Abstract
The Persian sea invasion at the coasts of Attica in the 490 b.C, the victory of Miltiades in the marshy battlefield of Marathon, the return of the Persian army under Xerxes ten years later, resulting the burning of the city of Athens and the Acropolis in revenge for the destruction of Sardis, are well known history. The victorious naval battle of Salamis by the allied Greek fleet, brought about a major overturning of the situation, followed by the devastation of the Persian army at Plataea in the summer of 479 BC. From this point onward Athens developed into a hegemonic power among the Greeks.
The abundant spoils of war and the financial contributions that the Athenians imposed to their allies, made it possible for the city of Athens to be rebuilt and to thrive. Acropolis from a local stronghold and refuge, right after the end of the Persian wars started evolving to a major Hellenic religious center, a place of art and culture. The older temples destroyed by the Persians, were replaced by new expensive magnificent monuments in white marble of fine proportions, optical refinements and various embellishments, all applied in a renovative architectonic synthesis of everlasting beauty.
On the other hand, war again is to blame for the destruction of these monuments, a process that took place centuries later, as the power of the Roman Empire in decline, permitted to the various barbarian tribes to raid the Roman provinces, including Athens, pillaging its treasures. After the fall of Constantinople (1454), the Acropolis, center of the Duchy of Athens (1205-1456), passed peacefully from the last Florentine Duce, Francesco II Acciajuoli to the Turks.
Two centuries later, the Ottoman-Venetian War of 1683-1695 proved to be disastrous for all the classical buildings of the Acropolis, which still retained most of their original structure intact, despite the medieval architectural additions, due to its change of use. In 1687, the Venetians occupied Athens and sieged the Athenian Acropolis. The heavy exploding bombs who were lanced by the Venetian cannons, broke the roof tiles and penetrated in the interior of the ancient monuments, destroying them, since the Turks kept there their ammunitions.
The acts of this irrational disaster, which brought no permanent benefits to Venice, are reviewed here, drawing on data found in various historical records and previous researches done in the Venetian archives, with a contemporary critical view based on new observations made at the monuments in Athens and in Venice.
Heraklitus, Πόλεμος πάντων μεˋν πατήρ εˋστι, πάντων δεˋ βασιλεύς, καί τούς μεˋν θεούς εˋδειξε τούς δεˋ ανθρώπους, τούς μεˋν δούλους εποίησε τούς δεˋ ελευθέρους. Fragment 53, 1. Transl: “The war is the father of all, the king of all. Others showed to gods and others to men, others made slaves and others free.” Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, 6th edn., Ed. Diels, H. Kranz, W. Berlin: Weidmann, 1951, Repr. 1966.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Another name for Cybele, see Herodotus, Ε’, 97–103.
- 2.
Herodotus, E’, 102.
- 3.
About the Cylonian Abomination see Herodotus, Ε’, 71ff; Thucydides, Α’, 126–127. Plutarch, Solon, 12,8.
- 4.
Thucydides, 2.17.2–4 “The Pelasgicum also under the citadel, though it a place accursed to dwell in it and forbidden by the end of a verse in a Pythian oracle in these words, ‘Best is the Pelasgicum empty,’ was nevertheless for the present necessity inhabited”. See also Pollux, Onomastikon 8, 101, 6–8, “πάρεδροι οτοι ...ου‘τοι γαˋρ παρεφύλαττον μή τις εντοˋς του Πελασγικου κείρει ηˋ καταπλέα ηˋ εξορύττει, καί τω εˋρχοντι παρεδίδοσαν. τοˋ δέ τίμημα ην τρεις δραχμαί καί α‘πλουν τοˋ βλάβος.”
- 5.
Thucydides, Α’, 89–93; Β’, 14.
- 6.
Plutarch, Pericles, 13.3–4. “For this reason, are the works of Pericles all the more to be wondered at; they were created in a short time for all time. Each one of them, in its beauty, was even then and at once antique; but in the freshness of its vigor it is, even to the present day, recent and newly wrought. Such is the bloom of perpetual newness, as it were, upon these works of his, which makes them ever to look untouched by time, as though the unfaltering breath of an ageless spirit had been infused into them.”
- 7.
Plutarch, Pericles, 12.3.1–12.5.1 “For his part, Pericles would instruct the people that it owed no account of their moneys to the allies provided it carried on the war for them and kept off the Barbarians; ‘not a horse do they furnish,’ said he, ‘not a ship, not a hoplite, but money simply; those who give it, but to those who take it, if only they furnish that for which they take it in pay. … And it was true that his military expeditions supplied those who were in the full vigor of manhood with abundant resources from the common funds, and in his desire that the unwarlike throng of common laborers should neither have no share at all in the public receipts, nor yet get fees for laziness and idleness, he boldly suggested to the people projects for great constructions, and designs for works which would call many arts into play and involve long periods of time, in order that the stay-at-homes, no whit less than the sailors and sentinels and soldiers, might have a pretext for getting a beneficial share of the public wealth.”
- 8.
Pausanias, Description of Greece, 10, 34, 5.1–3. An army of bandits, called the Kostovoki, who overran Greece in my day, visited among other cities Elateia; Suda Lexicon, Headwork Λησταί: “The raiding band of overran Greece.”; For the sack of Eleusis, see G. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton N, J., 1961, p.156, f.n.6.
- 9.
Zosimus, I.29.2–3.5; Syggelos, p.717, ed. Dindorf; This is the only source that clearly mentions that the Heruli succeeded in burning down the city of Athens. For more studies on the Heruli invasion, see Thompson-Wycherley, The Agora of Athens, 1972, p.207, f.n.2; I. Travlos, Η Πυρπόλησις του Παρθενώνος υπό των Ερούλων και η επισκευή του κατά τους χρόνους του Αυτοκράτορα Ιουλιανού, Archaeologiki Ephimeris 1073, p.218–236; A. Franz, The Athenian Agora, l.24, Late Antiquity AD 267–700, Princeton N.J.1968, p.1–5. On the evidences for the destruction of the Athena Nike statue and its restoration by Dexippos after the expulsion of Heruli, see D. Giraud, Study for the Restoration of the Temple of Athena Nike (in Greek), Vol.1a text and 1b plates, Athens 1994, q.v. 1α, p.53–55, f.n.162,173 and 1b, pl.1,14,59 g.
