 |
Page i
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHOLOGY AND OF THE HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS
VOLUME VIII
1893
PRINCETON: THE BUSINESS MANAGER LONDON: TRBNER & CO. PARIS: E. LEROUX TURIN, FLORENCE and ROME: E. LOESCHER LEIPZIG: KARL W. HIERSEMANN.
Page ii
EDITORS.
Managing Editor: Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
Literary Editor: Prof. H.N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Editorial Committee on behalf of the Archological Institute: Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of Yonkers, N.Y.
Publication Committee for the Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College; Mr. T.W. LUDLOW, of Yonkers, N.Y.
Business Manager: Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
All literary contributions should be addressed to the Managing Editor; all business communications to the Business Manager.
CONTRIBUTORS.
The following are among the contributors to past volumes:
M.E. BABELON, Conservateur an Cabinet des Mdailles, National Library, Paris Prof. W.N. BATES, of Harvard University, Cambridge. Mr. SAMUEL BESWICK, Hollidaysburg, Pa. Mr. CARLETON L. BROWNSON, of Yale University, New Haven. Prof. CARL D. BUCK, of University of Chicago, Ill. Dr. A.A. CARUANA, Librarian and Director of Education, Malta Mr. JOSEPH T. CLARKE, Harrow, England. Dr. NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, Princeton University. Mr. HERBERT F. DE COU. Dr. WILHELM DRPFELD, Secretary German Archological Institute, Athens. M. MILE DUVAL, Director of the Muse Fol, Geneva. Dr. M.L. EARLE, of Barnard College, New York. Prof. ALFRED EMERSON, of Cornell University. Mr. ANDREW FOSSUM, of St. Olaf College, Northfield, Mass. Prof. HAROLD N. FOWLER, of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. Prof. A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., of Princeton University. Dr. A. FURTWNGLER, Professor of Archology in the University of Berlin. Page iii Mr. ERNEST A. GARDNER, Director of the British School of Archology, Athens. Padre GERMANO DI S. STANISLAO, Passionista, Rome. Mr. WM. H. GOODYEAR, Curator, Brooklyn Institute. Prof. W. HELBIG, former Secretary of the German Archological Institute, Rome. Prof. GUSTAV HIRSCHFELD, of Knigsberg, Prussia. Dr. GEO. B. HUSSEY, of University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. Dr. ALBERT L. LONG, of Robert College, Constantinople. Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, of Princeton University. Comte de MARSY, Director of the Soc. Franc. d'Archologie, Bulletin Monumental, etc. Prof. ORAZIO MARUCCHI, member of Archol. Commission of Rome, etc. Prof. A.C. MERRIAM, of Columbia College. Prof. G. MASPERO, former Director of Antiq., Egypt; Prof. at Collge de France, Paris. M. JOACHIM MENANT, of Rouen, France. Mr. WILLIAM MERCER, of Gainsborough, England. Prof. ADOLPH MICHAELIS, of the University of Strassburg. Prof. WALTER MILLER, of Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo Alto, Cal. Prof. THEODOR MOMMSEN, Berlin. M. EUGNE MNTZ, Librarian and Conservateur of the cole des Beaux-Arts, Paris. A.S. MURRAY, Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum. Prof. CHARLES E. NORTON, of Harvard University, Cambridge. Rev. JOHN P. PETERS, Director of the Babylonian Expedition, New York City. Mr. JOHN PICKARD, Professor in the University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. Mr. THEO. J. PINCHES, of the British Museum, London. Prof. WM. C. POLAND, of Brown University, Providence, R.I. Mr. W.M. RAMSAY, Professor in the University of Aberdeen. Dr. FRANZ V. REBER, Professor in the University and Polytechnic of Munich, etc. M. SALOMON REINACH, Conservateur of the Muse National de St. Germain. Prof. RUFUS B. RICHARDSON, of Dartmouth College, Hanover. Prof. JOHN C. ROLFE, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. TH. SCHREIBER, Prof. of Archol. in the Univ., and Director of Museum, Leipzig. Mr. ROBERT SEWELL, Madras Civil Service, F.R.G.S., M.R.A.S. Mrs. CORNELIUS STEVENSON, Curator Museum University of Pa., Philadelphia. Prof. FRANK B. TARBELL, of University of Chicago, Ill. Mr. S.B.P. TROWBRIDGE, of New York. Dr. CHARLES WALDSTEIN, of Cambridge University, England. Dr. WM. HAYES WARD, President Am. Oriental Society, and Ed. Independent, N.Y. Mr. HENRY S. WASHINGTON. Prof. J.R. WHEELER, University of Vermont, Burlington. Dr. PAUL WOLTERS, Secretary of the German Archological Institute at Athens. Hon. JOHN WORTHINGTON, U.S. Consul at Malta. Prof. J.H. WRIGHT, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. The Director and Members of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Page iv
PROGRAM.
The JOURNAL treats of the various branches of archology and art history—Oriental, Classic, Christian and Early Renaissance. Its original articles are predominantly classic on account of the fact that it has become the official organ of the ARCHOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA and of the AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, and the JOURNAL will aim to further the interests for which the Institute and the School were founded. In it are published the reports on all the excavations undertaken in Greece and elsewhere by the Institute and the School, and the studies carried on independently by the Directors and members of the School. By decision of the Council of the Archological Institute the JOURNAL has been distributed during 1893 to all members of the Institute, and the same distribution will be made during 1894.
Beside articles the JOURNAL contains CORRESPONDENCE, BOOK NOTICES AND REVIEWS AND ARCHOLOGICAL NEWS. It is its aim to give notices of all important publications recently issued, sometimes written expressly for the JOURNAL, sometimes summarized from authorized reviews in other publications.
The department in which the JOURNAL stands quite alone is the RECORD OF DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. While all periods and all countries are represented, special attention is given to Egypt, Greece and Italy. Not merely are the results of actual excavations chronicled, but everything in the way of novel views and investigations as expressed in books and periodicals is noted. In order to secure thoroughness, more than one hundred periodicals are consulted and utilized. By these various methods, all important work is concentrated and made accessible in a convenient but scholarly form, equally suited to the specialist and to the general reader.
It has been the aim of the editors that the JOURNAL, besides giving a survey of the whole field of archology, should be international in character. Its success in this attempt is shown by the many noted European writers whose contributions have appeared in its pages during the past eight years. Such are: MM. Babelon, de Marsy, Maspero, Menant, Mntz and Reinach for France: MM. Drpfeld, Furtwngler, Hirschfeld, Michaelis, Mommsen, Schreiber and Wolters for Germany; MM. Gardner, Murray, Pinches and Ramsay for England, etc.
The JOURNAL is published quarterly and forms, each year, a volume of between 500 and 600 pages royal 8vo, illustrated with Page v colored, heliotype, phototype, half-tone and other plates and numerous figures. The yearly subscription is $5.00 for America; and for countries of the Postal Union, 27 francs, 21 shillings or marks, post-paid.
Vol. I, containing 489 pages, 11 plates and 16 figures; Vol. II, containing 521 pages; 14 plates and 46 figures; Vol. III, containing 531 pages, 33 plates and 19 figures; Vol. IV, containing 550 pages, 20 plates and 19 figures; Vol. V, containing 534 pages, 13 plates and 55 figures; Vol. VI, containing 612 pages, 23 plates and 23 figures; Vol. VII, containing 578 pages; 26 plates and 8 figures; Vol. VIII, containing 631 pages, 18 plates and 26 figures—will be sent bound for $5.50, unbound for $5.00.
Vol. I has lately been out of print, but will be reprinted shortly in view of the increasing demand for back volumes; all who desire to complete their sets should send in their application.
Page vi
CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII, 1893.
No. 1. JANUARY—MARCH. PAGE. I.—THE TEMPLE OF THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS, By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 1
II.—NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE-SCULPTURES, By F.B. TARBELL and W.N. BATES, 18
III.—PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS. I.—THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT RELIEFS FROM THE ACROPOLIS TO VASE-PAINTING, By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 28 II.—THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSIKRATES AT ATHENS, By HERBERT F. DE COU, 42 III.—DIONYSUS [Greek: en Limnais], By JOHN PICKARD, 56
CORRESPONDENCE. Hunting della Rabbia Monuments in Italy, By ALLAN MARQUAND, 83
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS. M. COLLIGNON, Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, By A.M. 87 HEINRICH BRUNN, Griechische Gtterideale, By A.M. 89
ARCHOLOGICAL NEWS. AFRICA (Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria and Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan, Thibet, China, Central Asia, Arabia, Babylonia, Persia, Syria, Armenia, Caucasus, Asia Minor), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 154
No. 2. APRIL—JUNE.
I.—SOME UNPUBLISHED MONUMENTS BY LUCA DELLA ROBBIA, By ALLAN MARQUAND, 153
II.—EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY, By SAMUEL BESWICK, 171
III.—A SERIES OF CYPRIOTE HEADS IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM, By A.C. MERRIAM, 184
IV.—A TABLET REFERRING TO DUES PAID TO THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN AT SIPPARA, By THEO. G. PINCHES, 190
V.—A SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTION FROM ATHENS, By WM. CAREY POLAND, 191
VI.—PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS. I.—SOME SCULPTURES FROM THE ARGIVE HERAEUM (reprinted), By CH. WALDSTEIN, 199 II.—EXCAVATIONS AT THE HERAEUM OF ARGOS, By CARLETON L. BROWNSON, 206 Page vii
CORRESPONDENCE. MONTEFALCO IN UMBRIA, By WM. MERCER, 226 LETTERS FROM GREECE, By F.B. TARBELL, 230
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS. ORIENTAL ARCHOLOGY, 239 CLASSICAL ARCHOLOGY, 246
ARCHOLOGICAL NEWS. AFRICA (Egypt, Central Africa, Algeria); ASIA (China, Cambodia, Asia Minor); EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Sicily, France, Spain), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 251
No. 3. JULY-SEPTEMBER.
