The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1
by Various · English · Gutenberg #20153 · 458,196 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1
Author: Various
Release date: December 20, 2006 [eBook #20153]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20153
Credits: Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Rénald Lévesque and the
Online Distributed Proofreaders Europe at
http://dp.rastko.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY, 1893-1 ***
Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Rénald Lévesque and the
Online Distributed Proofreaders Europe at
http://dp.rastko.net
Page i
THE
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY
AND OF THE
HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS
VOLUME VIII
1893
_PRINCETON_: THE BUSINESS MANAGER
_LONDON_: TRÜBNER & CO. _PARIS_: E. LEROUX
_TURIN_, _FLORENCE_ and _ROME_: E. LOESCHER
_LEIPZIG_: KARL W. HIERSEMANN.
Page ii
EDITORS.
_Managing Editor_: Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J.
_Literary Editor_: Prof. H.N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, Ohio.
_Editorial Committee on behalf of the Archæological Institute_:
Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of
Yonkers, N.Y.
_Publication Committee for the Papers of the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens_: Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia
College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of Yonkers, N.Y.
_Business Manager_: Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton
University, Princeton, N.J.
All literary contributions should be addressed to the Managing
Editor; all business communications to the Business Manager.
CONTRIBUTORS.
The following are among the contributors to past volumes:
M.E. BABELON, Conservateur an Cabinet des Médailles, National
Library, Paris
Prof. W.N. BATES, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
Mr. SAMUEL BESWICK, Hollidaysburg, Pa.
Mr. CARLETON L. BROWNSON, of Yale University, New Haven.
Prof. CARL D. BUCK, of University of Chicago, Ill.
Dr. A.A. CARUANA, Librarian and Director of Education, Malta
Mr. JOSEPH T. CLARKE, Harrow, England.
Dr. NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, Princeton University.
Mr. HERBERT F. DE COU.
Dr. WILHELM DÖRPFELD, Secretary German Archæological
Institute, Athens.
M. ÉMILE DUVAL, Director of the Musée Fol, Geneva.
Dr. M.L. EARLE, of Barnard College, New York.
Prof. ALFRED EMERSON, of Cornell University.
Mr. ANDREW FOSSUM, of St. Olaf College, Northfield, Mass.
Prof. HAROLD N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton University.
Dr. A. FURTWÄNGLER, Professor of Archæology in the University
of Berlin.
Page iii Mr. ERNEST A. GARDNER, Director of the British School of
Archæology, Athens.
Padre GERMANO DI S. STANISLAO, Passionista, Rome.
Mr. WM. H. GOODYEAR, Curator, Brooklyn Institute.
Prof. W. HELBIG, former Secretary of the German Archæological
Institute, Rome.
Prof. GUSTAV HIRSCHFELD, of Königsberg, Prussia.
Dr. GEO. B. HUSSEY, of University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
Dr. ALBERT L. LONG, of Robert College, Constantinople.
Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton University.
Comte de MARSY, Director of the Soc. Franc. d'Archéologie,
_Bulletin Monumental_, _etc._
Prof. ORAZIO MARUCCHI, member of Archæol. Commission of Rome,
_etc._
Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College.
Prof. G. MASPERO, former Director of Antiq., Egypt; Prof. at
Collège de France, Paris.
M. JOACHIM MENANT, of Rouen, France.
Mr. WILLIAM MERCER, of Gainsborough, England.
Prof. ADOLPH MICHAELIS, of the University of Strassburg.
Prof. WALTER MILLER, of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo
Alto, Cal.
Prof. THEODOR MOMMSEN, Berlin.
M. EUGÈNE MÜNTZ, Librarian and Conservateur of the École des
Beaux-Arts, Paris.
A.S. MURRAY, Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British
Museum.
Prof. CHARLES E. NORTON, of Harvard University, Cambridge.
Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Director of the Babylonian Expedition,
New York City.
Mr. JOHN PICKARD, Professor in the University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo.
Mr. THEO. J. PINCHES, of the British Museum, London.
Prof. WM. C. POLAND, of Brown University, Providence, R.I.
Mr. W.M. RAMSAY, Professor in the University of Aberdeen.
Dr. FRANZ V. REBER, Professor in the University and
Polytechnic of Munich, _etc._
M. SALOMON REINACH, Conservateur of the Musée National de
St. Germain.
Prof. RUFUS B. RICHARDSON, of Dartmouth College, Hanover.
Prof. JOHN C. ROLFE, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dr. TH. SCHREIBER, Prof. of Archæol. in the Univ., and
Director of Museum, Leipzig.
Mr. ROBERT SEWELL, Madras Civil Service, F.R.G.S., M.R.A.S.
Mrs. CORNELIUS STEVENSON, Curator Museum University of Pa.,
Philadelphia.
Prof. FRANK B. TARBELL, of University of Chicago, Ill.
Mr. S.B.P. TROWBRIDGE, of New York.
Dr. CHARLES WALDSTEIN, of Cambridge University, England.
Dr. WM. HAYES WARD, President Am. Oriental Society, and Ed.
_Independent_, N.Y.
Mr. HENRY S. WASHINGTON.
Prof. J.R. WHEELER, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Dr. PAUL WOLTERS, Secretary of the German Archæological
Institute at Athens.
Hon. JOHN WORTHINGTON, U.S. Consul at Malta.
Prof. J.H. WRIGHT, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
The Director and Members of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens.
Page iv
PROGRAM.
The JOURNAL treats of the various branches of archæology and
art history--Oriental, Classic, Christian and Early
Renaissance. Its original articles are predominantly classic on
account of the fact that it has become the official organ of
the ARCHÆOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA and of the AMERICAN
SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, and the JOURNAL will aim
to further the interests for which the Institute and the School
were founded. In it are published the reports on all the
excavations undertaken in Greece and elsewhere by the Institute
and the School, and the studies carried on independently by the
Directors and members of the School. By decision of the Council
of the Archæological Institute the JOURNAL has been distributed
during 1893 to all members of the Institute, and the same
distribution will be made during 1894.
Beside articles the JOURNAL contains CORRESPONDENCE, BOOK
NOTICES AND REVIEWS AND ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS. It is its aim to
give notices of all important publications recently issued,
sometimes written expressly for the JOURNAL, sometimes
summarized from authorized reviews in other publications.
The department in which the JOURNAL stands quite alone is the
RECORD OF DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. While all periods and
all countries are represented, special attention is given to
Egypt, Greece and Italy. Not merely are the results of actual
excavations chronicled, but everything in the way of novel
views and investigations as expressed in books and periodicals
is noted. In order to secure thoroughness, more than one
hundred periodicals are consulted and utilized. By these
various methods, all important work is concentrated and made
accessible in a convenient but scholarly form, equally suited
to the specialist and to the general reader.
It has been the aim of the editors that the JOURNAL, besides
giving a survey of the whole field of archæology, should be
international in character. Its success in this attempt is
shown by the many noted European writers whose contributions
have appeared in its pages during the past eight years. Such
are: MM. Babelon, de Marsy, Maspero, Menant, Müntz and Reinach
for France: MM. Dörpfeld, Furtwängler, Hirschfeld, Michaelis,
Mommsen, Schreiber and Wolters for Germany; MM. Gardner,
Murray, Pinches and Ramsay for England, _etc._
The JOURNAL is published quarterly and forms, each year, a
volume of between 500 and 600 pages royal 8vo, illustrated with
Page v colored, heliotype, phototype, half-tone and other plates and
numerous figures. The yearly subscription is $5.00 for America;
and for countries of the Postal Union, 27 francs, 21 shillings
or marks, post-paid.
Vol. I, containing 489 pages, 11 plates and 16 figures; Vol.
II, containing 521 pages; 14 plates and 46 figures; Vol. III,
containing 531 pages, 33 plates and 19 figures; Vol. IV,
containing 550 pages, 20 plates and 19 figures; Vol. V,
containing 534 pages, 13 plates and 55 figures; Vol. VI,
containing 612 pages, 23 plates and 23 figures; Vol. VII,
containing 578 pages; 26 plates and 8 figures; Vol. VIII,
containing 631 pages, 18 plates and 26 figures--will be sent
bound for $5.50, unbound for $5.00.
Vol. I has lately been out of print, but will be reprinted
shortly in view of the increasing demand for back volumes; all
who desire to complete their sets should send in their
application.
Page vi
CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII, 1893.
No. 1. JANUARY--MARCH.
PAGE.
I.--_THE TEMPLE OF THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS_,
By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 1
II.--_NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE-SCULPTURES_,
By F.B. TARBELL and W.N. BATES, 18
III.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT RELIEFS FROM
THE ACROPOLIS TO VASE-PAINTING_,
By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 28
II.--_THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSIKRATES
AT ATHENS_,
By HERBERT F. DE COU, 42
III.--_DIONYSUS_ [Greek: en Limnais], By JOHN PICKARD, 56
CORRESPONDENCE.
_Hunting della Rabbia Monuments in Italy_, By ALLAN MARQUAND, 83
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
M. COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque_, By A.M. 87
HEINRICH BRUNN, _Griechische Götterideale_, By A.M. 89
ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria and Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan,
Thibet, China, Central Asia, Arabia, Babylonia, Persia, Syria,
Armenia, Caucasus, Asia Minor), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 154
No. 2. APRIL--JUNE.
I.--_SOME UNPUBLISHED MONUMENTS BY LUCA DELLA ROBBIA_,
By ALLAN MARQUAND, 153
II.--_EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY_, By SAMUEL BESWICK, 171
III.--_A SERIES OF CYPRIOTE HEADS IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM_,
By A.C. MERRIAM, 184
IV.--_A TABLET REFERRING TO DUES PAID TO THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN
AT SIPPARA_, By THEO. G. PINCHES, 190
V.--_A SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTION FROM ATHENS_,
By WM. CAREY POLAND, 191
VI.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_SOME SCULPTURES FROM THE ARGIVE HERAEUM_ (reprinted),
By CH. WALDSTEIN, 199
II.--_EXCAVATIONS AT THE HERAEUM OF ARGOS_,
By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 206
Page vii
CORRESPONDENCE.
MONTEFALCO IN UMBRIA, By WM. MERCER, 226
LETTERS FROM GREECE, By F.B. TARBELL, 230
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
ORIENTAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 239
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 246
ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Central Africa, Algeria); ASIA (China, Cambodia, Asia
Minor); EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Sicily, France, Spain),
By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 251
No. 3. JULY-SEPTEMBER.
I.--_NOTES OF EASTERN TRAVEL_, By JOHN P. PETERS, 325
II.--_THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SPARTA_, By NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, 335
III.--_THE NEATHERD IN THE ART OF THE MYCENÆAN PERIOD_,
By GEORGE B. HUSSEY, 374
IV.--_FASTIGIUM IN PLINY_, N.H. XXXV, 152, By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 381
V.--_PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS_.
I.--_EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEATRE AT SICYON IN 1891_,
By M.L. EARLE, 388
II.--_FURTHER EXCAVATIONS AT THE THEATRE OF SICYON IN 1891_,
By C.L. BROWNSON and C.H. YOUNG, 397
III.--_REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS AT SPARTA IN 1893_,
By CH. WALDSTEIN and Z.M. PATON, 429
VI.--_NOTES ON ROMAN ARTISTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES_. IV. _THE CLOISTER
OF THE LATERAN BASILICA_, By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 437
VII.--_SOME INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ORIENT_, By A.C. MERRIAM, 448
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.
CLASSICAL ARCHÆOLOGY, 456
CHRISTIAN ARCHÆOLOGY, 461
RENAISSANCE, 465
No. 4. OCTOBER-DECEMBER.
I.--_A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS AT ATHENS_, By WALTER MlLLER, 473
ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.
AFRICA (Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan, Thibet, China,
Central Asia, Western Asia, Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Phoeornicia,
Palestine); EUROPE (Italy), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 557
Page viii
ALPHABETICAL TABLE.
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, PAPERS OF:
I. The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs from the Akropolis
to vase painting, 28
II. The frieze of the choragic monument of Lysikrates at Athens, 42
III. Dionysus [Greek: en Lemnais]. 56
IV. A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191
V. Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum, 199
VI. Excavations at the Heræum of Argos, 205
VII. Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388
VIII. Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397
IX. Report on Excavations at Sparta in 1893, 410
X. Report on Excavations between Schenochori and Koutzopodi,
Argolis, in 1893, 429
ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS:
Abyssinia, 586
Africa (Central), 254, 586
Algeria, 113, 255, 588
Arabia, 131, 602
Armenia, 146
Asia (Central), 128
Asia (Western), 604
Asia Minor, 147, 256
Assyria, 609
Babylonia, 181, 606
Cambodia, 256
Caucasus, 146
China, 127, 256, 600
Crete, 270
Egypt, 91, 253, 557
Ethiopia, 111
France, 309
Greece, 257
Hindustan, 118, 589
Italy, 272, 620
Mongolia, 601
Palestine, 614
Persia, 134
Sicily, 293
Syria, 140, 610
Thibet, 127, 598
Tunisia, 114, 588
Page ix
BATES (W.N., and F.B. Tarbell). Notes on the subjects of Greek
Temple Sculptures, 18
BESWICK (Samuel). Egyptian Chronology, 171
BROWNSON (Carleton L.). The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs
from the Akropolis to vase-painting, 28
Excavations at the Heræum of Argos, 205
(and C.H. Young). Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon
in 1891, 397
CROSBY (Nicholas E.). The Topography of Sparta, 335
DE COU (Herbert F.). The frieze of the Choragic monument of
Lysikrates at Athens, 42
EARLE (M.L.). Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388
FOWLER (Harold N.). The temple of the Akropolis burnt by the Persians,
1
Fastigium in Pliny, N.H. XXXV, 152. 381
Reviews and Notices of Books:
History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia, by Perrot and
Chipiez; and History of Art in Persia, by the same, 239
Excursions in Greece to recently explored sites, etc., by
Charles Diehl, 249
FROTHINGHAM (A.L., Jr.). Notes on the Roman Artists of the Middle
Ages, IV. The Cloister of the Lateran Basilica, 437
Archæological News, 91, 251, 559
MARQUAND (Allan). Some unpublished monuments by Luca della Robbia, 153
Correspondence:
Hunting Della Robbia monuments in Italy, 83
Reviews and Notices of Books;
Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, by Max Collignon, 87
Griechische Götterideale, by Heinrich Brunn, 89
MEADER (C.L. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations at Sparta
in 1893, 410
MERCER (William). Correspondence: Montefalco in Umbria, 226
MERRIAM (A.C.). A series of Cypriote heads in the Metropolitan
Museum, 184
Some inscriptions from the Orient, 448
MILLER (Walter). A History of the Akropolis of Athens, 473
PATON, (J.M. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations between
Schenochori and Koutzopodi, Argolis, in 1893, 429
PETERS (John P.). Notes of Eastern Travel, 325
PICKARD (John). Dionysus [Greek: en Limnais], 56
POLAND (Wm. Carey). A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191
TARBELL (Frank B. and W.N. Bates). Notes on the subjects of
Greek Temple Sculptures, 18
Correspondence:
Letters from Greece, 230
WALDSTEIN (Charles). Some Sculptures from the Argive Heræum
(reprinted), 199
YOUNG (C.H. and C.L. Brownson). Further Excavations at the
Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397
Page x
PLATES.
I.--The Typhon Pediment of the Akropolis, 28-41
II-III.--The frieze of the Choragic Monument of Lysikrates, 42-55
IV.--Terracotta Medallions of Or San Michele, by Luca della
Robbia, |
|
V.-- " " " " " " " |
|
VI.--Altar of the Holy Cross, Impruneta, |- 153-170
|
VII.--Altar of the Madonna, " |
|
VIII.--Crucifixion Relief, " |
IX.--Head of Hera, from the Argive Heræum, |
|
X.--Metope, " " " |
|- 199-225
XI.--Heads and Sima, " " " |
|
XII.--Map of the Excavations at the Argive Heneum,|
XIII.--Hyponomos and Stage of the Theatre, Sicyon, 388-409
XIV.--Cloister of S. John Lateran, Rome, 437-447
XV.--Plan of the Akropolis at Athens, |
|
XVI.--Sections of the Akropolis Excavations,|
|- 473-556
XVII.--Herakles and the Old Man of the Sea, |
|
XVIII.--Figure of Athena from a pediment, |
Page xi
FIGURES.
Bull on a Babylonian contract tablet, 190
Fac-simile of Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 192
General Sketch-plan of Sparta, 338
Sketch-plan of the Agora, Sparta, 341
" " Street called Apheta, Sparta, 345
" " Skias Street, Sparta, 349
" " Western part of Sparta, 354
" " Road from Booneta to Limnaion, Sparta, 365
" " Akropolis, Sparta, 368
Bull in a fresco at Tiryns, 374
Bull from tomb at Gizeh, Egypt, 376
Bull from Presse d'Avennes, 376
Egyptian vintage scene, Gizeh, 377
Bull on Vaphio Cup, 378
Hyponomos in the theatre at Sicyon, plans and sections, 389
End of conduit, etc., in theatre, Sicyon, 394
Two stone blocks, theatre, Sicyon, 406
Section of wall AA, Sicyon, 308
Plan of circular building, Sparta, 411
Section through wall, Sparta, 415
Enlarged plan of poros blocks, Sparta, 418
Some poros blocks in detail, Sparta, 420
View of walls, Sparta, 426
Plan of Excavations between Schenochori and Kontzopodi, 430
The Pelargikon restored, 489
The serpent (Echidna) in the poros pediment, Akropolis, Athens, 497
Page xii
COPYRIGHT, 1893, BY A.L. FROTHINGHAM, JR., AND ALLAN MARQUAND.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Page 1
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.
Vol. VIII. JANUARY-MARCH, 1893. No. I.
THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.
The excavations conducted by the Greek Archæological Society at
Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of
the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early
history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed
unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other
hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886,
Kabbadias and Dörpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great
temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all
questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the
elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century
B.C. were decided once for all.[1] On these points little or
nothing can be added to what has been done, and Dörpfeld's
results must be accepted as final and certain.
