[Footnote 52: Arch. Zeitung, xxix, 1872, Taf. 41; RAYET et COLLIGNON, Hist. Cram. 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 caelatur et statuari 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 archol. 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: Gipsabgsse 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. Cram. 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: Gipsabgsse 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 mnads as appears so often on vases.

To give a local habitation to the class of pottery which most nearly influenced the artist of these reliefs, is not easy. Perhaps it is a reasonable conjecture to make it Kamiros of Rhodes. Kamiros ware shows just such an admixture of oriental and geometrical designs as characterizes our pediments. Strange monsters of all kinds are represented there; while in the reliefs before us a goodly number of such monsters are translated to Greek soil.

CARLETON L. BROWNSON. American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Nov. 10, 1891.

Page 42

PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS. THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSIKRATES AT ATHENS.[67]

[PLATE II-III.]

The small circular Corinthian edifice, called among the common people the Lantern of Diogenes,[68] and erected, as we know from the inscription[69] on the architrave, to commemorate a choragic victory won by Lysikrates, son of Lysitheides, with a boy-chorus of the tribe Akamantis, in the archonship of Euainetos (B.C. 335/4), has long been one of the most familiar of the lesser remains of ancient Athens. The monument was originally crowned by the tripod which was the prize of the successful chorus, and it doubtless was one of many buildings of similar character along the famous "Street of Tripods." [70] It is the aim of this paper to show, that the earliest publications of the sculptured reliefs on this monument have given a faulty representation of them, owing to the transposition of two sets of figures; that this mistake has been repeated in most subsequent publications down to our day; that inferences deduced therefrom have in so far been vitiated; and that new instructive facts concerning Greek composition in sculpture can be derived from a corrected rendering of the original.

[Footnote 67: It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to the Director of the School, Dr. Waldstein, who has kindly assisted me in the preparation of this paper by personal suggestions.]

[Footnote 68: This does not exclude the tolerably well-attested fact, that the name "Lantern of Diogenes" formerly belonged to another similar building near by, which had disappeared by 1676.]

[Footnote 69: C. 1. G. 221.]

[Footnote 70: Cf. PAUS., I, 20, 1.]

Although we are not now concerned either with the subsequent fortunes of the monument arid the story of its preservation, or Page 43 with its architectural features and the various attempts which have been made to restore the original design, it may be convenient to recall briefly a few of the more important facts pertaining to these questions. The Monument of Lysikrates first became an object of antiquarian interest in 1669, when it was purchased by the Capuchin monks, whose mission had succeeded that of the Jesuits in 1658, and it was partially enclosed in their hospitium.[71] The first attempt to explain its purpose and meaning was made by a Prussian soldier, Johann Georg Transfeldt, who, after escaping from slavery in the latter part of 1674, fled to Athens, where he lived for more than a year.[72] Transfeldt deciphered the inscription, but was unable to decide whether the building was a "templum Demosthenis" or a "Gymnasium a Lysicrate * * * exstructum propter juventutem Atheniensem ex tribu Acamantia." [73] Much more important for the interpretation of the monument was the visit of Dr. Jacob Spon of Lyons, who arrived at Athens early in the year 1676. Spon also read the inscription,[74] and, from a comparison with other similar inscriptions, determined the true purpose of edifices of this class.[75] Finally the first volume of Stuart and Revett's Antiquities of Athens, which appeared in 1762, confirmed, corrected and extended Spon's results. Careful and exhaustive drawings accompanied the description of the monument.

In the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century, Athens was visited by many strangers from western Europe, and the hospitable convent of the Capuchins and the enclosed "Lantern," which at this time was used as a closet for books, acquired some notoriety. Late in the year 1821, however, during the occupation of Athens by the Turkish troops under Omer Vrioni, the convent was accidentally burned, and its most precious treasure was liberated, to be sure, but, as may still be seen, sadly damaged by the fire, and what was still more unfortunate, left unprotected and exposed to the destructive mischief of Athenian street-arabs and their less innocent elders.