I.—NOTES OF EASTERN TRAVEL, By JOHN P. PETERS, 325
II.—THE TOPOGRAPHY OF SPARTA, By NICHOLAS E. CROSBY, 335
III.—THE NEATHERD IN THE ART OF THE MYCENAN PERIOD, By GEORGE B. HUSSEY, 374
IV.—FASTIGIUM IN PLINY, N.H. XXXV, 152, By HAROLD N. FOWLER, 381
V.—PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS. I.—EXCAVATIONS IN THE THEATRE AT SICYON IN 1891, By M.L. EARLE, 388 II.—FURTHER EXCAVATIONS AT THE THEATRE OF SICYON IN 1891, By C.L. BROWNSON and C.H. YOUNG, 397
III.—REPORT ON EXCAVATIONS AT SPARTA IN 1893, By CH. WALDSTEIN and Z.M. PATON, 429
VI.—NOTES ON ROMAN ARTISTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES. IV. THE CLOISTER OF THE LATERAN BASILICA, By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 437
VII.—SOME INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE ORIENT, By A.C. MERRIAM, 448
REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS. CLASSICAL ARCHOLOGY, 456 CHRISTIAN ARCHOLOGY, 461 RENAISSANCE, 465
No. 4. OCTOBER-DECEMBER.
I.—A HISTORY OF THE AKROPOLIS AT ATHENS, By WALTER MlLLER, 473
ARCHOLOGICAL NEWS. AFRICA (Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia); ASIA (Hindustan, Thibet, China, Central Asia, Western Asia, Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Phoeornicia, Palestine); EUROPE (Italy), By A.L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., 557
Page viii
ALPHABETICAL TABLE.
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS, PAPERS OF: I. The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs from the Akropolis to vase painting, 28 II. The frieze of the choragic monument of Lysikrates at Athens, 42 III. Dionysus [Greek: en Lemnais]. 56 IV. A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191 V. Some Sculptures from the Argive Herum, 199 VI. Excavations at the Herum of Argos, 205 VII. Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388 VIII. Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397 IX. Report on Excavations at Sparta in 1893, 410 X. Report on Excavations between Schenochori and Koutzopodi, Argolis, in 1893, 429
ARCHOLOGICAL NEWS: Abyssinia, 586 Africa (Central), 254, 586 Algeria, 113, 255, 588 Arabia, 131, 602 Armenia, 146 Asia (Central), 128 Asia (Western), 604 Asia Minor, 147, 256 Assyria, 609 Babylonia, 181, 606 Cambodia, 256 Caucasus, 146 China, 127, 256, 600 Crete, 270 Egypt, 91, 253, 557 Ethiopia, 111 France, 309 Greece, 257 Hindustan, 118, 589 Italy, 272, 620 Mongolia, 601 Palestine, 614 Persia, 134 Sicily, 293 Syria, 140, 610 Thibet, 127, 598 Tunisia, 114, 588
Page ix
BATES (W.N., and F.B. Tarbell). Notes on the subjects of Greek Temple Sculptures, 18
BESWICK (Samuel). Egyptian Chronology, 171
BROWNSON (Carleton L.). The relation of the archaic pediment reliefs from the Akropolis to vase-painting, 28 Excavations at the Herum of Argos, 205 (and C.H. Young). Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397
CROSBY (Nicholas E.). The Topography of Sparta, 335
DE COU (Herbert F.). The frieze of the Choragic monument of Lysikrates at Athens, 42
EARLE (M.L.). Excavations in the Theatre at Sicyon in 1891, 388
FOWLER (Harold N.). The temple of the Akropolis burnt by the Persians, 1 Fastigium in Pliny, N.H. XXXV, 152. 381 Reviews and Notices of Books: History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia, by Perrot and Chipiez; and History of Art in Persia, by the same, 239 Excursions in Greece to recently explored sites, etc., by Charles Diehl, 249
FROTHINGHAM (A.L., Jr.). Notes on the Roman Artists of the Middle Ages, IV. The Cloister of the Lateran Basilica, 437 Archological News, 91, 251, 559
MARQUAND (Allan). Some unpublished monuments by Luca della Robbia, 153 Correspondence: Hunting Della Robbia monuments in Italy, 83 Reviews and Notices of Books; Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque, by Max Collignon, 87 Griechische Gtterideale, by Heinrich Brunn, 89
MEADER (C.L. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations at Sparta in 1893, 410
MERCER (William). Correspondence: Montefalco in Umbria, 226
MERRIAM (A.C.). A series of Cypriote heads in the Metropolitan Museum, 184 Some inscriptions from the Orient, 448
MILLER (Walter). A History of the Akropolis of Athens, 473
PATON, (J.M. and Ch. Waldstein). Report on Excavations between Schenochori and Koutzopodi, Argolis, in 1893, 429
PETERS (John P.). Notes of Eastern Travel, 325
PICKARD (John). Dionysus [Greek: en Limnais], 56
POLAND (Wm. Carey). A Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 191
TARBELL (Frank B. and W.N. Bates). Notes on the subjects of Greek Temple Sculptures, 18 Correspondence: Letters from Greece, 230
WALDSTEIN (Charles). Some Sculptures from the Argive Herum (reprinted), 199
YOUNG (C.H. and C.L. Brownson). Further Excavations at the Theatre of Sicyon in 1891, 397
Page x
PLATES.
I.—The Typhon Pediment of the Akropolis, 28-41
II-III.—The frieze of the Choragic Monument of Lysikrates, 42-55
IV. Terracotta Medallions of Or San Michele, by Luca della Robbia, V. " " " " " " " VI. Altar of the Holy Cross, Impruneta, - 153-170 VII. Altar of the Madonna, " VIII. Crucifixion Relief, "
IX. Head of Hera, from the Argive Herum, X. Metope, " " " - 199-225 XI. Heads and Sima, " " " XII. Map of the Excavations at the Argive Heneum,
XIII.—Hyponomos and Stage of the Theatre, Sicyon, 388-409
XIV.—Cloister of S. John Lateran, Rome, 437-447
XV. Plan of the Akropolis at Athens, XVI. Sections of the Akropolis Excavations, - 473-556 XVII. Herakles and the Old Man of the Sea, XVIII. Figure of Athena from a pediment,
Page xi
FIGURES.
Bull on a Babylonian contract tablet, 190
Fac-simile of Sepulchral inscription from Athens, 192
General Sketch-plan of Sparta, 338
Sketch-plan of the Agora, Sparta, 341
" " Street called Apheta, Sparta, 345
" " Skias Street, Sparta, 349
" " Western part of Sparta, 354
" " Road from Booneta to Limnaion, Sparta, 365
" " Akropolis, Sparta, 368
Bull in a fresco at Tiryns, 374
Bull from tomb at Gizeh, Egypt, 376
Bull from Presse d'Avennes, 376
Egyptian vintage scene, Gizeh, 377
Bull on Vaphio Cup, 378
Hyponomos in the theatre at Sicyon, plans and sections, 389
End of conduit, etc., in theatre, Sicyon, 394
Two stone blocks, theatre, Sicyon, 406
Section of wall AA, Sicyon, 308
Plan of circular building, Sparta, 411
Section through wall, Sparta, 415
Enlarged plan of poros blocks, Sparta, 418
Some poros blocks in detail, Sparta, 420
View of walls, Sparta, 426
Plan of Excavations between Schenochori and Kontzopodi, 430
The Pelargikon restored, 489
The serpent (Echidna) in the poros pediment, Akropolis, Athens, 497
Page xii
COPYRIGHT, 1893, BY A.L. FROTHINGHAM, JR., AND ALLAN MARQUAND.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Page 1
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHOLOGY.
Vol. VIII. JANUARY-MARCH, 1893. No. I.
THE TEMPLE ON THE ACROPOLIS BURNT BY THE PERSIANS.
The excavations conducted by the Greek Archological Society at Athens from 1883 to 1889 have laid bare the entire surface of the Acropolis, and shed an unexpected light upon the early history of Attic art. Many questions which once seemed unanswerable are now definitively answered, and, on the other hand, many new questions have been raised. When, in 1886, Kabbadias and Drpfeld unearthed the foundations of a great temple close by the southern side of the Erechtheion, all questions concerning the exact site, the ground-plan, and the elevation of the great temple of Athena of the sixth century B.C. were decided once for all.[1] On these points little or nothing can be added to what has been done, and Drpfeld's results must be accepted as final and certain.
[Footnote 1: DRPFELD, Preliminary Report, Mitth. Ath., X, p. 275; Plans and restorations, Antike Denkmler, I, pls. 1, 2; Description and discussion, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 337.]
The history of the temple presents, however, several questions, some of which seem still undecided. When was the temple built? Was it all built at one time? Was it restored after its destruction by the Persians? Did it continue in use after the erection of the Parthenon? Was it in existence in the days of Pausanias? Did Pausanias mention it in his description of the Acropolis? Conflicting answers to nearly all of these questions Page 2 have appeared since the discovery of the temple. Only the first question has received one and the same answer from all. The material and the technical execution of the peripteros, entablature, etc., of the temple show conclusively that this part, at least, was erected in the time of Peisistratos.[2] We may therefore accept so much without further discussion. Of the walls of the cella and opisthodomos nothing remains, but the foundations of this part are made of the hard blue limestone of the Acropolis, while the foundations of the outer part are of reddish-gray limestone from the Peiraieus. The foundations of the cella are also less accurately laid than those of the peripteros. These differences lead Drpfeld to assume that the naos itself (the building contained within the peristyle) existed before the time of Peisistratos, although he does not deny the possibility that builders of one date may have employed different materials and methods, as convenience or economy dictated.[3] Positive proof is not to be hoped for in the absence of the upper walls of the naos, but probability is in favor of Drpfeld's assumption, that the naos is older than the peristyle, etc.[4] It is further certain, that this temple was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to Ecatmpedon]( see below p. 9). So far, we have the most positive possible evidence—that of the remains of the temple itself and the inscription giving its name. The evidence regarding the subsequent history of the temple is not so simple.