[Footnote 1: DÖRPFELD, Preliminary Report, _Mitth. Ath._, X, p.
275; Plans and restorations, _Antike Denkmäler_, I, pls. 1, 2;
Description and discussion, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 337.]
The history of the temple presents, however, several questions,
some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built?
Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its
destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the
erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of
Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the
Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions
Page 2 have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first
question has received one and the same answer from all. The
material and the technical execution of the peripteros,
entablature, _etc._, of the temple show conclusively that this
part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos.[2] We
may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the
walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the
foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of
the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of
reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of
the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the
peripteros. These differences lead Dörpfeld to assume that the
naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle)
existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not
deny the possibility that builders of one date may have
employed different materials and methods, as convenience or
economy dictated.[3] Positive proof is not to be hoped for in
the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is
in favor of Dörpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than
the peristyle, _etc._[4] It is further certain, that this
temple was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to
Ecatômpedon]( see below p. 9). So far, we have the most
positive possible evidence--that of the remains of the temple
itself and the inscription giving its name. The evidence
regarding the subsequent history of the temple is not so
simple.
[Footnote 2: DÖRPFELD, _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 349.]
[Footnote 3: _Mitth. Ath._, XI, p. 345.]
[Footnote 4: On the other hand, see PETERSEN, _Mitth. Ath._,
XII, p. 66.]
Dörpfeld (_Mitth. Ath._, XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the
following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the
departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406;
(3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and
described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take
up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias
reads in our texts:--[Greek: Lelectai de moi kai proteron
(17.1), ôs Athenaiois perissoteron ti e tois allois es ta theia
esti spoudes, prôtoi men gar Athenan eponomasan Erganen prôtoi
d'acôlous Ermas... omou de sphisin en tô naô Spoudaiôn daimôn
estin.] Dörpfeld marks a lacuna between [Greek: Ermas] and
Page 3 [Greek; omou], as do those editors who do not supply a
recommendation. Dörpfeld, however, thinks the gap is far greater
than has been supposed, including certainly the mention and
probably the full description of the temple under discussion.
His reasons are in substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias has
reached a point in his periegesis where he would naturally
mention this temple, because he is standing beside it,[5] and
(2) the phrase [Greek: omou de sphisin en tô naô Spoudaiôn
estin] implies that a temple has just been mentioned. These
are, at least, the main arguments, those deduced from the
passage following the description of the Erechtheion being
merely accessory.
Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for
him by Dörpfeld (_i.e._, if he described the two rows of
statues between the Propylaia and the eastern front of the
Parthenon, taking first the southern and then the northern
row), he would come to stand where Dörpfeld suggests. If,
however, he followed some other order (_e.g._, that suggested
by Wernicke, _Mitth._, XII, p. 187), he would not be where
Dörpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he
mentions are set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the
Acropolis was so thickly peopled with statues that each side of
the path was bordered with a double or triple row, or that the
statues were not arranged in rows at all, and that Pausanias
merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon) a few
noticeable figures with only general reference to their
relative positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that
Pausanias, when he mentions the [Greek Spoudaiôn] (or [Greek:
spoudaiôn]) [Greek: daimôn] is standing, or imagines that he
stands, beside the old temple rests upon very slight
foundations.
[Footnote 5: DÖRPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence
of the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias
mentioned it must of course fall to the ground, will be
discussed below. It seemed to me advisable to discuss the
Pausanias question first, because, if he mentioned the temple,
it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to that of
Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]
[Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of
[Greek: peran] (c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both
sides of the path.]
Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless
Hermæ, _etc._, is, as Wernicke (_Mitth._, XII, p. 185) would
have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is
of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to
Page 4 themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking
questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only
occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or
look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann,
Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large
part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of
previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by
a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is
convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and
saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does
not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps
possible that he describes things he never can have seen.
Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his
description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works,
or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except
when it is important to know the exact topographical order of
objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail
is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his
description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice
hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of
lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for
Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may
be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly.
The passage about Ergane, _etc._, must not be simply cast aside
as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by
inserting the description of a temple together with the
state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing
violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately
been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: _'What Pausanias
actually says is this--:_ "The Athenians are specially
distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first
given by them, and the name Hermæ; and in the temple along with
them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"_--words which are quite
as apt for the meaning above explained_ (_i.e._, a note on the
piety of the Athenians) _as those of the author often are in
such cases.'_
[Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is
attributed: _Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit
goldenem Vliesse._]
[Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, _Mythology and Monuments of
Athens_, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not
fallen out after [Greek: Ermas], though the assumption of a gap
is not strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.]
Page 5 Whether we read [Greek: Spoudaiôn daimôn] or [Greek: spoudaiôn
Daimôn] is, for our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall
is right in calling attention to the connection between [Greek:
es ta theia spoude] and the [Greek: daimôn Spoudaiôn
(spoudaiôn)], a connection which is now very striking, but which
is utterly lost by inserting the description of a temple. At
this point, then, the temple is not mentioned by Pausanias.
But, if not at this point, perhaps elsewhere, for this also has
been tried. Miss Harrison[9] thinks the temple in question is
mentioned by Pausanias, c. 27.1. He has been describing the
Erechtheion, has just mentioned the old [Greek: agalma] and the
lamp of Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion,
[10] and continues: [Greek: kei tai de en tô naô poliados
Ermes xulou, kte.], giving a list of anathemata, followed by the
story of the miraculous growth of the sacred olive after its
destruction by the Persians, and passing to the description of
the Pandroseion with the words, [Greek: tô naô de tes Athenas
Pandrosou naos suneches esti]. Miss Harrison thinks that, since
Athena is Polias, the [Greek: naos tes poliados] and the [Greek
naos tes Athenas] are one and the same, an opinion in which I
heartily concur.[11] It remains to be decided whether this
temple is the newly discovered old temple or the eastern cella
of the Erechtheion. The passages cited by Jahn-Michaelis[12]
show that the old [Greek: agalma] bore the special appellation
[Greek: polias], and we know that the old [Greek: agalma] was in
the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the
Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part [Greek: naos
tes poliados (or tes Athena)], but it awakens suspicion to read
of an ancient [Greek: agalma] which we know was called Polias,
and which was perhaps the Polias [Greek: kat exochen], and
immediately after, with no introduction or explanation, to read
of a temple of Polias in which that [Greek: agalma] is not.
Nothing is known of a statue in the newly discovered old
temple.[13]
[Footnote 9: _Myth. and Mon. of Athens_, p. 608 ff.]
[Footnote 10: _CIA._, I. 322, § 1 with the passage of
Pausanias.]
[Footnote 11: DÖRPFELD (_Mitth._, XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the
[Greek: naos tes poliados] is the eastern cella of the
Erechtheion, the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] the newly discovered
old temple, but is opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss
Harrison.]
[Footnote 12: _Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen._, c. 26.6.35.]
[Footnote 13: For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.]
Page 6 In the Erechtheion there was, then, a very ancient statue
called Polias; in the temple beside the Erechtheion was no
statue about which anything is known, and yet, according to
Miss Harrison, the new found "old temple" is the [Greek: naos
tes poliados] while the [Greek: polias] in bodily form dwells
next door. That seems to me an untenable position. Again, the
dog mentioned by Philochoros[14] which went into the temple of
Polias, and, passing into the Pandroseion, lay down ([Greek:
dusa eis to pandroseion ... catekeito]), can hardly have gone
into the temple alongside of the Erechtheion, because there was
no means of passing from the cella of that temple into the
opisthodomos, and in order to reach the Pandroseion the dog
would have had to come out from the temple by the door by which
he entered it. The fact that the dog went into this temple could
have nothing to do with his progress into the Pandroseion,
whereas from the eastern cella of the Erechtheion he could very
well pass down through the lower apartments and reach the
Pandroseion. It seems after all that when Pausanias says [Greek:
naos tes poliados], he means the eastern cella of the
Erechtheion. But the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] is also the
Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already observed (_Mitth._ XII,
p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos was [Greek: suneches tô
naô tes Athenas], the temple of Athena must be identified with
the Erechtheion, not with the temple beside it, for the reason
that the temple of Pandrosos, situated west of the Erechtheion,
cannot be [Greek: suneches] ("adjoining" in the strict sense of
the word) to the old temple, which stood upon the higher level
to the south. If Pausanias had wished to pass from the
Erechtheion to the temple of Athena standing(?) beside it, the
opening words of c. 26.6 ([Greek: Iera men tes Athenas estin e
te alle polis kte.]) would have formed the best possible
transition; but those words introduce the mention of the
ancient [Greek: agalma] which was in the Erechtheion. That
Pausanias then, without any warning, jumps into another temple
of Athena, is something of which even his detractors would
hardly accuse him, and I hope I have shown that he is innocent
of that offence.
[Footnote 14: Frg. 146, JAHN-MICH., _Paus. Discr. Arcis. Ath._,
c. 27.2.8.]
Pausanias, then, does not mention the temple under discussion.
Xenophon (_Hell._ I. 6) says that, in the year 406 B.C. [Greek:
o palaios naos tes Athenas enepresthe]. Until recently this
page 7 statement was supposed to apply to the Erechtheion, called
"ancient temple" because it took the place of the original
temple of Athena, from which the great temple (the Parthenon)
was to be distinguished. Of course, the new _building_ of the
Erechtheion was not properly entitled to the epithet "ancient,"
but as a _temple_ it could be called ancient, being regarded as
the original temple in renewed form. If, however, the newly
discovered temple was in existence alongside the Erechtheion in
406, the expression [Greek: palaios naos] applied to the
Erechtheion would be confusing, for the other temple was a much
older _building_ than the Erechtheion. If the temple discovered
in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it would be natural to suppose that
it was referred to by Xenophon as [Greek: o palaios naos]. But
this passage is not enough to prove that the temple existed in
406 B.C.
Demosthenes (xxiv, 136) speaks of a fire in the opisthodomos.
This is taken by Dörpfeld (_Mitth_., xii, p. 44) as a reference
to the opisthodomos of the temple under discussion, and this
fire is identified with the fire mentioned by Xenophon. But
hitherto the opisthodomos in question has been supposed to be
the rear part of the Parthenon, and there is no direct proof
that Demosthenes and Xenophon refer to the same fire. If the
temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it is highly
probable that the passages mentioned refer to it, but the
passages do not prove that it existed.
It remains for us to sift the evidence for the existence of the
temple from the Persian War to 406 B.C. This has been collected
by Dörpfeld[15] and Lolling,[16] who agree in thinking that the
temple continued in existence throughout the fifth and fourth
centuries, however much their views differ in other respects.
But it seems to me that even thus much is not proved. I believe
that, after the departure of the Persians, the Athenians
partially restored the temple as soon as possible, because I do
not see how they could have got along without it, inasmuch as
it was used as the public treasury; but my belief, being
founded upon little or no positive evidence, does not claim the
force of proof.
[Footnote 15: _Mitth._, XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420,
ff.]
[Footnote 16: [Gree: Ecatompedon] in the periodical [Greek:
Athena] 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published
appears also in the [Greek: Deltion Archaiologicon], 1890, p.
12, and its most important part is copied, with some
corrections, by Dörpfeld, XV, p. 421.]
Page 8 Dörpfeld (XV, p. 424) says that the Persians left the walls of
the temple and the outer portico standing; that this is evident
from the present condition of the architraves, triglyphs and
cornices, which are built into the Acropolis wall. These
architectural members were ... taken from the building while it
still stood, and built into the northern wall of the
citadel. But, if the Athenians had wished to restore the temple
as quickly as possible, they would have left these members
where they were. It seems, at least, rather extravagant to take
them carefully away and then restore the temple without a
peristyle, for the restored building would probably need at
least cornices if not triglyphs or architraves; then why not
repair the old ones? It appears by no means impossible that, as
Lolling (p. 655) suggests, only a part of the temple was
restored.[17] Still more natural is the assumption, that the
Athenians carried off the whole temple while they were about
it. I do not, however, dare to proceed to this assumption,
because I do not know where the Athenians would have kept their
public monies if the entire building had been removed. Perhaps
part of the peristyle was so badly injured by the Persians that
it could not be repaired. At any rate, the Athenians intended
(as Dörpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to remove the whole
building so soon as the great new temple should be completed. I
think they carried out their intention.
[Footnote 17: LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was
restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship
connected with the building, he would seem to imply that at
least part (and in that case, doubtless, the whole) of the
cella was restored, and he also maintains the continued
existence of the opisthodomos and the two small chambers. E.
CURTIUS, _Stadtgeschichte von Athen_, p. 132, believes that
only the western half of the temple was restored. DÖRPFELD, p.
425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even
the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained
until the erection of the Erechtheion.]
This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the
various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the
Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the
older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in
inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully
discussed by Dörpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts
without further discussion all points which seem to me to have
been definitively settled by them.
Page 9 Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an
inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It
belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and
relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is
too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of
the greater part (republished by Dörpfeld) is clear at least in
a general way. The [Greek: tamiai] are to make a list of
certain objects on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The
servants of the temple, priests, _etc_., are to follow certain
rules or be punished by fines. The [Greek: tamiai] are to open
in person the doors of the chambers in the temple. These rules
would not concern us except for the fact that the various parts
of the building are mentioned. The whole building is called
[Greek: to Ecatompedon]; parts of it are the [Greek: proneion],
the [Greek: neôs], the [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: ta
oikemata]. There can be no doubt that these are respectively
the eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and
the two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most
important of all is the fact that the whole building was called
in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to Ekatompedon.]. The word
[Greek: opisthodomos] does not occur in the inscription, and we
cannot tell whether the western half of the building was called
opisthodomos in the sixth century or not. Very likely it was.
Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that [Greek:
to Ecatompedon] is the [Greek: neô o Ecatompedos] often
mentioned in the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] and
elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the
Parthenon cannot be the [Greek: veôs o Ecatompedos]. Lolling
maintains that the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the
_Parthenon_ proper, that the western room of the Parthenon was
the opisthodomos, and that the [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos],
was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name [Greek:
Ecatompedon] or [Greek: neô o Ekatompedos], Lolling thinks the
pre-Persian temple was also called [Greek: archaios (palaios)
neôs].[18] Dörpfeld maintains that the western cella of the
Parthenon was the _Parthenon_ proper, the western part of the
Page 10 "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the
Parthenon was the [Greek: neôs o Ekatompedos], leaving the
question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called
[Greek: to Ecatompedon] in the fifth century, but laying great
stress upon the difference in the expressions [Greek: to
Ecatompedon] and [Greek: o neôs o Ecatompedos].[19] Both Lolling
and Dörpfeld agree that the [Greek: proneôs] of the inscriptions
of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon.[20]
[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the [Greek: archaios neôs]
of the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] CIA, II, 753, 758
(_cf_. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis,
because in the same inscriptions the [Greek: epistatai] of
Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient
reason for assuming that [Greek: archaios neôs] means sometimes
one temple and sometimes another.]
[Footnote 19: _Mitth._, xv, p. 427 ff.]
[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression [Greek: en
tô neô tô Ecatompedô] could not be used of a part of a building
of which [Greek: proneôs] and [Greek: Parthenôn] were parts,
_i.e._, that a part of a temple could not be called [Greek:
neôs]. Yet in the inscription published by Lolling the [Greek:
proneion] and the [Greek: neôs] are mentioned in apparent
contradistinction to [Greek: apan to Ecatompedon]. It seems, as
Dörpfeld says, only natural that the [Greek: neôs] should belong
to the same building as the [Greek: proneôs].]
Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed
over by one board of [Greek: tamiai] to the next
(_Ueberyab-Urkunden_ or "transmission-lists") are parts of a
statue of Athena with a base and a [Greek Nike] and a shield
[Greek: en tô Ekatompedô]. The material of this statue is gold
and ivory. The only gold and ivory statue of Athena on the
Acropolis was, so far as is known, the so-called _Parthenos_ of
Pheidias. Those inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos
stood in the Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that is, that the
eastern cella of the Parthenon was called [Greek: Ecatompedos
(ov)] in the fifth century.[21] Certainly, if there had been a
second chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, we
should know of its existence.
[Footnote 21: This was shown by U. KÖHLER. _Mitth_., v, p. 89
ff., and again by DÖRPFELD, xv, 480 ff, who quote the
inscriptions. LOLLING'S distinction between [Greek: to agalma]
and [Greek: to chrusoun agalma] cannot be maintained. _cf. U.
Köhler, Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad._, 1889, p. 223.]
When the Athenians built the great western room of the
Parthenon, they certainly did not intend it to serve merely as
a store-room for the objects described in the
transmission-lists as [Greek: en tô Parthenôn] or [ek tou
Parthenônos], these being mostly of little value or broken.[22]
Now the treasury of Athens was the opisthodomos, and the western
room of the Parthenon was, from the moment of the completion of
the building, the greatest opisthodomos in Athens. It is
Page 11 natural to regard this (with Lolling) as the opisthodomos where
the treasure was kept. This room was doubtless divided into
three parts by two partitions of some sort, probably of
metal,[23] running from the eastern and western wall to the
nearest columns and connecting the columns. This arrangement
agrees with the provision (_CIA_, I, 32) that the monies of
Athena be cared for [Greek: en tô dexi tou opisthodomou], those
of the other gods [Greek: en tô ep dexeia tou opisthodomou].
Until the completion of the Parthenon, the opisthodomos of the
pre-Persian temple might properly be _the_ opisthodomos [Greek:
cat exochen], but so soon as the Parthenon was finished, the new
treasure-house would naturally usurp the name as well as the
functions of its predecessor.
[Footnote 22: A general view of these transmission-lists may be
found at the back of MICHAELIS' _der Parthenon_: See also H.
LEHNER, _Ueber die attischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten
Jahrhunderts_ (which Lolling cites. I have not seen it.)]
[Footnote 23: See plans of the Parthenon, for instance, the one
in the plan of the Acropolis accompanying Dörpfeld's article,
_Mitth._, XII, _Taf. 1_.]
