions head_. This stone is shown in Fig. 42. Not only is the space for the lion’s head evident, but behind is clearly visible the hole for the pipe. The block is of blue calcareous stone such as is found both on the Acropolis and the Pnyx. Of exactly the same limestone is a small remnant of a polygonal wall from the South boundary of the precinct of the Fountain-House.
The plan in Fig. 38 makes the general disposition of the place of the Enneakrounos clear, the large reservoir behind (Haupt-Bassin), immediately in front of it the draw-well (Schoepf-brunnen), and to the right of the reservoir, and of course equally fed by it, Nine-Spouts (Lauf-brunnen). In front a great open space. What is matter for conjecture is the exact site and size of Nine-Spouts. A clear view of the relation of Nine-Spouts to Fair-Fount is given in the sectional restoration[277] in Fig. 43. There we see the vaulted rock chamber Y, the actual well, Kallirrhoë, to which it led, and in front of it, the modern road intervening, Nine-Spouts or Enneakrounos itself. In front of that again the open space, possibly once enclosed, was the heart and centre of the agora.
* * * * *
Before we pass to the question of the agora it may be worth while to notice that the well-house, Enneakrounos, Nine-Spouts, was known as late as the seventeenth century to have been on the West slope of the Acropolis. In the curious old plan, then drawn by Guillet and Coronelli[278], a portion of which is reproduced in Fig. 44, we have on the West slope not only a well against which in the key to the plan is marked ‘Enneakrounos,’ but also close to it the ruins of a small theatre, which may well stand for the Odeion as seen by Pausanias. In another plan of the seventeenth century, usually known as the plan of the Capucins, both theatre and Enneakrounos are missing, and in their place stands the so-called ‘Theseion.’ On close examination it may be seen that on the Capucin plan, the theatre, the Enneakrounos, and some other buildings have been obliterated and other monuments drawn in over them. It may be taken therefore as certain[279] that, in the seventeenth century, remains of an ‘Enneakrounos,’ and of a theatre-like building near it, existed.
* * * * *
We have had to reconstruct the _Nine-Spouts_ as best we might from the analogy of well-houses on vase-paintings, from the remains of the well-house at Megara, and from a few scattered, though significant stones. We have also _inferred_ its importance from the vast system of water-works of which it was the manifest goal. But there is another witness to its past greatness. It is the place where all ways meet. The irregular square in front of the well-house Nine-Spouts and in part occupied by it was manifestly a great centre of the city life. The complex of ancient roads is best seen in Fig. 46. The great Panathenaic way passes along its Eastern side, but that is not all. The branch roads from the Areopagos converge thither. Most important of all for us, straight down from the Acropolis gate, skirting the Amyneion, there descends a narrow footway. By this we may be sure the King’s daughters descended to fetch water from Kallirrhoë.
* * * * *
A word must be said as to the nature and surroundings of the main ancient road, which topographically is of capital importance. Somewhere along its course must have lain the ancient Agora. Our first impression is, unexpectedly, of narrowness, just as it is when we stand on the other Sacred Way, at Delphi. On the Panathenaic way five persons can only just stand abreast; the chariots must have gone in single file. It is in fact a narrow Oriental street. It is bounded on either side by walls of good polygonal masonry and is hemmed in, as is seen on the map, by houses and precincts. Beneath the road is an elaborate system of drainage pipes with shafts by which they could be entered for cleaning purposes. There are of course many cross-roads, two to the left leading to the Areopagos, one to the Pnyx, another to Koile. The footway leading straight to the Acropolis has already been noted.
One of the best preserved portions of the road is that which runs along by the Western side of the precinct of _Dionysos-in-the-Marshes_. Here the polygonal walls on both sides are well preserved. Almost opposite the wine-press we come on buildings which, from inscriptions, can be dated as of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. These consist of an open exedra, quadrangular in shape and of polygonal masonry. Inside this precinct is a small shrine with no columns, in front of it an altar of _poros_ stone. Both material and technique point to the sixth century B.C. To whom the shrine is dedicated is not known. Thucydides could perhaps have told us. In the course of the century next following the shrine must have fallen into disuse. As the level of the road rose it would, once disused, speedily get covered up. That this was actually the case is clearly shown by the fact that a building of the fourth century B.C. was superimposed. It extended right back to the Pnyx rock. Two boundary stones of this later building are still[280] _in situ_ in the wall bordering on the main road; on each is inscribed ‘Boundary of the Lesche’ (ὅρος λέσχης). Immediately next to the South comes a building of polygonal limestone masonry. Two inscriptions show that this building was mortgaged, so it must have been a private house. Beyond this there is nothing of special interest till we come to the great open place in which stood the fountain Nine-Spouts.
The careful engineering of the road, its elaborate drainage, the way it is close packed on either side with houses and sanctuaries leave us no doubt but that in it we have the one and, it appears, the only chariot-way from the agora to the Acropolis. The shrines that line this regular approach lie essentially and emphatically _towards that part of the city_.
* * * * *
So far we have considered the road as an approach, but it must always be remembered that historically we have to reverse our procedure. The city grows _from_ the central hill, not _towards_ it, and that outward growth is clear. It may be traced on the map in Fig. 46. The ancient agora lay in the hollow between the hills directly overlooked by the assembly place on the Pnyx; then as it outgrew these narrow limits it was forced bit by bit round the West shoulder of the Areopagus, and there turned Eastward by the hill Kolonos Agoraios, on which stands the ‘Theseion’; below that hill was the Stoa Basileios, which in the fifth century B.C. was assuredly part of the agora. The agora could not spread Westward; the hill prevented that; it was forced always Eastward, first in Hellenistic days as far as the Stoa of Attalos, then in Roman days to the Gate of the Roman Agora and the Tower of the Winds. Such is its long but simple story. If we follow the water-course of Peisistratos and its later Roman extension we shall not go wrong.
The houses that covered the square in front of Nine-Spouts, and into which fragments of the well-house were built, are all of Roman date. Clear them away, and we have, as has been seen, a great quadrangular space in front of the city well, a place to which all ways converge (Fig. 46). Surely here, if anywhere, is the ancient agora, close to the city gates.
* * * * *
It is remarkable that, visiting Athens half a century before the excavations began, an English scholar, Christopher Wordsworth[281], by sheer light of common sense, saw that here, and here only, could the ancient agora be, and here he marked it on his quaint, rudimentary map (Fig. 45). His words are, as contrasted with later confusions, memorable. ‘In order,’ he says, ‘to obtain a distinct notion of the natural characteristics of the spot to which we refer, let us consider it in the _first place_ as abstracted from all artificial modifications; let us imagine ourselves as existing in the days of Kekrops, and looking upon the site of Athens. In a wide plain, which is enclosed by mountains except on the South, where it is bounded by the sea, rises a flat, oblong rock lying from East to West about fifty yards high, rather more than one hundred and sixty broad, and about three hundred in length. It is inaccessible on all sides but the West, on which it is approached by a steep slope. This is the future Acropolis or Citadel of Athens. We place ourselves upon this eminence and cast our eyes about us. Immediately on the West is a second hill, of irregular form, lower than that on which we stand and opposite to us. This is the Areopagus. Beneath it on the South-West is a valley neither deep nor narrow, open both at the North-West and South-East. Here was the Agora or public place of Athens. Above it to the South-West rises another hill, formed like the two others already mentioned of hard and rugged limestone, clothed here and there with a scanty covering of herbage. On this hill the popular assemblies of the future citizens of Athens will be held. It will be called the Pnyx. To the South of it is a fourth hill, of similar kind, known in after-ages as the Museum. Thus a group of four hills is presented to our view, which nearly enclose the space wherein the Athenian Agora existed, as the Forum of Rome lay between the hills of the Capitol and the Palatine.’
The secret of Dr Wordsworth’s insight lies in the words, ‘we place ourselves upon the eminence and cast our eyes about us.’ He stood on the actual hill, realized, as Thucydides did, that that was the beginning of things, noted the shape of the hill and its only possible approach, and saw that the developments of the city must lie that way, _towards that part_, as Thucydides would say. Half a century later Prof. Dörpfeld, coming with the trained eye of the engineer and architect, made, quite independently of Dr Wordsworth, the same observation. The valley enclosed by the Acropolis, Areopagus, Pnyx, and Mouseion, was then utterly barren of visible remains; other archaeologists had placed their agora where ancient remains were visible, North or South of the Acropolis; Prof. Dörpfeld, in defiance of orthodox tradition, placed it West, and there his excavations, as we have seen, brought to light the sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes, the ‘Nine-Spouts,’ the Panathenaic Way, and the host of sanctuaries, houses, wine-presses, wells, and water-courses that encompassed the ancient agora.
* * * * *
Later we shall have to examine what it was that led other scholars and archaeologists astray; for the present we must return to Thucydides. He never mentions the agora, his thoughts never for a moment stray from his city before Theseus. He has shown its meagre extent and the immediate proximity of its most ancient sanctuaries, and to clinch his argument he returns to the citadel itself and its ancient name; he resumes the whole argument (see p. 8) in its last and most emphatic clause.
_Because of the ancient settlement here, the citadel as well_ (as the present city) _is still to this day called the city_.
Thucydides is strictly correct both as regards official and literary usage. An examination of official inscriptions shows that down to the Peace of Antalcidas (387-6 B.C.) the Acropolis was officially known as _polis_[282]. The new form ‘in the Acropolis’ first appears in the year of the peace[283], and from then on is in regular use. In literature, both in prose and verse, _polis_ is still uniformly used after a local preposition, _e.g._ towards the _polis_, in the _polis_; but when there is no local preposition the word acropolis is employed. Thus, in the _Knights_ of Aristophanes[284], when the Sausage-Seller sees the Goddess herself coming from the _polis_ with her owl perched on her, and there is no shadow of doubt that Athena is coming from the Acropolis; but Lysistrata[285] says, ‘to-day we shall seize the Acropolis,’ where there is no local preposition, though the sense would have been clear with _polis_. As Dr Wyse[286] has pointed out, it was easy for the word _polis_ to go on being used for the Acropolis, because the Athenians had another word (ἄστυ), which they used in such phrases as ‘in town,’ ‘to town.’
* * * * *
We have learnt from Thucydides all he has to tell us, and in the light of recent excavations he seems to have spoken clearly enough. The limits of his ancient city have been confirmed by the discovery of the old Pelasgic fortifications. We have seen with our own eyes two of the ancient sanctuaries which lay _towards_ his city, the Pythion and the sanctuary of Dionysos-in-the-Marshes; and from literary evidence inferred the two others, the Olympieion and the sanctuary of Ge. We have noted that, in the order in which Thucydides names them, they occur in succession from East to West; and, most convincing of all, near to the last-named sanctuary we have found Nine-Spouts, and not only Nine-Spouts, but the old Fair-Fount that was before it. Thus all seems clear and simple; Thucydides, Pausanias, and modern excavations tell the same harmonious tale.
CONCLUSION.
Having now stated what we believe to be the truth respecting the ancient burgh of Athens, its nature and limits and the position of its early Sanctuaries, we have still, in accordance with the plan proposed at the outset (p. 4), to examine other and, as we believe, erroneous views. These views are widely current in manuals and guide-books and are supported by names[287] that command respect. A study of the genesis of errors so wide-spread and deep-rooted may not be unprofitable.
The sources of error seem to us fourfold, as follows:
1. _The lie of the modern town._
2. _A misunderstanding of the text of Thucydides._
3. _The duplication of certain sanctuaries and, closely connected with this_,
4. _Confusion as to Kallirrhoë and Enneakrounos._
1. _The lie of the modern town._
A glance at the map of modern Athens will show that its centre of gravity lies not West but North of the Acropolis—the modern market lies there with its throng of narrow streets and the whole modern town, with its shops, hotels, stations, spreads out in that direction. Moreover, it is obvious that the business part of Roman Athens also lay North. To the North lies the Gate of the Roman agora[288], besides such buildings as the Tower of the Winds and Hadrian’s Library (Fig. 49). More than this, the agora of Hellenistic days (Fig. 46) lay there also, and was almost certainly bounded on its Eastern side by the Stoa of Attalos, of which there are still substantial remains[289]. Quite recently the foundations of two other colonnades have come to light[290], just below and to the East of the hill on which stands the so-called ‘Theseion.’ These two colonnades stand just at the entrance of the Greek agora; the Northern one is probably either the Basileion or the Stoa Basileios, the first building described by Pausanias on his entry into the Kerameikos. The two last colonnades played no part in attempted reconstructions of the agora, for the simple reason that they were below ground; but the Stoa of Attalos, that of the Giants, and the Gateway of the Roman agora have been regularly regarded as _data_ with which any theorist was bound to start; they had to be fitted in somehow.
The next question was, where was the road that led from the agora to the Acropolis, the Panathenaic way? Given an agora to the North and North-East of the Areopagus, and, given that you were working at home in your study with a flat plan before you, the answer seemed obvious; the road must have passed straight from the agora round the Eastern end of the Areopagus, and so straight up to the entrance at the Propylaea. The result is a reconstruction of agora and road, like that seen in Fig. 47, a restoration made by Prof. Curtius. So utterly is the West slope of the Acropolis ignored, that it is simply cut off as irrelevant.
Professor Dörpfeld was the first to point out that at the Eastern end of the Areopagus, though there is a footway up to the Acropolis, there is not now a carriage-road, there never was, and, unless the whole natural features of the place are altered, there never will be. The hill at that point, though short, is impracticably steep. What looks easy and obvious on paper is in actuality impossible. Long before he began his excavations, Prof. Dörpfeld, with the trained eye of the practical engineer, saw the ancient carriage-way must have followed the modern road, that is, round the West end of the Areopagus between that hill and the Pnyx. From that point by successive windings, then and now, it could climb the hill. The old road we have seen has now been found; it lies in places actually under the new and follows the same course, as natural in 500 B.C. as in 1900 A.D.
One school of topographers, headed by the great name of Curtius, placed the agora at the North side of the Acropolis. We have seen that, though wrong for the beginning of things, this is right for the end. Another school, though they knew that the Roman market lay Northwards, yet had compunctions about the earlier agora. This earlier agora they placed due South of the Acropolis, completely separated from the Roman one. The separation was in idea as well as in place. The early agora was supposed to be in some obscure way a religious, the later a political and commercial centre. Such an arrangement is shown in the plan in Fig. 48[291]. It is purely theoretical and impossible. The Panathenaic way is made to run North of the Areopagus up the impracticable hill, and the ancient agora lies as a sort of desert island by itself, away from the Council House, the Tholos, the Stoa Basileios, and the rest. The West slope is left void. When and how the mysterious leap from old to new, from South to North, was taken no one explained. This brings us to our second source of error.
2. _A misunderstanding of the text of Thucydides._
What has led topographers to make this singular and unmeaning division of old and new? why have they placed the old agora South of the Acropolis? Simply because, misunderstanding the words of Thucydides, they think _he_ placed it South. Thucydides says, it will be remembered (p. 7), that, in the days before Theseus, ‘_what is now the citadel was the city, together with what is below it towards about South_.’ We have seen that the simple and satisfactory explanation of the words is that the reference is to the bit of ground known as the Pelargikon, extending mainly West and South-West of the Acropolis and included in the ancient city. We have also seen—and this is of paramount importance—that the sole gist and point of Thucydides’ argument is to show the smallness of the ancient city, to prove that it was practically the same as the citadel, only there was this bit over ‘_towards about South_.’ It is the fatal accuracy of Thucydides that has led to his being misunderstood. It is actually thought that he desires to prove _two_ points: first, that the ancient city was the citadel; second, that the portion of the city not contained in the citadel was to the South[292]; whereas, as already seen, the _direction_ of the city has nothing, could have nothing, to do with the case.
Once embarked on the wrong hypothesis that Thucydides lays two propositions before us, and that one of them is that the city lay to the South, the downward road is easy. The four sanctuaries of Thucydides are selected, it is supposed, to prove the second proposition, i.e. that the city is to the South. Four sanctuaries lie ready, only too ready, to hand. We have, South-East of the Acropolis (Fig. 49), a great Olympieion; we know from Pausanias[293] that close by it was a great Pythion, within the Olympieion was a precinct of Ge; and last and most convincing of all, on the South-East slope of the Acropolis is the great Dionysiac theatre, with its precinct and two temples. Truly a little archaeology is a dangerous thing. So obvious, so striking are these identifications, that at the first glance they seem to compel adhesion.
But a moment’s thought obliges us to see that, if tempting, these identifications are impossible. From its _position_ the sanctuary of Dionysos Eleuthereus might well have been one of those named by Thucydides, because, as already noted (p. 67), while from his words it would be impossible definitely to say whether the sanctuaries are North, South, East, or West, assuredly the theatre and precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus _are_ ‘towards’ (πρὸς) the ancient city. But, as we have already (p. 83) seen, it is from this familiar precinct, the sanctuary of the later Dionysos Eleuthereus, that Thucydides is expressly differentiating his more ancient precinct; the same is the case with the Olympieion. Thucydides and everyone at Athens knew that this vast temple was begun in the time of Peisistratos; was it likely to be chosen as a sanctuary to show the limits (or even the direction) of the city of Kekrops?