- 10.
Eunapius, Lives of Philosophers,7, ch. 3, paragr. 4 “It was the time when Alaric with his barbarians invaded Greece by the pass of Thermopylae, as easily as though he were traversing an open stadium or a plain suitable for cavalry. For this gateway of Greece was thrown open to him by the impiety of the men clad in gray raiment, who entered Greece unhindered along with him, and by the fact that the laws and restrictions of the hierophantic ordinances had been rescinded.”; Philostorgius, Church History (fragmenta ap. Photium), Book 12, extract 2 “About the same time, Alaric, a Goth by descent, having collected an army in the upper parts of Thrace, made an incursion into Achaia and took Athens.”; Zosimus, New History E΄, ch. 5, 7–8, ch. 6, 1–3, ch. 26. “When Alaric advanced with all his forces against the city, he saw Minerva, its tutelar goddess, walking along the wall, in the same form in which she is represented among the statues of the gods, which is in armor ready to attack those who oppose her. Before the walls he saw Achilles standing in a heroic posture, such as that in which Homer represents him engaging the Trojans so furiously in revenge for the death of Patroclus. Alaric, being struck with awe by this sight, desisted from his attempt on the city, and sent heralds with proposals for peace.” … “Thus Athens, which was the only place that was preserved from the earthquake, which happened under the reign of Valens, and shook the whole of Greece, as I mentioned in the preceding book, escaped also from this extreme danger. Alaric, therefore, through the dread of the apparitions he had seen, left all Attica uninjured, and proceeded to Megaris, which he took at the first attempt.” Also see A. Franz, ibid. p.1–5.
- 11.
K. Setton, Catalan Domination of Athens (revised edition), London, 1975, Ch.10, p.208–211, f.n.118–125; M. Pavan, L’ Aventura dell’ Partenone, Firenze 1983, p.84–113.
- 12.
Evliya Celebi arrived in Athens in 1667 and visited the interior of the Parthenon. Impressed by the size of the masonry stones, he wrote that each of these white and brilliant marble blocks was so well laid and polished that no skilled craftsman could distinguish their joints. Also, they are so shiny, they reflect the faces of those who pray and worship there; and exclaims with admiration: “Indeed, these four tall walls (of the cella), are like one-piece mirrors.” Celebi saw also the enormous mosaic of the Virgin Mary in the Christian apse of the sanctuary and describes with great admiration the great fresco of the Second Coming that was at the entrance of the Temenos that corresponds with the opisthodomus of the Parthenon (Kostas Bιris, Ta Attika tou Evlia Celebi, Athens 1959, p.34, 39). According to the above, B. Randolph’s information (being in Athens between 1671 and 1679) is of concern: “The Turks have white-washed the Inside (Parthenon) notwithstanding it all of pure marble.” (The Present State of the Morea, with a description of the City of Athens, London 1689, p.23.)
- 13.
The north wing of the Propylaea, known as Pinacotheke, had been used from the twelfth century as the residence of the last Orthodox Metropolitan of Athens (Michael Choniates) and from 1391 was transformed with the rest of the Propylaea, to a magnificent palace by Nerio & Antonio Acciajuoli, the first Florentine Duke S. Lambros, Αι Αθήναι περί τα τέλη του Δωδεκάτου αιώνος, Αθήνησι 1878, p.42; K. Setton, ibid., p.202; C. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen,1874, p.729; W. Miller, “The Latins in the Levant”, N.Y. 1908, ch.XII, p.401; M. Pavan, op.cit., p.104, f.n.133.
- 14.
For the history of this devastating explosion in Propylaea, see in J. Spon and G. Wheler, Voyage d’Italie, Dalmatia, Grèce, et Levant, fait ès annés 1675 & 1676, Amsterdam, 1679, II, p, 107–108; G. Wheler, A Journey to Greece, in the company of Dr. Spon, V, London1682, p. 359; M. Collignon, the Consul Jean Giraud et sa Relation de l’ Attique et XVIIe siècle (1674), Memoirs of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, XXXIX, 1914, 373–425. For the loss of the two central and eastern pediments with the roof and the famous marble coffer roof, inside the central building of the Propylaea, see below, f.n. 38.
- 15.
K. Settton, Athens in the Middle Ages, London 1975, p. 201.
- 16.
The Siege of Vienna (July September 17–12, 1683) is the last act of the expedition by the Turks against the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I that resulted in their defeat by a combined force led by John III Sobieski of Poland.
- 17.
Locatelli, Racconto Historico della Veneta Guerra in Levante, Part A’, p. 1–357 and Part B’, p.1–306, Colonia M.DC.XCI (1711); W. Miller, Essays on the Latin Orient, Cambridge 1921, The Venetian Revival in Greece (1864–1718), p. 403–427.
- 18.
For the Venice agreement with the Duke of Brunswick, see in De Laborde, Athènes aux XVe, XVIII et XVIII siècles, Tome II, Paris 1854, p. 82, 75. In article 10 of the treaty, it is clearly stated that Venice would supply the necessary firearms to experienced German soldiers.
- 19.
To overcome the administrative and technical dysfunctions that emerged in the field of battle, at the end of the first year of operations (in October 1685), Morosini urged the Venetian Senate to approve the recruiting of Koenigsmark, an experienced military Swedish Commander. (See in De Laborde, op.cit, II., p.74, f.n., treaty articles 2,5,6, 9,10, and p.85.).
- 20.