[Footnote 71: SPON, Voyage, II, p. 244; LABORDE, Athnes, 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 Ltzow.[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 LTZOW, Zeitschr fr 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. Pre 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 Fabul 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, Plastik, 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 (I) 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: II), 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 I and II 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 (III), 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 (IV). 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 (III), and has no connection, as has been wrongly assumed,[91] with the following group to the right (V). 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 (III, IV) 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: III) seem to feel that their active participation is unnecessary, and so belong rather to the central scene; while the second pair (iv: iv), 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 IV Vb VIb

and by their correspondence to VII: VII.

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 (V,) with left knee on the hip of a fallen pirate (Va), 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 archological 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 (V) has exchanged places with the next group to the right (VI) 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 (V, IV) 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 Knste[92] (1825); Mller-Wieseler[93] (1854); Overbeck,[94] Plastik (1882); W.C. Perry, History of Greek Sculpture[95] (1882); Mrs. L.M. Mitchell, History of Ancient Sculpture;[96] Baumeister, Denkmler[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 Mller-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 Ltzow'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 Knste, 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 Bercksichtigung der Abbildungen nach spter genommenen Gypsabgssen in Ancient Marbles in the Brit, Mus.]

[Footnote 103: Between pp. 240 and 241.]

[Footnote 104: Plastik, 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 (VI instead of the erroneous V), represents a youthful satyr with panther-skin thrown over his arm (VI a), about to strike with the club which he holds in his uplifted right hand, a pirate (VI 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: V, so in VI: VI, 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 (VII) 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: VII 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 IV and VII, 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 III and IV 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: VIII) 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 (0), 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 (IX a), about to strike with the forked club which he holds in his uplifted right hand, a seated and bound pirate (IX 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 (X 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 (x a) rushes to the right, thrusting a torch into the face of a pirate who is seated on a rock (x 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: ix, x), as caused some difficulty. In the text of the British Museum Marbles[107], all that falls between the pair of dolphins (VII: VIII), is regarded as belonging to a separate composition, grouped about the single dolphin (0). 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 x a from x b, with which, however, it obviously forms a group, and entirely disregarding the relations which the groups x, ix: ix, x bear to one another and to the dolphin 0. And this Mr. Murray does, when he takes seven figures, among which x 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 x in action and arrangement, rather than 9, 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: iv, v b, vi a), is extended here to the groups themselves.

Moreover, the stretches of sea with the paired dolphins (viii: viii), 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 (0), 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: viii), 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: I), (II, III), 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: IV, V, VI, VII), the persons are diagonally symmetrical in VIa, Vb, IV: IV, Vb, VIa (i.e., old, young, old: young, old, young), equal in VII: VII. The drapery is diagonally symmetrical in Vb, IV: IV, Vb (i.e., panther-skin, nudity: panther-skin, nudity), equal in VIa: VIa, not symmetrical in VII: VII, and the weapons are not symmetrical, except in VII: VII (i.e., thyrsus, club, torch: club, no weapon, club). The action is symmetrical throughout, although not exactly the same in V: V. In the scenes beyond the dolphins, the persons are equivalent (X, IX: IX, X), while the action, drapery and weapons are harmonious, but not diagonally symmetrical (i.e., IXa = Xa, but Xb IXa). 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: VIII); the drapery only in II: II, and in VI, V, IV: IV, V, VI; 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 Mller,[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-Mllendorff of the University of Gttingen, Prof. K. Schll 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 Lenen, Anthesterien und lndlichen Dionysien, in den Abhdl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin, 1816-17.]

[Footnote 112: Die Anfnge und Entwickelung des Dionysoscultus in Attika.]

[Footnote 113: Bhnen-Alterthmer.]

[Footnote 114: The Attic Theatre.]

[Footnote 115: Das Bhnenwesen der Griechen und Rmer.]