As regards the Pythion, special stress has been laid on the fact that it—not the sanctuary on the Long Rocks—is called by Pausanias the Pythion; but the explanation is easy and manifest; Pausanias is distinguishing it from the other sanctuary of Apollo near at hand, the Delphinion[294].
Sanctuaries so late as these could not fairly be used to prove even the _direction_ of the city of Kekrops; but, as already shown, it is not direction, but _size_ with which Thucydides is concerned. To give sanctuaries like the Olympieion and Pythion, which lay outside even the city of Themistocles, as evidence of the smallness of an ancient ‘Mycenaean’ city, a Pelasgic fortress, is an absurdity so manifest that statement is refutation. We are brought face to face with the third source of error.
3. _The duplication of certain sanctuaries._
The misinterpretation of Thucydides has been helped and indeed in a large measure caused by a most curious historical fact, calculated until it was properly understood to mislead anyone. _There was a duplication in two different districts of certain of the most notable Athenian sanctuaries._ To the North and West of the Acropolis, as we have seen in detail, there were sanctuaries of Zeus Olympios, of Apollo Pythios, of Ge and of Dionysos, and near to them was a spring Kallirrhoë, and it is of these, if our view be correct, that Thucydides makes mention, but none the less the fact is patent to everyone who reads Pausanias and visits modern Athens, that to the South-East of the Acropolis there are sanctuaries of the same divinities, of Zeus Olympios, of Apollo Pythios, of Ge and of Dionysos, and that near these also is a spring called to this day Kallirrhoë. How did this come to be? What does it signify? The answer once stated is simple and convincing. The duplication of sanctuaries is due to a shift of population from North-West to South-East, from the district of the Pnyx to the district of the Ilissus. This shift of population is a fact historically attested.
* * * * *
Plutarch[295] in his treatise ‘On Banishment’ is trying to persuade us that exile is in itself no hardship. He asks, ‘Are then those Athenians to be accounted strangers and outlaws who moved from Melite to Diomeia, whence they called the month Metageitnion, and the sacrifice they offered took its name _Metageitnia_ from this removal, since they accepted pleasantly and cheerfully their neighbourhood to new people? Surely they are not.’ Plutarch’s argument does not come to much, but we are grateful to him for recording the fact that there was this shift of population, when or why, alas! we do not certainly know, from Melite in the North-West to Diomeia in the South-East (Fig. 49). Did not the people when they moved take with them their old place-names, their old local legends, their Kallirrhoë? We have curious incidental evidence that they did.
Let us look for a moment at the position of the two demes. As to the position of Melite there has never been any doubt, though its exact boundaries are not clearly defined. Melite was the deme-name given to the hill district West and North-West of the Acropolis. It extended on the West to the barathron, near which cheerful site Themistocles had his home. There, Plutarch[296] tells us, _in Melite_, he built the sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule which gave such umbrage to the Athenians. Melite was, we know, near the agora and on higher ground. In the opening of the _Parmenides_[297] Kephalos meets Adeimantos in the agora. They want to see Antiphon, and Adeimantos says it will be easy enough for Antiphon has just gone home and ‘he lives close by in Melite.’ Demosthenes[298] in the speech against Konon says that he was walking in the agora near the Leokorion when he met Ktesias, and Ktesias ‘passed on to Melite up hill.’
Finally, and for our purpose most important of all, Melite certainly included the Pnyx hill. When Meton appears in the _Birds_[299] and is asked who he is, and where he comes from, he answers
‘Meton am I, Greece knows me and Kolonos.’
The scholiast is concerned as to whether it could correctly be stated that Meton was of the deme Kolonos, and _apropos_ of this, as to where a certain astronomical monument to Meton had been erected. According to one authority there was a sun-dial in the Pnyx in his memory. The scholiast then adds, ‘Is not, some say, _the whole of the district in which the Pnyx is included, the Kolonos called_ μίσθιος? So customary has it become to call the part behind the Long Stoa, Kolonos, though it is not. _For all that part is Melite_, and it is so described in the boundaries of the city.’ The scholiast is, of course, primarily concerned with the name of the hill dominating the later agora, and on which stands the so-called Theseion (Fig. 46), but incidentally he tells that the deme Melite which included that hill included also the Pnyx. Both points, it will later be seen, are for us important.
Melite then is to the North-West and West of the Acropolis. Where is Diomeia? Its dimensions again are not exactly known, but happily its _direction_ is certain (Fig. 49)[300].
* * * * *
In the deme of Diomeia was a gymnasium and a sanctuary of Herakles, both known as _Kynosarges_, and from Herodotus[301] we know in what direction this Kynosarges lay. After Marathon the Persian fleet rounded Sunium with a view to landing at Phalerum, then the port of Athens. Phalerum, of course, lies almost due South of Athens. The Athenians hurry back from Marathon with all speed to protect the city. They leave the Herakleion at Marathon where they had encamped, and ‘take up their station in another Herakleion, that in Kynosarges’—Kynosarges, and with it Diomeia, must therefore lie in or command the direct road between Phalerum and Athens. Pausanias[302] visited Kynosarges and referred to the story of ‘the white dog’ immediately after the low-lying district of the ‘Gardens’ on the Ilissus before he visited the stadium.
The Herakleion of Kynosarges has shown us the direction in which Diomeia lay. Diomeia, we have seen, was colonized from Melite. We naturally ask, Was the Herakleion one of the duplicate sanctuaries? In other words, Was there a worship of Herakles in Melite?
In the _Frogs_—a play be it remembered performed at the Lenaia, a festival held originally (p. 88) in the Limnae just below the hill district of Melite—Xanthias is dressing up as Herakles; he says to Dionysos, as he is putting on the lion-skin,
‘Now watch if Xanthias-Herakles turns faint, Or shows the same presence of mind as you’;
and Dionysos answers
‘The real old jail-bird, him from Melite.’
The careful scholiast[303] notes it was not usual to speak of a god as ‘from’ a place. The Melitean Herakles would normally be described as Herakles ‘in’ or ‘at Melite’; it was treating Herakles as a mere mortal to say Herakles from Melite. But does not the ‘from’ possibly mark an added joke? Are not the baggage and the donkey and the ‘from’ all put in to parody the real ‘flitting’ of Herakles from Melite to Diomeia? That flitting was already accomplished in the time of Aristophanes, for, later on in the play[304], when Aeacus is beating Xanthias-Herakles, and Xanthias utters an involuntary ‘whe-ew,’ Aeacus asks if he is hurt, and Xanthias recovering himself says,
‘No; I was just thinking, When my Diomean Feast would next be due.’
The same curious duplication of sanctuaries meets us in the accounts of the initiation of Herakles. The scholiast on the _Frogs_[305] says, ‘Herakles was initiated in the Lesser Mysteries in Melite, a deme of Attica,’ but by common consent[306] these Lesser Mysteries are held to have taken place at Agrae on the Ilissos, and it is there, according to Stephen[307] of Byzantium, that Herakles obtained initiation. In Melite on or close to the Pnyx hill Pausanias[308] saw beyond the spring ‘temples, one built for Demeter and Kore, the other containing an image of Triptolemos.’ Did the emigrants from Melite carry their cult down with them to the mystic banks of the Ilissos[309], to Agrae ‘where,’ according to Eustathius[310], they say ‘the Lesser Mysteries of Demeter which they call “those in Agrae” are celebrated’?
* * * * *
Tradition, then, as to the initiation of Herakles was two-fold; he was initiated in Melite, he was initiated on the banks of the Ilissos at Agrae in Diomeia. We naturally ask, ‘Why was he initiated at all, and why did his initiation attract so much attention?’ If he was a god it was superfluous, if a pious mortal merely normal. The answer to this question may give a clue to the cause of the shift of population from Melite to Diomeia.
Herakles was initiated because he was an immigrant stranger. We have seen (pp. 27 and 65) that in the 6th century B.C. he was at home on the Acropolis itself; he appears on archaic pediments contending with Triton and the Hydra and on vase-paintings his popularity precedes that of his rival Theseus. Yet, none the less, he is a stranger, and his formal reception as a guest was at various places in Attica matter of old world tradition. In the _Lysis_ Ktesippos complains that the boys’ lovers make for him the weary old boast, that to an ancestor of his belonged the honour of the ‘reception of Herakles[311].’ Lysis belonged to Aixone, a deme near Phalerum; and by way of the sea in all probability Herakles had come to Athens. Orators, specially religious orators, are less contemptuous. The initiation of Herakles was a telling argument in the mouth of the cosmopolitan peace-loving politician. The Torch-bearer, Kallias[312], in his speech to the Lacedaemonian allies urges the familiar precedent. ‘It was right,’ he says, ‘for us not to bear arms against each other since tradition says, your leader Herakles, and your citizens, the Dioscuri, were the first strangers to whom our ancestor Triptolemos showed the unutterable rites of Demeter and Kore.’ Plutarch[313], again, in his _Life of Theseus_ tells how the Tyndaridae supported their claim to initiation by citing the analogous case of Herakles. In order to be initiated, Herakles, as a stranger, had to be adopted by a citizen called Pylios; the Tyndaridae, whose exploits were supposed to have taken place at Aphidna, were adopted by Aphidnus. The scene of the initiation of Herakles and the Dioscuri occurs on more than one late red-figured vase[314].
The emphasis laid on the initiation of Herakles and the tradition that he was admitted at the Lesser Mysteries mark the fact that he was a stranger. It is possible to go a step further. Herakles was not merely no true-born Athenian citizen, but an actual foreigner, an Oriental. It is therefore no surprise to us to learn from the best of authorities on Athenian ritual, Apollodorus[315], that ‘sacrifice was offered to Herakles Alexikakos at Athens after a special and peculiar manner.’ It would be out of place here to enter upon any detailed examination of the Oriental elements in the worship of Herakles generally, but as regards his worship at Athens, and especially in Melite[316], some points must be noted.
Melite, all authorities seem to agree, is _Malta_[317], the place of refuge. Diodorus[318] gives us a full description of the original Melite-Malta and emphasizes, if emphasis were needed, its harbourage and generally its maritime convenience, its wealth in arts and crafts and manufactures. ‘This island is a colony of the Phenicians, it lay in mid-ocean and had good harbour, hence when they extended their trade to the western Ocean it served them as a refuge.’ Of another island of refuge called Melite Strabo[319] tells us ‘the Korybantes removed to Samothrace which was formerly called Melite.’ This Samothrace, according to Diodorus[320], was called in ancient days _Saonnesos_, Safe-island, which of course is merely a translation of its Semitic name. In this _Saonnesos-Melite_ the inhabitants down to the time of Diodorus still in _their sacrificial ceremonies_ used many words of a dialect peculiar to them and, according to tradition, the island got its name in connection with the story—always a Semitic note—of the Flood. The inhabitants set up all round the island boundary stones ‘of salvation.’
In the light of _Melite_, ‘Refuge,’ we begin to understand why Herakles was worshipped there under the special cultus title of _Alexikakos_, ‘Preserver-from-Evil[321].’ He is Alexikakos, not merely as the hero of the Labours but by divine right; _as a god_ even if an immigrant. Diodorus[322] records that while the Thebans and others did honour to Herakles as a hero ‘the Athenians were the first to offer sacrifices to him as a god’; their pious example influenced, he says, first the rest of Greece and afterwards the whole habitable world. Strabo[323] hits the mark when he says ‘as in other matters the Athenians were hospitable in what concerned the gods.’
Herakles in Melite was then in all probability a stranger; as to Herakles in Diomeia there is no shadow of doubt. Plutarch[324] begins his life of Themistocles with a story that shows in striking fashion the limits of the hospitality extended to Herakles as the typical stranger. ‘The origin of Themistokles was too obscure to be a source of distinction.’ On his father’s side he was an Athenian, but on his mother’s some said a Thracian, but Phanias stated that she was a Karian, and Neanthes that she belonged to Halikarnassos. Anyhow he was what the Athenians accounted base-born (νόθος). ‘The base-born youths subscribed to the “Kynosarges,” the gymnasium of Herakles, outside the city gates, for Herakles, too, was not a true-born god but was introduced by adoption inasmuch as his mother was a mortal. Accordingly, Themistocles persuaded certain of the true-born youths to go to Kynosarges and exercise there with him.’ Kynosarges, haunt of the base-born, outside the gates; there could be no better evidence that its patron, Herakles, was a foreigner[325].
Themistocles has yet more evidence to yield us, and that of a curious character. Themistocles, it will be remembered (p. 144), had a home in Melite close to the barathron. Near to his home he founded a sanctuary of Artemis ‘to whom he gave the title of Aristoboule[326].’ This was among the many ways in which he annoyed the Athenians. The cause of the annoyance, Plutarch thinks, was that he gave the title to commemorate his good advice before the battle of Salamis. But was this the real reason? Surely the dedication gave all glory to the goddess, not to himself? It is a curious and, I think, significant fact that we know of another Aristoboule, and she is a manifestly Semitic goddess. Porphyry, in enumerating instances of human sacrifice, says[327] that in Rhodes _on the 6th day of the month Metageitnion_, a man used to be sacrificed to Kronos. The custom, which had obtained for a long time, had been modified. A condemned criminal was kept alive till the feast of Kronos, and at the time of the feast they led the man outside the city gates opposite the image of Aristoboule, gave him wine to drink and slew him. If Themistocles was trying ‘craftily,’ as Plutarch[328] says, to affiliate a base-born to a true-born divinity, an Aristoboule to an Artemis, small wonder if the Athenians were annoyed. Perhaps the ‘Karian’ mother counted for something in the attempt.
* * * * *
The festival of Aristoboule in Rhodes, the grim Semitic Kronia, fell—and the fact is surely significant—in the month Metageitnion. Certain Herakleia, probably, though not quite certainly[329], the Herakleia in Kynosarges, fell in the same month; and of course the actual ceremonial of the Metageitnia mentioned by Plutarch. To this Metageitnia we now return. We have seen that the population of Melite, the worshippers of Herakles[330], were probably foreigners, and that at one time there was a shift of these Herakles worshippers from Melite to Diomeia. Is it not possible that the two facts are connected? Plutarch leaves us in mid-air as to the time and cause of the _metastasis_, but be it observed the shift is from Melite, a district outside the old burgh, to Diomeia, a district, at least in part, outside the new. May it not have been felt when the new circuit-wall of Themistocles was complete that it comprised too many foreigners? If the shift took place soon after the building of the new fortifications the event would still be remembered at the performance (406 B.C.) of the _Frogs_.
* * * * *
At whatever date the _metastasis_ took place thus much is clear. It was no chance incidental flitting of a few scattered families, but a substantial shift of population, and it adequately accounts for the curious duplication of sanctuaries. The foreign character of one element in that population and of the cult they carried with them has been emphasized because it provides at least a possible explanation of the shift, but it must not for a moment be supposed that all the sanctuaries and sanctities were necessarily foreign. We may conclude this portion of the evidence by noting an instance of mythological duplication specially convincing because wholly incidental and undesigned, the legend of Boreas and Oreithyia.
Pausanias[331] tells us that ‘the Ilissus is the river where Oreithyia is said to have been playing when she was carried off by Boreas the North wind.’ We are a little surprised; what was the king’s daughter doing playing down by the Ilissus far from her father’s citadel, and was not the Ilissus rather a sheltered spot for the North wind? Plato[332] in the _Phaedrus_, as Sokrates and Phaedrus are lying under the ‘tallest plane tree’ on the bank of the Ilissus, makes Phaedrus say ‘I should like to know whether the place is not somewhere here where Boreas is said to have carried off Oreithyia;’ Sokrates says it is not far, about a quarter of a mile off, and that there is some sort of an altar there—and adds ‘there is a discrepancy however about the spot; according to another version of the story she was taken from the Areopagos and not from this place.’
We pass to our fourth source of error.
4. _Confusion as to Kallirrhoë and Enneakrounos._
Misunderstanding as regards the duplicated sanctuaries was explicable, even natural, but the downward road once embarked on leads to a deeper depth. Those who believe that Thucydides is concerned to prove that the ancient city lay Southwards have to find for the Fair-Fount and Nine-Spouts of Thucydides a home other than the rock of the Pnyx; they place the ancient city well, whence the king’s daughters drew their water, outside, not only of the walls of Themistocles, but even of the later and wider enclosure of Hadrian; they place it on the Ilissus, at a distance of over half-a-mile as the crow flies from the citadel gate. If the king’s daughters really ventured out there we must not, considering the convention of the times, too severely blame the attacks of the rude Pelasgians. And assuredly, if any one will try the experiment of carrying a bucket of water from Kallirrhoë on the Ilissus to the top of the Acropolis on a hot summer’s day, he will imagine those king’s daughters as cast in more than mortal mould.
In the days when the Kallirrhoë of Thucydides could be placed on the Ilissus the conception of Athens formed by scholars was of an Athens in the days of Pericles. To speak of ancient Athens as a ‘Mycenaean’ city would then have been unmeaning, if not positively insulting. As soon as we realise the conditions of a Pelasgian burgh, with its king and his immediate dependents massed upon and close up to the citadel, we know that the citadel-well _must_ be close at hand—the Fair-Fount of the Pnyx is already full far.
