The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1

Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

Text size

[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._

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.

7 None.

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

Page 23

Page 24

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.

Previous Next

Comments

The American Journal of Archaeology, 1893-1Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

0%33 min left in chapter