For these victories, especially after the conquest of Patras, the Venetian Senate on September 13, 1687, awarded Morosini the title “Peloponnesiaco” and honored him with the placement of a brass bust in the Gran Consul Hall in the Palazzo Ducale (De Laborde, op.cit. II, p.118). Ch. Ιvanovich undertook the writing of the epigram, which he composed in three versions, of which the shortest is: FRANCISCO MAUROCENO / IMPERIO CLARO / TRIUMPHIS CLARIORI / VIVENTI S. CONSULTUM. (J.M. Paton, The Venetians in Athens, 1687–1688, Cambridge Mass 1940, Appendix IV, the Opposition to Morosini, p.55, f.n.39). The inscription finally drawn is: FRANCISCO MAUROCENO / PELOPONNESIACO ADHUC VIVENTI / SENATUS. The name Franciscus Maurocenus Peloponesiacus began to appear on the official monuments dedicated to the Republic in its honor (De Laborde, op.cit., Tome II, p.219 & 254). Morosini was elected Doge of Venice on April 3, 1688, a few months before the start of the failed campaign to conquer Negroponte. On his brief return to Venice in 1690, he received unprecedented for his title, honors, and privileges from the city. The Pope Alexander VIII, of Venetian origin, in 1689 honored him, offering a prized ceremonial spade, the Stocco Pontificio for his services to the church and Christianity for his victories against the Turks. Morosini died in January 1694 at Nauplion, of Morea.
- 21.
Locatelli, op.cit., A’, p. 263–264 and p. 276–277.
- 22.
De Laborde, op.cit., p. 67 ff. M. Pavan, op.cit., p. 171–199. Kenneth Setton, Venice, Austria and the Turks in the Seventeenth Century, The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia 1991, Chapter X, p.301–330.
- 23.
The Venetians had reinforce the defences in the western late-Roman fortified entrance to the Acropolis, during their provisory occupation of Athens in 1466, under the command of Admiral Vittore Capello. For this raid, see in K. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571, Philadelphia 1978, Vol. II, Ch.9. Paul II, Venice and the fall of Negroponte, p.283–285.
- 24.
The use of the Athena Nike stones for the revetment of the inner part of this defensive wall, preserved them from further destruction, as it happened to the fallen stones from the exploded monuments on the Acropolis that consequently were broken to pieces and burnt in furnaces for the production of lime or were cut, to be reused as common building material, in house repairs and to the fortifications of the Acropolis, after the withdrawal of the Venetians. The architectonic members were found in 1835, during the hasty demolition of all the medieval constructions on the western part of the Acropolis and gave the opportunity for a complete restoration of the lost for centuries classical temple, by L. Ross, E. Schaubert & Ch. Hansen, in 1835–1836 (Der Tempel der Nike Apteros, Berlin 1837). This was the first restoration of an ancient monument, after the founding of the Modern Greek State, which was also conceived as a victory trophy of the Greeks, for their long bloody struggle for freedom, against the Turks (Α. Φιλαδελφέας, Οδηγός των αρχαίων, μεσαιωνικών και νεωτέρων μνημείων των Αθηνών, Αθήναι 1923, σ.160). The last restoration of this elegant Ionic temple, which corrected all the restoration errors of the past, lasted 10 years and was completed successfully in 2010 (D. Giraud, op.cit. vol. 1a, p.71–80 and vol.1b, pl.26–28 & pl.76–81).
- 25.
De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.121–132; M. Pavan, op.cit., p.170–171, f.n.135.
- 26.
De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.133, σημ.2; J. Paton, op.cit., p. 67, f.n.3; M. Pavan, op.cit., p. 171, note 138.
- 27.
The number of the Turks that were refuged on the Acropolis is derived from the crowd that surrendered to Morosini a few days later. Ivanovich speaks about 3000 Turks that came out from Acropolis, of which 600 were soldiers. The Turkish civilians during the siege on the Acropolis should not exceed 3500 people, counting also the 300 civilians that were perished with the Parthenon explosion and some other casualties during the siege. All survivors were transported at their own expense by ships to Smyrna, with the exception of 300, who requested to be baptized as Christians and remained in Athens. De Laborde, op.cit., p.159, f.n.; J. Paton, op.cit., p.12, f.n.15, p.72.
- 28.
Ivanovich, in Paton, op.cit., p.10.
- 29.
The cause of this paradoxology could be due to the fact that the Propylaea, converted into a two-stores palace by the Florentines, with heavy arcades at the ground floor of the central building, after the occupation of the Acropolis by the Turks, were used as the main gunpowder magazine of the fortress (arsenal), in parallel with their use as residence of the Disdar of the castle and his family that lived on the upper floor of the Pinacotheke. For the unique exact plan of the lower floor plan of the medieval Propylaea, see the 1810 drawing in: Haller von Hallerstein in Griechenland, 1810–1817, Berlin 1986, p.94,95, fig. 2.4. For the destruction of the Pinacotheke in the blast of 1640 by thunderbolt, which killed the Disdar with his family, see M. Collignon, op.cit., p.381–382.
- 30.
De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.139–143. For the plan of Verneda, see in: H. Omont, Athènes au XVIIe Siècle, Paris 1898, pl. XXXIV. For the ruined church of Agios Dionysius Areopagite at the foot of Areopagus hill, see in: J. Travlos & A. Frantz, The Church of St. Dionysios the Areopagite and the Palace of the Archibishop of Athens in the 16th century, Hesperia, XXXIV, number 3, American School of Classical Studies of Athens 1965, pg. 157–202, pl.41–55.
- 31.
For this information see the legend of Miller plan, in H. Omont, op.cit., p.10–11, pl. XXXIII.
- 32.
Serpentze was called the defensive enclosure, built by the Turks along the foot of the south side of the Acropolis hill. It incorporated the entire façade of the Odeion of Herodes Atticus and the Stoa of Eumenes.
- 33.
S. Lambros, Relazione del΄operato dell’armi Venete dopo la sua partenza da Corinto, e della presa d’ Atene, Δελτίον της ιστορικής και εθνολογικής ιστορίας Vol.Ε’, 1896–1900, p.223.
- 34.
De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.175, f.n.2; Locatelli, op.cit., B′ p.4. “dissero… che si sarebbero resi anco il primo giorno della comparsa dell’Armata, il che non fecero, perché senza qualche difesa, le loro teste restavano esposte alla spada del suo Imperatore, il quale haurebbe compatita la cessione del Castello non meno per l’accaduto incendio, che per la debolezza in quale erano;”
- 35.
Ch. Ivanovich, in J. Paton, op.cit., p.10.