As to the Fair-Fount (Kallirrhoë) on the Ilissus, there has been and still prevails much confusion. A Kallirrhoë there certainly is on the Ilissus; the women of Athens wash their clothes there to-day[333], and the existence of this Kallirrhoë Prof. Dörpfeld has never denied. Nay, he expressly points out that even in the days of Thucydides the Kallirrhoë of the Pnyx had already lost its name, and needs to be recalled to his readers. If, as has been seen, many sanctuaries were transferred and names duplicated there is nothing (1) impossible nor (2) injurious to our theory, if the new Kallirrhoë was sometimes, like its old archetype, called Enneakrounos. Though as a matter of fact this seems not to have been the case.
* * * * *
Two ancient authorities, and two only, appear at first sight definitely to place the Enneakrounos on the Ilissus. These must be examined in detail. First, the _Etymologicum Magnum_[334], under the heading _Enneakrounos_, says, ‘a fountain at Athens by the Ilissus, which was formerly Kallirrhoë, to which they go to fetch the water for baths for brides.’ Unquestionably, whoever wrote this thought the Enneakrounos was on the Ilissus. But then by the time the _Etymologicum Magnum_ was compiled the old Kallirrhoë at the Pnyx was long forgotten. The statement looks as if it had come originally from Thucydides[335], and as if the topographical ‘by the Ilissus’ had been added by some ambitious but ignorant compiler.
Against this statement of the _Etymologicum Magnum_, for what it is worth, we may set the statement of another lexicographer[336]. Explaining the expression ‘Wedding Baths,’ he says, ‘the baths brought from a fountain from the agora.’ The wildest topographer has never placed the agora by the Ilissus, though it might go there with quite as good reason as the ancient city well.
* * * * *
A second ancient literary authority seems at first sight indisputably to place the Enneakrounos near to the temple of Zeus Olympios and, if there, then, as a necessary consequence, on the Ilissus. In the preface to a treatise by Hierocles[337] on _Veterinary Medicine_ there occurs, apropos of the age to which horses and mules live, the following statement: ‘Tarantinos narrates that the Athenians _when they were building the temple of Zeus near Enneakrounos_ passed a decree that all the beasts of burden should be driven in from Attica to the town.’ This seems perfectly definite and circumstantial, and the passage has been eagerly seized on by all those who wished to prove that the Enneakrounos was on the Ilissus. Quite naturally, but wait a moment. It is essential that the passage be read to the end. Tarantinos goes on, ‘and a certain husbandman through fear of this decree drove in an aged mule in its eightieth year. But the people out of respect for its age enacted that the mule was to be leader of all the beasts of burden employed in the building of the temple, it was to walk in front unyoked and unspurred, and that none of the wheat-merchants or barley-merchants were to drive it away from their houses or prevent it from browsing.’
The aged mule story is charming; we can scarcely hear it too often, but somehow it _is_ oddly familiar; have we not heard it before in slightly different form? Yes; surely it is the story Plutarch[338] tells when he is recounting the kindness of Cato to his beasts. ‘A good man will take care of his horses and dogs, not only while they are young, but when they are old and past service. Thus the people of Athens, _when they were building the Hecatompedon_ set at liberty those mules which they thought had worked hardest and let them go free, and one of them, it is said, afterwards came of her own accord back to the works and trotted by the side of the beasts who were drawing the waggons and led them on and seemed to be exhorting and encouraging them. And the people passed a vote that she should be entertained at the public expense to the day of her death.’ The same story is told by Aelian[339] of the time ‘_when the Athenians were building the Parthenon_,’ and he quotes as his authority Aristotle. It is Aristotle[340] who has set the whole uncertainty going. He tells the story of the time ‘when at Athens _they were building the temple_.’
By the ‘temple’ Aelian and Plutarch are almost certainly right in understanding the Parthenon. If they are right, we can infer that Tarantinos, an author whose date is unknown, and whom we have no ground for regarding as an authority on Athenian topography, has made at any rate one mistake, when he identifies ‘the temple’ with the great temple of his own day, the temple ‘of Zeus.’ Tarantinos is, presumably, taking the story from Aristotle. If so, it is clear that, besides wrongly identifying ‘the temple,’ he supposed that the Enneakrounos, which on this hypothesis he for the first time imports into the story, was identical with the Kallirrhoë of the Ilissos[341]. But what is the value of his evidence? His supporters may fairly be challenged to produce the credentials of a witness whose only title to be regarded as an authority is an identification almost certainly wrong. There is nothing to rebut the simple supposition that, like the author of the _Etymologicum Magnum_, he is merely confusing the two Kallirrhoës[342].
Finally, supposing for a moment that the passage of Thucydides leaves us in doubt as to the site of the Enneakrounos, naturally our next step would be to ask what does our next best authority, Pausanias, say? Pausanias is a topographer by profession, surely we shall learn from him where he saw the well-house. Pausanias[343] after seeing the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton ‘not far from’ the temple of Ares, passes straight on to a small group of monuments which he links together more or less clearly; they are the Odeion; near to it the Enneakrounos; above or beyond this the temples of Demeter and Kore; a little further on the temple of Eukleia. It is quite true that he links the Odeion by no connecting particle, but that is his frequent practice when passing straight from one monument to another.
The uninstructed reader in his simplicity would naturally think that, as Pausanias passes straight from the statues of the Tyrant Slayers to the Odeion, the two lay somewhere not far apart, and so they did. The Odeion in the days of Pausanias would almost certainly be near the site of the ancient orchestra, where still are faint remains of a semi-circular building (Fig. 46). Anyhow it stood close to the Areopagos. But this is too simple and natural. Pausanias we are told, here and nowhere else, abruptly breaks his narrative of the buildings in the Kerameikos, and with no apparent reason and no hint in the text, flies off for nearly half-a-mile and plants his reader on the banks of the Ilissus,—a district, be it noted, that he later describes in detail,—whence he shortly returns again without warning and finishes his account of the Kerameikos. In a word we are presented with what is known as the ‘Enneakrounos Episode.’ Various causes are suggested for the ‘Episode’; the leaves of the MS. got mixed, or Pausanias was staying with friends near the Ilissus, and went home to lunch. The real cause of the ‘Episode’ is that Thucydides has been misunderstood, and that the late compiler of the _Etymologicum Magnum_ has blundered. Pausanias[344] saw the Odeion in the neighbourhood of the old orchestra at the south-west of the Areopagos, the Enneakrounos near to it by the Pnyx rock, the temples of Demeter and Kore ‘above it’ _on_ the Pnyx rock where were the Thesmophorion[345] and the temple of Eukleia ‘not far off’; his course of sight-seeing was here as elsewhere orderly and undisturbed.
* * * * *
Pausanias is seen to be at one with Thucydides and, thanks to Prof. Dörpfeld, the evidence of both has been confirmed by excavation; the sources of error and confusion in late authors, lexicographers and modern archaeologists have come to light. Surely now at last the ‘Enneakrounos Episode’ may be laid to sleep in peace.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Herod. VII. 140.
[2] Thucyd. II. 14 χαλεπῶς δὲ αὐτοῖς, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ εἰωθέναι τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἀγροῖς διαιτᾶσθαι, ἡ ἀνάστασις ἐγίγνετο.
[3] Thucyd. I. 5, 10.
[4] Thucyd. II. 15 καὶ ξυνοίκια ἐξ ἐκείνου Ἀθηναῖοι ἔτι καὶ νῦν τῇ θεῷ ἑορτὴν δημοτελῆ ποιοῦσι.
[5] Thucyd. II. 15 τὸ δὲ πρὸ τούτου ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν καὶ τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον· τεκμήριον δέ. τὰ γὰρ ἱερὰ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστί, καὶ τὰ ἔξω πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ μέρος τῆς πόλεως μᾶλλον ἵδρυται, τό τε τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου καὶ τὸ Πύθιον καὶ τὸ τῆς Γῆς καὶ τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου (ᾧ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα Διονύσια τῇ δωδεκάτῃ ποιεῖται ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι) ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ ἀπ’ Ἀθηναίων Ἴωνες ἔτι καὶ νῦν νομίζουσιν, ἵδρυται δὲ καὶ ἄλλα ἱερὰ ταύτῃ ἀρχαῖα. καὶ τῇ κρήνῃ τῇ νῦν μὲν τῶν τυράννων οὕτω σκευασάντων Ἐννεακρούνῳ καλουμένῃ, τὸ δὲ πάλαι φανερῶν τῶν πηγῶν οὐσῶν Καλλιῤῥόῃ ὠνομασμένῃ—ἐκείνῃ τε ἐγγὺς οὔσῃ τὰ πλείστου ἄξια ἐχρῶντο, καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχαίου πρό τε γαμικῶν καὶ ἐς ἄλλα τῶν ἱερῶν νομίζεται τῷ ὕδατι χρῆσθαι. καλεῖται δὲ διὰ τὴν παλαιὰν ταύτῃ κατοίκησιν καὶ ἡ ἀκρόπολις μέχρι τοῦδε ἔτι ὑπ’ Ἀθηναίων πόλις.
[6] I keep the MS. reading; see Critical Note.
[7] See Dr A. W. Verrall, _The Site of Primitive Athens. Thucydides II. 15 and recent explorations_, _Class. Rev._ June 1900, p. 274. In the discussion of the actual text, I have throughout followed Dr Verrall.
[8] Plat. _Kritias_ 112.
[9] Antigonos, _Hist. Mirab._ 12.
[10] W. Dörpfeld, “Ueber die Ausgrabungen auf der Akropolis,” _Athen. Mitt._ XI. 1886, p. 162.
[11] ap. Suidam, _s.v._ Ἄπεδα el. Ἠπέδιζον: ἄπεδα, τὰ ἰσόπεδα. Κλείδημος ‘καὶ ἠπέδιζον τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, περιέβαλλον δὲ ἐννεάπυλον τὸ Πελασγικόν.’
[12] Dörpfeld, “Die Propylaeen,” _A. Mitt._ X. 1885, p. 139 and see the plan of the Propylaea in my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 352.
[13] Dörpfeld, ‘Ausgrabungen auf der Akropolis,’ _A. Mitt._ XI. 1896, p. 167.
[14] Dr Kabbadias, _Fouilles de l’Acropole_, 1886, Pl. I. and descriptive text.
[15] The discussion and interpretation of these figures is reserved for p. 51.
[16] Ἐφήμερις Ἀρχαιολογική, 1866, p. 78.
[17] _Eph. Arch._ 1887, pl. 4.
[18] _Eph. Arch._ 1887, pl. 8.
[19] Dörpfeld, ‘Die Zeit des älteren Parthenon,’ _A. Mitt._ 1902, p. 410.
[20] _A. Mitt._ 3892, p. 158, pl. VIII. and IX.
[21] Plut. _Vit. Cim._ 13.
[22] Unfortunately at the actual time of the excavations the chronology of the various retaining walls was not clearly evident and the precise place where many of the fragments excavated were found was not noted with adequate precision.
[23] _A. Mitt._ XXVII. 1902, p. 398, Fig. 5.
[24] F. Hauser, _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 115. The reverse was first correctly explained thro’ the identification of the σταφύλη by Dr O. Rossbach, ‘Verschollene Sagen und Kulten,’ _Neue Jahrbücher f. Kl. Altertumswissenschaft_, 1901, p. 390.
[25] _Il._ II. 765 ... ἵπποι σταφύλῃ ἐπὶ νῶτον ἔϊσαι.
[26] See Roscher, _Lex._ _s.v._
[27] Paus. II. 25. 7.
[28] Paus. II. 16. 5.
[29] Paus. IX. 5. 6.
[30] Apoll. Rhod. I. 736.
[31] Strabo, VIII. 21 § 379. See my _Prolegomena_, p. 609.
[32] _Od._ XI. 594. Mr Salomon Reinach in his “Sisyphe aux enfers et quelques autres damnés,” _Rev. Arch._ 1903, has established beyond doubt the true interpretation of the stone of Sisyphos.
[33] Paus. I. 28. 3.
[34] Dr Rendel Harris, _The Dioscuri_, p. 8.
[35] Plin. _Nat. Hist._ VII. 57.
[36] For _Euryalos_ see _Eph. Arch._ 1885, Taf. v. 2 and 3. For _Hyperbios_, _Mon. d. Inst._ VI. and VII.
[37] Herod. VI. 137 μισθὸν τοῦ τείχεος τοῦ περὶ τὴν ἀκρόπολίν ποτε ἐληλαμένου.
[38] Herod. V. 64 ἐπολιόρκεε τοὺς τυράννους ἀπεργμένους ἐν τῷ Πελασγικῷ τείχει. All the MSS. except Z have Πελασγικῷ: Z has been corrected to Πελα_ρ_γικῷ.
[39] _C.I.A._ IV. 2. 27. 6 ... ἐν τῷ Πελαργικῷ ... ἐκ τοῦ Πελαργικοῦ.
[40] In the best MS. (Laur. C).
[41] For details of this temple, see my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 496. For its ground-plan, see below p. 40, Fig. 18.
[42] Wiegand-Schrader-Dörpfeld, _Poros-Architektur der Akropolis_. For any realization of pre-Periclean architecture a study of the coloured plates of this work is essential.
[43] Typhon and Tritons appear together on the throne of Apollo at Amyclae. The artistic motives of this Ionian work are largely Oriental. The conjunction of Typhon and the Tritons is not, I think, a mere decorative chance. Attention has not, I think, been called, in connection with this pediment, to the fact that in Plutarch’s _Isis and Osiris_ (XXXII.) Typhon _is_ the sea into which the Nile flows (Τυφῶνα δὲ τὴν θάλασσαν, εἰς ἣν ὁ Νεῖλος ἐμπίπτων ἀφανίζεται). The Egyptian inspiration of the _Isis and Osiris_ no one will deny, and on this Egyptianized pediment with its lotus-flowers the Egyptian sea-god Typhon is well in place. His name is doubtless, as Muss Arnolt _Semitic Words in Greek and Latin_, p. 59 points out, connected with Heb. צָפוֹן hidden, dark, northern. The sea was north of Egypt.
[44] Ar. _Av._ 1139
ἕτεροι δ’ ἐπλινθοποίουν πελαργοὶ μύριοι.
[45] Eur. _Ion_ 154, trans. by Dr Verrall.
[46] See Lechat, _Au Musée de l’Acropole d’Athènes_, p. 215.
[47] Any learned blunderer might write Πελα_σ_γικόν for Πελα_ρ_γικόν, but if Πελα_σ_γικόν were the original form it would be little likely to be changed to Πελα_ρ_γικόν.
[48] Thucyd. II. 17 τό τε Πελαργικὸν καλούμενον τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, ὃ καὶ ἐπάρατόν τε ἦν μὴ οἰκεῖν καί τι καὶ Πυθικοῦ μαντείου ἀκροτελεύτιον τοιόνδε διεκώλυε, λέγον ὡς τὸ Πελαργικὸν ἀργὸν ἄμεινον, ὅμως ὑπὸ τῆς παραχρῆμα ἀνάγκης ἐξῳκήθη. Thucydides calls ‘τὸ Πελαργικὸν ἀργὸν ἀμείνον’ a final hemistich. Mr A. B. Cook kindly points out to me that it is in fact a complete line of the ancient metrical form preceding the hexameter and known as _paroimiac_.
[49] καὶ τὸ ὑπ’ αὐτὴν μάλιστα πρὸς νότον τετραμμένον.
[50] Lucian, _Piscator_, 46.
[51] _C.I.A._ IV. 2. 27. 6.
[52] Poll. _On._ VIII. 101.
[53] Dörpfeld, ‘Die Propyläen 1 und 2,’ _A. Mitt._ X. 1885, pp. 38 and 131 and see my _Mon. and Myth. Ancient Athens_, p. 353.
[54] Dörpfeld, _A. Mitt._ XXVII. 1902, p. 405.
[55] The number of these gates is of course purely conjectural. The sketch in Fig. 15 which I owe to the kindness of Prof. Dörpfeld gives five only on the western slope. The line of the walls HJK is suggested by remains of the 6th century B.C. which probably occupy the site of still earlier Pelasgic fortifications (see p. 35 note 2). Of the remaining gates one would probably be near where the Asklepieion was later built and one or more on the north slope.
[56] Lucian, _Bis Accus._ 9 μικρὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ.
[57] Herod. VIII. 52.
[58] Lucian, _Piscator_ 42.
[59] See _Mon. and Myth. Ancient Athens_, p. 299.
[60] _Op. cit._ p. 152.
[61] Polem. ap. Schol. _Oed. Col._ 489 καθάπερ Πολέμων ἐν τοῖς πρὸς Ἐρατοσθένην φησίν, οὕτω ... κριὸν Ἡσύχῳ ἱερὸν ἥρω ... οὗ τὸ ἱερόν ἐστι παρὰ τὸ Κυλώνειον, ἐκτὸς τῶν ἐννέα πυλῶν. The MS. has Κυδώνιον, the emendation, which seems certain, is due to C. O. Mueller.
[62] Plut. _Vit. Solon._ XII. and Thucyd. I. 126.
[63] For these details about the date of the various walls I am indebted to Professor Dörpfeld. Dr F. Noack holds that the nine-gated Pelargikon was not of Mycenaean date but was built by Peisistratos, the earlier Pelargikon being a much simpler structure. Prof. Dörpfeld also holds that there was no nine-gated Pelargikon in Mycenaean days, but he believes that the Peisistratids only strengthened an already existing fortification, building perhaps some additional gates. The Enneapylon would then have its contemporary analogy in the Enneakrounos. See F. Noack, _Arne_, _A. Mitt._ 1894, p. 418.