[Footnote 2: DRPFELD, Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 349.]
[Footnote 3: Mitth. Ath., XI, p. 345.]
[Footnote 4: On the other hand, see PETERSEN, Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 66.]
Drpfeld (Mitth. Ath., XII, p. 25 ff.) arrives at the following conclusions: (1) The temple was restored after the departure of the Persians; (2) it was injured by fire B.C. 406; (3) it was repaired and continued in use; (4) it was seen and described by Pausanias I. 24.3 in a lost passage. Let us take up these points in inverse order. The passage of Pausanias reads in our texts:—[Greek: Lelectai de moi kai proteron (17.1), s Athenaiois perissoteron ti e tois allois es ta theia esti spoudes, prtoi men gar Athenan eponomasan Erganen prtoi d'aclous Ermas... omou de sphisin en t na Spoudain daimn estin.] Drpfeld marks a lacuna between [Greek: Ermas] and Page 3 [Greek; omou], as do those editors who do not supply a recommendation. Drpfeld, however, thinks the gap is far greater than has been supposed, including certainly the mention and probably the full description of the temple under discussion. His reasons are in substance about as follows: (1) Pausanias has reached a point in his periegesis where he would naturally mention this temple, because he is standing beside it,[5] and (2) the phrase [Greek: omou de sphisin en t na Spoudain estin] implies that a temple has just been mentioned. These are, at least, the main arguments, those deduced from the passage following the description of the Erechtheion being merely accessory.
Now, if Pausanias followed precisely the route laid down for him by Drpfeld (i.e., if he described the two rows of statues between the Propylaia and the eastern front of the Parthenon, taking first the southern and then the northern row), he would come to stand where Drpfeld suggests. If, however, he followed some other order (e.g., that suggested by Wernicke, Mitth., XII, p. 187), he would not be where Drpfeld thinks. Pausanias does not say that the statues he mentions are set up in two rows.[6] It may be that the Acropolis was so thickly peopled with statues that each side of the path was bordered with a double or triple row, or that the statues were not arranged in rows at all, and that Pausanias merely picks out from his memory (or his Polemon) a few noticeable figures with only general reference to their relative positions. Be this as it may, the assumption that Pausanias, when he mentions the [Greek Spoudain] (or [Greek: spoudain]) [Greek: daimn] is standing, or imagines that he stands, beside the old temple rests upon very slight foundations.
[Footnote 5: DRPFELD'S arguments for the continued existence of the temple, without which his theory that Pausanias mentioned it must of course fall to the ground, will be discussed below. It seemed to me advisable to discuss the Pausanias question first, because, if he mentioned the temple, it must have existed, if not to his time, at least to that of Polemon or of his other (unknown) authority.]
[Footnote 6: The most than can be deduced from the use of [Greek: peran] (c. 24.1) is, that the statues were on both sides of the path.]
Whether Pausanias, in what he says of Ergane, the legless Herm, etc., is, as Wernicke (Mitth., XII, p. 185) would have it, merely inserting a bit of misunderstood learning, is of little moment. I am not one of those who picture to Page 4 themselves Pausanias going about copying inscriptions, asking questions, and forming his own judgments, referring only occasionally to books when he wished to refresh his memory or look up some matter of history. The labors of Kalkmann, Wilamowitz, and others have shown conclusively, that a large part of Pausanias' periegesis is adopted from the works of previous writers, and adopted in some cases with little care by a man of no very striking intellectual ability. It is convenient to speak as if Pausanias visited all the places and saw all the things he describes, but it is certain that he does not mention all he must in that case have seen, and perhaps possible that he describes things he never can have seen. Whether Pausanias travelled about Greece and then wrote his description with the aid (largely employed) of previous works, or wrote it without travelling, makes little difference except when it is important to know the exact topographical order of objects mentioned. In any case, however, his accuracy in detail is hardly to be accepted without question, especially in his description of the Acropolis, where he has to try his prentice hand upon a material far too great for him. A useless bit of lore stupidly applied may not be an impossibility for Pausanias, but, however low our opinion of his intellect may be, he is the best we have,[7] and must be treated accordingly. The passage about Ergane, etc., must not be simply cast aside as misunderstood lore, but neither should it be enriched by inserting the description of a temple together with the state-treasury. The passage must be explained without doing violence to the Ms. tradition. That this is possible has lately been shown by A.W. Verrall.[8] He says: 'What Pausanias actually says is this—: "The Athenians are specially distinguished by religious zeal. The name of Ergane was first given by them, and the name Herm; and in the temple along with them is a Good Fortune of the Zealous"—words which are quite as apt for the meaning above explained (i.e., a note on the piety of the Athenians) as those of the author often are in such cases.'
[Footnote 7: I think it is F.G. WELCKEK to whom the saying is attributed: Pausanias ist ein Schaf, aber ein Schaf mit goldenem Vliesse.]
[Footnote 8: HARRISON and VERRALL, Mythology and Monuments of Athens, p. 610. I am not sure that a colorless verb has not fallen out after [Greek: Ermas], though the assumption of a gap is not strictly necessary, as Prof. Verrall shows.]
Page 5 Whether we read [Greek: Spoudain daimn] or [Greek: spoudain Daimn] is, for our purposes immaterial. In either case, Verrall is right in calling attention to the connection between [Greek: es ta theia spoude] and the [Greek: daimn Spoudain (spoudain)], a connection which is now very striking, but which is utterly lost by inserting the description of a temple. At this point, then, the temple is not mentioned by Pausanias.
But, if not at this point, perhaps elsewhere, for this also has been tried. Miss Harrison[9] thinks the temple in question is mentioned by Pausanias, c. 27.1. He has been describing the Erechtheion, has just mentioned the old [Greek: agalma] and the lamp of Kallimachos, which were certainly in the Erechtheion, [10] and continues: [Greek: kei tai de en t na poliados Ermes xulou, kte.], giving a list of anathemata, followed by the story of the miraculous growth of the sacred olive after its destruction by the Persians, and passing to the description of the Pandroseion with the words, [Greek: t na de tes Athenas Pandrosou naos suneches esti]. Miss Harrison thinks that, since Athena is Polias, the [Greek: naos tes poliados] and the [Greek naos tes Athenas] are one and the same, an opinion in which I heartily concur.[11] It remains to be decided whether this temple is the newly discovered old temple or the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. The passages cited by Jahn-Michaelis[12] show that the old [Greek: agalma] bore the special appellation [Greek: polias], and we know that the old [Greek: agalma] was in the Erechtheion. That does not, to be sure, prove that the Erechtheion was also called, in whole or in part [Greek: naos tes poliados (or tes Athena)], but it awakens suspicion to read of an ancient [Greek: agalma] which we know was called Polias, and which was perhaps the Polias [Greek: kat exochen], and immediately after, with no introduction or explanation, to read of a temple of Polias in which that [Greek: agalma] is not. Nothing is known of a statue in the newly discovered old temple.[13]
[Footnote 9: Myth. and Mon. of Athens, p. 608 ff.]
[Footnote 10: CIA., I. 322, 1 with the passage of Pausanias.]
[Footnote 11: DRPFELD (Mitth., XII, p. 58 f.) thinks the [Greek: naos tes poliados] is the eastern cella of the Erechtheion, the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] the newly discovered old temple, but is opposed by Petersen (see below) and Miss Harrison.]
[Footnote 12: Pausanias, Descr. Arcis Athen., c. 26.6.35.]
[Footnote 13: For LOLLING'S opposing opinion, see below.]
Page 6 In the Erechtheion there was, then, a very ancient statue called Polias; in the temple beside the Erechtheion was no statue about which anything is known, and yet, according to Miss Harrison, the new found "old temple" is the [Greek: naos tes poliados] while the [Greek: polias] in bodily form dwells next door. That seems to me an untenable position. Again, the dog mentioned by Philochoros[14] which went into the temple of Polias, and, passing into the Pandroseion, lay down ([Greek: dusa eis to pandroseion ... catekeito]), can hardly have gone into the temple alongside of the Erechtheion, because there was no means of passing from the cella of that temple into the opisthodomos, and in order to reach the Pandroseion the dog would have had to come out from the temple by the door by which he entered it. The fact that the dog went into this temple could have nothing to do with his progress into the Pandroseion, whereas from the eastern cella of the Erechtheion he could very well pass down through the lower apartments and reach the Pandroseion. It seems after all that when Pausanias says [Greek: naos tes poliados], he means the eastern cella of the Erechtheion. But the [Greek: naos tes Athenas] is also the Erechtheion, for E. Petersen has already observed (Mitth. XII, p. 63) that, if the temple of Pandrosos was [Greek: suneches t na tes Athenas], the temple of Athena must be identified with the Erechtheion, not with the temple beside it, for the reason that the temple of Pandrosos, situated west of the Erechtheion, cannot be [Greek: suneches] ("adjoining" in the strict sense of the word) to the old temple, which stood upon the higher level to the south. If Pausanias had wished to pass from the Erechtheion to the temple of Athena standing(?) beside it, the opening words of c. 26.6 ([Greek: Iera men tes Athenas estin e te alle polis kte.]) would have formed the best possible transition; but those words introduce the mention of the ancient [Greek: agalma] which was in the Erechtheion. That Pausanias then, without any warning, jumps into another temple of Athena, is something of which even his detractors would hardly accuse him, and I hope I have shown that he is innocent of that offence.