- 36.
De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.149. This information was reproduced verbatim also by other scholars. (See D.G. Kambouroglou, History of the Athenians, Athens 1890, 3, p.247; M. Pavan, op.cit., p.172). For an early remark about the lack of any quotation about this disaster by De Laborde, see in Paton, op.cit., Ch. II, p.70–71, f.n.11.
- 37.
J. Spon, who visited Athens in company of G. Wheler in 1676, refers to the west pediment of the Propylaea: « Vis-à-vis à la main gauche du chemin se voir encore un bel édifice, que quelques-uns prennent pour l’Arsenal de Lycurgue. » … « Je tiens donc que c’est. un Temple, parce qu’il a une façade & un fronton comme les autres;» … « Il est. d’ordre Dorique par dehors, mais les colonnes qui le soûtiennent par dedans sont Ioniques, parce qu’étant plus hautes de toute l’épaisseur de l’architrave pour en en sûtenir le lambris, la proportion de l’ordre Ionique qui fait la colonne plus haut que le Dorique, luy convenait mieux. Véritablement, s’il n’a pas été l’arsenal des anciens Grecs, il l’étoit devenu des Turcs d’a-présent, car s’il n’a que vingt ans qu’il étoit plein de poudres & d’armes à la Turque.»
(J. Spon, Voyage d’Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grèce, Et du Levant, Fait aux Années 1675 & 1676, Tome 2, Amsterdam 1679, p. 106). G. Wheler in his book refers with more details to the west pediment: «Almost over against this, » - the temple of Victory without Wings, − «is another noble edifice of white marble; which hath the reputation to have been the Armory of Lycurgus; and they say, was used for the Armory many years together, both by the Christians, and the Turks: until about twenty years ago, it was blown up by Gun- powder kept in it»… “The Walls of the Building held fast, being of white marble, very thick, and strongly cemented together; yet were they so crack’s in some places, that one may thrust one’s hand through them. But that part of the building towards the Front, which looketh Westwards, received no harm, either Walls or roof” … «The Eagle (pediment) of the Front is fashioned like other Temples, sustained by four (sic) pillars of the Doric Order. On each hand this Front, are placed two square Turrets, whose sides next the Steps are sustained by Pillars of the same Order, as they yet remain on the Northern-Tower; (Pinacotheke) » «The Towers on each side of the Front, persuade me very much, that it was the famous Propylaea. » It also describes the horizontal marble coffer ceiling that was still in place, probably in the section that was in contact with the western pediment. «The Pronate is a large square Room, whose Roof within is held up by four (sic) beautiful Ionic Pillars, sustaining two great Marble Beams, which are covered with Marble Planks.»
The reference to the enormous marble beams that supported the coffer ceiling reveals that Wheler had seen what he described. The second century A.D traveler Pausanias (1.22.4.3) in his book on the antiquities of Athens, that Wheler and the other early 17th century vistors constantly consulted, says nothing about the Doric rhythm of the façade of the Propylaea and the Pinacotheke, nether of the tall Ionic columns inside the large Ionic vestibule of the central building, which supported the huge marble beams who carried the frames of the marble coffer ceiling (G. Wheler, A Journey into Greece in Company of Dr. Spon, London 1682, Ch. V, p. 359).
- 38.
For Verneda’s drawings, see in F. Fanelli, Atene attica: descritta da suoi principii fino all’acquisto fatto dall’ Armi Venete nel 1687, Venezia 1707, p.308–309. Also in H. Omont, op.cit., pl. XXXIV, XXXV, and XXXVI. For Miller’s, idem, pl. XXXIII. In another drawing, kept in the archives of Charleville, published also by H. Omont (op.cit., pl. XXXVII), the mortars are clearly depicted to target not only the two canon batteries in front of the Propylaea but also the main body of the building (see in text, Fig. 4.3a ). The mortars certainly provoked the explosion of munitions, which the Turks kept near the places they had deployed firearms, such as also on top of the Frankish tower or on the repaired after the destruction of 1640 roof of Pinacotheke. The ignition of the roofs of the houses and also the stored bituminous materials that in case of an infantry offensive would be purred through the murder holes (alias, box machicolations) over the gates is the main cause of the dense smokes, seen in all the designs depicting the siege.
- 39.
The western façade of the Propylaea was depicted in a drawing of the Acropolis, made in the Capuchin monastery dated from 1670 and by the Venetian engineer Verneda in 1687. In these drawings, the Propylaea still preserved the western pediment, embedded in fortification walls, with crenellations. For Verneda drawing see in F. Fanelli, op.cit., p.308–309. Also in H. Omont, op.cit., pl. XXXVI & XXXVII. For the drawing of Capuchin monks, idem, pl. XXIX. Also, see the relevant drawings made by Nointel (1674) and for D’Ortièrs (1687), idem, pl. XXXI.
- 40.
R. Pococke, A description of the East, 3 Vol. London 1734–1745. Pococke visited Athens in 1740. His description copies that of J. Spon. In pl. LXVI, p.161 is depicted the eastern façade of the ruined Propylaea, deprived of its pediment.
- 41.