[64] A protest was raised against the building of the Asklepieion after it was begun; possibly this was because of its encroachment on the Pelargikon. See A. Koerte, _A. Mitt._ 1896, pp. 318-331.
[65] See Critical Note.
[66] See throughout Prof. Dörpfeld, ‘Der ursprüngliche Plan des Erechtheion,’ _A. Mitt._ 1904, p. 101, Taf. VI.
[67] See Dörpfeld, _A. Mitt._ XXVIII. 1903, p. 468.
[68] ο]ντος Αθηνων Κεκροπος, ἐτη ΧΗΗΔ.
[69] Thucyd. II. 15.
[70] Apollod. III. 14.
[71] Herod. VIII. 44.
[72] Harp. _in voc._; Poll. _On._ IX. 109.
[73] Paus. I. 3. 6.
[74] Hom. _Il._ II. 547 δῆμον Ἐρεχθῆος μεγαλητόρος.
[75] Aristoph. _Vesp._ 438 ὧ Κέκροψ ἥρως ἄναξ τὰ πρὸς ποδῶν δρακοντίδη.
[76] Tzetzes, _Chil._ V. 19.
[77] Only once so far as I know is Kekrops definitely called a snake, in the _Hekale_ of Callimachus; speaking of the decision in favour of Athene as against Poseidon he says (V. 9)
τήν ῥα νέον ψήφῳ (τ)ε Διὸς δύο καὶ δέκα τ’ ἄλλων ἀθανάτων ὄφιός τε κατέλλαβε μαρτυρίῃσιν.
See Gomperz, _Rainer Papyrus_ VI. 1897, p. 9.
[78] Prof. Dörpfeld kindly suggests to me that the type of the Cretan Snake-Goddess recently brought to light by Dr Evans and Miss Boyd may have had its influence on the goddess of Athens. I agree (see my _Prolegomena_, p. 307 note 3) and hope to return to this question on another occasion.
[79] Herod. VIII. 41. The snake was of course at first imaginary and Herodotus seems to doubt its existence.
[80] Paus. I. 24. 7.
[81] Hesiod, ap. Strab. IX. 9. § 393.
[82] Soph. _Philoct._ 1327.
[83] Paus. VI. 20. 2-4.
[84] Clem. Al. _Protr._ III. 45, p. 39.
[85] Theod. _Graec. affect. cur._ VIII. 30, p. 908 καὶ γὰρ Ἀθήνησιν, ὡς Ἀντίοχος ἐν τῇ ἐνάτῃ γέγραφεν ἱστορίᾳ ἄνω γε ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει Κέκροπός ἐστι τάφος παρὰ τὴν Πολιοῦχον αὐτήν.
[86] Δελτ. Αρχ. 1889, p. 10, fig. No. 3 ἐν τῷ τοῦ Κέκροπος ἱε[ρῷ.
[87] _C.I.A._ III. 1276 ἱε[ρ]εὺς Κέκρο[π]ος Ἀρίστων Σωσιστράτου Ἀθμονεύς.
[88] Brit. Mus. I. xxxv.; _C.I.A._ I. 322. The inscription is engraved on two slabs of Pentelic marble.
[89] _loc. cit._ line 83
ἐπὶ τε͂ι προστάσει τε͂ι πρὸς το͂[ι] Κεκροπίοι ἔδει τὸς λίθος τὸς ὀροφιαίος τὸς ἐπὶ το͂ν κορο͂ν ...
[90] For the name Caryatid as explained by Vitruvius see my _Mon. and Myth. Anc. Athens_, p. 489.
[91] Dörpfeld, ‘Der ursprüngliche Plan des Erechtheion,’ _A. Mitt._ XXIX. p. 104, 1904.
[92] Wiegand, _Die archäische Poros-Architektur der Akropolis zu Athen_ (1904), p. 106; and see also M. H. Lechat, _La sculpture Attique avant Pheidias_, p. 53.
[93] Herod. VII. 41 λέγουσι Ἀθηναῖοι ὄφιν μέγαν φύλακα τῆς ἀκροπόλιος ἐνδιαιτᾶσθαι ἐν τῷ ἱρῷ.
[94] Eur. _Ion_ 21-26, trans. Dr Verrall.
[95] Brit. Mus. Cat. E 418. See my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. xxxi. Two snakes also appear as Dr Wiegand _op. cit._ points out in the Atthis attributed to Amelesagoras; see Westermann _Paradoxogr._ XII. 63 Ἀμελησαγόρας δὲ ὁ Ἀθηναῖος ὁ τὴν Ἀτθίδα συγγράφων ... φησὶ τὰς δὲ Κέκροπος θυγατέρας τὰς δύω Ἄγραυλον καὶ Πάνδροσον τὴν κίστην ἀνοῖξαι καὶ ἰδεῖν δράκοντας δύω περὶ τὸν Ἐριχθόνιον. Hesychius _s.v._ οἰκουρὸς ὄφις says ... οἱ μὲν ἕνα φασὶν οἳ δὲ δύο ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Ἐρεχθέως.
[96] _C.I.A._ I. 322, line 44
το͂ν κιόνον το͂ν ἐπὶ τὸ τοίχο τὸ πρὸς τὸ Πανδροσείο,
and in _C.I.A._ IV. 321, III. line 32
τὰ μετακιόνια τέτταρα ὄντα τὰ πρὸς τοῦ Πανδροσείου.
[97] Δελτ. Αρχ. 1888, p. 87, fig. 1 B, lines 27 and 41
ὁ πρὸς τοῦ Πανδροσείου.
[98] P. I. 27. 2 τῷ ναῷ δὲ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς Πανδρόσου ναὸς συνεχής ἐστι.
[99] Paus. I. 18. 2. For the vase-paintings that illustrate the story see my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. xxiii.
[100] Paus. I. 21. 4 see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 299.
[101] P. I. 22. 5.
[102] P. I. 18. 2.
[103] See my ‘Mythological Studies—the three daughters of Kekrops,’ _Journ. Hell. Soc._ XII. p. 351, 1891.
[104] For a fuller discussion of the Arrephoria in relation to the Thesmophoria, see my _Prolegomena_, p. 131; and for the child in the mystery liknon, p. 525.
[105] _C.I.A._ II. 481, 58.
[106] _s.v._ ἐπίβοιον.
[107] _C.I.A._ I. 322 (Brit. Mus. I. 35. 571), l. 83 ἐπὶ τε͂ι προστάσει τε͂ι πρὸς το͂[ι] Κεκροπίοι ἔδει τὸς λίθος τὸς ὀροφιαίος τὸς ἐπὶ το͂ν κορο͂ν ἐπεργάσασθαι ἄνοθεν, see p. 46.
[108] _Anth. Pal._ VI. 280
τάς τε κόρας Λιμνᾶτι Κόρα κόρα, ὡς ἐπιεικὲς ἄνθετο·
see my _Prolegomena_, p. 301.
[109] _C.I.A._ I. 141 κορὴ χρυσῆ ἐπὶ στήλης, _v._ Lolling, _Cat. des inscr. de l’Acropole_, No. 267 τήνδε κόρην ἀνέθηκεν ἀπαρχήν.
[110] _Jahrbuch d. Inst._ II. 1887, p. 219.
[111] _C.I.A._ IV. suppl. 373 and _Eph. Arch._ 1886, p. 81, l. 6.
[112] Paus. II. 5. 1, III. 15. 10.
[113] Paus. III. 21. 10.
[114] Paus. I. 26. 5.
[115] Paus. VIII. 2. 3.
[116] Athen. XIII. 2. § 555 and Tzetzes, _Chil._ V. 19. v. 650.
[117] S. Aug. _de civitat. Dei_, 18. 9 ut nullus nascentium maternum nomen acciperet.
[118] Apollod. III. 14. 2 μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ἧκεν Ἀθηνᾶ, καὶ ποιησαμένη τῆς καταλήψεως Κέκροπα μάρτυρα ἐφύτευσεν ἐλαίαν ἣ νῦν ἐν τῷ Πανδροσείῳ δείκνυται.
[119] Herod. VIII. 55.
[120] Hesych. Fig. 146 ἀστὴ ἐλαία, ἡ ἐν ἀκροπόλει ἡ καλουμένη παγκύφος διὰ χθαμαλότητα.
[121] For full discussion of the fragments see Dr Th. Wiegand, _Die archäische Poros-Architektur der Akropolis zu Athen_, p. 97; _Das älteste Erechtheion und der heilige Oelbaum_, Taf. XIV. on which the restoration in Fig. 20 is based. The door really at the _end_ of the building is, perhaps by a not uncommon convention, brought into view at the _side_. Cf. the temple of Janus on a coin of Nero.
[122] Unfortunately the site of the ‘sea’ has never been systematically excavated and examined. Professor Dörpfeld tells me that the cistern now visible is of mediaeval date. Until the mediaeval masonry is removed the precise character of the ‘sea’ cannot be determined. There was certainly no _spring_, the geological character of the Acropolis plateau forbids that, but a _well_ may exist.
[123] Paus. I. 26. 5 ταῦτα δὲ λέγεται Ποσειδῶνι μαρτύρια ἐς τὴν ἀμφισβήτησιν τῆς χώρας φανῆναι.
[124] Apollod. III. 14. 1.
[125] Paus. I. 26. 5. The sea well at Caria was sacred to a foreign god called Osogoa, see Paus. VIII. 10. 4. It is worth noting that Semitic gods have ‘seas’ in their sanctuaries; Solomon’s temple had a brazen ‘sea’ and Marduk at Babylon had a _tamtu_ or sea, and curiously enough it was associated with the great serpent. See King, _Babylonian Religion_, p. 105.
[126] Ovid _Fasti_, II. 667
Nunc quoque, se supra ne quid nisi sidera cernat Exiguum templi tecta foramen habent.
[127] Serv. _ad Aen._ IX. 448.
[128] Varro _L. L._ V. 66.
[129] Vitr. I. 2. 5.
[130] Paus. V. 14. 10.
[131] _Od._ VII. 80-81, trans. Butcher and Lang.
[132] _Il._ II. 546.
[133] Herod. V. 82.
[134] For Poseidon as the Tory-god I am indebted to Mr R. A. Neil’s edition of the _Knights_; see lines 144 and 551.
[135] Paus. I. 26. 5.
[136] _s.v._ Ἐρέχθευς, but the scholiast in Lycophron, _Al._ 431, says Ἐρέχθευς ὁ Ζεὺς ἐν Ἀθήναις καὶ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ τιμᾶται; see Mr A. B. Cook, _Classical Review_, 1904, p. 85.
[137] Apollod. III. 15. 1.
[138] _Vit. X. Orat._ p. 843ᵉ.
[139] Thucyd. II. 2.
[140] Paus. II. 17. 3. For the whole subject of the importance of these priestly genealogies, see Professor Ridgeway, _Early Age of Greece_, p. 102.
[141] Aristoph. _Eq._ 551. See Mr R. A. Neil, _ad loc._
[142] Apollod. III. 15. 1. See _supra_, p. 62.
[143] Herod. II. 50. See R. Brown, _Poseidon_, 1872, p. 66.
[144] Herod. IV. 188-189.
[145] See Prof. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, p. 226.
[146] Herod. I. 59. To the question of the origin and development of the cult of Athena and to the examination of certain Oriental factors in it I hope to return on another occasion.
[147] _Class. Rev._ 1900, XIV. p. 279.
[148] Prof. Dörpfeld draws attention (_Rhein. Mus._ LI. p. 134) to the analogous case of Torone, which Thucydides (IV. 110) describes thus: οὔσης τῆς πόλεως πρὸς λόφον—‘was nach dem Zusammenhang nicht _nach dem Hügel hin_ sondern nur _an dem Hügel hinauf_ bedeutet.’ But it must carefully be noted that as Dr Verrall (_Class. Rev._ 1900, p. 278) observes, the notion of _ascent_ is given not by πρός but by λόφον. The analogy is one of fact, not of the verbal description of that fact.
[149] Paus. I. 3. 4.
[150] For details of this Olympieion, see my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 189.
[151] Eur. _Ion_, 283.
[152] Eur. _Ion_, 7 ff.
[153] Strabo IX. 2 § 404 ἐτήρουν δ’ ἐπὶ τρεῖς μῆνας, καθ’ ἕκαστον μῆνα ἐπὶ τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ νύκτας ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσχάρας τοῦ Ἀστραπαίου Διός· ἔστι δ’ αὕτη ἐν τῷ τείχει μεταξὺ τοῦ Πυθίου καὶ τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου.
[154] Paus. I. 28. 4.
[155] Philostr. _Vit. Soph._ II. 5, p. 550 ἐκ Κεραμεικοῦ δὲ ἄρασαν χιλίᾳ κώπῃ ἀφεῖναι ἐπὶ τὸ Ἐλευσίνιον καὶ περιβαλοῦσαν αὐτὸ παραμεῖψαι τὸ Πελασγικὸν, κομιζομένην τε παρὰ τὸ Πύθιον ἐλθεῖν οἷ νῦν ὥρμισται.
[156] Paus. I. 29. 1.
[157] _loc. cit. supra._ Between the words νομίζουσι and ὡς πεμφθείη we must mentally supply ἐνταῦθα καὶ τοῦ Πανὸς ἱερόν, φασὶ δὲ, or words to that effect.
[158] The ‘Valerian’ wall was probably the work of Antonio Acciajoli. See Dr Judeich, _Topographie von Athen_, p. 103, note 6.
[159] For a full account of Dr Kabbadias’s excavations from which the above particulars are taken see _Ephemeris Archäologike_, 1897, 1-32 and 87-92, pl. I.-IV. and for _résumé_ in French _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ XX. 382 ff., also _American Journal of Arch._ 1897, p. 348 and 1898, p. 311.
[160] Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, p. 8, pl. 4 Ἀγαθὴ τύχη, Γ(άϊος) Ἰούλιος Μητρόδωρος Μαραθ(ώνιος) θεσμοθετήσας Ἀπόλλωνι ὑπὸ Μακραῖς ἀνέθηκεν.
[161] Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, p. 9, pl. 4 Τιβ(έριος) Ἀντίστιος Κίνεας ἐκ Κοίλης Ἀπόλλωνι ὑπ’ Ἄκραις βασιλεύς.
[162] Ar. Ἀθ. Πολ. LV. 15 and Harpocrat. _s.v._ Ἀπόλλων Πατρῷος.
[163] Ar. Ἀθ. Πολ. LVII. 4. There is no mention of Delphi, and the word ἰσομέτρητον does not occur, but in Plato’s reference (_Phaedr._ 235 D) it is distinctly stated both occur, καί σοι ἐγὼ ὥσπερ οἱ ἐννέα ἄρχοντες, ὑπισχνοῦμαι χρυσὴν εἰκόνα ἰσομέτρητον εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀναθήσειν.
[164] Ar. Ἀθ. Πολ. LV. 5 ἐντεῦθεν δ’ ὀμόσαντες εἰς ἀκρόπολιν βαδίζουσιν καὶ πάλιν ἐκεῖ ταῦτα ὀμνύουσι.
[165] Dem. _de Cor._ 275 καλῶ ... καὶ τὸν Ἀπόλλω τὸν Πύθιον ὃς πατρῷός ἐστι τῇ πόλει.
[166] _C.I.A._ III. 198.
[167] Prof. Dörpfeld kindly tells me that he thinks it quite possible that the poros structure below and north of the Klepsydra may be remains of the Olympion. The situation would of course admirably suit the words of Thucydides. The remains are marked in solid black in Fig. 46.
[168] For full particulars of this temple see my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 190.
[169] I see to my great regret that Prof. Ernest Gardner in translating Thucydides II. 15 renders ἱερόν throughout by ‘_temple_’, ‘the temple of Olympian Zeus, the Pythium, the temple of Earth.’ Though _templum_ in Latin is used to denote any sanctified space of earth or air, surely such a use of _temple_ is misleading in English.
[170] Paus. I. 18. 9 τοῦ δὲ Ὀλυμπίου Διὸς Δευκαλίωνα οἰκοδομῆσαι λέγουσι τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἱερὸν σημεῖον ἀποφαίνοντες ὡς Δευκαλίων Ἀθήνῃσιν ᾤκησε τάφον τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ νῦν οὐ πολὺ ἀφεστηκότα.
[171] _A. Mitt._ 1895, p. 56. The word οἰκοδομέω does not necessarily imply house or temple building. It is used of building a wall, a labyrinth.
[172] Plat. _Phaedr._ 227 Σω. ἀτὰρ Λυσίας ἦν ὡς ἔοικεν ἐν ἄστει; Φαι. Ναὶ παρ’ Ἐπικράτει ἐν τῇδε τῇ πλησίον τοῦ Ὀλυμπίου οἰκίᾳ τῇ Μορυχίᾳ. Nothing can be inferred from ἐν ἄστει. It means simply ‘in town’ as opposed to the Peiraeus or the country.
[173] Thucyd. I. 126 ἔστι γὰρ καὶ Ἀθηναίοις Διάσια ἃ καλεῖται Διὸς ἑορτὴ Μειλιχίου μεγίστη, ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.