But, if the western room of the Periclean temple was the
opisthodomos, where was the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper? It cannot
be identical with the [Greek: neôs o Ecatompedos] nor with the
opisthodomos, for the three appellations occur at the same date
evidently designating three different places. It would be
easier to tell where the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper was, if we
knew why it was called [Greek: Parthenôn]. The name was in all
probability not derived from the Parthenos, but rather the
statue was named from the _Parthenon_ after the latter
appellation had been extended to the whole building, for there
is no evidence that the great statue was called Parthenos from
the first. Its official title was, so far as is known, never
Parthenos.[24] The Parthenon was not so named because it
contained the Parthenos, but why it was so named we do not know.
The [Greek: proneôs] is certainly the front porch, the [Greek:
Ecatompedos neôs] is certainly the cella, 100 feet long, the
[Greek: opisthodomos] is the rear apartment of some building,
(even if I have not made it seem probable that it is the rear
apartment of the Parthenon). These names carry their explanation
with them. But the name [Greek: Parthenôn] gives us no
information. It was a part of the great Periclean temple, for
the name was in later times applied to the whole building, and
the only part of the building not named is the western porch. It
Page 12 is, however, incredible that the Athenians should use this
porch, so prominently exposed to the eyes of every sight-seer,
as a storehouse for festival apparatus, _etc_. It is more
probable that the [Greek: Parthenôn] proper was within the walls
of the building but separated from the other parts in some way.
The middle division of the western room, separated by columns
and metal partitions from the treasury of Athena on the right
and that of the other gods on the left, was large enough and,
being directly in front of the western door, prominent enough,
to deserve a name of its own. If this room was the [Greek:
Parthenôn] proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos
would cause the [Greek: Parthenôn] to be emptied of its
contents, which would then naturally be inventoried as [Greek:
ek tou Parthenônos], while another list could properly be headed
[Greek: ek tou opisthodomon] referring to the
treasure-chambers.[25] The name Parthenon might then be extended
first to the entire western part of the building and then to the
whole edifice. This is not a _proof_ that the [Greek: Parthenôn]
was the central part of the western room of the great temple. A
complete proof is impossible. All I claim is that this
hypothesis fulfils all the necessary conditions.
[Footnote 24: DÖRPFELD, XV, p. 480.]
[Footnote 25: DÖRPFELD, XII, p. 203 f., argues that these
headings show that the treasure was moved after the fire of 406
from the opisthodomos of the old temple into the [Greek:
Parthenôn] proper, which was emptied of its contents to make
room. But the explanation given above seems equally possible.
Dörpfeld, (Mitth., vi, p. 283, ff.) proved conclusively that the
[Greek: Parthenôn] was not the eastern cella of the Parthenon.
His proof that it was the great western room is based primarily
upon the assumption (p. 300) that _Der Name Opisthodom
bezeichnet hei alien Tempeln die dem Pronaos entsprechende
Hinterhalle_. But for that assumption the [Greek: Parthenôn]
might just as well be the western porch. Since the discovery of
the pre-Persian temple, however, Dörpfeld maintains that the
opisthodomos [Greek: kat exochen] was the entire western portion
of that temple, consisting of three rooms besides the porch
(though he does not expressly include the porch). There is,
then, no reason in the nature of things why the whole western
part of the Parthenon should not be called opisthodomos.]
Let us now compare the nomenclature of the pre-Persian and
Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more
especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a
_pronaos_ or _proneion_ formed part of each; one temple was
called [Greek: to Ecatomedon], and the main cella of the other
was called [Greek: o Ecatompedos][26], and this name was
extended to the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of
Page 13 each building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the
new one, like the old, was called simply [Greek: o
opisthodomos]. As soon as the great Periclean temple was
completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was quietly removed
as had been intended from the first, the treasure was deposited
in the great new opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might
still cling to the temple of the sixth century were transferred,
along with the old names, to the splendid new building; the
greatest temple on the Acropolis was now as before the house of
the patron goddess of the land, and contained her treasure and
that of her faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not
exist side by side. There was, then, no reason for
differentiating between the two temples, as, for instance, by
calling the one that had been removed [Greek: o archaios neôs],
because the one that had been removed was no longer in
existence. That the designation [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs]
is applicable to the Erechtheion has been accepted for many
years and has been explained anew by Petersen.[27] If the temple
burnt by the Persians had continued to exist alongside of the
Parthenon, one might doubt whether it or the Erechtheion was
meant by the expression [Greek: o archaios neôs], but if one of
the two temples was no longer in existence, the name must belong
to the other. It is just possible that in Hesychios, [Greek:
Ecatompedos neôs en te acropolis te Parthenè cataskeuastheis upo
Athenaiôn, meixôn tou empresthentos upa tôn Persôn posi
penteconta], the expression [Greek: tou empresthentos upo tôn
Persôn posi penteconta (neô or possibly Ecatompedon neô)] was
originally chosen because the expression [Greek: archaiou neô]
(which would otherwise be very appropriate here) was regularly
used to designate the Erechtheion.[28]
[Footnote 26: Or [Greek: to Ecatompedon]. Even after Dörpfeld's
arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the
use of the two expressions can be found.]
[Footnote 27: _Mitth_., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern
with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes
furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a
church called the _Old South_ church. This became too small and
too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was
built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to
destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new
and in a different part of the city) would have been called the
Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and
the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church,
though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of
the continued existence of the old building. So the new
building of the Erechtheion retained the name [Greek: archaios
neôs] which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]
[Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements
of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight
inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however,
(p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they
had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any
inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older
temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first
made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally
meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis,
_Stadtgeschichte,_ p. 72, seems to think, as a proud
designation of a grand new building.]
Page 14 At the end of his last article on this subject, Dörpfeld calls
attention to the fact that "not only the lower step
(_Unterstufe_) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate
are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones
are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole
stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the
Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do
not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that
we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in
classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all
the objects--votive offerings and the like--set up in various
places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple
may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary
or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may
have been left as a reminder to future generations of the
devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones
is called by Dörpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently
considered" (_eine bisher nicht genügend bechtete Thatsache_).
I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long
"insufficiently considered" by Dörpfeld and others if it were
really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple
continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am
right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last
centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist
when the Parthenon was completed. Dörpfeld is certainly
justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued
Page 15 existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has
no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (_darf
den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen_).
[Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the
stylobate still _in situ_ favors this conjecture, is for those
on the spot to decide. It looks in Dörpfeld's plans (_Ant.
Denkm.,_ i, I, and _Mitth.,_ XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in
it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]
[Footnote 30: _Mitth.,_ xv, 438. This is directed against the
closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We
cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple)
happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the
times of Plutarch," _etc._]
In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some
points because I wished to confine myself to what was
necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages
containing the expression [Greek: archaios (palaios) neôs],
as they have been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too,
I have omitted all mention of the [Greek: megaron ta pros
esperan tetrammenon],[31] the [Greek: parastades],[32] the
passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34] and some other
writers, because these references and allusions, being more
or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have been)
explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as
evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple
burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret
the passages in question accordingly.
To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that
Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and
(2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of
the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe
that the temple continued to exist in some form until the
completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so
much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that
the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house
during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of
the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy
of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as
the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians
was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire,
therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the
Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at
some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far
from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the
opisthodomos of the Parthenon.
[Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]
[Footnote 32: _CIA_, II, 733, 735, 708.]
[Footnote 33: _Od._, VII. 80 f.; _Il._, II. 546 ff. _Mitth._,
XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]
[Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. _cf. Mitth._, XII., pp. 69, 206.]
It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have
_proved_ the non-existence of the earlier temple after the
completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence
Page 16 is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is
not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable
likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the
time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its
disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the
Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I
any further evidence either for or against its continued
existence.
HAROLD N. FOWLER.
_Exeter, New Hampshire_, March, 1892.
[Footnote 35: The fact that Pausanias does not mention this
temple is not a certain proof that he might not have seen it,
for he fails to mention other things that certainly existed in
his day. This temple, however, if it then existed, must have
been in marked contrast to almost every other building in the
Acropolis, and would have had special attractions for a person
of Pausanias' archæological tastes.]
POSTSCRIPT.--This article had already left my hands when I
received the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (XII. 2), containing
an article by Mr. Penrose, _On the Ancient Hecatompedon which
occupied the site of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens_.
Mr. Penrose contends that the old Hekatompedon was a temple of
unusual length in proportion to its width, that it stood on the
site of the Parthenon, and was built 100 years or more before
the Persian invasion. He thinks, too, that the Doric
architectural members built into the Acropolis-wall, which are
referred by Dörpfeld to the archaic temple beside the
Erechtheion, belonged to the building on the site of the
Parthenon. He is led to these assumptions chiefly by masons'
marks on some of the stones of the sub-structure of the
Parthenon. He holds it "as incontrovertible that the marks have
reference to the building on which they are found." The
distances between these marks offer certain numerical relations
which must, Mr. Penrose thinks, correspond to some of the
dimensions of the building to which the marks refer. "If they
had reference to the Parthenon, they would have shown a number
of exact coincidences with the important sub-divisions of the
temple." Of these coincidences Mr. Penrose has found but three,
which he considers fortuitous. As accessory arguments he
adduces the condition of the filling in to the south of the
Page 17 Parthenon, and the absence of old architectural material in the
sub-structure of the Parthenon, _etc_. He seems, however, to
rest his case chiefly upon the masons' marks.
I cannot even attempt to discuss this new theory in detail, but
would mention one or two things which seem to tell against Mr.
Penrose's view. The inscription published by Lolling mentions
an [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: oikemata] as parts of the
Hekatompedon, and such apartments evidently existed in the
temple beside the Erechtheion. Mr. Penrose assumes that the
temple beside the Erechtheion antedates his Hekatompedon,
without regard to the fact that the use of the stone employed
in the outer foundations of the archaic temple points to a much
later period. The archaic temple was (at least approximately)
100 feet long, which makes it seem almost impossible that a new
temple should be built on the Acropolis and called the
Hundred-foot-temple (Hekatompedon). I cannot avoid attaching
more importance to these considerations than to the arguments
advanced by Mr. Penrose. It may be, however, that answers to
these and other objections will be found.
If Mr. Penrose's theory is correct, it is evident that the old
Hekatompedon must have ceased to exist before the building of
the Parthenon. Whether the archaic temple excavated in 1886
continued to exist or not is, then, another matter. My main
contention (that there is no good reason for assuming the
continued existence through the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.
of the archaic temple) is not affected by Mr. Penrose's theory,
and I leave my arguments, such as they are, for the
consideration alike of those who do and who do not agree with
Mr. Penrose. Much of my article will appear irrelevant to the
former class, but, as Mr. Penrose's views may not be at once
generally accepted, it is as well to leave the discussion of
previous theories as it was before the appearance of Mr.
Penrose's article.
H. N. F.
NOTE.--For a discussion of Mr. Penrose's theories and
conclusions, see now (Nov. 1892), Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitth.,_
XVII, pp. 158, ff.
Page 18
NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE
SCULPTURES.
The following compilation is intended to present in compact
form the evidence at present available on this question: How
far did the Greeks choose, for the sculptured decorations of a
temple, subjects connected with the principal divinity or
divinities worshiped in that temple? We have omitted some
examples of sculpture in very exceptional situations, _e.g._,
the sculptured drums of the sixth century and fourth century
temples of Artemis at Ephesos. Acroteria have also been
omitted. But we have attempted to include every Greek temple
known to have had pediment-figures or sculptured metopes or
frieze, and have thus, for the sake of completeness, registered
some examples which are valueless for the main question. The
groups from Delos, attributed on their first discovery to the
pediments of the Apollon-temple, have been proved by
Furtwängler to have been acroteria (_Arch, Zeitung_, 1882, p.
336 ff.) It does not appear that Lebas had any good grounds for
attributing to a temple the relief found by him at Rhamnus
(_Voyage archéologique Monuments figurés_, No. 19,) and now in
Munich. The frieze from Priene representing a gigantomachy was
not a part of the temple there (Wolters, _Jahrbuch des
deutschen arch. Instituts_, I, pp. 56, ff.) The Poseidon and
Amphitrite frieze in Munich (Brunn, _Beschreibung der
Glyptothek_, No. 115) has been, by some, taken for a piece of
temple decoration, but is too doubtful an example to be
catalogued. The statement of Pausanias (II. 11. 8) about the
pediment-sculptures ([Greek: ta en tois aetois]) of the
Asklepieion at Titane is hopelessly inadequate and perhaps
inaccurate.
The order of arrangement in the following table is roughly
chronological, absolute precision being impossible. Ionic
Page 19 temples are designated by a prefixed asterisk, the one
Corinthian by a dagger. The others are Doric, and, in the ease
of these, "Sculptures of the Exterior Frieze" refers, of
course, to sculptured metopes.
It has not been our purpose to discuss at length the
conclusions to be drawn from this evidence. Briefly, the
results may be summarized as follows:
The principal sculpture (_i.e._, sculpture of the principal
pediment, or, in the absence of pediment-sculpture, the frieze
in the most important situation) included the figure of the
temple divinity, generally in central position, in the
following numbers: [A] 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26. If 12,
14 and 32 had no pediment-sculptures, they should be added;
probably also 33 and 34. In 30 the subject of the
pediment-sculpture, if correctly divined by Conze, was, at any
rate, closely related to the temple-divinities.
[Footnote A: In counting the Aigina temple we commit
deliberately a _circulus in probando_.]
The principal sculpture apparently did not include or
especially refer to the temple-divinity in the following: 20,
24, 25. Practice would seem to have become somewhat relaxed
after about 425 B.C. The very singular temple of Assos, (No.
5), though earlier, should perhaps be added.
The temple-divinity was represented in the western pediments of
7, 13 and perhaps of 20, but not of that in 9, 11, 24 (?) or
25.
The subjects of sculptured metopes and friezes were largely or
wholly without obvious relation to the temple-divinity in the
following: 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 1.9, 23, 29, 32.
P.B. TARBELL.
W.N. BATES.
Page 20
PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
B.C.
1 Selinous Apollon (?) _ca._ 625
(Temple C)
2 Selinous _ca._ 625
3 Athens _ca._ 600 E.: (?) Zeus fighting Typhon;
(Acropolis) Herakles fighting
serpent.
W. (?): Herakles fighting
Triton; Kerkopes(?)
4 Athens _ca._ 600 E. (?): Herakles fighting
(Acropolis) Hydra.
W. (?): Herakles fighting
Triton.
5 Assos VI cent. (?)
6 Metapontum Apollon VI cent. (?) Subject unknown
7 Aigina Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. & W.: Combats of
Greeks and Trojans;
Athena in centre.
8 Athens Athena _ca._ 530 (?) E. (?): Gigantomachy,
(Acropolis) including Athena (in
centre?)
9 Delphi Apollon VI cent. after E.: Apollon, Artemis,
548 Leto, Muses.
W.: Dionysos, Thyiads,
Setting Sun, _etc._
10 Selinous VI cent.
(Temple F)
11 Olympia Zeus _ca._ 460 E.: Preparations for
chariot-race of Pelops
and Oinomaos;
Zeus as arbiter in
centre.
W.: Centauromachy;
Apollon (?) in centre.
Page 21
OTHER
SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
1 E.: in centre, two quadrigae
with unidentified figs., also
Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles
carrying Kerkopes, _etc._
W.: Subjects unknown.
2 Europa on bull, winged sphinx,
_etc._
3
4
5 E. (and W. ?): Pair of sphinxes, Exterior architrave: pairs
Centaur, wild hog, man pursuing of sphinxes in centre of E. &
woman, two men in combat, W. fronts (?), Herakles and
_etc._ Triton, Herakles and Centaurs,
symposium, combats
of animals.
6
7 None.
8
9 Herakles killing Hydra, Bellerophon
killing Chimaera,
combats of gods and giants,
_etc._
10 E.: Scenes from Gigantomachy.
11 12 metopes over columns and
antæ of pronaos and opisthodomos:
labors of Herakles.
Page 22
===================================================================
| PLACE. | DIVINITY. | DATE. |PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------------
| | | B.C. |
| Selinous | Hera (?) |ca. 450 (?)|
12| (Temple E)| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
13| Athens | Athena |ca. 445-438|E.: Birth of Athena.
|(Acropolis)| | |W.: Contest of Athena
| | | | and Poseidon for Attika.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
14| Sunjon | Athena |ca. 435 (?)|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
15| Athens | |ca. 435 (?)|E. & W.: Lost; subjects
| | | |unknown.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
*16| Athens | Athena | ca. 432 |None
|(Acropolis)| Nike | |
| | | |
17| Kroton | Hera | V cent., |Undescribed.
| | | 2d half |
18| Agrigentum| Zeus | V cent., |
| | | before 405|
19| Bassae | Apollon |ca. 425 (?)|None.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Page 23
===================================================================
|SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
| |
12| None. |Metopes over pronaos: Herakles
| | and Amazon, Zeus and
| | Hera, Artemis and Aktaion,
| | etc.
| |Metopes over opisthodomos:
| | Athena and Enkelados, _etc._
13|E.: Gigantomachy; Athena |Ionic frieze around cella,
| over central | pronaos and opisthodomos:
| intercolumniation. | Panathenaic procession.
|W.: Amazonomachy. |
|S.: Centauromachy and seven |
| scenes from Iliupersis. |
|N.: Iliupersis and nine |
| scenes from Centauromachy. |
14| |Ionic frieze on four inner sides
| | of E. vestibule, between
| | pronaos and outer columns:
| | Gigantomachy, including
| | Athena over entrance to
| | pronaos (?), Centauromachy,
| | exploits of Theseus.
15|E.: Labors of Herakles. |Ionic frieze over pronaos
|N. & S., at E. end (four | and across pteroma: battle
| metopes on each side): | scene.
| exploits of Theseus. |Ionic frieze over opisthodomos,
| | Centauromachy.
*16|E.: assemblage of gods, |
| Athena in centre. |
|N. W. S.: battle-scenes. |
17| |
| |
18|E.: Gigantomachy. |
|W.: Iliupersis. |
19|None. |Metopes over pronaos: Apolline
| | and Dionysiac scenes.
| | Interior cella-frieze:
| | Amazonomachy, Centauromachy
| | (Apollon and Artemis
| | represented.)