For the drawing of W. Pars, made in 1764–1765, look in The Antiquities of Athens by J. Stuart and N. Revett, Volume 2, London 1787, Ch. 5, Of the Propylaea, p.40, pl.1. It is logical that the Turks, returning to the evacuated city, started as soon as possible the repairs, bearing also some improvements to the defenses of the damaged Castle of Athens, since the Venetians was still at Nauplion and at Isthmus in Corinth. Systematically they demolished the western pediment of the Propylaea, to deploy more cannons in a third battery, this time, created among the six columns of the western façade of the roofless Propylaea. A reasonable date of this catastrophe might be the 3-year period argued by L. & R. Matton (Athènes et ses monuments, du XVIIe siècle a no’s jours, Athènes 1963, p. 92–93) that the Athenians had abandoned the city, fearing of the retaliations that may be imposed on them by the Turks, after the Venetians’ withdrawal. But in 1689, a strong earthquake is reported that stroke Athens, and repairs were undertaken to the south walls of the Acropolis, when the Athenians returned from their 3-year exile that includes the repairs on the south wall of the Athena (Apteros) Nike bastion, in the vicinity of the Propylaea, weakened after the 1687 bombardment, which collapsed together with the adjacent arched third gate of the Castle (D. Giraud, op.cit. vol. 1a, pg.65, f.n.35–41, pg.82 &129 and vol.1b, pl.165). Also, another earthquake stroke Athens 10 years later (in 1700 circa) that ruined the house of the Archbishop, because of some boulders, detached from the adjacent Areiospagus hill, felt on it (J. Travlos & A. Frantz, op.cit. pg. 188–189). For the earthquake quoted that occurred 2 years before the return of the Athenians to their city (in 1689 circa) and a second 10 years later, most probably in 1671 (a chronology quoted with problems, because of the deliberate scratching of five or six letters from the date written in the second of the three foils, the so-called Anargyrian fragments), see in Δ. Καμπούρογλου, Ιστορία των Αθηναίων, Α’, Αθήναι 1888, p.44, 52,59,61,63,66, and p.71–72. Idem, Μνημεία της Ιστορίας των Αθηναίων, Αθήναι 1891, Α’, pg.41–41; It must be taken also in consideration, the prefatory comments of J. Gennadios (1925–1930 circa), in Ιωάννου Μπενιζέλου, Ιστορία των Αθηνών, Αθήνα 1986, pg.15, ff.
- 42.
W.B. Dinsmoor & W.B. Dinsmoor Jr., The Propylaea to the Athenian Akropolis, Vol. II, Princeton N.J. 2004, p. 64 ff, figs. 101,10.2, 10.3, p. 80 ff, Fig. 10.9, 10.10, 10.11
- 43.
S. Lambros, op.cit. vol. Ε’, 1896–1900 p. 223; De Laborde, op.cit., I, Aviso p.147, f.n.; J. Paton, op.cit., Ch. II, f.n.8. Also, supra, f.n.33
- 44.
Ch. Ivanovich is the only one who gives a reasonable explanation for the initial failure of the mortars under the command of Muttoni. See in J. Paton, op.cit., Ch. II, p.11, f.n.10.
- 45.
Muttoni was ready to hand over the command of the bombards to the German commander Leandro of the Brunswick Battalion (camped near the Capuchin monastery, according to Verneda’s plan (supra, pl.2), published by F. Fanelli, op. cit. and by De Laborde, op.cit., II, p. 182–187) “At that moment, late in the evening of September 26, a mortar accidentally found its target in the Parthenon, breaking through the roof at a weak point (most likely at one of the elevated skylights), and blew it.” (F. Muazzo, Storia della Guerra tra i Veneti e Turchi dal 1684 a 1696, in De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.143 ff; M. Pavan, op.cit. p.174, f.n.142. Locatelli (op.cit., Β’, p.4) specifies that the bomb passed in the interior, falling on an Alveare, an eyelid dormer (a low and wide skylight with a curved roof and no sides that provides light and ventilation to the interior). We know from the Capuchin drawing of 1670, published by Omont (Athènes, op.cit. Pl. XXIX) that the medieval gabled roof of the Parthenon had six such skylights (eyelid dormers), three on each side (see infra, f.n.53 and pl.1).
- 46.
The relevant passage of Sobjewolsky was published first by A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon, Leipzig 1871, p. 62 and p.346, no.18. See also M. Pavan, op.cit., p.172–173. For the number of casualties among the Turks that took refuge in the Temple of Minerva (300 dead) and the attempts to attenuate the dimension of the disaster provoked by the bombardment, see De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.161, f.n.3, p.162, f.n.1 ff, p.176, f.n.2; J. Paton, op.cit., Ch. II, f.n.11; M. Pavan, op.cit., p.174 ff, and 187.
- 47.
The manuscript is at Harvard University since 1901. J. Paton comments in a footnote that: “Τhe portion here printed, we shall find, Ivanovich deriving his information, very largely from the Avvisi or Bulletins issued by the Venetian Inquisitori di Stato, while his topography and history, are often taken with little change except necessary abbreviation from the publications of Coronelli. » and concludes that: «Obviously these easy-going methods could not produce a work of great importance or one likely to add much to our knowledge.” (J. Μ. Paton, The Venetians in Athens, Princeton N.J. 1940, Ch. Ι, f.n.10). As I will explain, this opinion, which detracts from the historical value of the passage, was based on misinterpretation and incomplete transfer of well-known and undeniable information by the writer, which rather advocated the opposite.
- 48.
The Inquisitori di Stato was a magistracy of the Republic of Venice flanked to the Council of Ten and charged with overseeing the disclosure of state secrets. The inquisitors were three and endowed with the same unlimited powers as the better-known Council of Ten. Their mutual vote became automatic and unappealable that, when not covered by secrecy, was publicly disclosed to the Maggior Consiglio, without it being able to intervene in any way (P. Preto, I servizi segreti di Venezia. Spionaggio e controspionaggio ai tempi della Serenissima).
- 49.
Ch. Ivanovich was a cultivated man, born in southern Dalmatia, in the city of Budva south of Càttaro and belonged to a noble family who retained their Venetian citizenship and after the conquest of Dalmatia by the Ottomans (Christophorus Ivanovich Epirota Nobilis Buduensis). For Ivanovich’s life and his activity (as a writer and a public officer) in positions of responsibility next to high-ranking Venetian nobles, see in J. Paton, op.cit., Ch I, p. 3–8, f.n.7 and p.60, f.n.3.
- 50.
