« PreviousContinue »
! ANCIENT ATHENS
ERNEST ARTHUR GARDNER
YATES PROFESSOR OF ARCHÆOLOGY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON
FORMERLY DIRECTOR OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS
All rigbts reserved
Set up and electrotyped November, 1902.
Norwood, Mass., U.S. A.
Sunt quibus unum opus est intactæ Palladis urbem
Carmine perpetuo celebrare, et
The author of a book on Ancient Athens must needs owe much to his predecessors, and these are so many that, in an attempt to make more particular acknowledgment, there is no little danger of omission. In stating a few of the sources from which I am conscious of having borrowed most, I have no wish to slight the more numerous authorities to which others, and possibly I myself, owe as great or perhaps a greater debt. But this difficulty can hardly be avoided without allowing a preface to grow into a bibliography.
Among earlier travellers, I have most frequently consulted Wheler, Stuart, Dodwell, and Leake. Among those whom it has been my privilege to hear as well as to read, I would especially mention Mr. F. C. Penrose, F.R.S., and Professor Dörpfeld. Of recent works on Athens, I have constantly referred to Curtius's Stadtgeschichte von Athen and Mr. J. G. Frazer's edition of Pausanias; Miss Harrison and Mrs. Verrall's Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens has also been useful. The existence of these works and others, such as Wachsmuth's Die Stadt Athen in Alterthum, Hitzig and Blümner's edition of Pausanias, Michaelis's Der Parthenon, and Jahn and Michaelis's Pausania Descriptio Arcis Athenarum, has made it permissible to summarise results rather than to enumerate details of evidence, and I must refer to them any readers who wish to follow up matters of controversy or obscurity at greater length than has here been practicable or desirable. Professor Milch höfer's Schriftquellen zur Topographie von Athen, attached to Curtius's Stadtgeschichte, are particularly convenient, as exempting later writers from the necessity of constantly justifying their statements by references to classical authors.
In order to disencumber the book of controversial matter, such discussions have been relegated, as far as possible, to the notes at the end of some of the chapters. Apart from these, it has been my aim to give as clearly and directly as possible the impressions produced by the sites and buildings described, as viewed in the light of the references made to them by classical authors. Where so much is doubtful, no writer can expect all his conclusions to be undisputed; but I trust that the book will not be found to have misrepresented either the available evidence or the theories that have been based upon it. The more advanced school of topographers may probably accuse me of a conservative bias, which I frankly admit, in so far as it implies that, where the evidence appears to be evenly balanced, I prefer to follow an opinion that is familiar and that has commended itself to generations of scholars, rather than to adopt the newest and most brilliant hypothesis.