[Footnote 14: Frg. 146, JAHN-MICH., Paus. Discr. Arcis. Ath., c. 27.2.8.]
Pausanias, then, does not mention the temple under discussion.
Xenophon (Hell. I. 6) says that, in the year 406 B.C. [Greek: o palaios naos tes Athenas enepresthe]. Until recently this page 7 statement was supposed to apply to the Erechtheion, called "ancient temple" because it took the place of the original temple of Athena, from which the great temple (the Parthenon) was to be distinguished. Of course, the new building of the Erechtheion was not properly entitled to the epithet "ancient," but as a temple it could be called ancient, being regarded as the original temple in renewed form. If, however, the newly discovered temple was in existence alongside the Erechtheion in 406, the expression [Greek: palaios naos] applied to the Erechtheion would be confusing, for the other temple was a much older building than the Erechtheion. If the temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it would be natural to suppose that it was referred to by Xenophon as [Greek: o palaios naos]. But this passage is not enough to prove that the temple existed in 406 B.C.
Demosthenes (xxiv, 136) speaks of a fire in the opisthodomos. This is taken by Drpfeld (Mitth., xii, p. 44) as a reference to the opisthodomos of the temple under discussion, and this fire is identified with the fire mentioned by Xenophon. But hitherto the opisthodomos in question has been supposed to be the rear part of the Parthenon, and there is no direct proof that Demosthenes and Xenophon refer to the same fire. If the temple discovered in 1886 existed in 406 B.C., it is highly probable that the passages mentioned refer to it, but the passages do not prove that it existed.
It remains for us to sift the evidence for the existence of the temple from the Persian War to 406 B.C. This has been collected by Drpfeld[15] and Lolling,[16] who agree in thinking that the temple continued in existence throughout the fifth and fourth centuries, however much their views differ in other respects. But it seems to me that even thus much is not proved. I believe that, after the departure of the Persians, the Athenians partially restored the temple as soon as possible, because I do not see how they could have got along without it, inasmuch as it was used as the public treasury; but my belief, being founded upon little or no positive evidence, does not claim the force of proof.
[Footnote 15: Mitth., XII, p. 25, ff.; 190 ff.; XV, p. 420, ff.]
[Footnote 16: [Gree: Ecatompedon] in the periodical [Greek: Athena] 1890, p. 628, ff. The inscription there published appears also in the [Greek: Deltion Archaiologicon], 1890, p. 12, and its most important part is copied, with some corrections, by Drpfeld, XV, p. 421.]
Page 8 Drpfeld (XV, p. 424) says that the Persians left the walls of the temple and the outer portico standing; that this is evident from the present condition of the architraves, triglyphs and cornices, which are built into the Acropolis wall. These architectural members were ... taken from the building while it still stood, and built into the northern wall of the citadel. But, if the Athenians had wished to restore the temple as quickly as possible, they would have left these members where they were. It seems, at least, rather extravagant to take them carefully away and then restore the temple without a peristyle, for the restored building would probably need at least cornices if not triglyphs or architraves; then why not repair the old ones? It appears by no means impossible that, as Lolling (p. 655) suggests, only a part of the temple was restored.[17] Still more natural is the assumption, that the Athenians carried off the whole temple while they were about it. I do not, however, dare to proceed to this assumption, because I do not know where the Athenians would have kept their public monies if the entire building had been removed. Perhaps part of the peristyle was so badly injured by the Persians that it could not be repaired. At any rate, the Athenians intended (as Drpfeld, XII, p. 202, also believes) to remove the whole building so soon as the great new temple should be completed. I think they carried out their intention.
[Footnote 17: LOLLING does not say how much of the temple was restored; but, as he assumes the continuation of a worship connected with the building, he would seem to imply that at least part (and in that case, doubtless, the whole) of the cella was restored, and he also maintains the continued existence of the opisthodomos and the two small chambers. E. CURTIUS, Stadtgeschichte von Athen, p. 132, believes that only the western half of the temple was restored. DRPFELD, p. 425, suggests the possibility that the entire building, even the peristyle, was restored, and that the peristyle remained until the erection of the Erechtheion.]
This brings us to the discussion of the names and uses of the various parts of the older temple and of the new one (the Parthenon), the evidence for the continued existence of the older temple being based upon the occurrence of these names in inscriptions and elsewhere. As these matters have been fully discussed by Drpfeld and Lolling, I shall accept as facts without further discussion all points which seem to me to have been definitively settled by them.
Page 9 Lolling, in the article referred to above, publishes an inscription put together by him from forty-one fragments. It belongs to the last quarter of the sixth century B.C., and relates to the pre-Persian temple. Part of the inscription is too fragmentary to admit of interpretation, but the meaning of the greater part (republished by Drpfeld) is clear at least in a general way. The [Greek: tamiai] are to make a list of certain objects on the Acropolis with certain exceptions. The servants of the temple, priests, etc., are to follow certain rules or be punished by fines. The [Greek: tamiai] are to open in person the doors of the chambers in the temple. These rules would not concern us except for the fact that the various parts of the building are mentioned. The whole building is called [Greek: to Ecatompedon]; parts of it are the [Greek: proneion], the [Greek: nes], the [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: ta oikemata]. There can be no doubt that these are respectively the eastern porch, the main cella, the large western room and the two smaller chambers of the pre-Persian temple. But most important of all is the fact that the whole building was called in the sixth century B.C. [Greek: to Ekatompedon.]. The word [Greek: opisthodomos] does not occur in the inscription, and we cannot tell whether the western half of the building was called opisthodomos in the sixth century or not. Very likely it was.
Lolling (p. 637) says: "No one, I think, will doubt that [Greek: to Ecatompedon] is the [Greek: ne o Ecatompedos] often mentioned in the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] and elsewhere." If this is correct, the eastern cella of the Parthenon cannot be the [Greek: ves o Ecatompedos]. Lolling maintains that the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, that the western room of the Parthenon was the opisthodomos, and that the [Greek: nes o Ecatompedos], was the pre-Persian temple. Besides the official name [Greek: Ecatompedon] or [Greek: ne o Ekatompedos], Lolling thinks the pre-Persian temple was also called [Greek: archaios (palaios) nes].[18] Drpfeld maintains that the western cella of the Parthenon was the Parthenon proper, the western part of the Page 10 "old temple" was the opisthodomos, and the eastern cella of the Parthenon was the [Greek: nes o Ekatompedos], leaving the question undecided whether the "old temple" was still called [Greek: to Ecatompedon] in the fifth century, but laying great stress upon the difference in the expressions [Greek: to Ecatompedon] and [Greek: o nes o Ecatompedos].[19] Both Lolling and Drpfeld agree that the [Greek: prones] of the inscriptions of the fifth century is the porch of the Parthenon.[20]
[Footnote 18: LOLLING (p. 643) thinks the [Greek: archaios nes] of the inscriptions of the [Greek: tamiai] CIA, II, 753, 758 (cf. 650, 672) is the old temple of Brauronian Artemis, because in the same inscriptions the [Greek: epistatai] of Brauronian Artemis are mentioned. This seems to me insufficient reason for assuming that [Greek: archaios nes] means sometimes one temple and sometimes another.]
[Footnote 19: Mitth., xv, p. 427 ff.]
[Footnote 20: LOLLING (p. 644) thinks the expression [Greek: en t ne t Ecatomped] could not be used of a part of a building of which [Greek: prones] and [Greek: Parthenn] were parts, i.e., that a part of a temple could not be called [Greek: nes]. Yet in the inscription published by Lolling the [Greek: proneion] and the [Greek: nes] are mentioned in apparent contradistinction to [Greek: apan to Ecatompedon]. It seems, as Drpfeld says, only natural that the [Greek: nes] should belong to the same building as the [Greek: prones].]
Among the objects mentioned in the lists of treasure handed over by one board of [Greek: tamiai] to the next (Ueberyab-Urkunden or "transmission-lists") are parts of a statue of Athena with a base and a [Greek Nike] and a shield [Greek: en t Ekatomped]. The material of this statue is gold and ivory. The only gold and ivory statue of Athena on the Acropolis was, so far as is known, the so-called Parthenos of Pheidias. Those inscriptions therefore prove that the Parthenos stood in the Hekatompedos (or Hekatompedon); that is, that the eastern cella of the Parthenon was called [Greek: Ecatompedos (ov)] in the fifth century.[21] Certainly, if there had been a second chryselephantine statue of Athena on the Acropolis, we should know of its existence.
[Footnote 21: This was shown by U. KHLER. Mitth., v, p. 89 ff., and again by DRPFELD, xv, 480 ff, who quote the inscriptions. LOLLING'S distinction between [Greek: to agalma] and [Greek: to chrusoun agalma] cannot be maintained. cf. U. Khler, Sitzungsber, d. Berlin. Akad., 1889, p. 223.]
When the Athenians built the great western room of the Parthenon, they certainly did not intend it to serve merely as a store-room for the objects described in the transmission-lists as [Greek: en t Parthenn] or [ek tou Parthennos], these being mostly of little value or broken.[22] Now the treasury of Athens was the opisthodomos, and the western room of the Parthenon was, from the moment of the completion of the building, the greatest opisthodomos in Athens. It is Page 11 natural to regard this (with Lolling) as the opisthodomos where the treasure was kept. This room was doubtless divided into three parts by two partitions of some sort, probably of metal,[23] running from the eastern and western wall to the nearest columns and connecting the columns. This arrangement agrees with the provision (CIA, I, 32) that the monies of Athena be cared for [Greek: en t dexi tou opisthodomou], those of the other gods [Greek: en t ep dexeia tou opisthodomou]. Until the completion of the Parthenon, the opisthodomos of the pre-Persian temple might properly be the opisthodomos [Greek: cat exochen], but so soon as the Parthenon was finished, the new treasure-house would naturally usurp the name as well as the functions of its predecessor.
