THE PELASGIC WALL OF

ATHENS.

ALLUSIONS to the Pelasgic wall of Athens (rò Πελασγικὸν τεῖχος) are by no means rare in ancient writers. These allusions, however, are, for the most part, so brief and vague, that there prevails the greatest difference of opinion in respect both to the position and to the extent of the structure in question—a difference, it must be admitted, due in part also to misinterpretation and preconception.

According to some writers, the Pelasgic wall was a mere tower or fortress at the west end of the Akropolis, near the spot afterwards occupied by the Propylaia ; according to others, it was a wall running round the whole top of the Akropolis, like the later wall, which in part still remains standing. Welcker, for example, tells us that "The precipices (Felswände) themselves are the raxos, which nature built, leaving only the accessible side for the Pelasgians to fortify." Rawlinson, on the other hand, tells us that "It skirted the edge

* Der Felsaltar des höchsten Zeus (Abhandlungen der berliner Akad. der Wiss., 1852), p. 313.

of the precipice, and consisted of a single line of wall on every side except the west, where the ascent, though steep, is not very difficult. Here it seems to have been more complicated.” * Wachsmuth tries

to combine these views, by making the expression Πελασγικὸν τεῖχος mean different things at different times. "On the one hand," he says, “so long as the old Pelasgic fortification of the Akropolis was in existence, the whole fortified burg was called Пɛλaoyikòv TEIXOS-a circumstance which presents no difficulty.

On the other hand, in later times, especially in those of Loukian, when the Pelasgic fortress (which, no doubt, had been completely demolished by the Persians, and, being afterwards superfluous, had not been restored, but had been magnificently replaced by the new Propylaia) existed only in the form of some stone ruins of surprising, colossal dimensions, Πελασγικὸν τεῖχος designated a particular spot at the foot, or on the side, of the citadel. This is clear from a passage in Loukian, Piscator, 42."†

These may be regarded as the representative views concerning the Pelasgic wall, and the only ones deserving of special attention. Before proceeding to state and prove what we believe to be the correct view, it may be well to show that not any one of these rests upon any solid ground either of evidence or of probability.

In regard to Welcker's view, it is sufficient to say

• Note to Herodotos, vi. 137.

↑ Die Stadt Athen im Alterthum, vol. i. p. 290.

that if the precipices of the Akropolis had been the τεῖχος, that τεῖχος would most certainly never have been called Πελασγικόν, but rather φυσικόν ; whereas, if the Πελασγικὸν τεῖχος was merely what protected the accessible side, then the precipices were not the Tεxos. Moreover, the words used by several writers with reference to the relation of the wall to the Akropolis, show plainly that the wall (τxos) was not a mere fortress at one end, if, indeed, the word Tεxos is ever used in this sense. Hêrodotos* speaks of it as “τοῦ τείχεος τοῦ περὶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν κοτε ἐληλαμένου.” Kleidemos, the old Attic topographer, says the Tyrrhenians “καὶ ἠπέδιζον τὴν ἀκρόπολιν, περιέβαλλον δὲ ἐννεάπυλον τὸ Πελαργικόν.”† Myrsilos says, “Τοῖς ̓Αθηναίοις τὸ τεῖχος τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν τὸ Πελασ γικὸν καλούμενον τούτους (Τυρσηνοὺς) περιβαλεῖν.” † Now, the words περιβάλλειν and περιελαύνειν mean, in the most distinct way, "to surround," and could never be used with reference to a fort built at one end of a citadel. If they could, one might fairly ask, What words would a writer use of a wall, when he meant to say that it surrounded a given space? Пepißoλoç, as every one knows, is the common word for an inclosure. In spite of this, the perversity of certain Germans, bent upon making the most recalcitrant evidence yield

• vi. 137.

+ Bekker, Anec. Græc., 419, 28 sq. Cf. Suidas, sub vocc. ἄπεδα and ἠπέδιζον, who writes the last word Πελασγικόν. Wachsmuth misquotes the passage, omitting the 76 (p. 290, n. 1).

Quoted by Dionys. Halikarn., i. 28. Myrsilos is a writer of uncertain date.