[174] For a discussion of the worship of Meilichios see my _Prolegomena_, pp. 12-29. What I there say as to the chthonic character of Meilichios still I hope holds good, but I offer my apologies to M. Foucart for my attempted refutation of his theory as to the Semitic origin of the god. I now see that he was right. Meilichios is none other than מֶלֶךְ misunderstood. See also Lagrange, _Études sur les Religions Sémitiques_, 1905, pp. 99-109.
[175] _Par. Chron._ (Jacobi) 6 Βασιλεύοντος Ἀθηνῶν Κρ[ανα]οῦ ἀφ’ οὗ κατακλυσμὸς ἐπὶ Δευκαλίωνος ἐγένετο καὶ Δευκαλίων τοὺς ὄμβρους ἔφυγεν ἐγ Λυκωρείας εἰς Ἀθήνας πρὸ[ς Κρανα]ὸν καὶ τοῦ Διὸ[ς το]ῦ Ὀ[λυ]μ[πί]ου τὸ ἱ[ε]ρὸν ἱδ[ρύσατ]ο [καὶ] τὰ σωτήρια ἔθυσεν. I would suggest that behind Kranaos hides another Semitic figure, Kronos.
[176] Herod. VIII. 44.
[177] Schol. ad Ar. _Av._ 1527 πατρῷον δὲ τιμῶσιν Ἀπόλλωνα Ἀθηναῖοι, ἐπεὶ Ἴων ὁ πολέμαρχος Ἀθηναίων ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος καὶ Κρεούσης τῆς Ξούθου ἐγένετο.
[178] Paus. I. 31. 2.
[179] Eur. _Ion_, 57-64.
[180] Eur. _Ion_, 289-295.
[181] Paus. VII. 1. 2, and see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. lxxxi.
[182] Eur. _Ion_, 492.
[183] Ar. _Lys._ 911.
[184] See _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 546.
[185] Eur. _Ion_, 492, trans. Mr D. S. MacColl.
[186] Ar. _Lys._ 720 τὴν μὲν δὲ πρώτην διαλέγουσαν τὴν ὄπιν.
[187] Paus. I. 22. 3.
[188] For a full list of these see Dr Frazer on P. I. 22. 3.
[189] Ar. _Thesm._ 300 καὶ τῇ Κουροτρόφῳ τῇ Γῇ, schol. εἴτε τῇ γῇ εἴτε τῇ ἑστίᾳ, ὁμοίως πρὸ τοῦ Διὸς θύουσιν αὐτῇ.
[190] Suidas, _s.v._ Κουροτρόφος Γῆ ... καταστῆσαι δὲ νόμιμον τοὺς θύοντάς τινι θεῷ ταύτῃ προθύειν.
[191] Paus. I. 20. 3. See Mr Mitchell Carroll in the _Classical Review_ (July 1905, p. 325), ‘Thucydides, Pausanias and the Dionysium in Limnis,’ but Mr Carroll makes the to my mind fatal mistake of examining the Limnae question apart from the other sanctuaries.
[192] See Dr Verrall (_Class. Rev._ XIV. 1900, p. 278), who cites Burnham Beeches which has nothing to do with any _beech_ and Sandiacre which has nothing to do with _sand_, and, as Mr Carroll observes, ‘Rhode Island’ is not an island nor is Washington a Washing-Town.
[193] Such sources as are necessary for my argument will be given as required, but the whole material for the study of the Attic festivals of Dionysos has been collected by Dr Martin P. N. Nilsson in his _Studia de Dionysiis Atticis_, Lund, 1900.
[194] For the ceremonies see my _Prolegomena_, p. 40.
[195] Athen. XI. p. 464 F. Φανόδημος δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ φησὶ τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου τὸ γλεῦκος φέροντας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἐκ τῶν πίθων τῷ θεῷ κιρνάναι: and X. 437 B ... ἀποφέρειν τοὺς στεφάνους πρὸς τὸ ἐν Λίμναις τέμενος.
[196] [Dem.] _c. Neaer._ § 73 καὶ τοῦτον τὸν νόμον γράψαντες ἐν στήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἔστησαν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου παρὰ τὸν βωμὸν ἐν Λίμναις.
[197] _c. Neaer._ § 76 καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐν τῷ ἀρχαιοτάτῳ ἱερῷ τοῦ Διονύσου καὶ ἁγιωτάτῳ ἐν Λίμναις ἔστησαν ἵνα μὴ πολλοὶ εἰδῶσι τὰ γεγραμμένα· ἅπαξ γὰρ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἑκάστου ἀνοίγεται, τῇ δωδεκάτῃ τοῦ Ἀνθεστηριῶνος μηνός.
[198] This and the separate character of the festivals belonging to the Limnae from those of the precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus were first pointed out I believe by Professor W. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, ‘Die Bühne von Æschylos,’ _Hermes_ XXI. p. 617.
[199] The sources are (1) the law of Euegoros (Dem. _c. Meid._ 10) Εὐήγορος εἶπεν· ὅταν ἡ πομπὴ ᾖ τῷ Διονύσῳ ἐν Πειραιεῖ καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοί, καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ πομπὴ καὶ οἱ τραγῳδοὶ καὶ οἱ κωμῳδοί, καὶ τοῖς ἐν ἄστει Διονυσίοις ἡ πομπή ...; (2) an official inscription, _C.I.A._ II. 741, in which the same two festivals are three times mentioned.
[200] Poll. _On._ IV. 121 καὶ Διονυσιακὸν θέατρον καὶ Ληναϊκόν.
[201] Hesych. _s.v._ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ ἀγών· ἔστιν ἐν τῷ ἄστει Λήναιον περίβολον ἔχον μέγαν, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ Ληναίου Διονύσου ἱερόν, ἐν ᾧ ἐπετελοῦντο οἱ ἀγῶνες Ἀθηναίων πρὶν τὸ θέατρον οἰκοδομηθῆναι. The same account is given by Photius _s.v._ Λήναιον, by the _Etym. Magnum_ ἐπὶ Ληναίῳ and Bekker’s _Anecdota_ I. p. 278.
[202] Phot. _s.v._ ἴκρια: τὰ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, ἀφ’ ὧν ἐθεῶντο τοὺς Διονυσιακοὺς ἀγῶνας πρὶν ἢ κατασκευασθῆναι τὸ ἐν Διονύσου θέατρον, and see also Eustath. 1472, 7, and Hesych. _s.v._ παρ’ αἰγείρον θέα. Hesychius quotes Eratosthenes from whom very probably all the other accounts came.
[203] Tim. _Lex. Plat._ Ὀρχήστρα τόπος ἐπιφάνης εἰς πανήγυριν ἔνθα Ἀρμοδίου καὶ Ἀριστογείτονος εἰκόνες.
[204] Paus. I. 8. 4.
[205] To any one using my _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_ I must at this point offer my apologies. The rough sketch map of the agora (facing p. 5) was made before Prof. Dörpfeld’s excavations. The _Limnae_ is wrongly marked on the district near the Dipylon. I was at that time convinced only that the _Limnae_ did _not_ lie South of the Acropolis and wrongly identified it with the sanctuary seen by Pausanias on his entrance into the city. The _orchestra_ also on my plan must be moved further to the South-East. The conjectural site of the Odeion seen by Pausanias is shown on Prof. Dörpfeld’s plan (Fig. 46). At this point a curved foundation of Roman masonry has come to light.
[206] Plat. _Prot._ 327.
[207] Ar. _Ran. Hyp._ ἐδιδάχθη ἐπὶ Καλλίου τοῦ μετὰ Ἀντιγένη διὰ Φιλωνίδου εἰς Λήναια.
[208] Ar. _Ran._ 218
ἣν ἀμφὶ Νυσήιον Διὸς Διόνυσον ἐν Λήμναις ἰαχήσαμεν ἡνίχ’ ὁ κραιπαλόκωμος τοῖς ἱεροῖσι Χύτροισι χωρεῖ κατ’ ἐμὸν τέμενος λαῶν ὄχλος.
Trans. by Mr Gilbert Murray. For the χύτρινοι ἀγῶνες, see Schol. _ad loc._, ἤγοντο ἀγῶνες αὐτόθι οἱ χύτρινοι καλούμενοι καθ’ ἅ φησιν Φιλόχορος ἐν τῇ ἑκτῇ τῶν Ἀτθίδων.
[209] For the literature of the excavations see Bibliography. A _résumé_ of the portion relating to the _Limnae_ will be found in Dr Frazer’s _Pausanias_, vol. V. p. 495, Addenda, Athens.
[210] H. Schrader, ‘Funde im Bezirk des Dionysion,’ _A. Mitt._, 1896, XXI. p. 265, pl. IX.
[211] Published and fully discussed by Dr S. Wide, ‘Inschrift der Iobakchen,’ _A. Mitt._ 1894, p. 248, and see E. Maass, _Orpheus_, p. 16 ff.
[212] _C.I.A._ III. 1159, 1186, 1193, 1197, 1202. See Dr Wide, _op. cit._ p. 1.
[213] See Dr Dörpfeld, _A. Mitt._ XX. 1895, p. 34. The intricacies of this earlier _Bakcheion_ do not concern the present argument.
[214] I owe this view to the kindness of Mr Percy Droop of Trinity College. It is taken from a point close to the N.W. end of the _Lesche_ (Fig. 24).
[215] _A. Mitt._ V. 116.
[216] Schol. ad Ar. _Ran._ 216 Λίμνη τόπος ἱερὸς Διονύσου ἐν ᾧ καὶ οἶκος καὶ νεὼς τοῦ θεοῦ Καλλίμαχος ἐν Ἑκάλῃ
Λιμναίῳ δὲ χοροστάδας ἦγον ἑορτάς.
[217] Thucyd. II. 15 τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου.
[218] _c. Neaer._ 76 τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Διονύσου ἐν Λίμναις.
[219] Phanodemus ap. Athen. XI. 465 A τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου.
[220] Is. _Or._ VIII. 35 τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσιον. For these references see Dr Dörpfeld, ‘Lenaion,’ _A. Mitt._ 1895, XX. p. 368.
[221] For the fullest account of this orchestra see Prof. Dörpfeld, _Das Griechische Theater_, p. 27.
[222] In the _Parian Chronicle_, ἀφ’ οὗ Θέσπις ὁ ποιητὴς [ὑπεκρίνα]το πρῶτος, ὃς ἐδίδαξε [δρ]ᾶ[μα ἐν ἄ]στ[ει. The restoration ἐν ἄστει seems certain.
[223] Ps. Plut. _Vit. X. Orat._ 6 εἰσήνεγκε δὲ καὶ νόμους τὸν περὶ τῶν κωμῳδῶν ἀγῶνα τοῖς Χύτροις ἐπιτελεῖν ἐφάμιλλον ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, καὶ τὸν νικήσαντα εἰς ἄστυ καταλέγεσθαι, πρότερον οὐκ ἐξὸν, ἀναλαμβάνων τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐκλελοιπότα.
[224] Ps. Plut. _Vit. X. Orat._
[225] Paus. I. 8. 6 τὸ θέατρον ὃ καλοῦσιν ᾠδεῖον.
[226] Philostr. _Vit. Soph._ II. 5. 4 τὸ ἐν τῷ Κεραμεικῷ θέατρον ὃ δὴ ἐπωνόμασται Ἀγριππεῖον. For the whole question of the Odeion which, save for its possible identity in site with the old orchestra, does not concern us, see Dr Dörpfeld, ‘Die verschiedenen Odeien in Athen,’ _A. Mitt._ XVII. 1892, p. 352.
[227] _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, Chapter II., The Anthesteria.
[228] Dr Verrall, _J. H. S._ XX. 115.
[229] _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ XXIV. p. xxxix. 1904.
[230] It seems to me possible that the transition may have been helped as regards the word Lenaion by the fact that the Greek ληνός means _coffin_ as well as _wine-press_. The ληνός like the πίθος could be used for purposes widely diverse.
[231] A. Koerte, ‘Bezirk eines Heilgottes,’ _A. Mitt._ 1893, XVIII. pl. xi.; A. Koerte, ‘Ausgrabungen am Westabhange IV. Das Heiligtum des Amynos,’ _A. Mitt._ 1896, XXI. p. 286, pl. xi.
[232]
ων τευξα- —ων σεμνοτάτην. Λυσιμαχι]δῆς Λυσιμάχου Ἀχαρνε[ύς.
See Dr Koerte’s discussion of the relief, _A. Mitt._ 1893, p. 235.
[233] See my _Prolegomena_, p. 349.
[234] Koerte, _A. Mitt._ 1896, XXI. p. 295 Μνησιπτολέμη ὑπὲρ Δικαιοφάνου[ς] Ἀσκληπιῷ Ἀμύνῳ ἀνέθηκε.
[235] Koerte, _op. cit._ p. 299 ... δεδόχθαι τοῖς ὀργεῶσι ἐπειδή εἶσιν ἄνδρες ἀγαθοὶ περὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῶν ὀργεώνων τοῦ Ἀμύνου καὶ τοῦ Ἀσκληπιοῦ καὶ τοῦ Δεξίονος....
[236] line 15 ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα ἐν στήλαις λιθίναις δυοῖν καὶ στῆσαι τὴν μὲν ἐν τῷ το[ῦ] Δεξίονος ἱερῷ τὴν δὲ [ἐ]ν τῷ το(ῦ) Ἀμύνου καὶ Ἀσκληπιοῦ.
[237] For the worship of Sophocles, see my _Prolegomena_, p. 346.
[238] Eur. _El._ 1271.
[239] _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, II. p. 554.
[240] _Prolegomena_, pp. 239-253.
[241] Athen. X. 437.
[242] Harp. _s.v._ Πάνδημος Ἀφροδίτη ... Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ περὶ Θεῶν πάνδημόν φησιν Ἀθήνῃσι κληθῆναι τὴν ἀφιδρυθεῖσαν περὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν ἀγοράν....
[243] Paus. I. 22. 3.
[244] Dörpfeld, _A. Mitt._ 1896, p. 511.
[245] Foucart, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1889, p. 157.
[246] The facsimile is from Δελτίον 1889, p. 127. The inscription reads as follows:
...]δωρος μ’ ἀνέθηκ’ Ἀφροδίτην δῶρον ἀπαρχήν. Πότνια τῶν ἀγαθῶν τῶ[ι] σὺ δὸς ἀφθον[ί]αν. οἵ τε λέγ[ου]σι λόγους ἀδίκως ψευδᾶς κ...εκ....
It is discussed with the two that follow by Mr Foucart, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1889, p. 157.
[247]
Τόνδε σοὶ, ὦ μεγάλη σεμνὴ Πάνδημε Ἀφρ[οδίτη] [κοσ]μοῦμεν δώροις εἰκόσιν ἡμετέραις
Ἀρχῖνος Ἀλυπήτου Σκαμβωνίδης, Μενεκράτεια Δεξικράτους Ἰκαριέως θυγάτηρ, ἱέρεια τῆς [Ἀφροδίτης], ... ...Δ]εξικράτους Ἰκαριέως θυγάτηρ, Ἀρχίνου δὲ μήτηρ.
For discussion of this inscription and the nature of the building dedicated, see Dr Kawerau, ‘Die Pandemos-Weihung auf der Akropolis’ (_A. Mitt._ 1905), which through his kindness reached me after the above was written.
[248]
ἡ πομπὴ τῆι Ἀφροδίτηι τε͂ι Πανδή- μωι παρασκευάζειν εἰς κάθαρσι[ν τ]οῦ ἱεροῦ περιστέραν καὶ περιαλε[ῖ- ψαι] τοὺς βωμοὺς καὶ πιττῶσαι τὰ[ς ὀροφὰς] καὶ λοῦσαι τὰ ἔδη παρασκευ- άσαι δὲ κα]ὶ πορφύραν ὁλκὴν 𐅂 𐅂 [𐅂.
See _B.C.H._ 1889, p. 157, and _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 331.
[249] Plat. _Symp._ 180 D. For Aphrodite Ourania, see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 211.
[250] Paus. IX. 16. 3.
[251] I follow M. Victor Bérard, _Origine des cultes Arcadiens_, p. 142. Ourania is ‘Queen of Heaven,’ מלכת־השׁמים, as in the Hebrew scriptures, Jerem. vii. 18, xliv. 18-20. Pandemos is רבת־הארץ, lady of the land. I have ventured above, p. 54, to suggest that to the armed Ourania, the _Virgo Caelestis_, we owe at least some elements in the armed Athena.
[252] Paus. VIII. 32. 2.
[253] Herod. I. 105. The name Kythera is Semitic (כתרת); see M. Victor Bérard, _Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée_, p. 427. _Kythera_ means a headdress, a tiara, and its Greek ‘doublette’ is Skandeia.
[254] Paus. I. 14. 7.
[255] We have incidentally curious evidence of the association of Kourotrophos with the Oriental Aphrodite. An inscription (_C.I.A._ III. 411) found on a Turkish wall near the temple of Nike mentions the entrance to a chapel of Blaute and Kourotrophos (εἴσοδος πρὸς σηκὸν Βλαύτης καὶ Κουροτρόφου). Lydus (_de Mens._ I. 21), on the authority of Phlegon, tells us that Blatta was ‘a title of Aphrodite among the Phenicians’ (καὶ βλάττα δέ, ἐξ ἧς τὰ βλάττια λέγομεν, ὄνομα Ἀφροδίτης, ἐστι κατὰ τοὺς Φοίνικας ὡς ὁ Φλέγων ἐν τῷ περὶ ἑορτῶν φησί). He does not tell us,—what is obvious enough,—that Blaute and Blatta are Greek attempts to reproduce Baalat (בַּעֲלַת). Blaute is but Aphrodite-Pandemos, Lady, Baalat of the People.