[Footnote 22: A general view of these transmission-lists may be found at the back of MICHAELIS' der Parthenon: See also H. LEHNER, Ueber die attischen Schatzverzeichnisse des vierten Jahrhunderts (which Lolling cites. I have not seen it.)]
[Footnote 23: See plans of the Parthenon, for instance, the one in the plan of the Acropolis accompanying Drpfeld's article, Mitth., XII, Taf. 1.]
But, if the western room of the Periclean temple was the opisthodomos, where was the [Greek: Parthenn] proper? It cannot be identical with the [Greek: nes o Ecatompedos] nor with the opisthodomos, for the three appellations occur at the same date evidently designating three different places. It would be easier to tell where the [Greek: Parthenn] proper was, if we knew why it was called [Greek: Parthenn]. The name was in all probability not derived from the Parthenos, but rather the statue was named from the Parthenon after the latter appellation had been extended to the whole building, for there is no evidence that the great statue was called Parthenos from the first. Its official title was, so far as is known, never Parthenos.[24] The Parthenon was not so named because it contained the Parthenos, but why it was so named we do not know. The [Greek: prones] is certainly the front porch, the [Greek: Ecatompedos nes] is certainly the cella, 100 feet long, the [Greek: opisthodomos] is the rear apartment of some building, (even if I have not made it seem probable that it is the rear apartment of the Parthenon). These names carry their explanation with them. But the name [Greek: Parthenn] gives us no information. It was a part of the great Periclean temple, for the name was in later times applied to the whole building, and the only part of the building not named is the western porch. It Page 12 is, however, incredible that the Athenians should use this porch, so prominently exposed to the eyes of every sight-seer, as a storehouse for festival apparatus, etc. It is more probable that the [Greek: Parthenn] proper was within the walls of the building but separated from the other parts in some way. The middle division of the western room, separated by columns and metal partitions from the treasury of Athena on the right and that of the other gods on the left, was large enough and, being directly in front of the western door, prominent enough, to deserve a name of its own. If this room was the [Greek: Parthenn] proper, it is evident that a fire in the opisthodomos would cause the [Greek: Parthenn] to be emptied of its contents, which would then naturally be inventoried as [Greek: ek tou Parthennos], while another list could properly be headed [Greek: ek tou opisthodomon] referring to the treasure-chambers.[25] The name Parthenon might then be extended first to the entire western part of the building and then to the whole edifice. This is not a proof that the [Greek: Parthenn] was the central part of the western room of the great temple. A complete proof is impossible. All I claim is that this hypothesis fulfils all the necessary conditions.
[Footnote 24: DRPFELD, XV, p. 480.]
[Footnote 25: DRPFELD, XII, p. 203 f., argues that these headings show that the treasure was moved after the fire of 406 from the opisthodomos of the old temple into the [Greek: Parthenn] proper, which was emptied of its contents to make room. But the explanation given above seems equally possible. Drpfeld, (Mitth., vi, p. 283, ff.) proved conclusively that the [Greek: Parthenn] was not the eastern cella of the Parthenon. His proof that it was the great western room is based primarily upon the assumption (p. 300) that Der Name Opisthodom bezeichnet hei alien Tempeln die dem Pronaos entsprechende Hinterhalle. But for that assumption the [Greek: Parthenn] might just as well be the western porch. Since the discovery of the pre-Persian temple, however, Drpfeld maintains that the opisthodomos [Greek: kat exochen] was the entire western portion of that temple, consisting of three rooms besides the porch (though he does not expressly include the porch). There is, then, no reason in the nature of things why the whole western part of the Parthenon should not be called opisthodomos.]
Let us now compare the nomenclature of the pre-Persian and Periclean temples. Both were temples of Athena and more especially of Athena as guardian of the city, Athena Polias; a pronaos or proneion formed part of each; one temple was called [Greek: to Ecatomedon], and the main cella of the other was called [Greek: o Ecatompedos][26], and this name was extended to the whole building. An opisthodomos was a part of Page 13 each building, and, if I was right in my observations above, the new one, like the old, was called simply [Greek: o opisthodomos]. As soon as the great Periclean temple was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was quietly removed as had been intended from the first, the treasure was deposited in the great new opisthodomos, the old ceremonies which might still cling to the temple of the sixth century were transferred, along with the old names, to the splendid new building; the greatest temple on the Acropolis was now as before the house of the patron goddess of the land, and contained her treasure and that of her faithful worshippers, but the two temples did not exist side by side. There was, then, no reason for differentiating between the two temples, as, for instance, by calling the one that had been removed [Greek: o archaios nes], because the one that had been removed was no longer in existence. That the designation [Greek: archaios (palaios) nes] is applicable to the Erechtheion has been accepted for many years and has been explained anew by Petersen.[27] If the temple burnt by the Persians had continued to exist alongside of the Parthenon, one might doubt whether it or the Erechtheion was meant by the expression [Greek: o archaios nes], but if one of the two temples was no longer in existence, the name must belong to the other. It is just possible that in Hesychios, [Greek: Ecatompedos nes en te acropolis te Parthen cataskeuastheis upo Athenain, meixn tou empresthentos upa tn Persn posi penteconta], the expression [Greek: tou empresthentos upo tn Persn posi penteconta (ne or possibly Ecatompedon ne)] was originally chosen because the expression [Greek: archaiou ne] (which would otherwise be very appropriate here) was regularly used to designate the Erechtheion.[28]
[Footnote 26: Or [Greek: to Ecatompedon]. Even after Drpfeld's arguments, I cannot believe that any great difference in the use of the two expressions can be found.]
[Footnote 27: Mitth., XII, p. 63 ff. Comparison of modern with ancient instances is frequently misleading, but sometimes furnishes a useful illustration. There is in Boston, Mass., a church called the Old South church. This became too small and too inconvenient for its congregation, so a new church was built in a distant part of the city. The intention then was to destroy the old building, in which case the new one (though new and in a different part of the city) would have been called the Old South church. The old building was, however, preserved, and the new one now goes by the name of the New Old South church, though I have also heard it called the Old South in spite of the continued existence of the old building. So the new building of the Erechtheion retained the name [Greek: archaios nes] which had belonged to its predecessor on the same spot.]
[Footnote 28: LOLLING (p. 638 ff.) discusses the measurements of the Parthenon and the old Hekatompedon, and finds a slight inaccuracy in the statement of Hesychios. He thinks, however, (p. 641) that Hesychios would not compare the two unless they had both been standing at the same time. Possibly any inaccuracy may be accounted for by the fact that the older temple was no longer standing when the comparison was first made. Possibly, too, the name Hekatompedon was not originally meant to be taken quite literally, but rather, as Curtitis, Stadtgeschichte, p. 72, seems to think, as a proud designation of a grand new building.]
Page 14 At the end of his last article on this subject, Drpfeld calls attention to the fact that "not only the lower step (Unterstufe) of the temple, but also a stone of the stylobate are still in their old position, and several stylobate-stones are still lying about upon the temple," and says that the whole stylobate, with the exception of the part cut away by the Erechtheion, must therefore have existed in Roman times. I do not see why quite so much is to be assumed. Even granting that we know the exact level of the surface of the Acropolis in classical times at every point, we certainly do not know all the objects—votive offerings and the like—set up in various places. Some small part of the stylobate of the ruined temple may have been used as a foundation for some group of statuary or other offering,[29] or a fragment of the building itself may have been left as a reminder to future generations of the devastations of the barbarians. The existence of these stones is called by Drpfeld "a fact hitherto insufficiently considered" (eine bisher nicht gengend bechtete Thatsache). I cannot believe that the fact would have remained so long "insufficiently considered" by Drpfeld and others if it were really in itself a sufficient proof that the pre-Persian temple continued in existence until the end of ancient Athens. If I am right in thinking that the temple did not exist during the last centuries of classical antiquity, it must have ceased to exist when the Parthenon was completed. Drpfeld is certainly justified in saying[30] that "he who concedes the continued Page 15 existence of the temple until the end of the fourth century has no right to let the temple disappear in silence later" (darf den Tempel nicht spater ohne weiteres verschwinden lassen).
[Footnote 29: Whether the present condition of the stone of the stylobate still in situ favors this conjecture, is for those on the spot to decide. It looks in Drpfeld's plans (Ant. Denkm., i, I, and Mitth., XI, p. 337) as if it had a hole in it, such as are found in the pedestals of statues.]
[Footnote 30: Mitth., xv, 438. This is directed against the closing paragraph of Lolling's article, where he says: "We cannot determine exactly when this (the removal of the temple) happened, but it seems that the temple no longer existed in the times of Plutarch," etc.]
In the above discussion I have purposely passed over some points because I wished to confine myself to what was necessary. So I have not reviewed in detail the passages containing the expression [Greek: archaios (palaios) nes], as they have been sufficiently discussed by others. So, too, I have omitted all mention of the [Greek: megaron ta pros esperan tetrammenon],[31] the [Greek: parastades],[32] the passages in Homer,[33] Aristophanes,[34] and some other writers, because these references and allusions, being more or less uncertain or indefinite, may be (and have been) explained, according to the wish of the interpreter, as evidence for or against the continued existence of the temple burnt by the Persians. Those who agree with me will interpret the passages in question accordingly.
