DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.796#0416
368 THE ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS
scene of the play creates an impossible situation (cf. Lysistrata,
910-913):
M.vp. 7rov yap av Tts /cat TaAav
Spd<T€ie tovO' ; Kiv. ottov • to toC TJavos KaXov.
Mvp. kcu Trios ffi dyvrj Stjt av eXOoip Is 7roA.1i' •
Ktv. KaXXicrra Srjirov Xovo-ap.kvq ry KXeifruSpa.
In the case supposed Cinesias and Myrrhena are outside the
Pelargicon. But the cave of Pan is ■within this fortification and
therefore not accessible to them. The Clepsydra also must have been
within the fortification, and therefore within the ttoXis as Dorpfeld has
defined it, and so inaccessible to Myrrhena for performing the rites of
purification. The situation then in the Lysistrata requires that the
scene be laid where the action has more freedom than would be
possible in the outer gate of the Pelargicon which would have
served as an obstruction.
To this discussion some general considerations may be added.
First, there was no need of making the Acropolis a fortress in the
fifth century. The great wall built about the city by Themistocles
became its proper defense (see Wachsmuth, Neue Beiirdge zur
Topog. von Athen, Berichte d. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1887, p. 399).
Secondly, the Acropolis would have been wholly inadequate to
furnish protection, with an enemy within the Themistoclean wall, to
the population of Athens which is estimated to have been 200,000
at this time. Again, the complete rehabilitation of the Acropolis
as a citadel after the expulsion of the Pisistratids would have been
repugnant to the democracy established by the constitution of
Clisthenes. That after the Macedonian conquest, when Athens again
fell under the rule of tyrants, the Acropolis should have been trans-
formed into a citadel, is not surprising when one sees the natural
advantages of the Acropolis as a stronghold. But Aristion's occupa-
tion of the Acropolis in the time of Sulla is no more proof of the
existence of the Pelargicon in the age of Pericles than are the
defenses erected in the Middle Ages.
Finally, that the huge and uncouth walls of the Pelargicon should
have been kept standing throughout the Periclean age, barring from
view the glorious and beautiful temples and gateway reared on the
summit of the Acropolis, appears incredible.
scene of the play creates an impossible situation (cf. Lysistrata,
910-913):
M.vp. 7rov yap av Tts /cat TaAav
Spd<T€ie tovO' ; Kiv. ottov • to toC TJavos KaXov.
Mvp. kcu Trios ffi dyvrj Stjt av eXOoip Is 7roA.1i' •
Ktv. KaXXicrra Srjirov Xovo-ap.kvq ry KXeifruSpa.
In the case supposed Cinesias and Myrrhena are outside the
Pelargicon. But the cave of Pan is ■within this fortification and
therefore not accessible to them. The Clepsydra also must have been
within the fortification, and therefore within the ttoXis as Dorpfeld has
defined it, and so inaccessible to Myrrhena for performing the rites of
purification. The situation then in the Lysistrata requires that the
scene be laid where the action has more freedom than would be
possible in the outer gate of the Pelargicon which would have
served as an obstruction.
To this discussion some general considerations may be added.
First, there was no need of making the Acropolis a fortress in the
fifth century. The great wall built about the city by Themistocles
became its proper defense (see Wachsmuth, Neue Beiirdge zur
Topog. von Athen, Berichte d. Sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. 1887, p. 399).
Secondly, the Acropolis would have been wholly inadequate to
furnish protection, with an enemy within the Themistoclean wall, to
the population of Athens which is estimated to have been 200,000
at this time. Again, the complete rehabilitation of the Acropolis
as a citadel after the expulsion of the Pisistratids would have been
repugnant to the democracy established by the constitution of
Clisthenes. That after the Macedonian conquest, when Athens again
fell under the rule of tyrants, the Acropolis should have been trans-
formed into a citadel, is not surprising when one sees the natural
advantages of the Acropolis as a stronghold. But Aristion's occupa-
tion of the Acropolis in the time of Sulla is no more proof of the
existence of the Pelargicon in the age of Pericles than are the
defenses erected in the Middle Ages.
Finally, that the huge and uncouth walls of the Pelargicon should
have been kept standing throughout the Periclean age, barring from
view the glorious and beautiful temples and gateway reared on the
summit of the Acropolis, appears incredible.