This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
ἀποδέξαντες. This appointment of one king to command does not harmonize with the story told in ch. 74 f., or with the royal prerogative alleged in vi. 56. It is, however, the regular practice later (cf. Xen. Hell. v. 2. 3, vi. 5. 10, &c.), and may well be older than the quarrel between Cleomenes and Demaratus (ch. 75). Cf. Appendix XVII, § 2.
ἄστυ: the lower city (cf. i. 14. 4, 176. 1), in contrast with the acropolis. The doubt whether the whole city was walled recurs in connexion with the campaigns of Marathon and Salamis. Here its easy capture may be explained by the existence of a party within it opposed to the tyrants. Apart from the inherent probability, the definite arguments for a prae-Themistoclean city-wall are strong. 1. The plain meaning of Thucydides (i. 89. 93) is that the Athenians rebuilt the walls of the city, parts of which were standing (H. ix. 13. 2), though they enlarged the circuit. 2. When Hipparchus was slain in the inner Ceramicus (ch. 56. 2 n.) his murderers entered through the gates ( Thuc. vi. 57 “εἴσω τῶν πυλῶν”). 3. The gate of Hadrian professes to mark the limit of the city of Theseus: “αἵδ̓ εἴς᾿ Ἀθῆναι Θησέως ἡ πρὶν πόλις.
” All that can be conceded to Dörpfeld and Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (Ph. U. i. 97 f.) is that the old wall may have been indefensible from lack of repairs, or in parts destroyed by the tyrants to make room for new buildings. τοὺς τυράννους: the reigning house, as βασιλέες is used vii. 6. 2, &c. Πελαργικῷ: so more correctly than Πελασγικῷ. Thuc. ii. 17; C. I. A. iv. 2. 27 b ad fin.; Arist. Av. 832; Ath. Pol. 19. The alleged connexion with the Pelasgi seems to be a mistaken piece of erudition due to Hecataeus (cf. Appendix XV, § 5). The Pelasgic fortress apparently had nine gates [Cleidemus ap. Bekk. Anec. i. 419 περιέβαλλον δὲ ἐννεάπυλον τὸ Πελασγικόν, and Polemo ap. Schol. to Soph. Oed. Col. 489 “ἐκτὸς τῶν ἐννέα πυλῶν”], not distributed round the circuit, but arranged within each other like the famous Hexapylon of Syracuse. It was clearly an important part of the defences of the Acropolis in 510 B. C. (Ath. Pol. 19; Marm. Parium 45), but was doubtless destroyed by the Persians in 480 B. C. Thereafter it was an open space at the north-west end of the Acropolis (Thuc. ii. 17), close beneath the wall (Lucian, Piscator 47) and the cave of Pan (Lucian, Bis Accus. 8). It may have extended along the whole West front (Dörpfeld citing Lucian, Pisc. 42) from the Anaceum, shrine of Dioscuri north-west to the Asclepium south-west. On this and other disputed points cf. D'Ooge, The Acropolis of Athens, pp. 21-31 and 361-8.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.