περι

to a groundless foregone conclusion, asserts that βάλλειν and περιελαύνειν, in the passages quoted, are equivalent to ἀποτειχίζειν, and mean merely “to wall off," or "to protect by a wall at one end." For such use of the words, however, they are puzzled to find any authority. The best they can do is to assert that both Thoukydides and Plutarch use περιτειχίζειν, περιτείχισμα, and κύκλος of the wall which the Athenians, in B.C. 414, raised against Syracuse, in spite of the fact that this wall went round only one side of the town.* Let us examine the statements of the authors in question. The words of Thoukydides are : “ Περιήγγελον δὲ [οἱ ̓Αθηναῖοι] καὶ τοῖς Σικελοῖς καὶ εἰς τὴν Εγεσταν πέμψαντες ἐκέλευον ἵππους σφίσιν ὡς πλείστους πέμπειν, καὶ τἄλλα εἰς τὸν περιτειχισμὸν, πλινθία καὶ σίδηρον, ἡτοίμαζον, καὶ ὅσα ἔδει, ὡς ἅμα τῷ ἦρι ἑξόμενοι τοῦ πολέμου” (vi. 88, 6). Those of Plutarch are: “Ο δὲ πάντων μάλιστα καὶ Σικελιώτας ἐξέπληξε καὶ τοῖς Ελλησιν ἀπιστιάν παρέσχεν, ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ περιετείχισε Συρακούσας, πόλιν ̓Αθηνῶν οὐκ ἐλάττονα, δυσεργοτέραν δὲ χωρίων ἀνωμαλίαις καὶ θαλάσσῃ γειτνιώσῃ καὶ περικειμένοις ἔλεσι τεῖχος κύκλῳ περὶ αὐτὴν τοσοῦτον ἀγαγεῖν” (Nikias, 17). Now, in regard to these passages, two things are worthy of observation: first, that neither of the words used in regard to the Pelasgic wall (περιβάλλειν, περιελαύνειν) occurs in them ; and second, that the word περιτειχίζειν, and its derivatives, περι

.

66

Vischer, Erinnerungen und Eindrücke aus Griechenland, p. 112. Welcker, ut sup., says the περί in περιβάλλειν " was limited to the part which it was possible to surround with a wall.”

1

τείχισμα and περιτειχισμός, have the sense of blockade,” and are used only when an actual closed circle is drawn round a city, albeit part of that circle may consist of ships. This latter fact is rendered still more evident by the following passages: “ Οἱ δὲ αὐτερέται πλεύσαντες τῶν νεῶν ἀφικνοῦνται καὶ περιτειχίζουσι Μυτιλήνην ἐν κύκλῳ ἀπλῷ τείχει. φρούρια δὲ ἔστιν ᾗ ἐπὶ τῶν κρατερῶν ἐγκατῳδόμηται, καὶ ἡ μὲν Μυτιλήνη κατὰ κράτος ἤδη ἀμφοτέρωθεν καὶ ἐκ γῆς καὶ ἐκ θαλάσσης εἵργετο” (Thoukyd., iii. 18; cf. ii. 78; iv. 69). “Ὑπὲρ ὧν γὰρ ἐξ ἀκεραίου πρεσβευόμενοι, ἔτι καθημένων ἐν Ιτύκη Ῥωμαίων οὐκ ἐδύνασθε πείθειν, τίνι λόγῳ νῦν ἀξιοῖς ταῦτά σοι συγχωρεῖσθαι, περιτετειχισμένος καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν, καὶ σχεδὸν ἁπάσας ἀπεγνωκὼς τὰς τῆς σωτηρίας ἐλπίδας " * (Polyb., xxxviii. 1, 8). We may, therefore, conclude that the words περιβάλλειν, περιελαύνειν, περιτειχίζειν, have always the sense of surround, and, therefore, that the Pelasgic wall of Athens was not a mere fort at one end of the Akropolis.

It does not follow from this that the wall went round all the four sides of the hill. We ourselves use surround of things that go round only three sides. of an object. We say of a city standing on the seashore that it is surrounded by a wall; of a harbour, that it is surrounded with forts, etc. In the same way

• It is hardly necessary to remind readers that, when the oracle ordered the Athenians to protect themselves with a wooden wall (ξύλινον τεῖχος), Themistokles understood it to mean a wall of ships (Herod., viii. 51).