To recapitulate briefly, I hope that I have shown: (1) that Pausanias does not mention the temple excavated in 1886, and (2) that the existence of that temple during the latter part of the fifth and the fourth centuries is not proved. I believe that the temple continued to exist in some form until the completion of the Parthenon, but this belief is founded not so much upon documentary evidence as upon the consideration that the Athenians and their goddess must have had a treasure-house during the time from the Persian invasion to the completion of the Parthenon; especially after the treasure of the confederacy of Delos was moved to Athens in 454 B.C. As soon, however, as the Parthenon was completed, the temple burnt by the Persians was removed. This was before the fire of 406 B.C. The fire, therefore, injured, as has been supposed hitherto, the Erechtheion. The opisthodomos, which was injured by fire at some time not definitely ascertained (but probably not very far from the date of the fire in the Erechtheion), was the opisthodomos of the Parthenon.
[Footnote 31: HEROD, v, 77.]
[Footnote 32: CIA, II, 733, 735, 708.]
[Footnote 33: Od., VII. 80 f.; Il., II. 546 ff. Mitth., XII, pp. 26, 62, 207.]
[Footnote 34: PLUT., 1191 ff. cf. Mitth., XII., pp. 69, 206.]
It will, I hope, be observed, that I do not claim to have proved the non-existence of the earlier temple after the completion of the Parthenon. All I claim is that its existence Page 16 is not proved. Now if, as I hope I have shown, the temple is not mentioned by Pausanias,[35] and there is no reasonable likelihood of its silent disappearance between 435 B.C. and the time of Pausanias, the probabilities are in favor of its disappearance about 435 B.C., when it was supplanted by the Parthenon. No one, however, would welcome more gladly than I any further evidence either for or against its continued existence.
HAROLD N. FOWLER. Exeter, New Hampshire, March, 1892.
[Footnote 35: The fact that Pausanias does not mention this temple is not a certain proof that he might not have seen it, for he fails to mention other things that certainly existed in his day. This temple, however, if it then existed, must have been in marked contrast to almost every other building in the Acropolis, and would have had special attractions for a person of Pausanias' archological tastes.]
POSTSCRIPT.—This article had already left my hands when I received the Journal of Hellenic Studies (XII. 2), containing an article by Mr. Penrose, On the Ancient Hecatompedon which occupied the site of the Parthenon on the Acropolis of Athens. Mr. Penrose contends that the old Hekatompedon was a temple of unusual length in proportion to its width, that it stood on the site of the Parthenon, and was built 100 years or more before the Persian invasion. He thinks, too, that the Doric architectural members built into the Acropolis-wall, which are referred by Drpfeld to the archaic temple beside the Erechtheion, belonged to the building on the site of the Parthenon. He is led to these assumptions chiefly by masons' marks on some of the stones of the sub-structure of the Parthenon. He holds it "as incontrovertible that the marks have reference to the building on which they are found." The distances between these marks offer certain numerical relations which must, Mr. Penrose thinks, correspond to some of the dimensions of the building to which the marks refer. "If they had reference to the Parthenon, they would have shown a number of exact coincidences with the important sub-divisions of the temple." Of these coincidences Mr. Penrose has found but three, which he considers fortuitous. As accessory arguments he adduces the condition of the filling in to the south of the Page 17 Parthenon, and the absence of old architectural material in the sub-structure of the Parthenon, etc. He seems, however, to rest his case chiefly upon the masons' marks.
I cannot even attempt to discuss this new theory in detail, but would mention one or two things which seem to tell against Mr. Penrose's view. The inscription published by Lolling mentions an [Greek: oikema tamieion] and [Greek: oikemata] as parts of the Hekatompedon, and such apartments evidently existed in the temple beside the Erechtheion. Mr. Penrose assumes that the temple beside the Erechtheion antedates his Hekatompedon, without regard to the fact that the use of the stone employed in the outer foundations of the archaic temple points to a much later period. The archaic temple was (at least approximately) 100 feet long, which makes it seem almost impossible that a new temple should be built on the Acropolis and called the Hundred-foot-temple (Hekatompedon). I cannot avoid attaching more importance to these considerations than to the arguments advanced by Mr. Penrose. It may be, however, that answers to these and other objections will be found.
If Mr. Penrose's theory is correct, it is evident that the old Hekatompedon must have ceased to exist before the building of the Parthenon. Whether the archaic temple excavated in 1886 continued to exist or not is, then, another matter. My main contention (that there is no good reason for assuming the continued existence through the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. of the archaic temple) is not affected by Mr. Penrose's theory, and I leave my arguments, such as they are, for the consideration alike of those who do and who do not agree with Mr. Penrose. Much of my article will appear irrelevant to the former class, but, as Mr. Penrose's views may not be at once generally accepted, it is as well to leave the discussion of previous theories as it was before the appearance of Mr. Penrose's article.
H. N. F.
NOTE.—For a discussion of Mr. Penrose's theories and conclusions, see now (Nov. 1892), Drpfeld, Ath. Mitth., XVII, pp. 158, ff.
Page 18
NOTES ON THE SUBJECTS OF GREEK TEMPLE SCULPTURES.
The following compilation is intended to present in compact form the evidence at present available on this question: How far did the Greeks choose, for the sculptured decorations of a temple, subjects connected with the principal divinity or divinities worshiped in that temple? We have omitted some examples of sculpture in very exceptional situations, e.g., the sculptured drums of the sixth century and fourth century temples of Artemis at Ephesos. Acroteria have also been omitted. But we have attempted to include every Greek temple known to have had pediment-figures or sculptured metopes or frieze, and have thus, for the sake of completeness, registered some examples which are valueless for the main question. The groups from Delos, attributed on their first discovery to the pediments of the Apollon-temple, have been proved by Furtwngler to have been acroteria (Arch, Zeitung, 1882, p. 336 ff.) It does not appear that Lebas had any good grounds for attributing to a temple the relief found by him at Rhamnus (Voyage archologique Monuments figurs, No. 19,) and now in Munich. The frieze from Priene representing a gigantomachy was not a part of the temple there (Wolters, Jahrbuch des deutschen arch. Instituts, I, pp. 56, ff.) The Poseidon and Amphitrite frieze in Munich (Brunn, Beschreibung der Glyptothek, No. 115) has been, by some, taken for a piece of temple decoration, but is too doubtful an example to be catalogued. The statement of Pausanias (II. 11. 8) about the pediment-sculptures ([Greek: ta en tois aetois]) of the Asklepieion at Titane is hopelessly inadequate and perhaps inaccurate.
The order of arrangement in the following table is roughly chronological, absolute precision being impossible. Ionic Page 19 temples are designated by a prefixed asterisk, the one Corinthian by a dagger. The others are Doric, and, in the ease of these, "Sculptures of the Exterior Frieze" refers, of course, to sculptured metopes.
It has not been our purpose to discuss at length the conclusions to be drawn from this evidence. Briefly, the results may be summarized as follows:
The principal sculpture (i.e., sculpture of the principal pediment, or, in the absence of pediment-sculpture, the frieze in the most important situation) included the figure of the temple divinity, generally in central position, in the following numbers: [A] 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 26. If 12, 14 and 32 had no pediment-sculptures, they should be added; probably also 33 and 34. In 30 the subject of the pediment-sculpture, if correctly divined by Conze, was, at any rate, closely related to the temple-divinities.
[Footnote A: In counting the Aigina temple we commit deliberately a circulus in probando.]
The principal sculpture apparently did not include or especially refer to the temple-divinity in the following: 20, 24, 25. Practice would seem to have become somewhat relaxed after about 425 B.C. The very singular temple of Assos, (No. 5), though earlier, should perhaps be added.
The temple-divinity was represented in the western pediments of 7, 13 and perhaps of 20, but not of that in 9, 11, 24 (?) or 25.
The subjects of sculptured metopes and friezes were largely or wholly without obvious relation to the temple-divinity in the following: 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 1.9, 23, 29, 32.
P.B. TARBELL. W.N. BATES.
Page 20
PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES.
B.C. 1 Selinous Apollon (?) ca. 625 (Temple C)
2 Selinous ca. 625
3 Athens ca. 600 E.: (?) Zeus fighting Typhon; (Acropolis) Herakles fighting serpent. W. (?): Herakles fighting Triton; Kerkopes(?)
4 Athens ca. 600 E. (?): Herakles fighting (Acropolis) Hydra. W. (?): Herakles fighting Triton.
5 Assos VI cent. (?)
6 Metapontum Apollon VI cent. (?) Subject unknown
7 Aigina Athena ca. 530 (?) E. & W.: Combats of Greeks and Trojans; Athena in centre.
8 Athens Athena ca. 530 (?) E. (?): Gigantomachy, (Acropolis) including Athena (in centre?)
9 Delphi Apollon VI cent. after E.: Apollon, Artemis, 548 Leto, Muses. W.: Dionysos, Thyiads, Setting Sun, etc.
10 Selinous VI cent. (Temple F)
11 Olympia Zeus ca. 460 E.: Preparations for chariot-race of Pelops and Oinomaos; Zeus as arbiter in centre. W.: Centauromachy; Apollon (?) in centre. Page 21 OTHER SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE SCULPTURED DECORATIONS.
1 E.: in centre, two quadrigae with unidentified figs., also Perseus slaying Medusa, Herakles carrying Kerkopes, etc. W.: Subjects unknown.
2 Europa on bull, winged sphinx, etc.
3
4
5 E. (and W. ?): Pair of sphinxes, Exterior architrave: pairs Centaur, wild hog, man pursuing of sphinxes in centre of E. & woman, two men in combat, W. fronts (?), Herakles and etc. Triton, Herakles and Centaurs, symposium, combats of animals.