[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. Drpfeld, 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. Drpfeld 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. Drpfeld. 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 alln phen esti, kai ta ex pros touto to meros tes poles mallon iorutai, to te tou Dios tou Olympiou, kai to Pythion, kai ta tes Ges, kai to en Limnais Dionysou, ta archaiotera Dionysia te dodecate poieitai en meni Anthesterini. sper kai oi ap' Athenain Ines eti kai nun Page 58 nomixousin. idrutai de kai alla iera taute archaia. kai te crene te nen men tn turannn aut okeuasautn Enneacroun kaloumene to de palai phanern tn pegn ousn Kallirron nomasmene ekeien te eggus ouse ta pleistou exia echrnto, kai nun eti apo tou archaiou pra te gamicn kai alla tn iern nomixetai t 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. Drpfeld 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 Mycen 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 Beul 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 poles], 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 poles] 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 Propyla, 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 Knigl. Schs. Gesell. der Wiss., 1887, p. 383.]

[Footnote 123: Am. Jour. of Archology, III. 38, ff.]

According to Dr. Drpfeld 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' acrai] 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 Astrapus 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 Astrapus 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. Drpfeld, 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 Pirus 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: ex tes poles], [129] which is Mommsen's authority in the passage referred to above, has apparently the same meaning as the [Greek: ta ex (tes poles)] 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' n ethento tous Dionysiakous agyna prin e cataskeuasthenai to en Dionysou Theatron.] Cf. EUSTATH. Comment. Hom. 1472.]

[Footnote 134: HESYCH, [Greek: ap' aigeirn].]

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 Lilenai].]

[Footnote 141: PHOTIUS, p. 101.]

[Footnote 142: Schol. Frogs, 216.]

[Footnote 143: HESYCH., [Greek: Limnai] Ibid, [Greek: epi Lenaiou agn].]

[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: ier] 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 Lenai agn] 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 (bmos of the passage) was in the open air. Furthermore, if the decree had been placed in the small temple, the designation "alongside the altar" would have been superfluous. But in the larger precinct such a particular location was necessary. Nor can it be urged, in view of the secret rites in connection with the marriage of the King Archon's wife to Dionysus on the 12th of Anthesterio, that hieron must mean temple; since the new Aristotle manuscript tells us that this ceremony took place in the Bucoleum.]

The stele being then visible to the public on but one day of the year it follows that the entire precinct of Dionysus [Greek: Page 66 en Limnais] must have been closed during the remainder of the year. This could not be unless we grant that, in the time of Demosthenes at least, the Lenaea and the Megala Dionysia were held in different precincts, and that the Lenaea and Anthesteria were one and the same festival.

Pausanias tells us[151] that the xoanon brought from Eleutherae was in one of the two temples in the theatre-precinct, while the other contained the chryselephantine statue of Alcamenes. We know, both from the method of construction and from literary notices, that these two temples were in existence in the time of Demosthenes. Pausanias says[152] that on fixed days every year, the statue of the god was borne to a little temple of Dionysus near the Academy. Pausanias' use of the plural in [Greek: tetagmenais emerais] is excellent authority that the temple of the xoanon was opened at least on more than one day of every year.

From all these considerations it seems to be impossible that the precinct of the older temple by the extant theatre and the sanctuary [Greek: en Limnais] could be the same. The suggestion that the gold and ivory statue of Alcamenes could have been the one borne in procession at the time of the Greater Dionysia is, of course, untenable from the delicate construction of such figures. The massive base on which it stood shows, too, that its size was considerable. The image borne in procession was clearly the xoanon which was brought by Pegasus from Eleutherae.

Wilamowitz calls attention[153] to another fact. In classic times the contests of the Lenaea are [Greek: Dionysia ta epi Lenai], and the victories are [Greek: vikai Levaikai]; the Megala Dionysia are always [Greek: ta te estei], and the victories here [Greek: nikai astikai]. These words certainly imply a distinction of place. How early these expressions may have been used, we learn from the account of Thespis. Suidas[154] is authority that Thespis first exhibited a play in 536 B.C.; and the Parian Marble records[155] that he was the first to exhibit a drama and to receive the tragic prize [Greek: en astei].

[Footnote 151: I. 20. 3.]

[Footnote 152: I. 29. 2.]

[Footnote 153: Die Bhne des Aeschylos.]