[256] Luke ii. 24.
[257] Mr E. Babelon, _Monnaies des Phéniciens_, CXXV.
[258] Ael. _Nat. Anim._ IV. 2; see M. Victor Bérard, _Cultes Arcadiens_, p. 106.
[259] For what can here be deduced from the text apart from new archaeological material, see Dr Verrall, _Class. Rev._ 1900, p. 277.
[260] Paus. I. 14. 1 πλησίον δέ ἐστι κρήνη, καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν Ἐννεάκρουνον, οὕτω κοσμηθεῖσαν ὑπὸ Πεισιστράτου. Between the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton (I. 8. 5) and the Odeion (I. 8. 6) there is no connecting particle. This often happens in Pausanias when things in immediate juxtaposition are described. Traces of curved foundations of Roman date which may mark the site of the Odeion are shown in Prof. Dörpfeld’s plan (Fig. 46), but as the identification is conjectural I prefer not to use it as an argument.
[261] Paus. I. 14. 1 ναοὶ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν κρήνην ὁ μὲν Δήμητρος πεποίηται καὶ Κόρης.
[262] Plat. _Axioch._ I. § 364 Ἐξιόντι μοι ἐς Κυνόσαργες καὶ γενομένῳ [μοι] κατὰ τὸν Ἰλισσὸν διῆξε φωνὴ βοῶντός του, Σώκρατες, Σώκρατες. ὡς δὲ ἐπιστραφεὶς περιεσκόπουν ὁπόθεν εἴη Κλεινίαν ὁρῶ τὸν Ἀξιόχου θέοντα ἐπὶ Καλλιρρόην.
[263] Herod. VI. 137 αὐτοὶ Ἀθηναῖοι λέγουσι ... φοιτᾶν γὰρ ἀεὶ τὰς σφετέρας θυγάτερας ἐπ’ ὕδωρ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἐννεάκρουνον.
[264] Paus. I. 14. 1 φρέατα μὲν γὰρ καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς πόλεώς ἐστι, πηγὴ δὲ αὔτη μόνη.
[265] For what follows I am entirely indebted to Herr Gräber’s final investigations, completing those of Prof. Dörpfeld. See ‘Enneakrounos,’ _A. Mitt._ 1905, p. 58.
[266] Fully discussed by Herr Gräber, _op. cit._
[267] Herod. III. 60.
[268] For a full account of the Samos aqueduct, see Dr Fabricius, _A. Mitt._ IX. 1884, p. 175.
[269] Examined and discussed by Dr E. Ziller, _A. Mitt._ II. p. 112, and see Herr Gräber, ‘Die Enneakrounos,’ _A. Mitt._ 1905, p. 58.
[270] The account is taken entirely from the official reports by Prof. Dörpfeld after examination of the site under his guidance. See Bibliography, _Enneakrounos_, and for the more recent supplementary investigations of Herr Gräber ‘Enneakrounos,’ _A. Mitt._ 1905, XXX. p. 1.
[271] _A. Mitt._ XVIII. 1893, p. 223.
[272] By Herr Gräber, _op. cit._ p. 26.
[273] Paus. I. 40. 1 οὗτος ὁ Θεαγένης τυραννήσας ᾠκοδόμησε τὴν κρήνην μεγέθους ἕνεκα καὶ κόσμου καὶ ἐς τὸ πλῆθος τῶν κιόνων θέας ἀξίαν· καὶ ὕδωρ ἐς αὐτὴν ῥεῖ καλούμενον Σιθνίδων νυμφῶν.
[274] Delbrück and Vollmöller, ‘Das Brunnenhaus des Theagenes,’ _A. Mitt._ 1900, XXV. p. 23, pl. vii. and viii.
[275] ap. Athen. XI. § 465 ὅθεν καὶ Λιμναῖον κληθῆναι τὸν Διόνυσον, ὅτι μιχθὲν τὸ γλεῦκος τῷ ὕδατι τότε πρῶτον ἐπόθη κεκραμένον. Διόπερ ὀνομασθῆναι τὰς πηγὰς Νύμφας καὶ τιθήνας τοῦ Διονύσου ὅτι τὸν οἶνον αὐξάνει τὸ ὕδωρ κιρνάμενον.
[276] Brit. Mus. Cat. B. 329, _Antike Denkmäler_ II. Taf. 19. On another vase in the British Museum (Cat. B 331) is inscribed Kalire Krene, Spring Fair-Fount, and on it also occurs the name _Hippokrates_, which _may_ be intended for the brother of Kleisthenes; see _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, Fig. 20.
[277] Mr F. M. Cornford draws my attention to the striking resemblance between the plan of the Kallirrhoë cavern (Figs. 36 and 43) and the curious arrangement of the ‘cavernous underground chamber’ which in Plato (_Rep._ VII. 514) symbolizes the prison-house of earthly existence. This chamber was entered by a long and steep descent from the outer air and had at the opposite end a low parapet, answering to the well-parapet in Kallirrhoë. Even the image in the niche has its Platonic counterpart in the shadows cast by the fire-light upon the inmost wall from the images carried along the parapet. One can imagine that Plato himself had often visited the well, had seen his own shadow thrown across the parapet by the torch of his guide standing at the foot of the entrance-stair, and heard the echo of his own voice as though it were proceeding from the shadow (Plat. _Rep._ 515 B).
[278] Omont, _Athènes au XVII. siècle_, Pl. XXXIX.
[279] See Prof. Dörpfeld, _A. Mitt._ XX. p. 510, 1895.
[280] Prof. Dörpfeld writes to me—‘Unhappily this is no longer true; the inscribed stones have been stolen.’
[281] Wordsworth, _Greece pictorial, descriptive and historical_, p. 133, 1839.
[282] _C.I.A._ II. 11 and IV. 211 _b_.
[283] _C.I.A._ II. 14. See Foucart, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ p. 166, 1888.
[284] Ar. _Eq._ 1092
καὶ μοὐδόκει ἡ θεὸς αὐτὴ ἐκ πόλεως ἐλθεῖν καὶ γλαῦξ αὐτῇ ’πικαθῆσθαι.
[285] Ar. _Lys._ 175.
[286] _Speeches of Isaeus_, p. 476, where the use of _polis_ for _acropolis_ is fully discussed.
[287] See Bibliography.
[288] The map in Fig. 46 is reproduced by Prof. Dörpfeld’s kind permission from his official plan published in the _Antike Denkmäler_ (II. 37). To discuss the later Greek, Hellenistic and Roman agoras is no part of the object of the present book, but it was thought well to reproduce the plan as showing how the agora spread gradually to the North and also as elucidating the complex of roads that meet at the Enneakrounos.
[289] For the details of this and the other buildings both of the Hellenistic and Roman agoras, see my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, pp. 17-22, 199, 183-203.
[290] _A. Mitt._ 1896, XXI. p. 108.
[291] After the restoration of W. Judeich, _Jahrbuch f. Phil._ CXLI. p. 746. The plan is only given here to illustrate bygone conceptions. I am rejoiced to see that Dr Judeich in his recent _Topographie von Athen_, 1905, accepts the main outlines of Prof. Dörpfeld’s topography. See his Plan I.
[292] For a full statement of this view see Dr Frazer, _Pausanias_, Vol. V. p. 484, and Prof. Ernest Gardner, _Ancient Athens_, p. 141. I regret to see that Prof. Ernest Gardner translates καὶ τὸ _ὑπ’ αὐτὴν_ πρὸς νότον μάλιστα τετραμμένον ‘and the district _outside it_ to the Southward.’
[293] Paus. I. 18. 6 and 7, and I. 19. 1.
[294] Paus. I. 19. 1. For a full account of this Olympieion and Pythion which, save for the mistaken identification, do not concern us here, see my _Myth. and Mon. of Anc. Athens_, p. 184.
[295] Plut. _de Exil._ VI. ἆρα οὖν ξένοι καὶ ἀπόλιδες εἰσὶν Ἀθηναίων οἱ μεταστάντες ἐκ Μελίτης εἰς Διωμίδα ὅπου καὶ μῆνα Μεταγειτνιῶνα καὶ θυσίαν ἐπώνυμον ἄγουσι τοῦ μετοικισμοῦ τὰ Μεταγείτνια, τὴν πρὸς ἑτέρους γειτνιάσιν εὐκόλως καὶ ἱλαρῶς ἐκδεχόμενοι καὶ στέργοντες; οὐκ ἂν εἴποις. Attention was first drawn to the importance of this passage by Prof. Dörpfeld.
[296] Plut. _Vit. Them._ 22 πλήσιον δὲ τῆς οἰκίας κατεσκεύασεν ἐν Μελίτῃ τὸ ἱερόν οὗ νῦν τὰ σώματα τῶν θανατουμένων....
[297] Plat. _Parmenid._ 126 C.
[298] Dem. LIV. 7 ... παρῆλθε πρὸς Μελίτην ἄνω.
[299] Ar. _Av._ 999
ἐγὼ Μέτων, ὃν οἶδεν Ἕλλας χὠ Κολωνός,
Schol. ... ἐπὶ Ἀψεύδους δὲ τοῦ Πυθοδώρου ἡλιοτρόπιον ἐν τῇ νῦν οὔσῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρὸς τῷ τείχει τῷ ἐν τῇ πνύκι. μήποτε οὖν τὸ χώριον φασί τινες ἐκεῖνο ἅπαν ᾧ περιλαμβάνεται καὶ ἡ Πνύξ, Κολωνός ἐστιν ὁ ἕτερος, ὁ μίσθιος λεγόμενος· οὕτως μέρος τι νῦν σύνηθες γέγονε τὶ Κολωνὸν καλεῖν τὸ ὄπισθεν τῆς μακρᾶς στοᾶς· ἀλλ’ οὔκ ἐστι. Μελίτη γὰρ ἅπαν ἐκεῖνο ὡς ἐν τοῖς ὁρισμοῖς γέγραπται τῆς πόλεως.
The MSS. have ἐκεῖνο ἐπάνω, Forchammer ἐπάνω ᾧ, Wachsmuth ἅπαν ᾧ, Dobree πᾶν ᾧ. I follow Wachsmuth.
[300] Diomeia is marked on my map (Fig. 49) to the South-East of the Olympieion. My map was drawn before the appearance of Dr Judeich’s _Topographie von Athen_; I am glad to see that he (_Topographie_, pp. 155, 158) accepts the position assigned by Professor Dörpfeld to Diomeia. The British School of Archaeology claims to have found the gymnasium of Kynosarges (_Annual of the British School_, 1896-7, p. 89), but as the plans are not yet published I prefer to base my argument on literary evidence.
[301] Herod. VI. 116.
[302] Paus. I. 19. 3. Those who following Curtius (_Stadtgeschichte von Athen_, pl. IV.) place Diomeia and Kynosarges North-West on the slopes of Lykabettos have to make Pausanias retrace his steps to visit the stadium.
[303] Schol. _ad_ Ar. _Ran._ 501 ... οὑκ Μελίτης μαστιγίας, σύνηθές τε οὐχ οὕτω λέγειν ἐπὶ θεῶν, οὑκ Μελίτης ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν Μελίτῃ, ὡς καὶ Ζεὺς ὁ ἐν Ὀλυμπίᾳ· ἐπὶ δὲ ἀνθρώπων ἐκ Μελίτης.... My attention was drawn to the scholiast’s remark in relation to the ‘flitting’ by Mr Gilbert Murray.
[304] Ar. _Ran._ 650
ἀλλ’ ἐφρόντισα ὁπόθ’ Ἡράκλεια τἀν Διομείοις γίγνεται.
[305] Ar. _Ran._ 501 Schol. ... ἐν γὰρ Μελίτῃ δήμῳ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἐμυήθη Ἡρακλῆς τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια.
[306] Plut. _Demetr._ 26. Kleidemos, ap. Bekk. _Anec._ p. 326 Ἄγραι χωρίον ἔξω τῆς πόλεως Ἀθηνῶν, οὗ τὰ μικρὰ τῆς Δήμητρος ἄγεται μυστήρια.
[307] Steph. Byz. Ἄγρα καὶ Ἄγραι χωρίον ... ἐν ᾧ τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια ἐπιτελεῖται μίμημα τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον, ἐν ᾧ λέγουσι καὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα μεμυῆσθαι (codd. μεμνῆσθαι).
[308] Paus. I. 14. 2.
[309] Kleidemos, _loc. cit._ παρ’ Ἰλισσοῦ μυστικαῖς ὄχθαις.
[310] Eustath. 361. 38 ἀπὸ χώρας πρὸς τῷ Ἰλισσῷ ᾧ κλῆσις Ἄγραι καὶ Ἄγρα, οὗ τὰ μικρὰ τῆς Δήμητρος ἤγετό φησι μυστήρια ἃ ἐλέγετο τὰ ἐν Ἄγραις. Professor Tucker is I believe right in his conjecture (_Class. Rev._ 1904, p. 416) that the Mysteries in the _Frogs_ are these Lesser Mysteries and this, as I have pointed out in connection with his discussion (_op. cit._, p. 418), adds fresh significance to the figure of Herakles.
[311] Plat. _Lys._ 205 C Ἡρακλέους ξενισμόν.
[312] Xen. _Hell._ VI. 3. 6.
[313] Plut. _Vit. Thes._ 33.
[314] See my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 155, Fig. 33.
[315] Apollod. ap. Zenob. _Cant._ V. 22 μήλου (l. μήλων) Ἡρακλῆς. Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεῶν ὅτι θύεται Ἀθήνησι Ἡρακλεῖ ἀλεξικάκῳ ἰδιάζουσά τις θυσιά. Pollux (_Onom._ I. 30) gives the aetiological myth and adds the important detail that the same cultus title _Melon_ and the same ritual was in use in Boeotia. καὶ καλεῖται παρὰ τοῖς Θηβαίοις ἢ τοῖς Βοιωτοῖς Μήλων ὁ Ἡρακλῆς, ὄνομα ἐκ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς θυσίας λαβών. Melos and Belos appear to be interchangeable forms (Steph. Byz. Βῆλος, ἢ καὶ Μῆλος πρὸς ταῖς Ἡρακλέους στήλαις), and of the island Melos we know from the same writer (_s.v._ Μῆλος) that its earlier colonists were Phenicians, Φοίνικες οὖν οἰκισταὶ πρότερον. Cf. Herakles at Gades, Appian (ed. Bekk. p. 49) says Θρησκεύεται νῦν ἔτι φοινικικῶς.
[316] The Oriental character of the Herakles cult at Melite was first, I believe, pointed out by Curtius, and further emphasized by Wachsmuth, _Stadt Athen_, p. 404 ff. It has never, I believe, been discussed in relation to the shift of population from Melite to Diomeia.
[317] See Lewy, _Die Semitischen Fremdwörter im Griechischen_, p. 209, the root mālaṭ מלט to save, מְלִיטָה.
[318] Diod. V. 12 καὶ πρώτη μέν ἐστιν ἡ προσαγορευομένη Μελίτη ... ἐστὶ δὲ ἡ νῆσος αὕτη Φοινίκων ἄποικος οἳ ταῖς ἐμπορίαις διατείνοντες μέχρι τοῦ κατὰ τὴν δύσιν Ὠκεανοῦ καταφυγὴν εἶχον ταύτην, εὐλίμενον οὖσαν καὶ κειμένην πελαγίαν.
[319] Strab. X. 472 ... ἀπελθεῖν τούτους (τοὺς Κορύβαντας) εἰς Σαμοθράκην καλουμένην πρότερον Μελίτην.
[320] Diod. V. 47 ἔνιοι δέ φασι τὸ παλαιὸν Σαόννησον καλουμένην ... ἐσχήκασι δὲ παλαιὰν ἰδίαν διάλεκτον οἱ αὐτόχθονες ἧς πολλὰ ἐν ταῖς θυσίαις μέχρι τοῦ νῦν τηρεῖται ... ὅρους θέσθαι τῆς σωτηρίας.
[321] Hesych. _s.v._ ἐκ Μελίτης μαστιγίας, καλεῖται δὲ ὁ ἐν Μελίτῃ Ἡρακλῆς ἀλεξίκακος. The Greek was doubtless, as Lewy points out, simply the translation of some such Semitic divine title as מְמַלֵּט מֵרָעָה mᵉmallēṭ mērāʿā, Preserver-from-Evil.
[322] Diod. IV. 39. Diodorus goes on to describe the strange primitive ceremony of adoption by which Hera naturalized Herakles among the Olympians; see my _Proleg._, p. 347.
[323] Strabo X. 471.
[324] Plut. _Vit. Them._ 1.