Page 24
===================================================================
| PLACE. | DIVINITY. | DATE. |PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
---+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------------------------
| | | B.C. |
20| near Argos| Hera | ca. 420. |E.: Birth of Zeus (?)
| | | |W.: Battle of Greeks
| | | | and Trojans. (?)
*21| Athens |Erechtheus | 420-408 |None.
|(Acropolis)| | |
*22| Locri | | V cent., |E.: Lost.
|Epizephyrii| |latter part|W.: Subject unknown,
| | | | including Dioscuri (?)
*23|Samothrace | Cabiri | ca. 400 |
24| Tegea | Athena | IV cent., |E.: Calydonian boar-hunt
| | Alea |first half | (no divinity
| | | | represented.)
| | | |W.: Contest of Telephos
| | | | and Achilles.
25| Epidauros | Asklepios |ca. 375 (?)|E.: Centauromachy.
| | | |W.: Amazonomachy.
26| Thebes | Herakles |ca. 370 (?)|Labors of Herakles.
*27| Ephesos | Artemis | ca. 330 |
*28| Troad | Apollon | III cent. |
| | Smintheus | |
*29| Magnesia | Artemis | III cent. |
30|Samothrace | Cabiri | III cent. |N.: Demeter seeking
| | | III cent. | Persephone (?)
*31| Lagina | Hekate | |
32| Ilium | Athena (?)|II cent.(?)|
| Novum | | |
| | | |
*33| Teos | Dionysos |Roman times|
*34| Knidos |Dionysos(?)|Roman times|
Page 25
===================================================================
|SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE| OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
---+-----------------------------+---------------------------------
| |
20|E.: Gigantomachy (?) |
|W.: Iliupersis (?) |
| |
*21|Uninterpreted. |
| |
*22| |
| |
| |
*23|Dancing women. |
24| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
25| |
| |
26| |
*27|Mythological scenes. |
*28|Scenes of combat. |
| |
*29|Amazonomachy. |
30| |
| |
*31|Subjects unknown. |
32|Helios in chariot, Athena and|
| Enkelados, other scenes of |
| combat. |
*33|Dionysiac procession. |
*34|Dionysiac scenes, etc. |
Page 26
[Note 1: BENNDORF, _Metopen von Selinunt_, pp. 38-50;
SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di Sicilia_, II, p. 16.]
[Note 2: _Monumenti Antichi_, I, p. 950 ff.]
[Note 3: BRÜCKNER, _Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1889, pp. 67
ff.; 1890, pp. 84 ff.]
[Note 4: MEIER, _Ath. Mitth._, 1885, pp. 237 ff., 322 ff.]
[Note 5: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1149 ff.;
CLARKE, _Report on Investigations at Assos_, pp. 105-121. This
temple has been usually assigned to the sixth century. Mr.
Clarke brings it down to about the middle of the fifth. His
arguments have not yet been published in full.]
[Note 6: LACAVA, _Topografia e Storia di Metaponto_, p. 81.]
[Note 7: Since the inscription which was at one time supposed
to fix the divinity of this temple has been disposed of by
LOLLING, in _Arch. Zeitung_, XXXI (1874, p. 58), the designation
given above rests solely on the prominence given to Athena in
the pediment-sculptures. As for the date, the building is
assigned by Dörpfeld to the sixth cent. (_Olympia_, _Textband_
II, p. 20). The pediment-sculptures might be later, but are now
confidently carried by STUDNICZKA (_Ath. Mitth._, 1886, pp.
197-8) some decades back in the sixth century.]
[Note 8: STUDNICZKA, _Ath. Mitth._, 1886. pp. 185, ff.; MAYER,
_Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 290-91. According to DÖRPFELD, the
metopes of this temple, or some of them, may have been
sculptured.]
[Note 9: PAUS., X, 19. 4. EURIP., _Ion_, 184 ff. The temple
seems to have been long in building. If AISCH, _contra Cles._,
§ 116, is to be believed, the dedication did not take place
till after 479. According to Pausanias, the pediment-sculptures
were the work of Praxias and Androsthenes. These sculptures
have been generally supposed to have been executed about 424,
but may have been considerably earlier, so far as Pausanias
goes to show. The excavations now in progress will, it is to be
hoped, clear up the whole subject.]
[Note 10: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 50-52.]
[Note 11: PAUS., V., 10. 6-9. For the date, see DÖRPFELD,
_Olympia_, _Textband_ II, pp. 19 ff. FLASCH, in Baumeister's
_Denkmäler_, pp. 1098-1100.]
[Note 12: BENNDORF, _op. cit._, pp. 53-60. The attribution of
the temple to Hera rests on the dubious ground of a single
votive inscription to Hera found within the cella; _op. cit._,
p. 34.]
[Note 13: PAUS., I. 24. 5; MICHAELIS, _Der Parthenon_, pp.
107-265; ROBERT, _Arch. Zeit_, 1884, pp. 47-58; MAYER,
_Giganten and Titanen_, pp. 366-370.]
[Note 14: FABRICIUS, _Ath. Mitth._, 1884, 338 ff.; for the
date, DÖRPFELD, _ibid._ p. 336.]
[Note 15: The so-called Theseion.]
[Note 16: ROSS, _Temple der Nike Apteros_, pls. 11-12;
FRIEDERICHS, _Bausteine_, (ed. Wolters) Nos. 747-760. On the
date, see WOLTERS, _Bonger Studien Reinhard Kekulé gewidmet_,
pp. 92-101.]
[Note 17: _Eighth Annual Report of the Archæological Institute
of America_, pp. 42 ff.]
[Note 18: DIOD. SIC., XIII. 82. It is disputed whether Diodoros
speaks of pediment-sculptures or metopes; see PETERSEN, _Kunst
des Pheidias_, p. 208, Note 4. Nothing can be made of the
existing fragments; published by SERRADIFALCO, _Antichità di
Sicilia_, III, pl. 25.]
[Note 19: COCKERELL. _Temples of Aegina and Bassae_, pp. 49-50,
52.]
[Note 20: PAUS, II. 17. 3. The distribution of subjects given
above is that proposed by Dr. Waldstein, in the light of the
Page 27 discoveries made on the site of the Heraion under his direction
in the spring of 1892. See Thirteenth _Annual Report of the
Archæological Institute of America_, p. 64.]
[Note 21: FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine (ed. Wolters) Nos. 812-820. On
the date see MICHAELIS, Ath. Mitth., 1889, pp. 349 ff.]
[Note 22: _Notiziz degli Scavi_, 1890, pp. 255-57; PETERSEN,
_Bull, dell' Istituto_, 1890, pp. 201-27.]
[Note 23: CONZE, _etc., Arch. Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_,
II, pp. 13-14, 23-25.]
[Note 24: PAUS., VIII. 45. 4-7; TREU, Ath. Mitth., 1881, pp.
393-423; WEIL, in Baumeister's Denkmäler, 1666-69.]
[Note 25: [Greek: Ephemeris Archaiologike], 1884, pp. 49-60;
1885, pp. 41-44. For the date see FOUCART, _Bull, de corr.
hellén._, 1890, pp. 589-92.]
[Note 26: PAUS., IX. 11. 4. The date given above conforms to
the view of BRUNN, _Sitzungsber. d. Münch. Akademie_, 1880, pp.
435 ff.]
[Note 27: WOOD, _Discoveries at Ephesus_, p. 271.]
[Note 28: _Antiquities of Ionia_, IV. p. 46. Mr. Pullan is
inclined to date the temple after Alexander; Prof. Middleton
somewhat earlier (_Smith's, Dict, of Antiq._, 3d ed.,] II, p.
785).
[Note 29: CLARAC, _Musée de Sculpture_, II, pp. 1193-1233; pls.
117 C-J. Additional pieces of the frieze have recently been
found in the course of excavations conducted by the German
Archæological Institute. The date given above for the building
is that suggested by DÖRPFELD, _Ath. Mitth._, 1891, pp. 264-5.
Most of the sculpture is generally regarded as of much later
date.]
[Note 30: CONZE, _etc._, _Untersuchungen auf Samothrake_, I,
pp. 24-7, 43-4.]
[Note 3: NEWTON, _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, _etc._, II,
pp. 554-67.]
[Note 32: MAYER, _Giganten und Titanen_, pp. 370-71.]
[Note 33: _Antiquities of Ionia_, IV, pp. 38-9.]
[Note 34: NEWTON, _Discoveries at Halicarnassus_, _etc._, II,
pp. 449-50, 633.]
Page 28
PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT
RELIEFS FROM THE ACROPOLIS TO
VASE-PAINTING.
[PLATE I.]
From one point of view it is a misfortune in the study of
archæology that, with the progress of excavation, fresh
discoveries are continually being made. If only the evidence of
the facts were all in, the case might be summed up and a final
judgment pronounced on points in dispute. As it is, the ablest
scholar must feel cautious about expressing a decided opinion;
for the whole fabric of his argument may be overturned any day
by the unearthing of a fragment of pottery or a sculptured
head. Years ago, it was easy to demonstrate the absurdity of
any theory of polychrome decoration. The few who dared to
believe that the Greek temple was not in every part as white as
the original marble subjected themselves to the pitying scorn
of their fellows. Only the discoveries of recent years have
brought proof too positive to be gainsaid. The process of
unlearning and throwing over old and cherished notions is
always hard; perhaps it has been especially so in archæology.
The thorough investigation of the soil and rock of the
Acropolis lately finished by the Greek Government has brought
to light so much that is new and strange that definite
explanations and conclusions are still far away. The
pediment-reliefs in poros which now occupy the second and third
rooms of the Acropolis Museum have already been somewhat fully
treated, especially in their architectural bearings. Dr.
Page 29 Brückner of the German Institute has written a full monograph
on the subject,[36] and it has also been fully treated by
Lechat in the _Revue Archeologique_.[37] Shorter papers have
appeared in the _Mittheilungen_ by Studniczka[38] and P.J.
Meier.[39] Dr. Waldstein in a recent peripatetic lecture
suggested a new point of view in the connection between these
reliefs and Greek vase-paintings. It is this suggestion that I
have tried to follow out.
The groups in question are too well known to need a detailed
description here. The first,[40] in a fairly good state of
preservation, represents Herakles in his conflict with the
Hydra, and at the left Iolaos, his charioteer, as a spectator.
Corresponding to this, is the second group,[41] with Herakles
overpowering the Triton; but the whole of this is so damaged
that it is scarcely recognizable. Then there are two larger
pediments in much higher relief, the one[42] repeating the
scene of Herakles and the Triton, the other[43] representing
the three-headed Typhon in conflict, as supposed, with Zeus.
All four of these groups have been reconstructed from a great
number of fragments. Many more pieces which are to be seen in
these two rooms of the Museum surely belonged to the original
works, though their relations and position cannot be
determined. The circumstances of their discovery between the
south supporting-wall of the Parthenon and Kimon's inner
Acropolis wall make it certain that we are dealing with
pre-Persian art. It is quite as certain, in spite of the
fragmentary condition of the remains, that they were pedimental
compositions and the earliest of the kind yet known.
[Footnote 36: _Mitth. deutsch. arch. Inst. Athen._, XIV, p. 67;
XV, p. 84.]
[Footnote 37: _Rev. Arch._, XVII, p. 304; XVIII, pp. 12, 137.]
[Footnote 38: _Mitth. Athen._, XI, p. 61.]
[Footnote 39: X, pp. 237, 322. _Cf. Studniczka_, _Jahrbuch
deutsch. arch. Inst._, I, p. 87; _Purgold_, [Greek: Ephemeris
Archaiologike], 1884, p. 147, 1885, p. 234.]
[Footnote 40: _Mitth. Athen._, X, cut opposite p. 237;
[Greek: Ephemeris], 1884, [Greek: pinax] 7.]
[Footnote 41: _Mitth. Athen._, XI, _Taf._ II.]
[Footnote 42: _Idem_, XV, _Taf._ II.]
[Footnote 43: _Idem_, XIV, _Taf._ II, III.]
The first question which presents itself in the present
consideration is: Why should these pedimental groups follow
vase paintings? We might say that in vases we have practically
the first products of Greek art; and further we might show
resemblances, more or less material, between these archaic
reliefs and vase pictures. But the proof of any connection
between the two would still be wanting. Here the discoveries
Page 30 made by the Germans at Olympia and confirmed by later
researches in Sicily and Magna Graecia, are of the utmost
importance.[44] In the Byzantine west wall at Olympia were
found great numbers of painted terracotta plates[45] which
examination proved to have covered the cornices of the Geloan
Treasury. They were fastened to the stone by iron nails, the
distance between the nail-holes in terracottas and cornice
blocks corresponding exactly. The fact that the stone, where
covered, was only roughly worked made the connection still more
sure. These plates were used on the cornice of the long side,
and bounded the pediment space above and below. The
corresponding cyma was of the same material and similarly
decorated.
It seems surprising that such a terracotta sheathing should be
applied on a structure of stone. For a wooden building, on the
other hand, it would be altogether natural. It was possible to
protect wooden columns, architraves and triglyphs from the
weather by means of a wide cornice. But the cornice itself
could not but be exposed, and so this means of protection was
devised. Of course no visible proof of all this is at hand in
the shape of wooden temples yet remaining. But Dr. Dörpfeld's
demonstration[46] removes all possible doubt. Pausanias[47]
tells us that in the Heraion at Olympia there was still
preserved in his day an old wooden column. Now from the same
temple no trace of architrave, triglyph or cornice has been
found; a fact that is true of no other building in Olympia and
seems to make it certain that here wood never was replaced by
stone. When temples came to be built of stone, it seems that
this plan of terracotta covering was retained for a time,
partly from habit, partly because of its fine decorative
effect. But it was soon found that marble was capable of
withstanding the wear of weather and that the ornament could be
applied to it directly by painting.
[Footnote 44: I follow closely Dr. Dörpfeld's account and
explanation of these discoveries in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_,
v, 30 _seq_. See also _Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste_, Berlin,
1881. _Ueber die Verwendung Terracotten_, by Messrs. DÖRPFELD,
GRÄBER, BORRMANN, and SIEBOLD.]
[Footnote 45: Reproduced in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, V,
_Taf._ XXXIV. BAUMEISTER, _Denkmäler des klassischen
Altertums_, _Taf._ XLV. RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la
Céramique Grecque_, pl. XV.]
[Footnote 46: _Historische und philologische Aufsätze_, _Ernst
Cartius gewidmet_. Berlin, 1884, p. 137 _seq_.]
[Footnote 47: V, 20. 6.]
Page 31 In order to carry the investigation a step further Messrs.
Dörpfeld, Gräber, Borrmann and Siebold undertook a journey to
Gela and the neighboring cities of Sicily and Magna
Graecia.[48] The results of this journey were most
satisfactory. Not only in Gela, but in Syracuse, Selinous,
Akrai, Kroton, Metapontum and Paestum, precisely similar
terracottas were found to have been employed in the same way.
Furthermore just such cyma pieces have been discovered
belonging to other structures in Olympia and amid the
pre-Persian ruins on the Acropolis of Athens. It is not yet
proven that this method of decoration was universal or even
widespread in Greece; but of course the fragile nature of
terracotta and the fact that it was employed only in the oldest
structures, would make discoveries rare.
Another important argument is furnished by the certain use of
terracotta plates as acroteria. Pausanias[49] mentions such
acroteria on the Stoa Basileios on the agora of Athens.
Pliny[50] says that such works existed down to his day, and
speaks of their great antiquity. Fortunately a notable example
has been preserved in the acroterium of the gable of the
Heraion at Olympia,[51] a great disk of clay over seven feet in
diameter. It forms a part, says Dr. Dörpfeld, of the oldest
artistic roof construction that has remained to us from Greek
antiquity. That is, the original material of the acroteria was
the same used in the whole covering of the roof, namely
terracotta. The gargoyles also, which later were always of
stone, were originally of terracotta. Further we find reliefs
in terracotta pierced with nail-holes and evidently intended
for the covering of various wooden objects; sometimes, it is
safe to say, for wooden sarcophagi. Here appears clearly the
connection that these works may have had with the later reliefs
in marble.
To make now a definite application, it is evident that the
connection between vase-paintings and painted terracottas must
from the nature of the case be a very close one. But when these
terracottas are found to reproduce throughout the exact designs
and figures of vase-paintings, the line between the two fades
away. All the most familiar ornaments of vase technic recur
Page 32 again and again, maeanders, palmettes, lotuses, the scale and
lattice-work patterns, the bar-and-tooth ornament, besides
spirals of all descriptions. In exception, also, the parallel
is quite as close. In the great acroterium of the Heraion, for
example, the surface was first covered with a dark varnish-like
coating on which the drawing was incised down to the original
clay. Then the outlines were filled in black, red and white.
Here the bearing becomes clear of an incidental remark of
Pausanias in his description of Olympia. He says (v. 10.):
[Greek: en de Olympia] (of the Zeus temple) [Greek: lebes
epichrysos epi ecastô tou orophou tô perati epikeitai]. That
is originally aeroteria were only vases set up at the apex and
on the end of the gable. Naturally enough the later
terracottas would keep close to the old tradition.
[Footnote 48: _Cf. supra, Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste_.]
[Footnote 49: I, 3. 1.]
[Footnote 50: His. Nat., xxxv, 158.]
[Footnote 51: _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, v, 35 and _Taf_.
XXXIV.]
It is interesting also to find relief-work in terracotta as
well as painting on a plane surface. An example where color and
relief thus unite, which comes from a temple in Caere,[52]
might very well have been copied from a vase design. It
represents a female face in relief, as occurs so often in Greek
pottery, surrounded by an ornament of lotus, maeander and
palmette. Such a raised surface is far from unusual; and we
seem to find here an intermediate stage between painting and
sculpture. The step is indeed a slight one. A terracotta
figurine[53] from Tarentum helps to make the connection
complete. It is moulded fully in the round, but by way of
adornment, in close agreement with the tradition of
vase-painting, the head is wreathed with rosettes and crowned
by a single palmette. So these smaller covering plates just
spoken of, which were devoted to minor uses, recall continually
not only the identical manner of representation but the
identical scenes of vase paintings,--such favorite subjects, to
cite only one example, as the meeting of Agamemnon's children
at his tomb.
