Chapter III: Front Matter (3)

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.