[Footnote 154: v. Thespis.]

[Footnote 155: C.I.G., II. 2374.]

Page 67 But it has also been contended that Limnae and Lemaeum do not refer to the same locality. It is clear from what has been said, however, that the Lenaea and the Greater Dionysia must have been held in different localities. So if Limnae and the Lenaeum do not refer at least to the same region, there must have been three separate sanctuaries of Dionysus; for no one will claim that the Greater Dionysia can have been held in the Limnae if the Lenaea were not celebrated there. But as we have seen, Hesychius ([Greek: en Limnai]) declares that the Lenaea were held [Greek: en Limanis]. The scholiast to Aristophanes says[156] that the Chytri were a festival of Dionysus Lenaeus; so the Chytri as well as the Lenaea must have been celebrated in the Lenaeum. Athenus in the story of Orestes and Pandion speaks[157] of the temenus [Greek: en Limnais] in connection with the Choes. In Suidas ([Greek: choes]), however, we learn that either Limnaeus or Lenaeus could be used in referring to the same Dionysus. Such positive testimony for the identity of the Lenaeum and the sanctuary in the Limnae, cannot be rejected.

[Footnote 156: Acharnians 960.]

[Footnote 157: X, 437 d.]

We have still more convincing testimony that in the great period of the drama the two annual contests at which dramas were brought out were held in different places, in the record of the time when the wooden theatre [Greek: en Limnais] was finally given up, and [Greek: o epi Lemnai] became a thing of the past. The change comes exactly when we should look for it, when the existing theatre had been splendidly rebuilt by Lycurgus. The passage is in Plutarch, where he says[158] that this orator also introduced a law that the contest of the comedians at the Chytri should take place in the theatre, and that the victor should be reckoned [Greek: es astin], as had not been done before. He further implies that the contest at the Chytri had fallen into disuse, for he adds that Lycurgus thus restored an agon that had been omitted. This last authority, however, concerns a contest at the Chytri, the Anthesteria, and is only one of many passages which tend to show that [Greek: o epi Lemnai] was held at this festival. The most weighty testimony for making the Lenaea an independent festival, even in Page 68 historic times, is given by Proclus in a scholium to Hesiod.[159] He quotes from Plutarch the statement that there was no month Lenaeo among the Boeotians. He adds that this month was the Attic Gamelio in which the Lenaea were held. Hesychius makes the same citation from Plutarch[160] as to a non-existence of a Boeotian month Lenaeo, and continues: "But some say that this month is the (Boeotian) Hermaio, and this is true, for the Athenians [held] in this month ([Greek: en auto]) the festival of the Lenaea." The great similarity of the two passages renders it very probable that both were drawn from the same sources. The omission of Gamelio by Hesychius, by referring the [en aut] back to Lenaeo, makes him authority that the Lenaea were held in that month. This, in turn implies that Proclus may have inserted Gamelio in order to bring the statement into relation with the Attic months of his own day. In the authorities referring to this month is a suggestion of several facts and a curious struggle to account for them. Proclus cites Plutarch to the effect that there was no month Lenaeo among the Boeotians, but, being probably misled by the very passage in Hesiod for which he has quoted Plutarch, he adds[161] that they had such a month. He goes on to state that the month is so called from the Lenaea, or from the Ambrosia. Moschopulus,[162] Tzetzes,[163] and the Etymologicum Magnum[164] repeat this last statement. An inscription[165] referring to a crowning of Bacchus on the 18th of Gamelio may refer to the same festival. Tzetzes alone is responsible for the statement that the Pithoigia came in this month. Through Proclus and Hesychius we are assured of the belief that there was once an Attic month Lenaeo. Proclus, Hesychius and Moschopulus tell us that the Lenaea were at some period held in this month; while Proclus, Moschopulus, Tzetzes, and the inscription assure us that there was another festival of Dionysus in this month; and the first three of these authorities name this festival Ambrosia. A tradition running Page 69 with such persistency through so many authors affords a strong presumption that there once existed an Attic month Lenaeo, and that the Lenaea were celebrated in that month.