DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.800#0565
APPENDIX. 541
they were effected. With regard to the latter, the reign of the Thirty may be
a sufficiently probable epoch; perhaps they were earlier, they could hardly
have been later. The sculptured and other fragments found among the rubbish
with which the lower area was raised would answer to that period well enough,
and could not possibly have belonged to a very remote era. The later anathe-
mata to Zeus Hypsistos from the niches in the rock wall may have got mingled
with this rubbish in the course of ages. Plutarch's reason for changing the bema
cannot, of course, be accepted. It is not unlikely, however, that the Lacedae-
monians, on the taking of Athens, or the Thirty Tyrants whom they established,
in their common hatred of democracy, may have injured and defaced the original
Pnyx in a way to render it almost useless. The same Tyrants, however, were
not likely to construct a new one ; nor, indeed, would the short span of less
than a year during which their reign lasted, have sufficed for such a purpose.
It is more probable that the new Pnyx was made after their overthrow by
Thrasybulus. Its reconstruction on a larger and more convenient scale may
have been preferred to repairing the old one; and the reversal of the bema may
have been suggested by the convenience offered by the rock wall for making
one. The whole arrangement would thus have been rendered more theatre-
like ; the orator, like the aetor, being placed in the middle of the chord of
the arc, and thus having a greater number of his audience within convenient
reach of his voice.
5. Curtius' fifth argument is drawn from the proofs of Zeus-worship on the
Pnyx Hill afforded by the votive tablets found there; but as we have already
said, these are of a lateKoman period, and therefore are no proofs of a primitive
Zeus-worship at this place (supra, p. 469). We shall only add here, that if this
was the most ancient, or one of the most ancient, sanctuaries of Zeus at Athens,
how comes it that we have no traditions about it ? All traditions relating to
Zeus-worship at Athens point for their locality either to the Acropolis or to the
Olympium. How the Pnyx became sacred to Zuus we have already explained
(supra, p. 472).
6. The proof from several (three) altars symmetrically placed vanishes if
one of them at least, if not two, are shown to have been rostra, and not altars.
7 and 8 we may take together. The analogy of the Argive Koivo/Jco/u'a also
vanishes in the same manner. Moreover, Curtius' attempt to make out the ex-
istence of an ancient Koivo/?a>/ua, or ayopa 6eS>v, at Athens from classical writers
is abortive. He is obliged to go to foreign cities for it. His only attempt
(p. 39-41) from classic Athenian writers is from the ' Suppliccs' of jEschylus,
in which Danatis mentions a koivo/Jcoju/o. (v. 222), and where his allusions to the
scenery might bear some resemblance to the Pnyx Hill. But then, unfortunately,
the scene of the ' Suppliccs' is not at Athens, but Argos. Ho next goes (p. 41)
they were effected. With regard to the latter, the reign of the Thirty may be
a sufficiently probable epoch; perhaps they were earlier, they could hardly
have been later. The sculptured and other fragments found among the rubbish
with which the lower area was raised would answer to that period well enough,
and could not possibly have belonged to a very remote era. The later anathe-
mata to Zeus Hypsistos from the niches in the rock wall may have got mingled
with this rubbish in the course of ages. Plutarch's reason for changing the bema
cannot, of course, be accepted. It is not unlikely, however, that the Lacedae-
monians, on the taking of Athens, or the Thirty Tyrants whom they established,
in their common hatred of democracy, may have injured and defaced the original
Pnyx in a way to render it almost useless. The same Tyrants, however, were
not likely to construct a new one ; nor, indeed, would the short span of less
than a year during which their reign lasted, have sufficed for such a purpose.
It is more probable that the new Pnyx was made after their overthrow by
Thrasybulus. Its reconstruction on a larger and more convenient scale may
have been preferred to repairing the old one; and the reversal of the bema may
have been suggested by the convenience offered by the rock wall for making
one. The whole arrangement would thus have been rendered more theatre-
like ; the orator, like the aetor, being placed in the middle of the chord of
the arc, and thus having a greater number of his audience within convenient
reach of his voice.
5. Curtius' fifth argument is drawn from the proofs of Zeus-worship on the
Pnyx Hill afforded by the votive tablets found there; but as we have already
said, these are of a lateKoman period, and therefore are no proofs of a primitive
Zeus-worship at this place (supra, p. 469). We shall only add here, that if this
was the most ancient, or one of the most ancient, sanctuaries of Zeus at Athens,
how comes it that we have no traditions about it ? All traditions relating to
Zeus-worship at Athens point for their locality either to the Acropolis or to the
Olympium. How the Pnyx became sacred to Zuus we have already explained
(supra, p. 472).
6. The proof from several (three) altars symmetrically placed vanishes if
one of them at least, if not two, are shown to have been rostra, and not altars.
7 and 8 we may take together. The analogy of the Argive Koivo/Jco/u'a also
vanishes in the same manner. Moreover, Curtius' attempt to make out the ex-
istence of an ancient Koivo/?a>/ua, or ayopa 6eS>v, at Athens from classical writers
is abortive. He is obliged to go to foreign cities for it. His only attempt
(p. 39-41) from classic Athenian writers is from the ' Suppliccs' of jEschylus,
in which Danatis mentions a koivo/Jcoju/o. (v. 222), and where his allusions to the
scenery might bear some resemblance to the Pnyx Hill. But then, unfortunately,
the scene of the ' Suppliccs' is not at Athens, but Argos. Ho next goes (p. 41)