[325] The cult of Herakles in Diomeia contains other elements obviously Semitic, the discussion of which would lead us far. The details are given in my _Myth. and Mon. Ancient Athens_, p. 216, but the Semitic character of the ‘white dog’ legend I did not then realize. Prof. Robertson Smith long ago (_Religion of the Semites_, p. 274, note 2), pointed out that the supposed ‘white dog’ is really the ‘dogs’ enclosure’ and that the sacred dogs are a class of Semitic temple-ministrants (see Deut. xxiii. 18, and _C.I.S._ No. 86). To the whole question of the Semitic elements in the worship of Herakles I hope to return on another occasion.
[326] Plut. _Vit. Them._ 22 ... ἣν Ἀριστοβούλην μὲν προσηγόρευσεν.
[327] Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 54 ἐθύετο γὰρ καὶ ἐν Ῥόδῳ μηνὶ Μεταγειτνιῶνι ἑκτῇ ἱσταμένου ἄνθρωπος τῷ Κρόνῳ ὃ δὴ ἐπὶ πολὺ κρατῆσαν ἔθος μετεβλήθη· ἕνα γὰρ τῶν ἐπὶ θανάτῳ δημοσίᾳ κατακριθέντων μέχρι μὲν τῶν Κρονίων συνεῖχον, ἐνστάσης δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς προαγαγόντες τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔξω πυλῶν ἄντικρυ τοῦ Ἀριστοβούλης ἕδους οἴνου ποτίσαντες ἔσφαττον. In this connection it is strange that the tradition of human sacrifice before the battle of Salamis, possibly apocryphal, attaches itself to Themistocles; see my _Prolegomena_, p. 489.
[328] Plut. _Vit. Them._ 1.
[329] Aug. Mommsen, _Feste der Stadt Athen_, p. 160. Probably Mommsen is right in his conjecture that the sacrifice of the Metageitnia mentioned by Plutarch was an actual part or at least preliminary to the _Herakleia_.
[330] I selected the worship of Herakles for discussion because we have definite evidence that Herakles is connected with Diomeia as well as Melite. An equally striking case of the shift of a foreign cult from Melite to the district of the Ilissos is that of Aphrodite Ourania. Pausanias (I. 14. 7) saw the sanctuary in Melite, noted its oriental origin and the current story that Porphyrion founded a sanctuary of Aphrodite in the deme Athimoneus, _i.e._ on the way from Marathon. When he came to the Ilissos to the district of the Gardens (I. 19. 2) he sees the sanctuary of Aphrodite Ourania, her image as a _herm_ and the inscription says she is eldest of the Fates. He notes that there is ‘no local legend.’ How should there be if the cult was transplanted? From this sanctuary he passes on next to Kynosarges.
[331] Paus. I. 19. 5.
[332] Plat. _Phaedr._ 229 A.
[333] See _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, p. 226 and Fig. 17. Since I wrote that account excavations have been undertaken by the Greek Archaeological Society on the supposed site of the Enneakrounos on the Ilissus; traces of channels for the conducting of water have been found, but the water so conducted is not drinkable. For report see Πρακτικὰ τῆς Ἀρχ. Ἑταιρίας, 1893, pp. 111-136.
[334] _Etym. Mag._ Ἐννεάκρουνος· κρήνη Ἀθήνησι παρὰ τὸν Ἴλισσον, ἡ πρότερον Καλλιρόη ἔσκεν ἀφ’ ἧς τὰ λουτρὰ ταῖς γαμουμέναις μετίασι. Πολύζηλος Δημοτυνδαρέῳ
‘ἴξει πρὸς Ἐννεάκρουνον, εὔυδρον τόπον.’
See Koch, _Frag. Com._ vol. I. pp. 790-2. Polyzelos is of course not responsible for the statement about the Ilissos.
[335] Hesych. _s.v._ Ἐννεάκρουνος takes his account and acknowledges it ὥς φησι καὶ Θουκυδίδης.
[336] Suidas, _s.v._ νυμφικὰ λουτρά—τὰ εἰς γάμους ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἀπὸ κρήνης λαμβανόμενα.
[337] Hierocles, _Hippiatr. praef._ sub fin. Ταραντῖνος δὲ ἱστορεῖ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς νεὼν κατασκευάζοντας Ἀθηναίους Ἐννεακρούνου πλησίον εἰσελαθῆναι ψηφίσασθαι τὰ ἐκ τῆς Ἀττικῆς εἰς τὸ ἄστυ ζεύγη ἅπαντα· φόβῳ δὲ τοῦ ψηφίσματός τινα τῶν γεωργῶν ἡμίονον ἀγαγεῖν γέραιον ἄγοντα ἔτος ὀγδοηκοστὸν, τὸν δὲ δῆμον τιμῇ τοῦ γήρως προηγητόρα τῶν ζεύγων εἰς τὴν κατασκευὴν αὐτὸν τοῦ νεὼ καταστῆσαι προβαδίζειν τε ἄζευκτον καὶ ἄπληκτον ψηφίσασθαι μηδένα δὲ τῶν πυροπώλων ἢ κριθοπώλων ἀπελαύνειν αὐτὸν τῆς ἑστίας ἢ ἀπείργειν τῆς βρώσεως. It will be seen that I have construed πλησίον with κατασκευάζοντας, that being the usual rendering. Dyer has however pointed out (_Journal of Philology_, III. 1871, p. 90) that it might be taken with εἰσελαθῆναι.
[338] Plut. _Cat._ V. ὁ δὲ τῶν Ἀθηναίων δῆμος οἰκοδομῶν τὸν Ἑκατόμπεδον, and _De sollert. an._ XIII. τὸν γὰρ ἑκατόμπεδον νεὼν Περικλέους ἐν ἀκροπόλει.
[339] Ael. _Hist. An._ VI. 49 Ἡνίκα γοῦν Ἀθηναῖοι κατεσκεύαζον τὸν Παρθενῶνα.
[340] Aristot. _Hist. An._ VI. 24 ἤδη γάρ τις βεβίωκεν ἔτη καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα οἷον Ἀθήνησιν ὅτε τὸν νεὼν ᾠκοδόμουν· ὃς καὶ ἀφειμένος ἤδη διὰ τὸ γῆρας, συναμπρεύων καὶ παραπορευόμενος παρώξυνε πρὸς τὸ ἔργον ὡς ἐψηφίσαντο μὴ ἀπελαύνειν αὐτὸν τοὺς σιτοπώλους ἀπὸ τῶν τηλιῶν. Aristotle is obviously the ultimate source of the statement of Tarantinos.
[341] Professor Ernest Gardner in his _Ancient Athens_, p. 20, quotes the passage of Tarantinos as part of the ‘overwhelming evidence that Kallirrhoë lay in the bed of Ilissus.’ No one, so far as I know, has ever doubted that there was a Kallirrhoë in the bed of the Ilissus, the point is whether the particular Kallirrhoë which was transformed into Enneakrounos lay there. Attention was I believe first drawn by Prof. Dörpfeld to the various temple buildings with which the mule-story is connected. I owe the references to Dr Bodensteiner’s ‘Enneakrounos und Lenaion,’ _Blätter f. das Gym. Schulwesen_, 1895, p. 31.
[342] It is almost incredible that the fact that Alciphron in one epistle (III. 49. 1) mentions Enneakrounos—as a source of ordinary drinking water—and in another (III. 51. 1) speaks of Kallirrhoë—as an object of sentiment—has been urged as an argument for an Enneakrounos on the Ilissos. He is obviously speaking of two different springs. Pliny (_N. H._ IV. 7. 11) enumerating the Attic fountains says ‘Cephisia Larine Calliroe, Enneacrunos,’ and some editors assume that Pliny wrote Calliroe Enneacrunos by apposition. Surely, as Dyer observes (_Journ. Phil._ III. p. 87), since Pliny was reckoning up the actual number of fountains, he would have given his readers notice that these were only two different names for the same object, and have inserted _seu_ or some such word between them.
[343] Paus. I. 8. 5 οὐ πόρρω δὲ ἑστᾶσιν Ἁρμόδιος καὶ Ἀριστογείτων. I. 14. 1 ἐς δὲ τὸ Ἀθήνῃσιν ἐσελθοῦσιν Ὠδεῖον ... πλήσιον δέ ἐστι κρήνη, καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὴν Ἐννεάκρουνον ... ναοὶ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν κρήνην ἔτι δὲ ἀπωτέρω ναὸς Εὐκλείας.
[344] For further evidence on these sanctuaries, see my _Myth. and Mon. Anc. Athens_, pp. 89-111.
[345] For the Eleusinion and Thesmophorion, see Dörpfeld, _A. Mitt._ XXII. 1897, p. 477, and 1896, p. 106.
CRITICAL NOTE
On Thucydides II. 15 §§ 3-6. For text see p. 7.
It seems to me that there is probably no corruption at all in this passage and that we may follow the MSS. throughout. (The MSS. are Hude’s A B C E F G M.)
l. 1. πρὸ τούτου: πρὸ τοῦ C G. No improvement, being a little less definite than πρὸ τούτου; but on technical grounds quite likely to be right.
ἡ ἀκρόπολις ἡ νῦν οὖσα πόλις ἦν: Hude transposes ἡ, so as to read ἡ ἀκρόπολις νῦν οὖσα ἡ πόλις ἦν. Perhaps slightly easier. Stuart Jones keeps the MS. reading.
l. 2. καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστι: Classen marked a lacuna here, and most editors follow him. The meaning of ἄλλων is undoubtedly ‘other than Athena,’ to whom in Thucydides’ time the Acropolis belonged. The question is whether in order to make ἄλλων clear, Thucydides must have mentioned Athena in this clause; or whether from (1) the mention of τῇ θεῷ in the last sentence, and (2) the obvious and close connexion between Athena and the Acropolis of Athens, the reference to her could be ‘understood.’
On purely critical grounds this is hard to decide, as it depends on various unsolved problems about the condition of our Thucydides MSS., and the degree of divergence from smooth writing of which Thucydides was capable. But, if we do suppose that a line has fallen out, I do not think the argument quite suits with corrections like Classen’s ἄλλων θεῶν ἐστι <καὶ τὰ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς>, or Wilamowitz’s ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἀκροπόλει <καὶ ὑπ’ αὐτῇ τῆς τ’ Ἀθηναίας> καὶ ἄλλων θεῶν. Everyone knew that Athena lived on the Acropolis. You would need <οὐ μόνον τῆς Ἀθηναίας ἀλλὰ> καὶ. And this sense, after all, is just what we have from the text as it stands.
l. 4. τὸ ἐν Λίμναις Διονύσου: τὸ <τοῦ> Cobet: on purely linguistic grounds, of which it is hard to estimate the cogency. The same remark applies to the proposed omissions of either τῇ δωδεκάτῃ or of ἐν μηνὶ Ἀνθεστηριῶνι in the next sentence.
l. 7. σκευασάντων: κελευσάντων two MSS. (C G), clearly wrong.
l. 8. ἐκείνῃ MSS.: ἐκεῖνοι (_i.e._ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι) Bekker. This makes the construction easier, and is palaeographically very probable.
τὰ πλείστου ἄξια: τὰ πλεῖστα ἄξια two MSS. (A B): a mere slip.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
THUCYDIDES, II. 15, discussion of.
N. Wecklein, _Sitzungsber. der Bayer. Akad._, 97, 1887.
P. Stahl, “Thukydides über das alte Athen vor Theseus.” _Rhein. Mus. für Philol._, L. p. 566, 1895.
W. Dörpfeld, “Das alte Athen vor Theseus.” _Rhein. Mus. für Philol._, LI. p. 127, 1896.
C. Wachsmuth, “Neue Beiträge zur Topographie von Athen. Das Thukydideische Ur-Athen.” _Abhandl. der K. Sächs. Ges. der Wiss._, XLI. 1899.
A. W. Verrall, “Thucydides II. 15 and Recent Explorations.” _Classical Review_, XIV. p. 274, 1900.
L. R. Farnell, “Questions concerning Attic Topography and Religion.” _Classical Review_, p. 369, 1900.
M. Carroll, “Thucydides, Pausanias and the Dionysium in Limnis.” _Classical Review_, XIX. p. 325, 1905.
PAUSANIAS, Commentaries on.
T. H. Dyer, _Ancient Athens, its History, Topography and Remains_, ch. vi. p. 180 sqq., 1873.
Harrison and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_, p. 90, 1890.
O. Fallis, _Pausanias auf der Agora von Athen_. Munich, 1895.
Hitzig und Blümner, _Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio_, 1896.
J. G. Frazer, _Pausanias’ Description of Greece_, 1898.
Official Reports of Excavations by the German Archaeological Institute at Athens published in—
(1) _Mittheilungen des K. Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts in Athen._
(_a_) Die Ausgrabungen am Westabhange der Acropolis.
I. W. Dörpfeld, “Allgemeine Uebersicht,” XIX. p. 496, Pl. XIV., 1894.
II. W. Dörpfeld, “Das Lenaion oder Dionysion in den Limnai,” XX. p. 161, Pl. IV., 1895.
III. H. Schrader, “Funde im Gebiete des Dionysion,” XXI. p. 265, Pl. VIII.-X., 1896.
IV. O. Körte, “Das Heiligtum des Amynos,” XXI. p. 287, Pl. XI., 1896; and see Körte, “Bezirk eines Heilgottes,” XVIII. p. 231, Pl. XI., 1893.
V. C. Watzinger, “Einzelfunde,” XXVI. p. 305, 1901.
(_b_) Die Ausgrabungen an der Enneakrounos.
I. W. Dörpfeld, XVII. p. 439, 1892.
II. W. Dörpfeld, XIX. p. 143, 1894;
and see Dörpfeld, “Die verschiedenen Odeien in Athen,” XVII. p. 252, 1892.
S. Wide, “Inschrift der Iobakchen,” XIX. p. 248, 1894.
H. v. Prott, “Enneakrunos, Lenaion, u. Διονύσιον ἐν Λίμναις,” XXIII. p. 205, 1898; and see Prott, Nachtrag dazu, XXIII. p. 367, 1898.
C. Watzinger, “Mimologen. Terracotta vom Westabhange,” XXVI. p. 1, Pl. I., 1901.
C. Watzinger, “Vasenfunde aus Athen,” XXVI. p. 50, Pl. II.-IV., 1901.
Fr. Gräber, “Die Enneakrunos,” XXX. p. 58, 1905.
E. Ziller, “Wasserleitungen von Athen,” II. 1877.
Fabricius, “Polykrates at Samos,” IX. p. 165, 1884.
Delbrück u. K. G. Vollmöller, “Das Brunnenhaus des Theagenes,” XXV. p. 23, Pl. VII., VIII., 1900.
_Funde._
1. “Aphrodite Pandemos,” XIV. p. 121, 1889; and see G. Kawerau u. F. Weibach, “Die Pandemosweihung auf der Akropolis,” XXX. p. 298, 1905.
2. Discoveries, various, XV. p. 343, 444, 1890; XVI. pp. 140, 252, 361, 443, 1891; XVII. pp. 90, 281, 449, 1892.
3. “Stoa Basileios,” XXI. pp. 103, 458, 1896; XXII. pp. 225, 476, 1897.
_Sitzungsprotokolle._
W. Dörpfeld, “Alopeke,” XX. p. 507, 1895.
P. Wolters, “Δεξίων,” XX. p. 508, 1895.
W. Dörpfeld, “Enneakrunos im Siebzehnten Jahrhundert” (Guillet et Coronelli), XX. p. 510, 1895.
W. Dörpfeld, “Aphrodite Pandemos,” XX. p. 511, 1895.
(2) _Antike Denkmäler d. K. Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Berlin._ (Official plans of Excavations with Text.) Ausgrabungen in Athen, 1899-1901, II., Pl. 37, 38.
(3) _Jahrbuch d. K. D. Arch. Inst._
W. Dörpfeld, “Anzeiger,” XI. p. 19, 1896.
C. Belger, “Anzeiger,” XI. p. 40, 1896.
Topography of Athens:
General.
M. Leake, _Topography of Athens_, 1821.
M. Leake, _Topography of Athens and the Demi_, 1841.
P. Forchhammer, “Topographie von Athen” (_Kieler Philol. Studien_). Kiel, 1841.
E. Curtius, “Attische Studien” (_Abhandl. d. Göttinger Ges. d. Wiss._ XI. XII.) Göttingen, I. 1862; II. 1865.
E. Curtius, _Erläuternder Text der Sieben Karten zur Topographie von Athen_. Berlin, 1868.
H. G. Lolling, _K. Baedekers Griechenland_, pp. 34-83, 1883.
H. G. Lolling, “Anhang zur Hellenischen Landeskunde und Topographie” (I. Müller’s _Handb. d. C. A. W._), III. 290.
A. Milchhöfer, “Athen” (Baumeister, _Denkmäler des class. Alt._, I. p. 144, 1884).
C. Wachsmuth, _Die Stadt Athen im Alterthum_, I. 1874, II. 1890.
C. Wachsmuth, “Neue Beiträge zur Topog. von Athen” (_Abh. d. K. S. Ges. d. Wiss._, XLI.).
W. Judeich, “Anzeiger von C. Wachsmuth, Stadt Athen,” _Jahrbuch für Class. Phil._ v. A. Fleckeisen, p. 721, 1890.
Pickard, “Dionysos ἐν Λίμναις.” _Am. J. of Arch._ VIII. p. 56, 1893.