J. Paton, op.cit, Ch. II. P. 9–10. “Alli 23 inviò a tutta diligenza al campo quattro cannoni da 20 e due di nuova invenzione da 50 e quattro mortari da bombe, che fu tutto condotto dalle ciurme delle galere. S’avanzò 1’ esercito al Borgo senza alcuno ostacolo de’ nemici rinserrati nella Fortezza. Vi piantò l’attacco il Generale il detto giorno, e all’ opportuno arrivo de’ cannoni e mortari suddetti si principiò a bersagliarla, con la stessa assistenza del Capitan Generale, che si volle portare al campo per maggiore accudire a quella impresa. Dal tormento continuo de’ fuochi ne risentivano gli assediati notabile detrimento a riguardo del recinto angusto della Fortezza, volti ordinò al Conte Mutoni che dirizzasse il tiro delle sue bombe a quella parte. Nacque sino dal principio qualche disordine nel getto delle medesime, che cadevano fuori, e fu per 1′ inegualità del peso che si trovò in 130 libre di svario dall’ una all’ altra; ma praticatosi il giusto peso non andò più fuori alcuna, sì che una di quelle colpendo nel fianco del tempio finì di romperlo.10 Ne seguì un effetto terribile nella gran furia di fuoco, polvere, e granate che ivi si trovavano, anzi lo sbarro e rimbombo delle suddette monizioni fece tremare tutte le case del Borgo, quale sembrava una gran città, e mise un gran spavento negli assediati, restando in questo modo rovinato quel famoso Tempio di Minerva, che tanti secoli e tante guerre non avevano potuto distruggere.”
- 51.
De Laborde (op.cit., II, p.151, 3) argued that the pile of explosive materials was undoubtedly placed in the center of the cella and a little to the east. It was not a systematic repository of gunpowder in the interior of the Parthenon but a random concentration of ammunition inside the cella, as the building was functioning in times of peace as a mosque, where all Muslims entered there freely. K. Pitakis argued that the cracked floor to the east of the area that was the statue of Athena was still indicating the position of the stored powder (L’Anciènne Athènes, 1835, p.387). A large underground powder depository was located near the Parthenon, in front of the rock-cut ancient stairs of the west side. This explains the report of the anonymous Italian officer, who wrote that after the explosion of the gunpowder they were kept for daily use in the Parthenon; fire broke out, and there was a danger that the large powder warehouse that was just a short distance from the temple could explode. See in De Laborde, Relazione dell ‘operato dell’armi venete, op.cit., II, p.142 ff; A. Michaelis, Parthenon, p.346,20; M. Pavan op.cit., p.173, f.n.141
- 52.
Considering the sinusoidal system of fortification of the Western approach to the Acropolis, it is difficult to understand how this “lucky” man managed to pass unnoticed through the three main sequential gates that were closely guarded by the alerted Turkish riflemen and reached the Venetian camp safe and sound, if that was not part of a plan of the besieged Turks.
- 53.
Locatelli, Morosini’s canceller, that followed him throughout his campaign, probably was present during the visit of the “fugitive” to the Admiral’s headquarters. In his book he notes:
“… che fù nel terzo giorno principiato col. volo delle Bombe, e scariche de Cannoni, fattesi anco le Trinciere necessarie, per contendere col. Seraschiere, se colà si fosse avvicinato, battedosi precisamente l’ ingresso della Porta difesa di treplicate mura, e fattesi vedere alcune Companie de Cavalli Nemici, staccatasi parte de Nostri contro essi, non proseguirono più oltre per non porsi ad alcun impegno, cosa che portò confusione, e spavento à i difensori della Piazza, argumentando da questo fatto la viltà de i Barbari, e l’ ardimento Christiano (come si seppe da disertore, capitato alle nostre tende) Aggiunse la costernazione di quelli una Bomba, entrata per l’ Alveare dell’ antico, sontuoso, & ammirabile Tempio di Minerva, nel quale s’ erano gl’Αutorevoli, e Principali Turchi con loro haveri ricovrati à maggior sicurezza, ne dubitando, che colà le Bombe potessero apportarli nocumento alcuno, vi posero anco la monitione, la quale preso fuoco dalla Bomba sudetta provorono in un medesimo tempo la morte, e la Tomba frà quelle rovine, diroccatosi in qualche parte detto Tempio, che quantunque di grossissima fabbrica convenne cedere alla violenza del fuoco…” Locatelli, op.cit., B’, p. 3–4.
- 54.
A part of the ships of the Venetian Armada were already anchored in Negroponte, to keep the Turks vigilant, preventing them from sending military aid to the besieged Athens, Locatelli, op.cit., B’, p.2–3.
- 55.
Anna Agriconia Akerhjelm, escort of the Comtesse Catharina-Charlotta de la Gardie, wife of General Koenigsmark, had followed them to the military campaign. In a letter dated October 18, 1687, she refers to the dislike of Morosini, about this destruction that he implemented, obliged to follow military rules. « Combien il répugnait à Son Excellence de détruire le beau temple qui a existé trois mille ans, et qui est. appelé temple de Minerve! mais en vain; les bombes firent leur effet, ainsi jamais dans ce monde le temple ne pourra être remplacé » (De Laborde, op.cit., II, p. 176, f.n.2) Supra p.9, f.n.35.
- 56.
“dalla sola prodigiosa bomba che causò la desolazione del maestoso tempio dedicato a Minerva, e che in empia moschea s’era convertito” see in De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.162. The attribution to Conte Muttoni of San Felice of the destruction of the famous Temple of Minerva, it does not seem to be correct, neither fair. Considering in the first place that he was an officer obliged to follow the orders given by his superiors, Muttoni, although he was a trusted noble Venetian officer, protected by Morosini, he was commanding nothing more than the crew of the four bombards, installed in pairs, at the foot of the Areopagus and to the east of the fortress, in an open space near by the byzantine church of Saint Caterina, eastward of the Capuchin monastery.
- 57.
“Mentre con vigore continuava l’ assedio, scopertosi la mattina di 28 nell’ alba il soccorso nemico consistente in due mila cavalli e mille fanti in quelle campagne, parve proprio alla versata esperienza del Generale Conte di Chinismark d’ andarci per incontrarlo, tal essendo stata la precedente intenzione del Generalissimo in caso succedesse a comparsa de’ Turchi; onde presa la cavalleria e l’ infanteria oltramarina se li oppose, e a sola vista delle truppe Cristiane si diedero i Turchi ad una precipitosa fuga. In questo mentre il Proveditor di Campo Delfino con indifessa applicazione, coll’ esporsi più volte alle moschettate per accelarare il travaglio de’ cannone e delle bombe, cercò di stringere viepiù la Fortezza, e di necessitar i Turchi alla resa. Avertito il Mutoni da un Greco che in una casa erano ritirate alcune donne dell’Aga diresse i tiri alla medesima e una bomba fece si fiera stragge di quelle che atterrita tutta la Fortezza, desperata anco del soccorso fuggato, convenne esporre bandiera bianca per rendersi, e fu lo stesso giorno a ore 22.”