[Footnote 52: _Arch. Zeitung_, xxix, 1872, _Taf._ 41; RAYET et
COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram. Grecque_, fig. 143.]
[Footnote 53: _Arch. Zeitung_, 1882, _Taf._ 13.]
From this point of view, it does not seem impossible that
pedimental groups might have fallen under the influence of vase
technic. The whole architectural adornment of the oldest temple
was of pottery. It covered the cornice of the sides, completely
Page 33 bounded the pedimental space, above and below, and finally
crowned the whole structure in the acroteria. It would surely
be strange if the pedimental group, framed in this way by vase
designs, were in no way influenced by them. The painted
decoration of these terracottas is that of the bounding friezes
in vase-pictures. The vase-painter employs them to frame and
set off the central scene. Might not the same end have been
served by the terracottas on the temple, with reference to the
scene within the typanum? We must remember, also, that at this
early time the sculptor's art was in its infancy while painting
and the ceramic art had reached a considerable development.
Even if all analogy did not lead the other way, an artist would
shrink from trying to fill up a pediment with statues in the
round. The most natural method was also the easiest for him.
On the question of the original character of the pedimental
group, the Heraion at Olympia, probably the oldest Greek
columnar structure known, furnishes important light. Pausanias
says nothing whatever of any pedimental figures. Of course his
silence does not prove that there were none; but with all the
finds of acroteria, terracottas and the like, no trace of any
such sculptures was discovered. The inference seems certain
that the pedimental decoration, if present at all, was either
of wood or of terracotta, or was merely painted on a smooth
surface. The weight of authority inclines to the last view. It
is held that, if artists had become accustomed to carving
pedimental groups in wood, the first examples that we have in
stone would not show so great inability to deal with the
conditions of pedimental composition. If ever the tympanum was
simply painted or filled with a group in terracotta, it is easy
to see why the fashion died and why consequently we can bring
forward no direct proof to-day. It was simply that only figures
in the round can satisfy the requirements of a pedimental
composition. The strong shadows thrown by the cornice, the
distance from the spectator, and the height, must combine to
confuse the lines of a scene painted on a plane surface, or
even of a low relief. So soon as this was discovered and so
soon as the art of sculpture found itself able to supply the
want, a new period in pedimental decoration began.
Literary evidence to support this theory of the origin of
pediment sculpture is not lacking. Pliny says in his Natural
Page 34 History (xxxv. 156.): _Laudat_ (Varro) _et Pasitelen
qui plasticen matrem caelaturæ et statuariæ sculpturaeque dixit
et cum esset in omnibus his summus nihil unquam fecit antequam
finxit_. Also (xxxiv. 35.): _Similitudines exprimendi quae
prima fuerit origo, in ea quam plasticen Graeci vocant dici
convenientius erit, etenim prior quam statuaria fuit_. In both
these cases the meaning of "plasticen" is clearly working, that
is, moulding, in clay. Pliny, again (xxxv. 152.), tells us of
the Corinthian Butades: _Butadis inventum est rubricam addere
aut ex rubra creta fingere, primusque personas tegularum
extremis imbricibus inposuit, quae inter initia prostypa
vocavit, postea idem ectypa fecit. hinc et fastigia templorum
orta_. The phrase _hinc et fastigia templorum orla_, has been
bracketed by some editors because they could not believe the
fact which it stated. _Fastigia_ may from the whole connection
and the Latin mean "pediments." This is quite in accord with
the famous passage in Pindar,[54] attributing to the
Corinthians the invention of pedimental composition. Here then
we have stated approximately the conclusion which seems at
least probable on other grounds, namely, that the tympanum of
the pediment was originally filled with a group in terracotta,
beyond doubt painted and in low relief.
[Footnote 54: _Olymp._, XIII, 21.]
But if we assume that the pedimental group could have
originated in this way, we must be prepared to explain the
course of its development up to the pediments of Aegina and the
Parthenon, in which we find an entirely different principle,
namely, the filling of these tympana with figures in the round.
It is maintained by some scholars, notably by Koepp,[55] that
no connection can be established between high relief and low
relief, much less between statues entirely in the round and low
relief. High relief follows all the principles of sculpture,
while low relief may almost be considered as a branch of the
painter's art. But this view seems opposed to the evidence of
the facts. For there still exists a continuous series of
pedimental groups, first in low relief then in high relief, and
finally standing altogether free from the background, and
becoming sculpture in the round. Examples in low relief are the
Hydra pediment from the Acropolis and the pediment of the
Page 35 Megarian Treasury at Olympia, which, on artistic grounds, can
be set down as the two earliest now in existence. Then follow,
in order of time and development, the Triton and Typhon
pediments, in high relief, from the Acropolis; and after these
the idea of relief is lost, and the pediment becomes merely a
space destined to be adorned with statuary. Can we reasonably
believe that the Hydra and Triton pediments, standing side by
side on the Acropolis, so close to each other in time and in
technic, owe their origin to entirely different motives, merely
for the reason that the figures of one stand further out from
the background than those of the other? Is it not easier to
suppose that the higher reliefs, as they follow the older low
reliefs in time, are developed from them, than to assume that
just at the dividing-line a new principle came into operation?
[Footnote 55: _Jahrbuch deutschen archäol. Instituts_, II,
118.]
It is a commonplace to say that sculpture in relief is only one
branch of painting. Conze[56] publishes a sepulchral monument
which seems to him to mark the first stage of growth. The
surface of the figure and that of the surrounding ground remain
the same; they are separated only by a shallow incised line.
Conze says of it; "The tracing of the outline is no more than,
and is in fact exactly the same as, the tracing employed by the
Greek vase-painter when he outlined his figure with a brush
full of black paint before he filled in with black the ground
about it." The next step naturally is to cut away the surface
outside and beyond the figures; the representation is still a
picture except in the clearer marking of the bounding-line. The
entire further growth and development of the Greek relief is in
the direction of rounding these lines and of detaching the
relief more and more from the back surface. This primitive
picturesque method of treatment is found as well in high relief
as in low. How then can the process of development be different
for the two? I quote from Friedrichs-Wolters[57] on the metopes
of the temple of Apollon at Selinous, which are distinctly in
high relief: "The relief of these works stands very near to the
origin of relief-style. The surface of the figures is kept flat
throughout, although the effort to represent them in their full
Page 36 roundness is not to be mistaken. Only later were relief-figures
rounded on the front and sides after the manner of free
figures. Originally, whether in high or in low relief, they
were flat forms, modelled for the plane surface whose ornament
they were to be." As the sculptured works were brought out
further and further from the background, this background tended
to disappear. It was no longer a distinctly marked surface on
which the figures were projected, but now higher and now lower,
serving only to hold the figures together. When this point was
reached, the entire separation of the figures from one another
and from the background, became easy. That is, the change in
conception is an easy step by which the relief was lost and
free-standing figures substituted. This process of change was
especially rapid in pedimental groups, for the reason stated
above. The pediment field from its architectonic conditions was
never suited to decoration in relief. But we find from the
works before us that such a system was at least attempted, that
painting and an increased projection of relief were employed as
aids. We are bound to seek a logical explanation of the facts
and of their bearing on the later history of art, and it is
safer to assume a process of regular development than a series
of anomalous changes. Koepp (_cf. supra_), for example, assumes
that these two pediments in low relief are simply exceptions to
the general rule, accounting for them by the fact that it was
difficult to work out high reliefs from the poros stone of
which they were made. He seems to forget that the higher
reliefs from the Acropolis are of the same poros. This material
in fact appears to have been chosen by the artist because it
was almost as easy to incise and carve as the wood and clay to
which he had been accustomed. The monuments of later Greek art
give no hint of a distinction to be drawn between high and low
relief. We find on the same stele figures barely attached to
the ground, and others in mere outline. If then there are
reasons for finding the origin of pedimental decoration in a
plane or low-relief composition of terracotta, made more
effective both by a framing of like material and technic, and
by the acroteria at either extremity and above, then the
process of development which leads at length to the pediments
at Aegina and the Parthenon becomes at once easy and natural.
We note first the change from terracotta to a low painted
Page 37 relief in stone, then this relief becomes, from the necessities
of the case, higher and higher until finally it gives place to
free figures.
[Footnote 56: _Das Relief bei den Griechen. Sitzungs-Berichte
der Berliner Akademie_, 1882, 567.]
[Footnote 57: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bilderwerke_, Nos. 149-151.]
If ceramic art really did exert such an influence on
temple-sculpture, we should be able to trace analogies in other
lines. The most interesting is found in the design and
execution of sepulchral monuments. Milchhoefer[58] is of the
opinion that the tomb was not originally marked by an upright
slab with sculptured figures. He finds what he thinks the
oldest representation of sepulchral ornament in a black-figured
vase of the so-called "prothesis" class.[59] Here are two women
weeping about a sepulchral mound on which rests an amphora of
like form to the one that bears the scene. He maintains then
that such a prothesis vase was the first sepulchral monument,
that this was later replaced by a vase of the same description
in marble, of course on account of the fragile nature of
pottery. For this reason, too, we find no certain proof of the
fact in the old tombs, though Dr. Wolters[60] thinks that the
discovery of fragments of vases on undisturbed tombs makes the
case a very strong one. The use of such vases or urns of marble
for this purpose became very prevalent. They are nearly always
without ornament, save for a single small group, in relief or
sometimes in color, representing the dead and the bereaved
ones. A very evident connecting-link between these urns and the
later sepulchral stele appears in monuments which show just
such urns projected in relief upon a plane surface. The relief
is sometimes bounded by the outlines of the urn itself,[61]
sometimes a surrounding background is indicated. In many cases
this background assumes the form of the ordinary sepulchral
stele. The Central Museum at Athens is especially rich in
examples of this kind. On two steles which I have noticed
there, three urns are represented side by side. A still more
interesting specimen is a stone so divided that its lower part
is occupied by an urn in relief, above which is sculptured the
Page 38 usual scene of parting. This scene has its normal place as a
relief or a drawing in color on the surface of the urn itself;
here, where the step in advance of choosing the plane stele to
bear the relief seems already taken, the strength of tradition
still asserts itself, and a similar group is repeated on the
rounded face of the urn below. The transition to the more
common form of sepulchral monument has now become easy; but the
characteristics which point to its genesis in the funeral vase
are still prominent.
[Footnote 58: _Mitth. Athen._, v, 164.]
[Footnote 59: _Monumenti dell' Inst._, viii, _tav._ v. 1.
_g.h._: found near Cape Kolias; at present in the Polytechnic
Museum at Athens.]
[Footnote 60: _Attische Grabvasen_, a paper read before the
German Institute in Athens, Dec. 9, 1890.]
[Footnote 61: Examples are Nos. 2099 and 2100 in the archaic
room of the Louvre. I remember having seen nothing similar in
any other European museum.]
This process of development, so far as can be judged from
existing types, reaches down to the beginning of the fourth
century B.C. Steles of a different class are found, dating from
a period long before this. Instead of a group, they bear only
the dead man in a way to suggest his position, or vocation
during life. All show distinctly a clinging to the technic of
ceramic art. Sculptured steles and others merely painted exist
side by side. The best known of the latter class is the Lyseas
stele, in the Central Museum at Athens. Many more of the same
sort have been discovered, differing from their vase
predecessors in material and form, but keeping to the old
principles. The outlines, for example, are first incised, and
then the picture is finished with color. The Aristion stele may
be taken as an example of the second order. Relief plays here
the leading part; but it must still be assisted by painting,
while the resemblance to vase-figures in position, arrangement
of clothing, proportion and profile, remains as close as in the
simply painted stele. An ever present feature, also, is the
palmette acroterium, treated in conventional ceramic style.
Loeschke thinks that the origin of red-figured pottery is to be
found in the dark ground and light coloring of these steles.
Whether the opinion be correct or not, it points to a very
close connection between the two forms of art.
The influence of ceramic decoration spread still further. Large
numbers of steles and bases for votive offerings have been
discovered on the Acropolis, which alike repeat over and over
again conventional vase-patterns, and show the use of incised
lines and other peculiarities of the technic of pottery.[62]
[Footnote 62: BORRMANN, _Jahrbuch des Instituts_, III, 274.]
As to specific resemblances between the pediments of the
Acropolis and vase-pictures, the subjects of all the groups are
Page 39 such as appear very frequently on vases of all periods. About
seventy Attic vases are known which deal with the contest of
Herakles and Triton. One of these is a hydria at present in the
Berlin Museum, No. 1906.[63] Herakles is represented astride
the Triton, and he clasps him with both arms as in the
Acropolis group. The Triton's scaly length, his fins and tail,
are drawn in quite the same way. It is very noticeable that on
the vase the contortions of the Triton's body seem much more
violent; here the sculptor could not well follow the
vase-painter so closely. It was far easier for him to work out
the figure in milder curves; but he followed the vase-type as
closely as possible. On the other hand, if the potter had
copied the pedimental group the copy could perfectly well have
been an exact one. The group is very similar also to a scene in
the Assos frieze, with regard to which I quote from
Friedrichs-Wolters;[64] "It corresponds to the oldest Greek
vase-paintings, in which we find beast fights borrowed from
Oriental art, united with Greek myths and represented after the
Greek manner." This frieze is ascribed to the sixth century
B.C., and is not much later than our pediments.
For the Hydra pediment, there exists a still closer parallel,
in an archaic Corinthian amphora, published by Gerhard.[65]
Athena appears here as a spectator, though she has no part in
the pedimental group; but in every other point, in the drawing
of the Hydra, of Herakles and Iolaos, the identity is almost
complete. Athena seems to have been omitted, because the artist
found it difficult to introduce another figure in the narrow
space. Evidently the vase must have represented a type known to
the sculptor and copied by him.
[Footnote 63: Published by GERHARD, _Auserlesene griechische
Vasenbilder_, No. 111; RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram.
Grecque_. fig. 57, p. 125. In the National Museum at Naples,
No. 3419, is a black-figured amphora which repeats the same
scene. The drawing and position of the two contestants is just
as on the Berlin vase, the Triton seeking with one hand to
break Herakles' hold about his neck, while with the other he
holds a fish as attribute. Athena stands close by, watching the
struggle.]
[Footnote 64: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke_, Nos. 8-12.]
[Footnote 65: _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Nos. 95, 96.]
For the Typhon pediment, no such close analogies are possible,
at least in the form and arrangement of figures. It would seem
that this is so simply because no vase-picture of this subject
Page 40 that we know so far answers the conditions of a pedimental
group that it could be used as a pattern. In matters of detail,
a hydria in Munich, No. 125,[66] offers the best illustration.
For example, the vase-painting and the relief show quite the
same treatment of hair, beard and wings in the figure of
Typhon.
Speaking more generally, we find continually in the pediments
reminiscences of ceramic drawing and treatment. The acroteria,
painted in black and red on the natural surface of poros stone,
take the shape of palmettes and lotuses. The cornices above and
below are of clay or poros, painted in just such designs as
appear on the Olympian terracottas; and these designs are
frequently repeated in the sculptures themselves. The feathers
of Typhon's wings are conventionally represented by a
scale-pattern; the arc of the scales has been drawn with
compass; we observe still the hole left in the centre by the
leg of the compass. The larger pinions at the ends of the wings
have been outlined, regularly by incised lines, and then filled
up with color. All this is as like the treatment of
vase-figures, as it unlike anything else in plastic art. In the
former the scale-pattern is used conventionally to denote
almost anything. Fragments of vases found on the Acropolis
itself picture wings in just this way; or it may be Athena's
aegis, the fleece of a sheep or the earth's surface that is so
represented. On the body of the Triton and the Echidna of the
pediments no attempt is made to indicate movement and
contortion by the position of the scales; it is everywhere the
lifeless conventionality of archaic vase-drawing. In sculptured
representations the scale device is dropped, and with it the
rigid regularity in the ordering of the pinions. Further, in
drawing the scales of the Triton, the artist has dropped usual
patterns and copied exactly a so-called bar-ornament which
decorates the cornice just over the pediment. Here again he
chooses one of the most common motives on vases. For the body
of the Echidna, on the other hand, it is the so-called
lattice-work pattern which represents the scale covering,--a
pattern employed in vases for the most varied purposes, and
found on the earliest Cypriote pottery. Even the roll of the
snake-bodies of Typhon seems to follow a conventional spiral
which we find on old Rhodian ware.
[Footnote 66: _Ibid._, No. 287.]
Page 41 The outlining and coloring of the figures is most interesting.
The poros stone of the reliefs is so soft that it could easily
be worked with a knife; so incised lines are constantly used,
and regular geometrical designs traced. Quite an assortment of
colors is employed: black, white, red, dark brown, apparent
green, and in the Typhon group, blue. It is very noticeable
that these reliefs, unlike the others which in general furnish
the closest analogies, the metopes of the temple at Selinous
and the pediment of the Megarian Treasury at Olympia, have the
ground unpainted. This is distinctly after the manner of the
oldest Greek pottery and of archaic wall paintings. Herein they
resemble also another archaic pedimental relief, found near the
old temple of Dionysos at Athens, and representing just such a
procession of satyrs and mænads as appears so often on vases.
To give a local habitation to the class of pottery which most
nearly influenced the artist of these reliefs, is not easy.
Perhaps it is a reasonable conjecture to make it Kamiros of
Rhodes. Kamiros ware shows just such an admixture of oriental
and geometrical designs as characterizes our pediments. Strange
monsters of all kinds are represented there; while in the
reliefs before us a goodly number of such monsters are
translated to Greek soil.
CARLETON L. BROWNSON.
American School of Classical Studies,
Athens, Nov. 10, 1891.
Page 42
PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF
LYSIKRATES AT ATHENS.[67]
[PLATE II-III.]