6
7 None.
8
9 Herakles killing Hydra, Bellerophon killing Chimaera, combats of gods and giants, etc.
10 E.: Scenes from Gigantomachy.
11 12 metopes over columns and ant of pronaos and opisthodomos: labors of Herakles. Page 22
=================================================================== PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES. - - - - - B.C. Selinous Hera (?) ca. 450 (?) 12 (Temple E) 13 Athens Athena ca. 445-438 E.: Birth of Athena. (Acropolis) W.: Contest of Athena and Poseidon for Attika. 14 Sunjon Athena ca. 435 (?) 15 Athens ca. 435 (?) E. & W.: Lost; subjects unknown. *16 Athens Athena ca. 432 None (Acropolis) Nike 17 Kroton Hera V cent., Undescribed. 2d half 18 Agrigentum Zeus V cent., before 405 19 Bassae Apollon ca. 425 (?) None.
Page 23
=================================================================== SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS. - - - 12 None. Metopes over pronaos: Herakles and Amazon, Zeus and Hera, Artemis and Aktaion, etc. Metopes over opisthodomos: Athena and Enkelados, etc. 13 E.: Gigantomachy; Athena Ionic frieze around cella, over central pronaos and opisthodomos: intercolumniation. Panathenaic procession. W.: Amazonomachy. S.: Centauromachy and seven scenes from Iliupersis. N.: Iliupersis and nine scenes from Centauromachy. 14 Ionic frieze on four inner sides of E. vestibule, between pronaos and outer columns: Gigantomachy, including Athena over entrance to pronaos (?), Centauromachy, exploits of Theseus. 15 E.: Labors of Herakles. Ionic frieze over pronaos N. & S., at E. end (four and across pteroma: battle metopes on each side): scene. exploits of Theseus. Ionic frieze over opisthodomos, Centauromachy. *16 E.: assemblage of gods, Athena in centre. N. W. S.: battle-scenes. 17 18 E.: Gigantomachy. W.: Iliupersis. 19 None. Metopes over pronaos: Apolline and Dionysiac scenes. Interior cella-frieze: Amazonomachy, Centauromachy (Apollon and Artemis represented.)
Page 24
=================================================================== PLACE. DIVINITY. DATE. PEDIMENT-SCULPTURES. - - - - - B.C. 20 near Argos Hera ca. 420. E.: Birth of Zeus (?) W.: Battle of Greeks and Trojans. (?) *21 Athens Erechtheus 420-408 None. (Acropolis) *22 Locri V cent., E.: Lost. Epizephyrii latter part W.: Subject unknown, including Dioscuri (?) *23 Samothrace Cabiri ca. 400 24 Tegea Athena IV cent., E.: Calydonian boar-hunt Alea first half (no divinity represented.) W.: Contest of Telephos and Achilles. 25 Epidauros Asklepios ca. 375 (?) E.: Centauromachy. W.: Amazonomachy. 26 Thebes Herakles ca. 370 (?) Labors of Herakles. *27 Ephesos Artemis ca. 330 *28 Troad Apollon III cent. Smintheus *29 Magnesia Artemis III cent. 30 Samothrace Cabiri III cent. N.: Demeter seeking III cent. Persephone (?) *31 Lagina Hekate 32 Ilium Athena (?) II cent.(?) Novum *33 Teos Dionysos Roman times *34 Knidos Dionysos(?) Roman times
Page 25
=================================================================== SCULPTURES OF EXTERIOR FRIEZE OTHER SCULPTURED DECORATIONS. - - - 20 E.: Gigantomachy (?) W.: Iliupersis (?) *21 Uninterpreted. *22 *23 Dancing women. 24 25 26 *27 Mythological scenes. *28 Scenes of combat. *29 Amazonomachy. 30 *31 Subjects unknown. 32 Helios in chariot, Athena and Enkelados, other scenes of combat. *33 Dionysiac procession. *34 Dionysiac scenes, etc.
Page 26
[Note 1: BENNDORF, Metopen von Selinunt, pp. 38-50; SERRADIFALCO, Antichit di Sicilia, II, p. 16.]
[Note 2: Monumenti Antichi, I, p. 950 ff.]
[Note 3: BRCKNER, Athenische Mittheilungen, 1889, pp. 67 ff.; 1890, pp. 84 ff.]
[Note 4: MEIER, Ath. Mitth., 1885, pp. 237 ff., 322 ff.]
[Note 5: CLARAC, Muse de Sculpture, II, pp. 1149 ff.; CLARKE, Report on Investigations at Assos, pp. 105-121. This temple has been usually assigned to the sixth century. Mr. Clarke brings it down to about the middle of the fifth. His arguments have not yet been published in full.]
[Note 6: LACAVA, Topografia e Storia di Metaponto, p. 81.]
[Note 7: Since the inscription which was at one time supposed to fix the divinity of this temple has been disposed of by LOLLING, in Arch. Zeitung, XXXI (1874, p. 58), the designation given above rests solely on the prominence given to Athena in the pediment-sculptures. As for the date, the building is assigned by Drpfeld to the sixth cent. (Olympia, Textband II, p. 20). The pediment-sculptures might be later, but are now confidently carried by STUDNICZKA (Ath. Mitth., 1886, pp. 197-8) some decades back in the sixth century.]
[Note 8: STUDNICZKA, Ath. Mitth., 1886. pp. 185, ff.; MAYER, Giganten and Titanen, pp. 290-91. According to DRPFELD, the metopes of this temple, or some of them, may have been sculptured.]
[Note 9: PAUS., X, 19. 4. EURIP., Ion, 184 ff. The temple seems to have been long in building. If AISCH, contra Cles., 116, is to be believed, the dedication did not take place till after 479. According to Pausanias, the pediment-sculptures were the work of Praxias and Androsthenes. These sculptures have been generally supposed to have been executed about 424, but may have been considerably earlier, so far as Pausanias goes to show. The excavations now in progress will, it is to be hoped, clear up the whole subject.]
[Note 10: BENNDORF, op. cit., pp. 50-52.]
[Note 11: PAUS., V., 10. 6-9. For the date, see DRPFELD, Olympia, Textband II, pp. 19 ff. FLASCH, in Baumeister's Denkmler, pp. 1098-1100.]
[Note 12: BENNDORF, op. cit., pp. 53-60. The attribution of the temple to Hera rests on the dubious ground of a single votive inscription to Hera found within the cella; op. cit., p. 34.]
[Note 13: PAUS., I. 24. 5; MICHAELIS, Der Parthenon, pp. 107-265; ROBERT, Arch. Zeit, 1884, pp. 47-58; MAYER, Giganten and Titanen, pp. 366-370.]
[Note 14: FABRICIUS, Ath. Mitth., 1884, 338 ff.; for the date, DRPFELD, ibid. p. 336.]
[Note 15: The so-called Theseion.]
[Note 16: ROSS, Temple der Nike Apteros, pls. 11-12; FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine, (ed. Wolters) Nos. 747-760. On the date, see WOLTERS, Bonger Studien Reinhard Kekul gewidmet, pp. 92-101.]
[Note 17: Eighth Annual Report of the Archological Institute of America, pp. 42 ff.]
[Note 18: DIOD. SIC., XIII. 82. It is disputed whether Diodoros speaks of pediment-sculptures or metopes; see PETERSEN, Kunst des Pheidias, p. 208, Note 4. Nothing can be made of the existing fragments; published by SERRADIFALCO, Antichit di Sicilia, III, pl. 25.]
[Note 19: COCKERELL. Temples of Aegina and Bassae, pp. 49-50, 52.]
[Note 20: PAUS, II. 17. 3. The distribution of subjects given above is that proposed by Dr. Waldstein, in the light of the Page 27 discoveries made on the site of the Heraion under his direction in the spring of 1892. See Thirteenth Annual Report of the Archological Institute of America, p. 64.]
[Note 21: FRIEDERICHS, Bausteine (ed. Wolters) Nos. 812-820. On the date see MICHAELIS, Ath. Mitth., 1889, pp. 349 ff.]
[Note 22: Notiziz degli Scavi, 1890, pp. 255-57; PETERSEN, Bull, dell' Istituto, 1890, pp. 201-27.]
[Note 23: CONZE, etc., Arch. Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, II, pp. 13-14, 23-25.]
[Note 24: PAUS., VIII. 45. 4-7; TREU, Ath. Mitth., 1881, pp. 393-423; WEIL, in Baumeister's Denkmler, 1666-69.]
[Note 25: [Greek: Ephemeris Archaiologike], 1884, pp. 49-60; 1885, pp. 41-44. For the date see FOUCART, Bull, de corr. helln., 1890, pp. 589-92.]
[Note 26: PAUS., IX. 11. 4. The date given above conforms to the view of BRUNN, Sitzungsber. d. Mnch. Akademie, 1880, pp. 435 ff.]
[Note 27: WOOD, Discoveries at Ephesus, p. 271.]
[Note 28: Antiquities of Ionia, IV. p. 46. Mr. Pullan is inclined to date the temple after Alexander; Prof. Middleton somewhat earlier (Smith's, Dict, of Antiq., 3d ed.,] II, p. 785).
[Note 29: CLARAC, Muse de Sculpture, II, pp. 1193-1233; pls. 117 C-J. Additional pieces of the frieze have recently been found in the course of excavations conducted by the German Archological Institute. The date given above for the building is that suggested by DRPFELD, Ath. Mitth., 1891, pp. 264-5. Most of the sculpture is generally regarded as of much later date.]
[Note 30: CONZE, etc., Untersuchungen auf Samothrake, I, pp. 24-7, 43-4.]
[Note 3: NEWTON, Discoveries at Halicarnassus, etc., II, pp. 554-67.]
[Note 32: MAYER, Giganten und Titanen, pp. 370-71.]