J. Paton, op.cit., Ch.II p.11. The counting of the hours of the new day started at the sunset of the previous day, which corresponds to the 6th hour pm of September 28.
- 58.
«This story of the destruction of the Aga’s harem by a second bomb, also fired as the result of special information, is found only here, and inevitably suggests that it is merely a variant version of the destruction of the Parthenon» J. Paton, op.cit., Ch II, p.70, f.n.11.
- 59.
From the count of the casualties found among the ruins after the explosion, it seems to have taken refuge in the Parthenon, no more than 300 people. As prompted by all sources, the prominent members of the Turkish community were preferred, which must be the Turkish administration officials, the priests, and the wealthy Turks with their legitimate families. The common Turkish citizens, their servants, and slaves fled to protect themselves from the bombs, among the ruins of the houses and the numerous small subterranean vaulted warehouses that were found on the fortress. The same must have happened with the concubines of the harem. It is inconceivable to assume, even as a hypothesis, that these unfortunate young enslaved women, who were sold in the slave markets of the Ottoman Empire or were captured in the raids of slave traffickers in the conquered territory, were allowed to occupy the precious space intended to protect the Turk officials, in the interior of the Parthenon, as Paton sustained with such certainty. In a place that may seem great, but it was already full of weapons, gunpowder barrels, water supplies, a variety of food items, and all the valuable personal belongings that were brought with them to guard, the influential Turks of Athens. The concubines of the Aga’s harem remained in the seraglio, the Erechtheion, which, with its marble, well-built walls and the medieval annexes attached to its outer northern calla wall, offered greater protection and security than any other humble house of the castle, where had taken refuge the thousands of desperate Turks, who fled from the lower city.
- 60.
«Les marques de ce désastre se voient encore, et n’y a pas rebâti depuis, quoique l’aga d’a présent ait quelques chambres basse pres la, ou il tient ses femmes. » J. Spon, op.cit., II, p.108.
- 61.
“The Walls of the Building held fast, being of white marble, very thick, and strongly cemented together; yet were they so crack’s in some places, that one may thrust one’s hand through them” G. Wheler, op.cit. Book V, p.359.
- 62.
Spon made and other mistakes in his description. For example, he mistakenly wrote that the Disdar who had been killed with his family during the blasting of the Pinacotheke was called Jsouf Aga, which was repeated also in Wheler’s book. Jean Giraud in his report on the situation of Athens and its monuments, which he wrote 2 years before the visit of the two travelers, does not name the Aga who was killed in the Propylaea (M. Collignon, op.cit. p. 381). But he writes that the next Aga was called Isouf (idem, p.404). The new Disdar retained his office for more than 20 years and was deposed after protests by the Greeks of Athens. At the time Spon and Wheler visited the Acropolis, the new Disdar had not yet been appointed. This was done after 7 (seven) months when the Aga Ali Deli, succeeding Isouf, on the Acropolis (idem, op.cit., p.381–383).
- 63.
J. Spon, op.cit. II, 105–106. “Il n’a qu’environ quinze pieds de large, & il sert maintenant aux Turcs de magasin à poudre.” G. Wheler, op.cit., p.358, “we were quite within the Acropolis; where the first thing we observed, was a little temple on our right hand; which we knew to be that dedicated to Victory without Wings; … The Architrave hath a Basso-relievo on it, of little Figures well cut; and now serveth the Turks for a Magazin of Powder.” D. Giraud, op.cit., vol. I a , p.72, 88, f.n.48 and vol. I b, pl. 42, 47,50–56,94.
- 64.
M. Collignon, op.cit.,p. 375–379. Also, J. Spon, II, p. 74. Jean Giraud was appointed Consul of France, and in that capacity, he had settled in Athens since 1658. In 1674 Chastanier took over the Consulate, and Giraud was then appointed as consul of England.
- 65.
Ο J. Spon, op.cit., II, p.122 wrote: « … nous trouvâmes le Temple d’Erechthée du côté qui regarde la Ville. On le connoît par deux indices qu‘en Pausanias: l’un qu’il est. double, c’est-a-dire qu’il y a deux temples joints ensemble; & l’autre qu’on trouve là ce puis celebre d’eau salée, que nous ne pûmes pas voir, parce qu’il avoit, dans le bâtiment où il est. enclos, des femmes logées, & qu’iln’ y a que le maître du Serrail qui y puisse entrer. » Also G. Wheler, op.cit., Book 5, p. 364 wrote: «… some way further, among the Buildings, and Ruins, on the North-side of the Temple of Minerva, we came to the Temple of Erechtheus. … We could not have permission to go into the Temple, to see it; because the Turk that lives in it, hath made it his Seraglio for his women; and was then abroad .»
- 66.
(J. Paton, op.cit., II, page 11). Ch. Ivanovich was criticized by Patton, and for yet another reason that he used almost identical words to describe the two incidents, which made him convinced that it was a failure of Ivanovich « to recognize that the two accounts of the disaster caused by the ‘prodigiosa bomba’ really referred to the same event,» that is, the bombing of the Parthenon. In fact, Ivanovich’s two sentences refer to two different incidents that occur in two different time periods, 2 days apart. For the first description, about the blast of the Parthenon, Ivanovich used 47 words without including the term “prodigiosa bomba,” which was inappropriately inserted in Paton’s argument. In the second entry concerning the bombing of the house who lived the women of the Aga, used 22 words. To describe two similar military actions, namely, the bombing of a military target, in a the total of 69 words, Ivanovich repeated in the same way the following two words: “Avertito” and “Donne.” With different chronic syntaxes, he used the following two small phrases, but they have different conceptual content: a. “Dirizzasce il tiro delle sue bombe … ect”. and b. “Diresse i tiri alla medesima, e una bomba … ect”.