The small circular Corinthian edifice, called among the common
people the Lantern of Diogenes,[68] and erected, as we know
from the inscription[69] on the architrave, to commemorate a
choragic victory won by Lysikrates, son of Lysitheides, with a
boy-chorus of the tribe Akamantis, in the archonship of
Euainetos (B.C. 335/4), has long been one of the most familiar
of the lesser remains of ancient Athens. The monument was
originally crowned by the tripod which was the prize of the
successful chorus, and it doubtless was one of many buildings
of similar character along the famous "Street of Tripods." [70]
It is the aim of this paper to show, that the earliest
publications of the sculptured reliefs on this monument have
given a faulty representation of them, owing to the
transposition of two sets of figures; that this mistake has
been repeated in most subsequent publications down to our day;
that inferences deduced therefrom have in so far been vitiated;
and that new instructive facts concerning Greek composition in
sculpture can be derived from a corrected rendering of the
original.
[Footnote 67: It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to
the Director of the School, Dr. Waldstein, who has kindly
assisted me in the preparation of this paper by personal
suggestions.]
[Footnote 68: This does not exclude the tolerably well-attested
fact, that the name "Lantern of Diogenes" formerly belonged to
another similar building near by, which had disappeared by
1676.]
[Footnote 69: _C._ 1. _G._ 221.]
[Footnote 70: _Cf._ PAUS., I, 20, 1.]
Although we are not now concerned either with the subsequent
fortunes of the monument arid the story of its preservation, or
Page 43 with its architectural features and the various attempts which
have been made to restore the original design, it may be
convenient to recall briefly a few of the more important facts
pertaining to these questions. The Monument of Lysikrates first
became an object of antiquarian interest in 1669, when it was
purchased by the Capuchin monks, whose mission had succeeded
that of the Jesuits in 1658, and it was partially enclosed in
their _hospitium_.[71] The first attempt to explain its purpose
and meaning was made by a Prussian soldier, Johann Georg
Transfeldt, who, after escaping from slavery in the latter part
of 1674, fled to Athens, where he lived for more than a
year.[72] Transfeldt deciphered the inscription, but was unable
to decide whether the building was a "_templum Demosthenis_" or
a "_Gymnasium a Lysicrate * * * exstructum propter juventutem
Atheniensem ex tribu Acamantia_." [73] Much more important for
the interpretation of the monument was the visit of Dr. Jacob
Spon of Lyons, who arrived at Athens early in the year 1676.
Spon also read the inscription,[74] and, from a comparison with
other similar inscriptions, determined the true purpose of
edifices of this class.[75] Finally the first volume of Stuart
and Revett's _Antiquities of Athens_, which appeared in 1762,
confirmed, corrected and extended Spon's results. Careful and
exhaustive drawings accompanied the description of the
monument.
In the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the
nineteenth century, Athens was visited by many strangers from
western Europe, and the hospitable convent of the Capuchins and
the enclosed "Lantern," which at this time was used as a closet
for books, acquired some notoriety. Late in the year 1821,
however, during the occupation of Athens by the Turkish troops
under Omer Vrioni, the convent was accidentally burned, and its
most precious treasure was liberated, to be sure, but, as may
still be seen, sadly damaged by the fire, and what was still
more unfortunate, left unprotected and exposed to the
destructive mischief of Athenian street-arabs and their less
innocent elders.
[Footnote 71: SPON, _Voyage_, II, p. 244; LABORDE, _Athènes_,
I, p. 75 and note 2.]
[Footnote 72: MICHAELIS, _Mitth. Athen_., I, p. 103. ]
[Footnote 73: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 114.]
[Footnote 74: SPON, III, 2, p. 21 f. ]
[Footnote 75: SPON, II, p. 174.]
Aside from some slight repairs and the clearing away of
rubbish, the monument remained in this condition until 1867,
Page 44 when the French Minister at Athens, M. de Gobineau, acting on
behalf of his government, into whose possession the site of the
former monastery had fallen, employed the architect Boulanger
to make such restorations as were necessary to save the
monument from falling to pieces.[76] At the same time the last
remains of the old convent were removed, and some measures
taken to prevent further injury to the ruin. Repairs were again
being made under the direction of the French School at Athens,
when I left Greece, in April, 1892.
For the architectural study of the monument of Lysikrates
little has been done since Stuart's time. In the year 1845 and
in 1859, the architect Theoph. Hansen made a new series of
drawings from the monument, and upon them based a restoration
which differs somewhat from that of Stuart, especially in the
decoration of the roof. This work is discussed in the monograph
of Von Lützow.[77]
Confining our attention to the sculptures of the frieze, we
will examine certain inaccuracies of detail which have hitherto
prevailed in the treatment of this important landmark in the
history of decorative reliefs of the fourth century. The
frieze, carved in low relief upon a single block of marble,
runs continuously around the entire circumference of the
structure. Its height is only .012 m. (lower, rectangular
moulding) + .23 m. (between mouldings) + .015 m. (upper,
rounded moulding).[78] It is to be noticed that the figures
rest upon the lower moulding, while they are often (in fourteen
cases) carried to the top of the upper moulding.
[Footnote 76: VON LÜTZOW, _Zeitschr für bildende Kunst_, III,
pp. 23, 236 f.]
[Footnote 77: Pp. 239 ff., 264 ff. For another restoration of
the roof _cf._ SEMPER, _Der Stil_, vol. II, p. 242.]
[Footnote 78: My own measurements.]
The question as to the subject of the relief was a sore puzzle
to the early travellers. Père Babin finds "_des dieux
marins_";[79] Transfeldt, "_varias gymnasticorum figuras_,"
which he thought represented certain games held "_in Aegena
insula_" in honor of Demosthenes.[80] Vernon (1676), who
regarded the monument as a temple of Hercules, sees his labors
depicted in the sculptures of the frieze.[81] Spon, while not
accepting this view, admitted that some, at least, of the acts
of Herakles were represented; so that the building, apart from
Page 45 its monumental purpose, might also have been sacred to that
deity.[82] To Stuart and Revett[83] is due the credit of being
the first to recognize in these reliefs the story of Dionysos
and the pirates, which is told first in the Homeric Hymn to
Dionysos. In the Homeric version, Dionysos, in the guise of a
fair youth with dark locks and purple mantle, appears by the
seashore, when he is espied by Tyrrhenian pirates, who seize
him and hale him on board their ship, hoping to obtain a rich
ransom. But when they proceed to bind him the fetters fall from
his limbs, whereupon the pilot, recognizing his divinity,
vainly endeavors to dissuade his comrades from their purpose.
Soon the ship flows with wine; then a vine with hanging
clusters stretches along the sail-top, and the mast is entwined
with ivy. Too late the marauders perceive their error and try
to head for the shore; but straightway the god assumes the form
of a lion and drives them, all save the pious pilot,
terror-stricken into the sea, where they become dolphins.
[Footnote 79: WACHSMUTH, _Die Stadt Athen_, I, p. 757.]
[Footnote 80: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 113.]
[Footnote 81: LABORDE, I, pp. 249 f.]
[Footnote 82: SPON, II, p. 175.]
[Footnote 83: I, p. 27.]
In the principal post-Homeric versions, the Tyrrhenians
endeavor to kidnap Dionysos under pretext of conveying him to
Naxos, the circumstances being variously related. Thus in the
[Greek: Naxiaca] of Aglaosthenes (_apud_ HYGIN. Poet. Astronom.
II. 17),
the child Dionysos and his companions are to be taken to the
nymphs, his nurses. According to Ovid,[84] the pirates find the
god on the shore of Chios, stupid with sleep and wine, and
bring him on board their vessel. On awaking he desires to be
conveyed to Naxos, but the pirates turn to the left, whereupon,
as they give no heed to his remonstrances, they are changed to
dolphins and leap into the sea. Similarly Servius, _Ad. Verg.
Aen._, I. 67. In the _Fabulæ_ of Hyginus (CXXXIV), and in
Pseudo-Apollodorus,[85] Dionysos engages passage with the
Tyrrhenians. Nonnus, however, returns to the Homeric story,
which he has modified, extended, and embellished in his own
peculiar way.[86] These versions, to which may be added that of
Seneca,[87] all agree in making the scene take place on
shipboard, and, if we except the "comites" of Aglaosthenes, in
none of them is the god accompanied by a retinue of satyrs. But
Philostratus[88] pretends to describe a painting, in which two
Page 46 ships are portrayed, the pirate-craft lying in ambush for the
other, which bears Dionysos and his rout.
[Footnote 84: _Met._, III. 605 ff.]
[Footnote 85: _Bibliotheca_, III. 5. 3.]
[Footnote 86: _Dionys._, XLV. 119 ff.]
[Footnote 87: _Oedipus_, VV. 455-473.]
[Footnote 88: _Imag._, I. 19.]
In our frieze, however, the myth is represented in an entirely
different manner. The scene is not laid on shipboard, but near
the shore of the sea, where, as the action shows, Dionysos and
his attendant satyrs are enjoying the contents of two large
craters, when they are attacked by pirates. The satyrs who are
characterized as such by their tails, and in most cases (9 +
2:7) by the panther-skin, forthwith take summary vengeance upon
their assailants, of whom some are bound, others beaten and
burned, while others take refuge in the sea, only to be changed
into dolphins by the invisible power of the god.
These modifications of the traditional form of the story have
usually[89] been accounted for by the necessities of plastic
art; and this view has in its favor that the representation in
sculpture of any of the other versions which are known to us,
would be attended by great difficulties of composition, and
would certainly be much less effective. Reisch, however, has
suggested[90] that this frieze illustrates the dithyrambus
which won the prize on this occasion, and that the variations
in the details of the story are due to this. There is no
evidence for this hypothesis, inasmuch as we have no basis upon
which to found an analogy, and know nothing whatever of the
nature of the piece in which the chorus had figured.
[Footnote 89: _E.g._ OVERBECK, _Plastik³_, II. p. 92;
Friedrichs-Wolters, _Bausteine_, p. 488.]
[Footnote 90: _Griech. Weihgeschenke_, p. 102.]
The general arrangement and technic of this relief, the skill
with which unity of design is preserved despite the circular
form, the energy of the action, and the variety of the
grouping, have often been pointed out. More particularly, the
harmony and symmetry, which the composition exhibits, have been
noticed by most of the later writers who have had occasion to
describe the frieze. It is here, however, that we find the
divergencies and inaccuracies which have been alluded to above,
and these are such as to merit a closer examination.
To begin with the central scene, which is characterized as such
by the symmetrical grouping of two pairs of satyrs about the
Page 47 god Dionysos and his panther and is externally defined by a
crater at either side, we observe that, while the two satyrs
immediately to the right (I¹) and left (I) of Dionysos (0),
correspond in youth and in their attitude toward him, the satyr
at the left (I) has a thyrsus and a mantle which the other does
not possess. These figures have unfortunately suffered much;
the central group is throughout badly damaged, the upper part
of the body and the head of Dionysos especially so. Of the tail
of the panther as drawn in Stuart's work, no trace exists. The
faces of the two satyrs and the head of the thyrsus are also
much mutilated. The other two satyrs (II: II¹), whose faces
are also mutilated, correspond very closely in youth, action,
and nudity. In these two pairs of figures it is also to be
noticed that the heads of I and II at the left face the central
group, while the heads of I¹ and II¹ at the right are
turned away from the centre, toward the right. By this device
the sculptor has obviated any awkwardness which might arise
from the necessity of placing Dionysos in profile.
Passing now to the scenes outside of the vases, we observe
that, of the first pair of satyrs, the bearded figure at the
left (III), leans upon a tree-stump, over which is thrown his
panther-skin, as he contemplates the contest between his
fellows and the pirates, while against his right side rests a
thyrsus. The corresponding satyr on the right (III¹), also
bearded, but with his head now nearly effaced, wears his mantle
slung over the left shoulder as he advances to the right,
offering with his right hand the freshly filled wine-cup to a
youthful companion (IV¹). The latter, with panther-skin over
left shoulder and arm, and club (partially effaced) in
outstretched right hand, is moving rapidly to the right, as if
to join in the battle; his face (also somewhat mutilated) is
partly turned to the left, and despite his attitude of refusal
he forms a sort of group with his neighbor on that side
(III¹), and has no connection, as has been wrongly
assumed,[91] with the following group to the right (V¹).
Corresponding with this youthful satyr, we have on the left
(IV) a nude bearded satyr (face somewhat damaged,) armed with a
torch instead of a club, moving swiftly to the left to take
Page 48 part in the contest. He has no group-relation with his neighbor
on the right (III), although he maybe supposed to have just
left him. The relation is not sufficiently marked in the case
of the corresponding figures on the other side (III¹,
IV¹) to injure the symmetry.
[Footnote 91: _British Museum Marbles,_ IX, p. 114.]
These two pairs of satyrs serve to express the transition from
the untroubled ease of Dionysos and his immediate attendants,
to the violence and confusion of the struggle. Thus the first
pair (III: III¹) seem to feel that their active participation
is unnecessary, and so belong rather to the central scene;
while the second pair (iv: iv¹), hurrying to the combat, are
to be reckoned rather with those who are actively engaged. This
is also emphasized by the symmetrical alternation of young and
old satyrs, _i.e._:
old young old young old young
VIa Vb IV IV¹ V¹b VI¹b
and by their correspondence to VII: VII¹.
On the left side we have next a group, turned toward the right,
consisting of a young satyr with flowing panther-skin (Vb), who
places his left knee on the back of a prostrate pirate (Va)
whom he is about to strike with a club which he holds in his
uplifted right hand. The pirate (face now somewhat damaged) is,
like all of his fellows, youthful and nude. The corresponding
group on the right, faces the left, and represents a nude
bearded satyr (V¹,) with left knee on the hip of a fallen
pirate (V¹a), whose hands he is about to bind behind his
back. Thus the arrangement of the two groups corresponds, but
the action is somewhat different.
I now wish to point out an error which is interesting and
instructive as illustrating how mistakes creep into standard
archæological literature to the detriment of a proper
appreciation of the original monuments; and I may perhaps hope
not only to correct this error once for all, but also, in so
doing, to make clearer certain noteworthy artistic qualities of
this composition.
If we turn to the reproductions of the Lysikrates frieze in the
common manuals of Greek sculpture, we find that the group
(V¹) has exchanged places with the next group to the right
(VI¹) while the corresponding groups on the left side (V,
VI) retain their proper position. In order to detect the source
of this confusion, we have only to examine the drawings of
Stuart and Revett, from which nearly all the subsequent
Page 49 illustrations are more or less directly derived. In the first
volume of Stuart and Revett, the groups (V¹, IV¹) occupy
plates XIII and XIV, and it is evident that the drawings have
been in some way misplaced. These plates have been reproduced
on a reduced scale in Meyer's _Gesch. d. bildenden Künste[92]_
(1825); Müller-Wieseler[93] (1854); Overbeck,[94] _Plastik³_
(1882); W.C. Perry, _History of Greek Sculpture[95]_ (1882);
Mrs. L.M. Mitchell, _History of Ancient Sculpture;[96]_
Baumeister, _Denkmäler[97]_ (1887); Harrison and Verrall,
_Andent Athens[98]_ (1890), and in all with the same
misarrangement.
Nevertheless correct reproductions of the frieze, derived from
other sources, have not been wholly lacking. There is, for
example, a drawing of the whole monument by S. Pomardi in
Dodwell's _Tour through Greece[99]_ (1819), in which the
correct position of these groups is clearly indicated. In 1842
appeared volume IX of the _British Museum Marbles_ containing
engravings of a cast made by direction of Lord Elgin, about
1800.[100] Inasmuch as this cast or similar copies have always
been the chief sources for the study of the relief, owing to
the unsatisfactory preservation of the original, it is the more
strange that this mistake should have remained so long
uncorrected,[101] or that Müller-Wieseler should imply[102]
that their engraving was corrected from the British Museum
publication, when no trace of such correction is to be found. A
third drawing in which the true arrangement is shown, is the
engraving after Hansen's restoration of the whole monument,
published in Von Lützow's monograph[103] (1868). Although
Stuart's arrangement violates the symmetry maintained between
the other groups of the frieze, yet Overbeck[104] especially
commends the symmetry shown in the composition of these
portions of the relief.
[Footnote 92: _Tajel_ 25.]
[Footnote 96: I _Taf._ 37.]
[Footnote 94: II, p. 91.]
[Footnote 95: P. 474.]
[Footnote 96: P. 487.]
[Footnote 97: II, p. 841.]
[Footnote 98: P. 248.]
[Footnote 99: I, opposite p. 289.]
[Footnote 100: H. MEYER, _Gesch. der bildenden Künste_, II, p.
242. note 313.]
[Footnote 101: Since I first noticed the error from study of
the original monument, it gives me pleasure to observe that Mr.
Murray in his _History of Greek Sculpture_, II, p. 333, note,
has remarked that there is a difference between Stuart's
drawing and the cast, without, however, being able to determine
positively which is correct, owing to lack of means of
verification. He was inclined to agree with the cast.]
[Footnote 102: I, _Taf._, note 150: _Mit Berücksichtigung der
Abbildungen nach später genommenen Gypsabgüssen in Ancient
Marbles in the Brit, Mus._]
[Footnote 103: Between pp. 240 and 241.]
[Footnote 104: Plastik³, II, p. 94.]
Page 50 Now let us examine the symmetry as manifested in the corrected
arrangement. After the figures which we have found to have a
thoroughly symmetrical disposition, we have on the left side a
group consisting of a bearded satyr (face damaged), with
panther-skin (VI a), about to strike with his thyrsus a pirate
kneeling at the left (VI b), with his hands bound behind his
back. The face of this figure is also somewhat injured. The
corresponding group on the right (VI¹ instead of the erroneous
V¹), represents a youthful satyr with panther-skin thrown over
his arm (VI¹ a), about to strike with the club which he holds
in his uplifted right hand, a pirate (VI¹ b), who has been
thrown on his back, and raises his left arm, partly in
supplication and partly to ward off the blow. As in the groups
V: V¹, so in VI: VI¹, persons, action, and arrangement, are
closely symmetrical, while a graceful variety and harmony is
effected by so modifying each of these elements as to repeat
scarcely a detail in the several corresponding figures.
