Pausanias enters Athens:-1. Because it led from the outer to the inner Cerameicus, the main street of which commenced at Dipylum; whereas there was an interval between the Cerameicus and the gate at which Pausanias begins his description '. 2. Because on the outside of this gate Pausanias notices a monument, bearing the figure of a soldier standing by a horse, the work of Praxiteles, with the remark, that he did not know for whom this figure was intended: whereas, on the outside of Dipylum stood the tomb of Anthemocritus, as we know from other authorities, as well as from Pausanias himself?, who describes that tomb as standing near the gate, by which, at the end of his description of Athens, he conducts his reader out of the city, by the Sacred Way, to Eleusis; thereby proving that gate to have been Dipylum.

Nor is it easy to conceive, on referring to the following authorities, that the gate which stood in the opening between the heights of Museium and Pnyx could have been the Peiraic gate. Plutarch relates, on the authority of Sylla himself, that, "Sylla having been informed that the strength of the Heptachalcum had tempted the Athenians to be less careful in guarding the walls in that quarter than in any other, resolved, after having examined the place, to attempt an assault in that part of the inclosure. Making a breach, therefore, between the Sacred and Peiraic gates, he entered the city in the middle of the night, when so great was the slaughter in and around the

1 Attic. 2, 4. See above, p. 108-111.

2 Pausan. Attic. 2, 3. 36, 2. in 'Ανθεμόκριτος.

Plutarch. Pericl. 30. Harpocr.

Agora, that all the Cerameicus within Dipylum was filled with blood, which, according to many reports, even flowed through that gate into the suburb '. Supposing the Sacred Gate, which is not named by any other author, to have been the same as Dipylum, one cannot imagine Plutarch to have described the breach as having been made between the Sacred and Peiraic gates, had the Peiraic been in the position between Pnyx and Museium; for this point is more than one thousand yards in direct distance from the site of Dipylum; and there were two intermediate gates; whereas the words of Plutarch require, if not that the Sacred and Peiraic should have been neighbouring gates, at least that they should have been much nearer to each other than the distance just mentioned. If, on the other hand, the Sacred gate was not the same as Dipylum, as the occurrence of the two names in the same passage of Plutarch may afford some argument for believing, we are under the necessity (on the same hypothesis as to the position of the Peiraic gate, in the opening between Museium and Pnyx) of supposing that the Sacred gate was at no great distance to the north or to the south of that opening; and, consequently, that the breach was made either on the hill of Pnyx, or on that of the Museium: neither of which is recon

* Ο [Σύλλας] δ ̓ οὐ κατεφρόνησεν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπελθὼν νυκτὸς καὶ θεασάμενος τὸν τόπον ἀλώσιμον, εἴχετο τοῦ ἔργου· . . . . . αὐτὸς δὲ τὸ μεταξὺ τῆς Πειραϊκῆς πύλης καὶ τῆς Ἱερᾶς κατασκάψας καὶ συνομαλύνας περὶ μέσας νύκτας ἐσήλαυνε φρικώδης . . . . ἄνευ γὰρ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄλλην πόλιν ἀναιρεθέντων, ὁ περὶ τὴν ἀγορὰν φόνος ἐπέσχε πάντα τὸν ἐντὸς τοῦ Διπύλου Κεραμεικόν πολλοῖς δὲ λέγεται καὶ διὰ τῶν πυλῶν κατακλύσαι τὸ προάστειον.—Plutarch. Syll. 14.

cileable with the fact of the breach having been made near the Heptachalcum. Nor would a breach on the heights of Museium or Pnyx have conducted so directly into the Agora as that effected by Sylla appears to have done; as the south-western quarter of the city, and the ridge composed of the two heights of Areiopagus and Acropolis, would have been interposed between the breach and the Agora of the time of Sylla; which latter is shown to have been on the northern side of the Areiopagus, not only by arguments already stated, but also by the tradition related by Plutarch as to the blood having flowed through Dipylum into the exterior Cerameicus: such a circumstance could not have happened, or have been imagined, had the Agora been to the southward or westward of the Acropolis, the formation of the ground rendering it impossible. The same intervention of the heights is still more adverse to the supposition of the gate between Museium and Pnyx having been that by which Pausanias commences his description of Athens; since he expressly states, that a single portico led from this gate into the Cerameicus; whence it is evident, that the distance could not have been great, nor interrupted by any such steep ascent as that which forms the connexion between the Acropolis and Areiopagus.

An opinion is not uncommonly entertained that the distinguished situation of the gate between Museium and Pnyx, and its position in an exact line drawn from the centre of the Peiraic peninsula to the Acropolis, are proofs of its having been the Peiraic gate but we must remember, that this importance

of situation prevailed only while the Long Walls subsisted it was then indeed the entrance into the city from the Longo-mural inclosure, and the termination of a great street, leading in a direct line from the maritime city to the Acropolis, which line may conveniently have been joined by routes from each of the harbours of Phalerum, Munychia, and Peiræeus; but after the ruin and neglect of the Long Walls, which may be dated from the destruction of the maritime fortifications by Sylla, the Longo-mural street was probably abandoned, and the ground cultivated, as it is at present; and although, doubtless, there was always an entrance into the southern parts of the city at the opening between Museium and Pnyx, it was probably not on the ordinary route to the busy parts of the city from Peiraeus, Zea, and Cantharus, the ports where the maritime commerce was then chiefly carried on, and from whence the most convenient road to the Agora led through a part of the plain harder and less liable to be marshy than where the Long Walls had stood. In short, when the Longo-mural inclosure was abandoned, the principal approaches to Athens from its harbours became probably such as they were found by Pausanias, and such as they have ever since continued to be. Pausanias describes two roads, one from Phalerum and the other from Peiraeus, each ending in a gate on the corresponding side of the city; and he notices the Long Walls in connexion with the Peiraic road, after having described the road from Phalerum without any mention of them; thereby showing that they were nearer to the Peiraic than to the Phaleric road, which exactly accords with the actual state of things,

except that the modern road from Peiræeus has diverged a little to the right, for the sake of the solid causeway furnished by the foundations of the northern Long Wall itself. We are justified, therefore, in the conjecture that the ordinary approaches from the harbours to the city assumed, in consequence of the destruction of the Longo-mural town, that direction which Pausanias has indicated, and which has continued from his time to the present. As to the wheel-tracks in the rocks on the road which terminated the Longo-mural inclosure, there was sufficient traffic on that road, especially during the ages when the Long Walls subsisted, to account for these marks, which are not deeper or more numerous than those remaining upon ancient routes of much smaller traffic in many parts of Greece.

Another argument against the supposition of the Peiraic gate having been that between Pnyx and Museium, may be derived from the passage in the Life of Theseus, where Plutarch introduces this name. An Athenian antiquary, named Cleidemus, describing the position of the Amazones, when they advanced against the city of Theseus, afterwards the Acropolis of Athens, stated, that their line extended from the Pnyx on the right to the Amazonium on the left; the latter monument having evidently been to the north of the Areiopagus; as Æschylus, by placing the Amazones on the Areiopagus', shows that height to have been the centre of their position. The Athenians attacked the enemy's right from the Museium ; and the tombs of those who fell, still existed in the

'Eumen. 682.