- 67.
See also f.n.57. The facts quoted by Ivanovich could not cause any confusion to the reader if the complicated reasoning of the first publisher of this passage had not been mediated. Nevertheless, it is impossible to accept that the experienced Paton ignored the evidence of the use of the Erechtheion as seraglio by J. Spon and G. Wheler, as well as the related publications of Collignon of 1897 and 1914, since he was one of the main writers and curators of the monumental work: The Erechtheum, Measured, Drawn, and Restored by Gorham Phillips Stevens. Text by L. D. Caskey, H. N. Fowler, J. M. Paton, and G. P. Stevens; edited by J. M. Paton, Harvard University Press, 1927. »
- 68.
De Laborde, op.cit, II, p. 106–107.
- 69.
This explains the Ivanovich reference about the bombardment by Muttoni of the “house” that the women of the Disdar were reguged there.
- 70.
The conversion of Erechtheion to a Christian church had provoked the early loss of its internal transversal wall that separated the eastern part that was dedicated to Athena, from the temple of Erechtheus and the tomb of king Cecrops in the west. After 1202, it became the residence of the Latin Bishop of Athens, and later it was used as an extension of the Duchy palace at the Propylaea by the second Florentine Duke of Athens, Antonio Acciajuoli. After the expulsion from Athens by the Ottoman Turks of the last Acciajuoli Duke Francesco, Erechtheion became the elegant seraglio where the Aga (Disdar) was keeping his harem mistresses. By that time the central part of the building that corresponded to the old Basilica had lost its roof, and it was used as a courtyard since the eastern ionic colonnade was built at half of its hight with a wall. This corresponds in my opinion to the “small enclosure” of the relevant passage. See in A. Papanikolaou, Η αποκατάσταση του Ερεχθείου (1979–1987), Athens 2012, Vol.2, p. 501–522, especially in p.511, figs.137, 138, p.513, fig.139, p.516, fig.140.
- 71.
A. Papanikolaou, op.cit, Vol.1, fot. in p.41, & fot. 205 in p. 265.
- 72.
The information which comes from the 20-year-old English young gentleman, later known as Lord Earl of Sandwich, that the lateral walls of Erechtheion was preserved, reading carefully his narration, is clear that it applied only to the western section of the double Temple of Erechtheus, the part that was confined strictly between the Caryatid Porch and the northern Ionic porch ( A Voyage performed by the late Earl of Sandwich, Round the Mediterranean, in the years 1738–1739, Written by Himself, London 1829, p.64–65). In this section, the northern and southern cella wall of the Erechtheion had survived the explosion, as well the western façade of the building. Also, the eastern colonnade of the Minerva temple section was still standing after the bombardment. The explosion of 1687, which has occurred in the central chamber of the medieval logging extensions attached to the exterior of the northern cella wall, provoked the collapse of the adjacent central section of the ancient wall, as well as the central part of the southern wall but in a lesser height. Lord Charlemont, published in 1752, the rare to consult pictorial album: Twenty-one Prints of the Antiquities of Athens ...’, 1751; The prints were based on R. Dalton’s participation as draughtsman in Lord Charlemont’s expedition to the Levant in 1749--50. In this edition, all Dalton’s drawings were published as stand-alone pictures, without any explanatory text. Among the pictures attributed to R. Dalton, is a drawing of the Erechtheion seen from the SE, of mediocre execution and doubtful accuracy, showing the Porch of the Caryatids and both the lateral cella walls standing almost intact, just a few years before Erechtheion it was accurately measured and depicted by N. Revett and J. Pars, presenting for the first time its actual ruinous state, 61 years after the Venetian evacuation of Athens. This drawing by R. Dalton, which can only be estimed as an early iconographic effort to restore the morphological continuity of a famous damaged monument for teaching purposes, was reprinted without any comment, in Otto Jahn & Adolphus Michaelis, (Arx Athenarum A Pausania descripta, 3 ed, Bonaen MDCCCCI (1901), pl. XXIX. For the invaluable drawings of N. Revett and W. Pars (1764–65), see in text, image 13, a & b.)
- 73.
The Erechtheion, after its use as a Latin Church and residence of the Latin bishop, transformed later into a palace of the Florentine Dukes, seems to have been depredated in the conscience of the Orthodox Christian Athenians, especially after its use as seraglio by the Disdar. The serious damages recorded in descriptions and drawings of travelers that began to reappear in Athens 40 years after the catastrophic invasion of the Venetians (from 1738 and onwards) have not been attributed to the 1687 bombardment. Indeed, all the observed damage on Erechtheion should be separated as follows: (A) of the damages caused by the Venetian bombardment in 1687, (B) of those caused when the Turks returned to Athens and used the fallen material from the dilapidated buildings for the reconstruction of the houses of the fortress and for repairs in the fortification walls, (C) from Lord Elgin’s workers in 1810, in their attempt to remove sculptures and other architectural members from the monuments, and (D) from the damages caused during the two sieges of the Acropolis in 1822 and 1828, during the war events of the Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire. A detailed reference to the above goes beyond the frame of this article. There are two reports on the state of preservation of this monument in the modern era. The first can be found in E. Blaquière, Narrative of a second visit to Greece, London 1825: II, p.154–158, document no. XLVII (Extract of a Letter from M. Gropius, Austrian Consul at Athens, relative to the present State of the ancient remains in that City, dating in April 25, 1824) and the second in: Πρακτικά της επί του Ερεχθείου Επιτροπής, γενομένη κατ’ εντολήν του Αρχαιολογικού Συλλόγου, “Η αναγραφή της αληθούς καταστάσεως του Ερεχθείου,” Αθήναι 1853.
- 74.
De Laborde, op.cit., II, p.225–226, f.n,1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giraud, D. (2018). War as Cause of Genesis and Obliteration of Monuments (The Case of the Athenian Acropolis). In: Koui, M., Zezza, F., Kouis, D. (eds) 10th International Symposium on the Conservation of Monuments in the Mediterranean Basin. MONUBASIN 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78093-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78093-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78092-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78093-1
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)