After these five fighters, we observe on the left a powerful
bearded satyr (face much injured), with flowing panther-skin,
facing the right, and wrenching away a branch from a tree
(VII). The corresponding figure on the right side (VII¹) is a
nude, bearded satyr, who is breaking down a branch of a tree.
At first the correspondence does not seem to be maintained, for
this satyr faces the right, whereas after the analogy of
figures VII and IV we might expect him to face the left. But a
closer examination shows that this lack of symmetry is apparent
only when figures VII: VII¹ are considered individually, and
apart from the scenes to which they belong. For while IV and
VII, the outside figures of the main scene on the left,
appropriately face each other, the figures IV¹ and VII¹,
which occupy the same position with regard to the chief scene
on the right, are placed so as to face in opposite directions.
By this subtle device, for which the relation between the
figures III¹ and IV¹ furnishes an evident motive, the
sculptor has contrived to indicate distinctly the limits of
these scenes, while the symmetry existing between them is
heightened and emphasized by the avoidance of rigid uniformity.
The trees serve also to mark the end of the preceding scenes,
and to contrast the land, upon which they stand, with the sea,
of which we behold a portion on either side, while a pair of
Page 51 corresponding, semi-human dolphins (VIII: VIII¹) are just
leaping into the element which is to form their home. These
dolphins are not quite accurately drawn in Stuart and Revett,
for what appears as an under jaw is, as Dodwell[105] rightly
pointed out, a fin, and their mouths are closed; the teeth,
which are seen in Stuart's drawing and all subsequent
reproductions of it, do not exist on the monument. The correct
form of the head may be seen in the British Museum publication.
[Footnote 105: I, p. 290.]
After these dolphins, we have on each side another piece of
land succeeded again by a stretch of sea. On these pieces of
land are seen on each side two groups of two figures each,
while a third incipient dolphin (0¹), which does not stand in
group-relation with any of the other figures, leaps into the
sea between them. In these groups there is a general
correspondence, but it does not extend to particular positions
or to accessories.
At the left we observe first a bearded satyr with torch and
flowing panther-skin (IX a), pursuing a pirate, who flees to
the left (IX b). The space between the satyr and his victim is
in part occupied by a hole, which was probably cut for a beam
at the time when the monument was built into the convent. In
the corresponding places on the right side, we have a bearded
satyr with panther-skin (IX¹ a), about to strike with the
forked club which he holds in his uplifted right hand, a seated
and bound pirate (IX¹ b), whose hair the satyr has clutched
with his left hand. The heads of both figures are considerably
damaged, and the lower part of the right leg of the pirate is
quite effaced. To return to the left side, the tree at the left
of the fleeing pirate (IX b), does not correspond with any
thing on the right side. It serves to indicate the shore of the
sea, while on the other side this is effected by the high rocks
upon which the pirate (X¹ b) is seated.
The next group on the left is represented as at the very edge
of the water, and consists of a nude bearded satyr (X b), who
is dragging an overthrown pirate (X a) by the foot, with the
evident intention of hurling him into the sea. The legs and the
right arm of this pirate have been destroyed by another hole,
similar to that which is found between figures IX and IX a. On
Page 52 the right side, a bearded satyr, with flowing panther-skin
(x¹ a) rushes to the right, thrusting a torch into the face
of a pirate who is seated on a rock (x¹ b), with his hands
bound behind his back. In his shoulder are fastened the fangs
of a serpent, which is in keeping here as sacred to Dionysos.
Perhaps, as Stuart has suggested,[106] he may be a
metamorphosis of the cord with which the pirate's hands are
bound; but the sculptor has not made this clear. The figures of
this group, which were in tolerable preservation at the time
when Lord Elgin's cast was made, have since been nearly
effaced, particularly the face, legs and torch of the satyr,
and the face and legs of the pirate, also the rocks upon which
he is seated, and the serpent. Between these figures and the
following dolphin, there is a third hole, similar to those
mentioned already, and measuring 15x16 centimetres.
[Footnote 106: I, p. 34. Stuart cites Nonnus, _Dionys._ XLV.
137. _Cf._ also _Ancient Marbles in the British Mus._ IX. p.
115.]
The less rigid correspondence of these groups (x, ix: ix¹,
x¹), as caused some difficulty. In the text of the _British
Museum Marbles_[107], all that falls between the pair of
dolphins (VII: VIII¹), is regarded as belonging to a
separate composition, grouped about the single dolphin (0¹).
But such an interpolated composition, besides having no purpose
in itself, would vitiate the unity of the entire relief. For,
although the circular form is less favorable to a strongly
marked symmetry than is the plane, at least in compositions of
small extent, still the individual figures and groups must bear
some relation to a common centre, and there can be no division
of interest, or mere stringing together of disconnected figures
or groups of figures. Such a stringing together is assumed by
Mr. Murray, when, in his _History of Greek Sculpture_,[108] he
speaks of seven figures after the pair of dolphins, which,
"though without direct responsion among themselves, still
indicate the continued punishment of the pirates." In the
pirate seated on the rocks (x b), however, Mr. Murray[109]
finds what he calls a "sort of echo" of Dionysos, inasmuch as
he is seated in a commanding position, and is attacked by the
god's serpent. There is, to be sure, a certain external
resemblance in the attitudes of the two figures, but direct
Page 53 connection cannot be assumed without separating x¹ a from
x¹ b, with which, however, it obviously forms a group, and
entirely disregarding the relations which the groups x, ix:
ix¹, x¹ bear to one another and to the dolphin 0¹. And
this Mr. Murray does, when he takes seven figures, among which
x¹ b is evidently to be considered as central instead of what
is plainly four groups of two figures each, _plus_ one dolphin.
[Footnote 107: IX, p. 115.]
[Footnote 108: II, p. 333.]
[Footnote 109: II, p. 332.]
There is, as we have already said, a general correspondence
between these groups. This is effected, in such a way that the
group ix resembles x¹ in action and arrangement, rather than
9¹, which, on the other hand, resembles group x, rather than
group ix. In other words, the diagonalism which we have noticed
above in the arrangement of young and old satyrs (vi a, v b,
iv: iv¹, v¹ b, vi¹ a), is extended here to the groups
themselves.
Moreover, the stretches of sea with the paired dolphins (viii:
viii¹), which are introduced between these groups and those
which had preceded, are not to be regarded as separating the
composition into two parts, but as connecting the central scene
with similar scenes in a different locality. These scenes are
again joined by another stretch of sea with the single dolphin
(0¹), which thus forms the centre of the back of the relief,
opposite Dionysos, and the terminus of the action which
proceeds from the god toward either side.
I do not mean to say, however, that these scenes beyond the
dolphins (viii: viii¹), are to be looked upon as a mere
repetition of those which have preceded, distinguished only by
greater license in the symmetry, or that the changes of
locality have no other purpose than to lend variety to the
action. On the contrary, if we examine the indications of
scenery in this relief, we see that those features by which the
artist has characterized the place of this part of the action
as the seashore, the trees near the water's edge, the
alternating stretches of land and sea, the dolphins, the satyr
pulling the pirate into the water (x), are confined to the
space beyond the trees. In the scenes on the other side of the
trees, there is not only no suggestion of the sea, but the
rocks and the sequence of figures up to Dionysos indicate
rather that his place of repose is some elevation near the
seashore. The contrast between the more peaceful and luxurious
surroundings of the god and the violent contest with the
Page 54 pirates, is thus carried out and enforced by the sculptural
indications of landscape, as well as by the leading lines of
the composition. Though I would not imply that the composition
of this frieze was in any way governed by the laws which rule
similar compositions in pediments, it is interesting and
instructive to note that the general principles of distribution
of subject which have been followed, are somewhat similar to
those which we can trace in the best-known pediments extant;
thus, as the god in his more elevated position would occupy the
centre of the pediment, so the low-lying seashore and the
scenes which are being enacted upon it correspond to the wings
at either side.
To recapitulate, the concordance of figures in this relief is
then briefly as follows: In the central scene, _i.e._, inside
the vases, and in the first pair of transitional figures (III,
II, I: I¹), (II¹, III¹), equality of persons, but not of
accessories (drapery, thyrsi); action symmetrical. In the
immediately adjacent scenes, including the second pair of
transitional figures and the satyrs at the trees (VII, VI, V,
IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹, VII¹), the persons are diagonally
symmetrical in VIa, Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b, VI¹a (_i.e._,
old, young, old: young, old, young), equal in VII: VII¹. The
drapery is diagonally symmetrical in Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b
(_i.e._, panther-skin, nudity: panther-skin, nudity), equal in
VIa: VI¹a, not symmetrical in VII: VII¹, and the weapons
are not symmetrical, except in VII: VII¹ (_i.e._, thyrsus,
club, torch: club, no weapon, club). The action is symmetrical
throughout, although not exactly the same in V: V¹. In the
scenes beyond the dolphins, the persons are equivalent (X, IX:
IX¹, X¹), while the action, drapery and weapons are
harmonious, but not diagonally symmetrical (_i.e._, IXa =
X¹a, but Xb IX¹a). At the left, a tree, at the right, a
pile of rocks and a serpent.--The persons are, accordingly,
symmetrical throughout; the action is so until past the
dolphins (VIII: VIII¹); the drapery only in II: II¹, and
in VI, V, IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹; and the weapons not at all.
It is thus apparent that the correspondence of the figures in
this frieze is by no means rigid and schematic or devoid of
life, but that, on the contrary, the same principles of
symmetry obtain which have been pointed out by many authorities
as prevalent in Greek art.[110] The whole composition exhibits
Page 55 freedom and elasticity, not so indulged in as to produce
discord, but peculiarly appropriate to the element of mirth and
comedy which characterizes the story, and upon which the
sculptor has laid especial stress.
HERBERT F. DE COU
Berlin, August 19, 1892.
[Footnote 110: Brunn, _Bildwerke des Parthenon_; Flasch, _Zum
Parthenonfries_ pp. 65 ff.; and Waldstein, _Essays on the Art
of Pheidias_, pp. 80f., 114ff., 153ff., 194f., 205, 210.]
Page 56
PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
DIONYSUS [Greek: en Limnais].[B]
The dispute over the number of Dionysiac festivals in the Attic
calendar, more particularly with regard to the date of the
so-called Lenaea, is one of long duration.[111] Boeckh
maintained that the Lenaea were a separate festival celebrated
in the month Gamelio. To this opinion August Mommsen in the
_Heortologie_ returns; and maintained as it is by O.
Ribbeck,[112] by Albert Müller,[113] by A.E. Haigh,[114] and by
G. Oehmichen,[115] it may fairly be said to be the accepted
theory to-day. This opinion, however, is by no means
universally received. For example, O. Gilbert[116] has
attempted to prove that the country Dionysia, Lenaea, and
Anthesteria were only parts of the same festival.
[Footnote B: I wish to express my hearty thanks to Prof. U. von
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff of the University of Göttingen, Prof. K.
Schöll of the University of Munich, Prof. A.C. Merriam of
Columbia College, and Dr. Charles Waldstein and Prof. R. B.
Richardson, Directors of the American School at Athens, for
many valuable criticisms and suggestions.]
[Footnote 111: _Vom Unterschied der Lenäen, Anthesterien und
ländlichen Dionysien, in den Abhdl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. zu
Berlin_, 1816-17.]
[Footnote 112: _Die Anfänge und Entwickelung des Dionysoscultus
in Attika._]
[Footnote 113: _Bühnen-Alterthümer._]
[Footnote 114: _The Attic Theatre._]
[Footnote 115: _Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und Römer._]
[Footnote 116: _Die Festzeit der Attischen Dionysien._]
But while the date of the so-called Lenaea has been so long
open to question, until recently it has been universally held
that some portion at least of all the festivals at Athens in
honor of the wine-god was held in the precinct by the extant
theatre of Dionysus. With the ruins of this magnificent
structure before the eyes, and no other theatre in sight, the
temptation was certainly a strong one to find in this
neighborhood the Limnae mentioned in the records of the
ancients. When Pervanoglu found a handful of rushes in the
neighborhood of the present military hospital, the matter
Page 57 seemed finally settled. So, on the maps and charts of Athens we
find the word _Limnae_ printed across that region lying to the
south of the theatre, beyond the boulevard and the hospital.
When, therefore, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, by
Harrison and Verrall, appeared over a year ago, those familiar
with the topography of Athens as laid down by Curtius and
Kaupert were astonished to find, on the little plan facing page
5, that the Limnae had been removed from their time-honored
position and located between the Coloneus Agoraeus and the
Dipylum. That map incited the preparation of the present
article.
While investigating the reasons for and against so
revolutionary a change, the writer has become convinced that
here, Dr. Dörpfeld, the author of the new view, has built upon
a sure foundation. How much in this paper is due to the direct
teaching of Dr. Dörpfeld in the course of his invaluable
lectures _An Ort und Stelle_ on the topography of Athens, I
need not say to those who have listened to his talks. How much
besides he has given to me of both information and suggestion I
would gladly acknowledge in detail; but as this may not always
be possible, I will say now that the views presented here after
several months of study, in the main correspond with those held
by Dr. Dörpfeld. The facts and authorities here cited, and the
reasoning deduced from these, are, however, nearly all results
of independent investigation. So I shall content myself in
general with presenting the reasons which have led me to my own
conclusions; for it would require a volume to set forth all the
arguments of those who hold opposing views.
The passage Thucydides, II. 15, is the authority deemed most
weighty for the placing of the Limnae to the south of the
Acropolis. The question of the location of this section of
Athens is so intimately connected with the whole topography of
the ancient city, that it cannot be treated by itself. I quote
therefore the entire passage:
[Greek:
to de pro toutou e acropolis e nun ousa polis en kai to up'
auten pros noton malista tetrammenon. tecmerion de. ta gar
iera en aute te acropolei kai allôn pheôn esti, kai ta exô pros
touto to meros tes poleôs mallon iorutai, to te tou Dios tou
Olympiou, kai to Pythion, kai ta tes Ges, kai to en Limnais
Dionysou, ô ta archaiotera Dionysia te dodecate poieitai en meni
Anthesteriôni. ôsper kai oi ap' Athenaiôn Iônes eti kai nun
Page 58 nomixousin. idrutai de kai alla iera taute archaia. kai te crene
te nen men tôn turannôn autô okeuasautôn Enneacrounô kaloumene
to de palai phanerôn tôn pegôn ousôn Kallirron ônomasmene
ekeien te eggus ouse ta pleistou exia echrônto, kai nun eti apo
tou archaiou pra te gamicôn kai alla tôn ierôn nomixetai tô
udati chresthai.]
Two assumptions are made from this text by those who place the
Limnae by the extant theatre. The first is that [Greek: up'
auten] includes the whole of the extensive section to the south
of the Acropolis extending to the Ilissus, and reaching to the
east far enough to include the existing Olympieum, with the
Pythium and Callirrhoe, which lay near. The second assumption
is that these are the particular localities mentioned under the
[Greek: tekmerion de]. Let us see if this is not stretching
[Greek: up' auten] a little. I will summarize, so far as may be
necessary for our present purpose, the views of Dr. Dörpfeld on
the land lying [Greek: upo ten acropolin], or the Pelasgicum.
That the Pelasgicum was of considerable size is known from the
fact that it was one of the sacred precincts occupied when the
people came crowding in from the country at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian War,[117] and from the inscription[118] which
forbade that stone should be quarried in or carried from the
precinct, or that earth should be removed therefrom. That the
Pelasgicum with its nine gates was on the south, west, and
southwest slopes, the formation of the Acropolis rock proves,
since it is only here that the Acropolis can be ascended
easily. That it should include all that position of the
hillside between the spring in the Aesculapieum on the south
and the Clepsydra on the northwest, was necessary; for in the
space thus included lay the springs which formed the source of
the water-supply for the fortifications. That the citadel was
divided into two parts, the Acropolis proper, and the
Pelasgicum, we know.[119] One of the two questions in each of
the two passages from Aristophanes refers to the Acropolis, and
the other to the Pelasgicum, and the two are mentioned as parts
of the citadel. That the Pelasgicum actually did extend from
the Aesculapieum to the Clepsydra we know from Lucian.[120]
[Footnote 117: THUCYDEDES, II. 17.]
[Footnote 118: DITTENBERGER, _S. I. G._ 13, 55 ff.]
[Footnote 119: THUCYDEDES, II. 17; ARISTOPHANES, _Birds_, 829
ff.; _Lysistrata_, 480 ff.]
[Footnote 120: _Piscator_, 42.]
Page 59 The people are represented as coming up to the Acropolis in
crowds, filling the road. The way becoming blocked by numbers,
in their eagerness they begin to climb up by ladders, first
from he Pelasgicum itself, through which the road passes. As
this space became filled, they placed their ladders a little
further from the road, in the Aesculapieum to the right and by
the Areopagus to the left. Still others come, and they must
move still further out to find room, to the grave of Talos
beyond the Aesculapieum and to the Anaceum beyond the
Areopagus. In another passage of Lucian,[121] Hermes declares
that Pan dwells just above the Pelasgicum; so it reached at
least as far as Pan's grotto.
[Footnote 121: _Bis Accus_, 9.]
The fortifications of Mycenæ and Tiryns prove that it was not
uncommon in ancient Greek cities to divide the Acropolis, the
most ancient city, into an upper and a lower citadel.
Finally, that the strip of hillside in question was in fact the
Pelasgicum, we are assured by the existing foundations of the
ancient walls. A Pelasgic wall extends as a boundary-wall below
the Aesculapieum, then onward at about the same level until
interrupted by the Odeum of Herodes Atticus. At this point
there are plain indications that before the construction of
this building, this old wall extended across the space now
occupied by the auditorium. Higher up the hill behind the
Odeum, and both within and without the Beulé gate, we find
traces of still other walls which separated the terraces of the
Pelasgicum and probably contained the nine gates which
characterized it. Here then we have the ancient city of
Cecrops, the city before Theseus, consisting of the Acropolis
and the part close beneath, particularly to the south, the
Pelasgicum. We shall find for other reasons also that there is
no need to stretch the meaning of the words [Greek: up auten
pros noton] to make them cover territory something like half a
mile to the eastward, and to include the later Olympieum within
the limits of our early city.