[Note 33: Antiquities of Ionia, IV, pp. 38-9.]
[Note 34: NEWTON, Discoveries at Halicarnassus, etc., II, pp. 449-50, 633.]
Page 28
PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS.
THE RELATION OF THE ARCHAIC PEDIMENT RELIEFS FROM THE ACROPOLIS TO VASE-PAINTING.
[PLATE I.]
From one point of view it is a misfortune in the study of archology that, with the progress of excavation, fresh discoveries are continually being made. If only the evidence of the facts were all in, the case might be summed up and a final judgment pronounced on points in dispute. As it is, the ablest scholar must feel cautious about expressing a decided opinion; for the whole fabric of his argument may be overturned any day by the unearthing of a fragment of pottery or a sculptured head. Years ago, it was easy to demonstrate the absurdity of any theory of polychrome decoration. The few who dared to believe that the Greek temple was not in every part as white as the original marble subjected themselves to the pitying scorn of their fellows. Only the discoveries of recent years have brought proof too positive to be gainsaid. The process of unlearning and throwing over old and cherished notions is always hard; perhaps it has been especially so in archology.
The thorough investigation of the soil and rock of the Acropolis lately finished by the Greek Government has brought to light so much that is new and strange that definite explanations and conclusions are still far away. The pediment-reliefs in poros which now occupy the second and third rooms of the Acropolis Museum have already been somewhat fully treated, especially in their architectural bearings. Dr. Page 29 Brckner of the German Institute has written a full monograph on the subject,[36] and it has also been fully treated by Lechat in the Revue Archeologique.[37] Shorter papers have appeared in the Mittheilungen by Studniczka[38] and P.J. Meier.[39] Dr. Waldstein in a recent peripatetic lecture suggested a new point of view in the connection between these reliefs and Greek vase-paintings. It is this suggestion that I have tried to follow out.
The groups in question are too well known to need a detailed description here. The first,[40] in a fairly good state of preservation, represents Herakles in his conflict with the Hydra, and at the left Iolaos, his charioteer, as a spectator. Corresponding to this, is the second group,[41] with Herakles overpowering the Triton; but the whole of this is so damaged that it is scarcely recognizable. Then there are two larger pediments in much higher relief, the one[42] repeating the scene of Herakles and the Triton, the other[43] representing the three-headed Typhon in conflict, as supposed, with Zeus. All four of these groups have been reconstructed from a great number of fragments. Many more pieces which are to be seen in these two rooms of the Museum surely belonged to the original works, though their relations and position cannot be determined. The circumstances of their discovery between the south supporting-wall of the Parthenon and Kimon's inner Acropolis wall make it certain that we are dealing with pre-Persian art. It is quite as certain, in spite of the fragmentary condition of the remains, that they were pedimental compositions and the earliest of the kind yet known.
[Footnote 36: Mitth. deutsch. arch. Inst. Athen., XIV, p. 67; XV, p. 84.]
[Footnote 37: Rev. Arch., XVII, p. 304; XVIII, pp. 12, 137.]
[Footnote 38: Mitth. Athen., XI, p. 61.]
[Footnote 39: X, pp. 237, 322. Cf. Studniczka, Jahrbuch deutsch. arch. Inst., I, p. 87; Purgold, [Greek: Ephemeris Archaiologike], 1884, p. 147, 1885, p. 234.]
[Footnote 40: Mitth. Athen., X, cut opposite p. 237; [Greek: Ephemeris], 1884, [Greek: pinax] 7.]
[Footnote 41: Mitth. Athen., XI, Taf. II.]
[Footnote 42: Idem, XV, Taf. II.]
[Footnote 43: Idem, XIV, Taf. II, III.]
The first question which presents itself in the present consideration is: Why should these pedimental groups follow vase paintings? We might say that in vases we have practically the first products of Greek art; and further we might show resemblances, more or less material, between these archaic reliefs and vase pictures. But the proof of any connection between the two would still be wanting. Here the discoveries Page 30 made by the Germans at Olympia and confirmed by later researches in Sicily and Magna Graecia, are of the utmost importance.[44] In the Byzantine west wall at Olympia were found great numbers of painted terracotta plates[45] which examination proved to have covered the cornices of the Geloan Treasury. They were fastened to the stone by iron nails, the distance between the nail-holes in terracottas and cornice blocks corresponding exactly. The fact that the stone, where covered, was only roughly worked made the connection still more sure. These plates were used on the cornice of the long side, and bounded the pediment space above and below. The corresponding cyma was of the same material and similarly decorated.
It seems surprising that such a terracotta sheathing should be applied on a structure of stone. For a wooden building, on the other hand, it would be altogether natural. It was possible to protect wooden columns, architraves and triglyphs from the weather by means of a wide cornice. But the cornice itself could not but be exposed, and so this means of protection was devised. Of course no visible proof of all this is at hand in the shape of wooden temples yet remaining. But Dr. Drpfeld's demonstration[46] removes all possible doubt. Pausanias[47] tells us that in the Heraion at Olympia there was still preserved in his day an old wooden column. Now from the same temple no trace of architrave, triglyph or cornice has been found; a fact that is true of no other building in Olympia and seems to make it certain that here wood never was replaced by stone. When temples came to be built of stone, it seems that this plan of terracotta covering was retained for a time, partly from habit, partly because of its fine decorative effect. But it was soon found that marble was capable of withstanding the wear of weather and that the ornament could be applied to it directly by painting.
[Footnote 44: I follow closely Dr. Drpfeld's account and explanation of these discoveries in Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, v, 30 seq. See also Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste, Berlin, 1881. Ueber die Verwendung Terracotten, by Messrs. DRPFELD, GRBER, BORRMANN, and SIEBOLD.]
[Footnote 45: Reproduced in Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, V, Taf. XXXIV. BAUMEISTER, Denkmler des klassischen Altertums, Taf. XLV. RAYET et COLLIGNON, Histoire de la Cramique Grecque, pl. XV.]
[Footnote 46: Historische und philologische Aufstze, Ernst Cartius gewidmet. Berlin, 1884, p. 137 seq.]
[Footnote 47: V, 20. 6.]
Page 31 In order to carry the investigation a step further Messrs. Drpfeld, Grber, Borrmann and Siebold undertook a journey to Gela and the neighboring cities of Sicily and Magna Graecia.[48] The results of this journey were most satisfactory. Not only in Gela, but in Syracuse, Selinous, Akrai, Kroton, Metapontum and Paestum, precisely similar terracottas were found to have been employed in the same way. Furthermore just such cyma pieces have been discovered belonging to other structures in Olympia and amid the pre-Persian ruins on the Acropolis of Athens. It is not yet proven that this method of decoration was universal or even widespread in Greece; but of course the fragile nature of terracotta and the fact that it was employed only in the oldest structures, would make discoveries rare.
Another important argument is furnished by the certain use of terracotta plates as acroteria. Pausanias[49] mentions such acroteria on the Stoa Basileios on the agora of Athens. Pliny[50] says that such works existed down to his day, and speaks of their great antiquity. Fortunately a notable example has been preserved in the acroterium of the gable of the Heraion at Olympia,[51] a great disk of clay over seven feet in diameter. It forms a part, says Dr. Drpfeld, of the oldest artistic roof construction that has remained to us from Greek antiquity. That is, the original material of the acroteria was the same used in the whole covering of the roof, namely terracotta. The gargoyles also, which later were always of stone, were originally of terracotta. Further we find reliefs in terracotta pierced with nail-holes and evidently intended for the covering of various wooden objects; sometimes, it is safe to say, for wooden sarcophagi. Here appears clearly the connection that these works may have had with the later reliefs in marble.
To make now a definite application, it is evident that the connection between vase-paintings and painted terracottas must from the nature of the case be a very close one. But when these terracottas are found to reproduce throughout the exact designs and figures of vase-paintings, the line between the two fades away. All the most familiar ornaments of vase technic recur Page 32 again and again, maeanders, palmettes, lotuses, the scale and lattice-work patterns, the bar-and-tooth ornament, besides spirals of all descriptions. In exception, also, the parallel is quite as close. In the great acroterium of the Heraion, for example, the surface was first covered with a dark varnish-like coating on which the drawing was incised down to the original clay. Then the outlines were filled in black, red and white. Here the bearing becomes clear of an incidental remark of Pausanias in his description of Olympia. He says (v. 10.): [Greek: en de Olympia] (of the Zeus temple) [Greek: lebes epichrysos epi ecast tou orophou t perati epikeitai]. That is originally aeroteria were only vases set up at the apex and on the end of the gable. Naturally enough the later terracottas would keep close to the old tradition.
[Footnote 48: Cf. supra, Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste.]
[Footnote 49: I, 3. 1.]
[Footnote 50: His. Nat., xxxv, 158.]
[Footnote 51: Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, v, 35 and Taf. XXXIV.]
It is interesting also to find relief-work in terracotta as well as painting on a plane surface. An example where color and relief thus unite, which comes from a temple in Caere,[52] might very well have been copied from a vase design. It represents a female face in relief, as occurs so often in Greek pottery, surrounded by an ornament of lotus, maeander and palmette. Such a raised surface is far from unusual; and we seem to find here an intermediate stage between painting and sculpture. The step is indeed a slight one. A terracotta figurine[53] from Tarentum helps to make the connection complete. It is moulded fully in the round, but by way of adornment, in close agreement with the tradition of vase-painting, the head is wreathed with rosettes and crowned by a single palmette. So these smaller covering plates just spoken of, which were devoted to minor uses, recall continually not only the identical manner of representation but the identical scenes of vase paintings,—such favorite subjects, to cite only one example, as the meeting of Agamemnon's children at his tomb. |
|