J. Middleton, Plans and drawings of Athenian Buildings, _J.H.S. Supplement_ III., 1900.
A. Malinin, “Zwei Streitfragen der Topographie v. Athen,” 1901.
O. Jahn and A. Michaelis, _Arx Athenarum a Pausania Descripta_, 1901.
A. Michaelis, _Tabulae Arcem Athenarum illustrantes_, 1901.
E. A. Gardner, _Ancient Athens_, 1902.
H. Lechat, _Au Musée de l’Acropole d’Athènes_, 1902.
H. Lechat, _La Sculpture Attique avant Phidias_, 1904.
C. H. Weller, “The pre-Periclean Propylaea on the Acropolis of Athens,” _Am. Journ. Arch._, pp. 33-70, Pl. I.-VI., 1904.
Pan’s Cave.
W. Dörpfeld, Report, _Ath. Mitth._ XXI. p. 460, 1897.
P. Kabbadias, Τοπογραφικὰ Ἀθηνῶν, _Ephem. Arch._ XXI. Pl. I.-IV. pp. 1-32, 1897.
_Bulletin de Corr. Hel._ XX. p. 382.
A. Michaelis, _op. cit._, _Atlas_, Pl. XVII., 1, XVI., 1 _a_.
Pelargikon.
H. Unger, “Enneakrunos und Pelasgikon,” p. 263 (_Sitzungsber. d. K. Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. zu München_), 1874.
W. Miller, “A History of the Acropolis of Athens.” _Amer. Journ. Arch._ VIII. p. 481, 1893.
J. W. White, Περὶ τοῦ Πελαργικοῦ ἐπὶ Περικλέους. Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική, 1894, p. 2.
G. Nikolaïdes, Περὶ Καλλιρρόης καὶ Ἐννεακρούνου. _Eph. Arch._ 1893, p. 176.
W. Dörpfeld, Ἡ Ἐννεάκρουνος καὶ ἡ Καλλιρρόη. _Eph. Arch._ 1894, p. 1.
Enneakrounos.
A complete list of the scattered and voluminous foreign literature of the “Enneakrounos Episode” is not given here, because full references will be found in three books which must necessarily be in the hands of any one attempting an independent examination of this or any other question relating to the topography of Athens—these are:
1. H. Hitzig and H. Blümner, _Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio_, Berlin, 1896 (for the Enneakrounos episode, I. part 1, pp. 166-172 and pp. 187-191).
2. C. Wachsmuth, “Athenai,” in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie_. Supplement, Erstes Heft, Stuttgart, 1903.
3. W. Judeich, _Topographie von Athen_, München, 1905, in Iwan von Müller’s _Handbuch d. kl. Altertumswissenschaft_, Band 3, Abt. 2, Hälfte 2.
The classical sources for the _Enneakrounos_ and other topographical questions are conveniently collected by Dr Milchhoefer in E. Curtius, _Die Stadtgeschichte von Athen_, Berlin, 1891.
INDEX.
Acharnae, 14
Acropolis, 135
Aeacus, 147
Aegeus, 50
Aegis, 64
_Agalma_, 52
Aglauros, 33, 34, 49, 81, 100
Agora, 133
Agora, Roman, 138
Agrae, 147
Agrippeion, 99
Agrolas, 24
Ammon, 109
Amphiaraos, 103
Amphictyon, 43
Amphion, 23
Amyneion, 100, 120
Amynos, 104
Anagogia, 110
Anakeion, 34, 100
Antenor, 53
Anthesteria, 99, 100
_Anthesterion_, 7, 84
Aphidna, 6, 14, 148
Aphrodisias, 58
Aphrodite, 110
Aphrodite, armed, 54
Aphrodite Ourania, 151
Aphrodite Pandemos, 82, 105
Apollo Patroös, 76
Apollo Pythios, 76
Apostrophia, 109
_Arai_, 105
Areopagos, 34, 88, 105
Aristoboule, 150
Arrephoria, 50
Arrephoroi, 51
Artemis, 52
Artemis Aristoboule, 144, 151
Artemis Brauronia, 51
Artemis, sanctuary of, 150
Ascalon, 109
Asklepieion, 33, 34
Asklepios, 103
ἀστικὰ Διονύσια, 86
Athena, 39, 53, 54
Athena, Libyan, 64
Athena Nikephoros, 54
Athena Polias, 41, 51, 61
Athenaia, 54
Athenaioi, 53
Athimoneus, 151
_Axiochos_, 113
Baalat, 109
Bakcheion, 91
Basileion, 138
Baths, Wedding, 154
Bdelycleon, 44
Blatta, 109
Blaute, 109
“Blue-beard”, 27
Boreas, 152
Boukoleion, 84
Butadae, 62, 63
Butes, 62
Capitol, 59
Chandler inscription, 46, 49
Choes, 99
Chryse, 45
Chytroi, 88, 99, 105
Citadel, 6
Cyprus, 109
Daedalos, 50
Delphinion, 143
Demeter, 45
Demeter Chloe, 82, 106
Deucalion, 77
Dike, 33
Diokles, 46
Diomeia, 144, 151
Dionysos, 99
Dionysos Eleuthereus, 85, 96
_Dionysos-in-the-Marshes_, 7, 83, 100
Dioscuri, 24, 148
Drama, 99
Dwelling-together, 7
Earth, 61
Eileithyia, 45
Elaphebolion, 85
Eleusinion, 157
Eleusis, 6, 14, 45
Enneakrounos, 35
Enneakrounos Episode, 157
Enneapylon, 35
Epheboi, 51
ἐπίβοιον, 51
Erechtheidae, 53
Erechtheion, 13, 39
Erechtheion, older, 56
Erechtheïs, 58
Erechtheus, 6, 14, 56, 60
Erichthonios, 60
Eridanos, 10, 116
Erinyes, 105
_Eris_, 64
Eryx, 110
Eteobutad, 63
Eukleia, 157
Eumolpos, 6
Eupalinos, 119, 120
Euryalos, 25
Eurymedon, 20
Euthydikos, 53
ἐξιτήρια, 51
Fair-fount, 8
Fidius, 59
Flood, 149
Forum, 134
_Frogs_, 100
Fulgur, 59
Gardens, district of, 151
_Ge_, 7
Ge Kourotrophos, 82, 106
_Gerarae_, 91
Ghosts, 99
Giant, 24
_Gigas_, 22
Goddess, the, 7, 37
Habron, 63
Hadrian, 1
Hadrian, wall of, 152
Harma, 69
Harmodios and Aristogeiton, 87, 156
Harmonia, 108
Hecatompedon, 155
Hellenistic agora, 137
Hephaestos, 62
Hera, 63
Heraion, 63
Herakleion, 146, 151
Herakles, 27
Herakles Alexikakos, 148
Herodes Atticus, 35
Herm, 109, 151
Hermes, 33
Herse, 49
Hersephoria, 50
Hesychidae, 34
Hesychos, 34
_Hippokrates_, 127
Hippolytus, 82, 106
Hydra, 147
Hydrophoros, 56
Hymettus, 25
Hypaethral temples, 59
Hypatos, 54
Hyperbios, 24, 25
ἱερόν, 77
Ilissos, 10, 113, 120, 151, 152
_Iobakcheia_, 85
Iobakchoi, 91
Ion, 43, 80
Ionians, 43
Jupiter, 59
Jupiter-Fulgur, 59
Kadmeia, 23
Kallirrhoë, 116, 129, 143, 153
Karia, 125
Karyatid, 52
Karyatid porch, 41
Karyatids, 46
Katagogia, 110
Kataibates, 59
Kekropia, 7, 43
Kekropidae, 43, 53
Kekrops, 5, 6, 34, 42, 43, 54
Kenchreus, 45
Kerameikos, 138
Keres, 99
Kimon, 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 51
Kleisthenes, 18, 19
Kleomenes, 25
Klepsydra, 81, 114
Koile, 116, 120
Kolonos, 145
Korae, 46
Κόραι, 52
_Korè_, 52
Korybantes, 149
Kourotrophos, 109
Kranai, 43
Kranaus, 43
Kronia, 151
Kronos, 61, 79, 151
Kyklopes, 23, 24
Kylon, 124
Kyloneion, 34, 35
Kynosarges, 113, 145
Kythera, 54, 109
Lemnos, 45
Lenaia, 86
Λήναια, 86
Lenaion, 86, 94, 96, 100
_Lenos_, 93
ληνός, 100
Leokorion, 144
_Lesche_, 93, 132
Lesser Mysteries, 147
Libya, 64, 110
_Liknon_, 51
_Limnae_, 88
Limnaios, 125
Lion-gate, 23
Long Rocks, 81
Lycaon, 54
Lycurgos, 63
Lykabettos, 10, 114
_Lysistrata_, 81
Maiden, 3
“Maidens”, 15, 16, 52
Marathon, 145, 151
Marduk, 58
Mary, Virgin, 110
_Mavromati_, 113
Megacles, 35
Megara, 123
Meilichios, 79
Melek, 79
Melite, 144, 151
Melos, 148
_Metageitnia_, 144, 151
Metageitnion, 151
_Metastasis_, 151
Meton, 145
μίσθιος, 145
Mouseion, 114, 134
Mycenae, 13
Neaera, 84
Nearchos, 53
Nike Apteros, 50
Nine-Gates, 34
Nine-Spouts, 7
νόθος, 150
Odeion, 130, 157
Odysseus Bastion, 49
οἴκημα, 62
Olive-tree, 56
Olympieion, 141, 143
Oreithyia, 152
Orestes, 105
Ourania, 109
Pallas, 63
Pan, 33
Panathenaic Way, 93, 131, 135, 139
Pandemos, 109
Pandion, 62
Pandroseion, 43, 48
Pandrosos, 50
Paphos, 109, 110
_Parian Chronicle_, 43
Parthenion, Mt., 33
Parthenon, 17, 155
Peisistratos, 18, 25, 35, 64, 101
πέλανοι, 104
Pelargikon, 25
Pelasgians, 25, 43, 153
Pelasgikon, 11, 25
Pentelicus, 10
_Perforatum tectum_, 59
Perikles, 41
Persians, 33
Phalerum, 145
Phenicians, 109
Pherecrates, 87
_Phlegyas_, 23
Pithoigia, 99
πίθος, 100
Pnyx, 10, 88, 114, 133, 145
Polemon, 34
Poliouchos, 45
_Polis_, 6, 7, 135
Polycrates, 119, 120
Porphyrion, 151
Poseidon, 42, 43, 54, 55, 61
Poseidon-Erechtheus, 41
Pot-contests, 88, 99
Proetus, 23
Propylaea, 10, 13
_Protagoras_, 87
_Pythion_, 7, 141, 143
Rhodes, 151
Salamis, 110, 151
Samos, 121
Samothrace, 149
_Saonnesos_, 149
Satyrs, 100
“Sea,” the, 56
Semnae Theai, 34, 100, 105
Serpent, 58
Sisypheion, 24
Sisyphos, 24
Sithnidian nymphs, 125
Skandeia, 109
Solomon’s temple, 58
Solon, 16
Sosipolis, 45
_Staphyle_, 23
Stoa of Attalos, 137, 138
Stoa Basileios, 133, 138
Stoa of the Giants, 138
Stork-fort, 25
Synoikia, 37
Synoikismos, 6
Talos, 34, 50
_Tamtu_, 58
Terminus, 59
θακήματα, 81
Theagenes, 124
Themistocles, 13, 15, 18, 150
_Theoinia_, 85
Theseion, 130, 132, 138, 145
Theseus, 5, 6, 60, 147
Thesmophoria, 50
_Thesmophoriazusae_, 83
Thesmophorion, 157
_Thiasos_, 91
Thoricus, 6, 14
Timaretè, 52
Tiryns, 13
“Tokens,” the, 58
Tower of the Winds, 137
Tragedy, 99
Trident-mark, 42, 56
Triton, 27, 47, 147
Tritonis, 64
τύλη, 56
Turkovouni, 10
Tyndaridae, 148
Typhon, 27, 47
Tyrant slayers, 87
Virgo Caelestis, 109
_Wine-press_, 93
Xanthias, 146
Xanthias-Herakles, 146
Xuthus, 43
Zethus, 23, 24
Zeus, 39, 55
Zeus Hypatos, 54
_Zeus Olympios_, 7
CLASSICAL AUTHORS.
PAGE
Ael. _Hist. An._ VI. 49 155
Alciphron _Ep._ III. 49. 1 156
Amelesagoras ap. _Paradoxogr._ XII. 63 48
Anth. Pal. VI. 280 52
Antigonos _Hist. Mirab._ 12 10
Apollod. III. 14. 1 58 III. 14. 2 43, 55 III. 15. 1 62 _frg._ ap. Zenob. _Cent._ V. 22 148
Apollon. Rhod. I. 736 23
Ar. _Av._ 999 145 _Eq._ 144 and 551 61 _Eq._ 551 63 _Eq._ 1092 135 _Lys._ 175 135 _Lys._ 720 82 _Lys._ 911 81 _Plutus_ 62 _Ran. Hyp._ 87 _Ran._ 216 Schol. 95 _Ran._ 218 87 _Ran._ 501 Schol. 146, 147 _Ran._ 650 146 _Thesm._ 300 83
Aristot. _Hist. An._ VI. 24 155
Athen. XI. 464 F 84 XI. 465 125
Augustine, St, _de civitat. Dei_ 18. 9 55
Clem. Al. _Protr._ III. 45. 39 45
[Dem.] _c. Neaer._ 76 85 _c. Neaer._ 873 84
Dem. LIV. 7 144
Diod. IV. 39 149 V. 42 149 V. 47 149
Eur. _Electra_ 1271 105 _Ion_ 21-26 48 _Ion_ 154 28 _Ion_ 492 81
Herod. I. 59 64 II. 50 64 III. 60 119 IV. 188-189 64 V. 64 25 V. 82 61 VI. 41 48 VI. 116 145 VI. 137 25, 113 VII. 41 48 VII. 140 1 VIII. 41 45 VIII. 44 43 VIII. 52 33 VIII. 55 55
Hesiod _frg._ ap. Strab. IX. 9. 393 45
Hierocles _de Hippiatr. praef._ 154
Homer _Iliad_ II. 546 60 _Iliad_ II. 547 44 _Iliad_ II. 765 23 _Od._ VII. 80, 81 60 _Od._ XI. 594 24
Isaeus _Or._ VIII. 35 97
Kallimachos _Hekale_ frg. 44, 95
Klearchos ap. Athen. XIII. 2. 555 55
Lycophron, _Alex._ 431 and Schol. ad loc. 62
Lydus _de mens._ 109
Lucian _Bis Accus._ 9 33 _Piscat._ 42 34 _Piscat._ 46 31
Ovid _Fast._ II. 667 59
Paus. I. 3. 6 44 I. 8. 5 156 I. 8. 6 98 I. 14. 1 112, 114 I. 14. 2 147 I. 14. 7 151 I. 18. 2 49 I. 18. 6, 7 141 I. 19. 1 143 I. 19. 2 151 I. 19. 3 146 I. 19. 5 152 I. 20. 3 83 I. 21. 4 53 I. 22. 3 82, 106 I. 22. 5 50 I. 24. 7 45 I. 26. 5 58 I. 26. 30 58 I. 27. 2 49 I. 28. 3 24 I. 40. 1 124 II. 5. 1 54 II. 16. 5 23 II. 25. 7 23 III. 15. 10 54 III. 21. 10 54 V. 14. 10 59 VI. 20. 2-4 45 VIII. 2. 3 54 VIII. 10. 4 58 IX. 5. 6 23 IX. 16. 3, 108 108
Phanodemus ap. Athen. XI. 465 A 96
Philostratos _Vit. Soph._ II. 5. 4 p. 550 70, 99
Plato _Kritias_ 112 10 _Lysis_ 205 C 148 _Parmenid._ 144 _Phaedr._ 229 A 152 _Protag._ 327 87 _Rep._ VII. 514 129 _Rep._ 515 B 129 _Symp._ 180 D 108
Pliny _Nat. Hist._ IV. 7. 11 156 _Nat. Hist._ VII. 57 24
Plut. _de Exil._ VI. 144 _de Is. et Osir._ XXXII. 27 _de sollert. an._ XIII. 155 _Vit. Cat._ V. 155 _Vit. Demetr._ 26 147 _Vit. Cim._ 13 20 _Vit. Them._ 1 150 _Vit. Them._ 22 144 _Vit. Thes._ 33 148 _Vit. Solon._ 12 35
Ps. Plut. _Vit. X. Orat._ 843 63 _Vit. X. Orat._ 6 98
Polemon ap. Schol. _Oed. Col._ 489 34
Polyzelos _frg._ 154
Porphyr. _de Abst._ II. 54 151
Sophocles _Philoctet._ 1327 45
Strabo VIII. 21. 379 24 IX. 2. 404 69 X. 471 150 X. 472 149
Tarantinos, _see_ Hierocles 154
Theodoretus _Graec. affect. cur._ VIII. 30. 908 45
Thucyd. I. 5. 10 6 I. 126 35 I. 2 63 II. 15 5 II. 17 30
Tzetzes _Chil._ V. 19 44
Varro _Ling. Lat._ V. 66 59
Virgil _Aen._ IX. 448, Servius ad loc. 59
Vitruvius I. 2. 5 59
Xen. _Hell._ VI. 3. 6 148
CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.