Wachsmuth has well said,[122] although this is not invariably
true,[123] that [Greek: upo ten acropolin] and [Greek: upo te
Page 60 acropolei] are used with reference to objects lying halfway up
the slope of the Acropolis. On the next page he adds, however,
that Thucydides could not have meant to describe as the ancient
city simply the ground enclosed within the Pelasgic
fortifications, or he would have mentioned these in the [Greek:
tekmeria]. Thucydides, in the passage quoted, wished to show
that the city of Cecrops was very small in comparison with the
later city of Theseus; that the Acropolis was inhabited; and
that the habitations did not extend beyond the narrow limits of
the fortifications. He distinctly says that before the time of
Theseus, the Acropolis was the city. He proceeds to give the
reasons for his view: The presence of the ancient temples on the
Acropolis itself, the fact that the ancient precincts outside
the Acropolis were [Greek: pros touto to meros tes poleôs], and
the neighborhood of the fountain Enneacrounus. We know, that the
Acropolis was still officially called [Greek: polis] in
Thucydides' day; and [Greek: polis] so used would have no
meaning if the Acropolis itself was not the ancient city.
[Greek: Pros touto to meros], in the passage quoted, refers to
the city of Cecrops, the Acropolis and Pelasgicum taken
together; and [Greek: tes poleôs] refers to the entire later
city as it existed in the time of Thucydides. It is, however,
in the four temples outside the Acropolis included under the
[Greek: tekmerion de] that we are particularly interested. The
Pythium of the passage cannot be that Pythium close by the
present Olympieum, which was founded by Pisistratus. Pausanias
(I. 28, 4,) says: "On the descent [from the Acropolis], not in
the lower part of the city but just below the Propylæa, is a
spring of water, and close by a shrine of Apollo in a cave. It
is believed that here Apollo met Creusa." Probably it was
because this cave was the earliest abode of Apollo in Athens
that Euripides placed here the scene of the meeting of Apollo
and Creusa.
[Footnote 122: _Berichte der philol.-histor. Classe der Königl.
Sächs. Gesell. der Wiss._, 1887, p. 383.]
[Footnote 123: _Am. Jour. of Archæology_, III. 38, ff.]
According to Dr. Dörpfeld it was opposite this Pythium that the
Panathenaic ship came to rest.[124] In _Ion_, 285, Euripides
makes it clear that, from the wall near the Pythium, the
watchers looked toward Harma for that lightning which was the
signal for the sending of the offering to Delphi. This passage
would have no meaning if referred to lightning to be seen by
Page 61 looking toward Harma from any position near the existing
Olympieum; for the rocks referred to by Euripides are to the
northwest, and so could not be visible from the later Pythium.
To be sure, in later times the official title of the Apollo of
the cave seems to have been [Greek: up' acraiô] or [Greek:
en acrais], but this was only after such a distinction became
necessary from the increased number of Apollo precincts in the
city. The inscriptions referring to the cave in this manner are
without exception of Roman date.[125] From Strabo we learn[126]
that the watch looked "toward Harma" from an altar to Zeus
Astrapæus on the wall between the Pythium and the Olympieum.
This wall has always been a source of trouble to those who place
the Pythium in question near the present Olympieum. But this
difficulty vanishes if we accept the authority of Euripides,
for the altar of Zeus Astrapæus becomes located on the
northwest wall of the Acropolis; and from this lofty position
above the Pythium, with an unobstructed view of the whole
northern horizon, it is most natural to expect to see these
flashes from Harma.
[Footnote 124: PHILOSTRAT. _Vit. Sophist._ II p. 236.]
[Footnote 125: HARRISON and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments_,
p. 541.]
[Footnote 126: STRABO, p. 404.]
The Olympieum mentioned by Strabo and Thucydides cannot
therefore be the famous structure begun by Pisistratus and
dedicated by Hadrian: we must look for another on the northwest
side of the Acropolis. Here, it must be admitted we could wish
for fuller evidence. Pausanias (I. 18. 8) informs us that "they
say Deucalion built the old sanctuary of Zeus Olympius."
Unfortunately he does not say where it was located.
Mr. Penrose in an interesting paper read before the British
School at Athens in the spring of 1891, setting forth the
results of his latest investigations at the Olympieum, said
that in the course of his investigations there appeared
foundations which he could ascribe to no other building than
this most ancient temple. But Dr. Dörpfeld, after a careful
examination of these remains, declares that they could by no
possibility belong to the sanctuary of the legendary
Deucalion.[127]
[Footnote 127: It has been held that Pausanias mentions the
tomb of Deucalion, which was near the existing Olympieum, as a
proof that Deucalion's temple was also here. Pausanias however
merely says in this passage that this tomb was pointed out in
his day only as a proof that Deucalion sojourned at Athens.]
Page 62 The abandonment of work on the great temple of the Olympian
Zeus from the time of the Pisistratids to that of Antiochus
Epiphanes, would have left the Athenians without a temple of
Zeus for 400 years, unless there existed elsewhere a foundation
in his honor. It is on its face improbable that the citizens
would have allowed so long a time to pass unless they already
possessed some shrine to which they attached the worship and
festivals of the chief of the gods.
The spade has taught us that the literary record of old
sanctuaries is far from being complete. The new cutting for the
Piræus railroad has brought to light inscriptions referring to
a hitherto unknown precinct in the Ceramicus.
Mommsen declares[128] that the Olympia were celebrated at the
Olympieum which was begun by Pisistratus; and he adds that the
festival was probably established by him. Of the more ancient
celebration in honor of Zeus, the Diasia, he can only say
surely that it was held outside the city. Certainly we should
expect the older festival to have its seat at the older
sanctuary.
The [Greek: exô tes poleôs], [129] which is Mommsen's authority
in the passage referred to above, has apparently the same
meaning as the [Greek: ta exô (tes poleôs)] already quoted from
Thucydides; _i.e._, outside of the ancient city--the Acropolis
and Pelasgicum. The list of dual sanctuaries, the earlier by the
entrance to the Acropolis, the later to the southeast, is quite
a long one. We find two precincts of Apollo, of Zeus, of Ge,
and, as we shall see later, of Dionysus.
Of Ge Olympia we learn[130] that she had a precinct within the
enclosure of the later Olympieum. Pausanias by his mention of
the cleft in the earth through which the waters of the flood
disappeared and of the yearly offerings of the honey-cake in
connection with this, shows the high antiquity of certain rites
here celebrated. It is indeed most probable that these
ceremonies formed a part of the Chytri; for what seems the more
ancient portion of this festival pertains also to the worship
of those who perished in Deucalion's flood. The worship of Ge
_Kourotrophos_ goes back to times immemorial. Pausanias
Page 63 mentions[131] as the last shrines which he sees before entering
the upper city, those of Ge _Kourotrophos_ and Demeter Chloe,
which must therefore have been situated on the southwest slope
of the Acropolis. Here again near the entrance to the Pelasgic
fortification, is where we should expect _a priori_ to find the
oldest religious foundations "outside the Polis."
[Footnote 128: Heortologie, p. 413.]
[Footnote 129: THUCYDIDES 126.]
[Footnote 130: PAUS. I. 18. 7.]
[Footnote 131: PAUS. I. 22. 33. SUIDAS, [Greek: courotrophos].]
The location of the fourth _hieron_ of Thucydides can best be
determined by means of the festivals, more particularly the
dramatic festivals of Dionysus. That the dramatic
representations at the Greater Dionysia, the more splendid of
the festivals, were held on the site of the existing theatre of
Dionysus, perhaps from the beginning, at least from a very
early period, all are agreed. Here was the precinct containing
two temples of Dionysus, in the older of which was the
xoanon[132] brought from Eleutherae by Pegasus. That in early
times, at least, all dramatic contests were not held here we
have strong assurance. Pausanias[133] the lexicographer,
mentions the wooden seats in the agora from which the people
viewed the dramatic contests before the theatre [Greek: en
Dionysou] was constructed--plainly the existing theatre.
Hesychius confirms this testimony.[134]
[Footnote 132: PAUS I. 2, 5 and I. 20, 3.]
[Footnote 133: PAUS., _Lexikoq._ [Greek: ikria ta, te agora,
aph' ôn etheônto tous Dionysiakous agyna prin e cataskeuasthenai
to en Dionysou Theatron.] Cf. EUSTATH. _Comment. Hom._ 1472.]
[Footnote 134: HESYCH, [Greek: ap' aigeirôn].]
Bekker's _Anecdota_ include mention, also,[135] of the wooden
seats of this temporary theatre. Pollux adds[136] his testimony
that the wooden seats were in the agora. Photius gives the
further important information that the orchestra first received
its name in the agora.[137] There can be no doubt that in very
early times, there were dramatic representations in the agora
in honor of Dionysus; and there must therefore have been a
shrine or a precinct of the god in or close to the agora. The
possibility of presentation of dramas at Athens, especially in
these early times, unconnected with the worship of Dionysus and
with some shrine sacred to him, cannot be entertained for a
Page 64 moment. It is commonly accepted that dramas were represented
during two festivals in Athens,--at the contest at the Lenaeum
and at the City Dionysia. The plays of the latter festival were
undoubtedly given in the extant theatre; but of the former
contest we have an entirely different record. Harpocration
say[138] merely that the Limnae were a locality in Athens where
Dionysus was honored. A reference in Bekker's _Anecdota_
is[139] more explicit. Here the Lenaeum is described as a place
sacred to [Greek: (ieron)] Dionysus where the contests were
established before the building of the theatre. In the
Etymologicum Magnum[140] the Lenaeum is said to be an enclosure
[Greek: (periaulos)] in which is a sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus.
Photius declares[141] that the Lenaeum is a large peribolus in
which were held the so-called contests at the Lenaeum before the
theatre was built, and that in this peribolus there was the
sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus. The scholiast to Aristophanes'
_Frogs_ says[142] that the Limnae were a locality sacred to
Dionysus, and that a temple and another building [Greek: (oikos)]
of the god stood therein. Hesychius mentions[143] the Limnae as
a locality where the Lenaea were held, and says that the Lenaeum
was a large peribolus within the city, in which was the
sanctuary of Dionysus Lenaeus, and that the Athenians held
contests in this peribolos before they built the theatre.
Pollux speaks[144] of the two theatres, [Greek: kai Dionysiakon
theatron kai lenaicon]. Stephanus of Byzantium quotes[145] from
Apollodorus that the "Lenaion Agon" is a contest in the fields
by the wine-press. Plato implies[146] the existence of a second
theatre by stating that Pherecrates exhibited dramas at the
Lenaeum. If the Lenaea and the City Dionysia were held in the
same locality, it is peculiar that in all the passages
concerning the Lenaeum and the Limnae we find no mention of the
Greater Dionysia. But our list of authorities goes still
Page 65 further. Aristophanes speaks[147] of the contest [Greek: kat
agrous]. The scholiast declares that he refers to the Lenaea,
that the Lenaeum was a place sacred [Greek (ieron)] to Dionysus,
[Greek: en agrous] and that the word [Greek: Lenaion] came from
the fact that here first stood the [Greek: lenos] or wine-press.
He adds[148] that the contests in honor of Dionysus took place
twice in the year, first in the city in the spring, and the
second time [Greek: en agrois] at the Lenaeum in the winter. The
precinct by the present theatre, as we know, was sacred to
Dionysus Eleuthereus. In this temenus no mention has been found
of Dionysus [Greek: Limnaios] or [Greek: Lenaios].
[Footnote 135: BEKKER, _Anecdota_ p. 354; _ibid._, p. 419.]
[Footnote 136: POLLUX, VII. 125.]
[Footnote 137: PHOTIUS, p. 106; _Ibid._, p. 351.]
[Footnote 138: HARP. ed. Dind. p. 114. 1. 14.]
[Footnote 139: BEKKER, Anecdota, p. 278, 1. 8.]
[Footnote 140: Et. Mag. [Greek: Ep Lilenaiô].]
[Footnote 141: PHOTIUS, p. 101.]
[Footnote 142: Schol. _Frogs_, 216.]
[Footnote 143: HESYCH., [Greek: Limnai] Ibid, [Greek: epi
Lenaiou agôn].]
[Footnote 144: POLLUX, iv. 121.]
[Footnote 145: STEPH. BYZ., [Greek: Lenaios].]
[Footnote 146: PLATO, _Protag._, 327 w.]
[Footnote 147: _Achar._, 202, and schol.]
[Footnote 148: _Schol. Aristoph. Achar._, 504.]
Demosthenes tells us[149] that the Athenians, having inscribed
a certain law (concerning the festivals of Dionysus) on a stone
stele, set this up in the sanctuary of Dionysus [Greek: en
Limnais], beside the altar. "This stele was set up," he
continues, in the most ancient and most sacred precinct[150] of
Dionysus, so that but few should see what had been written; for
the precinct is opened only once every year, on the 12th of the
month Anthesterio.
[Footnote 149: _Near._ 76.]
[Footnote 150: I have translated [Greek: ierô] by precinct. This
is liable to the objection that [Greek: ieron] may also mean
temple; and [Greek: anoigetai] "is opened" of the passage may
naturally be applied to the opening of a temple. But "hieron"
often refers to a sacred precinct, and there is nothing to
prevent the verb in question from being used of a "hieron" in
this sense. If we consult the passages in which this particular
precinct is mentioned we find, in those quoted from Photius and
the _Etymologicum Magnum_, that the Lenaeum contains a hieron of
the Lenaean Dionysus. This might be either temple or precinct.
In the citation from Bekker's _Anecdota_ the Lenaeum is the
hieron at which were held the theatrical contests. This implies
that the hieron was a precinct of some size. The Scholiast to
_Achar._ 202 makes the Lenaeum the hieron of the Lenaean
Dionysus. Here "hieron" is certainly a precinct. Hesych. [Greek:
epi Lenaiô agôn] renders this still more distinct by saying that
the Lenaeum contained the hieron of the Lenaean Dionysus, in
which the theatrical contests were held. But Demosthenes in the
_Neaera_ declares that the decree was engraved on a stone
stele. It was the custom to set up such inscriptions in the
open air. This stele was also beside the altar. There were
indeed often altars in the Greek temple, but the chief altar
(bômos of the passage) was in the open air. Furthermore, if the
decree had been placed in the small temple, the designation
"alongside the altar" would have been superfluous. But in the
larger precinct such a particular location was necessary. Nor
can it be urged, in view of the secret rites in connection with
the marriage of the King Archon's wife to Dionysus on the 12th
of Anthesterio, that hieron must mean temple; since the new
Aristotle manuscript tells us that this ceremony took place in
the Bucoleum.]
The stele being then visible to the public on but one day of
the year it follows that the entire precinct of Dionysus [Greek:
Page 66 en Limnais] must have been closed during the remainder of the
year. This could not be unless we grant that, in the time of
Demosthenes at least, the Lenaea and the Megala Dionysia were
held in different precincts, and that the Lenaea and
Anthesteria were one and the same festival.
Pausanias tells us[151] that the xoanon brought from Eleutherae
was in one of the two temples in the theatre-precinct, while
the other contained the chryselephantine statue of Alcamenes.
We know, both from the method of construction and from literary
notices, that these two temples were in existence in the time
of Demosthenes. Pausanias says[152] that on fixed days every
year, the statue of the god was borne to a little temple of
Dionysus near the Academy. Pausanias' use of the plural in
[Greek: tetagmenais emerais] is excellent authority that the
temple of the xoanon was opened at least on more than one day of
every year.
From all these considerations it seems to be impossible that
the precinct of the older temple by the extant theatre and the
sanctuary [Greek: en Limnais] could be the same. The suggestion
that the gold and ivory statue of Alcamenes could have been the
one borne in procession at the time of the Greater Dionysia is,
of course, untenable from the delicate construction of such
figures. The massive base on which it stood shows, too, that
its size was considerable. The image borne in procession was
clearly the xoanon which was brought by Pegasus from
Eleutherae.
Wilamowitz calls attention[153] to another fact. In classic
times the contests of the Lenaea are [Greek: Dionysia ta epi
Lenaiô], and the victories are [Greek: vikai Levaikai]; the
Megala Dionysia are always [Greek: ta te estei], and the
victories here [Greek: nikai astikai]. These words certainly
imply a distinction of place. How early these expressions may
have been used, we learn from the account of Thespis.
Suidas[154] is authority that Thespis first exhibited a play in
536 B.C.; and the Parian Marble records[155] that he was the
first to exhibit a drama and to receive the tragic prize [Greek:
en astei].
[Footnote 151: I. 20. 3.]
[Footnote 152: I. 29. 2.]
[Footnote 153: _Die Bühne des Aeschylos_.]
[Footnote 154: _v. Thespis_.]
[Footnote 155: _C.I.G._, II. 2374.]
Page 67 But it has also been contended that Limnae and Lemaeum do not
refer to the same locality. It is clear from what has been
said, however, that the Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia must
have been held in different localities. So if Limnae and the
Lenaeum do not refer at least to the same region, there must
have been three separate sanctuaries of Dionysus; for no one
will claim that the Greater Dionysia can have been held in the
Limnae if the Lenaea were not celebrated there. But as we have
seen, Hesychius ([Greek: en Limnai]) declares that the Lenaea
were held [Greek: en Limanis]. The scholiast to Aristophanes
says[156] that the Chytri were a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus;
so the Chytri as well as the Lenaea must have been celebrated in
the Lenaeum. Athenæus in the story of Orestes and Pandion
speaks[157] of the temenus [Greek: en Limnais] in connection
with the Choes. In Suidas ([Greek: choes]), however, we learn
that either Limnaeus or Lenaeus could be used in referring to
the same Dionysus. Such positive testimony for the identity of
the Lenaeum and the sanctuary in the Limnae, cannot be rejected.
[Footnote 156: _Acharnians_ 960.]
[Footnote 157: X, 437 d.]
We have still more c
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/20153